Find solution
What is Danish Independence?

What defines a war for independence as a war of independence?

  • What needs legally have to be met for something to be considered a war for independence and not just a mutiny? For example, the Sepoy mutiny of India. Some people still argue it's ...show more

  • Answer:

    Well, talking about the Sepoy mutiny. In India, only very few states in Northern India took part in that struggle like Jhansi, Kanpur, etc. The rest of the states remained loyal to the British and some even actively supplied troops like the states of Punjab, Hyderabad, etc. If everyone would have unitedly taken part in the mutiny then the British would have been driven out of India long before. Ammianus, are you gone crazy. The Mughals married Indian women. For ex. Akbar married an Indian wife, so his son was 50% indian, he married an Indian wife(anarkali) his son shahjahan was 75% Indian, he married many indian wives, therefore his son Aurangzeb was 87.5% Indian and it later went on until the mughal emperors had very negligible foreign blood in them. Therefore they were more Indians. And even for Akbar, he was born and raised in India, so he was as much of an Indian as you are. Even then that mutiny shook the British Empire like never before.

SZNWP5LDRFES2ZM2KIRVZ5G7TU at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Those wanting independence have to win the war for it to be called a war of independence.Otherwise,it's a rebellion,revolt,uprising or - un the csae of the 1857-8 Sepoy Mutiny in India - a mutiny. Most of the Princely states.almost all the civilian population,and even the majority of Sepoys (2/3) never joined the revolt.The Sikhs,Pathans,Gurkhas all remained loyal to the British,and there was no support from Shia Muslims in India for the mutineers.So,the majority of the population of India never joined the mutiny,and many actively aided the British.This meant that the bulk of those fighting the British were Sepoys in arms against their employers and commanders - and the technical term for such an occurence is a mutiny. The mutineers wanted a restoration of the Mughal emperors - a Sunni Muslim dynasty from Persia.The Mughals were no more Indian than were the British,and ejecting one foreign ruler to replace them with an autocratic dynasty which is also foreign can hardly be described as "gaining independence" even if successful - Indian would still have been ruled by non Indians.

ammianus

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.