150 Years: Recounting Untold History

Nanga Pir,

Kya fatte mar raha hai, Sepoy comes from Sipahi I think, not spy.

People, like this universe, evolve. British deprived the native to evolve in a natural way. Their armies, the mother of present Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi armies, were basically goons recruited as Chowkidars for British India Company to guard their trading posts. They consisted on Sepoy. The name Sepoy was derived from British word SPY. But got mutated as in Pushtoo Spie means dogs. So the present armies are DOG SPY for their masters. Rest the war against British was never to kick them out. The wars were to save the existing status quo. But Britih had no right to control people that far except those slavish minds who still think that the British occupation was a blessing. A well fed dog with leash in his neck is not a free dog worse than a starving free wolf. The same is true today. The imperialists have no right to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter what promises they hold.

Nanga Pir

pre-british indian people were dirt-poor. the rajas were rich. the people were constantly assaulted by robber-barons for taxes and booty. its bogus to claim that its populance had high standard of living. most accounts of mughal to pre-british india shows a society in flux, harrassed by various raiders, with centers of production owned as karkhanas of the kings, producing goods for the kings. the marching armies had huge wake of camp-followers living like scavangers and always moving. its had NO world-class universities or any universities attempting to study science, math medicine etc. its big cities like dilli were essentially large military encampments..more tents than homes.

It is indeed strange that chowk publishes this article, which is a hotch-potch of claims, but has till now refused to publish masadi`s article on the Vir. killings. Do not get me wrong, there are a lot who will disagree with masadi. But his writings are clear and to the point. Moreover, masadi is usually there to debate with interactors.

Mr. Qasmi`s main point is that the maulvi`s role in 1857 has not been highlighted. Fair enough. But this point could have been well made in UP. For, he fails to cogently discuss his points in the article. Sprinkling names here and there and adding cliches in between, does not an article make.

The above criticism also holds for many other articles published in chowk. Some interactors have repeatedly pointed this out. I am simply joining this set of interactors.

Re: # 42
bulleya
i believe most these are from gujar khan area.


Profile: Omar Khyam
Five men have been convicted of plotting to cause explosions in Britain. One of the ringleaders was Omar Khyam, described by the trial judge as ``ruthless and devious``. But what sort of man was he?
· Born on 7 December 1981
· Student at the University of North London
· Attended al-Muhajiroun events
· Influenced by radical clerics
· Travelled to Pakistan in 2003
· Planned attacks on the UK
Profile: Jawad Akbar
Five men have been convicted of conspiring to cause explosions in Britain. One of the men was Jawad Akbar, described by the trial judge as having ``intelligence and disturbing deviousness``.
· Born Pakistan, 20 June 1983
· Moved to Italy as a child, father worked in the wine industry
· Moved to Crawley, West Sussex, aged eight
· Student at Brunel University, Uxbridge, north-west London, studying mathematics, technology and design.
· While at university he worked part-time at Gatwick Airport and had clearance for working airside
· Met a Sikh woman who converted to Islam so they could marry
· Step-cousin, Nabeel Hussain, a co-defendant who was found not guilty
Profile: Waheed Mahmood
Five men have been convicted at the Old Bailey accused of involvement in a planned bombing campaign in Britain. One of them was Waheed Mahmood, who the trial judge said ``exerted authority over others``.
· Born 22 March 1972
· Lived in Crawley, West Sussex
· Aliases included Abdul Waheed, Esmail, Javed or Jav
· Between 1989 and 1995 he worked for British Gas, servicing and repairing boilers in customers` homes
· Trained as an apprentice in the gas industry but later worked in a tile shop, where he gave a job to Omar Khyam
· Around the time of the conspiracy he worked for a contractor undertaking work for National Grid Transco

Bulleya
We shall never know what may or may not have happened to India without british colonisation. One thing is for sure other European powers,france, Portugal, russia would have taken advantage and divided India amongst themselves. My personal view is Russia would have swept down from north and would have taken Afghanistan and northern parts of India to get to sea.

aslam644 #: One cannot compare pre-colonisation India with most of the countries you have mentioned........Certainly not with Afghanistan.......The easiest comparison is to figure out where India was, in comparison to the rest of the world in human development, when the British invaded, and where it was when they left...........Do check up on the following figures: comparison of Indian GDP to British when they invaded.........Comparison to when they left.......Famines after they invaded.........Famines after they left........etc.

Surely, South Asia must not have ranked at an average of 140 on the HDI in comparison to the rest of the world, as it does now (in 1947, it must have been even lower).........

One can give a pretty solid argument that your points are valid for the geographical areas which now constitute Pakistan........But are they valid for the ares that constitute present-day India?

Nearly all of Pakistan would have been Afghanistan had the British not, ``built the roads etc.``.......In fact there would be no Pakistan........We can thank the creation of our country to Jinnah........However, prior to Jinnah, we must thank very young British military officers and administrators, with names like Abbot and Nicholson and Edwards (of Abbotabad, Nicholson monument etc. fame) who took away most of this land from Afghanistan and then, ``civilized`` it.........

Had it not been for them, we would all be Afghanis!........Do remember that Afghanistan extended till the Attock River...........And west of Lahore, everything would have been barren till Kabul had the British not built the cantonments (Rawalpindi to Quetta etc), the cities (from Abbotabad to Karachi), roads, etc..........One can include the world`s largest canal system of Punjab in this, also........Additionally, much of Potohar and surrounding areas (to which you and I both claim heritage) would have remained poor and uneducated had the families of those areas, not had the opportunity to join the British military, in huge numbers (to later become canon fodder in WW I)........

The British, along with the creation of Pakistan, is what has raised the living standard of the average person in what is today geographically Pakistan.........Had these two events not occured, civilization in South Asia, would have started from Lahore and extended eastwards only.........All of us in Pakistan would be peasants working for the landowing families of Bina Shah and (the other feudal lady who used to interact on this site - I forget her name).......

The story of Lahore and eastwards is different.........That area was never the boondocks........It has always been a bustling civilization.........More on this later......However, if you get the time, do study the ideas of Tipu Sultan, the army of Ranjit Singh and the number of Europeans working for Jehangir/Shah Jehan etc.........Rest assured these weren`t backwards societies.........Had they been allowed to organically evolve, who knows where they would be.......

P.S. not to mention the fact that when the British left, they left the area in a perpetual state of conflict..........this alone is enough to paint the whole Briitish rule in a negative light, if you ask me........

Zeenaji,

(Tipu Sultan,Sahah Waliullah,Sir Syyed Ahmed Khan,Syed Ahmed shaheed.... I wish to include Quaid_E-Azam( Mohd Ali Jinnah`s name) on the top of this list.............who was indeed our hero and saint.....)

Why have you clubbed poor MAJ (pbuh) with Waliullah and SA Shaheed. What has the poor fellow done to you. Wait till Manto mian sees you club MAJ (pbuh) with Waliullah.

Regards

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!!....