Ahmad Shah Durrani's place in Pakistan's history

[ravi kiran]

No doubt Marathas were Brave Warriors , fierce and loyal to their Mother land,they quickly recovered from battle of Panipat sadly they were betrayed by their own people and the faulty policies of Peshwa

you are right. there happened three great tragedies which destroyed power of Peshwa.
1.Defeat at Panipat
2.Early death of Madhav Rao Peshwa (who regained control of Delhi after defeat at Panipat.)
3.Murder of Narayan Rao Peshwa by Raghunath Rao.

 

[Bornubus]

@Samandri

Where is this Bala Hissar fort ,just curious..?

 

[Samandri]

@Samandri

Where is this Bala Hissar fort ,just curious..?

One is in the Kabul, another is in Peshawer

 

[Spring Onion]

@Samandri

Where is this Bala Hissar fort ,just curious..?

In the way to my office. Peshawar City

 

[ravi kiran]

Now, I think we should stop . And, stop your emotions. Historians and Thinkers do not agree with you. You have no idea of the Marathas post 1761. Read some books and then talk. Marathas were defeated for their Hubris. They also came back strong soon , if not stronger. History is filled with such instances. But, none behaves like a crybaby like you. Marathas lost their political and economic control over other states after 1920s and they never got it back. So is this frustration in the 21st century.

I am not being cry baby. I just explained effects of Panipat on Maratha psyche.
you dont know us. trust me no one will like if our strong sense of pride and a ambition of domination of India revives.

 

[Bornubus]

you are right. there happened three great tragedies which destroyed power of Peshwa.
1.Defeat at Panipat
2.Early death of Madhav Rao Peshwa (who regained control of Delhi after defeat at Panipat.)
3.Murder of Narayan Rao Peshwa by Raghunath Rao.

I would also like to add

1.They failed to make alliance moreover they started harassing Rajputs.

2.Light cavalry,Guerilla Warfare and Deadly Ambushes was their cheif tactics of early Marathas but later they used to be accompanied by large number of Servants women etc which was not conducive for their Mode of Warfare.

 

[Kabira]

Even the short Sikh rule had adverse effects on Muslims of Punjab. I was reading in a book , History of Punjab by Lateef, that diet of Punjabi musalman became mostly vegetarian due to Sikh rule. Only rights of Hindus were taken care of, while there was a degree of religious hostility towards Muslims , Mullahs were particularly targeted. Maratha rule would have changed the culture and ways of life of Indian muslims, making them more baray-e-naam, there waseven possibility of emergence of Shudi and sangthan movements very early on if Marthas had made it.


British didnt intervene in internal affairs of Russia and kept quiet about Russian policies towards their central asian subjects. They didnt have to. Though they didnt want Russia to conquer Afghanistan, they also prevented any Russian influence in Afghanistan, thats why the great game.

Muslim becoming veg is exageration because cow is not the only meat avaible. But overall its funny when people say sikh empire was secular. It probably has to do with the fact that 92-95% of sikhs were hindus before converting according to British survey. Mostly from khatris, jatts and chuhra/dalits castes. Gujjars, rajputs etc were overall very low % because most of them already had converted to islam unlike khatris, jatts and dalits. Even in British time most dalits converting to christianity were sikhs/hindus, and not muslim mussalis.

So naturarly sikhs were more closer to hindus.

Nah, Attock was an exaggeration. They never collected taxes from there, and the area was still Gakhar ruled back then with other powerful and "fierce" tribes like Khattars also being practically independent. Adina Beg got a lot of soldiers/warriors from the northern tribes, like the Ghebas(who still go strong today btw, with Malik Atta Muhammad as their feudal leader).

Rajasthan wasn't helpless either. They had withstood Aurangzeb, what makes you think Marhattas subjugated them? Lol. Rajput states would have joined the Brits in case of a full fledged Marhatta invasion.



That's doubtful. And Sikhs were highly capable even before Ranjit. Zamzama cannon was snatched from Shah Zaman(I think) by the Bhangi Misl, which had chased his army. Zaman crossed the river Jhelum without even putting up a fight. Ranjit's grandfather, Charat Singh even kidnapped Abdali's mamu-cum-general and only returned him for a ransom. The Sukarchakia misl defeated the pro-Afghan Chattha jatts despite Abdali's assurances to the latter. Even under Abdali, Lahore was lost at least once. And I would say the Sikh guerilla tactics were smart, for they didn't have a proper state. As soon as they got a state, they successfully defeated Afghans at multiple occasions. And there's no such thing as "my Sikhs". I have no love for Ranjit Singh, let's just say.



Multiple European sources mention the tyrannical rule of Afghans in the Kashmir valley. I can't cite them now. They also unanimously mentioned that Sikh rule was better. Abdali's heavy taxation is also well documented. This one 19 year old Afghan governor was famous for shooting random people just for the heck of it. The ban of azzaan and cow was made by the dogra rajput rulers of kashmir, who were hindu. Sikhs were as a policy secular. As for the Hindu ministers, well they were only in Kabul and were mostly Punjabi Khatris for the local Afghans weren't civilized enough to industrialize their country.

Did sikhs ban cow slaughter in Punjab? If not then one can say they were secular overall at least in punjab.

 

[Samandri]

Muslim becoming veg is exageration because cow is not the only meat avaible. But overall its funny when people say sikh empire was secular. It probably has to do with the fact that 92-95% of sikhs were hindus before converting according to British survey. Mostly from khatris, jatts and chuhra/dalits castes. Gujjars, rajputs etc were overall very low % because most of them already had converted to islam unlike khatris, jatts and dalits. Even in British time most dalits converting to christianity were sikhs/hindus, and not muslim mussalis.

So naturarly sikhs were more closer to hindus.



Did sikhs ban cow slaughter in Punjab? If not then one can say they were secular overall at least in punjab.

Cow slaughter was banned in Punjab and there was death sentence for it.
Problem of Communalism in India - Google Books

 

[Kabira]

Cow slaughter was banned in Punjab and there was death sentence for it.
Problem of Communalism in India - Google Books

This is what I though, it was not only banned in Kashmir. Since sikhs were naturarly more closer to hindus.

 

[KingMamba]

Some battles impart long lasting effect on psyche of a nation. For example Afghans never fully recovered from trauma of the defeat in first battle of Panipat at the hands of Mughals. Pakistani nation's psyche is still damaged from defeat in 1971.

Bro you have posted many good posts on this thread, but you didn't answer my main question. Had marathas instead of Afghans won at Panipat would Pakistan still have been created? Second a question I just thought of, would Afghanistan itself today be a part of one big South Asian union?

 

[Samandri]

Bro you have posted many good posts on this thread, but you didn't answer my main question. Had marathas instead of Afghans won at Panipat would Pakistan still have been created? Second a question I just thought of, would Afghanistan itself today be a part of one big South Asian union?

As you can see from the posts of a Maratha member here, Marathas lost the power and confidence after defeat in 1761, never recovered from it, their elders today still feel the pain of loss of great opportunity in 18th century of establishing a mighty unstoppable Hindu empire. One can say that Pakistan might not have been founded if Marathas had won the war against Afghans and had taken the war into Hindu Kush range. But it was just one battle, Afghans would have retreated from Punjab but a seasoned general like Abdali or his successor in case he had died in panipat, would have gathered another army for battle with Marathas again, on soil of Punjab. If Marathas had made attempt on conquering Hindu Kush range, the fate of first anglo-afghan war was waiting for them. So even in case of another scenario, there would have been a long war between Afghans and Marathas over Punjab and frontier. If Marathas were able won that war, like sikhs, they most likely would not have made attempt of going beyond khyber pass. If Abdali had died in battle of panipat, Afghans would have been reduced to defensive wars just like they were against Sikhs.

 

[Shark2]

The battle of panipat was definitely not the reason for the decline of the Maratha Empire. The Marathas easily
recovered after Panipat and reconquered much of northern India while the Durrani Kingdom collapsed after the
death of Abdali. The Maratha Empire declined because of the betrayal of Ragunathrao and the deaths of Madhavrao, Mahadji Shinde and Nana Fadnavis.

 

[Samandri]

The battle of panipat was definitely not the reason for the decline of the Maratha Empire. The Marathas easily
recovered after Panipat and reconquered much of northern India while the Durrani Kingdom collapsed after the
death of Abdali. The Maratha Empire declined because of the betrayal of Ragunathrao and the deaths of Madhavrao, Mahadji Shinde and Nana Fadnavis.

Durrani empire didnt collapse after death of Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1772. It started into disintegration much later, after 1795 when Civil war erupted and even in 1824 Afghans were in possession of Shikarpur district of Sindh. Kashmir was held upto 1819. It was not Marathas but rise of Sikhs which led to the decline of Durrani empire.

 

[Shark2]

Durrani empire didnt collapse after death of Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1772. It started into disintegration much later, after 1795 when Civil war erupted and even in 1824 Afghans were in possession of Shikarpur district of Sindh. Kashmir was held upto 1819. It was not Marathas but rise of Sikhs which led to the decline of Durrani empire.

It didnt collapse but it declined rather quickly after the death of Abdali. It was very similar to the
Ghaznavid Kingdom which rose during the reign of Mahmud Ghazni but which declined in a few
years after his death. I guess these Kingdoms were more like tribal confederacies which emerged
under one great leader and declined with his death.

 

[Samandri]

It didnt collapse but it declined rather quickly after the death of Abdali. It was very similar to the
Ghaznavid Kingdom which rose during the reign of Mahmud Ghazni but which declined in a few
years after his death. I guess these Kingdoms were more like tribal confederacies which emerged
under one great leader and declined with his death.

To an extent you are right, it was a tribal confederacy held together by strong personality and leadership of Abdali , his successors were not that talented and competent. Still the main factor in decline of empire was the civil war and loose central authority. By 1798 Afghan rule on Punjab was nominal and Sikh misals were the practical rulers, the civil war in Afghanistan triggered the forward policy of Sikhs and the first Afghan stronghold in Punjab, Kasur, fell in 1807 AD because Sadozai vs Barakzai conflict was going on and none of the side came to the aid. Abdali himself never had full control over his own domain but he was capable of suppressing any revolt with his military experience, his successors, the Sadozais ,were unable to properly administer such a large empire in the absence of proper administration and proper system. Abdali crushed every Sikh force he encountered but he failed to find the solution for ending the Sikh insurgency. Durranis were newbies, they had no experience of administration like Mughals.