What's new

Defeat of Sikhs by Dilasa Khan Bannuchi

Victory & defeat in a battle can be due to a variety of reasons and one cannot judge a people based on the outcome of a single battle. I am a student of history and prefer to base my observations on facts and the events whose outcome directly results in a change of regime and / or fate of a nation. Okay the Sikh got defeated in a battle; have anyoneone given a thought as to why and how Sikhs came to rule a very vast area from Khyber to Sirhand and from Kashmir to Sind borders in the first place?

History of Punjab and the Sikhs is not very old and thus not shrouded in the mists of time.

While Marathas were active in the Central & Eastern fringes of the Mughal Empire, main reason for the rise of the Sikh power in Punjab were invasions by the Muslim adventurers Nader Shah Afshar & Ahmad Shah Abdali.

Arguably; primary reason for the fall of the Mughal Empire was short-sighted policies of Aurangzeb who bankrupted Mughal Empire in a long and disastrous war with the Marathas. Also by finishing off the Muslim states of Golconda & Bijapour he also eliminated two major enemies of the Marathas. Mughal territories in the northern subcontinent remained largely intact until the 1730's.

As if the infighting among the Mughal princes as to who would be the king and intrigue of the Syed brothers was not enough; Mughal state was dealt a fatal blow when Nader Shah with about 60,000 Iranians & Afghans defeated 200,000 strong Mughal Army of Mohamed Shah Rangeela at the battle of Karnal in 1739. However, since we are discussing Sikhs, let us limit this discussion to Punjab.

IMO last nail in the coffin of the Mughal / Muslim rule in Punjab were the invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali. Afghan king defeated Mughal governor Nasir Khan and seized Peshawar in October 1747. Abdali then crossed Indus and in January 1748, 30,000 Afghans aided by 5,000 Pathans led by Jamal Khan of Kasur; defeated 70,000 troops of the Shah Nawaz - Mughal governor of Punjab.

Ahmad Shah Abdali is considered one of our heroes because he defeated the Marathas at Panipat in 1761, but he was also responsible for the rise of the Sikh power in Punjab. It is an undeniable fact that Afghan presence in Punjab during 1748 to 1767 destroyed whatever was left of the Mughal state apparatus and paved the way for the Sikh conquest.

Sikhs were already on the rise but until 1738, Sikhs could only engage in guerrilla warfare against the Mughal Subedars of Punjab. Charat Singh Shukchakia was the first Sikh warlord to establish an independent fiefdom at Gujranwala in 1763.

Ahmad Shah left Najibuddaula, the Rohila Afghan leader in charge of Delhi (grandfather of Ghulam Qadir Rohilla who raped Moghul princesses and blinded Shah Alam II). Rohillas were however unable to keep Delhi safe. Najibudaula was forced to pay a tribute of 11 lakhs to Baghel Singh of Karor Singhia Misl in 1764. Baghel Singh later began to raid other parts of Mughal state at the behest of his Rohilla allies Zabita Khan & Ghulam Qadir.

There was no stopping the rise of Sikh power after the death of Ahmad Shah in 1773 which culminated in Ranjeet Singh crowning himself as Raja of Punjab in 1801.

According to the 1941 census conducted by the British Total population Punjab including the princely states was 34.3-million. Muslims were 53.2%, Hindus 29.1%, Sikhs 14.9% rest were being Christians, Buddhists etc. Pray tell me how could 15% of the population; at the time when fighting was mostly by swords and arrows and single shot guns; manage to seize the power from Muslims who numbered more than 50% of the population and hold on to it for more than 50 years! Muslims of Punjab had to wait until 1849 and the British to be rid of the Sikh yoke.

I am not praising the Sikhs here. They were out to plunder & loot. Instead I am trying to say that while I whole heartedly praise Dilasa Khan for his victory over the Sikhs; it was a minor battle with little or no impact on the health of the Sikh state. Hari Singh Nalwa conquered Peshawar (winter capital of Afghan empire) in 1834. Afghans were again defeated at the battle of Jamrud in April 1837.
 
Last edited:
can i ask why this much hate for your own countrymen and unnecessary bum kissing of our western neighbours
Stick to the topic at hand. Send me a pvt message if you some personal questions.

So why do you think Sikhs were so brave and mighty when they were humilated by Muslim rulers?
 
Stick to the topic at hand. Send me a pvt message if you some personal questions.

So why do you think Sikhs were so brave and mighty when they were humilated by Muslim rulers?
o Bhai manay kya tumko ye manwa k kee Sikh brave hai anday lanay hai.... who cares what you think.. I am more concerned about your hatefull state of mind. guys like you end up becoming suicide bombers
 
Well said.

Sikh power mainly showed up from 1800-1860s until British toppled their gov.


However we must realize that Pashtuns have been the biggest enemies of Pashtuns for centuries after centuries after centuries.


peace to you

I believe the Sikh Empire were also defeated by Tibetans in a local war with them.
 
Victory & defeat in a battle can be due to a variety of reasons and one cannot judge a people based on the outcome of a single battle. I am a student of history and prefer to base my observations on facts and the events whose outcome directly results in a change of regime and / or fate of a nation. Okay the Sikh got defeated in a battle; have anyoneone given a thought as to why and how Sikhs came to rule a very vast area from Khyber to Sirhand and from Kashmir to Sind borders in the first place?

History of Punjab and the Sikhs is not very old and thus not shrouded in the mists of time.

While Marathas were active in the Central & Eastern fringes of the Mughal Empire, main reason for the rise of the Sikh power in Punjab were invasions by the Muslim adventurers Nader Shah Afshar & Ahmad Shah Abdali.

Arguably; primary reason for the fall of the Mughal Empire was short-sighted policies of Aurangzeb who bankrupted Mughal Empire in a long and disastrous war with the Marathas. Also by finishing off the Muslim states of Golconda & Bijapour he also eliminated two major enemies of the Marathas. Mughal territories in the northern subcontinent remained largely intact until the 1730's.

As if the infighting among the Mughal princes as to who would be the king and intrigue of the Syed brothers was not enough; Mughal state was dealt a fatal blow when Nader Shah with about 60,000 Iranians & Afghans defeated 200,000 strong Mughal Army of Mohamed Shah Rangeela at the battle of Karnal in 1739. However, since we are discussing Sikhs, let us limit this discussion to Punjab.

IMO last nail in the coffin of the Mughal / Muslim rule in Punjab were the invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali. Afghan king defeated Mughal governor Nasir Khan and seized Peshawar in October 1747. Abdali then crossed Indus and in January 1748, 30,000 Afghans aided by 5,000 Pathans led by Jamal Khan of Kasur; defeated 70,000 troops of the Shah Nawaz - Mughal governor of Punjab.

Ahmad Shah Abdali is considered one of our heroes because he defeated the Marathas at Panipat in 1761, but he was also responsible for the rise of the Sikh power in Punjab. It is an undeniable fact that Afghan presence in Punjab during 1748 to 1767 destroyed whatever was left of the Mughal state apparatus and paved the way for the Sikh conquest.

Sikhs were already on the rise but until 1738, Sikhs could only engage in guerrilla warfare against the Mughal Subedars of Punjab. Charat Singh Shukchakia was the first Sikh warlord to establish an independent fiefdom at Gujranwala in 1763.

Ahmad Shah left Najibuddaula, the Rohila Afghan leader in charge of Delhi (grandfather of Ghulam Qadir Rohilla who raped Moghul princesses and blinded Shah Alam II). Rohillas were however unable to keep Delhi safe. Najibudaula was forced to pay a tribute of 11 lakhs to Baghel Singh of Karor Singhia Misl in 1764. Baghel Singh later began to raid other parts of Mughal state at the behest of his Rohilla allies Zabita Khan & Ghulam Qadir.

There was no stopping the rise of Sikh power after the death of Ahmad Shah in 1773 which culminated in Ranjeet Singh crowning himself as Raja of Punjab in 1801.

According to the 1941 census conducted by the British Total population Punjab including the princely states was 34.3-million. Muslims were 53.2%, Hindus 29.1%, Sikhs 14.9% rest were being Christians, Buddhists etc. Pray tell me how could 15% of the population; at the time when fighting was mostly by swords and arrows and single shot guns; manage to seize the power from Muslims who numbered more than 50% of the population and hold on to it for more than 50 years! Muslims of Punjab had to wait until 1849 and the British to be rid of the Sikh yoke.

I am not praising the Sikhs here. They were out to plunder & loot. Instead I am trying to say that while I whole heartedly praise Dilawar Khan for his victory over the Sikhs; it was a minor battle with little or no impact on the health of the Sikh state. Hari Singh Nalwa conquered Peshawar (winter capital of Afghan empire) in 1834. Afghans were again defeated at the battle of Jamrud in April 1837.
One little mistake, till late 1800 sikhs formed only 8% of punjab's population. Between late 1800's and 1920 sikh population rose from 8% to 14% and muslim population for the first time crossed 50%
 
Sir Sir Herbert Edward , on his second visit to bannu in 1947, writes that all maliks of bannu attended his jirga except Dilasa khan, so it seems he was also hostile to English. By local accounts, he was exiled from bannu by British after the occupation of district and died a natural death , thats why he is called ghazi dilasa)

From this it can be concluded that Dilasa Khan probably understood the game of the British despite his hostility with the Sikhs, this is something very rare. What's interesting is that the Pashtuns under Sikh occupation were open to the British but the Pasthuns of Afghanistan who had just fought a war with the British a few years ago were not. Which is why during the second Anglo Sikh war the Afghans had even sent an army of 5000 men to support the Sikhs against the British while at the same time the Pashtuns in NW frontier were rising up in rebellion against the Sikhs.
 
have anyoneone given a thought as to why and how Sikhs came to rule a very vast area from Khyber to Sirhand and from Kashmir to Sind borders in the first place?
1- Durranis had poor grip over Punjab, they were not good administrators like mughals. Their rule and control over their own Pashtun territories was nominal.

2- When Ranjeet singh captured lahore, Afghans had already plunged into civil war. First there was war of succession between sadozais, then there was long war between sadozais and barakzais for kabul throne. When Sikhs were conquering punjab, no military aid from kabul came to assist afghan garrissons in punjab. Afghan governor of Multan, who was able to defend his territory continuously from 1801 to 1817 against forces of ranjeet Singh, sent several requests of aid from kabul but none came due to ongoing civil war there.

3- Better training on european lines, heavy artillery and discipline of sikh army proved deadly against Afghan larmy in attock in 1813 which consisted of volunteers. The local pashtun tribes of KPK sucked even more as they had not even sufficient rifles let alone artillery. Majority were equiped with swords and shields with defiecency of rifles.

4- No leadership and combined resistance from pakhtuns of KPk, each tribe was fighting sikhs individually on its own. Sikhs saw syed ahmad bareilwi as major threat as he had potential to unite various tribes on single platform on religious basis.


Ahmad Shah Abdali is considered one of our heroes because he defeated the Marathas at Panipat in 1761, but he was also responsible for the rise of the Sikh power in Punjab. It is an undeniable fact that Afghan presence in Punjab during 1748 to 1767 destroyed whatever was left of the Mughal state apparatus and paved the way for the Sikh conquest.

Sikhs were already on the rise but until 1738, Sikhs could only engage in guerrilla warfare against the Mughal Subedars of Punjab. Charat Singh Shukchakia was the first Sikh warlord to establish an independent fiefdom at Gujranwala in 1763.
I disagree ,Sikh misals were operating since a century and it was leadership of Ranjeet singh which led to rise of sikhs, establishment of sikh empire. If There was no ranjeet Singh, Sikhs wouldnt have grow beyond raiding parties/misls for another century. Decline of Mughal empire is another main factor , not the rise of Afghans. With degeneration and decline of mughals, any power was in position to replace them. Blaming Nadir shah also wont help.

Ahmad Shah left Najibuddaula, the Rohila Afghan leader in charge of Delhi (grandfather of Ghulam Qadir Rohilla who raped Moghul princesses and blinded Shah Alam II). Rohillas were however unable to keep Delhi safe. Najibudaula was forced to pay a tribute of 11 lakhs to Baghel Singh of Karor Singhia Misl in 1764. Baghel Singh later began to raid other parts of Mughal state at the behest of his Rohilla allies Zabita Khan & Ghulam Qadir.
First of all , get rid of the bias, why judging najib-ud-daula on basis of actions of his descendent. Secondly correct your information, no where it is written in any historical records that ghulam Qadir "raped" mughal princesses, he only made them dance and looted the treasure of palce, blinding shah alam (he was spared in a way). Guess why? Mughals had joined hands with marathas and together they invaded Rohilkhand, sacking it, killing people.......and raping some Rohilla ladies. It was the rape of Rohilla women that enraged the Rohillas so much that they disrespected the princesses of degenerated mughals in revenge, it was shameful act as was rape of rohilla ladies at the hand of marathas-mughals. taali aik haath sey nahi bajti, so they say in your urdu.




Hari Singh Nalwa conquered Peshawar (winter capital of Afghan empire) in 1834. Afghans were again defeated at the battle of Jamrud in April 1837
Again get rid of bias, victory is claimed by both sides in battle of Jamrud 1837. Hari singh nalwa, their most celebrated general , was killed in action against afghans. Let me briefly counter the claim of sikhs that they secured victory in that battle.
1- Due to civil war , Afghans were not paying attention to make attempt on freeing peshawer from sikhs, But When Sikhs showed ambition with forward policy, with plans of capturing jalalabad and further on, Dost Muhammad khan was forced to go against Sikhs on emergency basis as hari singh had built jarmrud fort at the foothol of hills of khyber. Sikhs claim that dost muhammad khan ran away back to kabul after killing of hari singh. But the fact is, after securing victory of jamrud, dost muhammaed khan had to hurry back to rescue herat from persian army which had besieged the city since 1836, they had also occupied sistan from afghans. Afghans didnt proceed to capture peshawer, as it was fortified and heavily garrisoned with sikh army, it was not easy to capture it in short time.
2- Sikhs had intended to conquer khyber and proceeding towards jalalabad, they not only failed in these tasks but their forces also retreated from khyber after defeat in battle of jamrud. Afghans halted the further invasion of Sikhs, British sources tell us that after death of hari singh , sikhs lost much of control over almost all pashtun territories except peshawer, they had to nominate local chieftains to govern those areas. Afghan-persian war ended in 1838, by the time they could think about making attempt on peshawer, British invaded them next year in 1839.
Both Sikhs and Afghans claim victory in battle of jamrud, sikhs failed to capture khyber and jalalabad while afghans failed to capture peshawer.
 
Last edited:
From this it can be concluded that Dilasa Khan probably understood the game of the British despite his hostility with the Sikhs, this is something very rare. What's interesting is that the Pashtuns under Sikh occupation were open to the British but the Pasthuns of Afghanistan who had just fought a war with the British a few years ago were not. Which is why during the second Anglo Sikh war the Afghans had even sent an army of 5000 men to support the Sikhs against the British while at the same time the Pashtuns in NW frontier were rising up in rebellion against the Sikhs.
Interesting analysis. As pashtuns of tribal areas also had not experienced sikh occupation, so we only see the resistance against British mostly from them.
 
Indian muslims r saved because of so called seculars or else today they would have been exterminated from India due to massive killings in the hands of non-muslims.....whenever any riots happen Indian musilms start crying and hide behind their secular leaders ( Congress, CPIM,RJD,Saamajwadi party, TMC etc.) and Indian secular media who save them.....so Mujahid Ind instead of loud mouthing gain some courage from ur Sikh brothers and don't forget the most of the military personal who fought against khalistani movement were sikhs themselves and the army which did operation blue star was also a sikh regiment controlled by 2 sikhs.....KPS Gill another Sikh police officer who played a major role to end the khalistani militancy in Punjab.

You can talk a lot of shit today because Indian Muslims still believe in India, the day that changes you will see what they can really do.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom