Those are not sepoys in Delhi. I believe they are Naamdhari Sikhs who were killed in Punjab. Let me look for a link and reference.

As it says in the link to the photo:

A s part of his article accompanying the wood engraving of the painting when it was published in Harper's Weekly on November 17, 1888, Mr. Cook wrote:

"So with the other picture, the shooting of the Sepoys, Verestchagin does not say that this particular scene is an incident of the great mutiny. Shooting from guns is the only way, he says, that 60,000 soldiers in a stronge country can keep in awe 250,000,000 natives. Superstition must be utilized. The natives do not fear to die, but they fear to die in any way that destroys the identity of the body. They cannot enter heaven blown limb from limb. Therefore this is the way to touch their souls with dreadul awe, and the English, says our artist, have always blown from guns, blow from guns today, and will blow from guns as long as India is held.

This painting is not of the Delhi Mutiny. It pictures an event that took place in 1872 when the British deputy commisioner of Ludhiana, Punjab, ordered the execution of 49 Sikhs of the strictly vegetarian Namdhari sect blown apart by cannon following disturbances instigated by them in protest against the practice of cow slaughter by Muslim butchers beside the Golden Temple Amritsar. It involved sectarian clashes - some butchers were killed. In order to restore order, Namdhari Sikhs were rounded up and blow to pieces on British canons. Shortly after the incident depicted here, the British rounded up more 'trouble makers' and they suffered the same fate.

You can read about this in detail, and see the same painting, as well as other depictions of the massacres here.

I am now waiting for the conservatives mutineers to give some 'perspective' on this issue. On how once you put this in perspective it wasnt really that bad because of the time, what the natives did and other apologetic nonsense. Maybe throw in some Al Qaeda crimes against the white man, worse things browns did to each other and other things which will give us some perspective.

Heck, if we had Dinesh D'Souze here he would actually tell us how this actually was a gift to the Indians.

Truly horrible way to die. I cant believe people even debated otherwise.

Jay, if you follow my second link it mentions that this is believed to have been a depiction of the Sepoy Mutiny. I think that maybe the artist has used creative license to conflate the two incidents.

Who is Dinesh D'Souze?

Abhi

It's just that in your commentary sandwiched between the quotes you say:

In the painting you see Sepoy soliders in Delhi, captured during the 1857 Mutiny

Jay,

I think the artist is showing "shock and awe" technique used against the natives. Possibly, such practise was used on various ocasions around that time.

I agree with Jay Singh's comment's above. This painting depicts the Namdharis who pride themselves in their resistance to the British. They are also referred to as Kukas. The Namdharis, like those in the painting, wear all white. The Kukas had attacked Malerkotla in Punjab, and the British blew some of them apart after capturing them.

Its interesting how the British saw the importance of the body in a judo-christian sense. For a people who are cremated, I don't think a whole body makes any difference.

49 Sikhs of the strictly vegetarian Namdhari sect

Thanks for this bit of information about this painting.
I have a friend who is a Namdhari Sikh he would be interested in this. This Namdhari is a total Sardar 'cept he stays away from meat, alcohol, tobacco and even caffine.

"Who is Dinesh D'Souze?"

Suhail, Just goggle him - Dinesh D'Souza. He is a Mumbai kid - he another fast-talking "as white as Michael Jackson", "model minority" talking head.

You will find him interesting.

Agreed with Jay Singh - it's a famous incident for most Sikhs, but not as well known outside the community.

Namdharis = exxxtreme vegetarians. Much respect.

"Who is Dinesh D'Souze?"

Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian immigrant to the US.
I have read two of his 'books'. In his "Whats so great about America" he cheers British colonialism and also lays out some lame defense of slavery.
I also had the misfortune of reading one of his earlier books "The End of Racism" in which he challenges 'myths' like whether slavery had anything to do with racism.
Actually "The End of Racism" is similar in tone to the book by the other model minority conservative Michelle Malkin and her defense of Japanese Internments in
"Defense of Internment: The Case for “Racial Profiling” in World War II and the War on Terror".

I am now waiting for the conservatives mutineers to give some 'perspective' on this issue. On how once you put this in perspective it wasnt really that bad because of the time, what the natives did and other apologetic nonsense. Maybe throw in some Al Qaeda crimes against the white man, worse things browns did to each other and other things which will give us some perspective.

Heck, if we had Dinesh D'Souze here he would actually tell us how this actually was a gift to the Indians.

Gimme a break. And give "conservative mutineers" a little more credit.

Here's a famous remark from the time:

"Europeans are proud of one Jesus, but here I have seen many Jesus who came in front of cannon fire and embraced death" [Link]

Gimme a break. And give "conservative mutineers" a little more credit.

I wrote that tongue-in-cheek and I was of course not singling out any particular blogger but the people who post here in the comments section in general.
I love all my fellow desi conservative mutineers even though I dont agree with them and are too obsessed with Michael Moore :)
My apologies for the heartache caused.

AMFD:

I also had the misfortune of reading one of his earlier books "The End of Racism" in which he challenges 'myths' like whether slavery had anything to do with racism.

AMFD I also had the misfortune to read Mr. D'Souza's attempt to read racism out of slavery. I thought it a very juvenile attempt to 'shock', a hangover from his college days. There isn't any redeeming value to the book, certainly not much in the way of rigorous argument.

Kumar

The mutiny and sacrifice in India was always driven by religious sentiments. For example, the original 'Sepoy Mutiny' was glorified by a Hindu fundamentalist Veer Savarkar in his book with the same name. Similarly, the incident above and even the movement led by Gandhi.

The radical Ghadr party was different - The Ghadarites called for complete independence for India a full sixteen years before Gandhi's party, the Congress, took this position. That history of radicalism within the Indian American community is now a minority. Part of this is for objective reasons: the class background of the community is different, it is mobilized as a model minority by the establishment, and it is able to leverage multiculturalism to its own advantage.

The mutiny and sacrifice in India was always driven by religious sentiments.

Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh were both socialists and Marxists. Were not the ghadr movement revolutionary leftists too?

I just clicked on your name DESIst, and got the answer - cheers - some interesting stuff there :-)

Jay Singh:
Are you the same dude who posts on pickled politics as well?

D'Souza::Right = Arundhati Roy::Left

How's that for equivalence?

FYI Dinesh D'Souza is coming to speak at UCLA tomorrow.

FYI Dinesh D'Souza is coming to speak at UCLA tomorrow.

Are you going Ami? I'll consider going, but more than likely I will be jumped at the door and beaten down by the college Republicans who are sponsoring. I'm not sure if I want to be the first mutineer killed in the line of duty :)

Lets keep in mind that there was no "india" until the Brits came. It was a subcontinent of warring kingdoms each with a different ethnic type and language; much like Europe circa 1914.

And yes the Brits kicked a lot of brown ass back during the raj, but browns did worse to each other. Lets not forget that the atrocities the british army committed after the sepoy mutiny were with the help of the sikhs who were more than happy to kick mughal ass. Also lets not forget that the soldiers who gunned down punjabis in amritsar's jallianwala bagh were baluch/pashtuns who were more than happy to riddle the sikhs full of lead (who were their ancient enemies after all...remembr ranjit singh ? )

Lets keep in mind that there was no "india" until the Brits came. It was a subcontinent of warring kingdoms each with a different ethnic type and language; much like Europe circa 1914.

Yes, there was an India. It has been thousands of years - from Gupta period, to Asokha, to Mughals. It was federalist, that is way things were back them. Circa 1914, there was lot of consolidation in Europe too. Unification of Germany, Italy, etc.

Also lets not forget that the soldiers who gunned down punjabis in amritsar's jallianwala bagh were baluch/pashtuns who were more than happy to riddle the sikhs full of lead

It was the 45th Brigade that had Pathan, Baluch, and Gurkha soldiers. Let's not make it more than it was with respect to soldiers even though the event became a catalyst for events to happen. The whole firing lasted 10-15 minutes.

I'm not sure I want to be the first mutineer killed in the line of duty :)

Abhi, I'm tempted to go, if only to sow the seeds of dissent...actually, I'll probably sit in the back and silently hope other people sabotage his talk with needling questions. Not sure yet if he's worth my two hours time though...he took away enough of my time with his self-aggrandazing "What's So Great About America."

Lets keep in mind that there was no "india" until the Brits came. It was a subcontinent of warring kingdoms each with a different ethnic type and language; much like Europe circa 1914.

Assuming that you aren't trolling, an article that comprehensively disproves your viewpoint:

Why India Is A Nation

Namdhaaris = Owners of Jaspal....Remember that post?

I'm not sure I want to be the first mutineer killed in the line of duty :)

Abhi, I'm tempted to go, if only to sow the seeds of dissent...actually, I'll probably sit in the back and silently hope other people sabotage his talk with needling questions. Not sure yet if he's worth my two hours time though...he took away enough of my time with his self-aggrandazing "What's So Great About America."

Coooooome on, we could be the only brown kids in the room! You know he's also going to talk about the dirty thirty too...I am so there.

Heck, if we had Dinesh D'Souze here he would actually tell us how this actually was a gift to the Indians.

I don't give much shit about D'Souze, but I for one abhor the way people atomize an individual based on his language, religion, caste, north/south back in India. One reason why atrocious incidents still happen everday - one brown vs. another. The intellectual leadership that propelled this country out of its everyday meaness is still lacking in India.

Heck, if we had Dinesh D'Souze here he would actually tell us how this actually was a gift to the Indians.

The arabs did worse, but it's more politically correct to dote on the anglos.

Historical what ifs are impossible to answer, it is best not to hold grudges for too long and move on with your life.

Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh were both socialists and Marxists

Save these two and the rest of the communist movement pre-Independence was a disgrace.

Going back in history, into the 1940s, when the country was fighting for its Independence, the Communists actually excused themselves from participating in it. Why? Because the Soviet Union, leaders of Communist movement worldwide, was fighting Nazi Germany in the Second World War as an ally of the British.

Yeah the British sucked, but would we have preferred Mughal/Turk control over India instead for another 200 years...?

One can only speculate, but I suspect, this site would have been called Paki mutiny and many more of us would be doing namaz 5 times a day...

D'Souza::Right = Arundhati Roy::Left How's that for equivalence?

D'Souza is an ugly mofo, Arundhati Roy is a nice piece of a...

Why India Is A Nation

The author missed the whole point. India was never a nation because;
1. In the past, adventurers could come to present day nation state India and establish the kingdoms entirely employing natives as soldiers. I'm not talking about invaders.
2. The 250,000,000 could be subjugated because those people never realized their Indian identity was being compromized.
3. It doesn't give you much confidence about your identity if beef and pork were the triggers for the realization of your distict identity. And I don't believe that was Indian identity.
4. As V.S.Naipaul put it clearly, one of the subtle problems Gandhi encountered in South Africa was lack of 'Indian' identity among Indians. Probably, Gandhi's greatest contribution to India might be identification of faceless masses who formed around 90% of the Indian population with India. And Gandhi was a product of Western education who once wanted to be a thouroghhbred Western.

The caste Indian who wrote the article describing the cultural unity of India has conveniently forgotten about the divisiveness of that heritage. The so-called cultural unity was irrelevent because of lack of nationalist identity to go with that. The words unsaid about this cultural heritage, the words overlooked about the cultural change in certain regions of the subcontinent are the best descriptions why Indian identity is the product of colonialism.

Anyway, my Indian identity is as a citizen of nation-state India with borders defined(in most of the regions) in 1947. I donot carry the legacy of Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, Mughals etc. for all their greatness they were all so narrow when it comes to my sense of Indianness. Unfortunately, this identity is still in the making. There are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared religious identity but differ linguistically, there are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared linguistic identity but differ religiously, there are so many differences with my country men differ both religiously and linguistically, there are so many differences with my country men with shared religious identity but differ by caste. These differences show up so greatly in many exclusive relationships. So at best I can describe my Indianness as a response to other national identities. Perhaps, I'm at best Indian when I'm not in India. Depressingly it's so negative.

There are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared religious identity but differ linguistically, there are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared linguistic identity but differ religiously, there are so many differences with my country men differ both religiously and linguistically, there are so many differences with my country men with shared religious identity but differ by caste.

Vive La Difference!! The only way you can have complete unity is through totalitarianism. India has never been a totalitarian society and therefore has not been able to achieve the level of unity found elsewhere - whether this unity has been achieved through religious tyranny or through ideologies like communism. So it's a trade-off. And although India has taken a beating, the remarkable thing is that Indian culture has managed to survive through the ages. Exiquiste ancient cultures in pagan Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, and the native traditions in Australia and the Americas, as well as the Chinese culture have all been wiped out. Indian culture still exists (even if it is in a sorry state these days). Surely the culture has (had?) some inherent strength that permitted it to survive vicious onslaughts by Islam, Christianity, Communism and Fascism? It is this strength, this particular uniqueness that sets Indian culture from other cultures and this was the common culture through the length and breadth of India way before the British came into the picture.

Divya,

Never heard of an onslaught of Christianity! When did that happen? Do you mean the British presence?

Never heard of an onslaught of Christianity! When did that happen? Do you mean the British presence?

Yes. They had a full-fledged agenda to convert all of India and Max Mueller even wrote to his wife that he believed the matter would be accomplished in a very short time. I suppose they were used to the European model where you just have to convert the king and all the subjects are simultaneously converted.

Yes. They had a full-fledged agenda to convert all of India and Max Mueller even wrote to his wife that he believed the matter would be accomplished in a very short time. I suppose they were used to the European model where you just have to convert the king and all the subjects are simultaneously converted

Divya, as far as i know, the britishers didn't give a damn about conversion and their main concern was economic control. Whereas the Portuguese and the Spanish were all about converting non-believers to christianity. *Most* of the conversions to christianity happened in South india, where the Spanish and portuguese had more control...and in small pockets.
I wouldn't exactly term it as an onslaught of christianity...

Divya,

East India Company (later British Raj) was an economic undertaking. British colonization never indulged in conversions, like Spanish. It went against their style of functioning.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/features/east_india_company/

On East India Company and Warren Hastings.

"Despite his views that British sovereignty should not be challenged, Hastings had a profound respect for Indian culture. He encouraged British officials to study the languages and customs of the Indian people. He believed that Indians should be ruled according to the ways that they were accustomed to and he admired aspects of Hindu and Islamic law. But his attempts at getting Europeans to judge on the bases of these religions were unsuccessful."

That shows up again and again, with a different twist by Rudyard Kipling (white man's burden but no evangelizing).

That does not mean English were altruistic and did not practise in "divide and rule"

Yes, according to Wikipedia, the British occupation of Goa finally led to the end of brutal Portugese Inquisition in Goa.

Having said that, the only reason why Christian "onslaught" was largely contained to Goa and the South was because the Portugese were unable to colonize larger parts of India. However, within the areas of their occupation, they were brutally effective in converting the native population, as can be seen in the change in religious demography under their rule. This may have had something to do with them being representatives of the Portugese government that was on a Christianizing mission as opposed to the British East India Company whose primary interest was commercial exploitation and profiteering.

I suppose they were used to the European model where you just have to convert the king and all the subjects are simultaneously converted.

This isn't necessarily or exclusively a "European" model. For example, Aurangzeb engaged in a decades-long effort targetting both Kashmiri Pandits and the Sikh Gurus, in the hope that converting them to Islam would result in the rest of the Hindu and Sikh population throughout the subcontinent falling into line. He failed on both counts.

If we're going to discuss all-out attempts at forcible, bribed, or coerced conversion within India, the intentions and actions of some of the Mughals and their senior officers (supported by many quarters of the orthodox Islamic clergy) were far worse than anything similar attempted by the British during their rule of India.

The East India Company was an economic enterprise only towards the beginnig of its history. Later, specially when the Empire took over, conversion was very much part of the agenda. (Google Max Mueller's letters or Lord McAuley's letters). Warren Hastings is a famous exception as a lover of Indian culture. Can't use an exception to prove the rule.

I mentioned the European model off the top of my head in connection with Max Mueller. I understand Isalm used the same approach.