J19 
1894.] W. Irvine—Guru Gobind Sirjgh and Band ah 
march down country from Labor to Agra, to contest the throne with his 
brother, A’zam Shah. Gobind Siijgh must have received some rank 
but what it was is not stated by the Muhammadans. A mansab 
of 5,000, as stated by the Sikhs, is preposterous, the greatest leaders, at 
the head of thousands of soldiers, having no higher rank, whereas Gobind 
Siijgh is reported as having no more than two or three hundred mend In 
the same way the Sikhs make the battle, fought at Jajau, between 
Agra and Dholpur, on the 18th Rabi‘ I, 1119 (,18th June, 1707 \ to be 
won solely by the marvellous feats of Gobind Siijgh and his Sikhs. 
This is absurd, and may be summarily rejected. But there is, I think, 
evidence that Gobind Siijgh was in the Emperor’s army at Agra im¬ 
mediately after the battle. I think that he is to be identified in the 
entry of the Bahadur Shah Ndmah 2 of the 4th Jamadi I, 1119 (2nd 
August 1707), when “a jewelled scarf was presented to Gobind Siijgh.” 
The same doubt surrounds the place and time of Gobind Siijgh’s 
death. The Sikhs assign it to Nader, on the Godavari, where they have 
a shrine called Acalnagar, or the Immovable City. 3 I think that this 
tradition must be accepted as historically correct, and the time of death 
must be taken as November 1708. 4 Bahadur Shall was then on his 
march from Burhanpur to Haidarabad, as already related, and the Guru 
was in his train. The tradition says that Gobind Siijgli’s death hap¬ 
pened on the fifth day of some lunar month. 5 Now, in the Bahadur 
Shah Ndmah, on the 5th Ramzan, 1120 (17th November 1708 ) we find 
that a report was made to the Emperor “ as to the disposal of the mova¬ 
ble property left by Guru Gobind Nanak. 6 It was of considerable 
value, and according to rule ought to be confiscated. The Emperor, 
with the remark that he was not in want of the goods of a Darvesh , 
ordered the whole to be relinquished to the heirs.” The death might 
have just occurred ; at any rate, it must have happened quite recently. 
Unfortunately, Danishmand Khan, in his contempt for all narrative, 
tells us nothing of the mode of death. One Ajlt (or Ajib) Siijgh, who 
passed as the Guru’s son, was brought to the Emperor, was invested 
with a robe of honour, and taken into the Imperial service. 7 
1 Khafi Khan, II, 652. 
2 Danishmand Khan, fol. 18. 
8 E. Trumpp, Adigranth, xcvi. 
4 McGregor, I, 100, says Sawan 1765 S., which would be July 1708. Cunning¬ 
ham, 81, note, has “ towards the end of 1708,” and Mufinu-d-dln fixes it on Katik, 
Sudi 5th, 1765 S. (November 1708). 
5 SakhI Book, 200. 
6 As to the use of the name Nanalc by each Guru, see Cunningham, 57. 
7 Mirza Mhd. This Ajit Siijgh was apparently an adopted son (Rae Chatarman’s 
Chahdr Gulshan, my copy, fol. 143.) He was executed at Dihll in 1137 H. (Tdrikh - 
i-Muhammadi). 
J. i. 16 
