America Doesnt Believe In The Khalsa Raj!?!

[Bijla Singh]

if ranjit singh had spent some of his wealth on institutions in the punjab we may have been able to resist the british attack better.

Half of the state revenue went to dharamsalas as grants. He even tried to open an English school but refused to accept Bible study as part of the curriculum. What more do you want? War against the British was fought with weapons and Ranjit Singh had a strong army trained on European lines. Weapons built in factories in Punjab were better than European ones. Sikhs beat the British but lost at the end because of betrayal. This shows that Ranjit Singh was a great leader and protected Punjab from the British. He was an intelligent and far sighted person. He has negative points (and so does everybody) but he made no mistakes that resulted in loss of our kingdom.

that jeendan kaur and the brahmins/muslim punjabis also helped to betray the khalsa

This is utterly foolish talk. Rani Jindan was daughter of Manna Singh, a Sikh. She remained loyal to the Sikh kingdom and was the only real threat against British during Anglo-Sikh wars. She fully knew British plans and always countered them. This is why she was exiled and never allowed back in Punjab. Daleep Singh's return to Sikh faith and turning against the British was also due to her influence. How else do you explain her sufferings until her death? Punjabi Muslims served in the Sikh army and fought against the British. It was dogras and brahmins of U.P. that betrayed us. What evidence do you have that Rani Jindan was against the kingdom ruled by her husband?

[HSD*^]

Half of the state revenue went to dharamsalas as grants. He even tried to open an English school but refused to accept Bible study as part of the curriculum. What more do you want? War against the British was fought with weapons and Ranjit Singh had a strong army trained on European lines. Weapons built in factories in Punjab were better than European ones. Sikhs beat the British but lost at the end because of betrayal. This shows that Ranjit Singh was a great leader and protected Punjab from the British. He was an intelligent and far sighted person. He has negative points (and so does everybody) but he made no mistakes that resulted in loss of our kingdom.

what evidence is there that half of the state revenue went on it? by institutions i mean military academies like westpoint and sandhurst. after ranjit singh died, many of the regiments took untrained officers based on family ties. that weakened our army. what about a parliament full of patriots rather than yes-men? when the british took sindh ranjit singh and his govt looked the other way as they didnt care if the khalsa raj survived in the long term. if sindh had joined the punjab we would have had a link to the sea, ports and a khalsa navy. we could have fought the british at their own game and been able to trade with other countries (the king of france often tried to get trade envoys to the punjab but the british stopped them as we were land locked). ranjit singh said himself that when he is gone that the british will eat us up - mainly because he couldnt care less what happened to his kingdom after he died.

This is utterly foolish talk. Rani Jindan was daughter of Manna Singh, a Sikh. She remained loyal to the Sikh kingdom and was the only real threat against British during Anglo-Sikh wars. She fully knew British plans and always countered them. This is why she was exiled and never allowed back in Punjab. Daleep Singh's return to Sikh faith and turning against the British was also due to her influence. How else do you explain her sufferings until her death? Punjabi Muslims served in the Sikh army and fought against the British. It was dogras and brahmins of U.P. that betrayed us. What evidence do you have that Rani Jindan was against the kingdom ruled by her husband?

she knew the british plans because they told her. tell me who appointed the dogra chiefs? her. tell me who killed her brother? the khalsa. she didnt care for the khalsa. she loved her brother and he was killed by the army. the khalsa was killing heirs to the throne as quick as they were being put on the throne. she feared the army. when the british attacked she expected the british to beat them so that her and the other aristocracy could rule punjab without fear of being assasinated. it was only when the british took power from the lahore durbar did she tell the khalsa to fight for the freedom of the khalsa raj. her son was her key to power. he ran off and converted to christianity (willingly). when he was older he was womanising and drinking as much as his 'father'. it was at this point that duleep singh realised he couldnt live off the 'meagre' income of an english squire. he asked queen victoria for money and she said no as he had massive gambling debts and would carry on if he had more money. he then ran off and tried to get the punjab back to spite the english and try and live the life his mother and 'father' enjoyed. he 'converted' to sikhi (amritdhari would you believe it) yet he reffered to other sikhs as 'n*ggers'. nice eh? what a great king he would have been. eventually he ended up in russia trying to get them to start a war to restore him to the throne of Lahore based on a made up sau sakhi. :rolleyes:

[saint-soldier]

The west are trying to spur on the muslims, by creating a "holy war". They are doing this by creating demonic figures, such as osama bin laden and saddam hussain, and claiming they are the ones that are bad, when infact these figures are created by the government themselves, in an attempt to fool all the people of the world, into making them think it was their fault.

Their ultimate aim is to make us all their slaves. Don't trust the mainstream media. 911 was a set up. It was not by fanatical terrorists. september the 11th was staged by the US Government. Don't take my word for it, do your own research and find out for yourself.

i thought i was the only one here that had these views about 9/11.

back to the topic, isnt khalsa raaj, rule of the people that are pure at heart and not just the sikhs???

[Bijla Singh]

what evidence is there that half of the state revenue went on it?

Khalsa Darbar Records. Chronicle of Maharaj Ranjit Singh also known as Umdat-Ut-Twarikh by Sohan Lal Suri. Ranjit Singh paid every attention to his army. He wrote letters instructing his generals what to feed horses, how much the army should travel etc. Every little detail was kept in mind by him.

after ranjit singh died, many of the regiments took untrained officers based on family ties. that weakened our army.

Name some of those. Army was trained by experienced officers like Avitable, Vetura and Allard. List of officers in the kingdom can be found in many books.

when the british took sindh ranjit singh and his govt looked the other way as they didnt care if the khalsa raj survived in the long term. if sindh had joined the punjab we would have had a link to the sea, ports and a khalsa navy.

This is simply easy talk without knowing the core issue. Maharaja Ranjit Singh did his best to capture Sindh as he considered it not against the treaty but British had other plans. At last, it was Amirs of Sindh who signed the treaty and aligned with the British just like Sikh kings of Malwa sought British protection against Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew his resources and power. He was surrounded by enemies. One side was British, then Russia, Pathans on the other side and Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan seeking opportunities to capture Peshawar. British had resources and army of the entire Indian states while Maharaja Ranjit Singh had no back up and resources less than 20% than that of the British. It would’ve been very unwise and foolish on the part of Sikhs to jeopardize the entire Punjab over Sindh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh kept Punjab free for as long as he could. Study some history first.

ranjit singh said himself that when he is gone that the british will eat us up - mainly because he couldnt care less what happened to his kingdom after he died.

False. Read his last speech written in book by Sohan Singh Seetal. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew British’s plans and he also knew that Punjab would not be able to stand against British for very long time. The way British was conquering other regions with the help of Indians he knew Punjab won’t hold out much longer either. He cared for the kingdom he established and wanted his son to rule after him. How could a king not care for his kingdom and his sons? At least read Ganda Singh’s books.

she knew the british plans because they told her.

Any evidence? It was only her and Pandit Dina Nath who fully knew what British thought once they came to Lahore in 1846 as “protectors”. She encouraged the army to fight the British till their last breath. She invited Sham Singh Attariwala to the battle. She told her son not to put saffron mark on the forehead of Tej Ram.

tell me who appointed the dogra chiefs? Her

No. She had no say when Maharaja Ranjit Singh was alive. After he died she took no part in politics until her son was appointed and at that time British kept her away from the Darbar and British resident appointed everyone.

tell me who killed her brother? the khalsa. she didnt care for the khalsa. she loved her brother and he was killed by the army.

The army killed her brother because he threatened to go to the British. But Rani was considered “Raj Mata” by the army. When the army was not getting enough food and ammunitions the generals went to her for help because they knew she would listen. She cared for her husband’s kingdom.

the khalsa was killing heirs to the throne as quick as they were being put on the throne.

Dogras were killing not the army. Dogras caused death of Kharak Singh and Nau Nihal Singh. They killed Chand Kaur and Charat Singh. They killed Sher Singh. Mind you it was the army that killed Heera Laal and Suchait Ram and later supported Sandhawalias to kill Dhiyan Chand. What books are you studying from?

when the british attacked she expected the british to beat them so that her and the other aristocracy could rule punjab without fear of being assasinated. it was only when the british took power from the lahore durbar did she tell the khalsa to fight for the freedom of the khalsa raj.

She expected the Khalsa army to beat the British and they could have had the Dogras not betrayed. Army supported Jind Kaur. Fauj was never against the royal family. It was dogras who sold secrets of the Khalsa to the British. When army persisted on attacking Firozpur, Laal Chand kept refusing and delaying. He acted on British orders. Even British historians agree to this.

he ran off and converted to christianity (willingly).

Simply ignorant. He was only 9 when he was taken into British custody. He was placed under supervision of British agents, surrounded by non-Sikh servants and taught bible every night by a Brahmin. He was removed from Sikhs and Sikhi. Ganda Singh, Sohan Singh Seetal, Letters of Dalhousie and Logan etc all confirm that British practically imprisoned Daleep Singh and influenced him to convert to Christianity. He was kept away from Punjab for his entire life so that he wouldn’t return to his heritage.

he 'converted' to sikhi (amritdhari would you believe it) yet he reffered to other sikhs as 'n*ggers'. nice eh?

Any evidence? His letter addressed to Sikhs has much different tone as you claim.

eventually he ended up in russia trying to get them to start a war to restore him to the throne of Lahore based on a made up sau sakhi.

He wanted his kingdom back because he had found out that it was deceitfully taken away from him (not won). I hardly doubt he ever read Sau Sakhi but he was the true heir to his father’s throne.

I think you hardly know anything about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Sikh kingdom. Please read some authentic books instead of biased works of European travelers and British agents whose aim was to justify British annexation over Punjab.

[chhokaranwala]

please tell us who the UP Bramhins were who brought the downfall of the sikh power ?

the truth lies because we never developed a proper officer cadre or weaopens making facilities

the ones that were there were run by Europeans and the officers of a lot of regiements were White Europeans who deserted the army at the first instance of war with the British - Funny how noone likes to talk about their treahery and instead we are fed with dark hints and lies about conspiracies

Much of the Sikh forces were led by hereditary captains - the rise on the basis of merit was little considered -

also half of the Sikhs in Malwa also sided with the British - we need to look at the uncomfortable facts of our own history and mistakes - A true Sikh is a lover of the truth and does not run away from inconvenient facts

the basis of the state was still fuedal and medieval which can only be held together with an all powerful leader like Ranjit Singh - the econmoic ability of Britain to fight a war as an emerging insustrial power was far greater than a fuedal agriculutral society.

- as with their other wars the British avoided conflict when the state had the benefit of a strong leader but jumped in when the leaders began a bloodthirtsy struggle for power

[HSD*^]

Khalsa Darbar Records. Chronicle of Maharaj Ranjit Singh also known as Umdat-Ut-Twarikh by Sohan Lal Suri. Ranjit Singh paid every attention to his army. He wrote letters instructing his generals what to feed horses, how much the army should travel etc. Every little detail was kept in mind by him.

half of state revenue on the army.........wow, even north korea manages that. does that mean chairman kim is a great leader? and you proved my point - ranjit singh was the sole commander and he refused to let others have the abillity to learn the necessary skills. how many armies need their commandeer in chief to tell them what to put in tank fuel cells?

Name some of those. Army was trained by experienced officers like Avitable, Vetura and Allard. List of officers in the kingdom can be found in many books.

i said after ranjit singh died, which is when all those people left. how could they train an arny when they had fled the country?

This is simply easy talk without knowing the core issue. Maharaja Ranjit Singh did his best to capture Sindh as he considered it not against the treaty but British had other plans. At last, it was Amirs of Sindh who signed the treaty and aligned with the British just like Sikh kings of Malwa sought British protection against Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew his resources and power. He was surrounded by enemies. One side was British, then Russia, Pathans on the other side and Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan seeking opportunities to capture Peshawar. British had resources and army of the entire Indian states while Maharaja Ranjit Singh had no back up and resources less than 20% than that of the British. It would’ve been very unwise and foolish on the part of Sikhs to jeopardize the entire Punjab over Sindh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh kept Punjab free for as long as he could. Study some history first.

the british went in and levelled the country whilst the khalsa looked on. the few survivors of the sindh aristocracy signed the treaty with the british when they realised the khalsa wasnt coming to save them. typical. some khalsa commandeers wanted to get the british, but ranjit said no. sounds like cowardice to me. also the russian tzar often wrote to ranjit singh and said he wanted to trade, and even a joint attack on afghanistan to secure our western border and there southern border. ranjit singh didnt care as he was too busy with his 40 wives and 100s of concubines. now how about you study some history.

False. Read his last speech written in book by Sohan Singh Seetal. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew British’s plans and he also knew that Punjab would not be able to stand against British for very long time. The way British was conquering other regions with the help of Indians he knew Punjab won’t hold out much longer either. He cared for the kingdom he established and wanted his son to rule after him. How could a king not care for his kingdom and his sons? At least read Ganda Singh’s books.

punjab wouldnt last long as ranjit frittered away our chance at building a decent country. stop being so melodramatic. ranjit singh spent his last years whoring and drinking and laughing at the khalsa whilst those poor young men looked on. a decade later most of them would be dead. and lets face it , ranjit singh had so many sons (not including the illegitimate ones) he probably couldnt care less.

Any evidence? It was only her and Pandit Dina Nath who fully knew what British thought once they came to Lahore in 1846 as “protectors”. She encouraged the army to fight the British till their last breath. She invited Sham Singh Attariwala to the battle. She told her son not to put saffron mark on the forehead of Tej Ram.

after the massacre at aliwal it was obvious something was wrong. the khalsa went to her and asked her to send more supplies as they were overcrowded and starving in Sobraon. she took her top off and threw it at them. then she screamed at them topless and said she would fight the british instead as the khalsa had run out of men. and like complete idiots the khalsa troopers slunk off.............to get massacred at Sobroan. what a great queen, to nobly sacrifice so many sons of other mothers.

The army killed her brother because he threatened to go to the British. But Rani was considered “Raj Mata” by the army. When the army was not getting enough food and ammunitions the generals went to her for help because they knew she would listen. She cared for her husband’s kingdom.

and she wept for him. she bemoaned his death. and she swore revenge. god, why are you so oblivious to it?

She expected the Khalsa army to beat the British and they could have had the Dogras not betrayed. Army supported Jind Kaur. Fauj was never against the royal family. It was dogras who sold secrets of the Khalsa to the British. When army persisted on attacking Firozpur, Laal Chand kept refusing and delaying. He acted on British orders. Even British historians agree to this.

who appointed the traitors as leaders hmm? she sent communications to the british as she feared the khalsa more than the british. during the first anglosikh war some sikh officers realised what happened and tried to kidnap duleep singh. her son was the heir to throne. she was expendable if the khalsa didnt like her. and she knew it. open your eyes.

Simply ignorant. He was only 9 when he was taken into British custody. He was placed under supervision of British agents, surrounded by non-Sikh servants and taught bible every night by a Brahmin. He was removed from Sikhs and Sikhi. Ganda Singh, Sohan Singh Seetal, Letters of Dalhousie and Logan etc all confirm that British practically imprisoned Daleep Singh and influenced him to convert to Christianity. He was kept away from Punjab for his entire life so that he wouldn’t return to his heritage.

complete and utter bull. many people remarked that duleep spent a riduculous amount of time with british officers. his mother wanted him to go to england and study in oxford. unsurprisingly, with parents like his, he didnt have the brains to do so. he only came back to sikhi after he realised how much more women/drink/gambling he could get up to if he was king of punjab rather than an english squire. oh and btw dalhousies letters all say that duleep shows a lot of interest in christianity but it should not be encouraged as it would antagonise relations with sikhs in the punjab and british army.

Any evidence? His letter addressed to Sikhs has much different tone as you claim.

if you can read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Maharajahs-Box-Imp...584&sr=8-28

oh and that letter wasnt even written by him.

He wanted his kingdom back because he had found out that it was deceitfully taken away from him (not won). I hardly doubt he ever read Sau Sakhi but he was the true heir to his father’s throne.

I think you hardly know anything about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Sikh kingdom. Please read some authentic books instead of biased works of European travelers and British agents whose aim was to justify British annexation over Punjab.

he wanted it back because he was as ruthless and greedy as any other ruler in history. oh authentic books eh? i have read many contemporary and in-depth studies. just because you dont like the truth doesnt mean its not real. and why would the english justify what they did? many of their officers said there was no reason to attack the sikh kingdom apart from the fact that we were weak. they dont hide things like you do.

oh and you have bhindrawale as your pic......why? if you want khalistan, i dont want to live in it with you if your going to act like this. its time sikhs stopped being played by our political leaders: past or present.

please tell us who the UP Bramhins were who brought the downfall of the sikh power ?

the truth lies because we never developed a proper officer cadre or weaopens making facilities

the ones that were there were run by Europeans and the officers of a lot of regiements were White Europeans who deserted the army at the first instance of war with the British - Funny how noone likes to talk about their treahery and instead we are fed with dark hints and lies about conspiracies

Much of the Sikh forces were led by hereditary captains - the rise on the basis of merit was little considered -

also half of the Sikhs in Malwa also sided with the British - we need to look at the uncomfortable facts of our own history and mistakes - A true Sikh is a lover of the truth and does not run away from inconvenient facts

the basis of the state was still fuedal and medieval which can only be held together with an all powerful leader like Ranjit Singh - the econmoic ability of Britain to fight a war as an emerging insustrial power was far greater than a fuedal agriculutral society.

- as with their other wars the British avoided conflict when the state had the benefit of a strong leader but jumped in when the leaders began a bloodthirtsy struggle for power

we had our own weapon making facilities. two of the three traitors were brahmins who converted to sikhi to further there ambitions in the sikh army.

[Bijla Singh]

ranjit singh was the sole commander and he refused to let others have the abillity to learn the necessary skills. how many armies need their commandeer in chief to tell them what to put in tank fuel cells?

First you say he didn’t care and when proven wrong you change your point. He paid much attention to his army’s needs but doesn’t mean he refused to let others learn. He hired many trained officers to train his army. He hired talented people from all across the country including Hindus and Muslims. Military System of the Sikh Army by Fauja Singh is the best book on this and I suggest you read it before writing speculations. He was a great leader who consolidated Punjab and for the first time Punjab became on world’s map as an independent state. He stopped foreign attacks and took Peshawar back after 834 years. You are a fool to not realize this fact.

i said after ranjit singh died, which is when all those people left. how could they train an arny when they had fled the country?

Allard died in 1838 and others didn’t leave until much later. Some participated in Anglo-Sikh wars. You know nothing.

the british went in and levelled the country whilst the khalsa looked on. the few survivors of the sindh aristocracy signed the treaty with the british when they realised the khalsa wasnt coming to save them. typical. some khalsa commandeers wanted to get the british, but ranjit said no. sounds like cowardice to me. also the russian tzar often wrote to ranjit singh and said he wanted to trade, and even a joint attack on afghanistan to secure our western border and there southern border. ranjit singh didnt care as he was too busy with his 40 wives and 100s of concubines. now how about you study some history.

I have explained this before. Ranjit Singh had limited resources and with enemies all around him, it would’ve been unwise to have a war with a strong empire over a small area. Inviting Russia was out of the question as they too had their own motives. When Hindu kings invited Mughals to suppress their enemies, Mughals came and took over and kings who invited them became their subordinates. Ranjit Singh fully knew this and Russians would’ve done the same. Ranjit Singh wanted no external power coming to Punjab and then staying there permanently. Again, Ganda Singh has analyzed this issue in details. Now go study it.

punjab wouldnt last long as ranjit frittered away our chance at building a decent country.

What he built was much better than 40 years earlier. Sikhs were only 10% of the population and ruled over 80% Muslims. The area they occupied was huge. This wasn’t an easy task. For the first time in history Punjab became a safe place and guarded from foreign attacks. English travelers rated Punjab as the safest place in India. Not decent enough? My foot.

ranjit singh spent his last years whoring and drinking and laughing at the khalsa

Reading too much English sources are we? It was their aim to show the king irresponsible in order to justify future British annexation over Punjab.

after the massacre at aliwal it was obvious something was wrong

Ganda Singh gives many proofs regarding Aliwal. It wasn’t even a battle. Read up on it.

the khalsa went to her and asked her to send more supplies as they were overcrowded and starving in Sobraon. she took her top off and threw it at them. then she screamed at them topless and said she would fight the british instead as the khalsa had run out of men.

You are mixing up different events. Sabraon was the last battle and Rani herself invited Sham Singh Attariwala to fight. When army went to ask for supplies it was before the first war. Ganda Singh describes this event in details and Rani threw a chunni not her top. You are such an <banned word filter activated>.

and she wept for him. she bemoaned his death. and she swore revenge. god, why are you so oblivious to it?

She wept but doesn’t prove she betrayed. Jawahar Singh was a drunkard and wished to become king himself. You failed to provide any evidence that she communicated with the British.

who appointed the traitors as leaders hmm?

Dhiyan Chand and Gulab Chand were already popular and wazirs before Ranjit Singh died. Akal Phoola Singh was upset because they were appointed as wazirs as he wanted Sikhs to be in power. Dhiyan Chand remained wazir of Kharak Singh and then Sher Singh. In fact, he died as a wazir. Gulab Chand was wazir of Jammu. You have no evidence to prove that Ranji Jind Kaur appointed them. She had no say in politics until Daleep Singh sat on the throne. Even then she only influenced her son.

she sent communications to the british as she feared the khalsa more than the british. during the first anglosikh war some sikh officers realised what happened and tried to kidnap duleep singh. her son was the heir to throne. she was expendable if the khalsa didnt like her. and she knew it. open your eyes.

No evidence. Harding, Honiberger, Smyth, Dalhousie, Ganda Singh, Sohan Singh, Fauja Singh, J S Grewal, Indu Banga etc all state otherwise. If you want some direct quotes let me know.

many people remarked that duleep spent a riduculous amount of time with british officers.

Care to name some of those people? After the first war, british agent at Lahore had the control over expenses and he made significant changes to reduce state’s revenue. Daleep Singh had no right. After he was taken into custody, Logan was in charge of his expenses.

his mother wanted him to go to england and study in oxford. unsurprisingly, with parents like his, he didnt have the brains to do so.

No. She had him study Gurbani from a granthi who always accompanied Daleep Singh. He was kept around Sikh servants. A mother wouldn’t want to send her child away for no reason. All this changed when British took over. Sohan Singh Seetal makes it clear in Dukhiye Maa Putt. Once again you provided no evidence.

oh and btw dalhousies letters all say that duleep shows a lot of interest in christianity but it should not be encouraged as it would antagonise relations with sikhs in the punjab and british army.

You are a fool to trust English sources blindly. Daleep Singh was purposely placed under supervision of Logan who deeply wanted to convert the young prince. His letters are clear on this. He states that he wanted to put bible in his hands but couldn't as this would be seen as forcing him to convert. So to achieve his goal, Christian servants were hired and a Brahmin graduated from Christian school was hired to read Bible to Daleep Singh every night. Daleep Singh was only 9 years old at the time. Dalhousie’s motives were the same and this is why he never allowed Chattar Singh to marry her daughter to Daleep Singh which became the reason for him to revolt resulting in second war. Sohan Singh Seetal has also provided evidence in his book and Dalhousie’s letters are quoted to prove this point. Your foolishness has no bounds.

i have read many contemporary and in-depth studies. just because you dont like the truth doesnt mean its not real. and why would the english justify what they did? many of their officers said there was no reason to attack the sikh kingdom apart from the fact that we were weak.

Have you read Khalsa Darbar Records, Umdat-Ut-Twarikh, Tarikh-i-Punjab, Chahar-e-Punjab? I doubt it. Your study is shallow and incomplete. So-called contemporary accounts you are referring to are probably English and your statements clearly show their influence on you. While all Sikh scholars have disapproved many of the English sources you are blindly following them. How rational is it to trust books written by those who wanted to take over Sikh kingdom?

oh and you have bhindrawale as your pic......why? if you want khalistan, i dont want to live in it with you if your going to act like this. its time sikhs stopped being played by our political leaders: past or present.

This is irrelevant. Shows how immature you are. Khalistan has nothing to do with this topic and having a pic of Sant Ji only shows my admiration for him. You don’t have to live in Khalistan and I am sure Khalistan is much better off without English boot lickers like yourself. You are the one who is being fooled by English politicians of past and present.