Niddar Singh Nihang Is A..

[HSD1]

I have little knowledge on Gurka regiment of the Sikh army, can you shed some light on their contribution and this kunwar guy?

On page 39 of the Osprey 'The Sikh Army 1799-1849' Book there is a picture of a Gurkha Sepoy wearing a shako (hat) with a tricolore on it. The book isnt worth buying because of the patronising way the english writer researches the Sikh Army but it does have good pictures. http://books.google.com/books?id=YIh9eQlojGsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Gurkhas came to the Punjab after their country had been annexed by the British. They were allowed to have their own regiments in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Army and were good in the wars with the Afghans. As time went on it became harder for Gurkhas to come to Lahore and so the regiments started recruiting other mountain people like Kashmiris etc. By the First Anglo-Sikh war the diplomatic relationship between Nepal and Britain prevented any Gurkhas coming to Punjab.

[Guest Kluivert]

Thats interesting...the main reason the sikhs gave the british a bloody nose in the anglo sikh wars was because of the modernisation of the army...contrast that with akaali nihang tactics with the exception of the battle of mudki and chillianwala...they got absolutely slaughtered by the british....akaali baba phoola singh ji nihang wanted the khalsa to retain its traditional fighting style i.e being heavily reliant on cavalry and relying on wreckless courage to win battles...this kind of mentallity could never compete with the british..who had the most organized and diciplined army in the world...armies of the 19th centruy were infantry based...with great imporatnce on artillery to soften and demoralise the enemy and a elite well trained cavalry unit to be used for coup de grace..infantry was essential..as they were the easiest to control and helped form battle lines and battle formations easily...attempting to outmonouver the enemy was best done with infantry.....it would not be understatement to suggest that if we stayed with akaali nihang tactic of the 18th century and took them into the late mid 19th century....we would of been completely wiped out in the first 2 or 3 battles

So are we under the assumption that British were better soldiers than Akali Nihungs.

1) If that was so, how did the Sikhs defeat the Moguls?

2) How did Maharaja Ranjit Singh have his Sikh Kingdom?

3) How did the Sikhs get Golden Temple back from the Afghans, once used by them as a brothel?

[Singh559]

Ajj kal deh Nihangs aint Sikh - true SIKHS are Singhs like Satwant Singh Beant Singh Jinda Sukha Dilavar Singh - these nihangs are just Hindus in my view

You're grossly misinformed if you truly think that Nihang Singhs are "hindus". If you actually went back in time and saw the Singhs first-hand you'd be embarrassed for making such a statement. You're stereotyping if you group some sects that claim to be Nihang Singhs with real Nihang Singhs...

[HSD1]

So are we under the assumption that British were better soldiers than Akali Nihungs.

1) If that was so, how did the Sikhs defeat the Moguls?

2) How did Maharaja Ranjit Singh have his Sikh Kingdom?

3) How did the Sikhs get Golden Temple back from the Afghans, once used by them as a brothel?

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.

[MAJHAIL_JATT]

Not really. Akalis/Nihangs/whatever were against Maharaja Ranjit SIngh as they saw him as lenient on non-sikhs living under Khalsa rule and too soft with the British in India.

Niddar paints a lover-dovey history of SIkhi in relation to Hinduism. The truth is that all of us Punjabi Sikhs have a hindu heritage before the last 500 years. That doesnt mean we are hindus, we are now SIkhs. Like how arabs became muslims or europeans became christians. Akalis and Nihangs have always been against Hindu power as that leads to the rule of the Brahmin, something no Sikh in their right mind would want.

This is a common misconception. Sikhs of Majha were NEVER hindus. Before Sikhism they practiced ancestor worship.

[jassa]

I want to get every one right here .... Modern warfare doesn't mean guns and weapons here ... Maharaja ranjeet singh including nihangs had the latest and advanced weapons of that time ...

Its not about guns Infact ram junga (a pistol) is one of the 5 shasters given to nihangs by Guru Gobind Singh.

The tactics which Europeans introduced ...

Guru Sahib said dont kill unarmed people Europeans taught by hook or crook make them unarmed and kill ... This was what Akali Phoola singh was against of ...

People say khalsa wouldn't have survived even a war why not ... Guru Hargobind sahib ji had only 1 canon which was used in all battles ...

Khalsa had the same weapons what ever Britishers had ... They dont need any training of how to use them ... Westernization meant fight like a European ... same gun same horse same sword ... Instead like a sikh with Principles and God above all ....

I would say a brhamgeyni yodha akaali Phoola singh said to maharaja this westernization would finish the raj and it happened ...

Its not about weapons they were the same it was about the principles taught by Guru sahib which many thought would not last against Britishers.

[Singh559]

I want to get every one right here .... Modern warfare doesn't mean guns and weapons here ... Maharaja ranjeet singh including nihangs had the latest and advanced weapons of that time ...

Its not about guns Infact ram junga (a pistol) is one of the 5 shasters given to nihangs by Guru Gobind Singh.

The tactics which Europeans introduced ...

Guru Sahib said dont kill unarmed people Europeans taught by hook or crook make them unarmed and kill ... This was what Akali Phoola singh was against of ...

People say khalsa wouldn't have survived even a war why not ... Guru Hargobind sahib ji had only 1 canon which was used in all battles ...

Khalsa had the same weapons what ever Britishers had ... They dont need any training of how to use them ... Westernization meant fight like a European ... same gun same horse same sword ... Instead like a sikh with Principles and God above all ....

I would say a brhamgeyni yodha akaali Phoola singh said to maharaja this westernization would finish the raj and it happened ...

Its not about weapons they were the same it was about the principles taught by Guru sahib which many thought would not last against Britishers.

Thanks for this post and I fully agree. It does make a lot of sense.

[HSD1]

This is a common misconception. Sikhs of Majha were NEVER hindus. Before Sikhism they practiced ancestor worship.

That's not the way the Hindus see it.

[HSD1]

I want to get every one right here .... Modern warfare doesn't mean guns and weapons here ... Maharaja ranjeet singh including nihangs had the latest and advanced weapons of that time ...

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.

The tactics which Europeans introduced ...

Guru Sahib said dont kill unarmed people Europeans taught by hook or crook make them unarmed and kill ... This was what Akali Phoola singh was against of ...

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.

People say khalsa wouldn't have survived even a war why not ... Guru Hargobind sahib ji had only 1 canon which was used in all battles ...

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.

Khalsa had the same weapons what ever Britishers had ... They dont need any training of how to use them ... Westernization meant fight like a European ... same gun same horse same sword ... Instead like a sikh with Principles and God above all ....

They did need training. A lot of training. Anyway, the British were mainly Christian and would have said the same thing about us.....

I would say a brhamgeyni yodha akaali Phoola singh said to maharaja this westernization would finish the raj and it happened ...

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.

[genie]

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.

I agree with most of what you had to say about modernisation was needed for the Sikh army to fight in that era, even today if nihungs and other warrior sects / soldiers of the Sikh panth do not modernise and adapt the tactics and weaponry they will be left in the pages of history in any eventual conflict.

I would take issue on the bit about the muslim population rising up. In many instances the Muslims were standing shoulder to shoulder fighting against the foreign British invaders. You had a few uprisings who were incited by the British to rise up and help the British but on the whole the Muslims did give their lot in with the Sikhs to defend the empire. Even Afghanistan sent troops to help the Sikhs, I read this somewhere that it was during the second anglo-sikh war? or first not sure which one but will try to provide sources and quotes when I find them. It was in afghanistans interest to see the British did not come anywhere near their country as history shows after the annexation of the Punjab the British set their sights on conquering strategic Afghanistan before Russian Empire did (part of the "great game" as they had put it).