How Indian Troops Became the Backbone of the British Empire

[Carl Johnson]

Thats again rubbish, as 80% of India was controlled by Marathas in 1818 when British won over them by first doing friendship and then attacking India on their back. and the same was true in case of many other countries and they all democratized in mid 20th century, or are still communist. dont argue that British united India...........

80% is exhaggeration. It was more like 60%. And what about moghul territories. Do you think marathas and moghuls would have consented on making present India by merging their respective territories. And assam was not under any of Indian rulers. Uttaranchal , parts of himachal pradesh and north bengal were parts of nepal which were annexed by british. All in all ,there wouldn't have been any India or bharat today had it not for the british rule. We have got this big a country only cuz of britishers. Iam not saying that british rule was good for India .

 

[jetti]

even if british gave money , how can you sell your country for money , that is like your honour going , money is nothing without honour , i would always fight for people who have more things common with me , it could be race , religion , colour i dno something.

no you are wrong.. in those days soldiers from andhra fighting in punjab was like pakistanis going to bahrain and killing shia muslims as it happened a few months ago.
india was not one country in those days.

 

[livingdead]

Those who think Indians who faught for british are traitors are reading history backwards.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

as i said before i would fight for people in common with me atleast , plus ottoman was different , it was a religious empire mainly and the khalifat was the sultan , and many other different things , our aims wasnt to loot other countries , our aims was to spread islam , and conquer mainly christian lands and be the strongest , thats why you can see ottomans never really invaded insignificant countries or war with , always strong empires.

Why do you think british were devil? Simply because they came from a place you are not from?
How is maratha capturing north India or mughal capturing India any different?
India was not a country then, a place of feuding kings, and british were just and addition to it.


I am sure ottoman empire soldiers did not consist of only turks. What would you say to those who faught for you? Sold their soul to you?

People who faught on behalf of their king/queen/leader do not bother about race, religion, color either, they faught because they were recruited to fight.

 

[livingdead]

as i said before i would fight for people in common with me atleast , plus ottoman was different , it was a religious empire mainly and the khalifat was the sultan , and many other different things , our aims wasnt to loot other countries , our aims was to spread islam , and conquer mainly christian lands and be the strongest , thats why you can see ottomans never really invaded insignificant countries or war with , always strong empires.

I am not really sure arabs or people of other muslim areas feel the same about you.
For them, whoever collaborated with you were traitors.
Also, how does it matter what your aim was, if british were colonialist so where ottomans.

About what 'you' will fight for is different from what others will fight for. Many volunteers fought against nazis coming frm far distance places because they though their 'idea' of what is right is in danger.

There are people who faught for communism, ignoring their nationality, race etc, you are not more right than them.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

how is that being a traitor , its like you are more english than indian

Those who think Indians who faught for british are traitors are reading history backwards.

i think you meant to say the opposite in your second sentence , because for you whoever collaborated with them were traitors because some arabs did sell us in WW1 faisal the traitor , to british just like some indians

I am not really sure arabs or people of other muslim areas feel the same about you.
For them, whoever collaborated with you were traitors.
Also, how does it matter what your aim was, if british were colonialist so where ottomans.

 

[LaBong]

can someone explain this to me , i play alot of strategy and war games , i play a game called Empire total war , obviously i pick Ottoman Empire and ruling half of india and much of europe now , but in that game there is 2 factions in india , one is maratha confederancy , and the other mughal empire ( ruled by babur before who is a turk aswell) , and they are pretty strong in the game and its a very realistic game , and usually maratha and mughal is having war in the game ( as their diplomacy in the game aswell and very realistic ) so how did india go into british hands from mughals and maratha

and also these two factions are a major power in the game , along with ottoman , french , prussia , british , dutch , spanish and a few more

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.

 

[livingdead]

^^^ thanks for the detailed reply.

how is that being a traitor , its like you are more english than indian



i think you meant to say the opposite in your second sentence , because for you whoever collaborated with them were traitors because some arabs did sell us in WW1 faisal the traitor , to british just like some indians

No, I was just showing that if your own definition of traitor is used in your case, arabs who collaborated with you(and Indians too) were traitors. Of course I dont subscribe to such view.

BTW, you are not the only one who suffers from 'nationalism' and exceptionalism. I posted a BBC point of view earlier about that, please read it, you may find it fascinating( you need not agree).
BBC News - A Point of View: Don?t mention the war?

 

[LaBong]

When British first set foot in subcontinent, bengal was ruled by independent persianized turks(turks of Central Asian sejluk variety)

Small correction, they were related to Afshar tribe, not Sejluk Turks.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

Most of Mughal leaders and rulers were Turkic.

Also who is mohmud of ghazni , because i read somewhere that hes a turkic ruler that invaded india 17 times , saw this many places.

just looking it up it said that he was the leader of ghaznavids who was turks

and it was Alp Tigin who found ghaznavids who was a central asian Turkic

 

[Indus Pakistan]

how is that being a traitor , its like you are more english than indian

I will give you a better explanation when I get time but have a quick look at the following:-

1 - What was called the 'British Indian Army' was recruited from all over South Asia, from todays Pakistan, todays India and todays Bangladesh. Alll officers were British until late 1930s when some locals were commisioned.

2. - Disproportionate numbers of men were recruited by British from what is now Pakistan and neighbouring areas of India like Indian Punjab, Harayana, Rajasthan etc.

3. The proportion of men from NWFP, now Pakistan, West Punjab, now Pakistan was massive in proportion to this areas population of British India. Only the British know why they preferred men from what is now northern Pakistan, north west India ( Sikhs ) and Gurkhas ( Nepal).

4. The reason why the British managed to take over was simple. there was no single united nation called India. All you had was a Moghul Empire ( itself muslim and of Turkic origin ) enslaving a large area. The Moguls spent lot of energy keeping this huge empire intact because the natives had no empathy for their rulers and rebellions were common.

5. So when the British came they many just switched sides. To them having a British master was no differant to a Moghul in fact if anything the British were less oppressive to the majority Hindus.

6. Most men joined the British Indian Army just for a living. I have to sadly tell you lot of the units that fought against Ottoman Turks in Basra, Iraq were in fact Punjab based regiments and had men from what is now Pakistan. I believe some units did rebel once they found out they were going to fight fellow Muslims.

Just to give you an example of a man who fought in this 'British Indian Army' was Sepoy Haider Ali who won the Victoria Cross in WW2 fighting the Germans in Italy, the highest British award for bravery. This chap was from the Frontier Force Rifles [ today a Pakistan Army regiment ] which was recruited predominantly from NWFP, Pakistan.

Ali Haidar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obituary
ALI HAIDAR VC

 

[scrumpy]

4. The reason why the British managed to take over was simple. thee was no single united nation called India. all you had was a Moghul Empire ( itself muslim and of Turkic origin ) enslaving a large area. The Moguls spent lot of energy kkeping this huge empire intact because the natives had no empathy for their rulers.

5. So when the British came they many just switched sides. To them having a British master was no differant to a Moghul in fact if anything te British were less oppressive to the majority Hindus.

By the time the British became a force in India, they Moghul empire was already dead.
The Maratha empire under the Peshwas which was primarily responsible for the destruction of the Moghul Empire. The final nail was driven by Nadir Shah in 1739.
Nader Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of Plasey which won Britain control of Bengal itself happened in 1757.
Britain gained control of most of India after the Anglo Maratha wars which took place in 1777, 1803, 1817.

 

[Yeti]

Mankind would do anything to surive the British created mass famine and did not let us even grow our own crops! now of course some Indians fought for the Brits they got paid and their bellies filled hence the term divide and conquer.

 

[MST]

It is a fact that Indian Nationalism did not exist till 19th century. But to say that Indian Nationalism came into being only because of British is just wrong. We could have taken a route similar to the rise of nationalism in Europe. And with the flow of trade and ideas I believe the idea of Nationalism would have come sooner to India had we not been under British occupation. The pan Indian Nationalism happened in our case for opposing British but to lose of 25% of world GDP is a huge price to pay for it. British occupation will always be a shameful chapter in the history of India.

2. - Disproportionate numbers of men were recruited by British from what is now Pakistan and neighbouring areas of India like Indian Punjab, Harayana, Rajasthan etc.

It was predominantly the Men from Bengal, Bihar and Audh that won the Company the crown of India including Punjab and most of present day Pakistan. And these were also the men who primarily fought in the first war of Independence. After the defeat these areas were off limit to recruitment. And this bias continues even today in Indian Army.

3. The proportion of men from NWFP, now Pakistan, West Punjab, now Pakistan was massive in proportion to this areas population of British India. Only the British know why they preferred men from what is now northern Pakistan, north west India ( Sikhs ) and Gurkhas ( Nepal).

Because Armies from these areas supported the British in the first war of Independence and they were rewarded for this. Its not something to be be very proud of it.

4. The reason why the British managed to take over was simple. there was no single united nation called India. All you had was a Moghul Empire ( itself muslim and of Turkic origin ) enslaving a large area. The Moguls spent lot of energy keeping this huge empire intact because the natives had no empathy for their rulers and rebellions were common.

5. So when the British came they many just switched sides. To them having a British master was no differant to a Moghul in fact if anything the British were less oppressive to the majority Hindus.

Really? Have you ever heard about the War of Independence fought in 1857? Hindus-Muslims fought together under Bahadur Shah Jafar. I know you guys need to see that Hindus are evil and backstabbed muslim rulers all the time (to justify your existence I guess) but at least read the history properly and respect it. Its your history too.

 

[livingdead]

^^^ 1857 was not war of Independence. It was mutiny by sepoys, they knew nothing about nationalism or independence. Some princely states got involved due to their own reason, I dont think they were thinking of 'India' either.