|
Open Page
An untenable attempt
|
Sikh historians are unanimous in mentioning that Guru Tegh Bahadur was martyred for defending the freedom of conscience against the doings of a bigoted emperor Aurangzeb. 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.
|
I HAVE read with great interest Prof. Satish Chandra's attempt to justify his distortion of the event of Guru Tegh Bahadur's supreme sacrifice (The Hindu, October 16). 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 Prof. 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. Prof. 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.
Trustworthy references
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 by a contemporary Udasi in 1708. 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 (1711) 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 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 the records maintained by several contemporary Bhatts. His work Shahid Bilas Bhai Mani Singh contains trustworthy references to the martyrdom. Though not written by Guru Gobind Singh as is sometimes claimed, the Bachittar Natak is known since 1748 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 limitations 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 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 where the Guru had been beheaded and cremated in 1783. 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 Prof. Satish Chandra why he does not refer to this evidence at all? Is it possible that he has no idea that these sources exist?
A bad source
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 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. All these considerations should have prevented Prof. Satish Chandra from rushing in where even angels would have feared to tread.
Guru's writings
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 part of the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib. A prominent scholar, Dr. Attar Singh, on attempting to understand it, has written that his writings reveal a deep and sublime religious personality. This is the universal opinion. M. A. Macauliffe, writing in the nineteenth century, had rejected Ghulam Hussain'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 this sentence is not referred to? 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 50 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.
Pluralism in faith
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 40 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 Prof. Satish Chandra, feel at least puzzled to read the chapter in the textbook.
GURTEJ SINGH
(The author is designated as Professor of Sikhism by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee)
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
