A

THESIS

THE

SUB

MUTED

PROBLEMATIZING

NIHANGS

B.A.,

The

The

The

©

IN

OF

Sharanjit

University

Faculty

PARTIAL

University

FOR

WITHIN

Sharanjit 19TH

(Asian

Master

August,

(Vancouver)

THE

Kaur

CENTURY

of

of

FULFILLMENT

of

Graduate

Kaur

in

DEGREE

Studies)

THE by

British

THE

of

Sandhra,

the

2008

Arts

Sandhra

Fraser

GREAT

PROBLEMATIC:

Columbia

OF

INDIA

Studies

2008

Valley,

OF

SIKH

THE

2005

COURT REQUIREMENTS

court.

they

Nthangs

I

disobeying

were

also

were

aspect

on

as

were

as

somewhat,

obvious

the There

ruler

dissect

fragmentary,

although

work period

This

Abstract

hope

players

players

the

entire

were

were

able

thus

able

thesis

Ranjit

has

that

one

of

is

in

the

did

immense

no

this

I

a

also

to

history.

even

been

Sikh

to

outside

within

hand,

in

would

orders,

Nihangs

and

continual

is

doubting

have

Singh,

demonstrate

alter

reading

sect

and

an

able

nation,

incorporated

done

altered

the

attempt

the

certain

the

which

not

contradictory.

power

While

of

and

to

and

within

Nihangs

the

on

Sikh

menacing

this balances

that

be

dually

and

even

such

his

the

Sikh

countered

privileges

able

conducting

Ranjit

to

great

thesis,

Maharaja

court,

even

Sikh

the

Nihangs,

look

verbally

dynamics

into

challenge

were

to

court,

of

power

19’

and Singh

find

thwart

court.

the

As

and

at

the

power

active

theirloyal

century

the

and

Ranjit

disturbing

such,

reader

and

my

ever

all

allies

and

and

within

held,

of

the

nature

off

powers

the

within

disturbers

preliminary

power.

physically

what

fighters

famous

by

powers

Singh

of

British

will

period,

correct

the

the

looking

the

of

nature.

presence,

very

the

presence

within

also

Sikh

And a

was

Maharaja,

darbar

for

interests

specific

of

of

and

Sikh

answers,

little

abusing

come

research,

Maharaja

at

and

Thus, thirdly,

such a

court

the

connect

great

this

court

often

of

portraits,

work

protectors

Sikh

to

Sikh

powers.

in

of

the

I

unique

and

I

the

the ruler

also

I

his

would

through

the

I

abusing

argue

there

Ranjit

Nihangs,

court,

them

realized

sect

then

Maharaja

conclusion

land.

argue

19 th

who

there

I sect,

of

during

was,

argue

still

their that

to

so

Singh,

century

their

European

Ranjit Yet,

managed

the

that

that

was

I

much

thwarted

be

the

realized it

himself.

opposite

that

great

dual a

was

despite

that

able

the

very

and

a

Nihangs

very

Singh,

as

dual

so,

although

Nihangs

scattered,

the presence

to

they

to

visitors,

his

Sikh

little

that

specific

that

role

unite

the

and 11 Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

Acknowledgements iv

Chapter One Introduction 1

Chapter Two Systems of Power and Knowledge in the Sikh Court 16

Chapter Three The Ultimate Power: Inside and Outside the Sikh Court 40

Chapter Four Conclusion 82 Works Cited. 87

111 Acknowledgements

I would first and foremost like to acknowledge and thank my family for their unavailing support and encouragement throughout these two years of my MA degree and studies, especially to my father-in-law, Ram Singh Sandhra and mother-in-law, Kuldeep Kaur Sandhra. And of course, a final, but certainly not least, thank you to my loving husband Jassa for always making me laugh no matter the level of stress I was under.

This thesis would not have been possible without the great support and advice of my supervisor Professor Fran Harlow, who always took heed of my constant badgering and emails. As I have been lucky enough to be amidst such great scholars within the Asian Studies department, I would also like to thank those who have offered me advice and assistance here and there: Professor Anne Murphy (who assisted me with the more difficult Punjabi translations and who also has had to put up with my constant badgering via email), Professor Harjot Oberoi, Professor Sadhu Binning and Professor Adheesh Sathaye. I also want to send a fmal thanks to the graduate secretary in the Asian Studies department, Jasmina, who has always been available to answer all of my questions, and give any advice and help whenever needed. Chapter 1 Introduction

They are, without any exception, the most insolent and worthless race of people in all India. They are religious fanatics, and acknowledge no ruler and no laws but their own; think nothing of robbery, or even murder, should they happen to be in the humour for it. They move about constantly, armed to the teeth, and it is not an unconmion thing to see them riding about with a drawn sword in each hand, two more in their belt, a matchlock at their back, and three of four pair of quoits fastened round their turbans.

Sir LepelGriffin,Ranjit Singh’

Although somewhat extreme and certainly biased, this description by the military secretary to the Earl of Auckland, W.G. Osborne, is certainly representative of the views most European visitors to the court of Maharaja Ranjit Singh expressed when coming across the Sikh sect of the AkalilNihangs (hereby, they will only be referred to as the

Nthangs with the exception to the cases where I make reference to outside observers of the sect). Indeed, there are several written accounts based on European visitors to the court who described the Nihangs in such negative terms. Sir Lepel Griffin for example, having written on the life and times of Ranjit Singh, also described the Nihangs in negative terms, though not to the extent as Osborne: “These were a fanatical body of

devotees. . . [when] excited by hemp, were generally the first to storm a town. . .but they

Sir Lepel Griffin, Ranjit Singh (London: Clarendon Press, 1892) 86.

1

London:

Sinde, &

6

II

was

appear. 6 who

In

reference

terms:

control to

Nihangs,

was

were

West (London:

fact,

live

later

came

a

Afghanistan,

lawless

Publishing

guest

Savill

Edward

See:

Alexander on

Emily

assassinated

when

them.” 3

Spottiswoods

whom

to

anything

into

Von

and

in

the

Eden,

reading

and

Thornton,

had

sanguinary Their

class called

seem Singhs Ranjit

Those

Orlich,

contact

Company,

Edwards,

Even

the

Bumes

Nihangs

she

uncertain.” 2

in

Up

they

Punjab

they

is

Kabul. to

fanaticism,

described

Khalasa;

the

Sikhs

&

Captain

or

Singh’

almost

an

called

be

A

(1805-1841),

with

not

Co,

Country:

followers

1859;

gazetteer

have

official

1976;

at

as

class,

and

been

who

1866)

war

Acalis,

the

a

Leonard,

s

all

or the

they

unique

or

not

court,

Likewise,

and

Bumes

as

adhere

with

Elphinstone,

vigorously

Nihangs,

Letters

Hodson, 27.

neighbouring the

of

British

of

“an

gained

an

are

the

would

or

Guru

all

accounts

East

Travels

she

rebellious

less

immortals,

Countries

to alarming

observes, 4

written

mankind..

Major

government

the

India

was

Govind.

have

when

by

fanatical

the

coerced

Mountstuart,

in

original

states

plunder

to

equally

India,

W.S.R,

Company word

of

rendered

adjacent

her

Emily

class

borders

and

Sikh

European

.They

Of

(London,

by

and

sister

Including

“fanatic”

doctrines

sometimes

Twelve

these

Runjeet

or

source

of

sect,

astonished

An

warlike

to

diplomat

Eden,

are

the

from

on

force.

people,

India

Account

W.H latter,

a

country

insanity,

Years

describing

visitors

Sinde

lawless

the

Singh. 5

of

such

sister

on

is

then

in .

Allen,

Nihungs. Nanac

.

Upper

a

almost

and

the

of

of

who

Punjab

and

by

peculiar

desolate,

the

as

a

the

north-west:

of

and

and

to

Soldier’s

Runjeet

the

1844)

the

a

Provinces

make

Kingdom

are

the

Ranjit

them

gazetteer

and they

certainly

Punjab,

behaviour

Earl

135.

Afghanistan

it

Life

under

even

Singh’

including

a

of

of

of

Lahore:

rule

in

Caubul

India

makes

bound

Auckland

India,

cannot

such

of

s

never

Vol.

who

court

East

the

to 2

Sicques,

and

explain

Because

their

religious

asserting

key

on

example

Nthangs’

just

within

description

European

is

dangerous

Nihangs,

better

its

the

players

“fanatics.”

identity

Dependencies

Tigers,

other

Unlike Sikhism,

the

By

so

groups described

why

their

role

it

sources

nature

little

and

using

not

in

is

hand,

or

are

the

as

own

certainly

the

the

Thieves,

lawless

The

only

in

is

but

ambiguous,

both

in

term

European

of

court,

historical

they

known

is

India,

as

Persia,

independence

term

also

the

in

inaccurate.

being

insiders

New

problematic

terms

also

Sikh

simple

Nihangs

providing

in

the

problematic

Tartary

of

York:

terms

problematic, accounts

proved

development

sect;

the

contributing

Nihangs

of

and

to

Paigrave

their

history

and

The

blue

deduce

and

of

however,

outsiders

military

is

to

India,

the

presence

as

issues

so

are power.

has

dress be

Macmillan,

the

of

Nihangs’

fitting.

rather

a

that

London:

unique

to

and

more

the

challenging

strength

sole

coming

for

of

their

of

the

growth

Nihangs,

of

identity,

Ranjit

example,

than

precedence

Where

source

firstly

1815;

the

problematic

Nihangs

2004.

role

to

especially,

concluding

Nihangs

of

Singh’s

or

within

such

presence

on

to

because

and

there

Madra,

other

or

assess

the

were

in

a

the

therefore

Ranjit

conclusion

are

within

presence

one

court

this

sects

Amandeep

as

nature

indeed

most

that

to

the

no

outsiders

hand,

thesis

Ranjit

and

is

Singh’s

nature

sources

the

Ranjit

their

issues

yet

of

a

with

ambiguous

and

the

Nihangs

as

troublesome,

based

the

Singh

another

presence

of

Parmjit

it

Singh’

of

Nthangs

concerning

Sikhism. court.

which

silver

is

the

the

solely

a

in

were

fitting

key

Singh,

court,

s

The

quoits

court

were

on 3

And

Nihang

exploring

as

instead

court,

great

primary

Although

Ranjit

qualities

court.

the

that

into

culture. description

which

an

Nihangs

it

the

the

expression

embarrassment

or

was

Despite

Singh’s

Rather

be

sect encircle

most

source

Nthangs’

Despite

only

of

Ranjit

the

an

the

as

the

as

were

exploration

Nihangs,

discussing fascinating

Nihangs’

than

one

British

there

court.

of Nihangs,

their

Singh’s

of

this,

military

role

both

unique

the

looking

is

large

even,

And

there

and

no

within

discourse

under

players

problematic

court

the

there

of

aspects

evidence

aspect

it

other

turbans.

strength

and

exists

solely

the

is

identity

the

the

as

here

is

within

posed

Sikh

European

of

no

of

an

of

leadership

court

plenty

at

Once

for

explaining

also

power

a

this

expression

doubting

the

role

ruler

and

discourse

a

Ranjit

Ranjit

of

potential

that

sect

history

of

emergence

again,

as

Ranjit

of

efforts

in

evidence

players

of

the

emerge.

Punjab,

Singh’

the

that

Singh,

the

Akali

of

of

the

and

term

Singh.

threat

19 th

to

this

such

power

nature

term

s

within,

framework

embellish

of

they

and

Phula

Maharaja

century.

court

Indeed

problematic

sect

the

power to

It

problematic

sources

in

of

were

the

is

was

Nihang

as

Singh

and

the

the

thus

fascinating

Maharaja

well

However,

in

the

Ranjit

also

early

in

elaborate

thus

of

relation

within

which

(176

fact

is

negative

Ranjit

as

sect,

equally

a

partners

modem

is

outsiders

Singh

fitting

a

1-1823),

and

a

provides

this

key

this

I

in

to

Singh

fitting

Nihang

will

the

and

the

his

a

player

thesis

framework

and

description.

of

Punjab.

source

be

sense

of

Sikh

court.

disruptive

were

and

Ranjit

his

insight

material

the

will

in

his

court

that

of

a 4

Society

overall

8 Ascetics

sentiment,

common

militaristic

political

rise

not

miracle

competition

society. 7

Nihangs

sects,

rivalled,

(in/out)

presence

Furthermore,

which

Singh’

gain

of

Indian

Vol.

the

and

David such

Fora

misconception

will

s

In

contests

the

changes,

any position

have court,

Warrior

if

98

of

Nihangs

Indian

terms

ones..

concept

general

not

more

militant

demonstrate

N.

(1978)

between

his

political

in

always

Lorenzen,

exceeded

as

Empire

entire

detailed

between

of

developing

.is,

within

ascetics

and,

discussions

of

well

64.

are

the

that

groups

warrior to

different

strength

been

court,

“[w]hat

(Cambridge

indeed

put

Indian

Hindu

as

look

“Warrior

the

the

that

leaders

their

in

it

asceticism

considered

at

on in

court,

Nihangs’

India

the

tautologically,

warrior

I

of

a

part

historical

until

most

the will

religious

distinguishes

history

secondary

Ascetics

the

nature

Press,

emergence

of

the

can

of

present

asceticism

the

cases,

and

Sikh

rival

of such

Nihangs

powerful

2006).

be

somewhat

in

Mughal

of

under

warriors

tradition

sects,

Indian

rulers

school.” 8

traced

role

the

comes

a

the

of

their

history.

Though

emerged

militaristic

what

such

Sikh

“usually

as

argument

History,”

ascetics

power

as

Empire

presence

back

rivals,

militarism-the

circumstances of

warrior

as

outside

well.

ruler’s

However,

Pinch’s

the

as

a

Nomadic

to

in

result

within

a

Journal

capped

emergence

result

collapsed

sects India,

and

religious

sixth

that

in

the

main

power

of

thus

19 th

are

(or

because

this

see

norm

such

such

century

of

warrior

focus

social,

by

helpful

challenge)

fact

the

Vijay century

outsiders

and

19 th

groups

sects

in

theological

warrior

American

of

within

is

that

the

the

to

Pinch’s

of

century

rebellious

in

BC

economic,

arise.

ascetics

address

understanding

their

1

Punjab.

of

military

powerful

from

8 th

caused

courtly

of

ascetics

anti-Muslim

Oriental

Warrior

century.

the

own

context

debates

the

non-

such

religious

and

court

by

Indian

unique

did

as

the

The

and

the 5

10 chaos

case

same

ascetics political

India these

empire

ascetic

empire,

precursor

addition

Hindu bandits,

ascetic/religious

groups organization

of

circumstances

Company.” states

as

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

tradition

Sikhs

groups:

Thus,

and

were

were

was

they

crisis,

whose

to

for

sect

63. under

still

63.

thus

merged,

in

did

more

and

the

the

it

“first

claim

Punjab

more

competition,

regarded

was

doctrines,

emerge

rise

the

18 th

aims

the

Whereas

prevalent,

in

more

during

of

in

disruptive

century

during

to

the

areas

are

is

the

warrior

religious

more

warrior

majority

demonstrative

their

prevalent

as

border

warrior

the

such

the

religious

political

in

they

so

central

confused

ascetics.

effects

comparison

collapse

ascetics

as

during motivation

of

areas

“degenerate

Rajasthan,

ascetic

reason

these

persecution

crises,

characteristic.” 9

of

of

such

the

of

formation

with

conquest

such

cases

groupings

for

the

“sporadically

to

is

with

as

contempt,

other

Bengal,

the

exceedingly

into

administrative

warrior

Punjab

often

the

from

emergence

and

of

groups

groups

final

emerged

the

end

and

colonial

where

royal

Once

sects

viewing

chaotic

successor

up

collapse

of

the

dubious.” 1 °

which

emerging

courts

these

moving

mercenary

and

structure

the

throughout

Maratha

exploitation

them

period

groups

success

emerged

religious

of

was

states

away

the

as The

during

and

provinces.

also

between

soldiers,

of

heretics.

Mughal

of

of

India

under

economies from

orthodox

religious

by

military

the

militant

another

political

the

due

Mughal

the

the

or

the

The

In

East

to

even

of 6 (1991) 13

12

(ie.

“ascetics,”

British

structure, presented

those

“ritually

Thus,

bandits

changed

powerful

chaos

significant

origins

the

deaths

ritual

Sikhs

232.

who

Thugs

infusing

Sandra

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Raj

Warrior

of

as

as

strangled

thagi,

worship

the

court

to

Aurangzeb

but

they

stole

predating

in

over

that

71.

68.

the

B.

are

the

thags

of

Freitag,

the

Punjab

too

of

the

children.” 13

British:

the

ascetics

predominantly

other

view

of

Maharaja

their

act,

stood

were

sect

Indian

the

this

and

“Crime

of

groups

in

to

robbery

thrived,

“...as

goddess

share

outside

politically

the

as

the

“Thag”

Ranjit

social

What

an

Ranjit

in

British,

l8

of

features

representatives

the

important

referred

victims,”

and

the

warrior

Singh,”

Kali,

order.” 14

and

the

Social

made

Singh.

chaotic

normal

emerged

what

person,

early

etc)

with

Order

thugs

to

ascetics

thus

challenge

or

Despite

was

is

as

period

19 th

fabric

other

“people

of

what

thagi

bandits

“mark[ing]

as

significant

of

believed

Colonial

centuries,

a

an

as

groups

powerful

of

of

not

were

was

to

well.” 2

alternative

who

the

society.

or

the

having

North

a

to

emphasized.

robbers

18111

is

native

in

the

exclusive

poisoned

during

be

the

India

As

India,”

presence

political

century,

the

Although

the

political

challenging

such,

term

who,

the

rituallreligious

formal

such

Modern

their

authority

heyday

despite

In

coined

due

heyday

it

in

as

the

both

and

is

the

religious

victims

Asian

Thugs

to

more

British

presence

the

cultural

British

by

of

the

the

of

not

Studies

the

Indians.

political

the

and

Nihang’s

aspects

cases

and

only

title

view,

they

even

of

of

for 7

17

16

15

Michel

thesis.

thugs

court,

these

like

as

appeal.” 16

“put

a

camouflaged

almost

their

threatening

ascetics,

warrior

sense

they

their

the

troublesome

as

local

and

One

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Foucault.

As

were

impossible

of

manifestations

lie ascetics

warrior

Thugs

as Thugs,

this

protection

cannot

disguises.

236.

235.

233.

234.

to

to

has

not

as

British

thesis

the

were

local

been

only

Though

and

ascetic

as

discuss

figures

British

to

the

is

Thugs,

and

As

root

authority,”

unlawful,

peasants.” 15

also

demonstrated

of an

British

counterparts,

such,

Foucault’s

authority,

as

as

such

theories

out

exploration

protectors

“admirable

they

British

under

“administrators

power,

believed,

but

they

often

Because

of

they

they

perceptions

so

ordinary

most

of

power

also

paradoxically,

of

it

far

could

their

and

also

is were

the

were

famous

when

“paradoxically.

important these

without

awesome

discourses

local

asserted

police

not

naturally

a commonly

focused

briefly troublesome,

Thugs,

be

studies

villages,

procedures,

identified,

looking

British

to

local

opponents.” 7

of

looking

granted

define

as

more

have

complained power

.

did

.exercised

power

and

authorities

at

even

so

power

been

warrior

the

and

thus,

power,

at

for

on

within

and

warrior

influential

threatening

thus

they

done

religion.

they

in

a

that

authority.

ascetics,

as

powerful

even

relation

captured,

Ranjit

were

under

they

were

ascetics

such

admired

Like

works

not

Singh’

presence

doubly

provided

men

to

Much

with

warrior

only

and

this

of

were

s 8

19

18

does

court.

power

relation

Ranjit

boundaries

authoritarian

element

In

that

principle,

stresses

institutional

other

not

there

In

model

Singh’s Ibid.,

John

to

take

his

emerges

words,

is

groups

are

S.

all

of that

14.

expansion

Ransom,

into

which

methods,

settings

non

the

limits,

court

rather Thus

constituted

itself, political

the

The

power

though

when

account

activities

such

aggression.

establishment

conception

provides

we

as

Foucault’s

the

whenever-that

and

such

resides

of

and

as

a

power,

the

have

such

transgression

source

the

that

the

risks

“those

as

thus, sovereignty

of

contract-power,

figures

contract-power

even

Nihangs,

prisons

creates

power

of

provides

Discipline

under

Although

becoming

of

for

power

ignoring

exercise

sovereignty,

is-it

more

maintaining

of

a

of

will

what

or

sovereignty

goes

its

as

it authority

(London:

this

has

oppression

hospitals,

insight

this

is

point

an

be

their

of

limit.’ 9 is

with beyond

Foucault’

unlimited

original

power traceable

theory

model,

called

and

of

contractual

Duke

oppression

into

the

reach

articulation.

the

the

whenever

one

or

that right

can

balances

a

the University

Foucault

contract,

s

higher

contract-power:

terms

amounts

to

further

broad

beyond

are

certainly

power

that

this

as

agreements

of

not

it

A

is

institutional

its

source.” 8

underlying

of

as

Press,

over-extends

the

stresses

expansion

given

power

their

mode of

limit,

captured

matrix

power

contract.

apply

power,

1997)

up

power

or

so

of

that

of

in

especially

to

Foucault

to

Ranjit

14.

by

theme

of

power,

the

maintain

the

the

into

this

rights

contract

nature

model

Singh’s

which

contract-

as

argues

with

and

certain

“in

of

he 9

20

constant

power

Foucault,

sources

which,

these

would

Nihangs,

As

such

to

focuses

their

be

such,

new

as

violation

assessed

as

Ibid.,

contradict

Although

as

of

purpose

the

only

such

Ranjit

stresses

even

Foucault

sources

powers

16.

Nihangs,

on

a

though

believe,

sovereignty.” 21 are

new

instruments,

production

In

or

great

Singh

of the

Thomas

and

that

the

recognition.” 2 °

such

of

the

argues,

man.

mechanism

roles

power

seventeenth

desire,

which

often

there

the

and

other,

absolutely

as

And

of

Hobbes’

of

Nihangs

the

his

quite

contradicted

clash

are

an

(and

emerged

power

that

more

sovereignty

this

court

of

important

limits

different

and

incompatible

power

in

with

“the

In

feverish

illegitimate

interest

represented

within

the

other

were

eighteenth

as

to

relentless

that

possessed

case

and

phenomenon,

apparatuses,

the

sources

engaged

words,

ie.

of

a

pursuit lies

power

certainly

of

sovereignty,

with

Ranjit

Ranjit

centuries,

sources

more

the

an

pursuit

of

of.

whereas

the

emerging

in

of

1

any power

.

and

9 th

.

Singh.

Singh

completely

relations

the

in

such

power

clashed

of

century

individual

we

the

of

which

emergence...

Foucault

power;

the

in

power a

have

and

human

contract-power

makes

element

their

of

contract-power

with

is

his

Punj

novel

the

also,

for

becomes

own

has.

court.

psyche,

argues

the

him

ab,

of

I

it

of

more

Hobbes

a

right:

is

the

power

concerned

Indeed,

these

that

the

he

Nihangs),

with

orthodox

model

too,

what

only

which

defined sources,

the

it

like

was

about

needs 10

26

24

Jersey:

22

21

and

can

argument,

and

holds,

human

involved,

the

power,

cancelled

satisfied:

men,

they

from

by

all

be

every

other kinds

if

every

are

Humanities

A

and

the

arguing

limited

Ibid.,

Ibid., Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Piotr

Ibid.,

desire

the

‘s

reduced

(through

other

of

man

power

they “[t]he

because

individual

out

Hobbes

Hoffman, only

46.

5.

5.

15.

16.

possible

for

by

as

that

also

would

Press, man;

way

effectiveness

were

explained

the

power,

to

also

all

“sheer

within

was

The

nothing.” 23

has powers

1996)

and

for

future

men

simply

to

asserts

Quest

problematic

power

be

over he

thus,

mechanical

5.

this

desire

in

limited,

developments.” 22

also

for

of

“destroy

himself

the

of

context,

that

“[w]hen

the

The

to

Power:

discusses

my

the

following:

truly

even

other.” 24

problem

then

powers-be as

same

strength,”)

Hobbes,

in

one

absolute

man

be

my

the

the

somebody

effective

the

another.” 25

thing,

powers

As

absolute

would

state

“If

resides

Descartes,

According

absolute

such,

they

power

A

whereas

it

of

were

eventually

means clash

is

would

nature.” 26

within

‘natural’

power

according

Despite

if

and

refers

power

to

one

to

with

when

that

the

exercise

have

Hobbes,

this

which

man

to

Emergence

or

the

which

have

Hobbes’

Yet,

no

to

“the

powers

common

to

‘instrumental’-is

has

powers

desire

Hobbes

the

impose

much

power

to

this

kind

the

“excess”

fear

sovereignty

of

analysis

held

can

desire

sovereignty

Modernity

trait

like

of

of

within

competition

definition

these

power

another

truly

equally

Foucault’s

amongst

power

for

on

limits

a

be

thus

(New

has

power

state,

the

each

man

are

of

over

11 all

27

the

framework

even

Oriental

Thus,

knowledge

which

power

powerful

about

exercising

powerful

upon

19 th

Orient

century

in

the

A.” 27

the

Ibid.,

Said

in

the

Edward

countries.

terms

term

presence,

submerged

presence

Orient,

of

absence

power

Therefore,

needs

47.

believes

Punjab,

false

correspondence,

principally,

Orient,

“orientalism,” ideas

the

of

Said,

despite

careful

over

phenomenon

knowledge.

Despite

knowledge.

is

of

was

about

to

it

itself

but

imposed

in

such

a

can

Punjab,

have

contrast sovereign’s

also

with

its

definition.

the

not

the

indeed

into

truths,

falseness,

been

Orient

limiting

with

refers

the

or

of

It

lack

on

the

Indeed,

institutional

lack

Orientalism was

to

internal

a

the

them.

support

the

Nthangs

(the

correspondence

Hobbes’s

of

to

Hence,

ultimate

thereof,

Western

precursor

and

West’s

true

the

as

East

Said

Looking

consistency

being

challenging

beliefs

the

knowledge

as

outwardlinward

as

with

settings

goes

power

focus,

power

career)

knowledge analysis

I

a

to

study

a

means at

and

on

between

Western

“real”

of

Hobbes’

places

can

over

such

to

despite

it

“knowledge”

Orientalism

to

over

that

here

explain

be

for

Orient.

Ranjit

the

as

and

Orientalism

more

although

control limited

the

deals

hegemonic or

problematic

educational

analysis

Orient

intelligence

beyond

Orient,

how

Singh.

emphasis

and

of

if

which

this

exists

Ranjit

its

another

and

any

within

the

Said

control

knowledge institutions

,

Orient.

the

and

on

within

on

Singh

argues

the

equally

the

West the

yet

over

context

But

Orient

role

the

was

that

gains

over

such

and

this

of

12 of

28

objects,

challenging

on

with

dominance

furthermore,

over

information

more

Orientals

power

allowed

the

suitable

umbrella

museums:

aspects

colonial

the

the

power

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Edward

Simply

were

and

Nihangs

East

for

for

is

of

of

“Under

over

7.

36.

presence

all

what

imperialism

study

and

present,

requires

office.” 29 Western

the

Ranjit

W.

through

put,

objects

another.

Said,

expression control.” 3 °

role

makes

in

“power

the

Singh’s

the

outside as

Orientalism

more

hegemony

knowledge,

as

Thus,

over

general

it

insiders

their academy,

and

Looking

was

knowledge,

is

Though

which

of

court,

for

of

colonialism

always

management

the

such

heading

(New

the

Said,

over

of

West’s

the

at

a

which

for

court.

the

knowledge,

Said’s

given

York:

such

power

the

it

underlying

display

court,

and

of

was

to

in

Orient..

immense

Vintage

a

knowledge

species

overall

easy

theory so

occur:

over turn,

through

they

in

in

as

and

the

Books,

something. an

legitimized

theme

.there

can

analysis

within

were

being

“knowledge

knowledge

increasingly

museum

profitable;

knowledge

of

have

1979)

emerged

is

thus

the

a

the

the

benefactor

looks

power

Orient,

5.

Power

able

their

19 th

[and]

seeking

of

of

knowledge

only

profitable

at

a

the

century

to

subject

own

together

complex

for

Western

is

and

gain

Orient

that

to

power

of

reconstruction

power

within

power

knowledge,

the

Punjab discourses

races

dialectic

gives

constitute

Orient

which

dominance

over

knowledge

and

the

and

or

power,

context,

of

of

and

in 13

31

this

sect

terms

systems,

of

in

knowledge

privileges;

Nihangs

his

century

ultimate

the

how

figures

authorities.

balances

that

challenging

the

power,

problematic

was works

species’

power

of

Nihangs

A.

as

Punjab,

power

able

etc.

had

sovereign

Van

of

Foucault

on

were

and

they

resided

The

power

After

Ginkel,

access

to

cosmos.” 3 ’

the

Ranjit

by

by

yet,

accumulate

in

had

what

the

theories

nature

first,

addressing

and assessing

power

in

in

General

and

to and

problematic

gained

Singh.

proved terms

their

all

out

in

worked

Hobbes,

of

Yet,

and

the

Chapter

in

identity.

Principles

power,

dual

such

in

of

As

Ranj

terms

to

outlooks

inner

its within

order

those

such,

be

role

within

workings,

Nihangs.

power

as

it

Two,

it

of

the

workings

Singh’

well

of

to

is

who

this

as

this

political

Human

most

into

evident

assert

Ranjit

outsiders

and

explore

as

simple

have

thesis

s

Firstly,

the

structure,

Said,

court,

challenge

challenging

Power

their

of

Singh’s

clout

that

nature

more,

the

will

explanation

the

of

are

the

as

own

(London:

although

court,

the

structure

in

demonstrate

members

certainly

the

and

thesis

of

Ranjit

court.

late

power

court,

to

power

key

those

in

Praeger

his

1

will

8 th,

Ranjit

addition

of

And

Singh’

players,

of

the

and applicable

authority,

within

power

as

who

but

Ranjit

explore

Publishers,

the

Nihangs

when

demonstrated

realign

Singh

especially

s

challenge

problematic

authority

to

the

its

lies

Singh’s

looking

gaining

how

intelligence

and

to

court,

represented

such

theories

used

1999)

the

thus

this

early

such

through

balances

court

nature

the

the

at

certain

by

115.

stance

Sikh limiting

each

on

such

19 th

in

the

the

of

14 of

Punjab,

thus

Indeed,

the

insiders

explored

nature

number

sect

Nihangs

privileges.

Singh

terms

players

court

able

proved

of

of

in

thus, because

Chapter

of

within

of

to

were

the

is

their

particular,

power

the

specific

And

demonstrative

challenge

to

Nthang

challenging

role

court,

be a

the

the

through as

cause

Three

a

will

as

court,

distinct

incidents

Nihangs

were

sect

I

insiders,

Ranjit

hope

of

will

be

intelligence

disturbance

Ranjit

specifically

and

utilized

of

demonstrated,

element

look

to

Singh

took

them

in

then

demonstrate

because

this

Singh’s

at

readily

advantage

being

the

two

and

chapter.

in

within

for

in

role

a

the

his

oppositional

terms

discourse

own

a

the

it

by

unique

of

court

Nihangs,

how was

Ranjit

Ranjit

As

British

of

power,

the

of

their

because

outsiders,

the

and

the

Nihangs

discourse

of

Singh’s

in

Nihangs

especially.

under aspects:

roles

power

become

and

power.

terms

of

the

within

as

of

the

these

court,

and

of

of

After

power

role

outsiders

the

the

a

leadership

battle,

power

powerful

I

privileges

Sikh role

privileges

will

the

and

and

having

of

court,

of

make

they

behaviour

in

then

court,

that

of

the

the

presence

the

of

explored

they

held

of

after

they

that

reference

Nihangs

19

the Akali

court.

his

held

certain

the

having

Nihang

century.

were

outside

court.

in

Phula

the

In

as

as

to

15 a

knowledge

administrators,

knowledge

intelligence

were

of

region

annex

British

demonstrative

the

knowledge,

Said’s

without

discourse

This

Chapter

the

late

formed,

dissertation

entire

Punjab

of

arguments

dominance

first

8,

Punjab

of

acquired

utilized

2

and

Sikh then

and

power,

assessing

and

following

of

the

knowledge

remained

early

there

the

kingdom

cannot

thus,

can

control

occurring

by

Systems

through

and

immense

be

Ranjit

19 th

is

the the

Ranjit

thus

claim

used

no

through

discourses

systems

unscathed

centuries

can

gaining

doubting

the

Singh

throughout

a

of

in

power

Singh’s

be to

challenging

impressive

terms

Power

prove

credited

territorial

of

can

through

through

up

which

that

of

power

of

death

be

that

power

India

until

and

assessing

Ranjit

discussed

to

military.

presence

Ranjit

the the

organization,

within

such

in

the

1849

during

Knowledge

that

1839.

Nihangs

court

Singh’s

impressive

systems

Singh’s

when

the

followed.

the

Through

in

to

this

attained.

Ranjit

three

accumulation

Ranjit

Sikh

were

control

the

same

and

of

own

systems

Singh’s

court

parts:

British

knowledge

in

These

each

Singh

a

thirdly,

Unlike

period,

network

distinct

of

the

itself.

the

of

the

systems

were

and

building

of

Sikh

of

these

the

the

controlling

the

Sikh

knowledge

part

power

of

And

his

was

situation

finally

systems

North-West

spies

methods

Court

kingdom

court,

of

of

if

and

through

a

Edward

and

able

uniting

of

of

of

which

in

to 16

1780-1870, 32

nature.

Britishtravellers

information

effectively

operators:

dealing

As

acute

happenings

kingdom

sources

entering

historians,

Ranjit

Singh

used

a

result

Sikh

to

Ibid.,

C.A.

was

Singh

with

Though

of

gain

(New

and

would

“The

to

Bayly,

state

information

of

is

133.

able

and

around

British

exiting

knowledge

confront

how

are

this

York:

result

who

disinformation

also

to

the

only

Empire

extensive,

need

Ranjit

forge

Cambridge

him:

accounts

visitors

his

alerted

were

maintain

was

British

and to

from

kingdom,

his

“The

on

Singh

control

witness

a

Information:

what

his

to

Ranjit

kingdom

sophisticated

University,

such

of

intrigues

very

his

intact,

of

court,

not

British

has

intelligence,

his

visitors.

kingdom,

but

to

Singh

emergence..

only

Ranjit

been

own” 33

as

Intelligence into

his

how

1996)

and

travellers

long

was

to

people,

secret

one

Indeed,

less

he

through

Singh’

the

143.

making

aware

as

There

was

Ranjit

which

emphasized,

importance

he

Gathering

.of

service

as

and

s

Ranjit

also

was

a

of

which

suspicious

well

are

great

more

Singh held

administrators

all

able

aware

numerous

which

and

as

travellers

Singh

use

great

he

robust

of

was his

to

especially

Social

could

of

controlling

of

Ranjit

control

and

(potential)

power.

was

especially

his

at

and

examples

Communication

knowledge

all

(especially

feed

intelligence

aware

visiting

Singh

diplomatically

times

and

amongst

rumours,

intelligence.” 32

enemies,

gain

cautious

that

used

of

the

the

British)

seeking

his

valuable

European

in

court

most

India

Ranjit

in

of 17

16.

God,

British,

Indian

he

certainly

in

always

accomplishments.” 35 the

Lord

travels

questions examined travels,

described

the

exclaimed,

extent

[andj

William

end,

I

N.M

Ibid.,

H.L.O

of

was

Europe,

V.

have

asked

was

Jacquemont,

Ranjit

of

the

me

he

Jacquemont,

the

Khilani,

37.

strategic

Garrett,

his

seen.

aware

could

“His

extent

about

Bentinck,

me

devil.” 36

Bonaparte,

control

Singh

Rise when

.

conversation

The

.He

question,

of

their

of

Indeed,

in

of

Ranjit

Punjab

as

posed,

remaining

questions

has

the

I

over

the

his

had

climate,

he

Sikh

this

French

asked

age,

goes

in

a

the

Singh’

and

last

it

Hundred

Power

allowing

world

is

is

his

Governors

he

gain left

me

riches,

on

kind,

clear

like

scientist

s

habits,

was

to

in

hospitality

a

France

in

Years

as

Punjab,

hundred a

say,

courteous,

that

general

visitors

nightmare,

berated

products,

much

what

Ago,

for

of

“He

he

and

(Delhi:

Madras

was

example,

knowledge

(Punjab:

thousand

and

to

he

as

asked

with:

what

and

power,

enter

well

was not

he

Independent

the

“Ranjit

and

countries

generous

me

is

Offeat

solely

doing

next,

as

his

visited

almost

questions

etc.” 34

a

Bombay,

his

as

kingdom,

hundred

Master

possible.

hell,

interested

questioned

before

unique

Publishing

Ranjit

to

I

the

Based

had

paradise,

all

Printers,

about

first

and

questions

he

enquiring

his

since

Ranjit

Singh

Jacquemont

on

Company,

in

came

lastly

inquisitive

guests,

me

India,

1971) the

the

seen,

the

Singh

about in

to

kinds

personal

his

about

36.

nature

soul,

the

1831

India,

so

1990)

and

my

that

of

and

18 as

West

enabled

powers

knowledge

for

the

also

doubting

somewhat

strength,

to

weaponry

curiosity.” 37

questions, describes,

Singh

Osborne,

example Maharaja’s

Publishing,

interested in W.G.

Captain Ibid.,

Upon

with

When

him

as

that

1839,

Osborne

relaxed

“our

but he 79.

Osborne,

well

observed

for

to

which

Ranjit meeting

Leopold Ranjit

1976)

had

W.G.

without

in

maintain

insatiable

he

time

example,

as

gaining

in

also

settings nature

172.

Singh

brought the

The

Osborne,

Singh’

was terms

Von

that

Ranjit

the

was personal

Court himself

Orlich,

principally

knowledge

curiosity

seeking

was

had

“[t]he

slightest

of

s

of

also with

and

concerns

Singh,

meetings

matters

the

endowed once

Travels

bombarded nature

Camp

in

want

him,

knowledge

military

and

high

chance

again

most

occupied of

of relating

in

of

the

and

thirst

of

with his

Ranjeet

him,

station.” 39

India

education

European

very

nature

the

secretary

questions

of

potential

with

visiting for

Including

and

on

Earl

being

to in

Singh,

strategic

knowledge,

issues

his

of

answering

questions

prudence

of

In

was

the

visitors

to

able

(Delhi: court.

foreigners

had

enemy,

Auckland. 38 other

Sinde

the

Company

such

covered

in

political to

Earl and the

Heritage

Captain

words,

and

from

satisfy

to

Runjeet’

as:

the

as kinds

the

the

of

knowledge well and

the

by

British. the

Punjab,

Despite

army

implications

Auckland court

Publishers,

Von

his

Leopold

the

kinds

officials,

of

as

Maharaja

s

insatiable

innumerable

the

questions

splendid

Orlich

and were

(Lahore:

of

the

extent

of the

1973)

Von

visited

artillery

there

struck

pleasant

mankind

attributed

as

as level

East

mental

he Orlich

79.

he

he

of

is Ranjit

&

by

posed

was

of

no

and

and

19 its Ranjit Singh’s success to the great knowledge he had attained throughout his life. Charles

Baron Hugel, a German scientist, was yet another visitor to the court who would become victim to Ranjit Singh’s bombardment of questions, as he observed, “[h]e rarely spoke of

India or the English territories there, but chiefly asked my opinion of his own country, his army, the European officers in his service, and the design of foreign countries and very distant °4lands.” The “gruelling examination” between Ranjit Singh and Hugel lasted for one hour when all the while, Hugel “felt the Maharaja’s single eye piercing into his innermost 4thoughts.” The Baron Captain Murray, yet another visitor to the court, also observed how’ Ranjit Singh was keen on keeping account of all matters relating to the court: “With great natural intelligence and a wonderfully quick apprehension, his

memory was excellent .. . He audited all the revenue accounts, and the tenacity of his memory enabled him to follow the most complicated 42statements.” Dr. W.L M’Gregor was also impressed upon witnessing the Maharaja’s uninhibited devotion to all matters concerning the court:

Shouldthe affairsof the Staterequirehis attention,Runjeetis readyat all timesduringthe day and night,and it is not unusual for him to orderhis secretaryandPrimeMinisterto carrythe designson whichhe has been meditatingduringthe night, into executionbefore43day-break.

S.P Singh and Harish Sharma, Europeans and Maharaja Ranjit Singh, (Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University, 2001) 41. 41 Ibid., 105. 42 Ibid., 43. Ibid.

20 Of the hundreds of visitors to Ranjit Singh’s court, each and every individual would be subject to the Maharaja’s thirst for knowledge; and as such, through the intelligence and knowledge he had gained, he also grew more powerful.

Ranjit Singh’s knowledge was not limited only in terms of learning about his foreign visitors, and in general, world history. In fact, knowledge in Ranjit Singh’s court was also closely connected to intelligence systems within the court, as “[sb efficient was

Ranjit Singh’s system of intelligence that every movement. . .was reported to him.”

Ranjit Singh’s sources for intelligence can be divided into two parts: firstly, there were the Punjab Akhbars, Lahore Akhbars, etc., and secondly, there were the individual news writers who were stationed throughout Punjab and even beyond. The Akhbars were not only news letters, but also “a mine of information,” which recorded every aspect of

Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his court including “the administrative system of the then

Panjab government and on the official and private lives of the Maharajas and their courtiers, [and] the social and economic conditions of the 45people.” In addition to the

Akhbars, there were the news-writers who also provided the Maharaja with a regular and constant source of intelligence of the happenings around his court. This system of news writers collecting intelligence was referred to as the system of Dak. The news-writers otherwise referred to as Akhbar Nawis or Waqai Nigar, would be stationed throughout

Ibid., 106.

21

46

etc.

keep

Akhbars

surveillance

such

almost that

five

another: efficient

Maharaja

Punjab,

preserved

all

miles

Akhbar

surveillance

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Ganda

immediately.

In

intelligence

and

which

“Couriers

because

terms

updated

to

in

29.

13.

on

Singh,

especially

for

ensure

the

troops

affairs

Lodiana

Peshawar.

Khan

27

demonstrate

Sirdar

.Raja

of

National

example,

March

of

on

The

on

specifics,

or

and

might

the

speedy

of

of

the

Dhian

Panjab

despatch-riders any

Sooltan

news-writer

Dost

that

alongside

Archives

[1839,

matters

runners

He

Sardar:

be,

describes and

quarter.

was

Singh

Mahomed

delivery

Ranjit

in

there

and

Chet

all

Mahomed.

1

ordered

839-40:

of

concerning

who

he

was

events military

was

India

From

are

Singh’s

16,

replied

orders

of

would

asked

Khan

directed

were

an

Selections

New l895-96Bk.]-

to

messages.”

Peshawar

occurring.

review

innumerable

And

expeditions,

that

Delhi,

had

given

where

tenacity

stationed

the

be

to

the

arrived

in

from stationed

court

the

write

(Patiala:

to

Sirdar

it

turn,

Sirdar

was

camp

The

Raja

the

for

Such

constantly at

would

at

amount

a

Punjab

so

reported

Sooltan

a

surveillance

had

Sikh

Dak

Allee

news

everyday.

a

Dhian

distance

that

methods

short

gone

be

History

system

Akhbars,

Musjid. 47

they

writer

of

Mahomed

about

brought

that

Singh

distance

to

examples

The

of

Society,

a in

assured

and

was

the

few

three

was

Punjab

turn

to

to

intelligence.

keep

made

from

ordered

his

1952)

would

kos

from

Intelligence,

Ranjit

attention

or one

even

1.

the

about

keep

to

Singh

more

also

One

the 22 No matter how tedious or irrelevant the information may seem, Ranj it made sure that his news-writers reported all the happenings within and outside the court as well. One news writer for example, according to the Lahore Akhbar, was ordered to report all the actions of Prince Taimur:

3 April, 1839 [Chet 23, 1895-6]-Lahore Ukhbar

.From the report of the Peishawer news-writer it appeared that Prince Timour had seated himself on the throne, received the respects of the European gentleman and a salute of 48guns.

And as Ranjit Singh knew all the happenings outside, but especially inside the court, the

Akhbars also relay an immense of information in terms of the matters which concerned the Maharaja:

10April, 1839 [Chet 30, 1895-61-CampAmb Dhorewalla

•.The Amritsar news-writer reported the constant occurrenceof thefts in the City, and Luddha Sing, the Officer there, was urged to take proper measures to check the 49evil. Likewise, Ranjit Singh liked to make sure that all urgent matters concerning his kingdom were brought to his attention so he could personally address them. Another Akhbar describes two robbers who were ordered to be brought before the Maharaja:

11 [?12] April, 1839 [Baisakh 1895-6-CampAmb Dhorewalla

• . . Raja Dheyan Sing brought to the notice of the Maha-Raja that two Haekries belonging to the Khatries had been plundered by the robbers in the vicinity of the bridge.. .Ruttun Singh was

48 Ibid.,21. Ibid.,27.

23 orderedto apprehendthoserobbersandto bringthemin his °5presence. Almost every account within the Akhbars demonstrates the intrinsic intelligence systems of the court, as Ranjit Singh, through his news-writers, and the members of his court, managed to keep tabs on every aspect within, and without the court.

Visitors were not able to freely enter and exit the kingdom as Ranjit Singh controlled (through his intelligence sources) all the whereabouts of guests entering his land. The Superintendent of the East India Company’s studs, William Moorcroft for example, during his visit to Lahore between 1819 and 1825 described the difficulties in exploring further into Punjab: “The thannadar of Hoshyarpur refused to allow of our advance without a reference to Lala Seodayal, who was at Phul, thirty kos distant, and we were obliged to await the result; after three days, an answer came from this person, stating that he could not permit us to proceed without orders from Ranjit Sinh, to whom he would write, and desired me to do the ’5same.” Although Moorcroft was eventually allowed entry into Punjab, he needed yet another approval from Ranjit Singh in order to take an alternate route around Amritsar: “At length, on the 29th, came letters from Desa

Sinh, announcing the consent of Ranjit Sinh to my route back through the mountains or to

50 Ibid., 33. 51 Horace Hayman Wilson, Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and the Panjab; in Ladakh and Kashmir; In Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz,And Bokhara; By Mr. WilliamMoorcroft and Mr. George Trebeck, (New Delhi: Sagar Publications, 1971) 82.

24 52Amritsar.” Ranjit Singh’s control was so great that it was only through his permission that guests were allowed entrance into Punjab; and as such, the whereabouts of these guests were constantly monitored by the Maharaja. Once guests gained entry into Punjab,

Ranjit Singh made sure to receive them cordially so that he may gain as much information as possible. Indeed, Ranjit Singh was especially careful in his relations with the British as he could take more advantage of an amicable relationship versus a relationship of enmity: “Ranjit Singh was very well aware of the British strength. He found it expedient to maintain friendly relations with the British with the view of safeguarding his frontier in the 53east.” As such, in allowing amicable relations and conversations with the British, Ranjit Singh accomplished two goals: on the one hand, he could protect his own territorial interests, and on the other hand, he gained important sources of knowledge on the British, their whereabouts, their ambitions, etc.

If ever there was a situation in which his suspicion was aroused, Ranjit Singh made sure the situation was assessed thoroughly. General Ventura, a Frenchman who

th served in Ranjit Singh’s army, describes in his letter written on March 12 1822, how he was called on when Ranjit Singh became alerted to two figures having entered Punjab:

“Yesterday the Maharaja sent me a purwannah, intimating that two Feringhees, one a gentleman, and the other a Gorah with several servants had arrived from the westwards

52 Ibid., 87.

25 via Kabul and Ramnagar at Shah Derrah opposite 54Lahore.” On orders from Ranjit

Singh, Ventura was to maintain surveillance on the whereabouts of the two as Ranjit feared the two figures may be British: “The Maharaja directed Mohal Lal, Poorbiah, and the other trustworthy persons by every means in their power to ascertain whether the two gentlemen were French or English. Mohan Lal could only obtain from them that they were French officers, but the Maharaja, had doubts in his mind and conceived them to be

55English.” Because Ranjit Singh had created an intrinsic system of intelligence and knowledge gathering, he was able to not only maintain rule over his own people in India, but was also able to hinder any British advances or suspicious actions.

Ironically though, even before General Jean Baptiste Ventura and the other great

European officer, Jean Francois Allard, became such key military players within the court, they too were subject to Ranjit Singh’s intelligence and suspicion: “The Lahore

Akhbar records in some detail that the Maharaja checked the bonafides of both Allard and

Ventura from the British authorities before agreeing to take them in 56service.” When

Ventura and Allard first arrived in the Punjab area after having served Napolean, Ranjit

Singh made sure that these two new foreigners were brought to his attention. And

Fauja Singh & A.C. Arora, eds., Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Politics, Society and Economy, (Patiala: PhukkianPress, 1984) 119. H.L.O Garrett, European Adventurers of Northern India, 1785-1849 By C. Grey, (Patiala: Offset Master Printers, 1970) 95. Ibid., 99. Singh & Sharma, Europeans, 60.

26

some elaborate

Even

spies,

In

Maharaja

After

not

although

the

to

when

of

and waiting

meantime,

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

give

the

tactics,

they

a

in

attempting

99.

98.

entries

any

letter

doing

sometime

returned

Allard

the

pretended

of

also

applications The expressed

sent

majesty

always

our We

reply

Ranjit

his

Ranjit

expressing

English

request

have

Maharaja

had

of

to

so,

courtiers.

knew

Ludhiana

the

until

follow

the

to

to

a

developed

Singh

therefore

that

Singh

letter

for

be

determine

Lahore

their

traveller,

in

letter

in

Moorcroft.

he

good

had

he

the

with

a

French.

their

It

written

had

purposely reply

to

desire

was

had

to

was

French

desired

at

be

enough

the

Akhbars:

the

some

then

satisfied

desires:

brought

the

trying

translated

sent

the

from

The

utmost

to

They

messenger. 58

to

advice

language..

in

Ventura

the

loyalties

to

unique

serve

to

petitions

kept

Kashmir.

Ranjit

them to

showed

the

foreigners

give

respect

all

of

confirm

for

the

letter

under

his

and

definite

Faqir

by

tactics:

him

Singh,

.We

as

of

two

utter

Neither

a

suspicions

and

Allard

from

drafted

Ventura

special

to the

by

Nur-ud-Din

again

that

generals

obedience. 57

surprise,

order

write

his

Ventura

William

Maharaja,

in

Ventura

Ventura

by

supplicate

agent

messenger

English

out

which

and

them

regarding

and

distracted

their

renewed

there.

Moorcroft,

and

Allard

nor

were we

and

Ranjit

by

Your

Allard

who

shall

He

one

Allard

his

through

as

Singh

new

sent

indicated

were

was

guests.

these

the

not

sure

by 27

example,

with

Singh’s

also

meet

of

Minster

examples

some

such

become

Eventually

Generals’

the

seen

any

with

as

of

Maharaja

Bayly,

Just

closest

the

and

the

some

and

describes

as

of

Azizuddin,

loyalty-both

Akhbars

however,

“[t]he

key as

personal

key

Empire

all

of

intelligence

ally

employment

the (carrying

Maharaja

between A LahoreAkhbar,

himself.

information

players

military

the

long

most

French

his

and

and

and

key

physician,

after

as

conversation

meeting

Information,

Ventura

the

confidante,

powerful

the

within

he

informed

the

players

figures

Any

officers

using

French

and for

was

letter)

on news-writers,

them,

incoming

17 th

with

his knowledge

the

not

and

had

such

within within to

them

man

with

officers,

137.

upon and

court.

guests be

it

only

and

Azizuddin,

Allard

the

was

of

tactics

great

18 th

that

in

commonplace

500

the the

highest

good

foreigner

Ranjit

Punjab

Although

Messrs

May,

who

also

Mr.

etc.,

of

kindness.

were

court.

court,

horsemen

where

cheer,

the

Ross

up

entered

1822.

so

Singh’s

whom

position

Allar

aside

given

court

to

Fakir

entering did

had

Ventura

and

Ranjit

TheMaharaja

Azizuddin

topics

were

and

Ranjit

from

he

treated

employment

his

was

he

Azizuddin,

closest

in

Wuntoora.

views

would

ordered

kingdom.

Singh

took

Ranjit

the

maintained

the

and

Singh

his

court place

confidante,

to

ruler.” 59

Allard

soon

as

vakil

was

begged

Singh’s

provide

a

depend

Ranjit

The

and

man

Moorcroft

with

find

assured

served

through

In

proved

of

the

court

Ranjit

Singh’s

being

heavily

but

“extreme

exception

of

as

he

for

methods

would

to

the

Ranjit

Singh

was

Prime

on

two 28 64 63 62 61

60

speak

unassuming

were

And

Azizuddin’

employed.” 62

connected

culture

describe

in

how

sly respectable urbanity

conversation

seeker

yet,

“[i]n

also

as

Ibid.,

Sir

Osborne, Ibid.,

Wilson,

In

would

well

despite

in

and

Lepel

too

all

the

with

of

s

69.

94. more

that

enough,

cunning

matters

as knowledge.

When

of

great

Travels

evening

Maharaja,

Punjab

surely

The

Griffin,

Europeans

.Fuqeer

handle with

remarkable

it

the

detail

Court

is

to

he

obvious

in

as

concerning impossible

have

Akhbar-

me

nature,

Ranjit

ignore

J-Iindustan,

came

visited

Azeezoodeen

matters,

and the

the

and

for

Moorcroft

been

Singh, and

nature

Camp, closest

read

intelligence.” 60

sometime.” 6 ’

Hakim

describing

as

cunning

[June,

Ranjit

the

Osborne

a

95.

as

it

not

the

(London:

69.

part

aloud

of

man

demonstrated

English

1839,

Aziz

to

wrote

court

describes

their

Singh’s

nature

of

like

to

in

him

goes

Azizuddin’s

Oxford Har

ad

a

the

It

conversation;

and Ranjit

him.M

Government

general

Though

is

din,

as

Osborne

8,

Durbar,

camp,

on

Darbar,

unfortunate

his

having

University 1896

the

throughout

Singh,

to

meeting

order

say,

Azizuddin’

W.G.

Bk.J

wazir

proclaiming

noticed

agenda

it

a

on

he

however,

“and

Azizuddin

“crafty-looking

Press,

would

Osborne

that

the

of

with

was

the

Ranjit

as

his

in

part

1892)

Moorcroft

s

be

also

Azizuddin,

Akhbars:

the Azizuddin,

“[i]n

nature

manners

British

of

Azizuddin

also

was

118.

Sinh

a

the

all

charismatic,

was

became

specially

countenance.” 63

matters

politics

[who]

does

are

explaining

his

amicable

who

so

not

charms

engaged

aware

kind

and

would

almost

and

and

29 to

67

Prakashan,

65

Firozepur

Bentinck,

leaders.

Azizuddin

Ranjit

only

seeks

was

nature

moment.”

and

were

presence

Like

accompanied agreement,

was

wise,

heeded:

his

Von

Singh’s

Sohal

Singh,

of

Just

In

1974)

the

counsel

the Ranjit

in

of

Orlich,

sent

1831

it

La!

as

Captain

1838,

The

the

charismatic

then

would

63.

“Every

British

personal

Sun,

on

the

installation,

Panjab

the

for

entire

Singh,

Travels

or

by

Governor-General

expeditions

Azizuddin’s

officers

U,ndat-Ut-Tawarikh:

example,

discharge

be

assistance.” 67

Von

Uzeezoodeen;

informants

time

in

Darbar,

Azizuddin’

in

also

advisor

1

negotiator

india,

Orlich

839-40,

of

and

the

observed

the

Azizuddin

of

to

Deewan

resourceful

and

174.

disposition

and

State. 65

50.

as

guns

meet

were

As

s

Ranj

well,

and

advisor

role

without

of

Daftar

the

that

filled

Deena

with

sent

it

India.

consultant

was

to

in

right

Singh

“[e]very

Fakir

was

III

read

addition

to

Indian,

to the

him

Nath

sent

1831-1839

Punjab

On

the hand

duly

ears

made

out

(Aziz-ud-din)

no

to

was

meeting

court.

to

embassage

as

treaties

resolution to

Simla man

of

noted

in

foreign

ordered

well

sure

commenting

the

AD,

order

of

by

to

with

audience

as that

(Chandigarh:

Ranjit

and

meet

to

visitors,

British

all

to

to

is

read

all

apprise

Lord

proclamations

seek

present

formed,

the

of

Singh,

with

out

on

exactly

British

officials

Auckland

Azizuddin’

knowledge,

but

Punjab

all

the

the

Lord

as

and

Azizuddin

he

intelligent

words

“[h]e

at

government

Itihas

also

William

every

and

that

in

at

s

was

the

was

so

treaty

words

party

not

was 30 70

69

police,

the

kingdom

keeping

organization

from

solidifying through

Fakir

Minister

himself,

power

learned

[he]

one

addition

people

of

was

them.

Azizuddin.” 7 °

Ibid.

Ibid.

since through

Griffin,

the

In

man,

track

the

Azizuddm

to

to

into

also

addition

through

ablest

the

being

the

arts,

the

to

Ranjit

three

who

of

a

Maharaja’s

knowledge.

Maharaja,

attain

generous

state

all

Azizuddm

and

a

“saw

to

organization

Singh,

zones,

great

the

complimented

As

gaining

could

such

certainly

happenings

a

himself

119.

diplomat

seeker

and

that

Ranjit

feats.

kingdom

It

position

was

knowledge

discriminating

is

“the

the

thus

and

of

the

[as]

By

Singh

most

and

perfectly

knowledge

most

in

perfect

observation:

categorizing

by

agents

no

a

the

ripe

information

was

both

wonder

honest

onerous

and

court,

scholar

on

partner

able

with

charming patron

power

the

in

of

that

Ranjit

to

all

part

“The

and

Ranjit

all

numerous

in

exercise to

gatherer,

of

through

aspects,

throughout

Ranj

all

separating

of

Ranjit

learning.” 69

the

Singh

Punjab

Singh,

the

branches

it

British

S

his

duties

river sources

Singh whether

Azizuddin

also ingh’

was

and

power

his

the

and

used

crossings

of

As

s

fell

also

as

his

position

territories

courtiers.” 68

of

Eastern

political,

he a

gaining

and

to

own

territorial

knowledge

intelligence

relatively

was

also

the

control

to

quest

as

a

science,

share

helped

very

knowledge

of

take

cultural,

Prime

In

the

easy

for

over

of

seeker

note

and

in

Sikh

and

to

31 or of unusual 7movements.” Indeed, the separation of the kingdom into zones allowed for easy observation’ and policing of the people. In terms of policing the state, Ranjit Singh acquired full control of such ambitions, with very little help from his advisors with the exception of Azizuddin: “He [Ranjit Singh] was the chief executive authority, the highest court of justice and the chief legislator. The direction of affairs in the state lay entirely with 72him.” Another foreign observer, Alexander Burnes, also observed the Maharaja’s depth and array of knowledge, even of the most minute details: “He managed all the

concerns of his State from matters of the highest importance to he merest trifle. . .from the shoeing of a horse to the organization of an 73army.” In order to police and control so meticulously, Ranjit Singh indeed had to have a deep knowledge of the people of his kingdom and the current state of affairs. Because the central zone was nearest to the Sikh capital of Lahore, Ranjit Singh maintained an especially vigilant intelligence system of that area: “The state Intelligence system was much better organized here and there was no difficulty about reports and official parwanas travelling about quickly and 74regularly.” Not only did Ranjit Singh maintain knowledge and control over the central zone through the distribution of reports, but he also gathered intelligence through his own travelling of the central zone, indeed, “[t]his was also the best place known to the Maharaja since he

71 Ibid., 133. 72 J.S. Grewal and Indu Banga, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: The State and Society, (Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University, 2001) 92. Fauja Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 156.

32

76

European

changes the

nature

relationships.” 76

number

opponents

knowledge

the

regular

between

is

out

significant under

was

through

British

greater

and

constantly

of his

Ibid.,

Singh,

Ibid.,

Grewal,

The

army,

of

in gather

military

his

systems

close

in

the military factors

the

military

because

of

92.

117.

final

Maharaja

opponents

relation

Maharaja

cavalry

European

then forging

his

touring

personal

The

source

and

of including:

own

force

existing

forces

rather

most

military

Ranjit

to

power

and

of

Ranjit

intelligence

military through

his

military

of

was

supervision.” 75

Ranjit

significant

of infantry

than

Singh,

knowledge,

own,

system.” 77

Singh,

is

“the

the

both

that

quite

staying

Singh’s

the

power,

117. tactics,

19 th

[and]

geographical

Ranjit

96.

an

unique

length

and

obvious,

century,

consideration

incentive

As

the

within

information

namely,

sources

infamous

Ranjit

to

Singh

such,

is

and

advances

his

the

what

Ranjit

the

breadth

advantage.

was

Singh’

situation,

and

it

of

ways

the

was

confines

military.

knowledge

made

Ranjit

also pressure

and

British;

in

Singh

s

in

only

of

weaponry

infamous

thus

able

which

the

Ranjit

this

In

Singh

took

of

Although

by

indeed,

for

power

military

creating,

to

his

portion

on

gaining

he

adapt

Singh’s

Ranjit into

looked

palace, nomadic

his

and

utilized

that

“[t]he

consideration

land

power the

and

the

and

arguably,

knowledge

Singh

upon,

will

creation

he

connection

web

forge

had

and

sources nature

efficiency

chose

of

be

to

everything

of

his

was

his

explored

a

introduce

one

of

political

was

similar

people.

to

on

of

a

the

his

of

go

of 33

Runjeet

expanded

knowledge

as

Napolean

this

procuring

knowledge

of

Ranjit

so

workings

of

military

General

Singh

style

well

the

that

General

paper,

army

British

Griffin,

Ibid., made

Singh

he

as

Not

Singh

model.

Lake

in

their

and

of

for

may

Captain

and

he

Lake

which

only

118.

size,

the

in

made

Ranjit

himself,

organization.

both

confened

gained

was

successors,

dominate:

leadership the

There

British

did

in

breadth,

posed

Singh,

what

Anglo-Maratha

were Ventura,

it

1805

Ranjit

his

from

former

were

military. 78

the

first

therefore

a

133. goal

wearing

“When

and

they

direct

General his

.

Singh

rank

.he

infact,

and

aroused

to

European

intelligence:

British

could

resolved

learn

the

challenge

of

he

create

a

priceless

In

rumours war

Court

disguise

generals,

other,

had

seeing

provide.

Ranjit

as

counterparts,

based

army

a

thoroughly much

to

and

strong

Captain

to

“By

create

to

even

the

Smgh

so

the

the

leaders.

on

General

Ranjit

Through

as

that

levels

the

the

and

Maharaja

Europeans.

that

possible,

an

to

Allard,

he

but

aid

mastered

efforts

Singh

army

formidable

the

Ranjit

One

of

Avitabile,

could

of

the

he

superiority

strength

these

went

had

on

has

and

efforts

succeeded

in

of

Singh

get

Observations

similar

the

terms

the

already

both

then

officers,

one

a

army

Ranjit

secret

of

British

first

of

had

served

imitate

of

step

the

of

Ventura

lines.” 79

in

based

been

the hand

the

entered

Singh’s

of

British

forming on

further

military

sorts

the

European

which

under

such

whom

mentioned

look

on

and

superiority

the

army,

of

the

army

in

a

a

into

Ranjit

Allard,

leader,

style,

camp

well

the

34 in

82

(1994)

81 80

that

State

held

battles

gained

of

order

aiding

of

knowledge

superior

positive

army

Lahore

cannon

armed

knowledge

the

the

belief

owed

611.

to

about

two

Pradeep

Singh,

Von

of

his

a

Though

military

and

and

create

foundries,

great

that

(according

acquisition,

military

Orlich, that

Generals.

its

tolerably

of

Maharaja military

Amritsar.” 8 °

Ranjit

Barua,

origin, he

deal

the

a

it

he

played

powerful

Travels

was

was

British

created

because

of

powder

“Military

gradually

to

tactics,

Ranjit

It

expansion

disciplined

because

but

able

knowledge

him)

is

a

in

role

Not

also important

India,

army

army

to

his

Singh,

magazines,

it

Developments

model

but

utilize.

in

only

is

army

in adopted

of

167.

was

a

knowledge

and

which

“[t]he

158.

terms

Ranjit

army

about,

demonstration

did

of

based

to

not

security

the

recognize the

the

of

impact

would

of

and

Singh’

satisfying

Ranjit

in

50,000

French

intelligence

French

on

India, French

manufactories

gathering,

to

the

challenge

of

s

Singh’s

the

1750-1850,”

army

of

Ranjit

European

men,

these

military

Generals

system

enough,

Army,” 82

the

that

controlling.

as

besides

French

extent

army

Singh’s

the

well

of

system

the

of

The

Ranjit

teach

models

British,

training.” 8 ’

there

arms

was

he

Sikh

Journal

as

officers

100,000

use

would

controlling

Ranjit

based

Singh

also

Because

is

are

through

state

but of

indeed

of

established

utilized

outside

on

Military

irregular

go

also on

When

Singh

then

thrived,

the

to

the

of

which

no

the

and

adopted

not

army

the

History

not

sources and

the

teachings

doubting

sources

troops;

policing

as

only

widely

in

just

he

his

“the was

the

in

in

in

35 so 84

83

accompanied march

was had

army “escorts”

gathering, posted

means

Ranjit

such, the his

strategic the

endeavours. been

the

city armed

hidden

happenings

state.

readily

as

mentioned,

the

to

Singh

Ibid.,

Grewal, of

with

of

escorts

Adeenanuggur,

areas

military,

of his

Indeed,

forces

and

Peshawar

motives.

provided

94.

up-to-date

European

Often

updated

intelligence

by

Maharaja

somewhat

in

for

in

two

were

what

the

although

the

much

times,

foreign

While

companies

which

with

Punjab

on

region,” 83

visitors.

Ranjit

stationed

has

information

the

like

where

people

connected

in

the

not

visitors

visiting

the

was

Singh,

happenings

order

region

his

services

been

nature

Although

Runjeet

of

the

it

at

the

other

94.

was

for

the

strategic

so

Ranjit

about

as

most

mentioned

to

Maharaja

Ranjit of that

20 th

modes

of intelligence

his

it,

Sing

within

Ranjit

Ranjit

the

vulnerable

was

the

Singh

they

army

regiment,

points

Singh

Sikh

border

is

of

the

always

may

is Singh’s

his

now

Singh

which

surveillance:

for

the

use

military:

in

gatherers,

kingdom:

to

example, be

holding areas.” 85

spot

two

role

the

keep

of

managed

may

would

protected,

observance

the

entire

horse

in

of

“a

have

1 s

military the

the

his

was

“Through

In

be

“Quite

Osborne

constant

artillery

area,

whole

to

addition

military

court.

May-

insisted

stationed

he

crucial

keep

of

as

mostly

also

a

his

country.” 84

Commenced

We

large and

describes

watch

himself

them

guns,

in

to

in

in

most

state

around

were

vigilant

such

using

intelligence

keeping

in

proportion

and

and

guards

and

certainly

has

well

how

his

also

As

a

already

around

eye

horse

our

or

he

by

36

on of

85

official

intelligence

conquering,

systems,

more

such

bazars

ease British,

possible.

locations;

watch.

allowed

as non-traditional

as

a

an

with

source

a

facility..

escort.” 86

powerful

Ibid.,

Osborne,

carry

Many

emperor

As

The

saying

Ranjit

them

Even

which

however,

mentioned

95.

and

provided for

mobility

all

scholars

to

.than

The

that

Osborne

Singh

intelligence

they

The

knowledge elements

Aurangzeb,

and

it

easily

Court

can

“[t]he

three

it

role

successful

require;

of

protection,

previously,

utilized

have

was

be

and

access

Ranjit

recognized

of

as

Company’s

moved.

Sihk

in

Camp,

argued

gathering

the

gathering

it

eventually

and

their

his

became

information

Singh’s

army

military

army

and

50.

thirty

army

No

the

mobility

that

this

possesses

based

most

military

wheel

he

regiments

and

a

army

the

thousand

to

collapsed

under

trait

source

so

the

policing

significantly,

as

great

much

on

that

carriage

of

was

all

greatest

would

the

the

one

not

Ranjit

complete

on

Mughal

parts

of

because

yet

desired.

regime

knowledge

of

only

this

great

their

is

often

another

the

capacity

of

Singh’s

allowed

side

of

provided

troops the

empire,

advantage

state.

of

watch

of

be

power

Ranjit

the

kingdom

the

unique

stationed

learned

army

as

on

could

Sutlege.” 87

lack

over

following

the

through

Ranjit

a

Singh

over

in

march,

feature

of

army

the

from

be

could

comparison

in

information

Singh

our

moved

state certainly

strategic

battle,

In

allowed

European

the

their

which

be

own-

creating

was

with

kept

last

with

but

own

the

took

to

the

under

also

the

37 on 89

88

(1993) 87

sources

relationship

resistance

information-collection systems

and also

power

doubting

numerous

eminent. understanding

systems

Silch

elite’s

access,

without

provided

10. kingdom

Bayly,

C.A. through

Ibid.,

And

canny

can

i.e.,

of

of

Indeed,

the

to

works

knowledge

Bayly,

knowledge,

now

just

105.

and

the

“a

such

“Knowing

connection

understanding

Ranjit

of

of

his

failure

court.

the

when

be

“Knowing

on

by

the

Punjab

power.

great

understood

nature

knowledge

looking

and

land

the

there

of

Western

and

for

through

intelligence

Country”

between

the

knowledge,

Foucault’

with

the

and

Indian

of

power,

are

of

court

at

Country:

the

the

the

local

much

nations

some

sources

and

the

6.

larger

kingship

the

rising

people,

for

with

s

flow

power

discussions

systems

circumstances.” 88

Empire

of

of

two.

clearer.

“[t]he

were

powers

an

of

the

the

of

of

consolidation

Ranjit

pervasive

abundance

was

Maharaja

throughout

and

arguments

flow

information,

great

indeed

and

As

Information

a

relationship

in

reflection

this

of

Singh

the

importance

terms

information,

not

power,

key

Ranjit

chapter

of

By

the of

was

the

and

information

and

of

Edward

in players

comparison,

course

of

India,”

only

with

the Singh

there

able

maintenance

through

has

social of

contract-power

surveillance nations

and

to

other

shown

within

Modern

of

Said,

is

is

forge

bound

history,

complexity.” 89

proof

from of

a

illegitimate

the

deep

as

the

the

the

to

Asian

a

of

well

both

that

growth

hold

to

Silch

central

court

complicated

there power

and

be

Studies

through

as

within,

such

empire

whom

other

is

of

ruling

is

no

the

38 of intelligence and knowledge systems, ie. power within Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s court, the following chapter will provide an introduction to the Nihangs and why the term

“problematic” is so befitting to this Sikh sect. Thus, ultimately as is the goal of this thesis, I hope to demonstrate that the Nihangs, through their specifically problematic in and out identity, will become the illegitimate force of resistance to Ranjit Singh, his court, and those intelligence systems which were so effective and efficient.

39 Chapter 3 The Ultimate Power: Inside and Outside the Sikh Court

In demonstrating the Nihangs’ dual roles as players within, and players outside of Ranjit

Singh’s court, it will become apparent why they were an important element in the discourse of power within the Sikh court, and a challenging presence to Ranjit Singh. The

Nihangs role as players within the courtis seen through three main components: the incorporation of the Nthangs into Ranjit Singh’s military, and thus, being a part of such a payroll; the administrative control the Nihangs had over the city of Amritsar (though as we will see, even this element is somewhat problematic); and finally, the incorporation of the Nihang presence within the darbars and the subsequent paintings and artwork.

Probably the most significant indicator of the Nihangs as players within the court was their military presence. Indeed, in some of the more famous military campaigns,

Ranjit Singh made sure to access the Nihangs’ skills to his advantage. Before looking at these specific battles however, we first need to look at the formal military structures of the Silchcourt, and what role the Nihangs played within this structure. Whereas in chapter two, I discussed the nature of Ranjit Singh’s military in connection to power and intelligence, in this section, I will look at the formal structure of the military system itself, and incorporate the Nihangs as official parts of such a system. Although the regular army

40 felt the implications of Western thought and influence (especially through the leadership of Generals Ventura, Allard, Court and Avitabile), the majority of Ranjit Singh’s army, ie. irregular infantry, garrisons, andjagirdari contingents remained unaffected by such European °9methods. The ghorcchurra’s for example, were one such cavalry group who adopted neither European, Mughal nor Maratha militaristic styles as they avoided any forms of feudalism. And as we will see, those who comprised the irregular infantry also tended to be less organized like the Europeans, but rather, “a body of active fighters with more or less regimentation and 91discipline.”

Generally speaking, the army was split into three opposing fractions: ancient and modernized, regular and irregular, and finally, state andjagirdari. These three classifications were based on “(i) whether or not it is paid by the state and (ii) whether or not it is trained on the European 92model.” The Nihangs’ roles in this formal structure, for the sake of categorizing, were as a part of the Sikh military’s irregular infantry and cavalry. Though the Europeanized regular army was the largest portion of the Sikh army, it is the irregular army which needs more explaining due to the connection to the

Nihangs. As mentioned before, the elusiveness of the irregular army in terms of organization and discipline presented the perfect environment for the Nihangs own undisciplined and rash nature. The irregular army consisted of the irregular cavalry,

Fauja Singh Bajwa, Military System of the Sikhs (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964) 106. Ibid., 108.

41 infantry, garrison forces, and the jagirdari troops. Of these categories, the Nihangs were most involved in the cavalry and infantry, which once again, tended to suit their lifestyle

“where the demands of discipline were not so urgent as in the regular 93army.” Because the irregular cavalry was disorganized when compared to the regular cavalry, often times, a troop of Nihangs would be enlisted separately, by order of Ranjit Singh. An example of such an order is found in the “Book of Parwanas,” which are a set of 462 military orders sent by Ranjit Singh to his General Sardar Tej Singh:

At the timeof departuretowardsNala 100NihangSikhsof AbchalNagar,bothhorseand foot, wereapprovedby His majestyfor enrolment.KanwarNauNihalSinghhas now submittedthat 300NihangSikhshavebeen sentto him by you and Jawahar94Mal.

The number of Nihangs within the irregular cavalry and infantry was limited when compared to other groups - only three 95thousand at the most. However, their presence in some of Ranjit Singh’s most famous military campaigns proved influential and decisive.

The Nihangs were not called upon merely during times of need during specific battles, but their official presence within the court via the military was proof through the pay and allowances granted. Three such methods of pay included the Mahdari system,

92 Ibid., 108. Ibid., 141. J.S. Grewal and Indu Banga, Civil and Military Affairs of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, (Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University, 1987) 160. Bajwa, Military System, 141.

42

order

“Umdat-al-Tawarikh,”

grants

183 Nthangs,

was

Rozinadari

would

Rozinadari

Singh,

Yomiah, payments

which

1-39.

not

of

and

Ibid.,

Grewal

receive

was

the

Nihangs

essential

meaning

One

such

depended

awards

Nthang

most

166.

system,

system

and

such

Officers:

Nihal

below.

Jawahar

accordance

Take

as

a

Sipahis:

fixed

Banga,

prevalent

according

Akali

that

daily

provided

leader.

order

was

muster

Singh. other

on

For

the

allowance

Ma!.

Rs.

Rs.

Civil

the

Phula

the

allowance,

used

future

with from

payment

military

The

of

30, An

10

court

amongst

They

and

crop

to

to

the

for

specifically

Rs.

order

the

Singh,

certain

the

Ranjit

however

term

Military

Nihangs

trooper;

should

daily periods,

daily,

existing

25,

Nihangs personnel

should

is

and

Rozinadari

the

Rs.

Lahore,

were

issued

Singh

rates:

Affairs,

proceedings

be

this

“though,

Roz

Sikhs,

Rs.

20

of

practice

and

to

paid

be

paid

Abchal

or will

in as

6

for

or

pay

24

within

made

153.

for

Rs.

the

his

seen

by

the

Yom,

be

Jeth

example,

an

is

foreigners

foot

and

as

name.

Lala

15.

Rozinadari

Nagar

done

derived

Fasalandari

annual

as

in

every

in

1891

the

at

meaning

soldier.

Jawahar

recorded

“the

the

the

by

court

who

(4

ordered

day.” 96

Kanwar

case

rates allowance,

from

Book

June

or

are

system.

like

Mal

a

leaders

given of

by

day.

system,

with

the

1834)

of

Though

Nau

the

Tej

Akali

in

Sohal

Parwanas,”

term

Lala

In

Mahadari

there

Of

Singh

such

other

upon

Phula

Lal

these,

Rozina

it

were

as

seems

to

Sun

words,

which

Akali

Singh

pay

the

and system,

or

other

from

that

an

the

Phula

in

the

43 the it

Prakashan,

celebration

charity..

the

month,

Such

large

gave

included:

distributed

celebrations

demonstrates

deserving.” 98

of for

contributions

Singh This

being

blessed

their

away

rewards

sum

order

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

considered

Sohal

Ranjit

.Rs.

1974)

service

given

“On

of

Magh in

of

gifts

certainly

267.

133.

Lal

for

3,000 money

Indeed,

charity,

the

the

were

78.

Singh

to

the

Sun,

in

the

and

to the

Sankrant

importance

( 12 th

charity

blessed

them

to

the

a

Umdat-Ut-Tawarikh:

ensuing

and

court.

once

awards

demonstrates

common

the

the

as

January

court:

an

usual,

enough

Nihangs.” 10 °

use

and

again

Sankrant

On

asset,

month

to

month

of

“On

which

alms

practice

other

those

one

1836

rewarded

the

of

and

the

in

the

were

grain

elephant,

according

term

of

the

occasions,

“Umdat-al-Tawarikh,”

A.D)

in

thus

Daftar

3

In

Nihangs

Chet

as

his

Sikh

distributed

fact,

“deserving”

were ( 17 th

on

the

they

the

court,

III

1889

another

one

court

Nihangs

to

in

September

Maharaja

183

given

needed

the

role

the

almost

horse,

1-1839 of

(1

placed

Nihangs

1 th

as

among

which

Sikh

to

occasion,

as

with

players

March

to

the

AD,

every

some

reference

distributed

be

calendar,

1831

upon

the

Akalis

the

(Chandigarh:

money:

were

there

paid

reference suits

1832

Nihangs within

Akalis

A.D)

in

the

accordingly

given

celebration

is

and

to

Ranjit

of

Nihangs.

A.D.)

by

“On

subsequently

the

all

the

clothes..

and

the

Punjab

way

were

rewards

the

given

Nthangs

the

court,

the

Brahmins.” 99

Singh

the

things

of

Sankrant

Itihas

During

indeed

of

Maharaja

for

to

.and

as

the

in

the

their

further

an

Ranjit

worthy

general

a

new

the

of 44

102

the

The

attempted

final

key

over

only

not

assets

were

the

sum

several

regularly

(1

description

order

1 th

third

deny

military

first

role,

campaign

a

infantry

of

fought,

January

to

decade

Sir Ibid.,

issued

Ranjit

Rs.

cows,

attempt

two

the

was

the

Lepel

to

granted

397.

1,000

conquests

unsuccessfully of

court.

Nihangs’

attempts

and

who

to

the

in

1838

Singh’s

Rs.

Griffin,

was

gift-giving

present

in

which

Battle

won

for

enjoyed

7000 to

Even

1807,

launched

A.D.)

the

Ranjit

the

in

by

respectable

successful

he

Ranjit

of

the

and

Nihangs:

1802

Sir

Akalis.”°’

though

the

achieved.

the

uses

Multan,

Singh,

any

Nihangs

overthrow

many

Lepel

in

Sikh

Maharaja

Singh

and

respect.” 102

the

1818.

(London:

it

reign

“Early

other

position court,

1806

Griffin,

did

which term

And

attempted

with

Before

not

the

as

secured..

were

things

“as

Oxford

that

it

in

gifts.

was

ruler

Multan

result

One

was

a

in

the

usual,”

European

the

the

fruitless

the

part

to

to

University

Even

during

such over

morning

in

Nihangs

successful

.respectively,

court

be

gain

Nawab,

of

his

indicating

distributed,

the

battle

one

a

ambitions

control

some

gaining biographer

as

set

Press, Sikh

on

of

presented

he

Muzaffar

of

in

the

launch the

of

claimed

smaller kingdom

which

1892)

of,

that

territory,

these

in

F’

many

as

on

and

addition

on

of

gifts

86.

usual,

in

part

themselves

the

Khan,

key

the

campaigns

Ranjit

they

failed,

references

1818,

was

Nihangs

and

Ranjit

of

blessed

battles

with

where

to

the

four

due

awards

Ranjit

Singh,

until

one

Sikhs,

a

Singh

in

as

times.

which

separate

Magh

lasting

played

to

“[t]he

elephant,

the

part

great

Singh

could

a

were

and

45

to a

104

1962) 103

Nihangs,

defenders

and

June

portion

during

Ranjit

Indeed,

preparations

would

attempts

from

seemed

was

“through

124.

211(1,

satisfied

February

Gulcharan

Khushwant

Singh

battle,

finally

of

incorporating

when

hopeful

did

to

by

the

destroy

the

surprise,

as

these

made,

the

Multan

with

prove

a

ordered

supply

the Preparations

Singh,

this

25 th

majority

Singh,

large

in

Nihangs

Sutlej

breaches

receiving

the

of

to

Sikh

the

to

Ranjit

fort. of

and

the

contingency

Ranjit

down

April

which

be beginning

Multan

provisions..

and

sect’s

of

Nihangs

occupied

successful

successfully

A

Singh

were

Singh:

to

the

the

the

19 th

more

an

the

Multan.

Ravi

actions

fortress

Sikh

made

and

dare

indemnity

Nihangs

However,

Maharaja

as

famous in

of

.The

his

the

were

the

devil

soldiers

was

such

on

Nihangs

So

Generals,

helped

distracted

fort.” 104

via

big

an

Sikhs

also

commandeered

launched

were

of

Akalis a

Nihang

elaborate

of

Bhangi

poor

the

significant

the

were

follow.

70,000

did

in

took

(Delhi:

Punjab,

Sikhs

included:

Only

artillery.

the

their

entered

platoons

gun manage

incident

in

the

scale.

conquest

rupees.

after

Sujlana

were

1818,

of

(London:

enemies

lead battle

to

Zam

All

the

ensure

When

of

this

to

forced

during

Publishers)

there

in

Nihangs. 103

the

The

take

Zama

fort.

proved

of

George

breaching

initial

by

boats,

a

the

Multan.

fourth

regular

were possession

.

to

this laying

.

was

and

campaign

retreat

Allen

to

attack

215.

on

battle

a

be

took

attempt

great

the

At

a

&

a

mine

by

after

Unwin

positive

one

the

Khizri

occurred

of

which

number

the

the

in

point

under

failed

Ltd.

1810

city

Gate,

for

46

on

of a

106

105

In

the

In

the

Phula

that

as

Battle

terms

addition

Afghanistan

two

plans

the

Ibid.,

Singh,

Singh’s

of

generals

Another

of

Nthang

for

Peshawar

the

to

129.

Ranjit

attack

advising

Akali

becoming

knew

battle

had

On

knowledge

pushed

against

Phula

island..

was

leader,

chosen

significant

Singh,

October

of

was

these

Phula

in

already

Singh

itself,

his

further

the

.If

1819.

Ranjit

129.

Akali

a

troops.

to

organized

the

Afghans

lands

terror

Singh.’° 6

15,

of

told

lead

because

north-western

battle,

in

north

Though

the

1818,

Singh

Phula

and

him

Amongst

a

amongst

the

north-west

state

and

to

the

Ranjit

[Ranjit]

by

of

Sikhs

the

Peshawar.’° 5

on

Singh,

Pathans,

the

people,

which

the of

the

members

strategies

the

political

Singh

conquest

bastion

into

Nihang

that

tribes,

generals

was

frontier

the

and

the

battle:

Attock

marched

first

Nihang’

was

whose

frontier

Han

of

for

chaos,

leader:

of

with

the

to

was

sought

was

attack,

Peshawar

Singh

be

names

out

Khattak

him

would

s

what

well

like

made

presence

of

Nalwa

were

by

Phula

Lahore

a

were

known,

is

have

small

secure

Ranjit

itself

tribe

significant

two

and

Singh

to

was

at

who

was

of be

Singh

and

the

crucial,

Afghanistan

was

fairly

thus,

however,

for

also

much

effortless,

advice.

was

one

the

is

of

47 of

also

court for

forces

equipped,

attacked

Singh

Akali

leaders

north-west

tribute

heard

Nihangs

inclusion minor Peshawar,

Furthermore,

were

the

lost

had

unable

Phula

that

(Ranjit

of

Sikhs

because

to

were

The

one

the

men

as

now

the

with at

a

admitted

area.

it

Battle

fortress

Singh.

group

the

of

and

called

to

Sikh

was

Singh’s

on

upon

declared

20,000-25,000

the

it

defend

request

Of

both

Ranjit

was

the

ruler,

of

of

greater

The

upon,

hearing

these

of

defeat

Pathans Naushera

final

a

son),

sides,

Jahangira.

themselves

supremacy

such

Afghan

Singh,

of

a

two

including

contingent

Sikh

Ranjit

battle

and

crossed

the

the

an

had

Sikh

men

the

fled

in

defeat

generals,

easy

forces

Afghans

of

Singh

In

declared

1823

victory

over

against

on

armies,

the

generals

the

their

terms

victory

of

of

the

were

Attock,

city.

is

of

the

two

the

Akali

suffered

great

probably

Afghan

was

the

the

of

jthad

some

territory

easily

Sikh

for

Khattaks,

Ventura,

Though

military

Nihang

Sikhs,

bittersweet

leader

Phula

whilst

the

against

of

armies

great

and

defeated

the

Ranjit

Sikhs,

past

they

Phula

the

Singh.

strength,

Allard,

another leader

the

Mohammad

most

losses,

Yar

were

the

details

were

Sikh

because

Singh’s

what

as

Singh.

remembered

river

Muhammad

Akali

Han

body

on

immediately

approximately

end.

both

easily

is

of

one

Indus

significant

greatest

Singh

When

although

Phula

the

Khan,

of

Despite

sides

end,

defeated.

Sikh

battle

valley,

Nalwa,

Singh.

Khan, Ranjit

amongst

were

the

Prince

military

called

troops

the

the

itself

is

4,000. governor

equally

they

the

Sikh

equal

who

Singh

and

Sher

to

are

direct

had

As

the

paid

48 of The death of the Nihang leader Akali Phula Singh was indeed a great loss to the

Sikh army as we have seen how much Ranjit Singh relied on his military strength. And thus, rather than solely discussing the Nihangs as a larger group, I want to look at the famous Nihang leader Akali Phula Singh in more detail and examine his role as a player within the court and as ally to Ranjit Singh. Though as we will see further in this chapter,

Phula Singh was not without his own problematic features, he was still viewed as a great warrior within the context of the Sikh military under Ranjit Singh. Born in 1761 in the village Siih, Phula Singh’s young life was certainly full of its hardships as his father died when he was a child, and Phula Singh was left under the care of his godfather. Through the guidance and teachings of his godfather, Phula Singh was trained in both spirituality and the martial arts. Because of his militaristic skills, especially in riding, Phula Singh decided to join the Nihangs, which was then lead by Narain Singh. Following the death of Narain Singh, Phula Singh was named his successor as the new Nthang leader. Even in terms of his dress, Phula Singh was a true member of the Sikh court, because in contrast to the traditional blue attire worn by the Nihangs, Phula Singh distinguished himself by wearing “a magnificent white costume fitted to the body, with a broad double-side, gold laced bourdic hung round his neck and interwoven with a light silk scarf, crossed in front of his 7chest.”° As such, because of his unique style of dress especially, Phula Singh was often viewed in contrast to the sect he lead, because “unlike other members of his sect,

107 Singh, Ranjit Singh and his Generals, 81.

49

Institute, During

108

determination Phula

Phula

battle.

man

Naushera,

was

attack first

heron’s

wearing

identifying

of

[Phula

the

increasing

recognized

of

Singh’s

Singh

When

on

Nihang

Ibid.,

Singh,

Gulshan

this

As

1960)

determination,”

Though Singh]

plume.”° 9

a

Kasur,

it

white

mentioned

battle,

78.

factor

and

was

Ranjit

151.

the

and horse

Lall

turban,

has

daily,

Phula

the

his

turban

Sikhs

where

believed

Chopra,

Singh

5,000

of

skill,

the

Nihang

Akalis

was

the

did

previously,

Singh’s which

air

had

and

in

he

“with

Afghans

Sikh

struck

The

a

of

who

that

“this

was

his

marvellous

launched

decided

leader’s

a

Panjab

as

Generals,

the sect,

true

Ranjit

skills

persuaded

seen

by

battle

we

engaged

the

blue

a

courtier

Phula

as

have

to

musket

minutes

skills were

some

Battle Singh

a

Akali

move

81.

Nthang

piece

Sovereign

seen

Singh

him

utilized

during

in

unsuccessful

instead

had

Phoola

of

ball.

their

of

later

hand-to-hand

in

otherwise.

insignia

Naushera

State,

remained

his

the

Despite

minor

own

riding

during

of

Singh

doubts,

previous

(Hosiarpur:

a

assault.

overhung

religious

attacks skirmishes

an proved

Before

some

this,

an

and

combat

and

elephant

individual

chapter,

his

and

During

VVR

key

against it

to

fanatic.”° 8

launching

with

was

Akalis,

because

be

with

battles,

such

Vedic

to

Phula

was

Phula

a

the

launch

the

by

variegated

a

as

Research

whose

few

initial

a

instead

the

of

Afghans,

Ranjit

the

Even

key

Singh’s

Singh,

the

hundred

the

Battle

1807

number

assault,

leader’s

in

Singh

attack.

“a

terms

final

of 50

113

112

other

used

the

insiders

favour

ineffective,

of his

Smgh

despite

overlooked

troublesome

of

commemorated

bullets

Akalis.

battle,

Nihangs

the

offensive

during

group

Ibid. Ibid.

Ibid.,

had,

of

Kabul

the

of while

It

“[w]hen

the

his

was

80.

for

as

problematic

severe it

were

is

Lahore

presence

spirit,

river

was

riding

they

court

the

he

during

his

not

truly

great

Phoola the

cases.

in

were

boldness

during

memory

his

troops.” 3

simply

Naushera.

result

this

within

was

military

features

elephant.

even

The

Singh’s

battle

key

“a

of

the

and

by

the

Nihangs

at

bold

a

territorial

We

Although

presence

times erecting

hidden battle

he

that

fearlessness.” 2

Sikh

Upon

fanatic

had,

have

and

Phula

displayed

court

was

were

brave

or

hearing

it

seen a

battles;

and

he

we

is

embarrassing

smadh

doubtful,

Singh

as

and

also

hard

sudden

will

how

soldier.

much

of

proudly to

however,

played

It

to

met

over

see

Ranjit the

Ranjit

was

deny

when

a attacks

.

that

his

Nihang part

.

Phula

His

thus

members within

by

Singh

end

the

Singh,

Akali

conventional

what

of

successes

the

which

no

Singh’s

more

the

as

leaders’

the

Maharaja,

utilized

wonder

Phula

is

he

what

Sikh

of

also

Sikh

noble

moved

was

the

remains

were

should

military

Singh

death,

significant

riddled

the

warfare that court.

court

qualities

and

the

mainly

Nihangs

during

was

not

Ranjit

at

only

within

As

scales

as

with

the

proved

be

a

any

such,

Phula

due

is

to

times

banks

Singh

as

that

in

his

be

51 to

114

contingent

following

doubting

authority

demonstrated

representations

authority

Sahib.

significantly,

Singh’s

central

the

the

role

fourteen

court

Sikh

Nihangs

in

Anne

Sun,

as

And

Ranjit

sources

As

court,

that

kingdom

over

described

over

Nihang

Akali

to

U,ndat,

Murphy,

we

because

Amritsar,

control

the

their

the

this

Singh’s

such

and

have

of

of

Phula

Nihangs

city

590.

Singhs,

aspects

power

sacred

during

power.

“Materializing

the

in

a

“Gurdwaras

now

over

crucial

of

this

Singh’s

military,

other

so

Amritsar

seen

and

well-armed

and

Amritsar

the

that

did

of

entry

Though

was

Sikh

site

reign

authority.

significant

assert

the

the

succession

Sikh

which

in

the

in

in

history.” 115

Akal

Nthangs’

is

the

it

of

as

connection

many

Pasts,”

political

the

city

is

and

Ranjit

another

was Umdat:

uncertain

Takht

One

sight

city

of

respects..

as dressed

Sikh

the

Amritsar,

role

the

of

Singh,

control

within

the

for

Formations, could

indicator

“Jamadar

most

to

these

new

as

the

how

fact

Sikh

with

insiders

.function

there

be significant

the

over

holiest

Nihang

was

that

located

exactly

history

fine

looked

of

Sikh

1:2,

Khushal

were

Lahore,

Amritsar.

the

their

of horses.” 14

Sikh

175-200

leader,

kingdom,

like

Nthangs

only

the

the

and

after.

two

identifier,

role

shrine,

Nihangs

objects,

Sikh

the

Singh

the

35

cities

(2005)

In

as

he

Thus,

central

miles

Sikh

claimed

1800, insiders.

court

moved

there

presented

the

which

I

182.

as

claimed

from

want

Gurus

away.

Harimandir

through

shortly

is

site

his

their

no

Within

held

some

to

of

further

More

discuss

Ranjit

the

their 52

Sikh reference

116

Sikh certainly

Malcolm’s

significance:

important Malcolm,

reign

had

Ranjit

Amritsar key,

Sikh points,

throne

claimed

population

if

thrones

of

Amandeep

Singh

not

is

Phula

the

recognizes

of

made

as

for

a

observations

the

the

Nthang

1

their Amritsar

9 th

or

which

the

Singh

to

Akal

level

fall

are considered

questions,

Should

key,

looked

other

Singh

century

Akali

maintenance

own

to

from

Takht.

with

political

the

Misal

be

decides

was

Phula

Madra

Amritsar

Sikh

as

possession,

decided,

that

to

power

other

touch

that

writer

as

their

viewed

for

in

Singh

power

sects.

and

the

involve

on

site.

the

mendicants.’ 17

guidance.

cease

own

on

which

Parmjit

of

religious

on

this

all

as

latter

as

There

and

From

the

a

being

Sikhs

something

matters

formidable

number

even

the

to

a

consideration

Nihang

the

Singh,

leader

be

part

general

the

capital

this

And is

and

prior

a

city

evidence

undisputed

place

concerning

of

Sicques,

point

of

of

Sikh

secondly,

Sikh

order

of

which

of

the

to

interest

important

the

of

Amritsar

the

Phula

on,

history, 1

which

resort

sect

Tigers,

Amritsar

[Nihangsj

8”’

which

state

leader

did

it

of

century.

Sikhism.

Malcolm

due

Singh,

seems

the

or

they

not

in

elements.

or

of

was

Amritsar

no

also

which

commonwealth,

to

Thieves,

the

Akal

seemed

possess,

would

longer

its

that

and

as

Buddha

According

suggests

Hence,

suggests

all religious

a

Takht,” 6

the

227

during

at

First,

site

was

to

to

once

Dal

Akalis

has

a

be

where

it

particularly that

he

as

an

the

that

was

to

contested

and

one

well

addresses

offhand

Sir

the

claimed

time

the

the

one

political

of

as

John

Nihangs

general

the

the

of

of

by

the

the

five

and 53

situated

their

h17

latter.

tensions

in

occurred

Amritsar.

to

This

Nihangs.

Sahib

as

attained.

Nihangs’

this

the

the

“anti-Sikh

dispute

In

Harimandir

between

chapter

John

(the

allocation

between

particular,

predominantly

It

Another

connection

Malcolm,

Golden

seems

between

the

in

of

Akalia

the

customarily

various disputes

All

langar

practices,”

rivers

terms

the

of

income.’ 18

S

Maharaja

that

such

offerings

Temple)

the

Sketch

ahib

donations

Nthangs

Jumna and

Ranjit

and

to

individuals.

Nthangs

even

of

could

incident

when

is

this

of

listened

the

the

given

and,

indicative

were

called

the

and

Ranjit

was

Singh

arise

powerful

work

Nihangs

and

European

to

Sikhs;

Indus,

as

a

tended

not

which

always

to

the

upon

certain This

over

Europeans

of

Malcolm

and

Singh

their

necessarily

a

construction.

city,

(London:

of

singular

was

the

the

more

city

the

to

demonstrated

the dispute

share.

visitors

discussed

distribution

recognized

Akalis

and

dislike

because

Akalis

is

court’s

explains,

problematic

nation,

J.

also

as

In even

meant

Murray,

and

and

the

January

came

Occasionally,

Europeans

the

connected

regarding

with

claims

who recognition

more

former

the

of

to

Akalis

the

the

“they

1812)

to

be

offerings

men

inhabit

Akali

1814,

features,

the

Nihangs’

Nihangs’

significantly,

about

spent

remained

119-20.

of had

[Nihangs]

their

and

to

city.

the

for

therefore,

Phula Phula

on

their

the

of been

among

provinces

Muslims

example,

offerings

the

As

there

the

control

power

control

shares

Singh

Singh

we

suspicious

Akalis’

were

the

were

will

of

the

because

over

Harimandir

over

and

the

and

insufferable

continuous

see

sect

role

Penjab,

his

offerings

Amritsar,

Amritsar

of

further

itself

in

of

the 54 to strangers for whom they entertain a contempt which they take little pains to 9conceal.” Indeed, the Nthangs not only controlled the more political aspects within Amritsar, they also controlled those who entered the city (in terms of their public abuses of certain people), as well as their behaviours. And because Ranjit Singh understood the

Nihangs’ control of Amritsar in such a way, he was always cautious when sending

European visitors to the holy city. One famous incident which I will discuss in more detail when discussing the problematic features of the Nihangs, occurred during a visit to the Harimandir Sahib by Sir Charles Metcalf and his Muslim envoy in 1809. For all those who make reference to this incident, they generally describe Amritsar as the Nihang’ s territory:

As this noisyprocession,withall its pomp,passedthe quarters of the Akalis,or immortalityof the Sikhmilitarypriests, attachedto the GoldenTemple,the fanaticslookedupon it as an insultto their religionand theirsacred°2city.’ In this excerpt, the references to the Nihangs are made twice in terms of their connection and essential control over Amritsar. Even Sir Lepel Griffin, although at the same time bashing the behaviour of the Nihangs, also recognizes their control over Amritsar, as it was the location for their head quarters.

IS Parm Bakhshish Singh et. al, Golden Temple, (Patiala: Publication Bureau, 1999) 117. 119 Singh, A History of Sikh Misals, 245. 120 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: From the RemotestAntiquity to the Present Time, (New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing House, 1964) 378.

55 Macmillan, 122

121

Harimandir

Khalsa

In

Nihangs

observation)

reference

which

of Another

addition

Ordnance

Amandeep

Griffin,

were

Panth

at

European

2004)

to

to

Amritsar:

Sahib,

added

the

that

at

Ranjit

at

observing,

229. first

equally

Although

from

convert..

of

A

accomplishing

Amritsar,

were

Their

annexation,

obnoxious

Fatehgarh,

Amritsar,

Singh

Nihangs

Sik’h

the

the

admission,

and

to

Singh,

visitor

the

always

sect,

insolent

initiation

Madra

among

The

wishing

the hand

.

no

he

where

and

136.

at

and

during

Asiatic

Captain

to

person

that

is

Nihangs

also

attended

and Amrutsur,

of

themselves,

given

his

swagger

a the

thus

Amritsar,

to

an

visits

sum

the

Parmjit

process

noted

proselytism.

the

become

Sikh

can

Akalee.’ 22

Annual

Akal

suggesting

to

Matthews

of

early

with

role

to

drink

visit

and

who

money

Singh,

the

court,

the

Bungah

to

yet

first

some

in

a

years

hatred

the

Temple

Register,

become

Nihangs

ask

Singh,

a

terms

they

Sicques,

sherbet He

to

Captain

when

temple

also

him

risk.’ 2 ’

that

of

the

formed

goes

to

are

the

finds

of

of

Europeans

if

priests,

mentions only

a

observing

made

control

by

Tigers,

Captain

without

he

the

to

British

this:

Sikh

Matthews,

no

no

their

the

wishes

Darbar

the

of

difficulty

means

who

or

Akalees,

is

occupation

head-quarters,

over

Akalis sugar

paying,

made

Thieves,

accomplished

Matthews

the

to

(though

divide

Sahib

avaricious;

become

donation

Amritsar.

the

and

them

in

or

initiated

on

(New

at

it

Deputy

water,

priests

and

the

an

so

twice

a

York:

inaccurate

process

In

through

Sikhs

Commissary

makes

his

Paigrave

memoirs

into

at

the

the

the 56

Emperor’s

123 darbars

Ranjit

became

such,

significant

control

as most

have

on

over

specifically,

did

The

insiders

paper,

hold

above

Amritsar

power

powerful

in

Singh’s

Ibid.,

The

over

connected

as

controlling

certain

the

of

seen

because

of

two

235. third

over

religious

the

India’s

the

general

court

may

city

money

buildings;

the

wants,

in

extracts

privilege

holiest

and

this

court,

the

to

monies

of within

Amritsar

have

is

past,

final

the

city.

consensus

given

paintings

sites,

for

the

through

controlled

Silch

by

history

been

and

any

Harimandir’s

Ranjit so

and

way

the

And

an

in

the

collected,

there

other

site

and

charity,

Sikh

power

more

outside

their

I

Nihangs’

since

and

of

in

want

Singh

of

the

is

purpose.’ 23

the Sikhism,

19 th1

kingdom,

no

the

artwork

physical

self-declared,

Harimandir

or

both

Amritsar

being

to

area.

observer

instance

century

did

laid

Harimandir

connections

demonstrate

control

in

not

either

out

Furthermore,

of

and

the

presence

it

of

was

shy

in

the

Punjab

are

is

city

of

over

expended

an

erecting

Sahib,

certainly

rather

court.

away

certainly

next

the

akalee’s

Sahib.

to

of

the

the

within

the

seemed

Sikh

Amritsar,

the

only

than

from

additional

Nthangs

Much

as

holy

on

general

Although

significant

accumulating

Nthangs

we

gurus.

indicative

their

to

Ranjit

being

any

city

to

have

like

Lahore

be

personal

but

role

history

elaborateness

of

formally

the

Singh’s

that

inadvertently the

seen

even

Amritsar

that

as

that

in

Mughal

Nihangs’

the

members

in

terms

of

the

more

the

great

terms

Nihangs

Sikhism.

recognized

Nthangs,

Nihangs

was

of

when

control

of

the

within

also

did

As

57 it University

126

124 Lord

description

opportunity

Ranjit

on

“an

with

Although

durbar

for

with

in visiting

empire, came

the

awe

example,

embarrassment

Auckland,

the

sumptuous

to

Singh

first

Ibid.

Emily

Jean-Marie

For

for

when

Press,

the

beginning

Mughal

his

at

tributaries,

view

Ranjit

of

to

courts

Eden,

public

first,

arrived

Emily

witnessing

2002)

Ranjit

G.,

the

display

described

Lafont,

bears

decorum

emperors;

Up right

in the

Singh,

of

41.

with

darbars.

in

a

Eden

the

as

Singh’s

Sikhs

the

gilt

who

his

applying

hand,

an

Maharaja

the

Country:

some

the

the

chair,

Mughal

appearance

court,

also

and

all

new

are

did

in

and

The

elaborate

elaborate

darbar,

those

of

fact,

endless

noted

dismissed

in

Lettersfro,nlndia,

not

Ranjit

a

all

Sikh

generals,

the

public

the

distinct

emperors

the

in

many

seem

centre,

most

that

ruler.

Emily

Singh:

of

the

envoys,

processions.” 24 darbars,

and

darbars

aristocracy,” 26

to

Ranjit

in

term

Europeans

court

and

famous

lavish

the

Lord

display

Shah

five

Eden,

forty

advisors,

six

to

who

(UK:

in

of

Singh’s

minutes,

played

the

Jahan

Sikh

Sikh

the

Mughal

which

the

of

quite

were

Oxford

described

Five

form

them,

sister

chiefs

During

darbars

and

to such

an

darbars

they

Rivers,

the

but.

involved

the

of

emperors.

in

University

essential

Aurangzeb,

of

and

full

same

opinions

the described

.

rest her

.

the

the

provided

lasted

(New

Mr.

dress

were

Sikh

visit

of

Governor-General

etiquette

earlier

in

Press,

B.

role

Delhi:

the

Indeed,

the

and

an

government,

changed

“not

at

to

the

for

within

world.

hour.” 25

him

process:

1930)

the

Sikh

Oxford

like

example,

“ceremonies

as

Europeans

Sikh

the

was

131.

darbars

when

a

any

In

perfect

common

her

court

seen

which

ruling

were

58 as solemnsilence,in a circleall roundthe room, and inthe folding- doorsbetweenthe two roomsa beautifulgroupof twelveSikhs, whohad no claimto chairs,but sat on the floor.127

The entire darbar process certainly provided Ranjit Singh the opportunity to involve all members of his court. If not held during major political events, these public darbars were also held during private family matters such as the wedding of Prince Nao Nihal Singh in

1837, or during religious festivals. Ranjit Singh’s constant display of his darbars is evident when looking at the entries in Umdat-Al-Tawarikh. Indeed, almost every other entry in the collections describes a public darbar being held for one reason or another.

During one such darbar held for example, Ranjit Singh made sure it was as elaborate an experience as possible: “On the th24 of Mangh 1887 B.E. (4th February, 1831) the

Maharaja arranged for a durbar with great pomp and 28show.” If a group of important sardars were presenting themselves to Ranjit Singh for example, it was an excuse to hold a darbar:

6th th20 On the morningof the 1 ( Oct. 1831A.D) the Maharaja invitedBhai Sahibs.. .Afterthat the darbar was arrangedand all the associatedand sardarspresented29themselves.’

On another occasion, the arrival of a Captain Sahib provided yet another excuse for the

Maharaja to hold a darbar: “On the 18th of the said month (29t January 1832 A.D) a

127 Emily Eden, Up the Country, 131. 128 Sun, Umdat, 6. 129 Ibid., 99.

59 happy Darbar was held and the Captain Sahib was seated in a chair and interesting talks went °13on.” On other occasions, Ranjit Singh did not require a specific reason to hold a darbar, as sometimes it all depended on his mood:

The Maharajaarrivedat Lahorein an auspicioushour. . .The gloriousPrince(KharakSingh)presentedhimselfto the Maharajaand broughttwo horsesand a few otherthings,and the Maharajafelt verygreat pleasureat the sightof his happy face...Afterthat the Maharajaheld a Darbar whereall the chieftainsand associatedpresented3themselves.’ There is no doubting the emphasis and importance’ Ranjit Singh placed on holding his darbars. For him, it provided an opportunity to display his court’s strength and splendour to the rest of the world; and as such, any and all of the key players to the court would take part in the lavish procedures of the darbar.

Not only did Ranjit Singh choose to display his great court, and its key players through the darbars, but he immortalized such events through artwork. It is well know that Ranjit Singh was a great patron of the arts, as he hired a number of artisans and painters to capture the essence of the darbar. Of the more famous painters of the court, three were Europeans, August Schoefft, G.T. Vigne, and Emily Eden. In terms of paintings of the darbar itself in procession, August Schoefft’ s paintings are most famous as he “seems to have seen all the nobles, generals and administrators, and recorded his

Ibid., 120. 131 Ibid., 145.

60

Publications, Singh

132

amongst

same

seated

recognized.

general

portrait,

of

attendants.

portrait

Maharaja

One

have

within

procession,

connection

impressions

Maharaja

such

row

seen

is on Ibid.,

MuIk

this

hierarchical

of

seated

amongst

these

the

as

Ranjit

common

the the 1981)

.

procession to 23.

Raj

.Each

Indeed,

you

Ranjit’s

Ranjit

of

first

importance

darbar the

players only

Anand them

113.

will

Singh

the

row,

Nihangs,

person

painting,

Singh

the

role

one

see

most

in many

et.

in

from

is

all

Museum

preliminary layout

al.,

progress

seat

each

the

demonstrative

is

in

that

his powerful

Maharaja

important

it

portrayed

right

court

distinct

though

away

is

player

greatest

Ranjit

of

significant

in

to

each

can

with

from Rambagh

Ranjit

left

sketches

advisor,

the

figure

within

Singh

be

figures

authentically

players,

of

the

of

on

specific

General described

Singh

the

their

the

princes,

of that

placed

the

Faqir

court

while

in

Palace a

as

second

generals,

court in

quoit

inclusion

the date

Patron

Ventura.

every

figures

Azizuddin. on

as

he

nobles,

in

court,

in

had.

turbaned

is

a

his

his

row, was

of

Amritsar,

“primitivist

unknown,

portrait and

the

darbars,

as

own

can

And

is

in

the generals,

Arts,

insiders

warriors

also

Lahore.” 132

a

Interestingly

image.” 33

Nthang

Nihang

whereas

Nihang or

(Bombay:

significant Punjab.

can

the

painting

impressionistic

of

administrators

are

be

Nihangs

in

leader

the

Sikh

the

In

Marg And

alongside

viewed sight.

This

Sikh

Maharaja

terms

of

enough,

of

be

Akali

within

a

massive

the

And

inclusion

court. darbar

at

of

sketch

the

the

Phula

and

as

the

this

is

61 we in In addition to the darbar portraits, on which we know Ranjit Singh placed such great emphasis, there are also general portraits of Ranjit Singh in meetings with his general and advisors, where once again, a Nihang is distinctly visible. One such portrait, now located at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, is a wonderful display by a painter from the Pahari area, of Ranjit Singh sitting amongst his advisors. 134 Indeed, as

Ranjit Singh sits on a throne surrounded by his advisors, such a site was common as:

[ijn thesegatherings,all the affairsof the state,fromthe fromthe nextcampaignagainsta rebelliouschieftain,the non-paymentof revenue,the grant of landto someonewhohas a bravedeed,the makingof a newgun, the layingof a gardenand the sendingof a messageto a foreignpower,werediscussed.135

And once again, seen standing behind the other seated advisors, is a Nthang Sikh general, most likely Akali Phula Singh, though none of the gatherers are identified. In another such portrait, titled “Maharaja Ranjit Singh, The Lion of Punjab, in Darbar Khas,” Ranjit

Singh consults with his generals Han Singh Nalwa and of course, Akali Phula Singh. The inclusion of Nihangs in Ranjit Singh’s darbar is certainly demonstrative of them as players within the court; and yet, even more convincing of the Nihangs as players within

134 Reproduced in Sohal Lal Sun Umdat Urndat-Ut-Tawarikh: Daftar III 1831-1839 AD. (Chandigarh: Punjab Itihas Prakashan, 1974). Ibid., 17.

62

Arts.

more

136

very

presented

problematic

I

duality

the

the

great

not

into

control

located

the

will

(Bombay:

court.

Sikh

only

negative

Sikh

the

positive

demonstrate

amounts

See

I

of

After

over

began

Lahore

nearby

court

was

court,

a

What

roles

two

new

Marg

characteristics

the

and

this

image

examples

assessing

was

of

this

they

either

sets

are

darbars

discourse

second

Publications,

power.

barbaric

Sikh

in

no

thesis

the

of

the

had

the

reproduced

the

different

the

sect

immortalizing

the

Nihangs

most

and

as

second

And

with

Maharaja,

of

image

Nihangs

in

players

role

insiders

1981).

the

power

challenging

powerful

yet,

an

than

in

of

part

encompassing

apart

of

excerpt

Mulk

the

the

within

as

which

of

the

the

or

of

power

portraits

Nihangs

insiders

Ranjit

from

Raj

his

city

this

Nihangs.

power

from

Ranjit

Anand

the

was

closest

***

chapter,

of

all

which

Singh’

Sikh

Anwitsar,

to

that

W.G.

unheard

these and

within

portraits

et

and

And

the

al.

friends

court

drawings

all

the

s

because

Maharaja

his

Sikh

other

Osborne

court,

Ranjit

although

the

Nihangs

of

and

court

and

and

and

court,

other

in

players

but

paintings,

finally,

the

the Singh’s

of

outside

Ranjit

advisors.’ 36

in as

thus

they

key the

exhibited

I Nihangs

court.

which

outsiders,

am

however,

Singh

Nihangs

players

far,

their

were

of

military,

now

it

he

the

as

we

is

exhibited

incorporation

as

Patron

also

presented

going

they

evident

court.

have

had

is always

insiders

their

their

granted

within

of

to

seen

And

the

that

a

of

a

63 as

137

loud

among

could

were

1809

work

had

majority

troublesome

Europeans

with

Europeans,

court,

rivalling

this

explore

explore

always

and

quite

as

dual

not

describing

Ranjit

Madra

whom

there

they

I

robust

of

but

the

have

the

that

image,

similar

because

been

European

and

Singh

the

celebrated

are

common

be figures

more

we

of

already

behaviours

Singh,

Nihang

struck

his

three

negative

were

Ranjit

it

to

directly.

problematic

will

journey

of

when

those

Sicques,

visitors

different

British

come.” 37

briefly

their

with

their

Singh’

conflicts

also

as

such

of

of

the anti-Sikh

to

prove

festival evidenced

120.

Emily

the

conception

to

mentioned

s

Kabul,

aspects

images

rough

Europeans

and

Though

Ranj

Nihangs,

with

that

Eden’s.

his

of

it

practices;

manners,

Mountstuart

the

which of

S

the

Holla

by

court.

Elphinstone

ingh’

that

of

the

Sikh

their

it

came

Nihangs

them

also

Upon

the

Nihangs

Mohalla,

can

s

In

court,

court,

the

personal

and

to

terms

Nthangs

was

as

be

Elphinstone’

encountering

barbarous

the

were

thus,

“fanatics.”

looked

may

and

their

likely

as

of

Sikh

Elphinstone

accounts.

outsiders

they

indeed

the

finally,

were

have

encounters

that

court. at:

Nihangs

language.

proved

been

the

mistrustful

However,

s

the

a

a

views

the

group source

As

of

In

Nihang

observed

Nihangs

abhorred

Nihangs

the

his

to

such,

as

with

of

.

be

.of

of

outsiders

Sikh

1815

of

in

the

of

conflicts

very

the

Nihangs

of

the

power

presenting

were

that

all

Nihangs

conflicts

by

court,

the

published

Nihangs

people,

the

“we

of

with

in

and

the 64

During

celebrated

1859)

135

and

detailed

with

Although

still

to

Of

as

along

described

as

merely

the

he

specific

we

merely

recognized

81.

the

the

describes,

assault,

the

Major

Ibid.,

will

reference

their

in

Nihangs’

festival,

Leopold

Doab

by

a

tolerat[ing]

see,

interest

120.

W.S.R

“Holla

celebratory

Major

and

It

his

Gooroo

went

four

instantly

A

in

the

The

and

were

area

a

was

party

some

to

Hodson,

during

tuiwar.

significant

Mohalla” despite

Nihangs

Von

cOntext

sowars

in

appreciated

at

them,

W.S.R

not

of

much

this

him

ji,’

of

instances

their

rushed

Orlich

Punjab,

mood.’ 38 human

.

Akhalees*

his

.1 and

Twelve

display

in

alluding

myself,

one

excerp,

festival,

describing

more

never

Hodson

which

reigning

travels

accompanying

mini-battle

to

after

did

scarcely.’ 39

very

Years Hodson

the

me

their

beheld

violent.

Other

Elphinstone fearing

which

is

not

another,

to

(Fanatics)

like

valiant

through

fiercely.

in

that

skills

of

prince,

their

them

make

January

a

is

a

such

encounters

was

that

Soldier’s

although

tiger,

ensued:

a

One

in

Sikh

and

“fanatic”

each

and

as

military

describes

One

desperation

any

he

the

on

whom

confronted

“acknowledge[ingj

such

closed

kept

festival

would

1849.

foot

fighting

shout

Sinde

fine

Life

specific

there

through

them

between

violent

they

stopped

seeing

in

and

bold

with

with

kill

celebrated

While

India,

and

and

seemed

militaristic all

by

inhuman-like

traduce

one

references

me,

‘Nihung’

drills,

a

the

Punjab

at

encounter

fury

and

terrific

a

(London:

the

marching

of

Nihangs

bay.

yelling,

troop

annually

demonstrations,

fought

them.

in

Nthangs

to

in

I

my

beat

no

blow

areas,

have

then

every of

nature

to

Savill

occurred

‘Wah

He

superior

life.

for

us,

Akalis

at

off

alongside

any

behaviour,

of

Anandpur

been

he

and

example,

possible

and

of

encounters

does

as

etc.

Edwards,

Europeans,

on

the

no

governor,

they

foot,

precursor his

Sahib.

Nthangs.

make

Hodson

way,

is

troops

and

65 a

West

142

140 their

Sikh

European

In

Nihangs

Phoola

the

disappointment

Singh by

to

brutally

member

disruptive

witness

and

demonstrating

the

a

“English

Publishing

leader

court,

even

band

Rajinder

W.G.

Captain skin,

and

Many

Singh.” 42

were

the

assaulted

of

dignitaries

openly

of

the

the

Akali

behaviour

Osborne,

with

his

abuses

were

Company,

Akalees.” 41

of

Leonard

Singh,

fruitless

British,

Maharaja,

entourage

the

vented

the

the

Phula

However,

seek

infuriated

by

The

European

of

“Akali

Von account

to

extent

a

of

1976)

the

the

his

because

Court

their

troop

the

Singh,

the

Orlich,

or

Phoola

Following

out

Nihangs

Nihangs,

life,

court

164.

of

the

once

Sikh

and

frustrations

at

of

of

on

accounts

their

in

if

Travels this

“the

Europeans

his

Camp

Nihangs:

Singh:

without

a he

equally

again, sect.

task,

first

having

affront

influence

lead

Akali

opposes

the

of

in

The

While

and

Ranjit

hand,

India,

only

such

signing

through

by

any

negative

Great

“he

leader

been

to

themselves.

historians

Phula

their

Singh,

to

including

European visiting

concern

a

and

came

Osborne

Warrior,”

white

discover

attacked

of

a

was

power,

views.” 4 °

Singh,

terms.

(Delhi: raid

the

back

man

the

too

Sinde

make

or

Treaty

on

Sikh

on

demands

fear

that

Heritage

covered

Sikh

about

in

Sir the

powerful

the

Captain

and

and

Review,

their

reference

Whereas

Lepel

Nihangs

the

from

other

of

the

court,

demanded

seven

Publishers,

Amritsar

poor

great

on

Punjab,

with

4245

punishments

White’s

to

Griffin

hand,

punishing

Osborne

be

miles

Orlich

to

man

abused

anger

blood,

(March

(Lahore:

the

rounded

the

did

between

1973)

for

had

camp,

from

Nihangs

did

and

arrest

witness

any

and

sent

1981)

example,

the

been

181.

East

from

not

Lahore

up.” 143

and

stripped

where

a

Ranjit

43.

of

&

and

the

the

all 66 144

143

the

suggests

the

brave

Singh,

outlaw. not

than

Griffin

works

impetuosity

and Nihangs

perspective.

describes

court,

court

a

drunk

anything

one

and

Latif,

Griffin,

Ibid. there

of seems

.

.though

that

as

were

the

William

dimensional

enthusiastic

the

with

History

a

is

did

According

the

citade1.’

Ranjit

soldier

Nthang

else.

to

wherever

himself

his..

I

more

no

had

bhang,

they

latter

a

attribute

doubting

of

robber

Moorcroft,

.dissatisfaction

Singh,

According

also

wild

the

despite

make

to

battle

was

character

man.” 145

Though

I

led

Panjab,

a

the

to

bid

185.

message

in

and

the

Griffin,

disloyal

a

the

English,

that

him their

in

his

storming

skills

an

describes

43.

to

Multan

attack

Even

he

he

I

flaws.

as

with

outlaw,

some

actions

declined

from

acknowledges

was

during

he

and

more

to

in

Ranjit

that

had

the

party

Phular

through

In

views,

his

also

describing

his

he

rather

to

the

a

Maharaja:

they

the

many

readiness

very

Sinh,

correspondence

the

was

a

of

Singh,

interview

complex

battle

even

fanatics..

gained

a

Nthangs than

nevertheless

flaws:

interesting

his different,

the

the

to the

the

determination Phula

noble

militaristic

carry

which

possession

more

Akali.

character

Nihang

“The

intoxication

.against

Singh

and and

fire

case,

with

he negative

.

famous

.expressing

a

and

solicited, much

composed

splendid

leader

abilities

as

and

the

Phula

to

the

of

sword

attach

he

some

town,

Phula

his

European

more

through

qualities

Phula

was

Singh

soldier,

entourage

of

as

of

negative

and

a

Singh,

the

they,

Singh

great

the

bhang

and

of

with

visitor

Nihangs,

and

out

Phula

“mad

erst

asset

was

of

rather

such

a

to

an

67 to

147

likewise, molestation.” 47

1971)

in Desa

that

example,

behaviours

Singh

the

Nthang

Phula

he

intentions

couple

Moorcroft’s

how

would

entire

the

110.

Singh

attempts

Singh’

Sun, William

own

Throughout

of

Nihangs

leader

Ranjit

Ranjit

court. be

ways.

because

Urndat,

of

that

company

willing

admission

s

Moorcroft

the

true

had

to

purposes.

and

In

Singh

he

Singh

Though

would

72.

Nihangs.

protect

another

was

in

intentions recommended

as

the

to

willing

so

we

made

made

and

serve

to

not

Umdat-Al-Tawarikh

of

that

on

his have

make

George situation,

Phula

During

cause

sure the

sure

none

European

them

to

were

seen,

take

one

Burnes

him

Trebeck, Singh’s

that

that

any

of

with

a

to

hand,

the

he

to

such

visit

the

the

betray

disturbances:

the

entertain

visitors

resented

the

Sahib

Baron

Akalis

Travels

Nihangs

disloyalty

European

by

a

we

utmost

bold

as

Ranj

Captain

cannot

enjoy

Hugel

well

from

in more

might

the

step

it

Hindustan,

would

of

S

“a

to

was

are

British;

the

prudent

the

ingh,

interpret

Burnes

against

was

loyalties.

become

Ranjit

letter

references

sacred

accompanied

aggressive

not

a

it

(New

visitor

and

was

therefore,

demonstrated

be

to

Singh

the

Phula

a

sight

And

the

a

loyal

Delhi:

source

Silch

sent

cause

made

to

Harimandir

can

and

on

of

Singh’s

the

issued

Sagar

leader,

by

it

Harmandir

be

of the

of

disruptive

was

where

Sikh

a

mischief

any

looked

the

Publications,

courtier

other

to

true

unlikely

as

court,

power

Sardar

Sahib

Ranjit

well

hand,

at

Sahib

so

or

in

and

as

the

for

that

68

a if

Nihangs 148

visited

occurred

behaviours

measures

demonstration

visitors

With

accompany

during

that

and

disturbances:

none

15

the

Ibid.,

the

One

the

to

is

utensils

when

numerous

to

Silch

what his

of

of

269.

visit

very

protect

her

the

the

court

Charles of

“A

Darbar

or

Darbar.

were

round

(Miss

court

Fakir

provided

of

in

containing

famous

Nihangs..

the

Nihangs

group.

letter

fear

Emily

his from

examples

ordered

Aziz-ud-din

power Eden)

of

in

Sahib.

Metcalfe,

Presently

European

of

the

the

was

incident

the

Charles

should

Eden

another

bazaar

and

.might

year

to

sweets.

of

issued

They

volatile

of

send

the

wife

to

Sardars

utter

submitted

1809.

the

then

of

of

visitors

Metcalfe

should

the

Nihangs,

disruption indulge their

.

of

to

Amritsar,

an precautions

.

any to

Nihangs,

Macnaughten

just

court,

Sardar

Many

encounter

associates

Ajit

guard

see

undesirable

from

that

a

in

his

Singh

that

because

representative

where

see

would by

raising

Lehna..

the

and

what

claim

the

none

the

the

made

with

sister

and

between

protect

Sikh

Sahib

a

town

word.” 149

Nihangs:

argue

is

although shouts.” 148

number

of

to

Lehna

.to

the

of

especially to

the

fame,

sect,

wished

give

the

and

ladies

protect

them

that

citizens,

the

of

Singh

‘Nawab’

visit

he

of

Baron

some

as

Ranjit

Nihangs

this

to

satisfactorily

to

Another

courtiers

does

he

Ranjit

the

the

interesting

Majithia

make

Akalies

incident

British

would

Hugel

holy

Sahib

Singh

not

a

and

Singh’s

reference

reprimand

were

become

interests,

Sahib

uses

with

Europeans

is

in

the

required

such

European

great

the

Rs.

is

the

the

made

a

500

way

69 to

April

the

Even

due

the

which

confrontation

disrespectful

the

were

the

other

Muslims

headquarters

entourage

occurred

goal

sign

eventual

Sikh

Nihang

Nihang

to

Moharram

25,

with

followed

would

a

end,

the

gradually

Ibid.,

treaty

group.

1809,

around

between

acting

more

the

Sikhs

which

side

593.

headquarters,

be

to

of

in

ensued

battle

festival,

by

in

However,

accomplished.

the

advanced

than

friendship

the

grew

Governor

around

the

which

included

musical

Charles

Harimandir

between Golden

the

world

between

from

Metcalfe’

Ranjit

European

the

the

the

European

processions.

General

a

between

Metcalf’s

were

verbal

Temple.

world

group

Metcalfe’s

latter

battle

the

However,

Singh

Sahib

celebrating

s

Sikh

to

side,

were

entourage

were

of

of

did

the

skills,

And

physical.

entourage,

agreed

Muslims,

and

India

Nthangs

result

And

British

there

celebrating

troops

affronted

prior

it

to

which

just

in

as

the

their

not

were

in

is

to

Although 1835.

this

and

and

Metcalfe

no

so

the

Moharram

and

and

to

this,

was

own

by

loud happened

evidence

Silch

excited

claim

the

signing the

the

The

a

the

on

the

group

celebrations.

Nihangs,

festival

and

Muslims

Maharaja,

there

February

behaviour purpose

walked

normal

the

and

festival.

of

robust

which

of

to

territory

were

the

loud

Nihangs.

of

be

Ranjit

past

orientalist

accompanying

of

Treaty

Holi.

25 th,

that

in

and

suggests

more they

Meanwhile

As

the

group

celebration

the

south

on

on

a

could

such,

In

mission

deemed

minor

With

of

Nihangs

casualties

that

April

celebration

walked

argument.

Amritsar

of

that

a

not

day,

his

the

battle

on

25 th,

was

Metcalfe

it

as

as

punish

Sutlej

was past

the

being

on

they

to

this

on

of 70

151

hurtful

Accordingly,

then

ground

the

According

Nihangs,

“Metcalfe”

Punjab.” 5 °

as

his

Nthangs

that

Baba

Singh,

news

own;

as

Though

Phula

there

Prem

a

to

Ranjit

that

result

incident

this

could

and

blood’ 5 ’

such

this

During

I

cc

Singh,

Singh

also

a

the

narrative

Singh,

thus,

news

Nihangs’

of

have

popular

cA-c

exists

sources

Akali

on

an

this

ço

became

“was

94.

reached

argument

the

been

hustle

I

Phula

goes

another

jo.JL

vernacular

supposed

turban

a

on

avoided

grievous

involved

Akali

+cx.

and

Singh,

the

on

with

bustle

to side,

had

‘Jç.

British

Phula

(Ludhiana:

describe

fanaticism

if

sources,

blow

fell

a

and

‘X-

namely,

one

one

Muslim,

Singh,

end

to

‘m

the

Silch’s Nthang’s

to

the

Ranjit

Lahore

tend

>-oc-

Ranjit

the

scene

thenhis

those

cit

of

floor:

which

turban

violent

the

to

Book

Singh’s

worsened:

Singh’s

dastar

lay

on

leader

eyes

was

‘iiL.

çD

fell

the

Shop,

the

incident

filled

down.

a

reaction

side

(turban)

entire

Phula

dream

grave

1940)

4.-,

with

of

When

between

blame

Singh

28.

the

insult.

of

had

on

a

Nihangs.

hearing

unified

not

and

of

It

Metcalfe

the

was

fallen

his

infamous

the

only

to

71

and the 1’ckço. 1a.r%C... ck. oL & c o<°’- °‘r°’. -9-L e- c Z o\-’e foo.- CJs I

Butonhearingthata Singh’sturbanhadfallenoffat thehandof a Muslim.TheLionof thePunjab[RanjitSingh]’sheartwasin 52despair.’

With the onset of the minor battle between Metcalfe’s envoy and the Nihangs,

many historians and Europeans alike used the opportunity to portray the Nihangs in

certain negative lights. Some have claimed the battle to be nothing more than “an

outburst of Sikh fanaticism and [of] no political significance,” led by the “fierce

desperado named Phula 53Singh.” And those Europeans who wrote biographies of

Metcalfe have blamed the entire incident on the Sikh sect alone, whereby, they describe

“[a] body of akalis, ‘Immortals’-enthusiasts whom Ranjit used as berserks or shock

troops, too infatuated to fuss about being flung away in battle-marched from the Golden

Temple... and attacked the British TMcamp.” Indeed, most European perceptions on the

Metcalfe incident assert that it was the Nihangs who enforced the attack, as they

“marched out of town, with drums beating and colors flying, followed by a surging rabble, intent upon the plunder of the British 55camp.” Others such as Griffm blamed the aggressions on the Nihangs being in a state of intoxication, in which “the Sikh soldiers of

152 Ibid. 153 Latif, History of the Panjab, 378. 154 Edward Thompson, The Life of Charles Lord Metcalfe, (London: Faber and Faber, 1938) 98. John William Kaye, The Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe: Late Governor- General of Canada, from unpublished letters and journals preserved by himself hisfamily, andfriends,” (London:R. Bentley, 1854) 303.

72

more the

156

problematic

Nihangs As

signifies

certainly

and behaviours

Europeans,

views.

to

they

one

interpretations

enthusiasm God

European

we

Sikh

boldness

of

attacked

drew

so,

will

Griffin,

the

On

Thus

court,

also

they

their

demonstrative

the

prime

their

see,

when

it

behaviours

which

accounts,

far,

abused

in

Ranjit

demonstrated

was

the

power

other

because

on

in

confronting

courage

examples

we

confronted

camp

addition

more

the

inspires

Singh,

hand,

have

Ranjit

is

infamous

which

their

they

of

of

than

of

more

136.

seen

because

the one

the

to

the

of

Singh

their

had

European

behaviours

likely

with

can

abusing

the

Nihangs

power

from

of

wild

the

clash

access

powers

the

certainly

claim

without

these

problematic

of

that

drink

children

most

and

the

between

Europeans

visitors

is

to

they

outsiders.

to

towards

as

Nihangs’

what

control

and

certain

ever

power

rising

have

outsiders

did

of

maddening

without

Metcalfe

proves

fearing

features

Islam.” 156

their

exhibit

the

stars

they

as

which

powers

And

great

outsiders

Sikh

of

own

had of

them

any

the

although

the

of

such the

and

distrust

the

Despite

as

court

drugs,

in

set

ramifications.

the

fear

court

Sikh

as

insiders

British

the

the

violent

of

of

Nihangs

the

and

of

Nihangs,

the

the

than

biases

Sikh

and

sect

through

the

ultimate

the

the

Empire.

Sikh

Nihangs’

of

and

resentment

from

varied

demonstrated

court,

repercussions

Maharaja

the

mainly

and

These

aggressive

court,

their

this

the

court,

power

orientalist

what

audacity

incident

depths

according

abuses.

the

for

himself.

and

further

within

as

is

of

is 73 triumphant

158

Even

“Thereupon, could

reported

of

conflicts

knocking

according

applied

together

Nihangs,

during Another

referred

the

Ranjit

the

Nihangs

in

not

court:

Ibid.,

Sun,

Singh’s

a

As

to

this

to

to:

in

reference

visit

against

do

who

at

to

the

troops,

have

outsiders

large

U,ndat,

73.

“After

case,

the

“On

under

much

the

aroused.

of

situation.” 58

rode

court.

door

sardars

attacked

the

Umdat;

numbers

the

where

38.

and

made

in

this

orders

on

wishes

of

2O

with

terms

Once

In

Sardar

elephants,

the

the

a

some

but

to

to

of

with

of

Nihang

so and

Akali

Not

court,

the the

again

of

of

the

individual

the

much

Tej

punishment,

began references

the

sword

Harimandir Nthangs’

only

said

Maharaja,

troops

began

the

the

Singh

Maharaja.

acted

severity

month

were

to

the

Nihangs

Umdat-al-Tawarikh

Nihangs

raise

came

against

to

was

loud

man

in

the

talk

all

and

Sahib,

(31’’

that

the

emphatically In

great

forward,

Nthangs

of

and

the

proved

in

so

one

the

Umdat,

the

also

May

Kari

Akalis rude

where

obnoxious-like

he

hue

Sikh

proverb

case,

engaged

opted

Husan,

1831),

to

behaviour’s and and

and

the

be

were

court

“{t]he

a

is

ordered

meaningless Jaimal

cry

sole

Nihangs’

very

to

proof

‘the

some

Vakil

in

relocate

rusticated

on

abruptly..

Akalis

Nihang

physical troublesome

mob

his

behaviour

Singh

of

Akali

to

rude

of

the

own,

rude

make

are

Shuja-ul-Mulk.” 59

also

the

attacked

terms.” 57

within

from Singh

many

and

.and

battles

like

attitudes

Nihangs:

Ranjit

gathered

them

occurred

other

figures

the

the

went

conflicts

was

the

and

a

leave

Singh

cattle’

vakil

court

are

for 74

161

162

the

160

‘

entry

desperados

that

And

Akalis,

although

courtier

account

upcoming

chieftain

Fakir

for

Nihangs

such

the

upon

of

Azizuddin

Ibid., Ibid.,

Ibid.

Ibid.,

which

other

the

accompanied

of

is

it

they

hearing

lou

and

yet

the

400.

proved

46.

127.

Umdat,

as

side

was

they

were

and

to

and

source

whereupon

News

behaviour another

had

celebration:

task

on

of

of

the

one

to

feared

the

attempted received

going

who

from

the

this

of

satisfactorily;

be

Akalis

by

hundred

disturbance

author

disturbance

river.” 60

ineffective

disturbance,

Sardar his

Amritsar

should

of

on

to

did

the

“He

no

horsemen

account

appoint

to

describes

horsemen,

not

Ladha

share

Nihangs

“raise

be

asked

In

but

intimated

and

subside

caused

chosen

overall:

another

towards

of

the

of

Ranjit

Singh

disorder

the

attempted

the

the

the

who

wisdom

disorder

as

in

by

dust

respectable

that

to

Holi

claims

potential

was

Amritsar.” 62

instance,

captured

Singh

Anandpur

the

watch

in

the

of

appointed

the

and

days

or

Nihangs

to

misfortune

Akalis

they

waves

intelligence

neighbourhood,

“satisfactorily”

over

noise

the

mischief

Ranjit

drawing

Fakir

are

Akalis,

to

had

with

the

of

the

in

avoid

nothing

the

become

Singh

(Aziz-ud-din)

the

Nthangs’

over

issue

one

which

near.” 16 ’

took

Nihangs

from

city

disturbance

cannon

their

sought

aside

them

more

a

punish

of

would

God.” 163

in

In

Amritsar,

heads,

and

“loafers

light

the

the

which

the

be

among

concludes

following

advice

In

of

had

Sikh

caused

another

an

a

suitable

and

left

sect,

the

of

by 75

no he

166

the 165 behaviour.

Even

power

Nihangs’

Ranjit

Because

measures:

to

Amritsar

claimed,

means halt

Nihangs’,

while

figures, Singh Ibid. Ibid., Ibid.

Osborne,

the

Because

of

disturbances.

to

exterminated

Nihangs’

Instead,

their

visiting “[t]hough

439.

create

had

and

it

allowed

The At

Bhoop

mischief-makers Tara

camp

of

power,

was

to

the the

Court

mischief

their

they

the

Chand

utilize

of

potential

same

rare

Singh

inability

Runjeet

to

the

it.” 66 Sikh

and

privileged

and

would

cross

for

orderlies,

was

time

a Attariwala

Camp,

and

thus

great

court,

In

Ranjit

for

the

appointed

Singh

and

of

he

be

one

had

potential

Ranjit

disruption

165 146. Sutlej.

issued

amount

strategically

send

position

W.G.

800

Singh

case

a

has

with

sinister

a

horsemen

with

an

Singh

report

considerably

for Osborne

his

of

order

to

for

within

once

1500

example,

his

actually

6

design

creating

to

to

cannons

manoeuvred

that

of

own

that

punish

strong

again,

discovered

and

the

no

effect

to

resources

punish

regiment

moderated

after Nihangs

without to

great

horsemen

cross

Ranjit

this

surround

to

a

or

problems

sect

the

any

Nihang

the

the

should

verbally

along

Singh

the

to

Maharaja.

of

for

Nthangs

river

privileged

the

those

put

Sikh

the

with

their

be

nuisance,

had

had

an

for

Sutlej

reprimanded.

court

end

raised

to

behaviours

the

for

position take

.“

to

their

Sikh

in

he

the

mischief,

terms

In

extreme

has

court,

order

of

as

by

of 76 he was ordered to be expelled; however, even when punished by the Maharaja, the

Nihang refused to adhere to the orders and instead chose to runaway: “Sardar Attar Singh

Kalianwalia was appointed to expel Naina Singh Nihang, who had raised disturbance and mischief in the country of Manjha and Patti. On hearing the news of the appointment of the troops against him the said Nihang at once left for the other side of the 167river.” Not only did Naina Singh Nihang disobey the orders of the Sikh court, but Ranjit Singh now feared the repercussions from the larger Nihang troops, who could now possibly seek revenge for their fellow Nihangs’ troubles: “On hearing the news of his crossing the

Maharaja remarked that the Akalis would create mischief and disturbance in the country protect by the Sahibs, who would be driven to make a complaint against 68them.” In another incident, a group of Nihangs were once again creating “excitement,” and when the Maharaja’s troops attempted to reprimand the group, the Sikh sect simply escaped without any fear of Ranjit Singh: “On the th25 (8th Nov.1835) the Maharaja heard that great excitement had been created by the Akalis in the village of Sheikh and ordered the

Daroghas and the platoons to root out the very foundations of their existence, but the Akalis escaped and avoided the troops of the Maharaja on their 69appearance.” In one interesting example of an “obedience order” administered to the Nihangs, Ranjit Singh ordered his General, Han Singh Nalwa, to “march with two platoons and a regiment to

167 Sun, Urndat, 174. 168 Ibid.

77

169

within

problematic

severity,

Nthangs

fears

Interestingly

to

imprisoned

somewhat

feared

prosecute

protect

of

the

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

to

the

access

which

create

Sikh

his

the

severely

255.

256.

344. powerful

aspects

for

enough,

orders

Akalis,

gatekeeper. 171

Sahibs, town

given

enter

something because

Singh An

court.

would

nearby

his

mischief

order

misbehaviours;

of

and

the

punished,

at

from

Nihang

Sikh

even

Rs.

who

have

the

every

he

the

town,

cause

was

like

beat

1,000

and

Nihangs, the

sect;

prisoner.

were

Ranjit

been

given

was

gate

a

and

any

the

rebellious

disturbance.” 7 °

was

stick,

would

as

imprisoned

on

of

that

the

man

kind

to

Singh’s

such,

in

the

however,

their

Khalifa

Ranjit

and

And

easy

definite

be

the

of

of

town

ordered

Lat

deducted

precautions

inconvenience

Nthangs:

way

yet,

case

solution

attempts

Singh

in

Nur-ud-din,

that,

Sahib

and

even

the

despite

to

The

of

him

if

decisive

the

camp

from

Durga

never

(Sir

any

when

with

one

to

not

other

had

all H.

Akali

the

punish

to

of

stating

to

example

administered

this

Singh

Fane)

order

the

his

dealing

Gulu

to

salary

allow

side

would

be

men

punishment,

attempts

that

a

should

Khan

with

made

Nihang,

of

anybody

Nihang

of

of

of

with

Durga

the

enter

the

the

a

only

be

to

Nthang

river

to

a

another

the

punishment

restricting

are

to who

subdue

Ranjit

Satlej

followed

was

who

group

the

Singh

and

was

the

in

with

were

any

had 78

175

174

172

life.” 75

nuisance

the

“bears

would

Maharaja

appalling

balls

occurrence

himself

abuses,

himself.

and

as

we

through

Nihangs

well

have

recorded

at

Ibid.

Griffin,

have

Ibid.,

it

Osborne,

his

Other

and

as

from

If

all

and

the

seen

than W.G.

responded.

anything,

other

feet,

147.

for

with

been

presented

the

physical

danger

Ranjit

their

Europeans

by

The

the so

them,

Osborne,

extent

and

figures

the

many,

the

far

Court

Nihangs’

Singh,

[Nthangs’]

during

greatest

abuse

the

case

are

Rather

on

and

to

of

and

that

and

ultimate

136. the

marching

the

who

the

for

with

verbal

and

Camp,

the

very

Nihangs’

the

Ranjit

aspects

than

coolness.” 74

power

example,

noted

insults

any

insult

Maharaja’s

Nihangs

abuses

146.

demonstration

public

have

past

other

Singh,

the

not

within

him

and

disturbances

observed

the

him

Nihangs

only

abuses

they

abuser

physically

in

Griffin abuse.” 172

as

trouble

reign,

the

[Ranjit

every

he

Ranjit

administered

Sikh

against

describes,

of of

that

exhibited

and

also

makers

sort

the

the

in

Singh],

Singh’s, and

Osborne

court.

Ranjit

more terms

notes

Sikh extent

of

him

verbally

manner.” 73

killed

as However,

“[t]hey

to

to

than

Singh

ruler,

was

of

the

but

of

goes the

“it

throw

the

many

the

the

once

is

or

also

Maharaja

abused

Ranjit

“failed

were “other”

on

still

imprisoned

Nihangs

way

handfuls

it

his

to

Even

they

threats

is

a

an

describe

Singh

the

in

common

son

also

in

i.e.,

attempted

unmitigated

himself.

which

more

emancipating

Maharaja

power

Sher

and

of

well

Europeans,

instead

as

musket

these

dangers

what

the

known,

was

What

his 79

East

177

176

came,

guilt

trial

Harimandir

Singh’s

Because

witnessed

Nihangs

never

of

It

described:

Singh’s

is

&

the

and

and

West

certainly

the

Fauja

Captain

reacted

Maharaja

presence

punishment

the

of

great

Nihangs

Publishing

abuse

the

Singh,

this

Sahib.

punishment

Leopold

Maharaja

to

amazing

power

with

that

kept

scene

hands,

at

scornful

As

the

and

Ranjit

in

decided the

Without

Company,

we

they

the

Runjeet

his

threats.

Von

for

his

and

which

hands

abused

approached

Singh,

that

cool

Akal

shout;

had

the riding

Orlich,

courtiers,

of

influence

to

flogging

hesitation,

Singh

the

“heinous”

not

and

1976)

Another

(New

of

was

Takht

us.

withdraw

some

on

Travels

the

pelted

Nthangs

took

His

the

viewed

229-30.

Delhi:

on

an

without

Nihangs

galloped

(holy

over

Highness

no

similar

was Akalees,

elephant

well

us

in

Ranjit

act.

Master notice

the

India,

with

were

Ranjit

as

announced,” 77

throne

known

Although

ever

punishment

occasions.’ 76

out

an

included

mud,

those

[Maharaja

including

whatever,

Publishers,

Singh

able

in

affront,

of

Singh

fearing

of

the

the

incident as

savage

to

Sikh

obeyed

they

presence

Ranjit

ranks

Captain

Sinde

not

occurred

and

Sher

the

1982)

due

any

when

religioug

had

hordes

only

and,

and

which

said

Nihangs

Singh]

Singh

the

to

punishment

done

15.

Leopold

of

the

“the

abuse,

the

he

with

orders,

when

set

a

Punjab

demonstrates

was

to

however,

“duly

time

authority) Muslim

up

high

uplifted

demanded

men

but

glad

a

the

Von

and

for

Vol.

status as

confessed

threaten

Nihangs

dancing

the

Ranjit

awaited

Orlich,

1

at

(Lahore:

Ranjit

he

beating

the

the

[Ranjit

Singh

the

his

who

girl.

his

life 80

179

proved

touched

the

authority

constant

power

paintings.

representations

in

famous

court,

their

Nihangs

clearly

the

assault

Singh]

the

public

Sikh

dual

Ibid.

Ibid.

Sikh

in

to

the

as

military,

In

a

the

disturbing occupied.” 78

and

abusing

be.

were

ruler

sphere,

demonstration

As

Nihangs

they

positions

this

empire,

Maharaja

power

players

a

chapter

on

were

and

source

as

and

the

trial,

presence

had

and

incorporation

controllers

to

as

the

Nihangs

outside

disturbing

In

because

physically

players

I

privilege,

as

of

only

ultimate

have

this

of

well

power

the

to

instance,

second

the

developed

proved

within

of

the

as

great

of

European

Sikh

source

unlike his

respect

and

forcing

in the

Sikh

the

to

power

high

city

that

and

verbally

court,

despite

Lahore),

court

famous

any

of

the

and

“his

without

station,

they of

visitors

power,

this

overall

the

other

Amritsar

authority

in

the

hands..

abuse

were

Sikh

Nihangs

Sikh

and

general.

Nihangs

the

power

the

no

to

crux

finally,

a

the

sect

the

darbars

fact

matter

Sikh

.bound

Sikh

(the

as

Sikh

Sikh

But

of

further

within

had.

members

that

choosing

most

court.

sect

my

through

how

above

down

Maharaja

and

court,

they

argument,

that

the

religiously

demonstrated

As

problematic

the

had

of

at

Sikh

all

not

could

as

their

players

subsequent

the

Ranjit

else,

well

the

Ranjit

to

court

back,” 79

proud

that

not

physically

authority

powerful

in

as

within

Singh’s

this

be

having

the

Singh their

being because

power

is

the

to

a

in

city

very

the

81

of put

doubting

court,

problematic

Nihangs’

the

have

within

question

such

presence

that

certain such

sect

This

Chapter

Nihangs.

even

attempted

and a

as

an

thesis

the

As

negatively

negative

nothing

that

observation,

presence

“why?”

the

within

within

has

19t

features

4

began

Ranjit

Sikh

been

century

to

more the

reputation

this

Why

demonstrate loaded

within

ruler

with

Singh’ reiterated

Conclusion

are

Sikh

negative

I

than

were

context?

wanted

Maharaja

most

a

the

statement,

court

quote

s

a

reputation

which

the

group

Sikh

asserted

several

interpretation,

in

to in

Nthangs

from And

this demonstrate

Ranjit

the

court

resonated

of

that

clearly,

times,

a

thesis,

19 th

when lawless,

as

European

in

the

Singh

seen

the

century. the

it

looking

reader

there

“lion

amongst

there the

is in

two

19 th

violent,

in

difficult

such

Nihangs

observer

the

is of

century

My must

things:

would

at

certainly

Punjab”

19 th

negative

Europeans

hopes

them

and

be

to

century.

were

also

firstly,

was who

abhorred more

argue

in

were

was

much

pose

lights,

conjuncture

problematic.

a

presented

to

unique

especially;

that

against

Although

certainly

that

this

themselves

more

peoples.

and

the

in

story.

and

the

beginning

Nihangs

the

to

especially

with merited,

Their

there

the and

fascinating

fact

In

Sikh

And

the

sharing

story

the

secondly,

that

is

had

Nihang

as

SUch

no with

as

I

of

the

82 a

discussed

within

and

dualities

causers,

yet,

tentative

from

court,

problematic

sense,

However,

doctrine,

of

intelligence

order

he

out”

the

on

was

the

the

So they

the to

it

Nihangs

and

Generally,

of

suggest

able

in

control

is

court,

what

court. create

etc.,

other

while

the

their

fought

the

even

nature.

systems

to,

Sikh

lends

comes

beginning

they

however,

a

hand,

role

exactly?

over

at

one

violent

large

for

the such

court

On

were

itself

within

might

the

within

Ranjit

from

the

ambiguous

and

the

a

and

most

I

makes

of

incorporated

put

young

Nihangs

to

would

one

all

assert

successful

the

this

his

Singh

the

abusive

such

of

important

Sikh

hand,

own

for sect’s

dissertation

age,

this

argue

they

nature

hegemonic

were

in

some

court

kingdom

then?

to

unify

significant

the

Sikh

problematic

within are

that

the

outsiders

Sikh

of

Nihangs

fascinating

problematic

more

the

According

Maharaja

empire,

the

such

by

the

city

powers

which

many

Nihang

both

specifically

battles,

a

darbar

of

were

only

problematic

features

and

the

Hobbes

fighting

rivalled

discourses

himself.

out

to

in

sect

second

active

as

they

court,

settings,

those

a

of

we

very

as

itself

which

balance.

and

received

European

Sikh

have

players

seen

So

disturbers,

theories

to

stance

general

on

Foucault,

what

Lahore, in

and

misis

further

in

the

seen,

terms

the

they

within

as

gifts,

nature

do

which

ones,

social

and

a

forge

trouble

1

Amritsar.

all

proves

of

sect

9 th

even

the

awards,

leaders,

the origin,

these

the

century.

of

were

stigmatic

nature

great

both

had

power

Sikh

presence

their

And

dress,

“in

etc

in 83

Jersey:

180

themselves.

which

my

Sikh

overthrow

possibilities

such,

court

group

the

19 th

looking

for

Foucault

were

discuss

and

thesis,

Nihangs

“illegitimate”

century

court,

Humanities

balances

the

has

in

Piotr

to

which

So

challenging

the

at

be

Nihangs

not

however

further

now

the

Hoffman,

what

the

Though

limited,

for

limitations

Silch

within

not

been

legitimate

of

various

Press,

that

“illegitimate,”

of

power

only

argues

court,

prove

sources

explored

the

still

The

we

such

such

then

1996)

his

challenged

roles

Nihangs

Quest

have

are

which

but

can

authority

Hobbes’ that

sovereign

a

somebody

power

47.

of

theme

significant

for

they

certainly

of

in

seen

even

power

any

or

this

the

Power:

with

theory

also

equally

should

the

and the

and

within

Nthangs powerful

powers.

thesis

to

would

connection

Nihangs

sovereign

Hobbes, be

exceeded

Foucault’s

claiming

points

challenge

models.

altered.

have

powerful

the

for

have

within

sovereignty

Descartes,

example,

contract-power

to

been

power

their

the

In

power

think

to

to

For

the

theories

other

the

impose

figures power

other

a

sovereign’s

own

example,

relationships

central

about?

and

Sikh

of

are

words,

can

themes

Maharaja

authority

the on

of

the

these

to

court,

focus

Emergence

the

face,

the model,

One

not

Nihangs’

both

the

Maharaja

limits

nature

which

power.

only

such

it

whereas

within

of

Nthangs

within

Ranjit

Hobbes

is

there

my

challenge,

possible

of

upon

significant

are

of

understanding

Thus,

Modernity

thesis,

the

are

power

the

Singh

and

not

“if

and

are

A.” 18 °

19 th

possibilities

court.

A’s

after

the

central

to

one

Foucault

it

in

but

and

century

place

(New

theme

is

power

Sikh

the

such

As

a

even

the

to

84 of

term

181

which

purely

solely

dissertation

connection

passing

management

movement

in

protect

in

to

“Nthangs.”

term

than

century

understanding

much

the

the

the

“Akali”

what

“Akali”

makes

as

same

political

connections

Harbans

1920’s.

more

Sikhs,

of

for

Nthangs.

the

the

which

with

became

period

Within

example,

difficult

in

it

of

Singh,

within

“Sikh

but The

primary

difficult

ones

the

of

all

the

the

themselves

also

Such

from

modern Shiromani

to

Sikh

ed.,

modern

use

an

further

Gurdwaras

contemporary

question

Shiromani

the

may

to

entity

and

The

to

of

dramatic

places

1920-25.

official

coincide

pinpoint

the

Encyclopedia

have

context

secondary

prove

Sikhism,

in

Akali

is

term

to

of

themselves

Act.” 181

very problematic.

Akali

ascertain.

Sikh

changes

worship

Often

that

with

a

conjures

“Akali,”

Sikhism

Dal

one,

different

the

sources

party,

of

the

Dal

the

Because

referred

Sikh

Sikhisin

term

exact

over

Nihangs

in

party

This

Gurdwara

and

up

is

the

the

India

The

party

explored

Akali

perceptions

now

time

purely

Vol.

tradition

were

Nihangs

is

Shiromani

fought

to

of

Nihangs

because

which

are

was

I

as

a

the

and

has

(Patiala:

no

separate

Reform

the

political

part

dramatic

in

for

forged

history

longer

heavy

amongst

as

eventually

“Akali

this

of

and/or

even

of

was

Akali

we

Punjabi

themselves

a

entity

Movement

thesis

political

not

images referred

have

continuing

the

from

the

political

Movement”

Dal,

the Akalis

University,

only

reformation

Nihangs’

in

resulted

claim.

seen

warrior

sect.

which

and

itself

connotations,

to

to

of

and

change which

throughout

represent

as

Whereas

tradition,

texts,

Likewise,

the

1995) from

Akalis, in

was

traditions

their

alone,

2

the

of

occurred

1

the

in

founded

39-42.

the

history

the

the

and

the

but

this

term

due

the

85 to

and

unique

terms

term

contemporary

Nthangs

of

continuing

their

warrior

within

understanding

tradition,

most

attributes,

contemporary

it

would

etc.

of

themselves

Thus,

prove

contexts

because

to

be

as

fruitful

still

a

the

further

conjure

Nthangs

to

assess

area

up

are

of

traditions

the

inquiry.

certainly

Nihangs’

of

a

the

part

historical

past

of

86

a in

Ginkel,

Garrett,

Garrett,

Freitag,

Elphinstone,

Eden,

Chopra,

Booth,

Bayly,

Bayly,

Barua,

Bajwa,

Anand,

Works

Emily.

Offset

Studies

Persia,

India

Research Martin.

Van C.A.

C.A.

Studies

Pradeep.

H.L.O.

History

H.L.O. in

Publications,

Sandra

Fauja

Mulk

Guishan

Cited

India

A.

“Knowing

Empire

Mountstuart.

Vol.

Master

Up

Singh.

Raj

(1991).

Tartary

General

European

B.

The (1993),

Cannabis:

(1994).

1780-1870.

“Military

Institute,

the

Lall.

II

“Crime

et. Punjab

.

and

Country:

Military

Printers,

al.

London:

1981.

The

and

the

Principles

Maharaja

Information:

Adventurers

An

A

in

Developments

1960.

Panjab

Country:

India.

a

New

History.

the

Hundred

Account

System

Letters

1970.

Spottiswoods

Social

York:

London:

of

as

Ranjit

Empire

London:

Human

of

a

written

Intelligence

of

of

Years

Order

Sovereign

Cambridge

the

the

Northern

in

Singh

1815.

Sikhs.

India,

Kingdom

and

&

Ago.

Power.

to

of

Doubleday

Co.,

as

her

Colonial

Information

State.

Punjab:

Delhi:

India, 1750-1850.”

Gathering

Patron

University,

sister

1866

London:

of

Hoshiarpur:

Caubul

Motilal

1785-1

North

from

Press,

of

Offeat

the

in

and

Praeger

the 1996.

The

India.”

India.”

2003.

849

Arts.

and

Banarsidass,

Master

Social

Upper

Journal

By

V.V.R

its

Bombay:

Publishers,

Modern

Modern

Dependencies

C.

Communication

Printers,

Provinces

Grey.

Vedic

of

1964.

Military

Asian

Asian

Marg

Patiala:

1999.

1971.

of

87 in

Mcleod,

Malcolm,

Madra,

Madra,

Lorenzen,

Latif,

Lafont,

Khilani,

Kaye,

Hoffman,

Hodson,

Griffin,

Grewal,

Grewal,

Syad

John

University

Penjab,

Military

Macmillan,

Present

Oriental

Amandeep University

Amandeep

Company,

himself

Modernity.

Governor-General

Edwards,

Jean-Marie.

Guru

Amritsar:

W.H.

Lepel.

N.M.

J.S.

J.S.

Major

John.

David Piotr.

Muhammad.

William.

and

and

Nanak

Sikhs

Rise

situated

Ranjit

Sketch

Time.

Tradition.

his W.S.R.

Society

The

N.

Indu

Indu

1859.

Press,

Guru

Press,

1990.

Singh

and

family,

2004.

New

of

of “Warrior Maharaja

Dev

Quest

The

New

the Singh.

Banga.

Banga.

the

of

Parmjit

between

Nanak

Twelve

Vol.

2003.

Jersey:

History

2002.

and

the

University,

Life

Sikh

Khalsa:

London:

of for

and

Delhi:

Sikhs;

London:

98

Parmjit

Canada,

Ascetics

Maharaja

and

Civil

Power

Ranjit

Power:

friends.”

Dev

Singh.

Years

Humanities

(1978).

the

of

Eurasia

Correspondence

A

the

I.B.

a

University,

and

rivers

History

2001.

Singh.

Singh:

singular

in of

Sic

from

Clarendon

Hobbes,

in

Panjab:

Tauris

Military

Punjab.

a

London:

Ranjit

ques,

Indian

Publishing

Soldier’s

Jumna

unpublished

Press,

Warrior

Lord

of

nation,

Pulishers,

Tigers,

Singh:

Descartes,

From 1987.

the

History.”

Delhi:

Affairs

Press,

R.

and

of

1996.

Khalsa

of

Life

Bentley,

the

Saints:

House,

the

Indus.

who

Charles,

or

The

Independent

1892.

Five

of

in

letters

1999. Thieves.

Remotest

Journal

Maharaja

and

inhabit India.

State

Rahit.

Three

London:

1964.

Rivers.

1854.

Lord

the

and

and

London:

New

New

of

the

Emergence

Antiquity

Centuries

journals

Publishing

Metcalfe:

Society.

New

the

Ranjit

J.

provinces

Delhi:

York:

Murray,

American

Delhi:

Savill

Singh,

preserved

to

Amritsar:

of

Oxford

Paigrave

of

Late

the

the

of

and

Oxford

1812.

the

Sikh

88 by

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Said, Rose,

Ransom,

Pinch,

Paul,

Pall,

Osborne,

Murphy,

Moorcroft,

Mcleod,

S.J.S.

Edward

Ellen

H.A.

Khushwant.

Harbans

Gulcharan.

Ganda.

Unwin

Ganda. Fauja.

Fauja

Intelligence,

Baba

Sikh

Vijay.

Patiala:

1962.

Frontier

Publications,

University

W.H.

John

Anne.

W.G.

A

Frankel The

William

History

Prem.

&

Ranjit

Glossary

W. Warrior

Ltd.

Early

The

S.

Phukkian

ed.

A.C.

Who

Beloved

The

“Materializing

Province.

Foucault’s

Orientalism.

Ranjit

Panjab

Ranjit

Akali

1962. The

Press,

etc. et

Society,

Singh.

Court

European

is

and

Arora,

1971.

Ascetics al

a

Encyclopaedia

of

preserved

Forces

Singh

Sikh?

eds.

Phula

George

Press,

Singh:

1989.

the

in

Vol.

and

New

eds.

Discipline.

1839-40:

1952.

Personal

Tribes

New

Account

The

and

Camp

and Sikh

Singh.

III.

1984.

of

Maharaja

Delhi:

Maharaja

Trebeck.

in

The

Problem

his

Lahore:

Indian

York:

Pasts.”

and

the

of

Ludhiana:

of

Selections

Identity.

Generals.

Guru.

Master

of

Ranjeet

London:

National

Sikhism. Castes

Sikhs.

Travels

Vintage

Empire.

Ranjit

of

Government

Sikh

of

India:

the

Publishers,

Sikh

USA:

of

Sing.

Calcutta:

Formations.

from

Lahore

Delhi:

Duke

Punjab.

Singh:

Archives

Patiala:

in

Books, the

UK:

Identity.

B.

Hindustan.

Cambridge Delhi:

Punjab

the

Chattar

University

Sujiana

Cambridge

Printing,

Politics,

Book

London:

Punjabi

Punjab

Quality

1982.

1979.

of

New

Heritage

(2005).

India

and

Singh

Shop,

Publishers.

New

Society

University

York:

Akhbars,

1911.

Press,

University,

Printers

the

George

New

Press,

Jiwan

1940.

Delhi:

Publishers,

North-West

Oxford

Delhi.

1997.

and

2006.

Allen

&

Singh,

Punjab

Sagar

Press,

Binders,

Economy.

1995.

Patiala:

&

1973.

2007.

2005. 89

Wilson,

Von

Thornton,

Thompson,

Tarlo,

Sun,

Singh,

Singh,

Singh,

Orlich,

Sohan

Emma.

Mr.

Panjab;

East

1971.

W.HAllen,

S.P.

including Rajinder.

98. Parm

Chicago

Itihas

Nanak

1981.

Horace

Edward,

William

Edward.

and

&

Captain

Lal.

Bakhshish

Prakashan,

West Clothing

Dev

in

Hayman.

Harish

Press,

Umdat-Ut-Tawarikh:

“Akali

Sinde,

Ladakh

A

University,

1844.

Moorcroft

Publishing

Leonard.

The

gazetteer

1996.

Sharma.

Matters:

Afghanistan,

et.

Phoola

Life

1974.

Travels

and

a!.

of

Travels

Golden

and

Kashmir;

of

2001.

Company,

Singh:

Europeans

Charles

Dress

in

the

Mr.

the

the

countries

in

Temple.

Daftar

The

George

and

Himalayan

In

Lord

India,

Punjab

1976.

Peshawar,

Great

and

Identity

III

Metcalfe.

Patiala:

Including

adjacent

Trebeck.

Maharaja

and

1831-1839

Warrior.”

Provinces

in

the

India.

Kabul,

Publication

London:

to

New

neighbouring

Sinde

Ranjit

India

Sikh

AD.

Chicago:

Delhi:

Kunduz,

of

and

Hindustan

Review.

on

Chandigarh:

Faber

Singh.

Bureau,

the

the

Sagar

And

University

states.

and

Punjab.

north-west:

Amritsar:

42-45

Publications,

Bokhara;

1999.

and

Faber,

London:

Punjab

March

the Lahore:

of

Guru

1938

By 90