How Did 100 000 Englishmen Rule Over 300 Million Indians

[albcan]

what type of divide and rule policies were used

what kept Indians from uniting and easily over throwing the british

why did many Indians fight for the british in helping the british and upper class Indians exploit poor

why did so many Sikhs fight for the british when it would of bin easier to over throw the british then fight for them in world war 1

[amar_jkp]

Why dont you asked why so many Hindus fought for British ? instead you wrote Indians and then you asked why Sikhs fought for British, i take this that Sikhs were not Indians

[amar_jkp]

We have one more psycho Hindu here .

[PAL 07]

One of the tricks the British used was to employ Indians in the Police and Army and junior Govt positions, so that the face of imperialism was not so obvious.

[albcan]

amar_jkp you are an idiot I am not a hindu

but why did Indians fight loyally for the british including muslims hindus rather then freedom

pal I love your explanation as well as did the british divide and rule policies for example picking martial races and treating them well help the british win the loyalty of so many indians

it was Indians used to exploit other Indians for the british

the british east indian companies military was 96% indian when the 4 wars happened with mysore empire and the 3 wars with the Maratha empire and the 2 wars with the Sikh empire

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

One of the tricks the British used was to employ Indians in the Police and Army and junior Govt positions, so that the face of imperialism was not so obvious.

Point is there was no unity as is being propagated by the Hindu Taliban today. Sikhs saw themselves as being far different to the mutineers who probably had the same perception.

[kdsingh80]

The answers are very simple

1) India was hardly a united country .It was always more similar to Europe

2) The large population of India , Hindu were not free before Britishers They were already ruled by Foreign muslims .So occupation under Britishers was even better in some places.

3)Britishers were scientifically much more advanced than Indian kingdoms.India was way behind Britishers in science and technology

[JungChamkaur]

India's subjugation by foreign powers was never direct. There was always a comprador class/civil society (gramsci) that fostered foreign rule. No one has ever ruled India without the help of a comprador class. People that have been ruled without a comprador class are Native Canadians/Americans, South American Indigenous peoples etc. Normal Indians never had problems with each other. The problems were between Rulers. Likewise, no foreign government ruled without the support of a comprador class. For a country like India, this is impossible. Perhaps, in some places there was direct rule, but in most places the administrative civil society was Indian. It is similar to how Badal rules today; Sikhs have formed their own civil society that works in accordance with the ruling class' objectives. For example: the Kathgarh Sardars are now completely engrossed in the exploitative system of capitalism in Punjab. Many old Sikh families of prestige have actually been incorporated into the system. However, this civil society was threatened by the organic voice of Sant Bhindranwale. The civil society of Sikhs (police, judges, lawyers, teachers etc) did not understand or want to understand the grievances of the farmers and proletariat class and because many of these civil society members came from traditional ruling families, many Sikhs were led to believe that SantJi was in the wrong. Our old ruling families served as examples of legitimacy of the exploitative state. Any honest scholar of colonialism can attest to these facts.

Also, this idea that the Sikhs did not join the mutiny because of their differences with the mutineers is a bunch of bullocks. The Sikhs that sided with the British were traitors like Maharaja Patiala (the same house who allied with Abdali and destroyed Maharaja Ranjit Singh). Many Sikhs did join the mutiny and many did not. The reasons given by people trying to cover up their shame do not add up because of the Patiala example. This one example is enough to make losers like AMARJEET shutup and sneer. However, ill give more. Saying "Sikhs" the so-callled HOMOGENOUS UNITED GROUP OF PUNJAB, did not ally with the mutineers because of their ethnic differences is stupid because the British were white.... you cant get any different than that, so it makes no sense. The other thing is that many tribes in Punjab have fought each other like the Bhattis and Sidhus (who are Kin), yet they united at many occasions and fought outsiders (esp when they both became Khalsay). So trying to justify the treachery of many Sikhs is like Rajputs trying to justify their allegiances with the Mughals as their tribes also had many conflicts with each other. Just because you dont get along with your cousin doesnt mean you ally yourself with the white guy down the street to teach your cousin a lesson.

Edited April 25, 2014 by JungChamkaur

[Genie Singh]

what type of divide and rule policies were used

what kept Indians from uniting and easily over throwing the british

why did many Indians fight for the british in helping the british and upper class Indians exploit poor

why did so many Sikhs fight for the british when it would of bin easier to over throw the british then fight for them in world war 1

The division had already been implanted from a thousand years of Muhammedens calling everyone kaffirs and acting out their zealous, bigoted contempt, the division wasn't as present between the kaffir groups. The caste system maybe, but it's still a part of Independent India's lifetime. We can't hear of many communal disruptions between Sikh and Hindu groups in pre-british India, the worst cases were between Hindu brahmins such as Chandu, Sucha Nand(chuta nand) and Sikhs, that was mainly a caste based dispute aswell as the abrogation of the hindu priest class the lack of donations did touch a nerve for some.

Whenever any group has a common goal and enemy they will unite but as soon as that's out of the way chaos can occur, which it seems had. Besides that it was an effort by some Sikhs to spear head the independence movement which seems to have taken us back in my opinion from good administration to an entirely corrupt country.

Many Indians believed in the British cause, many empathized with such causes for example when it came to Subas Bose trying to back communism and create an army for the SS of Indians, Sikhs denied, they didn't believe in betraying the british, their cause or backing a racist which didn't fit the Sikh ethos or message. The British in winning their rule were different to the Mughals in a couple of ways, such as realizing the importance to win the hearts and minds of people. There were some racists among the British that probably did their best to severe that relationship and that was something that went for the independence movement. Gandhi famously is known for sitting in a 1st class train in british India and being kicked out, being told no Indians allowed and Gandhi protested that in his country, he can't buy a ticket and sit in a first class train. An apartheid like that probably struct some peoples hearts as a need to remove the british.

Many Indians fought for the British because some were inherited by the british during their take over, then their descendants remained in the profession, the british paid a good wage to their soldiers, treated them fine, and their was no dole back then or not many options for a livelihood trade. When it came to World War 1 I heard the british recruited people by force they took a lot of able men from pretty much every family in Punjab it seems those who declined would have been arrested and it wasn't mostly a choice. I may be wrong but I don't think everyone enlisted by choice.

Rich Indians still exploit the poor, if they didn't they would be paying more for services and products, rich Indians are still miser and people believe being miser makes you rich. Cheap goods and services are a pro for Indians, besides which if they declined purchasing goods and services of the poor the gap may get worse between rich and poor. The "exploitation" might be a way to lessen the gap of rich and poor, if more poor people are employees they would earn livelihoods and may have the potential to go up the career ladder from newer skills learnt.

There aren't many opportunities in India as there are in the western world for development in your career or learning and that's one of the differences in it's economy. There are some rich who probably undercut the poor causing greater harm to them but what can you do, alot of things in India aren't done by the book, with a minimum wage basis or with national security numbers or through proper taxation most businesses run cash in hand.

Well with the mess we see in Gurdwara politics it doesn't seem that easy to overthrow the british and run the nation yourself but people did try, someone like Bhagat Singh was part of the revolution but they didn't anticipate the ruling part as they did the dying for the cause part. Treason was dealt seriously in that period, people would be hanged and many were hanged, but after a huge struggle and fight Sikhs sucessfully handed themselves to the mercy of the feet of the Nehru family to be their slaves, the slaves of their friends and family. So after all the difficulty of the Mughal empire, defeating invasions of Afghans establishing a small empire for a small period of time, to a better british empire to trying to gain emancipation only to be taken over by corrupt Indians under the guise of democracy. We still have further to go to carve better democracy and in our diaspora some tell us to forget it we don't belong to India anymore and it isn't our concern.

Some don't speak about this much but their were other european colonies in India such as French regions, Dutch regions, Portuguese, Danish. Goa I think was one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India

Edited April 25, 2014 by JatherdarSahib

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

India's subjugation by foreign powers was never direct. There was always a comprador class/civil society (gramsci) that fostered foreign rule. No one has ever ruled India without the help of a comprador class. People that have been ruled without a comprador class are Native Canadians/Americans, South American Indigenous peoples etc. Normal Indians never had problems with each other. The problems were between Rulers. Likewise, no foreign government ruled without the support of a comprador class. For a country like India, this is impossible. Perhaps, in some places there was direct rule, but in most places the administrative civil society was Indian. It is similar to how Badal rules today; Sikhs have formed their own civil society that works in accordance with the ruling class' objectives. For example: the Kathgarh Sardars are now completely engrossed in the exploitative system of capitalism in Punjab. Many old Sikh families of prestige have actually been incorporated into the system. However, this civil society was threatened by the organic voice of Sant Bhindranwale. The civil society of Sikhs (police, judges, lawyers, teachers etc) did not understand or want to understand the grievances of the farmers and proletariat class and because many of these civil society members came from traditional ruling families, many Sikhs were led to believe that SantJi was in the wrong. Our old ruling families served as examples of legitimacy of the exploitative state. Any honest scholar of colonialism can attest to these facts.

Also, this idea that the Sikhs did not join the mutiny because of their differences with the mutineers is a bunch of bullocks. The Sikhs that sided with the British were traitors like Maharaja Patiala (the same house who allied with Abdali and destroyed Maharaja Ranjit Singh). Many Sikhs did join the mutiny and many did not. The reasons given by people trying to cover up their shame do not add up because of the Patiala example. This one example is enough to make losers like AMARJEET shutup and sneer. However, ill give more. Saying "Sikhs" the so-callled HOMOGENOUS UNITED GROUP OF PUNJAB, did not ally with the mutineers because of their ethnic differences is stupid because the British were white.... you cant get any different than that, so it makes no sense. The other thing is that many tribes in Punjab have fought each other like the Bhattis and Sidhus (who are Kin), yet they united at many occasions and fought outsiders (esp when they both became Khalsay). So trying to justify the treachery of many Sikhs is like Rajputs trying to justify their allegiances with the Mughals as their tribes also had many conflicts with each other. Just because you dont get along with your cousin doesnt mean you ally yourself with the white guy down the street to teach your cousin a lesson.

I will desist from being a ribald fool like you and instead answer you as politely as a buffon of your calibre can be answered. My comment doesn't mention anything about All Sikhs in case your eyeballs failed you at that point. There was no overall national unity in India as is being propagated today. The very notion of a United Indian state, composed of all it's castes and creeds did not even exist then. A majority of Sikhs viewed themselves as being different from the rest of India, and let us not forget that the same soldiers who instigated the mutiny were themselves instrumental in the fall of the Sikh empire. And since when did Abdali (1722-1772) destroy Maharajah Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), with Ala Singh's (1691-1765) aid? There time periods were varied and years apart. And again the Sikhs got the best of the Afghans in the post-Abdali period. On the second hand so what if Sikhs united with the British to suppress the mutiny? It was retaliation towards the soliders who had brought about the fall of their kingdom. Secondly how many Sikhs can you name who actually took an active part in the mutiny? Even the Nihungs stood aside and formed a pact with the British immediately after the mutiny. You give Patiala as a prime example of Sikhs siding with the British I will go one further. Gulab Singh of the fractured Shahida Misl assisted in suppressing the mutiny, the descendants of Fateh Singh Alhuwalia played an important role in suppressing the mutiny and there are many more examples. This is not a shameful episode as idiots like you point out, but one of political self-interests. Even amongst the Marathas, and the Rajputs not many were interested in assisting the mutineers. What did they stand to gain by subduing the British? A return to Islamic dominated rule once more?

"In the light of the available evidence, we are forced to the conclusion," says Maulana Abul Kalam Azad [india's first Minister of Education and a scholar in his own right], "that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful planning, nor were there any master-minds behind it ... As I read about the events of 1857, I am forced to the conclusion," he continues, "that the Indian national character had sunk very low. The leaders of the revolt could never agree. They were mutually jealous and continually intrigued against one another ... In fact these personal jealousies and intrigues were largely responsible for the Indian defeat."

On the authority of the Bidrohi Bengali of Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya, an eye-witness, Dr. Majumdar tells us: "the demon of communalism also raised its head. The Muslims spat over the Hindus and openly defiled their houses by sprinkling them with cows' blood and placing cows' bones within the compounds. Concrete instances are given where Hindu sepoys came into clash with Muslim hooligans and a complete riot ensued. The Hindus, oppressed by the Muslims, were depressed at the success of the Mutiny, and daily offered prayers to God for the return of 'the English.' " This was the foretaste of the feared revival of the Muslim rule.

In spite of this all, if some people wish to live in a state of hallucination and believe that there was a complete friendly understanding and great communal harmony between Muslims and Hindus at all stages in the Mutiny, they are most welcome to do so, but they should not expect a student of history to be one with them. Past history has to be recorded as it was and not as we wish it to be presented a century afterwards. It cannot be written to order, or molded and remolded, according to the changing times.

I also don't understand why your kind reserves such pathological shame for yourselves, when the mutiny is brought up.

If we cast a glance at the mutineers we see their nucleus being composed of:

Remnants of the Mughal empire, and those too pulled out towards the end of the mutiny.

Gwalior entities.

Jhansi (and that too because it's queen had been deposed by the British).

Forces of Nana Sahib Peshwa.

The Prince of Oudh, hoping to reclaim his prior status before his father was deposed by the British.

Feudal landowners of Oudh and Islamic radicals.

We cast a glance at the suppressors we see:

Ajaigarh.

Alwar.

Bharatpur.

Bhopal.

Bijawar.

Bikaner.

Bundi.

Hyderabad.

Jaipur.

Jaora.

Kapurthala.

Kashmir.

Kendujhar.

Marwar.

Nabha.

Patiala.

Rampur.

Rewa.

Sirmur.

Sirohi.

Udaipur.

Nepal.

I will give you this much that probably the first Indian to raise arms against the British was Bhai Maharaj Singh, in the aftermath of who an uneasy peace existed between both British and Sikhs. And to borrow the only intelligent thing you managed to vomit, a massive divide existed between the government employed professionals and the agriculturalist proletariat. And once more how many Sikhs can you name or count who actively participated in the mutiny and fought against the British? The fact that you reserve such a pathological misery at the role of the Sikhs during this episode of history, proves that you cannot name one Sikh who fought along with his beloved cousins.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Amarjeet Singh_1737

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

I will desist from being a ribald fool like you and instead answer you as politely as a buffon of your calibre can be answered. My comment doesn't mention anything about All Sikhs in case your eyeballs failed you at that point. There was no overall national unity in India as is being propagated today. The very notion of a United Indian state, composed of all it's castes and creeds did not even exist then. A majority of Sikhs viewed themselves as being different from the rest of India, and let us not forget that the same soldiers who instigated the mutiny were themselves instrumental in the fall of the Sikh empire. And since when did Abdali (1722-1772) destroy Maharajah Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), with Ala Singh's (1691-1765) aid? There time periods were varied and years apart. And again the Sikhs got the best of the Afghans in the post-Abdali period. On the second hand so what if Sikhs united with the British to suppress the mutiny? It was retaliation towards the soliders who had brought about the fall of their kingdom. Secondly how many Sikhs can you name who actually took an active part in the mutiny? Even the Nihungs stood aside and formed a pact with the British immediately after the mutiny. You give Patiala as a prime example of Sikhs siding with the British I will go one further. Gulab Singh of the fractured Shahida Misl assisted in suppressing the mutiny, the descendants of Fateh Singh Alhuwalia played an important role in suppressing the mutiny and there are many more examples. This is not a shameful episode as idiots like you point out, but one of political self-interests. Even amongst the Marathas, and the Rajputs not many were interested in assisting the mutineers. What did they stand to gain by subduing the British? A return to Islamic dominated rule once more?

"In the light of the available evidence, we are forced to the conclusion," says Maulana Abul Kalam Azad [india's first Minister of Education and a scholar in his own right], "that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful planning, nor were there any master-minds behind it ... As I read about the events of 1857, I am forced to the conclusion," he continues, "that the Indian national character had sunk very low. The leaders of the revolt could never agree. They were mutually jealous and continually intrigued against one another ... In fact these personal jealousies and intrigues were largely responsible for the Indian defeat."

On the authority of the Bidrohi Bengali of Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya, an eye-witness, Dr. Majumdar tells us: "the demon of communalism also raised its head. The Muslims spat over the Hindus and openly defiled their houses by sprinkling them with cows' blood and placing cows' bones within the compounds. Concrete instances are given where Hindu sepoys came into clash with Muslim hooligans and a complete riot ensued. The Hindus, oppressed by the Muslims, were depressed at the success of the Mutiny, and daily offered prayers to God for the return of 'the English.' " This was the foretaste of the feared revival of the Muslim rule.

In spite of this all, if some people wish to live in a state of hallucination and believe that there was a complete friendly understanding and great communal harmony between Muslims and Hindus at all stages in the Mutiny, they are most welcome to do so, but they should not expect a student of history to be one with them. Past history has to be recorded as it was and not as we wish it to be presented a century afterwards. It cannot be written to order, or molded and remolded, according to the changing times.

I also don't understand why your kind reserves such pathological shame for yourselves, when the mutiny is brought up.

If we cast a glance at the mutineers we see their nucleus being composed of:

Remnants of the Mughal empire, and those too pulled out towards the end of the mutiny.

Gwalior entities.

Jhansi (and that too because it's queen had been deposed by the British).

Forces of Nana Sahib Peshwa.

The Prince of Oudh, hoping to reclaim his prior status before his father was deposed by the British.

Feudal landowners of Oudh and Islamic radicals.

We cast a glance at the suppressors we see:

Ajaigarh.

Alwar.

Bharatpur.

Bhopal.

Bijawar.

Bikaner.

Bundi.

Hyderabad.

Jaipur.

Jaora.

Kapurthala.

Kashmir.

Kendujhar.

Marwar.

Nabha.

Patiala.

Rampur.

Rewa.

Sirmur.

Sirohi.

Udaipur.

Nepal.

A majority of our beloved countrymen did not even give a fig about the movement. It only became a symbolic rallying point in the latter colonial-native conflict.

I will give you this much that probably the first Indian to raise arms against the British was Bhai Maharaj Singh, in the aftermath of who an uneasy peace existed between both British and Sikhs. And to borrow the only intelligent thing you managed to vomit, a massive divide existed between the government employed professionals and the agriculturalist proletariat. And once more how many Sikhs can you name or count who actively participated in the mutiny and fought against the British? The fact that you reserve such a pathological misery at the role of the Sikhs during this episode of history, proves that you cannot name one Sikh who fought along with his beloved cousins.

'Normal Indians never had a problem with each other.' What a surprise. Edited April 25, 2014 by Amarjeet Singh_1737

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

The division had already been implanted from a thousand years of Muhammedens calling everyone kaffirs and acting out their zealous, bigoted contempt, the division wasn't as present between the kaffir groups. The caste system maybe, but it's still a part of Independent India's lifetime. We can't hear of many communal disruptions between Sikh and Hindu groups in pre-british India, the worst cases were between Hindu brahmins such as Chandu, Sucha Nand(chuta nand) and Sikhs, that was mainly a caste based dispute aswell as the abrogation of the hindu priest class the lack of donations did touch a nerve for some.

Whenever any group has a common goal and enemy they will unite but as soon as that's out of the way chaos can occur, which it seems had. Besides that it was an effort by some Sikhs to spear head the independence movement which seems to have taken us back in my opinion from good administration to an entirely corrupt country.

Many Indians believed in the British cause, many empathized with such causes for example when it came to Subas Bose trying to back communism and create an army for the SS of Indians, Sikhs denied, they didn't believe in betraying the british, their cause or backing a racist which didn't fit the Sikh ethos or message. The British in winning their rule were different to the Mughals in a couple of ways, such as realizing the importance to win the hearts and minds of people. There were some racists among the British that probably did their best to severe that relationship and that was something that went for the independence movement. Gandhi famously is known for sitting in a 1st class train in british India and being kicked out, being told no Indians allowed and Gandhi protested that in his country, he can't buy a ticket and sit in a first class train. An apartheid like that probably struct some peoples hearts as a need to remove the british.

Many Indians fought for the British because some were inherited by the british during their take over, then their descendants remained in the profession, the british paid a good wage to their soldiers, treated them fine, and their was no dole back then or not many options for a livelihood trade. When it came to World War 1 I heard the british recruited people by force they took a lot of able men from pretty much every family in Punjab it seems those who declined would have been arrested and it wasn't mostly a choice. I may be wrong but I don't think everyone enlisted by choice.

Rich Indians still exploit the poor, if they didn't they would be paying more for services and products, rich Indians are still miser and people believe being miser makes you rich. Cheap goods and services are a pro for Indians, besides which if they declined purchasing goods and services of the poor the gap may get worse between rich and poor. The "exploitation" might be a way to lessen the gap of rich and poor, if more poor people are employees they would earn livelihoods and may have the potential to go up the career ladder from newer skills learnt.

There aren't many opportunities in India as there are in the western world for development in your career or learning and that's one of the differences in it's economy. There are some rich who probably undercut the poor causing greater harm to them but what can you do, alot of things in India aren't done by the book, with a minimum wage basis or with national security numbers or through proper taxation most businesses run cash in hand.

Well with the mess we see in Gurdwara politics it doesn't seem that easy to overthrow the british and run the nation yourself but people did try, someone like Bhagat Singh was part of the revolution but they didn't anticipate the ruling part as they did the dying for the cause part. Treason was dealt seriously in that period, people would be hanged and many were hanged, but after a huge struggle and fight Sikhs sucessfully handed themselves to the mercy of the feet of the Nehru family to be their slaves, the slaves of their friends and family. So after all the difficulty of the Mughal empire, defeating invasions of Afghans establishing a small empire for a small period of time, to a better british empire to trying to gain emancipation only to be taken over by corrupt Indians under the guise of democracy. We still have further to go to carve better democracy and in our diaspora some tell us to forget it we don't belong to India anymore and it isn't our concern.

Some don't speak about this much but their were other european colonies in India such as French regions, Dutch regions, Portuguese, Danish. Goa I think was one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India

'Warrior Saints' mentions that the British also keenly initiated amrit sanchar ceremonies for their Sikh soldiers. That and other religious factors also played a part in winning a portion of Sikh hearts and minds. Rebels such as Baba Sahib Singh Ji Kaladhari and Bhai Randhir Singh were also once employed by the British.