Niddar Singh Nihang Is A..

[Lion of Punjab]

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

Out of all the people on here u are the one i would wanna meet personally

The amount of rubbish you come out with is unbeliveable

Anti nihung , anti taksal :stupidme:

[HSD1]

As you can see the Hindu goddess durga is imprinted on the captured Sikh battle standards that these particular nihungs carried. The last picture has the Hindu god brahma on it if im not mistake? Perhaps Dogra battalion of the Khalsa Durbar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bellerophon_%281786%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Jupiter_%281778%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sirius_%281797%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-Ger%C3%A4t_%28navigation%29

The above are pagan references used by militaries of various Christian countries. I could go on as there are hundreds of examples like this. We shouldnt read too much into Akalis or Fauj-i-AIn Regiment using symbols of our pagan Hindu heritage.

[musicman]

Wow, Sikhs were blaming Hindus for wrong perception on Sikhism in the other thread and then you look at this .. lol

[genie]

The only dispute between Maharaja Ranjeet singh and Akali Phula singh was not because of Dogras but the westernisation of sikh army. They french hiring to train the sikh army.

That is interesting, i read somewhere that the american governor who was serving under sarkar-e-khalsa refused to help the Sikh troops against the rebels of the hazara, instead he said he would only take orders from the British agent abbott. And as everyone knows now that town abottabad was where bin laden was found and was named after james abbott. These foreigners in the army of the Khalsa eventually betrayed the Sikh government when the first anglo-sikh war broke out they either fled back to Europe or switched sides to help the British. The British administation used the same tactics of divide and conquer that worked so well in other parts of their empire. Even to this day they adopt this strategy in conflicts they enter into. First create the strife between various groups then go in.

[KhalistaniGunMan]

That is interesting, i read somewhere that the american governor who was serving under sarkar-e-khalsa refused to help the Sikh troops against the rebels of the hazara, instead he said he would only take orders from the British agent abbott. And as everyone knows now that town abottabad was where bin laden was found and was named after james abbott. These foreigners in the army of the Khalsa eventually betrayed the Sikh government when the first anglo-sikh war broke out they either fled back to Europe or switched sides to help the British. The British administation used the same tactics of divide and conquer that worked so well in other parts of their empire. Even to this day they adopt this strategy in conflicts they enter into. First create the strife between various groups then go in.

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

[genie]

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

That is true, though to his credit akali baba phoola singh did wonders against the Muslim pasthun / pathan tribes of what is now north west frontier provience of Pakistan. His and his troops fanaticism is what made the Khalsa army the most feared and deadliest of the times. Even the British generals were afraid of the akali's reckless fanaticism on the battlefield because often it takes these kind of people to win battles those who seek glory on the battlefield rather then using their heads for more strategic calculated moves.

Indeed modernisation was needed and is still needed, the nihungs courage is admirable though their fighting skils and weaponary are outdated in the present day. They need to learn the art of modern warefare tactics to adapt to any future conflicts that may arise where defence of Sikhs will be tested.

[KhalistaniGunMan]

That is true, though to his credit akali baba phoola singh did wonders against the Muslim pasthun / pathan tribes of what is now north west frontier provience of Pakistan. His and his troops fanaticism is what made the Khalsa army the most feared and deadliest of the times. Even the British generals were afraid of the akali's reckless fanaticism on the battlefield because often it takes these kind of people to win battles those who seek glory on the battlefield rather then using their heads for more strategic calculated moves.

Indeed modernisation was needed and is still needed, the nihungs courage is admirable though their fighting skils and weaponary are outdated in the present day. They need to learn the art of modern warefare tactics to adapt to any future conflicts that may arise where defence of Sikhs will be tested.

I Agree the wreckless courage of the akaali nihangs was insturmenal in pushing the pashtun jihadi hordes back past the khyber pass...but can we compare the jihadis/pathan tribesmen with the british army?...if it wasnt for the mountanious terain..the pathans would of got their assess kicked by the brits ...on open flat land...the british were near impossible to beat...but it was nearly accomplished by the modern sikh army of the 19th century....at the battle of mudki we hadd the british preparing for unconditional surrender....but in the end we were betrayed by our generals....who feared our victory more than our defeat

[genie]

I Agree the wreckless courage of the akaali nihangs was insturmenal in pushing the pashtun jihadi hordes back past the khyber pass...but can we compare the jihadis/pathan tribesmen with the british army?...if it wasnt for the mountanious terain..the pathans would of got their assess kicked by the brits ...on open flat land...the british were near impossible to beat...but it was nearly accomplished by the modern sikh army of the 19th century....at the battle of mudki we hadd the british preparing for unconditional surrender....but in the end we were betrayed by our generals....who feared our victory more than our defeat

Agree totally even mujahadeen wahaabi type jihadi's were crushed by pathan units of the Sikh army back in 1839 I believe in battle of balakot. Even with the betrayal of the dogra's and various other smaller units of other religious-ethnicities who were paid off by British agents. The Khalsa army would have routed the British army had the two Sikh generals not have been paid off too, ive read account of the British generals being fearful and horrified at the fighting spirit of the Sikhs. In the account it tells of how one Sikh who was bayoneted by a rifles daggar only for him to lift up his sword continue fighting and behead the British solders he encountered. Indeed the British generals were in high praise for the Sikhs after both wars having witnessed a force that was much better than theirs thus they started to recruit on mass the soldiers of the Khalsa army.

History would have been very different now, I believe Sikhs would have spread into and beyond Afghanistan then into Persia. The glory of the panth was cut short all too soon by fools who did not have foresight of consequences of their treachery.

[chatanga]

That is interesting, i read somewhere that the american governor who was serving under sarkar-e-khalsa refused to help the Sikh troops against the rebels of the hazara, instead he said he would only take orders from the British agent abbott.

This was after the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

[GPS]

Sikhs had given a bloody nose to British army in anglo sikh wars. Their heroism was unparalleled.

British acknowledged that and Major Cuunigham resigned from British services

to write sikh history.

It was buying out of treacherous non-sikh generals that turned sikh victory into

defeat. Shah Mohameed writes

Shah Mohamedda ik sarkar bajon

Faujan jit ke ant nu hariyan ne

Sihah Mohammedd says without Ranjit Singh

Sikh army's victory was converted into defeat.

And do not forget that whole brit army unit that invaded afghanistan was wiped out by

afghans. Only one doctor came back alive to tell that all are dead.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/British_Empire

The First Anglo-Afghan War led to one of the most disastrous defeats of the Victorian military, when an entire British army was wiped out by Russian-supplied Afghan Pashtun tribesmen during the 1842 retreat from Kabul