Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji
1675 (traditionally 11 November) · Chandni Chowk, Delhi, India
The ninth Guru was executed at Delhi in 1675 under Aurangzeb. His son's own account says he died for the tilak and the sacred thread — the rites of a religion that was not his own.
The appeal from Kashmir
In 1675 a deputation of Kashmiri Brahmins, led in the tradition’s account by Kirpa Ram, came to Anandpur seeking protection against the conversion pressure of Aurangzeb’s administration in Kashmir.2,3 The Guru’s answer, as the Sikh chronicles preserve it, was to offer himself as the test: let the emperor be told that if Tegh Bahadur can be converted, the Pandits will follow. He set out for Delhi and was arrested on the way.
The wider context is Aurangzeb’s turn from his predecessors’ accommodation toward an assertively Islamic state policy — temple demolitions, the reimposition of jizya on non-Muslims a few years later, and pressure on Hindu officeholders.2,7 The Guru’s growing following in the Punjab plains, and his journeys through the eastern provinces, made him a figure the administration had reason to watch on his own account.
Chandni Chowk
Brought in chains to Delhi, the Guru was pressed to work a miracle or accept Islam, and refused both. Three companions were executed in front of him — Bhai Mati Das sawn in two, Bhai Dayala boiled alive, Bhai Sati Das burned — and on 11 November 1675, by the traditional dating, the Guru was beheaded in the open market square of Chandni Chowk.3,7
Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib stands where he died. Gurdwara Rakab Ganj marks where his body was cremated by a follower who carried it off under cover of a dust storm and burned his own house around it, having no other way to give it fire.
What is disputed. As with Guru Arjan, no Mughal chronicle records the execution — Aurangzeb’s court historians pass it over, and the detailed narrative of the Kashmiri deputation and the companions’ deaths comes from Sikh sources written later.5 The date of 11 November is traditional rather than documented. What is not in question is that the execution happened, that it happened at Delhi under imperial authority, and that his son said so within a generation.
His son’s account
This martyrdom differs from Guru Arjan’s in one crucial respect: it had a martyrologist immediately, and that martyrologist was the next Guru.
In the Bachitar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh wrote that his father preserved their frontal mark and sacred thread, and wrought a great deed in this dark age — he gave his head, but not his creed.1 The phrasing repays attention. The tilak and the janju are Hindu observances; Sikh teaching had rejected the sacred thread since Guru Nanak. The claim is not that the ninth Guru died for those rites but that he died for other people’s right to keep them — and, in the same breath, that his own creed was never surrendered.
Louis Fenech’s comparative point is that this is why the ninth Guru’s death entered Sikh memory as heroic martyrdom from the start, while the fifth Guru’s did not acquire that framing for roughly a century and a half. The difference is not in the deaths but in who wrote about them, and when.4,5
What followed
The community remembers Guru Tegh Bahadur as Hind di Chadar, the shield of India — a defence of freedom of conscience rather than of any single faith.
His son was nine years old. The line the tradition draws from Chandni Chowk to Vaisakhi 1699 is direct: a community that had twice watched its Guru killed by the state, and could not again be left to choose between faith and life with no means of defending both. Twenty-four years later, at Anandpur, the Khalsa was created.3,6
Cross-references
Before you turn the page
Last updated: