India has long been celebrated as a living example of communal harmony and unity in diversity. Across centuries, this land has welcomed a mosaic of religions, languages, customs, and traditions. Here, faiths do not merely coexist; they converse, influence, and enrich one another. From festivals to food, from art to everyday life, diversity flows naturally into shared experiences. Temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras and monasteries raise side by side, symbolising mutual respect. Despite differences in belief and practice, the spirit of togetherness binds people as one nation. India’s strength lies in its ability to transform diversity into collective harmony. This unity has been nurtured through tolerance, dialogue, and shared cultural values. Generations have grown up learning that differences are not divisions, but strengths. In this vibrant coexistence, India stands as a timeless reminder that harmony is humanity’s greatest achievement. However, in contemporary India, the long-cherished ideals of communal harmony and unity in diversity have faced serious setbacks due to recurring episodes of communal violence, mob lynching, and riots. Although communal conflict has historical roots in both pre- and post-Independent India, a vibrant democratic society such as ours was expected to curb these tendencies through collective social responsibility and effective governance. Instead, communal violence has increasingly manifested as a persistent and evolving challenge. According to the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), India witnessed 59 communal riot incidents in 2024, resulting in 13 deaths, while 2025 recorded a decline to 29 incidents with eight fatalities, indicating a notable reduction in large-scale violence.However, this statistical decline does not necessarily signify the restoration of communal harmony. Recent analyses suggest that identity-based tensions continue to thrive, driven by factors such as hate speech, religious provocations during festivals and processions, institutional discrimination, and the rapid spread of rumours and misinformation. These dynamics have altered the nature of communal conflict, shifting it from overt riots to more dispersed and insidious forms of violence. Consequently, while the frequency of large-scale riots may have diminished, the underlying structures of communal discord remain deeply entrenched, posing serious concerns for India’s democratic and pluralistic ethos.In this context, the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh offers a historically grounded model for restoring communal harmony in contemporary India. His rule in the early 19th century is widely regarded as an era marked by pluralism, secular governance and institutionalised tolerance. Maharaja Ranjit Singh governed a religiously diverse population by consciously separating state authority from religious dominance, ensuring equal respect and protection for Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and others. This inclusive political vision allowed diversity not merely to coexist, but to actively flourish within a shared civic framework. Revisiting this historical experience underscores that communal harmony is neither accidental nor abstract; rather, it is the outcome of ethical leadership, inclusive governance, and sustained commitment to pluralistic values—principles that remain profoundly relevant for addressing India’s present-day communal challenges. Sarkar-i-Khalsa Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780-1839) rose to prominence at a critical juncture in the history of the Indian subcontinent, a period marked by acute political fragmentation, social disintegration, and economic decline following the disintegration of the Mughal Empire. The collapse of central authority had created a profound political vacuum in North India, particularly in Punjab, which was plagued by instability, internal conflict and external invasions. It was within this context of disorder and uncertainty that Maharaja Ranjit Singh emerged as a unifying force.Through strategic acumen, military consolidation, and diplomatic pragmatism, he succeeded in conquering and unifying the Punjab region, thereby restoring political stability and administrative coherence. His capture of Lahore in 1799 marked a decisive turning point, as he established it as the capital of the Empire, transforming the city into a center of governance, culture, and economic revival. He established Sarkar-i-Khalsa (1799-1849) as the central administrative system of his state, providing a structured and effective framework for governance. During the process of consolidating Punjab, his leadership and courage earned him the honorific title Sher-e-Punjab (Lion of Punjab).Notably, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule was distinguished by its inclusive and secular character. Both Muslim and Hindu subjects perceived his governance as more benevolent, just, and impartial compared to previous regimes. This widespread trust was reflected in the fact that the gates of Lahore (1799) were opened to him voluntarily, symbolizing popular acceptance rather than coercive conquest. His reign thus stands as a historically significant example of how ethical leadership and inclusive governance can restore peace, prosperity, and social harmony in times of profound crisis. The radical inclusivity of Ranjit Singh’s empireThe imperial court of Maharaja Ranjit Singh at Lahore stood as a striking departure from governance rooted in religious identity. The Lahore Darbar was a profoundly heterogeneous institution, bringing together Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and even Europeans into the highest echelons of political and military authority. Contrary to the assumption that a Sikh-ruled state would privilege one religious community, non-Sikhs in fact occupied a disproportionate number of key administrative and strategic positions. This composition reflected the Maharaja’s unwavering belief that the strength of the state lay not in religious uniformity but in competence, loyalty, and commitment to public welfare.Ranjit Singh’s governing philosophy was firmly anchored in secular pragmatism rather than sectarian allegiance. His concern was the consolidation of the state and the well-being of its people, irrespective of faith. This approach translated into an administrative structure where Muslims such as Fakir Azizuddin, who served as foreign minister, Nuruddin as home minister, and military generals like Ghause Khan and Elahi Bakhsh played central roles in statecraft and defense. Similarly, Hindu officials— including Dhian Singh Dogra as prime minister, Gulab Singh Dogra as governor of Jammu, and Dina Nath as minister of civil administration – were entrusted with critical responsibilities. Such appointments were neither symbolic nor tokenistic; they formed the backbone of governance.The pluralistic ethos of the empire was equally visible in its military organisation. The Khalsa army, trained along European lines, was a composite force drawing personnel from diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. While the cavalry was largely Sikh, the artillery was predominantly Muslim, and the infantry included Dogras, Gurkhas, Sikhs, and Muslims alike. This integrated force not only functioned efficiently but also fostered a shared identity rooted in service to the state rather than religious affiliation. Loyalty to Ranjit Singh as a leader transcended communal boundaries, reinforcing unity within diversity.Practical lessons from Sarkar-i-KhalsaThe governance model of Maharaja Ranjit Singh offers enduring and practical lessons for addressing communal violence and revitalizing India’s foundational ideal of unity in diversity. Central to his Sarkar-i-Khalsa was a deeply inclusive understanding of secularism – one that neither rejected religion nor privileged it. Ranjit Singh recognised religious faith as a vital part of social life, yet firmly resisted its use as a basis for political dominance or exclusion. His state created a balanced civic space where individuals were free to practice any religion or none at all, without fear or favour.A defining feature of his administration was institutional neutrality toward religion. The Lahore Darbar reflected cultural pluralism in both form and function: Persian was used in official records, Punjabi served as the spoken language of governance, and both the Hindu and Islamic calendars were observed. These practices symbolised a conscious effort to accommodate multiple traditions within a shared political framework. Rather than enforcing uniformity, the state normalized difference, thereby reducing the potential for communal alienation.Crucially, Ranjit Singh rejected religious identity as a criterion for political authority. Merit, competence, and loyalty to the state were the sole measures of status and advancement. Sikhs did not enjoy automatic preference, nor were non-Sikhs subjected to suspicion or marginalisation. By assembling a diverse pool of administrators, military leaders, and courtiers drawn from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and European backgrounds, he fostered a sense of equal citizenship. This environment of fairness cultivated public trust and discouraged communal resentment—an essential antidote to identity-based violence.Another significant lesson lies in his pragmatic approach to governance. While selecting officials, Ranjit Singh remained sensitive to the social customs and collective strengths of different communities, integrating this understanding into administrative decision-making without stereotyping or discrimination. His policies – political, social, religious, and administrative – were consistently free from sectarian bias, reinforcing the perception of the state as an impartial guardian of its entire people.Thus, in present-day India, where communal violence is often fuelled by exclusionary narratives, politicized identities and institutional bias, the Sarkar-i-Khalsa presents a compelling historical blueprint. Ranjit Singh’s rule demonstrates that communal harmony is not achieved through mere rhetoric but through inclusive institutions, merit-based governance and ethical leadership. By ensuring equal dignity, representation, and opportunity across religious lines, he transformed diversity into a source of strength rather than division. Revisiting and adapting these principles can help contemporary India move beyond fractured identities and restore the moral and social fabric that underpins true unity in diversity. Dr. Harjeet Singh is an Assistant Professor, Department of Education, at Akal University, Punjab.