British praising the physical qualities of Bihari Bhumihars and Rajputs

[Kabira]

@Joe Shearer is right, Gurkhas were UP/Biharis with indo-tibetan admixture. I never found from british sources that punjabis hated hindustanis for supporting British. I only read this on pdf.

For one not only ''hindustanis'' supported british against sikh.
2. It was sikh empire and not punjabi empire. Obviously 100% of them were punjabi sikhs.
3. Many punjabi muslims supported british if not all.
4. Even dogras from jammu supported British
5. Even some sikhs sold themselves like waraich sikh chief of Amristar

Before 1857 mutiny British didn't recruit sikhs but only punjabi muslims in punjab who helped them. Even in later years 60% of british soldiers in gujranwala (which included current day sialkot and hafizabad also) distirct were muslims. This figure i got from Gujranwala gazetter.

1857 in punjab when muslim ravi tribes of Sahiwal/Montgomery revolted, British put them down with help of gujranwala muslims. But after that they decided to diversify their army on religious lines and started to recruit sikhs.

Sikhs also joined british army in droves to restore lost pristige/lands. Even Hari Singh Nalwa son was first one to join British against Hindustanis.

I don't see any hatered here. People say punjabi soldiers used to make fun small build bhaiyas soldiers, but thats just plain racism if it happened.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It's obvious from the superficial treatment and complete lack of knowledge of detailed circumstance, not to mention what emerges as the desperate need to reassure themselves that some parts of the Indian populace actually liked them.

ahan...

This, like the rest of the martial races myth, was built on the foundation of victory in battle by the non-martial races over the precise martial races that were so lauded after 1857.

Hilarious.

Apparently thats also wrong.. the british were only recruiting high caste soldier even before 57... brahmins,rajputs from awadh and bihar & former siraj ud dawlas soldiers... and not from low castes ... and had very few low caste soldiers who were almost never promoted...

@Joe Shearer is right, Gurkhas were UP/Biharis with indo-tibetan admixture. I never found from british sources that punjabis hated hindustanis for supporting British. I only read this on pdf.

For one not only ''hindustanis'' supported british against sikh.
2. It was sikh empire and not punjabi empire. Obviously 100% of them were punjabi sikhs.
3. Many punjabi muslims supported british if not all.
4. Even dogras from jammu supported British
5. Even some sikhs sold themselves like waraich sikh chief of Amristar

Before 1857 mutiny British didn't recruit sikhs but only punjabi muslims in punjab who helped them. Even in later years 60% of british soldiers in gujranwala (which included current day sialkot and hafizabad also) distirct were muslims. This figure i got from Gujranwala gazetter.

In 1857 when muslim ravi tribes of Sahiwal/Montgomery revolted, British put them down with help of gujranwala muslims. But after that they decided to diversify their army on religious lines and started to recruit sikhs.

Sikhs also joined british army in droves to restore lost pristige/lands. Even Hari Singh Nalwa son was first one to join British against Hindustanis.

I don't see any hatered here. People say punjabi soldiers used to make fun small build bhaiyas soldiers, but thats just plain racism if it happened.

they werent from bihar or UP... but nepal... apart from nepal some are found in indian states like dehradun or darjeeling (if im not wrong)....


2)The sikhs were secular in their outlook... one has to google for their alliances with the likes of kharrals of sayyedwala and even mazaris from southern punjab (whom they actually fought) and so on....

As for british sources... "Sepoy and the Raj" by David Omissi is a good read.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer is right, Gurkhas were UP/Biharis with indo-tibetan admixture. I never found from british sources that punjabis hated hindustanis for supporting British. I only read this on pdf.

For one not only ''hindustanis'' supported british against sikh.
2. It was sikh empire and not punjabi empire. Obviously 100% of them were punjabi sikhs.
3. Many punjabi muslims supported british if not all.
4. Even dogras from jammu supported British
5. Even some sikhs sold themselves like waraich sikh chief of Amristar

Before 1857 mutiny British didn't recruit sikhs but only punjabi muslims in punjab who helped them. Even in later years 60% of british soldiers in gujranwala (which included current day sialkot and hafizabad also) distirct were muslims. This figure i got from Gujranwala gazetter.

In 1857 when muslim ravi tribes of Sahiwal/Montgomery revolted, British put them down with help of gujranwala muslims. But after that they decided to diversify their army on religious lines and started to recruit sikhs.

Sikhs also joined british army in droves to restore lost pristige/lands. Even Hari Singh Nalwa son was first one to join British against Hindustanis.

I don't see any hatered here. People say punjabi soldiers used to make fun small build bhaiyas soldiers, but thats just plain racism if it happened.

Brilliant.

Have you read Major Amin on this subject? He gets as detailed as you do.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Brilliant.

Have you read Major Amin on this subject? He gets as detailed as you do.

who?

 

[Kabira]

ahan...



Apparently thats also wrong.. the british were only recruiting high caste soldier even before 57... brahmins,rajputs from awadh and bihar & former siraj ud dawlas soldiers... and not from low castes ... and had very few low caste soldiers who were almost never promoted...



they werent from bihar or UP... but nepal... apart from nepal some are found in indian states like dehradun or darjeeling (if im not wrong)....


2)The sikhs were secular in their outlook... one has to google for their alliances with the likes of kharrals of sayyedwala and even mazaris from southern punjab (whom they actually fought) and so on....

As for british sources... "Sepoy and the Raj" by David Omissi is a good read.

But they were ''originally'' from UP/Bihar stock. They went to Nepal and mixed with indo-tibetan people..

Sikh defeated kharals and become alies, same thing happened with muslim waraich chief of Gujrat.

And British only recruiting high caste is not true, even in Bihar they started to recuit low caste which high caste biharis didn't like much.

British officers wrote all those anthro notes on different people in punjab. There were obviously differences between jatt sikh and mazhabi (chuhra) sikh which british noted down. But after some time they eventually started to recuit mazhabhi sikhs also to diversify even with in sikh religion. They needed loyal soldiers and not another 1857 like mutiny.

 

[Kabira]

Brilliant.

Have you read Major Amin on this subject? He gets as detailed as you do.

No. But its clear punjabi hating hindustanis is wrong history. As if punjabis were living as one big happy family who got conquered by British empire with help of Hindustanis And then punjabis decided to teach lesson to hindustanis and joined British. While ignoring ground realities of said period and how other ''punjabis'' also helped British probably more then Hindustanis could do from far away.

Punjabis both muslims and sikhs only joined British forces for money/land after being conquered. I think now days some try to justify why they did and come up with these stories. If high caste didn't join British then they would simply recruit low caste and give them lands. Because they were masters at that time. But they didn't need low caste because high caste (so called martial) were first in line to join them.

Forget about punjabis against hindustanis, punjabis from one region helped British put down 1857 munity in other region of punjab.

 

[Joe Shearer]

who?

Major Agha H. Amin, formerly Armoured Corps (PAVO)

But they were ''originally'' from UP/Bihar stock. They went to Nepal and mixed with indo-tibetan people..

Sikh defeated kharals and become alies, same thing happened with muslim waraich chief of Gujrat.

And British only recruiting high caste is not true, even in Bihar they started to recuit low caste which high caste biharis didn't like much.

British officers wrote all those anthro notes on different people in punjab. There were obviously differences between jatt sikh and mazhabi (chuhra) sikh which british noted down. But after some time they eventually started to recuit mazhabhi sikhs also to diversify even with in sikh religion. They needed loyal soldiers and not another 1857 like mutiny.

Used to be that Mazhabis were recruited into the SLI. No longer, thank Heavens.

No. But its clear punjabi hating hindustanis is wrong history. As if punjabis were living as one big happy family who got conquered by British empire with help of Hindustanis And then punjabis decided to teach lesson to hindustanis and joined British. While ignoring ground realities of said period and how other ''punjabis'' also helped British probably more then Hindustanis could do from far away.

Punjabis both muslims and sikhs only joined British forces for money/land after being conquered. I think now days some try to justify why they did and come up with these stories. If high caste didn't join British then they would simply recruit low caste and give them lands. Because they were masters at that time. But they didn't need low caste because high caste (so called martial) were first in line to join them.

Forget about punjabis against hindustanis, punjabis from one region helped British put down 1857 munity in other region of punjab.

An amusing sidelight is that a Gurkha serving abroad in military service (either Indian Army or British Army, makes no difference) is known as a Lahure.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

But they were ''originally'' from UP/Bihar stock. They went to Nepal and mixed with indo-tibetan people..

Sikh defeated kharals and become alies, same thing happened with muslim waraich chief of Gujrat.

There is no mention of sikhs taking on kharals:

In Jhamra, neighbouring Nakais, Gayan Singh, Khazan Singh and Bhagwan Singh had pledged brotherhood with Rai Saleh Khan, the Kharal chief. When Gayan Singh married his daughter, Datar Kaur, to Ranjit Singh, Kharals chipped in the dowry, as a good will gesture. Rai Saleh Khan was succeeded by his nephew Rai Ahmed Khan Kharal, instead of his son. When Ranjit Singh won over Punjab, he travelled across his kingdom and met local nobility. During his visit to Sayyedwala, he met Rai Ahmed Khan Kharal and called him a brother. 1947 was almost a century away.

And British only recruiting high caste is not true, even in Bihar they started to recuit low caste which high caste biharis didn't like much.

Initially they did recruit some.. but guess what happened? the high castes rejected them... they didnt obey them.. instead they mocked them n treated em like untouchables... it was one of the reason that lead to 57 mutiny.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no mention of sikhs taking on kharals:




Initially they did recruit some.. but guess what happened? the high castes rejected them... they didnt obey them.. instead they mocked them n treated em like untouchables... it was one of the reason that lead to 57 mutiny.....

I am afraid that there is not a shred of evidence for this slightly bizarre account. It seems like a reconstruction of what someone wishes had happened.

 

[livingdead]

more dalits should be recruited as officers in Indian forces.

 

[Kabira]

There is no mention of sikhs taking on kharals:




Initially they did recruit some.. but guess what happened? the high castes rejected them... they didnt obey them.. instead they mocked them n treated em like untouchables... it was one of the reason that lead to 57 mutiny.....

Nakai Misl fought against kharals

Nakai Misl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same Naikai sikhs will later on convert to Islam by end of 19th century. They are still politically dominant.

''But the Nakai Sardars were increasingly coming under the influence of Islam. Sardar Attar Singh Nakai, a son of the last Chief, had joined the Sikh Army at Multan during the rebellion in 1848. After their defeat, he converted to Islam and took the name Khuda Bakhsh. He lived till 1879. Sardar Ishar Singh Nakai, another son of Sardar Kahan Singh, converted to Islam and married a Muslim lady, named Umar Bibi in 1879, a Mughal belonging to Sarai Mughal in the District of Kasur.. He took the name Abdul Aziz Nakai. He had two sons from this union; namely Sardar Din Muhammad (1881-1944) and Sardar Muhammad Akbar (1889-1971). One of his descendants or Grandson, Sardar Muhammad Arif Nakai, was a well known Pakistani politician who rose to become Chief Minister of Pakistan Punjab in 1995-96. He died on 29 February 2000. Sardar Muhammad Arif Nakai's Son-in-Law is famous politician Sardar Talib Hasan Nakai son of Sardar Abdul Hamid Nakai son of Sardar Muhammad Akbar Nakai. Sardar Abdul Hamid Nakai was elected a member of the National Assembly from 1953 to 1989. Sardar Arif's sons are Sardar Muhammad Asif Nakai (Former Federal Minister), late Sardar Pervaiz Hassan Nakai former member of the Punjab Assembly died in 2008 and Sardar Atif Nakai, former Tehsil Nazim of Pattoki Tehsil.''

And i agree bihari high caste didnt exatcly treat low caste as well. But nothing to do with punjabis. Mazhabhi sikhs (chuhras) were important part of sikh empire. British also recruited them and nothing happened.

 

[Samandri]

There is no mention of sikhs taking on kharals:




..

Governor of Hazara, Amar Singh Majithia was killed by Karral chief Hassan Ali Khan of Nara tract. But when Hari singh Nalwa came, Karrals of Nara submitted to Sikhs and their chief was granted a jagir.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I am afraid that there is not a shred of evidence for this slightly bizarre account. It seems like a reconstruction of what someone wishes had happened.

Composition of the same bengal army tells a different story and so do british accounts.

 

[Kabira]

Governor of Hazara, Amar Singh Majithia was killed by Karral chief Hassan Ali Khan of Nara tract. But when Hari singh Nalwa came, Karrals of Nara submitted to Sikhs and their chief was granted a jagir.

There is confusion in name. Karral of Hazara/hindko are not same as kharals of ravi. Because I remember similar tribe name in Hazara gazetter.

Karlal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

while kharals are from southern part of central punjab.

"In 1768, Nar Singh was killed in a battle against the Kharals at Kot Kumaliah and was succeeded by his brother, Ran Singh"

Nakai Misl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kharal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both are different, karral/karlal are different tribe of hazara. There is no tribe of common jatt decent in hazara region.

 

[SHAMK9]

White man's approval