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, 06:41 PM   #31

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,240

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
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.

States like Hyderabad entered in 'Subsidiary alliance with British to stop getting crushed by Marathas and whole of South India becoming Maratha territory.
Devdas is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 6th, 2017, 06:49 PM   #32

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 263
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
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.
From thousands of India's to 2. Pakistan didn't wantto remain with us and it's better that they haven't. I for one don't wanna deal with the crazy problems these guys have vis-a-vis terror and separatism and stuff like that. We've got enough problems of our own.
Junius is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 06:53 PM   #33

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 263
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
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.
Tipu <<Israel. We now have many passages detailing his delight at crushing Hindus. The Israelis fight out of necessity. Tipu never did so- his ambitions brought him into contact with the British.

The Revolt? Most of those guys fought because the British had taken their lands. Plain and simple. No loyalty to country or anything- pledging allegiance to Bahadur Shah Zafar simply united the efforts of these displaced and bitter feudal grandees. If they had won (and that's a huge if) they'd have torn us apart with their jealous rivalries.
Junius is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 08:07 PM   #34

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius
Tipu <<Israel. We now have many passages detailing his delight at crushing Hindus. The Israelis fight out of necessity. Tipu never did so-
OK, share those passages of crushing Hindus with the sources if you have any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius
The Revolt? Most of those guys fought because the British had taken their lands. Plain and simple. No loyalty to country or anything- pledging allegiance to Bahadur Shah Zafar simply united the efforts of these displaced and bitter feudal grandees. If they had won (and that's a huge if) they'd have torn us apart with their jealous rivalries.
I think even later people, what Indians call freedom fighters also fought because British has taken 'their' land ?

And I think allegiances were to Hindustan (India), Bahadur Shah was just the symbol of that. I dont find any reason why Nana Sahib or sepoy would pledge allegiances to an old man who cant even control his city properly.

And hadn't British torned India apart in 1947, or do you still believe that British unified India that was never unified by any king before?
mnsr is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 09:32 PM   #35

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,300

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.
So, what is wrong with that. Nice countries. Not every country has to be big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
And this is what Tipu Sultan said on hearing the news of the raid:[/I] हसद्भिः क्रियते कर्म रुदद्भिरनुभूयते. (Sins are committed joyfully; their fruits are endured with sorrow)
Oh, he is the greatest freedom fighter from South India for Indian National Congress and the Karnataka Government.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 6th, 2017 at 09:43 PM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 09:39 PM   #36

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,300

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
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
Well I suppose you are forgetting the Maurya map.

Click the image to open in full size.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 02:08 AM   #37

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 263
Blog Entries: 5

India had only been unified before under the Mauryans. I might be forgetting someone, but definitely not the Marathas- those guys were as unified as the Holy Roman Empire was for Christ's sake.

@Aupmanyav, those tiny states that would result from Balkanisation would end up becoming agents of foreign powers and fight amongst each other for decades. I wouldn't wish that on our ppl. Sure, not every country has to be big, but ours should at least be safe.

@mnsr, I can pull up the sources about Tipu if you really want me to, but just give me time to pull them up.
Junius is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 02:19 AM   #38

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,300

You are right. It did not happen that way. And that is good. Had it happened that way, then also life would have gone on. After all, we survived for ages as small principalities, survived foreign domination, survived even while fighting each other. Time would have brought its own changes. That is what theists term as 'will of the God' and what atheists like me term as chance and probability.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 02:35 AM   #39

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 263
Blog Entries: 5

I suppose you're right. I just know which situation I prefer.
Junius is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 02:03 PM   #40
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,501

Whenever the subject of the British creating a unified India is brought up, Hindu and secular nationalists will bring up the following claims:
- Indians had already done it - Maurya empire
- Marathas would have easily done it

Muslims would bring up the Aurangzeb's Mughal empire map.

I do not see merit in any. Maurya empire is shown based on where the Asokan edicts are found, than any real conquest based unification. Marathas unifying India just wets the appetites of Hindu nationalists, and that's about it. Aurangzeb died fighting to create the empire shown in the map, that collapsed after his death. Further the very South and Northeast were never a part of any of these. These claims are fantasies generated by religious and nationalist pride rather than historical reality.
kandal 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.