Kids Corner

Images: details from "Birth of The Khalsa", by Kanwar Singh. [Courtesy: ArtOfPunjab.com]

Columnists

Of Naysayers & Quibblers

by Dr. I.J. SINGH

 

 

I have some very bright, educated friends.  Their hobby horse seems to be that in everything logic, reason and evidence should prevail - and mostly I am in agreement with them, but not always. Some of the most significant ideas of life seem to transcend reason.

Recently I ran afoul of their patience.

In a recent column I wrote that perhaps 80,000 heeded the Guru’s call and attended the dramatic event of Vaisakhi 1699.  Of course this number is extraordinarily large and comes from Sikh lore and tradition. It is not evidence-based history; even though I had started my sentence with the words “History tells us …” I should have phrased it “Tradition tells us….”  My error.

Sure enough, a friend posted a longish analytic rebuttal of my statement. He made several points.  I repeat some of his critique here:

1.  I agree … that there is no evidence of what exactly happened on the fateful day of Baisakhi 1699. The operation itself was so secret that only two people had some inkling about it. One to make the tents and the other to bring 5 goats. (As per Harnam Singh Shaan). Perhaps, even those two also did not know the exact intent or the nature of the operation.

2. For the reason of secrecy, Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not send any special notices to gather at the Baiskhi function. Baisakhi was celebrated at Guru Ji's house every year prior to 1699.

3. There was no provision to accommodate 80,000 people. Most probably, the actual number may be only in the hundreds.

4. Dr. Harnam Singh Shaan has done some research and quoted 4 different sources. All of these had different versions.

5. What happened to 20,000 people who took Amrit when only 4 years later Guru Ji had less than 100 people with him. When 40 of them left Anandpur Sahib, Guru Ji was left with the family, five piaras and very few other people.

6. Did Guru Ji actually give 5 Ks as symbols when Guru Nanak Ji was against symbols. I do not know.

7. We are not research oriented and not very good historians.

I have no intention of parsing each comment only to destroy it but there are issues here that beg for alternative and fuller explanations. My response here touches only some of his critique:

The fact that our historical narrative is not clearly established or universally accepted is not surprising when you look at the history of mankind - even the most recent history that is relatively easy to document appears uncertain or conflicting. 

For instance, deniers of the holocaust exist even today. They can be summarily dismissed; what can’t be casually brushed away is their claim that the number of Jews killed was considerably less than 6 million. The exact number may not be provable but that it was a large number is. 

Look at the Armenian massacre: to claim that it occurred would land you in jail in Turkey; to claim that it never happened would land you in jail in France. 

Similar logic prevails for us in the reality of 1980’s. There are those who deny that any innocent Sikhs were killed in those days; there are some who admit to a very small number of Sikhs killed in 1984; and then there are many who label those times as no less than an attempted genocide of Sikhs. No matter what position one takes would find scholars on either side.

When we try to interpret history (often intermixed with cultural memory and orally preserved tradition) we are in what T.S. Eliot labels “the cunning passages and contrived corridors of history that deceive us with vanities.”  But don’t diminish cultural memory or oral history; the history of mankind depends on such sources, sometimes amply documented, sometimes not.

Such is life. Yes, judge, but be not self-righteous in the process. There is more gray to life than black or white.

How many people were at Anandpur on Vaisakhi 1699?  Hard to say! Do you really think the number was only in the hundreds? 

J.S. Grewal and Harbans Singh (Editor of the Encyclopedia of Sikhism) speak of “a large gathering”, as does A. C. Bannerjee. In Khushwant Singh’s words, “the crowd that collected at Anandpur is said to have been great.”  Hew McLeod concedes that Vaisakhi 1699 was no ordinary event or time; it was something special, even unique.

I wouldn’t dismiss all such historians and scholars as “paid” writers, as one of my critics did. A few hundred do not make a large or a great gathering. (In my business I have routinely taught a class that is at least 250, often larger.) 

History and tradition both support the idea that from the sixth Guru, Hargobind, on to the tenth, Guru Gobind Singh, every Guru maintained an armed militia; historical and/or traditional lore mention 1200 to 2200 horsemen. Also, how about foot soldiers?

All of this cavalry (and infantry too) surely must have attended the Vaisakhi 1699 gathering since they were already there.

Imagine what it takes. A supporting community would have to exist to house the men and their families. And their horses, to feed them, train them and care for them. Ergo, I would think that Anandpur had a local population of Sikhs significantly larger than a few hundred at any given time ... perhaps several thousand. 

There, then, you have a mini metropolis already.

Don’t forget that Sikhs from far and wide used to come twice a year to reconnect with the Guru - at Divali and Vaisakhi - from the time of the third Guru onwards.

Don’t forget that by 1699, many townships in Punjab had large functioning Sikh communities dating from the earlier Gurus. From Guru Nanak, the founder of the faith, to every Guru who served for a reasonable length of time founded and nurtured a community; thus was the infrastructure of Punjab built. 

Our history clearly speaks of Kartarpur, Khadur Sahib, Goindwal,  Ramdaspur (Amritsar), Tarn Taaran, Kiratpur, Hargobindpur, Chukk Nanki (that became Anandpur), and many others; my list here is not comprehensive. Any history book will inform you.

Even in the first five Khalsa (Punj Pyaray) you will notice the presence of non-Punjabis (Dharam Singh, a jutt from Hastinapur; Mohkam Singh,  calico-printer/tailor from Dwarka; Himmat Singh, a water-bearer from Jagannath Puri; Sahib Singh, a barber from Bidar); in fact, Daya Singh from Lahore was the only Punjabi, a khatri from Lahore. These people probably lived in Sikh communities in their home towns and given the times, likely did not travel alone to Anandpur.

Don’t forget the “Manji” system of 22 diocesan regions in and outside Punjab that Guru Amar Das established to knit together the many Sikh conclaves across India.  Masand was the title of the person occupying the position. These representatives of the Guru, accompanied by other Sikhs of the area, travelled twice a year to see and reconnect with the Guru. Guru Gobind Singh abolished the Manji system but history is unsure if that was before or after Vaisakhi 1699. Many Sikhs from such enclaves might have come to Anandpur on Vaisakhi 1699.

At the risk of going on longer than I wish to, I need to point out that during the Guru period, Sikh communities existed in more than one location in Bihar, Assam, Hyderabad, South India and many other far away locations - wherever the Gurus traveled or where masands were later sent.  Guru Gobind Singh spent his childhood in Patna; that tells me that there must have been a sizeable Sikh community in the region. The whole of India is dotted with small gurduaras marking the travel history of the Gurus. Many of the smaller gurduaras outside Punjab closed down perhaps when they saw the SGPC extending its suzerainty over all gurdwaras in th mid 20th century.

These far-flung Sikh communities, both from Punjab and from outside Punjab, were surely well-represented at Vaisakhi 1699. As I have ointed out earlier, Sikhs from those far off places routinely traveled to the Guru twice a year - on Divali and Vaisakhi. 

Add to this what our tradition tells us, that Guru Gobind Rai (he became Gobind Singh at Vaisakhi 1699) sent special messages to far flung Sikh communities asking them to congregate at Anandpur for Vaisakhi. Harbans Singh (of  Encyclopedia fame) tells us in his book, Heritage of the Sikhs: “Baisakhi at Anandpur had always been an occasion for joyous celebration.  For the festival of 1699 Guru Gobind Singh had asked for special preparations to be made.  Messages were issued to Sikhs to come in full strength ...”   

Does this speak of an attendance of only a few hundred as my critics contend?

I teach at a major university. Just the teaching of my course requires a large supporting staff - from audiovisual people to building maintenance, office space where faculty and staff can work, laboratory staff and supplies, security personnel, a place to sit, to train and to interact with others, also that the administrators who maintain records and make sure the projects run smoothly are well supported and are approved by those who administer such projects. And even a place to eat for all the faculty, students, staff and ancillary personnel. This is how communities are built. Such initiatives don’t come cheap; their funding demands resources.

One critic suggests that near the end of Guru Gobind Singh’s life, only a handful of Sikhs remained. I think that is a very superficial reading of history. I would label the reasoning facile but most likely false.

If these assumptions are true, tell me where did Banda’s army come from when he returned to Punjab so soon after Guru Gobind Singh left it?  He could not have seized Sirhand and prevailed over the standing army of the Nawab with just a handful.  If Banda’s men were largely mercenaries, where did he get the resources, time and the network to recruit them? 

Remember the ghallugharas? The greater (Wadda) and the lesser (Chhota) ghallugharas that reputedly claimed 50,000 and 20,000 Sikh lives in 1762 and 1746 respectively. That gives you an idea of the population of Sikhs in Punjab barely 40 years after Guru Gobind Singh. How and from where did the eleven (later twelve) misls materialize so soon after the Guru period? 

If there were only a handful of Sikhs, why was the Mughal Empire desperately seeking peace with them by awarding a land grant, as it did in the time of Nawab Kapur Singh? It took much, much more than a handful that conquered Delhi, however briefly. The part of old Delhi still called Tees Hazaari is so named because 30,000 Sikhs soldiers reputedly camped there when they conquered Delhi. And, surely, it took more than a few to lay the foundations of Ranjit Singh’s empire in Punjab less than a hundred years after Guru Gobind Singh. 

Given all this history, the 80,000 figure doesn’t sound all that large anymore. In fact it may even be an underestimate of the attendance.

I assure you, I didn’t dream up these numbers; look at historical documents or even those which may not be so easily authenticated, from our oral history.

Before readers jump on this, I am well aware that all the battles that Sikhs fought during the Guru period, down to the Anglo-Sikh wars, the Sikh armies were not limited only to Sikhs or the Khalsa; there were plenty of allies who were neither.

There are some fundamentals to a sane discussion between persons A and B if the exchange is to continue. When A provides the best arguments that he can, B can either agree in toto, disagree in part or reject A’s arguments completely. In the first case, no further elaboration is usually necessary although further elaboration might follow; the second and third alternatives must come with some reasons or evidence from B. Only then conversation can proceed further. If B offers only a summary judgment without explanation, then conversation would likely cease. Just to say I don’t agree is not helpful at all. A is not submitting a hypothesis for B to approve or not. That is not the prerogative of either A or B. 

This is how I look at the one line response that characterizes sources cited as paid writers. Hence, I dismiss it because the unsupported allegation of this charge cannot be explored.

To the plethora of arm-chair philosophers and critics who pronounce edicts on everything by demanding evidence, I feel like saying: “You want to repudiate what I have said, then go find the contrary evidence, and publish it. Where exactly is your research for the negative opinions you are hurling about?” 

My friends, your unsupported negativity, it seems, is neither good science nor good religion. It only sidesteps the goal here and that is conversation.

Surely a very large number joined the Khalsa discipline at that time, including Guru Gobind Rai. But did the initiation transform everyone into the ideal? Absolutely not! They had reached a point on a path but that point is not the end of the journey and the path is endless; we need instead to embrace a comprehensive and inclusive paradigm. 

What we should not do is to cherry-pick historical nuggets; instead we need to have an inclusive viewpoint. It would become clear that the numbers that attended Vaisakhi 1699 were likely larger, considerably so. 

I am not going to dot all the i’s and cross every “t.”  That’s a historian’s burden. I interpret it to find meaning in it. Of course I have biases. Who doesn’t?

I think of the business of science (teaching & research) that I plied much of my life - as many readers have also done. When speaking to colleagues in my specialty or to graduate students, I parse every finding painstakingly as anyone should. But not when giving a general lecture. The purpose then is different - to convey a set of findings and their meaning in general terms.

In presenting a class in Cell Biology, for instance, I have specialty knowledge in only a small segment of the field, where I will dissect the ideas in some detail. In other areas, I present what text books or review articles in the field tell me. Then I don’t present primary sources of research.

If I were a historian teaching a course, say, in American history, I may be able to parse the details of Roosevelt, Clinton or Obama if 20th century is my bailiwick, but will depend on general textbooks for dealing with Jefferson’s private life or his affair with Sally Heming that has been accepted by historians only in the last decade or two.

Look at The Outline of History by H.G. Wells or Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and count how many original and unquestionable sources you find.

So please don’t demand that I provide primary sources; they are not my area of expertise. And don’t now push that Khushwant Singh, Harbans Singh, Jagtar Singh Grewal, A. C. Bannerjee, Hew McLeod or the many more that I could list, didn’t have primary historical sources or are paid writers. That’s nonsense. Disagree with them as needed.

Otherwise it only destroys conversation without engaging the essence of the argument.

I think the purpose here of our give-and-take is not to flame out others by brandishing the lack of or collection of so called primary sources.

And this does not mean that lay writers like me should not write because that would also mean that neither should you who may or may not be my critics.

I deliberately do not cite sources when I write on Sikh issues. And I admire the writing styles of Francis Bacon, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oscar Wilde and Bertrand Russell, not that I hold a candle to them. 

Yes, let’s argue and continue the conversation - it’s not to win or lose points; it’s how we all learn and progress.

 

ijsingh99@gmail.com

August 20, 2011




Conversation about this article

1: Gurnek (Manchester, United Kingdom), August 20, 2011, 7:05 AM.

Abu Ulla Tarani was a spy in Guru Sahib's court and chronicled the event stating numbers of 35-40,000. This report to Aurangzeb was supposed to have been found in Aligarh University by one Bhai Charan Singh. I don't know if this is true or not and what happened to the report. More research is obviously needed. Also, the contemporary historian Khafi Khan (Mohammed Hasham) wrote 'Muntakhab al Lubab' in Persian which can be found on the net. He chronicles the life of Aurangzeb with mentions of Guru Sahib's last years and uses derogatory language about Baba Banda Singh. But he too mentions an army of around 40,000. It would be fascinating to read Abu Ulla Tarani's report, if it still exists.

2: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), August 20, 2011, 9:18 AM.

May I add to the confusion fund of Naysayers & Quibblers? Some people by nature have difficulties ready for every solution. During one of my job-postings, there was a Government Hospital nearby, and it had an Indian ex-pat, Dr. Kumar, a surgeon whose standard reply to every question was "Mei(n) nahi mantaa!" - 'I don't agree!" We had just returned from India where our two daughters were staying at a girls' hostel, preparing for their "10 + 2" exam. I remarked that at least 70-80 percent of the girls there were from Malaysia. Dr. Kumar's reply was the same panacea he had for situations: "Mei(n) nahi mantaa!" My reply was, "Bhai, there is no fight, just let me know to what percentage you would agree!"

3: Irvinder Singh Babra (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), August 20, 2011, 10:33 AM.

Dr. I.J. Singh's investigative and scholarly study on Sikhs here is a fresh, full-length understanding for all on many Sikh issues. This makes him a living and stimulating legend among Sikhs and others, especially his students, who come from many distinct religious and non-religious cultures. And, remarkably, he is by profession a Professor of Anatomy at the New York University Dental Center, not a Sikh historian.

4: Lakhvir Singh Khalsa (Nairobi, Kenya), August 20, 2011, 2:04 PM.

Those weak of mind will never believe or accept anything, even when it is offered to them on a gold platter. The reason is plain and simple - they are lazy, and only try to justify their own disbeliefs. They have no desire or courage, let alone time and resources, to do their own research. It is not surprising that such naysayers and quibblers create such irrelevant controversies, because right from the time of Guru Nanak to the time of Guru Gobind Singh, doubters and skeptics have been present. It is the way of the world. In the end, it can be summed up in that, for a man of faith, no proof is necessary, but for a skeptic, no proof is enough.

5: Gurjender Singh (Maryland, U.S.A.), August 20, 2011, 5:35 PM.

Thank you, Dr. I.J. Singh, for the informative article about the 1699 Vaisakhi strength, and the details. I would like to request to please write something about the five banis which Guru Gobind Singh asked us to focus on, on that day. Some question that since gutkas were not available in those days, then how could someone read or recite those banis.

6: Amarjeet Singh. (Napier, New Zealand.), August 20, 2011, 10:16 PM.

I too have heard of Aurangzeb sending a spy in the midst of the Vaisakhi crowd. It is said that he wrote that Guru Sahib cut the head of the punj pyaras in front of the sangat. Which sounds pretty true, the Guru prepared the Khalsa for any eventual attacks against their history, so why would he carry out a process shrouded in secrecy. We easily believe in Retha Sahib in Pakistan where poisonous soap-nuts taste sweet and are okay for human consumption, so why cannot we believe that Guru Gobind Singh ji beheaded the punj pyaras and then resurrected them.

7: Gurjender Singh (Maryland, U.S.A.), August 21, 2011, 10:20 AM.

Amarjeet Singh ji (comment #6) mentioned Retha Sahib as being in Pakistan. Actually, the gurdwara and historical site and tree are in the State of Uttar Perdesh, India, and any one is free to visit that place.

8: Gur Singh (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), August 21, 2011, 11:57 AM.

Why was the day of Vaisakhi so important that the 10th Guru chose it for the establishment of the Khalsa? One answer I got from Sikhiwiki was that it was the birhtday of the 1st Guru. My counter-question was: so, why do we not celebrate the same day as the 1st Guru's birhtday now? Answer: When Sikhs were almost erased from the land during the two Holocausts, then there were the rulers conspired to distort Sikh history. One of their schemes was to play with the days of our celebrations. One Bidhi Chand (not the Bhai Bidhi Chand of SurSingh) is believed to be the smart-alec behind this game. Who and how did the new set of people come to the fold of Sikhi, is not clear. The above article relies on the premise that Sikhs needed large numbers to fight and survive, but skips the fact that Sikhs might have mainly fought guerrilla wars till the time Ranjit singh consolidated the misls into an empire.

9: Baldev Singh (Bradford, United Kingdom), August 21, 2011, 1:58 PM.

Every single day across the planet (Russia, Middle East, South-East Asia, Canada, America, Europe, London, etc. - wherever I happen to be), I am afforded the full V.I.P. treatment with my dastaar acting as my Cotton Crown and my Royal title of Singh. So who do I thank for this extraordinary privilege in a completely divided, hate-filled, sectarian world?

10: Ravinder Singh (Westerville, Ohio, U.S.A.), August 22, 2011, 1:21 PM.

If one had to reconstruct Sikh history, would it be possible for the narrative not to mention the 5'Ks? Could you have Sikh history without mention of the Vaisakhi of 1699? One couldn't, even if one tried. The question is not how big the crowd was; that is simply a matter of historical accuracy, but we cannot confine History to mere numbers. The question is not even if Guru Gobind Singh required every Sikh to wear the 5K's. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. What is important is that the 5K's are indelibly etched in our collective consciousness - it is how we view ourselves. To deny or manipulate seminal events in our history, ones that define us, just to justify a personal decision and then pass it off as logic, is silly, to say the least.

11: Guravtar (Johnson City, TN, U.S.A.), August 22, 2011, 6:12 PM.

Dear Dr. I J Singh: thoroughly enjoyed your rebuttle to the 'critics'. I sincerely hope that future quibblers do keep your criteria in mind before pretending to be looking for evidence. Thanks for such a good write up.

12: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), August 22, 2011, 9:19 PM.

Gur Singh (#8) ji: For the many battles that Sikhs fought, they must have used the tactics they needed at that time, whether head-on battle or guerrilla warfare. The essence of my argument here was different - I contend that the number of Sikhs at Vaisakhi 1699 must have been considerably larger than a few hundred. In support of this, I have tried to marshal direct and indirect evidence, some from history, other that stems from our unbroken tradition and lore; yet both follow rules of logic and rational analysis. That's my hope and purpose here.

13: Harpreet Singh  (Delhi, India), August 27, 2011, 3:19 PM.

I fully endorse the views of Dr. I.J. Singh. Many people, without any serious study of Sikh religion or history, have started to say or write anything they like, or repeat something they have heard somewhere, without giving any thought to its authenticity, veracity or accuracy. They will speak or write as if they have personal knowledge.

14: Ravinder Singh (Mumbai, India), June 24, 2012, 2:06 AM.

Guru Gobind Singh raised an army from his beloved sangat. Guru Nanak raised the sangat. The subsequent Gurus nurtured the sangat. The sangat was the constant source for the supply line of the army. Guru Gobind Singh carried out divinely ordained strategy on the historic Vaisakhi day of 1699 - the result was complete victory within the span of a century.

Comment on "Of Naysayers & Quibblers"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.