Because no one else has heard of them.
You may have a point here because Dogra kingdom is less famous than Sikh kingdom for obvious reasons. Dogras were regional heavy-weights, at best. But heavy-weights in their own right. People from this region still remember them fondly with due respect & admiration. They were not the puny as they are being made out & some aspects of their rule make a lot of sense.
Further, anyone with interest in history/politics of J&K would know of Dogras as I do with no direct link to Dogra.
Historical animosity between whom? If you're inferring a rivalry between the Patiala Kingdom and Ranjit Singh's Kingdom of Lahore, than nothing could be further from the truth. I'm from Patiala and majority of Patialvis hold Ranjit Singh in a much higher regard than they do the Patiala royal family. The Patiala royals are nothing compared to the legacy left behind by Ranjit Singh's kingdom.
No, not inferring that.
Dogra vs. Sikh, I meant. It is very real & contemporary. No amount of denial can change that. It is evident on DFI, as well.
Make up your own mind, first. Sikhs held a grudge against the Poorbias (hinterland Indians) for helping the Brits, or the British themselves?
Against the Poorabias, only. As the Sikh troops realized that they are no match to the British Indian Army, they joined them & directed their vengeance (out of frustration+humiliation) at Poorbias, as soon as opportunity dawned (within 7 years).
Because unlike the Dogras, who betrayed their own allies and went running to their British masters
I know of multiple versions of truth (as happens all the time), being a disinterested observer but you would only look at it from your perspective because you are a party to this dispute...hope you are getting the drift.,
all the Sikh nobles and feudal lords fought the British till their last breath. Even retired Sikh generals, like General Sham Singh Attariwalla, came out of retirement to fight the British and fought till death on the battlefield. Their were no remnants of the Sikh Empire, with even the main Sikh royal family wiped out. Prince Duleep Singh was exiled all the way to Britain at the age of 13.
Secondly, pretty much every major Independence movement under the British was led by the Sikhs. Bose is given all the credit for Azad Hind Fauj but in reality, it was actually founded by a Sikh, General Mohan Singh, and not Bose. Majority of the INA was composed of Sikhs. Babbar Akali Lehar founded by Sikhs. Gadar Movement founded by Sikhs. The movement against the British Colony act led entirely by Sikhs and every single person sentenced for that movement was a Sikh. The examples of Sikh role in the fight against British rule are countless.
All this is true, afaik. No one can disparage the truth.
But, none of this can be leveraged to condone the role of Sikh troops in 1857. Just after the second Anglo-Sikh war !!
What else happens on this board? Sikhs like Banda Bahadur are commonly referred to by their pre-conversion names
I did so. How does it matters ? His deeds are important, names do not matter in this context.
you belittle the Sikh Empire
I never intended to. All I said is that
Sikh Empire (not the Sikh resistance) was a very short-lived entity. To add, even lesser than the Dogra empire.
while misconstruing the Dogra expeditions as if they were some grand independent campaigns not fought under the Sikh flag.
We know the flag & the flag-bearers. No one has disputed that yet.
But, that single feat was beyond-impressive & inspirational because it tested the limits of human endurance & rose the bar like never before. It is excessively hard to emulate, if not impossible. When I read of it, I cannot help but think about Hannibal's dare-devilry in crossing the Pyrenees & Alps, while managing the Gauls at the same time.