The Butcher of Sobraon: A Fake War and the Genocide of Khalsa

By Gavin Singh

‘The Butcher of Sobraon’ – Challenging the Myths of the British in India
The history of the British colonisation of the Punjab is a disturbing story of the most appalling atrocities, the most obscene contraventions of fundamental human rights and the theft and pillaging of a great nation.
Under the auspices of spreading the word of God and the fake premise of helping to educate an ignorant, backwards nation, British aristocrats committed the kind of sins which fit uncomfortably in the same bracket as Hitler, as Ivan the Terrible, as Pol Pot, Stalin or Saddam Hussein.
In this rampagjng work, Gavin Singh tells it as it was. There is none of the romanticism of costume dramas glorifying the Raj; none of the false nobility of white suited British Gentlemen defeating ignorance and the climate to make the Punjab a sunnier Britain. Improving the world before taking tiffin is as much as a myth as the idea that the Punjab was a backwards nation.
Singh describes a State rich in wealth and resources, self sufficient and led by an inclusive Maharaja years ahead of his time. He explains how that Maharaja, Ranjit Singh, the Lion of the Punjab, led his nation to a period of Camelot. How he overcame the war lords of neighbouring Afghanistan to bring peace and power to his nation.
How he was helped by the great warrior queen, Rani Sada Kaur and how, as his reign ended his nation fell into chaos. Indeed, it is not just the imperialists who have the light of truth shone upon them. Singh shows how the great Sada Kaur turned when she saw her legacy begin to crumble; how the Maharaja Ranjit Singh was driven by short termism – how even while the Punjab was enjoying the greatest period of its history, turbulence was growing beneath the bejewelled surface of the nation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Dec 21, 2020
• ISBN: 9781664113855

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Gavin Singh.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 12/21/2020

Xlibris

UK TFN: 0800 0148620 (Toll Free inside the UK)

UK Local: 02036 956328 ([phone] from outside the UK)

www.Xlibrispublishing.co.uk

787886

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

Section 1: Rani Sada Kaur, A Brave Sikh Woman

Sada Kaur and the Capture of Lahore, 1801

The Taking of Lahore; an Alternative View

The Men of Amritsar are Prisoners in their Homes; Women Have the Grace of God

The Genesis of a Great Woman

An Alliance That Could Have Unified the Punjab

The Sikh’s Curse

Scheming for Personal Gain

A Relationship with the British

Personal Ambition: The Scourge of a Nation

An Astonishing Betrayal of the Sikh People

1844

1857

1900: Cricket above Conscience

1947: A Succession of Men Duped

1953: Educated in the West, Betrayer of the East

1957: Excusing the Massacre, Missing the Opportunities

1965: an Opportunity Wasted

1978: The Historical Revisionist

1984: The Second Amritsar Massacre

1992: Genocide

2004: A Wasted Opportunity and a Failure to Use a Mandate

Today: The Road to Corruption

The End of a Curse

The Lesson of Sada Kaur

Section 2: The Camelot Years (Utopia) Of The Khalsa Sikh Raj Under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, The Lion Of Punjab

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Lion of Punjab

Relationship with Britain

Building the Empire

The Camelot Years of President John F Kennedy and Maharajah Ranjit Singh

The Benefits and Dangers of Iconic Leaders

The Good Time Sandwich

The Most Popular President

The Greatest Leader

Maharaja Ranjit Singh; the Meritocratic Lion of the Punjab

To Trust Is to Leave Oneself Open to Abuse

The Strangest Friendship: Kennedy and Nixon

Two Secular States

Kennedy: The Tolerant Catholic

Great Leadership Requires Strength

The Biggest Crisis: When Camelot Threatened to Disappear

The Lure of the Underworld

Needed a War and Got A Wedding

The Curse of Kennedy and the Suffering of Maharaja Ranjit Singh

A War is Needed; A Wedding is Planned

The Guests of Honour – The East India Company

An Absence of Nationalism

The Men Who Signalled the End of Camelot

Legacies That Might One Day Return Their Nations to Camelot

Section 3: Why The Cruel And Pillaging Imperialists Had No Right To Be There In The First Place

A Psychological and Sociological Examination of the Need for Imperialist Colonisation

I Am the Power

A Lesser People

Boris Johnson’s Flag Waving Piccanninies

Those That Float to the Surface

The White Man’s Burden

Robert Clive – The Destroyer of India

Fate

The Canker Spreads

The Imperial Rape of India

Section 4: Maharaja Sher Singh - No Napoleon Or Alexander The Great

Contrasting Men From the East

Grasping an Unexpected Nettle

The People’s Champion

The Privileges of a Prince

Lacking the Fortitude to Take His Chance

A Dandy Cloistered by the Court of his Father

An Uncertain Maharaja

Maharaja Sher Singh—Sikh Europhile

Sada Kaur, the Powerful Grandmother

What If Maharaja Sher Singh Had Been a Great Military Leader?

The Aftermath

Section 5: A Fake War - The First Anglo–Sikh War In 1844–45 And The Genocide Of The Sikh Khalsa By The Viscount Hardinge

An Introduction to the Fake War

A Brief Outline

Context to the Fake War

The Origins of the Plan

The Conflict at Mudki

The Role of the Maharani

Lal Singh – The Least Subtle Traitor

On to Ferozeshah

Buddowal– The Deliberately Missed Opportunity

Tej Singh Makes His Preparations

The Battle of Sobraon Begins and Tej Singh Flees

An Aside Regarding the ‘Accidental’ Invasion of the Punjab

Politics Win the Day

Major Broadfoot – A True and Honourable Hero (According to His Son)

A History of Sorts

What About Gulab Singh?

Did the Conspiracy Work?

The Aftermath

Nothing Changes

The British Manipulation of International Affairs

The Fake War: A Short Recap

Section 6: Rani Jindan Kaur—The Wrong Woman In The Wrong Place

The Enigma Of Jindan Kaur

A Life in Brief

Errors in Judgement

The Unholy Aftermath of a Fake War

The Mystical Maharani

The Prema Plot

The Maharaja Makes a Decision

An Opportunity Missed

A Full Life Unfulfilled

A Footnote of History

Section 7: The British Führer, Dalhousie, Dispatched By A Gang Of Three—Robert Peel, The Iron Duke, And Queen Victoria—To Steal The Koh-I-Noor At All Costs

Dalhousie, the Man Who Tried to Destroy Punjab

The Historical Context to Dalhousie’s Arrival

Failing to Hack It at Harrow

An Imperialist and an Annexationist

The Doctrine of Lapse

Dalhousie and Duleep Singh

I Have Caught My Hare

The Karma of the Koh-i-Noor

Section 8: Joseph Davey Cunningham - Punished By Viscount Hardinge And Murdered By The British Führer Dalhousie For Speaking The Truth On Behalf Of Punjabi Sikhs

Cunningham and Dalhousie

Shameless Treason: The Rise and Fall of the Man Who Told the Truth

Section 9: Stirlingshire Regiment Monument Of 1857 At The Wrong Place – The Story Of Freedom Fighters, Legends, And Heroes - William Wallace And Robert The Bruce

Sir William Wallace and the Battle for Scottish Independence

Robert the Bruce and the Dream of an Independent Scotland.

Lord Dalhousie, Scottish Unionist, betrayer of Wallace and Bruce

The Monuments of Stirling Castle

Section 10: Thirteen Karmas And Thirteen Retributions Of The Koh-I-Noor Diamond Upon Those Who Harmed The Unique Koh-I-Noor, The History Of Punjab, India

The Karmas of the Koh-i-Noor

1. Henry Lawrence and the Karma of Duty

2. Dr John Spencer Login and the Karma of Kindness

3. Dalhousie and the Karma of Control

4. The HMS Medea and the Karma of Theft

5. Queen Victoria and the Karma of ‘Mrs Fagin’

6. Peel, Hardinge, and Cunningham and the Karma of Violence

7. Prince Albert and the Karma of Mutilation

8. The Duke of Wellington and the Karma of Corruption

9. The First War of Indian Independence and the Karma of Mutiny

10. The East India Company and the Karma of Greed

11. The Wrecks of the Dalhousies and the Karma of Name

12. The Doctrine of Lapse and the Karma of Succession

13. The Crystal Palace and the Karma of Symbolism

Section 11: Where Does The Koh-I-Noor Belong? – The Koh-I-Noor Is The History Of The Punjab, India, And Pakistan

Bound by Boundary Lines

The Return of the Golden Sparrow

Don’t Let the Colonists Win

Chinks of Light Through the Corridor of Hope

Appendix

The Fake War: Supporting Research

Acknowledgements

References and Sources

Books

Journals

Section 1

Books

Journals

Websites

Section 2

Books

Journals

Websites

Section 3

Journals

Websites

Audio

Section 4

Books

Journals

Websites

Archives

Section 5

Books

Journals

Websites

Archives

Section 6

Books

Websites

Archives

Section 7

Books

Websites

Other Sources

Section 8

Journals

Websites

Section 9

Books

Websites

Section 10

Books

Journals

Archives

Section 11

Books

Websites

Image Credits

About the Author

PREFACE

There is a problem in most modern academic works written about the Indian subcontinent; the subject matter is written almost solely by the British pen. It is written for, and about, the British and leans favourably towards the empire. The stories of those whose lives were destroyed through invasion are lost in that narrative.

As an author, it’s important to tell the stories of the unknown. Even now, the Indian subcontinent has more British spies than mango trees! The stories of those who have lived there for centuries are being lost amid so much white noise.

If we look at some of the most popular writers and historians writing about India, especially the theft of the Koh-i-Noor, we still see an incredibly Anglocentric narrative. William Dalrymple is considered one of the foremost writers on the subject of Indian history, but he is a Scottish national. Other writers, like Anita Anand, a BBC presenter and journalist who has Indian heritage, still tell the story through an anglicised lens and advocate that the Koh-i-Noor remain in Britain rather than be returned to the country from where it was stolen.

Like Martin Luther King, who advocated for the freedom of his people, I too hope for the freedom of our history—to tell our own stories in our own voices. I wish for the young, especially the young female writers, to pick up the Indian pen in the spirit of the Rani of Jhansi and to write Indian history from the Indian perspective.

Our colonial history is painful and full of tragedy. 1.4 billion Indians are living on the subcontinent and around the world. They are waiting. The ink has been dry for far too long.

Our young people have excelled in medicine, law, accounting, and I.T. It’s time for us to conquer the pen, take to more artistic endeavours, and tell our own stories rather than have them told for us.

I am an optimist and a dreamer. I hope that the young writers of tomorrow will take on this mantle. Whether Indian or Pakistani or other ethnicities living abroad, those viewpoints are needed.

I dedicate this book to the future authors of the Indian subcontinent. No matter where you have travelled or where you have made your home, your people need you, and they need your voices. I urge you, as a matter of duty, to write our history without fear. Write it objectively so we can pay tribute and respect to the millions of our countrymen who have seen nothing but suffering, subjugation, and famine in the 300 years before independence. We owe it to our ancestors to tell their stories.

The Koh-i-Noor is Indian and Pakistani history.

Our history must come home.

Writing and researching is long, challenging, and sometimes tedious work. On a more personal note, I would like to thank Manchester City FC for the deep love and joy I received in supporting them. They have been inspirational beyond words.

Gavin Singh

BA (Hons), University of Manchester

MSc, University of Bradford

PGCE, Huddersfield Polytechnic (University of Huddersfield)

INTRODUCTION

There was a time when the British Empire was so expansive that it was described as the Empire on which the sun never sets. The crown owned countries, territories, and whole continents across the globe.

Because of this expansive Empire, Britain spent centuries controlling the narrative of Indian history, and this trend has continued, even after independence. Most books on the topic are still written in the majority by white, British authors with a specific narrative in mind. As a writer, I am gobsmacked that the scores of books released on the topic of the First Anglo-Sikh War have failed to illustrate that it was a fake war. Any reasonable man or woman on a Clapham Omnibus will reach this conclusion after reading this book’s painstaking research highlighting that it was just that - a fake war – one that essentially brought about the genocide of the Sikh Khalsa.

It was the massacre of the Khalsa that led to the theft of the Koh-i-Noor and the eventual inclusion of India in the Empire as the jewel in its crown. The subcontinent brought the Empire immense amounts of wealth and manpower, and Britain used that stolen wealth to slingshot themselves into modernity on the backs of their colonies.

Queen Victoria stated that for peace in India after she was crowned Empress, it would be essential to keep up appearances and not [try] to walk over people and always reminding them and making them feel that they are a conquered people. They were a conquered people, but this was the start of a narrative that would proliferate for the next century. Even though the British had invaded and stolen a country, to keep up appearances, it was essential to mask the fact that India had come under British rule through invasion, not unity.

Not only was Queen Victoria the leader of a nation, but she was also the head of The Church of England, a religion built on the teachings of Christ that promoted peace and kindness. Jesus had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and the Celtic tribes of Britain at the hands of the same invading force. So too would India suffer at the hands of her colonisers.

As representatives of a Church based on the foundation of compassion, the white men of the British Raj failed to carry out their duty to God and country. Where Christ said to spread my message through peace and compassion, the white men who came to India, both as soldiers and missionaries, chose to spread that message through violence and coercion. They bullied, looted, plundered, and murdered their way to power.

Henry VIII may have chuckled at the violent way in which his religion was spread, but I think it’s safe to say that Jesus himself would not have been pleased.

The actions of the men of the British Raj, (with the exception of Joseph Davey Cunningham, a good man who martyred himself to the truth), were sociopathic, often misogynist, anti-human, and self-aggrandising. Many of them were trained at the Addiscombe Military Seminary in Croydon where they had already cultivated a reputation for indiscipline and earned the disrespect of locals. Whether through association or design, each white man became complicit in the destruction of a nation, and the theft of Punjabi sovereignty.

It wasn’t until 1947 that India would emerge from under the yoke of her oppressors. A century had passed under the British Raj, and before that had been under the thumb of the East India Company. During that time, the subcontinent had witnessed atrocities, been used and discarded by her imperial masters, and suffered enormous economic damage under the pretence that it had been for the good of India. Even today the British media talks about Indian history with and imperialist slant. The right-wing Spectator and The Daily Telegraph (previously The Morning Post) are just two such examples. Their journalists write of the Empire as if it was aspirational, rather than the theft of sovereignty.

It is within this context that many historians approach the subject of Indian history. Even today, this attitude permeates the way that the history of the subcontinent is written about and interpreted. British supremacy is implied, and Indian voices remain largely silent and under-represented. Writing about the Koh-i-Noor helps to redress that imbalance. It is shared Indian and Pakistani history, and his story allows us to take charge of the narrative – to take our history back.

The theft of the Koh-i-Noor is central to Indian history and identity. It sits at the epicentre of some of the most influential events of the 19th century. His is a story of theft, murder, spies, lovers, traitors, and collaborators. For the first time, we want to tell those stories, not through British eyes, but through the eyes of those from whom the Koh-i-Noor was stolen.

Central to the history of the British Empire in India is the Punjab. It is the place where India truly lost its independence. It was there that, on the death of Ranjit Singh, the Lion of Punjab, the British would finally be able to orchestrate their complete annexation of the Indian subcontinent. If they held the Punjab, they held India.

The East India Company had been in the region for a long time, but there were three individuals, three architects of the Koh-i-Noor’s theft, who wanted India for the British crown - Prime Minister Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, and Queen Victoria herself (nicknamed Mrs. Fagin after Charles Dickens’ unforgettable character by the young Maharajah Duleep Singh for the way she would steal his nation, and the Koh-i-Noor). She had eyes on the Koh-i-Noor for her literal crown and the subcontinent for the symbolic crown of her Empire. She and her two co-conspirators would do anything and everything to make sure she got it. Both the Iron Duke and Robert Peel were determined to steal the diamond, annexe the Punjab, and liberally apply the Doctrine of Lapse to reach their ends.

What follows is a tale almost stranger than fiction. Under Ranjit Singh, the Indian Khalsa had been a mighty force. They were known to be among the strongest, most disciplined, most feared fighting forces in Asia. On his death, however, the state fell to infighting and intrigues, giving free rein to the East India Company, who already had a significant presence in the Punjab at the time, to destabilise the region. They annexed neighbouring areas, and placed troops around the borders, in an attempt to fabricate and provoke a war – a fake war, a fact that I hope to illustrate in this book.

The current historical record tells of the Hindu Dogra generals Tej Singh and Lal Singh leading the charge and declaring war on the British by mobilising the Khalsa, and yet, by looking at the aftermath of what is now known as the First Anglo-Sikh War, it is clear there was more at play here. Despite riding into battle against the British, it would be the traitorous actions of Tej Singh and Lal Singh that would result in a Sikh defeat, when they had the British army on the ropes. They had declared war at a time when the weather would be favourable for British troops, and yet even this had not been enough, and the British were about to suffer a crushing defeat and humiliation so much like the one they experienced in Afghanistan in 1841.

It was bribery, and the greed of traitors that bought a British victory, and yet the interpretation of history through British eyes will always tell another story. From the outset, Tej Singh and Lal Singh worked to ensure that the Sikh Khalsa would never win the war, and yet, even in the face of defeat, the Khalsa would not surrender. So many territories on the Indian sub-continent had given in to the East India Company without a fight, letting the British take what they wanted. The Khalsa were different. For the first time, Hardinge had an army that stood against him.

The Sikh Khalsa fought with bravery, despite the overwhelming odds stacked against them from the outset. Tej Singh and Lal Singh were taking orders from Governor-General Harding, through Major George Broadfoot – they were commanding both sides of the war. It was Hardinge who ordered Tej Singh to destroy the pontoon bridge crossing the Sutlej that stranded 20,000 of the Khalsa warriors on the east bank. This left them vulnerable. The remaining soldiers of those 20,000 brave Sikhs – men like General Sham Singh Atariwala - refused to give up, preferring to lay down their lives than surrender to the British hoards.

While Tej Singh and Lal Singh ran away, what remained of the Khalsa made a last stand in what was an orchestrated act of genocide and slaughter implemented by Hardinge, the traitorous generals, and the three architects of the Crown. A modern tribunal would have treated these acts as war crimes and memorialised the bravery of those valiant soldiers.

General Sir Joseph Thackwell witnessed the battle and wrote, though defeated and broken, they [the Khalsa] never ran, but fought to the last and I witnessed several acts of great bravery in their Sirdars and men. Hardinge was also present at the battle, and even he was forced to admit that, few escaped, none it may be said, surrendered. The Sikhs met their fate with the resignation which distinguishes their race. Cunningham wrote with respect of their prowess in battle writing in his History of the Sikhs that, the guns of the Sikhs were served with rapidity and precision, and the foot soldiers stood between and behind the batteries, firm in their order, and active with their muskets. The resistance met was wholly unexpected and all started with astonishment.

Cunningham was the only man who saw the First Anglo-Sikh War for what it truly was – a Fake War. He wrote with truth and integrity about his observations on the front lines of the First Anglo-Sikh War in a book titled History of the Sikhs. In that book, he exposed the truth behind it. He wrote of the collusion between Governor-General Hardinge, his sons who acted as spies for the British, Major George Broadfoot, and the traitorous Hindu Dogra generals Tej Singh and Lal Sing. He exposed the truth of atrocities committed by the British armies. He wrote about the slaughter of innocents, and the attempted cultural genocide of a proud nation.

It was Hardinge, under instruction from the crown, who was giving all the orders to both sides of the conflict. The brave Khalsa never stood a chance at victory, and as a consequence, Cunningham had to be dealt with. Hardinge had him removed from his political office and sent back to regimental duties, where he languished. His income was reduced to one-fourth of his original salary, and it was ensured he would never again be employed in political service.

In the face of all these abuses, Cunningham nevertheless acted with integrity, making no public complaint, but also never retracting any of the claims of wrongdoing against his superiors that had appeared in his book.

Records were destroyed and voices silenced to whitewash the narrative of history. The three architects in Britain hired a young man to act as their hired gun – a man with sociopathic tendencies who would serve in the interest of the crown. They sent their 007, James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie, to a state already crawling with spies, resulting in the murder of Cunningham, a man still known today as a friend of the Sikhs. Cunningham died suddenly near Ambala on the 28th of February, 1851. The architects’ hired gun had him murdered at only 38 years old, telling the world he had died from the disgrace of his demotion.

Cunningham’s name is mostly forgotten in the annals of history. Only a few hardcore academics have ever heard his name, and even then, they very rarely write about him. It is only the Sikhs who remember.

The truth would have died with Cunningham, and history would have been whitewashed by countless British historians over time were it not for the Sikh nation keeping his memory alive. When India was granted independence in 1947, Lord Mountbatten ordered the destruction of all documents relating to the East India Company and the British Empire in India. This destruction ensured that there could never be any definitive light shed onto Cunningham’s murder, nor the immeasurable other heinous crimes perpetrated by the British in their time on the subcontinent. It is now up to us to sift through the lies, and piece together the truth of our history.

Three individuals oversaw the theft of the Koh-i-Noor and the annexation of the Punjab – the three architects. Queen Victoria, Robert Peel, and the Duke of Wellington were the masterminds who manipulated events to work in their favour. They would steal, create wars, kidnap the young Maharajah Duleep Singh away from his mother, and orchestrate the murder of J.D. Cunningham, a friend to the Sikhs. Karma would come to them in the end.

Cunningham was the only man willing to stand up the brutal, unchristian policies of the East India Company - policies that included looting, plundering, and the subjugation of the native peoples. In Indian and Pakistani history, there has been only one leader willing to stand up and do the same. The Pakistani foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto asked for the return of the Koh-i-Noor at every opportunity, right up until his death in 1979.

There have been numerous calls to honour Cunningham by renaming the town and hill fort that currently carries the name of his murderer, but nothing has changed. Indian and Pakistani leadership show themselves to be impotent, weak, and self-centred, too quick to lay the blame on others for their misfortunes without understanding the historical treachery and complicity that made the theft of the Koh-i-Noor, the annexation of the Punjab, and the loss of Indian sovereignty come to pass. The first and second generations of Indian leaders after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira, were so anglicised that they were more interested in preserving their relationship with India’s conquerors than with the true independence of their country. Thanks to a British education, these leaders found themselves as synonymous with Britain as the Kohinoor himself.

We must remember. We must reconstruct our history, removing the whitewash that has too long obscured the truth. Winston Churchill wrote that history will be kind to me for I intend to write it. This can be interpreted as history is always written by the victors. Education is key to this. It is the most important step in eliminating racism. From an early age, children must understand that history can be told from many perspectives, and the the most common perspective may not always be the right one. Britain may have had an expansive empire, but there is a dark side to that expansion – it was fuelled by racism.

We need Indian and Sikh authors to reconstruct the First Anglo-Sikh War and the theft of the Koh-i-Noor, telling history in their own voices rather than the colonial bias that still runs through the narrative. After J.D. Cunningham there have been few, if any, authors who have taken the trouble to explore Sikh history impartially. The documents of white, British oppression may be gone, destroyed by an unchristian invading force, but now, more than ever is the time for us to sift through the lies of history, and take a page from Cunningham’s book.

The truth is there. We just need to know where to look.

SECTION 1: RANI SADA KAUR, A BRAVE SIKH WOMAN

Sada Kaur and the Capture of Lahore, 1801

Both the British and the people of Lahore wished for Ranjit Singh to take control. It is probably of little surprise that the residents of that noble city, sick to death with political uncertainty, corruption, and changing leadership, wanted one of their own to become Maharaja. What is perhaps more surprising is that he was also the choice of the Afghan leader, Badshah Jamaan who realized that Ranjit Singh would be the one to bring the last amount of harm to his people.

It was a tempting offer for the young warrior. While it was hard to refuse, it would prove even harder to accept. To take control of Lahore would mean overthrowing the Ramgahria Sardars, who had held positions of authority in the region for many decades - no easy task under even the most favourable of circumstances.

The circumstances facing Ranjit Singh were anything but favourable. Firstly, his relationship with the Ramgahria Sardars and their associates, the Bhangs, was poor. In fact, he was a sworn enemy of both. Next, his own small force of soldiers would almost certainly be insufficient to take on his opponents.

Neither Badshah Jamaan nor the good people of Lahore raised an army to offer him support. They wanted Ranjit Singh to rule the city, but weren’t prepared to back up that wish with military support.

The soon-to-be Lion of Punjab was undeterred, however. With no plan and only a few men, he set off for Lahore, stopping in Batala where his mother in law, Rani Sada Kaur, resided. The two were deeply fond of each other, and Ranjit Singh held his mother in law in high regard. He asked her advice, and like the best counsellors, she posed questions and allowed the young chieftain to reach his own conclusions: What was his plan? To proceed to Lahore, and capture it. What was the strength of his forces? He had perhaps three and a half thousand soldiers. Added to that he could count on up to two thousand more from Rani Sada Kaur’s own army. What strength did his opponents hold? This was the question that Ranjit Singh did not want to ask himself because he knew that the answer would cut his venture short.

Lahore was under the control of three Sikh Sardars. Then, Amritsar lay within the power of his great enemies, Ramgaharia and Banghi. To proceed with just 5000 men would mean interception on the way, in turn, resulting in the slaughter of his men by superior forces.

Rani Sada Kaur once again solved his problem, just as she had done so often as the young soldier learned the ways of the world. In doing so, she demonstrated the power of thought over force. She argued that Ranjit Singh’s men would not be attacked if they were moving for purely religious reasons. Subsequently, the generals were called together and told to prepare the men for advance. ‘Where to?’ came the inevitable question. The answer was reassuring. Sada Kaur told the soldiers that they were heading to Amritsar, not to attack, but to bathe in the sacred pool located there. Sada Kaur understood that keeping information a secret from 5000 soldiers was an impossible task. The rumour she had planted spread throughout the whole country. With a provenance directly from Ranjit Singh’s men, it was therefore understood that his army presented no military threat.

True to the rumours, Ranjit Singh’s forces travelled peacefully to Amritsar, where they bathed and paid their respects. That evening they camped just beyond the city walls. Only now, close to their target, did Rani Sada reveal her true intent. She gathered the commanders and told them of her plans to conquer the city. They set off there and then, and by the time the sun had risen, Ranjit Singh, Sada Kaur and five thousand men were at the gates of the city, undetected. Forces were quickly dispatched to oppose them, but Sada Kaur had demonstrated the power of ingenuity over brute force. She had no wish to enter into a full-scale conflict with the Lahore’s Sardars forces. Even if victory were achieved, it would come at a terrible cost. Instead, she had one additional and very powerful weapon on her side. The people of Lahore. They wanted Ranjit Singh to take the city and become ruler. It left the existing incumbents’ in an extremely fragile position.

Sada Kaur approached the opposing forces, pointed out the futility of any fighting, and secured their support with an offer of employment in return for their cooperation. The soldiers conceded, the people of Lahore opened the gates, and Ranjit Singh’s forces entered unopposed. They had almost taken the city without firing a single shot.

Two of the Sardar forces immediately withdrew and left Lahore. But the third, under the control of Chaet Singh (a distant relative of Sada Kaur), remained. They were determined to fight to the last.

The fort at Lahore is a stronghold as powerful as any. It was built by the Mughal forces to withstand rebellion and uprising. Ranjit Singh’s forces had travelled quickly, knowing that surprise was their best weapon. This meant that they had no heavy artillery which might, given good fortune, inflict some damage on the fort. Rifles might be deadly against flesh and bone, but faced with the stout, unyielding walls of the castles, they may as well have fired peashooters at a heavily armoured knight.

Ranjit Singh was young and relatively inexperienced. He carried on as though the problem simply did not exist. He ordered his men into trenches and instructed them to fire on the fort. It was a pointless exercise and one that achieved nothing beyond a waste of essential ammunition. Once more, it was Sada Kaur who brought him back to his senses. Ranjit Singh asked her, in desperation, what he should do next. As before, her response took the form of a question. Was his strategy of aggression working? The answer was clear, and Ranjit realised his tactical mistake. She told him to give the order to ceasefire.

Even on this day of surprises, what happened next was a shock. Sada Kaur raised a white flag, left her trench, and headed to the gate of the fort. There she met with Chaet Singh’s emissary and agreed to enter the lion’s den. Her powers of persuasion over men with a mindset towards military might were her greatest weapon.

Chaet Singh swore to fight to the death, even though Sada Kaur had persuaded him that Ranjit Singh’s military strength was unbreachable. Then, she offered to pay him a jagir (the village of Vienna, a little more than twenty miles from Lahore) in return for him abandoning the city. She was, she implored, there to help and not to harm him. If the latter had been her intention, she would not have entered his fortress alone and helpless.

Chaet Singh was convinced and retreated from Lahore. Persuasive as she might have been, Sada Kaur was also a woman of her word. It was what made her such a powerful negotiator. Nobody trusts a liar. Chaet Singh received his promised Jagir.

But Ranjit Singh’s problems were not over. His army was on the point of revolt. With his war chest many miles away, and the enemy lying between him and the source of his fortune, he had been unable to pay his soldiers for months. They were loyal men, but loyalty only stretches so far. Thus as the armies of his remaining enemies began to emerge, he began to worry. Forces gathered by the closed and bolted city gates. Lahore was effectively under siege.

There was no guarantee that if an attack came, Ranjit Singh’s men would repel it. Had the forces of Jodh Singh Ramgahria, Nijaa Deen Ksuriya, the Bhangis, and the other Sardars known this, the city would have fallen quickly. In desperation, Ranjit Singh once more consulted his mother in law. She sought out a 100-year-old Muslim man who knew of troves of jewels, gold, and armaments buried in the city by its previous rulers. They were located, seized, and the soldiers paid and re-armed.

Once more, thanks to his mother in law, Ranjit Singh was saved. He had come to discover that women could be ‘so wise and so intelligent.’

Ranjit Singh is generally considered to be the father of Sikh rule in the Punjab. But in reality, it was another woman, Rani Sada Kaur, who was the true founder of the era of Sikh rule, and the creator of the nation. If life were simple, she could have remained an unquestionable heroine and avoided the pitfalls of her glorious position.

The Taking of Lahore; an Alternative View

Gucharan Singh, in Sada Kaur (1762-1832), recounts a slightly different version of the events surrounding the capture of the Punjabi capital. His version states that the battle was a lot bloodier than is suggested above. The guard that met Ranjit Singh’s army at the gates of Lahore was, in his version, two hundred strong, and were defeated only after a fierce battle. He argues that, rather than some five thousand in number, the men Ranjit Singh and Sada Kaur led totalled nearer to five times that amount.

There is agreement over the fact that two of the three commanding Sardars based in Lahore fled, but Chaet Singh’s actions are portrayed as far more offensive, and Ranjit Singh’s strategy as more tactical in Gucharan Singh’s work. A diversionary attack was launched under the command of Sada Kaur, to which Chaet Singh sent five hundred troops in an attempt to repel the liberators. Bloody, violent warfare occurred, serving as a distraction while Ranjit Singh broke into the city through another gate. Only when Chaet Singh realised that he had been outmanoeuvred did he order his men back to the fort. From there, the different interpretations converge. Thus we see the uncertainty of historical records and begin to encounter the problems of judging Sada Kaur. Was she a heroine, traitor, saviour or enemy of the Punjab. Who can be sure?

What is more certain is that Ranjit Singh was just eighteen years old at the time. It is of little surprise that he required the wisdom, counsel, and experience of an older mentor.

The Men of Amritsar are Prisoners in their Homes; Women Have the Grace of God

Immensely prejudicial attitudes towards women are the norm in the world’s major religions. Consider Islam, where women live in purdah, hidden from the world, and in the most extreme interpretations of the Koran are forbidden from fundamental human rights, even today. To obtain the highest religious state, celibacy is a requirement in Buddhism, Hinduism, and even some branches of Christianity. In the last of these, women are gaining some foothold in parts of the faith’s hierarchy. Still, the Catholic church remains dominated by men at the highest level, as does the Church of England, especially in certain locations such as Africa.

If celibacy is the way to become closest to God, however, then that is a right denied to women because they have another function essential to the survival of the faith; they must reproduce. In doing so, their faith rules them out of achieving the highest status in their religion.

The Genesis of a Great Woman

Sada Kaur was born in 1762 and was fearless in the face of her foes from a young age. She was born into a traditional family, characterised by bravery and courage, values she absorbed and carried into adulthood. Her father-in-law was the Sardar Jai Singh, a man who held significant influence in the Punjab at a time when the British were beginning to sniff around its borders. He was the leader of the rich and powerful Kanhaiya Misl, and it was his son, Sadar Gurbakhsh Singh, who married Sada Kaur.

Gurbakhsh Singh died prematurely at the battle of Achal. It is a sad story whose tragic climax was reached by way of betrayal. Jai Singh had supported Mahan Singh, a leader of a nearby Misl, and helped him to recapture territory from the marauding Mughals. The two became allies, but soon Mahan Singh broke away from his mentor and declared independence. Jai Singh was deeply angered and saddened by this betrayal, so when Mahan Singh visited Amritsar during Diwali and offered sweetmeats to his former friend, his tentative advances were rejected.

‘Go away, you Bhagtia,’ shouted the Sardar (Bhagthia is an insult meaning ‘dancing boy’).

Mahan Singh was deeply offended by his rejection and sought to raise a coalition of opponents that included Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgarhia (which may offer an insight into Sada Kaur’s later antipathy towards that clan).

Tensions rose, culminating in the death of Sadar Gurbakhsh Singh. The death of her husband changed Sada Kaur. Rather than mourn or weep, she immediately set off for the battlefield, found her husband’s bloody body, and took his weapons. The emotional toughness she had been surrounded by as a child now took a physical form.

She sought revenge on Mahan Singh. With her significant influence over the now ageing Jai Singh, she persuaded him to support her proposal to marry her daughter, Mehtab Kaur, to Mahan Singh’s son. This son was none other than a young chieftain named Ranjit Singh, the future lion of the Punjab and alleged creator of the Sikh state, a man over whom Sada Kaur would grow to exert significant influence.

Sada Kaur avenged her husband’s death, not through the spilling of more blood, but through the political power she wielded. Once Mahan Singh passed, she exercised this power to its fullest extent. She had the late leader’s dewan, Lakhpat Rai, removed. She streamlined the Sukarchakia forces. However, her passage to power was not straightforward. Her wish to be involved in the day to day running of the affairs of state drew her into direct confrontation with her son-in-law’s mother. She wished to retain control of Mahan Singh’s estates and opposed the merger with those of the late Jai Singh. Rani Sada Kaur would show no tolerance to the older woman’s wishes.

Such interference offers an early insight into the other side of Sada Kaur - a single-minded, determined, and deeply ambitious one. She had instigated a marriage of convenience for her daughter and sought to gain maximum benefit from that liaison, but this came at a high cost. Through her constant meddling, and the subsequent battles with Ranjit Singh’s mother, she drew a curtain between her own daughter and the husband she’d pushed her to marry.

The couple were not particularly compatible. Mehtab Kaur did not bear Ranjit Singh a child quick enough, and the two seemed to share no common interests. Their relationship was cold, and so, Ranjit Singh found a new wife. This did not fall in line with Sada Kaur’s plans. It meant that after Ranjit Singh’s mother died, she would be unable to fill the void left by her passing. While Sada Kaur remained a significant influence over Ranjit Singh’s affairs, her authority was no longer absolute. She would eventually take Mehtab Kaur and leave for Batala, but not for some time. In the early months following his marriage to her daughter, the young Ranjit Singh came to trust and rely upon Sada Kaur. According to historian Khushwant Singh, she, more than anyone else directed his unbounded energy towards unifying the Panjab (sic).

The event that cemented her place in the heart and mind of the young Maharaja-to-be came in 1796 when Zaman Shah of Kabul invaded the Punjab and captured Lahore. This allowed for the disparate interests of the Sikh Misls to be put to one side. They gathered in Amritsar and considered their options.

The general groundswell of opinion was that a military solution was not the best option at that time. Sada Kaur disagreed. Legend has it that she went as far as to declare that if the Misls would not fight, then she would do so alone. The chiefs were persuaded and elected Ranjit Singh as their leader. Matters were resolved, on this occasion, before conflict could even ensue. Mahmud Shah, Zaman Shah’s half-brother, had seized on the absence of a leader to launch a rebellion of his own. Zaman Shah was forced to abandon Lahore to put a stop to it, leaving them to Mughal rule. In place of the Afghans, Lahore was now ruled by its tyrannical former leaders, the Bhangi Sardars. This began the process that would lead, three years later, to Ranjit Singh liberating the city with his mother-in-law’s help.

An Alliance That Could Have Unified the Punjab

Sada Kaur fought in alliance with the young Maharaja over the next few years. She led forces to help him defeat the enemies that wished to expel him from Lahore. Then, as his power grew, and his influence spread over the Punjab, she once more stood at his side. In December, 1802, Sada Kaur supported Ranjit Singh as he took the city of Amritsar, the religious heart of the Sikh kingdom. Shortly afterwards, Sardar Bhag Singh Bugga died and ordered his estates be handed to Sada Kaur.

Over