Fakir Syed Wahiduddin, a scion of the famous Fakir family, has based his work, 'The Real Ranjit Singh', primarily on the authentic record available to him in the family archives.

The book begins with a legend. The young conqueror of Lahore fort is surveying his domain. When he approaches the Samman Burj (well-known portion of the Lahore fort), he is taken aback to perceive the form of a tiger in its dark interior. Before he can retire in haste, he is reassured by a human voice and invited to enter. On entering, he finds himself in the presence of a frail old anchorite who prophesies ever-increasing strength and prosperity to the political entity he is about to inaugurate, provided Ranjit Singh solemnly promised to abide by the four rules of conduct prescribed by the old man. Amongst these is the rule that he should never sit on a throne.

This incident was for long kept a secret by Ranjit Singh until he related it to Iwaz Khan, the keeper of royal stables, when the latter conveyed to him the query of a fakir whether Ranjit Singh was observing the promises then made. Iwaz Khan was placed under an oath not to relate the story during the lifetime of Ranjit Singh and repeated it to Fakir Qamaruddin only after his death. It is said that Ranjit Singh turned pale and began to perspire when he discovered that Iwaz Khan was in the know of the strange encounter.

At worst this is an attempt by Wahiduddin to explain away a fact that is incomprehensible to an oriental mind conversant with the never-ending procession of monarchs on thrones throughout the known history of the Indian sub-continent. The throne, the crown, the scepter, the coin, the kettledrum and other conventional symbols of sovereignty are necessary embellishments of all Indian monarchs big or small.

And yet Ranjit Singh lacked all this and much more. He never cared to doff his chieftain's turban and never really allowed himself any high sounding title other than plain 'Singh Sahib' finally bestowed upon him by Sant Singh, the head priest of Sri Harmandar Sahib Amritsar in recognition of his services to the temple. He was also called Sarkar, which incidentally was also the honorific of the humblest of his employees down to the kotwal and the patwari. He was often addressed as 'Bhai Sahib' by his compeers, was sometimes referred to as 'Khalsa' in recognition of his membership of that Order, but he preferred most to be known as Sirdar Ranjit Singh Bahadur.

It was customary throughout the medieval ages for princes, usurpers and impostors to ascend the throne by having a khutba (formal declaration of assumption of sovereignty) read in their names and by striking coins and by flaunting high-sounding titles. Here was a leader of men so completely sovereign in every conventional manner and yet conspicuously lacking the accompanying paraphernalia. It appears that like our Fakir, many others including perhaps Iwaz Khan himself have been seeking an explanation for it.

It remains a riddle even today. India, Pakistan and England co-operated in organizing an international exhibition on Ranjit Singh on the occasion of his second birth centenary. Significantly, this exhibition was unable to exhibit any throne, crown, scepter or any other symbol of royalty connected with him or his successors. Pakistan, after quite an effort, it appears, had produced a poor specimen of an aigrette "attributed" to his son Sher Singh. The personal seal of Ranjit Singh bore the inscription 'Akal Sahai Ranjit Singh' just as the personal seal of the humblest of his soldiers had the same legend preceding his name. He struck his coins in the names of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh.

Khushal Singh, who is better known as Jamadar Khushal Singh or is detested as the close relative of the traitor Tej Singh, it appears, was no less a traitor in his own independent right. He was the chief confidant and deorhidar (master of ceremonies) for Ranjit Singh from 1811 to 1817 AD before he was finally removed from that post on the express desire of Hari Singh Nalwa. He remained master of ceremonies for about seven years and was well versed with the modes of address and titles used to describe Ranjit Singh. He used to arrange (never before exacting a substantial bribe) the important meetings of foreign dignitaries, princes, principal Sirdars and eminent men with Ranjit Singh. He was at the same time a paid informer of the Peshwa of Poona to whom he caused at least two hundred letters to be written during the seven years of his service as chamberlain. It is significant that all his letters begin with the legend 'from the Deorhi of Sirdar Ranjit Singh Bahadur'. At places he refers to him as Sarkar and never as Raja or Maharaja.

Many eminent historians have examined the record of Ranjit Singh's secretariat. Though it has not been fully appreciated, a telling fact struggling to come to light is that, at least right up to 1831 CE, Ranjit Singh is not referred to as Raja or Maharaja.

Some historians of Ranjit Singh, including Lepel Griffin have narrated that he was installed as Maharaja in 1802 AD. The ceremony is supposed to have taken place in the Lahore fort with Baba Sahib Singh (Bedi) presiding over it. It, however, appears only to be true that he was acknowledged as leader by a majority of the Sikh Sirdars on the occasion and also only after the weight of Baba's personality was thrown into the pan. Surely Khushal Singh would not have missed the title had it been in existence. More than that, the British, who are ever so particular about form and title, would not have left it unmentioned in the treaty of 1806 AD. It would have been a direct and calculated insult to mention him as Sirdar along with Fateh Singh Ahluwalia and that too in a treaty of friendship. Then again, he would not be referred to as plain Raja in the later treaty of Amritsar (April 25, 1809). In the treaty concluded by Colonel Zorawar Singh with the Dalai Lama of Tibet and the Emperor of China, the Sikh Commonwealth is written of as 'Sarkar Khalsa Jio' or 'the people's republic under the leadership of the Khalsa'.

It is possible to muster support for this thesis from the contemporary enlightened literature. One Ganesh Das wrote Fatehnamah Guru Khalsa ji ka in about 1831 CE. On the basis of the internal evidence it can be said that the author was one of the bhaias of Ranjit Singh. Bhaias were his most trusted personal assistants and were employed on the most delicate of missions. Their emoluments were met from the budget head sarfe hazuri to which account his personal expenses were debited. There are reasons to believe that this particular bhaia was his most confidential personal secretary and was always in attendance at his residence. He is writing at a time when the principal Sirdars have been absorbed, Multan and Kashmir have been conquered and some important rebellions have been crushed - in a word, at the time when Ranjit Singh was at the height of power. It is significant that the title he chose for his book at this time is 'An Account of the Victories of Khalsa Ji' and not 'An Account of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Victories'.

Ganesh Das makes the political ideology of the age abundantly clear when he affirms 'Guru Gobind Singh has eternally bestowed the umbrella of sovereignty on the Khalsa'. That is what compels him to use the impersonal title of Sarkar for Ranjit Singh. He does refer to him as Raja but he uses the same epithet for other prominent Sirdars. Very, very rarely does he describe him as Maharaja. The use of the word is so rare that one is tempted to regard it as a later interpolation.

Attempts have been made to ascribe Ranjit Singh's contempt for symbols of royalty to his personal quality of humility. This formulation is difficult to maintain, for humility cannot characterize an ambitious leader who is also a successful conqueror. We also know that he was a proud man and justly so.

The other explanation, namely, that in deference to the orthodox Sikh concept of sovereignty he did not dare to adopt the symbols of royalty, is nearer to truth. With the incisive perception and the frankness of which only he was capable, Cunningham affirms, "but Ranjit Singh never arrogated to himself the title or powers of despot or tyrant…he attributed every success to the favour of God, and he styled himself and people collectively the 'Khalsa' or commonwealth of Gobind…his own name and his own motives were kept carefully concealed, and everything was done for the sake of the Guru, for the advantage of the Khalsa and in the name of the Lord", There is enough evidence to suggest that it was not a diplomatic stance for Ranjit Singh. It was an expression of a deep-rooted belief shared by other Sikh Sirdars who supported him.

Seminal government orders of constitutional validity reflect the republican concerns of Ranjit Singh. In The Real Ranjit Singh, Waheeduddin, has reproduced two original orders of Ranjit Singh sublimely asserting that neither he nor any of his relatives was above the law or had a right to oppress even the meanest of subjects. "Sri Satguruji forbid, if His Highness, his beloved son Kharak Singh ji, Kanwar Sher Singh ji … should commit any inappropriate act, you should bring it to the notice of His Highness… you should prevent the oppressor from oppression … so that every person's rights are secured and no person is oppressed…" Second order reads, "…If even His Highness should issue an inappropriate order …it should be clearly brought to the notice of Highness so that it may be amended. Protector of Bravery Malwa Singh should always be advised to dispense justice in accordance with legitimate rights and without the slightest oppression…in consultation with the Panches (jury) and judges of the city. "

These are not the orders of a Maharaja but those of a most responsible and the ethically most restrained leader, at best a first among equals.

We may borrow the phrase from Nietzsche and assert, 'perhaps he died too young' and too suddenly. Macnaughten treacherously poisoned him. He was a representative of a power he had become accustomed to trust too much. All of a sudden, he became incapable of expressing himself and died unexpectedly in the fifty-ninth year though he was, until then, in the best of health. It is known that before his fatal illness he did show much interest in the British constitutional arrangements, elected representatives and responsible executive. More about this aspect is an obscure dream of an unlettered but sincere and true son of Gobind who counted upon time to give him a chance. 'He was noble enough to contemplate a republican form of government, according to which he acted his role. His only ally in his robust design was none other than the great Sirdar Hari Singh (Nalwa). He is known to have been averse to Ranjit Singh's descendents succeeding him and was engrossed in a comparative study of constitutions. The general was opposed tooth and nail by the traitor Dhian Singh (Dogra) who preferred a succession of weak insipid kings with himself as the all-powerful Prime Minister. His dream stretched further to enthroning his son Hira Singh. It is significant that even Ranjit Singh attributed the death of Hari Singh at the frontier to a conspiracy hatched by Dhian Singh, the well-known traitor.

Daredevil Akalis constituted an organized powerful group, which stood for the authentic Sikh ideology. These warriors of Akal died in abundance for expansion of territory under the Sikh rule. Their most revered leaders like Phoola Singh and Sadhu Singh fell sword in hand in the battles of Ranjit Singh but stoutly opposed bestowal of sovereignty exclusively upon him. They never concealed their contempt for such a proposition and publicly derided his regal style. Phoola Singh was sitting on a balcony of a house overlooking a street of Amritsar when Ranjit Singh's procession on elephant back appeared. He was appalled at the arrogant travelling style in the vicinity of the holy shrine and commanded the procession to stop. Addressing Ranjit Singh he contemptuously asked how an ugly and deformed man like him had come by such a large he-buffalo that he was flaunting in the holy city? Ranjit Singh realized his mistake and, after dismounting humbly, replied with folded hands that it was the gift of the generous Khalsa whom Phoola Singh also represented. The point having been made the procession was allowed to proceed.

Such were the Akalis who recognized no ruler and no law, but the discipline of their faith, which prescribed God as the only sovereign worth bowing to. Writing in June 1838, W.G. Osborne mentions that Ranjit Singh "has signally failed in emancipating himself from their insult and abuse, for at any review…it is still common occurrence for them, on marching past him, to throw a handful of musket balls at his feet, and abuse and insult him in every sort of manner, frequently threatening his life - a threat which in more than one instance they have attempted to fulfill". These dauntless sons of the soil embodied the genuine spirit of liberty released by the Sikh movement for the first time in the political arena of this sub-continent.

It was this spirit which had made so powerful an impact on George Forester who wrote, "the Khalsa Sicques, even of the lowest order, are turbulent people, and possess haughtiness of deportment, which, in the common occurrence of life, peculiarly narrates their character…In travelling through Sirinaghur country, our party was joined by a Sicque horseman …this answer, when I asked him the name of his chief, was wholly conformable to the observations I have made of this nation. He told me (in a tone of voice and with an expression of countenance, which seemed to revolt at the idea of servitude) that he disclaimed an earthly superior and acknowledged no other master than his prophet".

The other institution which ardently supported Ranjit Singh all his life, cherished his memory, respected his none too able sons, was the Khalsa army. Being inspired by visions of widespread Khalsa Raj it was always victorious no matter what the cost. It is not surprising therefore, that the entire Khalsa army was republican in character and strongly opposed to one-man rule. After the death of Ranjit Singh it elected its own leaders called panches, who were ultimately under the supreme command of an elected Council of Five (the Panj Kaunsali). They, as representatives of the people, believed themselves to be the legitimate heirs of sovereign authority and even in opposition to the will of Ranjit Singh's son Dalip Singh or his widow Jindan, considered themselves competent to execute a traitor Prime Minister.

When all this has been said, it must be conceded that during the last years of his life (1832 to 1839) Ranjit Singh had become accustomed to tolerating the infliction of the title of Maharaja. He was surrounded by Hindu and Muslim courtiers whose only reason for being there was their loyalty to his person. To exhibit the sentiment servility and base flattery has been employed by such people throughout the ages. Monarchy was the most convenient form of government, which could help them in preserving their own influence and privileges. In historical terms government became intelligible to them only in the context of monarchy. They slowly and cleverly tamed the aging Lion of the Punjab and eventually almost succeeded in curing him of what seemed to them to be a disastrous oddity. That he never quite fell in line has already been noted. It is possible that those amongst the courtiers who correctly understood the ramifications of the Khalsa movement found its political concepts too difficult to introduce in a country where Sikhs were no more than a tenth of the population. The problem could legitimately be defined as one of securing universal acceptance of advanced political ideas in the Punjab still by and large mentally steeped in the Middle Ages.

The British too had their own conceptual and other more mundane problems. Ever since they set foot in India they had never come across any other constitutional arrangement but monarchical one. That is what they were used to for centuries at home. Their compulsions in India demanded that no dangerous republican ideas be allowed to spread in the land they hoped to govern eternally. This was the reason, which eventually led the British to destroy the young Sikh Republic.

The great contemporary Karl Marx has stressed the republican character of the Khalsa in his Notes on Punjab history. Later on, the British emphasized the monarchical character to alienate the leaders from the Sikh masses who disliked regalia and were intolerant of high-sounding titles. And of course their being known as conquerors of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Empire was certainly more in line with the concept of white man's burden than to be known as usurpers of the Sikh Republic lead by Sirdar Ranjit Singh Bahadur.

Sardar Gurtej Singh, designated Professor of Sikhism by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, is a former officer of the competitive, elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS) who resigned in the early eighties in protest of Govenment policies.

A post-graduate in history, Gurtej Singh has edited two books, translated two and authored six. His works include "Tanduv of the Centaur: Sikhs and Indian Secularism", "Chakravyuh: Web of Indian Secularism" and "Shahid-Bilas Sant Jarnail Singh".