In this video, I look at the causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/use... Facebook: thethenan... Instagram: / thethenandnow Twitter: / lewlewwaller
The Battle of Plassey DID NOT secure the British monopoly over India. It only gave them control over a small portion of Bengal in Eastern India. The British had to fight 3 wars later with the Marathas, the de facto rulers of most of India at the time, and it was finally during the 3rd Anglo-Maratha war in 1818 that the British had control over a large portion of India.
@Field Marshall Rommel the British fought wars with the Sikhs, the Marathas, the Afghans, The Mughals, the Mysore Sultans, the Hyderabad rulers, various independent smaller states, the Nawabs of Awadh and Bengal and then, at around 1856 they annexed the last independent and formidable state of Awadh. The conquest of the Indian subcontinent was not a cakewalk for anyone in history. In fact, other conquerors, like the Mughals, managed to annex a larger part of the Indian subcontinent in a shorter period of time as compared to the British. The best part is, most of the earlier foreigners who made India their home, stayed and ruled large parts of the Indian subcontinent as men of the very same soil. The Mughals, The Kushans(Central Asian), The Huns, The Scythians, the Indo Greeks are some of the best example of this. They sought to achieve goals that secured the economic, political and military interests of the then Mughal or Kushan or Indo Scythian of Indo-Hunnic Empire which ruled over various parts of the Indian subcontinent and its people in history for periods ranging from a 100 to 200 years. The reason why Indians despise the British rule and the very characteristic which earned the British empire its criticism was the nature of their rule. They exploited the very people over whom they were supposed to rule. The entire experience was one of racism, exploitation and suppression. The British didn't usher in a light of civilisation, the Indians were amongst the oldest surviving civilisations in the world. They had made advances in science, maths, astronomy, geography, metallurgy and navigation during the first 6 centuries of the Common Era, that would take the "British" or rather the Western world another 1000 years to catch up. Hell, until the reformations, most of the Christian world believed the universe of Geocentric. The Indians figured out the Universe of Heliocentric back in the 2nd century AD. The British discriminated in the dispensation of justice in courts in which an Indian was guaranteed a punishment for being accused by a Britisher, but the opposite was true if the roles were reversed. The Indian manufacturer was forced out of employment because the British industrialists hated their competition. The Indian soldier was just as competent as his European counterpart, but was expected to perform the latter's duties for them. The poverty and famine of Indians was of no concern to their colonial masters. That's the reality of the British rule in India.
@@sakshampandey7342 this kind of nationalist chauvinism about India's historic advancement is as embarassing as imperial chauvinism about Britain's or France's conquests. India may have been very advanced relative to the rest of the world in certain fields 2500 or 1200 years ago or whenever, but by 1600 or 1700 it had been falling behind in terms of jurisprudence, political philosophy, medical science, agricultural science, technology etc. It's ignorant and vainglorious to hold up India's historic achievements as an example of why India was superior 1000 years after those achievements had been made. As for the British empire's record in India, it was a mixed bag, like all other periods of Indian history and brought many benefits and positive developments along with the negatives.
@@denverbritto5606 I don't even think you understood the point I was making. When I list down the social, cultural, scientific and philosophical achievements of Indians, the purpose is to show that the British claim that India was a land of despots, that they came to civilise was evidently wrong.
You smartly defended British atrocities At 4:11 you mentioned executed by canon but you didn't mention Howit was like this George Carter Stent described the process as follows The prisoner is generally tied to a gun with the upper part of the small of his back resting against the muzzle. When the gun is fired, his head is seen to go straight up into the air some forty or fifty feet; the arms fly off right and left, high up in the air, and fall at, perhaps, a hundred yards distance; the legs drop to the ground beneath the muzzle of the gun; and the body is literally blown away altogether, not a vestige being seen.
After reading history... I always wonder that how can a man become so cruel to these kind of acts... Where those people even human beings who have done this... How were they even able sleep after doing this to a living being.....I wonder what causes a man to be so brutal.....
This video does not do justice to the horrific conditions during the siege of Delhi' (the Red Fort). I have read the book "Mutiny at the Red Fort" . (written in 1956) Four months of mud and disease, of incompetence and heroism. The smell of the corpses, the myriad of flies, the swamps and the constant shell fire.
@AJ plus when the Mughal emperor was captured and his sons were captured, many of the Delhites armed themselves and tried to save the Mughal princes but were told lay their arms down
1. The beef/pork rumour was just that, a rumour. The enfield round used lubricant made of beeswax. 2. 1858-1947 is NOT "almost 200 years later". Ita not even a 100 years later. It's 90 years later.
The Enfield cartridges issued to India were not greased with animal fat they were greased with vegetable fat. This beef/pork fat grease was a rumour that has never been successfully quashed. The British took representatives from several battalions of native infantry to examine the cartridges production at the arsenal in Bangalore and they were much relieved but the army in general wouldn’t believe it. The British even offered to let the sepoys grease the cartridges themselves at one point but it didn’t matter. Once the rumour was out there it wouldn’t go away.
Is it written in English history books? Please inform the source of the same. Will be helpful. Do not quote writings of European officers of that time. It is manipulated. Any Indian historical context is welcome.
@@bharatekhindurashtra3864 The book that I read that in most recently was James Ward's Our Bones Are Scattered which I am still in the midst of reading.
I will surely read it once. I am right now amidst An Era of Darkness by Shashi Tharoor. Would like you to read the same. You will surely find both quite contradictory to each other
Just to clarify, the proper name was not the British east India company (as it was chartered in 1600, and Britain was created as a union in 1707) but it was called the "Honourable East India Company"
The only reason why india was supposidly given its indipendance was cos there was nothing left of it after the british had finished with it . Same time and reason with palistine.
No it was because they didn't have the resources left to keep it anymore. They would have loved to keep the colonies even now. It was just ww2 drained them of any ability to hold all the colonies.
@@eagleleft not to mention mass rebellions had started all across India after the Red fort trials against INA officers resulting in the royal Indian Navy mutiny and police mutiny followed by anti-british riots
@@SACHINYadav-sn4op but it paved the way to conquer india on finance of Bengal ....as company got diwani rights and battle of Buxar 1764 ....in which Mughal emporor ...bengal naawan and king of awadh all combine forces defeated
Ya even I was thinking about it. Maybe he spanned their entire stay from 1757 (Battle of Plassey) to 1947 (Independence) which is 190 years. But considering only Crown rule then it's 1858 to 1947 which is 89 years.
The Mutiny, while being a bit wider than a purely military revolt, was not a national revolution, as the people of India had very little national awareness at that time; the idea of a self-governing Indian nation-state had not taken root. It was the emergence of an educated, politically aware Indian middle class that was to bring about the independence movement, and they were, in the main, a product of the post-Mutiny Raj.
If only india was successful in 1857 then India would get independence at 1857 itself and British colonsim would never even happen. India would be even more United and there would be no Pakistan or Bangladesh
It was basically a Muslim Jihad centered on the Muslim State of Oudh which had just been annexed by the East India Company in 1856. The first Regiments of the EiC to mutiny were Muslim, raised in Oudh, the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry and 20th Native Infantry at Meerut and the 2nd Bengal Light Cavalry at Cawnpoor. Hindu regiments joined the mutiny and this prompted several Hindu leaders in Delhi, Cawnpoor and Jhansi to join in a rebellion. Their private armies bolstering the numbers of the mutineers. The State Oudh then joined the rebellion and besieged the EIC Garrison at Lucknow.
The British looted India for resources and money till there was nothing left but just land and people. While fighting WW2 After wasting all the wealth and resources on their personal war when the time came to rebuild, They realised they would become accountable for taking away resources from Indians and causing manufactured famines in India. Their promise to leave India was to their benefit of not being accountable for the loot of India.
Some BS right there. The British empire was losing more money in India than any other colony since 1890s. Canada and usa gave more resources than india did.
@@vatsal7640 well it BS your brain and logic Britishers were out of India in 1947 and became an independent country so how can they still get resources from India in 1990s
@@vatsal7640you trying to use "i" in small letters for India also make you illiterate in English as you should use it in capital form while writing a name of person or any country and I know you did that on purpose you son of a bicth racist filthy person.
@@realgammer6645 1890 * sorry. And what Is said is common knowledge, the loot which you speak of was very small compared to wealth donated by canada and other British dominions. British left india due to labour party and not cause of some mythical indian uprising which indian nationalist on the internet seem to believe.
I'm using a couple of these clips for a school project if that's ok with you? We had to do search and come up with edits and my teacher said we could find them online but w/ permission
2: 10 - hindus those days we're extremely conservative. British marrying their women would have been a matter of great shame for them. Maybe the tribals and others but not the aryan caste Hindus. The white skin supremacy is a myth It was and is all about lineage.
Thanks for reminding me of the novels of John Masters :Bhowani Junction and The Night Runners of Bengal ..... wow, 30 yrs ago this was perhaps what peaked my intellectual curiosity. Eva Gardener was controversially chosen to play the Indian wowen --- still gr8 book and film
If the Indian Mutiny of 1857 was a great war for independance, why did only 13% of the native population support it? More to the point, why did 87% of the native population NOT support it?
It's no coincidence that This year in particular resulted in multiple indigenous peoples all across the world were experiencing the same type of rebellion.
I believe you are incorrect regarding one point. Though Akbar advocated religious tolerance, his views didn't persist beyond his lifetime. I think your statement gives the mistaken impression India was religiously harmonious, and would therefore imply that later religious intolerance was solely due to British influence.
It was a mutiny. Simple. If it had not been for the loyalty of the Sikhs the outcome would have been terrible. Most Indians were and are great friends and allies.
South Indian soldiers fought the battle of Plassey , Bengali and Pashtoon Soldiers fought the battle of Buxar , Bengal regiment Consisting of Brahmins from Awadh , Bihar and Bengal fought the Anglo Sikh and Anglo Maratha wars . So basically Indians defeated Indian for British . That's called Capitalism
Many princely kingdoms gave soldiers to East India company. Also the British sent almost 75,000 soldiers from all across it's empire. The Scottish highlanders were sent to counter the invincible sepoys of Bihar and UP. They were considered undefeatable by the people. The British used automatic rifles and had hired soldiers from across Sikh and Punjabis and pathans and also dogras and gorkhas and some other princely kingdoms who had their own forces and army gave support to East India company and the British.
Aryan chakraborty ..let me blow of your delusion. The Bengal army was overwhelmingly bihari famously called purbiyas. They were far more orthodox and tolderated no pashtun and it's the. Who defeated the Bengali army of nawabs. Their ethnic pride was used to crush kingdoms from Afghanistan to Burma.
Well they want to do a full war against east India company but they need to find main reason to inspire people to fight against British and Mangal Pandey found a reason which is gun which hurt both religions feeling and than Mangal started a war and it ended the company and started the raaj😢
Saying that Jallaludin/Albar was tolerant of other religion is debateable, in fact he killed tens of thousands of Hindus at Chittorgarh so he was infact more of a tyrant and oppresser than a tolerant ruler, like most of the mughal rulers.
Have you ever heard about AKBARS 7 GEMS ? 💎 5 out 7 of them were HINDUS 🕉 his main military general was himself an Rajput from Jaipur named MAHARAJA JAI SINGH ! I am myself living in chittorgarh Rajasthan you must not spread fake information about war these could indeed incite religious IN-TOLERANCE in nation 🇮🇳 It wasn't a war of HINDUS vs MUSLIMS it was just very simply a WAR like any other war at that time
@@shauryasinghrathore3316 A revisionist, that's a very dangerous profession my dear. The massacre at Chittorgarh is a well documented and established fact, stop your fake propaganda.
@@shauryasinghrathore3316 lol stop the BS of Leftist and marxist historians that It was just any war. It is well documented even in their own biographies that they were religious bigots that wanted to impose Islam on the people of India.
You mean he was a monatlrvh who stomped out rebellions? Seems in par with other monarchs the world over. The question is did akbar specifically target Hindus or anyone questioning his authority? Did he stomp out rebellions from Sikhs and Muslims?
During 1780s, almost the so called women married by the East India company men were either of muslim background or on the lowest rung of Hindu society ( or even outcastes) .. you should have said that.
I just would like to add: You put rings over the heads of the cow and the pig. These two animals are prohibited from eating for different reasons. The cow is a respected animal in Hinduism, but in islam, the pig is seen as a filthy, disgusting creature - so it is not a respected animal.
@@paharipant2 sure, i should have written them in my comment itself. 1. Plassey was the beginning of British dominance in Bengal, not at all in the whole of India. 2. The British had very little interest in trying to convert the Indians, they were mainly there to make money. 3. Yes, Akbar had been very tolerant, but that was definitely not the rule e.g. Aurangzeb and Tippu Sultan. 4. The cartridges didnt contain animal fat, that was a moral panic. 5. Characterisation of the rebellion as a war of independence is all wrong. 6. Not really an inaccuracy, but no mention of all the support for the British from many of the Princely States is a gaping flaw.
@AJ Agree with you on Jhansi and a few other cases being for independence. I think the war started with Mangal Pandey acting crazy and then it expanded and Jhansi exploited the sepoy mutiny for her cause to become independent.
@AJ I don't mean "exploit" in a pejorative sense, I just mean that Jhansi "used" (if you prefer), existing unrest among Sepoys that had nothing to do with her cause to try and become independent. And Pandey didn't really have any reason for acting crazy, he later stated that his actions were due to being drunk on bhang and opium. The rest of the sepoy's main concern was that the cartridges had animal fat and there was no truth to that claim.
All narratives come from the British.. being drunk is an excuse Hindus were being oppressed. And that's the case. Whatever we get is that Hindu temples and monuments were being destroyed at a very large scale and it was common to force Hindus towards Christianity. British apparently didn't find much problem with Muslims.. As always the ancient Aryan society Hindus was a target.
People like the Indians didn't need to attack other people, they were mostly contented with what they had and didn't need conquest to influence the world . But British for example needed to feel superior out of a sense of deficiency.Even after all what British did to India a man like ghandi comes through nonviolence and understanding remove the British, it's a testimony to what real strength means .
Ghandi was a pedophile and dont act like the Indian nations back then were benevolent over lords. Every nation on the face of the earth today owes its existence to the cruelty and ruthlessness of its founders.
Dumbest comment in the entire comment section. Indians were busy invading each other or fighting the muslims for most that time , they couldn't have inavded Europe or England.
"The natives.".....as if the people were some stone age peoples. Obviously you know little about the historical culture and world class civilization of the world in ancient times. Instead of using "natives" you should say "the people of HIndusthan."
"Natives" is used to describe the original or true occupant of a certain place. It's used to describe many people aside of India You're just being too sensitive
No Indian soilders killed any English family, to give a bad name to Indian mutaniers it was British who burned and killed few British women n children.
@@knowledgedesk1653 a reaction to the atrocities committed while the sepoys took Delhi and other rebel strongholds. Very silly to try and excuse atrocities on either side-Gandhi said an eye for an eye makes us all blind.
@@denverbritto5606 there was a great famine due to policies of britishers the great bengal famine in in 1770s ...reason to the deaths of million Indians ....can u justify this? ....we gave blood in world war 1 more than 80k Soldier died what really matters for india in world war one ..? We only fight for brithishers
@AJ the brittish army was very small and indian came in larger numbers in battle . For example the battle of plassey although india had more numbers they were defeated.
Isn't every rebellion technically a war of independence? And it's part of the shared history of all of us in the "Commonwealth that used to be an Empire". I'm a Canadian white guy, and I consider figures like Jhansi ki Rani and Mangal Pandi for instance, as being as much heros of our shared history as any of the white "heros". They showed bravery and devotion to their principles. And the murderous arrogance of the Brits and the massacres by the rebels are part of our shared shame. We have to stop hating each other for long ago crimes. My ancestors were kept in virtual serfdom by greedy British merchants, but why hate modern Brits for that?
@@denverbritto5606 sanyasi revolt in 1770s to 1780s consider 1st revolt ....in 1857 revolt north India and mid india was burning ...... And the idea of India is not in 1857 .....the idea of India developed in 1880s and 1890s.. ...the revolt was reaction of policies of Dalhousie... every one fighting Britishers in 1857 but not have a common plan ....they did not cut off the telegraph line railway line and roads ....the wave of revolt was so high that the governor genreal canning said that we swept away if the maharaj of patiala ...the king sindhia and rana of Nepal did not help us .....you can rely me as iam preparing for upsc exam where history as great significant
@@denverbritto5606 the educated indians did not support as they think that the British rule will end the evil practices of india ....but in 1880s they are absolutely wrong when dada Bhai naroji wrote drain of wealth theory and these educated indians with the help of ICS AO hume find congress to fight with britishers in 1885. ......the Indians who not support because of bhadur Shah Zafar Mughal king and they thought they have to live in the foot of Mughals as they didn't support it
@Carey Bonpa LMFAOOOOO I DID IT TO SEE WHO'D RESPOND HBKHKJH the last part u said is false, cuz u dont know skz personally neither did they ever drop hints that they hate or love woojin
nice video, you missed a lot out, i see you mentioned the British retaliation but not the atrocities done to women & children but the rebels. Also just to note that there is no doubt that India would of been colonized by a european force. We must be thankful it was the British and not the russians, French, Belguims, Dutch or Germans. Im not saying that colonization was good BTW. I only mention Germany because of WW1 & WW2 otherwise they would of been a just as good as the British.
Muslims did not nor do not consider the pig (pork products) as sacred in anyway, quite the reverse. they consider it unclean, so why in your rubbishy Indian Uprising "documentary" ??? do you portray the pig as holy by putting a halo over it. Its OK to depict a cow with a halo as Hindus consider it a sacred beast, you also refer to the Lee Enfield rifle (in caption) as 1953 model ??? Such crass inaccuracies makes the whole documentary questionable. If you must publish on RU-vid, do at least get facts right !!
