"First War of Indian Independence-1857." India News, Oneindia News . http://news.oneindia.in/in-focus/special-pages/150-years-of-1857-uprising/.

Gold, Gerald, and Richard Attenborough. Gandhi, a pictorial biography. New York: Newmarket Press, 1983.

"Internet History Sourcebooks." FORDHAM.EDU. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1757plassey.asp.

james, Lawrence. Raj: the making and unmaking of British India. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1997.

Lal, Vinay. "Quit India." MANAS. www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/Quit.html.

Lewis, Martin Deming. The British in India: imperialism or trusteeship?. Boston: Heath, 1962.

Marshall, Professor Peter. "BBC - History - Presence in India British History in depth: The British Presence in India in the 18th Century." BBC . http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/east_india_01.shtml.

Rickard, J. "Battle of Plassey, battle of, 23 June 1757 (India) ." Military History Encyclopedia on the Web. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_plassey.html.

Stuart, V. A.. The Sepoy Mutiny. Ithaca, N.Y.: McBooks Press, 2001.

"The Sepoy Rebellion (1857)." Emory University---English Department "Where Courageous Inquiry Leads". http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Mutiny.html.

Marshall, Peter. "British Presence in India." BBC-History. At the beginning of the Second World War, the Indian National Congress Party had supported the British, but they had demanded freedom of India after the war. The British did not agree to this proposal. On 14th July 1942, the Indian National Congress Par

<><><><>

The Cycle of Conquest and Freedom

During my time looking at the conquest and independence at many different countries, I was able to see several commonalities between them. It seems as if all conquerors use the same techniques when it comes to colonizing an area, and that all of the conquered people have a true desire to be free. The blogs I have viewed artfully illustrate how the incoming people use their advanced technology and civilized ways to take advantage of these less cultured indigenous inhabitants. They also display how the fight for freedom was usually fronted by one specific person or organization, and how this leader of the cause rallied the people of the country, and truly led them to freedom.

Conquest of countries was surprisingly similar after I viewed several different blogs. The startling thing I found was that all of the conquerors took advantage of the less worldly aboriginal populace by exploiting the naiveté of the people, and using their advanced technology against the less progressive martial forces. The conquest of Mexico, Argentina, and Jamaica are three prime examples of how superior military forces easily took power from the native people. For example, Mexico was originally inhabited only by ancient, tribal civilizations like the Aztecs. While the Aztecs were quite innovative for a clannish society, they were no match for the group of Spaniards led by Hernan Cortez. Cortez used the lack of knowledge of the people to his advantage. He captured the leader of the Aztecs, murdered him, and claimed Mexico as Spain’s. Argentina’s story is quite similar due to the fact that it was also conquered and colonized by the Spanish. After the Spanish built settlements in Argentina, they swiftly took control of native’s land. One thing I saw was how they inadvertently used diseases to their advantage in taking over Argentina. This weakened the conquered people and allowed the colonization process to go much too smoothly. Spain was also able to conquer Jamaica in a similar fashion. The conquering of Jamaica was significant because it really displayed how the Europeans stabbed the poor natives in the back. The Arawaks, or tribal natives of Jamaica were a kind hearted and pacific people. The Spanish used this for their own personal gain by using disease and superior weaponry to overtake the Arawaks, and made them into slaves. Invasion of these countries was defined by the tactics and technology of the conquistadors.

A common aspect of the decolonization and liberation of the countries presented in the blogs is key leadership from a single person or group. This leader of the independence movement would call for freedom, and the people of the country would respond accordingly. Egypt, Pakistan, and Rwanda are three examples that show the emergence of leader as a main reason they gained freedom. In Egypt, it was the Revolutionary Command Council, created in 1952. Over the next four years, the RCC was able to gain freedom for their country by ridding Egypt of all British troops. Pakistan’s story will forever be intertwined with that of India. Gandhi was the first man to step up and lead the Indian Independence movement, and he was followed by two men who struggled for a Muslim country separate from India. These two revolutionary men were Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his right hand man, Liaquat Ali Khan. These two men headed the movement for a Muslim India, and because of their efforts, Pakistan was formed. The Rwandan Patriotic Force, or RPF, was a Tutsi group that fought for egalitarianism in Rwanda as the Hutu was sadly oppressing their fellow Rwandans. The RPF were able to make Rwanda much more equal, and with Rwanda now under the leadership of the RPF, they are rising from the ashes like a Phoenix.

All conquest and liberation of countries are similar in the fact that they begin with a more powerful nation taking over, and end with a new, revitalized country surging to power. I find this interesting because all countries have different ideas and each nation is individual in its own way. But the desire to be free and ridden of the shackles of oppression rises above people’s trivial differences and variances. Freedom is something all people hope for, and it is something that each and every person deserves.

Battle of Plassey

The Beginng of the End for the Indian People

One aspect of the conquering of the Indians I viewed as fascinating yet frustrating was the lack of leadership due to inexperience shown by Suraj Dowlah during the Battle of Plassey in 1756. The Battle of Plassey was a decisive battle and it really affected the relationship between the indigenous people and the incoming British. It tilted the balance of power in favor of the British and a key stepping stone to a complete British invasion and takeover. Before the battle at Plassey, the British had been in India since the beginning of the 17^th century and relations between the two sides could have been deemed as fair due to the fact that Indian politics were yet to be interfered with by the British government even though the British were gaining income through Asian trade.[1] The only power the British had was in main port cities such as Calcutta. In the mid-18^th century, after the accession of Suraj Dowlah as Nawab of Bengal, tension grew between the two parties. This was a direct result of the Nabob’s swift invasion of Calcutta, where he brutally massacred all British servants and took Calcutta for himself. In response, the British East India Company sent in an army led by Robert Clive to recapture Calcutta and eliminate Suraj Dowlah. This is where I believe the most inexperience and lack of leadership are put on display. Robert Clive had only 3,000 troops, 2,000 of them being Indian.[2] The Nawab had over 50,000 men and French weaponry. The Nawab, being inexperienced and trigger happy, started the battle with an all-out bombardment that eliminated few, if any of Clive’s men. The British were then able to quite easily man handle the remaining Indian forces, and took Calcutta back from the Nawab.[3] Because Suraj was not prudent in his battle tactics, his army was left with no choice than to surrender to the British army.

Grease in the Melting Pot

An amazing trait of the Indian people during the time the British had power was their perseverance during the troubling times. This was made evident through their many small mutinies and rebellions such as the Sepoy Rebellion. A sepoy was an Indian soldier who fought for the British while they were occupying India. A main reason this rebellion occurred stems from the British’s religious indifference towards the sepoys.[4] The cartridges were greased using the fat of animals such as a pig or cow. If it was greased by a pig, it was offensive to Muslims, and if it was greased by a cow, it was offensive to Indians.[5] The soldiers viewed this as disrespectful, and revolted against the British leaders. In the early stages of the uprising, the natives were able to push back the British troops. But after a few battles, the British were able to show off their extraordinary martial powers and take back complete control of India.[6] Even though the European power was able to crush the rebellion, this showed the Indians how vulnerable the British truly were. For example, British quickly revamped their armies with more Europeans rather than Indians, and due to the fear they had, paid more attention to the religions of the country. Considered by many to be the First War for Independence, this rebellion highlighted the unity of the native people, and started a path to a successful rebellion nearly a century later.[7]

---