1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

Re: # 8
Oh come on...There were large numbers. Rana Pratap, Shivaji etc...
The basic reason of 1857 uprising was, East India Company had captured India in very short period of time without any scope of naturalization.

Urstruly,

"Here is my question to Hindutva extremists on this website. If Muslim rule was suppressing Hindu religious beliefs then why didn't even a single such mutiny occured in the Mughal army on religious basis during 800 years?? any takers??"

800 year Mughal rule faux paus aside, the Mughal Army served a very different purpose than the British Army. The Mughal Army was meant to prop up the Emperor who had a strong set of feudal checks and balances (e.g. nobles had to park their family with the Emperor during battle). Nobles owed their positions to the Emperor and all titles reverted to him at the time of death. Finally, it is a misnomer to say that there was no mutiny. The spinning of states like Oudh, Hyderabad and the Marathas who declared independence out of the orbit of the Mughal Court in Delhi was technically a mutiny.

In contrast, the British Army was set up with the aim of propagating the aims of the East India Company (at least until the Mutiny). It was probably the first army in India which had a centralized payroll (rather than Mughal nobles raising armies on behalf of the Emperor in return for taxation privileges). What the former did was to stabilize the life of the sepoy. In fact, one reason for the mutiny, as someone else alluded, was because hardship privileges were withdrawn to sepoys from Oudh when it was annexed.

I don't see any point in looking at history through the distorting glasses of the current state of affairs.

Re: # 15

Stop acting like a dhimmi who probably believes that Shaiva Siddhanta is nothing more than worshipping lingam...that advaitin Brahman is same as momeen Allah.....and that the 'formless' god can probably 'worshipped' by banging the head five timesd a day......and that hindus 'invited' the ghazis to loot their own temples and get their women folk raped.....

I think there is merit in Amin Sahib's analysis. It debunks the assumption that many peope have that their own race is somehow better/braver than the other races. Personally, I have no argument on that particular aspect of his analysis.

It is true that the Indian mutiny of 1857 was probably the result of myriad of long simmering grievances which had come to a boling point and found an outlet in a revolt triggered by injury to the religious sentiments of sepoys in the Bengal army. Be that as it may, the Brits should have known that their foolish edicts would provoke a revolt under the prevailing circumstances. I would not put it past them if they did so deliberately, knowing that they would be able to put down the revolt with the resources at their command, and in the process fully consolidate their colonial political objectives.

Trampling over the religious sentiments of a people often leads to unnecessary violence and bloodshed; it is conceivable that many post-partition communal riots in India were caused by such mindless provocations from one side or the other. Nor is the Indian society uniquely alone in this regard. On a more more mild scale, forcible Protestant festive parades, with sectarian symbolism, through seething Catholic neigborhoods triggered their due share of violent skirmishes in reaction, in N. Ireland, in the 20th century.

What compelling reasons did the muslims in some segments of India have to slavishly collaborate with the Brits against a genuine injury to their fellow citizens and co-religionist, God Alone Knows. In fairnes, however, a really objective analysis of the behavior of mercenaries for hire outght to examine more than just the events surrounding the debacle in 1857. The assertion that the Punjab regiments had no particular reason not to work with the Brits in 1857 is rather weak at best.

Pavo,

"Hindustanis" are lovers not fighters.

Poetry, Kabootars and Paan just cannot beat Lassi!

Re: # 14

Urstruly sahib:

You said it, who he is. But why you? False statements are unnecessary.

Re: # 9
ask the nutjob in #2

urstruly has a point about 800 years..it may not be mughal but there was a method of rule at least since khiljis and that method or model would be different. its not about islamic rule on hindus in a religious manner. e.g. one of the biggest difference would be for the banias, who were mostly hindu. they were the folks used to live under a kinda supression or the enterepreneur from arbitrary octrois, shahi red-tape etc and were somewhat liberated by the angrej..one effect was after 1857 banias bought all the properties in dilli ..they always had the money, but could never dare "flaunt" it by buying property etc. the red-tape is still not unravelled..fully yet.

wierd times.. the money was owed to the bania by a petty prince who would live it up, partying, but bania would never show his wealth due to fear of it being "taxed".

its interesting to note that the backbone of the BJP is formed by the urban bania, with these memories perhaps.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

This article could have used a little more editing before it was published. It would have helped to break the first para up.

Other than that I have nothing to contribute to a thread that is going to become anti-Punjabi, or anti-Hindu, or anti- anything for that matter.

Anil,

Haven't you heard of madrassah math, as laid down umpteen years ago and unchanging and unchangeable?

1857 - 1526 = 800

or, even better, 1707 - 1526 = 800

Re: # 8

Urstruly sahib:

Whoever told you Mughal and its army ruled for 800 years? Can you give some evidence of it here?

Further to my #7

Here is my question to Hindutva extremists on this website. If Muslim rule was suppressing Hindu religious beliefs then why didn't even a single such mutiny occured in the Mughal army on religious basis during 800 years?? any takers??

Agha Sahib

I am quite disappointed with this analysis because an event of this proportion requires years of suppressed feelings to burst out. I am also surprised that you did not even hint tawrds the activities of Christian Evangelists that created such repressed feelings that exhibited themselves with such ferocity that British army and civilians suffered such horrible fate at the hands of insurgents.

As a matter of fact when Sir Syed Ahmad Khan wrote his thesis Reasons of Indian Mutiny (Asbaab-e-baghawat-e-Hind) he clearly mentioned that that the activities of Evangelists had created such resentment in native people. As a matter of fact based on these recommendations of Sir Syed British Parliament formally enacted an Act in 1861-62 to retract state sponsorship of Evangelical activities.

Qudrut-ullah Shahab in his book also mentions the modus operendi of those Evangelists. He mentioned that they used to challenge Muslim and Hindu scholars for debates (munazra) and just like today the best that Evangelists could do was insult Islam and Hinduism. This is their concept of debate even to this day.

That created a resentment in general public to the extent that the insurgency spread into populace as well.

A few points:

There had been many mutinies among the HEIC's troops between 1757-1857, in both its white and native troops. The Great Sepoy Mutiny was simply a near global one in the Bengal Army BUT not all Bengal troops mutinied.

There were many institutional factors responsible for this. The HEIC had refused to sanction the increased allowance (double bhatta) paid its troops posted outside UP since it now argued that this was no longer 'hazardous duty.' Naturally the troops were extremely resentful at this de facto pay cut.

HEIC retirement policies meant that many officers were ancient: colonels in their 70s and majors in their 60s, so no effective officer presence at the small unit level was possible. Many of the younger officers were away on secondment to the 'civil' (better pay and promotion prospects) and so the units were effectively run by VCOs (Indian officers then) at the company and platoon level.

HEIC also insisted that ALL troops would be liable for service overseas, so involving massive loss of caste for Hindu troops and resulting purification expenses.

The HEIC rescinded the orders forcing all troops to use pregreased cartridges and ordered all units to prepare their own cartridge grease but it was too late.

The Great Sepoy Mutiny was a very complicated affair and certainly not as simple as the stupid nationalists on both sides (Indian and Pakistani) paint it out as. I read somewhere, dont' know if its true, that some mutinying battalions at Delhi refused to fight under the Imperial Mughal flags given them by Bahadur Shah's sons and marched out under their own colours, battle honors and all. They didn't fly the Company flag but insisted on fighting only under their own colours.

Pavo,

Thanks again. It was a great read. We often do not get things right. Consider the last cricket match between India and Australia (sorry if the topic is less serious but I hope it does bring about a point). The "protest", "fight" etc. should have taken place in the field for the last 70 overs. The Indians should have "fought" to draw the match and then raise hell. Yet they lost and then went into a collective sulk and blame game. I call this bunch a set of pathetic loosers (this set includes people like me too). They look very much like the side which lost in 1857 and cribbed later on for more than a century.