First war of independence: 1857

[ramana]

Amartya Sen in The New Republic about year ago.


Imperial Illusions

And a blog discussing this article by A. Sen

Chapati Mystery The Decline Scenario

[acharya]

<b>
Directory of 1857 martyrs</b>

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh Government will publish a directory giving details about the life and contributions of martyrs of the First War of Independence in 1857, Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal said on Friday.

The Government would seek cooperation from historians and people having documentary evidences about the heroes of the First War of Independence.

Speaking at a seminar to mark the birth anniversary of ‘Pahari Gandhi’ Baba Kanshi Ram, a freedom fighter, he said district headquarters should gather data about their contributions. Born in Kangra district in 1882, Ram was accorded the title ‘Pahari Gandhi’ by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

A high-level committee has been constituted to install a statue of Rani Laxmi Bai in the Rani Jhansi park. -- PTI

[Bodhi]

interesting tu-tu-main-main in the communist journal. rebuttal to Dalrymple's assessment of Urdu papers' attitude in 1857.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rebel Journalism: Dehli Urdu Akhbar, May-September 1857
Shireen Moosvi

At the height of the Rebellion, in June 1857, the Governor-General Lord Canning is reported to have said that the ‘native press’, on the pretext of publishing news, was very cleverly and craftily spreading seditious sentiments among the Indian people. This reminds us that the Rebels were able to use the printed word to serve their cause. The four months that Delhi remained in the hands of the rebels (May-September 1857) saw the city served by three weekly newspapers, of which perhaps the major one, to judge by its detailed reporting and commentaries, was the Dehli Urdu Akhbar. Sixteen issues of this paper from 1857 are preserved in the National Archives of India, New Delhi. Of these three, viz. 8 March, 12 April and 10 May, are pre-Mutiny. The remaining thirteen issues belong to the period, 17 May to 13 September 1857. Unfortunately, five issues, namely of 7 and 28 June, 26 July, 30 August and 6 September, are missing and copies of them have not yet been traced anywhere else. Atiq Ahmad Siddiqi rendered yeoman service to research on 1857 by publishing in 1966 a volume containing transcriptions of the texts of all the Urdu newspapers of Delhi, during the Mutiny available in the NAI, being the Siraj-ul Akhbar (Persian) of 11 May, thirteen issues aforementioned of the Dehli Urdu Akhbar (of which seven appeared under the changed name Akhbar-al-Zafar), and six of the Sadiq-ul-Akhbar.

The Urdu Akhbar has received much attention from scholars of the history of Urdu journalism who have explored matters relating to its dates of issue, ownership, editors, publishers and printers. It has also been used as an important source for the period of the rebel regime in Delhi in Swatantra Bharat, (Varanasi, 1957) by Athar Abbas Rizvi, well-known as the editor of History of Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh, 5 Vols., Lucknow, 1957-60, the largest collection of documents on the Revolt so far published.

It is, therefore, rather strange that William Dalrymple should have made the following statement:

“No less exciting was it to discover that Delhi’s two principal Urdu newspapers, the wonderfully opinionated Dihli Urdu Akbhar (sic!) and the more staid and restrained Court Circular, the Siraj ul-Akbhar (sic!), had continued publication without missing an issue throughout the Uprising, and that the National Archives contained almost complete sets of both. Again only fragmentary translations of these have previously been available”. (The Last Mughal: the Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi, 1857, p.14).

It is unbelievable that the Imperial weekly newspaper Siraj-ul-Akhbar, noted for its chaste Persian, can be declared to be one of the “two Principal Urdu newspapers”. Nor is it true that almost all the issues of these weekly newspapers for 10 May – 20 September 1857 are available in NAI, as we have seen. It is also strange that Nadir Ali Khan’s important book in Urdu should appear in Dalrymple’s Bibliography only in the garb of its English translation.

The Urdu Akhbar, issued on every Sunday, came by 1857 to be owned and edited by Maulvi Muhammad Baqar, a well respected Shi‘ite scholar and a member of the Delhi elite, with access to the Court and the Urdu literati. Particularly friendly relations existed between him and the famous Urdu poet, Zauq. According to print-line on all the surviving issues of 1857 it was ‘printed and published’ by Sayyid Abdullah, the Manager of the Delhi Urdu Akhbar Press. The press was located at Baqar’s own house in Guzar Aitiqad Khan, near Panja Sharif. It appears from a glance at the three pre-Mutiny issues that the Urdu Akhbar followed the practice of other contemporary Urdu newspapers (like Tilism of Lucknow), in providing news drawn from government gazettes, other newspapers both English and Urdu, with unpaid free-lancers supplying reports or information from other places by letters sent to the editor. Its coverage was not confined to India and, contrary to Dalrymple’s statement that it only remained concerned with ‘local political and religious matters’ (p.86), its columns regularly gave news of Europe (Firangistan) and England (Englistan), keeping its readers informed on such matters as changes in the British cabinet or an attempt on the life of the King of France. However, from the issue of 17 May, with Delhi having been cut off from the rest of the country by the English, and the postal system destroyed, the paper naturally enough could only report events happening in and around Delhi, or such places outside about which the editor was able to learn from people coming from other parts of the country. This was, of course, not by choice. The issue of 17 May reports under the account of the Cantonment that the Englishmen looking after the postal system had been killed. Again on 24 May the editor laments that no arrangements for dak (postal system) have yet been made (by the rebel regime), so that information from outside was hard to get.



EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT

The issue of 17 May is exceptionally important because it contains the Editor’s eye-witness (as well as hearsay) account in great detail of the events at Delhi on 11 May and the subsequent days. The report is preceded by Quranic extracts and Persian and Urdu passages on how God can make totally unforeseen events happen. The initial reaction to the Mutiny in the first two issues of 17 and 24 May is, indeed, that of gleeful surprise on so sudden a turn of events, leading to the fall of the mighty English. There is no sympathy or compassion shown for the English, even for their women and children who were now killed. A degree of unabashed pleasure is perceptible in the report on the killing of Nixon, the head of the ‘Chancellery’ and Taylor, the Principal of the Delhi College. The terms used are almost invariably Angrez for the English and Tilanga for the rebel Sepoy. There is a grudging approval of the Tilangis when they killed the English, but disapproval of their trigger-happy conduct when they killed a Khatri horseman or injured a vegetable vendor in Chandni Chauk. The paper complains of the helplessness of the City Kotwal in maintaining law and order in the presence of the army of ‘the Tilangis’ that has descended upon Delhi. Reflective of this attitude is the poem that was composed by Muhammad Baqar’s son, Muhammad Husain Azad (who unlike his father survived the Rebellion to join British service and become the first historian of Urdu literature). This was printed on the first page of the issue of 24 May, with the Editor’s special commendation, under the title ‘Chronogram for this Instructive Revolution’. Recalling how great rulers and conquerors like Soloman and Alexander, cruel tyrants like Hajjaj, Chengiz, Halaku and Nadir, great epic heroes and sages, have all disappeared, the poem glories the fact that, similarly, the English too, once so knowledgeable, so mighty, so cruel, have had their day. “Nothing came of their knowledge, skill, wisdom and character: The Tilangs of Purab (present Eastern UP) have done to death all of them here.” Still the wonder is: “How every trace of the Christian rulers, despite their wisdom and foresight, has all of a sudden disappeared from amongst the people (khalq).”

However, from 14 June both the vocabulary and attitude change. Now the sipah-i diler (“the brave army”) the Tilingan-i nar sher (the lion-like Tilangis) are being enjoined, if Muslims, to take the name of God and the Prophet, and, if Hindus, to pray to Parmeshar and Narain. The Sepoys are to follow the examples of Bhim and Arjun, of Rustam, Chingez, and Halaku, along with Timur and Nadir Shah, and defeat the English. Thus the simple sense of wonder is replaced by a great sense of sympathy with the Sepoys, and there is the greatest anxiety to encourage them, in the name of both Hindu and Muslim traditions, in their battle against the English.

The terminology continues to change in accordance with the new spirit as the days pass. The Rebel Army becomes the sipah-i-Hindostan (the Army of India) and there are appeals now to ‘fellow countrymen’ (ahl-i watan), ‘dear compatriots’ (aziz ham-watan), with specific exhortations for a united rallying of Hindus and Muslims. The English being Christians and so believing in the Trinity of God are now held to be polytheists and infidels (kafir), while the Hindus being believers in ‘Adi Purush’ share the basic belief in One God with Muslims and so are close to them (issue of 14 June). Both Hindus and Muslims are therefore called upon to fight and destroy the Christian English.

The next issue of 21 June recalls various grievances against the English: Under them there was utter lack of any respectable or gainful employment for Indians. The English rulers were not only of a different religion but also of a different race speaking a different language. They cornered all the high offices and wealth and did not spend it in our country, but took it away to their own country thus depriving ‘our Hindustan’ of its own wealth. It goes on to criticise the lethargy and lack of industry on the part of the Indian upper classes. their practice of looking down upon business and artisanal professions and their reluctance to move from theinative places in search of better opportunities.

The issue of 5 July is of special importance. It reproduces as the first item a copy of the Ishtihar (Public Notice) that was pasted on the Jama Masjid, allegedly by agents of the English, to ‘threaten and mislead the citizenry and the army”. The Notice called upon Muslims to wage a ‘holy war against Hindus’, for the Christians were the natural allies of Muslims as ‘People of the Book’ according to the Shariat. It asserted that the use of pig-tallow in the greased cartridges was a totally false rumour. The Urdu Akhbar declares this notice to be a conspiracy, the handiwork of enemies of both ‘Dharm’ and ‘Iman’ (the faith of Hindus and Muslims). The paper provides a point-by-point rebuttal of the pamphlet, saying sarcastically that the English should not try to deceive anyone by invoking the Shariat.

In its later issues too the paper strongly espouses the perception that all Indians are one, while the English are absolute aliens.


DARLYMPLE’S MISLEADING REMARKS


Here it is necessary to correct certain very misleading remarks made by Dalrymple about the reason behind the appeals for unity and resistance printed in the Dehli Urdu Akhbar. He tells us that “Maulvi Muhammad Baqir included in his columns a call for the Hindus of the city not to lose heart — which of course implied that they were beginning to do just that,” He, then, goes on to give a passage in translation from a “remarkable letter aimed at his Hindu readers” published in the Akhbar’s issue of 14 June, (Last Mughal, pp.268-69). The fact is that the appeal was addressed to both Muslims and Hindus, and Dalrymple’s translation of the passage is deliberately doctored by omitting all references to Muslims. Without bothering about small inaccuracies, I reproduce below his translation, inserting in italics what he has omitted.

“O my countrymen, Looking at the strategy and devious cleverness of the English … and their overflowing treasuries you may feel disheartened and doubt that such a people could ever be overcome. But those who are my Muslim brothers by faith, let them consider — if they are anxious and concerned out of worldly considerations — to look at their [not ‘your’] religious books, such as the Qur’an, the Tafsir and Hadis, and those who belong to the Hindu dharm [not ‘my Hindu brothers’], let them [not ‘you’], by the light of their gyan (wisdom) and dharm (faith), illumine their hearts [not ‘look into your Holy books’] and first see that except the Adipurush, the primaeval Deity, nothing is permanent.”

It can be seen from the above reproduction of what the paper actually wrote, that there is no sanction for the inference drawn by Dalrymple about the Hindus alone being addressed and so there being any implication of their being less committed to the Revolt than the Muslims.

An ordinary reader would find even in the last issue of the paper (13 Muharram = 13 September) the same spirit of defiance, and not the depressed resignation which Dalrymple reads into it (p.346). The issue actually exists in two separate prints. Of one only the front page exists. In both the prints news is carried that everywhere from Banaras to Muzaffarnagar the rebellion is having successes. The readers are urged not to be demoralised from “the long period” (tulkashi) of the struggle, a phrase used in both prints.

Dalrymple also quotes an English report (date not mentioned) purporting to be a translation of a letter from Muhammad Baqar to the effect that he had been persuading Bahadur Shah Zafar to make peace with the British, which Hakim Ahsanullah Khan was preventing. In this letter he is also reported as mentioning that there was much outrage among Muslims at the killing of five butchers by Hindu sepoys (pp.301-2). Whether such a letter was actually sent by Baqar or not cannot be established; but the English, at least, did not treat him as their informer: he was seized and hanged, while Hakim Ahsanullah flourished. The Rebels knew well enough that the latter was in league with the English. In the issue of 18 Zilhij/9 August, just after the Idu’z Zuha when the cow-slaughter issue came up, there is a report at the bottom of page 3 that Hakim Ahsanullah Khan had been proved to be an agent of the English and so arrested by “the Victorious [Rebel] Army.”

In the Dehli Urdu Akhbar there is not the slightest mention of the cow-slaughter episode, which in some accounts of the Rebel regime in Delhi is given much importance. The omission of any reference to this incident in the Dehli Akhbar in either its issue of 11 Zilhajj /9 August immediately after the Iduz Zuha (8 August), or in that of 18 Zilhaj, suggests that the editor did not regard the issue as very serious. It is, however, worth quoting how its contemporary, the Sadiqul Akhbar commented on the matter in its issue of 12 Zilhaj /13 Sawan, under the heading “Thanks” (Shukriya):

“A thousand thanks to Almighty God that the auspicious day of the Id-i Qurban passed off peacefully despite the machinations of the mischievous opponents of religion, the irreligious English, and no dispute arose between Hindus and Muslims on account of cow-slaughter. Both communities remained united, like milk and sugar.”

The paper attributed the success in maintaining unity to the efforts of Bahadur Shah and his “Prime Minister” Hakim Ahsanullah Khan. Apparently, the editor was not yet aware of the Hakim’s links with the English.

It is clear that the Dehli Akhbar mirrors the feelings of much of the Delhi populace, especially its educated section — its elite —, and it is singular how from the early feelings of estrangement towards the sepoys, they become in its pages, much before the fall of Delhi, the object of admiration, and then begin to be viewed as the valiant defenders and protectors of the city. All this tells us much not only about what Professor Rajat K. Ray calls “the Mentality of the Mutiny,” but about how the very process of resistance transformed that mentality and created a patriotic surge that prevailed over everything else.

www. cpim .org/pd/2007/0429/04292007_1857.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

I think a big take away is that the Indians fighting agaisnt the British developed an idea of India that was nationalist and comprising of non-British subjects. The non-participants and collaborators did not identify with the idea of a India as a nation and more so with that idea of India of those fighting to restore Mughal rule.

The curious thing is the freedom struggle that led to 1947 was very strong in Punjab especially in the Sikh community and the leaders of INC in the South were the Tamils, Andhras and Malayalis with Kanndigas playing a role in the Madras Presidency areas. The Brits did play the same caste card in the Madras Presidency by supporting the Justice party and the DK movement.

[acharya]

http://www.bored.com/ebooks/History/india/...of%20delhi.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A NARRATIVE OF THE SIEGE OF DELHI WITH AN ACCOUNT OF
THE MUTINY AT FEROZEPORE IN 1857

BY CHARLES JOHN GRIFFITHS LATE CAPTAIN 61ST REGIMENT
EDITED BY HENRY JOHN YONGE LATE CAPTAIN 61ST REGIMENT
WITH PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1910</b>

INTRODUCTION

The ever memorable period in the history of our Eastern Empire known as the Great Indian Rebellion or Mutiny of the Bengal army was an epoch fraught with the most momentous consequences, and one which resulted in covering with undying fame those who bore part in its suppression. The passions aroused during the struggle, the fierce hate animating the breasts of the combatants, the deadly incidents of the strife, which without intermission lasted for nearly two years, and deluged with blood the plains and cities of Hindostan, have scarcely a parallel in history. On the one side religious fanaticism, when Hindoo and Mohammedan, restraining the bitter animosity of their rival creeds, united together in the attempt to drive out of their common country that race which for one hundred years had dominated and held the overlordship of the greater portion of India. On the other side, a small band of Englishmen, a few thousand white men among millions of Asiatics, stood shoulder to shoulder, calm, fearless, determined, ready to brave the onslaught of their enemies, to maintain with undiminished lustre the proud deeds of their ancestors, and to a man resolved to conquer or to die.

Who can recount the numberless acts of heroism, the hairbreadth escapes, the anxious days and nights passed by our gallant countrymen, who, few in number, and isolated from their comrades, stood at bay in different parts of the land surrounded by hundreds of pitiless miscreants, tigers in human shape thirsting for their blood? And can pen describe the nameless horrors of the time--gently nurtured ladies outraged and slain before the eyes of their husbands, children and helpless infants slaughtered--a very Golgotha of butchery, as all know who have read of the Well of Cawnpore?

The first months of the rebellion were a fight for dear life, a constant struggle to avert entire annihilation, for to all who were there it seemed as though no power on earth could save them. But Providence willed it otherwise, and after the full extent of the danger was realized, gloomy forebodings gave way to stern endeavours. Men arose, great in council and in the field, statesmen and warriors--Lawrence, Montgomery, Nicholson, Hodson, and many others. The crisis brought to the front numbers of daring spirits, full of energy and resource, of indomitable resolution and courage, men who from the beginning saw the magnitude of the task set before them, and with calm judgment faced the inevitable. These were they who saved our Indian Empire, and who, by the direction of their great organized armies, brought those who but a few years before had been our mortal enemies to fight cheerfully on our side, and, carrying to a successful termination the leaguer of Delhi, stemmed the tide of the rebellion, and broke the backbone of the Mutiny.

The interest excited amongst all classes of our countrymen by the events which happened during the momentous crisis of 1857 in India can scarcely be appreciated by the present generation. So many years have elapsed that all those who held high commands or directed the councils of the Government have long since died, and the young participants in the contest who survived its toils and dangers are all now past middle age. But the oft-told tale will still bear repetition, and the recital of the achievements of Englishmen during the great Indian rebellion will fill the hearts of their descendants for all time with pride, and incite them to emulate their actions. In the hour of danger the heart of the nation is stirred to its profoundest depths, the national honour is at stake, and that heritage bequeathed to us by our ancestors must at all hazards be preserved. Thus it happened in 1857, and the result is well known. So it may again occur, and with confidence it may be predicted that, as of yore, Britain's sons will not be found wanting in the hour of trial, that, keeping well in mind the glorious traditions of their race, they will maintain unsullied the reputation of their forefathers, and add to the renown of that Empire on which the sun never sets.

It is unnecessary, in this place, to enter into the causes which led to the mutiny of the Bengal army. These can be read and studied in the graphic pages of Kaye and Malleson. My intention is to give, as far as in me lies, a truthful account of the events in which I personally bore part, and which came under my own immediate observation.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
FEROZEPORE
_May 10 to June 13_

Outbreak at Meerut--Neglect of arsenals--H.M.'s 61st Regiment--Characteristics of the British troops in India--Outbreak unexpected--First indication of disaffection--News of the Mutiny at Meerut--Steps taken at Ferozepore--Wives and families moved to the barracks--A party of the 61st Regiment sent into the fort--Proceedings within the fort--45th Regiment of Native Infantry tries to take the fort--It is repulsed--Criticism of the Brigadier's conduct--His want of initiative--The cantonment fired--The damage done--Bells of arms blown up--The 61st dismissed to barracks--A patrol ordered--State of the cantonment--Action of the mutineers--Officers quartered in the barracks--Grenadiers again on special duty--Indifference displayed by the Brigadier--Measures adopted for the safety of the cantonment--Search for mess property--Parsimony of the Government--Anxiety in the Punjab--Loyalty of the Sikhs--Sir John Lawrence's appeal to them--Their characteristics--Spread of the Mutiny--Reaction at Ferozepore--Night-attacks--One in particular--Trial of prisoners--Sentences--Executions
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>100 years of righteous terror</b>
Pioneer.com
Udayan Namboodiri
In terms of bequeathing a legacy, the Alipore Bomb case was bigger than 1857. Sadly, our 'eminent' historians never told us this

Exactly a hundred years ago today, 25-year-old Satyendranath Bose climbed the gallows at Calcutta's Alipore Jail with the cry Vande Mataram on his lips. His was the third hanging of the year. Fifteen-year-old Khudiram Bose and Kanailal Dutta (20) had preceded Satyen for bombing and shooting at representatives and agents of the British Empire. The entire country was left breathless by the competitive dare shown by middle-class, educated Bengali boys. All over Punjab, Maharashtra, Sind and, of course, Bengal, bards began spinning spectacularly panegyric yarns about boys, the milk still in their cheeks, merrily kissing the hangman’s noose before dying. Some of these songs have stood the test of time. Quite a few may have inspired a Bhagat Singh or a Subhas Chandra Bose. At any rate, India got its first batch of pure heroes.

This week, Saturday Special recalls the multi-layered impact of the Alipore Bomb Case that manifests in a variety of ways even today. We have just got over the 150th anniversary of the 1857 revolt. But, hype apart, how many scholars would disagree that its contribution to the future course of the freedom struggle was almost zero? Few actually. It's one thing to politely agree that it was the "first war of independence", but quite another to accept that its cause commanded widespread sympathy or that its actors were the stuff of folklore. Alipore, on the other hand, was both.

We feature alongside (main story), the noted American historian, Peter Heehs, whose authoritative work, The Bomb in Bengal: The rise of revolutionary terrorism, is respected as the first narrative history of the event even as it stops short of being uncritically laudatory.

The Alipore Bomb Case got its name from the district court of Alipore in which a clutch of cases concerning the same group of accused persons was tried. But no bomb actually went off there. On April 30, 1908 two members of Barindranath Ghose's wider circle, Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki, threw the famous Muzaffarpur bomb, whose target was Douglas Kingsford, an unpopular Judge, but actually killed two innocent Englishwomen. Chaki committed suicide but Khudiram entered folklore for the calmness he exuded when mounting the gallows on August 11. Just as soon as the news of the blast reached the authorities in Calcutta, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Andrew Fraser, himself an object of three assassination attempts for being the real author of the Partition decision, decided to crack down on a garden house that was engaging the attention of police detectives for quite some time.

This garden house was located in Manicktola, an eastern suburb of Calcutta and was an ancestral property of the Ghose brothers. Barindranath wished to operate an Ananda Math-like group from there. His followers lived a spartan life on the garden. They stocked a great deal of guns, ammunition and explosive chemicals. They read the Gita, meditated and trained themselves in martial skills. The police had been watching the property for quite some time. After the Muzaffarpur incident, they decided to move in. Early on May 2, a large posse of CID officers and men swooped down on the garden house and arrested everybody they could find. They also raided the office of Nabashakti, a paper run by Aurobindo from downtown Calcutta and rounded him up. The owners of shops and houses suspected to assist the operation were also hauled away.

Wide publicity followed the mystical leader and his band of boy revolutionaries after the arrests. For the first time we see the latitude enjoyed by the native Press, even in the heyday of Empire, to defend the revolutionaries. Moral support often came from unexpected quarters. For example, Kier Hardie, a Scottish socialist who was the first independent MP in Britain, said, "the outbreak of terrorism is the natural outcome of the policy now being pursued in India." Therefore you had not only 'terrorism', but also an early 'root cause' theory. In retribution, bombs began to go off at regular intervals all over India. Terror gripped the European and Anglo-Indian communities. A unit of the British Army posted in Calcutta wrote to Viceroy Lord Minto that its members would not hesitate to slaughter every available Bengali if a even one European was hurt. On November 8, a young boy called Jatin Roy Choudhury, who was connected to Barindra Ghose's group via two members, shot at Lieutenant Governor Fraser at Calcutta's Overtoun Hall. He missed, but went on record saying, "If we kill one LG, other LGs will listen to our grievances."

The case was heard in two stages. The first, against 30 of the 35 arrested, began within a month. Alongside, there were two other cases called the Harrison Road Arms Act case and the Alipore Jail Murder case. The latter was over the murder of Narendra Nath Goswami, a follower of Barin Ghose since the early days, who was killed by Dutt and Bose inside the Jail Hospital because he decided to spill the beans as an approver. This was achieved on August 31 and, after a speedy trial, they were sentenced to death. Dutt was hanged on November 10. His body was taken in procession to the Kalighat burning ghat by thousands of people. This unnerved the government and when it was Satyen's turn to hang 12 days later, his body was cremated within the jail premises.

Aurbindo Ghose's stood trial as part of the second batch, the Judge presiding being Charles Porten Beachcroft, his contemporary at Cambridge University . Chittaranjan Das, the famous barrister and Congress leader, defended him for a nominal fee. The eventual verdict and its place in history are still intensely debated. The Judgment itself is part of the curriculum of many law schools. It was an excellent opportunity for the British to showcase the liberal core of their jurisprudence and Judge Beachcroft exploited it to the hilt. Though there was a mountain of evidence implicating Aurobindo Ghose, he was acquitted. Barindra and Ulaskhkar were sentenced to death (commuted on appeal). Seven others were jailed for varying lengths of time and the rest were acquitted.

The legacy: The Alipore Bomb case marked a personal watershed for Aurobindo. It also changed the course of the freedom movement. He was left disillusioned by terrorist tactics and underwent a paradigm shift in his attitude, chosing thenceforth to become a great spiritual savant. But the spirit of righteous war did not leave successive generations of freedom fighters. Hundreds of so-called terrorist groups mushroomed all over India and even abroad. Though Nehruvian and Marxist scholars gave predominance to Mahatma Gandhi and non-violence in school history texts -- about the only ‘history’ most Indians ever get to read -- it cannot be denied that the British felt more exercised by those who followed Aurobindo's principle. Academician Rakesh Sinha (The Other Voice) recounts some of the latter-day teachings of Aurobindo while Dr Heehs reflects on the conceptual divide between terrorism of the form we know today and what was celebrated by the early Bengal patriots. ry of the Indian freedom movement.

-- The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The bomb that shook an Empire</b>
pioneer.com
Peter Hees
Aurobindo Ghose and his band of youthful 'terrorists' stood as accused in the famous Alipore Bomb Case exactly a century ago. The issues they threw up still rankle

A hundred years ago, a trial was being heard in Calcutta that brought the issue of revolutionary terrorism before the people of modern India for the first time. There had, of course, been acts of violence against the British almost from the moment of their arrival. But when Khudiram Bose threw a bomb into a carriage that he thought was carrying a district judge on April 30, 1908, he started something new. A bhadralok youth, recruited by an organisation that was established and directed by highly educated men, used a state-of-the-art bomb in an attempt to assassinate a member of the foreign bureaucracy. Khudiram was tried and executed for his act, becoming one of India's most celebrated revolutionary martyrs.

The leaders of the organisation, notably Hemchandra Das, Upendranath Banerjee, Barindrakumar Ghose, and Barin's brother Aurobindo Ghose (later Sri Aurobindo), were also put on trial in what became known as the Alipore Bomb Case. After proceedings that lasted almost a year, the first three were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Aurobindo was acquitted but soon left the political scene, becoming a philosopher and yogi in Pondicherry.

Aurobindo had never thought that scattered acts of small-scale violence would do much to advance the movement. His original idea was the preparation of an "armed insurrection", consisting of "guerrilla warfare accompanied by general resistance and revolt". His organisation "did not include terrorism in its programme", he wrote in 1946; "this element grew up in Bengal as a result of the strong repression and the reaction to it in that province". It was Barin, Upendranath, Hemchandra and others who thought that terrorist methods would be useful. In this they were wrong.

Despite all the drama of the Indian revolutionary movement, and the undoubted valour of men like Khudiram, Surya Sen, and Bhagat Singh, Indian terrorists were not very good at accomplishing their aims, and had little practical (as opposed to psychological) effect on the movement.

Sensing this as early as 1911, Aurobindo wrote to a collaborator that terrorism was "our only enemy". He called for an end to "these theatrical assassinations, these frenzied appeals to national hatred with their watchword of Feringhi ko maro, these childish conspiracies, these idiotic schemes for facing a modern army with half a dozen guns and some hundred lathis". Yet to the end of his life Aurobindo never renounced his belief that "a nation is entitled to attain its freedom by violence".

"Terrorism" has now become such a charged word that it is hard to use it in a discussion of national heroes. Historians of the immediate post-Independence era preferred the term "militant nationalism". This was not a good choice: the revolutionaries had little military training. Later historians were not afraid to use the term "terrorism", but they defined it carefully as the use of small-scale violence by urban groups to achieve political ends. This is what Barin Ghose and his friends were doing, and there was no reason not to call them terrorists, however unpleasant the word might sound.

However, over the last two decades, the meaning of "terrorism" has become restricted in the popular mind to certain types of violent acts, notably ones in which members of the public are targeted as symbolic stand-ins for an inaccessible government. There is a world of difference between terrorists who leave bombs in public places, or detonate suicide vests in buses, and revolutionaries who assassinate carefully chosen colonial officials.

Contemporary terrorism's association with random, often anonymous, violence has fundamentally altered the meaning of the word in public discourse. Another association that colours most people's understanding of the term is the perceived link between terrorism and religion. Certainly many contemporary terrorists, whether operating in Gaza, Baghdad, Mumbai, or London, claim to be inspired by religious beliefs. But this link is not inevitable. Viewed historically, terrorist methods were first used by the Jacobins during the French Revolution in an attempt to maintain state power against perceived reactionaries. Religion never entered into the picture, except perhaps to label Catholic institutions and individuals as ‘reactionary’.

The second great era of terrorism was during the 19th and 20th centuries, when revolutionary groups used small-scale violence against the state. Some of these groups had a religious identity, such as the Irish National Army and some organisations in India, but the fundamental aim of revolutionary terrorists was the weakening of an oppressive state as a step towards its replacement by a more popular one.

Revolutionary terrorism is still with us, but the characteristic form of terrorism in the 21st century is what I call 'apocalyptic terrorism', as exemplified by groups such as AUM Shinrikyo of Japan, and the transnational group, al-Qaeda. Both of these made (and make) use of religious discourse, but it could be argued that their inspiration and aims were (and are) not religious but rather apocalyptic: the overthrowing of a whole way of life in all its forms.

Apocalyptic terrorist groups are unlikely to achieve their declared aims. How do you attack or destroy a way of life? Well-trained terrorists can hit symbolic targets such as the Tokyo subway system or the World Trade Center, but the world goes on as it always has. Viewed pragmatically, apocalyptic terrorism is more a form of theatre than a means of bringing about constructive change.

Revolutionary terrorists too were aware of the theatrical side of violence – Barin Ghose wrote that part of his aim in sponsoring terrorist attempts was capture headlines that would inspire young men to emulate him – but most revolutionaries had achievable and justifiable aims, and their acts contributed to some extent in their realisation.

Can the same be said about the terrorism – much of it ostensibly religious – which continues to plague modern India? Most attempts over the past few years have succeeded in little else but sowing terror in the populace. The perpetrators have rarely identified themselves or their enemies, and achieved nothing beyond the immediate loss of life and property. This is duly reported in the Press, giving rise to frantic public debate; but neither the demographic makeup nor administrative direction of the country is changed in the least.

Much of this recent terrorism seems to be nothing more than the simple acting out of revenge, one aggrieved community attacking another, leading to further retaliatory attacks, and so forth ad infinitum. In a democracy that offers all its citizens a chance (however slight in some cases) to air their grievances and bring about change, this terrorism of revenge looks like the pointless working out of a mechanical impulse.

On November 10, 1908, Kanailal Dutt, one of the accused in the Alipore Bomb Case, was hanged in Calcutta. Ten weeks earlier, he and his accomplice Satyendranath Bose had assassinated the government informer Narendranath Gowsami. Asked in court why he had pulled the trigger, Kanailal responded simply: "It was because he proved a traitor to his country." The funeral procession that followed his body to the Ganges was probably the largest ever seen in Kolkata. After his cremation, hundreds of people surged forward to take ash and pieces of bone as holy relics.

The Indian press hailed Kanailal as a martyr, most British papers condemned him as a coward; but an editor The Pioneer, a paper representing the interests of Empire, took issue with this: "Such a crime may be properly described as desperate action, but it is fatuous to call it a cowardly one. If the people of Bengal chose to enthrone Kanailal and Satyendranath "in popular remembrance" as the Greeks had done with the tyrannicide pair Harmodius and Aristogeiton, "it is not easy to see how anyone could justly object to the selection".

It is hard to see how such an encomium could be published for those in modern India who leave tiffin-carriers packed with RDX in suburban commuter trains or holy places.

--The writer is an American historian on modern India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Karnataka was not cool when the North was up in arms against the British in 1857-1858. There were also tremors though not very severe in the South which gave shockwaves to the British.

Dharwad Magistrate Ogilvy had sent a copy of the letter found with <b>Mundargi Bhimrao a ‘rebel’ leader,</b> to the Secretary to Government of Bombay (dated September 28, 1858). Twelve copies of this letter were found with Bhimrao. It was addressed to all the “Suranjamdars, Jagirdars, Deshmukhs, Deshpandeys and other Jameendars, Patels, Kulkarnis, Naikwadis; Shetsanadees and the whole population of the Deccan and the Carnatic” by Dhondo Pant Nana Peshwa, Pant Pradhan (prime minister under the new political dispensation, headed by the Mughul Emperor Bahadur Shah II). The letter gives a picture of the atrocities perpetrated by the English described as kaffirs who by “practising treachery” had “seized all the Hindu and Mohammedan Kingdoms,” and “endeavouring to delude and convert the population of this country.” The letter calls upon an armed uprising to oust the kaffirs.


<b>Halagali Bedas</b>
The first uprising against the British was evidenced at Halagali (Mudhol taluk of Bagalkot district). The prince of Mudhol, Ghorpade had accepted British overlordship. But the Bedas (hunters), a marshal community, were seething with dissatisfaction under the new dispensation. The British proclaimed the Disarming Act of 1857 whereby men possessing fire arms had to register them and secure a license before November 10, 1857. Babaji Nimbalkar, a soldier thrown out of job from Satara Court, had advised these people not to loose their hereditary right to own arms.


One of the leaders of the Bedas, Jadgia was invited by the administrator at Mudhol and was persuaded to secure a license on November 11, though Jadgia had not asked for it. The administrator’s expectation that others would follow Jadgia was belied. So he sent his agents to Halagali on November 15, 20 and again on 21. But the entreaties of the agents did not succeed, and the agents sent on November 21 were attacked by Jadgia and Baalya, another leader and they were forced to return. Another agent sent on November 25 was not allowed to enter the village.

Meanwhile, the Bedas and other armed men from the neighbouring villages of Mantur, Boodni and Alagundi assembled at Halagali. The administrator reported the matter to Major Malcolm, the Commander at the nearby army headquarters, who sent Col. Seton Karr to Halagali on November 29.

The insurgents, numbering 500 did not allow the British to enter Halagali. There was a fight during the night. On November 30, Major Malcolm came with 29th Regiment from Bagalkot. They set fire to the village and many insurgents, including Babaji Nimbalkar died. The British, who had a bigger army and better arms arrested 290 insurgents; and of these 29 were tried and 11 were hanged at Mudhol on December 11, and six others, including Jadagia and Baalya were hanged at Halagali on December 14, 1857. No prince or jagirdar was involved in this uprising, but it was the common soldiers.
<b>
Surapur</b>
Surapur (or Shorapur) in the present Gulbarga district was ruled by Beda Nayaks who had given tough resistance to Aurangzeb. The British appointed Capt. Meadows Taylor (famous writer) as its Resident and Regent when the ruler there died, leaving a young prince Venkatappa. <b>Venkatappa Nayaka </b>was educated in English and Taylor had endeared himself to the prince, who addressed Taylor as “appa”.

When the prince started his personal rule, being well educated, he felt the British overlordship very irritating. He was in his early 20s and had sent an agent to Peshwa Nanasaheb in December 1857. The British had reports that Venkatappa Nayak was planning to revolt on August 8, 1858, and was trying to encourage the British Regiments at Kolhapur (27th), Dharwad (28th) and Belgaum (29th) to revolt. Two agents trying to sow seeds of dissension in Belgaum army had been identified on February 2, 1858, and they were dispatched by Venkatappa Nayaka and the Jamkhandi Raja, it was reported. Venkatappa had recruited large number of Arabs and Rohillas. Capt. Malcolm posted a contingent at a village near Surapur and another batallion was posted at Sindhanur.

Campbell was sent to Surapur by Malcolm to advise young Venkatappa, who was only evasive in his replies. On February 7, British army near Surapur was attacked and many soldiers were killed by Venkatappa’s men. The next day, the British attacked Surapur fort, and the army from Madras led by Col. Hues was also summoned. Venkatappa’s men attacked the Surapur fort killing many British soldiers.

But Surapur did not have much force to face the huge British army. One Vagangeri Bhimrao from Surapur, a secret agent of the British, advised Venkatappa to go to Hyderabad and seek help from Salar Jung. Venkatappa escaped from the fort and made his way to Hyderabad. Next day, Bhimrao opened the fort door, and Surapur was occupied without much resistance.

Venkatappa was apprehended at Hyderabad. He was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment. When Meadows Taylor met him, Venkatappa said he did not wish to live and if he was to be sentenced to death, he must not be hanged like a criminal, but killed at the mouth of a canon. “I was not a coward,” Venkatappa told Taylor. Taylor, who had great affection for Venkatappa, had his life term reduced to four years internment by prevailing upon the Governor General, and he was to be reinstated after this four-year term. He was to be taken to Kurnool fort, and was to be interned there together with his two queens. While he was being taken to Kurnool, on an early morning when his armed guard had gone out for ablution, Venkatappa took the revolver his guard had left behind and shot himself dead.

<b>Nargund</b>
Bhaskar Rao (Babasaheb) Bhave succeeded Nargund (in Gadag district) gadi in 1842. When his son died at an early age, he requested for an adoption which the British turned down. Earlier his own aunt, Radhabai of Ramdurg State had been permitted to adopt his own brother (or cousin) in 1829. Bhaskar Rao was furious.
Bhaskar Rao contacted a large number of princes and jagirdars, including a former British tahshildar, Mundargi Bhimrao, and the Desais of Soratur, Hammige and the Raja of Anegondi. One Keshav Dayal Tivari, housed in Thana Jail, had been sending him encouraging messages to revolt. Mundargi Bhimrao had contacts with Peshwa Nanasaheb’s men.

Thomas Ogilvy, Magistrate at Dharwad, ordered Bhaskar Rao to send all canons and magazine he possessed to Dharwad. He sent them to Dharwad but had them looted on the way. The British suspicious of him, sent Capt. Manson from Kurundwad to contain him. With only 12 horsemen, he came to Ramdurg state on way to Nargund and camped at Suresban Village on the night of May 20, 1858.

Bhaskar Rao’s men surprised them, beheaded Manson and threw his body in the campfire nearby and brought his severed head to Nargund which was placed on a fort gate. But Bhaskar Rao was shocked to find letters from his most trusted officers in key positions written to Manson and they had already taken steps to destroy the magazine stocked in the fort. He was helpless.

Gen. Malcolm came from Koppal on June 1, 1858, and attacked Nargund. Bhaskar Rao escaped from Nargund and entered Torgal jungle. He was betrayed by one of his men. He was tried at Belgaum and hanged on June 12, 1858. The valuable library at Nargund with 3,000 to 4,000 volumes was burnt by the British. Bhaskar Rao’s wife and mother committed suicide by jumping into the Malaprabha river.

<b>Bhimrao Mundargi </b>
Bhimrao Mundargi was an English educated person who had served as a tahshildar under the British, and had been dismissed from service. He was an active organiser from whom Bhaskar Rao was expecting help when attacked. Hammige Desai had collected arms on Bhimrao’s advice and the British seized them and locked them in the Desai’s wada (household). Bhimrao broke the lock and seal, and with Desai and his own men (he had collected them under the pretext of excavating a tank), looted the British treasury at Gadag and the Dambal town on May 24. He took shelter in the hill fort of Koppal in Nizam’s dominion. The British moved from Dharwad, Bellary and Raichur on June 1 (on the same day when Nargund was taken). They attacked the fort and Bhimrao and Hammige Desai, Kenchana Gauda with 150 people died fighting at Koppal. Many more were apprehended, tried and deported or hanged.

<b>Soopa uprising</b>
This was a prolonged uprising. It took place in Goa and Belgaum and Uttara Kannada (North Kanara) districts, the latter then under the Madras Presidency.

Phond Sawant, a grandee at the Sawantwadi Court (in Konkan), had revolted against the British in 1844. His 10 sons were interned in Goa under vigilance. On hearing the uprising in the North led by Peshwa Nanasaheb, three of them escaped to Supa taluk in Uttara Kannada in the British area, and joining hands with some local leaders planned a revolt. The Sawant brothers - Nana, Baba, and Hanumant - joined hands with three Phadnis brothers - Raghoba, Chintoba and Shantha - and started attacking British posts.

The North Kanara Special Commissioner Ballard had reported that restriction placed on Kumri shift cultivation, increased land revenue and the heavy salt tax, had caused unrest among the people. A letter addressed to the Portuguese government by the Sawant brothers warning them that the army of Nanasaheb Peshwa was coming soon, and the Portuguese must help the Sawants against the British, was found by the British administration.
In that case, they (the Portuguese) could be assured of protection from Nanasaheb’s army when it reached the region. This is a clear indication of them being inspired by the uprising in the North. In fact, the people in that forest region knew no government officer, but the local Chaukidars and Kolkars were the only British representatives.

The insurgents were joined by many local Siddis (descendants of Negro slaves who had escaped from Goa). The insurgents first burnt the British Chauki at Dotarpa, on March 12, 1858, looted it and arrested the Chaukidar called Bhujang Rao.

Western part of Soopa taluk came under the Sawant brothers. The insurgents made Darshani Gudda, a hilly track as their centre and continued to attack British posts. Brig. Fitzerald chased them into Goa. The Portuguese apprehended them. Nearly 100 people, including the Sawant brothers were deported to the Timor Island in East Indies in November 1858. Twentythree persons from Uttara Kannada were tried and were sent to Chingalpet Jail. The Special Commissioner sentenced another 34, who were sent to the Andaman Islands. Another 46 persons were found lodged in Dharwad Jail as per records.

<b>Uprising again</b>
Though the uprising again continued for only a few months in 1858, it started again in February 1859 when Siddi Bastiaon (from Panasolli near Dandeli) looted the house of a rich landlord at Waddarmane village on the banks of the river Kali, and continued his plunder across the river.

Two informants from Penoli village who had helped the arrest and hanging of insurgent Bikku Bandari were arrested by them. On April 7, when the Munsiff of Yellapur was on his way to Goa, the insurgents attacked his party. The insurgents, numbering 60, were led by Siddi Bastiaon and his brother Benove, and there were many Brahmins among them, says Joint Magistrate Robinson in a report. They were operating from the borders of Goa.
Unlike the Sawant brothers, who were peacefully administering the region, these people were busy wrecking vengeance on those who had opposed them and engaged in loot, the report says. A prize of Rs 1000 was announced on the head of Siddi Bastiaon.

The local magistrate sanctioned 100 acres of land among those who suffered at the hands of the insurgents and 100 Shetsandis were appointed on a monthly payment of Rs 5 each.

Dipu Rane, a Jagirdar from Goa, was helping them. In addition, Anna Mangaonkar, a brother-in-law of the Sawant brothers, and Pondu Kaab from Sakali in Goa were also in league with the insurgents, the reports say. The Phadnis brothers and their uncle Gunba Shenvi were active in Dandeli and Ulvi region.

On June 24, 1859, they attacked Ankola taluk, coming from across the Goa border. There was a pitched fight at Jagalbet in which Chintoba Phadnis and Siddi Bastiaon were killed. On August 15, Lt. Drever, Grierson and Drury attacked the insurgents, and they were dispersed.

After that there was no news of them. Some of these were later arrested in Goa with the help of the Portuguese, and of these four were hanged, and many more were deported or sentenced to life term. Anyway, this second phase of 1859 continued from February to August.

[Husky]

Don't know if it belongs here or in the indologicals thread.

Gautam Sen on the hysterian William Dalrymple (Dalrymple wrote The Lost Mooghal or something, I forget - sorry, my hysteria and hysterical knowledge is not as comprehensive as others'):

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2009/02/da...illionaire.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Slumdog Millionaire:
-- CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST PRODUCER USING ISLAM TO BATTER HINDUISM
http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2009/01/sl...-christian.html

From: Gautam Sen
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:09 PM
[...]

This explains Boyle's espousal of the Teesta Setalvad version of the fate of Muslims in India in the film, also the excuse of Pakistanis terrorists for killing Hindus. I am glad <b>Vikas Swarup</b> made more than the standard thirty pieces of silver for selling India down the river since I remember him pretending to be a militant patriot when he was a diplomat in London. But, hey, the money, was too good to turn down and he got to become <b>friends with the pucca, gora sahib and Hindu-baiter, extraordinaire William Dalrymple!</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This 'Weak-as Syrrup' character discovered he was a sepoy after all and found he was happiest slaving away for masters like Dalrymple. Touching. Oh, I made a mistake. It's not slavery. Weak-as Syrrup got money for it. That makes it <i>paid</i> degradation.

[acharya]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/2007051.../main7.htm

[Bharatvarsh]

Is there any information on any participant in 1857 that survived to see India independent in 1947?

It is possible if you think about it, someone who must have lived to at least 106 years like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Cook

[Bodhi]

v. interesting point. Never came across anything like that. But certainly there were eye-witnesses of 1857 during the heyday of renewed freedom struggle. There were many writers who even collected the oral narratives of the villagers, merchants, mendicants, and retired/escaped soldiers who had seen the events first hand or even participated in some form. One such account that I came some time back was Amrit Lal Nagar's collection of narratives. I also saw some time back an account in awadhi by a kAyastha store-keeper who had while not supported the rebels during 1857, had written their tale after many years, and published even later. I forget the name of both the author and the work now.

[Guest]

http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/5366
<b>Title: Defence of Cawnpore by the trops under the orders of Major General Charles Windham in November,1857 </b>
Authors: Adye, John
Keywords: India-History--Mutiny, 1809
India-History--Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858
Issue Date: 5-Dec-2008
Description: 58
URI: http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/5366

[Guest]

http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/2941
<b>Title: History of Sepoy War in India </b>
Authors: Kaye, John William
Keywords: Muting-India-History-sepoy rebellion, 1857-1858
Issue Date: 30-Sep-2008
Series/Report no.: Vol 2;
Description: xvi,692

[Guest]

http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/3298
<b>Title: History of the Mutiny and of the disturbances which accompanied it among the civil population </b>
Authors: Holmes, T. Rice
Keywords: India-History
India-History--Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858
India-Social conditions
Issue Date: 16-Oct-2008
Description: xxiv, 659

[Guest]

http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/3891
<b>Title: Mutiny Report </b>
Authors: Barness, G. C.
Keywords: Dairies
Punjab-History
Issue Date: 3-Nov-2008
Series/Report no.: Punjab Government Records;Vol 8 Pt. 1
Description: ii,408

http://library.du.ac.in/dspace/handle/1/3910
<b>Title: Mutiny records correspondence </b>
Authors: Government of Punjab
Keywords: Punjab-History
<b>India-History--Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858 </b>
Issue Date: 3-Nov-2008
Series/Report no.: Vol 7;Pt 1
Description: ii 445
The Title Preliminary
Ch-1 April and may 1857.
Ch-2 June 1857
Ch-3 July 1857
Ch-4 August 1857
Ch-5 August 1857 cont

[Guest]

Guess who's playing the role of Jhansi ki Rani in an upcoming Bollywood film about one of the leading figures in the 1857 War of Independence.......

Jhansi ki Rani

I'd like to have few words with the person who came up with this bright idea.....

[ramana]

Paydirt from Delhi Uty

Indian War of Independence 1857- V.D. Savarkar

This book recast 1857 as a war for indepedence instead of the British view as a mutiny.

[Guest]

<b>Rare 1857 rebellion message discovered in UK</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a crucial discovery of interest to historians, a tightly folded scrap of paper containing a key encrypted message during India's first war of independence in 1857 has been discovered at the Harewood House in Leeds.

Considered one of the smallest but most remarkable records of the era, the scrap of blue paper measures six by five centimeters and contains Greek and English characters. It contains an encrypted message that was smuggled out of Lucknow.

Written on the September 1 1857, Brigadier John Inglis described conditions in the town that had been under siege since 30 June that year. The note was folded and tightly rolled to ensure its concealment.

In his message, Inglis sends information vital to the British relieving force. The information was considered sensitive and would have had devastating effect on the course of events if it had fallen into the wrong hands.

Inglis wrote in the encrypted message, "I have reduced the rations and with this arrangement I trust to be able to hold on from the twentieth to twenty fifth". The British relief force arrived in Lucknow on 25 September.

The discovery was made last week during work on the year-long National Cataloguing project at the West Yorkshire Archive Service to list the family and estate archive of the Earls of Harewood.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>The Indian mutiny of 1857</b> By George Bruce Malleson

<b>Annals of the Indian Rebellion, 1857-58</b> By Noah Alfred Chick, David Hutchinson

<b>Eight months' campaign against the Bengal Sepoy Army during the mutiny of 1857</b> By George Bourchier
<b>Memoir of John Lovering Cooke, with a sketch of the Indian mutiny of 1857-58</b> By Charles Henry H. Wright, John Lovering Cooke