Jinit

And yet Mansingh was the chief commander in the mughal army of the Akbar. Jai singh led the army of Auranhzheb. Amarsingh gave shelter to the Jahangir. By the way Jahangir himself was half rajput too. So I don't see why they shpu;d be considered treacherous. Babur statement is nothing more than a propaganda.

I think we have been through Nehru's stupid policies before.

Rosi

There are plenty of examples of treacherous Rajputs though I agree not all apples were bad. But the ones that were did enough damage. Also I have no reason to distrust Babur's statement, it's his opinion and I agree with him.

Stupid according to you.

Jinit

Babur was the one who was fighting against the Rajputs. And nobody speaks good about their enemy. So his statement is at most biased and hence isn't valid.

Not according to me but according to past and current condition of India.

Rosi

My opinion of the Rajputs is not based on what Babur said; he just echoed my feelings on the matter. This is not about Babur or the Rajputs anyway. My point is that I'm all for subjecting the British empire to a high degree of criticism but then it's only fair that this critical gaze be turned on Indians themselves, something which I haven't seen happening in this thread so far (other than the caste bit touched on by Fireatwill). We indict one party and then let the other one completely off the hook. But for that we will have to agree that there were two parties involved in the subjugation of India -- the British and the Indians. (That's how I see it, if I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected.) How did the British rise to have such power in the subcontinent in the first place? There must have been active collusion with the Indians for such a thing to happen. I'm not saying all the Indians colluded with them but obviously someone somewhere did.

And when one says India would have been much better off without the Brits that invariably prompts the question, better off under whom? Under what kind of leadership? I have already mentioned why I feared for northern India following the power vacuum in Delhi.

Rosi

Tea and cricket.

Jinit

The last Afghan rulers who posed a serious threat to India were the Durani empire. However intially defeated, Both Sikhs and Marathas were able kept them at bay. Marathas althaugh defeated in the third battle of Panipat were able to inflict the heavy casualty on the afghan army which made them to retreat. And taking the advantage of Afghan losses at this battle Sikhs were able to capture Amritsar , Ludhiana , Lahore , Jalandhar (inshort most of the Punjab) , Kashmir , Ladakh and even the Peshavar. The streategic control of Sikhs on Khybar pass protected the India from further raids. And Infact I don't think there was any afghan empire after the decline of durrani empire that posed any threat to India.

Yes most of the Indian monarches were not. But there were some rulers who were able to forsee the future. For example althaugh Tipu sultan and marathas weren't on the same track yet Tipu sultan proposed them to fight togather against the britishers. And if the britishers wouldn't have came to India those trecherous rulers like Nizam would have already been dealt with by the rulers like Tipu sultan or marathas. Infact the reason those treacherous rulers survived is because they allied themselves to the britishers. Without britishers they wouldn't have been able to withstand against this rulers.

Tipu sultan , Hyder ali , Baji rao, Balaji baji rao , Mahadji sindhia, Ahlyabai Holkar , Gaekwad , Ranjit singh are only very few examples of the good leadership in this part of world....

Sargon of Akkad

I can't help but feel that most of them would have been abolished by the British on their own merits.

This sounds very exciting. What happened?

Jinit

Ok now I got Why you considered the Rajputs trecherous. Personally speaking I also hate the Rajput rulers of the british era as they were just like Nizams. They just thaught about their own benefits. And their lavish lifestyle is already known . Infact they didn't support the Indians in 1857 at all. If they have joined that war the condition would have been different. The king of Jodhpur wanted to join Pakistan!!!!

But yet it isn't fair to compare them with their ancestros. Their ancestors faught for the India and scrificed their lives against the Muslim invaders.

Map of india in 1760.


I think it is sufficient enough to answer your question.

Jinit

Well being of the Indians wasn't the major consideration of the British rule. They just wanted to control their hold on India. And if they would have passed a law which would not have been approved by the public or was against their traditions they would have faced a revolt just like what happened in 1857. & the revolt was the last thing they wanted. So I really doubt that they could have abolished it by their own merit without the help of the Indians.

Rosi

Which batch of Muslim invaders?

Anyway, I get your point and I should have been more careful with my words. Obviously I did not mean that each and every Rajput was treacherous, just as it wouldn't even cross my mind to hold the average Brit responsible for the deeds of the British empire. But that's how one talks, the British did this, the Rajputs did that, does not mean we are referring to each and every person of that community.

More specifically, my understanding is that the British imperialism in India was a tango between the British elite and the Indian elite, it most certainly wasn't a solo dance by the Brits (as some anti-imperialism folks make it out to be, not saying you're one of them). I'm aware that many Indian rulers fought the British but so many of them did not (divide and rule comes to mind) and sold out their people to preserve their lifestyle and nominal status. Obviously no one cared about the common man who was the biggest loser in this power play.

The Marathas? Were they not soundly beaten at Panipat? Anyhow, they would have lasted till someone else would have come around and upstaged them. The circus would have gone on.