historian view of Lohgarh

Mirza Muhammad in Ibratnama wrote that in December 1710 _AD, during the establishment of the imperial camp in the Dabar region, which was traditionally reserved as a hunting ground for Jannat Makani (Jahangir) and Firdaus Makani (Shahjahan), Banda Singh  Bahadur, compared to an elusive fox, sought refuge within the fortress of Mukhlisgarh, which he had rechristened as Lohgarh. He fortified the towers and openings of the fort with muskets and rahkala. While the emperor luxuriously indulged himself with a relaxed mind, he assigned the task of storming the fort and exterminating the non-believers to the forces of the princes as well as nobles.

Muhammad Hädi Kämwar Khan wrote in Tazkirat us-Salatin Chaghta that on December 11^th , 1710 _AD, the imperial forces led by Prince Raftu’sh Shan set out to the hills of Dabar. The army was composed of various commanders and their troops. One-fourth of the day had passed when Jumdatul Mulk Khan-i-Khann and his colleagues attacked the enemy’s entrenchments. A fierce battle ensued with cannons and musket fire, and the enemy ultimately succumbed to the imperial forces. Khan-i-Khann then proceeded to Lohgarh, the fortified seat of the Sikhs. The battle continued, and the imperial forces eventually reached a quarter kuroh from the wall of Lohgarh. The emperor’s advisor cautioned him to proceed slowly, but some suspected his advice was influenced by personal reasons. The emperor paused to have a meal inside his tent.

Khafi Khan wrote in Muntakhabu’l Lubab that Rustam Dil Khan successfully captured all the rebels who were engaged in the battle at Lohgarh on December 12^th , 1710 _AD. He presented them before the emperor, along with five elephants, three cannons, seventeen gun-carts, one canopy (saiban), and several silver sticks that belonged to the rebel leader – Banda Singh Bahadar. Rustam received significant praise for his accomplishment and was rewarded with a female elephant from the captured loot. Following the emperor’s orders, Sarbarah Khan, the kotwal, executed twelve companions of Banda, including a leader named Gulab Singh, who was arrested(Khafi Khan, op.cit., pages 672-73.) .

According to Mohmmad Qasim Aurangabad, breaking the barricades of Banda Singh Bahadar’s fort appeared to be extremely difficult. It was believed that it would take at least a year to capture it. However, their faith in God provided a solution to the problem in no time. The Mughal army was also exhausted and decided to rest for a day, planning to conquer the fort the next day at dawn. They believed the Mughal army attacks the same day would enable Banda Singh to flee through one of two possible routes – one via the area of Nahan and the other toward Afghan territory via Jammu and Kashmir. The emperor ordered that these escape routes be blocked and secured in all four directions around the fort before the Sikhs escaped. Despite their plan, the Mughals could not take over the fort, and Khan-i- Khann Munim Khan, an experienced warrior, was misled. Nothing would have remained had they succeeded in their plan, and they estimated that the ‘ill-mannered nonbeliever’, Banda Singh Bahadar, could have survived for only a few more days.

Kamvar shared: ‘When the sun has just arisen, Khan-i-Khann, with a force of five thousand companions, attacked the Sikh positions at the top of the hill. A fierce Battle of guns and arrows was fought on both sides. Khan-i-Khann reached the trench of the Lohgarh fort. Both sides fought a full-fledged battle. Trade of life-taking was at its full extreme(Tazkirat us-Salatin Chaghta, page 153.)’.

Seven Ibratnamas (contemporary archives records), written by different Muslim writers and Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, penned by Khafi Khan, provided accounts of the Battle of Lohgarh. However, these writings present a biased and concocted version of the events from the Mughal perspective, portraying the Sikhs as rebels against the Mughal empire. They failed to depict the true history of Lohgarh and its fortifications accurately. Furthermore, these accounts did not explain how the Sikhs managed to construct such a large fortification, nor did they explain why the Mughal emperor hurriedly travelled from Deccan to Punjab. Notably, even after the capture of Lohgarh in early December 1710 _AD, sources did not clarify emperor Bahadur Shah’s activities in the vicinity of Lohgarh until March 1711 _AD. Despite a sizable Mughal army, Banda Singh Bahadar was not captured during this period.

In addition to his Ibratnama, Mohammad Qasim Aurangabadi wrote another work in 1735 _AD, titled Ahwal-ul-Khawakeen. In this writing, he elaborated on the Battle of Lohgarh and provided a contrasting view to the Mughal-centric narrative presented in the Ibratnama. Aurangabadi noted that the capture of the Lohgarh fort was a difficult task that might have taken more than a year to achieve. He also expressed his disdain for any accounts that insulted Islam by spreading rumours and false allegations regarding Banda Singh Bahadar and his actions. Furthermore, Aurangabadi wrote that anyone who advanced towards the fort was met with certain death. This statement highlighted the difficult terrain and fortification that the Sikh forces had put in place. It also underscored the dedication and determination of the Sikhs to hold on to the fort, as well as their willingness to sacrifice themselves to protect it. Muhammed Qasim Aurangabadi reported that Khan-i-Khann Munim Khan, and the Mughal princes believed that it would take at least one year to capture the fort(Muhammed Qasim Aurangabadi, Ahwaal-ul-Khawakeen (edited by Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon), pages 34-37.).

The author of this book has conducted a meticulous analysis of archaeological evidence and other relevant information to offer a comprehensive as well as truthful account of Lohgarh, contrasting it with the ‘biased’ version presented in the Ibratnama and other Persian records. The archaeological remains of the fort extend over an area that spans 40 kilometres in length and 10-15 kilometres in width on Dabar. The arc on which Lohgarh fort was situated was called Dabar Hill, and it was surrounded on three sides by Rivers Yamuna, Markanda and Giri. On the south side, there were a large number of advance forts, starting from Karnal in modern-day Haryana, and these forts formed a web that could not be taken over by the Mughal forces. It would have been virtually impossible, as each hill within the fort was doubly fortified and had no clear passage for attackers. Given these conditions, it would have taken at least a day to capture a single hill, and with many mountains around, the siege of Lohgarh could have lasted for several months or even years!

This new historical research delves into the significance of the Lohgarh fort and its history in Sikhism. Lohgarh was located on the boundary of the Mughal empire, adjacent to the Nahan estate, and was characterized by undulating terrain, dense forest cover, and perennial Rivers and rivulets due to the region’s proximity to the Shivalik hill ranges as well as lower Himalayas.

The Mughal parganas of Khizrabad, Sadhaura and Mustafabad governed the area under sarkar Sirhind and suba Delhi, while the hill chief of Nahan held administrative control beyond their borders and accepted the Mughal suzerainty. The region’s difficult terrain, dense forests and presence of tigers made it inaccessible to humans. The Mughals showed little interest in the area due to the low revenue generated, with Khizrabad being the only area of importance as it controlled suba Delhi’s irrigation network and had a large market for timber. Eventually, the Banjara Sikhs and Sufi Pirs took over the administrative control of these parganas.

The Banjaras, who were of royal descent, made this land their home since the 12^th century as it was a haven against Muslim invasions from Central Asia. This region was adjacent to the trade route leading to Central Asia and was used by Banjara Sikhs for international trade during peaceful times and for storing expensive goods during war or invasion.

In 1502 _AD, Guru Nanak sahib visited the region and deemed it suitable for establishing the capital of Halimi Raj. The Banjaras in the area embraced Sikhism and worked on Guru Nanak sahib’s mission. As major taxpayers and suppliers of arms and food to the Mughal army, they were authorized to construct mid-sized forts to store valuable goods and protect them from the enemy as well as thieves.

Taking advantage of this, a large Sikh population was settled in the region during Guru Nanak sahib’s time, leading to over a thousand Sikh-inhabited villages. The Banjara Sikhs in these villages established numerous trade and manufacturing units, and gradually fortified themselves during the reign of all ten Sikh Guru sahibans and during the time of Banda Singh Bahadar. It formed a web quite impregnable for Mughals(Kamraj bin Nain Singh, Ibratnama (1719 _AD).).

The Lohgarh advance forts were relatively small, separated by a distance of 5-10 kilometres from each other. Additionally, Banjara Sikhs were permitted to construct such forts, and Sufi Pirs also granted them accreditation, allowing these fortifications to stay away from the radar of Mughal intelligence. From a bird’s eye view, these forts formed a web which, during warfare, functioned effectively against the Mughals. The Tandas led the strategic decision to fortify Lohgarh, with the Banjara Sikhs playing a critical role in erecting and securing the fortifications.

All 10 Sikh Guru sahibans visited Thanesar part of Lohgarh zone to establish Halimi Raj. The presence of figureheads like Peer Budhu Shah, a descendant of Pirs of Mecca, and Pir Dastgir of Baghdad, who was a descendant of Prophet Mohammad’s progeny, in Sadhaura, were significant in establishing Halimi Raj of Guru Nanak sahib. The Mughal emperors bowed before these Sufi saints of the region, who were the bloodline of Prophet Mohammad, and granted them jagirs and mansabdari of the parganas situated in areas adjoining the region. For approximately two centuries, Sufi saints, Banjaras, Sikligars and Bhils collaborated to secure the area and devise strategies to contend with Mughal warfare tactics. This resulted in uninterrupted supplies crucial for the Sikhs during battles, with Lohgarh emerging as a stronghold of the Sikhs, providing them with a vital base during their fight against the Mughal empire.

Contemporary Mughal historians have ridiculed the Battle of Lohgarh, failing to explain why emperor Bahadur Shah arrived with an army of two lakhs to capture only the forts of Sadhaura and Lohgarh, located on one or two hillocks. From a warfare perspective, it was a tactical mistake to place such a large army in a small area with no requirement of capturing a small fort.

Moreover, the mention of a lack of survey maps of the region by the Mughals makes little sense, as the Lohgarh fort was, at the time, a small fort. The emperor camped for five months, and historical records reveal his anxiety regarding the failure of the Mughal army to capture Lohgarh and Banda Singh Bahadar. The Mughal army even failed to capture the Sadhaura fort for five months in 1710 _AD, while Banda Singh Bahadar captured it in 1709 _AD. in a time frame of less than one day. Had Sikhs not made early preparations, it would have been impossible to sustain this five-month war against the Mughal army.

Moreover, the Khan-i-Khann Munim Khan (Prime Minister) was repeatedly referred to as a dog, which ultimately led to his death in Lohgarh, raising questions about the reasons for such disdain. Bahadur Shah’s insecurity was so high that he did not allow non-Muslims to enter his royal camp during his stay in Lohgarh territory. It remains a puzzle as to why the emperor, considered the most powerful one of that time with his colossal army, struggled for months to gain an edge over the Sikhs and achieve victory in Lohgarh territory.

It is evident that contemporary Mughal historians deliberately withheld the truth about the battles of Lohgarh, as it was the catalyst for the decline of the Mughal empire. Interestingly, the stories written in the seven Ibratnama do not correspond with each other, and Kafi Khan in Muntakhab-al Lubab presented a concocted narrative. These Muslim writers, however, praised the bravery of Sikh soldiers in their accounts, acknowledging the significant losses suffered by the Mughal army. They further mentioned that delving deeper into the topic would have been an insult to Islam. The animosity of the British towards the Sikhs also led them to hide the facts surrounding Lohgarh. Examination of revenue records from 1870 _AD revealed that a large British contingent remained stationed at Sandhay fort for nearly 50 years, indicating their awareness of the facts about Lohgarh.

However, individuals like the Englishman Willam Irvin were assigned to narrate half-truths, create confusion and obfuscate the reality of Lohgarh. Present-day historians translate existing Persian history on Lohgarh and claim them as their own, which only serves to add to the confusion, as the historical dots remain unconnected. Other historians engage in superficial copy-paste work without truly understanding the archaeological evidence and the ground realities. Regarding the existence of large Sikh settlements, it is worth mentioning that their genocide continued until 1750 _AD. After the battles of Lohgarh, this region was left uninhabited, leading the Mughals to populate it with loyal subjects from Rajasthan.

In 1760 _AD, Sikhs recaptured the region from the Mughals and rangars, but by 1800 _AD, it fell under British control. Although there are still small villages of Banjaras, Bhils, and Sikligars in the area, their numbers are limited. The major resettlement efforts were carried out during the British era in 1850 _AD, with Kale Rai appointed as the first settlement officer. As an administrative officer posted in this region, the author had the opportunity in 2016 to reveal the truth about Lohgarh.

The Mughal army suffered heavy losses in their attempts to reach Lohgarh, with Sikh pickets launching constant attacks from Attock to Bareilly – on suba Lahore and Delhi. The remains of the Sikh forts can be seen even today in the hilly areas of Ambala and Panchkula districts, including Bhojraj, Bhawana, Tanda Burj, Gorakhpur, Banasar, and other villages. Many forts were constructed by Sikhs in the valley and mountain ranges near Paonta, such as Bhatgarh, Sainwala Mubarakpur, Kolar, Kotla Molar, Mangarh, Lohar Tikri, Kumbigarh, Amargarh, Behrampur Salamatpur, Toka Nagla, Rampur Banjaran, Gulabgarh, Santokgarh, Sangrah fort, and Jaitak fort, all located behind the Lohgarh fort.

Yar Muhammad Khan Qalandar mentioned in his writing, Dastur-ul-Insha, that the Mughal forces were short on weapons and food supplies since the caravan of Banjaras, which was responsible for supplying food to the Mughals had joined the Sikh army as generals to fight against them. The Mughal forces suffered heavy losses, as the Sikhs had complete control over food supplies and water resources in the area. The Sikh army constantly attacked the Mughal forces, resulting in significant losses. The Sikh forts were well-stocked with food and weapons, and the Mughals took a considerable amount of time to conquer these forts before advancing towards Sadhaura. The unique aspect was the capability of the Sikhs to engage in ‘Guerrilla warfare’ along the trade routes, which led to the Mughals panicking and retreating into secure forest shelters. One side of the trade route was a rough and rugged area leading to Lohgarh, and the other was a dense forest extending towards Jind. Therefore, the Mughals faced significant challenges while attempting to suppress the Sikh revolution.