1
I
Jawaharlal Nehru, Principal A.T. Gidwani and K. Santanam were deputed by the Indian National Congress in 1923 to go to Jaito for an on the spot study. They were arrested and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment in September. Motilal Nehru, a Member of Viceroy’s Council, was greatly perturbed and as a result of his efforts, they were released in November 1923, after giving an undertaking to leave Nabha immediately. However, in his Autobiography, (1936), Jawaharlal untruthfully wrote that “there was no condition attached” to their release1.
Jawaharlal, at the time, was quite upset at his father’s attitude, and Motilal Nehru was no less disappointed at his son’s nonchalant behavior which was against the family traditions. Motilal Nehru asked him to ponder as to why, when Gandhi, Malaviya, Andrews and others were involved, he was holding aloof? He, at that stage, apprised Jawaharlal Nehru of the story of transformation of Kauls into Nehrus, beginning with the land grant by Emperor Farrukhsiyar in 1716 to the son of Ganga Ram Kaul alias Gangu Brahmin as a belated recognition for his services to the Mughal empire.
In a major reversal of policy, Farrukhsiyar in 1716 admitted the wrong done to Gangu Brahmin by Subedar Wazir Khan of Sirhind over a decade earlier, in confiscating the gold, ornaments and coins misappropriated by him while betraying Guru Gobind Singh’s mother and two younger sons to the Khan of Morinda. He now granted compensation to his son Raj Kaul in the form of land grant on nehr, Canal, at Andha Mughal (near old Subzi Mandi), a suburb of Delhi. As a camouflage, he straightaway dropped Kaul from his name and added the surname Nehru, from the Jagir on nehr in Andha Mughal, Delhi.2
In view of the rise of the Sikhs as a militant force in north western India, the Mughal administration pursued a policy of tolerance towards the Hindus and their places of worship. The upper caste Hindus emerged as the greatest beneficiaries of the Mughal-Sikh conflict, and rather developed a vested interest in it both for keeping their positions and carrying on their war against Sikhism.
Precisely, the Brahmin delegation at Anandpur Sahib in May 1675 had two types of people.3 While the leader and a handful of others were oriented towards the Sikh movement,4 the bulk of Brahmins were firmly rooted in varnashramdharma, inbuilt caste inequalities. The first question that arose was, should the latter type of Brahmins compromise their faith by taking food in Guru’s langar, community kitchen? Guru Tegh Bahadur rose above narrow considerations, and appointed the Brahmin’s helper Ganga Ram Kaul alias Gangu Brahmin to his household to cater to the Brahmin’s food and other reqirements.5
The Sikhs were always on lookout for Gangu Brahmin’s descendents during their incursions in Delhi, but were not successful because of their change in their caste nomenclature. S. Baghel Singh under leadership of S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, overall in charge of 11 missions, seized Red Fort in 1783. On S. Baghel Singh’s instructions, Shah Alam II issued a proclamation that all Jagirdars should produce their sanads, failing which their jagirs would be confiscated. The descendents of Raj Kaul disappeared. They lost their jagir at Andha Mughal.6 That was the real cause of their enmity towards the Sikhs. Motilal Nehru sought to justify the action of Ganga Ram Kaul, as, in his views, Guru Gobind Singh’s creation of the Khalsa constituted a direct threat to Brahminism. Subsequently, an ancestor of Motilal Nehru during 1857 was working as a Piada at Delhi Kotwali. Motilal Nehru rose to be a Pleader, but earned a lot of money from Khetri Estate which was decided at Privy Counsel.7 Jawaharlal Nehru being a dutiful son and a conscientious Brahmin fell in line, and there was perceptible change in his attitude towards the Sikhs.8 Another evil influence was that of K. M. Panikkar, another Kashmiri Brahmin, looking after Congress, established Akali Sahaik Bureau.
Jawaharlal Nehru in 1920’s was leaning towards the extremists who had a lot of interaction with him. Bharat Naujawan Sabha, Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (to which belonged Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru) and others, extremists and revolutionaries monitored his activities.9 M.K. Gandhi who had withdrawn Non-Cooperation Movement, because of what he termed a “Himalayan Miscalculation”, following Chauri Chaura incident on Feb 5, 1922, was all the more piqued at Akali’s running a Non-Violent Movement drawing encomiums all around, whereas his movement had ended in a fiasco. Motilal Nehru was aware that firstly, Gandhi had developed mental reservations on Nankana Sahib massacre, February 20, 1921, and, secondly, he thought that it will be more appropriate to bring Jawaharlal Nehru under Gandhi’s patronage. Motilal Nehru had poor opinion on Jawaharlal Nehru as a Lawyer; and, as a Lecturer in a College he would get a pittance. Gandhi’s continued patronage could bring him laurels. He wanted to hold back Jawaharlal from anti-imperialist struggle, through the agency of M.K. Gandhi. Motilal brought in M K Gandhi who served as a surrogate patron for Jawaharlal Nehru. It yielded rich dividends . Motilal Nehru apart from his son Jawaharlal, had half a dozen daughters. For instance, Vijayalaxmi Pandit wanted to marry a Muslim. Gandhi advised her to talk to the boy to agree to became a Hindu instead . The Muslim boy refused to convert himself for marrying a Hindu. Gandhi persuaded her that if he was not willing to convert himself to a Hindu, why should he persuade her to become a Muslim? The proposal failed. But Jawaharlal’s daughter, Indira, without consulting family members converted herself to a Bohra-Muslim as Mamoona Begam, and married Feroze Khan. Gandhi could not do anything but to persuade Feroze Khan to accept his caste as Gandhi. So, instead of Feroze Khan he became Feroze Gandhi.10 After her first son Rajiv Gandhi, she came back to her father when she had another son. These were the dividends of M.K. Gandhi’s interferences in the Nehru family. Gandhi became more or less a part of Nehru family. Jawaharlal became a beneficiary. Gandhi had lost his objectivity at the cost of Sardar Patel who had a big control over the Congress Party.
Appointment of Simon Commission in Nov 1927 brought in Motilal Nehru Report in context of the Hindu-Muslim problem (Lucknow pact) and the Sikhs sulking, when Motilal Nehru reversed his viewpoint and made a cryptic statement that, “He wished he could blow the Punjab out of the map of India.” What he wanted was not that he wanted to blast Hindus and Muslims out of Punjab, but the Sikhs who constituted an inconvenient third party that did not fit into all India pattern. He must have been seized of the spirit of his ancestor Ganga Ram Kaul alias Gangu Brahmin.
Following the Gandhi-Irwin pact and his subsequent release, Gandhi visited Gurdwara Sis Ganj, Delhi, on February 26, 1931, to offer his sympathies to the Sikhs at the firing incident on May 6 last, which he said he had studied with painful interest. Gandhi was not unaware of the general feelings among the Sikhs of the fraudulent character of Congress leadership and the policies they were pursuing towards them, and said, “Truth and non-violence have no room for fraud or falsehood… In physical warfare even chicanery and fraud have a place but non-violence precludes the use of all other weapons except that of truth and justice.” Moreover the Sikhs are a brave people; they would know how to safeguard their rights by the exercise of arms if it should ever come to that. Gandhi did not tell the Sikhs at the time that when they seek to safeguard their rights by the exercise of arms, they shall be facing the armed might of the state and in Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress President’s words, “superior arms will prevail”11 to save it from the doom of which he spoke. Anyhow, the deemed apostle of non-violence Gandhi’s authorization to Sikhs to resort to arms to safeguard their interests, was of dubious character.
Master Tara Singh accompanied by Giani Kartar Singh and Harnam Singh met the British delegation on April 5, 1946, while Baldev Singh met the Mission separately the same day. Their testimony showed that they had not done their home work, were a confused lot and were working at cross purposes with one another. It also reflected lack of centralized leadership and a settled command structure. Baldev Singh, a Minister in Punjab, who was interviewed separately was also for a United India with reduced representation for the Muslims and weightage for the Sikhs. He, however, wanted the formation of a Sikh state in case Pakistan was conceded. Sir Stafford Cripps moving his stick over the map from Panipat to Nankana Sahib including Sikh states asked him whether they should provide that to whomsoever that area goes, no constitution covering the area be framed unless that was acceptable to the Sikhs. Baldev Singh said they wanted Sikh rule upto Jhelam and would not be satisfied with that area. Giani Kartar Singh beat his forehead thrice when told of Baldev Singh’s moronic reply, but the Sikh leadership did nothing to pick up the proposal.12 In the words of Dr Gopal Singh, “It is a pity that such an offer (the best in the circumstances which the Sikhs later took 20 years to fight for) was rejected out of hand without even discussing its possibilities or making it a basis for further elaborations and discussions.”13
The Cabinet Mission especially Sir Stafford Cripps, who earlier in 1942 had also thrown a lot of suggestions at them, must have been amazed at the unintelligent, rather crazy, Sikh leaders – all four of them speaking at a tangent, oblivious of the times ahead. Cripps especially was driving them towards seeking an autonomous district or a Sikh State from Panipat to about Nankana/Ravi on the Soviet model, and it was only the craziness of Sikh leadership that they could not pick up the hints or think in those terms. Had they studied the Soviet model, they could have asked for an autonomous unit with membership of the United Nations on the pattern of three of the Soviet Republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estoria getting it. The SGPC (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) could have served as the fulcrum of the Sikh nation. The British, not unnaturally, ruled them out as serious partners or worthy of confidence because of their pedestrian leadership. They were told very very clearly in 1946 by C. Rajagopalachari that they must get iron clad guarantees when the British were still there, otherwise the Congress leaders won’t give them anything. The Intelligence Bureau in its note of June 14, 1946, attributed the failure of the Sikhs to come together to perennial jealousies amongst their leaders.14
The same day when the Sikh leaders were fumbling before the Cabinet Mission, Jawaharlal Nehru at a Press Conference in Delhi, April 5, 1946, stated, ”The brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special considerations. I see nothing wrong, in an area and a set up in the North wherein the Sikhs can experience the glow of freedom.” Nehru, a wily politician, was speaking in a certain context and did not necessarily mean what he was saying. His real feelings towards the Sikhs were reflected when he said that Master Tara Singh had the unique distinction of sitting on about 15 stools and that he (Tara Singh) was free to align with the Muslim League, if he so liked. Nehru, like a spoilt child that he was, indulged in a lot of bravado and indiscrete talk.15 In 1949’s, when Tara Singh spoke through Giani Kartar Singh to Nehru about April 5, 1946, Press Statement, he mentioned that this was part of his chicanery.
1. For text of Nabha Orders, see Punjab Past & Present (PP&P), Vol VIII April 1974, pp. 200-01. Jawaharlal Nehru, Autobiography, (1936), (Delhi 1980 reprint), p. 114.
2. Cf. Note on family history recorded at last part of his life by Bansi Dhar Nehru (1848-1913), once a Sub-Judge, First Grade, in U.P. Jawaharlal Nehru later improved upon it when he recorded that family gradually got the surname Nehru after being known as Kaul-Nehrus, which was not the case. Despite Bansi Dhar Nehru’s written note, Jawaharlal Nehru starts his Autobiography 1936 (Delhi 1980, reprint p. 1) on a note of untruth when he writes that Farrukhsiyar in 1716 brought his ancestor Raj Kaul, allegedly a great scholar in Sanskrit and Persian from Kashmir and made him the land grant at Andha Mughal, a Delhi suburb. All historians agree that Farrukhsiyar never visited Kashmir. M J Akbar, Jawaharlal Nehru, A Biography (Delhi 1984), p. 5. See also B.K. Nehru, Nice Guys Finish Second, (Delhi 1991), pp. 5-8, on origin of Nehrus.
3. Guru Tegh Bahadur’s receiving in May 1675 a delegation of Kashmiri Brahmins, who were feeling the pinch of Aurangzeb’s new religious policy, was considered menacing. a delegation of 17 was led by Pandit Kirpa Ram (Dutt) of Mattan. He was well aware of the potentialities of the Sikh movement to stand up to the Mughal tyranny. According to P.N.K. Bamzai, (History of Kashmir, p. 371) tyrannized by the new Governor, Nawab Iftikhar Khan (1671-75) Kashmir Brahmins got the idea after praying to Lord Shiva at Amarnath Cave Temple in March 1675.
4. Swarup Singh, Guru Kian Sakhian (Piara Singh Padam and Giani Garja Singh, eds ) mentions of his father Aru Ram being a Sikh of Guru of Hari Rai. Kirpa Ram, renamed Kirpa Singh after baptism in 1699, died fighting in the battle of Chamkaur in 1705. There were some others who sacrificed their lives. (After the death of Giani Garja Singh, Piara Singh Padam removed his name and published it under his own name. That is the standard of a Sikh scholar.)
5. P.N.K. Bamzai, Kashmiri historian, in his talks with the author in New Delhi in April 1995 contended that Kasmiri Brahmins were so orthodox till very recently, that they always had a Kashmiri Brahmins as their Cook and would not appoint a Punjabi Brahmin to their household. Later at Paonta, Guru Gobind raised a battalion of Udasis under the leadership of Mahant Kirpal. He permitted them to have their own Langar as they had compunctions at Shikar being served in Guru ka Langar.
6. Chief Commissioner Delhi’s Record Office: Rakab Ganj Gurdwara Papers.
7. He built a palatial residence at Allahabad which became a centre for Gandhi’s rendezvous and others.
8. Nehru to Kitchlu, April 9, 1924, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru Vol II, Pp.152
9. In 1955-56, talks with Sodhi Pindi Das, who was a member of Bharat Naujawan Sabha. He had been arrested three–four times during the British era.
10.Feroze Khan/Gandhi, Mohamad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru had a community in outlook in their eating habits - they were all eaters of Beef and Pork without distinction.
11.Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CW), Vol. 45, p.121.
12. Nicholes Mansergh ed. Transfer of Power, hereinafter referred TP) Vol 7, De 56 pp. 138-41; Sirdar Kapur Singh, Sachi Sakhi, (Jallandhar, 1972) p. 94. He later wrote a pamphlet, The Stupid Sikhs.
13.Gopal Singh, A History of the Sikh People, 1469-1988 (Delhi, 1988) Pp.704.
14.Christened Effenberg, The Political Status of Sikhs during the Indian National Movement, 1935-47, (Delhi, 1989) p. 163
15.For official version, see Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, (Delhi, 1972), Vol. 15., Pp. 120-25.
II
Gandhi was not inaccessible to the British, for he was not against British imperialism as such. Gandhi did not condemn British imperialism in South Africa. He not only sided with the British during the Boar War, but also during his over two decades of stay in South Africa did not utter a single word or write a single line for the sufferings of the black people. To him Black Africa simply did not exist. He only protested against humiliation perpetrated on his own people.
Gandhi in his craving was one with Lala Hardayal, who, earlier as Secretary of Ghadr Party, had pushed the Sikhs in Western America – mainly British Columbia (Canada) and California (USA) - back to India, openly indulged in ushering a revolution during First World War. Earlier, it had been a big and spontaneous immigration of the Sikhs from India starting 1904 onwards. 85 per cent were the Sikhs, mainly Jats. Under impact of Singh Sabha, a Khalsa Dewan in 1907 at Vancouver (Canada), and under the influence of (Sant) Teja Singh M.A., and Raghbir Singh, a Pacific Coast Khalsa Dewan in California and a Gurdwara in 1912 at Stockton. Lala Hardayal, a powerful editor of Ghadr (Revolt/Mutiny) wangled through them to their sure destruction for liquidation.1 They had no knowledge how a revolution can be launched. They returned by Kama Gata Maru starting from Vancouver and became sitting ducks. Several of them were hanged, transported for life (Kalepani), or otherwise sent to jail, and confined to their Villages.
Hardayal, a clever bania, sought amnesty from USA and lived there sheepishly, without any political aspirations. He cared too hoots for Indian independence. His objective was to stamp out feelings amongst the Sikhs of having once been the rulers of Punjab: he wanted them to be one with the Hindus. Gandhism in Punjab meant principally that.
The discernible British administrators, aware of Gandhi’s support to the British during the Boar War, serving as a recruiting sergeant during the First World War, (when Home Rule Movement was at its peak) for which he was awarded Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, and his propensity to contain revolutionary terrorism and otherwise localize the impact of various movements, lionized Gandhi and never posed a serious challenge to his prestige and leadership in India. They rather helped to build him up. Gandhi’s leadership of the national movement permitted the British to canalize it to the channels they wanted it to progress, and the end-results were not disappointing to them.
Shortly afterwards, the situation in the Punjab exploded because of the agitation against Rowlatt Bills, and the call for Satyagraha by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. It led to the perpetration of the involuntary Sikh congregation from Durbar Sahib, next to Jallianwala Bagh massacre on Baisakhi, April 13, 1919, when troops under Gen Dyer opened fire killing 379 and wounding over 2000 unarmed persons. Then followed repression. When Rabinder Nath Tagore renounced his Knighthood, M.K. Gandhi did not renounce his Kaisar-i-Hind Medal for obvious reasons. In retrospect, it was a contrived incident, with Hans Raj, in collaboration with the Administration, convening a public meeting, and collecting the people over there. When General Dyer arrived with the troops, he was seen talking to the C.I.D people, and escaped before the firing started. M.K. Gandhi, when looking into Jallianwala massacre, came across Hans Raj’s dubious role, but chose to put a veil over it, to not to expose a Hindu as the main character in this sordid affair.2 Sikhs should have applied their mind to the goings on.
A government assessment conceded that, “In so far as the aims of the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee are purely religious, there is now little doubt that it represents the general body of up-to-date Sikh opinion.” The government announced on January 12, 1922, its decision to finally withdraw from the management of the Darbar Sahib and leave the administration in the hands of the Sikh community, or SGPC, and allow the Keys to be given over at once.3 Even a government study in February 1922 conceded that the contention of the SGPC that Akali movement was religious and non-political “cannot be lightly dismissed.”
It was time now for the SGPC and the Akali leadership to sit down and do cool thinking, and not only reiterate the purely religious nature of the Gurdwara Reform Movement, but also to come out of Gandhi’s snare of mixing politics with religion. And, there was an opportunity knocking at the door in the form of the projected visit of the Prince of Wales in the last week of February to Khalsa College, Amritsar: he was willing to announce the raising of its status to that of a Sikh University, a la Aligarh Muslim University and Benaras Hindu University, promoting studies and research in Sikh history, religion and philosophy.4 Then, there was availability of a fair solution of Gurdwara Reform Movement. The whole community was united. There was no need for Jaito Morcha or abdication of Maharaja of Nabha. And, there was an impending Hindu-Muslim riot in NWFP (North Western Frontier Province) and Punjab in which the Sikhs played a balancing role and brought about a rapprochement. Now there was all round failure. Their fight was not against the British, but Mahants and elitist Hindus of Punjab legislative Council.
Prof. Sahib Singh, Joint Secretary, SGPC, in his instructions issued to Akali Jathas on Mach 19, 1922, warned them of the government’s resolve to crush the Akali movement by force. He advised them to pursue peaceful lines to avoid “fruitless sacrifices” and save “the sacred Gurdwaras and Akali movement from mutilation”.5 One wishes, that this type of wisdom had dawned on the Sikh leadership six weeks earlier.
Gandhi was all the more piqued, firstly, at Akalis running a perfectly non-violent movement drawing encomiums all around whereas his movement had ended in a fiasco; secondly, at Hindu-Muslim riots extinguishing whatever good was left of his Non-Violent Non-Cooperation Movement; and, thirdly, Gandhi’s losing the decency for a minority community and talk of non-existent Sikh Raj. This only showed his being the worst enemy. The Sikhs never understood it.
At the time of culmination of Gurdwara Reform Movement in 1925, the Tat Khalsa dictated the bill adoped by the Punjab Assembly, excluding Sahajdhari, Udasis and Nirmalas, who by their own admission were Hindus, or who constituted the kernel of Hindu view point of Sikhism. Hailey introduced elections to the SGPC set up – not followed in Churches, Hindu Mandirs or Muslim Mosques, etc. – causing disruption to religious (dharmak) orientation of the Sikh Gurdwaras, which needed higher level of specification, pre-eminence and detached individuals. Besides, it caused schism in the solid Sikh community, to the glee of the enemy forces, including Gandhi and others. Soon elections emerged as the main factor and it soon overwhelmed the Gurdwara set up.6
There were certain issues that needed immediate attention, by the Party that came into power in 1925 or the other which came into power in 1926. One, Khalsa began to recite the couplet, “Raj Karega Khalsa“, (Khalsa shall rule), in the congregations from 1810 as part of their litany.7 This was part of Darbar Sahib till 1849, and this needed to be installed immediately after 1925. And, two, introduction of Bhatt-Swayyas before Prakash, ceremonial opening, of Guru Granth Sahib. It was thought by the English that Bhatts, were the only submissive/slavish class which was vociferous in welcoming the Engligh rule vis-à-vis Muslims in Hindustan and Sikhs in Punjab. To them the Bhatt-swayyas exemplifying the importance of a radiance in presentation vis-à-vis other contributers to Guru Granth Sahib including the Ode of Succession which need to have the primacy in place, recited by Satta and Balwand in Rag Ramkali.(SGS, Pp 966– 68), consisting of 8 paras, one para to be recited each day, presents a befitting presentation - apart from other contributions by Bhai Gurdas (this is to exclude Bhai Gurdas II who was an infiltrator and started distortion/subversion of Sikh semantics), and compositions of Bhai Nandlal which, interalia, are the only ones available from Seventh to Tenth Guru.
First major damage followed in the innocuous decision by SGPC in March 1927 to explore firstly, Sikh teachings, traditions, history and practice and secondly, chose to prepare a draft of code of Sikh conduct and convention. This second part was trickiest issue and it was essential to strictly stick to the practices followed in the Guru Gobind Singh period. What you gained by the Gurdwara Act 1925, was now being washed out in the second part. Guru Gobind Singh on Baisakhi, March 29, 1699, followed strictly conformed Japji while administering Amrit, and the entire 18th century mentioned only of Anand Sahib which is reciting customarily in end of bhog ceremony, but now some of the non-conformers brought in Jap Sahib, Swayyas and Chaupai as three banis, hymns, (falsely attributed to Guru Gobind Singh) to be the five banis to be recited for Amrit ceremony. One of the followers of the strictest test of Tat Khalsa spirit, was eventually thrown out in 1932 and the Sikh Code of Conduct was eventually adopted in 1944. The Khalsa stuck to Japji right from 1521 with sprinkling sometime of Anand Sahib : there were Udasis and Nirmalas who followed through the English since 19th Century and had their own objectives. In 1st Century after 1707, there was no compilation of Dasam Granth.
Not an iota of the so-called Dasam Granth contains a composition of Guru Gobind Singh.8 Akal Takht in 1973 ordained a Hukamnamah that Charitro Pakhian (describing sexual exploits, a creation of Vam Margis, who excelled in it), was not a bani of Guru Gobind Singh, but a translation of old Hindu mythological stories, and holding it otherwise was incorrect. Giani Sant Singh Maskeen, a Nirmala, has been performing Katha from Guru Granth Sahib, and never ever has uttered a word about Dasam Granth much less about Charitro Pakhian. It has been only since February 2016, a couple of times, an exponent from Udasis, has uttered in Gurdwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi, amidst Katha an exposition of Charito Pakhian falsely associating the name of Guru Gobind Singh with the fictitious stories. A member of BJP/RSS is General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) and the Party has otherwise close collaboration with Badal Akali Dal which is in power both in DSGMC and SGPC. They have already installed a Board in bhagwa colour in the name of Guru Hari Krishan over the Gurdwara, making him a follower of some Yogis/ Panda, but not of Guru Nanak. So was the case with other Gurdwaras. Guru Nanak said, “Neither dirty, nor dull, nor ochre, nor any other false colour; Nanak perfectly red is of the true colour of him who is imbued with the true Lord.” (Na meila na dhundhla na bhagwa na kach/ Nanak Lalo Lal hai, sache rta sache)8. The other colours are Black, Blue and Basanti/yellow/kesri.
1. Only 1100 Sikhs were left in North America.
2. V.N. Datta The Jallianwala Massacre, (Delhi, 2000), pp. 10-13.
3. M.K. Gandhi’s telegram to Kharak Singh read, “First battle for India’s freedom won. Congratulations”. Gandhi’s gesture was fraudulent in character, loaded and futile.
4. Kapur Singh, Sachi Sakhi, Jalandhar, 1972). p.51.
5. Ibid, P. 149.
6. Sardar Narain Singh, Gurdwara Parbandh Sudhar SGPC Amritsar pp. 94-95.
7. Attributed to Guru Gobind Singh, the couplet forms part of Bhai Nand Lal’s Tankhah Nama (Code of Conduct) for a member of the Khalsa.
The full couplet reads, “Khalsa shall rule, and no one will challenge their authority. Humiliated in defeat , all will join their ranks and he alone will be saved who seeks their refuge.” Cf. Ganda Singh, “How the Sikh Raj Came About”, Punjab Past and Present (hereinafter PP&P) Vol. XV, October 1981, p. 433.
8. Guru Granth Sahib, in Rag Maru, p. 1089.
III
I have already mentioned of M.K. Gandhi being an agent of the British. During Civil Disobedience Movement, (1930-32), he told the Viceroy, the objective was to contain the violence of revolutionaries. Gandhi in return torpedoed the Communal Award (with 33.5 per cent Muslims, 20 per cent Dalits, untouchables and a host of others). He also resorted to “fast unto death”, 1936, to have untouchables classified as Hindus with inbuilt inequalities, this was his great achievement. Mayawati of Bahujan Samaj Party, on the basis of her reading of Ambedkar papers, was not wrong when she in 1994 termed Gandhi as a great enemy of Dalits. Dalits sometimes desecrated his Samadhi, with execreta and other objects.1 Gandhi ensured that depressed classes remain depressed for all times to come as per Hindu Shastras. Quit