Ahmad Shah Baba, your thoughts please.

[Midnight_Sun]

Well said.


That's what I figured. However, do you have any sources for the atrocities that Ranjit committed? The Sikhs somehow glorify Ranjit bhai and they argue that many Pashtuns, specifically Afridis joined Ranjit Singh against the Pashtuns. How true is this? He was arguing that, and I wonder if he was just making it up on the spot. I argued that if Pashtuns joined Ranjit Singhs army, it was probably for economical incentives. In a similar fashion, many Pashtuns have joined NATO as well.

I have sources for you, give me some time to collect them. The books that I read that come to mind are: The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk, and the Historical dictionary of Afghanistan's wars and revolutions.

[Midnight_Sun]

Admin Khan,

I just reviewed some of my sources for you:

The Pathans, by Sir Olaf Caroe mentions that after the battle (of Nowshera), Ranjit with his British trained Gurkhas and fanatic Sikhs:

"...advanced to Peshawar, slaying and plundering as he went. He battered down the Bala Hissar and sacked the fair palace within...He cut the cypresses and muddied the basins of the garden of Shah Leman below the fort, and allowed his cavalry to ravage the square miles of delicious orchads, plum, peach, apricot, and pear, the glory of Peshawar. The name of the Sikhashahi - the Sikh Rule -is a synonym for misgovernment and oppression in the mouths of teachers and children to this day. Even the mosque of Mahabat Khan (erected in 1670) , the chief mosque of the city, seems to have been dismantled....That Peshawar contains no architectural monuments to this day is due mainly to the devastations of 1823." (Caroe, p.298)


In the book "People of the Khyber" by James Spain, he mentions:

"They stayed to oppress the inhabitants and to turn the countryside round about the city into a desolate wasteland. Their memory lives even today in the phrase 'Hari will get you!', which Pathan mothers use to frighten their children into good behavior. 'Hari' is Hari Singh, one of the cruelest and most noted of the generals of the Sikh armies..." (Spain, p. 31)

On Ranjit Singh's vices and attributes by Peter Hopkirk's, The Great Game:

"There was also a troupe of Kashmiri dancing girls, forty in number and all dressed as boys, to whom the ruler appeared...addicted...He lost an eye, is pitted by the small pox, and his stature does not exceed five feet three inches...his chest is contracted, his back is bent, his limbs withered. His nightly drinking bouts, Burns (British agent) feared, were more than anyone could take." (Hopkirk, p. 138)

[Admin Khan]

Midnight_Sun,
Thank you very much.

Can you please shed some light on the Pashtuns that supposedly joined Ranjits Army. Is that true?

[Midnight_Sun]

From the books I just referenced, his army was comprised of mostly fanatic Sikhs under a famous commander (whose name I don't recall off the top of my head) , Gurkhas, British, French, Italian, and even some American officers (one of which later defected to the Afghan side).

[Michin Khel]

Why would pashtuns join ranjit singh forces? Sikhs were strictly anti-muslims.
And sikhs became anti-muslims because mughals suppressed them with cruelty. Till to this day in our area when some one is showing cruelty then he is called a sikh. Sikh is synonym to cruel in our area.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Why would pashtuns join ranjit singh forces? Sikhs were strictly anti-muslims.
And sikhs became anti-muslims because mughals suppressed them with cruelty. Till to this day in our area when some one is showing cruelty then he is called a sikh. Sikh is synonym to cruel in our area.

Thats where you must think objectively. Sikhs were not anti-Muslims. They were anti-Mughals to begin with and later had their fight with Afghans. Ranjit Singh's army comprised of Muslim contingents. The artillery was predominantly Punjabi Muslims. This is mentioned by British historians like Cunningham.

And Sikhs were hardly 15% of the population at that time. It would have been impossible for him to rule for 30 long years if the Muslim population hadn't supported him overwhelmingly.

[KhalsaWarrior]

From the books I just referenced, his army was comprised of mostly fanatic Sikhs under a famous commander (whose name I don't recall off the top of my head) , Gurkhas, British, French, Italian, and even some American officers (one of which later defected to the Afghan side).

The fanatics Sikhs were called Akalis. Their leader was Akali Phula Singh. They were sticklers to the tenets of the Sikh faith and didnt even spare denouncing Ranjeet Singh for his harems and drunken bouts. The Akalis were the special forces of the army, the ones to lead the charge and the first to break into enemy garrisons.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Baba Ahmed Shah Abdali was a great Muslim leader, rahmatullahi alaih.

Ranjit Singh's army comprised of Muslim contingents. The artillery was predominantly Punjabi Muslims. This is mentioned by British historians like Cunningham.

The Punjabi "Muslims" betrayed Islam and Muslims when they worked with Ranjit Singh to conquer Muslim Peshawar and place it under Sikh rule, yet these same traitors have the audacity to condemn Bengalis for defending themselves against their Punjabi army of 1971 and create an independent Muslim-run state of Bangladesh.

Anyway the Punjabi rule of Pekhawar will end one day.

[Michin Khel]

I just checked tarikh e punjab, punjabi muslims did join ranjeet singh forces...but pashtuns did'nt. Infact pashtuns of punjab like kasuri and multani afghans gave tough time to sikhs.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Baba Ahmed Shah Abdali was a great Muslim leader, rahmatullahi alaih.



The Punjabi "Muslims" betrayed Islam and Muslims when they worked with Ranjit Singh to conquer Muslim Peshawar and place it under Sikh rule, yet these same traitors have the audacity to condemn Bengalis for defending themselves against their Punjabi army of 1971 and create an independent Muslim-run state of Bangladesh.

Anyway the Punjabi rule of Pekhawar will end one day.

Depends how you look at it. To me the Punjabi Muslims were placing a higher significance on themselves being Punjabi like the Sikhs and Hindus in Ranjeet Singh's army. Obviously, the religious similarity with the Pashtuns wasn't enough for Punjabi Muslims to stop them from joining Ranjeet Singh's army. You can call that betrayal or any other term. But the fact remains that at most times in history, religion isn't enough as a unifying factor.

[fzpz]

Depends how you look at it. To me the Punjabi Muslims were placing a higher significance on themselves being Punjabi like the Sikhs and Hindus in Ranjeet Singh's army. Obviously, the religious similarity with the Pashtuns wasn't enough for Punjabi Muslims to stop them from joining Ranjeet Singh's army. You can call that betrayal or any other term. But the fact remains that at most times in history, religion isn't enough as a unifying factor.

Their reasons weren't so much as seeing themselves as Punjabi first, it had to do with the fact that their was common beef between whichever kingdom controlled what is now Afghanistan and the muslims of the plains/south asia. Punjab was also important to sustaining/feeding the Afghan empires. Without the plains of Punjab and Sindh, the Afghan empires were never to be the same again. The Punjabis were simply taxed less under the Sikhs. It is a popular assumption to make about those days regarding religions being against each other.
It could simply be that the muslims thought of it in their best interests to side with a new force. One would have to keep in mind that the process of people converting to Islam was still going on the The Punjab during those days. Religious identities hadn't been cemented yet. This also doesn't take into account the ethnic complexities of Punjab and its peoples (especially the muslims). And its not like they became "one", there was never any acceptance of a singular identity (all being equal etc). No acceptance of inter-marriage, common prayers, etc.

That last generalization is simply false. Religion has many connotations, including culture, language, and ethnicity. There is always a base religious (and its cultural connotations) identity in most countries. Too many cases in history and the present of religion being a binding force, subsequently creating a new identity.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Their reasons weren't so much as seeing themselves as Punjabi first, it had to do with the fact that their was common beef between whichever kingdom controlled what is now Afghanistan and the muslims of the plains/south asia. Punjab was also important to sustaining/feeding the Afghan empires. Without the plains of Punjab and Sindh, the Afghan empires were never to be the same again. The Punjabis were simply taxed less under the Sikhs. It is a popular assumption to make about those days regarding religions being against each other.
It could simply be that the muslims thought of it in their best interests to side with a new force. One would have to keep in mind that the process of people converting to Islam was still going on the The Punjab during those days. Religious identities hadn't been cemented yet. This also doesn't take into account the ethnic complexities of Punjab and its peoples (especially the muslims). And its not like they became "one", there was never any acceptance of a singular identity (all being equal etc). No acceptance of inter-marriage, common prayers, etc.

I think the religious identities were very well cemented since Islam had been present in the Punjab for a good 1000 years. Bin Qasim conquered Sindh and parts of Punjab in 800 AD. One doesn't necessarily have to forge marriage alliances to feel a common sense of togetherness.

And you're right that conversions and re-conversions were going on in Punjab. But I think it was mainly because of the recent emergence of Sikhism. All of the Sikhs today would have been Hindus or Muslims in those times.

That last generalization is simply false. Religion has many connotations, including culture, language, and ethnicity. There is always a base religious (and its cultural connotations) identity in most countries. Too many cases in history and the present of religion being a binding force, subsequently creating a new identity.

The two major religions of the world - Christianity and Islam ceased to have a common homogeneous culture, language and ethnicity centuries back. Culture, language and ethnicity differences have been too strong to be conquered evenly by religions.

[fzpz]

I think the religious identities were very well cemented since Islam had been present in the Punjab for a good 1000 years. Bin Qasim conquered Sindh and parts of Punjab in 800 AD. One doesn't necessarily have to forge marriage alliances to feel a common sense of togetherness.

And you're right that conversions and re-conversions were going on in Punjab. But I think it was mainly because of the recent emergence of Sikhism. All of the Sikhs today would have been Hindus or Muslims in those times.



The two major religions of the world - Christianity and Islam ceased to have a common homogeneous culture, language and ethnicity centuries back. Culture, language and ethnicity differences have been too strong to be conquered evenly by religions.

Religious identities of the "natives" wasn't cemented. Conversions into Islam (and back into hinduism/sikhism) continued in mass up until the British throughout Southasia. These village-wide conversions can only happen if the religious identities haven't been cemented. Either way, a punjabi identity for muslims in punjab has never been a rallying cry. Opportunism, sure. Muslims of Punjab are too ethnically and linguistically diverse to give a hoot about 'punjabiyat'. You have vast portions of Pak Punjab who see themselves as Siraikis, Potwaris, Hindkowans, or Pahari rajputs. This is disregarding the number of people in Punjab who have outside ancestry (pashtun/kashmiri/moghul).

As a monolithic entity, no. On a regional or subnational level, yes.

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is actually one reason why I have strayed away from the classical ethnic dogma I started to get influenced by as I affiliated with other Pashtuns; Asia is such a melting pot and ethnicity was very fluidly define at many times in history; many of the Punjabis of today are Pashtun and don't realize it; and many people of Peshawar were from South Asian groups who adopted Pashto.

Likewise in Afghanistan, many other disparate groups of Soghdians and Bactrians became assimilated with Pashtuns or Tajiks and Tajiks became assimilated into Pashtuns and Pashtuns into Tajiks likewise over time.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Despite the apologia for Punjabis a couple of important points need to be mentioned. The Punjabis and their history of killing Muslims and turning Muslim land over to non-Muslim rule is important since:

1. Now in the federation of Pakistan they say that it is a religious obligation to accept the Pakistani state and "Muslim unity".

What this Muslim unity actually means is Punjabi domination. So Punjabis cynically use the Islam card to continue their hegemony whilst covering the fact that they have betrayed Muslims time and time again.

2. Even in the 1920s in Iraq when Punjabi and Pashtun soldiers were serving under British officers, the Pashtun soldiers refused to fight the local Iraqis when they found out they were Muslim though the Punjabis were all too happy to obey their British masters. We can make all sorts of excuses and be dismissive by apologists for Punjabis, however people like Gadoonwal, Emkhan and myself have personally lived the Punjabi reality i.e. their cruel, arrogant and evil nature including mocking of "Bewqoof Pathans" etc.

3. Islamic scholars told them not to join Ranjit Singh's forces and this did not stop them.

They betrayed their religion and the Muslim ummah.

This is important to point out since Punjabis are in the habit of labelling anyone who disagrees with them as a "traitor", look at the racist Punjabi troll "Roadrunner", who labels anyone an Indian if they dare to disagree with him.

As for Ahmed Shah Abdali his greatness can be fully appreciated when we are aware that he was invited to defend Islam by none other than the great Islamic scholar and saint (wali), Shah Waliyullah whose stature is such that many different schools of Islamic thought hold him in great esteem including Deobandis, Salafis and others.