I cannot believe there was an era of ninety years rule from 1857 although the bluff works the rulers ruled for 200 years! I do not mind there to have been a foreign rule except it need to have stayed to missionary ethics. Unfortunately, the awareness and bad blood of many Indians took coalitions to mean an enticing to quarrel. However, the good Judge is God and it appears that, the country free at last wants some more from the past rulers. I do not understand this! Apart from freedom why do Indians specialize in two outlets of their nationalism : one is Great Britain and the other is the USA. I simply do not understand this hypocrisy! It is high time India smelled the enemy's plottings against Indians abroad. Even if the Tiranga has a history since 1907, there is proof our universities have been overused by plundering powers and the Indians have got to look out for the limitations of resources round the world. This is my own message to those who can't believe the adequacy of this country and get to specialize in exploiter powers!
One thing you need to remember is that the revolt of 1857 was not inspired by the "Enlightened Nationalism" which characterized the fredoom struggle in the first half of the 20th century. It was purely a religious frenzy which gripped the sepoys and the Zamindars alike across North India. The Muslims would charge the British with cries of "Deen-Deen-Deen" and the Hindus with cries of "Dharm, Dharm, Dharm". So if it had succeeded, it could not have been replaced by a better system of governance. It would have been a very immature adminstration in place of the British Raj. If you read about the American War of Independence on the other hand, It was clear cut in every sense. There was a constitution, A war strategy and a goal and a set of mature leaders who were well versed in every aspect of statecraft. Not so with the rebellious sepoys of 1857. The atrocities to which the British resorted after putting down the revolt defy imagination I would say close to half a million Indians were massacred, hanged, blown from cannons etc. A majority of these victims were mere by standers to the rebellion.
RE:There were atrocities on both sides.
by pratyush singh on May 12, 2007 10:07 AM Permalink
what an interpretation,bravo!you have ensconced yourself in the catagory of intellectuals.but you missed some points sir,first the american war of independence;you say it had 'a war strategy'.well if you go through history,it ironicaly comes out that it was one of the most ill organised rebellion led by peasents and later joined by 'mature people' and we all know how immature Mangal Pandey,Veer Kunwar singh and Rani Laxhmi Bai were,because they refused to be humiliated in their own land by a bunch of white men carrying a heavy burden to civilize the world and they didnt have the foresight to see that they would end up putting an 'immature administration'in place of british raj."religious frenzy",this is what you term our first war of independence!what a shame!!Mr,the war brought together hindus ans muslims together as they accepted Bahadur shah Zafar as their leader.anyways no point talking to people like you who have no sense of pride and self respect,this is for people who are ignorant of indian freedom movement and might bd misguided by your vile imagination.
RE:There were atrocities on both sides.
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2007 09:24 PM Permalink
Mr Pratyush, I know my history well. George Washington had the help of this Gentlemen whose expertise proved decisive: Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin Freiherr von Steuben (* September 17, 1730; %u2020 November 28, 1794) was a German-Prussian General who served with George Washington in the American Revolutionary War and is credited with teaching the Continental Army the essentials of military drill,discipline and strategy . He reorganised the Continental Army and guided it to a decisive victory over the British. You quote a few determined individuals like the Rani of Jhansi, Kunwar Singh etc. who went charging into the battlefield against British cannons and musketery only to loose their lives heroically. This makes you sound like a person who lacks the power of analysis. Finally what happened ? The rebels were crushed. If the sepoys were that sophisticated in their thinking, they would have beaten the British. Yes, It was religious frenzy on part of the Mussalmans and the fear of caste defilement on the part of the Hindus which was the primary cause of the revolt. There was never a committee in place to strategize and never a clear cut goal, not a charter for the rights of citizens and no demarkation on what geographically constituted the landmass of India. The South was firmly in the hands of the British and all Indian ports were free to allow passage for allowing more and more troops of the crown to come pouring in to crush the revolt. The rebels were way behind in all aspects of warfare. You need to weigh your words next time before you post.
It's amazing!!!Even after 60 years of independence we are still slaves to the British (western) mindset. We still call this the "mutiny" whereas the proper term from an indian perspective is "First war of Independence". Do you see any other nation's history where they call their struggle against the colonial occupation as "Mutiny". This is the British term from their perspective.
Similarly, you see all newspapers and TV reports using extremely derogatory terms as "idol" for the statues of Indian dieties. You will never hear such a term for buddhist or christian artifacts. This shows how the slavery in us is alive and kicking even today.
RE:nice 2 see this
by pradeep divakaran on May 08, 2007 06:59 PM Permalink
yes it must've been hell for the whites especially the bibighar massacre where women and children were mutilated
i personally doubt the glory around 1857 war of independence - was it a mutiny. was it driven by ideology of nationalism or was it anger against trespassing relegious sentiments in greasing bullets with animal fat. it was not co-ordinated but spontaneous anger eruption. Let there be a debate.
RE:1857
by shyama nandakumar on May 08, 2007 06:28 PM Permalink
what? hell to be white???? and it was nice a cozy to be an exploitated indian, sitting and fighting wars, getting killed, forced to eat meat, and bite off pig fat to kill someone who has done nothing to you, forcefully. and of course, it was an honour to do all this for no salary, duh...they were paid only during the battle, not when their regiments were in a land already conquered!
RE:1857
by ashish on May 08, 2007 06:36 PM Permalink
U INDIANS HAVE No SPINE LEFT !!!!! WHY ARE U SO AFRAID OF BRITISH WHO PLUNDERED AND ROBBED INDIA FOR 200 YEARS.
RE:1857
by pratyush singh on May 13, 2007 07:13 PM Permalink
thanks ashish,its good to know that there are also people who attach their self respect to the glorious history of the country.and rather than cribbing about what wrongs were done,and questioning people who stood against the humiliations served to us by the british,salute them for their courage,self respect and love for their motherland.
RE:1857
by Sibaram Dutta on May 08, 2007 06:45 PM Permalink
Right.. Absolutely right.. Though we feel proud for that bursting of anger against English which insisted the other Freedom Fighter's to raise Jung against the English Ruler...
