Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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/

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

  • Like 4

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
  • Like 1

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
Guest Jacfsing2
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
Guest Jacfsing2
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.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
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. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
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

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

    • Do you have sources for this?
    • In urdu we also use 'Mauze' so i doubt if it is hindi word.It sounds like a persian one.Indians have problem prouncing words which end with sound 'z'.Just like Mumtaz Mehal became Mumtaj Mehal and now just Taj Mehal.
    • i have no issue using persian,hindi,english words in my day to day conversations in punjab.I just though a good opportunity to learn "shuddh" punjabi. 
    • Sikhism needs neither a reformation nor a philosophy of free will. Reformations are for religions that are at a primitive tribal level in the first place. Sikhi starts off with Guru Nanak Ji feeding people langar, and preaching meditation of Satnam. If you start off with capturing war booty and sex slaves killing all the males, yeah, you need a reformation. Philosophy is (mostly) for people trying desperately to understand the universe without real divine knowledge. These types of efforts are called ਸਿਆਣਪਾਂ in Gurbani. (You did you Japji this morning, right?) All of these sianapan don't amount to a hill of beans. We don't have the burning need for philosophy that Westerners do because we can obtain complete knowledge via simran. ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੈ ਸਿਮਰਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੁਝੈ ॥
    • it's my fault, i should have phrased things a bit better. Basically based on the data he gathered same sex couples are more likely to settle into a routine and are less likely to do things out of said routine (such as cheating, which according to the data he gathered was surprisingly low compared to straight couples). By similar attributes I mean people like them in terms of personality and taste. In straight couples you can usually note a sort of polarity in the way they behave and their personalities.  Again this is based on one study, nothing official or on a large scale really.
×