Search the Community

Guru Hargobind Sahib decreed long ago that the highest temporal authority for his Sikhs was to be Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib. Later, his grandson Sri Guru Gobind Singh proclaimed that the ascendancy of the Panth was second only to that of Guru Granth Sahib. Did Maharaja Ranjit Singh violate the democratic spirit of our Gurus' injunctions when he established himself as an absolute monarch and a temporal power to rival Sri Akaal Takhat, the representative body of the Panth? It bears mentioning that in spite of his being emperor of Sarkar-Khalsa, the Maharaja often deferred to the judgement of Akali Phula Singh and dutifully responded to Akali Ji's Hukamnama after being declared an apostate for marrying a Muslim dancing woman. On the other hand, it was precisely this system of feudal aristocracy/monarchy that encompassed the eventual ruin of the Sikh Empire. Wily villains like the Dogras and the Brahmin generals who sold out the Khalsa army during the First Anglo-Sikh War would never have attained prominence if not for this system of nobles and royal courts. Secondly, how should Sikhs feel about contemporary monarchs, particularly in those nations where we exist as their nominal subjects (the United Kingdom, and technically Canada, Australia, New Zealand)? I'll confess that I've a hard time comprehending the hysteria that surrounds the Windsors, and I'm unsure if it's becoming for a Sikh to grovel and make propitiations before anyone except our Guru.