90 posts in this topic

I believe that, in more ways than one, this article might act as a potential eye-opener vis-a-vis the fall of Sikh Raaj. 

To quote an excerpt:

'The hidebound state which both the Hindu and Islamic doxas’ envision run on the concurrence of the power-wielder and it’s brokers viz. the Brahmin(s) or the Ulama. The socio-legal concepts devised, and implemented, in the Shastras and Shari’a are  designed to keep the proletariat in check from whom the danger of mutiny is ever-constant. To shatter this inimical nexus of Babur (the state) and Bipar (religious hypocrisy), Guru Nanak Dev Ji laid the ideological foundations of the Khalsa which were later made manifest by his nine successors. On his deathbed, in 1708 A.D., the tenth Nanak enjoined the Khalsa to ‘march towards stability and enduring prosperity by renouncing dogmatic traditionalism and the writ of any sacerdotal class…’ (17) The Sikh Gurus, doubtless, were well aware of the sub-continental past. Empire after empire had followed one another to the grave and politico-religious oppression had confined the proletariat to the merciless whims of his superiors. Political impermanence had arisen out of either theocracy or Caesaropapism relegating many a kingdom to oblivion. The medieval epoch, in the sub-continental context, was marked by the rise and fall of various polities namely the Maurya and Gupta empires; the Harsha empire confined to the north; the Pala empires in Bengal and Behar and so forth. (18) With the Khalsa being inherently equal, the birth of any sacerdotal class was well arrested whilst a quasi-democratic outlook was bequeathed to the body vis-a-vis it’s political approach. The question remains, was this outlook ever implemented?'  

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/raj/

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajmer Singh on the problem of manipulation of the sikh kaum for national interests:

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

Ajmer Singh on the problem of manipulation of the sikh kaum for national interests:

 

 

On that note, Akalis have manipulated the images of Misl Sirdaars and Maharajah Ranjit Singh to conquer vote banks. Apparently Badal's house is filled, top to bottom, with portrayals of the Maharajah- the one man rule link lol.

Edited by 13Mirch
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

On that note, Akalis have manipulated the images of Misl Sirdaars and Maharajah Ranjit Singh to conquer vote banks. Apparently Badal's house is filled, top to bottom, with portrayals of the Maharajah- the one man rule link lol.

That's interesting. I wonder if he sees himself as a modern Ranjit Singh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2017 at 8:58 PM, 13Mirch said:

Most likely.

On that note, the Akalis promised to deliver a reign like Ranjit Singh's last time around. The only similarity, I was able to identify, was that Punjabis didn't have electricity back then and even under the Akalis things were the same.  

Ranjit Singh isn't someone who most Sikhs would look-up to. The true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

On 6/7/2017 at 6:03 AM, MisterrSingh said:

That's interesting. I wonder if he sees himself as a modern Ranjit Singh.

That's not that high of a standard, average Singhs and Kaurs today probably had a better Maryada than he did.

Edited by Jacfsing2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ranjit Singh isn't someone who most Sikhs would look-up to. The true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

That's not that high of a standard, average Singhs and Kaurs today probably had a better Maryada then he did.

that's he was ayaashi was his downfall same with any other misl leaders they left Guru ji's counsel and followed the corrupt model of  rajputs.mughals and maratha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yet he achieved - admittedly temporal - feats that no other Sikh has managed since those times. 

If we believe the strength of a people and its nation are recognisable in its successes on the non-spiritual plane, he's one of the greatest Sikhs of all time from a certain point of view. Those worldly victories may count for very little in the kingdom of God, but unfortunately the kingdom of Man is where we all reside whilst we breathe, and on that front Ranjit Singh made his mark not only for himself but for the benefit of our people. That counts for something.

Yes, but it was mostly his own personal kingdom, with just a Sikh name. Whereas Banda Singh Bahadur would take his time out of his day to do some Prachar, Ranjit Singh mostly added some idols at the most famous Gurdwaras at the time. We have to view Ranjit Singh's victories as his own personal victories, he fought among the Misls. 

His kingdom fell within 10 years of his death, the entire reign of the entire kingdom was 50 years. Even if the British didn't take it over it was going to collapse. The first majority was Muslims, and the largest minority was Hindu. There were already plans for revolution, different groups, (none of it actually happened because the Brits stalled such a revolution from happening).

If Ranjit Singh established a theocracy, my own view would be different. A monarchy is rule by blood or marriage, and despite him being an excellent secular king, his successors were just not meant to rule.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Yes, but it was mostly his own personal kingdom, with just a Sikh name. Whereas Banda Singh Bahadur would take his time out of his day to do some Prachar, Ranjit Singh mostly added some idols at the most famous Gurdwaras at the time. We have to view Ranjit Singh's victories as his own personal victories, he fought among the Misls. 

His kingdom fell within 10 years of his death, the entire reign of the entire kingdom was 50 years. Even if the British didn't take it over it was going to collapse. The first majority was Muslims, and the largest minority was Hindu. There were already plans for revolution, different groups, (none of it actually happened because the Brits stalled such a revolution from happening).

If Ranjit Singh established a theocracy, my own view would be different. A monarchy is rule by blood or marriage, and despite him being an excellent secular king, his successors were just not meant to rule.

I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm saying is that he still managed to achieve something impressive. 

Plus, you need to tone down the dreams of a theocracy, lol. Democracy is proving to be incredibly flawed, but a theocracy just won't prosper on earth the way things are. The current consciousness of the human race means theocratic rule is doomed from the very beginning. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MisterrSingh said:

Plus, you need to tone down the dreams of a theocracy, lol. Democracy is proving to be incredibly flawed, but a theocracy just won't prosper on earth the way things are. The current consciousness of the human race means theocratic rule is doomed from the very beginning. 

+1, so what do you suggest we have? Democracy means the rule of the majority, (and no offense, but most Sikhs are not really logical if they could vote Badal). Monarchy has his own problems based on blood rather than logic. I just want the rule to be from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, :waheguru:. Today people are forgetting Guru Sahib is still here, and going to fake Babas everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

+1, so what do you suggest we have? Democracy means the rule of the majority, (and no offense, but most Sikhs are not really logical if they could vote Badal). Monarchy has his own problems based on blood rather than logic. I just want the rule to be from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, :waheguru:. Today people are forgetting Guru Sahib is still here, and going to fake Babas everywhere. 

What do I suggest? We wait for the previously mentioned shift in human consciousness. A couple of worldwide events of an apocalyptic nature will hurry up the process. The decimation of a few billion lives will focus minds. If there's anything left of the Earth after such events,  you can have your theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jashb said:

And I believe that we were given Maharaja Ranjit Singh to learn from his successes and failures for a reason.

Amazing post, and your final line above is the conclusion I'm drawn to regarding the man in question. 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jashb said:

Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't.

+1, He did what he wanted to do, without thinking of everyone involved. But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab. The worst thing was giving a falling empire to a family that was obsessed with being king, most of his successors only ruled for about a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

+1, He did what he wanted to do, without thinking of everyone involved. But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab. The worst thing was giving a falling empire to a family that was obsessed with being king, most of his successors only ruled for about a year.

Jashb said, "Non-Sikhs" not "Non-Punjabi Sikhs." There's a world of difference.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Jashb said, "Non-Sikhs" not "Non-Punjabi Sikhs." There's a world of difference.

 

1 hour ago, jashb said:

Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ranjit Singh isn't someone who most Sikhs would look-up to. The true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

That's not that high of a standard, average Singhs and Kaurs today probably had a better Maryada then he did.

'Than' my friend, not 'then.' The latter is for time whereas the former for comparison.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

'Than' my friend, not 'then.' The latter is for time whereas the former for comparison.

Sorry spell-check.:clap: corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jashb said:

 

For me, there is no more complex a figure in Sikh history, no greater a paradox, no other man that evokes a more diverse range of opinions emotions and feelings within the Kaum, than Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

If the Kaum were to properly consider, and with balance, assess the life, successes and failures of this remarkable man, I have no doubt that this would provide great lessons that would help us manage the future.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for the first time in history, so successfully defended Panjab from foreign invasion that he was able to take the fight against the islamic onslaught into the very regions from which the jihadis emerged. He countered and comprehensively defeated the jihadis of his time, people with the same ideology as modern day islamists, those who can reasonably be said to be the antecedents of the present day ISIS and taliban. This was no mean feat.

While assessing his achievements one has to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Khalsa Raj belonged to the same mindset as the Panth's enemies. Yet, he actually managed to earn their respect, admiration and loyalty, even after he defeated them, to such an extent that they welcomed him. Whether this was the result of his sense of tolerance, his political expediency, or his weakness in excessively pandering to the islamic population to the detriment of the entire region, is not definite. I suspect the answer lies somewhat in degrees of all three.

Now, having said all that, it would be a matter of pure dishonesty if one did not provide balance and address the fact that in so doing, he committed the very serious transgressions against Guru Ji's hukams that would eventually consign Khalsa Raj to history.

What troubles me the most about the way he went about this is that Khalsa Raj did not belong to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, nor was it his creation, nor was it for him to throw away.

In this respect, the speech delivered by General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa, the greatest and most successful General of his time, in response to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's announcement that his son would succeed him, is particularly poignant and relevant. When assessing the life and achievements of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, we must never overlook the fact that Sadde das lakh Sikh fought and died in multiple genocides in order to achieve Khalsa Raj. Khalsa Raj was built on the foundation of these shaheedis of huge numbers of Sikhs over several generations for the cause of Sikhi and out of love for Guru Maharaj. It did not belong to a single family alone. But by choosing to pass on his reign to his son, Maharaja Ranjit Singh consigned the Kaum to a fate that we are still reeling from 170 years later. This nepotism was acted out in an almost nonchalantly shameless and neglectful manner.

General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa was entirely correct when he said that Kharak Singh, whilst being his friend and brother, was unsuitable and incapable of shouldering the responsibility of running Khalsa Raj. Yet this advice, which merely repeated what was by then already apparent among sincere Sikhs who cared about the future of the Kaum, had little to no effect on a man that started off his life as a Gursikh in the true sense of the term, and ended it as something quite different, as a creature that sought to ape the myopic rajputs of old.

Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't.

The result of his non-adherence is plain for all to see. Panjab, the sohni di chirri of our ancestors only a few lifetimes ago, was reduced to dust. The parasitic non-Sikh traitors that Maharaja Ranjit Singh passed control to leached off the Kaum in the same way that the jews profiteered off post-great war Germany. However, the Germans at least identified, opposed and later avenged this treason. We never have, and, due to deliberately planted defects in the transmission of our values to future generations, designed to protect our oppressors, we quite possibly never will.

Nobody put a gun to his head and forced Maharaja Ranjit Singh to ignore, neglect, and dismiss Sikhi rehat in the brazen way he did. He did so purely of his own will.

And yet, for all of that, I still possess an outstanding admiration for the man, who was at one point, one of the greatest Sikh leaders in history. He is one of the greatest paradoxes I have known. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is for me simultaneously a source of great inspiration and pride, and an object of revile and disgust.

Whatever you think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and there is much to think about, we could do a lot worse than learn from both the positive and negative aspects of his example, of how to obtain sovereignty, and how to subsequently lose it.

In conclusion, when faced with the sobering fact that we have yet to recover our stolen land, there are few better examples to look to in this respect than our own. I have faith that Guru Maharaj has greater things planned for the Kaum than we know at present. And I believe that we were given Maharaja Ranjit Singh to learn from his successes and failures for a reason.

That's the essence of the article I posted:

'Ranjit Singh, himself a descendant of the famed Sirdar Charat Singh, re-connected the Sikhs with the very sub-continental past which the tenth Nanak had ordered the Khalsa to discard. The authority of the corporate Guru Panth was usurped and replaced with Imperialism. In the end, the path to ruin was paved when the precepts of the Gurus were roundly ignored by one and all. The Sikh masses adopted an apolitical stance and acted as silent spectators whilst their Raj slowly began to drift towards oblivion. The demise of Ranjit Singh owing to the frailty of the heart; the prominence of the non-Sikh Dogras; the Dogras’ running of the Raj as an autocracy and the conflict with the British were only the symptoms of an otherwise subtle disease. In the end, what was left of the glorious Halemi Raj envisioned by the Gurus? Nothing but shards.'

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

 

 

You said "Non-Punjabi Sikhs," he didn't. Why'd you drag religion into it when he was referring to culture? You do understand why he made the distinction?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Yes, but it was mostly his own personal kingdom, with just a Sikh name. Whereas Banda Singh Bahadur would take his time out of his day to do some Prachar, Ranjit Singh mostly added some idols at the most famous Gurdwaras at the time. We have to view Ranjit Singh's victories as his own personal victories, he fought among the Misls. 

You talk about Banda Singh Bahadur like this but it appears as if he had his own issues with many high ranking members of the Khalsa who perceived some of his practices as a deviation from accepted norms. Read Bhangu's work to learn all about it.

You need to study more before you open your mouth.

And truth be told. One Ranjit Singh is worth (at least) a million of Singhs like you mate. He got 5hit done, and created a powerful modern country out of chaos, and whilst surrounded by enemies on all sides. All you've done is b1tch out the place on the net.  And I bet you still haven't started training, or going to a shooting range out there in the states. Do you even ever leave your house? 

Edited by dallysingh101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

+1, He did what he wanted to do, without thinking of everyone involved. But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab. The worst thing was giving a falling empire to a family that was obsessed with being king, most of his successors only ruled for about a year.

The non-punjabis in this case were Europeans, Americans, Hindus, Muslims not sikhs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

You talk about Banda Singh Bahadur like this but it appears as if he had his own issues with many high ranking members of the Khalsa who perceived some of his practices as a deviation from accepted norms. Read Bhangu's work to learn all about it.

You need to study more before you open your mouth.

And truth be told. One Ranjit Singh is worth (at least) a million of Singhs like you mate. He got 5hit done, and created a powerful modern country out of chaos, and whilst surrounded by enemies on all sides. All you've done is b1tch out the place on the net.  And I bet you still haven't started training, or going to a shooting range out there in the states. Do you even ever leave your house? 

He only got stuff done because of his highly political Mother-in -law ...she was the initial driving force with other Misl leaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jkvlondon said:

He only got stuff done because of his highly political Mother-in -law ...she was the initial driving force with other Misl leaders

Yeah sure, none of his own efforts and characteristics played a part. It was all down to a women.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • First Khalsa were Bhai Mardana ji and Bhai lehna ji.  Nihangs who follow the teachings of Bhai Mardana ji and Bhai Lehna ji are Khalsa. You can scream at the top of your lungs, wear weapons, tie a dummalla and still Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji would not give you his favor.  Those who sing chandi di vaar, wear weapons, tie a dummalla and have their focus on Gurbani is the nihang and the Gurus Sikhs 
    • Is there a special committe of punj for confessions? Or any 5 will do What if someone in the panj are vaping discreetly themselves. How does it work then 
    • Such utter bs. My mom is the dearest person to me
    • Destruction youve made some pretty dumb posts yourself get off your high horse goof. On one thread you lost your <banned word filter activated> because somebody comapred the khalistani shaheeds to the purataan shaheeds, News flash buddy the khalistani shaheeds were the exact same as the shaheeds of old maybe the circumstances were slightly different but that doesnt change the fact that these ppl gave up EVERYTHING for us including there lives and even the lives of there innocent family members who were tortured to death in the most barbaric ways by the police and government.The kharkus fought through hell for us I understand someone who is anti sikh saying those things but for someone to call themselves a sikh to disrespect our own shaheeds like that is disgusting. The true kharkus were the same as the shaheeds of old and they deserve the exact same respect. They even had to live underground the same as the singhs of old the commonalities far outweigh the differences in this case.