150 Years: Recounting Untold History

Re: # 15
I am agree with you and I feel the same way you do

---

but what then? We have to keep going and continue trying for real good.
Nathu Ram and Bashar Ali`s destiny still wonders in search of the meaning of freedom after 58 years. But I beleive in Half Full and that`s it I gonna go with my life. Every human can take pride for his/her beauty or shape as is the best shape amongst all creatures but again every human keep dirt with him/her in side stomach all 24 hours of the day is the other side of the story.
Thanks

``So that the remaining Indians can survive like worms?

Even Tipu Sultan had the brains to hire a Brahmin as his Dewan/Prime Minister.

When you don`t have the brains of even a crazed Muslim such as Tipu Sultan, that is proof that the OBCs are good only for digging ditches and cleaning latrines.
[Reply to interact #22]``

Well, technically I am not even an OBC. I guess you can call me Revenge of Parshuram ;)

Besides, if I have to outsource intellectual abilities, I might as well hire a Yahoodi, not an arrogant Brahmin who is also good for nothing (Tipu Sultan did lose, remember)

Ref stuka #14

[``India (however moth ridden) is back to it`s roots, a Hindu country. Of course, a long way still to go before we terminate the remnants of this anti-Hindu groups, ``

What will happen after that? As a Hindu country, we will kill by caste. I, for example, can`t wait to start slaughtering the Bamman!]

So that the remaining Indians can survive like worms?

Even Tipu Sultan had the brains to hire a Brahmin as his Dewan/Prime Minister.

When you don`t have the brains of even a crazed Muslim such as Tipu Sultan, that is proof that the OBCs are good only for digging ditches and cleaning latrines.

I for one am glad that the British won in 1857 and the mullahs got their arses blown off by British cannons. The descendants of these same Deobandis are the ones who are terrorizing the citizens of Islamabad with their lathis and kalashnikovs. They were no votaries of freedom and peace like the author makes them out to be. They were really miffed that Muslim supremacy was on the wane in India and their real fight was for establishing Shariat in India. Their fight was against Kafirs. And in case gullible Indians didn`t know already, that includes all non-Muslims. If it was British first, it would have included Hindus later. In fact they would`ve turned against even Muslims whom they didn`t consider Islamic enough, just like they are doing today. You only have to look at the antics of the Deobandis in Pakistan to get a grasp of their philosophy. It is the eternal shame of India that the Congress were allies of Deobandis in the struggle of independence rather than more moderate Muslims. These backward looking psychos are wholly and entirely responsible for the sad state of Indian Muslim affairs today.

And to hint at Sikh, Maratha and Rajasthan (read Hindu) responsibility for India`s colonization by British is laughable. Where would that leave the Nizams and myraid Muslim princes who wholeheartedly supported the British? To expect Sikhs to install a Mughal Emperor after how they treated Sikhs when in power is indeed foolish. The author would do well to come out of his Taliban/Deobandi cloak and look at history more objectively.

Even then, I am glad that India was won by the British. If not India would`ve been under the yoke of Muslims and would be in the same morass as the rest of the Islamic world today with no hope of democracy ever. India only has to look in its neighborhood for evidence.

1857 was NOT a war of Independence. It was a war of self-interested, disgruntled - THAT is WHY it failed.

Rag Tag militia were able to beat ``mighty`` British in America......Why couldn`t the ``brave`` millions of Bharat?

Because they are cannibalistic hinjras......who can howl and growl only.......and excel at betraying their own.

What War of Independence?

Hinjras (including, muslim and sikh desis)...... they have no qualms about selling their Bharat Mata as a two bit whore.....they gingerly deceive their own to foreigners......

and all of them go up in arms over pork and beef greased cartridge!!!!! Which is bigger sin????

These cannibals` destiny is to be fodder for invaders.....

Get your priorities right!!!!

Mr. Qasmi,

I cant ignore the goodwill behind this article. This article is reasonably well written.

Can we really invoke the Sepoy Mutiny in contemporary India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? It`s like 5 generations. Moreover the ex-Indians give a damn abt 1857.

In the course of 150 years we acquired new problems and challenges. The 150th annual can go off as a festival, we shud think abt the probelms of contemporary India. We cant keep invoking British 4 our ills all the time.

1. Impostion of English was blamed as a means of converting all Indians as Christians, which is mostly false. English came out to be our boon now.

2. Railway as a means of exploiting India. True then but not now.

3. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is a major legue cock-sucker to British. I dont think u`d agree to this view. Never mind. Btw, this gentleman opposed a party that was formed to fulfil his recommendations(sic). He preferred the continuation of the British in India.

India got freedom and Muslims majority provinces got extra freedom to `live according to their wishes.` Unfortunatley they lost their freedoms now. Got the drift? I guess u did.

Btw, I must admit that I am yet to read William Dalrymple`s book on Mutiny.

Re: # 16, SR,

And what a paradox! The victor always helps unite the fragmented empire again to glory. After winning a fractured India Mughals ultimately went on to make it a great power as the English did after two centuries later. Similar is the case of glorious Muslim conquest of Spain.

In my opinion, it is a matter of perception as to what you think of a particular regime. Hindoos of Mughal period never thought that they are subdued and ruled by some outside power, as the Hindoo zealots now try to make us believe. Though there is a difference between British and Mughal conquests in the fact that while the former ruled from across the continent, later made India their home. Still, if we could view the global picture of that time with a broad vision even British conquest too may look positive.

Samar

Re: # 12 ranjit [``...India`s disunity is legendary. A handful of british played one king against the other to take over the entire subcontinent. ...``]

Your examples are all valid, but it`s unfair to single out Indian disunity as if this was unique to the subcontinent. Almost all expanding empires exploit local rivalries to gain ground. Wherever there is internal rot, the invading power will gain, otherwise expansion is usually not possible.

The Romans were experts at exploiting local jealousies and fueds to their advantage. The British learnt from them. Roman annexation of Britain was achieved thus. Only four legions took over the whole island. Similarly the initial expansion of Arabs benefited from the long war of attrition that had exhausted both the Persian and Eastern Roman empires. The Muslim conquest of Spain is almost a mirror image of the British annexation of India. The early European crusaders re-took the Holy Lands because they could play off one petty local Arab ruler against his neighbor. Even the great Mongol onslaught of the 12th and 13th centuries was accomplished by a combination of military ingenuity and exploitation of local animosities. So why are you being so hard on India? Disunity is not an Indian trait. It`s a human trait.

...SR

Author: [``...May 1857 was a month for rebellion against tyrants and May 2007, after 150 years, should bring real smiles to all the brave souls who gifted us the `FREEDOM`...``]

A noble thought indeed... but those ``brave souls`` you refer to must be turning in their graves. The proverbial common man be he of Pakistani quom or Bharati janata is still awaiting his liberation from tyranny, in vein.

Admittedly the Anglo-Indian Civil War of 1857 (erroneously called ``mutiny`` or ``independence war``) was an unmitigated fiasco from the native perspective no matter how you look at it. But so was the so-called Independence of 1947... Only the elites, both Muslim and Hindu, have gained anything in either country. The crushing poverty, exploitation and injustice that the little man endures is no different today than it was pre-1947.

All that has been achieved is grotesque national monuments, icons and patriotic slogans... slogans... and more slogans for the demogauges. Poor Nathu Ram and his neighbor Allah Ditta are still without basic human dignity and fundamental rights and they are still standing in line, sweating or trembling, waiting for the sahib jee to have mercy and give them some crumbs off his table.

If this is the freedom you want to celebrate, then first go and ask Nathu Ram and Allah Ditta what`s all the fuss about, ``why they don`t eat cake?``

...SR

``India (however moth ridden) is back to it`s roots, a Hindu country. Of course, a long way still to go before we terminate the remnants of this anti-Hindu groups, ``

What will happen after that? As a Hindu country, we will kill by caste. I, for example, can`t wait to start slaughtering the Bamman!

We should thank British for destryoing the 1857 rebellion.. Not only did it force us towards a relatively bloodless independance movement but also freed us from the tyranny of fundamentalist Islamic rule...

India (however moth ridden) is back to it`s roots, a Hindu country. Of course, a long way still to go before we terminate the remnants of this anti-Hindu groups,

Rgds,

Qasmi sahib,

It is important to understand the root causes behind why India was always conquered so easily - first by the muslims and later on by the british. We have two fundamental weaknesses as a people. The first is our disunity due to caste, language, ethnicity, religion, personal petty rivalry etc. The second is our resistance to modernize and be competitive in this world.

India`s disunity is legendary. A handful of british played one king against the other to take over the entire subcontinent. When Siraj-ud-duala was fighting with the brits, they bribed his minister Mir Jafar to betray him. As a result Bengal fell to the brits. The same thing happened with Tipu Sultan and with every other ruler who fought against the brits. Centuries back, it was Raja Jaychand who collaborated with Shahabuddin Ghauri to defeat Prithviraj Chauhan, just because he had a personal grievance. Rana Sanga of Mewar was betrayed by his general when Babar was attacking him. So this sort of behavior is in our genes. If you read Babarnama, he mentions how he noticed that the Indian side always had multiple fires burning in their military camp. When he asked about it, he was told that the different Rajput sub-castes cooked their food separately. At that Babar replied that the war was won, because if people cant cook and eat food together, why would they fight for each other?

India`s tendency to be inward looking is equally legendary. Hindus were wallowing in caste system, sati and all other kinds of idiotic stuff, while muslims were pursuing knowledge and military prowess. Hindus had even banned people from leaving their shores or risk losing their caste. When muslims attacked India, they had latest weaponry like gunpowder and cannons, while our rajput soormas were fighting with swords and sticks. Muslims had fast moving cavalry while our fat rajas would go to battle on elephants. No wonder the hindus got their ass kicked. Same thing happened when the british would fight against indian kings. Most indian armies had little discipline or training or modern weaponry. They did not keep pace with how things were changing in the world. While we were building Taj Mahals, the west was having a renaissance. Again and again we would see how a few british troops could subjugate vast numbers of native armies.

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.

Mr Qasmi

Reading your article was like taking a trip back in memory lane, we had read about these people in our history books but their memory had become foggy with passage of time. Thanks for rejuvenating their memory.

What perplexes me is the articles contradictions. It starts by talking about Ulema, freedom fighters associated with the Sufi tradition then abruptly shits to the Deoband school:

{After the defeat of 1857, some of the prominent Muslim leaders of the freedom movement found it very hard to save India from the cultural onslaught of the British. To counter the nefarious British plan to enslave India culturally, they planned to establish a revolutionary institution that would impart knowledge as well as enthuse fervour among students to fight against oppressive forces.}

It seems to be a publicity brochure for Deoband school of thought more than anything else.

``The question is: were they just obscurantist or were they the revolutionaries from a moribund society which was culturally and politically stagnant for more than three hundred years? ``


That is not relevant. Even if they were latter, (benefit of doubt) then too we can be glad that they failed as who the hell wants to be ruled by a bunch of pathetic losers who are products of moribund societies. My comment was not slavish...if I was advocating British Raj today, I would be. But the spirit of a modern Indian nationalism was only inculcated after WW1 in India, and I am glad we got our independence then. It does not matter why Zafar the Mughal was a loser; it matters that he was one.

`The Sikh warrior Ranjit Singh, an ally of the British imperialism`

What makes you conclude that Maharaja was ally of the British? British did not attack Punjab during his life time as they new Punjab was militarily better equipped at that time and they were more than happy to have a pact with the Maharaja to restrict his empire to the west of Satluj. They attacked Punjab 10 years after his death when there was total chaos and they were able to make many allies including Maharaja`s widow Jind Kaur.