National Army Museum lists 21 formidable enemies of UK. The only two Indians of those times ( — who were all fighting for their own valor and protection of their kingdom AND NOT INDIA as rimmed into in present times, or frequently with vengeance towards other Indian rulers of the time) are; Tipu Sultan and Rani Laxmibai (Jhansi ki Rani).
The only other one from the sub-continent was an Afgani hero Akbar Khan.
All these 21 were enemy heroes as per British museum. Where is maratha and sikh?
Enemy of enemy are friends. This is the reason maratha and sikh are not formidable enemy of the British. They did occasionally fight with the British but not what Laxmi bai, Tipu Sultan or Akbar Khan did.
In-fact it was maratha, sikh and nizam of hyderabad who weakened the forces that were fighting against British.
Everyone was fighting against their own regional oppressors, but the British was the oppressor to India as whole and maratha, sikh and nizam (in what existed as India back then, or call it the subcontinent) helped British on several occassions, teh reason why British eventually defeated the likes of Tipu Sultan and took over all of India gradually.
It was maratha who ruled over the then Odisha and enforced eg Marathi as the official language. It was rather British later which brought the aspirations of Odisha (somewhat) to fruition. Not the marathas. The regional Kings wanted only their personal gain.
The hindutwawadis always tell us the opposite because historical truth does not satisfy their personal plans of political rancor against any perceived enemy that they want to create.
The sikhs fought (alongside British) against the Afgan valley ruled by Akbar Khan. Hence Akbar khan sought indulgence of Russia which irked the British. Akbar Khan was merely trying to regain Peshwar. Had sikhs realized the British plans of pillaging India, were they going to forfeit on Peshwar? NO. So they were not fighting against British, they were simply concerned selfishly about their own power. result British became the power to be which sikhs had to fight against later.
What did Nizam of Hyderabad did? They simply allied with British to defeat Tipu Sultan. After 4 bloody wars Tipu was subdued. This meant again both Nizam, Tipu and everyone else lost to British.
It is this Nizam of Hyderabad whose descendants are the Owaisi brothers, always spewing venom towards Hindus and if necessary India. They were not patriotic even when British was in the country. After independence the AIMIM (All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen) the political force that originated from this Nizam lineage has suffered disrepute by empathizing with anti-national forces, that is by fueling treason towards India. (And the party was perhaps banned) Now shouting like lions these are basically meek creatures who never cared about this land. But Tipu Sultan did.
This is akin to what Sheikh Abdulla did. The Gandhis family of Kashmir. (Yes, the grand father of Omar Abdulla and father of Farooq Abdulla). This guy was an inspirational leader. A widely popular and respected secular leader of pre-Independence India.
remember he had changed the Islamic name of his party to include members from other religious sects. He was inclusive.
But there is a pattern to secular Islamic states. (Like Kamal Aaturk leading to Erdogan, secular becomes quite miffed later on and seeks invalid Islam everywhere)
After the inimical British was a page in history his color began to change. At the behest of Pakistani megalomaniacs for a greater Islamic state. This is a pre-cursor to the present day bloody problems of Kashmir.
Nehru was a good friend of Sheikh, the formidable modern day leader of India, from Kashmir state. But he was being colored blue by Paksitanis. This came to Nehru’s scrutiny. The evidences of his speech and writings were just too obvious for Nehru not to take action.
He was imprisoned by Nehru for 11 years. He was released only because there was a sentimental issue that baffled Nehru. the most sacred relic from Hazarat bal dargah, the most sacred shrine in Kashmir (Moi-e-Muqqadas; The hair of Holy Prophet Muhammad) got stolen. It was restored in few days. But this was a blessing in disguise for Sheikh who was extricated. (that is released from prison)
So there is two kind of Islam (like there is 2 kind of any such thing) One that sees reason and love, in deeply distressful time and one that manipulates and commits treason even in the most beautiful times.
But the former can often be influenced by baleful forces, as was the case of Sheikh influenced by Pakistan (or Erdogan by ISIS?) You can see Bangladesh, sometimes taking the most beautiful steps for humanity and at times besieged by patriarchal and religious acrimony.
The same was the case with AIMIM which was a logical political branching the Nizams had taken.
But one simply can’t expect the same degree of valor from Nizams that one saw from Tipu. Of-course the present day historians are deeply perverted from political compulsions.
But we can’t afford to sleep over with sponsored history of the age, which distorts facts and history as they happened for mere temporal gain that too of a minuscule of wannabe elites.
By the way Laxmibai’s valor came several decades later to that shown by Tipu Sultan. When Laxmi Bai is heralded as a heroine because she fought against British (uniting India for a nation to be created in 1947, was not known to any of these heroes) leaving Tipu Sultan would only be a sign of distrust towards heroic acts.
We herald many heroes of Independence but fact remains in the beginning they were pro-British (because they had homegrown rivals). Maharaja of Scindia was initially pro-British. Who is complainting about them in present times?
To bring one’s religion unnecessarily to excoriate them, when they have equal share of valor towards a heroic nationalism, is to subject nationalism to avulsion.