Pakistan - The Pathans

[shehbazi2001]

Hari Singh Nalwa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So even if it is not mentioned in the video, there were some from India who conquered the Pathans and did so convincingly.

Thats just a bundle of lies, completey baseless. I have been living all my life in NWFP and have friends from every corner of NWFP. I never heard any mention of Nalwa, not even from my grandfather or so.

The successes of sikhs in the reign of Ranjit Singh against Afghans was more due to internal strife and internal conflicts among afghan rulers and less due to sikh bravery.

These were sikhs that took refuge in the mountains every time Zaman Shah crossed the Indus. Zaman shah was not able to reach delhi simply because his brother Mahmood staged revolt against him each time Zaman crossed the Attock.

Zaman Shah was not cruel enough to kill all his brothers like great kings and thus had to suffer.

 

[Vinod2070]

Must you try and spoil every thread commemorating a group of people you don't like or can't think further than terrorist (yes, Indians in my experience are worse than westerners at stereotyping this way). Since you bring up Saraghari, let me explain a few things.

Coming from you, it was hilarious.

1) The Sikhs HAD to fight to the death. They locked (baraacaded) themselves in Fort Saraghari, because they were too timid to face the Afghans (I don't blame them).

You can take the horse to the water but can't make it drink the water. I am left in no doubt that you just can't see reality because you can't face it.

BTW how many Indian soldiers does one Pakistani soldier equal as per you?

2) The Sikhs fired using superior weapons from RAISED ground and from fortified turrets at advancing Afghans in open space. It does not need much of an imagination to see that 1 Sikh firing from a turret has a weaponry and shielding advantage over the advancing Afghans.

3) The Sikhs were working for the British - a colonial regime that you obviously worship..do not worry, another colonial empire will take over you soon..there's a reason why India has constantly been occupied over the centuries and the Afghans have not.

4) Your facts about Sikhs ruling Afghans are incorrect. Durrani Afghans regularly ruled over Sikhs until the time of Banda Singh Bahadur.

5) The Sikhs were supplied with the latest rifles, the Afghans were using old equipment.

The advantage lay heavily in the Sikhs favour, even if the numbers did not. Also your figures on the numbers killed are totally incorrect.

Look at the ratio dude. 10000 against 21. Its not for the weak hearted! I salute those brave soldiers. The British (your favorite) consider it equivalent to the battle of Thermopylae (remember the movie 300)!

Saragarhi and Thermopylae

The battle has frequently been compared to the Battle of Thermopylae[14], where a small Greek force faced a large Persian army of Xerxes (480 BC).

The ratio of the defending to the attacking force of ca. 1:476 (21 vs. 10,000) at Saragarhi, is reminiscent of the 1:285 ratio at Thermopylae (300 Spartans & 6,700 Greeks vs. 0.8 to 2.1 million). Based on modern estimates, the Persian Army numbered 150,000–200,000[19], producing a ratio of 1:29.

It is important to note that during the Battle of Saraghari, the British did not manage to get a relief unit there until after the 21 had fought to their deaths. At Thermopylae, the 300 Spartans also stayed after their lines had been breached, to fight to their deaths.

3) The Sikhs were working for the British - a colonial regime that you obviously worship..do not worry, another colonial empire will take over you soon..there's a reason why India has constantly been occupied over the centuries and the Afghans have not.

This one deserves a separate rebuttal with all the contempt it deserves. But I won't bother.

Just come back to your country and save it from being taken over by the Taliban ruffians (or the USA if it survives them). Worry about India later.

And Pakistani territory has also been occupied along with India. In fact it was the gateway to all those attacks.

And Afghans are occupied since 1979. This is the current reality.

 

[Skywalker]

Not sure why the battle of SARAGARHI is not mentioned!



Battle of Saragarhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

his Shows The Story Of The Battle Of Saragarhi. And How 21 Singhs Killed 4800 Afghans.

stzlv97cwY4[/media] - Battle Of Saragarhi

oh my God here comes the Indian version again with all the bullshit from wipkedia...21 sikh killed 4800 afghanis hmmm... so if i take the average if you send 210 sikhs to kashmir today they can kill 96000 fighters wow...i think u shld give this advise to ur army they will definitly listen to you...what a waste of brain or brains from the indian sight guess is all yours .....

 

[Vinod2070]

oh my God here comes the Indian version again with all the bullshit from wipkedia...21 sikh killed 4800 afghanis hmmm... so if i take the average if you send 210 sikhs to kashmir today they can kill 96000 fighters wow...i think u shld give this advise to ur army they will definitly listen to you...what a waste of brain or brains from the indian sight guess is all yours .....

Man there is nothing to laugh about here. This story is well documented and is absolutely true.

You better provide some "proof" if you have any against this story instead of going into a tailspin.

 

[roadrunner]

Coming from you, it was hilarious.

I don't stereotype. At least I don't recall calling all Indians as terrorists, like Bal Thackerey.
Stereotyping this way, is taking the minority as a view of the majority, which isn't what I'm doing.

You can take the horse to the water but can't make it drink the water. I am left in no doubt that you just can't see reality because you can't face it.

It's actually quite true what I said. The Sikhs locked themselves in Fort Saraghari, and would not venture out of it to face the Afghans. The could not run away either since they were surrounded. Their tactic was to stall so that reinforcements could come at a later date - one of the Sikhs was found dead on a toilet seat btw, which kind of tells of their mental state (or constipated state) when they were surrounded by the Afghans.

But it wasn't a "brave stand" as you're trying to make out. The Sikhs had no option but to fight off the Afghans - they could not run off because they were surrounded.

BTW how many Indian soldiers does one Pakistani soldier equal as per you?

1 Pakistani soldier is equal to 7 Indian soldiers. I stand by this statement. I think I have proved it, if you can disprove it, do so.

Look at the ratio dude. 10000 against 21. Its not for the weak hearted! I salute those brave soldiers. The British (your favorite) consider it equivalent to the battle of Thermopylae (remember the movie 300)!

It definitely wasn't Thermopylae. That's just from wikipedia. It's probably a lie, but even if true, defending a fort from raised ground against men armed with swords on the whole is not difficult. Even a group of women held off a native American Indian attack using Winchesters from a suitably defended position.

This one deserves a separate rebuttal with all the contempt it deserves. But I won't bother.

Feel free to do so on another thread. I think it's correct what I have stated there.

Just come back to your country and save it from being taken over by the Taliban ruffians (or the USA if it sutvives them). Worry about India later.

The Taliban are Afghans, so they're not a foreign colonial power. The USA isn't going to be staying there for centuries, like the British were in India, or lots of other powers that have come and gone also!

 

[shehbazi2001]

This story is very well documented. As well as any you will find.

There is no doubt about it's authenticity.

The Pathans did defeat the small Raja's army but ran back as fast as they could once the Indian army came into the picture.

Also there were numerous incidents of looting and rape during the Qabaili raid on Kashmir. The Mujaffarabad markets were looted, the attack on Srinagar was delayed by crucial hours because they were busy looting a Christian chappel and raping nuns on the way, giving crucial time to Indian army to secure the airport and then turn the tables on the raiders.

In fact their behavior turned the Kashmiris against Pakistan.

Thanks for suggesting the book. I will try to get a copy of it.

Is there a PDF version available anywhere?

You must be very careful in making such serious allegations like rape. You should not post such things unless and untill you have several references together. They were not paid to fight in Kashmir. It was a Jihad and in jihad, no one commits sins.

Regarding Srinagar, I studied it many years ago and I dont remember exactly but I shall tell you what I remember ....

srinagar was just a few miles away but pathans needed a few armoured vehicles to cross the plain area leading to srinagar. Those armoured vehicles were not provided by Pak Army and thus the delay.

Regarding the authenticity of the event, I doubt it. As you say that nearly 5000 pathans were killed, it means that they had at least 50,000 rounds. We cant suppose that each single round fired by the sikhs made a kill. They were not special snipers. If we suppose that they killed 5000 men, then certainly they must had at least 50,000 rounds which is extremely unlikely.

You cant sustain and support your argument. The story is highly exaggerated in terms of pathans killed.

 

[Vinod2070]

You must be very careful in making such serious allegations like rape. You should not post such things unless and untill you have several references together. They were not paid to fight in Kashmir. It was a Jihad and in jihad, no one commits sins.

Regarding Srinagar, I studied it many years ago and I dont remember exactly but I shall tell you what I remember ....

srinagar was just a few miles away but pathans needed a few armoured vehicles to cross the plain area leading to srinagar. Those armoured vehicles were not provided by Pak Army and thus the delay.

You are right. Such allegations should not be made lightly. I have read it many times in many different places. Here is one link for you. Just try to search it and you will find many references to the same.

A COMPREHENSIVE NOTE ON JAMMU & KASHMIR

"TRIBAL RAIDS" AND THE ACCESSION
Pakistan then sent tribal invaders and ostensibly decommissioned Pakistan Army officers into Jammu and Kashmir. While Pakistan has always claimed that its government was not behind the raids and that these were spontaneous expressions of Muslim sentiment following reports of killing of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, the facts are revealed by Major General Akbar Khan, the officer given responsibility for organising the raids: He states in his book "Raiders in Kashmir" ‘..I wrote out a plan under the title "Armed Revolt inside Kashmir". As open interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously not desirable it was proposed that our efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris internally—and .. to prevent arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir..." . Margaret Bourke-White describes the plunder by the raiders:
"Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to Kashmir. Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims".
"The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even members of the St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital were brutally massacred."
Unable to prevent the raiders’ brutal advance which was marked by large-scale killings, loot and arson, the Maharaja, on October 24, 1947, appealed for military assistance from the Government of India. [/B]

The Indian Government felt that only if the state had acceded to India could there be the legal basis for India to intervene, whereupon the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. A simultaneous appeal for assistance and for the state’s accession to the Indian Union was also made by Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, and the undisputed leader of the people, who had for his views been imprisoned by the Maharaja’s government into September ’47 and released only under pressure of India’s Prime Minister.

Regarding the authenticity of the event, I doubt it. As you say that nearly 5000 pathans were killed, it means that they had at least 50,000 rounds. We cant suppose that each single round fired by the sikhs made a kill. They were not special snipers. If we suppose that they killed 5000 men, then certainly they must had at least 50,000 rounds which is extremely unlikely.

You cant sustain and support your argument. The story is highly exaggerated in terms of pathans killed.

I don't believe I need to produce any more proof. If you believe the British when they recorded their own defeats so vividly and which are shown so proudly in the video, I don't see any reason to doubt this story.

BTW the 4800 killed include those killed in the fighting which happened after the reinforcements arrived. The 21 Sikhs killed 600 Afghans as per the story.

 

[shehbazi2001]

Whenever there a matter or event is disputed for its details......you should not give references from just one side.......first become impartial and then study the reports written by both sides .........and then u can conclude or leave it undecided....

Pathans were also a party in this conflict and your research shall be inconclusive and incomplete unless you count their point of view too.

You can take a course of Research Methodology in a nearby university.

 

[Vinod2070]

2) The Sikhs fired using superior weapons from RAISED ground and from fortified turrets at advancing Afghans in open space. It does not need much of an imagination to see that 1 Sikh firing from a turret has a weaponry and shielding advantage over the advancing Afghans. If you want to see how easy it is to stop an advance if you have a raised ground advantage, then watch this footage from a Soviet -Afghan war film. Notice how easy it is to shoot at the advancing Afghans from the safety of a wall (imagine a fort!).

[youtube]

This factor applied to the Kargil conflict as well. I doubt I have seen you or any other Pakistani use it in that context.

The brave Indian soldiers bravely marched to the peak while the militants on the peaks could easily take aim at their eyes.

 

[Vinod2070]

Whenever there a matter or event is disputed for its details......you should not give references from just one side.......first become impartial and then study the reports written by both sides .........and then u can conclude or leave it undecided....

Pathans were also a party in this conflict and your research shall be inconclusive and incomplete unless you count their point of view too.

You can take a course of Research Methodology in a nearby university.

I am totally open and willing to see what you come up with. I won't dispute what you say just because a Pakistani is saying it.

And I don't claim to be a researcher.

I and you, both are interested parties here and can't be neutral or impartial but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things while maintaing our cool.

 

[Vinod2070]

I don't stereotype. At least I don't recall calling all Indians as terrorists, like Bal Thackerey.
Stereotyping this way, is taking the minority as a view of the majority, which isn't what I'm doing.

Man just read your own posts after removing the blinkers. You will know what stereotyping means. I doubt I have seen another person who "proves" his points by posting pictures of slums!

Every person who doesn't confirm to your theory of how he should look becomes "Indian looking". You claim that the "Indian Punjabi" prime ministers should not be counted as Punjabi against the East Pakistanis. Every Indian who doesn't conform to your racist ideas becomes non-Indian looking!

Surprising, you never called Jinnah and Musharraf as Indians though!

If this is not steriotyping, I don't know what is.

It's actually quite true what I said. The Sikhs locked themselves in Fort Saraghari, and would not venture out of it to face the Afghans. The could not run away either since they were surrounded. Their tactic was to stall so that reinforcements could come at a later date - one of the Sikhs was found dead on a toilet seat btw, which kind of tells of their mental state (or constipated state) when they were surrounded by the Afghans.

But it wasn't a "brave stand" as you're trying to make out. The Sikhs had no option but to fight off the Afghans - they could not run off because they were surrounded.

Your favorite British compared it to the famous battle of Thermopylae. If you take their word for the IVC, you can't disclaim this one.

Wonder what makes you so enamored of the bowel movements of people. Are you working in the municipality?

1 Pakistani soldier is equal to 7 Indian soldiers. I stand by this statement. I think I have proved it, if you can disprove it, do so.

Oh sure you have like you have so many other things.




Only in your mind.

It definitely wasn't Thermopylae. That's just from wikipedia. It's probably a lie, but even if true, defending a fort from raised ground against men armed with swords on the whole is not difficult. Even a group of women held off a native American Indian attack using Winchesters from a suitably defended position.

Did your favorite British make a mistake here by putting it in one of the greatest battles in the world and a supreme example of bravery in the face of adversity?

Feel free to do so on another thread. I think it's correct what I have stated there.

The Taliban are Afghans, so they're not a foreign colonial power. The USA isn't going to be staying there for centuries, like the British were in India, or lots of other powers that have come and gone also!

I am talking about Soviets and the Americans and even the Pakistanis.

Of course they will go one day. After cleaning the place of it's "Mujahideen". What is there in Afghanistan for them to want to stay?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod,

600 bodies "said to have been seen"? There might have been a couple of hundred casualties in that raid on the fort (the Afghan version from your quote does mention 180 -since you wanted a counter opinion), but the discrepancy can be easily explained in that a mere visual would likely make the scene of a battle look bloodier than it is. Eyewitness accounts often exaggerate the scale and number of casualties.

And the casualties of the attackers would have been higher, because of the reasons RR mentioned, plus the 3 to 1 (attackers to defenders - 11 to 1 for heights) rule of thumb ratio, made worse due to reasons mentioned.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod,

600 bodies "said to have been seen"? There might have been a couple of hundred casualties in that raid on the fort (the Afghan version from your quote does mention 180 -since you wanted a counter opinion), but the discrepancy can be easily explained in that a mere visual would likely make the scene of a battle look bloodier than it is. Eyewitness accounts often exaggerate the scale and number of casualties.

And the casualties of the attackers would have been higher, because of the reasons RR mentioned, plus the 3 to 1 (attackers to defenders - 11 to 1 for heights) rule of thumb ratio, made worse due to reasons mentioned.

AM, The number of dead Afghans is secondary here. The major issue was the exemplary bravery by a bunch of 21 soldiers against a vastly superior force.

Pathans no doubt make good soldiers. But there are others as well who are great fighters and have stood their ground against Pathans in the past.

This post was an attempt to bring a sense of balance and a counter point to the debate which was going like: Pathans are the best fighters in the world and there is no match to them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, The number of dead Afghans is secondary here. The major issue was the exemplary bravery by a bunch of 21 soldiers against a vastly superior force.

Pathans no doubt make good soldiers. But there are others as well who are great fighters and have stood their ground against Pathans in the past.

This post was an attempt to bring a sense of balance and a counter point to the debate which was going like: Pathans are the best fighters in the world and there is no match to them.

With superior tactics and/or weaponry any force can be countered.

The Pathans are a tough lot though, as several US SEALS, Marines and Army chaps I have spoken to (I come across them at my part time job, and chat, easy enough to do once they find out I am from Pakistan) say there is no comparison between fighting the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency.

 

[Vinod2070]

With superior tactics and/or weaponry any force can be countered.

The Pathans are a tough lot though, as several US SEALS, Marines and Army chaps I have spoken to (I come across them at my part time job, and chat, easy enough to do once they find out I am from Pakistan) say there is no comparison between fighting the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency.

I have no doubt about that.

Afghans are more hardy than the Iraqis, but they are only good at insurgency. They seem to be incapable to build a modern nation.

Look at what they did after the Soviets were pushed back. They started fighting among themselves indulging in looting, warlordism sacking of cities, destruction of the infrastructure etc., hardly fitting the definition of "Mujahideen"!

And again the Taliban "won" Afghanistan by paying off the warlords, same way as the USA "won" in 2001. Soviet Union also captured Kabul quite easily, it only got struck in the USA weaved quagmire later on.

So while they are good at insurgency, they seem incapable of an organized resistance and at nation building.