Originally Posted by
desi
I'm not sure what prompted you to compare the Sikh Misls in terms of power, as I don't think any of us claimed the Ramgharia Misl was the all mighty one. But there does seem to be a lot of in-factual conjecture and conclusions being made here.
1.) First of all, you claim the Ramgharia Misl was inconsequential in comparison to the Kanhaiya and others. On what basis? In terms of sheer manpower, the Ramgharia along with the Bhangi and Nakkai yielded the largest cavalary. In terms of landholding and revenue, they exceeded the Kanhaiya's once again and were second only to the Bhangis, extracting "six to ten lakh rupees." Now, what's even more interesting is they were originally a Misl bifurcated from the preceeding Kanhaiya Misl, from which Jassa Singh Ramgharia took the reigns and overshadowed the latter.
2.)You state that they had "few deeds accomplished independent of other misls", however fail to realize that was the entire purpose of the Misl system - they are meant to work in unison against foreign states/powers. And that's not to say that their own territories were not consolidated on their own, the expulsion of the afghan governor khwaja Obed in order to seize Batala and Kalanaur, the subjugation of Ghamand Chand, the durrani-appointed deputy in Katoch, and the subjugation of the Rajputs in the Hills were feats accomplished on their own.
3.) If they were inconsequential, what forced the Kanhaiya's to ally with the Sukerchakia, Bhangis and Ahluwalias in an attempt to subdue them? Mohd. Latif references that they were encroaching on the revenue of the Kanhaiya's and were on track to match the Bhangis in terms of influence, forcing the other Misls to side with Kanhaiya's, who Purnima Dhavan states were overwhelmed with jealousy, to put an end to this.
4.) Jassa Singh Ramgharia's defense at Ram Rauni is viewed as changing the entire course of Sikh influence in the Punjab as well is a defensive feat on its own, as per Dhavan, if it were not for him switching over to the side of the Sikhs who were besieged at Ram Rauni, neither would they have managed to escape from the afghan seizure without his use of sallying, nor would they have ever allied against adina beg, who was known to yield, flip-flop, pander to foreign powers to the detriment of the Sikhs.
5.) Many contemporary and modern historians, including Moulvi Mohd. Din of Batala, Latif and Dhavan, do not share Kushwant Singh's views, and basing the opinion of a Misl's influence on a single statement by a historian is not conclusive at all, especially without context.
6.) How does Shah Zaman invading Punjab render the Ramgharias as being inconsequential? He invaded the Western portion of Punjab, the bulk of Sukerchakia territory, which led them to seek support from the other Misls, notably the Bhangi and the Ramgharia, who both declined over disagreeing with Maharaja Ranjit Singh's assertion of being the ruler of Punjab. This infighting is not a proud moment for the Sikhs, but it doesn't conclude anything about the Ramgharia's strength as well.
7.) To address your point about the marble slab, the Ramgharia Misl brought back only the marble slab of the Peacock throne for a reason. Like you mentioned, Nadir Shah, who attacked the Mughals and ended the delusion of Turco-Persian alliance that the Mughals and many nawabs harbored, wrested the original peacock throne with him, the throne of value in the eyes of Sikhs, as it was the one on which the Mughal rulers who martyred the Sikh Gurus were coronated on. The later one was of no worth, and the original one had been lost to history at this point. Dhavan states that Jassa Singh Ramgharia wrested the marble slab, as it was the one on which Aurangzeb was coronated on, and not the later throne, which held little to no worth for him, as Shah Alam II readily yielded to Jassa in the past.
8.) Despite losing their territory in the battle against the Misls, the Ramgharia Misl still rebounded. Using Hansi and Hissar as a launchpad, they managed to take control of Northern Delhi (including parts of modern UP). Latif states that Shah Alam II presented Jassa with a peace offering in the form of valuable gifts delivered by an envoy and that the nawab of Meerut paid tribute to the Ramgharia. Dhavan further corroborates this, explaining that the settlements of western UP were pushed deeper into the heartland of UP in order to prevent falling prey to the raiding excursions by the Misl. And after the Sukerchakia and Kanhaiya relations soured, the Sukerchakia sought the support of the Ramgharia to essentially end the Kanhaiya Misl. If they were inconsequential, why would the Sukerchakia ask for their support? And the Ramgharia proved their mettle, because at the end of the Battle of Batala, the Kanhaiya Misl seized to exist, forcing Sada Kaur to make peace with the Sukerchakia through a marriage alliance, and the Ramgharia wrested their territory back which stretched from the Sutlej to the Beas, the bist doab of Jalandhar, the Hills, Hansi/Hissar. So in what way inconsequential?
Sources:
History of the Punjab, Latif.
When Sparrows became Hawks, Dhavan.
The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, Singh and Fenech.
Also I believe this is the wrong thread to discuss this, so if you want to take it any further, I think it would be best to move it into The Punjab thread.
Reply With Quote
