NEW Find your MarriagePartner - Join Free - IndiaSingles.com - search for your Partner. Create your profile for free and your life mate will soon reach you.. .dont wait! A special site for People of India origin.

Distorted history of India. British rule

---

The British helped Indians get rid of the Pindaris. Thanks to the British

I want a white Nordic dick to satisfy my sexual desire
Come on White Angrez Sher make me pregnant.

What happened to Warren Hastings or even Clive has taught us to use such weapons as impeachment in order to prevent anybody from being an efficient administrator in India - ever. At the center and in many states in India one notices today a tendency to silence opponents by initiating police cases, raids, accusations against them, in spite of the fact that there are no known or provable grounds for these actions. This tendency if it grows even more will lead to a situation when any government coming to power will discredit every member of the previous govt. in this way, thus removing for ever any credibility of even the best leaders and administrators. Is there any remedy for this phenomenon? What is done in other countries if some thing is done at all to prevent such dishonest steps? These I think are very important questions for our budding - or at least not fully grown - democracy. All those who love our country must wake up to the dangers of this tendency.

You know, this is what is wrong with Indians. We think our tribe is the best, whereas all the others ••••. Come on guys, stop being patriotic to your tribe, be patriotic to your country. If a foreigner sees this, he's just gonna laugh.

even still some old goreh people who fought in the 2nd ww with indians always talk about sikhs as being more braver and better fighters than any other indians

MALHOTRA

The BRITISH did not conquer the SIKHs, it was HINDU
minds that snaked there way into OUR EMPIRE.

Your right, the GORA's do lick our ASS, but Ill stick
up for any COLOURED brother from here to Sri LANKA,
cuz I is a WARRIOR, like many others & we should all
stick together so we can

TAKE the WHITE TRAILER park TRASH & divert it into its
rightful PLACE - the GARBAGGE bin. hahahahahahahahaha.

I bet that if you place the British army now with the Indian Army, the British would be pathetic.

Vivekanand once called Brits Rajputs of the West. There must be something there.

Times are changing now, though. Gurkhas, Sikhs, etc. are no less than Brits.

To give credit where its due, the British have traditionally been expert soldiers. Today they are undoubtedly the best trained and efficent in the world.

Scared they certainly were. 20000-40000 Brits surrounded by millions of natives! It is only crafty manipulation on Indians' in-fighting tendencies that kept Brits alive. Thanks to leaders like Gandhi who saw this weakest chain in the link and made full use of it.

The British did not think the Sikhs etc., to be useful but they were scared of the Sikhs and other Indians.

This is correct. British and other Europeans always behaved very respectfully to Sikhs and other Indians considered 'useful'. Also, it is so interesting that they (and Americans) think English is 'their' language. The hard reality is that English is a descendant of Indian culture and has come back home, finally.

Unfortunately for the British most Indians did not even let them touch them. Also the British were scared of the Sikhs and as Simranjit Singh Man pointed out often the British touched the feet of the Sikhs. Even then the British were an adventerous people for their short rule in some parts of India from 1867 (when Queen Victoria took over India) to 1947 their impact is negligible on India, except for the English language. Besides the English language is only a dilect of Sanskrit.

Cooljat,
ek bar samajna da khoshush kar, tu sala ek "idiot" ha. Sikhs had been conquered by the British as well, so does that mean that Sikh girls were sent to Englishmen? Ek bar "tameez" se baath bole.


JAI HIND

who were pindaris? were they marathas? were they like the thugs that the british suppressed?

Kuchees lick Gora ASS

Ive seen you animals at work & Boy can your GUYS/GALS
lick white ass, you definately are the best at this
job, so long asskissers.

You deserved to be conquered by the British - Just too
BAD they didn't take your LAND like they did to the
RED indians, i suppose they were too busy with your
HIndoo GAl.

Pindari: Summary and Conclusions

In reviewing Pindari history one is struck by several themes and problems. These provide an understanding of the development of the Pindaris, besides raising serious doubts about the accepted ideas of the nature of Pindari society and British policy toward them.
The Pindaris developed within a traditional Indian framework. Their history after 1800 during the Independent Period shows a continuity with their previous Muslim and Maratha Periods in spite of the transformation of circumstances surrounding them. During the last part of the seventeenth century, Muslim leaders were the first to employ the Pindaris. At that time the Pindaris served in conjunction with Muslim armies against the enemy in the Deccan. During the eighteenth century the Marathas organized and recognized the Pindaris as part of their military system. The Maratha chiefs utilized them as an efficient and effective unit who destroyed the enemy's resources and demanded no payment except the wealth they plundered. As Maratha power declined and the British strengthened their position in India, the utility of the Pindaris became less apparent to Maratha chiefs. The British irritation toward them increased. During this Independent Period, the Pindaris, nevertheless, developed along traditional patterns rather than inventing new methods in response to the changing situation. Their two nominal leaders, Holkar and Sindhia, recognized and awarded them lands and titles in the same wag as the Muslims and Marathas had awarded Jagirs to other military commanders for their achievements. The Pindari chiefs settled their families and followers in these areas and forced payments of land revenue ln the usual Indian manner. Even with these moderating influences of land-holding and settling ln central India and though their nominal leaders o longer requested their participation in wars of consolidation or expansion, the Pindaris refused to relinquish their habit of planning luhburs and plundering. With no clear distinction between enemy and ally, all areas became fair game. Eventually, the Pindaris selected the Nizam, the British, and sometimes the Bhonsla as "enemy" land. They generally abstained from devastating the territories of their previous benefactors, Sindhia, Holkar, and the Peshwa.
During the same time British policy toward the Pindaris also reveals a consistent development. Wellesley was the first to recognize that the British must destroy the Pindaris to attain control of India. With his recall, the pendulum swung-in the opposite direction. For a period the British wished to refrain from extensive involvement with the Indian states. As early as 1809, however, one British observer near the scene of Pindari activity began to advocate a policy to deal with the Pindari menace. Slowly other Government officials sought this same policy. Lord Hastings was the first Governor General in several years desirous and willing to commit British troops and resources to their destruction. Another five years lapsed, however, before reports of Pindari raids, and his demands from India convinced the Court of Directors in London that the British could no longer tolerate this menace.
The cooperative treaties concluded with Indian states in central India, the military preparations, and the events of the war successfully hindered the achievements of Pindari and Maratha aspirations. These activities and events prevented the materialization of a coordinated effort against the British. Pindari groups fled before the enemy as the British continuously closed all avenues of necessary assistance or escape. The end of the war and the establishment of British control meant a complete transformation of the situation in which the Pindaris had functioned for one and a half centuries. No power accepted their special abilities as legitimate or beneficial to their purposes.
Accepted ideas about the Pindaris vary considerably from the above general presentation as well as to more specific aspects. The traditional picture conceives the Pindaris as a group composed of the worst villains of society who suddenly arose after 1800 and increased their numbers rapidly. Their only desire was to plunder, rape, murder, and burn. By these full-time activities they caused wide-spread anarchy and destroyed much of the productive ability of India. Any close examination, however, even of the British sources of this period makes such a view unacceptable. In order to more completely understand this period, one must attempt to reconstruct both the "Pindari" and the "British" points of view.
The Pindari considered his occupation more than simply a military career. He refused to rely on regular pay. Through destroying and plundering the enemy' B camps and resources, he earned his living and served his military commander. When weather or peaceful conditions prevented this occupation, his leaders provided areas in which he settled among the other inhabitants. Every source indirectly indicates that at such times he obeyed prevalent customs of Indian society. If his income from his chief or creditors proved insufficient, he often earned his living through a variety of occupations. As the dharma or law of a farmer prescribed that he should cultivate crops before the monsoons, the Pindari's dharma prescribed that he should plunder after the monsoons. Popular acceptance and even support of the Pindari indicates that the Indians, as well as the Pindari himself, viewed his occupation as legitimate. On luhburs the Pindari committed atrocities, plundered, and burned crops and villages from the conviction that he was acting in a warlike situation against an enemy.
Such a view of Pindari society dose not justify their destructiveness or atrocities. Rather, it demonstrates the role of the Pindari in Indian society in this period. Certainly, it partially destroys the myth that the Pindaris were full-time enemies of society whose only ambition and occupation was to plunder.
The Pindaris also did not cause widespread anarchy. The treaties of 1802-05 introduced a new period into central India. Though the British did not directly control the area, their power was more evident than ever before. British forces patrolled Hyderabad and Poona and along Sindhia's frontier. Residents closely reviewed events at most of the Courts. Indian rulers remembered the defeats they had suffered from the British in the Second Maratha War. They, therefore, acted cautiously to insure against arousing British disapproval and consequential complete defeat. Though British treaties successfully restricted the actions of Indian rulers, they failed to form treaties with the subordinate or secondary powers in central India. The Pindaris and Pathans seized the opportunity to extend their power.
They proceeded in the traditional manner of bringing areas under control and receiving the ruler's recognition of their right to the revenue of these areas. Pindari leaders, a generation earlier, had acquired lands through a similar process. Only a few writers, therefore, could include this traditional process of the transferal of power within a very broad definition of anarchy.
One of the most difficult problems to assess is the accusation that the Pindaris were responsible for the destruction of much of India's productive capacity. Economic and social studies of this period and immediately after it support no such hypothesis. Rather the Pindaris affected limited areas only temporarily. Even the exceptional Guntur-Caddapah raid during 1816 directly affected a small proportion of the villages and raised food prices for only a short time. Though the Pindari luhburs extended into several parts of India, they destroyed the productive capacity of those areas in a very restricted sense.
The historical sources for this period provide insufficient evidence that the numbers of the Pindaris increased significantly. The first estimate of the Pindaris in 1809 reported numbers as large as the estimates during the following decade. It is also possible that Pindari membership did not double from 1800 to 1809. Rather, such a speculation conveniently supported the British observer's desire to attract Government attention to an "increasing" menace. As an understanding of Pindari society contributes to a more complete picture of India in the early nineteenth century society, so does the examination of British attitudes and ideas. British officials selected and emphasized only certain aspects of the Pindaris. They based their selectivity on the necessity to morally justify their actions. Their choice of words, exaggerations, and repetitions demonstrate this. British writers viewed the Pindaris as enemies of society, pests, swarms of locusts, the lowest form of freebooters and banditti, a scourge and plague on the earth, fiends, and "masses of putrefaction in animal matter." The British constantly repeated and magnified the worst atrocities of the Pindaris, especially their raping of women and the complete destruction of Ainavole. They were convinced that the Pindaris were an unusual and inhuman forge. An such, the British had to deal with them through exceptional methods expressed by the terms -- suppress, extirpate, eliminate, or destroy. Simply "defeating" them would have admitted them within the realm of humanity. The British felt that they had a moral duty to terminate this evil and provide a peaceful life for the inhabitants.
Two incidents especially reflect this British attitude. During the period that the Court of Directors in London still withheld permission to suppress the Pindaris, they proposed that Lord Hastings might deal with the Pindaris by playing off one faction against another. The words used in the response of the Governor-General reveals his attitude: ...I am roused to the fear that we have been culpably deficient in pointing out to the author)" ties at home, the brutal and atrocious qualities of those wretches. Had we not failed to describe sufficiently the horror and execration in which the Pindaris are justly held, I am satisfied that nothing could have been more repugnant to the feelings of the honourable Committee, than the notion that this Government should be soiled by a procedure which was to bear the colour of confidential intercourse of a common cause, with any of those gangs.
The second incident demonstrates two assessments of the Pindaris. First, the destruction of the Pindaris constituted an essential ingredient in Lord Hastings' policy of paramountcy. Without this justification, the conclusion of the treaties, which also required the submission of Indian states to British power, would not have been possible. Second, the British refused to accept the Pindaris as a regular power. Near the end of the Pindari war, in February 1818, Chitu negotiated with the British through the Nawab of Bhopal. He demanded a Jagir and that the British accept his troops into their-army. The British refused to accept these terms. Three months previously, however, they had concluded a treaty with Amir Khan containing exactly the same terms. The treaty provided him with a jagir, the area of Tonk in perpetuity, and requisitioned some of his troops into the British forces.
Evidently Amir Khan was exempt from British wrath because he and his cavalry had devastated and committed atrocities in Rajputana instead of in British territories. The British denied the Pindari leaders any terms short of "unconditional surrender," though the Pindaris proposed them.
It is clear that any thorough appraisal of Pindari history results in the revision of the traditional view. In the future, examinations of the Pindaris might produce four views. Each would emphasize certain aspects and present an oversimplified and unbalanced account. They can be characterized as Imperialistic, Romantic, Marxist, and Nationalistic. The Imperialistic view would be a restatement of the traditional view. It proposes that the British Government in India brought peace, prosperity and civilization to an area devastated by uncontrolled hordes of robbers and ruled by incompetent princes.
A Romantic approach would utilize the Pindari in a similar way that United States television writers have thoroughly exploited the heroes of the West. This view would emphasize the carefree and rugged Pindari life. It would present him as the embodiment of a skillful, daring, courageous, and adventurous horseman. Riding swiftly acrose the Deccan plain on his trusty horse, his spear protruding upright, he would surprise and plunder British villages.
Marxists would have difficulty justifying the annexation of this area in purely economic terms. The British sought to acquire this area of India, not to provide raw materials or markets for British goods, but as a moral duty and for strategic purposes to unite the intermediate area between their three Presidencies. Lord Hastings' economic reasons hardly correspond to a possible Marxist ideology. Before a court of inquiry he stated that it was less expensive to destroy Pindari power in one campaign than to maintain British defensive troops and permit the yearly devastation of British territories. Only the long period of the Director's reluctance and refusal to invest Company funds in a costly war could possibly provide the Marxists with an argument somewhat consistent with his philosophy.
Indian Nationalists can view this period with more optimism. They could present the Pindari as the last heterogeneous group, before the Mutiny, who resisted the expanding alien rule of Britain. Historical events, however, hardly substantiate this view. The Pindaris increasingly became more independent after 1800 as the British forced Maratha states to bind themselves to the British Government. In this situation the Pindaris eventually selected to devastate the territories of the "enemy," Britain and their close ally, the Nizam. Before the 1817-19 War, the Peshwa, Bhonsla, Sindhia, Holkar and the Pindaris sought to coordinate a plan to resist the British invasion. Sources provide no specific details about Pindari intentions through this alliance. It ia impossible to discover the degree to which the Pindaris consciously chose to plunder British territory and unite in a defense. A Nationalist could deduce that the Pindaris recognized the British as their enemies and actively subscribed to a plan to resist them. Evidence, however, indicates another possible motive, a materialistic one. Pindari groups primarily plundered British territories for their wealth and prosperity. They would have raided other areas if they were equally prosperous. Before the War the Raja of Berar formalized arrangements with Chitu which offered him 5,000 rupees to cooperate with his troops against the British. These instances throw some doubt on any Nationalist proposal that the Pindaris recognized the British threat to India and worked for their destruction.
Writers often compared the Pindaris with other groups. Among these were the Marathas and Pathans within India, and the Saharan Taureq, the Russian Cossacks, the Central Asian Tartars, and the Italian condottieri. The suggested similarities were often superficial or even falsely based. For instance, the identification of the Pindaris with the Taureq rested solely on the false proposition that both were primarily nomadic. The condottieri proposal incorrectly presumed a feudal situation ln India. In spite of these drawbacks, however, other comparisons contribute to the consideration of the Pindaris outside the Anglo-Indian context, thus extending the perspective of their study. This paper briefly considers two specific cases and one general framework. These are the Cossacks, the Buccaneers, and guerrilla-type warfare. Like the Pindaris, the Cossacks were originally a heterogeneous society, composed of a variety of people fleeing from their past because of the imposition of a rule they disliked or had broken. Unlike the Pindaris, they eventually established themselves as a distinct society fashioning and fashioned by the frontier they conquered. Areas became identified with their name because they not only controlled them, but settled on them as the majority of the population. They resembled the Pindaris more in military customs than social culture, and during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than the subsequent centuries.
The Cossack cavalry consisted of irregular, undisciplined, but highly skillful, rugged, and courageous horsemen. They learned to travel light, far and fast through rough, and often unfamiliar, terrain. During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries Russian and Polish rulers employed the Cossack to defend their frontiers against Tartar attacks. Later the Cossack prominently contributed to the extension of the Russian frontier eastward into Siberia. Eventually he became a distinguished part of the Russian military system.
Both the Pindaris and the Cossacks were famed for their lawlessness in enemy territory but peacefulness at home. Yet while the Pindaris conformed to the society in which his family lived, the Cossacks created their own society. They gradually established the traditions of elected assemblies and leaders, communal lands, and their own recognized laws. Though usually uneducated, they adhered fervently to an orthodox Christian faith which added zeal to the occasional lacerative attacks on "barbarian" Tartar lands .
The more than four centuries of Cossack history contrasts sharply to the two centuries of Pindari history ln their social and religious customs, their continued utility to the Russian state, and their eventual adaptation and partial incorporation to the changing situation around them. The striking similarities to the Pindaris of fighting habits, skills, and lawlessness existed for only a limited time and to a restricted degree.
In spite of the separation ln geographical location and difference of terrain, the Buccaneers of the West Indies resemble the Cossacks. During the seventeenth century, in response to a frontier situation of a sparsely populated and unsettled land, they skillfully adapted to the situation and eventually established their own set of laws. They also maintained the vestiges of their religion. Though almost all Europeans, they were originally fugitives from the restrictions of established society, the economic and political outcasts of several nations. For many years they harassed a common enemy, the Spaniards, and protected and enriched infant colonies. The British and French governors employed them since they lacked the funds for regular military forces. In payment, the Buccaneers kept the plunder they obtained.
Like the Pindaris and Cossacks, the Buccaneer, though transported on a ship instead of a horse, relied on mobility, surprise, and the protection of his terrain, the open sea. He was a brave, cruel, tough seaman, and an excellent navigator. Both the Buccaneers and Pindaris were infamous to their enemies and useful to their allies because of their ability to destroy. The Buccaneer raids on Puerto Bello and Panama are especially noted for the pillage, torture, and devastation they caused. The Buccaneer also secured no victories. Instead, regular naval squadrons (comparable to regular Maratha armies) achieved these. Unlike the Pindari, however, the Buccaneer attacked strongholds and fought formal enemy forces. Even so, these strongholds always promised a sizable loot, and the Buccaneers refused to waste effort on less prosperous prospects. By the end of the century the Buccaneer bands disappeared from the Caribbean. Only the prolonged efforts of governors, such as Morgan (himself once a buccaneer) and du Casse, the desire for more regular trade, and the settlement of Buccaneers on plantations produced this result. As the Cossacks, the Buccaneers adapted to a changing situation and escaped the fate of a war directed against them.
For modern experts of military strategy and world affairs, guerrilla warfare is a controversial, contemporary, & crucial problem. The abundant recent literature concentrates on examples from the period after the second world war and faire to agree on a precise definition. In spite of this a few propositions are possible) Guerrilla warfare is a restricted form of warfare, which independent and quasi-military groups wage usually beyond or on enemy lines and in connection with regular troops & a war. The groups desire to achieve some political goal through their activities of harassing, raiding, capturing, destroying, or redirecting the enemy's forces and supplies. A guerrilla movement requires at least passive popular support and a difficult terrain to provide supplies, intelligence, recuperation, & security. It is a transitory phase & self-defeating in that its intended result is successful withdrawal of the enemy and the establishment of a Govt..
Pindari activities conform to several aspects of this definition, while contradictions & deviations preclude its inclusion within the total framework. At greatest variance are the aspects of a definite political goal, popular support, & activity behind enemy lines in conjunction with a war & allied troops. The Pindaris, as already mentioned, articulated no political goal. Rather, they appear primarily motivated by the desire to plunder, though still willing to raid areas which their leaders and the Marathas defined as enemy territory. The populace often supported the Pindaris but usually under duress through the threat of violence or reprisals. During the Pindari War, the reluctance of inhabitants to provide intelligence about Pindari movements often prevented British troops from continuing their pursuit of Pindari bands. Maratha leaders admired the Pindari methods of fighting and often promised them asylum and protection. Fakirs, sadhus, and other travellers willingly provided Pindaris with necessary intelligence of troop movements and the progress of other Pindari parties.
The Pindaris did not restrict their activity to behind or on enemy lines. Factionalism among themselves and the Maratha leaders provided ample opportunity for plundering within "allied" territory. During the Independent Period they also operated during a time of peace, and independent of allied troops. Their activities with the Marathas on campaigns into Hindustan and the Deccan during the eighteenth century and the plan to co-ordinate their efforts with the Marathas in the Pindari War indicate that, within the total context of Pindari history, independent luhburs were the exception rather than the rule.
Despite the aims of the Pindaris, their irregular method of warfare closely resembled guerrilla tactics. They were mobile, small units operating in a rugged terrain. They surprised the enemy, destroyed his resources and escaped through country in which pursuit was difficult. They avoided conventional engagements with enemy forces. As Indians who knew the language and culture and were familiar with the area, they had an advantage over the alien white officers. The Pindari weapons of the lance and the sword were not the most modern but, nevertheless, they were effective and required little maintenance and no ammunition. Without the usual military training, organization or discipline, they were a quasi-military group. They ultimately depended, as did any guerrilla movement, on the outside support of a regular military system. Once the enemy controlled that, all the other guerrilla type practices of the Pindaris were ineffectual.
A comparison of the Pindaris, Buccaneers, and Cossacks reveals several common features. Originating during transitional periods, the diverse members of these societies gradually developed distinct social, political, economic, and military customs. Ruling states, within which these societies occupied subordinate positions, sought to restrain their military activities by channeling them against the enemy. The result benefited both the rulers and the irregular forces. Because of the lack of funds and resources, or because of binding peace treaties, the Govt's employed the irregular groups to destroy and harass the enemy or to defend certain areas. Many of the tactics, which these groups used, resembled guerrilla-type warfare. In return for their activities, the groups obtained privileged concessions from the governments, especially the right to plundered goods and the assurance of restricted governmental interference in the groups t affairs. Eventually, circumstances changed so that governments sought more peaceful conditions and stricter control over these groups and areas. The destructive activities of these groups threatened such developments. The French bought off Buccaneer leaders. The British outlawed Buccaneer activities and offered attractive alternative occupations, such as owning plantations. The Russians incorporated the Cossacks within their military system.
In retrospect, it appears unusual that the British refused to negotiate with the Pindaris and otter them legitimate positions in Indian society or the incorporation of their cavalry into the British army. The proportion and esteem of the Gurkhas and the Sikh (both of whom at one time fought against British expansion) exemplifies such a possibility. Only Lord Hastings' contempt for the Pindaris and the convenience of concluding treaties and waging a war against them to establish British paramountcy in India excluded a more peaceful alternative.
Most significantly, a comparative examination of the Pindaris, Cossacks, Buccaneers, and guerrilla warfare contributes to a more objective interpretation of the Pindaris. The Pindari atrocities, their tortures, their mundane desire for plunder, their irregular methods -- none of these are the exclusive characteristics of the Pindaris.
An enduring assessment of the Pindaris in Indian history cannot be content with an overemphasis of the "immoral" actions of the Pindaris during luhburs or exaggeration of their threat to the peace and prosperity of India. Such treatment considers only the military and moral aspects at the expense of the social, political, and economic.
A thorough study of the Pindaris reflects many things. In part, it reveals the dynamic situation which the war and treaties of 1802-05 caused. The defeated rulers signed restrictive treaties, while semi-independent and subordinate groups increased their base and strength of power. This transformation occurred within a traditional pattern. As such it had little disruptive effects on the population. In spite of factionalism between central Indian leaders, the Marathas' interest in, and indirect encouragement of, Pindari activities exemplifies a common dissatisfaction with the existing situation and their frustration with the restrictive treaties.
Pindari history finally reflects the inflexible British attitudes during this period. However incorrect British ideas were about Pindari society, their selection, emphasis, and propagation of the most destructive aspects conveniently provided the necessary support to Lord Hastings' policy of British paramountcy in India. ( from a recent thesis)

*