In the Masters Presence

[Matheen]

I'm just thinking, if he had kicked it off then, considering that we would have had leaders like Akali Phoola Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and Sham Singh Attari. Would we have won?

No doubt we would have beaten them , and they knew it - which is why they kept their distance until the Maharaja's death.

We have to factor in that the Khalsa was not modernised at that stage, like they were later.

I think that would have been an advantage - much of Punjab was under forest at that time and the British methods of fighting would have put them at a disadvantage, like it did when they tried to take Afghanistan and the Pathans beat them using traditional methods.

I think we paid a heavy price for the Maharaja's decision to keep the Nihangs on the sidelines and for adopting Western methods.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Matheen

[HSD1]

I think we paid a heavy price for the Maharaja's decision to keep the Nihangs on the sidelines and for adopting Western methods.

We paid a heavy price because we had no idea who the english were. They had spies running up and down our country when we only had the half truths told by mercenaries. If anything, it was the fact we did not adopt the west's method of war thoroughly enough. The Akali/Nihang tactics had already been tried by the scottish highland clansmen hundreds of years before against the redcoats. They were cut to ribbons. If we hadnt modernised, we would have died like the zulus. If we had known more about them, and bettered the tactics and plans they were going to use against us, we would have won. If Maharaja Ranjit Singh or someone in the Khalsa's High Command had realised the real weakness of the british lay at sea, and that is where we should have fought them, then history may have been different. Our indifference to building a navy and our reluctance to take Sindh sealed our fate. No matter what else we did, it was over as soon as the british had us surrounded.

[chatanga1]

i dont think that Mah. Ranjit Singh actualy sideloined the nihangs, or am i wrong? i thought that he didnt want them at the van guard of the army, but not out altogether.

[dalsingh101]

i dont think that Mah. Ranjit Singh actualy sideloined the nihangs, or am i wrong? i thought that he didnt want them at the van guard of the army, but not out altogether.

The feeling you get from reading the contemp. white man accounts is that Ranjit Singh was apprehensive of the Akalis/Nihungs but put up with them because of the popular support they had amongst the Sikh masses. They are frequently portrayed as loose canons in the Sikh empire. Now it is difficult to tell whether this was simply an impression that Ranjit Singh consciously portrayed to the Brits or whether it reflected his real feelings. Many accounts portray Ranjit Singh as wanting to destroy this seemingly errant force within the maharajah's domain. They often attribute the desire for the wilfull destruction of the nihungs by Ranjit Singh by placing them in so-called 'suicidal missions'. Whether this is true or a manifestation of the wishful thinking and hatred of the whites is another matter. One thing that is certain is that the Akalis did rock the diplomatic boat of the maharajah. A number of references point at Akali Phoola Singh wanting to attack the British but being restrained from doing so by Ranjit.

Whatever the truth, by the time of the wasp wars, many akalis had already achieved shaheedi in the campaigns against the Afghans. Their numbers were seriously down and losses included the charismatic Phoola Singh. What remained of them suffered severe losses in the Anglo-Sikh wars. The rest is history. Niddar and Singh's book (if accurate) helps fill in the gap about what happened to the handful of survivors.

One thing that has always baffled me is why the Sikhs never continued the campaign against the goray with the type of guerilla campaign they undertook against the Mughals, Persians and Afghans, after the first Anglo-Sikh war?

Another thing we should remember is that we lost the biggest bulk of our sipahis not through the battles but when they tried to retreat across the floating 'boat bridge' that seems to have collapsed in mid retreat. Whether this was accidental or the result of intention is unknowable. We can however guess which Sikh 'leaders' were in the white man's pocket with the subsequent treatment metted out to them after the end of the 2nd conflict.

Edited December 31, 2009 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

They often attribute the desire for the wilfull destruction of the nihungs by Ranjit Singh by placing them in so-called 'suicidal missions'. Whether this is true or a manifestation of the wishful thinking and hatred of the whites is another matter.

I'll admit that it is hard to verify what the whites say about M. Ranjit Singh's views. But when Britain gets involved in a war, who goes first? The SAS/other special forces, followed by the marines and paras if more troops are needed. Is it because the queen and parliament want them dead? No, it's because they are the best. When it came to dealing with the afghans, we would always use the akalis, the french tricolore regiment or other well trained Sikh regiment and the gurkhas first as they were up to the task. The british can say what they want, but its not unknown for them to get the wrong end of the stick.

One thing that has always baffled me is why the Sikhs never continued the campaign against the goray with the type of guerilla campaign they undertook against the Mughals, Persians and Afghans, after the first Anglo-Sikh war?

It was an incident of resistance which the british used to start the second war.

The british demilitarized the Punjab after the second war in the same way the allies did to the germans/japs after WW2. Even if sikhs wanted to fight a guerilla war, it was hard to get the right equipment. The sikh regiments in the british army were probably fed so much anglo-propaganda that they didnt know what to think.

Also, the Mughals, Persians and Afghans were all pretty violent. They wanted to wipe us from the face of the earth. The british didnt care what we were as long as we werent a threat. To many sikhs, who expected a holocaust or being forced to become christians, this probably felt quite fair and the way we would have treated the whites if we had turned up in england. You cant expect our ancestors to have understood how well Whitehall could use 'soft powers'.

Another thing we should remember is that we lost the biggest bulk of our sipahis not through the battles but when they tried to retreat across the floating 'boat bridge' that seems to have collapsed in mid retreat. Whether this was accidental or the result of intention is unknowable. We can however guess which Sikh 'leaders' were in the white man's pocket with the subsequent treatment metted out to them after the end of the 2nd conflict.

Are you on about the Battle of Sobraon? That was nothing short of a war crime. 5-8 thousand sikhs drowned or shot like fish in a barrel. If it was the other way round, the british would never stop going on about it. But because they did it, they consider it was still gentlemanly.

[jaspinder]

The Book can be bought Online to be shipped to any part of the world from The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib

[Mithar]

The Book can be bought Online to be shipped to any part of the world from The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib

It's more expensive on that site.

[Xylitol]

The Sikh rebellion could have achieved success, had not the sikhs themeselves been split up. Sikh regiments attacked the fauj under command of Mahapurkh Baba Bir Singh ji Naurangabad

[SURYADEV]

The Sikh rebellion could have achieved success, had not the sikhs themeselves been split up. Sikh regiments attacked the fauj under command of Mahapurkh Baba Bir Singh ji Naurangabad

Harkowal-wale sant state that until the Sikh-Quom ask for forgiveness for the murder of Baba Bir Singh Ji the quom will never achieve independence or even shaanti. We will always have problems and struggles.

[Mithar]

Harkowal-wale sant state that until the Sikh-Quom ask for forgiveness for the murder of Baba Bir Singh Ji the quom will never achieve independence or even shaanti. We will always have problems and struggles.

I believe that when Sikh army killed Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi and his followers they did alot of bad karma which I believe was the ultimate reason why the unbeatable Sikh army lost to the British. We have been suffering as a Ghulaam Qaum ever since.

[dalsingh101]

I believe that when Sikh army killed Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi and his followers they did alot of bad karma which I believe was the ultimate reason why the unbeatable Sikh army lost to the British. We have been suffering as a Ghulaam Qaum ever since.

Although I agree about your point about the bad karma from the murder of Bir Singh and his followers, I think we should also open our eyes to the oppression our people engage in amongst ourselves, over manmatti things like jaat paat, to explain our mundha haal and kumzoor state.

Explaining our current halaat through a single incident in the past (as serious as it was) and overlooking we have been doing everyday in our recent past and even now, isn't smart.

Edited June 18, 2010 by dalsingh101

[DTF]

Although I agree about your point about the bad karma from the murder of Bir Singh and his followers, I think we should also open our eyes to the oppression our people engage in amongst ourselves, over manmatti things like jaat paat, to explain our mundha haal and kumzoor state.

Explaining our current halaat through a single incident in the past (as serious as it was) and overlooking we have been doing everyday in our recent past and even now, isn't smart.

I think what is meant is mideeds leading to more misdeeds. Like, if a person falls from Sikhi by caving in to an old habit and taking a drink. He's probably going to fill another one, since he's already fallen. A little maas wouldn't hurt,a nd pretty soon neither will a little trim.

A Sikh fauj killing a Brahmgiani Sant-Sipahi...think of the long term karmic ramifications. Similalrly we get sakhis from Guruji's time where seemingly small mistakes on the part of sikhs have resulted in long term consequences. Like the example of cremating of muslim bodies along with Sikh shaheeds during Guru Hargobind Sahib's time.

[dalsingh101]

I think what is meant is mideeds leading to more misdeeds. Like, if a person falls from Sikhi by caving in to an old habit and taking a drink. He's probably going to fill another one, since he's already fallen. A little maas wouldn't hurt,a nd pretty soon neither will a little trim.

A Sikh fauj killing a Brahmgiani Sant-Sipahi...think of the long term karmic ramifications. Similalrly we get sakhis from Guruji's time where seemingly small mistakes on the part of sikhs have resulted in long term consequences. Like the example of cremating of muslim bodies along with Sikh shaheeds during Guru Hargobind Sahib's time.

That is a fair point.

Lately I have been wondering what the mindset of the Khalsa soldiers of the darbar was. I don't think it was religiously motivated for many myself. Given the type of role models Sikh soldiers had in the sardars, I imagine a lot of laxity was current. I found an eye opening statement that purports to represent the Khalsa soldiery's collective stance on the eve of the Anglo-Sikh wars, will post this later.

Anyway, I guess the next question to ask is when, if ever, we will overcome these karms on a quomic level?

[amritkhalsa]

The Sikh rebellion could have achieved success, had not the sikhs themeselves been split up. Sikh regiments attacked the fauj under command of Mahapurkh Baba Bir Singh ji Naurangabad

Can some one please explain the history of Mahapurkh Baba Bir Singh ji Naurangabad. ok thanks..

[chatanga1]

from what i can remember of this episode i will narrate, and the wise can read and understand.

sikhs disappointed with what was happening at Lahore Darbar after Mah. Ranjit Singh's death left to seek shelter with Baba Bir Singh. Amongst these was the Sandhawalias who had tried and failed to take control of the state. The Lahore troops had come to this place, not to fight but under the guidance of Baba Bir Singh to create a sandhi-nama, between the warring parties. The british reps were also there. Unfortunately one of the sandhanwalias opened fire on the Lahore Troops who, in return fired back rather extremely and resulted in the killing of Baba Ji and many Sikhs. The death of Baba Bir Singh had a profound effect on the Lahore Troops and they, along with the Lahore Darbar were very saddened with how things turned out given their initial objectives.

Sometimes i wonder if this act of provocation was the hand of the brits, who disliked both parties involved, and had agents present. Also the sandhanwalias were in league with the brits, in the hope of taking Lahore Darbar for themselves, but what is most mystifying is that the Sandhanwalia Sardar actually returned to Lahore with the Lahore Troops.

[chatanga1]

The Sikh rebellion could have achieved success, had not the sikhs themeselves been split up. Sikh regiments attacked the fauj under command of Mahapurkh Baba Bir Singh ji Naurangabad

I dont think Baba Ji actually had any fauj of his own, but there were certainly disaffected soldiers and higher ranksfrom Lahore Darbar in his dera. This area was under the virtual control of the brits, and they would never have allowed any private armies to build unless they planned to use them for their own purposes.

I believe that when Sikh army killed Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi and his followers they did alot of bad karma which I believe was the ultimate reason why the unbeatable Sikh army lost to the British. We have been suffering as a Ghulaam Qaum ever since.

Im not sure the whole Sikh nation would pay the price for one section of Sikhs behaviour. Certainly the Lahore Darbar did suffer, and in turn the Sikh nation, but there were certain crucial objectives that were never fulfilled years before any of this happened, that played a large part in the downfall of our Quom.

[dalsingh101]

but there were certain crucial objectives that were never fulfilled years before any of this happened, that played a large part in the downfall of our Quom.

Chatanga, can you share your thoughts on these 'crucial objectives'?

[chatanga1]

Chatanga, can you share your thoughts on these 'crucial objectives'?

with pleasure my dear brother.

the primary objective of any ruler is to rule justly, but the second is to ensure that the just rule continues after the crown has passed on, especially as in this case crown was going to a family member, and the King was solely responsible for it. Mah. Ranjit Singh did nothing to choose a worthy successor from amongst his 7 sons, and unfortunately the 1st son Sher Singh, who is described as an intoxicated oaf took the crown. He was not worthy of it but he took it any way and then disaffection grew within the Darbar and the army.

Now think about it, the Sikhs made some amazing sacrifices for this Raaj, but the nurturing of the next generation King was ignored( same as now how gurdwara committees ignore nurturing the next generation of commitee members), whereas if Mah. Ranjit Singh has tested his sons and nurtured them in state policy, warfare, and administration, he could have seen who was most competent to wear his crown.

Think of the ignominy and squalor of the descent of the Sikh raaj.

Because of the huge army campaigns in and out of Panjab, the army budget was huge for the Lahore Darbar. The army knew it, and they after Mah Ranjit Singh's death, they started to hold various pretenders to the crown to ransom, and hugely inflated their salaries, making them a very powerful, very loose cannon in the Sikh rule. After the conquests/military campaigns of Lahore Darbar were over, the King should have set about in fostering loyalty to the crown, and to the successor of the crown.

Dhian Singh in his time intercepted letters from Hari Singh Nalwa, who was surrounded by the afghans at the time, calling for reinforcements from Lahore. Mah Ranjit Singh found out about this, but allowed Dhian Singh to continue as Minister whereas he should have been executed. It is unbelievable that Dhian Singh caused the death of the best general of Lahore Darbar and the deaths of so many soldiers, as well as losing the advantage Nalwa had given them over the afghans, that he was allowed to continue in his ministerial post.

With the successor of his Throne being tested, also Mah Ranjit Singh, should have spent less time drinking and liasing with his wives, and taken steps to concrete the Sikh panth in Panjab. With the end of the raj lakhs of sikhs reverted to their former religion, and discarded sikhi. Mah. Ranjit Singh should have patronized the Sikhs as a religion, in the same way the muslims did, and continue to do so. The reversion of many lakhs of sikhs is why our panth in panjab has never amounted to anything politically since.