"When this is the case, can people really be faulted for working for the East India Company? It was just yet another player in India"
This part is where I often struggle and is a major source of cognitive dissonance for me.. There were varying shades of gray and collaboration here. As you say, I don't hold any grudge against those who simply joined the EIC which was another player. The same continued throughout the independence struggle till 1947.
But is there a truth to the saying that most foreign rulers in India became Indian (including Mughals - except Babur and Aurangzeb) but that wasn't true of the British? There were foreign rulers like Ghori and Ghazni who came here simply to loot. They didn't get the support of the locals. So why should locals actively collaborating with EIC get a free pass?
My understanding is that for most of Indian history, as long as foreigners were willing to integrate, this free for all continued. But there was an Indic consciousness against foreigners wanting to convert the indigenous population. Shouldn't there have been a similar suspicion against the EIC? There were missionaries roaming around lobbying the Imperial Government to allow conversions.
I am not too well read on this part of our history, would like your thoughts on it.
"Skilled soldiers, just as programmers today, joined whoever offered them a better position, and did their best"
While true, there are still morals that would prevent a programmer from working for something like Lockheed Martin or even TikTok, because its controlled by China. A normie SDE wouldn't care between Apple and Facebook, but might care between Weibo and Google.
So EIC didn't dismantle indian institutions until after 1857. Many EIC soldiers were settling down in India. The church of england/scotland weren't converting Indians until after 1857. In places like Bengal, they were happy the muslim rulers were being overthrown by the English. You see this in Anandamath that was written in the late 1800s.
There was definitely a consciousness of preferring a maratha rule vs others, which is one big reason why the 1857 war even happened. But if they weren't, people weren't going to risk home and hearth.
Like we've discussed in the posts about The Beautiful Tree, who the rulers were didn't affect people more than if the rulers' acolytes were preventing them from following their religion or snatching away their family members. In those situations, protest rose up.
I've also spoken to a few folks from Fauji families about this. What they told me was if generations upon generations of your family were soldiers, you literally don't know any other trade, and you'd be a soldier too to whoever was hiring in your land. Your leadership themselves were okay with working for the muslims who hated you, e.g. Shivaji's father was working under the Bijapur sultan.
I think the distinction is more like the distinction between Meta and Tiktok, not Weibo and Google. Your nephews and nieces love tiktok as well as instagram, why wouldn't you work for Tiktok when Meta lays you off, especially when your passion is recommender systems? The lines are much less gray for me personally when the Indian government banned tiktok. Until then, there was no real good reason to not work for tiktok.
Also... we know Twitter was a US State Dept psyop for regime change, and caused problems in India too. But... Parag worked there and became CEO! And we were proud of him!
"When this is the case, can people really be faulted for working for the East India Company? It was just yet another player in India"
This part is where I often struggle and is a major source of cognitive dissonance for me.. There were varying shades of gray and collaboration here. As you say, I don't hold any grudge against those who simply joined the EIC which was another player. The same continued throughout the independence struggle till 1947.
But is there a truth to the saying that most foreign rulers in India became Indian (including Mughals - except Babur and Aurangzeb) but that wasn't true of the British? There were foreign rulers like Ghori and Ghazni who came here simply to loot. They didn't get the support of the locals. So why should locals actively collaborating with EIC get a free pass?
My understanding is that for most of Indian history, as long as foreigners were willing to integrate, this free for all continued. But there was an Indic consciousness against foreigners wanting to convert the indigenous population. Shouldn't there have been a similar suspicion against the EIC? There were missionaries roaming around lobbying the Imperial Government to allow conversions.
I am not too well read on this part of our history, would like your thoughts on it.
"Skilled soldiers, just as programmers today, joined whoever offered them a better position, and did their best"
While true, there are still morals that would prevent a programmer from working for something like Lockheed Martin or even TikTok, because its controlled by China. A normie SDE wouldn't care between Apple and Facebook, but might care between Weibo and Google.
So EIC didn't dismantle indian institutions until after 1857. Many EIC soldiers were settling down in India. The church of england/scotland weren't converting Indians until after 1857. In places like Bengal, they were happy the muslim rulers were being overthrown by the English. You see this in Anandamath that was written in the late 1800s.
There was definitely a consciousness of preferring a maratha rule vs others, which is one big reason why the 1857 war even happened. But if they weren't, people weren't going to risk home and hearth.
Like we've discussed in the posts about The Beautiful Tree, who the rulers were didn't affect people more than if the rulers' acolytes were preventing them from following their religion or snatching away their family members. In those situations, protest rose up.
I've also spoken to a few folks from Fauji families about this. What they told me was if generations upon generations of your family were soldiers, you literally don't know any other trade, and you'd be a soldier too to whoever was hiring in your land. Your leadership themselves were okay with working for the muslims who hated you, e.g. Shivaji's father was working under the Bijapur sultan.
I think the distinction is more like the distinction between Meta and Tiktok, not Weibo and Google. Your nephews and nieces love tiktok as well as instagram, why wouldn't you work for Tiktok when Meta lays you off, especially when your passion is recommender systems? The lines are much less gray for me personally when the Indian government banned tiktok. Until then, there was no real good reason to not work for tiktok.
Also... we know Twitter was a US State Dept psyop for regime change, and caused problems in India too. But... Parag worked there and became CEO! And we were proud of him!