Maharaja Ranjit Singh In The Eyes On Non-sikhs

[SaRpAnCh]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...303720595372993

[Bundha]

L O L. . . . . . . This is soooo typical of us Sikhs, it is classic.

No wonder we never get anywhere. No wonder we never have good leaders, because we do not deserve them.

Any good leader we will shout down, focus on his negative side and sling mud. (Take Ranjit singh Dandhriawalla as another example?)

So, here we have a post about all the GOOD things Maharaja Ranjit Singh did, and some of us just cannot take it, they have to start arguing and posting the negative (even though this has been done many times).

Take Shivji Marhata, the hindus treat him like a god, take Gandhi no one will hear a bad word about him.

Rather then discuss his merits we end up - as normal - squabbling.

Nice one guys.

[MiriPiri]

L O L. . . . . . . This is soooo typical of us Sikhs, it is classic.

No wonder we never get anywhere. No wonder we never have good leaders, because we do not deserve them.

Any good leader we will shout down, focus on his negative side and sling mud. (Take Ranjit singh Dandhriawalla as another example?)

So, here we have a post about all the GOOD things Maharaja Ranjit Singh did, and some of us just cannot take it, they have to start arguing and posting the negative (even though this has been done many times).

Take Shivji Marhata, the hindus treat him like a god, take Gandhi no one will hear a bad word about him.

Rather then discuss his merits we end up - as normal - squabbling.

Nice one guys.

I think you are a bit confused, bro. Your poitn is a good one, but not in this context. You see, Ranjit Singh, from what I have read, was not a leader of Sikhs, but a leader of a state who happened to be a Sikh. In today's world, his equivalent is Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India.

What is more, we can respect the positive side of Ranjit Singh (the leader) but please do not revere him as a good Sikh.

[BaBa.G]

ANY MORE POSTS THAT GO OFF TOPIC WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. BIJLA SINGH HAS ONLY POSTED COMMENTS MADE BY SOME INDIVIDUALS ON MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH. HE HAS NEVER SAID THAT HE WAS AN IDEAL SIKH, NOR HAS HE SAID THAT MAHARAJA RANJIT DIDN'T HAVE ANY FAULTS. PLEASE LETS STAY ON TOPIC. THANK YOU.

[MiriPiri]

ANY MORE POSTS THAT GO OFF TOPIC WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. BIJLA SINGH HAS ONLY POSTED COMMENTS MADE BY SOME INDIVIDUALS ON MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH. HE HAS NEVER SAID THAT HE WAS AN IDEAL SIKH, NOR HAS HE SAID THAT MAHARAJA RANJIT DIDN'T HAVE ANY FAULTS. PLEASE LETS STAY ON TOPIC. THANK YOU.

Bhaji, the idea of a discussion is that you start a topic then it flows from there. Should we start a new thread called "Maharaja Ranjit Singh In The Eyes Of Sikhs"???

[Bundha]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh (MRS) was the jathedar and so the leader of the Sukherchakia misl. After marrying into his rival misl he made an alliance and became their leader. One by one he united the misls and was the leader. The sate that he carved out is known as the Sikh state and so he was the leader of the Sikh State and in effect the leader of the Sikhs. Or are you going to argue that it was not a Sikh State? People make mountains out of mole hills when they want to build up a person. We Sikhs on the other hand will reduce a mountain into a mole hill. Who have been our so called leaders ? I would regard MRS more of a leader of the Sikhs then Badal and company.

[dalsingh101]

He called the government Sarkar - e - Khalsa and the army was known as the Khalsa. So although he may not have been a very disciplined Sikh he most definitely utilised Sikh terminology in his administration.

[MiriPiri]

He called the government Sarkar - e - Khalsa and the army was known as the Khalsa. So although he may not have been a very disciplined Sikh he most definitely utilised Sikh terminology in his administration.

He had concubines.

He drank.

He reportedly did drugs.

He started wars to gain land and goods.

Oh, but he went to gurdwara once a week and he was called Singh.

What would we say if we had a leader that acted like this today? I'm not a good Sikh myself, but I don't do any of the stuff he did so forgive me for sounding righteous, but the things that have been said about him by non-Sikhs are not flattering in the context of this forum's members' core beliefs.

[dalsingh101]

He called the government Sarkar - e - Khalsa and the army was known as the Khalsa. So although he may not have been a very disciplined Sikh he most definitely utilised Sikh terminology in his administration.

He had concubines.

He drank.

He reportedly did drugs.

He started wars to gain land and goods.

Oh, but he went to gurdwara once a week and he was called Singh.

What would we say if we had a leader that acted like this today? I'm not a good Sikh myself, but I don't do any of the stuff he did so forgive me for sounding righteous, but the things that have been said about him by non-Sikhs are not flattering in the context of this forum's members' core beliefs.

Ok, but put it in historical context. He was born after a period where the spiritual essence of Sikhi was somewhat compromised. His role models would have been violent sardars who were more preoccupied with land acquisition than anything else. The few generations before him were involved in some harsh realities including regularly facing death and living in jungles. Personally I think he may have been jaded from his experiences growing up and truly saw the hypocrisy of the sardars in terms of religious practice. Essentially he did what all of them (or at least most of them) were doing but with infinitely more success.

Again it highlights the point about people being born into religions and being compelled to follow when their hearts are really not into it. I respect him in a way because at least he never tried to hide his excesses, he was open about them. This doesn't make them ok though. I think people really appreciate the stability he bought, especially after such a long period of defeats and conquests in the Punjab. This is our history - If you want it to be plain black and white you will be disappointed. It's like Schindler (from Schindler's list), ultimately his womenising and collaboration with the nazis is overshadowed by what good he did.

[MiriPiri]

Ok, but put it in historical context. He was born after a period where the spiritual essence of Sikhi was somewhat compromised. His role models would have been violent sardars who were more preoccupied with land acquisition than anything else. The few generations before him were involved in some harsh realities including regularly facing death and living in jungles. Personally I think he may have been jaded from his experiences growing up and truly saw the hypocrisy of the sardars in terms of religious practice. Essentially he did what all of them (or at least most of them) were doing but with infinitely more success.

Again it highlights the point about people being born into religions and being compelled to follow when their hearts are really not into it. I respect him in a way because at least he never tried to hide his excesses, he was open about them. This doesn't make them ok though. I think people really appreciate the stability he bought, especially after such a long period of defeats and conquests in the Punjab. This is our history - If you want it to be plain black and white you will be disappointed. It's like Schindler (from Schindler's list), ultimately his womenising and collaboration with the nazis is overshadowed by what good he did.

If you put it like that, then I take your point. He was a great leader of Sikhi origin, but not a great spiritual Sikhi. I agree that when taking the discussion out of just the Sikhi realm, he was a great man.