Jump to content

Maharaja Ranjit Singh funeral


puzzled
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, dharamyudh said:

I honestly believe this was a reason why it fell in the manner it did. They began to stray away from Sikhi. 

I agree. Historians and rationalists will point to other more sobre reasons for its fall, but I think, on a metaphysical level, the decline came about because it wasn't a Sikh empire at all. I think blessings were withdrawn; this phenomenon is not unique or unheard of in Sikhi. Sikhs aren't permanently endowed with God's grace even when the Sikh crosses over into doing wrong. God's grace remains for as long as the individual or the group lives according to His spiritual decrees. Once the deviation occurs, it's game over.

The Sikh empire was, to my mind, nothing more than a secular, multi-religious Punjabi Empire with an obviously perfunctory Sikh front. Sikh population numbers are largely irrelevant. If it's being lauded as a Sikh empire, then its priority should be to bring non-Sikhs into the fold. If only Hari Singh Nalwa possessed a little less honour, maybe he'd have been more of what SIKHS needed as a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Another instance when a cultural practice that was unequivocally forbidden by the Gurus was perpetuated without remorse by the very people who should have shunned it. What exactly was "Sikh" about this kingdom aside from superficial surface traits and adornments? The more I read about it, the more it pi55es me off. 

A lot of people are going to do what they feel like regardless of what Guru hold them not to.

Feelz before realz. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Another instance when a cultural practice that was unequivocally forbidden by the Gurus was perpetuated without remorse by the very people who should have shunned it. What exactly was "Sikh" about this kingdom aside from superficial surface traits and adornments? The more I read about it, the more it pi55es me off. 

Yh but to be fair the women that became sati were hindus and they chose to do it! They were even discouraged from doing it but they insisted! His Sikh wives like Jind Kaur refused to become sati ... 

Same thing happened with Sardar Sham Singh Attariwala who fought in the anglo sikh wars, his hindu wife mai desa became sati when he died. His daughter was married to Ranjit singhs grandson prince nau nihal singh, when nau nihal singh died she didnt become sati while his hindu wives did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Yh but to be fair the women that became sati were hindus and they chose to do it! They were even discouraged from doing it but they insisted! His Sikh wives like Jind Kaur refused to become sati ... 

Same thing happened with Sardar Sham Singh Attariwala who fought in the anglo sikh wars, his hindu wife mai desa became sati when he died. His daughter was married to Ranjit singhs grandson prince nau nihal singh, when nau nihal singh died she didnt become sati while his hindu wives did. 

That's fair, but being married to a supposed Sikh in Ranjit Singh, one would imagine his non-Sikh wives adhering to their husband's belief system in something as fundamental as the life or death of the wife. He could've forbade these acts as a final command. Seems like it was a multicultural hellhole! ?

This act of sati is something modern British Empire defenders have latched onto, and they've started to make it known that, when the British took control of India, they outlawed sati as part of a progressive social agenda for the population. I have no doubt as the aggression towards historical white imperialism and colonialism increases, these defenders will turn their attention to specific instances in that period where they actually did do some good for the people in those countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not being an armchair general after the fact. I can only imagine the mental toil and physical exertion of fighting for a kingdom and ruling over it for a while. It takes an extraordinary personality to even get that far. In matters of war, statesmanship, etc., I can express regret at missed opportunities and other issues, but again I don't envy anyone who had to deal with those myriad situations on a daily basis. 

But when it comes to leading by example in religious matters, there's no excuse for not at least making more of an effort to push Sikhi in a Sikh kingdom, numbers or not, and that comes from the top. I'm sure the Mughal emperor's weren't model Muslims in some of the more subtle and less noticeable matters of their faith, but by heck they enforced the edicts of their religion in the areas that it mattered. We seem more concerned with keeping others happy and contented, only to be betrayed at a later date, or at best be treated with a mild contempt at our gullibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

This act of sati is something modern British Empire defenders have latched onto, and they've started to make it known that, when the British took control of India, they outlawed sati as part of a progressive social agenda for the population. I have no doubt as the aggression towards historical white imperialism and colonialism increases, these defenders will turn their attention to specific instances in that period where they actually did do some good for the people in those countries. 

They already are, years ago i was watching that program the big question i think its called on the BBC and if i remember correctly Jagraj Singh was on it and some old colonized Singh sitting with the goreh. I think they were discussing the British Empire and started talking about how the British abolished sati, if i remember correctly Jagraj Singh mentioned how the Sikh guru had already abolished sati and then one gora dragged M.Ranjit Singh into it and how his queens became sati. Bhai Jagraj Singh then said something like M.Ranjit Singh is not a model for Sikhs and that he was not a religious leader. A lot of these goreh historians that look into the British Raj are very well aware about this sati incident! 

Thing is, Akal Takht and the empire were 2 separate things, Ranjit Singhs darbar never had a say in Sikh religious affairs or matters, anything to do with Sikhi had to be approved by the Akal Takht, so it really wasn't a religious empire, but the Akal Takt did have a influence in his darbar.  So it really wasn't a religious empire, you can say church and state were separate. 

This clash between Ranjit Singhs darbar and people loyal to Akal Thakt was very evident even back then. The Akali Nihangs were loyal to Akal Takht and disliked Ranjit Singh, but when it came to war they very always involved in defending Punjab and the Empire. There are historical accounts of the Akali Singhs openly hurling abuse at Ranjit Singh while riding on his elephant through Lahore/Amritsar! Akali Phoola Singh and Ranjit Singh clashed a lot, Akali Phoola Singh was very loud and clear about it, while Ranjit Singh was not. 

So he never really governed over any Sikh matters. The empire was basically an empire ruled over by Sikhs.

 

But its amazing what he was able to create in such a short period of time at such a young age, taking into account he basically came from a family of peasants just like most the other Sikh Misl leaders. I wonder why the years of the Sikh misl period are never counted into Sikh Raj? by the 1770s or even earlier Punjab was mainly ruled by Sikh Misls 

 

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

    • The muslims cannot really do much in Leicester so they picked an easy target in Birmingham.  And they use what they are good at which is the numbers game.  I wish there was a community that breeds at higher rates than the muslims so that when the muslims try to get their numbers that they get out-numbered by another community.  As to your post that you mentioned about us Sikhs being outnumbered by mobs from other communities is that although we are quite a docile race, we have a knack of being extremely well organised and disciplined when the time comes and this bodes well when tackling an unruly mob particularly when being outnumbered.  It's like some kind of dormant gene that gets activated. You saw how quickly our community galvanised during 2011 riots, how quickly during the Kisaan protests. Like MrrSingh said we are a walking contradiction. 
    • From what happened last week it looked like the Hindus started it and the muslims ended up on top with what happened in Birmingham.  You're right apne don't really bully minorities, we are racist though. I can't blame the Hindus to some extent when it comes to suls. Their leadership let them down big time allowing huge amounts of suls to stay behind after partition. We've been fortunate to have an almost sul free Punjab, we only know what suls are like due to living next to them in the west. Punjab has the lowest percentage of suls in all of India. Suls like to push the boat to see what they can get away with and when they go too far like they did in Myanmar recently, the majority community finally has enough and retaliate. If they were a community that kept their head down and worked hard no one would hate them but they just try to push their way of life on all of us. They have conflicts with every other religion. 
    • One major factor for the Hindus are doing what they are doing in the UK is the political backing. The Hindu political leadership in India is comprised of Gujjus and it is the Gujju diaspora that is spearheads in countries abroad.  Even if we had this level of political backing, we Sikhs don't do what these two other communities do.  We are wired differently. Even if we were an overwhelming majority, we don't pick on other communities.  But for some reason, these two other communities love to use their numbers.  But as a neutral observer, it is interesting to see Muslims in the UK on the back foot.  The Hindu lobby groups seem to have turned the tables on the Muslim lobby groups.  The police and local authorities seem to protect Muslims but they look quite helpless.  Muslim lobby groups seem to infiltrate systems from a lower level but the Hindu lobby groups seem to be excercise from a higher level. So it seems to be top-down vs bottom-up.      
    • The thing is that Hindus will only give it the large when in a significant majority and as soon as the numbers turn against them they pretty much give up. The only exception I've seen to this is the Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka. They also have appalling unity, did the Punjabi, Tamil, Nepali Hindus come to help the Gujaratis? Nope. Yet you had Arabs and Somalians helping the Indian muslims and Pakistanis.  Sikhs historically have always been a minority in India and even greater Punjab so we are used to fighting when the numbers are against us. Just look at how we retaliated against the muslims of UP who heavily outnumber us when they tried to take our land. Even in Hyderabad Sikhs have fought against Muslims who make up a huge amount of the city.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use