Annexation of Lahore by Ranjit Singh

When Ranjit Singh succeeded to the leadership of  Sukerchakia Misl in 1790 A.D., Lahore was being ruled by the weak Bhangi trio. In 1765 A.D., a Bhangi-Kanheya combination had expelled Kabuli Mal, the rapacious governor under Durrani. The new masters of Lahore ransacked it indiscriminately, dividing the spoils among themselves. The city itself was divided among the three Bhangi Sardars. The Sukerchakia chief at that time, Charat Singh, captured the famous canon, Zamzama, and retired to his headquarter at Gujranwala. Thus the Bhangi chiefs became too engrossed in their debaucheries and too jealous of each other to offer a united resistance to any of their rivals.

Another peculiar favourable circumstance which helped Ranjit Singh in the conquest of Lahore was the revived ambitions of the Durrani Emperor. In 1793, Shah Zaman succeeded to the throne of Kabul and decided to recover Punjab from the Sikhs. To achieve his mission, he sent approximately 7,000 horsemen under his General, Ahmed Khan Shahanchi, from Hasan Abdal. However, the Afghans were routed by the Sikhs. Two years later, Shah Zaman again appeared at Peshawar and took possession of the fortress of Rohtas, but had to hasten back to Kabul on hearing the news of the Persian invasion.

In 1796-97, Shah Zaman was urged by the hard-pressed Rohilla chief, Ghulam Mohammad, and Nawab Asif-ud-Daula of Oudh to invade India.In November 1796, the Shah marched at the head of 30,000 men and reached unhindered the precincts of Lahore. He even set up his camp on the banks of Ravi. The Bhangi chiefs left the town in hurry and Shah Zaman occupied Lahore on January 3, 1797. Shah’s stay at Lahore, however, proved to be a short one, as the news of the rebellion of his brother, Shah Mahmood, hastened his departure.

As yet,  Shah Zaman’s invasion had failed to dislodge the Sikh confederacy from their established position. The Bhangi chiefs, Lehna Singh and Sobha Singh, came out of their hidings and re-occupied Lahore. While the Durrani invasion convulsed the centre of the Punjab, Ranjit Singh had realized inability of the Bhangis to hold it permanently against the onslaughts of the Afghans. Lahore represented the symbol of prestige and power to any master of the Punjab. It commanded sub-mountainous region in the North-West, the hilly tracts in the North-East, the Doab in the center and the barren land in the South including Multan, Bahawalpur and Sind. To wrest it from the Bhangis was the main ambition of Ranjit Singh.

On October 25, 1798, Shah Zaman left Peshawar and advanced on Lahore. A Sukerchakia-Bhangi coalition attempted to hem in the Afghan army and Zaman, however, occupied Lahore. During the siege Ranjit Singh, in spirit of his youthful bravado, challenged the Shah from the Samman burj. The Bhangi chiefs, as usual, retired to the hills. Shah Zaman stayed at Lahore for about four months, but had to return once again because of the rebellion of Shah Mahmud. He left his Indian possessions under the control of Shahanchi Khan, who was later defeated by the combined forces of Ranjit Singh and others. With the dispersal of the Afghan forces, all semblance of Afghan authority between Ravi and Jhelum was obliterated.

The brave effort that Ranjit made against the Afghan chief, had impressed the citizens of Lahore, who were fed up with the oppression of the Bhangis. They approached Ranjit Singh to liberate them from the Bhangis. On 4th July, 1799, he led an army of 25,000 soldiers and invaded Lahore. On 6th July, the guards threw open the gates of the citadel and the next day the fort was occupied. The Bhangis, however, were left unmolested. 

“The occupation of Lahore,” as Bikramjit Hasrat remarks, “by the youthful Sukerchakia chief in July 1799 is a landmark in the history of the Sikhs. It laid the foundation of sovereign Sikh monarchy in Punjab.” The conquest of Lahore, in the words of G.L. Chopra, “was an important addition to Ranjit’s possession, and greatly enhanced his political prestige as the holder of the traditional capital of Punjab.”

Writers like Princep and Lepel Griffin allege that Lahore was bestowed upon Ranjit Singh for his service rendered to the Afghan ruler for the return of 15 canons which were lost  in the Jhelum while the latter was on his way back to Kabul. Shah Zaman, pleased on the act of Ranjit Singh presented the Khillat to the Sikh chief. Dr. N.K. Sinha, however,  refutes this allegation and justifies his full claim. 

No doubt, that Ranjit Singh dug out and delivered to Shah Zaman’s Vakil 15 pieces of canon and got in return a rich Khillat from Shah. But at the same time, Shah had not relinquished his design on Hindustan and was anxious to conciliate Ranjit Singh, whose position in the Punjab is best described in the words of British Resident with Daulat Rao Scindhia, “Zaman Shah is endeavouring to attach to his interest Ranjit Singh, the usurper of Lahore who has lately received Khillat from the Durrani Prince..... The Sikh chief possesses considerable influence in Punjab and seems ambitious of acquiring still greater authority which he hopes of attaining by means  of  a close connection...”

Ranjit Singh became the master of Lahore on 6th July,1799, while Shah Zaman returned from that city on 4th January of the same year. But Dr. Sinha asserts that the Durrani grant could not have helped him to conquer the capital of  Punjab which he took on 6th July, 1799 while the Khillat was most probably conferred in March of the following year, when 15 pieces of  canon were delivered. Dr. Sinha’s argument is based on the British Record of April 1800, according to which “Ranjit has lately delivered to Shah Zaman’s Vakil 15 pieces of canon which Durrani prince had lost last year in retreat....”

At this stage of his career Ranjit Singh was not so strong as to refuse the Durrani support, dubious though it certainly was. Keeping in line with this, Dr. N.K. Sinha remarks, “Each wanted to make use of other to serve his own interest and the submissive attitude of the one and the conciliatory attitude of the other must be regarded as mere diplomatic camouflage to hide the real objective for which they were striving.”

Conclusively, the arguments advanced by Dr. Sinha with the help of dates disprove the theory that Ranjit Singh secured Lahore as a gift from Shah Zaman.

Factors Responsible for the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte was the greatest military general of his times. No doubt, in 1807-08 he was at the height of his power. But soon after, his downfall started. It is a general observation that the year 1807 marks the zenith of his power. Further they observe, “Had he died in that year, his career would have seemed the most miraculous in the military annals of Europe and perhaps of the world...... The French Revolution was left far behind now. It was no France but Napoleon who commanded in Europe. And he had carried with him his family to wealth and fame and power.”

Here the question comes to mind that under what circumstances did the decline of Napoleon begin? No doubt, his decline was not affected by any royal reasons, but was the cumulative result of a variety of factors.

When did Napoleon’s downfall start? It is a very good question for discussion. According to a military historian, it started sometime between Jena and Moscow.A naval historian will place it at Trafalgar. A political historian, looking at the balance of power in the continent, might find the turning point at Tilsit. A historian, who considered the Napoleonic era as a period of struggle between France and England to control the European and overseas trade, would prefer to take the moment when the challenge was thrown down and taken up at the breach of the Peace of Amiens. A Frenchman asking himself at what point did Bonaparte cease to have the blessings of the Revolution and began to return to the practises of the Bourbon regime, might choose the moment when the First Consul crowned himself the Emperor of the French. These points of argument favour the year 1802 as the turning point; the year of the Treaty of Amiens, of the Concordat, and of the Consulship for life. Each was a climax, a settlement : of the war in Europe, of the crucial issue of the Revolution, of Bonaparte’s own rise to power. Each enclosed germs of decay; a treaty which was only a truce, a pacification which inaugurated a new struggle, the climbing of a mountain which revealed the true summit at least within reach. And as Thompson remarks, “If an exact moment is needed, let it then be that of the Elevation in the mass of Easter Day, April 18, 1802, when the material might of the Napoleonic republic did homage to the central circle of the Catholic faith.”

The chief most cause of his failure can be stated as Napoleon himself had observed, “It was the Spanish ulcer that ruined me.” Napoleon was determined on his part to exclude English goods from all over the European continent. For this purpose he interfered in the countries like Portugal and Spain. The Portuguese and the Spaniards got good support from the British navy. Hence in the Peninsular War, the French were badly beaten and driven away from the Peninsula. It very much reduced the prestige of Napoleon and the victories of the Duke of Wellington exploded the myth of Napoleon’s invincibility on land.

While the Peninsular War was on, Napoleon commanded a wing of his troops to Moscow in 1812 A.D., which is again regarded a great diplomatic blunder on his part. When the Tsar hesitated in implementing the Continental System on the soil of Russia, Napoleon led his army against the Russians. But the circumstances forced him to retreat from Moscow in a very helpless condition, which encouraged his enemies to join their hands and bring about his decline.

It is stated that the Continental System acted as a boomerang and destroyed its author. England was to Napoleon as his obstinate enemy. He wanted to beat England by adopting all possible measures.Therefore, he waged a commercial war against her and by issuing his famous decrees from Berlin, Warsaw, Milan and Fountainbleau he did all that he could do to deal a blow to the British trade and commerce. This system of his forced him to intervene in many countries. Although Napoleon failed in his real objective, yet he came across many difficulties. Hence his ultimate downfall.

Napoleon had given rise to militarism. No doubt, like other various supporters of militarism, Napoleon himself failed ultimately. Indeed, it was militarism by which he had risen to the peak of success, but later on he failed at all. In the beginning, he had recruited large armies and trained them very well, and with their support had defeated almost all the Great Powers of Europe one by one, with the exception of England. Later on, Napoleon had become very unpopular, because his constant wars had started taking heavy toll of human lives. Moreover, militarism had grown also in Russia, Prussia and Austria. At that time, the military forces of all the nations formed a coalition against Napoleon and defeated him. Also, later on, Napoleon had to recruit more and more forces from the Poles, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spaniards and the Danes. With it, he lost the fighting effectiveness.

It is narrated that once Metternich asked Napoleon at Dresden to accept his terms and give peace to Europe. But Napoleon denied: “What do you wish me to do? Should I dishonour myself? Never..... I cannot, because I rose to power through the camp.” Then Metternich asked him what he would do when his army of conscripts had perished. Napoleon answered, “You are not a soldier. You do not know what happens in the heart of a soldier. I have grown up on battle-fields and a man such as I care little for the lives of a million men.” Such thinking of Napoleon was, of course, responsible for his fall.

According to Dr. Sloane, “The causes of his decline may be summed up in a single word, exhaustion.” However, Prof. Holland Rose and President Theirs differ from this theory. According to them, Napoleon’s activity, both before and after Waterloo, was that of a man in good health. It was his judgment and the decisions he took that proved fatal to him. His victories in successive battles in the beginning had made him proud and haughty. He did not listen to the advice of others. He refused to set his confidence even upon Fouche and the master planner, Talleyrand. He believed that he was the best brain and his decisions were also the best. No doubt, many a times his calculations became defective and ultimately ended in his fall.

Another important factor of his decline is attributed to the rise of a great strategist -- Gneisenau, and a great fighting general in Blucher. Napoleon, however, had a very poor opinion for both of them and it was also his contempt for his enemies that led to his disaster. It was his good fortune that in his early years he did not meet a general worthy of his steel.

There are still many other factors attributed to his downfall. He began to depend more and more on trickery and deceit. He had even stated many a times, “I know when to exchange the lion’s skin for that of a fox.” For his such actions, he lost his belief in the continent, and every State began to hate him. The Allies had no faith in him when he made declarations and pledges. They were determined to remove him for once and all.

He was also a stranger to the idea of compromise. So long as there was the least chance of success, he was never prepared to come to terms with the enemy. Till end, he believed that he would be able to take advantage of the military errors of his enemies. Had he decided to come to a compromise when his misfortunes started and not depended on treachery and deceit, he would have retained for himself the throne of France.

Apart from these, he lost the support of certain sections through whom he had come to power. With the passage of time, he shed off all his Jacobinism and became a great imperialist. His own relatives became ungrateful to him whom he had treated very kindly. They took pleasure in thwarting his will on the occasion of some great crisis.He tried to make his brothers eagles, but they remained ordinary fowls. Once Napoleon told Metternich, “My relatives have done more harm than I have done them good.”

Thus we find many factors responsible for his downfall. There was no single factor which can be said to have brought about his downfall. All these factors jointly played their part and ultimately Napoleon --- the Terror of Europe, diminished from the scene of European politics, but to this day remains present in the minds of the people. No doubt, the Spanish ulcer, retreat from Moscow, the rise of Gneisenau and Blucher, and above all his egoism were the chief most factors which stood responsible for his ultimate decline.

RSSS and the modern Congressmen

It has become a fashion with the Congressmen or are they a patient of any phobia that whatever happens against their wishes, they take no time to blame the RSSS. I don't know much about this organization than that it is a social one, which had worked a lot during the national movement, or any natural calamity. Moreover, it is a organisation which is based on Hindu culture and ideals and promote the same. It is a agony if its agenda does not fit the Congress why does its leaders cry and scream of RSSS. If the Congress is so tired of it and continue to blame it, why does it not put a ban on it. But mind the Congress leadership, Pt. Nehru himself had hailed many a times the activities of RSSS. One must be broad-minded. I don't appreciate many policies of RSSS, but what is good will remain good. It is not essential for anybody to take a certificate from the Congress to act.

Anti-corruption movement in India

Before I post my opinion, I will like to make it clear that I am not attached to any political party or group. I am a person to have voted only once in my career and that also about 22 years back, that so because I have found only once a candidate who was honest and having clean image.

Now coming to my point. What happened in New Delhi in the early hours of 5th June, 2011 is open to all. In fact, the issues being raised today are those which concern every common man. India achieved independence on 15th August, 1947. But what we achieved can be called a true independence? Absolutely not. No doubt, we got freedom from the alien rule. That is all. The dragons of divide and rule, communalism, regionalism, lingualism, casteism, poverty etc, and above all the problem of law and order were still there. What were the issues why we raised the voice for freedom? We wanted a form of government which was our own, a government which cared for our upliftment, a government which secured our country’s wealth, a government which defended its citizens’ life and property. Has the independent India achieved all these issues? When we study our nationalist leaders and their thoughts, we feel proud of our country. But the present day leadership has forced us to feel ashamed. In fact, one feels ashamed not of his motherland but of the system where one is forced to be crushed. Nobody’s life or property is secured in the country. The demon of unemployment dances over the heads of thousands of Indians.

When India was under the British rule, the cry was over drain of India’s wealth to Britain and other European countries. All major contracts were given to the Europeans. Indians remained unemployed as all the major jobs were reserved for the Europeans again. All these problems persist in the country even today. The British used to crush all those who dared to open their tongue against the British system. That problem is there even today. The example is the event of the night of 4th and 5th June.

The Congress leadership justifies that the danger of law and order was growing. Were the sleeping people, who were sitting on non-violent Satyagraha, making any plot in the midnight? The Police Commissioner of Delhi says that they attacked the Police with the bats of base-ball? Let me ask Mr. Commissioner had they gone to protest against corruption or playing base-ball or cricket. Accepted the people attacked them, but why had they gone there at that time? To be attacked. Very sad. And the Congress leadership justifies the action. The Prime Minister very proudly says that there was no other alternative with the government. I had a great regard for Mr. Manmohan Singh but now I hate this useless fellow. If he was being forced to take such an action, he should have resigned from his post and had been the most popular personality in the world. But it is also a universal truth that power makes a man corrupt and Mr. Singh is no exception to it.

The major issue why all this drama happened. India ranks among the top in corruption in the world. The Indian politicians and the Congress leadership in general are the most affected ones. This has been proved in this incident. Had Baba Ramdev not worked in this direction, he would have been the most affectionate for them. Now the government is talking of checking his assets. Was it sleeping for the last 6 or 7 years for which he is submitting the returns. It seems that the government is serious of tackling corruption only if the Baba is cornered. It will be better if it finds out the corrupt people from all walks of life in the country and then finds wrong with the Baba.

Many people compare the Ram Lila ground incident with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919. But there are certain differences in it. First of all, then the massacre was carried on by the foreign rulers, who had no love for the Indians, but this time it was our own elected rulers. Secondly, that event in the broad day-light, but this time it happened in mid-night, when everybody was sleeping soundly. But what is common in the two events is that in both the cases, something was being demanded from the rulers. In 1919 was the repeal of the Rowlatt Bill while in 2011 was the introduction of Lok-Pal and to take steps to put a stop on corruption. In 1919 the demand was not acceptable to the British and in 2011 it was not acceptable to the Congress. Today the Congress says it is not possible for the government to accept what the civilians demand. This is what the British used to say and the then Congress leadership used to agitate. Mr. Chidambaram and other Congress leaders say that the government is serious in curbing corruption? But the question is how? By crushing the people who agitate or dare to raise their voice against the system? If the Government is so serious then why it is doing so much drama and making such a hue and cry over this issue?

The present day Congress leadership should learn something from history. If it continues to crush the fundamental right of the masses to express their opinion, then the day is not far when we will see the 1789 of France or 1917 of Russia or 1949 of China in India very soon. God saves India!