1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

trail

regard, in reference to your last para, a society of faithfuls is not a society of robots devoid of all variety, creativity, and innovation.

And faith can be quite reasonable, although it is not, in the least, based on reason. That's why dharma and faith are two very different things.

Anyways, it is sheer criminal neglect to compel/seduce/induce large numbers of faithless (or dharmic) and faithful people to live together, or to let them live together without honestly educating them about each other.

#64 Eklavya :
Assimilation of Gods was in the reference of India, while responding to Anil. Where it has been historical tradition, at least since Aryans. Jeus– ,Indra and the whole pantheon of Gods of Aryans were adopted by Dravidians in south India. Aryans of N. India adopted Shiva, Kali etc. of south India. Even Gandhi used magic religious formulae accepted by Indians – ‘Ishwar Allah Tero nam, Sabko sanmati dey Bhagwan’ ( and not Bhagwans).

In India with huge cultivable tracts of land, neighbours did not have to fight for resources and tried to come to terms each others faiths.

However, uou’re right about religions born in Mediterranean basin. The desert, a resources scarce region, had moving tribes where competition for resources was fierce. Only those who played the card of exclusivity, fidelity to the tribe, succeeded. Religion – a civil code, also suffered the same fate. It had to be an exclusive identity. Mohammad spent his life fighting.

Today while a Hindu will go and pray at a Dargah without any reservations. No Muslim or Christian will ever dare ask favour of a Hindu god without suffering excommunication.

Religion is an Abrahmic concept. When confronted by it, a Hindi word - ‘Dharma’ was found as it comes closest but this means duty and not affiliation to any particular set of civil laws. This is the same thing about the word ‘Hindu’. You never find it in any Indian scripture (I don’t dare call it Hindu scritpure as those who wrote them won’t even understand it). BTW, same is true in China. This is contrary to Islam or Muslim, which are repeatedly claimed as religion and the identity of the believers in Quran. The same goes for Christianity or Judaism.

Now a ‘faith’ is true or not, let us apply some basic ground rules
- What faith teaches is absolute truth and can’t be demonstrated as wrong (and not allegorically)!!
Can we find one such religious enunciation (including Buddhism which comes closest to rationality). All offer speculations with many things right but also many things found blatantly wrong since they were founded.

- What religion teaches can be considered allegorically truth and will help in founding a more balanced society!!
Here we’re starting with a set of vales, which are generally found to be good socially, and trying to find them in the religious enunciations. But if we already have them, what do we need the religion for. Especially when it requires great intellectual effort and often leads to adjustment of conveniences and misuses.

- Faithfuls are better fits in society!!
If that was really the case, why more religious societies like S. Arabia or even India or Pakistan need such a harsh civil code.

- If all population was strict Muslim or Christian or .., the society will run better!!!
It is possible if everybody behaves like robots with same set of rules. Life style defined by one person- a mullah and not even many mullahs. Stop thinking; no science, no invention, no more intelligent speculation. Of course this is a sure guarantee of having a new prophet coming up and challenging the system.

Thanks, Regard.

I don't think anyone who has actually tried to understand different religions has made the statement that all religions preach of the same God or teach the same things. But whenever saying so makes life easy for people they are likely to make that assertion. Understandably.

IMHO, you have made an excllent case for non-faith religions. But many people can only accept (sometimes, only understand) faith-based religiosity.

[Given human condition, more people would naturally want a faith-based religiosity than non-faith based one. So the only remaining objective thereafter is to show that your faith is the true one (and other faiths are not).]

Thank you Eklavya. I must not be very clear in my note.

'God - worst imagination of man' - I hope it is self-explanatory. As I say later, the invention (or imagination) of concept of God is damaging more than anything else man invented. I wonder if our grand children will not think of us as credulous and idiots as we think of those who believe in witchcraft.

In oriental religions- Hinduism, Buddhism..., Maïa (call Saitan if you're muslim) is supposed to be hiding the truth from man when he is trying to explore truth- Nirvana. But any search of 'truth' requires rational vision (Darshan- philosophy) and not being bogged down by received 'truth' of faiths. This is what I called that religions and concept of God deny this liberty of thought.

Often a compromise is found saying that all religions take to the same God but then why the attributes of God are always different from one religion to another.. and more often in the same religion, depending on the circumstances. How a merciful God becomes revengeful at the time of Kayamat or when we get in an accident or an earthquake occurs.

Religious individuals are either virtuous but exploited and suffer by others, those who are not and there is always one. Religion may justify suffering but does not save them from everyday torture of being misused or fooled. They are hardly ever able to support others. On the other side of the religious spectrum, There are religious prescriptors- Mullahs of all religions- who will not let you exercise your freewill but give their own versions of religiosity and justify their own agendas. God's will is more often used to justify weakness and lack of socially responsible behaviour. If we look around, those who are successful in life (not in earning money but in general happy with their lives), are always those who have scant care of any religious obligations (they may be still referring to their godliness to win points).

Let us look at all prophets of all hues and latitudes of all times. Only one thing is common. They succeeded in breaching the religious constraints of their own societies. But using the easy tool of a new religion, they introduced reforms and socially more acceptable behaviour.

My contention is that religion or God concept gives an easy excuse for lack of social awareness and obligation of the responsibilities to let others live their own lives. When the mind is free of God and such constraints, we know that we can expect from others only what we can offer ourselves to others and nothing more. This is where your tolerance is rewarded by others (society). Anyone misusing others lives will automatically lose others indulgence.

Hope I'm a little more clear.

anil ji, I have often thought about what might constitute the greatest possible 'religious' error from Indian point of view. The mother of all errors. And always, it seemed to be, the urge to limit, confine, hijack, and imprison 'God.'

BUT if by some magic or trickery, we COULD imprison God and put him in our pockets, He would be a most powerful genie. So you can imagine how irresistably and seductively strong the urge to do exactly that can be.

---------------------------

regard, could you please clarify what you were saying # 61. Thanks.

#50 Anil
You seem to be fascinated by something which has been long settled by Charvaks (Vrihaspati 6th BC): It is preposerous to say that man is best cretaion of God, but it is certain that God is the worst imagination of man. There have been many variants on that since.

Please consider:Religion and concept of God became Maïa (man made illusion) themselves. They misled in investigation of truth by creating ‘faith’ diversions. If the God is the truth, then there should be only one truth. Why there are so many definitions? Why it is so stretchable and fits such contradictory religious paradigms. The doctrine that we are presided over by a loving deity has become so rounded and elastic that no earthly evil or natural disaster, it seems, can come into collision with it.

Religion may stand for anything ranging from a sum of scruples to outright justification of encroaching on others’ freewill. It impedes the free use of our faculties and inhibits from taking our own individual responsibilities. In fact successful among us are only those who decide to breach religious constraints. Even the prophets and demi-gods themselves are only those who broke religious barriers of their times. Religions put unnecessary constraints on those who are conscientious but offer an escape clause to those, who transgress others liberty easily, an after-action confession for any socially reprehensible act.

Take the God out and societies becomes more responsible. It seems 2/3rd west Europeans are agnostics -a diplomatically acceptable word instead of atheists. Have'nt they created the most tolerant society?

Re: # 59 About martial race. I think at highest levels of any army nobody believes such things is my feeling except F.M. Ayubkhan as he wrote in his "Friends and not masters" about his perceptions. He wrote hindu can absorb one stroke ( military) but you give two he is finished. I do not think he really believed. But myths even untrue can be powerful than truth.
But such things are spread propanganda and its needed to "inspire" people on ground.
The people who are cutting edge of army at battle front now real truth. This is needed as what glory a punjabi infintry man facing indian counterpart expect , he is really worried about his comrade in arm, he does not except really advance on red fort and hoist green. He is too worried if survive tomorrow and at end he has no glory , may be fieldmarshalls will have ,not for infintry man his families.Aga Amin wrote criminal attitude of higher up of sending army to fight( Kargil) at high heights without supplies to freeze and dry with out objectives. All myths are needed to sacrafice poor men and some time inspire men to go for thier own slaughters , its unfortunate the general and army behaved so ungratefully towards even own men and they were just used as cannon fadder by Musharaf.
Knowledge srts you free , and myths make you blind.
I respect AH simply as he write what is truth as he sees , one may not agree his conclusions or analysis but his factual infirmation is never fabricated. Great intelluctual honesty in him noted he does not miss lead by submission most refreshing is he does not even try to mislead by ommision.
I always fear generals will go to war to save their skin on easterfront and may even meet success for few months due advanced military equipment , more tanks and advanced airmachines and advanced atmomic bombs but finally Indians will kill as elephant even killed by ants and eaten.
I always final indopak war will start if army gets bogged on western front and if people get restless to galvanise them behind army war with India is best solution. What is going is mad general and mad corp commander and their economic struggle to keep economy and all derivatives to their limited company.
Good day.

{"About Sikhs also I have nowhere said that they were in majority in the English Company's force.My analysis , although not covered here that a substantial part of the collaborator Indian force with the English Company at Delhi was Punjabi Muslim and Pathan.After all the English East India Company was the knight in shining armour which rescued the Punjabi and Pathan Muslim from constant rape by the Sikhs !"}

Pavocavalry Sahib,
I respect your extensive research in coming up with these generalizations about the Ghadr, Mutiny, or War of Independence - depending upon your own perspective. Of course a lot depends on how many English "historians" have been relied upon for facts. The anecdotes of 19th century white Christians have to be digested with considerable tolerance. :)

As for the Sikh participation in putting down the rebellion, the fact that most of Hodson's Horse consisted of Sikhs is probably the reason for the myth that most local collaborators were Sikh. The deadly fate of the Mughal princes help captive by Hodson adds to that myth. Pretty good job in dispelling the stupid concept of "martial races."

Thanks for your article for it gives new perspective on old monumental historical landmark.
As you wrote you studied this subject while cadet at army organization I wonder following.
The topic is suggested by officer or teacher or student pick up the subjects.
Is this project pear reviewed by other teachers or just by your officer/teacher and shelved.
How you were able to get hold of so many references . ( Does army keeps records for posterity)
Most work done by students is more on historic lines or future conflits.
This is very difficult question to me. Yourself and other ( Like writer of military inc. Mili Business Inc) always state the GOP spends huge amount on army expense. As the budget is never disclosed and it is true like major cost of army the retired people compension is not shown in defence budget so it must be more.
What are real figures and how people like yourself speculate about that.
The figures stated at great variance from low 6% to 50%. If you can throw light it will be helpful for all readers.

Do money paid by usa around 1 billion of recent years can be considered as cost? As it is paid by others for services rendered.If you take out 1 billion of budget % for defence cost can be substantially down.

It is facination to understand how when overlords of country meet for corp commanders meeting with top general how the meeting is conducted. Are particular corp commanders are more important than others and it is free for all discussion or they just give opinion on topic at hand and move to other topic. If you or any body has any information which is not secret please throw the lights. Good evening have good 2008

Majumdar #56
I don't think any Muslim will doubt basic tenets of Islam.
It can be divided into belief. One God, prophets, angels, holy books, and day of judgement.
And actions. Prayer, Fasting, Zakat (alms), Hajj.
I have not read Rumi myself but is highly revered Muslim.
In Islamic empire all trends flourished from Dene Ilahi of Akbar to Strict fundamentalism of Mujaddad Alf Sani.
Islamic empire of Baghdad was a great place for Muslims, Christians and jewish artisan, scientists writers etc, as was Spain.
Looking at those societies, Muslim rule was pragmatic. There was so called fundamentalism (although extremism is a better word). Like any society Muslim society has both extremes, with majority of people in the middle.

Rashid mian,

Re: #55

(I have heard that both Hindus and Muslims go to the tomb in Ajmer Sharif.)

Hindu pilgrims in Ajmer and Fatehpur Sikri far outnumber Muslims. I am a frequent visitor to Sikri myself.

(Why you want to restrict Islam to a narrow vision. )

My #30 was made in response to a post by Anil-ji who suggested that Rumi's views contradicted Koran. IMHO, Koran is quite literally the word of God as per Islam, so assuming that Rumi (or any other Muslim) had a philosophy which contradicted the basic tenets of Koran, the same philosophy could not be considered Islamic. (Not that being unIslamic would make it wrong or inhumane).

Regards

Majumdar#30
Why you want to restrict Islam to a narrow vision.
I have heard that both Hindus and Muslims go to the tomb in Ajmer Sharif.
Maulana Rumi is as Islamic as Mujaddad Alf Sani and Averroes as much as Ghazali although superficially they are poles apart.

Laddu ji:

Not you, who can reform. Therefore, need for you to despair or waste your energies.

Lasting reforms / changes always come from the within. Outsiders can only put unrelenting pressure to the point it is unsustainable for the status quo, and reformers from within get an upper hand. This summarizes the anothology of peaceful reforms / changes.

For now, and probably for another 50 years, most certainly until the rest of the world has found an alternative source for energy, this pressure will continue. Therefore, for a long time, politics, social, and economic conditions of the middle east are tied to the western interest, and later when three or more jumbos (China, Brazil and India) start flying there will be more to pressure not less.

Strong leaders in the region can change their destiny, by delinking Islam, Political Islam etc. from the Islam that they want. This beginning can begin by empowering girls and provide education.

Iran has girls as 65% university student population. I do not see wrong in education and female empowerment, even if it comes from the madrassas. Among the empowered and educated are the reformers from the within. Among the rest are mere followers of 7th century, or 2,000 BC thoughts and practices. For them nothing changed and nothing changes. Till then the powers to be will continue to play in the hands of those who need energy source.

Ironically, Islam does not lend itself to such separations as may be necessary, and hence this tussle may continue until the consumers of energy loose interest in that source. Chaos works for them, just as well as the peacefully reformed societies will.

You (= Hindu) or India as a whole cannot play any role in this tussle. There are many ahead of India and you in the line.

Learning from Chinese, Japanese and other South East Asians is in India's interest. I believe Today's India is precisely doing this.

Living in the past when India and its hindus were dominated, and thus frothing in anger hurts Today's India. There are, at the very least, 20% of India who do not subscribe to this fothing or anger.

Today and tomorrow's India will be better served by carrying all Indians inside its tent of success and future. No Indian should be left behind.

I have many dear friends who get very angry when the name of their beloved religion is linked or mentioned in the same sentence as OBL and Jihad. Their helplessness is very clear because the Islam they love, is seen as an institution in which their aborants also too belong. According them, if a terrorist belongs to Christianity or Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism does not taint these beliefs why their religion is singled out.

This feeling is beginning of reform. Their anger is beginning of reform. The beauty in such reform process is that it is from the within. And it is certainly not hateful or derogratory. You can see and respect it here in Hamidm, Tahmed Sahib and many onto the other end of the spectrum.

Regarding upnishad's, manu smriti etc.

I have not read any such scripture. However, I did read Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's and another professor from Princeton's analysis. I also have read Stephen Mitchell's translation of Gita, and his work on Buddhism. All of which I found non-dogmatic and challenged me to think.

I get more fascinated by Buddhism than by Hinduism, altough neither's rituals.

I have settled for this question from Riga Veda, and the beauty of this question for my intellectual satisfaction. What you wrote here about OSHO, to me seems to conform to the probate power of the question from Riga Veda.

Re: # 51

Anilji,

Islamofascists have the support of a considerable number of 'moderate' muslims and has the Quran and the Hadith on his side to ensure mayhem and destruction in the entire world.
we Hindu idolators are actually just an open invitation for murder to them and every momeen has to shout Taqbeer and jump into creating collective mayhem like they did in 1947, Paris and recently in Calcutta.
The only way out is to make 'moderate' muslims confront the horrible reality of their Islam and make them realize that they need to throw out portions of that horrible book of hate or has to ban those inciting tafsirs and hadiths if they want to live in a modern world.
Do not act like a dhimmi and look for roots of violence in muslim world at other things like 'politics', 'poverty' or 'education' - there are 20,000 madarassas in Pakistan that have created enough of morons to make the rest of the kafir world worried for the next 20 years.

Re: # 50

You said :- "I enjoy the beauty of that question in Riga Veda."

I agree that in essense the spiritual path of every person is unique and FINAL answers to spiritual questions that goes in the name of 'revelations' is plain stupidity.

As OSho said :

"THE UPANISHADS don’t have any answers. They are ready to take you into a different dimension of
existence, to transmute you. It is a change of consciousness. And suddenly all doubts, all questions,
everything disappears and what is left behind is just a beautiful peace.
Hence, every upanishad ends with om shanti, shanti, shanti. That word shanti means absolute
silence. Beyond that silence there is nothing, and there is no need. It brings total contentment,
absolute blissfulness, ultimate ecstasy.
THE UPANISHADS are the only free, absolutely free books as far as religious books are concerned.
All religious books are imprisoned – Hindus have their prisons, Mohammedans have theirs,
Christians have theirs. Nobody has dared to imprison THE UPANISHADS for the simple reason that
those UPANISHADS are of no use as far as the priesthood is concerned, creating organization is
concerned, exploiting people is concerned, giving false beliefs is concerned. Those UPANISHADS
are dangerous; it is better to keep them aside.
The moment a book becomes a holy scripture it becomes poisoned. Then it is nothing but a strategy
to make more and more slaves.
THE UPANISHADS cannot be condemned for doing any ugly thing to humanity. They have given
their fragrance, they have blossomed, they have shared their joy – and with such beauty, such clarity
– and without any loopholes, so that it is impossible to make them religious scriptures. They are
truly religious. They are not scriptures, they are truly spiritual.
In the whole of history there are only a very few books which have remained uncontaminated by the
cunningness of human mind. THE UPANISHADS are those few books."

Re: # 50

Laddu ji:

One more point. I do not know your motivations to do what you do at the Chowk, but you are wrong, if your motivation comes from the fear that Islamofascists can destroy Today's India. Even Islamofascists know this is delusional, they have beginning to believe that they have a better chance of destroying and claiming Pakistan, that is where their battle lines are drawn.

Tomorrow's India must be in a position with all members, yes all members of its society to deal with them across its borders. These would not be geographical borders alone.

Today's India needs to learn and beat China. You have wasted your time reading and forming what you call "Momeen Thought", and continue to waste the time that you can better use to prepare Tomorrow's India.

I like the term though, but do not have the depth to comprehend it.

Re: # 48

Laddu ji:

"...I have a doubt if you understand momeen thought at all!!..."

This is a true statement. I am not interested in spending time on constricting thoughts - thoughts that limit, rituals that limit, system that dehumanize and demean - my revolutionay days have been over very very long time ago.

I enjoy the beauty of that question in Riga Veda. Therefore, I regard myself beyond the limits that religions put.

amin saheb:

Thanks. I am glad that my comment provoked your interacts, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

"The foundation of both the states is on mutual fear; and continuance of this confrontation alone can guarantee survival of both; off course at the expense of the smaller minority ethnic groups in both the states."

This may be true of Pakistan but not of India. Only North Indians care about what happens in Pakistan. Moreover, while India is facing tremendous challenges from Nazalites, most Indians do not seem to be too concerned about this challenge; the middle class especially in all parts of India seems to be in quite a celebratory mood. Whatever else India may or may not have achieved, it has achieved a sense of nationhood which is independent of hostility vis-a-vis Pakistan, which is on the decline anyway.

Re: # 28
"The debate Laddu ji, is not about the finality. At least in mind.

It is about what you express and paint as momeen. "

I need not paint what is momeen. You should read original Quran, Hadiths and other tafsirs from mullahs if you think momeen DOES NOT BELIEVE in the finality of the Prophet and the message!!
I have a doubt if you understand momeen thought at all!!

i am not for any country. we can call it Indian Sub Continent.

OK, a good last suggestion.

Pl start a new name i.e Pakistan Subcontinent. It sounds cool and puts Pakistan in the centre of this subcontinent. I dont mind calling myself as a person from Pakistan subcontinent.

(thumbs up icon)

That's much clearer now.

Njoy ur 'research'.

My Dear Sir , I am not hiding behind anything.I dont believe in any established nomenclatures.

Pl explain ur rationale i/o hiding behind an excuse (subjective), dear.

I am insisting coz there's an established nomenclature. If u still call it subjective then I let it go.

Re: # 41 My Dear , again I say it is subjective.Call it what you may .

Then Bangladeshis call it : Indo-Bangla subcontinent

Sri Lankans : Indo-Sri Lankan Subcontinent

Nepalese : Indo-Nepal Subcontinent

etc.,

Ur hardwordk and scholarship wud be clouded by the silly mistakes u make.

Re: # 33 I have continuously written to prove that Muslims were no more martial than Hindus and Sikhs.Its all situational.One of my conclusions in my book Pakistan Army Since 1965 was that gallantry awards of pore 1947 prove that therre was no significant difference in martial qualities based on religion.Some conclusions in the award of Victoria Cross were :--

1- First World War Victoria Cross recipients:--

Gurkha-Hindu - 2
Indian Hindu - 4
Sikh - 1
Muslim - 2

2- Second World War Victoria Cross recipients:--

Gurkha-Hindu - 10
Indian-Hindu - 9
Sikh - 3
Muslim - 4

Re: # 37 Your objection is entirely valid although all such assertions are subjective.

Further to the argument about most favoured place of all rebel regiments as I proved in my book Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 Reinterpreted :--

1-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully ,6 cavalry and 23 regiments fought at Delhi (including 3 present there initially).Some 6 Cavalry and 20 infantry regiments marched to Delhi.Some came from as far as Cawnpore,Ferozpur,Jullundhur and Mhow.

2-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully some 6 cavalry and 16.5 Infantry Regiments went to Lucknow including some 7 already stationed there.

3-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully , 1 Cavalry and 5 infantry fought at Cawnpore under the Martaha political leader Nana Sahib.These included some 3 regiments stationed at Cawnpore already before the rebellion.

#36 Posted by pavocavalry on January 10, 2008 3:22:49 am

Indo-Pak subcontinent?

Why add a parasitic word 'Pak' in Indian subcontinent? Why an Assami, Bhutani, Maldivian, Sri Lankan or a Malabari wud accept this parasitic word Pak, leave abt the academic circles in the world?

Some further excerpts may be relevant here ;--

The period before 1857 was that of EEIC supremacy starting from its capture of Delhi in 1803. Before 1803 the Mahrattas were masters of Delhi. But in 1857 we find that the Mahrattas main leader Nana Sahib did not get any support from the main Mahratta area of Bombay presidency.

He was supported by the Hindustani Bengal Army sepoy who had little connection with Mahrattas by race. Actually some of the sepoy regiments which rebelled at Cawnpore marched to Lucknow. We see in 1857 the predominantly Hindu Regiments of Bengal Army marching to predominantly Muslim centres of rebellion i.e. Delhi and Lucknow. Bahadur Shah Zafar has to be given credit for at least preserving Hindu Muslim unity in Delhi in 1857. He undertook various measures to do so like banning cow slaughter in Delhi.

As per Percival Spear who is considered to be a very reliable authority on Indo-Pak history:—

"On 19 May, Maulvi Muhammad Sayyid set up the standard of Jehad or holy war in the Jamia Masjid; he was immediately ordered to remove it by the King. The Maulvi explained that it was intended against the Hindus, where upon the king declared that Hindus and Muslims were alike to him. Hindu army officers also complained and were tactfully told that it had been intended against the English 542".

It seems that Hindu opinion just like Muslim opinion was divided. But this appears odd only to those who take Hindus or Muslims as two nations in Indo-Pak sub-continent. If you analyse the Hindu as the UP Hindu or the Mahrashtra Hindu and the Muslim as Hindustani Muslim or Punjabi Muslim their differences do not appear odd. Thus we find the Hindustani Hindu acknowledging the Mughal Muslim as king of India in 1857 because culturally they could identify with him more than the Mahrashtra Hindu to whom the Mughal king was the descendant of a dynasty of Muslim tyrants.

We find the Oudh Talukdars most of whom were Hindu Rajputs acknowledging the Nawab of Lucknow Birjis Kadar a Muslim as their Nawab and ruler. The rebels were thus not organised on communal lines. Hindu acknowledged Muslim political supremacy by and large. Nana Sahib had a more limited following and his own people i.e. Mahrattas never rebelled in his favour. The Bombay Army and Maharashtra as a region stayed loyal to the EEIC. It appears that the Hindustani and Bombay or Punjab people had little in common. This behaviour further reinforces the theory that India or even Pakistan are not; or cannot be strictly defined as countries but rather a marriage of convenience of a multiple member of nationalities. The foundation of both the states is on mutual fear; and continuance of this confrontation alone can guarantee survival of both; off course at the expense of the smaller minority ethnic groups in both the states.

But the positive side of the rebellion was that at least it was the first major outbreak in which Indians combined against the British sinking their differences based on religious considerations. Communal hatred in Indo-Pak sub-continent was definitely a post-1857 development and had a deep connection with the deliberate but unwritten "divide and rule" policy of the British which finally led to the increase in communal tension in post-1857 India.

Re: # 33 Further to my previous humble submissions Dost Mittar Sahib, below are some figures again from my book from which this small piece was summarised for Chowk:---

A glance at units employed at Delhi and Lucknow puts at rest all doubts about the ethnic composition of the native troops:-

Delhi
1st Punjab Cavalry(Later famous as pavocavalry) Sikhs - Punjabi Muslims Pathans-Some Hindustani Muslims.

2nd Punjab Cavalry Sikhs - Pathans - Punjabi Muslims - Some Hindustani Muslims

5th Punjab Cavalry As above

Hodson’s Irregular Force Sikhs/Punjabi Muslims

Sirmoor Battalion Gurkha
Kumaon Battalion Gurkha
Corps of Guides Pathan/Sikh/Punjabi Muslims
4th Sikh Infantry Sikh + Punjabi Muslims
1st Punjab Infantry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
2nd Punjab Infantry ditto
4th Punjab Infantry ditto
Baluch Battalion Baluchis -All Muslim

Note:- It may be noted that the Hindustani Muslims/Ranghars were the nucleus of all new Punjab Cavalry as well as Infantry units raised during the period 1846-56 including the Corps of Guides.



Lucknow - March 1858
1st Sikh Irregular Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims
2nd Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
5th Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
Oudh Irregular Cavalry Sikh, Punjabi Muslims
1st Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
Hodson’s Horse Sikh - Punjabi Muslims
Regiment of Ferozepur Sikh Pure
4th Punjab Rifles Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
2nd Punjab Infantry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan

It is interesting to note that 5th Punjab Infantry in its regimental history claims to have killed Subedar Bakht Khan the sepoy leader at Delhi in the Nawab Ganj area in 1858. It was stated in the history of the Frontier Force Rifles compiled by W.E.H. Condon and published in 1953540 that Naik Habibullah and sepoy Fateh Singh of 5th Punjab Infantry killed Subedar Bakht Khan in the Oudh Nepal rain forest area of Terai in 1858 and both of these soldiers were awarded the Indian Order of Merit. John Lawrence the Chief Commissioner of Punjab in his letter dated 25 May 1858 appended in the Punjab Mutiny reports addressed to Mr. Edwonstone, Secretary to the Government of India stated the composition of the Irregular Forces of Punjab as following 541:-

Muslims - Punjabi - 24,027

Sikhs - 13,344

Hillmen - 2,203

Hindustanis - 2,430

Hindus - Punjabi - 5,336

Christians - 16

Our aim is not to condemn any caste or community but to merely analyse the figures and dismiss baseless myths that Muslims were the foremost anti-British people in India in 1857. Why the Punjabi Muslims did not join Hindustani Muslims is a complicated question. It was not certainly opportunism alone because of which they remained loyal. There were other reasons for this loyalty which we will discuss in the subsequent part of this analysis. It is important to analyse another person or race's point of view rather than despising them. We despise the Afghan King, however, because he could have gained much more than a paltry sum of 12 lakh rupees per year! He by intervention could even have created conditions which would have led to participation of Punjabi Muslims and Pathans in support of the "Rebel Hindustani sepoys". Unfortunately Dost Mohammad Khan failed to muster the resolution which had made him famous in 1840! An year and half in exile in Calcutta transformed hsi perceptions and he knew that it was no mean job to fight the English Company.

Re: # 33 My Dear Sir

This is just a part from my book Sepoy Rebellion so it concentrates on just one aspect of 1857.

What I have basically tried to state is that wherever the sepoy regiments which had rebelled went and controlled there was rebellion.Like Delhi which was the favoured place of rebels.I have nowhere stated that Delhi nobility were heroes.What I have said is that Delhi was the focal point not because its people were great but because some 70 % of the sepoy regiments converged to Delhi.

About Sikhs also I have nowhere said that they were in majority in the English Company's force.My analysis , although not covered here that a substantial part of the collaborator Indian force with the English Company at Delhi was Punjabi Muslim and Pathan.After all the English East India Company was the knight in shining armour which rescued the Punjabi and Pathan Muslim from constant rape by the Sikhs !

Delhi was essentially seen as a Muslim poltical centre by the British and was a Muslim dominated city so it inadvertently suffered the maximum.It was condemned to the political pubishment of being a district of Punjab from 1857 till 1911.

Amin saheb:

A bit disappointed at this article. After your interacts on another thread, one was ready for a more thought-provoking essay.

Here is my "uninformed" opinion. I believe that the version that you mention as the Hindustani Muslim version is basically a Delhi Muslim version. It is a fact that Muslims in Delhi were a special target of the British fury against the mutineers even though Hindus shouting "Har har Mahadev" and "Ganga Mai ki jai" were the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who marched to Delhi as mutineers.

It was probably because the ruling aristocracy in Delhi was Muslim, although if Ghalib's narratives are to believed, not all of the aristocracy took part in the rebellion. Another reason why Hindus were spared in Delhi (but not elsewhere) from the British retribution was perhaps the fact that the British had used Sikh soldiers for fighting the mutineers; while they could count on the Muslim-Sikh enmity to help them out, the Sikhs would not have supported harsh actions on "fellow Hindus" (fellow hindus in quotation as Sikhs no longer consider themselves as Hindus).

#26 Posted by Eklavya on January 9, 2008 6:40:16 pm

Dalrymple is a genius. We're lucky to have him in our midst.

Eklayva #26,

"Dalrymple is, relatively, an ass - a Mughal wannabe. I personally wouldn't compare the two at all."

I think he's just being polite so that he can sell more of his books in India.

Anil sahib,

(Even among the muslim thoughts, Mevlana Rumi has clearly expressed "unknownness" of super being. You may be better of reading him than reading Koran.)

Maybe. But Koran is Islam, Rumi is not necessarily so. If Rumi's writings contradict the Koran, then Rumi's thoughts are not Islam. Which is not to say that Rumi is wrong, he is just unIslamic.

Regards

Re: # 28

Laddu ji:

Even among the muslim thoughts, Mevlana Rumi has clearly expressed "unknownness" of super being. You may be better of reading him than reading Koran.

Re: # 27

Laddu ji:

"... you understand that there is no 'finality' of answer - unlike the momeen 'truths' -..."

For me, I knew long time ago that it is for the human mind to discovers laws governing the universe. There can never be a finality on knowledge until everything is understood. There can neither be a finality of a person who discovers it unless he is the last person left to switch light off in the Universe. Therefore, there is no limit on knowledge, and there can never be the final person. Simply because the knowledge is infinite, and when will that last person be is unknown.

The debate Laddu ji, is not about the finality. At least in mind.

It is about what you express and paint as momeen.

If you can accept what I said, then you should also be able to accept those who want to accept finality to have happend in the 7th century, or those who believe in idols.

The question raised in Riga Veda does not negate their belief - their answer.

If you too believe in this question, then you must accept the consequence that it empowers people to think, and never excludes those who want to accept 7th century thought as final, or idols or any other symbol as their limits.

Re: # 24

Anilji,

It is good to know that you understand that there is no 'finality' of answer - unlike the momeen 'truths' - and that every person has to find answer to this question on the strength of his own spiritual experience than on the basis of parrotted and second hand 'revelations'.

vrv, this 'article' is a synopsis of a series of detailed articles that Amin ji wrote for the Defence Journal years ago. The whole objective behind this series was to question some widespread beliefs about 1857 and its aftermath (those beliefs are key elements of many grand historical narratives in India and Pakistan).

-------------

Dalrymple is, relatively, an ass - a Mughal wannabe. I personally wouldn't compare the two at all.

Mr. Amin,

Title is slightly misleading.

I fully appreciate ur hardwork/research but I am currently reading The Last Mughal (Dalrymple), so I may not make a comment on this. Prolly I need 2 read again to match ur work with that of Dalrymple. Nevertheless, the focus of ur study can vary (wrt martial nature of Subcontinental Muslims) but Dalrymple work seems to be version of Dehli Badshah (else he'd not have started & ended ref to Mangal Pandey in one sentence).

Re: # 18

Laddu ji:

I belive in the question raised in Riga Veda's "Is man the best creation of God, or God is the best imagination of man?"

Do you have problem with it?

Re: # 3 UP had a large number of Rajput caste

Re: # 1 yes they are . guys with minds smaller than a chilghoza like tahmed 32.

re: urstruly #8
“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?�
What!
Don’t you know that all the religious tension is because Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement!
What kind of paki are you…..Haven’t you learnt anything on chowk.

Regards,

Faruk
PS. I support other interlocutors who have suggested that math and history should be added to the madarsa curriculum.

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.

ok this is what wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidency

"The other important institution which emerged in this period was the Bengal Army, by far the largest of the three Presidency armies, which until the Indian Mutiny in 1857 recruited mainly Rajputs and Bhumihar Brahmins from Purbiya."

Quote:
"Later as I read more I discovered that only one out of seven or eight rebel sepoys was a Hindustani Muslim while the rest were Hindustani Hindu Rajputs!"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that most of the rebels were from the Bengal Army which was recruited mostly from present day UP/Bihar, why are 6/7 rebel sepoys Rajputs?

For most of the Hindu idolators, 1857 was the formal end of their dhimmitude.1857 ended the supremacy of momeens over the idolator hindus- no longer was our blood inferior to a momeen blood , the civil laws and IPC made us equal in status to momeens.

Modern education was thrown open to us by the British and we seized the opportunity after 800 years of dhimmitude.... We found this as the opportunity to get even with the our opressors and enslavers and took to modern education, instead of traditional gurukuls by amassing MA-s and MSc-s.
We watched the momeens sulking and going back into their shells after 1857 dreaming about their idolator slave men and women and their millions worth of zimmi-daris from the hindu idolator lands under their erstwhile control. We managed to get our freedom back by collaborating with the British. Thanks to them we got back our freedom.
This is the reality of 1857 - it was a moment of true liberation for the hindu idolators from their centuries of Dhimmi existence!

Pavo,

Isnt it ironic that ordinary north indian hindus fought and killed the british to preserve mughal rule, while punjabi muslims helped to destroy it?

Sorry to say this but punjabi muslims have always been collaborators with external forces, a tradition that started with the first muslim invader of india and continues to date with the americans.