The Company Bahadar

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

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

Lest we forget the baboons & thugs.
or Setting the record straight--still not the whole story

[excerpted , among others,from Collins encyclopaedia]

[an aside:

The story of freedom fighters like Mangal Paanday, Bhagat Singh, AshfaaqUllah, Subhaash Bose, the shaheeds of Shaamli, Faquir Eppi and thousands of others is Still not taught in goraagoochaater-controlled Pakistan. When Mr. Vajpaee suggested to at least celebrate May 10 as Freedom Day jointly, the uniformed thug and the un-informed Chhittar-lovers
pooh-poohed the idea. There is too much in the Paindoo-raaz`s box to be revealed.

KanjaRRS and Basant OK--Freedom-fighters No No.

Pakistan is ruled by the subalterns who thoroughly enjoy to keep their noses to the grinding-arsetone of goraas. The goraagoochaaters!]

---

READ ON!


PORTUGAL & India After 1498.
(Stuff that could be new for many)

European interest in India has persisted since classical times and for very cogent reasons. Europe had much to steal from India such as spices, textiles and other oriental products. The best classical accounts are in fact the commercial ones. When direct contact was lost with the fall of Rome and the rise of the Muslims, the trade was carried on through middlemen. In the late Middle Ages it increased with the increasing prosperity of Europe.

The REASON:

It should be remembered that the spice trade was not solely a luxury trade at that time. Spices were needed to preserve meat through the winter (cattle had to be slaughtered in late autumn through lack of winter fodder) and to combat the taste of decay. Wine, in the absence of ancient or modern methods of maturing, had to be `mulled` with spices. This trade suffered two threats in the later Middle Ages. There was the threat of Mongol and Turkish invasion which interfered with the land routes and threatened to engulf the sea route through Egypt, and there was the threat of monopoly shared between the Venetians and Egyptians.

In 1510 Affonso de Albuquerque captured the island of Goa on the west coast of India from the Sultan of Bijapur and made it the capital of the Portuguese eastern empire. Its strong points besides Goa were Socotra off the Red Sea (he could not take Aden), Ormuz in the Persian Gulf, Diu in Gujrat, Malacca, the entrepot for the Far East and the spice trade in the East Indies, and Macao in China. The function of Goa was to supervise Malabar, to control the pilgrim traffic to Mecca as well as the general trade to Egypt, Iraq and Persia, and of Malacca to control the East Indian spices at their source.

However, the Portuguese irked some of the Mughal and preceding rulers because of the toll they took of the trade from the port of Surat and the pilgrim traffic. In seizing and retaining their strong points they acquired a reputation for cruelty and peridy because their practice on both these points was below the current Indian standard. They were deeply impregnated with the idea that no faith need be kept with an infidel. It was from this period that the word feringi (lit.farangi, frank) acquired the opprobrium of which echoes may still be heard today. However, the Mughal Emperor, Jahangir admired their pictures and had them copied. Emperor Akbar listened with interest to Jesuit Father`s discourses. The New Testament was translated into Persian.

However, during the whole of the 16th century the Portuguese disputed with the Muslims the supremacy of the Indian seas, and the antagonism between Christianity and Islam became gradually more intense. In 1519, Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese navigator commanded the first expedition to sail around the world. In the Collins Encyclopaedia it is written that Magellan set sail to check the power of Muslim navy and fleet that was dominant. In 1560, the Portuguese being intolerant in religion, introduced the Inquisition with all its horrors. This was regarded as sub-standard from the Indian standpoint, advertising this trait in their rough handling of Syrian Christians of Malabar to secure their submission to the Catholic faith.

Socially the policy of Albuquerque in encouraging mixed marriages had important results. His object was to rear a population possessing Portuguese blood and imbued with Portuguese Catholic culture who would be committed by race and taste to the Portuguese settlements and so form a permanent self-perpetuating garrison. The result was the race long known as Luso-Indians and now as Goansese or Goans. They are mainly Indian in blood, Catholic in religion, and partially western in outlook. In recent times, they have spread all over India as traders and professionals, a less successful version of the Parsis. (Of all the Asians in Britain, a majority of whom are Muslim, the first Asian MP had to be a Roman Catholic of Goanese descent, Keith Vaz).

Some Portuguese words have even crept into the Urdu language such as the names of items for furniture (mayze for desk, almaari for cupboard/wardrobe). Also vindaloo (curry) is part Portuguese and part Urdu: vian is Portuguese for meat and aloo is the Urdu for potato - thus we have meat and potato curry.

The Portuguese were soon followed by European rivals like the French, Dutch and British. Rivalry between the Dutch and English resulted in the Dutch East India Company ``winning`` Southeast Asia and Indonesia (known to Europeans as the East Indies); and the British East India Company having to settle for ``second-best``, that is India.

And then the Britsih Baboons:

The first Englishman who actually visited India was Thomas Stephens in 1579. He became rector of Jesuits College in Goa. His letters to his father are said to have roused with great enthusiasm in England to trade directly with India. India had an active trade with the Middle East and Europe, the main articles of export being textiles, indigo, saltpetre and spices (Gujrat benefited from the indigo industry and Malabar from the spice trade). In return she received luxuries like wines and novelties and metals, specially bullion, which was in chronic short supply in northern Europe. This constituted the Indian silver drain which was the bugbear of English mercantilists.

Next: The barbarities of the British baboons. not only India. EVERYWHERE! still are going on.

Nazar sahib,

It is very interesting to note that during 1857, hindus and muslims fought together against the british to reinstall the Mughal throne!! This means that hindus actually considered the mughal emperor to be one of their own while considering the british to be the outsiders. That is a direct contradiction to the two nation theory where it automatically assumes that hindus and muslims are incapable of living together and have some kind of permanent hostility. The sad thing is that sikhs and pathans did not collaborate, otherwise we could have destroyed the british vermin a century back.

In my opinion, the british rule was the worst period in Indian history. Every invading force that settled in India, enriched its culture, heritage and economy. This includes the aryans, afghans, mughals etc. The only exception were the british, who reduced us to the status of beggars and a third world country by completely exploiting us in every way possible. If it were not for them, we would have been a much more dynamic place as is slowly happening in India today. We would have been a loose federation of nation states like Europe. Democracy is a natural for our temparament and we would have that as well. The economy would have been miles ahead of what it was in 1947. Also the communal problem would not have existed the way it does with partition and what not. After all a nominal mughal ruler would never pack his bags and shift from Delhi to Lahore!!

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

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

a large expanse covered in a short essay. i was getting lost, and then the last 2 questions kind of anchored the article.

i think the mughal rule was overall not beneficial. an emperors primary responsibility is towards establishment of peace, which the mughals were not able to do, except in akbars time and shehajehans time. an empire which is not peaceful is useless for the people. i think in absence of mughal empire, several smaller kingdoms would have dotted india, which would find a political balance and prosper. mughals were too restless and really wanted to be on a horse in the steppes.

english rule was yet worst, which turned indians into natives.

Nazar Khan,

Apart from the factual error that the British left india of their own free will, the article nicely sums up their spread of empire.
I`ve considered the british to be political geniuses, who use force only when sure of victory, and compromise with upper hand when in weaker position. Truth be told, in india and elsewhere, by masking their greedy intentions with sophistry, they have been able to conquer the most. But you cannot clap with just one hand. If the emperor of india`s letter to british monarch at a time of india`s stable position is considered, one can see why the ordinary folks of india are not to blame for sucking up to the white skins. You mentioned about the mughals` lack of interest in european science and ideas. You forget that krishnadeva rai had actually implemented irrigation and drainage enegineering concepts by borrowing them from the portugese. And secondly this tendency of looking upto the europeans for anything scientific is worng. Please don`t forget the city planning of jaipur, the jantar mantar etc. and Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta etc., whose works are collecting dust, only because we still think scientific is only western. If the mughals did not take any interest in encouraging science and tech. in india, then its their stupidity. But to think that they should look for ideas outside alone is again a sign of our confidence in ourselves.
Unfortunately for india, her large parts being ruled by mughals, who had slowly become indulgent and oppresive, the generations paid a price by slavery to the british.

Well..

Adios

The most fascinating aspect of this tale is how the Company (and the British) played one Raja against the other and kept nibbling and eating away this huge landmass bit by bit.

And the Indian Chieftons fell into their trap, never reconciled with each other and put up a joint defence.

Kaurasach # 1

I think that the British decided to leave India - and leave it in a hurry. Either they should not have come or should not have left India at the stage they left. It is just an opinion.

nazar #9:

As a Punjabi, aren`t you glad that these chieftons fell one after another quickly and we have 100 years of peace which has left more monuments and legacies behind than all the combined history of prior period , which left behind only faint memories except a new religion. If not for these chietons falling one after another quickly, we might still have one dirt road linking Lahore and Multan with one bearded persian speaking Afghan governor of Multan and one bearded persian speaking Turk governor of Lahore. allah allah khair sallah

nazar Hayat:

Very good job of not only summing up history of 250 years in 2.5 pages but you stayed away from emotions of siding one side or other. I read the entire article twice with keen interest to notice any subjectivity particularly with Auragzeb, British, Tipu Sultan, Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. I must add though that personally there was nothing new for me in this article because I have been reading history with interest for a long time.

Having changed my mind several times over the last 20+ years to appreciate one group or another in the history of sub-continent, I am now actually grateful to all those people who chose to side with British over others during mutiny that would have restored Mughals to the throne. India would have left much behind than current level if Mughal rule by the descendants of Bahadur Shah Zafar was to continue. At that time, it was a choice between two evils, one markedly smart and genius than the other. Unlike another interactor, I am now thankful to Sikhs for helping crush the mutiny of Bengalis, Marathas and Upites in the name of their over-lords, which has nothing to do with India, freedom, nationalism or patriotism.

India not having a standing navy in 1857 speaks volumes about the mindset and visions of the ruling class. They did not deserve to be rulers not at that time and definitely not in the future. It is more or less like enemy of our enemy is our friend. People of India and particularly in the area of current Pakistan has no reason to take part in the mutiny.

The letter of Jahangir to King George reads just like the ghazal translated by Asif Naqshbandi. I can see clearly where the tradition of bragging, exaggerating, extensive metaphorical and allegorical expressions in Urdu ghazal is originating from......

Very well written piece Nazar sahb.

I agree with SameerJB. If Mughals were still in power, the most I could dream of would be to have a chance to clean their shoes.

I agree with SameerJB. If Mughals were still in power, the most I could dream of would be to have a chance to clean their shoes.

SameerJB # 11

I agree. The way the Mughals were having a roaring time with their elephants, wives & palaces; and were on a mutual killing spree and had a complete disinterest in getting updated with the rest of the world, The British may have been a blessing in disguise.

My only grouse against the British is that they completely discarded India`s heritage. And while they had yet not fully replaced it with a new system, they left.

But the main theme of this article is ``How the British succeeded in India?``

They succeeded because they were able to exploit the local discord.

Unfortunately, history is repeating itself and that is still happening. The local discord is a benefit to the OUTSIDERS.

NHK

[warning! long post]

Nazar saheb:
After sanatan dharma, a crash course in British History..and a good one!
I especially liked the write-up about the John Company. The farangi who came with the John Company was a special breed. He was an adventurous and free spirited seeker of fortune. He did not look down upon the native, but instead learned his language, lived like one, ate like one, dressed like one and sometimes married one. Unlike the Saab Bahadur who succeeded him, he did not treat the native as his inferior and did not consider it his mission to civilise him. It is said that when Sir Thomas Roe gave Jehangir a gift of a painting, he immediately had one of his artists make a duplicate and Roe could not tell the difference. Jehangir was impressed with the British, but not completely. He asked Roe how the British considered themselves civilized if they didn`t even wash after relieving. Jehangir would be aghast to learn that today it is his progeny that is trying to ape the progeny of Roe in substituting water with paper.
Did you know that Queen Elizabeth gave simutaneous charter to two companies? The other was The Hudson Bay Company which was given a similar monopoly in North America. This company traded fur and other commodities with the natives (Red Indians) and also became a virtual ruler, especially in area which is now western Canada. Unlike the John Company, this company still survives, owns sizeable real estate and runs the Bay and Zeller stores all over Canada.
I do not agree that the British did not leave a positive legacy in India. Just as the Mughals before them left a legacy of architecture, Urdu language and poetry, cuisine, etc. the British too left a legacy of language, custom, Shakespeare, dress, etc. All of us at chowk (and that includes you, echoboom!) are Macaulay`s children in some sense. They also left us an infrastructure for modern development, including physical infrastructure like railways, roads, telegraph, telephone and post office as well as -and more importantly- institutional infrastructure of property rights, schools, universities, the concept of universal education, and the separation of executive and judiciary. The proudest achievement of modern India is its constitution, which is also a legacy of the British.
As for the mughals, they neglected navy probably because North India did not have a coastline. But Shivaji did pay considerable attention to navy, which was considered quite strong in those days (probably because the Portugese were a force to reckon with and had already captured Goa!). The Hindu caste system created an obstacle for creating a navy as the upper caste hindus thought that going to sea meant losing their caste status. Shivaji built his navy with dalits who were otherwise not supposed to take part in war. The brahmin peshwas who succeeded Sambaji disapproved of this and disbanded the dalit navy. These dalits refused to go back to their menial jobs and joined the British, fought against the Peshwas and laid the foundation of the Mahar regiment of the Indian army. The founder of the modern dalit movement, Dr. Ambedkar`s father was a British dalit soldier.
It is true that the British exploited the discord among the native rulers. But was this something new? Didn`t the Mughals exploit the discord among the Sultans and didn`t the sultans exploit the discord among the Rajputs.
I am not sure that things have changed a whole lot. Didn`t our rulers get summoned to Tashkant and Washington to sort out our mess? Musharraf is a smart guy who has turned Pakistan into a willing vassal of the white man. But if he had resisted and Bush had turned Pakistan into Iraq, dont you think Indians would be dancing, including here at chowk?

The worst thing the Mughals left behind was an illusion of power to the ordinary Muslims. Hardly 1% of Muslims were part of the Mughal royalty. The rest were poor and disfranchised like Hindus. But because the Hindu was treated worse, it made the Muslim feel superior and left him with a hankering for a bygone Golden Age that was largly mythical.