Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is such a strange place, that very thought crossed my mind a couple of days ago and i spent a good few minutes considering it (I was walking and when I walk i enjoy conversations with myself D: ).

When it comes to Maharaja Ranjit singh ji he did hand himself over the Akal Takhat once or twice when he violated Sikh rules I believe. The Akal Takhat is our parliament, it's meant to guide Sikhs in the temporal sense. Politics, sciences, economic issues and even spiritual issues are discussed here and the orders issued here are akin to a government.

The Guru Granth Sahib is our spiritual leader. The Guru Sahib is unchallenged in terms of knowledge, spirituality and how we should act. The point of the Mirri/Pirri was to show that we need both to wage war against any crisis that may fall us. This was completely opposite to the yogi practice of detaching and not being involved in worldly affairs. Our Guru Sahib encouraged us to be aware of what is happening around us.

Every Sikh should be armed with these 2 "theoretical" swords. Knowledge of the world and knowledge of God.

As Sikhs if we ever have to take vows for any monarch we should swear to serve only Waheguru who is the personification of good and justice. We should promise to protect the realm from evil,tyranny and harm. But we should never swear our alliance to any throne or power, other than Waheguru. We should protect the common people with all our power, which is the point of the Monarchy (or at-least was). This should be enough for any monarch.

The monarchy is more or less dead anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could an argument be made that had the Sikh empire operated under entirely theocratic lines it would've been less susceptible to the eventual weaknesses that caused it to fracture? Yes, it may have seemed awfully democratic and all-encompassing at the time (what with non-Sikh given prominent roles in its darbar), but I think it was this sense of "fair play" and trust in the likes of the Dogras that tripped us up.

I believe Maharaja Ranjit Singh's reverence for the Akal Takhat was a genuine attempt to ensure he and his kingdom didn't appear to be overshadowing it or inadvertently suggesting Akal Takhat was somehow secondary to the kingdom, considering the huge role the Akal Takhat had played in Sikh history from the time of it being founded. Was he torn between what he saw as issues of the state and issues of a religious nature, and as such due to his genuine affection for his religion he deferred to the Akal Takhat's judgement on particular issues so it appeared even he wasn't above its authority? Only he could answer that I suppose. But I return to my original thought that perhaps it was this generosity and desire to be just that perhaps was his and the empire's undoing. A religiously inspired iron fist may have been better in the long term, I'm not sure.

As for deference to modern day monarchies, I see them as nothing but symbolic institutions from a bygone age. Those involved in the machine of these institutions are at constant pains to ensure their relevancy in order to justify their existence, but ultimately it's just powerful bloodlines not wishing to relinquish whatever gradually diminishing influence they possess in the world. I don't doubt there's a lot of activities that go on behind closed doors that ensures these royal families aren't assigned to the dustbin of history, but even the most deluded member of the royal family must realise the days of getting teary-eyed when the national anthem plays are long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I return to my original thought that perhaps it was this generosity and desire to be just that perhaps was his and the empire's undoing. A religiously inspired iron fist may have been better in the long term, I'm not sure.

As for deference to modern day monarchies, I see them as nothing but symbolic institutions from a bygone age. Those involved in the machine of these institutions are at constant pains to ensure their relevancy in order to justify their existence, but ultimately it's just powerful bloodlines not wishing to relinquish whatever gradually diminishing influence they possess in the world. I don't doubt there's a lot of activities that go on behind closed doors that ensures these royal families aren't assigned to the dustbin of history, but even the most deluded member of the royal family must realise the days of getting teary-eyed when the national anthem plays are long gone.

Lol, iron-fisted theocracy was never the Sikh way. Generosity and a sense of fair play, as you said, that was what distinguished our people from those that came before us. It facilitated the entry of the brilliant Hindu and Muslim statesmen and the European mercenary generals who helped to make Sarkar-Khalsa the most advanced native power in the history of Hindustan. This was one of the Sikhs' greatest strengths. One might make the argument that the Sikh Empire would never have burgeoned as it did if it wasn't infused with the inviting and secular spirit of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It was also their undoing.

Ironically, the more the modern monarchs try to reinvent themselves to appear relevant to the Average Joe, the less justification they have for existing as a separate class, distinct from this same Joe. Their efforts accomplish nothing but the prolongation of their demise.

As Sikhs if we ever have to take vows for any monarch we should swear to serve only Waheguru who is the personification of good and justice. We should promise to protect the realm from evil,tyranny and harm. But we should never swear our alliance to any throne or power, other than Waheguru. We should protect the common people with all our power, which is the point of the Monarchy (or at-least was). This should be enough for any monarch.

The monarchy is more or less dead anyways.

Agreed, in the UK the Queen is beholden to the whims of her parliament, who will theoretically act in the interests of her subjects. Swearing allegiance to the people should cover it, and she ought to be happy with it. And even if she isn't, who cares? What could she do about it?

He was the Maharajah of Punjab. But not of Sikhs as a Panth.

We only have one Maharaj – Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj.

Akali Phula Singh punished Ranjit Singh for not having married the Muslim dancing woman.

Moran Kaur was thus correctly initiated into the Sikh Panth (as opposed to the urban myth version) by Akali Phula Singh Ji.

That's an extremely interesting version of the old tale. I researched it and it seems she did ultimately marry the Maharaja, which would surely have been contested by Akali Ji for a second time if she had still been a Muslim. I think it likely that you're right.

Didn't the Maharajah entertain ambitions of appropriating the Phulkian states in order to extend his influence over all Sikh people (until the East India Company curtailed these hopes by signing a treaty with him prohibiting southward expansion) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, iron-fisted theocracy was never the Sikh way. Generosity and a sense of fair play, as you said, that was what distinguished our people from those that came before us. It facilitated the entry of the brilliant Hindu and Muslim statesmen and the European mercenary generals who helped to make Sarkar-Khalsa the most advanced native power in the history of Hindustan. This was one of the Sikhs' greatest strengths. One might make the argument that the Sikh Empire would never have burgeoned as it did if it wasn't infused with the inviting and secular spirit of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It was also their undoing.

There is a certain appeal to the iron-fisted way, lol. I'd argue it was this desire to be all-encompassing and all things to many people that proved to be its undoing. Long term, what did Sikhs actually gain from being so magnanimous? Hindus have their India, Muslims received their Pakistan and Bangladesh, and we... well, again, we were left running our tongue over our lips as the old Punjabi saying goes. We were naive.

Admittedly, I haven't read about the Sikh empire since my teens, so my recollection of that era may be more than hazy, lol. Leave me alone with my fantasies of a Sikh empire laying waste to everything before it as others quailed in terror at our might! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a certain appeal to the iron-fisted way, lol. I'd argue it was this desire to be all-encompassing and all things to many people that proved to be its undoing. Long term, what did Sikhs actually gain from being so magnanimous? Hindus have their India, Muslims received their Pakistan and Bangladesh, and we... well, again, we were left running our tongue over our lips as the old Punjabi saying goes. We were naive.

Admittedly, I haven't read about the Sikh empire since my teens, so my recollection of that era may be more than hazy, lol. Leave me alone with my fantasies of a Sikh empire laying waste to everything before it as others quailed in terror at our might! ;)

Magmanimous is a big word, I had to look it up in the dictionary :)

We Sikhs are over - generous to the detriment of our selves and it allows others to take advantage.

Need to give credit where credit is due for Maharaj Ranjit Singh.He managed to balance things and was keen to adopt new ideas and skills for the kingdom.

However, from what I recall Hari Singh Nalwa tried to persuade him to give power to the Panj Pyare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magmanimous is a big word, I had to look it up in the dictionary :)

We Sikhs are over - generous to the detriment of our selves and it allows others to take advantage.

Need to give credit where credit is due for Maharaj Ranjit Singh.He managed to balance things and was keen to adopt new ideas and skills for the kingdom.

However, from what I recall Hari Singh Nalwa tried to persuade him to give power to the Panj Pyare.

I've been giving this subject some further thought today and, in essence, I agree with your point above about our generosity and honesty in this particular instance. Of course, it easy for us with hindsight to be armchair generals, but I don't think there's anything wrong with passing comment or offering an opinion.

I see the situation about the Sikh Empire in the following way: Since the beginning of our inception as a faith and even up to the times of Baba Banda Singh Badhadur, we've had our backs against the wall, so to speak. We've either been repelling or defending ourselves from attack. Would that be an accurate thing to say? Our Guru Sahibs were rebels in many senses. They rebelled against the corruption of the Brahmin classes and the inequality and injustice (among other things) of Hindu society, as well as the broader lack of humanity and tolerance on the part of the Mughal invaders. The first 5 Guru Sahibs fought purely with the strength of their actions and their words. Their remit was one of affecting the minds of the people in a way that the population would realise how strongly the veil of darkness and ignorance had clouded their existence. From the 6th Guru Sahib onwards the need for the sword - alongside the wisdom gained from spirituality - became painfully apparent. Yet, we were still defending ourselves from attack, ensuring the freedom of others and ourselves, but, as i said, we were repelling and defending ourselves from the forces who otherwise desired compliance or our destruction.

Fast forward to the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and would I be right in saying this period of history was the first time Sikhs were in the ascendancy? Obviously, there were the attempts by the Afghans to make inroads, but more or less we had a settled base of power. I believe THAT period of time was the moment we should have began our conquests, in my humble opinion. Instead, what did we do? We started entertaining the British; we started admitting Hindu and Muslim ministers into court, we almost became patrons of the bloody arts. Basically, our honesty and our integrity meant we were more concerned with doing the honourable thing as opposed to doing what was needed to ensure our survival, and more importantly, our growth. We played by the rules and we assumed others would do so too. Who knows how many of those Hindu and Muslim courtiers had conversations with the British to weaken the Sikh Empire from within? From what we know about the aforementioned two groups of people, do we really honestly think they were genuinely pleased to see us with so much power? I imagine it was a case of smiling through clenched teeth, biding their time, knowing we'd trip up somewhere down the line. And we did.

We should've been aggressive. And I don't mean make life for the average man and woman unbearable, but we should've started to conquer other parts of India. Army vs Army, General vs General, King vs King, we had enough about us to take huge parts of the country. The greatest empires this world has ever seen were not built through resting on laurels or through an over abundance of co-operation and fair play. Yes, alliances and the like are essential, but always keep those who aren't your own at arm's length. I know there were other races and cultures in the armies and other parts of the Sikh Empire, but we should've made it our priority to train our people and, like I said, ensure our men outnumbered the others. Of course, take advice and experience from the British or whatnot, but we should've always been single-minded in our objective of growing what we already had, whether it be in terms of land, people, skills, etc. Our ultimate aim should've been to ensure the expansion of Sikhi as well as increasing our physical numbers. But we turned to secularism and a desire to play by the rules, hoping others would recognise and reciprocate our integrity and our desire to be just and fair to all.

There's the saying, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," and I'm sorry to say we never came close to breaking enough eggs. Why did we allow ourselves to become complacent in a period in history where we should've pushed forwards and ruthlessly expanded? I don't know, but I think had we displayed even a bit more forward-thinking and less confidence in the goodwill of others, we wouldn't be virtual slaves and prisoners in a country that could've been entirely our own by now, or at least a considerable portion of it might have been ours by now.

A costly, missed opportunity that continues to have reverberations for us to this very day, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been giving this subject some further thought today and, in essence, I agree with your point above about our generosity and honesty in this particular instance. Of course, it easy for us with hindsight to be armchair generals, but I don't think there's anything wrong with passing comment or offering an opinion.

I see the situation about the Sikh Empire in the following way: Since the beginning of our inception as a faith and even up to the times of Baba Banda Singh Badhadur, we've had our backs against the wall, so to speak. We've either been repelling or defending ourselves from attack. Would that be an accurate thing to say? Our Guru Sahibs were rebels in many senses. They rebelled against the corruption of the Brahmin classes and the inequality and injustice (among other things) of Hindu society, as well as the broader lack of humanity and tolerance on the part of the Mughal invaders. The first 5 Guru Sahibs fought purely with the strength of their actions and their words. Their remit was one of affecting the minds of the people in a way that the population would realise how strongly the veil of darkness and ignorance had clouded their existence. From the 6th Guru Sahib onwards the need for the sword - alongside the wisdom gained from spirituality - became painfully apparent. Yet, we were still defending ourselves from attack, ensuring the freedom of others and ourselves, but, as i said, we were repelling and defending ourselves from the forces who otherwise desired compliance or our destruction.

Fast forward to the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and would I be right in saying this period of history was the first time Sikhs were in the ascendancy? Obviously, there were the attempts by the Afghans to make inroads, but more or less we had a settled base of power. I believe THAT period of time was the moment we should have began our conquests, in my humble opinion. Instead, what did we do? We started entertaining the British; we started admitting Hindu and Muslim ministers into court, we almost became patrons of bloody the arts. Basically, our honesty and our integrity meant we were more concerned with doing the honourable thing as opposed to doing what was needed to ensure our survival, and more importantly, our growth. We played by the rules and we assumed others would do so too. Who knows how many of those Hindu and Muslim courtiers had conversations with the British to weaken the Sikh Empire from within? From what we know about the aforementioned two groups of people, do we really honestly think they were genuinely pleased to see us with so much power? I imagine it was a case of smiling through clenched teeth, biding their time, knowing we'd trip up somewhere down the line. And we did.

We should've been aggressive. And I don't mean make life for the average man and woman unbearable, but we should've started to conquer other parts of India. Army vs Army, General vs General, King vs King, we had enough about us to take huge parts of the country. The greatest empires this world has ever seen were not built through resting on laurels or through an over abundance of co-operation and fair play. Yes, alliances and the like are essential, but always keep those who aren't your own at arm's length. I know there were other races and cultures in the armies and other parts of the Sikh Empire, but we should've made it our priority to train our people and, like I said, ensure our men outnumbered the others. Of course, take advice and experience from the British or whatnot, but we should've always been single-minded in our objective of growing what we already had, whether it be in terms of land, people, skills, etc. Our ultimate aim should've been to ensure the expansion of Sikhi as well as increasing our physical numbers. But we turned to secularism and a desire to play by the rules, hoping others would recognise and reciprocate our integrity and our desire to be just and fair to all.

There's the saying, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," and I'm sorry to say we never came close to breaking enough eggs. Why did we allow ourselves to become complacent in a period in history where we should've pushed forwards and ruthlessly expanded? I don't know, but I think had we displayed even a bit more forward-thinking and less confidence in the goodwill of others, we wouldn't be virtual slaves and prisoners in a country that could've been entirely our own by now, or at least a considerable portion of it might have been ours by now.

A costly, missed opportunity that continues to have reverberations for us to this very day, imo.

+1

I think there are several factors to consider:

There was no consolidation of the Sikh population, we were probably only 10 percent.There should have been more Parchaar to increase the demographic advantage.

We should also have absorbed and digested the art of statesmanship and military strategic and placed into the hands of our own Sikhs. We outsourced/ delegated the decision making to non Sikhs which would make it a more dangerous proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use