Yes, Sikh army post Ranjit Singh was mostly of Sikhs. however, there were considerable numbers of Dogras in Sikh Army. The only blunder made by Ranjit Singh was, he allowed English to sit on Sikhs' rear that's NWFP in today's Pakistan which proved to be pain in as* for later Sikh rulers. Sikh empire flourished due the bravery and sagacity of Nalwa. Once Nalwa is dead then Sikhs would not have general of his caliber. Ranjit Singh could use his army to suppress Afghanistan but he did not want to venture it, this enabled English to sit at the rear of Sikh Empire. Now English are on south, West and East of Sikh empire or simply they were encircled by English from three sides. Ranjit Singh united all Sikhs as well as Hindu and Muslims kings to his side which was one of the main reason for his success. Once Ranjit Singh died the Muslim states rebelled and the first to set itself free was Peshawar which fell to Afghans because of English diplomacy.No Sikhs do not claim that they have done every thing, however they are and I am proud of their heritage.
Sikh army post Maharaja Ranjit Singh was mainly Sikh, reason being that there was a semi civil war in Punjab and many Sikhs remained as most of them wanted the Sikh empire to survive, and also many were not paid and hence they deserted.I am currently reading a book called "Anglo Sikh Wars: Winston Churchill's Account". Throughout the book there is no mention of any one other than Sikhs, and its their bravery described by the opposing army.
Sikhs were betrayed by Purbias, and they were rewarded handsomely by the British.
The mutiny was localised. I am surprised that you admit how opportunist and coward Marathas were that they waited to see if mutiny comes off.The brave Marathas waited because they did not want to lose privelidges given to them by the British. As I mentioned elsewhere that after the defeat Marathas went to sleap and slept until 1947, and made very little contribution to anti British Raj movements. That was left to Punjabis and they were mainly Sikhs.
The Sikhs dominated the politics of Punjab from the day they gained power in that part of India, even though they were in a minority. You are not very intelligent regarding the situation of Punjab and of Sikhs. Punjab was destroyed by the political forces lead by Gandhi Nehru gang in 1947( The Sikhs opposed the partition of India) and by I Gandhi gang after. Before you make that kind of a stupid statement in the future think who had the power in 1947 and who decided and divided the country.
Well, Maratha sardars at the time of Mutiny did not join the rebel Maratha states because there was no trust and moreover, they had seen the British might on battlefield.
Marathas went to sleep but not Marathis. The last Maratha state to fall was Baroda ruler Gaikwad which fell in late 19th C.E
Punjab was not center of revolution but it was again Maharashtra, Oudh and Bengal. Brahmins from these states rose against British. VASUDEV BALWANT PHADKE was the most successful of all the revolutionaries.
I personally do not like Gandhi and Nehru. I like Gandhi as a saint but not as a leader of country. Today's Punjab not only consists of Sikhs but Hindu too so, how could Sikhs ask for a separate country unless it has huge Hindu population?
The reason for Sikhs not having any land from their Sikh empire is, they did not dislodge the Muslims out of their empire. Well , it was not even possible. My point is, the Muslim dominated states were added to Pakistan. Sikhs did not form a firm rule in today's Pakistan, they should have installed their powerful leaders on the seat of Multan and Sindh so when British would come then they would install the Sikh not any Muslim ruler.