Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man

[RobbieS]

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....

The Golden Temple has been the undoing of many a rulers! Abdali was the first and you know who was the last.

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

You are right. I have read somewhere that the Marathas had sacked parts of Bengal including Calcutta as well. Also their tactics didn't win over any of the local kingdoms during the previous campaigns in the North and that led many of the local Rajputs, Jats and maybe the Sikhs to withdraw any support during and after the battle.

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

I dont think the Marathas did any such thing. Most of the early Maratha sardars were strongly against any foreign/ central authority governing them. Be it the Mughals or the British. This trend continued till the last of their brilliant generals, MahadJi Scindia.

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.....

I think the Maratha military history pretty much mirrors the Sikh military history. Their rise to power in the 17th and 18th centuries is just about the similar to what the Sikhs did, albeit half a century later. Both rose up against Mughal tyranny and continued the fight with Afghan and British tormentors.

And whats also similar are the opportunities they missed and way they collapsed. Infighting and treachery was their downfall. And if they had been a little more clear-headed both could have captured Delhi. The Marathas, untill the battle of Panipat pretty much controlled vast territories uptill Delhi. The Sikhs too had similar power under the Sikh confederacy and under MRS. They pretty much controlled the Satluj-Yamuna Doab. If any of these two groups had managed to control Delhi, the history of the sub-continent would have been altered forever!

 

[Peshwa]

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.

Fair enough.....
However you have to understand that the battle of Panipat was not to secure "Maratha Territory", in fact they had very little incentive to check the Afghan advances other than to gain power in South Asia which they already had....
However for the Sikhs and Jats, it was their homeland and it would have helped them consolidate their power and prevent losing to foreign invaders by aligning with Marathas....nevertheless its all powerplay and debatable to say the least....

PS: Sikhs and Marathas have had close relations since the time of Guru Gobind Singh if Im not mistaken.....Didnt the Guru spend his last days in Maharashtra...meaning his Samadhi is in Maharashtra?

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.

Agreed....Like I mentioned earlier, "Jungle Rule" is the term to describe the situation

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

True, but you have to remember that Abdali lost his "punch" after the battle of Panipat, both Afghan and Maratha power diminished after this war with a loss of over 100,000 soldiers in total.....
This lead to the Sikhs becoming the potent force in Punjab.....
I suppose I didnt word my reply correctly.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

good discussion.. u learn something everyday.. sorry.. my mistake.. so it wasn't the Marathas.. but the Bengalis who helped British overthrow Sikh kingdom..

And if they had been a little more clear-headed both could have captured Delhi.

Bro.. we did conquer Delhi in 1789.... it was Sikh misl under Sardar Baghel Singh who managed to capture Delhi.. it is only this time when so many big Gurudwaras like Bangla Saheb.. Sees Ganj Saheb.. Rakab Saheb.. were constructed by the KaroraSingha Misl.. he than signed a deal with Mughal emporer promising that Sikhs will never attack and capture Delhi again if Mughals pay Sikhs tribute from income of Delhi... from that deal Sikhs got 12% of tax collected from Delhi..



Sikh army after capturing Delhi and putting Sikh flag on top of Red Fort..

 

[ps80]

<<Sikhs and Marathas have had close relations since the time of Guru Gobind Singh if Im not mistaken.....Didnt the Guru spend his last days in Maharashtra...meaning his Samadhi is in Maharashtra?>>

Some interactions may have happened even before the time of Guru Gobind Singh.
The Sikh Encyclopedia(???? ???????) - SAMARTH RAMDAS - Hindu bhagats and poets, and Punjabi officials - The Sikh Encyclopedia(?

 

[deltacamelately]

good discussion.. u learn something everyday.. sorry.. my mistake.. so it wasn't the Marathas.. but the Bengalis who helped British overthrow Sikh kingdom..

If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.

To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.

 

[Draft]

If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.

To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.

Sir, would it not be even more correct to say that "all the native armies wanted India for themselves"?

 

[deltacamelately]

Sir, would it not be even more correct to say that "all the native armies wanted India for themselves"?

Yes that could be another way of putting things. However, one commonality among all these native armies were, their resistance to foreign forces at one hand, (while fighting with each other) but their failure to team up to fight such foreign forces on the other. Had Prithviraj Singh got support from the other native armies, we could have witnessed a different history. Same goes for Plassey.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

If by Bengalis you mean likes of Mir Zafar, well that might make a little sense. But yet again, it were Bengalis like Mir Madan, Mohan Lal and the majority of Sirajuddaula's army, both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, who fought the British till the last drop of their blood so as to avert the loss at Plassey and guess what? Just like the Maratha's, the Sikhs, Hyder Ali/ Tipu Sultan and the Rajputs, even they didn't get even an iota of help from the other native armies. Those were the truths of the day and its futile to pass on the blame batton to each other.

To sum it up, all the native armies commited strategic and military mistakes which kept India under foreign rule for all those centuries, however, having said that, such mistakes are painful when they happen, both to those who commited them as well as to their future generations, BUT, years later these collection of mistakes become what we call "experience" which leads to the success of their future generations. Now that is what India has learnt and imbibed and possibly that is what powers the current Indian Nation State to its logical position of glory, if not today, then possibly tomorrow.

Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..

 

[Peshwa]

Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..

Its always good to learn new facts......

Where did you read this bro? Can you please share the source?

 

[RobbieS]

Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..

If I remember correctly, these soldiers from UP and Bihar were known as Purabiyas, meaning the ones from the East. And yes, since a majority of the revolt of 1857 occurred in Eastern and Central India, by sepoys that belonged to those areas the Sikhs didnt feel like joining them. After all the memories of the Anglo-Sikh wars that occurred only 10-15 years ago and employed these Purabiya soldiers on the British side were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Sikhs. And that was the predominant reason why the East India company employed Sikh and Pathan soldiers to quell the revolt.

 

[deltacamelately]

Okk.. i have been doing some reading.. and my earlier accounts of Marathis and Bengalis were correct.. maybe not as independants but marathi and bengali people DID help the British in Anglo-Sikh wars... just look at units under british.. they played very big part for british were marathi and bengali regiments.. bengal cavaly too played big part in those wars.. so during war of independance sikhs were right not to fight alongside bengalis and marathis since they were seen to have helped british against sikhs..

Different time frames.
You do understand I suppose, that these men were merely making an earning through their job, rather than having an agenda against the Sikhs?

 

[deltacamelately]

If I remember correctly, these soldiers from UP and Bihar were known as Purabiyas, meaning the ones from the East. And yes, since a majority of the revolt of 1857 occurred in Eastern and Central India, by sepoys that belonged to those areas the Sikhs didnt feel like joining them. After all the memories of the Anglo-Sikh wars that occurred only 10-15 years ago and employed these Purabiya soldiers on the British side were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Sikhs. And that was the predominant reason why the East India company employed Sikh and Pathan soldiers to quell the revolt.

East India Company forces employed everybody else, including the Sikhs and Pashtuns, who kept their loyality towards their commaning officers, rest fought their way out. The concept of Soldiering is very different from what you want us to belief here and definitely not mitigated by ethenicity. A British Colonel might want to rip your gut out if you happened to insult his Gurkha Seargent on ethenic lines.

 

[asq]

I agree...
sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..

so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England or france and Europe, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling Mughal out without any regard to the history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.

 

[asq]

So the crux of the mater is that all Indians at one time or another played a game for them selves without regard for the mother land, just greed to grab power.

Why than Muslim ruler are picked on and are called names such as dictator or worst blamed for fighting to save their kingdom, Aurangzeb did what he thought was needed to save his kingsom and he did no differant than those of Marhata's Sikhs and Bengalis.

So to blame Muslim is a racist thing concocted by racists to brainwash young Indians against Muslims and that caused Masacres like GUJRAT.

A shamefull act.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

Different time frames.
You do understand I suppose, that these men were merely making an earning through their job, rather than having an agenda against the Sikhs?

no one is saying they have personal agenda against sikhs.. yes they fought for british because of money but unlike today sikhs than were not introduced to idea of "India" and nationalismm.. they saw their homeland taken down by the gorays with the assistance of the purabiyas (and how much affect it had on the psyche at that time can be seen as term is still in use)..