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

[dallysingh101]

6 hours ago, TigerForce1 said:

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.

 

 

Please don't take this the wrong way. I do understand what you are saying. But I have to say, are you sure that you aren't seeing his life and achievements through the lens of modern 'Sikhism' as opposed to Sikhi? 

Many Singhs of his time, would have had what we would consider 'unorthodox' views of the world in relation to today's Sikhs majority understanding of the Sikh way of life.  

Maybe it was his interpretation of the faith that helped him rule so conspicuously efficiently in such challenging times? Maybe it is a failure of modern Sikh leaders to do something similar that has led to our weakened position today?

[MisterrSingh]

15 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

...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? 

I think that's the core issue. 

[dallysingh101]

1 minute ago, MisterrSingh said:

I think that's the core issue. 

Could he have been any other way given his circumstances? Can any human even be a political leader in a complex environment in any other way?

[MisterrSingh]

5 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Could he have been any other way given his circumstances? Can any human even be a political leader in a complex environment in any other way?

Comparisons to Guru Sahibs are bound to be tough on mortal men. Heck, even certain offspring and blood relations of theirs fell short. For what MRS achieved in his lifetime he did remarkably well. Judge him as a man, not a spiritual authority.

[TigerForce1]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Please don't take this the wrong way. I do understand what you are saying. But I have to say, are you sure that you aren't seeing his life and achievements through the lens of modern 'Sikhism' as opposed to Sikhi? 

Many Singhs of his time, would have had what we would consider 'unorthodox' views of the world in relation to today's Sikhs majority understanding of the Sikh way of life.  

Maybe it was his interpretation of the faith that helped him rule so conspicuously efficiently in such challenging times? Maybe it is a failure of modern Sikh leaders to do something similar that has led to our weakened position today?

You could be right! Maybe I am viewing Ranjit Singh through a lens of modern Sikhism.  I also view with a lens of bitterness when I look at the present state of Sikhs in Punjab with the negative culture and secular lifestyle that has been adopted and led to our weakened position.  I can't help but link this to Ranjit Singhs life as he is a role model to majority Punjabis and even to Badal who has quoted on many occasions that he has followed the blueprint of Ranjit Singh when it comes to governing Punjab.  

My biggest issue with Ranjit Singhs rule is the 'secular' part as Sikhi took the back seat when secular rule was his chosen  model to govern the Kingdom.  The same is happening now as secularism has been adopted by the present Akalis to the detriment of Sikhi in Punjab.   

I've gone off on a tangent now but all these things make it really difficult for me to view Ranjit Singh in a positive light but I do respect your views and opinions and also do feel there are lots of lessons to learn from his life in order to achieve sovereignty which we pray for everyday.

[StarStriker]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

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? 

 

 

Great post!

Wat book is this from btw?

Is it the same 'Victor Jacquemont - Experiences in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire' book from your other thread?

[jkvlondon]

8 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Why do you have a problem with his secularism? Secularism or rather transcending religious identity is at the heart of Guru Nanak Dev Ji message. ?

no his secularism stems from the teachings of Gurbani but at the same time he failed to heed Guru Gobind SIngh's warnings about keeping a firm hand on one's own destiny and political power as a sikh , he handed control and power to all other nations over the Sikhs who served under his kingdom and that ultimately led to the treachery and betrayal by those power mongers against the royal household and sikhs.

[dallysingh101]

11 hours ago, StarStriker said:

Great post!

Wat book is this from btw?

Is it the same 'Victor Jacquemont - Experiences in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire' book from your other thread?

No it's from:

The Real Ranjit Singh by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin.

The author is a descendent of Fakir Azzizuddin.  

[StarStriker]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

No it's from:

The Real Ranjit Singh by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin.

The author is a descendent of Fakir Azzizuddin.  

Cheers! Im so thick, i just realised u wrote the source on the initial post.

[dallysingh101]

15 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Why do you have a problem with his secularism? Secularism or rather transcending religious identity is at the heart of Guru Nanak Dev Ji message. ?

If you're Sikh, we don't just pick one aspect of the faith like this, because we've been informed of the unity of our Gurus (one jyot through all of them), so factoring in the whole picture means we have to synthesise dasmesh pita's actions of structuring the panth into our understanding. They have clearly and purposefully structured Sikh society (and as a consequence a Sikh themselves) as a distinct entity from other panths and their followers.

Our secularism comes from benevolence and allowing other people to practice their faiths when they don't attack us. Not disavowing our own identity and society. And I use the word 'disavowing' precisely here.