Discussion in 'Military History' started by Pak-sarzameen, Oct 8, 2014.
Battle of Saragarhi - Myths and Facts
The problem with playing with history is that if you distort it you commit the same mistakes. It Important that you follow history and don't tinker with it.
The blog is current day Pathan perspective.
Jab inki jalti hai.. bada maza aata hai
Interestingly the name pak sar zameen is not relevant today.
Na hi pak , pak raha , sar inke jhuke hua ha, aur zameen ka bera gark ho gaya ha lolllll
"Jo Qaum Tareekh ko Masq karti hai, Tareekh khud usey Masq kar deti hai".
Those who play with history, get played by history in turn.
Hope that rings a few bells somewhere. I rest my case.
Why you people are getting sentimental?. I just analysed the event as a student of history.
Wat virendra has said is true . U people are taught distorted history in and of Pakistan
where? in higher secondary board of madrasa?
....so while you are still a 'student o history', ask your professors the difference between analysis and distortion....
The fort fell after a fierce fighting.
Sikhs defended the fort till their last breath, In doing so they killed many tribes men.
The fort is located on a high ground from where they can see the tribesmen arriving, they can shoot them at will.
They have given two choices
1) to leave the fort and with draw
2) Stay there and defend till last breath.
Sikhs being warriors did the second, reason why this battle is still remembered for bravery and determination.
Dwelling on past does not help any country. Pakistan should relinquish her quest for territorial gains from non-Muslim countries as she has virtually erased non-Muslims within her borders through very silent undocumented genocides and the most ruthless ethnic cleansing with non-Muslims comprising less than 2% of population. There are less than 100 small ancient temples, gurudwaras churches in Pakistan while every year 1000s of mosques are newly built with half a million mosques already in this theocratic Islamic country of 180 million Muslims.
Actually they died waiting for reinforcements which didnt arrive. If they were farangi officers trapped in saraghari fort, they wouldnt have died like that. By exaggerating the account, british covered up blunder on their part. The thought, that desi sepoys like sikhs, are just fodder for imperialist ambitions, could have been arisen, but they made the sikhs drunk with notion of invincibility and martial race. It was decided that saraghari day would be celebrated. Kis khoshi may?. In the honour of 21 sikh soldiers who bravely died invading tribal lands for farangis.
That sounds true of the pakis at kargil, where the paki commanders did not even accept their dead bodies in the beginning or the paki rangers who formed certain sections of the taliban... they were just sent to afghanistan as cannon fodder and were shot at when they tried to return to pakiland.
The battle of Saragrahi has to be taken in a different perspective. Yes the soldiers were being used by the brits, but given the desolation of the post they always had the chance of retreating. Instead of retreating (like the paki commanders of kargil or the talibani paki rangers)they stood their ground and fought till the last man.
You may find this post as reactive to pakis, but in the event that you do not have the slightest to recognize and appreciate true bravery on the battlefield, I had to resort to caustic comments involving pakis to make my point.
....and if you want to learn how soldiers treat soldiers, whether they deserve to be treated as such, watch this and show it to your army brass while you are at it...
What I said has nothing sentimental, but only the most undisputed fact about History. That when you play with it, it plays you back, often out of the pages of time.
As far as your blog post is concerned; I was saddened that you called yourself a student of history, after writing without proper citations, primary sources and cross verifications.
To start with, you are writing in SMS language in a blog post about history, which is a big facepalm, but lets not lecture you on that part for now.
You said that a Sikh soldier was found dead on toilet seat (God knows who told you that) and concluded about all soldiers' mental state on that basis, ignoring that the post was burnt from inside, because of which there's no way one could guess how a body reached a particular spot.
You say in your post that Sikhs were holed up in fort because they didn't want to fight Afghans out in field, without realizing nobody will shout Kumbaya and march out like fools that when outnumbered so many times.
Then you write here at the thread that Sikhs died fighting bravely, which suggests your own arguments and opinion are incoherent.
On numbers, let us say for a moment that Afghan were not 10,000 in number. Imagine that they were only 1000 (you don't go to attack a ramparted, fortified ridge post with just 200 soldiers right?) in number. How does that change the fact that 21 Sikhs still fought bravely, instead of trying to surrender or flee.
About the Sikhs fighting for colonials, let me tell you that everyone in the subcontinent (except a few Afghan tribes) fought for British at one point or the other. So don't show a 'holier than thou' attitude toward others.
British were the paramount power at that time. Atleast our ancestors were true to their duty toward whoever they employed to. They did not stir in battle whether it was Sargarhi or any other.
You said that British were exaggerating on the enemy figures, despite that fact that frequent Situation Reports were given by Heliograph from inside the post and received at the other end.
Yet you have not posted which source of history gives a different figure. What is the mere hand waving supposed to achieve?
You have also forgotten that Sargarhi was not witnessed only by Heliogrpahic reporting coming in from the post; but also by the Indian soldiers stationed at fort Lockhart, who went back to tell the saga as they had seen with their eyes.
First, there is no proof of exaggeration by British in this case and secondly even if we assume so for a moment, who doesn't exaggerate?
Look at the narratives and figures of medieval islamic chroniclers. The sheer number and extent of exaggeration would baffle you when you apply the same logic of population census, as you did in this case.
They make the Islamic armies look like some heavenly warriors fighting against millions and what not odds.
After all this, how many serious students of history would consider such drivel as comment worthy? I have tried my best to be short and sweet.
You may ponder again, on who really was being sentimental and reactionary.
How many other histories will you distort ?
Battle of Pawankhind ??
1971 war ??
Battle of Longewala ??
These men have fought because they wanted to. They were not forced. The CHOSE to stay and fight.
Please do not put a doubt on these brave men who fought against extraordinary odds and came out victorious in most cases.
The choice was to surrender and convert or die I believe, please google.
Numbers do not matter, the valour and sacrifice against insurmountable odds, matter.
Separate names with a comma.