The Black Prince - New Film Based On Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

8 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

bro didn't you make a blanket statement about the 12 misls all being about personal power and fights ?

I should have been more clear, I did not mean to say that's all they were good for, my point was infighting and so on was all too common amongst the misls. It is human nature though, we aren't and nor were they. But, we should all respect them for solidifying Sikh power throughout Punjab. 

[dallysingh101]

3 hours ago, TigerForce1 said:

Your statement vaguely lumped the Misls together: and "the guy that posted right after me decided to insult the Misls even more". 

 

I have no intention to insult Misls or Sardars!  I have merely tried to state that at certain times during our history individuals such as Ranjit Singh, Badal and countless others have misused the support given to them by GurSikhs.  At no point was support given to individuals or statesmen for personal conquests and expansion only for establishing Khalsa Raj.  I apologise if I have offended anyone!

 

I wouldn't put Badal and Ranjit Singh in the same boat. The former has contributed absolutely nothing to the panth (outside of his click of wealthy zamaindaars), whilst the latter (despite all his weaknesses) turned Panjab into a modern, thriving, superpower when it was previously a constantly invaded and subjugated land from time immemorial. 

[Ranjeet01]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

I wouldn't put Badal and Ranjit Singh in the same boat. The former has contributed absolutely nothing to the panth (outside of his click of wealthy zamaindaars), whilst the latter (despite all his weaknesses) turned Panjab into a modern, thriving, superpower when it was previously a constantly invaded and subjugated land from time immemorial. 

The problem with Ranjit Singh was perhaps that there was not enough long term thinking on the longevity of the empire, particularly around succession. 

Hari Singh Nalwa advised him to give power to the Panj pyare.

It's all very well going the heriditary monarchy system but it seems that his sons were not fit to rule.

[TigerForce1]

4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

I wouldn't put Badal and Ranjit Singh in the same boat. The former has contributed absolutely nothing to the panth (outside of his click of wealthy zamaindaars), whilst the latter (despite all his weaknesses) turned Panjab into a modern, thriving, superpower when it was previously a constantly invaded and subjugated land from time immemorial. 

I agree Ranjit Singh does not belong in the same category as Badal but should be  held accountable for his anti Sikh practises and association with non Sikhs which ultimately put an end to what should have been 'Khalsa Raj'.  Had Ranjit Singh been living his life according to Gurmat and put his faith in the Panj Pyare the story would have been very different today.

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

But, at the same time some of those non-sikh associations also helped him as well. Weather it was modernization of the army, or the loyalty of men like fakir azidudin. Instead of blatantly blaming all non Sikhs, I think we know it was mostly the Dogras, the Sandhwalia sardars and so on. 

[dallysingh101]

12 hours ago, TigerForce1 said:

I agree Ranjit Singh does not belong in the same category as Badal but should be  held accountable for his anti Sikh practises and association with non Sikhs which ultimately put an end to what should have been 'Khalsa Raj'.  Had Ranjit Singh been living his life according to Gurmat and put his faith in the Panj Pyare the story would have been very different today.

That's a big question people do ask. 

How much do Machiavellian characteristics and slyness help in ruling? Can anyone really be a ruler of a violent area full of naturally fractious people, itself surrounded by a host of devious and ruthless enemies (i.e. brits and afghans in Ranjit's case), and act in a 'pure' way like some people seem to be suggesting? 

For all his shortcomings, Ranjit Singh probably did one of the best jobs possible under the circumstances. Personally, I don't really care about personal human weaknesses in a political leader (within limits), I don't look to them as spiritual role models. Rather, I'd want them to ensure economic prosperity, personal freedom and national security. In his lifetime, Ranjit Singh did that admirably, and I can pretty much guarantee that all those people who negatively judge him for his disciplinary shortcomings today, wouldn't even have lasted 5 minutes in his shoes.  

[dallysingh101]

Quote

The problem with Ranjit Singh was perhaps that there was not enough long term thinking on the longevity of the empire, particularly around succession. 

I think he did what he felt was necessary (specifically building up the army to be formidable) and left it to those who survived him to battle it out. 

[MisterrSingh]

I get the impression, perhaps implicitly, that Ranjit Singh tolerated the influence of Sikh theocracy on himself at least, out of deference, genuine affection, and a certain sense of obligation? If he was truly ruthless and determined to carve out a long-lasting secular Punjabi kingdom - if Sikh in name and appearances than nothing else - without the kirpan of Damocles hanging over him ready to strike at every transgression on his part, I reckon he would've done so. Ultimately he perhaps was more forgiving and tolerant than he should've been. People expecting him to embody the spiritualism and wisdom of our Gurus, coupled with the zeal and sole regard for Sikh interests of someone like Baba Banda Singh, and the statesmanship he clearly possessed are probably asking for a bit too much from one man.

[TigerForce1]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

That's a big question people do ask. 

How much do Machiavellian characteristics and slyness help in ruling? Can anyone really be a ruler of a violent area full of naturally fractious people, itself surrounded by a host of devious and ruthless enemies (i.e. brits and afghans in Ranjit's case), and act in a 'pure' way like some people seem to be suggesting? 

For all his shortcomings, Ranjit Singh probably did one of the best jobs possible under the circumstances. Personally, I don't really care about personal human weaknesses in a political leader (within limits), I don't look to them as spiritual role models. Rather, I'd want them to ensure economic prosperity, personal freedom and national security. In his lifetime, Ranjit Singh did that admirably, and I can pretty much guarantee that all those people who negatively judge him for his disciplinary shortcomings today, wouldn't even have lasted 5 minutes in his shoes.  

I do understand your point of view in respect to of what Ranjit Singh achieved in regards of managing a state and hostile enemies together with managing the people within the Kingdom.  We are however instructed to follow the example and teachings of our Guru and the best example I can draw from with my limited knowledge is 'Miri and Piri'.  Ranjit Singh showed vast skills in 'Miri 'but completely lacked 'Piri'.  The two together are and should be the guidance model for any Sikh State and without these two I'm not sure if it can be called Sikh Raj.  Maybe this is where my expectations of Ranjit Singh differ from yours as I can only view him through a Sikh lens.

 

 

[dallysingh101]

6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

 Ultimately he perhaps was more forgiving and tolerant than he should've been. People expecting him to embody the spiritualism and wisdom of our Gurus, coupled with the zeal and sole regard for Sikh interests of someone like Baba Banda Singh, and the statesmanship he clearly possessed are probably asking for a bit too much from one man.

There is a problem with what you are saying: even Banda Singh apparently had major problems with internal cohesion leading to the Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa schism. So there were even Singhs back then who thought he was deviating from what he should have been. 

Also, there are people who believe that Ranjit Singh did embody the Guru's wisdom in his attitude towards others. Read this from a descendent of Fakir Azzizudin (From The Real Ranjit Singh by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin). 

I think Ranjit Singh was religious, in a way that many of us would struggle to understand in today's post Singh Sabha lehar period. Sure, maybe a lot of it was what we'd call superstition today, but he did have a spiritual life. Like many great leaders he was complex and contradictory, but given the umpteen (very serious) pulls and twists of his environment, should that really be any surprise to us today?