The legacy of Khalsa integrity

*Posting at the Hukam of vadde veer Bhai Kulbir Singh ji*

This article is not being written to demean or belittle any brave community. However, a spade needs to be called a spade, and history needs to be preserved and taught in its purest form.

I have been wanting to write this for quite sometime. I apologize in advance if there are any inconsistencies or errors when quoting historical facts/figures, and request to be forgiven and corrected accordingly.

Whenever the Sikh nation proudly proclaims its accolades in the fields of battle, we are showered not only with praises from most of our non-Sikh brethren, but at times also with some sort of rebuttals. One wonders why that is the case. Is it because of some sort of envy or jealousy? Or is it a sense of sheer intimidation, which let me confirm is never the aim of any true Sikh.

Time and time again we face the same old rhetoric from all quarters of non-Sikhs, be they the Hindus or Muslims of India, or the Muslims of other countries neighboring India. Let me reiterate though, that by far a large number of them have much compassion and reverence for our Gurus, for the Sikh faith and for the Sikh community in general. This is not because of fear or intimidation, but because the Sikhs have earned their love and respect over the centuries.

This rhetoric usually comes in the form of the statement that Sikhs were not the only ones who fought foreign invaders, or the only ones who fought for India’s independence. We do know that there were brave martial entities in India who also did fight against foreign invaders. The most noteworthy among them are the Marathas from Maharashtra, the Rajputs of Rajputana (Rajasthan), the Jats of Bharatpur (Rajasthan) and other localities in Rajasthan. All of them were brave, courageous and fierce warriors, there is no question about it. We respect their valor.

But is bravery limited to waging wars and conquering lands? Is courage confined to large scale armies and state-of-the-art artillery? What about integrity? There is more than wars, lands, armies and weapons that defines bravery, courage and valor.

Think about the invaders for a moment. Mohammad Bin Qassim, Mahmud Ghazni, Babar, Aurangzeb, Ahmed Shah Abdali, Nadir Shah, these people were no less brave than any of the above mentioned communities. Persians, Turks, Afghans, Pashtuns, Arabs, Mughals, they didn’t attack and conquer territories because they had nothing else to do. They did it because they were equally skilled warriors. But all of these folks were brutal oppressors. Perhaps there is something missing inspite of all the bravery and courage. I repeat, what about integrity?

I am going to try and do a point-by-point analysis of how Sikhs were different when it came to being righteous warriors, true saint-soldiers, as compared to all other “supposedly” martial entities in the Indian subcontinent.

Once again, I apologize in advance if there are any inconsistencies or errors when quoting historical facts/figures, and request to be forgiven and corrected accordingly.

1.) Intention: The Khalsa never had any intentions to rob any place of its lands or resources and forcibly install themselves as their masters. The Mughals, Afghans plundered their way into India. The Marathas marched all the way to Delhi and Bengal starting from a modest kingdom in western India.

2.) Resolve: In the heat of battle, the Singhs were known to always remain in a spirit of Chardi Kala (ever-rising spirits). There was no instance ever heard or recorded that a Singh of Dasmesh Pita ever fled the battle field out of cowardice, or lost hope and ended up making deals with their foes. In fact, Singhs are known to have rejected peace offers by Abdali and telling him to face them in battle and let the swords do the talking. As for the Marathas, they looked forward to some sort of negotiations with Abdali after the historic third battle of Panipat (Jan 14, 1761) which changed the history of India. This was a battle that pretty much broke the back of the Marathas and dented their imperialistic aspirations of establishing a rule all over what we know today as India and even some parts of present-day Pakistan.

3.) Character: While the Khalsa looked upon the women of even their enemies as their own mothers, sisters and daughters, all other entities, be they foreigners or the Indian-born ones, left no stone unturned to viciously violate the women. Goa and Bengal are prime examples where Marathas are known to have committed such horrors. As for the Singhs, even bitter enemies such as Qazi Nur Muhammad have written in Jangnama that these Sikhs never violate the modesty of even an enemy’s woman. More than 20,000-22,000 Hindu women (mostly Maratha women) were captured by the Afghans post Panipat and were being taken forcibly to be sold as slaves in Afghanistan. It was the Singhs who rescued them and made sure they reached their places safely and with honor.

Also note that the Sikhs never desecrated anyone’s graves or places of worship. The same wasn’t true for Marathas who destroyed a Ruhilla chief’s grave who was their bitter foe. They even destroyed a Hindu temple in Tipu Sultan’s territory after losing a battle to him. It was Tipu who had this temple rebuilt later.

4.) Won’t fear, won’t scare, and won’t allow to scare: Perhaps this was what always got the Sikhs into conflicts with the tyrant oppressors ruling north and north-west India. No one had a problem with Sikhs not fearing them. No one had a problem with Sikhs not scaring them. What they did have a problem with, however, was Sikhs safeguarding the oppressed Indians. The Marathas did the exact opposite and suffered. They handed over Punjab to Adeena Baig when they could have left it with the Sikhs, thereby ignoring Sikhs as a non-entity. They didn’t bother about the welfare of Sikhs who were the heirs to Punjab and sons of the soil. They meddled and interfered in the internal affairs of the Rajputs and Jats, thereby losing their trust and support as well. This contributed to them being left alone even by their own fellow Hindu brethren to face the might of the Afghans at Panipat.

Those who feel today that the Marathas wanted to establish a Hindu Raaj need to think again. Neither they intended for a Hindu Raaj nor for an independent India. They took help from the Muslims of Deccan under Ibrahim Khan Gardhi to fight Abdali at Panipat. It was never about Hindu Raaj, it was only to fulfil the Maratha expansionist policy.

5.) Havoc in the enemy’s mentality: This could possibly be the shortest and best response to anyone trying to compare Sikhs with a foreign-born or Indian-born martial entity. After the Panipat battle, and to this day, Marathi speakers use a phrase “Panipat zaale”, which means “a great loss has happened”. This shows the kind of cringe the word “Panipat” has in the minds of these people even today. Deep within their mentality the trauma of that defeat is alive even after two and a half centuries. There is another ancient Indian prayer where Hindus pray to Lord Shiva begging him to save them from three things: (a.) a tiger’s claw, (b.) a snake’s fangs, (c.) vengeance of the Afghan. The fear of Afghans had been thriving within the Indian mindset for centuries. The common folks of Punjab had a saying “khaadha peeta laahe da, baaki Ahmed Shaahe da”, which means whatever you can consume is worth it, everything else belongs to Ahmed Shah Abdali. Such was the terror of this robber that people had no hope of ever securing their belongings and possessions.

Did Afghans have any such sayings? They did! To put their kids to sleep, Afghan mothers would say “Haria raagla”, meaning “Haria will come!” so that they get scared and go to sleep. Who was Haria? It was none other that the invincible Sikh general Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa who tamed the ferocious Afghans and Pashtuns on their own turf. The Marathas managed to reach upto Peshawar, but Kabul, which Sardar Nalwa conquered, was an impossible feat for them. Even after reaching Peshawar they had to retreat.

We do hear and read about a price being put on the head of Sikhs. This happened eight times during Islamic rule in north and northwest India. I am not really sure if any such law was passed with regards to Marathas, Rajputs, or Jats. One wonders which parameter of bravery is genuine? The one where you march armies into other territories and commit plunder and bloodshed, or the one where your enemy fears and dreads you so profoundly that they put a price on your head? What made these people fear Sikhs so much that they even martyred women, children and the old?

6.) Speed of resurrection: The Vadda Ghallughara (Greater Holocaust) happened on February 5, 1762 in which close to one-third of the then Sikh population (around 30,000) was massacred by Abdali. It took the Sikhs three years to spring back and give Abdali a befitting reply in the form of a slapping defeat in battle. His self-confidence was shattered and he fled Punjab in the dark to avoid facing the Khalsa. The same Abdali broke the back of the Marathas in Panipat and it took them 10 years to capture Delhi. Again, is this parameter of bravery more genuine than marching your armies into other territories of other people and committing plunder and bloodshed?

I have only tried above to give a glimpse into what our Khalsa standards of bravery, courage and valor are. We live by integrity. Our Raaj isn’t merely a political one but a spiritual one as well. The word “Shaheed” is used so loosely these days. An Indian Army officer smoking tobacco at the Indo-Pak border gets hit by a stray bullet from Pakistan and dies, he is called as Shaheed all over the pantheon of the Indian news media. In Sikhi, a Shaheed is someone who actually chooses his/her death and rejects an easy life full of leisure and pleasure offered if he/she is to compromise on his/her Sikhi principles.

All the above mentioned entities, no matter how brave and fiercely martial, are today just a heritage for their adherents. Ours is not just a heritage but a legacy.

If there are any inconsistencies or errors above, or if anything I said seems harsh and hurtful, I request to be forgiven and corrected accordingly. I wrote all this only to clarify how we are genuinely different in spirit and psyche from others who just make claims of bravery but are devoid of integrity.

~ Mehtab Singh
Jan. 13, 2017

Simply brilliant, thanks so much Mehtab Singh for posting.

The enemies of Sikhs whether British or Mughals despite being repulsed by them still had time to praise their valour in battle and in some situations even swore in twisted envy - common quotes:

Between the years 1747 to 1769, the Emperor of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali of the Durrani dynasty invaded India nine times, majority of the time entering through the Punjab. A member of Abdali’s entourage was the Qazi (Muslim religious judge) Nur Muhammad.

Qazi Nur Muhammad has documented the invasions of Abdali in the “Jangnama”. During one of the war councils of the Shah’s, a member of the Baluchistan troops rode on horse back to report a surprise attack by the Sikhs. Qazi Nur Muhammad has written this about the war tactics of the Sikhs ”A troop advances and, firing a shot from some distance, retires to reload their muskets while another troop starts firing from another point. Thus, while they can relax somewhat by turns, they do not allow any respite to their enemy.”

After one days rest, a group of thirty Sikhs surprised the invaders again, as Qazi Nur Muhammad has written “These dogs (as the author has called the Sikhs) were only thirty in number. They were not in the least afraid. They had neither the fear of slaughter nor the dread of death. They grappled with the ghazis (Muslim suicide squads) and, in the engagement, spilt their blood and sacrificed their lives for their Guru” ( This attack was headed by Baba Gurbakhsh Singh Ji of the Tarna Dal and his jatha). Ahmad Shah returned to Lahore where he held another council of war at which Mir Muhammad Nasir Khan expressed the opinion that they should advance to Sirhind where they should stay awaiting further news from Najb ud Daulah, who had been besieged in Delhi by Raja Jawahar Singh of Bharatpur and his Sikh allies of the Budha Dal under Jathedar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Ahmad Shah Durrani resumed his march but, conscious as he was of the might of the roving Sikh bands, he followed a circuitous route through Batala, Hoshiarpur and Ropar and, avoiding Sirhind altogether, proceeded via Pirijore, Naraingarh and Jagadhri reaching Kurijpura, near Karnal, by the middle of February 1765 after meeting with stiff resistance at many places en route.

After this attack Abdali decided to return back to Afghanistan, but the Sikhs were not ready to let the invaders off so easily. The Dal Khalsa blocked the passage of the Shah and his army at Phillaur. Abdali tried to bypass the Sikhs and tried crossing the river Satluj, the Khalsa caught up to Abdali and his men quite quickly.

A seven day battle ensued between the Dal Khalsa (Budha Dal & Tarna Dal) and the army of Ahmad Shah. Abdali’s army suffered heavy losses of men, materials and animals. Qazi Nur Muhammad has written “When I recall that day, I tremble with the fear of the Doomsday.”

The Qazi has further written about the Sikhs that he encountered “Do not call the dogs (the Sikhs) dogs, because they are lions (and) are courageous like lions in the battlefield. How can a hero, who roars like a lion be called a dog? (Moreover) like lions they spread terror in the field of battle. If you wish to learn the art of war, come face to face with them in the battlefield. They will demonstrate it (art of war) to you in such a way that one and all will shower praise on them.

If you wish to learn the science of war, O swordsman, learn from them. They advance at the enemy boldly and come back safely after action. Understand, Singh is their title, a form of address for them. It is not justice to call them dogs; if you do not know Hindustani language, then understand that the word ‘Singh’ means a lion.”Truly, they are lion in battle, and at times of peace, they surpass “Hatim” (in generosity ).

When they take the Indian sword in their hands they traverse the country from Hind to Sind. None can stand against them in battle, howsoever strong he may be. When they handle the spear, they shatter the ranks of the enemy. When they raise the heads of their spears towa-rds the sky, they would pierce even through the Caucasus (in the process). When they adjust the strings of the bows, place in them the enemy killing arrows (and) pull the strings to their ears, the body of the enemy begins to shiver with fear. When their battle axes fall upon the armour of their opponents, their armour becomes their coffin.

“The body of every one of them is like a piece of rock and in physical grandeur everyone of them is more than fifty men. It is said that Behram Gore killed wild asses and lions. But if he were to come face to face with them even he would bow before them (Singhs). Besides usual arms, they take their guns in hand (and) come into the field of action jumping (and) roaring like lions and raise slogans. They tear asunder the chests of many and shed blood of several (of their enemy) in the dust. You say that musket is a weapon of ancient times, it appears to be a creation of these dogs rather than Socrates. Who else than these (dogs) can be adept in the use of muskets. They do not bother (even if) there are innumerable muskets. To the right and the left, in front and towards the back, they go on operating hundreds of muskets angrily and regularly.”

If you do not believe in what I say, you may enquire of the brave swordsmen who would tell you more than myself and would praise them for their fighting. This bears witness to (my statement) that they faced thirty thousand heroes in the battlefield. If their armies take to flight, it is a war tactics of theirs. They resort to this deception in order to make the angry army grow bold and run in their pursuit. When they find them separated from the main body and away from help and reinforcement, they at once turn back and fight more ferociously (literal translation – they set fire even to water).

“Did you not see that while fighting the Pathans, they took to flight which was deceptive. A world famous wrestler wielding high esteem and respect alight-ed from his horse and showed his great style as if he were Tuhmatan ( a great warrior of Iran). O valiant fighter, do justice to their (act of ) war. One of their armies invaded Multan and put the city to plunder and devastation and killed many of its inhabitants and carried away an immense booty. I am not sufficiently strong in mind to express what the dogs did there. But as God willed it, each of us has to submit to His Will.”

Besides their fighting, listen to one more thing in which they excell 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 adultry among these dogs, nor are they mischieveous 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 thiefs though all their acts may not be commendable.”

If you are not acquainted with their religion, I tell you that the Sikhs are the disciples of the Guru – that pious Guru lived at Chak (Amritsar). The ways and manners of these people were laid down by Nanak who showed these Sikhs a separate path. He was succeeded by Guru Gobind Singh from whom they received the title of Singh. They are not part of the Hindus, who have a separate religion of their own. “Now that you have familiarised yourself with the behaviour of the Sikhs, you may also know something about their country. They have divided the Punjab amongst themselves and have bestowed it upon every young and old.”

Excellent article Bhai Mehtab Singh jee!

As you have mentioned, greatness does not lie in being brave and valorous alone because what matters more is how the valour and martial spirit are used. Arguably one can say that ones who plundered and looted countries e.g. Genghis Khan, Timur the lane, Nadir Shah etc. were brave but their bravery and valour was evil. On the other hand, the valour and martial spirit of Khalsa was to restore independence in its homeland and to free the world from tyrants and aggressors. Therefore, no one can match Khalsa as far as valour is concerned.

Out of all Sikh leaders to this date, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur remains on the top. He came, he saw and he vanquished the tyrants and aggressors; he established Khalsa Raj but stayed aloof from governing. He established Khalsa Raj and retired to the hills to get absorbed with Vaheguru. he stayed in deep Gurmat meditation till he was needed in Punjab. Who has been able to stay so free from the shackles and bonds of Maya but Baba Banda Singh jee Bahadur? He did not establish Khalsa Raj for his own need but did it to punish the tyrants and for general betterment of the people. He abolished the feudal system and gave land to the peasants who were tilling the land.

Marathas too have a very glorious history as far as valour and martial spirit is concerned but after Shivaji Maratha, they could not maintain the spiritual rectitude and moral fortitude. They became very avaricious, so much so that they did not even spare their fellow countrymen e.g. Rajputs and Jats from whom they forcefully acquired Chauth (1/4th tax) every year. This avaricious behaviour of Marathas cost them very dearly in January 1761, in the third battle of Panipat. While Ahmed Shah Abdali was aided by his fellow Muslims, no one from India, Jats, Rajputs or even Sikhs helped out the Marathas because of their decades of plundering of Rajputana and Bharatpur. They fought very bravely but suffered a heartbreaking defeat in the hands of the Afghans. They lost their cream of warriors and generals in this battle. If the Marathas had won, then perhaps the history of India would have been very different. The Marathas would have ascended on the throne of Delhi. The British most probably could not have established their rule in India. Eventually, there would have been a war between Sikhs and Marathas for control of Sikh homeland, West of Yamuna river.

Kulbir Singh

Thanks "Unjaan" jee.

You are right Bhai Kulbir Singh ji. A few other thoughts also came to mind after writing this article.

When the Marathas launched their conquest of north India, they already had a kingdom, they had wealth, resources, a fully capable and maintained battle-trained army. Yet they lost so miserably to the Afghans at Panipat.

The Sikhs did not have an official kingdom when Baba Banda Singh Bahadur ji entered Punjab. They did not have any worldly government supporting them with funds and arms, but solely the blessings and grace of Sachee Sarkaar Sahib-E-Kamaal Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj. They needed nothing more and shook the roots of the Mughal empire thereby established Khalsa Raaj.

It is one thing to be a pre-existing sovereign kingdom having economic resources and military forces prior to initiating an expansionist campaign. It is something else to not have either, yet dare to launch an attack on Asia's most powerful regime, i.e. the Mughals. Thats what the Khalsa did!

With that in mind, even if the Marathas had won at Panipat, and as you say, if at some point there indeed was a clash between Sikhs and Marathas, lets be clear, hands down the Khalsa would have crushed them flat and established an independent and sovereign Khalsa Raj perhaps even before the United States of America came into being in 1776.

excellent write up, learnt a lot. Many thanks