Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 19 November 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Cultural Influence of the Mutiny

It has been suggested that we have a section about the cultural impact of the Mutiny. This raises a couple of points. A. This section did at one time exists (well one on popular cultural references any way), this was removed, the question in this case would be why was it removed and should it be re-instated? B. Should a section on the impact of the mutiny on society as a whole, including physical memorials. This would (it has been suggested) be a list of the most important or famous. And should this separate (or instead of) the section mentioned above or part of a general cultural impact section? There is also the point that seems to have been made that this section should include works that are about the conflict, and that have had an impact on the development of national identity. I am unsure about cultural impact sections when it come to popular culture, a separate ‘see also’ page might burden the article less, both in terms of likely debate about what should be include and also increasing the length of an already very large article with material that adds very little to understanding the conflict itself. I totally disagree with the idea that we should include material about ‘abouts’ no matter how important in subsequent (and therefore not relevant) events. ]

Section Commented out

I notice that there is a rather large section that has been commented out in the section "Causes of the rebellion" after the para starting Sir Sayyid's critique ... and continues for 8 paragraphs with a subheading "The Bengal Army"

Should this be reinstated - or simply deleted? 155.198.213.124 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Governed by Britain

Please stop reverting my fixes to this part of the introduction to the article. The way it was written before it said that the way India was governed went unchanged between the end of the mutiny and 47 which is just untrue. Reforms were made including rather major ones later on that introduced a Indian parliament. This is not the article to discuss such things however to say as fact something that goes counter to their having happened is not good.--Him and a dog 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course reforms happened but there was never a parliament. I have corrected some spellings and let it remain though. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

India was always (not originally) governed by the India Office and Secretary of State of India, even between 1946 and August 1947, when a provisional government was in place under Nehru. I don't think saying that suggests that there were no reforms. There was (progressively) more democracy for Indians, especially in the provincial assemblies, and the Government of India Act of 1935 did lay the foundation for the future Constitution of (independent) India, but India did not have, for example, the kind of dominion status that Canada achieved in the late 19th century, let alone having a parliament of the kind it had after 1947. I think the "reforms" part (in the lead) is a good idea, but the "originally" should go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just used the wrong word, parliament=assembly. I'm not claiming they were a dominion- not that that actually meant much, Canada was self governing long before that happened.--Him and a dog 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Terror and the events of 1857

There has always been attempts to justify the inhumanity of the British troops in India during the events of 1857 before it and subsequently. The justification is it was a retaliation.

The British had no reason to be in India, at least no reason to be rulers.

So the original provocation was the British presence in India. (Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Of course the British had reason to be in India, there was a lot of money to be made in trade there.

As to that being the original 'provocation'...nah. Even assuming all Indians were utterly opposed to the EIC that goes back way too far. Where will it end? The original provocation was the apes coming down from the trees?--Him and a dog 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The British had a right to be traders. The fact that they became rulers was and is resented by Indians. You can find a parallel in the American occupation of Iraq or German occupation of Scandinavia, Chinese occupation of Tibet etc. Yes, there was money to be made - but there was money to be made everywhere - Thailand, Japan etc. and the British did not become rulers there. Today Apple makes money around the world selling the Ipod - I don't see it occupying a country or raising an army. If it did - it would be able to make a lot more money if it could indulge in wanton exploitation - that was the case with the EIC - and Indians merely retaliated. I recommend you read "The Last Lion" a biography about Churchill and look at described conditions even 40 years after the Rebellion and that was 40 years before Independence - there was great exploitation even then. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about rights?

And no, you won't see a parallel in most of this. The only thing close is China and Tibet but the comparison there would be previous Chinese occupations of Tibet, not the current one. What they're doing now is flooding Tibet with Han and trying to make it a integral part of China which is rather the opposite of the British in India.

And also another no: apple would not make a lot of money running a country. Even the British in the 19th century recognised this, its better just to control the bulk of somewhere's buisness and industry than to go in and take over.--Him and a dog 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Moghuls gave the British rights to be rulers by treaty. Moreover I do not belive (personaly) that killing women and children is ever justified, no matter what the provocation. It could also be pointed out that many Indians (at the time) were not opposed to EIC rule, many actualy supported the continuation of EIC rule with thioer lives.]

Well, without getting into this argument, let me just say that even the ultimate nemesis of British rule in India didn't think that it was as simple as good guys (Indians) and bad guys (Company): Template:Harvard reference. Quote (p.39): "... They came to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted by their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open arms. We assisted them ... †: 'the Company Bahadur': an honorific title by which the East India Company was known among Indians. 'Bahadur' means brave, powerful, sovereign." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We can argue the merits and demerits of the British rule till kingdom come and not see eye to eye. I read something interesting written by Arundhati Roy - the Booker Prize winning Indian author. To quote her "I'll tell you a story. After my book was published, I was on a radio program in England, with two imperial historians who both started speaking about how the British Empire was such a glorious empire. One of them said that if an alien was to come to earth, and was totally neutral, they would have to say that British civilization was one of the world's defining civilizations.

"I had never heard anyone praising the empire. I told myself, don't get into it, it doesn't matter. Then the next one started and said that 'even the fact that your book was written in English is a tribute to the British Empire'. I lost it. I said: 'That is like telling the child of a raped parent that he is a tribute to his father's brutality.' I said: 'My tragedy is that I love English, not hate it, but I will use it in any way I can against you.'"

Also, there has been a massive generational change in India and history books, movies, other outlets of information don't portray a pretty picture of the British Empire and perhaps my views have been affected by it. I am an author of fiction and my current book is set in colonial India which has led me to read a lot of material about those times from a variety of sources and the more I read, the worse I feel about some of the stuff. To quote a memorable line "The only difference between the Bombay Club and the Bengal Club was that the former did not allow Indians and dogs while the later allowed dogs." As an Indian how am I exactly supposed to feel when I read that? TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum and I got carried away - my apologies. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that Arundhati Roy had that experience. However, she's not a historian and her assessment of the British in India is not accurate, and does not jibe with Indian historiography be it old or recent, Indian or British. The verdict on the empire is complicated; its picture has many shades of gray, and it doesn't help to paint it in black and white. That she writes in English is because of the Empire, which spread the English language to its farthest reaches; however, her prize for English fiction was not also an award to the Empire for good behavior, if that was somehow implied by her interlocutors. Sure there was brutality by the British in India, but there were also dedicated British teachers who passed on what was great in English literature (from Wycliffe, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton to Thackeray, Dickens, Conrad, and Lawrence) to their Indian students. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I take this logic forward. I think the following events in the history have the same "shades of gray" 1: It wasn't that bad that Blacks were enslaved and moved out of Africa by Whites. If you compare the per capita income of Blacks in US with that of Africa, I am sure Blacks in US are far richer. They also have access to better resources and got to learn English. The slavery wasn't that bad. 2: If Hitler had not started the genocide, Jewish would have never migrated to US and other countries and the immense wealth and influence and exposure to the world would never have been possible. Also genocide led to ultimate creation of Israel. Genocide wasn't that bad, if you consider all that Jews got out of it. 3: I can go on and on. I can talk about female rights in US and the caste system in India.

No one with a clear mind would agree with these two statements and the reasoning is pretty obvious. A man's institutionalized control of another based on race or gender is absolutely morally reprehensible in the modern world, no matter what. Arundhati objected because for those two English historians British Raj, seemed to be an exception.

However, this reaction by British is quite understandable. The symbol of Queen is still alive. The "glorious" past has huge significance for British identity and they are going to cling on to it as long as they can. Historians will continue to defend the act with whatever they got and the people will get defensive when talked about the morality of the act. If you went back 60 years and asked a White farmer in South of US about slavery, you would have gotten similar reaction. It takes force of a national power to push for these kind of sweeping changes. British sense of history and national pride has a LOT to lose with this admission. I am guessing another 20 years. when some of the old generation will die out and new "facts" are found. For British, the history will be distant and Indians will be too demanding. There will be occasional "deniers" but it will be accepted. Without a Wiki war :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberowl28 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we see similar posts by Desione (talk · contribs)? Compare Cyberowl28 (talk · contribs), and the "apologist" articles in both histories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath and Mishra

I'm not going to revert rsloch's restatement of the Mishra book (and appreciate his attempt to find a reasonable way of framing the Mishra version) but I do think that the text still gives undue weight to Mishra's version of the reprisals. For one thing, the word 'debate' implies that Mishra's views are accepted by at least a reasonable sized minority of the historians out there, and I don't think that that is the case. It would be far better to quote other historians about the validity of Mishra's view than it is to quote his view and leave it at that. If there are no historians who give credence to the Mishra view then, IMHO, it should not be in the article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of this "historian" until five minutes ago. I then did a Google search and found this interview:

These are gazetteers many of which you can find (Full View) on the Google Book Search! Yeah, right, "under MI6 files." What is the gentleman talking about?! I am afraid he is no historian. We are under no mandate to suffer all attempts at "scholarship" gladly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS He is apparently a journalist who use to report on Bollywood before he turned "historian." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Read an article about his work in Hindutan Times once I think or perhaps it was ToI. Never heard of him thereafter and certainly never seen his book at either Crossword or with booksellers selling books at traffic signals. Although I wouldn't hold reporting on Bollywood against him Fowler:) - I feel that you guys are correct in not giving him much credence as a historian. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi

In India the Rani of Jhansi is viewed as a modern-day Joan of Arc - carrying her baby into the battlefield. As is its wont, I guess there might be a bit of an exaggeration. I guess it helps build nationalism in school kids. But how do British historians view her - especially at the time of rebellion and during the Raj? And now as well - has the interpretation changed? TheBlueKnight (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One would have to look up Kaye and Malleson for the immediate post-Mutiny feelings about the Rani, but, by 1904 when Forrest's "History of the Mutiny in 3 volumes" appeared, the Rani was quite a sympathetic figure. I don't have a copy on me for verification but Forrest's seemed to think her honorable, brave, and undone by treachery. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up Kaye and Malleson and (I'm looking at the 1897 edition but assume it isn't substantially different from the original), the Rani is quite a character. Bold, resolute, tactical, lots of respect for the lady. Misplaced Pages's article on the Rani is sorely inadequate. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Unknown-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles