Jump to content

What Ranking Do You Give The Khalsa Empire In The 19Th Century


Recommended Posts

taking the entire sikh population at the time what percentage of the population was loyal to the british and what percentage fought against the british

if you add all the sikhs in the statistics you gave that comes to a total of under 20 000 sikhs that fought and their were 6 million sikhs in india in the 1930's

thats less then 1% of the total population

now how many sikhs fought in world war one and died over or under 20 000

how many sikhs fought for the british in 1857 rather then fighting for freedom for sikhs

and sikhs being blown up by cannons how many sikhs had bin blown up by cannans was it 100 or 1000 or 10 000

i don't know the number but i heard about this and would love to learn more about it

out of the entire population after the second anglo sikh war how many sikhs left the khalsa army and took up jobs as soldiers for british east india

i want to learn more about the sikhs struggle against the british and read some biography's of sikhs who lost their lives in the fight

against the british for india's freedom

why didn't the true khalsa panth continue fighting after second anglo british war and is their any stories to read about the once who did and used guirila warfare to try taking out the british

Regarding Sikhs serving in the British armies. It must be noted, that whether it was the Ghadhar movement, Akali Movement, Babbar Akali movement, a large amount of the Sikhs in those movements were former soldiers. Involvement in those movements totalled into the tens of thousands(mostly the Akali movement). Had the Ghadhar movement been successful, there would have been a Sikh mutiny in the Indian army and perhaps India would have gained independence decades earlier but one traitor failed the movement. The INA was dominated by Sikh soldiers. Most of the Panth at the time was supportive of those movements. It is similar to the 1980s when the Dharam Yudh Morcha was at the height and later the Khalistan movement. Most of the Panth was supportive of these movements even though only tens of thousands had physically joined the movement as militants.

Baba Maharaj Singh Jee had tried to start a guirilla movement when the British had taken over, unfortunately he was caught and sent into exile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandhubobby sounds like rss trying to re write history Hindu style

pretty dumb comment

as well wasn't ina prisioner of wars under japan who turned on the british in exchange for freedom from prision camps and what they

thought was india but many historians think japan was playing the ina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghadhar movement were freedom fighters consisting of sikh hindu muslims

Akali Movement was peacefull movement to free gurdwaras

Babbar Akali movement was militant version of akali to free gurdwara

back on topic what would you rank the peak of the khalsa in terms of history compared to other empires where would

khalsa rank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking the entire sikh population at the time what percentage of the population was loyal to the british and what percentage fought against the british

the vast majority of the Sikh population was against the British.

But as we see under Empires like the Mughals and the British without ammunition, without food and struggling in poverty these things were not easy to achieve + thats why the Mughals ruled all of India with the help of a traitorous minority of Hindu's and Muslims among a larger anti-Mughal population and its the same reason why British Empire ruled over one third of Earth.

if you add all the sikhs in the statistics you gave that comes to a total of under 20 000 sikhs that fought and their were 6 million sikhs in india in the 1930's

thats less then 1% of the total population

Interesting how all of your posts tout the standard Hindutva propaganda.

Instead of openly admitting that a tiny 1.5% minority comprised the bulk of the freedom fighters you assume that because some poor Sikh had to feed his family during a famine that makes them supporters of the British.

By your logic that means Jews who didn't rebel against the Nazi's before the 2nd World War must have supported Hitler!?

Your logic, your figures and your anti-Sikh propganda that you are repeating is all flawed.

Before the 19th Century Sikhs were a 5% minority within Punjab.

By 1857 the Sikh population was 1% of the Indian population.

And it must be remembered that in 1857 over 98% of the soldiers who fought on the British side were Hindu+Muslim.

And even those that fought against the British were only upset with the British due to the fact that bullet casings has beef and pork derived casing on them ... it was only an afterthought on the fighters part to claim their fight was based along the lines of independence.

There were 6 million Sikhs prior to the Genocide of hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in Pakistan in 1947.

At that point in time Sikhs were 1.5% of the population of India. Today less than 2% of Indians are Sikh.

In 1881 the Sikh population was 0.75% of the Indian population which is not even 1%.

The scope for such a small population to overthrow the British in the 19th century when no other nation managed to overthrow the British Empire at its peak was limited.

The evil British Empire subjected the Sikh Panth to repeated famine, repeated murders of non-loyal Sikhs (true Amritdhari's) whilst flooding in drugs, alcohol and with most Sikhs who did not side with the British facing poverty and discrimination from Muslims and Hindu's.

On top of that between 1849-1921 Hindu Mahants were given control of all Gurdwara's by the British in order to sytematically destroy Sikhi from within by promoting anti-Gurmat practises.

now how many sikhs fought in world war one and died over or under 20 000

So because more people with names like Gill, Brar and Sandhu fought for GOI to destroy Harmandir Sahib it doesn't take away from the fact that more Sikhs in 1984 supported the Anandpur Sahib resolution.

how many sikhs fought for the british in 1857 rather then fighting for freedom for sikhs

A tiny minority of Sikh population at the time.

Not a single true Khalsa fought for the British - 100% of them were spiritually patit.

As the Khalsa Panth only fights for humanity not Christian or Muslim empires built on Slavery like the Bible+Quran condone.

and sikhs being blown up by cannons how many sikhs had bin blown up by cannans was it 100 or 1000 or 10 000

Tens of thousands of Sikhs were blown up by cannons and murdered and cremated without trace.

The Malerkotla incident is only the most famous because the bravery of the Sikhs was impossible to suppress from the media and because the Muslims of Malerkotla joyously supported the British in killing off the Sikhs.

out of the entire population after the second anglo sikh war how many sikhs left the khalsa army and took up jobs as soldiers for british east india

A majority of the true Khalsa Fauj were actually killed by the British.

Only a patit minority who faked as Kesdhari's then switched allegiances for money.

The true Khalsa Fauj of Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa never switched allegiances only the sellouts like those in recent times like that Sandhu that killed Justice Khalra happily worked as slaves of the British due to their financial motivation.

i want to learn more about the sikhs struggle against the british and read some biography's of sikhs who lost their lives in the fight against the british for india's freedom

That's what makes Hindutva lies so ridiculous.

Sikhs were the amjority of freedom fighters for indepence yet the Hindu minority amongst the freedom fighters is about who 99% of the literature is always written about. What's stupid is some slave Sikhs are actually proud of there links with the British Empire.

why didn't the true khalsa panth continue fighting after second anglo british war and is their any stories to read about the once who did and used guirila warfare to try taking out the british

They did but kinda like now when u realise that the odds are stacked suicidally against a tiny minority community it is sometimes better to retreat and wait for strength and allies to emerge.

Sikhs bided their time, fought via the pen, bought about internal religious reform first and ultimately freed India from the British Empire first compared to other nations enslaved by the British.

Instead of reading Hindutva propaganda by the RSS against Sikhs, if we want freedom now then rather than picking up a gun and boarding the next flight only to get arrested at IGI Delhi, the best thing to do is play your part in making our Panth stronger internally first.

Even if you are a self-professed agnostic, align yourself with the Sikh Panth and play your part in fighting abortion, drug abuse, alcohol etc that the GOI + Pakistan encourage among Sikhs.

Hinduism is for the benfit if the so-called upper castes, Islam is for the benefit of the Arab Empire and those who will get 72 light skinned virgins up in Heaven.

I encourage you as a agnostic to join the Sikh Panth in fighting for the benefit of all oppressed mankind (rather than the rich few).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghadhar movement were freedom fighters consisting of sikh hindu muslims

Akali Movement was peacefull movement to free gurdwaras

Babbar Akali movement was militant version of akali to free gurdwara

back on topic what would you rank the peak of the khalsa in terms of history compared to other empires where would

khalsa rank

Hindus and Muslims participation in the Gadhar movement was very minimal. Almost negligent. It's membership was so overwhelmingly Sikh that many consider it to be a Sikh movement. The Akali movement was against British backed Mahants/Pujaris control over Gurdwaras which is why it's success is regarded as the first battle won for India's freedom. Babbar Akali movement was a militant movement against the British rule, most of these Babbar Akalis were former soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghadhar movement were freedom fighters consisting of sikh hindu muslims

Despite being only 1% of the Indian population, Sikhs founded the Ghadar movement and comprised the majority of its membership

Akali Movement was peacefull movement to free gurdwaras.

The Akali's realised that British control of Gurdwara's via there Hindu Mahant friends was brainwashing Sikhs into falsehood.

Without free Gurdwara's there was hardly likely to be a free India.

Note again the confiscation of arms from Sikhs by both the British and Mughals.

Guru Sahib ordered us to carry five different shahstar at all times if we could manage rather than literally the 5k's that the British made there Sikh soldiers wear including ceremonial blunt kirpans hung as necklaces

Babbar Akali movement was militant version of akali to free gurdwara.

All strategies are valid within the circumstances to achieve the result so long as innocent people are not targetted.

back on topic what would you rank the peak of the khalsa in terms of history compared to other empires where would khalsa rank

The Khalsa Raj was no empire.

Its power, its land, its wealth was way behind the other famous brutal empires the World has seen like the Mongol Empire, the Arabic Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the British Empire and the Mughal Empire.

All these evil empires spread there brutal reign of terror by killing tens of millions of innocent human beings, enslaving millions, raping millions of women, converting millions to Christianity and Islam by the word.

Sikhs remained a small minority in Punjab and ensured Hindu's and Muslims enjoyed equal rights.

There was no slavery, no raping and no murder of innocent people by the Khalsa Fauj within the Khalsa Raj.

It was a unique type of swadeshi Raj, that though it was not perfect, was fundamentally for the benefit of the majority of all of Punjab's people whatever there faith - mostly Punjabi's are Muslim, then Hindu, then Sikhs, Jains and others religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason why Sikhs in 1849 did not resort to a mass resistance or guerrilla war is because the Sikhs were just 5% of the population of Punjab. The other 95% were equally split between Muslims and Hindus. Unless one of these communities or both of these communities were to actively support the Sikhs, a guerrilla war could not have been possible. The Muslims due to their religion would never support the re-establishment of non-Muslim rule over them. The Hindus, although they had been the greatest gainers from Sikh rule would not support it's re-establishment because they had seen British rule in the rest of India as being benign to their community, The leaders of these communities had been guaranteed their lands by the British, the Hindus had gained in having a Hindu now as a ruler of Kashmir thanks to the British.

There is no doubt that had the Sikhs been more than 50% of the population of Punjab then the Punjab would never have submitted to the British rule. The posters who say that most of the TRUE Khalsa had been killed off are insulting the Sikhs who survived the Anglo-Sikh wars. There were Sardars who could have carried on fighting but to what end? For the Khalsa to suffer more from the hands of the British as well as from their Hindu and Muslim jholichuks? The leading Sardars as well as the common Sikh soldiers of the Khalsa army who survived were the first to join the British in fighting the mutineers. Sardar Jawahir Singh Nalwa, the son of Hari Singh was one of many who sided with the British, He was hardly a patit, he was aware of the circumstances that the Sikhs found themselves in and sided with the side which he felt would treat the Sikhs the best. A successful mutiny would not have meant a return of Khalsa rule in Punjab but a return of the Mughal rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in terms of the military strength, the Khalsa army was about equal in strength and efficiency to the east India company's army. In terms of economy Punjab was the most prosperous part of India at the time. So if one were to compare to other asiatic powers at the time, it was probably the best. Unfortunately, the Sikh empire ended prematurely. Had the British not been there, the Sikh empire would have extended to large parts of India and today India would have experienced high economic growth at par with the west.

The Sikh Kingdom of Punjab wasn't the most prosperous part of India at the time because it quite simply wasn't part of India. Had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Punjab has spent far far more of its time as being the easternmost province of Persia (and was always Persia's richest and most prosperous province) but we don't today call ourselves Persians do we ?

One characteristic of the Sikh Kingdom was that it never looked south towards India for anything. Not for inspiration....not for expansion....not for nothing. It always looked towards central Asia and that it is where it would have continued it's empire.

As for it's power, one need not look much farther than the 'Great Game' for an illustration. As the 3 powers (Britain, France and Russia) played the great game it was the 4th power (the Sikh Kingdom of Punjab) that held the most powerful pieces in this game of chess. It was the Sikh Kingdom that the other 'powers' were tripping over themselves to impress and fawn over.

Had the unfortunate events not occurred after Ranjit Singh's death there is no doubt that our power and empire would have grown as a result of alligning ourselves very closely with the French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use