Jump to content

Gadari Movement Was A Sikh Movement


amar_jkp

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them to avenge the death of Gokula. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels

This does not show bravery but cowardice on the part of Jatts by disrespecting and disgracing a dead body. Need we remind eunuch the fate of Suraj Mal’s dead body?

Sayyad Muhammad Khan Baloch a leading Mughal commander cut off the head and hand from the body of the Jat, and brought and kept with himself for two days. After that these were taken to the presence of Najib-ud-Daula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While returning from India, Ahmed Shah Durrani had conferred the title of ‘King’ on Baba Ala Singh of Patiala who -had accepted all this to mark time. But the Singhs did not approve of this action of Ala Singh. In a way, it amounted to surrender to a foreign invader. The Singhs bore a grouse against Baba Ala Singh for bowing before Durrani…….. When S. Jassa Singh came to know of the whole development, he at once remonstrated with the Khalsa that what was destined to happen had happened. There was no reason for the Singhs to fritter away their energies in mutual conflicts. The Dal Sardars accepted the peace proposal of S. Jassa Singh and they made Baba Ala Singh take Pahul once again, and after charging fine from him pardoned him. (Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, p. 95, pdf file)

Discussing the role of Ala Singh, Principal Satbir Singh in his book Sada Itihaas Vol 2 states that he was a diplomat but not a traitor. He did not help Abdali at all. He relied on the help of the Sikhs and was on good terms with Abdali to keep his area protected. For this reason, the Sikhs punished him and then he was forgiven. He also gave assistance to Marathas in third battle of Panipat. Hence, he was not a traitor but a clever politician. (pp. 248-49)

It must be noted that Ala Singh was not the leader of the Sikh nation. He was a politician and managed to appease Abdali by seeking welfare of his subjects. Also, when Abdali tried to negotiate with Sikh leaders, they flatly rejected all the proposals. Dr. Ganda Singh in his book Ahmad Shah Durrani states:

“Even the Sikhs could be forgiven by the Shah if they undertook to be obedient to him.'' But they were made of a different mettle. Seasoned into unbending warriors during the last six decades of continuous struggle and sacrifices and having tasted of independence won by the prowess of their arms, they could not be persuaded to submit to a foreigner, much less to one who had slaughtered so many of 'their brethren in the Ghalu-ghara and had demolished and desecrated the holiest of their temples. Moreover, they were then practically masters of the country, which the Shah visited only temporarily. They preferred, therefore, to continue the struggle for a more complete freedom rather than submit for a meaningless honour. (p. 303)

The quote above clearly describes the high spirit, mentality and attitude of the Sikhs towards Abdali. Marathas on the other hand, traveled to Punjab to seek negotiations with Abdali. The fact is echoed by Indian historians that Bapuji Mahadev Hingne and Purshotam Hingne were negotiating peace with Abdali while Sikhs suffered a holocaust. (Sardesai, New History of the Marathas, ii, p. 448)

Dr. Ganda Singh states that Maharaja Ala Singh did not betray the Sikhs and did not help Abdali which irritated the latter so much that he ordered Zain Khan of Sirhind, his Diwan Lachhmi Narayan and Bhikhan Khan of Malerkotla (Ala Singh's worst enemies) to storm and sack the fort and the town of Barnala and its neighborhood. (Ahmad Shah Durrani, p. 280)

One Sikh having some degree of variance with the rest of the nation does not prove that the Sikhs did not unite together against a common enemy. Ala Singh was helped by not only Sardar Jassa Singh but also Baba Deep Singh. According to Panth Parkash of Rattan Singh Bhangu, Ala Singh considered the Sikh Panth as the backbone and support of his kingdom. On the other hand, the Hindus conspired against each other and aligned themselves with foreigners against their own brethren. Marathas felt no uneasiness while attacking territories of other Hindu chiefs and plundering their areas. For example, Raghunath Rao in 1754-55, collected tribute from areas of Jaipur, Kota, Bundi and other Hindu areas. The Hindus essentially helped the foreigners and made it easy for them to slowly take over India. This is a shameful and unforgivable act of the Hindus. Comparably, out of the entire Sikh nation, there stood Malwa states with not significantly large armies, but yet could change the course of history. The facts remain undisputed that the Sikhs were not only better soldiers than Marathas but also had much stronger unity and cohesiveness and were tied together by the same religious ideals. Hindus, in contrast, lacked this terribly. Sarkar writes:

In this last respect, as well as in the excellent size breed and fleetness of their horses and their universal use of fire arms, the Sikh far surpassed the Marathas as fighters. (p. 238)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sher, may I ask you what you're trying to prove? Sometimes you do have valid points but then you're also carried away in the black and white judgment.

To me (which doesn't mean I'm right), you are the same type of person as core Khalistanis are: They are at one-end of the spectrum and you are on the other. Both have flawed theories and understanding and have never gone through practically the things they are debating. Khalistanis as well as You do not understand the meaning of Khalsa and/or Religion. I wonder what this website has become: a place to debate (both Hardcore parties) without the intention of understanding each other.

It would be better if we all (including me) just think about the reason for joining this website. I would suggest to start a thread where everyone is invited to post their understanding of Religion.

Edited by das
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone against logic here?

1. We have to admit Marathas were a stronger empire than us and thats brcause of various things but everything has a reason and the fact remains. Aurangzeb fell because of three forces Rajputs Sikhs and Marathas. Marathas played the largest role and anyone who argues this is a fool an a loser who doesnt want to accept reality.

2. Even our own kings lacked morals like Patiala and even Maharaja Ranjit Singh they had hundreds of wives. Also we are well aware of sikh police officers raping women in Punjab.

3. The idea of us being united is a big fat joke. We were almost never united. Our sardars fought each other and our empire came out of this intern strife. And our sardars also imposed rakhi system and they also plundered villages....

4. When you point fingers at other three are pointed back at you. Every kom has people of low character and bad apples.

5. There have been battles between sikhs and marathas and the results have varied.

6. As far as amars nonsense post goes he hasnt answered any of shers rebuttle. Why attack the morals of marathas to make up a lie that sikhs alone destroyed mughals. This is far from the facts. Its so far from the facts that yor stupid for makig the claim. I am not even a maratha and I know this. Wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just swinging by- no offense to anyone just honest observation - same old crap everywhere in this world- each tribe or race chelas or followers wants to claim supermacy, its like freaking rat race to get on top-get trophy from eagle eyes..lol...one day illusory rats like us destroyed by kaal will pass away in our own flith while fighting..wow..what a illusory world and what a illusory people.

I will end with couplet from sri dasam guru granth by sri guru gobind singh ji which reinforces underlining absolute reality, read it with open eyes, if that does not set the record and give people perspective ..i don't know what will..thats why sri dasam granth sahib is soo important its just not raw bir ras of sipahi, it intertwins bir ras with absolute reality-underlining reality of everything so khalsa has always pure perception of reality and is always grounded, humble, only considers ultimate reality/all prevading vahiguroo powerful and no one else- not specific tribe or race.

ਜੋਗੀ ਜਤੀ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਚਾਰੀ ਬਡੇ ਬਡੇ ਛਤ੍ਰਧਾਰੀ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਛਾਇਆ ਕਈ ਕੋਸ ਲੌ ਚਲਤ ਹੈਂ ॥
जोगी जती ब्रहमचारी बडे बडे छत्रधारी छत्र ही की छाइआ कई कोस लौ चलत हैं ॥
The Yougis, celibates and students observing celibacy, many great sovereigns, who walk several miles under the shade of canopy.

ਬਡੇ ਬਡੇ ਰਾਜਨ ਕੇ ਦਾਬਿਤ ਫਿਰਤਿ ਦੇਸ ਬਡੇ ਬਡੇ ਰਾਜਨ ਕੇ ਦ੍ਰਪ ਕੋ ਦਲਤ ਹੈਂ ॥

बडे बडे राजन के दाबित फिरति देस बडे बडे राजन के द्रप को दलत हैं ॥
Who conquer the countries of many great kings and bruise their ego.

ਮਾਨ ਸੇ ਮਹੀਪ ਔ ਦਿਲੀਪ ਕੈਸੇ ਛਤ੍ਰਧਾਰੀ ਬਡੋ ਅਭਿਮਾਨ ਭੁਜ ਦੰਡ ਕੋ ਕਰਤ ਹੈਂ ॥
मान से महीप औ दिलीप कैसे छत्रधारी बडो अभिमान भुज दंड को करत हैं ॥
The Sovereign like Mandhata and the Canopied Sovereign like Dalip, who were proud of their mightly forces.

ਦਾਰਾ ਸੇ ਦਿਲੀਸਰ ਦੁ੍ਰਜੋਧਨ ਸੇ ਮਾਨਧਾਰੀ ਭੋਗ ਭੋਗ ਭੂਮਿ ਅੰਤ ਭੂਮਿ ਮੈ ਮਿਲਤ ਹੈਂ ॥੮॥੭੮॥
दारा से दिलीसर दु्रजोधन से मानधारी भोग भोग भूमि अंत भूमि मै मिलत हैं ॥८॥७८॥
The emperor like Darius and the great egoist like Duryodhana, after enjoying the earthly pleasures, finally merged in the earth.8.78.

ਤਬ ਤਬ ਦੇਹ ਧਰਤ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ ॥
तब तब देह धरत अवतारा ॥
Then the Lord manifests himself in physical form;


ਕਾਲ ਸਭਨ ਕੋ ਪੇਖ ਤਮਾਸਾ ॥
काल सभन को पेख तमासा ॥
The KAL (Destroyer Lord) scans the play of all,

ਅੰਤਹ ਕਾਲ ਕਰਤ ਹੈ ਨਾਸਾ ॥੨॥
अंतह काल करत है नासा ॥२॥
And ultimately destroys all.2.

Chaubis avtar, dasam granth

ਕਾਲ ਰੂਪ ਭਗਵਾਨ ਭਨੈਬੋ ॥
काल रूप भगवान भनैबो ॥
The Lord, Who is known as KAL;

ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਲੀਨ ਜਗਤਿ ਸਭ ਹ੍ਵੈਬੋ ॥੩੪॥
ता महि लीन जगति सभ ह्वैबो ॥३४॥
All the world will merge in Him.34.

ਰਸਾਵਲ ਛੰਦ ॥

रसावल छंद ॥
RASAAVAL STANZA

ਜਿਤੇ ਰਾਮ ਹੂਏ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤਿ ਮੂਏ ॥
जिते राम हूए ॥ सभै अंति मूए ॥
All the Ramas who incarnated, ultimately passed away.

ਜਿਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈਂ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤਿ ਜੈ ਹੈਂ ॥੭੦॥
जिते क्रिसन ह्वै हैं ॥ सभै अंति जै हैं ॥७०॥
All the Krishnas, who had incarnated, have all passed away.70.

ਜਿਤੇ ਦੇਵ ਹੋਸੀ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤ ਜਾਸੀ ॥
जिते देव होसी ॥ सभै अंत जासी ॥
All the gods who will come into being in future, they will all ultimately expire.

ਜਿਤੇ ਬੋਧ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈਂ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤਿ ਛੈਹੈਂ ॥੭੧॥
जिते बोध ह्वै हैं ॥ सभै अंति छैहैं ॥७१॥
Alll the Buddhas, who came into being, expired ultimately.71.

ਜਿਤੇ ਦੇਵ ਰਾਯੰ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤ ਜਾਯੰ ॥
जिते देव रायं ॥ सभै अंत जायं ॥
All the god-kings, who came into being, ultimately passed away.

ਜਿਤੇ ਦਈਤ ਏਸੰ ॥ ਤਿਤਿਓ ਕਾਲ ਲੇਸੰ ॥੭੨॥
जिते दईत एसं ॥ तितिओ काल लेसं ॥७२॥
All the demon-kings, who came into being, they were all destroyed by KAL.72.

ਨਰਸਿੰਘਾਵਤਾਰੰ ॥ ਵਹੈ ਕਾਲ ਮਾਰੰ ॥

नरसिंघावतारं ॥ वहै काल मारं ॥
The incarnation Narsingh was also killed by KAL.

ਬਡੋ ਡੰਡ ਧਾਰੀ ॥ ਹਣਿਓ ਕਾਲ ਭਾਰੀ ॥੭੩॥
बडो डंड धारी ॥ हणिओ काल भारी ॥७३॥
The incarnation with grinder teeth (i.e. Boar) was killed by mighty KAL.73.

ਦਿਜੰ ਬਾਵਨੇਯੰ ॥ ਹਣਿਓ ਕਾਲ ਤੇਯੰ ॥
दिजं बावनेयं ॥ हणिओ काल तेयं ॥
Vaman, the Brahmin incarnation, was killed by KAL.

ਮਹਾ ਮੱਛ ਮੁੰਡੰ ॥ ਫਧਿਓ ਕਾਲ ਝੁੰਡੰ ॥੭੪॥
महा म्छ मुंडं ॥ फधिओ काल झुंडं ॥७४॥
The Fish incarnation of spatious mouth, was entrapped by KAL.74.

ਜਿਤੇ ਹੋਇ ਬੀਤੇ ॥ ਤਿਤੇ ਕਾਲ ਜੀਤੇ ॥
जिते होइ बीते ॥ तिते काल जीते ॥
All those who had come into being, they were all conquered by KAL.

ਜਿਤੇ ਸਰਨਿ ਜੈਹੈਂ ॥ਤਿਤਿਓ ਰਾਖ ਲੈਹੈਂ ॥੭੫॥
जिते सरनि जैहैं ॥तितिओ राख लैहैं ॥७५॥
Those who will go under His Refuge, they will all be saved by him.75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone against logic here?

1. We have to admit Marathas were a stronger empire than us and thats brcause of various things but everything has a reason and the fact remains. Aurangzeb fell because of three forces Rajputs Sikhs and Marathas. Marathas played the largest role and anyone who argues this is a fool an a loser who doesnt want to accept reality.

2. Even our own kings lacked morals like Patiala and even Maharaja Ranjit Singh they had hundreds of wives. Also we are well aware of sikh police officers raping women in Punjab.

3. The idea of us being united is a big fat joke. We were almost never united. Our sardars fought each other and our empire came out of this intern strife. And our sardars also imposed rakhi system and they also plundered villages....

4. When you point fingers at other three are pointed back at you. Every kom has people of low character and bad apples.

5. There have been battles between sikhs and marathas and the results have varied.

6. As far as amars nonsense post goes he hasnt answered any of shers rebuttle. Why attack the morals of marathas to make up a lie that sikhs alone destroyed mughals. This is far from the facts. Its so far from the facts that yor stupid for makig the claim. I am not even a maratha and I know this. Wake up.

Nice little rant and one that shows your true agenda. You have such a low opinion of the Sikhs of the 18th century and yet use the user name JungChamkaur. I suspect you are a leftist fool trying to ingratiate yourself with some positive posts in the beginning and then you show your true colours.

FYI, the Sikhs of the 18th century had the highest moral character. Even their enemies such as Qazi Noor Mohammed have confirmed this. What has the Punjab police's atrocities have to do with this thread. A comparison was made between the Marathas who Sher thinks were Hindu Nationalists fighting the Mughals for the common man and the Sikh Misls. It has been pointed out that the Marathas were hated by the people of North India as they committed atrocities the same as a Mughals.

The Marathas had at their disposal hundreds of thousands of troops, they had an base from which they had a majority of the population and operated for the most part in areas that were overwhelmingly Hindu. When they did invade an area that was not majority Hindu ie Punjab they were wiped out like sheep. Comparing the Sikhs with the Marathas makes no sense. The Sikhs probably had at a maximum 50,000 men, they were hindered by the fact that they had to keep the womenfolk and children with them. Sikhs also operated in an area that was majority Muslim. The only comparison one can make between the Sikhs and Marathas is what they achieved given the resources they had. The Sikhs certainly achieved more than the Marathas given what resources they had..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was also a blind rat once. However, then one day I came across numerous stories about our Sardars fighting each other. The misls fought each other so much that it shattered the narrative I was ingrained with. I personally do not care about the morals of the Marathas. The idea that the Marathas did worse in Punjab because it was a Muslim majority place is pretty stupid. From what I have read, the Marathas lost because of different reasons. The religion of the local populace did not seem to be a factor. Nevertheless, atrocities are atrocities. I am not denying the supposed facts. All I am saying is that the Marathas defeated the Mughals. Our ancestors in Punjab did contribute to this downfall and so did the Rajput rebellion but the credit goes to the Marathas. If the Gadhar Party is a Sikh party and movement because the majority of the party were Sikhs, then the downfall of the Mughals was caused by the Marathas because they did most damage to the Mughals. Whenever we try to boost our history by downplaying the role of others, reason and logic overwhelm our exaggerations and depict us as ignorant and arrogant fools. You have to be brave when reading history. You have to realize that the narratives told to us are prone to be critiqued. Our glory lies in the fact that we fought regardless of our menial numbers and lack of material resources. That is our glory. We fought to the death and we never gave up. We fought honourably and bravely. But to say that only Sikhs defeated the Mughals and should be accredited with the downfall of the empire is absurd. If you are brave then you will look at our history objectively and compare battles. Just because we inflicted heavier losses doesn't mean we defeated the whole empire. The Mughal empire put almost all of its efforts in defeating the Marathas.

Also, I am aware that Punjab Police have nothing to do with this forum. But neither did the moral character of Maratha forces. I am not the one saying "Sikhs" this and "Sikhs" that. I stopped thinking that way a long time ago. You should do and you should have when you realized that our Sardars were killing each other. When you look at the actions of our Misls then you will realize that our Sardars used religion to rally troops and made those troops fight and die for the personal interests of the Misl Sardar families. Not all were like that but our empire came out of this phenomenon. I dont think we can compare ourselves with Marathas because of the simple fact that they used their resources to fight Afghans AND Mughals and inflicted heavy losses on BOTH. I dont see why you have to worry about the Marathas in the first place. We need to stop comparing ourselves to other communities. It takes two minutes to find bad apples in our kom... any mature person knows that there are bad apples in all koms and in this day and age 99% are bad apples. Your talking about kids and women and you seem to forget that the Marathas had thousands of pilgrims with them when they fought Durrani and that the only reason he never came back was because of his war with the Marathas. The whole world knows this and you seem to think it somehow negates our history so you and everyone else here is afraid to talk about it or accept it. Nothing happens to me, but you all look really stupid. I dont care about Maratha morals. I really dont. I dont even take a SOHN on our koms morals. Our kom? Whos our kom? You think our kom has morals? I am tired of people thinking and talking as if their kom is pure and perfect. What a joke. Our women are becoming prostitutes, our men are becoming impotent and we have special cancer trains in Punjab, the list goes on. One Sikh like Maharaja Ranjit Singh was of loose character while Mahan Shaheed Baba Deep SinghJi was of the highest character, their both Sikh. Likewise, I am sure there were bad Marathas and good MArathas. Also, why do you run from the fact that Sikh Sardars often imposed the Rakhi system on villages and plundered villages? Welcome to FEUDALISM! Welcome to REALITY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Maratha - Sikh comparison is pointless I agree, It appears to have started because the Punjabi Hindus wanted to downplay the role of the Sikhs in destroying the Mughal rules in Punjab. Even now Sher does not tire of propagating lies that the Marathas 'saved' the Sikhs of Punjab.

The Marathas were a minor interlude in the Mughal-Afghan-Sikh struggle for Punjab.

Your talking about kids and women and you seem to forget that the Marathas had thousands of pilgrims with them when they fought Durrani and that the only reason he never came back was because of his war with the Marathas.

Abdali invaded a number of times after Panipat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...