#Ranjit-Singh | [Instagram: @ranjitsingh.ma](https://www.instagram.com/ranjitsingh.ma/) | [Substack: @ranjitsinghma](https://substack.com/@ranjitsinghma) | Order a physical copy of the publication at [Shop.BungaAzaadi.com](https://shop.bungaazaadi.com/products/khalistan-vs-khalsa-raaj) ## Khalistan: A Modern Nation-State Project Khalistan is best understood as a modern nationalist project, emerging within the global context of nation-states, self-determination movements, and post-colonial struggles. It envisions a sovereign “Sikh homeland” as a defined territorial nation-state where either Sikhs are dominant demographically and/or Sikh principles inform governance. The demand for Khalistan gained momentum in the late 20th century, particularly after the watershed events of 1984, namely the Indian government’s attack on Harmandir Sahib and the state-backed anti-Sikh genocide that followed. In line with other nationalist movements worldwide, proponents of Khalistan took concrete steps toward building a state apparatus such as: - Drafting a constitution - Issuing passports and currency prototypes - Seeking international recognition - Defining borders and territorial claims Khalistan is heavily influenced by the development of a Sikh nationalism, a relatively modern construct shaped by the Singh Sabha reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These reforms were driven by the need to codify Sikh identity, distinguishing it from other religious traditions so as to respond to the pressures of British colonial rule and census-driven representative, identity politics. As such, Khalistan fits squarely within the nation-state model as an expression of Sikh nationalism. It is a political vision where sovereignty, fixed territory, and demographic majority form the basis of governance. Whilst the exact vision of Khalistan can suffer from ambiguity, it is typically thought of in terms of a Sikh-majority state, explicitly created to protect Sikh religious, cultural, and political rights, as per the post-colonial boundaries of what constitutes a Sikh. It is important to recognise that the *nation-state* is a relatively new invention in human history, gaining prominence after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and solidifying with the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Nationalism is often rooted in ethnic, linguistic, or religious identity and has been the driving force behind the creation of many modern states and the world order we exist in today. In this context, Khalistan and *Khalistanism* can be viewed as another attempt and expression of nationalism but for modern Sikhs, comparable in some ways to Israel and Zionism (Jewish nationalism), and other ethno-religious nationalist movements. The movements to establish Pakistan by Jinnah, and India (Hindustan) by Gandhi and Nehru, are also examples of religious nationalism, although the latter explicitly advocated secularism to a greater extent, at least rhetorically, if not actually in practise. That said, the exact structure, governance style, economic model, and borders of a future Khalistan remain debatable and largely undefined, with no broad consensus to date. Some envision it as a theocracy guided directly by some interpretation of Sikh teachings, while others propose a more secular, democratic framework rooted in their interpretations of Sikhi. One recent attempt to articulate a potential political and economic vision for a Sikh State is the **Azadist Manifesto**, outlining the world’s first Sikhi-based, political-economic philosophy, *Azadism*. Although notably, Azadism is a broader ideology that can be applied as a framework for separatists or secessionists, but also reformists seeking to improve existing nation-states, or even to go beyond nationalism itself. ## Khalsa Raaj: A Traditional Imperialist Project Alternatively, Khalsa Raaj seems to be a broader ambition. Unlike Khalistan, which aligns with the modern nation-state framework, Khalsa Raaj may be better understood as an expansive, perhaps even a kind of *imperialistic*, yet spiritually infused vision of global justice and righteous sovereignty. Originating from the Sikh Gurus themselves, Khalsa Raaj transcends borders, demographics, and modern notions of nationalism, aligning more closely with historic empires — especially the Persian Empire model. Khalsa Raaj was conceptualised during an era where kingdoms and empires (not nation-states) dominated political thought. Guru Gobind Singh's court in Anandpur Sahib (the *Anandpur Darbar*) notably engaged deeply with imperial governance models, administrative philosophies, and literary traditions from the pre-existing and pre-eminent Indo-Persian sphere. I highly recommend the book *The Road To Empire: The Political Education of Khalsa Sikhs in the Late 1600s* by Satnam Singh for deeper insight into this. Additionally, Persian/Farsi in particular was not only the lingua franca of the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, but also the administrative language of the prior Sikh Misls too and the standard amongst many Indic kingdoms at the time. --- <div align=center><b>ਸ਼ਾਹਿ ਸ਼ਹਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ॥ ੧੦੭ ॥</b></div> <center> Guru Gobind Singh is the king of kings. (107)</center> <br> <center>— Bhai Nand Lal Ji</center> --- Notably, the Persian Empire also had a concept of a *Shahanshah* (King of Kings), an imperial ruler whose sovereignty transcended local kingdoms and ethnic groups. Intriguingly, Sikhs attributed this very title of Shahanshah to the Guru as well, highlighting the universal and transcendental nature of Guruship. In Sikh thought today, the Guru manifests both as the Guru Granth Sahib and as the decentralised collective of initiated Sikhs through the Guru Khalsa Panth. If the Guru is Shahanshah, then every individual member of the Khalsa fraternity is a Shah, collectively constituting the Shahanshah through the Khalsa Panth as a whole. --- <div align=center><b>ਹਮ ਪਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਦਈ ਹੰਨੈ ਹੰਨੈ ਲਾਇ।</b></div> <div align=center><b>ਜਹਿਂ ਜਹਿਂ ਬਹੈਂ ਜਮੀਨ ਮਲ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਖਤ ਬਨਾਇਂ </b></div> <br> <div align=center>Satguru had conferred sovereignty on the Khalsa Panth, as well as on each individual Singh of that fraternity.</div> <div align=center>Wherever a Singh sets his foot and settles on earth, he establishes his own self-reliant/autonomous sovereignty (Takht).
 </div> <br> <center> — Shaheed Rattan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Prakash </center> --- The Khalsa ideal, as articulated in early Sikh texts and traditions, emphasises the sovereignty and autonomy of each initiated Singh (or Kaur). This view reflects a deeply decentralised model of power where each Khalsa is a sovereign in their own right, and collectively contributes to the corpus Khalsa with the status of Guru. --- <div align=center><b> ਆਪਨਪੌ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਖਾਲਸਹਿ ਸੌਪਾਂ, ਦ੍ਵਤਯਿ ਰੂਪ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> I have entrusted the Khalsa with my status, and the second form of the True Guru is the Granth.   </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਬੋਲਨ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸਬਦ ਸੰਭਾਖਨ, ਨਾਮ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਕੀਰਤਨਿ ਸੰਥਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> The speech of the Guru is: the recitation of the Shabad, remembrance of the Name, the singing of Divine Keertan, or the study of Gurbani. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਗੁਨਾਨੁਵਾਦ ਪੁਨਿ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਸਲਾਹਨਿ, ਊਠਤੁ ਬੈਠਤੁ ਸੈਨ ਕਰੰਥਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> One should contemplate on the Divine's virtues and then praise and sing about them whether standing, sitting or sleeping. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਪਾਵਨ ਪੰਥ ਖਾਲਸਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਗਟਯੋ, ਚਾਰ ਵਰਨ ਆਸ੍ਰਮ ਸੁਭ ਪੰਥਾ ॥੧॥ </b></div> <div align=center> The pure Khalsa came into being, the true path included all castes and life stages. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਇਨ ਕੇ ਦਰਸ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਕੋ ਦਰਸਨ, ਬੋਲਨ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> Having the Khalsa's Darshan is the Darshan of the True Guru, the speech of the Guru are the words within the Guru Granth. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਦ੍ਵਾਦਸਿ ਰੂਪ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਏ ਕਹਿਯਤਿ, ਦ੍ਵਾਦਸਿ ਭਾਨੁ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਹਰਿ ਸੰਤਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> The True Guru is said to have 12 forms, just like Hari's Saint is as bright as the 12 suns. [Note: Each month the Suraj is thought to ascend on a different chariot to travel through a different route in the sky]. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਪ੍ਰਤਯਖ ਕਲਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਧਣੀਛੈ, ਗ੍ਰੰਥਿ ਪੰਥ ਖਾਲਸ ਵਰਤੰਤਾ ॥ </b></div> <div align=center> The absolute power of Parbrahm is manifesting within the Granth and Panth Khalsa. </div> <br> <div align=center><b> ਦਾਸ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਫਤਹ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ, ਖਾਸ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਗੁਰੁ ਰੂਪ ਬਦੰਤਾ ॥੨॥ਦੁਪਦ ੧॥ </b></div> <div align=center> The Servant Gobind claims victory to the True Guru, which is importantly proclaimed as the Granth and Panth. </div> <br> <div align=center> — Sri Sarbloh Granth </div> Translation from [manglacharan.com](https://www.manglacharan.com/post/guru-panth-and-guru-granth-sri-sarbloh-guru-granth-sahib) --- If we examine the structure of the Persian Empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire, a defining characteristic was its policy of granting considerable autonomy to conquered regions. Provided local rulers pledged loyalty, paid tribute (typically through taxes and military levy), and acknowledged imperial authority, they retained substantial freedom to govern according to their own customs and traditions. This decentralised, yet integrative approach to governance bears conceptual similarity to the ethos underpinning Khalsa Raaj in my view. This relatively anti-interventionist and secular stance in terms of societal micromanagement is also exemplified by the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, who sacrificed his life not for the defence of just the Sikh community but to protect the religious freedoms of all peoples. His Shaheedi (martyrdom) embodies a fundamental aspect of the proto-Khalsa ethos, laying the ideological groundwork that Guru Gobind Singh would later crystallise in the creation of the Khalsa as a force dedicated to safeguarding both spiritual (Piri) and political (Miri) freedoms for all. While the Khalsa may have learnt from the administrative styles of Indo-Persian empires, it would be misleading to suggest they were aiming to completely imitate them. Especially since those examples would be rife with practices that go against Sikh ethics and morality too. However, the Gurus and Sikhs often engaged with existing traditions, whether Persian, Hindu, or otherwise, and reinterpreted them through a Sikh lens, preserving what aligned with GurMat and discarding or modifying what did not. This process of selective adaptation is evident in texts like the _Prem Sumarag_, which discuss governance, justice, and civil organisation from a distinctly Sikh perspective, but still within the confines of an Indo-Persian, monarchistic worldview. Which is what we see in the Anandpur Darbar in general for instance. Under Guru Gobind Singh, it functioned not just as a royal court but as a place of political deliberation and strategic planning. It drew from imperial traditions but remained rooted in spiritual sovereignty and egalitarian ethics. This is also why there were not just translations done of existing political texts, but transcreations. Notable examples being Kavi Sainapati's version of *Chankya Niti*, and perhaps Guru Gobind Singh's own version of the *Ramayan* (*Ram Avtar Bani*). --- <div align=center><b> ਰਾਮ ਕਥਾ ਜੁਗ ਜੁਗ ਅਟਲ ਸਭ ਕੋਈ ਭਾਖਤ ਨੇਤ॥ </b></div> <div align=center><b> ਸੁਰਗ ਬਾਸ ਰਘੁਬਰ ਕਰਾ ਸਗਰੀ ਪੁਰੀ ਸਮੇਤ ॥੮੫੮॥ </b></div> <br> <div align=center> The story of Ram remains immortal throughout the ages and in this way Ram went to abide in heaven along with (all the residents of) the city. ||858|| </div> <br> <div align=center> — Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Dasam Bani </div> --- Again, I must reiterate that whilst the Khalsa and the concept of Khalsa Raaj may take inspiration from pre-modern Indo-Persian imperial models, it is not confined to them. For the reasons stated above, I believe the Khalsa, by virtue of its status as Guru, retains the capacity and authority to evolve its governance structures in accordance with the needs of the time, so long as they align with GurMat (which requires Vichaar to determine, as even this can be subjective). This applies both to the format and the routes to achieve it. For instance, a nation-state may be either a stepping stone towards or a hindrance for empire building, depending wholly on how it works (hence Azadism’s emphasis on studying the mechanics of statecraft in the Azadist Manifesto and related works published by Bunga Azaadi). However, in my view, the concept of Khalsa Raaj should still be understood as an *imperialistic* ambition of sorts, rather than confusing it and restricting it to a  _nationalistic_ ambition for just a nation-state. To support my point, I will now share a few definitions: > **Imperialism** > A policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonisation, use of military force, or other means. > — Oxford Dictionary > **Imperialism** > [S]tate policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. > — Encyclopaedia Britannica Many readers or listeners may start to feel uncomfortable now, but as Britannica continues to state: > “Because it [imperialism] always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.” Imperialism has a bad reputation within modern optics, and quite rightly so, since many who have employed it have done so in ways that are morally reprehensible. However, it would be inconsistent to single out imperialism as inherently reprehensible while overlooking the similar histories of exploitation and violence associated with nationalism. If you condemn imperialism solely because many empires have abused power, then by that logic, you would also need to reject the concept of modern nation-states, given how frequently nationalism has been weaponised to justify atrocities. Ultimately, with all projects in statecraft, whether it be an empire, nation-state, to regional administrations, local communities or one’s own family or the kingdom every individual establishes to reign over their own mind and body — the key is in how it functions, what are its foundations, motivations and its outcomes. So how does the imperialistic aspiration manifest with Khalsa Raaj? What makes the Khalsa different? In Bhai Nand Lal’s writings, the following passage appears as a conclusion to his *Tankahnama* which Sikhs around the world proclaim daily in their Ardaas: --- <div align=center><b> ਰਾਜ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਆਕੀ ਰਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥</b></div> <div align=center> The Khalsa will rule and no one who opposes will remain </div> <br> <div align=center> — Bhai Nand Lal, Tankahnama</div> --- Again, those unfamiliar with Sikhi may initially raise concerns, however, the above should be moderated with an understanding of what the Khalsa is, and what it is motivated by. Recall the story earlier of Guru Tegh Bahadur which reveals the ethical standing underpinning the Khalsa. This is what Khalsa rule aspires to embody. Not a dominion for its own sake, but the establishment of justice, the defence of the downtrodden, and the safeguarding of liberties for all. This ethos is further articulated in the very text that contains the above proclamation, where specific injunctions for the Khalsa are laid out, defining its character and responsibilities: --- <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਨਿਰਧਨ ਕਉ ਪਾਲੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who nurtures and supports the poor</div> <div align=center>[Emphasizes the Khalsa's commitment to social welfare and charity]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਦੁਸ਼ਟ ਕੋ ਗਾਲੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who confronts and eliminates evil forces</div> <div align=center>[Reflects the warrior aspect of the Khalsa that opposes oppression]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਨਾਮ ਜਪੁ ਕਰੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who meditates on the Divine Name</div> <div align=center>[Emphasises spiritual discipline and devotion, particularly a spirituality that is non-dualist in conception, recognising the oneness in all]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਮਲੇਛ ਪਰ ਚੜ੍ਹੈ ॥੩੩॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who marches against the impure/oppressors/barbarians ||33|| </div> <div align=center>[Historical context of confronting those who invaded the Indian subcontinent and subjected the population to oppression]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਉ ਜੋੜੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who remains connected with the Divine Name</div> <div align=center>[Again, emphasises the central importance of divine remembrance]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਬੰਧਨ ਕੋ ਤੋੜੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who breaks bondages</div> <div align=center>[Referring to the upholding of liberty against authoritarian oppression]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਚੜ੍ਹੈ ਤੁਰੰਗ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who rides the horse</div> <div align=center>[Symbolising the horsemanship skill they mastered so they could wage war against tyrants]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਕਰੈ ਨਿਤ ਜੰਗ ॥੩੪॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who constantly engages in battle daily ||34||</div> <div align=center>[Refers to both spiritual struggle against inner vices and righteous physical defense when necessary]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਜੁ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਕਉ ਧਾਰੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is one who bears arms </div> <div align=center>[Embraces the responsibility of shastar (weapons) for protection of the weak and destruction of tyrants]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਦੁਸ਼ਟ ਕਉ ਮਾਰੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is the one who kills the wicked enemy</div> <div align=center>[Emphasises the Khalsa's role in confronting and eliminating evil forces]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਧਰਮ ਕੋ ਪਾਲੈ ॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is the one who upholds and nurtures Dharam</div> <div align=center>[This highlights the Khalsa's commitment to maintaining Dharam (righteousness/duty)]</div> <br> <div align=center><b>ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋ ਸੀਸ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਦੇ ਨਾਲੈ ॥੩੫॥</b></div> <div align=center>The Khalsa is the one whose head is covered by a royal canopy. ||35|| </div> <div align=center>[This refers to the Khalsa's royal bearing or sovereign status, suggesting the Khalsa carries themselves with dignity like one under a royal canopy]</div> <br> <div align=center> — Bhai Nand Lal, Tankahnama</div> --- This brings us to the question of scope. Due to the imperialistic roots of Khalsa Raaj, it could also be argued that another point of difference between Khalistan and Khalsa Raaj lies in its expansive nature. The above duties for the Khalsa all implies the assumption that the mission for a Khalsa Raaj is a global pursuit. Wherever there are injustices, it is the duty of the Khalsa to engage in righteous, just war and enable liberty. In practice, resources and priorities must be considered, but in principle, it would be antithetical to the Khalsa ethos to claim that injustice in a neighbouring land is outside its jurisdiction simply because it lies beyond a national boundary. As reinforced by texts such as Karninamah and the *Sarbloh Granth*, lists of the various countries are given where the Khalsa will secure Raaj. Thus, Khalsa Raaj is not confined to a single territory or country; it is a mission that extends wherever tyranny and oppression persist, embodying the Khalsa’s role as the sword arm of justice and the defender of liberty for all. --- <div align="center"><b>ਰੂਮ ਨੌਬਤ ਬਜਾਊਂ ਸ਼ਾਮ ਮੋਹਰਾਂ ਚਲਾਊਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਲੈ ਕਰਾਊਂ ਤਖਤ ਸਾਚੇ ਸਾਹਿਬਾਨ ਕੇ॥</b></div> <div align="center"> The will naubat resound in Rum (Byzantium / Rome), coins will be minted and used Shaam (Syria / the Levant), and establish sovereignty and the throne of the true lord (all permeating, oneness, God).</div> <div align="center"> [These acts represent the regalia associated with declaring sovereignty. Minting coins is still today a widely recognised motif of statehood].</div> <br> <div align="center">…</div> <br> <div align="center"><b>ਨਾ ਛਾਡੂੰ ਖਲਕ ਨਾ ਛਾਡੂੰ ਬਲਖ ਪਰਬਤ ਕਾਟੂੰ ਇਰਾਨ ਖੁਰਾਸਾਨ ਕੇ॥</b></div> <div align="center">Neither will the (common) people or Balakh (a region in Afghanistan) be abandoned, the mountains will be cut through to Iran / Khorasan (to access them). </div> <div align="center"> [This seems to be implying that the Guru (Khalsa) shouldn’t be abandoning the people who are suffering from tyranny, and that they will cut through the mountains to save the people of these regions from tyranny as an example] </div> <br> <div align="center"><b>ਮੇਰੋ ਨਾਉਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿਘ ਸੋਢੀ ਰਾਇ॥</b></div> <div align="center"> My name is Guru Gobind Singh, the Sodhi King </div> <div align="center"> [The Sodhi lineage here is a symbolic reference to lineage of Raam Chandar, who had engaged in Dharam Yudh of their age. This is a subtle way to claim that since the Guru and the Khalsa are decedents of Raam and thus also inherit the fight for Dharam. This explored further by Guru Gobind Singh in the Bachittar Natak of their Dasam Bani] </div> <br> <div align="center"><b>ਅਸ ਖਲੋਨਾ ਸਭ ਖਲਕਤ ਰਾਜ ਸਾਜ ਬਾਂਧ ਮੰਗਾਊਂ ਗੋਸ਼ੇ ਕਮਾਨ ਕੇ॥</b></div> <div align="center"> As the one who plays with the sword, I will bring and bind the rule of the entire world from the edges of my bow.</div> <div align="center"> [This seems to affirm Guru Gobind Singh’s, and thus by extension, the Guru Khalsa’s, mission is one for the whole creation. Note the emphasis on playing/practicing with the sword, since it is through the competent use of weaponry that such a rule be sustained as inevitably the tyrants and enemies of liberty must be destroyed.]</div> <br> <div align="center"> — Sri Guru Gobind Singh, early manuscript of Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib, from 1698 AD</div> <br> See footnotes for some more notes on this translation.[^1] --- Recalling back to the Britannica’s observation that “because it [imperialism] always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible”. For the Khalsa, using power, particularly militarily is part and parcel of our religion. We are not pacifists, but interested in the pursuit of justice. The Guru provisions for us to engage in this through their expert crafting of the Khalsa ideology, and in particular, through their writings in the *Dasam Granth*. The following passage is from Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh’s *Sikhan Di Bhagatmala*: --- > **ਤਾਂ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਹੋਰਾ ਥੀ ਪ੍ਰਸਨ ਕੀਤਾ ॥ ਜੋ ਆਦ ਬਾਣੀ ਜੋ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ਸੋ ਸਭ ਭਗਤਿ ਮਈ ਹੈ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦਸਵੇ ਪਾਤਸਾਹ ਜੋ ਬਾਣੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਸੋ ਜੁਧ ਮਈ ਹੈ ॥ ਕੈ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀਆ ਦੇ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ਹੈਨ ॥ ਇਸਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਕਿਉ ਕਰ ਸਮਝੀਐ ॥ ਤਾ ਭਾਈ ਜੀ ਜੈਸੇ ਅਰਜਨ ਜੁਧ ਦੇ ਸਮੇ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਛੋਡ ਬੈਠਾ ਸੀ ॥ ਤੇ ਮਹਾਰਾਜ ਉਸ ਨੂ ਗੀਤਾ ਦਾ ਉਪਦੇਸ ਕਰਕੈ ਫੇਰ ਚਰਨ ਆਸ੍ਰਮ ਦਾ ਜੁਧ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਇਆ ਸੀ ॥ ਤੈਸੇ ਹਿੰਦੂਆ ਨੇ ਹਿੰਸਾ ਧਰਮ ਜਾਣ ਕੈ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਛੋਡ ਦਿਤੇ ਹੈਨ ॥ ਤੇ ਮਲੇਛਾ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਪਕੜ ਲੀਤੇ ਹੈਸਨ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਦਾ ਬਲ ਕਰ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੀ ਦਾ ਰਾਜ ਭੋਗਦੇ ਹੈਸਨ ॥ ਤੇ ਹਿੰਦੂਆ ਵਿਚ ਭਗਤਿ ਹੋਵਣ ਨਹੀ ਸਨ ਦੇਦੇ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਜੀ ਨੂ ਰਘਵੰਸ ਜਾਣਕੈ ਫਿਰ ਰਾਜ ਲੈ ਦੇਵਣਾ ਸੀ ॥ ਤਾ ਜੁਧ ਮਈ ਬਾਣੀਆਂ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕੀਤੀਆ ਹੈਨ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਦੀ ਵਿਦਿਆ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ॥ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨ ਦਾ ਉਪਦੇਸ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ ॥ ਜੋ ਸਰੀਰ ਤੁਸਾ ਝੂਠੇ ਜਾਣਨੇ ॥ ਤੇ ਤੁਸਾਡੇ ਵਰਨ ਦਾ ਧਰਮ ਹੈ ਜੁਧ ਕਰਨਾ ॥ ਤੇ ਜੇ ਗਿਆਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ ਕਰੋਗੇ ਤਾ ਜੀਵਨ ਮੁਕਤ ਹੋ ਕੇ ਵਿਚਰੋਗੇ ॥**  > > Then the Sikhs asked further questions to Bhai Mani Singh. “That which was written, the Gurbani within the Adi Granth, it is all of devotional nature, and, the Tenth Master’s Gurbani is of a martial (_yudh_)_ nature, along with the stories about [deceitful] women. How are we to understand the reason [in regard to the difference?]” > > Then Bhai Mani Singh replied, “Just like when Arjuna was seated, having abandoned his weapons during the time of battle, and the Great King _Krishna_ gave him the teaching of the _Gita_, and instilled within him the duty of his caste and life stage, of warfare. In the same way, Hindus [of this time] had recognized Dharam as being non-violent, and had abandoned their weapons. The Malecha’s [barbarians] however had grasped firmly to their weapons, and with the power of their weapons they enjoyed kingdom on the world. They also did not let the Hindu’s practice their devotional worship. The Master _Guru Gobind Singh_ in recognizing his Khalsa as _Raghuvanshi_ [descendants of Rama - warriors], wanted to give sovereignty to them. For this reason _Guru Gobind Singh_ recited this martial Gurbani and instilled within them Shastarvidiya [the Science of Weapons], along with the teachings of spiritual wisdom, wherein one recognizes their body to be false. It was also established [being Raghuvanshi] that your duty was to wage war, and those who would instil within them spiritual wisdom, they would wander the world already liberated before death.” > > — Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh’s, Sikhan Di Bhagatmala > *[translation by Manglacharan.com](https://manglacharan.com/1718+Sikhan+Di+Bhagatmala/Purpose+of+Dasam+Granth)* --- In modern times, *war* does not have to be restricted to methods using just the sword, and as the Britannica hinted at, power using “economic or some subtler form” is also compatible with pursuing imperialism. From my study, I believe that empires in particular are characterised by their projection of power externally, whereas a nation-state primarily focuses on the application of power internally. To reiterate, Khalsa Raaj was conceptualised during an era where kingdoms and empires (not nation-states) dominated political thought. Guru Gobind Singh's court in Anandpur Sahib notably engaged deeply with imperial governance models, administrative philosophies, and literary traditions from the Indo-Persian sphere of influence in particular. Whilst the world has changed from the time of the Anandpur Darbars, the concept of empires have not fallen completely out of practice, even if the optics has changed and nation-states have emerged as the prevailing paradigm. Now in the modern world, although it is made up of nation-states, some states have imperialistic tendencies, but in a slightly altered way to how it was common in the past which we can see by observing the way they project power. Power comes in two types, hard and soft. Hard power is the use of force or the threat of it to gain leverage or bargaining power in negotiations. This is what was more common before nation-states and during the pre-modern era. Whereas now, nation-states generally aim to respect territorial boundaries (at least in theory, there are indeed exceptions of course, hence this mention of imperialistic tendencies), and also appease their populations who may not want to go to war for more territory and bring in new diverse groups who may have their own sense of nationalism that does not align with their own (which is a root problem of multiculturalism in nation-states today, but was less so in empires). As a result, power is not projected via hard means as much anymore, and when it is, it is widely shunned by the “international community”. One of the most prominent examples of a nation-state utilising hard power to engage in overt imperialism or empire building were the German National Socialists (Nazis) in the 1940s. Instead, modern imperialism, that nation-states may engage in, particularly the so-called “super-powers”, utilises far more *soft power* — the ability to entice, use incentives or otherwise not rely on force or the threat of force to get what you want. Therefore, modern empires employ both forms, even if hard power is more of a show of force than a utilisation of it. Think of the US and all its military bases, embassies and positioning on the world stage. But also think of China's investment into various regions around the world too. Now, I believe this game of power is not just restricted to just nationalist governments to play. Especially not in the 21st century where we now have private sector actors able to build their own soft power as corporations, rather than countries. Some private sector actors are building soft power through offering hard power services, which is a trend that will only grow as the Private Military Company concept becomes more prevalent. --- [Read/Listen | Dharam Yudh Pipeline White Paper | Bunga Azaadi Substack](https://azadism.substack.com/p/the-dharam-yudh-pipeline) --- The world is changing, and we must not get left behind to play catch up later, like we are doing now when the world order shifted to nation-states. But to implement relevant solutions, we must first accurately define the problem. This is why it is imperative we understand the difference between Khalistan and Khalsa Raaj. If you do this, you can then develop and offer proposals like I did with Azadism, and concepts like the Stanistan model as a potential method that could serve as the “operating system” for a Khalsa Raaj. It could also be applied to help transition a Khalistan to a Khalsa Raaj too, or reform other existing nation-states or regions, all in an attempt to pave the way for the emergence of a Khalsa empire based on righteousness, liberty, secularism, individual rights and spiritual fulfilment. Before we conclude, I believe it is also worth mentioning the usage of the term “Khalsa” by Bhagat Kabir in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as well. --- <div align="center"><b> ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜਨ ਭਏ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਭਗਤਿ ਜਿਹ ਜਾਨੀ ॥੪॥੩॥</b></div> <br> <div align="center"> Says Kabeer, those servents/devotees (of God) have become pure / Khalsa, who have come to know loving, devotional worship. ||4||3|| </div> <br> <div align="center"> — Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 654 </div> --- While much has been said about the external, expansive expression of Khalsa Raaj thus far, the essence of the Khalsa, as articulated by Bhagat Kabir, points to an internal state of being grounded in *Prem Bhagati* (loving devotion)**. Fundamentally, if those progressing the cause of Khalsa Raaj do not embody the virtues of the Khalsa within themselves, and instead replicate the oppressive and exploitative behaviours that have characterised many empires and nation-states throughout history, they invalidate their status as Khalsa. --- <div align="center"><b>ਚੌਪਈ : ਪੰਥ ਬਿਖੈ ਬਸਹੌ ਦਿਨ ਰੈਨਾ । ਹਰਿ ਹੋ ਇਹ ਬਿਧ ਅਰਨ ਕੀ ਸੈਨਾ । </b></div> <div align="center"><b>ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਭਣੀਜੈ । ਜਹਾਂ ਰਹਤ ਮੁਰ ਸਕਲ ਲਹੀਜੈ । 153 । </b></div> <br> <div align="center">I will day and night reside within the Khalsa Panth, in this way the enemy armies will be dispelled. </div> <div align="center"><b>The Khalsa Panth is manifest where my conduct is fully grasped.</b></div> <br> <div align="center">— Bhai Sukha Singh, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi </div> *[translation from Manglacharan.com](https://manglacharan.com/1751+Gurbilas+Patshahi+Dasvi/Creating+Kings)* --- The reason Bhagat Kabir refers to those who enshrine loving devotion as Khalsa is that the Khalsa is not only just a military order or a political entity, it is underpinned by deep spiritual foundations. To become Khalsa is to subdue the ego, adopt a new identity in service to the divine oneness, to transcend duality, and to liberate oneself from the oscillations between pleasure and pain. This is why Bhagat Kabir’s reference is so profound: the Khalsa is one who has realised the non-dual nature of reality, recognising the One, *Ik Onkaar*, present in and as all things, or “thingness” itself. God for Sikhs is not a “man in the sky”, it is existence itself, of which all human beings are a part of. It is this understanding that what we meditate upon and devote our worship to. As Bhagat Kabir says in another one of their Shabads: --- <div align="center"><b>ਕਬੀਰ ਤੂੰ ਤੂੰ ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂ ਹੂਆ ਮੁਝ ਮਹਿ ਰਹਾ ਨ ਹੂੰ ॥</b></div> <div align="center"> [Says ]Kabeer, repeating, ""You, You"", I have become like You. Nothing of me remains in myself. </div> <div align="center"><b>ਜਬ ਆਪਾ ਪਰ ਕਾ ਮਿਟਿ ਗਇਆ ਜਤ ਦੇਖਉ ਤਤ ਤੂ ॥੨੦੪॥</b></div> <div align="center">When the difference between myself and others is removed, then wherever I look, I see only You. ||204|| </div> <div align="center">— Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1375 </div> --- Therefore it is upon these fundamentals that inspires the Khalsa to uphold liberty and contest those who seek to diminish it. Those who attain the ultimate understanding will realise even this is part of the illusion of duality, where it is ultimately God themselves playing the part of the tyrant and the destroyer of tyrants. The Khalsa is playing the role of the latter, and to play it the Khalsa must practice compassion. Guru Nanak, in *Jap Ji Sahib* grounds the pursuit of Dharam in Daya when they say: --- <div align="center"><b>ਧੌਲੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਦਇਆ ਕਾ ਪੂਤੁ ॥</b></div> <div align="center">The mythical bull is Dharam, the son of Daya (compassion)</div> <div align="center">— Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 3 </div> --- Therefore, there is an onus on all those who call themselves Khalsa, with whatever illusion of free-will we may pretend to have, to act like it and embody its virtues. Attain Raaj over oneself and create environments in which others are free to do the same. What you cultivate internally is what will be expressed externally — this is the spiritual dimension underpinning the concept of Khalsa Raaj and the Khalsa. ## Conclusion To summarise and put simply, as per my personal understanding (as this whole piece has been), I believe Sikhi is all about achieving both spiritual and political *liberation*, Therefore the highest ideal for a Sikh is to attain this *Azaadi*, which we can look from two perspectives: 1) The *Piri* (spiritual) perspective revolves reaching an internal state of Mukti — literally translating to liberation. Specifically a liberation of the Atma from the illusion of duality to ultimately realise it's true nature as Paramatma. 2) The *Miri* (temporal) perspective is therefore an environment in which those seeking to attain that realisation may do so free from tyranny and oppression. Now this second dimension specifically is what I use as a **working definition** for _Khalsa Raaj_ — the temporal expression of Azaadi. It is all about establishing external environments enabling Mukti. > **Khalsa Raaj** > An environment safeguarded by the Guru Khalsa in which those seeking to pursue Mukti (spiritual liberty) can do so in peace, free from tyranny and oppression. > > — Bunga Azaadi Working Definiton The key distinctions between Khalistan and Khalsa Raaj, then, may be summarised as: - **Khalistan** is fundamentally a modern nation-state project that aligns with global trends of nationalism and self-determination. It is rooted deeply in a sense of *Sikh nationalism*, a recent development in Sikh history post-colonialism. It thereby tends to rely on and prioritise demographic majoritarianism and confined territorial boundaries to ensure national integrity. Whilst the idea was more fringe throughout the mid to late 20th century, it explicitly gained traction into the mainstream as a reaction to the injustices faced by Sikhs within India (itself a relatively new nation-state experiment), notably the events of 1984, making it intrinsically tied to modern political contexts and the international state system. - **Khalsa Raaj**, in contrast, is a wider, civilizational and imperial vision that transcends the new, post-colonial nation-state world order paradigm. As a concept and aspiration, it predates the emergence of nationalism itself and is anchored spiritually and politically to the sovereign nature imbued in the Guru Khalsa. Unlike Khalistan, Khalsa Raaj does not depend on demographic majorities or electoral politics; instead, it depends on a pursuit of justice and ethics administered by the Guru Khalsa Panth. A mission that is international and spreads across the world (or worlds). This concept of Raaj is more flexible, dynamic, and expansive, capable of encompassing diversity under a unified spiritual and ethical framework, but in a way that ensures liberty for all. | Khalistan | Khalsa Raaj | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Limited in scope, *nation-state* project | Unlimited in scope, *empire* project | | Emerges post-colonialism, as a demand, in a new nation-state world order, as a reaction to the Indian nation-state’s oppression and injustices against Sikhs. | Emerges as an outcome of the spiritual-political study of the Sikhs during Guru Gobind Singh’s Anandpur Darbar, pre-colonialism, during an older, empire world-order. | | An expression of Sikh *Nationalism*. | An expression of Khalsa *Imperialism*. | | Relies on a sense of Sikh nationalism that developed post Singh Sabha reforms, and adopted and adapted by various Sant-Matt influenced Sikh groups over the 20th century, as a reaction to the shifting world orders and systems of representative politics being imposed by the British in India. | Predates nationalism entirely, and can accommodate for a greater sense of diversity, so long as the Khalsa is administering the system of law and order as per GurMat. It does not matter if Sikhs are in the minority in such a system, only that the Khalsa is effective at administering security, defence and justice. | | Tied to a Sikh national-identity. | Tied to the Khalsa spiritual-political identity specifically. | | Conceptually Khalistan would be for Khalistanis, what Israel is for Zionists. Therefor a Sikh national-identity is defined as per this ambition, just as Jews consider themselves a distinct nation. | Similar to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, Khalsa Raaj is made up of a network of Khalsapanthis, each one a Shah making up a collective that holds the status of Shahanshah (Guru) in of itself. | | Prioritises a system of representative politics where having Sikhs (as per the definitions of the reformers) as a demographic majority is crucial. | Does not have any pressures like this since it can disregard legitimacy due to demographic representation. Instead legitimacy comes through its ability to uphold liberty and provide security, defence and justice. | | Seeks international recognition, and a place amongst other nation-states. | Seeks to conquer nation-states and other empires, and to liberate the people so they are free to govern themselves. | In short, Khalistan embodies a modern political aspiration influenced by contemporary nation-state frameworks, whereas Khalsa Raaj is an expansive, decentralised, spiritually-infused imperial aspiration. It must be highlighted, that simply because there is a difference between the two, one does not de-legitimise the other — only the outcomes of the attempts at either can do that. Neither should these two concepts be seen as inherently opposing one another, they are just on different layers, for different purposes. Khalistan could be a stepping stone towards Khalsa Raaj, but it can also be a hindrance if it isn’t done properly. Hence why we are taking inspiration from Guru Gobind Singh’s Anandpur Darbars and studying statecraft here at Bunga Azaadi. If a Khalistan is the ambition, then it should be in service towards advancing the cause of Khalsa Raaj, not distracting us from it, or as an alternative to it. Our aim is to expand an empire of justice and security. It is an aspiration that wishes to enable political and spiritual liberty for all. But how could both Khalistan and Khalsa Raaj actually do this? What would each of these look like in reality? This is why the world’s first Sikhi-based political-economic philosophy, Azadism, was developed. The Azadist Manifesto details a vision and outlines fundamentals for Sikh statecraft. It uses GurMat as a lens to assess the latest developments in the field of economics and political science to offer a framework that could be applied to both nation-states, either reforming existing ones or starting from scratch, as well as empire projects like Khalsa Raaj with the Stanistan model of governance. If the Raaj is a garden, the Khalsa’s duty is like that of the gardener. It ensures the weeds and pests of injustice are uprooted, so that the flowers of spiritual liberty can blossom freely. Unlike Khalistan, which is tied to the modern notion of a nation-state, Khalsa Raaj transcends borders and territorial limitations. It is not concerned with international recognition in the modern sense. Instead, it is a more decentralised, de-localised concept of sovereignty that manifests wherever the Khalsa takes a stand against tyranny and injustice. In this way, Khalsa Raaj is an ethical pursuit of liberty rather than a just a geographic entity fixed in one place. This is why, it could be seen as a more imperialistic ideal to conquer the world and put an end to evil doers. Khalsa Raaj is therefore established wherever a Singh plants their foot, signifying that it is a lived reality brought into existence through the actions of individuals committed to the principles of Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh. --- <div align=center><b>ਹਮ ਪਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਦਈ ਹੰਨੈ ਹੰਨੈ ਲਾਇ।</b></div> <div align=center><b>ਜਹਿਂ ਜਹਿਂ ਬਹੈਂ ਜਮੀਨ ਮਲ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਖਤ ਬਨਾਇਂ </b></div> <br> <div align=center>Satguru had conferred sovereignty on the Khalsa Panth, as well as on each individual Singh of that fraternity.</div> <div align=center>Wherever a Singh sets his foot and settles on earth, he establishes his own self-reliant/autonomous sovereignty (Takht).
 </div> <br> <center> — Shaheed Rattan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Prakash </center> --- ## Further reading Prachin Panth Prakash _By Shaheed Rattan Singh Bhangu_ [The Road To Empire: The Political Education of Khalsa Sikhs in the Late 1600s](https://www.satnam-singh.com/) _By Satnam Singh_ Translations credit, [Manglacharan.com](https://manglacharan.com/) _By Jvala Singh_ [Arati-Arata Translation](https://archive.org/details/arati-arata-by-dr-kamalroop-singh-akali-nihang-pdf/page/n37/mode/2up) _By Dr. Kamalroop Singh (Akali Nihang)_ [Azadist Manifesto: Sikh Statecraft & Economics](https://bungaazaadi.com/Raajniti+Vidya/Azadism/Azadist+Manifesto/Azadist+Manifesto) _By Ranjit Singh_ [The Dharam Yudh Pipeline White Paper](https://azadism.substack.com/p/the-dharam-yudh-pipeline) _By_ _Ranjit Singh_ [The Khalsa Is The Guru](https://bungaazaadi.com/Khalsa+Revival/Khalsanama/Khalsa+Status/Khalsa+Status) _By Ranjit Singh_ --- ## Footnote [^1]: Naubat* — can refer to a drum house or orchestra pit, particularly in Mughal/Islamic architecture, also known as Naqqar Khana or Naubat Khana. It's a distinctive feature of Mughal structures and was commonly found in areas under their influence, including India, Pakistan, and nearby regions. In this context, we could assume it symbolises monikers of royal courts. Rum* / ਰੂਮ — Interestingly, AI translated this to Byzantium rather than Rome, and when I queried this, the following answer was given: In early-modern Punjabi and in the Persian/Arabic that so much of our courtly vocabulary comes from, **ਰੂਮ (Rūm)** overwhelmingly meant the **Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire**—not the city of Rome in Italy. A few reasons: 1. **Historical usage in South Asian sources** - Mughal and Sikh chronicles routinely refer to the lands of “Rum” when speaking of the Turks, Byzantines or the Levant—never the city of Rome itself. - When you see it paired with places like **ਸ਼ਾਮ (Shām, Syria)** or **ਖੁਰਾਸਾਨ (Khurāsān)**, it clearly points to the Middle-Eastern sphere of the old Eastern Roman realm. 2. **Etymology** - Arabic **الروم (al-Rūm)** was the standard name for the Byzantine Empire after the fall of the western half in 476 CE. That usage carried over unchanged into Persian and then into Punjabi. 3. **Literary context** - The line “ਰੂਮ ਨੌਬੱਦ ਬਸਾਉਂ…” speaks of planting a royal band and campaigning through Syria’s great provinces. That makes sense for the Byzantine theatre of war and diplomacy—it wouldn’t make sense to “station” a drum-corps in the city of Rome 1000 km away from Syria! Please forgive me for any mistakes in translations, I thought to try and attempt and improving the ones I came across to add context and better word translations, however, my ability here is limited compared to others. If you identify any mistakes, please get in touch and we can rectify or improve. --- ## FAQ Over time, any good questions for this Vichaar will be listed below. If you would like to submit a more comprehensive Vichaar, either to expand on or contest any of the above, please get in touch! Bunga Azaadi is open for any submissions provided they are articulated respectfully, professionally and effectively: **Questions:** Why have you spent so much time talking about Khalsa Raaj and so little on Khalistan in this piece? It is because Khalistan is really only a 30-40 year old demand, but the concept of Khalsa Raaj was incubated by the Gurus for 200 years before it launched as a mission by Guru Gobind Singh, upon which the Khalsa then spent 300 years advancing towards and iterating upon. Khalistan is just a potential step, but Khalsa Raaj is the grand strategy. That being said, this Vichaar sits within a wider section of Bunga Azaadi’s Vichaar Repository that we have provisioned just for Khalistanism Vichaars. If you would like more information on Khalistan, you are encouraged to explore the rest of the Vichaars in this section.