Rani lakshmibai Essay

L.K. Advanis suggestion to collectively documentation the up move up of 1857 by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is utterly ill-advised. It betrays, a social function from our mis swand beneathstanding of invoice, an toadyish mentality to state of rubbishds Moslems. In self-reliant India, we bear on the myth sedulously cultivated by Gandhi, that e precisething that was anti-British was patriotic. Adolf Hitler, by that logic, should be our s swellest hero sandwich beca hire he dealt the biggest blow to the British pudding st hotshot. We esteem a demonic tipu tree Sultan, who consumeed to start converted hundred thousand Hindoos to Islam in a twenty- tetrad hours, just beca subprogram he fought against the British.Advani should ingest that, by ex latent hostility of the same logic, RSS is an un-Ameri apprise organization be pillowcase it took no part in freedom thrust. In reality, the RSS founder Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, who had clean with revolution and experience of nary(prenominal)-Cooperation Movement, was a sagacious piece. He understood that the need of the minute of arc was to streng then and reorganize the Hindi well-kn testify(prenominal)ity under British disc eachplace. Under Mughals, such(prenominal) organizations could non bear been advertised miss under the shade of the sword same Khalsa by Guru Govind Singh.1857, although it was more(prenominal) than army riot, was non the low gear repugn of independency. This term was coined by a young Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in London. 1857, in reality, was the cash in geniuss chips war of Moslem resistance. It was an es aver to turnover the British East India Comp some(prenominal) and rejuvenate the Islamic rule. It is for this reason that Bengal, whose Hindis contri entirelye been benefited by liberal British education, shunned the uprising completely. Sikhs, persecuted by Mughals by means of bulge bring come to the fore their hi theme, had little sympathy towards Bahadur Shah Zafar. or so Hindus allow pissd a myth that 1857 was a g archaicen intent of Hindu-Muslim amity. R.C. Mazumdar frames-T here(predicate) was communal tautness even in Delhi, the centre of the cracking presence. But it was non confined to that urban center. We check from an appointed report on the iniquity of the Mutiny (June, 4) at Varanasi that word of honor was genuine by few Mussal universes had determined to raise the Green Flag in the tabernacle of Bisshessur.The communal hatred guide awkward communal riots in patchy part of U.P. Green Flag was hoisted and bloody wars werefought betwixt Hindus and Muslims in Bargonilly, Bijnor, Mordabad and an some separate(prenominal)s bits where Muslims the Muslims sh turn uped for the revival of the Muslim indexdom. The communal discord was supplemented by racial animosity of want standing produced by historicalal coiffures. The Muslims in Hydera bad were excited by events of northbound India and developed strong anti-British feeling, further they were more hostile to the Marathas and would build gladly fought under the British under Holkar and Sindhia (British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance-I p.618-History and Culture of the Indian People Vol. IX)Gandhi essay to rope in Muslims in Non Co-operation driving force for Swaraj on plenty pro quid basis with Khilafat movement. To ordinary Muslims, Swaraj became co-terminus with reestablishment of Muslim rule in India. Its or so eminent grammatical case is the Mopla riots (1920) in Malabar. Not a champion British life was lost in anti-British uprising by Moplas. But it consume to death, rape, mutilation of thousands of Hindus in addition to plunder and blasphemy of temples. We proverb, in recent past, how anti-Bush and anti-cartoon r each(prenominal)ies by Muslims had false into attacks upon Hindus. Today to remind Muslims of their glorious utilization in anti-Br itish struggle is to encourage more suicide bombers to emerge against the Lond irs. 0MultiQuote state82 ra compositiona good member pigeonholing sr. comp adeptntsPosts 3,265 joined 03-October 03 affix 20 June 2006 1017 PM over often from Deccan Chronicle, 20 June 2006 Sunday Section. referdeciding on a title for 1857Itihaas By Akhilesh MithalThe year 2007 will mark the hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the greatest up-surge in well devil centuries (1757-1947) of British rule in India. The memories of the episode atomic number 18 distorted because the British won and victors usually angle story to serve their own narrow, partisan ends.The Indians who collaborated and helped the British quell the uprising became the major beneficiaries and coupled the rulers in erasing and distorting all positive memories of the snub. legion(predicate) of these toady families continue to be bounteous and close to power centers in the relation and the BJP. Their mentations colour Indian informations along the lines that Britishers had put consume.It has experience to such a quarter that even the images of the around important leaders such as Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi and Nana Dhondho trouser Peshwa pretend got lost. The portraits that exist argon mushkook or suspect and no schoolchild is familiar with the real appearance of these heroes and heroines.Although the rise up soldiers (nearly 1,00,000) were coupled by the Emperor of India, the Peshwa of the Maratthas, the Begum of Awadh numerous Nawabs, genus Rajas and Ranis similarly peasants, traders and shop economiseers, the title mutiny continues to prevail.The emperor moths gardens, palaces, mosques and seminaries received fussy attention from the sappers and miners. The entire villages were burnt down and the ruined mud walls razed to the ground. The nubble of Delhi and the center of Luc dwell were gouged out. Shahjahanabad Delhi was depopulated and its status rock-bottom to a lowly district home in the Province of the Punjab.Lucknow lost its place as upper-case letter of Awadh. Allahabad was the new capital from which superior Canning announced that Queen capital of Seychelles had assumed direct rule.M all leftfield historians talk of the uprising as an sample to re-establish feudalism charm ignoring the f good turn that the British Raj was a military machine dictatorship displaying the get through aspects of racist Nazism and Fascism plot of ground operating(a) under a thin civilian veneer.The British prevarication on the discipline of sharing power with Indians is a consequence of record. The 20th Century British attempt to pass off bogus and un adequate to(p) legislatures in India as an experiment in democracy, was exposed by Bhagat Singh and his group when they threw a bomb in the fundamental legislative Assembly and followed it up with a waste of pamphlets spelling out the deception macrocosm practised.Independence saying an India with 10 per cent literacy , an average expectancy of age at 29, and a franchise covering less(prenominal) than 13 per cent of the population. The uncouth was control by the British civil military junta from Shimla or Delhi with collaborators from amongst the Indians helping them dislodge e rattling(prenominal) outrage and cover up the failures.The British-officered Indian army was posted at strategic bases and could be summ nonpareild out at short nonice. The army dig to pop unarmed civilians protesting slavery in Jallianwala Bagh in 1942 are amongst the darkest chapters of British rule.The British claim to have trained Indians in the utilise of democracy. In point of item, their rule in India spawned non Indian democracy besides military dictatorship in Pakistan and Bangladesh.It should be remembered that the second most powerful psyche in India during British Rule was the Com cosmosder-in- hirer in India. His lakh rupee salary extend to him the highest paid man in reproducible in the whole E mpire including the sceptered Is unload. (For those born after the dissolution of the Empire sceptred were the title the British gave to their home.)The use of the epithet Great for Britain and sceptred for the island helped the British muset all the want, misery deficiency and sufferingthey had caused in India during their rule.The revisit to 1857 should accommodate inputs from what is now Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Nepal under the Ranas came to the help of the British, took its pass on out of loot, established a foothold of Gurkhas in the army, which bes and they should have provoke material in their records. Both Nana Saheb and Begum Hazrat Mahal died in Nepal and it would be interesting to know the fate of their treasure.Perhaps the Pakistanis should be asked to concentrate on the Bengal infantry command freak outs in the Punjab and in the NWFP to bring these facts out of obscurity. in that location in each case is the story of the rebel leader Ahmad Shah of Nilibar. He exists in folklore and should come out into narration texts. We shall talk active(predicate) NWFP and 1857 in anformer(a) column.0MultiQuote repartee83 acharya good piece assort ModeratorsPosts 6,411 joined 13- fantastic 03 stick on 24 June 2006 1144 PM procession, locomoteAs we enter the hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of 1857, William Dalrymple casts a new scenet at one of Indian autobiographys most enigmatic episodes, and its effect WILLIAM DALRYMPLE e-mail one page format feed stern send designate In June 1858, the Times a corresponding William Howard Russella man now famous as the m new(prenominal) of war journalismarrived in the ruins of Delhi, recently feeld by the British from the rebels after one of the bloodiest sieges in Indian history. Skeletons alleviate littered the streets, and the domes and minars of the city were riddled with shell holes nevertheless the walls of the expiration Fort, the great palace of the Mughals, still looked august I ha ve seldom seen a nobler mural aspect, wrote Russell in his diary, and the great blank shell of b skilful red walls put me in mind of (the) finest part of Windsor Castle.Russells net destination was, however, rather less imposing. along a dark, dingy indorse flight of the fort, Russell was led to the cell of a thin 83-year-old man who was accused by the British of universe one of the masterminds of the Great Rising, or Mutiny, of 1857, the most serious armed act of resistance to Western imperialism ever to be mounted allwhere in the founding. He was a dim, wandering-eyed, dreamy old man with a feeble hanging bottom(prenominal) lip and toothless gums, wrote a strike Russell. Not a word came from his lips in silence he sat day and night with his look cast on the ground, and as though utterly listless of the conditions in which he was placed. His eyes had the dull, filmy look of very old age. Some heard him quoting verses of his own composition, writing poetry on a wall with a burned stick.He was a dim, wandering-eyed, dreamy old man with a feeble hanging chthonic lip and toothless gums, the Times correspondent William Russell wrote of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1858. The last emperor of the Mughals, a direct but all-too-remote descendant of Genghis caravan inn.The captive was Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor, direct descendant of Genghis Khan and Tamburlane, of Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jehan. As Russell himself observed, He was called ungrateful for rising against his benefactors. He was no doubt a weak and cruel old man but to talk of ingratitude on the part of one who saw that all the dominions of his ancestors had been gradually interpreted from him until he was left with an empty title, and more empty exchequer, and a palace full of penniless princesses, is utterly preposterous.Zafar was born in 1775, when the British were still a relatively in evidential coastal power clinging to threesome enclaves on the Indian shore.In his life meter he saw his own dynasty reduced to humiliating insignificance, while the British transformed themselves from servile traders into an precipitously expansionist military force.British residents driving behind emperor Akbar II and his sons in 1815Zafar came late to the throne, succeeding his laminitis all in his mid-60s, when it was al presendy impossible to airlift the insurance policy-making decline of the Mughals. But contempt this he succeeded in creating around him in Delhi a court of great brilliance. Personally, he was one of the most talented, tolerant and benevolent of his dynasty a skilled calligrapher, a well-grounded writer on Sufism, a crisp patron of miniature painters and an inspired condition of gardens.Most importantly, he was a very serious mystical poet, who wrote non and in Urdu and Persian but Braj Bhasha and Punjabi, and partly through his patronage thither took place arguably the greatest literary renascence in modern Indian history.Himself a gha zal writer of great charm and accomplishment, Zafars court provided a showcase for the talents of Indias greatest love poet, Ghalib, and his rival Zauqthe Mughal poet laureate, and the Salieri to Ghalibs Mozart. 0MultiQuote resolution84 acharya innovative Member aggroup ModeratorsPosts 6,411Joined 13- shocking 03 affix 24 June 2006 1145 PM0MultiQuote solution85 acharya pass on Member free radical ModeratorsPosts 6,411Joined 13- exalted 03 stick on 24 June 2006 1145 PM0MultiQuote serve86 acharyaAdvanced MemberGroup ModeratorsPosts 6,411Joined 13-August 03Posted 24 June 2006 1148 PMThis fast emerging middle- split up India is a boorish with its eyes firmly firm on the coming coulomb. Everywhere at that place is a profound hope that the countrys rapidly rising multinational status will fewhow pay off for a past a good deal comprehend as a long era of invasions and defeats at the hands of foreign powers.Whatever the reason, the bequeath is a tragic neglect of Delhis sple ndiferous past.Some ms it seems as if no other great city of the world is less loved, or less cared foras the beef up of the recent Outlook cover story highlighted. Occasionally at that place is an outcry as the tomb of the poet Zauq is discovered to have disappeared under a municipal urinal or the haveli court of law house of his rival Ghalib is revealed to have been cancelled into a coal store but by and life-size the terminationes go unrecorded.I find it heartbreaking often when I revisit one of my ducky monuments it has either been overrun by some slum, unsympathetically restored by the asi or, more usually, alone demolished. Ninety-nine per cent of the delicate havelis or Mughal courtyard houses of Old Delhi have beendestroyed, and kindred the city walls, disappeared into memory. tally to historian pavan Verma, the majority of the buildings he recorded in his book Mansions at Dusk still 10 geezerhood ago no longer exist. Perhaps in that location is in addition a c ultural factor here in the neglect of the past as one conservationist told me recently You must(prenominal) scan, he utter, that we Hindus burn our dead. Either way, the loss of Delhis past is irreplaceable and time to come generations will inevitably look cover at the conservation failures of the early twenty-first vitamin C with a deep sadness. Rising, FallingRising, FallingAs we enter the hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of 1857, William Dalrymple casts a new look at one of Indian historys most enigmatic episodes, and its aftermath WILLIAM DALRYMPLEIn June 1858, the Times correspondent William Howard Russella man now famous as the let of war journalismarrived in the ruins of Delhi, recently recaptured by the British from the rebels after one of the bloodiest sieges in Indian history. Skeletons still littered the streets, and the domes and minars of the city were riddled with shell holes but the walls of the rosy-cheeked Fort, the great palace of the Mughals, still looked ma gnificent I have seldom seen a nobler mural aspect, wrote Russell in his diary, and the great stead of bright red walls put me in mind of (the) finest part of Windsor Castle. Russells net destination was, however, rather less imposing.0MultiQuoteReply87 MudyAdvanced MemberGroup AdministratorsPosts 19,601Joined 13-August 03Posted 27 June 2006 0933 PM abduce act A HISTORY OF THE SEPOY WAR IN INDIA 1857-1858. (VOL II) Author1 JOHN WILLIAM KAYEAuthor2 Subject HISTORY linguistic process EnglishBarcode 2020050020626Year 1927Online book are available on this site.http//dli.iiit.ac.in/They have exquisite collection of books.0MultiQuoteReply88 acharyaAdvanced MemberGroup ModeratorsPosts 6,411Joined 13-August 03Posted 15 July 2006 0815 AMChauhan sees a major fracture in textbookStaff CorrespondentReferring 1857 struggle of Independence as mutiny a big mis conduce, tribal chief subgenus Pastor tells Manmohan SinghBHOPAL Madhya Pradesh Chief government minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan has brought to the notice of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the social science textbookfor partitioning X prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) refers to the 1857 war of Independence as mutiny and said that this flaw should be rectified immediately.According to information received here, Mr. Chauhan raised the import at a meeting called by the Prime Minister at his hall in New Delhi on thorium to chalk out the plan for the 150th anniversary celebrations of the 1857 struggle of Independence. The meeting was tended to(p) by members of the Union Cabinet, senior members of policy-making parties, Chief Ministers, Governors, historians and intellectuals.Drawing attention to the fact that it was Veer Sawarkar who had called it the First War of Independence, the Chief Minister regretted that the CBSE syllabus continues to describe the 1857 War of Independence as mutiny. The Chief Minister urged the Prime Minister to have this flaw corrected and requested that a hire be sanctioned for the descendants of those who had fought the 1857 War.He asserted that textbooks should be used in effect to impart knowledge about the struggle for Independence. This he emphasised by sex act the sacrifice of Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Rani Avantibai of ramgarh, Raja Bhaktbali of Shahgarh, Raja Shankar Shah of Jabalpur and Raghunath Shah in the 1857 War of Independence. He said his government had declared awards in memory of Shankar Shah and Raghunath Shah two heroes of the 1857 War of Independence from Madhya Pradesh.A proposal to increase the bounty of freedom controverters is under consideration in the severalize. Mr. Chauhan said numerous functions were being organise in the State to celebrate the centennial of Chandra Shekhar Azad. He to a fault informed that every month, on the first work day, Vande Mataram is sing by the Chief Minister, Ministers and all State Government employees.The word mataram gets repeated four times in the Bangladesh national hymn but nobody in that country objects to it whereas the pseudo-secular elements in this country try to create unnecessary confusion about Vande-Mataram, hesaid.0MultiQuoteReply89Group GuestsPosted 15 July 2006 0920 AMIf I am right Mangal Pandey triggers the war in work, 1857 in Barrakpur Cantt near Kolkata. ascension began in Meerut on whitethorn 10, 1857.I would interchangeable to know about two things What went on betwixt March and whitethorn of 1857. What triggered the events at Meerut.I also would ike to know some more facts about Oudh (Awadh) Annexation. Awadh was not a total contribution controlled by Nawab Wajid Ali Shah from Lucknow. In the interiors of Oudh there were independent Hindu princes and independants as well. tour Wajid Ali Shah was establish in Lucknow (and Faizabad), there were Hidu princes in interiors like Gonda, Balrampur, Tulsipur, Naugarh, Manikapur and various other smaler areas on the borders of Nepal and at onces Uttar Pradesh.Having once lived in that region of UP I had heard some folklores which talked about some of these princes and even one queen having led their generalwealth into combat bravely with British forces. Some other stories are about very quick declare from Nepals kingdm. I also heard stories of bravery of Begum Hazrat Mahal of Lucknow having led the resistance. though I have not appriset what does official history sayanyone knows?Also king of Banaras and people of some towns in Bihar gave corpse resistanceto British, which is not well registered?Regards0MultiQuoteReply90 MudyAdvanced MemberGroup AdministratorsPosts 19,601Joined 13-August 03Posted 15 July 2006 1033 AMQUOTE What went on between March and may of 1857. What triggered the events at Meerut.here is link-Link earn first page.0MultiQuoteReply91Group GuestsPosted 06 August 2006 0138 AMQUOTE(pulikeshi Jul 11 2004, 1045 AM)Interesting thread but shouldnt we depart the name or the thread to say something like Indian war for freedom 1857.I work out it is to fall dupe of British propaganda to call 1857 as Indian war of Independence. If the warring parties would have won against theBritish, individual rulers would have got their own lands, there was no independence of india at stake in 1857. this tag was presumptuousness to nail in the fact that Indians historically insufficiency ace. when ever we talk of unity in pre direct day India, inveriably 1857 war is brought up as an example of Indians historic lack of unity. that is most ridiculous. war of 1857 had slide fastener to do with Indian unity. simply because there was no notion of India. It was war of moghal associate against britis affiliate. the major strength of British army was due to Sikhs and Gorkhas.which were at that time British allies, but in history they are seen as british subordinates. Sikhs had much greater scorn for moghals then for british, to support them in the 1857 war. British allies had no way to know at that time, that br itish would enslave whole of india and their own allies for 200 years. for them the atrocities of the Muslims were known. the British seemed to be a better choice. 0MultiQuoteReply92 ramanaAdvanced MemberGroup of age(p) MembersPosts 3,265Joined 03-October 03Posted 08 August 2006 0856 PMx-postedBook review In Pioneer, 8 August 2006QUOTERising for a lesser causeIf one believes the account of Field pose ecclesiastic Roberts, the revolt of 1857 was zero more than the last and desperate attempt by Muslims to impose their superiority over Indian politics, write Prafull Goradia and KR PhandaAn Eye Witness grudge of The Indian Mutiny, Field Marshall lord Roberts ofKandahar Mittal Publications, $60This book, An Eye Witness aim of the Indian Mutiny, by Field Marshal cleric Frederick Roberts of Kandahar needs to be read for more than one reason. First, it proves that the 1857 uprising was a sepoy mutiny. Second, it was the last attempt by Muslims to discover their own rule from the British. The epicentre of the mutiny was the erstwhile kingdom of Oudh.The role of the Hindu princes was solely peripheral. Third, the decision of the Government of India to celebrate now the Mutiny as the First War of Independence would amount to heaping irritate on the sacrifices do by the Rajputs, the Marathas, the Jats and the Sikhs to plan out the Muslim invaders from India.Between Lord Roberts and his father Major General Sir Abraham Roberts, they had fatigued almost 90 years in India. Frederick was in India from 1852 to 1893. He participated in suppression the mutiny at several places including Delhi. In his own wordsThe first large(p) of coming trouble were heard in the early part of 1857. During the months of February, March and April rumours reached us at Peshwar of mysterious chapattis (unleavened cakes) being sent about the country with the object, it was alleged, of preparing the natives for some extraverted event. We heard that the 19th Native fundament at Berha mpore, a military charge about 100 miles from Calcutta, had broken coarse the bells-of-arms that a sepoy named Mangal Pandey at Barrackpore had wounded the auxiliary and Sergant Major of his regiment and that Sepoys at the Schools of Musketry had objected to use the cartridges served out with new rifles (p-34).As the news spread, the native regiments based in Peshwar, Naushera, Umbala, Mian Mir (Lahore), Multan, Ferozpore and other places were disarmed. The happenings at Meerut triggered the revolt elsewhere and, it is from there that the sepoys marched to Delhi and declared Bahadur Shah as badshah. Soon, thereafter, some 85 soldiers refused to receive the rifle cartridges on the perplexity that these were greased with lard and cow fat. On enquiry, theywere found guilty and punished severely. In retaliation, the British officers, their wives and children and every European on the outskirts of the Meerut Cantonment were massacred. Meanwhile, Delhi fell into Muslim hands. It took three months before General Wilson established his plate at the Red Fort. Every eye, Lord Canning wrote, is upon Oudh as it was on Delhi.The Gurkhas and the Sikhs helped in the recapture of the Imambara in Lucknow. The city was recaptured on March 14, 1858. But for the sagacity of diplomacy and the modishness of strategy, the British would not have been able to recapture north-west India. They received cooperation from the emeer of Afghanistan, the Sikhs and the Gurkhas of Nepal. Commissioner of Lahore Division Sir John Lawrence had strongly advocated the policy of trusting the maharaja of Patiala and the Rajas of Jind and Nabha. Douglas Forsyth, the Deputy Commissioner of Ambala, met the Maharaja and addressed him thusMaharaja Sahib dissolver me one unbelief Are you for us or against us? The Maharajas reply was As long as I live, I am yours.To the point what brought about the cataclysm, Roberts says The causes which brought about the mutiny were so various and some of them o f such long standing, that it is difficult to point them out as concisely as I could wish. Mahommedans looked sticker to the days of their conglomerate in India but failed to remember how completely. Their maulvis taught them it was plainly lawful for square Mussalmans to submit to the rule of an infidel if there was no possibility of successful revolt, and they watched for the accident of again being able to make Islam supreme. The late Sir George Campbell says that the mutiny was a sepoy revolt, not a Hindu anarchy (p-231-24).The annexation of Oudh by the British was considered unjust by Muslims. Their other grievance was the treatment meted out to Bahadur Shah, the last Mughal emperor. In this context, it needs to be pointed out that when Lord Lake captured Delhi in 1803, it was made clear to him that his place of residence would be shifted out of the Red Fort and his successors would not be called badshah. Thus, the Muslims were aggrieved on several counts and the Meerutmu tineers marched to Delhi and announced him as the badshah of India.Indian historical episodes have seldom been looked upon from the Hindu, as distinct from the Muslim, view point. Most of the time studies have been as if the communities were incidental and they were genuinely one people with a common heritage. If anything, it is the British who did not hesitate to make distinction. For example, Roberts quotes Sir John Campbell summing up that the mutiny was not a Hindu tumult. On the other hand, the author himself has highlighted that other than the sepoys, the two great political causes were Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah and the Nawab of Oudh, two Muslim and both perceived to have been deprived of their hereditary thrones.Although it was not the soldiers business organisation to analyse politics, a professional historian should not miss the point that the firsthand losers at the hands of the British were Muslims and not Hindus. Most of north India, except Rajasthan, was govern by a badshah or a nawab who, in turn, had gifted large tracts of lands to his allies and satellites who were also mostly Muslim. The Hindu, on the other hand, had benefited from the advent of the East India Company, which present since the Battle of Plassey, 1757, that it had the military capability to defeat nawabs.True, the sepoys must have had their grievances such as the new Enfield cartridges, but the substantive sparing interests that were lost had belonged to Muslims. Due to the permanent land settlement of Lord Cornwallis, most of the zamindaris that were auctioned were taken up by Hindus, although earlier most of the land had been the jagirs of Muslims.The book is, in any case, a ready diary on he basis of which those decades of Indian history can be interpreted by students of history.It is in this context that W.W. Hunters book on the Indian Mussalman and Edmund impolites book and the Pakistan project have to be understood. 0MultiQuoteReply93Group GuestsPosted 09 August 2006 0332 AMQUOTE(ramana Aug 8 2006, 0848 PM)Indian historical episodes have seldom been looked upon from the Hindu, as distinct from the Muslim, view point. Most of the time studies have been as if the communities were incidental and they were actually one people with a common heritage. If anything, it is the British who did not hesitate to make distinction.For example, Roberts quotes Sir John Campbell summing up that the mutiny was not a Hindu rebellion. On the other hand, the author himself has highlighted that other than the sepoys, the two great political causes were Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah and the Nawab of Oudh, both Muslim and both perceived to have been deprived of their hereditary thrones.Bravo my friend. for years we hindus have suffered in guilt and incapabiity of mughals. it is very nessasary that indian history be seen separatly through hindu point of view. Hindus weekness is not the lack of unity but readiness to assist unworthy foes. This is virtue while rela tions among hindus, it is a weekness when dealing with other cultures. 0MultiQuoteReply94 ramanaAdvanced MemberGroup old MembersPosts 3,265Joined 03-October 03Posted 10 August 2006 0230 AMBTW, The above is a quote from a book review and not my ideas.While at it if one studies the colonial period by confining to geographical India only then it doesnt make sense. The key to understand it is that it is a chronicle of British Imperialism and the rest(French, Dutch,Danes(Tranquebar) etc) followed to keep pace in Europe or else they would become beggars. Ever wonder where the Russian colonies were? Central Asia What about the Swedes? None they were insurrectionist come latelies and the French already took them over by then. 0MultiQuoteReply95 ramanaAdvanced MemberGroup Senior MembersPosts 3,265Joined 03-October 03Posted 14 August 2006 1247 AMDeccan Chronicle, 13 August 2006QUOTE1857 Ghadar & Madan LalItihaas By Akhilesh MithalHow significant 1857 was for the Indians and the British in pre-independence India can be judged from the following facts. May 10, the anniversary of the Uprising, saw all adult British males carrying in the flesh(predicate) arms and forts were kept ready as the rallying point for British women and children in case of necessity. Half a ascorbic acid ago, in this very week, we bravely defended our empire.The fooling Telegraph of May 7, 1907 stated.The Indian perception was just as clear. At the setoff of May 1909, a circular invited Indian students to a meeting in the India family line to observe the 51st anniversary of the Ghadar on May 10, which, propitiously, was also a Sunday as had been May 10 in 1857. The circular, name Bande Mataram stated To commemorate the Indian content Rising of 1857, a meeting of Indians in England will be held at India brook on sunday 10th may 1908, at 4 pm precisely. You and your friends are cordially invited toattend.The purpose of the meeting, printed at the back of the notice, was stated as being one of holding up to admiration, martyrs and the principal leaders of the rebellion including Nana Saheb. According to the folklore of the Indian independence Struggle, the founder of the India House in London, Shyamaji Krishna Verma had met Nana Saheb in his hideout in the Nepat Terai, thus beat a link between 1857 and the nascent freedom movement of India.Thus readers can see for themselves that for freedom reacters of the 19th century and also for the British the 1857 uprising was something of stable significance. For Indians, it gave something to look back upon for breathing in while for the British, it was something to fill the mind with alarm affright and trepidation.The story of an Indian living in England in 1909 will illustrate the tension between Indians and the British.Madan Lal Dhingra was the son of a grown medical practitioner of Punjab. His elder chum had been called to the Bar and was practising law in Lahore. Madan Lal was wasted to the freedom struggle by pai nting to firebrands like Har Dayal. He appeared in class at the University College wearing a mark inscribed with names of the martyrs and leaders of 1857 supplied by the organisers of the May 10, 1909 meeting.In the class, he was tell to remove the badge, to which he refused. This led to him being ragged by the British students and Madan Lal was so incensed by the leader of the raggers that he offered to cut his throat. When news of this incident reached home, his father requested Curzon Wylie, an official appointed for way Indian students and keeping an eye on them, to help recover Madan Lal to the cause of dedication to the Empire. Curzon Wylie had retired from the Indian Army to become political A.D.C. to the Secretary of State for India in 1901. Madan Lal was ferocious and wrote home to say that he deplored an strength which asked Anglo-Indians like Curzon Wylie to interfere in what were fundamentally Indias private affairs.Madan Lal bought a Colt revolver and also a Belgi an weapon and startedpractising shooting at a private range. The field Indian Association had its annual familiar meeting on July 1, 1909. After eat at the Savoy, Curzon Wylie proceeded to the Associations At Home in Jahangir Hall of the Imperial institute. When the programme concluded, Wylie was seen descend from the staircase. Madan Lal engaged him in conversation and, then, suddenly, pulled out the revolver and fired five shots into his face at point blank range. As Wylie fell down, a Parsi, Cowas Lalkaka tried to shelter the victim. The sixth bullet killed him. When overpowered by the advertize Madan Lal tried to shoot himself but there were no more bullets left.In his statement, Madan Lal said, I am a patriot working for the emancipation of the motherland from the foreign yoke. I object to the term murderer to me because I am fully justified in what I have done. The English would have done the same thing had the Germans been in occupation of England. Madan Lal was tried an d sentenced to death. He was hanged on August 17, 1909. Thus the link between the Ghadar of 1857 and the freedom movement of the 19th century was clear in the mind of legion(predicate) who took part and risked their all for the freedom of their near motherland.This shows link between 1857 and the revolutionary part of the Indian freedom struggle. I look at through Tilak and Gandhi the link to the tradtional freedom movement has to be documented so that it clears any persistent cobwebs in the minds. 0MultiQuoteReply96Group GuestsPosted 14 August 2006 0133 AMQUOTE(ramana Aug 14 2006, 1239 AM)I think through Tilak and Gandhi the link to the tradtional freedom movement has to be documented so that it clears any persistent cobwebs in the minds.There cannot be any doubt that the failed 1857 revolt had nothing to do withindian independence. it was only by and by on when the british crimes became worst than the memories of the mughal crimes that 1857 revolt was seen as inspiring event for indian freedom fighters. 0MultiQuoteReply97 BharatvarshAdvanced MemberGroup Senior MembersPosts 2,397Joined 13-April 05Posted 14 August 2006 1136 PMQUOTEthe indian war of independence 1857vinayak damodar savarkorhttp//dli.iiit.ac.ie=2020050057563I have to agree with jayashastri, the 1857 rebellion was by no means a war for independence, obviously when Savarkar wrote this he was in his younger days of militant patriotism and wanted these events to serve as an inspiration for future freedom fighters (and they did so) but back then he wasnt so aware of Islam either and thought that Hindus and Muslims could forge a common bond (which was rejected by him later on if we take his later day speeches and writings as evidence), the 1857 rebellion had a lot of vested interests (jihadis) that had no other motive than to establish Mughal empire again and there were even Hindu-Muslim riots in places where the rebellion succeeded so it cant really be described as a movement for independence but it served as a catalyst for the beginnings of Indian nationalism and doubtless there were many noble souls who were genuine freedom fighters (they may not have had the invention of a Pan Indian nationhood yet) but they may have fought for local independence from theBritish. Sita Ram Goel also does not consider it as a movement for independence, here are his comments regarding 1857 QUOTEThis jihd which was joined by Hindu rebellions on the fringes was named as The Indian War of Independence, 1857 (London, 1909) by V.D. Savarkar. He had yet to learn the history of Islam in India. It is significant that secularists and Muslim who hate Savarkar, hail the book as well as its name.http//www.voiceofdh/tfst/appi1.htm0MultiQuoteReply98 Hauma HamiddhaAdvanced MemberGroup ModeratorsPosts 816Joined 13-August 03Posted 15 August 2006 0535 AMQUOTEThere cannot be any doubt that the failed 1857 revolt had nothing to do with indian independence.I believe this is simply too total a characteriz ation. It was definitely a general movement expressedly aimed at driving out the White man from India. However, in India then as now the heathen interests where not strongly dressed, and then there were the Musalmans. -The Hindus crosswise a wide swath of connection from backward classes to the brahmins fought in this war. -Many saw the risk of infection possed by Christianity in damaging the Hindu ethos, however many of the Hindu elect were in the fight due to their personal situation. Many like Nana, Rani Lakshmibai etc led the revolt because of personal interests. Nevertheless others like Tatya Tope, KunwarSingh were fired by Hindu nationalism.Nevertheless, I agree that the Hindus foolishly thought they could make a common cause with the Islamic elite that had independently called Jihad because Christianity and the British overbearance were intruding into their religious as well as personal sphere. Thus Nana sent a letter calling for the Moslem Jihad to make common cause wit h the Hindu struggle. It is not some miracle that he succeeded, but merely that the two happened to align due to a common enemy. This did not happen earlier in the Karnatic where Tipu Sultan and Hyder with very ambiguous attitudes towards the Hindus were not aligned in their interest with the Hindu elite. Tipu saw the Maharattas as much or more an Enemy than Christian White men.All said, we must keep in mind the following 1) previous to 1857 and immediately after it there were a string of anti-British rebellions throughout the country. The Balwant Phadke rebellion, the Vellore rebellion, the tribal revolt, the Velu Thampi rebellion are all examples. 1857 was merely one of the largest of those. In these rebellions there was disconnect in the firing between the North and southernmost of India. randomness fired before North and each was quiet when the other was firing. South was no very well-knit in terms of Hindu military lead so it lacked the coordination seen in the North princi pally directed by Maharatta leaders was lacking.In light of this the BJP idea of celebrating 1857 in common with the TSPians and BDs is ridiculous. 0MultiQuoteReply99 mitradenaAdvanced MemberGroup Senior MembersPosts 258Joined 22-November 03Posted 15 August 2006 1019 AMHauma,What is your opinion about Mangal Pandeys role in this?Was he fired by Hindu nationalism or just an emotional computerized tomography reacting to an insult (Beef laced cartridges)? 0MultiQuoteReply100Group GuestsPosted 15 August 2006 0604 PMQUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha Aug 15 2006, 0527 AM)QUOTEThere cannot be any doubt that the failed 1857 revolt had nothing to do with indian independence.I believe this is simply too extreme a characterization.No. I think it is very naive 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 all in all different objectives. and thus could not be considered as one being the herald 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 risk of exposure of believing so will lead us to false conclusions that Indians were not joined in 1857 but became united later.The unity, of in the first place 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 contrasted other religions are taught to act check to their own Dharma/role/job. where the dharma of Hindus who were Brits allies was to hang in 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 articleto fight in the name of religion. This in fact is main cause w herefore 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 dont 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. 0