The Company Bahadar

aslam644:
#54

The excesses in corruption, bribery, land grabbing and loot and plunder by Clive and Hastings reached such proportions that it became unbearable for those who were not getting the ``commision``

This ``commissioned`` officer indignity which our uniformed monkeys strut about shamelessly
is a hangover from that accursed era. The `Company` of Chartered and licensed pirates, robbers, and thugs had devised ``scientific`` and ``legal`` methods and tried in a pathological way to emulate superior and higher civilisations.

---

The East India Company was trying to get control of whole of India. The period from 1784 to 1853 is full of their various wars, with the Marathas, the Burmese, the Gorkhas and the Sikhs. The insatiable, rapacious lust for plunder and loot of the English, made Chengiz Khan and Nadir Shah look like cowboys. They even wanted to demolish the Taj Mahal! Their crooked methods, audacity to break unilaterally their own promises, assurances and treaties, racist, arrogant and contemptuous behaviour, was soon to result in the eruption of the Great Revolt of 1857.

Nazar Saab,

I love you for this one!! Thanks a ton!!

``British left of their own free will out of their own domestic compulsions`` this is a piece of History that puts Indians in a state of denial. We love to believe that it was Gandhiji`s fasts unto death that got us our independence, not the fact that labour party was not interested in putting up wiht the menance of India any longer. This is further substantiated by the subsequent granting of independence to a bunch of other countries by the British. They knew they can`t continue with the Raj any longer and snapped the tie when they thought was best for them.

``The worst in them came out close to the time of succession. They invariably went through a gory charade of eliminating all possible contenders to the throne not even sparing the parents`` This was a common problem in all Turkish regimes; the Turks didn`t have a system of Primogeniture like Indians and other civilizations. The land of father was divided equally amongst all sons. Even Babur continued with this practice, and Humayoun - an obedient son fulfilled his father`s wishes by giving his brothers their share. When he was hounded out of India by Shershah, none of his brothers came to his help. This led to a deep-seated Mughal conviction that a throne is best not shared amongst siblings...they couldn`t come up with a better system, so contenders decided by using the methods you described in your article. Even Ottomans had the same problem, and shedding the blood of brothers and half-brothers was a common practice.

The battle of Buxar is often forgotten while talking about the rise of British in India. It really sealed the fate of Indian rulers. The British defeated the joint armies of Nawabs of Bengal and Oudh, and the Mughal ruler.

The role of 1857 is over-hyped by Indian Historians (don`t know how it is in Pakistan). It is unreasonable to expect a rag-tag coalition of disgruntled, dispossessed rulers and infuriated sepoys to kick-ass a well-organized unit like East India Company. First and foremost, there should be a national consciousness for people to act together. The sense of commonality, bonding and cohesiveness was sorely missing from Indian people in `57. As you rightly pointed out, some groups even thought of the revolt as impinging on their interests and fought against it.

And this myth of Bahadur Shah leading the struggle is a myth propagated by vested interests. An old man who was passing his time amicably writing poetry and surviving on British pension could never have done such a thing - he was just caught in the cross-fire between rebel and loyal sepoy units of the British army.

#50sameerjb

Basically British empire was racist, it treated blacks and browns as second class citizens.
2000 years before the Roman empire treated it’s citizens equally reason you have a Libyan as an emperor.

Incidentally Ireland wasn’t treated like a colony even then they weren’t happy.
The contemporary of the british empire Ottoman empire with all it’s shortcomings treated it’s citizens comparatively equally.

The british exploited India for raw materials, captive market for industrial goods and cheap Indian coolie labour.

With the abolition of black slavery the british needed cheap labour for their sugar plantations > enter Indian coolies in places like Trinidad,Fiji, and Guyana hence you have novelist Naipaul from Trinidad son of a Indian coolie. Many an Indian virgin ended up on plantation owners bed. The reason in my re-incarnation I would like to come back as a plantation owner.

For every ex-colony success story there is a non-colony success story Japan, China Thailand,Turkey

According to my research India was self supporting it even paid the wages of british employees right up to the Viceroy, incidentally the wages of british were a lot higher than locals apart from that I believe there was no transfer of wealth to Britain.

#52 echoboom

Apart from raw materials, market for industrial goods, cheap Indian coolie labour, wages for british employees, there is no other evidence of loot.

aslam

Sindh Times, May 20 1884 reports:

``Nadir Shah looted the country only once. But the British loot us every day. Every year wealth to the tune of 4.5 million Rupees* is being drained out, sucking our very blood. Britain should immediately quit India.``

That`s what the Sindh Times wrote on May 20, 1884, a year before the Indian National Congress was born and 58 years before the ``Quit India`` movement of 1942 was launched.

Contrary to the view that nationalist sentiments were awoken by the Indian National Congress only when M.K. Gandhi took over its leadership, nationalist feelings in India had been present as early as 1857, and expressions of Indian nationalism manifested themselves in various forms all through the course of British rule.

* almost 10 times stronger then, compared to today`s US $

Such fascinating and heart-pounding adventures are not taught in Kalloo-goraa occupiers of Pakistan; lest the real culprits in catonement and colonies are exposed.

---

The Indian-style Inter-net circa: 1857;
The Chappati-message board!

How cute, how creative!

The afternoon of May 10 this year was as hot as it was in 1857 when the sepoys shot their British officers in Meerut and prepared to march to Delhi. Since it was a Sunday, that day in the Red Fort 145 years ago must have been a hectic one, what with all the rumours that had been floating for months about the impending end of the British Company Sarkar and the return of the Padshah and the Peshwa to their rightful places. The lotus and the chappati had made their rounds of the entire length and breadth of Hindustan, with runners fleeting away into the night through villages and towns to pass the word of the forthcoming event.

The chappatis carried messages about banding together for the attack on the British baboons. The messages in chappatis were akin to today`s chinese fortune-cookies.

A fascinating detailed account is available in several reports and book/s. The youth of today will thoroughly re-charge their freedom-batteries. The totaa-mainaa-monkey schools (english medium , private types) would never teach them such stuff.

Maharana #48:

There is not much difference than yours and mine posts if read carefully. But perspective has to have limits, otherwise it can be and will be used to justify poverty, misery, riding camels, hijab, hindutva, fundamentalism and everything else. All you have to say is that our perspective and values of happiness are different than the west; we are not materialist and find happiness in faith, family and friends above everything else. One can not compare two values systems without some common variables such as per capita income, socio-economical indicators, prosperity, human rights and justice type things.

So from African or tribal perspective and refusing to accept any variable against culture, traditions, faith, family and friends combo is just dil khush kernay wali baat - a lame excuse specifically to pass the blame to others.

In my previous post, I gave the examples of Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong as former British colonies, not in love with colonialism but accepting the administrative and economical system of former colonial masters to prosper. Singapore with mostly chinese population did not opt for recreating the golden age of Ming dynasty. In Africa, Portugal until recently ruled Portugese Guinea, Angola and Mozambique in addition to Macau in China. Given the plunder theory by colonists and the rich diamond mines in Mozambique, Oil fields in Angola and trade surplus of Macau, Portugal remained one of the poorest country and mostly surviving on Wine and tourism until they joined EU recently. What did they do with the plunder from extensive colonies, if they did??

British were good in record-keeping especially during 20th century. Their plunder in the form of cash or kind must be documented somewhere, either officially or unofficially. Do you know the amount of cash or equivalent they took out during any particular year, 1920, 1925, 1946, 1947? Based on the assumption of plundering the revenues, both India and Pakistan must have surplus in the very first years after independence because employment and business activities were at the same level where British left off. Can you produce any document from India or Pakistan stating that the surplus previously going to British coffers will now be spent on rehabilitation of refugees, building infrastructure etc?

45:Sorry for mix-up.

The excerpt is from the book, Iqbal--QuomouN kaa urooj O zavaal, by:
the distinguished educationist Dr Raziuddin Siddiqui, originally from Hyderabad, Deccan (Andhera Pradesh) who was for several years vice chancellor of the University of Peshawar.

Also was member of Atomic energy Pakistan. Respected and acknowledged by peers scientist and mathematician. Studied and graduated from Osmania university Dakkan in science and mathematics where entire medium-of-instruction was/is urdu. Produced many other liminaries who served/are serving Pakistan selflessly.

SameerJB:46

Point taken. Had already decided to use i-log, as per ZahraJ advice. Just didn`t remember it this time. Mea Culpa.

Your ``hubb-e Ali`` and ``bughz-e Muaavia`` has, of course, nothing to do with it.

45:
Pak-American gets top US post

Staff Report

WASHINGTON: Shirin Raziuddin Tahir-kheli, a Pakistani-American who has held a number of important posts in Republican administrations, has been appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations.

Mrs Tahir-kheli, who is married to a Pakistani academic living in America, is the daughter of the distinguished educationist Dr Raziuddin Siddiqui,* originally from Hyderabad, Deccan (Andhera Pradesh) who was for several years vice chancellor of the University of Peshawar.

Currently she is Research Professor of International Relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. She is also a member of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and of the Distinguished Advisory Panel for the Sandia National Laboratory, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

When the present administration took office, many people here assumed that Mrs Tahir-kheli would be appointed head of South Asia at the State Department, the post now held by Ms Christina Rocca.

---

* Also was member of Atomic energy Pakistan. Respected and acknowledged by peers scientist and mathematician. Studied and graduated from Osmania university Dakkan in science and mathematics where entire medium-of-instruction was/is urdu. Produced many other liminaries who served/are serving Pakistan selflessly

Attn: CHOWK STAFF

please ban and delete images posting on front page. Once you let images like post #45 go through, there is no stopping to images posting from playboy to cartoon to different languages. This sets a terrible precedence.

Harimau # 37,

I don`t believe my statement on SN Bose mentioned that he discovered the class of particles called Bosons. Reading comprehension issues are meant to be resolved upto high school.

``The fact is that a British judge could apply the law among the ``natives`` without fear whereas people did not necessarily receive justice in the princely states and under the Muslim sultans. You might find it hard to swallow that the British were fair at least in cases involving only Indians on both sides``.

I don`t find it hard to accept that in matters that did not affect them, they have tried to demonstrate superiority and fairness, which pea brained people can easily take it as their all encompassing virtue in every sphere of life. In any case their own nation suffered from discriminatory laws against the poor and low class.

``Adios

Fcuk You``

I understand now why you throw insults at interactors. Though its not your fault. It has to do something with your upbringing. Perhaps the substitute for Adios or bye in your family has been Fcuk you.

In that spirit, Adios Harimau!!

Now go and pray at the Khushbu temple for more sense.

Sameer # 28,

``It all boils down to philosophy``

I think it all boils down to perspective. A recent study has shown that Africa had not known poverty or other problems, until the white man arrived. Please go to the archives of PBS or NPR to find that article. The british propagated the idea of civilizing the sub-human blacks in their own country for recruitment purposes. Once the white man arrived in Africa, the local social system or rather the entire way of life was turned upside down. The new system imposed, was meant to optimize profits for the white man. Poverty, natural disasters and other problems started taking its toll on the local population, resulting in an africa that we know of today. I think there`s a lot of merit in Dr. Amartya Sen`s thesis about natural disasters. His theory implied that the bengal famine and the deaths of millions thereafter were definitely a result of britsh policies. Bear in mind that, the british never allowed food grain distribution to the famine stricken, despite having a surplus in their hold.

In india, the kings/sultans had their own oppressive machinery in place. The british indeed bestowed a little more freedom and justice to attract locals to their fold. Even so, their purpose to occupy or rule india was never altruistic in nature. The system they had in place was to maximize exploitation of our resources with apathy towards locals or their affairs. It took people like raja ram mohan and others to persuade the british to end some filthy practices in our society. But unfortunately, an indian mind still gives the credit to the british for such changes. Since there weren`t many such muslim social activists, the britsh allowed them to stagnate in that condition, and that created a disparity between the two largest communities.

I don`t blame the britsh for divide and rule policy. We were anyway divided by the local princes/nawabs due to their own whimsical attitudes towarads each other. The british merely used that opportunity to maintain a staus quo between these various rulers and benefit themselves by becoming arbiters in their disputes. The moment you allow an outsider to arbritrate for you and your neighbour, real power drifts towards the arbiter.
Their genius was in convincing us that they alone could remain free and fair towards us all. While behind this fairness and justice (which we held so dear, due to our obsessive fights with each other), they silently looted us all. If a thief steals your wedding ring and openly flaunts it the next day, you`ll be tempted to call him so. But then Queen of england still remains Mallika despite the kohi-noor or other looted stuff. I don`t know whether to admire the british or pity our state.

India is labeled one of the richest in culture and languages. We`ve got atleast 22 of them. And yet every indian language is slowly dying. Only because we cannot see one indian language take precedence over others, while allowing everyone to flourish as well. The alternative we`ve preferred is to have a foreign language, which is resulting in the demise of all local languages slowly. The only exception is Kerala, where the local culture and language is still flourishing in parallel with everything else.

I hope you get my point.. though its too long.

Adios

41malik99

Malik99
I agree with you totally about mughals, one shouldn’t be regarded a foreigner if they adopt it as their homeland.

English royal family isn’t regarded as foreign even though they are descended from William the conqueror….1066…battle of hasting.

hamidm you write ``...... what utter nonsense! ......... here we go again, blaming the white man for our misery instead of thanking him for introducing us to forks and knives that our tasbeeh-feebled fings still struggle with``

Aside from the fact that I always find myself struggling to uncover sense and meanings in your ............ dotted ............comments, the point I made of ``white`` man was in the context of Ferozk`s argument that Mughals were exclusive and British were inclusive.

And by the way, those uncivilized chinese, who continue to slurp it away with chop sticks instead of forks and knives, and continue to chooo chaaaaw away in mandarin and cantonese instead of english, continue to pound our butt every single minute of every single day and are well on their way to surpass our current masters. While Chinese continue their work in reviving their old glory and charting their OWN course free of diktats from DC or London or Brussels, we will continue to make sure that we adapt well to the whims and wishes of whovere our ``Master of the Day`` is.

No wonder our children grow up to call our own people ``yucky``. I don`t blame them, any self respecting person would do the same. Who would want to be associated with slaves anyways?

...... what utter nonsense! ......... here we go again, blaming the white man for our misery instead of thanking him for introducing us to forks and knives that our tasbeeh-feebled fings still struggle with, the english language that is oft overcome with babbling in arabic, and rudiments of democracy that our iman-feebled minds fail to grasp........ if it weren`t for him (and mem sahib) we would running around half naked on our polio-stunted legs, building more mausoleums for fat kings and their concubines, burning our widows, having sex with nine year olds, riding in bullock carts and generally behaving like a bunch of savage heathens...........

........... i, for one, will up dinesh dsouza`s two cheers with ``three cheers for colonialism!``

Here is a more balanced view by a brown man who has seen the light http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i35/35b00701.htm

ferozk # 34 - you write ``the British unlike the Mughuls were generally more inclusve rulers whereas the Mughuls were exclusive in their rule of India.``

The hisorical data disproves your theory. In fact, as Nazar`s article suggests, it were the British who created those ``hill stations`` and fortified country clubs. While people like Ghalib, Mir Dard, Zaoq were the `courtiers` in Mughals palace, how many `babu` indian intellects had the fortune to have access to gora raj? As bad as Mughals were, they eventually submerged into mother India and became its natives, contributing much to its culture, language, religions, and social order. Many of the inhabitants of subcontinent today trace their roots back to Mughals - because of Mughals local marriages etc. How many inhabitants today trace their roots back to British? Unlike the ``mughlai food`` of kababs and kofta and korma which is as mush part of the sub-continental cuisine as curry or daal, when did fish & chips became part of indian day to day cuisine?

So the punch line of my argument is this: as bad as the mughals were, they demolished the old order in India and ushered a new era (according to the standards of their time). And when they ran out of their usefulness, British took their place and userherd another NEW era.

For you and SameerJb and others who are thanking God that British won the mutiny of 1857 or else we would be so far behind today, my argument is this: had mughals not overthrown the old order in india, british would have had to pull us out from a much deeper sh!thole of abyss

And besides, please take a look at my post # 32 - where i have argued that as per your logic, we should stop debating whether Musharraf is good or bad, and simply invite British to come over and rule us and make men out of us monkeys. Just like sameerjb is thanking those who sided with British, our future generations will thank us for ending our bikerings and making this sound deciiosn of accepting British, or any european nation, as our rulers.