HSD1

And riding around on a horse waving a sword is 'hand to hand'? Who cares if it's extant? Is this your plan on taking on skinheads/BNP? Get a sword, jump on a horse and charge after them? Woo hoo, we're all saved. You were making a point about sikhs not being stuck in their ways... with an example from a century and a half ago. You dont mention that many sikh cavalry men were probably unhappy using the same sword their grandfathers used, and wanted something more modern. It's common sense. The reason that the british didnt maintain their swords is due to their incompetence and the fact they were expecting their enemies to wear light clothing and never expected them to have armour. As for the wooden scabbards, it is clear that it was easier for the support arms of the Khalsa to produce them out of wood than metal. An european observer of the khalsa once said that all the energy of a sikh army was used in it's first charge. If that could be resisted, the sikh troops wouldnt be able to fight off a counter attack or mount another serious attack. Unfortunately he was right. The poor artillery is an account of the battle of Gujrat, the last battle of the second war. At the beginning of the first war, our artillery were the best in the world. Some of the pieces you see in regimental museums in this country are just majestic. The british scoff that no 2 sikh artillery guns were ever identical but that didnt mean a thing on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the men who manned and fired these guns had a habit of dying with their guns. European artillery men would abandon their pieces in the face of a cavalry/infantry assault. They would run to the safety of their own infantry and wait for their side to break the enemy assault, before going back to their weapons. If they had time they would hitch up their guns and relocate behind their own forces. Our lot didnt realise they were more valuable alive than lying dead under their cannons. You can read about the high losses the sikh artillery took, it was only a matter of time until the british killed so many that it would be hard to replace them. Without proper artillery schools capable of producing crews quick enough, we had to draft anyone to fire them. By the second war, we had no heavy artillery because of the peace treaty signed at the end of the other war. Coupled with a load of raw recruits, it was no wonder the artillery lost its edge. At Chillianwallah we forced the british to attack early, at which point it didnt matter who had the bigger artillery as the armies were so close. At Gujrat they took no chances. The redcoats lured our artillery into firing early, which kicked off an artillery duel between the two sides. The british artillery was heavier so it hit us from further away and wore the Khalsa down. Without the threat of artillery the redcoats charged in and kicked our arses pretty bad. Gujrat was more urban than Chillianwalla which is more brushwood. Gos knows what our cavalry were up to at Gujrat, but they didnt do anything effective. Yes we had our own works to produce weapons. If we had beaten the british, they could have rivalled Krupps. After Ranjit Singh died, it all became a bit random with regards to research and supply of weaponry. We managed to kill or scare off most of the white mercenaries, so we lost access to french/american weaponry, which is where a lot of our gun designs took inspiration from. After the Maharajah's death, we had to rely on EIC deserters to see what weapons were being used by our enemies. My point about WW2 or the Falklands wasnt just about supply, it was about doing the bleeding obvious. If you are a tank commander, and you see an enemy tank, chances are you will shoot at it. No one will remember you in a 150 years time for just doing your duty. If you knocked out a couple of hundred tanks like Michael Wittmann, you might be remembered by your generation, but you wouldnt expect to be still used for propaganda by your own side 150 years later. Unless of course, your side had run out of heroes. Which is what it feels like when people start going on about what happened in the Anglo-Sikh wars, like the people who fought back then were their best mates. 'A true yudh vidyaarthi'? Oh please. Not if you get beaten by some posh twat with a horse whip you arent. Armies are massive. Infantry guns are guns nonetheless. Infantry wise we matched the english. Artillery wise we surpassed them. But our tactics were still pretty basic. These wars were our first ones involving a modernised Khalsa against a modernised enemy. The europeans had been practicing on one another since the middle ages. Wars arent just about guns or tactics. Politics, the home front, intelligence, spying, etc all have a place. We failed to maintain our security by allowing traitors to lead the army. It shouldnt have happened. We cant just throw our hands up and say 'you cheated!'. If you cant play rough with the big kids, you might as well stay at home. Some people nowadays think that a bit of SV/gatka will change our nation into something that the rest of the world should be scared of. What do you think? They only do that because we were winning back then. If the entire world went back to guns, bayonets and other 19th century stuff, we would still get our arses handed to us. All this talk of things returning to 2 centuries ago is just some people's way of saving face.

Really? He didnt do a good job. Maybe he should have spent more time playing politics than all the other stuff he got up to.

I'll apologise in advance for what is going to be a cynical balance is this discussion. It's all great and good glorifying the fact our ancestors werent too stupid or too proud to see the advantages in using foreign weapons. It is, however, a very poor show on the sikh empire. It is an unsaid fact that it was our artillery who were the only arm of the Khalsa military who could develop and evolve their equipment without using foreigners. Our infantry used weapons made in Lahore which were native designs on indian/european firearms. This was probably for the best as we needed infantry that could go toe to toe with the whites and grind them down, volley after volley after volley. Unfortunately, in most of the battles in the Khalsa-Britannia Wars, we fired a few shots and then charged a hundred-man-deep wall of bayonets with nothing but swords and shields. It didnt work for the Scots hundreds of years before hand, and that tactic sure as hell wasnt just going to work because we were sikhs. The exception to this was at Chillianwallah, were sikhs went toe to toe and gave the british a non stop barrage of lead, which stopped them dead in their tracks. Chillianwallah is one of the most underrated sikh victories. For me it shows what sikhs can do with good tactics, good spirit and fighting in unison. I digress. Our cavalry were more unfortunate. Maharaja ranjit singh had seen how good infantry could be, but he never understood that when it comes to cavalry, quality matters as much as quantity. He allowed the Khalsa to maintain large amounts of feudal reserves, and gave little resources to the formation of full sikh squadrons/regiments of dragoons, lancers, cuirassiers etc. A few were made but they were of no real worth tactically. Some of you will ask, why does that matter? Well you only have to look at how our cavalry was routed at Ferozesah or what the british lancers did at Aliwal to see that an army needs to be the best it can be in every section. Having one good part to make up for a shit part leads to weakness, and weakness leads to exploitation. No germans praise themselves on german troops having to scavenge russian equipment on the eastern front in WW2 and no british veteran praises their government for the fact that in the falklands the british looted their dead enemies as they had better night vision tech, all terrain gear etc. Why we praise our lot for having to take what should have been standard issue is just plain bizarre. I could go on but this is time consuming, so i will finish on this point. This happened well over 150 years ago. These men who fought then couldnt be more different to you or i. They grew up in a sovereign punjab, with a sikh royal family, sikh institutions, sikh regimental HQs to train them, a seperate culture, a religion with less outside influence etc etc. You can see what I'm getting at. No one is denying that sikhs are just as clever as anyone else. We could have won any war against anyone. The Khalsa could have taken Sindh, built a navy, created an empire, rattled europe and so on and so forth. No one said that couldnt have happened. But what people do say is that after defeat after defeat, we never stop to question why we were beaten, we just march on. Our ranks are a little thinner, our new recruits more disheartened and our intellectuals more disillusioned. We throw ourselves into new wars and conflicts only to be beaten as we have no idea what we are doing. One day we will get involved in a fight so bad the Khalsa wont be able to get up and recognise it's own reflection in the mirror. Hell, it may not even be able to get up at all again. That day may have already passed. In the war of 84-93, how many sikh tank divisions were there? Helicopter squadrons? Motorised infantry brigades? None. Why not? Because they had no idea what they were doing. No one saw that pakistan gave us enough guns to kill indians randomly, but never would give us enough guns to win independence. If you were a paki, would you want a state full of 20 million armed sikhs next to you? Of course not. But we cosied up with them thinking they had our best interests at heart. Our only consolation is that the whore Bhutto got her comeuppance for what she did. But what does this have to do with anything? Nothing if you cant already see it. I didnt want to offend anyone with this post, but if you are, so be it. Patting ourselves on the back for what our ancestors did in a world we can only dream of is not really Chardikala is it?

Bloody hell, sounds like a lot of hard work - it must have been a woman who came up with that list, lol.

I never said you said he was 'a Hitler'. I was just making the point that you want us to feel bad like the germans are made to feel bad about the holocaust. No one here advocates the killing of civilians. Apart from you sometimes when you talked about Bluestar the last time you started spouting on this forum. Shame you cant refute my point about Akaal Das either. Now you stop your lying.

It should go without saying that women can be whores. And men too can be whores. Sexual promiscuity and adultery etc are not exclusive to any faith, race, nation etc - it is present everywhere. The reverse is also true, as there are good, honest and faithful people from all backgrounds. Why this pointless fact has led to a massive debate over nothing is stupid. As for harjas, she hasnt really refuted Akaal Das's points, but has tried to stir up an argument and then make us feel bad for whatever we are now meant to feel bad about. What was it now? Oh yes, Sant Bhindranwale Ji is our version of Hitler according to her, and we should all treat a few hindus pulled off a bus and being shot by god knows who as some kind of Holocaust. Oh i feel so bad being a sikh! Surely to make up for it i must be a true sanatan khalsa and rush headlong into the defence of the hindu motherland by killing a regiment of pakis - because that's what our Guru's made Sikhi for isnt it?

Using the same logic we should not use toilet paper as Gurbani is also written on paper, so all paper should be treated with great respect. Which is not what our Gurus wanted. How can he be wrong for quoting hindu scriptures? It seems you're just offended that someone has spoiled your pretty little image of a religion steeped in millenias of dirt and superstition. So why is their Gurbani if the hindu scriptures were so perfect? And if the hindu scriptures are not perfect, why do they exist? Surely the best place for them would be a giant bonfire were they could do no more harm to the races of india. Erase what? It wasnt there in the first place. You've been proved wrong last time, and you'll be proved wrong again. Our Gurus gave their lives for ideals and beliefs which were not about Sanatan Dharma as they were about National Socialism or any other mediocre ideology you will start going nutty over next. Wow, here we go again with the idiotic and simple interpretations of Gurbani, which i find far more offensive than anything Akaal Das has said. If he was truly disrespecting Gurbani, no one on this site would stand for it. Unlike most hindu/sanatan sites where sikh-bashing is the norm. Seeing as you asked, I think all that hindustan-mumbo-jumbo is really bad. Like the country was made by the anglos for the anglos. They'll be back one day, and you will bend over backwards for them. Anyways, I'm off to go have some noodles and stir-fried chinese shit food at the pakistani embassy. 晚安

We could stick RDX in the Khalsa King so if it is ever toppled it will take out the rest of the chess set, thereby destroying any historical record of a defeat. Though this would make moving the set around a little dangerous, it could work...(i'm not being serious). Seriously though, I dont think sikh -v- sikh would work as people's sentimentalities are so easy to hurt. On a fairly unrelated and off topic point, has anyone here got the PC game called Empire Total War? Supposedly there is a sikh/punjabi faction in that game from 1700 onwards, but I havent actually heard this from a sikh who had the game so I wasnt sure.

I've probably mentioned this before but sometimes it feels as if Tindy is advertising himself for marriage with this programme.

It doesnt. But then again he hasnt said anything really bad has he? Its just his opinion. Just like your garbage is your opinion. Its just a case of you getting upset that people see another face of hinduism. Stop having panic attacks. Why are hindustanis so on edge about the image of their country and religion in other people's eyes?

I would pay good money for a Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Khalsa -v- East India Company set. Or even a Khalsa -v- Mujaheddin (1799-1840)one.

Just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. If they think that they will get some great victory out of starting a race war, they've got another thing coming. I'm not making threats, just pointing out that when push comes to shove, we shouldnt be afraid to hit hard.

Oh man. I always thought the '14 thousand year old' Sikh Star Empire (SSE) would use battlestars or star destroyer type cruisers to dish out a pasting to the interstellar dushts, rather than moon-lander-with-missiles pods.

No. Which episode was that?

So what's he up to now then? Nice shorts btw.

This thread was practically over with Kaljug's post. Maybe you should read an entire thread before posting. You in turn didnt have to respond to my comment, nor i to your response etc etc. Stop wasting time, we could both find more meaningful things to do than hurl comments about.

If whitey and musi come to a truce, guess who ends up at the bottom of the pile? Yep, as usual it will be the sikhs.

Fighting for the sake of fighting wont get us anywhere. A cohesive plan is needed, and tactics need to be formulated. I'm not saying that we should all give up and piss off, but I am saying that we cant chase after other sikhs trying to win them over when they are wrapped up in their own worlds. We need to face reality and be more hard hitting, it's the only way we can shock some sense into these people.

I'll be honest to the point of bluntness and say that those two examples will have no hope of producing what you or I would call sikhs. Some sikh girls are raised hearing their mothers and aunts whinge about the average hard drinking, women beating, ugly, smelly sikh man that they end up marrying someone else as long as they are not sikh. They have no intention of being sikhs as they associate it with the lives of their 'unhappy' female family members. They might turn up to the gurudwara for someone's wedding or if her hubby's family feels like having a dose of ethnic culture. Other wise they couldnt care. As for the red faced pindus, some sikh boys grow up with an unhealthy attraction to pale skin or 'white meat'. East european girls are pretty fair, some with snow white skin, which is the ultimate prize for some of these guys. Its subconscious lust, not the kind of family unit you could build a nation on. Go back to basics, and try to convert people in the punjab and north west india to sikhism? Mixed race people will have to chose between being part of a diaspora with no country, national spirit or respect, with the other option of being 'white' and fitting in with western culture. Its not hard to see where the half castes will end up. They will just be modern day mulattoes or like those anglo indians the british used back in the raj.

Girly sissy fight? Ouch! Yes famine is bad. Do punjabi farmers produce more than they can sell like the farmers in europe do? If we could set up an agricultural body in the west to use gurudwara money to give farmers a guaranteed price for their goods, the body could take the surplus and distribute it to famine-stricken country. Of course we have to be careful not to undercut their domestic producers, but i'm sure we could work that out on a case by case basis. Or am i just being over optimistic about the sikh pan-world nation?

WTF is identity and heritage? Morris dancing and calling one self a sikh? Identity and heritage are lost all the time. We lost an awful lot of heritage when the british looted the punjab after the anglo sikh wars. It was also the beginning of the end of our seperate identity. Where does shagging and inter marriage come into all of that? Wasnt it the british who came up with the idea of mulattos and anglo-indians to create a sub-class to control the wogs? Now the tables are turned with black and brown men taking their pick of their apple bottomed women, and they dont like it. I cant believe how much you sound like your white mates. People like you and them are enough to make me interested in white women, maybe enough to marry one and have a mountain of kids. Does that scare you? Or are you just annoyed you cant get a woman, which would explain the anger you had on sikh sangat towards them. BTW how's that Spy-On-Your-Daughter private detective agency going on?

You would wouldnt you. First the brainfarting, then the imitation. Such a great display of intelligence. Magnificent.

These whites will get whats coming to them. The pakis tried it in 1947 and we slaughtered more of them than they could get of us. If they want to kick me out, they can try, I aint going anywhere. That's not because I love britain, its just that wherever i go i know the island monkeys will follow me to try it on again.

The 'split' between sikhs and muslims was always going to happen. 'Sikh kanjar culture'? Hell no. Some of them do twist it and say the immorality of some sikhs is why they treat us all like shit, but they were always good at coming up with excuses for being intolerant. The reason for the split is the constant india -v- pakistan conflicts (and guess which country we belong to!). Is that clearer now? As for all this multiculturalism, all i can say is whatever. Dogs like fordcapri are full of shit. The rest of us including me arent much better. I cant think of a magical solution which will save all the sikhs from the coming storm. But I will ask you, are we as a community in the UK worth saving? As for 1857, the sikhs wanted revenge on the sepoys who wanted to be part of the neo-Mughal empire and had attacked the sikh state a few years before. The english lost the indian mutiny. Their women were being raped and their children mutilated. Their 'soldiers' were fleeing south and would have jumped on any royal navy ships if the mutiny had spread south. It was us sikhs who turned the tide in that conflict. What choice did our ancestors have? A gora-run hindustan or a musi/hindu neo-mughal empire? Not much of a choice was it? I'd also like to point out an vaguely amusing yet disheartening parallel of today and our past. In the 1920s and 1930s many sikhs in india feared the muslim population explosion which was swamping the punjab. Some hindus said that in a hundred years there would be more muslims on the subcontinent than non-muslims. The sikhs were so scarred that they threw their weight behind the hindus. We lost west punjab. We went through partition. Then delhi eroded our freedoms, before the hindus got us in the 80s. Now we in the UK are in a similar position and we are walking into the same trap. Do muslims affect multiculturalism? Of course they do, especially with larger numbers. But so do whites. I'll be honest whites and muslims are pretty much the same in my opinion. If it wasnt for the different colours and habits, it would be really hard to differentiate them. Do you honestly think we will live in peace after the muslims have been kicked out? Ask fordcapri. His response will be along the lines that his family owns a lot of land in india so it doesnt really matter to him as he can just piss off there. Which is a complete arseface way of thinking, wouldnt you agree? So what's it to be? Grow up, stop acting like monkeys on high horses and face the reality? Or carry on burying your head in the sand and wiggling your ass at the world? Because at the moment an awful lot of people are talking out of their rear ends.

Because they are dumb. Or they were the ones who gave them HIV in the first place.