Sikhs and history

[truthseeker546]

I've been reading around political history around the mughals - Sikh, Muslim and western accounts of certain events or general accounts. It seems to be a lot  of sikhs (not all) are really biased when it comes to narrating history.

some issues of come across:

Making it seems as if the mughals were behind the murder of 3 of the 10 gurus, when the historical evidence points to internal family problems - rivals to the guruship

making the problems between mughals and some gurus out to be issues of religion,when they seem like more politically motivated issues. For example Aurengzeb was protecting Amritsar -which was controlled by Ram Rai - and Guru Gobind sing had a large amount of Muslims in his army (I've read accounts of upto 20-25% - need citation for this as I don't know where it come from) 

The British / RSS changing or trying to change Sikhism, not much historical evidence that there was a conscious effort to change  the religion, but there is some  to stay the later Gurus  had different views to the initial ones. (with the exception of the Dassam granth which came later and there are strong evidences from what I can see a lot of ideas crept in from outside the faith)

The role of a Sikh "empire" one one had it was a great empire on the other it wasn't on Sikh principals - I'm a bt confused as I get different answers from different  people.

The role the some Sikhs played helping the British empire take control of India - ie suppressing the great mutiny 

why is it that there is much bias on so many issues, I've seen some Sikhs on this forum that fight the bias and point out inaccuracies but the vast majority tend to have their own version of history. I see a bid difference in the way the older Sikhs view some things to the younger ones. Or how religious sikhs view history to the more secular ones. I can understand differences in the way religion is interpreted but historical facts ? 

 

Any ideas.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tiresome troll

1) I already told you to go look at Jehangirs diaries etc and his wish that 'the kafir should either convert or be put to death' (referring to Guru Arjan Dev).  Where are the internal family problems here?  The religious issue is clear.  You can go read it for yourself.  

2) The large presence of divine and benevolent muslims personalities is not only openly acknowledged, its openly venerated- with Gurdwaras etc named after them, their names remembered as much as any sikhs etc.  So no sikhs don't maintain an anti-muslim- sentiment.

3) there are a lot of books on british trying to change sikh sentiments, McLeod was a big fan of this idea.  You can go read these if it interested you so much.  You can go look up RSS twist on stuff (e.g. recent Konrad Elst thread).

4) In what ways were the later Gurus views different to the earlier ones?  Please give concrete examples.

5) yes sikh soldiers helped suppress the mutiny.  at least they were loyal and had principles- good for them.  after all, at least the british give economic prosperity, knowledge, education, universities.  what did the mughlas give?  a kafir tax?  oh joy!

6) you don't seem to have clocked the difference between a sikh person and the sikh ideal, and that the former doesn't always mean the latter.  every person with a sikh name in history is not our automatic role model.  

7) sikh 'empire'?  isn't empire bit strong word.  its called that because people who were sikh had power.  if they didn't force their religion on non-sikhs, well then good for them i say!  i congratulate them, infant that sounds like a sikh principal to me.

[GurpreetKaur]

3 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

 

some issues of come across:

Making it seems as if the mughals were behind the murder of 3 of the 10 gurus, when the historical evidence points to internal family problems - rivals to the guruship

Can you show us the evidence since you call us biased, we won't find them and I did do a basic search but failed. You are the second person who said it was an internal fight over Gurgaddi, first one was a Muslim brother flooding the Basic of Sikhi channel. I felt like either he was living in a parallel world or whole India since every single history book talks about Mughals being the reason. Please enlighten us about how and why and what sort of evidence prove it was an internal fight . 

 

[amardeep]

Remember that there is always a difference between popular history and authentic history. It is like that in all religions. My impression from studying history and religion however is that the popular history of Sikhs is very much close to the authentic history of Sikhs, compared to simiiar incidents in hinduism, islam and christianity.

re 1: The Mughals were instrumental in the execution of the Gurus. There is no doubt about this. We can discuss the reasons but it is a historical fact that they were martyred at the hands of the Mughals.

re 2: Indeed there were many great muslims in sikh history and they are applauded for their great sacrifices. However, the fact that Aurangzeb and other Mughals were patrons of fake Gurus is a clear proof that the Mughals were out to weaken the Sikh community by supporting and being patrons of the rival Gurus. Aurangzeb tried his best to appoint new Gurus and hereby weaken the authority of the real Gurus. I think the Chinese government has tried something similiar when they wish to create new Lamas in order to divide the buddhists.

I would say the Sikh empire was based overall on Sikh principles,- but many of the key figures were not nescesarely role model Sikhs in their personal life.

[truthseeker546]

Thanks for the replies. @GurpreetKaur

I don't have all the sources at hand but as far as I can see:

The first Guru to be killed was Guru Arjun. In one narrative he was killed by at the hands of the Mughals. Another variation is Prithi Chand son of Ram das had a hand behind it. Maybe because Prithi chands version of the granth had Hindu deities in which Ajrun left out, but there were definite issues between the two. then we have another narrative from Chaupa Singh who placed the blame on Chandu lal, a Hindu official in Lahore, who Chaupa Singh accused of having the Guru arrested and executed after he turned down Chandu Shah's offer of marriage between Chandu's daughter and Hargobind. Others say he was indeed killed by Jahangir not due to his religious beliefs but aiding Prince Khusraw against the sultan - which would have been treason under any countries ruler.  other reports say Brahmins were behind the killing, maybe due to him leaving the hindu Gods out of his adi granth. But there are too many contradictory evidences to give any support to simply say the mughals killed him.

second guru to be killed was Tegh Bahadur, again there is evidence he was killed by Ram Rai (who should ironically have been the 8th guru), although through Aurungzeb.  whilst others say it was Prithi chands son Miharban who kept Tegh bahadur from ever entering Amritsar. The civil war again was a strong proponent of him getting killed. 

and lastly Gobind singh who according to the main narrative was killed by the mughals. others same Jamshed Khan killed him not from the order of the sultan. He also had serious issues with rival gurus - having brutally put down the masnads himself. I've read as mentioned above a large part of his force was Muslim, he was saved by muslims nabi and ghani khan - the descendants were recently given huge land in Punjab by Sikhs to thanks their family for what they did. Others site that Aurengzeb was protecting Amritsar (where other sikhs who were at war with Gobind singh, were ruling), so why would Aurenzeb try and forcefully convert some sikhs and protect the others?  That doesn't make sense. I again think it may have been under political lines where gobind singh sided with Muslims who were with opponents of the Sultan. I've read other reports but can't find where I read them. Also a lot of the stuff around this period is under question by sikhs themselves, the zafarnama for example is in the dasam granth which many sikhs have proven is fabricated,which brings into question a lot of the history the way Sikhs portray it.    

@amardeep

The Sikh "empire" brutally killed each other off in the space of a few years, the exception being Raja Ranjit Singh. Who was punished by other sikhs on numerous occasions for having a hedonistic playboy lifestyle - hardly what guru nanak preached. Popular Sikh history ignores all that and portrays him as the lion of the punjab.

[amardeep]

@truthseeker546

Obviosly there were more actors involved in the executions of the Gurus as well as different interests at play. This also explains the diversity of explanations given in early Sikh literature. I dont see them as mutually exclusive. Chandu might have had his reasons for wanting to kill Guru Arjan while Jahangeer had his own. However it is a fact that Jahangeer in his memours expresses his desire to kill Guru Arjan due to him converting many hindus and muslims to Sikhi. And he then explains that when the Khushrao incident happened, it gave him the justification needed to do so.

Guru Gobind Singh is not seen as a martyr in the same sense as Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur.

I already said that the personal lives of many of the Sikh leaders of the time was not exactly the most pious in terms of Sikhi. But the overall state they build was based to a large extent on Sikh principles. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is specially heralded as having created an era for Sikhs wherein they were able to grow, consolidate their influence in the Punjab (he patroned the building of many Gurdware for instance) as well as create the political stability that was needed for parchaar to grow.  He is called the Lion of Punjab because he held invaders out of Punjab. It is a military title, not a pious title.

[truthseeker546]

@amardeep @gurpreet kaur

I never denied that there were some reports mentioning Mughals kings being involved in the killing of the Gurus, there are some that definitely give evidence to that. However what I was stating is that there are so many different accounts (from early Sikhs and Muslims) historians that completely contradict each other. Making it impossible to definitely say what actually happened. What's ironic is that you seem to take the word of Mughal historians over those of the Sikh ones that were close to the Gurus. How do you know that Jahangir didn't simply take credit for killing the guru to seem more powerful to his enemies? Could have been a propaganda tactic common to many rulers at that time. History is nuanced and if you want a more accurate account of what happened you have to look at it through an unbiased glass. 

I'll point some further issues in historical accounts to further my point : 

Most Muslims historians largely ignore the Gurus in their historical accounts, Some only mentioned them in passing stating they were a "minor annoyance". Considering the population of Mughal India was somewhere between 25-40 million depending on who you ask, and the Sikh population at that time was in the thousands - you can see why they would consider it minor issues. The Mughals also saw rival family members as more of a threat than any rival religion. And if you look at these Gurus/Hindus/Muslims that sides with the rivals to the thrones to those that didn't - you can plainly see patterns. 

Some Muslims accounts of that era, such as  Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen - does state that Tegh Bahadur was killed by the Mughal Sultan, however he writes: the Guru was executed (at Lahore) with his body cut into four pieces and each piece hung at the four gates of the walls (of Lahore), A version which most Sikhs reject themselves. So why was this written, was it based on rumours the historian had heard, was it fact or was it the "official" narrative given by the state to show Mughal might and power that would hinder possible enemies/rebels. 

Looking at historians outside the Muslim/Sikh view, take  Lieutenant John Briggs, for instance, records historians from that era mentioning :  Teg Bahadur Ji was a robber chief who subsisted on “repine and plunder,” “forsaking all means of honest livelihood” and for this offence he was executed under warrant from the Emperor This does mention that the Mughal emperor was responsible for killing the guru but for very for different reasons - again rejected by Sikhs for obvious reasons. 

Well maybe not all Sikhs entirely as  Dr. Fauja Singh a Sikh historian who happens to be  the head of the History Department of the Punjabi University at Patiala - in his thesis-published in the inaugural issue (1974) of the Journal of Sikh Studies, sponsored by the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar writes that Teh bahadur - whose, according to Dr Fauja Singh, real name was Tyaagmal - was a rebel, a revolutionary type militant - and it was due to these militant activities he was brought to justice and beheaded at Chandi Chawk in Dehli. He then goes on to prove Aurangzeb was not present at Dehli at the time, therefore wasn't directly involved in the execution, a view which many traditional Sikhs like to put forward. 

The problem with traditional Sikh Historians is that the take the view of certain albeit controversial scriptures like Dasam Granth to be the definitive word on history. Rejecting all other historical accounts as nonsense. If a historian - Sikh or otherwise disagrees with the zafarnama or says something about the later gurus that is contrary to Sikh history, there is a violent opposition to that voice. As Dr Fauja found out. And I personally think it's due to this culture of fear that more Sikh historians are not giving their honest views of what actually happened. 

One obvious problem for Sikhs is that unbiased historians will mention accounts of the Guru's that are not only challenging the historical narratives that are commonplace but also challenge core beliefs. For example, many Sikh historians channelling the authenticity of the Dasam Granth or stating that Teg Bahadur or Tyaagmal was a militant and rebel or one Historians alluded  to Guru Gar Gobind and Har Rai as being spendthrifts- the later taking 7 wives - or a historian who I can't recall now but described Guru Gobind as a coward, and  gave some historical evidences that he ran away from battles - again challenging both common Sikh history and profoundly channelling Sikh beliefs. Due to threats from Sikh protests I think that book was never published. If these are the views of some Sikhs historians now, you can imagine the differences the Gurus' family members must have had about each other when they were fighting each other. 

I can fully understand why Sikhs would reject that latter claims of hedonism and cowardice etc that's fully understandable. After all, they could have been made by rival family members as an attempt at character assassination - to try and gain power.  There are of course other accounts of the Gurus' character from Muslim sources that are very positive. 

However what I find hard to understand is that educated western Sikhs tend to reject all other historical evidences and support a narrow and bias history after knowing all the problems those accounts have. Maybe it's because Sikhism in the west thrives on this strong idea of victimhood, fighting oppression, the idea of the saintly Sikh warrior fighting a much larger oppressive tyranny. If you change that narrative by putting into question the historical events those views were built on, then it also undermines the Sikh identity ? I don't know, I was trying to understand the reasons by posting the question on this forum.

PS. I apologise for candidly mentioning some historical views of the Gurus character, my intention is not to offend - I missed them out in my first post for this reason but decided to include them in this post simply to state the huge differences in historical views. 

 

[truthseeker546]

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited June 12, 2016 by truthseeker546
Duplicate post deleted.

[GurpreetKaur]

 

Quote

What's ironic is that you seem to take the word of Mughal historians over those of the Sikh ones that were close to the Gurus. How do yo know that Jahangir didn't simply take credit for killing the guru to seem more powerful to his enemies? Could have been a propaganda tactic common to many rulers at that time. History is nuanced and if you want a more accurate account of what happened you have to look at it through an unbiased glass. 

He talked about Mughal's words since you are saying their version of history is right. It's like saying okay not only my mom says Kale is good for health but your mom says it too. ( Kale is really good, start eating it :).  if Sikhs were "minor annoyance"why would Jahangir needed a credit?. I don't know much about History and to be honest I won't even get deep into it. None of us will know the actual facts unless we go back in time and witness it. You are going by Historian's words too without knowing whether they are speaking the truth or not. We are not the only ones,  who are trapped in a bias History . 

You find it hard to understand why Educated western Sikhs believe in their version of reality not yours . why they won't take the label of cowardness instead of being Saint soldiers. I don't understand why would I believe in Mughal's version of reality unless the proofs are undeniable. Which obviously are not. Look around, even in this day and age Muslims are going fanatic about their religion, It's gonna be hard for me to believe Mughal's were saintly and whatnot. If you are a Muslim, I apologize. 

 

 

[truthseeker546]

@GurpreetKaur

I think you misunderstood my post or maybe I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say. I never claimed that Mughal historians have the definitive word on history, my point was there are so many different accounts from Sikhs, Muslim, Hindu and Christian sources that it's really hard to tell what actually happened. My point was looking at all the different narratives of what happened, no one could definitely say the Mughals were responsible for the death of one or more Gurus. As you correctly pointed out none of us were really there so no one has the complete facts. So my question was if that's the case then why so many Sikhs 

You asked me why people  thought there were internal issues that lead to the death of the Gurus and I've mentioned quite a few in the post. Although it's not an absolute fact that they were, but for me personally, reading all the various narratives, looking at political/social climate at the time, it's obvious to me what the problems were internal. The more research that is done on the topic the clearer it becomes. 

"You find it hard to understand why Educated western Sikhs believe in their version of reality not yours . why they won't take the label of cowardness instead of being Saint soldiers "

If you read my post again: I never said what you claim I did. I said I could understand why Sikhs didn't accept the claims against some of  the Gurus, (which were made by Sikh academics, not Muslim), but what I couldn't understand is when presented with proof of various accounts of history, they still cling on to their own version, knowing that it's not 100% certain. 

Like yourself, I don't have any issues believing all Mughals  were tyrants, IF all the historical facts were conclusive, which they are not. I am a student of history and I do like to read around the subject, I was just presenting my research on the forum to see if someone with more historical knowledge could add to the conversation. 

[truthseeker546]

I have to say one thing that really touches me from the teachings of Guru Nanak, is this idea of searching for the truth. One of the meanings of Sikh is to be a student, a student is in a perpetual state of learning. Of constantly reassessing his/her own values/beliefs/ideas to reach the truth. It's what attracted me to learn about Sikhism in the first place, but I feel that idea really died with the Guru. Absolute truth is with God alone, and it's the job of the seeker/student to try and find it.

[IJJSingh]

1 hour ago, truthseeker546 said:

I have to say one thing that really touches me from the teachings of Guru Nanak, is this idea of searching for the truth.

The truth Guru and spiritual guides of other faiths want us to seek is God, which is inside us.  This truth can be sought by weaning our mind from external (Maya/material world) and focusing on our own true-self (soul/God).  Spirituality is a study of self.  History is a study of the material world.  Spirituality erases our perceived differences which are causing strife, and moves us towards one-ness. History on the other hand introduces a hodge-podge of truths/half-truths/lies spun often by people with large egos and deep biases and it is used by most to validate their own biases and to prove that they are better than others.  Spirituality is a lens to God, one-ness and bliss.  History is a lens into the ugliness of the material world, a battle less for truth more for ego, a source of strife.

 

In spite of availability of abundant resources, writers and artists, Gurus went out of their way to discourage documentation of personal accounts or development of the personality cult so that seekers could instead focus on gurbani.   Gurus took a lot of pain to explain that a Sikh's guru is not a physical person but rather the word.  It didn't matter if the word was introduced to humanity by a Hindu or a Muslim, it is recognized as the Guru in SGGS just the same.  If you wish to understand Guru Nanak, then read what Guru Nanak wrote himself, and read the definition of "Guru" given by Nanak.  Your pursuit is trying to drag things into Guru's message, which the Guru worked hard to keep outside.

 

I am the last person to discourage anybody from studying history.  If used correctly, it is a valuable tool for improvement of human condition.  However, this is a study orthogonal to spirituality - trying to reach a spiritual destination through history is like trying to reach North while traveling East.  Spirituality tries to take us out of the muck of the material world, and history is all about getting into the muck of the material world.  I am not sure what your real objective is.  If you are looking for eternal truth, then reflect on your own self, start by following any prophet you respect, and inside you will meet God and all of his prophets.  If your idea of "truth" is searching  for what happened to some dead people long ago, then you can sift through "myriads of truths" and try to construct your "own version of the truth".

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh

[amardeep]

Quote

I never denied that there were some reports mentioning Mughals kings being involved in the killing of the Gurus, there are some that definitely give evidence to that. However what I was stating is that there are so many different accounts (from early Sikhs and Muslims) historians that completely contradict each other. Making it impossible to definitely say what actually happened. What's ironic is that you seem to take the word of Mughal historians over those of the Sikh ones that were close to the Gurus. How do you know that Jahangir didn't simply take credit for killing the guru to seem more powerful to his enemies? Could have been a propaganda tactic common to many rulers at that time. History is nuanced and if you want a more accurate account of what happened you have to look at it through an unbiased glass. 

I don't take Mughal historians version over our own Sikh historians. But many Mughal accounts do contribute to nuancing, balancing or prooving the sikh tradition as being right. This is the case with Jahangeer. Sikh historians have tried to bring in the nuances of the execution of Guru Arjan by adding Chandu's role in it all. The fact however is that the execution took place at the hands of the Mughal empire. This is confirmed by both Mughal and Sikh accounts.
 

Quote

Most Muslims historians largely ignore the Gurus in their historical accounts, Some only mentioned them in passing stating they were a "minor annoyance". Considering the population of Mughal India was somewhere between 25-40 million depending on who you ask, and the Sikh population at that time was in the thousands - you can see why they would consider it minor issues. The Mughals also saw rival family members as more of a threat than any rival religion. And if you look at these Gurus/Hindus/Muslims that sides with the rivals to the thrones to those that didn't - you can plainly see patterns. 

 

Indeed and this is very sad that we have so few contemporary Mughal source about the Sikh Gurus from their own time periiod..Sikhs dont really enter Mughal writings untill the times of Banda Singh Bahadur and the misls.
 

Quote

 

Some Muslims accounts of that era, such as  Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen - does state that Tegh Bahadur was killed by the Mughal Sultan, however he writes: the Guru was executed (at Lahore) with his body cut into four pieces and each piece hung at the four gates of the walls (of Lahore), A version which most Sikhs reject themselves. So why was this written, was it based on rumours the historian had heard, was it fact or was it the "official" narrative given by the state to show Mughal might and power that would hinder possible enemies/rebels. 

Looking at historians outside the Muslim/Sikh view, take  Lieutenant John Briggs, for instance, records historians from that era mentioning :  Teg Bahadur Ji was a robber chief who subsisted on “repine and plunder,” “forsaking all means of honest livelihood” and for this offence he was executed under warrant from the Emperor This does mention that the Mughal emperor was responsible for killing the guru but for very for different reasons - again rejected by Sikhs for obvious reasons. 

Well maybe not all Sikhs entirely as  Dr. Fauja Singh a Sikh historian who happens to be  the head of the History Department of the Punjabi University at Patiala - in his thesis-published in the inaugural issue (1974) of the Journal of Sikh Studies, sponsored by the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar writes that Teh bahadur - whose, according to Dr Fauja Singh, real name was Tyaagmal - was a rebel, a revolutionary type militant - and it was due to these militant activities he was brought to justice and beheaded at Chandi Chawk in Dehli. He then goes on to prove Aurangzeb was not present at Dehli at the time, therefore wasn't directly involved in the execution, a view which many traditional Sikhs like to put forward. 

 

These accounts are interesting but the question is: Do they reflect a historical truth or do they reflect a Mughal bias in argumenting for why the Mughals would execute a religious leader (whom Sikh sources describe as being a pious leader). Many Mughal documents set up a strawman when trying to justify the exexutions. When Dara Shikoh was executed by Aurangzeb it was not on the basis of him being a contender to the throne. No it was due to him having commited blasphemy. This looking for strawmen and justifications in order to justify another agenda is also seen in the account of Jahangeer where he specifically writes that he wanted to get rid of Guru Arjan for converting Muslims.. And when he blessed Khushrao - then he took action... He wanted to kill him for long but justified it through a political setup.

As you probaably know - Sikh sources of the 18-19th century are not censored or shy about writing things we today would find rather awkward.... Rattan Singh Bhangu for instances writes many instances of Sikh's commiting plunder, loot and massacres. Giani Gian Singh talks about Sikhs taking opium, afeem and eating meat endlessly... This is stuff modern editors would leave out.... But the early Sikh historians write it as it is.... If Guru Tegh Bahadur indeed was a rebel who challenged the local authorities in Punjab - then considering the Saint Soldier ethos of the khalsa - these Sikh authors would probably have felt great pride in mentioning how the Guru as a strong independant leader went around challening local authority and rule. This profile of Guru Tegh Bahadur would be something the Sikhs of the later times could emulate in their ambition of being fearless in front of the Mughal and Afghan enemy.. Indeed the fearless and royal character of Guru Tegh Bahadur is celebrated in these writings as well as paintings from the period - but they dont mention him as a challenger to local authority..They describe him as a pious leader   The Mughal historians however probably had a need to justify why a powerfull empire would need to execute a religious leader. So they turned him into a

Quote

 

One obvious problem for Sikhs is that unbiased historians will mention accounts of the Guru's that are not only challenging the historical narratives that are commonplace but also challenge core beliefs. For example, many Sikh historians channelling the authenticity of the Dasam Granth or stating that Teg Bahadur or Tyaagmal was a militant and rebel or one Historians alluded  to Guru Gar Gobind and Har Rai as being spendthrifts- the later taking 7 wives - or a historian who I can't recall now but described Guru Gobind as a coward, and  gave some historical evidences that he ran away from battles - again challenging both common Sikh history and profoundly channelling Sikh beliefs. Due to threats from Sikh protests I think that book was never published. If these are the views of some Sikhs historians now, you can imagine the differences the Gurus' family members must have had about each other when they were fighting each other. 

I can fully understand why Sikhs would reject that latter claims of hedonism and cowardice etc that's fully understandable. After all, they could have been made by rival family members as an attempt at character assassination - to try and gain power.  There are of course other accounts of the Gurus' character from Muslim sources that are very positive. 

However what I find hard to understand is that educated western Sikhs tend to reject all other historical evidences and support a narrow and bias history after knowing all the problems those accounts have. Maybe it's because Sikhism in the west thrives on this strong idea of victimhood, fighting oppression, the idea of the saintly Sikh warrior fighting a much larger oppressive tyranny. If you change that narrative by putting into question the historical events those views were built on, then it also undermines the Sikh identity ? I don't know, I was trying to understand the reasons by posting the question on this forum.

 

Most Sikhs in the west dont care about history. They merely focus on Gurbani if they even care about Sikhi at all. So it's difficult to state that Sikhs in the west dont challenge our popular history when most probably dont even know about it, it's sources etc. .Most people who actually read the old historical books they dont believe in all aspects of  the popular history. Like most people on this page.

[Guest guest]

 

Yawn.  His gender is so transparent.  He wants people to believe mughals were benevolent, Guru Nanak was a muslim, later Gurus were false.  

Long posts about 'this site says that' (site???) and 'twenty unnamed historians say this'.  

[Guest guest]

Hm, lets put his bullshit under the scrutiny of some basic Google search shall we?

John Briggs (1785–1875) was a British officer in the army of the East India Company... is this the Briggs you are reffering to?

Guru Tegh Bahadur: 1 April 1621 – 24 November 1675.

So they aren't contemporaries.  So where did Briggs get his info?  Wel he is credited iwth translating Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen.  Oh dear- you quote this as saying something else.  

Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen =Ghulam Husain Khan, Siyar ul-mutakhirin (Behavior of the Recent Ones) (1781).  So that is not contemporary to Guru Tegh Bahadur either.

So these are not biased?  

Sikhs say there were two rengheta (sp?) 'sweeper caste' sikhs, they replaced Guru Tegh Bahadurs body with their own.  Guru Tegh Bahadurs body was cremated elsewhere, I think a Gurdwara marks the spot.

 

[Guest guest]

Looking at historians outside the Muslim/Sikh view, take  for instance, records historians from that era mentioning :  Teg Bahadur Ji was a robber chief who subsisted on “repine and plunder,” “forsaking all means of honest livelihood” and for this offence he was executed under warrant from the Emperor This does mention that the Mughal emperor was responsible for killing the guru but for very for different reasons - again rejected by Sikhs for obvious reasons. 

Which 'historians' say this?  you dont mentiont their names or names of their accounts.  this sounds like the Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen you mentioned above, which isnt a contemporary account.

Bulleh Shah (1680-1757), is way closer to Guru Tegh Bahadur as a contemporary.  Is it true that Shah called Guru Tegh Bahadur a 'ghaznavi'?  If it is, what does that tell you?

[Guest guest]

" His gender* is so transparent."

LOL i meant AGENDA sorry autotype

[Guest guest]

One obvious problem for Sikhs is that unbiased historians will mention accounts of the Guru's that are not only challenging the historical narratives that are commonplace but also challenge core beliefs.

^oh really like who???

[Guest guest]

^i mean who are these so called historians?

 

 

[Guest guest]

As for Fauja Singh etc- he uses Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen as a source.  see above posts.  yawn ok tired of googling now!

[truthseeker546]

@IJJSingh

Thanks for your response. I can appreciate if you would rather concentrate on the spiritual teachings of Guru Nanak rather then get bogged down with historical facts, but as I am a student of history and looking at Sikhism from a historical, theological and critical perspective, it is important to me.

 I do disagree with you on some of the things you said:

Quote

“History is a lens into the ugliness of the material world, a battle less for truth more for ego, a source of strife.”

History is anything but ugly, it’s exactly the opposite of what you said, it’s a battle for the truth against bias egos. I’m not sure where the hell you got that idea from.

Yes the works of Guru Nanak to form the basis of the Sikh religion, however, Sikhs don’t consider the other 9 any less then Guru Nanak – all are revered and respected equally. The religion & the SGGS is not entirely the words of Guru Nanak but the collective words of the first 5 gurus. Not going into the added problem of the sabra loth and Dasam Granth's which are attributed to the last guru. You can’t pick and choose when history suits you – and ignore it when it’s an inconvenient truth.

Yes you can find God by reaching inside yourself however when it comes to religious law, who you should marry, how you should dress, who and why you should fight with etc – these come from scripture which needs to be examined.

 

 

@amardeep

Quote

“This is the case with Jahangeer. Sikh historians have tried to bring in the nuances of the execution of Guru Arjan by adding Chandu's role in it all.”

Did you read my post, not all the historians agree it was at the hands of the Mughals and even the ones that do, they disagree on the reasons why he was executed.

 

Quote

“These accounts are interesting but the question is: Do they reflect a historical truth or do they reflect a Mughal bias in argumenting for why the Mughals would execute a religious leader”

Can you see you own bias in the statement? You can’t look at history with the view that if it agrees with that the Sikh historians / Gurus said it is OK but if it doesn’t then it’s biased.

Btw Dr Fouja Singh is neither a Mughal nor a Muslim, and he didn’t see Guru Teg bahadur as a spiritual leader, more of a rebel, thief, outlaw etc -  hence all the protests against him.

 

Quote

“Many Mughal documents set up a strawman when trying to justify the exexutions. When Dara Shikoh was executed by Aurangzeb it was not on the basis of him being a contender to the throne. No it was due to him having committed blasphemy. This looking for strawmen and justifications in order to justify another agenda is also seen in the account of Jahangeer where he specifically writes that he wanted to get rid of Guru Arjan for converting Muslims.”

 

You have defeated your own argument by proving the Jahangir needed justification to execute political prisoners. If his own brother was “officially” executed not for treason but blasphemy, what makes you think the official reason of converting Muslims was true – rather just used to justify a political opponent. And even then these manuscripts for Jahangir's were only discovered and made available centuries after – as late as the 18 century. There is no proof he wrote that himself, or it was the words of the scribe – similar issue to the Dasam Granth. That’s why you have to look at history via all the sources and come to a sensible conclusion.

 

Quote

Rattan Singh Bhangu for instances writes many instances of Sikh's commiting plunder, loot and massacres. Giani Gian Singh talks about Sikhs taking opium, afeem and eating meat endlessly... This is stuff modern editors would leave out.... But the early Sikh historians write it as it is.... If Guru Tegh Bahadur indeed was a rebel who challenged the local authorities in Punjab - then considering the Saint Soldier ethos of the khalsa - these Sikh authors would probably have felt great pride in mentioning how the Guru as a strong independant leader went around challening local authority and rule.

 

Well, criticising Sikh leaders or soldiers is not the same as talking about the Gurus. Dr Fouja Singh didn’t just refer to Tegh Bahadur as a rebel, but as a thief, outlaw – ones man freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Another Sikh historian proved the 10^th guru be a coward, that ran away from battles and was scared to fight – etc. a version so disrespectful to Sikhs he was banned from publishing the book.

 

Quote

“Most Sikhs in the west don’t care about history”

Yeah that’s the problem, Sikhs in the west have a very bias version of history, as soon as that is challenged then it’s we don’t care about history, it’s all unclear. Seems to me a lot of cherry picking.

From my experience with Sikhs, I can divide them into two groups, the militant type, who have the worst understanding of history and ironically Sikh theology also – I like to call them the Guru Gobind group (simply because they think they are inclined towards his teachings). Then there are the peaceful, mystic type who actually are balanced and have a good understanding, and are not afraid to say I don’t know when they don’t know something – (the Guru Nanak group.)

 

I think the first group will believe whatever they need to in order to justify their own ideas and beliefs – no point me even starting a discussion with them. The second group I can have a discussion with.

[truthseeker546]

@guest 

what's my agenda - if it's so transparent?

I don't think I said  John Briggs was a contemporary of the Guru, I just presented an alternative view. I never claimed he was an authority or unbiased himself - if you read my posts properly I was trying to make  the point most historians are and it's hard to egt a clear view of what actually happened. 

Dr Fouja was the head of History at a university of Punjab - I think he had more resources then google to do his research. 

 

[Guest guest]

On 19 June 2016 at 11:18 AM, truthseeker546 said:

Can you see you own bias in the statement? You can’t look at history with the view that if it agrees with that the Sikh historians / Gurus said it is OK but if it doesn’t then it’s biased.

the one who is doing the 'cherry picking' is you.  very conveniently trying to brush off Jehangir's diary, letters of the leader of Nagshbandi sect etc at the time etc

Fauja Singh apparently quoted from Siyar-ul-Mutakhireen, which is dated 100 years later.  (By the way, no one, even in Panjab, takes Panjab academia seriously, because it tends to be so poor).

And funny how your talk about 'oh sources can be biased' etc don't apply to texts written 100 years later by people sympathtic to the moghuls.  

[Guest guest]

On 19 June 2016 at 11:29 AM, truthseeker546 said:

@guest 

what's my agenda - if it's so transparent?

I don't think I said  John Briggs was a contemporary of the Guru, I just presented an alternative view. I never claimed he was an authority or unbiased himself - if you read my posts properly I was trying to make  the point most historians are and it's hard to egt a clear view of what actually happened. 

Dr Fouja was the head of History at a university of Punjab - I think he had more resources then google to do his research. 

 

I already pointed out your agenda.  trying to make out 1) Guru Nanak was a muslim 2) mughals were benevolent and unfairly villified 3) later Gurus after Guru Nanak were false

you were trying to quote Briggs as proof.  

Google is a great research too for quickly getting facts.  of course you are choosing to ignore the facts about dates etc

 

[Guest guest]

On 19 June 2016 at 11:18 AM, truthseeker546 said:

Another Sikh historian proved the 10^th guru be a coward, that ran away from battles and was scared to fight – etc. a version so disrespectful to Sikhs he was banned from publishing the book.

oh really?  what was his name and how did he 'prove' this?