|Sikh Empire has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in India or Pakistan may be able to help!
- 1 Name in Persian/Urdu/Pashto
- 2 Amritsar
- 3 Merge With Sikh Empire
- 4 Sikh Confederacy and Sikh Empire, 2 separate things
- 5 Sikh Conferate Empire
- 6 Article to be merged with Sikh Empire
- 7 The Flag of the Sikh Kingdom
- 8 Request
- 9 Barons and misls
- 10 Hindu Castes
- 11 Sikh Empire
- 12 Get It Straightened Up
- 13 New Country Profile
- 14 Sikhs and FATA
- 15 110% religious?
- 16 End of empire
- 17 Confusing line from the lead
- 18 sikh confederacies
- 19 infobox map
- 20 File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 21 Flag
- 22 Whether Ranjit Singh captured Lahore?
- 23 Map
Name in Persian/Urdu/Pashto
The Persian, Urdu and Pashto name of the Sikh Kingdom was Sikh Shahi. As Persian was the official language and Pashto a regional language of the Sikh Kingdom someone with knowledge of the Nastaliq (Perso-Arabic) Script should add "Sikh Shahi" in both Nastaliq and Latin amongst the names for the Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Amritsar was a capital of the Sikh Empire along with Lahore. I do not understand why it is not mentioned. (Dewan S. Ahsan 15:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC))
From my knowledge, Amritsar was the holy capital. Every single political affair took place in Lahore as Lahore was the countries capital. When Sarbat Khalsa was declared, only then did political affairs take place in Amritsar, in the Akal Takhat. Amritsar was only used as a capital for religious affairs of Sikhs. For example, the declaration of war on Afghanistan was declared in the Sarbat Khalsa which takes place in Amrtiar. I don't think Sikhi will allow a Countries capital to be in the holy city of Amritsar. (84singh84 10:17, March 26,2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84singh84 (talk • contribs)
Merge With Sikh Empire
Attn., removal of template is in violation with Wikipedia's policy. Do NOT remove the template on an article without discussion. Also, the user who has issued the template is requested to mention why he/she has done the same.
Sikh Confederacy and Sikh Empire, 2 separate things
The Sikh Confederacy was a collection of independent sovereign Sikh states whereas the formal Sikh Empire -one sovereign Sikh state under the Command of Ranjit Singh. They are two separate things. The situation, 1792AD+, is similar to China Warring States Period. 1792AD+ where one of the Kings of the states starts to conquered the other states and combine them into a single new state under his sole sovereign command, process complete on 1801 April with his coronation and official recognisation.--Sikh scholar 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree what happened to the article on the Sikh Confederacy? There is a good one here at any rate. http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sikh_Confederacy Was this merger due to some modern political reason? It seems a-historical. This looks like sabotage to me. Drifter bob (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The merger was resulted because the Sikh Misls where not able to defend themselves from Afghans as the Misls are quite small. By forming a Empire together they have been able to conquer more territory and share resources. If I had to use a modern example I will have to say it is kind of like the European Union. The Misls in the Sikh Empire only shared a common currency and stood up for each other during war. I hope that helps. Just read the articles on Sikhiwiki.com they explain everything in perfect detail. Cheers :) --user: 84singh84 10:26. 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sikh Conferate Empire
I added this section originally to highlight the military & economic power change after 1762AD. However, this I inputted into the Sikh Empire article but it clearly belongs in the Sikh Confederacy because the polictical strucure of the Sikh Confederacy was still active and in play. The formal Sikh Empire did not exist then (only existed in 1801).--Sikh scholar 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Article to be merged with Sikh Empire
This is original research. A search on google didnt give any results on Sikh confederacy. This article should be merged with Sikh Empire and the resultant article should be appropriately named and divided into two sections, one dealing with the various Sikh kingdoms and one with the Empire. I will do it in a day or two. --Naamdar Saheb|talk to your Saab 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The Flag of the Sikh Kingdom
The research i've done suggests that Ranjit Singh had two types of flags in operation. One political, i.e. the proto-type BLUE Nishan Sahib w/o the Khanda (which did not attain its current shape until the early 20th century http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:gWXjZ8JRT6cJ:www.westernssa.com/resources/docs/NISHAN%2520SAHIB.pdf+did+ranjit+singh+have+a+flag%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19.
Second, Ranjit jad a 'war' flag, which, to quote 'two Sikh army flags in the British Museum at London, bore the symbol of Kartik - god of war (A peacock). It is clear that even in the era of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, this Khanda- symbol was not in existence or in use'.
So i my question is, what did the protype Nishan Sahib, the flag of the Sikh Kingdom, look like? Was it just a blue triangle? Or the should the flag of the Kingdom be represented by the Peacock Hindu God of War???
msp4realmf 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
To all Sikh scholar out there, do you have access to the book “Maharaja Ranjit Singh” brought out by UBS Publishers Distributors Limited in association by says Dr Mohinder Singh, Director , National Institute of Panjab Studies. It is an illustrated book containing both the Kingdoms flag and coat of arms.
If you have access to it could you please scan the pictures and add them with the appropriate copyright dedications. Thx. msp4realmf 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Barons and misls
I notice this and the misl article refer to Baron's. This is wrong as that designation is valid only for western Europe and Baron implies some sort of fedual state, this was not the case for the misls or the smaller groups that preceded them. I don't have any sources which refer to the chiefs as Barons
I also notice that the word misl has been replaced by army, misl is the correct term to use.
If there are no objections I will change Barons to chiefs or leaders because they weren't misldar's until much later, specific time. I will also change the word army to misl
--Nackie 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to the hindu caste when you are talking about the giving of the child to the Sikh Army, the name of the caste is Kshatriya. If that was not what you meant, just leave it.
By Wjkk20, I too feel that the article should be renamed something else than a Confederate country because that just sounds too formal for it. Why not maybe rename it to something original something that was actually it was called by during those days. Like simply Sikh Empire as the British would call it or Sikh Raj, Khalsa Raj as the then locals would call it. Consider these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjkk20 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ummmm .... Sikh Empire is original --> http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521268844_CHOL9780521268844A008 Cosmos416 20:39, 31 October 2008
Get It Straightened Up
There's this one User:Cosmos416 and he keeps manipulating information on Sikh Empire page such as messing up its introduction and and removing the authentic names of Sikhs Empire originally it was called by during those days and everytime I do that, he deletes it and messes up the article. Isn't there a way to get rid of him completely so he won't mess up the information again? Reply. --Wjkk20 10:07, 02 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the info. deleted?
On the Sikh Empire article, I wrote lots of descriptive information about the Sikh Empire and it was very descriptive yet everytime somebody just happens to be deleting it. Why is it that? If you look on the page first of all, I even left a message on top of the article as it was suggested by the Wikipedia when I went to its editing section. And see my information written there or in the history section. Reply. --Wjkk20 12:46, 03 November 2008 (UTC)
- By Wjkk20, My information is more descriptive whereas the others editions have taken away lots of information away and mess up the introduction. So that's why my information should be there as it is more descriptive and sophisticated.--Wjkk20 —Preceding comment by Wjkk20 moved by Roadahead (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sikh Empire 2
I have just added some descriptive information and expect the readers to first read it and then put their evaluations of it on the discussion page and let me know that does it still really needed to be removed? --Wjkk20 11:14, 05 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we change the article's name again from Sikh Empire to Punjab Empire as it is the most authentic and most original name of the country. Because nobody has ever called or known this country by name of Sikh Empire/Confederacy, everybody has always known it by name of Punjab Empire or just Punjab. So if anybody would be come looking for the former Punjabi country then they most likely type in Punjab, not Sikh Empire/Confederacy. Plus, it would also give it a fitting place on Punjab disam. page. Wjkk20 03 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, historically, it was never really called a Sikh Empire but rather a Panjab empire. And while the ruler was a Sikh, the vast majority of his subjects where not. Additionally, Ranjit Singh employed a large number of non-sikhs to rule his the Panjab state (obviously) and employed Muslim soldiers, European mercerneries and Hindu merchants etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It has always been called Khalsa Raj by the people which tranlates directly to Sikh Empire and NOT Punjabi Empire. The nation was born out spilled blood of Sikhs first and foremost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
New Country Profile
I have just added a country profile on the Sikh Empire page and all went fine except the flag sizes as you have had already seen, I couldn't get that right, if anybody can get the right adequate size of flags on the page. --Wjkk20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sikhs and FATA
Sikhs never ruled over FATA and neither the whole NWFP was under their rule. Their rule was confined to the Peshawar valley. Many areas like Swat, Dir, Malakand were never conquered by the Sikhs, actually they were not even a part of NWFP. They were included in the NWFP province in the 60's before that they were a part of PATA.
The author of this pages should provide authentic evidence to his claim regarding FATA and the whole NWFP being a part of Sikh empire, otherwise I ask him to edit this page and remove wrong iformations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohestani9 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In section "Sikh Empire" it states that the different religious denominations made up a total of 110%. They might have been over-zealous, but that still wouldn't make anyone of them count more than one. There is a reference given, but I didn't read that text, I just wanted to point out the inconsistency. --Benito (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
End of empire
I reworked this section. There should be wording and structure changes only. No sources dropped, and there should be no information lost. Did I miss something? I won't simply revert it again, but please explain here if you revert it a second time. What is the objection?- sinneed (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Confusing line from the lead
As the Sikh Khalsa Army formally called Dal Khalsa grew to new regions which it administered and new Misldars came to the fore and the number of large misls eventually increased to 12 (~70000 Cavalry).
thought I should add this and this. I think there was a bit of confusion on the naming of confederacy vs. confederacies because individual misl was called a confederacy. Editors trying to verify Sikh confederacy didn't get any results because they were known collectively as the Sikh Confederacies. Thats why there was a merger between Sikh Confederacy and Sikh Empire.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
map as of 12 may 2010 - that's a nice addition, but does it really include all of the Sikh Empire's territory? And if it deliberately shows it before of after its height, shouldn't that be disclosed? I just noticed that most of the territory east of the pak/ind border is not included.3swordz (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I liked the map I had before, it gives more information and is in english but I don't want to wp:own the article. What do you think of the old map?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I like this version too. It's in English and this is the English Wikipedia. My main question is that is that does it really include the totality of the empire's territories, as described in the article? It seems to show the empire during its expansion, not at the zenith; if so, that should be noted. Or the article's wrong. Something's gotta give. Anyway, yeah, I prefer this version.3swordz (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
The Sikh Empire did not use the nishan sahib as its flag as the khanda was only developed in the early 1900s. the Sikh empire used a variety of altered napoleonic flags with persian inscriptions. 20K-Man12 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether Ranjit Singh captured Lahore?
It is mentioned in The Afghans of Willem Vogelsang that the Zaman Shah Durrani has appointed Ranjit as his representative at Lahore in 1799 February. Do we need to rewrite the intro section? --Vssun (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article on Ranjit Singh in the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism contradicts that. The Sikhs fought and defeated Zaman Shah Durrani and his troops. "Raṇjīt Siṅgh in whose territory lay the scene of this engagement distinguished himself in battle and his reputation rose from that of an obscure Sikh chieftain to the hero of the Punjab." Apuldram (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- On checking further, Ranjit Singh drove the Afghans out of Lahore on 7 July 1799 and took the city. Shah Zaman then honoured Ranjit Singh with a title. However, this does not contradict the statement in the the article's intro, so a revision isn't essential. Apuldram (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It is also mentioned in the above mentioned book that, the Sikhs were giving tribute to Afghanis, even after they started to control Punjab independently.--Vssun (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have undone the edit by IHaveMagicBalls (IHMB), which changed the map of the empire, because the new map was incorrect. There is overwhelming evidence that the empire did not extend south of the river Sutlej. I cite some of the evidence below.
- In Chapter 6, The Sikh Empire (1799–1849), of his book The Sikhs of the Punjab, Professor J S Grewal itemises the territorial acquisitions by Ranjit Singh. None of them lay south of the Sutlej.
- The terms of the Treaty of Amritsar, 1809 prevented Ranjit Singh from territorial expansion south of the Sutlej, although it gave him carte blanch to expand north of the river. There is no evidence that Ranjit Singh broke the treaty.
- When, on 11 December 1845, the Sikh army began crossing the Sutlej, it gave the British East India Company the excuse they needed and, on 13 December 1845, Hardinge issued a proclamation declaring war on the Sikhs,
The File:Map of the Sikh Empire.png drawn by IHMB appears to have been based on the File:Joppen1907India1805a.jpg (Map of India) which IHMB had inserted a few days earlier. That map does not claim to show the Sikh empire – it is headed 1805 Map of India. It shows "Sikhs" in the north of India, but Sikhs existed outside the Sikh empire, just as there were Hindus and Moslems inside the empire.
All credit to IHMB for trying to improve the map. However, to show the empire extended south of the Sutlej was incorrect. I am restoring the status quo ante, which showed the extent of the empire clearly and was easy to read, in contrast to the new map, where black print on a dark blue background is almost impossible. Apuldram (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)