Hindu India has every reason to hold the memory of Guru Tegh Bahadur in deep reverence. He courted martyrdom (1675 CE) to uphold the freedom of belief. At that time the Hindu faith was under siege. Aurangzeb had demanded that lead by the Brahmins, all the Hindus must convert to Islam (the ‘only true faith’) in order to strengthen the unity and integrity of the empire. Hindu India was greatly disturbed and its religious leaders came to Guru Tegh Bahadur requesting him to stem the tidal wave of Islamisation. (In a bizarre repeat of the same, the forces of Hindutava are implementing the perverse philosophy of Aurangzeb by demanding of the Muslims and the Sikhs that they should convert to the Hindu faith or accept to live as second class citizens).
Everyone understood that nothing less than the most spectacular event accompanied by a strong show of strength would persuade Aurangzeb to rescind his policy. A programme of resistance appears to have been finalised. It had two main components. Guru Tegh Bahadur was to court martyrdom to set a bold and robust example that could galvanise the people’s resolve to resist coercion in matters of faith. Thereafter the whole of Hindu India would rally around his successor upon whom an armed resistance would certainly be imposed by the authorities. imposed by the authorities.
Guru Tegh Bahadur travelled incognito affording solace to his followers and generally preparing them for the events to come. He made known his resolve and the understanding with Hindu India. He eventually revealed himself and was arrested. He entered the execution enclosure with the most powerful declaration on his lips. It has been aptly penned by a contemporary Bhatt: ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur declared, do not abandon your faith even if the gain was to be the (wealth) of the whole world.’ Those equipped to understand, can discern in his inspiring verse recorded in the Guru Granth, the crescendo of which culminates in the message summarised by the wise Bhatt.
The successor Guru pursued the ultimate aim of eliminating evil intent and of establishing a new world order bereft of evil intent, tension, want and coercion from the day he took over as Guru. Meanwhile, the initial temporary relief afforded to Hindu India by the Guru’s martyrdom, bred only complacency and lethargy. India developed cold feet and refused to budge. Guru Gobind Singh spent most of the early years, from 1675 to 1699, in trying to convince the near-autonomous hill rajas to forge a powerful alliance to pursue the ideals. Had this happened, the Guru would have launched the finished version of the eternal Sikh revolution for the amelioration of the entire humankind from his secure base in the Himalayas. That was not to be. Pir Buddhu Shah and general Sayyid Khan correctly understood the Guru and staked everything to see him succeed but the hill rajas, like the ancient hills they ruled, were not moved. After the gross Buddhist mismanagement, the Hindu India once again lost the opportunity of leading the world in thought and action. Eventually, the hill rajas, forgetting all previous commitments, changed sides and stood firmly by the Mughal administration.
The rest of India fared a shade better. It held a conclave of Brahmins representing the holiest shrines of India. It was presided over by the high priest of Ujjain and the immediate pretext was the durgapuja yajna. This conclave merely supported the Guru’s plan to make the ‘lowest of the low’ of Hind, the custodians of the political power. It recognised that the followers of the Guru were not to be derided as ‘low castes’ but equivalents of the time honoured warrior classes.
Of the original Brahmin leaders who had concluded the pact and had promised the moon to the successor Guru, only a few honourable exceptions remained firm to their commitments. One of them was Kirpa Ram Datt who took the pahul of the double-edged sword and gloriously died fighting for the common cause of humanity at Chamkaur.
For the last four centuries, the historians of Hind have tried to sweep the true interpretation of the events from 1675 to 1699 under the carpet. The trend was initiated by Aurangzeb himself who commanded his official historians to write that he was in Hasanabdal, hundreds of miles away from Delhi when the Guru was martyred. In the immediate past, two determined attempts have been made at the national level to confound the issues and to mislead the world. In the mid-seventies when Khushwant Singh was the editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India and Nurul Hassan was one of the prominent educationists, a theory was proposed that the Mughal history has been distorted by the British historians whose aim was to sow the seeds of antagonism between the two major communities of India. It further said that the Mughal emperors were actually very tolerant and secular in their approach. Aurangzeb was no exception. A crop of ‘national historians’ came out in support of the thesis and some popular magazines were harnessed for the purpose. This trend was so far removed from reality that it could not gain currency despite the high-profile support it received. Had it held water, the entire Sikh history could have been condemned as the misadventure of ‘misguided patriots’ – the designation provided by M. K. Gandhi. The martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur could have been brushed aside as a non-event and inaction of Hindu India in not resisting the coercion unleashed by the Mughal administration for centuries could have been fully justified. What magic our rulers are capable of weaving!
The other course of directly distorting the context of the Guru’s martyrdom and of rendering it bereft of its immense historical importance and potential had been adopted earlier and independent of the above mentioned approach. It was retained as the basic theme. It saves Hindu India of many most embarrassing explanations. It also absolves it of betraying its ‘ten thousand years old civilisation’ as well as the Guru and the Sikh movement.
Some humble students of history have been pursuing the most plausible explanation of the martyrdom which is also supported by credible evidence. It also blends well with the broader context of history. In 1975, your present writer had written about the existence of the pact with Hindu India. The Sikh Review published this article in its commemorative volume. Presented below are some of the aspects relevant to the theme.
Were our great historians and literary figures to apply their minds to the historical evidence available on the point, they could easily prevent the motivated distortion and could prevent the denigration of the noblest martyrdom that humankind has ever witnessed. The documents attached will bear out the truth of our assertion. – Author
List of documents presented here;
1. Letter to PM
2. The relevant extract of NCERT text book.
3. PM’s reply
4. Satish Chander’s article published in The Hindu
5. Article sent to The Hindu by the author which was published in part
6. A letter to the editor of The Hindu by the author
Everyone understood that nothing less than the most spectacular event accompanied by a strong show of strength would persuade Aurangzeb to rescind his policy. A programme of resistance appears to have been finalised. It had two main components. Guru Tegh Bahadur was to court martyrdom to set a bold and robust example that could galvanise the people’s resolve to resist coercion in matters of faith. Thereafter the whole of Hindu India would rally around his successor upon whom an armed resistance would certainly be imposed by the authorities. imposed by the authorities.
Guru Tegh Bahadur travelled incognito affording solace to his followers and generally preparing them for the events to come. He made known his resolve and the understanding with Hindu India. He eventually revealed himself and was arrested. He entered the execution enclosure with the most powerful declaration on his lips. It has been aptly penned by a contemporary Bhatt: ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur declared, do not abandon your faith even if the gain was to be the (wealth) of the whole world.’ Those equipped to understand, can discern in his inspiring verse recorded in the Guru Granth, the crescendo of which culminates in the message summarised by the wise Bhatt.
The successor Guru pursued the ultimate aim of eliminating evil intent and of establishing a new world order bereft of evil intent, tension, want and coercion from the day he took over as Guru. Meanwhile, the initial temporary relief afforded to Hindu India by the Guru’s martyrdom, bred only complacency and lethargy. India developed cold feet and refused to budge. Guru Gobind Singh spent most of the early years, from 1675 to 1699, in trying to convince the near-autonomous hill rajas to forge a powerful alliance to pursue the ideals. Had this happened, the Guru would have launched the finished version of the eternal Sikh revolution for the amelioration of the entire humankind from his secure base in the Himalayas. That was not to be. Pir Buddhu Shah and general Sayyid Khan correctly understood the Guru and staked everything to see him succeed but the hill rajas, like the ancient hills they ruled, were not moved. After the gross Buddhist mismanagement, the Hindu India once again lost the opportunity of leading the world in thought and action. Eventually, the hill rajas, forgetting all previous commitments, changed sides and stood firmly by the Mughal administration.
The rest of India fared a shade better. It held a conclave of Brahmins representing the holiest shrines of India. It was presided over by the high priest of Ujjain and the immediate pretext was the durgapuja yajna. This conclave merely supported the Guru’s plan to make the ‘lowest of the low’ of Hind, the custodians of the political power. It recognised that the followers of the Guru were not to be derided as ‘low castes’ but equivalents of the time honoured warrior classes.
Of the original Brahmin leaders who had concluded the pact and had promised the moon to the successor Guru, only a few honourable exceptions remained firm to their commitments. One of them was Kirpa Ram Datt who took the pahul of the double-edged sword and gloriously died fighting for the common cause of humanity at Chamkaur.
For the last four centuries, the historians of Hind have tried to sweep the true interpretation of the events from 1675 to 1699 under the carpet. The trend was initiated by Aurangzeb himself who commanded his official historians to write that he was in Hasanabdal, hundreds of miles away from Delhi when the Guru was martyred. In the immediate past, two determined attempts have been made at the national level to confound the issues and to mislead the world. In the mid-seventies when Khushwant Singh was the editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India and Nurul Hassan was one of the prominent educationists, a theory was proposed that the Mughal history has been distorted by the British historians whose aim was to sow the seeds of antagonism between the two major communities of India. It further said that the Mughal emperors were actually very tolerant and secular in their approach. Aurangzeb was no exception. A crop of ‘national historians’ came out in support of the thesis and some popular magazines were harnessed for the purpose. This trend was so far removed from reality that it could not gain currency despite the high-profile support it received. Had it held water, the entire Sikh history could have been condemned as the misadventure of ‘misguided patriots’ – the designation provided by M. K. Gandhi. The martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur could have been brushed aside as a non-event and inaction of Hindu India in not resisting the coercion unleashed by the Mughal administration for centuries could have been fully justified. What magic our rulers are capable of weaving!
The other course of directly distorting the context of the Guru’s martyrdom and of rendering it bereft of its immense historical importance and potential had been adopted earlier and independent of the above mentioned approach. It was retained as the basic theme. It saves Hindu India of many most embarrassing explanations. It also absolves it of betraying its ‘ten thousand years old civilisation’ as well as the Guru and the Sikh movement.
Some humble students of history have been pursuing the most plausible explanation of the martyrdom which is also supported by credible evidence. It also blends well with the broader context of history. In 1975, your present writer had written about the existence of the pact with Hindu India. The Sikh Review published this article in its commemorative volume. Presented below are some of the aspects relevant to the theme.
Were our great historians and literary figures to apply their minds to the historical evidence available on the point, they could easily prevent the motivated distortion and could prevent the denigration of the noblest martyrdom that humankind has ever witnessed. The documents attached will bear out the truth of our assertion. – Author
List of documents presented here;
1. Letter to PM
2. The relevant extract of NCERT text book.
3. PM’s reply
4. Satish Chander’s article published in The Hindu
5. Article sent to The Hindu by the author which was published in part
6. A letter to the editor of The Hindu by the author
Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom
By Satish Chandra
RECENTLY, A section among the Sikhs has been led to believe that the account in the NCERT's textbook, Medieval India, meant for class XI has cast serious aspersions on the patriotism of Guru Tegh Bahadur and has presented facts in a distorted manner. Fuel has been added to the fire by the press statement (September 29) of the NCERT Director, Dr. J. S. Rajput, who not only talks of some ``adverse and derogatory'' remarks in the book about Guru Tegh Bahadur, but goes on to say ``this is what was being passed off as history by some self- styled secularists''. He even accuses such historians of working hand-in- glove with destablising forces. If some historians, or for that matter, any individual acts in collusion with destablising forces, the Union Home Minister has all the power and authority to act against them. It is hardly upto the NCERT Director to make such allegations, thereby creating unnecessary tension, and importing politics into what was an historical debate.
For the historians, difficulties have been created because the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur in Delhi in 1675 is not mentioned in any of the contemporary Persian sources. Nor are there any Sikh contemporary accounts, those written towards the end of the 18th century depending on ``the testimony of trustworthy Sikhs''. They are, therefore, often conflicting. The earliest account of the events leading to the Guru's execution is in Siyar-ul- Mutakharm by Ghulam Husain Taba- Tabai in 1780, more than 100 years afterwards. Ghulam Husain states that ``Tegh Bahadur, the eighth successor of (Guru) Nanak became a man of authority with a large number of followers. (In fact) several thousand persons used to accompany him as he moved from place to place. His contemporary Hafiz Adam, a faqir belonging to the group of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi's followers, had also come to have a large number of murids and followers. Both these men (Guru Tegh Bahadur and Hafiz Adam) used to move about in the Punjab, adopting a habit of coercion and extortion. Tegh Bahadur used to collect money from Hindus and Hafiz Adam from Muslims. The royal waqia navis (news reporter-cum- intelligence agent) wrote to the Emperor Alamgir... of (their) manner of activity, added that if their authority increased they could become even refractory''.
In the book I have called this the ``official account'' or the official justification because for an historian, official accounts are generally full of evasion and distortion to justify official action. As it was, Hafiz Adam had died much earlier. Also these events have been placed at Lahore. But there is no reason to reject the Sikh tradition that the Guru was imprisoned and executed at Delhi.
Ghulam Husain's account of ``disturbances'' created by Guru Tegh Bahadur in the Punjab is supported by Sohan Lal in his Umdat ut Tawarikh one of the most respected histories of the Sikhs, coming up to the time of Ranjit Singh. After reciting the manner of Guru Tegh Bahadur's accession to the gaddi, he says: ``With the passage of time, thousands of soldiers and horsemen used to be with him and camels and goods of all kinds remained at his disposal. Further more, those who were refractory towards the amirs, the zamindars, the ijaraddars, the diwans and the officials in general used to take refuge with Guru Tegh Bahadur. Regardless of the numbers present with the Guru, they were all fed by him. Pain inevitably follows comfort. Some degraded persons reported to Emperor Alamgir that Guru Tegh Bahadur was staying in the country (Doab) of Malwa (in Punjab) with thousands of soldiers and horsemen, whosoever was refractory towards the officials took refuge with him. They warned the Emperor that if no notice of the Guru was taken it would be an incitement to insurrection; and that if he was allowed to continue his activities for a long time, it would be extremely difficult to deal with him (later).''
On this basis, I concluded and wrote in the NCERT textbook as follows: ``Sikhism had spread to many Jat (agriculturists) and artisans, including some from the law castes who were attracted by its simple, egalitarian approach and the prestige of the Guru. Thus, the Guru, while being a religious leader, had also begun to be a rallying point for all those fighting against injustice and oppression''. Thus the Guru is absolved of the charge of coercion and extortion, and portrayed as a defender of the people. In the process, there must have been clashes with local officials which they denounced as marks of insurrection. These is another passage in the NCERT text book regarding the Guru's execution to which objection has been taken. It reads as follows: ``According to Sikh tradition, the execution was due to the intrigues of some members of the family who disputed his succession and by others who had joined them.''
In this context, it is very well known that right from the death of Guru Nanak there were disputes regarding succession which sometimes led to splits, such as the Udasis and to mutual wranglings, sometimes even leading to violence. Thus, the succession of Guru Tegh Bahadur to the gaddi was disputed by Ram Das, elder son of Guru Har Rai, and by many Sodhis.
We are told that this led Guru Tegh Bahadur moving to Delhi. But here he came face to face with the hostility of Ram Rai, elder brother of Guru Har Kishan, who had been at the Mughal court shortly after Aurangzeb's accession to the throne, and had his own claim to the gaddi. Ghulam Muhiuddin Bute Shah in his Tarikh- i-Punjab, says that the Guru went on a pilgrimage, and then founded Makhowal. He was summoned to Delhi at the instance of Ram Rai. ``Ram Rai represented to the Emperor that Guru Tegh Bahadur was very proud of his spiritual greatness and that he would not realise his fault unless he was punished. Ram Rai also suggested that Guru Tegh Bahadur be asked to appear before the Emperor to work a miracle, if he failed, he could be put to death.''
Further details of the story dealing with the Guru's execution hardly concern us. In some other accounts, Ram Rai is not implicated in the attempt to get the Guru murdered. They charge some elements at the court and some amirs who kept demanding that the Guru perform a miracle to prove his spiritual powers. This also appears doubtful because Aurangzeb did not believe in mysticism or miracles.
Regarding the religious aspect which is important but needs a fuller discussion, it has been held in the book that the Guru was also giving expression to the discontent and disaffection of the Hindus of the region for Aurangzeb's breaking even some temples of long standing. The book concludes by saying that ``Aurangzeb's action was unjustified from any point of view and betrayed a narrow approach,'' and that ``the Guru gave up his life in defence of cherished principles''.
Thus, there seems no occasion for creating and nursing the feeling that in the textbook the Guru has been maligned or that an attempt made to hurt Sikh sentiments. On the other hand, the book places Guru Tegh Bahadur on a very high pedestal. Despite this, if the NCERT Director has a different agenda of replacing the present secular-oriented history textbooks by a different set of books reflecting the current Hindutva ideology that is a completely different matter.
(The writer was Professor of History, JNU, New Delhi and former UGC Chairman.)
The Hindu 16th October, 2001
An untenable attempt to denigrate the Guru’s martyrdom
by Gurtej Singh
I have read with great interest Satish Chandra’s attempt to justify his distortion of the event of Guru Tegh Bahadur’s supreme sacrifice in The Hindu of the 16th instant. It is good that he has broken his silence on the issue and has at least accepted responsibility for defending his writing.
It is untrue that the Sikhs have only recently become aware of the “serious aspersions” cast on Guru Tegh Bahadur by deliberately presenting “facts in distorted manner”. The distortion and the deliberate nature of the presentation has been in the Sikh view ever since day one. My daughter, who was studying in the XI class in about 1990, brought this controversial assessment to my notice. Some of us got together to approach the NCERT, the Governor of the State and other authorities to remedy the matters. We continued to bring it to the notice of all and sundry, without any effect, for a long time. In 1991, I wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chandra Shekhar, explaining the problem to him and subsequently brought it to his notice during my talks with him. He very graciously referred it to the NCERT authorities from whom he received a stale reply essentially on the lines now given by Satish Chandra. The Prime Minister was kind enough to send me a gist of it. The matter kept on simmering for a long time and was under discussion in many Sikh fora. An advocate took it to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which gave some directions that were ignored by the NCERT. The disdain shown by it went unnoticed until it flared up in a big way as a result of the bold step taken by the Delhi Sikhs. Satish Chandra is not stating the truth when he says the Sikh people have recently become aware of the aspersions. Again it is not a “section among the Sikhs” which is protesting against the unbecoming distortion of facts but the entire Sikh people who can in no way individually approach everyone concerned.
His argument that there is no contemporary account of the Guru’s martyrdom in Persian is only technically right. Dr. J. S. Grewal, a renowned historian of medieval India in his Guru Tegh Bahadur and the Persian Chroniclers, published by the Guru Nanak Dev University in 1976 has quoted at least ten such works in Persian. Muslim scholars have written five of these: a Sikh and Hindus the other five. Several of them date from the same period as the Siyar al-Mutakhirin, which the present author has used, without explaining, why he prefers it to all these other works. Or indeed, why must he depend only on Persian sources. No historical discipline entitles one to selectively use a work (of even Persian) without making the reader aware why it is done.
There is no earthly reason why he should depend exclusively upon Persian records in the face of abundant historical material being available to historians in Punjabi, Braj and Hindi.
His contention that there is likewise no contemporary Sikh account is not at all tenable. Perhaps the first such account is that of Parchian Sewadas written by a contemporary Udasi in 1708CE. This manuscript has been available in many libraries and private collections. I myself have three identical manuscripts of it. Several publishers have published it in a book form. I have analysed it and along with another colleague have translated it into English. Sri Gur Sobha (1711CE) of Sainapat is another source emanating in the Guru’s household itself and is considered by historians to be an excellent source book for the period. Koer Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi 10, written in 1751 (which also I have analysed) is another good source on the martyrdom of the Guru and so also the Bansawalinamah by Kesar Singh Chibbar (1767). Way back in 1961, Giani Garja Singh had unearthed a completely new source of Sikh history comprising of the records maintained by several contemporary Bhatts. His work Shahid Bilas Bhai Mani Singh (based on which I contributed an article to the Punjab History Conference several decades ago) contains trustworthy references to the martyrdom. Though not written by Guru Gobind Singh as is sometimes claimed, the Bachittar Natak is known since 1748 CE and contains an account of sorts of the event. It is not contended that the accounts given in these works are faultless. They have their limits but doubtlessly preserve the kernel of the happening in a very wholesome shape. The list of sources given here is not exhaustive.
It would be difficult to disregard later Punjabi and Hindi works like those of Bhai Rattan Singh Bhangoo and Bhai Santokh Singh (both of which also I have analysed) who depend upon near contemporary sources. They also give an account of how Baghel Singh, in the teeth of opposition, demolished mosques on the sites and constructed Gurdwaras in 1783 CE where the Guru had been beheaded and cremated. It is significant that a lady whose father had seen the event happening and had removed bloodstains from the place had identified the exact spot of martyrdom. Now, is one entitled to ask Satish Chandra why he does not refer to this evidence at all? Is it possible that he has no idea that these sources exist?
We may now try to understand why Ghulam Hussain’s work was a bad source and should not have been used, much less solely used, by any historian. As pointed out by Dr. Grewal, it is `a general history of India’ and mentions the Guru almost in the passing. “In a work of three hundred thousand words he gives only a few hundred words to Guru Tegh Bahadur” Ghulam Hussain’s interest is mainly in Bengal to which he devotes more than three-fourths of the book. He deals with Sikh history only as a backdrop to Banda Bahadur’s activity. He does not quote any source upon which he is relying and is certainly not referring to the tradition current in the Punjab of those times. He places the martyrdom in Lahore, which is factually wrong, and the manner of disposal of the Guru’s body mentioned by him, is also contrary to all known facts. Hafiz Adam, who is projected as the Guru’s companion in the lawless activity, had died much earlier. He had been banished from India in 1642 CE by Shah Jahan on the recommendation of his minister Sadullah Khan with orders never to return to the east of River Attock. He died in 1643 CE while on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina; that is, twenty-one years before Guru Tegh Bahadur succeeded to Guruship. There are at least a dozen authentic works, which testify to that fact. These include Kamaluddin Muhammad Ahsan’s Rauza-tu-Qayumia, Nazir Ahmed’s Tazkirat-ul-Abidin, Mirat-I-Jahan Numa, Ghulam Nabi’s Mirat-u-Qaunin, Mirza Muhammad Akhtar’s Tazirah-I-Auliua-I-Hind-o-Pakistan and so on. All these considerations should have prevented Satish Chandra from rushing in where even angels would have feared to tread.
Before accepting the views of Ghulam Hussain, it would be more objective to have analysed the writings of Guru Tegh Bahadur which have come down to us intact and form a part of the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib. A prominent literati, Dr. Attar Singh on attempting to understand it, has written that his writings betray a deep and sublime religious personality. This is the universal opinion. M. A. Macauliffe, writing in the nineteenth century had rejected Ghulam Hussein’s testimony primarily on this score. That would be taken to be the position of any serious writer who knows the Guru to be a successor of eight prophets and the predecessor of one. How could such activity as looting the people and causing “disturbances” be ascribed to him? Even Ghulam Hussain literally turns the tables upon himself in the last sentence, `but the followers of Guru Tegh Bahadur used to move about like fuqara and they were not in the habit of wearing arms’. It is not known on what rational consideration Satish Chandra does not bring this sentence of Ghulam Hussain to the reader’s notice? But since he sticks to the objectionable part of Ghulam Hussain’s oft-rejected statement, it is obvious that he wants to deliberately highlight the wrong and highly derogatory reasons for the martyrdom. His explanation that he has dubbed it the `official account’ is again not tenable. `Official’ is not ipso facto a bad word and he has not indicated that he regards it so. Besides this assessment is based on the assumption that its source actually is the report of the waquia navis of Aurangzeb. This is just an assumption as it is inconceivable that that piece of reporting was available to Ghulam Hussain a hundred years after the event, particularly because it has never been seen before or after him. He also wrongly harnesses Suri to his defence. Sohanlal Suri’s support to Ghulam Hussain’s thesis has no meaning in view of the above discussion and also because he came another fifty years after Ghulam Hussain. That Suri’s work Umdat ut Tawarikh is a certainly “one of the most respected histories of the Sikhs” for Ranjit Singh’s period and not for the earlier period, is well known to all historians.
His quoting the convenient portion of the `Sikh tradition’ is equally pointless. Like any other, it has its uncritical chroniclers. Any historian sure of his methodology knows what to make out of the alleged Ram Rai culpability. Guru Gobind Singh met Ram Rai and thus absolved him of plotting against his father. By the way, Ram Rai was not in Delhi when Guru Tegh Bahadur was there. He had moved to Dehra Dun. Finally, it is most presumptuous of Satish Chandras of the world to imagine that it is possible for them to either elevate a martyr prophet to “high pedestal” or to “malign” him. They can only express tolerance or exhibit malice for the Sikhs by following one or the other course. In academics Sikhs demand objectivity and fair assessment and nothing more.
Even at this stage we may refrain from attributing motives but may legitimately try to understand the peddler of distorted views.
The Sikh historians aforementioned are unanimous in mentioning that the Guru was martyred for defending the freedom of conscience against the doings of a bigoted emperor Aurangzeb. He propounded the cause of Kashmiri Pandits who were being specially and in a big way targeted. By that act he became a bulwark against the conversion of all Hindus of the entire Hind to Islam. The choice offered to him was between conversion to Islam or death. For the sake of freedom of conscience and pluralism in faith that all the Nanaks preached and upheld, he preferred death. That appears to be the only plausible explanation and is upheld by the subsequent conversion of Kirparam Datt of Mattan to Sikhism and his martyrdom at Chamkaur along with forty other Sikhs including the Tenth Guru’s two elder sons. He was one of the Kashmiri Pandits who had come to the Guru to request him to stand up for the Hindus. His perception was that the Gurus were fighting for the good of humankind and immediate beneficiaries of their striving would be the Hindus of India. That section of the Sikhs which feels that the Hindus should not, according to the rudimentary norms of gratitude prevalent in all civilised societies, be talking of the Gurus in the tone used by Satish Chandra, feel at least puzzled to read that chapter in the text book.
The other section which perceives him to be a spokesman of the ` falsely secular socialist chauvinists’ is also disgusted because it thinks he is trying to achieve Hindu fascist aims by ostensibly employing academically acceptable norms. Surely that is doubly reprehensible. Then there is the section which thinks he is trying to serve the `false gods of unity and integrity, which anyway are red in tooth and claw,’ and deems it his duty to distort history as an offering, are disgusted no end.
Yet another section of the Sikhs attributes motives to him and appear to be on a strong footing in doing so. Their first reason is that this matter of Ghulam Hussain has already been churned thoroughly in 1975 when Dr. Fauja Singh of the Punjabi University first raised it in a big way. Some of the arguments presented above were presented to counter his untenable contention. All that is known to the academic fraternity and even laymen like me. It is not conceivable that Satish Chandra remained ignorant of that controversy or the burial that Ghulam Hussain received then. His attempt to impose the same view rejected on sound academic grounds, render him an excellent candidate for attributing motives. His refusal to correct himself at the instance of the country’s Prime Minister and the High Court shows the dogged determination with which he insisted on holding on to discredited views. What confirms his brazenness further is his refusal to honestly own up the mistake. His attempt even now is, to explain away things rather cleverly as in the article under study. What renders him liable to be designated a mere propagandist is his attempt to plead fear of distortion of history in favour of retaining his demonstrably jaundiced views on the subject of Sikh history. The way he has tried to indoctrinate our unsuspecting impressionable children renders him a plain criminal. It will be by now clear that I belong to the last mentioned `section of the Sikhs’. As a believer, I would love to see the type of Satish Chandra hanged by the nearest lamppost. For they criminally attempt to denigrating the successor of eight prophets and try to instil irreverence for him in the minds of the young of this country who have every human reason to love him and to cherish his memory. I do not buy the argument that Murli Manohar Joshi can be prevented from saffronising education only if the insult offered to my Guru is retained as a part of the text book meant for my children.
To September 21, 2001.
The Editor, The Hindu,
Kasturi Building,
859 & 860, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002
E-mail: letters@thehindu.co.in
Sub: Letter to The Editor for publication
Sir,
I am an old and regular reader of The Hindu and have considered it one of the more objective of daily newspapers.
So I was not surprised when you emphasized in your recent editions, the importance of not linking "terrorism to Islam". In this regard I very appreciatively quote "Don't link terrorism to Islam: Jaswant" September 16, 2001, p.8). Thereafter it became almost a campaign. I was greatly heartened to go through the paper of September 20, 2001: “US not targeting Islam: Musharraf" (p.1), "Do not link religion with terrorism" (p.11) "Bush remark fuels row in UK", (p.14). I am deliberately leaving out the editorial comments etc.
I admire your candidness on the subject. I however, also wonder how much of it is inspired by journalistic ethics, concern for propriety and dictates of fair play! In my mind I see you trembling in your shoes at the prospect of displeasing the Muslims who are a formidable force in world politics and nearer home.
I can easily guess what would be your headlines in a similar situation dealing with the Sikhs. I saw your coloured four page propaganda pamphlets published just before the June 1984 attack on Darbar Sahib. It carried Raghu Rai's photograph of a Sikh pilgrim taking ritual dip in the Darbar Tank. Your caption to it was; "A terrorist taking bath in the Golden Temple tank". Ever since you have kept on your shameful campaign of linking the Sikh religion with terrorism. "Sikh terrorist sentenced to death" says a recent headline (August 26, 2001, p.1).
I am however not surprised. In a way it is most becoming of a (The) Hindu. I know that there are a thousand temples dedicated to Shiva, the Hindu lord of destruction in every town of India but only one dedicated to Brahma, the sustainer in the whole wide world.
The Sikhs are few in number and no (The) Hindu feels threatened by them. They can safely be abused, misrepresented and condemned. It matters little that if a count were fairly taken to locate the consistent saviour of Hinduism for the last five hundred years, they would beat all other groups by any reckoning.
This is the situation of the most objective daily I know of. It may seem absurd to you in your present frame of mind, but history will bear out that the Hindu(dom) will fall like a house of cards once the `Sikh buffer' is removed. A thousand years of slavery were a retribution for destruction of Buddhism.
Yours etc.,
Gurtej Singh,
Professor of Sikhism,
H. No. 742, Sector 8-B,
Chandigarh.
(This letter was not carried by The Hindu).
No comments:
Post a Comment