What's new

Pakistan - The Pathans

Muradk has mentioned a great source. I guess it is available in some London museums too. Search for it in google and you find 3600 links.

Saragarhi Battle - Google Search

Saragarhi Battle + Unesco - Google Search

I didn't ask for a list of google searches that show a lot of UNESCO + Saragarhi word combinations. I could have done that in 10 seconds myself. Show me some concrete, reputable links that UNESCO mentioned anything of the sort - I'll tell you who mentions it later. Where on UNESCO's website is it? . That's the issue right now, it seems.

I don't believe the number of dead Afghans is a good measure of the bravery of those soldiers same as the number of dead Persians would not be for the battle of Thermopylae. It does not matter at all. What matters is the sheer spirit of these guys in fighting the odds.

The Sikhs were not fighting out of any sort of fighting spirit. They fought because they were terrified of what the Afghans were going to do to them if they got their hands on them. They were better of being killed in war or suiciding, because their fates would have been worse if they had been taken alive. They fought in the hope reinforcements would arrive. This has nothing to do with fighting spirit - The Sikhs have not demonstrated this here imo. They had certain advantages, plus no choice. Something like Iraq, perhaps where a stronger army invades a weaker one, but the weaker one resists is an example of fighting spirit. Not though when they have no choice in the matter.

The Greeks too had superior ground in that battle. I does not take away from their bravery. The odds were still overwhelmingly against them. And they were facing certain death.

it is true the Greeks had some terrain advantages. But they had a choice to fight, or to retreat - they chose to fight (and win). The Sikhs had no choice but to fight, so it is not possible to assess their fighting spirit from this one battle. What you can assess them on, is the fact that many of them fought for colonial armies, which is not the sign of a good fighting spirit imo, at all.
 
I didn't ask for a list of google searches that show a lot of UNESCO + Saragarhi word combinations. I could have done that in 10 seconds myself. Show me some concrete, reputable links that UNESCO mentioned anything of the sort - I'll tell you who mentions it later. Where on UNESCO's website is it? . That's the issue right now, it seems.

OK, here is one link that should satisfy you.

Gazette Website: PDF Navigator

It is mentioned among several links at the bottom of the Wiki page. In addition there is also a link to the French education ministry site which you can go to.

The issue is not about UNESCO. The issue is about that battle and whether the facts presented are correct or not. It is fairly certain they are correct. You have not given any proof they are not.

The Sikhs were not fighting out of any sort of fighting spirit. They fought because they were terrified of what the Afghans were going to do to them if they got their hands on them. They were better of being killed in war or suiciding, because their fates would have been worse if they had been taken alive. They fought in the hope reinforcements would arrive. This has nothing to do with fighting spirit - The Sikhs have not demonstrated this here imo. They had certain advantages, plus no choice. Something like Iraq, perhaps where a stronger army invades a weaker one, but the weaker one resists is an example of fighting spirit. Not though when they have no choice in the matter.

And round and round we go in circles. I won't belabor this point further. It is pathetic logic.

All of that you mention does not take an iota of the bravery of those soldiers. It is very normal for any brave army to do what you mention here.

You in fact consider the Taliban as brave, when all they did was flee at top speed when the US came there in 2001. How many US boots were on the ground? A few hundreds!

And Iraqi army did not offer any resistance at all. So I don't know what you are talking about. The supposedly "elite" republican guards were nowhere to be seen in battle.

it is true the Greeks had some terrain advantages. But they had a choice to fight, or to retreat - they chose to fight (and win). The Sikhs had no choice but to fight, so it is not possible to assess their fighting spirit from this one battle. What you can assess them on, is the fact that many of them fought for colonial armies, which is not the sign of a good fighting spirit imo, at all.

Didn't the Pathans do so too? In 1857?

Pathans were a large part of the British Indian army, so don't know what you are talking about. Either you don't know the facts or are deliberately confusing completely different issues.
 
^Indeed some Pathans did fight for the British..but nothing like the numbers of Sikhs and Hindu ethnic groups. The Pathans generally tended to be either siding with the British or at war with them. The Sikhs tended to either join them, or be fairly pacifist (though one can't deny the Sepoy Mutiny..I think this is an example of some fighting spirit, but just one event that turned out to be a failure is not much of an example of fighting spirit.

You can carry on about the other stuff if you will. It's true UNESCO isn't hugely important. They have submitted the Rig Veda as an Indian book instead of a Pakistani one. But I don't think I'm disputing your version of the events aside from casualty figures, I have a different interpretation though. What you're describing is not fighting spirit. It's just a bunch of guys that couldnt retreat or surrender, and ended up terrified for their lives stuck in a fort.
 
Muslims were represented higher than the population share in the British Indian army. And among Muslims, the pathans were higher than the population share because they were considered a martial race.

Rigveda is an Indian book. Everyone in the world except you knows that. We don't need UNESCO or you to certify that to us.

Let's agree to disagree on the interpretations of the event.

The only difference is that I don't say that Pathans are not brave just becasue they happen to be on opposite side. I have a tremendous regard for the Frontier Gandhi and the Khudai Khidmatgar struggle. I am also proud of the Gandhara civilization that was an important part of the overall Indian civilization that developed in the subcontinent. I feel sad what it has been reduced to now.
 
Yar cut it out forGOD Sake you both are acting like 5 year olds, What is the plan to start another fight, In my opinon and experience I being a Pathan and I am very proud of it but if I have to say that name 2 other types of warriors I would say, Sikh's and Gurkhas claim descent from the Hindu Rajputs.
 
Video is no longer availale :(.

I wanted to raise my passions too :P

OMG. That message only comes here in the UAE.

That has to mean you are based in the united arab emirates. They even block photo sharing sites like flickr so its just u're in a country where everything is censored. I am here to f4 a whileee...

I buy dvds here and they are all censored. Such a disgrace. :disagree:
 
Muslims were represented higher than the population share in the British Indian army. And among Muslims, the pathans were higher than the population share because they were considered a martial race.

I already agreed that there were Pathans in the british Indian Army. Some traitors, some resistance fighters. Typical mercenaries. But the point I was making was that the British were not able to conquer those regions due to the resistance. The Sikhs afaik, did not fight the British but allied with them. Maharajah Hari Singh for example. I don't really consider it to be brave to side with a powerful foreign army. It is brave of those to resist a much more powerful foreign army (and I'm not referring to the idiots that belch all day about how they need to be there to provide support to any resistance). Resistance fighters, even the French resistance during world war II,.Vassily Zaitsev during WW2, were examples of bravery.

Rigveda is an Indian book. Everyone in the world except you knows that. We don't need UNESCO or you to certify that to us.

Rig Veda is an ANCIENT PAKISTANI book, written in Pakistan. The archaeology of the book describes the Indus Valley, and scholars have said it was written in the Indus Valley in all likeliness.

Let's agree to disagree on the interpretations of the event.

Discuss it if you want. Start a thread in the history forum. Or just seen the ancient history thread. All this is discussed in detail there.

The only difference is that I don't say that Pathans are not brave just becasue they happen to be on opposite side. I have a tremendous regard for the Frontier Gandhi and the Khudai Khidmatgar struggle. I am also proud of the Gandhara civilization that was an important part of the overall Indian civilization that developed in the subcontinent. I feel sad what it has been reduced to now.

Frontier Ghandi indeed. You don't know the real story about him, believe me. He definitely was all for breaking away from India, but that's another story. Gandhara was not an Indian civilization. See other threads for this. it was an ancient Pakistani civilization.

I would say Pathans who fought a better equipped army were brave, just as I would say any soldier who fights with the odds stacked against him is brave. The Sikhs did not do this to any great extent. Saragarhi, was not an example of the odds stacked against them.
 
gandhara was not an indian civilization, some people need to stop laying claims on everything. let's stop making stuff up here, thank you.
 
Salam alikum peace hello and greetings to all members here

Hi my name is Zillay and today is my first post, I know knowbody has commented on this topic for quite a while but going through google looking for soemthign I came across this post so I thought I should comment on this. At first although we are all brothers in faith in particular and brothers in Humanity especially as the commander of the Faithful Imam Ali ibn abi talib (as) explained when writing to his Governor Malik ibn ashter. Faith forbids boast and pride but for the sake of brevity and clarfication i would mention That I am a Patan, and havign said that let me point out that should not be a means of boast.

[Yusufali 49:13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

And indeed it is righteousness that is honoured in both this world and the next. Addressign first a brother said " patans being descendants of Khalid bin waleed is doubtful", Dear brother We have complete family trees going right back to Sword Of Allah hazrat Khalid bin walid although it is doubted wether his male issues survived, it is however well documented that the ancestor of the patan tribes hasrat qais abdur rashid married the daughter of hasrat Khalid bin waleed from which union he had some 3 sons and from whome descend the modern day pushtun tribes. Having said that Not all afghans are patans just because you speak pushto does not mean You are patan unless acording to pakhtunwlai you are from Patan parents and know you family history, what matters is the bloodline and from whome you descend.

In the malfuzat of Alah hazret imam eh ahle sunnat A's shah Ahmed raza Khan (ra) the complete family tree is mentioned in the introduction ( i have the book) which is published in english, excerpts of it is also online for those who wish to view it. Hasrat qais abdur rashid is a direct descdant of afghana from the line of malik talut or king saul in english the father in law of hasret dawud (as) or king david, and upon that the muslim historians agree upon , you refer to Tarikh-i-Khan Jahani Makhzan-i-Afghani by nimatullah khan niazi who compiled the book for the moghul emperor upon the orders of jehangir who wanted to know the origin, of the people that posess unspeakable Valour , and even centuries before that.

In One of the most ancient manuscripts available is Rauza ul Albab fi Tawarikh-ul-Akabir wal Ansab – The Garden of the Learned in the History of Great Men and Genealogies – by Abu Suleman Daud bin Abul Fazal Muhammad Albenaketi which was written in 1317 A.D. The author in his Introduction explains that ever since the times of Moses the ancestors of Afghans have had to face great hardships. They were expelled from place to place and exterminated. Their ancient ancestors were sacked more than once and carried into captivity. In Chapter I a detailed history of Yacub (Jacob) is given and in Chapter II the genealogies of the Afghan tribes are further traced. ( in history afghans and patan were synoymous terms not anymore)

For more deatils anyone here is free to contact me thats just a gist of a ocean of refrences available even right back to ahadith. Our indian freind makes many bogus claims, valour is that which is praised by the enemies and in that scenario no people has been so praised by a invading or attackign army as the Patans have been as a people of a whole. I already clarified that in modern times the word afghan signifies a nation they are not all nessarily patans. Although they may look it , or speak pushto a common sterotype. The british knew them as " the most ferocious warriors" , mahmud ghaznavi attacked india 17 times , and made it look like a piece of cake with the help of patans as did sher shah suri and ahmed shah abdali and ample others. The fact that All historians are unanimous That afghanistan has never been conqured, is a statement in itself.

Conquering does not mean having forighners in your land , yes they are there but are they in peace? hell no , something which even real time soldiers themselves have told me there. They dont have 5% of the technolgy they are up against but look at the determination. They had a vast empire expounding from iran right upto modern day india., no wonder even ghenghis didnt dare look at his neighbours. The taliban represent a extermist view they were barely liked by there own people, but even then even the americans praised there valour. For your information the coliation that attacked teh taliban wa snot a few hundred , thats a retarded statement it was over a hundred thousand easily. A handful of pashtun tribesmen freed the modern day azad kashmir region , and from swat the sikhs were entirely wiped out, and other areas. In kargil what our indian freind so used to bollywood movie masala forgot that a single captain kernal sher ali khan chased back a 800th sikh regiment i mean 800 by one man and the idiots felt humiliated afterwards and the milliatray account supplied by india read " give him the highest possible millitary award" he was given nishan e haider.

The fact that Muslims ruled india for over a 1000 years freely speaks volumes for itself without relying upon wikopedia lols you call that research , the fact that all the hindu maharajas went to bed with the british is intself a statement, and when it came to crunch time one sultan fateh ali khan tipu , fought so valiently that when he dies the british were terrified to approach his dead body for many hours , and finally his sword was brougth back to London england it now sits in a museam. Going aside from the patan issue the muslim ummah as a whole has had so many and such ample Valient brave and courageous sons that the word bravery seems like a understatement, spain was conquered by a 17 yr old, the roaman empire in byzantium by a 21 yr old, and india by a 18 yr old, , does any nation any people on the face of the earth have such Youngsters, such facts in itslef is enough of a statement.

Talk of indian bravery look at the kashmir valley a handful of mujahideen, are a nightmare for a country that boasts one of the largest numbers in military personell infact its emberassing you have plenty of sikhs there also, the brave sikhs who couldnt even liberate there desired homeland of punjab, yet you compare to patans that not only have noble descent but had a world standard empire. That mr is soemthing that google search or wikopedia cannot answer for you.
 
@Zillay, i am sure you will make a great contribution to this forum.
:smitten: Dil Tarasha.
 
Now a little on sargahi of the fight with the orakzai, firstly lol the british acounts also say it was the afridi tribe, so contradictions already , do not forget that in conclusion and pre and post of this fight the entire british army was humiliated and even the so called 21 were killed shortly after the start of war from 9.am as described by your faviroute wikipedia, so its not that they held the fort for months or weeks or days. The fuuny thing and correction, british acounts actualy speak of a post not a fort it was tiny. The purpose of the attacking army was to cut communication not conquer the fort which even the british and indian acounts acknowldge. But like a good bollywood fan Our indian freind added alot of special effects lol. wake up call who is in North frontier province now? and when where you kicked out , confirm the date for us pls will you.

Your assertion that 600 were killed is a lie by a indian source NOT CONFIRMED NOR TRUE, it was a massive exageration made by Maj. Gen. Jaswant Singh Letter to H.M. Queen Elizabeth II Institute of Sikh Studies (1999)- accessed 2008-03-30, ( so they say a hundred years later). The source on wikipedia for the story although is mainly written by a sikh enthusiast, and the number of 180 afghans killed is also a claim made by jaswant singh lol, The fuuny thing guys it wasnt a army of 10,000 orakzais LOL, it was 75- 100 men, the afghans just finsihed the job quickly moved on and continued the wooping they were dishing out to the enemy and this our freind is the acurate version of events and facts. The post the 21 defended was tiny and on a hilltop it seems how on earth could ten thousand gather around it?

UNSECO the actual british acounts of the event NEVER MENTIONED 10.000. The reason behind the lie. The indian hindus and sikhs were easily brought for money,or fear for themselves they had no loyaty and slavery was so common for them that they devoloped a slave like mentaility no wonder that was there state for hundreds of years. The afghan or muslim regions however and especialy the north western province was a thorn in the mighty british empire, the people were very brave and not with a slave like mentality , they were fighters, and freely accepted shahadat ( a muslim term which hindus like to use now lol) or martyrdom, then be slaves, so to brake morale of the invincible warriors such propaganda was spread so that eventualy the tribal regions can be added to ocupied inida just like nepal, bengal and other small countries added onto india at the time. But here it just wasnt happening hence the fantasy stories , lol it was 21 sikhs vs about 75- 100 afghans not 300 spartans vs millions lols. Do not forget that ahmed shah destroyed the bravest of your indians the marathas and the afghans captured amritsar also, what happend to bravery there?.

The fact that afghanistan is in chaos due to contineous attacks against its soil etc and lack of eduaction and litracy rates due to large numbers of poverty does not in anyway diminsh the fact the people are second to none when it comes to fighting. With that I conlcude applogies for the long post God bless you all even our indian freind , and applogies for any offence caused because it certainly was not intended , A message, you indians and sikhs indeed served the british empire well, what did you get in return?

peace, zillay khan

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

JazakhAllah and thanks windjammer bro
 
Must you try and spoil every thread commemorating a group of people you don't like or can't think further than terrorist (yes, Indians in my experience are worse than westerners at stereotyping this way). Since you bring up Saraghari, let me explain a few things.


1) The Sikhs HAD to fight to the death. They locked (baraacaded) themselves in Fort Saraghari, because they were too timid to face the Afghans (I don't blame them).

2) The Sikhs fired using superior weapons from RAISED ground and from fortified turrets at advancing Afghans in open space. It does not need much of an imagination to see that 1 Sikh firing from a turret has a weaponry and shielding advantage over the advancing Afghans. If you want to see how easy it is to stop an advance if you have a raised ground advantage, then watch this footage from a Soviet -Afghan war film. Notice how easy it is to shoot at the advancing Afghans from the safety of a wall (imagine a fort!).


3) The Sikhs were working for the British - a colonial regime that you obviously worship..do not worry, another colonial empire will take over you soon..there's a reason why India has constantly been occupied over the centuries and the Afghans have not.

4) Your facts about Sikhs ruling Afghans are incorrect. Durrani Afghans regularly ruled over Sikhs until the time of Banda Singh Bahadur.

5) The Sikhs were supplied with the latest rifles, the Afghans were using old equipment (many were armed with swords versus the Sikh rifles).


The advantage lay heavily in the Sikhs favour, even if the numbers did not. Also your figures on the numbers killed are totally incorrect.
I agree with the road runner. What was the point of turning this tribute into a dick-waving competition?
Grow up, dude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mahmud ghaznavi attacked india 17 times , and made it look like a piece of cake

17 times he attacked - YES
But 16 times he was defeated and only the 17 th time he won.

In kargil what our indian freind so used to bollywood movie masala forgot that a single captain kernal sher ali khan chased back a 800th sikh regiment i mean 800 by one man and the idiots felt humiliated afterwards and the milliatray account supplied by india read " give him the highest possible millitary award" he was given nishan e haider.

Wt is this..? for eg.39 th infantry division means only 39 soldiers in that division. :lol:
 
No mr it was the 800th sikh regiment contact your military, and mahmud never failed he just didnt want to stay what was stopping him? Who ever failed in conquering india lol
 
It was one of mahmuds pledges to raide india every year , its not that your military might stopped him
 
Back
Top Bottom