Tat Khalsa & Bandai Khalsa:
A concocted story
Did Farukhsiyar use the wives of the Guru?
Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh have said that Farukhsiyar compelled (Mata)1 Sunder Kaur and (Mata) Sahib Kaur (the wives/widows of Guru Gobind Singh) to write letters to the Sikhs asking them to reject Banda Singh. According to these writers, in September 1714, Farukhsiyar imprisoned/ interned these ladies and compelled them to ask/order Banda Singh to stop war against the Mughal regime. As wished by the Mughal emperor, the ladies tried to convince Banda Singh but he refused to accept their advice. At this, Farukhsiyar asked the ladies to write letters to the Sikhs asking them to dissociate themselves from Banda Singh. These sources further assert that when Banda Singh still did not bother, the ladies ‘excommunicated’ him; but, on the other hand, the Sikhs gave full co-operation to Banda Singh and did not bother for the letters of the ladies, because, the Sikhs had observed Ajit Singh Palit‟s loyalty for and collaboration with the Mughals, and, (Mata) Sunder Kaur and (Mata) Sahib Kaur used to live with Ajit Singh Palit at Delhi. So, the Sikhs had no confusion about the credentials of Ajit Singh Palit as well as the two ladies; hence they sided with Banda Singh.
1 Mata literally means mother. Mata has been used as prefix to the wife/wives of Gurus. In this chapter, the words mata or mother or ladies refer to the wives of Guru Gobind Singh.
2 But the name Tat Khalsa does not appear in any contemporary writing, neither in Sikh writing nor in Mughal book or records, neither in any Punjabi nor in Persian nor in English or any othe writing. Saheed Bilas (by Sewa Singh, 1790) uses the term Bhujhangi and Akal Purakhiay (and not Tat Khalsa) for this group. According to Shaheed Bilas too, the dispute between the Akal Purakhiay and Bandais arose only in 1723, and, there was no such phenomenon during the time of Banda Singh.
Truth about ‘dispute’ between Banda Singh and Binod Singh
Some writers have narrated the ‘dispute’ between Banda Singh and Binod Singh in long details. According to Ratan Singh Bhangu, Banda Singh and Binod Singh had developed differences right since the time of the occupation of Sarhind. He says that the Mughals arrested Ajit Singh Palit and then took him with them, and, he was granted the control of Guru-Da-Chakk (Amritsar). After this they (Mughals) got a letter written from the wife (Bhangu does not mention the name of the lady, however, it is widely believed that it should be Mata Sunder Kaur, the elder one) of Guru Gobind Singh to Banda Singh; this letter said: „you have taken the revenge of the murder of the Sahibzadas and have punished the hill rulers; so, now you should stop the war, accept Jagir (estate) and live a comfortable life‟. According to Bhangu, Banda Singh did not bother for this letter; he rather reacted by saying: „accepting Jagir from the Mughals will be like committing suicide.; I was not struggling for taking any revenge (from the Mughals) nor I intend to rule, I am just carrying the order of Guru Gobind Singh to bring an end to tyranny.‟
Ratan Singh Bhangu takes this crisis further to the following year: now, Mata (wife of Guru) writes letters to the Sikhs asking them to stop supporting Banda Singh; according to Ratan Singh she even curses Banda Singh. Here, he (Ratan Singh) shows Binod Singh breaking away from Banda Singh followed by a battle between forces of Binod Singh and Banda Singh at the village of Kohali where Banda Singh looses the battle. Ratan Singh further writes that after this Binod Singh faction (Bhangu calls them Tat Khalsa)2 had entered into a compromise with the Mughals. The latter granted them jagirs, jobs and other facilities. On the other hand, after his defeat at the hands of Binod Singh, Banda Singh moves towards Gurdaspur and the Tat Khalsa establishes its headquarters at Guru-Da-Chakk. Now, they (Tat
Khalsa) become „touts‟ of the Mughals, chase him (Banda Singh) and finally get him eliminated.
Another writer, Giani Gian Singh, blames the wife of the Guru for this division among the ranks of the Sikh nation:
Through mother the Turks created division in the Panth
It resulted into trouble for the Sikhs;
That they had to bear for forty years.3
3 Giani Gian Singh, Panth Parkash, Chapter 54, couplet 2.
4 Ibid, Chapter 53, couplet 12.
5 ibid, Chapter 53, Couplet 3.
6 Ratan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Parkash, p. 137.
7 Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikhs, p 25.
8 Entry of Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla, dated 7.8.1716
According to Giani Gian Singh, Bhai Mani Singh and several others asked Mata not to do so:
Mani Singh, Sahib Chand, Nand Lal etc
Did ask: O mother don’t create division in the Panth.4
Giani Gian Singh and Ratan Singh Bhangu, both, assert that when the emperor came to know about the division in the Panth, he lighted lamps by burning ghee (clarified butter) in them:
When Farkhes (Farukhsiyar) emperor came to know this.
He held a feast by lighting lamps with ghee.5
Ratan Singh Bhangu writing makes the emperor declare that the Mother ‘saved him’ by weaning Sikhs away from Banda Singh:
Shah (emperor) said ‘mother saved (me)
(She) made the Sikhs part from Banda Singh’.6
But, the Mughal and other contemporary sources do not even refer to any such phenomenon of dispute between Banda Singh and the wives of the Guru or even the mention of the name of any like Binod Singh; there are several references to Ajit Singh Palit’s collaboration with the Mughals, but there is not even the slightest direct or indirect reference to the mother/lady in any record.
Historian Hari Ram Gupta writes that the emperor had arrested both the wives of the Guru; but, he too has not quoted any primary or secondary source. 7
However, there is no doubt about the role of Ajit Singh Palit, who had become loyal to the Mughal regime; he had been visiting the royal court at Delhi to prove his loyalty; the Mughals too accepted him as their ‘man’ and off and on presented him with some gifts too. He visited the Mughal court even after the martyrdom of Banda Singh. On the 7th of August 1716, just three months after the execution of Banda Singh, he appeared before Farukhsiyar and got a present of a turban from the emperor.8
So far as the question of Binod Singh is concerned, there is no evidence in any source. The only reference available is that on the 9th of July 1714, Farukhsiyar received information that „Baj Singh (not Binod Singh) has parted from Banda Singh and a large number of soldiers also went with him‟; here too Baj Singh has not been presented as joining, collaborating or conspiring with the Mughals; rather he has been shown as fighting against the Mughal army (it seems that Banda Singh might have sent him to open a second front in order to divide the Mughal forces into two parts); on the other hand, it has been claimed by Ratan Singh and Giani Gian Singh that Binod Singh parted from Banda Singh due to dispute over strategy regarding taking refuge in Gurdas Nangal fortress, when they were under siege of the Mughal army. This cannot be true as exit from the fortress of Gurdas Nangal was simply impossible because thousands of Mughal soldiers had surrounded the fortress from all the sides; hence none could have escaped the fortress without a compromise with the Mughals, which was unthinkable, and, if Binod Singh had left Banda Singh before entering in
the fortress at Gurdas Nangal, before the siege, this could be possible; but, even this could not have led to enmity with Banda Singh or to collaboration with the Mughals. As mentioned earlier, there is not even slight reference to the fact that any Sikh, other than Ajit Singh Palit, had any association with the Mughals.
The first person to create the term Tal Khalsa was Sarup Das Bhalla, the author of Mehma Parkash. Ratan Singh Bhangu seems to have followed Sarup Das Bhalla, and, Giani Gian Singh added more gossips to the story of Ratan Singh Bhangu.
Ratan Singh Bhangu went to the extent to state that the Mughal emperor had given Kahan Singh Trehan, Miri Singh, Fateh Singh and Sham Singh Naurangwalia etc the command of a five hundred strong army; every horseman was given thirty rupees a month, infantry was paid fifteen rupees9 per month and the leaders were given one hundred and fifty rupees each month; some of the Tat Khalsa soldiers had their headquarters at Guru-Da-Chakk (Amritsar) and the Mughal regime used to pay them five thousand rupees per month (at another place he mentions the amount as five hundred rupees per day); besides, the regime had given then the grant of the pargana of Jhabal as well. Ratan Singh Bhangu writes that the Tat Khalsa had sent its army to save Lahore from an attack by Banda Singh. He further says that the Tat Khalsa army defeated him (Banda Singh) at Kohali and saved Lahore from the Sikhs’ wrath:10
9 At that time, the salary of a Mughal soldier was four rupees per month.
10 Ratan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Parkash, pp 134-37 & 162-63.
11 Shaheed Bilas, stanzas 142, p.81.
Kahan Singh parted from Banda (Singh)
And had a deal with the Turks.
Rupees five hundred daily was fixed.
He had five hundred horsemen with him.
But, with the exception of Ratan Singh (Giani Gian Singh‟s information is based mainly on Ratan Singh‟s work), no Sikh or Muslim writer has made even a passing reference to any such phenomenon. Neither Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla nor any other source has referred to the Tat Khalsa phenomenon. Kamvar Khan (Tazkiratut Salatin Chugatta), Mohammed Ahsan Ijaad (Farukhsiyar Nama), Khafi Khan (Muntakhabul Lubab), Mirza Mohammed Harsi (Ibratnama & Tarikh-i-Mohammedi), Chaturnman (Chahar Gulshan), Shiv Das (Munavar-ul-Kalam & Farukhsiyar Nama), Ghulam Hussain Khan (Siyarul Mutakhrin), Al-ud-Din (Ibratnama), Sohan Lal (Umdatut Twareekh), Bute Shah (Tarikh-i-Punjab), Khushwaqt Rai (Twareekh-i-Sikhan) have given detailed account of the history of this period but none of them have mentioned even the term Tat Khalsa or Binod Singh‟s role.
‘Dispute’ of Tat and Bandai and Bhai Mani Singh
After the martyrdom of Banda Singh, the next three years was almost a period of black out for the Sikhs; no Sikh was supposed to be found in any city, including Guru-da-Chakk (Amritsar). In 1719, when Farukhsiyar, the Mughal emperor was blinded, and later killed, by the Sayyad Brothers, it was a period of uncertainlty in the Punjab too. The Governor of Lahore too stopped taking interest in expedition against the Sikhs. After a couple of months Mohammed Shah Rangila became the new emperor. He was least concerned with the Sikhs‟ affairs. Now, the Sikhs again began visiting Guru-da-Chakk, and, by 1722, the town was again an abode of a few hundred Sikhs; besides a large number of Sikhs began visiting Amritsar after harvesting their crops in March and October.
There were no two groups among the Sikhs till 1722; hence there was no so-called Tat Khalsa or Bandai Khalsa upto 1722.11 In 1723, the Sikhs at Guru-Da-Chakk (Amritsar) were divided into two blocks. It was, in fact, a dispute between the group headed by Amar
Singh Kamboj (referred to as Bandai) and Trehan family12 (referred to as Akal Purakhiay).13 According to the author of Shaheed Bilas, Amar Singh wanted Banda Singh Bahadur to be considered as the Eleventh Guru, whereas Sangat Singh and Miri Singh etc (the Akal Purkhiay) asserted that „it is the command of Guru Gobind Singh that only Guru Granth Sahib is to be accepted as Guru‟.14 Both the groups had been trying to woo the Sikhs, and, it was feared that the Sikh religion might be divided into two different sects. When this was reported to Mata Sunder Kaur at Delhi, she sent a letter to Bhai Mani Singh asking him to solve the problem.15
12 They were the children and grandchildren of Binod Singh and Kahan Singh, the direct descendants of Guru Angad.
13 13 The author of Shaheed Bilas used the term Akal Purkhiay for Binod Singh group and Bandai for Amar Singh group. In one stanza the author of Shaheed Bilas has mentioned the Akal Purakhiay as Nihang also (stanza 149). Ratan Singh Bhangu has used the term Bhujhangi also (Ratan Singh Bhangu, p. 169). Bhujhangis literally means children, here the direct descendants of Guru Angad. Tat Khalsa term was also a concoction by Sarp Das Bhalla and adopted from him by Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh.
14 Shaheed Bilas, stanzas 142, 145, pp. 81, 82.
15 Shaheed Bilas, stanzas 143, p.82, Ratan Singh Bhangu, p 222.
On the 18th of October 1723, Bhai Mani Singh mediated a compromise between these groups, i.e. Amar Singh group (an old companion of Banda Singh and his associates Sangat Singh and Lahora Singh) on one side and Trehan group (Lahora Singh etc) on the other side. However, one thing is cystal clear that it was a local dispute and it had its origin in 1723, and it had nothing to do with the days of Banda Singh Bahadur.
It is further interesting to note how this dispute was solved. Bhai Mani Singh took two papers, wrote the names of the leaders of each group on them and dipped them in the tank of Darbar Sahib. The paper with the name of the Akal Purkhiay group appeared first. But, the other group still refused to surrender, hence it was decided that let there be a wrestling match between the wrestlers of both the groups. This competition too went in the favour of the Akal Purkhiay. Now, the Bandais finally accepted their defeat and became a part of the mainstream. Bhai Mani Singh got a svine slaughtered and cooked. Sangat Singh and his companions shared the meat. They also gave up wearing clothes of red colour and again adopted the Khalsa blue dress.
To sum up, the story of Mata Sunder Kaur’s collaboration with the Mughals and her letters against Banda Singh; as well as the ‘dispute’ between Banda Singh and the so-called Tat Khalsa, had been concocted much after the martyrdom of Banda Singh. The first person to propagate this was Sarup Das Bhalla (in Mehma Parkash). Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh added new gossips to Sarup Das’s fiction.
Other allegations against Banda Singh
Ratan Singh Bhangu etc have also mentioned that Banda Singh was indicted for disobeying Guru’s instructions and and because of some other lapses. In fact, none of these allegations is true, and, some of these allegations are even against Sikh philosophy; for example: one allegation is that “The Guru had asked Banda Singh not to get married.” This is against the Sikh fundamentals; the Guru could never have asked him to live a life-style (i.e. not marrying) which is contrary to Sikh philosophy. The second allegation that he presented himself as Guru too is wrong; he never behaved himself as more than a general of the army. It is remarkable that he never presented himself or behaved even as a king or ruler or even as the chief of the Sikh Panth; he, rather, used to call himself as ‘ghulam of the Guru’ (literally: slave of the Guru). He captured Samana and appointed Fateh Singh as its Governor, and, he gave reigns of Sarhind to Baj Singh and Thanesar to Ram Singh; he did not sit on any ‘throne’ but stationed himself as a general, in Lohgarh fort, where he stocked and got manufactured arms and ammunition.
Banda Singh used to address even a common Sikh as Singh Ji as if he was addressing a senior (and not a junior); he never treated himself even as a boss; such was his humbleness, politeness, feeling of brotherhood which could not even be equalled by the Sikh leadership of the next generation (except that of Darbara Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Baghel Singh). Irvine, in his book Later Mughals wrote: “A Choohra (scavanger) or a Chamar (cobbler), which are considered lowly of the lowliest among the Hindus, had to just appear before the Guru (Banda Singh) and after sometime he would return to his village as a ruler (of his area).” [Non-Italics, in parenthesis, are mine – Author].
Before beginning any activity or launching any action he used to make prayer before Guru and God; similarly, he used to attribute all his victories and successes to God. This declaration was even inscribed on the coin issued by him:
Sikka zad bar har do aalam, tegh-i-Naanak wahib ast.
Fateh Gobind Singh shah-i-shahaan fazal-i-sacha sahib ast.
(Meaning: With the blessing of the True Lord, this coin is issued in the two worlds. Guru Nanak’s sword is the granter of everything. With the blessing of God, Guru Gobind Singh, the emperor of emperors has been victorious).
Similarly, his first declaration of victory said:
Azmat-i Naanak Guru ham zahiro ham batan ast.
Padshah din-o-dunian aap sacha sahib ast.
(Meaning: Inside and outside, all over, it is glory of Guru Nanak. The True Lord is the master of temporal and transcendental domains).
These two wordings (statements) unequivocally affirm that Banda Singh considered the Sikh rule as the empire of Guru Nanak Sahib and Guru Gobind Singh, and not his own. Even in his seal, he owed all his victory, achievements and power to Guru Sahibs.
Degh-o-tegh-o-fateh-o-nusrat bedirang.
Yafat az Naanak – Guru Gobind Singh.
(Meaning: Wealth, power and all victory; have been achieved without any difficulty. With the blessing of Nanak – Guru Gobind Singh).
Nowhere did Banda Singh even wish to get acknowledged that “God had got it achieved through Banda Singh” as was done by Maharaja Ranjit Singh who, having spent a small amount (out of the rich treasure achieved through the sacrifices of the thousands of the Sikhs) for gold-plating Darbar Sahib, got his name cleverly inscribed on the main gate of Darbar Sahib. (It is remarkable to note that about half of the gold at Darbar Sahib had been donated by Bhangi Misl but their name does not appear anywhere). Besides, Ranjit Singh got himself addressed as Singh Sahib (literally: Master/Lord of the Singhs) and tried to give himself the status of almost a Guru.
Banda Singh was such a Sikh that he used to ask others also to: meditate upon the name of God, obey His will, be dedicated to the Guru and live the life as per Gurmat (i.e. as per Guru’s teachings). A letter, claimed to have been written by him to the Sikhs of Jaunpur, reads:
“It is the command of the True Lord (not Banda Singh) that Guru shall be the protector of all the Sikhs of Jaunpur. Meditate upon the name of the Guru. You are the Khalsa of the Timeless (God)…obey the Khalsa Rahit (code of conduct)… keep loving relations with each other. It is my command that God will help those who obey the Khalsa rahit (not Banda Singh’s).” [Non-Italics, in parenthesis, are mine, for explanantion – Author].
Banda Singh’s act of marrying (once or twice) was in no way an act against Sikh fundamentals (rather it was the right action); a Sikh is expected to live the life of a householder and he must not be a bairagi or udasi; this, however, does not mean that a Sikh cannot remain bachelor, and, if a Sikh wishes to live his life (like Bhai Gurdas) by not marrying, he may choose to do so; but, otherwise, instead of having extra-marital relations or having illicit affairs, marriage is the right choice for a Sikh.
Likewise, to say that Banda Singh ever wished himself to be treated as Guru is grave injustice to him; he never behaved as a Guru or alike; there is not even a slight reference to
such an act by him. This too is wrong that he changed waheguruji ki/di fateh into fateh darshan; he did choose fateh darshan16 as war-cry. In fact, on the 10th of May 1710, when the Mughal army reached the battle field at Chappar Chiri, they began raising slogans/war-cry of allah hu akbar and as a squel to it Banda Singh and other Sikh generals coined an equally befitting war cry fateh darshan;17 the sound of this war cry resembled the Mughal war-cry and the echo of this war-cry had alike effect in the battle-field.18
16 (Jo) bole so nihaal, akaal akaal akaal (bole so nihaal, sat sri akal too is a later development) was available then too, but it was too long, and, fateh darshan was short, hence easy to use in battle-field.
17 Some scholars reject even this view that he had coined the war-cry ‘Fateh Darshan’. They believe that this too might be propaganda by anti Banda Singh section or by the Mughals. But, this term has been referred to even in the Persian writings.
18 Elliot and Dowson, vol VII, p 414.
The truth is that after having initiation and spending one full month with Guru Gobind Singh, Banda Singh had become a real, genuine and practicing Sikh; it is grave injustice to him, and to history, to level such an allegation against a person who had been having a big dera, a large number of followers and a grand life-style, but renounced all this to become a genuine and true Sikh. It is sheer ungratefulness to devalue such a great hero who made such a grand contribution to the Sikh nation and to the humanity. It is a grave sin against such a great general and martyr and against humanity. Moreover, he could live a luxurious life simply by embracing Islam. He refused to renounce his faith and accepted to brave the most heinous torture of history. If, still, he is to be labelled as a non-genuine Sikh, then there can’t be any better Sikh than him on this earth.
It seems that the so-called sahibzadas’ section (Sarup Das Bhalla), in order to establish themselves as the successors of the Gurus (or even to be considered as Gurus) and/or to establish their superiority, and, get undue respect (and offerings/donations) from the Sikh people (and/or to make the Sikhs forget their collaboration with the Mughals), did this injustice to Banda Singh in the name of so-called Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa. This is rape of history and an act of ungratefulness.
(Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer)
16 (Jo) bole so nihaal, akaal akaal akaal (bole so nihaal, sat sri akal too is a later development) was available then too, but it was too long, and, fateh darshan was short, hence easy to use in battle-field.
17 Some scholars reject even this view that he had coined the war-cry ‘Fateh Darshan’. They believe that this too might be propaganda by anti Banda Singh section or by the Mughals. But, this term has been referred to even in the Persian writings.
18 Elliot and Dowson, vol VII, p 414.