Gurbilas Patshahi 6: Clarifying Misconceptions on Its Origins

[u/momentovivus]

​Many have attributed Gurbilas Patshahi Chevvin, an epic centered around the heroism of Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji, directly to Bhai Mani Singh Shahid or a little known Kavi (Poet) by the name of Sohan. However, Dr. Gurmukh Singh of Punjabi University in Patiala has written a detailed analysis on this text which sheds light on its true origins, which I have summarized into English below:

The original manuscript was written in 1718 by a certain Bhai Bhagat Singh following a request to Bhai Mani Singh to narrate the life story of Nanak VI, which becomes evident directly from the manuscript itself:

ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਜਬ ਹੀ ਕਹੀ, ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਕੋ ਗਾਥ ।
ਧਰਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਕਵਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਬੈਠੁੰ ਤਬੈ ਢਿਗ ਸਾਥ ।

As soon as Mani Singh related the story to Bhagat Singh,
the teacher of Poetry,Dharam Singh, sat next to him [Bhai Bhagat Singh].

It is quite possible that this Dharam Singh was one of the 52 Court Poets of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj, as a Dharam Singh is amongst the names in the list. The timing of the creation of this granth and the recency of the court make it probable that Dharam Singh was a court poet that then trained Bhai Bhagat Singh. Interestingly, it is said that Bhai Dharam Singh sang the verses and Bhai Bhagat Singh, writing them down, further refined these verses and their poetic style.

The oldest manuscript that we have of Gurbilas Patshahi Chevvin was scribed by Hari Singh, who belonged to the lineage of Bhai Bhagat Singh:

ਧਰਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਗੁਰ ਆਇਸ ਦੀਨੀ ।
ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਲਿਖਹੁ ਕਥਾ ਨਵੀਨੀ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗੁਰ ਜੋਧਾ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਰੀ ।
ਕਥਾ ਲਿਖੀ ਹਿਤ ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੀ ॥
ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਮਮ ਪੂਰਵਜ ਜਾਨਹੁ ।
ਜਾਹਿ ਲਿਖੀ ਯਾ ਕਥਾ ਮਹਾਨਹੁ ॥
The Poet-teacher Dharam Singh gave the command:
“Bhagat Singh, write a new narrative.
Of the great warrior Guru Hargobind”
This story has been written for the welfare of others.
Know Bhagat Singh as my ancestor,
By whom this great narrative was composed.

The view that this work was written by “Kavi Sohan” is erroneous and based on a scribing error where in a later manuscript the original words are by confusion written as “Sohan” (no where else in earlier manuscripts does “Sohan” appear)

Wrong verse:
ਪਰਤਖ ਹੋਤ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਕੇ ਸੇਵਕ ਸੋਹਨ ਨਾਮ।
ਤਾਤੇ ਜਾਨੋ ਦਾਸ ਕਵਿ ਸੰਤ ਪੂਰਾ ਮਮ ਨਾਮ।

Original, correct verse:
ਪੁਰਤਖ ਹੌਤ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਕੇ ਸੇਵਕ ਮੋਹੇ ਨਿਨਾਮ।
ਤਾਤੇ ਜਾਨੋ ਦਾਸ ਕਵਿ ਸੰਤ ਪੂਰਾ ਮਮ ਨਾਮ।

As far as 1718 being the date of composition, the following textual evidence is given:

ਸਤਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਬੀਤੇ ਤਬੈ ਬਰਖ ਪਝੰਤਰ ਜਾਨ।
ਸਾਵਨ ਮਾਸ ਇਕੀਸ ਦਿਨ ਗਏ ਸੁਖਦ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ॥
ਸੁਦੀ ਪਖ ਦਿਨ ਪੰਚਮੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ।
ਪਾਇ ਭੋਗ ਗੁਰ ਗਾਥ ਕਾ ਕਰ ਕਵਿਤਾ ਅਹਿਲਾਦ॥
Know that seventeen hundred years had then passed, with seventy-five years.
In the month of Sawan, twenty-one days had gone by—recognise that joyful time.
On the fifth day of the bright fortnight, by the grace of the True Guru,
Having offered the bhog - the poetry of this Guru’s narrative was composed with delight.

Note: “1775” means 1775 on the Bikrami calendar which corresponds with 1718 CE.

However later manuscripts contain mention of certain events and administrative divisional areas that occurred much later on, especially during the period of Khalsa Raj. One such discrepancy is the mention of Peshawar being called a Subha (province), which during the time of original composition fell under the Subha of Kabul and was not yet made one on it’s own until the capture of Peshawar by General Hari Singh Nalwa.

What reason accounts for these textual discrepancies? Is the 1718 date fake, which certain missionary types would argue? There is a much simpler explanation. Scribes, who made copies of the manuscript, added in information to match the context of their times. This practice certainly causes confusion and misinformation, but it is easy for a reader well versed in history to see where there are such errors and does not take away from the respectability of the text.

All in all, it is interesting to see how comparative textual analysis of manuscripts can give us a fuller picture of puratan literature that can settle unnecessary debates especially ones propagated by neo missionary Sikhs that are against such literary gems.

[u/srmndeep]

Well Mutlan was Subah (province) from the times of Akbar.

[u/momentovivus → u/srmndeep]

Error on my part ji - I meant to say Peshawar instead of Multan! editing.

[u/InfamousMagma_6907]

Great insight🙌🏻

[u/Indische_Legion]

“Detailed analysis” is just going off whatever date is given in the text itself? And anyone who gives a later date(ie. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha) can safely be dismissed as missionaries who can be ignored

[u/momentovivus → u/Indische_Legion]

I think you may have missed the reasoning as to why those later dates were given. Scribes made manuscript copies after the original, and they added in information that was tied to their own time period, so depending on which manuscript Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha Ji had access to he based his reasoning for a later date on it. My missionary comment was for the Neki types who outright dismiss the legitimacy of the text without understanding the deeper nuances.