Mistreatment of Sikhs by poorbia sepoys

[Jonny101]

Often it is said by the rest of Indians that Sikhs helped the British in 1857 mutiny instead of the sepoys. Sikhs are stigmatized for this. But they don't want to see the reasons why Sikhs didn't want to help the sepoys. One of the reasons is the mistreatment of Sikhs at the hands of poorbia sepoys. Often they were even worse than the British.

A research paper written by Kripal Chandra Yadav he writes about this when the Sikh empire was newly conquered and Sikhs began to be recruited in the British army:

The Sikhs in the British army, whether in the regular or irregular forces, were oppressed  by their officers. They were looked down upon as enemies and were demoralized.....Even the Hindustani sepoys, who were in a great majority in every  regiment of the Bengal army, maltreated the Sikhs. Consequently, many Sikhs were driven out of these regiments and not a shadow of encouragement was given to counteract the quiet but persistent opposition of the Oudh and Bihar men.

First you get conquered then you get insulted by these sepoys. It was like adding salt to the wound. No wonder the Singhs took their full vengeance upon those sepoys when they got the chance during the mutiny.

 

[JSinghnz]

Had they used the same against the masters of the sepoys, history would have been much different today. Pommies would have sailed back home and we would still be rulers. But our own too like Maharaja of Patiala joined the pommies in the Anglo Sikh wars.

And you cannot change the fact that the Sikhs did help the pommies and later became cannon fodder for them in the world wars.

[Jonny101]

39 minutes ago, JSinghnz said:

Had they used the same against the masters of the sepoys, history would have been much different today. Pommies would have sailed back home and we would still be rulers. But our own too like Maharaja of Patiala joined the pommies in the Anglo Sikh wars.

And you cannot change the fact that the Sikhs did help the pommies and later became cannon fodder for them in the world wars.

True that 1857 was the best opportunity for the Sikhs to regain their Raj which they lost just a few years ago. The soldiers of the Khalsa army were still alive. Unfortunately we lacked leadership to lead us in that direction. 

The poorbias had mistreated the Sikhs far worse than the British did. The Sikhs hated them far more than they hated the British. So when the time came and when they had to choose between the British and the Poorbia sepoys they chose the British.

[JSinghnz]

6 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

True that 1857 was the best opportunity for the Sikhs to regain their Raj which they lost just a few years ago. The soldiers of the Khalsa army were still alive. Unfortunately we lacked leadership to lead us in that direction. 

The poorbias had mistreatment the Sikhs far worse than the British did. So the Sikhs hated them far more than they hated the British. So when the time came and when they had to choose between the British and the Poorbia sepoys they chose the British.

Wrong choice by the leaderless naive Sikhs 

[Jonny101]

1 hour ago, JSinghnz said:

Wrong choice by the leaderless naive Sikhs 

It's not as simple as this. We must consider  some factors and their circumstances at the time. The sepoys had mutinied and they were armed to the teeth with no shortage of weapons including guns and heavy artillery of the British. 

Sikhs didn't have this advantage. After the fall of the Sikh empire the British disarmed the Sikhs. Sikhs had to surrender hundreds of pieces of heavy artillery. Forget heavy artillery Sikhs did not even posses guns and kirpans which they had to surrender immediately after their loss. So if Sikhs were to rebel what weapons would they use to fight with.

Secondly if Sikhs did not help the British the Hindus and Muslims were more than willing to help and be used against the rebeling Sikhs. There were only a few Lakh Sikhs in all of Punjab vs millions of hostile Muslim and Hindus with the full might of the British. 

It is probably considering these among other factors that the Sikhs thought "let's make the best of a bad situation". That's why even the valiant son of Hari Singh Nalwa also helped the British during the sepoy mutiny.

[JSinghnz]

1 hour ago, Jonny101 said:

It's not as simple as this. We must consider  some factors and their circumstances at the time. The sepoys had mutinied and they were armed to the teeth with no shortage of weapons including guns and heavy artillery of the British. 

Sikhs didn't have this advantage. After the fall of the Sikh empire the British disarmed the Sikhs. Sikhs had to surrender hundreds of pieces of heavy artillery. Forget heavy artillery Sikhs did not even posses guns and kirpans which they had to surrender immediately after their loss. So if Sikhs were to rebel what weapons would they use to fight with.

Secondly if Sikhs did not help the British the Hindus and Muslims were more than willing to help and be used against the rebeling Sikhs. There were only a few Lakh Sikhs in all of Punjab vs millions of hostile Muslim and Hindus with the full might of the British. 

It is probably considering these among other factors that the Sikhs thought "let's make the best of a bad situation". That's why even the valiant son of Hari Singh Nalwa also helped the British during the sepoy mutiny.

Exactly it was not as simple as you make it to be. There were no millions of Hindus and Muslims to take on the Sikhs. And Sikhs never before in their glorious history had  ever joined their own enemies after getting defeated.

Not very long ago Sikhs had taken on a much stronger Moghul empire and became rulers after uprooting them.

[Jonny101]

10 hours ago, JSinghnz said:

Exactly it was not as simple as you make it to be. There were no millions of Hindus and Muslims to take on the Sikhs. And Sikhs never before in their glorious history had  ever joined their own enemies after getting defeated.

Not very long ago Sikhs had taken on a much stronger Moghul empire and became rulers after uprooting them.

Demographically at the time Sikhs were less than 10% of the population of Punjab which amounts to a few lakhs while Muslims and Hindus numbered in the millions and were tripping over each other to be on the good books of the British. Muslims for example welcomed the British as liberators. Punjabi Hindus due to their rivalry with Sikhs would never have stood with the Sikhs against the British. Besides them Sikhs also had to deal with other Sikhs like the Phulkian Cheifs of Patiala, Jind etc who were more than willing to fight against fellow Sikhs as they did during the Anglo Sikh wars. Sikhs during the misl period never had traitors who joined the Mughals against the Sikhs. Even Ala Singh of Patiala who was on friendly terms with the Mughals never fought against Sikhs. So circumstances on ground were totally different. 

I have read somewhere that there was a minor Sikh chief in the Malwa region that tried to make the Sikhs rebel. But it didn't catch on.

After the mutiny, the Kukas under Baba Ram Singh tried to do something similar but first his planning was to get military training by recruiting Kukas into the army in collaboration with the Dogras of J&K. But before this plan could mature some haughty Kukas killed butchers in malerkotla.

After this point in time the Sikh freedom fighters merged their freedom movement with the Indian freedom movement. And so Sikhs lost their original focus of reclaiming the Sikh state which they lost with the Indian State which are two very different things.

[jkvlondon]

On 4/24/2020 at 4:20 AM, Jonny101 said:

Often it is said by the rest of Indians that Sikhs helped the British in 1857 mutiny instead of the sepoys. Sikhs are stigmatized for this. But they don't want to see the reasons why Sikhs didn't want to help the sepoys. One of the reasons is the mistreatment of Sikhs at the hands of poorbia sepoys. Often they were even worse than the British.

A research paper written by Kripal Chandra Yadav he writes about this when the Sikh empire was newly conquered and Sikhs began to be recruited in the British army:

The Sikhs in the British army, whether in the regular or irregular forces, were oppressed  by their officers. They were looked down upon as enemies and were demoralized.....Even the Hindustani sepoys, who were in a great majority in every  regiment of the Bengal army, maltreated the Sikhs. Consequently, many Sikhs were driven out of these regiments and not a shadow of encouragement was given to counteract the quiet but persistent opposition of the Oudh and Bihar men.

First you get conquered then you get insulted by these sepoys. It was like adding salt to the wound. No wonder the Singhs took their full vengeance upon those sepoys when they got the chance during the mutiny.

 

the armies of Bengal and Bihar were used in the Anglo wars against Sikhs so this also why there was Sepoy hatred towards sikhs and vice versa, the sepoys actually started attacking women and children of  Gorey too which was a step too far for the sikh mentality .

[JSinghnz]

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

the armies of Bengal and Bihar were used in the Anglo wars against Sikhs so this also why there was Sepoy hatred towards sikhs and vice versa, the sepoys actually started attacking women and children of  Gorey too which was a step too far for the sikh mentality .

Love your jokes

[jkvlondon]

3 minutes ago, JSinghnz said:

Love your jokes

meaning they had the option to side with the mutineers but that is what decided them against joining the poorbia led mutiny