Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

[13Mirch]

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/

 

 

[jkvlondon]

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

 

 

[13Mirch]

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.

[MisterrSingh]

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.

[13Mirch]

16 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

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

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.  

[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.

[jkvlondon]

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

[MisterrSingh]

28 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.

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.

[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.

[MisterrSingh]

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.