Say if the Mutiny/Rebellion of 1857 in the Indian subcontinent never did happen. Say the officials running the East India Company were foresighted enough to guess that trying to save a penny here and there on low cost cartridges would lead to the end of the East India Company. Say they did give in to the demands of the Hindu and Muslim soldiers and did indeed use weapons other than the ones that were greased with animal fat.
Say for some reason the mutiny never did occur. What do you think would have happened in turn and what could have possibly been on the map of the world in the year 2005?
It would be nice to hear opinions from all three sides i.e. Indians, Pakistanis and Brits.
Disclaimer: Yes i just finished watching Mangal Panday. Disclaimer 2: This is about history hence i did not feel right pushing this in World Affairs. Disclaimer 3: Please refrain from mud slinging. Much appreciated.
I don't think much would have changed, the movie (which I have not seen ) might have linked the 1857 rebellion as part of some independance movement, but that would be incorrect. Historically the event may have influenced British policy but they would had to assume direct control of India because of Russian expansionism in Central Asia.
One could argue that 1857 was also the last time people of *central India * were united irrespective of religious differences ..the Mughals symbolised a sense of unity (i emphasise central India because the people involved in putting down the rebellion were mostly recruited from the recently conquered Sikh Empire.)
p.s:The victorious British post 1957 did what most conquerers do..they beheaded the Emperors sons and sacked Delhi.
As Zakk said, not much would have changed only a little less blood spilled.
You have to understand that India was one of the few colonies in the British Raj that actually gave them a sustainable revenue and one of the reasons they wanted to manage all the middle eastern territories to keep the trade routes open. Before oil, the Mesopotamia and suburbs were not much of a financial incentive to the British, they only wanted them to have a safe route to South Asia.
AJ you are forgetting the one important thing that the sub continent gave the British Empire (something which distinguishes it from the American Empire) after the bulk of the wealth had been shifted to britain in the mid 19th century (and triggered the Industrial revolution in Europe). England with it's tiny population and small size could not fight a war without two things.."depth" and people who were willing to die for another peoples empire..the sub continent provided both.
Zakk, I partially agree because from my readings, blacks & Orientals made as good of a soldiers as South Asians. Did Indians made up a big potion of British colonial regiments than say blacks?
I don't think it was a question of fighting prowess AJ, aggressive African colonisation did not start till the last 3 decades of the 19th century. The same could be said for Orientals, to my knowledge Indians did have a big portion of British regiments till as late as the second World War (when there was a larger mobilisation of the Empires colonies).