BACK
GURU TEGH BAHADUR AND HUMAN RIGHTS
In order to understand the outlook that Guru Tegh Bahadur brought to bear upon the challenging problems of his contemporary social situation, it may be both useful and necessary briefly to refer back to the ideological base of the Sikh society, established by his illustrious predecessors. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, had propounded the fundamental principles which became the basis for subsequent developments under his successors. The ideology thus crystallized had at its rock bottom the belief that the world, in its essence, is a spiritual and moral order (dharamsal-the abode of dharma). all-embracing and all-pervading. The Lord of the Universe the Truth Absolute (satinam) permeates His entire creation. The world is “the True One’s dwelling place” (Guru Angad Dev): it is “the ocean in which all beings move” (Guru Ram Das), or “the thread on which the whole creation is strung” (Guru Arjan Dev). The mythical bull supposed to be supporting the Universe, is made out to be the self-same dharma. the Moral Law, born of daya (compassion) that holds the world in equilibrium. “God by His Will made the world; God at His Will controlleth it: He beholdeth all things set under His Will,” said Guru Angad Dev. It is this Divine Will or hukam which constitutes the sanction behind the Moral Law or dharma.
Mr. D. M. Brown in his book, Indian Political Thought from Manu to Gandhi (p. 15). thus writes with regard to the connotation of dharma in ancient India: “The conception of Dharma was a far reaching one embracing the whole life of man. The writers of Dharmshastars in the ancient period meant by Dharma not a creed or religion, but a mode of life or code of conduct which regulated a man’s work and activities as a member of the society. and as an individual it was intended to bring about gradual development of man and to enable him to reach what was deemed to be the goal of human existence.” Guru Nanak’s conception of dharma was even more comprehensive in scope, as he disapproved of the conduct of all such people as renounced worldly life and chose to reside in recesses of mountains and forests. Mr. C. H. Payne has rightly remarked: “In the doctrines of Nanak, morality has a higher place than in those of any other Hindu reformers. Few, even of the world’s greatest philosophers, have laid down a more exalted moral code than is to be found in the pages of Granth Sahib. Purity of life is set forth as the highest object of human endeavour. Loyalty, chastity, honesty, justice, mercy and temperance are among the virtures on which vital stress is laid.”
In the moral order of the conception of the Sikh Gurus, the individual (not caste as was the case in the earlier periods) had the pivotal position. He was regarded as one endowed with a unique personality worthy of all respect. The soul within him is a spark of Divine Light – jyoti sarup. “If thou wouldest seek God, domolish not the heart of anyone, for God lives in every heart”. (Guru Arjan, Adi Granth, p. 1384). A two-fold objective to merge his little self with the Infinite; to uphold the cause of dharma in the world. In his efforts to achieve his goals, he is supposed to act in a spirit of full responsibility always realizing that all his actions are subject to the supreme Moral Law. “Truth is higher than other things but higher still is the life lived in truth” (Guru Nanak, Adi Granth, p. 62). The world being a divine revelation, is to be shunned in no case. On the other hand, the individual must live in it, work in it, participate in its affairs, grapple with its difficulties and challenges and endeavour to make it into an ideal place to live in. The world or society is valuable and must be valued as such, it being at once the theatre of our activities, the testing ground of our faith and principles as well as the measuring yardstick of our personal attainments. Guru Nanak had roundly condemned the jogi and sidh recluses who had equated religious life with a life of renunciation. He had categorically said that a truly religious man is one who practises religion in his everyday life. “Abide pure amid the impurities of the world; thus shalt thou find the way of religion-true jog jugat. “(Guru Nanak, Suhi Rag, Adi granth, p. 730). Such a religion cannot be separated from morality. The person who is not a useful ‘member of the society contributing his might towards its welfare, is worthless and good for nothing. In fact an individual’s very salvation depends upon how sincerely and zealously he tries to serve his fellow human beings. Guru Nanak’s clear injunction in this regard was: “Only he finds the true path of life, who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow and shares the fruit there of with his fellow-beings” (Var Sarang, Adi Granth. p. 1245).
Society which is a complex of social relations rather than a mere aggregate of individuals, if properly organised, can facilitate for the individual his task of self-fulfillment. The Gurus had made it clear that all social institutions and associations are intended to help the individual to achieve this main object of his life. Therefore, society must be organised on the healthy basis of justice, tolerance and equality and should be free from oppression of any kind. Subjection had been dubbed a curse, for it was said that under it happiness is not possible even in a dream. Likewise, encroachment upon what rightfully belongs to others was denounced. Exploitation, whatever its brand, was also condemned. All these evils, according to the Gurus, had their roots in the narrow self-interests of the people themselves. The problem could, however, be largely solved by inculcating in the minds of people a consciousness of the underlying unity of mankind. Lack of faith in the brotherhood of man blunts our vision and we easily fall into the habit of lending greater weight to dissimilarities than to similarities. To the Sikh Gurus the principle of equality was a natural corollary from their faith in the unity of Godhead. If the Creater of all human beings, God, is one, then all his creatures, irrespective of their caste, creed, colour and sex, are equal.
Equality implies tolerance of differences existing in dress, food, faith, custom etc. It is difficult for one to endure for long without the other. Equality, if it does not promote tolerance, is a sham and tolerance if it is not based on a sense of equality, is a mirage. Guru Amar Das made it amply clear when invoking God he said, “Save them, O Lord: through whatever entrance they approach.”
The state as the most powerful organ of the organized society has a vital role to play in the creation of an ideal society. Monarchy which was the established form of government then, was accepted by the Sikh Gurus as a legitimate and God-ordained institutions. Kingship was regarded as a gift from God, a reward of good deeds done in previous life or lives. Not only that the king was believed to derive all his authority from God. However, this belief in the divine origin of kingly power was different from the Western doctrine of divine right of kings in one important respect. Unlike the West, the Gurus gave no countenance to the idea that kings can act as they like, owing no responsibility to the people placed under their rule. On the contrary, it was stressed that they should always be dispensers of justice and equality and must never wield their authority arbitrarily or despotically. They are responsible to God, “King of kings”, the Supreme Sovereign, for all their actions. They are only His agents commissioned to govern, in the manner of Platos’ philosopher king, with justice, kindness and sympthy and to promote the welfare of their people. They are to conduct their functions, so to say, as a mandate from God. Thus viewed, the monarchy or the state was held by the Gurus to be an inseparable part of the over-all moral order, intended to subserve its primary ends.
It is essential that the ruler must possess a high moral character if he is to carry out his mission successfully. As an individual, he must try to realise the same moral and spiritual aims as are necessary for other individuals. As a ruler, his responsibilities are even greater, for he is required to create, by means of benign-government, such conditions of life as are most needed to enable the individuals to develop their personalities to the full. The state is in fact meant for the betterment of the individual and not vice versa. If a king neglects his duties, oppresses the weak, indulges in activities prejudicial to the general welfare of his subjects and sets the fulfilment of his material pleasures as the primary goal of his life, he incurs the wrath of God and forfeits his mandate. God then, in His displeasure, snatches always the exalted office from him by way of chastisement and bestows it on somebody else more suitable. Guru Nanak called Babar for his invasion of India a Yama sent by the Almighty as a chastiser of the “dogs” and “Butchers” that the Lodi Sultans ruling over North India then were.
To the above views of the origin and functions of the state not wholly unknown here or elsewhere, the Sikh Gurus gave a revolutionary turn by emphasising that kings are not responsible to God alone, but to the people as well, for whose good they are set up by God. The people with the divine spark enshrined in them, are capable of knowing and interpreting the Divine Will. In fact, the people’s will is also God’s will. Therefore, if a ruler deviates from the path of justice and duty, it is just, the Gurus believed, to offer resistance to his wrong and unjust policies. “Both are fools-he who confers authority on those that deserve not and shameless are those who accept it” (Adi Granth. p. 1286). Herein lies the sanction for the people’s right of resistance in the case of an unjust and tyrannical ruler who is beyond correction by any other means. The exercise of such a right is a sort of religious duty, as injustice and oppression are contrary to the Moral and Spiritual Order of God, as ordained in the world.
Granting the right of resistance inevitably led to sanctioning the use of force (shakti). The need for the use of force was realized immediately after the execution of Guru Arjan Dev in Lahore in 1606 A.D. and the martyred Guru’s son and successor, Guru Hargobind laid aside saili and topi. previous symbols of Guruship, and put on two swords, respectively standing for the concepts of miri (temporality) and piri (spirituality). Soon after, he started militarising his community so as to be able to meet tyranny with force, if necessary. The implied theory behind this way of thinking, was that force by itself is not evil, that it is its misuse which makes it so, just as we say today that it is not science as such but its misuse which is reprehensible. On the use of arms for a noble cause, Guru Hargobind’s statement is unambiguous and authoritative: “Shaster garib ki rakhya jarvane ki bhakhya” – arms are protection to the poor and destruction to the tyrant. As a result of the new policy adopted by Guru Hargobind, the relations between the Sikhs and the Mughals became strained and a number of open armed clashes occurred between them. Guru Tegh Bahadur who was the youngest son of Guru Hargobind, was an eyewitness to most of them -and is even said to have personally participated in the battle of Kartarpur and shown rare feats of bravery.
II
Sikhism and Mughal rule came into being almost simultaneously early in the 16th century. The founders of the two organisations, Guru Nanak and Babar, were contemporaries and by a popular but not yet confirmed Sikh tradition, they even had a meeting and exchanged ideas with each other. The remainder of that century passed off practically without any clash or disharmony between them. Rather, the long reign of the Emperor Akbar proved a great boon for the spread of Sikhism and the number of its votaries multiplied at a very fast rate.
Akbar held a high ideal of sovereignty. Unlike his predecessors, he abandoned the idea that he was primarily the king of his own Muslim co-religionists. Like a true liberal he raised himself above communal prejudices of the age and removed all discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims in matters of public employment, taxation, religion and culture. Jizya and pilgrimage taxes which had all along been a great eyesore to the non-Muslims were abolished and in respect of the taxes which were retained, uniform rates for all, irrespective of creed or caste were prescribed. In the sphere of administrative and military service, an open-door policy was adopted and although the predominance of Muslim employees remained as before, opportunities of recruitment for others were greatly augmented and now it even became possible for non-Muslims to rise to the highest rung in the State ladder. Similar liberalism and equality of treatment marked the fields of religious and cultural fields.
Under the next two emperors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan, the liberal policy of Akbar was maintained to a large extent. But already certain forces had been generated by way of reaction to Akbar’s policy, whose avowed purpose was to counter the new trends of liberalism in the name of safety of Islam. The leadership of these reactionary elements came from the Naqshbandis of Sirhind headed by Shaikh Ahmed and his successors. Assuming the title of Mujaddid-Alilf-i-Thani (Reformer of the Second Millennium), Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi took it upon himself to bring political, social and religious affairs of the Muslims in line with the orthodox sunni line. His conclusions were based on his personal prejudices, upon the conditions prevalent in and around Sirhind and in the reports which the distinguished Muslim officials conveyed to him from time to time. He thought that Akbar’s policies had succumbed to the unwholesome influence of Shaikh Abul Fazl, Faizi and certain other nobles who had diverted him from the line of orthodox Islam. Akbar’s appointment of Hindus to high positions, marriage with Rajput ladies, and introduction of Din-i-;-llhai and Sijda and celebration of Hindu fairs and festivals were all viewed by the Mujaddid as posing a serious danger to Islam. He cherished the apprehension that a liberal policy, such as Akbar’s, would strengthen and embolden non-Muslims to weaken and ultimately liquidate the Muslim rule. This kind of propaganda by the Naqshbandis had an adverse effect, albeit limited, on the policies of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, so that each one was less liberal than his predecessor. Thus, a departure from Akbar’s wide outlook began. Though it was quite slight in the beginning, the rupture grew larger and larger with the passage of time untill under Aurangzeb, it assumed the dimensions of a total reversal of Akbar’s tolerant policy.
Aurangzeb was the most characteristic product of this Sirhindi School of thought. He held Akbar’s eclecticism to be wrong and as ill-conceived, grave danger to Islam, both as religion and as state organisation. The vast majority of lndians being non-Muslims, the best guarantee for the safety of Islam, he thought, was that they should be kept perennially in a state of abject subjection. Any attempt, in his view, to treat them liberally would in fact be tantamount to endeavouring to undermine the very basis of the Muslim society in India. And to reinforce him in his convictions there were already certain signs of stirrings noticeable among the non-Muslims, the most striking examples of which were provided by the Sikhs in the Punjab and the Marathas in the Deccan. His heart, therefore, from the very beginning, was set on the total reversal of Akbar’s policy.
“The accession of Aurangzeb to the throne in 1658 heralded the triumph of Muslim theologians. He invited their intercession in the affairs of the state when after the capture of Dara he had him tried and condemned as an apostate”. (Sri Ram Sharma, Religious Policy of Mughals. 1972, p. 127). This was bound to be so, as the object dearest to his heart was to establish a purely Islamic state on the soil of India. The failure of the liberal-minded Dara Shikoh and later his execution spelt a great disaster to all trends to catholicity in the land just as it also marked the triumph of orthodoxy.
Aurangzeb began with puritanical measures. In the second year of his reign he discontinued the celebrating of Nauroz (first day of the Solar Year). A few years later, music and dancing were prohibited. Jharokha Darshan was discontinued on the ground that it seemed too much like human worship; tuladan (weighing of the Emperor’s body against gold, silver and various other valuables) was given up; royal astronomers and astrologers were dismissed; drinking was stopped and public censors were appointed to enforce prohibition strictly. Severe punishments were awarded for anything that was construed by the theological as violating at four fingers and offenders against this order were penalized. Garments of golden weave were forbidden. Clay figures of birds, animals, men and women produced for children were disallowed and violations, if any, were punished. Lighting of lamps on the tombs of the saints and other persons was declared an offence. Shia Musalmans were prohibited from celebrating their festival of Muharram. Any talk on anybody’s part creating the slightest suspicion of disrespect or want of respect towards Islam, the prophet, and his companions were Severely punished, often with death.
But most of those restrictions were of a general nature and covered all communities. Non-muslims were singled out for discriminatory treatment in four specific fields, namely public services, construction and repair of temples, conversions and taxation. The Emperor’s deep-rooted suspicion about the Hindus’ bonafides seriously affected their position in the services, particularly in the higher echelons. Sri Ram Sharma, (op.cit., pp. 155-56) after careful comparison of relevant figures for Hindu Mansabdars in the reigns of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb has this to say on the matter: “This means that towards the end of Aurangzeb’s reign there was a smaller number of Hindus occupying the mansabs of 1000 and above, than’ the number of similar mansabdars towards the end of Shah Jahan’s reign. But the decrease in number becomes still more significant when we take into account the increase in the total number of the mansabdars which rose enormously in the reign of Aurangzeb. In 1657 under Shah Jahan’s, there were 8,000 mansabdars in all, whereas in 1690 number of mansabdars had’ risen to 14,556 The percentage of the Hindus in the higher ranks of the State could not have been than 50 per cent of what it was towards the end of Shah Jahan’s reign.”
Even before Aurangzeb, in the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, there were several instances of destruction of temples, but then these occurrences were generally part of military operations. It was only under Aurangzeb that religious consideration domintated the formulation of state policies and a carefully planned attack was launched forbidding the construction and repair of temples. The provinces of Gujarat and Orissa were among the first targets of Aurangzeb’s fanaticism. Both of them witnessed wanton destruction of numerous sacred shrines. In 1666 the stone railing of the famous Keshav Rai Temple of Mathura was removed by imperial orders. Three years later in 1669 a general order was issued for the destruction of all schools and temples of Hindus. “Orders were now sent to the- governors of all the provinces that- they should destroy the schools and temples of the infidels” and put an end to their educational activities as well as the practices of the religion of the Kafirs.” (Sri Ram Sharma, op. cit.. p. 171).
Soon after the issuance of the order, reports of the destruction of temples began to pour in from all parts of the Empire. A royal messenger was sent to demolish the temple of Malarina in May 1669. In August. 1669 the temple of Vishvanath at Benares was demolished and later a mosque was raised on the site of the demolished building. The temple of Gopinath in Benares too was destroyed at about the same time. An attempt was also made to destroy the Shaiva temple of Jangamwari in Benares, but the idea was somehow given up for the time being. Then came the turn of the temple Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of 33 lacs of rupees by Rai Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site.
Similar destructions were ordered in the various Rajput States and Ajmer, Ujjain, Bengal and other provinces of the Empire. The temples of the Deccan, however, escaped the wrath of the Emperor because of his delicate position in the south on account of the Maratha rising. In this hour of crisis, the Sikhs suffered equally with the Hindus for” Aurangzeb ordered the temples of the Sikhs to be destroyed and the Guru’s agents (masands) for collecting the tithes and presents of the faithful to be expelled from the cities” (Khafi Khan, Muntkhab-ut-Tawarikh. p. 652).
In the sphere of taxation, discrimination against the non-Muslims was reintroduced. Although Jizya was not re-imposed till 1679, the pilgrimage tax was relieved. In 1665 it was ordered that the customs duties on the Muslims be fixed at 2.5 per cent and on the Hindus at 5 per cent. For gardens Hindus were required to pay the rate of 20 per cent, whereas for the Muslims the rate was 16.6 per cent. In 1669-70 it was ordered that in a lunar year, the Muslims should pay 2.5.% and the Hindus 5% on the price of their cattle.
Equally critical was the position of the non-Muslims in the matter of conversions. This had occurred in earlier periods as well. Islam being a missionary religion and the ruling Muslim community being in minority, great importance had always been attached to conversion work and many ingenious devices had been employed to attain this much-desired goal. However, the tempo was greatly intensified during the reign of Aurangzeb. There is certainly a lot of exaggeration in the Hindu and Sikh traditions that the Emperor made it a habit of collecting a maund and a quarter of sacred Hindu janeus (sacred threads) every day, but that he took considerable personal interest in the matter is well borne out. The fact that a deputation of Pandits appeared in the durbar of Guru Tegh Bahadur in May, 1675 and complained of the Government conducting a wholesale campaign of conversion is a historical testimony too strong to be ignored.
III
Having seen the Sikh spiritual thought that had been emerging before Guru Tegh Bahadur appeared on the scene, which he also inherited in all its richness, and the grave challenges posed by the triumph of Muslim orthodoxy under Aurangzeb, we now proceed to a brief study of Aurangzeb’s attitude towards the Sikhs.
In the very first year of his reign, sometime in July or August 1658, an incident occurred which prejudiced his mind against the Sikhs greatly. Dara who was in flight, posted a large force under Daud Khan on the Beas river to stock the passage of the river by the pursuing troops of Aurangzeb. A similar but much weaker attempt had been made by him a little earlier to block the passage of Aurangzeb’s troops across the Sutlej river. On one of these occasions, Guru Hari Rai, at the request of Dara no doubt, sent his small contingent of 2,200 troops for his help. But Dara faltered and the Guru withdrew his men immediately. It is difficult to say whether it was out of any bonds of personal friendship, or in view of the vital issues at stake that the Guru took this step, but perhaps both of these considerations might have been present in his mind.
Getting the necessary handle for interference in Sikh affairs the Emperor sent for the Guru, asking him to present himself at the Court and answer the complaints made to him against the Sikh teaching. The Guru sent his elder son, Ram Rai, for this purpose. Ram Rai answered all the points raised successfully, and apparently satisfied the Emperor. However, Guru Hari Rai was not happy about his manner of replying to the Emperor’s inquiries and disowned him. In October, 1661 Guru Hari Rai breathed his last and his younger son, Harkrishan, succeeded him. Aurangzeb took advantage of the change in Sikh Guruship and summoned the child Guru to Delhi. The Guru accepted the invitation and proceeded to Delhi where he had a meeting with the Emperor. While staying in Delhi, Guru Harkrishan was attacked by small-pox and passed away in March, 1664. The Emperor’s prejudices, however, continued as before and in 1665 when Guru Tegh Bahadur who had succeeded Guru Harkrishan, was staying at Dhamdhan (Bangar, now Haryana), he was suddenly arrested and brought to Delhi. After a month or so, the Guru was released on the intercession of Raja Ram Singh of Amber, who had developed deep devotion to the Guru. As if this was not enough, when Guru Tegh Bahadur was returning in 1670 from Assam, he was again taken into custody and kept in confinement for about two months and a half. Again he was released and he returned to the Punjab via Lakhnaur.
At this time the country, particularly North India, was in the grip of the terrific wave of consternation resulting from the general orders issued by Aurangzeb in 1669 for the demolition of old Hindu temples and schools and the ban on new constructions for their religious and educational institutions. In the course of his homeward journey from East India he had acquired ample personal experience of the feelings of awe and dismay assailing the minds of non-Muslims. As mentioned earlier in Section II, Sikhs too were made targets of official wrath and their local missionaries called masands were expelled from several towns and their temples were demolished. Seeing all these dark happenings, the heart of Guru Tegh Bahadur went out in sympathy’ to the suffering humanity. He toured extensively in the Malwa and Bangar areas and moved among the people to brace up their crestfallen spirits. Thousands of them came to have his holy darshan and to receive his message of courage and hope embodied in the dictum, “Fear not, nor give fear to others.” After nearly a year and half of travelling about in this region, the Guru finally repaired to his head quarters, Chak Nanaki, presently called Anandpur Sahib.
Here at Chak Nanaki on 25 May 1675 a band of sixteen chief Brahmins of Kashmir sought the audience of the great Guru and narrated their tale of woe in a manner which went straight to the heart. Deeply moved by the Brahmins’ appeal for help, Guru Tegh Bahadur pondered awhile and then announced his decision that he would even sacrifice his life for the sake of the afflicted humanity. The Brahmins’ appeal was indeed the immediate cause of his decision. Otherwise, the Guru had long been aware of the grave situation that had been developing in the country for the last so many years.
One month and fourteen days after the visit of the Kashmiri Pandits, on 8th July, Guru Tegh Bahadur nominated his son, Gobind Das, as his successor and two days after departed in the direction of Delhi in company with three of his eminent Sikhs, Diwan Mati Das, Bhai Sati Das and Bhai Dyal Das. The Government was already aware of the Guru’s views and sympathies and had even issued orders for his apprehension. Only two days after his departure from Chak Nanaki, on 12 July, 1675 he was arrested along with his three Sikhs at a village called Malikpur Ranghran, near Ropar: The arrests were made by Mirza Nur Muhammad Khan, Thanedar of the Ropar Kotwali. From Ropar the prisoners were carried under heavy guard to Sirhind where they were confined till the arrival of definite instructions from the Empror Aurangzeb, then encamped at Hasan Abdal on the north-west frontier. On the receipt of these instructions, the Guru and his followers were removed to Delhi. The Subahdar of Delhi who was deputizing for the Emperor made three conditions to Guru Tegh Bahadur, namely: (i) to show a miracle, (ii) to embrace Islam, or (iii) to suffer death. He rejected the first two conditions and accepted the third. After five days of relentless tortures, on the fateful day of 11th November 1675 all the Sikh prisoners were executed. Dewan Mati Das was tied between two wooden planks and sawn alive from the top. Bhai Dyal Das was boiled, alive in a cauldron of steaming hot water. The third, Bhai Sati Das was wrapped with cotton and then set on fire. The Guru’s turn came last but on the same afternoon. The old conditions were repeated by the Qazi. They were again rejected outrightly and the Guru was beheaded in full gaze of a large public gathering.
IV
What was the noble cause for which Guru Tegh Bahadur made the supreme sacrifice? What motivated him to do so? These questions may best be answered in the light of the following factors:
(a) The ideology he had inherited from his distinguished predecessors;
(b) the circumstances which lead to the sacrifice;
(c) the evidence recorded by his son Guru Gobind Singh in Bichittar Natak; and
(d) the stage of historical development in which the society was found at the time.
(a) The ideology inherited by Guru Tegh Bahadur from his predecessor Gurus had been noticed earlier in Section I.It will be seen from there that this ideology was based on a clearly recongnized sense of social commitment. Spiritual development founded on renunciation of worldly life and social responsibilities which go with it, accordingly, was considered of little merit and life lived away from society was not commended. In this system of thought, there was no room for banbas (living in jungles) and sanyas (hermitage) which were rated so highly prior to the origin of Sikhism. Living in the midst of society and facing all its challenges bravely was a hallmark of this mode of thinking of Guru Nanak and his successors. So, the basis of all social life was to be dharma, morality. Whatever activities one may indulge in, always the governing principle of one’s conduct should be the moral values of truth, social justice, compassion, love, contentment and other such elements which may be categorized under this head. These moral values, the Gurus emphasissed, are not meant for any particular segment of life but are to constitute the very bed rock of total social living embracing all aspects of society. Therefore, anything which is in accordance with dharma was considered right and anything which is not, was held wrong. Similarly, anybody who helps the cause of dharma by regulating his life according to it and by defending it when necessary was rated a good man (sant, sadh or bhagat) and anybody who acts contrary to it was reckoned as a wicked man (dushta or sakta). From this, is naturally followed that wickedness or tyranny, whatever its form, is to be resisted, as after the execution of Guru Arjan Dev, his son and successor, Guru Hargobind held the use of arms for the noble fight against tyranny as valid and embarked upon a well-thought out programme of militarisation of his community. An important implication of the moral basis of social life, as stressed by the Gurus, was respect for other people’s modes of living and thinking. All these modes contain a degree of merit, more or less and as such are to be tolerated, if not accepted. The concept of plural society in which different approaches used by people are recognised as legitimate was an essential characteristic of the emerging Sikh ideology and any attempt to impose unity upon the people unmindful of their varying beliefs and practices was considered a violation of dharma and an act of tyranny. Such an act of tyranny or breach of morality ought to be resisted as a moral obligation. To sum up, acceptance of social responsibility, recognition of dharma as the basis of society, compassion for the suffering humanity, concern for the good of mankind, resistance to evil, if necessary with force, and acceptance of a plural society with respect for other people’s modes of living and thinking were the leading highlights of the Sikh ideology which the Ninth Guru inherited from the previous Gurus. Since it is firmly accepted among the Sikhs that the all ten Gurus thought the same way, this ideology was no mere inheritance for the Ninth Guru, but was fully shared by him.
(b) Defeat of Dara and the triumph of Aurangzeb ushered in a new era in India. Dara’s defeat marked the end of Akbar’s liberalism and Aurangzeb’s victory portended the ascendency of Muslim orthodoxy and of the Sirhindi school of thought. True to his convictions, Aurangzeb was determined to convert India into a Darul-Islam which meant rejection of tolerance of other people’s modes of life and thought, whatever their merit. Along with other non Muslims, Sikhs too had their share of troubles and difficulties on account of the new regime. Aurangzeb’s interference in Sikh affairs started from the time of Guru Hari Rai, and although all his doubts and queries were satisfied authoritatively, he did not refrain from his policy of harassment. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was arrested and kept in confinement at Delhi first in 1665 and then in 1670. Even more important than these acts of harassment was the all-out campaign of religious intolerance on the part of the Emperor started in 1669. The woes of the suffering humanity had a deep impact upon the sensitive mind of Guru Tegh Bahadur and both at his headquarters, Chak Nanaki, and in course of his travels through the country, he endeavoured to brace up the dispirited minds of the distressed people with his brave message about sheding all fear. The appeal of the Kashmiri Pandits for help, coming towards the end played a decisive role in so far as it helped the Guru in making his final resolve on the issue. However, from the manner in which the circumstances shaped themselves and finally led to the crucial point, it may be clear that the issues involved were wider and deeper than the compassion for a few woe-striken Brahmins of a distant area.
(c) Guru Gobind Singh’s statement in his famous composition, Bachittar Natak. on the martyrdom of his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, is the most authentic of all references to the event. The opening lines of the Tenth Guru’s account read as follows:
iqlk jM rwKw pRB qwkw . kIno bfo klU mih swkw.
swDin hyiq ieqI ijin krI. sIsu dIAw pr sI n aucrI.
Drm hyq swkw ijin kIAw. sIsu dIAw pr isrr n dIAw.
The Lord (Guru Tegh Bahadur) protected their paste-mark and sacred thread,
And performed a mighty deed in the Kali Age.
To protect the holy he spared no pains;
Gave his head but uttered not groan.
For the protection of dharma
He did this noble deed;
gave up his head but not his ideal).
The reference in these lines to the protection of “their paste mark and sacred thread” bears an obvious connection with the appeal of the Kashmiri Pandits to the Ninth Guru for succour. But what motivated the Guru to make the supreme sacrifice of his life was a higher ideal. This has been indicated by the Tenth Guru by saying that the saka (great event) was for the sake of dharma (dharma hetu).
What Guru Gobind Singh meant by the word dharma, comes out very clearly from what the Guru says about his own mission, a few pages later, in the same work:
hm ieh kwj jgq mY Awey Drm hyq gurdyv pTwey.
jhW qhW qum Drm ibQwro. dust doKiAn pkir pCwro.
(For this purpose was I born into the world;
For dharma’s sake I am sent here by the Lord:
Ordained to promote dharma here and there.
And to demolish the wicked and the evil-minded,
Let all good people understand that I am born for this purpose:
To promote dharma, to protect the good, to extirpate the evil).
Here the connotation of the term dharma is so clear that there can be no mistake about its meaning. It stands for the Moral Law which indicates truth, justice, righteousness and other moral values. Now coming back to Guru Gobind Singh’s account of his father’s martyrdom, referred to earlier, it would be absolutely erroneous to understand his words dharma hetu in any narrow sectarian sense. Such a restricted usage of the term would be not only unfair to the high human ideals of the great Guru, but also foreign to the longstanding valuable Sikh tradition based on the social philosophy of dharma previously noticed in this essay.
(d) Whether we consider the long-standing Sikh ideology preached and practised since the time of Guru Nanak, or we take into account the circumstances that led to the martyrdom of the Ninth Guru, or the evidence of Bachittar Natak. It becomes clear that Guru Tegh Bahadur performed the mighty deed under the inspiration of high human ideals and values. Some of these may be mentioned as:
(i) Compassion (karuna) for suffering humanity, for oppressed and exploited people;
(ii) protection of dharma (Moral Law) recognised in Sikh tradition as the basis of human society;
(iii) Resistance to tyranny resulting from a breach of the norms of dharma;
(iv) respect and tolerance for modes living and thinking other than one’s own, what is today termed as the ideal of plural society. At the then stage of historical development of lndian society, there was very little consciousness of human rights as such. Only the right of private property, not however in its absolute sense, was definitely known and also to a large extent recognized by the State. The consciousness about the human rights of speech, movement, association, worship etc. is of comparatively recent origin and has appeared everywhere as part of the struggle for democratization of the springs of political power. So far as our own country is concerned, such a consciousness first made its appearance in the 19th century and ever since then it has been growing in strength. Before our ‘people began to grow influences, the fort in India was held by the concept of duty tracing down its roots in the remote past of India. However, duties and rights are closely interlinked and are the two sides of the same coin. Which were regarded as duties then, are in the modern period, in the presence of a strong consciousness of human rights, looked upon as corelates of rights. It is in this sense that it may be and is valid to speak of the right of freedom of conscience or worship or some other human right in connection with the motivation with which Guru Tegh Bahadur elected to sacrifice his life.
¤
