What Made Sikhs Such Great Soldiers

[pedrorizzo]

Do you have any sources, i.e. any reliable and authentic web links, books, journals, articles written/documented by verified sources?

I will try and find some for you.

Have you read Siques, Tigers, Thieves? This book is about early european accounts of Sikhs. Some interesting perspectives in there. The one about Sikhs mutliating the wounded, I got from Warrior Saints by Parmjit Singh and Amandeep Madra, during an account after the battle of Chillanwala, written by a British officer. Also in that book is a sketch by a British officer depicting Gurkhas rifling the pockets of dead Sikhs. This officer did a series of battlefield sketches on what he saw, including a picture when the British took over the Sikh camp at Ferozshah and found the mutliated remains of captured British Soldiers who had been left there for the British to find as a form of intimidation.

Regarding, the one about Sikhs surrendering then killing their enemy, that was a quote from Colonial wars in India by Donald Featherstone, which also alleges that some Sikh soldiers took drugs to bring themselves into a crazy fighting state, particularly at the Battle of Chillanwala, where they captured British cannons.

Also regarding the point about Sikhs not necessarily being 100% spiritual/religous etc, I have seen several helmets in lahore museum and V and A exhibition designed for Sikhs with extra space at the top for the jura. I have also seen a contemporary painting of Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa wearing one, also in Warrior Saints book. This would probably shock many people as they would not expect puratan Singhs to wear helmets etc.

If you would really like me to go back and dig up some quotes I can do, just PM me. However, you will find plenty of quotes in the texts that I have given you. I appreciate that the sources are British and European and therefore will be biased. However, we also have to acknowledge that from a historical perspective, any Sikh sources, that indicate that we were all pure, holy naam jaaping saint soldiers are probably just as biased. Being a historian is looking at the story from both sides and trying to paint a realistic picture.

[Mehtab Singh]

I have heard about the book and about the writers as well, but haven't read it. I am not too sure I'd believe it/them, and not rejecting it either. Regarding helmets, Sikhs in World War I used to have bullets falling out of their turbans when they took them off at the end of the day, so again I'd really doubt the helmet deal, although I am not refusing it completely.

we also have to acknowledge that from a historical perspective, any Sikh sources, that indicate that we were all pure, holy naam jaaping saint soldiers are probably just as biased. Being a historian is looking at the story from both sides and trying to paint a realistic picture.

I guess we end up choosing to believe whatever suits us then

[VanHelsingh]

Would it be incorrect to say that whilst Guru Gobind Singh Ji was amongst his Sikhs and soldiers, the Sikh troops behaved themselves and didn't get up to any of the frankly questionable practices as described earlier in the thread? I guess once the righteous presence of Guru Ji was not visible to Sikh soldiers (those who weren't aware that Guru Ji was always amongst them even though they couldn't see him) they decided to revert to their base urges?

I'm just surmising that's all.

[HSD1]

Come now Pedrorizzo, you know full well the British weren't keen on taking Sikh prisoners. Plenty of British accounts talk about British troops killing Sikh wounded or finding Sikhs asleep and killing them or even killing Sikhs who had won duels. If they were doing all that, what did they expect in return? Sikhs to treat all the white prisoners like royalty? Also bare in mind that many of these accounts have been jingoised in order to give the British the moral high ground in their 'noble struggle against uncouth heathens' as they would put it.

[VanHelsingh]

Come now Pedrorizzo, you know full well the British weren't keen on taking Sikh prisoners. Plenty of British accounts talk about British troops killing Sikh wounded or finding Sikhs asleep and killing them or even killing Sikhs who had won duels. If they were doing all that, what did they expect in return? Sikhs to treat all the white prisoners like royalty? Also bare in mind that many of these accounts have been jingoised in order to give the British the moral high ground in their 'noble struggle against uncouth heathens' as they would put it.

How dare you besmirch the good name of our boys? Hang your head in shame you traitor!!! The savages had to be taught a lesson and by golly did our....erm...I mean the British complete their mission with flying colours.

[yubacitysingh]

What im trying to get at with this thread is that most sikhs don't have that fire in them like the sikhs did 200 years ago, were they have this hunger to fight and take torture

today a sikh gets called osama bin laden and they run in the other direction

people say its gurbani but if it were gurbani then why so many cowards today, why so many overweight sikhs

if we had that same fire we did 200 years ago heck we would dominate ever aspect of life military buisness education you name it

we were so highly motivated that we didn't feel pain

[pedrorizzo]

HSD, lol, I never said that the Singhs were wrong for doing what the did. Personally I am an advocate of dirty fighting and being as fierce as possible. After all, that is what war is all about, total destruction of your enemy.

I am just challenging the belief that some modern Singhs preach, that in the 'good' old days, Singhs were all spiritually enlightened humble warriors and high on naam and bani. I am just suggesting that some probably were and lots were not.

Mehtab Singh, yes, this is kind of what it comes down to.... we do inevitably believing in whatever suits us or makes us feel comfortable. No problem with that. But you have to remember that this is not what the academic subject of history is about.

Btw.. here is a link to the picture of the turban helmet, which was designed for Singhs with jooreh:

http://amandeep-sikhi.blogspot.com/2007/03/royal-robe-of-maharaja-ranjit-singh.html

Regarding Kaljugi's point, there may be some truth in that statement, in that Singhs have most likely slackened in the practice of Sikhi since the Guru's times. However, there where plenty of slackers then I am sure.... Take Guru Nanak Dev ji's sons who started their own cult when gurgaddi was not passed to them and also the massands during Guru Gobind Singh jis time.

So yes you are probably right, but then again who knows?

[pedrorizzo]

What im trying to get at with this thread is that most sikhs don't have that fire in them like the sikhs did 200 years ago, were they have this hunger to fight and take torture

today a sikh gets called osama bin laden and they run in the other direction

people say its gurbani but if it were gurbani then why so many cowards today, why so many overweight sikhs

if we had that same fire we did 200 years ago heck we would dominate ever aspect of life military buisness education you name it

we were so highly motivated that we didn't feel pain

The difference was that in those days, Singhs had just come out of an episode where they had to fight for survival. There is nothing like the threat of being killed to sharpen up your survival instincts. In those days, you had to learn to be a soldier or you would be killed for being a Sikh. Simple as. As the Sikhs became more powerful, and took more territory, the skills that they had developed in learning to survive still meant that they were good warriors, but there skills were now honed for a different purpose, for the expansion of Sikh territory and the establishment of khalsa raaj.

After the British took over, large numbers of Sikhs joined the military and served the British, but not as many as in Maharajah Ranjit Singhs time. Sikhs were now also civilians as well and took on other professions.

After Indian independance, there was no large scale threat to the survival of Sikhs, or at the very least, perceived threat by the Sikh populace, therefore, people didnt think it necessary to hone and develop fighting skills, unless they were some of the few Sikhs that joined the army.

Basically, in a wordy kind of a way, what I am trying to say is that these geeky kids that you are talking about nowadays, who run off when someone calls them Bin Laden etc and dont stick up for themselves are CIVILIANS. You cannot compare them to the battle-hardened warriors or soldiers that our ancestors used to be. Just because you are Sikh does not automatically mean that you are a battle hardened soldier/warrior. That is a ridiculous idea. Soldiers and warriors train for months to years to be competent at what they do.

Young Sikhs today do not have those skills because they do not have the perception that they are under threat in any way, nor do they feel that war is imminent so they dont feel the need to prepare for it, and nor are they trying to build an army for the acquisition of territory etc. They are civilians... and civilians dont got da fire inside of dem.

[HSD1]

What im trying to get at with this thread is that most sikhs don't have that fire in them like the sikhs did 200 years ago, were they have this hunger to fight and take torture

today a sikh gets called osama bin laden and they run in the other direction

people say its gurbani but if it were gurbani then why so many cowards today, why so many overweight sikhs

if we had that same fire we did 200 years ago heck we would dominate ever aspect of life military buisness education you name it

we were so highly motivated that we didn't feel pain

Having a country helps. No point being militaristic if you dont actually have a military.

HSD, lol, I never said that the Singhs were wrong for doing what the did. Personally I am an advocate of dirty fighting and being as fierce as possible. After all, that is what war is all about, total destruction of your enemy.

Where has my reply to Kaljugi gone? Blood coconuts everywhere, I swear.

I am just challenging the belief that some modern Singhs preach, that in the 'good' old days, Singhs were all spiritually enlightened humble warriors and high on naam and bani. I am just suggesting that some probably were and lots were not.

Mehtab Singh, yes, this is kind of what it comes down to.... we do inevitably believing in whatever suits us or makes us feel comfortable. No problem with that. But you have to remember that this is not what the academic subject of history is about.

Btw.. here is a link to the picture of the turban helmet, which was designed for Singhs with jooreh:

http://amandeep-sikh...njit-singh.html

Regarding Kaljugi's point, there may be some truth in that statement, in that Singhs have most likely slackened in the practice of Sikhi since the Guru's times. However, there where plenty of slackers then I am sure.... Take Guru Nanak Dev ji's sons who started their own cult when gurgaddi was not passed to them and also the massands during Guru Gobind Singh jis time.

So yes you are probably right, but then again who knows?

I agree with you and Kaljugi. As per the helmets, you may want to look into the 'Khalsa Cuirassiers' a Sikh regiment of cavalry from Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time who wore a special sort of helmet.

Where has my reply to Kaljugi gone? Coconuts everywhere, I swear.

[yubacitysingh]

but that fire that sikhs had them 200 years ago that hunger could be used in other aspects of life to in buisness or athletics

what would it take to bring that back in sikhs