Hello Mumbai National Desk
The very fact that even after the calamities that fell upon the 10th Guru Gobind Singh at the hands of Mughal Forces, did not stop him from being a camp follower of Aurangzeb’s successor Bahadur Shah 1st, is proof that Guru Saheb did not hold the late emperor responsible for his travails. According to contemporary historian Khafi Khan, he was very sympathetically and even generously dealt with by the new emperor in Agra – where from he accompanied him with his spear bearers. At his behest he had travelled to the Deccan where he got murdered in 1708 by a Pathan holding a personal grudge against him.
But unarguably a most painful chapter of Sikh history remains the tragic death in Sirhind of Fateh Singh aged 9 and Zorawar Singh aged 6 in late December 1704 (1705), the two young Sahibzadas – sons of the 10th Sikh Guru, Guru Govind Singh. Not to forget the equally lamentable martyrdom of Ajit Singh aged 17 and Jhujar Singh aged 13 – older sons of the Guru who gave their lives fighting most valiantly for the safety of their father and upholding the principles of their religion in the battle of Chamkaur in early December 1704 (1705).
There is no denying the fact that the tender aged Sahibzadas were put to death by Wazir Khan the Foujdar of Sirhind after they, along with their grand mother Mata Gurji, were treacherously handed over-to the Moghals by an old family servant Gangu, a Hindu Brahmin after robbing them of their considerable valuables.
However there is uncertainty about how exactly were they put to death. This lack of clarity, in fact on many other issues also, leads us to the bigger question of actually who was responsible for what and who the larger blame should be apportioned to.
All Sikh history from advent of Babur in India in 1526 and his chance meeting with Guru Nanak – already reputed as a spiritual person with monotheistic views and pious character, is looked upon from a Sikh versus Muslim context. Though Hindu versus Sikh context is equally important, if not more, it is not looked into with the depth it deserves. Hence, a lot of confusion, lack of clarity misunderstanding and misconception.
With this in mind, let us take a peep into history focusing on just the unfortunate martyrdom of the younger Sahibzadas.
The Hindu Rajas of the Shivalik range, about a dozen in number, had become very restless about the growing religious and military clout of especially the 10th Guru.
J D Sarkar, Dr. Omprakash Prasad, Bishamber Nath Pandey, R C Majumdar and many other historians also say in different ways that the Guru’s soldiers had started looting areas under the control of the Rajas who were complaining that gifts and tributes were being forcefully collected by the Masands – a type of Officers, of the Guru. Even the areas under imperial control were not being spared. A lot of wealth had accumulated in his hands and militarisation of his followers was stepped up by him by creating the “Khalsa” in 1699. A highly objectionable act of his was reportedly taking in his employ about 500 Shia Hazara Pathan soldiers who were fugitives and wanted by the imperial court.
Though armed clashes took place between the Guru’s soldiers and those of the Rajas of Bilaspur, Guler etc in 1702, 03 also resulting in victory for Guru Saheb, matters came to a head, in 1705.
After a vehement appeal once again, imperial force had to be despatched for the help of the beleaguered Rajas. The siege of the Anandpur Fort and the skirmishes that followed resulted in the capture and consequent death of the sons of the Guru and also his mother. She died of shock while in prison in the “Thanda Burj” – Cold Tower, on hearing about the death of the young Sahibzadas.
During the disturbances that stretched to a good few years starting 1688, before and after the fateful battle, the hill Rajas also played deplorable roles.
So much so that, while in hiding consequent to his escape from the Chamkaur siege, and the personal tragedies that befell on him, extremely anguished, Guru Gobind Singh wrote a complaint titled ZAFARNAMA in Persian Verse to emperor Aurangzeb – now based in the Deccan for the past many years.
A key Couplet of it reads:
MANAM KUSHTA KOOHIYAN BUTPARAST,
KE AAn BUTPARAST WA MAN BUTSHIKAST. “ You are killing me for the idol worshipping hill people,
Even though they are idol worshippers and I an idol breaker “,
Impartial reading of this, rather debatably translated long poem, written and sent by special messenger Bhai Daya Singh to Aurangzeb, hardly blames the emperor directly for the tragedies which fell on the Guru.
ZAFARNAMA, 1705/06, is the earliest record of the painful fate of the Sahibzadas which has been alluded to. Other sources which were put down on paper are of a much later vintage. The legends were carried forward orally by Bards (Kathavachics) and can’t be taken as absolute truth. It is but understood that Bards tend to exaggerate and are not particularly trained for narrating events in their truest form even decades after the events. No wonder genuine researchers like Khushwant Singh and Grewal, without disputing the allegations about the depredations of the Guru’s soldiers, give reasons for it to happen out of necessity.
BHAT VAHIS, early 18th Century, GURBILAS PATSHAHI DASAN, 1751, which details martyrdom, BANASVALINAMA DASAN PATSHAHAN 1769 / 70 comprehensive chronological narration of the Ten Gurus, are all texts written in Gurmukhi and understandably for a home audience. Yet the same cannot be brushed aside as false or untrue narratives. Care however needs to taken for separating fiction from fact. Margin should also be given for discrepancies creeping in due to faulty translation.
The Sahibzadas were bricked alive is a view held by majority of the researchers. But the brick wall kept falling down is not, and yet it found a way in popular belief.
The Sahibzadas were given the option to convert to Islam, I don’t think there can be any denying of this fact. But were forcefully being exhorted to convert is a figment of some zealous bard’s imagination. LA IKRAHA FIDDEEN – “there is no compulsion in religion” is an all too important INJUNCTION in the QURAN.
The later date highly motivated historians who came onto the scene, simply latched upon the allegation or hearsay because it suited their agenda of concocted history writing better suited for the British.
A serially under reported fact of the matter is; it is incumbent upon the Qazi – judge, to offer to non Muslim enemies of the state, Islam as a religion to covert to and escape death. The intent in such cases is to provide an opportunity to the accused to reform himself by subjecting one’s self to a standard code of conduct.
In this tragic case, the brave Sahibzadas chose death over compromise on religious belief. When repeatedly asked what would be their course of action if set free, their stock and bold reply was: ‘we shall continue the fight for what our father strived for’. Hallmark of well brought up children!
Hard to accept as it may be, but
this rigid code of jurisprudence was more rigidly followed with arguably the exception of very few, in Aurangzeb’s time, than any body else’s. Sufi Sarmad, Dara Shikoh, Prince Murad, Sambhaji, all paid with their life for having got themselves hauled up before a Qazi.
Hence my reservations about who to hold mainly responsible for the tragedy of loss of young lives which hadn’t even reached double digits in age.
One ) Hindu Rajas of the Hills who were getting overly perturbed by the growing military might of a Spiritual leader acquiring all the trappings of a temporal authority within their jurisdiction?
Two ) A strict disciplinarian emperor or officers of his administration who were duty bound to quell disturbances of an armed rebellion kind – especially so when appeals for help were coming in from a confederacy of Rajput Rajas having suffered reverses at the hands of a powerful adversary destabilising their region?
Three) Corrupt people like Suchanand the courtier, Gangu the treacherous servant, the betrayer Pathan soldiers etc, who all had their own axe to grind or interest to look after.
Or Four ) Guruji himself who was unfortunately coming in conflict with the local, regional and even the national authority with increasing regularity?
The matter definitively calls for a detached, thorough study by present day scholars.
Dr. Syed Inam ur Rahman. ( Ghayur )
Hyderabad
syedinamurrahman5@gmail.com
