Willing to die not to convert to Islam but willing to become a slave for the British?

How come Sikhs were willing to die rather than become Muslims but yet become slaves of the British

Although yes, the Sikhs did fight for a just cause, WW1 & WW2, what happened to the Lion never wanting to be tamed?

The moghuls tried it but the Sikhs accepted death but then the British came and then some how the ability to fight to the death vanaished
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/33251-willing-die-not-convert-islam-but.html

I mean, is it possible that this happened becuase of a change in leadership? For example during Guru Gobind Singh Ji's time he set the exmple though even his brave young sons willing to fight rather than give in to Islam which set an example for all others to follow such as Banda Singh Bahadur.

Then comes the time of Ranjit Singh and then what exactly happened that caused the Singhs to quickly mingle with British. In previous war Sikhs kept on fight on the run and even when they had to live of the bark of trees with only a few Singhs left.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33251

Did the Singhs (warriors) get bored sitting around so the British said okay you can go and play in the fields of Germany?

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Just to correct you, Sikhs also fought in big numbers for Germany specifically against the British to force them to exit from India! But Alas! the history is always written by the victorious... So, we have a common illusion that Sikhs only fought for the British, which is not a correct statement!

For more information on Sikhs fighting supporting Germany!
Read this:
Gurfateh!

Thanks for the link re. Sikhs and Germany.

Ishna

Badshah ji,
Do I detect flippancy in your note?
A free mind will find a company with another free mind- a mindless 'sheep' will find similar association that meets its mental capability.
Sikhs tried to tell Islam and its followers, who perpetrated hell in Punjab to desist any follow humanity set by our Nanaks. Guru's like Teg Bhadur pleaded and eventually give even gave his life for freedom of religion and speech - the Islamic masters of that day did not have the capacity to understand!
Now if you keep hitting your head in a brick wall and then find a poor alternative (British) to move forward what would you do - keep on hitting the brick wall?
Sikhs might have considered joining with the British as a chess move which eventually gave India its freedom. If Sikhs wanted to join Islam would they have sacrificed what they did! WHY?
As you know ruling Islam of then (Mougals) and may be majority Islam in the world now has not and could not have progressed to allow free minds to develop.
Just take the example of Pakistan - our Punjabi brothers who thought slightly like sikhs are the only progressive group but even they are hampered by Islam hence the state of Pakistan today and the last 60 years.
You may want to surf the net to look at the comparison between achievements of Jews (70million) in Engineering, Science and welfare and compare that to Islam (1200million).
It is a disappointing even dismal statistic. By the way Sikhs might have achieved more than whole of Islam if you consider Punjab of India has the second largest financial contribution to wealth of India - second to Delhi where also sikhs are in force.

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Gurfateh

Badhsah ji, is it possible spiritual aspects are being confused with temporal aspects?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33251

To me, it seems sikhs sacrificed their lives for various reasons, over time, as have people from other backgrounds as well. There have been very brave people from many races.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33251

To pick out one reason, that being Sikhs unwillingness to give up religion, and then to compare that with instances in time when they have accepted orders from others instead of fighting to the last against those issuing orders is not a proper comparison. They were not abandoning their faith when they fought for the Brtish, for the Germans or for India etc etc.
If they were also converting to Christianity, then possibly you might have some reason to question the difference in attitude.
Likewise If they fought the Moghuls to the last just over aquiring land and property, and then didn't do so against the British, then that might be a fair comparision. However they did not have great aspirations to take land from Moghuls. They just wanted good , fair treatment and for all.

Sat Sri Akal

It appears that your answer is guess work..... let me explain.....

How can you say that the Sikh probably thought that it would be a good move to join the British to free all of India? We had back stabers (Hindu dogra) within our own ranks and it appears that also the Sikh were under leadership of the Sikh Empire so therefore they had to follow orders of their commander.

I have not heard of say the British handing our leafets in a propaganda move saying that "lay down your arms we will not make you convert to Christianity" - so how can the SIkhs have knwon that if they give in to the British then they will be safe? This then stems back to my question what was it about the British that caued the Sikhs to say hey lets be friends?

Even suprised also by the Islamics, I mean they had such brutal rule over non-muslim rules that even these tyrants did not scare away the British

I suppose I can answer my own question........ the British had far superior fire power, guns and cannons that led them to take over the whole of India........ Ammo = power, even today!

badshah ji

The thread title itself is put in such a way that any answer you get will be "guesswork." Don't you think it is entirely possible that as individuals and as groups, Sikhs of the 19th Century had various reasons to align or not with the British? Do you have any answers that are not grounded in "guesswork?"
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33251
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33251

History is story-telling. Good history/story telling is based on documented evidence. The better history/story telling is based on documented evidence and it tries to weave together events and time-lines, connecting them to significant people. The best history/story-telling tries to press the "facts" into representing the past as seen through the eyes of the times.

Historians, two generations apart, will see a different story in the same evidence. Two people telling the story of the same event may give a different account. In the case of Sikh history under the raj, there are no eye witnesses who can correct a misunderstanding and distortion.

As we peel back the layers in time, the puzzle of Sikh history becomes more and more difficult to piece back together again. There is more documented history and oral history for Sikhs in WW II because a) it is closer in time and records are easier to access; b) recording of oral history and material culture became more systematic; and c) eye witnesses are still alive. The puzzle is harder to assemble for WWI, and harder yet as one reaches back into the 19th Century. Solving the puzzle is complicated even more by several factors: a) much of the history of conquered peoples is told by the victors; b) first hand accounts that might be found in Punjab, in journals and records, have been lost or have not been properly archived; c) records were destroyed during the turbulent years of the early 18th Century; d) records were either destroyed, relocated or purloined during the destruction of libraries in the Harimandir complex during Operation Bluestar.

Then there is the problem of what historians call "the fog of history." Modern interpretations will always be fogged over by the culture and generation of the historians who are telling the story. Even if all the concrete documentation were found, organized and ready to analyze this very day, would we still escape "guesswork?"

Badshah Ji,
If you feel Sikhs are slaves to the British then why do you think so many people live in the UK? Why do you think Sikhi is undergoing a revival here in the UK?

The same logic is also applicable to Indian sikhs.We can also say that so many people say that sikhs are slaves in India ,then why do live in various parts of India?

Also could you please shed some light on revival of sikhi in UK ?All I read on forums about UK sikhs is that they are becoming too much westernised and very small number of people practice sikhism