Sikh History (some issues)
For the past few years the Sikh history has been flooded with hundreds of book, especially after 1999, when the tercentenary of revelation of Khalsa was observed at Anandpur Sahib. It is surprising to observe that most of them were written by those who are either not associated with the field of history or have no knowledge of or interest in historiography. Some of these were written by religious activists (priests and leaders), and, some books came from persons occupying senior government jobs. Besides, some research students published their Ph.D. theses as books either in original form or with some modifications.
To my mind, many of the religious activists, the devotees of religion have narrow vision, hence, they don‟t bother for historiography or facts and even logic. They just repeat already established formulations and rather they try to add more myth to history. This can be seen in the works of the Sikh clergies and the leaders. Secondly, the bureaucrats, (some of them might be having a degree in the subject of history) are enthusiastic of establishing themselves as authors and even historians. They follow „cut and paste‟ formula and create a book. Because they have good relations with the media, their books get promoted. In 2010, the Sikhs observed tercentenary of the victory of the battle of Chapar Chiri (of 12 May 1710), and, a large number of books were published to pay tribute to Banda Singh Bahadur. Among these was a book by an administrative office which was no more than an English version of already available in Punjabi books. Interestingly, the main plank of his book were those very points, most of which had already been rejected by the researchers. But, some English papers published big reviews of his book and tried to present it as great (if not the greatest ever) book on Banda Singh.
A couple of years back, a minstrel from Birmingham (England) published a voluminous book of Hardas Singh (grandfather of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia). No book of history, not even any book of historical fiction, mentions more than two sentences about Hardas Singh, but he wrote hundreds of pages out of his imagination. He has quoted not a single book or source. Similarly, he produced a book on Moti Ram Mehra (about him not a single word is available in any source of history, not even in secondary sources; he is in fact a character of fiction, eulogised by a poet‟s imagination). Even this book does not quote any source of history. But, after one or two decades people will begin quoting from these works as sources of history. Still amazing are those „scholars‟ who use exegesis and speeches by the clergies and missionaries as their source of history. I was shocked to read a thesis which mentioned Sant Singh Maskeen and Kaleranwala cult leaders‟ speeches to support his/her point; and, it is amazing that he/she was granted doctoral degrees for that thesis. Still, interesting are some books, which their authors promote as original research work. A couple of years back a university published a book on Banda Singh Bahadur in which the author who had been a professor of history for several years, wrote that in Riasi a man told him about the real place of birth of Banda Singh. In this book he asserted that as Banda Singh had become successful in capturing a big territory, he must have been a senior and great general of the army of Bahadur Shah. Depending upon just one author, he even changed the date of the battle of Chapar Chiri.
Recently, some books have been brought by vested interests. They too do not quote from sources and promote their own clan, group, cult or associates. Recently a book „Operation Blue Star‟ was published in the name of General Kuldeep Brar (he immediately denied having written such a book). This book „revealed‟ the secret role of the Indian Army during its attack of June 1984 at Darbar Sahib. Such fake works are very damaging for history.
It is sad that we don‟t find true neutral Sikh history (though we face this problem with the histories of other groups as well). There are several major and minor reasons for this. The three major reasons are: some ardent followers of the Sikh faith, in order to exalt and glorify their leaders and/or to justify the negative or inferior role of the Sikhs in particular phenomena, don‟t feel shy o distorting the facts. On the other hand, some prejudiced non-Sikh writers, who have vested interests, try to distort the Sikh history. The third section is that of the scholars, who are expected to present truth, don‟t have true facts and primary sources before them because of lack of knowledge of Punjabi language as well as non-availability of books, manuscripts and other treasures of information. For example, most of the non-Sikh writers depend only upon English works (which, on many points are poor sources of information), besides, the libraries are not well equipped with the Sikh literature, may be due to funding or due to lack of information (even due to lop-sided approach of their own or of the managements) about Sikhism, its philosophy and history with the librarians. All this has caused either partial or poor works about the history of the Sikhs. This is a vast subject, hence I shall discuss only a couple of issues and sources and material.
4 gates of Fatehgarh Sahib
In 2007, the Punjab government raised four commemorative gates in Fatehgarh Sahib (old Sarhind). These were in the names of Banda Singh Bahadur, Todar Mal, Moti Ram Mehra and Sher Mohammed Khan. As Banda Singh had won the first battle of Punjab‟s (and India‟s) independence from the foreign yoke, a gate commemorating his role was justified. But, naming the rest of the three gates have no justification.
Moti Ram Mehra is a character of fiction. Some poet concocted the story of a man climbing the tall tower to feed imprisoned Mata Gujari and the two sons of Guru Gobind Singh with milk. It is interesting that the tower was visible from long distance, but no one noticed him while doing so; and, if he managed to enter the tower with the help of (by bribing or due to personal relationship with) the gatekeeper, then the gatekeeper of the fort too would have been punished. Interestingly, not a single book of history mentions any Moti Ram Mehra but still a gate and a Gurdwara have come up in the name of a character created by fiction.
Diwan Todar Mal: According to one tradition, Diwan Todar Mal is said to have cremated the bodies of Mata Gujri and the two Sahibzadas; and, he paid very heavy sum to buy land for cremation. It is interesting to note that Todar Mal had died 40 years before this incident (according to Maasur-ul-Umra, volume 2, pages 286-87, Todar Mal had died in 1665-66). Book „Guru Kian Sakhian‟ (1790) refers to the visit of an emissary of Guru Gobind Singh, who met the descendants of Todar Mal (and not Todar mal), just a week after the cremation of Mata Gujri and the Sahibzadas.
Todar Mal was a very senior officer of the court of Shah Jahan. He was the Governor of Sarhind, Dipalpur, Jalandhar and Sultanpur provinces and had a mansab (authority) of 6000 soliders (2000 horse and 4000 cavalry). He spent his last days in Sarhind where he had built a palace of the design of the shape of a ship. Todar Mal was a great personality but he had nothing to do with the event of cremation of Mata Gujri and Sahibzadas.
By the way the real name of Sarhind was Sahrind, and, it has nothing to do with Head (sir) of Hind (India). Sarhind is in fact misspelled name of Sahrind.
Sher Mohammed Khan : Gate in the name of Sher Mohammed Khan too is wrong. In December 1705, when the sons of Guru Gobind Singh were captured from village Saheri and presented before Wazir Khan, the Governor Sarhind, the latter asked Sher Mohammed Khan (who was present there) to kill them and avenge the death of his brother. (His brother Nahar Khan, who had led an army to besiege the fortress Of Chamkaur, on the 7th of December 1705, had been killed by an arrow shot by Guru Gobind Singh from the fortress). At this, Sher Mohammed Khan said that he would avenge the death of his brother from the Guru and not his sons. He assertion was no sympathy for the Sikhs but it was just his way of life. Otherwise, he was a sworn enemy of the Sikhs. He was killed in the battle of Chappar Chiri (12 May 1710). Even after his death, his descendants remained fighting against the Sikh till the Great Holocaust if 5 February 1762, after which the Sikhs captured Malerkotla and made its rulers the subjects of the Sikh rulers.
So, there was justification in naming the these three gates in the names of Moti Ram Mehra, Todar Mal and Sher Mohammed khan.
Chamkaur battle and 10 lakh invaders
According to Zafarnama (I don‟t consider as the writing of Guru Gobind Singh), a mammoth army, comprising of one million soldiers surrounded the fortress of Chamkaur where Guru Gobind Singh „40 Sikhs‟ were present on the 7th of December 1705. This is just a joke, because, at that time, the total number of the soldiers of the Mughal Army, including those of the soldiers of the mansab-holders, was much less than 2 lakhs (two hundred thousands). Secondly, suppose there were one million soldiers, then they must have been spread from Chamkaur to Delhi and beyond. The truth is that there were 700 soldiers from Malerkotla, who had surrounded Guru Gobind Singh, 2 Sahibzadas and 45 Sikhs (2 Sahibzadas and 40 Sikhs were killed in this battle; and, five Sikhs escaped along with the Guru).
Gurwara Taari (clap) Sahib
Some decades ago a Gurdwara named „Taari Sahib‟ was built in the memory of the incident of escape of the Guru from the fortress of Chamkaur. According to a story, the Guru, before leaving the fortress, proclaimed “the Guru of the Sikhs is leaving”, because he did not want to leave the place secretly and without a declaration. This incident had never happened. The truth is that Nabi Khan and Ghani Khan, two soldiers of the surrounding army helped the Guru escape and save his life. Had the Guru made any such proclamation or declaration, the Pahtan soldiers would have killed him. Thus, this incident and the Gurdwara are fake.
Jeewan Singh and Sangat Singh
For quite some years, a group has been trying to establish another lie as history. According to them Jeewan Singh (Jaita) was killed at Chamkaur, whereas truth is that he died in a battle at Jhakhian village. A Gurdwara has been built in Chamkaur to commemorate his martyrdom in the fortress. According to another propaganda, before escaping from the fortress of Chamkaur, the Guru gave his aigrette to Sangat Singh (who was a dalit). This too is untrue. The Guru did not give his aigrette to any one; and, the two Sikhs who died after the escape of the Guru were Sant Singh Arora and Sangat Singh Bangeshari.
Zafarnama
According to some writers Zafarnama, a long poem, is the same letter that the Guru had written to Aurangzeb from Dina Kangar on 22nd of December 1705. A reading of the poem would show that this cannot be the writing of the Guru. Secondly, the question is how did it reach back to the Sikhs? The Guru had not kept a „copy‟ of the letter. Thirdly, had this been the letter wriiten to Aurangzeb, he would have become very angry and might have ordered arrest and execution of the Guru.
Story of Mian Mir
In the nineteenth century, there came up a large number of books one the history of the Sikhs e.g. Tareekhi-Punajb (Khushwaqt Rai 1812), Taarikh-i-Punjab (Ahmed Shah Batalia, 1812), Taarikh-i-Punjab (Ghulam Muhi-ud-Din alias Bute Shah in 1848). This Bute Shah preached that the foundation of Darbar Sahib had been laid by Mian Mir. This led some Hindus to proclaim that Darbar Sahib was impious because its foundation had been laid by a beef-eater (Mian Mir). The truth is that the foundation had been laid by Guru Arjan himself (Santokh Singh: Gur Partap Suraj Granth).
Bhindranwala and Damdami Taksaal
For the past three decades, the name of Damdami Taksaal has been in great prominence. The leaders of this organisation claim that their organisation was founded (as an institution) by Guru Gobind Singh. Earlier, they asserted that Bhai Mani Singh was the first leader of this organisation. Later, they began using the name of Baba Deep Singh. Both these claims are false. Bhai Mani Singh embraced martyrdom on 24th of June 1734, whereas Surat Singh (one, who is claimed to be the successor of Bhai Mani Singh) was born in 1733. Baba Deep Singh had embraced martyrdom on the 11th of November 1757. At that time Surat Singh was just 24 years old and had been living in Banaras. He came to Amritar after 1780s (23 years after the death of Baba Deep Singh). Moreover, he had never visited Talwandi Sabo, the headquarters of Baba Deep Singh‟s jatha.
The leaders of the Damdami Taksal present Surat Singh as their first leader after the martyrdom of Bhai Mani Singh and Baba Deep Singh. Surat Singh was a Nirmala from Banaras (he is the real writer of Bhagat Ratnavali and Prem Ratanavli as well as a Janmasakhi book —– attributed to Bhai Mani Singh). He was succeeded by his son Sant
Singh Giani (1778-1832) who became Granthi of Darbar Sahib after the death of his father. Sant Singh was succeeded by his son Gurmukh Singh (the real author of Gurbilas Patsahi Chhevin). Gurmukh Singh was killed by Hira Singh Dogra for the former‟s support for the Sandhawalias. Gurmukh Singh was succeeded by his son Parduman Singh (death 1877), who was known as a staunch support of the British rulers of the Punjab. This family had its residence in a building owned by the forefathers of Bhai Vir Singh (i.e. his father Charan Singh, grandfather Kahan Singh and maternal grandfather Hazara Singh). They were associates of Khem Singh Bedi.
The leaders of the so-called Damdami Taksal claim that Parduman Singh was succeeded by Daya Singh (hanged in a murder case), followed by Bhagwan Singh (Majeeth Bunga), Harnam Singh Bedi (Dera baba Joga Singh) and Bishan Singh (of Murala). Bishan Singh died in 1905. It is remarkable to note that Bishan Singh had appointed Prem Singh Murala as his successor who had nothing to do with this so-called Damdami Taksal.
The truth of the so-called Damdami Taksal is this that Sunder Singh of Bhinder Kalan was the chief of this cult. Sunder Singh was an ordinary sadhu, whose main business was to hold akhand Paths of Guru Granth Sahib. He was succeeded by Giani Gurbachan Singh (of Akhara village) who carried out his business and authored “Khalsa Jeevan” the first book of this cult. Now, this book is their most respectable „holy book of concepts and rituals‟ (maryada) of this cult. Much of this book is, however, against the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib. After the death of Gurbachan Singh, this group was divided into two jathas: one headed by Mohan Singh and the other headed by Kartar Singh of Bhura Kohna (a former Patwari). Due to opposition by the family of Gurbachan Singh, Kartar Singh had to flee Bhinder Kalan and Akhara villages, and, he established his centre at Chowk Mehta. He was a shrewd person. To gain prominent he declared that his jatha was „Damdami Taksal‟. Not a single book makes any mention of even the word „Damdami Taksa‟l. Guru Gobind Singh had never established any so-called taksal. So, Chowk Mehta Dera has nothing to do with Guru Gobind Singh or Bhai Mani Singh or Baba Deep Singh. It is a dera, like all other deras, and, it has its origin with Sunder Singh of Bhindran but its principles had been established by Giani Gurbachan Singh in his book „Khalsa Jeewan‟.
Akal Takht and its Jathedar
Like the so-called Damdami Taksal, the office of Jathedar Akal Takht is also a fake one. There is no such concept in the Sikh philosophy or history. Akal Takht is not the name of a building. When Guru Hargobind Sahib revealed this concept, he meant that spiritual loyalty of a Sikh is towards Akal (i.e. God) alone and only the Akal‟s throne in immortal, whereas all the worldly thrones are ephemeral and limited in authority). In Sikh history, there is not even slight or indirect reference to the office of „Jathedar Akal Takht.
This office has its origin in an event from the 12th of October 1920 when some dalit Sikhs went to Darbar Sahib to offer Karah parshaad, and, seeing them coming towards Akal Takht, the priests of Takht fled, leaving Guru Granth Sahib unattended. At this, the Sikhs present there took over the services of the building and asked the people present there to volunteer themselves to form a jatha to participate in services at the building of the Takht. 17
persons offered their services and Teja Singh (of Bhuchar Klan) was selected the „jathedar‟ of this jatha. He was selected chief of the Jatha and not Akal Takht.
In fact, Akal Takht‟s so-called Jathedar came into prominence when the militants occupied the premises of Darbar Sahib in 1986, and began using this as an authority. After the fal of the militants, the ruling group of the SGPC began using this office for his benefit. Conceptually speaking, and from historical point of view as well, this office is neither legal nor in consonance with the Sikh ideology.
Gangu Brahmin and Nehru family
It has been a common belief among the Sikhs that it was some Gangu Brahmin who got the mother and the two sons of Guru Gobind Singh arrested. But, no source of history mentions even the name of Gangu. The book „Guru Kian Sakhian‟ (1790) clearly mentions the names of Dhumma and Darbari, the two former masands of the Guru, who escorted Mata Gujri and the two Sahibzadas from Chamkaur to at their residence in Saheri village (near Morinda). It is possible that Gangu might be the name of their servant whom they had sent to Morinda to inform the police there. Recently, a historian proclaimed that Jawahar Lal Nehru‟s father Moti Lal Nehru was the descendants of Gangu. The fact is that Moti Lal belonged to Kaul Brhamin family of Kashmir whereas Gandu was a Punjabi. Secondly, there was no concept of having a family cook of the Guru, hence no one could have been a cook of the Guru.
Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa
One of the most important issues of the history related to Banda Singh Bahadur is propaganda that a group named Tat Khalsa had deserted his camp. According to Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh the Tat Khalsa had been, in a way, in the service of the Mughals and had been getting huge sum of money as their slalaries/grants from the Mughal regime. This too is not supported by any historical source. The first person to promote this was Sarup Das Bhalla, whose „Mehma Parkash‟ had distorted a lot of Sikh history; most of the distortionsof the Sikh history have their origin in this work.
Akhbarat-i-Mullla is a very precious source of the history of the period of Bahadur Shah and Farrukhsiyar, and, there are great details of events related to Banda Singh and his activities, but, there is not even any indirect reference to the so-called Tat Khalsa. In fact, there arose no dispute in the camp of Banda Singh till his martyrdom on June 9, 1716. In 1723, there was a dispute among the descendants of the Gurus and Amar Singh, an associate of Banda Singh, and, Sarup Das Bhalla (a descendant of Guru Amar Ds) changed this into Tat-Bandai dispute. Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh added more spice to it, thus created fake history.
Such distortion of Sikh history is because of ignorance, laziness for studying original and non-availability of sources. It is sad that most of the new scholars are victims of all this.
Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer
hsdilgeer@yahoo.com