BACK
Characterization*
– Raison d' etre and the elan of the Sikh Revolution
–
Jagjit Singh
The Dynamics of Revolutionary Movements
The dynamics of change (motion) are different from the laws
of inertia. This is particularly true of revolutions which
lead to major upheavals. A great distinguishing feature
of the revolutionary movements is their emotive upsurge
which is surcharged more by ideological inspiration than
by mundane considerations.
Commenting on the French Revolution, Tocqueville writes:
‘I have often asked myself what is the source of that
passion for political liberty, which in every age has caused
man to achieve the greatest results ever accomplished by
man; I no longer think that the true love of liberty is
even ever born from the mere view of the material comforts
that it secures. That which in all ages has so strongly
attached to it the hearts of certain men is its own attractions,
its own charm, quite apart from any material advantage;
it is the joy of being able to speak, to act, to breathe,
without restraint under no sovereign but God and the law.
He who desires in liberty anything other than itself is
born to be a servant.’1
Lefebvre and Rude express, more or less, the same viewpoint.
‘For the last half century students have applied themselves,
and rightly so, to the task of showing how the revolutionary
spirit originated in a social and economic environment.
But we should commit no less an error in forgetting that
there is no true revolutionary spirit without the idealism
which alone inspires sacrifices2 ....it needed more than
economic hardship, social discontent, and the frustration
of political and social ambitions to make a revolution.
To give cohesion of the discontents and aspirations of widely
varying social classes there had to be some unifying body
of ideas, common vocabulary of hope and protest, something,
in short, like a common “revolutionary psychology.”
In the revolutions of our day this ideological preparation
has been the concern of political parties but there were
no such parties in the eighteenth century France. In this
case, the ground was prepared, in the first place, by the
writers of the Enlightenment.3
If this be true of the French Revolution, the role of Sikh
ideology in the genesis and development of the Sikh Revolution
assumes even greater significance. The need to provide ‘cohesion’
and a common ‘revolutionary psychology’ to the
mutually hostile caste elements was far greater and indispensable
that it was in the class society of France. Without indulging
here in abstract issues, we only wish to emphasise that
the primary role and importance of the ideological and emotional
content of revolutionary movements are well recognized.
Revolutionary and Post-revolutionary Phases
Ideological upsurges, wherein the participants, for the
time being atleast, rise above ordinary human and environmental
limitations, wherein groups and classes forget their parochial
narrow interests, loyalties or antipathies and make common
cause for a higher objective, are a phenomenon distinct
from the placid course of human history. As such, the study
of the revolutionary phase of a movement should not be lumped
together with that of its post-revolutionary phase in a
manner so as to undermine the distinctiveness of the former.
Secondly, the two phases cannot be measured by the same
yardstick. To evaluate the revolutionary aspect of a movement
in the light of its post-revolutionary developments would
be no more valid than it would be to ascribe the rise of
waves in the ocean to the very gravitational pull of the
earth which brings them back to their original. Thirdly,
the history of the revolutionary phase of movements should
not be regarded as inconsequential, simply because revolutions,
in the course of time, fall from the high ideological pitch
to which they raise the people. Besides inching humanity
forward towards its ultimate goal of freedom and equality,
the revolutionary movements provide a perpetual source of
inspiration for future efforts. This is more true of the
Sikh movement, because its study shows that the Indian mind
is not inherently or irrevocably committed to social reaction.
It may be pointed out here that the Sikh Revolution showed
greater tenacity in retaining the social equality and political
freedom it had won. The Estates-General assembled on May
5, 1789, a military dictatorship under the guise of the
Directory was inaugurated on Oct. 5, 1795, and Bonaparte
delivered his Coup d’ etat on Nov. 9-10, 1799. Gibbon
writes : ‘At the end of the first century of the Hijra,
the Caliphs were the most potent and absolute monarchs of
the globe. Their prerogatives were not prescribed, either
in right or in fact, by the power of the nobles, the freedom
of the commons, the privileges of the Church, the votes
of the senate, or the memory of a free constitution. The
authority of the Companions of Mohammed expired with their
lives and the chiefs of the Arabian tribes left behind in
the desert their spirit of equality and independence.4 It
took over 100 years for Ranjit Singh to emerge; and even
under him and the Misal Chiefs ‘the free followers
of Gobind could not be the observant slaves of an equal
member of the Khalsa.5 If the revolutionary achievements
of the French and Islamic Revolutions cannot be ignored
because of their later developments, there is no reason
why it should be done in the case of the Sikh Revolution.
Overall view
One is amused to read the fable in which blind men try to
make out the shape of the elephant by feeling the different
parts of the animal separately. The same mistake is made
by the historians who characterize the Sikh movement by
emphasizing some of its aspects while ignoring others equally
important. Any interpretation of the Sikh movement must
attempt to find a satisfactory explanation to one and all
of its prominent features. Besides, they fail to differentiate
between the revolutionary and the post-revolutionary phases
of the movement and try to judge the former in the light
of the latter.
We have been concerned only with the revolutionary phase
of the Sikh movement. It was, as we have tried to show,
an organic growth. Any characterization of the revolutionary
Sikh movement must attempt to interpret one and all of its
important features.
Nam Dev, Kabir, Basawa, Chaitanaya and other savants repudiated,
in varying accent, the caste ideology, but in no case these
protests resulted in a movement aiming to cut itself completely
from the caste society. The most radical departure was the
one introduced by Basawa. But, his followers, the Lingayats,
as already seen, got frightened, as if it were, by this
very radicalism and did not pursue it to its logical conclusion.
They did not want or dared not, to cut framework of the
caste order.6 Consequently, Basawa’s experiment got
arrested. It remained more of an accident rather than as
a purposeful anti-caste movement. In fact, there was little
room for any anti-caste innovation to make much headway,
or even retain its anti-caste character, unless it was organized
into a movement and consistently pursued with the set aim
of breaking away from the caste society. It is the Sikh
movement alone, which, in the medieval times, consistently
planned and worked to establish the Sikh Panth outside the
caste society and tried to maintain its separate identity
even after the time of the Gurus.
Secondly, there is not one Indian religious movement, other
than the Sikh movement, which attempted to face the political
problems of the age.
Thirdly, there is no other movement of Indian origin which
even conceived that the downtrodden people should be the
masters of their own political destiny.
Fourthly, the Sikh movement made the maintenance of ethical
standards and conduct, as integral parts of its militant
programme. In fact, the movement was militarized in order
to achieve the highly ethical ideals of complete human freedom
and equality. In the words of Chaupa Singh, Guru Gobind
Singh said : “If the Sikh spirit is retained during
raj (political sway) it would be a blessing; otherwise it
would be a bane. It is difficult to keep alive the Sikh
spirit along with raj. The sense of discrimination is lost.6
This marriage between morality and militancy was not a mere
theoretical exercise or a nominal ideal. The testimony of
Qazi Nur-ud-Din leaves no doubt that the Sikh revolutionary
maintained the highest standards of moral conduct.7 The
author of Fatuhat Nama-i-Samadi, who otherwise calls the
Khalsa wicked, haughty and ungrateful, nonetheless writes:
‘If a woman falls into their hands they look upon
her as their mother.’7 a Forster states that the Khalsa
derived its strength from the ‘Forbearance of sensual
pleasures.’8 ‘There are few stories in Sikh
history of outrage to women and torture to men such as stain
the pages of south Indian history . . . .8 a As most of
these revolutionaries were drawn from those segments of
the population which are known to be lax in those very qualities8
b the Qazi and others praised the Sikhs, the credit for
raising them to lofty ethical levels cannot be traced to
any source other than the ideology of the movement itself.
And, it is a feature which cannot be set aside or bypassed.
Fifthly, the manner in which the downtrodden people were
trained to assume the leadership of their own revolutionary
movement, and not to depend on privileged leadership, is
a unique historical phenomenon in Indian history.
Last, but not the least, the revolutionary spirit, the tenacity
of purpose, the spirit of self-sacrifice and comradeship
generated among the revolutionaries, drawn from castes which
had been opposed to each other and which had been denied
by the caste ideology, the use of arms for centuries on
end, could not be a chance occurrence. Abdali must have
been baffled when the Sikhs rebuked his vakil who brought
to them (Sikhs) his offer of a compromised peace.9 What
puzzled no less a person than Abadli, the best general of
the world at that time, is a knotty problem which needs
to be explained.
All those interpretations of the Sikh movement which do
not cover all these issues and fail to take an overall view
are inadequate. For example, the military struggle of the
movement for religious and political freedom and for a plebian
mission is a major fact of Sikh history which cannot be
ignored. Some historians have tried to explain it on the
assumption that the militarization of the movement was due
to the influx into it of a large number of Jat elements.
Besides being factually incorrect, it is a very lopsided
approach (for a detailed treatment of this topic see appendix
A). Mere presence and the prowess of the Jats does not explain
the ideological and the ethical content of the movement.
The Rajputs and other militant segments of the population,
including Jats of other regions, were no less martial than
the Jats of the central Punjab. Then, why the Sikh movement
alone in India took the revolutionary direction and the
ideological line it did ? The Jats are well known for their
internecine and inter-clannish quarells,10 and have rarely
shown, on their own, any proclivity for idealistic or deeply
religious pursuits.11 What had inspired them to combine
to fight and suffer relentless persecution for a noble cause?
What made the Khatris accept the leadership of the Jat Masands,
and the Jats the leaderships of carpenters and Kalals? Prior
to joining the Sikh movement, the Jats of the central Punjab,
like their brethren elsewhere, had never fraternized with
village menials and the out-caste Chuhras. And they reverted,
more or less, to the same position when their revolutionary
zeal was over. What made them fraternize with the village
menials and Rangretas in the Khalsa Dal?
Only one Interpretation
There is only one interpretation which explains satisfactorily
all the important features of the Sikh movement. It is the
Sikh Guru who initiated the movement, determined its ideology
and goals, carefully organized and nursed it for a long
period of about two hundred years (i.e., starting from the
missionary tours of Guru Nanak to the death of the last
Guru), prevented deviations from its ideological line, gave
a continuity to the movement, and finally set it on a course
so that it should, in their absence from the scene, follow
their guidelines on its own. All evidence leads to this
conclusion. There is no other interpretation which explains
all the main features of the movement in a better way.
It would be repetitive to go over all these points. We need
refer briefly only to a few of them.
Initiative
Max Weber writes: “Rebellions by lower castes undoubtedly
occurred. The question is : Why were there not more of them,
and, more important, why did the great, historically significant,
religious revolutions against the Hindu order stem from
altogether different, relatively privileged strata and retain
their roots in these?”12 A few stray instances of
unorganized sporadic revolts by lower castes in a vast country
like India, and over a long period of history, are not unlikely.
But, there is a difference between sporadic revolts and
a revolution. The question is whether there was any consciously
organized protest, movement or revolt against the straight
jacket of the caste system led by the castes adversely affected
by it? Compared to slave insurrections in other lands, there
is not much evidence of a Sudra uprising, initiated and
led by them and having the collective interests of that
caste as its aim. None of the followers of the medieval
schools of Bhakti attempted to found a society outside the
caste order. This is very significant. Whatever the reasons,
the caste ideology had thrown such a spell on its victims,
and the unfortunate Sudras were bound, hand and foot, to
such an extent, that they never tried to shake off their
shackles in any organized manner. Thus, all liberal social
movements started at the top and came downwards to the masses,
and not vice-versa. With this background, one may justifiably
presume that the Sikh movement could not be an exception
to the rule. Any hypothesis to the contrary will have to
be established and not assumed.
There is another circumstance that favours the above conclusion.
Not only did the ideological movements usually start with
the upper strata of society, these also took a longer time
to infilterate into the masses. It is recognized that the
idealistic content of the French Revolution was prepared
by the ideals of the political writers of the Enlightenment
which were widely disseminated because of the printing machine.
Rosseau’s Social Contract appeared in thirteen French-language
editions in 1762-3.13 But it was the elite and the middle
classes who were the first to be influenced by these ideas
— because they were more literate than the commoners.
In India, there was no press in the medieval times and there
was no organized party, the like of ones in modern times,
which undertook to educate the masses on radical ideological
lines. This may be one reason why the enlightened classes.
We find that in the list of prominent Sikhs mentioned by
Bhai Gurdas, the number of Sikhs from commercial castes
exceeds the one from other castes. Out of the commoners,
the peasantry left to itself was, somehow, more immune from
ideological influences. It is the castes lower than the
peasant who became the followers of the Radical Bhaktas
in larger number than the peasants.
The episode of Satnami revolt is very illustrative. Besides
the Sikh movement, it was the only armed uprising of the
peasants and the lower castes who had been indoctrinated
by the Bhakti ideology of human freedom and equality. The
outbreak started with a hot dispute between a Satnami cultivator
and a foot-soldier and soon took the form of a war of liberation.
The rebels fought desperately with the Imperial forces sent
against them but were overpowered. The points to be noted
are that nothing was heard of the Satnami resistance either
before this uprising or after it. The Bhakti ideology had
awakened a spirit of equality and freedom among the plebian
Satnamis, but this had not been organized into a militant
movement. There is no evidence to suggest that the Satnamis,
before this outbreak, had ever conceived of challenging
the Mughal authority. The result was that, without a determined
leadership that would set goals, make a plan and preparations,
and create a military organisation, the newly aroused spirit
of the Satnamis found expression and ended just in an ephemeral
flare-up. Without a guiding spirit, the Satnamis could not
give a permanent revolutionary shape to their fervour. The
conclusion is plain that without the initiative, ideology,
leadership and guidance of the Sikh Gurus, the Sikh movement
would have fared no better than the Satnami wave.
It was in 1633 A.D. that Guru Hargobind declared that he
would wrest sovereignty from the Mughal and ‘bestow
this all on the downtrodden and the helpless.14 Guru Gobind
Singh created the Khalsa in 1699 in order to capture political
power for a plebian mission. This egalitarian political
aim could not be born out of the hierarchical caste society,
or out of the Indian Muslim polity, which had politically
dominated the non-Muslims and had come to regard a Muslim
Emperor as ‘Zillullah’, the shadow of the Divine
Being.15 The Indian masses had been mentally immobilized
by the caste ideology to such an extent that they had ceased
even to entertain such ideas. Nor was such a radical programme
on the political horizon or agenda elsewhere at that period
in the world; because the American Revolution was essentially
a war of independence, and the French Revolution started
in 1789. Obviously, such a radical objective, which the
Gurus set before the Sikh movement, could not but be the
Gurus’ own, impelled as they were by their inner urge.
Ideology
Originally, the initiative was all along that
of the Gurus. Later, it was their ideology which determined
the goals, the direction and the character of the Sikh movement.
Certitude of faith is a characteristic expression of the
mystic experience. The Sikh Gurus were deeply convinced
that to bring about total human freedom and equality was
God’s own Mission and that they were the instruments
for that purpose. “I express that ideology, O Lalo,
as the Lord’s words come to me.” 16 “As
God spoke to me I speak, On this account I have come into
the world, . . . seize and destroy the evil and the sinful.”17
The disciplines of history and sociology might be precluded
from taking cognizance of the mystic experience, but these
cannot escape taking into account the ideology and the convictions
that inspired the pioneers, who were not only the initiators
and leaders of the movement but were its actual planners
and directors. It was the deep conviction of the Gurus that
their ideology was the right one as it was dictated by God
Himself. This lent firmness to their resolve to shape and
give direction to the movement the way they did it. It was
also their faith that all of them were pursuing the same
mission. This lent firmness, conviction and continuity to
the movement.
It would be wrong to read Indian history of the medieval
era in the light of the developments in Europe, especially
of the French Revolution, in the corresponding period. There
the writings of Enlightenment had rudely shaken old faiths
and beliefs, and the ideas of freedom, equality and class
interests had come to the fore. Above all, there was no
caste in Europe. In India, the caste excluded the development
of any movement based on values of human freedom and equality,
and also of a movement requiring the cohesion of different
castes, even for common class interests. If utter humiliation
imposed by religious persecution and foreign domination
could not bring the Hindus to react together, what else
could? Leaving aside the attempts to gain or retain feudal
power, and the stray reactions of individuals or groups,
the stark reality of Indian history is that, once the Mughal
power was established, the only organized movements directed
against Mughal religious persecution and political domination
as such, were those of the Marathas and the Sikhs. Even
the Maratha movement, though it had an undertone of Hindu
national sentiment, was based primarily on regional Maharashtrian
nationalism. Shivaji was prepared to come to terms with
the Mughal rulers provided his Maratha domain was not challenged.
Moreover, the rise of the Marathas under Shivaji was a middle
class movement (i.e., it was led by them and the political
power was captured by the Prabhus and the Brahmins), and
it was favoured by historical and geographical conditions
which could not be reproduced elsewhere. On the other hand,
what distinguishes the Sikh movement particularly is its
pronounced plebian character, and it had to struggle against
more adverse circumstances, being located in the heart of
the Mughal empire. The Sikh movement was also not a Hindu
sectarian movement; and there is no basis to suggest that
the Sikh movement was built upon, or catered to, the Punjabi
regional sentiment. The Sikh ideology was universal and
not sectarian or regional. Of the five Beloved Ones (Panj
Pyaras), four belonged to places outside the Punjab. More
than half of the population of the Punjab had embraced Islam
and was moved by its religious loyalties to support Muslim
rule. Also, there is not a single instance when the people
of the Punjab made a common cause as Punjabis. Therefore,
it would be a travesty of facts to trace the genesis of
an exceptional movement solely to such cause (e.g., the
religious persecution by the Mughal government and the economic
distress of the people), which were operative throughout
the country, without taking into account the one special
factor that made all the difference. This was the Sikh ideology
and the tenacity with which it was pursued. The Sikh movement
was the product of the impact of this ideology on the environmental
conditions. The followers of the Gurus were also initially
drawn to them purely from religious motives. It is due to
the deep commitment of the Gurus to the revolutionary cause
that they channelized the religious faith in them of their
followers into a course which aimed at achieving political
freedom and capturing political power for plebian objectives.
The Sikh ideology not only inspired the movement, it was
the mainstay of its revolutionary phase. It is this ideology
which attracted and held together, for a higher purpose,
elements drawn from mutually hostile castes. It is the inspiration
of the Sikh ideology which distinguishes those guerillas,
who carried on a relentless warfare to the point of being
virtually exterminated a number of times, from those Jat
and other elements, who joined the movement when it seemed
to succeed and left the moment it had hard times. Bhangu
makes a clear distinction between such Jats and the Khalsa.
Latif writes: .... it is acknowledge on all hands that the
conversion of bands of undisciplined Jats (given to rapine
and plunder or to agricultural pursuits) into a body of
conquerors and a political corporation, was due entirely
to the genius of Govind, whose history is closely interwoven
with that of the Sikhs as a nation. It was because of its
deep commitment to plebian political objectives that the
movement pursued the armed struggle to its bitter end until
its aims were achieved. This was why the movement, though
hard pressed, rejected a number of offers of compromised
peace by Abadali, who could not comprehend that in this
case he was not pitted against feudal lords who could either
be crushed militarily or be brought to terms. Here, he was
face to face with an ideologically surcharged mass movement
committed to achieve its own plebian objectives; in which
there was no room for compromise with feudalism or autocracy
and whose ranks were being replenished from its inexhaustible
mass base. And, as and when the ideological hold weakened,
the movement started disintegrating. Even during the post-revolutionary
period itself, it was the Akalis, who represented the Sikh
ideals, who provided some sort of a cementing force among
the warring Missal chiefs. The military successes of Ranjit
Singh elated the Sikhs for a time and generated some sense
of nationality among them. But, when they suffered defeat
at the hands of the British, the Khalsa, who had waged relentless
guerilla warfare against the Mughals, found it difficult
even to retain the consciousness of their identity. It was
because the Sikhs had cut themselves adrift from their true
ideological moorings, and what substituted these, the Khalsa
nationalism, was too newly-born and short-lived to sustain
them.
Propulsive Force
There is an innate spark in human nature which yearns for
freedom and equality, and it works wonders when it is ignited
and properly organized. The Gurus ignited this spark. In
Cunningham’s words : ‘The last apostle of the
Sikhs did not live to see his own ends accomplished, but
he effectually roused the dormant energies of vanquished
people and filled them with a lofty although fitful longing
for social freedom and national ascendancy, the proper adjuncts
of that purity of worship which had been preached by Nanak.
Gobind saw that was yet vital, and relumed it with Promethean
fire.18
The Sikh movement derived its strength also because its
aims corresponded to the aspirations of the masses. The
ideology of the movement had greater appeal for the common
peasants and the lower castes who were increasingly drawn
into it as the revolutionary struggle progressed. As already
pointed out, the success of the Sikh movement depended upon
the strength it derived from the masses. Abadali’s
greatest lieutenant, Najib-ud-daulah, ‘openly admitted
himself beaten at the hands of an entire nation at arms
and in jubilant spirits and nascent energy, “increasing
like ants and locusts.”19 This is how the vanguard
of Sikh guerilla revolutionaries succeeded in involving
the masses in their struggle. It was not a war carried on
by mercenaries or feudal levies. It became a people’s
war. This fact alone should be enough to highlight the plebian
character of the movement.
It is, however, not to be lost sight of that it is the religious
faith of the Khalsa in the Gurus that sustained the movement
throughout its struggle, especially during its critical
periods. Tocqueville wrote : ‘It is not always be
going from bad to worse that a society falls into a revolution.
It happens most often that a people, which has supported
without complain, as if they were not felt, the most oppressive
laws, violently throws them off as soon as their weight
is lightened... Feudalism at the height of it power had
not inspired Frenchmen with so much hatred as it did on
the eve of its disappearing.20 Elaborating this point Rude
writes: ‘Tocqueville’s comments are illuminating
because they remind us that revolutions—as opposed
to peasant rebellions or food riots—seldom if ever,
take the form of mere spontaneous outbrusts against tyranny,
oppression or utter destitution; both the experience and
the hope of something better are important factors in the
story.21 The Sikh Revolution was not inspired by any hope
of reform or concession held by the Mughal government. It
was sustained by the hope that the Guru’s word that
the Khalsa must triumph in the end would come true.22
The Sikh ideology sparked the innate human longing for freedom
and equality. The masses were further aroused because they
saw in the Sikh ideology the fulfilment of their hopes and
aspirations. The content of ‘liberty and equality’
was not left vague, as it was in the French Revolution;
it was well defined from the plebian point of view. It was
the first time in Indian history that the downtrodden were
given the call to capture the political power in their own
hands. The faith in the Sikh religion and in the Gurus provided
both the inspiration and the steel frame-work. Genuinely
held religious convictions sink deep into the human mind.
These factors resulted in a formidable combination. It propelled
the movement to continue the armed struggle against such
heavy odds that no human calculations could normally hold
out even a ray of hope for its success.
Such were the raison d’ etre and the elan of the Sikh
Revolution.
~~~
References
1
TocquevilIe, p. 177
2 Lafebvre, p. 50
3 Rude, p. 74
4 Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, LI (Nizami,
p. viii); Ashraf, K. M.: Life and Conditions of the People
of Hindustan, pp. 28-29
5 Cunningham, ‘p. 160
6 Rehtname, p. 117
6a Tara Chand: Influence of Islam on Indian Culture, p.
117
7 Jangnamah of Qazi Nur-ud-Din, Cited by Gupta:History of
the Sikhs, i, p. 290.
7a Cited by Gurbax Singh; Punjab History Conference (Sept
1972) Proceedings. p. 50
8 Forster, Vol. i, p. 333; Ahmed Shah, Sohan Lal, Ali-ud-
din and Ganesh Das cited by Gupta: A History of the Sikhs,
i, p. 195.
8a Griffin: Rajas of the Pun jab, p. 17.
8b Ibbetson; Punjab Castes, sec 424; Gazetteer of the Lahore
District, 1883-84, pp. 66-68
9 Calendar of Persian Correspondence, ii, p. 35
10 Indubhusan, Vol. Two, p. 40; Ibbetson:Punjab Castes,
sec. 424; Griffin, L.H.: The Rajas of the Punjab, p. 17
11 Jullundur District Gazetteer, 1904, Part A, p. 121; Crooke,
W.:Races of Northern India,’ p. 93; Gurgaon District
Gazetteer, 1883-84, p. 41
11a Dabistan (Punjab Past and Present (1969) pp. 51-2)
12 Max Weber, p. 17
13 Rude, p. 35.
13a. Rose, Vol. ii, p. 419; Vol;. iii, p. 306
14 Gurbilas Chevin Patshahi, p. 293
15 Ashraf, p. 31
16 Guru Granth, p. 722
16a Macauliffe, v. pp. 300-301.
16b. Ranade, pp. 39-40
17 Ibid, p. 31.
17a. Bhangu, pp. 95, 309-310. Abdali recognized that for
the complete reduction of the Sikh power it would be necessary
to wait until their religious fervour had eveporated (A.C.
Banerjee, p. 91).
17b. Ibid, pp. 305, 376.
17c. Latif, p. 271; Polier cited in Punjab Past and Present
(Oct. 1970), p. 249
18 Cunningham, p. 75
19 Chahar Gulzar-i-Shujai, 545a, cited by Gupta:A History
of the Sikhs, i, p. 281; Calendar of Persian Correspondence,
ii, pp 110, 238-9
19a. Prinsep, p. 23
20 Tocqueville, cited by Rude, pp. 69-70
21 Rude, p. 70
22 Bhangu, pp. 303-305
¤
