Guru Nanak Devji
(CHAKRA) Guru Nanak (Saturday 15 April 1469 – Monday 22 September, 1539), the founder of Sikhism and the first of the ten Gurus of the Sikhs, was born in the village of Talwandi.
Also called Rai Bhoe-ki Talwandi, the village now known as Nankana Sahib, is near Lahore in present-day Pakistan. He was born, according to all ancient Sikh records, in the early morning of the third day of the light half of the month of Baisakh (April – May) in the year 1469; this is believed to be Saturday 15 April 1469. However, the Sikhs now celebrate this auspicious event each year on the full moon day in November; consequently, the date in November changes from one year to another.
Before Guru Nanak departed for his heavenly abode in 1539, his name had travelled not only throughout India’s north, south, east and west, but also far beyond into Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Afghanistan, Turkey, Burma and Tibet. As Guru’s Birth Anniversary (also called “Guru Nanak Jayanti”) is lunar linked, it celebrated on the full moon in November. The event was celebrated on 15 November in 2005; 5 November in 2006; 24 November in 2007; 13 November in 2008; and will be celebrated on 2 November 2009, 21 November 2010, 10 November 2011 28 November 2012, 17 November 2013 6 November 2014, 25 November 2015, 14 November 2016, 4 November 2017, 23 November 2018, 12 November 2019 and 30 November 2020.
The name “Nanak” was used by all subsequent Gurus who wrote any sacred text in the Sikh holy scripture called the Guru Granth Sahib. So the second Sikh Guru, Guru Angad is also called the “Second Nanak” or “Nanak II”. It is believed by the Sikhs that all subsequent Gurus carried the same message as that of Guru Nanak and so they have used the name “Nanak” in their holy text instead of their own name and hence are all referred to as the “Light of Nanak.”
In his well researched ong article titled: THE ORIGIN OF SIKH MILITANCY AND REBELLION
By Abu Adeeba
Abu in his own style as a Muslim apologist writes by quoting his version on Sikh apologists, justification of force by the Jahangir mughal emperor against the fifth Sikh Guru, Arjan Singh. Abu also tacitly mentions in his inimical style of incriminating Guru Nanak also for slowly starting his religious doctrine passively with an
ultimate socio-political aim of establishing an empire of his own belief. Fair enough so far but Abu forgets to address the same style by the Muslim invaders initially coming over to Indian soil as invaders or trading community and then ultimately forcibly becoming the rulers. They were, rightly in my mind, percieved as alien to the locals. Hence their behavior cannot be condemned as against the rulers who were agressors in the first place. This seemingly becomes a story like who tells the history? Abu as a Muslim has not done bad. Even though it is a long article and at the late night hours, I did read more than half and I shall perhaps get back to read the rest and research further on it. I recommend all to read and research further unbiasedly. What I have posted here is the conclusion of his long article in his own words.
Conclusion:
Quote: “What this research strongly suggests is that even before its transformation into a rebellious militant movement, the Nanakian philosophy was predisposed towards the use of a revolutionary strategy. Guru Nanak was a revolutionist whose modus operandi was to remould the old organisation through a long term ideological-political campaign and ultimately substitute it with his politico-religious system.
As cited above, since all action and activity eventually culminates in the need to utilise force when encountering physical resistance, and since the use of necessary force is justified to achieve a spiritual end in the socio-political ideology of the Gurus, what else could have materialised other than a violent clash between the state and the Sikh community as an inevitable climax?
What has been shown beyond reasonable doubt is that despite the Mughal Empire’s patience towards the Sikh community’s drive to strengthen its “state within a state”, which included Jahangir’s generous granting of land to Guru Arjan, the same Satguru colluded in Khusraw’s brutal rebellion by blessing him and offering financial assistance. As Shaikh Muhammad Ikram puts it:
The first trouble came during Jahangir’s reign when Guru Arjun had given assistance to the revolt led by Prince Khusrau. [73] (bold ours)
What this proves is that any contention that the Gurus were wholly innocent bystanders that were the victims of injustice is certainly untrue. To the contrary, the Sikh community, led by their politically driven Gurus, had, from the very beginning, visions of grandeur in seeking independence and self-autonomy. To achieve this end, they theologically justified the use of violence. When they felt an opportune moment had presented itself, Guru Arjan led them to violate the laws of the land by joining a rebellion that ultimately led to the capture and brutal execution of said Guru.
The point that needs to be stressed in conclusion is that it was not the Mughal Empire that acted criminally (or more accurately: treasonously), but the Gurus and their Sikh community by taking up arms:
The guru [Arjan] died under torture, but one of his last instructions to his son, Guru Har Govind, was to maintain an army. This was the turning point in Sikh history. They now began to organize themselves on semi-military lines, and there were further conflicts with the Mughal government. Guru Har Govind had “so completely sunk the character of a religious reformer into that of a conquering general, that he had no scruple in enlisting large bands of Afghan mercenaries.” [74]
Unlike the moral premise upon which Muslims are instructed to make decisions, i.e. the certainty of procuring religiously sanctioned benefit from a chosen action so as to protect and preserve the five basic necessities that are part of the objectives (maqaasid) of the Shari’ah, Guru Arjan’s decision certainly did not take into consideration the overall harm this would not only cause his own community, but also the citizens at large.
In effect, this war of attrition initiated by “[t]he Sikhs, who ultimately were to play an important part in the weakening of the empire,” [75] would continue between the Gurus and each successive Mughal ruler, thus leading to the death of tens of thousands of people, until the eventual collapse of the Mughal empire.” (Unquote)
History as I have been proclaiming is a “Dead Live” subject. Meaning that an old incidence some many years ago happened and certain people calling themselves historians or journalists in modern times evolved to narrate in their own biased or unbiased style for general public consumption. This has led to well known confusions. One such confusuion is the recent revelations on the Aryan theory of evolution, Indus Valley Civilisation and so on. The confusing statements on the partition of India as recent as 1947 is another historical myriads of confusing statements that is unbelievable. However I thought it prudent to present here for the visitors of Chakra blog to peruse themselves.
Guru Nanak was NOT the founder of Sikhism; Guru Govind, the tenth Guru, was!
Is Sikhism and Khalsa panth different and all the subsequent nine Gurus in Sikhs are/were called as Nanak I, II and etc. Is it not true? Guru Gobind Singhji is said to have established the Khalsa panth, as the history available says.
jai shree rhade.