Why Sikhs did not join in 1857 mutiny in large scale?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
I cannot control your amazement as I cannot control your understanding of history.

Things are simple, but you tend to complicate it with some fabulous convoluted and bizarre pretzel like interpretation.

The issue is simple.

You have asked why did the Sikhs not side with those who rebelled against the East India Company, implying that as Indians, they were not nationalistic.
:facepalm:

Even after giving so many, you say India did not exist, I am talking about real history not my version.

You have asked why did the Sikhs not side with those who rebelled against the East India Company, implying that as Indians, they were not nationalistic.
I already said that it was their mistake, Rock127, sukerchakia and Singh and others explained why Sikhs did not join in rebellion and you from first began to say India did not exist, so these are. So why Sikhs would to "non-existent entity"?

Each Princely State had their own interest.

They did what their Princely State's interest were.
And those rulers did not rule whole of India, just small kingdoms with limited power, so it is very natural that at first they would try to regain their small kingdoms before continuing to capture other areas Who can fight with out stabilizing their own home? :rolleyes:

None.

And they failed.

In those days religion was the basis of unity among Indian people.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Even after giving so many, you say India did not exist, I am talking about real history not my version. Waffen SS ↑
It did, did it?

Could you explain as to why Dalhousie the had to adopt the Doctrine of Lapse?

Religion was the basis of unity?

Bahadur Shah Zaffar was of the same religion as Rani of Jhansi and Nana Saheb and they were India?
 
Last edited:

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
It did, did it?
It did, but not always united, due to lack of strong central power.

Could you explain as to why Dalhousie the had to adopt the Doctrine of Lapse?
Dalhousie was naked imperialist, as was those time's Britain's public opinion, all British just needed that was excuse, and Doctrine Of Lapse was just an excuse. Just like misrule of Aoudh(British themselves were responsible for this) and just like Tipu's alliance with French in 4th Anglo-Mysore war saying British empire in India was in danger, how ever British themselves acknowledged French was in no position to support Tipu actively.

When you are determined to do any thing, you will never lack excuse.

Religion was the basis of unity?

Bahadur Shah Zaffar was of the same religion as Rani of Jhansi and Nana Saheb and they were India?
This area is birth place of Hinduism and Hinduism united all people of India despite severe language difference. That's why Marathas took "Hindu-Pad-Padsahi"

As for Bahadur Shah Zaffar till then he was nominal head of India, British monarchy did not take the title of "Emperor Of India" until 1857 revolt.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
It did, but not always united, due to lack of strong central power.
What strong Central Power?

When did India be one entity.

At best, throughout history, there were divisions and India, as we know now, never existed!



Dalhousie was naked imperialist, as was those time's Britain's public opinion, all British just needed that was excuse, and Doctrine Of Lapse was just an excuse. Just like misrule of Aoudh(British themselves were responsible for this) and just like Tipu's alliance with French in 4th Anglo-Mysore war saying British empire in India was in danger, how ever British themselves acknowledged French was in no position to support Tipu actively.
Do you grudge Dalhousie or the British or any of the European powers or even the Mughals for being imperialists?

In those days, the powerful always subdued the weak and reigned.

Heard of the Chola Empire or the Maurya Empire?

Did they encompass all of India as we know it? And yet, their empires stretched beyond what we call India of today!

So, what is the India that you talk about lacking central power?

What central power?

Do you think the Marathas would like to be under Tipu's vassalage or for that matter Bahadur Shah Zaffar's? Or vice versa?

You are merely trying to day dream to suit your agenda.

When you are determined to do any thing, you will never lack excuse.
But where was any determination?

Let me give you a contemporary example.

They talk of the Federal Front and all the contenders for the PM's chair are Hindus (since you allude to religious affinity in some of your arguments)

Are you sure it will be for Mamata or would it be Jaya, but then Laloo too speaks that he will be the PM and so does Mulayam!

So what is all this humbug of ancient India lacking 'strong central power'?

Each one was, and in today's example, is a Khalifa!



This area is birth place of Hinduism and Hinduism united all people of India despite severe language difference. That's why Marathas took "Hindu-Pad-Padsahi"
Hinduism united all?

Really?

Since you are a Bengali, let us walk you through Bengal.

If Hinduism did, then how come Buddhism came into being as a major religion of Bengal, followed by Islam?

Let us not delude ourselves, riding our favourite hobby horses.

As for Bahadur Shah Zaffar till then he was nominal head of India, British monarchy did not take the title of "Emperor Of India" until 1857 revolt.
I too think I am the nominal head of this forum with my declaring that I am the 'Chairman'.

And the owners of the forum have not taken that title off me.

So, what's the big deal?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834

Chola Empiure







Please show India as one, as per the political India that we have of today!
 
Last edited:

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
@Ray boundary changes time by time.

I am giving you example.



German Empire(1871-1919 AD.)



Weimer Republic



Nazi Germany



Modern Germany with out another German country Austria(it was considered part of Germany, up to 1871 Germany was a territorial definition with no political unity, 2 dominant power Prussia-Protestant and Austria-Catholic clashed to unite Germany under their rule, Prussia won in 1871, Austria did not want to surrender to long rival Protestant Prussia, Catholic Austria continued with it's own non-German area mainly with Hungary after WW1 Austria lost all except German speaking ares then they wanted to unite with Germany, Allies refused)-it is just history to know why Austria despite speaking German is not part of Germany.

So due to this change should we call Germany did not exist?

Before we discuss about India's map, 1 thing always and we must remember that is massive territorial change due to 1947 partition. The present map of India is surely Republic Of India's map. And all Indian including Pakistani and Bangladeshis know it.

Even republic of India's map changed such as in 1961 Goa annexation, 1975 Sikkim, 1962 area loses to China(but government maps shows them within India)

So as you see boundary change is very common in historical perspective. Republic of India's life span is barely 60+ year(and we saw several map change within this time) mean while Akbar alone ruled 49 years. May be we can see even more boundary change in future-I hope 1 day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will be again united as we were before.

Rock127, Singh, sukarchakia's explanation that Mughals persecuted Sikhs so Sikhs would not fight under Mughal banner and "Purbia" soldiers theory are acceptable mean while your logic India did not exist in 1857 so why Sikhs would fight is unacceptable.

btw your map of Babar is wrong, Kabul was under Babar's control, I cant see the full picture of Chola empire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
What strong Central Power?

When did India be one entity.

At best, throughout history, there were divisions and India, as we know now, never existed!
Under Mughals, under Mauryans, under Guptas. I already explained boundary change is not issue. What is Central power? After all many times the territory of India united under various dynasties. And you cant deny that- during then same coin, same flag, same law were used through out that large area. What is other definition of unification I dont know.

Do you grudge Dalhousie or the British or any of the European powers or even the Mughals for being imperialists?

In those days, the powerful always subdued the weak and reigned.
I am not blaming British for looting us, no matter how developed we were after all British was better than us so we were ruled.

The difference between British and Central Asian invaders was when British came to India and robbed India's property then went back to Britain their original motherland mean while most Muslim invaders came here fought wars here and ultimately settled here and became Indians. Thus India's property remained in India.

Heard of the Chola Empire or the Maurya Empire?
Of course.

Did they encompass all of India as we know it? And yet, their empires stretched beyond what we call India of today!
Chola empire was not really all India empire. India's politic's base center is North India, what ever happens in north that will happen in South. And Cholas were never all India empire like Mughals. For territory change I already explained.

So, what is the India that you talk about lacking central power?

What central power?

Do you think the Marathas would like to be under Tipu's vassalage or for that matter Bahadur Shah Zaffar's? Or vice versa?

You are merely trying to day dream to suit your agenda.
I am not issuing my own agenda. Marathas were main power of India in 18th century not Mughals. And Tipu payed taxes to Maratha. Even Nawab of Bengal Alivardi Khan payed tax to Maratha and gave Orissa to them. Marathas were becoming Central power aka Most powerful in India, suddenly Abdali defeated them, and Marathas power greatly reduced.

Bahadur Shah Zaffar when ascended to throne Marathas were History.

But where was any determination?

Let me give you a contemporary example.
There was determination, when Mahmud Ghuri attacked India, most Rajput Rajas helped Prithviraj Chauhan. Indian rajs fought unitedly against Mahmud of Ghazni.

It is not rare in history when due to lack of unity an once powerful country was easily conquered.

They talk of the Federal Front and all the contenders for the PM's chair are Hindus (since you allude to religious affinity in some of your arguments)

Are you sure it will be for Mamata or would it be Jaya, but then Laloo too speaks that he will be the PM and so does Mulayam!

So what is all this humbug of ancient India lacking 'strong central power'?
:facepalm:

Each one was, and in today's example, is a Khalifa!
Yes, they were only until then when Central power came in and demanded either tax or war.

Hinduism united all?

Really?

Since you are a Bengali, let us walk you through Bengal.

If Hinduism did, then how come Buddhism came into being as a major religion of Bengal, followed by Islam?

Let us not delude ourselves, riding our favourite hobby horses.
Hinduism is the idea which united Indians. When Muslims came and they started to loot Hindu temples, all Hindus sentiment was hit. Those days religion united Indian people, and hence most Indians w ere Hindu so Hinduism most.

I too think I am the nominal head of this forum with my declaring that I am the 'Chairman'.

And the owners of the forum have not taken that title off me.

So, what's the big deal?
:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Boundaries changes as per the Empire.

The Empires have never been the political India that you talk about.

The nationalism depends on the same boundaries that you talk changes and not beyond it.

Surprising, you do not understand such a simple thing!
 

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
Boundaries changes as per the Empire.

The Empires have never been the political India that you talk about.
Then why Republic Of India's boundary changed? Republic Of India is not an empire for sure.

Forming all India empire was indeed an ambition, i gave the quote from Alauddin Khilji. But very few dynasty succeeded, you know after Fall of Harshabardhana Kanouj became heart land of India and Pal, Pratihar and Rashtrukuts clashed there for 200 years only to gain Kanuj thus to become most powerful kingdom of India?

The nationalism depends on the same boundaries that you talk changes and not beyond it.

Surprising, you do not understand such a simple thing!
Germany's boundary also changed, i have shown you, then how you call German nationalism, did not it's boundary change?

The nationalism depends on the same boundaries that you talk changes and not beyond it.
Pakistan was part of British India, Mughal India, but not of Republic Of India. It is simple.

But you cant deny before 1947, Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India. This partition excluded large former Indian territory from India.

Republic of India's map was also very different just after 1947, you know how many princely states were there, and Junagar, Hydrabad and Kashmir case.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Then why Republic Of India's boundary changed? Republic Of India is not an empire for sure.

Forming all India empire was indeed an ambition, i gave the quote from Alauddin Khilji. But very few dynasty succeeded, you know after Fall of Harshabardhana Kanouj became heart land of India and Pal, Pratihar and Rashtrukuts clashed there for 200 years only to gain Kanuj thus to become most powerful kingdom of India?
Anyone would, with an iota of education, know that a 'Republic' cannot be an 'Empire'.

In the olden days there were Kings who possessed land, acquired more through treaties or wars, and that entity became an 'Empire'. An Empire is an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch or even by a sovereign state.

When the People became the 'Kings', these Empires became 'Republics'. In other word, a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Why did the boundary of the Republic of India change? How has the boundaries changed of the Republic of India? Are you meaning the loss of territories because of the 1962 War? Wars and annexations, in case you did not know, changes boundaries. In modern times, it is rare, because there is the UN, but even so, some countries do not care for what the UN decrees!

It is a figment of your imagination, and of people like you, who have far-fetched notions that India ever existed as today or there was anything called the 'heartland' of 'India' of your fancy.

Germany's boundary also changed, i have shown you, then how you call German nationalism, did not it's boundary change?
Germany of yore, had nothing called 'German nationalism'. The 'nationalism' was restricted to their regional loyalties.

Germany consisted of numerous independent states, such as Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony. The formal unification of Germany into a politically and administratively integrated nation state officially occurred on 18 January 1871.

The reason for the various German speaking areas becoming one and thus changing of the boundaries, has many reasons. One of the reasons is that the Congress of Vienna in 1815 created the Deutscher Bund, which was a a loose association of 39 German states in Central Europe, aimed basically to coordinate the economies of separate German-speaking countries and to replace the former Holy Roman Empire.

May I request you to study history and not meander through it in a selective and footloose manner, just to give credence to your fallacious propagation of your favourite hobby horse?

Pakistan was part of British India, Mughal India, but not of Republic Of India. It is simple

But you cant deny before 1947, Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India. This partition excluded large former Indian territory from India.
May I once again take the privilege to indicate your shallow selective reading and understanding of issues?

It was not only Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan then and hence Pakistan alone) which were a part of British India, but also Lower Burma too since it was already a part of British India; Upper Burma was added in 1886, and the resulting union, Burma, was administered as a province until 1937, when it became a separate British colony, gaining its own independence in 1948.

Republic of India's map was also very different just after 1947, you know how many princely states were there, and Junagar, Hydrabad and Kashmir case.
Indeed, but then maybe you have not read the Indian Independence Act 1947[/i].

This Act of theParliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India andPakistan.

The important provisions of this Act were:

The Act's most important provisions were:
"¢ the division of British India into the two new and fully sovereign dominions of India and Pakistan, with effect from 15 August 1947;
"¢ the partition of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab between the two new countries;
"¢ the establishment of the office of Governor-General in each of the two new countries, as representative of the Crown;
"¢ the conferral of complete legislative authority upon the respective Constituent Assemblies of the two new countries;
the termination of British suzerainty over the princely states, with effect from 15 August 1947, and recognized the right of states to accede to either dominion
"¢ the dropping of the use of the title "Emperor of India" by the British monarch (this was subsequently done by King George VI by royal proclamation on 22 June 1948).

Therefore, if the Princely States exercised the right to accede to either Dominion, would the map not change?
 

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
Anyone would, with an iota of education, know that a 'Republic' cannot be an 'Empire'.

In the olden days there were Kings who possessed land, acquired more through treaties or wars, and that entity became an 'Empire'. An Empire is an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch or even by a sovereign state.

When the People became the 'Kings', these Empires became 'Republics'. In other word, a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Why did the boundary of the Republic of India change? How has the boundaries changed of the Republic of India? Are you meaning the loss of territories because of the 1962 War? Wars and annexations, in case you did not know, changes boundaries. In modern times, it is rare, because there is the UN, but even so, some countries do not care for what the UN decrees!

It is a figment of your imagination, and of people like you, who have far-fetched notions that India ever existed as today or there was anything called the 'heartland' of 'India' of your fancy.
Did Boundary change of Mughals changed India apart from reducing or increasing size? Similarly how do you expect Republic Of India's map change changed India apart from reducing size or increasing?

As for UN, there was no UN in those days so changing boundary was very common, it was rule of those day, so how can you depending on frequent boundary change can say India did not exist?

As for empire, I said our nationalism is borrowed from Europe, so those type modern nationalism did not exist, but this country is for ours, this idea exist.

Germany of yore, had nothing called 'German nationalism'. The 'nationalism' was restricted to their regional loyalties.

Germany consisted of numerous independent states, such as Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony. The formal unification of Germany into a politically and administratively integrated nation state officially occurred on 18 January 1871.

The reason for the various German speaking areas becoming one and thus changing of the boundaries, has many reasons. One of the reasons is that the Congress of Vienna in 1815 created the Deutscher Bund, which was a a loose association of 39 German states in Central Europe, aimed basically to coordinate the economies of separate German-speaking countries and to replace the former Holy Roman Empire.

May I request you to study history and not meander through it in a selective and footloose manner, just to give credence to your fallacious propagation of your favourite hobby horse?
If German nationalism did not exist then why Germany was created? You know Pan-Germanism, German Nationalism in Austria? Why then Germans tried to unite in 1848 Frankfurt parliament?

Germany was divided in 300 states before Napoleonic invasion.

Further all maps I have shown you those are after 1871. So you see even after unification of a country, map can change, same happened here. So what is problem?

Indeed, but then maybe you have not read the Indian Independence Act 1947[/i].

This Act of theParliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India andPakistan.

The important provisions of this Act were:

The Act's most important provisions were:
"¢ the division of British India into the two new and fully sovereign dominions of India and Pakistan, with effect from 15 August 1947;
"¢ the partition of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab between the two new countries;
"¢ the establishment of the office of Governor-General in each of the two new countries, as representative of the Crown;
"¢ the conferral of complete legislative authority upon the respective Constituent Assemblies of the two new countries;
the termination of British suzerainty over the princely states, with effect from 15 August 1947, and recognized the right of states to accede to either dominion
"¢ the dropping of the use of the title "Emperor of India" by the British monarch (this was subsequently done by King George VI by royal proclamation on 22 June 1948).

Therefore, if the Princely States exercised the right to accede to either Dominion, would the map not change?


What does it mean? Nothing. In those days there were 4 India-British India, French India, Portuguese India and princely states. Even map of British ruled India evolved.

Now as for the title of Empire Of India how British got the idea of Emperor Of India if this title was not taken previously by Mughals? How British got this idea? If India was not India, British would not have created India as their separate administrative colony. Instead they would make Empire Of Bengal like this. But they did not, and took Emperor Of India and Indian empire instead, so it indirectly Indicates even British realized Bengal was just a state of India(better province).

If Bengal was separate country they would make Empire Of Bengal, they did not. I hope you now understand.

Hydrabad was not part of Republic Of India until operation Polo.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Thanks.

It is run its course!
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
There are two things here:
1. Socio-cultural affinity by which the people relate to each other as parts of one civilization.
2. Politico-Military organization by which the societies are maintained and protected.

India is a very subtle idea that exists in the very air. It is and has always been flowing thus in the socio-cultural spheres, as that is how Indians of the past defined it. To them Bharata was an idea of culture, society and civilization.
India was NOT back then one political-military entity. That is not how people perceived it.
Nations do not always and automatically equal civilizations. It is up to the people.
That is why centralized Imperial rulerships on entire India have been so few throughout the history.
Lack of politico-military centralization has its own plus and minuses (against invasions/enemies), that we've discussed before on this very forum many times.

Regards,
Virendra
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top