Jump to content

Sikhs As Noor Mohammad Saw Them


Guest Narinder Singh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Narinder Singh

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/archi...e-july2000.html

Sikhs as Noor Mohammad Saw them

By Prof. Surjit Singh

"Jangnama" is an eye-witness account of Ahmed Shah Durrani's invasion of 1764 of which our knowledge is extremely poor otherwise. The eye-witness was Nur Muhanmmed, a domicile of Ganjuba in Baluchistan who held the post of Qazi, which he inherited from his father Abdullah Hilwar of Ganjuba. He had some pretentions to being a man of learning, a scholar of Persian and a learned poet. His fame as a man of letters travelled to the city of Kalat, and the ruler of that place, Mir Abdullah Khan asked him to compile a book of his poetry. The suggestion appealed to him and he decided to compose an epic to extol the achievements of Abdullah Khan.

The decision, however, had to be abandoned, perhaps because of the death of Khan. In 1761, he went to Kalat; understandably to get some favours now from Nasir Khan, who had succeeded Abdullah Khan and was seriously thinking of leading a crusade against the Sikhs whose power was increasing, thereby causing anxiety to Ahmed Shah Durrani and the Baluchis.

Nur Muhammed now offered to accompany Nasir Khan on his contemplated expedition provided the Khan promised him the post of Qazi in Shikarpore or the Deras. Durrani on his return from Punjab bestowed these territories upon him as a reward for his services. And the Qazi, on his part, undertook to write an account of the Khan's exploits on his holy mission.

Nasir Khan accepted his offer and he accompanied the expeditionary force which joined the forces of Ahmed Shah Durrani in the winter of 1764. He was thus an eye-witness to all engagements and his narration of events is based on his personal observations.

On his return to Ganjuba on the conclusion of the expedition, Nur Muhammed completed the Jang Namah towards the close of Al-Hijari corresponding to about June 1765.

The work consists of 55 statements called "Bian" in Persian - each dealing with some event, personality, racial group, tactics of war, or the behaviour of the Sikhs.

The author has a strong prejudice against the Sikhs whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dog of hell, pig eaters, accursed infidels, dirty idolators, fire worshippers, etc., yet his account of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is simply invaluable to the students of history.

The author is lavish in praise of his mentor and the crusades - both Baluchis and Pathans, sometimes depriving the historical narrative of its objectivity. Further, he reserves a strong hatred for the Sikhs.

All these things minimize the historical value of the work. Yet, inspite of this , it is a very valuable and correct corroboration in respect of their struggle against the Afghani invaders, the desecration by the Durranis of their holy tank and temple, the Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) at Amritsar and the martyrdom of Baba Gurbakhsh Singh Shaheed with his band of 30 Sikhs who valiantly challenged an army of 30,000 Afghanis and Baluchis and sacrificed their lives at the altar of their faith.

It is from the Jang Namah alone that we learn that the Sikhs under the Bhangis had crossed the Indus and had extended their conquest as far as Multan and Deras by the middle of 1764 in a few months after the conquest of Sirhind. Moreover, Jang Namah is the only detailed account, known to us, of the seventh invasion of Punjab by Ahmed Shah Durrani.

So far as the Sikhs are concerned Jang Namah is an invaluable source of information. It visualises Sikhism and Sikh society as a separate entity, different from Hinduism.

The conviction of Nur Muhammed was fully shared by his mentors, and perhaps, this was the reason that Ahmed Shah Abdali's anger was directed against Darbar Sahib which was the chief source of inspiration to the Sikhs.

The Sikhs offered resistance to Ahmed Shah Abdali in the manner that evoked praise even in the hearts of their detractors. Nur Muhammed inspite of his sympathy for his comrades-in-faith and hatred for the Sikhs could not help describing their excellent conduct, their experience in battlefield, their liberality and their valour, intrepedity, agility and grand physical appearance. This he did most probably to impress upon the soldiers of the invading armies that Sikhs were strong enough to withstand their onslaught because in moral conduct they were excellent and none surpassed them.

In his account, he dwells on the qualities of the Sikhs about which every Sikh should feel proud. We present a liberal translation of Qazi Nur Muhammed's narration which elucidates their (Sikhs) high conduct, their mode of fighting, their faith and courage, etc:

"Do not call the dogs (the Sikhs) dogs, because they are lions (and) are courageous like lions in the battlefield. How can a hero, who roars like a lion be called a dog? (Moreover) like lions they spread terror in the field of battle. If you wish to learn the art of war, come face to face with them in the battlefield. They will demonstrate it (art of war) to you in such a way that one and all will shower praise on them. If you wish to learn the science of war, O swordsman, learn from them. They advance at the enemy boldly and come back safely after action. Understand, Singh is their title, a form of address for them. It is not justice to call them dogs; if you do not know Hindustani language, then understand that the word 'Singh' means a lion.

"Truly, they are lion in battle, and at times of peace, they surpass "Hatim" (in generosity). When they take the Indian sword in their hands they traverse the country from Hind to Sind. None can stand against them in battle, howsoever strong he may be. When they handle the spear, they shatter the ranks of the enemy. When they raise the heads of their spears towards the sky, they would pierce even through the Caucasus (in the process). When the adjust the strings of the bows, place in them the enemy killing arrows (and) pull the strings to their ears, the body of the enemy begins to shiver with fear. When their battle axes fall upon the armour of their opponents, their armour becomes their coffin.

"The body of every one of them is like a piece of rock and in physical grandeur everyone of them is more than fifty men. It is said that Behram Gore killed wild asses and lions. But if he were to come face to face with them even he would bow before them (Singhs). Besides usual arms, they take their guns in hand (and) come into the field of action jumping (and) roaring like lions and raise slogans. They tear asunder the chests of many and shed blood of several (of their enemy) in the dust. You say that musket is a weapon of ancient times, it appears to be a creation of these dogs rather than Socrates. Who else than these (dogs) can be adept in the use of muskets. They do not bother (even if) there are innumerable muskets. To the right and the left, in front and towards the back, they go on operating hundreds of muskets angrily and regularly.

"If you do not believe in what I say, you may enquire of the brave swordsmen who would tell you more than myself and would praise them for their fighting. This bears witness to (my statement) that they faced thirty thousand heroes in the battlefield. If their armies take to flight, it is a war tactics of theirs. They resort to this deception in order to make the angry army grow bold and run in their pursuit. When they find them separated from the main body and away from help and reinforcement, they at once turn back and fight more ferociously (literal translation - they set fire even to water).

"Did you not see that while fighting the Pathans, they took to flight which was deceptive. A world famous wrestler wielding high esteem and respect alighted from his horse and showed his great style as if he were Tuhmatan ( a great warrior of Iran). O valiant fighter, do justice to their (act of ) war. One of their armies invaded Multan and put the city to plunder and devastation and killed many of its inhabitants and carried away an immense booty. I am not sufficiently strong in mind to express what the dogs did there. But as God willed it, each of us has to submit to His Will.

"Besides their fighting, listen to one more thing in which they excell all other warriors. They never kill a coward who is running away from the battlefield. They do not rob a woman of her wealth or ornaments whether she is rich or a servant ("Kaneez"). There is no adultry among these dogs, nor are they mischieveous people. A woman, whether young or old, they call a "Burhi". The word Burhi, means in Indian language, an old lady. There is no thief amongst these dogs, nor is there amongst them any mean people. They do not keep company with adulters and house thiefs though all their acts may not be commendable.

"If you are not acquainted with their religion, I tell you that the Sikhs are the disciples of the Guru - that glorious Guru lived at Chak (Amritsar). The ways and manners of these people were laid down by Nanak who showed these Sikhs a separate path. He was succeeded by Guru Gobind Singh from whom they received the title of Singh. They are not part of the Hindus, who have a separate religion of their own.

"Now that you have familiarised yourself with the behaviour of the Sikhs, you may also know something about their country. They have divided the Punjab amongst themselves and have bestowed it upon every young and old."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Narinder Singh

Its ok veerji, most people would rather do nindiya or listen to slander of each other. Why should they have to read about the history of the people they so proudly claim to be a part of?

Posers!

Fateh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
They have divided the Punjab amongst themselves and have bestowed it upon every young and old."

what was he tryin to say when he wrote that? how was punjab divided amongst Sikhs at that time? what was the division like? just curious and wanna know the hist lil more.

He meant the sikhs divided it and ruled it so no one could attack them. He praised the sikhs many times. I read soo many battles, i stayed up all night studying the invasions of afghanistan. The invasions in india. I can say the sikhs fought each battle with honour destroying the afghans. Sardar Hari Singh Nawla Ji invaded the afghanistan. Took everything down. Undefeated he was. He left the earth, term of respect in the battle of jarmud, the afghans attacked with 30 000 strong, while the sikhs were only in the thousands, Sardar Ji went to the balcony, the sikhs fought till there last breath. I hardly think that is a lost. Do you, if they killed so much of there army, it was Akbhar Khan, THAT WAS THE ONLY LOSE IN AFGHANISTAN. The rest the sikhs won again and again. From 1818 to 1837 the afghans lost after lost. Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji is very praised by british folki. He was undefeated, i did not say that, white folk say it, his name is in the undefeated generals of all time. Sick eh. And he fought better battles then anyone ountumbered by 10 to 1. Undefeated I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah i read the guys accounts, he really praises the sikhs. Multan was the capital of afghanistan, the sikhs ripped it, and conquered it so easily.

Some talk about Alexander, some about Napoleon, some even go as far as Ghengis Khan or Halaku Khan. But let me tell you of the undefeatable. Conquest after conquest, unstoppable i call him. 7ft in length, his sword was bigger then the body of man. He slain a tiger with his bear hands, grabbed its mouth as he shoved his sword into it. They call him Sardar Hari Singh Nawla Ji. The tiger of tigers, Sir Griffin could nothing but praise him, british emporers could not dare attack him, they allied him. He was truly noble. The mighty british, you ask me, go ask a british playright, scholar or writer, who is the undefeatable, the greatest general of them all, the name they will say is our beloved Saint Soldier Sardar Ji. Want proof? They kneel there heads when they talk about him, such a saint, such a warrior, greater then Alexander i say. What is alexander anyways had he ever slain a tiger? Had he ever stood up to an elephant? Huh? He sold 30 000 slaves, but Sardar Ji brought 20 000 soldiers down with only 7000. Such a mistake the afghans made, Sardar Ji asked them to give him way, but they refused, so he attacked broke there barriers to the ground, and took the city. But no the saint soldier is pure honor, never will rob an lady, just as qazi said, these sikhs are "50 of any army"

Around 1881, a debate ensued in English and French

papers as to who was the most successful military general

in the world. Some names which were much talked about

then were Napoleon, Marshal Handenberg, Lord Kitchner,

General Carbuiser or Duke of Wellington. After mention of

the generals from European sub continent, Halaku Khan,

Changez Khan, Alaudin of Asia were also counted in. But

when the mention of S. Hari Singh Nalwa came, the British

writer bowed his head in reverence to the most successful

army General of the world. For his ability to triumph over

Afghanistan where the British rulers had failed despite

unlimited resources of manpower and money available to

them. If S. Hari Singh had so much resources, he could

have conquered Europe and middle east. He was not only

a capable General but an administrator of high caliber, a

man of very high and noble character, a scholar, a

farsighted person endowed with unique quality of self

sacrifice. He spent his whole life in the service of the Panth.

His love for the Panth is evident from his statement that he

made when the time for choosing.

The british had all the riches in the world, but they could not conquer the afghans. The afghans made a dire mistake, attacking the holiest shrine, they gave their lives, such petty fools. Who are these pathans now a days trying to disrespect sikhi? In the late 1700s to the mid 1800s, the sikhs had the pathans fleeing from battle, the pathan generals did not even step into battle some of them. Hah. The second napoleon, and second alexander as historians called him, nadir shah, destroyed the ottoman reign in his country of afghanistan. He invaded india taking hindu slaves, but the sikhs see him, and destroy his force so easily. He goes to the governor, and asks him who are these men. The governor can say nothing bad, he to felt the power of Khalsa. Just a couple of decades ago, the greatest mughal general, the tryant of tryants, the worthless as i call hiim aurzengab, begged Khalsa for help. After the greatest battle the clouds ever seeen he begged and surrendered, bhadhur shah was lucky, God spared his life, but aurzengabs family has no food, no water, till today. You must watch your mouth, my fellow sikhs when you talk ill about sanths, you are putting your life in harms way, i found the disgraces funny, when they disrespect Santh Ranjit Singh Ji, HAH you people are in for danger, God can not spare your life, who are you. Who says God is for all man? Who says man is in Gods image? Such rubbish the chrisitans say, such rubbish, they know nothing of God. They brought the mighty saint in vain, after his depature the so called pope massacred many muslims, but then the muslim empires came, and engufled the chrisitans, and the monoglians, and then the mighty sikhs oh my what can i say about them, they just destroyed every army in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use