 | Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region |
January 10th, 2017, 05:18 AM
|
#81 | Historian
Joined: Apr 2015 From: India Posts: 3,423 | Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr 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.
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 05:59 AM
|
#82 | Historian
Joined: Feb 2014 From: Asia Posts: 1,429 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas 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 ?
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 07:34 AM
|
#83 | Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
Joined: Jun 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 3,361 |
Real-politik.
Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister.
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 08:35 AM
|
#84 | Lecturer
Joined: Oct 2016 From: India Posts: 268 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav Real-politik.
Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister. | This right here.
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 03:20 PM
|
#85 | Historian
Joined: Feb 2014 From: Asia Posts: 1,429 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav 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.
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 08:08 PM
|
#86 | Historian
Joined: Nov 2012 Posts: 3,843 |
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.
| |
| |
January 10th, 2017, 09:27 PM
|
#87 | Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
Joined: Jun 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 3,361 | Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr 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? |
Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 10th, 2017 at 09:31 PM.
|
| |
January 11th, 2017, 03:23 AM
|
#88 | Historian
Joined: Nov 2012 Posts: 3,843 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav  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?  | 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.
| |
| |
January 11th, 2017, 05:16 AM
|
#89 | Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
Joined: Jun 2014 From: New Delhi, India Posts: 3,361 |
The mutineers were not under a united command.
| |
| |
January 11th, 2017, 06:26 PM
|
#90 | 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.
| |
| | Search tags for this page | | Thread Tools | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |