# Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan



## Panjabi Tiger

Ranjit Singh was born in Gujranwala, now in modern-day Pakistan.

He conquered :

Punjab region till Multan in south
Punjab, India
Punjab, Pakistan
Ganganagar, India
Haryana, India. Including Chandigarh.
Himachal Pradesh, India
Kashmir, conquered in 1818, India/Pakistan/China
Jammu, India
Gilgit, Northern Areas, Pakistan (Occupied from 1842 to 1846)
Khyber Pass, Afghanistan/Pakistan
Peshawar, Pakistan (taken in 1818, retaken in 1834)
North-West Frontier Province and FATA, Pakistan (documented from Hazara (taken in 181822)[55] to Bannu)
Parts of Western Tibet (1841), China

without maharaja ranjeet singh panjab history is totally uncompleate.he was real brave honest and very kind person .its so sad many of pakistani panjab ppl don't know him.i read two very very historical books on panjab history .there is 400 pages of his life story writen in 1870 in panjabi i read and it was great great experiance to know him. i beleve he was very very kind its unbeleve able when our muslim kings give to there enemyes and crimnals very very turture and punishments like remove the eyes cut beheed them but ranjeet singh never ever do like this in his rule. many times he knock the door of a poor former he eat wih him saag and lassi and when he leave his house he told him i am your maharaja.waoooooooooo.some one read history of panjab he will got what kind of great man maharaja ranjeet singh was.its too sad after he dai maharani jindaan and his brother make mess with khalsa and sardars of other mishals."

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Imran Khan

i read too much on him and he was real brave kind and very well ruler

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Panjabi Tiger




----------



## MadDog

Might be a generous king..but he is famous for using Badshahi Mosque as a stable for his horses !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Abingdonboy

MadDog said:


> Might be a generous king..but he is famous for using Badshahi Mosque as a stable for his horses !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## MadDog

*@ Abingdonboy *


Don't wanna believe me...look for yourself

"On 7 July 1799, the Sikh militia of the Sukerchakia chief, Ranjit Singh, took control of Lahore.[3] After the capture of the city, the Badshahi Mosque was severely damaged when Ranjit Singh used its vast* courtyard as a stable for his army's horses and its 80 hujras (small study rooms surrounding the courtyard) as quarters for his soldiers and as magazines for military stores.* Ranjit Singh used the Hazuri Bagh, the enclosed garden next to the Mosque as his official royal court of audience.[4]
In 1841, during the Sikh civil war, Ranjit Singh's son, Sher Singh, used the Mosque's large minarets for placement of zamburahs or light guns, which were placed atop the minarets to bombard the supporters of the Sikh Maharani Chand Kaur taking refuge in the besieged Lahore Fort, inflicting great damage to the Fort itself. In one of these bombardments, the Fort's Diwan-e-Aam (Hall of Public Audience) was destroyed (it was subsequently rebuilt by the British but never regained its original architectural splendour).[5] During this time, Henri De la Rouche, a French cavalry officer employed in the army of Sher Singh,[6] used a tunnel connecting the Badshahi Mosque to the Lahore Fort to temporarily store gunpowder.[7]"

Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Badshahi Mosque was damaged and misused during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh Ruler of the Punjab. The four domes on top of its four minarets were used by the Sikhs for cannon practice and destroyed. The Mosque was converted into a stable for the horses of Ranjit Singh&#8217;s army and also used as a gun powder magazine for military stores."

Badshahi Mosque Lahore

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## lkozhi

Abingdonboy said:


>



Massa Rangarh - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.


----------



## baajey

MadDog said:


> Might be a generous king..but he is famous for using Badshahi Mosque as a stable for his horses !!!



ok bhai jaan....aapki baat sahi......all his good deeds and act of wisdom were vaporised because his men kept some horses (animal kaffir...lol) in a mosque
to me its much better to keep horses in places of worship rather than removing eyes from their sockets.
hope u get y so many facepalms for u

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

He wasn't against the muslims and he was secular
Without him, peshawar would not be in pakistan
The british recuperated his conquests

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## third eye

It is nice to see Pak posters having a kind opinion of Ranjit Singh.

After Emperor Ashok, he was the only Indian ruler who carried the sword outside the borders of the Sub Continent.

The British were mortally scared of him and ensured that the dynasty died with him by sending to exile his son dalip singh 

For those who are keen to read books called " Empires of the Indus" by Alice Albinia and ' The Exile' by Navtej Sarna , a former Indian Diplomat and " Soldier sahibs" by Charles Allen are recommended.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pukhtoon

Panjabi Tiger said:


>



And this is the thread title.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan

While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ZABASHO

people give Ranjit Singh too much credit. No doubt he was one fine ruler, but what made him exemplary was Nihang Phula Singh. He was one man Maharaja Ranjit Singh both feared and respected. 
If it wasn't for Ranjit Singh's lust, Kashmir would've not been a disputed state!


----------



## Sashan

third eye said:


> It is nice to see Pak posters having a kind opinion of Ranjit Singh.
> 
> *After Emperor Ashok, he was the only Indian ruler who carried the sword outside the borders of the Sub Continent.*
> The British were mortally scared of him and ensured that the dynasty died with him by sending to exile his son dalip singh
> 
> For those who are keen to read books called " Empires of the Indus" by Alice Albinia and ' The Exile' by Navtej Sarna , a former Indian Diplomat and " Soldier sahibs" by Charles Allen are recommended.



For the highlighted portion, how come Indians forget about the great Chola empire and Rajendra Chola who went upto Indonesia defeating the famous Srivijaya kingdom and sacking the capital and capturing the king? 

Rajendra Chola I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## third eye

Sashan said:


> For the highlighted portion, how come Indians forget about the great Chola empire and Rajendra Chola who went upto Indonesia defeating the famous Srivijaya kingdom and sacking the capital and capturing the king?
> 
> Rajendra Chola I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I stand partially corrected.

I wasnt aware of what you brought out.

However , the areas of SE asia including Indonesia were under Chola Influence not direct rule like Ashoka & Ranjit Singh. Maybe because of non geographical contiguity.


----------



## Bhairava

Sashan said:


> For the highlighted portion, how come Indians forget about the great Chola empire and Rajendra Chola who went upto Indonesia defeating the famous Srivijaya kingdom and sacking the capital and capturing the king?
> 
> Rajendra Chola I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like Raja raja and Rajendra will be mentioned ?

*facepalm*



third eye said:


> However , the areas of SE asia including Indonesia were under Chola Influence not direct rule like Ashoka & Ranjit Singh. Maybe because of non geographical contiguity.



Actually it was. The Chola Navy played a crucial role in maintaining the hold over those kingdoms and the King's representative held suzerainity over the local kings.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Sashan

third eye said:


> I stand partially corrected.
> 
> I wasnt aware of what you brought out.
> 
> However , the areas of SE asia including Indonesia were under Chola Influence not direct rule like Ashoka & Ranjit Singh. Maybe because of non geographical contiguity.




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.


----------



## Bhairava

Pukhtoon said:


> And this is the thread title.
> 
> Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan
> 
> While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol



Dont afghans say anything west of Indus is Afghania ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

How exactly he was conqourer of afghanistan? He occupied only peshawer and surrounding areas , which were border areas of afghanistan. Another area which he snatched from afghanistan was kashmir, but he was able to do so because local kashmiris betrayed their afghan rulers.
Any how crossing indus to west and defeating afghans was a big deal, ranjeet singh was indeed a greater military stretagist. I think he is the one and only punjabi conqueror.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sashan

Bhairava said:


> *Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones*. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like Raja raja and Rajendra will be mentioned ?
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was. The Chola Navy played a crucial role in maintaining the hold over those kingdoms and the King's representative held suzerainity over the local kings.



I asked my wife who grew in Delhi whether she read about the Chola dynasty and she said the history books at school barely mentioned about them. It is very unfortunate that many Indians are unware of this great dynasty. A BBC documentary whicb was about India covered Chola dynasty in depth while the Indian books talks only about Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## EjazR

IMO, it is only the Cholas who actually had an out of Indian subcontinent influence and rule. 

It really depends on how you define "historic India". This basically includes the entire SAARC countries as well as the lower Central Asian countries which have had close ties and migrations into the Indus Valley regions for many centuries and are part of Indian mythology since the time of the Vedas and have major roles in Ramayana and Mahabharta.

All other Indian rulers from the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushans, Mughals, Suris or later the Sikh empires were all recapturing areas that were already part of the Indian subcontinent. It was like the small states in Germany and Italy after the collapse of the Roman Empire who were fighting with each other with one power taking over major territories and eventually unifying for a period of time before a collapse and the cycle repeating again. Even at their height like under Ashoka for the Mauryas or Aurangzeb under Mughals the maximum stretch was till Kabul that was still part of the Indian subcontinent. The Kushans might be credited with some conquests into Iranian territory as well as western China but only slightly and for a short period.

The Cholas were the only dynasty that actually held influence in an area completely outside the Indian subcontinental territories like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Indo China region. Their naval power was unmatched by any other Indian dynasty until ofcourse the British came much later.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## third eye

Sashan said:


> 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.



Fair enough point taken.

On the point of cholas not being taught in schools in Delhi. I wonder if your wife went to a school that ran a CBSE syllabus. I recall studying of the Cholas back in school in New Delhi many many years ago.


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Pukhtoon said:


> And this is the thread title.
> 
> Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan
> 
> While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol



Khan saab,
Peshawar ( North west frontier province, and fatas ) formed part of east Afghanistan, there was no pakistan or british empire before ranjit singh, there was only ahmad shah durrani who founded afghanistan, and peshawar was in afghanistan
But if you are a proud pakistani pashtuns, you can thank's ranjit singh ( and the british who recuperated his conquests of nwfp and fatas  )

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## third eye

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Khan saab,
> Peshawar ( North west frontier province, and fatas ) *formed part of east Afghanistan,* there was no pakistan or british empire before ranjit singh, there was only ahmad shah durrani who founded afghanistan, and peshawar was in afghanistan
> But if you are a proud pakistani pashtuns, you can thank's ranjit singh ( and the british who recuperated his conquests of nwfp and fatas  )



Valid points.

This was one of the reason why Af did not support the inclusion of Pak in the UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## third eye

Thesis by a Pak AF Officer.

Refer page 17.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...yNiVAw&usg=AFQjCNEzR6Yt-H1Pv_ZTz5zkVuzEZ7THjQ


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Bhairava said:


> Dont afghans say anything west of Indus is Afghania ?



Exactly, so he conquered east afghania



Monkey D Luffy said:


> How exactly he was conqourer of afghanistan? He occupied only peshawer and surrounding areas , which were border areas of afghanistan. Another area which he snatched from afghanistan was kashmir, but he was able to do so because local kashmiris betrayed their afghan rulers.
> Any how crossing indus to west and defeating afghans was a big deal, ranjeet singh was indeed a greater military stretagist. I think he is the one and only punjabi conqueror.



Yeah so he conquered east Afghanistan


----------



## niaz

Sikha Shahi has a bad name in Pakistani Punjab. Mainly because Sikhs were fighting against their Muslim overlords and when victorious, Sikhs literally butchered thousands of Muslims including women and children. On this basis Ranjit Singh was without doubt a cruel and anti-Muslim ruler with little respect for Muslim places of worship. 

Looking at it from an impartial point of view, one has to appreciate his courage and military prowess and of his generals. Let us look at Ranjits achievements:

In 1798 Ranjit Singh was elected as Supreme Commander of the Sikhs Misls. He succeeded in getting Shan Zaman out of Punjab. Like all despotic rulers, his next actions were to subdue other Sikh Misls and make himself the Maharaja. By 1808 he was master of all Punjab except Bahawalpur. However it was not until 818 that Multan was fully under the Sikhs.

He was cunning enough to avoid direct conflict with the British and signed a treaty to accept Sutlej as the boundary with the British Indian domains.

Ranjit Singh defeated Ghurkhas in 1809. His first victory against Afghans was against Weir Fateh Khan around Attock. In 1918 Ranjit Singh captured Peshawar. In 1919 he captured Kashmir from the Afghans. In 1823 he defeated Afghans again at Nowshera. In 1831 Sikh forces under Hari Singh Nalwa defeated Syed Ahmad Brailvi and eliminated the Islamic Emirate created by him in 1827.
Ranjit was a product of his times. His against the Muslims actions were the norm until the 19th Century. Victors had license to treat the conquered in any way they like. I am not condoning Ranjits actions, but as a student of history; I find it difficult to totally rubbish the man only because of his anti-Muslim stance. 

Since Porus, land of Punjab has not produced and military commander of such note. The fact that British were able to occupy Punjab in 1849, that is within 10 years of Ranjit's death clearly indicates what the difference between him and what he left behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## IND151

Panjabi Tiger said:


> He wasn't against the muslims and he was secular
> *Without him, peshawar would not be in pakistan*
> The british recuperated his conquests



so he won Peshawar after marathas?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

Bhairava said:


> Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like Raja raja and Rajendra will be mentioned ?
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> 
> 
> A



you are wrong here its not such thing we read whatever we find on bookshops .



IND151 said:


> so he won Peshawar after marathas?



yep khalsa army win Battle of Nowshera and fall peshawer in punjab"s hands in March 1823.

Battle of Nowshera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DRaisinHerald

I'm willing to bet this 'Panjabi Tiger' is actually Indian

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## third eye

Self Delete..


----------



## Imran Khan

DRaisinHerald said:


> I'm willing to bet this 'Panjabi Tiger' is actually Indian


he love green color that's why he use our flags

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shelly

do you want to know what the mslim invaders you so adore did to hindu temples?
this is hardly anything. the mosque still stands



MadDog said:


> *@ Abingdonboy *
> 
> 
> Don't wanna believe me...look for yourself
> 
> "On 7 July 1799, the Sikh militia of the Sukerchakia chief, Ranjit Singh, took control of Lahore.[3] After the capture of the city, the Badshahi Mosque was severely damaged when Ranjit Singh used its vast* courtyard as a stable for his army's horses and its 80 hujras (small study rooms surrounding the courtyard) as quarters for his soldiers and as magazines for military stores.* Ranjit Singh used the Hazuri Bagh, the enclosed garden next to the Mosque as his official royal court of audience.[4]
> In 1841, during the Sikh civil war, Ranjit Singh's son, Sher Singh, used the Mosque's large minarets for placement of zamburahs or light guns, which were placed atop the minarets to bombard the supporters of the Sikh Maharani Chand Kaur taking refuge in the besieged Lahore Fort, inflicting great damage to the Fort itself. In one of these bombardments, the Fort's Diwan-e-Aam (Hall of Public Audience) was destroyed (it was subsequently rebuilt by the British but never regained its original architectural splendour).[5] During this time, Henri De la Rouche, a French cavalry officer employed in the army of Sher Singh,[6] used a tunnel connecting the Badshahi Mosque to the Lahore Fort to temporarily store gunpowder.[7]"
> 
> Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Badshahi Mosque was damaged and misused during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh Ruler of the Punjab. The four domes on top of its four minarets were used by the Sikhs for cannon practice and destroyed. The Mosque was converted into a stable for the horses of Ranjit Singhs army and also used as a gun powder magazine for military stores."
> 
> Badshahi Mosque Lahore


----------



## Imran Khan

folks don't be emotional worlds was not civilized that time as today and less war rules then today .


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Khan saab,
> Peshawar ( North west frontier province, and fatas ) formed part of east Afghanistan, there was no pakistan or british empire before ranjit singh, there was only ahmad shah durrani who founded afghanistan, and peshawar was in afghanistan
> But if you are a proud pakistani pashtuns, you can thank's ranjit singh ( and the british who recuperated his conquests of nwfp and fatas  )


Pa ji provide authentic sources which prove that sikhs occupied afghan areas other than peshawer valley. Sikhs never set foot in FATA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Exactly, so he conquered east afghania
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so he conquered east Afghanistan


What exactly was east afghanistan?. The durrani empire was very vast, peshawer valley was its border area, you cant label it east afghanistan. Sikhs never conqueored FATA, malakand region, southren districts of KP, pashtun areas of balochistan. They only occupied peshawer valley and hazara (which is non-pashtun region). Achievements of ranjeet singh west of indus are not that impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Bhairava said:


> Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like *Raja raja and Rajendra* will be mentioned ?
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was. The Chola Navy played a crucial role in maintaining the hold over those kingdoms and the King's representative held suzerainity over the local kings.



Actually it seems discussions are going around my name and my son's empire

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ALOK31

EjazR said:


> IMO, it is only the Cholas who actually had an out of Indian subcontinent influence and rule.
> 
> It really depends on how you define "historic India". This basically includes the entire SAARC countries as well as the lower Central Asian countries which have had close ties and migrations into the Indus Valley regions for many centuries and are part of Indian mythology since the time of the Vedas and have major roles in Ramayana and Mahabharta.
> 
> All other Indian rulers from the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushans, Mughals, Suris or later the Sikh empires were all recapturing areas that were already part of the Indian subcontinent. It was like the small states in Germany and Italy after the collapse of the Roman Empire who were fighting with each other with one power taking over major territories and eventually unifying for a period of time before a collapse and the cycle repeating again. Even at their height like under Ashoka for the Mauryas or Aurangzeb under Mughals the maximum stretch was till Kabul that was still part of the Indian subcontinent. The Kushans might be credited with some conquests into Iranian territory as well as western China but only slightly and for a short period.
> 
> The Cholas were the only dynasty that actually held influence in an area completely outside the Indian subcontinental territories like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Indo China region. Their naval power was unmatched by any other Indian dynasty until ofcourse the British came much later.


my friend mauryan wins also some part of iran see the map.











and you are right chola dynsity were one most powerful navy in past.


----------



## trinity

Sashan said:


> I asked my wife who grew in Delhi whether she read about the Chola dynasty and she said the history books at school barely mentioned about them. It is very unfortunate that many Indians are unware of this great dynasty. A BBC documentary whicb was about India covered Chola dynasty in depth while the Indian books talks only about Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule.





Coz govt is slanted with North Indian bias....they keep it up....the SOuth of INdia will separate and combine with the Northeast


----------



## Sashan

third eye said:


> Fair enough point taken.
> 
> On the point of cholas not being taught in schools in Delhi. I wonder if your wife went to a school that ran a CBSE syllabus. I recall studying of the Cholas back in school in New Delhi many many years ago.




My wife had CBSE syllabus. I said "barely" mentioned and in her exact words - we read a paragraph about Cholas. My grouse is that an empire with spectacular conquests were given just a paragraph in our history books? I remember each Mughal emperor was given a chapter my school books.


----------



## MadDog

It is sad that many Pakistanis don't know the reality...*our elders like Sayed Ahmed Barelvi* who rose up against the tyrannical Sikh rule...*were butchered at the hands of Sikh empire.*

*@ Punjabi Tiger*
*You said here that KPK would not have been in Pakistan....my friend...look at the Durrani Empire's map again, They controlled whole of today's Pakistan and Kashmir....if Ranjit Singh wouldn't have been there...the history would have been different...the British wouldn't be ruling what is today's Pakistan..Kashmir would have been our part..lol...so lets not get over there*...my point is...it is indeed a part of history of the region..but an era where Muslims suffered tremendous brutalities...*a thing which was repeated in East Punjab when not a Single muslim family was allowed to live there..and they had to migrate.*

Today in Pakistan's Punjab you can't be proud to be a Punjabi... because *Punjabi is more of a culture than an ethnicity unlike Indian Punjab*There is a huge *Kashmiri community* in Lahore, Sialkot *(infact the ruling part of Punjab is all Kashmiri)*, in the north Attock and Mianwali are Punjabi Pushtuns, in the South (Rajanpur, DG Khan districts) are all Baloch of Punjab and then there is a Saraeki belt towards the Southwest and west which goes all the way up. The culture in Punjab is liberal unlike in other parts...so every one mixes up in the local cultures while mentaining a Biradiri system. Its sad when Pakistani members here just cuz of there ethnicity said that Punjabis should be proud of it.

Tell me i am kashmiri punjabi..why the hell should i be proud of it...when my ancestors suffered at the hands of this empire. Tell me why 28 million pushtuns should be proud of it....you people are making cracks in Pakistani society by just putting Pakistani flags on your profile..and commenting about being being Punjabi !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Rajaraja Chola said:


> Actually it seems discussions are going around my name and my son's empire



Actually I was looking for your posting in this thread to quote your avatar for Chola conquests instead of posting a separate map.


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

MadDog said:


> It is sad that many Pakistanis don't know the reality...*our elders like Sayed Ahmed Barelvi* who rose up against the tyrannical Sikh rule...*were butchered at the hands of Sikh empire.*
> 
> *@ Punjabi Tiger*
> *You said here that KPK would not have been in Pakistan....my friend...look at the Durrani Empire's map again, They
> controlled whole of today's Pakistan and Kashmir....if Ranjit Singh wouldn't have been there...the history would have been different...the British wouldn't be ruling what is today's Pakistan..Kashmir would have been our part..lol...so lets not get over there*...my point is...it is indeed a part of history of the region..but an era where Muslims suffered tremendous brutalities...*a thing which was repeated in East Punjab when not a Single muslim family was allowed to live there..and they had to migrate
> 
> Today in Pakistan's Punjab you can't be proud to be a Punjabi... because Punjabi is more of a culture than an ethnicity unlike Indian PunjabThere is a huge Kashmiri community in Lahore, Sialkot (infact the ruling part of Punjab is all Kashmiri), in the north Attock and Mianwali are Punjabi Pushtuns, in the South (Rajanpur, DG Khan districts) are all Baloch of Punjab and then there is a Saraeki belt towards the Southwest and west which goes all the way up. The culture in Punjab is liberal unlike in other pas...so every one mixes up in the local cultures while mentaining a Biradiri system. Its sad when Pakistani members here just cuz of there ethnicity said that Punjabis should be proud of it.
> 
> Tell me i am kashmiri punjabi..why the hell should i be proud of it...when my ancestors suffered at the hands of this empire. Tell me why 28 million pushtuns should be proud of it....you people are making cracks in Pakistani society by just putting Pakistani flags on your profile..and commenting about being being Punjabi !!!*


*
Well listen bhai, 
I'm muslim before all, like you, like all the people you quoted,
After that, i'm proud to be a pakistani
My username doesn't matter, it only means that i'm from punjab, and i still love the punjabi language.



Monkey D Luffy said:



What exactly was east afghanistan?. The durrani empire was very vast, peshawer valley was its border area, you cant label it east afghanistan. Sikhs never conqueored FATA, malakand region, southren districts of KP, pashtun areas of balochistan. They only occupied peshawer valley and hazara (which is non-pashtun region). Achievements of ranjeet singh west of indus are not that impressive.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong about his conquests, but he conquered peshawar and khyber pass for sure.
Anyway....*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MadDog

*@ Punjabi Tiger*... *bro he might have captured Peshawar...but not only this...the Sikh Empire captured whole of Pakistan and Kashmir from Durrani Empire*....without Ranjit Singh the *british would not have ruled today's Pakistan....and Kashmir would have been with us*....*we shouldn't put light of half of the reality...we should focus on the actual truth !!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

MadDog said:


> *@ Punjabi Tiger*... *bro he might have captured Peshawar...but not only this...the Sikh Empire captured whole of Pakistan and Kashmir from Durrani Empire*....without Ranjit Singh the *british would not have ruled today's Pakistan....and Kashmir would have been with us*....*we shouldn't put light of half of the reality...we should focus on the actual truth !!!*


Why the british would not have ruled Pakistan ?
And you are wrong , ranjit singh never conquered sindh and balochistan


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Well listen bhai,
> I'm muslim before all, like you, like all the people you quoted,
> After that, i'm proud to be a pakistani
> My username doesn't matter, it only means that i'm from punjab, and i still love the punjabi language.
> 
> 
> I may be wrong about his conquests, but he conquered peshawar and khyber pass for sure.
> Anyway....


 
He conqueored peshawer, but not khyber pass. If he had the ability to occupy khyber pass, he could have conqueored whole afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MadDog

The British wouldn't have ruled Pakistan as it was the British Empire which defeated the Sikhs and then brought what is today's Pakistan into British rule...the British after that tried to go into Afghanistan and bring them under their empire but failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Sashan said:


> Actually I was looking for your posting in this thread to quote your avatar for Chola conquests instead of posting a separate map.



Quite honestly, only a few N.Indians know about their southern chola empire.. Thats y i had this usernname buddy... Atleast after seeing the name, they may try to learn who is he and about his empire./......



MadDog said:


> The British wouldn't have ruled Pakistan as it was the British Empire which defeated the Sikhs and then brought what is today's Pakistan into British rule...the British after that tried to go into Afghanistan and bring them under their empire but failed.



This is not a Islam Vs Sikh thing...
By ur logic, there would have been no pakistan... It would have been a single Afghanistan with NWFP and Balochistan...
And the thread OP clearly stated the land of punjab created less heroes... After Purushottam or Porus, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the only notable warrior the land of Punjab have ever produced.. And it should be noted, the modern identity of land of Punjab was based on Ranjith Singh legacy..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## manofwar

MadDog said:


> The British wouldn't have ruled Pakistan as it was the British Empire which defeated the Sikhs and then brought what is today's Pakistan into British rule..*.the British after that tried to go into Afghanistan and bring them under their empire but failed.*


That really was a historic defeat for the British............
The Pastuns, armed with horses, swords and old muskets, defeated a numerically and technologically superior British force.........
But unfortunately, the Pashtuns were not as adept at treachery and dirty politics, and thus suffered extensively as a result of the Great Game...........


----------



## Sashan

Rajaraja Chola said:


> *Quite honestly, only a few N.Indians know about their southern chola empire.. Thats y i had this usernname buddy... Atleast after seeing the name, they may try to learn who is he and about his empire./......*
> 
> This is not a Islam Vs Sikh thing...
> By ur logic, there would have been no pakistan... It would have been a single Afghanistan with NWFP and Balochistan...
> And the thread OP clearly stated the land of punjab created less heroes... After Purushottam or Porus, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the only notable warrior the land of Punjab have ever produced.. And it should be noted, the modern identity of land of Punjab was based on Ranjith Singh legacy..




If you look at the most recent NCERT controversies, then we know what kind of quality and material these history books have.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MadDog

Rajaraja Chola said:


> This is not a Islam Vs Sikh thing...
> By ur logic, there would have been no pakistan... It would have been a single Afghanistan with NWFP and Balochistan...
> And the thread OP clearly stated the land of punjab created less heroes... After Purushottam or Porus, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the only notable warrior the land of Punjab have ever produced.. And it should be noted, the modern identity of land of Punjab was based on Ranjith Singh legacy..


 
Dude which identity....i have mentioned it in my previous posts...in Pakistan's Punjab...there are many ethnicities living together calling themselves Punjabi including (Kashmiris in Lahore, Sialkot, Punjabi Pushtuns in North in Attock and Mianwali, Punjabi Baloch in Southwest i.e Rajanpur and DG Khan districts and the Saraeki people)....there is no one identity...its more of a biradiri system in Punjab...unlike in other provinces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JonAsad

Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a Pakistani- -

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

JonAsad said:


> Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a Pakistani- -


Pakistan did'nt exist at that time. 

If punjabi warrior, a pakistani punjabi, is proud of ranjeet singh then there is nothing wrong with it, its wrong to label him indian and antipakistani for that. Ranjeet singh had also punjabi muslims in his ranks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

MadDog said:


> Dude which identity....i have mentioned it in my previous posts...in Pakistan's Punjab...there are many ethnicities living together calling themselves Punjabi including (Kashmiris in Lahore, Sialkot, Punjabi Pushtuns in North in Attock and Mianwali, Punjabi Baloch in Southwest i.e Rajanpur and DG Khan districts and the Saraeki people)....there is no one identity...its more of a biradiri system in Punjab...unlike in other provinces



You are talking about different ethnicities living in punjab.... I am Talking about the identity and legacy of the land of punjab... Ranjith Singh have the identity to the land of punjab...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Monkey D Luffy said:


> He conqueored peshawer, but not khyber pass. If he had the ability to occupy khyber pass, he could have conqueored whole afghanistan.



He conquered the khyber pass for sure .

Read : " ^ The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion, (Docherty,p.187)
"



Monkey D Luffy said:


> Pakistan did'nt exist at that time.
> 
> If punjabi warrior, a pakistani punjabi, is proud of ranjeet singh then there is nothing wrong with it, its wrong to label him indian and antipakistani for that. Ranjeet singh had also punjabi muslims in his ranks.



Exactly, he was secular and not against the muslims because he had muslim and hindus soldiers with him to fight the afghans


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Panjabi Tiger said:


> He conquered the khyber pass for sure .
> 
> Read : " ^ The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion, (Docherty,p.187)
> "
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, he was secular and not against the muslims because he had muslim and hindus soldiers with him to fight the afghans


 
Perhaps you dont know the exact geography of khyber pass. Sikh's outermost fort was at jamrud which is located at entrance of khyber pass and is just 10 miles away from peshawer. At the battle of jamrud your famous hari singh nalva died at the hands of afghans.


----------



## IBRIS

*Maharaja Ranjit Singh*






Ranjit Singh was born on Nov. 13, 1780 at Gujranwala. He was named Ranjit Singh by his father Mahan Singh. These two pictures on the right are the pictures of the house of Sardar Charat Singh, his grandfather, bottom picture is the door to the room where Ranjit Singh was born.

Ranjit singh had his first taste of battle, when he was hardly ten years old. It was Sahib Singh bhangi (they were called bhangis as they use to drink 'Bhang' all the time) of Gujarat (a town in Punjab, now in Pakistan) refused to pay tribute to Mahan Singh and his estate was attacked by him. Sahib singh shut himself at the fort of Sodhran and the siege of the fort was laid. Ranjit singh accompanied Mahan Singh. The siege continued for several months.

Mahan singh fell grievously ill. Apprehending his approaching end he invested Ranjit singh chief of the Sukerchakia Misl by putting Ranjit's forehead saffron paste. It was a great occasion of joy. Mahan Singh returned to Gujrawala. When the other Bhangi sardars came to know about the illness of Mahan singh and the army of Sukerchikia's was commanded by a child of ten years they came to rescue the Sahib singh bhangi at Sodhran. Ranjit singh ambushed them and routed their forces. Ranjit singh's victory opened the eyes of many chieftains. When the news of victory was conveyed to Mahan singh, he distributed sweets and perhaps it was the last news given to Mahan singh before he breathed his last.

Mahan Singh died in 1792. Ranjit singh was then 12 years old. He was too young to manage the affairs of the estate. His mother Raj Kaur became his natural guardian. He was also helped by Diwan Lakhpat rai. She had full confidence in his integrity but her brother Dal Singh did not like his interference in the administration of the territory. So, Dal singh joined hands with Sada Kaur, Ranjit singh's mother-in-law who exercised a lot of control over him. Thus two clear cut groups were formed, Diwan and Raj Kaur on one hand, Sada Kaur and Dal Singh on the other side. The intrigues and counter intrigues made Ranjit sick of all of them. He started spending most of this time outside the house on hunting expeditions. Ranjit singh also became suspicious of people around him and disliked some of them.

Ranjit singh learnt riding, shooting, and started drinking early years of his life. Drinking was not considered bad in those days and the more one drank, the more respect he commanded among the sardars. It was a matter of pride.

Ranjit singh was once attacked by Hashmat Khan when he was out on the hunting expedition. Hashmat Khan, a chief of an estate which had many score to settle with Mahan singh, Ranjit singh's father. Ranjit singh's horse was frightened. Khan took the opportunity and pierced his sword into the body of Ranjit singh. Ranjit singh controlled himself and before Khan could make another move, Ranjit cut his head, hung it on his spear and joined his comrades with his prized possession. The heartened Ranjit and his companions joy knew no bounds as the young lad of 13 had performed a miracle.






Ranjit grew up without any formal education and remained totally illiterate. Fond of swimming and excursions, Ranjit had more traits to become a soldier later in life. Ranjit singh once told Captain wade, British agent at Ludhiana that his father had left for him 20,000 rounds of shot which he expended in firing at marks.

Having spent his years in dissipation and indulgence, Ranjit was attracted towards usual vices common among the nobility during those days. However, Ranjit "in his youth was remarkably active and excellent horseman and well skilled in everything connected with military feats.

At the age of 16 Ranjit singh was married to Mehtab Kaur of Kanhaiya misal, thus this marriage brought two great misals together. Then in 1798 he again married to the daughter of Khazan singh Nakai thus also adding his strength. The second marriage annoyed Sada kaur and Mehtab kaur. Mehtab kaur returned to Batala and only returned to Gujrawala occasionally.

Upto this time diwan Lakhpat Rai was managing the affairs of the estate. He was confident of sardar Mahan singh. He kept all the accounts. Diwan was murdered while away in the Dhanni area for collecting the revenue. This gave an opportunity to Ranjit singh to take over the administration. 

Thus at the age of 18 Ranjit singh assumed the powers directly. Sada kaur exploited the position of Ranjit singh and she was the ladder by which Ranjit singh reached the climax of his power. the plastic mind of the young boy was molded by men and women from whom he had no lofty religious and moral ideas to imible. He was brought up more or less a spoilt child.

We had many divergent accounts of the physical appearances of Ranjit singh. "He was exactly like old mouse, with gray whiskers and one eye." "In person he was short and mean-looking and had he not distinguished himself by his great talents he would be passed by without being thought worthy of observation. Without exaggeration must call him the most ugly and unprepossessing man I saw throughout Punjab. His left eye, which is quite closed, disfigures less than the other but form so many dark pits in his grayish brown skin, his short straight nose is swollen at the tip; his skinny lips are stretched tight over his teeth which are still good; his grizzled beard, very thin on cheeks and upper lip, meets under the chin in matted confusion, and his head which is sunk very much on his broad shoulders, is too large for his height, and does not seem to move easily. He has thick muscular neck, thin arms and legs, the left foot and left arm dropping, and small well informed hands. The nervous irritation of his mind is shown by the continual pressure on one's finger. His costumes always contributes to increase his ugliness, being in winter the color of gamboge from the pagri down to his very socks and slippers. When he seats himself in common English chair with his feet drawn under him, the position is one particularly unfavorable to him; but soon as he mounts his horse and with his black shield on his back puts him on his mettle, the whole form seems animated by the spirit within, and assumes a certain grace of which nobody could believe it susceptible"(by Eden Emily, upto the country p.320, and by Hugel Baron, Travels in Kashmir and the country of the Sikhs p. 380). "He had a large and indeed an unusual share of the weakness and vices which grew up, like all weeds, in human nature, and his moral being seemed, at superficial glance, as dwarfed and distorted as his physical envelope. He was selfish, false and avaricious; grossly superstitious, shamelessly and openly drunken and debauched. In the respectable virtues he had no part; but in their default he was still great with him, as with the most illustrious leaders of men, from Ceaser and Alexander to Napolean, intellectual strength not allied to maral rectitude. He was great because he possessed in an extraordinary degree the qualities without which the highest success cannot be attained, and the absence of the commonplace virtues which belong to the average citizen neither diminished nor affected in any way the distinction of character. He was born ruler. Men obeyed him with instinct and because they had no power to disobey". (Griffen Lepel, Ranjit Singh p.91)

*Situation in Punjab, Sikh confedrations and Afghanis*

Punjab presented a picture of chaos and confusion when Ranjit singh took reins of Sukerchikias misal. The edifice of Ahmad Shah abdali's empire in India had crumbled. Afghanistan was dismembered. Peshawar and Kashmir though under the suzerainty of Afghanistan had attained de facto independence. Barakzais were the masters of these places. Attock was ruled by Wazrikhels and Jhang lay at the feet of Sials. Pathans were ruling Kasur. Multan had thrown yoke and Nawab Muzaffar Khan had taken its charge.

*Map of Punjab in 1790's*





Both Punjab and Sind were under Afghan rule since 1757 after Ahmad Shah Abdali was granted suzerainty over these two provinces. They were confronted with the rising power of Sikhs in Punjab. Taimur Khan, a local Governor was able to turn away Sikhs from Amritsar. He razed to the ground the fort of Ram Rauni. But this state of affairs did not last long and the Sikh misal joined hands and defeated Taimur Shah and his Chief minister Jalal Khan. The Afghans were forced to retreat and Lahore was occupied by the Sikhs in 1758, Jassa singh Ahluwalia proclaimed Sikh's sovereignty and became its head. He struck coins to commemorate his victory.

When Ahmad Shah Abdali was engaged in his campaign against the Marathas at Panipat in 1761, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia plundered Sirhind and Dialpur, seized some places in Ferozepur district and took under his possession Jagraon and Kot Isa Khan on the other bank of Sutlej. He captured Hoshiarpur and Naraingurh in Ambala and levied tribute from the chief of Kapurthala. He then marched towards Jhang. Sial chief offered stout resistance. When Ahmad Shah left in Feb. 1761, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia again attacked Sirhind and extended his territory as far as Tarn Taran. He crossed Bias and capture Sultanpur. In 1762, Ahmad Shah again appeared and a fierce battle took place. It is called Ghalughara, a great holocaust. Jassa singh fled to Kangra hills after Sikh forces were totally routed. After the departure of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia attacked Sirhind, it was razed to ground and the afghan Governor Zen Khan was killed. This was a great victory to Sikhs who were rulers of all the area around the Sirhind. Jassa Singh hastily paid visit to Hari Mandir at Amritsar, and he made amends and restored it to original shape as it was defiled by Ahmad Shah by slaughtering cows in its precincts.

Ahmad Shah died in June 1773. After his death power of Afghans declined in Punjab. Taimur Shah ascended the throne at Kabul. By then misals, had established themselves in Punjab. They had under their control the area as far as Saharnpur in east, Attock in west, Kangra Jammu in north and Multan in south. Efforts were made by Afghan rulers to dislodge Sikhs from their citadels. Taimur Shah attacked Multan and defeated the Bhangis. The Bhangi sardars, Lehna Singh, and Sobha singh were driven out of Lahore in 1767 by the Abdali but soon reoccupied it. They remained in power in Lahore till 1793-the year when Shah Zaman succeeded to the throne of Kabul.

Another menace to Sikhs was the Pathan ruler of Kasur who was loyal to Kabul. During the Abdali attacks, he took side with him and plundered the Sikh territory. Now again assistance was promised to Shah by Kasur ruler, Nizam-Ud-Din-Khan.

The first attempt by Shah Zaman was made in 1793. He came upto Hassan Abdal from where he sent an army of 7000 strong cavalry under Ahmad Shahnachi but the Sikhs totally routed them. It was a great setback to Shah Zaman but again in 1795 he reorganized forces and attacked Hassan Abdal, snatched Rohtas from Sukerchikias, whom leader was Ranjit Singh. who suffered at Shah Zaman' hands but did not lose courage. However, shah had to be back in Kabul as an invasion was apprehended on his own country from the west. After he went back, Ranjit dislodged the Afghans from Rohtas.

Shah Zaman could not sit idle. In 1796 he moved, crossed Indus for the third time and dreamt of capturing Delhi. His ambition knew no bounds. By now he had collected 3000 strong afghan army. He was confident a large number of Indians will join with him. Nawab of Kasur had already assured him help. Sahib Singh of Patiala betrayed his countrymen and declared his intentions of helping Shah Zaman. He had family traditions of loyalty to all the invaders who attacked India. Shah Zaman was also assured help by the Rohillas, Wazir of Oudh, and Tipu Sultan of Mysore. Shah was bent upon to finish the infidels. The news of Shah Zaman invasion spread like wild fire. Chicken hearted people started fleeing to hills for safety. Heads of Misals, though bound to give protection to the people as they were collecting Rakhi tax from them were the first to leave the people in lurch. In Dec. Shah occupied territory upto Jhelum. When he reached Gujarat Sahib singh bhangi panicked and left the place. He could not offer any resistance.

Next was the territory of Ranjit singh. He was alert and raised an army of 5000 horsemen. But they were inadequately armed with only spears and muskets. The afghans were equipped with heavy artillery. Ranjit singh thought of a stiff united fight against the invaders. He came to Amritsar. A congregation of Sarbat Khalasa was called and many Sikh sardars answered the call. An almost unanimous opinion prevailed that Shah zaman's army should be allowed to enter the Punjab, and they all should retire to hills.

However, Sada Kaur thought otherwise and exhorted the Sikhs to fight to the last. She persuaded Ranjit singh to be bold enough to face the Afghan army and offer stiff resistance. Forces were reorganized under the command of Ranjit singh and they marched towards Lahore. They were able to gave Afghans a crushing defeat in several villages and ultimately surrounded the city of Lahore. Sorties were made in night in which they would kill a few Afghan soldiers and then leave the city in the thick of darkness. Following this tactic they were able to dislodge Afghans at several places.

In 1797, Shah Zaman, suddenly left for Afghanistan as his brother Mahmud had revolted. Shahanchi khan with considerable force was left at Lahore. The Sikhs however followed Shah upto Jhelum and snatched many goods from him. The Sikhs returned and in the way were attacked by the army of Shahnachi khan near Ram Nagar. The Sikhs routed his army. It was the first major achievement of Ranjit Singh. He became the hero of the land of Five Rivers and his reputation spread far and wide.

Again in 1798 Shah Zaman attacked Punjab to avenge his defeat in 1797, people took refuge in hills. Sarbat Khalsa was again called and Sada Kaur again persuaded Sikhs to fight till the last man. This time even Muslims were not spared by Shah Zaman forces and he won Gujarat very easily. Sada Kaur aroused the sense of Sikhs of national honor and if they had left Amritsar then she will command the forces against Afghans. She said an Afghani soldier was no match to a Sikh soldier . They would be give befitting reply and by the grace of Sat Guru they would be successful.

The Afghans had plundered the towns and villages as they had vowed and declared openly that they would exterminate the Sikhs; but in the process the Muslims suffered most as Hindus and Sikhs had already left for the hills. The Muslims thought that they would not be touched but their hopes were belied and their provisions were forcible taken away by the Afghans. 

Shah Zaman sought help of raja Sansar Chand of Kangra, that he will not gave any food or shelter to Sikhs. He agreed. Shah Zaman attacked Lahore and Sikhs were surrounded from all sides, they had to fight a grim battle. The Afghans occupied Lahore on Nov. 1798, and planned to attack Amritsar. Ranjit Singh collected his Men and faced forces about 8 Km from Amritsar. It was a well-matched encounter which forced Afghans at last to retire. They were humiliated and fled towards Lahore. Ranjit Singh pursued them and surrounded Lahore. Afghan supply lines were cut. Crops were burnt and other provisions plundered so that they did not fall into Afghan's hands. The Afghans never expected such a humiliating defeat at the hands of Sikhs. Nizam-ud.din of Kasur attacked Sikhs near Shahdara on the banks of Ravi, but his forces were no match to Sikhs. Here too, Muslims suffered the most. The retreating Afghans and Nizam-ud-din forces plundered the town which antagonized the local people. 

The Afghans struggled hard to dislodge Sikhs but in vain. Sikh cordon was so strong that they made impossible for the Afghans to break it and proceed towards Delhi. Ranjit singh became terror to them.


*Engagements with Shah Zaman*






The moment Zaman Shah left, Ranjit singh pursued his forces and caught them unawares near Gujranwala. They were chased further up to Jhelum. Many Afghan were put to death and their war equipment was taken into possession and they were made to run for their lives. Shah Zaman was overthrown by his brother and was blinded. He became a helpless creature and 12 years later came to Punjab to seek refuge in Ranjit singh's darbar, who was now the ruler of land. Destiny wished it like that. 

"The character of Ranjit Singh", says Cunningham," seems to have impressed itself, not only on the other Sikh leader, but on the Duranni Shah. He coveted Lahore, which was associated in the minds of men with the passion of power, and as the king was unable to cross his heavy artillery over the flooded Jhelum, he made it known to the aspiring chief that their transmission would be an acceptable service. As many pieces of cannon as could be readily extricated were sent after the Shah, and Ranjit singh procured what he wanted, a royal investiture of the capital of Punjab." "The task Ranjit singh readily undertook and partly performed, rescuing eight guns of the twelve and sending them to Peshawar; and Zaman Shah kept his promise of giving Lahore to Ranjit"(Cunningham J.D., History of Sikhs p.108).






Main entrance to the Lahore Fort. 

These conclusions have no relevance which are neither feasible nor supported the facts. Zaman Shah did lose guns and Ranjit singh might have taken them out, but there is no proof about sending them to Peshawar. Nor is there any proof that Ranjit Singh had made overtures to the Afghan King prior to his occupation of Lahore, although it is said that Shah tried to win over Ranjit Singh by sending him 'Khillat'. No friendly contacts were established between them. On the other hand Ranjit Singh treated the Shah's demands for submission with contempt and challenged him that he would acquire the capital with sword. When Shah was holding his court in 'Musamman burj' in Lahore. Ranjit appeared surreptitiously and challenged the Shah "o grandson of Abdali, come down and measure swords with the grandson of Charat singh".(Sohan Lal Suri, umdat-ut-twarikh II, p.39) Ultimately, the shah's withdrawal gave a choice to the Sikhs to "obliterate all semblance of Afghan authority between Ravi and Jhelum. Ranjit singh combined with Sahib Singh of Gujrat (Punjab) and Milkha Singh of pindiwala and a large Sikh force, fell upon the Afghan garrison while Shah Zaman was still in vicinity of Khyber Pass. The Afghan forces fled towards north after having been routed by the Sikhs leaving behind at Gujrat their dead including the Afghan deputy."(Bikramjit Hasrat, Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p.36).

Thus although guns were dug and returned to the Shah by Ranjit singh, he could never appoint Ranjit Singh as a Governor of Lahore, in lieu of this favor. A document dated April 1800 says: "Ranjit singh has lately delivered to Zaman Shah's vakil 15 pieces of cannon which the Durrani prince lost last year in the retreat".

This make it obvious that the guns were returned in 1800 and as such Ranjit singh could not be granted Lahore before that date. Ranjit Singh had occupied Lahore in July 1799. Thus there was no question of Ranjit Singh getting Lahore as a gift. He got the city by the might of his sword. Lahore was the most important and biggest city of Punjab. After Amristar, it was next in importance to Sikhs, as it was not only the capital of the province but also the birthplace of the fourth Guru Ram Das. Lahore at that time was ruled by the Bhangi sardars.(they were called bhangi because they use to drank Bhang all the time). It was captured earlier by them and remained under their control till it was reoccupied by Shah Zaman in 1797. After Shah Zaman left, Bhangi Sardars, Chet Singh, Sahib Singh and Mohar Singh reoccupied it. They had no talent and ability to rule. These incapable sardars did not take any interest in the welfare of the people and were inept and imbecile. They had no control over the people. They were "unscrupulous, drunken, profligate and tyrannical."





The Muslims had a considerable influence in the town. Mian Ashak mohammad and Mian Mukkan Din were very powerful and exercised a lot of hold on the people. They were called chaudhries and were often consulted in most of the affairs of the city. Mian Ashak Mohammad daughter was married to Badr-ud-din. He was a very influential man. Due to some unknown reason, he had some dispute with khatries of the town. he quarreled and Khatries reported the matter to Chet Singh. some forged papers that badr-ud-din had links with Zaman Shah were also shown to Chet singh. Chet singh was convinced of matter and arrested Badr-ud-din.

A wave of resentment followed the arrest among the supporters of Badr-Ud-Din and Mian Ashak Mohammad. The formed a deputation of some leading chaudhries and pleaded on behalf of Badr-ud-din but they were humiliated and were made to lick ground.

By this time the people of the country had become aware of the rising strength of Ranjit singh, the rising star on the horizon. He was the most popular leader of the Punjab and was already yearning to enter Lahore. The people of Lahore being extremely oppressed raised their voices of wailing to the skies and were looking towards their liberator. Muslims joined Hindus and Sikh residents of Lahore in making an appeal to Ranjit Singh to free them from the tyrannical rule.

A petition was written and was signed by Mian Ashak Mohammad, Mian Mukkam Din, Mohammad Tahir, Mohammad Bakar, Hakim Rai, and Bhai Gurbaksh Singh. It was addressed to Ranjit singh to free them from Bhangi sardars. Ranjit singh was invited to liberate Lahore as early as possible. He mobilized a 25000 Army and marched towards Lahore on July 6, 1799.

It was a last day of Muharram when a big procession was to be taken out in the town in the memory of the two grandsons of Prophet Mohammad who were martyred in the battlefield without having a drop of water. It was expected that Bhangi sardars will also participate in procession and mourn with their Shia brethren. By the time procession was over Ranjit singh had reached outskirts of city.

Early morning on July 7 1799, Ranjit singh's men had taken their positions. Guns glistened and the bugles were sounded. Rani Sada kaur stood outside Delhi gate and Ranjit singh proceeded towards Anarkali. Ranjit singh rode along the walls of the city and got the wall mined. A breach was blown. . It created panic and confusion. Mukkam Din, who was one of the signatories to the petition made a proclamation with the beat of drum that town had been taken over by him and he was now head. He ordered all the city gates to be opened. Ranjit singh entered the city with his troops through the Lahori gate. Sada kaur with a detachment of cavalry entered through Delhi gate. Before Bhangi sardars had any inkling of it, a part of the citadel was occupied without any resistance. Sahib singh and Mohar singh left the city and sought shelter at some safer place. Chet singh was left either to fight, defend the town or flee as he like. He shut himself in Hazuri Bagh with only 500 men. Ranjit singh's cavalry surrounded Hazuri Bagh and Chet singh surrendered and he was given permission to leave the city along with his family.






Ranjit singh was well entrenched in the town now. Immediately after taking possession of the city, he paid visit to Badashahi mosque. This gesture increased his prestige and his status was in the eyes of people. He won the hearts of the subjects, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike. It was July 7, 1799 when victorious Ranjit Singh entered Lahore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IBRIS

*Other small confederates and Ranjit singh[/COLOR][/SIZE]*






The jealously of the leading sardars surfaced with increase in Ranjit's fame. Shah Zaman no longer posed any threat. Earlier, the Sikh chiefs joined hands and collaborated to meet the Afghan menace. The bonds affinity were cut pieces now and the potential Sikh chiefs Sahib Singh Bhangi of Gujarat, Jassa singh ramgharhia, Jodh singh Bajwa of Wazirabad, and Gulab singh Bhangi of Amritsar joined hands to wrest Lahore from Ranjit Singh. They sought the help of Nizam-Ud-Din of Kasur, who was an aspirant of subedari of Lahore. In early 1800 they marched towards Lahore. Ranjit singh faced them at about 16 km from city at Bhasin, with Kanhaiyas on his side. The forces of Ranjit singh won a very easy victory in only three days and these misal sardars were unable to dislodge Ranjit Singh from his citadel.

Ranjit Singh hastened back to Lahore triumphantly. He was given royal reception by the citizens. Ranjit singh's expansionist designs now knew no bounds he marched on to Jammu. On the way he annexed Narowal and Varowal. Maharaja of Jammu had neither intention nor was capable of fighting him so he presented him a nazrana of 20,000 rupees. Ranjit singh marched towards Sialkote and accepted nazrana there too, then Dilawargarh. He had to fight various chiefs and sardars during these expansions. 

Open rift between Ranjit singh and Sahib Singh Bhangi invited interference from some other powers. Shah Zaman send feelers to various sardars. The Bhangi sardars and others united with them wanted to let down Ranjit singh and hence invited Shah Zaman to attack him. Ranjit singh accepted gifts send by Shah Zaman. This diplomatic move resulted in mutual trust and faith between Ranjit Singh and Shah Zaman. It was a diplomatic victory of Ranjit Singh. Meanwhile, British govt. was also much perturbed. Their concern was the rising power of Ranjit singh who could pose danger to them one day. In April 1800 Governor General send Mir Yusuf Ali to Lahore to hold negotiations with Ranjit singh. An historic meeting was held on 22 Oct. 1800, where Ranjit Singh, Rani Sada Kaur, Fateh Singh Ahluwalia, and Misr Ram Dayal were present. Yusauf gave a long sermon on the treachery of the Afghans and how Abdali was cruel to Sikhs; how he did not even spare the holy places of Sikhs including Golden temple of Amritsar; The Afghan could never be faithful treachery was in their blood. This meeting remained indecisive. Ranjit singh could not trust either British or Shah Zaman. 

Ranjit Singh was now considered a great force. He appointed misr Ramdayal for his day to day affairs with people. Fateh singh Ahluwalia guided on army matters. During the same periods darbar attracted the Fakir brothers who held high offices under Ranjit singh. Fakir Aziz-Ud-Din was the most prominent among them. He came along with his father Ghulam Mohiud-Ud-Din who was an royal doctor. Nur-Ud-Din and Imam-Ud-Din the other brother of Zaiz were also given different post in Ranjit singh's darbar. Aziz-Ud-Din was made the in charge of Foreign affairs. "It was due to his wise counsel that the Maharaja maintained friendly relations with the British government; and the fact that these relations were on a footing of equality and mutual respect was largely an outcome of his ardent loyalty to Ranjit Singh." (Syed Moheduddin, The Real Ranjit Singh p.40)

By this time the day had come that Ranjit singh should declare himself the Maharaja of Punjab and treats all his subjects Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs equally. On April 12 1801, Ranjit Singh declared himself Maharaja of Punjab on the same auspicious day of Baisakhi when Khalsa was made by Guru Gobind Singh. The investiture ceremony was performed by Sahib Singh Bedi, who was the direct descendant of Guru Nanak. A commemorative coin was issued, Nanakshahi rupee as it was called. People showered flowers on him and in turn Ranjit singh showered gold and silver coins on his subjects. It was a grand gala occasion. Ranjit Singh rode on the elephant and passed through the streets of Lahore. He won popular acclaim and earned a lasting place in the hearts of the people. At night the town was illuminated with oil lamps and there was display of fire works. Many chiefs and sardars offered nazrana and in return receive khillats. The fort was garrisoned. The city which had suffered 30 years of Bhangi misrule needed peace and rule of law. The Maharaja ordered that no interference be made with the personal and public law of Muslims. They were given equal rights with other subjects. Courts presided over by the Qazis and Muftis were confirmed. Prominent citizens were designated as chaudhries and mohallas. The sense of security was given to the people. Trade and Business were established on a sound basis. 

Meanwhile Batala was attacked by the Raja of Kangra Sansar chand, so Ranjit singh ordered his troops to march there. Kangra's men fled in fear and all territory was restored to the Rani Sada Kaur. Maharaja also occupied Naushera part of domain of Sansar Chand and give it to Rani Sada Kaur.

*Ranjit singh's family and relatives*

1802 proved to be an auspicious year for the Maharaja. His Rani Raj Kaur, daughter of Nakai Sardar Khazan Singh gave birth to a son. He was named Kharak Singh. The happy event was celebrated with great rejoicing.




*Shalimar Gardens at Lahore, Lahore was the capital city of Maharaja Ranjit singh's Sarkar Khalsa. These Gardens were built by Jahangir the Fourth emperor of Mughals.*

Valuable khillats were bestowed on sardars of the darbar and each soldier in Army was presented with a gold necklace. A large amount was distributed among poor.





When the celebrations were over, the Maharaja along with his ally, Fateh Singh Ahluwalia marched on to Daska. The fort was seized and the in charge fled in fear. A police post was set up in this fort and victorious maharaja returned to Lahore. Now a message was received from Pindi Bhatian that Jassa Singh Bhangi was committing excesses on the local zamindars. He held the Chiniot fort. The maharaja reached there with his army. Some resistance was offered but the fort fell to Ranjit singh's army.

However, all was not quiet. The Pathan Chief of Kasur, Nizam-Ud-Din created fresh trouble. He had collected a large force of Afghans and plundered few villages under the Maharaja and was making further preparations to create more trouble. The maharaja was enraged. He directed Fateh singh Ahluwalia to proceed to Kasur s the Nawab had brooken the terms of the treaty. Ranjit singh himself followed along with his troops. The Nawab offered stout resistance as he was well prepared. A fierce battle ensued. The Sikhs showed their valor under the command of their able generals. The Pathans entered the fort as they were unable to fight the Sikh army in open. Many were slain. At last fort was seized and remaining soldiers were put to death. The Nawab surrendered with humility. He was forgiven, reinstated and he promised to remain submissive. He paid huge sum of money as Nazrana and was also made to pay for the war reparations. This Nazrana money was distributed among the poor and the needy to celebrate victory.

Then after a brief spell, Maharaja marched into Jullundur Doab. He annexed several places on the way. He also seized Phagwara and gave this town to Fateh Singh Ahluwalia. Then Maharaja visited Kapurthala and there he came to know that Sansar Chand of Kangra had entered Bijwara and Hoshiarpur. The Maharaja hastened back, turned out Raja Sansar Chand and established army posts at these two places.

By this time Ranjit singh had become a great force. While returning from hills maharaja subdued old Sikh chiefs and sardars, Tara singh Gheba, Dharam Singh of Amritsar and Budh Sing of Fyzulapur.


Nautch Girls.





And now came the engagement of his son Kharak singh to Chand Kaur, daughter of Jaimul singh of Kanhaiya misal. There were rejoicing throughout the kingdom. Celebrations continued for several days. Nautch parties were arranged and money was spent lavishly. In one such parties, the Maharaja fell in love with a very beautiful Muslim dancing girl, Moran, whom he ultimately married. She had a great influence over maharaja and money was coined the inscription of Mor; peacock on it in commemoration of the marriage. The maharaja performed pilgrimage to Hardwar, accompanied with Moran. Chand Kaur gave birth to Naunihal Singh, Maharaja's grandson.

*Prince Naunihal Singh, Maharaja's Grandson*





However, this marriage with Moran raised a storm in the kingdom. Sikh public opinion received a rude shock. The maharaja was summoned to the Akal Takht. The maharaja sought forgiveness with all humility. He offered gifts to the panj pyaras, under whose orders he was called. They pronounced punishment which Maharaja gladly accepted. He was to be flogged publicly. Panj Pyaras were gratified at the submission of the Maharaja and took a lenient view and accepted a fine of RS. 1,25,000 from the Maharaja.

Moran's influence over the Maharaja remained only for a short while. The Maharaja sent Moran away to Pathankote, where she spent many years of her life in peace.

The maharaja established a secular state in which all the subjects, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were treated alike. Many talented Hindus and Muslims joined his service and the Maharaja gladly participated in the religious festivals of all the communities. Festivals like Dussehra, Diwali, Holi, Basant were celebrated with splendor and gaiety. The Maharaja participated in them along with his subjects and on the occasions of Amavas and Baisakhi took a dip into the holy tank at Amritsar. By his secular outlook, the Maharaja earned great respect from his subjects and also their loyalty.

*The campaign of Amritsar*






Amritsar is the spiritual capital of the Sikhs. A holy tank was got dug by Guru Ram Dass and the temple was built by Guru Arjan Dev, who installed Guru Granth Sahib in it. Akal Takht was built by Guru Hargobind. It was the seat of temporal authority. The Guru hinself sat there and held a court ofjustice. Many Sikhs used to gather there for the redress of their grievances. Gurmattas were passed which were binding on the Sikhs.

Guru Arjan Dev proclaimed the benefits of he holy tank at Amritsar."all the sins that a man committeth are washed away by bathing in the Tank of Ram Das."

It was must for every true Sikh to take a dip in the holy tank. Moreover, Amritsar was the biggest trade centre of Punjab. Goods from central Asia were exchanged here for the local goods. Silk, Muslin, Spices, tea, hides, and several other articles were bought and sold here. For the Sikhs Amritsar was the Mecca.





Amritsar was divided among a dozen families manning different parts of the city. In each of these parts they had built for themselves small fortresses and maintained a task force of tax collectors who sometimes forcibly collected money from the trading community. These tax collectors very often quarelled among themselves and sometimes even created scenes in the streets to the amazement of the residents. The citizens could not stand such a situation for long and secretly approached Maharaja Ranjit Singh to invite him to attack the city. It was reported to Ranjit Singh that there was hardly any unity among these Sardars. The only formidable family was that of Mai Sukhan, widow of the Bhangi chief, Gulab Singh. She was in possesion of the Gobindgarh fort. According to Lepel Griffin, Ranjit singh demanded from Mai Sukhan the famous Bhangi Gun, Zamzama, made of copper and Brass, which had caused disaster among the rank and file of the Marathas at the third battle of Panipat. It was captured from the Duranis in 1764 by the Bhangis and it was because of this reason that it was known as Bhangian Di Tope.

Thus in 1802, Maharaja Ranjit Singh marched towards, Amritsar at the head of the force consisting of Kanahaiya, Nakkai and Ahluwalia troops in addition to his own force in strength. When the troops reached Amritsar, the Rani closed the gates of the town, mounted the ramparts of the city with arms and ammunition in considerable quantity and gave the attacking army a very good recetion. Fateh Singh Ahluwalia, commenced his operations in front of the Bridge gate and the Maharaja on the other end of the Lohgarh fort. A fierce fighting took place but in the end the gates could not stand the heavy cannonade and the marching army entered city in triumph, with the Maharaja at the head. Ranjit Singh ordered that the city should not be plundered as the place was too sacred with the memory of the Gurus. The fort of Lohgarh was besieged without any difficulty. As a coincidence, there was heavy rain during the dy and the Rani and her son had no place to take shelter. They went to the haveli of Sardar Jodh singh Ramgarhia, who took pity on them and gave them shelter. Ranjit singh Sanctioned a small jagir for them for their maintenance. The confederacy collapased. Ranjit singh occupied the fort and captured considerable war material,including the Zamzama and the area which yielded a handsome revenue.

More important than the capture of the fort was the acquisition of the services of the gallant warrior, Akali Phula Singh. He belong to the militant order of the Nihangs and had devoted his life to the protection of the Sikh shrines. He rendered necessary help to the Maharaja in capturing the city of Amritsar. With him were about three thousand Nihangs who wanted to join the army of the Maharaja. The Akali prooved to be a great asset to the Maharaja in capturing territories later on. He died a heroic death in the battle of Naushera. He was a man of such a forceful will and character that at one time he decoyed even Maharaja Ranjit singh to undress and get flogged on his naked body before the holy Akal Takht. With a person of such a high stature as the Maharaja himself accepting the punishment awarded, the Akal Takht gained a dignity and prestige among the Sikhs who henceforth came to seek a pardon here. 

Akali Phoola singh, though a soldier of zeal and valour, sometimes acted according to his own whims. Since 1800, the management of the holy shrines passed into the hands of the Akalis under the supervision of Akali Phula Singh. In 1815 he reached Amritsar with some of his devotees and out of Rs 1,100 collected as contribution at Darbar Sahib, he claimed Rs 1000. It was Baisakhi day. He picked quarrel with his rivals and in the ensuing encounter there were three casualties. The matter was reported to Ranjit singh who ordered Hakim Imam-Ud-Din to settel the dispute. 

Ranjit singh,the victor, paid a visit to Hari mandir as a humble man and performed his ablutions in the holy tank. The capture of the Amritsar brought fame and honour to Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh was such a devoted Sikh that instead of putting his name on the coin issued by his government he put the word "akal Sahai", means the great God, as seen in this coin. Many Indians from the force of East India company started joining the ranks of his family. As many sardars of the Bhangi famiy had joined the Maharaja army, they were required to furnish well-ewuipped soldiers at times of war. The total fighting force which could be utilised on any occasion was 31,000. Ranjit Singh appointed Misar Chajju Mal as the collector of Customs at Amritsar. The Misar was extremely loyal to Maharaja and rendered him useful service. Ranjit singh took keen interest in the management of the holy shrine. He appointed Surat Singh as its Manager. He gave shrine its marble face and its golden look from which the name Golden Temple or Swarn Mandir is derived. Marble and fresco paintings were also added. The eastern loggia of the shrine was gilded by Rani Sada kaur at a cost of Rs. 1,75,300 . Amritsr's gaiety and splendour increased. It was inhibited by aristocracy and many high dignitaries often visited the town. It was illuminated on special occasins. There were rejoicings in the city and it gave a festive appearance and whenever the Maharaja was victorious in any campaign, large scale celebrations were held.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IBRIS

*In The North-West Frontier province*





The Sikh army then marched towards Peshawar and no resistance was offered. Most of the Ghazis fled and Peshawar was occupied by the Sikh army on November 18, 1818. The Governor of Peshawar, Yar Mohammad Khan left the territory and crossed the Khyber Pass to Yusafzai land.

Although the Sikh army was victorious, hold on Peshawar could not be retained and the territory administered properly with a meager army. So Ranjit Singh appointed Jahan Dad Khan of Attock as the Governor of Peshawar. The people of the town were not touched nor their property looted. A nazrana of Rs 25,000 was collected from prominent citizens. The Maharaja stayed at Peshawar for 3 days, celebrated his victory and returned to Lahore. He took with him 14 heavy guns. The Governor Jahan Dad Khan had no force to protect the town in case it was attacked by anybody. The Maharaja had hardly reached Lahore, when Yar Mohammad Khan, attacked Peshawar and recaptured it. Jahan Dad Khan fled leaving the territory to the mercy of the invaders.

The Maharaja was sore over the developments. In the meanwhile, Mohammad Khan, the Barakzai, offered to the Lahore darbar an annual tribute of Rs. 100,000. He was made the in charge of Peshawar. The offer of Barakzais was accepted but the Maharaja sent a force of 12000 men under the command of Prince Kharak Singh, Missar Dewan Chand and Sardar Nalwa and ordered to cross the Indus river to ensure the implementation of the terms. Peshawar was reoccupied by the Barakzais but paid only half the amount promised along with a horse. The Sikh forces quietly retrieved to Lahore. By 1823, Abdali's Indian empire was sinking. In the same year, the Maharaja summoned Hari Singh to Lahore for urgent consultations as intelligence reports had been received that Mohammad Azim Barakzai was mustering his forces to fight against the Khalsa. It was a challenge for the Maharaja who thought it fit to nip the evil in the bud.

The Maharaja gathered his troops at Rohtas and marched towards Rawalpindi. Having halted there for a couple of days, he sent Fakir Aziz-ud-Din to Peshawar to realize tribute from the Governor Yar Mohammad Khan who owed allegiance to him. Yar Mohammad Khan gave right royal reception to the Fakir. The town was illuminated and parades were held in the honor of the visiting dignitary. The Fakir was duly impressed. Yar Mohammad Khan cleared his dues and presented to the Lahore darbar a gift of few horses. It is said that Yar Mohammad Khan sent to the darbar Rs. 40,000 as tribute with a promise of further annual tribute of Rs 20 000.

Fakir Aziz-ud-Din returned satisfied and reported the matter to the Maharaja. But the conduct of Yar Mohammad Khan irritated the tribesmen. Pathans flared up in an open revolt and raised the cry of Jehad against the infidels. Their chief instigator was Azim Khan, Yar Mohammad's elder brother. He aroused the religious feelings of tribesmen and declared that he would liberate the Pathans from foreign yoke. Cries of Jehad resounded in the Khyber Pass and shouts of Allah-o-Akbar were heard from the top of the hills.

Mohammad Azim Khan marched with a strong army of both regulars and irregulars from Kabul to Peshawar. Thousands more joined him on the way spurred by their greed to loot and plunder. When Mohammad Azim Khan reached Peshawar on January 27, 1823, Yar Mohammad Khan fled into Yusufzai territory. The news was received by the Lahore darbar with surprise. Immediate action was ordered. Prince Sher Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa led the advance columns. They crossed the Attock by means of a pantoon bridge and reached the fort of Jahangiria. A light skirmish took place, Afghans left the fort and fled in whatever direction they could. When Azim Khan, who was encamping at Peshawar, came to know the fate of his comrades at Jahangiria, he gathered more tribesmen by raising the cry of Jehad. The religious sentiments Of Afghans were inflamed and their enthusiasm reached its peak, raised the slogan of "do or die" for the green banner, which was to be kept aloft at all costs. Tribesmen from all corners-Afridis? Yusufzais and Khattacks-gathered like a swarm of locusts to lay down their lives in Jehad against the infidels.

The Maharaja, on the other hand, mobilized all his resources, gathered arms and ammunition, marched in stages and reached the eastern bank of the river. To his great disappointment he found that the Afghans had already destroyed the bridge. Sher Singh, who had earlier captured Jahangiria, was besieged by Afghans. Azim Khan was being assisted by his brothers Dost Mohammad and Jabbar Khan.

All the hills were surrounded by hostile forces. It was almost impossible for the Khalsa army to cross the river and was not allowed to make a boat bridge for the purpose. The blood-thirsty Afghans were hovering all around and Sher Singh and his troops were put in the most awkward position. There was no escape for the Khalsa. The Maharaja had to take a quick decision, for there was no time for consultations. The time to strike had come. The Maharaja took a bold decision at the spur of the moment and ordered his troops to cross the river. The Maharaja was the first to plunge his horse into the river. He recited Japji and prayed to the Lord for success. The troops followed him. All types of animals- camels, elephants, horses and mules were used to cross the river. Many were carried away by the strong current of the river. Some war equipment was lost too. But most of the troops were able to cross the river and were able to control its western bank. Before the Afghans could take any action, Khalsa army was fully entrenched and had the upper hand. The Afghans retreated in dismay. The gates of Jahangiria fort were opened. The triumphant Maharaja entered the fort and was received with great honor. Gun shots were fired and Prince Sher Singh welcomed his father with loud shouts of Sat Sri Akal. The first round was over. The Khalsa carried the day.

The Afghans now encamped in the open fields at Naushera, between Attock and Peshawar. In between was Landi stream and on its western bank were stationed the Afghans. The Maharaja held consultations with his generals and decided that Afghans on the western banks of Indus should not be allowed to cross it and join the Afghans at Naushera. lf the Afghans on both sides of the stream somehow joined, the situation for the Khalsa would be beyond control. So they had to strike without any loss of time.

The Khalsa army surrounded Naushera and encamped on the bank of the river Landi. The artillery was put into action. Guns were fired opposite the Afghans. The Afghans were entrenched on the Pir Sabad hillock. The army of the Sikhs was estimated to be around 25,000 strong while the Afghans, strength w as not less than 40,000. The Ghazis were asked to wage a holy war against the infidels and were instigated in the name of Jehad. They were told to 'do or die' for the sake of their religion. Khatak chief's son Feroz Khan with a considerable number of Mujahids had joined the Afghan regulars. On the other side, the contingent of the Khalsa army were commanded by its dashing and dynamic general Phula Singh. He had a suicide squad at his command which was imbued with the desire to fight and die for the sake of the Panth.

However, Akali Phula Singh's courage and bravery at Naushera surpassed his earlier achievements. Attempts were made to dislodge the Afghans from the hillock but nothing substantial could be achieved. Ultimately, Akali Phula Singh with his band of desperadoes moved along the foot of the hill. A musket ball struck him down his horse but not caring for his life he rode an elephant and dashed into the enemy ranks. The Afghans fell on the Akalis and hand-to-hand fight ensued. The Akalis were surrounded by 1500 Afghan horsemen amidst shouts of Sat Sri Akal and Allah-o-Akbar. Many Afghans lost their lives but in the encounter another musket ball hit the brave general who in the thick of firing captured the hillock. But the general lost his life along with a number of his devoted soldiers. He was the hero of Multan and Kashmir and had proved his mettle in earlier battles also. But his courage and bravery at Naushera surpassed all his earlier achievements. The loss of Akali Phula Singh was ursbearable for Ranjit Singh who when informed of the death of his brave general, became remorseful but bowed before the Will of God. He ordered a Samadh to be constructed at the place where the gallant general had lost his life.

Then the Sikh troops advanced under Prince Kharak Singh but Afghans did not budge an inch. Half the Afghans were slain but the remaining could not be dislodged from their position on the high ground. More Sikh forces were rushed. The battle lasted the whole day. Some 2,000 Sikh soldiers laid down their lives. Then by the evening many Afghans were dislodged from their positions. The remaining Ghazis fought their way out of the Sikh posts and fled in the hills to save their lives. The victory was of the Khalsa. When Wazir Khan came to know of the happenings at Naushera, he rushed from Peshawar to join his co-religionists and his brother who was commanding the Afghans. But he was not allowed to cross the river by the troops in the command of Hari Singh Nalwa. Sikh soldiers showered fire on Azim Khan's forces like rain in the month of sawan and many in the enemy ranks died. Ranjit Singh himself appeared on the scene, rode up to the top of the mound, and ordered his troops to march forward. The hill resounded with the cries of Sat Sri Akal. Ranjit Singh acknowledged the greetings of his troops by raising his naked kirpan to his forehead. Fierce fighting followed. Moorcroft, who was present in the battlefield, wrote to the Governor-General: "The matchlock, the brow, the spear, the sword, the knife and even the staff of an undisciplined multitude were about to be opposed by the cannon, the musket. the matchlock and the sabre directed by disciplined artillerists-under the command of Ranjit Singh himself and consisting of the flower of the Sikh army Infantry fire was opened. The Sikh cavalry charged one line of horsemen galloped up to the enemy, fired, wheeled and turned back. The same thing was repeated again and again. The Afghans concluded that such a combat would not be beneficial to them. They climbed down the hillock and attacked the Sikhs with all their force. Two of the Sikh guns were captured but in a matter of moments they were recaptured by the Sikhs. Gunfire continued. The Afghans were within the firing range of the Sikh Army.

The Ghazis made a desperate effort to dislodge the Sikhs from their vantage position but all in vain. The Sikh cavalry rode into the ranks of the Ghazis. Azim Khan watched from a distance the slaughter of his Mujahids. In between was the stream, which he was not allowed to cross. When he saw his Ghazis fleeing and attempting to cross the river and some of them drowning, his head hung in shame. The shock was too great for him to bear. He was broken hearted and died some time afterwards. The battle of Naushera sounded the death knell of the Afghans. Three days later, the victorious Maharaja entered Peshawar. The citizens gave him a rousing reception, presenting the Maharaja many gifts. At night the bazaars and streets of the town were illuminated and fireworks were displayed. Shouts of Sat Sri Akal resounded in the sky in this far-flung area inhabited by the Pathans, who had no respect for the law.

After a couple of days, both Yar Mohammad and Dost Mohammad appeared before the Maharaja, repented for their misdeeds and sought his forgiveness. The Maharaja, generous and liberal as he was, pardoned them who promised to pay him tribute regularly in future. Beautiful horses were presented to the Maharaja. Shahi darbar was held and Yar Mohammad was appointed the Governor of Peshawar as he promised to pay a revenue of one lakh and ten thousand rupees to the Maharaja.

After the victory the Maharaja returned to Lahore. Songs of welcome were sung and the Muslim festival, Shab-i-barat was celebrated by all the communities jointly. Roses, flowers and petals were showered on the victorious Ranjit Singh who in turn showered gold and silver coins on the large concourse of people who had gathered in the streets celebrating the victory. At night oil lamps were burnt and rockets were fired. The Maharaja thanked the Almighty for the victory.

The Sikhs' victory at Naushera had. practically liquidated Afghan supremacy between Indus and Peshawar. In Afghanistan the Barakzai brothers were quarreling among themselves. Habibullah Khan, son of Mohammad Azim Khan was not in a position to keep the kingdom under his control. Sher Dil Khan, brother of Mohammad Azim Khan had already declared himself as the independent ruler of Kandhar. Dost Mohammad Khan wrested the masnad at Kabul. The Bukhara chief annexed Balakh, Herat was occupied by Kamran, the dethroned son of Shah Mohammad. Peshawar was retained as the tributary of Lahore darbor. Sind was no longer under the Afghans. Kashmir was annexed to the Sikh empire in 1819. Multan was occupied by the Sikhs in 1818, the Derajat in 1821, Attock in 1813 and Rawalpindi in 1820.

By 1826, the dismemberment was complete and final. Kabul had become a separate empire. Kandhar was ruled by three brothers, Kohin Dil, Rustom Dil and Mihr Dil. The fourth brother, Sher Dil had already died. Prince Kamran of Herat became the tributary of Persia.

The situation had taken such a turn that it enabled the Sikhs to annex the Afghan provinces in North India. After the death or Mohammad Dil Khan, who was a strong force in unifying the Earakzai family, the Afghans had suffered much. With the occupation of Peshawar by the Sikhs, the unity of the Barakzai family was broken into pieces. The Sikhs never trusted the Barakzais and were being paid the tribute under coercion and threats, they raised a cry of Jehad and vowed to fight against the Sikhs whom they called infidels.

The upsurge was tremendous. All joined hands and gathered under the banner of Sayeed Ahmad, so-called reformer, who proclaimed the doctrine of purity of imam for Muslims. He pretended to reform the Muslims, among whom corruption and evil practices had crept in. He belonged to Bareilly, and was once a mercenary in the service of Amir Khan, the Rohilla chief. He left the service of Amir Khan after his fall. He then became religious enthusiast, went to Mecca for Haj and on his return became the exponent of the Wahabi doctrines.

*The Treaty of Amritsar (Sarkar Khalsa and British)*






In 1807, Ranjit Singh had taken over the territory of Tara Singh Gheba, who had died earlier. His widow was ousted and the estate attached without any resistance. It was a severe blow to the authority of the Sardars who were still dreaming of retaining their petty estates. It caused alarm among the Malwa chiefs, who were convinced that the Maharaja was now bent upon reducing them to the position of tributaries.

Ranjit Singh's General, Dewan Mukham Chand crossed the Sutlej and captured Wadni, near Ferozepur, and proceeded towards Anandpur. This created further stir among the Malwa chiefs and they conspired against the Lahore darbar and turned their eyes towards the British who could help them in retaining their territories. They found in the British their savior.

The Malwa chiefs held a meeting and met Seton, the British Resident at Delhi. They appealed to the resident to give them protection against the designs of Ranjit Singh. They argued that the Cis-Sutlej territory had always been protected by the Government at Delhi and now that the British were in possession of Delhi, they should extend them protection. The resident gave them patient hearing, but could not help them at that stage.

In March 1808, Lord Minto, the Governor-General, wrote, "Although as a principle, we cordially recognize the wisdom and the justice of abstaining from all interference's in the contests, disputes, and concerns of states with which we are unconnected by the obligations of alliance, and are fully convinced of the embarrassment and inconvenience of extending.

our protection to petty chieftains, who are unable to protect their territories from the aggressions of more powerful neighbors, yet we are disposed to think that cases may occur in which temporary deviation from those general principles may be a measure of defensive policy, the neglect of which might be productive of much more danger and embarrassment than the persecution of it, and that the certain resolution of the Raja of Lahore to subjugate the states situated between the Sutlej and the frontier of our dominion would, under other circumstances than the present, constitute a case on which, on grounds of self defense, the interposition of the British power for the purpose of preventing the execution of such a project would be equally just and prudent.

The British, however, did not harm their relations with Ranjit Singh. Though, "the Resident held out no hopes to the deputies of the confederate Sikh chiefs of direct British interference in their relations with the Lahore ruler, but nevertheless they were led to hope that they had the best sympathies of the British authorities, and that, when the time came, a helping hand would not be denied to them. The reply, though encouraging, was not decisive, and by no means sufficient to save the chiefs concerned from eventual ruin.

Thus, the British agent "gave the hint to the Cis-Sutle; chiefs that in emergency they would not be deserted. However, "the reply to the deputation, though straightforward, was cautious and vague. It practically amounted to this: We can promise nothing definite; but you have our sympathy, and we will do what we can.

This did not satisfy the Cis-Sutlej chiefs. They thought of further means to save themselves from the expansionist designs of Ranjit Singh. However, Ranjit Singh played a diplomatic game. He sent his emissaries to Cis-Sutlej's chiefs to calm down their feelings.


*Other campaigns.*






After the Treaty of Amritsar with British which simply stated that the International boundry of line between the Sarkar Khalsa and British India is Satluj. Ranjit singh was virtually made master of all the territory to the west of Satluj. But.. there was several small kingdoms, like Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Kashmir, Multan, Sialkote which were ruled by Afghani or local chiefs. 

Thus, Ranjit singh first turned towards North towards Kangra valley which was taken over from Raja Sansar Chand by Gurkhas. Ranjit Singh's forces fought with Gurkhas in Kangra Valley in the end the Gurkha leader Amar Singh thapa fled leaving the field to the Sikhs. Ranjit singh entered the fort of Kangra and held a royal Darbar which was attended by the hill chiefs of Chamba, nurpur, Kotla, Shahpur, Guler, Kahlur, Mandi, Suket and Kulu. Desa Singh Majithia was appointed governor of Kangra. 

Then Ranjit singh sent a force under the command of Hukma Singh Chimmi to Jammu and himself marched on to Khushab. The fort of Khushab was held by Jaffar Khan, a Baluch chief. He gave up the city and defended the fort stoutly. Ranjit singh invited him to vacate the fort and accept a jagir. In few months, Jaffar Khan accepted Ranjit singh's terms and gave up the fort. He was given a jagir and allowed to remain in Khushab with his family.

Meanwhile, Shah Shuja was arrested by a Afghani Ata Mohammad Khan who was governor of Kashmir. Shah Shuja's wife Wafa Begum approached Ranjit Singh to get her husband out of Kashmir. Ranjit Singh wanted Kohinoor diamond and he agreed. Hari Singh Nalwa and other forces were dispatched along with the Afghani forces of Wafa Begum. The Sikhs and Afghans crossed the Pir Panjal and entered the valley of Kashmir towards the close of 1812. Shah Shuja was rescued from an undergrond dungeon by Sardar Nihal singh Attariwala. Hari Singh Nalwa was made a new governor of Kashmir by Ranjit Singh. Shah Shuja was set free. Shah Shuja invited Ranjit Singh to his house. A servant brought in a packet as they settled down in their seats after mutual exchange of courtesies. Ranjit singh watched eagerly as the stone was being slowly unwrapped. He was beside himself with joy when the Koh-i-nor, Mountain of Light was placed on his palm. The price of this stone at that time was 6 crore rupees which comes to about Two million American dollars with today's conversion factor. This diamond still exist in England and is part of one of the Royal stone's.





Around this time, Ranjit singh also got the fort of Attock by daring operations of Hari Singh Nalwa and Desa Singh Majithia. Now Punjab under Ranjit Singh extended from Satluj to river attock and from Kashmir to Kasur. Early in 1817, Ranjit singh sent a body of troops to Multan under the command of Diwan Bhiwani Das to receive from Nawab Muzaffar Khan the tribute he owed to the Sikh Darbar. Bhiwani das laid siege to the city, but showed little vigour to pressing it. He made a secret pact with the Nawab which led Ranjit Singh to recall him and deprive him of his office. Ranjit Singh planned the afresh expedition and sent a strong force under his son Kharak Singh's charge. He arranged for supplies to be sent by boats down the river Ravi, the Chenab and the Jhelum. The system of passing letters was organised in such a manner that the Maharaja received the news from Multan by relays of messengers several times a day. 

The fort of Multan was one of the strongest in the country and Nawab Muzaffar Khan defended it with an equally strong heart. Kharak Singh's armies lay around it without making much headway. Ranjit Singh sent a big gun Zamzama along with Akali Phula singh's Nihang regiment. The Zamzama was fired with effect and the gates were blown in. Akali Phula singh made a sudden rush and took the garrison by surprise. The grey bearded Nawab stood in his way, sword in hand to fight, resolved to fight to death. His five sons died fighting. Two surviving sons were giving jagirs by Ranjit singh. their descendants are still in possession of those lands in Pakistan. Prince Kharak singh left Jodh Singh Kalsia with 600 men to guard the fort of Multan. Now Ranjit Singh southern boundry was Multan. In 1818, A.D. Ranjit singh won Rohtas, Rawal Pindi and Hasan Abdal. Then he made preparations to cross the river Attock and attack Peshawar. These conquests are greatly explained with the biography of Hari Singh Nalua . In 1819, Ranjit Singh had to attack Srinagar again, this time he made Diwan Moti Das Governor, with Sham singh Attariwala, Jawala Singh Padhania, and Misr Diwan Chand to further assist him in the operations in valley. Ten successive governors administered Kashmir during Sikh regime. One of them was prince Sher singh who carred the Sikh standard across the high mountains into Ladakh. The conquest of Ladakh valley which was strategically very important, made the frontier secure against the expanding influence of China. Sher Singh sent General Zorawar Singh to march towards Tibet. Garo and Rudok were occupied and the Lhasa armies attacked. Tibetian government signed a treaty with Zorawar's armies.


*The legacy of Maharaja Ranjit Singh*






Two Europeans, Ventura, an Italian by birth, and Allard, a Frenchman, came to Lahore in 1822 to seek service in the Sikh army. Both of them had served under Napolean in the imperial army of France. After Napolean's defeat at Waterloo they lost their occupation and left Europe to try their fortune in the East. They had heard many a tale of the grandeuf of Ranjit Singh's court and were taken up with the idea of visiting Lahore. Ranjit Singh, although not educated but was very wise and intelligent, he knew about the exploits of Napolean. Punjabi historians had compared them and Ranjit singh was even called Napolean of the East. Ranjit singh met these two European and he received them kindly asked them about their health and journey, previous employment, future plans. He showed them his troops on parade and provided amenities for their entertainment. In April of 1822, they sent a letter to Maharaja asking for an employment with his troops. The communication between these soldiers and Maharaja was in French through the trusted aide Faqir Nur-ud-din, who knew French, English, persian as many other languages. Maharaja wanted to make sure that these people did not had any contacts with British and only when he was cent percent sure, he gave them command of 500 horsemen each. This command had few Purbias(Bihari) and other Hindus of Central provinces, employed with Ranjit Singh. They were also to train all forces of Sikhs in the western method of drill. Ventura's army was called Fauj-e-Khas while little bit later Allard was asked to raise a cavalry of fresh recruits. Then Ranjit Singh also made them sign an agreement that in the event of a clash between Maharaja and European power, they would remain loyal to Sarkar Khalsa and fight for him. They were to wear their beards long and abstain from beef and tobacco. Ranjit Singh provided houses for Ventura and Allard and gave them handsome salaries. To Ventura he gave 40,000 rupees when he married a Muslim girl from Ludhiana. Two villages were subsequently given to the daughter of Ventura as jagir. Ventura built a house, which still exists near Anarkali, it is a beautiful Cheateau in French style. This shows that even though Ranjit Singh was cautious but shrewd and able enough to distinguish between people beneficial to him.





He selectively employed several more Europeans, such as Dr.Honigberger, a native of Hungary. Avitable an Italian later appointed Governor of Peshawar. General Court, a Frenchman who organized the artillery. Dr. Harlan an American, who became governor of Jasrata and later Gujrat. Henry Steinbach, a German was made a battalion commander. Hurbon, a Spainard was an engineer. Dr. Benet, a Frenchman was a surgeon-general of Khalsa Army. Viewkenawitch, a Russian held a high rank in the artillery. There were a number of Englishmen too- Fitzroy, Gillmore, Leslie, Harvey, and Foulkes, to mention but a few- who were employed on various civil and military duties. With men of such diverse races, nationalities and faiths to serve him, Ranjit Singh maintained a most picturesque and cosmopolitan court. He was very kind to these foreigners. He trusted them and gave them positions of responsibility and rewarded them generously for their services. But he always kept a watchful eye on them and never let them have an influence over him. They willingly submitted to his natural dignity and served him faithfully.







Ranjit singh's Lahore also attracted many visitors and travellers. Like his foreign counriers, they came from all parts of the world. They were drawn by the reports of the Maharaja's hospitality and his personal charm and joi de vivre. What fascinated his visitors most was his unquenchable curiosity. He asked them the most searching questions and his keenness of mind and range of interest surprised everyone. Many travellers have written in their books of his generosity, refined manner and mental alertness. He was always cheerful and vivacious and transmitted the same spirit of heartiness to his visitors. In the summer of 1821, William Moorcroft, the Superintendent of East India Company's horses came to visit Ranjit Singh's court. A daily allowance of 100 rupees was fixed for his entertainment. Moorcroft was also shown Sikh army, he was greatly impressed by the turnout and discipline of the Sikh army. He also visited the royal stables and remarked that some of Ranjit Singh's horses were the finest in the world. On the way back from Bukhara, Moorcroft brought a letter from Prince Nesselrode of Russia which contained greetings and good wishes from the ruler of that country. It also expressed Russia's desire to have trade raltions with the country of Ranjit Singh. They traders from Punjab were assured welcome and security in Russia.

Another famous traveller to visit Ranjit Singh was Baron Charles Hugel. He was a German Scientist, who travelled extensively in the Punjab and Kashmir. In his book, he wrote that Punjab under Ranjit singh was safer than territories ruled by the British. He also recorded his conversations with Ranjit Singh, who, as usual, asked him many questions. He asked him if he had served as a soldier and questioned him about the German armies and their wars with France. He asked him what he thought of the Sikh army and whether it was in a fit state to confront a European force.

Victor Jacquemont, a French traveller, also praised Ranjit Singh's powers of conversation and his shrewd judgement. He wrote in his book: "Ranjit Singh is almost the first inquistive Indian I have seen, but his curiosity makes up for the apathy of his whole nation. He asked me a hundred thousand questions about India, the English, Europe, Napolean, this world in general and the other one., hell and paradise, the soul, God, the devil, and a thousand things besides." There were several missionaries whom Ranjit singh also met. Several requests to open up churches, convent schools, etc were denied by Ranjit Singh. He asked them to teach Punjabi language and Sikh scriptures instead. No wonder when British took over Punjab after Ranjit Singh convent Schools were spread all over Punjab.

He was a benevolent king. Eventhough the Government of Punjab was called Sarkar Khalsa but no laws were imposed on any of the minority or majority. Sikhs at his time were about 15% of whole population, hindus around 25%, rest were Muslims. He governed the fourty years of his rule from Lahore with secular ideals. He would fast with Mulsims during Ramadan and play Holi with Hindus., yet he would be at Amritsar almost every Month to take bath. A poor muslim from Lahore had written a Quran which he was going to take to DelhiA to sell at the Mughals court. Ranjit Singh asked him how much he wanted and paid him twice. There is another story about Ranjit singh. One year, crops totally die and due to a massive famine, people were starving. . So being a king, he opened up all the state stores for people. Ranjit singh would often roam in streets of Lahore in disguise to check his rule, whether people are happy or not. That night he saw an old woman who could not carry a bag of wheat to her house where her children were starving. He carried that bag to her house on his back. Although he was a devout Sikh but he cannot be called a strict Khalsa sikh adhering to all the principles of Sikhism. He was a very well disciplined soldier of Khalsa who was also a secular as well as enjoying his life, like drinking, etc. The spirit of stern religious discipline and sacrifice which had supported Sikhs through a critical period of their history and led them to power and glory was dimmed in the pomp and splendour of sovereignty. Ranjit Singh's death on June 27, 1839, left a deep hiatus. The Khalsa lost a leader who had, by commanding personality, foresight and skill, become their beau ideal and secured them the status of sovereign people. The British had by then taken practically the whole of India, except the Punjab and sind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kambojaric

@ Punjabi Tiger: You do realize right that pretty much the whole of Pakistan was part of the Durrani Afghan Empire? Saying KPK and Balochistan were "Eastern Afghanistan" does not make any sense. If one is to follow your logic then the whole of Pakistan was part of "Eastern Afghanistan". Heres a map of the Durrani Empire for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MadDog

Bamxa said:


> @ Punjabi Tiger: You do realize right that pretty much the whole of Pakistan was part of the Durrani Afghan Empire? Saying KPK and Balochistan were "Eastern Afghanistan" does not make any sense. If one is to follow your logic then the whole of Pakistan was part of "Eastern Afghanistan". Heres a map of the Durrani Empire for you.



Exactly that was my question too, without the Sikhs taking over today's Pakistan (including Pak Punjab, KPK), the British wouldn't have come here and ruled us..its precisely because of the Sikh Empires that the British came and ruled what is today's Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

durrani empire was shortlived in punjab. ahmed shah only reigned in punjab for 2 years before sikhs wrestled it back

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## happycanuck

JonAsad said:


> Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a Pakistani- -



What kind of pleasure or mental satisfaction you get by twisting the historical fact. He was simply the citizen and ruler of his own Kingdom. So let us learn to live with the facts of our past and not tell lies to our generations to come. on one hand we wish from politicians to be honest and on these forum you are leaving a legacy of being liar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## neutral_person

JonAsad said:


> Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a Pakistani- -



You do know that the very basic cornerstone of the existence of Pakistan disowns anything un-Islamic? The Sikhs probably have the biggest claim to Ranjit Singh, and more than 95% of the Sikhs in today's world call India their home.

Well going by your logic, a **** load of Indians would qualify as Pakistanis. Lahore was Sikh majority (and Karachi was full of Hindu Sindhi businessmen) before partition, and they all moved to India after, so are the Punjabi Sikhs and Hindu Sindhis in today's India also Pakistani going by your definition? 

I think sometimes you guys keep forgetting that your nation was built on religious lines, not ethnic

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## trinity

Sashan said:


> 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.




Dont forget the Cholas lasted for about 1500 yrs as an Empire. Quite impressive!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a hilarious title!!!!!!!! 

"Conqueror of Afghanistan"???? 


*Lol, is this "conquering" Afghanistan?:*








*Durrani/Afghan Empire:*







Lol, so called sikh "empire"'s not even 50% of the Durrani Empire. And here we have a bunch of self ego satisfying members posting funny threads with hilarious titles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## trinity

Monkey D Luffy said:


> How exactly he was conqourer of afghanistan? He occupied only peshawer and surrounding areas , which were border areas of afghanistan. Another area which he snatched from afghanistan was kashmir, but he was able to do so because local kashmiris betrayed their afghan rulers.
> Any how crossing indus to west and defeating afghans was a big deal, ranjeet singh was indeed a greater military stretagist. I think he is the one and only punjabi conqueror.





Afghanistan was ruled by Hindu Kings at one point. We should really go the Chinese route and claim such territories


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

MadDog said:


> Exactly that was my question too, without the Sikhs taking over today's Pakistan (including Pak Punjab, KPK), the British wouldn't have come here and ruled us..its precisely because of the Sikh Empires that the British came and ruled what is today's Pakistan



U do realise that it was the sikhs who defeated the afghans and pushed the afghan empire out of pakistan?


----------



## trinity

MadDog said:


> It is sad that many Pakistanis don't know the reality...*our elders like Sayed Ahmed Barelvi* who rose up against the tyrannical Sikh rule...*were butchered at the hands of Sikh empire.*
> 
> *@ Punjabi Tiger*
> *You said here that KPK would not have been in Pakistan....my friend...look at the Durrani Empire's map again, They controlled whole of today's Pakistan and Kashmir....if Ranjit Singh wouldn't have been there...the history would have been different...the British wouldn't be ruling what is today's Pakistan..Kashmir would have been our part..lol...so lets not get over there*...my point is...it is indeed a part of history of the region..but an era where Muslims suffered tremendous brutalities...*a thing which was repeated in East Punjab when not a Single muslim family was allowed to live there..and they had to migrate.*
> 
> Today in Pakistan's Punjab you can't be proud to be a Punjabi... because *Punjabi is more of a culture than an ethnicity unlike Indian Punjab*There is a huge *Kashmiri community* in Lahore, Sialkot *(infact the ruling part of Punjab is all Kashmiri)*, in the north Attock and Mianwali are Punjabi Pushtuns, in the South (Rajanpur, DG Khan districts) are all Baloch of Punjab and then there is a Saraeki belt towards the Southwest and west which goes all the way up. The culture in Punjab is liberal unlike in other parts...so every one mixes up in the local cultures while mentaining a Biradiri system. Its sad when Pakistani members here just cuz of there ethnicity said that Punjabis should be proud of it.
> 
> Tell me i am kashmiri punjabi..why the hell should i be proud of it...when my ancestors suffered at the hands of this empire. Tell me why 28 million pushtuns should be proud of it....you people are making cracks in Pakistani society by just putting Pakistani flags on your profile..and commenting about being being Punjabi !!!




Haha...What about the Tyrannical rule of some Muslims in the Subcontinent?


----------



## ice_man

what did this sikh empire build? i am curious. they ruled for almost a 100 years. what were their achivements?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

ice_man said:


> what did this sikh empire build? i am curious. they ruled for almost a 100 years. what were their achivements?


They gave the identity to the land, which was called Punjab..


----------



## ice_man

Rajaraja Chola said:


> They gave the identity to the land, which was called Punjab..



what was it called before? and they basically renamed a place that's it? because Lahore was developed by Moghuls. infact most of punjab was developed by mughuls and Ranjit actually stayed in most of the architectural structures built by Moghuls.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jatt+gutts

even today it is us who are real sons of punjab. punjabi culture is alive because of sikhs. who build this durrani empire. ahmed shah abdali. he was born in multan not in afghanistan. and by the way he was the comfort boy of nadir shah in his early years.
his reign in punjab was for only 1 year not even 2 year only in 1771.


Decline of durrani empire

Afghan royal soldiers of the Durrani Empire.The victory at Panipat was the high point of Ahmad Shah's&#8212;and Afghan&#8212;power. His Durrani empire was the second largest Islamic empire in the world, behind the Ottoman Empire at that time.[17] However, even prior to his death, the empire began to unravel. In 1762, Ahmad Shah crossed the passes from Afghanistan for the sixth time to subdue the Sikhs. He assaulted Lahore and, after taking their holy city of Amritsar, massacred thousands of Sikh inhabitants, destroying their revered Golden Temple. Within two years, the Sikhs rebelled again and rebuilt their holy city of Amritsar. Ahmad Shah tried several more times to subjugate the Sikhs permanently, but failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> even today it is us who are real sons of punjab. punjabi culture is alive because of sikhs. who build this durrani empire. ahmed shah abdali. he was born in multan not in afghanistan. and by the way he was the comfort boy of nadir shah in his early years.
> his reign in punjab was for only 1 year not even 2 year only in 1771.
> 
> 
> Decline of durrani empire
> 
> Afghan royal soldiers of the Durrani Empire.The victory at Panipat was the high point of Ahmad Shah's&#8212;and Afghan&#8212;power. His Durrani empire was the second largest Islamic empire in the world, behind the Ottoman Empire at that time.[17] However, even prior to his death, the empire began to unravel. In 1762, Ahmad Shah crossed the passes from Afghanistan for the sixth time to subdue the Sikhs. He assaulted Lahore and, after taking their holy city of Amritsar, massacred thousands of Sikh inhabitants, destroying their revered Golden Temple. Within two years, the Sikhs rebelled again and rebuilt their holy city of Amritsar. Ahmad Shah tried several more times to subjugate the Sikhs permanently, but failed.



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?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jatt+gutts

building couple of maseets and masoleum for a dead dear is infrastructure building. what purpose did they served to people of punjab. ranjit singh build many bridges and roads and was a real peoples king

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

ice_man said:


> what was it called before? and they basically renamed a place that's it? because Lahore was developed by Moghuls. infact most of punjab was developed by mughuls and Ranjit actually stayed in most of the architectural structures built by Moghuls.



U have to read the thread properly...
This is about maharaja ranjith singh. not the mughals...
Mughals were our kings as well, but it doesnt change the fact, they were foreigners...
And Ranjith Singh is the native of Punjab land.. Understood properly...? He is the native of punjab land , while mughals were not..
There is a difference between native and foreign..
And u r seeing everything in the colour of ur religion, come out of that... He was better than most of the muslims kings.. Just cos he destroyed a mosque, it doesnt mean he is bad...



ice_man said:


> 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?



Prove to me mughals ruled for 1000 years? dont be in ur fantasy world kid...
There is no need to see everything in the lense of ur religion.. come out it and see the truth..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

ice_man said:


> 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.


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> 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?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

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 tomb in lahore












ranjit singhs fort at phillor




[/IMG]

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






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".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of ranjit singh tomb in lahore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ranjit singhs fort at phillor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/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!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

golden temple.



ice_man said:


> 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: &#2606;&#2623;&#2616;&#2610; 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]


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> 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!


----------



## jatt+gutts

bathinda fort built by maharaja ala singh



ice_man said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> 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!


----------



## jatt+gutts

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sashan said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> 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!


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rajaraja Chola said:


> 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.



ice_man said:


> 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.



ice_man said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

Joe Shearer said:


> 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.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ice_man said:


> this is a good belief joe but please don't tell me that they "LEFT" power! & they were peace loving sect!



 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. 



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


----------



## Mirza Jatt

ice_man said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jatt+gutts

buddy it is "chup cha hari singh vaghla" in pashto language. means keep quite of hari singh nalwa will come .. lol they used this line in sholay movie too..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ice_man

Mirza Jatt said:


> 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.



THE SAD part of all nonsense you wrote is that Sikhs in india never got it. that the hin dus ruled them & controlled them and used them as buffer with Pakistan. 

your pashto saying is NOTHING BUT BULL. i am not a pathan b ut i clearly know no pathan who ever said this nonsense saying. 

half your history of 30 men vs 1 million is unrealistic. like you said your grandmother told you GOOD BED TIME STORIES! but sadly you believed them to be true! well they are as true as cindrella or snow white! 

YES sikhs ruled for 50 years no doubt. but then again british ruled for 100 years & moghuls ruled for 300 years! so if you "slaved" the muslims then muslims slaved the sikhs for 300 years. this argument goes back and forth in circles. so there is no ego there! being ruled for 50 years by sikh & 100 by british to us is the same. Hell i couldn't care less if sikhs ruled from sindh to uzbekistan for 50 years! 

now coming to sikhs of Pakistan sadly you don't know the sikhs of Pakistan are not controlled and fooled like you. hence they realize who the real enemy is! 


Why Sikhs Love Pakistan??? - YouTube


SIKH OF PAKISTAN is loved by pakistani people.This video shows proof of it. - YouTube

Sikhs chanting "Pakistan Zindabad" in India - YouTube


the thing is SIKHS & MUSLIMS lived peacefully for 1000 of years until the hindu fooled the sikhs into making Muslims the enemy. but FORTUNATELY the PAKISTANI SIKHS are not instituionalized like the indian ones.



jatt+gutts said:


> buddy it is "chup cha hari singh vaghla" in pashto language. means keep quite of hari singh nalwa will come .. lol they used this line in sholay movie too..



sounds good sholay they used this line nice! i like your bed time stories! now i totally understand why SUNNY DEOL is SUNNY DEOL! he is inspired by bed time stories!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

jatt+gutts said:


> even today it is us who are real sons of punjab. punjabi culture is alive because of sikhs. who build this durrani empire. ahmed shah abdali. he was born in multan not in afghanistan. and by the way he was the comfort boy of nadir shah in his early years.
> his reign in punjab was for only 1 year not even 2 year only in 1771.
> 
> 
> Decline of durrani empire
> 
> Afghan royal soldiers of the Durrani Empire.The victory at Panipat was the high point of Ahmad Shah'sand Afghanpower. His Durrani empire was the second largest Islamic empire in the world, behind the Ottoman Empire at that time.[17] However, even prior to his death, the empire began to unravel. In 1762, Ahmad Shah crossed the passes from Afghanistan for the sixth time to subdue the Sikhs. He assaulted Lahore and, after taking their holy city of Amritsar, massacred thousands o
> f Sikh inhabitants, destroying their revered Golden Temple. Within two years, the Sikhs rebelled again and rebuilt their holy city of Amritsar. Ahmad Shah tried several more times to subjugate the Sikhs permanently, but failed.




No we are also the sons of punjab, the punjabi identity does not only belong to the sikhs, don't forget that the majority of punjabis are muslims (70%)

PS : IBRIS thank you very much


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Ice man, I agree with you,
The sikhs are brainwashed in the schools of india, they forgot 1984, operation blue star
That's really sad, the hindus are brainwashing them.


----------



## jatt+gutts

brainwashed in schools ? in punjab where majority students and teachers are sikhs or in shriromini gurudwara prabandhak comitee schools which is run by sikh organisations. brainwashed are pakistanis. they know nothing about india but hate india because they are taught so in madrasas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

ice_man said:


> the thing is SIKHS & MUSLIMS lived peacefully for 1000 of years until the hindu fooled the sikhs into making Muslims the enemy. but FORTUNATELY the PAKISTANI SIKHS are not instituionalized like the indian ones.



Why do you guys have this 1000 year fetish...whatever you want to say you add this 1000 years to that..lmao...

Sikhism was founded in the 16th century and most of the converts/followers of Sikhism were Hindus and it was peaceful unlike the islamic conversions..so unless you are living in an alternate universe where it is > 2600 AD, you dont know basic maths..

Yeah sikhs and muslims were living in peace until the hindoooos came along...that is as lame *** as it can get...How many Gurus were killed by Hindus and how many were killed by muslims...how many sikhs were killed by Muslims in '47 and how many were killed by Hindoooos..?

Madarsah logic in full flow...facepalm..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

Bhairava said:


> Why do you guys have this 1000 year fetish...whatever you want to say you add this 1000 years to that..lmao...
> 
> Sikhism was founded in the 16th century and most of the converts/followers of Sikhism were Hindus and it was peaceful unlike the islamic conversions..so unless you are living in an alternate universe where it is > 2600 AD, you dont know basic maths..
> 
> Yeah sikhs and muslims were living in peace until the hindoooos came along...that is as lame *** as it can get...How many Gurus were killed by Hindus and how many were killed by muslims...how many sikhs were killed by Muslims in '47 and how many were killed by Hindoooos..?
> 
> Madarsah logic in full flow...facepalm..



lol according to your bed time stories of 30 men vs 1 million LOL i guess you killed more muslims then muslims killed indian sikhs! please watch the videos i posted about Sikhs who love Pakistan & are not brain washed by your INDIAN GOVERNMENT! which teaches you that everyone goes to madrassah! 

as for hindu and sikh peaceful relations. we saw the PEACE in operation blue star! where the hindus entered inside your golden temple and killed PEACEFULLY SIKHS!

i love how indians are brainwashed by ZEE TV, NDTV,STAR NEWS! and they believe whatever MASALA news is fed to them by the media!


----------



## Mirza Jatt

> your pashto saying is NOTHING BUT BULL. i am not a pathan b ut i clearly know no pathan who ever said this nonsense saying.
> 
> half your history of 30 men vs 1 million is unrealistic. like you said your grandmother told you GOOD BED TIME STORIES! but sadly you believed them to be true! well they are as true as cindrella or snow white!



problem with you is..your mind is blocked. you are not aopen to accepting facts. Thus the idea of sikhs creating that sort of history , that too against your people..is frustrating you. ..clam down...please..clam down..lets discuss nicely...i think thats unfortunate that you dont belive thats pashto saying inspite of the fact that the pathans did get defeated by sikhs, and the scope of something to have happened is there...but you still prefer to belive the unseen, and yet unproven saying that 1 muslim is equal to 10 hindus. so if you dont belive..then its upto you..I couldnt care less....BTW its 44 vs 1 million...please educate yourself through my posts so that later you can claim to be an expert in sikh history in a better manner 



> YES sikhs ruled for 50 years no doubt. but then again british ruled for 100 years & moghuls ruled for 300 years! so if you "slaved" the muslims then muslims slaved the sikhs for 300 years. this argument goes back and forth in circles. so there is no ego there! being ruled for 50 years by sikh & 100 by british to us is the same. Hell i couldn't care less if sikhs ruled from sindh to uzbekistan for 50 years!



problem is you refuse to accept the fact that your ego is being hurt, but your posts have a clear reflection of that.
Sikhs never denied that they were not ruled by foreign forces..as long as being ruled by mughals is concerned...please refrain from using the words like 'slaved the sikhs'...thats again shows that you want your superiroity to be felt over sikhs...so the the ego part is refklected again ...lemme clear it..sikhs were ruled...never slaved...there is a diference....BUT somewhat you have actually raised a nice point...when it comes to slaving them..yes the Mughals did try..and to know the rest what, happened when they tried that..please read the sikh history from a good source.YOu NEVER SLAVED US.period. so stop yoru BS there.



> now coming to sikhs of Pakistan sadly you don't know the sikhs of Pakistan are not controlled and fooled like you. hence they realize who the real enemy is!



I am happy that sikhs are not ruled and controled by you..and you know why..beacsue you cant control them.sikhs cant be controlled by othe religions..wether its muslims or hindus.




> SIKH OF PAKISTAN is loved by pakistani people.This video shows proof of it. - YouTube[/url]
> 
> Sikhs chanting "Pakistan Zindabad" in India - YouTube



am not surprised that the sikhs from pakistan support pakistan...thats absoloputely normal...so please use your common sense and think what would the sikhs of India do. 




> the thing is SIKHS & MUSLIMS lived peacefully for 1000 of years until the hindu fooled the sikhs into making Muslims the enemy. but FORTUNATELY the PAKISTANI SIKHS are not instituionalized like the indian ones.





ice_man said:


> THE SAD part of all nonsense you wrote is that Sikhs in india never got it. that the hin dus ruled them & controlled them and used them as buffer with Pakistan.















> sounds good sholay they used this line nice! i like your bed time stories! now i totally understand why SUNNY DEOL is SUNNY DEOL! he is inspired by bed time stories!



thanks for letting us know you watch bollywood

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bhairava

ice_man said:


> please watch the videos i posted about Sikhs who love Pakistan & are not brain washed by your INDIAN GOVERNMENT! which teaches you that everyone goes to madrassah!



Sikhs, unlike some Muslims are not namak haramis and are loyal to the country they live in. An admirable quality if I may.



ice_man said:


> as for hindu and sikh peaceful relations. we saw the PEACE in operation blue star! where the hindus entered inside your golden temple and killed PEACEFULLY SIKHS!



The only living thing that is brainwashed is you. So all that you can pick out of the 500 year old history is a lone incident that wasparked by a Congressi leader's [married to a Muslim herself] decision. lmao at the desperation...

so all the killing of the Gurus, partition massacres somehow is conveniently forgotten..gotta love at the Doctorate level delusion that you pakistanis spout here and that too in the presence of Sikhs here...facepalm...


----------



## ice_man

Mirza Jatt said:


> problem with you is..your mind is blocked. you are not aopen to accepting facts. Thus the idea of sikhs creating that sort of history , that too against your people..is frustrating you. ..clam down...please..clam down..lets discuss nicely...i think thats unfortunate that you dont belive thats pashto saying inspite of the fact that the pathans did get defeated by sikhs, and the scope of something to have happened is there...but you still prefer to belive the unseen, and yet unproven saying that 1 muslim is equal to 10 hindus. so if you dont belive..then its upto you..I couldnt care less....BTW its 44 vs 1 million...please educate yourself through my posts so that later you can claim to be an expert in sikh history in a better manner
> 
> 
> 
> problem is you refuse to accept the fact that your ego is being hurt, but your posts have a clear reflection of that.
> Sikhs never denied that they were not ruled by foreign forces..as long as being ruled by mughals is concerned...please refrain from using the words like 'slaved the sikhs'...thats again shows that you want your superiroity to be felt over sikhs...so the the ego part is refklected again ...lemme clear it..sikhs were ruled...never slaved...there is a diference....BUT somewhat you have actually raised a nice point...when it comes to slaving them..yes the Mughals did try..and to know the rest what, happened when they tried that..please read the sikh history from a good source.YOu NEVER SLAVED US.period. so stop yoru BS there.
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that sikhs are not ruled and controled by you..and you know why..beacsue you cant control them.sikhs cant be controlled by othe religions..wether its muslims or hindus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> am not surprised that the sikhs from pakistan support pakistan...thats absoloputely normal...so please use your common sense and think what would the sikhs of India do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for letting us know you watch bollywood


 


 oh dear sorry i forgot 14 people!!! that made it SOUND SO MUCH MORE REALISTIC! 

and ego being hurt is clearly visible from your line "YOu NEVER SLAVED US.period". 



but i like tyour bed time stories & your nostalgic approach to history! 

as for Sunny deol well i love him i watch all his movies in my madrassa  he truly brings your bed time stories to life.



Bhairava said:


> Sikhs, unlike some Muslims are not namak haramis and are loyal to the country they live in. An admirable quality if I may.
> 
> 
> 
> The only living thing that is brainwashed is you. So all that you can pick out of the 500 year old history is a lone incident that wasparked by a Congressi leader's [married to a Muslim herself] decision. lmao at the desperation...
> 
> so all the killing of the Gurus, partition massacres somehow is conveniently forgotten..gotta love at the Doctorate level delusion that you pakistanis spout here and that too in the presence of Sikhs here...facepalm...


 

congress leader married to a muslim????? 

& muslims being namak haram  well why don't you go kill the indian muslims who are namak haram LOVE the way india has institutionalized you sikhs. LOL for 65 years your MARRIAGES were treated as illegal by the indian law!! and you are here talking as if hindu indians gave you guys right. Please read on SIKH marriage law in india to find out more!


----------



## hussain0216

This is funny sikhs who have ni nation, no goverment, no army, navy or air force who had there gurus heads cut off without a whimper

Whose sum total of historical achivement is a 50 year periid if limited rule are comparing that to hundreads of years of muslim dominion


----------



## manofwar

hussain0216 said:


> This is funny sikhs who have ni nation, no goverment, no army, navy or air force who had there gurus heads cut off without a whimper
> 
> Whose sum total of historical achivement is a 50 year periid if limited rule are comparing that to hundreads of years of muslim dominion


mods *please* ban this guy......................religious banter and discrimination should not be tolerated if the standards of this forum has to be maintained
Post Reported


----------



## Mirza Jatt

ice_man said:


> oh dear sorry i forgot 14 people!!! that made it SOUND SO MUCH MORE REALISTIC!



just see what I said in my facepalm image. 14 people doesnt make a difference...but its a proof enough that you have zero knowledge about sikhism.stil lyou are commenting on it liek experts...hope now you understand and dont embarass yourself.



> and ego being hurt is clearly visible from your line "YOu NEVER SLAVED US.period".



thats a fact. mughals ruled...never slaved us..thats why the bloody history of sikhs.just because they wanted to slave us.




> but i like tyour bed time stories & your nostalgic approach to history!
> 
> as for Sunny deol well i love him i watch all his movies in my madrassa  he truly brings your bed time stories to life.



am glad you like them.....and if you are really such a big fan, then i can send you few DVDs of sunny deol's movies.


----------



## ice_man

hussain0216 said:


> This is funny sikhs who have ni nation, no goverment, no army, navy or air force who had there gurus heads cut off without a whimper
> 
> Whose sum total of historical achivement is a 50 year periid if limited rule are comparing that to hundreads of years of muslim dominion


 
leave it. let them have their beliefs!


----------



## hussain0216

Akbar was your master as was jahingere, or aurengzeb

When someone cuts the HEAD off of your religious leader because they want ti THEN U R A SLAVE


----------



## Bhairava

ice_man said:


> congress leader married to a muslim?????



Indira Gandhi married a Muslim.



ice_man said:


> & muslims being namak haram



You people have only one affiliation..towards Mecca...others are no like that..someone hold their nation more important than theor faith....Sikhs are a patriotic lot and their affliation is towards the country that housed them and sheltered them.. Sikhs in UK are patriotic towards UK and Canadian SIkhs are patriotic towards Canada, Indians Sikhs are patriotic to India and in the same way Pak Sikhs are patriotic to Pak...this is absolutely normal and welcome..that concept may sound alien to people like you..but that is not as strange as it may sound to you...



ice_man said:


> LOVE the way india has institutionalized you sikhs.



Love the way Arbis have institutionalized you by imposing their religion on you former-Indians...LOL...



ice_man said:


> LOL for 65 years your MARRIAGES were treated as illegal by the indian law!! and you are here talking as if hindu indians gave you guys right. Please read on SIKH marriage law in india to find out more!



The only lame *** crutch that you Paks clutch when faced with the truth..tell me when a Sikh is simultaneously your Prime minister and COAS..or when an Indian COAS signs the surrender agreement to a Pakistani Sikh COAS....

Pakistanis and their delusions...lol...



hussain0216 said:


> When someone cuts the HEAD off of your religious leader because they want ti THEN U R A SLAVE



Being a slave is more a mental block than a physical phenomenon..for example the Mughals may have ruled us...but never enslaved us..but you people are permanently enslaved by an Arabian idealogy...that is the more denigrating of the slaveries...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

And ice_man, posts like that of hussain who gloat at the killing of Sikh gurus tear the "we are nice to sikhs" veil that some of you paks try to weave here....you will be feeling the same at your heart but just put on the facade to try to drive a wedge between indians...you deserve the spanking you lot receive at the hands of Muhajirs in Karachi...lmao...


----------



## xataxsata

MadDog said:


> Might be a generous king..but he is famous for using Badshahi Mosque as a stable for his horses !!!



The Britishers were using the Jama Masjid at New Delhi as a car parking and they use to tie their underwears to dry in the sun.

*Don't believe me??????*

Just visit NDMC (New Delhi Municipality Corporation) headquarter you will see the old historic photo framed on the wall. 



Bhairava said:


> Indira Gandhi married a Muslim.



That's a RSS, Hindu mahasabha, BJP fake propaganda, they are very good at myth.

She have married a Parsi (Zoroastrian)

Parsi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bhairava said:


> Indira Gandhi married a Muslim.



I am not a Congress supporter, and think that they are a major factor behind our failure to introduce religion-free secularism, the only kind that matters, in India.

Having said that, it is sad to see you repeating the gutter ***** of the Sangh Parivar. It is gutter ***** not because marrying a Muslim is low down and despicable in itself. It is gutter ***** because in the minds of Hindu bigots, Muslims are low down and despicable, and the Parsi antecedents of Feroze Gandhi are misrepresented by the Parivar and its activists as Muslim, since to them that is enough to make Indira Gandhi an object of scorn.

You are really a scumbag.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bhairava

Joe Shearer said:


> You are really a scumbag.



Post reported. 

Mind your words.


----------



## El Weirdo

How can U people relate yourself to Central Asian Scum (in the past) , other than being just a Muslim? 
Ur ancestors were born here , bred here , raised here , married here , then Ur parents were born here , then Ur grand grand parents are buried here... IN THIS SUB-CONTINENT!!! 
So HOW the fcku can U associate Ur self with the central asian Invaders? Who killed and looted and imposed Jazia`s on Hindu/Sikhs and Muslims alike? 
I wud rather listen to more intelligent conversation , like posted below in the video , other than Yours , who have lesser knowledge of History!! 

Nisar: "Muslims Ruled India" is a Lie - YouTube

Rather these should be your heros - 

hasan nisar on indian legend bhagat singh and udham singh.mp4 - YouTube

@ Hussian , U r name sounds different , chances are Ur not a pakistani. but anyhow U stay happy with Your God ... Leave US with Ours , Neither Am I Good to belittle Your Religion Nor are You good enough to Belittle our Main 4 religions.
Abt Our Gurus , We are proud and will never be able to forget what they did for us Hindus.


----------



## MadDog

*Here are your Indian Sikhs chanting "Pakistan Zindabad" in India and telling that their marriages arn't accepted as part of Sikh religion in India while Pakistan has allowed them to marry according to their own religion* 






Sikhs abroad...shouting anti-India slogans


----------



## IBRIS

Some clowns are having hard time sticking to the topic. I think their ego has been hurt by stubling upon this thread. Now blaberring whatever to satisfy their hurt feelings is the best way to relieve some steam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Bhairava said:


> Indira Gandhi married a Muslim.
> 
> I am surprised at this statement from an Indian.
> 
> For the record; Indra Gandhi married Feroze Jahangir Gandhi, a Parsi, in 1942. Feroze Gandhi was elected Member of Parliament from the Rae Bareli constituency in 1952 in India's first general elections. The seat remained with the Gandhi family for a very long time. Sonia Gandhi was also elected from Rae Bareli in 2004.
> 
> Feroze Gandhi was a leading anti-corruption fighter and a critic of his father in law Pundit Nehru. Feroze Gandhi died in 1960 from heart attack at the age of 47. (They say that the good always die young)
> 
> By the way, Feroze Gandhi was also the very first Chairman of Indian Oil Corporation.


----------



## Joe Shearer

niaz said:


> Bhairava said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indira Gandhi married a Muslim.
> 
> I am surprised at this statement from an Indian.
> 
> For the record; Indra Gandhi married Feroze Jahangir Gandhi, a Parsi, in 1942. Feroze Gandhi was elected Member of Parliament from the Rae Bareli constituency in 1952 in India's first general elections. The seat remained with the Gandhi family for a very long time. Sonia Gandhi was also elected from Rae Bareli in 2004.
> 
> Feroze Gandhi was a leading anti-corruption fighter and a critic of his father in law Pundit Nehru. Feroze Gandhi died in 1960 from heart attack at the age of 47. (They say that the good always die young)
> 
> By the way, Feroze Gandhi was also the very first Chairman of Indian Oil Corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not be surprised. There is a section of Indians who have taken it upon themselves to reform India by ridding it of any visible Muslim links. To them, the Congress party is an architect of pro-Muslim policies, so it is to be pilloried at every opportunity. Since many of them are religious bigots as well as ideological fascists, deprecating a political faction is identical with running down the personal lives of its leaders. One of the strongest leaders of the Congress party was Indira Gandhi. Not surprisingly, these Sangh Parivar propagandists pour the greatest amount of vitriol on her personal life. Allegations carefully and systematically spread around by these totally depraved character assassins include canards about her relations with Nehru's secretary, her marriage with Feroze Gandhi (to their cow-belt minds, a Persian name such as Feroze is indistinguishable from any Muslim name, so someone somewhere jumped to the conclusion that Feroze was a Muslim, and the search for proof followed), and the undue exercise of influence over the local administration displayed by a yoga teacher who used his proximity to Indira to extort favors from intimidated babus.
> 
> Nothing is too low for these - specimens. There is nothing barring them from attacking an Indian leader in front of others; to them, as for all extremists, loyalty to the cause justifies any amount of treachery, disloyalty or libelous and slanderous activity. This - the spread of this poisonous propaganda through forums such as this - is one of the worst aspects of the Internet boom.
Click to expand...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ice_man said:


> 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!



39 years to be exact.



jatt+gutts said:


> brainwashed in schools ? in punjab where majority students and teachers are sikhs or in shriromini gurudwara prabandhak comitee schools which is run by sikh organisations. brainwashed are pakistanis. they know nothing about india but hate india because they are taught so in madrasas.



Funny the guy who thanked you (indian jatt) now goes by the name of mirza jatt... who infact was a muslim like punnu(sindhi muslim),ranjha etc ...... ur "culture" is just 300 years old... thts when ur guru was born... just a few centuries ago... while muslims have lived her for more than a thousand years... and ur granth copied stuff from punjabi muslim sufis... i laugh at u.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ice_man said:


> what was it called before? and they basically renamed a place that's it? because Lahore was developed by Moghuls. infact most of punjab was developed by mughuls and Ranjit actually stayed in most of the architectural structures built by Moghuls.



Lahore was made the mughal capital because of people like Abdullah Bhatti or dullah bhatti... read abt him...


----------



## jatt+gutts

what mugal architecture in punjab you talking about. couple of buildings in pakistani punjab? what punjabi culture? your pakistani culture is way differnt than ours. when a person talks about punjabi culture he talks about sikh culture. not many even know pakistan have a punjab province. n muslims aint living in punjab for 1000 of years. most of pakistani punjabi converted during aurangzebs reign. you are the people who are so ashamed of yourselve that you make up bullshit stories.


----------



## Roybot

Hindu clan conversions to Islam in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ice_man

jatt+gutts said:


> what mugal architecture in punjab you talking about. couple of buildings in pakistani punjab? what punjabi culture? your pakistani culture is way differnt than ours. when a person talks about punjabi culture he talks about sikh culture. not many even know pakistan have a punjab province. n muslims aint living in punjab for 1000 of years. most of pakistani punjabi converted during aurangzebs reign. you are the people who are so ashamed of yourselve that you make up bullshit stories.


 


so you truly believe 50 years make ALL THE HISTORY?? AND as for converts well i guess Sikh religion started 300 years ago so where did sikhs come from? Mars?? or they just converted???

sorry indian sikh boy but ALL PUNJABIs are not SIKHS neither are ALL SIKHS PUNJABIS! 

carry on believing your bed time stories!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

hussain0216 said:


> This is funny sikhs who have ni nation, no goverment, no army, navy or air force who had there gurus heads cut off without a whimper
> 
> Whose sum total of historical achivement is a 50 year periid if limited rule are comparing that to hundreads of years of muslim dominion



well they seem to have chosen to be that way. they have the right to be proud I guess
in recent times some of them did fight for independence but Indra Gandhi and her Son crushed the rebellion.

Kurds also have the similar history, they are the biggest stateless ethnic group in the world but have seen some glory when Salahudin was the ruler.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Irfan Baloch said:


> well they seem to have chosen to be that way. they have the right to be proud I guess
> in recent times some of them did fight for independence but Indra Gandhi and her Son crushed the rebellion.
> 
> Kurds also have the similar history, they are the biggest stateless ethnic group in the world but have seen some glory when *Salahudin* was the ruler.



*Irfan* bhai,to the best of my knowledge, Saladin's Empire, his reign or his person never had a tinge of 'ethno-linguistic nationalism' to it ! It was purely ideology and opportunism mixed together i.e 'we're Muslims' and 'I've got the throne' !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

this way all balochis should be independent, all kashmirs should be independent, all pathans should have pathanistan, all punjabis merge with sikhs, and all sindhis shouild have sinduistan. we are happy living in united india. divided we fall united we are strong

regarding army sikhs are about 12% in army and our current cheif of army staff is sikh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

IBRIS said:


> Some clowns are having hard time sticking to the topic. I think their ego has been hurt by stubling upon this thread. Now blaberring whatever to satisfy their hurt feelings is the best way to relieve some steam.



not their mistake brother its natural after all Sikh's are the biggest hurdle they have in their way to destroy mother Indian and Sikh's are always ahead in spoiling their plans and they can do nothing about it and all this lead's to frustration human nature you see.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hussain0216

Sikhs are cannon fodder, you will be first in line when the missiles will go, the indian army will be in the punjab and thats what our missiles will hit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cr.7

hussain0216 said:


> Sikhs are cannon fodder, you will be first in line when the missiles will go, the indian army will be in the punjab and thats what our missiles will hit



You're a pure idiot,
If these nuclear missiles hurt indian punjab, that will also destroy a part of pakistani punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maler

ice_man said:


> 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.



Sikh fighting culture actully started after 1699 with birth of Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and with in 10-15 years (1710 onwards), Sikhs starts ruling parts of Punjab under command of Baba Banda Singh Bahadar and after under command of Tarna Dal, Buddha Dal and later under different misils. During rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Sikhs were only 9% of the total population of Punjab and before that you can assume the percentage of sikh community as compare to total populas of Punjab. That time the area of Punjab ruled by sikhs comprised of 55-60% muslims and 30-35% hindus. Also, surrounding areas of Punjab (which were brought to their knees by Sikh Armies) consists 80-100% muslim population (Kabayali Areas, Kashmir and afgan areas).

Sikhs never accepted mughal rule and were defing from the very begining of mughal rule (Guru Nanak Dev Ji defied Babur).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IBRIS

hussain0216 said:


> Sikhs are cannon fodder, you will be first in line when the missiles will go, the indian army will be in the punjab and thats what our missiles will hit


----------



## Maler

hussain0216 said:


> Sikhs are cannon fodder, you will be first in line when the missiles will go, the indian army will be in the punjab and thats what our missiles will hit



Sikhs were, are and will always remain first line of defense of India and we are proud of it. When ever any attack initiated from west side of India, will meet the Sikhs at the border before going to meet their 72...... About the Sikhs will being cannon fodder, only the time will tell, who will be the cannon fodder.

Its your cowardice and internal fear that you can't discuss anything without involving nukes. Keep one thing in mind, no first use of nuke policy of India is of peace time and when their is situation that can cost millions of Indian lifes, we will strike first and hard with every means at our disposal and going nuke is not an exception. You can consider no first use policy as a deception for enemies.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## MadDog

*@ Maler ....**Yeah Sikhs are and will always be the protectors of India since Indian Army destroyed and desecrated the Holy Sikh Shrines of Golden Temple.... dude please get some self respect*....trust me if a country would have done this to our Holy sites..that country would not have existed by now.....how long will you remain in denial ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

MadDog said:


> *@ Maler ....**Yeah Sikhs are and will always be the protectors of India since Indian Army destroyed and desecrated the Holy Sikh Shrines of Golden Temple.... dude please get some self respect*....trust me if a country would have done this to our Holy sites..that country would not have existed by now.....how long will you remain in denial ???



It was Sikh soldiers, among others, led by a Sikh general, who cleared the Golden Temple from armed men who had desecrated it.

An analogy is the attack on al-Masjid al-Haram on November 20, 1979, when the attackers had to be cleared by the use of military force. There was a difference. Foreign troops were used, when Saudi troops failed to flush out the armed men. Just as in the case of the Golden Temple, the armed men were religious dissidents. Just as in the case of the Golden Temple, hundreds of unarmed pilgrims were under threat.

There are other examples closer to home. The Lal Masjid may or may not mean anything to you.

Cheap remarks seeking to alienate a section of Indians by highlighting isolated incidents from recent history are really worthless, and no sensible person will respond to them with anything but contempt for the shallow thinking that breeds such provocations.

Try to think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, please, if thinking does not give you a headache.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ice_man

Joe Shearer said:


> It was Sikh soldiers, among others, led by a Sikh general, who cleared the Golden Temple from armed men who had desecrated it.
> 
> An analogy is the attack on al-Masjid al-Haram on November 20, 1979, when the attackers had to be cleared by the use of military force. There was a difference. Foreign troops were used, when Saudi troops failed to flush out the armed men. Just as in the case of the Golden Temple, the armed men were religious dissidents. Just as in the case of the Golden Temple, hundreds of unarmed pilgrims were under threat.
> 
> There are other examples closer to home. The Lal Masjid may or may not mean anything to you.
> 
> Cheap remarks seeking to alienate a section of Indians by highlighting isolated incidents from recent history are really worthless, and no sensible person will respond to them with anything but contempt for the shallow thinking that breeds such provocations.
> 
> Try to think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, please, if thinking does not give you a headache.



which Sikh soldier led it? just asking not trying to flame. and let us not forget more than 5000 sikhs that were killed by anti sikh riots after indra gandhi's assasination. 

as for unarmed civilans under threat Please don't give such lame logic to a sikh because clearly in sikhism keeping weapons in gurudwaras is not suspoed to be ILLEGAL! the operation itself killed 500+ civilians! 


alot of sikhs were forced to cut their hair & hide due to killing of sikhs. 


now discussing Ranit Singh might have been a good leader but had no long lasting affect on south asia & its culture. maybe due to the british invasion or due to the short period of ranjit's rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

ice_man said:


> which Sikh soldier led it? just asking not trying to flame.



Major General Kuldip Singh Brar.



> and let us not forget more than 5000 sikhs that were killed by anti sikh riots after indra gandhi's assasination.



And you also do remember that there as many dedicated people following up on these to bring the criminals behind it to justice.

I forgot - you are not trolling.



> as for unarmed civilans under threat Please don't give such lame logic to a sikh because clearly in sikhism keeping weapons in gurudwaras is not suspoed to be ILLEGAL!



Keeping weapons in Gurdwaras nowhere includes sandbagged machine-gun nests.

Your strenuous efforts not to troll may give you a hernia. Please go easy on yourself.



> the operation itself killed 500+ civilians!



This was a great tragedy, but only to be expected when such large numbers of innocents were held hostage by a large group of armed fanatics.

By the way, since you are an obvious expert on the subject, did you happen to recall how many civilians died in the recovery of the Grand Mosque? And who were called in to crush the remaining Muslim fanatics?



> alot of sikhs were forced to cut their hair & hide due to killing of sikhs.



Nobody justifies the riots. But you should know how many Sikhs cut their hair on their own. Again, your great effort not to troll is obviously taking its toll. Give it a break.



> now discussing Ranit Singh might have been a good leader but had no long lasting affect on south asia & its culture. maybe due to the british invasion or due to the short period of ranjit's rule.



Ranjit Singh????

Where did he bob up in this fascinating and vastly troll-free discussion on how those brutal Brahmins oppress Sikhs - not to mention Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Jews, Baha'is and Pastafarians?

Why are you distracting all of us? Nothing better to do?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cr.7

Pukhtoon said:


> And this is the thread title.
> 
> Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan
> 
> While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol



Well , hindustan was like that and all the territories west of indus were iranic


----------



## MadDog

*@ Joe Shearer* In 1979 incident SSG of Pakistan ( a muslim country...even if its foreign..doesnt matter) were used along with a few officers of France...but the boots on ground were Saudis and SSG.

And there is a difference...in the golden temple incident...those who were fighting Indian army wanted an independent country for Sikhs....to get freedom..while those rebels fighting in Saudi Arabia wanted personal demands to be fulfilled...there is a huge difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

MadDog said:


> *@ Joe Shearer* In 1979 incident SSG of Pakistan ( a muslim country...even if its foreign..doesnt matter) were used along with a few officers of France...but the boots on ground were Saudis and SSG.
> 
> And there is a difference...in the golden temple incident...those who were fighting Indian army wanted an independent country for Sikhs....to get freedom..while those rebels fighting in Saudi Arabia wanted personal demands to be fulfilled...there is a huge difference.



If you insist that the world seems like a more reasonable and rational place when you view it standing on your head, nobody is likely to care enough to persuade you that it isn't so.

The point was that armed criminals were driven out of the mosque using force. This is exactly what was done in Blue Star.

The point is that members of the same religion were used in the mosque. Given that the Indian Army is a seculR organization, both Sikhs and others were used in the temple.

Last, not least, the two groups fought for their principles, wrong-headed and lunatic though these principles may have been. Your effort to distinguish between the two sets of objectives is, frankly, lame, and not sustainable.


----------



## teavdrama

sashan is right..


----------



## Joe Shearer

teavdrama said:


> sashan is right..



About the Cholas? Of course he is right! But he has not cited the other instances.


----------



## GoodBoy

MadDog said:


> *@ Maler ....**Yeah Sikhs are and will always be the protectors of India since Indian Army destroyed and desecrated the Holy Sikh Shrines of Golden Temple.... dude please get some self respect*....trust me if a country would have done this to our Holy sites..that country would not have existed by now.....how long will you remain in denial ???


 
What happened in *Lal Masjid*? 

You are just frustrated because your mission Punjab failed very badly and now Kashmir also failed , not to mention Bangladesh


----------



## Mard

since when did he conquer afghanistan? stop making up history, at the most he captured peshawar, in which he didn't stay that long as pashtuns took it back. He was also very cruel to muslims in punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Afghanistan is called graveyard of empires, thats why sikhs would like to glorify themeselves by claiming ranjeet singh as conquerer of Afghanistan but the fact is sikhs only controlled peshawer valley and hazara, they were not even able to penetrate into most of the areas of present day KPK. Malakand division, the land of yousafzais, whick make bulk of KPK area and population, remained unconquered. Southern districts of KPK also didnt experienced sikh rule. No attempt was ever made to conquer FATA after their defeat at jamrud fort. The whole pashtun belt of balochistan remained untouched...afghanistan ki baat duor ki he. 
Also sikh rule lasted only for 14 years, they were replaced by British.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

A 2012 thread 

conqueror is wrong word, but did fend India and modern day Pakistan from Afghan incursions.


----------



## Silverblaze

Firstly, every conqueror has a share of atrocities. The Mughals didn't even care for the local muslim rulers and some times they even crushed more. Same with other Muslim dynasties. Conquerors are conquerors. 

Ranjit Singh has positives as well, his regime was far less corrupt than others and muslims in Punjab were more or less satisfied with his rule and some were appointed at higher positions. 

History should be read without prejudice; otherwise, no lessons would be learned.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inqhilab

Mard said:


> since when did he conquer afghanistan? stop making up history, at the most he captured peshawar, in which he didn't stay that long as pashtuns took it back.


Kashmir and Peshawar were part of Afghanistan. Sikh Armies led by Ranjit Singh himself defeated Afghan Governor of Kashmir Jabbar Khan in 1819 in *battle of Shupaiyan*, in a battle commenced in a heavy downpour which gave the entrenched Afghans a advantage over Punjabis.
In October 1818 Maharajah led his troops towards Peshawer with his two generals who became terror among the tribes ,Hari Singh Nalwa(For decades after his death,t women tribal would say *"Raghe Hari Singh" ("Hari Singh is coming")* to frighten their children into obedience,source wiki) and Phula Singh and when the humiliating defeats of Khattak tribes reached Peshawar the Afghan governor of Peshawar fled the city and Punjabis enter the famous citadel of Afghans.Contrary to the practice of most Afghans who had usually plundered the towns and cities of northern India, the Maharajah forbade his soldiers to lay their hands on any person or property.The next morning he rode on his elephant through the bazaars and for the first time in eight hundred years the city saw an Native conqueror ride through its streets.He appointed Jahan Dad Khan as governor of Peshawar.and when Punjabis captured Jamrud , Dost Mohammed Khan knew if the Sikhs to take Jalalabad, their next stop would be Kabul.


Mard said:


> He was also very cruel to muslims in punjab


He was the most generous leader Punjab ever had. *When eighteen year old conqueror Ranjit Singh for the first time entered Lahore after the failed campain of Shah Zaman, his first act was to pay homage at the Badshahi Mosque and then at the mosque of Wazir Khan.* It was Shah Zaman ruler of Afghanistan who was cruel to muslims. On hearing the news of Shah Zamans invasion and 'fight against infidels' most of the hindu and Sikh women, children took refuge in hill states . *The people who suffered most in the hands of the invaders were the Punjabi Muslims who, believing that the Afghans would not touch their co-religionist, had remained in their homes but they soon realized their mistake when Gujranwala was sacked and Shahadara which was almost entirely inhabited by Punjabi Mussalmans was destroyed completely (It is said that the soil of Shahadara turned Red for many years and their was no single person alive in the city).*
The factor which contributed most to Ranjit Singh's success was his respect for other faiths. It is said that a calligraphist who had spent the best part of his life preparing a copy of the Koran came to Lahore after having failed to sell his word to the Muslim chiefs of India Ranjit Singh paid a fabulous price for the work. His prime minister , Dhina Singh was a Dogra Hindu , his foregin minister and his best and loyal friend was Fakir Azizuddin, a muslim , his finance minister, Dina Nath , was a Brahmin. 
*On 27 June 1838 when Sher-e-Punjab died 'Brahmans performed their prayers , the priests of the Sikhs did the same from Granth Saheb and the Mussalmen accompanied them with their Ya Allah! Ya Allah! '*


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

^Due to cruelty of Mughals against sikhs, sikhs turned into violent martial people. The hate against mughals turned into hate against all muslims. Sikhs started terrorizing punjabi muslims, killing and harassing, when mughal or afghan armies used to respond after massacres of punjabi muslims, sikhs would retreat to hills..when forces would return back to delhi or kabul, sikis would descend from hills and start killing muslims again. i have to say ranjeet singh was able to decrease this violent anti-muslim terrorism of sikhs and organized them..he was able to shift blood thirst of sikhs from punjabi muslims to Afghans...
During partition sikhs wanted to empty muslim majority gurdaspur and some other tehsils of east punjab of muslims, and they did so by massacres and rapes which put humanity into shame...angry punjabi muslims in pakistan then responded in tit for tat... I have to say tribals should have been mobilized against sikhs of east punjab instead of kashmir, inn ki nasal ka hi khatma kar detay.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mard

Inqhilab said:


> Kashmir and Peshawar were part of Afghanistan. Sikh Armies led by Ranjit Singh himself defeated Afghan Governor of Kashmir Jabbar Khan in 1819 in *battle of Shupaiyan*, in a battle commenced in a heavy downpour which gave the entrenched Afghans a advantage over Punjabis.
> In October 1818 Maharajah led his troops towards Peshawer with his two generals who became terror among the tribes ,Hari Singh Nalwa(For decades after his death,t women tribal would say *"Raghe Hari Singh" ("Hari Singh is coming")* to frighten their children into obedience,source wiki) and Phula Singh and when the humiliating defeats of Khattak tribes reached Peshawar the Afghan governor of Peshawar fled the city and Punjabis enter the famous citadel of Afghans.Contrary to the practice of most Afghans who had usually plundered the towns and cities of northern India, the Maharajah forbade his soldiers to lay their hands on any person or property.The next morning he rode on his elephant through the bazaars and for the first time in eight hundred years the city saw an Native conqueror ride through its streets.He appointed Jahan Dad Khan as governor of Peshawar.and when Punjabis captured Jamrud , Dost Mohammed Khan knew if the Sikhs to take Jalalabad, their next stop would be Kabul.
> 
> He was the most generous leader Punjab ever had. *When eighteen year old conqueror Ranjit Singh for the first time entered Lahore after the failed campain of Shah Zaman, his first act was to pay homage at the Badshahi Mosque and then at the mosque of Wazir Khan.* It was Shah Zaman ruler of Afghanistan who was cruel to muslims. On hearing the news of Shah Zamans invasion and 'fight against infidels' most of the hindu and Sikh women, children took refuge in hill states . *The people who suffered most in the hands of the invaders were the Punjabi Muslims who, believing that the Afghans would not touch their co-religionist, had remained in their homes but they soon realized their mistake when Gujranwala was sacked and Shahadara which was almost entirely inhabited by Punjabi Mussalmans was destroyed completely (It is said that the soil of Shahadara turned Red for many years and their was no single person alive in the city).*
> The factor which contributed most to Ranjit Singh's success was his respect for other faiths. It is said that a calligraphist who had spent the best part of his life preparing a copy of the Koran came to Lahore after having failed to sell his word to the Muslim chiefs of India Ranjit Singh paid a fabulous price for the work. His prime minister , Dhina Singh was a Dogra Hindu , his foregin minister and his best and loyal friend was Fakir Azizuddin, a muslim , his finance minister, Dina Nath , was a Brahmin.
> *On 27 June 1838 when Sher-e-Punjab died 'Brahmans performed their prayers , the priests of the Sikhs did the same from Granth Saheb and the Mussalmen accompanied them with their Ya Allah! Ya Allah! '*




where is your source for all this? It seems like sikh propaganda, most muslims have suffered brutally whenever sikhs have ruled

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jaggu

Mard said:


> since when did he conquer afghanistan? stop making up history, at the most he captured peshawar, in which he didn't stay that long as pashtuns took it back. He was also very cruel to muslims in punjab



Geographically the historical Afghanistan is not the same Afghanistan of today. Back then Afghaniastan also included all the lands o Pakistan west of the river Indus. The entire north west frontier province/FATA was once part of Afghanistan, that is before the Sikhs conquered it. Even Kashmir was taken from Afghanistan by the Sikhs. The Sikhs managed to not only take it but also rule it.

It is wrong to say Maharaja Ranjit Singh was cruel to the Muslims. The Sikh state was a secular state much like Akbar's rule. Here Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs enjoyed equal rights. Maharaja Ranjit Singh had not only Sikh but also Muslim and Hindu ministers and advisers. The Punjabi and Kashmiri Musilms enjoyed full freedom to practice their religion. On the other hand Afghan and Mughals did not treat the Sikhs very honourably when they ruled over the Sikhs. They killed Sikhs, destroyed Gurdwaras. During that period, Sikhs were literally forced to move into the jungles and hills of northern punjab to escape persecution. It is a miracle of God that such a small persecuted minority ended up ruling Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jaggu

Mard said:


> where is your source for all this? It seems like sikh propaganda, most muslims have suffered brutally whenever sikhs have ruled



What brutality have Muslims suffered under Sikh rule? Muslims were never forced to renounce their faith and become Sikhs, neither were Masjids touched by the Sikhs and the fact that we still have Masjids and other Islamic shrines of that time period all over north India is proof of it. In fact, Sikhs respected holy men from all religions. Maharaja Ranjit Singh gave donations to Masjids Mandirs and Gurdwaras alike.


----------



## Jaggu

Monkey D Luffy said:


> ^Due to cruelty of Mughals against sikhs, sikhs turned into violent martial people. The hate against mughals turned into hate against all muslims. Sikhs started terrorizing punjabi muslims, killing and harassing, when mughal or afghan armies used to respond after massacres of punjabi muslims, sikhs would retreat to hills..when forces would return back to delhi or kabul, sikis would descend from hills and start killing muslims again. i have to say ranjeet singh was able to decrease this violent anti-muslim terrorism of sikhs and organized them..he was able to shift blood thirst of sikhs from punjabi muslims to Afghans...
> During partition sikhs wanted to empty muslim majority gurdaspur and some other tehsils of east punjab of muslims, and they did so by massacres and rapes which put humanity into shame...angry punjabi muslims in pakistan then responded in tit for tat... I have to say tribals should have been mobilized against sikhs of east punjab instead of kashmir, inn ki nasal ka hi khatma kar detay.



1. The Punjabi Muslims were never persecuted by Sikhs. Sikhs only fought against those Punjabi Muslims who fought against the Sikhs or helped the Afghans and Mughals in persecuting the Sikhs. During the Afghan and Mughal period, being a Sikh was state crime. They had put a price on the heads of Sikhs. As a result many criminal elements from amongst the local Muslims began to see this as an opportunity to make money by killing Sikhs and present their head to the Afghan or Mughals to get their reward money. It was such people that Sikhs killed. The average Punjab was never touched. Sikh rule before M Ranjit Singh was also a secular rule. In fact many times Punjabi Muslim warlords like the Chatthas would join the Sikh armies during war as allies before M Ranjit Singh's rule stated.

2. The partition violence did not begin with the Sikhs. The first shots of violence was by the Muslim league which began attacking Sikhs of north west Punjab during the "direct action day" in 1946. When they saw that Sikhs of the rest of Punjab had not reacted, the Muslim league was confident that more such violence could be done on the Sikhs and the Sikhs will not react and that is what happened to Sikhs of west Punjab from mid 46 and into the start of 47. When east Punjab began to be filled by Sikh refugees from west Punjab(which included my grand parents), violence erupted all over east Punjab. It is unfortunate that the innocent Muslims of east Punjab had to suffer for the crimes of the Muslim league workers of west Punjab. 

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inqhilab

Not everything is present on Wikipedia or google.This is from book 'Maharaja of Punjab' the author of which took references from afghan and british sources mostly written in parsi,english.
If you only believe Pakistani sources here are few about the bravery of Ranjit Singh.
The Maharaja


> In August 1991, when I first saw it, the house was in perfect fettle. This was surprising for it was constructed around the year 1830 and was then fully 160 years old. The marble plaque on the façade, fixed by some thoughtful British civil servant after the annexation of Punjab read, Summer residence of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, AD 1830-1837.
> Inspired by European architecture, the house was unlike a traditional vernacular residence. It had verandas on two sides with rooms on the remaining two and a central atrium. The side rooms and the verandas had lower roofs while that of the central foyers was higher. The rafters, door and window frames and every other timber fixture were first class teak.
> *The house sat on the east bank of the Chenab River, just outside Rasulnagar (Gujranwala district), right by the ancient ferry where a young Ranjit Singh had deprived the Afghans of the Zamzama that now sits outside Lahore Museum. Here, long after he had defeated the Afghans and put an end to their predatory raids,* the Maharaja would have reposed with his customary glass of strong drink, watching the brown waters of the Chenab roll past forever and ever.
> This house became part of my book Gujranwala: The Glory That Was (1992). It also featured in one of the episodes of my PTV documentary series Nagri, nagri ghoom musafir produced during 1998-1999. I returned to the house a number of times thereafter when I was pressing for it to be taken over by the district administration to turn it into a library or a museum so that it may be preserved forever.
> But we, the people of Pakistan, have no connection with the dharti. We have severed the umbilical that would bond us with the motherland to give us a sense of belonging and pride. Without the connection, we drift aimlessly in a wasteland harbouring vague and false notions of Arab or Central Asiatic ancestry. The disconnect is so strong that nothing that belongs to this land turns us on. We simply do not care.
> Last August, I returned to Rasulnagar again to digitally preserve Maharaja Ranjit Singhs house. What I beheld left me in tears. The house that had withstood every vagary of nature until about 2004, was a ruined hulk. The roof was gone; every single door, window and ventilator removed. What was once the interior of the house was now a pile of debris.
> Until 2004, the house stood in open fields. But this time round, there was next to the historical building, a semi-permanent house inhabited by what seemed to be a family of gypsies. They had plastered the walls of the Maharajas house with cow dung patties.
> No one seemed to know who had laid low this historic building. Neither the gypsies nor the men minding the nearby tube well. In fact, one man even ventured that the building had been in that state since the time of his ancestors!
> Though I do not know who to blame for the crime, I know the teak fixtures of the building now adorn the house of some well-connected thug. When he or his men started to dismantle this historic building which should have been part of the national heritage, the DCO and his minions simply looked away. No one bothered as it went down bit by bit.
> Rasulnagar is historically a very interesting place because it sat on a busy ford. An elderly ferryman once told me that until well into the 1950s, there used to be fully 100 boats catering to the back and forth traffic.* Moreover, this was the very place where Ranjit Singh, just 19-year-old and leading a small force, had routed a much larger Afghan army to bring their periodic raids to an end.*
> This also is the place where the Sikhs under Sher Singh Atariwala, 15,000-strong, fought a desperate battle against the British in November 1848. The British prevailed, the Sikhs withdrew to the west of the river to fight and lose their final battle two months later at Chillianwala.
> All this  and more  makes Rasulnagar a tourist destination for the history buff. *But we do not belong to this land, so what do we do with our heritage? We destroy it.*



From today newspaper
Are the Americans really pulling out?  The Express Tribune


> For centuries, Afghanistan has been easy pickings for marauding armies. First came Alexander of Macedonia, then the Mongol, Genghis Khan, Emir Timur of Central Asia, an assortment of Mughals, Russian Czars, Brits, on whose empire the sun never set, and the Soviets. And finally, a coalition of Nato troops led by the Americans, the worlds self-appointed policemen. Some pillaged and plundered. Others fought to repulse marauding tribesmen. Some, like the Brits, to set boundaries. And some, like the Americans, to contain and destroy the Taliban insurgency, which is perpetrated with a fetid passion and threatens to engulf the whole region. *But the only troops who systematically defeated the Afghans and the tribes of the Khyber Pass in a decisive victory were the warriors of the one-eyed Sikh leader Ranjit Singh and his outstanding commander Hari Singh Nalwa. *Today, Afghanistan is still what it used to be in the days before the Second World War  a tribal society looking for its place in the sun, where misery is fuelled by small-minded jealousy and rivalry and everybody gets to wince. The difference is that with the billions of dollars that the US has poured into the country, there are now speechless accumulations of money and increased smuggling into Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jandk

ANyone with a pair of eyes and even a remote sense of history can see tht Dogras and Punjabis are the true warrior races of Northern subcontinent. These two races stand out for their bravery, physical strength and imperialist attitudes (superiority complex). In this case I mean punjabis from India not from pakistanis.


----------



## MadDog

The word Pakistan refers to five regions Punjab, Afghania ( old name of KPK province), Kashmir, Sindh and baluchisTAN. Original Pakistan was supposed to have whole of Punjab...in 1947 India wasn't divided ....it was Punjab which was divided. Jinnah couldn't believe in his wildest dreams that Punjab would be divided..unfortunately due to disagreements....the division of Punjab took place. If whole of Punjab were to be in Pakistan, 1984 incidents would never had happened...those sikh pilgrims who come annually to Pakistan know how much the people and the government respect and honor the Sikh community of Pakistan and their religious places of Nankana Sahib.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurup

MadDog said:


> The word Pakistan refers to five regions Punjab, Afghania ( old name of KPK province), Kashmir, Sindh and baluchisTAN.



So where is bengal of pakistan aka bangladesh in that name ??



MadDog said:


> Original Pakistan was supposed to have whole of Punjab...in 1947 India wasn't divided ....it was Punjab which was divided. Jinnah couldn't believe in his wildest dreams that Punjab would be divided..unfortunately due to disagreements....the division of Punjab took place. If whole of Punjab were to be in Pakistan, 1984 incidents would never had happened...those sikh pilgrims who come annually to Pakistan know how much the people and the government respect and honor the Sikh community of Pakistan and their religious places of Nankana Sahib.



Shias , christians and hindus in pakistan today tells another story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## angeldude13

i like marathas,mughals and sikhs as a warrior race.


----------



## MadDog

kurup said:


> So where is bengal of pakistan aka bangladesh in that name ??
> 
> 
> 
> Shias , christians and hindus in pakistan today tells another story.



Chaudry Rehmat Ali in 1933 in his journal " Now or Never" first stated the meaning of the word Pakistan.. Choudhry Rahmat Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here is a non wiki link of Columbia university Now or Never, by Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, 1933

Bangladesh was supposed to be a separate Muslim country...this is what Pakistan resolution 1940 stated..one or more than one state...it was stupid to put both together...the begalis were as foreigners to the people of this land ( i.e west pakistan) as the arabs are...moreover the distance between the two lands was nerly 2000 miles..if u move 2000 miles to the west...we get to Iraq or Jordan...this means we should also include them in Pakistan..it was absolute stupid decision which was not practically viable and that was proven in 1971.

As far as your second question goes...ask any indian sikh pilgrim from India who visited Pakistan ...ask his views...and then comment on my statement......Pak govt is establishing an international university in Nankana Sahib..known as Baba Guru Nanak University Baba Guru Nanak University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watch videos online...youtube is filled with videos..how Pak govt has facilitated the Sikh community.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kurup

MadDog said:


> As far as your second question goes...ask any indian sikh pilgrim from India who visited Pakistan ...ask his views...and then comment on my statement......Pak govt is establishing an international university in Nankana Sahib..known as Baba Guru Nanak University Baba Guru Nanak University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Watch videos online...youtube is filled with videos..how Pak govt has facilitated the Sikh community.



I never contested treatment sikh pilgrimage gets in pakistan but this one 



> If whole of Punjab were to be in Pakistan, 1984 incidents would never had happened.



That is why I said the condition of minorities are different than you portray .

You are establishing a university in pakistan while in India the PM is a Sikh. Great difference.


----------



## bronxbull

MadDog said:


> The word Pakistan refers to five regions Punjab, Afghania ( old name of KPK province), Kashmir, Sindh and baluchisTAN. Original Pakistan was supposed to have whole of Punjab...in 1947 India wasn't divided ....it was Punjab which was divided. Jinnah couldn't believe in his wildest dreams that Punjab would be divided..unfortunately due to disagreements....the division of Punjab took place. If whole of Punjab were to be in Pakistan, *1984 incidents would never had happened.*..those sikh pilgrims who come annually to Pakistan know how much the people and the government respect and honor the Sikh community of Pakistan and their religious places of Nankana Sahib.



Yeah because no sikhs would left behind to even go for pilgrimage.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RazPaK

This thread is hilarious.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## haviZsultan

I am worried about what may happen to this thread the moment Monkey D Luffy and Sher Malang find it. 

I don't know when Ranjit singh conquered all of Afghanistan though it is clear he did reach Peshawar and southern parts of what is now Afghanistan. Durrani empire badly ravaged the Sikh kingdom. I mean no offense here but I heard he (Ahmed Shah Durrani) defiled the golden temple many times.

I am not saying all this as a wannabe Pashtun but as a simple observor. No offense intended to anyone and I am aware that people recount history each in his own way with the cloak of religion and culture shrouding them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Ranjit Singh was born in Gujranwala, now in modern-day Pakistan.
> 
> He conquered :
> 
> Punjab region till Multan in south
> Punjab, India
> Punjab, Pakistan
> Ganganagar, India
> Haryana, India. Including Chandigarh.
> Himachal Pradesh, India
> Kashmir, conquered in 1818, India/Pakistan/China
> Jammu, India
> Gilgit, Northern Areas, Pakistan (Occupied from 1842 to 1846)
> Khyber Pass, Afghanistan/Pakistan
> Peshawar, Pakistan (taken in 1818, retaken in 1834)
> North-West Frontier Province and FATA, Pakistan (documented from Hazara (taken in 181822)[55] to Bannu)
> Parts of Western Tibet (1841), China
> 
> without maharaja ranjeet singh panjab history is totally uncompleate.he was real brave honest and very kind person .its so sad many of pakistani panjab ppl don't know him.i read two very very historical books on panjab history .there is 400 pages of his life story writen in 1870 in panjabi i read and it was great great experiance to know him. i beleve he was very very kind its unbeleve able when our muslim kings give to there enemyes and crimnals very very turture and punishments like remove the eyes cut beheed them but ranjeet singh never ever do like this in his rule. many times he knock the door of a poor former he eat wih him saag and lassi and when he leave his house he told him i am your maharaja.waoooooooooo.some one read history of panjab he will got what kind of great man maharaja ranjeet singh was.its too sad after he dai maharani jindaan and his brother make mess with khalsa and sardars of other mishals."



somebody has to come out of wikipedia


----------

