Justice in Sikhism

[dallysingh101]

On 5/24/2021 at 8:48 PM, Jai Tegang! said:

These british accounts always are fascinating to read as they help fill the gaps, especially about things our historians found too mundane to write about. I 've always wondered what the religiosity of the sardars was in comparison to the nihangs. Also, the caste/economic composition of nihungs would be interesting to know from Dashmesh Pitas time through to the misl period and beyond. They seem to have been from landless sections living almost mercenary style judging from the "gapa (gift)" request. Bhang overuse seems to have been an old habit also.

Btw, what books do you use for british sources?

No particular ones, I went through a phase of reading lots of them (not only 'british' sources, as some are by nonbrits like Honigberger, there was another one by a French bloke too - Jacquemont if I recall rightly). Problem with the brit narratives are that they are (predictably) embedded within colonialist frameworks. The pre-annexation ones are largely geared towards intel gathering for the inevitable attack (what's there to take, who the leaders are and which ones can be corrupted/bribed, the state and numerical strength of the Khalsa forces and their weaponry), and distort things to make it look like Sikh aggression was the cause of the conflict, when their own agenda was pretty obvious (given what was known about their immediate previous history in the rest of 'India'). Greed and jealousy and supercilious attitudes are subtly (and not so subtly) ubiquitous throughout. The odd writer who questioned this narrative was severely punished and ostracised; an example being Cunningham. The post anglo-Sikh wars narratives then go even more intense with the colonialist agenda, with its natural white supremacist slant and belief in divine right to rule over the lesser subjects. Despite the contest being closely fought, and Sikh soldiers being sandbagged with treacherous 'leaders' - the brits falsely project the inevitability of their winning. Which wasn't true at all and could've very easily swung the other way. 

The post-annexation texts serve as a genre of their own, which subtly (and not so subtly) frame the events to reinforce the supremacist views that underpinned invasions and colonisation. They also served as triumphalist propaganda for those back home too. So anyone reading them without an acute awareness of this can easily be influenced by this very propaganda, despite the backhanded 'compliments' such texts invariably contain. Reading Edward Said's work on orientalism and culture and imperialism can really help people realise that. Being able to read them with a sovereign Sikh mindset is important, but a lot of people struggle with this. 

In my opinion they serve as a precursor to later projections of Sikhs in the anglo world that has portrayed them as docile 'stalwart' or clownish fools - the culmination of which many of my generation witnessed on popular national TV here growing up. This is a perfect example of this:

  

Regarding your point about the caste composition of the Nihangs - the vast majority of sources seem to point at a very open initiation culture as we commonly imagine from 1699.