The Plea of the Shaheed, Introduction: Defining Sikh Martyrdom
A series tracing the allocutions of Sikh martyrs across time and jurisdiction
“I do not regret now the way in which I pleaded my case; I would much rather die as the result of this defence than live as the result of the other sort.”
-Socrates, speaking to the jury who had just sentenced him to death
When a defendant learns he is to face the ultimate punishment, death, it seems intuitive to many of us that his reaction to such a sentence carries a special importance.
We, the living (perhaps hypocritically) use his reaction to judge his character—does he “weep and wail” and “stoop to servility,”1 begging the judge or jury to change their mind? Socrates, in the pursuit of virtue until the very end, would deem such a reaction to be unvirtuous. The worthy does not attempt to “use his wits to escape death by any means.”2 Instead, Socrates proclaims “nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death.”3 He thanks the jury who has deemed him unworthy of life, stating it was “better for [him] to die and be released from [his] distractions.”4
ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਹੱਥੇ ਆ ਗਿਆ ਤਾਂ ਮੈਨੂੰ ਬਖਸ਼ਿਓ ਨਾ, ਜੇ ਮੇਰੇ ਹੱਥੇ ਆ ਗਏ ਤਾਂ ਮੈਂ ਛੱਡਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ
“If I fall into your hands, spare me not—for if you were to fall into my hold I would not grant you mercy.” (Sidhu Moosewala, Watch Out (2023, posthumous release))
Certain readers may object to this piece as suicidal ideation. The secular virtue in sacrificing one’s life for a worthy cause may seem obvious to most. (What qualifies as worthy is a topic for another day, for now, it must suffice to note that “the question, ‘what is martyrdom?’ is really ‘who makes martyrdom and for what purpose?’”5). But I think it is true that the line between such a notion and the justifications for what some may deem as death cults may blur at times. After all, the perpetrators of horrors such as the September 11 attacks deemed themselves martyrs. Questions of righteousness aside, in my view, what gives martyrdom its signifance to those it inspires is not the mere fact of death—it is the fact that death has somehow found the martyr, who he then willingly greets despite inclinations to do otherwise.
Whatever one’s views on the subject, it is a fact that martyrdom plays a rather outsized influence on the Sikh psyche, although the degree may vary between individual Sikhs. Fenech, who has written respectably on the subject, questions the extent to which a concept of martyrdom existed in the philosophy of the early Gurus and other writers in the Guru Granth Sahib.6 However, he admits that for the Khalsa of the eighteenth century, martyrdom figures quite prominently in their ethos.7 He notes the word shaheed itself, borrowed from Islamic terminology (meaning lit. “to witness”) is missing from Sikh eighteenth-century literature,8 first used to describe a Sikh martyr in 1802.9 But this is, in Fenech’s view, to be attributed simply to the distaste of Sikh writers at the time for using a word so closely associated to Islam—on a conceptual level, “the Sikh martyr we come across…is the very image of the sahid we find mentioned throughout Islamic texts.”10 As Sikhs have progressed to the current day, “the veneration of martyrs and martyrdom” in keeping with its “prevalence of external observable violence” has continued, providing scholars with a “powerful source of fascination.”11
The Sikh Shaheed has often found themselves giving their life in battle, rushing forward, welcoming death with deafening warcries. Or the Shaheed has been the target of indiscriminate raids by states and rogues alike, leaving the world while reciting the divine word. Such sacrifices, while no less in value, are not the topic of this writing. Rather, the purpose of this series is to compile instances in which the Shaheed is taken through a state’s justice system, and is face to face with his sentencer. What, if anything, does the Shaheed say? What does the Shaheed plea?
Martyrdom in Gurmat
Before we commence our journey, a sizeable detour will be made in this first installment. Above, it was mentioned that scholarship has questioned whether a fully-realized concept of martyrdom was present in the early Sikh tradition. Fenech problematizes the use of shabads commonly associated with martyrdom in the modern Sikh imagination such as…
ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥
ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੨੦॥
If one desires to play this game of love, come my way holding head in hand.
Once one has placed their feet on this path, they do not hestitate to give their head.
-Guru Nanak, Salok Varan te Vadhik, Ang 1412
…arguing these compositions “do not explictly advocate sacrifice in the face of oppression and tyranny” and finds it “very unlikely that martyrdom is what…the Gurus (Guru Nanak in particular) had in mind as they composed them.”12 An initial comment—the purposeful choice to cloak this call to action in such imagery cannot, in my opinion, be ignored. The “game of love” that Guru Nanak calls for his Sikh to play is not simply one of pacificity. The path referred to by Guru Nanak is one that Mandair terms “self-differentiation - the capacity and will to differentiate oneself internally” which “erases ego but without annihilating it.”13 This process
“is a fundamental violence best described as a violence directed toward the ego’s desire to be sovereign; it is an absolutely interior violence enacted on one’s own self, which then becomes the measure by which all external or physical violence between people must be understood.”14
By undergoing “this subjection of one’s will to ultimate sacrifice” the self-transformed individual (query whether one is truly an “individual” at that point, or something…else) can “challenge the moral authority of kings and administrators who deployed physical violence to stake their claim to power and dominion over others” by exercising a “sovereign violence” that begins in their very state of mind.15 This “sovereign violence” is what surfaces when the Shaheed speaks to his sentencer in the courtroom (a physical manifestation of the state’s monopoly over violence).
Part of the violence many a Shaheed enacts is his treatment of death as a plaything, a lover with whom he has squabbled and is now returning home to. And this has its roots, again in the words of Guru Nanak, this time in his Sohila (a term originally for Punjabi nuptial songs sang by the women of the house of bride, the night before her wedding):
ਜੈ ਘਰਿ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਆਖੀਐ ਕਰਤੇ ਕਾ ਹੋਇ ਬੀਚਾਰੋ ॥
The house where the praises of the Divine are spoken and its nature is contemplated,
ਤਿਤੁ ਘਰਿ ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੋਹਿਲਾ ਸਿਵਰਿਹੁ ਸਿਰਜਣਹਾਰੋ ॥੧॥
In that house, sing the Sohila, and remember the Creator.
ਤੁਮ ਗਾਵਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਕਾ ਸੋਹਿਲਾ ॥
You there, sing the Sohila of my Fearless One,
ਹਉ ਵਾਰੀ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੋਹਿਲੈ ਸਦਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
I am a sacrifice to such a Sohila, through which eternal peace is found. (Repeat).
ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਜੀਅੜੇ ਸਮਾਲੀਅਨਿ ਦੇਖੈਗਾ ਦੇਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
Everyday, the Giver will take care of the soul, watching over all affairs,
ਤੇਰੇ ਦਾਨੈ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਦਾਤੇ ਕਵਣੁ ਸੁਮਾਰੁ ॥੨॥
I have not found the limits of your charity, how can such an estimation even be made anyway?
ਸੰਬਤਿ ਸਾਹਾ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਮਿਲਿ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਵਹੁ ਤੇਲੁ ॥
The year and day of the wedding has been written, come together and pour the oil (referring to a premarital ritual in which oil is poured on the bride’s head),
ਦੇਹੁ ਸਜਣ ਅਸੀਸੜੀਆ ਜਿਉ ਹੋਵੈ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿਉ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੩॥
Please, friends, give me your blessings, so that I may meet with my respected Husband.
ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਏਹੋ ਪਾਹੁਚਾ ਸਦੜੇ ਨਿਤ ਪਵੰਨਿ ॥
Such a wedding invitation is sent to every house, calls are being made everyday,
ਸਦਣਹਾਰਾ ਸਿਮਰੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇ ਦਿਹ ਆਵੰਨਿ ॥੪॥੧॥
Meditate on the One inviting you, Nanak, the day of wedding is drawing closer.
Guru Nanak is likening death to a wedding, in which the mortal is a bride leaving her parents’ house to live with her husband. Some today thus say Guru Nanak is making death something to celebrate. Well, not exactly—there is still some sense in which the occasion is sad. The goodbye between the bride and her family is often associated with tears in real life, to the point where a common topic of discussion at a Punjabi wedding is the level of gloom shown by the bride. But it is true that the occasion as a whole is one of joy—the bride will go on to live a (presumably happy) married life.
So while there was not “an idea of selfless sacrifice with the hope of future reward,”16 what this misses is the recontextualization of death by Guru Nanak. As Socrates would say, “we are quite mistaken in supposing death to be an evil.”17 To him,
“…If there is no consciousness but only a dreamless sleep, death must be a marvellous gain…If on the other hand death is a removal from here to some other place, and if what we are told is true, that all the dead are there, what greater blessing could there be than this, gentlemen?…I should like to spend my time there, as here, in examining and searching people’s minds, to find out who is really wise among them, and who only thinks that he is.”18
Note, of course, I am not saying Guru Nanak’s conception of the afterlife is in any way either of the two possibilities Socrates lists. Rather, the parallel is that both are setting up an ideological backdrop that eventually can be used to remove the possibility of death as a deterrent to action. The cynic may argue, and he may be right, that this is what martyrdom is designed to do—provide a basis on which the gullible may be used by the powerful. The inspired will argue instead that it assists the mortal in pursuit of virtue, allowing him to do what he otherwise may fear. Whoever is right, what I think is undeniable is that removing the fear of death, while not the same thing as a reward, helps form an idea of martyrdom.
ਓ ਮਰਦ ਮਸ਼ੂਕਾਂ ਵਾਂਗੂੰ ਮੌਤ ‘ਡੀਕਦਾ, ਖੌਰੇ ਕਦੋਂ ਖੜਕਾਊ ਦਰਵਾਜਾ ਮਿੱਠੀਏ
“A man waits for death as he does his lover, wondering when she will knock upon his door.” (Sidhu Moosewala, The Last Ride (2022))
And as will be discussed further, I don’t think the Shaheed necessarily receives a tangible reward under the Sikh conceptualization of martyrdom. There is some literature to suggest that, at least at one point in time, a Shaheed was considered to join the ranks of other Sikh martyrs such as Bhai Mani Singh.19 But the first descriptions of physical martyrdom don’t exactly allude to a promise of liberation, heaven, or some other incentive. Rather, it would seem to be the duty of the virtuous to “give their head” as Guru Nanak would say. While the rest of this piece will continue to develop this idea, I will end this section with a common refrain by Guru Gobind Singh,
ਜਬ ਆਵ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤਿ ਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋ
And when my age nears its end, let me breathe my last while fighting in battle.
The Guru’s Plea
Guru Arjan (1606)
[NOTE: Much of this subsection deals with ongoing debate surrounding how to classify Guru Arjan’s murder, and in doing so develops a Sikh concept of martyrdom. Should one simply want to read what the Guru is purported to have said in court to Jahangir, feel free to skip to the end of this section.]
Although Guru Gobind Singh himself leaves this world due to a mortal wound inflicted by a pair of Pathan assassins, the specific word Shaheed is generally only associated with the Fifth and Ninth Gurus. Guru Arjan, fifth in the line from Guru Nanak, “earned the disapproval of the Mughal authorities for his apparent support of Prince Khusrau’s claim to the throne and was therefore killed by them” in 1606.20 Fenech claims contemporary Sikhs and later Gurus did not see Guru Arjan’s death as martyrdom, which he defines as “‘heroic death with the hope of posthumous recognition and anticipated reward,’”21 but rather as heroism in the face of unfortunate political murder.22
The problem here, of course, is using a definition of martyr that may not actually correspond to what the Sikh conceptualization of a martyr is. Shan writes Sikh martyrdom “implies and connotes…a selfless heroic deed of sublime self-sacrifice for a lofty and righteous cause with a universal outlook in a comprehensive form.”23 This is fairly different from the definition used by Fenech, notably leaving out a rewards system. Shan notes that in early Islamic tradition itself, the concept of “longing to meet a martyr’s death…was by no means encouraged by the orthodox theology who rather deprecated it, because this kind of self-sacrifice looked very much like suicide which has always been condemned in Islam.”24
Going back to the concept of a “sovereign violence” being inherent in Guru Nanak’s call to play the “game of love,”I argue there cannot be a selfish motive if played to perfection, for the self is in the process sacrificed to access other modes of being that are not easily explained, but are instead felt. One may compare this game of love to Islamic “mystics such as Hallāj, Ghazāli, Sanā’i, ‘Attār and Rumi” for whom “being killed by love is considered martyrdom. Connecting love with martyrdom is a way to justify the violent and purifying depiction of love.”25 Recalling the literal meaning of Shaheed being “to witness,” one may argue the Sikh Shaheed is bringing witness to the Sikh belief of ego sublimation when killed for a cause, just as the Islamic mystic is bringing witness to an all-encompassing love for Allah (query how different these two witnesses actually are).
To contextualize whether Guru Arjan’s murder was for any such “lofty and righteous cause,” it may help to assess the motives of the culprits. Jahangir himself writes, “For a long time I had been thinking that either this false trade [Guru Arjan’s ascendancy] should be eliminated or that he should be brought into the embrace of Islam.”26 Jahangir goes on to couch the killing of Guru Arjan in a more political framework, complaining “this little inconsequential fellow wished to pay homage to Khusraw” and for this he “ordered him brought to me.”27 But the religious underpinnings are brought to light in the writings of Sheikh Ahmad al-Sirhindi, a cleric who exercised quite a sway in the Mughal court. He states, “Before this Kafir was killed, I had seen in a dream that the Emperor of the day had destroyed the crown of the head of Shirk or infidelity. It is true that this infidel was the chief of the infidels and a leader of the Kafirs…jehad against them and hostility towards them are the necessities of the Mohammedan faith.”28 He celebrates the murder in no uncertain terms, stating,
“These days the accursed infidel of Gobindwal was very unfortunately killed. It is a cause of great defeat for the reprobate Hindus. With whatever intention and purpose they are killed - the humiliation of infidels is for Muslims life itself.”29
while writing to “the most influential Mughal official of Jahangir and the persecutor of Guru Arjan,”30 Sheikh Farid Bukhari (also known as Murtaza Khan). To be clear, I am not making any comment on whether al-Sirhnd’s beliefs are actually in line with Islamic creed. Rather, the point is to examine the views of those in proximity to Guru Arjan’s murder. Based on this evidence, I find it likely that the murder was tinged with a religious bend. Perhaps Guru Arjan was offered the choice of Islam, perhaps he was not, but it is undeniable that he was targeted in part because of his beliefs and sway over the people of North India.
In writing on Guru Arjan, Bhai Gurdas in Vaar 24, Pauri 23 notes,
ਰਹਿਦੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਵਿਚਿ ਮੀਨ ਕੁਲੀਨ ਹੇਤੁ ਨਿਰਬਾਣੀ ।
The Guru remained in the river, a well-bred fish who has transcended attachment,
ਦਰਸਨੁ ਦੇਖਿ ਪਤੰਗ ਜਿਉ ਜੋਤੀ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮਾਣੀ।
As gazing upon the flame, a moth is drawn to it, eventually merging completely with its light.
Although Bhai Gurdas makes no explicit reference to Guru Arjan’s murder, it is of interest that he uses the word dariyao, or river, to reference the Guru’s departure. The most common version of the Guru’s martyrdom notes him as being thrown into a river following severe torture. Bhai Rattan Singh Bhangu, when summarizing the general atrocities of Mughals, asks rhetorically,31
ਕਯਾ ਗੁਰ ਅਰਜਨ ਦਰਯਾਇ ਨ ਬੋਰਯੋ ।
Was Guru Arjan not drowned in the river?
It would seem Bhai Gurdas is using the circumstances of Guru Arjan’s demise as metaphor for the supreme equipose the Guru is said to have shown at the end of his life. Indeed, Fenech admits “it is quite certain that the pauri does deal with Guru Arjan’s final hours” and that “Bhai Gurdas understood the fifth Master’s death as that of a hero.”32 Bhai Gurdas ends the pauri by saying,
ਗੁਰ ਅਰਜਨ ਵਿਟਹੁ ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ॥੨੩॥
I am but a sacrifice to Guru Arjan. (23)
In perhaps another clue as to how Bhai Gurdas viewed the Guru’s demise, he invokes the concept of kurbani, or sacrifice, to describe his devotion to the Guru. I think the word choice here is important—just as the specific metaphor of a river may have been calling upon an implicit understanding of the circumstances of the Guru’s passing, so too the specific invocation of “sacrifice” may be drawing upon an implied understanding of how the Guru’s passing was viewed. And, as per Fenech, “[w]e can only assume that Bhai Gurdas’ understanding would have been shared by the many Sikhs who formed his principal audience.”33
If we then take it to be true (and I admit, reasonable minds can differ here) that Guru Arjan’s murder was seen as heroic and/or sacrificial, it then begs the question that does the fact that there are no references to a reward given for his life truly matter when deciding his status as martyr? To state that Guru Arjan cannot be called a martyr because he did not die “with the hope of posthumous recognition and anticipated reward”34 forces an understanding of martyrdom onto the Sikh consciousness that is foreign, and arguably asks the Sikh martyr to betray the tenets of the beliefs he is upholding.
Now, moving forward under the assumption that Guru Arjan may correctly be deemed a Shaheed, we now examine what, if anything, he may have said to his sentencers. This is, unfortunately, still a bit hard to ascertain. It is universally agreed upon that Guru Arjan was brought into Jahangir’s court in Lahore on his orders.35 But what happens next is a bit fuzzier—although not mentioned in the Mughal record, the Sikh texts are in agreement that a jealous Khatri minister in the Mughal court by the name of Chandu Shah played a role in the Guru’s murder. In fact, the only real at-length description of the ordeal, written by Kavi Santokh Singh in his Suraj Parkash, claims Chandu Shah essentially tricked Jahangir into letting him keep the Guru at his house (where Chandu Shah himself later had him tortured to the point of murder).36 What first happened, according to the Kavi, is the Guru was brought into Jahangir’s court and asked questions regarding allegations that he asserted religious superiority over both Hindus and Muslims.37 He answered these satisfactorily, and then in private, Chandu convinces Jahangir to levy a fine anyway, and tells Jahangir he will keep the Guru at his residence while they gather the funds.38
So there is never a climactic moment between the Guru and Jahangir, where the latter passes a sentence on the Guru and allows him to respond. However, it is still worth a moment to examine the exchange between Jahangir and Guru Arjan, as reported by the Kavi.39 Jahangir first asks,
ਦੋਨਹੁ ਮਹਿਂ ਕੋ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਾਨਹਿ ਕਿਸ ਕਰੁਨਾ ਕਰੈ ਖ਼ੁਦਾਇ
“Between the Hindus and the Muslims, only the Master knows who receives His grace,
ਕੌਨ ਸਾਚ ਕਹਿ ਕੂਰ ਕਹੈ ਕੋ ਇਹ ਸੰਸੈ ਮੇਰੇ ਮਨ ਆਇ
So who shall we call true? Who shall we deem false? This bothersome thought has come to my mind.
ਉੱਤਰ ਦੇਹੁ ਪੀਰ ਤੁਮ ਦੀਰਘ ਜਿਸਤੇ ਮਮ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ ਹੁਇ ਜਾਇ
Please do answer, as you are known to be a respected saint, so that I may be at peace.”
Then,
ਸੁਨਿ ਹਜ਼ਰਤ ਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਅਰਜਨ ਕਹਿ ਜਬਾਬ ਕੋ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਸੁਨਾਇ
Listening to the Emperor, Satguru Arjan answered with the following shabad (found in Raag Ramkali, Ang 885):
ਕੋਈ ਬੋਲੈ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਕੋਈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਸੇਵੈ ਗੁਸਈਆ ਕੋਈ ਅਲਾਹਿ ॥੧॥
Some call Him “Ram, Ram,” some “Khuda.” Some serve “Gusain,” some “Allah.” (1)
ਕਾਰਣ ਕਰਣ ਕਰੀਮ ॥ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਧਾਰਿ ਰਹੀਮ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Ultimately, He is the Great Cause and the Doer. He is the bestower of “kirpa” (from a Hindu’s view) and is “raheem” (from a Muslim’s view). (1)
ਕੋਈ ਨਾਵੈ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਕੋਈ ਹਜ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਕਰੈ ਪੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਸਿਰੁ ਨਿਵਾਇ ॥੨॥
Some may bathe at pilgrimage sites, some may go on the Hajj. Some pray through “pooja,” some may lower their heads for namaz. (2)
ਕੋਈ ਪੜੈ ਬੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਕਤੇਬ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਓਢੈ ਨੀਲ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਪੇਦ ॥੩॥
Some read the Vedas, some the Quran. Some wear the blue robes of the Muslim, some the white of the Hindu. (3)
ਕੋਈ ਕਹੈ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕੋਈ ਕਹੈ ਹਿੰਦੂ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਬਾਛੈ ਭਿਸਤੁ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਰਗਿੰਦੂ ॥੪॥ (4)
Some may announce themselves “Turk,” others “Hindu.” Some yearn for the Islamic paradise, some for the heaven of Indra.
ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪਛਾਤਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕਾ ਤਿਨਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਜਾਤਾ ॥੫॥੯॥ (5) (9)
Says Nanak, those who have recognized the Divine’s reverberating command—it is they who know the secrets of the Master God.
Although in the narrative Jahangir did not pass a sentence of death at this time, this does not necessarily mean it was completely safe for the Guru to have said this in Jahangir’s court (assuming an exchange close to the above actually occurred). First, the Guru is essentially equating the Islamic divine to the Hindu, a possibly heretical idea in orthodoxic interpretations of both faiths. There is also still the lurking political dimension—Chandu will later remind Jahangir in private that this is the same Guru who gave refuge to the Emperor’s rebel son.40 Relevant here is that according to other versions of the story, the Guru went to Lahore knowing his death was imminent.41
One can interpret this exchange (whether it actually occurred or whether poetic gloss) as illustrative of the “sovereign violence” discussed earlier. Jahangir, the pinnacle of worldly ambition, asks a question of the Guru that is laden with assumptions about identity, being, and hierarchy: who is better, the Hindu or the Muslim? The Guru attacks the fundamental premise of this question, stating they are no different, and in doing so subliminally attacks the worldview that assigns power to the Mughal rule through divine mandate. “It is those who have recognized the Hukam,” finally answers Guru Arjan, who may be deemed as blessed with such favor. From the writings of Jahangir and Sheikh al-Sirhindi above, it also seems likely that the Guru was offered to convert to Islam, to satisfy the Mughals’ insecurity with the Sikhs’ rapidly-growing numbers. If true, and if his answer was anything like the shabad above, this is again the Guru upending the assumptions inherent in such demands. What use is there of converting, if there is little functional difference between the Muslim and Hindu?
Guru Tegh Bahadur (1675)
The other Guru given the title Shaheed is Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was, like his grandfather Guru Arjan, killed by Mughal decree. A deputation of the Kashmiri Pandits, an ancient Hindu community, came to the Guru seeking his assistance from the policy of conversion the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was enacting throughout India.42 On his way to Delhi, the Guru and his companion Sikhs are arrested and jailed in Sirhind, then taken to Delhi anyway where they face execution after refusing to convert to Islam.43 There is considerably less controversy over how to view the Guru’s execution—Fenech avers it is clearly treated as martyrdom by contemporary Sikh texts,44 though he claims the actual circumstances “are as shrouded in mystery as are those of Guru Arjan’s death.”45 The reason for the clarity on the Sikh view involves, in part, the following lines from the autobiographical Bachhitar Natak of Guru Gobind Singh, describing his father as one who
ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰੁ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
Per the imperative of Dharam, he furnished a great sacrifice. He gave his head, but not his resolve.
ਨਾਟਕ ਚੇਟਕ ਕੀਏ ਕੁਕਾਜਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਗਨ ਕਹ ਆਵਤ ਲਾਜਾ ॥੧੪॥
Dramatic shows and miracles, such bad acts—these the people of God (such as Guru Tegh Bahadur) would be ashamed to engage in.
One may note here the physical manifestation of Guru Nanak’s command to “give one’s head” if they would like to play the “game of love.” Bhangu appears to hint at this himself when he describes the event, stating,46
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਤੇਗ ਬਾਹਾਦਰ ਸਿਰ ਧਰੇ ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਚਨ ਬਿਚਾਰ
The respected Tegh Bahadur sacrificed his head, in contemplation of the command of Guru Nanak.
ਆਪ ਜਾਇ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਖਈ ਤੁਰਕਨ ਤੇ ਤਲਵਾਰ
He went to Delhi on his own accord, taking the sword of the Turks upon himself.
In a way, the reference is made explicit by Bhangu using the words “sir dhare” which is an echo of Guru Nanak using the words “sir dhar” to describe the placing of the head upon hand when stepping upon the path he asks of his Sikh. Bhangu essentially states Guru Tegh Bahadur contemplated this duty to truly demonstrate the extent of one’s control over their own selfish drives. This mastery of discipline is exemplified by the fact that, in Guru Gobind Singh’s view, Guru Tegh Bahadur did not attempt to beg for his life or perform any miracles to escape his fate. Rather, he stuck to his resolve to assist the Kashmiri Pandits from Aurangzeb’s persecution. Recall here the view of Socrates, that the virtuous man does not “use his wits to escape death by any means.”
Now, to further develop a Sikh concept of martyrdom, it is worth considering Fenech’s view that here47
“…[W]e find something entirely new to the Sikh tradition. We may suppose that in the era prior to the writing of the Bachitar Natak principled and courageous persons provided examples of resistance to tyrannical authority and painful suffering before unjust persecutors…But never before had such courage been absorbed into a conceptual system which rewarded the heroic sacrifice of one’s self for a cause considered righteous with liberation from the wheel of existence.”
To make this case, he references the oft-quoted lines from Bachittar Natak that follow the couplets from above,
ਠੀਕਰ ਫੋਰਿ ਦਿਲੀਸ ਸਿਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਪੁਰਿ ਕੀਯਾ ਪਯਾਨ ॥
As if a shard from a broken pot, Aurangzeb cut his head, and the Guru left for the divine city.
ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦੁਰ ਸੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਕਰੀ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਆਨਿ ॥੧੫॥
What Tegh Bahadur did, no one forthcoming will be able to do.
ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦੁਰ ਕੇ ਚਲਤ ਭਯੋ ਜਗਤ ਕੋ ਸੋਕ ॥
Upon the departure of Tegh Bahadur, a gloom descended upon the entire world,
ਹੈ ਹੈ ਹੈ ਸਭ ਜਗ ਭਯੋ ਜੈ ਜੈ ਜੈ ਸੁਰ ਲੋਕਿ ॥੧੬॥
The world moaned in sadness, while the people of heaven roared in welcome. (13)
Fenech claims this passage to be “the first in Sikh literature” which claims “stoically sacrificing one’s life for the ‘purpose of righteousness (dharam het)’ ensures one a spot in paradise.” However, I think the jury is out on whether that can actually be inferred from this passage. Does the mere fact that Guru Tegh Bahadur is said to have been welcomed in the (proverbial?) heavens imply a transactional system in which martyrdom ensures such treatment? Wouldn’t it make sense for a Sikh writer, whether Guru Gobind Singh or the gurbilas authors that “allude to the passage,”48 to believe that if there is a heaven of sorts—Guru Tegh Bahadur would of course be guaranteed entry? I think it is clear the passage does not explicitly lay out a system of transactional martyrdom. It may perhaps be read to do so, and I find it possible that later Sikhs may have interpreted it this way, whether on a personal or community level. But, as will be developed in future installments, to the extent that such a transactional system may have been thought to exist, the prize was not quite heaven—often it was instead the chance to continue fighting dharamyudh in some way, whether through reincarnation or as an apparition of sorts.
It will now do well to examine words attributed to Guru Tegh Bahadur himself when presented to the Mughal authorities in Delhi. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber, a relative of the brothers Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das who accompanied the Guru to Delhi and were martyred alongside him, lists the following exchange in his mid-eighteenth century Bansvalinama,49
ਤੁਰਕ ਕਹਿਆ ਮੈਂ ਬਡਾ ਜੁਲੁਮ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਨੀਤਾ ।
The Turk (Aurangzeb) said proudly, “I have engaged in despotic tyranny at scale,
ਭਾਈ ਬਾਪੁ ਭਤੀਜੇ ਮਾਰੇ । ਕਾਰਨ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਰਾਜ ਹੰਕਾਰੇ ।
I have killed brother, father, and nephew (in the royal power struggles), all for the purpose of my own egotistical rule.
ਮੈਂ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੈਨਿ ਖੂਨ ਸੋ ਯਹਿ ਦੇਹੁ ਬਖਸਾਏ । ਜੇ ਤੂ ਪੀਰ-ਫਕੀਰ ਸਾਈਂ ਲੋਕ ਅਖਾਏਂ ।
It is through this bloodletting that I am in a position to grant you this clemency—if you are truly the saintly fakir, the ‘Sain’ people call you,
ਜੇ ਨਾ ਬਖਸ਼ਾਏਂ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਹੈ ਨਾਹੀ । ਤਾਂ ਘਰਿ ਆਉ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਮਾਹੀ ।
Then if I do not grant you clemency, you will have no reach—the condition is for you to come home to the deen (Islam).
ਯਹਿ ਦੋਨੋ ਬਾਤਿ ਨ ਕਰੈਂ ਤਉ ਕੁਛੁ ਅਜ਼ਮਤਿ ਦਿਖਾਉ । ਇਹ ਭੀ ਨ ਕਰੈਂ ਤਉ ਸੀਸੁ ਕਟਾਉ ।
If you do not accept these terms, then show some great miracle. If not that, then present your head for decapitation.”
ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਜੋ ਅਪਨੇ ਘਰਿ ਰਹੈ ਸੋ ਦੀਨ ਕਹਾਵੈ । ਦੂਜੇ ਘਰਿ ਜਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਬੇਦੀਨ ਅਖਾਵੈ ।
The Guru spoke, “Those who remain in their home (religion)—this is what is properly called deen. To leave one’s religion is to be without deen.
ਅਜ਼ਮਤ ਹੈ ਕਹਿਰ ਫਕੀਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਸੈ । ਸਾਈਂ ਖੜਾ ਸਿਰ ਊਪਰ ਹਸੈ ।
Such miracles you ask for are wrongdoings, they are not the path outlined by the fakirs. The true Sain faces hardship standing tall, wearing a cheery expression.
ਸੀਸ ਹੈ ਸੁਪਨਾ ਇਸ ਅੰਤ ਹੈ ਜਾਣਾ । ਰਜ਼ਾਇ ਸਾਈਂ ਦੀ ਸੀਸ ਪਰਿ ਜੋ ਹੋਵੈ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਭਾਣਾ ।
The head you ask for is but a dream, in the end it is going to leave anyway. The path of destiny is etched upon the Sain’s head, whatever happens is their will.
ਬਖਸ਼ਨਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ ਸਾਈਂ ਸੋ ਸਭਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਬਖਸ਼ੇ । ਓਥੇ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਤਕੱਬਰੁ ਖੁਦੀ ਨ ਪਹੁੰਚੇ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਖਨ ਨ ਕਹੇ ਹਸਿਕੇ ।
The Merciful is the actual Sain, they will indeed save all. In their abode, power, vanity, ego have no effect, words are not said with cruel humor.
ਇਹ ਲੈਣਾ ਦੇਣਾ ਹੈ ਸਭ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਦਾ ਬੈਪਾਰ । ਤੈਨੂੰ ਕਿਸੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਸੀ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਹੁਣ ਤੁਧ ਉਹੋ ਛਡੇ ਮਾਰੁ ।
The taking and giving, this is all just the trades of karma. Those you killed at one point had killed you, forget about trying to finish them off.
ਅਸਾਡਾ ਤੁਸਾਡਾ ਭੀ ਹੈ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਧਾਰ । ਓੜਕ ਲੇਖਾ ਹੋਸੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਦਰਬਾਰ ।
The story of mine and yours too is just an ongoing trade of karma. In the end, this account can only be balanced in the court of God.
It may be noted here that it is unlikely that the Guru actually had such a conversation with Aurangzeb, who was not in Delhi at the time.50 However, this at least reflects a Sikh understanding of his martyrdom that may be put into terms of sovereign violence. The Mughal authority expects that love for fame, and more fundamentally, the attachment to life, will get the Guru to do what he wants—convert to Islam, or show some miracle. But the Guru contends such drives will not work upon him the way Mughals may expect—for he realizes ultimately, his life and fame are transitory. What should be noted is this belief is not used to justify a complete rejection of society and normal living. The Guru is drawing upon this belief to help rationalize why standing for a higher cause (here, resisting conversion) outweighs the drive for self-preservation. The Mughals, personified here in Aurangzeb, have instituted a rule of “hankar,” or pride, that is now bent on forcing others to bow to their beliefs. If one takes the transitory nature of the ego to its nihilistic extreme, then it could be twisted to justify a cosmetic conversion—after all, why would it matter if one simply calls themselves Muslim in name, if their own identity is ultimately false? But this is where Guru Nanak’s “game of love” truly comes into play. It is easy to claim to be pursuing a twisted version of the ego-death, in which one casts aside identity and societal mores when convenient to them. What is harder is to “bear witness” (become Shaheed) to the falsity of ego by willingly sacrificing one’s life, when one actually does want to continue living.
ਜਿੱਤ ਨਾਲ਼ੋਂ ਜਾਦੇ ਜੀਹਦੀ ਹਾਰ ਬੋਲਦੀ, ਐਥੋਂ ਲਾ ਲੈ ਕੀ ਐ ਅੰਦਾਜਾ, ਮਿੱਠੀਏ
“Those whose losses speak louder than their victories, from this fact one can understand their potency.” (Sidhu Moosewala, The Last Ride (2022))
It is when “the self refuses attachment to processes of self-preservation in place of ‘dying to the Word’”51 that the essence of Sikhi is truly realized. If one does not have the drive to live, or is (supposedly) free from all attachment, or has bought into a purely transactional view of martyrdom, then what are they truly sacrificing with their death? When one chooses to go against these drives, then, I propose, they have fulfilled the Sikh conception of martyrdom, of Shaheedi, of bearing witness to Guru Nanak’s proposition that one must not hesitate to give their head with the understanding that there may be much that would cause one to hesitate. To quote Mandair on the Shaheedi of the two Gurus discussed,52
Both men were asked to choose a certain kind of life by the state (embrace Islam, or admit to your criminality), which they both refused. In other words, they made a “choice” to not simply die (as we all do!) but to “die to the Word”. To recall from Section 1, “Word” is a reference not only to the instruction or teaching of Guru Nanak (gurbani or gurmat) but for the un-nameable state of consciousness invoked by Nanak, for which he used the term nam. And nam is only attainable if one is willing to annihilate one’s sense of egotism (haumai marana). Accordingly, such a “choice” is not self-willed (haumai) but can be made only by killing ego (haumai marana). It is therefore an egoless willing, which sounds like an oxymoron, but as we noted earlier, egoless willing is simply hukam (cosmic or natural law).
To conclude, a working definition of Sikh martyrdom may thus be “when one sacrifices their life to uphold and exemplify the teachings of Gurmat.” It does not require reward. The Gurus, in their sublime martyrdoms, explained in the Mughal courts the logic of their sacrifice—taking aim at the foundations of the logical structures that allowed for both the courts and the legal reasoning in their prosecutions to exist. In future installments, I will evaluate the statements of other Sikh shaheeds in courts of law, examining how their rationales continue to develop a Sikh martyrdom.
P.S. The Sidhu quotes are included because I think they provide an interesting comparison to what a modern writer from a Sikh background thinks about issues of death, martyrdom, and pride. In no way do I mean to imply that he is a shaheed (although, who knows, perhaps one can make a reasonable argument that he fits the definition I’ve proposed).
Plato, Apology in The Last Days of Socrates p. 47 (Hugh Trennedick trans., 1954)
Id.
Id. at 50.
Id.
Paul Middleton, What is martyrdom?, Mortality, 19:2, 117, 118 (2014).
See Louis E. Fenech, Martyrdom and the Sikh Tradition, 117 J. Amer. Oriental Soc. 623, 630-32 (Oct.-Dec. 1997) (arguing compositions in Guru Granth Sahib commonly thought to refer to martyrdom may have been written to underscore the importance of spiritual practice in life itself, and were later “appropriated to support an idea of selfless sacrifice with the hope of future reward”).
See id. at 632-37 (describing “a martyr’s death in combat” as “the ideal demise of the time,” referencing the descriptions of the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur in the Bachhitar Natak, attributed to Guru Gobind Singh, and the descriptions of the deaths of Sikh warriors in the gurbilas literature of the time).
See id. at 635.
See id. at 638, fn. 89 (referencing Sewa Singh Kaushish’s Sahid Bilas, a work on revered Sikh martyr Bhai Mani Singh).
Id. at 638.
Arvind-Pal S. Mandair, Violence and the Sikhs, 1 (2022).
See, Fenech, supra note 6, at 631-32.
Mandair, supra note 11, at 33.
Id.
Id. at 34.
Fenech, supra note 6 at 631 (giving a definition of martyrdom).
Plato, supra note 1 at 48.
Id. at 49.
Rattan Singh Bhangu, Sri Gur Panth Parkash Volume II, 651 (Kulwant Singh trans., 2010) (referencing Bhai Mani Singh and other Shaheeds descending from the heavens to recieve the martyred Gurbakhsh Singh).
Louis E. Fenech, Martyrdom and the Execution of Guru Arjan in Early Sikh Sources, 121 J. of the Amer. Oriental Soc. 20, 21 (Jan.-Mar. 2001).
Id. at 22 (quoting G.W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome, the Wiles Lectures Given at the Queen’s University of Belfast at 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995)).
See id. at 27 (“although Guru Arjan’s death may have been considered heroic…it was certainly not conceived of as that of a martyr before the middle of the eighteenth century”).
Dr. Harnam Singh Shan, Martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev in the Context of Sikh Concept and Tradition in Perspectives on Guru Arjan Dev: Contribution and Martyrdom at 44 (Navtej Singh, ed., 2008).
Id.
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, ‘Martyrs of Love’ in Martyrdom : Canonisation, Contestation, and Afterlives, 138 (Ihab Saloul and Jan Willem van Henten, eds., 2020).
Wheeler M. Thackston, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India at 59 (1999).
Id.
Pashaura Singh, Understanding the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan, 12 J. Punjab Studies 29, 44 (2008) (quoting Sirhindi’s Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani, I-iii, letter no. 193, p. 95-6).
Id. at 34 (quoting Friedman Yohanan, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity at 111 (McGill University, 1966)).
Id.
See Bhangu, supra note 19 at 681.
Fenech, supra note 20 at 24.
Id. at 24.
Id. at 22.
Compare Thackston, supra note 26 at 59 (Jahangir writing “ordered [Guru Arjan] brought to me”) with Kesar Singh Chhibber, Bansavalinama (orig. ~1769, pub. Piara Singh Padam, 2005) at 86 (claiming Guru Arjan stated to Bhai Gurdas before leaving, “I must be going to the Turks now, they will obviously do their oppression…I have no doubt I will be leaving my body, but this is the path laid out by God.”).
See Kavi Santokh Singh, Gurpartap Suraj Parkash Granth at Raas 4, Adhiyai 33, p. 991 (orig. 1843, Vol. 4 Dr. Ajit Singh Aulakh transl., 2004).
See id. at 988.
See id. at 991-92.
See id. at 988-89.
See id. at 991.
See supra note 35’s discussion of Bansavalinama.
Fauja Singh & Gurbachan Singh Talib, Guru Tegh Bahadur, Martyr and Teacher at 73-75 (2nd ed., 1996) (citing the Bhatt Vahis, Sarup Singh Kaushish’s Guru Kian Sakhian (1790)).
Id. at 78.
See Fenech, supra note 6 at 632-33.
Id. at 632.
Bhangu, supra note 19 at 236.
Fenech, supra note 6 at 633-34.
Id. at 633.
Chibber, supra note 35 at 116-17.
Singh and Talib, supra note 42 at 78 (citing the Maasir-i-Alamgiri, a Mughal court document detailing Aurangzeb’s rule).
Mandair, supra note 11 at 47.
Id. at 46.