What Law?

[scottie]

Gurfateh!

i have been wondering this for a while - if Sikhs ever had their own country - or used to have their own country, then what was the basis of the laws that they used to govern the state? Was it based on Guru Granth Sahib ji? or based on common sense? or some other sort of base?

example - what would be the punishment for a murderer, or a rapist?

would there be a culture of compensation - llike if one guy stole another guys animal and sold it on etc etc

i cant seem to find out any information at all.

thanks

[JarnailS]

wjkk wjkf

Good question.... come on people who support Khalistan, answer please. I have heard people shouting "Khalistan Khalistan", hopefully some one would be able to help this person with the questions.

Wjkk Wjkf

[Muzumdar]

then what was the basis of the laws that they used to govern the state?

There has only been one Sikh State, that of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Being a Kingdom, it was essentially based on the premise that what the ruling monarch decided would be law, was law.

Was it based on Guru Granth Sahib ji? or based on common sense?

Having studied the rule of Ranjit, I can say with confidence that the state was run on pragmatic political principles; what I mean by this is that the state’s policies were adapted to suit the political social context of the time. This is, in my opinion, exactly how a nation-state should be run.

what would be the punishment for a murderer, or a rapist?

OK, so now you have moved into a proposed Sikh State. What you have to understand is that Sikhism is a religion and a philosophy, not a constitution for state apparatus. So, if there ever were to be a Sikh state, I would hope that it would be run according to Sikh principles enshrined in Sikh philosophy – egalitarianism, social equality, universal justice etc, essentially Socially Democratic - while adapting to a modern fiscal system in order to flourish economically.

In answer to your specific question regarding murder and rape, Sikhism itself offers you no answers because, like I said, it is not a political system. It does, however, stipulate that the Sikh Nation should decide on the matter of punishment of criminals etc etc.

What you can gleam from my answer is this: the Sikh Nation would vote in a political party that most suited its needs and views, and that government would already have stated its stance on criminal law etc. So in this respect, Sikhism is in tune with democracy.

I hope this helps.

[guptveer1469]

just for Musumdars info, there were two sikh kingdoms, Banda Bahadurs (short period) and Maharaja Ranjit Singhs

and most questions have been answered by Muzumdar.

Gurfateh.

[nanosecond]

Laws would be what would be rationale in today's times.

[Muzumdar]

just for Musumdars info, there were two sikh kingdoms, Banda Bahadurs (short period)

It was not a kingdom by any stretch of the imagination. Banda Singh never consolidated any of the regions he conquered because he was always on the move. He had no jurisdiction other than that over his immediate followers.

and most questions have been answered by Muzumdar.

And you actually agree with them? I thought you were a theocrat.

Wonders never cease.

[scottie]

so muzamdar, in your esteemed opinion you would be of the opinion that any theoretical sikh nation that was completely autonomous would really need to be governed by man made state policies - that are appropriate to the time period?

im not using the question as a tool to critique your belief, rather as to hopefully glean knowledge. If there were a theoretical sikh state run in such a way as you propose, and the laws fitted in with the social norms of the time, do you not feel there may be the possibility of exploitation? For example, if this state was around during medieval times, then womens rights etc? I hope ive made my question clear? Obviously this is all conjecture, but i find it interesting nonetheless.

where does the Miri and Piri aspects conjoin in matters of law? For example, would the government (democratically appointed?) be the law makers? or perhaps the Natural Law approach would be taken?

Another thought - presuming the state was SIkh - would this mean that offences such as beadbi would be seen as much more serious - (in my opinion as they should be) and would they merit severe punishment?

My main question is this- i have a little feeling of unease at any possible law that was established in a SIkh nation - with one of the underlying central thematic strands of Sikhi being Daya - compassion, how could be integrate this into any sort of comprehensible legal system?

[Muzumdar]

any theoretical sikh nation that was completely autonomous would really need to be governed by man made state policies - that are appropriate to the time period?

Yes and no. I think that the laws should be man made, yes, but rooted in Sikh philosophy (outlined in my earlier post). I wasn’t the person who used the line about ‘laws appropriate to time’ and nor would I (note: there is a difference between state policy and state law).

You see, Sikh philosophy is the epitome of humanity. There can be no further progression on total equality; it is the desired utopian human condition. Therefore, if a state bases its jurisprudence on that, I think it will be doing alright regardless of time period.

In any case, you are getting confused. I believe in an establishment of a State for Sikhs, rather than a Sikh State.

As for Miri-Piri, Guru Hargobind didn’t set out a political constitution or agenda as such; he simply stipulated that, as Sikhs, we should be able to engage in a political process in order to be truly free. And of course any political party who operates on this ticket will hopefully root their ideology in Sikh philosophy which, as I have outlined, is fair and just.

would the government (democratically appointed?) be the law makers?

Yes, they are the ones with the mandate from the people and they should make the laws.

would this mean that offences such as beadbi would be seen as much more serious - (in my opinion as they should be) and would they merit severe punishment?

Depends on what you mean by ‘beadbi’; if you mean people choosing to live as they please (ie cut hair, drinking alcohol, dancing or whatever) then I believe that there should be no punishment whatsoever. Sikhi believes in a free society; we all have the freedom to live as we please.

The state has no right to intervene in the private matters of individuals on religious grounds. And don’t forget, the death knell of the Khalistan movement sounded when the ‘Kharkoos’ began trying to enforce their brand of Sikhi on Sikhs. Sikhs will not put up with being told what to do and nor should they.

If, on the other hand, you mean by beadbi, someone burning the Granth Sahib in an act of provocation or some such thing, then yes, there should be punishment.

As for incorporating ‘compassion’ into a legal system, you have to be specific. I, for example, would pass the death sentence for someone who killed their daughter or raped a woman as I believe these people deserve no compassion. However, if a wife murdered her husband after years of abuse, I would be very compassionate towards her.

You have some excellent questions brother. You are one of the few people on this board who makes me think with what you say.

Keep them coming.