If it had succeeded, India would not have been a UNITED whole as we see it today and its main aim was to restore Mughal rule to India, with the patronage of some HIUNDOO Indian princely states.
I am a person who has not just read Indian History textbooks written by Marxist scum who are the most terrible liars out there but I have a WORLD view of history which is pristine and scholarly.
My knowledge of INDIAN HISTORY is supreme and no one can dislodge my views.
Politically speaking, Not ONE PRINCE or PRINCESS who participated in the revolt spoke of a UNITED INDIA FROM KASHMIR to KANYAKUMARI.
The Rebels did not even have a Manifesto or constitution for a new India. Their ideas were primitive as well as their tactics. The primary reason the British defeated the rebels was the use of TELEGRAPH for Rapid Communication which the rebels had no clue about.
The revolt was just a outburst of religious passion. Its leaders both Hindues and Mueslims would have fought among themselves had it succeeded dividing India irreparably.
Infact Mueslim Fanatics were more prominent in Oudh and United Provinces and Bengal Which is why the British came down severely on the Muslims after the revolt, killing 200,0000 of them all across the Gangetic plain, They blew these Jihadists from Cannons as punishment.
So let us not whitewash or varnish the Revolt of 1857 and let us see it in a unbiased manner for what it was.
A Mosulem effort to restore Mughal rule back to India with Hindooo patronage.
Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the revolt of 1857 fail
by accounting master on May 15, 2010 01:02 AM
attempt is made by pakistan originated lobbies in India to label 1857 as first jihad against the british
Re: Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the revolt of 1857
by golwalkar on May 15, 2010 01:51 AM
1857 was first freedom struggle. all states were fighting for their survival.there was no hindu or mzlm angle.afzal khan was helped by kulkarni a brhms.most of the generals of shivajee were mzlm. moghuls were best&most trusted ruler that is why in meerut he was selected as leader of revolt,for which he paid heavily.
Re: Re: Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the revolt of 1
by Vishnu Sharma on May 15, 2010 02:13 AM
Many rebels did not have a Map of their own domains or the MAP of India. How can you conduct a revolt without a map.
They did not have the big picture It was bound to fail even before it started.
There was no one with scientific or military knowledge on par with the British at that time
The British had excellent maps and logistics all planned out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the revolt
by golwalkar on May 15, 2010 02:44 AM
but they used technology&better knowledge to rob india.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the rev
by golwalkar on May 15, 2010 02:25 PM
In Pakistan, there are Sikhs also, But not even in their dreams will a Sikh be made Prime Minister.
but they are not living under shadow of death.nowhere their gurudwaras are demolished and burnt alive in thousands.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In retrospect it is a good thing that the rev
by Vishnu Sharma on May 15, 2010 03:38 AM
You allowed them to rob you because you were not united and technically oriented.
They ruled INDIA with the help of INDIANS !
Even today Indians are moving towards destruction.
Why can't India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh unite to form one COUNTRY.
We are the same people.
That is because a lot of people want to wear religion on sleeves.
Mueslimmms always want to be ruling class or on top.
They cannot accept anyone else as Prime Minister.
In Pakistan, there are Sikhs also, But not even in their dreams will a Sikh be made Prime Minister.
Indian Democracy is the only solution.
All countries in subcontinent need to come under INDIAN UMBRELLA once again and accept that there are different religions and opinions.
If we don't soon ! Chinese will do to INDIAN subcontinent JUST EXACTLY what the BRITISH did to use 200 years ago !
1857 rev0lt itself was a last ditch attempt to salvage a dying order (the rule of some Kings/Su1tans) breft of any real leadership. That was the reason why the Britishers were able to supress the same easily.
There is no need to be pround of the rule of some H1ndu/Muz1im/S1kh kings. They had suppressed to common people irrespective of Re1igion.
When we cannot get justice in a dem0cracy, how the people of that time might have got any justice under the tyranical ru1e of some autocrats??
Re: Re: Revolt of 1857
by JGN on May 15, 2010 09:11 AM
hahahhahahhaahhahaaha!!!!! A fakir ki11ed his own br0ther and improsioned his fatherr to become the Emperor!!!!
You would like us to beleive that even the Indian sub-continent did not exist before the arrival of 1zlamic invaders and EuropeanXtian col0nizers!!!
tajumia, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom was the last to fall into the hands of Britishers; before that they had packed off BahadurShahZafar like a mad_d0g into Burma!!!
Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by golwalkar on May 14, 2010 06:57 PM
BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
he laid down his life for country.far better than those preffered to clean the boots of britishers.
sikh were anti-national.they were british ally.that is why lasted longer than others. sikhs attacked delhi with brtsh forces.participated in mascare of nationalist forces.38000 wereexecuted at delhi darwaza.
Re: Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by JGN on May 14, 2010 09:08 PM
You mean to say that dying in the prison like a mad_d0g is lying down life for his country?? If he was brave enough, he would have fought the Britishers and died in the battle filed like RaniLaxmiBai.
Re: Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by freewill on May 14, 2010 08:48 PM
Bahadur shah zafar did not participate in 1857 revolt. He was just nominated to become king by the people who revolted. He never did anything for his country except writing poems and enjoying luxuries.
Re: Re: Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by golwalkar on May 14, 2010 11:09 PM
he lost his 22 sons lost empire only because he led the war of liberation. traitors supported the brit rules.
Re: Re: Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by JGN on May 14, 2010 09:12 PM
1857 rev0lt itself was a last ditch attempt to salvage a dying order (the rule of some Kings/Su1tans) breft of any real leadership. That was the reason why the Britishers were able to supress the same easily.
There is no need to be pround of the rule of some H1ndu/Muz1im/S1kh kings. They had suppressed to common people irrespective of Re1igion.
When we cannot get justice in a dem0cracy, how the people of that time might have got any justic under the tyranical ru1e of some autocrats??
Re: Re: Re: Re: BahadurShahZafar died a d0g's death in Burma!!
by golwalkar on May 14, 2010 11:13 PM
before trrorist khatris used to loot poors and divide booty with brhmns. then britishers looted india and built institution. moghul rulers bult india.aurangzeb was fakir. under flg of democracy vedics are busy to break british records.
india was never fully ruled by the mughals or the muslim invaders. they ruled only a part of india. that is why even more than 800 years of so called muslim rule india still remained hindu in reality.that is why at the time of patition they could carve out pakistan out of 30% of united india. even in the 30% the sikh king mahraja ranjit singh was ruling. We salute to the HINDU spirit that resisted the invaders to preserve their religion & culture even under the barbaric rules of thecristains&themuslims. whereas the present day muslims of the subcontinent are theprogenyofthecowardwhoconvertedtoislaminexchangeoftheirlife.
Re: sons of babur
by brett on May 14, 2010 07:24 PM
No Dude what ever u have written is a Scrap better learn what happen in the histroy and then come on to Blog.......
Re: Re: sons of babur
by jaggu on May 15, 2010 12:45 PM
Please apologise he is as accurate as can be..
.. Small Rajput, Sikh & Maratha groups of less than 10000 people successfully held up army of 2.5 lac moghuls for several centuries...and the story of orissa is legend that Military schools must learn!
Re: sons of babur
by JGN on May 14, 2010 06:02 PM
These guys will only talk about present day India where the 1zlamic invaders could not succeed. They had c0nverted the natives into their Re1igion by h00k or by cr00k where ever possible. Present day Afghanistan, Pak, Bangla, etc stands testim0ny to that.
Re: Re: sons of babur
by golwalkar on May 15, 2010 01:55 AM
ignorant jgn in iraq &afghanistan even preachers have not gone.izlm is complete ideology that western capitalist&imperialists have attacked this in the name terrorism.
Initially, the Muslim caste system in India originated as Ashraf and Ajlaf divide: the Ashraf were the noble castes, who came from foreign lands; the converted Indians were classed as the inferior Razil, Kamin or Ajlaf. This Ashraf-Ajlaf divide was a kind of apartheid where the indianconvertstoislam weretreatedasdalitsofislam
Re: Re: sons of babur
by JGN on May 14, 2010 08:59 PM
hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Do you know that MukhtarMai was gangbanged as she be1onged to a lowercaste?????? And that happened in "The Land of Pure"!!!!
Re: sons of babur
by JGN on May 14, 2010 05:54 PM
The equality in 1zlam and Xtianity are just myths. Had it been the case, there would not have been a single "da1it" in UP and surrounding areas which were ru1ed by the 1zlamic invaders for nearly 600 years and in Kerala where the Missiiiionaries were very active.
Now even the "da1it" muz1ims and "da1it" Xtians have started demanding reservation for them!!!
Re: moghuls took the rajput ladis by fotce.govindan
by sujit kumar on May 14, 2010 03:29 PM
HE YOUISLAMIC CONVERTCOWARD WHOWERECONVERTED BYTHESWORDOFTHEARABS FEARINGTHEIR LIVES STOPBEINGTHESLAVESOF YOUR FORMER MASTERS . WHY DO YOUSELLYOURWOMANTOARABS FOR TEMPERORY NIKAAH CALLED MUTAHAT. FORTHEARABS THEMUSLIMS OF THE SIUB CONTINENTARETHEDALITSOFISLAM. SO STOP GLORIFYING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO SUBJUGATED YOUCONVERTS & ENSLAVED YOUTOTHEARABS BYCONVERTING YOURANCESSTORSTOISLAM.
Re: Re: Re: moghuls took the rajput ladis by fotce.govindan
by golwalkar on May 14, 2010 07:28 PM
sujit conversion is liberation from brhmncl slavery and humiliation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: moghuls took the rajput ladis by fotce.govind
by golwalkar on May 15, 2010 01:57 AM
And then s1avery to the Arrrabs or Europeans!!!!
in indian sucontinent this is represented by hidutva.
It is possible that Moguls will be treated as great Kings. Actually except Akbar there is no one so great at all. Now the same India considers Shivaji Maharaj as a looter, what a joke!! My salute to all those Rajput women who bravely accepted Death instead getting abducted by Sultan & Moguls. Probably this act is called as Johar. I salute all those Rajput women.
Re: In Today's India
by mandar Dhayagude on May 14, 2010 01:44 PM
U should also salute the people of Maharashtra who faught with mughals for 27 years, without king, without regular army, without money. This 27 years strugle gave final blow to mughal empire. After that mughal emporer of delhi became a puppate king.
Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by JGN on May 14, 2010 05:57 PM
tajumia, you forgot how Shivaji ki11ed AfzalKhan with bare hands!!! Which M0ghul had to courage to go any where near Shivaji at that time??????
Re: Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by golwalkar on May 14, 2010 06:51 PM
dont forget his son samba jee was killed by moghuls. he was supported by akbar son of aurangzeb.
Re: Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by brett on May 14, 2010 07:20 PM
Hey Dude Shivaji Ran for his he hid himself in a tokra when he came to know he ill be attacked every one know this so nothing 8rg abt HIM
Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by mandar Dhayagude on May 14, 2010 02:51 PM
Man go and read history properly. Auranjeb came to Maharashtra just afetr Shivaji Maharajs death. He won bijapur and gowalkonda in a short time. Yes maharastrians gave him tought fight. He died in maharashtra. Nerver won war against maharashtra. Later mughal emporer became puppet king in the hands of marathas.
Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by sujit kumar on May 14, 2010 03:55 PM
the peshwas ruled right from karnataka maharashtra madhyapradesh, the sikh king maharaja Ranjitsingh ruled what is now called pakistan, the dogras ruled kasmir,the south was ruled by hindu kings, only a small proportion was ruled by moghuls. Bajirao peshwa had defeated the mughal in delhi & was to replace the mughal king but could not do so due to the maratha politics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In Today's India
by JGN on May 14, 2010 06:00 PM
tajumia, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom was the last to fall into the hands of Britishers; before that they had packed off BahadurShahZafar like a mad_d0g into Burma!!!
Re: Don't buy this book.
by Govindan on May 14, 2010 10:33 AM
You are absolutely right Sharmaji!The traitor Salman Kurshid is glorifying the bloody chapter of indian history-the Mughal period.what justification can he give for the lakhs of Hindus killed and thousands of temples defiled and demolished, and mosques built over them or beside them, as we are seeing today in Ayodhya, Kasi, Mathura etc.?
