Talk:Ranjit Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ranjit Singh article.
Article policies
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Topics

This whole thing needs a serious remake. Besides all the phrases like "his estate was attacked by him" (who attacked whom?), the (possibly unnecessarily) lengthy citation lacks source, there is almost nothing said about RS's actual rule (this article is referred in enlightened absolutism, yet I see no reason here), and there is no date of death. --Oop 14:09, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) Also it isnt very neutral nor does it explain his Hindu inclined religious behaviour ie sati, his handing over of the Sikh gurdwaras to brahman authorities etc

Though he is considered a "lion", I don't think there is such thing as the "three" lions (not the symbol but rather people associated with it), also Asoka widely used the "three" lions symbol (which is actually that of four lions back to back) across his empire upon the tall columns he erected and the highest honour recieved in the Indian military is the Asokh de chakra. Point being the three lions part should be removed.

[edit] Copyright violation

Text added by 164.164.132.168 on 4 Oct, seems to be taken from http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/warriors/ranjit1.html . Wikipedia:Copyright problems says to revert added copyright violations rather than report them on the copyright problems page. Hence I've reverted from that version on. See also Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Jay 07:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I'll be doing some major rewriting soon, not tonight, late enough right now. I have some books, they are quite biased towards him, since he was Maharaja Ranjit Singh and all, but they have some truth to them, and I'll do my best to extract that. I'll be able to cite them as sources. But the major problem I have is that I'm not sure how to arrange things, and how to cite things properly so they have the footnotes and stuff. I'll post into here what I want to do, and someone can maybe show me how? I plan to start it before the end of the week, but we'll see what happens. --Phant 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throne

Would it be relevant to mention that Ranjit Singh's throne resides at the Victoria & Albert museum in London.

[edit] Gurmukhi vs Punjabi

Punjabi is one language that can be written in multiple scripts, each with names, none of them claiming just "Punjabi script". Therefore they must be labeled as such when used.

As for English terms not being called "Latin", this is because though English uses the latin script, it has its own distinctly English sounds rules, pronunciations, spellings, etc... to distinguish it from other interpretations of latin script like French, Spanish, and the like. Therefore it can be called "English".

Is this not reasonable? I hope that the difference between language and script is understood. Tuncrypt 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, any language can be written in any number of scripts - Punjabi just happens to be written in two predominantly. And no, I don't agree that you need to label the script. If someone knows more than one script, they can merely include both Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi labelled as Punjabi (see Bhangra for example).
Your second point applies to Punjabi just as much as it does to English. Gurmukhi script written for Punjabi is pronounced very differently from the same words written in Gurmukhi script for Hindi (and other languages). The same would apply for Punjabi written in Devanagari (largely to do with the way aspirates have been reinterpreted as tones in Punjabi). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but is guru mouth so ubiquitous, interlingual, extra-punjabi... to the extent that you'd need to differentiate based on language instead- "Punjabi (Gurmukhi)", "Hindi (Gurmukhi)"... as one does for "English (Latin)", "French (Latin), etc. ? I still think it should say guru mouth. Tuncrypt 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. From what I think you're saying, not it's not that ubiquitous or intelingual - but it has been used quite extensively for other languages (largely dialects of Hindustani) prior to becoming the official script of Punjabi in the second half of last century. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religiously Motivated Bias in Article

This article is very seriously biased against mughals and ridiculously biased in favor of ranjit singh. Ranjit Singh was very relgiously motivated and he violated mosques and tombs of muslims. Ranjit desecrated badshahi masjid and made it a stable of his horses and a place to store weapons and explosives, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.159.249 (talk • contribs)

Please provide references in support of these very serious charges.Fconaway 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to the comment above, I do agree that the present article is quite biased, positively towards Sikhs. I believe that motivated wikipedians could easily bias it positively towards muslims. Thus is is imperative that we re-write parts of the article with proper references such as well known historical documents. I have read several accounts of Ranjit Singh written both by the English, modern day Indians and even Muslim members of Ranjit Singh's court. In the near future I will relate what I know from these well accepted accounts to the current page which I believe is rather incomplete and certainly has an element of bias to it. I have already begun to modify some parts. Thank you. Guneeta (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Guneeta

It is not about being biased towards Sikhs or towards Muslims. It's about being honest about the real historical record. Did Ranjit Singh accomplish great things, even under today's standards? Yes, he did. Was he a brutal leader? No doubt about it. The debate about whether this article should be biased towards any group is an illogical debate. This article should present the facts, as specified by the historical record, and let the reader judge Ranjit Singh without ideological bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.69.121 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be pure fact. It is significantly biased towards sikhs. (I am a Sikh and I notice it). Wording such as "His brave Sikhs.." does not represent fact, but a personal bias. Instead, the wording could read "His armed forces..." because in fact his army was made up of people representing many backgrounds. One of the great things about Ranjit Singh was that he was secular. So why tarnish this fact with a religious twist to the article. Sure, he was a Sikh and that should be stated as the fact that it is. However, getting carried away with the "gallantry" and "bravery" of his Sikhs and calling his empire a "Sikh Empire" is inaccurate and based on personal views.

[edit] Sikh Empire?

Is it true that only because Ranjit Singh was Sikh that his empire is being labeled a "Sikh Empire"? We know that he was a secular ruler with a cabinet or court full of advisers from diverse backgrounds. Thus, isn't this akin to saying that India is currently a "Sikh Empire" since Manmohan Singh is a Sikh... What about the US, is it a "Christian Empire" because George W. Bush is a Christian?

America and India are Democratic countries and not Empires.Ajjay (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mughal Persecution of Sikhs

This article, and other Sikh-related articles, describes the severe persecution Sikhs faced under Mughal kings, particularly Aurengzeb. Many monarchies around the world suffered the problem of succession. When a king died, the princes typically fought wars with each other for the throne. When a prince won the war, he killed off the supporters of the other princes to prevent a future uprising. This was definitely the case for the Mughal empire, yet the Mughals were not unique in this characteristic. (One only needs to read about the bloody history of Rome for examples of this.) When Shah Jahaan passed away, there was a long, bitter, and protracted war between Dara Shikoh and Aurengzeb. The Sikhs placed their support behind Dara Shikoh on the assumption that he would win the war against Aurengzeb. Since it was Aurengzeb that won the war, he killed off the supporters of Dara Shikoh, whether they were Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim. (Many Muslim supporters of Dara Shikoh in the Deccan were killed off by Aurengzeb.) Even though he adhered to an orthodox version of Islam, his motivation for persecuting Sikhs was political, not religious. This article suggests that Aurengzeb's persecution was purely religious in motivation, but history contradicts this assertion. See Schimmel, A., Islam in India, particularly the last few page s in the chapter about the Mughal empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.69.174 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You can not compare Roman empire with the Mughal empire.The time gap between these two empires was atleast 1200 years.Romans are generally believed to be more of a mob than a civilised society.The general view of the historians regard them to be severe barbarians, their glory notwithstanding.The bloodiest conflicts between the Mughals and the Sikhs were fought during Guru Gobind Singh's time. He became Guru, long after Aurangzeb became the Empror of India, after wars of succession.Even Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was executed by Aurangzeb, was not the Guru of Sikhs when the wars of succession were fought by Aurangzeb.And the Mughal chronicals maligned him a lot in their historical records.When the young sons, aged seven and nine, of Guru Gobind Singh were brutally murdered,by Mughal Governer of Punjab, do you think they were targeted politicaly? What would you call the re-imposition of Jizya (religious tax levied on non-muslims), which was abolished by Akbar, on common people of his empire."Aurangzeb was a bigot to whom the religion of the great majority of his subjects was anathema, mischief, which it was his duty before heaven to persecute and if possible to stamp out.His methods were scariledge, economic repression, forced conversion and restriction of worship". Sir Wolseley Haig;The Cambridge Shorter History of India. p.334Ajjay (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I was not comparing the entirety of the Mughal Empire to the Romans. I was merely stating that when kings died, a bitter war of succession was a common feature of many monarchies across many civilizations throughout history. I merely pointed out the Roman example to demonstrate this. Second, I believe, like you, that Aurengzeb did persecute Sikhs out of religious conviction. However, it is not historically correct to assume his reasons for persecuting were entirely religious. Rather, they were a mix of religious and political motivations. Sometimes his political decisions contradicted his religious ideology. He did persecute his own religious cohorts who opposed his political power in the Deccan, and many of his generals were Hindu. Third, you cannot state that once the war of succession ended, Aurengzeb should have stopped his persecution of those who opposed his political power. Aurengzeb continued persecuting those who originally supported Dara Shikoh long after the war ended. We are talking about the Medieval Ages, and things took much longer then. He wanted to ensure that no major political rival would emerge to challenge him. This form of persecution was done for political reasons, not religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.69.13 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is your point of view, and i cannot change it.It does not even matter to me.You can believe in what you want.I wonder if Aurangzeb allowed that?Ajjay (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. I am merely describing the historical record, not "what I want." Sure, I'd like to believe that history can consist of purely evil figures like Aurangzeb, but reality is more complicated. I am merely saying you should understand that things are not so black and white. As for the quotation you provided about Aurangzeb, you can provide as many quotations by dubious English orientalists as I can provide just as many that contradict them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.80 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
History depends on who writes it! As for providing comments, it was the mention of some book in the first para which started it. If you really want to discuss aurangzeb, Aurangzeb is the best place. Thanks and good byeAjjay (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
History is not just composed of opinions. It can also be a series of rational judgments derived from the historical record. You are confused by saying that history is purely opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.80 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)