Battle of Saragarhi from Pakistani perspective

[sydsnyper]

Well written !!!

About this particular quote from @Virendra - I would like to add that @Pak-sarzameen 's own country was a bheek from the same colonial raj. By his own logic & argument all pakis should give up pakiland if they wish to retain any semblance of honour taunt: taunt:

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.

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.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Why you people are getting sentimental?. I just analysed the event as a student of history.

Really, that was your "analysis", and you are the author? Just to be clear.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Earlier thread:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...saragarhi-21-sikhs-versus-10-000-pathans.html

I also must ask, is the Pakistani perspective the impugn to memory of brave men who died over 100 years ago.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Battle of Saragarhi - Myths and Facts

A quote:

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 -.The Sikhs had no option but to fight off the Afghans - they could not run off because they were surrounded.

Such is Pakistani military genius: the defenders of every fort or city under siege are obligated to leave and battle the opposition in the open.

Just think how much work this concept could have saved the Greeks having to build the Trojan Horse.

Santa Anna was made to suffer such inconvenience at the Alamo! And so on throughout history, I suppose.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

To salvage some sanity for this thread, I have found a couple of links about the heliograph.

Saragarhi was a heliograph station.

Royal Signals - .

http://www.gvrhc.org/Library/Heliograph.pdf

 

[Pak-sarzameen]

A quote:



Such is Pakistani military genius: the defenders of every fort or city under siege are obligated to leave and battle the opposition in the open.

Just think how much work this concept could have saved the Greeks having to build the Trojan Horse.

Santa Anna was made to suffer such inconvenience at the Alamo! And so on throughout history, I suppose.

Well genius it was not a fort as you are imagining, it was a small building. The 21 soldiers were supposed to leave the isolated station after sudden revolt but got trapped, they died waiting for reinforcements.
The extraordinary valour was shown by attackers, who despite of all odds, were climbing the hill in the presence of heavy bombardment from above and were able to destroy it without artillary.

 

[Ray]

Earlier thread:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...saragarhi-21-sikhs-versus-10-000-pathans.html

I also must ask, is the Pakistani perspective the impugn to memory of brave men who died over 100 years ago.

History for Pakistan started when the Islamic hordes raided India.

Before that it was a void and the Big Bang Theory had not taken place.

 

[sydsnyper]

Paki Logic #129348793847:

Whether it was their lost stand at kargil or the last stand of the Sikhs at Saragrahi.... when the belligerent is a muslim, they always win and only they are valorous....

A quote:

Such is Pakistani military genius: the defenders of every fort or city under siege are obligated to leave and battle the opposition in the open.

Just think how much work this concept could have saved the Greeks having to build the Trojan Horse.

Santa Anna was made to suffer such inconvenience at the Alamo! And so on throughout history, I suppose.

 

[Singh]

The 21 Sikhs of Saragarhi were awarded Indian Order of Merits; the 160 Sikhs of nearby Fort Gulistan who were subsequently attacked and successfully repulsed the attacks (? till reinforcements arrived ? ) were awarded Indian Distinguished Service Medals.