Niddar Singh Nihang Is A..

[HSD1]

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.

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.

[genie]

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.

indeed, and It was the break down of the chain of command and a power vaccum at the top that lead to the collapse. The British were all too eager to kill off the leadership at the top along but the Dogra's with the Khalsa Raj prime minister Raja Diwan Singh got there first with his conspiracy against the Empire. His treachery was answered with his execution by the Khalsa army after numerous assassinations of the maharaja's family. I think we can safely conclude that Sikhs have no one to blame but themselves for this epic failure for not destroying their ego's and seeing what was best for the panth. Likewise today we have so called Sikh politicians in Punjab who are on a ego trip who collecting personal wealth without foresight of the future of the community they think they are serving.

[jassa]

Singh you are confused over westernization and modernization

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.

Are you saying sikhs lacked training tactics and organization ? If so how come the survived nadder shah mughals and paharis ? Not even survived but even defeated them. Akalis never had artillery as they never needed one as they always fought in close range when alone and when fighting with support of others they use to wait till swords come out. And above all Akalis faught with the strength ardas Shaheedi of akali Phoola singh indicates that.

and to the main point you mention just think what are you saying being in less number they defeated Pathans who attached even lahore with afganistan without training.

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.

Calling them english names doesnt mean they were invented by british Sikhs have their own formation most of them are basic war formations for example "Shalkh kholna" mentioned in panth parkash used by sikh even during guru Hargobind sahib jis time which is same as fire by platoon or in line firing ...

Just think again were Sikhs fighting without the knowledge of formations the only difference is the symmetry which british and other well trained armies had but it only looks nice while marching ... Formations and tactics were there even since mankind learned to fight. Its not more then a joke saying british invented the formation in armies. Every warrior class ever existed knows the formation and in India its called Rann Videya.

Guru Hargobind Singh 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.

Can you name even 1 shaster which was there in maharaja ranjeet singhs time but not in guru hargobind sahibs time ... Even 1 shaster ... True industrialization began with the invention of diesel engine ... before that weapons used were same and simple ... It was 1880 - 1890s when this difference in weapons started showing up with german and italy made weapons started pouring in. Just name a weapon Britishers used against Sikhs which Sikhs didnt had ?

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

Yes they needed training but the same training Baba Budha jee gave to Guru Hargobind sahib ... Using of advance weapons has nothing to do with britishers ... As sikhs were already using it ... Which training are you talking about ..

You can give reasons sikhs lost due to muslims or dogras but the truth is sikhs lost because they overlooked Dasam Pathshahs bachans ... Guru sahib said khalsa should never look upon Hindus and Muslims for protection ... But the did during anglo sikh wars and they never faught hence sikhs lost ...

If maharaja ranjeet singh concentrated on creating only sikh army to save his kingdom he would had never lost because dogras and muslims had no part to play in the war ...

Afganistan is the country which was never under British ... Infact if we look at the history british kinda lost in afganistan after fighting for 60 years... By your logic Were these pathans more advanced then britishers ? No ... Sikhs almost won afganistan does that means sikhs were more advanced then pathans ? In the last anglo afgan war in 1918 i suppose british even used airplanes but still no success.

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.

Well you may be surprised the sikhs lost battle of Aliwal because they were not soldiers and they waited for british to attack budhwal instead british marched at ludhiana where gorkhas and other troops from delhi and attacked sikhs. It was because sikhs didnt understood the move of enemy ... Majithia who lead sikhs in this battle was one of the sharpest sikh leader and his troops were not akalis BUT french trained sikh soldiers with non soldiers in around 7-8k in number out of 15-18k. Infact Battle of Aliwal proved sikhs were doing the basics wrong.

No matter how much western tactics Sikhs would have learned but they would have lost because

They forgot Gurus bachans of dont let other religion people speak in rajniti (1 of 52 bachans of guru gobind singh)

Dont rely of the strength of muslims and hindus for protection (Suraj Parkash)

and most important Never give up your courage (before the anglo sikh wars how many sikhs were captured by enemies none because it was impossible to catch a sikh alive but after this so called Westernization of army they started giving up see the number of war prisoners in final anglo sikh war and then read the history of shaheedi of Akali Phula singh you will know what is real courage which we lost)

Being Advanced and Westernization are two different things. With time you need to be advance to survive but this advancement should not be at the cost of the foundation and principles of your identity. Guru gave its fauj Jangi bana and westernization gave them trousers. Cant sikhs fight with advanced weapons wearing bana ?

Sach eh hai appan apne guru de bachan apne guru di awaz bhule taan hi assi harre te ajj we harr rahe han. Nahi taan duniach koi kaum paida nahi hoyi jo khalse nu harra sakdi.

[HSD1]

Singh you are confused over westernization and modernization

Not really. Please provide examples.

Are you saying sikhs lacked training tactics and organization ?

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.

If so how come the survived nadder shah mughals and paharis ? Not even survived but even defeated them. Akalis never had artillery as they never needed one as they always fought in close range when alone and when fighting with support of others they use to wait till swords come out. And above all Akalis faught with the strength ardas Shaheedi of akali Phoola singh indicates that.

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?

and to the main point you mention just think what are you saying being in less number they defeated Pathans who attached even lahore with afganistan without training.

Again 16th Century/early 17th century =/= mid 18th century.

Calling them english names doesnt mean they were invented by british Sikhs have their own formation most of them are basic war formations for example "Shalkh kholna" mentioned in panth parkash used by sikh even during guru Hargobind sahib jis time which is same as fire by platoon or in line firing ...

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?

Just think again were Sikhs fighting without the knowledge of formations the only difference is the symmetry which british and other well trained armies had but it only looks nice while marching ... Formations and tactics were there even since mankind learned to fight. Its not more then a joke saying british invented the formation in armies. Every warrior class ever existed knows the formation and in India its called Rann Videya.

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.

Can you name even 1 shaster which was there in maharaja ranjeet singhs time but not in guru hargobind sahibs time ... Even 1 shaster ...

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.

True industrialization began with the invention of diesel engine

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.

before that weapons used were same and simple ..

Yes, that's why it was only Europe, India and North America who were capable of producing their own guns, artillery and ships.

It was 1880 - 1890s when this difference in weapons started showing up with german and italy made weapons started pouring in.

Pouring into what?

[HSD1]

Just name a weapon Britishers used against Sikhs which Sikhs dont have ?

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?

Yes they needed training but the same training Baba Budha jee gave to Guru Hargobind sahib ... Using of advance weapons has nothing to do with britishers ... As sikhs were already using it ... Which training are you talking about ..

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.

You can give reasons sikhs lost due to muslims or dogras but the truth is sikhs lost because they overlooked Dasam Pathshahs bachans ... Guru sahib said khalsa should never look upon Hindus and Muslims for protection ... But the did during anglo sikh wars and they never faught hence sikhs lost ...

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

If maharaja ranjeet singh concentrated on creating only sikh army to save his kingdom he would had never lost because dogras and muslims had no part to play in the war ...

True. He may also have been deposed a lot more easily too. Which is why he didnt employ only SIkhs.

Afganistan is the country which was never under British ... Infact if we look at the history british kinda lost in afganistan after fighting for 60 years... By your logic Were these pathans more advanced then britishers ? No ... Sikhs almost won afganistan does that means sikhs were more advanced then pathans ? In the last anglo afgan war in 1918 i suppose british even used airplanes but still no success.

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.

Well you may be surprised the sikhs lost battle of Aliwal because they were not soldiers and they waited for british to attack budhwal instead british marched at ludhiana where gorkhas and other troops from delhi and attacked sikhs. It was because sikhs didnt understood the move of enemy ... Majithia who lead sikhs in this battle was one of the sharpest sikh leader and his troops were not akalis BUT french trained sikh soldiers with non soldiers in around 7-8k in number out of 15-18k. Infact Battle of Aliwal proved sikhs were doing the basics wrong.

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.

No matter how much western tactics Sikhs would have learned but they would have lost because

They forgot Gurus bachans of dont let other religion people speak in rajniti (1 of 52 bachans of guru gobind singh)

Dont rely of the strength of muslims and hindus for protection (Suraj Parkash)

and most important Never give up your courage (before the anglo sikh wars how many sikhs were captured by enemies none because it was impossible to catch a sikh alive but after this so called Westernization of army they started giving up see the number of war prisoners in final anglo sikh war and then read the history of shaheedi of Akali Phula singh you will know what is real courage which we lost)

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.

eing Advanced and Westernization are two different things. With time you need to be advance to survive but this advancement should not be at the cost of the foundation and principles of your identity. Guru gave its fauj Jangi bana and westernization gave them trousers. Cant sikhs fight with advanced weapons wearing bana ?

Sach eh hai appan apne guru de bachan apne guru di awaz bhule taan hi assi harre te ajj we harr rahe han. Nahi taan duniach koi kaum paida nahi hoyi jo khalse nu harra sakdi.

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?

[singh1986]

... so anyway back on topic....

Who cares what Niddar Singh is.... its not like any Jathedar or any Nihang Dal has given him legitimacy! No one knew of his views and interpretation of Sikhi before him and no-one will after hes gone either! If best his ideological followers are a cult... and the majority of them say they dont agree with ALL his views!

As Ive stated previously in other threads... his background/emergence of SV just dont add up! Why is it only a guy from Wolverhampton UK happened to stumble across the true Sikh martial art and along with that a whole new belief system!?!

Im sure all the major Nihang Dals in India would read his website and wouldnt want to be associated with it at all!

[genie]

[jassa]

Lets finish this thread up ...

Name any 1 shaster which was not there in Guru Hargobind sahib jis time but used in Anglo Sikh battles ?

[proactive]

Jassa,

HSD has already given you half a dozen weapons that were used in the Anglo-Sikhs wars which weren't around at the time of Guru Hargobind. HSD's analysis make a lot of sense and no doubt based on research on the subject whereas with respect to you, your comments speak more of obstinate belief in the superiority of your so-called Dal Panth. Also if you think Santa Singh is a 'panth rattan' then I think we have every right to ask that Lal Singh and Tej Singh also be referred to as 'panth rattans'

The modernisation of the army by Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the most important decision that he made, it ensured that the British did not attempt to annex his kingdom during the time that he was alive. Even after the army had become degraded due to the machinations in the court after the death of the Maharaja, the common company sepoy still feared the Khalsa army and was apprehensive of any coming contest. Post 1839 the British lowered their estimation of the abilities of the Khalsa soldier yet after a few years the Khalsa army gave the British the shock of their lives!

Do you really believe that an army of similar numbers of Akalis as the Khalsa army would have been able to make a dent on the British army? The strategy of Dhai-phat would never have worked with the British. Their tactics and technology would have overwhelmed the Akalis. After the annexation there were still thousands of Akalis around, then why didn't they launch a guerilla war against the British? If Niddar's fantasy stories are to be believed, they all ran off the South India.

This is not to deny the courage and fighting ability of the common Akali, in a one to one contest a Akali would probably have worsted the company sepoy 99% of the time, but as HSD has shown the Anglo-Sikh wars were the first modern war that the Khalsa army had fought. Prior to this they had faced Afghans, Muslim Rajputs, Hindu Hill Rajputs and Gurkhas who still fought the way they had fought for thousands of years. There were positives with the way the Akalis fought in the war. There is an example that Akalis would place razais over themselves just as the sepoys were overwhelming a position, they would then wait for the sepoys to pass and then attack them from the rear!

I do share your view that the Khalsa army should have been a purely Sikh army. Provided the enticements were there, there is no doubt that significant numbers of Hindu and Muslim Jats would have taken Amrit, had that been the requirements to join the Khalsa army. The British were able to achieve the same when they started the recruitment into the Sikh regiments.

[HSD1]

Lets finish this thread up ...

Name any 1 shaster which was not there in Guru Hargobind sahib jis time but used in Anglo Sikh battles ?

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