How Indian Troops Became the Backbone of the British Empire

[IND151]

I'm posting from mobile so won't be able to give a detailed reply. Please bear with me.

First of all you need to understand that in middle age India wasn't an unified country with a centralized govt but an amalgamation of many small states each having an exclusive an unique culture and language with thousand years of their own and rich history. So for a tamil, a punjabi or a bengali was as alien as British except for the skin pigmentation.

I will tell you from bengal perspective while my other Indian brothers can stretch my point further.

When British first set foot in subcontinent, bengal was ruled by independent persianized turks(turks of Central Asian sejluk variety) while most of administrative work was done by bengali Hindu landlords. Most bengali peasantry, whom were bulk of population didn't have any knowledge or connection with mughals ruling north India from Delhi. Only exposure they had of Martha's was as looters who often raided border region of West bengal and was a major nuisance for farmers.

So you see there was no sense of a nation even among the rolling class but bunch of warring stares looking for each others blood. Nothing much changed for the common man and peasantry when British took over, as for them one set of rules have just replaced another, and they would just have to carry on with their life.

It's only during mid eithneeth century, with the inception of western educated, urban middle class, an Indian nationalism was born. Although for the next hundred year or so it was mainly limited to urban pockets of Calcutta, bombay or madras, until Gandhi tapped the common people and successfully made it a truly national phenomenon.

Just a fun fact, even after 10 years of independence, many people in rural India weren't aware that country has been freed from British rule.

nice post friend

BTW give link for last sentence

 

[TopCat]

At least one moghul was a religious bigot, that does not rate high in popularity in India.
Some of the marathas were looters and thugs, not everybody was happy with marathas.

There was no India then, so if marathas steal from northern areas, it will still be stealing.
British treated locals well, made pact with local kings and faught well. Which is why they were winner.
Also their justice system was much better than those provided by local kings and queens.

Fighting for british is no way different from fighting for maratha/mughal or 100 other kings from a soldier's point of view.


Marathas were fighting among themselves all the time, I am not really sure they would have lasted very long.
And no, they were not welcome everywhere.

It was due to Marathan attacks which made Bengal very weak and eventually lost to British. I dont blame Mir Jafar as Bengal would had fallen to Brits with or without Mir Jafar. Brits won every other subsequent battle in India without Mir Jafar.

 

[Hello_10]

mhhh there were more than the 3 faction in the game (Mughal empire, Marathas and Mysore), in fact there were over a hundred Kingdoms on the subcontinent at this period. Anyway, at the time when the british arrived, the Mughals were near the end while the Maratha confederacy was rising up and constantly fighting the Mughals. The British used this state of instability and got one territory after the other, very often using the help of other local princes who wanted to defeat their rivals.

PS: I love total war games


Says the guy who pays money to keep that ugly queen alive, did u enjoy the jubilee celebrations and kissed that womans @ss???????

India is so big country that you first want a language to talk to the common people before you want to rule them. even during the Mughal rule, there were many regional hindu kings who used to rule their region and report the central government of Mughal. only British could really rule the whole India as they introduced a language, English, and then they conduct different exams in India, picked the best people for themselves and then they put them on the official positions of India to have a proper administration in India, through the same Indian people they picked from India.............

 

[Tamil Soldier]

India is so big country that you first want a language to talk to the common people before you want to rule them. even during the Mughal rule, there were many regional hindu kings who used to rule their region and report the central government of Mughal. only British could really rule the whole India as they introduced a language, English, and then they conduct different exams in India, picked the best people for themselves and then they put them on the official positions of India to have a proper administration in India, through the same Indian people they picked from India.............

Interesting to say the least. A Russian is able to comprehend what a Pakistani fails to, Muslims never at any time ruled all of India, and even the whole bogus 1000 year figure only applies to the region now called Pakistan and not modern India. I don't understand why they are so adamant about saying 1000 years when the facts clearly show the opposite.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Interesting to say the least. A Russian is able to comprehend what a Pakistani fails to, Muslims never at any time ruled all of India, and even the whole bogus 1000 year figure only applies to the region now called Pakistan and not modern India. I don't understand why they are so adamant about saying 1000 years when the facts clearly show the opposite.

the capital of mughal empire,khiljis,aibak,slave turk dynasty etc all was delhi... and almost all small kingdoms paid tributes to them...accepting them as the "King of Kings".

 

[Joe Shearer]

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

The social relations between the British and the Indians is amply documented.

Not one account of the life and times of any Indian freedom fighter contains any hint that upper-class British women were used as sexual bribes. Not one account of any British person living in India records any such incident, or even hints at any such incident.

Neither side has any record of such happenings. How then did you conclude it happened at all? There is similarly no record in Gandhi's writings of any dalliances with Nehru, nor any in Nehru's writings of being seduced by Gandhi. Going by your standards, since no one has denied it in writing, we may conclude that Gandhi and Nehru had sexual relations.

You mentioned a primary education in India. You would do a favour to all Indians by issuing a retraction. Unless this is done, the rest of the forum will think that an Indian primary education produces people who (i) cannot write a sentence to save their lives; (ii) produces dimwitted nonsense such as those wild allegations. Your claim of an Indian primary education is an embarrassment to all Indians.

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? )

Upper Class British Christians, not Upper 'Cast' (sic) British Christian. It is surprising that you should write of matters historical without knowing the difference between class and caste.

Your comment and citation has NOTHING to do with your sensational and totally false allegations of the British using their women for sexual bribery. Don't try to divert attention from your stupid error.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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

What is foreign? Even the people who brought Indo-Aryan languages into India were originally foreign.

Would you consider the Rajputs foreign? Or the Gujaratis? They too were descended from Scythians and Parthians who entered the sub-continent in the first centuries of the Christian era. In a thousand years, they were fighting fiercely against 'Foreigners'.

How about the Mughals themselves? You say they were not a foreign power. They spent about the same time in India as the British did. Count for yourself; from 1526 onwards, to 1858 for the Mughals, 332 years; from 1619 to 1947 for the British, 328 years.

Is it the racist attitude, Dogs and Indians not allowed? Just look around this forum, and you will get a small taste of Central Asian and Arab racism. Or just read through descriptions of the autochthones in Vedic literature, and you will get another set of data. Very illuminating.

If there is one lesson history teaches you, it is to take every succeeding messianic conqueror, conquering race or liberation propagandist with a pinch of salt.

It was due to Marathan attacks which made Bengal very weak and eventually lost to British. I dont blame Mir Jafar as Bengal would had fallen to Brits with or without Mir Jafar. Brits won every other subsequent battle in India without Mir Jafar.

I am not sure I understand this. The Marathas raided, and rarely fought pitched battles. How did they weaken the Nawab so much that his troops failed before the British? The Nawab's court was thoroughly corrupt, and thoroughly divided. Did the Mrqthas also achieve this?

Mir Jafar's military contribution is not in question. His abstention from action at the Battle of Plassey is.

India is so big country that you first want a language to talk to the common people before you want to rule them. even during the Mughal rule, there were many regional hindu kings who used to rule their region and report the central government of Mughal. only British could really rule the whole India as they introduced a language, English, and then they conduct different exams in India, picked the best people for themselves and then they put them on the official positions of India to have a proper administration in India, through the same Indian people they picked from India.............

Moonshine.

Persian was the administrative language of India; how many Indian peasants spoke or wrote or read Persian?

Those who joined the administration, or aspired to public life, learnt Persian. Raja Ram Mohan Roy knew fluent Persian, and travelled to Britain to represent the Mughal Court on a legal matter. Except for the formal methods of the British selection process, there was little difference between the two systems. The Mughals took far larger proportions of Indians into the administration, in terms of percentages, compared to the British, who only took a handful of Indians into the selected 'services'. Look it up for yourself.

the capital of mughal empire,khiljis,aibak,slave turk dynasty etc all was delhi... and almost all small kingdoms paid tributes to them...accepting them as the "King of Kings".

Why are you provoking trouble with these bits of ignorance? Why not enjoy the glow of achieving a huge number of posts for some more time? You won't enjoy it if your mistakes are picked out in detail.

 

[Tamil Soldier]

the capital of mughal empire,khiljis,aibak,slave turk dynasty etc all was delhi... and almost all small kingdoms paid tributes to them...accepting them as the "King of Kings".

Can you list me all these "small kingdoms"? Outside of North India, there were many independent kingdoms from the time of Khilji through the last Mughal king. Hell, the Northeast was never conquered because of the Ahoms. The Deccan too has a unique history with the Vijayanagara and Maratha empires, so once again, where is this "Muslims conquered and ruled every single bit of India for 1000 years" rhetoric coming from?

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

brother talk properly , how can it be slave turks when turks ruled it , all turkic rulers .

the capital of mughal empire,khiljis,aibak,slave turk dynasty etc all was delhi... and almost all small kingdoms paid tributes to them...accepting them as the "King of Kings".

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

brother talk properly , how can it be slave turks when turks ruled it , all turkic rulers .

The first ruler was a slave who became a rule... their dynasty is called "slave dynasty" or mamluk sultanate..

Can you list me all these "small kingdoms"? Outside of North India, there were many independent kingdoms from the time of Khilji through the last Mughal king. Hell, the Northeast was never conquered because of the Ahoms. The Deccan too has a unique history with the Vijayanagara and Maratha empires, so once again, where is this "Muslims conquered and ruled every single bit of India for 1000 years" rhetoric coming from?

There were more than 357 princely states when india was born... in 1947... deccan again was a muslim kingdom...not to forget the rule of Tipu and other local muslim kings... nobody much cared about impoverished southern states...

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

a TURK is never a slave but a ruler or a brother. Its called State of turkey Dawla al-Turkiyya

The first ruler was a slave who became a rule... their dynasty is called "slave dynasty" or mamluk sultanate..



There were more than 357 princely states when india was born... in 1947... deccan again was a muslim kingdom...not to forget the rule of Tipu and other local muslim kings... nobody much cared about impoverished southern states...

 

[Kambojaric]

a TURK is never a slave but a ruler or a brother. Its called State of turkey Dawla al-Turkiyya

I think you are misunderstanding the word "slave" in this context. Mohammad Ghori had no children of his own but his "slaves" then succeeded him when he died and he was happy about that. These "slaves" like Qutbuddin Aibek were raised like the sultans own children, given the best education and were supposed to carry on the "masters" legacy. Heres what wiki has to say on it:

Shahabuddin Ghori had no offspring, but he treated his Turkic slaves as his sons, who were trained both as soldiers and administrators and provided with the best possible education. Many of his competent and loyal slaves rose to positions of importance in Shahabuddin Ghori's army and government.

Muhammad of Ghor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qutbuddin Aibek was one of these "slaves" and with the demise of Ghori he established himself as an independent ruler in Lahore creating the "Mamluk" dynasty.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The first ruler was a slave who became a rule... their dynasty is called "slave dynasty" or mamluk sultanate..

There were more than 357 princely states when india was born... in 1947... deccan again was a muslim kingdom...not to forget the rule of Tipu and other local muslim kings... nobody much cared about impoverished southern states...

There were 562, in fact, some of them measuring a few acres wide. That is not the point that was being made, and you know it.

Taking the dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate in order, they were the Slaves, the Khilji, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyid and the Lodi. Together, between all five of them, they lasted slightly over 300 years, an average of 60 years a dynasty ;-) to be precise, there were ten rulers in the Slave Dynasty, three in the Khilji, an isolated ruler from none of these, then ten again in the Tughlaq. The Sayyids had four, finally the Lodis had three.

In case all these numbers got confusing for you, the total number, including Khusro Khan, is 31. An average of ten years a ruler, except that Ghiyas-ud-Din Balban ruled for forty years out of the three hundred, twenty as regent or wazir for Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud, his father-in-law, although much younger than Balban. So 29 rulers got 260 years between them, except that Muhammad bin Tughlaq messes up the statistics again, as he messed up so many other things, by ruling for twenty-five years!

Only two rulers had any influence outside the Gangetic Plain, and these were Ala-ud-Din Khilji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq. As for the rest reigning in Delhi as king of kings, I wish you wouldn't slip these things in unannounced. It got me unawares and I still have a stitch in my side laughing. Just to give you an example, one of the main military campaigns of Balban was the suppression of the Meos, who plundered the citizens of Delhi in broad daylight. Mewat, as we all know, is the region immediately south of Delhi.

There's lots more information about the Sultans any time you want.

After 1526, when Babar killed Ibrahim Lodi, the Mughals ruled - with a tea break - for slightly over 300 years. Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb ruled the greatest area, including the bulk of present day Afghanistan, but their boundaries kept fluctuating, and they frequently lost large tracts of territory.

I did warn you.

 

[Juice]

a TURK is never a slave but a ruler or a brother. Its called State of turkey Dawla al-Turkiyya

I think he is talking of Mamluks of Egypt. (were they in India too?). Not a slave in the modern sense...but "owned" by the ruler (which they often replaced on a whim)

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think he is talking of Mamluks of Egypt. (were they in India too?). Not a slave in the modern sense...but "owned" by the ruler (which they often replaced on a whim)

The Slave Dynasty of Delhi is called the Mamluq Dynasty as Slave Dynasty sounded too harsh and uncouth to some delicate sensibilities. Several of the rulers, including Aibak, Iltutmish and Balbana

There were Mamluq dynasties in several countries besides Egypt and India.