Raj Karega Khalsa – Sirdar Kapur Singh

On the 20th July, 1975, a Government-sponsored, All Communities Convention was held at Patiala to chalk out a programme for the tercentenary celebrations of the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, addressing which the nonagenarian venerable Sardar Bahadur, Bhai Jodh Singh, ex-vice-Chancellor of the Patiala University, exhorted the audience, as the daily Tribune, Chandigarh of the next morning tells us, that, “In celebration of Guru’s martyrdom a vigorous campaign should be launched against the wrong belief that State Power was necessary to sustain any religion. Politics, he emphasized, must be insulated from religion.”

This declaration of Bhai Jodh Singh was apparently somewhat irrelevant for the occasion but so is its under-water iceberg base which is always much more substantial and dangerous than the visible apex.

It is not generally appreciated that,

1. Bhai Jodh Singh has been an active politician during the British as well as the post-British period under the guise of a religious man and he has never deemed it fit to insulate his own politics from his religion, with the result that grateful and appreciative foreign rulers conferred upon him the high distinction and title of Sardar Bahadur in addition to other tokens of favour, and in the post-British period also he has been in much demand by these in political power.

2. A clear-headed person that Bhai Jodh Singh is, he does not say, in so many words that, ‘insulation of politics from religion’ is a definite Sikh doctrine: he merely proffers it as his own piece of secular and pagan wisdom, for he is aware that Sikh doctrine and tradition both hold politics as isolated from religion as pedagogy, opportunism and unprincipled trickery. Only by implication and through insinuating he desires that the Sikhs should accept the views of those whose voice he is, that, such, is the true Sikh doctrine.

3. The British who subjugated the Sikhs and throughout remained in terror of them as well as held them in manly admiration, secretly desired that the Sikhs should remain somewhat obscure about the true Sikh doctrine embodied in their shrill historical and fundamental cry of ‘liberty or death’ raj karain ke lr mar hain (Unexpuragated, Prachin Panth Prakash) and there can be no doubt that, by them Bhai Jodh Singh was fond as a useful ally.

4. The current rulers of India even have not made any secret of their desire and determination to wean the Sikhs away from the core-teachings of their Gurus that, the Sikhs cannot fulfil their divine spiritual and social assignment without their own base of political power and that for a Sikh to insulate politics from religion is an un-utterably abominable degradation and fall from grace.

It is in this background that the Patiala performance of Bhai Jodh Singh has to be critically examined.

Bhai Jodh Singh’s singularly unfortunate Patiala utterances, namely, that, a) it is a wrong belief that State-Power is necessary to sustain any religion, Sikhism included, b) that this “wrong belief” deserves to be dispelled through a high-priority effort integrated with the religious projects and organized plans of the Sikhs, and c) that Politics must be insulated from Religion, altogether which he insinuates is the true Sikh position, are altogether unsustainable, and the revered Bhai took a most undue advantage by publicizing his own credo from a platform of Sikh religion and he also proceeded to enjoin upon the Sikhs his debatable personal option as an integral part of Sikhism.

The Sikh position on the all-time tantalizing question of 1) Politics versus religion, 2) State power and Sikhism, and 3) Political sovereignty and the practice of Sikh religion, is unambiguously codified in the litany sung daily in all free Sikh congregations ever since the passing away of Guru Gobind Singh (1707), the litany being a srimukh-vak, “the very blessed words” of the Guru Himself:

raj karega khalsa aki rahe na koe
khwar hoe sabh milenge bache saran jo hoe.

(The Sikh people shall remain free and sovereign, always none challenging this position. All, every one, must eventually accept this position no matter how unpalatable and bitter it, to them be. And, behold, peace and safety is in such a concession, or submission).

This startlingly tall and audacious claim has been publicly proclaims by the Sikh people during the last three centuries, firmly and defiantly and it has moved many to sheer ridicules, others to fright, still others to resentment and boiling-heat anger, many Sikhs themselves to chicken hearted, craven fear or shameless apologies and the political Hindus of the post-1947 euphoria, it has, almost invariably moved to greater contempt for those whom they see as already in their last death-throes.

Be that as it may, it is legitimate to examine as to whether the Sikh doctrine itself is devoid of historical perceptiveness and realistic out-look, and whether it stands the test of scientific scrutiny. Thus alone its intrinsic validity can be judged, however, unpalatable or prima facie impracticable it might otherwise appear in the case of present day Sikh people, politically subjugated, culturally submerged, intellectually confused and barren, morally decayed, economically deprived and plundered through the Partition of India and religiously profaned, it can not be, off-hand asserted or insinuated that this Sikh doctrine is prima facie ill-conceived or stupid or unsustainable.

Let us glance through the world History, ever since well-defined and locatable civilizations have emerged and we find that there has always been at any given period, one or two nations, peoples, which were leading raj-jati, characterized by the ethos of, Raj Karega Khalsa, or nations or people who were admired and were tacitly imitated by others. There is no exception known to this rule.

This phase of leadership, political or moral or both, has passed from one nation to another on rotation, and, in historical times, no nation has yet enjoyed it twice. Whether such is some hard and fast law of History, cannot be asserted.

By way of illustration, might be mentioned, the early Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians under Achaemenid dynasty from 550 B.C. But the Greeks are the earliest who still seem to live in the thoughts of the Western man to day, just as he Confucian China does in its “barbarian” periphery and the Hindus in the Buddhist Far East and Southeast Asia. A remarkable aspect of the Greek leadership was that it never took the political form of a single empire except for a very few years in the lifetime of Alexander of Macedon. Owing to a verity of circumstances, local and accidental, the empire broke up at his death, but dynasties, Greek thought and Greek methods of war, nevertheless, dominated a large part of the world for three centuries and more.

Greek eminence gave way to Roman, Roman ideas, Roman fashions, and Roman armies held undisputed leadership for some four centuries. Roman concepts of imperial domination and organization and Roman ethos of social insularity were strictly observed and practiced by the British rulers of India. Up to the end of Nehru regime even in a free India, these Roman concepts held away in our ornamental atmosphere, through WOGS-Westernized Oriental Gentleman, the I.C.S., men and Nehruite politicians.

After about two centuries of confusion, Arabs appeared on the world-stage as the international leaders, sustaining the most powerful empire of their time from CE 650 to CE 850. After the commencement of their political decline they remained the leaders in thought and science for five hundred years more.
When the Arabic-speaking people fell behind, they had already passed on the torch of art, learning, science and industry to Western Europe. Here the lead was first assumed by the Holy Roman Empire, then by Spain, France, and Britain in that order.

In our life-time, the USA has not imposed military occupation on many nations, yet American slang, American clothes, American music, the horribly noisy concupiscent Jazz, the American architecture of crazy skyscrapers have spread all over the world. Herein lies the true explanation of over ninety per cent Sikh migrants to the USA, Canada, British Isles and Western Europe, unashamedly falling in for the ugly unaesthetic, barbarous fashion of clean-shaven faces and the pernicious, unclean habit of smoking while the Sikh migrants to the African continent and the South-east Asian regions have retained their Sikh dignity or uncut hair and healthy and sensible abhorrence of smoking until recent times.

We can scarcely claim that this is due to the fact that they, the USA culture-patterns, are intrinsically better than anything which could be produced anywhere else.

There is obviously something in human nature which causes us to imitate the thought and mannerisms of those who are physically strong and it was to this secret that Guru Gobind Singh drew mankind’s attention when he declared that, “in this world of phenomenon, everything, is covered and controlled by the time, sword, and men tend to lean on the mightiest”:

‘ya jag main sabh kal kirpan ke
bhari bhujan kau bhari bhroso.’ [1]

How else can we explain the backsliding of almost 8,000,000 of Sikhs in 1849, to a mere 1,800,000 of Sikhs in the Census of 1862? What explains, if not decay of political power and might of the Sikhs in 1850, the conversion of Raja sir Harnam Singh and Sadhu Sunder Singh to Christianity, the conversion to Islam of the learned ulema, Obeidullah Sindhi, and the father and family of internationally famous jurist, Sir Mohammad Zaffer-Ullah Khan? What made the scion of the martyr Bhai Mati Das, the late Bhai Parmand, his son and son-in-law, and the uniquely vital off-spring of a devout sahajdhari Sikh family, Dr. Sir Gokal Chand Narang break away from the gravitational orbit of Sikhism and stray into the barren wastelands of Aryasamj? Again, during the short historical span of their existence, the Sikhs have seen much misunderstand and malice, prejudice and persecution, fierce onslaughts and genocide pogroms, victory and glory, power and prosperity, defeat and subjugation, ridicule and abasement, poverty and deprivation, ridicule and abasement, poverty and deprivation, and yet throughout these vicissitudes, neither friend nor foe, neither neighbour or stranger, through ill-will or ignorance has ever dared or cared to belittle or denigrate the great Sikh Prophets, the Gurus, in respect of their thoughts, words or deeds universally holding them in highest estimation, as men, leaders of men and religious Prophets. Malcolm, McGregor, Cunnigham, Dorothy Field, Tonybee, Sujan Rai, Khsswaqt Rai, Daulat Ram, Mohamad Latif display unanimity here though much multiniaity elsewhere, while wrings on Sikhs and Sikhism. But, for the first time when they succeeded, in the changed circumstance, in establishing a University of Sikh Culture called the Punjab University at Patiala, and a University of Sikh Religion called, the Guru Nanak Dev University, at Amritsar, “Sikh” professors in these Universities boldly surfaced to proclaims and argue that Guru Tegh Bahadur was a robber-chief, in the habit of providing succor and incitement to likeminded lawless elements, which misleads of his brought upon him the nemesis of the Mughal Law leading to his public decapitation as a criminal, at Delhi, of which just punishment, the Great Mughal, Aurangzeb, was altogether innocent and ignorant, that the main and original grievance of Guru Gobind Singh against the good Mughal Government was that land revenue and State taxes were demanded of him, according to law which he was reluctant to pay, and that he met defeat after defeat in his conflicts with the State forces owing to his poor knowledge of field-strategy. Has the current political status if the Sikh people nothing to do with this disgusting phenomenon? Delhi based pseudo-Nirankaris are not being discussed here for obvious reasons.

There are only few instances of the operative and decisive role which political power and prestige play in relation to acceptability and prevalence of a religion and this law of History, the basic pattern of human behaviour and tendency of human nature is more pertinent in the case of Sikhs and Sikhism, for, Sikhism, unlike most other world-religions, is not merely a Church of social policy also, and as soon as the Sikh people are separated from and deprived of political sovereignty and power, Sikhism becomes eviscerated of its élan and true ethos. It is for this reason that the ambition, the claims, and the destiny, adumbrated and proclaimed in the litany: raj karega khalsa is basic to Sikh religion and the assignees of its social commitments, the Sikh people, and the second hemistich of this litany: aki rahe na koi is merely complementary to the first, both being obverse and reverse sides of the same medal.

The shatimaya satyegraha, ahimsa of the twenties and thirties of this century in India were merely subtle shibboleths and Hindus’ political gadgets to vex and exasperate the oxbridgian ruling Englishman, and Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India, has rightly recorded (The Viceroy’s Journal, London, 1973, page 238) that “He (Gandhi) is a politician and not a saint,” and in this subtle political game the simplistic Sikhs became its first and most willing subtle political victims, by voluntarily twisting the very fundamentals of their own religion by declaring that Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur were embodiments, “avtars,” of shantimaya and ahimsa. Not long age, in a faked, All World Sikh Conference at Amritsar, during the hegemony of the two late lamented sants in Sikh polities, the main ‘resolution’ adopted specifically named these two Gurus as the Sikhs’ only models and guides, thus, repudiating, what they heretically believed to be, ‘the other and different’ eight Gurus, a doctrine destructive of the very roots of Sikhism. Has not Guru Gobind Sikh unambiguously declared that he who deems and understands one Sikh Guru as different form the other, is no Sikh? “The essence of Sikhism is to know and believe all the Ten Gurus as one continuous, unbroken Spirit, and a failure to understand and accept this is a failure to adopt true Sikhis’-jini jania tunu hi aidhi pai, binujane sidhi hathu na ai. We must ever remember that the general disapproval of conquest, UNO hotchpotch, “territorial integrity,” “non-interference in internal affairs,” non-alignment, the Panchshil, etc.etc. Is a temporary phenomenon?

Let us hearken to one who, by the test laid down by Guru Gobind Singh, is “verily a true man”, for, “he says what he has in mind and there is no disparity between his intentions and his spoken word’: human mard bayed shavad sukhanwar, na shikme digar dar dahane digar [2], he is, by no means an insignificant person in the contemporary world, Mao Tse Tung.

“Wherever the army of Chinese Communist Party goes, it creates Marxism Leninism it creates a Communist Party and a Communist Government. Only guns and canons create a Party, a culture, even a world.” (Problems of the Chinese Revolution, Yenan, December, 1939).

“Whoever has an army has power, for, war settles everything.” -(Problems of War and Strategy, November 6, 1936).

“Everything grows out of the barrel of a gun.” (Selected Works, Vol. II, New York, International Publishers, 1954, p. 272)

There is no doubt whatsoever that, throughout History, military conquest and balance of-terror-Principle have been the principal means by which the torch of leadership has been passed on. The conquest of Alexander, the Great spread Greek thought over Middle East. The military empire of Rome gave civilization to innumerable backward areas and races. When Rome collapsed Arabs were just in time to snatch the fallen torch. The immediate result of Arab ascendancy was to plunge the West once more into barbarism by isolating it from Asia, but before the Arabs fell, or as the famous ibn-i-Khaldun (1332-1406) puts it, in his, Muqaidameh the Arabs lost their a ‘abiyveh, basic élan, they handed back the trust to Europe with interest.

Secondly, the mantle of leadership frequently falls on the shoulders of a colony of its predecessor. The Arabs derived much of their knowledge from Syria, Egypt, and North Africa hitherto colonies of Rome. Spain conquered by the Arabs was to succeed them as a great empire and the USA began as a British colony.

It, therefore, follows that the Sikh claim and doctrine 1) that religious worship and social commitment are inter-related 2) that political participation and power are complementary to Sikh religious activity, and, 3) that he aspiration to political power to be employed as a fulcrums for social change and upliftment are legitimate Sikh activities, are neither a) ungrounded in the firm patterns of History, b) contrary to the tenets of Sikhism, or c) otherwise impracticable or fantastic merely because of the current depressed, degraded condition and colonial subsidiary status of the Sikhs.

When the Sikhs say that politics and religion must not be separated, that is not to claim that he Sikhs have a direct hot line to the deity. It merely means that a men’ public, private and spiritual life are inseparable and that the most fruitful and secure is the synergic culture wherein the religion, and the social order facilitate the individual, by the same act and at he same time, to serve his own advantage and that of the group.

Sardar Bahadur, Bhai Jodh Singh’s gratuitous exhortation to the Sikhs at Patiala is a clear negation of the Sikh doctrine, the lessons of Sikh history, and the unambiguous and uncompromisingly clear teachings of the Sikhs Gurus.

We must now consider whether the discoveries of Modern Science and the insights they provide and the guidance they suggest for understanding human nature and planning of human society, also called “Social engineering” by these who must put old wine in new bottles before tasting it, agree with or militate against the basic Sikh doctrine enshrined in the litany: raj karega khalsa.

The latest Scientific discipline is Ethology, founded by three winners of the 1973 award of Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, which has gone to Karl von Frisch, Nicolas Tinbergen and Konard Lorens. The last named of them wrote his prize-winning dissertation as early as 1966, On Aggression, in which book he has advanced and established the thesis that the man is not only an immutably aggressive animal a hostile one at that, but that the principle of aggressiveness in his instinctual structure, demonstrates and establishes other inevitability of war. He further demonstrates the utility and necessity of aggressiveness for human life and he concludes that aggression is a vital dimension of human nature. For these fundamental discoveries in the Science of Physiology he has been awarded the Nobel Prize, with two others, as co-laureates, four years ago.

In 1974, Desmond Morris, and erstwhile pupil of our Nobel Prize laureate, Nicolas Tinbergen, at Oxford supported Lorans’s theory as one of the naked truths of his book: Naked Ape in which, in prousaic scientific terminology, he has paraphrased, so to speak, the prophetic wisdom of Guru Gobind Singh: “Aggression and Destruction is primary and Genesis is secondary prithame khanda saj kai sabh sansar upaiya. [3]

In the sphere of literary fiction, William Codling, in his novel, Lord of the Flies, has demonstrated existence of the aggressive instinct, in his powerful literary style? He portrays in his book, the story of young children stranded on an island, who revert to savagery, once al restraints of civilization are removed and withdrawn.

Robert Andrey, a prestigious dramatist, turned, anthropologist, in three successive successful best-seller, African Genesis, The Territorial Imperative, and The Social Contract has accumulated, classified and interpreted adequate material to explode, once for all finally, the thesis and fallacy that man is a pacific being, that ahimsa is his core-essence or that non-violent satyaraha is a basic technique of human existence, survival and perigee.

All these influential theorists have come to their opinions via Ethology, the study of behaviour from the zoological viewpoint. Ethology involves systematic study of the evolution of human traits through observation of non-human behaviour.

Karl von Frisch, our Nobel Prize laureate of 1973 spent his time with birds, fish and bees: Lorenz with grey grease, rats and fighting fish: Tinbergen with birds, and Morris, with apes in the London zoo.
Lorenz sees “aggression, far from a destructive principle.” He considers the pertinent question: Will not in-group aggression extinguish the group and ultimately the species? His reply is in the negative, for, the strong, he says; learn not to destroy the weak. The Evolution Process is responsible not only for aggression, but also for the phenomenon of inherited patterns of restraint that control and regulate aggression.

These patterns display in the submission of the weaker section to he stronger through gestures of appeasement to the stronger: the defeated one or the subbordinated ally is never killed and destroyed. This is the true exegesis of the Sikh litany: bache saran jo hoe. Thus the instinct to dominate and destroy: raj karega khalsa aki rahe na koe, can be and is modified if and when the inferior and the weaker can learn abasement, submission and the survival-value of alliance-khwar hoe sabh mileage. In his analogy between man and bird, Lorenz sees the basic secret of survival and evolution embedded in Nature-qudret of Sikh philosophical concept-that if the powerful will learn to subdue and not to kill and destroy and the weak will learn not to resist but to submit, all strife, wars and revolutions will come to an end and man will no longer have to concern himself with problems of Survival. It is full awareness of this secret of Nature which is evidenced in the Sikh war Ethics and practices testified to by the enemy-chronicler, Qazt Nur Muhammed, in his, Jang-namah (1765) that the Sikhs “never kill in battle those who lay down arms or otherwise refuse to resist and fight.” kih nakushand namard ra hich-gah-fararendeh ra ham na girand rah.

The disturbing truth is there that the man shares this gruesome propensity with the dove, including Picaso’s dove adopted by Russians as the emblem of their variety of ‘Peace.’ In his well-known book, King Solomon’s Ring, Lorenz, in the Chapter entitled, “Morals and Weapons,” shares with us one of his most dis-quietening discoveries by telling the reader, how the dove, while by reputation one of the most peaceful birds, is, in reality, one of the cruelest, and it will mutilate and destroy members of its own species without a qualm. On the other hand, contrary to the popular belief and notion, the wolf will not finally kill another wolf in battle if the loser asks for clemency by baring its neck. Here is material for thought for him who deludes himself with the escapist hope that there is greater safety with the ahimsa-peddler than with the other who declares, “get converted or be killed,” a stupid notion that bedeviled the Sikh leadership in 1947, and rendered them incapable of comprehending the true significance and implications of the British withdrawal from India and the consequences thereof for the Sikhs.

The patterns of behaviour in the present still have roots in those of the past and thus to understand man one mist understand his past, that is, an analysis of animals and men, particularly those who deem themselves as so clever as competent to find their way about in life without taking refuge in the revealed guidance, that is the Guru: nanak guru na chetani man apne euchet, as the Sikh scripture puts it.

Raj karega khalsa aki rahe na koe, khwar hoe sabh milenge bache saran jo hoe, is not only a divinely revealed truth but a well-established scientific fact. Lorenz, Andrey and Morris have not picked up their theories from the air. They belong to an ancient, prestigious tradition of Western speculation and Scientific inquires that stretches back to Sigmund Freud, through Spangler to Thoman Hobbes, Spangler in his Magunm Opus: Decline of the West, has been virulent about his claims about aggressiveness. “The beast of prey,” he says, “is the highest form of active life. The human race ranks highly because it belongs to the class of beasts of pray. Man lives engaged in aggression [5], killing, and annihilation. Man is a beast of prey. I shall say it again and again. The traders in virtue, the champions of social ethics are but beasts of prey with their teeth broken.” Spangler’s contribution to Nazi ideology was not insignificant.

Freud’s firm conviction about the aggressive instinct in man is patent in his: Civilization and its Discontents. In it he says: “The truth is that men are not friendly, gentle creatures wishing for love, who simply defend themselves if they are attacked, but that a powerful measure for aggression has to be reckoned with as a part of their instinctual endowment.”

For Freud, man is not a rational animal but a repressed animal: “Civilization, suppression and neurosis are inevitably associated in such a way that more civilization, the more neurosis, the less suppression, the less neurosis and the less civilization.” Thus, it is not in our power “to dislodge the greatest of our obstacle to civilization which is the constitutional tendency in man to aggression.”

He was obviously unaware of the divine guidance that is the teaching of the Guru, that shows mankind the way out of this patent predicament -the practice of nam-yoga: kahu nanak ihu tatt bichra, bin haribhajan mahin chutakara. [6] That human nature can be totally transmuted is a proposition not easily acceptable to Western mind.

It is the hatred we suppress and repress with difficulty that remains the main spring of our social life. Man, the aggressive beast of prey is the core-essence of a social homo sapiens, and not the lachrymos love-sentiment and gushing pity of the Christian good, and the mercy, days of the Hindu Parameshvar. Nietzshe was making out a point when he said in his, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: “God is dead, God is dead. He died of pity.” It is a basic misconception of human nature to accord primacy to non-violence, ahimsa and to uphold socially uncommitted religion and secular politics, separated from religion. The Sikh idiom of thought made prevalent by Guru Gobind Singh himself to designate the elite man, as the ferocious lion, Singh, the king crocodile, Nihang, the spread-hooded cobra. Bhujangi; the angry snake in the attack-posture, pechidah mar, [7] enshrines the ultimate scientific truth about human nature and destiny and to confuse and mislead the Sikhs on this point as the Patiala performance of Bhai Jodh Singh seeks to do, is infamous and indefensible altogether.

Freud’s theories and the scientific insights now provided by Ethology are generally accepted as supporting the scientific view that war, the highest political activity, is inevitable and necessary and desirable for human weal. Bertrand Russel gave him support by arguing that it was “only the external enemy which supplied the cohesive force of Society, so that a World-state, if it were firmly established, would have no enemies to fear and would, therefore, be in danger of breaking down through lack of cohesive force.”

Did not Confucius declare two thousand years ago that, “a country that has no external enemies is doomed?” 8

Aggressiveness, war, then is a natural quality of human psyche and the Sikh doctrine of raj karega khalsa is in a sense, a scientific doctrine and a legitimate religious aspiration and to attempt to wean the Sikhs, away from it, is a crime against sanity and Science, Religion and God. To exhort Sikhs to insulate religion from politics and to fall into the fatal error of believing in possibility of a full and genuine religious life without a base of political autonomy and a full forum of political power is an utterly mean, unforgivable thing to do.

The Sikh doctrine of raj karega khalsa is useful socially and necessary if society is to hold together. Since to-day war has become so dangerous to indulge in on a massive scale, Lorenz speaks of how we suffer “an insufficient discharge of the aggressive derive.” Desmond Morris is hopelessly pessimistic in relation to any optimism expressed as to our ability to re-mould our way of life:

“Control our aggressive and territorial feelings and dominate all our basic urges, I submit that this is rubbish. Our raw animal nature will never permit this.”

“Permanent peace, progressive prosperity,” “classless Society,” “Secular Politics,” “a private personal religion,” “insulation of religion from politics,” “are just poppycock or psychedelic, dreams. Only rarely are there periods of World-peace with minor skirmishes, as during the Pax Romana (27 B.C.-A.D. 180) and the hundred years of Pax Britannica (1814-1914).

There is no higher truth and more reliable guidance available to mankind then the principles embedded in and implicated by the words, spoken, by the ‘blessed mouth’ of Guru Gobind Singh;

raj karega khalsa aki rahe na koe,
khawar hoe sabh milaenge bache saran jo hoe.

1. Akalustat
2. Zafarnamah.
3. var sribhaguti ji ki.
4. Asa di Var I
5. Khalsa so jo kare nit jang
6. Asa I
7. chiha shud kih tu kushtehee baccheh char, kih baqi bimand ast pachideh mar, Zafarnaman.
8. Analects.

Leave a Reply