Voice of Khalistan

News Updates

November 27, 2018

 

Guru Nanak’s Concept of Justice – Article discusses concept of justice according to Guru Nanak Dev Ji

 

April 10, 2018

 

Khalistan: One Sikh's View - Response to I.J. Singh’s article against Khalistan posted.

March 28, 2014

 

A detailed biography of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji is added under the Sikh Gurus section.

 

March 10, 2014

 

Authenticity of Shabad Guru: Historical Perspective - Was Guru Granth Sahib ever declared a Guru or given Gurgaddi? This article refutes the Namdhari theories.

- See more at: http://searchsikhism.com/#sthash.dCxb32sh.dpuf

Find Us On...

Find Sikh Freedom Home Page on FacebookFind Sikh Freedom Home Page on Twitter

Eunuch Debunked Again

Bijla Singh                                                                                                                                          September 27, 2012

To our comprehensive four part rebuttal, rather than putting forth a systematic detailed response, Eunuch has published a very pathetic partial response to our Part 1. He has ignored major portions of our response and conveniently picked out points pertaining to Hindu history to give himself some console and self-satisfaction of replying to us. In his entire write-up he repeatedly commits ad-hominem fallacy (personal attacks) and yet boasts of having a debate. We don’t think Eunuch has any comprehension as to what a debate actually is, or what rules are followed in argumentation. Throughout his silly response, he has not provided any page numbers with a reference or even a direct quote. Just by listing some books does not prove that he has actually utilized these works to construct his invalid, weak, unsound and uncogent arguments. Eunuch is either a liar or a hypocrite person because either he has not read the sources listed at the end of his response or he has deliberately concealed the facts exposing the true character of the Marathas. We shall in our response quote from some of the same sources to highlight the facts. Eunuch’s comments are highlighted in red. Before addressing his assertions we wish to refute some of the allegations and unrelated statements made by Eunuch.

We note that Khalistani….has not yet had the courage to come and debate Instead the coward hides

Don’t worry Mr. Eunuch, we are not going anywhere. Rest assured, your every flawed, hateful and irrational comment will be properly responded to. Show us the proof that you actually sent us a challenge for debate. Putting it on a blog does not prove that we had received it. Mr. Eunuch repeatedly asks us to send him our response which is very visible to him as well as the entire world on our website. We do not need his pathetic blog since we have other independent means of publishing our responses.

we find his comments from neo Sikh sites where the very word and idea of a Hindu debating on equal terms is an anathema to them. These sites are deluged in a cesspit of Hindu phobic racist and casteist hatred and are entirely unsuitable for an even debate.

He blames our site as not a suitable place for healthy debate because we would not let him speak freely. He has provided no evidence to support his empty claim. In our defense, we never invited him for a debate. We simply responded to his delusional and lethargic statements. Sikhs support freedom of religion and freedom of speech but we do not tolerate any insult to our great religion and heritage. The Sikh religion rejects the caste and varna systems whereas they provide the very foundation of Hindu society. Hindu Simartis such as Mannu Simarti are full of contempt towards the so-called lower caste Shudras. Jadunath Sarkar states:

The martial religion of Guru Govind had knit the Sikhs together into organized bands of soldiers, with perfect brotherhood in their ranks and freedom from the distinctions of caste, social gradation, and food, which embarrass and divide the orthodox Hindus. (p. 237) (bold ours)

Therefore, it is Hinduism that is riddled with hatred, racism and casteism.

the Pakhandis of Khalistan some of whom travel under the banner of the now deceased pseudo fake self-styled holy man Randhir Singh are gripped into twisting an open and spiritual ideology into a monotheistic fascist cult which neatly divides the world into believers and unbelievers.

He continues to insult the names of his disputants as well as other respectable Sikhs. This is a clear sign of his fear and cowardice to properly refute our arguments. When one fails to rationally address an opponent’s arguments, one starts to make personal attacks, which is a fallacy according to the rules of logic. On one hand he calls us cowardly but on the other hand he does not have any trait of manhood to even reveal his name. Also, it is hypocritical of Mr. Eunuch to blame us for hatred while giving insulting labels to respected Sikhs for no reason. We are sure that if we started to insult the names of Hindu Marathas, Rajputs and other respected personalities, he would not appreciate it.

It is not clear what is meant by “open and spiritual ideology”. Gurmat is always open to everyone. There is still the same Shabad Guru, the same number of doors in Darbar Sahib, the same institution of langar (community kitchen) and the concept of freedom for all. Hindus are welcomed to enter the  fold of Gurmat by taking Amrit and leaving the falsehood of Hinduism behind. All those who follow Gurmat are believers and the rest are unbelievers but the latter is not condemned to be killed or persecuted in Gurmat. We are willing to debate Hindus on this subject anytime.

Now we address the remaining part of his response:

Sikh control was effectively established by leaders like Jassa Singh Ahulwalia and his contempories in the 1770’s.

Once again, no evidence is provided. Just by calling it a fact does not make it a fact. Sikhs started the Rakhi system in 1755 according to which all the areas that paid tribute to the Sikhs were given assurances of protection of life and property from all types of invaders. Such a system could only succeed because the people of Punjab accepted the Sikh rule and considered it better than the Mughals and Afghans. According to all history books, Sikhs captured Lahore on April 16, 1765 and released Sikh coins. Official seal included the same inscription that was used by Baba Banda Singh. The inscription is as follows:

Deg-o-Tegh-o-Fateh-o-Nusrat-i-bedirang, Yaft Az Nanak Guru Gobind Singh

The Kettle and the Sword-the Symbols of Service and Power-Victory and ready Patronage have been obtained from Gurus Nanak-Govind Singh.

Even then the war bands were unable to stop the flow of the main Afghan army entering into Punjab until into the 1790’s.

Your premise does not support the argument. Just because foreign invaders continued to invade India does not prove that the Sikh rule did not exist. It is as ridiculous as claiming that no Mughal rule existed since Nadir Shah was able to invade India. The fact is that every time a foreigner invaded the country, he was dealt with by the Sikhs.

It is worthwhile to note during this period the first Sikh Maharajah Ala Singh and his son Amar Singh continued to pay homage to the Afghan kings to the dismay of his Sikh compatriots. They also vied for Mughal grants (or firmans) of land – Punjab was pressed from the west by the Afghans and from the east by the Marathas – A peace was signed with the Marathas in 1785 by the Sikh chiefs of the area in which they acknowledged the overall rule to the Marathas

This again does not prove anything. Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that Maharaja Ala Singh was a tributary to the Afghans, it does not prove that the Sikh rule was absent in Punjab. In fact, there were more Hindu principalities in India that bowed before the Mughals and the Afghans just to keep their kingdoms surviving. Suraj Mal jatt agreed to Abdali’s terms of remaining neutral and then paid the fine of one lakh rupees for helping the surviving Marathas. The backbone of the Marathas was pretty much destroyed in 1761. Although after a decade they were able to recover, they never regained the same position of might and strength they possessed in 1758. During the 5th invasion of Abdali, they quietly left their remaining posts in Lahore and the rest of Punjab without even giving a least amount of resistance to the Afghans. It must be noted that after the battle of Panipat, thousands of Marathas survived and ran away from the battlefield and took shelter in kingdom of Suraj Mal. This highlights the cowardice displayed by the Marathas. History testifies to the fact that such a large number of Sikhs have never ran away from the battle field. At one time only 30 Sikhs fought valiantly against the 30,000 Afghans and the battle ended when every Sikh attained martyrdom.

Now we briefly mention the circumstances and treachery of the Marathas in concluding the Treaty of 1785.

Shah Alam II sought protection of Mahadji Sindhia who considered it his responsibility to place the emperor in the fort of Delhi and then lead the expedition against the Sikhs. Ghulam Qadir Khan had also been under his protection for years. Sikhs were the only threat Mahadji could see in his way to establishing his own government successfully. Therefore, he opened negotiations with the East India Company who wished to keep Marathas and the Sikhs from forming a union in order to spread its own rule.

On February 6, 1785, the Sikh army invaded the area of Daryapur which was part of Ghulam Qadir Khan’s territory. Hearing of the invasion, he quickly offered to pay tribute to the Sikhs and accepted his defeat. This added more to Mahadji’s anxieties and he rushed to sign any treaty with the British. The latter demanded assurance from the Marathas that they would not seek any alliance with the Sikhs and to prove this they must attack the Sikh army. To prove their loyalty and sincerity, Maratha troops under the leadership of Ambaji and Malhar Bapu launched a surprise attack on a body of 500 Sikhs and killed 200 Sikhs. The Sikhs in retaliation raised an army of 20,000 cavalry, a body of infantry and a few guns and attacked the town of Panipat and cut of an entire battalion of the sepoys. The Sikhs at the same time learnt from Lieut. Anderson that the Mahadji had confessed to him about his plan of possessing some of the Sikh territories. Hence, the Sikhs lost all faith in Mahadji. On the other hand, Ambaji feared the continued retaliation of the Sikhs and in order to save himself from disgrace and humiliation in the eyes of his master (Mahadji) he opened reconciliation with the Sikhs through the mediation of Maharao Partap Singh. The latter was already in communication with the Sikhs and managed to have Sikhs sign a treaty with Ambaji. This treaty was signed on March 31, 1785 and a copy was sent to Mahadji Sindhia.

According to the treaty, Marathas wanted the help of the Sikhs against kings of Jaipur and Marwar who had not paid their tribute and Sikhs could take over any territory on either side of Jamuna. Further, both parties would stand against a common enemy. When the British learnt of the treaty, they saw in its materialization a danger to their political interests. Lieut. Anderson wished the English and their allies to be included in the treaty as friends and communicated their demands to Mahadji. When Sardar Dulcha Singh arrived to settle all the points of the treaty, to his surprise, Mahadji had taken an opposite standpoint and wished to amend the treaty with new and different terms. When Sardar Dulcha Singh refused, he was detained and forced to sign the new treaty alone on May 10, 1785. He was threatened that if the Sikhs refused they will be facing a war with the Marathas and the British. Sardar Dulcha Singh sent his emissary to the British explaining the treachery and bitter deceit of Mahadji and asking the British stance concerning the Sikhs. The British assured the Sikhs that they would not be attacked and the British would remain neutral in this matter. The Sikh chiefs having learnt of the duplicity of Mahadji decided to break away from the Marathas and the treaty could never be materialized. The Sikhs never acknowledged Maratha sovereignty over any territory. (The Maratha-Sikh Treaty of 1785 by Dr. Ganda Singh)

In light of the above circumstances, it is clear that the Marathas were never concerned with forming an alliance with the Sikhs in order to counter the foreign rule. Had Maratha leaders been farsighted they would have stood with the Sikhs against the British which could have changed the course of the Indian history. Alas, Marathas were too narrow-minded and busy with fighting with their own countrymen to accumulate more wealth. Their selfish, self-centeredness and treacherous behavior led them to be played as puppets at the hands of the British who successfully managed to keep two major powers (Marathas and Sikhs) in India disunited to extend their own power and rule.

It was only the rise of a Ranjit Singh which prevented Punjab from falling apart.

This is partially correct. Maharaja Ranjit Singh solidified and united all the scattered Sikh principalities and formed a kingdom. Once the Sikh kingdom was solidified, the Sikhs began to advance towards the West which reversed the tide and stopped the waves of foreign invaders. This proves that the credit of stopping all foreign invasions goes only to the Sikhs.

Quotation from Baji Rao’s letter referring to the invasion of Nadir Shah

‘We will spread our forces from the Narbada to the Chambal to fight Nadir Shah if he comes to us – Only God will decide who will emerge victorious in any battle’

The ignorant Eunuch has not proved anything. Just because Baji Rao wrote something does not prove that the Marathas actually gave a pitched battle to Nadir Shah. Baji Rao died in April 1740 which means he never even faced Nadir Shah. Further, notice the words “if he comes to us” which prove that had Baji Rao lived a little longer, he still would not have faced the Persian King because the Marathas did not care about the rest of the country being looted and depleted of its wealth and people being killed and enslaved. Marathas were willing to fight only if Nadir Shah attacked them but they showed no care otherwise.

According to H. G. Keene in his The Fall of the Moghul Empire of Hindustan:

The Persians, as is well-known, advanced on Dehli, massacred some 100,000 of the inhabitants, held the survivors to ransom, and ultimately retired to their own country, with plunder that has been estimated at eighty millions sterling, and included the famous Peacock Throne. (p. 22)

Furthermore, after this invasion, the areas of Punjab were no longer controlled by Delhi. We ask again. Where were the Marathas then? Perhaps cowardly sitting in their forts amused by their own written letters while Nadir Shah took hundreds of Hindu women as slaves back to Persia.

On the other hand, the Sikhs took an offensive approach and attacked Nadir Shah’s army since they were more conscious about the protection of their country. In fact, it is well written in Panth Parkash that while Nadir Shah was returning back to his country through Punjab, the Sikhs did not let him rest and plundered his army. This led Nadir Shah to enquire from Zakariya Khan as to who the Sikhs were. After hearing about the Sikhs, he remarked that the Sikhs will eventually become the rulers if not suppressed.

By 1737 they had raided Delhi and then for the next few decades they continued to push under the leadership of the next Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao and finally they controlled Delhi until 1803 under the leadership of the Sindhia family and the great warrior Mahadji Sindhia.

Nadir Shah invaded India in 1739 and himself installed Mohammad Shah as the emperor. Ahmad Shah Abdali also personally selected the emperors of Delhi. Sikhs had controlled Delhi under the leadership of Sardar Baghel Singh and Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia for a time period. Therefore, the Marathas did not continuously control Delhi. Furthermore, According to Stewart Gordon in his The Marathas 1600-1818, Volume 2, the Maratha invasions of different areas was not to establish the Maratha rule, but merely to extort money and jewels from Hindus and Muslims alike. It did not benefit the local population or regular Hindus for that matter. The only Hindu group that directly benefitted from these raids was the Brahmins who have a long history of human exploitation.

It would not be out of place to briefly describe the differences between the Sikhs and the Marathas.

The Marathas had a large kingdom, a paid army, resources and forts for their protection and survival. But on the other hand, the Sikhs did not have any of these conveniences yet they courageously carved out a kingdom of their own. As stated earlier, the Maratha power was at its zenith in 1758 but they failed to resist the Afghans successfully. Although the events and proofs exist in abundance, a few pertinent examples are provided as follows:

On 16th January, 1757, Afghan Jahan Khan attacked the Marathas. The Marathas, having put up some resistance under Antaji Makeshvar to the Afghan vanguard, left the city for Kotputli. (Tarikh-i-Alamgir Sani, 89a)

Describing Abdali’s 5th invasion in September 1759, Surjit Singh Gandhi in his Sikhs in 18th Century states:

On the approach of Ahmad Shah Abdali towards Multan, the Maratha governor with all his troops fled to Lahore….On the northern side, Sabaji vacated Peshawar without offering any resistance. He joined Tukoji at Attock. Here a short engagement took place between Sabaji and the Afghan advance-guard and the Marathas fled towards Lahore. Jahan Khan pursued them to Rohtas. They joined Bapurao. At this place, they made a show of some opposition and then fled away. At Lahore Naroshankar and Narsoji Pandit took to their heels. Narayanrao at Sirhind followed suit. The Marathas from Lahore went to Delhi via Amritsar, Batala, Jullundur and Sirhind, thus avoiding any direct road between Lahore and Sirhind. (p. 140)

He further states:

Abdali reached Taraori on 24th December 1759. It was here that the Marathas tried to arrest his march, but here they were utterly routed and leaving 400 killed they fled from the battlefield. Abdali reached near Delhi where some Rohella chiefs joined him. He continued his march against the Marathas. Dattaji Sindhia met him at Barari Ghat on the Jamuna, but was slain and his soldiers fled. (p. 141)

During the same invasion, Malhar Rao Holkar joined by Jankoji Shinde at Kot Putli quietly absconded without even facing Abdali. At last his forces were defeated at Secundrabad on 4th March, 1760. Malhar Rao, fearing for his life, also fled for Agra and an important Maratha chief Gangadhar Tatya retired to Mathura.

Prior to the battle of Panipat in 1761, Abdali wanted to negotiate peace with the Marathas and the latter wished the same but due to other circumstances the battle had to be fought that in turn shattered the Maratha power. The Sikhs on the other hand faced 7 holocausts in the 18th century and the biggest loss came in 1762 which is known as The Great Holocaust. It must be kept in mind that Abdali attacked the Sikhs with a view of completely exterminating them. Yet they were able to give a stalwart battle to Abdali a year later and took over Lahore in 1765. This means that the Sikhs despite incurring great losses, never lost any spirit and courage. Their power and strength continued to increase.

Although Marathas contributed to the weakening of the Mughal Empire, they had no intention of establishing a kingdom that would benefit all. They kept their attention focused to looting and plundering. Surjit Singh Gandhi states:

The Marathas regarded plunder as their exclusive privilege and were naturally jealous of them (Sikhs) who had the lion’s share in the loot of Sirhind. (p. 124)

A closer look at the Maratha history reveals that the Marathas did not even fight for the Hindu cause and looted Hindus and Muslims alike. This became one of the main reasons as to why many of the Hindu kings did not aid the Marathas against Abdali.

Agents of Peshwa visited the court of every Hindu prince of Rajputana, but received a cold reception and evasive replies. (Qanungo, History of the Jats, p. 72)

Describing reasons for Maratha defeat, Hari Ram Gupta states:

His (Balaji Rao) sole ambition was the acquisition of gold from north and south from Hindus and Muslims alike for which purpose even a non-Maratha army could be equally good.

Surjit Singh Gandhi further elaborates:

Balajirao had alienated the sympathies of almost all the powerful elements in northern India. He dispatched armies to the north not to advance a Maratha or a Hindu cause but to extort money from all and sundry. This was the reason that Hindu chiefs of the Gangetic Doab and the Rajputs did not like the Maratha cause. (p. 146)

The same author concludes by saying that the army of Balaji Rao was “unmoved by any consideration of national interests”.

Explaining why the Sikhs did not support the Marathas, Surjit Singh Gandhi states:

The Rajputs and the Sikhs would have fully supported them. Even the trans-Ganga Rohillas could have been won over. But all these people had been antagonized by the Marathas due to their rapacity and inconsistency. (p. 141)

Secondly, the Marathas had made their common cause with the Mughals and were fighting with the Afghans on behalf of the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. As already stated, half of the tribute collected by the Marathas was to go to the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. The Marathas were recovering the territories from Afghans in order to establish Mughal rule for which the Sikhs had very bitter memories. (p. 148)

According to N. K. Sinha in Part of the Sikh Power, the Marathas signed an agreement with the Mughal emperor in 1752 stating they would fight for him against his own rebels and Abdali in return for being paid. He states:

According to this agreement, the Marathas were to defend the Emperor against foreign enemies and domestic rebels. The Emperor was to pay them Rs. thirty lakhs for driving Abdali out and twenty lakhs for suppressing the internal rebels. (p. 17)

It becomes amply clear from the presented evidence that the Hindus did not have a united front against the Mughals and the foreign invaders. Furthermore, the Marathas had the sole ambition of accruing wealth whilst being oblivious towards the national cause of subduing the oppressive regimes. Sikhs on the other hand were never paid to do their duty. They willingly fought against Nadir Shah, Abdali and the Mughals. Unlike Marathas, Sikhs did not have an easy way. They were hunted down and official orders were released on three separate occasions to exterminate all the Sikhs.

After the battle of Panipat, Maratha power in Punjab was completely obliterated. Abdali amassed great wealth. It is reported that as many as 22,000 men, women and children including the sons and other relatives of the chiefs and officials, were made captives. Beautiful Brahmin women were sold by the Afghans to the Ruhilla and other Indian soldiers at the rate of one tuman (about ten rupees) each. The cash and jewelry were beyond calculation, and the camels and horses innumerable.

During every invasion, the foreign invaders would enslave women and children and take them back to their countries to be sold off. The fate of the Maratha women after the Battle of Panipat was the same. It was only the Sikhs who came to their rescue. They attacked Abdali while he was crossing the Beas and he was dispossessed of a large number of the Maratha and other captives whom he was taking home. About 2200 Hindu women who were being taken away as captives by the Afghans were also released at the ferry of Goindwal and restored to their families. (See Kanhiya Lal, Tarikh-i-Punjab, p. 102-103 and Shamsher Khalsa, p. 145)

Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that the Sikhs were the only true defenders of the country and its honor while the Marathas kept aloof from the affairs that did not directly involve them. All other Hindu chiefs in the Mughal Empire acted similarly. They allowed the foreign invaders to kill Hindus and enslave their women. Sikhs on the other hand, saved and freed these slaves and not once let any foreign invader pass through Punjab uninterrupted. The likes of Mr. Eunuch are inflicted with hatred, narrow-mindedness and animosity that ignore these facts and spew hateful remarks against the Sikhs and their great contributions.

The Jats had a long tradition of resistance against aggressors and Suraj Mal even challenged Abdali after the Battle of Panipat – they ruled the area referred to as the ‘Braj Matsya’ region

This is utterly a false statement. Suraj Mal never challenged Abdali because he had no strength of his own to oppose such a formidable Afghan opponent. Jadunath Sarkar writes about helplessness of Suraj Mal during Abdali’s invasion of 1757. As soon as Abdali arrived in Delhi, Suraj Mal sent his envoy professing his submission. The author further states:

When on the 4th February the vanquished Antaji reached Mathura, Suraj Mal visited him but positively refused to unite with him in a war against the Afghans, saying, “The Iran Padishah at the head of 50,000 troops has captured the Padishah of Hind, and no one has fired a shot against him, no one has died in resisting him. What then can I do?” (Fall of the Mughal Empire, vol. 2, p. 82)

According to Sarkar, Suraj Mal abandoned the Marathas prior to the battle of Panipat and left them to suffer alone. (ibid p. 182)

Suraj Mal also accepted Abdali’s terms to remain neutral and not help the Marathas. As stated before, he paid a fine of 100,000 rupees for helping the survivors of Panipat. These facts show that the so-called brave jatt was nothing but a tributary of foreign invaders.

According to Manucci the Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them to avenge the death of Gokula. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels

This does not show bravery but cowardice on the part of Jatts by disrespecting and disgracing a dead body. Need we remind eunuch the fate of Suraj Mal’s dead body?

Sayyad Muhammad Khan Baloch a leading Mughal commander cut off the head and hand from the body of the Jat, and brought and kept with himself for two days. After that these were taken to the presence of Najib-ud-Daula.

They only evidence we could partially uncover in this respect is of a Sikh leader – Baghel Singh acting as a mercenary for Ghulam Qadir and his forces in their battles with the Marathas – You cannot call looting, rapine and destructive raids as being conquering a city

You need to continue to study more. Ghulam Qadir was under the protection of Mahadji Sindhia and his areas were invaded by Baghel Singh and other Sikh chiefs. The Sikhs attacked, raided and captured Delhi many times, and ruled it on at least three occasions during which they constructed historic Gurdwaras. During this time, Sikhs did not mercilessly kill innocent or enslave women. Unlike Marathas, the Sikhs safeguarded and protected Delhi and its surroundings. Eunuch has provided no evidence that the Sikhs ever engaged in the immoral practice of rapine. On the contrary, Qazi Noor Mohammad, a bitter enemy of the Sikhs, writing spitefully describes Sikhs as highly noble and moral people. He states in his Jangnama written in 1765:

Besides their fighting, listen to one more thing in which they excel all other warriors. They never kill a coward who is running away from the battlefield. They do not rob a woman of her wealth or ornaments whether she is rich or a servant ("Kaneez"). There is no adultery among these dogs, nor are they mischievous people. A woman, whether young or old, they call a "Burhi". The word Burhi, means in Indian language, an old lady. There is no thief amongst these dogs, nor is there amongst them any mean people. They do not keep company with adulters and house thieves though all their acts may not be commendable. (bold ours)

Dr. Ganda Singh, eminent Sikh historian, in his book Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia states:

It is true that in such circumstances, there was some looting, but the Khalsa plundered only the Government treasuries, stores, forts, fortresses, mansions or underground basements of their particular enemies. According to Bute Shah, they would touch neither poor men, nor anybody’s turban, nor women’s ornaments and other goods. (123) (bold ours)

Marathas on the other hand considered looting, plundering and rapine as their exclusive rights.

When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers:

They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours)

In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes:

The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours)

For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270.

We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping. Therefore, Eunuch is being mischievous by spewing his hatred towards the Sikhs for no valid reason.

Refer to Latifs history and the recent work by Dhavan and you will note that the Malwa Sikhs particularly under the Patiala kings often worked at variance to that of the Sikhs of Doaba and Majha – on one occasion the Rajah of Patiala had to beg forgiveness and went under the protection of Jassa Singh and when he again bowed before the Afghans it was only with difficulty that Jassa Singh could restrain the other Sikhs from wanting to kill the Patiala Sikh Maharajah – Although the Sikhs did unite in moments of overall danger to talk of an overall ‘Sikh army’ is utterly wrong and misleading

Just like all other comments, this too is without any evidence or support. Dr. Ganda Singh describes the incident as follows:

While returning from India, Ahmed Shah Durrani had conferred the title of ‘King’ on Baba Ala Singh of Patiala who -had accepted all this to mark time. But the Singhs did not approve of this action of Ala Singh. In a way, it amounted to surrender to a foreign invader. The Singhs bore a grouse against Baba Ala Singh for bowing before Durrani…….. When S. Jassa Singh came to know of the whole development, he at once remonstrated with the Khalsa that what was destined to happen had happened. There was no reason for the Singhs to fritter away their energies in mutual conflicts. The Dal Sardars accepted the peace proposal of S. Jassa Singh and they made Baba Ala Singh take Pahul once again, and after charging fine from him pardoned him. (Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, p. 95, pdf file)

Discussing the role of Ala Singh, Principal Satbir Singh in his book Sada Itihaas Vol 2 states that he was a diplomat but not a traitor. He did not help Abdali at all. He relied on the help of the Sikhs and was on good terms with Abdali to keep his area protected. For this reason, the Sikhs punished him and then he was forgiven. He also gave assistance to Marathas in third battle of Panipat. Hence, he was not a traitor but a clever politician. (pp. 248-49)

It must be noted that Ala Singh was not the leader of the Sikh nation. He was a politician and managed to appease Abdali by seeking welfare of his subjects. Also, when Abdali tried to negotiate with Sikh leaders, they flatly rejected all the proposals. Dr. Ganda Singh in his book Ahmad Shah Durrani states:

“Even the Sikhs could be forgiven by the Shah if they undertook to be obedient to him.'' But they were made of a different mettle. Seasoned into unbending warriors during the last six decades of continuous struggle and sacrifices and having tasted of independence won by the prowess of their arms, they could not be persuaded to submit to a foreigner, much less to one who had slaughtered so many of 'their brethren in the Ghalu-ghara and had demolished and desecrated the holiest of their temples. Moreover, they were then practically masters of the country, which the Shah visited only temporarily. They preferred, therefore, to continue the struggle for a more complete freedom rather than submit for a meaningless honour. (p. 303)

The quote above clearly describes the high spirit, mentality and attitude of the Sikhs towards Abdali. Marathas on the other hand, traveled to Punjab to seek negotiations with Abdali. The fact is echoed by Indian historians that Bapuji Mahadev Hingne and Purshotam Hingne were negotiating peace with Abdali while Sikhs suffered a holocaust. (Sardesai, New History of the Marathas, ii, p. 448)

Dr. Ganda Singh states that Maharaja Ala Singh did not betray the Sikhs and did not help Abdali which irritated the latter so much that he ordered Zain Khan of Sirhind, his Diwan Lachhmi Narayan and Bhikhan Khan of Malerkotla (Ala Singh's worst enemies) to storm and sack the fort and the town of Barnala and its neighborhood. (Ahmad Shah Durrani, p. 280)

One Sikh having some degree of variance with the rest of the nation does not prove that the Sikhs did not unite together against a common enemy. Ala Singh was helped by not only Sardar Jassa Singh but also Baba Deep Singh. According to Panth Parkash of Rattan Singh Bhangu, Ala Singh considered the Sikh Panth as the backbone and support of his kingdom. On the other hand, the Hindus conspired against each other and aligned themselves with foreigners against their own brethren. Marathas felt no uneasiness while attacking territories of other Hindu chiefs and plundering their areas. For example, Raghunath Rao in 1754-55, collected tribute from areas of Jaipur, Kota, Bundi and other Hindu areas. The Hindus essentially helped the foreigners and made it easy for them to slowly take over India. This is a shameful and unforgivable act of the Hindus. Comparably, out of the entire Sikh nation, there stood Malwa states with not significantly large armies, but yet could change the course of history. The facts remain undisputed that the Sikhs were not only better soldiers than Marathas but also had much stronger unity and cohesiveness and were tied together by the same religious ideals. Hindus, in contrast, lacked this terribly. Sarkar writes:

In this last respect, as well as in the excellent size breed and fleetness of their horses and their universal use of fire arms, the Sikh far surpassed the Marathas as fighters. (p. 238)

Note when the Marathas were fighting on the plains of Punjab and the Golden Temple was desecrated by Abdali in his army marched Ala Singh and thousands of his soldiers who stood quietly by whilst the holy temple was polluted

Darbar Sahib was attacked and desecrated in 1757 and 5000 Sikhs gave a strong resistance to Abdali. Most Sikhs were far away in the forests and mountains, due to the countrywide orders of extermination, while Marathas being in Punjab did nothing. We have proved above that the Marathas lacked the courage to openly face Abdali and retreated soon after a small skirmish. When the Sikhs heard the news of the desecration, they allied with Adina Begh and captured the Afghans and brought then back to clean Darbar Sahib. The Sikhs invited the Marathas who went to Darbar Sahib for the very first time in 1758.

It is hypocritical of Eunuch to blame Ala Singh for not doing anything while Darbar Sahib was attacked but playing no heed to the facts that Marathas and all other Hindu chiefs paid no heed to the Abdali’s invasion of Mathura in which the Hindu holy city was not only ransacked but thousands of women and children were mercilessly slaughtered. Coward Marathas remained aloof. Sarkar states:

Not a single Maratha bled in defense of the holiest of Vaishnav shrines; their pan-Indian suzerainty (Hindupad Padshahi) did not involve the duty to protect. (vol. 2, p. 84)

On a side note, the Sikhs never destroyed a temple or a mosque in their areas. This shows their sagacity and tolerance. But Marathas attacked their own brethren and destroyed Hindu temples. According to Dr. Ram Puniyani in his video lecture Facts and Myths, when Marathas attacked Tipu Sultan but were unable to defeat him, on the way back out of spite, destroyed a Hindu temple in Srirang Patnam which was repaired by Tipu Sultan later.

The rebellion of Banda Bahadur was a long and determined one against the Mughals – however it remained localised in the Doaba and parts of the Malwa regions – to talk of an 8 year period in which he was constantly at war as being part of an independent state is just pathetic and an insult to those warriors.

This is laughable. Mr. Eunuch is not only ignorant but highly imprudent. He fails to show us how crediting Baba Banda Singh of establishing a Sikh state is insult to him or the Sikh warriors? All historical records are unanimous that Baba Banda Singh shook the Mughal Empire from its roots in Northern India. He not only established the Sikh kingdom but also released coins and installed Sikhs as government officials. He successfully reformed the government policies such as Zamindari system. He employed Hindus and Muslims in his army. The fact that he did not have enough time to solidify his short lived kingdom does not negate the fact that the Sikh kingdom existed and it served as a great example for the Sikhs to regain it by defeating the Mughals. Eunuch’s asserts that Baba Ji was constantly in war with the Mughals but does not prove that the Sikh state did not exist. So Eunuch, stop making a fool of yourself and learn some basic rules of logic.

Actually the Malwa is the largest part of modern Punjab…..I hear they have a proclivity for farmyard animals in this region

Completely irrelevant and pointless statement. Eunuch has pathetically failed to refute our point and instead blabbered about his affection for camels.

Another totally misleading and malicious lie. Some proof please – and not from the camel riders from Moga -

Your ignorance and lack of accepting the truth does not make our claim false.  According to Dr. Ram Puniyani, 5 out of 12 generals were Hindus in Gaznavi’s army. These Hindus were Tilak, Saundhi, Arjaandh, Raandh and Hind. (Video lecture Facts and Myths)

Further, it was a Hindu Rana Sangha who invited Babar to invade India which led to the establishment of Mughal Empire and enslavement of the country for nearly 300 years. The percentage of Hindu government officials in the reign of Shah Jahan was 24% and it rose to 33% during the reign of Aurangzeb. This shows how Hindus were ancillary of Aurangzeb in his brutal operation of massacring Hindus and forcibly converting them to Islam.

This is applicable not where one party has an intention to ‘ethnically and religiously cleanse’ the region of its substantial minorities. Those who complain about being ruled by the ‘brute majority’ of 80% Hindus are fully prepared to impose their own brute majority of 55% in Punjab

Where is your evidence Eunuch? Sikhs wish to create a government in which they will have an equal representation. We do not wish to suppress or oppress any majority or minority. From past Sikh rule, we can easily infer that the next Sikh rule will be built upon the same principles and everyone including Hindus will be protected and treated the same way as the Sikhs.

A very basic overview of some of the Khalistani literature and writings belie this concern for human rights and equality – the Khalistan issue has nothing to do with human rights or equality  – rather it is based on a series of racist and hate filled notions that Sikhs are physically, religiously, morally and in every other way superior to Hindus

Once again, care to provide some evidence from your “basic overview” of Khalistani literature? Sikhs strongly believe and follow Gurbani according to which all are created by God and therefore equal. On the other hand, Hinduism follows varna and caste system of Vedas and Simartis according to which all are all created unequal and hence some are superior and some inferior. In our previous rebuttal we have presented enough evidence that human rights abuses have taken place in Punjab on the order of the Hindu regime. We need not repeat it here but a cursory look at reports from human rights commissions reveal the fact that Sikhs were targeted for ethnic cleansing.  Deep rooted bigotry, hatred and prejudice does not let Hindus see the truth and keeps them in dark. As far as values are concerned, Gurbani is clear that one’s character makes him a better person so a Sikh following Gurbani and living his life according to the ideals of the Gurus is a better person than those who do not. This does not make Sikhs superior but better indeed.

Conclusion

Every assertion of Eunuch has been properly addressed, responded to and refuted. We hope to receive a complete, better and rational response next time as well as a response to the rest of part 1 and the remaining 3 parts from Eunuch. We encourage him to shed his ignorance and realize the truth. Sikhs do not hate anyone nor do they promote belittling the Marathas, Rajputs or other Hindus. But since they never fought for the cause of the country, they can never be considered its true heroes. They fought each other for money and wealth and helped foreign invaders in defeating and humiliating their own brethren, thus, making it easier for foreign invaders to conquer India. It was only the Sikhs who stopped all foreign invasions, secured and recovered the annexed areas, and made the country equally peaceful for everyone. Therefore, only Sikhs deserve this credit.