Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seeing NATO'S and USA'S surrender of their Afghan campaign, although kudos to the fact that they gave Islamic radicals a taste of their own medicine, I have decided to do a short article on Hari Singh Nalwa's conquest of Afghanistan. Presently I am doing an article on Nalwa himself, and would love to do a second one on his exploits in Afghanistan. I would like to incorporate and answer the following points in my article:

- What makes Hari Singh's conquest of Afghanistan so different from prior conquests lead by the Macedonians and the Marathas?

- What political, social and religious factors assisted Nalwa in consolidating his prowess in Afghanistan?

- What military factors contributed towards Nalwa's victory in Afghanistan?

- How does NATO'S campaign differ from Nalwa's?

-What elements are similar in both historic and modern campaigns?

-If anything what lesson can we derive from both Hari Singh Nalwa's and NATO'S campaigns?

For those who don't know, tisarpanth blogspot is my intellectual possession and most of the articles on there are my work. However I am always on the lookout for a fresh perspective on matters and decided to inquire around on forums, to see what answers I can gain on this new topic of mine. Any historic sources you know of will also be appreciated in this matter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to be clear that Nalwa's victories over the Afghans were in areas that had historically, linguistically and ethnically had been a part of Afghanistan ie the NWFP of Pakistan, now called Kyber-Pakhtoonkhwa. Nalwa did not cross the Khyber pass into the present day Afghanistan.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to be clear that Nalwa's victories over the Afghans were in areas that had historically, linguistically and ethnically had been a part of Afghanistan ie the NWFP of Pakistan, now called Kyber-Pakhtoonkhwa. Nalwa did not cross the Khyber pass into the present day Afghanistan.

Can you expand on that a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually what we hear is that Hari Singh Nalwa conquered Afghanistan which is incorrect as he did not set foot in the Afghanistan as it is now. During the time of Hari Singh Nalwa, the Afghans or more correctly the Pathans controlled the NWFP tribal areas and these along with Peshawar were considered as core Pathan territory as the Pathans were a majority there. Therefore any takeover of these areas especially by Non-Muslim Non-Pathans was considered a sacrilege.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually what we hear is that Hari Singh Nalwa conquered Afghanistan which is incorrect as he did not set foot in the Afghanistan as it is now. During the time of Hari Singh Nalwa, the Afghans or more correctly the Pathans controlled the NWFP tribal areas and these along with Peshawar were considered as core Pathan territory as the Pathans were a majority there. Therefore any takeover of these areas especially by Non-Muslim Non-Pathans was considered a sacrilege.

So the areas he conquered were historically a part of Afghanistan?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The land that is now NW Frontier(KPK) in Pakistan was once part of Afghanistan. This province is Pasthun territory. The term 'Afghan' it self is a synonym for the Pashtun ethnicity. So NW Frontier is Afghan land. Even to this day Afghans claim that part of Pakistan to the annoyance of the Pakistani rulers. The reasons why the Sikhs invaded that strip of land along the Indus river was to secure Punjab from the western front. So NW Frontier territory acted as a buffer keeping Punjab safe from any potential invasion from the central asians/afghans much like how Ukraine was for the Russian empire to keep the core Russian territory safe from any initial attack from western Europe. Invading and taking over all of Afghanistan was never the plan of the Sikhs. Land of the Afghans was not a revenue rich territory unlike the lands east of the river Indus. For the Sikhs, it would have been better if a rich territory like Sindh was part of the empire instead of poor Afghan land. Unfortunately, Sikhs were bound by treaties which prevented them from taking Sindh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pashtuns have bin conquered a dozen times

alexander

biharis of the maryan empire

arabs who brought islam

mongolians

turks under nadir shah

mughals

sikhs

british

soviets won every battle but cause of foreign assistance they ran out of money

british never lost a battle in the three anglo afghan wars only reason they were overthrown after the first war was the british east india company was losing money in Afghanistan and their share holders grew angry so the company had drastic budget cuts and left 4500 soldiers 4000 which were benagli muslims and 500 british officers and 12 000 wives and children

when the Pashtuns rebelled against the puppet govt put in place by the british the soldiers knew they were surrounded from all sides and were out numbered in the thousands and were promised a safe retreat back to india but instead were attacked

second afghan british war the afghans faced defeat each time and majority of the soldiers on England side were Sikh and gurkha mercenaries and cause Afghanistan was extremely poor with no money and just a country that would create debt for the british the british made the afghan king their puppet rather then over throwing him and putting in their own king and british had imperial rule over afghanistan

british invasion of Afghanistan was just to use Afghanistan as a barrier to keep Russia away from india

nalwa had success cause the shah that was put in place by the british company after the first anglo afghan war was the same shah that was loyal to maharaja ranjit singh and had many Pashtun tribes back him and maharaja ranjit singh during the conquest of nwfp

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the things nato and America goal is to set up democracy in Afghanistan not to take the country over

they've built up the hazaraa tajiks and turks of Afghanistan they help built them up military wise and economy wise and Afghanistan is now having elections

cause of poverty their will be severe corruption and years for their economy to modernise

Pashtuns reject the democracy cause they see hazara tajiks turks voting in govt that will discriminate against pashtuns

Link to post
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...


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I never said anything about life for Sikhs in the UK in the 70s, I was talking about the present day. I understand and respect the struggles that you all went through to get to the position where you are today. But I hope you all don't lose sight of the fact that the freedom and status that Sikhs enjoy in the UK today is very far from the norm. Sikhs in the US today are fighting battles that were settled in the UK decades ago (and without the benefit of a population density that gives Sikhs in the UK at least some visibility and political sway). But forget about the US. You don't have to go that far, you can just cross the English channel and see how precarious the position of Sikhs is in continental Europe. Thanks for giving details about the grooming issue. Do you think this had to do with Labour being more concerned about the Muslim vote (as Muslims former a larger voting block than Sikhs) or political correctness? Or both? I concede that leftists sometimes go to far with political correctness and "canceling" in order to try to show how "fair" and "unbigoted" they are. I am not going to question your take on the whole grooming issue. You know more about that than I do. But that seems to be a very specific situation in the UK. I stand by my general point that left-leaning people are by far the most likely to support the rights of vulnerable minorities (which is the category that Sikhs fall under almost everywhere).   I don't buy your point about a backlash to "wokeness" at all. I don't think that that is what is causing the growing popularity of far-right movements. The way information is shared and distorted today is radically different from what was the norm not very long ago, and that has been the game-changer that has led to today's division and polarization. You seem to think that if the "woke" people would just be quiet, the racists would not have a "rallying cry". That is simply not true. First of all, those people will ALWAYS find something to complain about. (That has certainly been true throughout American history. If it has been less true in UK history, that is probably because the white British majority did not feel threatened by a sizable minority until relatively recently. See my second point.) Second of all, the complaints of the more hardcore right-wing racists increasingly resonate with the more "passive" racists as the majority community diminishes in size and feels more threatened. And third of all, as I alluded to before, today's media/information landscape will allow for any complaints to blow up and go viral.   Any time anyone from the non-majority community asks for anything, no matter how reasonable, there is going to be a backlash from the majority community. And in many instances, the non-majority community doesn't even have ask for anything or complain about anything to provoke a backlash. Their mere existence is enough. This is what history has shown us.
    • Guest free
    • And people want to talk about poverty, look at how India was stripped of wealth. Here 2800 silver bars were taken for ww2 but didn't make it back here. Now that they've found it, look at what they are doing with it. The pillaging is still going on.      Treasure from the deep: Thousands of silver bars that were meant to fund Britain's WWII effort but were sunk by German U-boat FINALLY reach their destination - and will be sold as coins Merchant ship carrying silver from India for the war effort was sunk in 1941 Its cargo of 2,800 bars of silver has sat on the bed of the Atlantic ever since Record-breaking bid to salvage the silver from three miles down a success The Royal Mint is now making the metal into coins to remember the tragedy https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596785/Thousands-silver-bars-sunken-WWII-ship-sold-coins.html
    • I was reading something on the internet and came across this article and thought it may be of some interest to everyone here regarding their perspective on the impact of brutalities of colonisation upon India and its people.  Here is the link:-   https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2019/03/10/atrocities-on-indian-women-and-india-by-british-during-their-rule/     Atrocities on Indian Women and India by British During ... - myIndiamyGlory 10 Mar 2019 — Raped Indian women were forcefully made prostitutes by British Christians. Prostitution houses were set up by the Britishers in 350   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use