How Indian Troops Became the Backbone of the British Empire

[scrumpy]

are u dumb? they killed millions and u thank them????

So what do you want to do? Declare war on the British?

The British at that time were just like any other kingdom from India. Do you think the Moghuls or the Marathas or the Sikhs didn't loot or oppress the people of the areas they captured? That was all in the past and also part of our history.

And how can say that India hadnt been united without the british? talkingabout what if scenarios in history is utter BS

As you say, there is no point speculating on ifs and buts. The fact of the matter is that the British came, got the whole of the subcontinent under one political entity.

 

[kurup]

The thread was supposed to be about indian troops who served Britishers, but dumb trolls from india drag Pakistan, Khilafat Movement, Indus Valley Civilization. First they used to claim Pakistan as their territory, then IVC as their's & hell now they start claiming Khilafat movement. What can you say when their education system teaches them this.

I request MODS to take urgent action against these trolls & violaters.

It looks like you are the one who needs education on history ..........

Pakistan was part of british India and provided troops to British Indian Army .....So how come their roll cannot be discussed ....

Khilafat movement became a part of Indian Independence Movement .........

In India, although mainly a Muslim religious movement, the movement became a part of the wider Indian independence movement. The movement was a topic in the 1920 Conference of London.

Khilafat Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IVC was brought into this discussion by a pakistani troll ..........

Ask moderators to take actions against him ........

 

[Pakistanisage]

^How does it matter? Indians supported Ottoman Khalif and thousands of Indians died in Afghanistan in behest of Afghan king for their support to Khilafat movement. We all do little bit of charity sometimes.

Who is we . Those were Indian Muslims not Hindu Bengalis.

 

[LaBong]

Who is we . Those were Indian Muslims not Hindu Bengalis.

And who are you to speak on behalf of Indian Muslims?

Anyway they were Indians and were supported by INC and majority of top brass of INC were Hindu Bengalis.

 

[Koovie]

So what do you want to do? Declare war on the British?

The British at that time were just like any other kingdom from India. Do you think the Moghuls or the Marathas or the Sikhs didn't loot or oppress the people of the areas they captured? That was all in the past and also part of our history.

I never mentioned anything about war, but there is no reason to thank them. of course the Mughals Marathas Sikhs or whoever also did bad things, but no one of them is a foreign power which regarded the locals as inferior and equal to dogs. Remember that sign Dogs and Indians not allowed? No one else was responsible for so many deaths as the british and you still thank them?
Well I didnt expect anything else from a person living in that country and paying taxes to its government and monarchy which still holds stolen Indian diamonds, jewelry etc

 

[scrumpy]

No one else was responsible for so many deaths as the british and you still thank them?
Well I didnt expect anything else from a person living in that country and paying taxes to its government and monarchy which still holds stolen Indian diamonds, jewelry etc

No, I don't thank them for colonising India. At the same time I understand that today's Britain cannot be held responsible for what happened then.
I am treated as an equal and wouldn't expect any less either.

 

[LaBong]

I never mentioned anything about war, but there is no reason to thank them. of course the Mughals Marathas Sikhs or whoever also did bad things, but no one of them is a foreign power which regarded the locals as inferior and equal to dogs. Remember that sign Dogs and Indians not allowed? No one else was responsible for so many deaths as the british and you still thank them?
Well I didnt expect anything else from a person living in that country and paying taxes to its government and monarchy which still holds stolen Indian diamonds, jewelry etc

I don't think anyone thanking British, but it's only being said that, colonial rule led to certain events which were instrumental at spawning of pan Indian nationalism.

Crediting British for that would be same as crediting turks for European renaissance as fall of byzentine was one of the events that helped fuelling renaissance.

 

[Joe Shearer]

is this supposed to be a good thing? this is an embarrasment , is this a troll or really is this supposed to be something honouring and good?

This was a supercilious Briton rubbing in the fact that the British conquered their world-wide empire, within India and outside India, using largely Indian troops fighting for pay. There are volumes of knowledge and tradition that lie behind this simple statement, and it is almost impossible to summarize it here. Very briefly

1. The principal sources of soldiers in were radically different before 1858 and after.
2. It was an Indian tradition to leave one's home and join an army, and fight for pay. It was common all over the web-continent, from the mountains of the western frontiers with Afghanistan, through the soldier 'mines' of Potohar, the mountains of the Himalayas, the other soldier 'mines' of the lower Gangetic plain, the ancient traditional soldiers of tribal origin in east and in west, the third set of soldier 'mines' in the Peninsula, other traditional soldier stocks among the Tamils, the Malayalis and the coast people, the hillmen of Coorg and the tough Marathas.
3. Soldiers fought by years, and their loyalty was by contract. They fought for their employer for the year. There was no bar to fighting for someone else the next fighting season.
4. The British, and the French, were surprised and delighted to find such ready materials. In early years, they recruited from the southern groups mentioned at #2.
5. Three armies were formed, and they were constituted of the groups mentioned. Two such groups are shown in the video.
6. It came as a rude shock to the soldiers when they realized that the British and the French were hiring for keeps, not for the fighting season. This caused one cultural upheaval.
7. It was a worse shock when the British abruptly discharged all their traditional soldiers, after the Mutiny, and concentrated on recruiting from the 'martial races.
8. We have broken away from the prejudices of the British. Results have proved that this was a sound decision.

 

[Joe Shearer]

can someone explain this to me , i play alot of strategy and war games , i play a game called Empire total war , obviously i pick Ottoman Empire and ruling half of india and much of europe now , but in that game there is 2 factions in india , one is maratha confederancy , and the other mughal empire ( ruled by babur before who is a turk aswell) , and they are pretty strong in the game and its a very realistic game , and usually maratha and mughal is having war in the game ( as their diplomacy in the game aswell and very realistic ) so how did india go into british hands from mughals and maratha

and also these two factions are a major power in the game , along with ottoman , french , prussia , british , dutch , spanish and a few more

The Mughals fought very good battles, tactically and technically, when they invaded India. They broke in and took power in the early sixteenth century; they were contemporaries of the Tudors, and came into India three years before Suleyman the Magnificent besieged Vienna. Their last strong emperor died in 1707. Their decline over the next 150 years was dramatic. One of the cancers that ate away at the Mughal Empire, worse than Napoleon's problems with the Spanish, was their bitter conflict with rugged hillsmen from the Deccan, the Marathas. The Marathas seemed destined to rule, and to block the British and before them the French, but they fought a very messy battle in 1761. The setback to their cause due to this battle almost exactly matched the early steps forward of British rule, starting with their victory in Plassey, a victory delivered by gold rather than either iron or steel. It was at just the right time to allow the British to consolidate their gains, and in course of time, the Marathas lost three wars against the British, and settled down to a dull and mundane existence.

I hope this gives you a feel for the situation.

who's ships , marathas or mughals?

tbh if they didnt get invaded by british today india would be very very powerfull , especially lets say if india , pakistan and bangladesh was together , because even in the game after i invaded parts of india , i created trade routes that give alot of income and there is many things in india tradeable and this is very close to real life as i read

I did not understand your question.

The Mughals had no navy, did not know what to do with the vast mass of water beyond the beaches.

The Marathas had a strong navy, and had fought the Portuguese very successfully. Their admirals kept the Andamans clear until their power declined. But for that fatal battle of 1761, they were the best bet for keeping India independent.

 

[Abingdonboy]

can someone explain this to me , i play alot of strategy and war games , i play a game called Empire total war , obviously i pick Ottoman Empire and ruling half of india and much of europe now , but in that game there is 2 factions in india , one is maratha confederancy , and the other mughal empire ( ruled by babur before who is a turk aswell) , and they are pretty strong in the game and its a very realistic game , and usually maratha and mughal is having war in the game ( as their diplomacy in the game aswell and very realistic ) so how did india go into british hands from mughals and maratha

and also these two factions are a major power in the game , along with ottoman , french , prussia , british , dutch , spanish and a few more

There weren't enough Sikhs to oppose them!!


Nah, I'm joking- it was not a conventional invasion but a gradual, subtle and devious build up of power via the East India corp and before anyone knew what was happening there were heavily armed Brit soldiers on their door oppressing the local population through brutality.

 

[Joe Shearer]

so then after mughal granted britian parts what happened to them after?

What happened to whom, dear Sir? The Mughals, or the British? The Mughals were wrapped up in their own losing battle for survival; some of the later emperors were treated with the utmost cruelty by temporary victors of a savage and merciless type. The British knocked off their enemies one or two or ten at a time, making sure that they progressed at every single stage.

 

[Joe Shearer]

even if british gave money , how can you sell your country for money , that is like your honour going , money is nothing without honour , i would always fight for people who have more things common with me , it could be race , religion , colour i dno something.

It was precisely that, for honour. The fighting man served for money, but died for honour. Just as the Gurkhas did.

Nobody sold his country for money. A man from Monghyr, typically a Brahmin Hindu, fought for the British against the soldiers of the Shia Nawab of Oudh. He fought other Brahmin Hindus, perhaps, or Rajputs, or Pathans. Where was his country involved? He was a subject of the Nawab of Bihard. He didn't think he was fighting against his country.

 

[Tamizhan]

What happened to whom, dear Sir? The Mughals, or the British? The Mughals were wrapped up in their own losing battle for survival; some of the later emperors were treated with the utmost cruelty by temporary victors of a savage and merciless type. The British knocked off their enemies one or two or ten at a time, making sure that they progressed at every single stage.

Who were the temporary victors of a savage and merciless type ?

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

the british acted very cleverly from the answers i see here , first them war , then they see that there is a split and difference between two , then they use one against the other to weaken the other , then they attack the as they are now weaker , Divide and rule again .

someone also told me this , the british threw pigs at mosques and said it was hindu's too create a bigger division and also done the same to hindus by throwing a cow or something ( story was something like this ) to use their divide and rule

 

[Joe Shearer]

Who were the temporary victors of a savage and merciless type ?

The Syed Brothers of Aligarh, for instance. They murdered emperor Jahandar Shah, using professional stranglers to kill him in prison; then they killed his successor, Farrukhsiyar, after first blinding him.

Another was the Persian Nadir Shah who came to Delhi after spilling oceans of blood. He massacred the people of the cities of Peshawar, Wazirabad and Gujrat, before massacring the people of Delhi.

A third was Ahmad ShahBahadur's own Wazir, Imad-ul-Mulk, who blinded his emperor.

Actually, it was a sickening period of cruelty and inhuman .

the british acted very cleverly from the answers i see here , first them war , then they see that there is a split and difference between two , then they use one against the other to weaken the other , then they attack the as they are now weaker , Divide and rule again .

someone also told me this , the british threw pigs at mosques and said it was hindu's too create a bigger division and also done the same to hindus by throwing a cow or something ( story was something like this ) to use their divide and rule

The first paragraph of yours is perfectly accurate. The second is unlikely to be true.