Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

check again i meant NRI SIKHS, who settled way to back in uk and other countries mostly from pakistan side punjab have this attitude,they don't represent punjab in india

lot of sikhs are integrated into india with various bussiness, all the key positions in army are occupied by sikhs.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Then you can not call them N.R.I 's... they are not N.R.I's... N.R.I=Non Resident Indians. They are N.R.P 's=Non Resident Pakistanis. :p

My cousins back in Karachi Hyderabad and Larkana are Hindus but they are not indians,they are Pakistanis.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Yes quite right.

Again your both right to an extent. It's a long and complex story quite worthy of a thread in itself but yes there are two sides to the story.

As for the Khalsa it was the mainstay of the Sikh army. Khalsa simply means rightous Army, and I have had the pleasure of working with the Akhali Nihang Warriors of Amritsar's Golden Temple. They really are formidable and worthy opponents and I have a deep respect for them, Akhali Nihang Sikh's were among the best CQC fighters in the Sub-Continent and to this day thier strict dicipline and rigorous training is among the best in the World and they have several techniques unique to themselves. I am honoured to have respectfully taken part in the Akhara (combat tournament) with such top notch fighters and the Sikhs cannot be denied that they are very efficient and skilled when they devote themselves to thier cause. Much like Warriors anywhere in the World.

As for the subject about Khalistan I think that too is worth a seperate thread suffice to say that Sikh Muslim tensions have been most strenous and it's always the few who make life hard for the many.

Icono Bhai is right in the dark days the Sikhs were just as troublesome as the Muslims had been but we should learn from the past. Personally I link it all to the old "divide and rule" strategies of the likes of Imperialist forces from outside such as the British.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

^^

dude you always comes up with valid arguements :)

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

and khabay…if you know what i mean…

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Faris:

[quote]
I have had the pleasure of working with the Akhali Nihang Warriors of Amritsar's Golden Temple. They really are formidable and worthy opponents
[/quote]

May I ask WHAT made you realize they are/were "formidable"?

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Well theres many reasons one could list.

I have often found that people who are strict in thier beliefs and for whom fighting is considered a last resort but also something they would do with pleasure and skill then defeating such faqnatics becomes very difficuilt indeed. As the British once said of the Turks "You can kill them but never beat them" it rings true.

The Akhali Nihang Sikhs were at the time of Ranjeet Singh a very potent force. Even today their fighting techniques in particular Ancient arts like "Shastar Vidaya" which is a evolved form of Martial art that shares the Origins of Kalapatiryu and Kung Fu.

If anyone has had the pleasure of seeing live "Gatka" demonstrations one can appreciate the skill that goes into the Sikh Martial arts. All that fancy stick and sword twirling might look dramatic but it has origins of brutal effectiveness in single combat. In India the Mughals of the later period that clashed with the Sikhs were outclassed in CQC, despite superior numbers, superior Armour and more firearms the Mughal forces were still held in check by primitive and poorly armed Khalsa Warriors.

Ideological commitment can go a long way to deciding the outcome of a confrontation. Some would call such men Fanatics but nobody can deny they are very formidable...

This is very relevant to modern times as well though, much as I abhor the terrible Taliban for thier harsh treatment of fellow humans one cannot deny thier formidable zeal.

Zealots can be a problem but in the end the real battle really is inside hearts and minds, when you get down to it even the most fearsome fighters and even outright Homicidal maniacs can be talked out of thier aggresive patterns.

On a personal level I have no shame in admiting that I have been outranged and outfought on some occasions by skilled Sikh Martial artists.

The Chakram (sharpened throwing disc) is a brilliant weapon that resembles a Frisbee or more correctly an Aerobee. It has much greater range than throwing knives or Shuriken (Ninja stars) and while it lacks the return capability of Boomerangs it can be used to take down bigger targets and has more stopping power when it impacts. I love the Chakram but only came to know of it's great power after seeing one slice Watermelons in half from over 50 feet away! I could not do that with a throwing knife and even a Ballistic knife would be lucky to travel that far.

The Sikhs also have a great twist on the Knucle duster it's called a Wagh Nakah and resembes a Knucle brace with razor sharp claw like protrusions which can rend flesh just like a real leopards claw and can also be used for climbing as well as close quarters combat.

The other most famous weapon that is carried by almost all baptised Sikhs is the Kirpan, which is traditionally a short stout sword like weapon though these days it would be described as a large knife. The Kirpan comes in many forms and along with the Yemini Jambiya, Khyber Chora, Ghurkha Khukri and other ethnic and cultural knives it is not only a great all round weapon but also a very symbolic one that is like a cultural trademark and a favourite of mine.

Ranjeet Singhs army the Khalsa and the Nihangs would have been fammiliar with all the above weapons and continued to use them effectively long after the advent of modern firearms. In fact the Chakram disc was flung in battalion style volleys and had devastating impact against troops in formation, many annecdotes from the Sikh War refer to this fearsome weapon as being capable of decapitating a man from a hundred paces.

It is a shame that the Sikhs never had many archers otherwise combined Chakram and Arrow storms could have decisively swung many battles for them. Unfortunately for the Sikhs the British Muskets and Pathan Rifles as well as composite bows outranged the Chakram. Thus this versatile weapon became obsolete.

Nobody however can deny the effectiveness of Sikh arms and battles such as Mudki and ChilianWalla will vouch for this fact.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Hello Faris,
I hope you realize that most of what you said made them "formidable" is just your own opinion. Individual martial arts skills may be good in hand to hand combat but are of no use in a battle. As far as weaponry, while you are eulogizing many of them but where were they when Sikhs started losing battles later on?
The reason they were winning was neither weaponry nor martial arts. And they certainly not "formidable".

Their winning had much to do with religious zeal. The same reason Muslims used to win battles in the early days of Islam. Another reason of their winning was the weak rulers in Kabul.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Indeed your quite right there. However that opinion is formed on sound reasoning and thorough understanding of the dynamics of warfare.

My friend do you even realise what you are writing? Individual skills in martial arts make all the difference in combat be that a single combat scenario or a multitude the principle is the same. 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. Individual combat and unit combat are both part of martial arts, but they need not be limited to melee weapons even snipers and fighter pilots are required to be proficient in close combat.

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 in fact battles like Mudki, Ferozshar and Chilianwalla were Sikh victories and at FerozShar the Sikhs were outnumbered but still won the battle only the reluctance of thier leaders (evidence suggests that commanders like Tej Singh and Lal Singh were actually agents of the British) who let down the Sikh army.


Again I must challenge you my friend weaponry and martial prowess make all the difference in battle, these days Politics tends to seep into the battlefield a lot more so but essentially on a tactical perspective battles are still won and lost by armies abilities anyone who thinks martial prowess and weapons know-how does not make an impact on the battlefield has no idea what warfare is really about. If you look into it closely you will see that in fact ability to fight with superior skills is the priciple reason on which armies survive... you have to be tough and tougher you are the longer you will last.

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.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

yaar khoji jee, it is pretty obvious that your knowledge of military affairs is as "strong" as mine!!!

so bhai shaib, kiyon panga lay raho faris jee say...

plus lagta ha history say aap ko itna hee interest tha jitna mughay biology say....

apna nahieen to apnay logo ka hee khayal kar lo which says "no nonsense"....

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.


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.

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.

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.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

I understand why it hurts you so much.
Sometimes nationality is more important than the religion.

Instead of taking cheap shots at me, why don't you join the discussion and let the silent readers decide themselves?

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Faris:

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

No one said that religious zeal is ALL that is required to win battles.
But look at it this way, one works on developing tactics and skills when he is more motivated than other guys to win. One way of getting this motivation is religious zeal. Another is ideological zeal.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Superior hand to hand combat and duels. You know very well that early Muslims were the SAME PEOPLE as non-Muslims of Mecca. How come then that they magically got superior combat skills just by accepting Islam?

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

So I found an article but Sikh point of view.
Other campaigns.

After the Treaty of Amritsar with British which simply stated that the International boundry of line between the Sarkar Khalsa and British India is Satluj. Ranjit singh was virtually made master of all the territory to the west of Satluj. But.. there was several small kingdoms, like Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Kashmir, Multan, Sialkote which were ruled by Afghani or local chiefs.

Thus, Ranjit singh first turned towards North towards Kangra valley which was taken over from Raja Sansar Chand by Gurkhas. Ranjit Singh’s forces fought with Gurkhas in Kangra Valley in the end the Gurkha leader Amar Singh thapa fled leaving the field to the Sikhs. Ranjit singh entered the fort of Kangra and held a royal Darbar which was attended by the hill chiefs of Chamba, nurpur, Kotla, Shahpur, Guler, Kahlur, Mandi, Suket and Kulu. Desa Singh Majithia was appointed governor of Kangra.
Then Ranjit singh sent a force under the command of Hukma Singh Chimmi to Jammu and himself marched on to Khushab. The fort of Khushab was held by Jaffar Khan, a Baluch chief. He gave up the city and defended the fort stoutly. Ranjit singh invited him to vacate the fort and accept a jagir. In few months, Jaffar Khan accepted Ranjit singh’s terms and gave up the fort. He was given a jagir and allowed to remain in Khushab with his family.

Meanwhile, Shah Shuja was arrested by a Afghani Ata Mohammad Khan who was governor of Kashmir. Shah Shuja’s wife Wafa Begum approached Ranjit Singh to get her husband out of Kashmir. Ranjit Singh wanted Kohinoor diamond and he agreed. Hari Singh Nalwa and other forces were dispatched along with the Afghani forces of Wafa Begum. The Sikhs and Afghans crossed the Pir Panjal and entered the valley of Kashmir towards the close of 1812. Shah Shuja was rescued from an undergrond dungeon by Sardar Nihal singh Attariwala. Hari Singh Nalwa was made a new governor of Kashmir by Ranjit Singh. Shah Shuja was set free. Shah Shuja invited Ranjit Singh to his house. A servant brought in a packet as they settled down in their seats after mutual exchange of courtesies. Ranjit singh watched eagerly as the stone was being slowly unwrapped. He was beside himself with joy when the Koh-i-nor, Mountain of Light was placed on his palm. The price of this stone at that time was 6 crore rupees which comes to about Two million American dollars with today’s conversion factor. This diamond still exist in England and is part of one of the Royal stone’s.

Around this time, Ranjit singh also got the fort of Attock by daring operations of Hari Singh Nalwa and Desa Singh Majithia. Now Punjab under Ranjit Singh extended from Satluj to river attock and from Kashmir to Kasur. Early in 1817, Ranjit singh sent a body of troops to Multan under the command of Diwan Bhiwani Das to receive from Nawab Muzaffar Khan the tribute he owed to the Sikh Darbar. Bhiwani das laid siege to the city, but showed little vigour to pressing it. He made a secret pact with the Nawab which led Ranjit Singh to recall him and deprive him of his office. Ranjit Singh planned the afresh expedition and sent a strong force under his son Kharak Singh’s charge. He arranged for supplies to be sent by boats down the river Ravi, the Chenab and the Jhelum. The system of passing letters was organised in such a manner that the Maharaja received the news from Multan by relays of messengers several times a day.
The fort of Multan was one of the strongest in the country and Nawab Muzaffar Khan defended it with an equally strong heart.

Kharak Singh’s armies lay around it without making much headway. Ranjit Singh sent a big gun Zamzama along with Akali Phula singh’s Nihang regiment. The Zamzama was fired with effect and the gates were blown in. Akali Phula singh made a sudden rush and took the garrison by surprise. The grey bearded Nawab stood in his way, sword in hand to fight, resolved to fight to death. His five sons died fighting. Two surviving sons were giving jagirs by Ranjit singh. their descendants are still in possession of those lands in Pakistan. Prince Kharak singh left Jodh Singh Kalsia with 600 men to guard the fort of Multan. Now Ranjit Singh southern boundry was Multan. In 1818, A.D. Ranjit singh won Rohtas, Rawal Pindi and Hasan Abdal. Then he made preparations to cross the river Attock and attack Peshawar. These conquests are greatly explained with the biography of Hari Singh Nalua. In 1819, Ranjit Singh had to attack Srinagar again, this time he made Diwan Moti Das Governor, with Sham singh Attariwala, Jawala Singh Padhania, and Misr Diwan Chand to further assist him in the operations in valley. Ten successive governors administered Kashmir during Sikh regime. One of them was prince Sher singh who carred the Sikh standard across the high mountains into Ladakh. The conquest of Ladakh valley which was strategically very important, made the frontier secure against the expanding influence of China. Sher Singh sent General Zorawar Singh to march towards Tibet. Garo and Rudok were occupied and the Lhasa armies attacked. Tibetian government signed a treaty with Zorawar’s armies.

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Quoting sikhs about their own ruler is a worthless exercise in understanding unbiased history.
What do you expect sikhs to say about him?

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Very well put

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Never thought of it this way - their becoming isolated between Muslim/Hindu zones. Makes sense!

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Was it Ranjit Singh who made Badshahi Masjid a horse stable and a garrison for his army?

Wikipedia says it was him:

On 7 July 1799, the Sikh militia of the Sukerchakia chief, Ranjit Singh, took control of Lahore.[4] After the capture of the city, the Badshahi Mosque was severely damaged when Ranjit Singh used its vast courtyard as a stable for his army’s horses and its 80 hujras (small study rooms surrounding the courtyard) as quarters for his soldiers and as magazines for military stores. Ranjit Singh used the Hazuri Bagh, the enclosed garden next to the Mosque as his official royal court of audience.[5]
In 1841, during the Sikh civil war, Ranjit Singh’s son, Sher Singh, used the Mosque’s large minarets for placement of zamburahs or light guns, which were placed atop the minarets to bombard the supporters of the Sikh Maharani Chand Kaur taking refuge in the besieged Lahore Fort, inflicting great damage to the Fort itself. In one of these bombardments, the Fort’s Diwan-e-Aam (Hall of Public Audience) was destroyed (it was subsequently rebuilt by the British but never regained its original architectural splendour).[6] During this time, Henri De la Rouche, a French cavalry officer employed in the army of Sher Singh,[7] used a tunnel connecting the Badshahi Mosque to the Lahore Fort to temporarily store gunpowder.[8]

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

Ranjeet singh was not as a big villain as made out to be, there is a book, titled, “HISTORY OF PUNJAB” written by Syad Mohamed Latif, who was the additional commissioner of Lahore. The book was published in 1888 (so just ~40 years after Ranjit Singh) so a great deal of it may be true. It was published by Civil and Military Gazette press. That will give better idea of Ranjit Singh.