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

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

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

``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)

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

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. :(

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. :(

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.

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. :)

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.

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

Re: # 28
kaal thanks for the link.

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

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!!....

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?

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.

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

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. ``

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

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.

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.. :-)

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

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........

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Nanga Pir,

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

This article is written from muslim perspective only. It seems like the author has made the choice to glorify Islam and Muslims before going into the actual events and analyzing them. Rhetoric like this can only sound good to muslim (not my kind though) ears.

The author is missing the real purpose here.

rejoinder indian Exoress censored
Salaam, Shourie
By M. Zeyaul Haque

Welcome back to the Express columns, sir. You have a great way with truth, which ``concerns us all``

It is bracing to see Arun Shourie back in the Express columns: he makes our insipid morning cup of tea taste like black, thick coffee. Shourieji always comes on strong—his penchant for using broad strokes (even where finer lines would do), the grand sweep of anti-M4 (Marxist-Mussalman-Mahar-Missionary) ideas, and the bold swipes he takes at the usual suspects (the M4) make our mornings worth looking forward to.

Shourieji has a way with words, and also a way with truth, which to repeat the familiar Express slogan, ``concerns us all.`` I swear, it does. That’s what makes the Express what it is, The Indian Express. Shourieji is so truth-friendly that he can forge full truth out of half-truths and quarter lies. Yes, after Jesus Christ he is the only man who can bring back the dead to life—he could do that to even an entire group of young men butchered by the PAC.

I remember (quite a few years ago) how happy I was to see the banner headline in the Express announcing ``The Dead of Maliana Return``. I fluttered my still sleep-heavy eye lashes, forced my eyes wide open, exerting great will power, to read the happy news. How good! Though unbelievable, it must be true, because ``truth concerns us all``. Coming from Shourieji’s Express it must be nothing but true. It was a great day for all the sisters, mothers and widows of those young martyred Mussalmans to rejoice, because their sons and brothers had ``returned home.`` On the front page of the Express.

Later, we learned to our chagrin that the story of the return of the prodigies was not based on truth. It was not even based on fact, the country cousin of truth. It was a `` factoid``, to use a Menckenism. (To the uninitiated, a factoid is a fact which is not.) Not that what the Express had written was untrue, though the Maliana dead remained firmly tucked away in their graves, decomposed and largely turned into dust, mingled with the surrounding earth.

That brings me to the art and craft of good editing—a good editor can turn lousy text into highly readable stuff, a great one can even order facts to tell a brazen-faced lie, a genius (like Shourieji) can make truth stand on its head and make every one look at the world upside down—their feet pointed towards the stars, head planted steadily on the ground. An extraordinary perspective, must admit.

NO ARGUING WITH AN ECONOMIST
There are a lot of things that Shourieji says cannot be disputed: like terrorism is a menace, and must be combated with all the might the world has at its disposal. Like ``Islamic terrorism`` is indefensible. In fact, terrorism is so indefensible today that even Col. Gaddafi has dissociated himself from it. However, Shourieji had always this trait of being selective in his moral judgments. He never uttered a word against Sangh terrorism in Ayodhya, LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka which killed Rajiv, eliminated several national leaders of that country, destroyed the entire Sri Lankan Airlines fleet and half of their air force in a single strike a couple of months ago. His attitude to terrorism is like America’s – for the US, a terrorist to be really bad has to target America; for Shourieji to condemn him, he must be ``Islamic``. The IRA killed Lord Louis Mountbatten and kept on harassing America’s ally Britain, with full financial backing of US private donors. Till September 11, the US preferred to look the other way.

The RSS view (shared by Shourieji) is that Islam propels terrorism. Pray, tell us sir, what propels December 6 terrorism, LTTE terrorism, Basque terrorism, IRA terrorism, Aum Shinrikyo terrorism, and all manner of assorted terrorisms from East Asia to Latin America, from North-East India to Bihar and Andhra in our own country? Does Islam explain all this? And how does Islam account for Timothy McVeigh and Una Bomber?

There are two different points at issue here: Pakistan-inspired terrorism (which has to be dealt with firmly and appropriately, and the military option too has to be considered), and Islam per se. The problem with Shourieji is that he is too generous with generalisations: to him Palestine and Chechnya and Kashmir are one and the same. No differentiation is required, no historical and political context matters. He is happy to have his whipping boy; nothing else is of any consequence.

The same generosity with generalisations makes him attribute all the ``medieval`` atrocities to Islam. But, sir, how do we account for the Inquisition, the caste atrocities against Dalits, Sati and widow banishment? The full page December 19 offering by Shourieji is, in fact, of a piece with a large body of his work ranging from denunciation of Christian missionaries (who gave him, as his teachers, part of the mental equipment with which he demolishes them), to Islam (and its institutions), Marxism (and Marxist historiography) and Dalits (and their icon BR Ambedkar). He never misses an opportunity to tar them with a big brush, an act only relatively less crude than what his victims (some Dalit followers of Ambedkar) did to him by physically tarring his face at a meet in Bangalore. (No, Shourieji, we don’t approve of the tarring by those oafs.)

Those Dalits possibly did so in frustration like Osama and his desperadoes: if you can’t fight America, do something spectacularly wicked and foolish; if you can’t fight Shourieji with clever arguments, overpower him and tar his face physically. And, in that bargain, lose whatever sympathy you have. In any case, nobody can argue with an economist and the new sovereign called the Free Market. And Shourieji is an economist and a Free Marketeer to boot. Duly recognised by the World Bank as one and taken seriously by everybody who matters.

UNSPARING, UNCHARITABLE,
RUTHLESS
Shourieji is blessed (blessed?) with an acid tongue: the victim of his verbal attacks is given no quarter, shown no mercy. He can be very uncharitable: he portrays BR Ambedkar as a British stooge in Worshipping False Gods. That reading of Ambedkar’s personality is not appropriate, because Ambedkar believed that the slavery of the British was emancipatory in its effect: under the British some Dalits got the advantage of modern education, which had been denied them for ages under the strict provisions of the Code of Manu. The Dalits, and Ambedkar, were in no hurry to send the British packing because they saw the caste slavery as timeless, forever. Between the two slaveries, Ambedkar thought the British one was more humane. In that perspective (which is more authentic because it is the victim’s perspective), Ambedkar was not what Shourieji thought he was, a stooge. The unkindest cut was Shourieji’s not so subtle remark that Ambedkar’s contribution to the making of our Constitution may not be half as great as suggested by the book his statues are invariably shown to be holding in the Dalit slums across the country. That book, the Constitution of India, which Dalits proudly associate with Ambedkar, was ruthlessly snatched away by Shourieji. Not surprisingly, an otherwise sedate Savita Ambedkar remarked angrily, ``Shourie is a wicked man.``

UNCHALLENGED MONARCH
Shourieji is an unchallenged monarch of misrepresentation and slander. He is selective in his dispensation of justice. So far, none of his victims has been able to come up with anything half as spectacular as his attacks. (No editor gives the display to a rebuttal he gets for his chargesheets against the M4. For instance, the bold display, the big types in the intro, sub-heads, blurbs and the generous use of space in December 19 story of the Express.) And the tarring of his face by Dalits is mere hooliganism, a crude rebuttal like al-Qaida’s desperate acts of violence. A valiant fighter, an IRS official called AK Biswas, came forward with a book called Gods, False Gods and Untouchables in reply to the Shourie book. However, it lacked the sophistication of Worshipping False Gods and failed largely to undo the damage. The Mussalmans and Marxists too have not fared any better.

His book The Historians was yet another hatchet job that would ultimately give a fillip to Oak-Madhok school of historiography. No regard for academic discipline, no concern for methodologies, the usual fist-in-the-face Shourie approach to facts which require a more nuanced treatment. It was a journalistic bull let loose in the China shop of academic, responsible historigraphy. No wonder academics tremble in their boots when journalists are around. Demands of academic restraint and rigour make them unfit for a match with the self-assured, swaggering journalist. And Shourieji is a journalist also, one of our tribe. And a star performer at that.

EXTREME VIEWS
Shourieji talks of the believer’s ``mindset``, which (in case of Islam) is conditioned by the faith to be constantly at war with the ``other``—a relentless, unceasing war till the entire non-Islam becomes Islam. (That would take some real doing over a period measurable only in light years.) Thus Islam is a violent religion, the Qur`an a manifesto of violence, ranging from terrorist attacks to full-blown war. It follows from this fundamental premise that for the world to live in peace, we have to get rid of Islam. To begin with, the mad mullah has to be reined in by closing down the madarsas (where Islam is taught), locking up the mosques (where Islam is practised) and brainwashing the Muslims to make them see the horrors of Islam and make them dissociate themselves from it. If they don’t meet these requirements, well, we have the final solution model left behind by the Sangh hero, the Fuhrer of Nazis. For Shourieji, Islam is innately evil and no good can come out of it.

The views of Shourieji (plainly stated and implied) are interesting and welcome because they provide an alternative perspective on Islam, a perspective that is not readily apparent to us, Muslims. We never looked at Islam in that perspective: We thought Islam comes from salaam (peace), not hurb (war).

Because Islam is such monumental evil, as the Shourie argument goes, its charities and research institutions (both written within inverted commas to suggest that they are not what they say they are) are sham—mere terrorist fronts. Shourieji’s views on Islam are certainly extreme views, as extreme as Ambedkar’s views on Hinduism or Ram Raj’s (now Aditya Raj). This view of Hinduism, shared by hundreds of millions of Dalits from Ambedkar to Aditya is as stark as Shourieji’s: that Hinduism is innately evil, that no good can ever come out of it, that Hindu scriptures are a cunning device to entrap millions of fellow beings into perpetual slavery, that no human dignity is possible until one dissociates oneself from it. And while dissociating from it one has to condemn it vociferously and demonstratively. This is exactly what Ambedkar did nearly half a century ago; this is what Aditya did last month. This is what all others leaving Hinduism did in the intervening years.

Meanwhile, Shourieji’s Dalit counterparts made it a point to explain that Hinduism is evil beyond reform because it is structured on Chatur Varna, because one of its central themes is karma, which says you are born a Dalit because of the evil deeds you did in the last birth and must atone for your last births’s sins in the present birth by suffering all the torment and humiliation coming your way without demur, without complaint, and must in all cases remain within the Varna into which you were born.

Ambedkar cited the horrible murder of the Dalit boy Shambuk by Shri Ramji himself because that boy was trying to read the scriptures (breaking the taboo on reading imposed on Shudras), and said Dalit emancipation was not possible within Hinduism whose ``mindset`` (Shourieji’s preferred word) is conditioned by such horrors.

Now, Shourieji, we Muslims don’t take these views as mainstream view of Hinduism, and prefer the reading provided by Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan, Gandhi and Swami Aghedanand Bharati (a Polish Jew turned Hindu, one of the greatest minds of the last century). We don’t take the Ambedkarite view as mainstream because we don’t see anybody trying to pour molten lead into Dalits’ ears (as prescribed by the Code of Manu), and we don’t see trainers in India’s police and military academies insisting that the Dalit cadets passing out must have their thumbs cut (following Guru Dronacharya’s tradition).

The mainstream view on Islam is that it is a religion of peace, not war as you say.

HATS OFF, SIR
Finally, I must compliment you for all that you are. And all that you have done. It brings some sparkle to our lackadaisical lives. Keep it up, sir. Salaam, Shourieji.

Perfunctory look at some of the interacts gives a feeling that this is not subcontinental chowk but a cross (crossing) of convent ``disciplined`` harvested souls. They are saying that the rape was good at least it produced a child like them after nine months (100 years). Not much different from what SHAH WALIULLAH says:
``
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.
``
Macaulay succeeded without saying this way.

Re: # 49
This article is with in history perspective. Remember the title is recounting untold history-- and I deliberately left what`s already told. Have a better digestive system and try to sallow the facts as such without giving it a religious color all the times.

Thanks for the untold history which does not include Tatya Tope or Zansi Ki Rani because we know about them. It seems Ulema fought for ``dependent`` Hindustan where there wont be any Hindu. It would be dependent to Islamic Umma. Hindus should have fought unitedly not only to get rid of British but also these ulemas.

The article betrays the unfortunate prejudice that in India the Muslim minority has not been given its due recognition. It is sad that a community substantial in population should see itself as marginalised. A natural outcome of the Pakistan movement was the anger felt by the Hindu majority which was also exploited by extreme elements. But over the last sixty years Muslims have very much joined the mainstream. Young Muslims no longer carry the baggage of being responsible for the country`s partition and therefore being pro-Pakistan, and many are forging ahead gaining prominence in all walks of life along with the majority community. No doubt, a lot of corrective measures need to be taken to give the necessary impetus for the community to prosper, particularly in provision of job opportunities in the government, but here again there is so much pressure on the govt job openings that it is only those willing to shell out money or with the necessary connections make it, and it just so happens that the majority gets the larger share. One should take heart that the country`s economy is growing and as the pie becomes bigger, all will benefit.

Likewise, so much is being said about Ambedkar, no doubt he was a great man, but let us assume he never became the leader of the untouchables, would they still be suffering as in the past? As the country opened up to foreign influences and saw life beyond Hindstan, the plight of the Dalits , Ambedkar or no Ambedkar, would have seen the same liberation and empowerment as we see today.

With a flourishing economy all Indians will benefit and maybe we can then stop looking at life including history with a jaundiced eye.

Re: # 54,

Very well said, Muqaddam Saheb. We must give the wounds of partition to heal some more time. Both, Muslims and Hindoos were wounded during the whole episode of partition though in different ways. And one should always try to understand the wounds of Hindoos also. Hope better days are ahead for less privileged people of all the communities.

Samar

Ref masanamuthu #40

[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.. :-) ]

Folks in India (including Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion) are trying to get the Muslims quotas in professional education!

Oops, that is because the Brahmins called them mlecchas and did not give them water when they were thirsty.

Fair enough!