 |
| Rants & Raves |
|
|
Previous Issue
|
|
|
July 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
(1 of 10)
|
Published Letters | 18 Dec, 2006 01:35:33PM (IST)
The Point Being?
Tarlochan Singh’s piece The First War Ever? (Dec 4) was more a paean to Sikh heroics. What the Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas, Tipu et al did was restricted to specific regions of the country. What happened in 1857 happened across the length and (almost) breadth of the country and involved people from all religions, ethnic groups and political affiliations. If this fact doesn’t qualify 1857 as the First War of Independence, what does?
D.V.R. Rao, Pune
The First War Ever? Well said.
Srinivas Jasti, Bangalore
An interesting nugget of history. Bhiwandi and Malegaon came into existence after 1857. After sacking Delhi, the Brits started killing entire Muslim populations in village after village in Delhi, Meerut, around Lucknow and Kanpur. Muslims came as refugees to the Bhiwandi-Sahpur-Malegaon belt. So, a transmigration did take place in 1857, much before ’47.
A.K. Ghai, Mumbai
Tarlochan Singh’s write-up tends to ignore historical facts and sacrifices them on the altar of emotional space. What is his criterion for anointing wars as of independence or otherwise? 1857 is a watershed year, an insurrection if not unifying then certainly giving a unity of purpose against the British. The Anglo-Sikh wars were battles between the Sikh and British empires, I say Sikh empire, as the Sikhs did not have, and were not fighting for, a pan-Indian vision or cause. Singh is all praise for Tipu Sultan but denigrates Mughals as invaders. Why? Because of their mixed race or the religious bias of a few of its emperors, something the Sikh armies themselves were not immune to and exhibited at every instance of their campaigns? To set the historical record straight, it was the Mughals who secured the western flank of India from the raiders across the Hindu Kush, and it was the decay of Mughal power that paved the way for the resumption of the same (like Ahmed Shah Abdali sacking Delhi and Punjab). If the Mughals had the wherewithal, and were not decaying, would they have hesitated to resist and check the growing British foothold and power? It was the Sikh army, in fact, which became the janissaries of the British in 1857 and were instrumental in suppressing the revolt. The only non-Mughal group which had a pan-Indian vision was the Maratha confederacy. And had they not been so overambitious and arrogant to first antagonise the established feudals, especially Indian Pathans, and then foolhardily marching into Attock and being so ill-prepared as to be massacred twig and branch by Abdali’s Afghan army in Panipat, it’s difficult to visualise Britain’s easy colonisation of India. The 1857 story needs to be told not just from its politics or its armed campaigns. The trials and tribulations of that time, Mr Singh, can start with the letters of Mian Ghalib.
K. Saeed, Colchester, UK
|
Daily Letters | 5 Dec, 2006 01:28:17AM (IST)
Paranoid JoJo "How did you manage to break the cover, Mr. Ghulam Y. Faruki?. I thought it was WORLD CITIZEN."
I seem to have left my imprint upon old JoJo's psyche - he imagines my existence everywhere.
A while back he accused me of being 'Joseph ka baap', now he accuses me of being 'The Legitimate Joseph'. So in other words, if I don't appear on this forum for a few days, JoJo starts looking for me under different aliases !!! That is surely paranoia......and it is typical of Pakis.....
WORLD CITIZEN
MUMBAI INDIA
|
Daily Letters | 4 Dec, 2006 10:58:21PM (IST)
Yes, it's absolutely amazing how little Vijayanagar figures in the consciousness of Indians, including south Indians! Considering it was the biggest city of its time, and that it was utterly wiped out. The Indian education system has to be blamed.
VARUN SHEKHAR
TORONTO CANADA
|
Daily Letters | 2 Dec, 2006 09:29:13AM (IST)
Dear Joseph (Legi?),
I have answered it but yes it is hard to understand if one does not wants to understand but contradict.
People before 1857, during 1857 and after 1857 understand that Bharat varsh (the empire of King Bharat) people had commonalities in culture, traditions etc. though now the Bharat varsh is divided into different countries, royalties. For e.g., India and Pak are different nations but we do share commonalities.
Yes you can read between the lines or misinterpret or pick one irrelevant point to contradict or argue
AMAR
DELHI INDIA
|
Daily Letters | 2 Dec, 2006 04:39:54AM (IST)
My last post was a reply to Mr.Chaitanya.
ADI
XXXXX USA
|
Daily Letters | 2 Dec, 2006 04:37:09AM (IST)
So what the Mughals failed to accomplish, the British succeeded in accomplishing. Commonsense would tell you that the genocidal wars and the wasteful luxury of the Mughal empire would hardly be conducive to GDP growth. You could of course say "did the Hindu empires not wage such war"? The answer would be - " not at the expense of learning and culture. Hindus would not have been as insecure in a Hindu kingdom - imagine what progress we would have achieved if the majority were not pillaged and robbed on a regular basis? Ever heard of the Vijayanagara? "
ADI
XXXXX USA
|
Daily Letters | 1 Dec, 2006 04:34:09PM (IST)
Dear Joseph (Legi?)
When you find a document with the proof that Bharat was named after the King Bharat, there you can read that Bharat varsh referred to his empire, for easy reference search Google.com you can find some references or read Mahabharat.
There is no contradiction, concept of Bharat varsh is referred at the time of 1857 war, when people lived under different royalties.
You are talking about centuries back (100, 200, 1000? any reference since you enjoy proofs), but I am writing with reference to 1857 war and that war was not fought with the aim of achieving a Unified India, otherwise show some proof as I requested before.
And this time read my posting properly before jumping to contradict it.
AMAR
DELHI INDIA
|
|
|
(1 of 10)
|
|
|
|
|
