interesting that in british-ruled india, a britisher who was a mere major of the army was making enough money to be able to afford to buy the crown of india's emperor, which was studded with all kinds of precious stones. makes one wonder where exactly such money was coming from...

The turrah (the tinsel made of zari or silver wire coated with gold) is worn by Rajput bridegrooms to this day in their headgear as among Hindus the bridal couple are considered the king and queen for a day on the day of their marriage and hence decked up like a royal couple. A little blackened turrah can be seen in this piece of headgear in the centre fountain shaped finial and also as hanging under the emeralds.The turrah was a Hindu piece adopted by the Mughals.The floral trellis work in filigree in this crown is awesome piece of craftsmenship of the jewelers of Delhi.It's gemstones (turquoise, diamonds and dangling emeralds) nowithstanding it does not really look like a crown be-fitting a Mughal emperor and looks more like a glorified Taimurid helmet in design. Rubies were the favourite precious stones of the Mughals and their absolute absence in this headpiece is intriguing. I am reasonably certain that it was commissioned as a gift to a favourite prince/ heirapparent and not for the use of the emperor.

Money? They were looted first by invading English and distributed amongst themselves.

British were Freebooters they are the worst Human rights offenders. Before the Princes of Bahadur Shah Zafar were shot and beheaded they were striped and looted of thier jewels.

Mr Sapkal ~ According to Wikipedia, Major Robert Tytler's "father served in the Bengal medical service and his mother was the daughter of a German count " and so it reasonably safe to assume that he came from a fairly wealthy background (as most British officers during the 19th century would have done~ often being the second or third sons of landed families and who had been obliged to 'buy' their own commissions). I have no idea how much a Major in the British army would have been paid c.1860 but I'm sure it was a rather modest sum ~ however Tytler would probably have had access to either family funds or extensive lines of credit (or both). The article states that Tytler was offered £1000 for the crown in London in 1861 ~ and so it is not unreasonable to suspect that he paid less than that figure at the auction were he acquired it. £ 1000 at 1860 prices is equivalent to about £40,000 today ~ a large but not astronomical sum I'm sure you would agree. My point is that your imputation that there was something sinister in the manner in which Tytler came into pocession of the crown is almost certainly erroneous and that not all (in fact hardly any) British officers of the period, regardless of how they are so often portrayed, were corrupt. "There is more than one truth in history" afterall.

@ Sameer: The British were colonial powers and had certainly not come to India to civilise or democratise us.We were already living in cities and were not moving about with animal skin around our loins like the Africans. They engaged in plunder like all invaders do.Who'd want to come to a country infested with scores of killer water borne diseases , dreaded scourges like the bubonic plague, dense forests teeming with predatorsand snakes and lakes and rivers infested with alligators and crocodiles ,oppressive heat in the summers and torrential monsoons unless one wanted to make a quick buck and scoot ? A walk in any British cemetry in India would tell you the average age that they were dying in India which was in mid-twenties.So it is absurd to expect them to have observed an impeccable human rights record.They were however least of all the colonial evils.Unless it were not so former British colonies would not have been able to form themselves into a Commonwealth and enagage in goodwill gestures like games. We excghange high commissions with each other and not an embassy. This is in stark contrast with former French, German, Dutch or Portuguese colonies who cannot even see eye to eye with their former colonial masters to this day and have nothing except disdain towards them.Western style education, railways, post and telegraph,majestic colonial era structures,municiplaities, police force,parliamentary democracy ,the most disciplined army in the world are all British legacies we can be proud of.The best legacy of their rule was that they undesiringly were able to unite this continent into a country called India which even 63 years after independence operates admirably as a functional democracy inspite of being the most plural society in the world. The treatment meted out to the sons of the last Mughal emperor was rather unfortunate and as for looting their jewels didn't the Mughals engage in that when the Mughal empire was being formed ? They had certainly not brought those jewels from Asia minor, Turkey or Mongolia. Had they ?

The "two sons "of Bahadur Shah Zafar in question were, I believe, executed on the orders of Major William Hodson (of 'Hodson's Horse' fame) at his own initiative and without higher authority. Hodson was considered to be, even by his fellow British officers, somewhat unstable and rather ruthless. Unfortunately, in times of civic disorder and chaos, such individuals can be allowed too much freedom of action.

We know very well the whole history. British were colonialist, but I don't think that this Shah (another stranger of different origin) was an angel or a defender of Human rights.

Giorgio Bahader Shah did not arrive hiding in a boat like Lord Clive who was running away from England to save himself from prosecution for stealing lamb from a farmer. He was a king of india born and bred.

Queen of England is a Royal thief too for publically prading Koh e Noor a stolen Diamond.

@ Giorgio:The last Mughal emperor could produce poetry in Urdu, Persian,Brijbhasha and Punjabi and was immensely popular among his subjects or whatever was left of his realm.The revolutinaries who wanted to overthrow the colonial yoke had approached the emperor for financial and military assistance which he was unable to provide given his circumstances.So they quequed up and knelt before him and sought his blessings as he commanded a quasi-divine status among his subjects both Hindus and Muslims. The revolutionary soldiers who mutanied were all upper caste Hindus: predomenantly Brahmins and Rajputs from the United Provinces whom he had blessed.The emperor's ancestors were of foreign origin but the Mughal dynasty were Indian rulers for at least the preceding two hundred years by then having mixed blood with Indians.

Yes. The British were the biggest looters when it came to rare treasures, in the same way as the Islamic Invaders were of rich Indian Architectural Treasures. Not only in India, but they also looted from Greece, Turkey and all of their former colonies.

they were not islamic,they were mughals.

why someone defend mughal as islamic, or attack as islamic, they were not representative of islam, they had their own sins and perhaps some goods as king, but they were not representative of islam

being Punjabies, we know what they had done with sikh gurus and fighter Dulla Bathi.

I have never previously heard that Lord Clive was obliged to seek exile in India as a very young man because he was "running away from England to save himself from prosecution for stealing [ a ] lamb from a farmer" !!! [ see above]. Robert Clive, it is certainly true, was a rather wild and delinquent youth and a source of embarrassment to his father, Richard Clive. During his time at the Market Drayton (Shropshire) Grammar School, he headed what today we might call a 'gang', which roamed the streets of the town and from time to time extorted money from local shopkeeper's in exchange for not throwing stones through their windows (preperation for his activities in Bengal, perhaps ?). His most famously remembered and audacious prank from this time was the feat of climbing the town's church spire in order to place a stone on a spout projecting from a lofty gargoyle ~ which caused a certain amount of local consternation ! But if it was not for stealing a lamb, why was Clive sent to India ? Richard Clive was a lawyer and member of the lesser English rural gentry, a group whose position was beginning to be eroded in mid-18th century Britain by encroachment upon their lands by the larger estates. The Clive families annual income from rents was about £500 per annum (perhaps, £50,000 in todays terms) and they were far from wealthy and had trouble maintaining their social position. A country gentlemen would normally expect his eldest son to succeed him and, if required, restore or increase the family fortunes. The vital element in the Clive families case was the need to augment their small landed income. As Robert Clive showed not the inclination or the aptitude to follow his father's legal career ~ an alternative occupation was sought for him. At this time the 'nabobs' were first starting to appear on the English scene - with tales of quick fortunes to be made in the exotic east - and this opportunity, combined with Robert Clive's innate sense of adventure saw him submitted for entrance into the junior ranks of the East India Company as a 'writer'( a position for which he was obliged to pass an examination, somewhat difficult if on the run !). For Richard Clive, the decision to send his son to India (which, as Digvijay points out above - was fraught with grave risks for one's health) would not have been taken lightly, but the perilous state of the family's finances would have been the deciding factor.

RC Tytler did get the choice appointment of Superintenedent of the Penal Settlemt of Andamans. The highest peak in South Andaman is Mt. Harriet, named after his wife. The Tytlers also amassed great wealth during the sack of Delhi by mining for hidden treasures in the abandoned houses.

@ Rare Book: Can you get a copy of Harriet Tytler's memoirs?

The Illustrated London News March 20, 1858 HUMAYOUN'S TOMB, DELHI "The following interesting particulars respecting the capture of the King of Delhi [Bahadur Shah Zafar], at Humayoun's Tomb, by Captain Hodson, are extracted from a letter which recently appeared in the columns of the leading journal [the London Times]. It is written by one intimately acquainted with all his proceedings during the siege, who had the account at the time from himself and other eye-witnesses:- "I have before explained to you what our brother's (Capt. Hodson's) position officially was - viz., that he was appointed Assistant Quarter-master General and Intelligence Officer in the Commander-in-Chief's own Staff. His reports were to be made to him direct, without the intervention of the Quartermaster-General, or any other person. "For this appointment, which was then a most responsible one, as intelligence of the enemy's movements and intentions were of the utmost importance, his long acquaintance with Sikhs and Afghans, and his having been similarly employed in the Punjab war, had peculiarly fitted him. Of course, there were always plenty of traitors in the enemy's camp ready to sell their own fathers for gain, or to avoid punishment, and he was invested with full power to promise reward or punishment, in proportion to the deserts of those who assisted him. "On our taking posession of the city gate reports came in that thousands of the enemy were evacuating the city by other gates, and that the King, also, had left his palace. We fought our way inch by inch to the palace walls, and then found truly enough that its vast arena was void. The very day after we took posession of the palace (the 20th) Captain Hodson received information that the King and his family had gone with a large force out of the Ajmere-gate to the Kootub. He immediately reported this to the general commanding, and asked whether he did not intend to send a detachment in pursuit, as with the King at liberty and heading so large a force our victory was next to useless, and we might be besieged instead of being besiegers. General Wilson replied that he could not spare a single European. He then volunteered to lead a party of the Irregulars; but this offer was also refused, though backed by Neville Chamberlain. "During this time messengers were coming in constantly, and among the rest one from Zeenat Mahal (the favourite Begum), with her offer to use her influence with the King to surrender on certain conditions. These conditions were at first ludicrous enough - viz., that the King and the whole of the males of his family should be restored to this palace and honours; that not only should his pension be continued, but the arrears since May be paid up, with several other equally modest demands. I need not say that these were treated with contemptuous denial. Negotiations, however, were vigorously carried on, and care was taken to spread reports of advance in force to the Kootub. Every report as it came in was taken to General Wilson, who at last gave orders to Captain Hodson to promise the King's life and freedom from personal indignity, and make what other terms he could. Captain Hodson then started with only fifty of his own men for Humayoun's Tomb, three miles from the Kootub, where the King had come during the day. The risk was such as no one can judge of who has not seen the road, amid the old ruins scattered about of what was once the real city of Delhi. ...continued

...continued from above : "He concealed himself and men in some old buildings close by the gateway of the Tomb, and sent in his two emissaries to Zeenat Mahal with the ultimatum - the King's life and that of her son and father (the latter has since died). After two hours passed by Captain Hodson in most trying suspense, such as (he says) he never spent before, while waiting the decision, his emissaries (one an old favourite of poor Sir Henry Lawrence) came out with the last offer - that the King would deliver himself to Captain Hodson only, and on condition that he repeated with his own lips the promise of the Government for his safety. "Captain Hodson then went out into the middle of the road in front of the gateway, and said that the was ready to receive his captives and renew his promise. "You may picture yourself the scene before tha magnificent gateway, with the milk-white domes of the tomb towering up from within, one white man among a host of natives, yet determined to secure his prisoner or perish in the attempt. "Soon a procession began to come slowly out, first Zeenat Mahal, on one of the close native conveyances used for women. Her name was announced as she passed by the Moulvie. Then came the King in a palkee, on which Capt. Hodson rode forwarded and demanded his arms. Before giving them up, the King in asked whether he was 'Hodson Bahadoor,' and if he would repeat the promse made by the herald? Captain Hodson answered that he would, and repeated that the Government had been graciously pleased to promise him his life, and that of Zeenat Mahal's son, on condition of his yielding himself prisoner quietly, adding very emphatically, that if any attempt was made at a rescue he would shoot the King on the spot like a dog. "The old man then gave up his arms, which Capt. Hodson handed to his orderly, still keeping his own sword drawn in his hand. The same ceremony was then gone through with the boy (Jumma Bukh), and the march towards the city began, the longest five miles, as Captain Hodson said, that he ever rode, for, of course, the palkees only went at foot pace, with his handful of men around them, followed by thousands, any one of whom could have shot him down in a moment. "His orderly told me that it was wonderful to see the influence which his calm and undaunted look had on the crowd. They seemed perfectly paralyzed at the fact of one white man (for they thought nothing of his 50 black sowars) carrying off their King alone. Gradually as they approached the city the crowd slunk away, and very few followed up to the Lahore-gate. Then Captain H. rode on a few paces and ordered the gate to be opened. The officer on duty asked simply as he passed what he had got in his palkees. 'Only the King of Delhi' was the answer; on which the officer's enthusiastic exclamation was more emphatic than becomes ears polite. The guard were for turning out to greet him with a cheer, and could only be repressed on being told that the King would take the honour to himself. They passed up that magnificent deserted street to the palace gate, where Captain Hodson met the civil officer (Mr. Sanders), and formally delivered over his royal prisoners to him. His remark was amusing 'By Jove, Hodson, they ought to make you commander-in-chief for this.' "On proceeding to the General's quarters to report his successful return, and hand over the Royal arms, he was received with characteristic speech,"Well, I am glad that you have got him, but I never expected to see either him or you again!" while the other officers in the room were loud in their congratualtions and applause. He was requested to select for himself from the royal arms what he chose, and has therefore two magnificent swords, one with the name of 'Nadir Shah,' and the other the seal of Jehan Guire [Mughal Emperor Jehanghir] engraved upon it, which he intends to present to the Queen. "On the following day, as you already know, he captured three of the Princes; but of this more hereafter. I am anxious now that you should fully understand that your brother was bound by orders from the General to spare the King's life, much against his own will; that the capture alone was on his own risk and responsibility, and not the pledge. "Mr. George H. Hodson (the brother of Captain Hodson), who sends the above letter to the Times, says: - "I have also letters flatly contradicting the report which has circulated, that the King was allowed to retain his retinue and his own apartments in the Palace, and giving an account of a visit to him in his place of confinement. I will endeavor to send you this on another occasion." http://www.harappa.com/engr/mughal.html

The british rule was a unmitigated disaster, one which set India back by at least 600 years in economic and cultural terms compared to the rest of the world.

From the article above : ""Then Captain [Hodson] rode on a few paces and ordered the gate to be opened. The officer on duty asked simply as he passed what he had got in his palkees. 'Only the King of Delhi' was the answer; on which the officer's enthusiastic exclamation was more emphatic than becomes ears polite." ... ha-ha-ha... a comic moment in an otherwise rather sordid affair...

All such rules are disastrous for any country and Britain was one such. The victim learning the 'rules' from the tyrant they suffered under and fell to. Perpetuating the abuse. Yet if we can learn positive, creative behaviours which abuse no-one from the past then we have truly risen above that abuse. "The traditional view has often been that Iron Age Britons were unsophisticated people who needed to be civilised by the Romans," said Tim Malim, an archaeologist from the UK environmental planning consultancy, SLR, who co-directed the Shropshire excavation. "It's an attitude that largely has its roots in the late 19th century when Britain saw itself very much as the new Rome, bringing civilisation to the rest of the world." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/what-did-the-romans-ever-do-for-us-if-they-didnt-build-our-roads-2238592.html Also for consideration... what did Genghis Khan do? What did the Ottoman Empire do? What can we learn from them? We need to go forward, learning from the past in creative and beneficial ways, not sabotage our present and future with bitterness and blame. Certainly, we must see what was wrong with the past and the harmful and abusive ways our ancestors conducted themselves but we need to allow ourselves to be truly free of it - or be mired in it for generations to come. True freedom is in being one's self, free of any external influence yet cognisant of those influences and wise with that knowledge. We are all in this world in the process of becoming... ourselves, and abuses have arrested our development on a massive scale both within the home and the nation. I believe t is our life's task to free ourselves from those bounds and live our lives fully and creatively, as we were all born to do.

Well said...Terri Shepherd ! Such a welcome perspective.

An excellent post Terri, a really really good post but please realize these posts are directed towards apologists in India and outside who basically "dont want to learn" in the way that you described. Basically the first step to learning is accepting the truth, "know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

The only truth is quest for truth RBSI. Short of having a nachiket like interview.

My dear Satyakam...if there is one 'truth' I would us to learn from our engaging discussions at RBSI...it is that...'there is more than one truth in history' ! But it is interesting to note Terri's even more practical suggestion of learning the 'lessons from history'.

Satyakam : History by its very nature is a subjective experience of the narrator. This earlier post on E.H. Carr's 'What is History?' might be a relevant reading once again : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150269250101675&set=a.212955701674.174468.196174216674&type=1&theater

Yes, history is by is nature subjective to the narrator, however that said, sun rises in the east all said and done, whether the narrator describes the sun as a God or a physical phenomena. We have worthies trying to make sure sun rises in the west. ;-)

Rare Book Society of India: Bahadur Shah's couplets you quoted elsewhere and the 'crown' in this post reminded me of Henry's state of mind described by Shakespeare in his play "King Henry". Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude, And in the calmest and most stillest night, With all appliances and means to boot, Deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down! Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. (Shakespeare has the quality of Urdu poetry, so much so that I often wonder if some the Urdu poets took a leaf or two from him). Culture vultures often forget that there have been poets and plunderers both, in all cultures. It is up to us to choose what we wish to revere if not emulate. Bengalee women, to this day, sshhhh their children by invoking "Marhattas are coming".

It appears a lot of people get very queasy in calling a spade a spade. Pity.

Not at all ! If only we could relate to history as a 'discussion' and not as a 'combat'...we could at least arrive at a common ground. : ) A spade by the way, will always remain a spade...

RBSI, discussion/combat is onlee a matter of perspective you know ;-)

Yes, it is so difficult to extract 'truth' from history; even the present is difficult enough. How many historians had/have their own agenda? 'The truth will set you free' - but how do we know 'the truth'? I think we have to try to be objective and try to train ourselves to recognise the difference between opinion and fact. However, another difficulty lies in - lies and misrepresentation. Horribly confusing. But we just have to focus on the facts as we see them, being very careful to allow for adjustment and never being absolutist about our argument for it is precisely there that we have suffered at the hands of those who were absolutely certain they were right! The Romans were barbarians yet were organised barbarians. Had we clung to the pain of that barbarism we would remain forever victim, sadly. There is much to be said for letting go, while remaining coldly rejecting of that barbarism and firmly intent on avoiding any perpetuation of it in any form. It is only, I believe, by acknowledging and feeling pain that we can get beyond it and begin to live our lives rather than limping through it. Perhaps that is all any of us can do. Sometimes the pain is too heavy a burden but we have to cling to hope and direct our energies to the good and positive aspects of life. Was it Nietzsche who said 'Don't look at the abyss; it will look back at you'? There's much to be said for that. Look at what IS beautiful and good, aim for it, and life becomes bearable. I believe. :)

Just read that article - yes, history is a continuing discussion!

@ Shekhar: Silencing the children in Bengal with Maratha threat is interesting considering that it is still being said ! I hail from Jhalawar which was a kingdom created as a buffer state between Hadoti (Bundi and Kota) and the central provinces.An able former military general Zalim Singh Jhala was recognized as a Maharaj Rana by Maharao of Kota. It was created in 1838 only to counter the Maratha threat as they used to engage in periodic chauth wasuli from all north Indian kingdoms in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by when Mughal hold over the country and Rajput might in the north stood considerably diminished. The likes of Begum Sumroo were brokering peace between the Sikhs and the Mughals and extracting their pound of flesh from both. In fact for brokering that deal she was accorded the title of Zeb-u-Nisa by Shah Alam the Mughal emperor. The Marathas were able to wreck such havoc for two reasons primarily: First was having organised their army and even their navy vey well with French mercenary support and second was the use of a sword which could be worn in the arm.The latter was a very significant invention in warfare and it changed the course of history in India. You might be surprised to learn that there are Afghan Marathas too.Few Marathas settled in Afghanistan and in due course intermarried with the locals. They still speak a language which is a mixture between Pashtoun and Marathi ! There was a tradition never to construct a mehdi (staircase or the first floor) in several villages in Jhalawar.When I enquired they said the head of the family dies if that is attempted ! In fact the elders desisted because the first floor would be visible from a distance and could be easily spotted by the Maratha armies. In due course it became a tradition. The area of Jhalawar has black cotton soil and perennial rivers unlike the rest of Rajasthan and in those times it was a very dense forest. It is today the second largest producer of oranges after Nagpur. I agree there are so many versions of history. So whether one is a freedom fighter or a separatist or a nationalist trying to repulse 'foreign' forces all eventually depends on which side you are. The bottomline is that history is always written by the victors

@julian craig: there is this book written by a british citizen (the corporation that changed the world' by nick robins (a british citizen, apparently). he has quite nicely pointed out that the british east india company was the structural archetype for all later corporations and MNCs. one of his contentions is that the structure of the company (and all governance systems that descended from it) allowed officers and executives to personally benefit through exploitation of the natives, and that these same structural loopholes enable corporations to exploit people across the world. now, this is not a far-fetched contention, and i suspect that it is not peculiar to britain, but to any power that controls a foreign country. the purpose of any such imperialistic enterprise is profit - profiteering at not just the corporate level, but through the trickle-down effect of the exploitation culture to the employees of the controlling power. this was the reason for my commenting on the fact that a major managed to purchase something so valuable. perhaps, it was his family income or inheritance that enabled him to buy the indian mughal heirlooms and that he was one of the few epitomes of integrity operating within the imperialistic system. but one cannot be faulted for at least suspecting that his income could have been through exploitation of the native economy. there are enough records of british operatives profiting at a personal level from the exploitation of the local economy, for one to suspect this. may i quote from the fore-mentioned book - "...Plassey changed all this, removing all constraints on good practice. More than this, the intensification of corrupt practices was dreiven by the Company's own leaders in both the Calcutta Council and the London Directorate. A new catchphrase entered the language - 'a lass and a lakh [a lakh being Rs 100,000] a day' - to describe the lifestyle of the Company's executives in Bengal enjoying voluptuous mistresses (bibis) and their generous presents from state officials and Asian merchants..." in our particular case it is to be remembered that not only is it a matter of someone having enough money to purchase this crown and take it to england, but also the fact that there were no laws created at that time to prevent the flow of such historical items out of india at that time. do consider that such laws could easily have been created and implemented by the british govt. as the esteemed british detective holmes might remark, it is the case of the dog that did not bark. does one blame the british for any of this? no, one believes what heath ledger's joker says in the batman movie - ' i am not a monster. i am simply ahead of the curve'. i, for one, strongly believe that if india had continued in the centralization of power before the path of warfare was resolutely and deliberately abandoned by asoka the great for the benefit of mankind (leading to the breakup of his administration within a single generation), perhaps the centralized power in india would have become imperialistic too, and marched on to do exactly the same things that the british did in their pursuit of imperialism. same things, perhaps in different ways to different people and countries and cultures- who is to say? all humans are the same across the world, especially in their propensity to take wrong turns sometimes.

@ Pankaj: You have got the ball rolling on a rather interesting topic that avarice is a universal phenomenon in humanity. I however do not agree with your hypothesis that had power not got decentralized after emperor ‘Ashoka the great’ embraced Buddhism, India could have also turned imperialistic in her ambitions because Ashoka’s reign was followed by a golden period of the Hindu renaissance under the Gupta dynasty and much later King Harshwardhan who also ruled large swathes of northern part of the country. Imperialism was triggered by the Industrial revolution. Britain’s need for both a market for her finished goods and a constant supply of raw materials for her ever growing industries had become the need of the hour. Britain’s phenomenal success as a colonial imperial power can be attributed to the presence of significant coal deposits within the British Isles and also her being the master of the high seas. An honour which they came to acquire in such great measure just as it had once belonged to the Venetians in ancient times. It must also be borne in mind that only he ventures to seek a green pasture that requires it. None of our invaders save for Nadir Shah of Persia came from a land of plenty. India has always been a land of endless growing season. We do not have to grow basic stuff like tomatoes in green houses. The primary reason for India never having turned imperialistic is that the world’s wealth for millenias altogather kept flowing here on account of India’s absolute hold over the spice trade and her playing an important part in the ancient silk route . Till such time the Venetians were the masters of the high seas they controlled this spice trade from India. The grandeur of St. Mark’s and the palaces and churches on either side of the grand canal can be attributed to spice trade with India. Legend has it that the price of a black pepper was worth half it’s weight in gold in Europe (There was no cayenne pepper as Mexico was discovered much later) Except starnise all spices are native to the Coromandel coast of India The British broke India’s monopoly over the spice trade forever and began spice and even sugarcane plantations in Madagascar, east and the west Indies respectively.

>> Had we clung to the pain of that barbarism we would remain forever victim, sadly Terri I dont understand, the tribes of rest of Europe, made sure that the victims were Romans, before the day was over, so how can they try and play "victim" any more?

Pankaj, a fine post, however, I do not think that the all empires would be EIC like empire, EIC was a particular type of Empire, continuation of the old Roman empire, modelled on it. Many empires have existed and not been like Roman ones.

@ Digvijay Singh ,regarding marathas in Afganistan . I don't think marathas settled in Afgan out of there own free will. They must be descendants of the maratha men and women captured and enslaved after the 1761 Panipat war by Ahmed shah Abdali.Then there is a community in Haryana known as Rode Marathas ,they are the descendants of few marathas who could escape from the battle alive and chose not to return home. Also there are Bugti or Marri Marathas in Pakistan again thought to be descendants of some of the soldiers of Maratha army captured and enslaved by Abdali.

Pankaj Sapkal you perhaps generalize too hastily yet your basic point is well conceived. Do not forget that the 'crown' and the 'chairs' were bought at an auction details of which have not been made available. So, there were some rules in existence. Every society, in all ages, have had its corrupt elements. Corruption cannot be measured only in money terms if describes as some kind of moral turpitude. This turpitude is a direct reflection of misuse of a position of authority in whatever form, religious or otherwise. It is to the credit of the British, rather to the credit of Capitalism which made everyone equal in front of the Law. The British were the hardline harbingers of this equality in theory and practice. Hence, you will find ample examples of the high and mighty Englishmen impeached and in some cases punished.

Mr Sapkal ~ Thank you for your interesting and courteous reply. I am familiar with the Robins book ~in fact, I believe it is still in the attic somewhere collecting layers of dust ! As far as I recall Mr Robins is/was a disallusioned former trader at the London Stock Exchange who had a "road to Damascus moment" and felt that he could no longer participate in a network of advanced global capitalism that he felt was fundamentally exploitative and that his book on the history of EIC ( and it's legacy) was written very much from this perspective ? He is certainly not an academic (not that I am suggesting that historical books should be written only by academics !far from it) and I think that he would be the first to admit that his book is not a particularly well-researched or penetrative work. It is a series of opinions. There has been a great deal of more detailed research conducted into the origins, day-to-day management and working practices of the EIC over the last 50 years in Britain and might I suggest that you consult (if you have not already) the works of such emminent scholars as the late Peter J Marshall, Christopher Bayley and Hugh Bowen if you wish to gain a more rounded perspective on the dynamics of a corporation that, to use the words of Mr Robins " changed the world" ! I dare say that an equal measure of research has been conducted in India and if you know of any interesting material upon this broad subject do please let me know. I think that there is still a commonly held misconception that the EIC (as is referred to somewhere above) was interested in 'Empire-building'... nothing could have been further from their minds. Their only interest was profit (and in securing and consolidating those profits - sometimes by force). The 17th early 18th century actions of 'John Company' were always conducted with this motive in mind.... The British government only became involved, as Shekhar points out [above], when the EIC was deemed to have 'stepped over the line' and its more rapacious activities were reigned in by legislation and regulation.... In fact the EIC (as we know of it) was virtually bankrupt c.1770-1780 and would not have survived without generous 'bail-outs' from parliament. Anyway, I'm sure we are all familiar with this history ? A parting thought : Another widely held historical misconception is that the EIC was popular at 'home' in Britain and that it proceede with the blessings and sanction of 'King and country'. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The 'Nabobs' and other functionaries of the EIC were roundly frowned upon (much in the fashion that 'bankers' are in the modern world) as greedy, social-climbing interlopers... and this 'across the board' lack of popularity can be detected in writings from the period that bridge the political divide. Adam Smith( anti-monopoly, free market etc.) and Edmund Burke (hero of the traditional 'conservative' right) were just as scathing about the EIC as ever Karl Marx et.al would subsequently turn out to be.

now they should send it back to us !!!

Shekhar Sathe: agree with most of all that you say. as for the last bit on the making everyone equal in front of the law - we have the fine example of justice ramshastri in the peshwai of pune (circa late 18th century), who sentenced the ruling peshwa to death on charge of murder. men of integrity in those days - imagine the integrity of any judge in those feudal days who dared to sentence the highest person in the realm.

Breaking News !! Mahatma Gandhi's spectacles was stolen from his Wardha Ashram. Such a pathetic record we have for preserving our valuable and rare heritage.

Pankaj Sakpal, that last bit was wonderful, I think the message would be some what lost on the recipient though :D

When we wonder how did British carry out such blatant loot which at their time they did not even disguise as rule, the answer always is "they had willing Indian slaves, who would ratiocinate the very worst atrocities" -- that truth is ever visible.

Pankaj Sapkal Your message is loud and clear. There are examples of moral rectitude (as exceptions) in all societies which had some kind of a legal code. Ramshastri Prabhune was an example of a fearless judge in the legal system of his time. The crime was that a member of nobility had murdered another member of the same nobility. Rape and murder of the commoners was common if not routine in the times of Peshwas and the likes of Ramshastri Prabhune did not have the legal backing to punish members of the nobility for such crimes. It was with the French revolution the the trinity of the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity for all took root in the modern sense. Similar concepts in earlier societies were articulates as religious codes prescribed and applied for different classes differently. For example, among the Hindus, by Law, brahmins attracted differnt punishment than Shoodras for petty as well as capital crimes. In feudal Europe, the nobility was a law unto itself. My only point is that when looking at the events of the past, we have to untangle many threads, each painted differently and closely meshed. If we do not do that, we may tend to brush the world in the same paint and arrogate to ourselves the power to dictate. Your opening salvo on this thread was thus a good stroke. Hate destroys the innards of the hater more than the hated. The sthitapradnya (whose intellect is balanced) views history with equanimity and the present with compassion.

Shekhar Sathe: you are right, the rights of the elite classes were protected much better than the rights of commoners. i believe the situation is not too much better today, with the definition of 'elite' changing as per situation. (for example, today the media can bring some particular case into prominence, thus converting it to a kind of an elite case, thus being a kind of a game-changer). on a slight tangent - as for the preferential protection of brahmins, one thing that has to be remembered is that this preferential treatment was a relic of the days before the written word came into vogue, when knowledge was preserved through memorization. while brahmins are today associated primarily with religious duties, it has to be borne in mind that they were also the carriers of all kinds of intellectual property, apart from mere religious stuff. secrets of weaponry, of administration, economics, sciences, medicine were not written down, but carried in the memory of brahmins (who spent their entire lives internalizing their specialized science). thus, the killing of a brahmin was tantamount to the destruction of potentially irreplaceable IP. this would, of course, receive royal sanction, since the warrior/royal caste could also not afford to let precious knowledge (created from a lifetime of training) to be destroyed through the killing of the person entrusted with the IP. perhaps it became strategic in those days to deliberately create a religious taboo against the killing of the knowledge bearers, to protect the knowledge. naturally, this became redundant as soon as all the memorized texts could be written down, though i believe a lot of knowledge was still lost over millenia due to the deaths of people carrying those texts only in their memories. if you have read ray bradbury's 'fahrenheit 451' - while its a story that is purportedly science fiction, it is exactly how indians preserved their voluminous knowledge and related texts. later, the system degenerated into pure elitism and indians have experienced quite closely the horrible evils created due to such elitism, but to begin with, there seems to be a now-outdated rationale for the preferential protection of the social class that bore the burden of intellectual property.

I agree Pankaj 'Brahmm hayta' was the gravest sin among the Hindus of yorw.Howsoever hienious the crime at worst a Brahim could only be exiled and could never be given a death sentence.I sure would like to read Fahreneit 451 pray who is teh publisher ?

its a classic and old book, reprinted many times - by the famous scifi author - ray bradbury. you should not have trouble finding it at all.

Pankaj Sapkal: Yes indeed except that the art of the written word is known to mankind including Indians for the last 2500 years. I too will seek 451 ^F. Once you have equality in theory, its pursuit by any and all becomes legitimate and easier. When theory denies the freedom, you run a handicap.

>> It was with the French revolution the the trinity of the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity for all took root in the modern sense. The French intellengisa who mooted these concepts were men enough to recognize that they were inspired hugly by India. Unfortunately any numbers of deracinated Indians dont know either themselves or west (those who dont know themselves cant know others) but fall over each other to worship anything outside India.

Pankaj : Brilliant exposition on the perspective of Brahmins being viewed as irreplaceable IP !! Makes so much sense...

@Daud Zafar Nadeem, I said islamic bcos they include mughals, ghazni, adilshahi, nizamshahi, etc. all looted and destroyed beautiful Indian monuments. And remember, islamic looters have always destroyed thousands of hindu temples. And what a big issue was made when just 1 mosque was pulled which was build in place of Lord Ramas birthplace.

Shekhar Sathe: fair enough. the rgveda, according to a western estimation is dated around 1700 to 1900 bce. the other three vedas were written a bit later, but all these 4 vedas and other literature had to be passed on (it is said that there was a 5th veda which was lost). so, a system to memorize it vocally was designed, with a tripartite style of narration of the text, which cross-verified the authenticity of each other. so, not only was there a memorization of each text, but a method was designed to cross-check and verify the fidelity of the transmission of the text. who designed this, it is not known. lineages were entrusted with the task of preserving and passing down this knowledge, and a lot of it did get passed down (like the 5th veda referred to, in the chandogya upanishada). it is only to be guessed as to what would be the value of the life of the people who carried these texts in their heads. and it is easy, also to realize that the lineages entrusted to carrying these texts would attain an elite status in society. today, we look at these lineages as merely priests. but no, they were a lot lot more. vishwamitra, vasishtha, parshurama, dronacharya, etc were deeply knowledgeable about secrets of warfare, perhaps of making incendiary weapons (perhaps something akin to the so-called 'greek fire', that used bitumen derived incendiaries that could not be extinguished by water). wouldn't the warriors protect their lives dearly, in order to possess their knowledge? and mind you, such knowledge was rare, cutting-edge, and precious enough for tales of IPR espionage to have been documented in our stories (the kacha-sukracharya story, or karna-parshurama story, for example). we all know the outline treatise of arthashastra, on economics/administration/spycraft written by the brahmin chanakya. indeed, it is quite sad that eventually the brahmins became associated with only elitist priestly duties, after the traditional ashram systems of learning were somehow destroyed in the passage of time.

RBSI had posted these videos on Youtube last year to enable its members see this extraordinary video... which explains the technique of memorising and chanting of the Vedas. Marvel of Memory - Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFQo8xnO63M Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFP76SNq_ko&feature=related Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_1kQ6oPLyE&feature=related

Pankaj Sapkal I share your sadness. The class structure in a society develops from a social need but the power structure and the vested interests persist even after social needs have transformed and the society has moved to a newer level of consciousness. Hence, there is no "eternity" to knowledge systems or social systems. A fickle mind dreams about the false security offered by the comforts of archaic beliefs such as divine origin (apaurusheya) of the vedas. But we are trangressing away from the main theme of this wall-post of RBSI.

Shekhar Sathe: i think it is okay to digress from the main topic during such discussions - where else would we have such interesting exchanges? i am sure RBSI would not mind the occasional going off tangent, so long as it is not in a negative direction. about 'apaurusheya' - the adi sankara's diction is slightly different - almost cryptic, and so many times misinterpreted. (certainly, he used words in ways that were highly original, with hidden layers of meaning). however, when one interprets his words through the lens of contemporary consciousness studies, they start making much sense. he makes explicit references to what is referred to as 'downward causation' by consciousness scientists (dakshina-murti, in sankara's words). similarly, the apaurusheya origin of the vedas may be indicated to refer to not necessarily a 'divine' origin (as understood currently). the concept of 'purusha' could here be considered as (considering one layer of meaning) from the perspective of samkhyan philosophy of dualism (splitting reality into the duality of 'purush' and 'prakriti'), which espoused that purush is inexorably distinct from prakriti. adi sankara was, as we all know, an advaitist, who held that consciousness is merely a manifestation of a supreme order that encompasses everything. thus, purusha obviously cannot be the origin of the vedas as per nondualist philosophy. however, must also consider the second layer of the etymology of the word 'purusha', which means 'the office' or through an 'agency' (for a quick referal to the word, pls refer to the wikipedia article on 'agency' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy) ) thus, here apaurusheya would indicate that something which is not through the official agency of a person or a group, but rather a precipitation through society, without having a consciously driven motive, or perhaps something emerged through the non-centralized but distributed cognitive nature of mankind. of course, this is only an interpretation of sankara's words, like the so many other interpretations. but i feel that sankara can be understood much better through the lens of contemporary consciousness studies rather than the standard and hackneyed religious contexts that have lost all semantic vitality today.

I like these diversions for they help us bring out the connectedness between things. You have put your finger on the essence (or hit the nail on the head). What is divinity if not the Supreme Being? I fully subscribe to the view of "societal" origin of any knowledge system, ancient or modern. The Vedas do reflect the level of consciousness (knowledge) as was obtained in old times with origins firmly rooted in ground. Unfortunately some of us like to imagine roots to be in the air and branches within the ground. उर्ध्व मूलाः अधः शाखा: