Talk:Ranjit Singh/Archive 1

Topics

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

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

Copyright violation

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

Rewrite

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

Throne

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

Gurmukhi vs Punjabi

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

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

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

Well, any language can be written in any number of scripts - Punjabi just happens to be written in two predominantly. And no, I don't agree that you need to label the script. If someone knows more than one script, they can merely include both Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi labelled as Punjabi (see Bhangra for example).

Your second point applies to Punjabi just as much as it does to English. Gurmukhi script written for Punjabi is pronounced very differently from the same words written in Gurmukhi script for Hindi (and other languages). The same would apply for Punjabi written in Devanagari (largely to do with the way aspirates have been reinterpreted as tones in Punjabi). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but is guru mouth so ubiquitous, interlingual, extra-punjabi... to the extent that you'd need to differentiate based on language instead- "Punjabi (Gurmukhi)", "Hindi (Gurmukhi)"... as one does for "English (Latin)", "French (Latin), etc. ? I still think it should say guru mouth. Tuncrypt 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. From what I think you're saying, not it's not that ubiquitous or intelingual - but it has been used quite extensively for other languages (largely dialects of Hindustani) prior to becoming the official script of Punjabi in the second half of last century. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Religiously Motivated Bias in Article

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

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

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

It is not about being biased towards Sikhs or towards Muslims. It's about being honest about the real historical record. Did Ranjit Singh accomplish great things, even under today's standards? Yes, he did. Was he a brutal leader? No doubt about it. The debate about whether this article should be biased towards any group is an illogical debate. This article should present the facts, as specified by the historical record, and let the reader judge Ranjit Singh without ideological bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.69.121 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be pure fact. It is significantly biased towards sikhs. (I am a Sikh and I notice it). Wording such as "His brave Sikhs.." does not represent fact, but a personal bias. Instead, the wording could read "His armed forces..." because in fact his army was made up of people representing many backgrounds. One of the great things about Ranjit Singh was that he was secular. So why tarnish this fact with a religious twist to the article. Sure, he was a Sikh and that should be stated as the fact that it is. However, getting carried away with the "gallantry" and "bravery" of his Sikhs and calling his empire a "Sikh Empire" is inaccurate and based on personal views.

Sikh Empire?

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

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

Mughal Persecution of Sikhs

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

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

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

That is your point of view, and i cannot change it.It does not even matter to me.You can believe in what you want.I wonder if Aurangzeb allowed that?Ajjay (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I am merely describing the historical record, not "what I want." Sure, I'd like to believe that history can consist of purely evil figures like Aurangzeb, but reality is more complicated. I am merely saying you should understand that things are not so black and white. As for the quotation you provided about Aurangzeb, you can provide as many quotations by dubious English orientalists as I can provide just as many that contradict them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.80 (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

History depends on who writes it! As for providing comments, it was the mention of some book in the first para which started it. If you really want to discuss aurangzeb, Aurangzeb is the best place. Thanks and good byeAjjay (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

History is not just composed of opinions. It can also be a series of rational judgments derived from the historical record. You are confused by saying that history is purely opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.80 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh Sansi?

It has been said that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a Jat from Punjab. However there are other claims that he was actually a Sansi from Rajputana, that the name Sansi-Sandhawalia is a conjunction of his actual surname and that of his wife (Sandhawalia) who was a Jat and that this is an attempt to improve Jat History. Could someone please clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Porter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Sansi Jat (Clan) is completely different. Please read:

• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040706/punjab1.htm

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hIPy0LpPm9oC&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=jat+sansi+clan&source=web&ots=wzqI8_pL0c&sig=P0fg7W7dtOqSo72UqIDvNLX7nCY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001210/spectrum/books.htm#1

• Jean-Marie Lafont, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Lord of the Five Rivers. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

--Sikh historian (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh was not Jat

This is patently false information and the author cites works which appear to have been authored by caste enthusiasts from Jat community.

The article claims that Ranjit Singh was a Jat. There is no such clan called Sansis among Jats of Punjab. Sansis are a distinct caste, totally separate from Jats.

Here are some other sources of references about Sansis and Ranjit Singh.

The Sansis of Punjab: A Gypsy and Denotified Tribe of Rajput Origin Shersingh Sher

http://www.bagchee.com/books.php?id=31702

"Kirtu Sansi and Raja Sansi of the Sansi Tribe were very prominent and powerful. The latter founded ‘Raja Sansi’ in Amritsar-the ancestral house of Sindhawalia-a Misl which was closely related to Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Before partition, the Sansis were governed under the Criminal Tribes Act (VI) of 1924. In villages, they were required to intimate their whereabouts to the police, should they decide to leave at any time. They were engaged in petty jobs. Even the independence could not improve their status. The Criminal Tribes Act (VI) of 1924 was repealed in 1952, i.e., five years after independence."

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/gaz_hsp4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting messageboard discussion

http://www.sikhmatrimonials.com/Sikhnet/discussion.nsf/ca32680024ff68b487256a08007e86d8/47BFE2C6E632360E872571880010FA49!OpenDocument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sikh Historian" please don't distort history

To the gentleman called Sikh Historian:

Kindly let other viewpoints also prevail. The changes were posted with due references. You also deleted the reference to the Sati of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's wives.

Please allow Sher Singh Sher's work to be referenced about the caste issue. Kindly co-operate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sikh Historian" is an enthusiast from Jat community

"Sikh Historian" is using bullying tactics to get away with distrotions of history. He removed the references about Sansi origin of Ranjit Singh and the Sati of his wife.

He wants to present a "Jatized" perspective of Sikh history distorting very stark facts in the process.

Why is there shame in acknowledging Sati in Ranjit Singh's family? It is a historic fact.

Please see the link from a neutral source:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gbuzAxlYFb8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Ranjit+Singh+Sati&source=web&ots=WDMPOfdhNf&sig=5Q3dT3g0D0DDSqUvr3OPqHAGBWo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Cults, Customs and Superstitions of India. Being a Revised and Enlarged , By John Campbell Oman, pp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin kindly check "Sikh Historian" ...he is bullying and suppressing historical facts

Admin,

All of my edits were backed by solid references. The editor named "Sikh Historian" is using bullying tactics. I am lodging a formal complaint against him.

If his facts are so solid, let him openly discuss them on discussion page rather than threatening people. He is evading an objective discussons. Kindly help to keep this article historically accurate. "Sikh Historian" has a casteist agenda as has been pointed out by other participant. thanks...

To Sikh Historican

Hello,

I am sorry for the "bullying" comment but you should apologize for the charge of "vandalism" and allow well referenced edits. Kindly do not delete conversation topics from the discussion page and be kindly more open to a reasoned discussion.

Could you kindly explain why you deleted the reference to Sati of Ranjit Singh's wives. The references were provided from very credible sources.

--Internet Scholar (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues of Dispute

There are two major issues which are being distorted or being suppressed by some caste based interests:

1) Caste of Ranjit Singh

There is effort by a certain caste group to claim Ranjit Singh as from their caste and they do not allow properly referenced counter-claims to their position. The best way to resolve this is by allowing both claims and counter-claims and leave the judgement to the reader.

The controversy is regarding whether Ranjit Singh was a Sansi or Jat.

2) Sati of his wives

This is second area of dispute. There are verifiable references regarding the existence of Sati practice in Ranjit Singh's family and close kinsmen. His wives committed Sati, so did the wives of his brother-in-law , Jawahar Singh. References are available from neutral third party accounts that can be cited in this article.

Also, this attempt seeks to launder Sikh history in the light of later 19th and 20th century reform movements within Sikh society. Nothing wrong with this intent but it is still a distortion of history nonetheless, however well intentioned.

People need to know about real Ranjit Singh , not a mythical one of reformist and casteist imagination.

Let us resove these issues amicably with the academic spirit of inquiry.--Internet Scholar (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Practice of Sati in Ranjit Singh's Immediate Family and Clan

Hello Nichalp,

Please refer to the following work for a citation about the practice of Sati in Ranjit Singh's family:

Cults, Customs and Superstitions of India, John Campbell Oman, Chapter V "Cenotaph of Maharaja Ranjit Singh", pp 111-116

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gbuzAxlYFb8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Sati+of+Ranjit+Singh's+wives&source=web&ots=WDMQK7bgJh&sig=n7xaUV0Bf0GNXbhXfwt-DyugczM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA111,M1

Please note this is not an attempt to make any group look better or worse but an attempt to present history objectively. There are also other accounts of Ranjit Singh's cenotaph available from neutral sources, including the pictures of his cenotaph commemorating Sati of the Ranis in Lahore in 1839. The Sati of the wives of Ranjit Singh's brother-in-law, Jawahir Singh, also merits inclusion in this article.

--Internet Scholar (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a section about funeral of Ranjit Singh which has been discussed in many European contemporary accounts.--Internet Scholar (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Editions to the Maharaja's name/Sansi connection of Maharaja Ranjit Singh

I have restored back Maharaja Ranjit Singh's name from Deol back to Sukerchakia as it is crystal clear of Maharaja being the authority of Sukerchakia Misl and being so he's also one of the Sukerchakias as the Misls would only choose the leader who was one of them and by means of someone who like others in a misl would also inherit the same name used to call the misl, in the family. (talk) 06 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not as simple as meets the eye. Although, Griffin acknowledges the existence of "Sansi Jat" group, he also adds the following with regard to his connection with the Sansi tribe, which is distinct from Jats:

"The Sindhanwalias claim, like most other Sikhs, a Rajput descent, but they have also a close connection with the thievish and degraded tribe of Sansis, after which their ancesteral home, Raja Sansi, five miles from the city of Amritsar is named."

Reference: Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Barrier Between Our Growing Empire and Central Asia,pp 153, By L. Griffin, Published by Asian Educational Services, 2004, ISBN 8120619188, 9788120619180, 223 pages. Note: "thievish and degraded tribe of Sansis" remark should be understood in the context of colonial perception of Sansi tribe.

Further to this is the research published by Prof. Sher Singh Sher, establishing Sansi & Rajput ancestry of Maharaja's family. Sher Singh Sher had established in reputed journals that Ranjit Singh was a Sansi and that Sansi tribe itself is of Rajput origin. Refer to pages 10 and 13 of The Sansis of Punjab; a Gypsy and De-notified Tribe of Rajput Origin, By Sher Singh, 1926-Published by , 1965, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized 2 Aug 2007. CHAPTER TWO MAHARAJA RANJIT— SINGH THE MOST GLORIOUS SANSI establishes Ranjit Singh's Sansi and Rajput ancestry.

Given this diversity in published opinion , I think it would make sense for this article to give coverage to claims of Jat and Sansi, as well as Rajput connection of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's ancestry. The citations about the Sansi background of the Maharaja are unambiguous and from very reputable sources. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - Lets make the edits only after further discussion and eshtablishing consensus. Regards.--Internet Scholar (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

---

More secondary source references from reputable authors about the Sansi ancestry of Maharaja Ranjit Singh are given below. These are all from very reputable sources including scholars like Fauja Singh, Sangat Singh and Sher Singh Sher (SGPC nominated International Professor of Sikhism).

^ The Sansis of Punjab; a Gypsy and De-notified Tribe of Rajput Origin, Maharaja Ranjit Singh- The Most Glorious Sansi, pp 13, By Sher Singh, 1926-, Published by , 1965, Original from the University of Michigan
^ Tribalism in India, pp 160, By Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Edition: illustrated, Published by Vikas, 1978, Original from the University of Michigan
^ Sociological Bulletin,pp 97, By Indian Sociological Society, Published by Indian Sociological Society., 1952
^ Indian Librarian edited by Sant Ram Bhatia,pp 220, Published by , 1964Item notes: v.19-21 1964-67, Original from the University of Michigan
^ The Sikhs in History, pp 92, By Sangat Singh, Edition: 2, Published by S. Singh, 1995, Original from the University of Michigan
^ Some Aspects of State and Society Under Ranjit Singh, pp 5 By Fauja Singh, Published by Master Publishers, 1981, Original from the University of Michigan

A Sansi rising to the throne of Maharaja is a tribute the egalitarianism and casteless character of Khalsa that Guru Gobind Singh instilled in a caster-ridden society.--Internet Scholar (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

War with Gorkha

Though I realize the page is currently locked due to disagreements regarding other subjects, I found it somewhat surprising that Maharaja Ranjit Singh's famous battles against the legendary Gorkha commander General Amar Singh Thapa was not mentioned anywhere.

In 1809, the forces of the Nepalese (Gorkha) Empire had expanded past Garhwal and the Kangra led by Amar Singh Thapa. Ranjit Singh was able to drive the Nepalese forces back across the Sutlej river marking the extent of Nepali expansion. While this page is locked, I may try and update the woefully underwhelming Amar Singh Thapa page but thought I would throw this out there for anyone willing to take on the task. Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I try to fix this article we will hopefully get to these sections as well. Just give it some time and we will get to it. As you can see I have already started to fclean the article creating a skeleton upon which to build up to give Maharaja he rightful respect he deserves.

Cheers

Gorkhali (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point I forgot to mention is that, as we improve this article, we will try to include how everything was interconnected, how all these key figures knew each other, how many of the heros of the Nepal wars came to the service of Ranjit Singh after the Sagauli Treaty, Kunwar Balbhadra Singh died fighting in Afghanistan against the pathans during Ranjit Singh's Afghanistan conquest etc etc etc etc, why the Phulkian states joined the British in the Anglo-Sikh war, and so on, there is a lot to write about.

I was really disappointed by how the article was to begin with because it was not at all up to standards of an academic article.

Its gonna be a big task, but I will try to do my part to bring Ranjit Singh's article to better heights.

The only problem will be dealing with people's POVs.

Gorkhali (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Severly Bias

No Neutrality is presented in this Article and a very certain view point of Ranjit Singh is being presented. The Anti-Muslim propagation from a Sikh point of view is blatantly present, and there is not attempt in being subtle about the glorification of the Sikh Rule. Words such annexed are used instead of conquer, and even the indigenous Muslim population is given the title of invaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.74.175 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is absolutely rubbish.

Either it should be deleted or replaced with a more accurate version with less bias. Ibn abdul hassan (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Artists Impression of picture

The picture is obviously another artists impression, its never been seen before and cites no artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.26 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

When you click on pictures on wikipedia you can see additional information about them. This picture for example leads you here when you click it and you can use that page to determine the origin of the picture.Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When you click on the picture there is no information on the origin of the picture, because at the time of his reign there were no portraits of this style or impressions in India, similarly some people claim this to be painted at the time of his rule will claim there is also a black and white photograph circulating on the net, when in fact cameras did not exist during his life time in India, ie another fake Ibn abdul hassan (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

English: This is a full length oil portrait of the Maharajah Ranjit Singh, 80" x 52" oil on canvas. Completed in 2009 by the artist Manu Kaur Saluja. The portrait has a museum exhibition credit at the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto), from Nov 28, 2009 through March 28, 2010. The painting depicts Ranjit Singh sitting on his golden throne within the walls of the Lahore Fort. He is in full dress armor, with the Koh-i-Noor diamond on his right arm in it's original setting.

-Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Either its a painting of a live individual in question, or its an impression, pure and simpe. I await your answer? Ibn abdul hassan (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

I would like to see greater insight into the Maharaja's personal life. Users ought to refrain from adding allegations of homosexuality unless concrete evidence is gathered, however, greater detail about his childhood and wives should be added. If anyone has access to such information, it would greatly improve the quality of the article and the depth of the Maharaj's character. 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.232.90 (talk)

Ranjit Singh's Caste Background: Deletion of sourced content and references

Please note that he user Gurkhaboy deleted properly sourced contents and references as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranjit_Singh&diff=374677634&oldid=374557744

The ancestry of Maharaja is complex and any description of it cannot be complete without reference to Sansis, Jats and Bhati Rajputs. The above edit looked to be inspired solely by POV and could easily be construed as vandalism because the user did not care to leave any cogent edit summary to explain the deletion well sourced content and references.

The following references are reputable and qualify as WP:Source test:

• Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society , Page 114, Gypsy Lore Society - 1912
• The History of the Panjab, Page 335, Syed Muhamad Latif, Calcutta, Central Press Company, Limited, 1891 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.241.254 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am placing below the well sourced content that was deleted:

Noted historian of Punjab, Syad Muhammad Latif, and another colonial writer H.A Williams also traced the origin of Ranjit Singh's family to Sansi gypsies who claimed descent from Bhati Rajputs

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an undue amount of attention being paid to his ancestry. Its Syed muhammad latif by the way.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The ancestry of this Maharaja is a very widely discussed subject and has adequate notability as a controversy to merit inclusion in the lead of this article (see WP:Lead)

The claim gypsies being of Rajput descent has been disproved long ago and doesn't hold valid.

Gorkhali (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any citable sources to support what you are stating or this your WP:OR? Both of the above sources contradict you. This is an encyclopaedia. Editors cannot dissect or question cited sources so long as they passs WP:Source test. Your personal opinion however esteemed and true cannot be cited in the article nor can any sourced content be removed on its basis. Thanks.--142.205.241.254 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jatts and Rajputs share a common ancestry, and it has been proved that Gypsies are linked to Jats, so it would be OK to assume Rajputs have a common ancestry.

"An international collaboration led by Manir Ali of the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, first identified the ‘Jatt’ mutation in one of four Pakistani families. Further study amongst Roma populations in Europe showed that the same mutation accounted for nearly half of all cases of PCG [Primary congenital glaucoma] in that community. Manir Ali’s research also confirms the widely accepted view that the Roma originated from the Jatt clan of Northern India and Pakistan and not from Eastern Europe as previously believed."

As for the reference, please include it in the section that talks about his ancestry. In my mind, I am of no doubt the Sansi caste and Jats are closely allied and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's family were from the Sansi Caste. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Lepel Griffin on Ranjit Singh's ancestry

"...and from Sansi the Sindhanwalias and the Sansis have a common descent. The Sansis were the theivish and degraded tribe [sic] and the house of Sindhanwalia naturally feeling ashamed of its Sansi name invented a romantic story to account for it. But the relationship between the nobles and the beggars, does not seem the less certain and if history of Maharaja Ranjit Singh is attentively considered it will appear that much his policy and many of his actions had the true Sansi complexion"

Source: Sir Lepel Griffin, Punjab Chiefs, Vol. 1, p 219 --142.205.241.254 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Remove the name Ghaus Mohammad Khan from the list of Generals of Maharaja Ranjit Singh

The information is invalid that Ghaus Mohammad Khan is one of the general who belong to the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Ghaus Mohammad Khan is a wimbeldon Player and not any army general of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Please remove the name Ghaus Mohammad Khan from the list of generals who served the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramaditya dalvi (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally biased article

This article is absolutely rubbish, I cant understand why Sikhs feel so ashamed that this King was gay?

And the desecration of Muslim places of worship has not got ONE single mention, all Muslims know about this that Masjids were trashed by Sikhs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.26 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to cite a source for controversial statements like that because without a source that sort of thing reads like propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to have its facts checked and is far too bias. While certain events and facts are present the article it self is propaganda in its present form and is better left for a religious article, not a factual one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.80.45 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)