Gordon/Mangal Pandey friendship unrealistic

As the end credits roll there is mention of a William Gordon who was said to be sympathetic to Indians.Since limitid information material is available about Mangal Pandey,the makers have simply set the story during that period and for the purpose of drama,created a friendship between a British officer and his Indian subject--a sepoy in his regiment.
To me the film works as entertainment as well as history of the period.It is a far better film than many a regular Bollywood potboiler.Despite its flaws-- loose editing and direction--there is a sincerity in this sort of filmmaking.Most Indians may have rejected the film for various reasons,but to me it will remain a film I can watch again and again for various reasons--finely nuanced performances[Aamir Khan overcomes a poorly written role,while Toby Stephens excels],good photography,some good pieces of dialogue,an idea of the period,good sets,and last but not least the sadly underappreciated music.In case anyone thinks I'm off my rocker,understand that this film has its fans--just go to naachgaana.com and search.Check out related blogs esp that of qalandar,look up if you are interested ,film reviews of Bharadwaj Rangan[Indian Express] and Sudhish Kamath[The Hindu] or visit mikemarqusee.com and check out his review done in Aug2005--this film has its apologists/admirers.
If interested watch the double dvd version of the film.It's worth it,especially the deleted scenes and making.The dvd definitely shows the sincere effort that went into the making of this sadly debunked film.

ukickmydawg wrote: "Of course the freindship is possible, as you know Toby Stephen's character was a lower class british or scottish(forgot) and all of his life in India. I guess he could relate himself to mangal in that way, and not all white people were the same."

Many of the British troops during the EIC days came from Ireland and Scotland. They would have had nothing in common with the Indian troops. That's one of the reasons for the mutiny -- that the Indian troops were treated shabbily.

I have read two books on Indian Mutiny: (1) Richard Collier, The Great Indian Mutiny and (2) Christopher Hibbert, "The Great Mutiny: India 1857."

There's no indication at all that lower-caste Irish or Scotts found common cause with the native Indians. Quite to the contary, the Irish and Scotts found a new lower rung to kick.

Although there were some British mercenaries that fought with the Rajas and Nawabs, I see no evidence there was a Capt. Gordon who sided with the Indians.

English or Hindi?

tanejad , its easy to blame the hindu-muslim split on the other party. the muslims of india were treated the same way as the hindus were by the english, so it is obvious they too wanted independence. The rebellion had been spraked by the british who covered their new bullets with pig fat and required that it be bitten before it was used. The consuming of pig flesh is a major sin in islam, so it is obvious that muslims had the same kind of anger as the hindus since both of their religous beliefs had been violated. also, the khilafat movement came many years after the rebellion of 1857. in fact,it was after the first world war.
The muslims made up a quarter of india's population, and rightly feared domination by the hindu majority. just look at the condition of muslims in india right now. they are the poorest, least-educated and most persecuted minorty.
Also, Indian Muslims played a major role in the independence movement. Men like Ashfaqullah Khan, Mualana Azad, and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan all played an important role in the stuggle for independence.