Sikh Research and Education Center
655 Old River woods Lane,
"The Zafarnama (Epistle of Victory) is the name usually given to a letter written by Guru Gobind Singh to Emperor Aurangzeb, which, according to Sainapat, was sent to Deccan through Daya Singh and Dharam Singh. It prepared the ground for a meeting between the Emperor and the Guru. Sainapat briefly gives the contents of the letter, but not its full text. Subsequently a letter in Persian verse, addressed to the Emperor, found place in the compilation of the Guru's Compositions which was prepared by Bhai Mani Singh and which came to be known as the Dasam Granth. It contains historical references and allusions. It lays down moral and ethical principles. But unlike the Bichitar Natak, it is enriched by poetical embellishments, which distract from its value as an authentic source of history.
There are reasons to think that the original text of the letter is no longer available. There are 112 verses, including four in Brij Bhasha, in one of the available texts. There is another fragmentary text, consisting of twenty complete couplets and one incomplete couplet, which is called Fatehnama. Both are written in dramatic form and in verse in the metre in which the Persian masnavis, as also the Shahnama, are composed. This is unusual in the case of a diplomatic communication. The difficulty has been sought to be resolved by assuming that Bhai Nand Lal versified the Guru's letter, which was originally written in prose. In such a case it would have been incongruous to include the versified text among the Guru's Compositions in the Dasam Granth. Moreover, there are some statements which can hardly be attributed to the Guru (e.g., the epithet 'sarwar-i-Ka'inat' applicable to God only, used with reference to Aurangzeb) as also others which were likely to offend rather than conciliate the Emperor. There is substance in the view that the communication actually sent to the Emperor and received by him was different from the current version of the Zafarnama." (Pages 331 – 332 , The Sikh Gurus and the Sikh Religion – by A.C. Banerjee).
According to Poet Sainapat (account given in Gur-Sobha) the Guru gave the factual position that prevailed in the hilly regions of northern India. He mentioned the religious bigotry of Hindu hill rajas, and the role of certain equally bigoted Mughal officials like Faujdar Wazir Khan of Sirhind, who fully cooperated with Hindus in perpetrating excesses on Sikhs. The existing forged letter conveys nothing to the Emperor. The following are the defects in the letter, which lead to the conclusion that this was not the real letter, but a forged one -
(1) There are more than one version of "Zafarnama" available and also another fragmentary text of 24 verses, called "Fatehnama" is available.
(2) If we study "Zafarnama" carefully, we shall note that it conveys only one thing that the Emperor had broken his promise of not giving safe passage to the Guru and the Sikhs, when they evacuated Anandpur. It contains much of the extraneous matter, which the Guru could never have meant to be included, such as, cowardice of certain Mughal generals, the Guru boasting of his prowess to destroy Mughals, who had murdered his sons, calling Emperor Aurangzeb 'Sarvar-i-Kinat' - Lord of Universe, the epithet, which can only be used for God.
(3) The contents of 'Fatehnama' are even more childish - the Guru allegedly rebuking the Emperor of his craftiness, immorality of killing his sons, and wickedness; also frequently indulging in self praise, his prowess and spirit of revenge. The Guru is alleged to have challenged the 91 year old Emperor to a duel with him, to settle the issue, instead of shedding blood of the innocent people of either side. And what was the issue, both texts of spurious "Zafarnama" and "Fatehnama" miserably lack.
(4) It will be observed from contemporary poet Sainapat's account in Gur-sobha that the letter sent by the Guru to the Emperor was intended to acquaint Emperor Aurangzeb with the real story regarding the struggle in Sivalik hills, The letter was an appeal for justice, for restoration of the Guru's ancestral home, Anandpur, to him, removal of corrupt officials for establishment of peace in Punjab. There is no mention of these elements in either of the two fictitious compositions, wrongly attributed to have been written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
(5) Emperor Aurangzeb left Delhi in 1679 A.D., when his youngest son, Prince Akbar, rebelled against him and joined the Marathas in southern India. The Emperor wanted complete peace in the north, to complete his work in the south. He was totally kept in dark of the factual position in the hilly areas in the north, as the Hindu hill rajas were ever projecting a false picture of the Guru that he was a rebel and wanted to seize power from the Mughals and also from them. How could the All Wise Guru apportion blame on the Emperor for all the happenings in the north? The Guru's letter was obviously different from the existing spurious letter. In the words of Dr. A.C. Banerji, the letter "induced the Emperor to consider the matter personally, for, apart from the question of justice, it was necessary to establish peace in the Punjab Hills."
(6) The existing text of the letter conveys nothing to the Emperor for any action in the matter. The charges leveled against Emperor as a person, only lowers the Guru’s personality, and also this would have offended the Emperor and would not have helped him to assess the situation in proper perspective and to have the desired effect. None of the Gurus ever picked up quarrels with any one on personal issues, as this would have meant the Gurus stooping to the level of the aggressors! The Guru’s Teachings not to take issues with perverted persons, and also the Virtues of ‘Forgiveness’ against the Spirit of Vengeance, abound in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The alleged verse, “You claim to have killed my Four Sons of tender age; the coiled cobra of deadly stings is yet alive.” This is most objectionable, even the charge is not true. In ‘Amarnamah’, the Guru categorically stated that the Brahmins were responsible; and equally Wazir Khan was to be blamed, who had taken the repeated defeats against the Guru as a personal issue and was smarting with the fire of vengeance. All along the Guru never dealt with such a perverted man directly.
(7) The Guru in his real letter to Emperor Aurangzeb narrated the factual position that prevailed in the hilly areas of northern India and lodged a complaint against the excesses committed by the Hindu hill rajas in collaboration with the local bigoted Mughal officials like Wazir khan of Sirhind and wanted the state intervention to rectify the situation. The complaint was appropriately to be lodged by the Guru as a good citizen with the Emperor only, which he did. Further, Emperor Aurangzeb in his reply to the Guru, apart from making a fervent request to meet with him in southern India for talks, did send an adequate condolence message to the Guru for the loss of his Four Sons. Equally objectionable is the verse in forged Zafarnama, “I wanted to kill the hillmen, who were full of strife. They worshipped idols, and I was an idol-breaker.” This is a false statement, as the Guru never aggressed against any one, only defended himself. Also mention of the Hindu opposition just in one verse, is most odd, and as such the existing texts of Zafarnama and Fatehnama are only an insult to the Great Guru.
The Guru sent the letter through Bhai Daya Singh, and deputed four other Sikhs to assist him in delivering this letter to Emperor Aurangzeb personally in Southern India. Poet Sainapat in Gur-sobha, Chapter 13, refers.
In the fitness of the things, the existing text of Zafarnama' should
be removed from the Dassam Granth (Holy Book containing Compositions of
Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji).
First 12 verses are the Invocation to God.This is not the way of writing of the Guru, as we see from his life and the Teachings!!!
“I have no faith in your oaths, even if you bring God as your witness. (13)
I have not a bit of trust in you, as all ministers and courtiers are liars. (14)
He who puts his faith in your oath on Koran, he is ruined. (15)
What could my forty men do (at Chamkaur), when a hundred thousand attacked them unaware. (19)
I had perforce to fight with your forces, with the best of my ability (21)
When an affair becomes beyond any remedy to settle, it then becomes lawful to unsheath the sword. (22)
Had I not taken you on your word on oath, I would not have taken to the path I chose. (23)
I did not know that your men were crafty like a fox, otherwise I would never on any account have come thither. (24)
Those who did not attack us, received no injury at our hands. (28)
When I saw your general Nahar khan advancing toward us, I quickly gave him the taste of my arrow. (29)
Many soldiers of his who boasted of their power, ignominously deserted the battlefield. (30)
An Afghan soldier advanced rushing forth like a flood, a gun ball, or a deadly arrow. (31)
Khwaja Murdud remained behind a wall and did not come forth like a man. (34)
Had I seen his face, I would have helped him with an arrow. (35)
I did not know that you are faithless man, worshipper of wealth and perjurer (45)
You keep no faith and observe no religion. You do not know God and do not believe in Muhammad (46)
He who is a man of faith, he makes promises, but never to break them (48)
Now if you were to swear a hundred times on koran, I will not have any regard for your word, not an iota of it. (49)
When you did swear by Muhammad and called the word of God to witness, it was incumbent on you to observe that oath. (51)
If the Prophet himself to be present here, I will make it my special object to inform him of your treachery (52)
Man ought to be the man of his word. Not that he should have one thing in his mind and another thing on his tongue. (55)
If you come to the village of Kangar, we shall have an interview (58)
Come to me that we may speak to each other, and I may utter kind words to you. (60)
Should His Order reach me, I shall go to you with all my heart. (63)
If you are believer in One god, do not delay in this matter. (64)
You occupy emperor’s throne and are the Sovereign of all creations. But your justice is strange. Strange also is your tributes and regard for religion. (66)
What sense of discrimination is this? What regard for religion? O fie on such a sovereignty! Fie, a hundred times!!(67)
What if you have killed my four tender sons, when I, like a coiled snake, remain behind. (78)
What bravery is to quench a few sparks of life? You are merely exciting a raging fire the more (79)
If you now swear a hundred times on the koran, I will not trust you a moment. (87)
I will not go to seek your presence, nor travel on the same road. Even if you issue such orders, I will not oblige you. (88)
O Aurangzeb king of kings, you are fortunate. You are an expert swordsman and a hore-man too. (89)
You are a handsome man and your intellect is high. You are the master of lands, ruler and emperor. (90)
You are skilled wielder of the sword, and clever in administration. You are a master warrior and a man of cheritable disposition. (91)
You grant riches and lands in charity. Your body is handsome and mind is brillliant. (92)
Your generosity is profuse, and in battle you are firm like a rock. (93)
You are king of kings, ornament of the thrones of the world. Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)
The idol worshipping hill chiefs wanted to kill me, as I am the idol breaker and they idol worshippers. (95)”
The Emperor was in southern India since 1681 A.D. He had no real knowledge
of the happenings in northern India. Whatever picture the Hindu hill
rajas painted of the Guru, was supported by the Mughal officials at Sirhind
and Delhi, as they all were dead against the Guru's teachings of Equality
of All. They all had formed a cooperative against the Guru. The Emperor
on the basis of the representations of hill rajas and the recommendations
of the officials at Sirhind and Delhi used to sanction the armed help to
the rajas against the Guru. The main accusation of the rajas used
to be that the Guru had disturbed the peace and was to raise the rebellion
against the Mughal Rule and was after seizing power for himself.
In southern India the Emperor was facing severe reverses, disappointments
and failures of his maneuvers. Thus perturbed, the reports he used
to receive from Delhi made him more restless and enraged. He was
visualizing that it was the collapse of his Empire. All along the
Emperor was fed with wrong and mischievous notions, and was forced to sanction
armed action against the Guru. On reaching Deena, the first thing
the Guru did was to write a detailed letter to Emperor Aurangzeb explaining
to him the factual story of the unrest in the hilly region in the north.
In the letter the true role of the Hindu hill rajas and also Mughal officials
like Wazir Khan and others was given. The Guru dispatched Bhai Daya
Singh and Bhai Dharam Singh to personally deliver the letter to the Emperor.
Bhai Daya Singh was also to explain personally to the Emperor about the
details of the situation prevailing in the north and to clarify all
his doubts. Bhai Daya Singh met with the Emperor, delivered the Guru's
letter to him, and also explained the whole position clarifying all his
doubts. Bhai Daya Singh also explained that the Guru's preachment of EQUALITY
OF ALL MANKIND was to create harmony in the society, a lasting unity in
"The Spiritual Force (House of Guru Nanak - Church) and the Worldly Force (House of Emperor Babar - State) have been created by God Himself. Consider the former as the supreme in the matters of religious and moral, and the latter only in worldly matters. Those who do not pay heed to Truth and Morality, they are robbed of the worldly wealth by the worldly power. They receive the punishment from the state, whose agents plunder and demolish their homes." [The literal translation of the Dictum is as under - "The descendants of both Guru Nanak and Babar have been set up by God Himself. Consider the former as supreme in matters religious and moral, and the latter as the worldly kings. Those who do not pay which is due to Guru Nanak (Morality) have the minions of their worldly kings exact money from them. They receive the punishment from the worldly kings, whose agents plunder and demolish their homes."]
Dr Hari Ram Gupta in his book “History of Sikh Gurus”, page 225 states:
“Aurangzeb invited the Guru to come to him. Inayatullah in his Ahkam-e-Alamgiri on pages 7 - 9 says that Guru Gobind Singh had sought an interview with the emperor. Aurangzeb deputed Shaikh Mohammad Yar Mansabdar and Mohammad Beg Gurzbardar to console “Gobind Rai a Nanak Prastan” and bring him to the court. The Prime Minister Monium Khan was instructed to provide him escorts on the borders of every province and pay him traveling expenses , if demanded.Dr Ganda Singh gave a brief account of the Guru's life in Poet Sainapat's book, Gur-sobha. Ganda Singh states on the basis of certain old Sikh chronicles that the Guru, while at Sabo ki Talwandi, received a letter from Bhai Daya Singh from Ahmednagar, in Southern India, stating that he had been experiencing difficulties in getting an audience with the Emperor to deliver the Guru’s letter, Zafarnama, to him. As a long time had elapsed, no further communication had been received from Ahmednagar, the Guru on his own left Sabo ki Talwandi for southern India on October 30, 1706 with a view to having a meeting with the Emperor. It is also stated that the Guru met Bhai Daya Singh, returning from southern India after delivery of the letter and also two Royal Messengers carrying the Royal Orders to the Prime Minister, in Rajasthan.
The Guru started for the south from Damdamma Sahib in October 1706.”
This contention cannot be accepted, as the Mughal Government, Subedar Sirhind had promulgated orders to the effect that the Guru was a rebel and was to be arrested wherever found and handed over to the authorities to be suitably dealt with. In the circumstances, the traveling was not safe for the Guru. The Guru certainly left Sabo ki Talwandi, after having received the Emperor's invitation at Sabo ki Talwandi, and after all restrictions against him were removed, as all other records show.
The Guru’s letter apparently had great effect on him. He became so much conscious of his barbarous and bigoted ways that he wrote a letter to his sons some time before his death, which inter alia reads:
“I know not who I am, where I shall go and what shall happen to this sinner, full of sins. My years have gone by profitless. God has been in my heart but my darkened eyes have recognized not His light. There is no hope for me in the future. When I have lost hope in myself, how can I have hope in others. I have greatly sinned and know not what torment awaits me (in the hereafter).”
(History of India, Vincent Smith, Oxford 1920, p 448)
The Guru left Sabo ki Talwandi on October 30, 1706, and came to Sirsa in district Hissar, halting enroute in village Kowal and Jhorar. From Sirsa he proceeded toward south through Rajasthan. He stayed for a short while in villages Naubar and Bhandra till he reached a place in Rajasthan, called Suhevai, about 45 miles south west of Sirsa. This place is also called Sahia. On the north eastern side of this village stands a Gurdwara in the memory of the Guru’s visit here. The Guru after staying here for few days went to Madhoo Singhnai and then to Pushkar, sacred place of Hindus. During his first missionary journey, Guru Nanak had also visited Pushkar. This place is situated three miles from the city of Ajmer. There is a lake in Pushkar, on the banks of which is situated a temple in the memory of Hindu god Brahma. According to the Puranic myth, Brahma performed ’Yajna’ on the banks of this lake. On the opposite side of this lake, where Guru Gobind Singh stayed, stands a Gurdwara, called Gobind Ghat.
Guru Gobind Singh then came to Narayana village, wherein is located the tomb of a famous Gujarati Hindu Saint, Dadoo. It is 60 miles south of Pushkar and 20 miles from Jaipur. The Guru along with the Sikhs stayed here for many days. Mahant Jait Ram was then the custodian of the shrine. This place is called ‘Dadoo Dwara”. Dadoo had died here in 1660 C.E.. Now it was the month of January 1707. From Narayana the Guru passed through Lali, Ghamroda and a number of other villages and reached Kulait. Bhai Daya Singh after delivering the letter to Emperor Aurangzeb and staying in southern India for some time more, was returning to northern India. He met the Guru at Kulait. About 5 months had elapsed from the day the Guru left Sabo Ki Talwandi and had come to Kulait. It was then February 1707.
It will not be out of place to give here the views of two eminent writers about the purpose of the Guru’s visit to southern India (Deccan), despite the Guru’s clear declaration that he wanted to see the Emperor to clarify certain issues. The Guru mentioned this fact in his famous letter “Zafarnama” and had sent Bhai Daya Singh to southern India to deliver it to the Emperor personally. It is in response to this letter the Emperor had invited the Guru to southern India and he was going.
“At this time, it is said, the Guru started out for the Deccan to meet the emperor possibly in response to his invitation. Otherwise there was no reason for the Guru to proceed to south so suddenly. Some verses, especially 53 - 54, of the Zafarnama also hint at such a possibility. But the thesis of some other historians that probably the Guru wanted to enlist the support of the Marhattas and the Rajputs may not be untenable either. Though Shiva Ji had died in 1780, his son Shambhuji was put to death in 1689 with horrid tortures and the latter’s son, Sahuji was taken under protection by the emperor, yet among the Marhattas there was quite some fire left , and among the Rajputs. Moreover, the Guru’s appeal was to the Marhatta and the Rajput peoples, and not only to their rulers.”
“Now, the Guru decided to depart along with five others towards the Deccan via Rajputana, despite the beseeching of his devotees. “My message of hope must spread from one corner of this land to the other,” he said: “I cannot sit back and relax, when my nation is on fire.” It appears, he wanted the Rajputs and the Marhattas fighting sporadically and individually, and even divided among themselves, to join hands with him to give a decisive battle to the Mughals.”Dr. Hari Ram Gupta in his book on History of Sikh Gurus” writes:
“Destiny drags the Guru to death trap - On the Way to Aurangzeb 1707”.
“One idea seems to have taken possession of Guru’s mind. It was to punish Wazir khan, the Governor of Sirhind for his treachery, perfidy, bigotry and cruelty. Instead of gathering his own resources and making fresh efforts, he turned to his greatest enemy to get Wazir khan punished. It was an impossible task. Heaven could fall upon earth, seas could have dried up, mountains could have become dust of the earth, sun and moon could have disappeared, but Aurangzeb could not have punished Wazir khan for the sake of the Guru and pardoned Guru Gobind Singh for his defiance. On the contrary he could have thanked God that his bitterest foe after Shivaji had fallen into his clutches, and he could have performed another act of grace by hacking the Guru limb by limb ..... At Nariana, a village 5 kilometers from Phulera, Jaitram Mahant met the Guru. In the course of conversation the Guru asked the Mahant if he could secure help from Rajput princes to eliminate the Mughal government. He replied that it was almost impossible. The war between Rathors and Mughals was in full swing in Marwar and hence Ajit Singh could give no help. Jai Singh of Mewar was openly on the Emperor’s side. Jai Singh, the young Maharaja of Jaipur, was in the Mughal camp and was fighting under Aurangzeb against Marhattas. He suggested that the Guru should use Madhodas Bairagi in his service. He was a fiery young man thoroughly patriotic and sincere. As he had been living in Maharashtra for long, he was fully aware of the Marhatta methods for successfully opposing the Emperor. He was living on the banks of Godavari at Nanded. At Bhagaur in Rajasthan, Daya Singh and Dharam Singh met the Guru. They had delivered the Guru’s letter to Aurangzeb and had brought a message for him that he was anxious to see the Guru........”
It were the Hindu hill rajas who were painting the Guru as a rebel to
seize power from Mughals and on this false pretext obtaining armed support
of the Mughals to destroy the Guru and Sikhism completely.
Aurangzeb since 1681 had moved to southern India and wanted complete peace
in the North in order to fix up his problems in the South. He was
totally unaware of the Reality. The Reality dawned upon Aurangzeb when
Bhai Daya Singh handed over the Guru’s letter “Zafarnama” to him and personally
apprised him of all the facts. The Guru had repeatedly
said in his Compositions that he had no enmity with any one and did
not discriminate between man and man and treated all equally. As
he loved all equally, how could it be that he was after acquisition of
power to establish rule of one sect of people of his liking over others?
How that was compatible with his Teachings of Equality of All?
(a) Dr. Indubhusan Banerjee, in his Book ‘Evolution of the Khalsa, Vol. II’, “We would next turn to the Gur Sobha, in our opinion the soberest and the most reliable of the chronicles about Guru Gobind Singh. Saina Pat says that very soon after the battle of khidrana the Guru made up his mind that the time had come when the Emperor should be acquainted with the true details of all that had been happening. With that object in view he sent Daya Singh to Aurangzeb, and Daya Singh started with the letter secreted in his head beneath his turban. He was particularly warned that the letter was to be given to the hands of Aurangzeb himself and, by no means, to anybody else. Daya Singh then started on his way and after some time reached Delhi. He came next to Agra and then there he proceeded to the south through Gwalior, Ujjain and the Malwa country till at last he reached Burhanpur. From there he finally reached Ahmadnagar via Aurangabad. Daya Singh naturally went to the Sangat at Ahmadnagar and explained to the local Sikhs the object of his mission. He does not seem to have received any sincere assistance from the local Sikhs ..... Daya Singh made the acquaintance of a Sikh who apparently had some influence in high quarters and arranged the delivery of the letter to Aurangzeb. In this letter the Guru informs the Emperor that he was sending his this Singh of his to him in order to acquaint him with the real story regarding himself, the imperial officers, and the Hill chiefs. He briefly states how he had been attacked, without any adequate reason by a widespread combination of the Hill chiefs and how the local officials had sided with them. The Guru asks the Emperor whether he considered this fair. He further says that a true man of honor always keeps his word even if he loses his life thereby but a treacherous man says one thing and does another and the Emperor’s officials acted like the latter and wantonly broke their pledges. The responsibility for this the Emperor was bound to bear and the Guru asks the Emperor, as a religious man, what answer he would give before God. The Guru concludes his letter by saying that he wanted to see the Emperor personally, with a retinue of one thousand horsemen, and requests the Emperor to issue orders so that no obstacles may be put in his way. We are told that after perusing this letter and hearing what Daya Singh told him the Emperor issued orders to the effect that the Guru must not be molested in any way and that he should be allowed to go wherever he liked. ........
The crucial point to remember is that the Guru’s complaint is against the officials (who supported the Hindu hills rajas) and not against the Emperor. But the tone and substance of the Zafarnama are entirely different. Here (existing forged version of Zafarnama) the Emperor himself is accused of having broken his oath on the Koran and he is described as a faithless man, a worshipper of wealth and perjurer. The Emperor is told point-blank that he knew not and believed not in Muhammad. He might be a great monarch, but far from him was religion. The whole document goes on in this strain and it is not difficult to guess whether it was likely to produce indignation or repentance in the Emperor’s mind. ............... But it is a fact that a few months before the death of Aurangzeb, the Guru began moving freely about and this, we think can best be explained on the supposition that something like what Saina Pat relates must have happened in the meanwhile.
(b) Dr A C Banerji, in his book 'Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, at pages 206-07, states -
"The differences between the Guru and the hill rajas were sharpened by the creation of Khalsa. The new emphasis on the abolition of caste was a fresh challenge to the social exclusiveness of the hill society. The Guru said: 'Let the four Hindu castes, who have different rules for their guidance, abandon them all, adopt the one form of adoration and become brothers. Let no one dream himself superior to another." There would be no place in the Sikh Society for caste and tribal distinctions, which were deeply rooted in the hills. There would be no scope, as Cunningham says, for the 'ancient solace of superstition.' To be a 'pure member of the Khalsa', one would have to give up 'faith ..... in fasting and worshiping cemeteries, places of cremation, or Jog's places of sepulchre' and not to 'recognize ....pilgrimages, alms, the non-destruction of life, Hindu penance or austerities. These instructions of the Guru struck at the very root of the socio-religious order, which formed the basis of the Hill Raja's authority."(c) At page 211, of the same book, Dr A C Banerji states -
"There are many obscure points in the history of Guru Gobind Singh's relations with the hill rajas, but the main out-line is clear. Leaving aside the period following the Guru's final retreat from Anandpur in 1705, the struggle moves around a central point: the implacable hostility of the hill rajas to the Guru. The Mughals came as a subsidiary force: the ferocity of the imperial officers increased as a result of their repeated failures and culminated in the execution of the Guru's innocent sons. It was a struggle primarily between the Guru and the hill rajas, who invoked the aid of the Mughal Government against the enemy too strong to be crushed by their own strength."(d) Dr R R Sethi, Professor of History, Punjab University, Chandigarh, in the 'Foreword' to the book on 'Guru Gobind Singh', written by J S Grewal and S S Bal, stated :
"Guru Gobind Singh's old antagonist, the Chief of Blaspur, could not idly watch the growing numbers of the Khalsa who appeared to threaten not only his jealously guarded temporal authority but also the integrity of his ancient dominions. With the help of some neighboring chiefs, he demanded the evacuation of Anandpur. It took them four years successfully to enforce this demand and that too with the aid of their suzerain, the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb. But to Sri Gobind Singh ji, their success cost not only his 'home' but also the life of many of devoted Khalsa, the lives of all his four sons and his mother. The severest blow had now fallen on him and the year of 1705 opened with the most critical days of his life when he wandering almost alone from place to place with no one to depend upon except his God. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's response to his hopeless situation brings out the essentials traits of his character and personality. He established his contacts with the Khalsa, continued to baptize the Sikhs, defended himself against the arms of Wazir Khan, the Faujdar of Sirhind, prepared a new recension of the Adi Granth, and wrote a dignified letter to Aurangzeb taking a firm stand on moral grounds, and demanding moral justice. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 'friendly' relations with the Mughal Emperors, Aurangzeb and Bahadur Shah, which have puzzled a number of historians, meant no more than this: that Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji wished the Emperors to come to a lasting understanding on his own modest terms which implied the restoration of his 'home', Anandpur, to him as well as the freedom to continue with his religious mission. Quite in harmony with his basic position, the last two years of his life were spent, among other things in ensuring the claims of conscience without resorting to arms. The issue was still unresolved when Guru Gobind Singh died at Nander in October 1708, leaving the Khalsa to trust God and to trust themselves."(e) Dr Hari Ram Gupta himself, in Volume II, page 36, of his book, "History of the Sikhs", stated:
"Banda aimed at national awakening and liberation of the country from the oppressive government of the Mughals. Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh had transformed the Sikhs from a peaceful people into a class of warriors. They fought against the government in self defense. They never took any offensive. They did not acquire territory, did not take prisoners, and did not seize enemy's property and wealth. The two Gurus never tried to establish their own rule in their own territory. They believed it belonged to the Government. The government rules were observed, and government coins were used."In the light of above, particularly Dr H R Gupta's own assertions, is there any sense what odd things these two writers have poured out! Even in the alleged letter of the Guru, existing spurious version of Zafarnama, verse 55 reads: "hamon mard bayad shavad sukhan var, na shikmai dhigar dar dhahanai dhigar." - "I call him a Man, who thinks one thing and also speaks out the same thing." This does not behove of the writers of repute, as they are, to impute falsely the Great Guru, the God-Man, of duplicity!! We have already quoted Dr Gupta, while describing the First Battle of Anandpur, how he changes his views as it suits him.
It is a matter of shame that late Prof. Harbans Singh, Chief Editor of “The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism”, published by Punjabi University, Patiala (India), included in Volume II, , page 249, the euology written by Major Gurmukh Singh, giving glowing tributes to late Dr. Hari Ram Gupta, an extremely bigoted Hindu fanatic, who in his writings insulted the Sikh Gurus, particularly Sri Guru Gobind Singh Jee, with all imaginary and concocted assertions.
Major Gurmukh Singh in his eulogy of Hari Ram Gupta states –
“As a man, Hari Ram Gupta was a model of simplicity. He was unbelievably unassuming, totally absorbed in his academic and scholarly pursuit. ….. Kendari Sri Guru Singh Sabha honoured him at a massive congregation which took place at Takht Sri Kes Garh Sahib, Anandpur, on the occasion of Baisakhi (13 April) in 1981. The Punjab History Conference at its 23rd session at the Punjabi University, Patiala, in 1889. Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan , New Delhi, presented to him Bhai Vir Singh International Award at a function held on 15 December, 1989.”All these Sikh organizations are worthy of condemnation.
Hari Ram Gupta’s writings (History of Sikh Gurus) are perfidious, full of Hindu bigotry and at places most derogatory to the Gurus. The only aim of his writing the book appears to be to distort the facts of Sikh History to make Sikhism an appendage to Hinduism and the Sikhs to form a class of people like the Schedule Castes and the Untouchables to serve the Hindu masters in the name of Hindu nationalism. He starts his book by stating: “The Muslims had converted to Islam the entire population of Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunis, Algeria, Morocco, and Iran in eighty years after the death of Prophet Mohammad. Later on Afghanistan, Baluchistan, north Western Frontier Province of India, West Punjab, Sind and Bangla Desh also succumbed to the sword of Islam owing to the prevalence of a strong Buddhist element there.. The iconoclasts believed that they would be able to achieve the same results in Hindu India as well. They committed horrible atrocities on Hindus almost similar to those perpetrated by Pakistanis on Hindus and Muslims alike in Bangla Desh in 1971. But they failed in suppressing the superior civilization and culture of the country. The wit, wisdom, and vitality of Brahmins saved Hinduism. In the course of eight hundred years they succeeded in converting only a small number of Sudras or some of the members of the fighting classes like Rajputs here and there.”
Gupta considers too much of himself and imputes the Great Guru, who was God-like, always remaining in tune with Him, doing and saying what instructions He received from Him. Was he falling into the death trap of the Emperor? That he would have arrested him and hacked him to pieces as he had done other rebels. But the Guru never rebelled against any one!! Little does this man know that it is against the Sikh Teachings to rebel and defy the established authority. We may not carry out the immoral rules of any state and remain moral. This does not in any way mean that we have rebelled against the established authority. Guru Hari Krishan, who was merely 8 years of age, when at Delhi refused to see Aurangzeb on account of his unnecessarily meddling in the religious affairs of the Sikh Religion. The Emperor wanted to decide who should be the Guru, rightly appointed Guru Hari Krishan or his older brother Ram Rai, who violated the Sikh tenets and became patron of the Emperor. Emperor Aurangzeb wanted to completely do away with Sikhism by any means. Does Gupta think that Guru Gobind Singh could not see to his security and had no vision, when he had first of all exposed the Hindu hill rajas of their false charges against him and had suggested face to face talks with the Emperor, and later set on journey to south to meet with the Emperor? The Guru was accompanied by a good number of armed Sikhs to meet all types of eventualities.
But what treatment the Guru got from the Hindus - only his life long sufferings due to their extreme bigotry of their ancient traditions of caste and dogma riddent enslaving society !!
What part did Hindu Dogras play in the fall of the Sikh Kingdom in 19th
century, and also during the last 54 years in free India? Hindu bigotry,
betrayal, broken promises, brutal oppressions and cheating are the specimen
characteristics! Had Gupta got the tongue in his cheeks to utter
such silly things to utter against the Guru?
Bhai Daya Singh, who was to stay in southern India till the arrival
of the Guru there, had to leave the place for northern India early on account
of the serious ill health of the Emperor, who had ceased to give audience
to anybody. Daya Singh further stated that it would not serve any
purpose to go to southern India, as the Emperor was on death bed.
After leaving Kulait, the Guru crossed the Iravali Mountain and came to Bhagaur. Here he heard the news of Emperor Aurangzeb's death. Had the Guru met with the Emperor, as scheduled, certainly the history would have been quite different. Emperor Aurangzeb enjoyed full confidence of all sections of the Muslim population and could effect necessary changes in Punjab without much difficulty, while it was a difficult proposition for his successor.
With the death of Emperor Aurangzeb, the conditions in southern India began to improve largely, as all hostilities were stopped. Prince Azam had gone only 50 miles away from Ahmednagar toward Malwa, when he heard the news of his father’s death, and at once returned to Ahmednagar. He got his father’s body buried in tomb at Khuldabad, near Daulatabad by the side of the tomb of Pir Khwaja Sahib of Ajmer. Azam immediately thereafter along with the troops proceeded toward Delhi. Azam was greatly worried lest Shah Alam should reach Delhi from Kabul earlier than him and capture the throne. In this way the people of southern India were greatly relieved of the trouble which they had been experiencing for the past 26 years. Now there was no necessity for the Guru to go to southern India to see the Emperor. The political conditions in the country were fast changing. The Guru in order to watch the changing political conditions decided to stay at Bhagaur for some time. Bhagaur is situated at a distance of 70 miles south of Ajmer. It is in the middle of Ajmer and Udaipur. Agra is about 250 miles north east of Bhagaur.
Rajput Hindu raja of Bhagaur, named Shiv Partap, received the Guru cordially. It is said that the raja became very much interested in the religious instructions imparted by the Guru.
At a distance of 3 miles from Bhagaur was another state ruled by a Hindu
raja. Once it so happened that the camel belonging to the Guru’s
camp entered the town gardens of the neighboring state. The
gardener confiscated the camel and gave severe beating to the camel drivers.
Thereupon 15 Sikhs went and pleaded with the gardeners for the release
of the camels and the camel drivers, but failed to secure their release.
The Sikhs then gave a fight to the gardeners and got the camels and the
camel drivers released. In the meantime the state soldiers came to
help the gardeners and the fighting was resumed. The Sikhs repulsed
the state soldiers, who while making the retreat took shelter in the fort
and made the truce. At that time the raja, who had gone out of the
station, came back. The state forces were again defeated by the Sikhs
and the raja was killed in the action.
Mohammad Azam, who was only few miles away from Ahmednagar, hastened to return there on hearing the death of his father, and ascended the throne on March 14, 1707. There was an acute economic depression prevailing in southern India on account of the incessant hostilities let loose by Aurangzeb. The treasury was totally exhausted and in the circumstances Azam found himself in utter lack of money. The soldiers in southern India were in distress as they had not been paid their salaries for the last three years. Azam now headed toward Agra and Delhi with the army who was discontented. Azam was an impulsive, temperamental and stubborn person by nature and indulged in insane vanities.. He promoted his favorites to higher positions and thus alienated himself from the rest especially the Turani Party (the Mughals in India). Azam thus lost the support of the army and Turani Party completely. Asad Khan, who was then the Prime Minister, and his son Zulfikar (the Irani Party) however continued to serve Azam, but for the temperamental nature they also could do him no good. Azam, thus dragging his discontented army toward north left Ahmednagar on march 17, 1707, reached Gwalior on June 11. His able son, Bider Bakhat was at that time in Malwa. The viceroy of Agra was the father-in-law of Bider Bakhat. Had Azam permitted Bider Bakhat to capture Agra in time he would have forestalled Shah Alam. Azam was suspicious of his son Bider Bakhat that the latter might proclaim himself as the Emperor. Azam, therefore, did not permit his son to proceed toward Agra or to increase his strength.
Shah Alam received the news of his father’s death while he was at Jamrud.
He had plenty of money at his disposal. He advanced on March 22,
1707 toward Agra and crowned himself as Emperor with the title of Bahadur
Shah at the bridge of Shah Daula, 20 miles north of Lahore on April 1707.
He arrived at Delhi on May 5, 1707 and then set for Agra. Then he
came to Agra and got complete hold of the city, while Azam was still at
Gwalior. Bider Bakhat was at Dholpur, mid-way between Agra and Gwalior.
Bahadur Shah on reaching Agra, made an offer to Azam to partition the empire
amicably. This offer was scornfully rejected.
The Guru considering Bahadur Shah a man of noble character and the welfare of the people in general, gave his blessings for his success in the impending war and also whatever material help he could give. The Guru again assured him that he should be rest assured the success would be his. The Guru sent one Sikh, named kuldeepak Singh to Bahadur Shah, who remained with him till the end of battle of Jajau fought with his brother Azam.
The Guru dispatched a small contingent of Sikhs under the joint command of Bhai Daya Singh and Bhai Dharam Singh to help Bahadur Shah. The Guru also joined the battle, when fighting was in progress. The battle was fought on June 10, 1707 at Jajau, about 10 miles from Agra. The fierce fire of the joint armies of Bahadur Shah and the Guru brought terrible havoc in Azam and Bider Bakhat’s armies. Bider Bakhat was killed in action and soon followed the death of Azam, who became the target of a missile discharged by the Guru. It is stated that the Guru pushed his horse near Azam’s elephant and killed him with his arrow. Bahadur Shah then inquired whose arrow had killed Azam? When the arrow was pulled out of the victim’s body, it was found to be gold tipped arrow of the Guru. Bahadur Shah won the war.
On the Guru’s persuasion, Bahadur Shah treated Azam’s generals and others
“Bahadur Shah was a generous, munificent and extremely good natured prince. His tolerance and amicability were in great contrast to the bigotry and hypocrisy of his predecessor, Aurangzeb. Brought up in the school of adversity(he was kept in confinement for seven years by his father charging him with softness to, and hobnobbing with, Sultans of Bijapur and Golkunda whom he was asked to subdue, but with whom he wanted to make rapprochement of the king emperor) he had grown up mild and affable to such a degree that the people called him the saint king. According to the historians, his gifts in jewels and rich dresses were truly royal. In his dress he was plain like a devotee. He tried at Lahore to introduce the ‘Khutba’, according to the Shia creed, but on being opposed by the Sunnis abandoned the idea, a singular sign of his liberal outlook. Fond of the society of learned men, he took great delight in discourses on topics of law and divinity. He was most popular in Punjab and one of the gateways of Lahore (Shah Alami) was named after him.”
Bahadur Shah, who became the undisputed Emperor of India, honored the Sikhs who took part in the battle and gave each of them gracious gifts. He sent Bhai Dharam Singh to Delhi with a letter expressing his extreme gratitude to the Guru for the help given. He also made a request to the Guru to see him at Agra, saying he himself would have paid a visit to the Guru, but this gesture might be misconstrued by some of his bigoted followers.
A large number of people came to pay their homage to the Guru at Moti Bagh in Delhi, where he was staying. The Guru went to visit Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, where his father Guru Tegh Bahadur along with his three Sikhs (Bhais Mati Das, Sati Das and Dayala) were martyred in November 1675. They had championed the cause of freedom of thoughts and beliefs of the Hindus, on whom restrictions were enforced by Emperor Aurangzeb. They gave their lives but refused to abjure their faith. Guru Gobind Singh made suitable arrangements for the maintenance of the Gurdwara. The Guru then went to the site of Gurdwara Rakab Ganj, situated near Central Secretariat, where Guru Tegh Bahadur’s headless body was cremated by Lakhi Shah Labhana by setting his house on fire. The Guru got a temple erected here.
After a few days Emperor Bahadur Shah also came to Delhi in connection
with some official work. One day he came out for a stroll in the
vicinity of tombs of Hazrat Nizam-ud-din and Emperor Humayun. The
Guru had also come to this side with Sikhs for a game and was staying near
Humayun’s tomb. It so happened that one of the king’s elephant got
excited and came running toward the Sikhs, who got panic stricken.
The Guru advised the Sikhs to take it calmly. He saw a male buffalo
grazing there. He patted on the back of the animal and pushed it
toward the advancing elephant to go and check the advance of the huge beast.
The buffalo would jump so high to give its kicks forcefully to the elephant.
The elephant got fear stricken and turned its back. When Emperor
Bahadur Shah saw all this, he was extremely surprised and bowed before
the Guru with reverence. Gurdwara Damdamma Sahib stands in the memory
of the Guru’s visit to this place by the side of Humayun’s tomb in New
According to Gur-sobha by Sainapat, a poet in the court of the Guru, it is stated that the Guru reached Agra in the third week of July 1707. On July 23, the Guru and the Sikhs, all duly armed, went to see the Emperor. They were stopped at the gate of the Fort and were asked to disarm themselves. The Guru declined to do so. The Emperor, however, intervened, the Guru and the accompanying Sikhs were allowed to attend the court duly armed. The Emperor received the Guru with great courtesies and warmth. This function was specially organized in honor of Bahadur Shah’s victory over his rival brother Mohammad Azam, and the Emperor was to give prizes and awards to his ministers, generals and officials. The Sikhs also received robes of honor from the Emperor. The Guru was presented with a rich robe of honor, a jeweled scarf (dhukh dhukhi) worth Rupees 60,000 and Rupees 50,000 in cash. Another present of costly clothes, jewellery and ornaments to the value of Rupees 100,000 was granted for Mata Sundari, and sent to Delhi. According to Dr. Ganda Singh, a news letter of the Court of Bahadur Shah dated July 24, 1707 says: “Gobind Nanaki, according to orders, fully armed, interviewed the Emperor and offered one hundred gold coins. He was granted a robe of honor and a jewelled ‘padak’and was given ‘congee’.” The Emperor thanked the Guru profusely for the help given him. “It was customary that the recipient of the robe of honor would wear the dress in the presence of the Emperor. But this was not the case with the Guru, who was treated as Supreme in Spiritual sphere. The Guru handed over the gifts received by him to a Sikh standing in an adjoining apartment.” (Gur Sobha - Chapter 16).
Royal Order (firman) was also issued that the Nawab of Sirhind, Wazir
Khan was to pay Rupees Three Hundred per day to Guru Gobind Singh.
(Bakhat Mal in ‘Khalsa Nama’ - pages 17, 19, 21).
We have been pointing out that the spurious matter has been included in certain old chronicles written during the later part of 18th century and 19th century due the Brahmanic influence and the marauding tendency developed in utter pursuit of power. This trend still continues and Sikhism in its darkest form is being presented by certain mis-guided Sikhs. The adversaries to Sikhism make best use of such spurious material in their nullification of Sikhism. We give below some of the spurious stories introduced by such biographers in connection with the Guru’s visit to Agra. M A Macauliffe on the advice of men like Kahn Singh Nabha, writes:
“One day as the Guru and a high officer were seated together, a Saiyad of Sirhind asked the Guru, if he could perform a miracle. The Guru replied that miracles were in the power of the Emperor. He could raise a humble person to the highest office and dignity, or degrade him therefrom. The Saiyid that he knew that, but had the Guru himself the power of working any miracle? Upon this the grew drew forth a gold coin and said that it was a miracle, for everything could be purchased with it. The Saiyid asked if he could show any further miracles. In reply drew his Sword and said that that also was a miracle. It could cut off heads and confer thrones and empires upon those who wielded it with dexterity. Upon this the Saiyid hung down his head and asked no further question.”
Dr. Gopal Singh has given this story in the following manner:
“On Saiyid’s asking the Guru to show a miracle, the Guru replied, Why, the emperor himself is the miracle maker. He can raise high who’s humble, and demolish those that are high and mighty.” The questioner was, however, persistent. “Sir, what you speak is truth but I want to know if there’s a miracle your holiness can perform. The Guru thereupon took out a gold coin and said, “Look, what a miracle is this? It can buy anything in the world, any person, any value. Isn’t?” “Yes, your honor, but we would not be pleased to what miracles can you perform. That is what will allay our doubts.” The Guru thereupon drew his sword and thundered: “This is the miracle I can perform. I can chop off the head of any one who dares challenge me. Here is the final arbiter for the destinies of man and nations.” The questioner became speechless. The Emperor who was listening to the questions and answers with great interest before, reprimanded the questioner for his imprudence. “No, no, Excellency,” he said, “You shouldn’t mind this impertinence on the part of the courtier.”
The following stories have been given by M A Macauliffe and other writers
in the name of the Guru, which are meaningless religious discussions in
the nature of polemics:
“The Guru and the Emperor’s conversation turned to the subject of Hindu pilgrimage. The Guru said he himself had no concern with them. Next day when he visited the Emperor, the latter said there were two ways - he Hindu and the Musalman - in the world, and inquired which the Guru preferred to follow. The Guru said that he was well disposed toward both, and he instructed every one as he found him. The Emperor replied: “There is One God and One Faith. On what dost thou rely? The Guru smiled and said, “My brother, there are three God.” The emperor inquired where that was written, he added, “A child born yesterday knoweth there is only One God.” The Guru continued, “Why did thine ancestors hinder the Hindus from worshipping Ram, Narayan and tell them they must only utter Maula Pak or Khuda? Thou proclaimest that heaven is made for Muslims and hell for the Hindus. Hindus will not associate with any one who adoreth Maula Pak or Khuda. Such is the quarrel between the two sects. Know that my religion is that regarding which there is no controversy. The Hindus have a God whom Muslims do not acknowledge, and I have a God whom neither of them acknowledge.”
“The Emperor one day preached the Guru a sermon against Hindu superstitions. The Guru agreed with him, but at the same time would not flatter the Muhammadan religion. He said as the Hindus worshipped stones, so did the Muhammadans worship departed saints and even a black lifeless slab at Maka; and as the Hindus, who at prayer turned their faces to the east, the Muhammadan turned their faces to the west. The Muhammadan supposed that their Prophet could mediate for them, but he had become ashes and what advantage could his ashes or those of his saints confer on men? The Guru thus found fault with both the Hindu and Muhammadan religions, and said he has struck but a religion of his own, the basis of which was the worship of the sole Immortal God. Some discussions arose on the subject of the Guru’s discourse but he promptly answered all objections.”The above discussions are said to have taken place between the Guru and Emperor Bahadur Shah at Agra. There was no third man there to report about these discussions. It may well be asked as to what was the source of information on the subject matter on the basis of which both the old and modern authors formulated their descriptions? Surely the Guru would never have indulged himself in such cheap discussions!!
While Guru Gobind Singh was at Agra, certain Rajas of Rajasthan visited the Guru and paid homage to him.
Emperor Bahadur Shah requested the Guru to spend some more time at Agra, and the Guru agreed. Neither the Emperor nor the Guru himself desired that he should go back to Punjab under the prevailing conditions. The Guru could not go back to Anandpur so long Wazir Khan remained at Sirhind, which is at a distance of 45 miles from there. The Guru had very ugly experience of Wazir Khan’s continued hostility toward him, while he was at Dina and later at Sabho ki Talwandi. Also it was not possible for the Guru to settle anywhere else, as the same old story especially of Hindu intolerance to the Guru’s Preaching of Equality of All, would result in its repetition. Anandpur was a well fortified town raised by the Guru, and it was most suitable for him to live and preach. Sirhind was the most powerful center of Muslim fundamentalists and religious revivalists. Wazir Khan enjoyed the full support of all the Muslim fanatics. Wazir khan’s removal from Sirhind or transfer to another distant place could only solve the Guru’s problem peacefully. It was for this purpose the Guru first proceeded toward south India to meet with Emperor Aurangzeb for solution of the problem. But Aurangzeb died when the Guru reached half way on way to Ahmednagar. Now Emperor Bhadur Shah had been posted with the problem. But he had taken the reigns of the country only few days back and was not in a strong position to tackle this problem, which was loaded with grave consequences.
Having not understood the real problem facing the Guru, all have foolishly imputed the Guru for harboring revenge against Wazir Khan and others for the wrongs done to him, and they say that this was the aim of the Guru giving help to Bahadur shah for seizing power for him. It is most disgraceful that the Sikhs make such allegations against the great Guru!! We again quote M A Macauliffe in this context:
“The Guru now explicitly stated the request he had several times hinted that he desired to make. It was to deliver upto him Wazir Khan, who had killed his children at Sirhind. The Emperor naturally desired to know what the Guru proposed to do with him. The Guru candidly replied that he would have life for life, according to the law of retaliation contained in the Emperor’s Sacred Book. The Emperor shuddered on hearing this request, but gave no direct refusal. He said he would reply after consulting his ministers. At the same time he felt that if he surrendered a viceroy to the Guru, a popular rebellion and a mutiny of his Muhammadan army would be the result. The Emperor therefore requested the Guru to wait for a year until his rule was more firmly established, and then he would consider the request made. The Guru on this reproached the Emperor with falsehood, and that a Sikh would arise who would call the false and counterfeit to account, who should seize and kill the Emperor’s viceroys. priests, and magistrates, and contribute to the ruin of the Mughal empire.”
We quote an incident from the Guru’s life as written by Dr Hari Ram Gupta, when the Guru accompanied Emperor Bahadur Shah toward southern India:
“The Emperor arrived at Mandsor on April 20, 1708. When the imperial camp halted on the banks of river Narbada, a Muslim trooper killed “the brave Mann Singh, one of the surviving heroes of Chamkaur, who had never parted from the Guru.” The Emperor was much distressed on hearing of his death, and ordered that his murderer should be seized and given up to the Guru for punishment. The Guru pardoned him, and this gained great praise from the Muhammadans for his mercy and clemency.”Guru Gobind Singh in his auto-biography has made a categorical statement. He said that God told him about the earlier Prophets that He was not satisfied with their actions. God said: “All the previous Prophets were absorbed in self love only. They did not kill any of those who were inimical to God - prabh dokhi koi na bhidara - dharam karam kai rah na dara.” It would be interesting to note that in many Hindu Scriptures details of numerous battles and wars between Hindu gods and demons are given, which the Guru himself translated. In Krishna Avtar alone names of over 150 titans, against whom Lord Krishna fought are given, but they were all for selfish ends, mostly retaliatory actions. In the Mahabharta War, Lord Krishna took the side of Pandva Brothers against the Kurvas. Arjana, one of the Pandva Brothers, was reluctant to fight, which meant seizing of power from Kurvas. It was Lord Krishna, who exhorted Arjana to wage the war, saying: “either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore get up and fight with determination.” All the battles fought were gain of selfish material ends, and involved no spiritual upliftment. Then what is the meaning of the Guru’s emphatic statement that the previous Prophets/Avtars did not ki;l the evil doers and also did not show the righteous path and that he (the Guru) had come to extirpate the evil doers? The evil doers are the enemies within ourselves. The previous Prophets did not do much for the control of our deranged selfish passions and instincts, which are our real enemies. The Guru in his teachings put all the attention toward control of these mis-directed passions and instincts, directing them toward creative directions. There is no instance in the history of the Ten Gurus, where any revengeful action ever was taken in retaliation of the wrongs done to them. Taking of retaliatory action leads to unending chain reactions, and is not a wise solution to the disputes. The gurus taught , no one should ever take to the evil of self righteous role. God is the only Doer, Who punishes all evil doers. No one is outside the pale of His jurisdiction. The Basic Sikh Teachings are - FORGIVENESS IS DIVINE.
(p. 230, History of Sikh Gurus)
Again here, it is noted that these old and modern writers state that this dialogue took place between the Guru and the Emperor, when no third person was present. Who reported all this? What is the source of information of these hinduized writers!!!
These writers apparently have betrayed their total ignorance of the Sikh Teachings!!!