News & Views




  I S C

  Research Projects

  About Us


  Gur Panth Parkash
Gur Panth Parkash
by Rattan Singh Bhangoo
Translated by
Prof Kulwant Singh





In the preceding chapter are named some rea­sons for man’s retreat from religion during the last two centuries and to certain recent trends in the domains of Physical Sciences, the realities of political systems, and the dead ends into which analytico-linguistic philosophical speculations have reached, that tend to stimulate return towards religion.
                Mental energy which this retreat from religion released in the West was primarily turned towards Natural Sciences, but the very methodology of these Sciences provided man with new tools for studying the history and phenomena of religion as such and the methods of approach and the results obtained thereby are likely to mould and influence the direc­tion of this newly awakened interest. It was the German philosopher, Hegel, (1770-1831) who dominated the philosophical thought of the West during the 19th century. His assumption that the essential nature of the movement of human thought resembled vertical crawling of a snake wherein the first move­ment constituted the thesis, and the second the anti thesis, the opposite of that assertion, and the third movement, the synthesis, in which both the first movements were amalgamated. Hegel saw this basic characteristic of human thought as the essential na­ture of all movement of Reality, whether physical or mental, and he built his metaphysical system and his interpretation of human history this wise. This meth­odology of speculation is still the basis of, what is called, the Materialistic interpretation of History, and the Communist systems of thought, currently domi­nating a large part of the political globe. It was Hegel who made the assumption, unwarranted as is now demonstrably clear, that an “Age of Magic” preceded the “Age of Religion”. He asserted that in the History of mankind, there were periods when ancient and primitive human societies were preoccu­pied with ‘magic’ as their sole theory and activity of their understanding and adjustment in relation to the universe. Magic is a theory as well as a practice. The basic idea underlying the theory of magic is that the processes of Nature can be strictly controlled by man through spells and incantations. This theory is as old as the Vedas and is still held by the wide­spread tantrik practices in most parts of India. The practice of magic depends upon the way in which certain things are done and said, for a given desired purpose, by those who have the necessary knowledge and power to put the relevant supernatural force into effect. The specialist in this practice is the medicine man or the magician, equivalent to the prohit of the Vedic sacrifices. Sir James Frazer, in his famous book, The Golden Bough, and his other work, the ‘Worship of Nature’ (1926) tries to uphold the theory that a time existed when man believed that they could coerce the forces of Nature to do what they wanted. He supposes that it was when this belief was no longer found as pragmatically sound that the Age of Religion dawned. Religion presupposes the exist­ence of spiritual beings, external to man and the world around him and that it is these spiritual Being or beings who control men’s affairs. These beings cannot be coerced or dictated to, and the proper method of approach towards them, therefore, is that of supplication and prayer. This is essentially the difference between magic and religion, that while magic is coercive and dictatorial, religion is supplica­tory and propitiatory. Archaeological and sociological studies which have been conducted on a vast scale in the recent past, however, have yielded ample data to confirm the fact that magic is not related to religion chronologically, and that both existed simultaneously in ancient times, as they still do in modem times. The priest of religion, is not a lineal descendent of the magician, as Fraser had thought, nor is religion the sequel to ineffective magic. They are both distinct activities, and mostly simultaneous, in which man indulges to achieve similar or identical objectives.
                Sir E.B. Tylor (1832-1917) in his great book, Primitive Culture, (1871) rested the entire structure of his history of religion on what he called, Animism. His theory was that animism was the essence of religion, the minimum definition of religion, as he called it, the final source from which the whole paraphernalia of religion has developed. His argument was that from observation of such phenomena as dreams, trances and visions, man had transferred to the natural order, the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees and the rivers, a concept of animating spirits whereby these natural objects perform their functions in the universe like man and animals. In this way, as Sir James Fraser put it, the man had located “in every nook and hill, every tree arid flower, every brook and river, every breeze that blew and every cloud that flaked with silvery white, the blue exist­ence of Heaven,” a spirit such as he believed ani­mated his own corporeal frame. From this notion, the man advanced to the stage, when eventually from these innumerable spirits, a polytheistic system of gods emerged which controlled the various depart­ments of Nature. For instance, instead of a separate spirit for every tree, there was supposed and con­ceived a god of Woods in general, and similarly a god of the Wind with a distinct character and features. From this polytheism to strict monotheism is only a logical step.
                Sir Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), a speculative philosopher, who has extend much influence on the thought of the second half of the 19th century, believed and argued that the idea of God and reli­gion in general and originated from the theory of ghosts and the practice of the worship of ancestors. He attempted to demonstrate that, “the root of every religion” was in the worship of ancestors, which ancestors after death, were believed to live in the form of ghosts and which later on were deified. Since these ancestors were regarded with awe and reverence during their life-time, they were apotheosized after their death, and consequently a complicated system of worship developed. This, he thought, was the whole story of religion.
                This speculation was in line with the evolution­ary thought which dominated the 19th century and this mode is still there in the popular mind and literature of today, although the evidence which has been painfully accumulated since, refuses to fit in with this theory of the origin of religion, as Andrew Lang in his book, ‘The Making of Religion’ (1898) was believed to have shown. There has been, as the irrefutable data now shows, no unilineal development from animism to polytheism and to Monotheism, or from illustrious mortals to deified Immortals.
                The argument behind all such speculations was two-fold. (One), that there has been an evolution in religious thought i.e. that there were certain phases of religious thought which were chronologically ante­rior to certain other phases, and (two), that, there­fore, these so-called later phases were superior and higher than the former phases, this being a postulate of the Theory of Evolution that the later in time is qualitatively superior to the earlier.
                It is this kind of speculation and argument which has occupied the minds of intelligent men during the last one hundred years or so, in respect of religion, but it is now no longer dogmatically held that both or either of these two propositions is self evident or demonstrably true.
                It is not correct that, in fact, certain phases of religious thought and practice, such as magic or ancestor-worship, preceded in the history of human society, the other phases. Viewed chronologically, they are often found to be simultaneous and they run along side by side with each other. Secondly, it is fallacious to argue that chronology is a spiral mea­sure of value. To argue that because ancestor­ worship precedes polytheism, therefore, polytheism is a superior religious practice to ancestor-worship is a fallacious argument. That one is superior to or more excellent than the other, depends not upon whether its chronological origin is earlier or later. Its mode of assessment is quite different and it consists in a certain power of perception of quality, of evaluation, which forms the part of a properly developed trained and a cultured mind. To argue that the origin of a thing determines its value is the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. It is a fallacy which wrongly supposes that the value of a fact is dependent upon and is determined by its origin.
                Whatever, therefore, may be the hang-over of these 19th century speculations and modes of ap­proach in the popular mind of the uninformed, the intelligent minds have already perceived clearly that a true understanding and appraisal of religion can only be achieved through the interior religious expe­rience itself and not through the discipline of other sciences and philosophy. This realisation has been made possible in the recent years, firstly by the analytical thought of logicians and philosophers such as Dr. A.E. Moore who in his Principia Ethica clearly explains the nature and implications of what has been called the, ‘naturalistic fallacy’ and it was Dr. Otto who in his The Idea of the Holy (1928) clearly showed that the core of religious experience con­sisted of an awareness of non-moral holiness as a category of value, which was quite distinct from the aesthetic and the moral experiences. This category of value he called, as numina i.e. a spiritual experi­ence of reality peculiar to religion. It is this numinous experience which is the core and base of religion and its ingredients, awe and reverential wonder around in a religiously sensitive mind in relation to his appre­hension of himself and the universe around him.
                This word, numina, is etymologically related to the Sanskrit word, naman, the English word, name. Its antonym is phenomena. ‘Phenomena’ is that which appears as reality to the sensory motor appre­hension of man, precisely the subject matter of inves­tigation of Physical Sciences. ‘Numenon’ is that which lies at the root of the phenomena and which causes and supports the phenomena but which is not discernible either through sensory motor apprehen­sion or even through speculative processes grounded in the data of the sensory motor apprehension. “They are not these, but other eyes with which my Beloved may be seen,” says Guru Nanak. 1 In other words, what the Physical Sciences investigate through observation and controlled experiment is all phenom­ena. The theories which the Physical scientist subse­quently builds to explain the data which he thus collects is also phenomena-grounded. This data and these theories are both like-wise phenomenal and they, therefore, pertain to a category of reality which is not the subject matter of religion. The presupposi­tion and the basic postulates of all great religions is that this, category of reality which the Sciences inves­tigate into and speculate over, is illusory and not real and that the ultimate Reality is something which lies at the base of all phenomena, which is numenon about which the Hindu Brihadarnyaka (III. 2.12) says that when “a man dies, what does not forsake him, najahiti, is his numenon, naman.” It is this that is meant when it is said that the ultimate Reality is a ‘numenon’ and that numenon alone endures. The numenon alone endures, as the essence of the puri­fied soul, as the divine light in the heart of man, and as the God of the Universe. “Nanak (approves of him) who holds steadfast to this Testament of the Guru, while actively operative in the vista-scope of the phenomenal forms that the Numenon, as explicit in the Self-realised man; as the Light and Guide of mankind and as the God Almighty alone endures.”2
                The real subject matter of all true religious activity is the apprehension of or an attempt to establish contact with this numenon, and the true religion tempts the man with nothing less than the vision of this ultimate Reality. Put thus there is no real antagonism between Science and Religion as the religion implicates an activity which is independent of scientific activity and relates to a category of experi­ence which is neither confirmed nor falsified by whatever the scientific discoveries or speculations may reveal or establish.
                Sikhism is essentially, and more than anything else, the religion of the Numenon, and throughout the voluminous Sikh scripture, consisting of approxi­mately 30,000 hymns, there are not many hymns Or pages of this Book where it is not asserted through repeated statements, literary similies and allusions, that the essence of true religious theory and practice is the Name : “There is nothing comparable to the Name in all religion.” 3 The congregational Prayer of the Sikhs ends by fervently beseeching God to grant “progressive prevalence of the Religion of Name, preached by Nanak.” 4
                It is in this context that the historical epiphany of Sikhism is of interest to the modem man.
                Sikhism is not a history-grounded religion, i.e. the truth the validity of Sikhism does not depend upon any event that has occurred in History, as is the case with certain other religions. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all maintain and proclaim that there is, in their possession, a special and unique self-revela­tion of God through their own divinely-appointed channels. It is a matter of history that the Nazarene Jew, who is claimed as the Christ of God, or Abul Kassim, who became, “The Praised One”, Mohammed, and who is asserted as the prophet of Allah par excellence, or Moses to whom God spake directly through a burning bush, appear as historical individuals. If in fact these special channels of the revelations of God did not exist in history as is claimed, and are only myths or fictions, then the whole basis of the claim of these religions, that their dogma carries its own validity with it, falters and falls to the ground. This is a point of strength in these religions in so far as it guarantees to them an element of psychological certitude and a historical continuity. But it is a weakness in so far as it binds these religions to a pre-determined interpretation of the reality. Thus, the Christian theologians would normally start with the postulate that there can be no advance on the Revelation, which is already fully given in the life and teaching of the Christ as the Son of God. The whole task of the Christian theologian is to render what has already been revealed, more explicit. The Muslim and Jewish theologians would proceed on similar lines in respect of their final terms of reference. Similarly, though in a somewhat differ­ent way, their Hindu counterparts in India, are cir­cumscribed in respect of their final terms of refer­ence in the form of the Veda, which though is not conceived of as a self-revealing living God in the Western sense, nevertheless is postulated as eternal and complete revelation of the final Truth. Sikhism, on the other hand, makes no such well-chiseled claim or any such draconic assertion. It merely asserts the following three simple, though fundamental propositions:

(a) that the ultimate Reality is not comprehen­sible through the sensory-motor percep­tions or pure speculations of thought.

(b) that this ultimate Reality is continuous with and partakes of the religious experience of the numenon, which experience is the ma­trix of other values of Truth, Beauty and Good, and which experience is implicit in and inheres in the universal human reli­gious consciousness.

(c) that there is a way of cultivating and mak­ing explicit this consciousness of the numena such as leads to the vision of God.

                The founders of the Sikh religion have merely asserted that there is technique and there is a disci­pline, which is called the Practice of the Name, in the Sikh scripture, which is more suitable and efficacious for achieving this vision of God than others in the present Age and in the current mental climate of mankind. There is no other claim which Sikhism makes and there is no other dogma which it asserts as basic to its teachings, and in a way, therefore, the time-point of the epiphany and the historical origin and growth of Sikhism is not strictly relevant to the truth or validity of Sikhism.
                The epiphany and the history of Sikh faith, however, is of interest in an other respect. In recent years, in Europe, a School of thought has arisen which goes by the name of, Phenomenology, the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness itself in abstraction from any claims concerning existence. Its adherents seek to determine the meaning of what has happened in history on the presumption that all knowledge is phenomenon and all existence is phenomenal. They have adopted this term from Edmund Husserl (1859-­1939) who inaugurated a philosophy which is passion­ately interested in the tiniest details of experience as providing a clue, to art, law, religion, history and all other aspects of the universe. Husserl insists that philosophy which he. calls, Pure Phenomenology, is distinguished from all empirical sciences in its pecu­liar method, which though not easy to expound is a form of intuition concerned not with the appearance of facts but with their essences, forms or structures. These structures are not the perceived aspects of things or the ideas of them; they are obscurely akin to the sambhogkaya of the Trikaya doctrine of the Mahayana Buddhism; and the intuitive prehension of these accounts in the historical events and human experiences is stated as the true task of philosophy to be accomplished through an intricate process of phased perception, analysis and meditation; called, “presuppositionless method”, an exposition which re­mains somewhat obscure even in the texts of Husserl’s, Ideas, General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology (1931 New York). When, however, this term, Phe­nomenology, is applied to the investigation of the structure and significance of religious phenomena, independently of its setting in a particular culture or at a particular time, it is used in a somewhat different sense from that of Husserl. The method employed is to collect material from all ages, states of culture and parts of the world without laying stress on chronology, environments, functions in society or validity. That what appears, i.e. appears as a phenomena, is collected and correlated for the purpose of pure description without making any attempt to pass a judgement on it. Since God does not fall within the purview of the ‘presuppositionless method’ either as a subject or an object, a phenomenologist would describe it as beyond his scope of enquiry. This, he would say, is the business of theology and not phi­losophy, as his sole aim is to understand the religious fact as it appears to the religious man and as he reacts to it. It is, thus, a method of enquiry to assess the meaning and significance of religious phenomena, and Phenomenology, therefore, concerns itself with the study of the history of a religion for its material, postulating that this study of history of a religion is itself conditioned by the results of historical research and as such the inner religious experience and the outward manifestation of the phenomena are really complementary aspects of the same whole and disci­pline. It is on the basis of some such approach that Malnowsky, B., in his Magic, Science and Religion and other Essays, (Illinois, 1948) concedes that,

“the comparative science of religion compels us to recognise religion as the master force of human culture. Religion makes man do the biggest things he is capable of, and it does for man what nothing else can do; it gives him peace and happiness, harmony and sense of purpose; and it gives all this in an absolute form”.

                It is in this context that a bird’s eye-view of the history of Sikhism is of special interest.
                Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak (1469­-1539), who was born in that part of the Punjab which is now in Pakistan. His nine Successor-Nanaks, (1539-1708) exgetised, developed and applied to con­crete socio-political situations, what Guru Nanak had revealed and taught and they thus tried to demon­strate what these teachings mean and amount to in the life of man as lived in an organised civilised society. These founders of Sikh religion are called, the Gurus, ‘the Shafts of Light for guidance of mankind’ 5 and it is the fundamental article of Sikh faith that all the ten Nanaks were, in fact, “one Light, one system which successively manifested itself in different corporeal frames.” 6 The term, guru, in common parlance, signifies a teacher, a guide, but etymologically it has a deep and profound meaning. Bhai Mani Singh, the Martyr (d. 138) claims that it was the last Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh, himself (1666-­1708) who taught him that the meaning of the word, guru is as follows : “go means, inertia, matter, nescience. Ru means, the principle of light which illumines consciousness.” Guru, therefore, means nothing less than the Divine Light implicit in every human heart progressively revealed to him through a proper cultivation of his religious intuition. The historical Sikh Gurus claim no more than that they can help man, through teaching, to cultivate this religious intuition so as to awaken the Divine Light within. The, last Sikh Guru, sternly proclaimed that, in all the Sikh Gurus it was the same Light and the identical Spirit that historically and successively manifested itself and that although the mortal frames changed the identity of the Spirit and the Light remained intact. After the tenth Guru, this Light has been deposited in the Sikh Scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, and the Spirit continues to operate in the historically permanent Mystic Body of the committed Sikhs, the Holy Congregation of those who follow this Light. This is the Sikh doctrine of the Condominium of the Granth and the Panth.
This is, in short, the whole essence of Sikh History.
                Guru Nanak was born on April 15, 1469, in the war-like kshatrya clan of Hindus in the village of Talwandi, now called Nankana Sahib, the holy birthplace of Nanak, about 40 miles to the south-west of Lahore in Pakistan. His father was a Village Ac­countant, and at the age of seven Nanak was put to the village school from where he learnt three Rs. Islam, as a political force, had already entrenched itself in the whole of northern India for the last four centuries and Islamic culture and religious lore was already a part of the ethos of the people of this region. A considerable number of Hindus had been converted to Islam already, either through the sword and political coercion or by pragmatic choice, and the father of Guru Nanak engaged a Muslim teacher to teach his son Persian and Islamic literature, the knowledge of which had a direct politico-economic value, Nanak supplemented these rudiments of edu­cation thus acquired by travel and self-study and by association with the learned men of all schools of thought, Hindu and Islamic both not only in the whole of India but in the entire Middle East i.e. Arabic Mesopotamia and Afghanistan. Thus he became a truly learned and cultured man, as is evident from his revelations now preserved in the Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth. His hymns and compositions, revealed pronouncements and spiritual statements, are replete with literary allusions, sophis­ticated and subtle references to ancient writers and classics of both Hindus and Muslims and all his poetic revelations are characterised by a rich acquaintance with literary conventions and styles of his times and are permeated with deep learning and astonishing common sense. He, however, was careful to assert and explain that the validity of what he testified in the form of spiritual revelations was not dependent upon any source or matrix outside his own interior and authentic experience through which God Himself had confronted and communicated with him. This is the true justification of Guru Nanak being the Founder of Sikh religion, namely, that he claimed that God had directly, without any intercession, re­vealed Himself to him, that what he spoke was directly from God Himself, unalloyed and undistorted. It was in the years A.D. 1496, when Guru Nanak was 27 years old, that he had the unique experience of having a full and direct vision of God when he perceived that he stood before the Throne of the Almighty and received from Him the commission to preach the new religion for the coming Age, the Religion of the Name.
                Guru Nanak is the first prophet ever born m the long and rich spiritual history of India. Before him there had arisen in this great land of spiritualism seers and inspired teachers of religion, the rishis who sensed and grasped the eternal sounds, shruti, coeval with the original act of creation, and acargas who exegetised upon and decoded these ‘eternal sounds’. On this anonymous and amorphous mystical phenomena and its decodation the entire grand superstructure of Hinduism and Hindu spiritual deposit rests. A direct confrontation between God and man for the purpose of revealing a new religion for the guidance of mankind is not there in Hinduism.. Even in the semitic traditions of inspired declaration of divine will and purpose, that is in Judaism and Islam, the communication between God and man is indirect, through the veil of ‘burning bush’ or the angel, Gabriel, and in Christianity, it is the ‘word made flesh’, wherein there is merely manifestation, but no communication based on encounter between man and God. “What is important in mysticism is that something happens. What is important in a prophetic act is that something is said.” 7
                Guru Nanak spent the rest of his life in travel­ling and teaching throughout India, and in the Middle East, and during the closing years of his life he settled as a farmer in a newly set up community-centre, called, Kartarpur founded on the banks of Ravi now left in Pakistan. After appointing his successor, Guru Angad (1505-1552), Guru Nanak left his mortal frame and it became a matter of dispute between the Hindus and the Muslims as to which parochial com­munity the Guru truly belonged, for, his message was perceived to be such that both claimed it as the very essence of their own. Guru Angad was followed by Guru Amar Das (1479-1574), both of whom contin­ued preaching the message of Guru Nanak and applying the Sikh teaching to the social contexts of their day. It was Guru Angad who gave a definitive distinction to the teachings of Guru Nanak and got them recorded in a special modified and perfected script of ancient origin, called, Gurumukhi. It was Guru Amar Dass who developed the institution of common dining, which in the social context of duplex Hindu Muslim social complex of India, meant a profound social revolution of such dimensions that it shook the very foundations of the Hindu caste system and Muslim social arrogance. Guru Amar Dass not only took his truly revolutionary step of attacking and anaesthetizing the hell-heaven roots of Hindu caste, but he also took some other seismic steps that laid firm foundations for the Sikh oecumencial church and brought about fundamental transformations in the social structure of religion and cartography of reli­gious consciousness, for the first time in the religious history of mankind. He enlarged upon the doctrine already laid down by Guru Nanak, that unaided human reason was altogether incompetent to provide true guidance to man on matters of his existential situation and soteriological destiny 8 and that extra­terrestrial revelation was his only and ultimate hope. 9 He expounded the basic doctrine of Sikh dogmatics that this Revelation was the exclusive altar of prayer­ful homage for man and it was to be deemed as distinct from religion itself, the former being the God’s self-revelation to man, while the latter is the product of human culture and aspirations, not to be identified with saving revelation, as salvation can only come from God and not from man. He clarified that this Revelation descends exclusively on a human individual, who is ‘more than man’, the Guru, 10 and not on a pretender or a false claimant, no matter how clever and gifted. 11 He pin-pointed that Revelation was the Guru’s Word, gur-sabd, gurbani, distinguishing it from all other human or non-human literary cre­ations and compositions. 12 Through his lengthy poesy, Anand, he gave a new dimension to the highest conceptualisation achieved by mankind about the penultimate characteristics of theultimate Reality. Sat, Cit, anand, Being, Consciousness, and Bliss have been held as the coeval marks of the ultimate Reality and anand, Bliss has been variously identified with the turiya, the dreamless sleep nirbijasamadhi, the seedless Trance, the sunya, utter Emptiness of higher Meditation, or the yab-yum, maithuna, of tantric yoga in theprofound developments of Hindu metaphysical thought. Guru Amar Dass rejected firmly all these identificatory speculations as misconceived l3 and de­clared that thePoint of Contact between theMan and God, as conceived by Sikhism, was true anand, the heart-component of the ultimate Reality. Again Guru Amar Dass mapped out the blue-print of organisation of Sikhism as a World Religion by appointing twenty two Sikh bishops over as many bishoprics coterminus with the temporal Mughal In­dian empire.14 Further, Guru Amar Dass, by ap­pointing some women bishops as well, for the first time in the history of organised, or ordained religions and ministries of the world, .conceded the right of men and women both, to preach and supervise reli­gious preaching, on equal footing. Guru Amar Dass condemned and forbade the institutionalised coercive custom of suttee 15, immolation of a widow on the burning pyre of her husband to demonstrate the deathless, seamless union between the partners in a marriage that emboldened and encouraged the Great Mughal emperor Akbar to outlaw the practice of Suttee through secular law; and Guru Amar Dass it was who declared the ancient Hindu system of dowry publicly displayed l6 at the bride’s marriage to mark her final and absolute disinheritance from her share in ancestral property, the true implications of which religious declaration were conceded on the secular plane in India, for the first time, by the Hindu Succession Act of 1954. He was succeeded by Guru Ram Dass (1534-1581) who founded the central temple of the Sikh faith at Amritsar. Guru Arjan (1563-1606) was the fifth Sikh Guru who not only completed the construction of the central Sikh temple at Amritsar but also collected, compiled and edited the hymns and revelations of the predecessor Sikh Gurus as well as of certain contemporary men of religious perception, thus creating the Sikh Bible, called the Adi Granth. The human compositions and pious compositions of a large number of low and high caste Hindus and Muslims, contemporary and near contemporary were purposely included to provide a back-drop of pre-dawn spiritual awakening generally that heralded the epiphany of the Light of Sikhism and its relevance to the Sikhism was particularised so as to make Sikhism more fully comprehensible to men. It was this Adi Granth to which certain additions and slight alterations of arrangement were made by the last Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh in 1706 and which was then invested with the status of the Guru Granth i.e. the Revealed Spirit of the Gurus.
                All through this time, however, a fundamental change had occurred on the Indian political scene.
                Islam as founded by Ubul-Kassim, “Mohammed” the Praised One, had already become the State religion of Arabia by 636 AD when Mohammed was 60 years of age. Not long after, the desert Muslim tribes, had spread Islam from India to Spain, and Egypt, Syria, Asia minor, North Africa, Gibralter Peninsula and Constantinople fell before the advance of Muslim ecclesiastical empire. It was in AD. 1732 that this tide was stemmed, when Charles Mortel of France gained “the great victory” over the Arabs at Tours and thus saved Western Europe for Christian­ity. In their advance, the Muslim peoples had unwittingly lent strength to the Roman Papacy by destroying the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch as well as by the removal of the Bishop of Carthage and by weakening the Patriarchate at Constantinople. As this religious empire of Islam spread, ancient languages were obliterated, ancient cultures were persecuted and extirpated and beauti­ful mosques, dream court-yards and palaces, Granada and Seville in Spain, to Badshahi Masjid at Delhi and Taj Mahal at Agra sprang in the wake. The learning and Sciences of these advancing Muslims were far superior to those of the Europeans and so far as culture and Science are concerned, therefore, it is legitimate to opine that the view taken of the “Great Victory” at Tours is more patriotic than of benefit to culture and civilisation. Even in the sphere of religion, the element of greatness in the victory of Tours can only be discerned through a finely grounded parochial microscope, for Islam, after all is essentially the proclamation of the heresy of the Christian bishop. Arius who, in the 4th century AD., pro­pounded the doctrine that, “there is no God but God,” implying that Jesus, the Christ was a human figure, “a creature ex nihilio, and not God-incarnate. The rival opponent of bishop Arius, Athanasius, led the opposition to this Christian theological doctrine at the Oecumencial Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and Arius lost by a rather small number of votes, in favour of the Logos doctrine that God and Christ were one. The victory of Tours merely fortified and perpetuated the prevalence of the Atharasius ortho­doxy in-the Christian religion, and no more. This all-c­onsuming and all-absorbent tide of Islam was stemmed in India, near the mouth of Indus for 300 years, but it made a fresh onslaught in the beginning of the 11th century through the Khyber and Bolan passes of· the Hinduksh range of mountains which means, “the Hindus’ Frontier, (and not Hindukush, meaning ‘Slaughterer of the Hindus’), till it secured a permanent footing at Delhi, which literally ·means, “the Threshold of Hindu Sanctorum”, by the dawn of the 15th century, by the coming in of the Mughals, when Sikhism made its debut. The Hindus of northern India, led and inspired by the great Rana Sanga of Mewar, made a last bid to remove the heavy foothold of Islam from the Threshold of Hindu Sanctorum through the subtle strategy of inviting the Mongol adventurer, Babur from Central Asia who defeated the Pathan King of Delhi Ibrahim the Lodhi, at Panipat in 1526 A.D. But the next move of Rana Sanga to expel these Mongol predators from the threshold of the Hindudom failed at the battle of Kanuha on March 17, 1527, when ·two hundred thousand Hindu braves melted away from the battle­field to leave, it in the hands of mere thirty thousand Central Asian Mongols under Zahirud Din, the Babur, and thus the Mughal Empire was firmly established in India. Guru Nanak was an eye-witness of this invasion of Babur, the Mongol, and has made pun­gent, poignant references to the sufferings and mis­fortunes of the people of north India this invasion caused. History has confirmed his judgement that the conquest of India by the Mughals in the 16th century was “a marriage imposed by the forces of Evil and Inequity and solemnised by the Devil. 17 India had a civilization, a culture, as ancient as any in the world and its peculiar set of values, enshrined in the Hindu concepts, traditions and institutions of Dharma, Karma, Samsra and Maya were not only peculiar but possessed a vigour and a perennial character which has withstood and survived the great­est, cruelest, and severest onslaught that any culture has had to face in the history of mankind, namely, the onslaught of political Islam. The first four Sikh Gurus were the contemporaries of the Mughal Em­perors, Babur (1483-1530), Hamayun (1508-1556) and Akbar (1542-1605) and although the revolutionary religion which they founded and the social transfor­mations they brought about did not fail to attract governmental attention, no serious clash occurred between the new religion and the civil government, which was, in theory, an Islamic theocratic govern­ment, sometimes taking its vocation seriously and at other times being· more practical than fanatical. Akbar, the Great, tried to modify and dilute the theories and practices of political Islam both as respects the governance of India, which was and has remained essentially a non-Mohammendan country, but the guardian-angels of Islam called, the Ulema, regarded these trends with frank-disfavour, consider­ing them as tantamount to disavowal of the certitudes of Islam, meriting perdition in this world as well as the next, and they held any compromise, no matter how statesman-like, as despicable weakness, and mere secular politics as an affront to the penultimate viceregent of God, Mohammed, and his followers. The statesmanship of Akbar, which duly recognised that the political theories and institutes of Islam which are essentially the constituents of a preponderantly Muslim society, are inapplicable to India, was openly ridiculed by them as despicable apostasy and their chagrin at their failure to persuade Akbar to play the role of a Muslim fanatical monarch was only matched by their despair at their own political ineffectiveness. It was at this time, that in the year 1959, that a person later known as, Sheikh Sirhindi, was born in an immigrant Muslim family at Sirhind, meaning, ‘the Apex of India’, the military cantonment of north Western India of those days. He grew up into a fanatical Muslim theologian, and in his thirties he declared that he had been appointed by God as the Paraclete of God, i.e. the Holy Ghost, commissioned to regenerate and renew Islam. He assumed the grandiose title of, Mujaddid Alif Thani, that is, the regenerator of the religion in the second millennium. This man lived up to the age of 63 and died at Sirhind in the year 1624 A.D. at the same age at which Mohammad had died, and his last admoni­tion to his followers, on his death bed was, “hold shariat, (i.e. the politico-social dogma of Islam), tight with your teeth.” Pretending to follow the footsteps of his Master, the prophet Mohammed, he engaged in proclaiming his ideas and his interpretation of Islam to politically. powerful persons around him, and the largest number of letters which he wrote during his life time, now collected and published under the title of Muktubati-Imami-Rabballi, 18 were addressed to a Mughal grandee, Sheikh Farid Bhukhari. This Sheikh Farid Bhukhari had early distinguished him­self in warfare against the Afghans in Orissa and he had been promoted to the command of ‘1500 Horses’ during the reign of Akbar. He was also appointed as Mir Bakhshi, the Imperial Accountant General, under Akbar and for a time he also held charge of the daftari-tan, Excise and Revenue, in the ,Imperial Government. Akbar had also conferred upon him the grand title of, Sahibul saif-val-qalam, meaning, the Master of the Pen and the Sword. Akbar died in AD. 1605 and. Jehangir, his son, ascended the Impe­rial throne. Father Du Jarrie in his book” ‘Akbar and the Jesuits” 19 (page 204) tells us that
                “Accordingly, the leading noble, Sheikh Farid Bhukhari, having been sent by the others as their representative came to the Prince (Salim, entitled, Jehangir), and promised in their names to place the Kingdom (of India) in his hands provided that he would swear to defend the law of Mohammed.”
                V.A. Smith in his, Akbar, (page 322), and Sri Ram Sharma in his, “Religious Policy of Mughal Emperors” (page 71), confirm that a promise had been extracted from Jehangir before he was helped to ascend the throne, to defend Islam, which in practice means to make political Islam prevail with the aid of the sharp edge of the sword. In the 8th year of the reign of Jehangir, his son, Khusrao, a person of cultured disposition and tolerant religious views, was forced to flee for his life, from the Islamic arm of the state. This flight for freedom of prince Khusrao, was described as rebellion in the political parlance and Khusrao was pursued by the Imperial hosts to be captured and liquidated. Sheikh Farid Bhukhari, ‘the Master of the Pen and Sword’, ren­dered conspicuous services in the capture and liqui­dation of the royal prince and thus he earned the title of Murtaza Khan, a military rank, for his services to the Imperial throne. His rank was increased to the command of ‘6,000 Horses’, according to the Tozaki-Jehangiri.
                Guru Arjun, in the Adi Granthhad made the uncompromising declaration that the political Islam which seeks to destroy and extirpate ancient lan­guages and cultures, civilization and peoples with their own ways of life, was wholly unacceptable to the people of India, i.e. non-Muslims adding that “coer­cive rule of one people over another was against the God’s Will as now revealed to mankind through Sikhism, and all governments, henceforth, may exer­cise power, through persuasion and mutual consent and not otherwise.” 20 Sikhism, being the defender of the oppressed Hindus and as the entelechy of the spirit of man had, Guru Arjun declared, no quarrel with Islam as a religion, a way and technique of man’s relationship with God, but it stoutly refused to accept the Arabic socio-political pattern of life, based on the ethnical norms of Muslim rulers. The Revela­tion in the Sikh scripture contained the call that,

“Let a Muslim be compassionate in heart. Let his Islam consist of cleansing the impurities of his soul. But he must not confuse his religion with a desire to dominate and subjugate others. Such a Muslim only we accept as worthy and as socially pure.”21

Prince Khusrao, apparently agreed with the jus­tice of this demand and he held the Guru in great esteem otherwise also on account of his spiritual eminence. In his flight from the hosts of Jehangir, the Prince crossed the river Beas at the ford of Goindwal which was then the seat of Guru Arjun. Guru Arjun, well aware of the consequences it might entail, succored the unfortunate prince by providing his companions with meals and with words of spiri­tual consolation, and Jehangir made this a pretext for passing a ‘death sentence with severe tortures’ on the Guru according to the barbaric Mongol laws of the Yasa. He admits in his, Tozuk, that ‘eversince his ascendance to the throne it had been his intention either to force Guru Arjan to accept conversion to Islam, or to punish him with death, as the Guru was preaching a religion which was growing popular amongst “simple minded Hindus” and “foolish Mus­lims”. It was Sheikh Farid Bhukhari, the Murtaza Khan to whom Jehangir handed over the person of Guru Arjun, “to be destroyed by killing him with severe tortures, in accordance with the Mongol law of the Yasa”. It was this Murtaza Khan to whom Sheikh Sirhindi, the Mujaddid Alif Thani had jubi­lantly written that the accession of Jehangir to the throne “was auspicious for Islam in India”. In another communication this ‘Regenerator of Islam’ perorated to the Murtaza Khan saying:

“Now when the Emperor has .got no sympathies with the non-Muslims, karus, the prevalence of heretical practices which were introduced in the past is very loathsome to Muslims. It is the duty of every Muslim that the Emperor should be informed of the evils of the rites of the unbeliev­ers and all the believers should make efforts to remove these evils because it is just possible that the Emperor may not know the evils of heretical innovations.”

                This ‘Regenerator of Islam in the Second Mil­lennium’, paid several visits to .Sheikh Farid Bhukhair, the Murtaza Khan, at the imperial court of Jehangir and his proclamations and numerous letters 24 make no secret of his dynamic hatred against non-Sunni Muslims in general and non-Muslims in particular, and it is clear that he had no sympathy whatever with anyone outside the orthodox Sunni fold of Islam , and he regarded tolerance as a tacit compliment to evil and heresy. It is the rise and growth of Sikh religion and the activities of the Sikh Gurus tending to convert and encompass the intelligent and sincere minority of the Hindus and Muslims both, which particularly disturbed the afflated soul of the ‘Regen­erator’ and it is, therefore, Sikhism, the ‘heretical innovation’, which he particularly desired the Em­peror to destroy and which desire the emperor, later on, himself owns as his long cherished aim, in the Tozik, when justifying his handing out of death sentence on Guru Arjun. In another letter25 written to a Mughal grandee, Jehangir Kuli Khan, alias, Lalla Beg, a Commander of 4,000 Horse’ the Mujaddid gave out the order that:

“If from the very start of the reign (of Emperor Jehangir) Islam gets a footing and the Muslims establish their prestige, well and good, but if the matter is delayed the task (of restoring political Islam in India) will become very difficult.”
                This Lalla Beg was another fanatical follower of ‘the Regenerator’ and he and the Murtaza Khan were his two chief agents for the purpose of employing the Imperial power to destroy Sikhism so that, “Islam gets a footing,” in India. It was without doubt, this Sheikh Sirhind, the Regenerator of Islam in the Second Millennium. who, through Sheikh Farid Bhukhari, the Murtaza Khan and the Lalla Beg had extracted a promise from Prince Salim, who later became the Emperor Jehangir, that the Emperor would suppress the Sikhs and liquidate Sikhism by destroying Guru Arjun, and it is to this promise that Jehangir makes a cryptic reference in his Memoirs, the Tozak. It was in execution of this promise that Guru Arjun was put to death with tortures on a framed-up pretext, under the orders of Jehangir in the year 1606 and it was in pursuance of the politico­-Islamic policy, embodied in the oft-proclaimed dic­tum by the Mujaddid, ash-shara ‘tahatus-saiyaf that is, that Islam enjoins that its politico-social system must be enforced through sword on all peoples who fall under the subjugation of Muslims. Islam had come to India as a divisive and destructive influence from the eleventh century onwards, but the Mughal period had begun by striking a note of integration, a ten­dency towards mutual understanding and unification to replace bitterness and hatred with political and cultural cooperation. This political climate of har­mony continued, in a conspicuous form, under Babur, Sher Shah, Humayun and Akbar, but the moment was deliberately reversed under Jehangir on account of the powerful influence of the Mujaddid, and the intolerance of the Mughal Emperor, thereafter mounted with their growing decrepitude. From now onwards, the Sikh religion and; the political Islam in India engaged in a life and death struggle and the issue involved was no less than the right of indepen­dent spiritual values and traditions to survive. After a bitter struggle for a century and a half, Sikhism succeeded in inflicting a final defeat on the preten­sions and arrogance of political Islam in its aims of destroying the culture and spiritual values of the politically defeated. The story of this struggle, in which the Sikh Gurus, from Guru Arjun onwards, guided and presided over Sikhism, and the Muslim ulemas inspired and directed the political Islam, is somewhat obscure but one of the most significant episodes of the history of the mankind, pregnant with immeasurable consequences for the future.
                The Sixth Nanak, Guru Hargobind (1595-1645) in compliance with the directive and will of the Fifth Nanak brought about conspicuous change in the character of the Sikh movement by claiming for the Sikh people the status of spiritual-cum-secular sover­eignty in relation to all secular authority by giving currency to and legitimising the concepts of the “rightful sovereign”, sacca padishah, “governance”, raj, “seat of government”, takht, “Privy Council Hall of the State”, darbar, as structural ideas of Sikh movement, and he established the custom of “sitting in state”, wearing two swords, the emblems of unicentral spiritual and temporal sovereignty . When the Tenth Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, ordained the Order of the Khalsa, in 1699, pledged to make every sacrifice to ensure the prevalence of Sikhism and its growth into a Global Brotherhood of Man, it was this emblem of Two-Swords, the Double-edged Disinte­grator, Khanda, which became the central object of the Mystery of Initiation for the members of the Order. These activities of the Sixth Nanak did not escape the notice of the Mujaddid, it seems, for the Emperor, on being apprised of “the evils of these acts of the unbelievers”, ordered that Guru Hargobind be incarcerated as a political prisoner in the fort of Gwalior during the pleasure of His Majesty. It was more than likely that the Guru Hargobind would have either ended his whole life in prison, or more likely still, he might have been beheaded for the “offence” of refusing to accept Islam, an offence of which, in a truly Islamic state, if not every non-­Muslim, at least every non-Jew and non-Christian, outside the narrow confines of the “People of the Book”, is always and continuously guilty. But, pre­cisely at this period, another development took place. Blood-thirsty Mujaddid, through his pet Mughal grandees, the Murtaza Khan and the Lalla Beg, made Jehangir order the execution of a highly learned Muslim theologian on the sole ground that he was not of the orthodox Sunni sect, but was a Shia, a ‘heretic’, and therefore, deserved to die. Rauzelatut Qayyumieh, the Arabic document of the Mujaddid cult informs us that the sole offence of this con­demned Muslim theologian, Qazi Nurullah, was that he had written an Arabic polemic, Ahavalul-Haque (1273 A.H.), in which the author had the temerity to argue that the Shia doctrine was the true Islamic doctrine. Qazi Nurullah, who was a Persian, Irani, a native of Shuster, Tehran, paid with his life for a similar “offence” for which Guru Arjun had been tortured to death and the accusing finger in both the cases was that of the Mujaddid. And the Mujaddid had become very powerful and influential in the state by now, from behind the scene, and on this very account he suffered a setback. As a contemporary Persian document 26 records, during this period, the Mujaddid paid numerous visits to the Murtaza Khan and was also summoned to Agra by Jehangir for consultations in matters of State policy. But the execution of Qazi Nurullah of Shuster made the powerful Asaf Khan, the brother of the Imperial Consort, Nurjahan, an enemy of the Mujaddid, and Asaf Khan was, at this time, the Prime Minister of the Empire. Asaf Khan warned Jehangir that the Mujaddid bad gained such powerful influence with the soldiers that he had become a danger to the State. The apprehension was well founded. Jehangir records in his Tozuk that the Mujaddid was ‘very adversely reported to him’ and that, therefore, the Emperor handed him over to Anirai Singh, Dalan, to be imprisoned in the fort of Gwalior, where the Sixth Nanak, Guru Hagobind, had been previously incar­cerated, and since Guru Hargobind had fallen under displeasure because of the instigation of the Mujaddid, when the Mujaddid came under displeasure, the Guru was released. An old Persian manuscript27, however, tells us that this Imperial displeasure was only temporary and the Mujaddid was soon rehabili­tated to be accepted once again as a special advisor to the Emperor for many years to come. Soon after this release of the Guru from the Fort-prison, however, the Lalla Beg, on his own authority, or more correctly, on the authority of Political Islam as ex­pounded by his mentor, the Mujaddid, suddenly at­tacked the Guru with a formidable force of ten thousand horse-men in 1681 at the place now com­memorated as the Gurusar in the Ferozepur district of the Indian Punjab, with the object of destroying the Guru, whose existence was “very loathsome to Muslims”, but Lalla Beg himself became a causality on the battle-field along with five · thousands of his seasoned soldiers. Jehangir had been succeeded by Emperor Shahjahan by this time. As the Sikh Guru thus asserted the true character of Sikhism more and more visibly, the political Islam represented by the Mujaddid and with the Mughal Emperors as its spear-head, grew ,more and more relentless in its determination to destroy this new world-religion. The Seventh Nanak, Guru Har Rai (1630-1661) and the Eighth Nanak, Guru Hari Krishan (1656-1664), were subjected to persistent unwelcome attention of the Mughal Emperors and concerted attempts were made to encourage schism and deviation, confusion and corruption in the basic trends of the Sikh movement, hoping that where the dagger had failed, the poison might work, and the Seventh and the Eighth Nanaks, therefore, ,had to concentrate on consolidating and amplifying the spiritual reservoir of Sikhism through expansion of proselytizing activities. The Seventh Nanak, Guru Har Rai, maintained twenty two hun­dred horsemen soldiers as his body guard entourage avoiding military clash with the civil authorities. But during the war of succession, after the deposition of Emperor Shah Jehan, the builder of the Taj, a rival brother of Aurangzeb, when pursued by the latter’s forces, fled to the seat of the Guru and requested the Guru to prevent his being captured. This fugitive Prince Dara Shikoh, was a well educated and well read Muslim and he, was also an admirer of Sikhism, in which he recognised the syndrome of a higher religion capable of bridging the gulf between the Hindus and Muslims in terms that all good men could accept, and thus he was out of sympathy with the political Islam of the ulema, of which, bigoted Aurangzeb was a strong proponent. Guru Har Rai deployed his body-guard horsemen to hold the pas­sage of the Ford against the pursuing army of Aurangzeb until the refugee Prince escaped, and this Aurangzeb never forgot or forgave, even if he could forget this heroic challenge of Sikhism to the mighty political Islam. As soon as he was secure on his throne, after murdering his three brothers and put­ting his royal father in prison, he summoned the Guru to his presence. The Guru, relying on his rights as a sovereign in his own rights, sent his eldest son, Ram Rai, as his emissary to the Imperial court, and when Ram Rai exegetised a line in the Revelations of Guru Nanak, by giving a diplomatic twist to just one word, so as not to annoy the Emperor, the Guru publicly disowned his emissary-son and recalled him, whereupon Aurangzeb conferred upon the latter the freehold of the whole valley of Dehradun in the Himalayas, with the object of fostering schism in the Sikh movement. When the Eighth Nanak, Hari Krishan became the Guru, he was only six years old, physically, but his mental age was that of a fully matured and spiritually evolved man. He refused to obey the summons of Aurangzeb to present himself in the Imperial court. The Emperor tried to seize his person, while he was staying at the bungalow of Raja Jai Singh Swai, the Commander-in-Chief of the royal forces at Delhi. But the Guru had high fever and infectious pox which caused his demise.
                Khwaja Mohammed Ma’soom, (1007-1079 A.H.) was the third son of the Sheikh Sirhindi, the Paraclete and it was this Ma’soom who succeeded the Regen­erator of the Second Millennium. At the death of his father, Khawaja Ma’soom continued the policy of his illustrious father with a remarkable vigour, and he maintained and continued a prolific correspondence with men of eminence in the State and society. He wrote letters even to rulers outside India, such as the ruler of Bulkh, in Central Asia, and as the writer· of the Rauzatul-Qayyumi 28, a detailed compilation on the lives and miracles of Sheikh Sirhindi and his three immediate successors, testifies, Aurangzeb, as a Prince, became the disciple of Khawaja Ma’soom. After his accession to the throne, the Emperor expressed a wish for initiation into the mysteries of Islamic Sufism by the Khwaja Ma’soom, but since the latter had become too old by then he sent his son, Khwaja Mohammed Saifuddin (1044-1096 A.H.) for the spiri­tual illumination of the Emperor to Delhi, and Khwaja Mohammed Saifuddin remained in constant atten­dance on Aurganzeb throughout his long military campaigns in Deccan. The letters written by Khwaja Mohammed Saifuddin are collected in the publica­tion called Maktubat-Ma’soomiyeh, (Amritsar, 1908). It includes a letter, (No. 221), sent by Emperor Aurangzeb to Khwaja Mohammed Ma’soom expressing his gratitude for “the favour” that is, for sending Khwaja Mohammed Saifuddm to instruct Aurangzeb in the mystical lore of Islam. Saifuddm kept his father informed about the spiritual progress made by the Emperor, and besides the Emperor himself main­tained a regular correspondence with Khwaja Mohammed Ma’soom. A perusal of this correspon­dence makes an illuminating reading and throws, hitherto un-suspected light on the true nature of the dynamics of the Muslim history in India in relation to the Sikh movement. Emperor Aurangzeb regularly consulted Khawaja Ma’soom on points of Muslim Theology in its particular relevance to his State policies. It would appear that, Khwaja Ma’soom was well satisfied with the avowed anti-Hindu, State policy of Aurangzeb. In letter No.6, in theMaktubati Ma’soomiyeh, the reverend Khwaja informs the Em­peror that,
“This humble faqir offers his respects and ex­presses his gratitude for the glory of Islam and the stability of Islamic Principles (resulting from the policy of the Emperor). He always prays to God for long life, prosperity, and his all-round success as he has had a deep attachment and close association with him, the Emperor, for a long time past.”
                A modern Muslim scholar, Dr. Mohammed Yasmin, M.A., Ph.D. of Lucknow University, in his recent publication (Lucknow, 1958) A Social History of Islamic India, truly says (p. 171) that, “It will not be an exaggeration to say that Aurangzeb’s State policy was prompted by the voice of the Sirhindi from behind the scene.”

The same scholar endorses, our conclusions re­garding the martyrdom of the Fifth Nanak, Guru Arjun, when he says (p. 157) that,

“Occasional outbursts of bigotry on the part of Jehangir and his anti-Hindu sentiments may ulti­mately be traced to the influence of the Mujaddid on the fickle minded Emperor.”

Aurangzeb, according to the contemporary records, (Ma’assari Alamgiri, Urdu, page, 54), issued a general ukase to his Provincial Governors, in A.D. 1699 that all the temples and teaching seminaries of the non-Muslims should be demolished and forcibly closed. As the news of this fresh onslaught of political Islam, on the Hindus and the Sikhs both, reached the Ninth Nanak, Guru Tegh Bahadur (1621-1675), while he was touring and preaching in Assam, the Guru, thereupon returned to the north-western India post­haste, and went about from place to place, encourag­ing and heartening people, asking them to organise and resist this imperial tyranny. It was, there is little doubt, under the influence and at the suggestion and instigation of Khwaja Mohammed Ma’soom that Aurangzeb decided upon the death and destruction of Guru Tegh Bahadur, and, accordingly, the Guru was arrested, and on his refusal to become a Mo­hammedan, was put to death on the forenoon of the 11th November, in the year of 1675, in front of the Mughal Police Station of old Delhi, where now the memorial Gurdwara of Sis Ganj stands. The Jesuit Father, Manuci Niccolao, 29 tells us that the last words of Aurangzeb at his death bed were, “I die happy, for at least the world will be able to say that I have employed every effort to destroy the enemies of Mohammedan Faith.”

          It may b6 reasonably surmised that, the Emperor had the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, in particular, in his mind besides other things, at his last hours on earth, firmly believing that by ordering the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur and by persecuting the Tenth Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, he had committed a deed of such high merit as will ensure his reception in the Paradise of Mohammed as promised in the Koran to those who engage themselves in fighting the opponents of the Faith, as well as memorable niche in the World history, which to his closed mind merely meant the history of political Islam.
                When Guru Tegh Bahadur was publicly beheaded in the Silvery Esplanade, the Chandni Chowk, of the Mughal Delhi on the eleventh of November, 1675, on his refusal to accept Islam to save his life, his son who then became the Tenth Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, was only nine years’ old. In his unfinished Autobiography, called, ‘This life is Won­derful’, Bachittranatak, he has evaluated this martyr­dom of his father in the following words :
                “Tegh Bahadur broke the mortal vessel of his body by striking it at the head of the Emperor of Delhi and retreated to his ‘Original Abode’, the God. Truly incomparable is this great deed done to assert and project three basic human rights : One, to secure for every man the liberty to worship; Two, to uphold the inviolable dignity of every man’s private and personal point of contact with God and his right to observe dharma, what he conceives as basic principles of cosmic or individual existence; and thirdly to uphold every good man’s imprescriptible right to pursue his own vision of happiness and self­ fulfillment.”30
                Guru Gobind Singh thereafter retired for some years to the Himalayan hills in the Hindu principality of Nahan, where he built a fortified establishment near a strategic ford of the river, Jamuna, and gave it the picturesque name of, ‘The Bracelet’, Paonta, for, here the river encircles the spur of the mountain like a bracelet. The Guru spent a number of years at this place in acquiring self-education and he thus com­pleted the academic tuition his father had begun. He acquired mastery of Sanskrit language and delved deep into its literature, besides the vernacular litera­ture and he also acquired acquaintance with the Arabic and Persian languages and their respective literatures. He did a great deal of creative literary work besides organising the religious and social ac­tivities of the Sikhs but his plans were interrupted by a sudden and concerted attack on his camp by the local levies reinforced by a contingent of the imperial troops, no doubt, under the orders of Emperor Aurangzeb who was then campaigning in Deccan. The Guru repulsed the attack by inflicting heavy losses on the enemy but he decided to transfer his seat of residence from ‘The Bracelet’ to the old village founded by his father, Anandpur, at the banks of the Sutlej. It was at Anandpur that Guru Gobind Singh proceeded to mature his plans for the regen­eration of his people and for organising them into a power that would ensure liberty of worship and a dignified living for all peace-loving people. He organised an Academy of Letters, which employed over four dozen full-time scholars, whose job it was to translate, into the vernacular of the people, the extant books on arts and sciences. The fruits of these labours were compiled together into a sort of ‘Encyclopedia of Knowledge’, under the title of, The Book of the All-Steel’, Sarbloha-grantha. This is the first Encyclopedia produced in the world during the modem times, in Asia or Europe, but unfortunately the manuscript which is reputed to have weighed over seventy kilograms was lost in the spated rivulet, Sirsa in 1704 when the imperial forces of Aurangzeb evicted the Guru out of the fortified town of Anandpur. It was on the Hindu New Year Day, the 30th March, 1699, that the Guru inaugurated the Order of the Khalsa in a manner, at once dramatic and mystical. Before a gathering of over a hundred thousand Sikhs from all over India, he unsheathed his sword and asked for volunteers to lay down their lives in the cause of human decency and dignity, Truth and Religion. Each volunteer, one presenting himself, was taken to an enclosure out of which the Guru emerged, each time, with his sword dripping with blood, and when five volunteers had been thus accepted the Guru presented all of them to the audience in new uniforms, and ordained them as the first Five Knights of the Order of the Khalsa. These five Knights were administered the Sikh baptism through a ritual which seeks symbolically to repro­duce the mystery of parthenogenetic creation of the First Things, out of the Prime Water. The Guru then called upon all the able bodied major Sikhs, who by then numbered in millions throughout India, and Central Asia, to join the Order of the Khalsa and the chronicler had recorded that, within a short time, more than 80,000 men and women joined. As soon as the news of this event reached the Imperial ears of Aurangzeb down south, he felt a deep concern and issued fresh orders, obviously under the advice and spiritual guidance of the grandson of the Mujaddid, Khwaja Saifud-Din, reaffirming his previous prescript of November 20, 1693, in which he had directed his Military Governors in the north to the effect that, “Gobind declares himself to be the Nanak. All Military Commanders concerned are ordered to pre­vent him from assembling his followers.”31
                It was in pursuance of these orders that the Military Governor of Sirhind and the Military Gover­nor of Lahore, joined by the Hindu forces of the semi-autonomous Himalayan states, invested the for­tifications of Anandpur in 1701. The Guru kept this combined. Imperial military might of the whole of north-western India at bay for over three years, till, in the winter of 1704, he was prevailed upon to vacate the forts at Anandpur under a solemn prom­ise of safe conduct which promise was treacherously broken as soon as the Guru opened the gates of the fortifications and came out with his few remaining followers. The two sons of the Guru lost their lives in fighting against this treacherous enemy, and the other two young sons, seven and five years old, were captured alive and entombed in a brick wall at Sirhind, to die the death of martyrs, on their refusal to abjure their religious faith in favour of Islam. Khwaja Mohammed Saifud-Din was at this time, back at Sirhind, available as special adviser and confidant, to its military governor, the Beyzid Khan, ‘Bajida’ of folk-lore. While the two infant sons of the Guru were bricked under the orders of this ‘Bajida’ as advised by Khwaja Mohd. Saifud-Din, the last words which the elder brother addressed to his younger brother are recorded as saying : “Think of our great great grandfather, Guru Hargobind, our illustrious grandfather, Guru Teg Bahadur, and our incomparable father, and the glorious religion of Guru Nanak. We must not do anything unbefitting.” But Guru Gobind Singh himself refused to fall into the hands of his Imperial enemies, and he boldly struck his way into the desert part of the eastern region of the Punjab where large number of new members of the Order of the Khalsa gathered under him with whose aid he repulsed all the subsequent attacks on him ·by the pursuing Imperial troops. In 1706, the Guru prepared the final collocation of the Sikh scripture, the Adi Granth earlier prepared by the Fifth Nanak, Guru Arjun, and declared that there shall be no more human successors to the line of the Nanaks after him and that, henceforth, the Light of God shall operate on earth through the dual agency of the Corporate Body of the Order of the Khalsa and the Word of the Guru as enshrined in this finally edited, Adi Granth. Henceforth the title of, ‘Guru’, came to be attached to the Book and the Corporate Body, both. The first is called, The Guru Granth, and the second, the Guru Panth, i.e. the Light, and the Way. The Guru then journeyed towards Deccan where he met a Hindu ascetic, mature in yogic skills and firm of mind, by the name of Madho Dass, who as soon as he met the Guru was transfixed into a trance out of which he feebly and gradually came out to make the question :

“Who art thou?
To this the Guru made the answer:
Look within thy-self and find out.”
The ascetic then slowly came out with the ques­tion.
“Art thou Guru Gobind Singh?
The Guru nodded and the ascetic prostrated himself at the Guru’s feet in submission, saying, “I am thy slave, your bandeh, at your bidding and command.” 32

This ascetic was initiated into Sikhism and was then knighted as a member of the Order of the Khalsa, and was appointed as the Commander of the Sikhs. Soon after, on October 7th, 1708, the Guru, while resting in his mid-day siesta in his tent at Nanded, in South India, was treacherously stabbed by a Pathan assassin, who, on the pretence of seeking spiritual illumination had gained admittance into the tent of the Guru. This assassin had been sent, all the way, from Sirhind, by .Bajida, instigated by the fanatical Khwaja Mohammed Saiful-Din, the spiritual guide of Aurangzeb and the grandson of the Mujaddid, who by now had returned to and settled down at Sirhind. It was the hidden hand of the Khwaja Saiful-Din that procured Imperial orders for the siege of Anandpur in 1701, its sack and destruction by treachery in 1704, and the barbarous death to which the two infant sons of the Guru were bricked alive at Sirhind. The stabbing of Guru Gobind Singh was a link in the chain. Although the Guru dispatched the assassin on the spot, as his other companion was killed by the Guru’s bodyguard, the Guru refused to allow his stomach wounds, stitched up, to heal, declaring, according to a tradition, “We have no further use of this stitched-up corporal frame. That what was assigned to us by the God Almighty has been accom­plished. The Order of the Khalsa is now already nine years old, which is the legal age of majority for warriors. We now must go back to where we came from, for, such is the Will of God.” Thereafter, as all accounts agree, the Guru had a funeral pyre of odoriferous wood made up, and after conferring his last benedictions on mankind as a whole and speak­ing words of comfort to his beloved Order of the Khalsa, he set this funeral pyre aflame through the all-consuming cosmic fire emitted through his nos­trils, 33 and no relic of his body was found within the cold ashes, which were curiously probed into, against the Gurus instructions. The chronicler records that the last words which the Guru uttered while sitting in the lotus posture on the funeral pyre, were : Waheguruji ka Khalsa Waheguruji ki fateh, that is, “the Order of the Khalsa is of God, to whom the final victory for ever and for ever more.” 34
                A year earlier, Commander Banda Singh, on whom the title of, Bahadur, had been conferred by the Guru, had arrived in northern India where, gathered around him thousands of them, the Knights of the Order of the Khalsa, in compliance with Guru Gobind Singh’s written directives communicated through Bandeh Singh, to declare an open war against the Imperial authority of the Mughals. In the war ­manifesto he issued he declared, inter alia, that, “The Guru has done me the honour of appointing me as his slave, a bandeh, to chastise the foreign depredators, the Turks. In fulfillment of my Mission, I propose to meet condign punishment to the crimi­nal governor of Sirhind and to destroy his military base with the ultimate object of making the people free from the yoke of tyrants.”35
                Thus the Sikh doctrines preached by Guru Nanak fully blossomed into the concept of the Order of the Khalsa which was to be a closely-knit Society of voluntary members and selected on the basis of special qualifications, disposition and character, pledged to make the Sikh Way of life prevail, with the ultimate objective of establishing a plural, free, open global society grounded in a universal culture. Arnold Toynbee, in his monumental work, A Study of,: History, 36 is quite right in assessing that the Order of the Khalsa is the true prototype of the All Russian Communist Party of Lenin, though he is mistaken in his judgement that the Slave-household of the Otto­man Padishah, and the Qyaslbash fraternity of the devotees of the Iranian Safawis were permeated with a similar ethos as inspires the Order of the Khalsa, or as animates the Communist Party of Russia. The Order of the Khalsa is the first human society in the world-history, organised with the deliberate object of and pledged to bring about an oecumenical human Society, grounded in a world-culture, which repre­sents a free and organic fusion of the various strands of the spiritual heritage of Man. The members of the order of the Khalsa are pledged to work in a spirit of a self-abnegating and dedicated life37 for the realisation of this objective which is grounded in spiritual values, but which is this-earthly; to be realised in the mundane life of human beings to flower eventually into a World Society :and a World Culture.
                The basic commandment of the The tenth Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, to the Knights of the Order of the Khalsa is, “Thou shalt not submit to slavery, in any form whatever.” 38
                Our historian, Arnold Toynbee, is quite wrong in supposing, in his, An Historian’s Approach to Religion, that,
                “Sikhism fell from (its) religious height into a political trough, because the Sikh Gurus, Hargovind and Gobind Singh succumbed to the temptation to use force.”39
                There was no succumbing here to any tempta­tion whatever, for, the Order of the Khalsa, as conceived and founded by Guru Gobind Singh, was a logical consummation of the teachings of Guru Nanak. All higher religions are founded on the concept of what they conceive to be the summum bonum forman and they attempt to hold out a vision of the man who has realised this end, the Ideal Man. Guru Nanak, while describing the true nature of Reality, and the discipline through which it may be ap­proached and contacted, has given unmistakably clear clues, couched in the vakrokati, the ancient “tortuous speech”, which reveals the penumbra of the Mystery, as to the nature and status of this Ideal Man, by revealing that this Ideal Man is a human being who, after he has ,achieved a new integration of his person­ality and his ultimate harmony with the Reality, operates and functions in and through the socio­political context on this earth. These doctrines are laid down in the concluding four stanzas of the Japu, and when Guru Gobind Singh founded the Order of the Khalsa, he merely gave a concrete form to these doctrines of Guru Nanak and did not just attempt to meet any contingent situation such as, “a decision to fight the Mughal ascendency with its own weapons”, as Arnold Toynbee concludes. If Bandeh Singh or Banda Singh Bahadur raised the standard · of revolt against the Mughal ascendency in the north west of India, it was incidental and not the ultimate aim or raison-de’etre of the Order of the Khalsa. The original writings of Guru Gobind Singh, such as have been salvaged out of his huge literary output, de­stroyed by the minions of the Mughal Emperor of India, make it clear that his view of the ultimate Reality, and the true function of religion, interpreted the concept “force” in a manner that did not admit of the unpleasant associations attached to it in the history of some other religions, the religions which bifurcate, sever and separate the life on this earth and the life hereafter. He was not a Worshipper of the Energy’, a Shakti in the traditional Hindu sense, but he revealed a concept of God and religion in its relation to the life of man, which implicates that the use of “force” in a properly disciplined manner is not only desirable but imperative. Guru Nanak had clearly perceived, as Thrasymachus is shown to have held in the Republic of Plato, that violence may, some time, succeed on the sole ground that it is violent enough, and thus, violence may win for its practioners all the powers and glories of this world, and Guru Nanak, therefore, taught that although it was evil to practice violence for gaining power for its own sake, it was also evil to let violence prevail through passiveness of its victim, and Guru Nanak, therefore, enjoined that before violence becomes successful enough to clothe itself in trappings of morality, it should be resisted and defeated, de­stroyed or contained by all good men, by violence, if necessary. Sikhism attaches such high significance to the worth of the individual, that it is uncompromis­ingly anti-totalitarian, opposed to all universal busy bodies, whether of political Islam, welfarism or sarvodya of the secular Hindu by state coercion. It is from this teaching of Sikhism that the Sikh concern with polities and socio-political life arises and the commandment, “Though shalt not submit to slavery”, is also grounded in this teaching, and this teaching has far-reaching political and social implications, as it has constituted the basic impulse of the Sikh history throughout the past centuries and unless it is under­stood thus, any proper understanding of the original Sikh impulse and the Sikh history is necessarily mistaken.
                It is a basic conception of the Sikh religion that the Ideal Man operates in and functions through the socio-political human society: It is a fundamental postulate of Sikhism that such a man is a free man. He is a free man in the sense that he has tran­scended the limitations of his little ego, the individual self. He has identified or he strives to identify himself with the universal Self, the God. As such, his existence is incompatible with subjugation or slavery. He, therefore, must never submit to slavery. A Sikh chronicler, Rattan Singh Bhangu, in his Prachin Panthparkash (early 19th century) quite rightly de­fines a Sikh as one “who owes allegiance to no mortal and thus is politically sovereign.” 40 The Order of the Khalsa is a Society of such Sikhs, who volun­tarily agree to join it and are deemed fit to dedicate their lives for creating necessary conditions for the prevalence of the Sikhs, the Sikh way of life, and culminating in a plural, open and tolerant World Society and a World culture. Achieving political effectiveness at the decision-making levels, therefore, is the purpose and destiny of the Khalsa and the privileges and duties of this destiny are specifically bestowed on the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh. 41 The special discipline of wearing uncut hairs, and certain other symbols, and the commandment to insist on enjoying the unlicensed right to wear arms freely is a part of the discipline made mandatory for the ·Knights of the Order of the Khalsa. A Sikh, who for some reason, which by its very nature can only be personal and expediential, does not voluntarily enlist in the Order of the Khalsa, remains a Sikh nevertheless.
                It is vital to understand this, for, on account of lack of this understanding a great deal of confusion about Sikhism has arisen and many unnecessary resistances have been generated in the minds of many well-intentioned people about Sikhism as a World religion, and its future as a spiritual oecumenical Impulse.
                The Sikhs, under the command of Bandeh Singh Bahadur, occupied, Sirhind, the redoubtable Mughal military cantonment of north western India, in May, 1710, and conquered the whole of the adjoining region soon after. Formal sovereignty was assumed by the Sikhs with their capital at Mukhlispur, re­named, the Steel Fort, Lohgarh, in the hilly area of the present Ambala District, and the coin was struck with the following legend inscribed on it,
                “The sword of the central Doctrine of Nanak destroys the evils of both the worlds, the poverty and slavery on this earth, and the sickness of the soul hereafter, and we hereby proclaim our sovereignty over both the worlds, the seen and the unseen. The final victory in our struggle has been vouchsafed by Guru Gobind Singh, the Harbinger of the good Tidings of the ever present Grace of God.”42
                It was not to be supposed that this audacious proclamation and this seismic act would there and then destroy the Mughal empire in India, with its roots of almost a thousand years of Islamic power stuck in the heart of the land. But once the Sikhs had made this proclamation of their ultimate faith in victory and their immediate objective of political sovereignty, they never flinched or wavered under the cruelest persecutions that were inflicted on them for more than half a century after this. Bandeh Singh, Bahadur was captured and was literally sliced, bit by bit, to death, near the world-famous Qutb Minar of Delhi in 1716, and though slowly sizzled alive, by hot iron pincers, this mature Sikh, the conqueror of the flesh and its pains, and the Chosen of the Guru, did not twitch a muscle, and his last words, in answer to a question, as to whether, “you now realize that you were mistaken in your ways”, were, as have been recorded by an eye witness, to the following effect : “I was privileged and 1 am proud that my Master, Guru Gobind Singh, chose me as His instrument to inflict punishment on the heads of those of whose inequities even the heavens were asleep.” 43
                Before Bandeh Singh was executed with un­speakable tortures, he was asked by the Mughal emperor, Farrukhsiyyar, as to ‘how he would like to die’. The reply of Bandeh Singh was’: “the same way as you wish to die”. And sure enough,  Farrukhsiyyar met his end, with tortures soon after, while impris­oned in the royal hell-hole prison of the Red Fort, Tripolia, where Bandeh Singh had been kept captive.
                From 1716 till 1765, a period of half a century, a tiny band of Sikhs, organized into the Order of the Khalsa, faced persecutions, pogroms and well planned genocide campaigns, organised and executed, by the mightiest Empire of the times, the Mughal empire and the Pathan empire, and some of the greatest generals of Asia, such as Ahmed Shah Durrani, but they neither flinched nor abjured their faith, nor did they ever relent or waver in their profession and aim of freeing themselves of all political tyranny and social slavery, with the ultimate object of gaining decision-making political power to employ it as a lever for creating conditions in which a free and just society can arise and function. During this period, they were hunted like wild beasts after having been outlawed as a People, and a price was put on their heads, making them liable to be killed at sight, but the history does not record a single instance of voluntary apostasy or wavering in the face of these terrible persecutions, and the Sikh martyrs constitute some of the brightest jewels in the necklace of religious martyrdoms that graces the Neck of God, and emits effulgence of the glory of Man. In the year 1765, the Sikhs took possession of Lahore, the seat of the regional Imperial authority in the north western India and again struck .the coin of .their sovereignty with the same legend on it adopted earlier by Banda Singh, Bahadur, in compliance with the instructions of Guru Gobind Singh.
                The consolidation of the political power of the Order of the Khalsa over the whole of north western India, including Kashmir and Little Tibet during the 18th century is a matter of recent history, but what is not generally known is that the political Islam as represented by its ulema, with their apotheosis in the Mujaddid of Sirhind, continued its efforts, relentlessly to oppose, and if possible to destroy, Sikhism. The story of the hidden hand of the Mujaddid behind the execution of Guru Arjun, the incarceration and intent to kill Guru Hargobind through a full scale military operation, the persecution of Guru Har Rai, the evil plan against Guru Hari Krishan, the public decapita­tion of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the cruel killings of the infant sons of Guru Gobind Singh, and infliction of grievous wounds on his own body has been told, in brief, and this story now must be further told. Like the Murtaza Khan, the real murderer of Guru Arjun, and the Lalla Beg, who with his army made a murderous attack on Guru Hargobind, the Sayyids of Barah, were also fanatical followers of the Mujaddid. Who were these Barah Sayyids? True Sayyids are the sons of Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, and strictly speaking, they are only those descended from Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. But there are ulvi Sayyids, descended through other wives of Ali. Barah Sayyids ascribe their origin to one Sayyid Abdul Farrah Wasti ibn Sayyid Daood who came to India in 389 AH. This Abdul Farrah had four sons who settled in Chhat Banur near modern Patiala, and they derive their name from the twelve villages, their chief strong-hold .in the Muzzafarnagar District of the Gangetic plains. They served under Akbar with great fidelity. 44 These Sayyids were strong protagonists of the political power and ascendance of. Islam in India, from the very beginning, and we learn from Akbamameh (Bevridge. III. p. 225) and from Badauni (Lowe. II. p. 237) that they served under Akbar with great distinction and their disappointment and frustration with the policy of toleration pursued by Akbar, when he became secure on his throne must have been great, for, they rallied around the Mujaddid, as soon as he declared himself the Regenerator of Islam in the Second millennium, and it was under the influence of the Mujaddid that they sided with Jahangir and fought against Prince Khusrau. In the Tozuk 45Jehangir showers hearty praises on the Barah Sayyids. “Some people make remark about them,” he says, “and question their lineage, but their bravery is a convincing proof of their being Sayyids.” Jehangir proceeds, “Mirza Aziz Koka always said, ‘the Sayyids of Barah were the averters of calamity of this dominion’, and such indeed is the case.” During the war of succes­sion amongst the sons of Shah Jehan, they sided with Dara Shikoh and thus remained suspect with Aurangzeb. The Sayyids of Barrah must be fairly counted amongst the active powers of political Islam which had laid it down as a pre-condition for support to the cause of Jahangir, that Guru Arjun must be liquidated and Sikhism destroyed by the Sword of the State, in the interests of “the glory of Islam in India” — as the Mujaddid conceived it. It was for this reason that even before attacking the stronghold of Sirhind in 1710, Banda Singh Bahadur deemed it desirable to sack Chhat Bantir on the way, so as to chastise these Barah Sayyids. Two Sayyid brothers of Barah, one of whom, Sayyid Hassan Ali Khan,  who became, Qutabal-Mulk Abdulla Khan, was made the Prime Minister of Emperor, Farrukhsiyyar, and the other called Sayyid Hussain Ali Khan, grew so pow­erful, that it is these two brothers who put Farrukhsiyyar at the throne of Delhi, and were the instigators of the genocide decree against the Sikhs. Such was their power and influence that after the death of Aurangzeb, they were known as ‘king­makers’ badishahagar. When emperor Babadur Shah, the son and successor of Aurangzeb, died in 1712, his effeminate son, Jahangir Shah ascended the Imperial throne. It were these two Barah Sayyid brothers the badishahgar, who deposed Jahandar Shah to make Farruksiyyar, the .Emperor of Delhi. These ‘King Makers’ were, like their ancestors, ardent followers of the doctrines of the Mujaddid and it was under inspiration from the current successor of the Mujaddid who had, by now, fled to Delhi after the sack of Sirhind by the Sikhs, that all the resources of the ‘Empire were drawn upon to make an all-out assault at the mud fortification of Banda Singh Bahadur at Gurdasnangal near the Kashmir border, as a result of which Banda Singh was captured and hacked to death at Delhi in 1716. 
                These Barah Sayyids were in the forties of the 18th century rendered impotent and relegated to obscurity by the Sikhs, through subjugation and de­struction of their estates and headquarters in the trans-Jamuna tract, particularly the region of Muzzafarnagar. But the flames of political Islam which the Mujaddid had lit and directed against Sikhism, were by no means extinguished.
                By AD. 1760, the greatest Hindu Power of the day, the Marathas, had spread their influence up to Indus, and the Marathas, therefore, had become as odious to the political Islam in India, as expounded by the Mujaddid as the Sikhs and Sikhism. It was Shah Wali-Ullah Dehlvi, an ulema, and a staunch follower and successor of the Mujaddid, with his seat at Delhi, to which place the Mujaddid headquarters had been moved ever since 1710, who worked tire­lessly for instigating Najibul-Dawla, the Rohilla Chief, and Ahmed Shah, Durrani, the King of Kabul, to join hands to extirpate the “evil of the unbelievers”, from the country of India, as a result of which the fifth invasion of the Durrani took place, culminating in the historic battle of Panipat fought on January 14, 1761 which sealed the fates of the expanding Maratha power in India. But the Sikhs still remained alive and kicking, and Shah Wali Ullah, therefore, spon­sored the sixth invasion of the Durrani as a result of which over thirty thousands Sikhs, men, women and children were suddenly pounced upon and massacred by the Mughal invaders, near Ludhiana in the Indian Punjab on February 5, 1762. Believing that thereby he had completely broken the back of the Sikh people, for ever, as he had done that of the Marathas, Ahmed Shah Durrani, guided by the advice of the successor of the Mujaddid, Wali-Ullah, proceeded to blow up and level down the Central Temple of Sikhism at Amritsar, which, however, the Sikhs re­built the next year.
                Even when by the first quarter of the 19th century, the Sikh political power was securely and firmly established in the Punjab, Afghan Frontier province, Kashmir and Little Tibet, the followers of the Mujaddid were still active against the Sikhs. One Ahmed Shah, Brelvi, a successor of the Mujaddid, with his headquarters further removed to Bareli, a town in the Gangetic plain under the wings of the British and secure from the reach of the Sikhs as Delhi was no longer so, undertook an extensive tour of Arabia and other neighbouring Islamic countries in the twenties of the 19th century with a view to canvassing support for organising a holy Muslim war, jehad, against the Sikhs, and with the tacit sympathy of the British rulers of India he was enabled to organise and collect, in 1831, a formidable and well equipped force of more than two hundred thousand fighting men near Nowshera on the Afghan Frontier, then a Sikh frontier town, to destroy the Sikh political power. In the resultant contest, however, it was the reverend. Ahmad Shah, who perished, and the task of finishing the Sikh political power fell to the lot of another People who had little sympathy whatever with the ideas and ideals of the Mujaddid of Sirhind.
                For want of proper ideological awareness and comprehension, the Khalsa Commonwealth by now had degenerated, in fact, into a Monarchical system of government, with the result that they fell a prey, though by no means an easy one, to the predatory onslaughts of the Western adventurers, in the middle of the 19th century and their homeland and their dominions became a part of the British Indian Em­pire in the year 1849. But, as an enemy writer and an eye-witness, Joseph Davey Cunningham gener­ously records in his, A History of the Sikhs, at the battle field, while abandoned by their Hindu con­trolled Civil Government, and treacherously aban­doned by their pseudo-Sikh military Generals; and “although assailed on either side, by squadrons of horse and battalions of foot, no Sikh offered to submit and no disciple of Guru Gobind Singh asked for quarter. They everywhere showed front to the victor and stalked slowly and sul­lenly while many rushed singly forth to meet assured death by contending with a multitude. The victors looked with stolid amazement upon the indomitable courage of the vanquished.”
                And followed a hundred years of British subju­gation for the Order of the Khalsa, during which century its Knights neither forgot the use of arms, which the Guru had commanded them never to neglect, nor their resolve to he sovereign, although the art and the aim could not be coordinated in view of the circumstances in which they were placed. This too was the Will of the Timeless Person, the Guru­Akalpurkh, subserving Divine Design!
                The exit of the British from India in 1947, once again saw the Sikhs engulfed in the resultant fury, which was a hangover from the centuries-old struggle between Sikhism, in its determination to survive, and the political Islam, of which the Regenerator for the Second Millennium was a symbol, in its aim of destruction of “the evil of the unbelievers”, and as a result; two hundred thousands Sikhs perished in the communal fury of the Partition of the country in which they struck as many blows as they received.
                It may now almost be said that Sikhism has successfully withstood the fury and onslaughts of the political Islam in India, and with the spiritual Islam, it never had any fundamental serious quarrel, and this has made possible an understanding and mutual accommodation, genuine and sincere, between Sikhism and Islam such as was the original aim and wish of the Founders of Sikhism.
                From its traditional role of the Protector of the Hindus and its historical role of a defender of the basic values of life, Sikhism has now been placed in the position of a nominally subordinate partnership, but in practice, complete subjection, with a politically resurgent Hinduism, which finds it difficult to tolerate any non-conformity, or to accept and concede the right of others to exist in their own right and to forgive those whom it has already and grievously wronged. As Sikhism is an afflation of man’s culture, its flower and entelechy, and thus, there is no ques­tion of a genuine quarrel between Hinduism and Sikhism. But the reality of the neo-socio-political Hinduism as it has manifested in recent years, in its attitudes towards Sikhism, lends some colour to the genuine fears of some keen observers that in the second half of the 20th century, the Sikhism, faces a real crisis, a possible consequences of which might be its diffusion in spirit and physical dispersion abroad, obliging it to seek refuge, for its sheer survival, in some political arrangements that promise a haven of safety. But it is also likely that as time passes, a saner, a less parochial strain in the Hindu mind, might assert itself such as does not deem crafty subtlety as wisdom, cruelty as firmness, narrow self-­interest as statesmanship, and legalism and cauistry as the true essence of Hinduism, and which no longer regards intentions unrelated to moral responsibility, as legitimate dynamism of mature human conduct.
                However, Sikhism, as a World religion, and as spiritual impulse will have failed to establish its claim as such unless it can successfully meet the challenge that is implicit in their present situation and predica­ment as successfully as it did in the past in its encounter ‘with the formidable political Islam.
                That this situation is not an easy one, particu­larly in view of the notions that political Hinduism now entertains about its abiding and inalienable prerogative always to remain at the top. The Sikhs have a faith of playing a positive role in the future as destined by the unseen, concealed world, still hidden beneath the surface but indicated and revealed by Guru Gobind Singh as the Will of God 46, of the Sikh People a derivative not from the calm regular course of things, but sanctioned and conceded on all sides, irrespective of what hopes and fears about the future of the Sikhs and Sikhism one may choose to have.

1. Se akhian beann jinahi disandro mapri.
2.nam rahio sadhu rahio, rahio gur, gobind, kahu nanak is jagat main kini japio gurmant.
3. nam tull kichhu avar na hoe.
4. nanak namu chadhadi kala.
5. guru binu ghor andhar — Sikh scripture.
6. jot soi jugat sai sahi kaya pher pallatiya — Sikh scripture.
7. Heschel, Abraham, J., The Prophets, N.Y. 1963, p. 364.
8. pavai ta so janu dehi jis nau hori kil karhi vecaria.
9.es nao horu thao nahin sabdi lagi svaria.
10. satguru bahjon hor kacei hai bani.
11. kahinde kacce sunde kacce kaccin akh vakhani.
12. chit jini ka hir laia maia bolain pae ravani.
13. anand anand sabh ka kahai, anand guru te jania.
anand bhaia meri mae satguru main paia. — Sikh Scripture.
14.dvi vinsat dilli umraev, iti sikh manjis bithaiv — Gurpratap Suryodey Granth.
15. satian ehu na akhierh jo jali aggi marran.
16. hor manamukhi daj ji rakhi vikhalahi so kad hankaru kacen pa.
17. “pap di janj lai kabulon dhaiyo jori mange dan ve, Lalo, kadian,bahmanan ki gall thakki akad padhe saiton ve Lalo. — Sikh Scripture
18. Maktubaat. Lucknow, 1919.
19. Du Jarric, Father Pierre, Akbar and the Jesuits, (trans. H. Payne) 1st. edition, London, 1926.
20. hun hukam hoa meharvan da, pai koi na kisai rinjan do, sab sukhali, Vulhian hoa hamlemi raj jio – Sikh Scripture.
21. “Mussalman momdil hovai,antar ki mal dil te dhovai, dunia rang na avai nede, jio kusam patu ghio pak hara.”
22. Maktubat I. 47.
23. Maktubat I. 193.
24. Ibid. x. 54, 80, 163, 165, 193.
25. Mulctubat I. 81.
26. Sheikh Badrud-Din Sirhindi, tr. Khwaja Ahmed Hussain, Mansur Steam Press, Lahore, 1908.
27. Mohammad Hasham Kishmi Burhanpuri, Zubdehtul-Muqamat
(M.S. 1827, Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna).
28. Rauzatul Qayyumiyyah is, in original; an Arabic work by Khwaja Kamaluldin Mohammed Ehsan, who was a descendent of the Regenerator.
29. Manuci Niccolao, Storia do Mogor (1653-1708). trans. William Irwin. 4. Volume London. 1907-1908. p. IV. 308.
30. tilak janju rakha prabha taka, kino bado kalu main saka,
dharam hetu saka jini kia, sis dia par sirr na dia
sadhan hetu iti jini kari, sis dia par si na ucarii.
31. Akhbarati-Darbari-Mu‘alla. Royal Asiatic Society, London. Vol. I. 1677-1695. Entry, dated, November 20, 1693.
32. Ganda Singh, Life of Banda Singh Bahadur. Amritsar, 1935. p. 15.
33. “tab samadh satguru lagai, yogagni turan upjai
Gurpratap suryodey III. (ii). 24. 18.
34. Waheguruji ki fateh kahi ant ki bar — Gurpratap-suryodey.
35. “turkan ke nij levan bair pathio guru ne mujhka kar bandeh,
main kar khuar, Bajide ko mar,Sirhindujad, karehon suchhanda. --- Gyani Gyan Singh, Panthprakash, (kavita). 1896-1900. Vol. III published, Amritsar, 1924.
36. Abridgment. VoIs. VII-X. Oxford, 1957, pp. 187-188.
37. Khalsa so jis apna tanman dhan guru nu saunpia.
-Rahitnameh Bhai Caupa Singh
38. raj karhain ikke lar mar hain. — Pracin Panth Prakash
39. Gifford Lectures (1952-1953). Oxford, 1959, p. 110.
40. kis hun ki ih kan na rakhat, shahinahah khud hi ko bhakhat.
41. tab singhan ko bakhsh kar bahu sukh dikhlai,
phir sabh prithvi ke upare hakam thaihrai,
tin jagat sambhal kari anand racai,
tab bhaio jagat sabh khalsa manamukh bharmai.
-Var, Bhai Gurdas II.
42. Sikkeh zad bar har du-alam, teghi-nanak vahibast, fatth shahinshahan, fadli saccasahib ast.Gobind Singh
43. Kamvar Khan, Tazkirat-Chughtaiya. Ms. 1723. f. 180. Also, Mirza Mohammed Harisi, Ibratnameh. Ms. f. 62.
44. Akbarnameh, Bevaridge, III. 225, 224, Badauni, Lowe. II. 237.
45. II. p. 269.
46. agiya bhai Akal ki tabhi chalaio panth.....
raj karega Khalsa aki rahai no koi.