Indian Antiquary Vol 55

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 60

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
MARCH, 1926
Trover's translation of the Dabistan. There we read "He (Hargovind) became involved in many difficulties; one of them was that he appropriated to himself the pay due to the soldiers in advance ; he carried also the sword against his father; he kept besides many servants and was addicted to hunting. Jahangir, on account of the money due to the army, and of the mulot imposed upon Arjan Mal, sent Hargovind to the fort of Gwalior, where he remained imprisoned for twelve years."36 This passage seems to show conclusively that the conclusion we arrived at cannot be correct, because Hargovind could not have misappropriated the money due to the soldiers, unless he had already been in the service of the emperor. Macauliffe, however, says that Troyer's translation is thoroughly wrong and that the passage in question should be rendered thus "He had many difficulties to contend with; one of them was that he adopted the style of a soldier, wore a sword contrary to the custom of his father, maintained a retinue, and began to follow the chase. The emperor in order to extort from him the balance of the fine which had been imposed on Arjan Mal, sent him to Gwalior." The learned author adds, "we might suppose that Troyer had translated from a different text, and that the Dabistan has since his time been altered at somebody's instigation, if some of the blunders of Troyer's translation were not so very palpable."26 The statement that Hargovind carried the sword against his father is "not only opposed to the verbal and grammatical interpretation of the (Persian) passage, but it is also opposed to the whole tenor of the accounts of both Arjan and Hargovind given in the Dabistan itself." It does not seem, therefore, that Troyer had translated from a different text. However, Dr. Narang, who, as he informs us, NT consults the Bombay edition of the Dabistan, repeats Troyer's statement that Hargovind misappropriated the money granted by the emperor for his troops and appends a note that “the emperor could not understand the nature of the Guru's following. His troops were mostly volunteers and fought not for pay, but out of devotion and obedience."28 We have not been able to consult the original, but it is significant to note that Prof. Sarkar, who also uses the Bombay text, 29 makes no mention of Hargovind's misappropriation of the money due to soldiers, though he states that the Guru was sent to Gwalior to make him pay the balance of the fine imposed upon his father.30 We are inclined to think that Narang committed the same mistake as Troyer, or had been misled by him. Moreover, if we accept Troyer's statement, chronological difficulties at once arise. In fact, Dr. Narang has involved himself in inconsistencies. He accepts Mohsun Fani's statement that Hargovind remained in prison for twelve years.31 We have seen that the Guru's journey to Kashmir with the Emperor could not have taken place earlier than 1620. This date also Dr. Narang accepta.38 But he, at the same time, says that the Guru was imprisoned after 1620. This is, however, clearly impossible. Mohsun Fani and the various Sikh records are all unanimous that both the imprisonment and release of Hargovind took place during the reign of Jahangir. Therefore, the Guru could not have been imprisoned after 1620; for Jahangir died in 1627 and the Guru remained in prison for twelve years. Again, Mohsun Fani states that Hargovind was “always attached to the stirrup of the victorious Jahangir ", and on the latter's death in 1627 he entered the service of his son and successor, Shah Jahan.33 The latter statement makes it clear that Hargovind had been in the employ of the emperor Jahangir and on his death automatically entered the service of his successor. Cunningham, we think, is therefore right when he says, “On the death of Jahangir in 1628, Hargovind continued in the employ of the
* Dabistan, vol. II, p. 274.
36 Macauliffe, The Sikh Religion, vol. IV, pp. 21. 22. 27 Ibid., p. 111.
# Narang, Transformation of Sikhion, p. 41, 2,n. 3. » Sarkar's Aurangzib, vol. III, p. 304, f.n.
80 Ibid., p. 309. We do not however understand why Prof. Sarkar allows the calumny to stand in Irvine's Later Mughals, p. 77. 81 Narang. Ibid., p. 42, 1.n. 3.
31 Ibid., p. 41. * Dabistan, vol. II, p. 274.