battle of Saragarhi

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,489
New Delhi, India
#11
My statement was more in reference to the division of regiments based on British-era names like "Jat Regiment", "Rajput Regiment" etc. Also the Presidents guard is selected through membership of particular castes:
President's Bodyguards only for Rajput, Jat, Sikhs for functional requirement, admits Army to SC
Yes, the names have not been changed but it does not mean that all soldiers of Sikh, Jat and Rajput Regiments are Sikhs, Jats and Rajputs only. As for the President's Bodyguard, Supreme Court must have taken care of it (BTW, the article dates from 2013). Except in elections, we cannot have caste-based discrimination in India. :)
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,489
New Delhi, India
#12
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?
It is not as simple as that, Azad, for any soldier, whether Indian or foreign, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. When a soldier fights, it is for honor, it is for loyalty to his regiment and to his country. You may have heard of the stories when a soldier after his marriage on the same day hesitated to go to war, the bride sent him her head on a plate that he would go war and fight bravely. Or a mother refusing to see her son who ran away from a fight to save his life to make him go back to war. Or mother telling her soldier son to come back with wounds on his chest and not on his back. It is a sort of Pashtoonwali. The Indian fighters did not fight for their lives (at that time Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims as well) but for honor and loyalty.

As for Indians being focused on the battle of Saragarhi, I have heard the name for the first time. Perhaps the OP, for some reason, is interested in that. Furthermore, such 'last stands' and 'brave attacks' happen in every battle. It happened in Indo-China war and the bravery in facing an enemy attack during the Kargil war, where recipient of 'Vir Chakra', Captain Haneefuddin gave his 'shahadat'.

Captain Haneef Uddin VrC - Honourpoint
 
Last edited:
Likes: Azad67
Feb 2019
62
Ariaca
#13
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.
Sikhs are over 25% in Indian Military, if they want a separate State, they can get one anytime they want.

They are not separatists because India is made up of Minority-Majority.

Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Dravidians languages, North East people etc are over 60% while Hindi speakers are at 40% max.

That's why unity in diversity is our motto
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,489
New Delhi, India
#14
Sikhs are over 25% in Indian Military, if they want a separate State, they can get one anytime they want.
That's why unity in diversity is our motto
The first statement is statistically, sorry to say, absurd, and the second part impossible.
However, the second statement is true. With 15% Muslim population and others as well, we cannot do otherwise.
Sikh make 16% in Indian Army and 2% in the Indian population. Reservations also work to the advantage of some people. Candidates in Indian Military Academy (fairly recent info):

 
Feb 2019
1
Norway
#15
Fighting or even blocking against a 10,000 man crusade with minimal tools and weapons is indeed a story to tell. This shows the bravery of soldiers who were handling the post.

Though they didn't win they had given them a tough time. Timing is what matters in war where a backup is needed to fight.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#16
The first statement is statistically, sorry to say, absurd, and the second part impossible.
However, the second statement is true. With 15% Muslim population and others as well, we cannot do otherwise.
Sikh make 16% in Indian Army and 2% in the Indian population. Reservations also work to the advantage of some people. Candidates in Indian Military Academy (fairly recent info):

Can you explain where you got 16% figure from?
 

Similar History Discussions