Introductory - Global Sikh Studies

222
The main difference was that feudalism formed its way in the
post-Khalsa period cautiously and gradually, but Maratha nationalism
was all along tied down to feudal personalities and institutions.
Secondly, the people of different castes, who participated in the Maratha
movement, did so without foregoing their castes. The net result was
that the effective leadership remained throughout in the hands of the
feudals and the upper castes. It is to them, the Brahmins and Prabhus,
that the political power and its attendent advantage, by and large,
gravitated. The Sikh movement was, on the other hand, reared on
plebian ideals. Feudalism had to strike its roots among masses who
had tasted freedom, equality and fraternity. Even in the post-Khalsa
period, it is the Jats and a carpenter who became the leaders of the
Missals but not a single man from the upper castes could do so. This
shift of political power from the upper strata to the lower strata of
society was un-heard of in the caste context. In the post-revolutionary
period, the Sikh chiefs could not afford to be so autocratic in exercising
political power or in monopolizing land as the feudals with established
feudal traditions could be. There is the contemporary evidence of
Hugel who states : ‘The chiefs of these missals were, properly, only
the commanders of the troops in their general enterprises, but they
were always the most considerable men in the Missal. Each individual
horseman, however, had some property, whether small or large, and
was, in truth, an arbitrary chief, who formed a member of the Missal,
just as it suited his own pleasure, or when some common interest was
at stake.’ 42 Forster, another contemporary, writes : ‘I find an
embarrassment in applying a distinct term to the form of the Sicoue
government, which, on the first view, bears an appearance of
aristocracy, but a closer examination discovers a large vein of popular
power branching through many of it parts… An equality of rank is
maintained in their civil society which, no class of man, however
wealthy or powerful, is suffered to break down.’ 43 Even Ranjit Singh
was conscious of the strong democratic traditions of the Khalsa, and
was circumspect in not offending openly their susceptibilities on this
score. The Khalsa was addressed as ‘Khalsa Jeo’, and his government
was called Sarkar-i-Khalsajeo (i.e. the government of the Khalsa).
He never ventured to sit formally on a throne, and his official seal did