Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man

[ranveer]

R u knucklehead or something??

Cant u get this in to ur head that when Hindu families were sending their elder son to join Khalsa army as a long tradition as ,they never saw Sikhism as some alien religion ,but an offset their own Hindu religion ???

And why This tradition continued into 20th century,where Hindu families of Punjab ,get their elder son baptized as a Sikh sardar ??

If those Hindus had seen Khalsa army as some alien religious forces nothing to do with hindus why would they their sons to become a sardar himself when u said there was no compulsion to do so.

And if it was only for the lure of principle of sikhism,they why not the whole family adopted Sikh religion and choose to donate their elder sons only??

Why no Muslim Punjabi family did have same tradition when u keep harping hard how Sufi saints popular among Sikh gurus and heavily influenced them??

The fact of the matter is that the Hindu Punjabi families didn't see Sikhism unique or separate from their own religion ,but only an offset of Hinduism with puritanical view void of unnecessary ritualistic compulsion that had sipped Hinduism over the centuries of its past history.

..

sorry buddy,Its only the khalistais who getting arrested and have beengot killed like stray dogs till now .

Dont u thinks its RSS affiliated Punjab police(majority Sikhs themselves) who is blame for this blatant injustice??

Yaar Biplob,,,

If hindus had sent their elder child to fight with khalsa,, they could have fought even being hindus,, no one would have asked them to become sikhs but for the only reason "that by becoming KHALSA something changed in them that is why they would become khalsa and not remain hindu" even muslims fought with sikhs so hindus were no different.. mate one more reason that comes to my mind- i might be wrong that sikhs never tried to forcefully convert anyone or i would say were not that good in propogating their religion,, even today its the same thing...that most of the complete families did not become sikhs as your saying and just the eldest child...

Mate no means on arguing.. just tell me that how would u like if u lived in lets say pakistan with islam dominated country and hell bent on making you muslim even if you wanted to be a hindu or you are hindu...
U would not like certainly... that is what the RSS is all about...
then why u are behind that sikhs came from hindus... then where did hindus came from... where did muslims came from...
Avval allah noor upay kudrat ke sab bandeh....
So just chill ur a hindu and be happy and loyal hindu..
we are sikhs and let us be happy with it...

sorry buddy,Its only the khalistais who getting arrested and have beengot killed like stray dogs till now .

Dont u thinks its RSS affiliated Punjab police(majority Sikhs themselves) who is blame for this blatant injustice??

There was nice line probably in starting of this thread which justifies what you are sayin..."Jeh sikh nu sikh na mare ta kaum kade na haare"

 

[Areesh]

really? I was googling south indian actresses and Shakeela showed up!! wow! People find her attractive in India? because this time my eyes certainly are not beholding this beauty!!

They think she is attractive.... What has happened to indians???

 

[Peshwa]

buddyyy...... i was talking about Bahadur Shah I.... Aurangzeb's son... not the last Mughal king... and secondly.. yes we helped British to crush that uprising... it was revenge because Maratha and Bengali people helped British to overthrow Sikh kingdom..

Iqbal....

Cant speak for the Bengalis, but Marathas never supported the British rule in any way or form....Please dont distort facts....

Marathas fought 3 wars with the British and it was after the loss of these that India truly came under British control.....

As far as Marathas supporting the Brits to break the Sikh Empire's back, thats just plain hogwash bro....

Independently Marathas had waged wars with the Sikhs conquering parts of Punjab....but never siding with the Brits.....
In fact the Sikhs came to power in punjab only because of the Maratha loss at Panipat....So where does the question of "overthrow sikh kingdom" come into the picture?

If you read about the Martial Races theory, even though Marathas had the most expansive rule before the arrival of the Brits, they were removed from the list of martial races because of their sheer opposition to the brits, their participation in the revolt of 1857 and the three wars with the Brits....
On the other hand Sikhs were considered Martial race due to their over proportionately large number and loyalty to the English armies....

Marathas have always been die hard nationalists.....

Anyways.....lets try not to bring communalism into the discussion....

 

[asq]

look what real sikhs think about hindus.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Hindus did not become Khalsa to help, they became to influance Khalsa's actions and use them to turn against Muslims, sikhslookl amd dress like Muslim more so than Hindus, the turban. the dager the beard.

About Aurang zeb u guys are insulting him and by doing so u r brain washing your childern against Muslim so that they continue their path of hate and evantual roiting.

Aurangzeb did what he did and it cannot be changed now, you can conmtinue to abuse and acuse him, u will not be able to change the history only brainwash new generations to hate Muslims.

And that I think u guys are doing and it is no good for nothing.

 

[ps80]

Iqbal....

Cant speak for the Bengalis, but Marathas never supported the British rule in any way or form....Please dont distort facts....

Marathas fought 3 wars with the British and it was after the loss of these that India truly came under British control.....

As far as Marathas supporting the Brits to break the Sikh Empire's back, thats just plain hogwash bro....

Independently Marathas had waged wars with the Sikhs conquering parts of Punjab....but never siding with the Brits.....
In fact the Sikhs came to power in punjab only because of the Maratha loss at Panipat....So where does the question of "overthrow sikh kingdom" come into the picture?

If you read about the Martial Races theory, even though Marathas had the most expansive rule before the arrival of the Brits, they were removed from the list of martial races because of their sheer opposition to the brits, their participation in the revolt of 1857 and the three wars with the Brits....
On the other hand Sikhs were considered Martial race due to their over proportionately large number and loyalty to the English armies....

Marathas have always been die hard nationalists.....

Anyways.....lets try not to bring communalism into the discussion....

If the Marathas were truly 'nationalists', why did they wage wars on their fellow nationalists (Sikh kingdoms)? Just wondering...

I think we (both Marathas and Sikhs) don't need any British label to determine/prove the martial race backgrounds. For Sikhs, the real source or reason is the history of the Sikh gurus. For Marathas, I think the history of the king Shivaji has a similar role.

 

[Peshwa]

If the Marathas were truly 'nationalists', why did they wage wars on their fellow nationalists (Sikh kingdoms)? Just wondering...

I think we (both Marathas and Sikhs) don't need any British label to determine/prove the martial race backgrounds. For Sikhs, the real source or reason is the history of the Sikh gurus. For Marathas, I think the history of the king Shivaji has a similar role.

Huh....well Marathas were nationalist wrt invasion of the Brits....
My point was that Maratha kings did not side with the English against Sikhs as was being implied by Iqbal...
I did admit that the Marathas did wage war against some Sikhs and Jatts.
In fact, we had no allies in Punjab going into war with the Afghans at Panipat.....Had the Sikhs (Remained neutral) and Jats (Barring Suraj Mal) had provided us supplies at Panipat, the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.....We have always laid our lives to protect India.....

The bolded part and mention of the martial races theory was not to prove our prowess but to provide additional proof of the loyalty of the Marathas towards the "nation" and that there were more Sikhs in the English armies that contributed to the downfall of the Sikhs and the Marathas alike....

Frankly the Martial Races theory is nothing more than an extension of the Divide and Rule policy of the English....Unfortunately, some in our subcontinent take it to heart and cant see through the prism of "Foreign label"

 

[ps80]

Huh....well Marathas were nationalist wrt invasion of the Brits....
My point was that Maratha kings did not side with the English against Sikhs as was being implied by Iqbal...
I did admit that the Marathas did wage war against some Sikhs and Jatts.
In fact, we had no allies in Punjab going into war with the Afghans at Panipat.....Had the Sikhs (Remained neutral) and Jats (Barring Suraj Mal) had provided us supplies at Panipat, the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.....We have always laid our lives to protect India.....

The bolded part and mention of the martial races theory was not to prove our prowess but to provide additional proof of the loyalty of the Marathas towards the "nation" and that there were more Sikhs in the English armies that contributed to the downfall of the Sikhs and the Marathas alike....

Frankly the Martial Races theory is nothing more than an extension of the Divide and Rule policy of the English....Unfortunately, some in our subcontinent take it to heart and cant see through the prism of "Foreign label"

1st bold part: What went wrong here? Were those Sikhs fighting along the Afghan army?

2nd bold part: Please explain further.

I am asking this for my information only. My previous post may have sounded a bit sarcastic but it was not my intention.

My personal views are very similar to your thoughts on the martial race theory.

 

[Peshwa]

1st bold part: What went wrong here? Were those Sikhs fighting along the Afghan army?

2nd bold part: Please explain further.

I am asking this for my information only. My previous post may have sounded a bit sarcastic but it was not my intention.

My personal views are very similar to your thoughts on the martial race theory.

1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were invited to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....

2. Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab. Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral....

 

[ps80]

1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were invited to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....

2. Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab. Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral....

1. Did anyone invite Marathas to invade Delhi? Or, is it just your way of saying.
2. How do you relate the defeat of Marathas to the rise of Sikh power in Punjab?

I believe we are talking of that time when Sikhs had already faced two big massacres (20000-30000 killed) at the hands of Afghan army. Sikh groups were scattered and their male population was not good enough to go into a direct war with the huge Afghan army. That may be a reason to remain neutral.

Fact or not...we dont know for sure.

Did Marathas try to contact Sikh groups for Panipat war?

 

[imran iqbal]

Iqbal,

What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?

How about this, Namitha - one of my favorite and highly paid south Indian actress.

 

[Kabir Panthi]

Iqbal,

What is your opinion about this very famous South Indian actress Shakeela? Do You think she is pretty?

Hey Jinxie ... yes let us admit Pak girlz are da best. Poor Indians have to console themselves by sending rockets to the moon.

Meanwhile, to cheer you up, here are some Pakistani boys ... aren't they handsome?

 

[Peshwa]

1. Did anyone invite Marathas to invade Delhi? Or, is it just your way of saying.
2. How do you relate the defeat of Marathas to the rise of Sikh power in Punjab?

I believe we are talking of that time when Sikhs had already faced two big massacres (20000-30000 killed) at the hands of Afghan army. Sikh groups were scattered and their male population was not good enough to go into a direct war with the huge Afghan army. That may be a reason to remain neutral.

Fact or not...we dont know for sure.

Did Marathas try to contact Sikh groups for Panipat war?

1. The Marathas were invited to attack Delhi on the behest of the Mother of the King of Oudh, who unfortunately sided with the Afghans.....However this is debatable and is part of Marathi records, but I cant find any neutral source for this.... the fact that the other Maratha kings such as Gaikwads, Holkars and Scindia, along with the Bundelas and Suraj Mal decided to join in supports the claim that this was more than a hegemonic mission....Nevertheless the fact that the Peshwa planned to put his son on the thrown of Delhi after the battle points otherwise

2. The Marathas were actually one of the more powerful entities in the subcontinent during those times with the most expansive kingdom.....The Sikhs could not have openly challenged the Marathas as they were united under the Peshwa while Sikhs were individual kingdoms....
Sikhs with the exception of Ala Singh of Patiala who sided with the Afghans in return for the crown of the Sikh kingdom remained neutral since the Afghans had sacked the Golden Temple and Marathas had made conquest in major parts of Punjab at the cost of Sikhs....
The loss of the Marathas created a power vaccum in Punjab which was easily filled in by the Sikhs... especially since Abdali was never to return after the war due to heavy losses suffered on Afghan side


Not sure if the Sikhs were contacted for the war at Panipat....

 

[RobbieS]

1. Some Sikh and Rajput rulers had sided with the Mughals who were at war with the Marathas....Some had also helped Abdali who was the reason why we invaded the north or to put it better, were invited to protect Delhi after it fell to Abdali....

2. Im not sure why the Sikhs remained neutral in the Battle of Panipat, but it was because of the loss of Marathas in Panipat that Sikhs could come to power in Punjab. Had Panipat resulted in victory, Punjab and North India would have been under the Marathas....this is a fact...maybe that was the reason to be neutral....

Peshwa, at the time of the Third Battle of Panipat i,e. 1756, Sikhs weren't unified as a single fighting force. This didn't happen until MRS came around in late 1790s. The Sikh confederacy was a loose conglomorate of Sikh fighting clans called Misls who often fought against themselves as frequently as against a common enemy, eg. the Afghans. So I dont think its right to blame the Sikhs as a whole for not joining the Marathas. And I think they were pretty much neutral in that battle.

Regarding collaborating with the British by conscripting as soldiers, that didn't happen untill the whole of Punjab passed under the British after the Second Anglo-Sikh war in 1848. Before that there were a few groups who joined/collaborated with the British but the majority were united under the Khalsa Army banner.

And if I am correct, even a few of the Marathas later joined the British against one of their owns. That probably happened during the internal power struggles amongst the Maratha houses like the Holkars, Scindias and Gaekwads.

 

[Peshwa]

Peshwa, at the time of the Third Battle of Panipat i,e. 1756, Sikhs weren't unified as a single fighting force. This didn't happen until MRS came around in late 1790s. The Sikh confederacy was a loose conglomorate of Sikh fighting clans called Misls who often fought against themselves as frequently as against a common enemy, eg. the Afghans. So I dont think its right to blame the Sikhs as a whole for not joining the Marathas. And I think they were pretty much neutral in that battle.

After I wrote that, I did a bit of reading and your info is spot on....I actually replied to another post with the same....
The Sikhs werent unified was deifinitely one reason, but the sacking of the Golden Temple kept them away from the Afghan camp except Ala Singh....
Tho Im still a bit surprised why most Sikhs sat out from joining the Maratha camp....
However I do blame the Marathas for their ruthlessness too, who in order to secure resources would plunder the plains of Punjab.....thats the easiest way to alienate kingdoms and people

Regarding collaborating with the British by conscripting as soldiers, that didn't happen untill the whole of Punjab passed under the British after the Second Anglo-Sikh war in 1848. Before that there were a few groups who joined/collaborated with the British but the majority were united under the Khalsa Army banner.

Robbie...I was only writing against the statement that the Marathas had supplied forces to break the Sikh empire in collaboration with the Brits....We were the most vociferous opposers of the English since we had the most to lose in land, leverage and treasure

And if I am correct, even a few of the Marathas later joined the British against one of their owns. That probably happened during the internal power struggles amongst the Maratha houses like the Holkars, Scindias and Gaekwads

Most definitely, the internal fighting between the Marathas had one siding against the other....
By the end of it, the only loyalty was to the love of gold and power....
Unfortunate but true.....

 

[ps80]

<<However I do blame the Marathas for their ruthlessness too, who in order to secure resources would plunder the plains of Punjab.....thats the easiest way to alienate kingdoms and people>>

why Sikhs did not join Maratha forces? you answered it yourself. I think Sikhs considered Afghans and Marathas alike because of the fact that both were foreign invaders and were involved in plundering many areas of the Punjab region.
However, this was not the only reason for Sikhs to be neutral. Other possible reasons have already been discussed.

<<Tho Im still a bit surprised why most Sikhs sat out from joining the Maratha camp....>>

Sikhs faced two big massacres and their groups were scattered. In addition, Marathas were not that friendly either and they had their ambitions to expand their regime towards Delhi and surrounding areas.

<<The loss of the Marathas created a power vaccum in Punjab which was easily filled in by the Sikhs... especially since Abdali was never to return after the war due to heavy losses suffered on Afghan side>>

That is not entirely correct. Abdali and his successors did attack the Punjab region after the Panipat war and were defeated by the Sikhs.