UP vs South India during 1857

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:08 am

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t63-up-vs-south-india-during-1857#128

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:45 am

Cmon, it was no war for independence. It was just a mutiny by disaffected high-caste sepoys who were scared that their inept Brit officers were planning to covert them wholesale to Christianity. Going by their large scale rape, plunder and murder of civilians, they would be termed "terrorists" by today's standards.

Some small-time local rulers got on to the bandwagon hoping to win back the privileges usurped by the Brits. Portraying them as patriots or nationalists is yet another lie foisted on us by the Indian education system.

The saddest story from that time is that of Bahadurshah Safar who didn't want any part of it and was yet made the nominal leader of the revolt by the mutineers. The story of this most reluctant revolutionary is told with tenderness and poignancy by William Dalrymple in The Last Mughal.

PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:20 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

this should not have been a postscript. this is an important point. after the mutiny or "first war for independence" the brits. formalized the indian army and started the system of regiments along tribal lines (i think the system of regiments is peculiar to indian army only) that plagues the army to date: sikh regiment, rajput regiment, gorkha regiment. they introduced the nomenclature, "warrior tribes." this was a good ploy to massage the ego of one tribe to make it feel superior to the rest and continue to express loyalty to the british. the "first war for independence" was not a pan indian phenomena unless you consider sikhs not north indian. some of the players, like rani lakshmibai, were just plain opportunists and not true patriots like bhagat singh et al. some like tatya tope were committed.

by PavanP_Nahata_Plus_MAIyer Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:24 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Cmon, it was no war for independence. It was just a mutiny by disaffected high-caste sepoys who were scared that their inept Brit officers were planning to covert them wholesale to Christianity. Going by their large scale rape, plunder and murder of civilians, they would be termed "terrorists" by today's standards.

Sir, you are very intelligent.

You are giving a first person account from 1857. What was your name in that army in 1857.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:47 am

on a tangent: the exaggerated accounts of the atrocities committed by the indian rebels on british officers (and scores of women -- screamed headlines in england) were met by derision by leading intellectuals of england of that day! the intellectuals felt that the brits were indeed doing a noble job in this land of savages and were being recompensed by more savagery heaped on them AND their defenseless women! there was an iconic cartoon depicting this contempt published in a "respected" periodical of england at that time -- i forget where i saw it.

by PavanP_Nahata_Plus_MAIyer Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:56 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:on a tangent: the exaggerated accounts of the atrocities committed by the indian rebels on british officers (and scores of women -- screamed headlines in england) were met by derision by leading intellectuals of england of that day! the intellectuals felt that the brits were indeed doing a noble job in this land of savages and were being recompensed by more savagery heaped on them AND their defenseless women! there was an iconic cartoon depicting this contempt published in a "respected" periodical of england at that time -- i forget where i saw it.

On Another tangent: OBL's family also suffered. Wives lost a husband and children miss their father.

There's always a spin on every story.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:58 am

here is the cartoon published in punch:

UP vs South India during 1857 54

Commentary

This image of a personfied figure of justice in classical garb reminds one of the kind of abstractions one encounters on war monuments and other memorials. In contrast to this Punch cartoon's presentation of justice, the slaughtered native insurgents have much more specific detail, including costume, facial type, and of course skin color. The sharp contrast of the white skin and clothing of Justice and the dark skinned bodies makes a clear statement of what Punch believes about the alignment of Justice with the white race. One should contrast this supposedly high-minded representation of justice with the coarser, implicitly even more bloodthirsty cartoon criticizing British mercy -- "The Clemency of Canning," in which the Governor-General says, "Well, then, they shan't blow him from nasty guns; but he must promise to be a good little sepoy." Canning's remarks refer to the punishment of mutineers whom the British tied to the mouths of cannons and killed them by firing a solid cannon ball through them. The British public, still incensed by the atrocities committed against English women and children, obviously wanted bloody justice, the other side of the classical abstract Justice here depicted. [GPL]

source: http://www.victorianweb.org/periodicals/punch/54.html

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:02 am

PavanP_Nahata_Plus_MAIyer wrote:On Another tangent: OBL's family also suffered. Wives lost a husband and children miss their father.

who is OBL?

There's always a spin on every story.

you are hiding in relativism. give your spin and let us argue and let the readers form their opinion or decide which spin they like.

by Ponniyin Selvan Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:11 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

Not just the UP Brahmins, but also the Maratha Brahmins like Jhansi Rani, Nana Sahib, Tantya tope etc.. and made famous later as the first war of Independence by Veer Savarkar who glorified fellow Maratha Brahmins.

I'm glad that South (Madras regiment) and Punjabi Sikhs helped the Brits put down the mutiny of 1857 organised by petty rulers and disposessed Mughals.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:26 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Cmon, it was no war for independence. It was just a mutiny by disaffected high-caste sepoys who were scared that their inept Brit officers were planning to covert them wholesale to Christianity. Going by their large scale rape, plunder and murder of civilians, they would be termed "terrorists" by today's standards.

Some small-time local rulers got on to the bandwagon hoping to win back the privileges usurped by the Brits. Portraying them as patriots or nationalists is yet another lie foisted on us by the Indian education system.

The saddest story from that time is that of Bahadurshah Safar who didn't want any part of it and was yet made the nominal leader of the revolt by the mutineers. The story of this most reluctant revolutionary is told with tenderness and poignancy by William Dalrymple in The Last Mughal.

PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

the fact that the 1857 war of independence was a significant event in the history of India is evident when one considers that the British introduced the deliberate policy of 'Divide and Rule' soon after they had crushed this revolt. Essentially, 'Divide and Rule' meant keeping the hindus and muslims divided. Also, it was not just U.P. but other regions of India who participated in this struggle. For instance, Nana Saheb and Tatya Tope of Maharashtra. Sure, atrocities were committed by the Indian revolutionaries (particularly in Kanpur where wives and children of British soldiers and officers were slaughtered) but this was a natural reaction to the systematic decimation of anyone articulating anti-British sentiments.

Another point to note: The kings and large landlords of U.P. were systematically decimated by the British because they sided with the revolutionaries.

William Dalrymple cannot possibly be the last word on the 1857 war of independence. Relying on him is probably why you consider the primary cause of the fight to be because some high caste sepoys felt they had to fight for their religion. There were in fact multiple factors which came into play and resulted in the revolt.

Another point to note: When Tipu Sultan was finally defeated by the British, the British army had many tamils and telugus fighting alongside them. This simply means that the Nizam at the time and also other rulers like the Nawab of Arcot were siding with the British together with the fact that portions of TN and AP were being directly ruled by the British. (The Nizam had briefly turned anti-British during Tipu's conflict with the British but then reverted to being pro-British). It does not mean that a Kannadiga vs (Telugu + Tamil + British) fight took place.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:30 am

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

Not just the UP Brahmins, but also the Maratha Brahmins like Jhansi Rani, Nana Sahib, Tantya tope etc.. and made famous later as the first war of Independence by Veer Savarkar who glorified fellow Maratha Brahmins.

I'm glad that South (Madras regiment) and Punjabi Sikhs helped the Brits put down the mutiny of 1857 organised by petty rulers and disposessed Mughals.

Are you sure that Nana Sahib, Tatya Tope, Jhansi ki Rani were all brahmins?

by Kayalvizhi Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:22 pm

Rashmun ran away from my other post and started this new one. I am bringing it tro him.

--------------------------------------

Rashmun wrote

>>>> the average UPwalah should take pride in the fact that his ancestors were in the forefront of the fight against the british in the 1857 war of independence

--------------------------------------------------
Despite Hindian gov propaganda, 1857 is not the first uprising against British in South asia.

Indian Government deliberately tries to hide historical facts such as Maruthu Pandiyar's fight against the British. Indian Government celebrated the 100-th anniversary of the Sepoy mutiny with great fanfare. There were numerous programs about the mutiny in the Indian Government controlled All India Radio. But not even a mention was made in All India Radio about Maruthu Pandiyar led rebellion against the British on its 150-th anniversary.

ed in October 2010: Indian Parliament commemorated in 2007 the 150th anniversary of north-Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 as the First Indian Independence War but there was [color=red]no such commemorat of the 200th anniversary of the south-Indian Vellore Mutiny in 2006. This seems to have irked the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalithaa Jeyaram. On August 14, 2007, she expressed shock at the National Implementation Committee for Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the First War of Independence for not recognizing stalwarts and heroes from India’s southern peninsula. She pointed out that chieftains from Tamil Nadu waged wars against British rule well before 1857. She recalled the role of Pulithevan, Velunachiyar, Muthuramalinga Vijayaragunatha Sethupathy and the Maruthu Pandiar brothers in the fight against British rule. She said, "Ms. Velunachiyar’s role was no less than that of the Jhansi Rani". [Jhansi Rani was from north India.] In September 2010, Indian Government Ministry of Culture announced grants of Rupees 2 crore (20 million) each to conduct research on 12 freedom fighters from north-Indian Sepoy Mutiny but nothing to do research on south-Indian Vellore Mutiny or any of the freedom fighters from Tamil Nadu or other southern states. Thus Tamil Nadu's early wars against British rule were ignored and swept under the rug while north_indian wars are researched and publicized

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:51 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:Rashmun ran away from my other post and started this new one. I am bringing it tro him.

--------------------------------------

Rashmun wrote

>>>> the average UPwalah should take pride in the fact that his ancestors were in the forefront of the fight against the british in the 1857 war of independence

--------------------------------------------------
Despite Hindian gov propaganda, 1857 is not the first uprising against British in South asia.

Indian Government deliberately tries to hide historical facts such as Maruthu Pandiyar's fight against the British. Indian Government celebrated the 100-th anniversary of the Sepoy mutiny with great fanfare. There were numerous programs about the mutiny in the Indian Government controlled All India Radio. But not even a mention was made in All India Radio about Maruthu Pandiyar led rebellion against the British on its 150-th anniversary.

[color=red]ed in October 2010: Indian Parliament commemorated in 2007 the 150th anniversary of north-Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 as the First Indian Independence War but there was no such commemorat of the 200th anniversary of the south-Indian Vellore Mutiny in 2006. This seems to have irked the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalithaa Jeyaram. On August 14, 2007, she expressed shock at the National Implementation Committee for Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the First War of Independence for not recognizing stalwarts and heroes from India’s southern peninsula. She pointed out that chieftains from Tamil Nadu waged wars against British rule well before 1857. She recalled the role of Pulithevan, Velunachiyar, Muthuramalinga Vijayaragunatha Sethupathy and the Maruthu Pandiar brothers in the fight against British rule. She said, "Ms. Velunachiyar’s role was no less than that of the Jhansi Rani". [Jhansi Rani was from north India.] In September 2010, Indian Government Ministry of Culture announced grants of Rupees 2 crore (20 million) each to conduct research on 12 freedom fighters from north-Indian Sepoy Mutiny but nothing to do research on south-Indian Vellore Mutiny or any of the freedom fighters from Tamil Nadu or other southern states. Thus Tamil Nadu's early wars against British rule were ignored and swept under the rug while north_indian wars are researched and publicized

The Nawab of Arcot was ruling large parts of present day TN at the time of 1857, and also at the time of the Vellore revolt, and the Nawab was firmly loyal to the British. In contrast, the kings of UP all took part in the revolt of 1857 because of which they lost their wealth/property and in some instances their lives.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:28 pm

Both southern and northern rulers -- all despots -- fought the British when their own wealth and privileges were under threat, and they collaborated with the British (and the French) when they saw in that collaboration an opportunity to enhance their own wealth and privileges. None of those tyrants were "patriotic" to a national idea of India, an idea whose time had not yet come.

It just happens that the wealth and privileges of the southern kings were threatened by the British and French about 50-100 years before the wealth and privileges of the northern kings were threatened. Hence the difference in timelines of revolts in the two regions. Portraying any of these struggles -- including that of Tipu Sultan -- as nationalistic wars of independence is misleading at best.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:The Nawab of Arcot was ruling large parts of present day TN at the time of 1857, and also at the time of the Vellore revolt, and the Nawab was firmly loyal to the British. In contrast, the kings of UP all took part in the revolt of 1857 because of which they lost their wealth/property and in some instances their lives.

Why are you slamming an iconic figure for "South Indian muslims?" I am deeply saddened by this turn of events. To repair the injured honor of the Prince of Arcot, let me recite a poem that I composed.

O Princeling! My Princeling!
Not quite King. What are you making --
For you -- me do! Making up doo-doo
Sans rhyme for glue, nor reason for clue!

https://such.forumotion.com/t5614-there-once-was-a-nawab#44246

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:36 pm

i find it interesting that the most consequential freedom fighters from TN were neither to-the-manor-born folks like nehru or minor rajas or nawabs, but english educated middle class government officials and lawyers (these folks used to be called pleaders) who eventually turned against the british -- folks like v.o.chidambaram pillai, v.v.s.iyer, vanchinathan, and subramanya bharathi.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nawab of Arcot was ruling large parts of present day TN at the time of 1857, and also at the time of the Vellore revolt, and the Nawab was firmly loyal to the British. In contrast, the kings of UP all took part in the revolt of 1857 because of which they lost their wealth/property and in some instances their lives.
Why are you slamming an iconic figure for "South Indian muslims?" I am deeply saddened by this turn of events. To repair the injured honor of the Prince of Arcot, let me recite a poem that I composed.

O Princeling! My Princeling!
Not quite King. What are you making --
For you -- me do! Making up doo-doo
Sans rhyme for glue, nor reason for clue!

https://such.forumotion.com/t5614-there-once-was-a-nawab#44246

so the princeling was a quisling?

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nawab of Arcot was ruling large parts of present day TN at the time of 1857, and also at the time of the Vellore revolt, and the Nawab was firmly loyal to the British. In contrast, the kings of UP all took part in the revolt of 1857 because of which they lost their wealth/property and in some instances their lives.
Why are you slamming an iconic figure for "South Indian muslims?" I am deeply saddened by this turn of events. To repair the injured honor of the Prince of Arcot, let me recite a poem that I composed.

O Princeling! My Princeling!
Not quite King. What are you making --
For you -- me do! Making up doo-doo
Sans rhyme for glue, nor reason for clue!

https://such.forumotion.com/t5614-there-once-was-a-nawab#44246

so the princeling was a quisling?

The Nawabs deserve to be condemned for becoming allies and collaborators of the British. On the other hand they deserve to be praised for fostering Tamil culture. For instance, they gifted the property for the large temple tank to the Kapaleeswar temple and also gifted construction material to the Parathasarthi temple. They promoted harmonious relations between hindus and muslims which is why they are even today invited as chief guests on important occasions to various hindu temples in TN.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:56 pm

panini press wrote:Both southern and northern rulers -- all despots -- fought the British when their own wealth and privileges were under threat, and they collaborated with the British (and the French) when they saw in that collaboration an opportunity to enhance their own wealth and privileges. None of those tyrants were "patriotic" to a national idea of India, an idea whose time had not yet come.

It just happens that the wealth and privileges of the southern kings were threatened by the British and French about 50-100 years before the wealth and privileges of the northern kings were threatened. Hence the difference in timelines of revolts in the two regions. Portraying any of these struggles -- including that of Tipu Sultan -- as nationalistic wars of independence is misleading at best.

i will just point out that during the revolt of 1857, the kings of Uttar Pradesh had sided with the revolutionaries. In contrast, during this time, the kings of neighboring Madhya Pradesh had preferred to either side with the British or to remain neutral.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:23 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Both southern and northern rulers -- all despots -- fought the British when their own wealth and privileges were under threat, and they collaborated with the British (and the French) when they saw in that collaboration an opportunity to enhance their own wealth and privileges. None of those tyrants were "patriotic" to a national idea of India, an idea whose time had not yet come.

It just happens that the wealth and privileges of the southern kings were threatened by the British and French about 50-100 years before the wealth and privileges of the northern kings were threatened. Hence the difference in timelines of revolts in the two regions. Portraying any of these struggles -- including that of Tipu Sultan -- as nationalistic wars of independence is misleading at best.

i will just point out that during the revolt of 1857, the kings of Uttar Pradesh had sided with the revolutionaries. In contrast, during this time, the kings of neighboring Madhya Pradesh had preferred to either side with the British or to remain neutral.

That is because they struck their own deals with the British to protect their wealth and privileges. The situation in UP was a result of the company's recent over-reach in annexing the large kingdom of Awadh. There was a revolt in Gwalior in 1843 under similar circumstances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwalior_Campaign. During that campaign, the native troops of the company, most of them from UP and Bihar, fought on the British side.

And when UP erupted in 1857, some of the soldiers of Gwalior and Bhopal did join the revolt.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=hub210112Unsung.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India_Campaign_(1858)

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:53 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Both southern and northern rulers -- all despots -- fought the British when their own wealth and privileges were under threat, and they collaborated with the British (and the French) when they saw in that collaboration an opportunity to enhance their own wealth and privileges. None of those tyrants were "patriotic" to a national idea of India, an idea whose time had not yet come.

It just happens that the wealth and privileges of the southern kings were threatened by the British and French about 50-100 years before the wealth and privileges of the northern kings were threatened. Hence the difference in timelines of revolts in the two regions. Portraying any of these struggles -- including that of Tipu Sultan -- as nationalistic wars of independence is misleading at best.

i will just point out that during the revolt of 1857, the kings of Uttar Pradesh had sided with the revolutionaries. In contrast, during this time, the kings of neighboring Madhya Pradesh had preferred to either side with the British or to remain neutral.
That is because they struck their own deals with the British to protect their wealth and privileges. The situation in UP was a result of the company's recent over-reach in annexing the large kingdom of Awadh. There was a revolt in Gwalior in 1843 under similar circumstances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwalior_Campaign. During that campaign, the native troops of the company, most of them from UP and Bihar, fought on the British side.

And when UP erupted in 1857, some of the soldiers of Gwalior and Bhopal did join the revolt.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=hub210112Unsung.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India_Campaign_(1858)

how do you explain the fact that in the 'Siege of Cawnpore' (present day Kanpur in U.P.), the rebel Indian forces were led by the Maharashtrian Nana Saheb? Nana Saheb had no kingdom in U.P.. He and Tatya Tope (also a Maharashtrian) were clearly fighting in U.P. because of a spirit of patritotism--and not because they wanted to protect their kingdom in which case they would have been back home in Maharashtra.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:how do you explain the fact that in the 'Siege of Cawnpore' (present day Kanpur in U.P.), the rebel Indian forces were led by the Maharashtrian Nana Saheb? Nana Saheb had no kingdom in U.P.. He and Tatya Tope (also a Maharashtrian) were clearly fighting in U.P. because of a spirit of patritotism--a spirit which was not displayed (for the most part) by the telugus of the time.

Nana Sahib lived in Bithur, his fiefdom in the Kanpur district. When the British applied the Doctrine of Lapse to deprive Nana of his annual pension of 80,000 pounds, Nana petitioned the company to get the pension restored. It was the company's refusal to give him the pension that made him fight the British. Tantya Tope also lived in Bithur, and was a member of Nana's court. That is why they fought at the seige of Kanpur -- not out of a sense of pan-Indian nationalism. Had the sizable pension (worth many millions in today's pounds) been restored, it is a fair bet that they would have been on the other side in any rebellion.

Through his adoption, Sahib was heir-presumptive to the throne, and was eligible for an annual pension of £80,000 from the East India Company. However, after the death of Baji Rao II, the Company stopped the pension on the grounds that Sahib was not a natural born heir. Sahib was highly offended, and sent his envoy (Azimullah Khan) to England in 1853 to plead his case with the British Government. However, Azimullah Khan was unable to convince the British to resume the pension, and returned to India in 1855.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Sahib

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:10 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:how do you explain the fact that in the 'Siege of Cawnpore' (present day Kanpur in U.P.), the rebel Indian forces were led by the Maharashtrian Nana Saheb? Nana Saheb had no kingdom in U.P.. He and Tatya Tope (also a Maharashtrian) were clearly fighting in U.P. because of a spirit of patritotism--a spirit which was not displayed (for the most part) by the telugus of the time.
Nana Sahib lived in Bithur, his fiefdom in the Kanpur district. When the British applied the Doctrine of Lapse to deprive Nana of his annual pension of 80,000 pounds, Nana petitioned the company to get the pension restored. It was the company's refusal to give him the pension that made him fight the British. Tantya Tope also lived in Bithur, and was a member of Nana's court. That is why they fought at the seige of Kanpur -- not out of a sense of pan-Indian nationalism. Had the sizable pension (worth many millions in today's pounds) been restored, it is a fair bet that they would have been on the other side in any rebellion.

Through his adoption, Sahib was heir-presumptive to the throne, and was eligible for an annual pension of £80,000 from the East India Company. However, after the death of Baji Rao II, the Company stopped the pension on the grounds that Sahib was not a natural born heir. Sahib was highly offended, and sent his envoy (Azimullah Khan) to England in 1853 to plead his case with the British Government. However, Azimullah Khan was unable to convince the British to resume the pension, and returned to India in 1855.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Sahib

but what about the fact that Nana Sahib wanted to form a Maratha confederacy, which would replace British rule and which would be headed by him, and include not just Maharashtra but also U.P. (and also other parts of India)? Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?

-------------
Amid the chaos in Cawnpore in 1857, Nana Sahib entered the British magazine with his contingent. The soldiers of the 53rd Native Infantry, which was guarding the magazine, were not fully aware of the situation in the rest of the city. They assumed that Nana Sahib had come to guard the magazine on behalf of the British, as he had earlier declared his loyalty to the British, and had even sent some volunteers to be at the disposal of General Wheeler.[5] However, once Nana Sahib was inside the magazine, at the urging of the rebels, he announced that he was a participant in the rebellion against the British, and intended to be a vassal of Bahadur Shah II.

After taking possession of the treasury, Nana Sahib advanced up the Grand Trunk Road. His aim was to restore the Maratha confederacy under the Peshwa tradition, and he decided to capture Cawnpore. On his way, Nana Sahib met with rebel soldiers at Kalyanpur. The soldiers were on their way to Delhi, to meet Bahadur Shah II. Nana Sahib wanted them to go back to Cawnpore, and help him in defeating the British. The rebels were reluctant at first, but decided to join Nana Sahib, when he promised to double their pay and reward them with gold, if they were to destroy the British entrenchment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cawnpore

by Ponniyin Selvan Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
PS: The mutiny was put down by Indian troops brought in from Punjab and the Northwest province. So you should probably call your post: UP (Brahmins) vs Rest of India.

Not just the UP Brahmins, but also the Maratha Brahmins like Jhansi Rani, Nana Sahib, Tantya tope etc.. and made famous later as the first war of Independence by Veer Savarkar who glorified fellow Maratha Brahmins.

I'm glad that South (Madras regiment) and Punjabi Sikhs helped the Brits put down the mutiny of 1857 organised by petty rulers and disposessed Mughals.

Are you sure that Nana Sahib, Tatya Tope, Jhansi ki Rani were all brahmins?

Yes.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:but what about the fact that Nana Sahib wanted to form a Maratha confederacy, which would replace British rule and which would be headed by him, and include not just Maharashtra but also U.P. (and also other parts of India)?

Please refer back to my earlier comment that these guys fought for their own personal wealth and privilege. What better privilege than to be the ruler of all or most of India, not just Maharashtra!

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?

On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

by Ponniyin Selvan Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:22 pm

None of the mutinies, either 1857 or the 1806 Vellore are fought for independence of the people, rather they are fought to restore the petty rulers of those times. We should just take note of history and not glorify them as some sort of independence movements which they are not.

Glorifying the movement through government controlled text books have resulted in people naming their kids as Jhansi or dressing their kids up as Jhansi rani in fancy dress competitions.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:29 pm

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:We should just take note of history and not glorify them as some sort of independence movements which they are not.

+1

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:31 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:but what about the fact that Nana Sahib wanted to form a Maratha confederacy, which would replace British rule and which would be headed by him, and include not just Maharashtra but also U.P. (and also other parts of India)?
Please refer back to my earlier comment that these guys fought for their own personal wealth and privilege. What better privilege than to be the ruler of all or most of India, not just Maharashtra!

but consider the high risks involved. would it not have been safer for him to have continued being on friendly relations with the british? even though his petition for the title of Peshwa and also the continuance of the pension being given to his foster father was rejected by the British, he had still continued to be on friendly terms with them. He could have continued licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot, and the British may finally have obliged and accepted some of his demands. Instead he preferred to take on the British head on.

The point to note here is that he was not fighting on behalf of UP or on behalf of Maharashtra but on behalf of the whole of India.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:43 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

The wikipedia page on Nana Sahib says that he was born in Bithur. Bithur is a small town in Kanpur which is one of the larger cities in UP. He was a UPite by birth and a Maratha after his adoption into the Maratha royal family.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:but consider the high risks involved. would it not have been safer for him to have continued being on friendly relations with the british? even though his petition for the title of Peshwa and also the continuance of the pension being given to his foster father was rejected by the British, he had still continued to be on friendly terms with them. He could have continued licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot, and the British may finally have obliged and accepted some of his demands.

Perhaps he saw that the company was getting ever greedier, and that they would never give him back his huge pension.

Rashmun wrote:Instead he preferred to take on the British head on.

He didn't start the rebellion. The rebellion was started by the native troops of the Bengal Army. Even after it began in early May 1857, he was on friendly terms with the British -- to the point of promising aid to defend Kanpur from the revolutionaries. He switched sides when it looked like the rebellion stood some chance of success. He was probably more motivated by the company treasury than by any sense of pan-Indian nationalism.

Rashmun wrote:The point to note here is that he was not fighting on behalf of UP or on behalf of Maharashtra but on behalf of the whole of India.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. He was fighting on behalf of himself. If he had any sense of pan-Indian nationalism, he wouldn't have wanted to restore a "Maratha Confederacy" with him as the Peshwa. Seeking to impose a Maratha Confederacy over India is much more regionalistic in attitude than the people of Maharashtra wanting UPite taxi drivers living in Maharashtra to learn Hindi.

by Idéfix Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

The wikipedia page on Nana Sahib says that he was born in Bithur. Bithur is a small town in Kanpur which is one of the larger cities in UP. He was a UPite by birth and a Maratha after his adoption into the Maratha royal family.

He was born of Maratha parents. The Marathas controlled large parts of northern India before the Company took over. The peshwa adopted a Maratha boy -- nothing particularly noteworthy there.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:32 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

The wikipedia page on Nana Sahib says that he was born in Bithur. Bithur is a small town in Kanpur which is one of the larger cities in UP. He was a UPite by birth and a Maratha after his adoption into the Maratha royal family.
He was born of Maratha parents. The Marathas controlled large parts of northern India before the Company took over. The peshwa adopted a Maratha boy -- nothing particularly noteworthy there.

is this mere speculation on your part, or have you seen some evidence that both his biological father and also his biological mother were maharashtrians.
Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:56 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:but consider the high risks involved. would it not have been safer for him to have continued being on friendly relations with the british? even though his petition for the title of Peshwa and also the continuance of the pension being given to his foster father was rejected by the British, he had still continued to be on friendly terms with them. He could have continued licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot, and the British may finally have obliged and accepted some of his demands.
Perhaps he saw that the company was getting ever greedier, and that they would never give him back his huge pension.

Rashmun wrote:Instead he preferred to take on the British head on.
He didn't start the rebellion. The rebellion was started by the native troops of the Bengal Army. Even after it began in early May 1857, he was on friendly terms with the British -- to the point of promising aid to defend Kanpur from the revolutionaries. He switched sides when it looked like the rebellion stood some chance of success. He was probably more motivated by the company treasury than by any sense of pan-Indian nationalism.

Rashmun wrote:The point to note here is that he was not fighting on behalf of UP or on behalf of Maharashtra but on behalf of the whole of India.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. He was fighting on behalf of himself. If he had any sense of pan-Indian nationalism, he wouldn't have wanted to restore a "Maratha Confederacy" with him as the Peshwa. Seeking to impose a Maratha Confederacy over India is much more regionalistic in attitude than the people of Maharashtra wanting UPite taxi drivers living in Maharashtra to learn Hindi.

Let me try to summarize your argument:

1. Rulers like Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan who fought against the British should be treated on par with the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot who colluded and collaborated with the British because both Tipu and also the Nizams and Nawabs behaved as they did because of selfish reasons. Their actions were guided by their wish to retain power. Similarly Nana Sahib who fought against the British should be considered on par with the Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot.

2. Even though Nana Sahib was the adopted son of the Maratha Peshwa, he was accepted by the revolutionaries in Uttar Pradesh as their leader. This fact should be considered an example of regionalism according to you because Nana Sahib wanted to form a 'Maratha Confederacy'.

My response to your second point is that if the 'Maratha Confederacy' would have been adopted in Uttar Pradesh it would have taken on a pan-Indian character and would have eventually become an 'Indian confederacy'. Nana Sahib himself was born and brought up in Uttar Pradesh, and not Maharashtra. Also, the revolutionaries of Uttar Pradesh had accepted him as their leader.

My response to your first point is that even if we agree that the Indian rulers who fought against the British did so not out of any patriotism but because of self-preservation, there has to be a distinction made between them and those rulers who colluded and collaborated with the British. Becoming a colony of the British was not in India's interest and anyone who fought against British rule was thus acting in India's interest. Furthermore, i will point out that it would have been a much easier option for Nana Sahib and Tipu Sultan to have started licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot. It would have resulted in a comfortable life. So the fact that Tipu Sultan, Hyder Ali, and Nana Sahib acted not just in their own interest but also keeping the nation's interest in mind cannot be dismissed lightly. In my opinion even the invaders have more respect for native people who fight them than those who collude and collaborate with them and become their vassals without putting up any fight.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:48 am

Rasmun: Tipu Sultan, Hyder Ali, and Nana Sahib acted not just in their own interest but also keeping the nation's interest in mind

There was NO NATION, At best they fought for their kingdom. No concept of India existed. So don't twist history.

This thread has branched off from the oroginal question. Hindia gov sweeps under southern history and glorifies Hindi belt history. Rashmun what do you hav to say about that?

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:02 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:Hindia gov sweeps under southern history and glorifies Hindi belt history.

true. they taught me nothing about the cholas, satavahanas, pallava, chalukya or the vijayanagara empire (save a fleeting reference) in school. nor about ashoka or harsha to be fair. most of it was babur, shah jehan blah blah (vincent smith was the authority then). i had to learn about them on my own in my adult years.

but i got good news for you kayal vizhi! my kids' school taught them no history. vunderful yaar! from indus valley civilization they leapt straight to the arrival of the british, hung there for a while and then hurried to the independence struggle to which most of their syllabus was devoted to. deala or no deala?

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:43 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:Rasmun: Tipu Sultan, Hyder Ali, and Nana Sahib acted not just in their own interest but also keeping the nation's interest in mind

There was NO NATION, At best they fought for their kingdom. No concept of India existed. So don't twist history.

In my opinion, the idea of India definitely existed culturally for a few thousand years. The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc. Also, before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:17 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

Just a thought occurred to me:

Romney should have picked Rashmunullah as his running mate.

Just saying (c)

(c)Copiedright

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:28 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

Just a thought occurred to me:

Romney should have picked Rashmunullah as his running mate.

Just saying (c)

(c)Copiedright

He was a UPite because he was born and brought up in U.P., and he was a Maharashtrian because he had been adopted by the royal Maratha Family. So he was both a UPite and also a Maharashtrian.

On another note, Samiyaar its good to see you using some ulat-phulat language again.

Samiyaar, tussi great ho.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

Just a thought occurred to me:

Romney should have picked Rashmunullah as his running mate.

Just saying (c)

(c)Copiedright

He was a UPite because he was born and brought up in U.P., and he was a Maharashtrian because he had been adopted by the royal Maratha Family. So he was both a UPite and also a Maharashtrian.

Thank you for reRomneying your statement.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:39 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do you agree that the fact that Nana Sahib was adopted by the Maratha Royal family, despite being a UPite, is a historical slap on the face of modern regionalists and regional chauvnists?
On what basis are you assuming that Nana was a "UPite?" Just two posts ago you thought he was a "Maharashtrian!" Nana was a Maratha, and he was adopted by a Maratha, as far as I know. If you have any evidence of his non-Maratha origins, please do share it.

Just a thought occurred to me:

Romney should have picked Rashmunullah as his running mate.

Just saying (c)

(c)Copiedright

He was a UPite because he was born and brought up in U.P., and he was a Maharashtrian because he had been adopted by the royal Maratha Family. So he was both a UPite and also a Maharashtrian.

Thank you for reRomneying your statement.

Samiyaar, good to see more examples of the ulat-phulat language.

Samiyaar, tussi great ho.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:24 pm

Reply to Rashmun

?? The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc.

UP is part of England because lots of people know English there\

???? before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

Auyrangaeb rule over parts of TN lasted for about 5 years!

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:32 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:Reply to Rashmun

?? The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc.

UP is part of England because lots of people know English there\

???? before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

Auyrangaeb rule over parts of TN lasted for about 5 years!

After Aurangzeb's death, the Nawabs of Arcot took over control in large parts of TN. The first Nawab of Arcot, like the first Nizam, had been a representative of Aurangzeb. So culturally TN continued to be connected to the rest of India even after the collapse of the mughal empire because the people who assumed power had all been working for the mughals earlier.

Also, once political unity had been achieved there would be no turning back. Sure, the British subsequently again gave India political unity after the collapse of the mughal empire, but if they would not have come some other king would have given India political unity again.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Rasmun: Tipu Sultan, Hyder Ali, and Nana Sahib acted not just in their own interest but also keeping the nation's interest in mind

There was NO NATION, At best they fought for their kingdom. No concept of India existed. So don't twist history.

In my opinion, the idea of India definitely existed culturally for a few thousand years. The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc. Also, before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

Maps like these merely show the extent of territories won under the empire. In reality, the emperor's writ ran only over the lands directly under his control. Beyond that was a patchwork of fealties which brought in annual revenues but were administered by the respective rulers. Fealty to the emperor was no guarantee against invasion by a neighbouring king who was also technically part of the empire. So empire <> nation.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Reply to Rashmun

?? The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc.

UP is part of England because lots of people know English there\

???? before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

Auyrangaeb rule over parts of TN lasted for about 5 years!

After Aurangzeb's death, the Nawabs of Arcot took over control in large parts of TN. The first Nawab of Arcot, like the first Nizam, had been a representative of Aurangzeb. So culturally TN continued to be connected to the rest of India even after the collapse of the mughal empire because the people who assumed power had all been working for the mughals earlier.

Also, once political unity had been achieved there would be no turning back. Sure, the British subsequently again gave India political unity after the collapse of the mughal empire, but if they would not have come some other king would have given India political unity again.

With respect to U.P. and english, i would estimate about 5-10 % of the people of U.P. have sufficient knowledge of english to be able to communicate effectively.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:36 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:Rasmun: Tipu Sultan, Hyder Ali, and Nana Sahib acted not just in their own interest but also keeping the nation's interest in mind

There was NO NATION, At best they fought for their kingdom. No concept of India existed. So don't twist history.

In my opinion, the idea of India definitely existed culturally for a few thousand years. The sanskrit language had penetrated every part of modern India through writings on philosophy, literature, etc. Also, before the British the mughals had given political unity to India as may be seen in the map i provide.

Maps like these merely show the extent of territories won under the empire. In reality, the emperor's writ ran only over the lands directly under his control. Beyond that was a patchwork of fealties which brought in annual revenues but were administered by the respective rulers. Fealty to the emperor was no guarantee against invasion by a neighbouring king who was also technically part of the empire. So empire <> nation.

I don't think this is correct. For instance there is no record of any infighting between the Rajputs taking place during this period.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:39 pm

>> With respect to U.P. and english, i would estimate about 5-10 % of the people of U.P. have sufficient knowledge of english to be able to communicate effectively.

Learn the language and get ahead. Instad of plundering the south witnh taxes and giving the tax money to Hindi states.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:44 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> With respect to U.P. and english, i would estimate about 5-10 % of the people of U.P. have sufficient knowledge of english to be able to communicate effectively.

Learn the language and get ahead. Instad of plundering the south witnh taxes and giving the tax money to Hindi states.

Sure, but that will take some time. In the meantime Hindustani can be used as the link language particularly because it exists in South India in its variant known as Dakhini. South India benefits because North India provides a huge market for goods made in the South. Likewise South India provides a market for goods made in north india. Also, the state that has provided the highest tax revenue consistently is Maharashtra.

by Ponniyin Selvan Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:36 am

Looks like many of us are in agreement that 1857 is just a mutiny for petty reasons first glorified by Savarkar and later picked up many folks.

Next time if someone says South or East or any region did not participate in 1857 feel glad that they did not participate for restoring the rule of Mughals/Marathas/Ranis and Begums and proudly associate with the Madras regiment and Punjabi Sikhs who sided with the Brits to put down jihadis and assorted folks.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:56 am

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:Looks like many of us are in agreement that 1857 is just a mutiny for petty reasons first glorified by Savarkar and later picked up many folks.

Next time if someone says South or East or any region did not participate in 1857 feel glad that they did not participate for restoring the rule of Mughals/Marathas/Ranis and Begums and proudly associate with the Madras regiment and Punjabi Sikhs who sided with the Brits to put down jihadis and assorted folks.

speaketh the man who admitted to shedding tears when Prabhakaran died and who openly supports organizations like Raj Thackeray's MNS which promote and instigate violence amongst Indians. The guy even supports kannadiga organizations who have in the past physically intimidated tamilians in Karnataka. From such a man, who has no feeling of patriotism towards India, it is natural not to expect any sympathy for those who fought and laid down their lives fighting against the british. He probably thinks the method of the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot, who preferred to lick british boots rather than fight, should have been emulated by everyone.

by Sponsored content