Rajiv Dixit Exposes
- Thread starter rockey 71
- Start date
LordOfTheUnderworlds
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
- Likes
- 1,379
There was no India or central government. Soldier's allegiance as per norms of the times was supposed to be to the one who employs and feeds them not to some non-existent Indian state. Small kings kept changing allegiance to larger imperialist center as per their own interests. Even the 1857 was more about some people who lost their kingdoms, or feared losing their social status. Huge number of Muslims as well as Brahmins like Mangal Pandey were serving the company as mercenaries. The spark to start revolt was not some nationalistic event but the rumour/news of bullets being coated with cow/pig fat. Not saying there was absolute lack of some kind nationalistic feeling but you can't paint it black and white. There were a lot of factors playing simultaneously. And not everyone took us versus them position in 1957, it was limited to certain regions.
Indian rulers reacted strongly to external powers only when they were too obvious with their aggression and invasion, but British (rather the British east India company) probably were most benign appearing compared with other Europeans and Turkic invaders. They came as traders rather than invaders and were already were deeply embedded serving in courts of kings and Mughals, working as arms suppliers, physicians, and even as mercenary soldiers. So it was slow poisoning.
Indian rulers reacted strongly to external powers only when they were too obvious with their aggression and invasion, but British (rather the British east India company) probably were most benign appearing compared with other Europeans and Turkic invaders. They came as traders rather than invaders and were already were deeply embedded serving in courts of kings and Mughals, working as arms suppliers, physicians, and even as mercenary soldiers. So it was slow poisoning.
Last edited:
