The Martyrdom of the Sahibzadas: (Saka Sarhand) The Supreme Moral Witness of Sikh History
Opening (Invocation & Context)
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.
Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708)
Wives
1. Jito Married (Married 1677, Died1700)
Sons:
- Jujhar Singh (1690-1704)
- Zorawar Singh (1696-1704
- Fateh Singh (1699-1704)
- Sundri (Married1684- Died 1747 at Delhi
2. Son- Ajit Singh (1686-1704)
3. Sahib Devan (Married 1700, died1750)
Mother of entire Khalsa
Today, we remember not merely a tragic episode from history, but a moral summit of human courage—the martyrdom of Sahibzada Zorawar Singh Ji and Sahibzada Fateh Singh Ji, the two younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the Tenth Guru of the Sikhs.
They were children—one about nine years old, the other about six—yet their sacrifice stands alongside the greatest acts of conscience ever recorded. Their story is not only Sikh history; it is a lesson in the power of faith, freedom, and moral sovereignty.
I. Historical Background: A Time of Relentless Persecution
By the early 18th century, the Mughal Empire viewed the Sikh movement as an existential threat—not because Sikhs sought political power, but because Guru Gobind Singh Ji had created the Khalsa, a community founded on:
- Equality of all humans
- Rejection of caste and hereditary privilege
- Refusal to accept tyranny, even under threat of death
The Khalsa challenged the idea that authority flows from empire or birth. Instead, it proclaimed that sovereignty lies with conscience and the Divine.
This was revolutionary—and intolerable to despotic rule.
II. Separation at the River Sarsa
In December 1704, after months of siege at Anandpur Sahib, the Guru’s family was forced to evacuate under false assurances of safe passage.
During the chaos of crossing the flooded River Sarsa:
- Guru Gobind Singh Ji was separated from his family
- Mata Gujri Ji, the Guru’s mother, was separated with the two younger Sahibzadas
Alone, cold, and hunted, they took temporary shelter in Sarhand territory.
III. Arrest and Imprisonment
Mata Gujri Ji and the two younger Sahibzadas were accompanied by Gangu Brahmin who informed the Mughal authorities at Morindha about the persons in his charge. They were sent to Sarhand headquarters of Wazir Khan. They arrested and imprisoned in the Thanda Burj (Cold Tower) of Sirhind—an open structure in freezing winter conditions.
Consider this moment carefully:
- Two children, barely clothed
- Exposed to winter winds
- Watching their grandmother suffer
- Surrounded by hostile guards
Yet Sikh tradition records no cry for mercy, no complaint—only steadfastness.
IV. The Trial: Power vs. Conscience
They were brought before Wazir Khan, the Mughal governor of Sarhand.
The offer was simple:
- Convert to Islam
- Accept imperial authority
- Live in comfort and privilege
And the threat was explicit:
- Refuse—and die
These offers were not symbolic. They were real, immediate, and terrifying.
Yet the Sahibzadas responded with clarity beyond their years:
“We were born Sikhs, and we will remain Sikhs.”
This was not defiance—it was moral certainty.
V. The Method of Execution: A Crime Against Humanity
Unable to break their resolve, Suchanand Kathri remarked that young one of a snake were equally poisonous Wazir Khan ordered an execution meant to terrify:
Nawab Sher Mohammed Khan of Malerkotla had fought against the Gurus in the battles of Sarsa and Chamkaur. One of his brother and a nephew had been killed while fighting. Though the Nawab was bitterly opposed to Guru yet the young age of the children, their fearlessness, and a moral courage of the highest level, touched the tender cords of his heart. He protested Wazir Khan’s decision and explained that it was anti-Islam to punish the innocent children.
- The Sahibzadas were to be bricked alive inside a wall
As the wall rose, brick by brick:
- The children reportedly continued reciting Waheguru
- When the wall collapsed due to instability, they were beheaded
This was not justice.
This was an attempt to crush a moral revolution at its roots.
It failed.
VI. Mata Gujri Ji: The Silent Martyrdom
When Mata Gujri Ji was informed of the martyrdom of her grandsons:
- She recited the Divine Name
- And merged into eternal rest
Her death completes the triad of sacrifice—child, child, and elder—each representing a pillar of Sikh life.
VII. Why This Sacrifice Is Central to Sikh Identity
1. Child Martyrdom Without Victimhood
The Sahibzadas are not remembered as victims—but as conscious moral agents.
They teach Sikhs that:
- Age does not define courage
- Truth is not negotiable
- Faith is not inherited—it is chosen
2. Freedom of Conscience Above Life Itself
Their martyrdom establishes a core Sikh principle:
No authority—religious or political—has the right to coerce belief.
This principle predates modern human rights law by centuries.
3. The Guru’s Ultimate Sacrifice
Guru Gobind Singh Ji sacrificed:
- His four sons
- His mother
- His entire family
Yet he did not call for revenge. Instead, he affirmed:
“In putran ke sees par, vaar diye sut chaar…”
I sacrificed my four sons for the survival of the Khalsa.
This reframes loss as purpose, not despair.
The Indian government’s decision to commemorate the martyrdom of Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Sahibzada Fateh Singh as “Veer Bal Diwas” reflects a broader pattern of state appropriation of minority histories through reductive and depoliticized framing. By officially categorizing the Sahibzadas as “children,” the policy shifts attention away from the core issue of their martyrdom: a conscious, principled refusal to submit to state-imposed religious conformity. In Sikh doctrine and historical memory, the Sahibzadas are recognized as fully accountable moral mor mature than their age whose execution represents an early and unequivocal assertion of freedom of conscience against authoritarian power. The state’s emphasis on age rather than agency sanitizes the political and ethical meaning of the event, transforming a radical indictment of coercive authority into a sentimental narrative compatible with majoritarian nationalism. As such, Veer Bal Diwas is perceived by many Sikhs not as recognition, but as symbolic erasure—an attempt to neutralize a historical episode that fundamentally challenges the legitimacy of religious coercion by the state, past or present.
