A black day of Indian history when millions of Indians killed by Afghans

[Hamza913]

Every Pakhtun is an Afghan.

Historically? Yes.
In modern times? No.

 

[Mian Babban]

If I am not mistaken the Sikh Empire captured Kabul as well.

They did not. Their westernmost outpost was Jamrud fort which is situated at the border of Peshawar district and Khyber agency (at the famous bab-i-Khyber that one see on currency notes of Pakistan). Sikhs never attempted to conquer a hilly area of Pashtuns, Ranjeet Singh was a clever and sharp person.

Bab-i-Khyber

 

[Sine Nomine]

The video says marathas had reached upto attock, multan ,lahore is that true?

Yes the masters of all turncoats,Adina Beg Khan a man only serving his own agenda pitched them against Afghans and when they drove Afghans out,he promised them a huge tribute which of course is still not paid.

 

[Mian Babban]

It was strictly Abdali Vs Marathas .

Maratha's didn't gain assistance and allies in north india , e,g Hindu rajputs , Hindu Jatt of Panipat , Ahir or Sikhs , while Abdali made allies with Rohila sardar
Najib ad-Dawlah and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Oudh

BTW one of the main Generals of the Marathas was Ibrahim Khan Gardi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Khan_Gardi


WHen AHmad SHaH ABdaLi Met IBraHim KHan Gardi !!

Legendary loyalty of Maratha General IBraHim KHan Gardi

Ibrahim Gardi was an indigenous Deccani, not a man of Afghan descent. In the TV show Gardi is given a fictional role of a Pathan who loves his motherland India and Najibuddaulah, played by Irfan Khan (who was actually a migrant from Pakhtunkhwa) , is a 'bad' Pathan who is siding with 'foreigners' and is a 'traitor'. Those Rohilla leaders (Najib Khan, Hafiz Rahmat, Dunde Khan etc) were born in Pakhtunkhwa and were as much foreigners to India as Ahmad Shah Abdali. The TV show is made with modern lens of nationalism. Marathas were no "patriots" , in fact they were not even Hindu nationalists. They looted both Muslims and Hindus during their raids. And Ahmad Shah Abdali was not a champion of Two-Nation-theory of Pakistan, he was there to assist his Afghan kinsmen (Rohillas of Doab) who were on the verge of destruction at the hands of Marathas, as revealed by contemporary Mughal documents published by historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar.

slaughtering non combants is strictly prohibited in Islam .. Abdali won the battle but what comes Later was un-Islamic act of his army under his leadership and he will answer for that .

Killing fleeing Maratha men of fighting age on the battleground was perfectly Islamic.....and enslaving the women in their camp was also perfectly Islamic. I have checked all the primary sources, all of them are talking about slaughter of combatants. If non-combatants are killed as collateral damage during battle, thats also not answerable in Islam. I have read Sira Ibn-i-Ushaq and Tarikh-i-Tabari, as well as Hadith sources like Bukhari, Muslim etc , as well as Mosoua-fiqhiyah (an Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence)

Durranis suffered quite a bit of loss in Third Battle of Panipat. Infact, this became the last victory and high point of the empire. Due to their losses in this battle, Sikhs captured Punjab and threw them away for good. This battled was followed by decline and destruction of last Afghan empire or Durranis.

Marathas did not put a dent on Durrani empire. Durranis gained immense loot from the battlefield of Panipat. Moreover the war was financed by their Rohilla and Awadh allies. As far as killed soldiers in their ranks are considered, they could be easily replaced with new recruits. There was no dearth of warriors in Afghanistan.

Sikhs were indeed a headache for Afghans, because it was an indigenous insurgency against Afghans who sucked at administration and had not much of clue about complex ground realities and inner-workings of Punjab. As late as 1798, Afghans were routing Sikh misals in open battles but it were not producing any result.... Sikhs would regroup and would capture the lost areas as soon as Afghan armies would leave . Only some one indigenous like Adina beg was capable of exterminating Sikhs. Sikhs had also same difficulty in dealing with insurgency and turbulence when they themselves attempted to rule the plain areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (Bannu, Kohat, Peshawar etc) in 19th century.

 

[ziaulislam]

Why are you giving Afghans the sole credit? Afghan meaning citizens of present day Afghanistan.

This is a tale of Pakhtuns slaughtering indians. Ahmad Shah made Peshawar the capital at the time, so more likely the majority of the people killing indians were, what would be considered present day terms: Pakistanis.

wrong, peshwar was non pushtoon city, he conquered it

people of this side of boarder were more living in plans and were less aggressive than that side of the boarder(boarder is mostly drawn on natural mountainous range)

some tribes even migrated to this side after fighting on that side

 

[niaz]

As a student of history, I have read quite a few accounts of the 3rd Battle of Panipat. Permit me to state my views whatever their worth.

The battle took place 250 years ago, 8 generations have since passed. Modern-day Marathas and modern Afghans are too far removed. It is ridiculous to think of retribution /compensation for the crimes alleged to have been committed by either party in 1761.

Inevitably, there are solid reasons as to why battles are won or lost. Factors affecting the outcome could be the technical superiority (including fighting prowess & training) or numerical superiority or competency of the leadership and /or any combination of the above factors.

Mughal state had been bankrupted by the 27 year war with the Marathas and following Aurangzeb’s death in 1707; Mughal power collapsed. The nail in the coffin was the attack by Nader Shah Afshaar in 1730.

Power vacuum thus created was filled by the Marathas. Under the capable leadership of Peshwa Baji Rao, most of Central India had come under Maratha control by the early1730 ’s. In 1737 Baji Rao defeated Mughal army near Delhi annexing much of the remaining Mughal territories.

Maratha Empire reached its zenith under the next Peshawar Nana Sahib when the Marathas invaded Punjab & captured Lahore as well crossing the Indus to take Peshawar in 1758.


After the death of Nader Shah Afshaar in 1747, his Afghan general Ahmad Shah Abdali managed to secure power in the Eastern part of the Persian Empire and by 1752 had won over most of Punjab including Kashmir. He was itching to retake his domains.

Maratha armies were well trained (some by the French) and led by capable commanders. Until that time except for the defeat by Ali Vardi Khan (Grandfather of Sirajuddaula) of Bengal, no other Muslim or Rajput general had been able to check Peshawar’s advance.

Both the armies were roughly equal in number, regular forces numbering about 100,000 each. However, Marathas were accompanied by a large number of non-combatants with the total Maratha entourage estimated to be in excess of 300,000.

The only difference IMO was Ahmed Shah having about 150 light cannons (Shutar naal) which could be fired while mounted on the camels. Otherwise it is the fighting tactics that were decisive; obviously, Ahmed Shah proved to be a better commander than Sadashivrao Bhau.

It must, however, be said that rapid expansion of the Maratha empire had made the Peshwa & the Bhau extremely arrogant. They had annoyed the Rajput Rajas and also rubbed the Suraj Mal, Raja of Bharatpur the wrong way, Suraj Mal left Bhau's army before the fight began. Thus Marathas were on their own.

Atrocities were committed by both sides. Marathas were equally barbaric when it came to the slaughter. At Kunjpua about 10,000 Afghans were killed and even those who surrendered were later massacred.

No sane person will condone slaughter of the thousands non-combatant by the Afghans in the aftermath of the battle. However, does anyone really believe had Bhau won the battle of Panipat; he would have left any Afghans alive?

Fourth Geneva Convention that governs that established standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war is a 19th - century invention. On 22 August 1864, the conference adopted the first Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". It was not until the Fourth Geneva Convention in August 1949 that "Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" was agreed.

Isn’t it unfair to judge the conduct of the combatants of a battle that took place in 1761 by today’s standards?

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

As a student of history, I have read quite a few accounts of the 3rd Battle of Panipat. Permit me to state my views whatever their worth.

The battle took place 250 years ago, 8 generations have since passed. Modern-day Marathas and modern Afghans are too far removed. It is ridiculous to think of retribution /compensation for the crimes alleged to have been committed by either party in 1761.

Inevitably, there are solid reasons as to why battles are won or lost. Factors affecting the outcome could be the technical superiority (including fighting prowess & training) or numerical superiority or competency of the leadership and /or any combination of the above factors.

Mughal state had been bankrupted by the 27 year war with the Marathas and following Aurangzeb’s death in 1707; Mughal power collapsed. The nail in the coffin was the attack by Nader Shah Afshaar in 1730.

Power vacuum thus created was filled by the Marathas. Under the capable leadership of Peshwa Baji Rao, most of Central India had come under Maratha control by the early1730 ’s. In 1737 Baji Rao defeated Mughal army near Delhi annexing much of the remaining Mughal territories.

Maratha Empire reached its zenith under the next Peshawar Nana Sahib when the Marathas invaded Punjab & captured Lahore as well crossing the Indus to take Peshawar in 1758.


After the death of Nader Shah Afshaar in 1747, his Afghan general Ahmad Shah Abdali managed to secure power in the Eastern part of the Persian Empire and by 1752 had won over most of Punjab including Kashmir. He was itching to retake his domains.

Maratha armies were well trained (some by the French) and led by capable commanders. Until that time except for the defeat by Ali Vardi Khan (Grandfather of Sirajuddaula) of Bengal, no other Muslim or Rajput general had been able to check Peshawar’s advance.

Both the armies were roughly equal in number, regular forces numbering about 100,000 each. However, Marathas were accompanied by a large number of non-combatants with the total Maratha entourage estimated to be in excess of 300,000.

The only difference IMO was Ahmed Shah having about 150 light cannons (Shutar naal) which could be fired while mounted on the camels. Otherwise it is the fighting tactics that were decisive; obviously, Ahmed Shah proved to be a better commander than Sadashivrao Bhau.

It must, however, be said that rapid expansion of the Maratha empire had made the Peshwa & the Bhau extremely arrogant. They had annoyed the Rajput Rajas and also rubbed the Suraj Mal, Raja of Bharatpur the wrong way, Suraj Mal left Bhau's army before the fight began. Thus Marathas were on their own.

Atrocities were committed by both sides. Marathas were equally barbaric when it came to the slaughter. At Kunjpua about 10,000 Afghans were killed and even those who surrendered were later massacred.

No sane person will condone slaughter of the thousands non-combatant by the Afghans in the aftermath of the battle. However, does anyone really believe had Bhau won the battle of Panipat; he would have left any Afghans alive?

Fourth Geneva Convention that governs that established standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war is a 19th - century invention. On 22 August 1864, the conference adopted the first Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". It was not until the Fourth Geneva Convention in August 1949 that "Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" was agreed.

Isn’t it unfair to judge the conduct of the combatants of a battle that took place in 1761 by today’s standards?

Just curious did the losses of Durrani in Panipat weaken them considering multiple defeats from Sikh empire in later years.

Also could British have been driven out by Marathas if Maratha exploited their victory in first Anglo-Maratha war?

 

[niaz]

Just curious did the losses of Durrani in Panipat weaken them considering multiple defeats from Sikh empire in later years.

Also could British have been driven out by Marathas if Maratha exploited their victory in first Anglo-Maratha war?

It took 10 years for the Marathas to recover but they were back with a vengeance. Among the Maratha's foes, only Haider Ali managed to check them for a while but later his son Tipu Sultan paid tribute to Marathas. Nizam of Hyderabad did likewise.

Mahadji Scindia & Holkar defeated Zabita Khan, son on Najibuddowla (Najib Khan Yusufzai) in 1772 and allegedly dug up Najib's grave and shattered his bones to vent their anger at his support of Ahmed Shah at Panipat. However, Maratha's advance to the North & West was checked by the rise of the Sikhs in Punjab after withdrawal of the Afghans.

British had won Bengal at in 1757 at Plassey and consolidated their hold after the Battle of Buxur in October 1764 where a small force of East India Company Commanded by Major Hector Munro defeated a much larger Muslim army commanded by Nawab of Awadh, Nawab of Bengal & the Rohillas.

The subsequent treaty of Allahabad signed on 12th August 1765 between Shah Alam II & Robert Clive granted East India Company the right to the collection of taxes from the provinces of Bihar, Bengal & Orissa and also an indemnity of Rs 50 lacs from Shuja ud Dawla of Awadh. Regret to admit that it was due to the incompetence of the Muslim warlords of India that allowed the British to firm up their hold on the subcontinent.

What would have happened had the Marathas won at Panipat is only a matter of speculation. IMO Marathas had bounced back after Panipat. Maratha power's decline was primarily due to the internal struggle between Maratha warlords Holkar & Scindhia over who would be the Peshwa. Baji Roa II fled to the British and signed the Treaty of Bassein (1802) whereby East India Company became the protector of the Peshwa.

Second Martha wars (1803 -1805) followed. Here it was their bad luck that (similar to the Tipu Sultan) the British forces were led by an exceptional military commander, Arthur Wellesley who later defeated Napoleon at Waterloo.

 

[niaz]

Honourable Syama Ayas,

In order to do justice to the first part of your question “ Did the losses of Durranis in Panipat weaken them considering multiple defeats from Sikh empire in later years?” I decided to tackle the subject separately. The simple answer is no. To understand the real reason for the rise of Sikhs in Punjab & decline of Muslim power one must analyse the situation that existed in Afghanistan & Punjab towards later parts of the 18th century.

Kabul had been under the Moghuls since Babur occupied it during the early part of the 16th century. Kandahar had also been under the Moghuls but after the Mughal –Safavid wars (1649 -1653) had been annexed by the Safavids. Mir Wais Hotaki (a chieftain of the Ghilzai tribes) managed to oust Safavid governor Gurgin Khan in 1709 and declared independence of the Kandahar region. It was his son Mahmud Hotaki who defeated the Safavid king and captured Isfahan in 1722.

After the death of Nadir Shah Afshar in 1747, Ahmed Shah with his contingent consisting of about 4,000 Afghans took control of Kandahar and was crowned king of Afghanistan by a Jirga of the tribal chiefs and the Kingdom of Afghanistan came into being. At that time Kabul was still nominally a province of the Mughals, the Subedar Nawab Nasir Khan was nominated by Mohammed Shah Rangeela of India. Herat region was also still under the Iranian Afshars.

The first task of Ahmed Shah was to consolidate his power over the region what is now called Afghanistan. For this, he needed the support of the independent-minded tribal warlords. Afghanistan was therefore not really a kingdom in the traditional sense; it was more like a tribal federation with warlords virtually independent in their respective area and King as Chief of the Chiefs; similar to the UAE of today.

Being a federation of near equals with the inherent tendency of the tribal chieftains to go their own way was the main weakness of the Durrani Empire.

After the death of Ahmed Shah in June 1773, his descendants were too busy consolidating their power in Afghanistan to pay a lot of attention to the affairs of their Indian provinces. This allowed the 12 Misls (in effect military divisions of the Sikhs) to consolidate their power in Punjab.

However Afghan rulers continued their efforts to dislodge Sikhs. Taimur Shah defeated the Bhangi Sardars, Lehna Singh, and Sobha Singh out of Lahore in 1767 but it was soon reoccupied. They remained in power in Lahore until Shah Zaman succeeded to the throne of Kabul in 1793. The first attempt by Shah Zaman was made in 1793 but his army was routed by the Sikhs. Shan Zaman reorganized his forces and captured Hassan Abdal and Rohtas from Ranjit Singh in 1795. However, Shah Zaman had to return to Kabul due to problems with at home. After he went back, Ranjit managed to retake Rohtas from the Afghans.

Shah Zaman moved south again in 1796 with 30,000 strong Afghan army. Ranjit Singh avoided the confrontation until he could unite all the Sikh Misls under his command. After this was achieved Ranjit Singh marched towards Lahore and surrounded it but could not capture it.

Thanks to the luck of the Ranjeet Singh, Shah Zaman’s brother Mahmud had revolted in 1797 and Shah Zaman had to leave for Afghanistan without finishing the task.

In 1798 Shah Zaman attacked Punjab again and Sikhs were surrounded from all sides in Lahore. The Afghans occupied Lahore on Nov. 1798 and marched towards Amritsar. Ranjit Singh faced Shah Zaman about 8 Km from Amritsar where Afghans were defeated and forced to flee towards Lahore.

Ranjit Singh pursued them all the way to the Attock. Nizam-ud.din, Pathan ruler of Kasur attacked Sikhs near Shahdara on the banks of Ravi, but his forces were no match for the Sikhs and were defeated. Thus fall of the Durranis was not so much due to Sikhs but rivalry from within. As a neutral observer, I would say despite the fact that even though Afghans were strong & fearless fighters; their unruliness and greed for plunder has always been their downfall.

One needs an exceptional & charismatic leader to harness their courage and physical strength into an effective fighting machine. Alas, subsequent Afghan kings were not even a facsimile of the great Ahmed Shah. On the other hand, Sikhs were equally good fighters with more discipline and when lead by capable commanders such as Ranjit Singh and Hari Sing Nalwa, Sikhs proved to be more than a match for the Afghan courage.

 

[niaz]

wrong, peshwar was non pushtoon city, he conquered it

people of this side of boarder were more living in plans and were less aggressive than that side of the boarder(boarder is mostly drawn on natural mountainous range)

some tribes even migrated to this side after fighting on that side

Can’t say for sure if Peshawar was a Pashtun city but Pashtuns were present in this region at least a couple of centuries before Ahmed Shah. To the best of my info areas on both sides of the Khyber Pass had significant Afghan/Pashtun population from the 14th century. Ibne Batuta who visited India early 14th Century and mentions a tribe of Persians called Afghans who were physically strong and highwaymen.

During the 15th century, Ulug Beg Mirza, grandson of Amir Teimur had conquered Kabul forcing Afghan Pashtun tribes south. Some those settled around Peshawar, Swat & Bunker.

Pashtuns were definitely in this area in the early 16th Century as Babur married one of the daughters of a Yusufzai chief. Later Sher Shah Suri invited Pashtuns to settle in Northern India (Rohilkhand). Rohilla Afghans were originally mountain dwellers of present-day KPK region and Najib- ud- dawla who aided Ahmed Shah at Panipat was, in fact, Najib Khan Yusufzai.