Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

[khoji]

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Faris, I said religious or ideological commitment was what was helping Sikhs win the battles in the beginning. And you agreed with that too. You said: Ideological commitment can go a long way to deciding the outcome of a confrontation.

Now why don’t you agree that it was this ideological commitment which won battles for both early Sikhs and early Muslims?
You are disputing your own statement only because I challenged you how come the present-day Sikhs are “formidable”. And the answer is they are NOT. They look formidable to you because you know their history and you WANT to see them formidable. In reality they won earlier battles mainly due to religious zeal or what you call “ideological commitment”.
But it is gone now. And so present day Sikhs are NOT formidable.

---

@Faris_Udeen

Tests have proven that you can equip a man with the most up to date weaponry available but if he is not fit or sufficiently proficient at combat then most weapons advantages are null.

You are missing the point about one-to-one combat. Individual martial arts are good only when there is a confrontation between two individuals without having any weapons. Martial arts may help an individual in such situation but it does not win wars.

About up to date weaponry and insufficient “combat” training, what does individual martial arts have to do with it? Physical training is what is required in this case, not necessarily a combat training.

Again it’s quite clear you have no idea about the history behind the Sikh Wars. When the Sikh empire finally fought the British it lost not becuase the Khalsa was inferior to the East India company at fighting battles but** becuase it was poorly led**

Poorly led! Why don’t you say the same about Pashtuns fighting Sikhs in the early battles they lost? Especially keeping in mind that Kabul had weak rulers at that time … and you agree with that too.

If they were not inferior to British army, as you claim, then it was not because of their combat skills but because they had upgraded their army with the same advanced weapons from British.

I am not going to take away anything from religous zealots here I used to be one as well, but strictly from experience while ideological commitment certainly gives you an edge it’s not tactically a very good platform for a fighting force… simply having more belief does not win battles. Belief can give a side more “staying power” over a war, gradually through attrition the side with the stronger will to fight on will win, but on the battlefield if you think simply a desire to win is better than actually skill then your very wrong.

Mercenaries and Privateers as well as elite units such as Special forces will always be more likely to win battles becuase of superior training, experience and better tactical knowledge as well as fighting skills. Conscripts and Volunteer armies might be full of zeal and a will to win but lack of experience makes them poor performers in actual combat and especially in close engagements. If you do some research you will come to find that ideological commitment was not the only reason why the 8th Century armies of Islam won thier battles, they had superior tactics and better fighting skills particulalry individual combat made all the difference. The Koran and Hadith make it clear that early Muslim armies suceeded in many battles often through superior hand to hand combat and duels. Duels were the turning point in many battles actually and History proves this.

The early armies of Islam and the armies of the Sikh empire were very different. The Islamic armies to some extent were probably more religous but you do know that the Sikh artillery was commanded by Muslims dont you? Mian Goussa was Ranjit Singhs chief artillery officer. Also the Amry that held out at Chillianwalla was supported by Dost Mohammands Afghans and the Siege of Multan was backed by many Pathans and Balochis too. The early armies of Islam did not have this sort of secular support.

You are however right about Kabul being ruled by weaker Monarchs and this was a factor to the Sikh expansion but no lets not downplay the Sikhs here they really were one of the three greatest Indian forces of that era. At one point they came to almost destroy the East India company as a force becuase the Night battle of Ferozshar was one of the closest fights the british ever fought in India.

Please don’t mix being “more religious” with “religious zeal”. When people are willing to die (for religion) then they make crazy decisions and such decisions win battles.
Such a zeal certainly is not enough to win the battles all the time (cf: Taliban zealots) but when other factors are comparable between two sides then this zeal gives advantage. This is how Sikhs won battles in the beginning. But later they got rich through war booties and this enabled them to get more advanced weapons.

About them being secular for allowing Muslims in the army, this point is not as much a positive for Sikh armies than it is a negative about people who thought nationality was important than saving their co-religionists.
Where were those Muslims in Sikh army when Ranjit Sindh was destroying Badshahi Masjid?
Where were those Muslims in Sikh army when sikhs took Sindhi Muslim women as sex slaves?

Such opportunists are present amongst us even today. They will again sell themselves for personal material gains.

A bit more about the “secular” Sikh army getting revenge from common Muslims. Where were those “Khalsa Muslims” when this was happening?
Following is written by a Bharati. We know how good Bharatis are in lying about their history, but even they said the following about Sikhs.
http://www.kashmir-information.com/WailValley/B1chap23.html

Now it was the turn of the Muslims to suffer. A brick for brick and tooth for tooth policy was pursued. In sheer retaliation the Sikhs closed Jama Masjid built on the ruins of a Hindu temple and a Buddhist Vihara for prayers (khoji: you have to take the writer for his words here), stopped azaan to call the faithfuls to prayers, imposed levies and taxes on the Muslims, banned cow-slaughter and declared Pather Masjid as property of the state. Phoola Singh, a Sikh General, trained his guns at the Mir Ali Mosque on the plea that it was raised on the plinth of a temple that was pillaged and destroyed. The said - mosque was saved only at the intervention of Birbal Dhar, who has been showered with bouquets and brickbats for this act of his by a substantial number of writers on Kashmir history.