Khanda Symbol on Mughal Coins A Hoax

The hoax about presence of a Khanda like symbol, influenced by Sikhs on Mughal
coins has been around for a long time. The arguments given in an article in Gullak
magazine, by Gurprit Singh, to assert the theory are:

1. The symbol is a distinct symbol closely resembling the symbol of a Khanda, and not
an ornamental design.

2. This symbol is known to have appeared only on the coins of Lahore mint where the
Sikhs were strongest in number, and not from any other mint.

3. The symbol appeared only in the years when there was some significant event
connected to the Sikhs, and never at any other time.

The above observations lack a very basic knowledge of the concept of Sikh
Soverignity. The whole concept is based on the saying of Guru Gobind Singh ji:
Kau Kisu Raj na de hai
Jo le hai, nij bal se le hai
Nobody gives the right to rule to anybody, it can only be obtained by force.

The author in his later arguments has stated:

Let me remind the critic that Guru Gobind Singh founded the Khalsa in AH 1110 nearly
80 years later. And true to the above quote, the Sikhs obtained Sikh Raj by force after
Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa.

The Sikhs historically have proven that the Gurus word stands true & followed in
earnest at all times. They did not manipulate the Gurus word to suit their situation.
The Sikhs, who never accepted the Mughal rule, would in no way dilute their identity
by putting an insignia on a coin which is INO a Mughal emperor. Similar symbols
are found on coins of other Mughal emperors, namely Jahangir, Shah Jahan &
Aurangzeb from other mints also. A few examples are listed below:

Aurangzeb, Lahore Jahangir Lahore

Jahangir Lahore Shah Jahan Akbarabad Jahangir Agra

The symbol seems to be a graphical representation of the Flame Lily flower which is
abundant in the forests in India.

Flame Lily Flower

Similar symbols are also observed in decorations and finials of various Mughal
buildings, a few examples:

Marble inlay work at a Mughal building.

Pinnacle of the Taj Mahal, Agra

Coming back to the elements of the Khanda symbol as used in modern day Sikhism,
these are:

Two crossed swords

Central Disc or Chakkar
The double edged sword, the Khanda

The Sikh flag or the Nishan Sahib, these days, carries the above symbol on it, but
during the Sikh Empire & later till the early 20th century the Sikhs flag had a different
symbol:
The above represent the Sikh war-cry Deg Tegh Fateh and are the essential elements
of the symbol. Any symbol lacking all three elements is not a Khanda symbol. The
symbol was first seen printed on the letter heads of a Sikh organization in Canada in
the early 1900s, and was a clear influence of the West to adopt an Insignia or a Logo
for an organization. The same is given below:

In the early Sikh period from the 6th Guru, Guru Hargobind to the Sikh Empire which
lasted till 1849, no reference in form of a painting, manuscript or coinage with the
symbol is found. The paintings which show the Sikh flag or Nishan Sahib, are usually
a single colored flag with decorative borders, and during the Sikh empire as flag with
a sword, a Shield and a Katar as the symbols. These have been observed on the flags
at the Golden Temple complex etc till about 1930s.

Had a Khanda like symbol which was an insignia for Sikhism been existent during the
early period it would have found its way to atleast some of these areas. Moreover the
Sikh coinage with its so much variety and beautiful execution too does not carry such
a symbol anywhere.

I had found a copper coin, with a symbol that resembled the modern day Khanda. The
author has tried to prove his assumptions with that single coin. The coin is:
However, on detailed examination, it was found that the coin does not carry any other
symbols which are related to Sikh coinage. A detailed study of the coin is given
below:

The coin carries symbols similar to the coinage of the Central Indian region, and
could well be a Kaccha Paisa, which were prevalent during the mid 19th century.

The author states in his article:

In view of the observations made above it can certainly be assumed that the symbol of the
Khanda on the coins of the Mughal rulers may not be just another ornamental symbol,
but a symbol signifying the influence of the Sikhs during the Mughal rule.

The author has also stated a few points in his later argument:

(i) About the symbol appearing on a very few coins of Aurangzeb in the year AH 1110, I
have submitted that Guru Gobind Singh founded the Khalsa (the turbaned and bearded
Sikhs as we see them today) in this year. If the critic thinks that this was not an event of
the highest importance to the Khalsa (the Sikhs) let him assert this from the Sikhs.

The Mint town closest to Anandpur Sahib, which was the venue for creation of the
Khalsa, is Sarhind, A symbol of Sikh importance should be expected from Sarhind and
not Lahore, a region which Guru Gobind Singh ji never visited. Moreover, the Sikhs
would never have their symbol, if any, on a coin INO a Mughal emperor.

(ii) About the symbol appearing on very few coins of Aurangzeb in the year AH 1117 I
have submitted that Aurangzeb, who was thought to be the biggest oppressor of the Sikhs
and Hindus, died in this year. Does this event also find no importance with the critic?

Aurangzeb died on 23rd day of the 11th Islamic month, AH1118. The author is deliberately
twisting the facts to suit his notions.

(iii) About the symbol appearing on coins of the year VS 1122 I have submitted that in
17111712 AD (corresponding to Hijri 1122), we have from historical accounts that
Banda Bahadur reorganized forces and the Sikhs assembled near Lahore. In June, fierce
fighting broke out between the Sikh forces lead by Banda Bahadur and Amir Khan,
resulting in heavy casualties on both sides.

Guru Gobind Singh ji remained very close to Prince Muazzam during his struggle to vest
the Throne after Aurangzebs death. He was also present at Agra during the coronation of
Muazzam as Shah Alam Bahadur. He had the highest influence over the Mughal king
during that period. Had he to get a symbol related to the Sikhs inserted on a coin, it
should have been on the coins from Akbarabad mint.

(iv) The very fact that it appeared on very few coins is illustrative of the fact that these
symbols were put on the coins in a clandestine manner.

Such coins are not rare, and are usually found in the hoards from the period.

(v) The possibility is supported by the fact that during Maratha occupation of Lahore for
very short periods it is the symbol of a flag on the coins of Alamgir II that allows for their
attribution as Maratha coins. And such coins, like the coins with the Khanda-like
symbol, are also very scarce.

The Sikhs struck a coin in their Gurus name when they occupied Lahore in 1765.
This clearly shows that they would never have inserted a symbol related to Sikhism
on a coin which was INO a Mughal emperor. Aurangzeb had ordered killing of the 9th
Sikh Guru, & Guru Gobind Singh ji had parted ways with Shah Alam, when he did
not fulfil the promise to punish the governors of Lahore & Sarhind for persecution of
the Sikhs. Putting a symbol on the coins which are in the name of such emperors
would never have been tolerable to the Khalsa.

The author also elaborates in his recent argument on his contention in the article
published in Gullak :
The symbol, since it lacks the basic components of the Khanda, is said to be an
amalgamation of Swords & Trident as Sikh religion was formed for protection of
Hinduism
One can see that the above statement is not even included in my final arguments.
The contention that was taken in the original article was that it could be the
combination of a trident and two swords was taken on the basis of the symbol as it
appeared for the first time on the coins of Jehangir in the year AH 1031 to 1034 from
Lahore mint only and only on coins with the Bada Bar couplet and not those with the
Hamisha couplet from the same mint in the same year (remember that was pretty long
before we see the symbol in a more distinct manner on the coins of Aurangzeb and
Shah Alam nearly after 80 years in the years AH 1110, 1117 and 1121 and 1122).

Does he mean that contentions and assumptions which are not a part of the final
arguments should not be read? Serious numismatic study has no place for assumptions
and wishful thinking. Solid evidence would be the most welcome, but till then,
attributing these Mughal coins as those of the Sikhs, is clearly a hoax directed at
fleecing gullible collectors.