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 10th, 2017, 05:18 AM   #81

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,206

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
But Nana Sahib further regarded Bahadur Shah as the supreme leader of the revolt
That was an alliance of convenience as they shared a common enemy, all of them knew Mughals were powerless king.
Devdas is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 10th, 2017, 05:59 AM   #82

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
That was an alliance of convenience as they shared a common enemy, all of them knew Mughals were powerless king.
No doubt, Bahadur Shah was much weaker as compare to Nana Sahib. I dont think anybody can dispute that.

But the question that nobody wants to answer is that why Nana Sahib accepted Bahadur Shah as the leader of India, and presented himself as his sub-ordinate ?
mnsr is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 07:34 AM   #83

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,185

Real-politik.

Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 08:35 AM   #84

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Real-politik.

Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister.
This right here.
Junius is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 03:20 PM   #85

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Real-politik.

Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister.
Aupmanyav ji could you please elaborate as what circumstances would have forced Nana Sahib to accept Bahadur Shah as his leader ?

Why Nana Sahib's subordinates like Rani Lakshmibai never objected to this ?

Why Hindu and Muslim sepoys never got divided on the question of Bahadur Shah vs Nana Sahib ?

Until now, after analysing this discipline and hierarchy, one thing I can say that the point that all these guys were fighting for just themselves is an illogical assumption.
mnsr is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 08:08 PM   #86
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,701

You guys forget the Peshwas were always used to a role of being actual executors of a ceremonial head. They did so with the Marathas and the same could be true of why Nana did with Bahadur Shah. The power however was certainly with one person. He might have also wanted to settle the issue later once the Brits were out.
greatstreetwarrior is online now  
Old January 10th, 2017, 09:27 PM   #87

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,185

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
Aupmanyav ji could you please elaborate as what circumstances would have forced Nana Sahib to accept Bahadur Shah as his leader ?
Why Nana Sahib's subordinates like Rani Lakshmibai never objected to this ?
Why Hindu and Muslim sepoys never got divided on the question of Bahadur Shah vs Nana Sahib ?
Until now, after analysing this discipline and hierarchy, one thing I can say that the point that all these guys were fighting for just themselves is an illogical assumption.
It is like when Aryans and indigenous people merged. One party accepts a few points of the second, and the second party accepts a few points of the first. Both happy.

Nanaji accepted Bahadur Shah, Muslim soldiers accepted Nanaji, and the Hindu and Muslim soldiers tried to fight the British together irrespective of who led them in the war. I am sure that even the Maratha army had Muslim soldiers. Hindus and Muslims united under Gandhi also to fight British. Did they asked who was a Hindu or who was a Muslim at that time?

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 10th, 2017 at 09:31 PM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 03:23 AM   #88
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,701

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
It is like when Aryans and indigenous people merged. One party accepts a few points of the second, and the second party accepts a few points of the first. Both happy.

Nanaji accepted Bahadur Shah, Muslim soldiers accepted Nanaji, and the Hindu and Muslim soldiers tried to fight the British together irrespective of who led them in the war. I am sure that even the Maratha army had Muslim soldiers. Hindus and Muslims united under Gandhi also to fight British. Did they asked who was a Hindu or who was a Muslim at that time?

Click the image to open in full size.
My point is even majority of Muslim soldiers pledged only nominally to Bahadur. Mughals were paying taxes to the Marathas as tribute very much till British arrival. Hence, its clear who was the real ruler. Begum Hazrat Mahal, Amanullah Khan and Rani Laxmibai all accepted Nanasaheb as the chief strategist of the revolt. Nana Saheb alone could call to arms multiple regiments. His impact on the field was profound. The British feared Marathas/Peshwas more than the puppet residue of the Mughals.
greatstreetwarrior is online now  
Old January 11th, 2017, 05:16 AM   #89

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,185

The mutineers were not under a united command.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 06:26 PM   #90

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav
Nanaji accepted Bahadur Shah, Muslim soldiers accepted Nanaji, and the Hindu and Muslim soldiers tried to fight the British together irrespective of who led them in the war. I am sure that even the Maratha army had Muslim soldiers. Hindus and Muslims united under Gandhi also to fight British. Did they asked who was a Hindu or who was a Muslim at that time?
Yes, the comparison of 1857 rebels with later freedom fighters is more apt. But Gandhi can be best compared with Indian States who were neutral in 1857.

I will compare these sepoys with the veterans of Azad Hind Fauj. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs joined together under the leadership of Subhash Chandra Bose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav
The mutineers were not under a united command.
Yes, I would say the mutiny was mostly unplanned and uncoordinated. And the reason is that the outbreak was just spontaneous, there was no pre-planning. But once the war started everyone understands the need of national unity and Bahadur Shah was proclaimed as the Emperor of India against the illegitimate East India Company.

Apart from lack of planning, we cannot ignore that there were many Indian States who were supporting the British with Army, many were sympathetic to British and many were just neutral.
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.