Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
amar_jkp

Gadari Movement Was A Sikh Movement

Recommended Posts

what you are saying is, your traitor is a hero if he fights for the tyrant as a mercenary, he is of course a hero if he fights against the same employer but under some other flag. but if there is a massive indigenous rebellion against the foreigners for whom your hero is fighting, the revolutionary (even though they had surrendered) deserves to be lined up in the Ajnala Police Station and executed without any trial. when Jat

Also, when the British fought against Sikhs they were supported by sikh forces from patiala, Nabha, kapurthala, etc. Ranjit Singh also contributed (or fully cooperated) forces to the British campaigns whenever they asked him to. there is a long history of Sikh sardars playing the role of vassals (or minor roles) going back to the Mughal days. How about those Sikhs?

The worst was the celebrated Sikh warrior Ala Singh who accepted Abdali's naukari, same Abdali which had destroyed harmandar three times.

As far as "great job" by the Sikh mercenaries is concerned, that's another shameful chapter in Sikh history.the atrocities committed by British troops (inc Sikhs) were condemned even by the British parliament. Lakhs were killed ...The Ajnala outrage was also condemned by the British Parliament.

While condemning those sikhs who killed surrendered rebels in Amritsar or committed other atrocities while fighting for the british, i also condemn those maratha and Gorkha hindus who helped the british to survive and then commit atrocities even on those poor civilians who had absolutely nothing to do with the 1857 war for freedom.

The one who's community has a long history of treachery to Punjab will always try and deflect blame and point fingers at others and accuse them of treachery.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh never assisted the British as a vassal, the only time he assisted the British was in order to bring Shah Shuja to power in Afghanistan and this was in the common interest of both the British and the Khalsa state and the treaty was one of equals.

Ala Singh and Patiala Maharajas have a long history of betraying the Sikh cause, the latest nakamma who holds the defunct title is a Congress leader. Not all the Malwa Maharajas were for the British in 1845, Ajit Singh of Ladwa joined the Khalsa Fauj with his forces and after the war lost his kingdom. The Sikh villagers of Malwa were for the Khalsa Fauj and they killed any British stragglers who came in their way.

The people of Punjab apart from a few Jangli tribes in West Punjab supported the British because of the atrocities committed by the Purabiyas in Punjab after 1845. Do you really think that the Sikhs would actively assist the resurrection of the Mughal Empire? Just because the Purabiyas got swayed into supporting the effeminate Bahadur Shah Zafar and the minor Rajas and Nawabs who had a issues with the way the British had treated them in the past, does not mean that because the Punjabi did not fall into the same trap that they were traitors. The Punjabis in 1857 were much more politically aware than people like you who want to believe 1857 was a great liberation movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Bhagat Singh died an atheist.... none of you guys know his family so please shutup. Your embarrassing yourself. You seem relentless in your effort to change history. Bhagat Singh wrote "Why I am an Atheist" after speaking to Bhai Randhir Singhji. This is a fact and his whole family knows it and its documented in videos as well.

his own sister was on aikam tv a few years back and she said outright that he was very faithful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disgusting comment. justifying the killing of 1857 revolutionaries by mercenary Sikhs is like justifying the 1984 killing of sikhs by congress mobs. honouring 1857 shaheeds make their '90% martyrs were sikhs' boasts look hollow. in the Amritsar outrage i have mentioned, 282 revolutionaries were executed by the mercenary dogs.

the lowlife among the tat khalsa justify not only the treachery of their forefathers but also terrorism. for them, even the sikh criminals, murderers are heroes for them.

Calling 1857 goons revolutionaries my foot . 1984 killing was done by Hindus this IS what Hindus wanted . Majority of Brtish Soldiers were Hindu and you sanatan dharmi should not blamed others .Back stabbing is culture of Snatan Dharmis that WHY murders like Shankaracharya is respected figure . Community which voted murderers like Rajiv Gandhi and Modi have no right to talk about others .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have discussed this 1857 issue many type but still Hindu fanatics wants to discuss and get slapped by us

Mr Hindu sher read this

Truth Behind 1857

Bijla Singh

Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government.

First War of Independence?

First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence?

India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice.

Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully.

Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start.

After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him.

After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire.

War of Independence?

The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence?

The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”.

This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims.

The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war?

According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government.

Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.”

Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.”

Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.”

The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.”

According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.”

Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains.

According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.”

There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years.

Truth Behind 1857

Bijla Singh

Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government.

First War of Independence?

First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence?

India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice.

Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully.

Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start.

After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him.

After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire.

War of Independence?

The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence?

The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”.

This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims.

The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war?

According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government.

Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.”

Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.”

Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.”

The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.”

According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.”

Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains.

According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.”

There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years.

Truth Behind 1857

Bijla Singh

Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government.

First War of Independence?

First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence?

India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice.

Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully.

Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start.

After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him.

After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire.

War of Independence?

The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence?

The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”.

This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims.

The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war?

According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government.

Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.”

Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.”

Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.”

The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.”

According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.”

Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains.

According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.”

There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years.

Truth Behind 1857

Bijla Singh

Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government.

First War of Independence?

First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence?

India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice.

Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully.

Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start.

After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him.

After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire.

War of Independence?

The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence?

The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”.

This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims.

The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war?

According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government.

Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.”

Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.”

Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.”

The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.”

According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.”

Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains.

According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.”

There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1874 Maharaja Sindhiya turned in Nana Sahib and Tantiya Tope to the British.

In this mutiny, name of Rani Jhansi (Queen of Jhansi) is always discussed. Ignorant scholars give her credits for something she never did. There is not a single proof in existence that shows whether the Queen fought for freedom of the country or joined the mutiny on purpose. Lakhshami Bayee, or Rani Jhansee, had no child of her own. Her husband was a characterless type person who was responsible for his own death. Lakhshami Bayee wanted her adopted child, Damodar Rao, to become the next king but the British were not happy from their misdeeds and refused to recognize her adopted child as the heir to the throne. Then she wrote a letter to the British asking for a payment of one million rupee per year for her kingdom but the British did not agree. Then she asked for two hundred thousand but again the British refused. The only choice left for her was to fight and die. Her struggle was only for her own kingdom. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “After her unsuccessful efforts to appoint her adopted son as the next king she started living her life as a Hindu widower wearing white clothes and spent much of her time in worship. All British scholars agree that neither had she planned anything for the freedom fight nor did she have any intentions of joining the mutiny in the first place.”

The rebellions surrounded the Queen’s palace. The queen informed the British that she had been insulted and mistreated by the rebellions and asked for help. Instead of helping her, the British blamed her for helping the rebellions. Still, she remained loyal to the British.

Dr. Surinder Naath writes, “Captain Gorden wrote to the queen asking for help.” In reply the queen wrote, “What can I do? I am surrounded by the rebellions. I have sent some guns and my army men for your help.”

According to Dr. G. W. Forrest, “Queen Lakhashmee Bai secretly sent 50-60 guns, and 50 army men along with other weaponry.”

Dr. J. K. Kirapalani sums it up very well by saying, “It was nothing but an attempt by the old order to get back their kingdoms.”

The above mentioned examples and quotes of famous scholars clearly prove that the mutiny of 1857 was not a war of independence but a fight for personal gains. In summary, 1857 was not a war of independence because of some of the following reasons.

  1. A united India did not exist at that time.

  1. The rebellion remained confined to the ranks of the Bengal Army and in North-Central India.

  1. The mutiny was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers drawn from the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments.

  1. Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion. Those that did were basically interested in reviving and reclaiming their own kingdoms, not creating a United India.

  1. The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhs and 1857

Sikhs being a tiny fraction of the Indian population have sacrificed more than any other community and yet they are being called traitors. The facts presented above make it clear that 1857 was neither a beginning of the freedom movement nor was it the first battle of freedom. It was not even any organized movement.

It has always been Sikhs who fought for freedom. They are not traitors. Rather Hindus are the real traitors. When Sikhs were fighting the Mughals, Hindus worked as spies for the government and Hindu kings sent their armies to help the Mughal government. It was a Hindu who tortured Guru Arjan Dev Ji, a Hindu who had Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s youngest sons arrested, and a Hindu who convinced the minister of Sarhind to execute them. It was a Hindu who was directly responsible for first Sikh holocaust and a hindu who appointed Massa Ranghar to be in charge of Darbar Sahib whose misdeeds and anti-Sikh activities are well known among the Sikhs.

It was Hindus who let the British enter India through sea without any opposition. Only Sikh kingdom was without the rule of British which was later attacked and annexed by the British forced with the help of Indian armies. Sikhs were betrayed by Hindus internally and externally. Soon after the death of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, all Indian armies joined the British to attack Punjab. During the battles, Hindu Dogras betrayed the Sikh armies by joining the British army and cutting off the food and weapons supply to the Sikh army. Victory of Sikhs was turned into a defeat by the Dogras. Was this not betrayal? The most powerful empire (British) and all Indian armies stood together to fight and kill Sikhs. Even then Sikhs fought so bravely that it will be remembered until eternity. Poet Mohammad Shah wrote:

ਜੰਗ ਹਿੰਦ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦਾ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗਾ, ਦੋਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਭਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਨਾਲ ਗੋਲਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੰਦੇ ਜਾਣ ਉੱਡਦੇ, ਹਾਥੀ ਉਡਦੇ ਸਣੇ ਅੰਬਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਅੱਜ ਹੋਵੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਤਾਂ ਮੁੱਲ ਪਾਵੇ, ਜਿਹੜੀਆਂ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਨੇ ਤੇਗਾਂ ਮਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦਾ ਇਕ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਬਾਝੋਂ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਜਿਤ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਹਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

(ਜੰਗ ਨਾਮਾ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ)

After annexation of Punjab, Indians oppressed and killed Sikhs. No pen or book can completely explain the mistreatment of Sikh civilians by the Indian armies. Men and children were killed, houses and property was burnt, and women were dishonored. This oppression by Hindus was not forgotten by Sikhs in 1857. How could Sikhs forget the way their free country was taken over in 1849 by the British with the help of Hindu kings? After so many sufferings Sikhs were still recovering that the unorganized religious riots broke out in 1857 which is being called a “freedom movement”. One thing must be noted that not a single Hindu leader contacted Sikhs. Sikhs were never asked to join this “freedom movement”. A characterless person Bhadur Shah Jaffar from the family of Muslims was chosen as a king to sit on the throne. It was the same Mughal Empire which oppressed and killed people for many centuries. Sikhs fought Mughals for a long time then how could Sikhs help the same government come forward and take over? Had Hindu armies helped Sikhs in 1849 instead, the outcomes would’ve been very different. India would’ve become independent 8 years before 1857.

Sikhs did not fight for personal gains or religious reasons. They fought for freedom and opposed the foreign rule. Hindus who fought for personal gains, helped British take over India and Punjab by betraying Sikhs and killing their children are being called “patriots”. After all the sacrifices Sikhs have made for freedom, gave their lives, and inspired others to fight for freedom they are being called “traitors”. Is this justice? Is this the prize we are being given in India? What a shameless act. It was Sikhs who started the first peaceful movement against the British. It has always been Hindus who have opposed the Sikhs more than any other community. Sikhs were the first one to start a war of independence and the first community to come forward to fight for freedom whether the enemy was Afghans, Iranians or British. Freedom of India is the result of the sacrifices made by Sikhs and the blood spilled by them. The Indian government has always deprived Sikhs of their basic human rights by saying “Where were you when we needed you in 1857”? Although it has been proven beyond the doubt that the mutiny of 1857 was neither a war of independence nor was it a struggle to unite India, however, before we answer their question they should answer ours first:

  1. When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies?
  2. When Baba Banda Singh Ji established the first Sikh kingdom and fought numerous battles with the Mughals why didn’t the Hindu armies come forward to help Sikhs?
  3. While Sikhs were fighting Afghans, Iranis, Turkish and Mughal forces where were Hindus and their armies?
  4. When Darbar Sahib was being destroyed where were Hindus?
  5. When prices were put on the heads of the Sikhs, where were the Hindu armies?
  6. When invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali were taking thousands of Hindu women back to Afghanistan as slaves it was Sikhs who fought him and freed those women. Why didn’t the Maratha and other Hindu armies join the Sikhs? After all it was their women Sikhs were fighting for.
  7. Where were Hindus, the so-called “patriots” when Sikhs were fighting the British during numerous protests such as Gurdwara Nanakana Sahib, Jaito, and Bajbaj Ghaat?

The list goes on but the simple fact is that by not helping the Sikh community that had been fighting for freedom for 200 years prior to 1857, Hindus became the real traitors of India. The actual numbers of sacrifices made by the Sikhs can never be counted; however, the following table shows how many Sikhs have spilled their blood compared to the other communities for the freedom of India during British Empire.

Sacrifices of Sikhs for India’s Freedom during British Empire:

Type

Sikhs

Non-Sikhs

Percentage of Sikhs

Prison One Year

1,550

575

73%

Hanged

93

28

77%

Jalianwala Bagh

799

501

61%

Bajj Bajj Ghaat

67

46

59%

Kooka Movement

91

0

100%

Akali Movement

500

0

100%

Deported

2,147

499

81%

Death sentence

92

35

72%

Indian National Army

12,000

8000

60%

It is clear that Sikhs made more sacrifices than all other communities and are the true heroes. It is a known fact that those who rule write the history. Since Sikhs are being labeled as “traitors” it leaves no doubt that today’s leadership is not only ignoring the facts but also misrepresenting and maligning the true identity of the Sikhs by not writing the history in its true form. It is time for us (Sikhs) to realize that no matter how much we sacrifice and spill our blood for the freedom, without their our country the history will always be against and unfair to us. We need to rise up to the tyrant Indian government that labels us as “terrorists” and establish our own country so that we can live as Sikhs, true patriots and freedom fighters. It is time for us to expose the true faces of the traitors. Otherwise, it will be a grave unjust not only to the history but to the Sikh martyrs who for our tomorrow gave their today. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhs and 1857

Sikhs being a tiny fraction of the Indian population have sacrificed more than any other community and yet they are being called traitors. The facts presented above make it clear that 1857 was neither a beginning of the freedom movement nor was it the first battle of freedom. It was not even any organized movement.

It has always been Sikhs who fought for freedom. They are not traitors. Rather Hindus are the real traitors. When Sikhs were fighting the Mughals, Hindus worked as spies for the government and Hindu kings sent their armies to help the Mughal government. It was a Hindu who tortured Guru Arjan Dev Ji, a Hindu who had Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s youngest sons arrested, and a Hindu who convinced the minister of Sarhind to execute them. It was a Hindu who was directly responsible for first Sikh holocaust and a hindu who appointed Massa Ranghar to be in charge of Darbar Sahib whose misdeeds and anti-Sikh activities are well known among the Sikhs.

It was Hindus who let the British enter India through sea without any opposition. Only Sikh kingdom was without the rule of British which was later attacked and annexed by the British forced with the help of Indian armies. Sikhs were betrayed by Hindus internally and externally. Soon after the death of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, all Indian armies joined the British to attack Punjab. During the battles, Hindu Dogras betrayed the Sikh armies by joining the British army and cutting off the food and weapons supply to the Sikh army. Victory of Sikhs was turned into a defeat by the Dogras. Was this not betrayal? The most powerful empire (British) and all Indian armies stood together to fight and kill Sikhs. Even then Sikhs fought so bravely that it will be remembered until eternity. Poet Mohammad Shah wrote:

ਜੰਗ ਹਿੰਦ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦਾ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗਾ, ਦੋਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਭਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਨਾਲ ਗੋਲਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੰਦੇ ਜਾਣ ਉੱਡਦੇ, ਹਾਥੀ ਉਡਦੇ ਸਣੇ ਅੰਬਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਅੱਜ ਹੋਵੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਤਾਂ ਮੁੱਲ ਪਾਵੇ, ਜਿਹੜੀਆਂ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਨੇ ਤੇਗਾਂ ਮਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦਾ ਇਕ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਬਾਝੋਂ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਜਿਤ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਹਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

(ਜੰਗ ਨਾਮਾ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ)

After annexation of Punjab, Indians oppressed and killed Sikhs. No pen or book can completely explain the mistreatment of Sikh civilians by the Indian armies. Men and children were killed, houses and property was burnt, and women were dishonored. This oppression by Hindus was not forgotten by Sikhs in 1857. How could Sikhs forget the way their free country was taken over in 1849 by the British with the help of Hindu kings? After so many sufferings Sikhs were still recovering that the unorganized religious riots broke out in 1857 which is being called a “freedom movement”. One thing must be noted that not a single Hindu leader contacted Sikhs. Sikhs were never asked to join this “freedom movement”. A characterless person Bhadur Shah Jaffar from the family of Muslims was chosen as a king to sit on the throne. It was the same Mughal Empire which oppressed and killed people for many centuries. Sikhs fought Mughals for a long time then how could Sikhs help the same government come forward and take over? Had Hindu armies helped Sikhs in 1849 instead, the outcomes would’ve been very different. India would’ve become independent 8 years before 1857.

Sikhs did not fight for personal gains or religious reasons. They fought for freedom and opposed the foreign rule. Hindus who fought for personal gains, helped British take over India and Punjab by betraying Sikhs and killing their children are being called “patriots”. After all the sacrifices Sikhs have made for freedom, gave their lives, and inspired others to fight for freedom they are being called “traitors”. Is this justice? Is this the prize we are being given in India? What a shameless act. It was Sikhs who started the first peaceful movement against the British. It has always been Hindus who have opposed the Sikhs more than any other community. Sikhs were the first one to start a war of independence and the first community to come forward to fight for freedom whether the enemy was Afghans, Iranians or British. Freedom of India is the result of the sacrifices made by Sikhs and the blood spilled by them. The Indian government has always deprived Sikhs of their basic human rights by saying “Where were you when we needed you in 1857”? Although it has been proven beyond the doubt that the mutiny of 1857 was neither a war of independence nor was it a struggle to unite India, however, before we answer their question they should answer ours first:

  1. When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies?
  2. When Baba Banda Singh Ji established the first Sikh kingdom and fought numerous battles with the Mughals why didn’t the Hindu armies come forward to help Sikhs?
  3. While Sikhs were fighting Afghans, Iranis, Turkish and Mughal forces where were Hindus and their armies?
  4. When Darbar Sahib was being destroyed where were Hindus?
  5. When prices were put on the heads of the Sikhs, where were the Hindu armies?
  6. When invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali were taking thousands of Hindu women back to Afghanistan as slaves it was Sikhs who fought him and freed those women. Why didn’t the Maratha and other Hindu armies join the Sikhs? After all it was their women Sikhs were fighting for.
  7. Where were Hindus, the so-called “patriots” when Sikhs were fighting the British during numerous protests such as Gurdwara Nanakana Sahib, Jaito, and Bajbaj Ghaat?

The list goes on but the simple fact is that by not helping the Sikh community that had been fighting for freedom for 200 years prior to 1857, Hindus became the real traitors of India. The actual numbers of sacrifices made by the Sikhs can never be counted; however, the following table shows how many Sikhs have spilled their blood compared to the other communities for the freedom of India during British Empire.

Sacrifices of Sikhs for India’s Freedom during British Empire:

Type

Sikhs

Non-Sikhs

Percentage of Sikhs

Prison One Year

1,550

575

73%

Hanged

93

28

77%

Jalianwala Bagh

799

501

61%

Bajj Bajj Ghaat

67

46

59%

Kooka Movement

91

0

100%

Akali Movement

500

0

100%

Deported

2,147

499

81%

Death sentence

92

35

72%

Indian National Army

12,000

8000

60%

It is clear that Sikhs made more sacrifices than all other communities and are the true heroes. It is a known fact that those who rule write the history. Since Sikhs are being labeled as “traitors” it leaves no doubt that today’s leadership is not only ignoring the facts but also misrepresenting and maligning the true identity of the Sikhs by not writing the history in its true form. It is time for us (Sikhs) to realize that no matter how much we sacrifice and spill our blood for the freedom, without their our country the history will always be against and unfair to us. We need to rise up to the tyrant Indian government that labels us as “terrorists” and establish our own country so that we can live as Sikhs, true patriots and freedom fighters. It is time for us to expose the true faces of the traitors. Otherwise, it will be a grave unjust not only to the history but to the Sikh martyrs who for our tomorrow gave their today. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Another utterly misinformed idiot, what can i say and where do i start from?

When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies?

Good question. but, before i give a reply, can you please name the battle fought by Mughals against the Gurus?

Moderators and other posters on this forum, i dont want to but are being forced to state some historical facts about the Gurus. if i offend someone in the process AND IF I GIVE ONE SINGLE WRONG FACT willingly unwillingly, my heartfelt apologies.

I also need to correct some misconceptions, historical inaccuracies which are often cited by such morons as amar_jkp who source their history from qisseh kahanian and folklore.

Before I write anything, i would request some sane minds to rein in this moron.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I want to say here is that Pakistan is not a "country". Pakistan is the name of a Islamic republican government that governs regions annexed from four countries: Afghanistan (FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Balochistan, India (Kashmir, Sindh, Punjab), and Gilgit Balistan. Pakistan is not a real country. It is ruled by the ISI/Punjabi Jatt/Rajpoot Landlord elite class. This Punjabi elite class wanted their own "country". They did not get their own country but they got their own government. The idea that Pakistan is a country is laughed at by most critical scholars and people that are not gaining anything by saying it is a "country". According to British law, it is a "country". However, British law is just an extension of UK foreign policy and geo-political strategic objectives. The whole acts in accord to Western notions of law. We as Sikhs dont need our own "country". Thats stupid. We already have our own country. What we need is a better GOVERNMENT. You cant blame a whole country for the actions of a government and you cant blame victims of mass media manipulation for the actions of the government. We might as well blame ourselves for the rise of the Badal Dal. Blaming the victim is the easiest way to deter people from blaming those who are to be accredited with wrongdoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderators and other posters on this forum, i dont want to but are being forced to state some historical facts about the Gurus. if i offend someone in the process AND IF I GIVE ONE SINGLE WRONG FACT willingly unwillingly, my heartfelt apologies.

I also need to correct some misconceptions, historical inaccuracies which are often cited by such morons as amar_jkp who source their history from qisseh kahanian and folklore.

Before I write anything, i would request some sane minds to rein in this moron.

Thanks

You write everything in order to offend Sikhs. So it is no surprise to us if you are hiding your Gur Nindak feelings inside. Let it out, let us see what more lies you are hiding inside.

Edited by Jonny101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I want to say here is that Pakistan is not a "country". Pakistan is the name of a Islamic republican government that governs regions annexed from four countries: Afghanistan (FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Balochistan, India (Kashmir, Sindh, Punjab), and Gilgit Balistan. Pakistan is not a real country. It is ruled by the ISI/Punjabi Jatt/Rajpoot Landlord elite class. This Punjabi elite class wanted their own "country". They did not get their own country but they got their own government. The idea that Pakistan is a country is laughed at by most critical scholars and people that are not gaining anything by saying it is a "country". According to British law, it is a "country". However, British law is just an extension of UK foreign policy and geo-political strategic objectives. The whole acts in accord to Western notions of law. We as Sikhs dont need our own "country". Thats stupid. We already have our own country. What we need is a better GOVERNMENT. You cant blame a whole country for the actions of a government and you cant blame victims of mass media manipulation for the actions of the government. We might as well blame ourselves for the rise of the Badal Dal. Blaming the victim is the easiest way to deter people from blaming those who are to be accredited with wrongdoing.

If Pakistan is not a country and India is less so a country. Why are you not being consistent. Just as a Baloch, Sindhi and Pathans should have their own countries from the ashes of Pakistan, so should the Sikhs, Tamils, Bengalis etc get their own countries from the ashes of Hindustan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen pseudo scholar tony. Sikhism is a religion... don't compare ethnic tribal groups with religious groups. Punjab, Bengal and much of North India are Sanskrit-oriented people. Tamil is the father language of most Southern languages. The only places you can say are not a part of India are the eastern states like Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura etc. The other states come out of Tamil and Sanskrit and they are "Indian". Its so funny when our people say Sikhs should have their own "country". Like buddy, did you ever study nationalism and the idea of nations? Are you science students at universities? I really want to know. I dont know much of Punjab history but I know that our religion isnt only 300 years old as per Gurbani's claims itself: aad sach jugaad sach. The picture posted by Neo earlier with the AsthBhuja Chanda is also revealing. You must be confused. You do realize that Sikhs have their own country called India right? You do also realize that anyone can be Sikh? You do also realize that we live in Punjab mostly and its ours.... not sayings its ONLY ours but it is our OWN.. so whats the issue here? Please tell me how old you are. India is our country. Khalistan is a fake name that is based on the idea that Pakistan was based on: only religion, no tribe, no caste, no clan, no variation of religion allowed (SGPC- tat khalsa, abrahamic Sikhism ONLY). Why not The Republic of Punjab? Khalistan? WTF is Khalistan. Even the name Punjab isnt even that old. The oldest we can go is Sanskrit-Tamil... I dont think we can get much earlier than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhs and 1857

Sikhs being a tiny fraction of the Indian population have sacrificed more than any other community and yet they are being called traitors. The facts presented above make it clear that 1857 was neither a beginning of the freedom movement nor was it the first battle of freedom. It was not even any organized movement.

It has always been Sikhs who fought for freedom. They are not traitors. Rather Hindus are the real traitors. When Sikhs were fighting the Mughals, Hindus worked as spies for the government and Hindu kings sent their armies to help the Mughal government. It was a Hindu who tortured Guru Arjan Dev Ji, a Hindu who had Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s youngest sons arrested, and a Hindu who convinced the minister of Sarhind to execute them. It was a Hindu who was directly responsible for first Sikh holocaust and a hindu who appointed Massa Ranghar to be in charge of Darbar Sahib whose misdeeds and anti-Sikh activities are well known among the Sikhs.

It was Hindus who let the British enter India through sea without any opposition. Only Sikh kingdom was without the rule of British which was later attacked and annexed by the British forced with the help of Indian armies. Sikhs were betrayed by Hindus internally and externally. Soon after the death of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, all Indian armies joined the British to attack Punjab. During the battles, Hindu Dogras betrayed the Sikh armies by joining the British army and cutting off the food and weapons supply to the Sikh army. Victory of Sikhs was turned into a defeat by the Dogras. Was this not betrayal? The most powerful empire (British) and all Indian armies stood together to fight and kill Sikhs. Even then Sikhs fought so bravely that it will be remembered until eternity. Poet Mohammad Shah wrote:

ਜੰਗ ਹਿੰਦ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦਾ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗਾ, ਦੋਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਭਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਨਾਲ ਗੋਲਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੰਦੇ ਜਾਣ ਉੱਡਦੇ, ਹਾਥੀ ਉਡਦੇ ਸਣੇ ਅੰਬਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਅੱਜ ਹੋਵੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਤਾਂ ਮੁੱਲ ਪਾਵੇ, ਜਿਹੜੀਆਂ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਨੇ ਤੇਗਾਂ ਮਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦਾ ਇਕ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਬਾਝੋਂ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਜਿਤ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਹਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ

(ਜੰਗ ਨਾਮਾ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ)

After annexation of Punjab, Indians oppressed and killed Sikhs. No pen or book can completely explain the mistreatment of Sikh civilians by the Indian armies. Men and children were killed, houses and property was burnt, and women were dishonored. This oppression by Hindus was not forgotten by Sikhs in 1857. How could Sikhs forget the way their free country was taken over in 1849 by the British with the help of Hindu kings? After so many sufferings Sikhs were still recovering that the unorganized religious riots broke out in 1857 which is being called a “freedom movement”. One thing must be noted that not a single Hindu leader contacted Sikhs. Sikhs were never asked to join this “freedom movement”. A characterless person Bhadur Shah Jaffar from the family of Muslims was chosen as a king to sit on the throne. It was the same Mughal Empire which oppressed and killed people for many centuries. Sikhs fought Mughals for a long time then how could Sikhs help the same government come forward and take over? Had Hindu armies helped Sikhs in 1849 instead, the outcomes would’ve been very different. India would’ve become independent 8 years before 1857.

Sikhs did not fight for personal gains or religious reasons. They fought for freedom and opposed the foreign rule. Hindus who fought for personal gains, helped British take over India and Punjab by betraying Sikhs and killing their children are being called “patriots”. After all the sacrifices Sikhs have made for freedom, gave their lives, and inspired others to fight for freedom they are being called “traitors”. Is this justice? Is this the prize we are being given in India? What a shameless act. It was Sikhs who started the first peaceful movement against the British. It has always been Hindus who have opposed the Sikhs more than any other community. Sikhs were the first one to start a war of independence and the first community to come forward to fight for freedom whether the enemy was Afghans, Iranians or British. Freedom of India is the result of the sacrifices made by Sikhs and the blood spilled by them. The Indian government has always deprived Sikhs of their basic human rights by saying “Where were you when we needed you in 1857”? Although it has been proven beyond the doubt that the mutiny of 1857 was neither a war of independence nor was it a struggle to unite India, however, before we answer their question they should answer ours first:

  1. When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies?

I would reply to each and every idiotic claim made here in details but first going straight to some questions and "facts" (not!!!) given by this braggart-in-chief

before i write further and before i am accused of anti-Sikh/Guru nindak as usual, let me list some of the points which i think are INDISPUTABLE FACTS and which should be considered as a disclaimer someone born in a Hindu family is required to give when writing on Sikh and Punjab history:

1. Sikhism is a religion today; period.

2. 1000s of martyrs, freedom fighters,revolutionaries, desh premis who fought against the colonial rule in India were from Sikh backgrounds and 'sikh' contribution to the freedom struggle in the latter part was unproportionate to their small population;

3. India as a country belongs to Sikhs as much as it belong to any other Indian community or ethnic group

4. 1984 killings of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere is the biggest blot on the Indian democracy

5. Gurbani as in Granth sahib and dasam Granth is revered by Hindu Punjabis/Sidhis without any doubt

6. If anyone asks Sikhs to prove their nationalism as a community (or call them traitors collectively), that person should be tried in the court for treason

7. tens of thousands were butchered by the Bhindran/Khali terrorists in Punjab and elsewhere - majority of the victims were Sikhs

8. There was and there is very little support for Khalistan in Punjab. overwhelming majority of Sikhs continue to be desh premis and continue to enjoy the prosperity and respect of the rest of the nation. Support for the khalistan comes from expat Sikhs (esp Jats)

9. Whosoever supported pro-Hindi campaign in PUNJABI-SPEAKING areas of Punjab in 1950s and 60s was an insecure idiot and should be condemned

10. A very small section of Punjabi Hindu continues to nurse chauvinistic and militant tendencies

11. There is absolutely no difference between a Sikh terrorist and a Hindu terrorist - both are condemned

Now I have made my position clear on the points listed above, i would now take on the moronic facts listed by this idiot:

amar_jkp, on 08 Mar 2014 - 6:33 PM, said: Although it has been proven beyond the doubt that the mutiny of 1857 was neither a war of independence nor was it a struggle to unite India, however, before we answer their question they should answer ours first:

  1. When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies?

List the "wars" fought by the revered Guru against any Mughal emperor. Not one universally acknowledged version of Indian history book has mentioned these skirmishes (esp Guru hargobind Singhji) even as footnote - that's how insignificant these encounters were. I can be wrong here so if anyone is aware about the mention of say Anandpur sahib "battle" or Chamkaur sahib "war" in a significant history book, please do cite that and i would apologise. Fair?. In other words, skirmishes or the resistance to defend small forts against small mughal forces led by insignificant Mughal army officers cannot be called "wars".

i am supported in this assertion by W H McLeod who has quoted Dabistan to suggest that Guru Hargobind’s ‘battles’ were skirmishes brought about by the growing number of unruly Jats in the Sikh Panth". Guru sahib abandoned Amritsar and moved to the sanctuary of Shivalik Hills (Kiratpur sahib) to avoid any serious action by the Mughals.

His successor, Guru Har Rai also avoided armed conflict with the Mughals and when asked by Aurangzeb ( as was the practice of those days) sent his son Ram Rai, as a sort of guarantee of good behaviour, to his darbar. G har Raiji also did not move back to Amritsar for the same reason as his predecessor, avoid armed conflict with the Mughals.

Aurangzeb ordering the next Guru to present himself in his darbar is well-recorded even in the heavily distorted Sikh history books. Guru harkrishan ji lived in Delhi with Raja Jai Singh who looked after him very respectfully and even counselled Aurangzeb about Guru sahib's genuine claim on the Gurugaddi (Ram Rai was the other claimant). According to some Sikh historians, he was called 'Bal Mukand' (childhood name for hindu deity Krishna).

to cut the story short, where do you see Gurus waging war against the Mughal emperors? They followed (sorry, i cant find any other appropriate words here) Mughal orders even till the 10th Guru sahib who presented himself in Mughal emperor bahadur shah's court and even joined his campaign against Hindu forces.

to cut the story short, where is the resistance by the revered Gurus against Mughals?

Now we come to the question, where were "Hindu armies" when Gurus were fighting their "wars".

Have you ever heard the name of Aurangzeb? Kidding.

Let me enlighten you my intellectually-challenged (or plain dishonest) friend. Aurangzeb was the emperor (1658-1707) for ALL of the Guruship period of G harkishanji, G Teg bahadurji and G Gobind Singhji.

Out of about 50 years as Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb spent 27 years fighting "hindu armies" aka Marathas (1680-1707).

three decades of wars against just one Hindu army and that too by Emperor himself. So hard was this eventually unsuccessful campaign to Aurangzeb that he shifted his capital or base to Deccan (Aurangabad) to subdue the marathas. this campaign is also considered the MAIN reason Mughal empire collapsed.

Also, to give you another glimpse of the Hindu resistance, between 1669-1679,

· In 1669, the Jat peasants of Bharatpur around Mathura revolted and created Bharatpur state, fomenting a fierce rebellion around the Mughal capital.

· In 1670, Shivaji, assassinated the Adil Shahi commander Afzal Khan, and later nearly killed the Mughal Viceroy Shaista Khan, while waging war against Aurangzeb. Shivaji and his forces ravaged the Deccan, Janjira and Surat and tried to gain control of vast territories. However by 1689 Aurangzeb's armies had captured Shivaji's, son, Sambhaji, and executed him after he had sacked Burhanpur.

· In 1671, the Battle of Saraighat was fought in the easternmost regions of the Mughal Empire against the Ahom Kingdom. The Mughals led by Mir Jumla II and Shaista Khan were forced to retreat after the respected Mughal admiral Munnawar Khan was killed in action. It is a well-recorded fact that Guru Teg Bahadur was a part of this army.

· In 1679 the Rathore clan under the command of Durgadas Rathore rebelled when Auranzeb refused to make the young Rathore prince the king and took direct command of Jodhpur this caused great unrest amongst the Hindu Rajput rulers under Auranzeb and lead to many rebellions in Rajputana.

· In 1672, the Satnami, a sect concentrated in an area near Delhi, under the leadership of Bhirbhan, took over the administration of Narnaul, but they were eventually crushed upon Aurangzeb's personal intervention with very few escaping alive.

This was about just ONE decade out of 200 years of (effective) Mughal rule over large part of India.

Also, till the martyrdom of Guru teg bahadurji for his dharam (I would disregard the persian sources which claim that Guru sahib was executed because he indulged in loot and rapine along with a Muslim), we do not see any confrontation, forget battles, between the Sikhs and Mughals.

the relationship was of course of a serf and an emperor - so subservient (pardon my language here) were the Sikhs that Aurangzeb decided who would ascend to the Gurugaddi (Guru harkrishan vs Ram Rai).

If you need to see the source of any fact mentioned above, let me know and i would be glad to share my little research work with you.

Try this fact too, NOT one Mughal emperor ever fought against ANY Sikh force himself, NEVER. they were considered so insignificant.

Read this post and ask me questions or the source for any point i have raised. You are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Baba Banda Singh Ji established the first Sikh kingdom and fought numerous battles with the Mughals why didn’t the Hindu armies come forward to help Sikhs?

When banda bairagi or banda bahadur left nanded and entered modern day haryana, he collected an army which was overwhelmingly 'Hindu' in nature. They were not professional soldiers but peasants and other everyday people who joined Banda's ranks to fight against Muslim zabr. there was no diff between Hindu and Sikh at that stage anyway. Had there been a diff, Guru sahib would not have approached a practicing Hindu (BB) for help. if any Sikh/Khalsa army existed in the early days of Khalsa, why Guru sahib had to undergo such humiliation.

All the armies BB led in his military career, there is no evidence to suggest that Hindus were not a part of it.

Also, it is well-documented how banda bahadur was betrayed by Tat Khalsas in his army esp those trehans and Bhallas who were related to earlier Gurus by blood. The betrayal led to the eventual defeat and arrest of BB and his valorous army. The traitors were rewarded by Mughal emperor Farrukhsiyar with jagirs and other material things. Mata Sudari was, at that time, living in delhi ruled by Farrukhsiyar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. While Sikhs were fighting Afghans, Iranis, Turkish and Mughal forces where were Hindus and their armies?

What a misinformed question is that? Besides going through my answer to the first question, have a look at the conquest of Punjab (a feat never achieved by any Sikh ruler) up to Afghan borders (including Peshawar and Jamrud) by Maratha Peshwa relative Raghunath Rao in 1758.

Maratha forces first conquered Sirhind then lahore and finally Peshawar. they defeated Abdali's son and expelled Afghans out of Punjab. Not only Raghunath Rao paid homage at the site of the destroyed temple, he also forced the defeated Afghans to cleanse Harmandar sahib sarovar as Abdali had destroyed the temple few years earlier (he did it thrice) and filled it with cow carcass. The question you should be asking is, when Raghunath Rao (who came from Maratha capital Pune which was thousands of KMs away conquered Punjab and routed Abdali forces in three battles, WHERE WERE SIKHS?

the historian Elphinstone would write later on:

The Maratha power was at its zenith. Their frontiers extended on the north to the Indus and the Himalya, and to the south nearly to the extremity of the peninsula: all the territory which was not their ownpaid ribute. The whole of this great power was wielded by one hand..and all the pretensions of every description were concentrated on the Peshwa".page 416 The Cambridge History of India, Volume 1 edited by Edward James Rapson

  1. When Darbar Sahib was being destroyed where were Hindus?

I think i have answered the question in a comprehensive manner. Now my question, where were the Sikhs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. When prices were put on the heads of the Sikhs, where were the Hindu armies?

They were busy waging their own wars, history replete with such battles ever since muslims stepped on the indian soil in 636CE. It took Muslim army, which ahd conquered the mighty Persian emperor within a decade of Mohammad's death, almost 500 years to capture Delhi. i dont want to get into a petty point scoring competition but it becomes really hard to name even five significant battles Sikhs fought against any Muslim army.

  1. When invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali were taking thousands of Hindu women back to Afghanistan as slaves it was Sikhs who fought him and freed those women. Why didn’t the Maratha and other Hindu armies join the Sikhs? After all it was their women Sikhs were fighting for.

This is another non-sensical myth perpetrated by the Tat Khalsa bigots.

Not denying that some incidents would have happened where some of the captured may have been freed by Sikh bands but it becomes really hard to digest that Sikhs have been doing it with each and every invader. Also raises some questions, Abdali invaded Punjab more than Indian hinterland for obvious reasons (punjab being the first state non-pashtoon state after Khyber pass) that Punjab has the dubious distinction of being the most invaded state in India. Punjab has also been under the foreign rule for the longest. i dont think any invader (except Portuguese and french) there has been any invader/colonialist who did not conquer Punjab.

The question is, if the invaders were used to kidnap women from indian hinterland, why they would not kidnap punjabi women?

Admin note message deleted- final warning before we place ban for week , please refrain from going off tangent attacking khalsa in this case women with your sarcastic remark. It will not be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Where were Hindus, the so-called “patriots” when Sikhs were fighting the British during numerous protests such as Gurdwara Nanakana Sahib, Jaito, and Bajbaj Ghaat?

Punjabi Hindus largely supported their Sikh brethren in these agitations even though Gurdwara movement demands were sectarian. a Sikh-Hindu conference was organized during the Punjab Congress Provincial Congress at Rawalpindi on 2 May 1921 The Jagat Guru Shankaracharya urged the Hindus to join the Sikhs in the struggle for taking control of the gurdwaras from mahants (Udasi Sikhs).

The Indian National Congress declared its support for the Akali agitation in at the special Congress Session in Delhi.The Akalis were then joined by several non-Sikhs, including Jawaharlal Nehru (later the first Prime Minister of India) and Kasturiranga Santhanam.Nehru and others were arrested during one such march.Finally, the Government of Punjab relented and agreed to transfer the control of the gurdwara to the Akalis.

At least Hindus did not opposed Sikhs or killed them as mercenaries the way Sikhs did in 1857. there have been scores of "where were the Sikhs" moments too.

Where were Sikhs in the following events:

vellore Mutiny,

1857 fight for freedom

Bengal Partition agitation

Simon Commission agitation,

Quit India movement

civil disobedience agitation

Direct Action in bengal

Communal Award agitation

Salt/Dandi March

Indian naval ratings Mutiny Bombay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list goes on but the simple fact is that by not helping the Sikh community that had been fighting for freedom for 200 years prior to 1857, Hindus became the real traitors of India. The actual numbers of sacrifices made by the Sikhs can never be counted; however, the following table shows how many Sikhs have spilled their blood compared to the other communities for the freedom of India during British Empire.

Sacrifices of Sikhs for India’s Freedom during British Empire:

Type

Sikhs

Non-Sikhs

Percentage of Sikhs

Prison One Year

1,550

575

73%

Hanged

93

28

77%

Jalianwala Bagh

799

501

61%

Bajj Bajj Ghaat

67

46

59%

Kooka Movement

91

0

100%

Akali Movement

500

0

100%

Deported

2,147

499

81%

Death sentence

92

35

72%

Indian National Army

12,000

8000

60%

These are highly questionable figures whichever way you look at these. 100s of thousands indian civilians and rebels (revolutionaries) were executed in 1857 war for independence so this table looks totally misplaced. even if we do not take 1857 figures into consideration (even though there is absolutely no logic to do so), the figures would remain questionable.

lets take up the first on the table:

Prison One Year

Total: 1,550; Non-Sikhs 575, Sikhs' percentage 73%

the mind which has concocted this figure is not intelligent enough even to do the basic maths what else i can say?

To give you just one instance of mass arrests, lakhs were arrested during the Quit India/Civil Disobedience movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. "Over 100,000 arrests were made, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence many shot by the police army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen but ultimately did not take that step out of fear of intensifying the revolt.

The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence (D Fisher, D Read page 330)

Some other books put the number of those killed by the British in thousands.

"The British killed thousands of Indian freedom fighters, imprisoned hundreds of thousands more, and disrupted daily life for all Indians.."

Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela

By John R. O'Neill Page 12.

India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation

By Stanley Kochanek, Robert Hardgrave page 54and many others. I have never researched this aspect of Quit India Movement (how many were killed or arrested for long term).would some other posters like to help me in finding out how many were killed (no recorded figures I assume) so that we could make some sense out of the dubious figures often flashed on the forum pages?

Hanged

Total: 93, non-Sikhs: 28, Sikhs' percentage: 77% (once again, wrong math. is there something which I am getting wrong?)

why 'hanged' has been separated from 'death sentence' where the figures are almost the same? hanged does not mean death sentence?

Anyway, I would like to consider these together as one. Once again, I dont understand the logic behind excluding 1857 war for independence from this kind of record compilation. if we take just one incident from 1857 history into consideration (Ajnala district Amritsar execution of 282 mutineers), this figure would look totally irrelevant.

even if we keep 1857 out of this picture, around 50 Baloch soldiers were executed by the British in singapore in 1915.

History of World War I edited by Dennis Cove, Ian Westwell page 252 and many others.

I hope this one instance would settle any question about the death sentence given by the British to the Indian 'freedom fighters'.

Jalianwala Bagh

Total: 799

Non-Sikhs: 501

Sikhs' Percentage: 61% (even this calculation is totally wrong).

True picture, the aftermath of Jallianwala bagh massacre is one of the most shameful chapter of the Sikh history. I would come to that a bit later but first let us try to work on the figures given by amar_jkp.

"...it is noteworthy that of the 291 Jallianwala Bagh dead whose jat can be identified, only twenty-two were certainly Sikhs

N A Collett writes on page 292 of his book: The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer

even if you look at the name of those arrested for organising JB meeting, only one person has a sikh-like name and he too was acquited.

The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day - By Nick Lloyd page 228

The one purpose of the meeting was also to stress on Hindu-Muslim unity. the dead were mostly from the Amritsar city which did not have a sizable Sikh population in those days (40 % Muslims). Out of the 13 speakers, just 2 had Sikh like names.

About the shameful chapter i mentioned earlier, the butcher of Amritsar general Dyer was honoured and given saropa, declaring him to be a 'Sikh' in a function held at harmandar Sahib by Aroor Singh the Tat Khalsa oriented manager of the temple. according to the NA Collett book: The Sikh leaders shamelessly flattered and humoured Dyer"

The dialogue, which took place between Arur Singh and other priests on the one hand and General Dyer on the other, is worth quoting here : "Sahib", they said: you must become a sikh even as Nikalseyan Sahib (Nicholson) became a Sikh'.

The General thanked them for the honour , but he objected that he could not, as a British officer, let his hair grow long.

Arur Singh laughed," we will let you off the long hair," he said.

The General offered another objection," But i cannot give up smoking"

The priest conceded," we will let you give it up gradually".

"That I promise you,: said the General, "at the rate of one cigarette a year".

According to the biographer of General Dyer, "the priests, chuckling, proceeded with the initiation. General Dyer and Captain Briggs were invested with five kakas, the sacred emblems of that war-like brotherhood and so became Sikhs".

The function to say 'thanks' to General Dyer was held in late April, 1919.

Aroor Singh, for the uninitiated was the grandfather (nana) of Simranjit Singh Mann.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen pseudo scholar tony. Sikhism is a religion... don't compare ethnic tribal groups with religious groups. Punjab, Bengal and much of North India are Sanskrit-oriented people. Tamil is the father language of most Southern languages. The only places you can say are not a part of India are the eastern states like Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura etc. The other states come out of Tamil and Sanskrit and they are "Indian". Its so funny when our people say Sikhs should have their own "country". Like buddy, did you ever study nationalism and the idea of nations? Are you science students at universities? I really want to know. I dont know much of Punjab history but I know that our religion isnt only 300 years old as per Gurbani's claims itself: aad sach jugaad sach. The picture posted by Neo earlier with the AsthBhuja Chanda is also revealing. You must be confused. You do realize that Sikhs have their own country called India right? You do also realize that anyone can be Sikh? You do also realize that we live in Punjab mostly and its ours.... not sayings its ONLY ours but it is our OWN.. so whats the issue here? Please tell me how old you are. India is our country. Khalistan is a fake name that is based on the idea that Pakistan was based on: only religion, no tribe, no caste, no clan, no variation of religion allowed (SGPC- tat khalsa, abrahamic Sikhism ONLY). Why not The Republic of Punjab? Khalistan? WTF is Khalistan. Even the name Punjab isnt even that old. The oldest we can go is Sanskrit-Tamil... I dont think we can get much earlier than that.

Debating with you is like debating with a child. I have already pointed out on various threads what little knowledge you have is highly defective. The artificial country that the British left in 1947 called India is akin to Europe rather than a nation state. Europe especially Western Europe also shares a common background with the languages grounded in Latin, a common religion Christianity. Does that mean that Europe is a Nation? You have no understanding of nationalism. Sikhs have the characteristics of being a nation. Just because we have the added layer of a common religion does not negate the fact that Sikhs have a common history, common culture, common language, Sikhs are an ethnoreligious nation such as the Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marathas ? let me show the true face of Marathas to Hindu Rahtravadis and it will going to hurt North Indian specially Punjabi Hindu who have so much praise for Marathas

When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers:

They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours)

In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes:

The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours)

For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270.

We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping.

When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers:

They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours)

In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes:

The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours)

For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270.

We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darbar Sahib was attacked and desecrated in 1757 and 5000 Sikhs gave a strong resistance to Abdali. Most Sikhs were far away in the forests and mountains, due to the countrywide orders of extermination, while Marathas being in Punjab did nothing. When the Sikhs heard the news of the desecration, they allied with Adina Begh and captured the Afghans and brought then back to clean Darbar Sahib. The Sikhs invited the Marathas who went to Darbar Sahib for the very first time in 1758.

Marathas and all other Hindu chiefs paid no heed to the Abdali’s invasion of Mathura in which the Hindu holy city was not only ransacked but thousands of women and children were mercilessly slaughtered. Coward Marathas remained aloof. Sarkar states:

Not a single Maratha bled in defense of the holiest of Vaishnav shrines; their pan-Indian suzerainty (Hindupad Padshahi) did not involve the duty to protect. (vol. 2, p. 84)

On a side note, the Sikhs never destroyed a temple or a mosque in their areas. This shows their sagacity and tolerance. But Marathas attacked their own brethren and destroyed Hindu temples. According to Dr. Ram Puniyani in his video lecture Facts and Myths, when Marathas attacked Tipu Sultan but were unable to defeat him, on the way back out of spite, destroyed a Hindu temple in Srirang Patnam which was repaired by Tipu Sultan later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marathas ? let me show the true face of Marathas to Hindu Rahtravadis and it will going to hurt North Indian specially Punjabi Hindu who have so much praise for Marathas

When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers:

They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours)

In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes:

The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours)

For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270.

We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping.

When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers:

They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours)

In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes:

The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours)

For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270.

We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping.

why running away from your intentionally erroneous posts?

stick to your original claims and back them with up with the evidence (sources) if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadir Shah invaded India in 1739 and himself installed Mohammad Shah as the emperor. Ahmad Shah Abdali also personally selected the emperors of Delhi. Sikhs had controlled Delhi under the leadership of Sardar Baghel Singh and Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia for a time period. Therefore, the Marathas did not continuously control Delhi. Furthermore, According to Stewart Gordon in his The Marathas 1600-1818, Volume 2, the Maratha invasions of different areas was not to establish the Maratha rule, but merely to extort money and jewels from Hindus and Muslims alike. It did not benefit the local population or regular Hindus for that matter. The only Hindu group that directly benefitted from these raids was the Brahmins who have a long history of human exploitation.

It would not be out of place to briefly describe the differences between the Sikhs and the Marathas.

The Marathas had a large kingdom, a paid army, resources and forts for their protection and survival. But on the other hand, the Sikhs did not have any of these conveniences yet they courageously carved out a kingdom of their own. As stated earlier, the Maratha power was at its zenith in 1758 but they failed to resist the Afghans successfully. Although the events and proofs exist in abundance, a few pertinent examples are provided as follows:

On 16th January, 1757, Afghan Jahan Khan attacked the Marathas. The Marathas, having put up some resistance under Antaji Makeshvar to the Afghan vanguard, left the city for Kotputli. (Tarikh-i-Alamgir Sani, 89a)

Describing Abdali’s 5th invasion in September 1759, Surjit Singh Gandhi in his Sikhs in 18th Century states:

On the approach of Ahmad Shah Abdali towards Multan, the Maratha governor with all his troops fled to Lahore….On the northern side, Sabaji vacated Peshawar without offering any resistance. He joined Tukoji at Attock. Here a short engagement took place between Sabaji and the Afghan advance-guard and the Marathas fled towards Lahore. Jahan Khan pursued them to Rohtas. They joined Bapurao. At this place, they made a show of some opposition and then fled away. At Lahore Naroshankar and Narsoji Pandit took to their heels. Narayanrao at Sirhind followed suit. The Marathas from Lahore went to Delhi via Amritsar, Batala, Jullundur and Sirhind, thus avoiding any direct road between Lahore and Sirhind. (p. 140)

He further states:

Abdali reached Taraori on 24th December 1759. It was here that the Marathas tried to arrest his march, but here they were utterly routed and leaving 400 killed they fled from the battlefield. Abdali reached near Delhi where some Rohella chiefs joined him. He continued his march against the Marathas. Dattaji Sindhia met him at Barari Ghat on the Jamuna, but was slain and his soldiers fled. (p. 141)

During the same invasion, Malhar Rao Holkar joined by Jankoji Shinde at Kot Putli quietly absconded without even facing Abdali. At last his forces were defeated at Secundrabad on 4th March, 1760. Malhar Rao, fearing for his life, also fled for Agra and an important Maratha chief Gangadhar Tatya retired to Mathura.

Prior to the battle of Panipat in 1761, Abdali wanted to negotiate peace with the Marathas and the latter wished the same but due to other circumstances the battle had to be fought that in turn shattered the Maratha power. The Sikhs on the other hand faced 7 holocausts in the 18th century and the biggest loss came in 1762 which is known as The Great Holocaust. It must be kept in mind that Abdali attacked the Sikhs with a view of completely exterminating them. Yet they were able to give a stalwart battle to Abdali a year later and took over Lahore in 1765. This means that the Sikhs despite incurring great losses, never lost any spirit and courage. Their power and strength continued to increase.

Although Marathas contributed to the weakening of the Mughal Empire, they had no intention of establishing a kingdom that would benefit all. They kept their attention focused to looting and plundering. Surjit Singh Gandhi states:

The Marathas regarded plunder as their exclusive privilege and were naturally jealous of them (Sikhs) who had the lion’s share in the loot of Sirhind. (p. 124)

A closer look at the Maratha history reveals that the Marathas did not even fight for the Hindu cause and looted Hindus and Muslims alike. This became one of the main reasons as to why many of the Hindu kings did not aid the Marathas against Abdali.

Agents of Peshwa visited the court of every Hindu prince of Rajputana, but received a cold reception and evasive replies. (Qanungo, History of the Jats, p. 72)

Describing reasons for Maratha defeat, Hari Ram Gupta states:

His (Balaji Rao) sole ambition was the acquisition of gold from north and south from Hindus and Muslims alike for which purpose even a non-Maratha army could be equally good.

Surjit Singh Gandhi further elaborates:

Balajirao had alienated the sympathies of almost all the powerful elements in northern India. He dispatched armies to the north not to advance a Maratha or a Hindu cause but to extort money from all and sundry. This was the reason that Hindu chiefs of the Gangetic Doab and the Rajputs did not like the Maratha cause. (p. 146)

The same author concludes by saying that the army of Balaji Rao was “unmoved by any consideration of national interests”.

Explaining why the Sikhs did not support the Marathas, Surjit Singh Gandhi states:

The Rajputs and the Sikhs would have fully supported them. Even the trans-Ganga Rohillas could have been won over. But all these people had been antagonized by the Marathas due to their rapacity and inconsistency. (p. 141)

Secondly, the Marathas had made their common cause with the Mughals and were fighting with the Afghans on behalf of the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. As already stated, half of the tribute collected by the Marathas was to go to the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. The Marathas were recovering the territories from Afghans in order to establish Mughal rule for which the Sikhs had very bitter memories. (p. 148)

According to N. K. Sinha in Part of the Sikh Power, the Marathas signed an agreement with the Mughal emperor in 1752 stating they would fight for him against his own rebels and Abdali in return for being paid. He states:

According to this agreement, the Marathas were to defend the Emperor against foreign enemies and domestic rebels. The Emperor was to pay them Rs. thirty lakhs for driving Abdali out and twenty lakhs for suppressing the internal rebels. (p. 17)

It becomes amply clear from the presented evidence that the Hindus did not have a united front against the Mughals and the foreign invaders. Furthermore, the Marathas had the sole ambition of accruing wealth whilst being oblivious towards the national cause of subduing the oppressive regimes. Sikhs on the other hand were never paid to do their duty. They willingly fought against Nadir Shah, Abdali and the Mughals. Unlike Marathas, Sikhs did not have an easy way. They were hunted down and official orders were released on three separate occasions to exterminate all the Sikhs.

After the battle of Panipat, Maratha power in Punjab was completely obliterated. Abdali amassed great wealth. It is reported that as many as 22,000 men, women and children including the sons and other relatives of the chiefs and officials, were made captives. Beautiful Brahmin women were sold by the Afghans to the Ruhilla and other Indian soldiers at the rate of one tuman (about ten rupees) each. The cash and jewelry were beyond calculation, and the camels and horses innumerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suraj Mal never challenged Abdali because he had no strength of his own to oppose such a formidable Afghan opponent. Jadunath Sarkar writes about helplessness of Suraj Mal during Abdali’s invasion of 1757. As soon as Abdali arrived in Delhi, Suraj Mal sent his envoy professing his submission. The author further states:

When on the 4th February the vanquished Antaji reached Mathura, Suraj Mal visited him but positively refused to unite with him in a war against the Afghans, saying, “The Iran Padishah at the head of 50,000 troops has captured the Padishah of Hind, and no one has fired a shot against him, no one has died in resisting him. What then can I do?” (Fall of the Mughal Empire, vol. 2, p. 82)

According to Sarkar, Suraj Mal abandoned the Marathas prior to the battle of Panipat and left them to suffer alone. (ibid p. 182)

Suraj Mal also accepted Abdali’s terms to remain neutral and not help the Marathas. As stated before, he paid a fine of 100,000 rupees for helping the survivors of Panipat. These facts show that the so-called brave jatt was nothing but a tributary of foreign invaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×