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 December 9th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #31

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,744
Blog Entries: 11

Thank you for the interesting link. A 300 pension was not enormous, it would be like a retired civil servant getting about 25,000 nowadays (not 180,000 as stated there). It seems that he would have liked to get more!
Linschoten is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 9th, 2012, 02:40 PM   #32

Cadell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2007
From: Southern Vermont
Posts: 366

Enlightening response. Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
I found this hypothesis that Sikhs supported Britishers because they hated the Bengali soldiers and Mughal badshah, very illogical. Because afterall it was the britishers who destroyed their empire. Bengali soldiers were just employee of britishers. So it isn't possible that they hated the soldiers but didn't have the same feeling for the masters who employed them. Besides they had choice to remain neutral like Gaekwad, Travancore and some other states rather than actively aiding the britishers, which seems to be the best option for them.

There are many other possible reasons for Sikhs loyalty to the Britishers.

1) Lack of communication. Which was totally lacking on the side of the rebellions. So it is quite possible that Sikhs might not be aware of the real situation of the time. Besides Britishers took complete care to hide the information from yet unaffected native troops in order to prevent them from joining the rebellion's cause. (During WW2 Royal Indian Army and airforce weren't aware that they were actually fighting their own brothers on the eastern border of India. Same might have happened here)

2)Lack of any prominant Sikh leader who can convince them or inspire them to rebel against the britishers. Most of the princely states avoided to join the rebellion as by joining the revolt they had nothing to gain and so did their army for eg if Laxmibai, Nana saheb or HAzart mahal would have decided not to join the revolt their army wasn't going to mutiny against the britishers. Same might have happened with Sikhs. The ruler of Sikh empire - Dalip singh and his mother were in Britain at that time totally under the control of Britishers. If he would have been in India, Sikhs still might have some motive to restore the son of Shair-e-Punjab to the throne. (Britisher didn't even honoured the last wish of Dalip singh to be cremated in India, as they feared that returning his body to India might reawake the sentiments of Sikh people against the Britishers!!!)

3)They might have thought that they will be rewarded generously after the war. Britishers might return back their land if they help them to win the war.



Edit: Btw Sikh regiment reballed against Britishers when General James neill ( aka Butcher of Allahabad) lined up the sepoys of 37th (or 27th?) regiment and slaughtered them. Later on they were also shot down.
Cadell is offline  
Old December 10th, 2012, 04:13 AM   #33
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
In which case why was it so localised? as has been pointed out it effected a minority of 'British India'.

It was not localized.

The movement, eruption , was coordinated, and spread from Bengal to the North West Frontier.

That is hardly ' local'.

The area 200 km around saw the largest, sustained ground level resistance.

The Indian domestic accounts/ versions were not given any prominence.


Their versions tell a different story.

I will post some ionformation

Ravi Chaudhary
ravichaudhary is offline  
Old December 10th, 2012, 09:46 AM   #34

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,244
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadell View Post
Enlightening response. Thanks
You're welcome. Thanks for the compliments.
Jinit is online now  
Old December 10th, 2012, 09:52 AM   #35

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,244
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
It was not localized.

The movement, eruption , was coordinated, and spread from Bengal to the North West Frontier.

That is hardly ' local'.

The area 200 km around saw the largest, sustained ground level resistance.

The Indian domestic accounts/ versions were not given any prominence.


Their versions tell a different story.

I will post some ionformation

Ravi Chaudhary
I have never read any Indian version which tells that it covered the area from Bengal to North west frontier. Most of the action was in north and central India (althaugh that area roughly made 1/3 of directly ruled British India )

Btw It was never coordinated. IF only it would have been coordinated they would not have failed.
Jinit is online now  
Old December 12th, 2012, 03:07 AM   #36

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,744
Blog Entries: 11

Where would the British Army be without the Sikhs? – Telegraph Blogs
Linschoten is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:17 AM   #37
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
I have never read any Indian version which tells that it covered the area from Bengal to North west frontier. Most of the action was in north and central India (althaugh that area roughly made 1/3 of directly ruled British India )

Btw It was never coordinated. IF only it would have been coordinated they would not have failed.

You are correct.

There was a lack of shared perception or the invader.

Most of the ' action' was in north and central India.


You should also keep in mind that it was in the interests of the British rulers to suppress the information, then and later, to cut of the pockets of the resistance and not allow the news to be spread.

There was an uprising in then Calcutta.

Translation extract from an article by Dr. Rajendra Singh, in the Hindi monthly ' Suraj Sujan'- Surajmal Educational Society, C5 Janakpuri, New Delhi, India,. Tel 11-25552667

"On 25th February 1857, in Berhampur in Bengal, the 19th Native Infantry, which was composed mostly of Pooravias, ( or Easterners) , refused to use the fat filled cartridges. The Commander Mitchell, went to their lines, and threatened them, that f they did not use the cartridges, they would all be killed [9].The soldiers rebelled before the time of the Parade on February 26, 8857.The broken into the armoury, took the weapons, but did not fire them. There was disturbance through the evening, but by morning everything had subsided. The British officials still thought it necessary to punish the 19th Native battalion, and after shifting them to Barrackpur, this regiment was broken up. The soldier Mangal Pandey had seen the poor condition of the 19th Native Battalion. He wished to pick up arms so that his religion would not be tarnished. In March 1857 , two soldiers of the 2nd native Grenadiers were sentenced to 14 years hard labour imprisonment for acts against the Empire. Jamadar Salgiram Jat was dismissed from the Army. Upset with this, Mangal Pandey, on Sunday morning, March 29, 1857 fired upon the Sergeant major. Lieutenant Wahoo ( ?), went forward to the place of the incident, and Pandey shot at his horse to stop him. The Quarter Guard, present did not take action to try and save Wahoo, but one Muslim soldier Sheikh Paltu saved the lives of the Sergeant Major and the Lieutenant.

Mangal Pandey's revolutionary act occurred in Meerut, from which city he had been transferred to Barrackpur, only six months earlier, because of his disloyal conduct. He only wished to express his opposition, but he was taken into custody. He was Court martialed and hung to death on April 6, 1857. Mangal Pandey's courageous act was restricted only as far as Barrackpur. The revolution did not start even on his death.

On May 4, 1857 the 34 Native Infantry Regiment was disbanded one more time.



The soldiers were all dismissed, but they were permitted to return to their homes with their uniforms. With the returning soldiers, news came to Meerut, Delhi and Haryana districts.

On May 10, 1857 the next chapter was written."


More later

Ravi Chaudhary
ravichaudhary is offline  
Old August 18th, 2014, 12:44 AM   #38
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Akhand Bharat
Posts: 196

Because

1) Sepoys declared Bahadur Shah as Emperor of India, so Sikhs thought Mughal days might come back, and Mughals fiercely persecuted Sikhs. 2 Sikh Gurus Guru Arjun and Guru Teg Bahadur were executed by Mughals. Last Sikh Guru Gobinda Singh fought a relentless war against Mughals, later Banda bahadur carried the rebellion on. Muslims fiercy persecuted Sikhs so Sikhs had very bitter relation with Muslims.

Chhota Ghalughara Very sadly, this time a Hindu ruler helped Muslims.

Wadda Ghalughara - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

2) Majority of east India Company army soldiers were Purbia meaning Easterner, it was those Purbia soldiers who fought and defeated Sikh Khalsa Army in 2 Anglo-Sikh wars. Sikhs mistook them as enemy instead of British.

3) British introduced many reforms in Punjab, which largely benefited Sikhs.

But not all Sikhs were loyal to British.
SSDD is online now  
Old August 18th, 2014, 02:20 AM   #39

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 354

Firstly, the mutiny was not the "first fight of independence". It is over exaggerated by Indian media to form a sense of national solidarity among all the Indian peoples because the idea of India itself was not formed based on natural progressions of different tribes into a nation.

1. The rebellion was more like a protest against hurting the religious values of Hindus and Muslims. Hindus did not like Beef and the Muslims did not like Pork. So they protested. Thats it.

2. The soldiers working in the British army, who were mostly from the Gangetic plains, had no notion of a unified South East Asian region as a "nation" at that time. There is no proof about this. The average UP Brahmin or Bhumihar who served in the British army perceived a Tamilian to be as alien to him as a Bangladeshi or a Pashtun or a Gurkha. So what "freedom" were they fighting for?

3. Some of them, yes, preferred the older regimes against the Mughals or Marathas (especially the Muslim mercenaries serving under them) - but this can still not be called a fight to bring back these regimes. It was always, primarily, a mutiny against the inconsideration of the British to the native religious sentiments.

If you can understand the above, you will finally realize why the Sikhs or Gurkhas would still side with the British during the mutiny. Sikhs had no conception of India as a nation during the British rule, especially when the British themselves had not completely colonized the extent of land that came to be known as India today - and in fact, even for a Sikh, the Andhra was as different a "nation" as a "Gurkha/Nepalese".
Rakshasa is offline  
Old August 20th, 2014, 05:50 AM   #40
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Akhand Bharat
Posts: 196

Sikh Maharajah Ranjit Singh said- "Saab lal ho jayega."(every place will be red).

There is no doubt that being red he meant British rule. So he meant "will be under British rule."

But then what he meant as "saab"? Entire world going to British rule or just India? As he was well informed about European politics then we can surely say he did not mean entire world going to British rule. So he meant only India.

So real translation is- Ultimately entire India will be under British rule.

Now if concept of India did not exist then how could Ranjit Singh have remarked that?
SSDD is online now  
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.