1/n Sir Sayed Ahmed, founder of AMU, was not only main proponent of two-nation theory but was also an absolute British Loyalist.
In this thread I bring in light his booklet " The Causes Of The Indian Revolt" which not only shows his anti-India stand & similar appeal to Muslims.
In this thread I bring in light his booklet " The Causes Of The Indian Revolt" which not only shows his anti-India stand & similar appeal to Muslims.
2/n In the preface itself he clarifies that he is writing this booklet as a loyalist.
He also defines this "1857 issue" as a rebellion against government (he recognizes British as one).
He also defines this "1857 issue" as a rebellion against government (he recognizes British as one).
3/n Like any other loyalist, he lives in a belief that the "1857" was a small mutiny with no large planning.
He even undermines the "Chapati Movement" just like how many British officers did by painting it in hue of superstition.
He even undermines the "Chapati Movement" just like how many British officers did by painting it in hue of superstition.
4/n In Chapati movement, bunch of "Chapatis" were passed across, north to south, east to west. It was not mere coincidence.
Many British apologists call it a superstitious act to fight cholera, but truth is that such act never happened earlier.
thebetterindia.com
Many British apologists call it a superstitious act to fight cholera, but truth is that such act never happened earlier.
thebetterindia.com
5/n Sayed Ahmed found that in fact the person who had signed Fatwa for jihad against Christian British ends up protecting them.
He observes Muslims never rose in mass against British, & only in districts were Hindus rebelled extremities were reached.
He observes Muslims never rose in mass against British, & only in districts were Hindus rebelled extremities were reached.
6/n He also observes that Bahadur Shah was not having actual support of his folks (of course, most were Muslims).
He has also observed in earlier part of book that pious Muslims considered Bahadur Shah as heretic.
He has also observed in earlier part of book that pious Muslims considered Bahadur Shah as heretic.
7/n He then gives a case that India for quite long has been ruled by foreigners (Muslims) & hence a British government seemed no big deal to him.
He even explains the rationale of collaboration with the British.
He even explains the rationale of collaboration with the British.
8/n Though he finds natives unfit to form a parliament, he believes that natives should be made part of Legislative Council so that British Government can work flawlessly.
He in short is asking for collaboration however tough it may seem considering incompetency of Indians.
He in short is asking for collaboration however tough it may seem considering incompetency of Indians.
9/n Sayed Ahmed found that native Indians opposing India laws every-time was a bad thing. He points out Indians to be claiming that laws are taking away religion.
10/n Yet again he makes the point that though Indians are incompetent and as classy as British to form parliament, he sees it as a need that Indians form a Legislative Council, all for to avoid any future 1857 type situations.
11/n He makes it clear that the number of Muslim rebellions was magnified by British themselves to cause larger angers among those British countering it.
Belief was that more the anger, more the crumpled will be the rebellions.
Belief was that more the anger, more the crumpled will be the rebellions.
12/n On the same page he also again showers praises to Queen Victoria.
13/n Sayed Ahmed mentions that not keeping separate regiments of Hindus and Muslims had backfired British in 1857.
Based on what he asserts in initial pages, he means that the rebellion from Muslim soldiers would have been avoided had British kept separate regiments.
Based on what he asserts in initial pages, he means that the rebellion from Muslim soldiers would have been avoided had British kept separate regiments.
14/n Sir Sayed Explains why rebel was silent in Punjab? The core reason he lays that British took good care of Muslims who were oppressed by the Sikhs. Brits had also disarmed the region completely.
Yet again Sayed, saw Muslims and Brits being on one side.
Yet again Sayed, saw Muslims and Brits being on one side.
Loading suggestions...