Which religion contributed most in independence of india?
Answers
It is not so. Any body can claim. But the claim is not supported by facts. They claim it, to hide the facts that belie this claim.
The freedom movement started in 1857. The English call it a mutiny since it failed. But for the Indians, it was the first freedom movement. There were no sikhs in the same. In fact, they were on the side of the English. They massacred the freedom fighters on the orders of the British. They fought for the English, saved them from the freedom fighters, and the English used the sikh army to lay siege to Delhi. That is why the sikhs earned the epitaph of a martial community.
After that the sikhs were nowhere in the picture in the nineteenth century freedom struggle. While the Maratha brahmins and the Bengalis, mostly brahmins started the revolutionary movements in the nineteenth century itself, there was no such movement in Punjab. They remained content with the British to serve in their army. The Congress was established in 1885, but we do not find any sikh leader in congress in the nineteenth century. They were on the side of the British in those days.
The Kuka and Namdhari movements were of religious nature and not freedom struggles. They did not aim to establish an independent country.
Even in the twentieth century, there were more non sikh revolutionaries in Punjab than the sikh ones. Bhagat Singh was, no doubt a sikh, but his fellow punjabis, Sukhdev was a non sikh, and Rajguru, Bhagawati Charan Vohra, Durga Bhabi, Chandra Shekhar Azad etc were not even punjabi. Another was Udham Singh, a Sikh. But Madan Lal Dhingra, Lala Lajpat Rai were non sikh hindu leaders.
To say that 90% of the freedom fighters were sikhs is a joke. Sikhs are about 2% of the population of India, but the revolutionaries in India were less than that, certainly. Even the leaders in congress were very less sikhs.
The Indian National Army was having many sikhs, but they had been recruited disproportionately by the British on the basis of their martial status, and still they were overpowered by the Japanese and handed over to S.C. Bose. So they were co opted in the INA. They became freedom fighters, if one regards them to be so, under duress, and the only other option left for them to face torture in Japanese POW camps. They selected the better one.
Jallianwala had to have many sikhs, because it was in the heart of the area dominated by Sikhs.
The number of Sikhs sent to Andamans and Rangoon jail were minuscule, and not as large as is claimed. Those people, who exaggerate the number of sikhs hanged or jailed during the British rule, also include the people sentenced for crimes like murder robbery and some other petty crime. That is only to inflate the number of these people, and then declare all of these as freedom fighters.
Once the freedom struggle is over, many people, of all the communities, who have very less contribution, come forward to claim credit for the same. But anybody, who has read the history of those days of the British Rule, know it very well. The role of Sikhs was not even 10% in the struggle.
so basically hindus and muslims who were called INDIANS fought for independence.
BTW bro opinion from my side dont let it hurt u
I DONT CARE WHAT RELIGION IT IS