amardeep Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 I was reading a book about the Mughal (by abraham eraly) and its a good book narrating the history of mughal raj in india What i wondered about was that the Sikhs did'n seem to be much of a threat to their sovereignty. The sikhs are hardly mentioned anywhere and mostly the marathas and rajputs are mentioned as military threats. Also, was Aurangzeb involved in the Anandpur battle? From what i've read He was in the deccan fighting the marathas, yet in the Zafarnama it seems like it was Aurangzeb he swore on the Koran. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaikaara Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 if u check different incidents it is realised that mughals did consider sikhs a threat Guru Arjan Maharaj faced their wrath and then also the rest of the Gurus, this all depends on the source and mindset of the author of the book you are reading, how he has displayed history 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think up until Banda's time, Sikhs were probably seen as minor irritants that needed to be kept in their place. Moghul suspicions originally seemed to be based on disquiet at the Guru's rising popularity (Jahangir) and theological objection (Aurengzab). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaikaara Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 dalsingh veer ji what i feel is if they can set spies on us, like we refer to the eye witness account of that spy of aurangzeb who witenessed the first initiation of Khalsa in 1699 and the way he has written it , if thats to be belived that i think the Khalsa must have been a good headache for them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 dalsingh veer ji what i feel is if they can set spies on us, like we refer to the eye witness account of that spy of aurangzeb who witenessed the first initiation of Khalsa in 1699 and the way he has written it , if thats to be belived that i think the Khalsa must have been a good headache for them We went through this before, if you are talking about the account all over the Internet, purported to be in a manuscript in Aligarh University, it doesn't seem to be genuine or even exist. But yes, I think they were trying to keep a lid on Sikhs in order to prevent them becoming a big headache. This backfired and Sikhs did become exactly that for them. Almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 What was the reason for the Anandpur battle in 1704 ? And was Aurangzeb directly involved in the battle? It sounds more like he was busy in the south fighting the maharathas.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) What was the reason for the Anandpur battle in 1704 ? And was Aurangzeb directly involved in the battle? It sounds more like he was busy in the south fighting the maharathas.. Tradition seems to suggest it was the outcome of hill rajay instigating the Moghuls against the Guru after much previous conflict in the area, which saw lot of duplicity on part of the local rajay. One moment they would fight alongside Guru ji and solicit his help - the next fight and conspire against him. I'm sure the radical new faith Guru ji was preaching in the area couldn't have gone down too well either. Throw in jealousy towards an emerging, radical powerful force in what they considered their neck of the woods, one with material wealth and subjects that could challenge their own 'blue blooded' lineage, and who had chastised them previously - and hey presto - you have the making of a 'wonderful drama'. The rajay may have sent petitions to Aurangzab through vakils? Aurenga in turn, may have contacted Guru ji to negotiate in the situation. This is where the accusations of oath breaking probably come in? Even if he was down south, there was still good communication channels across the land. Edited May 11, 2011 by dalsingh101 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Singh Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Sikhs have always been a small minority they became a huge majority in guru arjan dev jis time mainly you could blame akbar for that he was probably the only mughual that wasnt really a muslim he tried to start his own religion undone shariah laws and gave land for amritsar his wife got to him. Aurangzeb was fed up of everyone he went tight on everyone he lost all his alliances and his whole kingdom fell apart shivaji stroke the first blow. Then to sikhs afghans invading got to sikhs, baba banda singh bahadur stood up tall and took over sirhind really the moghuls self destructed themselves and afghans were busy fighting each other, central asian mongol-turks were fighting each other most muslims fought each other. So sikhs capitalised and sikhs repeated the same history of the moghuls didn't learn from there mistakes did the similar paaps, fought each other, stabbed each other in the back and british capitalised 200 years later we are here now small population fighting one another. For the moghuls sikhs were just hindus still idolatarers anything beside islam is kuffar they didn't really care they were worried about hindus getting together to over throw them as happened with Lodi before babur and before. The moghuls had sufi policies tolerate, say nice words, lie and convert people. Edited September 1, 2011 by JatherdarSahib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Singh Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 According to Sri Gur panth prakash, the mughals said sikhs were nothing and described them somewhat like petty thieves, denying them of the whole lineage and everything. It perhaps has to be said if you read sikh history from persian sources you will get a take. The moghuls had loads of enemies but to then say sikhs a very small population took on the moghuls you would see them as a threat however it would wond the credibility they have to say a few people laid it to them makes them look weak, it would also lead to loosing respect in the courts and could damage alliances of powerful people who could see they are unable to tame a few villagers with backwards castes (as they believed in superiority of there own castes) they also saw themselves as more knowledgeable and technological advance. The main thing about sikhs was intense practice they put in those times into shastarvidya and peace of mind from a very humble lifestyle and background gave them advantage over an army of sex maniacs+drunks with some high caliber individuals. Some of the sikh history did involve run while you can, find ways out, and when forced into war, fight and run (with integrity and dignity in a way less people have to die). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.