• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

90 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

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

you forget he was a just a teen  at the beginning and she was the general of her husband's misl after his death, and he was surrounded by khalsa of greater experience who did the spade work , do not diminish how much he owed to his elders and army. Without them he would not have achieved that much and would have been another minor leader ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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? 

Ranjit Singh only got strong because of the hard workers who fought to make his dream a reality, what he did was betray the hard workers, for his own self-interests. Also it's not a Sikh country, just another random state, that if he wasn't so selfish could have been a theocracy. Banda Singh Bahadur brought justice to someone who made a Shaheed of my Guru, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji), and the Chote Sahibzade, if there is anything I feel bad about that, it's that it wasn't me. Otherwise he was perfectly fine for someone who's not Guru Sahib himself, he made Guru Sahib proud, and you are here insulting him while praising Ranjit Singh? His own child became a Shaheed, while Ranjit Singh's son converted to Pakhandi Baba Jesus.

Share this post


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

Ranjit Singh only got strong because of the hard workers who fought to make his dream a reality, what he did was betray the hard workers, for his own self-interests. Also it's not a Sikh country, just another random state, that if he wasn't so selfish could have been a theocracy. Banda Singh Bahadur brought justice to someone who made a Shaheed of my Guru, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji), and the Chote Sahibzade, if there is anything I feel bad about that, it's that it wasn't me. Otherwise he was perfectly fine for someone who's not Guru Sahib himself, he made Guru Sahib proud, and you are here insulting him while praising Ranjit Singh? His own child became a Shaheed, while Ranjit Singh's son converted to Pakhandi Baba Jesus.

Maybe he was realistic about ruling a volatile swathe of land. You think you could have done a better job? I doubt you would have lasted a week in that environment. 

If his son was essentially kidnapped and brainwashed as a child,thousands of miles away from his people and family, it's hardly his fault that he converted is it.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Ranjit Singh only got strong because of the hard workers who fought to make his dream a reality, what he did was betray the hard workers, for his own self-interests. Also it's not a Sikh country, just another random state, that if he wasn't so selfish could have been a theocracy. Banda Singh Bahadur brought justice to someone who made a Shaheed of my Guru, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji), and the Chote Sahibzade, if there is anything I feel bad about that, it's that it wasn't me. Otherwise he was perfectly fine for someone who's not Guru Sahib himself, he made Guru Sahib proud, and you are here insulting him while praising Ranjit Singh? His own child became a Shaheed, while Ranjit Singh's son converted to Pakhandi Baba Jesus.

Ranjit Singh was very astute politically. He obvious understood human nature very well.

As a leader you cannot do it all yourself but you surround yourself with better people and delegate. That is what he did.

He was able to bring all these people together and create a successful state,  that is a talent/skill in itself.

It may not have been the perfect state or an Idealist Sikh state but it is best that we ever had.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Ranjit Singh only got strong because of the hard workers who fought to make his dream a reality, what he did was betray the hard workers, for his own self-interests. Also it's not a Sikh country, just another random state, that if he wasn't so selfish could have been a theocracy. Banda Singh Bahadur brought justice to someone who made a Shaheed of my Guru, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji), and the Chote Sahibzade, if there is anything I feel bad about that, it's that it wasn't me. Otherwise he was perfectly fine for someone who's not Guru Sahib himself, he made Guru Sahib proud, and you are here insulting him while praising Ranjit Singh? His own child became a Shaheed, while Ranjit Singh's son converted to Pakhandi Baba Jesus.

You're attributing extremely rare spiritual traits reserved for divinity and similar beings, and expecting mere mortals - albeit exceptionally able men in a non-divine sense - to live up to the standards of our Guru Sahibs and select souls such as Baba Deep Singh and others in that class of personality. You're really hard to impress, lol.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab.

 

Where have I said there's anything wrong with having "Non-Punjabi Sikhs"? You are deluded if you believe that non-Panjabis and "Non-Punjabi Sikhs" are the same thing.

The entirely reasonable and justifiable position in this respect is that putting non-Sikhs and furthermore non-Panjabis in charge of the destiny of Panjab was an incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Moreover, it treated with utter contempt the very Guru Sahiban in whose name he claimed to rule. This does not in anyone's wildest imagination equal the kind of anti-Sikh discrimination you have tried to allege.

What is there about the distinction between these two disparate groups of people that you don't understand? Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"?

Explain yourself. There are 90 million reasons why you and others like you are wrong.

 

 

On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

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.

 

You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing.

Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams.

Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.

 

Edited by jashb
4 people like this

Share this post


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

Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"?

No.

9 minutes ago, jashb said:

You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing.

Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams.

Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.

I don't know how Kharak Singh would have ruled, since he didn't have enough time, but I am refering to all the assassinations and royal deaths for Ranjit Singh's successors. In 10 years there were 5 kings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2017 at 2:58 AM, 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.

I believe Napolean was similar- by attempting to embody the French Revolution in an autocratic framework he corrupted it's premise of equality for all, but in socio-political terms revamped contemporary Europe for the better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-6-7 at 3:33 PM, MisterrSingh said:

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

He does ! Even when he sits with his cabinet, there's a big maharaja ranjit singh painting backing him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

He does ! Even when he sits with his cabinet, there's a big maharaja ranjit singh painting backing him 

In his dreams, the sly dog.

Share this post


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

In his dreams, the sly dog.

not long to go and then he will hear from the Real King

Share this post


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

not long to go and then he will hear from the Real King

hip-shake.gif

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

hip-shake.gif

 

 

Elvis fan huh?

Share this post


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

Elvis fan huh?

Nah, i just can't help myself at times.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Nah, i just can't help myself at times.

I know most punjabis will be dancing like Carlton Banks convinced they look like Elvis that day

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I know most punjabis will be dancing like Carlton Banks convinced they look like Elvis that day

Meanwhile, in Bathinda:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2017 at 5:23 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

he true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars. True Sikhs of that time only existed among Nirmala and Nihang orders. Most Punjabis didn't cared much about habits of their ruler. Instead, the prosperity he brought to the region made him a hero in their eyes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 5akaalsingh said:

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars. True Sikhs of that time only existed among Nirmala and Nihang orders. Most Punjabis didn't cared much about habits of their ruler. Instead, the prosperity he brought to the region made him a hero in their eyes.

That's about the truth of it.

Jacfsingh is talking out of his ar5e. But ALL contemporary accounts, people in Panjab LOVED Maharajah Ranjit Singh. 

Only modern prudes like the above have an issue with him. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/06/2017 at 11:31 AM, 5akaalsingh said:

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars.

 

I don't think this should realistically be played down like this.

The problem with this kind of behaviour by the leaders of any nation/society is that they don't live in a vacuum. If they did, they could theoretically get up to whatever kind of depraved anti-Sikh debaucheries they felt inclined to as far as I'm concerned. As long as these didn't adversely affect their rule in particular and the behaviour of society as a whole. Which, in itself is a pipe dream.

The reason why that's not advisable policy in any event in the real world is because leaders possess a very real and powerful signalling function. This can be highly beneficial in the right hands and potentially seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. Public perception of a leader's behavior is hugely magnified, and, inevitably, it filters all the way down society.

Therefore, leaders have a strict duty and responsibility to their subjects to set them a healthy and positive example to follow. They need not only to possess the correct morals, but more importantly, to be seen to possess the correct morals. This is more or less dharam, to which the Maharaja appeared to give wild abandon towards the end of his life.

Now these kinds of restrictions could well be deemed a bit of a straightjacket for a red-blooded ruler, and I suspect that the one being referred to here felt that to be the case. But, quite frankly, that is the price of the job. Either accept it, or leave it to someone with greater self-restraint.

At this point, it should be self-evident that any form of widespread addiction to the baser sensual pleasures is seriously detrimental to the future existence as a going concern of any nation. I shouldn't need to explain how these addictions encourage and normalise the very vikaars that produce a society of weak, shallow, easily manipulable individuals, low in morals, and crippled by a complete absence of the family values that are required to maintain a healthy strong and growing nation.

However, by the Maharaja and most (though not all) of his close leadership indulging in this exact kind of downright utter gundh, it gave a green light to the rest of society that this stuff was strictly A-OK. So you could get drunk, get high, sleep with multiple partners that you never intend to get married with, and still call yourself a practising Sikh. All with the endorsement of the Maharaja. Happy days.

Ironically, the Maharaja, increasingly brazenly in his latter days, got up to the very kind of anti-Sikh rubbish that the Khalsa was instructed and mandated to eradicate. So much for Khalsa Rahe Niara.

Consequently, I think that the roots of the current simplistic, unsophisticated, promiscuous, and shallow "balle balle" drinking/dancing/bhangra culture (which is incidentally a totally mughal imitation) that our society is currently infested with can be traced back to this era.

As a result, I believe that Guru Maharaj gave us a good and well deserved lesson when the Khalsa Raj that was abused in this fashion came crashing down. Yet, apparently we've learnt nothing, and some people appear to actually fantasise about returning to an age where this exact same gundh can be repeated and replicated with impunity, whilst somehow avoiding the side-effects that are bound to accompany it. It's impossible.

No serious nation ever prospered whose rulers gave into cheap pleasures, sensual thrills and hedonistic debauchery.

Edited by jashb
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We cannot hold the Maharaja responsible for everything. This stuff was considered OK long before he was even born. Go to Pakistani Punjab, tell someone that you don't drink sharaab and they"ll tell you: "Why? Are you a kid?" lol. These values were prevalent back then. The more you drunk, the more respect you gained from fellow sardars. It must noted that  Rehat for common Sikhs back then was : not to smoke, not to touch tobacco, not to eat beef and kuttha and never to marry a Muslim. And when once the Maharaja broke the rehat and married a Muslim, he was punished with public flogging. I think it is wrong to judge someone according to the social ideals we have today.

Khalsa was the name of the armed forces of the empire. Before Khalsa was every armed baptized Sikh ,but as the empire came into being, every man from Peshawar to Jind, grew his beard, said " Waheguru" , ate pork and claimed to be a Sikh. These hypocrites joined the Khalsa, while having no morals. Some like the Dogras even became ministers. Old Sikhs were known for their loot and plunder, but these people were the ones who did all the immoral stuff. Now, Ranjit Singh had maintained a "&ti t-for-tat" policy. Whenever a band of Pashtun tribesmen crossed the borders and sacked a village, the Maharaja would never hesitate seek retaliation by doing the same. This was a way of controlling the tribes.

 

Edited by 5akaalsingh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2017 at 10:31 PM, 5akaalsingh said:

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars. True Sikhs of that time only existed among Nirmala and Nihang orders. Most Punjabis didn't cared much about habits of their ruler. Instead, the prosperity he brought to the region made him a hero in their eyes.

The Nirmalas were probably the most corrupt order at the time. We all know how Mehtab Singh, and his patrons at Patiala, joined the British in creating a new "loyalist" Sikh identity. His fellows were soundly thrashed at Hazoor Sahib. Unable to fight, they took to publishing literature downplaying the role of other Sikhs and glorifying their own so-called "unsullied" Sikhi. This is where the Sanataan School of Thought really came from.  

Edited by 13Mirch
2 people like this

Share this post


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

The Nirmalas were probably the most corrupt order at the time. We all know how Mehtab Singh, and his patrons at Patiala, joined the British in creating a new "loyalist" Sikh identity. His fellows were soundly thrashed at Hazoor Sahib. Unable to fight, they took to publishing literature downplaying the role of other Sikhs and glorifying their own so-called "unsullied" Sikhi. This is where the Sanataan School of Thought really came from.  

True, but that happened after the Sikh raj had fallen. My point is that not everybody was a good Sikh, at least , acording to the ideals we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 5akaalsingh said:

True, but that happened after the Sikh raj had fallen. My point is that not everybody was a good Sikh, at least , acording to the ideals we have today.

That's the crux of the issue. Are all of the ideals we hold today rooted in a SIkh past, or are some of them accretions which stem from the colonial period and are rooted in outsider, European nonSikh thinking?

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