amardeep

Welcome to the forum I think a large majority of Sikhs will subscribe to the second notion - a despotic ruler who suppressed his people. He and his allies were responsible for the shaheedi martyrdom of the ninth Guru as well as the martyyrdom of the Guru's four sons, as well as thousands of SIkhs. Interestingly, there was a failed assasination attempt on his life from a Sikh in the early 1680s. A sikh threw a brick on him for his involvement in the shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1775

What does the Bansavalinama, Gurbilas writings and Suraj Prakash say about the incident? Do they even mention it?

very interesting. I had no idea Muslims also converted to Sikhi "fully"

Hmm ok so she basicAlly says do what i require (intercourse) or submit/lower yourself to me and i will leave you alone. In rajniti warfare it was often seen that one powerful emperor would assemble his army at the border of his enemy and threathen with war to have them give up Their throne, land, wealth etc. If the enemy refused to hand over land, the emperor would often say fine then at least pay annual tribute to me and i will leave again not invading or taking over your land. The mughals did This with the rajputs, maharaja ranjit singh did it with his raakhi subordinates etc. I see the same pattern here in her speech

They are a tiny minority now. They used to be numerous

Also interesting to read the next to charitars - they are quite short and they show how the Raja despite difficult circumstances manages to subvert the situation so he is once again in power. Charitar 21 - meeting of the two - exchange of ideas in terms of dharam, social reality, culture etc Charitar 22 - Woman in power as the raja goes to jail Charitar 23 - the Raja subverts the situation and takes the upper hand.

Also I think the line of crawling through her legs is some sort of Indian metaphor. The translation seems wrong and out of place.

Yes well spotted. Argumentation: Using Dharam to justify a-dharmic behaviour.

Another perspective: Matters of authority. Normally a civilian will go ask a Guru or person of authority for guidance and spiritual help. In this chaitar it is reversed. The Guru approaches a civilian for spiritual help (learning a mantar). Does the charitar actually state at any point that the raja is also a Guru? I can only see it as the main character being a raja.

What is the word for incantation in the original gurmukhi? I dont have the Gurmukhi text so can't acces it myself. Okay great that you've clarified that Anandpur was part of the Kahlur state. I thought Anandpur was somewhat independant not belonging to any particular territory. This line could also be of particular interest of what the minister is trying to tell the King. The king is about to destroy his lineage due to household affairs, which will bring about a bad reputation of the kingdom - therefore think about your legacy and the image people have of you as a king " First of all God has endowed me birth as a Kashatri, Our dynasty is very much respected in the world. "

I dont think so. The ruler of Bilaspur was a part of the coalition that attacked the Guru.

Quick observations: This is the first time a charitar continues across several stories If im not mistaken, Anandpur was not located in the state of Kahlur, as the text states. However it is most likely talking about the current day Anandpur since it mentions proximity to Naina Devi and the satluj river. This could mean, that the purpose of the text is early on to show, that it is not a historical fact sakhi that is being conveyed here- it is a literary device to convey a message. This is the first charitar so far wherein there is a "preaching" and moralizing element involved, - long passages of philosophical content and argumentation. I do not recall any of the earlier charitars having any moralizing messages conveyed by the character in the story The moralizing passages are interesting. It appears that the argumentation of rejeection is two fold . One argumentation is of a higher, philosophical and educated mode, while the other is of a more "low", secular, straight forward way. Examples of the higher form of argumentation: ‘Righteousness endows auspicious birth and righteousness confers beauty. ‘The righteousness augments the wealth and holiness and the righteousness idealises the sovereignty. Examples of the secular and more straight forward kind of argumentation: ‘Why should I abandon righteousness on your instance and make myself worthy of hell? (l6) ‘Acquiescing to your request,Acquiescing to your request, I am not going to copulate with you, ‘Because, in my heart, I am apprehensive of denigrating my family. ‘Deserting behind my married woman (wife), I will never have sex with you. ‘I will never be able to find a place in the court of Lord of Righteousness.’(l7) Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?’( 19) ‘Not to abandon my wife, I will never have sex with you.(24) ‘Just because you say, why should I have sex with you? ‘I am afraid of being put in the hell. ‘To copulate with you is like disowning the righteousness, And my story will go around the whole world.(25) It appears, that the text asks the question: What kind of argumentation do you use to get your message across? Anoop does not seem to understand the higher form of argumentation, - therefore the raja keeps "lowering" his line of argumentation as the charitar continues - to make it more relatable for Anoop. it starts high and becomes lower and lower / more straight forward.. Interestingly, the Ariill Chand on page 60 wherein he praises her and then slams her in the last line. That is very similiar to the kind of narrative used in the Zafarnama, where Aurangzeb in many lines are praised for his military and political qualities, but then slammed at the end "agar door ast deen" - but you are far from religion. In a way, building up the person in order to slam him down. This happens on page 60 here - even though you are preety (building the person up ) I still have not fallen for you (slap in the face- wake up call). Then after a long time, on page 61 onwards the argumentation is raised higher once again, slowly by slowly. .

Very interesting sakhi. Firstly, the question is whether this charitar is a historical fact or a literary device. Chaupa Singh rahitnama appears to believe it to be a historical fact: " In S.1748 (1691 AD) a Sarin Khatrani, Rup Kaur, came with the members of the Lahore sangat to attend the annual Baisakhi fair. She tried to deceive the Guru in a most grievous manner, but was unable to do so. It was because of her deceit that the Charitra [Charitro Pakhyan] were composed. The work was completed on the eight day of the dark hald of Bhadon S.1753 " Chaupa Singh Rahitnama A way to widen the discussion is also to see whether the early Sikh historians considered the Anoop Kaur charitar as factual history or not.. .Ie. is the story mentioned in the Bansavalinama, Gurbilas writings or Suraj Prakash Granth. If the chaitar is not mentioned it is clear that these authors did not consider it as a factual historical event involving the Guru. I'll post my initial thoughts on the charitar in a few hours.

Cool. See if you can post thej charitar and we Will analyze

A way to widen the discussion is also to see whether the early Sikh historians considered the Anoop Kaur charitar as factual history or not.. .Ie. is the story mentioned in the Bansavalinama, Gurbilas writings or Suraj Prakash Granth. If the chaitar is not mentioned it is clear that these authors did not consider it as a factual historical event involving the Guru.

What are those about and how do you know Kavi Santokh Singh used those?

" In S.1748 (1691 AD) a Sarin Khatrani, Rup Kaur, came with the members of the Lahore sangat to attend the annual Baisakhi fair. She tried to deceive the Guru in a most grievous manner, but was unable to do so. It was because of her deceit that the Charitra [Charitro Pakhyan] were composed. The work was completed on the eight day of the dark hald of Bhadon S.1753 " Chaupa Singh Rahitnama

Pyara Singh probably leans on the Chaupa Singh rahitnama that says that the Guru wrote the charitars due to Anoop Kaur trying to seduce Him. There has been lot of fuss about the 22-24th charitars, - let's look at the text and see what it actually states.

After partition of India i think these cross overs dissapeared in India. They converted fully and stayed in India or went to Pakistan and became muslims...

It's a term historically used for "muslim" followers of the Gurus. Ie people who were in a cross over from Islam to Sikhism. Many stayed in the cross over stage for generations untill they finally 'converted'.

Let's try and analyze it regardles of length. It's also interesting if it happens to be the longest charitar so far...

Nope never

Interesting. Well spotted!

what is the name of the king and minister in the original story? Is there anything in relation to "prem" and "sher" we should be alert of?

You are right, we have to continue linking this charitar back to the main story: What is the minister trying to tell the king by this specific tale.