Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest person A

Aurangzeb

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Guest Queation said:

@paapiman   Which groups believe in gurus as God incarnate and which don't ? I was under the assumption all Sikhs believed in gurus as divinely inspired but not divine themselves ???

 

Are you the same person as "Guest Reply"?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

If it was apparent that the gurus was killed by the Mughals - why ( as you have admitted ) did the early Sikhs Blair rival groups - they could have blaimed the murals also for carrying out the order - why did some misls like that of jassa Singh join the Mughals?

it doesn't make sense 

And even the Muslim sources are contradictory - one fo the gurus is said to have been hung in Lahore and body left there for days whilst other day no was killed in Delhi - different account on how he was killed - 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that's not what im saying. I'm saying today with the knowledge we have, it is apparant that the Mughals are to blame. But before the finding of Jahangirs memoirs, the Sikh historians mostly focused on the role of Chandu.

Let's say that Chatanga is mad at Papiman for some reason. Chatanga wants Papiman in jail, so Chatanga alerts the police saying that Papiman is a thief and he often beats up old women.. He is telling a lie, but the police decide to throw papiman in jail for theft.

Now.. From a street level perspective, it is apparant that Chatanga is a liar, and hence people will blame him for having caused Papiman for going to jail. People will mostly say Chatanga maneged to fool the police. He is the villain here.

 

Now, 20 yeras later, we find out the Police during that time actually wanted to throw Papiman in jail due to him being sardar. The police want all sardars out.. So regardless of Chatanga having alterted the police or not, they would most likely have thrown him in jail anyway. WIth this knowledge, the blame shifts to the police being the brutal perpetrators, rather than just being misled blindly..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also. Commentators will always have different versions of what happened.. If you look today at some terror incident, there are also very conflicting views as to what exactly happened and why.. Five people watching the same event will have three different versions of what happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2017 at 8:56 PM, Guest Reply said:

@paapiman well no point discussing anything further with you as you have proven your bias - even if I tried to explain you wouldnt get it - thanks for your answer though

Well, I try to follow Sikhism. So, it should not be surprising that I am biased. I have my reasons for it too.

You need to realize that Satgurus had many enemies, especially after Fourth master.

  • Caste ridden people
  • Religiously Bigoted People
  • Imposters
  • Some of Satguru's own family members
  • Corrupt people
  • Local authorities
  • Central authority
  • Masands
  • Hill chiefs

Anyone of the above mentioned groups could have possibly written anything about the Satgurus. I will trust the Sikh sources over other non-Sikh ones and you cannot really blame me for that. 

For you (if you want to be unbiased), you will never know what exactly happened if there are conflicting historical accounts. You will have to time travel (if you can) and see for yourself. Until then, you can only form an opinion, but never be 100% certain about it.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, amardeep said:

Let's say that Chatanga is mad at Papiman for some reason. Chatanga wants Papiman in jail, so Chatanga alerts the police saying that Papiman is a thief and he often beats up old women.. He is telling a lie, but the police decide to throw papiman in jail for theft.

Now.. From a street level perspective, it is apparant that Chatanga is a liar, and hence people will blame him for having caused Papiman for going to jail. People will mostly say Chatanga maneged to fool the police. He is the villain here.

 

Now, 20 yeras later, we find out the Police during that time actually wanted to throw Papiman in jail due to him being sardar. The police want all sardars out.. So regardless of Chatanga having alterted the police or not, they would most likely have thrown him in jail anyway. WIth this knowledge, the blame shifts to the police being the brutal perpetrators, rather than just being misled blindly..

Good example. Add to it, suppose some foreign contemporary travelers were to investigate this issue and make notes.

  • One might mention that Paapiman was involved in theft and beating old women, but he doesn't mention anything else.
  • Other might say that Paapiman was wrongfully charged because of Chatanga.
  • Another one might state the whole story, without the Police involvement.
  • Another one might say that it was a personal quarrel. Paapiman deserved what he got, for what he had done to Chatanga eariler.

Now, which account is to be trusted? Just because those people were foreigners, it does not necessarily mean that their accounts will always be completely accurate or complete.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@ paapiman - well at least your honest about being biast - which was my concern in writing this in the first place - that the official narrative of most Sikhs seems biast

@amardeep

Your example is not accurate in one regard - the people that accuse say paapiman in your example of theft ( of a lower crime)  - but let's say person X lies about paapiman saying he's a murderer, rapist and a terrorist - he commited crimes that deserve death - judge Singh looks at witness and believes him and has paaipman killed. 

10 years later it turns out judge Singh might have hated paapiman because he was from a different branch of sikki to his own, 

now you can say the fact judge Singh hated Paapimans beliefs and he may have been happy at his death - but that doesn't prove he killed him for that - he killed him due to what he thought the punishment was ... his personal happiness doesn't change anything... 

one proof of that is the Mughals had Hindus and Muslims (they had issues with) exicuted also - Norbert just Sikhs and they also had good relationships with Hindus, gurus and Muslims - so it wasn't due to their beliefs - 

aurengzeb had more Hindus and Sikhs in his government that Akbar who is normally seen as the tolerant one - also if the Mughal wanted they could have killed all the gurus - and all the other Sikh sects - but they didn't ... what does that say ... the Sikhs they had good relationships with were also spreading sikki - so obviously they didn't have an issue with it 

surely the Sikhs historians were influenced by the gurus themselves - which means the gurus themselves thought the problems were internal and  not from the Mughals - are you  tell me that got it wrong also ? 

my proposal was that there is no proof the Mughals had the gurus killed for their own purposes - it might have been  to their benefit and happyness but that doesn't change the fact the main issues came out of internal conflict - 

you didn't answer my question about historical narratives from other Sikh minority groups ...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to discuss one topic at a time. Right now we are discussing Guru Arjan and Jahangeer. We can proceed to Aurangzeb afterwards if you so wish.

Fact are:

  • Due to a personal issue, Chandu was mad at Guru Arjan and spread rumours to have him arranged in Mughal custody.
  • The Mughal emperor Jahangeer had been cautious about Guru Arjan for a long time due to him converting many Hindus and Muslims to Sikhi. This is his own words.
  • The Mughals arrest Guru Arjan - and obviosly not due to Guru Arjan refusing a marriage proposal of Chandu as marriage proposals were not Mughal state matters -
  • The Muguhals executed Guru Arjan. Not Chandu
  • Conclusions: Both Chandu and the Mughals were guilty of the shaheedi of Guru Arjan.

Now in terms of Aurangzeb - obviosly he had more Hindu administrators than Akbar as he ruled a much larger empire than Akbar did so he needed the competences of the khatri Hindus who were masters of administration, trade etc.

The Mughal emperors would sponsor the fake Gurus as a way of divide and conquer. By strengthening the fake gurus they were hoping to reduce the power and influence of the orthodox Gurus. This is very common, you see the same in Chinese history with the Chinese government suppporting alternative Dalai Lamas. Interesting it is that these fake Gurus whom the Mughals supported were always pro-Mughal while the Orthodox Gurus were either indifferent or in opposition to the Mughals.

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

Ok thanks amardeep

ok fact one - Chandu spread rumours and had guru arrested - so what were those rumours that were spread about him?

your 3rd point contradicts the above - Chandu might have had a grudge with guru due to marriage but that's not the reason he gave the Mughals - could have made all sorts of crap ( stuff that would get him into trouble with the state) 

Yes the Mughals carried out the death sentence but on what grounds ? like I said before - the idea that they did it because the guru was converting people doesn't make sense - as the Mughals were amicable with other gurus that did the same thing. If they had killed all 10 gurus then you would have a point.

If someone in America has person A sentenced to death because they have false testimony ( framed the person) then you don't place the blaim on the court but on the one who laid the false claim? 

As for Mughals would sponsor fake gurus - that's from main stream Sikh perspective- from other sects they were sponsoring the correct gurus. From the mughals perspective they were all fake - they just took sides with the Ones that they got on with. 

And yes jahangir did have to be more diplomatic as he ruled most of India - that's why the idea that persecuted people doesn't make sense - he would have welomed an civil war - the fact he had huge Hindus and Sikhs in his government proves he was cautious of minorities - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have'nt studied in years the details as to what Chandu said to the Mughals to get them involved.

Yes the third point I wrote that whatever Chandu said it was obviosly not the notion of marriage, as the Mughals would'n care about that. But whatever he said, he did'n need to say much as Jahangir already had an issue with Guru Arjan so he was just looking for an excuse to have him arrested.

It is Jahangirs own words that he had a grudge with Guru Arjan due to him converting so many hindus and muslims. In the Punjab it appears that only the Sufis and Sikhs were succesful in converting the majority Hindu populace. The Nakshbandi Sufis of Punjab were part of Jahangirs staunch supporters and ulama, so they must have used their political influence to lobby Jahangir and make him aware of how much of a challenge Guru Arjan and the Sikhs were.

Yes the notion of fake Gurus if from my perspective. What I mean is that the Mughals were trying to pump up and support marginal, alternative Gurus by granting them large areas of land, money etc.

The fake Gurus were never really succesful at converting people, that's why they never grew in numbers nor power despite having state patronage and backing. So the Mughals never saw them as a threat. Aurangzeb was very cautious of controlling the Sikhs, - his attempt at installing new Gurus (Ram Rai) and thereby controlling the Guru linage as loyal to his raj is evidence of this. But the Sikhs did'n follow Ram Rai, instead they continued with Hari Rai, Tegh Bahadur and Gobind SIngh- all of whom Aurangzeb was trying to have submit to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

@ paapiman - well at least your honest about being biast - which was my concern in writing this in the first place - that the official narrative of most Sikhs seems biast

Well, biased or unbiased, it won't matter at the end (after death) if I was on the side of the truth.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

Ok - so if you don't know what rumour Chanda said to aurenzeb - then you are assuming the reasons for aurengzeb having executed the guru.

just because he didn't like the guru doesn't mean he had him killed for that reason - and besides he was the emperor of India - he didn't need an excuse to kill him - like I said he could have killed all the gurus if he wanted ... 

and again yes he sided with certain gurus because he found a better deal with them or thought it would be more stable - that's normal for any king.

As for the others groups had no followers - I find that hard to believe - the tat Khalsa only took back the 5 taktas very recently - they controlled Amritsar for a long time - the ordinary people are sheep - they follow whoever is in charge ignore the hazier sahib.

You didn't answe my question about the mail, and why some joined the Mughals ie jassa Singh - ? Others did too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did answer. - I wrote: I think the Minas wrote history books

Of course I am assuming, since no one really knew untill recently how involved the Mughals were in the execution of Guru Arjan. Since the early historians did'n know, they mostly just stated what was "obvious" ie that Chandu allerted the Mughals, who then had him executed.  I did'n say they did'n have any followers, surely they did, - but not enough to have any substantial effect. Thats why most of them died out during the 17th and 18th century when their Mughal backing collapsed.  In terms of political power, they hardly played any role in the larger Punjab or Indian history.

Here is the words of Jahangir himself:

This is what Emperor Jahangir had written in his diary the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri" ( "Memoirs of Jahangir"):

"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu [wrongly addresses Guru as a Hindu!] named Arjun, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness.

They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.

 
At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Hinduwan (the people of India) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."

,....

...

In the light of contemporary historical evidence from the direct and original sources it appears that Guru Arjan was arrested and executed for the following reasons:

  • (a) his religious preachings,
  • (b) contemporary political developments and
  • (c) personal reasons.

The execution took place under the orders of Emperor Jahangir during the second year of his reign when due to political, personal and religious necessity he had to honour the Muslim revivalists to act as defender of Islamic faith.

In his Memoirs, the Emperor unashamedly confessed that:

  • (a) it was he who ordered Guru Arjan to be put to death;
  • (b) that he was concerned about the popularity of the Guru
  • (c) that the Guru was popular with both Hindus and Muslims and
  • (d) it was also naively accepted that the motive for this crime was the Emperors religious bigotry and an excuse to eliminate the Guru was then sought in linking it to Prince Khusrau.

Final thoughts

It is clear that the Emperor had been misled regarding the true facts but he took no steps to find the truth about the prevailing circumstances. It appears that the situation of Guru Arjan happened to be the first important one reported to him for his decision as a test case to prove his bona fides as a saviour of the Muslims from the influences of the non-Muslims and under the circumstances, he made an error in his decision to please the fundamentalists.

For the Sikhs it was a supreme sacrifice of their Guru for the cause of righteousness and truth. It admittedly was a unique martyrdom which has no match in the Indian history. Guru Arjan is the first martyr in Sikh history who fought for his ideals and a righteous cause for which he stood unshakable and steadfast.

The Gurus martyrdom had far-reaching consequences. It transformed the Sikhs into saint-soldiers who, from now onwards, exercised a decided influence on the subsequent history of the Punjab. Thus was the course of history changed due to one fatal mistake of Emperor Jahangir.

 

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a letter of Sirhindi, who was one of the Nakshbandi leaders:

One letter has a direct reference to the martyrdom of Guru Arjan. In this letter Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi expressed to Shaikh Bukhari Murtaza Khan his jubilation at the execution of the saint of Goindwal. The letter reads:

"Recently a very good thing - the execution of the accursed infidel of Goindwal- has taken place, which had been a cause of great frustration to the wretched Hindus and indeed he was the chief of heathens and the leader of the infidels.
Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding why some of the misls joined the Mughals - well the Sikhs were not anti-Mughal per se. Only when the Mughals were opressive did the SIkhs go against the Mughals. Or in terms of real politik, when it suited a Sikh agenda. For instance when the Afghans invaded India it would be fruitfull for the Sikhs to join the Mughals in defending Indian soil.  In any case, those Sikhs who did side with the Afghans/Mughals have always been controversial to some degree within Sikh history. Ala Singh is also an example of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@amardeep  that's interesting- one jahangir doesn't seem to know what a Sikh is, so it seems he been given a certain version of what the guru was preaching - he calls him a Hindu ( beliveing in multiple gods) as apposed to a monotheist similar to Muslims - it also shows he wasnt that bothered with the guru he doesn't even know his name - and the fact he only dedicates a paragraph to him in his book shows he didn't give much though to it.

also interesting is he seems to justify the execution by saying oh he was converting Hindus and weak Muslims - even though he describes him as a Hindu - which would mean he saw him calling people to more than just religion ? A political movements - but what interesting is he discredits kausrau and linking him to Hinduism - it seems chaupa probably told him they were both allies against the Mughal throne. 

As for Ahmed Sirhindi and Jahangir  not being happy at the Muslims conversations and happy at the death of the guru - you can kind of understand why they would feel like that - both being muslim. That doesn't mean they would have had guru killed for that reason. If that was the case they would have killed all of the gurus

Its seems the real reason jahangir had guru killed was because he was informed he was making an alliance with the open enemy kausrau as told by Chandu- well at least that's one narrative .

is there a PDF of that book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really a big fan of people who read a few paragraphs from historical sources and then start to comment on them as if they've studied them intensely. i always say : Read new sources, do some research in light of what else you've seen, and then begin to discuss those paragraphs. And not : 1) Read new sources 2) begin discussing them,

I'll recommend you to do some further research now that you've seen those Jahangir memoirs and then we can continue the discussion in a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

Fair point - I'll read the book you have mentioned - the jahangir memoirs only prove jahangir gave the execution order - which we all new anyway - but I will do some further reading - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×