A growing narrative seeks to challenge the widely accepted historical account of Gangu Brahman’s betrayal of the Sahibzadas and Mata Gujri. According to this perspective, the real culprits were two Masand Sikh officials who handed over the Sahibzadas to the Mughals. Proponents of this claim cite Katha Guru Ji Ke Sootan Ki by Dhunna Singh Handuria as their primary source, arguing that the blame was unfairly shifted onto Brahman community by later Sikh historians, leading to what they consider a historical misrepresentation.
However, a closer examination of Sikh primary sources reveals that the Masands who betrayed Mata Gujri and the Sahibzadas were Brahmans only. This deliberate distortion of history attempts to erase the role of Gangu Brahman and shift the blame elsewhere. In this article, we will analyze these claims, dissect their sources, and present evidence from authentic Sikh historical texts to set the record straight.
Propagandist accounts often fail to accurately interpret Sikh literature written in Gurmukhi, leading to misconceptions about historical events. The only known source that mentions Masands Dhumma and Darbari of Saheri Brahmana is Katha Guru Ji Ke Sootan Ki by Dhunna Singh Handuria. This work was first published and edited in 1967 by the renowned scholar Piara Singh Padam for his book Char Sahibzade.
According to Handuria’s account, these Masands were tempted by the riches in Mata Gujri’s procession and ultimately chose to betray the Sahibzadas by handing them over to the Mughal authorities. Piara Singh Padam, in his book, explicitly states that both Masands were Brahmins by caste.[1] Furthermore, he suggests that the figure of Gangu may not represent a separate historical character but rather a pejorative nickname associated with one of these individuals.
According to Bhai Dunna Singh Handuria, two Masands accompanied the Sahibzadas and Mata Gujri to their village and ultimately betrayed them. To establish that these Masands were, in fact, Brahmins, we will examine other prominent Sikh historical sources on the subject today.
Historically, most Masands were of Brahmin and Khatri descent, as they were responsible for collecting funds from the Sikh Sangat, maintaining donation records, and spreading Sikh teachings. This was not due to any form of caste hierarchy but rather because Brahmins and Khatris traditionally possessed the literacy and accounting skills required for these administrative duties, skills that were less common among Jatts, who primarily worked as peasants.
An account in Panth Prakash further reinforces that the Masands were predominantly from higher-caste backgrounds rather than Jatt community. During the formation of the Khalsa, the Masands expressed deep resentment and dissatisfaction with Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s decision to shift authority away from them and empower the Jats and Dalits.[2] This reaction underscores the fact that the Masands primarily came from upper-caste backgrounds, and their jealousy stemmed from losing their privileged position within the Sikh hierarchy.
Brahmins strongly opposed the formation of the Khalsa, as its principle of a casteless society directly challenged their entrenched position at the top of the caste hierarchy. The Khalsa dismantled the traditional social structure that had long benefited the Brahmin class, leading to significant resistance from them.
A key historical source that illustrates this opposition is Gur Sobha (1711) by Sainapat, a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.[3]
Preparing Amrit (Khande ki Pahul) all the Sikhs partook of it,
Five initiated Singhs stood witness at each initiation.
Some Sikhs belonging to Brahmin and Kshatriya castes,
Kept aloof and drew their own conclusions. ||5||201||Being Brahmins why should they not tonsure their heads,
How will it behove them in their social life?
Thus being misled by many old delusions,
They chose to ignore the Divine Guru’s words. ||6||202||
It is evident that the majority of Brahmins and Kshatriyas opposed the formation of the Khalsa, though some, such as the Chhibber Brahmins, did embrace it. Now, turning back to the Masands—after the establishment of the Khalsa, the Masand system was formally abolished from the Sikh Panth. From that point onward, there was no official role of Masands within the Sikh institutions.[4]
While some Masands accepted the Khalsa and aligned themselves with Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s vision, many others rejected this transformation and chose to part ways with Guru Sahib in disagreement. This historical shift marked the end of the Masand institution and reinforced the Khalsa's principles of direct allegiance to the Guru, eliminating any intermediaries in Sikh spiritual and administrative matters.
The two masands mentioned by Bhai Dunna Singh were the ones who never initiated themselves into Khalsa, otherwise Dunna Singh would have not mentioned them as Masands but instead he would have mentioned them as Sikhs or Khalsa.
Let us now examine how the crime committed by Gangu (a derogatory word for the traitor) as described in other notable Sikh texts.
Amarnama (1718)
Amarnama, written by Kavi Nathu Mal who was a disciple of the Guru and travelled along the Guru towards Deccan where they found a Hindu ascetic [known to the later tradition as Banda Singh], the author mentions that the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh Ji were killed due to Brahmins, which explicitly denotes the role of Brahmins in the betrayal and ultimate killing of the char Sahibzadas.[5]
Gurbilas Patshahi 10 (1797)
According to Sukha Singh, the Bipar (Brahmin) sold the Sahibzadas to the imperial authority for greed of a reward, he labels the Brahmin as a traitor (loon haram). Sukha Singh mentions the Brahmin who betrayed Mataji was a former Masand which verifies that the Masands mentioned by Handuria were indeed Brahmin by caste. [6]
Sri Gur Panth Prakash (1841)
Sri Gur Panth Parkash speaks of "a cunning and evil family butler, a Brahmin by caste, who took the Sahibzadas and Mata Gujri to his village Saheri Kheri Brahmana. However, he turned over the Sahibzada and the elderly Gurumata to the Mughal patrols at Morinda because he "was extremely lured by the Guru's family gold and silver," which Mata Gujri carried. [7]
The reference to the Brahmin village “Saheri Kheri Brahmana” is a crucial aspect of this historical account. Notably, Bhai Dunna Singh Handuria also identifies this same village as the place of origin for the Masands in question. Given this, it is plausible that only one of the two Masands ultimately betrayed Mata Gujri Ji and the Sahibzadas, which may explain why Sikh historical records primarily mention a single Masand or Brahmin in the account of their betrayal.
Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth (1843)
The historical text known as Sri Suraj Prakash Granth (or Sri Gurpratap Suraj Granth) is a fountain of inspiration, written by Kavi Raaj Bhai Santokh Singh, Suraj Prakash Granth serves as an important and influential work of literature. Filled with a rich history, the philosophy of the ten Guru Sahibs can be explored through the numerous volumes of poetic beauty.
Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth narrates how, upon the separation of Mata Gujri and the younger Sahibzade, a Bipar (Brahmin) who the noble Mata recognised for having been involved in the house of the Guru as a masand in the past, committed deceit and fraud by luring the unassuming Gurumata with the children in his village. There his greed led him into trying to steal the jewels in Mata Gujri’s possession with the pretext of safekeeping them from the village-folk. The Gurumata saw through his plan and the enraged criminal Brahmin (dīja-pāpi) begins shouting and creates commotion. He along with the village Chaudhari go to Morinda and tell the Mughal force there about the location of the Guru’s family, demanding the reward prize for their loyalty to the Mughal crown.[8]
Also, Gur Suraj Prakash states that the Brahmin was once connected to the Masandi, demonstrating that the Masands that Dhunna Singh Handuria describes as traitor were Brahmins by caste.
Upon a thorough analysis of the leading Sikh sources, it is easy to determine who the traitor was that these propagandist accounts are trying to erase.
The authors of these texts frequently express reverence for figures such as Lord Krishna and other Hindu deities, making any claim of bias against Brahmins untenable. There is no indication within these sources of prejudice or anti-Hindu sentiment, further solidifying their credibility in preserving Sikh historical truth.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the historical evidence from Sikh primary sources clearly establishes the role of Brahmins in the betrayal of Mata Gujri Ji and the Sahibzadas. Attempts to dismiss or distort this account stem from a lack of understanding of Sikh literature. The authenticity of our history remains unchanged, and we will continue to uphold it based on well-documented Sikh sources.
This discussion is not intended to target any sect or community.
References :
-
Piara Singh Padam (1986) Guru Kian Sakhian kirt Bhai Swarup Singh Kaushish (in Punjabi). Amritsar: Singh Brother pg no. 22-23
- Sri Gur Panth Prakash (Rattan Singh Bhangoo) Volume I (Episodes 1 To 81) English Translation By Kulwant Singh Pg No. 103
- Sri Gur Sobha Sainapati English Translation Kulwant Singh 546 Nanakshahi (2014 Ce) Institute Of Sikh Studies Chandigarh Pg no. 93
-
Guru Gobind Singh (1666–1708): Master of the White Hawk By J. S. Grewal Chapter – 7 (Baisakhi of 1699)
- The Amarnama: The Statement of the Immortal Fakhra Shah Mission High School, San Francisco pg no. 13
- Gurbilas Patshahi 10 - Sukha Singh Larivaar Print pg no. 394
- Sri Gur Panth Prakash (Rattan Singh Bhangoo) Volume I (Episodes 1 To 81) English Translation By Kulwant Singh Pg No. 139
- Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth – Rutt 6 by compiled by Bhai Baljinder Singh Ji.pg no. 394
