Today Indian SC began its First war of independence war against British East India company, was there any chance of liberation?

Mar 2019
1,535
KL
and today there is a single indian nation? how exactly? chinese worked on qing geo political boundary isnt it? was qing a chinese native dynaty to begin with? wouldn't it have been the case with india as well utilizing the british geo political boundary and go ahead with that? didn't marthas want to conquer mughal empire in the first place and hence utilizing the geo political reality of that period?

regards
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
If those involved in the rebellion indeed had a clear vision of that 'British geo political boundary' and had plans to go ahead with that once the British were defeated, please let me know.
what are you even talking about, i really dont understand, where your confusion is coming from

we can keep ifs and buts as speculation, there could be a million probabilities, what will it achieve to argue ifs and buts, the history has already happened so i dont consider it worthy to argue ifs and buts.

british rule was terrible for india, indians realized that and wanted to get rid of the colonists a hundred years before being ruled for hundred more years, what would transpire later can only be deliberated in the realm of speculation, we can argue if british rule for a hundred more years was infact better for india rather than independence or worse etc, but how can we argue something which didn't transpire in the first place and can only be speculated?

what defines indian nationalism today, isnt it ousting british colonists and getting independence in the first place?

what defined maratha rule, wasn't it efforts to ousted mughals? what defined mughal rule wasn't it to ousted dehli sultanate? what defined dehli sultanate wasn't it ousted the north indian rulers esp the rajputs?

regards
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
what are you even talking about, i really dont understand, where your confusion is coming from

we can keep ifs and buts as speculation, there could be a million probabilities, what will it achieve to argue ifs and buts, the history has already happened so i dont consider it worthy to argue ifs and buts.

british rule was terrible for india, indians realized that and wanted to get rid of the colonists a hundred years before being ruled for hundred more years, what would transpire later can only be deliberated in the realm of speculation, we can argue if british rule for a hundred more years was infact better for india rather than independence or worse etc, but how can we argue something which didn't transpire in the first place and can only be speculated?

what defines indian nationalism today, isnt it ousting british colonists and getting independence in the first place?

what defined maratha rule, wasn't it efforts to ousted mughals? what defined mughal rule wasn't it to ousted dehli sultanate? what defined dehli sultanate wasn't it ousted the north indian rulers esp the rajputs?

regards
What I meant was that there was no political/nationalist ideology involved in 1857, it was a purely military attempt to overthrow the British. The various factions all had differing reasons for going to war. In contrast, Indian struggle for independence since 1900s had a clear vision,
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
What I meant was that there was no political/nationalist ideology involved in 1857, it was a purely military attempt to overthrow the British. The various factions all had differing reasons for going to war. In contrast, Indian struggle for independence since 1900s had a clear vision,
the ideology was indian nationalism and that is why hindus and muslims worked together to plan to throw out the british especially given there was still mughal rule, how ever pathetic. i think there was also no ideology behind formation of india in 1947 other than to get rid of the british, if they had not divided the indians in terms of religion, there would be no pakistan or bangladesh today. many western opinionators even state that if not for the british colonialism and loot for two hundred years india would be divided into tiny kingdoms, that is again into a speculation realm, we dont know what would happen if british had not taken india before mughal empire crumbled and who things transpired in the modern era. We do know that even divided indians were pretty much united because of indian nationalism, today its mostly hindutva but in my opinion back then there was truly nationalism based not on religion but geogrphic area.

again i have asked many indian members who opine that indian nationalism is based on religion, what then makes them support Punjab which is majority sikh, kashmir, which is majority muslim, even states like nagaland, majority christian and nagaland doesnt even have an indian history for instance lets say assam the factor is historical and cultural link and british geo political entity/ reality.

regards
 
Apr 2019
410
India
the ideology was indian nationalism and that is why hindus and muslims worked together to plan to throw out the british especially given there was still mughal rule, how ever pathetic. i think there was also no ideology behind formation of india in 1947 other than to get rid of the british, if they had not divided the indians in terms of religion, there would be no pakistan or bangladesh today. many western opinionators even state that if not for the british colonialism and loot for two hundred years india would be divided into tiny kingdoms, that is again into a speculation realm, we dont know what would happen if british had not taken india before mughal empire crumbled and who things transpired in the modern era. We do know that even divided indians were pretty much united because of indian nationalism, today its mostly hindutva but in my opinion back then there was truly nationalism based not on religion but geogrphic area.

again i have asked many indian members who opine that indian nationalism is based on religion, what then makes them support Punjab which is majority sikh, kashmir, which is majority muslim, even states like nagaland, majority christian and nagaland doesnt even have an indian history for instance lets say assam the factor is historical and cultural link and british geo political entity/ reality.

regards
Indian people always had the concept of 'chakravarti' king of 'bharatvarsha'. So even if it was not often materialised, Indian had the concept of single nation since eternity. They also had clear distinct designation of 'malechha' for people outside of their cultural realm.
People often debate with me that there was no India but they forget that India is not just a physical boundray but a civilization. Civilization is far more superior binding factor than a political entity. Unlike China, Indian people never tried to homeginize their country. But even with differences any outsider can recognise Indian culture.
A good number of 'Hindutva' people are actually atheist. The founder of RSS was also atheist.