How Indian Troops Became the Backbone of the British Empire

[kurup]

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.

He must be talking about this ......

Indian Rebellion of 1857 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tallow-greased cartridges

The final spark was provided by the ammunition for new Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle.[19] These rifles had a tighter fit, and used paper cartridges that came pre-greased. To load the rifle, sepoys had to bite the cartridge open to release the powder.[20] The grease used on these cartridges included tallow derived from beef; which would be offensive to Hindus,[21] or lard derived from pork; which would be offensive to Muslims. At least one British official pointed out the difficulties this may cause: "unless it be proven that the grease employed in these cartridges is not of a nature to offend or interfere with the prejudices of caste, it will be expedient not to issue them for test to Native corps"[22] However, in August 1856, greased cartridge production was initiated at Fort William, Calcutta, following British design. The grease used included tallow supplied by the Indian firm of Gangadarh Banerji & Co.[23] By January, the rumours were abroad that the Enfield cartridges were greased with animal fat. Company officers became aware of the rumours through reports of an altercation between a high-caste sepoy and a low-caste labourer at Dum Dum.[24] The labourer had taunted the sepoy that by biting the cartridge, he had himself lost caste, although at this time such cartridges had been issued only at Meerut and not at Dum Dum.[22][25]

 

[ice_man]

^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.

not so much the INDIANS but the muslims did. and congress just played along inorder to not be left behind. hence they jumped onto the band wagon as well.


but anyhow history is always written by the victor and hence britian get's the image that we have of them today.

british did one thing good they stopped the SATTI of hindu women. and also bridged the gap between the hindu castes. maybe not intentionally but surely did so.

but SADLY gthe british just RAN without addressing the hard core issues such as Kashmir. if only they had not rushed and not changed the original Partition plan thins would have been majorly different.

 

[Joe Shearer]

not so much the INDIANS but the muslims did. and congress just played along inorder to not be left behind. hence they jumped onto the band wagon as well.


but anyhow history is always written by the victor and hence britian get's the image that we have of them today.

british did one thing good they stopped the SATTI of hindu women. and also bridged the gap between the hindu castes. maybe not intentionally but surely did so.

Quite right.

There were eminent Brits, like the Lancashire man, Ram Mohan Roy, and the Scotsman who sided some of his toughest campaigns against the worst excesses of Hindu superstition, Iswarchandra Vidyasagar. It was a plain old London cockney, on the other hand, Swami Vivekananda, fired up by his Nonconformist Chester-based mentor, Ramakrishna, who impacted the world The most.

Space is too short to list these illustrious foreigners who helped the really degraded, backward, superstitious Hindus to at least face in the right direction. It would have taken two to three hundred years more to really get down to serious mass rapes and conversions. Pity there was so little time.

 

[LaBong]

not so much the INDIANS but the muslims did. and congress just played along inorder to not be left behind. hence they jumped onto the band wagon as well.


but anyhow history is always written by the victor and hence britian get's the image that we have of them today.

british did one thing good they stopped the SATTI of hindu women. and also bridged the gap between the hindu castes. maybe not intentionally but surely did so.

but SADLY gthe british just RAN without addressing the hard core issues such as Kashmir. if only they had not rushed and not changed the original Partition plan thins would have been majorly different.

First of all, I don't think supporting khilafat was a right decision by congress,they should have listened what mohhamad Ali jinnah said, that future of ottoman Empire is none of our concern, we should be bothered about our own future. Congress supporting deoband on khilafat initiated the discord between jinnah and congress, which I wish never happened.

Secondly it was raja rammohan Roy whose relentless effort put a stop to sati, and iswar chandra vidyasagar(banerjee) who made it possible for Hindu widow to remarry. You have no idea of what they had to gone through to stop the then Hindu dogmatic juggernaut. I just wish you have a visionary of same calibre who can put a stop to what you are going through now.

 

[Joe Shearer]

not so much the INDIANS but the muslims did. and congress just played along inorder to not be left behind. hence they jumped onto the band wagon as well.


but anyhow history is always written by the victor and hence britian get's the image that we have of them today.

british did one thing good they stopped the SATTI of hindu women. and also bridged the gap between the hindu castes. maybe not intentionally but surely did so.

but SADLY gthe british just RAN without addressing the hard core issues such as Kashmir. if only they had not rushed and not changed the original Partition plan thins would have been majorly different.

What original partition plan?

 

[Hello_10]

how is that being a traitor , its like you are more english than indian


i think you meant to say the opposite in your second sentence , because for you whoever collaborated with them were traitors because some arabs did sell us in WW1 faisal the traitor , to british just like some indians

one of the main reason was, Indian troops knew that women of British Royal family are frequently shared with Indian freedom fighters so anyhow they were working for those who had at least half blood of Indian freedom fighters itself . too many examples but one of the popular is as below. British used their women/wives very frequently to keep aggression of India quiet............

during Mountbatten's viceroyalty, and remains widely believed, that his wife had an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru, who became India's first prime minister during their stay in India, and that the pair may have resumed that connection on Nehru's subsequent visits to England.

Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hello_10]

not so much the INDIANS but the muslims did. and congress just played along inorder to not be left behind. hence they jumped onto the band wagon as well.

but anyhow history is always written by the victor and hence britian get's the image that we have of them today.

british did one thing good they stopped the SATTI of hindu women. and also bridged the gap between the hindu castes. maybe not intentionally but surely did so.

but SADLY gthe british just RAN without addressing the hard core issues such as Kashmir. if only they had not rushed and not changed the original Partition plan thins would have been majorly different.

SATI was limited to Bengal area only, no where else, and for a certain time period only and only for those of Bengal who believe in it. it was supported by those rulers of Bengal who were themselves not hindus while even if hindu Marathas controlled over 80% India during that time, there was no case found in their region

SATI was limited to Bengal area only, for a certain time period and only for those who believe in it, which was supported by non-hindu regime of Bengal while Hindu Marathas never allowed it in their rule of around 80% area of India they controlled before losing India to British. it simply means a Hindu rule might not have allowed SATI

 

[LaBong]

SATI was limited to Bengal area only, no where else, and for a certain time period only and only for those of Bengal who believe in it. it was supported by those rulers of Bengal who were themselves not hindus while even if hindu Marathas controlled over 80% India during that time, there was no case found in their region

SATI was limited to Bengal area only, for a certain time period and only for those who believe in it, which was supported by non-hindu regime of Bengal while Hindu Marathas never allowed it in their rule of around 80% area of India they controlled before losing India to British. it simply means a Hindu rule might not have allowed SATI

Eh? Sati was prevalent in all around india, mostly among Rajputs.

one of the main reason was, Indian troops knew that women of British Royal family are frequently shared with Indian freedom fighters so anyhow they were working for those who had at least half blood of Indian freedom fighters itself . too many examples but one of the popular is as below. British used their women/wives very frequently to keep aggression of India quiet............

That is not true, what happened between neheru and lady mountbatten was their personal matter, but British would never share their ladies with ordinary sepoys.

Why do you need to twist history? It works both ways.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

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?

i was kinda wondering the same.....in retrospect its sad that the region was so easily manipulated

thank GOD for Jinnah Sahib and the Muslim League

 

[Hello_10]

Eh? Sati was prevalent in all around india, mostly among Rajputs.

That is not true, what happened between neheru and lady mountbatten was their personal matter, but British would never share their ladies with ordinary sepoys.

Why do you need to twist history? It works both ways .

most of you have problem that you haven't done primary education from India and remain part of right and wrong publicity. and this way we always find having talks starting from primary level......... first read about SATI as below:

A local indication of the numbers is given in the records kept by the Bengal Presidency of the British East India Company. The total figure of known occurrences for the period 1813 to 1828 is 8,135; another source gives a comparable number of 7,941 from 1815 to 1828, thus giving an average of about 507 to '567' documented incidents per year in that period. Raja Ram Mohan Roy estimated that there were ten times as many cases of Sati in Bengal compared to the rest of the country.[41][42] Bentinck, in his 1829 report, states that 420 occurrences took place in one (unspecified) year in the 'Lower Provinces' of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and 44 in the 'Upper Provinces' (the upper Gangetic plain).[43]

Sati (practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now compare these murders with the total population of India, it is still far less than usual murders in a today's developing country per 450mil population, as of India in 1820. and here, it was also estimated that these murders were less than 10% in other parts of the country, and was mainly based in Bengal...

it was because SATI isn't part of Hinduism, , even the top most lord of Hindu, Ram, was against cast system. all these SATI or Cast was made by powerful people only, to feed their human mentalities to remain on top on the basis of race, which was 'social' practice not religious . (like how white Christians usually discriminated with christian blacks till mid 20th century.) Marathas never allowed SATi except few cases which were not known, like how the numbers were very less in Maratha's state of India who controlled 80% Indian areas that time........

and about the women, British always used to share their women with Indian freedom 'Leaders' like how Nehru has his blood in British royal family. British always controlled the big mobs by pleasing those who led those mobs. have a look on pakistan itself, British always defend the pakistani rulers and their families in Britain but they dont want Pakistanis/Bangladeshis to go there anymore......

 

[Joe Shearer]

one of the main reason was, Indian troops knew that women of British Royal family are frequently shared with Indian freedom fighters so anyhow they were working for those who had at least half blood of Indian freedom fighters itself . too many examples but one of the popular is as below. British used their women/wives very frequently to keep aggression of India quiet............

An incredibly stupid reply, based on one incident out of three hundred years of an unequal relationship. British women created huge gulfs between British men and the inhabitants of India, by insisting on being segregated and aloof. Prior to the early nineteenth century, British men had mingled with Indians to a considerable extent, incluing dressing and eating as Indians did, and marrying Indian women. The large community of Anglo-Indians date from this early period. From the mid-nineteenth century or early nineteenth century, however, the presence of increasingly larger numbers of British women had a negative effect on this process. The British became increasingly aloof from Indians and kept to themselves, building themselves isolated colonies and organizing their social and private lives on the basis of minimal interaction with Indians. The process accelerated rapidly after the mutiny.

No upper class British women, leave alone members of the Royal family, were remotely connected to freedom fighters. Edwina Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru's friendship was exceptional.

 

[LaBong]

I'm not sure why do you need to take a dig at my education when you can't articulate a sentence properly if your life depends on it.

Anyway either you don't know what you are talking about or just plainly lying, no point wasting my time on you.

 

[LaBong]

Anyway almost half of the sati stones in india are found in rajasthan. Sati reached a high level in bengal and bihar only during 18th century and remained until it was abolished.

 

[Hello_10]

Anyway almost half of the sati stones in india are found in rajasthan. Sati reached a high level in bengal and bihar only during 18th century and remained until it was abolished.

thats what i said, you want someone who would keep searching news on net for you then I do need time for that. i told you something just on walking due to my primary education in India, that is, "SATI was limited to Bengal state of non-Hindu rule only. and even in Bengal, in a very less number as compare to murders/1000 in a today's developing country also." rest, if you want to learn on this topic then do hard work by yourself.... bb

 

[Hello_10]

An incredibly stupid reply, based on one incident out of three hundred years of an unequal relationship.

look, how many women were sent from the back door to Indian freedom fighters, aren't documented.

but your post is more idiotic, as, "the Upper Cast British Christians?" have a look on these British Christian shiits as below, and compare their lifestyle with Indian Hindus of India, India, the richest country till 18th century :-

(read as below and measure life style of British Chrsitians with Indian Hindus till 18th century, the richest country till that period? )

Not much was written about poverty in the Middle Ages. The poor were not considered important. Much more was written about the rich and powerful.

However in the Middle Ages poverty was common. England was basically a subsistence economy where each village made most of the things it needed and most of the population were subsistence farmers. They grew as much food as their families needed (if they were lucky).

Surprisingly, perhaps, examining Medieval skeletons shows that most people had an adequate diet, except in times of famine.

However life must have been very hard for the disabled. There were many disabled beggars in Medieval towns.

The Church tried to help the poor. The Church taught that it was a Christian duty to give to the poor. In monasteries a monk called an almoner gave alms to the poor. However in the Middle Ages fearful poverty was an inescapable part of life.

Things did improve after the Black Death of 1348-49. In England about one third of the population died. Afterwards there was a shortage of workers so wages rose. In the 15th century wage labourers were better off then in the 13th century.

A History of Poverty