One of the major reasons for the Fall of the Sikh Empire

[MisterrSingh]

6 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

I mean what was the alternative? We would have likely stayed in the jungles and died in the jungles. Look what the Brits did to proud, rebellious, one dimensional fighting force of Native Indians. We were just as one dimensional of a fighting force before. 

No, not my answer. You've still in no way shown how the hired Europeans contributed to the downfall. I've got my issues with how things were run. But, those Europeans did indeed help Punjab/Sikhs get with the times. 

Where has that "getting with the times" lead us to this moment? What do we have to show for it in a temporal sense?

I think we need to accept that the Sikh Empire benefited "Sikh" elites, and did very little for the long-term spiritual and temporal side of things for the people. Looking back on that time with a misplaced sense of achievement on feats that weren't even our own is embarrassing. "At least we had a kingdom in name" is how losers think.

Plus, crowing about European mercenaries is so, so wrong. As it says in the Machiavelli text, they don't "feel" the pain of the struggle as someone with the same so-called tribal background would. If we didn't have the numbers for a purely Sikh army, then in my opinion we delayed the inevitable by travelling down a pleasant albiet temporary diverted route, but we still ended up in the same place had we tried to struggle through with solely our own people doing things. The only reason I wouldn't object, per se, to the mercenary argument is if we still had something concrete to show for it, and, of course, if we'd built on it to a certain degree.

A SIKH empire headed by a far-sighted, shrewd yet religiously-minded figurehead would've prioritised parchaar and conversion. More Sikhs = more soldiers. The numbers game. One Maharaja Ranjit Singh cannot achieve anything without the bodies to win the battle. Unfortunately for him, he invested in the wrong bodies, because his mentality wasn't as Sikh-centric as it should've been.

[justasking]

the sikh empire should have never sided with the british or allowed any territories to be ceded to the brits. largely due to them doing so we have the mess of india today 

[justasking]

i feel that establishing more sikh dominated neighbourhoods in the west is the way to go, it can be seen as a sort of colonisation on our part. we establish ourselves and when the west try to extert influence on us we push back on them and make them afraid of us

[MisterrSingh]

29 minutes ago, justasking said:

i feel that establishing more sikh dominated neighbourhoods in the west is the way to go, it can be seen as a sort of colonisation on our part. we establish ourselves and when the west try to extert influence on us we push back on them and make them afraid of us

UK Sikhs lack the mentality to do so. It's kind of a nobleness (if I'm being generous) that does not revel in upsetting the apple cart. We are happy to go with the flow without making waves. On one hand it is a positive attribute, but when we're surrounded by opportunistic and ruthless minority groups who will make the most of any chance passed up by a group such as ours, we end up falling to the back of the line with hardly any representation to make ourselves heard. 

There are also other behaviours exhibited by us that work against our collective interests. But I'm not certain if that can be attributed to an ingrained exclusively Sikh mentality, or whether it is a symptom of the selfish individualistic mindset that has swept all communities in the West for the last 40 or so years.

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2]

On 10/15/2020 at 4:46 AM, MisterrSingh said:

Where has that "getting with the times" lead us to this moment? What do we have to show for it in a temporal sense?

I think we need to accept that the Sikh Empire benefited "Sikh" elites, and did very little for the long-term spiritual and temporal side of things for the people. Looking back on that time with a misplaced sense of achievement on feats that weren't even our own is embarrassing. "At least we had a kingdom in name" is how losers think.

Plus, crowing about European mercenaries is so, so wrong. As it says in the Machiavelli text, they don't "feel" the pain of the struggle as someone with the same so-called tribal background would. If we didn't have the numbers for a purely Sikh army, then in my opinion we delayed the inevitable by travelling down a pleasant albiet temporary diverted route, but we still ended up in the same place had we tried to struggle through with solely our own people doing things. The only reason I wouldn't object, per se, to the mercenary argument is if we still had something concrete to show for it, and, of course, if we'd built on it to a certain degree.

A SIKH empire headed by a far-sighted, shrewd yet religiously-minded figurehead would've prioritised parchaar and conversion. More Sikhs = more soldiers. The numbers game. One Maharaja Ranjit Singh cannot achieve anything without the bodies to win the battle. Unfortunately for him, he invested in the wrong bodies, because his mentality wasn't as Sikh-centric as it should've been.

By "times" I mean in terms of material war assets. Not in a spiritual/mental way. I may be entirely wrong, but I believe if we were still a primarily cavalry force, our haal today would be worse than what it was. We would have been probably routed in the late 18th century or early 19th century, and been how the Natives are today. 

However, this post of yours bro I can agree with. We had a great chance to really do something in that era, but ultimately the faults of Maharaja Ranjit Singh prevailed over his talents. 

[MisterrSingh]

6 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

However, this post of yours bro I can agree with. We had a great chance to really do something in that era, but ultimately the faults of Maharaja Ranjit Singh prevailed over his talents. 

It was a different era with different dynamics at play, but it does make me admire the various Caliphs that came after Mohammed, their sole aim being to expand Islam, even if the individuals themselves weren't model Muslims. They shrewdly understood the importance of a unifying creed that could be used to bind a tribe and gain power and control of areas and people. The sheer force of exerting this Will overpowers any notions of ideological merit. 

[Ranjeet01]

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

It was a different era with different dynamics at play, but it does make me admire the various Caliphs that came after Mohammed, their sole aim being to expand Islam, even if the individuals themselves weren't model Muslims. They shrewdly understood the importance of a unifying creed that could be used to bind a tribe and gain power and control of areas and people. The sheer force of exerting this Will overpowers any notions of ideological merit. 

That is because with Islam, the power and politics came first, the religion came afterwards. 

There were generals like Hari Singh Nalwa that understood the empire had to be consolidated and Sikhi had to be on the forefront.

My understanding of some of the European Generals that came into the Khalsa Empire helped to organise some of the forces with more drilling and formations like they had with some of the European armies had at the time.

Ranjit Singh even though an illerate man was very good at recognising new techniques and methods to absorb into his army. 

He was very pragmatic in many regards but he has shown some of the perils of being too pragmatic at the expense of other factors in his empire