10-28-2004, 02:26 AM
>
>
> http://www.dawn.com/2004/01/16/letted.htm
>
>
> Proposal to celebrate 1857 revolt
>
>
>
> The suggestion (January 7) to celebrate the 1857 revolt as a mark of
> solidarity is appreciable. However, it was not the British who took
> reins from the Muslim rulers. The British came to India as traders.
> They established business houses under the East India Company Inc.
> after obtaining permission from Mughal Emperor Jehangir (1612).
>
> <i>After the death of Emperor Aurangzeb (1707), the wars of succession,
> coupled with Byzantine intrigues, wrecked the empire. Afterwards,
> destruction of Delhi by Nadir Shah Afshar (1738-39) and six
> consecutive invasions by Ahmed Shah Abdali (1747 to 1762) ruined the
> central authority. </i>As a result of this uninterrupted mayhem, the
> empire lost its resources, and the governors of major provinces such
> as Bengal-Bihar-Orissa, Deccan and Oudh almost seceded and became
> independent, with nominal allegiance to the centre.
>
> The weakness of the centre encouraged insurrections of and on, with no
> central authority to assert the writ of the emperor. After the battle
> of Buxar (1764), Shah Alam-II granted diwani of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa to
> the East India Company (1766), abdicating thus his sovereign rights to
> the British. Subsequently, Maratha power acquired ascendancy to such
> an extent that Shah Alam out of apprehensions for his personal safety
> appointed Mahadji Sindhia as supreme regent and C-in-C of the Mughal
> army.
>
> Then during interregnums came Ghulam Qadir Rohilla who, out of
> personal vendetta, sacked the Delhi Fort, and blinded Emperor Shah
> Alam. The princes and princesses were flogged and dishonoured and
> imperial servants were beaten to death. The entire palace was dug to
> unearth the concealed treasure. For nine weeks the imperial city had
> been under siege of the Rohilla marauders. The hapless blind emperor
> was made to sit in the open, in scorching heat and was not allowed
> even proper meals. Later on the forces of Sindhia at the instructions
> of the emperor captured Ghulam Qadir Rohilla; he was blinded and put
> to death.
>
> <b>The Marathas were having sway over Delhi, and the emperor's power was
> restricted to the Red Fort. "Hukumat Shah Alam, uz Delhi ta Palam" was
> a popular saying those days</b>.
>
> In the Anglo-Maratha war (1803) Gen Lake defeated Doulat Rao Sindhia
> and took Shah Alam-II under his protection. An officer of Lake's army
> writes: "The descendent of the great Akbar and Aurangzeb was found...
> blind and aged, stripped of authority and reduced to poverty, seated
> under a small tattered canopy, the fragment of regal state and the
> mockery of human pride".>
> Thus, power was taken not from Muslims, (as they had already lost it,
> de facto, to the Marathas) but from the Marathas whom the British
> defeated and became masters of India.
>
> MANZOOR HUSSAIN KURESHI
>
> Karachi
No one party really defeated the great Mughals...
just like any other great empire they eventually collpased
under their own weight of follies and internal
feuds.
Also it is worthwhile noting Great Mughal - Auregzed -
spent a life time fighting the Marathas. In fact his imperial
Camp became a great city - Aurengabad.
After his death the Marathas emerged as one
of the great power in India but they could not gain
confidence of Jatts and were finally crushed in 1757 by Ahmed
Shah Abdali's Infantry near Panipat. Jatt Raja Surajmal
had warned the Marathas not to take on the Persians in
an Infantry action but Bhau ji was adamant and the Maratha
Army was routed and dispersed.
The rebellious Sikhs under Great Guru Govind Singha performed
many courageous feats but were not a real threat to the Mughals.
"One sikh will fight 125 thousand (Imeprial soldiers);
My sparrows will scare the Imperial Eagle (Baaz);
Otherwise I shall not be called "Lion of Govinda" (Govind Singha)."
Anyhow Sikh rebels were decimated and were left to
be dealt with by the local subedars - such as the cruel
and sadistic subedar Sirhind. So it was the Marathas
that came to replace the Mighals by and large.
<b>From 1707 to 1857AD (150 years) civil wars raged
all over India and finally Great Britain under Queen
Victoria asserted the their imperial rule. Plundering and destruction
that happened during these 150 years was unbelievable.
It was committed by all parties - i.e. Indians, Persians, Afghans,
Europeans and the East India Company - all alike.</b> For a
petty Raja to have 100's of women in their harem was
not uncommon - this can be said of most -
Hindu Jatts (Raja Badan Singh father of General Surajmal),
Sikh Jatts (Patiala) and Muslims.
A French missionary travelling in North India during 1770s
wrote "one could travel for days in areas (around Delhi ?)
without meeting a soul! The average life expectancy was
33 years and there was great famine in the land."
>
> http://www.dawn.com/2004/01/16/letted.htm
>
>
> Proposal to celebrate 1857 revolt
>
>
>
> The suggestion (January 7) to celebrate the 1857 revolt as a mark of
> solidarity is appreciable. However, it was not the British who took
> reins from the Muslim rulers. The British came to India as traders.
> They established business houses under the East India Company Inc.
> after obtaining permission from Mughal Emperor Jehangir (1612).
>
> <i>After the death of Emperor Aurangzeb (1707), the wars of succession,
> coupled with Byzantine intrigues, wrecked the empire. Afterwards,
> destruction of Delhi by Nadir Shah Afshar (1738-39) and six
> consecutive invasions by Ahmed Shah Abdali (1747 to 1762) ruined the
> central authority. </i>As a result of this uninterrupted mayhem, the
> empire lost its resources, and the governors of major provinces such
> as Bengal-Bihar-Orissa, Deccan and Oudh almost seceded and became
> independent, with nominal allegiance to the centre.
>
> The weakness of the centre encouraged insurrections of and on, with no
> central authority to assert the writ of the emperor. After the battle
> of Buxar (1764), Shah Alam-II granted diwani of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa to
> the East India Company (1766), abdicating thus his sovereign rights to
> the British. Subsequently, Maratha power acquired ascendancy to such
> an extent that Shah Alam out of apprehensions for his personal safety
> appointed Mahadji Sindhia as supreme regent and C-in-C of the Mughal
> army.
>
> Then during interregnums came Ghulam Qadir Rohilla who, out of
> personal vendetta, sacked the Delhi Fort, and blinded Emperor Shah
> Alam. The princes and princesses were flogged and dishonoured and
> imperial servants were beaten to death. The entire palace was dug to
> unearth the concealed treasure. For nine weeks the imperial city had
> been under siege of the Rohilla marauders. The hapless blind emperor
> was made to sit in the open, in scorching heat and was not allowed
> even proper meals. Later on the forces of Sindhia at the instructions
> of the emperor captured Ghulam Qadir Rohilla; he was blinded and put
> to death.
>
> <b>The Marathas were having sway over Delhi, and the emperor's power was
> restricted to the Red Fort. "Hukumat Shah Alam, uz Delhi ta Palam" was
> a popular saying those days</b>.
>
> In the Anglo-Maratha war (1803) Gen Lake defeated Doulat Rao Sindhia
> and took Shah Alam-II under his protection. An officer of Lake's army
> writes: "The descendent of the great Akbar and Aurangzeb was found...
> blind and aged, stripped of authority and reduced to poverty, seated
> under a small tattered canopy, the fragment of regal state and the
> mockery of human pride".>
> Thus, power was taken not from Muslims, (as they had already lost it,
> de facto, to the Marathas) but from the Marathas whom the British
> defeated and became masters of India.
>
> MANZOOR HUSSAIN KURESHI
>
> Karachi
No one party really defeated the great Mughals...
just like any other great empire they eventually collpased
under their own weight of follies and internal
feuds.
Also it is worthwhile noting Great Mughal - Auregzed -
spent a life time fighting the Marathas. In fact his imperial
Camp became a great city - Aurengabad.
After his death the Marathas emerged as one
of the great power in India but they could not gain
confidence of Jatts and were finally crushed in 1757 by Ahmed
Shah Abdali's Infantry near Panipat. Jatt Raja Surajmal
had warned the Marathas not to take on the Persians in
an Infantry action but Bhau ji was adamant and the Maratha
Army was routed and dispersed.
The rebellious Sikhs under Great Guru Govind Singha performed
many courageous feats but were not a real threat to the Mughals.
"One sikh will fight 125 thousand (Imeprial soldiers);
My sparrows will scare the Imperial Eagle (Baaz);
Otherwise I shall not be called "Lion of Govinda" (Govind Singha)."
Anyhow Sikh rebels were decimated and were left to
be dealt with by the local subedars - such as the cruel
and sadistic subedar Sirhind. So it was the Marathas
that came to replace the Mighals by and large.
<b>From 1707 to 1857AD (150 years) civil wars raged
all over India and finally Great Britain under Queen
Victoria asserted the their imperial rule. Plundering and destruction
that happened during these 150 years was unbelievable.
It was committed by all parties - i.e. Indians, Persians, Afghans,
Europeans and the East India Company - all alike.</b> For a
petty Raja to have 100's of women in their harem was
not uncommon - this can be said of most -
Hindu Jatts (Raja Badan Singh father of General Surajmal),
Sikh Jatts (Patiala) and Muslims.
A French missionary travelling in North India during 1770s
wrote "one could travel for days in areas (around Delhi ?)
without meeting a soul! The average life expectancy was
33 years and there was great famine in the land."