Early Sikh Historiography

This article was downloaded by: [117.199.84.
125]
On: 10 December 2011, At: 22:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Sikh Formations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsfo20
EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY

a
Hardip Singh Syan
a
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of
London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London, WCIH OXG,
UK E-mail: [email protected]
Available online: 22 Aug 2011
To cite this article: Hardip Singh Syan (2011): EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY, Sikh Formations, 7:2,
145-160
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17448727.2011.593297
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Sikh Formations, Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2011, pp. 145–160
Hardip Singh Syan
EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY

The Issue of ‘Doxa’
In this paper I explore how ‘doxa’ has influenced the historical study of medieval and early
modern Sikhism. In particular the paper focuses on the reign of Guru Hargobind and his
intellectual contest with his cousin and spiritual rival, Miharvan. The contest between
Downloaded by [117.199.84.125] at 22:24 10 December 2011
Hargobind and Miharvan demonstrates how medieval Sikh society was not conveniently
divided into ‘orthodox’ and ‘unorthodox’ sections. Rather, the Sikh community was
influenced by a variety of socio-economic, political and intellectual factors that affected
the way in which the community thought about Sikhism. Moreover, the paper examines
how dialogical readings of primary sources can enable scholars to develop a more
dynamic historical understanding of early Sikhism.
The formative centuries (1469 – 1708 CE, i.e. the Sikh gurus period) of Sikhism remain
significant in shaping the identities of contemporary Sikh communities. Every individual
Sikh and every congregation of believers has a vision of nascent Sikh society and an
interpretation on what the gurus taught. Irrespective of the historical accuracy of
these views, those visions of the past play an influential role in justifying contemporary
Sikh beliefs. For example, Sikh groups which hope for Khalistan might draw inspiration
from Guru Gobind Singh’s wars against the Mughal Empire, while other Sikh groups
which aim for tolerance might draw inspiration from Guru Gobind Singh’s calls for
human equality.1
Historical studies have also given considerable time to this era: analysing the genesis
and evolution of the community. Nevertheless, historical studies essentially argue the
early Sikh movement developed from ‘peace’ to ‘militancy’. By this I mean that
typical historical narratives of early Sikhism note a distinction between Guru Nanak’s
supposed ‘peaceful’ religion and Guru Hargobind’s ‘militant’ religion. This transition
is seen as philosophically and socially significant because the thought of the Sikh gurus
was altered due to changing social conditions in the Mughal Empire. However, historians
have causally described this transition as being clear-cut; historians have not contextua-
lised the concept of ‘religious violence’ in the medieval South Asian context. Rather
they have accepted Enlightenment binaries of ‘peace’ and ‘violence’ which do not
reflect the intellectual and cultural milieu of medieval India.2
Besides the issue of contextualising religious violence in early Sikh thought, there is
the issue of the historical factors which drove this theological change. The major factor
often ascribed to the growth of Sikh ‘militancy’ in the seventeenth century is related to
ISSN 1744-8727 (print)/ISSN 1744-8735 (online)/11/020145-16
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17448727.2011.593297
146 SIKH FORMATIONS
the apparent change in the religious beliefs of the Mughal Emperors. As the Emperors
grew more ‘narrow’ in their Islamic beliefs, that intolerant stance permeated across the
Empire creating an intolerable milieu. While this nationalist understanding of Mughal
India has been questioned by post-colonial Mughal scholars, in Sikh studies scholars
have failed to embed the community within alternative Mughal narratives.3 While
leading scholars such as J.S. Grewal have made significant inroads into integrating
Sikh studies with Mughal studies, there has been a general failure to deal with the
key issues which have gripped post-colonial Mughal historians. For instance, Sikh his-
tories do not tend to engage with revisionist approaches to Aurangzeb’s religious pol-
icies; nor do Sikh histories adequately deal with structural versus processual debates
regarding Mughal state formation.4 The implications of these Mughal historical
debates is profound for early Sikh history because if, for example, the Mughal state is
seen as a paper tiger instead of a leviathan, it would question whether early Sikh
society was actually affected by changes to central Mughal religious policy. An exception
to this pattern of Sikh history writing is Chetan Singh’s work on seventeenth-century

Panjab which attempted to embed Sikh society within their socio-economic context
(Singh 1991). At the cornerstone of this failure in Sikh historiography has been an
inability to deal with ‘doxa’. Instead early Sikh history has been composed retrospec-
tively and teleologically which supports the emergence of the modern ‘orthodox’ com-
munity.5 The early community has been depicted as having certain axiomatic beliefs and
none more so than the belief in a ‘correct’ guru lineage.
In this essay I shall attempt to uncover the role of doxa in early Sikh history writing
by exploring an alternative narrative of events following Guru Arjan’s execution in 1606
by the Mughal state. As a result, I hope to make known undervalued primary sources.
Furthermore, I aim to illustrate the importance of studying the ethnographic histories of
Sikh communities and the need to embed early Sikh studies with Mughal studies.
The good, the bad and the ugly: the ‘orthodox’ versus
the ‘unorthodox’
In recent years, as is well known, the study of the Sikh tradition has undergone signifi-
cant transformation and this has mainly been due to the questioning of ‘orthodoxy’
when understanding contemporary and historical Sikhism. This revisionism has
focused on the Singh Sabha movement in colonial India and the gradual emergence of
Singh Sabha hegemony as opposed to other or ‘Sanatan’ Sikh traditions. Despite the
limitations in our knowledge of colonial and post-colonial Sikhism, the fact the Singh
Sabha are no longer considered the ‘orthodox’ voice of the Sikh public has liberated
scholars from the confines of doxa. However, with respect to pre-colonial Sikh
history the rubric of doxa is still liberally applied without any hesitations. For instance,
Janamsakhi literature is often categorised as either ‘orthodox’, ‘heterodox’ or ‘unortho-
dox’. In Surjit Hans’ survey of pre-modern Sikh literature he labels the Adi Sakhi tra-
dition as ‘orthodox’, while the Miharvan and Bala tradition are considered
‘unorthodox’ (Hans 1988, 178 –221). These sentiments have been either explicitly
or implicitly reiterated by other studies on the Janamsakhis, such as McLeod’s seminal
textual history of the various source traditions (McLeod 1980). In reference to the
Miharvan tradition McLeod says ‘their sin plainly was schism, not heresy’ (McLeod
EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY: THE ISSUE OF ‘DOXA’ 147
1980, 34). By this McLeod meant the rejection of Guru Hargobind’s legitimacy by Prithi
Chand and his successors did not result in a rejection of Sikhism, but simply an ideologi-
cal disagreement with Guru Hargobind on the fundamentals of Sikhism – but it seems
unjustified to label the Miharvan Janamsakhi as schismatic or heretical. Of course for any
Sikh to disagree with the guru is impossible because the Sikh can only exist in agreement
with the guru; but this depends upon who the Sikh recognises as the guru. And it is here
where we can see the pervasive presence of doxa in early Sikh history writing because we
deem certain Sikh traditions as ‘orthodox’ and others ‘schismatic’. The ‘orthodox’ tra-
dition is grounded upon a guru lineage from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, but
those groups which attacked this tradition, such as the Minas and Hindalis, are
deemed ‘unorthodox’. Those Sikh groups which modify the ‘orthodox’ guru lineage
are often seen as ‘heterodox’ Sikhs, for example, in Sulakhan Singh’s study of the
Udasis he labels them as ‘heterodox’ precisely because they believe in ‘other’ gurus,
such as Baba Sri Chand, alongside the ‘real’ gurus (Singh 1999).6 These prejudices
have hidden important historical narratives and cardinal Sikh sources. While the
works of Bhai Gurdas have been analysed with devotion because he is considered an
‘orthodox’ Sikh intellectual, his rival intellectuals such as Miharvan and Harji have
been neglected since they are seen as ‘unorthodox’ Sikh intellectuals.7
The early history of the Mina tradition lucidly reveals the complexities of doxa in
early Sikh history writing. First of all, it is somewhat peculiar that scholars still name
the group as the Minas.8 This is because the term ‘Mina’ is wholly derogatory and
was designed to offend Sikhs which followed Prithi Chand instead of Guru Hargobind.
The term Mina was employed by Bhai Gurdas to refer to Prithi Chand and seems to
mean a bullish, egoistical and ignorant person (Gurdas 2005, 425). Since the Mina tra-
dition no longer exists in the guise of its early community, it is possible to ignore the
offensiveness of the term. But the causal labelling of this early Sikh tradition as Mina
reveals the inherent bias towards an ‘orthodox’ guru lineage. In almost every early
Sikh history and introductory guide into Sikhism it presents the belief in 10 Sikh
gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh as an immutable fact. Yet historically
the validity of their claims to guruship was not always clear; rival gurus had alternative
communities and importantly the Sikh literati, and gradually the community, could
discuss the validity of these claims within their own social groups. The significance of
Sikh groups being able to fathom and discourse Sikhism alters our historical narratives
of early Sikhism. Instead of having an image of a homogenous righteous community
fighting against ‘unorthodox’ groups which foolishly believed in ‘dissident’ ideas, we
gain an image of a heterogeneous community divided along social and intellectual
lines. This enables us to examine the influence of social structures and intellectual
ideas on our historical agents. As a result, this allows us to move away from seeing
early Sikh history as a teleological development from ‘peace’ to ‘militancy’, rather
we will be able to see the development of early Sikhism within the social and intellectual
milieu of Mughal India.
The genesis of the Mina tradition (hereafter known as the Miharvan tradition) marks
a major turning point in the evolution of the community.9 Usually this moment is dis-
regarded by historical studies because the Miharvan tradition is seen as ‘schismatic’ and,
hence, their claims unworthy for serious scrutiny.10 But the emergence of this tradition
in direct competition with Guru Hargobind demonstrates how the early Sikh
148 SIKH FORMATIONS
community could have developed in two opposing directions; and how the Sikh literati
and community engaged with Guru Hargobind’s ‘militant’ reforms.
In the contemporary historiography the origins of the Miharvan tradition have been
demonised and marginalised because they reject Guru Hargobind’s authority following
Guru Arjan’s demise.11 The Miharvan Sikhs disputed Guru Hargobind’s succession by
arguing his uncle and Guru Arjan’s eldest brother, Prithi Chand, was the rightful
guru. This fissure resulted in the making of two Sikh communities which came from
the same family and shared, up to that point, an identical guru genealogy.12 Moreover,
the rival camps resided and mainly functioned in the Panjab region. However, to the best
of my knowledge, no historical narrative has ever questioned the spiritual authority of
Guru Hargobind over the community and has never adequately considered the views of
the Miharvan Sikhs. All historical narratives have been written with the opinion that
Guru Hargobind was the ‘rightful’ guru and the Miharvan Sikhs, along with other ‘dis-
sident’ groups, were pretenders to the throne – the Miharvan Sikhs were too ignorant
to realise their insolence. But such a retrospective rendition of events undermines the
social and intellectual factors which contributed to Guru Hargobind’s popularity
against the Miharvan tradition. Guru Hargobind does emerge as the most popular
Sikh guru in the early seventeenth century; his popularity was not only based on char-
isma, but because his ideas had far greater social appeal compared to his rival gurus. If
we no longer show Guru Hargobind’s triumph as inevitable because he was the ‘ortho-
dox’ guru, we are then able to see a dynamic process of dialogue between the Sikh lit-
erati and community over which guru was legitimate. As a result, we are able to show
how the Guru Hargobind and Miharvan traditions contested over Sikhism, rather than
giving precedence to a specific school of Sikhism.
In the following section I shall discuss the contest over guruship between Guru
Hargobind and Guru Miharvan. This rivalry cannot be characterised as a contest
between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘unorthodoxy’, instead it was a contest over the role of ‘mili-
tancy’ in Sikh doctrines. This competition was not a recondite debate confined to the
literati: these debates profoundly altered the social appeal of the respective guru
lineages.
Guru Hargobind versus Guru Miharvan (1615 –1640 CE)
After Guru Arjan’s execution in 1606 the Sikh community was at a critical crossroads:
what direction would the community now take? In those uncertain times two rival clai-
mants to the guruship appeared. On the one hand, Arjan’s nine-year-old son, Guru Har-
gobind, was declared as the new guru in Amritsar. On the other hand, Arjan’s elder
brother, Prithi Chand (known by his followers as Sahib Guru), also declared himself
the new guru. Due to the fact Guru Hargobind was supported by Guru Arjan’s main
votaries such as Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Budha, it is fair to suggest he was the most
popular candidate. But for the community this must have been a perplexing develop-
ment because both gurus shared identical family roots. To exacerbate matters, Guru
Hargobind boldly introduced unprecedented ‘militant’ reforms which altered the
appearance and function of his community. It is neither the time nor place to speculate
the precise reasons why Guru Hargobind chose to militarise his own image and a section
of his community. But undoubtedly for the community this was a stark change in the
personae of the guru and altered his social and religious appeal. By contrast, Prithi
Chand did not follow suit and remained in guise like previous Sikh gurus; he appeared
more like a saint and unlike a nobleman.
Guru Hargobind immediately implemented his reforms. He cultivated a courtly
civility and engaged in noble pursuits such as hunting and horse riding. His martial activi-
ties and an unpaid fine levied on his father resulted in his imprisonment in Gwalior fort.
It is unclear the exact length of his imprisonment: he was definitely detained in 1611 and
released by at least 1620.13
In comparison, Prithi Chand’s initial years of guruship were uneventful. He simply
seems to continue travelling and preaching in Panjab. In April 1618 he was succeeded by
his son, Manohar Das, better known as Miharvan. Miharvan had been raised in Amritsar
and had been tutored by Guru Arjan and most probably Bhai Gurdas. Miharvan devel-
oped into a luminary amongst medieval Sikh and Panjabi litterateurs and he composed a
vast corpus of literary works on Sikh, Hindu and Islamic traditions (Ahluwalia 1988,
345 – 59). Unlike his father, Miharvan provided his movement with an intellectual pedi-
gree which enabled them to effectively challenge Guru Hargobind’s popularity. Mihar-
van’s abilities as an exegete and devotional musician and his relationship to Guru Arjan
must have given him popular appeal.
It is evident by approximately 1615–1620 a conflict between Guru Hargobind and
Miharvan had emerged. It is certainly the case a rivalry existed by the time Miharvan has
succeeded his father in 1618; and at the latest by 1620 when Guru Hargobind was definitely
released from imprisonment. Entering into the 1620s both cousins were mature and com-
mitted to the overt goal of establishing their spiritual authority over the Sikh community.
This conflict between Guru Hargobind and Miharvan manifested itself in numerous
forms in this period.14 First, in this essay I shall focus on the difference in the appearance
of these rival gurus.
Code of conduct of a guru: lifestyle and appearance
The most tangible difference between Gurus Hargobind and Miharvan concerned their
respective opinions on dress and ways of living. Guru Hargobind had adopted a regal
civility related to Mughal courtly culture, while Miharvan continued to maintain a
saintly civility as cultivated by earlier Sikh gurus. Guru Hargobind not only changed
his own behaviour, he also recruited an army and built forts, these innovations radically
changed the image of the community. Yet these innovations were not met with unfet-
tered affection by his supporters, instead they became a source of discord. The commu-
nity began discussing whether such noble behaviour was befitting for a saint and
importantly Guru Nanak’s successor. The Sikh literati responded to these queries by
articulating their opinions on these ‘militant’ reforms; they either justified or criticised
Guru Hargobind’s measures.
There are two sources which foreground these polemics. The first source is a col-
lection of ballads written by Guru Hargobind’s votary, Bhai Gurdas. Gurdas was the
most famed Sikh intellectual of the era and his works reveal his deep knowledge of
Sikh mysticism, moreover, Gurdas was a keen social commentator. His works often dis-
cussed the people, cultures and structures which made up the worldly illusion. The
second source is by Guru Harji who was Miharvan’s eldest son and spiritual successor.
150 SIKH FORMATIONS
Harji, like his father, was a gifted litterateur and he produced a vast corpus of literary
works, including a biography of Miharvan titled The Discourses of Guru Miharvan (Goshti
Guru Miharvanu) (Harji 1974). Harji was a part of the next generation of savants to intel-
lectualise the position of the Miharvan School to a larger reading-listening public. The
works of Gurdas and Harji were the antithesis of each other regarding the legitimacy of
the guru. This opposition makes their texts significant when read counter to each other.
This cross-referencing of both sources allows us to identify the contrasting intellectual
positions of both traditions.
In a famous ballad Bhai Gurdas reveals the discord which had occurred due to Guru
Hargobind’s reforms. Gurdas informs us of the anxieties being expressed to him by Sikhs
and he also provides his answer to dispel these doubts:
The previous Gurus used to sit in one place;

This Guru [Hargobind] does not sit at all!
In the homes of the previous Gurus Emperors visited;

This Guru was imprisoned in the Emperor’s fort!
The previous Gurus used to make congregations flourish;
This Guru roams the land without fear!
The previous Gurus sat on their beds giving peace of mind;
This Guru has dogs and goes enjoying the hunt!
The previous Gurus wrote, listened, and sung;
This Guru gives no explanations, he doesn’t listen or sing!
This Guru doesn’t give precedence to his votaries;
Instead he gives honour to evildoers and slanderers!
[Gurdas’ reply] The truth within him will never be hidden for long;
The Sikhs like bees adore his lotus feet.
The Guru carries the forbearance of the impatient;
But we do not understand this!
(Gurdas 2005, 417 – 18)
The displeasure expressed by Sikhs must have been widespread otherwise it seems unli-
kely Gurdas would have pondered this issue with such contemplation. It is clear that
existing Sikhs, which had been Sikhs prior to the reforms, were unhappy with these
innovations. They are not only upset about the changes in Guru Hargobind’s behaviour
which has changed the function of the guru; they are upset about the social changes in
the community. Guru Hargobind’s favourable attitude to new Sikhs which have probably
joined the community owing to its militarisation has resulted in existing Sikhs losing
their status in the community. Nevertheless, Gurdas attempts to assure these dis-
gruntled sections of the community by placing emphasis on devotion. Regardless of
whether the Sikh understands the guru’s actions, they must faithfully follow the
guru. For Gurdas the essence of devotion had not changed as a consequence of Guru
Hargobind’s reforms.
By contrast, Harji portrays Miharvan as the epitome of sainthood in his dress and
conduct. Miharvan is shown as Guru Nanak’s perfect successor and he stresses the con-
tinuity in Miharvan’s lifestyle with his predecessors. Harji captures this continuity by
describing Miharvan’s daily activities:
After the pervious Gurus, Guru Miharvan Padshah, sat on the throne of Guruship.
He began earning his devotional wealth (bhagati); and in what a marvellous way did
he begin earning his devotion. . .When the last watch of night arrived, then during
the last hour he meditated with the assistance of a rosary. He caressed the ego that
dwells inside.
Then after this period was over he arose. Then laying down in prostration at the
feet of the Adi Granth for another hour he caressed his rosary. When this was finished
his servants came close with his dishes and were successful. . .Washing his mouth
becoming pure he continued lying down in prostration at the feet of the Adi
Granth with his rosary. Then the congregation of his Sikhs and family members
came close and prostrated at his feet. They came for his sight. . .
Then the entire congregation new and old became delighted in his radiance.
Miharvan asked ‘Brother, are you happy?’ Then all the people replied ‘yes, your
grace is our happiness’. . .Then all heard Sri Miharvan’s explanations and they felt
tranquillity. . .
Then after that he massaged his body with oil and bathed. He then applied the
sacral mark on his forehead. He worshipped the Adi Granth and then did all his
everyday duties. Then he distributed charity. Then for a long period in Yogic pos-
tures he meditated. Throughout the day, day or night, he recited the Japji twenty-
one times. . .
In order to get a glance of the divine many came to see him such as guests, fakirs,
yogis, renunciants, Pandits, detached ones, monks, and so forth. . .
When he sat to perform devotional music, his performance was so imbued with
love that among the listeners not even a drop of compassion was left in them. The
time was such that all those who participated in the performance all their desires
came to fruition. Then all their minds focused upon God. There no burden of illusion
or ego remained. Then after the performance the congregation of Sikhs departed.
(Harji 1974, 179–80)
Harji’s description of Miharvan reveals he looked identical to previous gurus and his court
continued to follow the established routine. Miharvan’s apparel was saintly in guise; on his
forehead he applied the sacral mark; he wrote compositions and he expertly performed
devotional music. He spent his day in meditation, studying the Adi Granth and educating his
flock. This image of Miharvan’s court opposed to Guru Hargobind’s court reveals how
different the gurus appeared. Guru Hargobind was accused by certain elements of Sikh
society that he had abandoned the path of his predecessors. Hargobind was always
roaming; he never entertained the congregation; he hunted and gave friendship to
‘impious’ Sikhs and forgot his votaries. But the Miharvan court was attempting to
appease these clamours of unrest by emphasising their conservative nature: Miharvan
excelled in all the qualities expected from a Sikh guru. This reveals that by the early seven-
teenth century the Sikh community had come to expect a certain code of conduct from a
Sikh guru and failure to maintain those standards could cause protests. Importantly this
sense of expectation was linked to the power and routine of the court. Sikhs had appealed
to Bhai Gurdas to explain why Guru Hargobind gave his favour to ‘bad’ Sikhs. This notion
of gaining the guru’s ‘grace’ (Kirpa) or ‘favour’ (Prasad) would have been a well-established
practice in early seventeenth-century Sikh courts; Sikhs would have yearned to gain the
guru’s grace in the court. In turn the guru would judiciously bestow his favour on the
152 SIKH FORMATIONS
worthy and shun the unworthy. And while, for some, Guru Hargobind stopped this
expected court mechanism of service (Sewa) and grace (Kirpa), Miharvan wanted to
show he continued this process.15 It seems both courts were attempting to convince
the community they had the ‘true’ court.
By viewing this conflict between Guru Hargobind and Miharvan as simply a conflict
between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘unorthodoxy’ we are unable to see the historical reality. The
division between Hargobind and Miharvan was due to their positions on Sikhism. For the
community which had been in service of previous gurus this change in Guru Hargobind’s
Sikhism altered the existing appeal of Sikhism. For many other social groups Hargobind’s
reforms proved more appealing, yet many Sikhs also found Miharvan’s conservatism
appealing. It is possible to delve further into philosophic divides, however, for this
essay, it is enough to show the Sikh community were not debating issues of doxa;
they were debating about the utility of Sikhism in their everyday lives.16
Nonetheless, appearance and conduct alone do not fully illustrate the different social
appeals of Guru Hargobind and Miharvan respectively. Moreover, it is important to contex-

tualise the role and influence of the Mughal state on these guru lineages and their supporters.
The social appeal of Sikhism in early seventeenth century

Mughal Panjab
The Dabistan-i Mazahib offers significant insights into early and mid-seventeenth century
Sikh society. While the authorship of the text remains unclear, the alleged author,
Mobad, claimed to have met and conversed with Guru Hargobind and Guru Har Rai.
In addition, he visited Amritsar and met Miharvan’s son and successor, Guru Harji.
Mobad lucidly explained the differences between Hargobind and Miharvan:
After Arjan Mal his brother Pritha, whom his followers call ‘Guru Miharban’ [the
kind Guru] sat in his place; and today, when it is 1055 Hijri [AD 1645 –1646], Guru
Harji is his successor. They call themselves the ‘Bhagats’ or Devotees of God; but
the followers of Guru Hargobind, the son of Arjan Mal, call them ‘Mina’, which
name is regarded as derogatory among them.
After Arjan Mal, Hargobind also made a claim to succession and sat in his father’s
seat. . .He encountered many difficulties. One was [i.e. arose from the fact] that he
adopted the style of soldiers, and, contrary to his father’s practice, girded the
sword, employed servants and took to hunting.
(Grewal and Habib 2004, 67 – 8)
Despite Mobad inaccurately stating that Prithi Chand was called Miharban, he accurately
sums up the tension between Guru Hargobind and Miharvan in the early seventeenth
century. Furthermore, he observes the sharp distinction in dress and mannerisms of
both gurus; Guru Hargobind appeared like a member of the gentry and Miharvan
seemed like a conventional saintly figure.
The Dabistan further notes the changing social composition of the Sikh community.
It identifies the growing influence of the Jat community to the detriment of the Khatris.
Mobad remarks: ‘they have made Khatris subordinate to the Jatts, who are the lowest
caste of the Bais [Vaishyas]. Thus most of the leading masands (commanders/officers) of
the Guru are Jatts, and the Brahmans and Khatris [compose the]. . .disciples and
followers of the Guru’ (Grewal and Habib 2004, 66). This disparity in the social distri-
bution of masands seems to have resulted in hostility.
It needs to be explained why Guru Hargobind had greater social appeal than Mihar-
van. If Sikhs wanted an ‘original’ Sikhism they could have turned to the charismatic
Miharvan. But largely they opted for Guru Hargobind. This can partly be explained
due to the efforts of the Sikh literati; perhaps Guru Hargobind’s supporters did a
better job at proselytising. But from the 1640s onwards the Miharvan tradition con-
trolled Amritsar and thus ran the most sacred temple in the Sikh community.
However, controlling that symbolic centre did not significantly increase their support.
The reason why Guru Hargobind was more appealing was due to his changing social
position in relation to his Sikhs.
Guru Hargobind became gentrified in the early seventeenth century.17 Undoubtedly
Hargobind possessed significant wealth and land. Unlike his predecessors he had inher-
ited considerable assets from Guru Arjan who had an extensive property portfolio. Guru
Arjan owned the rights to Amritsar, Taran Taran, Sri Hargobindpur, and Kartarpur; all
these properties were located in the Lahore Province of the Mughal Empire. Previous
gurus had been unable to claim the property of their predecessor because prior to the
succession of Guru Arjan no son had inherited the seat of guruship from their father.
Instead successions had occurred on a master-student basis: for example, Guru Nanak
appointed his student, Guru Angad, over his two sons. However, inheritance of guruship
did not mean inheritance of property rights over their predecessor’s home/temple or
any assets from their estate. They only gained the rank of guru. The previous guru’s
sons inherited their father’s entire estate. As a result, the succession of a guru often
led to tensions between the chosen guru and their predecessor’s sons. The chosen
guru would leave the headquarters of their master and establish a new base. The Sikh
tradition records that Guru Nanak’s sons felt disgruntled with Guru Angad and
Angad established his base in his hometown of Khadur.18 Guru Angad’s sons felt dis-
gruntled at Guru Amar Das and Guru Amar Das set up his residence in Goindwal.
Guru Ram Das, though Guru Amar Das’ son-in-law, established his base in Ramdaspur
to avoid conflict with his brothers in-law. It was relatively easy for a chosen guru to set
up a new headquarters because they simply returned to their hometowns. Guru Arjan
was the first Sikh guru who inherited his father’s property and it is for this reason he
developed Amritsar and was not forced to leave the region. Nevertheless, Guru
Arjan was the youngest of three sons and had to share his inheritance equally with his
brothers. But Guru Hargobind was Guru Arjan’s sole heir and he inherited his
father’s property and wealth without any complications. Prithi Chand claimed to be
Guru Arjan’s successor but he could not claim any of his estate. Therefore, Guru Har-
gobind inherited a substantial financial base, far greater than the possessions of Prithi
Chand or Miharvan.
Guru Hargobind’s wealth provided him with financial independence which allowed
him to implement his policies. The properties he owned were essentially temple towns
that were lucrative pilgrimage sites. These towns thrived and became commercial
centres with bustling marketplaces (see Larocque 2004). The seventeenth century
saw growing commercialisation and monetisation in Panjab and these temple towns
would have greatly benefited from these developments (see Singh 1991). Moreover,
154 SIKH FORMATIONS
Guru Hargobind would have received donations from Sikhs and regular tribute through
the system of masands. Without this wealth it seems unlikely that Guru Hargobind could
have introduced his initial reforms. Importantly like any gentry lord in this era he was
able to offer service (naukari) and hire a staff. This recruitment drive is best illustrated in
his creation of an army. Guru Hargobind most probably dabbled in the military labour
market and this is shown in his recruitment of peasants and others amenable to military
service. Sikh tradition records one of Guru Hargobind’s most prized warriors and his
training partner as an Afghan named Painda Khan (Macauliffe 1963, 52– 3). Painda
Khan was famed for his great strength and was an orphan whose uncle enrolled him
in service to Guru Hargobind’s retinue. In the Dabistan the author records being com-
panions with a Sikh Khatri merchant who procured horses for Guru Hargobind from
Kabul and Central Asia (Grewal and Habib 2004, 74 –5). It seems Guru Hargobind
was fully attuned to the intricacies of the horse trade and used the trading expertise
of his Khatri followers.19
This process of gentrification experienced by Guru Hargobind must have changed

his image amongst the Sikh community. Guru Hargobind would no longer only be a
spiritual guide; his ability to provide service would have made him a valuable source
of employment. Sikh tradition records that when Guru Hargobind announced his
reforms, soldiers dominated amongst those who came to him seeking service. In particu-
lar the Jat community of central Panjab has been identified as fervent supporters of Guru
Hargobind’s military reforms. McLeod argued that an influx of Jat supporters in this era
fostered the growth of militancy because of ‘Jat cultural patterns’ (McLeod 1974,
12– 13). However, McLeod, and others, never consider the issue of naukari and gentri-
fication in medieval India (ibid.). Without the financial basis to recruit and maintain an
army, militancy in this form could not emerge. The Jat community could not drive mili-
tancy without a patron; the reason why Guru Hargobind became a patron must be due
to gentrification. Besides Jats, other caste groups such as Khatris also joined Guru Har-
gobind’s army. It seems that his army was composed of a diverse mix of caste and ethnic
groups such as Jats, Khatris, Tarkhans, Rajputs, Afghans, and Indian Muslims. Other
professions such as bards and musicians specialising in heroic music were also recruited.
Beyond these martial professions the assembly of soldiers, administrators and service-
men would have profited local merchants and artisans. Guru Hargobind was creating
an important market for supplies and emerging as a source of local financial prosperity.
This might have added to his appeal and his ambitious temporal aims.
In contrast, Miharvan lacked financial independence and actively sought patronage.
Miharvan had inherited little from his father apart from a partial claim to Amritsar and
some property. Also Miharvan did not inherit the masand system and would have lacked
regular revenue from this valuable source. Significantly Miharvan’s search for patronage
and new proselytising areas led him to the Panjabi Hill States. In particular he travelled
to the Rajput principality of Kangra and he stayed there from approximately 1627 to
1630. In later Sikh sources, Miharvan is shown as trying to foster close ties with
wealthy Khatri families such as the notorious Chandu Sah (Singh 1987, 120–21). Regard-
less of the veracity of these claims it is possible to suggest that the Miharvan camp was pur-
posefully attempting to gain Khatri benefactors by pandering to Khatri interests. The main
support base of the Miharvan tradition in central Panjab, where the bulk of Sikh supporters
resided, was largely from Khatri groups. It is possible that Miharvan realised that his ideas
had little appeal to groups seeking social mobility because he could not offer service.
Moreover, Miharvan had a greater need for groups who would give him financial stability.
This arguably led to greater conservatism in Miharvan’s ideas since he did not want to alie-
nate high caste and wealthy groups by advocating social change.
The difference in the financial and support bases of Guru Hargobind and Miharvan
have not been appreciated. Guru Hargobind’s capacity to outmanoeuvre Miharvan was
not only due to the greater appeal of his ideological stance. It is important to pay attention
to his emergence as a gentry squire and his resource base which did not require any exter-
nal patronage. This transformation in Guru Hargobind’s social status gave his Sikh move-
ment an ability to encourage social mobility. In turn socially mobile and lower caste groups
such as the Jats would have seen Guru Hargobind as a natural patron. By contrast, estab-
lished gentry and mercantile groups like the Khatris would have been less interested in
adopting worldly patrons; they wanted spiritual profit as offered by religious courts.
This changing social status of Guru Hargobind can be seen in similar discussions of
social mobility by Kolff on Rajputs, Alam on Awadh’s religious gentry, and Wink’s analysis
of the Marathas (Kolff 1990, 1 – 31; Alam 1986, 92 – 133; Wink 1986, 34 – 155).
The contrast in Guru Hargobind and Miharvan resulted in altering their relationship
with Mughal dispensation. Guru Hargobind had emerged as a potential mansabdari
(imperial officer) candidate and the Dabistan does report he [Hargobind] was in
nominal service of Emperor Shah Jahan (Grewal and Habib 2004, 68). This relationship
between Hargobind and the Mughal administration of Lahore eventually soured. After
several skirmishes between Sikh and Mughal forces, Guru Hargobind decided to migrate
to the Punjabi Hill State of Bilaspur in 1635. He remained in Bilaspur until his demise in
1644. His choice of Bilaspur as his new home was due to its status as a Mughal feudatory.
The region was not beyond Mughal influence, but its inhabitants and resources were of
little value to the imperial court. For the Mughals then, Guru Hargobind’s departure
meant he posed no threat as a zamindari upstart in central Panjab.
Miharvan and his successors, on the other hand, developed stronger ties with
Mughal patronage. The Mughal administrators of Lahore Province would have enquired,
like Mobad had done, if Miharvan Sikhs were the servants of the potentially dangerous
Hargobind. Of course they were bitter enemies and this explains why the Miharvan
Sikhs were not forced to flee from the region and continued to control Amritsar
until the early eighteenth century.20 The Mughal state would remain as an important
source of patronage throughout the seventeenth century for Sikh gurus opposed to
Guru Hargobind’s lineage. While Guru Hargobind’s successors continued to develop
upon their zamindari strength, rival lineages never acquired the same financial strength.
It is unsurprising to find Harji, Dhir Mal and Ram Rai soliciting the Mughal state for
financial aid and military protection (see Syan 2012).21 Indeed, after the creation of
the Khalsa, the Sri Gur Sobha, commented upon the endeavours of Khatri merchants
to cajole the local Mughal administrator to remove Khalsa Sikhs from Delhi’s bazaars
(Sainapati 1996, 99 – 101).
This complex network of relationships between the gurus, Sikhs and Mughals,
underscores the need to integrate Sikh and Mughal studies. Moreover, it demonstrates
why doxa distorts the dynamism of early Sikh history: it is vital we analyse the ethno-
graphic histories of our historical agents, which includes examining caste, kinship,
locality and culture. Guru Hargobind’s gentrification altered the history of early Sikh
society because his relationship with his Sikhs and the Mughal state substantially
changed. By reading Sikh history retrospectively we dismiss the conflict with Miharvan
156 SIKH FORMATIONS
as irrelevant and disregard the opinions of ‘schismatic’ groups. And we ignore how Sikh
society was influenced by wider cultural, intellectual and social processes. But it was
these conflicts and processes which reveal the subtleties of early Sikh history.
In order to go beyond the confines of doxa when analysing Sikh history, medieval
sectarian sources need to be given greater academic scrutiny. Of course this is not to
suggest that sectarian literature should take precedence over non-sectarian sources.
But simply to suggest that by dialogically reading sectarian sources we will be able to
see a more comprehensive vision of early Sikhism.
Medieval Sikh sources
All historians of early Sikh history have at one time or another commented on the
paucity of primary sources. Indeed, there is limited source material, though new
approaches to reading sources will possibly unleash their potential, such as reading
sources dialogically. Given these circumstances it is surprising that important seven-
teenth century Sikh works have been ignored by serious academic study. Again, the
reason why this has occurred is because these Sikh works were produced by ‘unortho-
dox’ thinkers. In particular the blinkers of doxa have hidden the sources of the Miharvan
tradition and scholars have downplayed the intellectual contributions of thinkers such as
Miharvan and Harji to the development of medieval Sikhism.
This essay has only been able to show the contest between Guru Hargobind and
Miharvan by examining the Goshti Guru Miharvanu. This source was written by Guru
Harji and is adamantly opposed to the ‘orthodox’ Sikh tradition and due to this
stance its value is significant in understanding the complexities of early Sikh theology
and society. An overdependence on the works of Bhai Gurdas and the Adi Granth will
only allow us to compose ‘orthodox’ narratives. Those ‘orthodox’ sources must be
examined dialogically in relation to ‘unorthodox’ sources. For example, while Bhai
Gurdas’ works are typically given great reverence in Sikh circles as the key which
unlocks Gurbani (Sikh scripture), Miharvan, another dedicated exegete, is scarcely
given serious attention. But through dialogically reading Gurdas’ ideas alongside Mihar-
van’s ideas we can begin to see an intellectual debate on early Sikh theology. It is
obviously erroneous to believe that these thinkers were writing in isolation from each
other; they would have known each other’s views and actively sought to counter each
other. In similar respects, Deol has suggested the need to examine the differences in
Adi Granth manuscript traditions across South Asia, seeing how the text has been pro-
duced, read, revered and interpreted by different communities (Deol 2001, 34 –58).
The most sensitive textual polemic that has faced modern Sikhism has been the
Dasam Granth’s authenticity. The implications of this debate have serious consequences
for Sikhs and Sikh history because of the text’s relationship to Guru Gobind Singh.
Thus far, the textual history of the Dasam Granth has been examined with the intention
of finding an ‘Ur’ manuscript and, as to be expected, such pursuits have proved fruitless.
Furthermore, inadequate examination of individual compositions and analysis of the
‘performative context’ of the Dasam Granth has hindered our knowledge of the text.
Arguably future research on the Dasam Granth should move away from overt textual con-
cerns to examining the cultural role of the text in historical Sikhism. This pursuit
requires contextualising the text within the literary world of medieval India and
removing the barriers of doxa. This is because the Dasam Granth has been subjected to
strong criticism because of its re-telling of mythic ‘Hindu’ tales and erotic poetry, but
these criticisms have been advanced without considering the intellectual history of med-
ieval Sikhism. Here, again, the Miharvan tradition could help us understand the context
of the Dasam Granth’s production and consumption because Harji produced a similar
work of mythic ‘Hindu’ tales in an anthology titled the Sukhmani Sahasranam (Innumer-
able Names which bring contentment).22 Yet there have been no comparative studies of
both texts and knowledge of the Sukhmani Sahasranam’s existence is rare. However, even
a brief comparative study of the texts reveals they have notable differences. For instance,
Harji’s Ramayana emphasises Ram as a renouncer, while Guru Gobind Singh’s Ramayana
represents Ram as a householder-sovereign.23
By overcoming over inherent prejudices against ‘unorthodox’ Sikhism we can find
numerous primary sources which inform us of the nuances of medieval Sikhism. I have
suggested the value of Miharvan sources in this endeavour to re-conceptualise early Sikh
history writing, but there is probably other source material in this period which is of
tremendous value. Moreover, the sources we presently know of have great potential,
yet there needs to be far more creativity in our reading of these sources. I have suggested
the dialogical reading of sources and, I am sure, other innovative approaches are readily
available to researchers.
Conclusion
The history of early Sikhism has always been written from the ‘orthodox’ angle and this
narrative supports the development of the modern ‘orthodox’ community. As a result,
marginal Sikh groups have been left out in the cold and have been labelled as ‘unortho-
dox’ or ‘heterodox’. This retrospective and teleological analysis of the Sikh past has hin-
dered our understanding of the controversies which gripped the nascent Sikh
community. This reading of the past has represented our historical agents as devoid
of communal identities. Importantly it has denied our agents the capacity to think of
Sikhism. In addition, vital ‘unorthodox’ sources have been underappreciated: those
sources enable us to see a heterogeneous community.
In order to highlight the pervasiveness of doxa in early Sikh history writing I have focused
on the accession of Guru Hargobind. While other incidents in this period could always be
examined such as the social reaction to Guru Gobind Singh’s creation of the Khalsa, I purpo-
sefully chose to examine this episode because of the contrasting sources by Bhai Gurdas and
Harji. In almost every previous narrative in the historiography Guru Hargobind’s rivals are
scarcely given any credit; scholars even persist in using the derogatory term, Mina, to label
them. These prejudices have hidden the appeal of the Miharvan tradition and the contest
between Guru Hargobind and Miharvan. This rivalry has been often described as ‘orthodox’
versus ‘unorthodox’, and so, it was a foregone conclusion that Guru Hargobind would
triumph or at least deserved to triumph over his rival. This vision of the past undercut
the tensions of the community and social appeal of both gurus. I have argued that Guru
Hargobind’s gentrification was a significant development because it expanded his social
appeal. While Miharvan’s lack of wealth encouraged his conservative approach. Yet only
by analysing the wider socio-economic and intellectual processes in the Mughal Empire
can we fully understand why early Sikh society evolved the way it did.
158 SIKH FORMATIONS
Notes
1 For examples of this historical influence on modern Sikh society see: Oberoi 1987;
Pettigrew 1987; McLeod 1992.
2 For further discussion of this issue see Syan (forthcoming 2012).
3 For a comprehensive discussion of colonial and post-colonial Mughal studies see Alam
and Subrahmanyam 2000, 1 –77.
4 For a glance into these debates see: Brown 2007; Subrahmanyam 1992.
5 Orthodoxy is a retrospective term referring to the beliefs and practices of the domi-
nant contemporary community. When I use this term in relation to Sikhism, I refer to
the mainstream Sikh community which emerged in early twentieth-century Panjab.
The emergence of the mainstream Sikh community has resulted in the marginalisation
of ‘unorthodox’ Sikh groups and practices in the historiography.
6 The Udasis are not the only Sikh group which has a modified guru lineage, many other
contemporary groups such as the Namdharis, Radha Swamis, and believers of Sants are
often deemed ‘sectarian’ groups for their alternative lineages. But such an attitude is
principally based on the belief in a strict ‘orthodox’ guru lineage which was largely
enunciated by Singh Sabha intellectuals. Pre-modern, as well as modern, Sikh
groups often had a flexible attitude towards guruship.
7 Despite this ignorance about Miharvan and Harji several of their works have been pub-
lished, for example, see Miharvan 1989; Harji 1974.
8 In every Sikh reference book this tradition of Sikhism is referenced under the name
Mina. For example, see McLeod 1995; Singh 1997.
9 The reason why I have replaced the title Mina with Miharvan is because it is necessary
to remove such prejudicial terms in order to remove the influence of doxa in early
Sikh history. I have chosen Miharvan as the replacement name because Sodhi Miharvan
was their most illustrious leader and ideologue. Also Gurmohan Singh Ahluwalia uses
Miharvan Sampraday to refer to the Minas (Ahluwalia 1988). For a background into
Miharvan’s life and works see Singh 1974.
10 This point was also made by Jeevan Deol (1998).
11 For example, compare and contrast the historical narratives of Grewal (2000) and
McLeod (1974). Both historians give the Miharvan tradition at best a passing reference
when discussing Guru Hargobind’s reign.
12 Both the Hargobind and Miharvan traditions believe in the guruship of Guru Nanak,
Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan. However, after Guru
Arjan they have alternative guru genealogies.
13 For these debates over Guru Hargobind’s detention in Gwalior fort see Gupta 1984,
159 –62.
14 For detailed study into this contest see Syan (forthcoming 2012).
15 For more information on the civility of the court and the roles of patron and servant,
see Ali 2004, 103 – 40.
16 For an in-depth study of these issues in medieval Sikh society see Syan (forthcoming
2012).
17 I made this discovery through observing in my sources how Sikh gurus ascended to the
Sikh throne and how rules of inheritance operated in Panjabi society. The fact that Sikh
gurus always moved from the base of their predecessor immediately after ascending
the throne; and the fact that new Sikh gurus always received hostility from the pre-
decessors’ sons about residing in their hometowns, led me to realise how inheritance
must have worked. As a result, I understood that Guru Hargobind was in a unique
position regarding the inheritance of property. Then I considered the large amount
of property Guru Arjan owned and the wealth these pilgrimage towns must have gen-
erated. Then I considered the lifestyle Guru Hargobind adopted and the reforms he
introduced; thereafter I contextualised these circumstances with other socially
mobile groups in seventeenth century India and thus I believe Guru Hargobind experi-
enced a process of gentrification.
18 Bhai Gurdas discusses these tensions between newly appointed gurus and the sons of
predecessors: see Gurdas 2005, 425.
19 For background in the medieval horse trade see Gommans 2002.
20 For a history of the Miharvan sect in the eighteenth century see Deol 1998.
21 Dhir Mal (d.1677) was Guru Hargobind’s grandson and established his own Sikh
movement. He died in the Mughal fort of Ranthambor and assumedly he was a
Mughal prisoner prior to his death. Ram Rai (d.1687) was the eldest son of Guru
Har Rai and he too established his own guruship. He was given imperial grants for
Chandraval Khera near Delhi and Dehra Dun.
22 Few studies have been done on Harji’s work, but for an exception see Bansal 1988. For
a comprehensive article on Miharvan literature see Ahluwalia 1988.
23 For analysis of these two medieval Sikh Ramayana traditions see Syan (forthcoming 2012).
References
Ahluwalia, Gurmohan Singh. 1988. Miharvan Sampradae di Panjabi Vartak nu Dehn. In Khoj
Patrika, ed. Jaggi Rattan Singh, 345 –59. Patiala: Publication Bureau, Punjabi Univer-
sity, Patiala.
Alam, Muzaffar. 1986. The crisis of empire in Mughal North India. Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Alam, Muzaffar, and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, eds. 2000. The Mughal state 1526 –1750. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Ali, Daud. 2004. Courtly culture and political life in medieval India. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bansal, Krishna Kumari. 1988. Sukhmani Sahasranam Parmarth. In Khoj Patrika, ed. Jaggi.
Rattan Singh, 402 – 10. Patiala: Publication Bureau, Punjabi University.
Brown, Katherine Butler. 2007. Did Aurangzeb ban music? Questions for the historiography
of his reign. Modern Asian Studies 41, no. 1: 77 –120.
Deol, Jeevan. 1998. The Minas and their literature. Journal of the American Oriental Society
118, no. 2: 172 –84.
Deol, Jeevan. 2001. Text and lineage in early Sikh history: issues in the study of the Adi
Granth. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 64, no. 1: 34 – 58.
Gommans, Jos. 2002. Mughal warfare. London: Routledge.
Grewal, J.S. 2000. The Sikhs of the Punjab: revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grewal, J.S., and Irfan Habib, eds. 2004. Sikh history from Persian sources. Lahore: Fiction House.
Gupta, Hari Ram. 1984. History of the Sikhs, vol.1, the Sikh gurus, 1469 –1708. Delhi: Mun-
shiram Manoharlal Publishers.
Gurdas, Bhalla (Bhai Gurdas). 2005 [1911]. Varan Bhai Gurdas, ed. Hazara Singh and Vir
Singh. Delhi: Bhai Vir Singh Sahit Sadan.
160 SIKH FORMATIONS
Hans, Surjit. 1988. A reconstruction of Sikh history from Sikh literature. Jalandhar: ABS
Publications.
Harji, Sodhi. 1974. Goshti Guru Miharivanu, ed. Rajguru. Govindnath. Chandigarh: Panjab
University, Publication Bureau.
Kolff, Dirk. 1990. Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy: the ethnohistory of the military labour market in
Hindustan, 1450 –1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larocque, Brendan P. 2004. Trade, state, and religion in early modern India: devotionalism
and the market economy in the Mughal Empire. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Macauliffe, Max Arthur. 1963. The Sikh religion: its gurus, sacred writings, and authors, vol. 4.
Delhi: S. Chand & Co.
McLeod, W.H. 1974. The evolution of the Sikh community. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
McLeod, W.H. 1980. The early Sikh tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McLeod, W.H. 1992. The Sikh struggle in the eighteenth century and its relevance for
today. History of Religions 31, no. 4: 342 –64.

McLeod, W.H. 1995. Historical dictionary of Sikhism. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Miharvanu, Sodhi. 1989. Adi Ramayana, ed. Shastri Prem Sagar. Patiala: Bhasha Vibag,
Patiala.
Oberoi, Harjot. 1987. From Punjab to ‘Khalistan’: territoriality and metacommentary.
Pacific Affairs 60, no. 1: 26 –41.
Pettigrew, Joyce. 1987. In search of a new kingdom of Lahore. Pacific Affairs 60, no. 1:
1– 25.
Sainapati. 1996. Kavi Sainapati rachit Sri Gur Sobha, ed. Ganda Singh. Patiala: Publication
Bureau, Punjabi University.
Singh, Chetan. 1991. Region and empire: Panjab in the seventeenth century. Delhi: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Singh, Giani Gian. 1987. Panth Prakash. Patiala: Bhasha Vibag.
Singh, Harbans, ed. 1997. The encyclopaedia of Sikhism, vol 4. Patiala: Punjabi University.
Singh, Kirpal. 1974. Manohar Das, Miharban: Jivan ate Rachnava. Patiala: Punjabi University.
Singh, Sulakhan. 1999. Heterodoxy in the Sikh tradition. Jalandhar: ABS Publications.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. 1992. The Mughal state – structure or process? Reflections on
recent Western historiography. Indian Economic and Social History Review 29, no. 3:
291 – 321.
Syan, Hardip Singh. forthcoming 2012. Sikh militancy in the seventeenth century: religious
violence in Mughal and early modern India. London: I.B. Tauris.
Wink, Andre. 1986. Land and sovereignty in India: agrarian society and politics under the
eighteenth-century Maratha Svarajya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardip Singh Syan. Address: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University
of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London, WCIH OXG, UK. [e-mail:
[email protected]]

Early Sikh Historiography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Sikh Historiography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [117.199.84.

EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY

Available online: 22 Aug 2011

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17448727.2011.593297

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Hardip Singh Syan

EARLY SIKH HISTORIOGRAPHY

to this pattern of Sikh history writing is Chetan Singh’s work on seventeenth-century

Guru Hargobind versus Guru Miharvan (1615 –1640 CE)

Code of conduct of a guru: lifestyle and appearance

The previous Gurus used to sit in one place;

In the homes of the previous Gurus Emperors visited;

appeals of Guru Hargobind and Miharvan respectively. Moreover, it is important to contex-

The social appeal of Sikhism in early seventeenth century

This process of gentrification experienced by Guru Hargobind must have changed

Medieval Sikh sources

today. History of Religions 31, no. 4: 342 –64.

You might also like