Jump to content

British Invaders Would have Lost To Sikh Empire But For Treachery Of 2 Generals


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brits would have lost to Sikhs, ‘but for treachery by 2 Gens’

   
Brits would have lost to Sikhs, ‘but for treachery by 2 Gens’
William Dalrymple (right) speaks as (L-R) Amar Pal Sidhu, Mandeep Rai and Dr Sukhmani Riar look on at the Military Literature Festival in Chandigarh on Saturday. TRIBUNE PHOTO: RAVI KUMAR

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 9

Adept in Indo-British history, two leading historians today differed on what could have been the British Empire’s future after the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1846, but both agreed that the East India Company-led army had almost lost the war had the Sikhs — surprisingly or prompted by the treachery of two Generals — not surrendered.

Speaking on ‘Anglo-Sikh wars’ at the Military Literature Festival here, London-based historian Amar Pal Sidhu argued: “The British lacked ammunition, had no water and were, thus, incapable of fighting. Then Governor General Lord Henry Hardinge was in the battlefield and he would have had to surrender. The entire British Raj could have collapsed.”

Sidhu, who has authored separate books on the first and the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49), said: “Had the Sikh army not surrendered, the British Empire’s history in India would have been different. It would have been a seminal moment resembling the one at Waterloo (where Napoleon Bonaparte of France lost).”

The treachery by Generals Tej Singh and Lal Singh changed the course of history. The two owed their positions to Maharani Jindan, one of the queens of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. “Punjab probably would have been united and would still be united,” said Sidhu. 

William Dalrymple, author of “Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan”, accepted that the military edge in the First Anglo-Sikh War was with the Sikhs. He, however, differed on the outcome of the British Empire had they (Sikhs) won the first war. “At that point, it was easy to defeat the Company-led army, though they could have used their backup of vast resources and men,” he averred.

They had resources much bigger than Punjab’s. Between 1790 and the early 1800s, the company was earning hugely from Bengal. The private army of the East India Company was twice the size of the British army.

Mandeep Rai, who was moderating the session, said: “Historians have not realised that had the Sikh army not surrendered, the Lahore durbar would have survived and the state of Pakistan would not have come into being.”

Dr Sukhmani Riar, Professor of history at PU, asserted that “the creation of the Dogra state (now J&K) after the First Anglo-Sikh War was still a mystery.  How the Sikh kingdom collapsed within a few years of the death of Ranjit Singh (in 1839) is a matter of study”.

The First Anglo-Sikh War led to signing of the ‘Treaty of Umritsar’ (Amritsar) and carving out a separate Dogra kingdom. It meant partial subjugation. Three years later, the Second Anglo-Sikh War led to total defeat of the Sikh army and the subsequent collapse of the Sikh kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

As far as I have read, they served him loyally while he was alive. They got bold upon his passing.

be specific certain dogrey were trustworthy but the most of them were conniving bhekhi sikhs who always dragged everything back to honouring their brahmin heritage e.g. changing colour of flags to hindu colours  to ripping off the nation to feed their fellow brahmins e.g. refusing to give monies to sikhs and muslims from treasury for their festivities under orders from the Maharaja and Maharani but insisting on brahmins being given double . They are the ones who murdered the loyal dogrey and Ranjit's sons ...so no they were never sikhs they didn't wear shastar etc they helped Ranjit mentally justify disbanding sarbat Khalsa standard of deciding panthic issues. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

As far as I have read, they served him loyally while he was alive. They got bold upon his passing.

They were loyal as far as it suited them but in the meanwhile they was having secret communications with the British agents. For example the prime minister of sarkar-e-khalsa was a dogra hindu punjabi and the general gulab singh was also a hindu dogra. We all know how that turned out. The generals two who betrayed the Sikhs in the anglo-sikh wars were of brahmin hindu stock who hid themselves in hindu mandirs like a typical cowardly hindu brahmin after the surviving angry Sikh troops came looking for them after the battles, I think they were even lynched by the Sikhs after finding them from what i read from historical books. The white european generals and adventurist mercenaries who joined the Sikh Khalsa army were also traitors who even though they hated the British due to the American independence and  Napoleonic wars, they still had racial loyalty to other whites than non-white powers. So they would often have secret communications with the invading white british supremacists in order to do over those they were serving at the time.

Maharajah ranjit singh's govt and empire's downfall was that he trusted non-sikhs in key positions of power. He didn't purge or force conversion to those who wanted to be in his inner circle. Too many people with competing interests and loyalties then betrayed the mother land punjab and his empire because they saw better opportunities with the foreign invaders. Just like in present days we see the same thing in politics of punjab. They do each other over rather than unite and fight the common foreign occupying power (centralised Indian govt in delhi).

The house of pataila has always been a kingdom of sellouts and betrayers of the Sikh panth. The founder of patiala kingdom was a vessal state in all but name of afghan invader abdali when in the mean time the Sikhs of other kingdoms and land of punjab was busy fighting and dying to save the faith and their families of the onslaught. And just as his ancestor betrayed the kaum so did the grandfather of captain amrinder singh who became a freemason to help the british against Sikh empire/punjab. And so did his father and now captain amrinder singh is also a gaddar inheriting the long legacy of traitorous behaviour and mindset by putting his lot in and siding with Indian congress party in order to have some power in the indian establishment.

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

    • 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.
    • Good way of putting it, bro. One of the ongoing themes of Gurbani is the fake saint. Whether it's fake babas in Punjab or English-speaking personalities in the West, it's an continuing problem of religion through the centuries (and it's not exclusive to us by any means, this applies to all human societies).
    • First of all, while it's true that Gurbani says slandering a Saint has such-and-such effects, you can't do the reverse: You can't look and your situation and know for certain what caused it. We're not encouraged to mope over our situations but rather to accept the hukam (will). The last line of the very first pauri of Japji Sahib says to live in hukam: ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੧॥ hukam rajāī chalanā nānak likhiā nāl .1. O Nanak! By obeying, the pre-ordained order of the Lord's will. Secondly, the astpadhi from which you quoted the Sant ka dokhi verses has this verse at the end: ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਕਰੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਆਪਨ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੇਇ ॥ jis nō kripā karai tis āpan nām dēi . God gives His Name to those unto whom He shows His mercy. So ask for his mercy. Also check out the 7th Astpadi, which talks about the good effects of the sangat of a Sadhu: https://khojgurbani.com/shabad/271/709?highlighted_scripture_id=12007&highlighted_scripture_lang=gurmukhi&selected_content=gurbani I'm not getting into who is a "true" Sadhu in this post.
    • In langar it should be common sense for peopel to find a suitable space to sit. Normally in my local Singh Sabha gurdwara, there is enough space to sit, so I am able to find a space with enough space away from other people. There have been a few times, where there has been a lot of sangat and I have been forced onto a table.  In Slough and Southall Singh Sabha, Park Avenue, I will just sit near another group of men unless I am with family, but again there shouldn't be strict gender separation and instead common sense logic.
    • Yeh I could do to be honest. It's not really chardikala to be coming from the diwan hall and then sangat putting on shoes to go langar. I like sitting in the gurdwara with family, and there are spaces for this in bigger gurdwaras such as Slough, Southall, Coventry. In my current local area gurdwaras this is not really possible for weekly sangat, and also not for sangrand and gurpurb. Need to complain about these tendikalaUK practices  to be UK chardikala Singhs! 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use