A history of the Sikhs, from the origin of the nation to the battles of the Sutlej.

106

HISTORY `OF THE SIKHS

CHAP. IV

1764. born', or many held lands in which the mere withdrawal of
a central authority had left them wholly independent of
control. In theory such men were neither the subjects nor
the retainers of any feudal chief, and they could transfere
their services to whom they pleased, or they could themselves become leaders, and acquire new lands for their own
The system use in the name of the Khalsa or commonwealth.1 It would
not devised, or be idle to call an everchanging state of alliance and depenknowingly dence by the name of a constitution, and we must look for
andthere- the existence of the faint outline of a system, among the
fore incom- emancipated Sikhs, rather in the dictates of our common
plete and nature, than in the enactments of assemblies, or in the
injunctions of their religious guides. It was soon apparent
that the strong were ever ready to make themselves obeyed,
and ever anxious to appropriate all within their power, and
that unity of creed or of race nowhere deters men from
preying upon one another. A full persuasion of God's grace
was nevertheless present to the mind of a Sikh, and every
member of that faith continues to defer to the mystic
Khalsa; but it requires the touch of genius, or the operation
of peculiar circumstances, to give direction and complete
effect to the enthusiastic belief of a multitude.
The con- The confederacies into which the Sikhs resolved themcalled Mis- selves have been usually recorded as twelve in number,
als. and the term used to denote such a union was the Arabic
word 'Misal', alike or equal.2 Each Misal obeyed or
followed a ' Sirdar ', that is, simply, a chief or leader; but
so general a title was as applicable to the head of a small
band as to the commander of a large host of the free and
equal ' Singhs' of the system. The confederacies did not
all exist in their full strength at the same time, but one
' Misal' gave birth to another; for the federative principle
necessarily pervaded the union, and an aspiring chief could
1 Hallam shows that the Anglo-Saxon freeholder had a similar
latitude of choice with regard to a lord or superior. (Middle Ages,
Supplemental Notes, p. 210.)
2 Notwithstanding this usual derivation of the term, it may be
remembered that the Arabic term ' Musluhut' (spelt with another s
than that in 'misal') means armed men and warlike people. 'Misal',
moreover, means, in India, a file of papers, or indeed anything serried
or placed in ranks.