Historical accounts often make mention, cryptically and without convincing evidence, of the ‘cruel treatment’ to which Ranjit Singh is supposed to have subjected defeated adversaries. Even a distinguished historian such as Syad Muhammad Latif, describing the fall of Jassarwal Fort to Ranjit Singh in 1800, says that, ‘having reduced it, [he] put the defenders to the sword’.19 But no details are provided as to how many were ‘put to the sword’ or why. Such reprisals were entirely uncharacteristic of him, and it is difficult to believe that they actually occurred.
Ranjit Singh clearly aimed from a very young age at establishing his own state. But what was unique about him, and makes his life-story so different from that of most other rulers, was that he drew his strength not from the brutal exercise of power but from his humanity, vision, vitality and tolerance and that he never allowed irrational or primitive instincts to interfere with affairs of state. The powerful impulse that drove Ranjit Singh to create a just, secular and cosmopolitan society for his people was his unshakeable faith in the religion into which he was born.
Considering the many religions that existed in the Sikh state he was creating – Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist and Christian, as also the bewildering number of various subdivisions of these faiths – Ranjit Singh made a far-sighted move at the very outset of his reign. He ensured that the religious and social festivals a multicultural society like India observes throughout the year should be celebrated by people of all beliefs. He was convinced that this would provide the necessary impetus to the secularism to which the Sikhs subscribed. And so he made it a rule that his senior ministers, governors and eminent citizens, including himself, should try to attend as many of them as they could.
Hari Ram Gupta points out that there were different days of special significance for the four castes of the Hindus alone: ‘for Brahmans, Rakhi, or Rakhri, or Raksha Bandhan or Solunon in July-August; for Kshatriyas (warrior class), Dasahra in September-October; for Vaishyas (trading class), Diwali in October-November; and for Shudras (cultivators and the like), Holi in February-March’.20
There was logic in each of these points of the calendar, rooted not just in the religious but in the economic facts of life as well. While the trading classes, cultivators and those engaged in various vocations looked forward to the Diwali festival to celebrate good yields from wheat, sugarcane and other crops, the fighting caste of Kshatriyas chose to herald the coming winter season to plan new campaigns. For the Brahmins Rakhi was a time of thanksgiving for all the offerings they received from the other castes, and for the Shudras the months of February and March seemed the most appropriate to mark the end of rigorous winters and celebrate the onset of spring through the colourful festival of Holi.
There were many other festivals in addition to these, such as the birthdays of the Hindu gods Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. The former, Ram Navmi, was celebrated in early April and the latter, Janam Ashtmi, in August-September. Guru Nanak’s birthday, or Gurpurab, in November was an occasion of the utmost significance for the Sikhs and was observed with great fervour.
Many other lesser festivals were also looked forward to with much enthusiasm. Lohri, in January, was especially important in Punjab where the festive mood was highlighted by roaring bonfires around which people sang and danced well into the night. Basant, which fell in January-February each year, heralded the advent of spring, and just as the fields were full of yellow mustard flowers people also dressed in yellow robes to celebrate the good times to come. Baisakhi, in April, was – and still is – a day of great rejoicing because it was harvest time. People in their thousands travelled to Amritsar to take a dip in the holy pool on this day.
The list is a long one because Ranjit Singh well knew how vital it was to make every citizen in his realm feel an integral part of – and entitled to – the best that his country had to offer him and made sure that people of different castes, creeds and religions were encouraged to assemble together to celebrate religious holidays and overcome their differences and prejudices. It was most important for the well-being of his state that its people should develop a sense of fellow feeling and religious toleration and have the right to practise their own religious beliefs in absolute freedom. His aim of creating a spirit of communal harmony was convincingly conveyed by the pomp and gaiety that attended Muslim religious days. Ranjit Singh ‘celebrated the Muslim festivals of Id with the same enthusiasm as he showed for Holi and Dussehra. Persian continued to be the court language. Although illiterate, he acquired a speaking knowledge of Persian and Urdu. He married Muslim women and tried to curb the Akalis (independent Sikh warriors fully armed and dressed in deep blue, and wearing tall conical turbans with steel quoits stuck in them) with an iron hand. There were no forced conversions in his reign, no communal riots, no language tensions, no second-class citizens. Any talented man could come to the court and demand his due.’21 Christmas was also joyfully celebrated, and Ranjit Singh’s Lahore Durbar would send big hampers of fruits, sweets, wine and other presents to Europeans living in the Sikh kingdom.
Those accorded sainthood are usually persons venerated for their holiness, spiritual stature and virtuous life. As we shall see, Ranjit Singh was far from virtuous in his personal life. He was unrestrained in his sexual relationships, in the number of times he took marriage vows, in his unconcern for the traditional definitions of morality and in his bouts of drinking from time to time. Since he indulged himself in these whole-heartedly, he was obviously nowhere near sainthood if his life is judged through these self-indulgences. But his passion for ensuring just governance for his people, his dedication to secular beliefs, his respect for god-given life and the uncompromising stand against tyranny enjoined by the Sikh Gurus – these were articles of faith from which he seldom deviated.
The rulers or conquerors of that period were occupied with no such concerns. Appalling atrocities were the order of the day, and it is in this context that Ranjit Singh came close to being a saint. No conqueror ever established a regime as humane as his. He built up his power with a very small percentage of people of the Sikh faith and without the customary barbarities which the victors of that or indeed many another age visited on those of other religious beliefs who were subjugated. He conducted himself civilly as a ruler of a mixed nation, without any cruelty, arrogance or arbitrariness, and in this respect he may well be called a saint at the same time as he was indubitably a sensualist. His strength lay in the versatility with which he combined both fundamental aspects of his nature. If he lived his personal life the way he did, it was not at the expense of his responsibilities as a ruler.
One of Guru Nanak’s specific injunctions to the followers of his faith was that ‘only they are the true Rajas’ who can justly and even-handedly carry out their responsibilities to their people. Ranjit Singh’s status as a maharaja, resonant and awe-inspiring as it was, was born of no attempt to project himself as larger than life, even though that is the impression conveyed by the well-worn words like ‘king’, ‘kingdom’, ‘emperor’ and ‘empire’ used by so many chroniclers to describe his assumption of power as ruler of Punjab. Such terms, however, do not indicate how he saw his new role.
What comes through from all the records on Ranjit Singh is that his was a highly complex personality and that he set himself many seemingly impossible goals, most of which he actually achieved. Nor did he aspire to personal aggrandizement or imperial status to boost his ego. Even at the apex of his power, he preferred to be addressed as Sarkar or the source of authority. It was not a grandiose title, nor how kings and emperors liked to be addressed.
His goal was not to live in monarchical splendour but to make a just and civilized state out of a Punjab riven with in-fighting, intrigue and instability, where power was dispersed among a large number of fractious constituents. In 1799, a little over a year before he established his rule over Punjab, there were sixty-eight territories quite independent of one another between the Indus and the Sutlej rivers: twenty-five Muslim states, twenty-seven Hi
ndu states and sixteen Sikh states, an amazing medley of chiefs and feudal lords, including some who owed allegiance to nations beyond India’s borders.22 While, for instance, Kashmir, Peshawar and Multan belonged to the Afghans, Kasur, Kunjpura, Bahawalpur and Malerkotla also owed allegiance to Kabul, and some of the other Muslim territories were tributaries of Afghanistan. A few were run as fiefdoms, such as Jammu, Kangra, Pind Dadan Khan, Muzaf-farabad, Jhang and Shahpur. The Hindu chieftains were a divided lot, too, and the Sikhs – including the twelve misls – although far fewer in numbers, were as fractious as the rest.
The complexity of Punjab, whether in its religious or its demographic composition, posed problems in the way of even-handed governance. With Sikhs accounting for only 7 per cent of the population as against 50 per cent Muslims and 42 per cent Hindus,23 Ranjit Singh could neither deny Sikhs considerable authority under Sikh rule nor deny the others a fair representation. He could not have achieved what he did had he not possessed a sure grasp of what constituted just governance, or had he been vindictive, a religious bigot or obsessed with his own exalted status. That he succeeded in creating a prosperous, multireligious, militarily powerful nation, founded on secular principles and rid of predatory invaders and conquistadors, without resorting to the barbarities that have characterized so many conquests and creations of kingdoms and empires, is what makes him such an unusual figure in world history. He exercised supreme power without sacrificing his humanity, decency, civility and resolve to respect his peoples’ right to practise their religious beliefs in absolute freedom. He revealed his style of kingship at the very outset of his reign, when he insisted that the investiture ceremony to install him as absolute ruler of Punjab on 12 April 1801 should be simple, low-key and devoid of pomp.
Descriptions of his ‘coronation’ on that day have used terms such as ‘his crowning’, ‘an able king’, ‘the Sikh monarchy’, ‘the Great Maharaja’. But all this is altogether inaccurate. Ranjit Singh never assumed any of these titles, preferring, as we have seen, Sarkar to all others. He drew his authority not from titles but from his qualities of leadership. No building or monument ever bore his name. The fort built by him at Amritsar was called Govind Garh, while the palace and gardens were named Ram Bagh, the Park of Lord Ram.
He never possessed either a throne or a crown. In the words of Baron Charles Hugel, ‘The Maharaja has no throne. “My sword,” he observed, “procures me all the distinction I desire.”‘24 His strange oriental chair (murha) served him as a throne, on which he often sat cross-legged, and his turban was his crown, which he proudly wore. Quite appropriately, his court was known as Durbar Khalsa ji. There is hardly any mention of Ranjit Singh’s coronation in any state archives, in Punjab, Lahore or in the National Archives of India in New Delhi.
Historical distortions not only prevent an accurate assessment of persons whose contributions in the past were most significant but obscure major milestones in a country’s evolution. As a British chronicler of the times put it, the Sikhs ‘had now reached nationhood … [and were] fully equipped with confidence and energy under Ranjit Singh, who, by transforming the Khalsa into a territorial power, decided once and for all whether the Sikh or the Afghan was to rule the Punjab. Thus, after a hundred years of unflinching struggle, was fulfilled the prophecy of the martial Guru Gobind Singh.’25
Guru Gobind Singh, forming the brotherhood of the Khalsa, had galvanized his people with the words Raj Karega Khalsa, ‘The Khalsa Shall Rule’. And now the time had come for the Khalsa to establish its rule over Punjab. So it is no coincidence that the day of the Baisakhi Festival, early in April 1801, was chosen by Ranjit Singh to be formally declared its ruler – the same Baisakhi Day on which the fellowship of the Khalsa had been created by Guru Gobind Singh 102 years earlier. To the 80,000 or so who had assembled on that day in 1699 at Anandpur, the Guru’s exhortation had been ‘You will love man as man, making no distinction of caste or creed … In you the whole brotherhood shall be reincarnated.’26 This was the mission Ranjit Singh would now fulfil.
The ceremony was simple. Baba Sahib Singh Bedi, a descendant of Guru Nanak, applied some saffron paste or tilak (which has a sacred significance) to Ranjit Singh’s forehead and confirmed him as the Sikh Sarkar of Punjab, which in the past had been ruled by the Mughals, the Afghans and countless other interlopers. Now at the dawn of the Sikh Age, not only important Sikh Sardars but also Hindu and Muslim chiefs and notables witnessed the religious rites as Sardar Ranjit Singh was pronounced the king appointed as God’s humble servant deputed for the service of the people.
From the very outset Ranjit Singh left no doubt in anyone’s mind about his adherence to the secular convictions which had been forcefully enunciated by Guru Gobind Singh when he established the Khalsa. There was no ambiguity in his declaration of what people should expect under his rule. Muslim religious laws would be allowed to cover Muslims, and Qazis (judges ruling in accordance with Sharia, the Islamic religious law) would preside over their courts. Nizam-ud-Din was made the head Qazi of Lahore. Nor was the role of muftis (Muslim scholars who interpret the Sharia) overlooked. It was also decreed that mosques would continue to be supported by the state. In acknowledgement of the fact that Muslims were in a majority in the capital city of Lahore, he appointed Imam Baksh as its chief of police, who in turn was given a free hand to designate persons of his choice to senior positions in the force. The overarching authority in religious matters relating to Muslims as a whole was vested in Nizam-ud-Din who had the final say in religious disputes among members of his faith. He in turn was advised by Mufti Mohammed Shah and Mufti Sa’dullah Chishti.
The administration of Lahore was a model which Ranjit Singh replicated throughout his extensive territories. He was determined to create an administrative system undiluted by religious prejudices, political affiliations, preference for family connections, regional and caste loyalties or countless other pressures that made a mockery of just governance. Despite the disparate and potentially destructive elements he had to keep in control, his aim was to create a cohesive society out of erstwhile enemies. One study of an early cabinet lists fifteen Hindu ministers and top officials compared with seven Sikhs. The former included the ministers of finance, revenue, the paymaster-general, the accountant-general and the governors of Multan and Kashmir, while the Sikhs were almost entirely generals, some of whom held additional posts as governors. In a later cabinet, in which Hindus, Muslims and Dogras (hill Rajputs from the Jammu area) predominated, the prime minister’s portfolio was given to a Hindu Dogra, Dhian Singh, and three of the most important portfolios to Muslims: Fakir Azizuddin was foreign minister, Fakir Nuruddin home minister and Fakir Imamuddin custodian of the treasury at Amritsar. ‘Even Akbar who was the most liberal of the Mughal Emperors, who thought so much of expedient considerations, did not go as far as Ranjit Singh did. Whereas Ranjit Singh gave the highest positions, such as prime ministership, foreign ministership, etc., to members of other communities, Akbar could not go beyond associating one or two non-Muslim ministers with his court which thus predominantly remained Muslim in character and composition.’27
In a number of ‘democracies’ around the world today, just representation in upper echelons of government is a rare thing; religious, caste and class considerations matter far more. Ranjit Singh’s monarchical practice was more in keeping with democratic principles than democratic functioning in India today.
Neither were non-Punjabis discriminated against in Punjab. Even more significantly, even though in 1606 Chandu Shah, an influential Brahmin in the service of the Mughals (along with a Brahmin lobby, deeply resentful of the independent ways of the Sikhs), had influenced the Mughal emperor Jahangir cruelly to put to death Guru Arjan Dev, builder of the Harmandir and compiler of the Guru Granth, Ranjit Singh appointed Khushal Singh, a Brahmin, as the chamberlain of his court. He later converted to Sikhism. His nephew, Tej Singh from Meerut (he became a Sikh in 1816), was also taken into service and eventually became commander-in-chief of the ar
my after Ranjit Singh’s death.
Some of the men Ranjit Singh rewarded with senior positions were to betray the Sikh state after his death. But in his lifetime this worldly-wise ruler, well aware of the inborn human tendency towards treason and religious bigotry, was well able to deal with such people and their propensities and instinctively to use their abilities for the good. He could thus afford not to deviate from the secular principle in the governance of his state, the even-handedness which in such large part underlies his achievements.
The steadfastness of his own beliefs helped him provide a model of good governance to the heterogeneous population of the Sikh nation and to give its constituents the freedom to practise their own faiths. He showed them the way himself by his regular visits to Hindu temples and Muslim mosques towards which he expressed the same reverence as he did towards Sikh gurdwaras.
Even more convincing was his munificence towards different places of worship. This, again, was even-handed as between Hindu and Muslim shrines. After he annexed Lahore in 1799, the Sunahri mosque, which the city’s previous misl rulers had taken over, was restored to the Muslims, while huge sums were spent on the restoration of the buildings of two Mughal emperors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Nor were any funds denied for the upkeep of the tombs of various distinguished Muslims. In the case of the Hindu temple at Jawalamukhi, aside from various other donations in cash and kind he had the roofs of the two main temple buildings – one large and the other smaller – covered in gold as a token of his esteem for the shrine. He also donated fourteen quintals (equal to 225 pounds or 100 kilograms) of pure gold for gilding the Vishwa Nath temple at Benares which Emperor Aurangzeb had converted into a mosque.
Ranjit Singh’s impartiality to all religions is acknowledged not only by past and present historians but by British and European observers of the time. There is an account of one Wolff Joseph, who came to Lahore in 1832 and set about putting up posters everywhere propagating Christianity and running down other religions while urging people to look to Christ as the true saviour. He soon received this message from Ranjit Singh: In sakhun nabayad guft – ‘Such words must not be said.’ That his own respect for different faiths raised him in the estimation of his people came through convincingly during his entry into Peshawar in 1818. This city, a few miles from the Khyber Pass, was the gateway through which invaders from Central Asia had poured into India over the centuries and more recently the Durranis from Afghanistan, described as ‘remarkable for their cruelty and fierceness’, whose great heroism was ‘exalted neither by mercy nor resolution’.28
Empire of the Sikhs Page 8
