Columnists
Conversation about this article
1: Kaala (Punjab), February 19, 2014, 1:44 PM.
Sikhs were great warriors but not great statesmen. They could not evolve an effective political system and corrupted the corridors of power with alien elements like the Dogras.
2: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), February 19, 2014, 3:32 PM.
Agreed, Kaala ji. The warriors were taken off the saddle of horses and placed on thrones. It only took a single generation for Sikh sovereignty to collapse in Punjab, though it had taken much longer to establish it. I have always felt that Ranjit Singh violated the Khalsa when he conquered the other Misls. In the Khalsa, no one man can stand supreme over another, all Singhs are kings. Sikh power became concentrated in a single kingdom rather than a handful of territories spread across the Punjab. The Sikh kingdom became a glass cannon, although it was very powerful, it was also very fragile.
3: Harbeer Kaur (United Kingdom), February 19, 2014, 5:56 PM.
I am afraid the last comment (by Sunny) betrays a complete lack of understanding of the realpolitik. On the contrary, Ranjit Singh was a military genius as well as one of the greatest examples of an excellent administrator in human history -- as long as you are not reading self-serving or mercenary accounts written by the likes of, inter alia, British and American historians. The Sikh Empire fell for a combination of reasons: True, his immediate successor was a weakling but excellent men ... and women ... were waiting: Naunihal Singh, Chand Kaur, Sher Singh ... But, in a conspiracy hatched between the scheming Hindu Dogras and the wily and greedy British, they were all -- dozens of the brightest of the lot -- systematically murdered one after the other, starting with Kharak Singh, all the way to the last living scion of the family. Ranjit Singh's biggest fault was that he was, in addition to his many other human failings, a little too steeped in the Sikh values of fairness, compassion and decency and wasn't Machiavellian enough to surround himself with rogues and to eliminate anyone and everyone who posed a threat to him and his progeny. I note that we as critics -- being Sikh -- are always too hard and unforgiving of ourselves, while seldom taking the trouble to fathom and comprehend the real world of power and politics. The first step in that direction is to get to know our own history honestly, warts and all, and not jump to judgement at every jerk of the proverbial knee.
4: Kulwant Singh (USA), February 19, 2014, 10:58 PM.
They used to say that the sun never sets on the British empire. It is not the fault of the Sikhs that they were not able to withstand the onslaught of the British colonial greed and empire which had conquered numerous peoples before them. In their divide and conquer strategy, the British used the Hindu Dogras, just like they had used the rest of the Hindu populace to conquer South Asia. Had the British not shown up, then perhaps the Sikh Raj would have continued. Who's to say it would not have lasted till today?
5: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), February 19, 2014, 11:49 PM.
I don't think there are many Sikhs who are too hard on Ranjit Singh, it's a shame because they should be. Ranjit Singh's achievements are incredible, but we shouldn't let this blind us to some of his shortcomings or the negative consequences that the Kingdom of Lahore had on the Sikhs. Each Misl enjoyed political sovereignty from one another, they were not hampered by the intrigues which inflicted Ranjit's kingdom. Even if such intrigues affected a single Misl, it would not have led to the catastrophic dismantlement of Sikh sovereignty. Other Sikh political units would have existed to either reverse the fortunes of fallen Misls or replace weaker ones. When the Sikhs were rallied under one banner, they had to look outside the Panth for support, hence how the treacherous Dogras were incorporated into the rank and file of the military. The consolidation of the Misls was not necessary for the Sikhs to field a powerful military to ward off powerful foes, one only has to look to the sacking of Dehli by Baghel Singh. In order to produce a truthful historiography, it should be free from bias and open to debate.
6: N Singh (Canada), February 20, 2014, 2:39 AM.
@3: Excellent comment, Harbeer Kaur! As I said earlier, we need to read and understand treatises such as "The Art of War" and Machiavelli's "The Prince" as well as Guru Gobind Singh's Hukamnamas such as "Study and learn about governmental policies" and "When dealing with enemies, practice diplomacy, employ a variety of tactics, and exhaust all techniques before engaging in warfare", which means understand power and politics and using these first before raising the sword.
7: N Singh (Canada), February 20, 2014, 2:43 AM.
@1 Kaala Singh ji: In 1849 it was the Hindu Dogras, in post-1947 it was the Hindus who betrayed us and we lost our kingdom not once but twice.
8: Karimul Fateh Singh (India), February 20, 2014, 8:18 AM.
I think time has come when we learn from our past mistakes (I am saying our mistakes rather than Ranjit Singh's or others') rather than lamenting them, and chart our future course of action. If history is read for learning and taking corrective measures so that we don't commit the same mistakes again, then it is worth the time but if it is read only for the purpose of lamenting and talking about lost opportunities without taking any corrective measures, then let's not waste our time. The article and comments section seeks to blame it on the betrayal by the Dogras. Yes, they have betrayed us, nobody can deny that, but what have we done in our present so that we don't get betrayed again? I am really sorry to say that we have not learned, neither do we keep an option of learning even though we call ourselves 'Sikhs' (learners). At the time of the Khalsa Empire we had Dogras as traitors but have we learned from that era and made sure that there are no traitors today within our ranks, like the Badals, Tohras, etc. Unless we are willing to learn, there is no point in reading history.
9: Kaala (Punjab), February 20, 2014, 10:40 AM.
@7: N Singh ji: We could have been a great power in this part of the world. Our ancestors did what nobody else could do in South Asia but they displayed a lack of long-term strategic vision and unity. I will be harsh on ourselves. There are a few questions that come to my mind. How could so many capable Sikhs be murdered by these Dogras under our very noses? How could these Dogras become so powerful? It must be remembered that the Sikh Kingdom was established by the valour and sacrifices of people like Hari Singh Nalwa and Baba Phoola Singh. Though the Sikhs did manage to stem the flow of invaders from the Northwest once and for all, little other benefit fell to the Sikhs thereafter.
10: Kulwant Singh (USA), February 20, 2014, 4:04 PM.
The only mistake the Sikhs made was trusting in the supposed goodness of others. Maharaja Ranjit Singh trusted the Dogras, just like Master Tara Singh trusted Nehru. Hindsight is 20/20. We can sit here and say that the Sikhs should have seen it coming, but how could they? When someone stabs you in the back, you do not realize it until the blade has already cut through. Yes, Sikhs are supposed to be learners. But how can we learn from our history, if it has not been properly recorded?