| Phulkian | |
|---|---|
 Portrait of Chaudhary Phul Sidhu-Brar, ancestor of the Phulkian dynasty | |
| Country | Patiala State Nabha State Jind State Faridkot State Kaithal State |
| Place of origin | Phulkian Misl,Punjab |
| Founded | 1627 |
| Founder | Phul Sidhu-Brar |
| Titles | Maharaja of Patiala Maharaja of Nabha Maharaja of Jind Raja of Faridkot |
| Dissolution | 1971 |
ThePhulkian dynasty (orPhoolkian) ofMaharajas orsardars wereSikhJat[1][2] royals and aristocrats in thePunjab region of India. Members of the dynasty ruled thePhulkian states ofBadrukhan,Bhadaur,Faridkot,Jind,Malaudh,Nabha, andPatiala, allying themselves with theBritish Empire according to the terms of theCis-Sutlej treaty of 1809.[3][4] The dynasty is named after Phul Sidhu-Brar, the 17th-century common ancestor of the Phulkian states and the founder of thePhulkian Misl.[5] AfterIndia's independence in 1947, the Phulkian states had all acceded toIndia by 1948.[6] Members of the various royal families of the Phulkian dynasty retained their titles until 1971, when theGovernment of India abolished their titles with the26th Amendment to theConstitution of India.
Descendants ofRao Bhati, including members of the former and historical Phulkian dynasty, claimed to be direct descendants ofYadu, amythological Hindu monarch from whomBhati claimed descent.[7][8][9] Yadu was the founder of the mythologicalYadu dynasty, a branch of thelegendaryLunar dynasty (IAST: Candravaṃśa), according toHindu mythology.[7][10][9]
Members of the Phulkian dynasty claimed descent from Hem, a younger son ofRawalJaisal Singh, the founder and first ruler of theKingdom of Jaisalmer (r. 1156–1168),[11][12] who migrated to the present-dayMalwa region inPunjab.[13][14] The dynasty further traces its lineage toRao Bhati, a 3rd-centuryHindu monarch.[7][10][15]
The rulers of thePhulkian states shared a common ancestor, the 17th-centuryChaudhary Phul Sidhu-Brar, also known as Baba Phul (1627–1689).[5] Baba Phul was the grandson of a Sikh of Guru Hargobind named Mohan.[16] Mohan founded the settlement of Mehraj in 1627, named after his great-grandfather, Mehraj.[16] In 1631, it is claimed that Mohan once sought the assistance of the sixth Sikh guru against hostile neighbours, who provided military help in the form of 500-men.[16] Another tale connects Phul to the Sikh gurus: it is said that Phul and his brother Sandli were once blessed by Guru Har Rai after being presented to the guru as two starving orphans by their uncle Kala.[16] Sikhs believe the blessing of Guru Har Rai bestowed on the young Phul allowed his descendants to found dynasties and become prosperous rulers.[16]
.jpg)
Baba Phul was the founder of thePhulkian Misl, which was named after him.[17] He lived through the times ofGuru Hargobind, the sixthGuru of theSikh religion as well asGuru Har Rai, the seventh Guru.[4] According to historical accounts, Phul had received blessings from both Guru Hargobind and Guru Har Rai.[18][19] Eventually, Phul received the official designation ofChaudari from the Mughals and became a tributarysardar of them.[16] Through his eldest son, Tiloka, Phul is the ancestor of the rulers ofNabha,Jind andBadrukhan.[4] Through his second son, Rama, Phul is the ancestor of the rulers ofPatiala,Malaudh andBhadaur.[4]
| Misls of theSikh Confederacy |
|---|
 |
The Phulkian Misl was aSikh Misl founded byChoudhary Phul Sidhu-Brar, also known as Baba Phul or Phul Singh, and named after him.[20][21] It was established by Jats.[22] A claimed descendant of theBhati Rajputs, Phul was a direct descendant of Rawal Jaisal Singh, the founder and first ruler of the Kingdom of Jaisalmer.[23] Phul's descendants became the royal families of the Phulkian dynastystates, which included the states ofPatiala,Nabha, andJind.[24][25] Historians have disputed whether the Phulkian Misl was ever a true Sikh Misl, as its practices and policies were more centralized and akin to apetty kingdom than those of a true Sikh Misl.[26]
The misl originated from Phul in Malwa.[22] The Phulkians held territory in southern Malwa.[22] The Phulkian Misl controlled areas between Sirhind and Delhi, forming the Sikh kingdoms of Patiala, Nabha, Jind, and Kaithal.[27]
Some historians, such as Kirpal Singh, claim the Phulkians were never truly a "Misl" at all.[28] Historian Surjit Singh Gandhi also claimed that the Phulkian Misl was never a true Misl because they shared almost no common practices with the otherSikh Misls, and the administrative nature of the Phulkian Misl's political state varied considerably from that of the other Misls.[24]
Gandhi based his arguments on various facts and events. When the Sikh Misls divided themselves into the Buddha Dal and Taruna Dal of theDal Khalsa in 1734, no Phulkian leader was represented, and there was no Phulkian presence in the Dal Khalsa in 1748.[24] Phulkian leaders did not attendSarbat Khalsa meetings or distribute loot and territory among their followers, instead adoptingMughal practices of appropriating resources for themselves and rewarding their men with payments andJagirs.[24] While other Misls fought relentlessly against the Mughal Empire and theDurrani Empire, the Phulkian chiefs maintained good relations with these imperial powers, obtained titles from them.[24] Unlike other Misls, they did not inscribe the names of theSikh gurus on their coins but instead issued coins in the names of rulers of the Mughal Empire and Durrani Empire.[24] In the entire 18th century, none of the Phulkian leaders visitedSikhism's holy cities ofAnandpur andAmritsar, but they frequently visited and were visited by theMughal and Durrani rulers.[24]
In 1767, the city ofKaithal fell into the hands of the Phulkian chieftain, Desu Singh, who establishedKaithal State.[29]
In the early 19th century, the Phulkian states, concerned about the rising power ofMaharajaRanjit Singh, sought protection from theEast India Company.[30] Although Ranjit Singh was generally moderate towards the Phulkian rulers and willing to address their issues, his growing influence led to suspicions about his intentions. Consequently, theCis-Sutlej states, including the Phulkian states, convened and decided to send a deputation to the British Resident inDelhi.[30] The delegation pledged their loyalty to the British and sought their protection, leading to a treaty on 25 April 1809, where Ranjit Singh agreed not to extend his military campaigns into the Cis-Sutlej territories.[30]
As the Phulkian states were freed from the threat of Ranjit Singh, internal conflicts among them surfaced, prompting further British intervention. By 22 August 1811, the British issued another proclamation to protect these states from each other, thereby enhancing their power of interference and control.[30] Over time, these states transitioned from being independent rulers in a treaty alliance with the British to becoming dependencies, or what the British described asprincely states, significantly diminishing their autonomy and consolidating British dominance in thePunjab region.[30]
The Maharajas of the three largest Phulkian states (Patiala, Nabha and Jind) supported the East India Company during theIndian Rebellion of 1857, both with military forces and supplies, as well as by offering protection for European people in affected areas.[31] In return, the three Maharajas were given additional territories, honours and titles by theBritish Raj.[31]
In 1858, the British Raj authorities rejected a petition to allow them to adopt heirs to ensure lines of succession.[32] They believed that such processes could be dealt with on anad hoc basis if and when the situation arose, and that to accept the petition would be contrary to theDoctrine of Lapse.[32] The matter was eventually taken up by the government in Britain, who demanded that the Raj authorities should grant the petition in recognition of the considerable loyalty that had been demonstrated during the rebellion.[32] Later, on 19 January 1860 at adurbar inAmbala,Charles Canning, theGovernor-General of India, acceded to the request.[32]
During the British Raj, the Phulkian states of Patiala, Nabha, and Jind were noted for their patronage ofNorth Indian artists, musicians, and scholars at their court.[33]
By 1948, all of the Phulkian states hadacceded to theIndia, which becameindependent in 1947.[6] The royal families of the Phulkian dynasty retained their royal titles in India until 1971, when they were abolished with the26th Amendment to theConstitution of India.
A dispute in the early 1920s betweenBhupinder Singh, who had become Maharaja of Patiala in 1909, and his fellow Maharaja in Nabha,Ripudaman Singh, who became ruler in 1911, had significant ramifications both for relationships within theSikh community and for British policy in the Punjab. According to historianBarbara Ramusack, the pair were "ambitious, arrogant, energetic, and jealous" and "shared the hypersensitivity on matters ofizzat or honor and status common to most Indian princes".
What began initially as a war of words from around 1912 had become physical by the 1920s, with Bhupinder Singh complaining that the law courts of Ripudaman Singh had been falsely convicting Patiala police officers, as well as kidnapping girls from Patiala for the royal harem.[34] On top of this, were frequent boundary disputes, which had been a feature of strife between the states for many years because of the way in which the territories intertwined.[34]
There were numerous attempts, with varying degrees of formality, to resolve the dispute. These included high-level court meetings, independent mediators and Sikh community groups such as theShiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC).[34] The situation was eventually referred to the British authorities in 1923, who instituted a quasi-judicial inquiry the conclusions of which generally supported the grievances raised by Bhupinder Singh and were critical of how Ripudaman Singh was administering his state and attempting to undermine the position of Patiala. Ripudaman, who had gained support from some extremistAkalis, was told that the British would formally intervene unless he abdicated and that this would lead to him being officially deposed.[34]
The abdication on 8 July 1923, which was effectively forced upon him, saw the British take over the administration of Nabha and caused uproar in Punjab. People in Punjab protested in what they considered to be unwarranted political interference, and lauded Ripudaman Singh both as a Sikh leader and a nationalist. Newspapers in the region, with the support of the SGPC, pointed to his past favouring of the views of nationalists such asGopal Krishna Gokhale, noted that he had spurned some rituals at his coronation, and alleged he sympathised with the Akalis. They also erroneously claimed that Bhupinder Singh opposed the abdication, which he was quick to deny.[34]
Bhupinder Singh's decision to side with the British and instigate a counterpropaganda campaign at their request drove a wedge betweenPunjabi Sikhs.[34] Patiala was considered to be the most important of the Sikh states and its prime minister,Daya Kishan Kaul, attempted to mobilise its supporters among the SGPC as well as those citizens of Nabha who had been ill-treated by Ripudaman. He also attempted to feed the press with stories in support of both his state and the British.[34]
