Hindu Zealots' pernicious Propaganda

Charnjit Singh Bal

Ever since the inception of Sikhism, the Hindu zealots have made overt and covert attempts to thwart its growth. The Brahmins, the supremacist clergy of esoteric Hinduism, a religion by the Brahmins and for the Brahmin, were averse to the very inception and growth of Sikhism, a faith that advocates monotheism, social equality, religious freedom, etc.in contrast to Hinduism’s polytheism, Idolatry, caste system, esotericism, futile rituals, bigotry, etc.

"They, [Kashatri Hill Rajas and Brahmins] were openly against Guru [Gobind Singh’s] objectives. The Brahmins, apprehensive of obliteration of abominable Hindu caste boundaries and Janju, made loud noise that religion [Hinduism] of the local hill rajas was destroyed and incited them against Guru Gobind Singh." Daulat Rai, Sahib-é-Kamäl Guru Gobind Singh, p. 169

"Alas! Hindu Community! Who can be bigger ungrateful than you? In which human class is greater un-thankfulness than you? Who else would have discredited more a true patriot than you? Who else is more barbarous than you in being troublesome to the true patriots? Guru Gobind Singh was readying to sacrifice his house [of Gurus], life and possessions for you, and was engaged in preparation to sacrifice himself too. He was preoccupied with uplifting you from the deep gully [disdainful slavery] to the spatial heights [dignified freedom]. But, you in contrast, due to your selfishness, malice and jealousy are putting up traitorous opposition against him. Due to your selfishness, malice and jealousy you have been wearing slavery collar around your neck." Ibid, p. 170

"Many people have been unable to understand multi-faceted life of Guru Gobind Singh. They haven’t deliberated his charismatic and reformist objectives in true context. Even, to [Mahatma] Gandhi, the leader of Hindu community for whose religion and culture’s sake Guru Ji sacrificed his father, whole family, he seemed to be a misguided patriot. To the Hindu historian Jadu Nath Sarkar, he appeared to be a political militant." Ibid p. 14

Dayanand Sarsvati [1824-1883 AD] translated Hindu Vedas and composed scripture named ‘Satyarth Perkash’ and founded Arya Samaj. Driven by bigotry he, in his book in Urdu ‘Nanak Panth’ on page 399, he disparages Guru Nanak in ignominious words,

"[He] knew nothing, Veda Shastras etc. or Sanskrit. If [he] had known, why would [he] have written word Nirbhya as Nibhau? .... In front of those ignorant lout [disciples] who had never heard Sanskrit [Guru Nanak] would have composed couplets in rudimentary Sanskrit and pretended to be Sanskrit Pundit. …. He certainly had the desire for popularity. …. When there was some conceit [in him], then for the sake of eminence {Guru Nanak] must have done some trickery."

Contemporary Hindu Writers and Academics

The contemporary zealous Hindu writers and academics with antagonism towards Sikhism continue casting aspersions on Sikh history and Gurus' liberal socio-religious philosophy and apolitical intentions. The history books that the Hindu dominated central government agency N. S. E. R. T. publishes for schools and colleges contain disparaging remarks about Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib and Guru Gobind Singh Sahib. The respondent agency's rebuttal, to Malkiat Singh Rahi's libel suit in high court attests to the dominant Hindu majority's blatant lack of concern for a minority's religious sensitivities. The rebuttal asserts, "To think that a true account of historical events is an attack on minority rights and to have this thinking affirmed with the help of constitution and courts is first degree impertinence."

Satish Chandra in his book 'Historiograph' writes, "Under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh the Sikhs tried to establish a separate sovereign state that was to be established at the cost of Hindu Hill rajahs. Soon this conflict engulfed the Mogul rulers too."

Dr. Rita Bahuguna Joshi of the Allahabad University's medieval history dept. in her book 'Aurangzeb and his relations with Hindus' on pages 101-105 writes, " In reality Sikhism was not a religion, just a sect that was founded on principles of Hinduism. After Guru Nanak the Gurus abandoned the path of spiritual devotion and fell into wicked world (materialism?) and started extorting religious tax. Despite political activities of the Sikhs Aurangzeb did not interfere with the affairs of the Sikhs. Aurangzeb was religiously impartial. Conflict between the Sikhs and Moguls started in 1676."

"Guru Teg Bahadur passed away. Accusation was leveled against Aurangzeb that he martyred Guru Teg Bahadur. Some Sikhs historians say ‘some unknown person murdered Guru Teg Bahadur.’ Why would Aurangzeb want to martyr Guru Teg Bahadur and cause upheaval in Punjab when the Sikhs had become a continuous cause of dilemma for him inciting people against him and extorting taxes from the people from 1663 to 1675?"

"The fact is Guru Teg Bahadur wanted to martyr himself purposely because there was tussle for the guru-ship at the time. They (Sikhs) were divided amongst themselves. The Guru by martyring himself in the name of religion wanted to bring about and solidify Sikh unity and solidarity. So Aurangzeb was in no way responsible for the death of Guru. It is unjust to place blame on him for Guru's death."

"In the beginning the Sikhs engaged in the struggle but in the end Guru Gobind Singh having lost, conceded defeat. After the death of Aurangzeb, Bahadur Shah gave employment to Guru Gobind Singh under him. This way the conflict between Aurangzeb and Sikhs ended. In this conflict Aurangzeb was victorious. Without doubt Aurangzeb was not responsible for the Aurangzeb-Sikh conflict, nor did he have Guru Teg Bahadur murdered."

In the Social sciences book for the seventh grade students of Education Center, Rajiv Gandhi Education Mission, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, in the chapter 'Revolt of the Sikhs' on page 50 is written that Guru Teg Bahadur Jee built a castle in Anandpur Sahib and incited revolt against the Moguls. The emperor Aurangzeb after having him jailed hanged Guru Sahib.