When all other means have failed, it is but Lawful to take to the Sword

harry haller · #1 (**permalink**) 11-Sep-2011, 23:10 PM

Gurfateh,

I am finding myself more and more endeared to the tenth master, his charisma, style, faith, perception, manner, humour and of course bravery and courage.

I know many see the first and tenth Gurus as somewhat on different ends of the scale, but as my mother has often said to me, there were different actions for different times, put the tenth master in the shoes of the first one, he would have behaved as Guru Nanak, put Guru Nanak into the tenth masters shoes, he would have behaved as Guru Gobind Singh, some might say the sikh religion evolved into the Khalsa, my mother would say that Guru Nanak had the vision of the Khalsa as well as every other Guru, Guru Gobind Singh merely carried out a plan that was in the making since the start.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/36909-when-all-other-means-have-failed.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909

I have never been a violent or angry man, but I do hate confrontation, it leaves me drained and depressed. Today I had to have a confrontation, I can be quite good at getting philosophy quite wrong, in the past I have become averse rather than be attached, unwashed and grubby, as opposed to proud and egoistical, so naturally, when confronted, I will do anything just not to have a confrontation, joke, laugh, apologise, I realised that I was in fact scared of confrontation, I feared it, which is strange, as I do not fear death, which is possibly the worst thing that can happen to you, but I do fear confrontation, spiders, snakes, small children with dirty fingers, and aggression.

In an effort to address this, I have been thinking/meditating on the words of Guru Gobind Singh, and what they mean to me,

To me, they mean that with truth on your side, and with honourable thoughts, you can conquer any situation with dignity and without fear, you may die, you may be hurt, but your soul will not be compromised, how many have compromised their soul for material or emotional gains, once that moment has passed, the gain is gone, but the damage to the soul stays forever,.

Now, when I feel fear, I mentally remove my sword from its sheath, only a few inches, and that gives me the courage to do the right thing, to follow the truth, not to allow lies to be victorious, to stand for the truth, and be willing to die for it, in that context, all those brave martyrs who died for sikhi, can now be understood, they did it to maintain the perfection of their souls,

As for todays confrontation, I was firm and polite, not aggressive or threatening, as each arrow came towards me, I cut it down with the Gurus sword, finally there were no arrows left, at this point I could have gone in for the kill, but I kept myself devoid of humour or sarcasm, and kept to being polite but firm, and with a 'mind how you go' from me, it was all over

I would be interested to hear others interpretation of the line

When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to take to the sword

spnadmin · #2 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 01:33 AM

Henry Haller ji

It is my understanding that in Zafarnama, which you have quoted, http://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/1469

In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh is evoking a concept of "Just War" or "jus bellum." This is normally taken to be a description of how states or political entities take action under provocation, according to ethical principles. It is not normally applied to the control of anger between and among individuals. Guru Gobind Singh wrote Zafarnama as an epistle, or letter, to the Persian emperor, as the leader of the Sikh quom. In it he indeed outlined the ethical principles that justified a military response to Persian political and religious persecution. And the point of Zafarnama is that Aurangzeb violated principles of justice in his persecution of the peoples of India. Zafarnama means Epistle of Victory. What victory? Guru Gobind Singh had already won... a moral victory.

In Zafarnama, this point comes through very clearly: Aurangzeb demonstrated indifference to symmetrical morality. And therefore Dasam Pita denounced his actions.

Quote:

1. Introduction (from International Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Historically, the just war tradition–a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. That is, when an array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare. But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as “less than human”, war conventions are rarely applied. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people, sharing a moral identity with whom one will do business in the following peace, that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve and what kind of relations should apply in the aftermath of war. In part, the motivation for forming or agreeing to certain conventions, can be seen as mutually benefiting—preferable, for instance, to the deployment of any underhand tactics or weapons that may provoke an indefinite series of vengeance acts, or the kinds of action that have proved to be detrimental to the political or moral interests to both sides in the past.

Regardless of the conventions that have historically formed, it has been the concern of the majority of just war theorists that the lack of rules to war or any asymmetrical morality between belligerents should be denounced, and that the rules of war should apply to all equally. That is, just war theory should be universal, binding on all and capable in turn of appraising the actions of all parties over and above any historically formed conventions.

The just war tradition is indeed as old as warfare itself. Early records of collective fighting indicate that some moral considerations were used by warriors to limit the outbreak or to rein in the potential devastation of warfare. They may have involved consideration of women and children or the treatment of prisoners (enslaving them rather than killing them, or ransoming or exchanging them). Commonly, the earlier traditions invoked considerations of honor: some acts in war have always been deemed dishonorable, whilst others have been deemed honorable. However, what is “honorable” is often highly specific to culture: for instance, a suicidal attack or defense may be deemed the honorable act for one people but ludicrous to another. Robinson (2006) notes that honor conventions are also contextually slippery, giving way to pragmatic or military interest when required. Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath.

The just war theory also has a long history. Parts of the Bible hint at ethical behavior in war and concepts of just cause, typically announcing the justice of war by divine intervention; the Greeks may have paid lip service to the gods, but, as with the Romans, practical and political issues tended to overwhelm any fledgling legal conventions: that is, interests of state or Realpolitik (the theory known as political realism would take precedence in declaring and waging war. Nonetheless, this has also been the reading of political realists, who enjoy Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War as an example of why war is necessarily the extension of politics and hence permeated by hard-nosed state interest rather than “lofty” pretensions to moral behavior.

Although St. Augustine provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several Arabic commentators in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries, but the most systematic exposition in the Western tradition and one that still attracts attention was outlined by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In the Summa Theologicae, Aquinas presents the general outline of what becomes the traditional just war theory as discussed in modern universities. He discusses not only the justification of war but also the kinds of activity that are permissible (for a Christian) in war (see below). Aquinas’s thoughts become the model for later Scholastics and Jurists to expand and to gradually to universalize beyond Christendom – notably, for instance, in relations with the peoples of America following European incursions into the continent. The most important of these writers are: Francisco de Vitoria (1486-1546), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767).

...

Yet increasingly, the rule of law – the need to hold violators and transgressors responsible for their actions in war and therefore after the battle – is making headway onto the battlefield. In chivalrous times, the Christian crusader could seek priestly absolution for atrocities committed in war, a stance supported by Augustine for example; today, the law courts are seemingly less forgiving: a violation of the conventions assumes that the soldier is responsible and accountable and should be charged for a crime. Nonetheless, the idealism of those who seek the imposition of law and responsibility on the battlefield (cf. Geoffrey Robertson’s Crimes Against Humanity), often runs ahead of the traditions and customs, or plain state interests, that demean or weaken the justum bellum that may exist between warring factions. And in some cases, no just war conventions and hence no potential for legal acknowledgement of malfeasance, exist at all; in such cases, the ethic of war is considered, or is implicitly held to be, beyond the norms of peaceful ethics and therefore deserving a separate moral realm where “fair is foul and foul is fair” (Shakespeare, Macbeth I.i). In such examples (e.g, Rwanda, 1994), a people’s justification of destructiveness and killing to whatever relative degree they hold to be justifiable triumphs over attempts to establish the laws of peaceful interaction into this separate bloody realm; and in some wars, people fighting for their land or nation prefer to pick up the cudgel rather than the rapier, as Leo Tolstoy notes in War and Peace (Book 4.Ch.2), to sidestep the etiquette or war in favor securing their land from occupational or invading forces.

Read more about Jus Bellum
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2

Our anger as individuals, and how we manage that in our lives, has been discussed by all the Gurus beginning with Guru Nanak. Shabad Guru provides the way to moral accounting and ultimate ethical response to our anger in terms of acting from dharma. Acting in a way that reduces our ego, and enhances our compassion, which closes the gap between ourselves and our fellow man by control of ego and company of sandhsangat. Here are some words from Guru Ram Das. Ang 13

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੪ ॥
रागु गउड़ी पूरबी महला ४ ॥
Rāg ga▫oṛī pūrbī mėhlā 4.
Raag Gauree Poorbee, Fourth Mehl:

ਕਾਮਿ ਕਰੋਧਿ ਨਗਰੁ ਬਹੁ ਭਰਿਆ ਮਿਲਿ ਸਾਧੂ ਖੰਡਲ ਖੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥
कामि करोधि नगरु बहु भरिआ मिलि साधू खंडल खंडा हे ॥
Kām karoḏẖ nagar baho bẖari▫ā mil sāḏẖū kẖandal kẖanda he.
The body-village is filled to overflowing with anger and sexual desire; these were broken into bits when I met with the Holy Saint.

ਪੂਰਬਿ ਲਿਖਤ ਲਿਖੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਮਨਿ ਹਰਿ ਲਿਵ ਮੰਡਲ ਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੧॥
पूरबि लिखत लिखे गुरु पाइआ मनि हरि लिव मंडल मंडा हे ॥१॥
Pūrab likẖaṯ likẖe gur pā▫i▫ā man har liv mandal mandā he. ||1||
By pre-ordained destiny, I have met with the Guru. I have entered into the realm of the Lord's Love. ||1||

ਕਰਿ ਸਾਧੂ ਅੰਜੁਲੀ ਪੁਨੁ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥
करि साधू अंजुली पुनु वडा हे ॥
Kar sāḏẖū anjulī pun vadā he.
Greet the Holy Saint with your palms pressed together; this is an act of great merit.

ਕਰਿ ਡੰਡਉਤ ਪੁਨੁ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
करि डंडउत पुनु वडा हे ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Kar dand▫uṯ pun vadā he. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Bow down before Him; this is a virtuous action indeed. ||1||Pause||

ਸਾਕਤ ਹਰਿ ਰਸ ਸਾਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਤਿਨ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਕੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥
साकत हरि रस सादु न जाणिआ तिन अंतरि हउमै कंडा हे ॥
Sākaṯ har ras sāḏ na jāṇi▫ā ṯin anṯar ha▫umai kandā he.
The wicked shaaktas, the faithless cynics, do not know the Taste of the Lord's Sublime Essence. The thorn of egotism is embedded deep within them.

ਜਿਉ ਜਿਉ ਚਲਹਿ ਚੁਭੈ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ਸਹਹਿ ਸਿਰਿ ਡੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੨॥
जिउ जिउ चलहि चुभै दुखु पावहि जमकालु सहहि सिरि डंडा हे ॥२॥
Ji▫o ji▫o cẖalėh cẖubẖai ḏukẖ pāvahi jamkāl sahėh sir dandā he. ||2||
The more they walk away, the deeper it pierces them, and the more they suffer in pain, until finally, the Messenger of Death smashes his club against their heads. ||2||

ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਿ ਸਮਾਣੇ ਦੁਖੁ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਭਵ ਖੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥
हरि जन हरि हरि नामि समाणे दुखु जनम मरण भव खंडा हे ॥
Har jan har har nām samāṇe ḏukẖ janam maraṇ bẖav kẖanda he.
The humble servants of the Lord are absorbed in the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. The pain of birth and the fear of death are eradicated.

ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਬਹੁ ਸੋਭ ਖੰਡ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੩॥
अबिनासी पुरखु पाइआ परमेसरु बहु सोभ खंड ब्रहमंडा हे ॥३॥
Abẖināsī purakẖ pā▫i▫ā parmesar baho sobẖ kẖand barahmandā he. ||3||
They have found the Imperishable Supreme Being, the Transcendent Lord God, and they receive great honor throughout all the worlds and realms. ||3||

ਹਮ ਗਰੀਬ ਮਸਕੀਨ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੇਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਖੁ ਰਾਖੁ ਵਡ ਵਡਾ ਹੇ ॥
हम गरीब मसकीन प्रभ तेरे हरि राखु राखु वड वडा हे ॥
Ham garīb maskīn parabẖ ṯere har rākẖ rākẖ vad vadā he.
I am poor and meek, God, but I belong to You! Save me-please save me, O Greatest of the Great!

ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਅਧਾਰੁ ਟੇਕ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੇ ਹੀ ਸੁਖੁ ਮੰਡਾ ਹੇ ॥੪॥੪॥
जन नानक नामु अधारु टेक है हरि नामे ही सुखु मंडा हे ॥४॥४॥
Jan Nānak nām aḏẖār tek hai har nāme hī sukẖ mandā he. ||4||4||
Servant Nanak takes the Sustenance and Support of the Naam. In the Name of the Lord, he enjoys celestial peace. ||4||4||

Mai Harinder Kaur · #3 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 05:14 AM

To me, this means exactly what it says: if an unjust situation cannot be solved peacefully, it is right to use violence.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909

It is necessary to be very, very clear that this is not a carte blanche to go around being violent or even threatening violence. Guru Gobind Singh ji would never have condoned his Khalsa or anyone else to be bullies.

For violence to be righteous, it must meet two very specific criteria.

First, all peaceful means must have been attempted, if that is possible. Sometimes, such as in a direct attack, negotiation is impossible. My former caregiver, Irene, a fundy Christian, insisted that we should have invited our attackers in Delhi to join us in prayer before fighting them. Although it is always dangerous to try to speak for a Guru, I can only imagine him giving her a pitying look and moving on. So, peaceful means, if possible, must be attempted.

What about a per-emptory strike? If you are certain that you will be attacked, is it righteous to attack first? ?I think, yes, sometimes it is, but you must be very, very careful of both your knowledge and your motives.

Second, the cause must be righteous. This, too, is not always easy to ascertain. Self defence or the defence of an innocent person, of course, is righteous. What about the lynching of a known murderer or child rapist? What about the legal execution of such? Is it righteous to use violence to protect them?

I must make one final point. Anger and violence are very dangerous partners. Even though the anger may be justified, at best, it will keep you from being clear-headed and the most effective warrior you could be.

I remember some time ago, I was discussing this anger issue with a friend, who brought up how very angry I was with the dusht who killed my son. Yes, I was seething with justified anger. Yes, I took great pleasure in killing the perpetrator of the heinous act. But...had I kept a cool head, I might have not concentrated so much on this one person, and I might have been able to kill at least one or two more.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909

I will save how these principles apply to non-combat situations for another day.

Ambarsaria · #4 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 06:27 AM

Mai Harinder Kaur ji so well stated and you executed the command of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji in your actions.

Quote:

I remember some time ago, I was discussing this anger issue with a friend, who brought up how very angry I was with the dusht who killed my son. Yes, I was seething with justified anger. Yes, I took great pleasure in killing the perpetrator of the heinous act. But...had I kept a cool head, I might have not concentrated so much on this one person, and I might have been able to kill at least one or two more.
The above great thought as well.

Wisdom should also allow one to decide on first strike given situations. There is nothing wrong with first strike.

Thanks.

Sat Sri Akal.

gurbanicd · #5 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 14:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller

Gurfateh,

I am finding myself more and more endeared to the tenth master, his charisma, style, faith, perception, manner, humour and of course bravery and courage.

I know many see the first and tenth Gurus as somewhat on different ends of the scale, but as my mother has often said to me, there were different actions for different times, put the tenth master in the shoes of the first one, he would have behaved as Guru Nanak, put Guru Nanak into the tenth masters shoes, he would have behaved as Guru Gobind Singh, some might say the sikh religion evolved into the Khalsa, my mother would say that Guru Nanak had the vision of the Khalsa as well as every other Guru, Guru Gobind Singh merely carried out a plan that was in the making since the start.

I have never been a violent or angry man, but I do hate confrontation, it leaves me drained and depressed. Today I had to have a confrontation, I can be quite good at getting philosophy quite wrong, in the past I have become averse rather than be attached, unwashed and grubby, as opposed to proud and egoistical, so naturally, when confronted, I will do anything just not to have a confrontation, joke, laugh, apologise, I realised that I was in fact scared of confrontation, I feared it, which is strange, as I do not fear death, which is possibly the worst thing that can happen to you, but I do fear confrontation, spiders, snakes, small children with dirty fingers, and aggression.

In an effort to address this, I have been thinking/meditating on the words of Guru Gobind Singh, and what they mean to me,

To me, they mean that with truth on your side, and with honourable thoughts, you can conquer any situation with dignity and without fear, you may die, you may be hurt, but your soul will not be compromised, how many have compromised their soul for material or emotional gains, once that moment has passed, the gain is gone, but the damage to the soul stays forever,.

Now, when I feel fear, I mentally remove my sword from its sheath, only a few inches, and that gives me the courage to do the right thing, to follow the truth, not to allow lies to be victorious, to stand for the truth, and be willing to die for it, in that context, all those brave martyrs who died for sikhi, can now be understood, they did it to maintain the perfection of their souls,

As for todays confrontation, I was firm and polite, not aggressive or threatening, as each arrow came towards me, I cut it down with the Gurus sword, finally there were no arrows left, at this point I could have gone in for the kill, but I kept myself devoid of humour or sarcasm, and kept to being polite but firm, and with a 'mind how you go' from me, it was all over

I would be interested to hear others interpretation of the line

When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to take to the sword

gurfateh ji

Take to the sword or not take to the sword depends upon the will of the lord hukum and this will or Hukum is known to gurmukhs only.

The action may vary from time to time as Guru Sahiban sometime sacrificed their lives inspite of injustice and sometime fought the wars.

" hukum tera khra bhara gurmukh kisey bujhae"

Guru Arjun dev ji (5)sacrificed his life.

Guru Hargobing Sahib ji(6) fought the wars

again Guru Teg bahadur Sahib ji (9) sacrificed his life.

Guru Gobind Singh sahib ji fought the war.(10)

5th and 9th guru sacrificed their lives but 6th and 10th guru sahib fought thewars.

gurfateh

harry haller · #6 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 15:26 PM

Spnadminji,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909

Your post requires a timely study, thank you for your time, I will dissect it later, however judging by the email I got this morning from SPN, I am now not sure if I am Sinnerji or Henry

Lee · #7 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 20:40 PM

Harry ji.

Dawin shows us that vi

ence is inhenrant in nature, it is easy an natural to use viloence in order to get our own way.

Guru realsied this and asks us to first take any other ways, and then and only then if repression does not cease it is right to use violance in order to free people from repression.

Aman Singh · #8 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 20:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller

Spnadminji,

Your post requires a timely study, thank you for your time, I will dissect it later, however judging by the email I got this morning from SPN, I am now not sure if I am Sinnerji or Henry

All my fault. My apologies for the oversight...

harry haller · #9 (**permalink**) 12-Sep-2011, 21:06 PM

Actually, violence was least on my mind when I wrote this post, I am by nature extremely placid, too placid some might say, on the most, I spend my day in pleasant exchanges, but every now and then I come across someone with an aggressive nature, and that is what I find difficult to handle, is the aggression about to be backed up with violence, do I calm the aggression down so there is no violence, do I become equally as aggressive to force the other to back down, although this could equally force it up, I do not have enough experience around people to know, although I am getting better and more perceptive, for me the above statement in this day and age, and in my circumstances is better read as
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36909

When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to unsheath the sword by a few inches, or at least show you are in possession of a sword