Kids Corner

Columnists

Conversation about this article

1: R Singh  (Canada), January 24, 2014, 10:48 AM.

Why would the British do anything to promote the family of their adversary? We need to take anything the said about Ranjit Singh and his family with a large dose of salt. There was an active campaign to discredit Rani Jindan, in collusion with the likes of the Brahmin Jalla. Rani Jind Kaur remained a thorn in their side till the day she passed away. She was responsible for bringing Duleep Singh back to the Sikh fold, and instructed him to see to it that her ashes did not remain in that hapless land, England. Women with backbone were not really encouraged in Europe, but we saw warrior Sardarnis like Mai Bhago, Rani Sahib kaur and Sada Kaur, to mention but a few. Jindan may have made some strategic miscalculations, but she was a gutsy lady. This "history" helps us in putting historical events in context. The British propaganda machine used common -- and some not-so-common -- ploys to discredit Ranjit Singh's heirs in order to justify their usurpation of the Sikh Kingdom under the guise of the concocted Anglo-Sikh Wars.

2: R.S. Minhas (Millburn, New Jersey, USA), January 24, 2014, 12:20 PM.

I remember as a child being brought up to think of Maharaja Ranjit Singh with regard usually given to the Gurus. I personally did not know how they all fit. That changed when as a schoolboy I came across this old, small book with a pink and white cover that chronicled the daily activities of the royal darbar. That torn book with yellow pages was in a cupboard located in the main gurdwara hall where elders did kirtan. It told of how just about every day the 19th century darbar had "nautch girls" dancing and then the generals would retire. After a few days of chronicles, there came a personal critical moment of "What the hell Is going on here?" It seems like the other generals too had concubines that served as status symbols. Leaving personal issues aside, what was really tragic was the institutional aspect of it all. Guru Gobind Singh established the democratic Khalsa in 1699. That was long before the European Enlightenment, French or American revolutions, etc. In 1776 General George Washington showed foresight and walked away from being the King of America to establish a system with limits on government and rulers through a constitution. Yet fifty years later, we have Sher-e-Punjab producing children from concubines to be future rulers. When accomplished leaders start behaving like they are horses who have just won a derby, trouble is likely around the corner. Yet, the love of people that overlooks the failings of "our maharaja" even after two hundred years is a delight to watch.

3: Sarvjit Singh (Massachusetts, USA), January 24, 2014, 2:23 PM.

I think R.S Minhas said exactly what I was thinking. Sikhi is surviving not because Maharaja Ranjit Singh or others but because of the purity infused by our Gurus in our faith and those who follow it. For a while I was also carried away with the martial glory of Ranjit Singh and Banda Bahadar and others, but we should never forget the real warrior is the one who is true to Sikhi. It is very clear to me that Ranjit Singh (though very inspired by the Gurus) was not a fully practicing Khalsa as described by the 10th Guru ... that is, as imperfect and human as all of us mortals. No disrespect to anyone, but it is imperative to know Sikhi is above everything, including the Sikh Kingdom. We have to be aware for our next generation, who are already beginning to question the values of the Khalsa discipline but love the warrior quality of the Khalsa. I sincerely hope that nobody feels the need to emulate the worldly aspects of Ranjit Singh's lustful personality. There has been an endless number of Rajas and Maharajas who won countries and established kingdoms but that is not the Guru's way. This all leads to conformity.

4: R Singh  (Canada), January 24, 2014, 4:35 PM.

It's nice to live with our heads in the clouds. One can get guidance from religion, but rules of governance in the 18th and 19th centuries were quite different. Matrimonial alliances were the norm, or you could twist in the winds, and no help would be forthcoming. Theocratic states are for perfectionists in a perfect world. We have no leadership to speak about and are still struggling to get a foothold to date. And we have nothing good to say about the man who put us on the map. Let us first come up with such a person who can live up to our envisioned perfections, then we can justify our judgement of the man.

5: Kulwant Singh (U.S.A.), January 24, 2014, 5:02 PM.

We have made Ranjit Singh into a Sikh Maharaja, when in truth, he was a maharaja who happened to be Sikh. His behavior is in line with other kings of the time, even if it makes us cringe today. He should be commended for creating a secular kingdom that did not discriminate based on religion. Men from many religions and nationalities (even Europeans) were made members of his court, which was unique for its time. In this sense, he did uphold the slogan of "Sarbat da Bhalla". Let's not forget that he appeared before the Akal Takht to receive his punishment. How many European monarchs showed such deference to their pope? Let us praise Ranjit Singh for his good qualities, while taking into consideration his bad ones. For he didn't ask us to make him the poster-boy of Sikhi.

6: Rup Singh (Canada), January 24, 2014, 9:04 PM.

Captain William Murray wrote in his memoirs - "Ranjit Singh has been likened to Mehmet Ali and to Napoleon. There are some points in which he resembles both, but estimating his character with reference to his circumstances and positions, he is perhaps a more remarkable man than either. There was no ferocity in his disposition and he never punished a criminal with death even under circumstances of aggravated offence. Humanity indeed, or rather tenderness for life, was a trait in the character of Ranjit Singh. There is no instance of his having wantonly infused his hand in blood." We all know he was secular. Sikhs were the minority in his kingdom but equality was given to all. He never forced anyone to convert to Sikhism and he or his army never ever razed a place of worship belonging to other faiths. He built and repaired mosques even though Abdali had demolished the Darbar Sahib. If he gave gold for the Darbar Sahib he also donated hundreds of kilos of gold for Hindu mandirs, they still have the gold on the domes but the current 'modern' 'educated' Sikhs saw to it that the gold from Darbar Sahib was removed and replaced. He got a lot of very expensive gifts from other kings but he would never wear them; instead he presented them to the treasury (toshakhana) of the Darbar Sahib because he thought he was not worthy. Most of the treasures in the toshakhana are because of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. However, sadly, most were stolen by the Indian Army goondas after the June 1984 attack. Has the SGPC asked for the return of these stolen treasures from the central government of India? Ranjit Singh was Emperor at 21 years age and kept building the first and only Sikh empire until he died after a long illness in 1839. Punjab was annexed by the by East India Company in 1849. Please read on them to get an idea of who they were and what and how they did things. So from 1849 to 1966 when Punjabi Suba was created (God knows why), was there not even one Sikh to take a leadership role and save Punjab and essentially the Sikhs from the suffering and injustice we have faced and are facing to this day? Punjab is now just one third of what was partitioned in 1947. So when the Sikh population was small and wasn't all that educated, we had a large Punjab, a very secular kingdom with equal rights and no death penalty. Now when we have a fairly large population and many scholars and academics, we have a very small Punjab where we don't have many rights or freedoms. Darbar Sahib and 40 plus other historic shrines were attacked and the Akal Takht demolished in 1984, a genocide committed against us by the very people who our leaders of the day decided to stay with in 1947. It is also an overly simplistic view that the downfall of the Sikh empire was solely Ranjit Singh's fault. Maharaja Ranjit Singh might have been an imperfect Sikh, but who amongst us is perfect? He might have had some vices but if you consider his many great qualities then I think we see a truer picture.

7: GSK (Punjab), January 25, 2014, 2:59 PM.

Although Maharaja Ranjit Singh had his share of faults and weaknesses, but the question is who doesn't have them? It is true that the Sikh Kingdom was a result of selfless sacrifices of countless Khalsa over the entire 18th century, but the bigger truth is that, unfortunately, these sacrifices eventually led to the establishment of Kanhaiyya raj, Bhangi Raj, Phulkiyaan Raj, Ramgarhiya Raj, Shukarchakiya Raj; et., but not Khalsa Raj. It was the political and military competence of Maharaja Ranjit Singh which turned this dream into reality. There is no denying the fact that he turned extremely extravagant during his later years but it was NOT at the expense of his subjects. At a time when even 1 rupee was a big sum, he gave up 12.5 crore annually as charity, excluding the massive charities made during festivities or victories. Probably it was the only kingdom in the world where the land revenue was fixed according to the suggestions of farmers and if there were a calamity in some area, people were free not to pay the revenue. The stories of the Maharaja's humility and dedication for his people are not just stories and histories but are very much a part of our folklore. I agree that the functioning of the Lahore Darbar was not always according to gurmat and was more designed along secular lines. But isn't it the way it should have been -- the concept of Halemi Raaj? Don't we -- the Sikhs -- want to be ruled on secular lines and not according to the State religions of various countries? Ranjit Singh was a larger-than-life Emperor whose policies of public administration and social welfare were well ahead of his time. Even today, in Punjab, the concept of perfect governance is seen as equivalent to that of Sher-e-Punjab. I feel that in order to form a correct perception about him, we should, perhaps, consider the decision the Akal Takht and Akali Phula Singh made when it was decided to pardon him for his personal mistakes, as his service to his people and his dedication to the Panth were far more larger than his personal follies. Like him or not, but he had something in him which made even the British to exclaim that he was 'every-inch-a-King'. Without him our history is NOT complete -- neither the Sikh history nor the history of Punjab.

Comment on ""









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.