08-15-2006, 05:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Aug 15 2006, 05:27 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Aug 15 2006, 05:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There cannot be any doubt that the failed 1857 revolt had nothing to do with indian independence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe this is simply too extreme a characterization. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I think it is very simple and obvious point. Those who were fighting the revolt were not fighting for Indian independence. The 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. The danger of believing so will lead us to false conclusions that Indians were not united in 1857 but became united later.
The unity, of mainly Hindu kings, should not come into question because there was no call for their unity. No one single obvious cause under which they needed to unite, other than Hinduism. and Hindus unlike other religions are taught to act according to their own Dharma/role/job. where the dharma of Hindus who were Brits allies was to stay loyal to their words the Dharma of those fighting against Brits was to fight for injustice done to their people. It is only in Islam and then later in Christianity (during crusades, only 1000 year after conception of christianity) that there exist a clause to fight in the name of religion. This in fact is main cause why there is so much, unending Islamic terrorism. According to Muslim scriptures it is paramount that every Muslim take on himself for fight for the injustice don't to other Muslims. it does not matter if the other Muslims was right or wrong, as long as he is threatened by a non Muslim he must be supported.
I believe this is simply too extreme a characterization. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I think it is very simple and obvious point. Those who were fighting the revolt were not fighting for Indian independence. The 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. The danger of believing so will lead us to false conclusions that Indians were not united in 1857 but became united later.
The unity, of mainly Hindu kings, should not come into question because there was no call for their unity. No one single obvious cause under which they needed to unite, other than Hinduism. and Hindus unlike other religions are taught to act according to their own Dharma/role/job. where the dharma of Hindus who were Brits allies was to stay loyal to their words the Dharma of those fighting against Brits was to fight for injustice done to their people. It is only in Islam and then later in Christianity (during crusades, only 1000 year after conception of christianity) that there exist a clause to fight in the name of religion. This in fact is main cause why there is so much, unending Islamic terrorism. According to Muslim scriptures it is paramount that every Muslim take on himself for fight for the injustice don't to other Muslims. it does not matter if the other Muslims was right or wrong, as long as he is threatened by a non Muslim he must be supported.