What's new

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok i believe you. WHO MADE INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE IN PUNJAB??

was it moghuls who ruled it for 1000 years & made BADSHAHI MASJID & all monuments or was it the sikhs who ruled for less than 50?

by the way mugals didnt ruled for 1000 years. first mugal king was babur and last was bahadur shah jafar. their reigned for about 300 years but in punjab sikh misls were the actual rulers

it was only british who were able to rule over sikhs for 90 years . but that too because they initiated tax reforms and built roads and better police system which were even better than ranjit singhs era.
 
.
by the way mugals didnt ruled for 1000 years. first mugal king was babur and last was bahadur shah jafar. their reigned for about 300 years but in punjab sikh misls were the actual rulers

it was only british who were able to rule over sikhs for 90 years . but that too because they initiated tax reforms and built roads and better police system which were even better than ranjit singhs era.

ok 300 years i agree! but the MOGHULS built

ALAMGIR GATE, SHEESH MEHAL, JAMA MASJID, BADSHAHI MASJID & rest you said Sikhs were ruled for 90 years by BRITISH due to better roads being built & tax reforms!


SO WHAT DID THE SIKHS DO IN THEIR TIME!!!! WHAT DID THEY BUILD???? ANYTHING???? for 400 years (british & moghul) sikhs were slaved but progress was made in roads & buildings & taxes but when the SIKHs got time to rule themselves what did they do?
 
.
sikh and slaves..? do u really believe bunch of shalwar kameej wearing skinny pahari midgets would rule over us. sikhs never were ruled by mugals. sikh misls were the actual rulers. read real history not madrasa history they teach you in pakistan. and as you are going on insisting about sikhs infrastructure.

ranjit-singh-samadhi-1.jpg


ranjit singh tomb in lahore


2.jpg


Maharaja%20Ranjit%20Singh's%20fort%20at%20Phillaur_jpg.jpg


ranjit singhs fort at phillor

2914-31321-Gobindgarh-Fort-Amritsar-Punjab-Ph.jpg
[/IMG]

gobindgarh fort.. built my sikh misls to protect amritsar from mugals. even today it is used by army as cantonment

Peshawar-Bala_Hisar_Fort.jpg


sumer garh fort at peshawar

Archival records show that soon after the occupation of Peshawar by the Sikhs in 1834, Hari Singh Nalwa commenced the reconstruction of the fort.[3] The Sikhs called their fort 'Sumair Ghar' (after 'Sumer' another name for Mount Kailash). The first Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Nanak Dev, had visited Mount Sumer in the course of his travels. Hari Singh Nalwa installed a plaque over the gate of the fort that read:

"This Sumair Garh was built in the city of Peshawar by the exalted Maharaja Ranjit Singh Bahadur in Raja Bikramjit Sambat 1891 with the blessing of Almighty God".
 
.
sikh and slaves..? do u really believe bunch of shalwar kameej wearing skinny pahari midgets would rule over us. sikhs never were ruled by mugals. sikh misls were the actual rulers. read real history not madrasa history they teach you in pakistan. and as you are going on insisting about sikhs infrastructure.

ranjit-singh-samadhi-1.jpg


one of ranjit singh tomb in lahore


2.jpg


Maharaja%20Ranjit%20Singh's%20fort%20at%20Phillaur_jpg.jpg


ranjit singhs fort at phillor

2914-31321-Gobindgarh-Fort-Amritsar-Punjab-Ph.jpg
[/IMG]

gobindgarh fort.. built my sikh misls to protect amritsar from mugals. even today it is used by army as cantonment


sikhs were not ruled so your measeles were under whose rule? clearly HISTORY talks about MOGHUL EMPIRE FOR 300+ years & 100 years of BRITISH rule with only 50 years of SIKH RULE!

now you can deny history & believe your stories of 30 men vs 1,000,000 type stories from sikh history!
 
.
Golden+Temple+Picture.jpg

golden temple.

sikhs were not ruled so your measeles were under whose rule? clearly HISTORY talks about MOGHUL EMPIRE FOR 300+ years & 100 years of BRITISH rule with only 50 years of SIKH RULE!

now you can deny history & believe your stories of 30 men vs 1,000,000 type stories from sikh history!

but we have done these kinda feats many times.. can you deny battle or saragarhi or battle of longowalla. you are like we clinched our *** tight so sikhs cant **** us. lol

Misl (Punjabi: ਮਿਸਲ from the Persian word "misl" meaning "similar" or "alike")[note 1] generally refers to the twelve sovereign states in the Sikh Confederacy. The states formed a commonwealth that was described by Antoine Polier as an "aristocratic republic".[3] Although the misls were unequal in strength, and each misl attempted to expand its territory and resources at the expense of others, they acted in unison in relation to other states.[4] The misls held biannual meetings of their legislature, the Sarbat Khalsa in Amritsar.[4]
 
.
ya this picture just reminded me of how the HINDUS entered your most sacred worship place golden temple & killed people in it!


While muslims in Pakistan have your PUNJA SAHIB & protect sardars coming here for religious reasons.we also have SIKH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE LAW making LEGAL the sikh marriages! which india passed recently!


MUSLIMS of PAKISTAN have given more rights to sikhs then india! don't believe READ HISTORY!
 
.
Bathinda-Fort.jpg

43745565.jpg


bathinda fort built by maharaja ala singh

ya this picture just reminded me of how the HINDUS entered your most sacred worship place golden temple & killed people in it!


While muslims in Pakistan have your PUNJA SAHIB & protect sardars coming here for religious reasons.we also have SIKH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE LAW making LEGAL the sikh marriages! which india passed recently!


MUSLIMS of PAKISTAN have given more rights to sikhs then india! don't believe READ HISTORY!

good my friend. but we aint oppressed in india as you may like to think. although we have some problems with centre but majority sikhs dont want khalistan. india and hindus aint tyrant as u may like to believe. muslims are happy in india.
 
.
yes true i agree sikhs have become used to being RULED by first muslims,then british & now indian hindus! someone entered your religious place & killed your people and you say we have no problem shows that sikhs have become nothing like how gobind used to be!
 
.
by the way no matter how much you blah blah here. sikhs were your masters before british. and todays we live in a secular independent country called india. everyone is a minority here. even hindus are of many diffenrt types and worship differnet dieties. and we sikhs love india and punjab and our culture is mainstream. thanks to bollywood many are speaking punjabicised hindi and dancing to bhangra tunes.

even in the times of british sikh maharajas ruled you.
 
.
Many kingdoms in South East Asia paid tributes to Chola Kingdom after a naval expedition. While within India, he went upto Ganges.

Having stated that, I was only disputing your statement "After Emperor Ashok, he was the only Indian ruler who carried the sword outside the borders of the Sub Continent." and not about ruling an area.

There were others, many of them. That statement was utter nonsense.
 
.
by the way no matter how much you blah blah here. sikhs were your masters before british. and todays we live in a secular independent country called india. everyone is a minority here. even hindus are of many diffenrt types and worship differnet dieties. and we sikhs love india and punjab and our culture is mainstream. thanks to bollywood many are speaking punjabicised hindi and dancing to bhangra tunes.

even in the times of british sikh maharajas ruled you.

lol ok!!! love what you are taught!
 
.
They gave the identity to the land, which was called Punjab..

Much, much more than that. The achievements of this short-lived Sikh Empire are short-changed in history books written from the exclusively political point of view. More later, unless someone puzzles things out from this hint.

lol ok!!! love what you are taught!

The difference being that we live this, rather than reading about illusory and idealistic worlds, and living in completely different ones.

yes true i agree sikhs have become used to being RULED by first muslims,then british & now indian hindus! someone entered your religious place & killed your people and you say we have no problem shows that sikhs have become nothing like how gobind used to be!

Shows how ignorant you are about the Sikhs. They did not set out to be a militaristic sect, but were among the most pacific and tolerant set of people in those harsh and intolerant times. Gradually, the local Muslim rulers became more and mores alarmed at their growing influence, as much at their moral influence as their political influence, and resorted to increasingly harsh measures, measures which were sadistic and perverted. This drove the peaceful, devotional sect to take to arms, and finally to militarize fully. It was only then that they took power from their oppressors, in a series of quixotic conflicts where they faced ludicrous odds but prevailed. It is for this reason that their seeming period of ascendancy is so short; they never wanted imperium in the beginning. It was the savage behaviour of their oppressors which drove them to war.
 
.
Much, much more than that. The achievements of this short-lived Sikh Empire are short-changed in history books written from the exclusively political point of view. More later, unless someone puzzles things out from this hint.



The difference being that we live this, rather than reading about illusory and idealistic worlds, and living in completely different ones.



Shows how ignorant you are about the Sikhs. They did not set out to be a militaristic sect, but were among the most pacific and tolerant set of people in those harsh and intolerant times. Gradually, the local Muslim rulers became more and mores alarmed at their growing influence, as much at their moral influence as their political influence, and resorted to increasingly harsh measures, measures which were sadistic and perverted. This drove the peaceful, devotional sect to take to arms, and finally to militarize fully. It was only then that they took power from their oppressors, in a series of quixotic conflicts where they faced ludicrous odds but prevailed. It is for this reason that their seeming period of ascendancy is so short; they never wanted imperium in the beginning. It was the savage behaviour of their oppressors which drove them to war.

this is a good belief joe but please don't tell me that they "LEFT" power! & they were peace loving sect! till today the Sikhs have their daggers i am sure it is not a symbol for being farmers now is it?

& sikh kingdom was truly only 50 years and no more. not much they could have achieved in such a short time. i would go as far as calling them opportunists & usurpers! reason being they only rebelled when they saw a decline in the rulers of the time & not before.

However, it is true harsh treatment was metted out from both sides to each other.
 
.
this is a good belief joe but please don't tell me that they "LEFT" power! & they were peace loving sect!

:no: I suspect you are reading what you want to read, not what I wrote.

Please show me where I said that they 'left' power.

And they were indeed a peace-loving sect, until they militarized - radically. Don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself in any history of the Sikhs.


till today the Sikhs have their daggers i am sure it is not a symbol for being farmers now is it?

Sadly, even when you get all the hints, you don't bother to do your homework.

The kirpan became obligatory at a very, very late stage. Would you like to read up, even at this late stage, and tell us that you know when the five 'k's become obligatory, and what this signified in the context of their militarization?

& sikh kingdom was truly only 50 years and no more. not much they could have achieved in such a short time. i would go as far as calling them opportunists & usurpers! reason being they only rebelled when they saw a decline in the rulers of the time & not before.

As opposed to those natural-born aristocrats and rulers, the Ghaznavids, the Ghorids, the Slave dynasty, the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids and Lodis? Or Timur Lang? Or Sher Shah? Or Babur? Or Nadir Shah? Or Ahmad Shah Abdalli?

Do you think before you write?

I am in a very mellow mood, just having read a topping essay by Elmo, so consider this a good-natured reminder of an historical faux pas made, delivered with a smile. If you wish otherwise, we can go into your bizarre statement in some detail. :azn:

However, it is true harsh treatment was metted out from both sides to each other.
 
.


ya this picture just reminded me of how the HINDUS entered your most sacred worship place golden temple & killed people in it!


While muslims in Pakistan have your PUNJA SAHIB & protect sardars coming here for religious reasons.we also have SIKH RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE LAW making LEGAL the sikh marriages! which india passed recently!


MUSLIMS of PAKISTAN have given more rights to sikhs then india! don't believe READ HISTORY!

wha you want man ?? you want us to belive that Pakistanis respect sikhism more than Indians ?? and to prove that you are actually arguing with a sikh asking him what are the buildings that they made. Not just that you are trying so hard to prove that they were ruled over by foreign forces when thats not the case..still you say you pakistanis support sikhs more than the indians. I am not here to argue who suports whom more, but I can atleast tell you for you, you are muslims first and then pakistanis..thus its important to remidn you that as a muslim community you have tortured sikhs peoeple more than anyone else...now if you talk of Pakistan as a nation then thanks for the welcome that you give to us.No seriously..i am really thankful to the nation fo pakistan for that. But belive me you'll get he same kind of reception when you come to India for a visit to your religious places. Thats human nature to be good to people who are far away from us.

and what do you mean by protect sikhs when they come to Pakistan ??? are you saying that a section of muslims in your country are a threat to them thus they need protection ?? well, i agree with you..so thanks for that again. But atleast w now know that there are section of people who may harm sikhs...thankfully which is not in India today.

Now most importantly....you said you remmeber how Hindus killed people in Golden Temple.
i am amazed that we sikhs have always been angry on a particular party for this and never on Hidnus. because we actually never thought that way..simply because thats not the case.....but am not surprised when peoeple like you with very little knowledge about someone else's religion try to show as if they are experts on it. thats good if you are debating with your own people who do not anything about this...please do no do that on this forum..people here know the facts and it becomes very difficult if you claim something without being sure, as you just reveal your worth as a poster. You said Hindus enetered GT..we belive IA enetered with instructions from an individual and his team...cause we know how it works in India..a religion in india never wants to harm another religion..they dont have time for this..this happenes only where peoplego overboard to show how religious they are how religion is thebiggest thing in their lives. and yo knwow whom am talking bout. So please. stop making stories. i asa sikh rubbish your claim that HINDUS did that...yes that was done..we cant forget that..but we know who did that. so stop teaching sikhs teir own history.

you said Sikhs were ruled by mughals....leme clear it again..sikhs were opressed by mughals...why ?? because they were a breed in front of whom, the mughals had to kneel down whenever there was an encounter. Mughal rulers trued everything they could to convert them..or change their mind..but they not only failed..but paid heaevy price for it. when we sat sikhs ruled afghanistan,.....the fiorst thing that happens is , it hurts your ego. and its very difficult for you to gulp it down, thus you start measuring maps...from where till where did the sikhs ruled and how it was not afghanistan but a small part of it, etc etc.
I dont know whom afghanistanis feared, but i do know sikhs wre one community they did fear..atleast during the time of Ranjit singh. Hari Singh nalua was a like a terror for them...he was a general in sikh army who single handedly lead sikhs to beat a larger afghan army..in fact its a very old saying that afghanistan women used to scare their childs saying you must listen to us or else hari singh nalua will come....(I loled to this every time my grandma told this to me), but thats true..I dont know what they call in afghani..but it was something like khamso baccha khamso..errr dont remmber.

so please wait for two second before replying to my post and think to yourself...why am I trying to deny what is being said here. after a deep thought you still think that its really important for your ego to prove it wrong that ranjit singh ruked afghaistan then please reply..i will more than happy to reply back.because I know religion is the only thing that motivates you...and the sense of supriority isnt allowing you to accept facts...so ....go ahead...i am right here.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom