Euopean Travellers To Punjab During Sikh Rule

[Mithar]

The singular/rare example you give above of some Sikh royal is hardly a prompt to say we should start marrying Muslim women, when relations with a Musli is one of the 4 Bujjar Kurehits (before the modernised version of adultry).

So it is not a krahit if an Amritdhari Singh had a sexual relation with a Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Jewish woman outside of marriage?

[shaheediyan]

What you posted is simply an 1 eyewitness account of a 'point in time'. I have no issues wether it was true or not, it is not representative of Gurus mat in any case.

Not sure what your reference to pindus implies... i.e. that you are foul mouthed pindu, or that foul mouthed pindus represent the panth.. not sure, but its a weak defence/justification in any case.

As I said before, this forum represents an extension of Gurus darbaar, if you speak like that in front of the womenfolk in your household or in your Gurdwara, thats your business, just kindly refrain from speaking in front of the young and female forum audience (who are your brothers and sisters) like this in future.

"It was your knee jerk 'sullah saviour' reaction that read incorrectly into it......that's just weird Shaheediyan. When I made my comments I never had anyone one particular community in mind."

What you are advocating goes is a Bujjar Kurehit, end of. My response is hardly a Muslim saviour reaction, I was actually reinforcing the reason behind the kurehit i.e. don't risk getting converted. Bang on about whatever else you like.

Edited February 20, 2010 by shaheediyan

[shaheediyan]

"So it is not a krahit if an Amritdhari Singh had a sexual relation with a Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Jewish woman outside of marriage?"

Depends on what your Panj Pyare have told you the Bujjer Kurehit is. In most cases, what you have said above would be the Kurehit, and the Panthic Rehit Maryada reflects the same. That aside, Guru Gobind Singh Ji has stated in various other sources one should not have relations with another woman except his wife, all other women are to be treated as mothers, sisters and daughters etc.

We don't have to downplay/change the original rehit and its meaning (which covers bans on Musli Yudh i.e. rape and or relations with a Musli - these references are still found in Nihang RM as well as puratan rehits) in order to enforce the ban on adultry.

[dalsingh101]

What you posted is simply an 1 eyewitness account of a 'point in time'. I have no issues wether it was true or not, it is not representative of Gurus mat in any case.

Not sure what your reference to pindus implies... i.e. that you are foul mouthed pindu, or that foul mouthed pindus represent the panth.. not sure, but its a weak defence/justification in any case.

As I said before, this forum represents an extension of Gurus darbaar, if you speak like that in front of the womenfolk in your household or in your Gurdwara, thats your business, just kindly refrain from speaking in front of the young and female audience (who are your brothers and sisters) like this in future.

"It was your knee jerk 'sullah saviour' reaction that read incorrectly into it......that's just weird Shaheediyan. When I made my comments I never had anyone one particular community in mind."

What you are advocating goes is a Bujjar Kurehit, end of. My response is hardly a Muslim saviour reaction, I was actually reinforcing the reason behind the kurehit i.e. don't risk getting converted. Bang on about whatever else you like.

The point was that Sikhs (men in particular) will have to consider partners from nonSikh backgrounds in future. I highlighted that particular extract because I found the fact that the children of the union being 'orthodox Sikhs' very interesting.

Is that clear enough?

BTW - I am a straight pindu.

[shaheediyan]

Marrying people from a different religious background has never been a problem, as long as the other party has taken Amrit and is a practicing Sikh. Of course trends/understanding/situations have changed, and a Muslmaani wouldn't be expected to eat pork for 51 days before she was administered amrit (Prem Sumarg). Obvioulsy, even then, these were extreme measures to ensure that the Panth was not infilitrated by spies etc and the wish of the convert to be, was sincere. This practice would have simply been one of many prevailent during the early 1800s regarding Muslims (men and women) becoming Sikhs and marrying Sikhs.

Edited February 20, 2010 by shaheediyan

[Matheen]

My point was that mixed marriages will have to become more accepted.....

Not happening from a religious perspective, and for very good reasons. If you're talking about Sikhs of different races, that is acceptable and becoming more widespread.

The Rajey did what they wanted - very few of them were religious but they did donate generously to religious causes. Not so different to many rich apney these days. You know what Punjabis are like once hard times pass!

Edited February 20, 2010 by Matheen

[dalsingh101]

Not happening from a religious perspective, and for very good reasons. If you're talking about Sikhs of different races, that is acceptable and becoming more widespread.

The Rajey did what they wanted - very few of them were religious but they did donate generously to religious causes. Not so different to many rich apney these days. You know what Punjabis are like once hard times pass!

I was (in passing) making a comment on how Panjabi Sikhs will have to address the disparity between gender birthrates guys! In future, Sikh guys will HAVE TO marry out, whether we like it or not. It was in this context that I found the example of a Sikh (rajah or not!) marrying out and still having Sikh children interesting.

This is going on now (to a smaller degree) in the UK with the freshies who marry Polish/Eastern European girls but raise their kids going Gurdwara and speaking Panjabi.

I include non Amritdharis in the panth btw. Anyway, it is strange how the stuff related to sullay is what gets the most attention. I did post other interesting extracts as well (I think)! lol

[shaheediyan]

Also as we are talking of historic accounts of Sikh-Muslim marital/physical relations, you may want to read up on the excellent Sakhi of the Afghani who wanted Soorbir Sardar Hari Singh Nalwas child. Sardar Ji goes as far as creating a 'maa-puth' rishta with the Afghani, showing the hukum of extending family respect extended to women of other faiths also.

[shaheediyan]

Dalsingh, the rehits we are talking about are relevant to the Amritdhari Khalsa, non-Khalsa/Singhs are not strictly bound by this conduct per se, although they are encouraged to adopt whatever they can.

[dalsingh101]

Also as we are talking of historic accounts of Sikh-Muslim marital/physical relations, you may want to read up on the excellent Sakhi of the Afghani who wanted Soorbir Sardar Hari Singh Nalwas child. Sardar Ji goes as far as creating a 'maa-puth' rishta with the Afghani, showing the hukum of extending family respect extended to women of other faiths also.

A source would be nice.

Dalsingh, the rehits we are talking about are relevant to the Amritdhari Khalsa, non-Khalsa/Singhs are not strictly bound by this conduct per se, although they are encouraged to adopt whatever they can.

Shaheediyan, I don't know when we started talking specifically about rehits on this thread but thanks for the info.

Have you read Jacquemont's account btw?

[Mithar]

Also as we are talking of historic accounts of Sikh-Muslim marital/physical relations, you may want to read up on the excellent Sakhi of the Afghani who wanted Soorbir Sardar Hari Singh Nalwas child. Sardar Ji goes as far as creating a 'maa-puth' rishta with the Afghani, showing the hukum of extending family respect extended to women of other faiths also.

That Sakhi is to inspire high moral character amongst Sikhs. Hari Singh Nalwa did not reject her because she was a Muslim, but because she was a woman who was not his wife. For a Khalsa all women are to be regarded as mothers, sisters and daughters. Hari Singh Nalwa was a Singh with high moral character and we need to follow such examples.

As for the gender imbalance amongst Sikhs, yes in the future Sikhs will have to marry out or they will have to resort to polyandry. IMO, Sikhs should marry out if they cannot find a bride, since the border with Pakistan is closed, then a bride from UP/Bihar/Nepal seem like the best solution. The trend I have noticed in Punjab is that, Sikhs belonging to the Jat caste who cannot find a bride are now marrying Punjabi women from other castes.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Mithar

[singh2]

I am sorry i missed to write it further as i was bury in Darshan singh Ragi's case.

Do not believe whatever he wrote. He is biased against Punjab.Every religion was given equal freedom for their beliefs during ranjit singh's time.Amrtisar still has mosques that are over 160 years old.

Punjabi muslims enjoyed freedom as any otehr religion and that is the reason during anglo-sikh wars they proved to be more loyal than eastern Hindus.That was particular true for second anglo-sikh war.

[kdsingh80]

As for the gender imbalance amongst Sikhs, yes in the future Sikhs will have to marry out or they will have to resort to polyandry. IMO, Sikhs should marry out if they cannot find a bride, since the border with Pakistan is closed, then a bride from UP/Bihar/Nepal seem like the best solution. The trend I have noticed in Punjab is that, Sikhs belonging to the Jat caste who cannot find a bride are now marrying Punjabi women from other castes.

This is already going on.Large number of women are trafficed from poor states to Punjab ,Haryana,western Uttar pradesh for marriage

[dalsingh101]

As for the gender imbalance amongst Sikhs, yes in the future Sikhs will have to marry out or they will have to resort to polyandry. IMO, Sikhs should marry out if they cannot find a bride, since the border with Pakistan is closed, then a bride from UP/Bihar/Nepal seem like the best solution. The trend I have noticed in Punjab is that, Sikhs belonging to the Jat caste who cannot find a bride are now marrying Punjabi women from other castes.

Hopefully this should make them less obnoxious with the casteism.

Prem Sumarag has a very relevant section on marriage which concludes that less rigidity is required (in terms of casteism) as the practice of buying girls was creeping into the Khalsa.

Can't help but think the panth has been here before when you read stuf like that?

Edited February 21, 2010 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

Are there any scriptural references to what kind of state Maharaja Ranjit Singh had built? How was the economic and social politics in the state?

[kdsingh80]

Hopefully this should make them less obnoxious with the casteism.

According to reports the women that are bought are not at all treated well.so nothing is going to change

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/10/19/stories/2008101956670800.htm

“Decades of sex-determination tests followed by female foeticide have resulted in an even more shameful sociological phenomenon wherein women have been reduced to son-producing machines. Women who fail to produce sons are sent back, sold or abandoned,” says Manvinder Kaur, Reader at the Centre for Women Studies, Punjab University.

No data is available on the number of girls trafficked into Punjab, but every village has a number of “bought brides”.

The trade is being carried on by the second and third generation victims. Malkeet’s aunt, Kusum Devi, also from Bihar, managed his alliance. “Marrying their daughters is a relief for the families, especially when they receive money instead of having to pay a dowry.”

According to Ameer Sultana of the Centre for women Studies at Punjab University: “Girls who are bought from poor homes are never considered equal. They have no rights and even after many years she knows that she is a commodity, which is used and often shared by all the men in the family.”

[dalsingh101]

According to reports the women that are bought are not at all treated well.so nothing is going to change

According to Ameer Sultana of the Centre for women Studies at Punjab University: Girls who are bought from poor homes are never considered equal. They have no rights and even after many years she knows that she is a commodity, which is used and often shared by all the men in the family.

My grandmother used to tell me that it was not uncommon for Jatts to buy brides or practice polyandry in the villages. They used to call the bought brides 'bhaya ranis' or something. We are talking about 40/50 years ago. So it looks like this is something that happens in a cyclic fashion.

Anyway, back to Jacquemont's account. Towards the end he goes to Kashmir and claims that people collecting taxes (Jagirdars?) for Ranjit Singh in that area sometimes hung people for not paying. Could it be that capital punishment was banned in the areas directly under M. Ranjit Singh but not necessarily in fringe areas of the empire? I know Avitabile would hang rebellious Pathans in Peshawar when he first went there to govern?

Edited February 21, 2010 by dalsingh101

[tonyhp32]

I was told by the elders in my family that during the 20s and 30s there was also a low number of females for marriage and sometimes a party of men who belonged to one of the wandering tribes such as Ods would come to a village and sell a women from their tribe to one of the Jat batchelors of the village. The expense of the marriage would be borne by the batchelor as would the gifts to the members of her tribe. The 'bride' would then enter the home of her husband and during the night either she would drug her husband or well before he came into her room for his conjugal rights, she would decamp with any valuables from his house and the rest of her tribe would disappear!

[tonyhp32]

As for Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom, you are probably right that the law was much stricter on the fringes of his kingdom than in the core areas of Gujranwala-Lahore-Jullundur. The agricultural classes were treated leniently. On the Afghan frontier the tax collection took the form of a general invasion in which the Sikh army would forcibly take away the produce and livestock of the frontier villages in much the same way as a few decades earlier the Misls collected 'Rakhi' from the western UP area.

[kdsingh80]

Actually If someone look's at the statistics of male female sex ratio of Punjab then the ratio is much better now

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/economy/HumanResource.htm

The sex ratio was 780 in 1910 improved to 876 now

Don't know what was the cause but sex ratio in Punjab

was never equal in 20th century

[HSD1]

Re marriage to Muslian, there are also cases where Sikhs converted for their love of a Muslim women, this is the core reason Maharaj banned relations with Muslim women. Like it or not, a Muslim women is less likely to give up her faith than any other (one the whole, of course their are exceptions), and more than likely, if she has relations with a man, the man will convert to keep her. I know of gorai, kalai and a few Sikh guys who have converted out of love for a Muslim women.

This has more to do with the general muslim attitude towards women. In some asian countries you can come in, bomb their cities, lay waste to their countryside etc, and many of the locals will back off from resisting. In iraq and afghanistan today, it's mostly the hotheads who actually fight it out. Now if you start touching up their women, there is a massive change. Minor insurgency turns into all out insurrection. Back in the old Khalsa Raj, a young Mohammedan probably felt a bit scared when he saw a Sikh Jatha marching down the road. He would probably want to avoid getting involved in jihad as it would be pointless. But if he saw sikh men having relations with muslim women (as the sikhs were away from home, and some of the muslim men had been killed off) the younger muslim generation would have gone ape. This would have made our ancestor's struggle a lot harder. If these muslim women started to convert to sikhi (which many do today, or at least give up on islam to become 'punjabis') then it would have led to pretty much every muslim taking up arms. Why is there no mention of sikh women not being allowed to marry muslim men, especially as most of the women in that scenario end up converting?

The point was that Sikhs (men in particular) will have to consider partners from nonSikh backgrounds in future. I highlighted that particular extract because I found the fact that the children of the union being 'orthodox Sikhs' very interesting.

Depends what his view of an orthodox sikh is. Hell, by what you posted, most of the politically correct, mona hating, hug a jihadi 'orthodox' sikhs in today's world would have stuck out like sore thumbs in the Khalsa Raj described by the frenchman. The point is, was he surprised that sikhs were willing to accept people with non-sikh parents, rather than treat them like mulattoes were (with contempt by the whites if you dont know) as was the norm in britain and france?

Also as we are talking of historic accounts of Sikh-Muslim marital/physical relations, you may want to read up on the excellent Sakhi of the Afghani who wanted Soorbir Sardar Hari Singh Nalwas child. Sardar Ji goes as far as creating a 'maa-puth' rishta with the Afghani, showing the hukum of extending family respect extended to women of other faiths also.

That sakhi has nothing to do with islam/sikh relations. He would have said the same if he had come across a sikh/hindu/gori *deleted word* as well.

Do not believe whatever he wrote. He is biased against Punjab.Every religion was given equal freedom for their beliefs during ranjit singh's time.Amrtisar still has mosques that are over 160 years old.

Punjabi muslims enjoyed freedom as any otehr religion and that is the reason during anglo-sikh wars they proved to be more loyal than eastern Hindus.That was particular true for second anglo-sikh war.

Is that why the loyal muslim punjabis happily joined british officers to carry out guerrilla attacks on the Khalsa whilst it prepared for the second Anglo-Sikh war? Or muslim civilians killing sikh wounded after the battle of Gujerat? Or the fact the sikh army was trapped in predominantly sikh areas as they were worried about what would happen if they went into muslim areas? It is surprising how people casually rebuke nonsikhs by claiming that they are out to get us, especially when they have no evidence. When it comes to those who are really undermining us, these people are quiet.

MOD NOTE: dont use that derogatory term.

Edited March 1, 2010 by zulu
language

[tonyhp32]

HSD,

I agree with most of the views above but your explanation of the reason for the Khalsa injunction not to have relations with Muslim women does not appear to be correct. The injunction came about in 1699 and not during the Misl period. In 1699 the Sikhs had fought with Muslims as well as Hindu Rajas but the opportunity to capture Muslim enemy women would not have be there. Such opportunities only come about during a general conflagration such as the period during the time of Banda Singh Bahadur to the Misls and during partition. Women of all communities were kept in seclusion and Muslims were not known to take their women with them in battle. The only opportunity for a Singh to have relations with a Muslim woman would be-;

1. If the Muslim woman was a prostitute. Pre-1947 the women of the Kanjar caste who provided most of the prostitutes and dancing girls were Muslim. So a Singh having relations with a Muslim woman of that caste would naturally be doing something which went against Sikh teachings ie treating women other than one's wife as mothers and sisters.

2. In rural areas where the population was mixed, then there might be an opportunity for a Singh to have relations with a Muslim woman without the knowledge of her family. In such a case the Singh would as per no.1 above be going against Sikh teachings. The sexual act would then lead him either to elope with the woman and hence disturb communal relations as well as put the Sikh community under the microscope and bring disgrace to them. Their only option even after eloping, in light of the Mughal state's law that a non-Muslim cannot marry a Muslim woman would have been for the Singh to convert.

3. It is well known that Muslims have always used their women to obtain converts from other religions. The Muslim community is not averse to their women taking part in affairs as long as that it ends in marriage and conversion to Islam by the non-Muslim man. This might appear a strong statement but just a few months ago the brother of George Osborne, the Conservatiove party shadow Chancellor married and converted after having had an affair with a Bangladeshi Muslim woman. Now the usual notion is that Muslims are very conservative (no pun intended)and go ape when their women have affairs and yet her family provided her with a lavish wedding and invited guests from their community to the wedding. So in a similar situation the injunction is there to provide that no Singh falls into the temptation offered by Muslim women which inevitably leads to conversion. No doubt some dhimmis here will dispute what I wrote but if you look at the cases of so-called honour killings involving Muslim women, it is either the case that they have been having affairs with Muslim men who would be deemed unsuitable as husbands by their families, or where the male has been a non-Muslim who has refused to convert. In the former there is no advantage to the affair as the man is already a Muslim and in the latter the male refuses to convert hence again no advantage to Islam of the affair.

4. There is a sakhi, I think in Sewa Das's work in which the sangat bring a Sikh before the Guru who had been captured by the Muslims and been forcibly cicumcised by them. The sangat said that he had been made into a Muslim. Guruji asked what the Muslims had done to make him a Muslim. The Sangat said that they had forcibly circumcised him, then they said they cut his hair and finally they fed him halal. To each of these Guruji said that does not make a Sikh into a Muslim. The sangat then asked then what makes a Sikh into a Muslim. Guruji said that it is having relations with a Muslim woman. In the light of the facts above especially nos 2 and 3 the prohibition against relations with a Muslim woman makes sense.

[Laadli Fauj]

back to thread's intended topic please? i was enjoying it

[dalsingh101]

Back to Jacquemont's text.

An interesting conversation. One can get a feel of the famous inquisitive nature of Ranjit Singh from the conversation recorded by Jacquemont. It also subtely highlights the supercillious nature of Sikh-European contact on part of the visitors. Ranjit's skeptical feelings towards the priests in his kingdom are also mentioned.

Ranjit saw from my replies my dislike of talking politics, and changing the subject , he asked abruptly - "Is there a God?"

As I had already said that I knew everything, I did not know what to reply, so I took counsel with M. Ventura who advised me to speak the truth without disguise.

"Without doubt." I replied, relying on commonplaces. "Who has made the heavens and earth and ourselves except God? "

[Ranjit Singh]"But who made God himself?"

[Jacquemont]"My scientific knowledge does not cover these matters. All the priests of Europe could answer your majesty better."

[Ranjit Singh]"The priests of this country would not stop like that. As for me, I do not believe their stories and prefer to remain in ignorance. But do you not believe that there is another world, another life?"

"We shall know that later on; but no one has ever come back from that country if it exists, with the result that no one knows anything about it."

[Ranjit Singh]"Are you all of the same caste in Europe?"

"By no means; there are two sects among the Christians as among the Mussalmans."

[Ranjit Singh]"Do you eat together?"

"Yes, as the Mussalmans do."

[Ranjit Singh]"Do they eat beef in France?"

M. Allard had put me up to this beforehand so I made a grimace at this question.

"Eat beef; I cried, kill so useful an animal! No certainly not in France, where in any case little meat is eaten."

[Ranjit Singh]"But the British eat beef?"

"Oh!, the British, Yes certainly."

And the rajah and his Sikh friends showed themselves shocked, though this was no news to them. However the scandalous behaviour of the British so overcame them that there was a pause in the conversation.

Edited May 13, 2010 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

France, a redundant Moghul emperor and wages.

He asked me how many soldiers there were in France; how many guns, fortresses , cavalry, the scales of pay etc. I carefully refrained from telling him the pay of the generals, for he would have certainly have thought of cutting down the pays of Messrs. Allard and Ventura. He asked me if I has seen the king of Delhi* and, on my replying in the affirmative, enquired what ceremonies took place on my presentation in Darbar. I laughed when I told him of the infinite number of bows I had to make and the absurd picture I presented when invested with khillat#. This amused Ranjit very much.

"But," I continued, "that sort of thing is only done for persons of distinction." And as he appeared a little surprised that the British allowed it to go on, I told him it was the custom in Europe to surround dethroned princes with all their exterior marks of respect in order to console them for their fall, and that these ridiculous ceremonies to which the British lent themselves before the great Mughul did not amount to much, since they were entirely voluntary and the prince merely a prisoner of the British government.

*Akhbar Shah II, 1806 - 1837.

#These ceremonies were abolished by Lord Ellenborough in 1843.

Edited May 13, 2010 by dalsingh101