Mutiny Of 1857: The Search For Truth

[amar_jkp]

So, even on the testimony of these two, by no means friendly writers, it is clear that Sikh writers do not support the theory that the Guru accepted employment under Bahadur Shah. Moreover, Macauliffe, who based his narrative on a discriminate study of the Sikh writers, says that the Guru assisted Bahadur Shah on the mediation of Bhai Nand Lal and accompanied him to the Deccan of his own free will, having been invited to do so by the Emperor.[12]

Thus, we see that there is no truth in Cunningham’s statement that 'the Sikh writers are unanimous in giving to their great teacher a military command in Deccan.' Inall probability, in his statement about the Sikh writers, Cunningham has relied entirely on Forster, who makes a similar assertion about the Guru on the alleged authority of 'the' Sikhs.' To that we shall come later.

Having thus disposed of the alleged corroboration of the service theory by the Sikh writers, we may now turn to the others. Cunningham's authorities are Forster and Khafi Khan, and Latif's, Malcolm, Forster and Khafi Khan.

Of the three writers cited by Latif, Sir John Malcolm is definitely of the opposite opinion. He cannot even 'think' that the Guru could have 'sunk into a servant of that Government against which he had been in constant rebellion.' Here is the whole passage: 'When we consider the enthusiastic ardour of his mind, his active habits, his valour, and the insatiable thirst of revenge which he had cherished through life against the murderers of his father and the oppressors of his sect, we cannot think, when that leading passion of his mind must have been increased by the massacre of his children and the death and mutilation of his most attached followers that he would have remained inactive, much less that he would have sunk into a servant of that Government against which he had been in constant rebellion. Nor is it likely that such a leader as Guru Gobind (Singh) could ever have been trusted by a Muhammadan prince.'[13]

As for Khafi Khan, the contemporary historian we must remember that he cannot, at all, be relied upon as a trustworthy historian for two reasons: First, he had not the independence which a historian must possess, if he is to write true history. He was writing under the eyes of his monarchs and could not examine their actions critically, or even describe them faithfully[14]. Secondly, his very mental outfit unfits him as a historian in matters relating to the 'infidels: against whom he vents his scorn and hatred at every occasion. To him the Emperor was the 'Keeper of the Faith' and opposition offered to him was offered to Islam, to God, and to his deputy on earth. Such minds cannot record history as they lack the necessary outfit. He does not possess even the ordinary human courtesy and decency which make a man refer to his opponents in inoffensive language. With men of his type, abuse and vilification are an argument. When we find Khafi Khan referring to Guru Gobind Singh by extremely undignified and unbecoming appellations.[15] We can at once form an idea of the scant justice which the Guru could have had at his hands.

But what shall we say of Latif's integrity when even such a bigoted and biased writer as Khafi khan does not at all mention the alleged fact of the Guru's having accepted employment under the Mughal Emperor. All that he writes can be translated as under:

[amar_jkp]

'During the days when Bahadur Shah directed his attention towards Hiaderabad or when he started towards that place, one of the leaders of that infamous community, Govind by name, came unto the presence of the emperor, accompanied by two or three hundred sowars carrying spears and some infantry and proceeded in the company of the emperor.[16]

The Guru is thus described by Khafi Khan as a 'companion,' not a servant of Bahadur Shah. It has to be noted that the Persian words 'rajaqat' is the abstract noun from rafiq or companion, and means 'companionship' or 'company.' It does not connote any difference of status between the persons concerned. The service theory seems to have originated from an intentional or accidental mistranslation or mutilation of Khafi Khan's passage. So Khafi Khan also does not corroborate Latif.

Forster, who, according to his own admission, had no 'substantial authority' from which he could deduce the history of the Sikhs, writing in 1783, does state on the authority of 'the Sicques'[17] whom, significantly enough, he does not name, that Guru Gobind Singh 'received marks of favour from Bahadur Shah, who, being apprised of his military abilities, gave him a charge in the army which marched into the Deccan to oppose the rebellion of KamBucksh.' For his account of the Sikhs he states to have relied on 'some large historical tracts,' whose authors he has not named. He is the first writer to give currency to the service theory, but, curiously enough, he has not stated his authority for his strange assertion. Perhaps, he had no authority worth the name, and relied on the statements of some of the mutilators of Khafi Khan or on those of some vilifies of the Guru. Anyhow, in the absence of such information, it cannot be maintained that he based his narrative on authentic recorded as unquestionable. In fact, a perusal of his account of the Sikhs leads one to the conclusion that either his authorities were unreliable, or he himself did not study them with the care that should distinguish a writer who would claim credence as an authority.[18]

All that has been said above will, we hope, convince the reader that the story of the Guru's employment under Bahadur Shah is nothing but a myth, 'manufactured,' as Forster would say, by some detractors of the Guru and accepted by Forster as the gospel truth. His colossal ignorance of the Guru's views and acts precluded him from a critical examination of a statement which was utterly inconsistent with the Guru's ideal, views and acts. Forster's statement is incredible also from another point of view. Bahadur Shah could not have been so ignorant of the 'military abilities' of the Guru, about whom Aurangzeb, his father, had always 'felt anxious: against whom he had to order out the armies of Delhi, Sarhind and Lahore, and whom he had to 'summon to his presence,' as Forster would have us believe. The well-known military abilities of the Guru, who had spent all his life in creating and organizing a sturdy race of warriors to oppose and destroy the tyrannical rule of the Mughals would have been a disqualification for any service under Mughals even if it had been sought for by that foe of the unjust rule.

It is thus seen that out of that authorities quoted by Cunningham and Latif, the Sikh writers, without a single exception, nowhere say that the Guru took service with Bahadur Shah; Malcolm is strongly opposed to the service-theory; Khafi Khan makes no mention of such service; only Forster, relying on mere hearsay, and having, according to his own admission, no substantial authority for him account of the Sikhs, makes the astounding statement that the Guru accepted service. His statement cannot be accepted as true. In fact, he makes many ridiculous errors in his account of the Sikhs, errors which totally discredit him as an authority on Sikh history. In short, the service theory is a concoction of some of the Guru's detractors. There is no historical evidence in its favour.

[amar_jkp]

After having thus exposed the absurdity and untruth ~f the allegation started by Forster that the Guru accepted service in the expeditionary force led by Bahadur Shah. We shall produce incontrovertible contemporary evidence to refute that allegation. Tarikhi- Bahadur Shahi says as follows: "At the time the army was marching southwards towards Burhanpur. Guru Gobind (Singh), one of the descendants of (Guru) Nanak, had come into these districts to travel, and accompanied the royal camp. He was in the habit of constantly addressing assemblies of worldly persons, religious fanatics, and all sorts of people."

It is clear from the above that the Guru had gone to those parts to travel, of his own free will. He was not taken there by the Emperor as military commander. Moreover, no man in government service, much less a military commander proceeding on an important expedition, could have been allowed to indulge in such activities.

Again, J.S. Sarkar, who wrote his valuable historical works after an extensive study and research, says, "In 1707, the new emperor. Bahadur Shah induced him (Guru Gobind Singh) to accompany him on the march to Rajputana and the Deccan."

To sum up, we may say that the Guru proceeded southwards of his own free will and choice. He joined the company of Bahadur Shah on the latter's invitation and did join as a companion and not as a servant. The authors of the service theory have exhibited deplorable lack of a proper grasp of the subject in having ascribed to the Guru motives which are altogether incompatible with his known views and acts. When we remember that he still had in the Punjab, devoted disciples like Dall Singh, Ram Singh, Tilok Singh, Shamira, and hosts of others, who had importuned him, again and again, to stay on with them as their Lord, and that, if he had so wished, he could have passed the rest of his life in the Punjab in perfect peace and safety, we fail to find what relish the Guru could find in holding a command in the Muhammadan army. A jagir and principality, which he was offered but which he declined, would have been far more tempting and more lasting acquisitions. He had, all through his career, defended the weak against the strong and had sacrificed his all for the sake of his ideals. He was convinced that the Muhammadan rule had become a curse for the country. He was exerting every nerve to rid the people and the Country of this curse. How could he have agreed to become a servant in the same rule?

We should also remember that fighting for its own sake did not possess any attraction for him. By nature, he was far more inclined towards a life of peace and peaceful activity. All his wars were forced on him by those who opposed his campaign for the establishment of an era of justice and equality in social, political, and economic spheres.

Bahadur Shah was no doubt favourably disposed towards the Guru, but still he was a son of his father and a follower of the Prophet. He could not have altogether reversed the policy of his father which had also been the general policy of his past Muhammadan kings. Having no personal enmity with any man such, the Guru found nothing low or wrong in meeting and trying to persuade the Emperor to assume milder ways. But his becoming a pan of the very system which he was out to destroy, root and branch, is altogether incredible. The memory of the wrong that had been heaped on him, as well as that of the terrible woes of the people at large, were too fresh in him to have reconciled him to joining the army of oppression. Nor, as Dr. G.C. Narang writes, 'Can the service theory be reconciled with the Guru's commission of Banda Bahadur to the leadership of the Punjab Khalsa and his doings there.' Moreover, the Guru's ideals and political views were so well known, his ability as a general, leader, and teacher of men, had been so amply demonstrated, that no Muhammadan prince could have trusted him with a position in his army.

-

[amar_jkp]

The act shows the wonderful magnanimity of the Guru's heart. Just think of what he, his ancestors, and his Sikhs had suffered at the hands of the Mughals. Jahangir had, out of religious bigotry, ordered the torture and execution of Guru Aljan Dev, and had put Guru Har Gobind in prison in the fort of Gawalior. Shah Jahan had four times sent the Imperial armies against Guru Har Gobind. Guru Hari Rai and Guru Hari Krishan had been molested under the order of Aurangzeb. This last had also ordered the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur at Delhi. Guru Gobind Singh's four sons and his aged mother had also been taken away from him as a result of Aurangzeb's hostility. His Sikhs had fallen in thousands. His wife and the mother of the Khalsa had been separated from him. He himself had been pursued and hunted. Think of all his sufferings. Yet when a son of that Aurangzeb and descendant of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, sought his help to enforce his right to the throne, the Guru readily agreed to help him.

[2]. Gur Sobha, xvi.35; Bahadur-Shah-Nama, entry dated 4th Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 1119 A.H. (July 23, 1707); Guru Gobind Singh’s letter to the Sangar of Dhaul dated 1st Katik, 1764/ October 2, 1707.

[3]. That the Guru was hopeful of ending the age-old differences with the Mughals is borne out by his letter dated October 2, 1707, addressed to the Sangat of DhauI. In that letter he refers to 'other things which were progressing satisfactorily·. These other things were surely his negotiations for peace and goodwill.

[4]. Daulat Rai, Life of Guru Gobind Singh (Urdu); Twarikh Guru Khalsa, Gian Singh.

[5]. Lala Daulat Rai, Life of Guru Gobind Singh, (Urdu).

[6]. Tawarikh Guru Khalsa

[7]. Contemporary evidence exists "to show that the Guru, while travelling with Bahadur Shah, used to deliver to the people of the south his great message, and thereby arouse in them a sense of their duty towards their community and country. The writer of Tarikh·i-Bahadur Shahiwas at Delhi at the time of Aurangzeb's death. He writes, "At the time the army (of Bahadur Shah) was marching southwards towards Burhanpur, Guru Gobind Singh one of the descendants of (Guru) Nanak, had come into these districts to travel, and accompanied the royal camp. He was in the habit of constantly addressing assemblies of worldly persons, religious fanatics, and all sorts of people."-Vide History of India by its Own Historians, Vol 7, page 566.

[8]. Bachittar Natak

[9]. According to Trumpp, at Damdama alone the Guru gained 1, 20,000 disciples. (xcii)

[10]. All are agreed that the Guru's life at Damdama Sahib was full of activity and achievement. Reproduced below are excerpts from books of three writers to show what he achieved there :

(a) 'He settled in a village of Malwa and remained peaceful, only bent on making disciples in which he is said to have been very successful. He built there a large residence for himself, and called it Damdama. This place became the Senares of Sikhs'. (Trumpp, xcii)

( 'The Guru went to Malwa and lived there in peace for some time, occupying himself in making proselytes to his religion, not a difficult ·~ask, considering that the people about that part of the country were in a state of lamentable ignorance. He built here a spacious house for his residence, which he called the Damdama.' (Latif, page 266)

[so, even this bigoted writer admits that the Guru achieved remarkable success in spreading his Faith while at Damdama. His remark about the ignorance of the people is simply an indication of the brain fever which came on him when he was confronted with Guru's splendour and success.]

© 'Secure in his new retreat (at Damdama) [Guru] Govind (Singh) re-established his court, and surrounded himself with all the pomp and circumstance of royalty, Damdarna became the center of Sikhism, 'and a place of resort for learned men from all parts of the country. Numberless new recruits joined the ranks of the Khalsa and the position of (Guru) Govind Singh became stronger than ever before.' (C.H. Payne, pages, 41-42)

[11]. Footnote to page 268. His book was written in 1889. Speaking of the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur and its effect on the mind of Guru Gobind Singh, Latif writes:- 'The violent and miserable end of the martyred Guru, and his last injunctions, had made such a strong impression on the mind of (Guru) Gobind (Singh) that he longed to wreak vengeance on the murderers of his father and the persecutors of his race, and became the inveterate and irreconcilable enemy of every Mohamrnadan.' Page 261.

It has been seen that the Guru had no enmity with Muhammadans as such. Still, it would be interesting to know how Latif would reconcile the 'inveterate and irreconcilable' enmity of the Guru against 'every Mohammandan' with his accepting service with 'the murderers of his father and the persecutors of his race.' Latif seems to have read neither Sir John Malcolm, Forster, Khafi Khan, nor any other of the 'various writers' who 'confirm' his statement. In his preface he does not mention either Forster or Khafi Khan among the authors to whose work he was 'obliged for the portion relating to the Sikhs', or, in fact, for any portion of his history. He has based his note on a foot-note of Elphinstone's History of India. That foot-note, however, he has either, misconstrued, or perhaps, in his zeal to throw mud at the Guru, misconstrued. Elphinstone refers to Sir John Malcolm and 'Forster's Travels page 263' in support of his statement that Guru Gobind Singh was 'murdered by a private enemy at Nander, in the Dekhan'. Then he adds the words about 'the Moghal service' ('The latter writer......Khafi Khan'), which have been copied verbatim by Latif without acknowledgement, as is usual with him. See Elphinstone's History of India. 9th Edition, page 664, f.n. 7.'

[12]. See his Sikh Religion, VoI.V, page 232. J.N. Sarkar also writes, 'In 1707, the new emperor, Bahadur Shah I, induced him (Guru Gobind Singh) to accompany him on the march to Rajputana and the Deccan.'

[13]. op cit, pp.71-72.

[14]. Forster has a very instructive passage about these writers of Eastern record. In the foot-note to page 253 he writes : 'Neither the genius of the people, nor the form of their government is favourable to the growth of history, which is rarely seen to flourish on despotic ground. The actions of the Asiatic princes are usually recorded by their own scribes; and we know that a large portion of the annals of India was manufactured under imperial inspection. It is, therefore, scarcely within the verge of probability, that a writer attracted by so powerful an influence, would dare to have thrown the piercing light of history on the reigning monarch, or even to have examined with freedom the actions of his ancestors, who have, for more than two hundred years, maintained an unbroken succession of the Empire of Hindustan.'

[15]. Vide page. 652.

[16]. Khafi Khan's Munrakhab-ul-Lubab has suffered many mutilations in the course of time. The most authentic text of this work is the one published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1874. This text is also taken to be authentic by Sir Charles Elliot, the writer of the 'History of India as told by its Own Historians.' According to this text Khafi Khan's actual words, a translation of which has been given above, are :-

'Dar ayyame kih Bahadur Shah badshah mutwajjah Haiderabad gardidant Goving nam az sargrohan-i-an-quam-i-bad-nam bahazur rasidoh. ba do sad sih sad sawar neza-bardor-o-piyadoh dar rakab-rafaqat namnd.

J.N. Sarkar, who has carried out extensive researches about the History of the Mughals, has also placed reliance on the above text; for he writes :- 'In 17m, the new emperor Bahadur Shah I, induced him (Guru Gobind Singh) to accompany him on the march to Rajputana and the Deccan. The Guru reached Nander on the Godavari, I50 miles north-west of Haiderabad, in Auguest 1707 at the head of some infantry and two or three hundred cavalry, and there, after a stay of more than a year, he was stabbed by an Afghan.'

[17]. We have already seen that Sikhs do not at all 'concede' that the Guru accepted 'service' in Bahadur Shah's army. How could they have told Forster what he writes on their authority?

[18]. Forster himself, it may be noted, is conscious of this shortcoming; for. on page 253 of his Travels, he admits that he has no 'substantial authority' from whom he could deduce the history of the Sikhs from the time of Guru Nanak, 'their first institutor and Jaw-giver', to the attainment of their present state of national importance.' He deplores 'the irresistible tendency of the Asiatic mind to fiction which makes the 'Eastern record' unreliable as history, and pleads for 'an indulgent scope.'

[tonyhp32]

When would

The Akhbar-i-Darbar-i-Mualla of November 30, 1711 informs that “the rebel Guru [banda Singh Bahadur] wrote to Raja Ajit Singh and Raja Jai Singh that they come to his territory. They [the Sikhs] should be considered to have reached their territory. The Rajas killed the spies of the rebels and told that they were the servants of the Emperor. The rebels would be captured or killed soon.” It further adds, "Muhammed Amin Khan wrote to Raja Ajit Singh and Raja Ajit Singh if they jointly marched against the rebel leader they could capture or kill him soon. The Rajas wrote in reply that the matter be reported to the Emperor. In case the Mughals were attacked by the rebels they [Rajas] would immediately reach there".The Mughals who entertained apprehensions that the Rajput Rajas were in league with the Sikhs, had very tactfully prevented the Rajas to enter into any understanding with the Sikhs. To recapitulate, we can say that when the Sikhs under the leadership of Banda Singh Bahadur were fighting the Mughals to establish their own rule, the Rajput chiefs were sitting on the fringe totally unconcerned. They were satisfied to administer their hereditary possessions under the suzerainty of the Mughals. Unfortunately, they spurned Banda Singh Bahadur's proposal of Sikh–Rajput alliance which would have been a formidable challenge to the Mughal empire at that time.

[aksantali]

The guy is a Hindu loser who hasn't achieved much in his life apart from some bogus political science degree so he needs to portray himself as a Sikh to have some level of self respect. Interesting point, have you ever come across a Sikh pretending to be a Hindu online and yet there are literally thousands of Hindu losers pretending to the Sikhs. Historically the only way a Hindu in Punjab could stop being a dhimmi and have any self respect was to become a Sikh. Maybe this is a modern day perversion of that process.

this is so true! pathetic jihadi hindu extremists.

[JungChamkaur]

lmao you guys cant even compete with kangra who defeated mughals 52 times... rajputs of rajasthan are a stretch. please go do the math and then talk. even dasambani praises the katoch raja who slew many brave warriors and shouted kaal everywhere he went. they later defeated ranjit too and retook kangra and siba defeated ranjit too. mian dido defeated sikhs over ten times. have some shame... 84 looms over your airheads.

[amar_jkp]

lmao you guys cant even compete with kangra who defeated mughals 52 times... rajputs of rajasthan are a stretch. please go do the math and then talk. even dasambani praises the katoch raja who slew many brave warriors and shouted kaal everywhere he went. they later defeated ranjit too and retook kangra and siba defeated ranjit too. mian dido defeated sikhs over ten times. have some shame... 84 looms over your airheads.

Looks who is talking about Shame . Have you ever heard of Hindu Kush ? Gauri , Gazni and many more . You balloon of Rajput bravery has already been burst so shut up . Character of Hill Rajas are already known , they were mughal slaves .

[amar_jkp]

The traveler George Forster was an eyewitness to the siege of Kangra by Sansar Chand (1783)—the Katoch ruler had taken the aid of the Sikh chief Jai Singh of the Kanhaiya misl. The Mughal commander in Kangra, Nawab Saif Ali Khan, made an alliance with the neighboring state of Bilaspur. Mr. Forster passed through the Bilaspur army's camp and describes it as, "about 300 horses and 8000 footmen, armed with matchlocks, swords, spears, and clubs, huddled together on two sides of a hill, in a deep state of confusion and filth." The Kangra camp only had some horsemen since the main Katoch forces were besieging Kangra Fort.

Forster also describes the territory of Kangra, which he calls Katochin, as yielding revenue, "estimated at seven lacs of rupees, which has been much diminished by the chief's alliance with the sicques."

The Sikh chief broke his word to Sansar Chand by secretly bribing the dead Nawab's men and occupying the fort. Sansar then allied with the Sukarchakia and Ramgharia misls to defeat Jai Singh, and finally got possession of his ancestral fort (1786). His forces now freed up, Sansar Chand launched attacks on other hill states—Chamba (to the west) was attacked and a portion annexed, the tiny state of Kutlehr (to the south) was entirely annexed, and Mandi in the upper Beas valley was partly occupied, its chief taken prisoner, and its main fort Kamlagarh besieged.

At his capital Sujanpur Tira the Katoch Maharaja built a reception hall with 22 gates, through which other hill-chiefs were to enter and pay homage to him. A saying common at his court was Lahore prapt (may you gain Lahore) and following this ambition he twice invade the Punjab plains but was repulsed by Ranjit Singh, then rising to power among the Sikhs.

[amar_jkp]

By 1800 the Gorkhas of Nepal had spread their power west to Uttarakhand and looked ambitiously at the hills of Himachal. After some skirmishes the Katoch and the Gorkhas settled their borders on the Satluj River. Boxed in on two sides, Sansar invaded old enemy Bilaspur and annexed half the state——the Bilaspur chief fled to the Gorkhas and formed an alliance with them. The other hill-chiefs, fearing for their own fates, also joined this coalition led by the Gorkha commander Amar Singh Thapa.

At this time the Ruhela chief Ghulam Mohammed was living as a refugee in Kangra. He convinced Sansar to disband his old army and recruit Ruhela soldiers at lower pay—while this change was being undertaken the Gorkhas invaded, joined by the forces of other Rajas. The new Ruhela levies were scattered, the Katoch forces besieged in their forts including Sansar at Kangra, and the Mandi Raja was liberated and sent to recover his state. The Katoch forces defended their forts and held out for four years!

Reduced to eating leaves and boiled bark in Kangra, Sansar Chand opened negotiations for peace, but secretly left Kangra and asked for the aid of Ranjit Singh, who by this time (1809), had become the Maharaja of Punjab. The two monarchs met at Jwalamukhi—with his hand on the sacred flame Ranjit promised to aid Sansar, taking Kangra Fort as the price of this alliance.

[amar_jkp]

Kangra was ceded to british after Anglo Sikh war .

[Guest]

Enough said on this topic..Topic is now locked.