Indian states compared to countries on GDP/Per-capita

[salute]

You just let it happen... When Czar tried to "russophize" Finland we kicked the Russkies out. We were three million, they were 200 000 000... You were 200 000 000, brits were 60000...

yup,

british never military matched against united india ,they just managed the politics of indian states,

and famous divide and rule tactics,

india is hugh than finland, and not ruled by just one king or emperor,

india was like EU (still it is) where each state or region had their own rulers or kings,

for example like france and german are parts of europe but they are separate states

always fighting with each other and very difficult to unite them,

same was here too,

but in addition to that their were muslim rulers too, who always hated hindus

and they feared that after brits, it will be their turn and a united hindus force will kick them out too,

so they were not interested in helping against brits,

in 1857,indian kings and rulers united to kick out british but falied to do so because muslims rulers didnt helped,

then again same thing in three devastating wars of panipat against british,

also finland have geographical advantage and that it geographically separate from russia very useful in military,

but india dont have that advantage so constantly attacked by outsiders and exposed to proxy wars and invaders.

 

[jouni]

It is interesting to see in the Europe map, how those who conquered the seas and rivers and mastered foreign "trade" are still well off. UK and Netherlands benefited from overseas trade and Denmark, Stockholm are and Helsinki area benefited from Viking and Finnish Kingdom trade. Start building ships my Indian friends.... @Ray, @pmaitra, @sgarg

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

yup,

british never military matched against united india ,they just managed the politics of indian states,

and famous divide and rule tactics,

india is hugh than finland, and not ruled by just one king or emperor,

india was like EU (still it is) where each state or region had their own rulers or kings,

for example like france and german are parts of europe but they are separate states

always fighting with each other and very difficult to unite them,

same was here too,

but in addition to that their were muslim rulers too, who always hated hindus

and they feared that after brits, it will be their turn and a united hindus force will kick them out too,

so they were not interested in helping against brits,

in 1857,indian kings and rulers united to kick out british but falied to do so because muslims rulers didnt helped,

then again same thing in three devastating wars of panipat against british,

also finland have geographical advantage and that it geographically separate from russia very useful in military,

but india dont have that advantage so constantly attacked by outsiders and exposed to proxy wars and invaders.

I thought it was predominantly Muslim mutiny trying its last shot at Delhi. The large massacre of Muslims in Delhi and nearby areas in the aftermath of mutiny is one of the dirtiest secret glossed over by British history. Not a single muslim man was spared in those areas. This history lies behind the rise of Deoband school.

 

[Singh]

I thought it was predominantly Muslim mutiny trying its last shot at Delhi. The large massacre of Muslims in Delhi and nearby areas in the aftermath of mutiny is one of the dirtiest secret glossed over by British history. Not a single muslim man was spared in those areas. This history lies behind the rise of Deoband school.

Pathans on the side of the British used to stuff fellow Muslim mutineers in pig skin and then burn 'em. And used to put Hindus in cow skin and bury 'em.

Along the Delhi - Oudh highway mutineers were strung up on trees.

 

[salute]

I thought it was predominantly Muslim mutiny trying its last shot at Delhi. The large massacre of Muslims in Delhi and nearby areas in the aftermath of mutiny is one of the dirtiest secret glossed over by British history. Not a single muslim man was spared in those areas. This history lies behind the rise of Deoband school.

history ???
http://tarekfatah.com/the-muslim-co...ts-classic-11-volume-story-of-civilization-2/

https://www.scribd.com/doc/28014130/Moslem-Conquest-of-India-by-Will-Durant

sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi

Sultan Alau-d-din (the conquerer ofChitor) had all the males - from fifteen tothirty thousand of them - slaughtered in oneday

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father,
fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children,ruined the country with reckless inflation,and laid it waste with pillage and murder tillthe inhabitants fled to the jungle.

His successor, FirozShah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward forevery Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them,raided Hindu villages for slaves,

Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.

Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of the littlestate of Ghazni. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar, slaughtered them,pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples,and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries.At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold,silver and jewelry shrine,he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground.

`Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath,killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni,the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

history ???
http://tarekfatah.com/the-muslim-co...ts-classic-11-volume-story-of-civilization-2/

https://www.scribd.com/doc/28014130/Moslem-Conquest-of-India-by-Will-Durant

We were talking about mutiny of 1857 and not entire history.

 

[DingDong]

We were talking about mutiny of 1857 and not entire history.

1857 was not a Mutiny in true sense because certain "Sovereign States" fought against the British-led coalition. But it was not a Freedom movement either, those fighting together were either doing it for riches or they were following the principle of "Enemy of Enemy is Friend".

After the fall of the Mughal Empire the Indian subcontinent was passing through a period of reorganization and the British made good use of the prevailing situation which was "chaotic" mildly put. Plus the Indian Kingdoms did not build powerful navies which could have stopped or at least weakened the invasion and the replenishment.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

1857 was not a Mutiny in true sense because certain "Sovereign States" fought against the British-led coalition. But it was not a Freedom movement either, those fighting together were either doing it for riches or they were following the principle of "Enemy of Enemy is Friend".

After the fall of the Mughal Empire the Indian subcontinent was passing through a period of reorganization and the British made good use of the prevailing situation which was "chaotic" mildly put. Plus the Indian Kingdoms did not build powerful navies which could have stopped or at least weakened the invasion and the replenishment.

You can call it whatever you want. My post was in response to the post which claimed 1857 failed due to Muslim rulers who did not support the mutiny.