Battle of Saragarhi - 21 Sikhs Versus 10,000 Pathans

[blank_quest]

The Garhwal Rifles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to the Indian Nationalist Movement

Against the backdrop of growing civil unrest and Indian nationalism in the 1930s, some historians[8] have asserted that the Regiment fell into disfavour with the British following an incident at Peshawar on 23 April 1930, when a detachment of the 2/18 Garhwal Rifles apparently refused to obey an order to open fire on an unruly crowd that was causing a disturbance. Following the controversial arrest of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Khudai Khidmatgar (nationalist satyagrahis) gathered to protest, and the troops were called out in response to the demonstration. What followed next is disputed — some historians have claimed that the crowd was peaceful and unarmed, and that the members of the Regiment were ordered to open fire by their British officers but, under the leadership of Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali refused to do so against unarmed civilians. It has been asserted that the whole incident galvanised the entire freedom movement.[10] Other accounts, however, have painted a different picture. At the time, it was felt that the Garhwalis had failed in their duty, however, the official report following the incident cited evidence that the crowd had turned violent and that the regiment did in fact open fire, as per their orders, and that the crowd then dispersed.[11]
The aftermath, however, seems clearer. Following the incident at Peshawar the Regiment received a black mark against its name, and the loyalty of its members was called into question. Matters were made worse when, the following day, two platoons refused to fall in, and several men declared that they wished to be discharged. Because of this, higher command believed that the battalion was disaffected and, as a result, the disaffected men were ordered to return their weapons and dismiss. Later the entire battalion was disarmed. A Court of Inquiry afterwards found that the men of the Regiment had acted properly according to the confused orders that they had received on the day of the incident in Peshawar, but on the subject of the incident the following day it was quite swift in handing out the punishments. The riflemen of the two platoons that had refused to fall in were all dismissed from the service, whilst of the seventeen non-commissioned officers, one received transportation for life, another was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment and the other fifteen also received various smaller terms of imprisonment.[11]
These punishments seem quite harsh in the circumstances, but probably serve to highlight the concern that the British had surrounding the incident at the time, when it was felt on both sides, not without reason, that British rule in India was coming to an end.[12] This did not turn out to be completely correct, of course, for the Raj still had another seventeen years to run, but it almost certainly served as a portent of the future.

 

[blank_quest]

Royal Indian Navy mutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trackwhack]

All Indians forget that It was the Gorkha Regiment that refused to attack on Unarmed Red Shirt Army of Abdul Gaffar khan! at Lahore when protesting , that day they proved that they are not against Indians. This was the same regiment that shooted in Jaliya Wallah Bagh..

By wearing the uniform you are already a traitor

 

[blank_quest]

By wearing the uniform you are already a traitor

hmmm , ok...

 

[Virendra]

well Indeed Sikh were once good warrior
but the question can someone digest this?
I mean just 21 against 10k that too pushtoon people

They were garrisoned in a fort remember?
So they were able to fight thousand of them. Afghans always fough in waves, like the Central Asian tribes of old times.
So they didn't come as thousands in one sweep. Had that happened, either they would've got the fort quickly or would've got decimated completely.

Now 10 thousand might be a rough figure or exaggeration. But the enemy was in thousands that is confirmed by looking at the casualy figures (600) and battle description.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Daljeet Singh Sidhu]

agree some 200 pushtoons might be killed but 10k number is too high

or not all of the 10k might be involved in the war

I did considerable research while preparing the comic on the Battle of Saragarhi. The Pathan chief Gul Badshah admitted that 150 of his men were killed outright. When the relief party arrived the next day, they counted 650 dead Pathans in and around Saragarhi. Some of these casualties could have been due to artillery fire used by the relief party the day after Saragarhi had fallen. I would say, somewhere around 150-500 pathans were killed in the battle.
Let us not gloat over the number of Pathans killed but instead be in awe over the 21 Sikhs who refused to surrender in face of sure death. Also, let us not forget that Pathans are one of the best fighters and they have proved it over the last 1000 years. However, with the rise of the Sikhs in mid-1700s, the Pathans found their match.

 

[farhan_9909]

I did considerable research while preparing the comic on the Battle of Saragarhi. The Pathan chief Gul Badshah admitted that 150 of his men were killed outright. When the relief party arrived the next day, they counted 650 dead Pathans in and around Saragarhi. Some of these casualties could have been due to artillery fire used by the relief party the day after Saragarhi had fallen. I would say, somewhere around 150-500 pathans were killed in the battle.
Let us not gloat over the number of Pathans killed but instead be in awe over the 21 Sikhs who refused to surrender in face of sure death. Also, let us not forget that Pathans are one of the best fighters and they have proved it over the last 1000 years. However, with the rise of the Sikhs in mid-1700s, the Pathans found their match.

good Reply approach

i wish the other members on this forum were even remotely like you

 

[Virendra]

True, the Pathans are tough nuts to crack. Nobody can deny that. Figures may be debated forever.
Lets hope a good movie comes out .. like the "300".

 

[ALBY]

again i agree they were good warriors once

but just 21 against 10k is too much

if they numbers were even 21 against 100.i would agreed
not even 150 because on the other side they were pushtoon

you need to read about pushtoon as well

Dude be cool..Your doubts are reasonable.May be the historian who wrote about it could have added an extra zero to the number of pathans.At that times it was a fashion to add a zero to the number of enemies encounteredd to get an impression
Any way no disrespect too the chivalry of both Pathans and Sikhs.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

For your own knowledge, Find any link anywhere it will say the same, 21 against 10k coz that is how it was..

There is a saying, 1 trained Solider can take on 20 rag-tag poorly trained men, Battle of Saragarhi is one of the proof of that..

well Indeed Sikh were once good warrior

but the question can someone digest this?
I mean just 21 against 10k that too pushtoon people

again i agree they were good warriors once

but just 21 against 10k is too much

if they numbers were even 21 against 100.i would agreed
not even 150 because on the other side they were pushtoon

you need to read about pushtoon as well

agreed but even if you equip those 21 Sikh with all the latest weapons and those .10K pushtoons with just stick

still they will win because of the very huge quantative edge
again plz read about pushtoon history as well

agree some 200 pushtoons might be killed but 10k number is too high

or not all of the 10k might be involved in the war

and i meant the same
read my post again

200 might be killed

while i still doubt that 10k might be involved

and i knew it from start that not all so called 10k were killed

 

[Virendra]

I would say it could have been somewhere between the 10k claim and 100-150 that Farhan believes.
Not only does the training factor in, also the fact that the Sikhs were garrisoned on top of the fort while Afghans were charging from the open field outside.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

For People who lack understanding from Military point of view :

1. 21 professional Soldiers ..

2. Good fire arm ..

3. Good covering position..

4. From a fort..

Against poor trained armed with outdated weapons or simply swords in tight formation charging from open field is going to suffer horrible casualties..

------------------------------------

In other words Phatans were slaughter, Unfortunately this points high lighted above are not counted due to lack of Knowledge..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There is no mention of artillery support..

If there is please provide link to read so..

 

[Artillery45]

Battle of Saragarhi

Hello. I was recently reading up on the battle of Saraghari (let me say that the 36th Sikhs did a damn good job on those Afghans) and had a few questions. These questions I formed whilst keeping the high vantage, the locus and position of Sarghari in mind.

1.) How correct is Lt. Col Haughton's initial estimation of 10-12,000 attackers?
(Dr. Swami states he based the figure on the amount of the 14 tribal flags he saw. Any additional info on Afghani tribal warfare will also be greatly appreciated).

2.) What allowed the defenders to hold out for more than a better part of the day?

3.) Given the positioning of Saraghari how many attackers could have approached it at any one time?

4.) Given that attackers weather more casulties whilst attacking a well defended position, how many casulties did Gul Badshah really collect?

5.) Did Afghani tribesmen, back then, really attack in massed formations of upto 10-12,000 men?

Thank you.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Battle of Saragarhi

First of all, welcome to DFI.

We have a few members from the UK.

I would invite you to open an introductory thread here: Introductions & Greetings

 

[Artillery45]

Re: Battle of Saragarhi

Just did, thank you.

 

[Virendra]

Threads merged. @Artillery45 Welcome to DFI. Before creating new thread on your topic, please check if a thread on it already exists at the forum.
Do scan this thread once to see if your questions could have been answered already.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Artillery45]

Thank you for that. I am currently finishing a write up on the battle for a short project. May I post it up here once it is done?

 

[pmaitra]

Thank you for that. I am currently finishing a write up on the battle for a short project. May I post it up here once it is done?

You may post it.

If it is your own, just post it. If it is from another author, just give the link or mention it as a reference. That is all we require.

 

[Pak-sarzameen]

1- British have always exaggerated the number of attackers, they never figured out the correct number of attackers in an attack , it was guerrella and asymmetric warfare and tribesmen had adopted tactics to deal with the mighty empire. One of it was attacks in small groups from higher ground and retreating after ambush. There is no way 10,000 or 14,000 Afridi tribesmen attacked a small fort. First of all the uprising was spread all over frontier. Secondly not a single tribe of FATA had that much strength to gather so many men. Even in 1919, mehsud tribe was estimated to have 2000 fighters. Afridis were estimated to have double the number of mehsuds in 1919. In 1951 census, FATA had population of 1 million. Khyber and orakzai agencies togather were 25% of total population of FATA. In my estimate, the population of FATA would be 3 lakh in 1897. Afridis, shinwaris and orakzais would be one quarter of 3 lakh i.e 75 thousands. The male population of these three tribes would be 38 thousands. Exclude children and aged. Exclude shinwari tribe. And exclude those who were pro-british e.g many afridis were serving in khyber rifle.
In my opinion the attackers were 500-600, took heavy casaulties initially from the artillary fire from the fort on hilltop. Note that these tribesmen had no artillary support, they had out-dated rifles and swords and some of them heroically managed to reach hilltop and managed to kill 21 sikh soldiers and burn down the fort. They might have lost 150-180 men in climbing up. It was an heroic act of tribesmen, their war was against occupation of colonial imperialists.
The scenario was like kargil in which small numbers of pakistani soldiers on hilltop managed to kill hundreds of indian soldiers below in the first phase. The reason sikh soldiers fought to death, is because pakhtun tribesmen never kept prisoners and would slay those who used to surrender as it was cowardice for them. Sikhs had good repuation among pathans when it comes to bravery and discpline in warfare. Pathans were brave but reckless and disorganized.