Victoria Cross Winner - Company Havildar-Major Chheluram

[maddhan1979]

A slight correction: I think in 1857 there was no such thing as "India". In 1857, present day "India" was formed of several hundreds of kingdoms ruled by different kings, who were fighting wars in the name of religion, land, etc. If i remember correctly the last known big empire under one king that can konnekt with present day "India" was under the rule of "King Ashoka".

and again if the local chiefs who fought the "war of Independence in 1857" would have won the war and drove Britishers out of Bharat at that period of time, these local chiefs who fought this war, would have become small time kings and things would have gone in the same state as they were in the past. Coming of Britishers was in one sense good in the history of India because we should remember, Britishers came to India at the onset of Industrialization in Europe. If Britishers were not here in India there would not have been any roots of Industrialization and Bharat would have again gone back to dark ages or rule by kings and religion.

[maddhan1979]

and again if the local chiefs who fought the "war of Independence in 1857" would have won the war and drove Britishers out of Bharat at that period of time, these local chiefs who fought this war, would have become small time kings and things would have gone in the same state as they were in the past. Coming of Britishers was in one sense good in the history of India because we should remember, Britishers came to India at the onset of Industrialization in Europe. If Britishers were not here in India there would not have been any roots of Industrialization and Bharat would have again gone back to dark ages or rule by kings and religion.

I think, we should not be driven by "blind nationalism", rather we should realize the ground facts and make things better for everyone. Right now the world is going through Industrialization and post Industrialization phase, so there is a need to look at things from industrial education perspective and not through religious, nationalistic or any other perspective.

[DrRajpalSingh]

and again if the local chiefs who fought the "war of Independence in 1857" would have won the war and drove Britishers out of Bharat at that period of time, these local chiefs who fought this war, would have become small time kings and things would have gone in the same state as they were in the past. Coming of Britishers was in one sense good in the history of India because we should remember, Britishers came to India at the onset of Industrialization in Europe. If Britishers were not here in India there would not have been any roots of Industrialization and Bharat would have again gone back to dark ages or rule by kings and religion.

Please read some good books to understand the issue you are commenting upon, I would like only to add here on the issue as the phenomenon of British colonialism and Imperialism is not so easy to be understood in real sense as you seem to think !!!

[maddhan1979]

I think, we should not be driven by "blind nationalism", rather we should realize the ground facts and make things better for everyone. Right now the world is going through Industrialization and post Industrialization phase, so there is a need to look at things from industrial education perspective and not through religious, nationalistic or any other perspective.

All the sacrifices made by soldiers in the past will go wasted if the future generations do not do things for the betterment of everyone.

[DrRajpalSingh]

All the sacrifices made by soldiers in the past will go wasted if the future generations do not do things for the betterment of everyone.

And what about the present generation !

[DrRajpalSingh]

A slight correction: I think in 1857 there was no such thing as "India". In 1857, present day "India" was formed of several hundreds of kingdoms ruled by different kings, who were fighting wars in the name of religion, land, etc. If i remember correctly the last known big empire under one king that can konnekt with present day "India" was under the rule of "King Ashoka".

And your comments on the Gupta Empire and the Mughal Empire up to 1707 AD.

[DrRajpalSingh]

When u say "Anglo",, what does it mean? "Gill" as a family name can be found throughout western world and north west Bharat.

A child whose one of the parent -- mother or father -- happened to be an English was designated in India as Anglo-Indian.

{Please note that we are transgressing the limits or universe of the theme of a good thread, so this is my last post in reply to your questions. If you have more questions post them on the relevant threads please. }

Thanks

[maddhan1979]

Please read some good books to understand the issue you are commenting upon, I would like only to add here on the issue as the phenomenon of British colonialism and Imperialism is not so easy to be understood in real sense as you seem to think !!!

Dear Dr, Rajpal, we can take out "Bal ki Khal" but the fact remains that we are talking in "English", the clothes that u are wearing were designed in west, then why be hypocritical. We can read as many writers as we can but we have to acknowledge good and bad facts that happened due to the presence of people coming to Bharat.
Bharat has seen such a big inflow of cultures and civilizations that we can not rule anyone out. Was the muslim rule any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by small kings in ancient India any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by hindu religious identities any better then rule by Britishers?

So, if we look history in wider perspective, i think coming of British was not that bad as shown by blinded nationalistic identities?

The basic question we have to answer at this level is:
Have we ever given value to human life?
I think not? As soon as Britishers left, people again started fighting in the name of religion and Bharat was divided in the name of religion and other identities.
From Kashmir to Afghanistan to Pakistan and north west of India we come from the same tribes yet we in the worst position in terms of peace in the region, we might follow different religions but we write the same family names and we share same common tribal blood that has been passed on by our ancestors, yet we are still fighting. In this region religion still plays a major role in governing peoples lives and these people are driven by blind faith in the name of religion.

[maddhan1979]

A child whose one of the parent -- mother or father -- happened to be an English was designated in India as Anglo-Indian.

{Please note that we are transgressing the limits or universe of the theme of a good thread, so this is my last post in reply to your questions. If you have more questions post them on the relevant threads please. }

Thanks

I think he was Irish or Scottish in decent.

[DrRajpalSingh]

I think he was Irish or Scottish in decent.

Whether his mother or father happened to be an Irish or Scottish, one of them was definitely Indian and that is why he was an Anglo-Indian. Rest my thinking or your thinking cannot change history because it is based on generally accepted facts.


Regarding your views on the positivism in the British slavery of India as depicted in the below given post : you are welcome to discuss the issue in General History section under the new thread heading :http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...074#post342074

Dear Dr, Rajpal, we can take out "Bal ki Khal" but the fact remains that we are talking in "English", the clothes that u are wearing were designed in west, then why be hypocritical. We can read as many writers as we can but we have to acknowledge good and bad facts that happened due to the presence of people coming to Bharat.
Bharat has seen such a big inflow of cultures and civilizations that we can not rule anyone out. Was the muslim rule any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by small kings in ancient India any better then rule by Britishers? Was the rule by hindu religious identities any better then rule by Britishers?

So, if we look history in wider perspective, i think coming of British was not that bad as shown by blinded nationalistic identities?

The basic question we have to answer at this level is:
Have we ever given value to human life?
I think not? As soon as Britishers left, people again started fighting in the name of religion and Bharat was divided in the name of religion and other identities.
From Kashmir to Afghanistan to Pakistan and north west of India we come from the same tribes yet we in the worst position in terms of peace in the region, we might follow different religions but we write the same family names and we share same common tribal blood that has been passed on by our ancestors, yet we are still fighting. In this region religion still plays a major role in governing peoples lives and these people are driven by blind faith in the name of religion.

Thanks,

[maddhan1979]

Whether his mother or father happened to be an Irish or Scottish, one of them was definitely Indian and that is why he was an Anglo-Indian. Rest my thinking or your thinking cannot change history because it is based on generally accepted facts.


Regarding your views on the positivism in the British slavery of India as depicted in the below given post : you are welcome to discuss the issue in General History section under the new thread heading :http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...074#post342074



Thanks,

Both of his parents were from Europe. There are lot of people in Europe and West who write family name as "Gill" and none of their ancestry has "Anglo" connection.

[DrRajpalSingh]

Both of his parents were from Europe. There are lot of people in Europe and West who write family name as "Gill" and none of their ancestry has "Anglo" connection.

If you hold these views, Keep them up please !

Thanks.