Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed1857 Indian Mutiny

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Topic: 1857 Indian Mutiny
    Posted: 12-Apr-2012 at 21:09
Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by lirelou

medenaywe. the only problem I see with your last post is that India was so divided before the HEIC arrived, so India's division can hardly be laid at the feet of a conscious British stretegy. Indeed, unconsciously the British did everything the could to unify India. Indeed, modern India exists because of (as well as in spite of) them.  

That is a bit of a stretch considering that India under British rule was still a collection of more or less autonomous princely states. Even in the 1940s when the 'Quit India' movement took off there was no guarantee that the Indian Princely states would accede to a united India. To this end we have the likes of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon to thank, rather than the British.

I thought the British efforts to modernise contributed to India's unification. The Brits introduced railways, electricity and a modern legal system, abolishing the barbaric practise of Sati and suppressing bandits like the Thuggee
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 03:15
Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by lirelou

medenaywe. the only problem I see with your last post is that India was so divided before the HEIC arrived, so India's division can hardly be laid at the feet of a conscious British stretegy. Indeed, unconsciously the British did everything the could to unify India. Indeed, modern India exists because of (as well as in spite of) them.  

That is a bit of a stretch considering that India under British rule was still a collection of more or less autonomous princely states. Even in the 1940s when the 'Quit India' movement took off there was no guarantee that the Indian Princely states would accede to a united India. To this end we have the likes of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon to thank, rather than the British.

I thought the British efforts to modernise contributed to India's unification. The Brits introduced railways, electricity and a modern legal system, abolishing the barbaric practise of Sati and suppressing bandits like the Thuggee

The most important British 'contribution' to India's unification was its indirect contribution to Indian nationalism. The presence of a foreign power which was completely alien to all the residents of the subcontinent helped create a sense of "us and them", which is essential to the formation of any kind of nationalist feeling. Regionalism, which had been the norm of India's political atmosphere throughout much of its history, was greatly sidelined during the British period in favour of the new nationalist spirit.

To this end, another very important British 'contribution' to Indian unification was the English language. English served as a 'link language' for educated Indians from different parts of the subcontinent and allowed Indian nationalists to transcend their regional identities (of which their language was the most important).

The other things that you mentioned, namely the introduction of the railroad, electricity, modern legal/education system, abolition of sati, and suppression of banditry, are very minor in comparison to the above.


Edited by Kakatiya - 13-Apr-2012 at 03:16
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 09:54
Kakatia, I particularly value your replies in that they are from the 'elephant's mouth' so to speak. Yes, the British never sat down to ask themselves "How will this benefit India". I would suggest that another indirect British contribution was the very idea that the state should be responsible to its citizenry, which I believe was also adopted by modern nationalists.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
oxydracae View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 18:19
Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by lirelou

medenaywe. the only problem I see with your last post is that India was so divided before the HEIC arrived, so India's division can hardly be laid at the feet of a conscious British stretegy. Indeed, unconsciously the British did everything the could to unify India. Indeed, modern India exists because of (as well as in spite of) them.  

That is a bit of a stretch considering that India under British rule was still a collection of more or less autonomous princely states. Even in the 1940s when the 'Quit India' movement took off there was no guarantee that the Indian Princely states would accede to a united India. To this end we have the likes of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon to thank, rather than the British.
 
as per some historians it was the Last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, who played a vital role in unifying different princely states with India. (check: India After Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha)
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2012 at 19:16
Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by lirelou

medenaywe. the only problem I see with your last post is that India was so divided before the HEIC arrived, so India's division can hardly be laid at the feet of a conscious British stretegy. Indeed, unconsciously the British did everything the could to unify India. Indeed, modern India exists because of (as well as in spite of) them.  

That is a bit of a stretch considering that India under British rule was still a collection of more or less autonomous princely states. Even in the 1940s when the 'Quit India' movement took off there was no guarantee that the Indian Princely states would accede to a united India. To this end we have the likes of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon to thank, rather than the British.

I thought the British efforts to modernise contributed to India's unification. The Brits introduced railways, electricity and a modern legal system, abolishing the barbaric practise of Sati and suppressing bandits like the Thuggee

The most important British 'contribution' to India's unification was its indirect contribution to Indian nationalism. The presence of a foreign power which was completely alien to all the residents of the subcontinent helped create a sense of "us and them", which is essential to the formation of any kind of nationalist feeling. Regionalism, which had been the norm of India's political atmosphere throughout much of its history, was greatly sidelined during the British period in favour of the new nationalist spirit.

To this end, another very important British 'contribution' to Indian unification was the English language. English served as a 'link language' for educated Indians from different parts of the subcontinent and allowed Indian nationalists to transcend their regional identities (of which their language was the most important).

The other things that you mentioned, namely the introduction of the railroad, electricity, modern legal/education system, abolition of sati, and suppression of banditry, are very minor in comparison to the above.

And who provided the modern education that allowed the Indian nationalists to transcend their regional identites? Like them or hate them, the Brits are the ones responsible for India becoming such a successful superpower
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
oxydracae View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2012 at 08:32
^^ yeah modern 'Repulic of India' is a direct offspring of 'British India'... So almost everything Administration, Education, Industry, Police, Army, Jurisdiction etc are inherited from 'British India'
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2012 at 19:07
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
oxydracae View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2012 at 01:35
Junoon: 1978 Indian movie was the best movie made on 1857 mutiny.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2012 at 20:43
An Indian director made a film about Mangal Pandy recently, but i don't know if it's in English
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2012 at 17:57
Originally posted by Kakatiya

Originally posted by lirelou

medenaywe. the only problem I see with your last post is that India was so divided before the HEIC arrived, so India's division can hardly be laid at the feet of a conscious British stretegy. Indeed, unconsciously the British did everything the could to unify India. Indeed, modern India exists because of (as well as in spite of) them.  

That is a bit of a stretch considering that India under British rule was still a collection of more or less autonomous princely states. Even in the 1940s when the 'Quit India' movement took off there was no guarantee that the Indian Princely states would accede to a united India. To this end we have the likes of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon to thank, rather than the British.


True, further more, upon independence, some of those states didn't initially join the Indian Union, they either joined later, or were annexed by force (Hyderabad was afaik).

Obscure trivia: Due to the acute shortage of English woman in India (who were far too precious a commodity for mere officers, indeed some were sold to local Indian princelings for a tidy sum), Englishmen employed by the HOIC often married local woman, at one point as many as 2/3s had Indian wives. Some even converted to the religion of their wives. During the mutiny, individuals who were cut off and weren't sure what was going on, sometimes sided with the family of their wives in the conflict. This may have insitageted a turning point to British attitudes to race ingeneral and mixed relationships in particular especialy as people with administrative roles were concerned.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2012 at 19:19
The descendents of these Anglo-Indians still live in India today. They're black but have English surnames
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2012 at 11:42
Nick, I've actuallymet a few Anglo-Indians over the years. None of those would have qualified as "Black". I also served with a few Goans (Pinto, Castro, etc) who, while obviously more genetically Indian, were likewise hardly "Black". Any my military dentist in Korea, Colonel (Dr.) Singh, was a Sikh, again hardly "Black". Likewise, my acquaintance from the staff college, LTC Ashtok Mehta (2/5 Gurkhas) was a Punjabi, ergo a Causacian. What is your definition of "Black"?  Perhaps some sub-continental context I am ignorant of?
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2012 at 11:59
I thought Indian people had dark complexions (similar to mixed-race black people like Obama) as Middle Eastern Muslim invaders mixed with the original dark-skinned inhabitants?
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2012 at 13:39
Ben Kingsley and Engelbert Humberdinck are Anglo-Indian, as is Melanie Sykes.
Complexion varies in India in the same way that hair colour varies in Europe, you can have fairly dark and very light in the same family even. But then the country is very diverse.


Edited by Cywr - 25-May-2012 at 13:43
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2012 at 20:06
I see. So the light skinned Indians aren't a tiny elite minority descended from the Muslims?
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2012 at 08:42
Muslims? I thought that old theory assumed pre-agricultural Aryans (which is more plausible given the time frame and population levels of the time). But most probably not.
Besides, weren't the Mughuls central Asian Turkic speakers originally?
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2012 at 19:28
What "old theory" are we talking about Cywr?Confused I'm not much of an expert on Indian history
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2012 at 08:40
The old colonial explanation for why some Indians are light skinned and others are dark skinned was put down to an invasion of people called Aryans (intended meaning probably Iranians or some such).
It had some linguistic merits on the surface but genetics has muddled the waters a lot.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2015 at 14:57
LDRB's post moved to: AE Community Information, News and Announcements.

CV
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.