Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 6th, 2017, 06:11 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,095

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
I believe during the 1857 rebellion, the animosity between the Hindus and Muslims was at its lowest. Same way both Hindus and Muslims were supporting the Nana Sahib Peshwa for the lost Maratha Empire.

Though very unlikely, I was wondering what would be outcome if these rebels would have defeated the British. Even Nana Sahib accepted Bahadur Shah as the symbolic head of India, though his position was much stronger with generals like Tantya Tope and Rani Lakshmibai regarding him as Peshwa. I was wondering an India with Mughal Emperor as symbolic head and real powers in the hands of Peshwa with the title like Vakil-i-Mutlaq (Regent of the Empire). LOL looks like a unique combination of once mighty Mughal and Maratha Empires, but seems like the most likely outcome if these rebels would have succeeded.
If British were defeated (very unlikely scenario) there would be no India today, as we know it. The rest of what you wrote is just fantasy.

British conquest and unification of India should be considered an epochal event in Indian history, and should be given proper credit.
kandal is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 6th, 2017, 07:43 AM   #22

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 921

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
British conquest and unification of India should be considered an epochal event in Indian history, and should be given proper credit.
Sure, it was an epochal event, but why should we be thankful to the suckers. If India were not in the present configuration, it would have been in some other. It would have lived its destiny in that way.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 07:45 AM   #23

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 256
Blog Entries: 2
Question


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanOfArc007 View Post
That is impressive, good comparison. The Crusader Richard I would have admired a man such as Tipu Sultan... I dont know much about Sultan, but Sultan from one painting is depicted as a leader who fought in the front lines. Sultan's response to the French military advisers reminds me of the stance taken by Nathan Hale before being hanged by the British,


Nathan Hale volunteers to spy behind British lines - Sep 10, 1776 - HISTORY.com

He was also an avowed bigot and ghazi, a man who fought Hindus and Brits with equal fervor. He fought for his patrimony and his crown rather than his country, which I'd say about almost all Indian Princes (including those who fought in the '57). Not that revolting was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but that's like saying Bonnie Prince Charlie fought for England. That's bogus; he fought solely for himself.
Junius is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 07:46 AM   #24

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 256
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Sure, it was an epochal event, but why should we be thankful to the suckers. If India were not in the present configuration, it would have been in some other. It would have lived its destiny in that way.
What destiny? Men make their own destiny. If the British hadn't unified India, we could have easily remained like the Balkans.
Junius is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 08:13 AM   #25

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
What destiny? Men make their own destiny. If the British hadn't unified India, we could have easily remained like the Balkans.
We surely can't say how would have looked if British hadn't come to India. In reality British only controlled 2/3 of India, rest of them were hundreds of princely states who were dreaming about independence on the dawn of India's independence.
Devdas is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 08:19 AM   #26

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Sure, it was an epochal event, but why should we be thankful to the suckers. If India were not in the present configuration, it would have been in some other. It would have lived its destiny in that way.
that seems true, nationalism only shaped across the world by 18th or 19th century. Even in Europe majority of the countries are the creation in power wrestling between among great powers Britain, Germany, France, Russia or erstwhile Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary.
Devdas is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 08:23 AM   #27

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,795

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
I believe during the 1857 rebellion, the animosity between the Hindus and Muslims was at its lowest. Same way both Hindus and Muslims were supporting the Nana Sahib Peshwa for the lost Maratha Empire.

Though very unlikely, I was wondering what would be outcome if these rebels would have defeated the British. Even Nana Sahib accepted Bahadur Shah as the symbolic head of India, though his position was much stronger with generals like Tantya Tope and Rani Lakshmibai regarding him as Peshwa. I was wondering an India with Mughal Emperor as symbolic head and real powers in the hands of Peshwa with the title like Vakil-i-Mutlaq (Regent of the Empire). LOL looks like a unique combination of once mighty Mughal and Maratha Empires, but seems like the most likely outcome if these rebels would have succeeded.
Mughals only hold the title, they hardly had any territory to be ruled. When British defeated Nawabs of Bengal in Battle of Buxar, again it was the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II who granted the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to British as concent of defeat although they hardly had any control over Bengal back then.
Devdas is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 09:55 AM   #28

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,035

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal
British conquest and unification of India should be considered an epochal event in Indian history, and should be given proper credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius
If the British hadn't unified India, we could have easily remained like the Balkans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas
In reality British only controlled 2/3 of India, rest of them were hundreds of princely states who were dreaming about independence on the dawn of India's independence.
I would say it was British propaganda 'we unified India', that some Indians are parroting.

The legacy of British rule is :- The Partition, creation of Pakistan, The issue of Kashmir (princely state)

And what exactly British India was, that was the legacy of Mughal and Maratha Empire. Just check this map, this was India when Robert Clive was conspiring with Mir Jafar, Can we see a unified state in saffron color from Punjab to Kerala
Click the image to open in full size.
mnsr is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 10:09 AM   #29

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius
He was also an avowed bigot and ghazi, a man who fought Hindus and Brits with equal fervor. He fought for his patrimony and his crown rather than his country, which I'd say about almost all Indian Princes (including those who fought in the '57). Not that revolting was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but that's like saying Bonnie Prince Charlie fought for England. That's bogus; he fought solely for himself.
OK. My this post has two parts first related to Tipu Sultan and second related to the Rebels of 1857.

Tipu Sultan: He killed Kodavas (Hindus), Mappilas (Muslims) and Mangalorean Catholics (Christians). No doubt he ruthlessly killed his enemies who seems to be threat to his state. (You can compare this attitute with the State of Israel)

But I wants to see if any Hindu on this forum has guts to reply to these excerpts that I am going to quote from wiki:

"Editor of Mysore Gazettes Srikantaiah has listed 156 temples to which Tipu regularly paid annual grants. There is such evidence as grant deeds, and correspondence between his court and temples, and his having donated jewellery and deeded land grants to several temples. Between 1782 and 1799 Tipu Sultan issued 34 "Sanads" (deeds) of endowment to temples in his domain, while also presenting many of them with gifts of silver and gold plate. The Srikanteswara Temple in Nanjangud still possesses a jewelled cup presented by the Sultan. He also gave a greenish linga; to Ranganatha temple at Srirangapatna he donated seven silver cups and a silver camphor burner. This temple was hardly a stone's throw from his palace from where he would listen with equal respect to the ringing of temple bells and the muezzin's call from the mosque; to the Lakshmikanta Temple at Kalale he gifted four cups, a plate and Spitoon in silver.

In 1791, Maratha army raided the temple and matha of Sringeri Shankaracharya, killing and wounding many, and plundering the monastery of all its valuable possessions. The incumbent Shankaracharya petitioned Tipu Sultan for help. And this is what Tipu Sultan said on hearing the news of the raid:
हसद्भिः क्रियते कर्म रुदद्भिरनुभूयते. (Sins are committed joyfully; their fruits are endured with sorrow)

He immediately ordered to supply the Swami with 200 rahatis (fanams) in cash and other gifts and articles. Tipu Sultan's interest in the Sringeri temple continued for many years, and he was still writing to the Swami in the 1790s CE."

Rebels of 1857:

The assumption that everyone in 1857 was just fighting for himself ?

Bahadur Shah became the leader of rebellion on the request of sepoys. (Note - These sepoys were not working for him but for the British before 1857)

Nana Sahib also accepted Bahadur Shah as an emperor of India, rather than thinking about just himself.

Rani Lakshmibai was regarding the Nana Sahib as Peshwa, the higher authority, rather than just thinking about just herself.

And for whom was Tantya Tope fighting for ? Now this is home assignment.

Last edited by mnsr; January 6th, 2017 at 10:13 AM.
mnsr is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 10:12 AM   #30

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas
Mughals only hold the title, they hardly had any territory to be ruled. When British defeated Nawabs of Bengal in Battle of Buxar, again it was the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II who granted the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to British as concent of defeat although they hardly had any control over Bengal back then.
I was just speculating the scenario in case 1857 rebellion got successful.

Mughal Emperor would be no doubt just the symbolic head, much like Chhatrapati, the real power would be in the hands of Peshwa.
mnsr is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
bahadur, days, emperor, mughal, shah, zafar



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who was the worst Mughal Emperor after 1707? And Why? Modest Learner Asian History 10 June 11th, 2015 05:56 AM
Poll:Greatest Mughal Emperor Darren Singh Asian History 0 April 17th, 2015 05:32 AM
Why did the rebels declare Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah as leader of 1857 revolt greatstreetwarrior Asian History 3 January 21st, 2015 11:28 AM
AHC: Dara Shikoh, Mughal Emperor: Underlankers Speculative History 0 March 24th, 2013 05:40 PM
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler Or Bad History? . mughal Asian History 3 March 18th, 2011 03:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.