SUCHCHANAND (d. 1710), a Khatri official in the court of Nawab Wazir Khan, faiydar of Sirhind, was instrumental in the execution of Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Sahibzada Fateh Singh, Guru Gobind Singh`s two younger sons aged nine and seven respectively. The Sahibzadas and their grandmother, Mata Gujari, had been betrayed into Mughal custody by their servant, Gangu. Brought to his presence at Sirhind, Wazir Khan offered to the captive young men the usual choice of conversion to Islam or death. The Sahibzadas having scornfully rejected the former were ordered to be executed.
At this Nawab Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotia, who was present, protested against the sentence awarded to the children. As Wazir Khan began to waver at the just reproof of his peer, Suchchanand put in a remark : “The progeny of a serpent shall grow up as serpents, and ^should therefore be shown no mercy.” Wazir Khan thereupon reiterated his order for the children to be bricked up alive in a wall. In January 1710, when Banda Singh Bahadur invested Sirhind, Suchchanand too met his nemesis and was done to death.
References :
1. Kuir Singh, Gurbilas Patshahl 10. Patiala. 1968
2. Santokh Singh, Bhai, Sri Gur Pratap Suraj Granth. Amritsar, 1927-35
3. Macauliffe, Max Arthur, The Sikh Religion. Oxford, 1909
The Context and the Decision-Maker
Suchchanand was a Khatri official in the court of Nawab Wazir Khan—the powerful administrator responsible for Sirhind during one of the most turbulent periods of Mughal-Sikh relations. In 1710, as the Sahibzadas—Guru Gobind Singh’s two young sons—faced the stark ultimatum of conversion or death, the stage was set by political machinations and longstanding enmities. Amid this volatile atmosphere, Suchchanand emerged not as a passive bystander but as an active proponent of extreme measures. His role was pivotal when, during the deliberations over the fate of these children, he made the chilling pronouncement:
“The progeny of a serpent shall grow up as serpents, and should therefore be shown no mercy.”
This statement was far more than a throwaway remark—it was an ideological endorsement of the execution order. By dehumanizing the children and framing their lineage as inherently dangerous, Suchchanand not only reinforced existing prejudices but also provided a rationale for the brutal policy. His words, meant to cement the resolve of the Mughal court, reflected a mindset where dissent or deviation from religious orthodoxy was seen as a threat that had to be eliminated completely .
Ideological Underpinnings and Political Consequences
Suchchanand’s assertion must be understood within the broader tapestry of Mughal policy. His remark encapsulated the dehumanizing logic that was often invoked to justify extreme measures. In a system where loyalty to the imperial administration was intertwined with adherence to a singular religious narrative, the very identity of the Sikh community came under attack. Suchchanand’s cold, almost clinical, language helped to paint the Sahibzadas and, by extension, their entire community as irredeemable—a symbolic gesture that sought to delegitimize the Sikh resistance and martyrize these young souls in the eyes of the Mughal administration.
This ideological stance had direct political consequences. Nawab Wazir Khan, initially wavering in the face of dissenting opinions (such as that voiced by Nawab Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotia), found in Suchchanand’s words the confirmation needed to proceed with the horrifying order: the Sahibzadas were to be bricked up alive within a wall. The severity of this act, and the bureaucratic mindset that made it seem acceptable, stands as one of the most tragic chapters in the Sikh narrative. Later, the very same system that enabled such cruelty would see its downfall when Banda Singh Bahadur captured Sirhind in January 1710, and Suchchanand, as a symbol of that oppressive bureaucracy, met his own end .
Legacy and Reflections
The role of Suchchanand is significant not just for the immediate tragedy but for the long-term impact on Sikh collective memory. His comment, emblematic of the broader dehumanization policy, helped to shape a narrative of martyrdom that continues to resonate powerfully among Sikhs today. It is a stark reminder of how language and rhetoric in the hands of state officials can be manipulated to legitimize violence and subjugation. His actions—and the ideology they represent—remain a cautionary tale about the corrosive effects of religious intolerance and the abuse of administrative power.
