Jump to content

The Black Prince - New Film Based On Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

bro didn't you make a blanket statement about the 12 misls all being about personal power and fights ?

I should have been more clear, I did not mean to say that's all they were good for, my point was infighting and so on was all too common amongst the misls. It is human nature though, we aren't and nor were they. But, we should all respect them for solidifying Sikh power throughout Punjab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

I wouldn't put Badal and Ranjit Singh in the same boat. The former has contributed absolutely nothing to the panth (outside of his click of wealthy zamaindaars), whilst the latter (despite all his weaknesses) turned Panjab into a modern, thriving, superpower when it was previously a constantly invaded and subjugated land from time immemorial. 

The problem with Ranjit Singh was perhaps that there was not enough long term thinking on the longevity of the empire, particularly around succession. 

Hari Singh Nalwa advised him to give power to the Panj pyare.

It's all very well going the heriditary monarchy system but it seems that his sons were not fit to rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

I wouldn't put Badal and Ranjit Singh in the same boat. The former has contributed absolutely nothing to the panth (outside of his click of wealthy zamaindaars), whilst the latter (despite all his weaknesses) turned Panjab into a modern, thriving, superpower when it was previously a constantly invaded and subjugated land from time immemorial. 

I agree Ranjit Singh does not belong in the same category as Badal but should be  held accountable for his anti Sikh practises and association with non Sikhs which ultimately put an end to what should have been 'Khalsa Raj'.  Had Ranjit Singh been living his life according to Gurmat and put his faith in the Panj Pyare the story would have been very different today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The problem with Ranjit Singh was perhaps that there was not enough long term thinking on the longevity of the empire, particularly around succession. 

I think he did what he felt was necessary (specifically building up the army to be formidable) and left it to those who survived him to battle it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression, perhaps implicitly, that Ranjit Singh tolerated the influence of Sikh theocracy on himself at least, out of deference, genuine affection, and a certain sense of obligation? If he was truly ruthless and determined to carve out a long-lasting secular Punjabi kingdom - if Sikh in name and appearances than nothing else - without the kirpan of Damocles hanging over him ready to strike at every transgression on his part, I reckon he would've done so. Ultimately he perhaps was more forgiving and tolerant than he should've been. People expecting him to embody the spiritualism and wisdom of our Gurus, coupled with the zeal and sole regard for Sikh interests of someone like Baba Banda Singh, and the statesmanship he clearly possessed are probably asking for a bit too much from one man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

That's a big question people do ask. 

How much do Machiavellian characteristics and slyness help in ruling? Can anyone really be a ruler of a violent area full of naturally fractious people, itself surrounded by a host of devious and ruthless enemies (i.e. brits and afghans in Ranjit's case), and act in a 'pure' way like some people seem to be suggesting? 

For all his shortcomings, Ranjit Singh probably did one of the best jobs possible under the circumstances. Personally, I don't really care about personal human weaknesses in a political leader (within limits), I don't look to them as spiritual role models. Rather, I'd want them to ensure economic prosperity, personal freedom and national security. In his lifetime, Ranjit Singh did that admirably, and I can pretty much guarantee that all those people who negatively judge him for his disciplinary shortcomings today, wouldn't even have lasted 5 minutes in his shoes.  

I do understand your point of view in respect to of what Ranjit Singh achieved in regards of managing a state and hostile enemies together with managing the people within the Kingdom.  We are however instructed to follow the example and teachings of our Guru and the best example I can draw from with my limited knowledge is 'Miri and Piri'.  Ranjit Singh showed vast skills in 'Miri 'but completely lacked 'Piri'.  The two together are and should be the guidance model for any Sikh State and without these two I'm not sure if it can be called Sikh Raj.  Maybe this is where my expectations of Ranjit Singh differ from yours as I can only view him through a Sikh lens.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

 Ultimately he perhaps was more forgiving and tolerant than he should've been. People expecting him to embody the spiritualism and wisdom of our Gurus, coupled with the zeal and sole regard for Sikh interests of someone like Baba Banda Singh, and the statesmanship he clearly possessed are probably asking for a bit too much from one man.

There is a problem with what you are saying: even Banda Singh apparently had major problems with internal cohesion leading to the Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa schism. So there were even Singhs back then who thought he was deviating from what he should have been. 

Also, there are people who believe that Ranjit Singh did embody the Guru's wisdom in his attitude towards others. Read this from a descendent of Fakir Azzizudin (From The Real Ranjit Singh by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin). 

I think Ranjit Singh was religious, in a way that many of us would struggle to understand in today's post Singh Sabha lehar period. Sure, maybe a lot of it was what we'd call superstition today, but he did have a spiritual life. Like many great leaders he was complex and contradictory, but given the umpteen (very serious) pulls and twists of his environment, should that really be any surprise to us today? 

1.jpg.121a60c0e94ed14d444029aa8f49b56a.jpg2.jpg.ef84544c7249af96371fd8a8b5bd807d.jpg3.jpg.8e0d6111fe7bd9fde874ed0a56160033.jpg

 

 

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

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use