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 I think blessings were withdrawn; this phenomenon is not unique or unheard of in Sikhi.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

    • Russistan Zindabad! 😅
    • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63072113 Russia's Vladimir Putin will hold a signing ceremony on Friday to annex four more areas of Ukraine after self-styled referendums condemned by Ukraine and the West as a sham. Russian-backed officials had earlier claimed the five-day exercise secured almost total popular support. So-called votes were held in Luhansk and Donetsk in the east, and in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south. The Russian president will make a major speech at the Kremlin. A stage has already been set up in Moscow's Red Square, with billboards proclaiming the four regions as part of Russia and a concert planned for the evening.  The event echoes Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, which also followed a discredited referendum and was heralded by a Kremlin signing followed by a presidential victory speech in parliament. That initial annexation has never been recognised by the vast majority of the international community, and nor will this.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the "pseudo-referendums" were worthless and did not change reality. "The territorial integrity of Ukraine will be restored. And our reaction to recognition of the results by Russia will be very harsh."  No independent monitoring of the Russian process took place and election officials were pictured going from door to door escorted by armed soldiers. "Tomorrow at 15:00 (12:00 GMT) in the St George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace a signing ceremony will be held on incorporating the new territories into Russia," said spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Separate agreements will be signed with the two Russian-backed separatist leaders from the east and the two Russian-appointed officials from the south. As with Crimea, Russia's two houses of parliament will formally ratify the annexation treaties next week. The Russian president is expected to address to the upper house of parliament on 4 October, three days before his 70th birthday.  The US has said it will impose sanctions on Russia because of the staged referendums, while EU member states are considering an eighth round of measures, including sanctions on anyone involved in the votes.
    • ਨਾਮਧਾਰੀ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਦਲੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ  ਨਿਹੰਗ ਸਿੰਘਾਂ ਦੇ ਜੱਥੇਦਾਰ ਸਰਦਾਰ ਮੇਜਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨਾਲ ਨੇ ਸਹਿਮਤ । VID-20220929-WA0000.mp4
    • You really are full of nonsense. The reason the Gujaratis came to Britain after being expelled from Africa was because they had British citizenship, no other reason. Many of them had to live in detention camps when they arrived! They did not uplift the image of Indians by selling saris and owning corner shops, something that Punjabis were doing where they were a majority anyway. 
    • Because Naamdharis are absolute masters at kirtan. Simple. On the topic of Akal Takht, it doesn't really hold the same authority as it did in the past. Just look at the people running it and you'll get what I mean. Most the panth, outside of stuff like Tankhaya, don't care about anything they have to say. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use