150 Years: Recounting Untold History

The 1857 revolt was led by backward looking obscurantists. The British did us a favor by crushing it. I would much rather that India achieve independence as it did through a mass movement rather then led by elitists nobles and feudals.

Fat Mullahs and even fatter Fatwas.

Wah Wah Qasmi sahib. Amaan learn something from our predicament from Islamo-fascism before launching this far flung Musalmaan heroes from the Past.

It is so sad that you mixed a forward thinker Sir Syed with bunch of moronic Mullahs. The Mullahs of Hind (Indian subcontinent) have consistently played the most dubious, and divisive role throughout the history. Sure they got some leverage when it comes to spreading anarchy. Thanks to the modern politics, they were almost dead.

It was Gandhi`s mistake to resurrect politically dead Mullahs and thus bringing bearded havoc to the ordinary masses of Indian subcontinent. Poor Gandhi was so simple or ignorant that he won`t listen to protestation of Lala Lajpat Rai, or Jinnah, or Ch. Zafar Hussain. These eminent politicians warned Gandhi not to invite these Mullahs into Political disco party.

But Gandhi didn`t listen. The result was the terrible destruction of the political discotheque and these mean Mullahs even stole the big shiny ball of poor Gandhi.

Azad and other Congressi Mullahs were all on the take from the ``big bad`` Hindu businessmen. And so were the Johar brothers.

However the UP Muslims have a tendency to ignore all that Mullahtic fanaticism and start singing qawwali of one Mullah or the other.

Heck you don`t have to go back 150 years. Just see what this Mullah Lal Din of Lal Masjid is doing right now burning videos and launching attacks using those stick wielding Ninja turtles.

Or let`s see what the Mullahs did to the poor minorities of Pakistan. Mullah Mawdoodi`s attack on Pakistani-Ahmadis, and later attacks on Pakistani-Shias (from Karachi to Parachinar), and death to so many Pakistani-Christians are clearly proof that Mullahs just know one thing. Anarchy, looting, and burning.

So Qasmi sahib, you are fully entitled to live in Mullah`s paradise (read fools Jannat). However do not expect the rest of us to follow you. As you may be a staunch Mullah but you ain`t no Pide Piper.

Thank God India was partitioned in 1947. Otherwise what we are witnessing in Pak would have scared us in the eyes today.

Samar

Dear writers
Thank you for giving us an excellent read. This article is so far the best article on Front page.

Tipu Sultan,Sahah Waliullah,Sir Syyed Ahmed Khan,Syed Ahmed shaheed....

All these men are great Muslim heroes with strong characters,charismatic personalities with unique blend of bravery and intelligence who were/are/will always be inspiration for the rest of the world and for Pakistani Muslims exclusively.

All of them defeated their enemies singlehandedly....

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.....

well i did a scan of the article but one thing i did read was about sikh princes `betraying` the efforts of the sepoy mutiny...i would like to add Sikhs never looked upon those sepoys with great regard becuase the british used those same sepoys to help outnumber and fight the Sikhs in the two sikh-anglo wars..so the sikhs really didnt care for their rebellion and never really were interested in helping those same sepoys....

i dont know if thats a great excuse or not, im very much against the divide and rule policy, and if anyone could stand up to the british it was India united, but its really a shame, and its a bigger shame that british manufactured religious hatred to the level of partition... maybe one day all will see beyond this and unite once again..imagine a united punjab and bengal once more

What a Visionary Article!

This article have opened my eyes and I have learned so much more about these brave souls................I am glad that this article was published here on chowk, where all I see is hatred against Pakistani Muslims............

I was kind of surprised at the glorification of Shah Waliullah as a freedom fighter and references to Arun Shouri etc. Then I looked at the author’s bio and he is an Indian Muslim.

So I don’t blame him for claiming that Shah WaliUllah was not only a freedom fighter but also was the first to claim ``labour is the real source of wealth”. If he did, then he was completely wrong. Labor is not the source of wealth. Marx’s pov was that the wealth is created by exploiting the labor which is just one cog of production. The source of wealth is controlling the means of production and labor is just one element in the creation of wealth. Labor is not the source. Marx’s idea was to enable the labor to control the means of production and remove wealth from the tiny capitalist class.

There are many historical inaccuracies in the article. What do you expect from a graduate of Deoband?

Anyway, the Sepoy mutiny or the war of independence whatever the name is more romanticism than the real thing. So far, whatever analysis I have read of the 1857 war, Karl Marx analysis still stands out.

Before I read the article I read these comments from Stuka. His comments actually made me read the article.

#1 by stuka
“The 1857 revolt was led by backward looking obscurantist. The British did us a favor by crushing it. I would much rather that India achieve independence as it did through a mass movement rather then led by elitists nobles and feudals.”

What a bogus comment and shows the slavish attitude which unfortunately is a common disease amongst the Indian posters on this site. If we go by Mr. Stuka’s reasoning, the whole world should still be a slave of the western masters. White Masters are still progressive and obscurantists still rule the third world countries.

In 1630, when the lovesick Shah Jehan was building a monument for his wife and the mother of his fourteen children, in England they were talking about the civil liberties, prisoner’s rights and were trying to establish a judicial system which could accommodate the common man. They needed the common man to help them usher in an age of Economic and Industrial revolution. Until the common man in the European countries joined forces with the European upper-class, the colonial expansion did not start.

When the common man in India or many other countries joined the struggle to regain their countries, he looked for whatever leadership was available. The problem with the common men wherever and whatever they are, Gora or Kala, is the same. They cannot lead. They have to look at the middleclass or the upper-class to provide them the leadership. Even the greatest common man revolution in Russia was led by some from the middleclass.

The leadership available to the common men in 1857 in India was the usual middleclass or the upper class of the Indian society. And who were those upper and middleclass? They were the Raja, Maharaja or the Nawabs. Some sought guidance from religion. Typically for Muslims of India, religion was the biggest uniting force- unfortunately it still is. The religious leaders were the Muslim middleclass of the Indian mutiny.

Mr. Stuka calls them obscurantist. 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?

Re: # 7 Mr. HP! You are free to enjoy your freedom of expression. You are requested to point out the historical inaccuracies as you stated in your response. Of course it would highly appreciable to see some references in support.

I enjoy reading all those kitta-mitta and remember I am not a good writer I just try to convey what I feel from inside. It is encouraging to see that some LEARNED people like you find it fit to comment.

Have a nice day
Wassalam
MB Qasmi

`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.

``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.

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.

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.

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,

``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!

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

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