Jump to content

Sikh king for Britain


Dsinghd
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This is nonsensical.. I believe the article however farfetched suggests that this man is descended from a illegitimate bloodline of duleep Singh  

sorry the fact that Duleep was married to a Christian 'barsteward' or, this guy's claim , that he may be descended from an illegimate tryst with Duleep's son Frederick ? The first is a fact , the second highly doubtful as None of Duleep's progeny had children in line  with Guru ji's bachan . How can anyone be sure as a maid is hardly going one to admit she had an affair to anyone less than a prince (no profit, no excuse )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/07/2017 at 0:24 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

A contradiction in terms no such thing as a monarchy and democracy. You seem to be mixing up political systems.. 

Moreover are you talking about the dismantling of the Indian state as opposed to the secession of the panjab and its independence 

In this case, I was talking about how there were still Princely states when India has been independent for a while.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/07/2017 at 9:04 AM, jkvlondon said:

sorry the fact that Duleep was married to a Christian 'barsteward' or, this guy's claim , that he may be descended from an illegimate tryst with Duleep's son Frederick ? The first is a fact , the second highly doubtful as None of Duleep's progeny had children in line  with Guru ji's bachan . How can anyone be sure as a maid is hardly going one to admit she had an affair to anyone less than a prince (no profit, no excuse )

I think you don't quite understand the article, the suggestion is that that this man may be the descendent of someone who was 'illegimate'. Which is in itself highly plausible.. Because in those days the aristocracy had many mistresses of low and high social status.. The fact the made may or may not have said anything is irrelevant.. Whilst I do not buy into the idea myself to dismiss it on the argument you have proffered does not hold weight. 

The more interesting argument is that if (hypothetically speaking) this person through let's say dna evidence was proven to carry the bloodline of duleep Singh then would people be so enthusiastic to have a monarchy led by descendents of Maharaja Ranjit Singh... 

Personally I reckon the idea proffered by people here would evaporate pretty quickly if that would turn out to be true.. Should be careful what we  wish for I think! 

This whole idea is pretty ridiculous to be fair? Pretty retrogressive I reckon... Analogous to the ideology of ISIS and the desire to create a caliphate, some kind of reimagined present day Sikh utopian state. But one which disenfranchises the masses and hands power to autocratic ruler.. 

I mean seriously? Do people even think these ideas out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, ipledgeblue said:

In this case, I was talking about how there were still Princely states when India has been independent for a while.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)

Your mistaken.. At independence there were Princely states that were essentially satraps of the British.. 

However all of these states were almost immediately assimilated into the Republic of India.. Either by force or through consent.. Though the  process of accession and integration took a number of years, essentially the Republic took full centralised control.. They were as a part of their accession required to implement democratisation of their states.. Enfranchisement of each and every person was a key ideal of the Indian state.. A number of rajpramukhs/rajas enjoyed nominal control but in reality were neutered. 

The Maharajas enjoyed for a number of years official titles and pensions and were figure heads there was never really any devolved power structure between these states and the government of India

Incidentally the Princes were stripped of their official titles and the process of integration pretty much completed in the 50s

 

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