seedhi Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Who is this "we" you speak of ? And who did make the "mistakes"? How do you not repeat the mistakes if you do not even concede who made the mistakes so they are not rehashed again??There is indeed a long line of Indian kings, leaders etc who allowed, for their own self interest, the ascendancy of foreign powers. But I dont agree that mistakes were not at all learnt from, at least implicitly. I mean, from the early 20th century our freedom struggle was more or less united (except for Muslim League later on) - and the very areas which were indifferent to the 1857 revolt later sustained a long struggle against the British. Not trying to put you in a spot but for someone, in this case you, who is quick on the gun to chastise the nation, and its history of supporting external forces for internal reasons (which by the way I agree to), should surely be direct and forthcoming on the question (1857 revolt) then passing a PC comment. No?I am not chastising the nation. The kings and sultans are of the past and the present set of people is not responsible for their acts. All I would expect is people learn from history, and not adopt those traits that wrecked this land for centuries.
Iconoclast Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Well you know the funniest part of this is most the Indians here calling for the cancellation of this series will end up watching it anyway. Massive whiners you folks are and everybody knows it :((:((:((
Sarkar Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Well you know the funniest part of this is most the Indians here calling for the cancellation of this series will end up watching it anyway. Massive whiners you folks are and everybody knows it :((:((:(( For a start i wont be watching this series not even single game not for bilateral series that too playing in India if indian leaders had any shame the series would have never happened at first place. Dont you folks talking about whining every match you lose to us you keep whining with conspiracy theories i m supporting thackeray whether people like it or they dont.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 There is indeed a long line of Indian kings' date=' leaders etc who allowed, for their own self interest, the ascendancy of foreign powers. But I dont agree that mistakes were not at all learnt from, at least implicitly. I mean, from the early 20th century our freedom struggle was more or less united (except for Muslim League later on) - [b']and the very areas which were indifferent to the 1857 revolt later sustained a long struggle against the British. Still not answering the very basic question Seedhi saab. I will re-iterate. What's your stance on those who stood by foreign forces during 1857 Revolt?
seedhi Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Still not answering the very basic question Seedhi saab. I will re-iterate. What's your stance on those who stood by foreign forces during 1857 Revolt?They were acting in their perceived self interest. I am not going to label them, because the state of Indian society and historical context may, at least partially, explain their choices. For example (and I am speculating here), some people may not have wanted to switch to a mughal rule given their history with that dynasty. With hindsight it can be reasonably said that the earlier British were kicked out of India the better it would have been. But today, given that we are living in a constitutional democracy which is accountable to the people, and which gives us a legal and constitutional recourse to deal with people like Thackeray, there is no justification for equating a destructive, violent, external threat with an internal ideological adversary.
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 They were acting in their perceived self interest. I am not going to label them, because the state of Indian society and historical context may, at least partially, explain their choices. For example (and I am speculating here), some people may not have wanted to switch to a mughal rule given their history with that dynasty. With hindsight it can be reasonably said that the earlier British were kicked out of India the better it would have been. But today, given that we are living in a constitutional democracy which is accountable to the people, and which gives us a legal and constitutional recourse to deal with people like Thackeray, there is no justification for equating a destructive, violent, external threat with an internal ideological adversary. Who is "they"? Please be specific. I don't want you to label anyone, but I sure want you to identify them. There is a difference.
seedhi Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Who is "they"? Please be specific. I don't want you to label anyone, but I sure want you to identify them. There is a difference.These are easily available facts - most of south India remained unaffected. The aristocracy in Punjab supported the British who also recruited support from gurkhas and pashtuns I believe. The Sikhs clearly did not want to be ruled by a mughal king given the persecution they had suffered at their hands. Also ironically, just a couple of decades or so earlier the now revolting sepoys had helped the British defeat the Sikhs.
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 These are easily available facts - most of south India remained unaffected. The aristocracy in Punjab supported the British who also recruited support from gurkhas and pashtuns I believe. The Sikhs clearly did not want to be ruled by a mughal king given the persecution they had suffered at their hands. Also ironically' date= just a couple of decades or so earlier the now revolting sepoys had helped the British defeat the Sikhs. Lovely. So to re-iterate the 1857 revolution saw Sikhs, Pashtuns & Gurkhas supporting British to quell India's first revolt. Want to make sure we are on the same page here and I dont assume anything erroneously.
Nova Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Lurker, please get to the reason behind this intense interrogation.
seedhi Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Lovely. So to re-iterate the 1857 revolution saw Sikhs, Pashtuns & Gurkhas supporting British to quell India's first revolt. Want to make sure we are on the same page here and I dont assume anything erroneously.More or less. To be more accurate the gurkhas and pashtuns were mostly individual soldiers recruited by the British, but the rulers from the Sikh side were also against the revolt - because of their grievances against the mughals. The nizam of Hyderabad also supported the british. I dont know where this is leading - you can read all of this history easily.
Crookbond Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Lurker' date=' please get to the reason behind this intense interrogation.[/quote'] From what I know about Lurker, there's a storm coming T-Dawg. :nervous:
Lurker Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I dont know where this is leading - you can read all of this history easily. Read this history easily? Where? I can not remember reading that Sikhs supported Brits in 1857revolution in my CBSE classbook. Do you?? What I do remember is that in 80s when Shah Bano case was garnering its media glimpse, a few historians had recommended having a second look at 1857 with an eye to have an honest discussion. That was tanked as an attack on "minority". I would be very interested if you could see me some reputed Sikh historians even today admitting that this single step may have had a profound impact on how long Brits ruled over us. More or less. To be more accurate the gurkhas and pashtuns were mostly individual soldiers recruited by the British, but the rulers from the Sikh side were also against the revolt - because of their grievances against the mughals. The nizam of Hyderabad also supported the british. Lets take it a bit further now, since you suggested rectifying mistakes from History and how Indians did not learn from it. Purely hypothetical speaking considering Sikhs were the biggest pro-Brit force in 1857 (you are right Gurkhas and Pathans were individuals and hence not really Army), how would have things panned out differently for India if Sikhs either did not support Brits, or chose to be neutral? It is purely hypothetical question so you can choose not to answer if you like.
Sarkar Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 sikhs supported british during 1857 revolt many sikhs also fought for british during first and second world war.
seedhi Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Read this history easily? Where? I can not remember reading that Sikhs supported Brits in 1857revolution in my CBSE classbook. Do you??Everything is available on the internet for sure. CBSE textbooks were highly sanitized. What I do remember is that in 80s when Shah Bano case was garnering its media glimpse, a few historians had recommended having a second look at 1857 with an eye to have an honest discussion. That was tanked as an attack on "minority". I would be very interested if you could see me some reputed Sikh historians even today admitting that this single step may have had a profound impact on how long Brits ruled over us. This is a very subjective assessment. In my personal view the sooner British left us, the better it would have been. But one can also argue that a return to mughal rule could have been worse, especially for the Sikhs who had suffered enormously at their hands. People who actually lived in that era made a call about their future and it is slightly unfair to second guess them with any certainty. Lets take it a bit further now, since you suggested rectifying mistakes from History and how Indians did not learn from it.There is no "rectification" of mistakes possible but basically one needs to learn from history and any mistakes. And apply the lessons to the present context. In my view, today India is a constitutional democracy with enough checks and balances and remedies to take care of our differences. It is a different place from 18th or 19th century India, riven by wars and invasions, with betrayals and intrigues common place, where might was right. Equating an ideological adversary like Thackeray or (say) Sonia Gandhi to an external threat like pakistan is completely unjustified. Purely hypothetical speaking considering Sikhs were the biggest pro-Brit force in 1857 (you are right Gurkhas and Pathans were individuals and hence not really Army), how would have things panned out differently for India if Sikhs either did not support Brits, or chose to be neutral? It is purely hypothetical question so you can choose not to answer if you like.Very difficult to make a guess - but British would have faced a much harder time. I cant say anything more concrete.
Nova Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Bihari and Bengali sepoys in the British army had fought against the Sikhs earlier, and brought their kingdom down, resulting in British annexing Punjab. After this, Sikhs had no sympathy for Biharis/Bengalis and therefore did not support the 1857 mutiny.
Lurker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Everything is available on the internet for sure. CBSE textbooks were highly sanitized. Indeed they are. So how do you suggest Indians learn from their history, when the history itself is sanitized, your words? Also, since you are mostly right leaning, I have to ask you how come when this comes up - rewriting/correcting history, all one hears about is the Islamic portion? Can you show me when RSS/BJP/VHP has suggested how 1857 should be portrayed clean and the role of Sikhs? This is a very subjective assessment. In my personal view the sooner British left us, the better it would have been. But one can also argue that a return to mughal rule could have been worse, especially for the Sikhs who had suffered enormously at their hands. People who actually lived in that era made a call about their future and it is slightly unfair to second guess them with any certainty. By that token Jaichand was also looking after his interest at the given time. Why is Jaichand used as a traitor and those who acted against National interest considered otherwise??? Let us just call a spade a spade and move on. Why qualify it? Very difficult to make a guess - but British would have faced a much harder time. I cant say anything more concrete. Fair enough. How about Indian landscape?? Would you concede that the reason Sikhs enjoyed a numberical advantage in British Army could be traced down to their support in 1857? And the pedigree continued well after?
Lurker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Bihari and Bengali sepoys in the British army had fought against the Sikhs earlier' date=' and brought their kingdom down, resulting in British annexing Punjab. After this, Sikhs had no sympathy for Biharis/Bengalis and therefore did not support the 1857 mutiny.[/quote'] Thats is another argument I hear Tdigi, and not without merit. But think of the leading forces of 1857 and what names come to mind right away? Tatya Tope, Nana Saheb, Ghazi Khan, Jhaansi ki Raani. Sure Mangal Pandey and Kunwar Singh too. But to suggest it was only Bihari/Bengali fighting in 1857 and hence Sikhs were against is misleading. :agree:
Lurker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 It is a different place from 18th or 19th century India, riven by wars and invasions, with betrayals and intrigues common place, where might was right. Equating an ideological adversary like Thackeray or (say) Sonia Gandhi to an external threat like pakistan is completely unjustified. I missed this. Yes I agree Bal Thackeray Pakistan. The former is a wordsmith, latter is a terrorist nation. There should not be false equivalency. Also, didnt mean to hijack this thread, your point on history caught my attention :winky:
seedhi Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Indeed they are. So how do you suggest Indians learn from their history, when the history itself is sanitized, your words? Also, since you are mostly right leaning, I have to ask you how come when this comes up - rewriting/correcting history, all one hears about is the Islamic portion? Can you show me when RSS/BJP/VHP has suggested how 1857 should be portrayed clean and the role of Sikhs? I dont think anyone actually denies that Sikh rulers aided British in 1857. People can try to explain it with some reasonableness that they had grievances against the mughals and also with the sepoys. In the case of islamic invasions of India, there is outright denial by the leftists and islamists of the outrages that took place. The muslim historians of the medieval times themselves recorded what happened, but the leftists even go to the extent of claiming that these accounts by different contemporary muslim historians were all exaggerated. By that token Jaichand was also looking after his interest at the given time. Why is Jaichand used as a traitor and those who acted against National interest considered otherwise??? Well, from what I have read, the Jaichand thing is more of a fable. And the story goes that he was angry with Prithviraj Chauhan for marrying his daughter even though both of them were in love. So it was not out of interest of his subjects, but out of pure spite of a personal nature that he aided Ghori. Mir Sadiq was another famous "traitor" and he did it apparently for money. Mir Jafar also did it for personal benefit. Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq were traitors in the sense that they betrayed their own people/armies to the British. Let us just call a spade a spade and move on. Why qualify it?Almost every kingdom in 18th-19th centuries took British help or signed treaties with them. These kings were acting in the (perceived) interest of their subjects. For example Travancore took British help to stave off an attack from Tipu Sultan. This was the whole game that the British played, but it is difficult to outrightly condemn the pawns. Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq themselves knew that what they were doing was treachery and betrayal. But, for example, the King of Travancore or the Sikh aristocracy were acting (in their wisdom) in the interest of their subjects. Fair enough. How about Indian landscape?? Would you concede that the reason Sikhs enjoyed a numberical advantage in British Army could be traced down to their support in 1857? And the pedigree continued well after?I think this is fairly well known that the whole concept of "martial races" was more based on the British perception of loyalty than anything else.
Lurker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 I dont think anyone actually denies that Sikh rulers aided British in 1857. People can try to explain it with some reasonableness that they had grievances against the mughals and also with the sepoys. Really? When was the last time you saw a TV program on this? Like EVER? :haha: Are you telling me that tomorrow if Doordarshan makes a karyakarm on 1857 and shows this angle, we wont have stone being pelted and banners bring brought out suggesting how Sikhs are being targeted once again in India? :haha: In the case of islamic invasions of India, there is outright denial by the leftists and islamists of the outrages that took place. The muslim historians of the medieval times themselves recorded what happened, but the leftists even go to the extent of claiming that these accounts by different contemporary muslim historians were all exaggerated. Not really, no. I mean I am yet to meet/read a leftist showing Nalanda vidhwansh never happened. Or Hindukush for that matter. I think this is fairly well known that the whole concept of "martial races" was more based on the British perception of loyalty than anything else. So if it is fairly well known like you say, maybe I should NEVER hear the whole naara - We are 2% but we make 10% of Indian Armed Forces, ever again in my life?? Want to bet on it Seedhi saab? :winky:
Recommended Posts