Martyrdom or shahadat is the high tragedy of supreme sacrifice one makes for one's faith and thus bears witness to its truth and to one's own passionate adherence to it. Implicitly, a martyr or shahid is one who by courting martyrdom bears witness to the truth of his faith and to his own unswerving commitment and allegiance to it.  Implicit in martyrdom is one’s  willingness  to withstand aggression or persecution, and meet death or, short of that, suffer privation for upholding that commitment and/or any other righteous and noble cause.

The term martyrdom has roots in the Greek word ‘martys’ which stands for ‘witness’.  There was, it seems, no equivalent of the word ‘martyr’ or ‘martyrdom’ in any of the Indian languages until Sikh tradition adopted the word  ‘shahadat’,  borrowed from Arabic, which also means testimony or affirmation. It seems difficult to believe that there was no concept of martyrdom in Indian traditions until Sikhism took this term from a Semitic tradition. During and following the Aryan invasions of India, both the invader and the invaded might have fought against each other, believing strongly in the truth of their struggle/fight and showing their deep commitment to the cause of that truth.  However, there is available no specific Indian word in pre and post-Aryan  era  to refer to one who fought and died for such a cause, for certain values.

The pre-Vedic and non-Vedic indigenous faiths, Jainism and Buddhism, also suffered persecution at places at the hands of Aryans: the Aryans believed in the truth of the revelatory Vedas and the natives including the sramanic traditions of Jainism and Buddhism, might have been committed to whatever their faith. Many followers of the indigenous religions might have suffered privation and even death for their commitment to a faith they believed in, but there was, as it appears today, no term to denote this. 

However, on the other hand, here has  been   in India a tradition of self-inflicted suffering with a view to purifying one’s own inner self or to awakening the conscience of the oppressor tyrant.  There have been numerous instances of self-destruction by many holy men for the purpose of checking the tyrant from committing evil.  In fact, the concept of satyagrah used as a political weapon by Mahatma Gandhi during the twentieth century has also its seeds in this background.  However, this kind of sacrifice cannot be called martyrdom or shahadat in the true sense of the term: it contains some elements of martyrdom, but lacks the major element of suffering persecution and getting killed at the hands of the tyrant.

The ancient Indian history is also replete with examples of many a struggle taking place between Good and Evil. The presence of the human element, suffering and supreme sacrifice by the human were, of course,  the central motif in that struggle.  But we also find that the  intervention by Divine  must  invariably take place on behalf of the Good, thus minimizing the significance of  human suffering and sacrifice and giving credit for everything to the Divine. The tradition of self-inflicted suffering and torture and the divine intervention in all the struggles fought for the sake of truth and values are the two most important reasons which  perhaps explain for the absence of any Indian equivalent  for shahid or shahadat.

At the time the Sikh religion originated, there were two prominent religions  -  Hinduism and Islam  -  prevalent in India.  No doubt, in the pre-Aryan India existed an organized religious life based on its own philosophy of life as shows the Rig Vedic reference to the sramanas.  The Aryans soon dominated the Indus Valley civilization but the acculturation between the two ethnic groups gradually gave birth to a world-view dominated by the Vedic tradition. This world-view favoured life-negation and world-negation, and religion became devoid of any social context.

The divorce from social reality reduced religion to a set of arid beliefs and lifeless rituals. The voice of truth got lost in the din of clashes of the mutually contradictory philosophical doctrines expounded by numerous sects and sub-sects that had emerged. The practice of renunciation resulted in the moral degeneration at the individual and social levels. The social structure was horizontally divided into four different caste groups.  Sexism existed as a system of marginalization of woman. This sexist discrimination against her became all the worse when she happened to belong to the so-called lower caste or lesser privileged class in society.

The doctrine of life-negation and world-negation brought in its wake moral and ethical bankruptcy in socio-religious and subjugation in political life. The Muslims who came to India as traders in the south soon turned invaders in the northwest and then conquerors and rulers of India.   It was Babar who invaded India in 1526 and caused much death and destruction, unleashing inexpressible atrocities and oppression on the natives.  During the Guru-period, Akbar has been the sole exception of being a liberal king.  The pendulum swung toward bigotry and intolerance, coercion and oppression during almost all other regimes.  There was as early as the Sultanate period an attempt for the complete imposition of the shari’at rule, and the royal chroniclers tried to give Islamic garb to any politically expedient action. 

In later years, destruction of places of worship of and imposition of the protection tax (jizia) on non-Muslims and the forcible conversion into Islam were common features of the Mughal rule even though all this distorted the social structure as envisioned by their prophet.  Such oppressive policies resulted in persecution of non-Muslims, creating among masses a sense of discrimination and hatred. Even though the Sufis did make attempts, quite feeble though, at creating an atmosphere of inter-religious tolerance and goodwill, the entry of Islam into India has on the whole been marked by an ugly recurrence of religious intolerance and persecution.  

III

Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, happened to be an eyewitness to Babar’s invasion and the suffering caused in its wake. He protests in his hymns, collectively known as “Babar Vani”, against this uncalled for death and destruction. But the truth Guru Nanak had received from God, the truth he had been sharing with mankind in general and the truth he himself lived stood for the spiritual unity and ethnic equality of entire humanity:  there was no place for such tyranny and oppression, injustice and violence by man against man.  That is why the Guru raised his voice in protest and wanted others to follow this path because this was the path of truth and love.  In another of his hymns, Guru Nanak wants those desirous of treading the path of love to be ever ready to sacrifice their head. 

Thus, from its very infancy Sikhism has stood for truth, for righteousness  and exhorted its followers to fight against those who  subvert the truth. The Sikh scripture, on the whole,  articulates the general framework of structure within which the ideal of social reformation is to be realized.  It is also normative in that it serves as the basis of the code of conduct and ethics for the followers. These latter together constitute the Sikh way of life, and one such constituent prescribed is that this world being the dwelling-place of God be transformed into Sach Khand, where the values of equality, love, justice and dignity should prevail; the devotees must neither put others to fear nor own to anybody’s fear, and they must not shrink from making the supreme sacrifice in a holy cause. The death of heroic men is holy, should they lay down their lives for a righteous cause, says Guru Nanak.  At another place in the scripture, Kabir reiterates the same idea in a little different way as he says:

Guru Gobind Singh, in one of the concluding verses of his Chandi Charitra Ukti Bilas, seeks the divine boon to ever do noble deeds and be able to lay down his life for the sake righteousness:

To stand up to a righteous cause, to stand up in defence of the hapless and defenceless, to be willing to make even the supreme  sacrifice for the sake of a cause held dear by a fellow citizen – all this requires a lot of courage and fearlessness.  The scripture repeatedly exhorts man to be fearless and give up cowardice. 

Thus, in Sikhism, one is required to give up all cowardice, be brave and courageous enough to stand up against all kinds of injustice, oppression and highhandedness. One must be willing to suffer privation and even meet death fighting against these and such other evils, with no personal motive or interest attached to that fight.  In fact, true martyrdom, in Sikhism, lies in the willingness to suffer without flinching. Sikhism prefers non-violent resistance to begin with, but if all peaceful means fail to make the oppressor see reason, resort to sword is also justified.  Guru Nanak and his successors prepared their disciples for this with a view to erecting a social setup where values of equality and love, justice and tolerance, compassion and self-respect prevail.                                                  

IV

History provided first such opportunity in the Sikh tradition when Jahangir ascended the throne of Delhi.  He succeeded  Akbar (1542-1605) who was known for his liberal religious policy and the Sikh chronicles also refer to his amicable relations with the Sikh Gurus.   However, Jahangir was not as liberal and tolerant, rather he was under the influence of the orthodox clergy.  He soon got alarmed by  the growing influence of Guru Arjan as he wrote in his Tuzk:

So many of the simple-minded Hindus, nay, many foolish Muslims too had been fascinated by the Guru’s ways and teaching. For many years the thought had been presenting itself to my mind that either I should put an end to this false traffic or that he be brought into the fold of Islam.

He goes on to add  that  - 

"I fully knew of his heresies, and I ordered that he should be brought into my presence, that his property be confiscated and that he should be put to death with torture".

Sikhism, the youngest of the major religions of the world, tends to accept the plurality of faiths, acknowledges the validity of all of them, and rejects the claim of monopoly over truth by any particular religion whichever.  It states quite unequivocally   that revelation is not religion-specific, region-specific or person-specific.  It stands for the freedom of man to practice the faith of his choice.  This ideology of the Sikh Gurus was contrary to that of religious intolerance and persecution followed by Jahangir and later on by his successors, especially Aurangzib.

Clearly, this was the time for Guru Arjan (1563-1606) to bear witness to the truth of his faith and to his own unswerving commitment and allegiance to it.  Guru Arjan stood for the religious freedom of man and refused to renounce his faith when so desired by the ruler of the day. He willingly offered himself to suffer any privation and even meet death for upholding his principles.  As a contemporary Christian missionary records, this ‘good Pope’ “died, overwhelmed by the sufferings, torments, dishonours” heaped on him by a fanatic ruler. Thus, Guru Arjan became the first martyr of the Sikh faith.  Let this be stated here in passing that the main cause of the martyrdom of the Guru was the religious policy of Jahangir, and  the designs of Chandu and others were only contributory factors.

When Guru Tegh Bahadur (1621-1675), the ninth Guru of the Sikh faith, assumed the spiritual leadership of the Sikh faith in 1664, India was ruled by  Emperor Aurangzib. A pious man in his personal life, Aurangzib was an orthodox Muslim who had waded through a river of blood to reach the throne: he had to imprison his father and kill his brothers to get the crown. He followed a fanatical religious policy to appease and please the Muslim orthodoxy.  He decreed "to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and put an entire stop to their religious practices and teachings" (1669) and imposed jizya, a tax non-Muslim population had  to pay for permission to live in an Islamic State (1679).

There were many more such edicts which aimed at humiliating the non-Muslims.   Though Aurangzib had nothing personal against Guru Tegh Bahadur, yet both of them stood clearly for ideals in stark opposition to each other.  Guru Tegh Bahadur could not bear the persecution of others and he seems to have made up his mind to resist the Emperor's policy of religious persecution and even to lay down his life to redeem the freedom of belief.

The decisive moment came in 1675 when some Kashmiri pandits waited upon the Guru at Anandpur. They had come to him to complain against Iftikhar Khan, Aurangzeb's satrap in Kashmir, who was making en masse conversions to Islam through use of force. The Guru listened to their woes and resolved to take upon himself the onus of defending their right to religious practice and belief.  He advised them to tell the authority in Delhi that if the Guru was converted, they would all voluntarily accept Islam. Resolved to challenge the royal policy of religious exclusivism and intolerance, the Guru of his own set out for Delhi. Although the Guru was himself leading to Delhi, the authorities arrested him on the way, put him in chains and brought him to Delhi. His refusal to renounce his faith resulted in his public execution in Chandni Chowk on 11 November 1675. However, before beheading him, three of his devoted followers were also tortured to death before his eyes.

The resolution by the Guru to court martyrdom was deliberate and conscious, and he took this decision of his own.  The authorities intervened only after he took up the challenge to undo both the evil as evil and the suffering of evil as such: the authorities felt his teachings were strengthening among people the resolve, the determination to suffer hardship and even death rather than give up their faith under coercion. It was a peculiar situation of self-prompted and meaningful suffering for the sake of others but to uphold a cherished ideal.

The religious history of mankind provides no second example of a spiritual leader laying down his life for the people belonging to a religious tradition other than his own. In the Indian history and folklore, he has always been remembered as the protector of the Hindu faith - a unique example of its kind in the history of mankind. Interestingly, there are several Sikh scriptural hymns criticizing the Hindu religious symbols of janeu and tilak which the Brahmanical class had begun to consider as an end in themselves, thus giving precedence to form over the spirit of religion, but the Guru stood for freedom of belief and practice for everyone. 

On the other hand, the Sikh Gurus had nothing against Islam as such, and the Sikh scripture unequivocally states that the scriptures of neither the Indian nor Semitic religions can be called false, rather false are those who do not reflect on them. The Sikh advice to a Muslim has throughout been to become a good Muslim and for a Hindu to become a good Hindu.  Had the contemporary political situation in India been the other way round, Guru Tegh Bahadur would surely have made the same sacrifice for the sake of Muslims’ religious freedom.

The Guru remained in perfect poise throughout his resolve, and his spiritual state reflecting full faith in God’s will can well be imagined from a close reading of the slokas he is believed to have composed during the days of his captivity in Delhi. The followers who had accompanied the Guru to Delhi retained their unflinching faith in the Guru and his ideals till they were put to cruel death before the Guru’s own eyes. This was like a true martyr who must meet his end in perfect poise. Interestingly, even the New Testament (John 12) while referring to Jesus’ mental state on the eve of his crucification says that his  heart felt "troubled" and Jesus himself called that period "an hour of suffering.”

Thus, Guru Tegh Bahadur and his disciples who courted death along with him became the next martyrs of the Sikh faith.  No doubt, the sacrifice made by Guru Tegh Bahadur is without any parallels in human history. Guru Gobind Singh, his son and spiritual successor, in his autobiographical Bachitra Natak (V: 14-16), also testifies to it as he refers to the martyrdom of the Guru as an act unparalleled in history:

The tradition of martyrdom in Sikhism will not be complete without making a reference to the sacrifices made by Guru Gobind Singh and especially the martyrdom courted by his young sons.  Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his entire family (including father, mother and sons), his own life and in fact everything that belonged to him.  In his fight against the oppressive and unjust policies of the Mughal government and the fanatical attitude of the hill chiefs the Guru sacrificed many of his Sikhs whom he held as dear as his own sons. Still he had no complaints and expressed complete contentment in the will of God.  For example, when the Guru  was passing through the Lakhi jungle area after leaving Chamkaur, one day he lay on the bare ground all alone and  sang a hymn -  mitra pire nu hal murida da kahina  -  expressing his satisfaction and contentment in the will of God.

All the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh courted martyrdom even before they were majors:  the elder two, Sahibzada Ajit Singh and Sahibzada Jujhar Singh, were aged 18 years and 14 years, respectively, when they laid down their lives at Chamkaur fighting against the Mughal forces supported by the hill chiefs who had pursued the Guru    violating the vows they had taken to the contrary.  These young boys were being trained   from their childhood days to stand against injustice and oppression and even be ready to sacrifice their lives whenever need be.  It was also as part of this training that two years earlier, Sahibzada Ajit Singh was deputed, on 7 March 1703, when he was barely 16 years of age, to take out a party of about 100 horsemen against the Pathan chieftain of Bassi, near Hoshiarpur, to rescue a young Brahman bride forcibly taken away by him. 

The younger sons of the Guru, Sahibzadas Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh, were bricked alive under orders of the Nawab of Sirhind: the young boys, barely  nine and seven years of age,  were handed over to  the Mughal  satrap of Sirhind by an old servant of theirs who escorted them this way as they got separated from their father and other members of the family after vacating Anandpur.  These young boys remained unflinched in their faith and without any wavering of mind prefered death to giving up their faith when forced to make the choice – a lesson they had learnt from their parents, their heritage. Their passionate commitment to their faith even at such a young age and the stark contrast of the cruel death meted out to them with their tender age make their martyrdom all the more significant and unique.  No other such example is found in the religious history of mankind.  Their grandmother who had been escorting them gave away her life as the news of the martyrdom of the young ones reached her while still in captivity.

Even the post-Guru period in the Sikh history has a long tradition of martyrdom as the  Sikhs suffered privation and even met death but remained committed to the truth of their faith, to the values their Gurus stood for.  In the period following Banda Singh Bahadur’s martyrdom in 1716, the Sikhs were hounded out and prices were levied on their heads. The invading Afghans and the local Mughal government did their best to liquidate the Sikh community and their religion stories of the Sikh persecution have been many but not a single instance of a Sikh waivering in the commitment to his faith.  That is why their sanctum sanctorum, the Harimandar at Amritsar, was demolished several times, the Sikhs quickly rebuilding it and assembling there every Diwali and Vaisakhi.  The more they were tortured and oppressed, the more powerful and determined they became, and by the beginning of the nineteenth century, they had become political masters of the land of Punjab.  This has been an unparalleled story of the political power coming out of martyrdom.