Maaf Ch 2: British Raj Sepoy Mutiny

Extra notes:

"The aftermath of Sepoy Mutiny/Indian Rebellion of 1857: The authorities in British colonies with an Indian population, sepoy or civilian, took measures to secure themselves against copycat uprisings. In the Straits Settlements and Trinidad, the annual Hosay processions were banned,[110] riots broke out in penal settlements in Burma, and the Settlements, in Penang, the loss of a musket provoked a near riot,[111] and security was boosted, especially in locations with an Indian convict population. Source: [link]"

"A star (or stars) and crescent featuring in some combination form the basis of symbols widely found across the ancient world, with examples attested from the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia. During the 19th century, it represented the Ottoman Empire, appearing on the Ottoman flag since 1793... The same symbol was used in other national flags introduced during the 20th century, including the flags of Pakistan (1949), Malaysia (1948), and Mauritania (1959). During the 1950s to 1960s, the symbol was re-interpreted as symbolic of Islam or the Muslim community. By the 1970s, this symbolism was embraced by movements of Arab nationalism or Islamism (even though it was not originally an Arab symbol), such as the proposed Arab Islamic Republic (1974) and the US Nation of Islam (1973). Source: [link]"

"Unlike their comrades-in-arms, the sepoys were not drawn from the dregs of society, taking the Queen's shilling as a last resort. Whether they were Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs, the sepoys considered their calling as warriors inseparable from their religious faith. Source: Empire by Niall Ferguson. Kshatriya... is one of the four varnas (social orders) in Hinduism... It traditionally constituted the military and ruling elite of the Vedic-Hindu social system outlined by the Vedas and the Laws of Manu. Source: [link]."

"Historian Arthur Herman writes that the Sepoy Mutiny left "a permanent stamp of race fear in England" and Britain's defeat of the mutiny reinforced the British attitude that they "were born to rule and the Indians to obey." [note] The rebellion made a stand in central India, under the leadership of Tatya Tope. He was captured and executed in April 1859, and in July, the British described the rebellion as all but defeated. The British claimed that only a few thousand rebels were still in the field, men "belonging to the most guilty regiments and those which murdered their officers." The civil war was a turning point for British rule in India. The Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II, was exiled to Burma, and the Mughal Empire formally liquidated. The British replaced the British East India Company with direct rule under the British Crown. And Britain's Queen Victoria promised the Indian people equal treatment under British law. In the wake of the Sepoy rebellion, however, there remained widespread mistrust of British rule. Source: [link]

...Bahadur Shah or Bahadur Shah II... was the last of the Mughal emperors in India, as well as the last ruler of the Timurid Dynasty. As the Indian rebellion of 1857 spread, Sepoy regiments seized Delhi. Seeking a figure that could unite all Indians, Hindu and Muslim alike, most rebelling Indian kings and the Indian regiments accepted Zafar as the Emperor of India,[8] under whom the smaller Indian kingdoms would unite until the British were defeated. Zafar was the least threatening and least ambitious of monarchs, and the legacy of the Mughal Empire was a more acceptable uniting force to most allied kings than the domination of any other Indian kingdom. After a show of trial Zafar himself was exiled to Rangoon, Burma (now Yangon, Union of Myanmar) in 1858 along with his wife Zeenat Mahal and some of the remaining members of the family. His departure as Emperor marked the end of more than three centuries of Mughal rule in India. Source: [link]"

"British rule in India had been shaken to its foundation by the Sepoy Mutiny/Indian Rebellion of 1857. But the British were determined to learn from that bitter experience. In the Mutiny aftermath, there was a transformation in the way they ruled India. The East India Company was finally wound up, ending the anomaly whereby a corporation had governed a subcontinent. Admittedly, some of the changes were merely a matter of labeling. The old Governor-General became the new Viceroy, and there were only minor changes to the structure of the six-member Cabinet which advised him. In theory, ultimate authority now rested with the Secretary of State for India in London, advised by his Indian Council (a combination of the Old Court of Directors & Board Control). But the assumption was that 'the government of India must be, on the whole, carried out in India itself'. And in her proclamation of November 1858, the Queen gave her Indian subjects two assurances about how this government would be conducted. The first we know already: there would be no further meddling with traditional Indian religious culture, an implicit recognition of one of the principal causes of the Mutiny. But the proclamation also referred to 'the principle that perfect equality was to exist, so far as all appointments were concerned between Europeans & Natives' (p.178). Source: Empire, by Niall Ferguson."

"Of course, this still left India in despotism, without a shred of representation of the Queen's millions of Indian subjects. A later Viceroy put it, India was 'really governed by confidential correspondence between the Secretary of State & the Viceroy'. Moreover, the conciliatory assurances in the proclamation... were accompanied by practical measures on the ground which were altogether more confrontational. Source: Empire, by Niall Ferguson. Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity, called the despot, rules with absolute power. Colloquially, despot has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularly a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects, or subordinates. In this sense, it is similar to the pejorative connotations that have likewise arisen with the term tyrant... Source: [link]"

"In the eighteenth century, the British Empire had been, at best, amoral. The Hanoverians had grabbed power in Asia, land in America, and slaves in Africa. Native peoples were either taxed, robbed, or wiped out. But paradoxically, their cultures were largely tolerated; in some cases, even studied and admired. The Victorians had more elevated aspirations. They dreamt not just of ruling the world, but of redeeming it. It was no longer enough for them to exploit other races; now the aim became to improve them. Native people themselves would cease to be exploited, but their cultures - superstitious, backward, heathen - would have to go. In particular, the Victorians aspired to bring light to what they called the Dark Continent. Source: Empire, by Niall Ferguson."

"All of Britain dialog directly quoted from Considerations on Representative Government (1861) by John Stuart Mill, the greatest of the Victorian Liberal thinkers. The crucial phrase here is 'the decay of usages of superstitions which interfere with the effective implementation of industry'. John Stuart Mill saw the cultural transformation of the non-European world as inextricably linked to its economic transformation. These twin currents of the Evangelical desire to convert India to Christianity and the Liberal desire to convert it to capitalism flowed into one another and over the entire British Empire. Source: p.139, Empire by Niall Ferguson

Ravana (Rahwana) is described as a devout follower of Shiva, a great scholar, a capable ruler, and a maestro of the Veena. He is portrayed as a powerful d*mon king who disturbs the penances of Rishis. Vishnu incarnates as the human Rama to defeat him, thus circumventing the boon given by Brahma. Source: [link]"

"What Britain could learn from the Dutch was modern finance. In particular, the Anglo-Dutch merger of 1688 introduced the British to a number of crucial financial institutions that the Dutch had pioneered. In 1694, the Bank of England was founded to manage the government's borrowings as well as the national currency, similar (though not identical) to the successful Amsterdam Wisselbank founded eighty-five years before. London was also able to import the Dutch system of national public debt, funded through a Stock Exchange, where long-term bonds could easily be bought & sold. The fact that this allowed the government to borrow at significantly reduced interest rates made large-scale projects - like wars - far easier to afford. Source: Empire, by Niall Ferguson."

"During the Wars of Religion in the 16th century between the Catholic Habsburg Dynasty and the newly Protestant nations, England under Elizabeth I built up a strong naval force, designed to carry out long-range privateering or piracy missions against the Spanish Empire, exemplified by the exploits of Francis Drake. These raids, financed by the Crown or high nobility, were initially immensely profitable until the overhaul of Spain's naval and intelligence systems led to a series of costly failures. Partly to provide a pretext for such hostilities against Spain, Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Revolt by signing in 1585 the Treaty of Nonsuch with the new Dutch state of the United Provinces. In the resulting Anglo–Spanish War, the Dutch played only a secondary role as they were fully occupied in fighting Habsburg armies at home. Source: [link]

The Treaty of Nonsuch was signed by Elizabeth I of England and the Netherlands on August 20th, 1585, at Nonsuch Palace in Surrey. England initially agreed to supply 400 horses and 6,500 foot soldiers (then changed to 8,000) (initially intended as a way of lifting the Siege of Antwerp (1584-1585)), and an annual subsidy of 600,000 florins a year (about a quarter of the annual cost of the revolt). This eventually increased to a commitment of 1,000 horses and 6,350 foot soldiers. As a surety for this assistance, the Dutch were to hand over Ostend, Brill, and Flushing to England. This provoked the objection of Zeeland, which was to lose the most by this measure. In addition, the treaty provided for an English governor-general of the rebel provinces. Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, was granted this post. Source: [link]"

"The Dutch, continuing their conflict with the Habsburgs, began to carry out long-distance actions, not only being very successful in privateering... but also replacing the Portuguese as the main European traders in Asia... This coincided with an enormous growth of the Dutch merchant fleet, made possible by the cheap mass production of fluyts. Soon the Dutch had the largest mercantile fleet of Europe, and a dominant position in European, especially Baltic, trade. Though less spectacularly so, gradually the Dutch navy also grew in power.

From January 1631, Charles I of England engaged in a number of secret agreements with Spain, directed against Dutch sea power... Charles's policy was not very successful, however... The English Civil War, commencing soon hereafter, severely weakened England's naval position. Its navy was as internally divided as the country as a whole; the Dutch, as superior on land as they were at sea, even took over much of England's maritime trade with her North American colonies. Between 1648 and 1651, however, the situation reversed completely. In 1648, the United Provinces concluded the Peace of Münster with Spain; most of the Dutch army and navy were decommissioned... Meanwhile, Oliver Cromwell united his country into the Commonwealth of England and, in a few years, created a powerful navy, expanding the number of ships and greatly improving organisation and discipline. England was ready to challenge Dutch trade dominance. The mood in England was rather belligerent towards the Dutch. This partly stemmed from old perceived slights: the Dutch were considered to have shown themselves ungrateful for the aid they had received against the Spanish by growing stronger than their former British protectors; they caught most of the herring off the English east coast; they had driven the English out of the East Indies committing presumed atrocities such as the Amboyna Massacre while vociferously appealing to the principle of free trade to circumvent taxation in the English colonies. But there were also new points of conflict: the decline of Spanish power at the end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648, the colonial possessions of Portugal (already in the midst of the Portuguese Restoration War), and perhaps even of a beleaguered Spain, were up for grabs. The Dutch had, after 1648, quickly replaced the English in their traditional Iberian trade... Source: [link]"