HSD1

Come now Pedrorizzo, you know full well the British weren't keen on taking Sikh prisoners. Plenty of British accounts talk about British troops killing Sikh wounded or finding Sikhs asleep and killing them or even killing Sikhs who had won duels. If they were doing all that, what did they expect in return? Sikhs to treat all the white prisoners like royalty? Also bare in mind that many of these accounts have been jingoised in order to give the British the moral high ground in their 'noble struggle against uncouth heathens' as they would put it.

Killing loads of the enemy before they killed you.

If the banks went bust, they would just print so much money and let inflation deal with their debt and the problems of having printed so much money. They would then increase interest rates to bring inflation down or switch to another currency.

Let's hope so. Property is way too expensive.

Hopefully if the EU breaks up it will strengthen the pound and British banks as long as something is done about all the debt they EU owes. Be wary of people like him, they sometimes say controversial things for the kicks. Shock jocks like him make a lot of headway into the world of finance. Notice how he doesnt give advice on what to do with your savings.

Boozing is part of UK culture. If you've got nothing better to do and your community runs it's own off-licences it's no surprise we like a bit of a drink. As for the money, bare in mind that many parents go on about how one injury can wreck a career and make you useless. Of course life destroying injuries arent that common but Sikhs like to focus on negative things that close down chances of leaving their comfort zone. Much better to take the safer route of accountant, dentist, lawyer, doctor or pharmacist and live a steady life in their eyes. Whilst we're on the subject of sports personalities, look at Monty Panesar. A figure of fun for many English and often put across as a docile <banned word filter activated> by his team mates and media. In Flintoff's biography he talks about how once MP came to his room whilst Freddie was raiding the minfridge for booze. MP had bought a lot of notes and wanted to go over tactics and FF told him to piss off. Also look at how many coaches white english players get whilst Monty is expected to just wing it and still be as good as his teammates. Or how his team mates give him a load of grief on the field for every little mistake he makes. Worst of all is how MP just bends over and takes it all like a good little Sikh coconut. Another way of looking at it is seeing how Amir Khan is treated. White people hate him for being a pak i. Sikhs think that we get more acceptance if we educate people and try and get in the public eye a bit more. The truth is we just dont get the psyche of a lot of people around us. Asians know that they would have to do twice as much with half as much help in sports to even be considered equals to the ordinary Brits who have turned sport into nothing more than a projection of their own views on the world. We cant talk about asian footballers without asking the question of whether the people here would accept them unless they were incredibly skilled rather than plain old mediocre like their own white athletes.

Plenty of asian kids are good at football. Asian footy leagues always have goreh agents snooping around them. It's just that at young ages, Sikh boys are more likely to follow what their parents want (the academic route) than see how far their talent can take them. Or to try and get an education and be a sportsman. Doing two things at once is something most Sikhs find difficult, look at all the time wasted on forums with people on the same side arguing about what problem/thing is more dangerous/important than the other.

Supposedly many Chinese people have converted to Islam in the west of the country as well. I am surprised the Chinese government are happy to let this happen. The last time an Abrahamic religion gained large numbers of followers in China, it led to the Taiping Rebellion and tens of millions of people died. Oh well, guess it's their choice.

Watch the rise of megacorporations and international companies when the power of central government goes into decline. Instead of being loyal to sovereign states we will have to be loyal to whoever pays us at the end of the month.

Carronades (on the boats the British used to patrol the river between Punjab and British India).

I have heard that too. I just wish they would hurry up and come here to Earth to give us a hand lol.

Wonder how long it's going to take before we humans try to colonise them. Poor aliens wont know what hit them.

I was told that the Vancouver Sun is always running stories about Punjabi gangs though? And some journalist called Kim Bolan has it in for SIkhs? I know it doesnt reflect the majority of Sikhs in canada but stereotypes usually are stupid and unrepresentative.

Or some artist could put out a better image of what people should be. Any volunteers? Sikhs Got Talent lol.

Now this is where you have come undone. The Sikhs matched the British in terms of weapons because we modernized. If we had done what the Akalis wanted we would have gone into the Anglo-Sikh Wars without many of the artillery and cavalry weapons they did. So one minute you are saying we didnt need to modernize and now you are bigging up that we had the same modern weapons as they did? The same advanced weapons that were a product of the modernisation of the Sikh Army lol? As for training, the use of infantry was key to the defence of the Punjab. Before hand being an infantryman was seen as a poor substitute for a cavalryman. We had a feudal system. Maharajah Ranjit SIngh created an army consisting of divisions of infantry so that we could fight wars with other infantry based armies and hold onto territories taken. How would Akalis deal with a cavalry charge consisting of thousands of cavalrymen? The regular army units formed squares. When the cavalry closed in, one face collapsed forming a horseshoe shape. As the cavalry charged in they were shot at from three sides. At the Battle of Aliwal, the regular army units did this to humiliate the British cavalry and escape the battlefield. One of the best British cavalry regiments lost half their men and all their officers due to this tactic. The Sikh militias, who were fighting like their ancestors hundreds of years before, didnt know what to do. They were mauled by horse artillery and cavalry. Read Amarpal Singh Sidhu's book on the subject. Could Akalis fight against a regiment of the line? No. You said yourself that they needed to fight close range. Whilst they were charging they would be shot at hundreds of times. Not the best idea is it? Can you tell me one time this ever worked against the British? Sikh regular regiments on the other hand could go toe to toe with the British and give as good as they got. In numerous battles they forced the British to retreat because of their willowing fire. Did the Akhalis form grand batteries? No they didnt even have artillery. Yet the use of artillery inflicted heavy casualties on the British. I've already mentioned the other tactics that the Akalis didnt know but that the Khalsa learnt in order to be able to fight the British. Sikhs didnt have the numbers to form a Punjabi army on their own. At the Battle of Sobroan we lost 8,000 to 10,000 men. That would be the equivalent of 250,000 - 300,000 dying today. We couldnt have ruled Punjab without non-sikhs. One of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's best generals was a Hindu Brahmin http://en.wikipedia....isr_Diwan_Chand True. He may also have been deposed a lot more easily too. Which is why he didnt employ only SIkhs. Sit down. This may shock you. But this happens in life. In sports, team A beats team B. Team B beats team C. But then Team C goes and beats team A! How does that work? The british took over our country and maintained the gains that we made. The reason they lost in afghanistan is due to being too bold and over adventurous. We didnt have a great time making any process from Jamrud did we? BTW what is in Afghanistan? Are they rich? Have stuff worth taking? No. So no wonder no one made a determined attempt to annex them. The afghans never regained Peshawar when the British were there did they? Or march on Delhi? Having a skewed view of history doesnt help you at all. British intelligence reports make him out to be a morose <banned word filter activated> and nothing like his father. Ranjodh SIngh was stupid to camp on the same side of a river as the enemy and to sit around in the morning when the British were already marching. He was also stupid to not deploy scouts to warn of the approach of the British. The french trained troops fought well and were able to go back to the frontline soon after the defeat. The militias who were fighting like their ancestors were mauled and had to sit out the rest of the war. Well you've changed your tune. Please bare in mind that the Akalis didnt stick around to fight, they were legging it to south india. Secondly, you have completely missed the point that the British were not the Mughals or Afghans. They didnt want to wipe us out and convert us to their religion like the muslims. Like I said before, it was a different kind of war. Why are there so many old people after 1984? Why are there still Akalis? Surely if what you say is true then they should all be dead. If Akali General Phula Singh Ji was such a legend he would have made plans for his succession after his death. But after he died the Akalis lost their edge. They couldnt even practice what they preached on the battlefields with the English. Well many Sikh regulars didnt wear trousers in battle, they were just for the parade ground in winter time. In the Sino-SIkh War in the early 1840s did the Akalis turn up and fight in their kachera? No of course not, Tibet was too cold. It was left to the regular, trouser wearing soldiers to fight the Chinese. If the Akalis were so great and knowledgeable of the Guru's views on war, why didnt they win the anglo-sikh wars for everyone else?

Not really. Please provide examples. Yes, in the 1840s the Sikh Division system wasnt working. The Khalsa was appointing political people from government into top positions in the Army. Even worse they turned out to be traitors. Most other countries took internal security seriously but it took us losing an entire war before we decided to root out the traitors. We had no Military Academies that could train enough officers to a standard where they wouldnt need superiors to know what to do. Yes, those wars were in Medieval times for the Punjab. Tactics change. Fighting as an occupied community is different to a clash of civilizations. Why does no one get this? If Akalis are so good why did 1984 happen? Plenty of Akali Nihungs around today still practicing how to lance a bundle of sticks, surely according to you that is enough to take down the mechanised forces of Hindustan? Again 16th Century/early 17th century =/= mid 18th century. Just because I typed them in English does not mean I think they were invented by the English. For you to make that leap in understanding of what I typed is just ludicrous. The grand battery was invented by the french. The square was used in classical times to resist cavalry. Fire by platoon was originally a chinese concept. But the Khalsa used European instructors to learn these techniques, not roman or chinese or akali instructors. What does that tell you about where Maharaja Ranjit Singh put his faith? Can you read? I never said the British invented formations. I also know that every army has some kind of formation. But it takes training to maintain that formation during battle and an intelligent officer training syllabus so they wont be too inflexible to enemy's tactics. Flintlock muskets, carbines, rifles, mortars, howitzers, mountain artillery, bayonets, horse artillery, grenades, blunderbusses, rockets and revolvers were all not around in Guru Hargobind's time but were 200 years later. But your missing the point. This isnt just about one thing. Guns were important but how they were used was just as important. Even you cant deny that in Amritsar the Akalis once tried to ambush some British Hindustani Sepoys. In the fighting the Akalis lost a lot of men to the musket volleys of the Hindu regiment. In Alexander Gardner's book he talks about how Akalis once tried to storm the Royal Palace at Lahore and hundreds of them were blown to pieces by artillery. You mean the steam engine. The British used boats with steam engines to cross into the Punjab. Maharajah Ranjit Singh even tried to build his own steamship. If you actually read what I wrote, I said semi-industrialised. That's because railways and steamships are signs of industrialised warfare (like in the American Civil War). But the Anglo-SIkh war involved large military build ups and the positioning of divisions to prevent enemy attacks, something far different from the medieval warfare of the centuries before. Yes, that's why it was only Europe, India and North America who were capable of producing their own guns, artillery and ships. Pouring into what?

That's the thing. The whole video screams 'gangsterism'. But the images are of Sikhs and Punjabi girls in aviator sunglasses. He may not be Sikh but he looks like one and the women look like Punjabi girls. Sikhs in Canada already have problems with their image being synonymous with gangster culture. If Sikhs in Punjab do this too we will be considered a right bunch of idiots.

So what is causing the problem? Punjabi culture???! Or Black culture?!!?! Or Western culture?!!?!? Why do I ask? Because the guy in the video looks 100% Sikh. Hopefully giving some of you something to mull over. :wacko2: o_0

Badal is going mad in his old age.

The thing is that most of the people in the Khalsa Raj were Muslim so some were bound to be on our side, some on the others. In the First Anglo-SIkh war a lot of Muslims fought to the death against the British at places like Sobraon. But many of the muslim regiments threw their lot in with the Dogras and helped them travel safely around Punjab. Some sources say that hindu and muslim artillerymen in the Khalsa attacked Sikhs at the Battle of Sobraon when the traitors ordered them to. So some helped and others didnt. In the Second War large parts of the Punjab rose up in revolt with the help of the British. This trapped the Sikh army in territory where they knew they would be safe (referred to as 'Sikh Country') rather being able to travel where they needed to and fight the British in their own time. As for the Afghans, they were promised Peshawar by a Sikh Lord if they aided the Khalsa. They sent some cavalry but they never fought and returned to Afghanistan when the Sikh Division at Gujrat was destroyed.

No one said that it was all about guns. It was about training, tactics and organisation. A well trained army with a good commander will always beat a rabble who just turn up for a fight. Also, there is no mention of the Akalis having artillery in the 19th century when other Sikh Army units did. Can you explain what these European tactics were? Fire by platoon, attack columns, square formation etc dont involve killing unarmed people or civilians. Neither does arranging cannons into grand batteries or cavalry regiments into diamond formations. Guru Hargobind Ji died in 1644. The First AngloSIkh war took place in 1845. Thats two hundred years difference. From Medieval to Semi-Industrialised. If people cant see that warfare changes over time then this is a discussion not worth having. They did need training. A lot of training. Anyway, the British were mainly Christian and would have said the same thing about us..... Just because he said it doesnt mean he knows what he's on about. The Khalsa Raj lost because it had a muslim population who rose up against Sikh rule and an aristocracy who were sympathetic to the British. Add to that the treachery of the Dogras and you'll have the reasons the Sikh Army lost. It had nothing to do with modernisation. If it was due to modernisation, please explain how, rather than link what someone's opinion is to what happened. If anything, the Khalsa lost because it hadnt modernised enough. At the Battle of Aliwal the Sikh army was led by a Sikh who wasnt a traitor. We still lost. This was due to most of the militia soldiers (ordinary sikhs called up for service) not being well trained and the commander not understanding western tactics. Whilst the commander, akalis and the militia fled, the regular troops fought their way out and gave the British a bloody nose instead of a complete walkover.If more of these militias had been giving training like the regulars, and more of the feudal cavalry had formal cavalry regimental training then things may have gone different. On top of that we had no Navy. Punjab has five rivers. Other landlocked countries with less rivers all built river navies to prevent other countries building bridges into their territory. If Maharaja Ranjit Singh had formed one early they would have trained and grown over time to be a formiddable force. A river navy would have been useful in stopping what happened at the Battle of Sobraon or even preventing the British breaking into the Punjab in the first place.

That's not the way the Hindus see it.

No. Are they getting Special Forces training?

Yeah he knows. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518674/Routine-test-reveals-white-debt-collector-Halifax-secret-great-great-grandson-king-Sikhs.html Many of these Sikhs who came over were royalty or members of the Royal Court back in Lahore. Therefore, when Maharaja Duleep Singh went to Britain they all went with him. When Maharaja Duleep decided to go on a tour of Europe to drum up support for an invasion of British India it's not surprising they ended up getting left behind. When he failed they probably had no choice but to just 'go native'. Any modern day descendents wouldnt care less about all this unless it meant they could claim a title for part of the old Sikh Empire.

Brother, bare in mind the time difference. The Anglo-Sikh Wars took place 100-150 years after the events you mentioned (#2 was achieved by Sikh Misl (Confederate) Army and the cunning of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's family). Over time warfare changes. In 1984 no Sikhs turned up with muskets and swords, dressed up like a mid 19th century Khalsa Fauji - if they had then they would have been 150 years too late. The Akalis were obsolete by the Anglo-Sikh Wars. I'll give you an example. At the Battle of Mudki the Khalsa and EIC army closed to a certain range of each other and stopped. Each side allowed personal duels to take place. A one armed Akali with a sword challenged anyone from the British regiment opposite to duel with him. The British sent their Regimental Sergeant Major (who had both arms) to fight him. The Akali killed him and then challenged the British Regiment to send someone else. One of the British soldiers lifted his musket and shot the Akali dead. After that the battle started in earnest. A Sikh artillery crew fired at a group of British officers on the other side of the field and killed General Sale, a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars. How many Akalis would it have taken to hack through the British lines and kill a General? An awful lot. But that one cannonball from a good cannon did all that in under a minute. Another example is at the Battle of Sobroan. The Akalis dug massive round pits behind Sikh lines, in which they prepared for the British assault. The British used howitzers and mortars to fire shells over the Sikh lines (which had been reinforced by walls and dug earth by the regular regiments) which landed in the middle of these pits, wiping out dozens or even hundreds of Akalis in one go. When the British broke through they lined up their musketmen and horse artillery at the top of the pits and fired at point blank range into the Akalis. The Akalis didnt have the firepower of a modern regiment to respond. No one knows why the Akalis dug these pits, maybe they stupidly believed the British would jump into them and fight hand-to-hand. One British account says that the Akalis did it as they knew they were going to die so they dug their own graves! That obviously isnt true but this led to the Akalis upping sticks and legging it to South India (and being taken advantage of by Thugees who saw them coming a mile away). I suggest you guys all read Amarpal Singh Sidhu's Book on the First Anglo-Sikh War. The Second one should be coming out soon.