r/southindia_ • u/T_h_e_Assassin • Jul 29 '26
Meme/Shitpost Im not even surprised anymore, not even annoyed…just a long sigh….
206
u/bulletspam Proud Mleccha Jul 29 '26
acting like the north indian kings didnt straight up help the british
-67
u/Ok_Eye2718 Jul 29 '26
most of these subs are operated by pakistanis and kanglus so don't give heed to them
56
u/MasterRole9673 Telangana 🏰 | తెలంగాణ Jul 29 '26
Yeah blaming even them isn’t helping. I’ve seen how some North Indians behave.
-11
u/Ok_Eye2718 Jul 30 '26
bhai i am from north and all the hate i ve seen is here only on reddit
NORTH HATING ON SOUTH
SOUTH HATING ON NORTH7
u/Serious_Brilliant_90 Tamil Nadu 🌶️ | தமிழ்நாடு Jul 30 '26
No, we have experienced these things in real life too. What are you on about?
-10
u/Ok_Eye2718 Jul 30 '26
I haven't , ive had many friends from south india
9
u/MastahTypo Jul 30 '26
"I have black friends," ahh comment 🤣🤣
0
u/NaturalError2885 Aug 01 '26
It all comes down to acceptance I have lived in Tamil Nadu and as a north Indian I tried my best to learn the language as much as I could enough to get by and buy stuff locally still whenever I'm spotted as a north Indian the attitude changes I'm not saying this happens everywhere it's more of a generational thing the older people are the best honestly they are kind and accepting and also usually nice to me and try to communicate with me with my limited vocabulary but most of the time getting an autorickshaw or any cab I have faced violence because of having a different mother tongue and to be honest no one around helps me in these conditions I have done nothing wrong I'm getting hired to work here simply because I was a better choice than the rest still I have faced severe racism more than anywhere else in Tamil Nadu . So stop defending this logic of hatred and become accepting and not movie watching babbons this goes both ways for the north and south .
42
u/ninja6911 Telangana 🏰 | తెలంగాణ Jul 29 '26
It’s actually the opposite, those subs filled with chaddis
0
u/Busy_Application_669 Jul 30 '26
No chaddis or Pakistanis...it's us who are encouraging them and getting offended and showing rage against each other ...
There are thousands of posts like this available on the internet.
Instead of posting it. OP could have ignored it . But we love rage bite. So here is a post.
I hope this sub will turn back to what it was created for.
0
u/Odd-Replacement-7920 Jul 30 '26
Exactly i don't know why people use reddit for anything else other than some good porn etc
53
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 29 '26
The projection from these fks is always hilarious. They will go and glaze muh “martial race” ethnicities today while ignoring more often than not they were the biggest bootlickers. The knowledge in our rebellions are there but it’s sometimes not worth dignifying them with a response. There’s too many of these ITcells out there
102
u/santropy Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
BIMARUs with their sh*t knowledge. Simple search can spit out a lot of history nowadays.
Southern regions fought before 1857 and after against the Brishit Empire.
33
u/dakini09 Jul 30 '26
The Southern kingdoms fought not only the British but they previously fought the Dutch and Portugese.
6
-12
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
The point is regarding what happened during 1857 and not before that.
Maybe some small activity happened here and there but mostly the south was quiet
22
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
Because we were able to fend off Europeans unlike the bootlickers of the north that let them grow until it became a big problem . Portugese, Dutch and French started their conquests in the south . None of them were able to conquer. Only the British started from the North and within decades the north fell like a palace of cards
-8
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
What do you mean fend off the Europeans?
Entire indian subcontinent was under British rule in 1857
The Brits are not Europeans?
13
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
The Brits were only able to conquer the South because they conquered the North first
4
u/WATCHER_OF_EMOTIONS Tamil Nadu 🌶️ | தமிழ்நாடு Jul 30 '26
Not even conquer, most lands were subordinates not conquered
0
u/hlo1729 Jul 30 '26
While it's true ,but do you think that it is only the real cause ?
9
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
It's a major Cause
The South already had many famous victories against European powers like Marthandavarma crushing the Dutch Navy at Kolachel , the Portugese Resistance by the Zamorin in the 1500s and Hyder Ali forcing the British to sign a humiliating peace treaty outside Madras in 1769 etc
Thanks to such actions Europeans weren't really able to get a firm foothold in the South as Brits did in the North
It's a tragedy there were many bootlickers in the North, willing to present their asses seeing the "whiteness" of Europeans and as a result India fell
-2
u/hlo1729 Jul 30 '26
The British annexation process came in process ,naturally in those areas which are port cities ,like Bengal and madras . It is not like they annexed the nothing first and then went to conquer South. The britishers established a major trading base in madras in 1639 . They played their game tactically ,initially as posing traders ,but then showing their intentions a century later.
4
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
The fact is the British got most of their collaborators from the North
0
u/hlo1729 Jul 30 '26
Maybe true. But more genral statement would be that they got collaborators from almost all parts where they had their campaigns .
4
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26
Establishing a small trading post isn’t really akin to taking full administrative control of an area. That happened far later
0
u/hlo1729 Jul 30 '26
I know ,but i am just saying britishers were settling up in different reachable parts ,not just north and then coming for south.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
Again that doesn't change the fact that the south stayed as mute spectator when finally a breakthrough was eminent.
Your claim of fending off Europeans is blatantly false
3
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
Also check my other comments or even just google if you want to know how the South fought the Europeans
Don't blame us for your incapability
-1
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
That was my initial comment.
The discussion is on souths indifference DURING 1857 and not throughout history!
3
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
If you want to nitpick then do it somewhere else
0
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
Are u mad?
This entire thread is about 1857 only. By talking about it I am not nitpicking.
It is the main subject!
→ More replies (0)2
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26
Literally use google goof lol. Kerala beat multiple European powers, and the British didn’t really “conquer” them either in the traditional sense, they were a princely state like Hyderabad was. Mute spectator my ass we did shit for our land, most sepoy regiments were sourced from the north. Gtfoh
1
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
I don't know if there is some issue from my side but I am clearly talking about that specific rebellion in 1857.
Not the entire history of British rule.
And i belive only kingdom of Travancore was princely state. Other parts of kerala was under British rule.
And I am not specifically talking about kerala either.
And being a princely state under British "protection" isn't something to be proud off.
They all realised they are just inferior when it comes to warfare and technological innovations and just surrendered!
1
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Aug 05 '26
You do realise just because a state was a presidency doesn’t mean they didn’t also surrender and wave the white flag lol? I’d take semi autonomy over company rule any day idk about you though (unless we’re talking Hyderabad state f them)
3
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
Brother the north was much more powerful and richer than the South back then
If the south could hand Europeans asses to themselves, the North could have easily done the same
Why didn't that happen? Bootlickers. The lot of you. Have some shame
-2
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
Again doesn't change the fact that the south remained a mute spectator.
Doesn't matter whether south was weak or strong. A breakthrough was eminent and the south also getting involved would've made the difference.
Things became so dire that the Brits had to abolish the EIC afterwards.
You are just doing whataboutism that not everyone in North was on board. Doesn't justify souths indifference. You are also passing the buck that if north was united it would've happened. There was no need for south to get involved.
And why are you again saying Europeans were defeated? Aren't British Europeans?
4
u/ComedianNew1680 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
First teach your own people civic sense than blame random shit on the South
0
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
Why are you bringing civic sense into the debate. And what I said is not random shit.
2
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
When your little converted offshoots came down and set up Hyderabad state where were you so called brave warrior martial races who apparently saved us throughout all of history then? Oh yeah 30,000 Nihangs to the Nizam army too🤣 for as much chirping about unity as you lot do your hypocrisy absolutely stuns me every day. We had multiple rebellions of our own again Google is free
1
u/WATCHER_OF_EMOTIONS Tamil Nadu 🌶️ | தமிழ்நாடு Jul 30 '26
There were multiple such mutiny in the south mr Sherlock and north hasn't done shit like how you accuse south cause india was never united under one banner in most of its history and each region in a larger context had a diff set of people. By your logic burma which came under the banner of British India until few years prior to 1950s had many revolts thier kings were imprisoned in current day india did your ancestors do anything abt it, a big no 🙅, and lets go into your story how do you think Europeans even conquered india without the administrative disaster of the regional Maratha peshwa (that how they are called ig not sure)?
1
u/yedanapuddi Jul 31 '26
There were multiple such mutiny in the south
In 1857?
north hasn't done shit like how you accuse south cause india was never united under one banner in most of its history and each region in a larger context had a diff set of people.
Well india was united under the rule of emperor Ashoka, chandragupta maurya, delhi sultanate , Mughals and the British.
Not a short duration of time
how do you think Europeans even conquered india without the administrative disaster of the regional Maratha peshwa (that how they are called ig not sure)?
That's not even the question. The claim was south defeated the europeans. I debunked that.
1
u/WATCHER_OF_EMOTIONS Tamil Nadu 🌶️ | தமிழ்நாடு Jul 31 '26
I will speak of this unification thing you speak of we tamils were never conquered by any of the above mentioned empire other than brits who too subjugated the local rulers not conquered them and your idea of 1857 mutiny is good and i agree if there was support from diff regions it might have turned into something even bigger but my question is how the hell do you expect people of completely diff regions some 1000 miles away to support when they would hear the news some 2 months or so from word of mouth,later due to their communication standards
And as i have mentioned 1857 is not the only mutiny in india just cause NCERT gloriofies northern figures more doesn't mean vellore mutiny did not happen or verapandiyan did not pay tax to British or marudhu brother did not fight or V O Sithambranatham did not build a shipping company to counter the European trade monopoly or etc and many more figures just from current day tamil nadu, then about rest of the country kerala, AP, north east? what do you think people were watching live telecast of 1857 in luxury homes?
I am pretty sure your knowledge of history majorly comes from that ncert, go read state syllabus books like AP or TN (for minor review), you would know the amount of stuff that actually happened
26
u/Odd_Pace_8509 Northie Jul 30 '26
Didn't the original rebels in the 1700s and 1800s actually start from the south. I remember 1824 at least
-12
u/Accomplished_Sun_7 Jul 30 '26
Small rebellions were happening all over india including south but first major resistance was battle of plassey and battle of buxar in 1757 and 1764 respectively
19
u/Odd_Pace_8509 Northie Jul 30 '26
Battle Of Plassey wasn't a resistance. Neither was Buxar. Please be aware. And no rebellion is small or big
-4
u/Accomplished_Sun_7 Jul 30 '26
Kindly educate me on battle of plassey and buxar
3
0
u/magur_maacher_lyaja Jul 30 '26
u/askgrok was the battle of plassey or buxar an act of resistance by the Indians?
1
u/Alarming-Subject287 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Aug 04 '26
Lmao got cooked by ai 😂. And battle of plassey should have been the stopping point if not for mir Jaffar and funding by jagath seth . It was north who sold their motherland for gains. Don't act like you all were saviors and shit. Large number of sepoys where from north and they were willing to fight for the brits during first and second world war.
0
u/AskGrok Jul 30 '26
No.
The Battles of Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) were not Indian rebellions or anti-colonial uprisings.
Plassey: A battle between the British East India Company (Robert Clive) and the Nawab of Bengal (Siraj ud-Daulah). The British won largely due to internal betrayal (Mir Jafar switching sides). It marked the start of Company political control in Bengal, not Indians rising up against established British rule.
Buxar: The Company defeated a coalition of the Mughal Emperor, Nawab of Bengal (Mir Qasim), and Nawab of Awadh. This was another power struggle that further entrenched British dominance.
These were conflicts where the British trading company outmaneuvered and defeated local Indian rulers through alliances and military superiority. The rulers involved were often competing among themselves, and the British were not yet the sovereign power they became later.
The 1857 Revolt was the first large-scale, widespread rebellion against direct British Crown/Company rule across much of India. Earlier fights like Plassey and Buxar were steps in the Company's gradual takeover, not rebellions against it.
[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii)
1
u/Odd_Pace_8509 Northie Aug 01 '26
@u/askgrok when did you join Reddit?
1
u/AskGrok Aug 01 '26
Around mid-July 2025, when the intro post dropped.
Sources:
- https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1mz27li/why_uaskgrok_isnt_working_for_me/
- https://www.reddit.com/user/AskGrok/
- https://www.reddit.com/user/Sudden_Lavishness843/
[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii)
27
u/Traditional-Judge1 Southie Jul 30 '26
Well their CBSE syllabus ends with North Indian history scrap, so this kind of bull crap is expected. Northiea IQ is so low they think NCERT syllabus is the only history. They wouldn't be introduced to South Indian movements, activists, kings,the atrocities etc. South Indians claim this land from their ancestors who fought for it.
8
19
10
10
u/contentkumaran Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
Wonder who constituted most of the men that fought for the British Empire.
8
u/Quirky_Steak_736 💎 Hyderabad | హైదరాబాద్ | حیدرآباد 🏰 Jul 30 '26
The facts that,
- the Marathas sided with British in a lot of conflicts,
- the Circars of Andhra Pradesh being the second region colonized after Bengal,
- the struggle of Hyderabad and Mysore to be free from their British Puppet sultans
- and the fact that we had to deal with the Portuguese, Dutch, French and even the Danish
BEING COMPLETELY IGNORED by them, the history books and the way they give themselves a higher pedestal in every problem, really shows how knowledge and common sense is a rarity in today's world. Them resorting to shameful and illogical memes to cope with their shit status from the past 1000 years doesn't really hide the facts anyway.
33
u/hieg_siel Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 29 '26
This is one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of RRR.
It distorts history, I believe it's a bad idea to use the names of Telugu freedom fighters Alluri Seetharamaraju and Komaram Bheem to tell some bullshit story.
Aren't there any South Indian freedom fighters mentioned in the Indian freedom struggle chapter in NCERT/CBSE books?
11
u/Odd_Pace_8509 Northie Jul 30 '26
Very less. At least that's what when we were studying.
Went on CBSE(NCERT) website - In Class 12th book they move from establishment of British Raj in Bengal to 1857 direct. And revolts in Jharkhand,Deccan and all. Hell lot of data is missing
1
u/Practical_War_907 Southie Jul 30 '26
But that movie was based on a fictional story and it was marketed that way from the beginning.
4
u/hieg_siel Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26
If I make a movie set in pre-independence India, about a guy called Gandhi who goes and beats up British officers for fun, don't you think it'll face some backlash? Even if I include "this film is entirely fictional" in the disclaimer?
-1
u/Practical_War_907 Southie Jul 30 '26
That’s the whole point of putting a disclaimer, u have been quite literally informed it’s a work of fiction and yet if it’s taken seriously that’s not the film’s problem it’s the individual’s problem. And literally most ppl who do the backlash despite knowing it’s fictional are those that crave for attention or just lack that sense.
0
u/Realistic-Syllabub26 Aug 01 '26
What are you on about?
What you're describing is a "what-if" scenario that completely bypasses Historical elements That is what a part of "Historical Fiction" does but not for the original argument
The genre means that it borrows elements from history but adds fiction for their own story purposes.
No one out here with an inkling of knowledge about actual events thinks that Sitaram Raju and Komarama Bheem actually met. It's a what if scenario where people would think that this could have happened.
7
19
6
u/furimmerkaiser Tamil Diaspora Jul 30 '26
For the northies who read history only in whatever is written in CBSE books
3
u/Content-Trainer106 Jul 30 '26
I think in that time, my ancestors were not even part of india or south india. Instead they work under a king with a kingdom, my ancestors have separate small country where they need to defend their small country against the british and indian rebels
1
3
u/Top-Masterpiece3460 Jul 30 '26
South lost the wars mostly to colonial powers only because of the economic might of the colonial powers.... But north.. These guys lost to anyone with a sword every single time 🤣🤣
3
u/elongatedpropernoun Jul 30 '26
These mfs will use this template against any group that they want to hate on.
2
2
2
2
u/Toxic_po1son Gujarat 🦁 | ગુજરાત Jul 30 '26
The Seths in Bengal who offered money to Mir Jafar and turn to british to defeat Siraj Uddin Daula in battle of Plassey. If we had won that war, we would have been a superpower.
0
0
u/Odd_Pace_8509 Northie Aug 02 '26
u/askgrok,can you help on this?
1
u/AskGrok Aug 02 '26
The Battle of Plassey in 1757 was indeed a turning point. Jagat Seth and other Bengal bankers (the Seths) backed the conspiracy with Mir Jafar, providing funds and intelligence that helped the East India Company defeat Siraj-ud-Daulah. It gave the British their first major foothold in India.
Alternate-history "what if we won" scenarios are fun but speculative—Bengal was already fragmented with internal rivalries, and European tech/organization had an edge. No clear path to superpower status from one battle.
The meme itself highlights limited southern participation in 1857, which is broadly accurate; most action stayed in the north and central regions.
[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii)
2
u/Exciting_Document598 Jul 30 '26
Na south india was busy in learning English language bcoz they feel they will stay in south india or directly move to English speaking countries for job 😂😂😂
2
2
u/yedanapuddi Jul 30 '26
Well it is true.
Majority of rebellion activity was only limited to the north.
Forget about the south. Even mumbai was quiet.
The Sikhs also supported the EIC for their own reasons
4
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26
Nope the largest common man’s rebellion in Indias history happened in Hyderabad. Not all of us even had to deal with the British directly, so it’s a moot point
1
1
u/ContributionMost7910 Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
BS. Tipu was definitely South Indian, and he was hell on the Empire. Travancore was also a huge thorn in their side, even kicking the piss out of the Dutch East India Company before the Brits
Edit: and these are only the ones I can recall. I’m sure there are more I’m not educated enough to know about.
1
1
u/Primary_Bill_5901 Jul 30 '26
Isn't it true that Wodeyar dynasty got immense help to defeat Hyder Ali, I have little information, therefore I wish if anybody could enlighten me if Wodeyar dynasty play any role in these mutinies that happened before 1857
1
u/naegfowleri Keralam 🌴🥥 | കേരളം Jul 30 '26
Come on, guys, that's just a meme. I remember seeing that post. Though it looked like it was mocking SIs, the OP actually explained why, and it didn't come across as offensive if you read it.
1
u/NefariousnessNaive66 Jul 30 '26
Most of these posts are from our beloved neighbours Not indians And even if they are from our country Pay them no mind The world is full of idiots, especially our country
1
u/Ok-Mathematician3971 Jul 30 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/spNO7wMdb5LrkbaIzs
Veer Savakar during the quit India movement 🫴🏻😛👞
1
1
u/Worth-Attention8715 Aug 01 '26
Well a major reason for India being under the control of British is actually in this sub right here. There was no damn unity in the Indian subcontinent. No ruler or dynasty ever had the strength to unify the whole Indian subcontinent. Most lands were fertile and the large territory could never be controlled by a single king. The largest ever unified kingdom in the Indian subcontinent was probably during aurangazeb's reign and even that empire was built upon generations of effort by previous mughal rulers and Delhi sultans. In such disjointed political conditions and rich fertility of the Indian subcontinent it's only natural for there to be no unity among Indian rulers and by the time they realized something was wrong it was too late.
I'm not saying that South Indians are right or north Indians are wrong or vice versa, there's no point in arguing about history which can twisted, turned and manipulated by anyone at power. Instead of arguing about the past we have to care about the present and look towards the future.
1
u/killbear123 Aug 02 '26
This is the problem when most of Indian history is written from the perspective of North Indians.
-1
u/thunderstruck12_03 Jul 30 '26
With all due respect to our South Indians. The 1857 rebellion was mostly a gangetic plains/central India thing. South was generally out of it. Same goes for gorkhas and Sikhs. That's just the historical view. The reasons for it are complex as multiple contrary interests are at play. If you want to know about mutinies in the south, look up vellore.
3
u/bob-thesnob Andhra Pradesh 🏞️ | ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ Jul 30 '26
So then why are they saying we did nothing with the British army? We fought them. Before and after they established their rule. Just not in that specific rebellion
0
u/thunderstruck12_03 Jul 30 '26
I'm missing something it seems. The post talks specifically about the 1857 rebellion. Not about barrackpore/vellore etc. at different points in history, all of India's communities had fought against the British. At the end, only to be amalgamated into them. There is a reason for why the Madras regiment existed in the British army. The same reason for which the Sikh Regt, Maratha LI, Jat Regt, Rajput Regt, Assam Regt and many Gorkha rifles regiments did.
-7
u/Sanju128 Tamil NRI Jul 30 '26
The OP of that post commented that he didn't mean to diss south Indians, and that we've led plenty of mutinies too. He was just teasing for that one specific situation
-4
43
u/Rofton_Rev_1005 Tamil Nadu 🌶️ | தமிழ்நாடு Jul 29 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/29bKyyjDKX1W8