Defeat of Sikhs by Dilasa Khan Bannuchi

[Jaggu]

It is not so simple as 15% of population seizing power over the majority, Ranjit Singh was a smart man and he knew that he needed the support of Punjabi Muslims if he was to gain and retain power hence Muslims of Punjab faced no restrictions in the kingdom and could do pretty much anything in exchange for loyalty. That is why he let a large portion of Muslim tribes even join his army. Compare this to the treatment of Kashmiri Muslims who according to most accounts were treated like dirt by Sikhs, Muslims in Punjab were almost always left alone. Another factor was the treatment of Muslims by the Afghans. Under Ahmad Shah the Punjabi Muslims were treated with respect and the tribes were never attacked or looted in any of the Afghan invasions, in fact Ahmad Shah saw himself as a religious leader and he felt he was looking out for the Punjabi Muslims against the Sikhs (not to mention you can also see this in his intention to attack China to free Muslim Turks in the western parts of China that were just annexed that never materialized due to his death) and even the Marathas during Panipat. That is why Ahmad Shah is so respected amongst Punjabi Muslims till this day and most consider him our King as the Afghans do. Compare this to the treatment of Punjabi Muslims by his successors who looted Muslim villages in order to gain booty (during Afghan invasions under Ahmad Shah sikh villages used to clear out and run into the hills to hide, Muslims never did because they were never bothered in his lifetime, in fact that is the main reason Ahmad Shah could never wipe out the Sikhs despite his many attempts to do so and the one time he did corner them it became known in their history as the Sikh genocide) and you can understand why the same tribes who once welcomed the Afghans now stood against them in their war against Ranjit Singh years later.

Another thing that is not mentioned in most sources but definitively played a part in getting Punjabi Muslims to side with the Sikhs was the respect shown to the saints. At the time Sufism played a huge role in the everyday lives of Punjabi Muslims and each tribe had its own dargah in the village which was usually led by the family members of the saint who influenced the conversion of said tribe to Islam (in fact this is still common as you probably know but the introduction of deobandism and wahabbism has lessened the influence of said dargahs). Ranjit Singh is known for turning the temple of Amritsar into the Golden temple of today but what they don't say is how he used to pay his respect at dargahs and usually decorate tombs with fine silks and/or jewels every time he captured a new area. This fostered a lot of good will and also stopped Muslim clerics of Punjab from bothering to declare a jihad to free Punjab from the Sikhs, which btw is another reason why Syed Ahmad Barelvis movement found more followers in Pakhtun areas then amongst Punjabi Muslims.

@Samandri @save_ghenda @Jaggu @Butchcassidy @Joe Shearer @RazPaK

Absolutely correct. The rise of the Sikhs was possible due to the support that was given by the majority population. It seems historically during that time period there was mistrust between Punjabi Muslims and Afghans. Before the rise of Ranjit Singh when he was one of many chiefs of Punjab. There was also a Kasuri Pathan chief named Nizamudin Hasanzai. Formerly the Kasuri Pathans were tributaries of the Bhangis, later during Shah Zaman's invasion they had shaken off the Bhangi over lordship and even expanded their territory. But the Kasuri Pathans were still in friendly terms with the Bhangis. And they even allied with each other against Ranjit Singh. Nizamudin also had ambitions to occupy Lahore. He had proposed to the Muslim leaders of Lahore to allow him to occupy the city, but they rejected this proposal since he was a Pathan and instead invited Ranjit Singh.

 

[Prometheus]

I believe the Sikh Empire were also defeated by Tibetans in a local war with them.

nope ....sikhs just ran over the area till main army of china arrived .......unprepared sikhs were pushed back and later a brief battle took place in ladakh region ............which reulted in signing of treaty between sikhs and china ....which said no one will cross each other sides and leh ladakh region of tibet stays with sikhs.........

 

[KingMamba]

It was known as "ghuloo ghara" , the great disaster, but now they are calling it "great genocide", i dont know why as it was slaughter of those Sikh warriors who had plundered and ravaged Maler kotla and then invested jandiala . Ahmad Shah quickly responded .he arrived first in Jandialah, sikhs fled as usual and then he arrived in Lahore. With Shah’s presence at Lahore, the Sikhs got slack, thinking that he had no intentions of their pursuit, they fled towards Sirhind. His sudden withdrawal to Lahore and the rumours that this time he wanted to advance beyond Delhi had made the Sikhs complacent. They did not speedily march into Malwa hills as usual. The Shah soon made them repent their blunder. He had come to know about their presence near Maler Kotla. He sallied out from Lahore at the head of his troops with utmost precaution and secrecy. He, covering a distance of 150 miles in about 36 hours, caught the Sikhs unaware and unprepared near Kot Rohera. Joined by the Afghan chiefs of Maler Kotla, Ahmad Shah on 5th May 1762 cut their route of retreat and surrounded them from all sides. Suddenly a panic seized them and general stampede followed. In the evening when Afghans stopped at a pond to water their horses, the Sikhs availed the opportunity. They fled towards Hariana and Barnala leaving behind about thirty thousands dead. But in the absence of Ahmad Shah Abdali from the Punjab, whenever the Sikhs got an opportunity they literally devastated the whole country.

Yes I know all this, but would you agree that it was due to the looting done by Afghan forces on Punjabi Muslims after the death of Ahmad Shah that led to the shift in support to the Sikhs?

 

[Shark2]

I only respect sikhs because they gave blody nose to pashtuns in their own ilaqa, others like rajputs or marathas etc were only able to defend some times in non-pashtun ilaqas. Ranjeet Singh was genius. Same pashtuns created empires, jagirs etc all over central/south India. There should be more respect towards sikhs because they are the only warrior race left in India.

I am not really sure how you can call the Sikhs a so called warrior race for merely establishing a kingdom which existed for 50 years or for merely defeating the Pashtuns once.
The Solanki ruler of Gujarat defeated the Turkic invader Muhammad Ghori and drove him out of Gujarat. But
nobody consider the Gujaratis warriors. The Vijayanagar rulers defeated the Turkic invaders several times and the greatest ruler Krishna Devaraya destroyed the Turkic Bahmani Sultanate and it collapsed during his reign.
The Marathas defeated the Mughals and conquered the major part of northern India which led to the collapse of the Mughal Dynasty. And unlike the Sikh Kingdom the Maratha Empire produced several great rulers like Shivaji and Baji Rao who defeated the Mughals, Mahadji Shinde who defeated the British and Rohilla Pashtuns or Chimnaji Appa who defeated the Portuguese.
The Turks, Mughals and British were certainly more powerful than the Pashtuns.

 

[Kabira]

I am not really sure how you can call the Sikhs a so called warrior race for merely establishing a kingdom which existed for 50 years or for merely defeating the Pashtuns once.
The Solanki ruler of Gujarat defeated the Turkic invader Muhammad Ghori and drove him out of Gujarat. But
nobody consider the Gujaratis warriors. The Vijayanagar rulers defeated the Turkic invaders several times and the greatest ruler Krishna Devaraya destroyed the Turkic Bahmani Sultanate and it collapsed during his reign.
The Marathas defeated the Mughals and conquered the major part of northern India which led to the collapse of the Mughal Dynasty. And unlike the Sikh Kingdom the Maratha Empire produced several great rulers like Shivaji and Baji Rao who defeated the Mughals, Mahadji Shinde who defeated the British and Rohilla Pashtuns or Chimnaji Appa who defeated the Portuguese.
The Turks, Mughals and British were certainly more powerful than the Pashtuns.

Again you guys do not get it, its about taking fight back to enemy house. Not about defending one time so enemy can prepare better and come back even stronger next time. When Marathas tried to venture in to north west they were annihilated in Panipat by much smaller Abdali army.

Punjab had dozens of chiefs/wild tribes. First Ranjeet united sikhs misl who were fighting each other and later on got support from some muslims also.

Sikh jatts are indeed only warrior race left in India, jatt+gutts will agree with me on that.

 

[Shark2]

Again you guys do not get it, its about taking fight back to enemy house. Not about defending one time so enemy can prepare better and come back even stronger next time. When Marathas tried to venture in to north west they were annihilated in Panipat by much smaller Abdali army.

Punjab had dozens of chiefs/wild tribes. First Ranjeet united sikhs misl who were fighting each other and later on got support from some muslims also.

Sikh jatts are indeed only warrior race left in India, jatt+gutts will agree with me on that.

People who lived mostly under foreign rule in the past and who only established one Kingdom in 2000 years can't be called
warriors. The Marathas did not merely protect their territories but they left the Deccan and defeated the Mughals,
Rajputs and Rohilla Pashtuns on their home turfs and established an Empire which stretched from Delhi in the north
to Tamil Nadu in the south. Even after the battle of Panipat the Marathas returned and conquered the major part
of northern India. On the other hand the Durrani kingdom started to collapse after the death of Abdali. The Sikhs were
only able to establish the Sikh Kingdom after the death of Ahmad Shah Abdali when several Pashtun tribes started to fight each other. The Sikhs merely took advantage of the chaos which started to spread in the Durrani Kingdom after the death of Abdali.

 

[Kabira]

People who lived mostly under foreign rule in the past and who only established one Kingdom in 2000 years can't be called
warriors. The Marathas did not merely protect their territories but they left the Deccan and defeated the Mughals,
Rajputs and Rohilla Pashtuns on their home turfs and established an Empire which stretched from Delhi in the north
to Tamil Nadu in the south. Even after the battle of Panipat the Marathas returned and conquered the major part
of northern India. On the other hand the Durrani kingdom started to collapse after the death of Abdali. The Sikhs were
only able to establish the Sikh Kingdom after the death of Ahmad Shah Abdali when several Pashtun tribes started to fight each other. The Sikhs merely took advantage of the chaos which started to spread in the Durrani Kingdom after the death of Abdali.

Being warrior is state of mind. Anyone can create empire by being united which you guys indeed were most of the times. But when time came to face real warriors, Marathas were defeated by much smaller army. As i said only thing Ranjeet did was uniting wild tribes otherwise they were already warriors.

Its very hard to unite wild tribes. Pashtuns were also fighting themselves mostly but used to unite in hope of financial rewards and to escape dud land and settle in fertile lands. No wonder they created so many jagirs in central/south india.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Again you guys do not get it, its about taking fight back to enemy house. Not about defending one time so enemy can prepare better and come back even stronger next time. When Marathas tried to venture in to north west they were annihilated in Panipat by much smaller Abdali army.

That's what the Marathas did. They came out of the Deccan South, captured Delhi and left the Mughal crown there. Can the Sikhs or Rajputs even come close to that, hell no.

Battle of Delhi (1737) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marathas at their height.

Marathas were getting so overly confident off these victories.

 

[Kabira]

That's what the Marathas did. They came out of the Deccan South, captured Delhi and left the Mughal crown there. Can the Sikhs or Rajputs even come close to that, hell no.

Battle of Delhi (1737) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marathas at their height.

View attachment 142492

Marathas were getting so overly confident off these victories.

Marathas mostly defeated local armies of Mughals, mostly comprised of central/south indians muslims or hindus. Marathas real test came in battle of panipat where they were defeated despite much smaller enemy forces.

 

[Shark2]

Being warrior is state of mind. Anyone can create empire by being united which you guys indeed were most of the times. But when time came to face real warriors, Marathas were defeated by much smaller army. As i said only thing Ranjeet did was uniting wild tribes otherwise they were already warriors.

Its very hard to unite wild tribes. Pashtuns were also fighting themselves mostly but used to unite in hope of financial rewards and to escape dud land and settle in fertile lands. No wonder they created so many jagirs in central/south india.

You are hilarious. The army of Abdali was not smaller than the army of the Marathas.
Since ancient times the Deccan people defeated foreign warriors like Scythians, Arabs, Turks, Mughals, Portuguese and Pashtuns. But you call people as warriors who established a Kingdom which survived for merely 50 years.
Very funny

 

[Mike_Brando]

If the numbers were only 15% then GOI under Congress would never had withheld them to begin with.

Okay believe what you want but that doesn't change the fact that the muslim population is around 180 million ( roughly the size of Pakistan) at present in India.There were around 14 crore muslims during the 2001 Census.So you really think that they could nearly double themselves in just a matter of a decade!They have had a high birth rate in the last decade but the Hindu birth rate was also quite high(though a bit less than than them) and hence there is no disparity in the overall percentage.Plus i have also accounted all the illegal Bangladeshis(roughly 20 millions) who are currently living in our country in the overall muslim population.Just understand one thing if the muslim population was more than 300 millions than how on earth did the BJP win 282 seats in the General election out of 542 seats whereas the Congress party which gets the majority of the muslim votebank got only 48 seats.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Marathas mostly defeated local armies of Mughals, mostly comprised of central/south indians muslims or hindus. Marathas real test came in battle of panipat where they were defeated despite much smaller enemy forces.

No, they fought pretty big wars. In the initial years with Shivaji they were fighting small guerrilla style wars, in which they were always outnumbered, but won though better tactics.

But they fought big wars with the Mughals, etc. Bigger or on par with Panipat.

Battle of Delhi (1737) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Bhopal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Gajendragad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Siege of Badami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Rakshasbhuvan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Palkhed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
etc
etc

Battle of Panipat did blunt their strength for a time being, because they were consecutively winning before hand.

Even when they were beating the Afghans back

Battle of Attock, 1758 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Peshawar (1758) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lahore, Multan, Kashmir and other subhas on this side of Attock are under our rule for the most part, and places which have not come under our rule we shall soon bring under us. Ahmad Shah Durrani's son Timur Shah Durrani and Jahan Khan have been pursued by our troops, and their troops completely looted. Both of them have now reached Peshawar with a few broken troops... So Ahmad Shah Durrani has returned to Kandahar with some 12-14 thousand broken troops. Thus all have risen against Ahmad who has lost control over the region... we have decided to extend our rule up to Kandahar.

Peshwa Balaji Bajirao

Durranis were smart to attack fast and leave Maratha ambitions from NW.

 

[Jaggu]

water car engineer and shark2, I wasn't going to reply about this but your ignorance to too much to be ignored. Marathas and Sikhs cannot be compared. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Marathas were a numerous people and majority in their homeland in Maharashtra. Sikhs on the other hand were a microscopic minority within Punjab itself. Marathas never faced any genocides. Sikhs faced one genocide after another. At one point in Sikh history there were just a few thousand Sikhs left.

Marathas had faced mainly Indian Mughals. Sikhs on the other hand had to face such ferocious warriors such as Pathans and Baloch (from across the Indus), central Asians such as Uzbeks and Qisilbash. The only time Marathas faced these central Asians was in the battle of Panipat and we know how that turned out. And this was when marathas were at the height of their power with all the advantages. After the battle of Panipat the Marathas took a decade to recover. On the other when Sikhs faced a similar defeat at the battle of Kup(Vadda Ghalugara or the great holocaust), Sikhs only took 10 months to recover fully and expel the Afghans from Punjab entirely. And this was a time when Sikhs had none of the advantages or heavy artillery that the Marathas possessed.

As for your point that Sikhs only rose to power because of Afghans disrupting the political stability in North India, then the same argument can be used that the Marathas too only rose to power because the Mughals under Aurangzeb had disrupted the stability of the Deccan sultanates which till then had contained the Marathas. Both the Marathas and Sikhs rose to power due to an external invasions. In the case of the Marathas it was the Mughal invasion of Deccan and the Sikhs it was the Afghan invasion of North India.

Now stop this comparing of who is stronger or better. This is a useless debate

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Marathas are better

 

[Samandri]

Yes I know all this, but would you agree that it was due to the looting done by Afghan forces on Punjabi Muslims after the death of Ahmad Shah that led to the shift in support to the Sikhs?

I dont know the history of Timur Shah and Zaman shah and other Afghan rulers so i am not aware what exactly were their policies about Punjabi musalman. Zaman Shah in 1798 headed towards Delhi with 50 thousands (30,000 according to some sources), on request of Tipu Sultan. This caused great panic in East india company and Britian and they are said to have mobilized largest force in their history till that date to deal with Afghans. They also convinced Persia to invade Afghanistan, which forced zaman Shah to return back from lahore. I have read in the book that the news of Afghan invasion had caused great jubilance among Indian muslims and they were very disappointed on hearing that the Afghan army didnt advance beyond Lahore. The Rohillas of Rampur , on anticipation of Afghan invasion, even revolted against British which resulted in second Rohilla war.
All the military expeditions of Abdali after 1761, are also called invasions for loot and plundering by Sikhs and some Pakistanis (who are not even aware of details but are under influence of that quote of bulleh Shah). The fact is , all of the so called invasions were against troublesome Sikh misals who were sacking , plundering viilages and towns and attacking allies of Afghans in Punjab. From What i have observed Abdali had very few allies and well-wishers among Punjabi musalman who were not accustomed to Afghan rule since 1555 , the support was mostly coming from Afghan colonies of Sirhind, Maler kotla, Kasur and Multan. The support from punjabi muslaman to Sikhs was mostly coming from western portion of Punjab among warrior tribes, to settle score with Afghans.