First war of independence: 1857

ramana · (This post was last modified: 08-20-2006, 09:47 PM by ramana.)

QUOTEThe 1857 revolt and the '(gandhian) fight for Indian independence' were fought for 2 totally different objectives. and thus could not be considered as one being the precursor to another. yes inspirations were drawn from individual valor of the 1857 revolt, simply because the enemy was the same, not because the cause was the same.

I Agree. Also the inspirations were different. The 1857 revolt was still feudal in nature while the 1947 Freedom Movement was more eglatarian and anti-feudal. It was step towards modernization in path of the French Revloution. In fact the Brits drew a lot of support from the Landlord (Zamindari)/feudal class in the later struggle. These feudal elements formed the Justice Party in the Madras Presidency. [edited ramana]

08-15-2006, 08:10 PM

Wasn't C. Rajagopalachari a member of the Swatantra party?
Wasn't it pro-capitalism?

08-15-2006, 09:14 PM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Aug 15 2006, 08:10 PM)Wasn't C. Rajagopalachari a member of the Swatantra party?
Wasn't it pro-capitalism?
[right][snapback]55661[/snapback][/right]


Pro Capitalist may be, but to call it feudal is a little unjust. Was Minoo Masani feudal? Was Piloo Modi?

Its main plank was 'free enterprise,' I think.

08-15-2006, 09:15 PM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Aug 15 2006, 08:10 PM)Wasn't C. Rajagopalachari a member of the Swatantra party?
Wasn't it pro-capitalism?[right][snapback]55661[/snapback][/right]
Yes, he founded Swatantra Party. He was against Congress party's socialism and license-permit Raj .

ramana · 08-15-2006, 11:16 PM

Guys why dont you concentrate on the nature of the ideas that spurred the two movements and not get hung up on Swatantra party? My comment was wrt to the Justice party which later became the Swatantra party. Look up the mass base of the later version and not jst go by its elites.

08-16-2006, 10:34 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 15 2006, 11:16 PM) My comment was wrt to the Justice party which later became the Swatantra party. Look up the mass base of the later version and not jst go by its elites.
[right][snapback]55677[/snapback][/right]


The basic premise that the Justice Party was the precursor to The Swantatra Party is wrong.

Justice Party was largely anti-brahmin and was started by some disgruntled lawyers and civil servants etc., who were alarmed at the seemingly large proportion of Brahmins in Government service. The Party morphed into the Self- Respect Movement from which was born the present Dravidian Parties

Swatantra Party, on the other hand, was started by C. Rajagopalachary and Minoo Masani as a counter to the then prevailing socialist licence-permit-quota raj. There might have been some feudal elements, such as Khamakhya Narain Singh of Bastar. But it was a reform movement emphasising free enterprise

Long before the World Bank and other International Organisations arm twisted Manmohan Singh into the much vaunted economic reforms, C R. was advocating precisely such reforms. He, in effect, wanted the Government to govern and NOT enter into businesses-such as running airlines and hotels etc.,

ramana · 08-20-2006, 09:43 PM

Thanks for clarifying the origins. Makes lot of sense.

Deccan Chronicle, 20 August 2006

QUOTECawnpoor in 1857

Itihaas: By Akhilesh Mithal

Individuals, groups, communities, villages, cities, states and nations seem to be in search of identities. These âidentitiesâ help define what they think they are and how being so makes them different from others. One of the uses to which history has been put, is to serve as a primary source for providing a distinct identity for an individual, a group, a city or a nation.

The poles on which these âcoloursâ of distinction can be hoisted are provided by events where heroic acts occurred and the people who performed those great acts of heroism bring the event out of the realm of the ordinary. The British did not choose Shakespeare and his writing as the distinguishing mark that set them apart from others. This honour was given to the British Empire âon which the Sun never setâ. The heart of this empire was India. The Imperial title assumed by Queen Victoria in 1877 rose from her becoming âKaiser-I- Hindâ or Empress of India.

The Ghadar of 1857 to 1859, ended the rule of the East India Company and the crown was taken over. For the British, the Ghadar became an epic in which a handful of beleaguered Britishers not only defeated untold millions of Indians and did so not for any sordid purpose such as personal gain or glory, but for the sake of the poor benighted Indians themselves. The great moral virtues of the Christian British were overwhelmingly superior to those of the Hindus and Muslims and thus, Good prevailed over Evil.

Thus the siege of the Lucknow Residency was given a status higher than the Battle of Waterloo (1815). The ruins of the building were accorded the unique honour of having the Union Jack flying over them all 24 hours and not only from dawn to dusk. This flag was taken down on Independence in August 1947.

The other âmemorialâ was at Kanpur (Cawnpoor) where Indians had broken their miser troth and shot down retreating Britishers in their boats and massacred the women and children who survived the slaughter on the river. Today we shall attempt to catch a glimpse of the revolt in Kanpur.

March 1857 saw Mangal Pandey rise most reluctantly against the East India Company in an attempt to make them see sense and redress the grievances of the sepoys. He did not shoot or sabre the Britishers to kill them but in order to draw attention to his desperate situation in which he had to contend with the conflict between his loyalty to the salt of the East India Company and his own identity as an Indian being abused by his employers in every possible way.

He finally turned the musket on himself and pressed the trigger with his toe. The recoil missed the aim and he was not killed, but only severely wounded. The loss of blood made him into a near corpse but this did not deter the Company from hurrying up his trial so that death from wounds did not cheat the hangman.

May 1857 saw Meerut rise and disaffection in Kanpur was at fever pitch. The General sent various intermediaries to the sepoys and managed to keep the peace. The tension was palpable and there was great and increasing mistrust between the whites and the blacks. On June 1, 1857, a cashiered officer named Christie, said to be under the influence of liquor, took a pot shot at an Indian cavalryman and missed it.

The case was brought to trial and Christie was released as he was given consideration for being drunk. This âjusticeâ caused great resentment and the sepoys rose in revolt soon after the unsatisfactory verdict. The British had already created an entrenchment into which they could retreat and wait for relief. This entrenchment was attacked and when all appeared lost, the British sued for a truce to enable them to take the river route to safety in Allahabad Fort.

The transfer of the besieged from the entrenchment to the river was done in style. Arms, ammunition, treasure and personal effects were carried on elephants, camels, horses and palanquins. The tension mounted high and mutual mistrust was palpable. When the fugitives boarded the boats, some boatmen jumped off and swam towards the banks. The British opened fire and the rebels returned the compliment.


In retrospect the British made out that the truce was a ploy of the deceitful Indians in order to wipe them out. This does not hold water as the Indians were winning and had no reason to use deceit in order to oust the âferingheeâ.


Lord Roberts and a whole bunch of imperialists agonize over Cawnpore and justify the atrocities latter committed on Bahadur Shas Zafar's family. So it was another case of slanted history and one sided prespective.

08-21-2006, 06:59 AM

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?actio...ws&id=9232

QUOTEOpposing the proposed unveiling of the statue of Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi at the hands of Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje here on August 20, Congress MLA Premchand Guddu today termed it as a gross "disrespect" to the freedom fighters who laid down their lives for the country.

Guddu, in a statement issued here, recalled the alleged anti-role of erstwhile Scindia kingdom in the freedom struggle and demanded that the scions of Scinida clan should express remorse publicly that their forefathers had played a negative role in the freedom struggle.

"Vasundhara Raje has no right to unveil the statue of the great warrior," he said.

Criticising BJP, which is in power in the local municipal corporation and which is installing the bust of Rani Jhansi, he said "the party has to explain its act on this double standard and it appears as if there is no freedom fighter left in the country for the purpose." "If this will continue then a day is not far when the family members of Nathuram Godse will unveil the statue of Mahatma Gandhi," he remarked.

Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee President Subhash Yadav, when asked about Guddu's statement, feigned ignorance and said he would speak to the senior party leader in this regard before reacting on the issue.

Funny. Did he ever ask Scindia clan members in his own party, Madhav Rao and his son Jyotiraditya, to "express remorse publicly"?

08-21-2006, 07:25 AM

When today Mr. Guddu is happy and feel proud having Italian as Congress President, why he care about past. One day his own grand children will be ashamed of him.

08-27-2006, 07:46 PM

Vellore Mutiny - First rebellion

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 08-28-2006, 12:02 AM

Have people forgotten that Mahadji Shinde the ancestor of Vasundhara Rani was a great enemy of the Britons and kept both them and the Momeens at bay as long as he was alive.

Bharatvarsh · 08-28-2006, 12:35 AM

QUOTEHave people forgotten that Mahadji Shinde the ancestor of Vasundhara Rani was a great enemy of the Britons and kept both them and the Momeens at bay as long as he was alive. 
Yes but Shinde was also moronic when instead of sending the Mughal emperor and his family to Jannat and crowning himself as a Hindu emperor he still had that Mughal idiot sitting in the court as a puppet. See that was always the problem with Hindus, we lacked the killer instinct, after the Marathas destroyed the Mughals we should have pursued an open reconversion policy but we didn't do that (and by the time we did conditions were not suitable for its success), I have no doubt that if Hindus exerted all their might collectively after the Maratha triumph we wouldn't be having a Pakistan today due to demographics.

Another example of this misguided policy of liberalism was when Maharana Raj Singh let off Aurangzeb when he was trapped in the hills on the useless promise that Aurangzeb would not kill cows any more, he also gave back Aurangzeb's Georgian wife that the Hindus carried off, when Durgadas Rathore had Aurangzeb's granddaughter with him, instead of bringing up her as a proper Hindu he brought her up as a Muslim due to his liberal outlook but to the fanatic Aurangzeb none of this mattered and he merrily went on massacring Hindus.

ramana · 08-28-2006, 07:02 PM

from Deccan Chronicle, 27 Aug., 2006
QUOTEPeriod from 1857-1947
Â
Itihaas: By Akhilesh Mithal

August 27 is an anniversary. 28 years ago, Lord Louis Mountbat-ten, the last British viceroy and governor general of India (1946-47) was blown up along with his ship (August 27, 1979) while enjoying his retirement in a sailing and fishing holiday off the coast of Ireland.Â His young grandson, who accompanied him, also died in the explosion.

The first British adventurer to earn fame in India, Robert Clive, took the title âLord Clive of Plasseyâ. In the same tradition, Louis Mountbatten called himself âLord Mountbatten of Burmaâ. Robert Clive had also died an unnatural death. He had cut his throat with a razor.
According to psychologists, this kind of suicide is a statement and demonstration of resentment in reaction to a (perceived) failure to be loved and understood by close relatives, friends and colleagues.

Lord Louis was of German stock, with the family name of Von Battenberg. The British royal family, also of German origin, had the titles of Saxe Coburg and Gotha. These names became a liability for the owners when Britain raged a war against Germany in 1914. Lord Louisâs father had to step down from his job as First Lord of the British admiralty, because he was a Count Von Battenberg. The British royals abandoned their German titles and took the name âWindsorâ and Battenbergs âMountbattenâ.

Envy and admiration for the British empire was the driving force of German nationalism in the 19th century. Up until that time, the ruler of a state was the embodiment of the nation. When Louis XIV said âL âetat ceâst mois!â (I am the State), he did not feel unique or different from his contemporaries wearing crowns.

Both George V of Britain and Wilhelm II of Germany, were grandsons of Queen Victoria and there was this cousin rivalry that gave a sharp personal edge to national competition. The greatest admirers of the British Empire were the Germans.Â Adolf Hitler turned a cold shoulder to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose during World War II, although he should have offered help to âthe enemyâs enemyâ. In Hitlerâs eyes, the British were admirably-trained people who had worked for three hundred years to assure themselves of world domination for two centuries.

They had learnt the art of being masters, and of holding the reins so lightly withal, that the natives do not notice the curb. His favourite movie was Lives of the Bengal Lancers.
As an admirer of the effective oppression of an inferior race, he records with approval âThe wealth of Britain is the result of capitalist exploitation of three hundred and fifty million Indians.â

A remark of Hitler reads: âThere are Englishmen who reproach themselves at having governed India badly. Why? Because the Indians show no enthusiasm for their rule. I claim that the English have governed India very well, but their error is to expect enthusiasm from the people they administer.â

In 1937, Hitler suggested a simple way to deal with Indian nationalism: âShoot Gandhi, and if that does not reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of the Congress, and if that does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order is established.â
The British shot down hundreds at Jallianwala Bagh and thousands in 1942. The Hitler formula did not work and the demand for Independence grew exponentially from movement to movement called by the Indian National Congress, led by Gandhi and Nehru.

The Indian National Army of Bose made Wavell realise that India could only be held with ten divisions of the army, exclusively manned by white troops.Â The British decided to divide India and hold on to the part close to Central Asia through their puppets. Mountbatten accelerated the âDivide and Quitâ decision by many months and revealed the border lines well after the date of announcement of Partition. No attention was paid to maintaining peace and order.

The half-to-quarter-million killed, the hundred thousand women abducted, raped, mutilated and sold into slavery, the millions uprooted from their homes and made refugees, were a direct consequence of this haste combining with the poison sowed in Hindu, Muslim and Sikh hearts and minds by British text books teaching Indian history as a saga of Hindu versus Muslim.

The Ghadar of 1857 saw Hindus and Muslims united in their fight against the Nasraanee or Christian feringhee, to protect their respective style of living and religious faiths. 1947 saw them kill each other with the British watching the fun. But not even a single hair on the head of a feringhee was harmed in 1947.

Bharatvarsh · 08-28-2006, 07:16 PM

QUOTEthe poison sowed in Hindu, Muslim and Sikh hearts and minds by British text books teaching Indian history as a saga of Hindu versus Muslim.
Standard secular lies, the British taught what they found in the historical chronicles of the Hindus and Muslims and in those chronicles the conflicts were clearly represented as between "Hindus and Muslims", one has to only read the countless Maratha letters that have been handed down to us or the letters of Rajput rulers like Sawai Jai Singh or Ajit Singh to find out the truth, forget that one can even find out the truth by reading the Dasbodh of Samarth Ramdas Swami.

agnivayu · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2006, 07:39 PM by agnivayu.)

It was a 3 way struggle, Hindus, Muslims and the British. In many cases it may have been better to support the British against Muslims.
Muslims are by far the most uncivilized and barbaric people in the world, so supporting just about anyone is better.

The only good thing about British rule was that it kept muslim rule in check, and bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 28 2006, 07:16 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEthe poison sowed in Hindu, Muslim and Sikh hearts and minds by British text books teaching Indian history as a saga of Hindu versus Muslim.
Standard secular lies, the British taught what they found in the historical chronicles of the Hindus and Muslims and in those chronicles the conflicts were clearly represented as between "Hindus and Muslims", one has to only read the countless Maratha letters that have been handed down to us or the letters of Rajput rulers like Sawai Jai Singh or Ajit Singh to find out the truth, forget that one can even find out the truth by reading the Dasbodh of Samarth Ramdas Swami.
[right][snapback]56343[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Bharatvarsh · 08-28-2006, 08:27 PM

QUOTEThe only good thing about British rule was that it kept muslim rule in check, and bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline.
This is a common mistake Hindus make, British rule did not keep Muslim rule in check (except in small pockets like in Bengal or in Tippu Sultans areas), other than those two areas Hindus were the virtual masters of all other areas of India when the British attempts at take over started, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was keen on conquering Sindh and would have done so if not for the rapid extension of British imperalism, the Sikhs were ruling all the way from Peshawar to Kashmir, the rest of the provinces were under the Marathas (they had the largest area under their control), Jats, Rajputs and Bundelas, by this time Muslim rule had been smashed for good and would have been completely extinguished by Hindus if not for the British intervention, what the British intervention did was to prevent the reconquest of India by Hindus and saved Islam from the fate it deserved.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2006, 09:03 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(agnivayu @ Aug 28 2006, 10:09 AM)The only good thing about British rule was that it kept muslim rule in check, and bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline.
[right][snapback]56345[/snapback][/right]


Agnivayu, I think two notions in this sentiment are against the historical facts.

1. "it kept muslim rule in check." Muslim rule was already in check. Most of the muslim kings left were just puppets to Hindus, and it was only a matter of time. In north west, Sikhs were already a power. Past the death of Abdali, Maharaja Ranjit Singhji was even controlling the politics of Kabul. Maratha federation was growing stronger too in the north center and in south. Even in the muslim heartland - UP, hindu kingdoms were coming up all over. Even in Awadh, Nawabs ruled very much to the wishes of Hindus - participating in Holi, Diwali and playing Raslila.

So I think, more or less, muslim rule was already in check by the time British arrived. If they did something, they gave it a new lease of life, and a modern Pakiland to the Ummah in the end.

2. "bought Hindus the time to recover from our 1000 year decline" As I mentioned, Hindus were already on the recovery path, politically, militarily, culturally, by the time British arrived.

Actually, in initial 50 years of the British phenomenon, till about year 1800, some Hindus may have thought of partnering with European powers in accelerating their freedom struggle from fundamentalist Muslim rulers. (Example - against Tippoo Sultan in south, against Sirajuddaula in east). But for sure, soon they had realized the designs of and greater danger posed by the British.

In my opinion, actually British affected a greater danger for Hindus. They inflicted the philosophical, institutional, and thought-process-injury to Hindus. Today's phenomenon of lack of self-respect and looking down at our traditions, is a lasting injury caused by British to the Hindu nation and its future generations.

agnivayu · (This post was last modified: 08-29-2006, 05:23 AM by agnivayu.)

It still looks like the recovery was very fractured, there wasn't a single Hindu power (maybe the Maratha's could have done that). I agree that Muslim rule was on the decline, but it wasn't completely out either.

There is a possibility that India could have emerged like Japan as an Asian power if it wern't for British rule through a strong Hindu leader in the 19th century.

I agree on the psychological damage done by the British on Hindus, and on the lack of self respect. But, unlike the Muslims the British didn't leave a large population behind that can cause lasting problems (although they tried creating an Anglo-Indian half caste, and tried to establish a Spanish style christian caste system).
I think Hindus are slowly recovering from the self-hate mentally left behind by the British and will get rid of that sooner and more easily than the large Muslim population.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 28 2006, 09:02 PM)In my opinion, actually British affected a greater danger for Hindus.Â They inflicted the philosophical, institutional, and thought-process-injury to Hindus.Â Today's phenomenon of lack of self-respect and looking down at our traditions, is a lasting injury caused by British to the Hindu nation and its future generations.
[right][snapback]56349[/snapback][/right]

08-29-2006, 06:48 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /> But Britishers did not indulge in conversion game and laid the edifice for Sardar Patel to unite India by taking over princely states. It was left to Indira Gandhi to complete the task by stopping privy purses.

09-01-2006, 09:09 AM

Google book
The Siege of Delhi in 1857: A Short Account By Arthur Gore Handcock

Login




Remember me Lost Password?