@MaverickOnTheMoon True, If Emperor Jehangir had not granted permission for trade to the British and made them leave India, India would have still been under the Mughal Empire but again I doubt this because there were also Hindu Uprising everywhere and Mughal Empire was slowly beginning to decline.
No British would have given Indian Empires a chance to rise and Indian Empires would probably have expanded more into Middle East & South East Asia, But well, History always has its own way..
india was not united..every1 attacked and revolted against british for their own reasons and wishes..no1 cared for indipendence..every1 was caring only about themselves..thx for the video..indipendent india!!LONG LIVE INDIA BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY!!
@sincibie with all due respect the sepoy rebellion and civil disturbances of 1857 was not a war of Indian independance.It only happened in central India and an independent India was not its intent.Also the behaviour of the protagonists was horriffic with the massacre of civilians and people who had surrendered.The British were as bad in response but regardless this event should not be a source of pride.I would no more support these people who conducted war without morals than i would the talibs.
Re: 1857 rebellion: If they had succeeded, would India (an India as unitary state w/ something approximating its present borders) have suceeded in becoming a modern state? I have to doubt it. The princelings of India would most certainly have fallen to quarrelling. The various communities in their various centers of populations would have gone in seperate directions. I have to think other imperial powers would have exploited the British vacuum. Maybe a Russian extension into India.
@VictorLepanto: That's true dat, had 1857 War succeeded, there might not have been immidiate evolution of India as an individiual political entity but it wud have evolved as as a Great Region of same ethose, heritage and race somewhat like present day europe, and eventually this Great Indian Region wud have united under single entity like a Federation as europe did after centuries of bitter and bloody hostility within that which had imposed even 2 world wars over the world.
@VictorLepanto: (CONT) and if 1957 had succeeded, the Greater Indian (or as you call it the Indian Subcontinent) wud not have sufferred its partition which always remained a major roadblock in comprehensive development of the region. And, you agree it or not, partition was more or less a brainchild of Britain, playing dirty divisive politics. Britained started playing this divisive Hindu-Muslim game just after they witnessed how both of the communities came together in 1857.
@sincibie: & the Hindus & Muslims were all lovey-dovey, snuggling happily in bed together? I don't think so. You can make dry wood burn, you can't make water burn. There had to be something thre for the British to exploit. Why, after all these years, does so-called P-stan cont. to fall for this supposed British dirty trick? India was not a land of happiness & universal love b/f the British came along, it is not reasonable to blame all India's continuing troubles on them.
@VictorLepanto: After Aurangzeb's decline, Hindus & Muslims of India living together with almost harmony everywhere... but basically they were different religions and Britain instrumented this for their success.. else u tell me why in every policy, britain created division.. they never created universal policies that cud bring India under single umbrella.. but they made flames out of diamonds by turning them first in to coal. Till 1700, 25% of world's GDP came from India..but what did in 1947???
@VictorLepanto(CONT): just after 1857 only, britained sowed the seeds of Hindu-Muslim divide inorder to destroy the most fundamental social fabric of India. Britain created separated universities, separated laws, separated news papers, separated sporting teams, separated political parties of hindus and muslims and keep playing its disgiusting divisive politics.
The whole subcontinent can never forgive britain for its social atrocities over the people of the Greater India....
@sincibie(CONT): and u talked about Russia..... tell me one instance when pre 1980, when did Russian Empire or USSR shown interest in the sub continent and that too in 1980s it invaded Afghanistan to avoid US dominance over the Af-pak region... so please dont talk anything which sound abysmal...
@sincibie: You gotta be kidding. You are innocent of the Russians having any imperial ambitions in India? Have you never heard of the "Great game?" There is a book you should read, The World Was Going Our Way. About the revelations of a KGB archivist, who defected w/ copies most of the KGB's secret records. Believe me, the post independent gov't of India was practically a Soviet Raj. Why do you think India has only begun to take economically AFTER the Soviet collapse?
@VictorLepanto: Well... When China was providing weapons to Pakistan (Not P-stan), US was continuously influencing Pakistan, we already had two wars( 1962, 1965), no help from any NATO... what cud have India done else inclining towards USSR which provided much needed weapons, training and education.. Socialistic idealogy of early govts of India also helped in the tilt towards USSR..
Had USSR not helped India in 1971, US wud have attacked India through its warship which US sent to Bay of Bengal.
@sincibie: You say potato, I say P-stan. The U.S. bribed up some goons in the P-stan gov't to let us run CIA bases there. We had to to keep Stalin & his ilk from blowing up our cities. If India had followed its natural economic interests in the Nehru years, we would have had CIA bases & way more in India. Believe me, P-stan was a booby prize. But, if you read The World Was Going Our Way (that is going the Soviet's way), you'll see why that was impossible.
@VictorLepanto (CONTD): and due to Socialist Ideologies, India opened its economy only in 1992 when it witnessed the fall of the USSR... and then only India catched the Economic Expressway...
@sincibie: My very point. India was practically in the Warsaw Pact. Atleast my Slavic kinsmen in E. Europe had the excuse of being "liberated" by Stalin @ the end of WWII. In Poland's case they were re-liberated. You really need to read TWWGOW. It is quite enlightening. Many "leaders" of India were Soviet tools. India finally took off economically, but U.S. allies like Taiwan, Korea, these took off decades ago.
It is strange how Moslems are always peaceful, in the past.
@VictorLepanto: Early Leaders of India might be Soviet inclined but that was understanble as India was supposed to be socialist nation after the independence.. untill 1992 when the USSR collapsed, India was almost a Socialist Republic, so quite understandable the its penchant for the USSR.. but the point is India never became Communist Block of Asia like half of the estern europe.... When E-Block of Europe still struggling after 1992 collapse, India emerged with gr8 power and dat indicates truth
@VictorLepanto: and moreover India was not that kind of Soviet tool as today UK is A**-rican tool... India did not sent her soldiers to Afghan during Soviet Invation to Afghan... but UK licks the a** of USA whatever it does.. whther Afghan-Iraq or Iran....
I wud like to suggest if u respect others, u wll get respect frm others..
if u keep on saying P-tan, we wud also devise many terms for your countries...
Pak is part of d Great Subcontinent n i cant tolerate its disgrace by a third national
@sincibie: What prob. do you have w/ abbreviations? Only so much space in a Youtube comments section. & you're quite funny talking about respecting others w/ one breath & talking about ass licking in the next. I have to wonder how old you are. Besides the attitude, you are quite ignorant of recent history. India was the Soviet's most vigorous apologist on the Af-stan invasion. I think that the Soviet arms industry would have gone broke w/o sales to India. Go read The World Was Going Our Way.
@sincibie: If India hadn't insisted on (rather if Nehru et al hadn't insisted on making India run) running w/ Russia, it would most certainly have run w/ the U.S. To the far greater benefit of India. India would have taken off in the 60s, like Korea, Taiwan & Japan did. It would have been far easier for the U.S. to back up Tibet. India would have enjoyed an excellent buffer b/t it & P.R.O.C. It wasn't the U.S. which rejected India. Nehru never intended to allow India to be allied w/ the U.S.
@VictorLepanto: Apologies for late reply. It's truly fortunate and wonderful that India dint ally w/ US, else we wud hv seeing CIA bases in India. Shall I laugh wen u say only US allies did better. I nvr seen China allying w/ US rather it always bullies, still it's turning up d most powerful nation. Pakistan allied w/ US, we can see its condition, Taiwan running w/ US for 50 years, still entire world even does not recognize it, S Korea ran w/ US, 2day it has more bases of US army then its own...
@sincibie: Taiwan was an economic dynamo when India was languishing under Nehru & Gandhian economic folly. If India had allied itself w/ the U.S., we would have had a free hand to aid Tibet & you'd have the Kingdom of Tibet as an effective buffer between you & the PRC. Nehru thought Mao would remaina toady of Stalin rather then strike an independent path once in power. That is why he didn't help Tibet when it could have mattered. Those CIA bases would've been in Tibet, w/ India crews also.
@VictorLepanto: had we follwing Gandhian Ecnomic Policies, India wud nt hv been witnessing d present differences in riches n poors.
True, 1 mistake dat we did is to blindly believe Mao... but allying w/ US wud mean CIA bases in Tibet n India n that is/was totally unacceptable, nyways Lama's Rule in Tibet wud nt have hlped either in its devlpment n we cudnt see its ovr-depndnce ovr US lik helples Korea/Japan/Pakistan.
Atlest, we dared to hv Lama here, bt US refusd 2 evn meet him wen he visted der
@sincibie: It was the CIA which financed & equipped the Tibetan resistance up until the '70s. If we had further support from India, Chinese rule of Tibet would have been impossilbe, & any rule would have been preferable to Mao. Why would an American (hardly just the CIA) in India have been "unacceptable?" Both Nehru & his daughter (the Ghandi I was talking about) were complete toadies for Russia. The economic positions of Korea, Japan, or Taiwan hardly seem "helpless."
we indian are the king of India and one DAY WE WILL REGAIL OUR WEALTH AND PROSPERITY BECAUSE NOW WE ARE UNITED AND WE ARE NOW FIRST INDIAN. I PROUD TO BE AN INDIAN.JAI HIND.
First, to avoid receiving abuse as I have done from Indians merely for being an Englishman, I would like to declare myself an Indian-phile (if there is such a word), who is not pro-Empire, and is also excited by the rise of the independent India, which will be a far greater power than China. My point was not that there was anywhere where no single act took place. I meant that the whole of India was not united against Britain. Kashmir, Bikaner, Hyderabad and some others were allied to Britain...
@omsct : U r true at some parts that some princely states either remained neutral or allied to Britain, but that their attempts to stay in power no matter like puppets. But the real India is/was constituted by her real people or common people and those were severly suffering and it was their voiced which was raised by 1857 Freedom War.
At that time, there was no concept of United India as an invidual political entity but it was region/land of same ethos/faiths/race.
(contd): Had India been got independence in 1857, u would not be seeing India as a country but u would have seen India like Europe where many small states share common heritage and subsequently whole of India would unite as a greater federation by the time India would have reached 1950-60.
Partition will always remain a roadblock to the development of the sub-continent or Greater India but now we are realising it and have started to accept it. We need to go with that only to the Golden future.
@sincibie Indeed. It may have been similar to Germany's unification in 1871, where after centuries of having various kingdoms they finally came together for a common cause, although there are some differences like varied ethnicity in India, various languages, etc. Also Germany had to reunify through war. In any case, you make some reasonable points.
@sincibie (cont.) and there were also numerous Princely States all across the subcontinent who remained (perhaps shamefully) neutral during the war. The main point of rebellion was in the north. I think that India was first truly united in 1947 when the Princely States ceceded to the Union of India, but then obviously with the partition of Pakistan and Bengal and Punjab, the Union was not completed.
@sincibie,,u said the down fall started in time n sof Aurangzeb?no man,,let me tell u,,he was one of the most popular,authoritative(in terms of governance n dicipline)of the mughal kings,,the down fall had actually started after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707,,
thanx for the replies, great to hear from u all this.
Well, any empire starts falling-off when the public starts opposing the ruler whether in loud or tacit way.
Due to dangerously self-mayheming & divisive policies of Aurangzeb, people of India was unitedly against him and to get rid-off him, people somewhat supported europeans. And, this started the unfortumate fall of India to the europeans.
@sincibie --------->Would b glad to receive a history lesson if I'm proven wrong, but the decline of Mughal rule and eventual entry of European powers into India started AFTER Aurangazeb fell. Kings like Jehangir (son of Aurangajeb) spent lavishly on themselves. THIS is what triggered Mughal downfall. Aurangazeb was a moralist like was Lal Bahadur Shastri in his views. I wouldn't like it, but he was still uncorrupted as far as day 2 day govt went- didn't steal a paise from treasury.
,,where did he go,,he became a forlore kinda charachter for the later generations,,rumors had it tht for a long time the soul of bakht khan wud come n fight n scare the british,,
well no matter,,if u have seen Mangal Pande,,evn in this very movie,,they have shown bakht khan,,but in a bit different manner,,when bakht khan got dissapointed with the king,,coz of illahi bakhsh,,he just went away to the near by mountains,,n then started gurilla war strategy,,for a long time,,n still no body knows abt his death etc,,as wat actually happend to him
they forgot to mention General Bakht Khan,,he had an organized army of 14000,shud illahi Bakhsh(wazir of the King) havent conspired,,n the war wud ve a different pic,illahi bux put a rift b/w the king n Bakht khan,,haa,,its a long story
yeah!so beloved!was fucking white girls in london when people were dying fighting for their rights in india. forced millions to become homeless so that just he can sit on the chair.nobody wants another man like him to be born again from any mother's womb.
and what about the millions of Indians killed by the british....
u have no regret's for those millions of lives and talking about the lives of those few lives who were bound to be killed during the War of Independence.... as it was the War for Independence not for a revenge....... and not for aqcuiring a lollypop////
we Indians even cant pay atleast a tribute to our Martyrs.....really sad....
just think of a 23 years old girl, fighting with british with swords in both of her hands and taming her horse with her mouth...... and hiding her child under a shield on her back.....
well!i have respect for these martyrs,but we have to admitt that it were those so called kings who divided india in the past.these were the people who revolted against the magadha empire to break india coz of their greed or else today our border would have gone through afgahnistan and no blody invador would have dared to invade our land .
yeah!u go on enslaving others .go on doing massacers and people will keep quite all along.if u are anglo sexons,have u read anything about the norman conquest in which your ancestors were defeted and humiliated?go read it,kid!
all hindus were in favor of british rule and only hindus invited britains to rule every rebellion were rise up by muslims only and hindus were spying for britains in every freedom movement
ok!even if we agree that hindus invited them then what happened to the muslims?why did they got defeted?why are they being defeted everytime by india?lol!
absolute rubbish. This was a terrorist attack by hindis against innocent british women and children. The first 3 wars of independence against British India were by TAmils. bloody brits purposely joined INdia together like Iraq.
It's a shame if you're an Indian, even then u are calling war of freedom as terrorist attacks. Well, when we talk to Integrated India, we are the least concerned about Hindis or Tamils. If you still see 1857, with the glasses of regionalism, then it is utter unfortunate.
I agree. The murder of the women and children at Cawnpore and Delhi was dastardly. That's how cowards fight. No wonder the British showed no mercy when they retaliated.
It is part of the indian government plan to hide the real history. The first 3 wars of Tamils and not at Mangal Pandney. The first war against the British was by Veerapandiya Kattabomman who revolted against the british 6 decades before Mangal padney and was hanged in 1799CE
Yeh right, oh look my shoes have just grown wings and flown off out of the house!!!!
India was not united at all, in fact the social divides between indians was both enlarged amplified and highlighted. The revolt could have been more of a success but the people of India were anything but united.
You are very correct on yur part but all you said is the story of either before this revolution or during 1930-40s.
AT the time of 1857, each and every person living in Raj, was so fade up with the company's policies that everyone stood up. There are numerous examples that people of all religions and castes fought together. Some of them are Jhalkari Bai (Jhansi), Gopal Mehtar (Benaras), Avanti Bai Lodhi etc.If you go on the literature,u will find countless low caste people in the armies fought.
Yes very true, but the revolts could have been more successful had the leaders aimed more spesifically at the lower casts. I admit that there were a few isolated incidents but the fact remains that most of the Indians remained loyal to the Company and the extent of the risings could have been greater with more lower support, I am not saying it was arrogance on behalf of the leaders, more lack of planning which is perfectly understandable
You're very true on your part. But, if you see the environment of Prior to 1857, downfall of India was majorly due to its division on the basis of castes. this division became the worst during Aurungzeb and after him. But, of the arrival of 1857 war, the chains of division shivered first time in almost 1000 years. There are several instances when people fought together no mater castes. That was one of the achievements of 1857. Thats why, Hats Off for the change it brought.
So although the 1857 war brought temporary conservatism (with a small c) within India in terms of developement, it was actually the beginning of evolution towards a united India.
I find this ironic because it may be Britains greatest legacy on what one day shall be the greatest country....unity.
How ironic that we controlled india by playing different groups off against each other, yet unity was what was born!!!!
I'm sorry that's total nonsense. Of the three presidencies that made up British India, only the troops of the Bengal presidency rebelled. The troops of the Bombay and Madras presidencies stayed loyal. Punjab and the North West Frontier stayed loyal. The southern states were hardly effected. What "national unity" are you people talking about?
The next one was the Vellore Mutiny which started over changes to the sepoy dress code. Tamil soldiers gathered at the Vellore fort housing Tippu Sultan and killed more than a 100 of the british soldiers stationed there and took control of the fort. So much for Mangal Pandey!
I respect South Indian and Tamil people very much. They are clean, industrious and highly intelligent. They also have humanity, something lacking in the rest of the country.
Despite request the central Govt seems have refuesed to indclude south Indian fighter not even mention of them. it looked as if the whole of south India did not play any roll???? is ther any chuvanism of fantisam. so far I thought all Indians are equal!!!!!!!!!!!
without South India, definition of India can not be completed. Infact, South Indian people are more close to real India, while almost all North Indians are greatly influenced by the western culture.
great video thanks for making and posting this video
but irony during the 150yrs of independence celebration -none of the south Indian freedom fighter was included in the modbile exhibition "FREEDOM EXPRESS" the train going all around India.
As far as, Freedom Express is concerned, if none of South Indian Martyrs are included, then its unfortunate. Each and Every historian talks about the role and contribution of South Indians in 857 revolution.
i believe that it can't be true that Central Govt. did this intentionally
thanx for ur comment over the video. Well, you said all states did not participate in the war, but that was the sole reason for our dependence, Gantry of india were so weak, that they couldnt do anything, but Rani Jhansi, Marathas, Kunwar Singh,Tatya Tope are some examples. But it was mutiny in true sense, because Common people of india participated and not any war becomes senseful untill and unless common people take it to the heart.
it is called a 'mutiny' in terms of british army but for indians its called a war. yes, you are right about many people not participating in the war, but apart from the indians in the military , there were many native princely states and people who took part in the war. the other states who didn't take part were either captured by the british or were cooperating with them.
85% of the people hung by the british were sikhs and shaheed sardar sham singh attari led the first reblion,after the sikh empire was attained thru treachery. thank you
YOu are wrong tiger....The most ppl who stood up against British were muslims. Read British History they also call it Muslim rebellion. Most of the punjab was silent during this mutiny..It was mostly UP.Dehli and Rajhistan.
bro look it uo in any history book go on wikepdiya,, it has everything im not taking anything away from anybody sikhs are 2 of the now i ndia population isnt it significgant fact that out of all the sikhs muslims and hindus that were hung under the british 78% were sikhs even brothers in punjab pak all over now this,, go in british books and read again the bristish without significant batlles annexed every region accept the sikh empire tho we were betrayed its well documented by the dogras etc
DEAR u forget a name under whose leadership the 1857 independence war was fought .TIPU SULTAN. the names u have mention in this video represented only specific areas or a group of peoples in 1857 war they didnt represent the whole indian continent and my friend british said ..INDIA IS NOW OURS..on the maryterism of TIPU SULTAN. not when mangal panday was killed. if u see the royal meusam of london today u will find TIPU SULTAN s sword there not mangal panday s sword.
Really, no one can deny the role and vision of Tipu Sultan in the Indian History. But, i had made the video specifically on '1857', and Tipu Sultan had got his martyrdom in 1799, thats why i haven't mentioned his name.
You forgot to mention the British took India from the Muslims, not the Hindus
MaverickOnTheMoon 1 year ago
@MaverickOnTheMoon True, If Emperor Jehangir had not granted permission for trade to the British and made them leave India, India would have still been under the Mughal Empire but again I doubt this because there were also Hindu Uprising everywhere and Mughal Empire was slowly beginning to decline.
No British would have given Indian Empires a chance to rise and Indian Empires would probably have expanded more into Middle East & South East Asia, But well, History always has its own way..
forgottenmemories63 4 months ago
india was not united..every1 attacked and revolted against british for their own reasons and wishes..no1 cared for indipendence..every1 was caring only about themselves..thx for the video..indipendent india!!LONG LIVE INDIA BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY!!
sunilgarg007 1 year ago
Comment removed
swordofpakistan 1 year ago
@swordofpakistan: May be... but if u start valueing your own history prior to 1947, you'll too make this kind of immaturish videos...
afterall, Pakistan's history does not start from 1947 only... there was certainly something prior to 1947 as well to what we today say Pakistan..
1857 calls for that history only, if u can think and understand...
if your history starts and ends with Hindu-Muslim Theory only then sorry brother no one can help you out...
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie with all due respect the sepoy rebellion and civil disturbances of 1857 was not a war of Indian independance.It only happened in central India and an independent India was not its intent.Also the behaviour of the protagonists was horriffic with the massacre of civilians and people who had surrendered.The British were as bad in response but regardless this event should not be a source of pride.I would no more support these people who conducted war without morals than i would the talibs.
swordofpakistan 1 year ago
Re: 1857 rebellion: If they had succeeded, would India (an India as unitary state w/ something approximating its present borders) have suceeded in becoming a modern state? I have to doubt it. The princelings of India would most certainly have fallen to quarrelling. The various communities in their various centers of populations would have gone in seperate directions. I have to think other imperial powers would have exploited the British vacuum. Maybe a Russian extension into India.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: That's true dat, had 1857 War succeeded, there might not have been immidiate evolution of India as an individiual political entity but it wud have evolved as as a Great Region of same ethose, heritage and race somewhat like present day europe, and eventually this Great Indian Region wud have united under single entity like a Federation as europe did after centuries of bitter and bloody hostility within that which had imposed even 2 world wars over the world.
sincibie 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: (CONT) and if 1957 had succeeded, the Greater Indian (or as you call it the Indian Subcontinent) wud not have sufferred its partition which always remained a major roadblock in comprehensive development of the region. And, you agree it or not, partition was more or less a brainchild of Britain, playing dirty divisive politics. Britained started playing this divisive Hindu-Muslim game just after they witnessed how both of the communities came together in 1857.
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: & the Hindus & Muslims were all lovey-dovey, snuggling happily in bed together? I don't think so. You can make dry wood burn, you can't make water burn. There had to be something thre for the British to exploit. Why, after all these years, does so-called P-stan cont. to fall for this supposed British dirty trick? India was not a land of happiness & universal love b/f the British came along, it is not reasonable to blame all India's continuing troubles on them.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: After Aurangzeb's decline, Hindus & Muslims of India living together with almost harmony everywhere... but basically they were different religions and Britain instrumented this for their success.. else u tell me why in every policy, britain created division.. they never created universal policies that cud bring India under single umbrella.. but they made flames out of diamonds by turning them first in to coal. Till 1700, 25% of world's GDP came from India..but what did in 1947???
sincibie 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto(CONT): just after 1857 only, britained sowed the seeds of Hindu-Muslim divide inorder to destroy the most fundamental social fabric of India. Britain created separated universities, separated laws, separated news papers, separated sporting teams, separated political parties of hindus and muslims and keep playing its disgiusting divisive politics.
The whole subcontinent can never forgive britain for its social atrocities over the people of the Greater India....
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie(CONT): and u talked about Russia..... tell me one instance when pre 1980, when did Russian Empire or USSR shown interest in the sub continent and that too in 1980s it invaded Afghanistan to avoid US dominance over the Af-pak region... so please dont talk anything which sound abysmal...
now, Your turn to speak up your mind.. :)
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: You gotta be kidding. You are innocent of the Russians having any imperial ambitions in India? Have you never heard of the "Great game?" There is a book you should read, The World Was Going Our Way. About the revelations of a KGB archivist, who defected w/ copies most of the KGB's secret records. Believe me, the post independent gov't of India was practically a Soviet Raj. Why do you think India has only begun to take economically AFTER the Soviet collapse?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: Well... When China was providing weapons to Pakistan (Not P-stan), US was continuously influencing Pakistan, we already had two wars( 1962, 1965), no help from any NATO... what cud have India done else inclining towards USSR which provided much needed weapons, training and education.. Socialistic idealogy of early govts of India also helped in the tilt towards USSR..
Had USSR not helped India in 1971, US wud have attacked India through its warship which US sent to Bay of Bengal.
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: You say potato, I say P-stan. The U.S. bribed up some goons in the P-stan gov't to let us run CIA bases there. We had to to keep Stalin & his ilk from blowing up our cities. If India had followed its natural economic interests in the Nehru years, we would have had CIA bases & way more in India. Believe me, P-stan was a booby prize. But, if you read The World Was Going Our Way (that is going the Soviet's way), you'll see why that was impossible.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto (CONTD): and due to Socialist Ideologies, India opened its economy only in 1992 when it witnessed the fall of the USSR... and then only India catched the Economic Expressway...
that's d answer ...
you say now... :)
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: My very point. India was practically in the Warsaw Pact. Atleast my Slavic kinsmen in E. Europe had the excuse of being "liberated" by Stalin @ the end of WWII. In Poland's case they were re-liberated. You really need to read TWWGOW. It is quite enlightening. Many "leaders" of India were Soviet tools. India finally took off economically, but U.S. allies like Taiwan, Korea, these took off decades ago.
It is strange how Moslems are always peaceful, in the past.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: Early Leaders of India might be Soviet inclined but that was understanble as India was supposed to be socialist nation after the independence.. untill 1992 when the USSR collapsed, India was almost a Socialist Republic, so quite understandable the its penchant for the USSR.. but the point is India never became Communist Block of Asia like half of the estern europe.... When E-Block of Europe still struggling after 1992 collapse, India emerged with gr8 power and dat indicates truth
sincibie 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: and moreover India was not that kind of Soviet tool as today UK is A**-rican tool... India did not sent her soldiers to Afghan during Soviet Invation to Afghan... but UK licks the a** of USA whatever it does.. whther Afghan-Iraq or Iran....
I wud like to suggest if u respect others, u wll get respect frm others..
if u keep on saying P-tan, we wud also devise many terms for your countries...
Pak is part of d Great Subcontinent n i cant tolerate its disgrace by a third national
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: What prob. do you have w/ abbreviations? Only so much space in a Youtube comments section. & you're quite funny talking about respecting others w/ one breath & talking about ass licking in the next. I have to wonder how old you are. Besides the attitude, you are quite ignorant of recent history. India was the Soviet's most vigorous apologist on the Af-stan invasion. I think that the Soviet arms industry would have gone broke w/o sales to India. Go read The World Was Going Our Way.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: No problem with abbreviations.. but "You say Potato, i say P-tan". is it just abbreviation?
My langauage was in vengeance of your language.. language hurts, now u better understand my friend.
it mite b true that Soviet arm industry wud hv broken w/o India but India might broken too w/o Soviet Arms.. it was reciprocal relationship..
Russians (not NATO) provided weapons to India when India needed dem d most.. why shud India not hv favoured USSR when USSR needed it d most?
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: If India hadn't insisted on (rather if Nehru et al hadn't insisted on making India run) running w/ Russia, it would most certainly have run w/ the U.S. To the far greater benefit of India. India would have taken off in the 60s, like Korea, Taiwan & Japan did. It would have been far easier for the U.S. to back up Tibet. India would have enjoyed an excellent buffer b/t it & P.R.O.C. It wasn't the U.S. which rejected India. Nehru never intended to allow India to be allied w/ the U.S.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: Apologies for late reply. It's truly fortunate and wonderful that India dint ally w/ US, else we wud hv seeing CIA bases in India. Shall I laugh wen u say only US allies did better. I nvr seen China allying w/ US rather it always bullies, still it's turning up d most powerful nation. Pakistan allied w/ US, we can see its condition, Taiwan running w/ US for 50 years, still entire world even does not recognize it, S Korea ran w/ US, 2day it has more bases of US army then its own...
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: Taiwan was an economic dynamo when India was languishing under Nehru & Gandhian economic folly. If India had allied itself w/ the U.S., we would have had a free hand to aid Tibet & you'd have the Kingdom of Tibet as an effective buffer between you & the PRC. Nehru thought Mao would remaina toady of Stalin rather then strike an independent path once in power. That is why he didn't help Tibet when it could have mattered. Those CIA bases would've been in Tibet, w/ India crews also.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto: had we follwing Gandhian Ecnomic Policies, India wud nt hv been witnessing d present differences in riches n poors.
True, 1 mistake dat we did is to blindly believe Mao... but allying w/ US wud mean CIA bases in Tibet n India n that is/was totally unacceptable, nyways Lama's Rule in Tibet wud nt have hlped either in its devlpment n we cudnt see its ovr-depndnce ovr US lik helples Korea/Japan/Pakistan.
Atlest, we dared to hv Lama here, bt US refusd 2 evn meet him wen he visted der
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie: It was the CIA which financed & equipped the Tibetan resistance up until the '70s. If we had further support from India, Chinese rule of Tibet would have been impossilbe, & any rule would have been preferable to Mao. Why would an American (hardly just the CIA) in India have been "unacceptable?" Both Nehru & his daughter (the Ghandi I was talking about) were complete toadies for Russia. The economic positions of Korea, Japan, or Taiwan hardly seem "helpless."
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
Partition and its imediate effect was the worst thing to come from British rule.
Theoryofdomination 1 year ago
we indian are the king of India and one DAY WE WILL REGAIL OUR WEALTH AND PROSPERITY BECAUSE NOW WE ARE UNITED AND WE ARE NOW FIRST INDIAN. I PROUD TO BE AN INDIAN.JAI HIND.
ThePraveensharma007 1 year ago
First, to avoid receiving abuse as I have done from Indians merely for being an Englishman, I would like to declare myself an Indian-phile (if there is such a word), who is not pro-Empire, and is also excited by the rise of the independent India, which will be a far greater power than China. My point was not that there was anywhere where no single act took place. I meant that the whole of India was not united against Britain. Kashmir, Bikaner, Hyderabad and some others were allied to Britain...
omsct 1 year ago
@omsct : U r true at some parts that some princely states either remained neutral or allied to Britain, but that their attempts to stay in power no matter like puppets. But the real India is/was constituted by her real people or common people and those were severly suffering and it was their voiced which was raised by 1857 Freedom War.
At that time, there was no concept of United India as an invidual political entity but it was region/land of same ethos/faiths/race.
sincibie 1 year ago
(contd): Had India been got independence in 1857, u would not be seeing India as a country but u would have seen India like Europe where many small states share common heritage and subsequently whole of India would unite as a greater federation by the time India would have reached 1950-60.
Partition will always remain a roadblock to the development of the sub-continent or Greater India but now we are realising it and have started to accept it. We need to go with that only to the Golden future.
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie Indeed. It may have been similar to Germany's unification in 1871, where after centuries of having various kingdoms they finally came together for a common cause, although there are some differences like varied ethnicity in India, various languages, etc. Also Germany had to reunify through war. In any case, you make some reasonable points.
omsct 1 year ago
"Whole country unites, first time ever." You need to check a map of the mutiny. Why do people insist on whitewashing history all the time?
omsct 1 year ago
@omsct : First, Happy Independence Day
Now, tell me one single place in whole of India, where no incident took place (no matter small or big) involving the resistance to the british...
then i will tell you what happened there.
But, please explore every detail about involvement of that place in the 1857 Freedom Fight...
sincibie 1 year ago
@sincibie (cont.) and there were also numerous Princely States all across the subcontinent who remained (perhaps shamefully) neutral during the war. The main point of rebellion was in the north. I think that India was first truly united in 1947 when the Princely States ceceded to the Union of India, but then obviously with the partition of Pakistan and Bengal and Punjab, the Union was not completed.
omsct 1 year ago
WAH ! great .. all thye best :)
rupeshrinku 1 year ago
@sincibie,,u said the down fall started in time n sof Aurangzeb?no man,,let me tell u,,he was one of the most popular,authoritative(in terms of governance n dicipline)of the mughal kings,,the down fall had actually started after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707,,
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
thanx for the replies, great to hear from u all this.
Well, any empire starts falling-off when the public starts opposing the ruler whether in loud or tacit way.
Due to dangerously self-mayheming & divisive policies of Aurangzeb, people of India was unitedly against him and to get rid-off him, people somewhat supported europeans. And, this started the unfortumate fall of India to the europeans.
sincibie 2 years ago
@sincibie --------->Would b glad to receive a history lesson if I'm proven wrong, but the decline of Mughal rule and eventual entry of European powers into India started AFTER Aurangazeb fell. Kings like Jehangir (son of Aurangajeb) spent lavishly on themselves. THIS is what triggered Mughal downfall. Aurangazeb was a moralist like was Lal Bahadur Shastri in his views. I wouldn't like it, but he was still uncorrupted as far as day 2 day govt went- didn't steal a paise from treasury.
xxxdieselyyy 1 year ago
aurangzeb with his hardline islamic policis and massive persecution of sikhs and hindus himself had laid the deathbed for the mughal empire
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
i think Amir khan shud make a movie on Sirajuddaula n Tipu Sultan(amazing character),,Amir wud akin alot to Tipu,,if he do a bit of a make up
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
,,where did he go,,he became a forlore kinda charachter for the later generations,,rumors had it tht for a long time the soul of bakht khan wud come n fight n scare the british,,
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
well no matter,,if u have seen Mangal Pande,,evn in this very movie,,they have shown bakht khan,,but in a bit different manner,,when bakht khan got dissapointed with the king,,coz of illahi bakhsh,,he just went away to the near by mountains,,n then started gurilla war strategy,,for a long time,,n still no body knows abt his death etc,,as wat actually happend to him
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
the 1st war of independence was actually the Battle of Plassy!!1757
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
Thanx buddy for ur comment.
yes, Plassey was the first full scale battle against British, but it was battle started by British and Great Sirajuddaula replied.
1857 was the first united action of the Indians from all walks of lives.
sincibie 2 years ago
they forgot to mention General Bakht Khan,,he had an organized army of 14000,shud illahi Bakhsh(wazir of the King) havent conspired,,n the war wud ve a different pic,illahi bux put a rift b/w the king n Bakht khan,,haa,,its a long story
Jam3zWall 2 years ago
sorry buddy, but i dont know about Gen. Bakht Khan.
I'll read more about him and try to include his name in the modified version of the video. Thanx for the Info.
sincibie 2 years ago
mangal panday is only bollywood movie
zk7975 2 years ago
what does it mean?
sincibie 2 years ago
and why was jinnah was named jinnah?because he actually was a 'janana' !lol!
Indiaexpress 2 years ago
jinah is of course janana he is so beloved person that no mother can give birth to another child like him again in india..
zk7975 2 years ago
yeah!so beloved!was fucking white girls in london when people were dying fighting for their rights in india. forced millions to become homeless so that just he can sit on the chair.nobody wants another man like him to be born again from any mother's womb.
Indiaexpress 2 years ago
Sikhi <3
ThePunjabdholi123456 2 years ago
The mutineers, attacked and butchered women and children in multiple places, not only at the Bibi Gar.
They lured them onto boats with promises of safety and opened fire while they were defenseless in the water.
They butchered Indians also. They butchered them for being Christians or connected to the British.
laxsminarayana 2 years ago
Millions killed? Thats ridiculous.
The British killed 2,500 total during the battles of Plassey and Buxar. The rest of expansion was by treaty and purchase.
These were battles that they were victorious although vastly outnumbered.
It was honorable soldier on soldier fighting.
laxsminarayana 2 years ago
What about the British women and children butchered in the Bibi Gar?
Your "martyrs" were made to lick up the blood of their victims.
Before they were executed by cannon.
laxsminarayana 2 years ago
and what about the millions of Indians killed by the british....
u have no regret's for those millions of lives and talking about the lives of those few lives who were bound to be killed during the War of Independence.... as it was the War for Independence not for a revenge....... and not for aqcuiring a lollypop////
Shame!! If you're an Indian..
sincibie 2 years ago
Comment removed
laxsminarayana 2 years ago
i hope those indian's regret what they have done!
djmattTREMIX 2 years ago
you will understand their cravings for independence only when you are enslaved
harim37 2 years ago 6
exactly....... thanx Harim for ur reply
i'm really sad....
we Indians even cant pay atleast a tribute to our Martyrs.....really sad....
just think of a 23 years old girl, fighting with british with swords in both of her hands and taming her horse with her mouth...... and hiding her child under a shield on her back.....
then u'll get to know... who was Rani Jhansi....
sincibie 2 years ago
well!i have respect for these martyrs,but we have to admitt that it were those so called kings who divided india in the past.these were the people who revolted against the magadha empire to break india coz of their greed or else today our border would have gone through afgahnistan and no blody invador would have dared to invade our land .
Indiaexpress 2 years ago
yeah!u go on enslaving others .go on doing massacers and people will keep quite all along.if u are anglo sexons,have u read anything about the norman conquest in which your ancestors were defeted and humiliated?go read it,kid!
Indiaexpress 2 years ago
May All those rest in peace , who fought against the britsh , no matter hindos or muslim ,
They were brave men and deserve a salute regard less of race , color and religin.
mani99pk 2 years ago
Very well done very imformative
JagaJatt44 2 years ago
Thanx buddy....
sincibie 2 years ago
all hindus were in favor of british rule and only hindus invited britains to rule every rebellion were rise up by muslims only and hindus were spying for britains in every freedom movement
zk7975 3 years ago
ok!even if we agree that hindus invited them then what happened to the muslims?why did they got defeted?why are they being defeted everytime by india?lol!
Indiaexpress 2 years ago
absolute rubbish. This was a terrorist attack by hindis against innocent british women and children. The first 3 wars of independence against British India were by TAmils. bloody brits purposely joined INdia together like Iraq.
arnotkaling 3 years ago
It's a shame if you're an Indian, even then u are calling war of freedom as terrorist attacks. Well, when we talk to Integrated India, we are the least concerned about Hindis or Tamils. If you still see 1857, with the glasses of regionalism, then it is utter unfortunate.
sincibie 3 years ago
I agree. The murder of the women and children at Cawnpore and Delhi was dastardly. That's how cowards fight. No wonder the British showed no mercy when they retaliated.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
It is part of the indian government plan to hide the real history. The first 3 wars of Tamils and not at Mangal Pandney. The first war against the British was by Veerapandiya Kattabomman who revolted against the british 6 decades before Mangal padney and was hanged in 1799CE
arnotkaling 3 years ago
Lol 1:18 "whole country unites"
Yeh right, oh look my shoes have just grown wings and flown off out of the house!!!!
India was not united at all, in fact the social divides between indians was both enlarged amplified and highlighted. The revolt could have been more of a success but the people of India were anything but united.
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
You are very correct on yur part but all you said is the story of either before this revolution or during 1930-40s.
AT the time of 1857, each and every person living in Raj, was so fade up with the company's policies that everyone stood up. There are numerous examples that people of all religions and castes fought together. Some of them are Jhalkari Bai (Jhansi), Gopal Mehtar (Benaras), Avanti Bai Lodhi etc.If you go on the literature,u will find countless low caste people in the armies fought.
sincibie 3 years ago
Yes very true, but the revolts could have been more successful had the leaders aimed more spesifically at the lower casts. I admit that there were a few isolated incidents but the fact remains that most of the Indians remained loyal to the Company and the extent of the risings could have been greater with more lower support, I am not saying it was arrogance on behalf of the leaders, more lack of planning which is perfectly understandable
Interesting period though.
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
Thanx for your reply.
You're very true on your part. But, if you see the environment of Prior to 1857, downfall of India was majorly due to its division on the basis of castes. this division became the worst during Aurungzeb and after him. But, of the arrival of 1857 war, the chains of division shivered first time in almost 1000 years. There are several instances when people fought together no mater castes. That was one of the achievements of 1857. Thats why, Hats Off for the change it brought.
sincibie 3 years ago
So although the 1857 war brought temporary conservatism (with a small c) within India in terms of developement, it was actually the beginning of evolution towards a united India.
I find this ironic because it may be Britains greatest legacy on what one day shall be the greatest country....unity.
How ironic that we controlled india by playing different groups off against each other, yet unity was what was born!!!!
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
I'm sorry that's total nonsense. Of the three presidencies that made up British India, only the troops of the Bengal presidency rebelled. The troops of the Bombay and Madras presidencies stayed loyal. Punjab and the North West Frontier stayed loyal. The southern states were hardly effected. What "national unity" are you people talking about?
Rohilla313 3 years ago
The next one was the Vellore Mutiny which started over changes to the sepoy dress code. Tamil soldiers gathered at the Vellore fort housing Tippu Sultan and killed more than a 100 of the british soldiers stationed there and took control of the fort. So much for Mangal Pandey!
arnotkaling 3 years ago
I respect South Indian and Tamil people very much. They are clean, industrious and highly intelligent. They also have humanity, something lacking in the rest of the country.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
Despite request the central Govt seems have refuesed to indclude south Indian fighter not even mention of them. it looked as if the whole of south India did not play any roll???? is ther any chuvanism of fantisam. so far I thought all Indians are equal!!!!!!!!!!!
ramkar64 3 years ago
thanx for your comment....
Yes.ALL INDIANS ARE EQUAL. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
without South India, definition of India can not be completed. Infact, South Indian people are more close to real India, while almost all North Indians are greatly influenced by the western culture.
sincibie 3 years ago
great video thanks for making and posting this video
but irony during the 150yrs of independence celebration -none of the south Indian freedom fighter was included in the modbile exhibition "FREEDOM EXPRESS" the train going all around India.
ramkar64 3 years ago
As far as, Freedom Express is concerned, if none of South Indian Martyrs are included, then its unfortunate. Each and Every historian talks about the role and contribution of South Indians in 857 revolution.
i believe that it can't be true that Central Govt. did this intentionally
best of luck. take care
vievek
sincibie 3 years ago
Comment removed
pkk786 3 years ago
Tipu Sultan was not alive in 1857. He lived in the previous century.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
thanks for this video :) its very well made
pitviper12345 3 years ago
Um this vid is wrong. Its called the "Indian mutiny". Not all the states even participated in the mutiny.
Northgrant 3 years ago
thanx for ur comment over the video. Well, you said all states did not participate in the war, but that was the sole reason for our dependence, Gantry of india were so weak, that they couldnt do anything, but Rani Jhansi, Marathas, Kunwar Singh,Tatya Tope are some examples. But it was mutiny in true sense, because Common people of india participated and not any war becomes senseful untill and unless common people take it to the heart.
Wishes
Vievek
sincibie 3 years ago
it is called a 'mutiny' in terms of british army but for indians its called a war. yes, you are right about many people not participating in the war, but apart from the indians in the military , there were many native princely states and people who took part in the war. the other states who didn't take part were either captured by the british or were cooperating with them.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
well made video!
KushKaCricket 3 years ago
85% of the people hung by the british were sikhs and shaheed sardar sham singh attari led the first reblion,after the sikh empire was attained thru treachery. thank you
tiger4222000 4 years ago
thanx for your comment. Now onwards, i'll remember the name of martyr Sardar Sham Singh and will search to more about him.
Yours
Vievek
sincibie 4 years ago
YOu are wrong tiger....The most ppl who stood up against British were muslims. Read British History they also call it Muslim rebellion. Most of the punjab was silent during this mutiny..It was mostly UP.Dehli and Rajhistan.
nangamujra 3 years ago
bro look it uo in any history book go on wikepdiya,, it has everything im not taking anything away from anybody sikhs are 2 of the now i ndia population isnt it significgant fact that out of all the sikhs muslims and hindus that were hung under the british 78% were sikhs even brothers in punjab pak all over now this,, go in british books and read again the bristish without significant batlles annexed every region accept the sikh empire tho we were betrayed its well documented by the dogras etc
tiger4222000 2 years ago
the first independence war was led by shaheed sardar sham singh attari,after the british took over by treachoury the punjab region,thank you
tiger4222000 4 years ago
DEAR u forget a name under whose leadership the 1857 independence war was fought .TIPU SULTAN. the names u have mention in this video represented only specific areas or a group of peoples in 1857 war they didnt represent the whole indian continent and my friend british said ..INDIA IS NOW OURS..on the maryterism of TIPU SULTAN. not when mangal panday was killed. if u see the royal meusam of london today u will find TIPU SULTAN s sword there not mangal panday s sword.
ghanatel 4 years ago 4
dear,
thanx for your response to the video '1857'.
Really, no one can deny the role and vision of Tipu Sultan in the Indian History. But, i had made the video specifically on '1857', and Tipu Sultan had got his martyrdom in 1799, thats why i haven't mentioned his name.
Please reply for furthur suggestions...
Vievek
sincibie 4 years ago