In 1897, there was a major uprising of Pashtuns against the British occupiers. One key event took place at an outpost called Saragarhi (in Orakzai district), manned by 21 Sikh soldiers of the British-Indian army. The post was attacked by a lashkar of local Pashtun freedom fighters. Despite being fired upon, the Pashtuns climbed the steep ascent, reached the hill-top, killed the 21 Sikh soldiers, and destroyed the outpost.
This relatively small event is regarded by Sikhs as one of the most momentous chapters of their history. They commemorate it annually as Saragarhi Day (12th September), which is a public holiday in the Indian state of Punjab. To understand the ascent, see the following historical photo taken in 1897:
Since no written records survive from the Pashtun side, what we know is based on exaggerated and one-sided British accounts, later embellished by Sikh narratives. According to the popular version, 21 Sikhs, fighting for the British Raj, faced between 10,000 and 20,000 Pashtuns and killed over 600 before being overrun—an achievement often compared with the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.
However, these figures are highly questionable. British estimates of tribal numbers were notoriously inflated. For example, they once assessed Afridi fighting strength at 227,000, yet the total population of Khyber Agency was only 284,256 in the 1981 census. Claims of 600 Pashtun bodies at Saragarhi also conflict with British sources: the Navy and Army Illustrated (1902) recorded that the dead were carried away by comrades, leaving no bodies on the field.
Another British officer reported losses of around 400 Pashtuns during “several operations,” including Saragarhi—but his source was a pro-British clan, making reliability doubtful.
Wikipedia and Indian media often call Saragarhi “history’s greatest last stand,” but such claims trace back to Indian sites without named historians. Similarly, the statement that UNESCO recognizes Saragarhi as one of eight “stories of collective bravery” is unverified. No official UNESCO publication lists this. The claim that Saragarhi is taught in French schools also lacks independent confirmation.
Ironically, Sikhs celebrate Saragarhi Day passionately, yet in earlier Anglo-Sikh wars the British dismissed Sikh military ability while praising Pashtuns who fought for them. For example, Risaldar Fateh Khan Khattak and 70 Pashtuns were credited with defeating an entire Sikh cavalry brigade of 1,500–4,000 men—a feat arguably greater than Saragarhi.
A British remark stated: “Pathan soldiers are notoriously disloyal and are not thoroughly trusted by British commanders.” Though intended as criticism, it actually reflected Pashtun patriotism. Winston Churchill also wrote:
“Personally, I don’t blame any Afridis who desert to go and defend their own country, now that we have invaded it, and I think it is only natural and proper that they should want to do so.”
Also read this detailed research by Dr. Nafees Ur Rehman:
The Battle of Saragarhi – The Cover-up of a Failure Marketed as a Brave Sacrifice
And: Further Analysis on Saragarhi
.jpg)
References
1 – Navy and Army Illustrated, 1902, p.236
2 – Pathan Revolt in North West India, p.139
3 – The Story of the Guides by G. J. Younghusband, p.24
4 – McBride's Magazine, Vol.58, p.503
5 – The Story of the Malakand Field Force
.jpg)
You seems like in a denial. You, with purpose failed to mention that all 21 soldiers were awarded highest bravery awards. Is that not a historical truth for you. You are just taking solace by discussing the number of tribesmen. As far as the fact that 21 were fighting for British, I as a student of history feel that that was a better choice instead of taking sides with people who were desperate to re-establish Mughal rule in India in 1857.
ReplyDeletewhy would he be in denial to something that does not happened, come on. he dubunked your myth, which no one believe anyway
DeleteIt is a western habit of adding two zeros to their figures to inflate and this can be seen from their Bible as well. Historians criticize its claim that 600,000 Roman soldiers suddenly came forth. There are many such cases to understand this mentality of theirs and so based on that, we can say that Pashtuns would be likely somewhere between 100 to 160.
ReplyDeleteFabricated by the British to garner the support of Sikhs.
ReplyDeleteSuppose, it's true then where did the valour of the Sikhs go when Ahmed Shah Abdali attacked Punjab?
They still mourn the day as Sikh Haulocaust. Not the day when they were being massacred in 1984 by Hindus.
Note:
The war had happened and the Sikhs fought to the last man and were all killed. These 21 Sikhs had no other option than to die fighting, because as Winston Churchill had given the account of Sikhs cutting innocent Pashtun farmers whenever they got a chance to grab one, it was sure that 1000 Pashtuns (not 12, 13, or 20 thousand) standing outside the Fort were going to kill all of them as Badal(their Tribal Code).
I know hundreds of Pashtuns who were alone and died fighting thousands of Hindus and Sikhs.
By the way, the funny part is that story as narrated as though these 21 Sikhs conquered Afghanistan.
Important Point:
These Sikhs were fighting for the British. They were firing at the Indian Native Pathans who were fighting for their independence from the British Raj.
So, you can say these Pashtuns were the Bhagat Singhs, the Patels and the Gandhis.
Pashtun’s on an average since they are the only tribe in the world which has resisted every occupying force so ferociously that the occupying force has just not been able to subdue . While the Sikhs after a feeble attempt started serving the British content in giving up their lives for British the Pashtuns refused to bow to the British. Regarding the notion that Pashtuns wear shalwar kameez because they were scared of the Sikhs is atrocious because the Sikhs were anyway only able to conquer upto Jamrud . It was in Jamrud were Wazir Akbar Khan killed Hari Singh Nalwa and that was the end of Sikh victory over the Pashtuns so saying Hari Singh ruled Afghanistan is wrong. Also note that sikhs suffered their 2 holocoust at the hands of Ahmed Shah Durrani one in 1762 and another in 1746 so frankly if one talks about who succeeded more in battles, it is Pashtuns. However that is not the reason I say Pashtuns are braver, the test of bravery is when you have to courage to fight for what you think is right, the sikhs fought for the Hindus and they were brave upto Ranjit Singh, after that they meekly supported the British infact fighting against Indian rebels in the sepoy mutiny and fighting against Pashtuns for the english while the Pashtun through out history has only fought for them and their rights and his honour and hence I don’t think there is any comparison in bravery between Sikhs and Pashtuns, Pashtuns are far superior when it comes to bravery.
ReplyDeleteSikhs prevailed over untrained or innicint Pashtuns during raids of Sarhad with the help of some money hungary Pashtun Ameers (Present day Peshawar and surrounding parts) by armies of Raja Ranjit Singh. Hari Singh Nalwa was killed in such raids. It was this exploit that ensured the division of Afghan people permanently,later sealed by Durand line. But then, it was no interest of the Adhan King to fight for those independent areas. Then they massacred the English who had previously massacred the Sikhs in the Anglo-Sikh wars. Sardars must gk through Malakand Diaries by Winston Churchill who termed Indians as ugly creatures to know for whom their Ancestors were dying for so happily. And also to know how frustrated were the Britishers for failing to rule over these INDIAN Pathans or Pashtun revolutionaries.
ReplyDeleteTo be rational. I would like to state that Sikhs were victorious because they were trained rigorously whereas Afghans were loosely trained or untrained.
Another famous battle was battle of Saragadhi on Afghan border in 1896, where 21 Sikhs of British Army held the fortress against Afridis, although all 21 soldiers perished, but the casualty of Afghans was estimated to be 600 to 800.
Again to be rational.Sikhs prevailed because of the height and strong wall of the fortress as well as better ammunitions.
So both are brave , both should forget the past and should become friends. Brave can befriend only braves.
British were given a Bloody Nose only by Pashtuns hence they boosted the evo of their Sikh Chowkidaars by exaggerating the victory. The Sikhs also helped British in defeating the Indian Uprising of 1857. Why are they not singing about that victory?
ReplyDeleteBritish winning against armies 5 to 10 times their numbers was often found in descriptions of many India battles by them. There may be some exaggeration not doubt.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this was due to better arms & ammo, and also better battle techniques & training.
Number dead can be debatable. But perhaps Saragarhi Fortress was visible from neighboring Fort.
Lot of big talk and bullshit about pashtuns and how they love independence of Afghanistan. A simple google search reveals that Afghanistan has been a part of one or the other large empire for most of its history. India on the other hand was largely ruled by various local princely states which paid some fixed taxes to British. This eventually helped in unification of India.
ReplyDeleteBrother, even India was under the foreign rule of Muslims for most of the last 14 centuries.
Delete