1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

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.

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.....

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: # 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.

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

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

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?

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).

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.

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'.

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: # 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.

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

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.

#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.