The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it. Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because : (1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali. (2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army. The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind. Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed. Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills. The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle). It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
Chup be katua the abdali and zen khan were cowards who killed unarmed women children and elderly. Three months after this event Zen Khan allay of Abdali was killed brutally by Sikhs in Sirhind sending a challenging signal to Abdali
Kaka eh panth prakash da itihas h wikipedia te sab fabricated hunda h, panth prakash granth uss time likhe jande c te inna te stamp te sign v hunde ne. Internet vidvaan sanu dssega saada itihaas.
@@archosiansedits7921 naale tenu isto baad da vi pata karli, ki haal kita c abdali da bhaja dita c singha ne arab desha vaal te murh kadi aya nahi c panjab vaal. Naale baad ch maharaja ranjit singh ji de raaj vele ta kai vaar asi aap inne diya topa te kille jite c
The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it. Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because : (1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali. (2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army. The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind. Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed. Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills. The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle). It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it. Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because : (1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali. (2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army. The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind. Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed. Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills. The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle). It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
ਸਾਡੇ ਪੁਰਖੇ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ🚩🙏🏻🦅
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ🌹 ਜੀ🌹
🙏🙏🌷ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ 🌷🙏🙏
Khalsa ji , part 2 v upload karo
waheguru ji ❤️🙏🏽
Waheguru Ji 🙏
veer g ik video chahidi a menu ,o pehla tade channel te c pr hun mildi ni pyi , benti a tuhanu oo katha di video bhej dyo
Waheguru ji
Baba ji next part pado jldi😇
Oo Waheguru ji 🙏🏻
Vaheguru ✨
Waheguru ji 🙏🏻
Vir g background music di awaj video nalo thodi ght rakheya kro g 🙏🏻
Next part 🙏
Waheguru Gggggggggggggggggg
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ❤🙏🏽
❤❤
The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it.
Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because :
(1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali.
(2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army.
The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind.
Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed.
Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills.
The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle).
It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
Chup be katua the abdali and zen khan were cowards who killed unarmed women children and elderly. Three months after this event Zen Khan allay of Abdali was killed brutally by Sikhs in Sirhind sending a challenging signal to Abdali
@@GJ-yx1nb Sikhs run to lakhi jungal and hide in Cow dung from Abdali 😼😂😂
Kaka eh panth prakash da itihas h wikipedia te sab fabricated hunda h, panth prakash granth uss time likhe jande c te inna te stamp te sign v hunde ne. Internet vidvaan sanu dssega saada itihaas.
@@archosiansedits7921 naale tenu isto baad da vi pata karli, ki haal kita c abdali da bhaja dita c singha ne arab desha vaal te murh kadi aya nahi c panjab vaal. Naale baad ch maharaja ranjit singh ji de raaj vele ta kai vaar asi aap inne diya topa te kille jite c
Lol🤣🤣🤣 aadhi adhuri story bete
waheguru ji
Waheguru ji 🙏🏻🙏🏻
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ 🙏🏾❤️❤️
The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it.
Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because :
(1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali.
(2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army.
The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind.
Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed.
Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills.
The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle).
It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
Waheguru ji
The modern Sikh writers describe "Vadda Ghalughara as a genocide of Sikh nation or the mass-murder of Sikh women and children by the Afghan forces of the Durrani Empire in 1762. The so called "Vadda Ghalughara" (meaning 'great massacre' in Punjabi) of Sikhs in 1762 was actually a battle between two armies (Afghans and Sikhs). 12,000 to 30,000 Sikh combatants, not unarmed civilians, perished on that battlefield. All combatants are fair game on a battlefield, there is nothing genocidal about it.
Ahmad Shah Abdali sprung into action against armed Sikh forces in 1762 because :
(1) A Sikh army had invested Jandiala to punish Nijrani sect of Sikhs for their friendliness towards Muslims and for owing allegiance to Ahmad Shah Abdali.
(2) Sirhind city was invested by a large Sikh army.
The Sikh forces which had invested Jandiala fled away when they came to know about the rapid march of Ahmad Shah Abdali's army towards Jandiala, and they joined the other Sikh force which had invested Sirhind.
Upon hearing the news of arrival of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Zain Khan (the governor of Sirhind) came out of the city and attacked the Sikh besiegers. On the same day, Ahmad Shah Abdali surprised those Sikh besiegers of Sirhind who were engaged in fighting Zain Khan, by suddenly appearing on the scene, as he had came by rapid marches from Lahore. That large Sikh army was defeated and those Sikhs who showed their backs and tried to ran away from the battlefield to safety, were hotly pursued and killed.
Sikh insurgents in those years employed hit and run tactics, and their forces were not laden with women and children whenever they were challenging Ahmad Shah Abdali and his commanders. They left their families in the hills.
The author of Tahmas-namah was eye-witness to the battle (referred to as "Vadda Ghalughara" by Sikhs) and he does not mention the presence of Sikh women, children and other unarmed "civilians" among the Sikh force. It would have been very unusual for Sikh forces to encumber themselves with families, when they knew that their opponent were a highly mobile force of Afghans. Sikhs themselves lived on the backs of their horses and the speed at which they fled away from Jandiala and reached Sirhind, shows that they were not accompanied by families. If there really were a very large number of women and children in that battle, Afghans would have captured them as slaves rather than killing them and it would have been reported by Persian sources (just like they reported the enslaving of Maratha families by Afghans after the Panipat battle).
It seems to me that Sikhs wanted to show that they were invincible warriors so they fabricated a lie that they were encumbered by families and that's why they did not perform well in the battle.
waheguru ji