This wasn't even true, there was only one factory near meerut, it was all rumours and the british did eventually let the soldiers grease their own cartridges as a commenter pointed out below, I hate it when bollywood does this about its own history. As an indian it is shameful to me and india.
There were rumours that fats from cows and pigs were used to make gunpowder cartridge casings. Then the British allowed Indian Sepoys to make their own casings using beeswax. This suggestion actually reinforced their belief that the rumours must be true. The Mutinity was the result of many other unresolved issues. The rumours about the casings was the catalyst for the Mutiny.
Its stuff like this that make me proud of my Indian heritage. So it wasn't the best way. It worked for America (my homeland), and the Indians probably figured it would work for them.
@Jabbabob you obviosly are not read up on the subject. This film is faintly ridiculous and not at all like the reality of the situation. What the indians did was bloody disgusting cutting up women and children. Raping them, cutting them into little bits and throwing thm around the house, your proud of this? what they did was unforgivable and bloody sick.
@MrExtremerightwing how many women and children did we kill, go on around 100 -200 at most in calcutta. this is what you did "india's secret history guardian" look it up
Can you prove your claim!!! animal fat was infact used and after the mutiny many indians started noticing beewax being used instead of the original greace which is unknown; well except to the mutineers the british killed that is. Why the change!!! Read your own history from neutral sources and see how wonderful your empire was. I am glad the british empire came to an end; a filth empire like that has no right to exist when its foundation is based off oppresion and racism.
Like nearly any empire that ever existed? Same for most of the countries inhabitating more then one race. It's not a thing of the English it's a problem of mankind as whole.
Um...not really. Islamic rule of India for the most part was quite cordial. It lead to a very sophisticated and quite tolerant Indo-Islamic civilization. Akbar the Great actually funded the building of the Golden Temple, the holiest site of Sikhism and encouraged equality of all his subjects.
The British mucked it all up with their self righteous douchiness. In fact, India was RICHER than Britain when the British East India Company started...and it continued to be until 1850.
And at Cawnpore when a British garrison surrendered, these brave 'freedom fighters' dragged away sepoys who were loyal and shot them. They massacred the army, took the women and children and butchered them - even small babies - before throwing them down a well. The British who arrived found the place awash with blood.
The fact that the Indian government criticizes our brutality while hypocritically calling these cowards "heroes" sickens me.
Wait a minute man, the British government critcizes the brutality of other nations while ignoring their own. So they are also hpyocrites.
What about the blood of the THOUSANDS of women and children from not only India but the other countries that made up the British Empire that are on your government's hands?? ehhhh??
I don't like our government, but I'm making a point. Anyway, we do admit to our wrongs. Do you? You come from the US, don't you? How the hell did you even consider that your country has the moral compass to criticize ours?
I don't like the way my government is going either. But why don't you stick to the points I raised, hey chief??
What about your Churchill calling Indians a beastly race?? Do you defend that? Is that right on his part when 2.5 million Indians came to fight for Europe's freedom when India was denied that freedom by the British colonial office?
It's funny hearing people cry "oh those horrible British, look what they did to offend them and how they later brutalized them blah blah blah". But don't forget, these mutineers butchered 66 surrendering British men, women and children. The women begged for their children's lives and got dirt kicked in their faces for their troubles. They were taunted as the men were butchered, then the women and the children last of all, chopped up with axes and knives. This is only a small example.
Hey pal...it's sad, but this was probably one of those wars that neither side showed quarter. Don't forget how y'all completely oppressed India for the next 90 years.....
Don't forget how y'all called Indians a beastly race when 2.5 million volunteered for the Allied cause to against the Germans and Japanese.
So you can save your sanctimonious bull crap friend. The British Empire did much, much worse.
We know all about what we did, we admit our wrongs. But no, I am not cutting down on this "sanctimonious bull crap" because those people didn't deserve to die. The mutineers murdered their OWN kind as well as white people. Anyway, as for this "don't forget", There are a lot of your own "don't forgets" at the blog "Making the world safe for hypocrisy". I suggest you look at it right now and see what I mean.
Yeah, there is a bit of common ground with us. I mean, the 1857 mutiny was the fault of both parties. We should've given the Indians more respect, and they should have accepted the modernisation of India. Thing is, I am a descendant of people killed by the black-and-tans of 1920s Ireland, so I do have an understanding of British atrocities, but I also know the atrocities of t'other side as well (and I hate when either wrong is overlooked).
Yeah. Anything to do with it, my brother knows all there is to know about the conflicts of the 20s and the Irish rebellions, and also of the troubles. My dad once went to visit his auntie in the 1970s, and there were IRA taxi drivers who were a bit non-plussed as to what he was doing there. (He was OK though.)
And as you can probably tell, I'm pretty stubborn, that comes off my Irish background (my dad has it too - we call it ulster stubbornness).
Well...half and half, I'm half Irish. My Dad's family originally Catholic, and my Mum's family Anglican. But I have a deep loathing for both the IRA and the UVF. Nothing really to choose from either side. Colin Farrell hates the IRA as well. Personally, I rarely regard the British of the past as Nazis, but with the black and tans I make an exception.
Could've been, I'm not sure of the details of who put them where.
Having said all we have to one another, I just wish people could be intelligent enough to regard the past as the past (I don't hate the Indians over the Cawnpore incident, or the Irish - my own background - over the IRA bombings) and learn to be a bit more accepting of one another as individuals instead of evil by proxy.
True, but it's not impossible. After a recent group of IRA wannabes shot up a couple of soldiers and a pizza man delivering to them, the Catholics and Protestants, groups who despised each other during the troubles (almost like the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo in Juliet) walked down the same street together in respect for those lost in the attacks. 10 or 15 years ago, that would've been unthinkable.
By the way, the British Empire was not shy about murdering their OWN kind. Let's remember that there were White folks who suffered atrocities at the hands of the Empire. So I know that it's more complicated than just pointing at race.
Yeah, they were, (First World War was a clash between empires after the power balance went tits up.) I'm pleased you understand that. Some bigoted fools who point at race just say "what you do with yourselves is not the concern of the civilised world" over and over again by ignorant bigoted cretins who don't know anything about our country. I'm glad you can understand it's not as simple as race.
Well World War 1 was the classic example. Infact both World Wars are pretty much the War between the Western Civilizations in which all of the Empires that existed in the 19th century were pretty much destroyed in to a hundred different pieces.
The cartridges were actually manufactured at the Enfield factory in England, although it was an "idea" to use animal fats in the production it never took place. The mutineers spread rumours about this, including the British using ground pig and cow bones to bulk up flour supplies. This obviously helped to brew up hatred amongst the muslims, sikhs, hindus towards the British and was a major trigger point of the mutiny. This film falsely portrays manufacturing taking place in India.
Not to mention, ungreased cartridges were to be made and Beeswax to be distributed for lubricant so the Brits knew in advance of the Religious sensibilities. So did the political minds behind the Mutiny, they used the cartridges as a catalyst to get the appropriate reaction. It worked. OH and if Indians want to call it a "War of independence" that's fine just don't get upset when the English speaking world calls it a mutiny. When soldiers mutiny its called a mutiny, end of story.
So many English were killed? Why do not you move to the UK and be their bitch. And, when they fuck will you be sad about hundreds of thousandds of women and children died during their rule.....Did you know that Portugese in Goa crucified and Brahmins and cut off eye lids of parents and killed their chidlren in front of them, if they refused to convert. Just fuck off....
The fourfold class(varna) in Vedic Hinduism ~caste divisions are Brahman (priests and scholars), Kshatriya or Chhetri (rulers and warriors), Vaisya (or Vaisaya, merchants and traders), and Sudra (farmers, artisans, and laborers).
The fifth class are the untouchable or the lowest class.
Oh lol, I get it now... You spelled India wrong. Spelling is right but country name should start with CAPITAL "I". I thought you would know this since it is the only Indian movie you like.
We hardly gained anything from the British! The most use they were was to make a common enemy for everyone to oppose. At least that made people realize what government to follow... They say that Ghandi took the British out by making them repent and see the wrongness in their actions.
Personally, I think that is a load of rubbish. They left because they got what they wanted. Their currency was better than America, they got the money, they got what they wanted, so they left... Despicable...
I read one book I believe it is called The Raj or something like ..written by a British whiteman,
He boasted over and over again how did they killed thousands of Ducks in one day I believe he referred that barrel of his rifle almost melted. It also proudly shows pictures of our girls as house servants. Needless to say I cried many times. All rulers were bad in one way or the others but the British in my view were the worst of all. See what happened to them now wasteland and third rate country.
This film is a terrible piece of cinematography. It rivals the patriot and Braveheart for historical inaccuracies, not least the threats of cannons on the parade ground. Most of all it focuses on this scene, which has been disproved since the British army never used any type of animal grease, it was always a tallow wax in the tropics since this was far cheaper and allowed for more reliable firing. The fact that Pandey was a butcher responsible for at least 3 massacres seems lost on this filmaker
Maybe, maybe not... Perhaps they wanted to try testing new products? The British probably thought the Indians didn't eat their cows so they thought it was fine to use them in their guns. Whether or not this is so, it was about time for the British to get out, anyway...
Firstly NO ANIMAL GREASE WAS EVER USED IN THE EIC OR THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES ok? Secondly you say it was about time for the British to get out...well a higher proportion of impoverished indians had access to running water, education and a general better quality of life under the Raj than they do now. Read Keegan for military or Kennedy for economic statistics. Ghandi was actually grossly irresponsible, causing the deaths of millions of Indians and Pakistanis. Let alone Pandey's uprising.
That is pretty illogical. The British paid little respect for the people and didn't exactly care much for their beliefs, which makes it pointless to have the fruits of life. There is always a reason for something to happen, as there was of the British to get kicked out.If they truly had a better quality of living, who would have supported Ghandi?
Respect was one thing the British did not provide, and thanks to them, we're no longer the richest country on Earth! Wish they left earlier...
That is true British garrisons were becoming complacent, in the late 18th and early 19th century crossover 90% of EIC officers could speak the local dialect of their assigned province, by the 1850's it was around 10% as they became more detatched and the Company paid more attention to profits than the hearts and minds of the people they effectively ruled. The British should have taken a more active role sooner. After the mutiny conditions improved but a great mistrust of Indians was ingrained.
Yes, that's true, we got "wealth" from trade... with Britian... But you must define wealth. Technically, that gold we had was not really being sold for goods, so I guess you can't call that wealth... But the British taking that away only brought a period of better living. Without the value of our currency, India's export became weak and then irrelevant to trade with other nations, giving the British a monopoly where only they could trade with us, whether we liked it or not.
Read 'the rise and fall of British naval mastery 1793-1918'or 'the rise and fall of the great powers' both by Paul Kennedy. Or even 'empire' by Niall Ferguson. All these books spell out a massive disparity in living conditions between the raj of the late 40's and that of the republic of India nowadays. It wasn't a question of quality of life it was an anti prosletysing movement and simply for self determination. No India's only wealth came from her trade...with Britian. Look at the economy 1947
Erm, this doesn't change the fact that India was still the richest country on Earth until the British came. The rupee would now be worth many more than either the British Pound or the American Dollar, as value of currency depends on stocks of gold and other materials of expense. How do you think the British have such a valuable currency, now? They still carry our gold!
Our GPD was 41% before the British, and 4% after them. Coincidence?
Actually Lord Canning did admit to the animal grease part. But the offending material was quickly withdrawn and the tallow wax was adopted. You're right about the movie though - it's a load of cheap nationalistic propaganda that has little basis in reality.
We were just stupid, rather than uniting our own people we segregated into four classes.
Our own people kiling our own, greed, deception, religious nonsense, gave almost everyone chance to screw us. In the past at least we knew it who is our enemy and finally India prevailed. After 1000 years of slavery now we do not know our enemy who is eating our civilization and family structure like termite. I believe it is the T.V. waves and India is blindly following the losers west civilization.
What are you talking about? First off, greed and deception is found in all nations. After a 1000 years of... what the? Slavery from whom? The British only stayed for the last 200 years. And religious nonsense? Technically, if the Muslims never came here in the first place, all people would be Hindu and religious fights would be scarce.
You say the enemy is T.V. waves...? Ok... Annnyway... you're living in a western civilization, too, like me. Though I want to return ASAP... You wouldn't know.
Thanks for your comment, you seem to be very knowledgeable in History. Once Jai Chand invited Aghan invaders I believe in 11th century there was no Indian rule. That makes close to 1000 years of slavery.
We divided the society in 4 parts rather than uniting all, that was religious nonsense. This gave everyone chance on the earth to invade India, Macedonians, French, Portugese,Turks, Mughals, Aghans and the British.
Mutual respect for each other what every religion teaches.
Odd... that is odd. Dividing the country into four segments? Is that really possible? If you mean the caste system, it didn't exactly seperate people. It was simular to the Chinese banner armies. It was more of distinguishing. It seems just like the fuedal system (actually, it sort of was, which caused places, such as Kerala, to become communist), which didn't seperate them, it only kept them different.
I know it is stupid, which is why I follow REAL religious leaders, like Vivekananda.
Thanks for your comments, obviously you are very knowledgeable and you have your act together, following Swami Vivekananda jee works for you, I am very happy for you.
I see based on my meagre knowledge at street level,caste system did more damage than invaders did to us. So called high caste turned away our own people to adopt different religions and that is what created Pakistan. Invaders were a few hudered thousand and not millions
Anyway different things float for different people.
Our backwardness in technology? What the hell? What is that supposed to mean? You must learn of history at the finest scale before making stupid comments. Civilizations which exist the longest and civilizations which are extremely new do not turn out to be powerful, due to economic details I won't go into detail in this comment.
Also, stop posting of our mistakes in the past. With our new materials, we can make a brighter future for our great nation.
I agree with you 100 percent, this is exactly what I think. Our division, caste system,backwardness in technology and blind trust killed us. Sad part is we still have not learnt from it we still use filthy and profane language,curse, and try to use new learnt some negative slang north american words for each other on the forum.
Only a fool would say that the british brought running water,sanitation,road systems,technology,to India,Sri Laka
the great civilisation of this continent had all those technologies long before the pathkars were even starting to use plates to eat food.they were living in caves while our ancestors build palaces with running water with attach toilets.if you are not sure of it visit some of the arhialogical sites in India Sri Lanka.
Very drowl, India is still perpetuating the same british legal and education systems introduced under colonial rule, and this film was crap, it didnt even get the history right. The main cause of the mutiny was not greased cartridges, that was to some extent used as an excuse. The real reason was a mixture of indian social hierachy failings and the growth of the empire. Most cartridges were greased with wax and ghey
look you piece of shit the british didn't bring jack shit to the world. civilisations with sophisticated infrastructure predated the british by a couple millenia. THe one thing that they did bring was a standard for how fucking stupid some people can be.
you don't get it do you. you are crying about few whom were murdered but cannot grasp the majority of innocent people murdered over a period of 200 years by the British. which of course included women and children you don't care because they didn't happened to be white.
many invaders came. each left its legacy. but the British brought oppression endured never before. neighbors Hindus,Muslim,Sikh whom lived together with no quarrel for 100's years would be divided against each other and become bitter enemies in a game called divide and rule. they fight each other and you pocket the profit making Britain a rich nation.
they were only living in harmony because of british rule, before which there was no concept of nationality or state. to blame the british is naive and foolish, the indian muslims resented being part of a singular hindi state which people of your stance wanted all along.
i would believe my respected elders because they lived that time saw it, neighbors becoming enemies. big land many kingdom for many millennium's but the subcontinent would unite like never before against the British 1853. Indian Muslim resented being ruled by Christians. Sikh led by Ranjit Singh and Anglo Sikh wars. Hindus led by Rani did as well. dont just single out Muslims as a whole the first India to be awarded VC was Khudadad Khan a Muslim fighting for the British cause.
excuse me? you brought law and order? gimme a break! you people treated us worse than animals. when indians were doing a peaceful strike, the british would bring out their guns and fire at the people without warning. If you don't believe me, then type the amritsar massacre on google. BTW, we know what kind of 'law and order' the british were carrying out in our country.. white men were pardoned for the murder of an indian while if an indian did such a thing, he would end up in the gallows.
The (Venetian) Levant Company was replaced by the British East India Company, which in turn was replaced by a corporation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not to be confused with "the united States of America" - the republic), whose corporate/commercial flag Betsy Ross based on the British East India Company flag.
(kinda what i said) as per usual we are forced to warp history to fit the liberal image of us as mean nasty opressors, verses gallant noble natives without a speck on their name.
Ohhh, I'm very sorry, I thought you were reffering to the British! Yes, I do agree with you on that point, sorry for the missunderstanding old boy. People seem to overlook the fact that the British were excellent administrators and a damn sight kinder than other Empires were. This of course is all thanks to our new found friend ''political correctness''
shit face atleast the so called mungals were no pricks like British. funny thing being one can go to the east india company records in london and read what atrocities the bastars commited with their own hands and which they proudly boasted.
again is the count at 70 is it. not allot while native count could run into possibly more/less million. the colonial got every thing they deserved. at least freedom was won through peaceful means unlike the murderous colonization.
the retribution was considerably great, but the damaged prestige of the empire demanded more tha just an eye for an eye, had the rebellion been sucessful, there would have been yet more slaughter either way, and in the long run saved the lives of many.
"damaged prestige of the empire" well the empire struck back. people of the subcontinent live in former colonial masters homeland and get treated like crap things ain't changed there. "in the long run saved the lives of many." only the white mans life other man who give a shit he ain't white.
a terrible reprisal for the same level of cruelty, in one incident british 50 children were sat down in a square and hacked to death. 'Thousands' would also be an exaggeration. the fact is that the loser of the conflict will always suffer a far worse, ie 2 million germans were killed AFTER WW2, but can you imaging how many the germans would have killed had they won? you will also find that apart from the innitial looting the british violence was caluclated and directed at the cause.
in WW1 britian raised an army of 1.5 million including men from my village to fight in Mesopotamia & Europe. in a neighboring village men also left to fight not for any cause, earn bit more money. since no men around and only women and children, nothing growing in the farms, nothing being sold to pay taxes. knowing full men are fighting. british arrive to collect taxes, 'cant pay them'. Well they burnt the village killing many. when the men found out it raised hell. whats your opinion?
forgive me for being a doubting tom, but tax collecters are subject to the rule of law, and dont just go round burning peoples homes down, they would probably been put on some biased mock trial and given hard labour at worst.I am always open to the truth but you are quite clearly exaggerating. it is also my understanding that for the purposes of miliairy campaigns the indian troops used were skilled proffesionals who had been in the army for years, (just look how many won VC's),
not asking you to believe me nor do i need to convince you. the village was small in terms of human life. In WW2 the Bengal famine took place killing millions. point i am making in both world wars it was said that Britian is fighting for the freedom of the world and raising armies as pleased. while treating people like animals in the empire. If this is civilising the world then it couldnt have ended quick enough.
I think you will find that the british suffered far far worse, and for every indian that fought a britisher died. the whole buisness of war is why india became brirish in the first place, for security, over a hundred years of almost uninterupted peace, india was a willing protectorate. india has since been to war 6 times in the last 50 years in what is a relitively peaceful and stable era.
must have been peace under the british that all over the world billions celebrate the day they gained independence. in your eyes britian did nothing wrong. if the empire was as good as you make it out than why is it not celebrated today instead of being sweeped under the carpet and reffered as the past. past always comes back to haunt those who suffered don't forget. fall of rome is an example.
whats more likely they are soberly celebrating the date on which their nation was created or when err, the end of the british empire. not that they really have much to celebrate last year some country on the gold coast celebrated its 50 years of independance with british aid money, it is one of the poorest countries in africa, i am sure the residents of Zimbabwe and burma are very happy with their current system. many of the worlds nations would not exist at all if it were not for britain.
rome is also a wonderful analogy, the romans slaughtered and enslaved my people, but under their rule we we had roads, sanitation, crop rotation, ect. without them we would be a backwards barbaric galic nation, indeed all of europe benifited enormously from the roman empire despisome of its more distasteful aspects. look at india today without british, or any other powers rule you would remain a collection of warring princedoms lacking the infrustructureof your currently booming economy.
you really are an idiot, british rule had negative and positive impacts, but the positives have benifitted india more than the negatives have ruined it lol
There was no such reprisal. In fact it's quite remarkable that after the fall of Delhi the British shot, hanged and bayoneted thousands of males above the age of 15 but fastidiously avoided harming women and children. The same cannot be said of the rebels.
i know hundreds of instances in which the brits targeted children and old people. for example, take a look at the amritsar massacre. many children and old men and women were brutally killed by the british. During non violent demonstrations done by indians, the brits would shoot at anyone (including children) if the indians didn't listen to them.
The Amritsar massacre is not "hundreds of instances". Also, General Dyer who perpetrated that atrocity was admittedly British but all the soldiers who actually did the firing were Sikhs and Gurkhas.
that is a simple question.Take the non cooperation movement of india for example. Shootings used to occur almost everytime. Women,elders and children were almost always amongst the dead. In addition to this,there were times in which the british police officers would organize a "practice shooting" for their soldiers and officers. when indian people would demostrate,the officers would distract them(by usually using tear gas) and "herd" them like animals into a shooting location..you know the rest.
and of course today, most brits will deny such atrocities because the british government would have never informed the the public about such incidences.
You haven't given any specific examples. Just ambiguously worded generalised unsubstantiated statements. As for women and children being among the victims in a crowd, many of them may have died in the stampede that is generally caused by shootings. It doesn't prove British soldiers deliberately targeted women and children. And anyway it's a far cry from the deliberate butchery of English women and children at Cawnpore and other places.
well, there arent specific names for the events you know. these events used to occur almost all the time. the brits would fire at random people thats what i'm trying to say here.. the random people would include women and children. a few might have died in the stampede but thats a different case altogether. the ones killed by shootings were much more than the stampede victims. the brits generally regarded anyone who wasnt white as an animal which explains why they shot anyone who wouldn't listen
true that the soldiers were sikhs and gujratis.. these people were traitors who served the british without thinking about their own country. These soldiers were promised by the british govt that they will get "better treatment" and salary from the rest of the indians. What these foolish soldiers didn't know was that they were duped by the govt. and they would soon find out that the govt. would be treating them no different from the rest of the people.
I suppose you might have heard of such people in the world war 2. take nazi germany for example.. there were jewish traitors who would serve the germans and provide info about the whereabouts of jews and other people of the nazi germany's interest.
absolutely spreading Christianity by trickery and looting gold, diamonds from the people and stealing peoples land descreating religious places you seem to forget. came as traders did they now bastards.
now islam came invading force. but at the end they settled amongst the people, became part of the people lived as the people contributed towards something didn't go around committing freelance murder,looting,pillaging. they weren't the only invaders but they contributed something like the ones before and people still envy them today. go figure
''now islam came invading force. but at the end they settled amongst the people, became part of the people lived as the people contributed towards'' im fairly sure thats what britain did, we brought railways, parlimentry democracy, sanitation, medicine, running water, ect ect. without i may add pillage and so on which would have in any other case than the rebellion a punishable offence.
"we brought railways, parliamentary democracy, sanitation, medicine, running water, ect ect." you talk as if people were premature before, BBC program called `what the ancients did for us' 'ancient Indians' find it on youtube. no economy, heavy taxation. crops the biggest export worth, all pocketed by British. example cotton grown one place taken off the people turned into cloth sold back to the people. people haven't forgotten these things nor will they
The music in this scene is perfect...
Laahm4Fong1 2 weeks ago
I didn't know Captain Hook was actually Indian..
RaphCatLover 4 months ago
I would imagine the Cawnpore incident pissed off the Brits some.
IanHunedoara8 5 months ago
at the end of the day day the brits need ther ars kicked simples
paintballchamp11 9 months ago
This wasn't even true, there was only one factory near meerut, it was all rumours and the british did eventually let the soldiers grease their own cartridges as a commenter pointed out below, I hate it when bollywood does this about its own history. As an indian it is shameful to me and india.
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 10 months ago 3
so stupid religeous beliefs cause yet another war
BaalZobel 11 months ago
There were rumours that fats from cows and pigs were used to make gunpowder cartridge casings. Then the British allowed Indian Sepoys to make their own casings using beeswax. This suggestion actually reinforced their belief that the rumours must be true. The Mutinity was the result of many other unresolved issues. The rumours about the casings was the catalyst for the Mutiny.
MrLantean 1 year ago
Its stuff like this that make me proud of my Indian heritage. So it wasn't the best way. It worked for America (my homeland), and the Indians probably figured it would work for them.
Jabbabob 1 year ago
@Jabbabob you obviosly are not read up on the subject. This film is faintly ridiculous and not at all like the reality of the situation. What the indians did was bloody disgusting cutting up women and children. Raping them, cutting them into little bits and throwing thm around the house, your proud of this? what they did was unforgivable and bloody sick.
MrExtremerightwing 1 year ago
@MrExtremerightwing how many women and children did we kill, go on around 100 -200 at most in calcutta. this is what you did "india's secret history guardian" look it up
hanros98 10 months ago
@Jabbabob read this "india's secret history guardian" look it up
hanros98 10 months ago
whats the film called & where can i view it ?
ijiva 1 year ago
This movie looks brilliant!
ROBBEAUDOIN66 1 year ago
What a load of crap
boobyrooberts 2 years ago
Can you prove your claim!!! animal fat was infact used and after the mutiny many indians started noticing beewax being used instead of the original greace which is unknown; well except to the mutineers the british killed that is. Why the change!!! Read your own history from neutral sources and see how wonderful your empire was. I am glad the british empire came to an end; a filth empire like that has no right to exist when its foundation is based off oppresion and racism.
mechysonu2010 2 years ago
Like nearly any empire that ever existed? Same for most of the countries inhabitating more then one race. It's not a thing of the English it's a problem of mankind as whole.
DarkTemplar40k 2 years ago
@DarkTemplar40k
Um...not really. Islamic rule of India for the most part was quite cordial. It lead to a very sophisticated and quite tolerant Indo-Islamic civilization. Akbar the Great actually funded the building of the Golden Temple, the holiest site of Sikhism and encouraged equality of all his subjects.
The British mucked it all up with their self righteous douchiness. In fact, India was RICHER than Britain when the British East India Company started...and it continued to be until 1850.
dunnowy123 1 year ago
@dunnowy123 What the FUCK????? Quite cordial? Yeah, quite, despite the millions killed!
SKOTP69 10 months ago
Comment removed
390904902 2 years ago
And at Cawnpore when a British garrison surrendered, these brave 'freedom fighters' dragged away sepoys who were loyal and shot them. They massacred the army, took the women and children and butchered them - even small babies - before throwing them down a well. The British who arrived found the place awash with blood.
The fact that the Indian government criticizes our brutality while hypocritically calling these cowards "heroes" sickens me.
390904902 2 years ago
Wait a minute man, the British government critcizes the brutality of other nations while ignoring their own. So they are also hpyocrites.
What about the blood of the THOUSANDS of women and children from not only India but the other countries that made up the British Empire that are on your government's hands?? ehhhh??
suryavajra 2 years ago
I don't like our government, but I'm making a point. Anyway, we do admit to our wrongs. Do you? You come from the US, don't you? How the hell did you even consider that your country has the moral compass to criticize ours?
390904902 2 years ago
I don't like the way my government is going either. But why don't you stick to the points I raised, hey chief??
What about your Churchill calling Indians a beastly race?? Do you defend that? Is that right on his part when 2.5 million Indians came to fight for Europe's freedom when India was denied that freedom by the British colonial office?
suryavajra 2 years ago
It's funny hearing people cry "oh those horrible British, look what they did to offend them and how they later brutalized them blah blah blah". But don't forget, these mutineers butchered 66 surrendering British men, women and children. The women begged for their children's lives and got dirt kicked in their faces for their troubles. They were taunted as the men were butchered, then the women and the children last of all, chopped up with axes and knives. This is only a small example.
390904902 2 years ago
Hey pal...it's sad, but this was probably one of those wars that neither side showed quarter. Don't forget how y'all completely oppressed India for the next 90 years.....
Don't forget how y'all called Indians a beastly race when 2.5 million volunteered for the Allied cause to against the Germans and Japanese.
So you can save your sanctimonious bull crap friend. The British Empire did much, much worse.
suryavajra 2 years ago
We know all about what we did, we admit our wrongs. But no, I am not cutting down on this "sanctimonious bull crap" because those people didn't deserve to die. The mutineers murdered their OWN kind as well as white people. Anyway, as for this "don't forget", There are a lot of your own "don't forgets" at the blog "Making the world safe for hypocrisy". I suggest you look at it right now and see what I mean.
390904902 2 years ago
I'm not saying that those people deserved to die.
But what do you say of the thousands of Indian women and children who died as a result of British policy. Are you against that?
Are you against keeping India as a colony for 90 years without deigning to grant self-government??
What are the wrongs you admit to? Be specific...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Well, that's good to know.
Answer to your questions.
1. Of course I am.
2. Nowadays, of course. We don't do that anymore. But I'm not sorry for the railway system we built or the laws against suttee.
Wrongs I refer to are the south african camps, the tasmanian fuck up, and the 1920s debacle in Iraq. So I do have the humility to say so.
390904902 2 years ago
I see....
Well perhaps then, there is some common ground to be had between us...
suryavajra 2 years ago
Yeah, there is a bit of common ground with us. I mean, the 1857 mutiny was the fault of both parties. We should've given the Indians more respect, and they should have accepted the modernisation of India. Thing is, I am a descendant of people killed by the black-and-tans of 1920s Ireland, so I do have an understanding of British atrocities, but I also know the atrocities of t'other side as well (and I hate when either wrong is overlooked).
390904902 2 years ago
Well you're definitely right there.
I think there should of been give and take on both sides with the spirit of compromise and mutual respect.
To be honest with you, i don't think the Indians were ever against modernization. They were against being a colony.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Sorry to hear about your relatives. I've heard of the infamous Back & Tans and their actions in Ireland.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Thanks. I hope people take that into account rather than clocking my accent/nationality.
390904902 2 years ago
Well you must have an interesting perspective on Irish history, then, considering your background.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Yeah. Anything to do with it, my brother knows all there is to know about the conflicts of the 20s and the Irish rebellions, and also of the troubles. My dad once went to visit his auntie in the 1970s, and there were IRA taxi drivers who were a bit non-plussed as to what he was doing there. (He was OK though.)
And as you can probably tell, I'm pretty stubborn, that comes off my Irish background (my dad has it too - we call it ulster stubbornness).
390904902 2 years ago
Wow..so you're an Ulsterman??
So your family, if you don't mind me asking, were Irish Catholics?
suryavajra 2 years ago
I don't mind you asking at all.
Well...half and half, I'm half Irish. My Dad's family originally Catholic, and my Mum's family Anglican. But I have a deep loathing for both the IRA and the UVF. Nothing really to choose from either side. Colin Farrell hates the IRA as well. Personally, I rarely regard the British of the past as Nazis, but with the black and tans I make an exception.
390904902 2 years ago
I see what you are saying.
I understand that it was Churchill's decision to send in the Black and Tans into Ireland?
suryavajra 2 years ago
Could've been, I'm not sure of the details of who put them where.
Having said all we have to one another, I just wish people could be intelligent enough to regard the past as the past (I don't hate the Indians over the Cawnpore incident, or the Irish - my own background - over the IRA bombings) and learn to be a bit more accepting of one another as individuals instead of evil by proxy.
390904902 2 years ago
Well the funny thing about the past, is that it is very hard to recover from. It's something that follows around you like a shadow.
suryavajra 2 years ago
True, but it's not impossible. After a recent group of IRA wannabes shot up a couple of soldiers and a pizza man delivering to them, the Catholics and Protestants, groups who despised each other during the troubles (almost like the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo in Juliet) walked down the same street together in respect for those lost in the attacks. 10 or 15 years ago, that would've been unthinkable.
390904902 2 years ago
By the way, the British Empire was not shy about murdering their OWN kind. Let's remember that there were White folks who suffered atrocities at the hands of the Empire. So I know that it's more complicated than just pointing at race.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Yeah, they were, (First World War was a clash between empires after the power balance went tits up.) I'm pleased you understand that. Some bigoted fools who point at race just say "what you do with yourselves is not the concern of the civilised world" over and over again by ignorant bigoted cretins who don't know anything about our country. I'm glad you can understand it's not as simple as race.
390904902 2 years ago
Well World War 1 was the classic example. Infact both World Wars are pretty much the War between the Western Civilizations in which all of the Empires that existed in the 19th century were pretty much destroyed in to a hundred different pieces.
Politics is very complicated indeed.
suryavajra 2 years ago
That is true. But it took another world war to fully erase them. And yeah, politics is complicated.
390904902 2 years ago
Yes, and we must remember one thing. When the British took Dehli back, it was at the head of a Sikh and Pathan Army.
So there were guys fighting on all sides.
suryavajra 2 years ago
Most bastard NRIs eat beef these days.
IndianSettler 2 years ago
The cartridges were actually manufactured at the Enfield factory in England, although it was an "idea" to use animal fats in the production it never took place. The mutineers spread rumours about this, including the British using ground pig and cow bones to bulk up flour supplies. This obviously helped to brew up hatred amongst the muslims, sikhs, hindus towards the British and was a major trigger point of the mutiny. This film falsely portrays manufacturing taking place in India.
graemefield01 2 years ago
Not to mention, ungreased cartridges were to be made and Beeswax to be distributed for lubricant so the Brits knew in advance of the Religious sensibilities. So did the political minds behind the Mutiny, they used the cartridges as a catalyst to get the appropriate reaction. It worked. OH and if Indians want to call it a "War of independence" that's fine just don't get upset when the English speaking world calls it a mutiny. When soldiers mutiny its called a mutiny, end of story.
JohnnyH1982 2 years ago
iam from india i feel so sad for thoose women and children i never knew so many english we killed there .
chetansingh2006 2 years ago 2
@chetansingh2006
So many English were killed? Why do not you move to the UK and be their bitch. And, when they fuck will you be sad about hundreds of thousandds of women and children died during their rule.....Did you know that Portugese in Goa crucified and Brahmins and cut off eye lids of parents and killed their chidlren in front of them, if they refused to convert. Just fuck off....
hot5red 1 year ago
@hot5red yeah but its ok because they were just natives.
MrExtremerightwing 1 year ago
The fourfold class(varna) in Vedic Hinduism ~caste divisions are Brahman (priests and scholars), Kshatriya or Chhetri (rulers and warriors), Vaisya (or Vaisaya, merchants and traders), and Sudra (farmers, artisans, and laborers).
The fifth class are the untouchable or the lowest class.
diliprai 2 years ago
its the only indian movie that i really liked
rourou56 2 years ago
And you couldn't spell the Indian correct!
IndianSettler 2 years ago
what??????
rourou56 2 years ago
What?? What? lol What comment are you replying to????
IndianSettler 2 years ago
Oh lol, I get it now... You spelled India wrong. Spelling is right but country name should start with CAPITAL "I". I thought you would know this since it is the only Indian movie you like.
Take care.
IndianSettler 2 years ago
So?
rourou56 2 years ago
yeah right, they wouldn't have slaughtered pigs and cattle right at the bullet factory...that's just fuckin stupid
rapiddominace 2 years ago
why where there more british victories during the India's first war of independence???
nativegerry335 3 years ago
More British victories? Were there any Indian victories?
Rohilla313 3 years ago
I looked this war up on Wikipedia and all the battles resulted in british victories
nativegerry335 3 years ago
Precisely my point. The rebels got a sound thrashing even when they outnumbered the British substantially, such as at Badle-ki-Serai.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
We hardly gained anything from the British! The most use they were was to make a common enemy for everyone to oppose. At least that made people realize what government to follow... They say that Ghandi took the British out by making them repent and see the wrongness in their actions.
Personally, I think that is a load of rubbish. They left because they got what they wanted. Their currency was better than America, they got the money, they got what they wanted, so they left... Despicable...
nafaidni 3 years ago
I read one book I believe it is called The Raj or something like ..written by a British whiteman,
He boasted over and over again how did they killed thousands of Ducks in one day I believe he referred that barrel of his rifle almost melted. It also proudly shows pictures of our girls as house servants. Needless to say I cried many times. All rulers were bad in one way or the others but the British in my view were the worst of all. See what happened to them now wasteland and third rate country.
sam14450 3 years ago
This film is a terrible piece of cinematography. It rivals the patriot and Braveheart for historical inaccuracies, not least the threats of cannons on the parade ground. Most of all it focuses on this scene, which has been disproved since the British army never used any type of animal grease, it was always a tallow wax in the tropics since this was far cheaper and allowed for more reliable firing. The fact that Pandey was a butcher responsible for at least 3 massacres seems lost on this filmaker
britflik 3 years ago
Maybe, maybe not... Perhaps they wanted to try testing new products? The British probably thought the Indians didn't eat their cows so they thought it was fine to use them in their guns. Whether or not this is so, it was about time for the British to get out, anyway...
nafaidni 3 years ago
Firstly NO ANIMAL GREASE WAS EVER USED IN THE EIC OR THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES ok? Secondly you say it was about time for the British to get out...well a higher proportion of impoverished indians had access to running water, education and a general better quality of life under the Raj than they do now. Read Keegan for military or Kennedy for economic statistics. Ghandi was actually grossly irresponsible, causing the deaths of millions of Indians and Pakistanis. Let alone Pandey's uprising.
britflik 3 years ago
That is pretty illogical. The British paid little respect for the people and didn't exactly care much for their beliefs, which makes it pointless to have the fruits of life. There is always a reason for something to happen, as there was of the British to get kicked out.If they truly had a better quality of living, who would have supported Ghandi?
Respect was one thing the British did not provide, and thanks to them, we're no longer the richest country on Earth! Wish they left earlier...
nafaidni 3 years ago
That is true British garrisons were becoming complacent, in the late 18th and early 19th century crossover 90% of EIC officers could speak the local dialect of their assigned province, by the 1850's it was around 10% as they became more detatched and the Company paid more attention to profits than the hearts and minds of the people they effectively ruled. The British should have taken a more active role sooner. After the mutiny conditions improved but a great mistrust of Indians was ingrained.
britflik 3 years ago
Yes, that's true, we got "wealth" from trade... with Britian... But you must define wealth. Technically, that gold we had was not really being sold for goods, so I guess you can't call that wealth... But the British taking that away only brought a period of better living. Without the value of our currency, India's export became weak and then irrelevant to trade with other nations, giving the British a monopoly where only they could trade with us, whether we liked it or not.
We didn't...
nafaidni 3 years ago
Great responses Brits Silence speaks for itself.
Satyakrishna 3 years ago
Read 'the rise and fall of British naval mastery 1793-1918'or 'the rise and fall of the great powers' both by Paul Kennedy. Or even 'empire' by Niall Ferguson. All these books spell out a massive disparity in living conditions between the raj of the late 40's and that of the republic of India nowadays. It wasn't a question of quality of life it was an anti prosletysing movement and simply for self determination. No India's only wealth came from her trade...with Britian. Look at the economy 1947
britflik 3 years ago
Erm, this doesn't change the fact that India was still the richest country on Earth until the British came. The rupee would now be worth many more than either the British Pound or the American Dollar, as value of currency depends on stocks of gold and other materials of expense. How do you think the British have such a valuable currency, now? They still carry our gold!
Our GPD was 41% before the British, and 4% after them. Coincidence?
nafaidni 3 years ago
Actually Lord Canning did admit to the animal grease part. But the offending material was quickly withdrawn and the tallow wax was adopted. You're right about the movie though - it's a load of cheap nationalistic propaganda that has little basis in reality.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
We were just stupid, rather than uniting our own people we segregated into four classes.
Our own people kiling our own, greed, deception, religious nonsense, gave almost everyone chance to screw us. In the past at least we knew it who is our enemy and finally India prevailed. After 1000 years of slavery now we do not know our enemy who is eating our civilization and family structure like termite. I believe it is the T.V. waves and India is blindly following the losers west civilization.
sa
sam14450 3 years ago
What are you talking about? First off, greed and deception is found in all nations. After a 1000 years of... what the? Slavery from whom? The British only stayed for the last 200 years. And religious nonsense? Technically, if the Muslims never came here in the first place, all people would be Hindu and religious fights would be scarce.
You say the enemy is T.V. waves...? Ok... Annnyway... you're living in a western civilization, too, like me. Though I want to return ASAP... You wouldn't know.
nafaidni 3 years ago
Thanks for your comment, you seem to be very knowledgeable in History. Once Jai Chand invited Aghan invaders I believe in 11th century there was no Indian rule. That makes close to 1000 years of slavery.
We divided the society in 4 parts rather than uniting all, that was religious nonsense. This gave everyone chance on the earth to invade India, Macedonians, French, Portugese,Turks, Mughals, Aghans and the British.
Mutual respect for each other what every religion teaches.
best regard.
sam14450 3 years ago
Odd... that is odd. Dividing the country into four segments? Is that really possible? If you mean the caste system, it didn't exactly seperate people. It was simular to the Chinese banner armies. It was more of distinguishing. It seems just like the fuedal system (actually, it sort of was, which caused places, such as Kerala, to become communist), which didn't seperate them, it only kept them different.
I know it is stupid, which is why I follow REAL religious leaders, like Vivekananda.
nafaidni 3 years ago
Thanks for your comments, obviously you are very knowledgeable and you have your act together, following Swami Vivekananda jee works for you, I am very happy for you.
I see based on my meagre knowledge at street level,caste system did more damage than invaders did to us. So called high caste turned away our own people to adopt different religions and that is what created Pakistan. Invaders were a few hudered thousand and not millions
Anyway different things float for different people.
sam14450 3 years ago
we suffered for our divisions, for our backwardness in technology and we suffered for our attitude of trusting anybody very easily......
abusarindia89 3 years ago
Our backwardness in technology? What the hell? What is that supposed to mean? You must learn of history at the finest scale before making stupid comments. Civilizations which exist the longest and civilizations which are extremely new do not turn out to be powerful, due to economic details I won't go into detail in this comment.
Also, stop posting of our mistakes in the past. With our new materials, we can make a brighter future for our great nation.
Don't be so NEGATIVE.
nafaidni 3 years ago
I agree with you 100 percent, this is exactly what I think. Our division, caste system,backwardness in technology and blind trust killed us. Sad part is we still have not learnt from it we still use filthy and profane language,curse, and try to use new learnt some negative slang north american words for each other on the forum.
with best regards
sam
Sam
sam14450 3 years ago
I feel sorry for the British.
VedicResurrection 3 years ago
the world under the british empire would be a much better place? are you crazy? we don't need anyone to conquer and banish our kingdoms.
bthushilp, i agree with you!
earthdream 4 years ago
is this a new movie?definitly want to see it
NewPaltzIndie 4 years ago
Only a fool would say that the british brought running water,sanitation,road systems,technology,to India,Sri Laka
the great civilisation of this continent had all those technologies long before the pathkars were even starting to use plates to eat food.they were living in caves while our ancestors build palaces with running water with attach toilets.if you are not sure of it visit some of the arhialogical sites in India Sri Lanka.
bthushilp 4 years ago 2
Very drowl, India is still perpetuating the same british legal and education systems introduced under colonial rule, and this film was crap, it didnt even get the history right. The main cause of the mutiny was not greased cartridges, that was to some extent used as an excuse. The real reason was a mixture of indian social hierachy failings and the growth of the empire. Most cartridges were greased with wax and ghey
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
Kurwa zaden polak w to niie grał
RaFiOzA10 4 years ago
Your right peppermint
The world under the British Empire would be a much better place.
We we weren't nice but we never disgraced ourselves..And we brought civilsation to the world..Apart from North America
Nighthawkx15 4 years ago
what do you know about the british empire? you are german.
jjmaster 4 years ago
you can never have enough living space.
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago
look you piece of shit the british didn't bring jack shit to the world. civilisations with sophisticated infrastructure predated the british by a couple millenia. THe one thing that they did bring was a standard for how fucking stupid some people can be.
CALIfoLYFE 3 years ago
shit i hate this video, 'oh my vishnu, they are greasing the cartrages with cow fat, lets murder british children'
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
you don't get it do you. you are crying about few whom were murdered but cannot grasp the majority of innocent people murdered over a period of 200 years by the British. which of course included women and children you don't care because they didn't happened to be white.
m1plaster 4 years ago
on the contuary we brought law and order. more indins and pakistani's murdered eachother in one year that the entire 200 years of british control.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
many invaders came. each left its legacy. but the British brought oppression endured never before. neighbors Hindus,Muslim,Sikh whom lived together with no quarrel for 100's years would be divided against each other and become bitter enemies in a game called divide and rule. they fight each other and you pocket the profit making Britain a rich nation.
m1plaster 4 years ago 2
they were only living in harmony because of british rule, before which there was no concept of nationality or state. to blame the british is naive and foolish, the indian muslims resented being part of a singular hindi state which people of your stance wanted all along.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
i would believe my respected elders because they lived that time saw it, neighbors becoming enemies. big land many kingdom for many millennium's but the subcontinent would unite like never before against the British 1853. Indian Muslim resented being ruled by Christians. Sikh led by Ranjit Singh and Anglo Sikh wars. Hindus led by Rani did as well. dont just single out Muslims as a whole the first India to be awarded VC was Khudadad Khan a Muslim fighting for the British cause.
m1plaster 4 years ago
Ranjit Singh did not lead any Anglo-Sikh wars. Those started after his death.
MalteseFalcon786 3 years ago
excuse me? you brought law and order? gimme a break! you people treated us worse than animals. when indians were doing a peaceful strike, the british would bring out their guns and fire at the people without warning. If you don't believe me, then type the amritsar massacre on google. BTW, we know what kind of 'law and order' the british were carrying out in our country.. white men were pardoned for the murder of an indian while if an indian did such a thing, he would end up in the gallows.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
Being confused with the facts is such a drag. Best just see things your own silly way. It's so much more fun. Jeez Louise.
dobrov1 4 years ago
You know what I wish they 'd make a film that was 1005 factful.
Mattythewelshman 4 years ago
awesome acting
Sahar0023 4 years ago
dude, the East-India Company was NOT owned by Jews. Where did you get THAT from?
hetgroenegif 4 years ago
The East India company was financed largely by marwari jains from murshidabad. NOT JEWS!
raghunathgunj 4 years ago
The (Venetian) Levant Company was replaced by the British East India Company, which in turn was replaced by a corporation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not to be confused with "the united States of America" - the republic), whose corporate/commercial flag Betsy Ross based on the British East India Company flag.
neothomist1275 4 years ago
Cawnpore ? Evil is Evil,it had its day in the two butchers hands.
harryguitarjackson 4 years ago
The rumour that the East India Company used pig and cow fat to lubricate their cartridges was false.
MajorGeneral101 4 years ago
funy how using them didn't become an issue when they were shooting women and children.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
Or when the Indians killed entire families of English people. Women and children included.
MajorGeneral101 4 years ago
(kinda what i said) as per usual we are forced to warp history to fit the liberal image of us as mean nasty opressors, verses gallant noble natives without a speck on their name.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
Ohhh, I'm very sorry, I thought you were reffering to the British! Yes, I do agree with you on that point, sorry for the missunderstanding old boy. People seem to overlook the fact that the British were excellent administrators and a damn sight kinder than other Empires were. This of course is all thanks to our new found friend ''political correctness''
MajorGeneral101 4 years ago
im sure that the islamic 'mungul empire' would have been shitsand giggles. dont worry, it was an easy mistake to make.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
shit face atleast the so called mungals were no pricks like British. funny thing being one can go to the east india company records in london and read what atrocities the bastars commited with their own hands and which they proudly boasted.
m1plaster 4 years ago
apart from hacking 70 children women and babies to death in a square to name one instance. the rebels deserved every woe they recived.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
again is the count at 70 is it. not allot while native count could run into possibly more/less million. the colonial got every thing they deserved. at least freedom was won through peaceful means unlike the murderous colonization.
m1plaster 4 years ago
the retribution was considerably great, but the damaged prestige of the empire demanded more tha just an eye for an eye, had the rebellion been sucessful, there would have been yet more slaughter either way, and in the long run saved the lives of many.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
"damaged prestige of the empire" well the empire struck back. people of the subcontinent live in former colonial masters homeland and get treated like crap things ain't changed there. "in the long run saved the lives of many." only the white mans life other man who give a shit he ain't white.
m1plaster 4 years ago
ic... how about the thousands of children the british killed?
pitviper12345 3 years ago
a terrible reprisal for the same level of cruelty, in one incident british 50 children were sat down in a square and hacked to death. 'Thousands' would also be an exaggeration. the fact is that the loser of the conflict will always suffer a far worse, ie 2 million germans were killed AFTER WW2, but can you imaging how many the germans would have killed had they won? you will also find that apart from the innitial looting the british violence was caluclated and directed at the cause.
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago
in WW1 britian raised an army of 1.5 million including men from my village to fight in Mesopotamia & Europe. in a neighboring village men also left to fight not for any cause, earn bit more money. since no men around and only women and children, nothing growing in the farms, nothing being sold to pay taxes. knowing full men are fighting. british arrive to collect taxes, 'cant pay them'. Well they burnt the village killing many. when the men found out it raised hell. whats your opinion?
m1plaster 3 years ago
forgive me for being a doubting tom, but tax collecters are subject to the rule of law, and dont just go round burning peoples homes down, they would probably been put on some biased mock trial and given hard labour at worst.I am always open to the truth but you are quite clearly exaggerating. it is also my understanding that for the purposes of miliairy campaigns the indian troops used were skilled proffesionals who had been in the army for years, (just look how many won VC's),
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago 2
not asking you to believe me nor do i need to convince you. the village was small in terms of human life. In WW2 the Bengal famine took place killing millions. point i am making in both world wars it was said that Britian is fighting for the freedom of the world and raising armies as pleased. while treating people like animals in the empire. If this is civilising the world then it couldnt have ended quick enough.
m1plaster 3 years ago
I think you will find that the british suffered far far worse, and for every indian that fought a britisher died. the whole buisness of war is why india became brirish in the first place, for security, over a hundred years of almost uninterupted peace, india was a willing protectorate. india has since been to war 6 times in the last 50 years in what is a relitively peaceful and stable era.
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago
must have been peace under the british that all over the world billions celebrate the day they gained independence. in your eyes britian did nothing wrong. if the empire was as good as you make it out than why is it not celebrated today instead of being sweeped under the carpet and reffered as the past. past always comes back to haunt those who suffered don't forget. fall of rome is an example.
m1plaster 3 years ago
whats more likely they are soberly celebrating the date on which their nation was created or when err, the end of the british empire. not that they really have much to celebrate last year some country on the gold coast celebrated its 50 years of independance with british aid money, it is one of the poorest countries in africa, i am sure the residents of Zimbabwe and burma are very happy with their current system. many of the worlds nations would not exist at all if it were not for britain.
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago 2
rome is also a wonderful analogy, the romans slaughtered and enslaved my people, but under their rule we we had roads, sanitation, crop rotation, ect. without them we would be a backwards barbaric galic nation, indeed all of europe benifited enormously from the roman empire despisome of its more distasteful aspects. look at india today without british, or any other powers rule you would remain a collection of warring princedoms lacking the infrustructureof your currently booming economy.
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago
you really are an idiot, british rule had negative and positive impacts, but the positives have benifitted india more than the negatives have ruined it lol
gerhardblucher 3 years ago
There was no such reprisal. In fact it's quite remarkable that after the fall of Delhi the British shot, hanged and bayoneted thousands of males above the age of 15 but fastidiously avoided harming women and children. The same cannot be said of the rebels.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
How many examples do you know of British troops deliberately targeting little children?
Rohilla313 3 years ago
i know hundreds of instances in which the brits targeted children and old people. for example, take a look at the amritsar massacre. many children and old men and women were brutally killed by the british. During non violent demonstrations done by indians, the brits would shoot at anyone (including children) if the indians didn't listen to them.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
The Amritsar massacre is not "hundreds of instances". Also, General Dyer who perpetrated that atrocity was admittedly British but all the soldiers who actually did the firing were Sikhs and Gurkhas.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
umm.. read it again. i never said amritsar massacre was "hundreds of instances". It was an example of one of the hundreds of such incidents.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
So what are the other hundreds of incidents?
Rohilla313 3 years ago
that is a simple question.Take the non cooperation movement of india for example. Shootings used to occur almost everytime. Women,elders and children were almost always amongst the dead. In addition to this,there were times in which the british police officers would organize a "practice shooting" for their soldiers and officers. when indian people would demostrate,the officers would distract them(by usually using tear gas) and "herd" them like animals into a shooting location..you know the rest.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
and of course today, most brits will deny such atrocities because the british government would have never informed the the public about such incidences.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
So how did you get to hear about them?
Rohilla313 3 years ago
i didn't hear about the events. they are well documented in history books written by some british people and almost all over india.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
so, want some more examples?
pitviper12345 3 years ago
You haven't given any specific examples. Just ambiguously worded generalised unsubstantiated statements. As for women and children being among the victims in a crowd, many of them may have died in the stampede that is generally caused by shootings. It doesn't prove British soldiers deliberately targeted women and children. And anyway it's a far cry from the deliberate butchery of English women and children at Cawnpore and other places.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
well, there arent specific names for the events you know. these events used to occur almost all the time. the brits would fire at random people thats what i'm trying to say here.. the random people would include women and children. a few might have died in the stampede but thats a different case altogether. the ones killed by shootings were much more than the stampede victims. the brits generally regarded anyone who wasnt white as an animal which explains why they shot anyone who wouldn't listen
pitviper12345 3 years ago
true that the soldiers were sikhs and gujratis.. these people were traitors who served the british without thinking about their own country. These soldiers were promised by the british govt that they will get "better treatment" and salary from the rest of the indians. What these foolish soldiers didn't know was that they were duped by the govt. and they would soon find out that the govt. would be treating them no different from the rest of the people.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
Gurkhas, not Gujratis.
Rohilla313 3 years ago
whoops.. looks like i didnt read that properly. anyways there were many people from gujrat in the police so it doesnt matter.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
NEPALI.
21156590 2 years ago
I suppose you might have heard of such people in the world war 2. take nazi germany for example.. there were jewish traitors who would serve the germans and provide info about the whereabouts of jews and other people of the nazi germany's interest.
pitviper12345 3 years ago
absolutely spreading Christianity by trickery and looting gold, diamonds from the people and stealing peoples land descreating religious places you seem to forget. came as traders did they now bastards.
m1plaster 4 years ago
how do you think islam got there then? by magic?
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
now islam came invading force. but at the end they settled amongst the people, became part of the people lived as the people contributed towards something didn't go around committing freelance murder,looting,pillaging. they weren't the only invaders but they contributed something like the ones before and people still envy them today. go figure
m1plaster 4 years ago
''now islam came invading force. but at the end they settled amongst the people, became part of the people lived as the people contributed towards'' im fairly sure thats what britain did, we brought railways, parlimentry democracy, sanitation, medicine, running water, ect ect. without i may add pillage and so on which would have in any other case than the rebellion a punishable offence.
peppermintjohn666 4 years ago
"we brought railways, parliamentary democracy, sanitation, medicine, running water, ect ect." you talk as if people were premature before, BBC program called `what the ancients did for us' 'ancient Indians' find it on youtube. no economy, heavy taxation. crops the biggest export worth, all pocketed by British. example cotton grown one place taken off the people turned into cloth sold back to the people. people haven't forgotten these things nor will they
m1plaster 4 years ago 2