battle of Saragarhi

Jan 2019
212
Valencia
Much of the lionisation of Sikhs is based wholly upon how they were "marketed" by the British much like the Gurkhas and it is incredible how it still continues to linger to this day. It is a shame that the modern-day Indian Army also adheres to such outdated notions.

In any case, anyone with a healthy sense of scepticism would have noted that 36 men standing successfully against 1000+ men is a ridiculous notion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ariaca and Azad67
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Much of the lionisation of Sikhs is based wholly upon how they were "marketed" by the British much like the Gurkhas and it is incredible how it still continues to linger to this day. It is a shame that the modern-day Indian Army also adheres to such outdated notions.

In any case, anyone with a healthy sense of scepticism would have noted that 36 men standing successfully against 1000+ men is a ridiculous notion.
Read the thread, 21 did stand against 10000+ nobody ever said it was a victory though, it was a last stand, one of the greastest last stand if i may add, they did stood their ground knowing fully well what would have happen if they stood their ground, every single sikh who died in saraigarhi deserves the lionization, even the thread starter said nothing against the sikhs rather failure of british thay led to death of those brave men
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,076
Navan, Ireland
Much of the lionisation of Sikhs is based wholly upon how they were "marketed" by the British .
The Sikhs served the British loyally and well, how is it just marketing?

much like the Gurkhas and it is incredible how it still continues to linger to this day. .
Now I haven't studied the Sikhs in British service as such I have however read a great deal about the Gurkhas and sorry they are not just 'marketing' their combat record is outstanding.

It is a shame that the modern-day Indian Army also adheres to such outdated notions..
The British army still recruits Gurkhas and they enjoy a very good reputation.

In any case, anyone with a healthy sense of scepticism would have noted that 36 men standing successfully against 1000+ men is a ridiculous notion.
Why not?

They were a minor signals detachment holding a 'fort' between two larger forts they bravely held out (or rather attempted to) when attacked by huge numbers of 'rebels' (depending on your point of view).

Now like all such minor actions they can be blown out of all proportion especially as they make great stories but certainly the troops involved were very brave.
 
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
The Sikhs served the British loyally and well, how is it just marketing?
Are you familiar with the term "martial race" which only applied to groups that were loyal to the British in 1857? The Sikhs were marketed or rather portrayed as "martial race" due to their loyalty, not because of any inherent skill that made them more adept as soldiers and this idea of "martial race communities" still lingers in the Indian Army:
IMG_2813.jpg

and sorry they are not just 'marketing' their combat record is outstanding.
The Gurkhas are yet another group who were cultivated by the British:

IMG_2814.JPG
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,832
New Delhi, India
It is a shame that the modern-day Indian Army also adheres to such outdated notions.
That is a myth, and not how Indian Army recruits its soldiers today. They have to recruit people from all states strictly in proportion with their population. Now if Sikhs in Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan or UP are selected; it is not because they are Sikhs, but because they reside in that state. Actually the Sikhs are at a disadvantage according to the prevailing rules, their numbers in Army have gone down and there have been protests. It is possible that members of families of soldiers/ex-soldiers get some preference, I do not exactly know that rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Jan 2019
212
Valencia
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
they did stood their ground knowing fully well what would have happen if they stood their ground,
And they knew very well what would happen to them if they surrender to their enemies. They would be tortured to death by their enemies. So they had no choice but to fight and wait for the rescue. These were not Akali zealots fighting for martyrdom, these were soldiers on salary fighting for Queen Victoria and they were hoping to return safely to their homes. As they knew what besiegers would do to them if captured alive, they fought hard and desperately. They could not be rescued and got wiped out.

The question arises why India is focusing so much on battle of Saragarhi?. Sikhs had their own empire and armies of Ranjeet Singh repeatedly defeated Kabuli armies and Pashtun lashkars, why not highlight that?. My understanding is that those 21 Sikhs were soldiers of 'Indian army' of British-Indian empire and the modern Indian army is its successor. So promoting battle of Saraghari promotes Indian nationalism among Sikhs and integrates them with India. While promoting Ranjeet Singh on media is tricky, it might arouse Sikh nationalism in another manner and might make Sikhs wishful to have their own independent state like they used to have in early 19th century. Sikh insurgency was not long time ago.
 
Feb 2019
97
Mumbai
And they knew very well what would happen to them if they surrender to their enemies. They would be tortured to death by their enemies. So they had no choice but to fight and wait for the rescue. These were not Akali zealots fighting for martyrdom, these were soldiers on salary fighting for Queen Victoria and they were hoping to return safely to their homes. As they knew what besiegers would do to them if captured alive, they fought hard and desperately. They could not be rescued and got wiped out.

The question arises why India is focusing so much on battle of Saragarhi?. Sikhs had their own empire and armies of Ranjeet Singh repeatedly defeated Kabuli armies and Pashtun lashkars, why not highlight that?. My understanding is that those 21 Sikhs were soldiers of 'Indian army' of British-Indian empire and the modern Indian army is its successor. So promoting battle of Saraghari promotes Indian nationalism among Sikhs and integrates them with India. While promoting Ranjeet Singh on media is tricky, it might arouse Sikh nationalism in another manner and might make Sikhs wishful to have their own independent state like they used to have in early 19th century. Sikh insurgency was not long time ago.
Irregardless, its still impressive how 21 sikhs managed to hold ground. Humans seem psychologically wired to support the underdog, which is possibly why all 'last stands' are seen as glorious and are often celebrated to the point where we decide that those who lost were 'good guys' and those who won were 'bad guys'.

On the second point, I think you are reading too much into it. As mentioned above, its an impressive feat no matter which angle you look at it from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,076
Navan, Ireland
Are you familiar with the term "martial race" which only applied to groups that were loyal to the British in 1857? The Sikhs were marketed or rather portrayed as "martial race" due to their loyalty, not because of any inherent skill that made them more adept as soldiers and this idea of "martial race communities" still lingers in the Indian Army........................:
I am aware that the British tended to recruit amongst 'martial' races and I agree its a largely dubious concept, no people have an inherent skill to be soldiers.

Some cultures can encourage attitudes etc but generally we are all the same.

However that doesn't mean the Sikhs were not loyal and very good soldiers.


..................The Gurkhas are yet another group who were cultivated by the British:
They were recruited because they were very loyal and fought well (still are), one thing that most people don't realise that selection for British service (don't know about others) is highly selective.