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 May 11th, 2012, 03:58 PM   #11

The Imperial's Avatar
MentalManja
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: 3rd rock from Sol
Posts: 4,252
Blog Entries: 1

There were many martial races in India which remained loyal to the british. Actually, most remained loyal to british, the mutineers were mostly soldiers from Bengal and Bihar region. And the mutiny was just a small uprising in north India. South India was hardly touched.

And Shaheen explained it quite beautifully.
The Imperial is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 4th, 2012, 10:33 AM   #12
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1

agreed was a good explanation by shaheen
sunny is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:03 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

the art of opportunism is politics and for those who are talking about sikhs being angry with bihari and bengali hindu soldiers , I have some questions

1. first, I do not think that sikhs are stupid people so why did they support british crown and hated foot soldiers?

2. the sikhs are firecer when it comes to their religion and it is well known that Dilip Singh, the son of great Ranjit Singh was forced to become christians in england. this was not the work of biharis but british so why did they still support the british ?

3. finally, what about namdharis ?
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:11 AM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Dehradun
Posts: 1,936

Do you have any information about the Nihang Sikhs nephew Avanti Varman?
Jhangora is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 12:12 PM   #15

Shaheen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
From: UK
Posts: 1,931

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
the art of opportunism is politics and for those who are talking about sikhs being angry with bihari and bengali hindu soldiers , I have some questions

1. first, I do not think that sikhs are stupid people so why did they support british crown and hated foot soldiers?

2. the sikhs are firecer when it comes to their religion and it is well known that Dilip Singh, the son of great Ranjit Singh was forced to become christians in england. this was not the work of biharis but british so why did they still support the british ?
Because they had nothing to lose by supporting the British against a people who had aided the British in their demise. There were tensions between soldiers of the Bengal army posted in Punjab and the Punjabis. Hence why should the Sikhs help the people who had formed the bulk of the army that had destroyed their Sikh kingdom, especially since their figurehead was from a dynasty which had a very troubled history with the Sikhs. Of course to generalzie all Sikhs who fought for the British under one category is wrong. Some will have joined the British for the chance of loot and plunder only whilst others were oppurtunists and saw the British would win. For most however my guess is it must have been an amalgamation of all the reasons mentioned above.
The below linked chapter by Pritam Singh should clarify the Sikh-British relations in this period better and answer your questions.

Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy - Pritam Singh - Google Books

Last edited by Shaheen; December 6th, 2012 at 01:03 PM.
Shaheen is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:22 PM   #16

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 7,881

I understood it as one of the reasons was that there was a history of 'service' amongst the Sikhs, you gave your word to serve -- in return for payment or honour or whatever-- but your word or salt was given and to break that ,even in the face of death, was a dishonour to yourself and extended family.

The Sikhs had given their word and they kept it.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:35 PM   #17

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,441

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
The Sikhs had given their word and they kept it.
It also helped that the Sikh religion has no ban on the consumption of either beef or pork, so the musket cartridges greased with animal fats was not an problem for them.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 03:16 PM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
Britain supported minority groups in order to rule India. A couple of minorities they empowered were the Parsis, Zoroastrian communities from Persia who immigrated following the Islamic conquest, and the Sikhs.
It was indeed a paradigmatic textbook example of a colonial Divide et Impera strategy at its best.
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #19
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 103

It is not correct to say the Sikhs supported the British.

The only people who supported the British in the 1857 war were a few Feudal vassals of the British.

The were petty rulers who were given grandioise titles and protection by the Briitish.

They had a soldiery, who owed them allegiance, and these were the troops the British used.

They were glorified landlords- but called Rajas and Maharajas.

A few petty Sikh states, also supprted the British, along with a few states from Rajastan, Nepal were in support.

The revolution was not about pig or cow fat as is glorified in historical novels or movies. It was not about saving the throne of a Jhansi of Rani

It was about economic oppression by the British, the imposition by them of excessive taxes on the farming class, about treating soldiers who served with them badly and inhumanly.

It was the desire of a people who did not wish to live under the British yoke.

Indian Historians increasingly do not treat as a mutiny of the Sepoys of the British, but as the 1st war of Independence

Warm regards

Ravi Chaudhary
ravichaudhary is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:56 PM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
It also helped that the Sikh religion has no ban on the consumption of either beef or pork, so the musket cartridges greased with animal fats was not an problem for them.
you are so wrong as i need to see a single sikh who eats beef or pork.

the fact is hindus, muslims and sikhs all abhor pork and hindu and sikhs abhor beef eating.

ranajit singh was a great sikh ruler and he had death penalty for cow slaughter in punjab.

indian people in general do not eat any meat other than mutton, chicken and fish .
avantivarman is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
1857, loyal, mutiny, sikhs


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gurkhas vs. Sikhs NewModelSoldier Speculative History 13 March 1st, 2014 04:31 AM
How did the British attitude to the Indians change after the Great Rebellion in 1857 Thechristianphilosopher Asian History 20 July 3rd, 2012 07:50 AM
Panic of 1857 Salah American History 10 April 18th, 2012 11:34 AM
Inforgraphic: Travel rates in 1857 & 1830 brafoo American History 0 January 23rd, 2012 06:39 PM
Mutiny on the Bounty Cicero History in Films and on Television 23 January 15th, 2012 10:03 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.