how did the legal system work in the days of the Sikh misls and Sikh Empire?

[genie]

I've been looking around for information how the legal and justice system worked in the times when Sikhs had real political power.

Did they have some sort of 10 commandments things going on? written decree's by the different land rulers of 101 laws that must be followed in each village/town/city? panchiyat system? panj pyare system even for non-sikhs?

How did they punish wrong doers? What was wrong and crimes back in those days compared to today's?

In my view the western and modern day legal system is based on the anglo saxon system with christian/judaic abrahmic ideological morality as its compass. However us dharmic eastern faiths have our own views of morality and of what is wrong and right. The world has been conquered and brainwashed by the abrahmic take on morality and thus evolved its crime and justice system.

We should find out what our ideological Sikh legal system was like.

[KhalistanYouth]

I believe in the Sikh Empire we have Vizier's, Noble Courts from different religions, and of course the Maharaja, I believe the Complaints / problems would be dealt with by the Authority at the location so either the Soldiers, I think "court cases" would be held in the Maharajas chambers and the Maharaja or the Vizier would be the judge, that's what I think but I'll see if I find actual information

[KhalistanYouth]

"The Sikh Misls had four different classes of administrative divisions. The patadari, misaldari, tabadari, and jagirdari were the different systems of land tenure used by the misls, and land granted by the misl left the responsibility of establishing law and order to the owner of the land. The land under the direct administration of the chief of the misl was known as the sardari and the tabadari and jagirdari systems used land directly given by the chief from the sardari. The patadari and misaldari systems formed the basis of a misl, while tabadari and jagirdari lands would only be created after large acquisitions of land. The type of system that was used in an area depended on the importance of the chief sardar of the area to the rest of the misl.

The Patadari system affected newly annexed territories and was the original method used by the misls in administrating land.^[24] The patadari system relied on the cooperation of surkundas, the rank of a leader of a small party of cavalrymen. The chief of the misl would take his/her portion and divide the other parcels among his Sardars proportional to the number of cavalrymen they had contributed to the misl.^[25] The Sardars would then divide their parcels among their Surkundas, and then the Surkundas subdivided the land they received among their individual cavalrymen. The Surkundas receiving parcels of land with settlements were required to fortify them^{[note 2]} and establish fines and laws for their zamindars and ryots.^[26] Parcels of land in the patadari system could not be sold, but could be given to relatives in an inheritance.^[27] The soldiers who received parcels from the Patadari system held their land in complete freedom.^[4]

The Misaldari system applied to sardars with a small number of cavalrymen as well as independent bodies of cavalrymen who voluntarily attached themselves to a misl.^[27] They kept the lands they held before joining the misl as an allotment for their cooperation with the misl. The leaders of these groups, called misaldars, could transfer their allegiance and land to another misl without punishment.^[27]

The Tabadari system referred to land under the control of a misl's tabadars. Tabadars served a similar function to retainers in Europe. They were required to serve as cavalrymen to the misl and were subservient to the misl's leader. Although tabadars received their land as a reward, their ownership was subject entirely on the misl's leader.^[28] The tabadari grants were only hereditary on the choice of the chief of the misl.

The Jagirdari system used the grant of jagirs by the chief of the misl. Jagirs were given by the chief of the misl to relations, dependents, and people who "deserved well".^[28] The owners of jagirs were subservient to the chief of the misl as their ownership was subject his/her needs. Like the Tabadars, jagirdars were subject to personal service when the chief of the misl requested.^[28] However, because jagirs entailed more land and profit, they were required to use the money generated by their jagirs to equip and mount a quota of cavalrymen depending on the size of their jagir.^[28] Jagirdari grants were hereditary in practice but a misl's chief could revoke the rights of the heir. Upon the death of the owner of a tabadari or jagadari grant, the land would revert to direct control of the chief (sardari)." From the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misl#Administration

[genie]

13 hours ago, KhalistanYouth said:

"The Sikh Misls had four different classes of administrative divisions. The patadari, misaldari, tabadari, and jagirdari were the different systems of land tenure used by the misls, and land granted by the misl left the responsibility of establishing law and order to the owner of the land. The land under the direct administration of the chief of the misl was known as the sardari and the tabadari and jagirdari systems used land directly given by the chief from the sardari. The patadari and misaldari systems formed the basis of a misl, while tabadari and jagirdari lands would only be created after large acquisitions of land. The type of system that was used in an area depended on the importance of the chief sardar of the area to the rest of the misl.

The Patadari system affected newly annexed territories and was the original method used by the misls in administrating land.^[24] The patadari system relied on the cooperation of surkundas, the rank of a leader of a small party of cavalrymen. The chief of the misl would take his/her portion and divide the other parcels among his Sardars proportional to the number of cavalrymen they had contributed to the misl.^[25] The Sardars would then divide their parcels among their Surkundas, and then the Surkundas subdivided the land they received among their individual cavalrymen. The Surkundas receiving parcels of land with settlements were required to fortify them^{[note 2]} and establish fines and laws for their zamindars and ryots.^[26] Parcels of land in the patadari system could not be sold, but could be given to relatives in an inheritance.^[27] The soldiers who received parcels from the Patadari system held their land in complete freedom.^[4]

The Misaldari system applied to sardars with a small number of cavalrymen as well as independent bodies of cavalrymen who voluntarily attached themselves to a misl.^[27] They kept the lands they held before joining the misl as an allotment for their cooperation with the misl. The leaders of these groups, called misaldars, could transfer their allegiance and land to another misl without punishment.^[27]

The Tabadari system referred to land under the control of a misl's tabadars. Tabadars served a similar function to retainers in Europe. They were required to serve as cavalrymen to the misl and were subservient to the misl's leader. Although tabadars received their land as a reward, their ownership was subject entirely on the misl's leader.^[28] The tabadari grants were only hereditary on the choice of the chief of the misl.

The Jagirdari system used the grant of jagirs by the chief of the misl. Jagirs were given by the chief of the misl to relations, dependents, and people who "deserved well".^[28] The owners of jagirs were subservient to the chief of the misl as their ownership was subject his/her needs. Like the Tabadars, jagirdars were subject to personal service when the chief of the misl requested.^[28] However, because jagirs entailed more land and profit, they were required to use the money generated by their jagirs to equip and mount a quota of cavalrymen depending on the size of their jagir.^[28] Jagirdari grants were hereditary in practice but a misl's chief could revoke the rights of the heir. Upon the death of the owner of a tabadari or jagadari grant, the land would revert to direct control of the chief (sardari)." From the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misl#Administration

Thanks for sharing this is what I was looking for.

This shows how the world has been brainwashed by the anglo saxon christian-judaic-atheist systems of legal system and justice.

The sikh system was a far more fair system and it wouldnt have so many laws that the western systems have that criminalise people for the rest of their lives for even minor offenses. In my view at least in the times of the Sikh empire people did not have a stigma if they had a criminal record  nowadays we right off people with life long criminal records with little chance for them to reform or get jobs and housing no wonder so many black/white criminals in western jails turn to islam seeing no hope in their lives so look for a system that will give them some hope rather than life long criminalisation.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

3 minutes ago, genie said:

Thanks for sharing this is what I was looking for.

This shows how the world has been brainwashed by the anglo saxon christian-judaic-atheist systems of legal system and justice.

The sikh system was a far more fair system and it wouldnt have so many laws that the western systems have that criminalise people for the rest of their lives for even minor offenses. In my view at least in the times of the Sikh empire people did not have a stigma if they had a criminal record  nowadays we right off people with life long criminal records with little chance for them to reform or get jobs and housing no wonder so many black/white criminals in western jails turn to islam seeing no hope in their lives so look for a system that will give them some hope rather than life long criminalisation.

A Sikh theocracy is a much better system if you ask me, with this system the Dogras and Non-Sikhs got to decide the fate of the Sikh empire.

[genie]

1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

A Sikh theocracy is a much better system if you ask me, with this system the Dogras and Non-Sikhs got to decide the fate of the Sikh empire.

Yes your right, and also it was the democratic system allowed for the rich land and shop owning Sikhs to be turned out of their own homeland of west punjab because Sikhs didnt have enough population to form majorities and thus a country so were forced to chose to either go with pakistan or indian  union.

The modern day democratic system is a fallacy, it has its many positive sides but it also shows its evil face when people like hitler got elected through democracy and people like bush and blair got elected who bombed innocent civilians and started illegal wars in iraq for geo-political reasons and profit. indira's Indian government got elected democratically by the majority hindu and muslim populations and gave us oppression and genocides of 1980 onwards.

Democracy can only work where the population is fair minded and view all people lives worthy of respect and dignity. Where the population has hatred for people not like them then democracy can be very dangerous giving mandate and legitimacy to evil minded people and their evil forces.

Sikh theocratic system is egalitarian and is fair to all and people would not be allowed to oppress and genocide minorities as per sikh teachings.

We have some cucked liberal Sikhs who say they would not want to live in a theocratic system because they been brainwashed by the corrupt capitalist atheist banking elites through mass media painting all theocratic systems as abrahmic systems like the ones in muslim countries that have hardly any human rights and treat non-muslims with contempt and unfairly in their legal and social system.

[jkvlondon]

On 01/05/2017 at 3:56 PM, genie said:

Yes your right, and also it was the democratic system allowed for the rich land and shop owning Sikhs to be turned out of their own homeland of west punjab because Sikhs didnt have enough population to form majorities and thus a country so were forced to chose to either go with pakistan or indian  union.

The modern day democratic system is a fallacy, it has its many positive sides but it also shows its evil face when people like hitler got elected through democracy and people like bush and blair got elected who bombed innocent civilians and started illegal wars in iraq for geo-political reasons and profit. indira's Indian government got elected democratically by the majority hindu and muslim populations and gave us oppression and genocides of 1980 onwards.

Democracy can only work where the population is fair minded and view all people lives worthy of respect and dignity. Where the population has hatred for people not like them then democracy can be very dangerous giving mandate and legitimacy to evil minded people and their evil forces.

Sikh theocratic system is egalitarian and is fair to all and people would not be allowed to oppress and genocide minorities as per sikh teachings.

We have some cucked liberal Sikhs who say they would not want to live in a theocratic system because they been brainwashed by the corrupt capitalist atheist banking elites through mass media painting all theocratic systems as abrahmic systems like the ones in muslim countries that have hardly any human rights and treat non-muslims with contempt and unfairly in their legal and social system.

point is if we look at the real idea of democracy as the Greeks has envisaged it , the power of votes was given to the stakeholders in the defence of the city-state , free people who actually put their loyalty to the people and the land ahead of personal gains . The wars, treaties, trade etc were all decided on an equals basis with all being able vote in the decision-making process.

Today's 'democracy' is a farcical drama which neither serves the will of the people properly nor prevents the siphoning off of resources and power to elite individuals.

It seems the misls system was fair and took regional differences into account as the locals decided the laws. The only thing now is how to maintain the control and prevent history repeating itself with a new generation of Dogra wannabes

[KhalistanYouth]

I read a book called History of Sikh Sikh Misl ( vol IV I think) it explains deeply with hundrends  of sources if you're interested you should read it / borrow if your gurdawara has a library  

[genie]

On 04/05/2017 at 9:44 PM, jkvlondon said:

point is if we look at the real idea of democracy as the Greeks has envisaged it , the power of votes was given to the stakeholders in the defence of the city-state , free people who actually put their loyalty to the people and the land ahead of personal gains . The wars, treaties, trade etc were all decided on an equals basis with all being able vote in the decision-making process.

Today's 'democracy' is a farcical drama which neither serves the will of the people properly nor prevents the siphoning off of resources and power to elite individuals.

It seems the misls system was fair and took regional differences into account as the locals decided the laws. The only thing now is how to maintain the control and prevent history repeating itself with a new generation of Dogra wannabes

Yes true democracy only works when the actual stakeholders have a say in issues that affect them and can make real changes to better their lives. Democracy in its current setup is all about one party with its agenda ruling a nation over the entire population without any proper redress from citizens whom the regressive legal judicial systems and bad political agenda are often effected for the worse.

Majority of Sikhs do not understand that they once had their own legal system instead of this relic of abrahamic-atheist ideology forced upon them by the muslim invaders and then british rulers of india.

[genie]

On 11/05/2017 at 3:32 PM, KhalistanYouth said:

I read a book called History of Sikh Sikh Misl ( vol IV I think) it explains deeply with hundrends  of sources if you're interested you should read it / borrow if your gurdawara has a library  

Thanks sounds interesting I'll have a look into that