Only True Masters Have Adoption Ability

[Laadli Fauj]

Nice! How much did it cost?

18,500 rs

[HSD1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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???).

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?

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.

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.

Edited December 30, 2009 by HSD

[chatanga1]

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.

lol. you pessimist!

[Guest zulu]

Ive just ate ben&jerrys chocolate fudge brownie was goooooooooooooooooooood

[shaheediyan]

HSD, when you are faced with multiple drunk Skinheads or knife carrying fanatical Wahabis in the street, we'll see how far your theories and opinions on the Anglo-Sikh Wars get you.

We need to learn to walk before we can run. The 1st point of this section of the forum is Savya Raksha - be able to defend yourself and yours, and how to acquire the mentality to do it.

When this becomes the norm in Singhs, the next thing will be for Singhs to unite, before we can even move onto 'battle plans' for any of your theoretical wars.

Edited December 31, 2009 by shaheediyan

[dalsingh101]

We need to concentrate on Singhs getting heavy on a street level before we can even contemplate anything bigger.

[HSD1]

HSD, when you are faced with multiple drunk Skinheads or knife carrying fanatical Wahabis in the street, we'll see how far your theories and opinions on the Anglo-Sikh Wars get you.

I know, you're so right arent you? After debunking your logic in this thread it must be obvious that my 'theories and opinions' are all i have. When someone asks me the time, i tell them the date the battle of Mudki took place. When my manager asks me how to recover a file that she was stupid enough to delete, i give her a thorough breakdown in the difference in tactics used by the regular Khalsa infantry and Akali regiments. <sarcasm>

This is another annoying thing about us sikhs. We think that one size fits all solutions are best. Like, seriously, how does the Anglo-Sikh wars affect street fights? You honestly think i would apply 19th century formation/equipment 'theories' to smashing some idiot's face in? No, i know what to do in a street fight. I also know what to do in a number of other situations. I dont apply some daydream fancy pancy martial arts to all problems, unlike some.

We need to learn to walk before we can run. The 1st point of this section of the forum is Savya Raksha - be able to defend yourself and yours, and how to acquire the mentality to do it.

The point of this section is the art/study of war, in all its forms. If we want to be winners, we need to be able to do anything and pretty much everything. That's walking, jogging, running, jumping and focusing the mind.

When this becomes the norm in Singhs, the next thing will be for Singhs to unite, before we can even move onto 'battle plans' for any of your theoretical wars.

Norm? When will this be? Today, tomorrow, next year or in a 100 years time? The answer is never. Back in the day, many accounts of sikhs described us as skinny, short, etc. Not the 6 foot 4, super muscular, man-beasts. If you attempt to reach some kind of pinnacle whilst neglecting other things, we will be attacked by those who are good at what we arent. You can try all your life to create as many one-man-armies as you like, but they will be useless. Why? Because our enemies will refuse to face us, and will come up with other ways to attack us. In the uk, pakis will tool up with firearms, and the bnp is trying its damned hardest to make inroads into the police and army, which they will use in time if they get enough support from within those organisations. I know its hard to try and face and prepare for all these threats and the different vectors they will come from, but we have to do it. Sticking your head in the sand and only marching down one path is not the right way, and you know it.

We need to concentrate on Singhs getting heavy on a street level before we can even contemplate anything bigger.

The question of unity still will go unanswered if we try it like this. You and I both know that there is a large section of the sikh community who like to put their brothers down and yet suck up to non-sikhs. The coconuts/pakilovers/sanatans will never let us ever focus our strength. Power is like a ladder. If you try and get some, you will end up knocking others off and kicking those below you who are trying to get above you. 150 years ago a fair few of our ancestors had no qualms about doing what needed to be done. Now, any attempt to reassert ourselves is met with cries of 'Why are you doing that? Arent you happy with the status quo?'. If you look at some recent examples, it was inter-sikh conflict that ended any attempts at achieving an improvement for our nation. For every youth you turn into a SV/gatka-educated one-man-army, there will be 3 who become fordcapris/hindustan-lovers or dhimis. Taking control of gurudwaras and creating institutions that imbibe Khalsa patriotism, Khalsa-centric history and a high level of intelligence will help just as much as knowing how to swing a sword. Physical strength is pointless if you cant even realise when the enemy are setting you up for a fall. It's no good fighting a brave fight after you've been duped, especially with so much at stake.

[dalsingh101]

You and I both know that there is a large section of the sikh community who like to put their brothers down and yet suck up to non-sikhs. The coconuts/pakilovers/sanatans will never let us ever focus our strength. Power is like a ladder. If you try and get some, you will end up knocking others off and kicking those below you who are trying to get above you. 150 years ago a fair few of our ancestors had no qualms about doing what needed to be done. Now, any attempt to reassert ourselves is met with cries of 'Why are you doing that? Arent you happy with the status quo?'.

What can you do then? We've got some serious issues with unity. Even developing and pushing an independent Khalsacentric perspective is met with accusations of 'neoSikhism'. When did our people not adapt to meet challenges? You are right, we haven't had any recent victory so we are stuck in dwelling on some 'golden era' of our past. Some people take this so far that they actually seem to want to replicate our perceived lifestyle from those times in the 21st century. This wont work because it fails to take on board major environmental changes. Plus bumlicking has become a norm for a significant portion of the quom.

I can't see any option other than treading water and moving closer to the right direction in as many ways as possible. If enough people do this, we may be able to concentrate power in the near future. 2 truths we must accept is that the biggest fight we will face in order to progress will be amongst ourselves and that our communities general trucki means that a lot of people will not feel there is any need for change and will exhibit apathy and antipathy to any movement. What is really needed is a Barack Obama of Sikhs.

[Guest zulu]

true jungi!!!!!!

Edited June 1, 2012 by zulu

[Xylitol]

One thing that I feel is under-valued is Naam. We need to build up our own jeevans, live by rahit. In this manner we will help others simply by our very presence... our example will inspire others.

It is Naam that frees the mind from servile thinking. Other methods can help, but naam in many ways is the easiest method.

This of course doesn't mean to forget our role in helping others. What I am saying is those who are more aligned with truth, who have more truth (naam) inside of them, their words and actions speak louder and clearer. Their charisma is greater and they become a leader without even trying.

I recall that one of the greatest jathedars in history, whose inspired leadership invigorated the panth, also happened to spend much of his time in Naam and shoveling horse manure.

[shaheediyan]

No activity in life is shud without naam. Being a great Warrior without having naam in your veins means absolutely nothing, nor does any other success in life.

Naam helps man to achieve perfection in any task he undertakes or any role he performs, be it Father, a Son, a Husband, a Warrior or a King.

What differentiated Sri Ram from other worldy Kings was his Bhagti - he became a King that served his people rather than a King that expected service from his people - so successful was Sri Ram Jis Raj that Ayodha became a heavenly realm...

Having naam in your hirda is what seperates Devtai from Raakash in the world of Insaans...

[dalsingh101]

This is man is a true jungi!!!!!!

What a wonderful contribution..........lol

Dhalsim.....

Bundha bunja mundaya!!

[Guest zulu]

What a wonderful contribution..........lol

Dhalsim.....

Bundha bunja mundaya!!

I re read what I wrote :| im shocked, it should 'this man is a true jungi' shame on me for my english lol

Edited January 3, 2010 by zulu

[Ravjot3041]

okkkk