# Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man



## RobbieS

I came across this blog a couple of days back while researching some stuff on Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Though written by a Pakistani, it refutes commonly held perceptions about Ranjit Singh in Pakistan - of him being an anti-Muslim, destroying Mosques, forcibly converting Hindus and Muslims to Sikhism and converting the Badshahi mosque into a stable. Facts like most of the people he ruled over were Muslims (peacefully for 30 years) and that his army comprised of Muslim contingents is looked over by many people who paint him as anti-Islamic tyrant. As this blog below proves and so do other accounts, including by the British traveler and historian Cunningham, Ranjit Singh was first and foremost a Punjabi. And one that all Punjabis on both sides of the border should be proud of.

**********


*Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man*

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Today (29th June) is the 170th death anniversary of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Bismarck of Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa, whose great Indus state was the forerunner of Pakistan.

Narrowminded ideologues  writing in the aftermath of bitter communal bloodletting accompanying the birth of Pakistan- have not been able to fully appreciate the significance of this great statesman to the state of Pakistan. If they were to apply their minds to the history of the Punjab from late 18th to mid 19th century theywould find in support of the legal arguments employed by Jinnah a hundred years later. The great tragedy ofcourse was that Sikh leadership could not come to terms with Jinnah in 1947 even though the latter had given them a blank cheque.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh literally cobbled together a number of principalities to forge an independent state from Kashmir to NWFP consisting of Punjabis and Pakhtuns, Muslims and Hindus. This state had its own foreign relations and foreign policy. It also showed that India was never one country but a continent which was to become the basic premise upon which Muslim League was t0 build its case for Pakistan. More importantly, however, Ranjit Singh laid the foundations for the Punjabi parochialism that was to create such a huge problem for both Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League, forcing the latter to search for a slogan that sought to tame this parochialism. It was this powerful parochialism that Jinnah referred to when he told Mountbatten that A Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu  while arguing against the partition of the province. This identity was given to the Punjabis by Ranjit Singh.

How did this one-eyed Sikh warrior manage to bring together Punjabi Musalmans, Sikhs, Hindus and Pushtun Musalmans together in this one great Sikh-dominated state remains a mystery. It is said that a calligrapher tried to sell a beautifully copy of the Quran to Ranjit Singhs Foreign Minister Fakir Azizuddin who wouldnt buy it. Ranjit Singh overheard the argument, took the Holy Quran, kissed it and bought it for a price in excess of what is being asked. When asked why he replied God gave me one eye  so that I could see all religions with the same eye. Our historians would have us believe that this man defiled the Badshahi Mosque.

Perhaps the most poignant lessons that the Pakistani state can learn from the Maharaja is the way he brought the Wahabi-led Islamist insurgency against the state in form of Syed Ahmad and Shah Abdul Aziz. These forerunners of the modern day Taliban and Al Qaeda had taken refuge in NWFP and had used the Pathan tribesmen to wage a Jehad against Ranjit Singh and his state which was in any event Muslim majority. Ranjit Singh and the Army of the Indus crushed this earliest insurgency of the Taliban, pushing back Afghans who had occupied Peshawar since Mahmud Ghaznavis time, thus establishing what was to become the permanent border of British India later and consequently Pakistans border. It is often said that the British and Russians failed to subdue insurgencies in the tribal area. It is suggested that the US might lose the war as well. However, Ranjit Singh proved that the Army of Indus could defeat this insurgency. Today another Army of the Indus is fighting yet another war in the same region to safeguard another Muslim majority state against a Jehad. Inshallah the Army of the Indus will overcome.

This is no call for Punjabi parochialism lest I be mistaken- I believe in Punjab being divided up into several provinces. My interest in Ranjit Singh is purely from a Pakistani angle. Just as we admire Tipu Sultan but do not become Mysore Nationalists, we dont become Punjabi nationalists by admiring Ranjit Singh. This is however an attempt to honor one of the greatest sons of this soil from whom the Pakistani nation state can learn a thing or two in state-craft.

Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man Pak Tea House

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## equiliz3r




----------



## jarnee

Nice article. Lets all Punjabi's in India and Pakistan carve out a nation for us out of India and Pakistan.

This was LTTE's ideology. Ethinicity over religion and country.


----------



## Imran Khan

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



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

real image

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RobbieS

imran khan said:


> 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.



Imran bhai, the fact remains that the warrior nature of us Punjabis often leads us to fight amongst ourselves. We end up wasting too much energy upon our kins and are left with nothing to fight the enemy. Its this very nature that led first the Misls and then Ranjit Singh successors to fight and ultimately destroy the Lahore Durbar. I would rather blame us Punjabis for the decline of independent Punjab founded by Ranjit Singh than the British.

As the saying goes in our side of the Punjab - *"Je Sikh Sikh Nu Na Maare Taan Kaum Kade Na Haare"*. The same can be ascribed to us Punjabis.


----------



## RobbieS

jarnee said:


> Nice article. Lets all Punjabi's in India and Pakistan carve out a nation for us out of India and Pakistan.
> .



Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## Imran Khan

just look at faimly maharaja was great man but his whole faimly never got a singl man who is even 50&#37; like him .first KHARAK SINGH nothing a small brain man who even not a brave.sedha sada .thats why his sone keep him in house arrest and hold take power.nonihal sigh was good but what happen we all know sardar sardar game will kill him some who accendent but it was morder the door of lahor palce fall when he cross it.after that maharani jindaan a women and last wife of maharaja a uneducated poorest girl to maharani her thught will nail last nail in coffen of panjab freedom.after that english rule .maharani thinking she can distroy khasla army power and live with her son and brother in power .whats done after 10 years of maharaja death there was no khalsa raj.


----------



## Imran Khan

jarnee said:


> Nice article. Lets all Punjabi's in India and Pakistan carve out a nation for us out of India and Pakistan.
> 
> This was LTTE's ideology. Ethinicity over religion and country.



your avatar is your own image


----------



## Imran Khan

samadhi maharaja ranjeet singh lahore

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

imran khan said:


> samadhi maharaja ranjeet singh lahore



I hope I can visit it someday.


----------



## Imran Khan

RobbieS said:


> I hope I can visit it someday.



why not you welcome its open for you.


----------



## RobbieS

imran khan said:


> just look at faimly maharaja was great man but his whole faimly never got a singl man who is even 50% like him .first KHARAK SINGH nothing a small brain man who even not a brave.sedha sada .thats why his sone keep him in house arrest and hold take power.nonihal sigh was good but what happen we all know sardar sardar game will kill him some who accendent but it was morder the door of lahor palce fall when he cross it.after that maharani jindaan a women and last wife of maharaja a uneducated poorest girl to maharani her thught will nail last nail in coffen of panjab freedom.after that english rule .maharani thinking she can distroy khasla army power and live with her son and brother in power .whats done after 10 years of maharaja death there was no khalsa raj.



What happened to his youngest son Dalip Singh was even worse. He was taken to Britain as a kid and was made to renounce his faith and accept Christianity. He was anglicized to and made to forget his relations with his motherland of Punjab. He wasn't allowed to go back to Punjab, his own motherland by the British. He did re-convert to Sikhism later in his life and made an attempt to get back to India. He passed away during the journey. I believe his grave is somewhere in Paris.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

RobbieS said:


> Imran bhai, the fact remains that the warrior nature of us Punjabis often leads us to fight amongst ourselves. We end up wasting too much energy upon our kins and are left with nothing to fight the enemy. Its this very nature that led first the Misls and then Ranjit Singh successors to fight and ultimately destroy the Lahore Durbar. I would rather blame us Punjabis for the decline of independent Punjab founded by Ranjit Singh than the British.
> 
> As the saying goes in our side of the Punjab - *"Je Sikh Sikh Nu Na Maare Taan Kaum Kade Na Haare"*. The same can be ascribed to us Punjabis.



What about the Dogra's?


----------



## RobbieS

Sam_Bajwa said:


> What about the Dogra's?



Weren't the Dogras in the Lahore Durbar Sikhs as well? I believe they were converts.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

i am not considering the converts they were sikhs after all 
didn't the other dogras betrayed the sikhs? they were the ones who made sikh's weak 
they murdered Sardar Chet Singh ,they passed the war plans to the british.


----------



## pak-yes

Well Practically if there would be a United Punjab it would have acted as a Buffer State between Muslims and Hindus.Preventing them from fighting.(I am not advocating i am just telling a theory)


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Well Practically if there would be a United Punjab it would have acted as a Buffer State between Muslims and Hindus.Preventing them from fighting.(I am not advocating i am just telling a theory)



Buffer state between Muslims and Hindus? How is that different from the concept of Khalistan?

Ranjit Singh's Punjab had all 3, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. The first perhaps in the highest numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Xtremeownage

Imran Khan said:


> 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.



What a disgusting and FALSE thing you have said here! Do you have any honour and self-respect? Judging by this fallacious comment you are delusional! 

You are the type of people that Allama Iqbal described as (in a translation of Jawab-E-Shikwa):

"You are the harvest which harbors the lightning
You are those who sell their ancestors&#8217; graves

As you have earned a good name by selling graves
Will you not sell if idols of stone you get?"

You are selling the honours of those who come before you, by praising the man who persecuted them!

Ranjeet Singh was a mass-murderer and tyrant! The Sikh kingdom was the darkest period in the history of Punjab!

They destroyed mosques, killed many innocent Muslims, inhibited prayers, and spread hatred and violence throughout the land! They even used the Badshahi Masjid in lahore as a stable for their horses! 

They originated as a group of bandits that would steal rich Muslim caravans; the Sikhs then raided and pillaged the land and forced their ideology on low-class Hindus.

The Mughals fought against the tyranny in an act of retaliation! They tried to stop these criminals from stealing and looting!

Sadly during the rise of the Sikh Kingdom, the area had fallen prey to the effects of civil war and the battles between the Mughals, Afghans and Persians!

The Sikhs were opportunists and started their short-lived kingdom for a few decades, soon to be destroyed by the British a short time after!


----------



## jha

is that what have you read about MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH JEE...?
not surprising at all..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Prometheus

Xtremeownage said:


> What a disgusting and FALSE thing you have said here! Do you have any honour and self-respect? Judging by this fallacious comment you are delusional!
> 
> You are the type of people that Allama Iqbal described as (in a translation of Jawab-E-Shikwa):
> 
> "You are the harvest which harbors the lightning
> You are those who sell their ancestors graves
> 
> As you have earned a good name by selling graves
> Will you not sell if idols of stone you get?"
> 
> You are selling the honours of those who come before you, by praising the man who persecuted them!
> 
> Ranjeet Singh was a mass-murderer and tyrant! The Sikh kingdom was the darkest period in the history of Punjab!
> 
> They destroyed mosques, killed many innocent Muslims, inhibited prayers, and spread hatred and violence throughout the land! They even used the Badshahi Masjid in lahore as a stable for their horses!
> 
> They originated as a group of bandits that would steal rich Muslim caravans; the Sikhs then raided and pillaged the land and forced their ideology on low-class Hindus.
> 
> The Mughals fought against the tyranny in an act of retaliation! They tried to stop these criminals from stealing and looting!
> 
> Sadly during the rise of the Sikh Kingdom, the area had fallen prey to the effects of civil war and the battles between the Mughals, Afghans and Persians!
> 
> The Sikhs were opportunists and started their short-lived kingdom for a few decades, soon to be destroyed by the British a short time after!



sir, although sikh kingdom was for only short time but can you give example of someone from Punjab who ruled his own land????
Ranjit Singh was the only King to successfully rule Punjab ..........not only Punjab but also Kashmir, NWFP also.

Sir, It was for Sikh kingdom that Ladakh is in Kashmir and NWFP , FATA in Pakistan.

cheers.
And respect the King


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> Buffer state between Muslims and Hindus? How is that different from the concept of Khalistan?
> 
> Ranjit Singh's Punjab had all 3, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. The first perhaps in the highest numbers.



What do you Mean?


----------



## Prometheus

pak-yes said:


> What do you Mean?




no offence.........But I think he wants to say that whole Punjab should be it


----------



## Imran Khan

Xtremeownage said:


> What a disgusting and FALSE thing you have said here! Do you have any honour and self-respect? Judging by this fallacious comment you are delusional!
> 
> You are the type of people that Allama Iqbal described as (in a translation of Jawab-E-Shikwa):
> 
> "You are the harvest which harbors the lightning
> You are those who sell their ancestors graves
> 
> As you have earned a good name by selling graves
> Will you not sell if idols of stone you get?"
> 
> You are selling the honours of those who come before you, by praising the man who persecuted them!
> 
> Ranjeet Singh was a mass-murderer and tyrant! The Sikh kingdom was the darkest period in the history of Punjab!
> 
> They destroyed mosques, killed many innocent Muslims, inhibited prayers, and spread hatred and violence throughout the land! They even used the Badshahi Masjid in lahore as a stable for their horses!
> 
> They originated as a group of bandits that would steal rich Muslim caravans; the Sikhs then raided and pillaged the land and forced their ideology on low-class Hindus.
> 
> The Mughals fought against the tyranny in an act of retaliation! They tried to stop these criminals from stealing and looting!
> 
> Sadly during the rise of the Sikh Kingdom, the area had fallen prey to the effects of civil war and the battles between the Mughals, Afghans and Persians!
> 
> The Sikhs were opportunists and started their short-lived kingdom for a few decades, soon to be destroyed by the British a short time after!



when in ranjeet singh happen this??????????/ you need to correct yourself not only we read from our side always right.

give me one example

ranjeet sing remove eyes of someone?
use dunkey and paint black on some face?
keep somone in preson for lifetime?
kill some one with enemidaty?
cut someone head and bring it in darbar?


ranjeet singh will even leave sultan khan wali bhimbher if any mughul will got ememy like that i know what he will do with him.you like it or not maharaja was very kind and good humen .i can't be like you only muslim is hero even he is saddam and every non muslim ruler is divil .

we are talking here abut maharaja ranjeet singh not over all sikh raj.
read this book writen in 1888 its writen after 30 years of maharaja death and the days when finished sikh raj.writen by a muslim

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

jha said:


> is that what have you read about MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH JEE...?
> not surprising at all..



yaar chor na he need to read much much much then he is able to post comment on a person.he start same think which i read in 1990 in school.history is talking himself.

i don't think he research abut maharaja even 3 days


----------



## RobbieS

Xtremeownage - You would do well to read the first post of this thread. Written by a Pakistani, it will clear a lot of your misconceptions about MRS.

And I would think twice before calling others a low life. If you cant argue with logic and references, showing some respect is the the least you could do to a senior member.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> What do you Mean?



What I meant was that, you are mistaken if you are associating Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom of an independent Punjab as a kingdom just for Sikhs like Khalistan. MRS was hardly in favor of a Sikh only kingdom. From all sources his rule was secular. Its true that a bulk of his generals were Sikhs but he also had Muslim soldiers y in unified in his armies. And he couldn't afford to be evil to Muslims as Muslims were in majority in unified Punjab.


----------



## pak-yes

^^Oh i understand but i wasn't referencing to MRS.

I was merely giving a theory that a United Punjab would had been a very Powerful entity in South Asia and would had acted as a Buffer State.(I am not advocating i am just telling a theory)


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> ^^Oh i understand but i wasn't referencing to MRS.
> 
> I was merely giving a theory that a United Punjab would had been a very Powerful entity in South Asia and would had acted as a Buffer State.(I am not advocating i am just telling a theory)



Could be, but a unified Punjab would have included most of Pakistani Punjab.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> Could be, but a unified Punjab would have included most of Pakistani Punjab.



Yes i know it.Gosh if only Sikh Leadership had listened to Quaid-e-Azam we would had a United Punjab.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Yes i know it.Gosh if only Sikh Leadership had listened to Quaid-e-Azam we would had a United Punjab.



I dont think my Indian friends on PDF would like me for saying it, but I do find the idea of a unified Punjab appealing.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> I dont think my Indian friends on PDF would like me for saying it, but I do find the idea of a unified Punjab appealing.



Oh Finally after all these months of arguing and fighting on forum.

Finally an Indian that agrees to my view Point.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Oh Finally after all these months of arguing and fighting on forum.
> 
> Finally an Indian that agrees to my view Point.



Haha..may be we never argued on topics related to Punjab before. There's no shame in being honest. Thats what I think. 

And tell you what Unified Punjab would have had the best food, best infrastructure and the best cricket and hockey teams in the subcontinent.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> Haha..may be we never argued on topics related to Punjab before. There's no shame in being honest. Thats what I think.
> 
> And tell you what Unified Punjab would have had the best food, best infrastructure and the best cricket and hockey teams in the subcontinent.



Yes without any doubt also we would had the best agriculture and one of the most developed if not the most Developed Industry in Sub Continent.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Yes without any doubt also we would had the best agriculture and one of the most developed if not the most Developed Industry in Sub Continent.



Yeah but geographically we would have been a land locked country. No access to port. But I guess we could have easily bribed the Sindhis and the Gujjus for access to their ports. 

And with so many Punjabis abroad, imagine the kind of influence that we'd have wielded on the West. Not to mention the dollar remittances and the FDIs.

And not to mention the armed forces. Composed of warriors with hundreds of years of war filled histories behind them. But a flip side would have been that we would have picked fights with everybody. Punjabis are hardly a peaceful lot.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> Yeah but geographically we would have been a land locked country. No access to port. But I guess we could have easily bribed the Sindhis and the Gujjus for access to their ports.
> 
> And with so many Punjabis abroad, imagine the kind of influence that we'd have wielded on the West. Not to mention the dollar remittances and the FDIs.
> 
> And not to mention the armed forces. Composed of warriors with hundreds of years of war filled histories behind them. But a flip side would have been that we would have picked fights with everybody. Punjabis are hardly a peaceful lot.



Yar Come on yar you are making me restless in my chair.WOooo.

Yes and due to our Warrior Nature we would also be the first to get sophisticated defence equipment.Best in Sub Continent and even one of the best in the World.

Even Combined we might not be the Province having largest Population but still we would had the best equipment sort of like Israel and Singapore.

Not to forget our economy would be very good.

Only Drawback would lack of Seaport.But then that it is not a Major Problem many countries are landlocked still they are developed.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Yar Come on yar you are making me restless in my chair.WOooo.
> 
> Yes and due to our Warrior Nature we would also be the first to get sophisticated defence equipment.Best in Sub Continent and even one of the best in the World.
> 
> Even Combined we might not be the Province having largest Population but still we would had the best equipment sort of like Israel and Singapore.
> 
> Not to forget our economy would be very good.
> 
> Only Drawback would lack of Seaport.But then that it is not a Major Problem many countries are landlocked still they are developed.


 
You bet. All the above could have been possible. And what about our music. Imagine Nusrat sahb would have been singing with Gurdas Mann. What classy music we would have had.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> You bet. All the above could have been possible. And what about our music. Imagine Nusrat sahb would have been singing with Gurdas Mann. What classy music we would have had.



huh yar.Nchhhh Only dreams.Nothing can be done Practically.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> huh yar.Nchhhh Only dreams.Nothing can be done Practically.



Haan yaar. stupid politics. Chal I better go to sleep now. I will probably be roaming in Lahore, the capital of Unified Punjab in my dreams.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> Haan yaar. stupid politics. Chal I better go to sleep now. I will probably be roaming in Lahore, the capital of Unified Punjab in my dreams.



Wooo you even accept Lahore Capital of Unified Punjab.I though you would insist on Jalandhar.Oh well dreams.At least no one can stop one from dreaming.


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Wooo you even accept Lahore Capital of Unified Punjab.I though you would insist on Jalandhar.Oh well dreams.At least no one can stop one from dreaming.



I had to reply to your post before I could hit the bed. 

Of course Lahore would be the capital if there was ever a unified Punjab. Couple of reasons for that - 

1. Its the historical and cultural centre of Punjab for ages. No other city (maybe Amritsar to an extent) comes close to it.

2. Lahore was also the capital of MRS's kingdom. So its a symbolic place for the whole of Punjab.

Ok. now I am going to sleep. Gd nt.


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> I had to reply to your post before I could hit the bed.
> 
> Of course Lahore would be the capital if there was ever a unified Punjab. Couple of reasons for that -
> 
> 1. Its the historical and cultural centre of Punjab for ages. No other city (maybe Amritsar to an extent) comes close to it.
> 
> 2. Lahore was also the capital of MRS's kingdom. So its a symbolic place for the whole of Punjab.
> 
> Ok. now I am going to sleep. Gd nt.



Ok Gd Nite have sweet dreams of Unified Punjab.


----------



## Imran Khan

man we are not ready for this lololllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. ok we will think on our terms.repablic of panjab.


----------



## Peshwa

RobbieS said:


> Haha..may be we never argued on topics related to Punjab before. There's no shame in being honest. Thats what I think.
> 
> *And tell you what Unified Punjab would have had the best food, best infrastructure and the best cricket and hockey teams in the subcontinent.*



True in all aspects, but would have become another playground for proxy politics similar to Kashmir......In fact, I would say more blood has been shed to retain Punjab on both sides than even Kashmir to date......In reality Punjab could be considered our Jerusalem...

The plains of Punjab have always been the gateway to Hindustan....

PS: Leave the cricket to us Marathas...


----------



## Omar1984

We Pakistanis, even some Afghans, dont have a favorable view of Ranjit Singh. Sikh rule of Punjab and parts of NWFP was a black spot in the history of Punjab and NWFP for us Muslims.

*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[2] and also used as a gun powder magazine for military stores.*

Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

RobbieS said:


> Could be, but a unified Punjab would have included most of Pakistani Punjab.



Yes Punjab should be all united including Himachal Pradesh and Haryana and should become part of PAKISTAN.

Even today theres more than 80 million Punjabis in Pakistan, a country with a total population of 175 million people and only 30 million Punjabis in India, a country with a total population of more than 1.2 billion people.


----------



## Peshwa

Omar1984 said:


> Yes Punjab should be all united including Himachal Pradesh and Haryana and should become part of PAKISTAN.



Dont get ahead of yourself fella.....Stick to Kashmir for now.....

Baby Steps.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ambidex

RobbieS said:


> Weren't the Dogras in the Lahore Durbar Sikhs as well? I believe they were converts.



Everyone was a convert. But who ever did some thing wrong can be bashed on the grounds, cause he was a convert???? 

That is why most converts go extreme these days to prove they are loyal to the one adopted and anti to the one just left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## third eye

For those of us who would be keen to know, a book called ' The Exile' by Navtaj Sarna gives a lucid account of history of Punjab post Ranjit singh.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> We Pakistanis, even some Afghans, dont have a favorable view of Ranjit Singh. Sikh rule of Punjab and parts of NWFP was a black spot in the history of Punjab and NWFP for us Muslims.



I can understand why Afghanis don't like Sikhs, because we always fight them. But why Pakistani Punjabi muslims don't like.. I don't understand.. Sikhs treated you better than how Afghanis treated you.. infact, Afghanis sacked and pillaged Lahore so many times, stealing from the people there and raping the women there. It were Sikhs who drove Afghanis out of Punjab.. otherwise Afghanis were constantly raping Punjab..




> *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[2] and also used as a gun powder magazine for military stores.*
> 
> Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Badshahi Mosque was a construct of Aurangzeb, the one person Sikhs waged war against for longest time. We were friendly with other Mughal kings and even helped many (like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar). Khalsa army even had a Muslim-only regiment. And in war of Anandpur, Sikh army even had one unit of Pathan foot soldiers fighting on their side. If we were bad with Muslims, we would not allow them to be with us. We even allowed a Muslim to lay first stone of Golden Temple!!


----------



## RobbieS

ambidex said:


> Everyone was a convert. But who ever did some thing wrong can be bashed on the grounds, cause he was a convert????
> 
> That is why most converts go extreme these days to prove they are loyal to the one adopted and anti to the one just left.



I didn't mean to offend anybody. I was just replying to his post where he had mentioned that Dogras were traitors to the Lahore Durbar. I pointed out that Dogras in the LD were Sikhs as well, albeit recent converts. So their treachery should be seen as the treachery of other Sikhs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Omar1984 said:


> We Pakistanis, even some Afghans, dont have a favorable view of Ranjit Singh. Sikh rule of Punjab and parts of NWFP was a black spot in the history of Punjab and NWFP for us Muslims.
> 
> *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[2] and also used as a gun powder magazine for military stores.*
> 
> Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I believe you are a senior member. Could you find no better reference than Wikipedia? After a 1000 posts I thought you'd have learnt to post references.


----------



## Omar1984

RobbieS said:


> I believe you are a senior member. Could you find no better reference than Wikipedia? After a 1000 posts I thought you'd have learnt to post references.



Contrary to the wisdom, foresight and diplomacy shown by the Begums of Bhopal, the story in some other Muslim countries, and even in our own country, was quite different. For instance in Punjab, a Muslim by the name of Abdur Rahman encouraged Lahorites to plot against the ruler, Geet Singh. Other Muslims like Mohkam Din, Mufti Mukarram, Mian Tahir, Mian Baqar helped Ranjit Singh occupy Lahore. Mohkam Din had opened the Lohari Gate for Ranjit Singh's army. Despite the fact that many Muslims were holding important positions, such as Foreign Minister Faqir Azizuddin, *Ranjit Singh turned Badshahi Mosque into a stable and all other mosques met the same fate. Those Muslim collaborators and did nothing to try to stop Ranjit Singh from desecrating the mosques.*

The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Thursday, March 25, 2010


Every Pakistani knows what sikhs did to our beautiful Mosques. You dont have to tell us, thankfully ranjit singh's rule didnt last long like the Muslim empires of the subcontinent did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Iqbal_Brar said:


> I can understand why Afghanis don't like Sikhs, because we always fight them. But why Pakistani Punjabi muslims don't like.. I don't understand.. Sikhs treated you better than how Afghanis treated you.. infact, Afghanis sacked and pillaged Lahore so many times, stealing from the people there and raping the women there. It were Sikhs who drove Afghanis out of Punjab.. otherwise Afghanis were constantly raping Punjab.



Another indian-made propganda. Show me proof that Afghans raped Punjabi women. Punjab was under Afghan rule only once and that was the Durrani empire. Punjab was also under most Persian empires and under the Islamic Caliphate.


Punjabi Muslims sided with the Muslim emperors and Sikhs hated the Muslim emperors even though it was the Muslim emperors who contributed most to art, architecture, clothing, and cuisine of Punjab.


During the short period of Sikh rule, Sikhs almost destroyed the Mughal architecture and almost destroyed our beautiful Mosques, most that were built under the Mughal empire. Thank God the British came afterwards, if they didnt all of our Mosques would've been destroyed by sikhs. The good thing about British were that they treated Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus all the same...well until Mountbatten came at the end of British rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Xtremeownage

pak-yes said:


> Yes i know it.Gosh if only Sikh Leadership had listened to Quaid-e-Azam we would had a United Punjab.



Absolutely disgusting comment! We want nothing to do with Sikh culture, religion, and tyranny! They killed millions of our brothers and sisters, and we won't forget the fact that the religion's origins are based off of opposition to Islam and the Muslims!

Take shame, why do you insult those who came before you like this! You lack honour and dignity! Read some Allama Iqbal and wake up! 



Iqbal_Brar said:


> I can understand why Afghanis don't like Sikhs, because we always fight them. But why Pakistani Punjabi muslims don't like.. I don't understand.. Sikhs treated you better than how Afghanis treated you.. infact, Afghanis sacked and pillaged Lahore so many times, stealing from the people there and raping the women there. It were Sikhs who drove Afghanis out of Punjab.. otherwise Afghanis were constantly raping Punjab..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Badshahi Mosque was a construct of Aurangzeb, the one person Sikhs waged war against for longest time. We were friendly with other Mughal kings and even helped many (like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar). Khalsa army even had a Muslim-only regiment. And in war of Anandpur, Sikh army even had one unit of Pathan foot soldiers fighting on their side. If we were bad with Muslims, we would not allow them to be with us. We even allowed a Muslim to lay first stone of Golden Temple!!



What fallacious statements and absolute lies!

The Afghans did no such thing! On the contrary it was the Sikhs who forcefully converted low-class Hindus and raped them! The Sikhs originated as a people that stole from rich Muslim caravans, and the Mughals had to put an end to their tyranny!

The Afghans were honourable people, and the Durrani empire only suffered losses because of the war against the Persians! And the Muslims of Punjab sided with the great Afghans of that time, against the tyrannical Sikhs! 

No true Muslim would support the Sikhs, you may have had a few traitors, but those were only a handful! There are many Sikhs which oppose India and hate the country, but the majority of Sikhs aren't like that! 

Sikhism is the only religion which originated as an opposition to Islam and the Muslims! They persecuted and killed many Muslims and destroyed many Mosques! 

Badshahi Masjid is a very holy place and a landmark of Lahore, the Sikhs made it a stable and used it to insult the Muslims and Islam!

Sikhism is based off of hatred, and the darkest period of history of Punjab belongs to those few decades of the Sikh kingdom! Ranjit Singh was a mass-murderer and killer!

The Muslim's freed India and gave tolerance and rights to the subcontinent! While the Sikhs did nothing but loot, kill, and rape low-class Hindus (and most Sikhs are descendants of these Hindus)!


----------



## RobbieS

Xtremeownage said:


> Absolutely disgusting comment! We want nothing to do with Sikh culture, religion, and tyranny! They killed millions of our brothers and sisters, and we won't forget the fact that the religion's origins are based off of opposition to Islam and the Muslims!
> 
> Take shame, why do you insult those who came before you like this! You lack honour and dignity! Read some Allama Iqbal and wake up!
> 
> 
> 
> What fallacious statements and absolute lies!
> 
> The Afghans did no such thing! On the contrary it was the Sikhs who forcefully converted low-class Hindus and raped them! The Sikhs originated as a people that stole from rich Muslim caravans, and the Mughals had to put an end to their tyranny!
> 
> The Afghans were honourable people, and the Durrani empire only suffered losses because of the war against the Persians! And the Muslims of Punjab sided with the great Afghans of that time, against the tyrannical Sikhs!
> 
> No true Muslim would support the Sikhs, you may have had a few traitors, but those were only a handful! There are many Sikhs which oppose India and hate the country, but the majority of Sikhs aren't like that!
> 
> Sikhism is the only religion which originated as an opposition to Islam and the Muslims! They persecuted and killed many Muslims and destroyed many Mosques!
> 
> Badshahi Masjid is a very holy place and a landmark of Lahore, the Sikhs made it a stable and used it to insult the Muslims and Islam!
> 
> Sikhism is based off of hatred, and the darkest period of history of Punjab belongs to those few decades of the Sikh kingdom! Ranjit Singh was a mass-murderer and killer!
> 
> The Muslim's freed India and gave tolerance and rights to the subcontinent! While the Sikhs did nothing but loot, kill, and rape low-class Hindus (and most Sikhs are descendants of these Hindus)!



Yor rants know no end. Only if you would spend some time reading up history rather than spewing hate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Xtremeownage
Omar1984
Go to hell!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

peace guys history can't change


----------



## pak-yes

Xtremeownage said:


> Absolutely disgusting comment! We want nothing to do with Sikh culture, religion, and tyranny! They killed millions of our brothers and sisters, and we won't forget the fact that the religion's origins are based off of opposition to Islam and the Muslims!
> 
> Take shame, why do you insult those who came before you like this! You lack honour and dignity! Read some Allama Iqbal and wake up!



Sorry Bro if i hurt you.I mean i have read in my college books(Standard Pakistani Syllabus) that Quaid-e-Azam did tried to Persuade Sikh Leadership to join Pakistan.I Don't know however whether it is true or not.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> Another indian-made propganda. Show me proof that Afghans raped Punjabi women. Punjab was under Afghan rule only once and that was the Durrani empire. Punjab was also under most Persian empires and under the Islamic Caliphate.
> 
> Punjabi Muslims sided with the Muslim emperors and Sikhs hated the Muslim emperors even though it was the Muslim emperors who contributed most to art, architecture, clothing, and cuisine of Punjab.
> 
> During the short period of Sikh rule, Sikhs almost destroyed the Mughal architecture and almost destroyed our beautiful Mosques, most that were built under the Mughal empire. Thank God the British came afterwards, if they didnt all of our Mosques would've been destroyed by sikhs. The good thing about British were that they treated Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus all the same...well until Mountbatten came at the end of British rule.



Ok brother believe what you may but it is fact that Afghanis raided Punjab and even fight Mughals.. i think you're confused.. on one side u say that you are sided with Mughals and than you say youre sided with Afghanis.. make up your mind.. Afghanis attack and pillage the Mughal capital... it was only when marathas attack that muslim punjabis helped durranis fight marathas but even rajputs fight the marathas.. otherwise it was only Sikhs who fight and drive out Afghanis from Punjab... infact they even took over Peshawar and Afghani dominated areas so that today they are part of Pakistan.. if Sikhs did not take those areas today they would be part of afghanistan not pakistan.. so thank the sikhs..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Xtremeownage said:


> What fallacious statements and absolute lies!
> 
> The Afghans did no such thing! On the contrary it was the Sikhs who forcefully converted low-class Hindus and raped them! The Sikhs originated as a people that stole from rich Muslim caravans, and the Mughals had to put an end to their tyranny!
> 
> The Afghans were honourable people, and the Durrani empire only suffered losses because of the war against the Persians! And the Muslims of Punjab sided with the great Afghans of that time, against the tyrannical Sikhs!
> 
> No true Muslim would support the Sikhs, you may have had a few traitors, but those were only a handful! There are many Sikhs which oppose India and hate the country, but the majority of Sikhs aren't like that!
> 
> Sikhism is the only religion which originated as an opposition to Islam and the Muslims! They persecuted and killed many Muslims and destroyed many Mosques!
> 
> Badshahi Masjid is a very holy place and a landmark of Lahore, the Sikhs made it a stable and used it to insult the Muslims and Islam!
> 
> Sikhism is based off of hatred, and the darkest period of history of Punjab belongs to those few decades of the Sikh kingdom! Ranjit Singh was a mass-murderer and killer!
> 
> The Muslim's freed India and gave tolerance and rights to the subcontinent! While the Sikhs did nothing but loot, kill, and rape low-class Hindus (and most Sikhs are descendants of these Hindus)!



ok whatever you say. you cannot change history.. and what "rich muslim caravans"?? i think u mean Afghani and Persian caravans which were filled with loot from people of subcontinent.. heading back to afghanistan and persia.. it is funny that u replace word "Afghani" and "Persian" with "muslim".. maybe it makes u feel better.. but truth is they were afghanis and persians.. not punjabis...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Iqbal_Brar said:


> ok whatever you say. you cannot change history.. and what "rich muslim caravans"?? i think u mean Afghani and Persian caravans which were filled with loot from people of subcontinent.. heading back to afghanistan and persia.. it is funny that u replace word "Afghani" and "Persian" with "muslim".. maybe it makes u feel better.. but truth is they were afghanis and persians.. not punjabis...


Iqbal they even use to take hindu womens with them for selling them in arab markets remember when the marathas lost they(afghans) were taking 2000 hindu womens with them and Sultan-ul-quam Sardar Jassa Singh attacked them althought sikhs were outnumbered by afghans there was 1 sikh against 100 afghans still he attacked and rescued the hindu womens.
And Sher-e-Punjab Maharaja Ranjit singh was a very nice person and a committed sikh he was once ordered by the Akal Takhat to sweep the floor of Harimandir sahib as a punishment and he did not refused at all.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Sam_Bajwa said:


> *Iqbal they even use to take hindu womens with them for selling them in arab markets *remember when the marathas lost they(afghans) were taking 2000 hindu womens with them and Sultan-ul-quam Sardar Jassa Singh attacked them althought sikhs were outnumbered by afghans there was 1 sikh against 100 afghans still he attacked and rescued the hindu womens.
> And Sher-e-Punjab Maharaja Ranjit singh was a very nice person and a committed sikh he was once ordered by the Akal Takhat to sweep the floor of Harimandir sahib as a punishment and he did not refused at all.



Sorry, no offence... but why would anyone wanna take hindu women and sell them to arab markets ? which part of India those 2000 women came from? Just curious..


----------



## deltacamelately

jinxeD_girl said:


> Sorry, no offence... but why would anyone wanna take hindu women and sell them to arab markets ? which part of India those 2000 women came from? Just curious..


Mostly Punjabi and Sindhis.


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> Sorry, no offence... but why would anyone wanna take hindu women and sell them to arab markets ? which part of India those 2000 women came from? Just curious..



Jinxy, please do not bring your "physical beauty and ethnicity" debate onto this thread as well. Contribute to the debate at hand with thoughtful, erudite and logical replies. Just a request.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> Jinxy, please do not bring your "physical beauty and ethnicity" debate onto this thread as well. Contribute to the debate at hand with thoughtful, erudite and logical replies. Just a request.



Ok my Sikh braaaaaaaaaaah!! 

I haven't read much in this thread.. I will read later and post my own thoughts on Ranjit Singh..


----------



## Ahmad

I think it is wrong to bring the modern state Afghanistan in the middle. Today's afghanistan havent invaded anybody. In the past there was no country called Afghanistan(for the last 100-150 years it has got the name Afghanistan). The most prominent figures invading Indian SC were Nadir Afshar(persian), Mahmoud Ghaznavi(a persian speaker Turkic), The Baburis(persian speaker Mughals), Ahmad Shah Abdali(pashtoon). These guys were Khorasanis and not Afghan by nationality. Secondly, i havent seen any history book to confirm that these invaders have taken women hostages and selling them to the others, especially Mahmoud who purely had religious agenda when he invaded the SC. The others might have bringing wealth with them back to Persia(today Iran) and Khorasan(today Afghanistan), but i havent heard or seen in any history book about women being taken by them.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Ahmad said:


> I think it is wrong to bring the modern state Afghanistan in the middle. Today's afghanistan havent invaded anybody. In the past there was no country called Afghanistan(for the last 100-150 years it has got the name Afghanistan). The most prominent figures invading Indian SC were Nadir Afshar(persian), Mahmoud Ghaznavi(a persian speaker Turkic), The Baburis(persian speaker Mughals), Ahmad Shah Abdali(pashtoon). These guys were Khorasanis and not Afghan by nationality. Secondly, i havent seen any history book to confirm that these invaders have taken women hostages and selling them to the others, especially Mahmoud who purely had religious agenda when he invaded the SC. The others might have bringing wealth with them back to Persia(today Iran) and Khorasan(today Afghanistan), but i havent heard or seen in any history book about women being taken by them.



Yeah I find it hard to believe that they took Indian women to sell them to Arabs. Arabs are "white skin" lovers.. and they usually prefer persian/afghan/tajik/european women. In Iran, it is a big issue that Iranian women are sold to Arabs through Pakistan... so I find it kind of hard to believe that Afghan/Persians took Indian women to sell them to Arabs?  I have to do further research on this...

Girls in Iran Sold being sold in Pakistan on Daily Basis

Iran Focus*-*Girls in Iran being sold in Pakistan on daily basis


----------



## IBRIS

jinxeD_girl said:


> Yeah I find it hard to believe that they took Indian women to sell them to Arabs. Arabs are "white skin" lovers.. and they usually prefer persian/afghan/tajik/european women. In Iran, it is a big issue that Iranian women are sold to Arabs through Pakistan... so I find it kind of hard to believe that Afghan/Persians took Indian women to sell them to Arabs?  I have to do further research on this...
> 
> Girls in Iran Sold being sold in Pakistan on Daily Basis
> 
> Iran Focus*-*Girls in Iran being sold in Pakistan on daily basis



During this time they weren't going around looking for nice piece of A**. they just wanted to Invade, convert and loot. 
Or
were they consulting with you(jinedGirl) before they comminted there barbarism and butchery.


----------



## ps80

jinxeD_girl said:


> Yeah I find it hard to believe that they took Indian women to sell them to Arabs. *Arabs are "white skin" lovers*.. and they usually prefer persian/afghan/tajik/european women. In Iran, it is a big issue that Iranian women are sold to Arabs through Pakistan... so I find it kind of hard to believe that Afghan/Persians took Indian women to sell them to Arabs?  I have to do further research on this...
> 
> Girls in Iran Sold being sold in Pakistan on Daily Basis
> 
> Iran Focus*-*Girls in Iran being sold in Pakistan on daily basis




-Why bring 'skin factor' into this discussion? Anyway, for your kind information, not all Indians are dark skinned (particularly, north Indians are not very dark), and not all Arabs are fair skinned (however, for the sake of comparison, their skin color is very fair compared to their SE asians counterparts). 
-Sex slavery was predominant in the then Persia/Afghanistan area. 
-Afghanis/Persians did not go that far south in India (Hindustan?). I think the main areas that they attacked were: the then Punjab province (that included almost 2/3 of today's Pakistan, Indian Punjab, Haryana, Himachal), Sindh and Gujrat.


----------



## Ahmad

ps80 said:


> -Why bring 'skin factor' into this discussion? Anyway, for your kind information, not all Indians are dark skinned (particularly, north Indians are not very dark), and not all Arabs are fair skinned (however, for the sake of comparison, their skin color is very fair compared to their SE asians counterparts).
> -Sex slavery was predominant in the then Persia/Afghanistan area.
> -Afghanis/Persians did not go that far south in India (Hindustan?). I think the main areas that they attacked were: the then Punjab province (that included almost 2/3 of today's Pakistan, Indian Punjab, Haryana, Himachal), Sindh and Gujrat.



ps80, my personal view over invasion of india is always negative and i have never praised the action of those rulers invading india. they might have brought wealth with them from india which we know about it, but regarding slavery and bringing women with them is totally new to me. they might have done it, but i havent heard anything until i saw this thread. can you provide a cridble link for this claim? if this was a true event, i am sure we in Khorasan(today Afghanistan) and Persia(today iran) would have heard of it all and passed the stories from generation to generation.


----------



## Imran Khan

now its call propegenda grow up is this make any sence kings sale girls lollllllllllllllllllllllll.


----------



## IBRIS

Ahmad said:


> ps80, my personal view over invasion of india is always negative and i have never praised the action of those rulers invading india. they might have brought wealth with them from india which we know about it, but regarding slavery and bringing women with them is totally new to me. they might have done it, but i havent heard anything until i saw this thread. can you provide a cridble link for this claim? if this was a true event, i am sure we in Khorasan(today Afghanistan) and Persia(today iran) would have heard of it all and passed the stories from generation to generation.



*POST GURU'S PERIOD (1708-1783) *

During the above post Guru period, the Sikhs have had the fortune of having saint-soldier leaders to guide the destinies of the Sikh people. These leaders were spiritually intoxicated and had undeterring faith in God and the teachings of the Gurus. They were ideal examples of the Khalsa, the saint-soldiers created by the tenth Guru. They were the fearless and selfless leaders, who, even during the darkest of the period through which the Sikhs had to pass, continued to fight against the tyrant oppressors and eventually led the Khalsa Panth to such a glory that the Khalsa rolled the invading Mughals and Afghans out of India and became the master of Greater Punjab. The names of these leaders of Khalsa panth are: Banda Singh Bahadur, Bhai Tara singh, Bhai Darbara singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Baba Deep Singh. These were the Sikh leaders who fought for the freedom of faith and dignity, equality and brotherhood of mankind. They placed the honour, respect and freedom of the Khalsa Panth first and foremost always and everytime; the safety welfare and comfort of the men they led came next; their own comfort and safety came last always and everytime. They never fought for their own self-aggrandizement and gains; they always fought for the freedom and honour of the Khalsa Panth. 
We will very briefly discuss the leadership and personality traits of these shining stars of Sikh history. 


*Banda Singh Bahadur (1708-1716) *

Banda singh Bahadur was a great Sikh leader and martyr. He was commissioned by Guru Gobind Singh to be the commander the Khalsa. He was to liberate the country from the tyrannical rule. Even though Banda Singh started with 25 Sikh companions but because he was looked up be the defender of the faith and champion of the oppressed, he was joined by thousands of the Sikhs to punish the tyrant Nawabs and their forces. Banda Singh fought bravely and created such a will in the ordinary masses to resist tyranny that he defeated the Mughal forces in battle after battle and laid the foundation of the Sikh empire. and in 1710 established the Knalsa Raj in the Punjab East of Lahore and he struck the coin in the name of his masters Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh. He abolished the Zimindari system and treated everybody justly and equally. This was the government of the people and for the people. 

Enraged by the successes and popularity of Banda Singh the Mughal emperor ordered the governors of Lahore and Faujdars of Gujrat, Eminabad, Aurangabad, Pasrur, Batala, Patti, Kalanaur and the Hindu Rajas of Katauch and Jasrota to collectively organize themselves and to destroy the power of Banda Bahadur. The Sikhs under Banda Singh fought so daringly and bravely that they inflicted heavy casualties on the imperial forces in various battles, but being greatly outnumbered and besieged for long time, the Sikh enclosure at Gurdas Nangal fell in the hands of the besiegers on 17th December 1715. 

Banda Singh along with 700 Sikhs was captured and taken to Delhi where all the captured Sikhs were brutally put to death publicly over a period of few days. Banda Singh was executed on 9th June 1716. Heart rending details are given regarding the execution of the prisoners After he accepted death out of the usually given choice between Islam and death, his seven year old son Ajai Singh was placed in his lap, and he was asked to kill him, which he refused to do. The boy was taken and dashed against the ground by the executioner, his quivering heart was taken out and thrust into Banda's mouth. After this Banda Singh's hands and feet were cut off one by one, his eyes were removed and rest of his body was then torn to pieces with red hot iron. Thus this man of undaunted valour and bravery met his death with an exemplary cool of mind. It is said that not even one Sikh out of those who were brought as prisoners, deterred from his faith or accepted conversion to Islam. Like their masters, Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Teg Bahadur, they laid their lives for the freedom of faith and dignity of man; they were cast in the image of their Gurus. 

*Jathedar Darbara Singh (1716-1733) *

The period between 1716 to 1733 was the darkest period of the Sikh history The policy of Farrukh Siyar, Abdul Sama and Zakriya Khan was total extinction of Sikhs. The price was laid at the head of Sikhs and the Sikh persecution was to be done most vigorously. But the spiritual message of the Gurus and the stories of the undeterred faith even in the face of tortured deaths, kept their spirits high. Banda Singh had left a lasting mark on the character of the Sikhs. He fanned the fire of independence, ignited by the tenth Guru. They believed that there was no higher cause for a holy man than to destroy the oppressive and tyrant force of the Mughal empire. The Sikhs lived in jungles and deserts under extreme conditions of poverty and helplessness but their spirits were kept high by theit leaders like Tara Singh who with his ill-equipped and half fed men fought like tigers against Zakriya Khan's 4000 strong punitive force under the command of General Moman Khan. Each one of them died fighting a brave man's death but also wrought havoc in the ranks of the enemies. 

The Sikhs all over Punjab burnt with the spirit of revenging the death of Bhai Tara Singh and his companions, organised themselves under the command of Jathedar Darbara Singh, and after passing Gurmata at a gathering at Amritsar, started inflicting casualties on the Mughals and looting the imperial treasury. As the number of Sikhs, who plundered the imperial treasuries and destroyed the Government officials, continued to increase, Zakriya Khan realised his utter futility in annihilating the Sikhs and decided to adopt a policy of conciliation by offering them a Jagir with an annual revenue of one lakh rupees and the title of Nawab for their leader. The policy bore the desired fruit; the Sikhs accepted the Jagir and the title. This happened in 1733. And with this ended the darkest period of the Sikh annals and persecution. 

Though worst persecutions were to follow, but the later period was not potent with destructive factors as after 1733 Sikhs had a strong, capable and unanimously accepted leader. 

*Nawab Kapur Singh (1733-1748) *

Kapur Singh was chosen for the honour of the title of Nawab and Jagir, after Jathedar Darbara Singh had voluntarily declined to accept the title of Nawab and had suggested that Kapur Singh be made the commander of the Khalsa Panth as a whole because he himself had become too old to carry the weight of such a heavy responsibility which demanded an energetic and strong leader. After a great reluctance Kapur Singh humbly accepted the honour on the condition that the Khalsa would permit him to continue serving in the community kitchen and looking after the horses. From that day onwards Kapur Singh became Nawab Kapur Singh. However Nawab Kapur Singh surrendered all the revenue from the Jagir to the Khalsa. 

In 1734 he consolidated the Sikh commonwealth and divided it into two wings; one was named Budha Dal and the other as Taruna Dal. The Budha Da consisted of old Sikhs over forty and was entrusted with the duty of looking afte the Sikh holy places and propagating the Sikh faith. The Taruna Dal, consisting of young Sikhs below the age of forty, was to undertake the defensive and offensive operation for the Sikhs. 

In due course, the strength of the two Dals increased to a large extent. It was felt that Khalsa forces should be reorganised so that it might work in unison for the interest of the Panth. Consequently on Diwali day of 1745 the Khalsa Army was divided into 30 Jathas and the earlier division of Budha Dal an Taruna Dal was suspended. Each of the 3 Jathas had a prominent Sikh warrior a their leader and Nawab Kapur Singh was still the leader of the whole Khalsa forces. While normally Jathas operated under their respective leaders, on occasions of common danger or crisis they all were required to operate under the overall commander of the Khalsa forces. Nawab Kapur Singh continued to be the commander of the Khalsa forces from 1733 to 1748. Sikhs faced severe persecutic under Zakriya Khan and fought many battles against his forces. It was during this time in 1746 that Sikhs suffered heavy losses in Chhota Ghalughara or lesser holocaust which 10,000 to 20,000 Sikhs were martyred. 

It was during the Nawab's Leadership of Khalsa that Punjab was invaded many times by Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali. Nawab Kapur Singh was the most distinguished of the Sikh leaders who paved the way for the greatness of the Sikh Nation as an independent ruling power. He brought large number of people of all castes into the fold of Khalsa Panth. The religious respect in which he was held was so great that initiation into the Pahul of the Guru with his hands was considered a great distinction. He was the most illustrious, brave and dreaded of the sikh Sardars before the days of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia 

He was a great organiser who organised Sikhs into Dal Khalsa and carved out a national glory for them. Above all the greatest service rendered by him to the Khalsa was that although he ruled their destiny in the most effective manner, yet he did not permit its leadership to become personal and hereditary. Lastly his outstanding and wise contribution to the Khalsa was that he left their command into the most capable hands of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and thus paved the way for their further glory and greatness. 

*Jassa Singh Ahluwalia (1748-1783) *

It was at the Panthic gathering at Amritsar on the day of Baisakhi in 1748 that Nawab Kapur Singh proposed an organisation of a strong Panthic force under one supreme commander. As he was growing old he proposed the name of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia who was a younger and more energetic leader to take his place as commander of the Khalsa forces and Jathedar of the Panth. He agreed to place his services at the disposal of the new leader. His suggestion was accepted. The new Panthic organisation was named as Dal Khalsa and Jassa Singh Ahluwalia became its supreme commander and Jathedar of Khalsa Panth. He was to be helped by advisory council of ten Sardars who in turn were to be the head of the Misals. One of the Misals was supposed to be und the supreme commander. The whole of Dal Khalsa was to be divided into 11 Misals (confederacies). There was a 12th Misl also, but as its activities were general aloof and sometimes even opposed to Dal Khalsa, it was not made part of the Khalsa Dal organisation. 

On that day of Baisakhi it was all decided that the aim of the Khalsa was to establish their own state, and therefore the Khalsa was declared a state. The creation of Misals were in fact a step toward formation of a Khalsa state. The Misals were to be free and independent, but on the occasion of combined action in the interest of the Panth as a whole, all the 11 Misals were to operate under the command of the supreme commander. 

Every Amritdhari Sikh was considered to be a member of Dal Khalsa. Each member was permitted to join any Misal according to his choice. Before dispensing, the Dal Khalsa made its plan for future a chalked out the spheres of action for the various groups. It was during the leadership of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia that the Sikhs had to face the persecution by Mir Manu, the governor of Lahore. As a result of merciless persecution started by Mir Manu no men were left in the homes of the Sikhs. 

Sikhs had retired into jungles, hills and deserts. Moving military columns were sent to hunt them down. Those who brought Sikhs alive or dead, were rewarded well. When there were no more Sikhs in the homes, Mir Manu ordered his forces to seize Sikh women and children. He gave them the choice to get converted to Islam or face cruel and inhuman tortures and death. But no woman embraced Islam. They were starved and their children were cut into pieces before their eyes. These pieces were thrown in their laps. Their children were killed and hung on the points of the spears. They themselves were subjected to extreme physical and mental torture. But those brave and faithful daughters of Guru Gobind Singh remained firm, steadfast and unshaken. They endured all these tortures without a groan or curse. They preferred death than a life of apostasy. They kept praying and remained firmly committed to their faith. 

During the Panthic leadership of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the Armies of Islam under Mahmud Ghaznwi, Shahab-ud-Din Ghauri, Taimur, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani invaded Punjab with the purpose of religious war against non-Muslims The great holocaust (Wadda Ghulu Ghara) in which over 20,000 to 30,000 Sikhs were killed also took place during the time of his leadership. 

Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was a man of courage, fortitude and kind qualities of heart. From 1748 onwards he was the supreme commander of the Sikh forces and Jathedar of the Panth. He guided and led them through the most difficult period of history and political chaos to freedom and self-government. He brought the Khalsa to a state of statehood from where it was able to take a jump to establish the Sikh kingdom covering the Greater Punjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh 

Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was brought up under the personal supervision of Nawab Kapur Singh and therefore grew up as a man of spiritual orientation and socio- political commitment of the Khalsa. Once, prompted by a sense of religious duty, he fell upon Ahmad Shah and rescued 2000 Hindu women from his clutches. He provided them with money and sent all of them under proper escort to their respective homes. 

When Jassa Singh Ahluwalia died in 1783, he did not leave behind a supreme commander of Khalsa forces unanimously accepted by the Khalsa Panth. If this had been done, like it was done by Nawab Kapur Singh and Diwan Darbara Singh, the practice of choosing a supreme commander unanimously acceptable to all at a gathering at Amritsar would have become an accepted norm for the Khalsa Panth, and the fall of the Sikh kingdom that followed the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, would not have occured; and the history of Sikhs would have been different. Leadership Evaluation (1708-1783) If we evaluate the personality traits of the supreme leaders of the Khalsa Panth during the post Guru period, we find that each one of these leaders possessed certain common characteristics and traits. These may be summarised as follows: 

1. Each one of these leaders had a strong religious base. They were devout Sikhs in whom Sikh values as preached by the Gurus had been ingrained. All of them were spiritually awakened Amritdhari Sikhs who strictly lived according to the code of conduct of Khalsa and never committed any Kurehat (cardinal sin) or Tankhaia act. 

2. They were ever ready to lay down their lives for upholding the cause of righteousness. They always carried arms and were thoroughly trained in the use of all types of weapons. 

3. The Panthic cause was of paramount importance to them. While fighting for Panthic cause or while fighting against a common enemy of the Khalsa, they always sunk their personal differences. They were neither self-seekers nor fought for their self-aggrandizement. They showed a great humility and concern for the Panth; that is why whenever they found that another leader could fulfill the role of commanding the Khalsa forces with better efficiency, they voluntarily suggested his name and relinquished their position as supreme commanders. After that they whole heartedly supported and cooperated with the new commander of the Khalsa forces and Jathedar of the Panth. 

4. At no time they worked against the interest of the Khalsa Panth They never did anything which would bring dishonour to the Guru, the Sikh people or the Sikh religion. 

5. Though they were the supreme leaders of the Khalsa Panth, yet they had great humility in their spirit and heart. Therefore they always considered themselves as servants of the Khalsa. They never appropriated to themselves the powers and the property of the Khalsa Panth as their personal power or property. 

6. They underwent extreme sufferings for the good of the Khalsa, but never yielded to tyranny and oppression. They showed a great fortitude, valour and courage even under extremely difficult conditions of existence in jungles, hills and deserts. Even under these difficult conditions they never forsook their religion; they kept their Bana (form) and recited the Bani (holy word); they lived like the real saint-soldiers. 

7. The study of the Jathedars of Khalsa Panth in the Post Guru period shows that they emulated the Gurus to a great perfection in managing the religious as well as temporal affairs of the Khalsa Panth. Just to give an instance Baba Banda Singh, following the footsteps of the fifth and ninth Guru attained martyrdom. He did not waver in his faith even when his son was brutally killed in front of his eyes and his throbbing heart was thrust into his mouth. Even when he was cruelly tortured by various methods, he remained firm and accepted death rather than conversion to Islam. It appears that the chief leaders of the Khalsa Panth were made in the image of the Gurus. 

However, it was unfortunate for the Khalsa Panth that Jassa Singh Abluwalia did not leave behind a leader to command the combined forces of the Khalsa and to be the Jathedar of the Panth. Had there been such a leader of the Khalsa Panth, the Sikh Misals could have functioned as confederates of the Khalsa Raj with a central Government under the Jathedar of the Khalsa Panth. The Jathedar could have been assisted by an advisory council constituted of the representatives of confederacies; and if this had happened, the history of the Sikhs would have been entirely different; the fall of Khalsa Raj which came in the middle of 19th century would have been avoided 

If we compare our present day Sikh leaders at the Panthic level we find that neither they are spiritually oriented persons nor do they have merits expected of Panthic leaders. They are neither bothered about the honour of the Sikh Panth nor about the dignity and welfare of the Sikh masses. They are the classical examples of self-seekers running after self-aggrandizement and temporary gains. They don't mind selling civil liberties and freedom of the Sikh people if such a selling would bring them and their family members material gains.
THE UNIQUE SPIRIT OF SIKHSIM


----------



## ps80

History of slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Arab slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Sorry, if is off-topic.


----------



## Ahmad

IBRIS said:


> *POST GURU'S PERIOD (1708-1783) *
> 
> During the above post Guru period, the Sikhs have had the fortune of having saint-soldier leaders to guide the destinies of the Sikh people. These leaders were spiritually intoxicated and had undeterring faith in God and the teachings of the Gurus. They were ideal examples of the Khalsa, the saint-soldiers created by the tenth Guru. They were the fearless and selfless leaders, who, even during the darkest of the period through which the Sikhs had to pass, continued to fight against the tyrant oppressors and eventually led the Khalsa Panth to such a glory that the Khalsa rolled the invading Mughals and Afghans out of India and became the master of Greater Punjab. The names of these leaders of Khalsa panth are: Banda Singh Bahadur, Bhai Tara singh, Bhai Darbara singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Baba Deep Singh. These were the Sikh leaders who fought for the freedom of faith and dignity, equality and brotherhood of mankind. They placed the honour, respect and freedom of the Khalsa Panth first and foremost always and everytime; the safety welfare and comfort of the men they led came next; their own comfort and safety came last always and everytime. They never fought for their own self-aggrandizement and gains; they always fought for the freedom and honour of the Khalsa Panth.
> We will very briefly discuss the leadership and personality traits of these shining stars of Sikh history.
> 
> 
> *Banda Singh Bahadur (1708-1716) *
> 
> Banda singh Bahadur was a great Sikh leader and martyr. He was commissioned by Guru Gobind Singh to be the commander the Khalsa. He was to liberate the country from the tyrannical rule. Even though Banda Singh started with 25 Sikh companions but because he was looked up be the defender of the faith and champion of the oppressed, he was joined by thousands of the Sikhs to punish the tyrant Nawabs and their forces. Banda Singh fought bravely and created such a will in the ordinary masses to resist tyranny that he defeated the Mughal forces in battle after battle and laid the foundation of the Sikh empire. and in 1710 established the Knalsa Raj in the Punjab East of Lahore and he struck the coin in the name of his masters Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh. He abolished the Zimindari system and treated everybody justly and equally. This was the government of the people and for the people.
> 
> Enraged by the successes and popularity of Banda Singh the Mughal emperor ordered the governors of Lahore and Faujdars of Gujrat, Eminabad, Aurangabad, Pasrur, Batala, Patti, Kalanaur and the Hindu Rajas of Katauch and Jasrota to collectively organize themselves and to destroy the power of Banda Bahadur. The Sikhs under Banda Singh fought so daringly and bravely that they inflicted heavy casualties on the imperial forces in various battles, but being greatly outnumbered and besieged for long time, the Sikh enclosure at Gurdas Nangal fell in the hands of the besiegers on 17th December 1715.
> 
> Banda Singh along with 700 Sikhs was captured and taken to Delhi where all the captured Sikhs were brutally put to death publicly over a period of few days. Banda Singh was executed on 9th June 1716. Heart rending details are given regarding the execution of the prisoners After he accepted death out of the usually given choice between Islam and death, his seven year old son Ajai Singh was placed in his lap, and he was asked to kill him, which he refused to do. The boy was taken and dashed against the ground by the executioner, his quivering heart was taken out and thrust into Banda's mouth. After this Banda Singh's hands and feet were cut off one by one, his eyes were removed and rest of his body was then torn to pieces with red hot iron. Thus this man of undaunted valour and bravery met his death with an exemplary cool of mind. It is said that not even one Sikh out of those who were brought as prisoners, deterred from his faith or accepted conversion to Islam. Like their masters, Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Teg Bahadur, they laid their lives for the freedom of faith and dignity of man; they were cast in the image of their Gurus.
> 
> *Jathedar Darbara Singh (1716-1733) *
> 
> The period between 1716 to 1733 was the darkest period of the Sikh history The policy of Farrukh Siyar, Abdul Sama and Zakriya Khan was total extinction of Sikhs. The price was laid at the head of Sikhs and the Sikh persecution was to be done most vigorously. But the spiritual message of the Gurus and the stories of the undeterred faith even in the face of tortured deaths, kept their spirits high. Banda Singh had left a lasting mark on the character of the Sikhs. He fanned the fire of independence, ignited by the tenth Guru. They believed that there was no higher cause for a holy man than to destroy the oppressive and tyrant force of the Mughal empire. The Sikhs lived in jungles and deserts under extreme conditions of poverty and helplessness but their spirits were kept high by theit leaders like Tara Singh who with his ill-equipped and half fed men fought like tigers against Zakriya Khan's 4000 strong punitive force under the command of General Moman Khan. Each one of them died fighting a brave man's death but also wrought havoc in the ranks of the enemies.
> 
> The Sikhs all over Punjab burnt with the spirit of revenging the death of Bhai Tara Singh and his companions, organised themselves under the command of Jathedar Darbara Singh, and after passing Gurmata at a gathering at Amritsar, started inflicting casualties on the Mughals and looting the imperial treasury. As the number of Sikhs, who plundered the imperial treasuries and destroyed the Government officials, continued to increase, Zakriya Khan realised his utter futility in annihilating the Sikhs and decided to adopt a policy of conciliation by offering them a Jagir with an annual revenue of one lakh rupees and the title of Nawab for their leader. The policy bore the desired fruit; the Sikhs accepted the Jagir and the title. This happened in 1733. And with this ended the darkest period of the Sikh annals and persecution.
> 
> Though worst persecutions were to follow, but the later period was not potent with destructive factors as after 1733 Sikhs had a strong, capable and unanimously accepted leader.
> 
> *Nawab Kapur Singh (1733-1748) *
> 
> Kapur Singh was chosen for the honour of the title of Nawab and Jagir, after Jathedar Darbara Singh had voluntarily declined to accept the title of Nawab and had suggested that Kapur Singh be made the commander of the Khalsa Panth as a whole because he himself had become too old to carry the weight of such a heavy responsibility which demanded an energetic and strong leader. After a great reluctance Kapur Singh humbly accepted the honour on the condition that the Khalsa would permit him to continue serving in the community kitchen and looking after the horses. From that day onwards Kapur Singh became Nawab Kapur Singh. However Nawab Kapur Singh surrendered all the revenue from the Jagir to the Khalsa.
> 
> In 1734 he consolidated the Sikh commonwealth and divided it into two wings; one was named Budha Dal and the other as Taruna Dal. The Budha Da consisted of old Sikhs over forty and was entrusted with the duty of looking afte the Sikh holy places and propagating the Sikh faith. The Taruna Dal, consisting of young Sikhs below the age of forty, was to undertake the defensive and offensive operation for the Sikhs.
> 
> In due course, the strength of the two Dals increased to a large extent. It was felt that Khalsa forces should be reorganised so that it might work in unison for the interest of the Panth. Consequently on Diwali day of 1745 the Khalsa Army was divided into 30 Jathas and the earlier division of Budha Dal an Taruna Dal was suspended. Each of the 3 Jathas had a prominent Sikh warrior a their leader and Nawab Kapur Singh was still the leader of the whole Khalsa forces. While normally Jathas operated under their respective leaders, on occasions of common danger or crisis they all were required to operate under the overall commander of the Khalsa forces. Nawab Kapur Singh continued to be the commander of the Khalsa forces from 1733 to 1748. Sikhs faced severe persecutic under Zakriya Khan and fought many battles against his forces. It was during this time in 1746 that Sikhs suffered heavy losses in Chhota Ghalughara or lesser holocaust which 10,000 to 20,000 Sikhs were martyred.
> 
> It was during the Nawab's Leadership of Khalsa that Punjab was invaded many times by Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali. Nawab Kapur Singh was the most distinguished of the Sikh leaders who paved the way for the greatness of the Sikh Nation as an independent ruling power. He brought large number of people of all castes into the fold of Khalsa Panth. The religious respect in which he was held was so great that initiation into the Pahul of the Guru with his hands was considered a great distinction. He was the most illustrious, brave and dreaded of the sikh Sardars before the days of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia
> 
> He was a great organiser who organised Sikhs into Dal Khalsa and carved out a national glory for them. Above all the greatest service rendered by him to the Khalsa was that although he ruled their destiny in the most effective manner, yet he did not permit its leadership to become personal and hereditary. Lastly his outstanding and wise contribution to the Khalsa was that he left their command into the most capable hands of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and thus paved the way for their further glory and greatness.
> 
> *Jassa Singh Ahluwalia (1748-1783) *
> 
> It was at the Panthic gathering at Amritsar on the day of Baisakhi in 1748 that Nawab Kapur Singh proposed an organisation of a strong Panthic force under one supreme commander. As he was growing old he proposed the name of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia who was a younger and more energetic leader to take his place as commander of the Khalsa forces and Jathedar of the Panth. He agreed to place his services at the disposal of the new leader. His suggestion was accepted. The new Panthic organisation was named as Dal Khalsa and Jassa Singh Ahluwalia became its supreme commander and Jathedar of Khalsa Panth. He was to be helped by advisory council of ten Sardars who in turn were to be the head of the Misals. One of the Misals was supposed to be und the supreme commander. The whole of Dal Khalsa was to be divided into 11 Misals (confederacies). There was a 12th Misl also, but as its activities were general aloof and sometimes even opposed to Dal Khalsa, it was not made part of the Khalsa Dal organisation.
> 
> On that day of Baisakhi it was all decided that the aim of the Khalsa was to establish their own state, and therefore the Khalsa was declared a state. The creation of Misals were in fact a step toward formation of a Khalsa state. The Misals were to be free and independent, but on the occasion of combined action in the interest of the Panth as a whole, all the 11 Misals were to operate under the command of the supreme commander.
> 
> Every Amritdhari Sikh was considered to be a member of Dal Khalsa. Each member was permitted to join any Misal according to his choice. Before dispensing, the Dal Khalsa made its plan for future a chalked out the spheres of action for the various groups. It was during the leadership of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia that the Sikhs had to face the persecution by Mir Manu, the governor of Lahore. As a result of merciless persecution started by Mir Manu no men were left in the homes of the Sikhs.
> 
> Sikhs had retired into jungles, hills and deserts. Moving military columns were sent to hunt them down. Those who brought Sikhs alive or dead, were rewarded well. When there were no more Sikhs in the homes, Mir Manu ordered his forces to seize Sikh women and children. He gave them the choice to get converted to Islam or face cruel and inhuman tortures and death. But no woman embraced Islam. They were starved and their children were cut into pieces before their eyes. These pieces were thrown in their laps. Their children were killed and hung on the points of the spears. They themselves were subjected to extreme physical and mental torture. But those brave and faithful daughters of Guru Gobind Singh remained firm, steadfast and unshaken. They endured all these tortures without a groan or curse. They preferred death than a life of apostasy. They kept praying and remained firmly committed to their faith.
> 
> During the Panthic leadership of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the Armies of Islam under Mahmud Ghaznwi, Shahab-ud-Din Ghauri, Taimur, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani invaded Punjab with the purpose of religious war against non-Muslims The great holocaust (Wadda Ghulu Ghara) in which over 20,000 to 30,000 Sikhs were killed also took place during the time of his leadership.
> 
> Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was a man of courage, fortitude and kind qualities of heart. From 1748 onwards he was the supreme commander of the Sikh forces and Jathedar of the Panth. He guided and led them through the most difficult period of history and political chaos to freedom and self-government. He brought the Khalsa to a state of statehood from where it was able to take a jump to establish the Sikh kingdom covering the Greater Punjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh
> 
> Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was brought up under the personal supervision of Nawab Kapur Singh and therefore grew up as a man of spiritual orientation and socio- political commitment of the Khalsa. Once, prompted by a sense of religious duty, he fell upon Ahmad Shah and rescued 2000 Hindu women from his clutches. He provided them with money and sent all of them under proper escort to their respective homes.
> 
> When Jassa Singh Ahluwalia died in 1783, he did not leave behind a supreme commander of Khalsa forces unanimously accepted by the Khalsa Panth. If this had been done, like it was done by Nawab Kapur Singh and Diwan Darbara Singh, the practice of choosing a supreme commander unanimously acceptable to all at a gathering at Amritsar would have become an accepted norm for the Khalsa Panth, and the fall of the Sikh kingdom that followed the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, would not have occured; and the history of Sikhs would have been different. Leadership Evaluation (1708-1783) If we evaluate the personality traits of the supreme leaders of the Khalsa Panth during the post Guru period, we find that each one of these leaders possessed certain common characteristics and traits. These may be summarised as follows:
> 
> 1. Each one of these leaders had a strong religious base. They were devout Sikhs in whom Sikh values as preached by the Gurus had been ingrained. All of them were spiritually awakened Amritdhari Sikhs who strictly lived according to the code of conduct of Khalsa and never committed any Kurehat (cardinal sin) or Tankhaia act.
> 
> 2. They were ever ready to lay down their lives for upholding the cause of righteousness. They always carried arms and were thoroughly trained in the use of all types of weapons.
> 
> 3. The Panthic cause was of paramount importance to them. While fighting for Panthic cause or while fighting against a common enemy of the Khalsa, they always sunk their personal differences. They were neither self-seekers nor fought for their self-aggrandizement. They showed a great humility and concern for the Panth; that is why whenever they found that another leader could fulfill the role of commanding the Khalsa forces with better efficiency, they voluntarily suggested his name and relinquished their position as supreme commanders. After that they whole heartedly supported and cooperated with the new commander of the Khalsa forces and Jathedar of the Panth.
> 
> 4. At no time they worked against the interest of the Khalsa Panth They never did anything which would bring dishonour to the Guru, the Sikh people or the Sikh religion.
> 
> 5. Though they were the supreme leaders of the Khalsa Panth, yet they had great humility in their spirit and heart. Therefore they always considered themselves as servants of the Khalsa. They never appropriated to themselves the powers and the property of the Khalsa Panth as their personal power or property.
> 
> 6. They underwent extreme sufferings for the good of the Khalsa, but never yielded to tyranny and oppression. They showed a great fortitude, valour and courage even under extremely difficult conditions of existence in jungles, hills and deserts. Even under these difficult conditions they never forsook their religion; they kept their Bana (form) and recited the Bani (holy word); they lived like the real saint-soldiers.
> 
> 7. The study of the Jathedars of Khalsa Panth in the Post Guru period shows that they emulated the Gurus to a great perfection in managing the religious as well as temporal affairs of the Khalsa Panth. Just to give an instance Baba Banda Singh, following the footsteps of the fifth and ninth Guru attained martyrdom. He did not waver in his faith even when his son was brutally killed in front of his eyes and his throbbing heart was thrust into his mouth. Even when he was cruelly tortured by various methods, he remained firm and accepted death rather than conversion to Islam. It appears that the chief leaders of the Khalsa Panth were made in the image of the Gurus.
> 
> However, it was unfortunate for the Khalsa Panth that Jassa Singh Abluwalia did not leave behind a leader to command the combined forces of the Khalsa and to be the Jathedar of the Panth. Had there been such a leader of the Khalsa Panth, the Sikh Misals could have functioned as confederates of the Khalsa Raj with a central Government under the Jathedar of the Khalsa Panth. The Jathedar could have been assisted by an advisory council constituted of the representatives of confederacies; and if this had happened, the history of the Sikhs would have been entirely different; the fall of Khalsa Raj which came in the middle of 19th century would have been avoided
> 
> If we compare our present day Sikh leaders at the Panthic level we find that neither they are spiritually oriented persons nor do they have merits expected of Panthic leaders. They are neither bothered about the honour of the Sikh Panth nor about the dignity and welfare of the Sikh masses. They are the classical examples of self-seekers running after self-aggrandizement and temporary gains. They don't mind selling civil liberties and freedom of the Sikh people if such a selling would bring them and their family members material gains.
> THE UNIQUE SPIRIT OF SIKHSIM



Dear IBRIS, This is not what i was asking for. My question was about the slavery of women by the hands of our ancestors. I am asking this for the sake of clarification, not because i am taking their side on what they MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE. If they have done that(taking women hostages and slaves) then they have done it and i am not taking their side. But if they havent done it, then it is not right to make something up. And i want an authentic, reliable and not one sided proof for that.

thanks


----------



## ps80

Ahmad said:


> Dear IBRIS, This is not what i was asking for. My question was about the slavery of women by the hands of our ancestors. I am asking this for the sake of clarification, not because i am taking their side on what they MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE. If they have done that(taking women hostages and slaves) then they have done it and i am not taking their side. But if they havent done it, then it is not right to make something up. *And i want an authentic, reliable and not one sided proof for that*.
> 
> thanks



We often fight over the credibility of sources for the Indo-Pak wars. Can there be anything that is 100&#37; authentic, reliable and not one-sided?

Slavery in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ahmad

ps80 said:


> We often fight over the credibility of sources for the Indo-Pak wars. Can there be anything that is 100% authentic, reliable and not one-sided?
> 
> Slavery in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



if not 100% then authentic to an acceptable degree. thanks for the wiki, i could easily google it myself.

let me repeat it again, i am asking this for the sake of clarification and nothing else, because it is the first time i am hearing such a thing and different people got different ideas regarding this issue in this thread.


----------



## IBRIS

Ahmad said:


> Dear IBRIS, This is not what i was asking for. My question was about the slavery of women by the hands of our ancestors. I am asking this for the sake of clarification, not because i am taking their side on what they MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE. If they have done that(taking women hostages and slaves) then they have done it and i am not taking their side. But if they havent done it, then it is not right to make something up. And i want an authentic, reliable and not one sided proof for that.
> 
> thanks



Thanks Ahmad, 
I'm sure you are well aware of a common joks about Sikh's "Sardarji Barah Bajj gaye", by most of hindu youths who had never gave a second thought about what did it really ment. We Sikhs instead of showing anger are so enigmatic that it seemed some type of truth lies behind it. Truth is whenever some young mischievous type of person thinks he's teasing us we return the favour with a smile which makes them think why is this Sikh not getting mad. We Sikh's reply 'he was not teasing me but was asking for my Help'.

During 17th Century when Hindustan was ruled by Mughals all the people were humiliated and were treated like animal. Mughals treated the Hindu women as there own property and were forcing all Hindus to accept Islam and even used to kill the people if they were refusing to accept.

That time our Ninth Guru Sri Guru Teg Bhadarji who came forward, in request of some Kashmir Pandits to fight against all these cruel activities. Guruji told the Mughal emperor if he could succeed in converting him to Islam all the Hindus would accept the same but if he failed, he should stop all those activities . The Mughal emperor happily agreed to that but even after lots of torture to Guruji and his fellow members he failed to convert him to Islam and Guruji along with his other four fellow members who were also tortured for the same sacrificed their lives in Chandni Chowk. Since the Mughals were unable to convert them to Islam they were assassinated. Tthus Guruji sacrificed his life for Protection of Hindu religion. Can anybody lay his life that too for protection of some other religion. This is the reason he is still remembered has Hind Ki Chaddar . For sake of whom he had sacrificed his life, none of the them came forward to lift his body with a fear that they would also be assassinated .

Seeing this incident our 10th Guruji, Sri Guru Gobind Singhji (Son of Guru Teg Bahadarji) made a resolution that he would make such a human who would not be able to hide himself and could be easily located in thousands, THE SIKH. 


At the start Sikhs were very less in numbers even though they were fighting against the Mughals emperors. At that time Nadir Shah raided Delhi in the year 1739 and looted Hindustan and was carrying lot of Hindustan treasures and nearly 2200 Hindu women along with him. The news spread like a fire and was heard by Sardar Jassa Singh who was the Commander of the Sikh army at that time . He decided to attack Nadir Shah's Khafila on the same midnight. He did so and rescued all the Hindu women and they were safely sent to their homes. It didn't happen only once but thereafter whenever any Abdaalis or Iranis had looted Hindustan and were trying to carry out treasures and Hindu women along with them for selling them in Abdal markets, the Sikh army quite few in numbers but were bravehearted attacked them in the midnight,12 O'clock and rescued women.

After that time when there occurred a similar incidence people started to contact the Sikh army for their help and Sikhs used to attack the raider's at Midnight, 12 O'clock. It continued and became a fame that at midnight nearly at 12 O'clock it is very difficult to fight against Sikhs as the Sikhs get some Extra Power to save Religion, Nation and Humanity. Nobody can fight and win against them at midnight, this continues till now. Nowadays these smart people and some Sikh enemies who are afraid of Sikhs, have spread these words that at 12 O'clock the Sikhs goe out of their sense. 

This historic fact was the reason which make us smile over that person as I thought that his Mother or Sister would be in trouble and wants my help which he was unable to provide and may be he was reminding me by saying off 'Sardarji Barah Baj Gaye'

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ps80

Ahmad said:


> if not 100% then authentic to an acceptable degree. thanks for the wiki, i could easily google it myself.
> 
> let me repeat it again, i am asking this for the sake of clarification and nothing else, because it is the first time i am hearing such a thing and different people got different ideas regarding this issue in this thread.



There are some references at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles that I posted. 

I will see if I can find something 'reliable' for you.

Just because you haven't heard about these things doesn't mean that they did not happen. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mirza Jatt

IBRIS said:


> Thanks Ahmad,
> I'm sure you are well aware of a common joks about Sikh's "Sardarji Barah Bajj gaye", by most of hindu youths who had never gave a second thought about what did it really ment. We Sikhs instead of showing anger are so enigmatic that it seemed some type of truth lies behind it. Truth is whenever some young mischievous type of person thinks he's teasing us we return the favour with a smile which makes them think why is this Sikh not getting mad. We Sikh's reply 'he was not teasing me but was asking for my Help'.
> 
> During 17th Century when Hindustan was ruled by Mughals all the people were humiliated and were treated like animal. Mughals treated the Hindu women as there own property and were forcing all Hindus to accept Islam and even used to kill the people if they were refusing to accept.
> 
> That time our Ninth Guru Sri Guru Teg Bhadarji who came forward, in request of some Kashmir Pandits to fight against all these cruel activities. Guruji told the Mughal emperor if he could succeed in converting him to Islam all the Hindus would accept the same but if he failed, he should stop all those activities . The Mughal emperor happily agreed to that but even after lots of torture to Guruji and his fellow members he failed to convert him to Islam and Guruji along with his other four fellow members who were also tortured for the same sacrificed their lives in Chandni Chowk. Since the Mughals were unable to convert them to Islam they were assassinated. Tthus Guruji sacrificed his life for Protection of Hindu religion. Can anybody lay his life that too for protection of some other religion. This is the reason he is still remembered has Hind Ki Chaddar . For sake of whom he had sacrificed his life, none of the them came forward to lift his body with a fear that they would also be assassinated .
> 
> Seeing this incident our 10th Guruji, Sri Guru Gobind Singhji (Son of Guru Teg Bahadarji) made a resolution that he would make such a human who would not be able to hide himself and could be easily located in thousands, THE SIKH.
> 
> 
> At the start Sikhs were very less in numbers even though they were fighting against the Mughals emperors. At that time Nadir Shah raided Delhi in the year 1739 and looted Hindustan and was carrying lot of Hindustan treasures and nearly 2200 Hindu women along with him. The news spread like a fire and was heard by Sardar Jassa Singh who was the Commander of the Sikh army at that time . He decided to attack Nadir Shah's Khafila on the same midnight. He did so and rescued all the Hindu women and they were safely sent to their homes. It didn't happen only once but thereafter whenever any Abdaalis or Iranis had looted Hindustan and were trying to carry out treasures and Hindu women along with them for selling them in Abdal markets, the Sikh army quite few in numbers but were bravehearted attacked them in the midnight,12 O'clock and rescued women.
> 
> After that time when there occurred a similar incidence people started to contact the Sikh army for their help and Sikhs used to attack the raider's at Midnight, 12 O'clock. It continued and became a fame that at midnight nearly at 12 O'clock it is very difficult to fight against Sikhs as the Sikhs get some Extra Power to save Religion, Nation and Humanity. Nobody can fight and win against them at midnight, this continues till now. Nowadays these smart people and some Sikh enemies who are afraid of Sikhs, have spread these words that at 12 O'clock the Sikhs goe out of their sense.
> 
> This historic fact was the reason which make us smile over that person as I thought that his Mother or Sister would be in trouble and wants my help which he was unable to provide and may be he was reminding me by saying off 'Sardarji Barah Baj Gaye'



You are absoloutely right brother.Actually unfortunately very very few people are aware of this.and I wasnt expecting anyone in this forum to know this fact apart from me,but am glad I was wrong.


----------



## Ahmad

ps80 said:


> Just because you haven't heard about these things doesn't mean that they did not happen.
> 
> Cheers!



Thats true. And i never denied that they were or were not involved in such an act. I just wanted to know what the truth was.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Ahmad said:


> ps80, my personal view over invasion of india is always negative and i have never praised the action of those rulers invading india. they might have brought wealth with them from india which we know about it, but regarding slavery and bringing women with them is totally new to me. they might have done it, but i havent heard anything until i saw this thread. can you provide a cridble link for this claim? if this was a true event, i am sure we in Khorasan(today Afghanistan) and Persia(today iran) would have heard of it all and passed the stories from generation to generation.



It is stories we hear that Hindu women were abducted and sikhs save them. Nothing to prove right or wrong... i don't know.. i believe it because it is stories passed generation to generation.. but we cant prove.. and this is only what happen at that time.. Sikh people do not hate Afghanis of today.. what you do depends on different kinds of people.. some are good some are bad.. otherwise as a whole we respect Afghani people.. u are good fighters.. like pathans.. and others also.. have lot of respect for Ahmad Shah Massoud.. Sher-e-Panjshir..



jinxeD_girl said:


> Sorry, no offence... but why would anyone wanna take hindu women and sell them to arab markets ? which part of India those 2000 women came from? Just curious..



i see you obsessed with fair and beautiful syndrome.. like lot of other people from subcontinent... its funny it reminds of these lines..

ik din lok majnu nu khende... ki teri laila rang di kaali.. ho majnu ne agon jhatt fermaya.. tuhadi akh na vekhan wali... ho chandriyan akhiyan naal kitey vekho... tuhadi surat na jaye sambhali... naal manzoor miyan jithay akh ladhgi... fir ki gori ki kaali!!!


----------



## khanz

Xtremeownage said:


> Absolutely disgusting comment! We want nothing to do with Sikh culture, religion, and tyranny! They killed millions of our brothers and sisters, and we won't forget the fact that the religion's origins are based off of opposition to Islam and the Muslims!
> 
> Take shame, why do you insult those who came before you like this! You lack honour and dignity! Read some Allama Iqbal and wake up!
> 
> 
> 
> What fallacious statements and absolute lies!
> 
> The Afghans did no such thing! On the contrary it was the Sikhs who forcefully converted low-class Hindus and raped them! The Sikhs originated as a people that stole from rich Muslim caravans, and the Mughals had to put an end to their tyranny!
> 
> The Afghans were honourable people, and the Durrani empire only suffered losses because of the war against the Persians! And the Muslims of Punjab sided with the great Afghans of that time, against the tyrannical Sikhs!
> 
> No true Muslim would support the Sikhs, you may have had a few traitors, but those were only a handful! There are many Sikhs which oppose India and hate the country, but the majority of Sikhs aren't like that!
> 
> Sikhism is the only religion which originated as an opposition to Islam and the Muslims! They persecuted and killed many Muslims and destroyed many Mosques!
> 
> Badshahi Masjid is a very holy place and a landmark of Lahore, the Sikhs made it a stable and used it to insult the Muslims and Islam!
> 
> Sikhism is based off of hatred, and the darkest period of history of Punjab belongs to those few decades of the Sikh kingdom! Ranjit Singh was a mass-murderer and killer!
> 
> The Muslim's freed India and gave tolerance and rights to the subcontinent! While the Sikhs did nothing but loot, kill, and rape low-class Hindus (and most Sikhs are descendants of these Hindus)!



ughh.......I don't wanna take sides but the afghans did raid punjab and you know that the afghans(not all afghan just the afghan pashtuns really) HATE pakistanis and they espcially despise pakistani punjabis and you do know that they also destroyed the holiest site in sikhism the golden temple right ?


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

khanz said:


> ughh.......I don't wanna take sides but the afghans did raid punjab and you know that the afghans(afghan pashtuns anyway) HATE pakistanis and they espcially despise pakistani punjabis and you do know that they also destroyed the holiest site in sikhism the golden temple right ?



Yes, and that is what started the main Sikh war against the Afghanis.. and brought Abdali's downfall in Punjab.. Jahan Khan.. Abdali's main general was killed by Sardar Dayal Singh in battle and it was final nail in coffin of Afghanis in Punjab.. after that Afghanis went on defensive and lost most areas like Peshawar and tribal belt.. infact many people try to destroy Golden Temple but all fell to same fate... be it the Abdali kingdom or Indira Gandhi sending the Indian army... Golden temple is one place which is used to seeing much bloodshed but Sikhs have always got revenge for it..


----------



## khanz

well this thread was to help pakistanis relate to ranjit singh no need to fight all the time......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanz

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Yes, and that is what started the main Sikh war against the Afghanis.. and brought Abdali's downfall in Punjab.. Jahan Khan.. Abdali's main general was killed by Sardar Dayal Singh in battle and it was final nail in coffin of Afghanis in Punjab.. after that Afghanis went on defensive and lost most areas like Peshawar and tribal belt.. infact many people try to destroy Golden Temple but all fell to same fate... be it the Abdali kingdom or Indira Gandhi sending the Indian army... Golden temple is one place which is used to seeing much bloodshed but Sikhs have always got revenge for it..



fair enough........anyway lets back on topic i never really a positive nor negative opinion of ranjit singh seems like an interesting character this article has made him more intriguing coming from a pakistani source.


----------



## Ahmad

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Sikh people do not hate Afghanis of today.. what you do depends on different kinds of people.. some are good some are bad.. otherwise as a whole we respect Afghani people.. u are good fighters.. like pathans.. and others also.. have lot of respect for Ahmad Shah Massoud.. Sher-e-Panjshir..



Relation between afghanistan and india is great and trust is good. I only wanted to have some evidence of what was said and thats it. My second point was that some people dont have enough knowledge of afghanistan's history and they think this present afghanistan and its name have been there forever although its name is pretty new and it had a different name and shape in the past.

thanks.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> i see you obsessed with fair and beautiful syndrome.. like lot of other people from subcontinent... its funny it reminds of these lines..



lol! No!.. But if I understand the argument correctly.. Afghan/Persians kidnapped Hindu women from Sindh and Punjab and sold them to Arab markets? Now why would Persians sold them to Arabs? Arabs and Persians don't get along..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

ps80 said:


> -Why bring 'skin factor' into this discussion? Anyway, for your kind information, not all Indians are dark skinned (particularly, north Indians are not very dark), and not all Arabs are fair skinned (however, for the sake of comparison, their skin color is very fair compared to their SE asians counterparts).
> -Sex slavery was predominant in the then Persia/Afghanistan area.
> -Afghanis/Persians did not go that far south in India (Hindustan?). I think the main areas that they attacked were: *the then Punjab province **(that included almost 2/3 of today's Pakistan,* Indian Punjab, Haryana, Himachal), Sindh and Gujrat.



Punjab province is not 2/3rd of Pakistan area wise.. it only makes 25% of Pakistan areawise..


----------



## Omar1984

jinxeD_girl said:


> lol! No!.. But if I understand the argument correctly.. Afghan/Persians kidnapped Hindu women from Sindh and Punjab and sold them to Arab markets? Now why would Persians sold them to Arabs? Arabs and Persians don't get along..



Indians always make propaganda against anything that has to do with the history of modern day Pakistan.

For us Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors were heros who brought Islam, culture, art, architecture, clothing, literature, and cuisine to our land but for indians they were criminals.

Today, we named our missiles after the Muslim emperors and our famous port in Karachi after Muhammad Bin Qasim who brought Islam to our land.

May Allah grant paradise to all the Muslims who ever came to modern day Pakistan hundreds/thousand years ago. Without them there would be no Pakistan today.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Omar1984 said:


> For us Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors were heros who brought Islam, culture, art, architecture, clothing, literature, and cuisine to our land but for indians they were criminals.



Sorry but Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors are not my heroes... they did alot of damage to indigenous culture of India at that time..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

khanz said:


> ughh.......I don't wanna take sides but the afghans did raid punjab and you know that the afghans(not all afghan just the afghan pashtuns really) HATE pakistanis and they espcially despise pakistani punjabis and you do know that they also destroyed the holiest site in sikhism the golden temple right ?



I don't want to take sides either... but as a person who is mostly Punjabi and talking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. Pakistani Punjabis should remain neutral towards Sikhs and Afghan Pushtuns.

If Afghan Pushtuns are anti-Punjabis (anti Pakistani Punjabis to be specific), so are Indian Sikhs.. Actually, I have never seen people who are as much against Islam as Indian Sikhs  Go to their chatrooms or forums soemtime and see the hatred they spew against Muslims and specially Pakistani Punjabis.. Names like "Sulla Sulli" <--- I don't know what the heck that means...

During partition, some of our distant family members were in Amritsar... and the women barely escaped the rapist attacks carried out by Sikhs  It will take few more generations before the hatred starts to fade away..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Actually the largest number of Punjabi Muslim women were raped by Sikhs and not by Afghans.. if we look at the recent history (i.e. partition of 1947)..... 

Sorry I had to vent out the anger!


----------



## indian_musing

Omar1984 said:


> Indians always make propaganda against anything that has to do with the history of modern day Pakistan.
> 
> For us Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors were heros who brought Islam, culture, art, architecture, clothing, literature, and cuisine to our land but for indians they were criminals.
> 
> Today, we named our missiles after the Muslim emperors and our famous port in Karachi after Muhammad Bin Qasim who brought Islam to our land.
> 
> May Allah grant paradise to all the Muslims who ever came to modern day Pakistan hundreds/thousand years ago. Without them there would be no Pakistan today.



From your logic, Europeans also attacked present day pakistan and brought lot of things. One is english you are using now.

Please name some of important things in pakistan on british/european names?

What a pathetic thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> I don't want to take sides either... but as a person who is mostly Punjabi and talking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. Pakistani Punjabis should remain neutral towards Sikhs and Afghan Pushtuns.
> 
> If Afghan Pushtuns are anti-Punjabis (anti Pakistani Punjabis to be specific), so are Indian Sikhs.. Actually, I have never seen people who are as much against Islam as Indian Sikhs  Go to their chatrooms or forums soemtime and see the hatred they spew against Muslims and specially Pakistani Punjabis.. Names like "Sulla Sulli" <--- I don't know what the heck that means...
> 
> During partition, some of our distant family members were in Amritsar... and the women barely escaped the rapist attacks carried out by Sikhs  It will take few more generations before the hatred starts to fade away..



It happened both ways Jinxy. Rapes of women, killings of innocent men and children. Trains filled with bodies criss-crossed each other into India and Pakistan in an atmosphere filled with hate and violence. From what I have read, the violence was often started by the refugees as they came into villages and wanted to avenge the loss of their homes and dear ones.

But I guess we gotta carry on. In India you cant afford to carry hatred inside you for long as quite often you have people of different faiths around you. I have read a number of books on partition including Khushwant Singh's A Train to Pakistan. It does curdle your blood and makes you emotional but one does see the folly of it all after sometime. I have had Punjabi Muslim classmates and colleagues in India and I never felt any kind of negative feeling about them ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mirza Jatt

jinxeD_girl said:


> I don't want to take sides either... but as a person who is mostly Punjabi and talking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. Pakistani Punjabis should remain neutral towards Sikhs and Afghan Pushtuns.
> 
> If Afghan Pushtuns are anti-Punjabis (anti Pakistani Punjabis to be specific), so are Indian Sikhs.. Actually, I have never seen people who are as much against Islam as Indian Sikhs  Go to their chatrooms or forums soemtime and see the hatred they spew against Muslims and specially Pakistani Punjabis.. Names like "Sulla Sulli" <--- I don't know what the heck that means...
> 
> During partition, some of our distant family members were in Amritsar... and the women barely escaped the rapist attacks carried out by Sikhs  It will take few more generations before the hatred starts to fade away..



I don't find it correct,though to be honest I don't disagree with you totally as well...Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs and the atrocities on them by the muslim rulers..but still I can say this for sure they are very few in number...and as far as Pakistani Punjabis are concerned,let me tell you I have hundred of friends and people who are Punjabi muslims.there have been never any kind of haterd among them.And as far as rapes by Sikhs are concerned..it was two sided and mostly as a revenge for the act started on the other side.


----------



## RobbieS

> Indian Jatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it correct,though to be honest I don't disagree with you totally as well...Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs and the atrocities on them by the muslim rulers
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but still I can say this for sure they are very few in number...and as far as Pakistani Punjabis are concerned,let me tell you I have hundred of friends and people who are Punjabi muslims.there have been never any kind of haterd among them.And as far as rapes by Sikhs are concerned..it was two sided and mostly as a revenge for the act started on the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Veer, you kind of contradicted yourself in your above two posts. I dont think there can be any justification for hate towards an individual based on what happened in the past.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mirza Jatt

RobbieS said:


> ..
> 
> 
> 
> Veer, you kind of contradicted yourself in your above two posts. I dont think there can be any justification for hate towards an individual based on what happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> veerey I was talking about Punjabi muslim with whom we live in so much of peace and harmony but still there are few pople who just remember the past and hate the muslims,though they forget that there were few Muslims as well who helped sikhs.
> Sry veerey je tennu meri koi gal galt lagi ta,par main ta bas ohi keha je main feel karda ya.
Click to expand...


----------



## Omar1984

jinxeD_girl said:


> Sorry but Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors are not my heroes... they did alot of damage to indigenous culture of India at that time..



Culture of India is not as important as Islam is.

Be thankful that Muhammad Bin Qasim came to our region and introduced Islam to our ancestors. If it wasn't for him, either you would be doing pooja in some hindu temple and worshipping ganesha statues or you would've been a Buddhist.


----------



## Omar1984

Indian Jatt said:


> I don't find it correct,though to be honest I don't disagree with you totally as well...Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs and the atrocities on them by the muslim rulers..but still I can say this for sure they are very few in number...and as far as Pakistani Punjabis are concerned,let me tell you I have hundred of friends and people who are Punjabi muslims.there have been never any kind of haterd among them. And as far as rapes by Sikhs are concerned..it was two sided and mostly as a revenge for the act started on the other side.



Thats what Indians say. We Pakistanis say Sikhs and Hindus started first and we Muslims then took revenge.

Partition plan of Punjab angered Sikhs and Hindus way more than it did Muslims so dont try to bring your nonsense theories in this forum.

Remember Master Tara Singh. It was Sikhs and Hindus who first started the massacre and then Muslims retaliated.

We were more than happy that Partition was going to happen and we were getting our Pak Sar Zameen.


----------



## RobbieS

Omar1984 said:


> Culture of India is not as important as Islam is.
> 
> Be thankful that Muhammad Bin Qasim came to our region and introduced Islam to our ancestors. If it wasn't for him, either you would be doing pooja in some hindu temple and worshipping ganesha statues or you would've been a Buddhist.



You know what Omar, and may be I shouldn't say it, but your statements above are just what sometimes makes non-Muslims in the subcontinent stereotype Muslims as intolerant and rigid. And this is also what leads right wing fundamentalist in India to label Muslims in India as foreigners and alien to the country. In a way you are strengthening the argument of the very same people that you probably hate, the right wing fundamentalists, the VHP, RSS and their likes. You are also strengthening the commonly held misconception that Islam spread in the subcontinent by the sword and forceful coercion rather than by choice. 

I just can't understand why you fail to see these Arabs and Afghans as invaders first and Muslims later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Omar1984 said:


> Thats what Indians say. We Pakistanis say Sikhs and Hindus started first and we Muslims then took revenge.
> 
> Partition plan of Punjab angered Sikhs and Hindus way more than it did Muslims so dont try to bring your nonsense theories in this forum.
> 
> Remember Master Tara Singh. It was Sikhs and Hindus who first started the massacre and then Muslims retaliated.
> 
> We were more than happy that Partition was going to happen and we were getting our Pak Sar Zameen.



ye my friends its true that partition plan of Punjab angered we sikhs,but does that in anyway prove that Sikhs started the massacre?? And when you talk about Tara Singh..sorry boss..first get your facts corrected then call any post to be nonsense...there were immoral practices taking place inJanam Asthan Gurdwara in Nankana Sahib,so when sikhs went there to take the possesion of the Gurudwara..thy were attcked by the Pathans already present inside the gurudwara with their guns...sorry my friend..i did not want to discuss these things...it was just to reply to jinxd girl that how the killings took place both the side cuz she was claiming that sikhs raped the innocent women,without telling the reason behind it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Indian Jatt said:


> RobbieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> veerey I was talking about Punjabi muslim with whom we live in so much of peace and harmony but still there are few pople who just remember the past and hate the muslims,though they forget that there were few Muslims as well who helped sikhs.
> Sry veerey je tennu meri koi gal galt lagi ta,par main ta bas ohi keha je main feel karda ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koi gall nahin chote veer. I appreciate your honesty. Its all fine.
Click to expand...


----------



## notsuperstitious

Omar1984 said:


> Culture of India is not as important as Islam is.
> 
> Be thankful that Muhammad Bin Qasim came to our region and introduced Islam to our ancestors. If it wasn't for him, either you would be doing pooja in some hindu temple and worshipping ganesha statues or you would've been a Buddhist.



So essentially your argument is - 'What happened in favor of Islam is RIGHT because Islam is RIGHT' - a supremacist argument and not a merit based one.

We are glad the intolerant supremacists found their heaven too.


----------



## Xtremeownage

RobbieS said:


> It happened both ways Jinxy. Rapes of women, killings of innocent men and children. Trains filled with bodies criss-crossed each other into India and Pakistan in an atmosphere filled with hate and violence. From what I have read, the violence was often started by the refugees as they came into villages and wanted to avenge the loss of their homes and dear ones.
> 
> But I guess we gotta carry on. In India you cant afford to carry hatred inside you for long as quite often you have people of different faiths around you. I have read a number of books on partition including Khushwant Singh's A Train to Pakistan. It does curdle your blood and makes you emotional but one does see the folly of it all after sometime. I have had Punjabi Muslim classmates and colleagues in India and I never felt any kind of negative feeling about them ever.



This is false, Muslims were the victims during the partition. Indian propaganda tries to justify the acts of brutality and violence against us Muslims, but they are fallacious and wrong! Sikhs and Hindus did those terrible and heinous acts, not Muslims. We fought for our independance through love and peace. Trains headed toward India were never touched, but the trains that made it to Pakistan was full of bodies of our innocent brothers and sisters. Do not make up such lies. I am well aware of Indian propaganda and it's deceptive nature!


----------



## Prometheus

Xtremeownage said:


> This is false, Muslims were the victims during the partition. Indian propaganda tries to justify the acts of brutality and violence against us Muslims, but they are fallacious and wrong! Sikhs and Hindus did those terrible and heinous acts, not Muslims. We fought for our independance through love and peace. Trains headed toward India were never touched, but the trains that made it to Pakistan was full of bodies of our innocent brothers and sisters. Do not make up such lies. I am well aware of Indian propaganda and it's deceptive nature!




plz search Milkha singh (aka Flying sikh)and find what happened to his parents during partition.


----------



## RobbieS

Xtremeownage said:


> This is false, Muslims were the victims during the partition. Indian propaganda tries to justify the acts of brutality and violence against us Muslims, but they are fallacious and wrong! Sikhs and Hindus did those terrible and heinous acts, not Muslims. We fought for our independance through love and peace. Trains headed toward India were never touched, but the trains that made it to Pakistan was full of bodies of our innocent brothers and sisters. Do not make up such lies. I am well aware of Indian propaganda and it's deceptive nature!




You are kidding yourself if you think that one side was all holy and the other was causing the carnage.

Show me independent sources and references that say that it was started by Hindus and Sikhs and I believe all that you had to say above.


----------



## khanz

jinxeD_girl said:


> I don't want to take sides either... but as a person who is mostly Punjabi and talking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. Pakistani Punjabis should remain neutral towards Sikhs and Afghan Pushtuns.
> 
> If Afghan Pushtuns are anti-Punjabis (anti Pakistani Punjabis to be specific), so are Indian Sikhs.. Actually, I have never seen people who are as much against Islam as Indian Sikhs  Go to their chatrooms or forums soemtime and see the hatred they spew against Muslims and specially Pakistani Punjabis.. Names like "Sulla Sulli" <--- I don't know what the heck that means...
> 
> During partition, some of our distant family members were in Amritsar... and the women barely escaped the rapist attacks carried out by Sikhs  It will take few more generations before the hatred starts to fade away..



it's a derogatory term for muslim


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> lol! No!.. But if I understand the argument correctly.. Afghan/Persians kidnapped Hindu women from Sindh and Punjab and sold them to Arab markets? Now why would Persians sold them to Arabs? Arabs and Persians don't get along..



naiii yaar... i dont know wat they talking about selling women to arabis.. arabis tah aap bachare marr rahe si.... maybe they mean arabi take women from sindh? i dunno wat they saying.. loll.. otherwise ya ure right, why would persians sell to arabis when persians were killing arabis... plus arabis didn't have oil money at that time.. lolll


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> *But I guess we gotta carry on. In India you cant afford to carry hatred inside you for long as quite often you have people of different faiths around you.* I have read a number of books on partition including Khushwant Singh's A Train to Pakistan. It does curdle your blood and makes you emotional but one does see the folly of it all after sometime.* I have had Punjabi Muslim classmates and colleagues in India and I never felt any kind of negative feeling about them ever.*



I don't like the Indians holier than thou attitude which almost every Indian tries to show on this forum.. 

I am NOT talking about the "hate" as in taking a gun and go on shooting spree and killing hindus and sikhs. I have lots of Punjabi Sikhs and Kashmiri Hindu friends too, and I don't have any negative feelings about them.. but because of all the historical bad blood between hindus/muslims/sikhs, deep inside you heart you feel little tension. Don't you? (*not hate... but there is something*)... If you deny that then you are lying...

And as per your claim.. you are not allowed to carry hate in your hearts... then why YOU guyz haven't forgotten what Mughals did to Sikhs? or about Persian/Afghans/Arab invaders? Something which happened zillions of years ago... 

As I said.. taking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. the invaders who invaded India (i.e Pushtuns), majority of them have become Pakistani themselves and then there are 4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. What you sow so shall you reap.. the people who used to invade Punjabis again and again are refugees in our lands now.. Therefore, I don't hate them, actually I feel sorry for them. The invasions carried out by them, is not a matter for us, it is a matter for YOU guyz only (i.e. Indians whether hindus, sikhs or muslims).


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Indian Jatt said:


> *Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs and the atrocities on them by the muslim rulers..*



Thanks for being honest!!  lol!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Indian Jatt said:


> RobbieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> veerey I was talking about Punjabi muslim with whom we live in so much of peace and harmony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you guyz live in so much peace and harmony with Indian Muslims... so do we with Pashtuns (i.e. Afghans)
Click to expand...


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> Indians always make propaganda against anything that has to do with the history of modern day Pakistan.
> 
> For us Muhammad Bin Qasim and all the Muslim emperors were heros who brought Islam, culture, art, architecture, clothing, literature, and cuisine to our land but for indians they were criminals.
> 
> Today, we named our missiles after the Muslim emperors and our famous port in Karachi after Muhammad Bin Qasim who brought Islam to our land.
> 
> May Allah grant paradise to all the Muslims who ever came to modern day Pakistan hundreds/thousand years ago. Without them there would be no Pakistan today.



waahh kinni galt information loll.. Islam came to subcontinent peacefully.. way before those barbarians.. Sufi Islam came to subcontinent hundreds of years before!



jinxeD_girl said:


> If Afghan Pushtuns are anti-Punjabis (anti Pakistani Punjabis to be specific), so are Indian Sikhs.. Actually, I have never seen people who are as much against Islam as Indian Sikhs Go to their chatrooms or forums soemtime and see the hatred they spew against Muslims and specially Pakistani Punjabis.. Names like "Sulla Sulli" <--- I don't know what the heck that means...



koi naa.. that is very very common.. yea sulla sulli is very commonly used but that is just how Punjabis are.. "Bahman Bahmani" ya pher "Baniyaa" used to describe most hindus (cuz they can't tell the caste differences by looking)... "Bhappay" used to describe Pakistani origin Sikhs... and i've heard people say "jattku damaag" as derogatory to jatts.. term "bhaiyaa bhaiyann" used to describe UP/Bihari migrants to Punjab... so don't feel bad, we discriminate against everyone... loll.. and "sulla sulli" is actually not even as derogatory as "bhappa" or "bhaiyaa"...



> During partition, some of our distant family members were in Amritsar... and the women barely escaped the rapist attacks carried out by Sikhs It will take few more generations before the hatred starts to fade away..



Kurriya that goes both ways.. ya i know what happened to muslims in Indian punjab was bad..my grandfather actually used to tell me that this river which runs in our jilla.. hes like it was clogged with so many dead bodies.. he was just a little kid than and he is still traumatized by all the bloodshed... and u may want to believe it or not it doesn't matter but sikhs in today's pakistani punjab suffered the same fate..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Omar1984 said:


> Culture of India is not as important as Islam is.



Omar,

If you think culture is not as important then please become Arab and follow their culture, language, food etc.. You have to admit that Islam is global religion and it varies from place to place and takes the color of the place it is in..

Look at Iranians, they are very proud of their pre-Islamic history.. their language Farsi, and their culture... Punjabis and Sindhis are "indic" people... culturally they are similar to Indians... they are not Arabs... 

I think you are one of those Pakistanis.. who think history of Pakistan started with the invasion of Sindh by Mohammed Bin Qasim

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Indian Jatt said:


> ye my friends its true that partition plan of Punjab angered we sikhs,but does that in anyway prove that Sikhs started the massacre??



and do you have any proof that Muslims started the massacre?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Xtremeownage said:


> This is false, Muslims were the victims during the partition. Indian propaganda tries to justify the acts of brutality and violence against us Muslims, but they are fallacious and wrong! Sikhs and Hindus did those terrible and heinous acts, not Muslims. We fought for our independance through love and peace. *Trains headed toward India were never touched, but the trains that made it to Pakistan was full of bodies of our innocent brothers and sisters. *Do not make up such lies. I am well aware of Indian propaganda and it's deceptive nature!



lol! Muslims killed Sikhs/Hindus too... where are you getting your history lessons from ?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> *Kurriya that goes both ways.. ya i know what happened to muslims in Indian punjab was bad..my grandfather actually used to tell me that this river which runs in our jilla.. hes like it was clogged with so many dead bodies.. *he was just a little kid than and he is still traumatized by all the bloodshed... and u may want to believe it or not it doesn't matter but sikhs in today's pakistani punjab suffered the same fate..



My grandmother grandmother was a doctor at that time and she told me that there was a well in Sialkot that was filled with the dead of bodies of Sikhs.. I am not saying that Punjabi Muslims were in anyway innocent.. or they didn't kill Sikhs and Hindus, all I am saying with millions of Punjabis killed on both sides of border.. *there is still lots of tension on both sides... *as it didn't happen long time ago.. it happened recently in history (1947)


----------



## Mirza Jatt

jinxeD_girl said:


> I am NOT talking about the "hate" as in taking a gun and go on shooting spree and killing hindus and sikhs. I have lots of Punjabi Sikhs and Kashmiri Hindu friends too, and I don't have any negative feelings about them.. but because of all the historical bad blood between hindus/muslims/sikhs, deep inside you heart you feel little tension. Don't you? (*not hate... but there is something*)... If you deny that then you are lying..



yes we feel it a little,but the regret not the hatred or tension (there is nothing to be tensed about it) but it is clear now they you surely carry it a lot of hatred in you hearts..If you deny that then you are lying.(sorru I copied your line)



> And as per your claim.. you are not allowed to carry hate in your hearts... then why YOU guyz haven't forgotten what Mughals did to Sikhs? or about Persian/Afghans/Arab invaders? Something which happened zillions of years ago...



Madam ji we haven't forgotten that because that our history(and also because our memories are sharp you see )..do you want us to forget our history?? Remembering the past does not mean carrying the hatred in your heart...if you are trying to say that we are still having a sense of enemity between us then you are wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> And as per your claim.. you are not allowed to carry hate in your hearts... then why YOU guyz haven't forgotten what Mughals did to Sikhs? or about Persian/Afghans/Arab invaders? Something which happened zillions of years ago...



Because without the Mughals and the foriegn invaders.. the Sikh religion would not be the same it is today.. those guys gave us our identity... the sardars and the Sikh appearance was born to look different than Muslims and Hindus.. without those guys.. Sikh religion was only all philosophy.. no swords... secondly, we don't equate all Muslims with those guys.. our Sikh holy books have writings of many Muslim saints.. and some of greatest figures in Sikhism were Muslims.. people like Hazrat Mian Mir.... Baba Farid... Baba Bhikhan.. Bhai Mardana... and many more.. so it is not the Sikhs who are carrying a chip on their shoulder.. yaa there are some who are very intolerant.. but you're from Pakistan you should be the first to understand that those people are on both sides of the border.. some folks in this thread itself are a perfect example..



> As I said.. taking from Punjabi Muslim perspective.. the invaders who invaded India (i.e Pushtuns), majority of them have become Pakistani themselves and then there are 4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. What you sow so shall you reap.. the people who used to invade Punjabis again and again are refugees in our lands now.. Therefore, I don't hate them, actually I feel sorry for them. The invasions carried out by them, is not a matter for us, it is a matter for YOU guyz only (i.e. Indians whether hindus, sikhs or muslims).



We don't have anything against Pathans.. the Khalsa army already got their revenge when they annexed Peshawar and brought it within Punjabi dominance.. as for other invaders.. they were mongols.. they killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as they did Arabs Persians and Afghans.... and right now those countries aren't exactly so powerful (uzbekistan tajikistan and all those) so there isnt any case there..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> We don't have anything against Pathans.. the Khalsa army already got their revenge when they annexed Peshawar and brought it within Punjabi dominance.. as for other invaders.. *they were mongols.. they killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as they did Arabs Persians and Afghans.... and right now those countries aren't exactly so powerful (uzbekistan tajikistan and all those) so there isnt any case there..*



you are right.. with one slight correction... present day Tajikistan is NOT turkic/mongol country (it is iranic/persian country).. tajiks are known as eastern persians/iranians..

Turkic countries are Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> My grandmother grandmother was a doctor at that time and she told me that there was a well in Sialkot that was filled with the dead of bodies of Sikhs.. I am not saying that Punjabi Muslims were in anyway innocent.. or they didn't kill Sikhs and Hindus, all I am saying with millions of Punjabis killed on both sides of border.. *there is still lots of tension on both sides... *as it didn't happen long time ago.. it happened recently in history (1947)



yes i agree with you.. but its wrong to stereotype everyone like that... there are still many people who hold fond memories of their homes in present day Pakistan and they hold no grudges.. our own PM Manmohan Singh is perfect example...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> you are right.. with one slight correction... present day Tajikistan is NOT turkic/mongol country (it is iranic/persian country).. tajiks are known as eastern persians/iranians..
> 
> Turkic countries are Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc etc



Thanks. Didn't know!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Indian Jatt said:


> yes we feel it a little,but the regret not the hatred or tension (there is nothing to be tensed about it) but it is clear now they you surely carry it a lot of hatred in you hearts..If you deny that then you are lying.(sorru I copied your line)



you are contradicting yourself now.. 

let me quote what you said in one of your previous posts

"*Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs*"

Dil di gal moun wich aa hi gai!!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Thanks. Didn't know!



But it is not nice to hate present day Mongols either.. Hazaras of Afghanistan are treated very badly by Afghan Pushtuns.. they have killed them in huge numbers.. they are the MOST oppressed minority of Afghanistan

http://img265.imageshack.us/i/hazara1.jpg/

http://img404.imageshack.us/i/hazara2.jpg/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> But it is not nice to hate present day Mongols either.. Hazaras of Afghanistan are treated very badly by Afghan Pushtuns.. they have killed them in huge numbers.. they are the MOST oppressed minority of Afghanistan
> 
> http://img265.imageshack.us/i/hazara1.jpg/
> 
> http://img404.imageshack.us/i/hazara2.jpg/



I know i feel sorry for Hazaras.... they are the oppressed people in todays time...


----------



## Mirza Jatt

jinxeD_girl said:


> you are contradicting yourself now..
> 
> let me quote what you said in one of your previous posts
> 
> "*Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs*"
> 
> Dil di gal moun wich aa hi gai!!



Lol..so you think you can fool us by removing the remaining part of the sentence?? 

read what I had to say - 


> I don't find it correct,though to be honest I don't disagree with you totally as well...Indian sikhs do hate pakistani muslims (you can say muslims as a whole) cause this hatred goes back to the history of Sikhs and the atrocities on them by the muslim rulers..but still I can say this for sure they are very few in number...and as far as Pakistani Punjabis are concerned,let me tell you I have hundred of friends and people who are Punjabi muslims.there have been never any kind of haterd among them.And as far as rapes by Sikhs are concerned..it was two sided ..



dil di gal ta muh che aa hi gayi ....par kuriye mere dil che hor vi keyi cheezan ne..jere tere sunan layak nahi aa.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> naiii yaar... i dont know wat they talking about selling women to arabis.. arabis tah aap bachare marr rahe si.... maybe they mean arabi take women from sindh? i dunno wat they saying.. loll.. otherwise ya ure right, why would persians sell to arabis when persians were killing arabis... plus arabis didn't have oil money at that time.. lolll



haha yeah!!  Saudia (Arabian peninsula) was NEVER part of Persian empire (as far as I know)... Persians never invaded them... Arabs didn't have oil at that time and that part was occupied by nomadic Bedouins... and economically it was not a good idea to invade them.. it would have been a burden for persian empire 

http://img718.imageshack.us/i/persianempiremap.gif/
Actually, Arabs were killing Persians when they invaded Persia... therefore I don't know why would Persians want to sell Indian women to Arabs and why not keep them to themselves...? That is the most funny thing i ever read...


----------



## jinxeD_girl

fateh71 said:


> So essentially your argument is - 'What happened in favor of Islam is RIGHT because Islam is RIGHT' - a supremacist argument and not a merit based one.
> 
> We are glad the intolerant supremacists found their heaven too.



Mister Fateh ,

You have to understand that Pakistanis are not a monolithic group... Pakistan is diverse and you will hear diverse opinions in every aspect.... If he is not tolerant atleast you can be tolerant and avoid sticking subtle insults in your arguments..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> Haha..may be we never argued on topics related to Punjab before. There's no shame in being honest. Thats what I think.
> 
> And tell you what Unified Punjab would have had the best food, best infrastructure and the best cricket and hockey teams in the subcontinent.



and better looking girlz (and boyz too) compared to the rest of India


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

jinxeD_girl said:


> and better looking girlz (and boyz too) compared to the rest of India



ooooo ..... I don't know but Ashwaria might not like that comment  and priyanka chopra


----------



## jinxeD_girl

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> ooooo ..... I don't know but Ashwaria might not like that comment  and priyanka chopra



Priyanka *Chopra* is half Punjaban 

Aishwariya...  I will keep my mouth shut... I think you haven't read my previous views..


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Iqbal_Brar said:


> yes i agree with you.. but its wrong to stereotype everyone like that... there are still many people who hold fond memories of their homes in present day Pakistan and they hold no grudges.. our own PM Manmohan Singh is perfect example... YouTube - Manmohan Singh Childhood Danial Khan.mp4



Great post ...  , so many stories people have from past


----------



## Omar1984

jinxeD_girl said:


> Omar,
> 
> If you think culture is not as important then please become Arab and follow their culture, language, food etc.. You have to admit that Islam is global religion and it varies from place to place and takes the color of the place it is in..
> 
> Look at Iranians, they are very proud of their pre-Islamic history.. their language Farsi, and their culture... Punjabis and Sindhis are "indic" people... culturally they are similar to Indians... they are not Arabs...
> 
> I think you are one of those Pakistanis.. who think history of Pakistan started with the invasion of Sindh by Mohammed Bin Qasim



I doubt that you are really a Pakistani Muslim. Pakistani Muslims consider Muhammad Bin Qasim as one of the greatest heros in our history. Without him there would be no Pakistan today. Let me remind you that Pakistan was formed as a separate homeland for the *Muslim* majority states of the subcontinent, and it was Muhammad Bin Qasim who first introduced Islam to the region of Pakistan. Before his arrival, there were only Buddhists and Hindus living in our region so there would be no Pakistan today if Muhammad Bin Qasim did not arrive in the region of Pakistan in the year 711.

Secondly, if you were a real Pakistani Muslim you would know that when you enter your grave the angel asks you about your religion. So the only thing that matters is that you are Muslim. Indic, Iranic, Punjabaan will not matter when you are in your grave. If that matters to you so much why dont you side with Punjabi Indian than non-punjabi Pakistani brothers and sisters. Better yet, go call yourself indian since you are so obsessed about indian culture. We need less sell-outs like you anyways.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Omar1984 said:


> I doubt that you are really a Pakistani Muslim. Pakistani Muslims consider Muhammad Bin Qasim as one of the greatest heros in our history. Without him there would be no Pakistan today. Let me remind you that Pakistan was formed as a separate homeland for the *Muslim* majority states of the subcontinent, and it was Muhammad Bin Qasim who first introduced Islam to the region of Pakistan. Before his arrival, there were only Buddhists and Hindus living in our region so there would be no Pakistan today if Muhammad Bin Qasim did not arrive in the region of Pakistan in the year 711.
> 
> Secondly, if you were a real Pakistani Muslim you would know that when you enter your grave the angel asks you about your religion. So the only thing that matters is that you are Muslim. Indic, Iranic, Punjabaan will not matter when you are in your grave. If that matters to you so much why dont you side with Punjabi Indian than non-punjabi Pakistani brothers and sisters. Better yet, go call yourself indian since you are so obsessed about indian culture. We need less sell-outs like you anyways.



Some people accuse me of being obsessed with iranians, some with Indians.. lol!  But my loyalty lies with Pakistan.. If i was on Indian side.. then 90% Indians members won't be trying very hard to get me banned from this forum...   But I can't twist the facts...  Anywayz, I don't want to argue.. not in mood of arguing.


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> haha yeah!!
> Actually, Arabs were killing Persians when they invaded Persia... therefore I don't know why would Persians want to sell Indian women to Arabs and why not keep them to themselves...? *That is the most funny thing i ever read... :rofl*:




There is nothing funny about it.

Yes,its very much true that invaders like Tamir Lane,Nadir Shar and ABdali used to sell captured hindu women from punjab and sindh to slave market of Baghdad and other middle east Arab cities after killing the male folks.

Go read about the Gypsys and Roma ppl who supposed to be from north west india.


----------



## biplob

Ahmad said:


> if not 100&#37; then authentic to an acceptable degree. thanks for the wiki, i could easily google it myself.
> 
> let me repeat it again, i am asking this for the sake of clarification and nothing else, because it is the first time i am hearing such a thing and different people got different ideas regarding this issue in this thread.



Its not only Aghans ,but all invaders who entered punjab left a horrific history of plunder,pillage and atrocities aganist punjabis especially hindus.

*Here is sample of Timur Lanes persecution of of hindus by his own account:*

The Sultan's army was easily defeated on December 17, 1398. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins. Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed more than 100,000 captives.

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri. In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:


The climax came during the invasion of Timur in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Tim&#251;r&#238;: &#8220;O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.&#8221; He continues: &#8220;My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus&#8230; [so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.&#8221; 


To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers &#8220;to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property&#8221;. Next, he &#8220;directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers&#8221;. Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the &#8220;unbelievers&#8221;. His Tuzk-i-Tim&#251;r&#238; records: &#8220;In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.&#8221; 


At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, *&#8220;all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors*&#8221;. Timur was now moving through Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to &#8220;plunder *and destroy and kill every one whom they met&#8221;. And so the soldiers &#8220;plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female*&#8221;. Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that &#8220;the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be despatched to hell with the proselytising sword&#8221;. 


By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him &#8220;that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty&#8221;. Therefore, &#8220;no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword&#8221;. Tuzk-i-Tim&#251;r&#238; continues: &#8220;I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the gh&#227;z&#238;s of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. *One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.&#8221; *

The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a &#8220;great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round&#8221;. He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Tim&#251;r&#238; concludes: &#8220;Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted&#8230; The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jah&#227;npanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed&#8230; On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army&#8230; went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners&#8230; The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Al&#227;i coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the ulama and the other Musulm&#227;ns, the whole city was sacked.&#8221; 

I'am not allowed to give URL link for time being,but just google hindu persecution by muslim invaders.


----------



## biplob

IBRIS said:


> Thanks Ahmad,
> I'm sure you are well aware of a common joks about Sikh's "Sardarji Barah Bajj gaye", by most of hindu youths who had never gave a second thought about what did it really ment. We Sikhs instead of showing anger are so enigmatic that it seemed some type of truth lies behind it. Truth is whenever some young mischievous type of person thinks he's teasing us we return the favour with a smile which makes them think why is this Sikh not getting mad. We Sikh's reply 'he was not teasing me but was asking for my Help'.




IBRIS, those hindus who make fun of Sikhs are idiots.

That slur is an old one and started in the times of united punjab.

But the u way explained things also display complete lack of Knowledge in history.



> During 17th Century when Hindustan was ruled by Mughals all the people were humiliated and were treated like animal. Mughals treated the Hindu women as there own property and were forcing all Hindus to accept Islam and even used to kill the people if they were refusing to accept.



In 16th century , hindustan was ruled by moghuls,true ,but moghuls rules like AKber are very tolerant of hindus , He had major allainces with hindus and Hindu Rajput Generals like Mann Singh were leading his conquest .Emperor Jahangir was half hindu.

They werent treated like animals or their women arent possestions of Moghul rulers. 


But in 17 century ,things changed drastically with advent of Aurangzeb.




> That time our Ninth Guru Sri Guru Teg Bhadarji who came forward, in request of some Kashmir Pandits to fight against all these cruel activities. Guruji told the Mughal emperor if he could succeed in converting him to Islam all the Hindus would accept the same but if he failed, he should stop all those activities . The Mughal emperor happily agreed to that but even after lots of torture to Guruji and his fellow members he failed to convert him to Islam and Guruji along with his other four fellow members who were also tortured for the same sacrificed their lives in Chandni Chowk. Since the Mughals were unable to convert them to Islam they were assassinated. Tthus Guruji sacrificed his life for Protection of Hindu religion.* Can anybody lay his life that too for protection of some other religion*. This is the reason he is still remembered has Hind Ki Chaddar ..



Very true. But..

Sikhism isnt religion but a panth(path) like Buddism,jainism including may strands hinduism.

*Pls dont talk as if sikhs were the saviours of hindus who had landed from some outer space.*

All sikh gurus and the followers are hindu Khatris and jatts who got baptised in to sikhism.All are sons and daughter of hindu son of the soli.Unlike muslims,there hardly any foregin blood following in sikhs. 
And barely any conversion of muslims to sikhism took place.

dont tell me assocaition of some sufi with sikh Gurus,but they nevr got baptised or left Islam

*Isnt it true ,there was long tradition of punjabi hindus to donate their elder son in the khasla army and sikhs panth ??*

So in that sense ,who do u thing the kashmiri pundit would have asked for help ,the Rajput down south or Maraths who under Sivaji getting dominant, instead of the sikh guru , whwn especally Guru Teg Bhadarji who had very cordial relations with Kashmiris pundits ??




> At the start Sikhs were very less in numbers even though they were fighting against the Mughals emperors. At that time Nadir Shah raided Delhi in the year 1739 and looted Hindustan and was carrying lot of Hindustan treasures and nearly 2200 Hindu women along with him. The news spread like a fire and was heard by Sardar Jassa Singh who was the Commander of the Sikh army at that time . He decided to attack Nadir Shah's Khafila on the same midnight. He did so and rescued all the Hindu women and they were safely sent to their homes.




Very brave of Khalsa forces and they did save those punjabi hindu women from the raiders of Nadir Sha and Abdali.





> After that time when there occurred a similar incidence people started to contact the Sikh army for their help and Sikhs used to attack the raider's at Midnight, 12 O'clock. It continued and became a fame that at midnight nearly at 12 O'clock it is very difficult to fight against Sikhs as the Sikhs get some Extra Power to save Religion, Nation and Humanity. Nobody can fight and win against them at midnight, this continues till now. Nowadays these smart people and some Sikh enemies who are afraid of Sikhs, have spread these words that at 12 O'clock the Sikhs goe out of their sense


. 

Right description ...



> This historic fact was the reason which make us smile over that person as I thought that his Mother or Sister would be in trouble and wants my help which he was unable to provide and may be he was reminding me by saying off 'Sardarji Barah Baj Gaye'



*Lets not forget that its the Hindu punjabi women who gave birth to Sikh sardars by letting the elder sons join Guru Gobin Singhjis Khalsa forces. *


----------



## biplob

Let me tell about Maharaja Ranjit Singh .He was undoubtly one of great son of mother india.

I still remember reading a small poem about him in my fifth class of school book in my regional language .

Its was about ,i dont how much true ,how a stone thrown by an poor old woman accidentally hit on the eye the Maharaja Ranjit Singh and made him blind in that eye.But the Noble king pardoned the poor lady and instead, offered her some food to eat . A gesture that only an indian king can display and its almost like one of those stories from "Panchatantra" book.


----------



## biplob

All those u think that Ranjit Singh presecuted muslims and destroyed their mosque....here is the opinion of his Foreign Minister , a muslim himself about his maharaja.

"When the Foreign Minister of the Ranjit Singh's court , Fakir Azizuddin, met the British Governor-General of India, Lord Auckland, in Simla, Lord Auckland asked Fakir Azizuddin which of the Maharaja's eyes was missing, Azizuddin replied: *"The Maharaja is like the sun and sun has only one eye. The splendor and luminosity of his single eye is so much that I have never dared to look at his other eye*." The Governor General was so pleased with this reply that he gave his gold watch to Azizuddin"


----------



## biplob

Omar1984 said:


> Contrary to the wisdom, foresight and diplomacy shown by the Begums of Bhopal, the story in some other Muslim countries, and even in our own country, was quite different. For instance in Punjab, a Muslim by the name of Abdur Rahman encouraged Lahorites to plot against the ruler, Geet Singh. Other Muslims like Mohkam Din, Mufti Mukarram, Mian Tahir, Mian Baqar helped Ranjit Singh occupy Lahore. Mohkam Din had opened the Lohari Gate for Ranjit Singh's army. Despite the fact that many Muslims were holding important positions, such as Foreign Minister Faqir Azizuddin, *Ranjit Singh turned Badshahi Mosque into a stable and all other mosques met the same fate. Those Muslim collaborators and did nothing to try to stop Ranjit Singh from desecrating the mosques.*
> 
> *The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Thursday, March 25, 2010*
> 
> Every Pakistani knows what sikhs did to our beautiful Mosques. You dont have to tell us, thankfully ranjit singh's rule didnt last long like the Muslim empires of the subcontinent did.



A article written by Dr A Q khan, the (in) famous nuclear scientist.
Sorry , not a very credible source for me.


----------



## Prometheus

> All sikh gurus and the followers are hindu Khatris and jatts who got baptised in to sikhism.All are sons and daughter of hindu son of the soli.Unlike muslims,there hardly any foregin blood following in sikhs.
> And barely any conversion of muslims to sikhism took place.



I highly dout that statement

Any link to support ur claim????

well I think that gentleman in the picture below looks like muslim 






PIR BUDDHU SHAH giving his son and his followers to Khalsa 
-----------------------------

and regarding second statement

following pics will be enough


----------



## biplob

Prometheus said:


> I highly dout that statement
> 
> Any link to support ur claim????
> 
> well I think that gentleman in the picture below looks like muslim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PIR BUDDHU SHAH giving his son and his followers to Khalsa
> -----------------------------
> 
> and regarding second statement
> 
> following pics will be enough



There was no evidence of any muslim man or woman leaving islam converting to Sikhism.

There are few instances of muslim Sufi saints having association with Sikh gurus and admiring them,but they too never converted to sikhism.There may be handful of aberrations over the period of history.

One other thing,lets not forget that in 16th ,17th,even in 18th century its the muslims who were ruling punjab and major parts of india.

according to Sharia laws things were judged . *In Sharia, leaving islam and becoming a kafir ,u get punished by death.**Also ,if any one had become a non muslim,he would have to pay Jajiya tax at that time.Thats why there was no reason for muslims to leave islam and join the Sikh panth and none happened.







Not talking about present time at all.*


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Ok I have to side with Omar_1984 now.. all this Hindu Bindu Sikh Wikh stuff is getting really annoying.. please take it back to Indian forums.. I am sure many Indians will be interested in it on how Sikhs saved Hindus from Muslims... we don't care.. neither do we give a damn.. and neither do we have a time to read such long long articles.. Anything which is more than 10 lines long.. i tend to ignore it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

biplob said:


> Very true. But..
> 
> Sikhism isnt religion but a panth(path) like Buddism,jainism including may strands hinduism.



Errr.. what?? The Sikh panth's foundation is the Rehat Maryada.. the code of conduct.. It is basically a path to the RELIGION of Sikhism! Buddhism and Jainism our their own religions.. quit trolling by saying that Sikhism is not a religion.. maybe not in your Hindu RSS books.. but ask the rest of the Sikhs here...



> Pls dont talk as if sikhs were the saviours of hindus who had landed from some outer space.
> 
> All sikh gurus and the followers are hindu Khatris and jatts who got baptised in to sikhism.All are sons and daughter of hindu son of the soli.Unlike muslims,there hardly any foregin blood following in sikhs.



First of all, get your facts straight.. Majority of the muslims in Indian subcontinent are not "foreign blood"... majority of Muslims are subcontinental.. their ancestors were Hindus who rejected Hinduism... same goes for Sikhism... those guys were SIKHS!!! As soon as they got baptized into Sikhism, that was it, they were HINDUS NO LONGER!! Get that through your head.. there is no such thing as "Hindu blood".. Hinduism is just a philosophy...



> And barely any conversion of muslims to sikhism took place.
> 
> dont tell me assocaition of some sufi with sikh Gurus,but they nevr got baptised or left Islam



Before the 10th Guru, there was no such thing as baptism into the Sikh religion.. it was an idea which you followed... and all the writings and teachings of those Sufi saints.. be that Islam or Sikhism.. it does not matter.. all Sikhs follow them.. because they teach pretty much the same thing as what Guru Nanak taught!! As for conversions, there was never a request for anyone to be converted.. there still isn't.. you should come to Punjab and see how badly the so called "Rashtriya Sikh Sangat" (Hindu RSS converts to Sikhism) are HATED.. they are HINDUS at heart.. only put the turban on their head to try to corrupt the Sikh religion.... it is stupid stuff like that which RSS pulls which is making Punjab getting back close to extremist views... just like how they recently started hanging Bhindrawala's picture in the main Sikh museum at Amritsar..

Also doesn't change the fact about people such as Abul Turrani and Mohammad Bashir.. spies sent by their respective governments to spy on Khalsa fighters... and they all ended up converting to Sikhism.. Abul Turrani was Mughal Spy who converted and became Ajmer Singh when he infiltrated Khalsa army.. and Bashir Muhammad was Indian government spy who was spying on Khalistani fighters but ended up joining them and converting and becoming Lachman Singh Babbar.. not that we are big on conversions.. we don't ask anyone to convert to Sikhism.. just leave us alone and stop claiming that we're Hindus...



> Isnt it true ,there was long tradition of punjabi hindus to donate their elder son in the khasla army and sikhs panth ??



No one ASKED them to be converted.. and since they converted, they are HINDUS NO MORE!!!



> So in that sense ,who do u thing the kashmiri pundit would have asked for help ,the Rajput down south or Maraths who under Sivaji getting dominant, instead of the sikh guru , whwn especally Guru Teg Bhadarji who had very cordial relations with Kashmiris pundits ??



Or pick up the sword and fight for themselves for a change?? Sikhs were not even such a strong military force when Guru Tegh Bahadur was asked for help.. Rajputs or Marathas were way stronger.. but still he ended up achieving Shahadat for them..



> Lets not forget that its the Hindu punjabi women who gave birth to Sikh sardars by letting the elder sons join Guru Gobin Singhjis Khalsa forces.



So what difference does that make?? Even Mughal emporers like Jehangir had a Hindu link to them.. so go label them Hindus.. we're Sikhs through and through.. it is not the blood in your viens which makes you a Sikh but your faith and practices which make you a Sikh... you guys have yet to get that through your head...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jinxeD_girl

> First of all, get your facts straight.. Majority of the muslims in Indian subcontinent are not "foreign blood"... majority of Muslims are subcontinental.. their ancestors were Hindus who rejected Hinduism... same goes for Sikhism... those guys were SIKHS!!! As soon as they got baptized into Sikhism, that was it, they were HINDUS NO LONGER!! Get that through your head.. there is no such thing as "Hindu blood".. Hinduism is just a philosophy...



You are right Iqbal, 99% Indian Muslims are indigenous to India.. they look no different than Hindus..


----------



## Ahmad

jinxeD_girl said:


> Omar,
> 
> If you think culture is not as important then please become Arab and follow their culture, language, food etc.. You have to admit that Islam is global religion and it varies from place to place and takes the color of the place it is in..
> 
> Look at Iranians, they are very proud of their pre-Islamic history.. their language Farsi, and their culture... Punjabis and Sindhis are "indic" people... culturally they are similar to Indians... they are not Arabs...
> 
> I think you are one of those Pakistanis.. who think history of Pakistan started with the invasion of Sindh by Mohammed Bin Qasim



Pakistan's past is rich and they should be proud of it. Yes, we are are muslims, but forgeting the past is not the right way.

For example we in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Samaraqand and Bukhara are muslims but we never forget the history of our country and its past. we cant substitue Farsi with Arabic just because we are muslims. We still celebrate our thousands of years customs and occasions with pride(Such as Novrooz etc), but that does not make us any less muslim.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Ahmad said:


> Pakistan's past is rich and they should be proud of it. Yes, we are are muslims, but forgeting the past is not the right way.
> 
> For example we in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Samaraqand and Bukhara are muslims but we never forget the history of our country and its past. we cant substitue Farsi with Arabic just because we are muslims. We still celebrate our thousands of years customs and occasions with pride(Such as Novrooz etc), but that does not make us any less muslim.



yes i Agree... i tried explaining that to Omar.. but he is very very rigid


----------



## notsuperstitious

jinxeD_girl said:


> Mister Fateh ,
> 
> You have to understand that Pakistanis are not a monolithic group... Pakistan is diverse and you will hear diverse opinions in every aspect.... If he is not tolerant atleast you can be tolerant and avoid sticking subtle insults in your arguments..



Well I was replying to Omar, and he thinks Pakistan is a monolithic group and that you are NOT a pakistani 

Also, it was not a subtle insult, it was a statement of fact, we TRULY ARE happy that intolerant supremacists left, Really! Its amazing that you felt insulted when I called a supremacist intolerant, but you youself can't stop talking about peopls' color and looks. Extend to others what you expect from others.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

fateh71 said:


> Well I was replying to Omar, and he thinks Pakistan is a monolithic group and that you are NOT a pakistani
> 
> *we TRULY ARE happy that intolerant supremacists left, *



Ok I don't know what you mean by that statement ? We never left... we stayed where we were.. both during and after partition.. Punjabis stayed in Punjab, Kashmriis stayed in Kashmir, Balochis stayed in Balochistan, Sindhis stayed in Sindh and Pushtoons stayed in NWFP..

are you talking about Indian muslims that they left India and migrated to Pakistan ? Shame on you... I don't think Musharraf and many Indian muslims are intolerant supremacists.. 

but if you are getting really happy that some Indian Muslims left.. then I won't snatch your "happy moment" away from you...


----------



## notsuperstitious

jinxeD_girl said:


> Ok I don't know what you mean by that statement ? We never left... we stayed where we were.. both during and after partition.. Punjabis stayed in Punjab, Kashmriis stayed in Kashmir, Balochis stayed in Balochistan, Sindhis stayed in Sindh and Pushtoons stayed in NWFP..
> 
> are you talking about Indian muslims that they left India and migrated to Pakistan ? Shame on you... I don't think Musharraf and many Indian muslims are intolerant supremacists..
> 
> but if you are getting really happy that some Indian Muslims left.. then I won't snatch your "happy moment" away from you...



Thank you for that, as to what i meant about who left what, i stand by what i said. I said that to an intolerant supremacist and there must be a reason why you think it applies to you. a skin deep reason

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## k_n

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Errr.. what?? The Sikh panth's foundation is the Rehat Maryada.. the code of conduct.. It is basically a path to the RELIGION of Sikhism! Buddhism and Jainism our their own religions.. quit trolling by saying that Sikhism is not a religion.. maybe not in your Hindu RSS books.. but ask the rest of the Sikhs here...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, get your facts straight.. Majority of the muslims in Indian subcontinent are not "foreign blood"... majority of Muslims are subcontinental.. their ancestors were Hindus who rejected Hinduism... same goes for Sikhism... those guys were SIKHS!!! As soon as they got baptized into Sikhism, that was it, they were HINDUS NO LONGER!! Get that through your head.. there is no such thing as "Hindu blood".. Hinduism is just a philosophy...
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 10th Guru, there was no such thing as baptism into the Sikh religion.. it was an idea which you followed... and all the writings and teachings of those Sufi saints.. be that Islam or Sikhism.. it does not matter.. all Sikhs follow them.. because they teach pretty much the same thing as what Guru Nanak taught!! As for conversions, there was never a request for anyone to be converted.. there still isn't.. you should come to Punjab and see how badly the so called "Rashtriya Sikh Sangat" (Hindu RSS converts to Sikhism) are HATED.. they are HINDUS at heart.. only put the turban on their head to try to corrupt the Sikh religion.... it is stupid stuff like that which RSS pulls which is making Punjab getting back close to extremist views... just like how they recently started hanging Bhindrawala's picture in the main Sikh museum at Amritsar..
> 
> Also doesn't change the fact about people such as Abul Turrani and Mohammad Bashir.. spies sent by their respective governments to spy on Khalsa fighters... and they all ended up converting to Sikhism.. Abul Turrani was Mughal Spy who converted and became Ajmer Singh when he infiltrated Khalsa army.. and Bashir Muhammad was Indian government spy who was spying on Khalistani fighters but ended up joining them and converting and becoming Lachman Singh Babbar.. not that we are big on conversions.. we don't ask anyone to convert to Sikhism.. just leave us alone and stop claiming that we're Hindus...
> 
> 
> 
> No one ASKED them to be converted.. and since they converted, they are HINDUS NO MORE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Or pick up the sword and fight for themselves for a change?? Sikhs were not even such a strong military force when Guru Tegh Bahadur was asked for help.. Rajputs or Marathas were way stronger.. but still he ended up achieving Shahadat for them..
> 
> 
> 
> So what difference does that make?? Even Mughal emporers like Jehangir had a Hindu link to them.. so go label them Hindus.. we're Sikhs through and through.. it is not the blood in your viens which makes you a Sikh but your faith and practices which make you a Sikh... you guys have yet to get that through your head...



Cool down mate .

Sikhs are a separate religious community and should work for the recognition in the constitution by the GOI .
Here , I would like to talk to you about the civil laws governing 'Hindu' community . The constitution is itself framed to reform the 'Hindu' society and has accomplished its bit in the last 60 yrs .

The Sikh intellectuals and Sikh political leaders across the political spectrum must arrive at a consensus amongst themselves to frame separate civil laws governing the community with consultations from Akal Takht . If this task is left ONLY for the Akal Takht to achieve , then there will be plenty of friction between the community itself .

You have made a comment about Buddhism and Jainism being separate from the fold of Hinduism . Politically , Hinduism and Buddhism have competed against each other but all through the history of Buddhism in India the masses have not held a prejudiced opinion of the other . Relations between Jainism and Hinduism have been even more smooth . The conflict b/w Buddhism and Hinduism started with the former receiving patronage from groups belonging from outside of India seeking their political motives in the territories that formerly had been under the domination of Brahminical elite . Since , Jainism never received such patronage there are lesser instances of conflict . 
Traditionally , the communities that have practitioners of both Hinduism and Jainism in their fold ( Trading community ) , today JAINS amongst them are not seeking a separate representation , identity and political share although more and more Jains will continue to represent themselves as JAINS and not HINDUS in census that will follow .

Here , the Sikh community needs to takes a more broader outlook and reconciles itself from the fact that Sikhism has indeed evolved into a separate religious dogma from the 'Nirguna philosophy' of Bhakti period , having its roots in contemporary Hinduism .
Besides , there is no denying that different castes within the present day Sikh community prior to turning towards the teachings of Guru Nanak Devji had been under the influence of Bhakti Saints and the upper caste converts were more streamlined with the caste differentiation of medieval Hinduism . 
The Hindus need to stop considering Sikhs as a separate 'sect' , BECAUSE SIKHISM IS A SECT NO MORE . 

Mutual understanding and appreciation of each others' similarities is the only way forward for both our religions .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

fateh71 said:


> Thank you for that, as to what i meant about who left what, i stand by what i said. I said that to an intolerant supremacist and there must be a reason why you think it applies to you. a skin deep reason



but as I said.... we never left.. we are where we are!! If you are talking about someone who left then it must be Indian Muslims.. who migrated to Pakistan and I don't think they are intolerant supremacists.. 

*A skin deep reason* <----- all that coming from a Marathi who claimed in some other thread that he or Marathis are lighter skinned than Punjabis and Kashmiris.. what a joke!!


----------



## Omar1984

jinxeD_girl said:


> yes i Agree... i tried explaining that to Omar.. but he is very very rigid



I'm not rigid. I just dont like anything about hindu culture and I dont really care too much about sikh culture either. All the hindus and sikhs I met in real life try to explain their religion and their lifestyle and I dont think we Muslims are anything like them, they are too different. Sikhs are different from hindus too, I'v seen some sikhs in U.S. who put stickers like "Proud to be Sikh" and picture of Punjab and their Sikh sword on their cars, they see themselves as Sikhs before anything else which is good for them.


The only thing I like about the subcontinent is what Muslims brought like Taj Mahal, Badshahi Masjid, Shalimar Gardens, Shalwar Kameez, Urdu & Persian literature, food, architecture, art, and most importantly Islam.


----------



## Chiru

Omar1984 said:


> I'm not rigid. I just dont like anything about hindu culture and I dont really care too much about sikh culture either. All the hindus and sikhs I met in real life try to explain their religion and their lifestyle and I dont think we Muslims are anything like them, they are too different. Sikhs are different from hindus too, I'v seen some sikhs in U.S. who put stickers like "Proud to be Sikh" and picture of Punjab and their Sikh sword on their cars, they see themselves as Sikhs before anything else which is good for them.
> 
> 
> The only thing I like about the subcontinent is what Muslims brought like Taj Mahal, Badshahi Masjid, Shalimar Gardens, Shalwar Kameez, Urdu & Persian literature, food, architecture, art, and most importantly Islam.



and also killing and destruction.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Chiru said:


> and also killing and destruction.



also better genes (I won't associate that with Muslims, but they just happen to be Muslims).. but Turks, Afghans and especially Persians (Persians are extremely attractive and beautiful)..

otherwise all Indians would have ended up being of Dravidian stock (right now atleast 1&#37; Indians are not of Dravidian stock - the ones you see in Bollywood )


----------



## Chiru

jinxeD_girl said:


> also better genes (I won't associate that with Muslims, but they just happen to be Muslims).. bu Turks, Afghans and especially Persians (Persians are extremely attractive and beautiful)..
> 
> otherwise all Indians would have ended up being of Dravidian stock (right now atleast 1% Indians are not of Dravidian stock - the ones you see in Bollywood )



Looks like you have obsession with faces and looks.

Yes Persian and Palestine people/girls are very attractive.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Chiru said:


> Looks like you have obsession with faces and looks.
> 
> Yes Persian and Palestine people/girls are very attractive.



thanks for atleast admitting something...  I am part Iranian... and Persian girlz are known around the world for being beautiful..

Other than looting and killing... Persians and Afghans did brought good genes to North Indians.. you can't say that Invasions of India only had negative consequences..


----------



## Chiru

jinxeD_girl said:


> thanks for atleast admitting something...  I am part Iranian... and Persian girlz are known around the world for being beautiful..
> 
> Other than looting and killing... Persians and Afghans did brought good genes to North Indians.. you can't say that Invasions of India only had negative consequences..



jinxe, Post some pic of persian and Palestine models.


----------



## Peshwa

Chiru said:


> Looks like you have obsession with faces and looks.
> 
> Yes Persian and Palestine people/girls are very attractive.




Tell you what buddy....

U know how all the ugly folks work in radio....

On the internet, only the folks that are compensating will be ones boasting of their physical appearance.....Take it with a grain of salt....These are also the same people that you wouldnt want to Touch with a ten foot pole....

Anyways some things never change....
"Gadhe ko agar tum kala kar do to kya ban jati hai bail?"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Chiru said:


> jinxe, Post some pic of persian and Palestine models.



check the pics of Persian women and models in "beautiful pics of Iran" thread.. me and other Iranian members have uploaded some

As far as Palestini models are concerned... I don't know much about Arab models..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Peshwa said:


> Tell you what buddy....
> 
> U know how all the ugly folks work in radio....
> 
> On the internet, only the folks that are compensating will be ones boasting of their physical appearance.....Take it with a grain of salt....These are also the same people that you wouldnt want to Touch with a ten foot pole....
> Anyways some things never change....
> "Gadhe ko agar tum kala kar do to kya ban jati hai bail?"



I wasn't talking about myself.. I was talking about Persian women in general.. I think Marathis can read english? They are not illiterate.. 

I am very very ugly girl..


----------



## Peshwa

jinxeD_girl said:


> I wasn't talking about myself.. I was talking about Persian women in general.. I think Marathis can read english? They are not illiterate..
> 
> I am very very ugly girl..



Little girl....first complete school before trying to become the principal.....

I never called you ugly....I spoke about "radio stars"....You happen to be an "internet diva"....that has its own category.....


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> The only thing I like about the subcontinent is what Muslims brought like Taj Mahal, Badshahi Masjid, Shalimar Gardens, Shalwar Kameez, Urdu & Persian literature, food, architecture, art, and most importantly Islam.



Sorry to bust your bubble but Urdu is essentially Hindi with some mixed Persian words used by Muslims of UP/Bihar and those places.. urdu is far closer to hindi than to persian.. also language of early mughal rulers was actually mongol language... later when they got little civilized they started speaking persian but urdu was never used by mughal rulers.. urdu is a subcontinental language only used by subjects of mughal rule.. not rulers themselves..

and salwar kameez is punjabi dress.. it is there WAY before those invasions.. actually those clothes are related to Jatt culture and Jatts trace their lineage to scythians (who are now extinct but scythians were people located in central asia. ones that stayed there mixed with mongols and turks.. ones that travelled north mixed with slavic people and ones that travelled south mixed with indo-aryan people).. but even today groups from eastern european countries (especially ukraine).. central asian countries and punjabi jatts share some common stuff and types of clothes is one.. salwar kameez or kurta pajama has been there way before mughals/mongols even accepted islam..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble but Urdu is essentially Hindi with some mixed Persian words used by Muslims of UP/Bihar and those places.. urdu is far closer to hindi than to persian..
> ..



Iqbal-Brar, you are right! Urdu is *Indic* language, and it originated in present day India.. in UP and Bihar etc... 

http://img638.imageshack.us/i/iesatem1.png/


----------



## Omar1984

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble but Urdu is essentially Hindi with some mixed Persian words used by Muslims of UP/Bihar and those places.. urdu is far closer to hindi than to persian.. also language of early mughal rulers was actually mongol language... later when they got little civilized they started speaking persian but urdu was never used by mughal rulers.. urdu is a subcontinental language only used by subjects of mughal rule.. not rulers themselves.



Urdu was brought to the subcontinent because of the Muslims. If it wasn't for the Muslims, we all would be speaking hindi. Even your bollywood uses Urdu. Ask any Iranian, Dost, Zindagi, Makaan, Aasmaan, Zameen, Zindagi, etcc are all Farsi words.

And can you indians even read Urdu:









Iqbal_Brar said:


> and salwar kameez is punjabi dress.. it is there WAY before those invasions.. actually those clothes are related to Jatt culture and Jatts trace their lineage to scythians (who are now extinct but scythians were people located in central asia. ones that stayed there mixed with mongols and turks.. ones that travelled north mixed with slavic people and ones that travelled south mixed with indo-aryan people).. but even today groups from eastern european countries (especially ukraine).. central asian countries and punjabi jatts share some common stuff and types of clothes is one.. salwar kameez or kurta pajama has been there way before mughals/mongols even accepted islam..



Where is your source that Shalwar Kameez was made by Punjabi Jatts. Shalwar Kameez was originated in Afghanistan. Why do you think Afghan men always wear Shalwar Kameez (especially Pashtuns) way more than Punjabis do. Even when Karzai visits foreign countries he always wears Shalwar Kameez while your Manmohan Singh wears pant shirt. Tell an Afghan Pashtun that Shalwar Kameez was made by Punjabi Jatts lets see what their response would be lol. By the way, even your national dress Sarees originated from the Indus (present day Pakistan).


----------



## Peshwa

Ahmad said:


> Dear IBRIS, This is not what i was asking for. My *question was about the slavery of women by the hands of our ancestors.* I am asking this for the sake of clarification, not because i am taking their side on what they MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE DONE. If they have done that(taking women hostages and slaves) then they have done it and i am not taking their side. But if they havent done it, then it is not right to make something up. And i want an authentic, reliable and not one sided proof for that.
> 
> thanks



Ahmad, past is the past, and one has to move on.....

But the slavery of women and children was a reality at least under Ahmad Shah Abdali....a Pushtun.....

I quote from Wikipedia since the only other source is Maratha history books which are obviously not neutral.....the Third Battle of Panipat....the last large battle between indegenous south asian militaries until 1947.....and the battle that changed the fate of the subcontinent.....including the onset of British colonization

*"Ahmad Shah's victory left him, in the short term, the undisputed master of North India. However, his alliance quickly unravelled amidst squabbles between his generals and other princes, the increasing restlessness of his soldiers over pay, the increasing Indian heat and arrival of the news that Marathas had organised another 100,000 men in the south to avenge their loss and to rescue the captured prisoners. Before departing, he ordered the Indian chiefs, through a Royal Firman (order) (including Clive of India), to recognize Shah Alam II as Emperor. He left Delhi two months after the battle, heading for Afghanistan with his loot of 500 elephants, 1500 camels, 50,000 horses and at least about 22,000 women and children.[22]"*

Battle of Panipat (1761) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Us Maratha's are proud people just as the Afghans, and I understand that you're sensitive about mudslinging....but you have to understand that back then, there were no rules of engagement.....
Im sure Indian rulers committed similar atrocities.....and Im not demonizing any one group here


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Peshwa said:


> *Us Maratha's are proud people just as the Afghans:*


----------



## Peshwa

jinxeD_girl said:


>



More substance less action icons please....


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> Urdu was brought to the subcontinent because of the Muslims. If it wasn't for the Muslims, we all would be speaking hindi. Even your bollywood uses Urdu. Ask any Iranian, Dost, Zindagi, Makaan, Aasmaan, Zameen, Zindagi, etcc are all Farsi words.



wow.. so you throw in a couple of Persian words makes your language Persianatic? LOL.. oh please.. I cant even tell the difference between urdu and hindi when people are talking.. look at Punjabi.. it is a totally different language than both urdu and hindi.. but when it comes down to those 2 languages.. urdu and hindi is like almost same language..



> And can you indians even read Urdu:



So you guys learn the alif beh peh letters... and you think its a big difference? lmao.. please.. any script can be used to write a language... Punjabi is still the same Punjabi despite it using 2 different scripts.. Pakistani Punjabis write in Shahmukhi (arabic script) and Indian Punjabis write in Gurmukhi (sanskrit script)... the language is still the exact same!! just the letters used to write are different.. it is same case with urdu.. just because you write in arabic script doesn't make it a whole lot different than Hindi.. especially since a non-hindi non-urdu speaker like me can't even tell the difference between both of those languages.. u guys speak the same frikkin language!!!!!



> Where is your source that Shalwar Kameez was made by Punjabi Jatts. Shalwar Kameez was originated in Afghanistan.



And whats your source it originated in Afghanistan?



> Why do you think Afghan men always wear Shalwar Kameez (especially Pashtuns) way more than Punjabis do. Even when Karzai visits foreign countries he always wears Shalwar Kameez while your Manmohan Singh wears pant shirt.



Maybe Pakistani Punjabis but you will never see an Indian leader from Punjab make official visits in anything else but a Kurta pajama/salwar kameez (we only call the lady dress salwar kameez nd male dress kurta pajama so distinction there).. and thats funny.... 99% of the time Manmohan Singh wears a kurta pajama.. but he is not leader of Punjab only.. he is leader of whole India.. and kurta pajama/salwar kameez dress is only worn by people of Punjab and Haryana..



> Tell an Afghan Pashtun that Shalwar Kameez was made by Punjabi Jatts lets see what their response would be lol.



Tell a Punjabi Jatt that Shalwar Kameez was made by Afghan Pashtuns lets see what their response would be lol.

Oh and did I forget the turban??? They're rocking that part of OUR dress too!!! 



> By the way, even your national dress Sarees originated from the Indus (present day Pakistan).



Don't know.. couldn't care less.. sure you can have the saree.. no one in Punjab wears sarees anyways.. lolll..


----------



## Cisco-GUY

jinxeD_girl said:


> also better genes (I won't associate that with Muslims, but they just happen to be Muslims).. but Turks, Afghans and especially Persians (Persians are extremely attractive and beautiful)..
> 
> otherwise all Indians would have ended up being of Dravidian stock (right now atleast 1% Indians are not of Dravidian stock - the ones you see in Bollywood )



Going by your logic, Pakistan is going to be Caucasian race and Christian/ Jew country 200 years down the road. 

Just kidding, No pun intended.


----------



## Omar1984

Iqbal_Brar said:


> wow.. so you throw in a couple of Persian words makes your language Persianatic? LOL.. oh please.. I cant even tell the difference between urdu and hindi when people are talking.. look at Punjabi.. it is a totally different language than both urdu and hindi.. but when it comes down to those 2 languages.. urdu and hindi is like almost same language..So you guys learn the alif beh peh letters... and you think its a big difference? lmao.. please.. any script can be used to write a language... Punjabi is still the same Punjabi despite it using 2 different scripts.. Pakistani Punjabis write in Shahmukhi (arabic script) and Indian Punjabis write in Gurmukhi (sanskrit script)... the language is still the exact same!! just the letters used to write are different.. it is same case with urdu.. just because you write in arabic script doesn't make it a whole lot different than Hindi.. especially since a non-hindi non-urdu speaker like me can't even tell the difference between both of those languages.. u guys speak the same frikkin language!!!!!



Another Indian trying to convince the world that Pakistanis and Indians are the same. We Pakistanis admit that Urdu has many Persian words, while you indians speak Urdu and claim its hindi. The real hindi has no Farsi or Arabic words at all so instead of speaking Urdu in your bollywood try pure hindi and lets see how many people will actually watch your bollywood movies then.

And yes scripts maters a lot. I can not even read your freakin hindi while you cant read my Urdu. You indians will be totally lost if one day all the signs in india were to be written in Urdu.

Thank God we write all the languages spoken in Pakistan in the same script so all Pakistanis will know how to read our languages, indians are illiterate when it comes to reading Urdu or Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Balochi in Pakistan.





Iqbal_Brar said:


> And whats your source it originated in Afghanistan?



Salwar kameez (also spelled shalwar kameez or shalwar qameez) is a traditional dress worn by both women and men in South and Central part of Asia. *It is widely believe that Shalwar Kameez was originated from Afghanistan and was spread out in in neighboring countries especially in India.* Salwar or shalwar are loose pajama-like trousers. The legs are wide at the top, and narrow at the ankle. The kameez is a long shirt or tunic. The side seams (known as the chaak), left open below the waist-line, give the wearer greater freedom of movement.

Salwar kameez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Iqbal_Brar said:


> Maybe Pakistani Punjabis but you will never see an Indian leader from Punjab make official visits in anything else but a Kurta pajama/salwar kameez (we only call the lady dress salwar kameez nd male dress kurta pajama so distinction there).. and thats funny.... 99&#37; of the time Manmohan Singh wears a kurta pajama.. but he is not leader of Punjab only.. he is leader of whole India.. and kurta pajama/salwar kameez dress is only worn by people of Punjab and Haryana..Tell a Punjabi Jatt that Shalwar Kameez was made by Afghan Pashtuns lets see what their response would be lol.Oh and did I forget the turban??? They're rocking that part of OUR dress too!!! Don't know.. couldn't care less.. sure you can have the saree.. no one in Punjab wears sarees anyways.. lolll..



Manmohan Singh doesnt wear Shalwar Kameez because he knows thats not his original clothes. It was brought by Afghans into the subcontinent. Men from Pakistan and Afghanistan always wear these clothes because they are proud of their heritage and their clothing unlike indian men who like to wear tight pants showing off their skinny legs 


All the good things about the subcontinent. Architecture, clothing, art, cuisine, literature, and religion was brought by the Muslims.

As I said I like nothing about hindu/sikh culture.


----------



## Peshwa

Omar1984 said:


> Urdu was brought to the subcontinent because of the Muslims. If it wasn't for the Muslims, we all would be speaking hindi. Even your bollywood uses Urdu. Ask any Iranian, Dost, Zindagi, Makaan, Aasmaan, Zameen, Zindagi, etcc are all Farsi words.



Sanskrit is the root of all Germanic languages.....and a person who understands Sanskrit (Indian Language) is able to comprehend German to a certain extent......

Hell even their airline "Lufthansa" is in Sanskrit:

Luft: Flying
Hansa: Swan

What does that say? Are we supposed to claim that culturally Indians and Germans are alike?.....
Borrowing a few words is called influence.....NOT derivation....

Urdu is an Indian language originating in UP/Bihar area.....the only part of your statement that has any weight is that it was majorly spoken by muslims of that region....But Muslims did not bring it to our country.....


----------



## Peshwa

Omar1984 said:


> Another Indian trying to convince the world that Pakistanis and Indians are the same. We Pakistanis admit that Urdu has many Persian words, while you indians speak Urdu and claim its hindi. The real hindi has no Farsi or Arabic words at all so instead of speaking Urdu in your bollywood try pure hindi and lets see how many people will actually watch your bollywood movies then.
> 
> *And yes scripts maters a lot. I can not even read your freakin hindi while you cant read my Urdu. You indians will be totally lost if one day all the signs in india were to be written in Urdu.*
> .



So by your logic, can a urdu speaking mohajir understand Farsi?

Since the script matters a lot.....
English ,Spanish and French follow the same script.....Can one understand the other without learning the language? Or can they be considered the same language?....

Seriously....is there any point continuing your argument when you've been proven wrong on multiple fronts? Never thought I wud say this....read JinxeD Girls post.....


----------



## asq

After reading most posts I am compeled to say that in the past our history is same as history of middle east, Europe or north America. Study it u will se the similarities.

So all man used to do in those days is to conquer, loot or establish his kingdom, 

french and english fought a war known as 100 years war.

so Please stop dumping on Muslims, Aryans came to India and plundered it, comparatively Muslims did not push real Indians out of their homes and to south.

Had Muslim rulers done what Euopeans did in Americas or what english did in India and in Africa, India would have been all Muslim day.

Afghan or Tajiks or uzbeck who came to India were no differant than Aryians, or europeans, so it is not fair to single out Muslims.

I am sorry for brusting the buble of some on this forum, but truth had to be told.


Read and see the similarities.

History of Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncanny similarities are present in all the history of the world as noted above. Enjoy, and relax, forgive and move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sparklingway

Omar1984 said:


> Urdu was brought to the subcontinent because of the Muslims. If it wasn't for the Muslims, we all would be speaking hindi. Even your bollywood uses Urdu. Ask any Iranian, Dost, Zindagi, Makaan, Aasmaan, Zameen, Zindagi, etcc are all Farsi words.
> 
> And can you indians even read Urdu:



I posted this minutes ago on another thread where the issue of language was raised:-

Before reading the next sentences, come out of any myopic and/or prejudiced mindset and evaluate objectively:-

*Standardized Hindi and Urdu are very much alike, so much that their differences are not enough for linguists to classify them as entirely different languages. They are considered dialects of a common language referred to as Hindustani language. Even when they are written in different scrips (Nastaliq as opposed to Devanagari), and have differences in phonetics, they are still considered dialects of a common language by linguists.*

Gopi Chand Narang, awarded Iqbal Centennary Gold Medal by the GoP and Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri by GoI for his contributions to Urdu had the following to say:-

"Associating Urdu with the Muslims in India is part of a political conspiracy against this composite language which was born out of a cultural interaction between the Hindus and the Muslims. The communalization of Urdu is part of its politicization which has occurred in the last half century. In fact, it is part of the hangover of the two nation theory which stands discredited by historical events in the subcontinent.

"Nevertheless narrow minded politicians on both sides of the border unwittingly subscribe to it. Pakistan is a nascent nation. Naturally it needs a language and a cultural core which it may call its own. The bigger problem lies in India where presently Urdu's association with the Muslim minority is exploited as a vote bank. In India, I have yet to come across a leader of a political party, left or right, who does not praise Urdu for its charm and elegance, yet these leaders are indifferent to its linguistic rights". 

*The language dispute only went to show the lack of objectivity among the populations, both of whom sought to dominate each other at the fall of the Mughal Empire. If Canada can adopt French and English in parallel, the lack of such an agreement in British India only highlighted the irrationality of the population.*

The Urdu-Hindi struggle has forced our historians (read state historians who distort history for political purposes) to present Urdu as a symbol of Hindu-Muslim differences and somehow a factor contributing to demand for Independence. The controversy has been settled, in all practical purposes by the GoI and the widescale adoption and general understanding (read unfamiliarity with Persian/Nastaliq script) of Devanagari script has coerced Urdu scholars in India so much so, that they have adopted Devanagari for Urdu publications as well (some magazines are published this way).

PS :- I'm not commenting on any other aspect, except the point of Hindu-Urdu that you raised. Read it only in that limited context.


----------



## sparklingway

asq said:


> Uncanny similarities are present in all the history of the world as noted above. Enjoy, and relax, forgive and move on.


You sir, are a gentlemen and a scholar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> Another Indian trying to convince the world that Pakistanis and Indians are the same. We Pakistanis admit that Urdu has many Persian words, while you indians speak Urdu and claim its hindi. The real hindi has no Farsi or Arabic words at all so instead of speaking Urdu in your bollywood try pure hindi and lets see how many people will actually watch your bollywood movies then.



lolll.. and thats my point... you have to whine and cry to tell me how different urdu is... because when you speak.. you sound exactly like speaking hindi to me.. lmaoo... when we speak punjabi.. everybody KNOWS its a different language.. we don't need to go around explaining to people its a different language like you do here.. LOL..



> And yes scripts maters a lot. I can not even read your freakin hindi while you cant read my Urdu. You indians will be totally lost if one day all the signs in india were to be written in Urdu.
> 
> Thank God we write all the languages spoken in Pakistan in the same script so all Pakistanis will know how to read our languages, indians are illiterate when it comes to reading Urdu or Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Balochi in Pakistan.



we indians are already lost when we visit other states... when you visit different states the road signs are written in that states language.. so you cant even read them anyways... english is used as double language on signs to make it easier for people out of the state.. but script still has nothing to do with language... you read and write in arabic script but when it comes to understanding you can't understand sh!t all when arabic and Irani people talk... because you don't speak their language... you only look up to them.. ask any Irani and Arabi how close your language is to theirs.. they'll tell you.. loll...





> Salwar kameez (also spelled shalwar kameez or shalwar qameez) is a traditional dress worn by both women and men in South and Central part of Asia. *It is widely believe that Shalwar Kameez was originated from Afghanistan and was spread out in in neighboring countries especially in India.* Salwar or shalwar are loose pajama-like trousers. The legs are wide at the top, and narrow at the ankle. The kameez is a long shirt or tunic. The side seams (known as the chaak), left open below the waist-line, give the wearer greater freedom of movement.
> 
> Salwar kameez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Right onn... a wiki link.. and one which doesn't even confirm but states "widely believed".. yehhh... now i should sign up for a wiki account and correct that there.. loll... if you want to post wiki links.. than always scroll down to the bottom and post the references... that page has NOTHING meaning the person who wrote it "widely believes"...




> Manmohan Singh doesnt wear Shalwar Kameez because he knows thats not his original clothes. It was brought by Afghans into the subcontinent. Men from Pakistan and Afghanistan always wear these clothes because they are proud of their heritage and their clothing unlike indian men who like to wear tight pants showing off their skinny legs



cuz i already stated MMS is leader of whole India anddd he DOES wear it all the frikkin time!! butttt when it comes to your cheap shots.. i feel bad at returning the favour since you're not even Afghani and me making of this will mean me making fun of Afghanis.. and i got nothing against them.. they're good people.. so it sucks that i can't even make fun of you... lolllz.. cuz apparently you're a nobody... you cloak yourself behind Afghani and Persian culture... lolll.. so i'll leave you at itt.... 



> All the good things about the subcontinent. Architecture, clothing, art, cuisine, literature, and religion was brought by the Muslims.



As you say sir!! But again that little thing about "Muslims".. if you really admire them than don't be afraid to label them... you're awwed by Afghani and Persian culture.... simple as that.. 



> As I said I like nothing about hindu/sikh culture.



Aye aye brother.... its all good.. we didn't expect to generate much tourism revenue from you anyways.. lolll

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Omar1984

Iqbal_Brar said:


> lolll.. and thats my point... you have to whine and cry to tell me how different urdu is... because when you speak.. you sound exactly like speaking hindi to me.. lmaoo... when we speak punjabi.. everybody KNOWS its a different language.. we don't need to go around explaining to people its a different language like you do here.. LOL..



It sounds the same to you because you are indian whose living in denial trying to tell the world that Pakistanis and indians are the same but we Pakistanis rather die than be in the same category as indians. 

We Pakistanis can definately tell when an Indian talks in hindi and when a Pakistani talks in urdu. We dont have the dravadian accent that you have like how your news anchors talk in india tv. You even ruin Persian words like you call zindagi "jindagi" and zindabad "jindabad" and you have words like shanti which for Pakistanis means ugly indian woman, i can go on and on with the difference on how an indian talks and how a Pakistani talks but you will still reply because you are just being yourself, an annoying indian.





Iqbal_Brar said:


> you read and write in arabic script but when it comes to understanding you can't understand sh!t all when arabic and Irani people talk... because you don't speak their language... you only look up to them.. ask any Irani and Arabi how close your language is to theirs.. they'll tell you.. loll...



You can understand Urdu but when it comes to reading and writing Urdu you can't read and write sh!t all when Pakistanis read and write, that makes you indians illiterates in the Urdu language and you indians have dravadian languages like marathi and other south indian languages that most indians speak that no Pakistani can ever understand.

Every Muslim country has their own language. Turks have Turkish they also cant understand Arabic or Farsi.







Iqbal_Brar said:


> Right onn... a wiki link.. and one which doesn't even confirm but states "widely believed".. yehhh... now i should sign up for a wiki account and correct that there.. loll... if you want to post wiki links.. than always scroll down to the bottom and post the references... that page has NOTHING meaning the person who wrote it "widely believes"...



Atleast I provided a source you didnt even provide a source to your fairytale. If you were educated enough you would know that Shalwar is a Farsi word meaning pants and Kameez is an Arabic word meaning shirt. No Jatt sikh ever would've thought of those words. Muslims came up with Shalwar Kameez, jatt sikhs didnt invent sh!t.





Iqbal_Brar said:


> cuz i already stated MMS is leader of whole India anddd he DOES wear it all the frikkin time!! butttt when it comes to your cheap shots.. i feel bad at returning the favour since you're not even Afghani and me making of this will mean me making fun of Afghanis.. and i got nothing against them.. they're good people.. so it sucks that i can't even make fun of you... lolllz.. cuz apparently you're a nobody... you cloak yourself behind Afghani and Persian culture... lolll.. so i'll leave you at itt....



Afghani and Persian culture is much better than hindu and sikh culture I can tell you that, and you dont have to tell me about cheap shots you are a perfect example of an annoying indian who is obsessed about Pakistanis and want the whole world to think Pakistanis and indians are the same people, while we Pakistanis never wanted anything to do with indians. We Pakistanis are 180 million people we are a people of our own.





Iqbal_Brar said:


> As you say sir!! But again that little thing about "Muslims".. if you really admire them than don't be afraid to label them... you're awwed by Afghani and Persian culture.... simple as that..



I dont care if the Muslim is Afghani, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Sweedish or African I respect them and admire their culture more than bharatis.




Iqbal_Brar said:


> Aye aye brother.... its all good.. we didn't expect to generate much tourism revenue from you anyways.. lolll



loll yourself you just proved to everyone in this forum that indian is another word for annoying loser who has nothing better to do than follow Pakistanis in every Pakistani forum trying to convince Pakistanis that they are same as indians while Pakistanis want nothing at all to do with indians.


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> *also better genes* (I won't associate that with Muslims, but they just happen to be Muslims).. but Turks, Afghans and especially Persians (Persians are extremely attractive and beautiful)..
> 
> otherwise all Indians would have ended up being of Dravidian stock (right now atleast 1% Indians are not of Dravidian stock - the ones you see in Bollywood )



So your obsession with looks continues. I guess according to you *better genes = better looking/attractive (people) genes*. 

I wonder what it will take for you to understand that there is more to a person or a group of people than just good looks. Pretty shallow, dont you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> thanks for atleast admitting something...  I am part Iranian... and Persian girlz are known around the world for being beautiful..
> 
> Other than looting and killing*... Persians and Afghans did brought good genes to North Indians*.. you can't say that Invasions of India only had negative consequences..



why are u hell bent on displaying ur stupidity??

The north Indian Hindus including Hindu Sindhis ,kashmiri pundits and Sikhs Punjabis etc etc dont have even an ounce of Persians and Afghans blood or gene in them...forget about the rest of the Hindus of India.


*Its only the Muslims, Anglo Indians of the sub continent who have foreign genes them in varying extent*.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

biplob said:


> why are u hell bent on displaying ur stupidity??
> 
> The north Indian Hindus including Hindu Sindhis ,kashmiri pundits and Sikhs Punjabis etc etc dont have even an ounce of Persians and Afghans blood or gene in them...forget about the rest of the Hindus of India.
> 
> 
> *Its only the Muslims, Anglo Indians of the sub continent who have foreign genes them in varying extent*.



I think you are right!! Thanks for correcting me biplob!! Most Muslims of India are also indigenous to India (I would say 99% of them?)


Afghan Girls
http://img641.imageshack.us/i/pushtungirlsgt4.jpg/

Persian Girls

http://img214.imageshack.us/i/iranwomen.jpg/

North Indian Girls

http://img532.imageshack.us/i/indianstudents.jpg/


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Thanks for correcting me biplob!!  you are absolutely right

*"The north Indian Hindus dont have even an ounce of Persians and Afghans blood or gene in them"!!!*


----------



## RobbieS

There goes the thread into another good looks and better genes contest. Thanks guys!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> There goes the thread into another good looks and better genes contest. Thanks guys!



nope I was agreeing with biplob in what he said!!  There are actually very few instances where I actually agree with Indians and change my opinion!!


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> nope I was agreeing with biplob in what he said!!  There are actually very few instances where I actually agree with Indians and change my opinion!!



Great for regional peace. 

Can we now get on with the topic of the thread?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> Great for regional peace.
> 
> Can we now get on with the topic of the thread?



sure you can Robbie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> sure you can Robbie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



There's no winning against you in a war or words. Is it? Girls.


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Errr.. what?? The Sikh panth's foundation is the Rehat Maryada.. the code of conduct.. It is basically a path to the RELIGION of Sikhism! Buddhism and Jainism our their own religions.. quit trolling by saying that Sikhism is not a religion.. maybe not in your Hindu RSS books.. but ask the rest of the Sikhs here...




U dont know the difference between an organized religion and panth(path) or a way of life.OKay.

I would call each indigos religion including Sikhism as Panths rather than religion.

RSS books??
well u see Mr *Iqbal*l_Brar(UN flagwale..lol) not everyone fan of Khalistani propaganda .





> First of all, get your facts straight.. Majority of the Muslims in Indian subcontinent are not "foreign blood"... majority of Muslims are subcontinental.. their ancestors were Hindus who rejected Hinduism... same goes for Sikhism... those guys were SIKHS!!! As soon as they got baptized into Sikhism, that was it, they were HINDUS NO LONGER!! Get that through your head.. there is no such thing as "Hindu blood".. Hinduism is just a philosophy...




yes, majority of Muslims in India subcontinent are not "foreign blood,true??
But perceptions are different ...a number of Pakistani or even BD one give a different views.

ancestors were Hindus who *rejected* Hinduism... ??

BS ,this country is still 80&#37; Hindu u idiot and if not for foreign invasions it their numbers would have been even more.

*BTW,large number of ppl in north west India(Pakistan) and even today's Bangladesh were infact Buddhist before Bin Quasim arrived the shore of Sindhi.Hence in-fact they rejected Buddhism not Hinduism,and Buddhism disappeared ,while Hinduism is around till today practiced by 900m ppl India*.

Coming back to Sikhism,let me clear most ppl who got influenced by Sikh gurus initially and later got baptized by Guru Gobind singhji and joined khasa force never thought they are leaving Hinduism or as u stupidly put rejected Hinduism.Most didn't see difference as u((UN flag wale) see it today.*If that was the case u would have never see long tradition of Punjabi Hindu families sending the kids to join khasla*.




> Before the 10th Guru, there was no such thing as baptism into the Sikh religion.. it was an idea which you followed... and all the writings and teachings of those Sufi saints.. be that Islam or Sikhism.. it does not matter.. all Sikhs follow them.. because they teach pretty much the same thing as what Guru Nanak taught!! As for conversions, there was never a request for anyone to be converted.. *there still isn't.. you should come to Punjab and see how badly the so called "Rashtriya Sikh Sangat" (Hindu RSS converts to Sikhism) are HATED.. they are HINDUS at heart.. only put the turban on their head to try to corrupt the Sikh religion.... ..*




So u Iqbal _brar(UN flag wale) gonna decide who is real a Sikh,hann??



> joining them and converting and becoming Lachman Singh Babbar.. not that we are big on conversions.. we don't ask anyone to convert to Sikhism.. just leave us alone and stop claiming that we're Hindus...



*I never said Sikhs are Hindus by religion *.But Sikhism is started by Hindus guru and his Hindu followers part of Bhati movement.
*And later on the Khala forces are made of up boys Punjabi Hindu families who never saw its as an anti Hindu cause,but a struggle against Mogul tyranny*.




> No one ASKED them to be converted.. and since they converted, they are HINDUS NO MORE!!!



Thats the whole problem between Ur assertions and my understanding.

Sikhs didn't came from somewhere outside Punjab ,but gradually built by Punjabi Hindus joining the movement in more numbers .*The fact that Hindu families letting their kid become Sada of khalsa army(not the whole family got converted),clearly shows Punjabi Hindu never saw it against Hindu religion*.Thats the crucial difference between whole Hindu families converting Islam for various reasons.




> Or pick up the sword and fight for themselves for a change?? Sikhs were not even such a strong military force when Guru Tegh Bahadur was asked for help.. Rajputs or Marathas were way stronger.. but still he ended up achieving Shahadat for them..




The kasrmiri pundits who came seeking the Guru Tegh Bahadur's help were no hapless strangers as u and some here like to portray .They were friends and acquaintance of the Sikh guru living in near by Kashmir.So infact the Sikh Guru choose help friends out.That part was deliberately omitted by khalistani groups.
Though the Sikhs were not martial at time,but courageous choose to defend the Kashmir pundits(essentially Hindu priests by birth and profession ,not more martial Hindus like Rajput or Maratha) and gave self sacrifice.

After his death Guru Gobind singh vowed to raise khalsa army and Hindus of that region supported his cause by joined him and become sadars.



> .. we're Sikhs through and through.. it is not the blood in your viens which makes you a Sikh but your faith and practices which make you a Sikh... you guys have yet to get that through your head...





Well ,Sikhs are sikhs .I admire Sikhs a lot ,but not the (UN flag wale) type.


*But I cant support false canards like Sikhs were the Saviour's of Hindus which is nonsense*.
The fact of the matters is Sikhs are themselves made off Punjabi Hindus who later become sadars .*Even then they had zero influence outside Punjab ,not even in Delhi.*

By the time Ranjit Singh was ruling from Lahore,most of central India was under the Martha's whose influence the Mogul seat of Delhi where Mogul king for an emperor for name shake.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

Omar1984 said:


> It sounds the same to you because you are indian whose living in denial trying to tell the world that Pakistanis and indians are the same but we Pakistanis rather die than be in the same category as indians.



lolll.. duudee i couldn't care less what you aree.... ethnically.. I'm a Punjabi Jatt and damn proud of itt... just like all the other Jatts.. either in Pakistan or India... the rest of you.. i could care less.. brand yourself whatever.. but just sayingg.. as a non-Hindi and non-urdu speaker.. when u talk.. nd another guy talks hindi.. i can't tell no difference... don't get ethnicity and religion mixed upp.. Jatts are proud people.. even after they converted to Sikhism or Islam.. they still proudly keep their Jatt last names... so don't be fooled into thinking that i'm saying you're ethnically same as me.. you're nothing like me!!



> We Pakistanis can definately tell when an Indian talks in hindi and when a Pakistani talks in urdu. We dont have the dravadian accent that you have like how your news anchors talk in india tv. You even ruin Persian words like you call zindagi "jindagi" and zindabad "jindabad" and you have words like shanti which for Pakistanis means ugly indian woman, i can go on and on with the difference on how an indian talks and how a Pakistani talks but you will still reply because you are just being yourself, an annoying indian.



lolll.. "Jindagi" and "jindabad" are punjabi accented words.. infact i wont be surprised if urdu stole "jindgi" from Punjabi.. because it comes from the word "Jind" which means "life" in Punjabi... anddd.. ironically these words are used by more than half of your country... pakistani punjabis... 



> You can understand Urdu but when it comes to reading and writing Urdu you can't read and write sh!t all when Pakistanis read and write, that makes you indians illiterates in the Urdu language and you indians have dravadian languages like marathi and other south indian languages that most indians speak that no Pakistani can ever understand.



lollll... alright einstein.. go talk to the persians and arabis in urdu nd see if they understand a single thing u say... cuz ofcourse.. urdu is sooooo close to arabic and persian and nothing like hindi.. lollz...



> Every Muslim country has their own language. Turks have Turkish they also cant understand Arabic or Farsi.



lolll.. and what do you have again? sounded like Hindi to me.. lolll..  am just kidding... but I still think Pakistanis are foolish to accept urdu as their national language.. it is the mother tongue of Mohajirs... Pakistan's true languages are sindhi.. punjabi.. pashto.. balochi.. etc etc... no matter how u much u try to whine and cry wont change the fact urdu is an indic language.. originated in india.. and used by indian muslims... and is NOT the mother tongue of Pakistani muslims..



> Atleast I provided a source you didnt even provide a source to your fairytale. If you were educated enough you would know that Shalwar is a Farsi word meaning pants and Kameez is an Arabic word meaning shirt. No Jatt sikh ever would've thought of those words. Muslims came up with Shalwar Kameez, jatt sikhs didnt invent sh!t.



I know.. true say.... shalwar... kameezzz... yeppp ure right.. no Jatt could ever think of coming up with these words loll... but yeh bro, I definitely agree.. you provided me with a link.. a wiki one.. but i did.. so i definitely gotta concede this point to you... 



> Afghani and Persian culture is much better than hindu and sikh culture I can tell you that, and you dont have to tell me about cheap shots you are a perfect example of an annoying indian who is obsessed about Pakistanis and want the whole world to think Pakistanis and indians are the same people, while we Pakistanis never wanted anything to do with indians. We Pakistanis are 180 million people we are a people of our own.



achaaa... thanks for telling me.. i swear i could never have figured this one out... lolll.. i may be annoying to you bro.. but you're still a little teeny weeny teenager.. and that "1984" in your name most definitely is not your d.o.b. as one gets that impression at first glance... like my friend Indian jatt here.. I can definitely see what i'm interacting with the more you post.. 




> I dont care if the Muslim is Afghani, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Sweedish or African I respect them and admire their culture more than bharatis.



loll... achaa... so what culture is yours again.. afghani... or persian?



> loll yourself you just proved to everyone in this forum that indian is another word for annoying loser who has nothing better to do than follow Pakistanis in every Pakistani forum trying to convince Pakistanis that they are same as indians while Pakistanis want nothing at all to do with indians.



lolll... bro.. i love you... hadnt had this much fun in a while... ndd nooo you're not same as me.. we already went through this.. lolz.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

biplob said:


> U dont know the differnece between an organized religion and panth(path) or a way of life.okay.
> 
> I would call each indigious religion including sikhism as Panths rather than religion.
> 
> RSS books??
> well u see Mr *Iqba*l_Brar(UN flagwale..lol) not everyone fan of Khalistani propaganda .
> 
> yes, majority of muslims in india subcontinent are not "foreign blood,true??
> But perceptions are differnent ...a number of pakistani or even BD one give a diffenert views.
> 
> ancestors were Hindus who *rejected* Hinduism... ??
> 
> BS ,this country is still 80% hindu u idiot and if not for foreign invasions it their numbers would have been even more.
> 
> *BTW,large number of ppl in north west india(pakistan) and even today's Banladesh were infact Buddist before Bin Quasim arrived the shore of sindh.Hence infact they rejected Buddism not hindusim,and Buddism disappeared ,while hinduism is around till today practiced by 900m ppl india*.
> 
> Coming back to Sikhism,let me clear most ppl who got influenced by sikh gurus intially and later got baptized by Guru Gobind singhji and joined khasa force never thought they are leaving hinduism or as u stupidly put rejected Hinduism.Most didnt see differnece as u((UN flagwale) see it today.*If that was the case u would have never see long tradition of punjabi hindu families sending the kids to join khasla*.
> 
> 
> So u Iqbal _brar(UN flagwale) gonna decide who is real a Sikh,hann??
> 
> *I never said Sikhs are hindus by religion *.But Sikhism is started by hindus guru and his hindu follwers part of Bhati movement.
> *And later on the Khala forces are made of up boys punjabi hindu famiies who never saw its as an anti hindu cause,but a sturggle aganist moghul tyraany*.
> 
> 
> Thats the whole problem between ur assertions and my understanding.
> 
> Sikhs didnt came from somewhere outside punjab ,but gradually built by punjabi hindus joinin the movment in more numbers .*The fact that hindu families letting their kid become Sadar of khalsa army(not the whole family got converted),clearly shows punjabi hindu never saw it aganist hindu religion*.Thats the crucial difference between whole hindu familes converting islam for various reasons.
> 
> 
> The kasrmiri pundits who came seeking the Guru Tegh Bahadur's help were no hapless strangers as u and some here like to potray .They were friends and aquantance of the Sikh guru livig in near by kashmir.So infact the Sikh Guru choose help friends out.That part was delibarately omitted by khalistani groups.
> Though the sikhs were not martial at time,but couregeous choose to defend the kashmiri pundits(essentally hindu priests by birh and professin ,not more martial hindus like Rajput or Maratha) and gave self sacrifice.
> 
> After his death Guru Gobind singh vowed to raise khalsa army and hindus of that region suppoted his casue by joined him and become sadars.
> 
> 
> Well ,Sikhs are sikhs .I admire Sikhs a lot ,but not the (UN flagwale) type.
> 
> 
> *But dont support false canards like Sikhs were the saviours of hindus which is nonsense*.
> The fact of the matters is sikhs are themselves made off punjabi hindus who later become sadars .*Even then they had zero influnence outside punjab ,not even in Delhi.*
> 
> By the time Ranjit Singh was ruling from Lahore,most of central india was under the marathas whose influnece the moghul seat of Delhi where moghul king for an emperor for name shake.


[/QUOTE]


lollll.... man right after i get through my friend Omar's post, i run into thisss.... hmmm listen up genius... when ALL the Sikhs on this forum are telling you that they are NOT Hindus.. than please get that through your headdd mann.. i really don't got time to go through all ure BS post again... truth be toldd.. ure posts are too long and boring to keep constantly correct.. thanks to brother RobbieS he should be answering a lotta your questions about Sikhi through PM... just go discuss it out with him.. quit bothering me... and yeaa.. we're SIKHS!! NOT Hindussss.... we rejected Hinduism... and I don't see how a Hindu and twist and whine and force us to say we're Hindus when almost every Sikh member on this board has already told u that we're our own religion.. we're SIKHSSS...


----------



## RobbieS

@Biplob - Dude its irrelevant to go into who was what before converting to Sikhism. If we go into that, then we have to decide how far back we want to go. What were Sanatanis before their way of life was crystallized as Hinduism? Pagans? What were Arabs before they converted to Islam? Some tribal religion?

Its true most religions start out as sects/panths. So was the case of Christianity that branched out of Judaism and so was the case for Buddhism/Jainism wrt to Hinduism. But I guess we both agree that Sikhism is a religion and has been so for quite a few centuries. Rest all is re-wording of arguments.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> I think you are right!! Thanks for correcting me biplob!! Most Muslims of India are also indigenous to India (I would say 99% of them?)
> 
> 
> Afghan Girls
> http://img641.imageshack.us/i/pushtungirlsgt4.jpg/
> 
> Persian Girls
> 
> http://img214.imageshack.us/i/iranwomen.jpg/
> 
> North Indian Girls
> 
> http://img532.imageshack.us/i/indianstudents.jpg/




oiiii how come you always find the ugliest pics to post for indian girls?? lmaoo... its all good though.. keep the pics coming.. this thread is already gone now.. loll... toyed around with my good buddy omar.... sexy gals in the backdrop will give a nice drift to this thread.. lolll... i think omar will like that too... what you say omar??


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> lollll.... man right after i get through my friend Omar's post, i run into thisss.... hmmm listen up genius... when ALL the Sikhs on this forum are telling you that they are NOT Hindus.. than please get that through your headdd mann.. i really don't got time to go through all ure BS post again... truth be toldd.. ure posts are too long and boring to keep constantly correct.. thanks to brother RobbieS he should be answering a lotta your questions about Sikhi through PM... just go discuss it out with him.. quit bothering me... and yeaa.. we're SIKHS!! NOT Hindussss.... we rejected Hinduism... and I don't see how a Hindu and twist and whine and force us to say we're Hindus when almost every Sikh member on this board has already told u that we're our own religion.. we're SIKHSSS...



I dont give *** **** what ur personal beliefs are.

*All I'm against is this false BS canard started by IBIS Ur Iqbal_brar(UN flag wale)* *that the Sikhs were brave Saviour's of Hindus which is completely untrue.*


Yes ,Guru Teg Bhag Bhahadur sacrificed his life for his friends among Kashmir pundits and khalsa forces saved few Punjabi Hindu women form foreign invaders .,but those Punjabi Hindus were Ur Punjabi women and khalasa force itself made off Punjabi Hindu contributions.So next time always mention that Sikhs helped their fellow Hindus(Punjabi only).

Basically Sikhs had no influence outside Punjab,hence any time u Sikh extremist like u start talking as if we Hindus owe something to u ,it make u me fall off my chair of Ur sadar joke.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

biplob said:


> I dont give *** **** what ur personal beliefs are.
> 
> *All I'm against is this false BS canard started by IBIS Ur Iqbal_brar(UN flag wale)* *that the Sikhs were brave Saviour's of Hindus which is completely untrue.*
> 
> 
> Yes ,Guru Teg Bhag Bhahadur sacrificed his life for his friends among Kashmir pundits and khalsa forces saved few Punjabi Hindu women form foreign invaders .,but those Punjabi Hindus were Ur Punjabi women and khalasa force itself made off Punjabi Hindu contributions.So next time always mention that Sikhs helped their fellow Hindus(Punjabi only).
> 
> Basically Sikhs had no influence outside Punjab,hence any time u Sikh extremist like u start talking as if we Hindus owe something to u ,it make u me fall off my chair of Ur sadar joke.



stop pms'ing.. i never said that Sikhs were saviours of Hindus... you sure you're not reading your own posts?? LOL.. No Sikh says that only reason for Khalsa army was to save Hindus... it wasn't... Khalsa army was an army OF Sikhs.. FOR Sikhs... it was never made to protect Hindus... if they did or not.. thats another story.. I won't comment on it.. because its not even that important in Sikh history...


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> I think you are right!! Thanks for correcting me biplob!! Most Muslims of India are also indigenous to India (I would say 99&#37; of them?)



Girl o Girl 

When u put Afghan girl or Persian gal pic ,u put some model type with fulltooo make up on., on the other hand for north indian girls u take random group class room pic in dark . wow ...hats up to u.

Let me tell u, anywhere from north India to Bengal ,Bihar,Orissa to down south have * enough absolute beautiful (fair and lovely type )to dark skinned beauty queen walking on the streets *for us Indian boys look out side else where.







No need to with entice someone with pics of gals from Afghanistan whose gal friend resembles to Vasundhara das(a south Indian ) .U see we too have our arm candies.



PS:I think sindhi gals both hindu and muslim are best looking in all Pakistanis and nearby Indian regions .Yea u quite right are Iranian gals great though.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> oiiii how come you always find the ugliest pics to post for indian girls?? lmaoo... its all good though.. keep the pics coming.. this thread is already gone now.. loll... toyed around with my good buddy omar.... sexy gals in the backdrop will give a nice drift to this thread.. lolll... i think omar will like that too... what you say omar??



lol! You shouldn't get mad Iqbal_Brar, I am keeping Punjabi and Kashmiri girlz out of this thread.. I am posting the pics of other North Indians (U.P., Bihar, Bengal), so please enjoy!!


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> Thanks for correcting me biplob!!  you are absolutely right
> 
> *"The north Indian Hindus dont have even an ounce of Persians and Afghans blood or gene in them"!!!*



thank u...if u feel enlightened 

BTW upper castes of North Indian and Brahmins living all over India are said to be product of Aryan migration from central Asia regions over thousand of yrs ago..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

biplob said:


> Girl o Girl
> 
> When u put Afghan girl or Persian gal pic ,u put some model type with fulltooo make up on., on the other hand for north indian girls u take random group class room pic in dark . wow ...hats up to u.
> 
> Let me tell u, anywhere from north India to Bengal ,Bihar,Orissa to down south have * enough absolute beautiful (fair and lovely type )to dark skinned beauty queen walking on the streets *for us Indian boys look out side else where.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to with entice someone with pics of gals from Afghanistan whose gal friend resembles to Vasundhara das(a south Indian ) .U see we too have our arm candies.
> 
> 
> 
> PS:I think sindhi gals both hindu and muslim are best looking in all Pakistanis and nearby Indian regions .Yea u quite right are Iranian gals great though.



Are you Sindhi? In Pakistan... Kashmiri, Punjabis and Pushtuns have the best looking girlz and boyz.. this is the first time I am hearing Sindhis have best looking girlz.. 

and the pictures of Afghans and Persians I posted are of everyday Afghan and Persian students... not MODELS.. they hardly have any models (and the one or two they have are settled outside Iran/Afghanistan) because of strict Islamic code enforced in both countries . Whenever I post pics for comparison they are of ordinary people, NOT models..

Indian and Bangladeshi girlz are in general no way near Afghan or Iranian girlz or for that matter Pakistani girlz..


----------



## RobbieS

biplob said:


> I dont give *** **** what ur personal beliefs are.
> 
> *All I'm against is this false BS canard started by IBIS Ur Iqbal_brar(UN flag wale)* *that the Sikhs were brave Saviour's of Hindus which is completely untrue.*
> 
> 
> Yes ,Guru Teg Bhag Bhahadur sacrificed his life for his friends among Kashmir pundits and khalsa forces saved few Punjabi Hindu women form foreign invaders .,but those Punjabi Hindus were Ur Punjabi women and khalasa force itself made off Punjabi Hindu contributions.So next time always mention that Sikhs helped their fellow Hindus(Punjabi only).
> 
> Basically Sikhs had no influence outside Punjab,hence any time u Sikh extremist like u start talking as if we Hindus owe something to u ,it make u me fall off my chair of Ur sadar joke.



Dude, ur not only belittling a brave leader's sacrifice but also showing your standard by insinuating Sardar joke. What do u mean that the Kashmiri Pandits were friends of the Guru? Did he know them personally? Just because you are angry at somebody's views doesn't mean you have to devalue historical incidents.

And I dont think the Sikhs expect anything from GoI apart from redressal of past atrocities and holding the guilty accountable. From the national mainstream society - a little respect and less stereotyping. I hope thats not too much to ask.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

biplob said:


> thank u...if u feel enlightened
> 
> BTW upper castes of North Indian and Brahmins living all over India are said to be product of Aryan migration from central Asia regions over thousand of yrs ago..



yeah from Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan (all Aryan countries)


----------



## jinxeD_girl

I am going to bed now...  bye bye


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> lol! You shouldn't get mad Iqbal_Brar, I am keeping Punjabi and Kashmiri girlz our of this thread.. I am posting the pics of other North Indians (U.P., Bihar, Bengal), so please enjoy!!



u can call me Iqbal or call me Brar.. dun gotta hyphenate my name every time loll.. ndd naiiii yaar mainu anni chetti gussa ni aunda... i'm dead serious about those gals... lolll.. the persian gals were a treat.. the afghan gals... mmm.. you could definitely find much better pics they weren't the greatest.. nd the indian gals.. omg lolll.. 

post some GOOD pics if you gotta post.. lol.. this is what i'm talking about (enjoy  ):










there ya goo... a perfect irani afghani and bihari pics lolll.. dekhan da vi koi faedda aii...


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> I am going to bed now...  bye bye



gooooddd niighttt!!!


----------



## k_n

> *A skin deep reason* <----- all that coming from a Marathi who claimed in some other thread that he or Marathis are lighter skinned than Punjabis and Kashmiris.. what a joke!!



Google ---> Kokanastha Chitpavan Brahmans . 

A big fraction in this community are much lighter skinned than an avg Punjabi or even a Kashmiri . Yes , they also have fair distribution of Hazel and Grey eyes !


----------



## jinxeD_girl

k_n said:


> Google ---> Kokanastha Chitpavan Brahmans .
> 
> A big fraction in this community are much lighter skinned than an avg Punjabi or even a Kashmiri . Yes , they also have fair distribution of Hazel and Grey eyes !



What kind of argument is that ? Bringing just one tribe or clan into discussion and make them the representation of all Marathis.. I can do the same.. Bringing one trible and clan of Punjabis into discussion and making them the representation of all Punjabis.

I am talking about Punjabis and Kashmiris on Average.. They are extreme north western states of India.. and it is extremely cold in Kashmir..

Indian Punjab is mostly flat plain.. but parts of Pakistani Punjab (Northern Punjab) are mountainous and hilly and it snows in some areas of Northern Punjab..

Therefore, ofcourse Punjabis and Kashmiris on average would be lighter than other Indians..

Now don't gimme this bull $hit that Marathis on average are lighter than Punjabis and Kashmiris (especially Kashmiris)


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal_Brar said:


> u can call me Iqbal or call me Brar.. dun gotta hyphenate my name every time loll.. ndd naiiii yaar mainu anni chetti gussa ni aunda... i'm dead serious about those gals... lolll.. the persian gals were a treat.. the afghan gals... mmm.. you could definitely find much better pics they weren't the greatest.. nd the indian gals.. omg lolll..
> 
> post some GOOD pics if you gotta post.. lol.. this is what i'm talking about (enjoy  ):





Wekh Iqbal,

I am a girl .. how do I know what you guyz find attractive or not?  I can post the pics of some Afghan and Persian hotties (guyz) or some Kashmiri and Punjabi hotties (guyz).. but i am sure 99% of you won't be interested in hot guyz..


----------



## k_n

jinxeD_girl said:


> What kind of argument is that ? Bringing just one tribe or clan into discussion and make them the representation of all Marathis.. I can do the same.. Bringing one trible and clan of Punjabis into discussion and making them the representation of all Punjabis.
> 
> I am talking about Punjabis and Kashmiris on Average.. They are extreme north western states of India.. and it is extremely cold in Kashmir..
> 
> Indian Punjab is mostly flat plain.. but parts of Pakistani Punjab (Northern Punjab) are mountainous and hilly and it snows in some areas of Northern Punjab..
> 
> Therefore, ofcourse Punjabis and Kashmiris on average would be lighter than other Indians..
> 
> Now don't gimme this bull $hit that Marathis on average are lighter than Punjabis and Kashmiris (especially Kashmiris)




My reply doesnt mention ' Marathis on an average FAIRER than kashmiris and punjabis ' . The guy uses PESHWA as his Id n DP , he might be a chitpavan and thant might have made him make comment commending the good looks of Marathis . My only motive was to make you aware of the fact that chipavans are , well ---->  

Besides , the districts of the region ( Salt Range and Kahuta , Muree tehsils of RWP )of West Punjab that you have mentioned along with Attock and Mianwali are known to have a stock of good looking people . The moment you come south of Jhelum , there is not much difference between the Punjabi stock on either side . Personally , I only consider girls from Rawalpindi (amongst the Punjabis ) and adjoining areas of Hazara and Poonchh as 'something else' when it comes to facial features and skin texture beside skin color . ( I mean no offence to Other Punjabis ) .  
Here , I say that i find pindi girls better than other punjabi girls BUT that doesnt mean I might find a BONG or COORGI or GUJJU girl any less attractive . 
What your statements imply is Beauty is associated with certain ethnicities owing to their color and features , which is RACIST !
Appreciating beauty , Physical beauty is no where your business contrary to whatever you might believe . Its just the assertion of stereotypes and narrow minded , ghettoised opinions ( that have sprung up from a sense of perceived under-achievement ) that we get from you .
Stay racist if you so please to


----------



## jinxeD_girl

k_n said:


> My reply doesnt mention ' Marathis on an average FAIRER than kashmiris and punjabis ' . The guy uses PESHWA as his Id n DP , he might be a chitpavan and thant might have made him make comment commending the good looks of Marathis . My only motive was to make you aware of the fact that chipavans are , well ---->
> 
> Besides , the districts of the region ( Salt Range and Kahuta , Muree tehsils of RWP )of West Punjab that you have mentioned along with Attock and Mianwali are known to have a stock of good looking people . The moment you come south of Jhelum , there is not much difference between the Punjabi stock on either side . Personally , I only consider girls from Rawalpindi (amongst the Punjabis ) and adjoining areas of Hazara and Poonchh as 'something else' when it comes to facial features and skin texture beside skin color . ( I mean no offence to Other Punjabis ) .
> Here , I say that i find pindi girls better than other punjabi girls BUT that doesnt mean I might find a BONG or COORGI or GUJJU girl any less attractive .
> What your statements imply is Beauty is associated with certain ethnicities owing to their color and features , which is RACIST !
> Appreciating beauty , Physical beauty is no where your business contrary to whatever you might believe . Its just the assertion of stereotypes and narrow minded , ghettoised opinions ( that have sprung up from a sense of perceived under-achievement ) that we get from you .
> Stay racist if you so please to



I was talking about Fateh_71, not Peshwa...and thanks for giving me some info about chitpavan


----------



## biplob

RobbieS said:


> Dude, ur not only belittling a brave leader's sacrifice but also showing your standard by insinuating Sardar joke. *What do u mean that the Kashmiri Pandits were friends of the Guru? Did he know them personally*? Just because you are angry at somebody's views doesn't mean you have to devalue historical incidents.






I'm no Bshitter...
And i dont talk of things out of thin air.

Guru had great mutual respect for the Kashmir pundits as they were learned men of Hindu scriptures and guru used to engage in religious debates with them.

The man who led the Kashmir pundit delegation was *Pundit Kirpa Singh Dutt *.



> Pundit Kirpa Singh Dutt (d. 1705) was the son of Bhai Aru Ram, a Sarasvat Brahman of Matan, 65 KM east of Srinagar, in Kashmir. Aru Ram had met Guru Har Rai and sought his blessing at the time of the latter's visit to Kashmir in 1660.
> 
> Kashmiri Brahmins, came to Guru Tegh Bahadur at Anandpur in May 1675 for protection against atrocities of Aurungzeb. *Kirpa Ram led this group of Kashmiri Pandits driven to dire straits by State Persecution. *They had faced stiff taxes, atrocities, cruelty under muslim Mughal governor of Kashmir.





> According to chronicles, Pandit Kirpa Dutt was Guru Gobind Singh's Sanskrit teacher



Pandit Kirpa Ram - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

I would never belittle any man who made supreme sacrifice like the sikh Guru did...let alone when it was done on behalf of kashmiri pundits of my religion.My point was Guru and kashmiri pundits weren't complete strangers for each other.


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> Are you Sindhi? In Pakistan... Kashmiri, Punjabis and Pushtuns have the best looking girlz and boyz.. this is the first time I am hearing Sindhis have best looking girlz..



Technically speaking Sindhi and Bouch gal are closer to Iranians compared to punjabis ,dont they ??

Personally speaking punjabi gals looks too masculine...sorry.

In india upper caste hindu gals(avg) of all states are good looking by ur fair and lovely standards..

U dont understand the caste genetics of india.So u are generalizing everyone.

In terms of skin color, in Hindu upper class families u'll every is divided some fair complexion members to not so fair complexioned looking members , each number going up and down depending on the location of the state,north , south or in between some where.

I'm the giving a celebrity south India family as example:

Dipika Padukun:


Her dad Prakash Padukun, a famous Badminton player :


----------



## asq

Now I am going to say something on the hope that it will be taken as a deduction based on every day thought. With due respect to all let me say this.

As today's T.T.P say that they are fighting to save Muslims and Islam, what does a common man on street think of them. U all know the answer.

in yester years some fought against mughal the ruler of the day, what would mughal sat the time think about those making trouble in the country, they would do the same as we in Pakistan are doing against T.T.P, fight them who are touble makers, and or get rid of them.

With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, all times.

So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.

if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.


----------



## Peshwa

k_n said:


> My reply doesnt mention ' Marathis on an average FAIRER than kashmiris and punjabis ' . *The guy uses PESHWA as his Id n DP , he might be a chitpavan and thant might have made him make* * comment commending the good looks of Marathis *. My only motive was to make you aware of the fact that chipavans are , well ---->
> 
> Besides , the districts of the region ( Salt Range and Kahuta , Muree tehsils of RWP )of West Punjab that you have mentioned along with Attock and Mianwali are known to have a stock of good looking people . The moment you come south of Jhelum , there is not much difference between the Punjabi stock on either side . Personally , I only consider girls from Rawalpindi (amongst the Punjabis ) and adjoining areas of Hazara and Poonchh as 'something else' when it comes to facial features and skin texture beside skin color . ( I mean no offence to Other Punjabis ) .
> Here , I say that i find pindi girls better than other punjabi girls BUT that doesnt mean I might find a BONG or COORGI or GUJJU girl any less attractive .
> What your statements imply is Beauty is associated with certain ethnicities owing to their color and features , which is RACIST !
> Appreciating beauty , Physical beauty is no where your business contrary to whatever you might believe . Its just the assertion of stereotypes and narrow minded , ghettoised opinions ( that have sprung up from a sense of perceived under-achievement ) that we get from you .
> Stay racist if you so please to



Whoa Whoa.....Dont bring me into this.....

Im not petty enought to get into skin color and race to prove superiority to individuals with complex issues.....
Ive always maintained that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I see beauty in every race

And its mindsets such as some samples here that give undue importance to the color of ones skin as a mark of superiority that lead to a handfew of "goray" taking over our country and eventually colonizing it.....Pathetic!!


----------



## asq

Peshwa said:


> Whoa Whoa.....Dont bring me into this.....
> 
> Im not petty enought to get into skin color and race to prove superiority to individuals with complex issues.....
> Ive always maintained that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I eye see beauty in every race
> 
> And its mindsets such as some samples here that give undue importance to the color of ones skin as a mark of superiority that lead to a handfew of "goray" taking over our country and eventually colonizing it.....Pathetic!!



Peshawa, it is pathetic but that how it works in this world. I wish it did'nt but alas, it is true.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## biplob

asq said:


> With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, at all times.
> 
> So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.
> 
> if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.



Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??

Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.

Its wasn't law & order issue.
Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.

But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .


----------



## Peshwa

biplob said:


> Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??
> 
> Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.
> 
> Its wasn't law & order issue.
> Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.
> 
> But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .



The only Mughal ruler the Marathas despised was Aurangzeb.....
Marathas served as loyal Generals in the armies of the Mughals and even fought against Golconda rulers on the side of the Mughals....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

biplob said:


> Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??
> 
> Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.
> 
> Its wasn't law & order issue.
> Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.
> 
> But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .



Since you are quoting from your saffron history book again, I must try and correct your version of history.

Its true that Aurangzeb wasn't the most tolerant of emperors but certainly his intolerance is exaggerated. He did re-introduce Jizya but apart from that there was hardly any anti-Hindu step taken by him. In fact many of his Generals were Rajputs/Hindus and so were his Diwans handling the empire's treasury and accounts. The very fact that his close administrative and military retinue comprised of Hindus belies the Saffron exaggeration that he was anti-Hindu.


----------



## Peshwa

RobbieS said:


> Since you are quoting from your saffron history book again, I must try and correct your version of history.
> 
> Its true that Aurangzeb wasn't the most tolerant of emperors but certainly his intolerance is exaggerated. He did re-introduce Jizya but apart from that there was hardly any anti-Hindu step taken by him. In fact many of his Generals were Rajputs/Hindus and so were his Diwans handling the empire's treasury and accounts. The very fact that his close administrative and military retinue comprised of Hindus belies the Saffron exaggeration that he was anti-Hindu.



Uhhh.....Sorry bro....update on the history....Please read below....

There is a reason why Hindus took up arms against Mughal rule....Hindus lived peacefully under previous Mughal rulers that went as far as honoring hindu customs, taking hindu wives and even translating hindu scriptures.....Mughal rule was the zenith of Indian history with the best of both worlds living in one unified nation....But Aurangzeb changed all that.....

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records



RobbieS said:


> Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power. Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat, and with the advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia, Persia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries, and for all times to come.
> 
> One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb's policy was to demolish Hindu temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666) removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he had observed 'In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple', and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No. 6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No. 6, 7, 8, Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).
> 
> In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos. 9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No. 12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No. 13) is thus no fancy imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.
> 
> This was followed by Aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No. 11), Keshava Rai temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No. 12 and Painting, Exhibit No. 13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No. 14).To save the idol of Shri Nathji from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that Aurangzeb would have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave Rajputs, before he could even touch the idol (Exhibit No. 15)
> 
> Aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during which the temples built on the bank of Rana's lake were destroyed by his orders (Exhibit No. 23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No. 25, Text), including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of the Maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs (Exhibit Nos. 20, 21).
> 
> Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of the finest temples of Kumbha's time (Exhibit No. 22). From Marwar (in Western Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per Aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No. 19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed.
> 
> In June 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated Jagannath Temple in Orissa (Exhibit No. 24, Akhbarat, 1st June 1681). Shortly afterwards, in September 1682, the famous Bindu-Madhav temple in Banaras was also demolished as per the Emperor's orders (Exhibit No. 27, Akhbarat, Julus 26, Ramzan 20). On 1st September 1681, while proceeding to the Deccan, where his rebel son Prince Akbar, escorted by Durga Das Rathore, had joined Chhatrapati Shivaji's son, Shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, Aurangzeb ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed. It was a comprehensive order not distinguishing between old and newly built temples (Exhibit No. 26, Akhbarat, Julus 25, Ramzan 18). But in the district of Burhanpur, where there were a large number of temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the Muslims were too few in number in the district. (Exhibit No. 28, Akhbarat 13th October 1681). In his religious frenzy, even temples of the loyal and friendly Amber state were not spared, such as the famous temple of Jagdish at Goner near Amber (Exhibit Nos. 30, Akhbarat, 28th March and 14th May 1680). In fact, his misguided ardour for temple destruction did not abate almost up to the end of his life, for as late as 1st January 1705 we find him ordering that the temple of Pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the temple precincts (Akhbarat 49-7).
> 
> *The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri*.
> 
> *In obedience to the Quranic injunction, he reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on 2nd April 1679 (Exhibit No. 16), which had been abolished by Emperor Akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the Hindus of the country*. A massive peaceful demonstration against this tax in Delhi, was ruthlessly crushed. *This hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor Hindus and caused humiliation to each and every Hindu (Exhibit No. 18). **In the same vein, were his discriminatory measures against Hindus in the form of exemption of the Muslims from the taxes (Exhibit No. 31, Akhbarat 16th April 1667) ban on atishbazi and restriction on Diwali (Exhibit No. 32), replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims so that the Emperor's prayers for the welfare of Muslims and glory of Islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (Exhibit Nos. 33, 34). He also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines, such as of Shitla Mata and folk Gods like Pir Pabu (Exhibit No. 35, Akhbarat 16th September 1667), another ban on their travelling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims! (Exhibit No. 36). In the same vein came brazen attempts to convert Hindus by inducement, coercion (Exhibit No. 41) or by offering Qanungoship (Exhibit No. 44, 45, 46) and to honour the converts in the open Court. His personal directions were that a Hindu male be given Rs.4 and a Hindu female Rs.2 on conversion (Exhibit No. 43, Akhbarat 7th April 1685). &#8220;Go on giving them&#8221;, Aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted 150 Hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (Exhibit No. 40, Akhbarat, 11th April 1667). Such display of Islamic orthodoxy by the State under Aurangzeb gave strength and purpose to the resistance movements such as of the Marathas, the Jats, the Bundelas and the Sikhs (Exhibit No. 46)*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RobbieS

Peshwa bro, could you post a non-Indian reference? Though it seems to be quoting Mughal records, I'd much rather see western/neutral articles. I did try searching for it myself but couldn't find any that were detailed enough to satisfy my curiosity.

My understanding is that it seems like hegemonistic strategies were more his undoing rather than religious bigotry. Of course, a difference in religion, as was with the Marathas, the Jatts and the Sikhs did give an added filip to the rebellions.


----------



## Peshwa

RobbieS said:


> Peshwa bro, could you post a non-Indian reference? Though it seems to be quoting Mughal records, I'd much rather see western/neutral articles. I did try searching for it myself but couldn't find any that were detailed enough to satisfy my curiosity.
> 
> My understanding is that it seems like hegemonistic strategies were more his undoing rather than religious bigotry. Of course, a difference in religion, as was with the Marathas, the Jatts and the Sikhs did give an added filip to the rebellions.



Bro...I highlighted the part specially for the readers of the forum....The source is evidence from Mughal records and even persian ones.....read below...Tho Ill try to find something more palatable for the skeptics
The site references all the sources....

"The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, *supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri*"

My take on the matter is, Aurangzeb as any other dictator/ruler was interested in power....he ruled with an iron hand and that was his right to do so being the ruler.....But when a majority of your population is not Islamic, especially your key allies and some top ranking generals, then one has to be sensitive about matters.....Aurangzeb didnt give a crap and thats what brought his downfall and that of the Mughals.....
Revolt was inevitable.....


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

asq said:


> Now I am going to say something on the hope that it will be taken as a deduction based on every day thought. With due respect to all let me say this.
> 
> As today's T.T.P say that they are fighting to save Muslims and Islam, what does a common man on street think of them. U all know the answer.
> 
> in yester years some fought against mughal the ruler of the day, what would mughal sat the time think about those making trouble in the country, they would do the same as we in Pakistan are doing against T.T.P, fight them who are touble makers, and or get rid of them.
> 
> With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, all times.
> 
> So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.
> 
> if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.



I agree... 
sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> Wekh Iqbal,
> 
> I am a girl .. how do I know what you guyz find attractive or not?  I can post the pics of some Afghan and Persian hotties (guyz) or some Kashmiri and Punjabi hotties (guyz).. but i am sure 99% of you won't be interested in hot guyz..



okkk theek aii.. that is also good point... buttt try to keep pics closer to persian girl pics u posted.. and far away from the fugly afghan and indian pics you posted..lol


----------



## asq

Peshwa said:


> Bro...I highlighted the part specially for the readers of the forum....The source is evidence from Mughal records and even persian ones.....read below...Tho Ill try to find something more palatable for the skeptics
> The site references all the sources....
> 
> "The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, *supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri*"
> 
> My take on the matter is, Aurangzeb as any other dictator/ruler was interested in power....he ruled with an iron hand and that was his right to do so being the ruler.....But when a majority of your population is not Islamic, especially your key allies and some top ranking generals, then one has to be sensitive about matters.....Aurangzeb didnt give a crap and thats what brought his downfall and that of the Mughals.....
> Revolt was inevitable.....



Bro Peshwa

By the simple rule of association those Hindus and Sikhs who sides with Aurangzeb and who fought for him were guilty as he.

But again u guys call him dictator, that is your concoction, he was King as Kings in England, France, Spain, scandanavia and in Russia at the time.

They all did worst than him if u read the history of the world at the time.


----------



## asq

Iqbal_Brar said:


> I agree...
> sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..



Again Mr. Brar. Sir u r talking about 14th to 17th century, prevailing systems in the world were same as it was in India, kings did strange things according to today's world to hold on to the power, they killed their own brothers and any one else who challanged their rule.

And u Indians are singling out Mughals and that is not true representation of the facts at the time of their rule and that of facts existing at the time in question in all over the world.


----------



## asq

Iqbal_Brar said:


> I agree...
> sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..



so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England and or france, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling the Mughal out without any regard to the facts of history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.

It is funny that all Indians talk in details and make it seem like horible time in India during Mughal rule, never mention about Aryans and English at all as if it was the glorious time of Indian History.

For your referance I am puting up a part of English history for u to read to see what English Kings were doing in 15th and 16th century and than compare Aurangzeb and other Mughal kings to it as this is what was going on in this world at the time Mughal were in power, if compared to their times with other kings, they were the best kings in the world.

John Foxe (1516-1587), Book of Martyrs (1563)

I can give u more about other kings in Europe at the time, but let us see if u really undestand and accept the truth.


----------



## biplob

asq said:


> Again Mr. Brar. Sir u r talking about 14th to 17th century, prevailing systems in the world were same as it was in India, kings did strange things according to today's world to hold on to the power, they killed their own brothers and any one else who challanged their rule.
> 
> And u Indians are singling out Mughals and that is not true representation of the facts at the time of their rule and that of facts existing at the time in question in all over the world.



great going,

u outrightly rejected everything ,all the historical evidence even the one recorded by officials of moghul rulers of the atrocities against non Muslims as blatant lies and blamed it prevailing moral values of the time and also as prejudiced views of nonMuslim for Muslim rulers. U are Mahan.

I specially liked the way u slapped and rejected Iqbal_brar's pussyfooting approach to represent hard evidence of moghul atrocities as minor personal failings of moghul rulers on his face and throw it out with u overarching argument that moghul kings were as good/ bad others and couldn't been any better.He toally deserved it.


----------



## k_n

Peshwa said:


> Whoa Whoa.....Dont bring me into this.....
> 
> Im not petty enought to get into skin color and race to prove superiority to individuals with complex issues.....
> Ive always maintained that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I see beauty in every race
> 
> And its mindsets such as some samples here that give undue importance to the color of ones skin as a mark of superiority that lead to a handfew of "goray" taking over our country and eventually colonizing it.....Pathetic!!



I replied her in a hurry and mixed you up with someone else , Sorry mate for quoting your name !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## k_n

jinxeD_girl said:


> I was talking about Fateh_71, not Peshwa...and thanks for giving me some info about chitpavan



Whoever !

That doesnt gives you the liberty to be prejudiced against any communitry if it fails to match your ill conceived definition of 'LOOKS' and pride yourself simply because your community averages more fair skinned blokes . 
Much Self Praise


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

asq said:


> so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England and or france, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling the Mughal out without any regard to the facts of history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.
> 
> It is funny that all Indians talk in details and make it seem like horible time in India during Mughal rule, never mention about Aryans and English at all as if it was the glorious time of Indian History.
> 
> For your referance I am puting up a part of English history for u to read to see what English Kings were doing in 15th and 16th century and than compare Aurangzeb and other Mughal kings to it as this is what was going on in this world at the time Mughal were in power, if compared to their times with other kings, they were the best kings in the world.
> 
> John Foxe (1516-1587), Book of Martyrs (1563)
> 
> I can give u more about other kings in Europe at the time, but let us see if u really undestand and accept the truth.



I don't understand what you are trying to get attt... i only stated sikh relationship with mughals.. democracy or not.. sikhs supported legitimate mughal rulers.. and fought against illegitimate.. fifth Sikh guru was killed by Jehangir because he was supporting the legitimate Mughal ruler.. Jehangir's older brother.. Jehangir killed the Sikh guru aswell as his own brother to come to power... those illegitimate Mughal rulers were all backstabbers.. killing and imprisoning their own brothers and fathers for power... how does it matter what english or french did..? i'm only explaining sikh-mughal relationship..



biplob said:


> I specially liked the way u slapped and rejected Iqbal_brar's pussyfooting approach to represent hard evidence of moghul atrocities as minor personal failings of moghul rulers on his face and throw it out with u overarching argument that moghul kings were as good/ bad others and couldn't been any better.He toally deserved it.



its a forum... to discuss things... grow ure sorry @ss up... and stop whining just because everyone doesn't share your narrow minded views of someone elses religion..


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> its a forum... to discuss things... grow ure sorry @ss up... and stop whining just because everyone doesn't share your narrow minded views of someone elses religion..



me narrow mined & whiny or pot calling kettle black???

U fill pages after pages up with tearjerkers more imagined less substantial on how Sikhs are being mistreated and its religion be usurped into Hinduism(mere khalistani howling) in today's india by hindu groups like RSS,but i cant get angryy if u try pussyfoots moghul atrocities on all non Muslim(Sikhs included) because I've this his one point agenda to look after that is to show Sikhs as victims of Indian(Hindu) hegemony .

May be i wouldn't have,if u weren't so hypocritical(UN flag...lol) or we didn't have a Sikh as India pm for last six yrs .


----------



## Kabir Panthi

biplob said:


> me narrow mined & whiny or pot calling kettle black???
> 
> U fill pages after pages up with tearjerkers more imagined less substantial on how Sikhs are being mistreated and its religion be usurped into Hinduism(mere khalistani howling) in today's india by hindu groups like RSS,but i cant get angryy if u try pussyfoots moghul atrocities on all non Muslim(Sikhs included) because I've this his one point agenda to look after that is to show Sikhs as victims of Indian(Hindu) hegemony .
> 
> May be i wouldn't have,if u weren't so hypocritical(UN flag...lol) or we didn't have a Sikh as India pm for last six yrs .



Biplob, in the recent past, Sikhs have indeed been mistreated (not by Hindus as such, but rather by the Congress party). Please avoid using epithets such as "Khalistani howling". Thanks.

As regards Hindu and Sikh resistance - they were complimentary. There is no need to compare them. Marathas had taken over Delhi within about 25 years after Aurangazeb's death. But Sikhs played an important role in protecting India against the Afghans after 1761 (third battle of Panipat).


----------



## biplob

Kabir Panthi said:


> Biplob, in the recent past, Sikhs have indeed been mistreated (not by Hindus as such, but rather by the Congress party). Please avoid using epithets such as "Khalistani howling". Thanks.



U are quite right Kabir.

Its his tirade against RSS ,an organization which infact helped save lives of many Sikhs riot victims in 1984 which termed as mere "Khalistani howling".

Sikh and Sikh religion is very safe in India.Its only the Khalistanis who threaten our peaceful coexistence.Thanks .


PS:I'm no RSS member or support every action and views of RSS.
But as a hindu I'll defend a Hindu group like RSS against false accusations made by interest groups.


----------



## Peshwa

asq said:


> Bro Peshwa
> 
> By the simple rule of association those Hindus and Sikhs who sides with Aurangzeb and who fought for him were guilty as he.
> 
> But again u guys call him dictator, that is your concoction, he was King as Kings in England, France, Spain, scandanavia and in Russia at the time.
> 
> They all did worst than him if u read the history of the world at the time.



asq bhai.....

A dictator is a dictator and tyranny is their modus operandi to gain power.....
If you read my post you replied to, I clearly state that as a ruler it was his choice to govern as he pleased...same goes for the Rajputs and Sikhs that sided with him..this obviously was a time where "jungle rule" applied....

However as with all tyrannical rulers Aurangzeb met his kryptonite through persecuting Hindus and Sikhs.....resulting in resistance and eventual downfall of the Mughals by Sikhs, Jatts, Rajputs and Marathas......
He could have been a just and fair ruler like Akbar (loved by all)....and not only expanded but continued the empire for much longer.....But the fact that Aurangzeb brought the downfall of his empire speaks enough for the fact that he chose the wrong way to govern his empire and subjects......


----------



## ranveer

biplob said:


> U are quite right Kabir.
> 
> Its his tirade against RSS ,an organization which infact helped save lives of many Sikhs riot victims in 1984 which termed as mere "Khalistani howling".
> 
> Sikh and Sikh religion is very safe in India.Its only the Khalistanis who threaten our peaceful coexistence.Thanks .
> 
> 
> PS:I'm no RSS member or support every action and views of RSS.
> But as a hindu I'll defend a Hindu group like RSS against false accusations made by interest groups.



mate dont worry about sikh religion, it is always safe wherever it is,, be it india or any where in world. well now again about khalistanis do not speak when u know half baked truths... do u know complete truth of what khalistanis is all about... u dont know what RSS is all about so dont make judgements... sikhs or khalistanis always have peaceful coexistance until they are forced to react and history will let u know about this if you read it with neutral mind.

Regarding RSS and hindu group,, if they work for hindus i am more than happy and best of luck,, i havent got anything against it but if they say sikhs are hindus and unfortunately they are hell bent on it,, then that is where you should understand before speaking.

Dont know about interest groups or anything if RSS works for society hindu, muslim, sikh anyone i will carry them on my head but if they work on religious lines, they are not welcome....

Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims everyone has peaceful coexistence since earlier times of gurus and even today... have u heard of secterian violence in punjab between sikhs and hindus or sikhs and muslims...no... come to gujarat strong hold of RSS... i am in gujarat and will tell you just check how many riots ahmedabad had in last 50 years.....if 2000 muslims get killed it is because of RSS u agree or not... be it muslims, sikhs or hindus all are human...so if RSS kills muslims i am against it and u should be as well other wise you are same HINDU terrorist under the guise of RSS...

no offence and live in peace

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

biplob said:


> me narrow mined & whiny or pot calling kettle black???



Yes you're narrow minded.. the one reason you're getting smacked around by every Sikh on this forum.. how about you care about your own religion and cut out your BS theories on our religion..



> U fill pages after pages up with tearjerkers more imagined less substantial on how Sikhs are being mistreated and its religion be usurped into Hinduism(mere khalistani howling) in today's india by hindu groups like RSS,



those pages after pages are not filled by tearjerkers.. they are filled at calling BS to ure RSS theories.. just calling a spare for a spade...



> but i cant get angryy if u try pussyfoots moghul atrocities on all non Muslim(Sikhs included)



pussyfooting? loll errmm.. noo.. maybe heres the difference.. our ancestors fought hard and established a powerful kingdom right in the yard of the Mughals and fought to secure our dignity.. so that in the end it was Sikh armies who were helping decide who sits on the Mughal throne (Bahadur Shah).. so no in the end we came out of the fight with our heads held high.. yes many atrocities were commited by certain people and Sikhs fought them till their death so yes maybe unlike you, we have no reason to toss and cry 200 years later... our ancestors ensured us our dignity...



> May be i wouldn't have,if u weren't so hypocritical(UN flag...lol) or we didn't have a Sikh as India pm for last six yrs .



Yehh.. you bracketed "UN flag" in like every post of yours... yehh.. thats not winning you any brownie points... its the substance in your posts which does the talking... you think the "UN flag" is enough to brand me a Khalistani... if thats not a narrow mindset than i don't know what iss... on the other hand you don't even need to fly the chadiwalla flag.. your posts scream out and say RSS jibberish... becuase you tow their line...


----------



## asq

biplob said:


> great going,
> 
> u outrightly rejected everything ,all the historical evidence even the one recorded by officials of moghul rulers of the atrocities against non Muslims as blatant lies and blamed it prevailing moral values of the time and also as prejudiced views of nonMuslim for Muslim rulers. U are Mahan.
> 
> I specially liked the way u slapped and rejected Iqbal_brar's pussyfooting approach to represent hard evidence of moghul atrocities as minor personal failings of moghul rulers on his face and throw it out with u overarching argument that moghul kings were as good/ bad others and couldn't been any better.He toally deserved it.



it is not failing of Mughals, it is how the world was, u guys as Indians pick on mughals grudgingly and try to brainwash Indians as a whole to hate Muslims and that is the reason there are roits against Muslims in India, no one else, but Muslims, you donot care to see true conditions of the world at the time of mughal rule.

Let me reapeat again. can u guys not see the coditions that existed at he time in15th and 126th century.

Mughals Rule was very benovelant as compare to world that was than.


----------



## Peshwa

asq said:


> it is not failing of Mughals, it is how the world was, u guys as *Indians pick on mughals grudgingly and try to brainwash Indians as a whole to hate Muslims and that is the reason there are roits against Muslims in India, no one else, but Muslims*, you donot care to see true conditions of the world at the time of mughal rule.
> 
> Let me reapeat again. can u guys not see the coditions that existed at he time in15th and 126th century.
> 
> Mughals Rule was very benovelant as compare to world that was than.



Brother ASQ.....

Your statement above is extremely flawed.....

The distrust amonst Muslims stems from the atrocities and the actual act of partition....NOT Mughal rule...
Add to it the insurgency, terrorism, etc....

Lets not forget that Indians "Hindus and Muslims" lived happily under one banner during the time of liberal Mughal rulers.....

Even after the tyrannical rule of Aurangzeb, Hindus such as Tantya Tope, Mangal Pandey etc lead the freedom struggle and the revolt of 1857 to reinstate the legitimate rule of Bahadur Shah Zafar under the banner of united India.....

Atrocities committed by some Hindus in India cannot be attributed to the other 800 Million Hindus who live peacefully with Muslims.....
Dont you feel Indians have enough ammo to generalize Pakistanis as well?....Lets refrain from this....

PS: Do remember that Text books and schools in India seperate Religion from education and history is presented as seen through the lenses of secularism....I can guarantee you that....So the incidence of "Hindus brainwashing" is minimal unless an individual chooses to join a religiously affiliated organization not different than a Madrasah....


----------



## asq

Peshwa said:


> Brother ASQ.....
> 
> Your statement above is extremely flawed.....
> 
> The distrust amonst Muslims stems from the atrocities and the actual act of partition....NOT Mughal rule...
> 
> Lets not forget that Indians "Hindus and Muslims" lived happily under one banner during the time of liberal Mughal rulers.....
> 
> Even after the tyrannical rule of Aurangzeb, Hindus such as Tantya Tope, Mangal Pandey etc lead the freedom struggle and the revolt of 1857 to reinstate the legitimate rule of Bahadur Shah Zafar under the banner of united India.....
> 
> Atrocities committed by some Hindus in India cannot be attributed to the other 800 Million Hindus who live peacefully with Muslims.....
> Dont you feel Indians have enough ammo to generalize Pakistanis as well?....Lets refrain from this....



Enough emmo, u already have brainwashed Indians and results are that Mulsims are indiscriminately killed in Kashmir and other riots.

All blames are blames concocted by HIndu and sikhs, rising up against king is unfogiveable sin dealt with a swere punishment. and those who under the guise of Religion commited it were dealt with by Army and than punished.

Now all This happened 3 to 4 hundered years ago, I find it based on false allegations used by present day racists to create hatered among common Indians to set them up for Muslim hating riots.


----------



## Peshwa

asq said:


> Enough emmo, u already have brainwashed Indians and results are that Mulsims are indiscriminately killed in Kashmir and other riots.
> 
> *All blames are blames concocted by HIndu and sikhs, rising up against king is unfogiveable sin dealt with a swere punishment. and those who under the guise of Religion commited it were dealt with by Army and than punished.*
> 
> Now all This happened 3 to 4 hundered years ago, I find it based on false allegations used by present day racists to create hatered among common Indians to set them up for Muslim hating riots.



Let me be perfectly honest.....

If Hindus + Silkhs (800 Million of us + Sikhs) were so brainwashed, it wouldnt take us long to wipe out the muslim population from India (140 Million)....if we really wanted to....(No Offence...Im just trying to make a point)
What does that tell you....?

Please think rationally maiser....An incident like Godhra is not a common occourance.....We love Indian Muslims....they are our brothers in every way.....and more patriotic than Hindus in many ways....

Kashmir is a different issue and lets leave that out of discussion since its political and not related in any way to Mughal history.....

The bolded part Im unclear on....can you please explain?


----------



## asq

Peshwa said:


> Let me be perfectly honest.....
> 
> If Hindus + Silkhs (800 Million of us + Sikhs) were so brainwashed, it wouldnt take us long to wipe out the muslim population from India (140 Million)....if we really wanted to....(No Offence...Im just trying to make a point)
> What does that tell you....?
> 
> Please think rationally maiser....An incident like Godhra is not a common occourance.....We love Indian Muslims....they are our brothers in every way.....and more patriotic than Hindus in many ways....
> 
> Kashmir is a different issue and lets leave that out of discussion since its political and not related in any way to Mughal history.....
> 
> The bolded part Im unclear on....can you please explain?[/QUOTE
> 
> You would have done it but your national cherecter is that u check with west first and than take the action.
> 
> U did in case of Bangla Desh
> In case of Kashmir
> In case of Partition seeking blessing from Lord Mount batan.
> 
> And many more, but u get trhe point.


----------



## RobbieS

asq said:


> Enough emmo, u already have brainwashed Indians and results are that Mulsims are indiscriminately killed in Kashmir and other riots.
> 
> All blames are blames concocted by HIndu and sikhs, rising up against king is unfogiveable sin dealt with a swere punishment. and those who under the guise of Religion commited it were dealt with by Army and than punished.
> 
> Now all This happened 3 to 4 hundered years ago, I find it based on false allegations used by present day racists to create hatered among common Indians to set them up for Muslim hating riots.



Asq, I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised by your first post where you tried to convey your pov in a non-confrontational manner. 

But it seems like it didn't take you long to link up your version of history with the present situation. You found Peshwas critique of Aurangzeb's Mughal rule so hard to swallow that you proclaimed them all as false Hindu-Sikh propaganda. With the generalizng statements that your ilk make on this forum, I wonder who is fed propaganda.


----------



## asq

RobbieS said:


> Asq, I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised by your first post where you tried to convey your pov in a non-confrontational manner.
> 
> But it seems like it didn't take you long to link up your version of history with the present situation. You found Peshwas critique of Aurangzeb's Mughal rule so hard to swallow that you proclaimed them all as false Hindu-Sikh propaganda. With the generalizng statements that your ilk make on this forum, I wonder who is fed propaganda.




U call what ever u want. the hatered that I see spewed by Indians on this forum by the posts they write are mostly based on inuendos and exegerations, further to mention the attrocites during partition were just a few indications of how Indian think about Muslims, to me it is all a hatered for Muslims and Islam.

Read a referance and the link to go with for your enlightenment.

Compare it with the development that took place in India after the partition (1947). But these attacks on Muslim life and property in Spain did not abate but continued for about 50 years with lesser intensity in a sporadic manner, just as it is happening in India today. In the earlier years, the Indian Muslims resisted and fought back. There were mini-battles in the streets, but gradually there were one-sided attacks and every time Muslims were the losers. Of late, the Hindu police itself is let lose to kill the Muslims in India.

How to Exterminate Muslims in India? by Dalit Voice


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

asq said:


> U call what ever u want. the hatered that I see spewed by Indians on this forum by the posts they write are mostly based on inuendos and exegerations, further to mention the attrocites during partition were just a few indications of how Indian think about Muslims, to me it is all a hatered for Muslims and Islam.
> 
> Read a referance and the link to go with for your enlightenment.
> 
> Compare it with the development that took place in India after the partition (1947). But these attacks on Muslim life and property in Spain did not abate but continued for about 50 years with lesser intensity in a sporadic manner, just as it is happening in India today. In the earlier years, the Indian Muslims resisted and fought back. There were mini-battles in the streets, but gradually there were one-sided attacks and every time Muslims were the losers. Of late, the Hindu police itself is let lose to kill the Muslims in India.
> 
> How to Exterminate Muslims in India? by Dalit Voice



HUH?? pusshing your own agenda much?? 

so let me get this straight... you have tried to portray that all Mughals = Muslims... when you are pointed out by other Indians that we don't see all Mughals = Muslims.. and we see some good mughals and some bad mughals.. you don't like that because that type of thinking goes against your agenda... you WANT to paint ALL Mughals as Muslim representatives.. no matter how big of corrupt drunkards and womanizers they were... you 100% condone with RSS BS because it helps your agenda... you clearly ignore the "pages after pages" (as one of your friends pointed out here) of anti-RSS debate carried out by other Indians... because ofcourse that would go against your pre-conceived notions... you are more than happy to see RSS chaps like biplob spew their safron BS because it helps your agenda.. and that is why even after so many Indians arguing against that thinking you're jumping up and down to paint those guys as the true "Indians".. and completely ignore alllll the otherrss who were arguing withh themm... you're agenda is EXACT same as RSS and that is to dividee people along religious lines... right onn...


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Iqbal,

What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty? 

http://img694.imageshack.us/i/shakeela1.jpg/

http://img214.imageshack.us/i/shakeela2.jpg/


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> Iqbal,
> 
> What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?
> 
> http://img694.imageshack.us/i/shakeela1.jpg/
> 
> http://img214.imageshack.us/i/shakeela2.jpg/



Who told u Shakeela is very famous ??
If u think the attention she gets for *roles in adult films *as fame ,yaa she famous ...

PS :*Dont drag off topics stuff on this thread*.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

biplob said:


> Who told u Shakeela is very famous ??
> If u think the attention she gets for *roles in adult films *as fame ,yaa she famous ...



really? I was googling south indian actresses and Shakeela showed up!! wow! People find her attractive in India? because this time my eyes certainly are not beholding this beauty!!


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Yes you're narrow minded.. the one reason you're getting smacked around by every Sikh on this forum.. how about you care about your own religion and cut out your BS theories on our religion...




I dont care how u see of ur religion,its origin and rituals.

Its only when IBRIS stated how Sikhs went out of they way to save Hindus(of punjab and kashmir only)...i was forced to make some clarification regarding contribution of Hindus of Punjab in building and sustaining the Hals forces before he try portray Sikh as Saviour's of us Hindus.

Irrespective of selfish and motived BS, *the Hindus families who donated their sons to join Sikhism and become sadars generation after generations which she Sikhism any differents than Hinduism.*Thank u.







> pussyfooting? loll errmm.. noo.. maybe heres the difference.. our ancestors fought hard and established a powerful kingdom right in the yard of the Mughals and fought to secure our dignity.. *so that in the end it was Sikh armies who were helping decide who sits on the Mughal throne (Bahadur Shah).. so no in the end we came out of the fight with our heads held high.. *



U dont understand that its moghul atrocities that helped Sikh to become martial and raise the khalsa army which in the made way for a sikh ruling state in Punjab.Same is true for the Martha's .U are asking everyone forget this inconvenient past of mogul atrocities as u sparely try here court Muslim just annoy Hindus who are majority India in Ur bid to show how Sikhs are martian with alien distinct identity bearing no close relations with Hindus which is utter falsehood .

Talking up Bahadur Shah which i saw u have been on quite few occasions,I'll take this occasions to teach u some real history.

While most of india was busying the British east India company in Sepoy Revolution of 1857 and both Hindu and Muslims warlords had joined hands to fight East Indian company together under nominal leadership of the last Mogul emperor Behead Shah ,*its the same Sikhs armies who acted as paid mercenaries of the East India company fought against the Indian Sepoy's rebel and help the Britisher push back and topple Blahed in Delhi Shah squash brutally the first Indian freedom struggle.*





> Yeah.. you bracketed "UN flag" in like every post of yours... yeah.. thats not winning you any brownie points... its the substance in your posts which does the talking... you think the "UN flag" is enough to brand me a Khalistani...


I love ur UN flag,keep it flying.
Thats help us single out and differentate between a loyal Indian Sikh and Iqbal_brar


----------



## biplob

jinxeD_girl said:


> really? I was googling south indian actresses and Shakeela showed up!! wow! People find her attractive in India? because this time my eyes certainly are not beholding this beauty!!



Yaa, if after all south Indian actress u googled u think some find Shakeela as attractive then it says volume about ur taste and googling standards.

U are in looking in wrong places madam...dont u think...??


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

jinxeD_girl said:


> Iqbal,
> 
> What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?
> 
> http://img694.imageshack.us/i/shakeela1.jpg/
> 
> http://img214.imageshack.us/i/shakeela2.jpg/



I can't comment on biplob's diva... he'll get mad again..


----------



## niaz

As a student of history, especially of the subcontinent, I have mixed feeling about Ranjit Singh. One must remember that no ruler can be all good or all bad. One must also realize that all successful rulers have to be ruthless else they wouldn&#8217;t succeed.

Starting with the good points of Ranjit Singh. First and foremost he was a fearless soldier; don&#8217;t think Punjab has produced another general of his caliber since the brave Porus of two thousand years ago. He organized the army on modern lines and even the English respected his military prowess. Actually the only resistance that East India Company army ever encountered was from Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan, Marhattas and the Sikhs. Their victories against Bengal Nawabs (Plessey) and against combined armies of Mughal Emperors/ Nawab of Awadh (Baksar) were a peace of cake in comparison.

Ranjit Singh was also an able administrator and he truly brought peace to Punjab after years of turmoil. He also treated Hindus and Sikhs equally thus showed some tolerance in an intolerant age. He was also a clever politician; his diplomatic maneuvers with the Afghan Kings Shah Zaman and Shah Shuja indicate that he understood &#8220;Realpolitik&#8217; very well.

Now his bad points. Despite the fact that he treated some Muslims well and Fakir Azizuddin was his long serving foreign minister; most of his campaigns were against the Muslims rulers. 

Punjab had been a part of the Durrani Empire since Ahmad Shah&#8217;s time some 50 years earlier. Descendents of Ahmad Shah were not of the same caliber resulting in many semi independent rulers in Punjab.

In the early 1800&#8217; Ranjit Singh fought Nizamuddin of Kasur; ousted Jaffer Khan from Khushab; by 1810 he had also captured Attock fort from the Afghans. In 1817 he sacked Multan and ousted Nawab Muzzaffar Khan. In 1818 he captured Peshawar and by 1823 nearly all of the Durrani territories this side of Khyber were his control, he had also captured Durrani Capital Kabul. His armies under Hari Singh Nalwa destroyed the Islamic Emirate of Syed Ahmed Braelvi at Balakot in 1831.

There was widespread looting and pillaging in the aftermath of nearly all the Sikh battles with Muslim armies; the victims were therefore mostly Muslims. Armies of the Bhangi Misl, especially Lahina Sing were particularly brutal to Muslims in his Multan campaigns. I would however admit that Ranjit Singh era for Lahori Muslims was far better than 30 years of Sikha Shahi under the Bhangis.

One can understand why majority of the Punjabi Muslims don&#8217;t have a high opinion of Ranjit Singh or the Sikh rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

*@Niaz* - Your sole criteria for raising bad points seems to be the fact that MRS fought against the Muslim rulers. That was a fact and would be so because most of the rulers of Punjab and surrounding areas apart from the Misl Sardars were Muslims. You have also quoted MRS campaigns against Afghan rulers amongst the bad points of his rule. You seem to discount the fact that though he was a Sikh he was a native Punjabi fighting against Afghans descendants who were foreigners. 

Pillaging and looting, though a part and parcel of the wars of those times is condemnable. I wont be proud of that.


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> I can't comment on biplob's diva... he'll get mad again..



U made her my diva...

I knew u have penchant for making cheap propaganda.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

biplob said:


> I dont care how u see of ur religion,its origin and rituals.



yehh.. we figured that out long ago.. lolll...



> Irrespective of selfish and motived BS, *the Hindus families who donated their sons to join Sikhism and become sadars generation after generations which she Sikhism any differents than Hinduism.*Thank u.



"donated their sons".. lolll... you really buy into that a whole lot ehh.... if they wanted to "donate".. they could easily just form their own Hindu armies and fight alongside Sikhs.. but noooo... they became Sikhs... they were NOT Hindus who fought alongside Sikhs... they converted.. hence they were SIKHS who fought in Sikh Khalsa army.. period..



> U dont understand that its moghul atrocities that helped Sikh to become martial and raise the khalsa army which in the made way for a sikh ruling state in Punjab.Same is true for the Martha's .U are asking everyone forget this inconvenient past of mogul atrocities as u sparely try here court Muslim just annoy Hindus who are majority India in Ur bid to show how Sikhs are martian with alien distinct identity bearing no close relations with Hindus which is utter falsehood .



lolll.. you've been brainwashed by RSS to believe that all of India belongs to Hindus.... it doesn't.. funny how you reek of ure "Hindutva India" ideology and blame others for being "Khalistanis"... hell am sure if Sikhs were to choose between a Sikh state or Hindu state.. they will choose Sikh state.... we know ure motive.. you're segregating between hundreds of millions of other Indians like Christians and Muslims.... sorry buddy... get a reality check.. Sikhs of Punjab hate the RSS... as for Hindus.. they are our brothers as much as Christians and Muslims... infact Sikhs live in peace with all religions in Punjab.. hindus.. christians.. muslims... but it is only your RSS monkeys which cause problems.. like recently how they started Christian riots in Punjab by putting up disgraceful pictures of Jesus.. RSS are monkeys who need to be put on a leash..



> Talking up Bahadur Shah which i saw u have been on quite few occasions,I'll take this occasions to teach u some real history.
> 
> While most of india was busying the British east India company in Sepoy Revolution of 1857 and both Hindu and Muslims warlords had joined hands to fight East Indian company together under nominal leadership of the last Mogul emperor Behead Shah ,*its the same Sikhs armies who acted as paid mercenaries of the East India company fought against the Indian Sepoy's rebel and help the Britisher push back and topple Blahed in Delhi Shah squash brutally the first Indian freedom struggle.*



buddyyy...... i was talking about Bahadur Shah I.... Aurangzeb's son... not the last Mughal king... and secondly.. yes we helped British to crush that uprising... it was revenge because Maratha and Bengali people helped British to overthrow Sikh kingdom....




> I love ur UN flag,keep it flying.
> Thats help us single out and differentate between a loyal Indian Sikh and Iqbal_brar



who is this "us" you talk of?? lolll...


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

niaz said:


> As a student of history, especially of the subcontinent, I have mixed feeling about Ranjit Singh. One must remember that no ruler can be all good or all bad. One must also realize that all successful rulers have to be ruthless else they wouldnt succeed.
> 
> Starting with the good points of Ranjit Singh. First and foremost he was a fearless soldier; dont think Punjab has produced another general of his caliber since the brave Porus of two thousand years ago. He organized the army on modern lines and even the English respected his military prowess. Actually the only resistance that East India Company army ever encountered was from Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan, Marhattas and the Sikhs. Their victories against Bengal Nawabs (Plessey) and against combined armies of Mughal Emperors/ Nawab of Awadh (Baksar) were a peace of cake in comparison.
> 
> Ranjit Singh was also an able administrator and he truly brought peace to Punjab after years of turmoil. He also treated Hindus and Sikhs equally thus showed some tolerance in an intolerant age. He was also a clever politician; his diplomatic maneuvers with the Afghan Kings Shah Zaman and Shah Shuja indicate that he understood Realpolitik very well.
> 
> Now his bad points. Despite the fact that he treated some Muslims well and Fakir Azizuddin was his long serving foreign minister; most of his campaigns were against the Muslims rulers.
> 
> Punjab had been a part of the Durrani Empire since Ahmad Shahs time some 50 years earlier. Descendents of Ahmad Shah were not of the same caliber resulting in many semi independent rulers in Punjab.
> 
> In the early 1800 Ranjit Singh fought Nizamuddin of Kasur; ousted Jaffer Khan from Khushab; by 1810 he had also captured Attock fort from the Afghans. In 1817 he sacked Multan and ousted Nawab Muzzaffar Khan. In 1818 he captured Peshawar and by 1823 nearly all of the Durrani territories this side of Khyber were his control, he had also captured Durrani Capital Kabul. His armies under Hari Singh Nalwa destroyed the Islamic Emirate of Syed Ahmed Braelvi at Balakot in 1831.
> 
> There was widespread looting and pillaging in the aftermath of nearly all the Sikh battles with Muslim armies; the victims were therefore mostly Muslims. Armies of the Bhangi Misl, especially Lahina Sing were particularly brutal to Muslims in his Multan campaigns. I would however admit that Ranjit Singh era for Lahori Muslims was far better than 30 years of Sikha Shahi under the Bhangis.
> 
> One can understand why majority of the Punjabi Muslims dont have a high opinion of Ranjit Singh or the Sikh rule.



Hmm.. I didn't know that.. good post.. probably the most insightful in this whole thread.. thanks...


----------



## biplob

Iqbal_Brar said:


> "donated their sons".. lolll... you really buy into that a whole lot ehh.... if they wanted to "donate".. they could easily just form their own Hindu armies and fight alongside Sikhs.. but noooo... they became Sikhs... they were NOT Hindus who fought alongside Sikhs... they converted.. hence they were SIKHS who fought in Sikh Khalsa army.. period.....




R u knucklehead or something??

Cant u get this in to ur head that when Hindu families were sending their elder son to join Khalsa army as a long tradition as ,they never saw Sikhism as some alien religion ,but an offset their own Hindu religion ???

And why This tradition continued into 20th century,where Hindu families of Punjab ,get their elder son baptized as a Sikh sardar ??

If those Hindus had seen Khalsa army as some alien religious forces nothing to do with hindus why would they their sons to become a sardar himself when u said there was no compulsion to do so.

And if it was only for the lure of principle of sikhism,they why not the whole family adopted Sikh religion and choose to donate their elder sons only??

Why no Muslim Punjabi family did have same tradition when u keep harping hard how Sufi saints popular among Sikh gurus and heavily influenced them??

The fact of the matter is that the Hindu Punjabi families didn't see Sikhism unique or separate from their own religion ,but only an offset of Hinduism with puritanical view void of unnecessary ritualistic compulsion that had sipped Hinduism over the centuries of its past history. 



> infact Sikhs live in peace with all religions in Punjab.. Hindus.. Christians.. muslims... *but it is only your RSS monkeys which cause problems.. *like recently how they started Christian riots in Punjab by putting up disgraceful pictures of Jesus.. RSS are monkeys who need to be put on a leash


..

sorry buddy,Its only the khalistais who getting arrested and have beengot killed like stray dogs till now .

Dont u thinks its RSS affiliated Punjab police(majority Sikhs themselves) who is blame for this blatant injustice??


----------



## ranveer

biplob said:


> R u knucklehead or something??
> 
> Cant u get this in to ur head that when Hindu families were sending their elder son to join Khalsa army as a long tradition as ,they never saw Sikhism as some alien religion ,but an offset their own Hindu religion ???
> 
> And why This tradition continued into 20th century,where Hindu families of Punjab ,get their elder son baptized as a Sikh sardar ??
> 
> If those Hindus had seen Khalsa army as some alien religious forces nothing to do with hindus why would they their sons to become a sardar himself when u said there was no compulsion to do so.
> 
> And if it was only for the lure of principle of sikhism,they why not the whole family adopted Sikh religion and choose to donate their elder sons only??
> 
> Why no Muslim Punjabi family did have same tradition when u keep harping hard how Sufi saints popular among Sikh gurus and heavily influenced them??
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Hindu Punjabi families didn't see Sikhism unique or separate from their own religion ,but only an offset of Hinduism with puritanical view void of unnecessary ritualistic compulsion that had sipped Hinduism over the centuries of its past history.
> 
> ..
> 
> sorry buddy,Its only the khalistais who getting arrested and have beengot killed like stray dogs till now .
> 
> Dont u thinks its RSS affiliated Punjab police(majority Sikhs themselves) who is blame for this blatant injustice??



Yaar Biplob,,,

If hindus had sent their elder child to fight with khalsa,, they could have fought even being hindus,, no one would have asked them to become sikhs but for the only reason "that by becoming KHALSA something changed in them that is why they would become khalsa and not remain hindu" even muslims fought with sikhs so hindus were no different.. mate one more reason that comes to my mind- i might be wrong that sikhs never tried to forcefully convert anyone or i would say were not that good in propogating their religion,, even today its the same thing...that most of the complete families did not become sikhs as your saying and just the eldest child...

Mate no means on arguing.. just tell me that how would u like if u lived in lets say pakistan with islam dominated country and hell bent on making you muslim even if you wanted to be a hindu or you are hindu...
U would not like certainly... that is what the RSS is all about...
then why u are behind that sikhs came from hindus... then where did hindus came from... where did muslims came from...
Avval allah noor upay kudrat ke sab bandeh....
So just chill ur a hindu and be happy and loyal hindu..
we are sikhs and let us be happy with it...



> sorry buddy,Its only the khalistais who getting arrested and have beengot killed like stray dogs till now .
> 
> Dont u thinks its RSS affiliated Punjab police(majority Sikhs themselves) who is blame for this blatant injustice??



There was nice line probably in starting of this thread which justifies what you are sayin..."Jeh sikh nu sikh na mare ta kaum kade na haare"


----------



## Areesh

jinxeD_girl said:


> really? I was googling south indian actresses and Shakeela showed up!! wow! People find her attractive in India? because this time my eyes certainly are not beholding this beauty!!



They think she is attractive....  What has happened to indians???


----------



## Peshwa

Iqbal_Brar said:


> buddyyy...... i was talking about Bahadur Shah I.... Aurangzeb's son... not the last Mughal king... and secondly.. yes we helped British to crush that uprising...* it was revenge because Maratha and Bengali people helped British to overthrow Sikh kingdom*..



Iqbal....

Cant speak for the Bengalis, but Marathas never supported the British rule in any way or form....Please dont distort facts....

Marathas fought 3 wars with the British and it was after the loss of these that India truly came under British control.....

As far as Marathas supporting the Brits to break the Sikh Empire's back, thats just plain hogwash bro....

Independently Marathas had waged wars with the Sikhs conquering parts of Punjab....but never siding with the Brits.....
In fact the Sikhs came to power in punjab only because of the Maratha loss at Panipat....So where does the question of "overthrow sikh kingdom" come into the picture?

If you read about the Martial Races theory, even though Marathas had the most expansive rule before the arrival of the Brits, they were removed from the list of martial races because of their sheer opposition to the brits, their participation in the revolt of 1857 and the three wars with the Brits....
On the other hand Sikhs were considered Martial race due to their over proportionately large number and loyalty to the English armies....

Marathas have always been die hard nationalists.....

Anyways.....lets try not to bring communalism into the discussion....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asq

look what real sikhs think about hindus.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Hindus did not become Khalsa to help, they became to influance Khalsa's actions and use them to turn against Muslims, sikhslookl amd dress like Muslim more so than Hindus, the turban. the dager the beard.

About Aurang zeb u guys are insulting him and by doing so u r brain washing your childern against Muslim so that they continue their path of hate and evantual roiting.

Aurangzeb did what he did and it cannot be changed now, you can conmtinue to abuse and acuse him, u will not be able to change the history only brainwash new generations to hate Muslims.

And that I think u guys are doing and it is no good for nothing.


----------



## ps80

Peshwa said:


> Iqbal....
> 
> Cant speak for the Bengalis, but Marathas never supported the British rule in any way or form....Please dont distort facts....
> 
> Marathas fought 3 wars with the British and it was after the loss of these that India truly came under British control.....
> 
> As far as Marathas supporting the Brits to break the Sikh Empire's back, thats just plain hogwash bro....
> 
> *Independently Marathas had waged wars with the Sikhs conquering parts of Punjab....but never siding with the Brits.....*
> In fact the Sikhs came to power in punjab only because of the Maratha loss at Panipat....So where does the question of "overthrow sikh kingdom" come into the picture?
> 
> If you read about the Martial Races theory, even though Marathas had the most expansive rule before the arrival of the Brits, they were removed from the list of martial races because of their sheer opposition to the brits, their participation in the revolt of 1857 and the three wars with the Brits....
> On the other hand Sikhs were considered Martial race due to their over proportionately large number and loyalty to the English armies....
> 
> *Marathas have always been die hard nationalists.....*
> 
> Anyways.....lets try not to bring communalism into the discussion....



If the Marathas were truly 'nationalists', why did they wage wars on their fellow nationalists (Sikh kingdoms)? Just wondering...

I think we (both Marathas and Sikhs) don't need any British label to determine/prove the martial race backgrounds. For Sikhs, the real source or reason is the history of the Sikh gurus. For Marathas, I think the history of the king Shivaji has a similar role.


----------



## Peshwa

ps80 said:


> If the Marathas were truly 'nationalists', why did they wage wars on their fellow nationalists (Sikh kingdoms)? Just wondering...
> 
> *I think we (both Marathas and Sikhs) don't need any British label to determine/prove the martial race backgrounds. For Sikhs, the real source or reason is the history of the Sikh gurus. For Marathas, I think the history of the king Shivaji has a similar role*.



Huh....well Marathas were nationalist wrt invasion of the Brits....
My point was that Maratha kings did not side with the English against Sikhs as was being implied by Iqbal...
I did admit that the Marathas did wage war against some Sikhs and Jatts.
In fact, we had no allies in Punjab going into war with the Afghans at Panipat.....Had the Sikhs (Remained neutral) and Jats (Barring Suraj Mal) had provided us supplies at Panipat, the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.....We have always laid our lives to protect India.....

The bolded part and mention of the martial races theory was not to prove our prowess but to provide additional proof of the loyalty of the Marathas towards the "nation" and that there were more Sikhs in the English armies that contributed to the downfall of the Sikhs and the Marathas alike....

Frankly the Martial Races theory is nothing more than an extension of the Divide and Rule policy of the English....Unfortunately, some in our subcontinent take it to heart and cant see through the prism of "Foreign label"


----------



## ps80

Peshwa said:


> Huh....well Marathas were nationalist wrt invasion of the Brits....
> My point was that Maratha kings did not side with the English against Sikhs as was being implied by Iqbal...
> *I did admit that the Marathas did wage war against some Sikhs and Jatts.*
> In fact, we had no allies in Punjab going into war with the Afghans at Panipat.....Had the *Sikhs (Remained neutral) *and Jats (Barring Suraj Mal) had provided us supplies at Panipat, the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.....We have always laid our lives to protect India.....
> 
> The bolded part and mention of the martial races theory was not to prove our prowess but to provide additional proof of the loyalty of the Marathas towards the "nation" and that there were more Sikhs in the English armies that contributed to the downfall of the Sikhs and the Marathas alike....
> 
> Frankly the Martial Races theory is nothing more than an extension of the Divide and Rule policy of the English....Unfortunately, some in our subcontinent take it to heart and cant see through the prism of "Foreign label"



1st bold part: What went wrong here? Were those Sikhs fighting along the Afghan army? 

2nd bold part: Please explain further.

I am asking this for my information only. My previous post may have sounded a bit sarcastic but it was not my intention. 

My personal views are very similar to your thoughts on the martial race theory.


----------



## Peshwa

ps80 said:


> 1st bold part: What went wrong here? Were those Sikhs fighting along the Afghan army?
> 
> 2nd bold part: Please explain further.
> 
> I am asking this for my information only. My previous post may have sounded a bit sarcastic but it was not my intention.
> 
> My personal views are very similar to your thoughts on the martial race theory.



1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were invited to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....

2. Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab. Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral....


----------



## ps80

Peshwa said:


> 1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were *invited* to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....
> 
> 2. Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, *but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab.* Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral....



1. Did anyone invite Marathas to invade Delhi? Or, is it just your way of saying.
2. How do you relate the defeat of Marathas to the rise of Sikh power in Punjab? 

I believe we are talking of that time when Sikhs had already faced two big massacres (20000-30000 killed) at the hands of Afghan army. Sikh groups were scattered and their male population was not good enough to go into a direct war with the huge Afghan army. That may be a reason to remain neutral. 

Fact or not...we dont know for sure.

Did Marathas try to contact Sikh groups for Panipat war?


----------



## imran iqbal

jinxeD_girl said:


> Iqbal,
> 
> What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?



How about this, Namitha - one of my favorite and highly paid south Indian actress.


----------



## Kabir Panthi

jinxeD_girl said:


> Iqbal,
> 
> What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?



Hey Jinxie ... yes let us admit Pak girlz are da best. Poor Indians have to console themselves by sending rockets to the moon.

Meanwhile, to cheer you up, here are some Pakistani boys ... aren't they handsome?


----------



## Peshwa

ps80 said:


> 1. Did anyone invite Marathas to invade Delhi? Or, is it just your way of saying.
> 2. How do you relate the defeat of Marathas to the rise of Sikh power in Punjab?
> 
> I believe we are talking of that time when Sikhs had already faced two big massacres (20000-30000 killed) at the hands of Afghan army. Sikh groups were scattered and their male population was not good enough to go into a direct war with the huge Afghan army. That may be a reason to remain neutral.
> 
> Fact or not...we dont know for sure.
> 
> Did Marathas try to contact Sikh groups for Panipat war?



1. The Marathas were invited to attack Delhi on the behest of the Mother of the King of Oudh, who unfortunately sided with the Afghans.....However this is debatable and is part of Marathi records, but I cant find any neutral source for this.... the fact that the other Maratha kings such as Gaikwads, Holkars and Scindia, along with the Bundelas and Suraj Mal decided to join in supports the claim that this was more than a hegemonic mission....Nevertheless the fact that the Peshwa planned to put his son on the thrown of Delhi after the battle points otherwise

2. The Marathas were actually one of the more powerful entities in the subcontinent during those times with the most expansive kingdom.....The Sikhs could not have openly challenged the Marathas as they were united under the Peshwa while Sikhs were individual kingdoms....
Sikhs with the exception of Ala Singh of Patiala who sided with the Afghans in return for the crown of the Sikh kingdom remained neutral since the Afghans had sacked the Golden Temple and Marathas had made conquest in major parts of Punjab at the cost of Sikhs....
The loss of the Marathas created a power vaccum in Punjab which was easily filled in by the Sikhs... especially since Abdali was never to return after the war due to heavy losses suffered on Afghan side


Not sure if the Sikhs were contacted for the war at Panipat....


----------



## RobbieS

Peshwa said:


> 1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were invited to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....
> 
> 2. *Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab. Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral..*..



Peshwa, at the time of the Third Battle of Panipat i,e. 1756, Sikhs weren't unified as a single fighting force. This didn't happen until MRS came around in late 1790s. The Sikh confederacy was a loose conglomorate of Sikh fighting clans called Misls who often fought against themselves as frequently as against a common enemy, eg. the Afghans. So I dont think its right to blame the Sikhs as a whole for not joining the Marathas. And I think they were pretty much neutral in that battle.

Regarding collaborating with the British by conscripting as soldiers, that didn't happen untill the whole of Punjab passed under the British after the Second Anglo-Sikh war in 1848. Before that there were a few groups who joined/collaborated with the British but the majority were united under the Khalsa Army banner.

And if I am correct, even a few of the Marathas later joined the British against one of their owns. That probably happened during the internal power struggles amongst the Maratha houses like the Holkars, Scindias and Gaekwads.


----------



## Peshwa

RobbieS said:


> Peshwa, at the time of the Third Battle of Panipat i,e. 1756, Sikhs weren't unified as a single fighting force. This didn't happen until MRS came around in late 1790s. The Sikh confederacy was a loose conglomorate of Sikh fighting clans called Misls who often fought against themselves as frequently as against a common enemy, eg. the Afghans. So I dont think its right to blame the Sikhs as a whole for not joining the Marathas. And I think they were pretty much neutral in that battle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I wrote that, I did a bit of reading and your info is spot on....I actually replied to another post with the same....
> The Sikhs werent unified was deifinitely one reason, but the sacking of the Golden Temple kept them away from the Afghan camp except Ala Singh....
> Tho Im still a bit surprised why most Sikhs sat out from joining the Maratha camp....
> However I do blame the Marathas for their ruthlessness too, who in order to secure resources would plunder the plains of Punjab.....thats the easiest way to alienate kingdoms and people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding collaborating with the British by conscripting as soldiers, that didn't happen untill the whole of Punjab passed under the British after the Second Anglo-Sikh war in 1848. Before that there were a few groups who joined/collaborated with the British but the majority were united under the Khalsa Army banner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robbie...I was only writing against the statement that the Marathas had supplied forces to break the Sikh empire in collaboration with the Brits....We were the most vociferous opposers of the English since we had the most to lose in land, leverage and treasure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I am correct, even a few of the Marathas later joined the British against one of their owns. That probably happened during the internal power struggles amongst the Maratha houses like the Holkars, Scindias and Gaekwads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definitely, the internal fighting between the Marathas had one siding against the other....
> By the end of it, the only loyalty was to the love of gold and power....
> Unfortunate but true.....
Click to expand...


----------



## ps80

<<However I do blame the Marathas for their ruthlessness too, who in order to secure resources would plunder the plains of Punjab.....thats the easiest way to alienate kingdoms and people>>

why Sikhs did not join Maratha forces? you answered it yourself. I think Sikhs considered Afghans and Marathas alike because of the fact that both were foreign invaders and were involved in plundering many areas of the Punjab region. 
However, this was not the only reason for Sikhs to be neutral. Other possible reasons have already been discussed.

<<Tho Im still a bit surprised why most Sikhs sat out from joining the Maratha camp....>>

Sikhs faced two big massacres and their groups were scattered. In addition, Marathas were not that friendly either and they had their ambitions to expand their regime towards Delhi and surrounding areas.

<<The loss of the Marathas created a power vaccum in Punjab which was easily filled in by the Sikhs... especially since Abdali was never to return after the war due to heavy losses suffered on Afghan side>>

That is not entirely correct. Abdali and his successors did attack the Punjab region after the Panipat war and were defeated by the Sikhs.


----------



## RobbieS

> Peshwa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RobbieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> After I wrote that, I did a bit of reading and your info is spot on....I actually replied to another post with the same....
> The Sikhs werent unified was deifinitely one reason, but the sacking of the Golden Temple kept them away from the Afghan camp except Ala Singh....
> Tho Im still a bit surprised why most Sikhs sat out from joining the Maratha camp....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Golden Temple has been the undoing of many a rulers! Abdali was the first and you know who was the last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However I do blame the Marathas for their ruthlessness too, who in order to secure resources would plunder the plains of Punjab.....thats the easiest way to alienate kingdoms and people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right. I have read somewhere that the Marathas had sacked parts of Bengal including Calcutta as well. Also their tactics didn't win over any of the local kingdoms during the previous campaigns in the North and that led many of the local Rajputs, Jats and maybe the Sikhs to withdraw any support during and after the battle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robbie...I was only writing against the statement that the Marathas had supplied forces to break the Sikh empire in collaboration with the Brits....We were the most vociferous opposers of the English since we had the most to lose in land, leverage and treasure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont think the Marathas did any such thing. Most of the early Maratha sardars were strongly against any foreign/ central authority governing them. Be it the Mughals or the British. This trend continued till the last of their brilliant generals, MahadJi Scindia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most definitely, the internal fighting between the Marathas had one siding against the other....
> By the end of it, the only loyalty was to the love of gold and power....
> Unfortunate but true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Maratha military history pretty much mirrors the Sikh military history. Their rise to power in the 17th and 18th centuries is just about the similar to what the Sikhs did, albeit half a century later. Both rose up against Mughal tyranny and continued the fight with Afghan and British tormentors.
> 
> And whats also similar are the opportunities they missed and way they collapsed. Infighting and treachery was their downfall. And if they had been a little more clear-headed both could have captured Delhi. The Marathas, untill the battle of Panipat pretty much controlled vast territories uptill Delhi. The Sikhs too had similar power under the Sikh confederacy and under MRS. They pretty much controlled the Satluj-Yamuna Doab. If any of these two groups had managed to control Delhi, the history of the sub-continent would have been altered forever!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Peshwa

ps80 said:


> why Sikhs did not join Maratha forces? you answered it yourself. I think Sikhs considered Afghans and Marathas alike because of the fact that both were foreign invaders and were involved in plundering many areas of the Punjab region.
> However, this was not the only reason for Sikhs to be neutral. Other possible reasons have already been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.....
> However you have to understand that the battle of Panipat was not to secure "Maratha Territory", in fact they had very little incentive to check the Afghan advances other than to gain power in South Asia which they already had....
> However for the Sikhs and Jats, it was their homeland and it would have helped them consolidate their power and prevent losing to foreign invaders by aligning with Marathas....nevertheless its all powerplay and debatable to say the least....
> 
> PS: Sikhs and Marathas have had close relations since the time of Guru Gobind Singh if Im not mistaken.....Didnt the Guru spend his last days in Maharashtra...meaning his Samadhi is in Maharashtra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sikhs faced two big massacres and their groups were scattered. In addition, Marathas were not that friendly either and they had their ambitions to expand their regime towards Delhi and surrounding areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed....Like I mentioned earlier, "Jungle Rule" is the term to describe the situation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not entirely correct. Abdali and his successors did attack the Punjab region after the Panipat war and were defeated by the Sikhs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but you have to remember that Abdali lost his "punch" after the battle of Panipat, both Afghan and Maratha power diminished after this war with a loss of over 100,000 soldiers in total.....
> This lead to the Sikhs becoming the potent force in Punjab.....
> I suppose I didnt word my reply correctly.
Click to expand...


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

good discussion.. u learn something everyday.. sorry.. my mistake.. so it wasn't the Marathas.. but the Bengalis who helped British overthrow Sikh kingdom..




RobbieS said:


> And if they had been a little more clear-headed both could have captured Delhi.



Bro.. we did conquer Delhi in 1789.... it was Sikh misl under Sardar Baghel Singh who managed to capture Delhi.. it is only this time when so many big Gurudwaras like Bangla Saheb.. Sees Ganj Saheb.. Rakab Saheb.. were constructed by the KaroraSingha Misl.. he than signed a deal with Mughal emporer promising that Sikhs will never attack and capture Delhi again if Mughals pay Sikhs tribute from income of Delhi... from that deal Sikhs got 12% of tax collected from Delhi..



Sikh army after capturing Delhi and putting Sikh flag on top of Red Fort..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ps80

<<Sikhs and Marathas have had close relations since the time of Guru Gobind Singh if Im not mistaken.....Didnt the Guru spend his last days in Maharashtra...meaning his Samadhi is in Maharashtra?>>

Some interactions may have happened even before the time of Guru Gobind Singh. 
The Sikh Encyclopedia(???? ???????) - SAMARTH RAMDAS - Hindu bhagats and poets, and Punjabi officials - The Sikh Encyclopedia(?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deltacamelately

Iqbal_Brar said:


> good discussion.. u learn something everyday.. sorry.. my mistake.. *so it wasn't the Marathas.. but the Bengalis who helped British overthrow Sikh kingdom*..


If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.

To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Draft

deltacamelately said:


> If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.
> 
> To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.



Sir, would it not be even more correct to say that "all the native armies wanted India for themselves"?


----------



## deltacamelately

Draft said:


> Sir, would it not be even more correct to say that "all the native armies wanted India for themselves"?


Yes that could be another way of putting things. However, one commonality among all these native armies were, their resistance to foreign forces at one hand, (while fighting with each other) but their failure to team up to fight such foreign forces on the other. Had Prithviraj Singh got support from the other native armies, we could have witnessed a different history. Same goes for Plassey.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

deltacamelately said:


> If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.
> 
> To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.



Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..


----------



## Peshwa

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..



Its always good to learn new facts......

Where did you read this bro? Can you please share the source?


----------



## RobbieS

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..



If I remember correctly, these soldiers from UP and Bihar were known as Purabiyas, meaning the ones from the East. And yes, since a majority of the revolt of 1857 occurred in Eastern and Central India, by sepoys that belonged to those areas the Sikhs didnt feel like joining them. After all the memories of the Anglo-Sikh wars that occurred only 10-15 years ago and employed these Purabiya soldiers on the British side were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Sikhs. And that was the predominant reason why the East India company employed Sikh and Pathan soldiers to quell the revolt.


----------



## deltacamelately

Iqbal_Brar said:


> Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..


Different time frames.
You do understand I suppose, that these men were merely making an earning through their job, rather than having an agenda against the Sikhs?


----------



## deltacamelately

RobbieS said:


> If I remember correctly, these soldiers from UP and Bihar were known as Purabiyas, meaning the ones from the East. And yes, since a majority of the revolt of 1857 occurred in Eastern and Central India, by sepoys that belonged to those areas the Sikhs didnt feel like joining them. After all the memories of the Anglo-Sikh wars that occurred only 10-15 years ago and employed these Purabiya soldiers on the British side were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Sikhs. And that was the predominant reason why the East India company employed Sikh and Pathan soldiers to quell the revolt.



East India Company forces employed everybody else, including the Sikhs and Pashtuns, who kept their loyality towards their commaning officers, rest fought their way out. The concept of Soldiering is very different from what you want us to belief here and definitely not mitigated by ethenicity. A British Colonel might want to rip your gut out if you happened to insult his Gurkha Seargent on ethenic lines.


----------



## asq

Iqbal_Brar said:


> I agree...
> sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..



so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England or france and Europe, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling Mughal out without any regard to the history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.


----------



## asq

So the crux of the mater is that all Indians at one time or another played a game for them selves without regard for the mother land, just greed to grab power.

Why than Muslim ruler are picked on and are called names such as dictator or worst blamed for fighting to save their kingdom, Aurangzeb did what he thought was needed to save his kingsom and he did no differant than those of Marhata's Sikhs and Bengalis.

So to blame Muslim is a racist thing concocted by racists to brainwash young Indians against Muslims and that caused Masacres like GUJRAT.

A shamefull act.


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

deltacamelately said:


> Different time frames.
> You do understand I suppose, that these men were merely making an earning through their job, rather than having an agenda against the Sikhs?



no one is saying they have personal agenda against sikhs.. yes they fought for british because of money but unlike today sikhs than were not introduced to idea of "India" and nationalismm.. they saw their homeland taken down by the gorays with the assistance of the purabiyas (and how much affect it had on the psyche at that time can be seen as term is *still* in use)..


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

asq said:


> so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England or france and Europe, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling Mughal out without any regard to the history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.



no we did not single mughal outt.. we helped "good" mughals like akbar, dera shikoh, shah jahan, bahadur shah fight "bad" mughals like aurangzeb, shah jahan (when he was "bad") and jehangir... I can tell this concept is very complicated for you so let me simplify to you... it is really no different than pakistan helping "good" taliban and fighting "bad" taliban.. sikhs did same with Mughals more than 200 years back..



asq said:


> So the crux of the mater is that all Indians at one time or another played a game for them selves without regard for the mother land, just greed to grab power.
> 
> Why than Muslim ruler are picked on and are called names such as dictator or worst blamed for fighting to save their kingdom, Aurangzeb did what he thought was needed to save his kingsom and he did no differant than those of Marhata's Sikhs and Bengalis.
> 
> So to blame Muslim is a racist thing concocted by racists to brainwash young Indians against Muslims and that caused Masacres like GUJRAT.
> 
> A shamefull act.



lmao.. here we gooo againn.. you're just dying to play the victim cardd.. Muslims have nothingg to do with thiss... the "good" mughals were muslims who fought alongside Sikhs and fought against "bad" mughals... you obviousssllyyy are not happy at thatt.. and obviousllyyy are dyyiiinggg to paint the "bad" Mughals as the "muslims" and want us to hate on that.. so u can point a finger and whine about itt.. aha.. nice try..


----------



## IBRIS

*The Great Sikh Emperor Maharajah Ranjit Singh (Lion of Punjab)*

*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*






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.


----------



## 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:
1


----------



## Cyrus the Great2

jinxeD_girl said:


> Are you Sindhi? In Pakistan... Kashmiri, Punjabis and Pushtuns have the best looking girlz and boyz.. this is the first time I am hearing Sindhis have best looking girlz..
> 
> and the pictures of Afghans and Persians I posted are of everyday Afghan and Persian students... not MODELS.. they hardly have any models (and the one or two they have are settled outside Iran/Afghanistan) because of strict Islamic code enforced in both countries . Whenever I post pics for comparison they are of ordinary people, NOT models..
> 
> Indian and Bangladeshi girlZ are in general no way near Afghan or Iranian girlz or for that matter Pakistani girlz..


 
Hi to all guys and girls from Pakistan;

I had the chance to came across your thread in Pakistani version of defence.com and I have to admit that I liked your threads and especially this one...why? because there is something going on here I see it appropriate to participate... sorry, if you might probably see me a stranger that has to do nothing with Pakistanis...but I think just opposite..it is my damn business to talk about two things...or maybe even 3 things...

1- I,m a little sorry to say that it is not appropriate for a good Muslim to talk about other races like this... praising beauty among some nations is a good thing..but this should not get you as far as we see here in this forum...All humans...no matter black or white...Persian or Indian or European...are %100 equal in nature and background...but some pure and advanced persons virtually (those who are ARIFS, MEN and Women of God and you can see God clearly in their daily life attitude) could get higher and in better position than other humans...I mean a human only can be better through his goodness and deeds and creed...no body is better than others...please bear in mind that this stupid discussions are a part of jealousy some devil oriented people trying to make it common between all humans no matter Muslims, or Christians or even Hindus or Sikhs... A Good human been should try to peak his deeds and soul to as high as it is possible to God...that,s it...

2- As I,m a pure Persian ethnically and have some readings about history of our region... I,m almost sure (nobody can be %100 sure of something unless he seen it by itself or through his trusted eyes,,,) that kings like NADIR SHAH who extended their country borders never did such bad behaviors to war slaves and their women.. As far as I know, Nadir shah like any other middle islamic Age Shahs and kings used to kill those kings they defeat in war and they don,t surrender..or declare loyalty to them... The CARNAL battle in which NADIR SHAH invaded India and crossed the SIND RIVER was due to one simple thing... 800 of Afghan rebels who killed more than 100 thousands Iranians before NADIR SHAH era were fled to India and DELHI after nadir shah gave everything under control in great Persia,... He asked many times India to deport and deliver them back to Iran due to their cruel invasions and killings... but NADIR SHAH decided to cross SIND RIVER only when he was sure that DELHI will not hand them out to Persia... Nadir Shah with estimated 70,000 troops could occupy DELHI and defeat 300000 Indian army and hang those 800 afghans...then he didn,t acted that bad to Indians and let them rule their land again...he only asked for Key of the Royal Jewel Reserve and brought many famous gems but instead let the Delhi government to stay as it is and rule India (that part of India)..later Eastern India Company took the control of India...and sometime I wish they (Indians) could declare their attachment to great Persia and now we definitely could have something different than today,s political maps... I,m saying this because I read somewhere in this thread something not ture or at least perfect about Persian invasions to India...!

3- I have seen many Pakistani and Indian girls and guys in Sydney, Dubai and even Iran...from what I have seen I could grade the beauty of Pakistanis 6 out of 10 (this does not mean there is no 10 in Pakistan...of course I saw some 10 Pakistanis too)..once I asked a guy and girl in a hotel in Sydney as I thought they are definitely are Persians...they understood what I said in Persian but they said "we,re a little Persian...we,re from Pakistani Kashmir"!! I also used to know some Pakistani girls in London when I was there to speak in a conference... some of them were very close to Persians, Greek, Armenian, Italian and Spanish girls (as I always mix up these 5 nations girls..they are very close in face and height and body characters)... but I have to admit that I,m in love with Persians, Herati Afghanis and Pakistanis... I used to date two girls so far... one Persian and one Italian...both were %99 just the same in body, face, beauty and even manner..!

Sorry interrupting your discussion and I would be more than happy to respond to your questions as a pure Persian who also loves and respect other nations no matter how they look like..

I forgot something, for those who are saying "put some not model Persian girls or normal Persians... I can recommend you to do it by yourself. Just Google one of these words and you see the images coming up..they are %95 real photos from average Persians.. try "Persian Women" or "Persian Woman" or "Persian girls" or "Persian Girl"....please don,t use " Beautiful Persian ...." in your search as those photos could not be considered Average people...

I also liked the way you speak Persian in your (pakistani) anthem... I really surprised how close we are...

and I very much liked this emotion... I laughed like a pig when first time I saw it in your comments...

take care guys

Dany Ghafari from Persia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Cyrus the Great2 said:


> Hi to all guys and girls from Pakistan;
> 
> I had the chance to came across your thread in Pakistani version of defence.com and I have to admit that I liked your threads and especially this one...why? because there is something going on here I see it appropriate to participate... sorry, if you might probably see me a stranger that has to do nothing with Pakistanis...but I think just opposite..it is my damn business to talk about two things...or maybe even 3 things...
> 
> 1- I,m a little sorry to say that it is not appropriate for a good Muslim to talk about other races like this... praising beauty among some nations is a good thing..but this should not get you as far as we see here in this forum...All humans...no matter black or white...Persian or Indian or European...are %100 equal in nature and background...but some pure and advanced persons virtually (those who are ARIFS, MEN and Women of God and you can see God clearly in their daily life attitude) could get higher and in better position than other humans...I mean a human only can be better through his goodness and deeds and creed...no body is better than others...please bear in mind that this stupid discussions are a part of jealousy some devil oriented people trying to make it common between all humans no matter Muslims, or Christians or even Hindus or Sikhs... A Good human been should try to peak his deeds and soul to as high as it is possible to God...that,s it...
> 
> 2- As I,m a pure Persian ethnically and have some readings about history of our region... I,m almost sure (nobody can be %100 sure of something unless he seen it by itself or through his trusted eyes,,,) that kings like NADIR SHAH who extended their country borders never did such bad behaviors to war slaves and their women.. As far as I know, Nadir shah like any other middle islamic Age Shahs and kings used to kill those kings they defeat in war and they don,t surrender..or declare loyalty to them... The CARNAL battle in which NADIR SHAH invaded India and crossed the SIND RIVER was due to one simple thing... 800 of Afghan rebels who killed more than 100 thousands Iranians before NADIR SHAH era were fled to India and DELHI after nadir shah gave everything under control in great Persia,... He asked many times India to deport and deliver them back to Iran due to their cruel invasions and killings... but NADIR SHAH decided to cross SIND RIVER only when he was sure that DELHI will not hand them out to Persia... Nadir Shah with estimated 70,000 troops could occupy DELHI and defeat 300000 Indian army and hang those 800 afghans...then he didn,t acted that bad to Indians and let them rule their land again...he only asked for Key of the Royal Jewel Reserve and brought many famous gems but instead let the Delhi government to stay as it is and rule India (that part of India)..later Eastern India Company took the control of India...and sometime I wish they (Indians) could declare their attachment to great Persia and now we definitely could have something different than today,s political maps... I,m saying this because I read somewhere in this thread something not ture or at least perfect about Persian invasions to India...!
> 
> 3- I have seen many Pakistani and Indian girls and guys in Sydney, Dubai and even Iran...from what I have seen I could grade the beauty of Pakistanis 6 out of 10 (this does not mean there is no 10 in Pakistan...of course I saw some 10 Pakistanis too)..once I asked a guy and girl in a hotel in Sydney as I thought they are definitely are Persians...they understood what I said in Persian but they said "we,re a little Persian...we,re from Pakistani Kashmir"!! I also used to know some Pakistani girls in London when I was there to speak in a conference... some of them were very close to Persians, Greek, Armenian, Italian and Spanish girls (as I always mix up these 5 nations girls..they are very close in face and height and body characters)... but I have to admit that I,m in love with Persians, Herati Afghanis and Pakistanis... I used to date two girls so far... one Persian and one Italian...both were %99 just the same in body, face, beauty and even manner..!
> 
> Sorry interrupting your discussion and I would be more than happy to respond to your questions as a pure Persian who also loves and respect other nations no matter how they look like..
> 
> I forgot something, for those who are saying "put some not model Persian girls or normal Persians... I can recommend you to do it by yourself. Just Google one of these words and you see the images coming up..they are %95 real photos from average Persians.. try "Persian Women" or "Persian Woman" or "Persian girls" or "Persian Girl"....please don,t use " Beautiful Persian ...." in your search as those photos could not be considered Average people...
> 
> I also liked the way you speak Persian in your (pakistani) anthem... I really surprised how close we are...
> 
> and I very much liked this emotion... I laughed like a pig when first time I saw it in your comments...
> 
> take care guys
> 
> Dany Ghafari from Persia



This is Ramadan so we should refrain from discussing mundane things. However since it is after Iftar I will like to add that beauty is in eyes of the beholder. 
Having been to Iran many times, I find some of Iranian girls with black eyes (Chashm-e siyah) and very light skin about the prettiest in the world. Don&#8217;t know which city of Iran you are from but no one can describe the beauty of a Shirazi girl as Hafiz did in his famous 
Agar en turk &#8211;e Shirazi badast aarad diley ma raa
Ba khaal-e hindu &#8216;sh bakhsham Samarqand &#8211;o- Bukhara raa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> but NADIR SHAH decided to cross SIND RIVER only when he was sure that DELHI will not hand them out to Persia... Nadir Shah with estimated 70,000 troops could occupy DELHI and defeat 300000 Indian army and hang those 800 afghans...then he didn,t acted that bad to Indians and let them rule their land again...he only asked for Key of the Royal Jewel Reserve and brought many famous gems but instead let the Delhi government to stay as it is and rule India (that part of India)..later Eastern India Company took the control of India...and sometime I wish they (Indians) could declare their attachment to great Persia and now we definitely could have something different than today,s political maps... I,m saying this because I read somewhere in this thread something not ture or at least perfect about Persian invasions to India...!




It was 100,000 men. And the Persians fought a weak and irrelevant Mughal empire. Mughals lost their land to the Marathas. Marathas left the Mughals with a little land in Delhi.



> and sometime I wish they (Indians) could declare their attachment to great Persia and now we definitely could have something different than today,s political maps



I don't understand what you're trying to say. The maps today are totally fine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

in my school time i was really so stupid i hate my books of schoo and love to read something else hahahaha. at that time i buy 3 books abut history of punjab and after i read it i admit it was great to know this man he was really mahraja of punjab and his 40 years was really great time for punjab . as much as i know abut him he was kind loving a pure clean heart human .since then i read so much abut him and i respect this man .


----------



## Cyrus the Great2

Thanks Liquid for correcting me brother... and I agree that Mughals was a weak regime too...thanks by the way...

Regarding the Map thing... Maybe I was expressing my point a little wrong.. what I meant was if Indians was united with NADIR SHAH at that age (which was the greatest power in Asia at that era based on an wiki historic article) maybe we could have been with less damages of Mughals to the civilization of India and Persia whereas they fired up every book they discovered and killed every living entity in their invasions... (but later TIMURID embraced Islam and helped Persian and Indian science and art)...and finally we could have something so different from today,s English forced borders...Imagine a great country including India, Iran, Pakistan and some other central Asian states all together...) I don,t know if it was better than today but I think I feel enjoying imagining today`s world in a different shape... but as I mentioned earlier ...I love and respect all nations...and religions... especially, Iran, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan for their people and culture... sorry for my English ..its my Third langauge


----------



## Cyrus the Great2

Thanks Niaz for your words...and you,re right...it is Ramadan and we should only think of God...but we as good Muslims should have the capacity to look into different things as they are (the beauty is a sign of God and its greatness and we can praise God for its power and softness and not looking into any beautiful girl as a sexy food...at least I don,t think of beauty as a sexy matter rather a unique art in the hands of Allah)... I,m also agree with you hat beauty is in eyes of the beholder...and I faced many couple of China or African nations look into their girls as idols of beauty you can never find anywhere else)... just like the story of LEILI and MAJNOON as LEILI was not that beautiful but in the eyes of Majnoon she was something else.. This also is another beauty from God that we can easily conclude that no one in this world is ugly and no one is the most beautiful ...all people are beautiful if we don,t only follow up Hollywood standards.

Shirazi girls are among the top girls based on Hollywood standards and it is because Shirazi girls are a mixture of Persian, Lors, Qashqai, Bakhtiaris and Turks... but you can see many ethnic groups between Iranian beautiful girls.. but always remember that not all girls in Iran or anywhere else in the world are all pretty based on Hollywood standards and there are a percentage of them suited well for so called modeling purposes... I also met some Pakistani girls in Sydney a while ago...they were very beautiful into my eyes and Hollywood standards too... I fell in love with one of them as soon as I looked at her...later I asked reception guy which was a nice Indian guy and he told me they were Pakistanis... I,m a mix of North Khorasan Turks (near soviet borders) and pure Kashani Persians living in Mashhad for hundreds of years... "Ghafari" is a very old Persian family name originating from Kashan and Yazd btu living all around the world today... Sohrab Sepehri (famous modern poet) and Mohammad Ghafari (Kamal Al Molk) the famous Persian painter is of our family....

Anyway, I forgot to tell you that I uploaded 13 photos of my city and my life in Iran in my profile (have a look and let me know what you think of the photos!!) and congratulate RAMADAN every body in Pakistani forum and wish a very pleasant happy EID EL FITR in advance..


----------



## Cyrus the Great2

Thanks for the very valuable information on subcontinent history... I liked it very much and I already opened over 20 pages of this forum to read and know more about Pakistan, India and other subcontinent countries history...thanks to everyone who contribute such valuable information...

ZINDA BAD PAKISTAN and IRAN


----------



## Hammy007

truely disgusted to see these views, pakistan esp the punjabis and pashtuns are nothing when it comes to literacy and talent n skills in the fields, beauty is one thing achievement is another, its the urdu speakers holding the pillars of this nation... nothing is more beautiful then a civilized society with well educated people

i would prefer a black non pashtun non kashmiri non punjabi woman who is a medical doctor and well civilised family background then a pale skin dehati woman from pind

---------- Post added at 07:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------

these low lives like jinxed girl have specific agenda, and its agenda is to divide pakistani opinion here

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firpo

great topic and i am so proud of the people from pakistan for taking such a view M Ranjit. his rule is considered by some to be the best. if you r pakistani i feel u should b proud of this time in history. Such beauty lies in this history. by people making these poor remarks about india make them look so bad. i have friends of all decent and am a proud sikh of canada and lived here for 40yrs. i wish pakistani people would make it more known 2 the world of you people really r.

love peace Amarjit


----------



## Rusty

^^^

Ranjit Singh was just another "king" of India
He did some good things and some bad things.

We are not like Indians, who blindly hate just because of religion or the ruler.


----------



## DRaisinHerald

I heard this Ranjeet dude destroyed mosques...is this true?

I know he used them as stables


----------



## haviZsultan

Ranjit Singh is seen as a hero for the Sikhs. 

There are a number of misconceptions about him amongst the Muslims but this is bound to occur when a population of one religion is ruled by another. For example Hindus have always complained about Akbar's rule though he is seen as a hero amongst Muslims. 

I believe Ranjit singh was a good ruler and he developed his Nation into an Empire. His hold on what is today northern Pakistan was strong. His powerful generals helped him build up his empire. Men like jean francois allard were in his retinue and commanded his armies. 

Btw I have seen Afghans using all sorts of swear words against Ranjit Singh. Even Pashtun Nationalists here. I guess he often waged war against the Afghans and even took some of their territory. Some Afghans evidently are living in the past and believe Pakistan is some reincarnation of Ranjit Singh. Very amusing when you hear them talk about it.


----------



## Prometheus

DRaisinHerald said:


> I heard this Ranjeet dude destroyed mosques...is this true?
> 
> I know he used them as stables



his general "Akali phula Singh" holds the credit not Ranjit Singh


----------



## EjazR

haviZsultan said:


> For example Hindus have always complained about Akbar's rule though he is seen as a hero amongst Muslims.



I think you are mistaken there, Akbar's rule was marked by general tolerance and is remembered as Akbar the great.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## haviZsultan

EjazR said:


> I think you are mistaken there, Akbar's rule was marked by general tolerance and is remembered as Akbar the great.



Well some hindus definitely think so....

The Real Akbar. The (not) So Great

Site claims:


> AKBAR AGAIN SLAUGHTERED MORE THAN 30,000 UNARMED CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS AFTER THE FALL OF CHITOD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1568.



I guess Indians and Pakistanis both are taught a completely different history. My cousins in India make the same claims. You compare knowledge on history about the same event and its like comparing two different events. Sometimes its even annoying. We used to ask them if you are taught every Muslim ruler who conquered India is painted as anti hindu and a murderer then who is good. 

The Indian muslims seem to be receiving the 'other side of history'... of course we can't complain but it is kind of true.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

haviZsultan said:


> Well some hindus definitely think so....
> 
> The Real Akbar. The (not) So Great
> 
> Site claims:
> 
> I guess Indians and Pakistanis both are taught a completely different history. My cousins in India make the same claims. You compare knowledge on history about the same event and its like comparing two different events. Sometimes its even annoying. We used to ask them if you are taught every Muslim ruler who conquered India is painted as anti hindu and a murderer then who is good.
> 
> The Indian muslims seem to be receiving the 'other side of history'... of course we can't complain but it is kind of true.



Even Ashoka had murdered in his days, but later transformed!!!
Akbar transformed later to be great enough, to be called as, *Akbar the great!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

EjazR said:


> I think you are mistaken there, Akbar's rule was marked by general tolerance and is remembered as Akbar the great.


 
All lies glorified by Romila Thapar and Gang.He was every bit a tyrant and Bigot and hardly what is written about him.

Akbar is just the most successful and did some marketing to push his status up,that's all.



Rajaraja Chola said:


> Even Ashoka had murdered in his days, but later transformed!!!
> Akbar transformed later to be great enough, to be called as, *Akbar the great!*



Please stop glorifying a midget,mongol tyrant called Akbar and glorifying his deeds.He is just a Ghazi,a semi illiterate tyrant useful for people to confuse Indians.


----------



## Samandri

Imran Khan said:


> View attachment 127071
> 
> 
> real image
> 
> View attachment 127072



Paa Ji, thats not the real image of Ranjeet Singh, thats Amir Sher Ali Khan of Afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Samandri

Omar1984 said:


> Another indian-made propganda. Show me proof that Afghans raped Punjabi women.* Punjab was under Afghan rule only once and that was the Durrani empire.*


Not exactly, 
1- Suri Afghans ruled it for 15 years from 1540 to 1555
2- Before that, Lodhis ruled it for 100 years (In addition to Lodhi period, the governors of Punjab during Sayyad dynasty were also Afghans)
3- Khilji/Ghilzai Afghans ruled it for 30 years from 1290 to 1320.
4- Shiekh hamid Lodhi and his descendents ruled Multan (South Punjab) for 80 years from 961 A.D to 1040 A.D

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Samandri

haviZsultan said:


> Ranjit Singh is seen as a hero for the Sikhs.
> 
> There are a number of misconceptions about him amongst the Muslims but this is bound to occur when a population of one religion is ruled by another. For example Hindus have always complained about Akbar's rule though he is seen as a hero amongst Muslims.
> 
> I believe Ranjit singh was a good ruler and he developed his Nation into an Empire. His hold on what is today northern Pakistan was strong. His powerful generals helped him build up his empire. Men like jean francois allard were in his retinue and commanded his armies.
> 
> Btw I have seen Afghans using all sorts of swear words against Ranjit Singh. Even Pashtun Nationalists here. I guess he often waged war against the Afghans and even took some of their territory. Some Afghans evidently are living in the past and believe Pakistan is some reincarnation of Ranjit Singh. Very amusing when you hear them talk about it.


I would say Afghans and Pashtuns, with some sense of history, are actually impressed by Ranjeet Singh's military achievements. Pashtuns/Afghans mention Sikhs separately from other punjabis, and there are reasons for it. The Pashtun literature is not consumed by hatred for Sikhs, it boasts of fighting with Sikhs.......its in nature of Pashtuns to recognize and respect the military powers and martial communities, and that respect is not shown by bowing head infront of them but trying chopping it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Samandri said:


> Paa Ji, thats not the real image of Ranjeet Singh, thats Amir Sher Ali Khan of Afghanistan



You are right brother I don't know why according to some sources this image is of sher-e-punjab and the man standing behind is sardar hari singh 
Why do these afghans have moustaches and beards was it a fashion at that time ?







Lord of the five rivers sher-e-punjab Maharaja Ranjit singh


----------



## Samandri

Sam_Bajwa said:


> You are right brother I don't know why according to some sources this image is of sher-e-punjab and the man standing behind is sardar hari singh
> *Why do these afghans have moustaches and beards was it a fashion at that time ?*
> 
> Lord of the five rivers sher-e-punjab Maharaja Ranjit singh


They still have fashion of mustaches and beards......you wont see complete clean-shaved faces in Pashtun rural areas at all, men grow either mustaches or beards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Samandri said:


> They still have fashion of mustaches and beards......you wont see complete clean-shaved faces in Pashtun rural areas at all, men grow either mustaches or beards.



Those are considered traits of manliness around the globe
But growing both at the same time does it not make them look like infidels ?


----------



## dil_dil

This is actual photo RS.

He actually didn't look like typical punjabi jat.


----------



## Samandri

Sam_Bajwa said:


> Those are considered traits of manliness around the globe
> But growing both at the same time does it not make them look like infidels ?


Nope thats not the case, young men usually have moustaches while middle ones and old ones grow beards. What i meant was, that clean-shaved face is frowned upon, you are taunted for that. I dont know what you meant by infidel thing buts its more than religous, it is also embedded in culture. A clean-shaved man is considered hijra and womanish among pashtuns. In my area if some one dares to clean-shave or wear pant shirts, he is mocked "punjabay" (must be sounding racist, but the first clean-shaved ones with modren outlook that we saw, were either angraiz or punjabis..also generally punjabis are looked down upon by us for not being conservative, and not sticking to traditions and values)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## genmirajborgza786

Samandri said:


> I would say Afghans and Pashtuns, with some sense of history, are actually impressed by Ranjeet Singh's military achievements. Pashtuns/Afghans mention Sikhs separately from other punjabis, and there are reasons for it. The Pashtun literature is not consumed by hatred for Sikhs, it boasts of fighting with Sikhs.......its in nature of Pashtuns to recognize and respect the military powers and martial communities, and that respect is not shown by bowing head infront of them but trying chopping it.


I don't have a very high opinion of ranjeet singh not because of religion, but because of his particular promotion of a very hegemonic type of Punjabi dominance , the after effects of which I think , is still prevalent in the Pakistani society , though the successful promotion of Urdu as a lingua franca in Punjab , has somewhat restrained it, but its still there

as for bravery the Sikh are good but in my opinion if anyone deserves the respect of the Pashtuns then it is the Ghurkha's , what's your opinion on this

ps: if you want we can open a separate thread for it


----------



## Samandri

genmirajborgza786 said:


> I don't have a very high opinion of ranjeet singh not because of religion, but because of his particular promotion of a very hegemonic type of Punjabi dominance , the after effects of which I think , is still prevalent in the Pakistani society , though the successful promotion of Urdu as a lingua franca in Punjab , has somewhat restrained it, but its still there
> 
> as for bravery the Sikh are good but in my opinion if anyone deserves the respect of the Pashtuns then it is the Ghurkha's , what's your opinion on this
> 
> ps: if you want we can open a separate thread for it


I dont know man, Sikhs came to our areas as conquerers and beat us. We have memories and stories to tell about sikh rule. But our people didnt see gurkhas more than the soldiers of British army. I mean we were fighting angraiz as enemy, their sepoys were not that noticeable. For example there were also punjabi musalman in ranjeet singh army, but they were not noticeble to us, they were all sikhs to us. The thread on it would be surely interesting for discussion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dil_dil

genmirajborgza786 said:


> I don't have a very high opinion of ranjeet singh not because of religion, but because of his particular promotion of a very hegemonic type of Punjabi dominance , the after effects of which I think , is still prevalent in the Pakistani society , though the successful promotion of Urdu as a lingua franca in Punjab , has somewhat restrained it, but its still there
> 
> as for bravery the Sikh are good but in my opinion if anyone deserves the respect of the Pashtuns then it is the Ghurkha's , what's your opinion on this
> 
> ps: if you want we can open a separate thread for it



Please open the thread, it will be interesting topic from muhajir POV.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Samandri said:


> I dont know man, Sikhs came to our areas as conquerers and beat us. We have memories and stories to tell about sikh rule. But our people didnt see gurkhas more than the soldiers of British army. I mean we were fighting angraiz as enemy, their sepoys were not that noticeable. For example there were also punjabi musalman in ranjeet singh army, but they were not noticeble to us, they were all sikhs to us. The thread on it would be surely interesting for discussion



Brother Brits were not the first people to use gurkhas against the afghans I suggest you read about the battle of naushera which was a decisive victory for sikhs gurkhas participated in it under balbhardra
I think this may be a news to you see when gurkhas invaded punjab hills raja sansar chand the king of kangra invited sher-e-punjab to fight against gurkhas sikhs under kunwar naunihal singh (son of sher-e-punjab) managed to defeat them and later many of the deserter gurkhas were made part of Fauj-I-khas
Gurkas were very loyal soldiers One thing you will not believe is that during anglo sikh battles gurkhas of the sikh army fought against the gurkhas of British army .
Maharaja ranjit singh was a true indian although 80% of his army was of the sikhs he employed dogras ,Gurkhas ,Punjabi Muslims and he was the first indian king to use Dalits (low caste/shudras ) of both Hindu and Muslim community as soldiers.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

Samandri said:


> Nope thats not the case, young men usually have moustaches while middle ones and old ones grow beards. What i meant was, that clean-shaved face is frowned upon, you are taunted for that. I dont know what you meant by infidel thing buts its more than religous, it is also embedded in culture. *A clean-shaved man is considered hijra and womanish among pashtuns*. In my area if some one dares to clean-shave or wear pant shirts, he is mocked "punjabay" (must be sounding racist, but the first clean-shaved ones with modren outlook that we saw, were either angraiz or punjabis..also generally punjabis are looked down upon by us for not being conservative, and not sticking to traditions and values)



Yes same thing in my part of the world but they don't use the word Hijra they use khusra and ran janana

And you do sound racist you don't become great by looking down upon anyone let those fellows do what they want to its a free world after all .


----------



## dil_dil

Sam_Bajwa said:


> .
> Maharaja ranjit singh was a true indian although 80% of his army was of the sikhs he employed dogras ,Gurkhas ,Punjabi Muslims and he was the first indian king to use Dalits (low caste/shudras ) of both Hindu and Muslim community as soldiers.



30-35% of converted sikhs were dalits and part of sikh army. I doubt there were many non-sikhs in RS army. Anyway you are right, before that brahmin had to make dalits in to rajputs to join other rajputs. Sikh religion instead allowed them to preserve their identity and become soldier at the same time.


----------



## INDIC

Sam_Bajwa said:


> Yes same thing in my part of the world but they don't use the word Hijra they use khusra and ran janana
> 
> And you do sound racist you don't become great by looking down upon anyone let those fellows do what they want to its a free world after all .



I have similar slang for people without mustache.


----------



## dil_dil

Sam_Bajwa said:


> Yes same thing in my part of the world but they don't use the word Hijra they use khusra and ran janana
> 
> And you do sound racist you don't become great by looking down upon anyone let those fellows do what they want to its a free world after all .



You basically called @jatt+gutts (he is clean shaved) khusra and ran janana, this is racism also.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

I just forgot to mention purbias who were also part of the Maharajas army purbia means some one from the east that is soldiers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh .


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

INDIC said:


> I have similar slang for people without mustache.



Surprise me


----------



## INDIC

Sam_Bajwa said:


> Surprise me



The 'girlish look' is the most common slang hurled on people with no mustache.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

oye_natta said:


> You basically called @jatt+gutts (he is clean shaved) khusra and ran janana, this is racism also.



I did not


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

INDIC said:


> The 'girlish look' is the most common slang hurled on people with no mustache.



 Yes that's common but you know shehri babus prefer to stay that way .


----------



## INDIC

Sam_Bajwa said:


> I did not



BTW in Pakistan, they have a fashion of combing their hair from middle of the scalp as girls do. I am sure @oye_natta must be having same style without a mustache.


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

INDIC said:


> BTW in Pakistan, they have a fashion of combing their hair from middle of scalp as girls do. I am sure @oye_natta must be having same style without a mustache.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Sam_Bajwa said:


>



Me referring to this, bilkul @RazPaK jaisa dikhta hai.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gau8av

INDIC said:


> Me referring to this, bilkul @RazPaK jaisa dikhta hai.
> 
> View attachment 153758


"pent"  

n1, 8/10


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

INDIC said:


> Me referring to this, bilkul @RazPaK jaisa dikhta hai.
> 
> View attachment 153758


----------



## Spk460

Samandri said:


> Nope thats not the case, young men usually have moustaches while middle ones and old ones grow beards. What i meant was, that clean-shaved face is frowned upon, you are taunted for that. I dont know what you meant by infidel thing buts its more than religous, it is also embedded in culture. A clean-shaved man is considered hijra and womanish among pashtuns. In my area if some one dares to clean-shave or wear pant shirts, he is mocked "punjabay" (must be sounding racist, but the first clean-shaved ones with modren outlook that we saw, were either angraiz or punjabis..also generally punjabis are looked down upon by us for not being conservative, and not sticking to traditions and values)


A


----------

