Sikh misls and confederacies

Organisation at Amritsar

The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism traces the misls to mobile Sikh fighting bands that combined when circumstances required. Its Dal Khalsa entry describes reorganisation at Amritsar in 1748, with Jassa Singh Ahluwalia recognised as a common commander and multiple bands grouped into larger units. It calls the resulting association a loose confederacy without a strict constitution. Membership and military cooperation did not create a bureaucracy identical to the later Lahore kingdom.[1]

Bands, leaders and a shared gathering

The same account gives the Sarbatt Khalsa, the gathering of the Panth at Amritsar, a role in common decisions. Separate banners and leaders coexisted with institutions expressing a wider collective identity. It also notes that the label Dal Khalsa is not found in the Indian chronicles it discusses before James Browne’s late-eighteenth-century account. The date of a political practice and the earliest surviving use of its familiar name need not coincide.[1]

Territory as a share in collective acquisition

Hari Ram Gupta’s misldari entry explains its land relationship. A chief might recognise a member’s share in territory acquired together, while subordinate commanders could occupy land and acknowledge a chief for external defence. Local management could remain with the shareholder. This relationship depended on participation rather than a salary from a central ruler.[2]

According to the entry, the holder’s claim concerned a share of produce and did not automatically cancel cultivators’ customary proprietary or occupancy rights. Territorial authority contained layers: the chief, subordinate holder and tiller did not all possess the same kind of claim. The term misl describes a political association, while misldari also names relationships through which its land and revenue were managed.[2]

From confederacy towards monarchy

With Ranjit Singh’s expansion, many misls were absorbed into a kingdom. Some former holders entered the Maharaja’s service and retained all or part of their earlier revenue holdings as jagirs. That survival of personnel and income did not preserve the same independent political standing. The change concerned who could grant, recognise or withdraw authority, as well as the boundaries of territory.[2]