Was India Better Under the British ?

[American Pakistani]

You are in deep Denial son. Now you are not even making any sense.

Oh God! Time had come when son will call father a son

Grow up son & read ancient history, india was never a one country, there were all indepandant states.

 

[53fd]

Marathas were also the contenders,Lakhmi Baitoo achieved martyrdom .Sepoy mutiny was initiated by Bengal devision which consisted higher hindu cast Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs .Who were the main cause of revolt.Due to this later even martial status from Bhumihars land oweners of gangetic plains were withdrawn.

I have not denied the role Hindus played in the mutiny as well. There was certainly rebellion inside the Bengal Army (ranks) as well due to the caste issues. But the forces were from three presidencies at the time: Bombay, Madras & Bengal. The Bombay & Madras regiments did not have the problem that the Bengal Army did. The short term event that triggered the mutiny was the greased cartridges, where the sepoys had to bite the cartridges allegedly greased with pork (offensive to Muslims) or beef (sacred to Hindus). Anyways, Muslims were at the forefront of the mutiny, Bahadur Shah Zafar was declared the emperor of India, & in the aftermath of the mutiny, the last Mughal king & the family was killed, & the Muslims had to bear much for the events in 1857. Leaders such as Maulana Khairabadi & Ahmedullah Shah called for Jihad. A significant proportion of the insurgents in Delhi were Muslims. And that is where the Indian Mutiny eventually climaxed, when the British defeated the mutiny.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

Still u not grown? b4 v ruled u for centuries that time u people served for Indian masters hav u forget that?. Even now u changing masters its in ur blood.

not bengalis bengalis were buddist

 

[American Pakistani]

Before british rule it was mughals. then mughals broke into several states.

Mughals ruled only northern India & Pakistan not whole India & Pakistan plus Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & FATA etc have nothing to do with Subcontinent.

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

not bengalis bengalis were buddist

Just check CHOLA empire. get life

 

[American Pakistani]

Tamilnadu never ruled by mughals have u knw that? so don't say mughals ruled India

No i'm not interested in tamil nado history, thanks.

And it seems you have comprehending problems, show me where did i say mughuls rule whole india? it is your indian counter parts who claiming & some Pakistani members who don't bother to read history.

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

No i'm not interested in tamil nado history, thanks.

Then don't bring mughals ruled INDIA crap.

 

[American Pakistani]

Then don't bring mughals ruled INDIA crap.

Are you dumb? read post #133 again.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

chola had influence but bangla was never part of chola empire

 

[joekrish]

get your point if the british say so it must be true

oh good what more than I ask for a brit has conformed my link.

 

[jatt+gutts]

american pakistani .. this guy ruled your fata tata before british.

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

Are you dumb? read post #133 again.

who is dumb u or me? u added the last 2 lines after I posted.

 

[American Pakistani]

american pakistani .. this guy ruled your fata tata before british.

First of all your link is not loading. Second FATA is TATA of empires so whoever was that idiot he is only history now.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

Muslims were rulers at that time ,they were dethroned just that.

bengal fell in east india's hand in 1757. The Sepai Mutini started and it was only against british not any other rulers. After that bengal was handed over to the queen to rule.

 

[American Pakistani]

who is dumb u or me? u added the last 2 lines after I posted.

I call you dumb because you were blaming me wrong or without reading or understanding, that i said mughuls rule all states of Subcontinent.