Only True Masters Have Adoption Ability

[shaheediyan]

Taken from Veer Kamalroop Singhs blog.

When it comes to fighting, Sikhs were never some old fashioned hardened traditionalists who would not adopt and evolve with the ever changing field of battle (unlike some like to make out).

Below is an excellent example of how Singhs adopted the dragoon blades to great affect, using them effectively against the inventors of the weapon.

Same way, during the Mughal/Afghan battles, Singhs got hold of shastar where ever they could and evolved their vidya to use these 'faranghi' shastar to normally more devastating effect than the original battle seasoned owners. This is why when one sees the many collections of shastar in Gurughars across India, most include Irani, Deccani, Afgani and even European pieces.

A true yudh vidyaarthi should be able to pick up absolutely anything and after handling for literally moments, make it an extension of his own hands

Cavalry Swords.—In the Sikh war, arms , heads, hands, and legs of British soldiers were lopped off by the enemv on all sides, while swordsmen laboured often in vain to even draw blood, let the Sikhs, it was found, used chiefly our own cast-off dragoon blades, fitted into new handles, sharpened until they had a razor edge, and worn in wooden scabbards, from which they were never drawn except in action. In such scabbards they were not blunted and they were noiseless; they made none of that incessant clanging which almost drowns the trumpet or bugle, and quite word of command, in the ranks of our own cavalry regiments; and which, unless the men wrap hay about the steel, renders any attempt at surprise by cavalry perfectly absurd. The wooden scabbard, it was found upon inquiry, are even less brittle than steel ones. A squadron of the Third Dragoons charged a baud of Sikh horsemen under Major Unett. The Sikhs let the squadron enter. A dragoon of the front rank thrust with his sword point at the nearest Sikh. The weapon broke into the skin, but did not penetrate so far as to do any serious mischief. The Sikh, in return , struck the dragoon across the mouth, and took his head off. A Sikh at Chillianwallah galloped up to the horse artillery, cut down the two first men, and attacked the third. He, seeing that his comrades had been unable to save their lives by the use of their blunt swords , left his sword in the scabbard, and fought off the assailant with his riding-whip—flogging away the Sikh's horse, to keep the fatal arm at a safe distance. So he saved himself. There can be no doubt that heavy riding-whips would be more formidable weapons in all warfare than the cavalry swords now in use.—Dickens's " Household Words."

Edited December 28, 2009 by shaheediyan

[amardeep]

Thanks for sharing

Does anyone know when his PhD will be published for others to read?

[shaheediyan]

His e-mail is on his blog. Best to contact him directly.

[dalsingh101]

Shouldn't it say 'adaptation' instead of 'adoption' in the title?

You know when I went through a minor Dickens phase a few years ago I often wondered if he had written anything in relation to the Anglo-Sikh wars.

Thanks for the above.

The only bit of consolation I get at the loss of the Anglo-Sikh wars is knowing that our forefathers painted the Panjab dhurthee red with much feringhee blood. lol

Sham Singh Attari is defo one of the big heroes of that war. But I guess so are all the everday Singh soormay who were shaheed in the conflict.

One day, we will get our kingdom back.

Edited December 28, 2009 by dalsingh101

[shaheediyan]

Lol, both words work equally well, although in this case, adopt 'spoke' to me.

Adopt: "To take up and make one's own"

[Matheen]

A good article, and it shows why we shouldn't get upset when Singhs learn to use modern weapons.

[shaheediyan]

No one gets upset. In fact, most Nihangs today are armed with more modern fare rather than puratan shastars.

But the hand to hand skills are timeless, every modern army spends a fortune on recruiting the true 'Masters of Death' from around the world to teach their crack units the art of hand to hand combat (hand held weapons). The Americans used to be big on this, but as of late the North African and Arab countries are making good use of locating and paying a handsome sums to modern warriors, who don't belong to any schools or establishments, but rather have a fearsome local reputations for possessing 'that which works'...

[Maha Singh]

Even tulwars all have their own nuances, not every tulwar is balanced, curved, and shaped in the same way, their banns is always in a different place,some handles tip forward etc. A good swordsman will notice these straight away and adapt his yudh vidiya accordingly. For example using a bayonetted gun, you would do the same, most likely a blend of barsha techniques for pinning and thrusting and khanda techniques for close combat. Your experience will tell you how the weapon would be used best, but underlying your technique is the actual skill, principles, strategys and penthras you have learnt which allow you to adapt it.

Nihangs are never shy from taking other peoples weapons and learning them, in the case of the Singhs they became masters of the Muskets which were brought to India by the Muslims, weapons have all been adaped over time, the Turkish Yataghan is called a Souson Patta or a Kaati, the Indians would get a blade and put a hindustani handle on it, same case with the Kukris, Khyber knifes etc. The sword "Firangi" is a european blade fitted onto a indian khanda hilt, a similar indian weapon is the Kathi which has a normal tulwar hilt on it with a flexible straight edged blade .

If we look at it, non of the traditional weapons are actually "sikh weapons" they have all been adapted from somewhere.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Maha Singh

[dalsingh101]

It's a classic guerilla strategy to take the enemies weapons and use them. If people get the opportunity. read Che Guevera's book on the topic.

A good article, and it shows why we shouldn't get upset when Singhs learn to use modern weapons.

We should actually get upset if Singhs DON'T learn to use modern weapons.

[shaheediyan]

"If we look at it, non of the traditional weapons are actually "sikh weapons" they have all been adapted from somewhere."

Taksali Kirpans....

[Maha Singh]

"If we look at it, non of the traditional weapons are actually "sikh weapons" they have all been adapted from somewhere."

Taksali Kirpans....

I said Weapons

[dalsingh101]

How are Taksali kirpans majorly different to other tulwars?

[Maha Singh]

True tulwars and daggers have an edge, Taksali Kirpans (and every other Sri Sahib designed for carrying by Sikhs) dont. A Shastar is "that which cuts", if it doesnt have an edge how can it be called a Shastar?

With more tendancy to associate the Kirpan with non-violence, peace and as an article of faith the Kirpans have been mass produced to be symbolic rather then practical. People have even gone to the extent to call the Kirpan as the "hand of mercy", whereas Kirpan really means "merciless", look it up in Mahan Kosh.

[dalsingh101]

I was lucky to come across an antique Panjabi tulwar/kirpan in a market fair once and brought it. Even though it is ancient, the thing is still lethal especially compared to the showy ones you get at many gurdwaray.

Edited December 29, 2009 by dalsingh101

[shaheediyan]

"I said Weapons "

I know, I was being humorous.

[Guest zulu]

LOL 'I said Weapons '

[Laadli Fauj]

I've got some pretty sharp taksali kirpans...

[shaheediyan]

There is a lot more to a 'real' shastar, than how sharp one can get it...

Taksali kirpans are by no means - effective weapons. In fact, I have yet to come across any modern kirpan/tulwar that is of real shastar quality.

For Indian weapons, ones best bet is to save and invest in 2 or 3 quality shastar i.e. be prepared to pay upwards of £300, to get a genuine hand made wootz/damascus blade which is light in weight, not rusted and perfectly balanced. One can always change the handle for a newer quality if need be.

One can still find real beautiful pieces at Nanded if they know where to look...

Also, auction houses and antique dealers often come across excellent pieces, be them at slightly inflated prices. Think of the long term, these pieces (along with the vidya to use them) should be passed down to your children and hopefully their children thereafter..

[Laadli Fauj]

haha i figured it had more to do than just the sharpness, but everyone was talking about the lack of an edge, so i thought I'd throw that out. my personal sri sahib, the one i wear everywhere is a puratan khanjar

blade is definitely puratan, wootz, ivory and bull horn pieces on handle might be newer, mian is definitely new. pretty piece still feels a bit hefty though, not as light as I've been told, and you've mentioned, puratan shastar are meant to be

Edited December 29, 2009 by Laadli Fauj

[Maha Singh]

haha i figured it had more to do than just the sharpness, but everyone was talking about the lack of an edge, so i thought I'd throw that out. my personal sri sahib, the one i wear everywhere is a puratan khanjar

blade is definitely puratan, wootz, ivory and bull horn pieces on handle might be newer, mian is definitely new. pretty piece still feels a bit hefty though, not as light as I've been told, and you've mentioned, puratan shastar are meant to be

You would expect a Khanjar to be heavy as it is designed for armour peircing through close combat grappling and body mangling, they arent designed for hack and slash or gatka twirling. The weight makes sense when you know the techniques to drive them into someone.

[Laadli Fauj]

sounds good then

[HSD1]

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?

Edited December 29, 2009 by HSD

[shaheediyan]

HSD, you missed the point.

We are talking about the use of extant vidya - hand to hand, which follows the same principles as the past.

[dalsingh101]

haha i figured it had more to do than just the sharpness, but everyone was talking about the lack of an edge, so i thought I'd throw that out. my personal sri sahib, the one i wear everywhere is a puratan khanjar http://www.flickr.com/photos/damanjitsinghpro/3851700080/

blade is definitely puratan, wootz, ivory and bull horn pieces on handle might be newer, mian is definitely new. pretty piece still feels a bit hefty though, not as light as I've been told, and you've mentioned, puratan shastar are meant to be

Nice! How much did it cost?

[dalsingh101]

HSD

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.

I'm not sure about this, although I'm sure it did occur in a few instances, mostly due to Panjabi 'temprement issues'.

I read an account by some Norfolk infantary twat (I think) in the Anglo-Sikh wars who was scoffing at the poor artillery. He claimed that our lot let off a long barrage that was largely flying over their heads or knocking the odd topi off.

At another point a commander simply instructed the infantry to crawl along the battlefield in the face of Sikh artillery almost eradicating casulties in this way.

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.

When I made my earlier point about successfully utilising the enemies weapons I was talking about the guerilla phase of the post Banda period. I always thought that the Khalsa under Ranjit Singh was pretty well equipped. The kingdom also had it's own foundaries apparently. Maybe they weren't that good a shot with the taups to decimate the chitay chumree wallay in the battle? This is strange though, as I read one gora who observed them using a taup/mortars during a demo and he said that they were as good a shot as the English.

Actually I read another contemp. account in which a whitey seemed to be almost crying at the uselessness of European blades compare to the the ones the "Seikhs" had. He was saying how they failed to cut Singhs when both sides charged at each other on horseback. He said apnay were simply ducking down and sort of hugging their horses necks as they passed each other and that the thick pagrees and shields[?] on the Singhs back, meant that their attacks were fruitless. Seriously, he seemed to be literally cryimg about it. He was saying Singhs were simply turning around after the pass and 'clahting' them with their razor sharp tulwars.

So I would go as far as to say that in the LION-WASP wars we had as good, if not better war equipment as the feringhees.

As for 1984 and post 1984, yes, I would agree that Singh's arms were woefully inadequate in comparison to the resources of the sarkar. Though they put up a stiff fight with what they had (mainly 303 and stens I imagine, possibly those big fat doonalis laying around in villages and a few Chinese AKs from Pakland???).

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.

I know a lot of people wont like it but yes, these days the collective panth is kumzor in terms of tajoorba and materials for modern jung. Today we get happy if a few nihungs get hold of bandooks, but speaking to some sullay from NWFP, I've learnt in that community every other bundha has a AK-sentalli or more laying around at home, and that is just an average bloke, no nihung equivalent.

There is a dangerous tendency by some apnay to transpose the 'framework' of the remembered 1700s jung experience onto the modern world. This doesn't work because what has happened since then is that the changed nature of judh has led to the relative decrease in the efficacy of physical bravery (what Sikhs are famed for) and a sharp increase on the reliance of tactics using technology. You can clearly see this in what is happening in Afghanistan today. Drones/missiles versus IEDs will play a significant part in the overall outcome there probably.

The old school physical bravery however isn't obsolete but a VERY important element to keep in the quom. You never know when things may deteriorate and/or living with respect in a toughened environment will neccesitate it. That being said, the biggest danger to us here in the wests diaspora is that we largely become as soft as shite with our trucki, as we hurtle en masse towards white middle-class - white collar jobs and environments with the inevitable change this will bring to our thinking and corporate character.

With all that said, my thoughts today are that we do need to AVOID war as a quom for a considerable length of time and focus on increasing our cohesion and ghentee (numbers) for success in future endeavours. We've been doing nothing but steadily losing numbers (of our best blood at times) since the judh with the chitay naags. Asides from the imperial [mis]adventures, world wars, we have dealt with partition, 1984 and the after period. Most of these have involved fighting for other's causes with little or no gain for us.

Plus we are increasingly becoming disjointed. This is dangeous shit for a small quom. Lets grow again before we do ANYTHING (if possible). We need to focus on getting the raw materials for jung in place. By this I mean a united spirit, lots of gubroos and top quality leaders. Anything else seems foolish to me right now. Grow, grow, grow!

Edited December 30, 2009 by dalsingh101