What do you think about maharaja Ranjit Singh ji ?

[Wahe Guru]

thats non of your business.

you have surpassed the limits of hospitality ,if i were the admin here i would have banned you for talking utter non sense.

maybe someone shoudl do a check on you,maybe you are soldat amir and wazirwarrior.

I am here bcoz I like Pashtuns...and known many Pashtuns personally...but that does not mean I cannot write what I think...

[graveyardofempires]

It is easy to write that if you cannot face honest facts and not able to think and make a reply.

I have no idea who the other two people are. I am sure they are not related to each other.

The question I asked you - I once also asked an Arab a similar question about their invasions of foreign lands in the past. Of course he had lots of answers and justifications...like in Iran the Iranian ruler was to blame completely (lol) and the Arabs begged Iranian ruler not to do this and that (mischiefs according to the Arab writer) and finally the Arabs had "no choice and were forced to invade"....invaders always say something like that...

you are too dumb to understand how people conceived reality back than and how it worked back than.
back than it was all about one invading the other,you are a dumbass thinking we will feel sorry for you when you disrespect our heros?

you should be happy we liberated you from the hindus,otherwise you were screwd.

[graveyardofempires]

I am here bcoz I like Pashtuns...and known many Pashtuns personally...but that does not mean I cannot write what I think...

the wya you write seems you dislike pashtuns cuz i see you mostly write and support anti pashtun theories and lies.

i like honest sikhs not one such as you but the ones from Afghanistan.

sikhs from Afghanistan even took part in fight for liberation.

[Insaaf_انصاف]

What about you ?
I can't speak a good pashto because all my family members settled in Karachi ( they speak urdu, and i speak a very good urdu wich is also an official language in pakhtunkhwa ) and i was born on canada.... I never go in waziristan, but inshallah i will

And soldat _ amir _ is a pashtun and he speaks a very good pashto !
If you want or not , hé is also pashtun.

[Soldat_Amir]

Mr Graveyardofempires - when the Arabs invaded Pashtun lands way back - what were their reasons given by them for doing that? I wonder if "Pashtuns" ancestors at the time all laid down on the ground and welcomed the invaders with roses because the Arabs were bringing along the religion of Islam? No. They would have fought the invaders as best as they could. Perhaps today Pashtuns say it was fantastic the Arabs invaded?

The Arabs failed in implimenting Islam in Afghanistan, they found the Pashtuns very difficult to control, take the example of the eleventh century Tarikh Al Yamnini of Al Ubi who mentions the Afghans as pagans given to rapine and rapacity. They were defeated by the Subuktigin and converted to Islam.

Source. Art and culture:endeavours in interpretation by Ahsan Jan Qaisar page 7.

[Soldat_Amir]

The Arabs could not defeat the Pashtuns, they found them very hard and too proud of their identity.

That is proof the Pashtuns refused the Muslim conquests. It was the Turks under Ghaznavi who forcibly converted the Pashtuns to Islam.

He used Islam to conquer Hindustan.

[Soldat_Amir]

look at this fake pashtun soldat amir talking about ahmad shah baba and mahmud ghaznavi. today he has proved hes not pashtun.

You defending a Turk Imperialist by the name of Ghaznavi?????

What kind of Pashtun are you.

Go and read books.

Ahmad Shah invaded India for its riches, he massacred innocent people in India and looted it of its riches.

He then placed the Durranis into power and refused to accept any other tribes into his monarchy.

Before you utter such nonsense, do you know there is a huge rivalry between Ghilzais and Durranis that has been going on for centuries.

You do know the ghilzais have been regarded as Non Pashtuns for centuries and considered as Turks?

Stupid boy, go read the history of your own people before you insult others.

[Wahe Guru]

you are too dumb to understand how people conceived reality back than and how it worked back than.
back than it was all about one invading the other,you are a dumbass thinking we will feel sorry for you when you disrespect our heros?

you should be happy we liberated you from the hindus,otherwise you were screwd.

I agree with you that back then it was rule of the jungle..and either invading or being invaded was the norm..I am not against Ahmad Shah Abdali blindly...I can understand why he was a hero for Pahstuns..all I am saying is that for those who were invaded - they will not say he was a hero (except for some Pakistani Punjabis lol). In other words there are often two sides to any story...Nor am In saying that AS Abdali did not do good deeds...no doubt he did good deeds as well and more so from Pashtun points of view...

[Wahe Guru]

The Arabs could not defeat the Pashtuns, they found them very hard and too proud of their identity.

That is proof the Pashtuns refused the Muslim conquests. It was the Turks under Ghaznavi who forcibly converted the Pashtuns to Islam.

He used Islam to conquer Hindustan.

I have read that before and it is interesting. Invader Ghaznavi is hero for people like Gen Kayani..it is mainly Pakistani Punjabis whose heroes are foreigners...they brains have been white washed many times over unfortunately..

[graveyardofempires]

Mahmud Ghaznavids mother was a pashtun..
and we love him more than soldout amir type of fake pashtuns.

[Manzareh]

Sikhs were used an abused by the white man, 100,000 of them died for England in WW2 when the world war had nothing to do with Amritsar. IMO the british viewed the sikhs as buffalos that had strength but no brains easily influenced and incredibly gullable.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Sikhs were used an abused by the white man, 100,000 of them died for England in WW2 when the world war had nothing to do with Amritsar. IMO the british viewed the sikhs as buffalos that had strength but no brains easily influenced and incredibly gullable.

They did it willingly and weren't forced. And let me tell you, it isn't like no Pashtun ever fought for the British army. But the likes of you and GoE would call them traitors. As if you guys know more about those times than the people who actually lived.

The Sikhs were good soldiers, gave the British a bloody nose in two Anglo-Sikh wars and with their internal differences and a lack of a central leader after MRS, they accepted the hegemony of the British in Punjab. There was no other way out. They didnt have caves and high mountain passes to carry on their battle, you see.

And again, its futile to win points now based on historical events. What use is a 200 yr old glory if I am living in poverty now?

[Manzareh]

They did it willingly and weren't forced. And let me tell you, it isn't like no Pashtun ever fought for the British army. But the likes of you and GoE would call them traitors. As if you guys know more about those times than the people who actually lived.

The Sikhs were good soldiers, gave the British a bloody nose in two Anglo-Sikh wars and with their internal differences and a lack of a central leader after MRS, they accepted the hegemony of the British in Punjab. There was no other way out. They didnt have caves and high mountain passes to carry on their battle, you see.

And again, its futile to win points now based on historical events. What use is a 200 yr old glory if I am living in poverty now?

Ok so they accepted the hegemony of the British because there wasnt any way out..i call that forced to serve someone because you dont have any other alternative, i can understand them willingly complying with the British in their area/country, but why take the extra mile and give your life for the same people that would slaughter you if you never submitted not one or two people your talking hundreds of thousands prepared to wear the cross and salute to 'his majesty' im not saying pashtuns never helped the british but there not known for it, while the sikhs are known to be servants of the white man. in my opinion the british dont even give you enough credit for the sacrifices your people made for 'his majesty' but yeh your right i agree so im not seeing this as an opportunity to score any points.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Ok so they accepted the hegemony of the British because there wasnt any way out..i call that forced to serve someone because you dont have any other alternative, i can understand them willingly complying with the British in their area/country, but why take the extra mile and give your life for the same people that would slaughter you if you never submitted not one or two people your talking hundreds of thousands prepared to wear the cross and salute to 'his majesty' im not saying pashtuns never helped the british but there not known for it, while the sikhs are known to be servants of the white man. in my opinion the british dont even give you enough credit for the sacrifices your people made for 'his majesty' but yeh your right i agree so im not seeing this as an opportunity to score any points.

Manzareh, it was more complicated than you imagine. To fathom reasons for the Sikhs joining the British Army, you have to go back to the period before the arrival of the British in the Punjab and see how they were organized.

The Sikh military were organized under loose federation led by commanders/barons, just like Afghan tribes. They had no central leader before MRS. Once MRS died and the central grip from Lahore loosened, the various barons went back to their old ways and started fighting amongst themselves for greater political mileage and influence at the Lahore Durbar. Some of these barons were already supporting the British even during MRS time (like the ancestor of the current Maharaja of Patiala and ex-CM of Punjab Amarinder Singh) and some joined later. So as such, Sikhs weren't used to fighting together except against when there was a religious cause, like in the case of Abdali.

Moreover, the Sikh army under MRS was trained by Europeans with many French, Italian, Belgian and Scottish military men who rose to the ranks of Colonel or Jagirdar and became mini-barons themselves. This had removed the fear or hate for the "white man".

These folks were professional soldiers who knew no other trade than warfare and had done so since the political climate of Punjab provided them the need to do so for more than a century. Since they were always organized loosely and didn't hate the white man they didn't have any qualms over joining the Brirtish Army.

Interestingly, they hated the Eastern Indian soldiers of the British Army more than they did the British themselves. They thought them to be cowards, low lives from the eastern states like Awadh, Bengal etc. And unsurprisingly, during the revolt of 1857, when entire Eastern and Central India was up in revolt, it was Punjabi and Pashtun soldiers that helped the British Army quell the rebels. A sad commentary on divisions within India.

[AfghanResistance]

OK LETS CLARIFY FACT FROM FICTION.

There is a difference between invasion and conquest. e.g. the soviets invaded Afghanistan but got a beating there. Now that doesn't mean just because the soviets invaded Afghanistan that they conquered Afghanistan or ruled it or even that Afghanistan became part of the soviet union.

Similarly Rangit sing invaded some Afghan territories but failed miserably to hold on to any Afghan territories, except for peshawar. His territory did not include any of Afghanistan. in fact he was defeated in Kandahar, north of Malakand and in waziristan. None of Khyber pukhtunkhwa was part of his territory and that map that was projected on this forum is exaggerated or better described as manufactured fabrications.

ranjit sing collaborated with the British for assistance in trying to defeat the Afghans. The British came running because basically the Afghans were giving the British a hard time and here the Sikhs with assistance wanted to do the job on behalf of the British. Well that's how the British saw it.

Ranjit sings youngest son converted to Christianity and is buried in a church in Britain. After ranjit sing death the British destroyed all Sikh resistance and became masters of punjab.

To me ranjit sing was warrior and an intelligent ruler who took control of punjab but a warrior that failed to subdue the Afghans in their own territory.

His empire stretched from Amritsa in the east to peshawar in the west and north from peshawar to just south of multan. He was called the lion of the five rivers because that exactly what he controlled the land of the five rivers i.e. punjab.

This is why pakhtuns need to learn their history because it is easy to be fooled or confused in a world where any tom, **** and harry write pages on Wikipedia etc. and as a result the world has access to incorrect information.

He is an official map of ranjits sings empire and the other is an exact replicate but highlighted and made more clear as it is hard to see the official without zooming in. The map is held at the British public library for anyone to verify.

This map was created in 1846 but it shows the extent of Sikh empire till the death of Maharaja Ranjit singh thats around 1839.
Its preserved in the British library and this image can be found on their site.