JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 u cant handle the truth like all fudu ass khalistani losers... sikhs have done very little damage to invaders in comparison to other koms. time to wake up fro your slumber you fudu ass jatt liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 do this: calculate all the shaheeds of sikhs and the damages they caused and their regions' sizes and then compare them with each rajput clan and come back then.... you will see the truth for yourself and perhaps you can stop being a fanatic then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 dont forget to include 50,000+ women who have done jauhar... but add that later or leave it out.. the numbers will still devastate your false narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 how do you feel about sikhs' role in destroying punjab as we speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 rajputs also joined khalsa too.. or did u forget that... They joined as Khalsas, not as Rajputs, excepting where they were fighting internecine wars. you people are all losers afraid to read history thats the problem as long as we have the choice to read and make of history we will be winners. the losers will be those who try and force their own historical narrative on other. Kind of what you have done here today. u cant handle the truth like all fudu ass khalistani losers... sikhs have done very little damage to invaders in comparison to other koms. time to wake up fro your slumber you fudu ass jatt liars. u cant handle the truthg either which is why you resort to stupid swearwords, like it makes you big or clever. Listen buddy, it does neither. do this: calculate all the shaheeds of sikhs and the damages they caused and their regions' sizes and then compare them with each rajput clan and come back then.... you will see the truth for yourself and perhaps you can stop being a fanatic then. weird, cos you come across as a fanatic in your posts. how do you feel about sikhs' role in destroying punjab as we speak? The fact that what little of Panjab and Panjabi we have left IS dowqn to the Sikhs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksantali Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 excellent thread all sikhs should read and understand how to counter jihadi hindu extremist propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) history exposes khalistani lies... sikhs have a played a major role only in punjab... rajputs and marathas have sacrificed more lives, conquered more land, killed more enemies than sikhs.... anyone want to volunteer to get the numbers? you like sukha jinda so much yet you cant stand the fact that other koma have killed dozens more military officials.... you are the epitomy of shamelessness and ignorance. sikhs will never ever rise to great heights as long as we have losers like you. anyone who can calculate and read and analyze history properly can easily see the overshadowing impact of rajput marathas on indias struggle against foreigners.. like i said, please try to understand feudalism and hegemony before trying to chart history. the numbers will speak for themselves anyways and remember mian dido and the heinous acts done by ranjits soldiers in jammu when you lie about 100% purity. also remember how many times mian dido defeated ranjit compelling him to seek the aid of gulab singh the clan-traitor who then betrayed ranjit as well. Edited September 13, 2014 by JungChamkaur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksantali Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 all you fuddus can do is bark on forums you would never have the balls to debate a sikh in the real world..probably a bunch of teenagers yet to hit puberty especially that clown "jungchamkaur" he/she always makes me smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JungChamkaur Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 its funny you say that because i have encountered more coward sikhs than brave in my life... and that goes with every other community as well... and its also funny that khalistanis were saved by my relatives from beanta... yet you talk. have some shame coward. raise your head wen you get revenge for 84. until then shut your mouth and sit down and go calculate about the 200,000+ rajputs who have fought invaders and cry to yourself about your false khalistani narrative. udham sigh kills one official and hes the greatest... rajputs kill over 20 and their nothing? great logic.. dare to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 i think they should not have fought wars with the marathas and allied themselves with them against abdali. So they were traitors to your make believe country of India? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 of course they should have allied with the gurus. many rajputs did. im not sure why the jaipur jodhpur ones didnt, probably because of casteism and tribal mentality. nevertheless, they were baagi time and time again. their sacrifices against invaders cant be ignored or denigrated just because you want to create a black and white history of good and bad as if there is any kom that is 100% pure good. The Rajput slaves of the Mughal emperor were the first to rush at the request of the Bahadur Shah to take on Banda Singh Bahadur in Punjab. They even rejected the requests of Banda Singh Bahadur for an alliance against the Mughals. Like a true patriot of Punjab, Banda Singh answered their rejections with the words. KNOW THAT NOW THAT YOU ARE IN MY LAND THEN SOON I SHALL BE IN YOUR LAND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 What a hypocrate you are , you thousand excuses to defend Rajputs like they were not united , many tribes , they were wrong at some time but in past they did some good work blah blah and when it comes to Sikhs they all are guilty . If you hate Sikhs so much why have you Nihungs photo as you avatar and why naming your self jung chamkour ? 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Take a muslim title? Damn you really clutching at straws now to prove this rajput supremacy. I mean you must be really desperate to think that. All those Rajput warriors of Himachal that the fool has been masturbating over used the Muslim title Mian. This was given to them by the emperor Jahangir to show that they were dhimmis and slaves of the Mughal emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 history exposes khalistani lies... sikhs have a played a major role only in punjab... rajputs and marathas have sacrificed more lives, conquered more land, killed more enemies than sikhs.... anyone want to volunteer to get the numbers? you like sukha jinda so much yet you cant stand the fact that other koma have killed dozens more military officials.... you are the epitomy of shamelessness and ignorance. sikhs will never ever rise to great heights as long as we have losers like you. anyone who can calculate and read and analyze history properly can easily see the overshadowing impact of rajput marathas on indias struggle against foreigners.. like i said, please try to understand feudalism and hegemony before trying to chart history. the numbers will speak for themselves anyways and remember mian dido and the heinous acts done by ranjits soldiers in jammu when you lie about 100% purity. also remember how many times mian dido defeated ranjit compelling him to seek the aid of gulab singh the clan-traitor who then betrayed ranjit as well. That's a bit like someone from Nottingham saying look what our Robin Hood did to your King John! Mian Dido is a folk hero. If he managed to kill five soldiers from Lahore, a few years later the folk singers would have said that he killed a hundred. A hundred years later they would sat he defeated the whole Sikh army. You really don't know much about how these types of fold heroes become famous and their achievements at the time were minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 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. I agree Tony 22 , these Hindus spent too muh time in our forums some one say Rajput did more then Sikhs some will say Marathas did more and we have exposed the true charaters of both but like typical lala they would still goes on repeating same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Your knowledge of (and respect for) history is pathetic. Mughal emperor Bahadur shah started campaign against Banda Bahadur in 1708. You are alleging that "Rajput slaves of the Mughal emperor were the first to rush at the request of the Bahadur Shah to take on Banda Singh Bahadur in Punjab". It's not only factually incorrect but also contradictory. who became "slave" of Mughals and who did not, all recorded in history. Let's try to trace Guru sahib's footsteps before he went to Nanded and before Banda decided to avenge Guru sahib's humiliation and sahibzadas' murders. What was Bahadur Shah doing in June 1707 immediately after he became the Emperor? I would quote from Studies In Indian History: Rajasthan Through The Ages The Heritage Of ... By R.K. Gupta, S.R. Bakshi "The change of sovereigns took place in June, 1707 and towards the end of that year Bahadur Shah I, the new Emperor, started with his army for Rajputana where the 30 years' war provoked by Aurangzeb's seizure of Marwar after Maharajah Jaswant Singh's death, had reached a decisive turning point in the recovery of jodhpur ..." Guess who had joined Bahdur Shah's campaign against Rajputs? Guru Gobind Singhji. before leaving for Rajputana, bahadur Shah was involved in a crucial battle to grab the crown. To quote Sikh Institute website (in case you doubt other sources) On June 18, 1707 a decisive battle was fought at Jajau, southeast of Agra, near Samrugarh, where Aurangzeb had defeated his brother Dara Shikoh. Azam was killed. Muazzam won. As per tradition in Sikh books, Guru Gobind Singh had sent two to three hundred Sikhs to help Bahadur Shah, in his campaign for succession. It is also said that they played an important role in the battle at Jajau, and thus in his victory. At this time Bahadur Shah was on the move to punish Rajput Rajahs in the Rajasthan, who had sided with Prince Azam and fought against him at Jajau http://sikhinstitute.org/conn_th_dots/ch5.htm As far as banda's defeat is concerned, it's a well-recorded fact that he lost because of desertions by Tat Khalsa losers who accepted Farukhsiyar's jagirs. Think ten times before making such ill-informed taunts. When Aurangzeb died in the Deccan in the last week of February, 1707, his eldest son, Bahadur Shah was away in Afghanistan. His younger brother, Muhammad Azim, who was in the Deccan with his father, usurped the throne, took possession of the treasury, and assumed command of the Imperial army. Bahadur Shah hastened to fight for his father's throne. His opposing brother was better equipped. So he had to look out for assistance wherever he could expect to get it He had heard of the Guru's victories against the Hill Chiefs and the imperial forces. It was true that the Guru's power had been apparently broken and most of his soldiers dispersed, still Bahadur Shah knew that a word from the Guru could bring into the field of hundreds of soldiers who would never desert him or fly from the field. There was nothing low or unusual in his asking for the Guru's help. S.M. Latif gets unnecessarily irritated over the assertion of the Sikh writers that the Emperor sought and got the Guru's assistance in his struggle against his brother. Any sensible man in the position of Bahadur Shah would have looked for allies in all directions, and it was but natural for him to invite the Master of the Khalsa to his aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 It has been already stated that Bhai Nand Lal, a Secretary of Bahadur Shah, had, for a long time, taken shelter at the Guru's darbar, and that, on his advice, the Prince had once sought and obtained the Guru's blessings. When the war of succession began, Bahadur Shah sent Bahi Nand Lal to the Guru and requested him to help him in attaining the throne. Bhai Nand Lal met the Guru at Bhagaur in Rajputana, explained to him all that had happened, and conveyed to him Bahadur Shah's request for help in the war of succession. To the Guru there appeared to be nothing objectionable or against his ideals in helping a lawful claimant to the throne who was also a better man than his usurping brother. He was as an ally, and not as an employee, that the Guru was to help the Emperor. So, he sent Bhai Dharm Singh along with a band of his chosen Saint warriors. He also sent through them an order to the Khalsa to render all possible help to Bahadur Shah in the ensuing war of succession.[1] On June 8, 1707 a battle was fought at Jajau, near Agra, in which Bahadur Shah was victorious. His brother, Azam, was defeated and killed, and he ascended the throne. He then despatched Bhai Dharm Singh to inform the Guru of the victory and thank him on his behalf for his valuable help. He also expressed his strong desire to see the Guru, but pleaded that he himself was too busy to go to Guru, and hence, requested the latter to meet him at Agra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 The Guru accepted the Emperor's invitation. He retraced his steps to the north and met Bahadur Shah at Agra on Sawan 23, 1763 Bk/ July 24, 1707. He was received with the honour due to an ally and holy man; for it should be remembered that the Guru had many admirers among the Muslims, and that 'Hind luJ Pir' was the title by which he was known to the Muslim in general. Bahadur Shah gave the Guru a robe of honour and a jewelled scarf (dhukhdhukhi) worth 60 thousand rupees. That this was given to an ally and man of religion, and not to an employee or prospective employee, is shown by the fact that the Guru did not put it on there and then, as all honoured servants had to do, but had it carried to his camp by a Sikh?[2] Muslim writers, ever anxious to detract from the Guru's name and fame, take the 'bestowal' of this robe of honour as a mark of the Guru's having entered the service of the Emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 The Guru remained with the Emperor for a pretty long time, i.e. from July to November, 1707. Bahadur Shah was; of a milder disposition and far more tolerant in religious matters than Aurangzeb. He greatly enjoyed the Guru’s company and very often had religious discussions with him. The Guru was hopeful that he might be able to usher in an era of peace and better understanding between the Muslims and the non-Muslims through persuasion and by using his influence with the Emperor.[3] He constantly impressed upon the Emperor's mind the utter senselessness of the bigotry, animosity, and narrow-mindedness, with which the two great sections of the people regarded each other. He described to him the cruel and irreligious acts which this spirit had urged the Muharnmdan rulers to perpetrate. The chief sinner in this respect, as the reader knows, was Wazir Khan, Nawab of Sarhind. His deeds had perturbed even the pious though hard-hearted Aurangzeb. Bahadur Shah was greatly moved and he promised that, after he got firmly established on the throne, he would punish the murderer of the innocent children. In the meantime, he offered the Guru a big Jagir and large estate[4]. The Guru, however, declined the offer. Its acceptance would have meant an abandonment of his cherished ideal of bringing about an era of liberty and equality, a spirit of all brotherliness in the land. Form a creator and liberator of a nation he would have been reduced to the position of a mere chieftain. The establishment of temporal power for himself had never been his ambition. It was to fight out tyranny from the land that he had taken up the sword. If he had accepted the Emperor offer, all his exertion in the past for the uplift of a vanquished race would have begun to savour of personal ambition which his detractors have even now not hesitated to ascribe to him. So, he contended himself with urging the Emperor to restrain his lieutenants and Qazis from irreligious persecution of Hindus and Sikhs and to punish the guilty ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Friendly discussions and negotiations were yet going on when, in November, 1707 Bahadur Shah had to march into Rajputana against the Kachhvahas and, there from, to the Deccan to suppress the insurrection of his brother Kam Bakhsh. He invited the Guru to accompany him, if he was so pleased. The Guru had never advocated bloodshed and welfare for their own sake or in aggression. The accession of Bahadur Shah had, at least, suspended the unjust persecution against which the Guru had vowed to fight. It seemed possible now to accomplish by persuasion and discussion what in the past had to be attempted with the sword and the spear. So the Master promised to join him on the march and soon did so. They travelled together through Rajputana. Several Rajput Rajas came to pay homage to the Guru. Passing through such cities as Jaipur, Jodhpur, Chittaur, Poona, etc. they reached in the neighbourhood of Nander on the margin of the Godavari, in the present state of Hyderabad. The Emperor had his own motives in securing the Guru's company. In the first place he feared that, taking advantage of his absence from the capital, the Guru might gather his forces and start a war in order to avenge his great wrongs. In the second place, he knew the Guru's ability as a General and leader. He had designs to use him in curbing the Marathas. But when he requested the Guru to lead the army of attack, the latter refused point blank.[5] He had helped the Emperor against his usurping brother in the capacity of an ally. There was nothing wrong or unpatriotic in that act. But to help him in subjugating a race of sturdy Hindu warriors would have been not only an act of treachery against his people and country, but also an indefensible abnegation of all his lofty ideals. So, he did what he could never have done if he had been a servant of the Emperor. He refused to comply with his wishes, separated from him, and settled at the place which he called Abchalnagar variously stated by different writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Some, like Bute Shah and Malcolm, say that he went to the Deccan because, after the terrible reverses and bereavements which had been his lot, the Guru felt dejected and wanted a change. Others declare that he went thither as a servant of Bahadur Shah. Still others believe that the Guru felt that, though the seed of opposition to tyranny had been well sown in the Punjab, yet the Mughal rule was so firmly established there that, for some time to come, it would be difficult to gather afresh an army strong enough to challenge and rout the imperial forces. To sit idle and do nothing towards the furtherance of his ideals was distasteful to him. So he decided to try what could be done in the southern parts of India towards the fulfillment of his mission. He felt that what he had accomplished in the Punjab, eminently yet to a limited extent, could be achieved with greater ease and to a greater extent in the south, because the people there were more accustomed to the use of arms, and the Mughal rule was not so firmly established there. He had hopes of arousing in the Rajputs and Maharattas the will to do and dare for the holy task of liberating their country and uprooting the foreign tyrants rule. It is also said that the successors of Shivaji had made requests to the Guru for help[6]. It was with some such purpose that the Guru went southwards. The Rajputs welcomed him, listened to him, but felt themselves too weak to actively join a movement which was akin to rebellion against the Lord of Delhi. The Guru went still further. All along, he went on delivering his life-giving message to the people[7]. When Bahadur Shah sought to use him as his tool against the Marathas, he refused to oblige him and parted company. Still others, who implicitly believe in the Guru's spiritual powers, maintain that he went to the Deccan to deliver Banda from snares of occultism and austerities, and depute him to the Punjab as the general and temporal leader of the Khalsa. Still others are of the view that the Guru's object in accompanying the Emperor was to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the negotiations begun at Agra, and that, when he found that there was no hope of success in them, he separated from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Leaving the 'dejection theory' and the 'service theory' for a later consideration, we may say that it seem most likely that the three last mentioned motives exercised a combined effect in inducing the Guru to proceed to the Deccan. If the preaching of his message to the people had been his only object, it could have been accomplished much better by keeping away from the Emperor and his army. If it had been merely to win over and convert Banda, he would have gone straight to him. If it had been merely to conclude the negotiations begun at Agra, so much time and travelling were not necessary. The Guru stayed with the Emperor at Agra from July to November, 1707. Surely, that time would have been sufficient for that purpose, if the Emperor had been really serious and sincere. There were no complicated questions needing long and detailed examination, study, and thrashing out. If some points were really yet undetermined when the Emperor had to proceed to the Deccan, surely they could not have baffled the two, if the Emperor had meant real business. If he simply wanted to keep the matter hanging fire indefinitely, surely the Guru could have looked through his game much earlier. Altogether, the Guru was with the Emperor for over thirteen months. Should we believe that Bahadur Shah was able to dupe the Guru for so long with vague words and" false hopes? That would be an insult to the Guru's keen intelligence. On the other hand, if he had to waste so much time in getting a 'no' from the Emperor, he would have reacted far differently after the final disillusionment and the final breach. He would have himself come back to the Punjab and re-started his campaign against the tyrannical foreign rulers. The dejection theory does not fit in with Guru's behaviour in the face of his severest losses, trials, and sufferings. Indeed, his whole life is itself a strong, irrefutable contradiction of the assertions of these prejudiced or misinformed critics. Did reverses and bereavements plunge him in gloom and dejection? As a child of less than ten he pointed out to his father the way to martyrdom for the sake of the wretched people. He lost his father and stood face to face with the formidable Mughal Empire at its zenith. Did that break his tender yet might heart? He saw his dearest Sikhs killed before his eyes. He sent his two eldest sons unto certain death at Chamkaur. He had, by then, to all intents and purposes, lost the whole of his family-mother, sons, and wife. Did that plunge him in sorrow or dejection? If he I'ad so deep an affection for them as could make him take their loss so much to heart, he could surely have saved them all, by a timely fight from Anandpur. 'As for me.' he had declared, 'my body, my soul, my head, my wealth, yes my all, is dedicated to their (his Sikh's) service.' When his wife asked him where her four sons had gone, his reply was characteristic of his attitude towards the attachments of the world. He was bold and cheerful as ever. He had, said he, sacrificed her four sons for the sake of the sons sitting before them. 'What then if thy four are gone? There yet live, and shall ever live, millions of our dear brave sons'. Is there a trace of grief or down heartedness in all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 The whole tone and trend of his Zafamama or Epistle of Victory addressed to Aurangzeb also show that the Guru was not, at all, plunged in despair. In fact, he distinctly threatened the Emperor in the words, 'What though my four sons have been killed; my young son, the Khalsa remains behind like a coiled snake. What bravery is it to quench a few sparks of life? Thou art merely exciting a raging fire the more.' Wherever the Guru went in his travels, he exerted himself in the propagation of his ideals and in broadcasting his message of liberation. Guru Nanak had preached the Sikh religion as far east as Assam and Bengal, as far west as Arabia and Turkey, and as far south as Ceylone; Guru Hargobind had made a tour of northern India; Guru Teg Bahadur had gone on a preaching tour to the east. A similar impulse urged Guru Gobind Singh to carry his message to the warlike Maharattas and Rajputs and other people of the south. In this undertaking there was nothing inconsistent with his doctrines or irreconcilable with the avowed object of his life -- the propagation of righteousness and the restraining of people from senseless acts[8]. He went about baptizing people and adding to the number of his Khalsa[9]. Nowhere did he act or behave in manner incompatible with his faith, teachings, or his own past. How then can it be maintained, as is done by Malcolm, that 'most accounts agree that Guru Govind, after his flight, was, from a sense of his misfortunes, and the loss of his children, bereft of his reason, and wandered about for a considerable time in the most deplorable condition? It was during these 'wandering' that the whole of the Adi Guru Granth Sahib was dictated and other works were composed by the Guru at Damdama Sahib, which 'became the Benares of the Sikhs[10] that the Epistle of Victory was written for the benefit of Aurangzeb, that Anandpur was reproduced in the Lakhi Jungle, at Damdama Sahib, and at Abchalnagar, that millions were baptized, that Banda was selected and deputed to the Punjab, and that the glorious words of consolation and courage were addressed by him to his wife regarding the death of his sons. All this could not be the doings of a man who, 'bereft of his reason,' went wandering about 'in the most deplorable condition.' It should also be remembered that these 'wanderings' extended over only two years and seven or eight months. This does not seem to be the sense of Malcolm's considerable time.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 But the fact is that writers like Malcolm are troubled by the thought that, 'after his flight from Chamkaur.' the Guru 'performed no action worthy of record.' As they are unable to believe that a man of his 'enthusiastic ardour of mind, active habits, and valour: could have remained 'inactive' or could have sunk into a servant of the Emperor.' So they have concluded that 'mental distraction, in consequence of deep distress and disappointment: was the cause of 'the inactivity of Guru Govind's declining years. In this connection it has to be noticed that these writers have failed to grasp the sublimity of the Guru's ideal. They describe him as fired with an 'insatiable thirst of revenge, which he had cherished through life, against the murderers of his father.' But it was not to take revenge or wreak vengeance that the Guru had taken up the sword. If revenge had been the master passion of his life, he would have treated his enemies and their' women and children in the same way as Mir Mannu and Furrukh Siyar treated the Sikhs later on, or as the Pakistanis treated them in 1947 A.D. Ail his wars had been forced on him, He had never sought them. So, if he had no occasion to engage in battle in the last years of his life, and, consequently, devoted himself to peaceful organization, how can that be taken to prove that the Guru was either 'inactive or bereft of his reason?' By the way, Malcolm forgets that the battle of Muktsar, which is certainly worthy of record, took place after the Guru's flight from Chamkaur.' If the imperial armies had again fallen upon him, he would surely have defended himself with his wonted valour and ability. As he was not attacked, and as he would not fight but in self-defense, the Guru had no occasion to engage in military action during the last few years of his earthly life; but, otherwise, he was the same as ever. Apart from the Guru's own words, teaching, activities and behaviour, there is grudging, and, on that account, all the more valuable, testimony of writers like S.M. Latif to the effect that the Guru 'Confronted his adversity with firmness,' and that his persevering endurance in the midst of calamities and disasters was equal to his bravery and valour in the field.' Could such a person be plunged in sorrow or despair or sit inactive because of his adversity? We have seen what little substance there is in the fantastic assertion of some writers that during the last years of his life the Guru suffered from some mental derangement. Now we come to the other statement that the Guru went to the Deccan in the capacity of a servant of Bahadur Shah. This statement is even more injurious to the memory of the Guru than the one whose hollowness has been exposed in the last chapter. Before examining it critically, we shall attempt to trace it back to its origin and see what credence it deserves on the score of that origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amar_jkp Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 (A) Cunningham, who wrote his book in 1848, has cited the following authorities for his statement that the Guru 'received a military command in the valley of the Godawari':- (i) 'Sikh writers,' who, he says, 'are unanimous in giving to their great teacher a military command in the Deecan'; and (ii) Non-Sikh writer:- Forster and Khafi Khan. ( S.M. Latif, another enthusiastic advocate of the service theory, writes, 'The fact of his (Guru Govind Singh's) having taken employment under the Moghal Government is fully confirmed by various writers. Vide Sir J. Malcolm's Sketches of the Sikhs; Forster's Travels. The latter author states that Guru Gobind Singh had a small command in the Moghal service, which is confirmed by Khafi Khan.[11] So his authorities for this assertion are Sir John Malcolm, Forster, and Khafi Khan. What are the 'Sikh writers' referred to by Cunningham? A perusal of the references cited by him, here and there, leads one to the conclusion that he had little or no acquaintance with the original works of any Sikh writer. Wherever he refers to the Sikh accounts of the Guru's life, he quotes non-Sikh writers like the authors of the Dabistan and the Siyar ul Mutakhim, and Sir John Malcolm. In one place, following Malcolm and repeating his mistake to some extent, he mentions Bhai Gurdas Bhalla. In another place, he refers to the Gurbilas of Bhai Sukha Singh as corroborating the account to some wars described in the Bachittar Natak. But both references are cursory, Besides, Sukha Singh does not say that the Guru took service with Bahadur shah, and Bhai Gurdas BhalIa, the second, has to his credit only one ode on Guru Gobind Singh. He, too, does not say that the Guru took service with Bahadur Shah. No Sikh writer does so. That is why S.M. Latif complains that 'the Sikh authors are always cautious in concealing the weak points of their religious leaders in giving prominence to anything which redounds to their glory.' Thus, he adds, 'they freely acknowledge that (Guru) Gobind (Singh) rendered material aid to Bahadur Shah in the war which that emperor waged against his rebel brother Kam Baksh, and even own that the Guru took the field of action. But they carefully conceal the fact of the Guru's accepting employment under the emperor. Dr Trumpp whom in words of Macauliffe, never failed to avail himself of 'an opportunity of defaming the Gurus, the sacred book, and the religion of the Sikhs,' writing in 1877, said that the Sikhs were 'loath to concede this appointment of (Guru) Gobind Singh.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts