150 Years: Recounting Untold History

If one chose to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do them a disservice. Force, said he was the much better course -- Islam should be forced down their throat like bitter medicine to a child.. This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the community reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam.


Fair enough.. :-)

I sincerely thank the Brits and Sikhs along with the Madras / Bombay regiments for defeating the mutineers.. Ambedkar`s grandfather fought in the ``Mahar`` regiment for the Brits. They are the real heroes.

Indians should thank Allah that the ``jihadi`` mutiny was crushed.. :-)

SHAH WALIULLAH is a great hero? Excuse me while I throw up. He is a hero indeed, to the islamic fundos AND the hindu fanatics. His hatred for indigenous indian cultures (hindu, sikh, etc.) in time would be reflected in the mirror image hatred of the RSS for ``foreign`` muslims. So the man is basically a source of deep hatreds in south asia.

Here are some sayings of this grotesque monster -

[quote]
The modern interpretation of jihad or Islamic holy war overemphasized its defensive character. To the `ulama, jihad was the fard kifaya (collective duty) and it remained a duty as long as Islam was not the universally dominant religion in any area.``

If it was done forcefully it was quite acceptable but if someone mixed it with kindness it was even better. However, there were people, said the Shah who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Muhammad. If one chose to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do them a disservice. Force, said he was the much better course -- Islam should be forced down their throat like bitter medicine to a child.. This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the community reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. The Shah pleaded that the universal domination of Islam was not possible without jihad.....``

[ quote]

I am only sorry that he was not personally bayonneted up the anus by a british soldiers.

``Thailand was never colonized too. It is not doing that bad afterall. ``

Yes, because they reinvented themselves as Thigh Land and named their capital city Bang Cock.

Re: # 36
the reason why thailand is doing well is because the whole nation has become a brothel,it is estimated 2 million thai girls and women are on the game some as young as 10 and 12 that must pull in billions in tourist dollar.

Thailand was never colonized too. It is not doing that bad afterall.

Bulleya
Let us compare the position of countries that avoided colonisation, with India. Afghanistan,iran,turkey weren’t colonised, Afghanistan is the most backward country in asia, iran didn’t enter the modern era until 20th century, granted it’s ahead of Pakistan now thanks largely to oil. Turkey is an interesting case here was a country with vast empire, shoulder to shoulder in Europe yet it failed to learn from their industrial revolution, after it’s ww1 defeat it was dragged kicking and screaming to modernity largely thanks to one man attaturk.

Dear Mr. Qasmi,

You make a valid point. Several factions participated in the 1857 war. It would be nice to know of all these factions, their leaders, the goals and their sphere of influence. Popular history is a sham and is a great producer of myth.

The negation of such myths by wild conjectures, as done by some interactors here, also do not suffice for a proper understanding of our evolution as nation states. For example, the Company pusued equally ruthless measures on the peasants to maintain their various monopolies. Existing monopolies, and the superstructure which sustained them, were forced out by the Company. This may have turned beneficial in the long run in some cases (an interesting study here is the cultivation of opium in the Chattisgarh region and the growth of the satnami panths, who were untouchables, in opposition to the local maratha-muslim hegemony). But in other cases they were equally harmful (for example the destruction of the local kayast-muslim dominated textile industry in Murshidabad).

In essence, the period was one of change. The changes were sealed to a large extent by the war. There were heroes and villains, but their names are less important than the changed institutions that the war brought forth.

Finally, you talk about Hindu-Muslim unity. What do people, and you, mean by this unity? Is it a platform that is to be used to fight the `other`? When, and in what form, did it exist in the past that it does not exist today? More importantly, why should such `unity` be there in the first place?

NazarHayatKhan #: “In hindsight, it appears that 1857 only worsened the life for the people. East India Company was replaced by the `Crown`. The British stopped trusting Indians, moved outside the cities in secluded cantonements & began to treat the Indians as inferior.”

I am not sure it is as straight forward as this…..

The British rule of India, seems to be quite misunderstood and, to a great degree, remains un-analysed. Considering that it only occurred a century or two ago, and that there is loads of documentation available on it, it should be much better understood. Unfortunately, being a historian is not a very popular profession in South Asia.

I would encourage you to read J. Dalrymple’s research on British rule as well as the letters written by British soldiers/administrators during their rule. They paint a fascinating picture, quite different from what many of us have been taught.

1. The East India Company was quite ruthless. When it invaded Bengal, Bengal was one of the wealthiest areas in the world. By the time it finished with Bengal, Bengal was one of the poorest areas in the world, and remains so today. It wiped out entire generations of Bengalis through famines – a phenomenon, which seems specific to British rule in South Asia.

The profits gained by the East India Company were so high, at the expense of the poor Bengali, that its administrators lived a lifestyle many kings would have envied.

2. The deciding point of the British separating from the locals is, actually, not 1857. It was done well before that. It was done due to a war, but not one that was fought in India. You may be surprised to know that it was done due to the American Revolutionary War.

You are correct in stating that there was a time when the British dressed locally, married locally, and lived the local lifestyle. In fact, one could well argue that they were on their way to merging with the local population(s), much like the Mughals did in India and the British did in USA.

I need to do a bit more research on the following, but I think it is quite accurate....

In the late 18th century, Charles Cornwallis, was appointed Gov General (had a different title at that time) of India. That is when Kipling’s East is East and West is West…….Never the twain shall meet was initiated (Ironically even a knowledgeable man like Kipling did not know that in Lahore itself, where he sat, East and West were well on their way to merging, prior to 1780s!!)……

Cornwallis passed a law, which separated out children of joint British-local marriage into a different category. Those who were a product of joint marriages could not become officers in the British Army, along with various other British educational benefits that were denied to them. This created a new class of Anglo-Indians (?) who were not considered pure English.

This is where the division of locals and English started. That is where the separation you are referring, started, also. Well before 1857. Obviously the English were discouraged to marry locally, through this. Thereby creating a division of rulers and ruled.

Why did Cornwallis do this? A good analysis would be, prior to being appointment head of India, he was commanding the British forces in Yorktown, (future USA). There he was defeated in the battle of Yorktown in 1781, which basically ended the war in favor of the Americans. One can assume that he had seen a new population emerge in USA, through the marriage of Englishmen and women with locals (immigrants from other countries). This population considered itself different from pure English.

He did not want the English population in India to emerge into a new, “different” group. From that point onwards, East and West went their own different ways. It is this post-1780’s India that is shown in all the movies. Not the pre-1780’s India.

Ironically, the USA independence had a lot to do with events in India! The Tea Act, in 1773, was introduced in USA, by the English govt., because the East India Company was facing bankruptcy in India and needed funds. This act led to the Boston Tea Party and eventually to the US War of Independence.

This war would have been known as a Mutiny also, had the Americans lost.

I am not sure how much good the British did to India. When they entered South Asia, South Asians enjoyed amongst the better living standard of countries of the time. By the time the British left, the average South Asian was poorer than dirt. And remains so till today!!

Then again, the British did build roads and canals. But so did Sher Shah Suri!!....

Re: # 30, nazar Saheb,

So, let us call them back!

Don`t worry, that is what we are doing right now in a round about way. In case of Pak it appears that it has chosen crafty Chinese this time. And India has found a better and more ruthless version of the British.

Samar

Re: # 28
kaal thanks for the link.

Greetings

In hindsight, it appears that 1857 only worsened the life for the people. East India Company was replaced by the `Crown`. The British stopped trusting Indians, moved outside the cities in secluded cantonements & began to treat the Indians as inferior.

Whereas, East Indian Company, as a business entity, was far more accommodative with its major focus on its business interestrs. Its employees wore kurta-pajamas, learnt local languages, integrated into local society and even went to mujras; and generally admired the richness of local culture & heritage. Meanwhile, the Company itself was modernizing the local systems and unlike the Mughal Kings, whose main pre-occupation was hunting, fighting, marrying, building forts & palaces, the Company was contributing to the local life in a more meaningful way for a common man.

So the Company`s rule would have been better.

Even when the Crown came, only in its 90 years of rule in areas that are in now in Pakistan, it did a far greater work for a common man than the centuries of Mughal/others rule. To list a few - railways, post offices, hospitals, canals, colleges etc.

As for 1857, it erupted for a variety of petty reasons - cow & pig fat in Enfield Rifles, prophecy that British rule would only last for about 100 years, rumours that the British will convert locals to Christianity, prostitutes taunting some Bangali sepoys etc.

The Mulla`s only contribution could be to get in front of a crowd - and call for Jihad. Something it is always ready to do even against other Muslims.

In hindsight, it appears that if the British had stayed for a longer period - we would have had better facilities and probably would have been better educated and more civilized.

nhk

Thanks for a well-written article Qasmi sahib. Although a few of us maintain some differences with sufism, the role of such unforgettable leaders as Shah Waliullah can never be minimized.

What a tragedy that most Indians are not familiar with lifelong efforts of such great names.

aslam644

Your words brought to mind a vision of the Pakistani philosopher, Dandamis, who, single-handedly, had put the Great Alexander squarely in his place.

If by chance you (or anyone else) can`t recall the name, do`nt forget to check this out:

http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap41.html

Scroll down to somewhere the middle of the page, to the para beginning with

``Intensely interesting stories have been minutely recorded by Greek historians and others who accompanied......``

If you like ideas, do read it. Believe me, you will have a ball. :)

with the benefit of hindsight one can argue that most revolutions and independence wars have been in vain. what did the french revolution achieve that the swedes didn`t by keeping their monarchy, sweden is far more egalitarian society. what did american war of independence achieve that canadians and australians didn`t through peaceful means. bulleya would even argue that canada is a far better country than US.

ranjit #12 {``In the modern context, these issues still plague us. Look at the way India, Pakistan and Bangladesh try to pull each other down. We cant even have half way decent trade, commerce or movement of people. We try to sabotage each other whenever we can. We try to align world opinion against each other. Is it any different from the past? On the modernization front, modern India, especially hindus have done much better especially in the global economy. However, the muslim community is still not competitive either in India or in Pak/Bangladesh. There is reluctance against modern education and a tendency to wallow in past glory and sending kids to madrassahs. As a result muslims are not competitive and lag behind others. ``}

Ranjit,
Very good comments and painfully accurate. :(

Qasmi Sahib,
Congratulations on a very well-written and informative article concerning this doomed but heroic struggle against British imperialism. The suffering and deaths across northern India during 1857-1858, the destruction and genocide in Delhi and Lucknow, and the betrayal of Indian independence by some selfish rulers were all precursors of the real calamity that cam 90 years later. Too bad, despite all our sacrifices, our people learned nothing from this adversity, the 1947 partition, or the 1971 bloody civil war. Maybe Indians have learned something, but certainly Pakistanis are still clueless. :(