Conferment of Guruship on Granth Sahib
The conferment of living Guruship in perpetuity to Granth Sahib which now became Guru Granth Sahib or Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS), and to the Sikh Panth (the community) on October 5, 1708, was an unparalleled and unique event in the world history. Hitherto, no holy book/Granth had been conferred that title; neither the Old or New Testament, or the Quran, nor any of the other works of religions/dharmas that arose in India. Hinduism, earlier known as Sanatan Dharma, that was the oldest dharma in the world was not a religion in proper sense, but a conglomeration of heterogeneous thoughts and doctrines, often at conflict with one another. The incoming of Islam, however, helped to give it a sense of unity in servitude.
SGGS was straightaway accepted as the living Guru of the Sikhs who were ordained to search for Guru’s directions from the holy Word (sbd). Practically, the Guruship was conferred on the Word, and not the volume. This was widely mentioned by the contemporary and near contemporary sources. Even the hostile source like Gurbilas Patshahi 6 written by Sohan Kavi in 1718 took due note of the 1708 edict. At that time there was no other Granth/book that could come up to stand as a rival, nor was anyone authorized by Guru Gobind Singh to search for some alternative source. It was an irrevocable, conclusive and final decision taken by Guru Gobind Singh putting to an end the line of living Sikh Gurus.
The various works on Sikh history, contemporary Court historians, and about 30 European works do not mention at all of any “Bir/Granth/ manuscript of Dasam Patshah ka Granth, or Bachittar Natak Granth with matching contents of presently published Dasam Granth as corrected (1895-97) and published (1900).”1
A small brochure, titled Bachittar Natak of only 14 Cantos, written by whom and at what times, one does not know, could have been in circulation. So may have been the case with Charitropakhyan, a product by Vam Margis who used sex as a medium of achievement of communion with gods/goddesses. Also Chaubis Avatar may have been in production and use.
Significantly, Gur Sobha of Sainapat a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh and produced in 1711, of hostile Gurbilas Patshahi 6 written by Sohan Kavi in 1718, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 of Koer Singh in 1751, Kesar Singh Chhibbar’s Bansavli Nama of 1769, Sarup Singh Bhalla’s Mehma Parkash of 1776 and Sukha Singh’s biography of Guru Gobind Singh in Sarab Loh Pustak (book) (to use his own words) 1797 are cases in point, of absence of any mention of a work like Dasam Patshah ka Granth or even of Bachittar Natak. Chhibbar mentions of a mysterious Vidya Sagar Granth which was lost in over-flooded Sirsa rivulet. Sukha Singh, Granthi at Patna Sahib Gurdwaras, after helping himself with bhang , hemp, reproduced or produced a Sarab Loh Pustak (book) of an armed struggle between apocryphal Devi/Devtas (means, Aryans) and Daints (Demons, means natives inculding Dravadians) i.e. Aryans and Aborigines, as also later Muslims, but added considerably, without any reference to the earlier struggle, a biography of Guru Gobind Singh. This entire work, he averred a bihangam (peripatetic, on the move) Sadhu had delivered him, saying that it was work of Guru Gobind Singh in pre-Khalsa period. Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha raises legitimate questions as to how could it mention of Khalsa, and certain other events leading to Gurgaddi to Guru Granth and Panth, and of certain other events which happened is post-Guru Gobind Singh period. He, therefore, legitimately rejects it for its spurious character, or worst a spurious work of Bhai Sukha Singh himself.2 Patna at the time was part of Calcutta Presidency. This variation in outlook of people outside Punjab especially those that came under the influence of the English, and those struggling inside Punjab against foreign invasions and local forces for political supremacy was a fact of life.
Some factors need to be kept in mind. One, because of struggles and vagaries of life, the Sikhs in Punjab could not lead a settled life from atleast 1715 to 1765 i.e. for full half a century, if not more. This resulted in new people, joining the forces of Khalsa, being kept unlettered about the teachings and philosophy of the new faith.3
Two, the Sikh shrines during the period were taken possession of and managed by Udasis and Nirmalas (later, some from the two classes degenerated as Mahants) who interpreted Sikh scriptures in the light of Vedanta. To justify this infiltration of Vedanta, a canard was spread that Guru Gobind Singh had sent five Sikhs clandestinely to Benaras to learn the secrets of Brahminism, and that they came back after several years. This virtually amounts to character assassination. The Sikh Gurus never in their various facets of life indulged in any such thing, and such an assertion goes against the kernel of Sikh philosophy. What was there that was not known about Brahminism or not discussed by Guru Nanak or in the Sikh scriptures?
Three, Brahmins, I am not talking here of general body of Hindus, were almost hostile to Sikhism or Guru Nanak’s philosophy, and they cooperated most heartily against the Sikhs in 18th century,4 till they resorted to a strategy of infiltration, and subversion. They had earlier done that to Buddhism as well. Here was a human material that was readily available on sale for a price.
Before proceeding further, we may now look at what the partisans of the British and now those of Gandhi/Gangu Brahmin, or Hindutava/RSS (Rashtriya Svymsewak Sangh) all of which have a community of outlook, have to say. They have endless representatives: I am here talking of only one of them, namely, Gurinder Singh Mann from Leicester U.K. He himself mentions that people like him are “branded about like ‘Brahminical Octopus’,” or are “labelled as agents of RSS”5. Though there is no evidence that there was any work such as Dasam Patshah ka Granth in Punjab or Delhi, or one can say anywhere in India, he says, firstly, that “since the late 1700s the Shri Dasam Granth has been seen as the equal of the Guru Granth Sahib”, and secondly, “In the period of the Misls(,) Gurmattas were taken with both Granths lying side by side” i.e. when they swore by unity. With such thoughtless people arguing for a concocted and fictitious cause, and also laying down the guidelines for the mercenary Sikh clergy, about which we shall talk later, the Tat Khalsa faces an uphill task, especially when the Government of India is controlled by hostile forces.
This brings us to the first Satan of the 19th century in Lt. Col. John Malcolm, the most powerful military and political leader in East India Company’s service in India; he by 1810 invented a rival granth, Dasam Patshah ka Granth, to distort Sikh history, religion and philosophy. His principal objective was political: to weaken the Sikh power which had Guru’s Word and amrit, baptism, as its fulcrum. He knew that sometimes the Sikhs fought amongst themselves as a result of Brahminical contrivances, but used to rally together when faced with a national calamity. He sought to break them from their commitment to the Word and ushered in a rival work advocating Hinduisation of the Sikhs – acceptance of idols and idolworship, multiple gods, godesses and goblins, and acceptance of whims, rituals and superstitions6.
John Malcolm came to the Punjab, upto river Sutlej, in the terrain of Lord Lake in pursuit of Holkar. He himself mentions that Raja Bhag Singh of Jind in 1804 presented him a recension of Guru Granth Sahib, as obviously such a thing as Dasam Patshah ka Granth was not heard of, much less available. It was during this period that he made an assessment of the Sikh’s political power, their ideology and commitment to the ideals they cherished most – the unity of the “granth” and the “panth”. The English worked silently upon the Sikh rulers, and by May 3, 1809, issued a proclamation taking Cis-Sutlej Sikh Chiefs under the protection of the East India Company. This was the first strike at the Sikh unity, as it struck at the body of the Panth dividing it into two. Secondly, Malcolm told Bhag Singh and others that the “Granth” which they had was only an “Adi Granth” i.e. a preliminary or first granth, and envisaged a subsequent one7. In his work Sketch of Sikhs, 1810, he talks of Dasam Patshah ka Granth procured by Colebrook with “indefatigable research” in 1805. It seems that Nirmala priest Atma Ram of Calcutta worked with Bhai Sukha Singh at Patna and other Nirmalas to ‘create, compile and promote’ this granth. He hoped that Nirmalas and Shahids (he meant Nihangs) who read the sacred writings, may hereafter introduce some changes”8.
Sukha Singh implanted parts of his Sarab Loh book into Dasam Patshah ka Granth. Malcolm’s work incorrectly mentions of creation of Khalsa in 1696 in his Sketch of Sikhs. It seems, he never came into contact with Bhai Sukha Singh, nor had he access to 18th century works on the Sikhs, like Sainapat’s 1711, Koer Singh’s work of 1751, Kesar Singh Chibbar’s or Sarup Das Bhallas works.9 He was groping in the dark, but had clear objectives. Malcolm, significantly, accepts the contribution of Atma Ram, whom he knew in creating Dasam Patshah ka Granth.10 It was a hanky panky business, and it was soon planted into India Office Library.11
The English in late 1820s got wind of entente cordiale between the Nizam of Hyderabad and Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and proceeded to contain its impact. This eventually led to Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s sending troops to Hyderabad and their later assignment to construct the shrines at Hazur Sahib. After the passing away of Guru Gobind Singh in 1708, for over a century his followers, especially Nihangs at nearby Mata Bhago shrine, Nanded, a live centre in Western India, had been carrying on the worship in the same manner. Meanwhile, as a result of English alacrity, around 1830, some Sadhus aligned to Nirmala Atma Ram with a tinge of Kali shrine at Calcutta took over some shrines at Nanded. The construction of the shrines by Ranjit Singh around 1837, some with huge residential complexes, and the land grants caused considerable enhancement in the revenues/income. The settlement of the Sikhs from Ranjit Singh’s army there led to a small but devoted set of followers. This was a general period of infiltration of Brahminical contrivances in Sikhism, and what finally emerged in Hazur Sahib only reflected a negation of Sikh ideology.
The affirmation of John Malcom’s invention about Dasam Patshah ka Granth, without any independent evidence, by Bhai Santokh Singh in his Suraj Parkash, 12 Vols., 1825-43, speak only of this lack of application and commitment. But during the period, the English inspired the manufacture of a spurious letter allegedly from Bhai Mani Singh to Mata Sundari written in 1720s about the bani of Guru Gobind Singh. This letter is written, firstly, with a nib, invented sometime in 1830s, and secondly, it uses separated Punjabi words with some diacritical marks which were not in use in early 18th century in Punjabi language. This rendered the exercise suspicious and betrayed its dubious character, but only for those who have an open mind. It speaks volume about the truth.
The success of English since late 1830s, firstly, to the events of First Sikh War in 1846 could be seen to yeild dividends in the betrayal of the forces of Khalsa at the hands of Brahminical Hindus including the Dogras.12 Secondly, the Sikh States in Cis-Sutlej kept aloof and let the annexation of Punjab finally in 1849, against all solemn commitments. After the treaty of Bhairowal (1846), when the English virtually became masters of Punjab, Dasam Granth was rewritten in February 1847 under English supervision. Under Orders of the Governor General of India some parts of Shabad Hazarey and Khalsa Mehma were deleted, and instead Chhake Bhagauti ji ka, with 137 Chhands added. A copy was donated to British Library too, and it was mischievously, presented as the work of Guru Gobind Singh, founder of the Sikh faith. This constituted, in the words of Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann, a “very important evidence of British involvement”.13 Meanwhile, in 1840s Rattan Singh Bhangoo, a descendent of Mehtab Singh, of Sukha Singh-Mehtab Singh fame, was commissioned by the English Resident in Ludhiana to write the history of Sikhs based on what he learnt from his elders, and some from his personal memory. In the process, he was made to dilate on the compilation of Bachittar Natak, as if an extended one. His writings constitute the very first one, however brief on the subject, reflecting the dubious briefings he got from the English. Bhai Sukha Singh-Mehtab Singh’s forage into controversy over extended Bachittar Natak was a myth, shady and very questionable. It, however, had an objective. The English bias against the Sikhs controlling their shrines in Punjab soon translated themselves into British prejudices standing as a bulwark. By early 1880s, the Hindu and Muslim shrines were liberated from the government control, the Britishers continued to keep their foothold over the Sikh shrines.14
This brings us to the second set of two Satans in end-19th century to give a formal shape and respectability to Dasam Patshah ka Granth: this by now had grown into 32, possibly more, versions, and needed reconciliation, or rather a final one. The obverse side of the coin was represented by Bhai Manna Singh who was Secretary of Gurmat Granth Pracharak Sabha, Amritsar. This Sabha was an affiliate of Singh Sabha Amritsar controlled by Sir (Baba) Khem Singh Bedi who represented reverse side of the coin, and the real propeller of the show from behind. He had grown from a Baba to a Prince, since the annexation of Punjab by the English. As a result of increase(s) in his Jagir he controlled 28,272 acres of land in Montgomery Distt alone, and enjoyed Government’s munificence with a title of Sir. He was a bitter opponent of Tat Khalsa led by Lahore Singh Sabha of Prof. Gurmukh Singh, Giani Ditt Singh and others. He openly preached that Sikhs were Hindus, considered Guru Granth Sahib as fifth Veda – the essence of Vedanta and Upanishads. He claimed descent from Guru Nanak’s son Lakhmi Das, but since 16th century, his descendents have seldom played a constructive role in Sikh history – even Guru Granth Sahib mentions that Guru Nanak’s sons had evil in their mind and were in revolt at the decision of their father transferring Guruship to Bhai Lehna, now named Guru Angad.15 Khem Singh claimed himself to be the 15th Guru of the Sikhs.
The other Sikh organizations especially Lahore Singh Sabha had serious reservations about the exercise of finding out the authentic version. Their three letters published in Khalsa Akhbar of October-November 1895 cast aspersions on the distortions being practised in editing of Dasam Granth. It found fault with the evidence being adduced at the forthcoming exercise to dissect various copies of Dasam Granth and wanted Sardul Singh of Sodhak Committee to take corrective steps to arrive at a right solution. It kept the general body of the people aloof.16
* The general body of Sikhs, held back, contributed only Rs. 53 as against the expenditure of Rs. 603; the balance was contributed, of course, by Bhai Manna Singh, but actually by Sir Khem Singh Bedi who constituted the spirit behind the move.
* The Akal Takht was not at all involved either in contributing space or money, or even the customary Karah Parshad. They, however, gave some volumes of Dasam Patshah ka Granth for the exercise. The main work of the committee was done in the main hall of Malwai Bunga, near Akal Takht.
* It was obvious that no original volume of the Dasam Patshah ka Granth existed. To begin with they used as Presidium Bir, known as Dasam Granth di Khas Hazuri tay Daskhati Bir (also known as Anandpuri Bir). The original Bir was taken to have been destroyed. The Anandpuri Bir had no Chandi di Vaar &c. Some stanzas of Ardas (now standard Sikh prayer) were added. Perhaps, for the first time, this part of Ardas became part of the Sikh lore. It was given out anonymously that Guru Gobind Singh had himself written the preliminary banis and then the work was taken over by other writers. It was presumed, for convenience, that the Guru had overseen the entire work. At the end of the exercise, this Bir was nowhere to be seen. Instead, at the instance of Sir Khem Singh Bedi, the one matching Colebrook version with India Office Library was approved as the final version. “Textual evidence”, in the words of Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann showed, “that eight compositions Including Khalsa Nama supposed to be attributed to Guru Gobind Singh Ji were deleted.” Sodhak Committee mentioned only Sahansarnama and Var Malkauns to have been deleted, while Piara Singh Padam mentioned deletion of three such compositions in published Birs.17
It may be kept in view that Gurdwaras in Punjab were under control of the British directly or indirectly.
* Manna Singh followed no known standards of honesty or impartiality. It was high time for unprincipled falsifiers. It was taken as a standard truth that Guru Gobind Singh was compiler of all that was being reproduced. He accepted Shyam and Ram pseudonyms of the 10th Guru in Chaubis Avatar, but presentation of Shyam born in dark phase of Satbhikha planet presented difficulty, as Guru Gobind Singh was known to be born in light half of Poh.18
Still people persist with strange reasons to stand for Dasam Patshah ka Granth. The whole proceeding was non-serious in character. Gurtej Singh who made a detailed study of Sodhak Committee Report opines, “The mode of nominating the reader is not indicated. Whether the reader changed from one session to another is not mentioned. No method is indicated to show how original was calculated to emerge by following this procedure.”19
In the first phase only four persons attended daily and other nine persons attended ‘once in a while’. And they had to reconcile 32 Birs. What a mockery.
It was worse that after the event, under instructions of Sir Khem Singh Bedi they named the emerging work as Dasam Granth, attributing it to Guru Gobind Singh, instead of Dasam Patshah ka Granth i.e. a work relating to the era of 10th Guru. That is why, I equate Sir Khem Singh Bedi as a big or a bigger Satan, who was the puller of strings and a controlling deity It was just beyond the capacity or concept of Bhai Manna Singh. who was just a bootlicker, a parasite. The spirit of Lt. Col. John Malcolm must be taking a turn in his grave to salute Sir Khem Singh Bedi, this sychophant. With the passage of time, it earned a degree of respectability which was not justified. Unless we recognise that, we cannot move ahead on correct lines. We must realise that Guru Hari Rai had ostracised his son Ram Rai for changing one word in gurbani, the Sikh scriptures. Here the bani compositions attributed to Guru Gobind Singh were subjected to wholesale editing, exclusions, inclusions, mutilations, and what not. It was not conceded that the bani of Guru Gobind Singh was sacrosanct and final, as was the case with the gurbani in Guru Granth Sahib. Sir Khem Singh Bedi/ Bhai Manna Singh took all sorts of liberties; even then what emerges in the so-called Dasam Granth, is not in consonance with the Sikh philosophy, as enunciated in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Rather, being the product of novices and immature persons, it runs counter to the main ingredients enunciated by Guru Nanak, which seems to be the very objective, as we shall see.
The Sodhak Committee people immediately lost their identity and they became non-entities. The Dasam Granth published in 1900 was immediately placed in various Gurdwaras by Mahants, Nirmalas, Udasis, Nihangs, &c, under orders of the Britishers, and special customs were created for the shrines at Hazoor Sahib and Patna Sahib, and other Gurdwaras associated with these two shrines.
Side by side with the creation of Dasam Granth, it was propagated at a low level that there were three other Takhts of Sikhs, at Anandpur Sahib, Patna Sahib and Hazoor Sahib, all connected with Guru Gobind Singh, and managing a cluster of Gurdwaras in the neighbourhood. All this was designed to reduce the importance of Akal Takht, Amritsar, which had refused to participate in compilation of a spurious Dasam Granth. We shall come to that shortly.
The decision of the Darbar Sahib management led by Arur Singh, Manager, to remove all idols from Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and put an end to performance of Hindu rituals over there, was a progressive act, in accordance with the wishes of Tat Khalsa20.
It was the Tat Khalsa drive that forced the Sikhs to various acts, leading to the formation of Delhi Gurdwara Committee which preceded the formation of SGPC in 1920. The Gurdwara Reform Movement, 1920-25, leading to the enactment of Gurdwara Act was again a victory of Tat Khalsa ideals. But, alas, a last one. The Gurdwara Act, 1925, took no notice of Dasam Granth, manufactured 25 years earlier. The definition of a Sikh – one who believes in the Ten Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib, and had no other religion was quite explicit. This definition was repeated in Nanded Gurdwaras Act 1956 and Delhi Gurdwaras Act 1971. Any reference to the so-called Dasam Granth is missing in all these legislations. In short, one who believes in Dasam Granth, loses to be a Sikh in legal and religious, and moralistic terms. The Sikh leadership miserably failed to make an assessment of last five years 1920-25 in Punjab, as, firstly, it emerged splintered, thanks to machinations of the ruling British, led by Punjab Governor Hailey, and, secondly, it fell a victim to the guile and stratagems of M.K. Gandhi who had emerged as a deceptive patern of Hinduism, deadly opposed to the Tat Khalsa doctrines.
The emergence of Chief Khalsa Diwan, 1902, and spread of its influence with Bhai Vir Singh as one of its leading lights, helped to cause a big damage to Sikhism. I am saying so, despite the fact that in earlier period he had played a very constructive role. His work, narrating history of the Sikh Gurus in three volumes was seen as a clever device by the Britishers to break the Khalsa from its philosophy, distinct from the one of Hinduism. The propagation of four Takhts was a case in point. Frankly, if there was need for another Takht, the Dharamsaal or Gurdwara at Kartarpur-on-Ravi could very well be the appropriate candidate, as according to Bhai Gurdas (Var 24, pauri 1) under auspices of Guru Nanak, a Sach Khand, (an institution for communion with God), had been established there. The other three places connected with the life of Guru Gobind Singh could be replicated with a lot of other places. It was neither here nor there. Why not Delhi or Agra or same places in Rajasthan? Sikhism was attached to the philosophy enunciated by Guru Nanak, who was the only one to have had a revelation, and it was his spirit that was permeating in his successors, including Guru Gobind Singh, who swore by Guru Nanak.21 The production of spurious Dasam Granth was not designed to give any respectability to Guru Gobind Singh, but to substract from it. One must understand this conspiracy.
One may point out to three other disservices rendered by Bhai Vir Singh in later period of his life. One, he unnecessarily, without any reliable evidence, in Ashtgur Chamatkar, circulated the story connected with the marriage of daughter of Satta, of Balwand and Satta fame, authors of Ramkali ki Var (SGGS pp. 966-68) for writing that the sons of Guru Nanak, with malice in their hearts were in revolt, against Guru Nanak’s passing on succession to Guru Angad. This story was a tit for tat by the powerful and munificent Bedi Babas (Baba Khem Singh Bedi and his successors) who had avidly advocated for Hinduisation of Sikhism and had been the main protagonist for promotion of the spurious Dasam Granth.
Two, people, now in search for mythical birthplace of Guru Gobind Singh in earlier lives, at first located Rawalsar in Himachal Pradesh and later around 1932 Hemkunt deep into the hills of then North Western Provinces, now Uttaranchal Pradesh. This place was certified in mid-1930’s by Bhai Vir Singh, as true one. He, unnecessarily, was instrumental in popularizing a myth, and hurtling the Sikh community into a place deep into the Himalayas involving high expenses (involving travel by mule and other animals also), above all linking the Guru with Hindu mythology. For Sikhs it virtually amounted to emotional blackmail. No other such place for worship, earlier by Guru Nanak or any other Guru, is available. Only Guru Gobind Singh was linked to Hindu mythology, as by revealing the Khalsa in 1699, he was believed by people like M.K.Gandhi to have founded a new faith, which was distinct from Hinduism. M.K. Gandhi, for instance, twice, first in 1925 and again in 1941, had termed Guru Gobind Singh a misguided patriot, and hence a persona non grata. Subsequently, in 1984, Indira Gandhi after Operation Bluestar had termed every amritdhari, baptized, Sikh as a terrorist, a potential terrorist, or looking like one.
And, three, Bhai Vir Singh through the medium of his friend Sobha Singh artist (and later other artists also) popularised photographs and paintings of Sikh Gurus and martyrs etc. in various phases, different postures, popularizing them in various facets of life, a la Hinduism. This was despite the fact that no authentic photograph of Guru Nanak and his successors are available. This was a crude attempt to bring Gurus and heroes at par with Hindu gods and goddesses.22
Verily, Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan in New Delhi, right from the beginning serves as a centre for activity and control by Congressite Sikhs i.e. followers of Gandhi/Gangu Brahmin and lately McLeodian scholars. It truly represents the later part of Bhai Vir Singh's life, while the one at Amritsar represents the early part of it, devoted to gurmat, Sikh values.
By 1927 the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) Committee had been assigned to sort out various rehats prevalent with different sections of the Sikh society. The SRM Committee was a comprehensive body, representing a wide sector of the people, including representatives from Patna Sahib and Hazoor Sahib.
What were the banis, hymns, read out at the launch of Khalsa and its rehat maryada on Baisakhi, March 29, 1699?23 Baptism had been served very widely in 1699 itself, and over time later, at first by Guru Gobind Singh and later by various people including Bhai Mani Singh, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, Darbara Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh and a host of others, but surprisingly there is little in numerous Rehatnamas and works of history detailing the process. The first and perhaps the only entry comes in Kesar Singh Chhibbar’s work, 1769, that only Japji and Anand Sahib (possibly first five and last stanzas) were read at the time of initiation of amrit, baptism by Guru Gobind Singh. This is later supported by Bhai Santokh Singh in his monumental work Suraj Parkash. spread over two decades. There is nothing to interdict these two narrations, as the so-called Dasam Granth had still to take shape, and there could be no motivation to falsify the account. So that was the truthful position of Amrit sanchar, baptismal ceremony, over the period.
With Dasam Granth taking its shape around 1900, and SGPC’s coming into being in 1925, and the British playing with various sections of the Sikhs to cause disunity and confusion, the constitution of SRM Committee was an attempt to throw a cat among the pigeons. To begin with, because of vociferous acrimony between a supporter and an opp