View previous topic | View next topic

Indian Mutiny

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

crissdee
1157198.  Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:34 am Reply with quote

I'm guessing they shot at people who had darker skin than they did!

Any more details you may need Mike via Janet.

 
nitwit02
1157252.  Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:10 pm Reply with quote

Good heavens! An Orpingtonian. I lived in the area up until the 60s. When I went back on vacation this summer, it had changed radically. Not surprising, I suppose.

 
Jenny
1157256.  Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:32 pm Reply with quote

I found a page with some links on it that might be useful - but I suspect you might be the original poster on that page, if your name is Sue!

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=494116.0

 
crissdee
1157271.  Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:48 am Reply with quote

I've just remembered I have a book around the house that discusses all Queen Victoria's "little" wars. I will look it out later and see if it mentions the Buffs in India.

Oops! Typed Buffs instead of Foot. Subconsciously thinking of Jonathan Small in "The Sign of the Four" who joined the Buffs and got caught up in the Mutiny. Anywho, couldn't find any mention of the 33rd in the Mutiny, Mike may know better.

 
emre43
1157320.  Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:42 pm Reply with quote

[quote="Jenny"]I found a page with some links on it that might be useful - but I suspect you might be the original poster on that page, if your name is Sue!

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=494116.0[/quote]

My name isn't Sue, it's Tom, but thanks for the link ;)

 
swot
1157328.  Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:50 pm Reply with quote

You'll want to be here then :-p

 
Alfred E Neuman
1157357.  Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:05 am Reply with quote

emre43 wrote:
My name isn't Sue, it's Tom, but thanks for the link ;)


Do you have a cousin or a sibling called Sue? :-)

 
Janet H
1157421.  Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:36 pm Reply with quote

'ello Tom.

I am the Janet mentioned above and Mike is my husband. he is a pukka military historian now, so if you send me a PM we might be able to find something out?

 
gruff5
1157668.  Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:39 am Reply with quote

Indians with an interest in history call it the "uprising" rather than "mutiny", which makes sense from an Indian perspective.

Vietnamese say "the American War", rather than "Vietnam War", for similarly obvious reasons.

 
crissdee
1157702.  Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:32 pm Reply with quote

Something else on a slightly related topic.

Afaik, the Mutiny/Uprising kicked off because we made our Indian troops use ammo lubricated with pork fat which offended their religious beliefs. In my line of work, we use industrial alcohol as a cleaning agent and I wonder how the religiously temperant may feel about that, should they take the job (they could have mine for a start!😠)

 
suze
1157708.  Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:05 pm Reply with quote

The Hindus among the Indian troops objected to the use of beef fat, because cows are sacred to Hindus.

The Muslims objected to the use of pork fat, because pigs are unclean to Muslims. Not only are Muslims not supposed to eat pig products, they are not supposed to touch pigs or to handle any product made from them.

Alcohol is in a different category and is not considered unclean. Muslims are not forbidden to handle it, it's only drinking it that is forbidden. So there is no religious objection to using alcohol for industrial purposes.

 
crissdee
1157719.  Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:18 pm Reply with quote

Ta.

 
Posital
1157724.  Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:29 pm Reply with quote

Your best bet might be to trace the regimental diary. I found it very useful for tracking down my grandfathers movements in WW1.

Quote:
The Indian Mutiny: 1857 -1858
In May 1857 mutiny broke out in the Indian Army just when the 33rd had arrived in Mauritius from England. However, after only the briefest of stays it was sent to India. There the Regiment was constantly on the move on the east coast, to the north and south of Bombay, operating in small and sometimes isolated detachments. After the mutiny had been quelled a campaign medal was issued, but the 33rd, despite the arduous nature of its duties, did not qualify since in those days at least half of the regiment had to be engaged together to be eligible. For the same reason the Regiment did not qualify for a Battle Honour, though the other regiments of Sir Hugh Rose's Central India Field Force, whose flanks the Regiment had protected, were awarded the honour of 'Central India'.


http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=67&pa=207
http://www.naval-military-press.com/history-of-the-duke-of-wellington-s-regiment-1st-and-2nd-battalions-1881-1923.html

Sorry if you've seen all this before.

 
duglasbell@hotmail.co.uk
1247038.  Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:44 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
Indians with an interest in history call it the "uprising" rather than "mutiny", which makes sense from an Indian perspective.

Vietnamese say "the American War", rather than "Vietnam War", for similarly obvious reasons.


My understanding of the issue is that 'uprising' is merely a generic term for a rebellion or revolution whereas the word 'mutiny' implies an uprising from people who were expected to 'know their place', as in, for example, colonial subjects. Hence, why today's Indians discourage the term 'Indian Mutiny'.

 
brunel
1247057.  Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:25 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Something else on a slightly related topic.

Afaik, the Mutiny/Uprising kicked off because we made our Indian troops use ammo lubricated with pork fat which offended their religious beliefs. In my line of work, we use industrial alcohol as a cleaning agent and I wonder how the religiously temperant may feel about that, should they take the job (they could have mine for a start!😠)

Whilst that may have been a contributing factor, my understanding is that the allegation of the use of pork or beef fat to grease the cartridges wasn't the primary cause, but just one of a wide range of factors which caused increasing anger.

As I understand it, a more significant factor was the fact that the Bengal Army, which I believe was the main Presidency army which kicked off the uprising, were mainly recruited from higher castes that felt that, by the 1850's, their previous caste rights (such as exemptions from overseas military service, which the British had granted them on the grounds that travelling overseas would cause a ritual degradation of their caste status), were being gradually eroded away.

Furthermore, there was also the issue that, after the Punjab and Awadh regions had been captured, the soldiers who were posted there no longer received the bonus pay they had previously received for carrying out operations outside of the Company's jurisdiction, something which was actively resented.

As part of that, there was also a feeling that, once the Company yielded to pressure from the British government to allow Christian missionaries to preach in India, that those missionaries were subverting and trampling on their long held religious beliefs and customs, and that in general there was a sense that the Company was starting to intrude on customs and systems of governance that had, until then, they had tended to accommodate rather than displace.

The claims about the bullets was a factor that aggravated things, that is true, but there were already long standing grievances that, by themselves, would probably have triggered the uprising anyway.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group