Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superkaur

what if akali phoola singh ji was the maharajah instead of ranjit singh?

Recommended Posts

I been reading about how akali phoola singh was a fanatical strict sikh who lead equally fanatical akali nihung warriors who hated non-Sikh presence and interference in Sikh governance and lands captured by them. Such was their readiness, daring recklessness and desire for war against the enemies of Sikhs that they often defeated enemies many times their number and strength. Whereas maharajah ranjit singh was more strategically cunning, less about spreading Sikhi, more diplomatic and pluralistic in his approach in matters of religion and the political affairs of the state.

Maharajah ranjit singh made treaties with the british invaders (east india company) in the vain hope that:

1) one day there will be a right time to militarily strike the Sikh princely states under british protectorate and unite the whole of punjab region under his rule 

2) if that was not possible then the sutlej border between his government and them would be the permanment border and they will be allies in peace with each other.

On the other hand akali phoola singh wanted to attack and wipe out the british presence in northern india. And I believe had he had got his way and the Khalsa army was put in his command then the british would have been wiped out within weeks therefore enabling the expansion of Sikh rule to be unchecked and unmatched meaning afghanistan and iran could have easily come under Sikh rule the ruler of persia at the time admitted as such when hearing of battles lead by general nawla and akali phoola singh. The regional powers of the time afghans, Marathas, mughuls were no match for the Sikhs. I believe it was some idle hesitancy of maharaja ranjit singh in not striking while the iron was hot and rather enjoying the good life without having secured his rule is what lead to the downfall of his legacy, the Sikh empire and overall Sikh sovereignty eventually because the British had always eyes on taking over punjab as they needed it in order to get to afghanistan and counter russian empires expansionist plans.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, superkaur said:

I been reading about how akali phoola singh was a fanatical strict sikh who lead equally fanatical akali nihung warriors who hated non-Sikh presence and interference in Sikh governance and lands captured by them. Such was their readiness, daring recklessness and desire for war against the enemies of Sikhs that they often defeated enemies many times their number and strength. Whereas maharajah ranjit singh was more strategically cunning, less about spreading Sikhi, more diplomatic and pluralistic in his approach in matters of religion and the political affairs of the state.

Maharajah ranjit singh made treaties with the british invaders (east india company) in the vain hope that:

1) one day there will be a right time to militarily strike the Sikh princely states under british protectorate and unite the whole of punjab region under his rule 

2) if that was not possible then the sutlej border between his government and them would be the permanment border and they will be allies in peace with each other.

On the other hand akali phoola singh wanted to attack and wipe out the british presence in northern india. And I believe had he had got his way and the Khalsa army was put in his command then the british would have been wiped out within weeks therefore enabling the expansion of Sikh rule to be unchecked and unmatched meaning afghanistan and iran could have easily come under Sikh rule the ruler of persia at the time admitted as such when hearing of battles lead by general nawla and akali phoola singh. The regional powers of the time afghans, Marathas, mughuls were no match for the Sikhs. I believe it was some idle hesitancy of maharaja ranjit singh in not striking while the iron was hot and rather enjoying the good life without having secured his rule is what lead to the downfall of his legacy, the Sikh empire and overall Sikh sovereignty eventually because the British had always eyes on taking over punjab as they needed it in order to get to afghanistan and counter russian empires expansionist plans.

1. Can you share the source of this reading? So we can all get some more context and verify the validity of this reading material please?

 

2. Raaj isn't really preached in the teaching of the Gurus. If so, I'm sure the 10 Guru's would've clearly made this apparent in their teachings and would have accomplished this objective themselves. 

 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib - Ang: 534 (Guru Arjan Dev Ji):

Raaj Na Chahou Mukat Na Chahou Man Preet Charan Kamalare.

(I do not seek power and I do not seek liberation. My mind is in love with your lotus feet)

 

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib - Ang: 57 (Bachitar Naatak):

 

Ham Ih Kaaj Jagat Mo Aae. Dharam Heth Gurdev Patthai.

(I have set foot on this Earth for this one reason; to propogate righteousness)

 

Jahaan Tahaan Tum Dharam Bithaaro. DushT Dokheean Pakarr Pachharro.

(The Lord has asked me to spread Dharam and vanquish tyrants and evil-minded individuals)

 

I could reference countless other tuk's from Gurbaani but i'm sure these two suffice.

 

Akali Baba Phoola Singh Ji was walking in the steps of the teachings of the Gurus; on a mission to eliminate the enemy; in this case being the British who tried ever so hard to eliminate our teachings by performing disgusting acts such as but not limited to:

Creating the SGPC

Spreading propaganda of the Khalsa

Issuing 'shoot on-sight' orders to kill Singhs

Spreading propaganda on our scriptures

Sending in paid Sikhs to spread nonsence and create divisions

Polluting the Khandeh Di Pahul maryada by introducing other cults to participate

Removing the Nihang Singhs from the Akaal Bunga Sahib aka Akaal Takhat Sahib and therefore the whole Jathedaari system that has been in place since the time of the Gurus.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 8:11 AM, superkaur said:

I been reading about how akali phoola singh was a fanatical strict sikh who lead equally fanatical akali nihung warriors who hated non-Sikh presence and interference in Sikh governance and lands captured by them. Such was their readiness, daring recklessness and desire for war against the enemies of Sikhs that they often defeated enemies many times their number and strength. Whereas maharajah ranjit singh was more strategically cunning, less about spreading Sikhi, more diplomatic and pluralistic in his approach in matters of religion and the political affairs of the state.

Maharajah ranjit singh made treaties with the british invaders (east india company) in the vain hope that:

1) one day there will be a right time to militarily strike the Sikh princely states under british protectorate and unite the whole of punjab region under his rule 

2) if that was not possible then the sutlej border between his government and them would be the permanment border and they will be allies in peace with each other.

On the other hand akali phoola singh wanted to attack and wipe out the british presence in northern india. And I believe had he had got his way and the Khalsa army was put in his command then the british would have been wiped out within weeks therefore enabling the expansion of Sikh rule to be unchecked and unmatched meaning afghanistan and iran could have easily come under Sikh rule the ruler of persia at the time admitted as such when hearing of battles lead by general nawla and akali phoola singh. The regional powers of the time afghans, Marathas, mughuls were no match for the Sikhs. I believe it was some idle hesitancy of maharaja ranjit singh in not striking while the iron was hot and rather enjoying the good life without having secured his rule is what lead to the downfall of his legacy, the Sikh empire and overall Sikh sovereignty eventually because the British had always eyes on taking over punjab as they needed it in order to get to afghanistan and counter russian empires expansionist plans.

Sikhs would have lost their raj in 1806 if akali phoola singh was the maharaja. No hate, but a new sikh state wasnt capable to defeat the mighty british. Mahajadi Scindia, a maratha chiefs entire army was routed by a contingent of the well trained brits. Sikhs could have defeated Brits in 1857 if they fought for their own raaj. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 9:13 PM, ASingh8 said:

1. Can you share the source of this reading? So we can all get some more context and verify the validity of this reading material please?

 

2. Raaj isn't really preached in the teaching of the Gurus. If so, I'm sure the 10 Guru's would've clearly made this apparent in their teachings and would have accomplished this objective themselves. 

 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib - Ang: 534 (Guru Arjan Dev Ji):

Raaj Na Chahou Mukat Na Chahou Man Preet Charan Kamalare.

(I do not seek power and I do not seek liberation. My mind is in love with your lotus feet)

 

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib - Ang: 57 (Bachitar Naatak):

 

Ham Ih Kaaj Jagat Mo Aae. Dharam Heth Gurdev Patthai.

(I have set foot on this Earth for this one reason; to propogate righteousness)

 

Jahaan Tahaan Tum Dharam Bithaaro. DushT Dokheean Pakarr Pachharro.

(The Lord has asked me to spread Dharam and vanquish tyrants and evil-minded individuals)

 

I could reference countless other tuk's from Gurbaani but i'm sure these two suffice.

 

Akali Baba Phoola Singh Ji was walking in the steps of the teachings of the Gurus; on a mission to eliminate the enemy; in this case being the British who tried ever so hard to eliminate our teachings by performing disgusting acts such as but not limited to:

Creating the SGPC

Spreading propaganda of the Khalsa

Issuing 'shoot on-sight' orders to kill Singhs

Spreading propaganda on our scriptures

Sending in paid Sikhs to spread nonsence and create divisions

Polluting the Khandeh Di Pahul maryada by introducing other cults to participate

Removing the Nihang Singhs from the Akaal Bunga Sahib aka Akaal Takhat Sahib and therefore the whole Jathedaari system that has been in place since the time of the Gurus.

 

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/biographies/sikh-martyrs/akali-phula-singh-ji/

http://<banned site filter activated>/movements/Nihangs/Nihangs.htm

http://www.discoversikhism.com/sikhs/akali_phula_singh.html

Seems like the event in 1809 was instrumental in changing how the Khalsa army was to operate. In seems like a particular event that year changed Maharajah ranjit singhs mind fundamentally because the casualties of akalis was greater than the british coconut native hindustani sepoy troops who were better armed and disciplined then the maharajah decided that day he will "modernise" his armed forces based on the european military models and so enlisted italian, french and spanish mercenaries and generals in his army.

Whereas if we look back into history the toughest battles Sikhs ever faced were against with the likes of the mughuls and afghans and were mostly done by suicide squads of fanatical battalions of akali nihungs who were hard to control but were war ready and determined for martyrdom and achieve victory for Sikhs and Sikhi at all costs. When the khalsa army was "modernised" on the european model the troops became more of a private army of Maharajah Ranjit Singh and his secular Sikh state for a regular income than religious dharmic warriors who went to war for religious ideological reasons.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm shocked at the level of ignorant comments here. Dildos up their backsides? Kusrey? City people? First of all the reason they're called City Sikhs is because they work in the City of London, a financial district in Central London, it's got nothing to do with living in cities vs living in villages. 99% of Sikhs in the UK live in urban areas. That really went over the head of many people here. Do you expect them to look like UFC fighters?  Puzzled - can you tell me your level of education and what you do for a living?
    • I guess if it is OK for recently arrived Punjabis to settle down with East European women and have Sikh kids then there is nothing wrong in settling down with a Chinese woman. The Chinese are ultimately a dharmic people (if we take the current political situation out of the question) and have always been interested in what happens west of their border.  
    • Tbh, even "our own" can't be trusted. I personally stopped giving a damn what other people thought a long time ago, especially when it comes to rishta/marriage. 
    • In ultimate truth time is an illusion (Akal). All there is, is present the now. God created itself in many forms to create contrast ( limiting itself in forms)
    • There is a massive difference between the Sikh experience in the UK vs the US. The UK is a much better place to be a Sikh. The biggest difference-maker is population density. According to the 2011 census, there were (at the time) about 432,000 Sikhs in the UK. Accounting for some population growth and uncounted people (such as illegal immigrants), there are probably at least 500,000 Sikhs in the UK today. Now take into consideration that the UK has a population of about 67 million crammed into a relatively small island. And also consider that most of the Sikhs live in certain parts of the UK that have relatively large Sikh populations (e.g. West London, Birmingham area, etc.). There are not official figures on Sikhs in the US, but based on data about people from and Indian background and Punjab-speaking background, 250,000 is probably a very conservative upper bound on the US Sikh population. And then consider that the US is a massive country and has a population of about 330 million. As a consequence, Sikhs are much less visible and much less powerful (as a community) in the US than they are in the UK. In the UK, I feel like most people have an awareness of who Sikhs are. When I have been in the UK, it is a bit of a relief to not feel like I have to constantly point out that I'm not an Arab or a Muslim. In the US, nobody had a clue what a Sikh was when I was growing up. It is getting a bit better now, but it's still not great.   Anyway, aside from how Sikhs are viewed by the general population, I think the population density of Sikhs is most important for the Sikh community itself. It makes for a greater support system for more religiously inclined Sikhs. Further, the critical mass enables people who don't come from religious families to nevertheless gain exposure to Sikhi and get into it as they grow older. That's probably why examples of monay who become Singhs are much more frequent in the UK than in the US.    
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use