Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2

message: basicaly, while discussing where the main artical shoould be, a lode came up about what it should be refurd to as, can someone please add it to the main artical, + it may need a bit of neetining up since the mearger. if i can, i will do both myself, but i should be getting on with work... tooto 17:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add a bit about what to call it 

message: The introduction contains the paragraph:
:The history of the rebellion is, to this day, an ongoing battle between two competing narratives, the history claimed by the British, who won the war, and the history claimed by the Indians, who were defeated.
It would be nice to have a section explaining how these narratives differ and naming the major proponents of these views. Is there a third narrative from a neutral point of view? Gdr 10:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
:There is the Sikh POV; they were sort of neutral, but tended towards the Rebels. There is the Afghan POV, they were sort of neutral but tended towards the British. There is the Tamil POV, but I don't know what that was. Unfortunately though, this is a HUGE subject, thousands of books have been written about this single subject alone. It's fading into distant memory now (it's non-PC to teach pupils about the British Empire in Britain, and where else is going to teach it?), so it's hard to track the facts down (though there have been a rash good books recently).
:I will try and add something about this, though it maybe hard to do without over complicating. nick 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not present the truth? India is a free nation now and the Indian POV IS in effect the truth. Most history books used in schools in Britain, make only a passing mention of their involvement in India.
There is no single 'Indian' POV. In the immediate aftermath of Independence some nationalist historians created a simplistic narrative of a "First War of Independence", conveniently ignoring the fact that three-quarters of modern India was not involved in the Revolt, and that the Bombay and Madras armies, together with soldiers recruited in Punjab, were instrumental in its suppression. At most it can be described as a Hindustani and Mahratta revolt, and nobody should need reminding that there is more to India and its history than what happens in the cow-belt. More recently Indian historians such as Rudrangshu Mukherjee have produced more detailed examinations of the motivations behind the revolt in specific areas (especially in Awadh, which was the only region to see a genuine popular uprising), but without making anachronistic claims about 'National Struggle'. That began later, with the foundation of Congress (a genuine pan-Indian organisation) in 1881. Nowadays the interpretations of the Mutiny by Indian and British Historians are far more objective, and the disagreements are not always on predictable, national lines. Sikandarji 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography 

message: Unless anyone has any objections, I think the contemporary place names should be used in this article. The current names should, of course, be mentioned, but no-one knows what the "Seige of Kanpur" is because there was no such thing. nick 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Place Names

message: Somehow the whole section
:However, the common misconception that British undertook these changes in social system themselves, is also wrong as there were many Indian reformers, notable among them, Raja Rammohan Roy who prevailed upon the British to carry out these reforms. In fact, one lesson learnt and followed to spirit by British after 1857, was to leave Indian society rotting and further strengthen the social malices in order to maintain their supremacy; and also appease the gentry; which led the 1857 mutiny from front. Brutal Zamindari, Caste System, and communal divide, which were not visible until 1857, became more prominent after this mutiny, thanks to selective appeasement by British. 
seems to me not only bad English (I think I get what is meant, but I'm not too sure), but also suffering from words that either need to be explained or just removed: 'rotting', 'social malices', and 'brutal' carry quite a heavy moral load. Even if one would like to keep these terms, please explain what exactly is meant by especially the aforementioned 'social malices'.
I'm quite new at this, so if this remark is seen as being overly careful, feel free to remove this.--Santetjan 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: It says "The British East India Company won the powers of Diwani", but the link from Diwani says it is a kind of script used in Indian rulers' palaces. Since I can presume that the right to use a script form didn't spark a war, could someone explain what this means? DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)
:I am not sure why the link you found says about the script, but actually, "Diwani" comes from "Diwan" or "Dewan", which means administrator. I think more precisely it means civil administration or something, I'm not sure of the precise meaning, but in context of the article, "Diwani" means administratorship. There should be a disambiguation page in "Diwani". Thanks. --Ragib 28 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)
As far as I understand "Diwani" in this context means a right to collect Taxes on behalf of state. Thanks Bobby Awasthi 22 December 2005 1300 GMT
The term "Diwani" means revenues, e.g. A "Diwani Adalat" is the term still used for a court that deals with revenue disputes. Therefore it is correct what Bobby Awasthi wrote. --Raj 09:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diwani

message: As far as common sense or demography goes, there were hardly any NATIVE CHRISTIANS in Meerutt City in 1857. Christianity by and large started appearing in Indian Demography only after a substantial part of British Rule. Even then, there are hardly many christians till date on these regions of Uttar Pradesh. Least of all there would be Indian Christians in the said European Cantonment And even if there were any, it is a well regarded fact that in 1857, Indians were all united, and fighting for self-pride and self-respect (if not for freedom knowingly). 
I believe someone had a personal poopy interest (reasons and details of which are an open secret) in writing a specific sentence in the above section.
I wonder why someone had to be so smart to add the sentence "They then liberated the 3rd Regiment and attacked the European cantonment where they killed all the Europeans and Indian Christians they could find, including women and children, and burned the houses."
This seems like a crappy Intellectual effort to polute the readers' brain.
Can someone be honest enough to edit that section, remove that sentence and respond on my (or this) talk page? Or should I go ahead and do that?
 Bobby Awasthi
There were certainly very few Indian Christians in North India in 1857 (though that does not mean there were none: large numbers, mostly Indo-Portuguese, took refuge in the Residency at Lucknow). However, it is quite untrue to say that "Christianity by and large started appearing in Indian Demography only after a substantial part of British Rule." There have been substantial numbers of Syrian Christians in Kerala since the 4th century AD, and large numbers in Goa and the Coromandel Coast were converted to Catholicism under Portuguese Rule. By contrast, relatively few were converted to Protestantism under British Rule. Also, this statement is nonsense:
"it is a well regarded fact that in 1857, Indians were all united, and fighting for self-pride and self-respect (if not for freedom knowingly)."
It is hard to explain then how the Revolt was essentially confined to UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, and why troops from Bombay, Madras and Punjab were instrumental in its suppression.Sikandarji 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section - 3rd Light Cavalry at Meerut 

message: I found that the reasons that mangal pandey had an fight with his superiors has not been given . Should i add some more information on the reasons and the background of his fight ???? Or would anyone else like to edit it ??
Keen123 07:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about mangal pandey  

message: "The removal of Thuggees is perhaps true, but may have been done with the intent of removing obstacles to British imperialism."
What exactly is meant by this? The point about the Thugs is that the British probably exaggerated the religious element to their killings, and imagined a sinister pan-Indian conspiracy where none existed. There seems little doubt that the Thugs were a very nasty bunch of Dacoits, whose suppression was a boon to all Indians. It seems a bit unreasonable to describe this as "removing obstacles to British Imperialism".
-----------------------------
* I agree that the removal of the thuggee was a boon to all Indians and one can freely appreciate that. But let's not forget two facts:
# At least one of the motives for the British was securing the roads so as to ensure safe transport of post and other small finances sent via post, e.g. for paying employees in remote areas. For such small amounts it was not feasible to everytime send an armed escort.
# It is in the interest of every state to protect its citizens. But it does not have to be done of purely charitable reasons. First of all it collects taxes from its subjects. The readiness to pay taxes may take a beating, if the safety of its citizens is not ensured. Moreover it may lead to unrest and may ultimately threaten the state authority itself.
We may therefore assume that the British rulers naturally had it (also) in their own interest to act against the thugs. But since it also helped the public in general, one may argue forever, which of the two (self- vs. public interest) weighed heavier. We may therefore also accept the original sentence: "The removal of Thuggees is perhaps true, but may have been done with the intent of removing obstacles to British imperialism." Since it anyway uses the term "may have been". I suppose that is neutral enough. --Raj 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thuggee

message: There was a working consensus that this article should be called Indian rebellion of 1857.  We even had a vote on it in 2004: see Talk:Indian Mutiny#Call_for_votes_Ends_12:00_UTC_September_13.2C_2004. It should not have been moved without any prior discussion. I am quite strongly for moving it back to the name which was supported by a consensus, and for anyone who has issues with that name to discuss them before moving it again. -- Arvind 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with moving it back (see discussion above). The user who moved it (10 000 thundering typhoons) failed to discuss the matter with anybody, and is apparently a "Rajput Sock" (whatever that means) who has now been banned. Sikandarji 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe all the three terms ("mutiny", "rebellion" and "war of independence") are more or less acceptable. A mutiny and a rebellion can arguably be accepted as synonymous, even when the term mutiny seems to have a negative connotation, as it might imply a revolt against a "legitimate" authority. That was the reason the British wanted to use it then and the Indians have been against using it. The term rebellion is fairly neutral. A war of "independence" invariably and by its very nature has to be a rebellion as it is not a conflict between two independent, sovereign states or state-like entities but between a colonial power and its subjuguated people. Therefore I would accept the term "rebellion". Personally I do not have a problem using any of these terms as can be seen in my discussions above. However, as a compromise in order not to get bogged down by the semantics, I would suggest the following: We title it the "Indian Rebellion of 1857" and in the first paragraph itself deal with the controversial issue briefly taking some elements of the discussion that I had with Sikandarji. Thereby we can make it fairly neutral in that we accept that some people have a differing opinion. And we create redirects e.g. "War of Indian Independence", "First war of Indian Independence" and "The Indian Mutiny" that point to this main page. How does that sound? --Raj 12:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine to me Sikandarji 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  In my opinion, there should actually be substantive discussion of what exactly the 1857 rebellion was. Historians in India have argued over the issue of whether it was really "national" or just confined to a few classes, and how much it involved an idea of "India" as opposed to Awadh, Maharashtra, Jhansi, etc, and it would be great if the article could actually discuss this in an unbiased way, perhaps in a separate section at the end.  The discussions between you and Sikhandarji could certainly serve as a good starting point for such a section. Incidentally, just to throw another name into the mix, textbooks used to call it the "National Uprising of 1857" when I studied history! -- Arvind 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's good. Leithp has in fact already implemented the suggestions! Thanks for that. I would further suggest that it would be appropriate to remove the following merge notice "mergefrom|First War of Indian Independence 1857", as it is no more relevant. We can create a redirect to the main page from the page "First War of Indian Independence 1857". --Raj 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I actually only noticed the problem because there were an awful lot of double redirects that hadn't been fixed. Leithp 08:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I have now written the following text, which, I believe, states both the positions in a fair manner. If there are no objections on your side then I will insert it in the main article:
[...] "The Indian Rebellion of 1857 is a modern, more neutral characterization of the conflict to bridge these diverging views."
Debate over the National Character of the Rebellion
There is a considerable debate over whether or not this conflict/rebellion that primarily took place in North-Central India be considered a war for India's independence. The first school of thought argues that the rebellion does not qualify to be called a war for India's independence mainly for following reasons:
* A united India did not exist at that time;
* The rebellion remained confined to the ranks of the Bengal Native Infantry and in North-Central India;
* The mutiny was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers, i.e. the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments;
* Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion.
The second school of thought while acknowleding the validity of the above-mentioned arguments argues that this rebellion may indeed be called a war of India's independence. The reasons advanced are:
* Even though the rebellion had various causes (e.g. sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the infamous Doctrine of Lapse etc.), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Moghul empire instead of heading home, which would have been reasonable if their revolt was only inspired by their grievances;
* There was a near-complete uprising on the part of the general public in many areass such as Awadh, Bundelkhand, Ruhailkhand. The character of the rebellion was therefore pan-regional.
* The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over, as Tapti Roy reports: "Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka" - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and the law & order to the Sepoy Commandant). This objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from whole "India", as they knew it then, signifies a national sentiment;
* The troops of the Bengal Native Infantry were used extensively in warfare and had therefore travelled extensively across Indian subcontinent. They had developed some notion of a nation-state called India and displayed in this mutiny (there were some others in previous years too) for the first time patriotic sentiments, as some contemporary British accounts e.g. Malleson suggest.
In short, we may summarize the discussion in following terms.
# If the criterion of a National War of Independence is set as "a war (or numerous conflicts) spread all over the nation cutting across regional lines", the rebellion in that case does not qualify as a war of India's independence.
# If the criterion for a National War of Independence is set as "a war, which even if geographically confined to certain regions, is waged with the intention of driving out from the complete national area a power perceived to be foreign", then it was certainly a war of independence. In this case it does not matter, whether it is the same India as we know it today. The important point is that certain sections of the society, howsoever small, fought for the first time for a national ideal.
This discussion shows that the term "national war" is subject to individual opinions and can not be answered decisively.
- Brief History of British Expansion in India -
--Raj 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty good - just a couple of quibbles
1 - "most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Moghul empire instead of heading home, which would have been reasonable if their revolt was only inspired by their grievances;"
They could hardly have expected to be able to return unmolested unless they also overthrew British Rule
2 - Use 'Native soldiers of the Bengal Army' rather than 'Bengal Native Infantry'. The Revolt included cavalry and artillerymen as well. B.N.I. was used for particular regimental titles. Some of them rebelled, some didn't, but equally many regiments that weren't B.N.I. did. Sikandarji 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback. You have a valid point about the Bengal Army. That I will change. About scores of the sepoys seeking to revive the Moghuls I have a different opinion. For not all sepoys headed for Delhi (or to Kanpur). In fact some complete regiments are reported to have formally disbanded themselves after looting the treasury, e.g. the 6th N.I. at Allahabad. And not all mutineers stationed at Jhansi headed to the war front in Delhi or Kanpur, but rather took service with the Scindias in Gwalior, the Rani in Jhansi or simply escaped home. So it was in no way natural for the sepoys to show the grit and resolve to fight for an ideal. The second point is, even if they had had the impression of being forced to fight for own survival, they could do so without seeking to revive an old national symbol. They might have very well turned to smaller princely states in their home regions. Another point to consider is the resolve of the sepoys to fight the British even long after Delhi and Kanpur were lost. The fight raged in Bundelkhand as late as April 1858 and the feelings were so strong that the rebels - sepoys and local Thakurs - threatend to kill Rani Laxmi Bai of Jhansi if she were to make a deal with the British. Even though a defeat at the hands of a by-then resurgent British was more or less a foregone conclusion. Similary the Nawab of Banda and other princes in area were coerced by the sepoys to fight "for the cause of the Emperor". Significantly, they did not pay any heeds to these princes. I therefore believe that it would be unfair to dismiss their resolve to seek a united "India" under the Moghuls and to revive the "past glory", as an attempt of purely self-preservation. Whether they were actually equipped to do so, is a different issue. But the rebellion was no less driven by ideological motives - not for all - but for many. --Raj 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for introduction 

message: Am I alone in thinking that the alterations made by an anonymous user (surprise surprise) to the opening paragraph are unacceptable? Particularly the reference to the Holocaust. This is so far from being an NPOV it's off the scale. He has also removed a picture. Votes for reversion? Sikandarji 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alterations 

message: This article is supposed to be a simple factual account of the Indian Mutiny. It is not supposed to be a platform for Indian nationalists (or, for that matter, British nationalists) to vent their propaganda. It needs major deconstruction and reconstruction. Christchurch 13:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not really sure whether you are also following what you are preaching to others (i.e. sticking to facts) by abusing what you claim are "Indian nationalists" when you remove sentences like: "There is a considerable debate over whether or not this conflict/rebellion that primarily took place in North-Central India be considered a war for India's independence." I would love to know in what sense is it a nationalist statement. But probably only your holy honour is in a position to judge matters. We have already put in a great effort here to find as objective a description as possible of an event that took place 150 years ago and many details of which are subject to controversy. And we continue our effort, the only pity is that self-proclaimed, anonymous "reformers" come and disturb the work. We have till now, at least this is my experience since I visit/edit this site, constantly and impartially removed any information, which did not seem to be correct. So please do not bring in this attitude here, as if we are here a bunch of nationalists and in the dire need of a truly impartial expert, that incidentally happens to be you - what a coincidence. I am impressed! --Raj 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have avoided reverting the article back to its earlier composition so as not to lose those edits which were in good taste and done by people with no malafide intentions. For some users it is unfortunately not the case. Their actions show a direct bias. --Raj 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The name of this article is a compromise reached after a good bit of discussion: it's been called "Indian Sepoy Mutiny" and "The First War of Indian Independence" at various stages in its history.  "Rebellion" seemed more neutral than either extreme. There are indeed some historians who argue that it was primarily a mutiny, but this is not a universal or even majority view even in academic circles (some fairly significant scholars - such as ET Stokes - take the view that it did become a civil uprising at least in the areas of Delhi, Haryana and the Doab) and, as a result, under Wikipedia's policies on neutrality we cannot present it as if it were.  It is at the same time obviously absurd (and completely unsupported by the scholarly literature) to attempt to apply to the analysis of the events of 1857 ideas of pan-Indian nationalism which do not appear to have existed in any meaningful sense at that time. The "neutral" way forward, at least according to my understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policies, is to factually describe the turmoil of 1857, and separately discuss the debate over its character. That is why the article is structured as it is: the section on the "Debate over the national character of the rebellion" starts the article by discussing the debate on the character of the events of 1857, and follows it up with a description of those events.  Obviously there is scope for improvements - in particular, there could easily be more reference to the academic literature.  If you'd like to make changes along those lines, please feel free to do so, but I'd suggest you discuss your changes here before making them in the article, and that you keep in mind the considerably stringent requirement of WP:NPOV. -- Arvind 12:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick to facts

message: _______________________________________________________
THE 1857 SEPOY MUTINY OR WAS IT THE FIRST INDIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
1857?
British and most native Indian historians treat this event alike as a
Sepoy mutiny, a mutiny of the British Indian native foot soldiers
against their British officers. Brave and loyal Indians, among the
princely states of Baroda, Jaipur, Bikaner, Patiala, Nabha, and Jind
and Nepal, put down this mutiny.
To get an idea of the treatment of the subject one has to only read a
prescribed text in Indian Universities, the highly regarded text " An
Advanced History of India-" by the esteemed Historians - R C
Majumdar, H. C. Ray Chaudhary, Kalika Ranjan Dutta. Macmillan India,
New Delhi republished this textbook first published in 1946, in its
4th edition in 1990.
It tells us that, the British were fortunate "to secure the loyalty
of and receive valuable aid from the likes of Sir Dinkar Rao of
GWALIOR, Sir Salar Jung of HYDERABAD, Jang Bahadur of NEPAL".  Praise
and thanks are bestowed on the Rajput princes of Rajastan and the
Sikh princes of Punjab, Gulab Singh of Kashmir, all of whom were by
then, little more then pensioners and tax collectors for the British.
Scindia of Gwalior, Gulab Singh of Kashmir, are singled out for
special praise. Of Scindia the British Historians wrote " he. Saved
India for the British" and of Salar Jang (later Sir Salar Jang), as
a " man whose name deserves to be ever mentioned by Englishmen with
gratitude and admiration"
The cause is supposed to have been the adoption of fat filled
cartridges in the newly introduced bullets. The fat was of Pigs and
Cows, thus offensive to both Muslims and Hindus.
The revolt spread from Calcutta to Peshawar and Central India. To
suppress it help came the quarters above.
A conspiracy, against the British, British, between Nana Sahib
Peshwa the adopted son of Baji Rao II, the last Peshwa, and the Rani
of Jhansi, Laxmi Bai and others is also suggested, and it is also
suggested that the conspiracy existed even before the revolt.
At it end untold atrocities were committed on the Indian people in
revenge.
The Bombay Telegraph reported, on the aftermath of the taking of
Delhi by the British,
" All the city people found within the walls when our troops arrived
were bayoneted on the spot; and the number was not inconsiderable, as
you may suppose when I tell you that in some houses forty or fifty
people were hiding"
When it was over, names like Laxmi Bai, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Sahib
Peshwa, Tantia Tope, lived on in the minds of the Indian psyche, to
be evoked as the precursors and role models of the freedom movement
that came later, and led to the independence of India from the
British in 1947.
However one is inclined to ask was this all, and was this cause
enough for a major conflagration to envelope then known British
India. ?
How is it, that such a well-coordinated effort existed from one end of
the nation to the other?
Was the entire Indian population so enthralled that they would risk
and not only risk, but also give up their lives?
Was all this to save a pension for Nana Sahib Peshwa, or so that
Laxmi Bai's adopted son could ascend the throne?
The causes, the organizers, the organization, and the coordination
were a little deeper, yet the story has not been told in full.
Names like Swami Omanand, Swami Purananand, Swami Virajanand, Swami
Dayanand are nowhere mentioned.
There is no cognizance of names like Nahar Singh, Rao Tula Ram, and
of sacrifices of the men and women of the Jat Sarv Khap. There is no
mention in our histories of how the headmen of the Panchayat of each
village in then Haryana were hanged to death, and entire villages
were burnt to the ground.
Haryana as it then was not the miniscule Haryana, of today, but a
vast republic, which spread from the Sutlej in then Punjab, to
Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh to Western UP. Its supreme Panchayat
governed this vast entire territory through its panchayat system.
Formed in 600 AD by the Jat Emperor Harsh Vardhan Virk, it was
headquartered at Shoron, district Muzzafarnagar, some 150 Kilometers
north east of Delhi on the Delhi - Dehradun Road. This republic faced
down the invaders like Ghazni, Ghauri, Timur and the Khiljis for over
one thousand years.
When the 1857 war was lost, it was destroyed. Its people were
punished. It was divided between the petty protectorates of the
British, the princes of Rajasthan, Punjab, and one part to form the
United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, and one to create what later
became the Union Territory of Delhi. The name Haryana was erased from
history.
Some records survived, and Dilip Singh Ahlawat, after much research
in the Sarv Khap records, wrote a History book in Hindi; Titled " Jat
Viron ka Ithihass" published from Rohtak in1988.
His account of the first war of Independence of 1857 is a little
different from the standard one
( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1126)
For a  full account [18 pages] see:
1857war.doc 
Indian Independence war – 1857
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
Ravi Chaudhary 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1857 REVOLT IN NORTH INDIA- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

message: There are plenty of Indian historians who do not regard 1857 as a 'War of Indian Independence', even though they do regard it as a popular uprising against alien rule. See Rudrangshu Mukherjee Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858 (Delhi) 2001 ppvii-xxii, 171-4. Frankly, given the enormous difficulty of reconciling the role of Bombay and Madras troops and Punjabi levies in suppressing the revolt with the idea that it had a 'National' (ie pan-Indian) character, it would be remarkable if there were no debate, even amongst Indian historians. As I have said before, beware of dividing the historiography of the period along 'national' lines. Official school textbooks are no guide to the state of scholarly debate on a subject such as this. Sikandarji 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate over 'National' Character of the Rebellion

message: The article, according to the wiki-gods, is getting too big. Might it be an idea to create a seperate article for a timeline of the rebellion, and just deal with the general trends of the rebellion in this article? Tomandlu 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: I was dissapointed that I was unable to find in this article the total number of people killed and wounded in this conflict. I would say that that is a fairly basic piece of information that should be included in the initial topic summary.
:I agree - to some extent this meshes with my concerns with the article size. It doesn't seem structured and just sort of rambles.
:I'm going to try a major rewrite. Should I post it somewhere else for review, or update the page? (I tend to favour the former, so that I don't have to worry about keeping up with every page update). Tomandlu 18:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware of POV-pushers, whether they be English, Indian, Muslim, Hindu.....or Jat. Half the talk pages on the Subcontinent seem to be taken up with arguments over which caste/religion can claim the credit for various events in Indian History. Having read Ravi's earlier contribution on the talk page I am a little bit suspicious, but perhaps I am being unjust as he hasn't attempted to alter the page and simply presented us with more information to consider. By the way, those links don't work if you don't use yahoo. Anywhere else you could put it?
As for the re-write: I don't mind seeing the debate shunted to the end, but it should stay in some form because the historiographical variations are a part of the story of the Mutiny. A lot of the stuff about British Rule over the preceding 50 years can probably be cut and shifted to another article, as these are part of a separate debate over precisely how far and in what ways India was changed by British Rule in this period (See D.A. Washbrook "India before 1858" in The Oxford History of the British Empire Vol.3 The Nineteenth Century). The title of that article by Stokes I referred to on the main page gives you some idea of what the debate is all about: it used to be assumed that the British were 'modernising' India with railways, telegraph, legal reforms, the abolition of sati etc. - and that it was resistance to this modernisation by the Army and the Ancien Regime which brought about the Mutiny. Stokes argued that if you look more closely, British rule was actually "Neo-Orientalising", as the textile manufacturing industry collapsed in towns such as Murshidabad, more and more people were forced to return to the land, and the early 19th century actually looks like a more static, agrarian society than the 18th did. Furthermore Dalhousie's and Bentinck's 'reforms' had virtually no impact outside the immediate hinterland of Calcutta, the railway from Bombay had not passed Thana, that from Calcutta had only reached Raniganj: social stagnation was what characterised Company Rule outside Calcutta. The Mutiny of the Bengal Army can certainly be attributed to fears of forced conversion to Christianity (Officers had become much more evangelical), ritual pollution, resentment at the reduction of their batta and anger at the annexation of Oudh - but the Company itself had encouraged the maintenance of elaborate caste distinctions and ritual purity as a means of engendering esprit de corps (See Seema Alavi The Sepoys and the Company (Delhi) 1998 p5). By 1857 the Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs of the Army were probably far more sensitive about their caste privileges than most groups in North Indian Society. This latter view is the one that holds sway, more or less, amongst both Indian and Western Historians. I'd be quite happy to write a brief page or section on it, or perhaps simply update a pre-existing "History of India in the Nineteenth century" page. Sikandarji 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Number Killed and Wounded?

message: Sikandraji and others
Thanks for the note.   Personally I dislike these unproductive edit/ revert wars. That is why I post on the discussion pages.
I am not pushing some hitherto unknown sources .
Suggestions for a devoted website are appreciated. Anyone willing to help?
To join the Jat history  group , simply click on 'join'.
url is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/
If anyone wishes a copy send me an e mail
For the rest, my take on historical matters, is let the evidence take care of itself and lead where it will.
Even retired army personel can be good historians- Cunningham for example, someone  called Winston Churchill, who some may recognize as a leader of Britian  in the early/mid part of the last century, was also previously in the army.
If you visit Shoron, Distt Muzzarfarnagr, U.P, India, on the Delhi- Dehradun road, you can still see the  building used for the Panachayat( council) meetings, and the records themsleves.
This area was razed to the ground by the British and their Indian levies, in 1857 and 1858, and much material was destroyed. Some did survive and was rediscovered some 60 years ago, which confirms the ongoing oral traditions.
Written History as some may note, is the publishing of the oral traditions. 
For aspiring historians, here is gold mine of historical  material  which throws considerablke light on the Jat republican society and their republics.
Luxman Burdak is another  civil servant( should that disqualify him!) and an aspiring Historian, bringing out historical material, some of it hitherto not well known. Let us wish him well in his endeavours.
and no! the sources are not suspicious. The difference is this, the sources and material is now coming out.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Jat Sarv Khap sources''' 

message: @ Hserus Almost all the literature that I know refers to "Ishwari Pandey" and to the fact that the mutineers were for that reason collectively referred to as "Pandies" e.g. see "The Great Mutiny" by Malleson (Rupa, 2005, Delhi), who was stationed at that time at Calcutta. One can also have a look at: http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/the_trial_of_mangal_pandey_i.html http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050911/asp/calcutta/story_5223117.asp
If I am not seriously mistaken, One can also consult Tapti Roy's "Politics of a popular uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857". Anyway, I would appreciate if people were not deleting information arbitrarily, just because they happen to have read something differently. It is necessary to "grant" others the "benefit of doubt" (as if they can also be neutral, not only just oneself). It would be highly appreciable, if you would refrain from "correcting" perceived "prejudices". In case you doubt the authenticity of some information, you could surely put your doubts on the Talk page, and wait for a day or two. --Raj 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing of the name of Ishwari "Pandey/Prasad" 

message: Hi,
It seems there is a small issue with the article being titled Indian Rebellion of 1857. I tried to find a middle way by adding both Indian and International (lets be frank - British) version of the title. But the problem is with some of us realizing that the description First Freedom Struggle IS what is taught in most schools and textbooks of India. The title Indian rebellion of 1857 already says it was a rebellion, what is so wrong in writing the Indian version too. However, unfortunately, the Indian description of the story seems SO VERY absurd that it gets edited twice?
Is this article supposed to be read only in one perception?
--Bobby Awasthi 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that (see debate above). Indian Rebellion of 1857 was agreed upon as an acceptable compromise after an awful lot of argument and it would be a pity to open that can of worms again. I had understood that the Revolt was referred to as The First War of Indian Independence in Indian school textbooks, not The First Freedom Struggle, but I may be wrong. Both those titles in my view indicate an overtly Nationalist and thoroughly anachronistic POV (again, see above) but that's by the by. The usual British name is indeed The Indian Mutiny, The Sepoy Mutiny or simply The Mutiny, a name still widely recognised but an inadequate description for a Rebellion that spread far outside the ranks of the army, so both sides have given some ground here. Can't we just leave it at that? Sikandarji 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The First War Of Indian Independence redirects to this article, so anyone searching for that will find this article.  The article also contains a section on names which discusses the various names by which the conflict is known, which again helps those searching.  Do you really think they all need to appear there?  -- Arvind 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article 

message: Just a thought, see the heading suggestion.Rueben lys 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jvalant - Of course the East India Company was both a civil authority and a constituted government. Whether you think it was legitimate or not is another matter, but it was the de facto ruler of a very large proportion of the Subcontinent by 1857 and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions from, but a Revolution involves much more than one Government being overthrown and replaced by another - that definition would fit "coup" as well. It involves a different social class taking power, something which clearly didn't happen in 1857. Your points about publishers are scarcely worth bothering with, but as I'm here I'll state the bleedin' obvious: there is a difference between a publisher reprinting a hateful polemic because of its historical interest, and an academic publisher deciding whether or not a new historical monograph is of sufficient merit in terms of research, analysis and balanced argument to be worthy of publication. Do you think they reprint Mein Kampf without prefaces explaining why such a revolting (and practically unreadable book) is important, and setting it in its historical context? Sheesh. And I have explained quite clearly why Savarkar's book is unacceptable - it's not an assertion based on personal prejudice, I have been able to produce facts to demonstrate why he and his work are unreliable and biased. He had no historical training, the book is not based on original research, it does not even pretend to be a neutral account of events: it is a polemical tract designed to stir up Indians to armed rebellion against the British in the very different political circumstances of 1909. Savarkar's subsequent career and role in creating the doctrine of Hindutva casts further doubts on his neutrality. Whether or not you admire his political ideas and his achievements as a Freedom Fighter, you cannot pretend he has no axe to grind. His book is not a reliable source for anything. Finally, my point is that Marx himself never used the title "Indian War of Independence", something you had previously claimed. In any case, given your objections to "leftist historians" (your words) such as Mukherjee and Stokes I find it rather odd your citing him. The Soviets had an ideological purpose in all their English-language publications, you can describe it as "malicious" if you want. I didn't, I just said it was inaccurate.
Let us take your proposed title step by step and put an end to this nonsense:
The First War of Indian Independence
1) - "First" -  If you really believe that 1857 was a "War of Indian Independence" it can't possibly have been the First War of Indian Independence. What about the resistance which Siraj ud-Daula, Tipu Sultan, the Marathas and the Sikhs offered to British Expansion? It must be the fourth, fifth or sixth war of Indian independence.
2) - "War" - This describes some of what went on in 1857 but by no means all of it. It also comprised a military mutiny, an aristocratic rebellion and a popular peasant uprising. War is an inadequate word to describe this and has connotations either of Civil War, or war between two sovereign powers, which does not fit this case in the least.
3) - "Indian" - As we have already discussed at enormous length, although of course the Rebellion was "Indian" in the sense that it took place on the territory of Modern India, it was not "Indian" in the sense of having a united and independent India as its ultimate goal (as the later independence movement did) or in involving anywhere in the Subcontinent outside the Doab, Awadh, Bundelkhand and Eastern Rajputana and Punjab. It was suppressed by Punjabi, South Indian and Bombay (i.e. in some cases Maratha) troops fighting for the British.
4) - "Independence" - Tell me, did India achieve independence in 1857? Was that even what the rebels were all fighting for? The Rani of Jhansi and the Nana Sahib wanted their kingdoms back. The Sepoys wanted to place Bahadur Shah Zafar on the throne. Bahadur Shah just wanted to be left alone. The Muslims of the Doab wanted a holy war, the peasantry of Bundelkhand and Awadh wanted freedom from a crippling tax burden, amongst other things. Half the time we're only guessing because aims were often unclear, confused and contradictory. They cannot be resolved to the single political aim of "Independence", let alone an anachronistic idea of independence for an Indian nation-state. Sikandarji 20:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, "The American Heritage Dictionary". Some of us use Chambers, or Webster's, or indeed the Oxford English Dictionary which is the  standard reference work. Clearly you know better. Surely you can see that any definition of a "Revolution" which renders it indistinguishable from a "coup" is useless and inaccurate? The 1857 Rebellion was organised, just not across the whole of India, and without any overall uniformity. You seem to be twisting a divergence of aims into a lack or organisation, and this does not necessarily follow. The East India Company was a constituted government: not a legitimate government in nationalist eyes, not a very nice Government, but nevertheless a Government, one which collected taxes, administered justice, raised an army, founded universities and trained a civil service. It hadn't functioned as a trading company since 1833, and the significance of its commercial activities had been declining for a long time before that. Whether it was governing to maximise profit or not is neither here nor there. It was still governing. Bahadur Shah was not.
I've had enough of this. You've ignored every single one of my arguments, and persist in your (frankly offensive) equation of respected historians and their work with Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf! I shall say this very slowly: You cannot use the argument that some German publisher brought out Mein Kampf in the 1930s to "prove" that the decision by the Oxford University Press to publish the work of bone-fide historians in the 1980s is motivated by similar political considerations. Your description of Stokes, Roy, Mukherjee and the other historians I've cited (none of whose work you have read) as "Imperialist bootlickers" is extremely revealing. You clearly aren't interested in having a rational debate, and your POV is so extreme it's off the scale. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your own brand of Indian Nationalist myth is simply dismissed with insults. Please leave this page alone. Sikandarji 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, Jvalant but you're wrong, and way out of line here.  I was educated only in india but am still neutral in that I can see a lot of inconsistencies in what you're spouting so far.  This certainly was not the first war of indian independence, not that the concept of "india" existed in the minds of most of the main driving forces in 1857 .. taluqdars in awadh because british land policies threatened to take away their only revenue stream: tax collection from villages under their purview.  The rani of jhansi because her husband died childless and because of the doctrine of lapse [and because her overtures to the british, to ally with her against her traditional enemies from Orcha failed].  Various others for various reasons Sikanderji and others posited.  And this entire first war, sepoy mutiny or whatever was a purely cow belt phenomenon, with troops from other parts of India actively suppressing the people who did rise up against the british.  The sepoys themselves rose up because of a variety of reasons (campaigns in the punjab were no longer treated as foreign duty, there was the risk of their being sent to fight in the crimean war etc - crossing the water meaning losing caste for some of them, a succession of poor officers (rather than charismatic ones like Henry Lawrence, John Nicholson and others) who kept trying to play missionary - manifold reasons, but the rumor about cartridges greased with lard and tallow was the one thing that was needed to throw a lighted match into what was already a dangerous looking pile of explosives.  But sepoys fighting for a variety of privileges, a few minor landlords fighting for their revenue streams etc certainly dont add up to a "war for indian independence" .. there was simply a common enemy, the british.  For anything at all like a concept of "India" and a nationwide campaign for independence, you have to go a few decades more down the road, to when the indian NATIONAL congress was formed  srs 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, a rather good overview of british land policies in India - one that is reasonably accurate - is available in http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/laveleye/PrimProp24.htm (and there are citations too - hyperlinked footnotes that you really should read, for more).  That will probably explain why the peasantry rose up in one part of India, while petty landowners / taluqdars did so in another.  Your quoting of Marx is not exactly the best thing you did, Jvalant .. see these for example.
First - part of what Marx wrote in the NY Daily Tribune - he doesnt like Indians any more than he likes the British but he does have a certain amount of cynicism (or marxist rhetoric, shall we say).
The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and Religion."
                                          -Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853. 
Of course there was expansionism too - all of which caused several enemies to be made - but mostly for their own self interest.  No mention of the south, or the east of India as you see [and the east of india, especially Bengal, became a crucial part of the movement for indian independence in a very few short decades AFTER the sepoy mutiny]
... these annexations were a source of discontent and anxiety to many people besides the sepoys. In eight years, Canning's predecessor, the despotic Lord Dalhousie, at 35 the youngest Governor-General India had ever known, had annexed over 250,000 square miles-- an area three times the size of England and Ireland. The Punjab, Sattara, Nagpur-- Dalhousie's hands had stretched out to embrace them all. 'An Indian Governor General,' stormed The Hindu Patriot, 'is chartered to destroy dynasties with a scratch of his quill.' Indignities were heaped upon crowned heads: the jewels of the Royal Family of Nagpur were publicly auctioned in Calcutta. (Collier 19)
As for the Sepoys, you'll find Kaye and Malleson to be quite accurate.
"action of a different character ... so dear to the untravelled Englishman, or forcing the ideas in which he has been nurtured upon the foreign people with whom he has brought into contact, assisted ... to loosen the bonds of discipline, which, up to that period, had bound the [Sepoy] to his officer" (Malleson 8).
"Untraveled englishmen" coming over in droves after India suddenly becomes a more fashionable place to come into, supplanting several other englishmen who were rather more rugged individualists, and quite popular with the Indians (several of the early ones married indian wives, were best of friends with the local people / rajas, idolized by the troops under their command etc).  Kipling's Kim is a fascinating study (though set a couple of decades after 1857) - Colonel Creighton talking to Kim says 
thou are a Sahib and the son of a Sahib. Therefore, do not at any time be led to contemn [sic] the black men. I have known boys newly entered into the service of the Government who feigned not to understand the talk or customs of black men. Their pay was cut for ignorance. There is no sin so great as ignorance. Remember this."
This was the beginning of a fairly gradual change in british policy (right after the crown took back control of India from the east india company after 1857, bringing most of India barring a few princely territories under a single government, and establishing the indian civil service in place.  It was also the beginning of the end - A.O.Hume was an ICS officer and the indian national congress originally started off asking for more representation for Indians in Indian government and civil service.
British education (something that the East India Company didn't exactly care to bring to the Indians) too played a part - first producing the much parodied "bengali babus" - people like Hurree Chunder Mookerjee in Kipling's Kim (who looks fat and oily and speaks funny english, but is remarkably well educated, and has the sort of courage and quick wit that makes him go out into a snowy wasteland and deceive two well armed russian spies). And then producing people who did everything from launch their own armed rebellions (Aurobindo and Barindra Ghosh in Bengal would be an excellent example, and Bhagat Singh too ..) to people like Gandhi, a practicing lawyer, and various other figures from the 1900s on, who were all slowly undermining the British institutions that they participated in, with politics and diplomacy - and with the launch of true mass movements such as the Quit India movement, for example, or the call for a ban on foreign goods + promotion of Khadi.  srs 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Read what I have written above. I have stated that I agree that the idea of India did not exist in the mind of the revolutionaries. That idea existed a few decades down the road. But the idea of a "nation-state" is a Western one. Throwing out an alien power through an armed struggle should be enough to qualify it for being a "War of Independence" as it fits the defintion of the words in question. Lastly, I also agree that that it was not a pan-Indian war with all Indian regions not being represented. But that can't be requirement - since not all Indian regions were represented in the Sino-Indian war of 1962 or any of the Indo-Pak wars. If those revolutionaries would had succeeded, there would definitely not be the Union Jack flying over India. Probably, nor would the tricolor. There would could have possibly been a bunch of nation-states perpetually at each others' throats. I agree that it was the period between 1857-1947 that the idea of an "Indian" nation-state took root. None of this takes away from the fact, that British rule over India would have ended in 1857, and present-day India would have been independent then. (Jvalant 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?!?  You mean just because the sino indian war was fought on the border areas of India, like all other wars so far in Independent india, they were'nt fought by the Indian army, with soldiers from all over india fighting in these wars (often assigned to regiments that were completely non religious / non regional in character, unlike the older regiments the British used that kept together people of a single community or caste -- again a factor in the mutiny).  You really need to go back and read some history, Jvalant.  With an open mind this time.  srs 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not waste your time srs, Jvalant will clearly not listen to reason and will continue to push his extreme point of view, whilst rubbishing the views of anyone who tries to argue with him. NJW494 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we call this an insurrection?

message: ::How and why did you come to conclusion that NJW494  is a racist and holds KKK views Jvalant??? I am an Indian and I don't find anything remotely racist in what he has said (or anything anybosy else has said for that matter). In fact it is you who is abusing everybody else here, and all over one simple word. You have accused others of being racist (without provocation), you have called them KKK without any reason or provocation, you are accusing them of holding imperialist view point, whereas it is absolutely clear that you have nationalist and jingoist POV. You are the only one who is trying to provoke (and provoking) others. Wikipedia is an encycolpedia, not a place to make points. We enlist facts and not what is bad and good. That is for the reader to decide. Hence wikipedia's Neutral point of view  policy. Everybody, and I mean everybody has tried to reason with you in a very civil manner while you have accused them of racism, intolerance, and every other kinds of slant. If you have any positive contributions  to make, please do so. Your contributions are otherwise of no interest and will be reverted time and again. And stop from making personal abuses and attacks as you continue. It is a violation of wikipedia's Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Rueben lys 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User [[User:Jvalant|Jvalant]] is repeatedly engaging in slander and abuse against other editors as per above three discussions (at the least).

message: Firstly, I did not indulge in personal attacks on NJW unilaterally. If you can read correctly, go ahead and see that he was the one who initially called me a racist. Despite his provocations, I ignored him a couple times. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of turning the other cheek. 
Secondly, you seem to have taken the Bengal criticism to heart. I never stated Shivaji, Sambhaji or Balaji Rao fought the British. However, they did fight invaders and occupiers which is a far cry from Bengal which was the one of first (if not the first) Indian state/region to foldover to the Brits without putting in much of a resistance. In 1971, Bengal was East Pakistan - once again, Bengali Pakistanis let and even cheered as well as helped as foreigners invaded what was Pakistani soil. Of course they were completely justified in wanting to overthrow the military rule in East Pakistan because of the atrocities committed. My point is that they could not do it on their own. They needed outside help to do it. That's all. 
And err - [User:Rueben lys|Rueben lys] stated "Bengal and Punjab have produced more freedom fighters than you have light bulbs in your Maharashtra." Again, what a brilliant, well-thought out NPOV based on logic and facts.
:Nice conception of the truth you've got there.  I just described you edit as "nationalistic" and "bigoted", simple facts, whilst you basically called me a racist and a KKK member (not true).  You've continually used race to advanc your goals on this page.  Something that is certainly not true of any of your opponents.  Observers should look at Jvalant's talk page to see another example of racial terminology being used to justify his position, something I took into account when I first wrote on this matter.  I believe now that nothing short of blocking Jvalant from this encyclopaedia would stop him from peddling his ridiculous bias.  NJW494 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User [[User:Rueben lys|Rueben lys]] is slanting facts and enganging in slander  

message: Does anyone have an issue with the title being changed to "The Indian Uprising of 1857" or merely "The Uprising of 1857"? The events do live up to the definition. (Jvalant 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point to be honest, given that "Uprising" has more or less the same meaning as "Revolt" or "Rebellion". The latter two terms are used more frequently in the existing literature. Sikandarji 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That change would not bother me, and sounds reasonable.  It may not be worthwhile though.  Let us all be friends though.  Further arguments will not be productive.  NJW494 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If anyone has objections to it being changed to "The Indian Uprising of 1857", please post here within 24 hours. Else, I shall go ahead and change the name. (Jvalant 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do. I'm sure so do Sikandarji and others on this list.  srs 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to sound curmudgeonly here, but Hserus is right: I really don't think this is necessary, and unnecessary page moves should be avoided.Sikandarji 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do I get arbitration here? Most of this article's content including its title is skewed toward the British POV. It can't be called NPOV by any stretch of imagination.(Jvalant 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just out of interest, why do you dislike the British? NJW494 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just out of goodwill NJW494, (though I aint a party to the debate between you two, nor do I wish to) please go ahead and read the small excerpt I have copied from the main article to point out at the self-centred nature of some of the editors; and you would realize why some people dislike British! --Bobby Awasthi 10:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The passages that you mention seem to be slightly odd, perhaps ripped from an older work.  Nevertheless I still find it difficult to understand Jvalant's dislike of Britain and the British.  NJW494 11:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Olive Branch 

message: Please read the few lines I have copied from Cawnpore section:
The surviving women and children of the initial betrayal,(If firing broke out while they were fleeing would that amount to the description of betrayel, just on the assumption that British were too weak at that time to have instigated the firing?)  were led to Bibi-Ghar (the House of the Ladies) in Cawnpore. On the 15th of July, worried by the approach of the British forces and believing that they would not advance if there were no hostages to save,,(is there any official proof of this mindset of the rebels?) the Nana Sahib ordered their murders.(Again is there any official proof that Nana Sahib ordered this murder? Anything could have happened and/or instigated those murders within Bibi Ghar...)  After the sepoys refused to carry out this order, four butchers from the local market were ordered into the Bibi-Ghar where they proceeded to hack the hostages apart with cleavers and hatchets. The victims' bodies, some still living,(which witness accounted for the word living?) were thrown down a well.
The butchering of the women and children proved to be a mistake. The British public was aghast and the pro-Indian proponents lost all their support. Cawnpore became a war cry for the British and their allies for the rest of the conflict. The Nana Sahib disappeared and was probably killed trying to escape India.(There is NO SUCH PROOF of his death in history. Grapevine suggests he lived the rest of his life hidden in Nepal, due to the respect for his priest status in the eyes of the king there. But nobody wrote THAT because nobody knows. This particular sentence appears to have been written for achieving Mental Solace for present day British Nationalists. ANYTHING CAN BE ADDED ALONGSIDE THE WORD...PROBABLY... to any article on Wikipedia!)
When the British retook Cawnpore later, the soldiers took their sepoy prisoners to the Bibi-Ghar and forced them to lick the bloodstains from the walls and floor. They then hanged or "blew from the cannon" the majority of the sepoy prisoners. Although some claimed the sepoys took no actual part in the killings themselves, they did not act to stop it and this was acknowledged by Captain Thompson after the British departed Cawnpore for a second time. Overall, the majority of native and British civilian (men, women and children) casualties during the rebellion were inflicted by the mutineers.(This is a completely misleading piece of imagination. The victor always inflicts more injury to his enemy that the loser in any war. British forces were the final victors. Do the editors dispute that also? Just to prove my point I am quoting an absolutely opposite statement with historical proof from another section in this very article:
The British adopted the old Mughal punishment for mutiny and sentenced rebels were lashed to the mouth of cannons and blown to pieces. It was a crude and brutal war, with both sides resorting to what would now be described as war crimes. In the end, however, in terms of sheer numbers,the casualties were significantly higher on the Indian side. A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the "Bombay Telegraph" and subsequently reproduced in the British press testified to the scale of the retaliation:
".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed".
As a result, the end of the war was followed by the execution of a vast majority of combatants from the Indian side as well as large numbers of civilians perceived to be sympathetic to the rebel cause. The British press and British government did not advocate clemency of any kind, though Governor General Canning tried to be sympathetic to native sensibilities, earning the scornful sobriquet "Clemency Canning". Soldiers took very few prisoners and often executed them later. Whole villages were wiped out for apparent pro-rebel sympathies.
The above is the real truth which has been turned upside down in the section I have pointed to.
I am ashamed that vandalism has been legalised in this entire section and I am sure all those editors would be from a particular race/nationality because I am FROM the city, FROM one of the families that were apparently rewarded for their alliance with British Forces and I have heard numerous first person recounts of what actually happened but dont have any proved versions to tell.
--Bobby Awasthi 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right to draw attention to this Bobby, because this is an episode that attracted particular attention at the time and has raised passions ever since. The British saw the massacre of women and children at Cawnpore as the central deed of violence and immorality which justified not only their subsequent brutal retaliation, but also their rule for the next ninety years. This is why the largest Mutiny Memorial in India was constructed over the well in the Bibi-Ghar into which the bodies were thrown, together with an enormous memorial church in the cantonment (which I visited earlier this year). The problem is that, so far as I am aware, there are no published contemporary accounts in Hindi, Urdu or Persian of what happened, and of the manuscripts and oral traditions the only one I have seen referred to is by one "Nanakchand", whose account is reproduced by G.O. Trevelyan in his Cawnpore. The single eyewitness source upon whom most historians rely for a description of the siege and the initial massacre at the Ghat is Captain Mowbray Thompson's The Story of Cawnpore - he was one of three British officers to escape alive, but of course did not witness the Bibi-ghar massacre. Everything else is derived from the brief appeals for assistance which General Wheeler was able to send out of the entrenchment, the reports of officers and journalists after the recapture of the city and the depositions of sixty-three Indian witnesses from Cawnpore, taken by the British in their enquiry after the capture of the city. These were published by G.W. Forrest in 1902, and I have a copy of the AES reprint. Whilst these are as close as we are likely to get to an account of the siege and massacre from the other side, the manner in which the depositions were taken and the interviews conducted means it is a source which must be handled carefully - I can put in some stuff derived from it if you want. Nobody knows exactly what happened or who was directly responsible; although the Nana Sahib's previous conduct does not suggest that he was a man of any great morality, and as ruler of the city he bore some sort of responsibility for the massacre, we do not know for certain if he ordered it directly. However, even from British accounts we have plenty of evidence that, horrific as the massacre was, the retaliation which followed, not just in Cawnpore but all over Northern India, was even more horrific and resulted in the slaughter of innocent civilians on a massive scale. An profound callousness and easy brutality characterised many British officers who had lived through the Rebellion and in some cases had their families killed, and they responded savagely. W.H. Russell, Harriet Tytler and many others give us ample corroboration of this, and it was widely condemned by many observers at the time. The Indian victims of the British suppression of the Rebellion were much greater in number than the British killed in the initial massacres at Jhansi, Delhi and Cawnpore. The latter, however, have a hundred and fifty year old tradition of tragic narrative behind them. Sikandarji 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Sikandarji, I do appreciate and respect your neutrality and rationalism. However, the question still remains from my point of view. Dont you (and other editors) think there is ample (and actually desirable) scope of editing the english used first of all to make the article actually neutral? And I am not even seeking to change the contents. Please advice! --Bobby Awasthi 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Discussion required - The language is clearly biased in favour of British Nationalism 

message: Almost all the references are British with the exception of one. There is one Pakistani reference from the Nation which clearly states "In May 1857, the Indians launched their last crucial struggle to free the subcontinent from the oppressive and exploitative rule of the British East India Company." However, this assertion of the author is completely ignored. But his other words seem to justify inclusion. Why the double standard? 
Almost all the Further Reading of the section has British sources as well. (Jvalant 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't properly referenced yet, that's quite true. However newspaper articles do not make good sources, as they are not properly peer-reviewed, are usually based on superficial research and have no references. There are a few non-British sources in the "Further Reading Section": 
* Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad, Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind 1859; Translated as The Causes of the Indian Revolt, Allahabad, 1873.
* Sen, Surendra Nath, Eighteen fifty-seven, (with a foreword by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad), Indian Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Delhi, 1957.
* Roy, Tapti, The politics of a popular uprising : Bundelkhand 1857, Delhi, for the Oxford University Press, 1994.
* Rizvi, Syed Khurshid Mustafa: 1857 - History of the Indian Struggle for Freedom, Raza Library, Rampur, 2000 [in Urdu].
* Mukherjee, Rudrangshu: Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001.
however nobody has made proper use of them yet. You might know of a few more, perhaps in Hindi? I would suggest that you concentrate on the balance and neutrality of an author's language and arguments and the quality and reliability of their sources rather than making snap judgments about them and their POV based on their nationality. You will get a lot further as a historian this way. And try not to fling epithets like "Imperialist" around too indiscriminately - you might be justified in the case of, say, a 19th century author like Lord Roberts, but you cannot then simply tar post-colonial historians like Mukherjee and Stokes with the same brush. And even "Imperialist" narratives can be used as source material if handled carefully. The most detailed accounts we have of what happened at Kanpur, for instance, are in Forrest's publication of Despatches from the Military Department, which include numerous depositions from eyewitnesses to the massacres and their aftermath. These are very difficult to use because of the strongly British POV which pervades the despatches and the editorial voice of the collection, and we then have to bear in mind the sort of questions that were being asked, and the pressure on those interviewed to adhere to a particular narrative. This doesn't mean we can't use this source at all, merely that due caution must be exercised. You will need to do a little more research before you can simply dismiss any publication with an English name attached to it as unreliable and "Imperialist". Sikandarji 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Further Reading 

message: Yet another glaring omission is that there is no mention of Tatya Tope who was one of the main figures in the Indian side and one of the few "Indians" who was "one general held in high regard" by the Brits. - Source Bruce Watson's "The Great Indian Mutiny: Colin Campbell and the Campaign at Lucknow". It also states that Bengal regiments in Punjab were quietly disarmed. Also, "there were stirrings in many parts of the subcontinent...there stirring never came to a boil. Uprisings in Bombay and Hydrebad (sic) were quelled by military force."  So much for it being NPOV. (Jvalant 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another glaring omission 

message: had copied content off this page and created the article First War of Indian Independence, and changed a lot of redirects to this page to point to the forked article. I have requested him to discuss it here in the talk page first before making such unilateral forks. Thanks. --Ragib 02:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy pasted fork of the article and change of redirects by Jvalant