Track Order Status

This article examines the phenomena of shahid (martyr) and shahadat (martyrdom) in Sikhism in comparison with that of the Abrahamic tradition. It also challenges the skeptical viewpoint that disregards the shahadat of the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, the epitome of Sikh martyrdom, who had laid down his life for the cause of purity of his faith. Furthermore, it questions the pejorative portrayal of martyrdom in Sikhism that confines its foundation with the beheading of the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, thus undermining the holistic tradition of the valorous episteme of shahadat in Sikhism.

Genealogy of martyr and martyrdom

This study is divided into three sections. The first section provides a detailed account of the phenomenon of martyrdom as it evolved in the Abrahamic/Semitic tradition. The second section deals with some of the corresponding concepts that were often referred to regarding the phenomenon of martyrdom/sacrifice in ancient Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism – beyond the Abrahamic tradition. The third section provides an analytical view of the unique phenomenon of martyrdom in Sikhism by distinguishing it from  both Abrahamic and Hindu traditions. It also critically engages with some of the skeptical viewpoints about the veracity of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan. By engaging varied narratives and counter-narratives about the martyrdom of the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, this section endorses the popular viewpoint that underlined the martyrdom of Guru Arjan as an exemplar of this valorous tradition in Sikh faith.

1. The Abrahamic tradition

The phenomena of martyr/shahid, and martyrdom/shahidi/shahadat occupy prominent space in varied socio-religious systems – mainly Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – across civilizational and national fault lines. Martyrdom usually entails the defiance of injustice brought about by the brute force of terrestrial power and always conveys ‘positive meaning for members of a community’ (Brass 2006, 18). Its origin can be traced to the Greek term ‘martus’, meaning ‘a witness who testifies to a fact of which he has knowledge from personal observation’ (DeMarco 2002; see also Uberoi 1996, 51). Greek writers in turn were deeply influenced by the sufferings and sacrifices of the Jewish people at the hands of tyrannical Egyptians, Babylonians and such others in their exploration of the concept and phenomenon of martyr and martyrdom (Talib 1999, 212). In the grammar of martyrology, the term ‘witness’ is qualified by its closeness with the ‘cause’ for which the martyr in question sacrificed his/her life rather than the very suffering or punishment s/he underwent. It is in this context that a martyr becomes ‘witness’ in sanctification of the name of God and undergoes torture and death. Martyrdom, therefore, refers to enduring suffering and even embracing death, on account of beliefs – particularly spiritual or religious. Socrates, the Greek philosopher, gladly laid his life like a true martyr for his mission, i.e. searching truth in himself and others and helping to illuminate the path of moral and spiritual upliftment (Gomperz 1955, Vol. II: 45).

A martyr is one who bears witness and chooses to suffer or die voluntarily rather than betray his/her religious or moral principles (Canney 1921, 473; Guralnik 1975, 901). Martyrs are generally understood to be those who stood with just cause – be it terrestrial or spiritual – and their tormentors were invariably those who wielded absolute power. An example of martyrdom for a spiritual cause is evident in the death of Mansur Al-Hallaj (also spelled as Mansoor al-Hallaj), a Persian mystic, poet, and scholar of Sufism, for his insistence on Ana ‘l-Haqq – equivalent of a saying in Sanskrit namely Aham Brahmasmi – (I am God. I am the ultimate Truth) (for details on Mansur Al-Hallaj see: Hitti 1970; Singh, Kirpal 2004b, 17; Singh 1970). A terrestrial cause of martyrdom can be observed in the death of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, who sacrificed his life during the Indian freedom struggle against the oppressive foreign rule of the British Empire. Shams-i-Tabriz, a Persian Shafi’ite poet and spiritual guide of the great philosopher of Sufism, Jalauddin Rumi, though less celebrated, was another great martyr of the Muslim world exemplifying death for a spiritual cause. Martyred by being flayed alive, as popularly known in India, his name was also associated with a popular miracle of bringing down the sun close enough to bake a piece of meat for him (Talib 1999, 222). More examples of martyrdom for terrestrial causes include: all those who sacrificed their lives in various battles against invaders from Persia (Nadir Shah) and Afghanistan (Ahmad Shah Abdali), the Mughal emperors (mainly Jahangir, Aurangzeb, and Farrukshiyar) and their provincial Subedars/Faujdars (mainly Governors of Sirhind and Lahore), as well as rulers of various princely hill states and later the freedom fighters who laid their lives for the cause of the liberation of their mother- land during the long drawn Indian freedom struggle against the British Raj. Aurobindo Ghosh, progenitor of spiritual nationalism in India, exhorted the youth to come forward to sacrifice for the liberation of Mother India, who was groaning under the yoke of British rule, is a case of a clarion call for the valorous act of terrestrial martyrdom (Singh, Karan 1970, 74–83). In the spiritual domain of martyrdom, the conviction and courage of a martyr is considered to be even more deep-rooted.

Martyrdom in Judaism

In the Jewish tradition, a martyr’s self-sacrifice ‘was believed to atone in part for the community’s sin; and classical rabbinic Judaism aimed for the redemption of the entire Jewish people rather than only individual salvation’ (Uberoi 1996, 50). Though many studies traced the origin of the terms of martyr and martyrdom to Judaism, no such instances have been identified therein. The nearest description of a martyr in Judaism is termed as Kadosh (plural Kedoshim) – literally meaning ‘holy one’. And the one who dies a martyr is considered to have died al Kiddush hashem (witness) for the sanctification of God’s name. Moreover, if anyone who also performs a Kiddush hashem in other ways different from the ‘sanctification of God’s name’, for an instance by performing a noble deed/act that reflects ‘well on the Jewish people,’ also qualified to be designated as martyr (Freeman n.d.). The use of Kiddush hashem can be traced to the Talmud (lit ‘study’ or ‘learning’) – the main text of Rab- binic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law (halakha), and Jewish theology – which impresses upon Jews the merit of sacrificing their life to save them- selves from the transgression of any of Judaism’s three cardinal sins: murder, sexual immorality and idolatry. The opposite of Kiddush hashem is hillul hashem, a desecra- tor of God’s name, which describes a Jew who saves his/her life while transgressing any one of the given three commandments. Those Jews who sacrificed their lives in main- taining the sanctity of the commandments were called martyrs. However, in light of the persecution of Jews throughout the centuries – especially after the Holocaust – any death to which a Jewish identity was central came to be referred to as martyrdom irrespective of the original or scriptural definition of the term, so much so that all Israeli soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of their country are now referred to as martyrs.

Another qualifying condition relating to the concepts of martyr and martyrdom is the intent on the part of those willing to die in sanctification of the name of God even if they ultimately survived.

Both Isaac, who was willing to be sacrificed at God’s instruction, and the three figures from the Book of Daniel – Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah – who were thrown into a furnace rather than worship idols were saved by God, meet this definition. (Freeman n.d.)

A similar instance can also be cited from Hindu mythology relating to Bhagat Prahlad, son of demon king Hiranyakashipu, who repeatedly tried to kill him for refusing to disavow Lord Vishnu and continuing to worship him as a manifestation of God. Though scholarly views vary in the case of a person who committed suicide rather than be captured and defiled, King Saul, who preferred suicide over capture and defile- ment by the Philistines, is commonly considered to be a martyr. Relatedly, another case is the story of a woman named Hannah and her sons, all of whom chose death rather than violating religious injunctions prohibiting the eating of pig’s meat on the dictates of Anti- ochus, Seleucid king of the Hellenistic Syrian Kingdom (reigned from 175 to 164 BCE), who had waged a severe persecution of Jews. A further instance was the mass suicide at Masada, where some 967 Jews took their own lives to save them from being captured in the last holdouts of the war with Rome southeast of Jerusalem which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple – the site has become a major tourist attraction and the actions of those Jews who chose to die there rather than to surrender, were celebrated by early Zionists as a model of Jewish heroism, though some Jewish authorities were of the view that suicide is not a religiously legitimate response to political subjugation (Freeman n.d.; see also Singh, Hakam 2004a, 35; Singh, Hakam n.d.b).

Medieval religious authorities differed on the question of suicide being preferable to defilement. Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) in his Epistle on Martyrdom,a treatise pre- pared in response to forced conversions in Spain following an invasion by a fanatical Muslim sect known as the Almohades,was of the opinion that given a choice to a Jew between death and conversion to another religion, s/he should prefer the latter, arguing that making a mere declaration does not qualify as a sin that requires one to die rather than commit it. He continued further that if a Jew who did not fulfil a cardinal commandment in the process of avoiding death, as per the Talmud, should not be con- demned as either a sinner or even a non-Jew. A Jew is not permitted to seek martyrdom, but rather to seek life and sustain life. A general view is that ‘Jews have never sought out martyrdom – it was always martyrdom that caught up to the Jews’ (Freeman n.d.). Millions of Jews at different intervals of their collective historical existence have attained martyrdom rather than relinquish their faith during persecution by ‘the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Muslim conquerors, the Almohadin, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and many more’ (Freeman n.d.). ‘True, the Talmud says of those who died al Kiddush Hashem that their place in the world to come is beyond the reach of any created being’ (Talmud Baba Batra 10b as referred to in Freeman n.d.). But then, the same Talmud also teaches that ‘One hour of return and good deeds in this world is more beautiful than all the life of the world to come’ (Ethics of the Fathers 4: 1 as referred to in Freeman n.d.). Rabbi Akiva, who was arrested for the crime of teaching the Torah in public, screamed Shema Yisrael (‘Hear O Israel, God is our God, God is one’) as he was flayed alive by Roman Soldiers, ran and hid from the Roman persecutor for as long as he could. Similarly, Jews throughout the dia- spora used all possible means to survive in the lands of their exile (Freeman n.d.). Thus, it can be said that martyrdom among Jews is at once both the theme and the antithesis of Judaism.

Martyrdom in Christianity

During the spread of Christianity, many Christians ‘testified’ to ‘the truth’ of their con- victions by sacrificing their lives. In the New Testament, martyrdom is mainly used for those who testified for ‘truth’ and resultantly often met with a violent death (Kang 1990, 40). In Christianity, the word ‘martyr’ in the Apostles was originally meant for those who were witness to Jesus Christ’s life and resurrection. This meaning was later expanded to encompass those who bore witness to their faith by suffering or death (for details see: Singh, Hakam n.d.). Thus, the common accepted connotation of martyrdom emanates from early Christians, who held the suffering of Christ, culminating in his death by cru- cifixion, as its archetype. The term ‘martyr’ refers to ‘witness’ to truth, and particularly one who gives evidence of ‘the truth’ by dying and thus becoming a martyr (Kang 1990, 40; Yust 1978, 993). Put another way, to martyr is ‘to give testimony to what someone has seen, heard, believed, or experienced’, and so convinced about the testi- mony that s/he is willing to sacrifice her/his life for the same (Uberoi 1996, 50). Thus, in the Christian tradition, anyone who voluntarily sacrifices his/her life in fidelity to Jesus Christ attains the status and dignity of ‘priesthood without ordination’ (Uberoi 1996, 50). The common Christian belief is that Jesus Christ was the first martyr who washed off the sins of humanity. St. Stephen was considered the first Christian martyr  after Jesus and was followed by the persecution of thousands of Christians in the Roman Empire in the first three centuries of Christianity, for no other reason than the refusal to abandon their faith and to replace it by the pantheon of Roman Gods. St. Paul and St. Peter were among many who fell victim to Roman persecution in this regard. Physical torture and execution of such holdouts continued for long until Chris- tianity became the official religion of Rome (Kang 1990, 40; Latourette 1953, 81; Singh, Sarbjindter 2002b, 3–7). In the Roman Catholic Church only those who died for their faith before or during the Roman persecutions in the second and third centuries were considered martyrs, such as Stephen, the first martyr. ‘It regards martyrs as saints and requires every church altar to contain some of their relics’ (Friedman 1981, 578). Non- Catholics are more flexible and extend the term martyr to include those who were killed for matters of faith or belief (Kang 1990, 41).

Martyrdom in Islam

In the Islamic context, the importance of the terms shahid and shahadat are considered to be as pure as the very name of Allah, which is ‘spoken of as al-shahid, the one who sees men’s action’ (Kaur, Rajkumari 2002a, 103). The term shahid has been used in Quran approximately thirty-five times, particularly with reference to eternity of the existence of Allah and as a witness of His truthfulness and spiritual purity (Singh, Sarbjinder 2002b, 8; see also Chandan 2001, 27–28). The Arabic word in Quran, as well as in Muslim theology, for ‘martyr’ is ‘shahid’/‘shudud’, which also means witness or one who provides testimony (Hughes 1977, 327). Imam Hussain, the second son of Ali and grandson of Prophet Mohammad, is believed to be one of the early shahids in the Islamic tradition, who attained martyrdom in the battlefield of Karbala ‘along with a number of members from his own family and his tribe, Benu Hashim and from other tribes supporting his cause’ while fighting unbelievers (Talib 1999, 221). Recognised as the ‘king of martyrs’, as later Mansur Al-Hallaj was considered among the Sufis, the mar- tyrdom of Hussain, argues Uberoi, ‘recalls the passion of Christ and the suffering of St. Francis’ (Uberoi 1996, 52). Another great martyr of the Muslim world, but less cele- brated, is Sufi Shams-i-Tabriz, the preceptor of the great philosopher of Sufism, Jalalud- din Rumi, whose martyrdom was considered beyond doubt, but the Indian legend legend about him suggests that ‘the sun itself came down close enough to bake a piece of meat for him’ (Talib 1999, 222).

Martyrdom in Islam, as in the case of classical rabbinic Judaism, not only establishes truth for the benefit of the faithful within his/her religion, but for the entire humanity. As emphatically put by one of the chief ideologues of the Islamic revolution in Iran in the twentieth century, Hussain ‘has died in Karbala in order to be resurrected in all (future) generations, in all ages’ (quoted in Uberoi 1996, 52). A conglomerate of two con- cepts, ‘witness to faith’ and ‘witness unto death’, the term shahid entails both a ‘testimony giver’ and a ‘martyr’ (Uberoi 1996). Though the Arabic word shahada or shahadat is con- ceptually similar to the word martyrdom, it entails a broader meaning:

to see, to witness, to testify or to become a role model. This word is inseparably associated  with the Islamic concept of jihad or holy struggle. A shahid (Shaheed) is, therefore, a person who in struggle (jihad) witnesses the truth, and stands by it firmly to the extent that not only he testifies to it verbally, but is prepared to fight for the truth and, if necessary, give up his life and thus becomes a role model for others. (quoted in Singh, Kharak 2004c, 10)

A shahid, in Islam is considered pure and not given a bath before his burial. Given the purity of the act of martyrdom and its wider connotations in Islam, a shahid, argues Uberoi:

needs no ritual ablution and has no shroud because he is already pure. By his sacrifice the martyr escapes the Muslim’s examination in the grave by the two ‘interrogating angels’, Munkir, and Nakir, and need not pass through the ‘purging fires of Islam’, barzakh. (Singh, Kharak 2004c; see also Singh, Sarbjinder 2002b, 8–10).

The Islamic concept of shahid, as it evolved in India since the advent of the Mughal rule, was ‘a composite mainly of elements Jewish and Hellenic, besides of course, what the soil and tradition of Arabia lend to it’ (Talib 1999, 220). The term shahid in Islam, though conceptually similar to that of martyr, implies broader connotations. In Islam anyone who gets killed while fighting in defense of his faith, or in jihad (holy war) against infidels is called a shahid, ‘a perfect witness or martyr, or ash-shahidu‘l-kamil’ (Kaur, Rajkumari Balinderjit 2002a, 103; see also Hughes 1977, 327; Singh, Harbhajan 2002c, 26–28). Inextricably linked with the Islamic concept of Jihad (holy struggle), a shahid is one who being a participant in Jihad, becomes witness to the truth and ‘stands by it firmly to the extent that not only he testifies to it verbally but is prepared to fight for the truth and if necessary, give up his life and thus become a role model for others’ (Ezzati 1986). A shahid, based on the kurbani (sacrification) of his life for his faith or a just cause, stands witness to its truth, and to his/her allegiance to it, and remains ready to die for it rather than renounce his/her own faith or moral ideal (Singh, Hakam n.d.b). This meaning is identical to that of the original meaning of the word ‘martyr’. Besides Muslims’ own celebrated martyrs among the Prophet’s followers and descendants, it refers to the Jewish and Christian influence from which its meaning was extracted (Houtsma et al. 1934; Talib 1999, 112).

II. Beyond the Abrahamic tradition

Given the literal meaning of the terms martyr and martyrdom, as elaborated above, there are no clear instances of actual martyrs/martyrdoms in ancient Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, though innumerable cases of persecution and killing of those who laid down their lives for the cause of their firm belief in their above mentioned respective reli- gions are available in mythology and otherwise than those of surrendered and crossed over to the faiths of their tormentors (Talib 1999, 223; Kaur 2002a, 104–106). Reflecting on the absence of the concepts of martyr and martyrdom in ancient religious tradition in India, some scholars have been of the opinion that the language of ancient Vedic (Hindu) religion does not have a word equivalent or close to martyrdom. Recently scholars have begun to consider the term balidan closer to the concept of martyrdom. Swami Ram Tirath, a reputed scholar of Hindu philosophy of Vedanta, particularly ‘practical Vedanta’, ‘thinks that in Hinduism human life was considered as a gift from God and therefore too sacred to be glorified when sacrificed for any human endeavor’ (Singh, Hakam n.d.b; see also Talib 1999, 212–213).

In India, however, the origin of the terms martyr and martyrdom often coincided with the evolution of Sikhism, the youngest among all the religions in the world. Before the establishment of the Mughal rule in India, such terms were not a part of the indi- genous discourse of its religious tradition – Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism (Gandhi 1980, 453; see also: Talib 1999, 212). Though concepts like deh-tyaag (relinquishing/sacrificing/forsaking one’s body, i.e. life), balidan (sacrifice) or sankalpa (an intention or a resolution to do something or achieve something spiritual) etc. were in usage, they cannot be equated with the act of sacrificing oneself for one’s beliefs – whether in God or some other cardinal principle – as is the case with the concept of martyrdom. Sankalpa is considered as a ‘spiritual preparatory stage towards martyrdom’ and ‘continuing evidence’ about its pervasiveness is believed to exist ‘in the millennia-old history of the Aryan people, to whom the contemporary generations of non-Muslims in India are the heir’ (Talib 1999, 213). However, it could not become the prototype of the terms martyr and martyrdom. Invariably, sacrifice is identified with rewards in return of the sacrificial act. In various pagan as well as Nath, Yogi, Devi and Tantric cults of the ancient Hindu tradition, sacrifice of various kinds of animals (bull, horse, goat), and human beings were recommended for getting rid of sins, diseases as well as for the attainment of various worldly com- forts and boons (Singh, Kharak 2004c, 14–15). Whereas martyrdom in Sikhism has nothing to do with such promises and is ‘inspired by desire to uphold a principle and for the common good of humanity’ (Singh, Kharak 2004c). Martyrdom and sacrifice can be distinguished from each other in the sense that in the former the martyr performed the act of killing himself for the cause of one’s faith or defending the same in the battlefield. Whereas, in the case of the latter, the sacrifice is often done on the behalf of someone else, who intended to draw benefit out of the act of sacrifice?

The absence of the concepts of shahid (martyr) and shahadat (martyrdom) in pre-Mughal India did not allow the articulation of such conditions and experiences to be qualified under the established and standardized terminology of martyr and martyrdom (Talib 1999, 213). However, given the varied interpretations and connotations of the terms of martyr and martyrdom, some incidences referred to in Hindu mythology are often placed within their broader genre, ‘which hardly reflect the great act redolent of the spiritual struggle and sacrifice that is implied in martyrdom’ (Talib 1999, 213). Nevertheless, the concepts of martyr and martyrdom remained unfamiliar in Indian culture before the martyrdom of Guru Arjan (Singh, Darshan 1968, 212), which was followed by many more recorded instances of martyrdom in Sikhism. The martyrdom of the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, stands alone as a glorious example in this regard wherein he chose to forgo his life – not for the sake of his own faith but others – on the principle of freedom of religion or belief for those who approached him for their emancipation from the tyranny of forced conversion let loose by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, rather than capitulation to sectarian dictates, albeit imperial ones. Equally inspiring were the martyrdoms of the younger Sahibza- das (Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh) of the tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh – grandsons of the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and great-great grandsons of the fifth Master, Guru Arjan – who were bricked live. This is a lone, but dazzling example of its kind in the history of martyrdom, especially given their tender age of nine and seven years of Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh respectively (Singh, Jaswant 2004, 59; cf. Kapur 2004, 115; Singh, Gajindar 2004e, 47) – an age at which one is often not expected to take one’s own decision. Sikh studies scholars Kirpal Singh and Gajinder Singh, were of the opinion that the youngest Sahibzada, Fateh Singh, was hardly six years old at the time of his martyrdom (Singh, Kirpal 2004b, 23; Singh Gajinder 2004e, 47). Their martyrdoms established a new milestone in the sacred and valorous tradition of martyrdom not only in South Asia but the entire world.

Thus, the martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur and that of the younger Sahibzadas remains an aspect of Sikh martyrdom, which needs to be explored more deeply to com- prehend the uniqueness of the Sikh religion in respect of its contributions towards the promotion of universal human rights, the sanctity of freedom of belief, as well as general principles of dignity and moral values. It is in this context that a long quote from one of the seminal writings of J.P.S. Uberoi will not be out of place here to vindicate the principle of vicariousness in the flourishment of the Panth (community) after the act of martyrdom:

The comparative study of martyrdom, which is evidently still in its infancy, may yet come to the mature conclusion that the part played by the principle of vicariousness is essential to explain the life, death and after-life of one who undergoes suffering and death voluntarily as active witness to truth. The self-sacrifice of the real and the true martyr mysteriously results in the resurrection of the congregation and serves the cause of truth: that is the long and the short of its history, theology and sociology. (Uberoi 1996, 50)

In the following section an attempt has been made to distinguish Sikh martyrdom from its counterparts in the mainstream Abrahamic/Semitic traditions.

III. The tradition of shahadat/martyrdom in Sikhism

Explicating the content and context

In Sikhism, a martyr is the embodiment of an infallible faith in the purity and divine authority of the Nirakar/Akal Purkh (also spelt as Purakh) – formless supreme being beyond the (measurement of time and space) – as well as a personification for the cause of righteousness (dharma) and establishing social justice, and therefore martyr- dom (shahadat, shahidi) occupies a central place within the institutional set up of Sikhism (for details see: Kapur 2002, 31–41; Kaur, Abnesh 2002c, 63–67; Kaur, Gurnam 2002b, 68–80; Singh, Shamsher 2002d, 42–48; Singh, Balkar 2002a, 89–98; Singh 2004, 26–33; Singh 2009, 138–145). Emanating from a glorious tradition which bespoke of the confluence of Piri and Miri – the spiritual and temporal realms respectively – and in convergence with the equally glorious and corresponding tradition of Degh (cauldron to provide food to the needy on the basis of the gurmat principle of sangat/spiritual congregation and pangat/sitting together to eat without caste, class creed and gender consideration) and Tegh (the use of arms to protect the weak from persecution irrespective of all ascriptive identities whatsoever), the pious and epistemic domain of sant-sipahi (saint-soldier) forms the core of the Sikh concepts of martyr and martyrdom. Infused with divine love and love for the Guru, compassion, fearlessness, seva (selfless service), and self-sacrifice for the cause of spiritual deeds, justice, and righteous actions, the nature of martyrdom in Sikh faith can safely be distinguished from its counterparts in the mainstream Abrahamic/Semitic traditions (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 40–43; Singh, Dharam 2004d, 36–37; for a detailed account of the concept sangat see: Malhotra 2023, 44–45). It is bereft of both the ‘guilt complex’ of the Christian tradition, and the ‘promise of reward’ embedded in the Islamic concept of shahadat (Singh, Hakam 2004a, 35–36; Singh, Kharak 2004c, 10–11).

The phenomenon of martyrdom reached new heights in the teachings of its progenitor and the first Master, Baba Guru Nanak, who introduced the virtue of fearlessness in the minds of his followers as an integral way of their life exemplified in the sacred scriptures of Adi Granth (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, henceforth SGGS):

jau tau prem khelan ka chau 
siru dhari tali gali meri au 
itu margi pairu dharijai
siru dijai kani na kijai.

(Nanak’s slok Varan te Vadhik 20, SGGS:1412).

if you want to play the game of love, approach me with your head on the palm of your hand. Place your feet on this path and give your head without regard to the opinion of others.

(text above in the roman and English translation adapted from: Fenech 1997, 630)

Guru Nanak, averred Hakam Singh:

did not offer any rewards or enticements for playing the game of love even at the cost of one’s life. Also, there is no guilt complex among Sikhs because none of the Sikh Gurus gave any promise of intercession for anyone who expressed unconditional full faith in Sikhism. Furthermore, Sikhism does not believe in the sinful birth of human beings. Love for God and Guru or staying steadfastly on the path that leads to the Supreme Reality, is something that is beyond the idea of any rewards corresponding to attain- ment of paradise full of virgins (as promised in Islam). Sikh history is full of examples where all kinds of worldly rewards and even promises of paradise (after death) were offered but the Sikh martyrs summarily rejected them for the sake of love for their Guru and God’. (Singh, Hakam 2004a, 37–38; emphasis added)

Sikhism emphasises the inculcation of the cardinal principle of living a life of fearlessness not just for oneself, but for negating all kinds of injustices and cruelty. Fearlessness and surrender to the Will of God, including pronouncements made by the ten Sikh Gurus (enshrined in SGGS) as instruments of His Will, are what become the cradle of martyr and martyrdom in Sikh faith.

The essence of Guruship in Sikhism, however, is also distinguished from the main- stream religions of the sub-continent. To quote Ganda Singh, an accomplished authority on Sikh studies:

The Guru in Sikhism is the spiritual guide to lead his disciples on the path of God and godliness. He is a guide, a perfect man, who has realized God in his practical life. He, however, does not claim for himself any special position in relation to the Sikhs beyond that of a teacher. A Sikh will, as well, rise to the same spiritual heights as the Master provided, he faithfully follows the instructions in the conduct of his life. There will be no difference between the two. (Asa, Chhant, IV, 8,7,9 as referred to in Singh, Ganda 1977b, 43)

The tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh, went a step further during the historic baptism ceremony (Khande di Pauhl) of Baisakhi, 1699, pronouncing: ‘He alone is a Sikh who follows the discipline laid down. Nay, he becomes my Master and I, his servant’ (as quoted in Singh, Ganda 1977b, 43). To quote Ganda Singh further:

The voluntary surrender of Guru Gobind Singh to the fold of the baptized Singhs, the Khalsa, was unique in the history of religions. It not only provides a practical illustration of raising the disciples and devotees to a level of equality with the Guru but also abolishes personal Guruship among the Sikhs for all time to come. (Singh, Ganda 1977b)

It was in the aforementioned context that the shahadat given by the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, the first martyr in the line of historic Guruship in Sikhism, the custodian of the task for the construction of the sacred sarovar (tank of nectar), Harimandir (Darbar Sahib), the town of Ramdaspur (Amritsar), founder of the towns of Tarn Taran, Sri Har- gobindpur, and Kartarpur (Jalandhar), and the compiler of SGGS, who thus contributed seminally towards the consolidation of the structural organization of Sikhism and there- fore has a particularly prominent profile in the pantheon of Sikh Gurus, needs to be understood as a shining example of faith in Hukum (Divine Order or Will) of Akal Purkh (Supreme Being/God), and adherence to truth irrespective of consequences (Grewal 2009, 20; Nishter 2004, 76–79; Puri 1993); and the same was seen in the martyrdom of both the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and the youngest Sahibzadas of the tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh – the grandson and great-great grandsons respectively of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Arjan.

The faith and the tradition

Guru Nanak laid the foundation of Sikhism, the youngest of the major religions of the world, on the basis of challenging casteism and patriarchy standing with the lowest of low, earning by the sweat of one’s brow, sharing fruits of one’s labour with others, and making endeavours for the creation of an egalitarian society. For Guru Nanak, the wellspring was the attunement to and expression of the Will of the formless God (Ram 2023, 147–148). He discarded the then prevalent asceticism promulgated by the various sects of mainstream Hinduism and deeply rooted in the bhakti of gods and goddesses, based on complex rituals, customs, traditions, and ceremonies. He further underscored the dos and don’ts of the Varnashram dharma,a social system of assigning duties and responsibilities based on a person’s social class/Varna and stages of life/ashram. To extirpate social segregation based on the extant caste system, Baba Nanak, as mentioned earlier, established the social institutions of sangat and pangat, where all people irrespective of their faith, class, caste, and gender come together:

in a spirit of goodwill and understanding, [he]sang the hymns of the Master and prayed to the Lord to grant to them the gift of the recitation of His Holy Name, of honest livelihood and sharing their earnings with others and of service of their fellow-beings at large, without distinction of caste and creed” and partake langar (food), prepared in the common kitchen of the community, “sitting together of all present in rows for dinning, irrespective of caste and creed, of Hindu and Muslim, or of rich and poor. (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 40–41)

Within the Sikh faith, a shahid (martyr), is thus not necessarily one who died in bat- tlefield fighting, but also one who lays down his life fighting against injustice (whether perpetrated by either believers or non-believers), in upholding epicentral principles and tenets of his faith – an exemplar being the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Nanak, who:

took up cudgels on behalf of the hapless Hindus single-handedly for redeeming the principle of freedom of faith, irrespective of religious tradition. In Indian history and folklore, he has been remembered as the protector of the Hindu faith – a unique example of its kind in the history of mankind. Interestingly, there are several Sikh scriptural hymns criticizing the janeu and tilak which the Brahmanical class then considered an end in themselves, thus giving precedence to form over the spirit of religion, but the Guru stood for freedom of belief and practice for everyone. The religious history of mankind provides no second example of a spiritual leader laying down his life for people belonging to a religion other than his own. Second, the Sikh Gurus had nothing against Islam as such - and indeed, the writings of muslim mystics are found in the SGGS itself - and the Sikh scripture unequivocally states that the scriptures of neither hinduism or islam can be called false, rather false are those who do not reflect on them. Had the contemporary political situation in India been the other way round, Guru Tegh Bahadur would surely have made the same sacrifice for the sake of Muslims. (Singh, Dharam 2004d, 32; emphasis added)

The Sikh faith since its very beginnings with the teachings and praxis of Baba Guru Nanak (1469–1539) cultivated this ideal form of martyrdom in the minds of its followers, and this distinguished it, as mentioned above, from the Semitic tradition of martyrdom. The distinction of becoming the first martyr in Sikhism, beyond the historic tradition of Guruship, goes to Qazi Rukan-ud-din, who enamoured by the spiritual teachings of Baba Guru Nanak during his visit (fourth Udasi) to Arabia, became his disciple and was killed for refusing to disown his newly acquired Sikh identity (Tajudin 2019, 40–68). The second Sikh martyr during the initial period of the evolution of the Sikh faith was Bhai Taru Popat, who was killed in 1526, by being set on fire, for raising his voice against the cruelties of the first Mughal Emperor Babur (Singh 1991, 11–13). In both of these first two cases of martyrdom outside the fold of the historic line of Guruship and during the foundational period of the Sikh faith, love for God and Guru and the faith based on his teachings alone stands for the vindication of the act of martyrdom.

The martyrdom of Guru Arjan, who was executed under the yasa order of Mughal emperor Jahangir (for details, see: Grewal 2009, 19–34; Singh 1969; Singh, Ganda 1978, 160–177; Singh 2005, 29–62) was catalytic for the emergent contours of a distinct Sikh identity. Henceforth, an element of military power was inculcated in the rank and file of the Sikh faith under the supreme spiritual and temporal authority of the succeed- ing, and sixth Master, Guru Hargobind Singh. This transformed Sikhs into a valorous socio-spiritual movement for the saviour of the downtrodden, victims of injustice, and socially excluded sections of society. It was reinforced following the martyrdom of the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, which gave rise to the Khalsa (a spiritual warrior order) formed at an historical congregation of followers of the faith in 1699 at Anandpur Sahib, Panjab, under the spiritual command of the tenth master, Guru Gobind Singh.

Even though the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, became the first historic Guru martyr within Sikhism, and the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur, the second martyr, the theoretical foundation of martyr and martyrdom was however laid during the time of the first Master, Guru Nanak, who used the term shahid in his bani (spiritual poetry) while reflect- ing on the prevalence of evil and tyranny all around in the society (Adi Granth, 53; Kang 1990, 46–47). He gave a clarion call for putting an end to injustice and cruelty and called upon his followers to ready themselves for resolutely facing suffering and tyranny. God, he stipulated, will always be with the righteous. Guru Nanak’s teachings emphasised the omnipresence of a single, formless God, while his exhortations against injustices per- petrated by the powers that be and their henchmen – whom he dared addressed as tigers and dogs respectively – the latter, emphasised Baba Nanak, awakened, disturbed, and har- assed the sitting and resting masses, inflicted wounds on them, and snatched away what- ever they possessed including their blood and bile.

The Kings are tigers and the courtiers’ dogs, they go and (harass) or (awaken) the sitting and the sleeping ones. The King’s servants inflict wound with their nails. The King’s curs lick up the blood and bile of the poor subjects. Where in the Lord’s Court, the men are to be assayed. The noses of these untrustworthy ones shall be chopped off. (Adi Granth, 1288; as referred to in Kang 1990, 47; cf. Singh, Ganda 1977b, 35–36)

Guru Nanak did not mince words in proclaiming that the path of Sikhism was hazardous and difficult to follow. For him, if the situation arises, one should be ready to sacrifice one’s life. He advised his followers not to refrain from laying down their lives, and further remarked forcefully:

If one knows how to die, O people, then, call not death bad. Fruitful is the dying of the brave persons, who are approved before their death. Hereafter, they alone are acclaimed as war- riors, who receive true honour in the Lord’s court. (Adi Granth, 579-80; as referred to in Kang 1990, 48)

Thus the phenomenon of martyrdom in Sikhism draw its essence from the Gurubani, i.e. the writings of the SGGS (for details, see: Kapur 2002, 31–41; Kaur, Abnesh 2002c, 63–67; Kaur, Gurnam 2002b, 68–80; Kaur, Gurnam 2004a, 49–55; Kaur, Rupinderjit 2004b, 67–71; Nishter 2004, 76–79; Singh, Dharam 2004d, 29–30; Singh, Hakam 2004a, 37–39; Singh, Harbhajan 2002c, 28–30; Singh, Prehlad 2002, 84–88; Singh, Sarbjinder 2002b, 12–22; Singh, Shamsher 2002d, 43–48; Shan 2004, 184–185) The term Shahid figured once each in the bani of Guru Nanak, Sant Ravidass, and four times in the compositions of Bhai Gurdas, maternal uncle of Guru Arjan, who also served him as his amanuensis in the compilation of the SGGS (Adi Granth, 1293; Chandan 2001, 28–30; Grewal 2011, 195; Kang 1990, 46–47; Singh 1996, 1–2). Reference to the act of dying with honour also figured within the Dasam Granth, the Chandi Charitr – the authorship of which is attributed to Guru Gobind Singh – for seeking divine boon to lay down one’s life for righteous cause:

Deh siva baru mohi ihai 
subh karman te kabahun na taron 
Na daro ari so jab jai laron 
nischai kari apuni jit karon
Ar sikhaho apne hi mana koi 
h lalach hau gun tau ucharo 
Jab av ki audh nidhan banai 
ati hi ran mai tab jujh maron

Lord grant me this boon:

Never may I turn back from righteousness; May I never turn back in fear when facing the foe; May I ever instruct my mind to chant Thy praises; And when the end arrives, May I fall fighting on the field of battle. (adapted from: Singh, Dharam 2004d, 29; see also Fenech 1997, 634)

The Khalsa, in fact, was born of martyrdom itself and metamorphosed Sikhs into sant- sipahis (saint-soldiers). The Khalsa was created by the martyrdom of five Sikhs offering their heads for the cause of putting an end to injustice and tyranny, as demanded in an assembly on the day of Baisakhi in 1699 by the tenth Guru. The baptised five Singhs (Panj Piare) in turn baptised Guru Gobind Singh, leading to an unparalleled juxtaposi- tion between the Khalsa and the Guru as expressed by the term:

Waih pargateo mard agammra 
waryam ikela 
Wah, wah Gobind Singh, 
ape Gur chela

And lo! There appeared an unsurpassable man;

Wonderful, wonderful is Guru Gobind Singh, a unique hero, A venerable preceptor as well as a humble disciple. (adapted from Singh, Ganda 1977b, 60)

The Khalsa was the advent of the idea of ‘sant-sipahis’ (saint-soldiers) in Sikhism, and further, it established a pathway for the baptism of adherents who were ready to die for their faith and stand with the weak, and victims of injustice and tyranny (Kang 1990, 50). It is in this sense that Guru Gobind Singh thus illustrated that the concept of martyrdom encompassed the sacrificial act of death on the battlefield in defence of religion.’Thus,’ articulates Surjit Singh Gandhi, ‘martyrdom in Sikhism is not self- extinction, it is on the other hand a sort of affirmation in the faith the martyr holds and a positive projection of the urge of the martyr to uphold virtue and to resist evil’ (Gandhi 1980, 460).

Based on the above-mentioned discussion of the term martyr, many Sikhs who died defending their faith and battling for a just cause since the early eighteenth century were considered martyrs. Banda Bahadur and his 794 companions who were executed at Delhi, ‘to be out to the sword at the rate of a hundred a day’ (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 69), and a large number of Sikhs who were killed during the rule of various tyrant gov- ernors – Zakariya Khan, Mir Mannu, Yahyya Khan, and Shah Nawaz as well as during invasions of the marauding armies of Ahmed Shah Abdali, whether for religious or pol- itical causes, are claimed to be martyrs by the Sikhs (Kang 1990, 51). By the close of the eighteenth century and after, the term ‘Shahid’ had acquired wide currency (Fenech 1997, 632–635). It came to be deployed in all those cases in which the supreme sacrifice (will- ingly or unwillingly) was evident in pursuit of socially approved ideals (Gandhi 1980, 462) thus leading to large number of martyrdoms in the proud Sikh community at the altar of its faith (Gill 1975, 5).

Challenging the skeptical viewpoint

Some studies however, showed ambivalence in the case of the martyrdom of the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, the first martyr in Sikhism. Scholars of Sikh studies like Harjot Oberoi, W.H. McLeod, and the students of McLeod – later accomplished researchers – particularly Louis E. Fenech, drew a sharp line of distinction between the Sikh tradition and the available factual historical evidence in explaining the ‘martyrdom’ of Guru Arjan. They did not give any credence to the Sikh tradition about martyrs and martyrdom, and were of the opinion that as far as factual historical evidence is concerned, it is too scant to support the tradition (for details see: Banga 2009, 162–179; Grewal 2011, 188–216). For them the institution of ‘martyr’ and ‘martyrdom’ begins with the ninth Guru, who valiantly offered his head in keeping with the precepts of his faith. Louis Fenech argued, as is evident in many of his meticulously prepared writings, that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries one could hardly find any discernible source on the basis of which it could have been established that the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, was a martyr and therefore the fact of forsaking his mortal frame could not conclusively be designated as an act of martyrdom.

The words ‘death’ and ‘murder’ were often used to convey the shahadat of Guru Arjan at the hands of his persecutors (Fenech 1997, 626; McLeod 1975, 3, 1995, 40–41), who were actually authorised to implement the Mughal order of siayasta o’ yasa rasanand (frequently referred to as tora/tura in Mughal chronicles, yasa is a Mongolian term for law, and siayasta for punishment of death without shedding a drop of blood of princes and holy persons for fear of calamities) issued by emperor Jahangir for the tor- turous end of his mortal frame. No credible alternative accounts, Fenech emphasised, of this critical episode in Sikh history have been found so far (Fenech 1997, 623–642, 2002, 1, 23, 2001, 20–31, 2010, 75–94; for details about Yasa see: Singh 2005, 31–32). Death and martyrdom, however, are two distinctly separate terms. The latter is distinguishable from the former in the sense that it refers to ‘death for a cause’ (Uberoi 1996, 114–123, 135, 151). These terms clearly denote two separate phenomena. ‘The term “martyrdom”, averred Sikh scholar Kirpal Singh, is not identical with death.’ He continues, ‘persons die of various causes on which they have no control or have no escape; martyrdom, on the other hand, is offering one’s life for some noble principle knowingly and deliberately’ (Singh, Kirpal 2004b, 16). Another characteristic of martyrdom, which sharply distinguishes it from that of death, as cogently argued by Dharam Singh a scholar of Sikh philosophy, is that:

one must be willing to suffer privation and even meet death fighting against these and such other evils, with no personal motive or interest attached to that fight. In fact, true martyrdom, in Sikhism, lies in the willingness to suffer without flinching. Guru Nanak and his successors prepared their disciples for this with a view to erecting a social setup where values of equality and love, justice and tolerance, compassion and self-respect prevail. (Singh, Dharam 2004d, 30)

Furthermore, the case of murder is also distinct from martyrdom. Murder denotes the killing of a victim irrespective of any principles, whereas in the case of martyrdom one proactively lays down his/her own life for a cause – either in defence of one’s faith or/ and fighting against injustice and tyranny. In Christianity, the crucifixion of Jesus, the beheading of his contemporary John Baptist (15BC-28AD) at the instigation of Salome, and the burning at the stake of John Husa (1369–1415) for his unorthodox doc- trine, cannot be ordinary killings, but martyrdoms. By the same logic, the death of Guru Arjan at the hands of his tormentors at Lahore in 1606 would be considered a martyrdom (cf. Singh, Kirpal 2004b, 17).

Another argument that Louis Fenech raises relating to the case of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan, looks more like a legal argument than an historical analysis. He was of the opinion that until the mid-twentieth century, the absence of the terms ‘martyr’ and ‘mar- tyrdom’ within general Sikh literature, proves the non-existence of martyrs and martyr- dom in Sikhism, even though references to such terms can be found in the Sikh Ardas (prayer): ‘throughout eighteenth-and early – to mid-nineteenth-century Sikh literature, it is not until the mid-twentieth century that the Ardas assumed the form it has today’ (Fenech 1997, 626, 2002, 63–102, 117–123). Thus, the actual formation of these terms and the very form that the Ardas has acquired today, argued Fenech, were products of the late-nineteenth century Sikh ‘reform’ movement, the Singh Sabha, and more precisely of the intellectual efforts of its micro group popularly called Tat Khalsa (True Khalsa) ‘informed in parts through dialogue with Western Orientalism’ (Fenech 1997, 626; cf. Oberoi 1994). Thus, he asserts that the concept of the martyr and the central place which it has acquired over time within the Ardas got articulated during the rise of Tat Khalsa within the Sikh reform movement, which eventually impacted the whole process of its concretisation within the Sikh discourse during the twentieth century (Fenech 2002, 190)

Based on the aforementioned narrative, Louis Fenech tried to explicate the concept of martyrdom in Sikhism through the medium of two questions:

are a concept of martyrdom and the Sikh reverence towards its martyrs characteristics that can be traced throughout the history of the Sikh people? Is the image of the martyr we have in Ardas the image we find to the nineteenth century? (Fenech 1997, 626)

In his next article entitled ‘Martyrdom and the Execution of Guru Arjan in Early Sikh Sources,’ carried in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Fenech further argued that:

a meticulous analysis of contemporary and near-contemporary sources does not substanti- ate the claims of Sikh tradition. Such analysis, in other words, makes it clear that many scho- lars extrapolate far too much from these texts, filling in the numerous gaps in the narrative these sources supply with popular understandings forged in later centuries. And, secondly, I seriously doubt that martyrdom as a concept was present in the Sikh tradition during the early to mid-seventeenth century, in as much as an investigation of the many hymns in the Adi Granth used by traditional Sikh scholars to support the presence of this conceptual system are always taken out of context and misconstrued. It appears to me that the relatively stable political and social atmosphere of sixteenth-century northern India, due in large part to the benign policies of the emperor Akbar and to the relatively small size of the Sikh Panth, did not necessitate such a generalized doctrine of redemptive death. (Fenech 2001, 21; emphasis added)

To address the above-mentioned critical issues, Fenech began his investigation by criti- cally analysing the narrative of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan as presented in the Sikh tradition on the basis of distinction between tradition and evidence. His central argument is based on his conviction that the Sikh tradition of martyrdom lacks historical evidence and that the absence of words that could be translated to ‘martyr’ and ‘martyrdom’ suggests that the concepts did not exist.

Guru Arjan: the epitome of Sikh martyrdom

In the Sikh tradition, Guru Arjan was martyred in 1606 under the order of Mughal emperor Jahangir following the Mongolian pattern of execution with torture without allowing a drop of blood from the body of the culprit to spill on the ground (Singh 2005, 31–32). Emperor Jahangir, the Sikh tradition says, was deeply distressed with Guru Arjan for several reasons primarily for his support to shahzada (prince) Khusrau, his son and rival claimant to the Mughal throne. As the tradition unfolds, it is believed that Guru Arjan received shahzada Khusrau and allegedly blessed him with a qashqa or teeka (victory mark) on his forehead. Earlier, his grandfather, Emperor Akbar, also visited the third Master, Guru Amar Dass and the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, partook in Langar (food prepared in common kitchen), reduced agricultural tax on the then hard- pressed peasants, and had received the blessings of these Gurus (Grewal 2009, 20; Singh, Ganda 1978, 173). However, as far as the historical veracity of the narrative of the Guru’s blessing for Khusrau was concerned, there is neither any unanimity among the scholars of Sikh studies nor any historical evidence (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 48–50).

There were several reasons attributed to emperor Jahangir’s order against Guru Arjan. Firstly, the burgeoning following of Guru Arjan not only among the Hindus but also ‘foolish Muslims’ – as the emperor referred to the latter and mentioned in the Tuzuk-i-Jahan- giri/Jahangirnama (autobiographical account of emperor Jahangir life). Secondly, he was concerned about the uninterrupted existence of the Sikh faith since the times of Baba Nanak, a faith which he contemptuously called ‘false traffic’ to soon be done away with. Thirdly, the alleged conspiratorial roles played by both Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Chandu Shah of Lahore. Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi was the head of the Sufi Naqashbandi Silsila and was deeply aggrieved by the respect Guru Arjan enjoyed among the populace across caste, class, and creed. Chandu Shah of Lahore was an official in service of the Lahore Subedar (ruler) whose daughter’s solicited marriage to the son (and later the sixth Guru Hargobind Singh) of Guru Arjan had been declined, and he now wanted to either avenge this perceived insult or to force the Guru to reconsider and accept this marriage proposal.

Shaikh Ahmand Sirhindi, a bitter opponent of emperor Akbar’s policy of respect for non-Muslim religions and leniency on the proper implementation of shariat/ Islamic rule of law, found an opportunity in the eagerness of prince Salim (later emperor Jahangir) to usurp the Mughal throne from his father emperor Akbar. He promised prince Salim his full support through his disciple and the Subedar of Lahore, Murtza Khan (Shaikh Farid Bukhari) conditional on the prince agreeing to abandon the liberal policies adopted by his father, emperor Akbar. The aggrieved Shaikh wanted the strict implementation of Shariat law and putting an end to all other faiths, which were ‘kafir’ in his eyes. However, as far as the historical evidence about the involvement of either Chandu Shah or Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi in the martyrdom of Guru Arjan is concerned, Ganda Singh, as in the case of Guru’s blessing to Khusrau, found no merit in them whatsoever. There are no references to either Shaikh Sirhindi or Chandu Shah in the only available authentic historical source – Tuzuk-I Jahangiri (Singh, Ganda 1978, 160). However, as Sikh studies scholar Ganda Singh writes:

under whose orders Guru Arjan was arrested and executed in 1606, should, historically speaking, be taken as the best and the most reliable authority … He was the chief prosecuting authority to exhibit the criminal charge against him as well as the final judge in the case to pass the sentence of death on him. And fortunately for history, we have both, the Emperor’s charges and his sentence, available to us in his own words as recorded by him in his autobiography, the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. (1978, 160)

According to Jahangir:

There lived at Goindwal on the bank of the river Biah (Beas) a Hindu named Arjun in the garb of a Pir and Shaikh, so much so that he had by his ways and means captivated the hearts of many simple-minded Hindus, nay, even of foolish and stupid Muslims and he had noised himself about as a religious and worldly leader. They called him Guru, and from all directions, fools and fool-worshippers were attracted towards him and expressed full faith in him. For three or four generations they had kept this shop warm. For a long time, the thought had been presenting itself to me that either I should put an end to this false traffic or he should be brought into the fold of Islam”. (adapted from Singh, Ganda 1978, 160)

Though some reference is available in the Jahangirnama about the alleged visit of prince Khusrau and to the episode of applying a qashqa (teeka) on his forehead by Guru Arjan, Ganda Singh was of the opinion that:

This was all a concoction of the interested traducers of the Guru … to excite the ire of the short-tempered Emperor to issue the orders of the Guru’s execution all at once without making any enquiries about it … His mind had already been prejudiced against the Guru and he was only waiting for an opportunity to put an end to his preaching … The Guru was not a politician to be in any way interested in the success of the prince’s rebellion. As far as the qashqa or teeka, never in the history of the Gurus there has been any occasion for any Guru to anoint any one, Sikh or non-Sikh. Even the succeeding (as well as preceding) Guru was never teeka’d by any Guru himself. This practice was followed by all the gurus up to the time of the last Guru. Guru Arjun could not have departed from and gone against the accepted practice of his religion. (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 48–50; see also: Singh 1969; emphasis added)

In the light of the aforementioned texts, there remains no doubt about the arrest and execution of Guru Arjan for his popularity, religious preaching and refusal to come into the fold of Islam under the dictate of emperor Jahangir. He preferred to forsake his life than to abandon his faith – clear evidence of his being a martyr. This also refutes the polemical narrative woven by Louis Fenech around his wild conjectures that since the whole process of Guru Arjan’s execution:

was purposely kept in a private affair … since there exists no evidence to suggest that Guru Arjan’s execution was public. The cause for which the Guru died (if there was one), an essential component in the transformation of a victim into a martyr, therefore, would not have been known or made known, as the event lacked a Sikh witness. (Fenech 2001, 23)

Elsewhere, while stretching his conjecture of the private affair of the execution of the Guru, Louis Fenech was of the opinion that though one finds a reference in the seventeenth century source of the Dabistan-i-Mazhib/‘The School of Religion’ (1645 CE.) in which a mention was made about an actual observer as an eyewitness account of the execution of the Guru amidst ‘the heat of the sun, the severity of summer, and the tortures of the bailiffs’ (Fenech 1997, 627; see also: Singh, Ganda, tr. 1967d, 47–71). This information was actually also not based on the personal account of the author of this source (Dabistan-i-Mazhib) but was procured from someone else almost forty years after the event (Ibid). To quote Fenech further:

The statement regarding the tortures to which the Guru was subjected may well have been part of mid-seventeenth-century oral tradition, and the tortures may have in fact occurred, as Jahangir notes in his memoirs … that he had ordered Arjan to be ‘punished [scil., tor- tured?] and execute (siyasat o yasa rasanand)’. (Singh, Ganda, tr. 1967d)

He continued:

Yet neither the Dabistan-i-Mazhib nor the emperor’s orders are enough to verify beyond doubt that Arjan was indeed tortured during his imprisonment. We may assume from the references in the emperor’s memoirs that some form of punishment was meted out to the Guru, but that these included the particular punishments narrated above cannot be sub- stantiated. (Singh, Ganda, tr. 1967d)

However, the absence of factual evidence is not always an essential condition to credibly assert the existence and nature of an event on a balance of probabilities, when the avail- ability of circumstantial evidence substantiates it. Moreover, in the case of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan, to whom Sukha Singh refers to in his Gurbilas Patshahi 10 ‘as the bestower of the gift of fearlessness on the world’ (Singh 1989 rpt), and Ganda Singh as the one:

who was not only the leader of Sikh religion, holding a position ‘equivalent to that of Pope amongst the Christians,’ to use the words of the Rev. Fr. Fernao Guerreiro, but also a saint and a scholar who had given to the world a scripture of highest order. (Singh, Ganda 1978, 170)

Might it be wishful thinking to,

dare disobey the order of an autocrat despot whose word was law? … and who himself being under pressure of the revivalist Muhammadans and political necessity ‘to act as defender of the Islamic faith’ has to ‘prove the bonafides of his promise to act as a defender of Islam and a saviour of the Muslims from the influences of non-Muslims. (Singh, Ganda 1978, 171 & 174)

Other circumstantial evidence in support of the horrendous torture inflicted on Guru Arjan under the yasa orders of the Mughal emperor was:

the story of how two young Armenian Christian children, aged 14 and 10 years were ordered by Jahangir to be flogged in his own presence with a whip, used for scourging criminals, to coerce them to repeat the Kalima as a confession of the acceptance of the faith of Islam, how cruelly Jahangir ‘ordered them to be held hand and foot and despite their protestations and cries had them circumcised then and there, in his own presence and how mercilessly the bleeding children were whipped again and again, under his orders and in his very presence, to make them repeat the words of the Kalima after their forceful circumcision, is too painful and heartrending to be narrated here. (Singh, Ganda 1978, 174–175)

The preceding narration depicts the extent to which emperor Jahangir ‘in the beginning of his reign … to which he could then sink at the instigation of the orthodox mullas’ (Singh, Ganda 1978, 175), who had extracted a promise from him to abandon the liberal policy towards non-Muslim religion adopted by his father, emperor Akbar, for their support to him in capturing the Mughal throne. Ganda Singh continues:

The sentence, of a tortuous death passed against Guru Arjan in the first year of his reign was, therefore, in keeping with the then changed religious policy and mental attitude to which wild cruelty was not a thing unknown. (Singh, Ganda 1978)

Against the background of the above-mentioned discussion about the state-of-mind of emperor Jahangir, and buying the reverse argument of Louis Fenech, one can ask where is the evidence to prove beyond doubt that Guru Arjan was indeed not tortured during his imprisonment? Secondly, was it possible for someone to disregard the yasa orders issued by emperor Jahangir against Guru Arjan? However, the certainty inherent in Louis Fenech’s conclusion wilts under scrutiny – on what basis can he unequivocally assert that Guru Arjan was not tortured? Who would have the temerity to disobey a yasa order by the emperor himself, and if so, then what was the incentive for taking such a step which if discovered – and it would have been extremely difficult to have hidden such defiance concerning such a high-profile personage – would have attracted the death penalty? No proof of any such has been presented by either Fenech or anyone else.

Thus, given the choice between a tortuous end of life under the yasa order, or the embrace of Islam, as per the sole available authentic historical source of Jahagirnama, Guru Arjan preferred the former and became the first martyr in the historic Guruship tra- dition of Sikh history. Other prominent martyrdoms in the spiritual Sikh history, were that of the ninth Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur – about whom records are available in relatively greater details in Dasam Granth, especially the Bachitar Natak (Jaggi and Jaggi 1999); Gur- bilas texts of Sainapat (Sainapat 1967), Koer Singh (Malhotra 2022, 66–81; Singh, Koer 1968a), and Sukha Singh (Singh, Sukha 1989rpt); Shahidbilas of Sewa Singh (Singh, Sewa 1961); Guru Panth Prakash of Ratan Singh Bhangu (Bhangu 1993; Bhangu 2004), and Santokh Singh’s Gur-pratap Suraj Granth of 1843 – and those of the younger Sahib- zadas of Guru Gobind Singh, who thus followed into the footsteps of their great-great- grandfather Guru Arjan and grandfather Guru Tegh Bahadur (Grewal 2011, 202; for Gurbilas and Shahidbilas literature see: Grewal 2011, 118–132; Malhotra 2016, 242–249). Notably, the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, in the historic Guruship tradition, was preceded by the martyrdom of Bhais Mati Das, Sati Das, and Diyala – all long-term com- panions of the Guru – ‘before his very eyes’ (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 58). They were subjected to extreme torture in an attempt ‘to frighten the Guru into submission’, and to bring him into the fold of Islam (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 58; Singh, Gajindar 2004e, 45). Associating the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur with that of the fifth Master, Guru Arjan, who was also his grandfather, Ganda Singh wrote:

While Mati Das was bound between two pillars and was swan in twain, and Diala was boiled to death in a cauldron of water, Sati Das was roasted alive with cotton wrapped round his body. But as no fear or favor, offered by the Mughal nobles, could prevail upon the Guru to renounce his faith and accept Islam, Muhammad Ahsan Ijad tells, he was executed in the Chandni Chowk on November 11, 1675 (Maghar Sudi 5, 1732 Vikrami). Thus did Guru Tegh Bahadur lay down his life as a martyr at the altar of dharma and, in the words of his son Guru Gobind Singh, he gave up his life but surrendered not the conviction of his heart. This was in keeping with spirit of the fifth Nanak Guru Arjan who had accepted to be tortured to death in defense of his faith and was the first martyr of the Sikh-panth. (Singh, Ganda 1977b, 58–59; emphasis added)

Other than these early instances of the spiritual domain of martyrdom of Guru Arjan, Guru Tegh Bahadur, two younger Sahibzada (Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh) of Guru Gobind Singh, Bhais Mati Das, Sati Das, and Diala, the Sikh history is suffused with innumerable instances of martyrdom by Sikhs both in its spiritual and terrestrial domain, who sacrificed their lives ‘knowingly and voluntarily … for altruistic causes and noble ends’ (Singh, Hakam 2004a, 39). Most notable among them that come to mind are: the two elder Sahibzadas of Guru Gobind Singh, Ajit Singh and Jujhar Singh, who attained martyrdom while fighting in the battle of Chamkaur Sahib, the two younger ones who laid down their lives at Sirhind in Defence of their faith, the three of the panj piare (five beloved), the forty Singhs who attained martyrdom fighting at Chamkaur Sahib and also forty Muktas who also attained martyrdom fighting at Muktsar Sahib, Banda Singh Bahadur, Bhai Mani Singh, Bhai Deep Singh, Bhai Tara Singh, Bhai Bota Singh, Bhai Garja Singh, Bhai Taru Singh, Bhai Lachman Singh, Bhai Subeg Singh, Bhai Mahtab Singh, Bhai Dalip Singh, Nihang Gurbakhsh Singh and many more who sacrificed their lives for the cause of humanity. (cf. Grewal 2011, 188, 210; Singh, Hakam 2004a, 39).

The horrific persecution of Sikhs under the autocracy of the Mughals until the demise of their hold on Punjab was not only a saga of unheard brutalities in the history of mankind, but also of new heights of martyrdoms attained by the lovers of Guru and God standing witness to the purity of their faith as well as forsaking their lives in battlefields for righteous deeds (Singh, Hardit 2004f, 65). Based on the principle of unconditional surrender in the name of Guru and in agreement with the will (bhana) of God, martyrdom in the Sikh tradition became a distinct genre (Grewal 2011, 196–201). Embedded in the principles of ‘to forfeit life rather than faith’, and ‘to lay down one’s life in the righteous cause’, martyrdom in Sikhism unlike the Abrahamic tradition rose above the dynamics of rewards in this world and beyond. Though, the term shahid travelled into the Sikh world, as discussed before, from the Muslim tradition, which in turn was a motley of Jewish and Hellenic elements, ‘besides of course, what the soil and tradition of Arabia lend to it.’Over the years, it has evolved its own unique existence so much so that a shahidganj was constructed to remember where Nihang Gurbakhsh Singh and a handful of his fellow Singhs who were cremated after they achieved shahadat defending the Darbar Sahib (Amritsar) from an overwhelming army of Afghan invaders (Talib 1999, 220, 225; Grewal 2011, 202, 212).

The uniqueness of martyrdom in the Sikh tradition can also be observed from the fact that it gave rise to a new form of literature called Shahidbilas (a poetical work written in praise of a martyr), the first of its kind since the birth of the Khalsa. Martyrs and the places of their martyrdom (monuments) came to acquire central stage in the Khalsa tradition which was, in fact, continuation of the ‘the Sikh tradition’ commencing with the teachings of Guru Nanak and exemplified in the martyrdom of Guru Arjan, ‘the first “modern” martyr of India’, to borrow the expression from J.P.S. Uberoi, whose ‘life, work and death represented all that Guru Nanak had founded and anticipated’ (Grewal 2011, 191). The precepts of Guru Nanak, the founder of the faith, taken forward through the maiden martyrdom of Guru Arjan, were meticulously followed in the martyrdoms of Guru Tegh Bahadur, four Sahibzadas and a large number of the followers of the faith who sacrificed their lives at the altar of their faith. These and other martyrs died for righteous causes as true believers in the teachings of the truthful house of Baba Nanak and as emissaries of his egalitarian way of life, free from the binaries of ‘we and others’ and immersed in the ‘word’ of Guru and the hukam of Akal Purkh.

Conclusion

My key argument in this study expounds the difference between the Sikh and Abrahamic conceptions of martyr and martyrdom. The Sikh conception of shahadat distinguishes itself from the Abrahamic tradition of martyrdom in the sense that unlike the latter, it does not have an equivalent to the ‘guilt principle’ dynamic in Christianity which arises from a sense of indebtedness for the sacrifice made by Christ for mankind, and neither is there a ‘promise principle’ as in the Islamic case of rewards for such acts. Shahadat/martyrdom in Sikhism is unambiguously, and solely, based on the key principle of pure love towards Guru and Akal Purakh as is reiterated in the sacred scripture – the SGGS.

Another key argument in the study revolves around the tradition of martyrdom in Sikh faith, which got deeply ingrained in the collective memory of the Panth that finally became an integral part of the institution of the Khalsa. Available scho- larship offers divergent interpretations emanating from two principles, but opposing standpoints – Sikh tradition, steeped in Sikh ideology, and historical evidence based on contemporary and ‘near-contemporary’ sources – about the origin of the concept of martyrdom and actual happening of this contentious but highly venerated episteme.

Groomed in the spiritual teachings of the founder of the Sikh faith, Guru Nanak, and followed by nine preceptors down the line of the tradition and institution of historic Guruship, shahadat, actually an Islamic principle, travelled eastward with the advent of Mughal rule in India, eventually got absorbed into the Punjabi language and popularized in its native folklore by dhadis (traditional bards). Guru Arjan, the fifth Master, who sacrificed his mortal frame for the purity of his faith – a cardinal principle for the vindication of shahadat (martyrdom), became the epitome of the phenomenon of shahadat in Sikhism. Given the choice to embrace Islam or face execution according to the Mughal law of yasa,, Guru Arjan preferred the latter – a clear case of ‘death for a cause’, a testimony of his being the first martyr and vindication of the attainment of martyrdom.

Acknowledgements

This is a revised and enlarged version of the paper prepared and presented at Three Day World Punjabi Conference on Shahadat da Sikh Sankalp, jointly organized by Virasat Punjab Manch and Dept. of Guru Nanak Sikh Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, February 15-17, 2024. Valuable contribution during the discussion hour helped me significantly in sharpening the argu- ments raised in this study. My sincere gratitudes to all the esteemed organisers, fellow panelists and seminarians. I am also grateful to Shinder Thandi, Dilpreet Gill, Karamjit K. Malhotra, Sona Singh, Amarjit Chandan, Avtar Singh (UK), Jasmer S. Bala, Bidyut Chakravarty, Kuldip Singh, Jugdep Chima and Parmveer Singh for their incisive comments and valuable suggestions. Last but not least, I am indebted to my family members for their treasured household support. For all the views articulated in this study, however, I alone am responsible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

1. Banga, Indu. 2009. “Recent Studies on the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan: A Critique.” In Guru Arjan’s Contribution, Martyrdom and Legacy, edited by Prithipal Singh Kapur, and Mohinder Singh, 162–179. Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
2. Bhangu, Ratan Singh. 1993. Prachin Panth Prakash, edited by Balwant Singh Dhillon. Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
3. Bhangu, Ratan Singh. 2004. Sri Guru Panth Prakash. New Delhi: Bhai Vir Singh Sahit Sadan.
4. Brass, Paul R. 2006. “Victims, Heroes of Martyrs? Partition and the Problems of Memorialization in Contemporary Sikh History.” Sikh Formations 2 (1): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17448720600779828
5. Canney, Maurice A, ed. 1921. An Encyclopaedia of Religions. London: George Routledge & Sons Ltd.
6. Chandan, Amarjit. 2001. Phailsufian: Essays in Punjabi by Amarjit Chandan. New Delhi: Navyug Publishers.
7. DeMarco, Donald. 2002. “Of Neighbors and Infidels: The Meaning of Martyrdom for Christians and Muslims,” Lay Witness (July/August). Available at CERC. Accessed December 21, 2024. https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/the-meaning-of-martyrdom-for-christians-and-muslims. html.
8. Ezzati, A. 1986. “The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam,” Al-Serat, Vol. XII, Tehran University. Fenech, Louis E. 1997. “Martyrdom and the Sikh Tradition.” Journal of the American Oriental
9. Society 117 (4): 623–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/606445
10. Fenech, Louis E. 2001. “Martyrdom and the Execution of Guru Arjan in Early Sikh Sources.”
11. Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (1): 20–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/606726 Fenech, Louis E. 2002 (2nd imp. First published 2000). Martyrdom in Sikh Tradition: Playing the
12. “Game of Love”. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
13. Fenech, Louis E. 2010. “Martyrdom: W.H. McLeod and his Students.” Journal of Punjab Studies 17 (1&2): 75–94.
14. Freeman, Tzvi. n.d. “What is the Jewish view on Martyrdom,” Chabad.ORG. Accessed December 2, 2024. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/788008/jewish/What-is-the-Jewish-View- on-Martyrdom.htm.
15. Friedman, Emanuel.1981. MeritStudents Encyclopedia-Vol 11. NewYork: Macmillan Educational Co. Gandhi, Surjit Singh. 1980. Struggle of the Sikhs for Sovereignty. Delhi: Gur Das Kapur.
16. Gill, Pritam Singh. 1975. Guru Tegh Bahadur: The Unique Martyr. Jullundur: New Academic Publishing Co.
17. Gomperz, Theodar. 1955. Greek Thinkers: History of Ancient Philosophy. VOL. II. London: John Murray.
18. Grewal, J. S. 2009. “Guru Arjan Dev’s Life: Martyrdom and Legacy.” In Guru Arjan’s Contribution, Martyrdom and Legacy, edited by Prithipal Singh Kapur, and Mohinder Singh, 19–34. Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
19. Grewal, J. S. 2011. Recent Debates in Sikh Studies: An Assessment. New Delhi: Manohar (especially Chp 9: The Issue of Martyrdom).
20. Guralnik, David B. 1975. Webster’s New World Dictionary. New Delhi: Amerind Publishing Co.
21. Pvt. Ltd.
22. Hitti, Philips K. 1970 (10th edn; 1st edn. 1937). History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
23. Houtsma, M. Th., and A. J. Wensinck, et al (eds.) 1934. The Encyclopedia of Islam: A Dictionary of the Geography, Ethnography and Biography of the Muhammadan People, Vol. IV. Leiden:Brill.
24. Hughes, Thomas Patrick. 1977. Dictionary of Islam. Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
25. Jaggi, Rattan Singh and Jaggi, Gursharan Kaur eds. 1999. Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, Vol. I. New Delhi: Gobind Sadan.
26. Kang, Mona. 1990. Concept of Martyrdom in Sikhism and Sikh Martyrs Upto Eighteenth Century.” Unpublished PhD thesis. Chandigarh: Department of Guru Nanak Sikh Studies, Panjab University.
27. 
     
28. Kapur, Navratan. 2002. “Sikh Dharm vich Shahid atey Shahidi da Saroop,” Nanak Parkash Patrika
29. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 31–41.
30. Kapur, Prithipal Singh. 2004. “Martyrdom in Sikhism with special Reference to Martyrdom of Sahibzadas.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 113–118. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
31. Kaur, Rajkumari Balinderjit. 2002a. “The Concept of Martyrdom.” Nanak Parkash Patrika
32. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 99–108.
33. Kaur, Gurnam. 2002b. “Sikh Dharm Chintan vich Shahadat da Sankalp.” Nanak Parkash Patrika
34. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 68–80.
35. Kaur, Abnesh. 2002c. “Sikh Dharm vich Shahadat.” Nanak Parkash Patrika (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 63–67.
36. Kaur, Gurnam. 2004a. “The Concept of Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 49–55. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
37. Kaur, Rupinderjit. 2004b. “Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 67–72. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
38. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1953. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper.
39. Malhotra, Karamjit K. 2016. The Eighteenth Century in Sikh History: Political Resurgence, Religious and Social Life and Cultural Articulation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
40. Malhotra, Karamjit K. 2022. “Koer Singh Gurbilas Patshahi 10.” Panjab Journal of Sikh Studies
41. 9: 66–81.
42. Malhotra, Karamjit K. 2023. “The Sikh Sacred Space: From Guru Nanak to Maharaja Ranjit Singh.” Journal of Sikh and Punjab Studies 30 (1): 43–69.
43. McLeod, W. H. 1975. The Evolution of the Sikh Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
44. McLeod, W. H. 1995. “Arjan’s Death.” In Historical Dictionary of Sikhism, Religion, Philosophy, and Movements, no. 5, edited by W. H. McLeod, 40–41. Lanham, Md: The Scraecrow Press.
45. Nishter, Nanak Singh. 2004. “Guru Nanak’s Motivation for Martyrdom.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 73–79. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
46. Oberoi, Harjot. 1994. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
47. Puri, Sunita. 1993. Advent of Sikh Religion: A Socio-Political Perspective. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
48. Ram, Ronki. 2023. “Understanding Diversity and Deras within the Sikh Panth (Community): Some Critical Reflections.” Journal of Sikh and Punjab Studies 30 (1): 147–212.
49. Sainapat. 1967. Shri Guru Sobha, edited by Shamsher Singh Ashok. Amritsar: SGPC.
50. Shan, Harnam Singh. 2004. “Sikh Dharm vich Shahadat da Sankalp te Parampara de Sandarabh vich Char Sahibzadias de Adutti Shahadat.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 177–191. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
51. Singh, Sewa. 1961. Shahid Bilas (Bhai Mani Singh), edited by Garja Singh Giani. Ludhiana: Punjabi Sahit Academy.
52. Singh, Ganda, tr. 1967d. “ Nanak-Panthis or The Sikh and Sikhism of the Mid-Eighteenth Century [sic], Translated from the Dabistan-i-Mazahib.” Punjab Past and Present 1 (1): 47–71.
53. Singh, Koer. 1968a. Gurbilas Patshahi 10, edited by Shamsher Singh Ashok. Patiala: Punjabi University.
54. Singh, Darshan. 1968. Indian Bhakti Tradition and Sikh Gurus. Chandigarh: Panjab Publishers. Singh, Ganda. 1969. Guru Arjan’s Martyrdom (Re-interpreted). Patiala: Guru Nanak Mission. Singh, Karan. 1970 rpt 1963. Prophet of Indian Nationalism: A study of the Political Thought of Sri
55. Aurobindo Ghosh, 1893-1910. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Originally published by. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1963.
56. Singh, Kaour. 1970. Mansur Al-Hallaj. Patiala: Guru Gobind Singh Department of Religious Studies, Punjabi University.
57. Singh, Ganda. 1977b. “The Impact of Guru Nanak’s Teachings on the Lives of His Followers.” The Punjab Past and Present XI-I (21): 32–80.
58. Singh, Ganda. 1978. “The Martyrdom of Guru Arjan.” The Punjab Past and Present XII-I (23): 160–177.
59. Singh, Sukha. 1989a. Gurbilas Patshahi 10 (Pbi), edited by Gursharan Kaur Jaggi. Patiala: Punjab Languages Department, 1989 rpt.
60. Singh, Giani Bhajan. 1991. Sade Shaheed (Pbi). Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
61. Singh, Piar. 1996. Gatha Sri Adi Granth and the Controversy. Michigan: Anant Education and Rural Development Foundation.
62. Singh, Prehlad. 2002. “The Tradition of Martyrdom: A Comparative Study.” Nanak Parkash Patrika (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 81–88.
63. Singh, Balkar. 2002a. “Martyrdom: A Continuing Feature in Sikhism.” Nanak Parkash Patrika
64. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 89–98.
65. Singh, Sarbjinder. 2002b. “Shahadat da Sikh Sankalp (Punjabi).” Nanak Parkash Patrika (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 1–22.
66. Singh, Harbhajan. 2002c. “Shahid atey Shahadat-Sankalpatnic Vivechan.” Nanak Parkash Patrika
67. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 23–30.
68. Singh, Shamsher. 2002d. “Sikh Dharm vich Shahadat de Sankalp.” Nanak Parkash Patrika
69. (Punjabi & English): Shahadat Vishesh Ank, June, Ank 1: 42–48.
70. Singh, Hakam. 2004a. “The Concept of Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 34–39. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
71. Singh, Kirpal. 2004b. “Concept of Martyrdom in Sikhism and Martyrdom of Sahibazadas.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 16–25. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies. Singh, Kharak. 2004c. “Introduction.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 5–15.
72. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
73. Singh, Dharam. 2004d. “Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 26–33. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
74. Singh, Gajinder. 2004e. “Martyrdom – The Fatal Attraction.” In Guru Arjan’s Contribution, Martyrdom and Legacy, edited by Prithipal Singh Kapur, and Mohinder Singh, 40–48. Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
75. Singh, Hardit. 2004f. “What Makes a Man a Martyr.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 61–66. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies.
76. Singh, Jaswant. 2004. “Martyrdom in Sikhism with Special Reference to Sahibzadas.” In Martyrdom in Sikhism, edited by Kharak Singh, 56–60. Chandigarh: Institute of Sikh Studies. Singh, Dharam. 2009. “Concept of Tradition of Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Guru Arjan’s Contribution, Martyrdom and Legacy, edited by Prithipal Singh Kapur, and Mohinder Singh,
77. 138–145. Amritsar: Singh Brothers.
78. Singh, Hakam. n.d.b “The Concept of Martyrdom and Sikhism,” Sikh Welfare Foundation of North America, USA. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://globalsikhstudies.com/wp- content/uploads/2023/06/The-Concept-of-Martyrdom-and-Sikhism-Dr-Hakam-Singh-1.pdf.
79. Singh Pashaura. 2005. “Understanding the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan.” Journal of Punjab Studies
80. 12 (1): 29–62.
81. Tajudin, Shah Faqir Aurangabadi 2019. Sayyahato Baba Nanak: Arab-Iran de Faree Bare (Pb.). Translated by S. Prithipal Singh & edited by Himat Singh. Patiala: Gracious Books & Naad Pargaas. Available online. Accessed January 12, 2015. https://www.scribd.com/document/ 729321578/Sayahto-Baba-Nanak-Punjabi-Tajjudin-Diary-Syed-Pritpal-Singh.
82. Talib, Gurbachan Singh. 1999 (first pub. 1976). “The Concept and Tradition of Martyrdom in Sikhism.” In Guru Tegh Bahadur: Background and Supreme Sacrifice, edited by Gurbachan Singh Talib, 211–236. Patiala: Punjabi University Press.
83. Uberoi, J. P. S. 1996. Religion, Civil Society and the State: A Study of Sikhism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
84. Yust, Walter, ed. 1978. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 14. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica Ltd.