Guru Arjan Dev ji di shaheedi - true culprits

[dallysingh101]

11 hours ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

According to some new theories published recently as to what happened, some I think Sikh authors have even said the tatti tavi and sand tortures never happened and that chandu paid for the bail of guru ji from mughals and he locked up guru ji in his haveli and would torture guru sahib like beating him with shoes, etc. And that guru sahib passed away because of physical beatings. That's a very weird thing though and its a can of worms that threatens to shake up entire foundation of Sikhism.

It might shake up the foundations of 'SIkhism'  but I think it would take A LOT more than that to shake the foundations of Sikhi. If seeking 'sat' is a primary objective - finding new verifiable sources of ithihaas and evaluating and utilising them is no bad thing. 

 

Quote

Another baffling fact is that although shaheedi of guru Teg bahadur ji is a fact, shaheedi of Bhai mati das ji and two other sikhs nowhere mentioned in bhangus panth parkash. Considering the amount of pages he wrote slandering Banda Singh bahadur, I m surprised he would chose to, even by accident, to miss out on mentioning the 3 sikhs and also baba deep Singh ji incident

We should consider that the surviving literature may not cover everything and that we should also acknowledge oral traditions too. As for Banda Singh's portrayal. I just reread that the other day. I don't think it is slander at all. Okay, so it gives specifics of character (as Bhangu heard from his own family which is broadly inline with Dhadhi Nathmaal's early account and even what some contemporary moghuls were saying - in terms of a reputation for serious awe-inspiring magical power), but the only reason people have a problem with it is because they have been pre-influenced by later whitewashed idealised accounts written during the Singh Sabha period which felt compelled to jettison things that goray of the time raised an eyebrow at. That baaharlaa influence still survives in your own preconceptions.  

 

Quote

But discussing such things in open is opening a can of worms

 Depends on who you discuss them with. If it is hardcore, non-reflective conservatives in the panth - then yes. If it is outsiders or insiders who have a hidden agenda to undermine the panth - then yes. If it is intelligent,  open minded apnay - then no. This is actually very important cultural historical debate - for those of us who have been given kirpa to discuss it without going into some frothing at the mouth fits. 

[AkalkiFauj]

Sakhi Sarvaria followers ( Lakh data pakhandi peer followers) played a major role as they didn't want Sikhi to spread 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AkalkiFauj said:

Sakhi Sarvaria followers ( Lakh data pakhandi peer followers) played a major role as they didn't want Sikhi to spread 

That pir is still venerated in punjab . Why is it ?? 

[jkvlondon]

4 hours ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

That pir is still venerated in punjab . Why is it ?? 

because aam punjabi don't have a clue about anything I mean they followed Ladi Shah and balathkari sirsa wale Ram Rahim... that's what happens when people get told good news about their bad lachaan....

[AkalkiFauj]

23 hours ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

That pir is still venerated in punjab . Why is it ?? 

Pakhandi babe and people not having 100% faith in Guru Sahib 

[BhForce]

On 6/10/2019 at 3:16 AM, dallysingh101 said:

I think the Chandhu issue might have been the commonly accepted one (in the community) for centuries.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know for sure exactly what every single Sikh thought.

But it's hard for me to believe that the sudden and forceful change that was brought about in the Sikh panth by Guru Hargobind ji could be ascribed to a mere personal dispute.

If the sangat truly thought that Guru ji's shaheedi was merely due to a personal grudge, it's hard to see the sangat supporting Guru ji's military direction. It would have been seen as a wild overreaction. I think that elders (remember, Guru ji was very young at that time) would have counseled caution, just as some people tried to during the first Khanda-Amrit ceremony.

In reality, objections, if any, did not stop militarization because people realized that the Mughals were out to get us. Granted, we didn't have excerpts from Jahangir's memoirs to pass around on social media, but somehow or another, word got around.

You don't think that no news ever got passed around then, do you?

 

On the other hand, I do see it as plausible that the Chandu story might have been played up by misinformed preachers after Guru Gobind Singh ji. Just as a whole bunch of other problems and wrong thought cropped up during the Sikh Raj, British Raj, and post-1947 India.

[BhForce]

On 6/11/2019 at 6:24 AM, dallysingh101 said:

We should consider that the surviving literature may not cover everything and that we should also acknowledge oral traditions too.

Right. And also, thinking that some writing will upset the applecart may be a problem if we uncritically accept documents. Just because someone (whether a Moghul or Sikh) wrote something does not make it true, certainly not the level of Gurbani.

Humans always write with their own flaws, limitations, and also agendas. This is true whether we're talking about Sikh history or Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or whatever history.

[dallysingh101]

13 hours ago, BhForce said:

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know for sure exactly what every single Sikh thought.

But it's hard for me to believe that the sudden and forceful change that was brought about in the Sikh panth by Guru Hargobind ji could be ascribed to a mere personal dispute.

If the sangat truly thought that Guru ji's shaheedi was merely due to a personal grudge, it's hard to see the sangat supporting Guru ji's military direction. It would have been seen as a wild overreaction. I think that elders (remember, Guru ji was very young at that time) would have counseled caution, just as some people tried to during the first Khanda-Amrit ceremony.

In reality, objections, if any, did not stop militarization because people realized that the Mughals were out to get us. Granted, we didn't have excerpts from Jahangir's memoirs to pass around on social media, but somehow or another, word got around.

You don't think that no news ever got passed around then, do you?

 

On the other hand, I do see it as plausible that the Chandu story might have been played up by misinformed preachers after Guru Gobind Singh ji. Just as a whole bunch of other problems and wrong thought cropped up during the Sikh Raj, British Raj, and post-1947 India.

I think you're on the ball here.

I think that period was one of shock and fear for the majority of the panth. The sudden execution of a much beloved, increasingly popular (in Jahangir's own words) prolific spiritual mystic with obvious wide ranging and powerful skills at reconfiguring society along more humanistic lines must have stunned the panth and  it did take them into territory they had never been in before and many probably never expected - i.e. against the most powerful state of the times.  It must have been even more shocking because apparently Jahangir accompanied his own father Akhbar to see Guru ji in the past - and his father was much impressed by what he witnessed. 

Look the panth has always been made up of a mixture of people. Simpletons, and those who are astute and smart. The former outnumber the latter (till this day). The latter would have been clued up to what was going on, and the former would are going to be inclined to get confused by all manner of hearsay and rumour. Guru Arjan Dev ji and his inner circle were obviously aware of the shift going on because (according to our own traditions) he was practically preparing for conflict by encouraging wrestling and physical activities and how he encouraged his son (chevin padshah) to follow a soldierly lifestyle. 

I believe Guru ji's shaheedi was a period of trauma and shock for much of the rank and file of the panth - hence even the contemporary Bhai Gurdas doesn't explicitly detail out what happened and uses metaphors.  

 

It will be very interesting to trace the emergence and expansion of the Chandu narrative in the surviving written accounts (if they occur therein). It may well have been a deflection by some Sikhs who were too scared to explicitly point the fingers at the moghuls for self-preservatory reasons?

[dallysingh101]

13 hours ago, BhForce said:

Right. And also, thinking that some writing will upset the applecart may be a problem if we uncritically accept documents. Just because someone (whether a Moghul or Sikh) wrote something does not make it true, certainly not the level of Gurbani.

Humans always write with their own flaws, limitations, and also agendas. This is true whether we're talking about Sikh history or Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or whatever history.

I know, but to discard historical narratives because they don't fit into people's preconceived notions, isn't right either. And Sikh conservatives do this all the time. 

Banda Singh is a perfect example. If goray didn't invade and influence Sikh historiography, we'd have Bhangu's work as one of the major contributions on this subject. But because today we are all influenced by latter Singh Sabha Europeanised historiography we actually reject native Sikh historical narratives for latter whitewashed, europeanised ones. That's mental! And not to mention inferiority complexed. 

[chatanga1]

On 6/13/2019 at 8:08 AM, BhForce said:

If the sangat truly thought that Guru ji's shaheedi was merely due to a personal grudge, it's hard to see the sangat supporting Guru ji's military direction.

In katha of this episode, after the shaheedi of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Guru Sahib said that "ਚੰਦੂ ਦੇ ਨੱਕ ਵਿਚ ਨਕੇਲ ਪਾਉਣਾ " and this frightened the Sikhs who complained to Mata Ganga about Guru Sahibs words. Chandu was given as a prisoner to the Sikhs after some time and then killed in Lahore.

 

Have a read of this:

http://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=ਚੰਦੂ ਸ਼ਾਹ