05-04-2007, 10:41 PM
Book Review:
The Telegraph, Kolkota, 4 May 2007
The Penguin 1857 Reader
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Old story in a new lightÂ
<img src='http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070504/images/4left.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Casting a fresh lookÂ
<b>The Penguin 1857 reader Edited by Pramod K. Nayar, Rs 295</b>
The year, 1857, proved to be a milestone in the history of both Britain and India. In May, the Bengal army turned against its colonial masters. In the subsequent violence, some parts of the subcontinent became liberated from British rule for a period of time. Only in January 1859, after a gruelling campaign, did the British forces succeed in re-establishing their authority over Hindustan. This year, scholars and publishing houses in Britain as well as in India are commemorating this episode by organizing seminars and by publishing books. The Penguin 1857 Reader is one such publication that has come out in recent times.
Edited by Pramod K. Nayar, this book brings together short excerpts from articles published in newspapers, magazines as well as excerpts from books that were printed in the aftermath of the event. Cynics might argue that the sahibs authored many of these articles. However, it needs to be pointed out that scholars working on the revolt have no choice but to depend on British sources. Most of the writing on the Mutiny had been done by the British and for a predominantly British audience. This is primarily because the ârebelsâ were largely illiterate. Further, the Indian aristocrats, unlike the British elite, were not in the habit of maintaining private papers which could be passed from one generation to another. The Indian gentry were afraid of retaining documents which might incriminate them in the eyes of the colonial State. The rebel governments in Lucknow and in Delhi generated some documents in Urdu. But most of these have not been translated yet.
Nayar has divided his selection into three categories: causes, experiences and the European response. Contrary to the established belief that all European writers were critical of the mutineers and justified the brutal reprisal on the part of the British, Nayarâs book shows that American, British and other European writers differed in their responses to the uprising. On September 17, 1857, the French newspaper, Le Siecle, criticized the âbarbaricâ treatment meted out by the British towards the rebels. Writing in 1858, Nikolai Dobrolyubov offered an analysis of British rule that would please Marxist historians. He argued that the rajâs taxation system was oppressive and India provided a golden opportunity for young scions of the British landed aristocracy to seek lucrative employment. However, The Princeton Review interpreted the revolt of 1857 as a war between Christian (British) and pagan forces (the mutineers).
Surprisingly, the collection is not free of errors. For instance, a paragraph from Robert Dunlopâs book appears twice â on two different pages. Another paragraph from William Edwards account, describing the causes of the Mutiny, should have been placed under the section titled âSymptoms and Dissentâ and not in âExperiencesâ.
Books written by British officials after 1857 are available in libraries. Some of them are in print as well. Nevertheless, rare magazines are not easily accessible. Nayar has done a commendable job in making available articles from rare journals such as Blackwoodâs Edinburgh Review, The Daily News and The Englishman to the readers. After turning the pages of this book, scholars would think twice before categorizing all European writing on the revolt of 1857 as representatives of âcolonial historiographyâ.
KAUSHIK ROY
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Telegraph, Kolkota, 4 May 2007
The Penguin 1857 Reader
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Old story in a new lightÂ
<img src='http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070504/images/4left.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Casting a fresh lookÂ
<b>The Penguin 1857 reader Edited by Pramod K. Nayar, Rs 295</b>
The year, 1857, proved to be a milestone in the history of both Britain and India. In May, the Bengal army turned against its colonial masters. In the subsequent violence, some parts of the subcontinent became liberated from British rule for a period of time. Only in January 1859, after a gruelling campaign, did the British forces succeed in re-establishing their authority over Hindustan. This year, scholars and publishing houses in Britain as well as in India are commemorating this episode by organizing seminars and by publishing books. The Penguin 1857 Reader is one such publication that has come out in recent times.
Edited by Pramod K. Nayar, this book brings together short excerpts from articles published in newspapers, magazines as well as excerpts from books that were printed in the aftermath of the event. Cynics might argue that the sahibs authored many of these articles. However, it needs to be pointed out that scholars working on the revolt have no choice but to depend on British sources. Most of the writing on the Mutiny had been done by the British and for a predominantly British audience. This is primarily because the ârebelsâ were largely illiterate. Further, the Indian aristocrats, unlike the British elite, were not in the habit of maintaining private papers which could be passed from one generation to another. The Indian gentry were afraid of retaining documents which might incriminate them in the eyes of the colonial State. The rebel governments in Lucknow and in Delhi generated some documents in Urdu. But most of these have not been translated yet.
Nayar has divided his selection into three categories: causes, experiences and the European response. Contrary to the established belief that all European writers were critical of the mutineers and justified the brutal reprisal on the part of the British, Nayarâs book shows that American, British and other European writers differed in their responses to the uprising. On September 17, 1857, the French newspaper, Le Siecle, criticized the âbarbaricâ treatment meted out by the British towards the rebels. Writing in 1858, Nikolai Dobrolyubov offered an analysis of British rule that would please Marxist historians. He argued that the rajâs taxation system was oppressive and India provided a golden opportunity for young scions of the British landed aristocracy to seek lucrative employment. However, The Princeton Review interpreted the revolt of 1857 as a war between Christian (British) and pagan forces (the mutineers).
Surprisingly, the collection is not free of errors. For instance, a paragraph from Robert Dunlopâs book appears twice â on two different pages. Another paragraph from William Edwards account, describing the causes of the Mutiny, should have been placed under the section titled âSymptoms and Dissentâ and not in âExperiencesâ.
Books written by British officials after 1857 are available in libraries. Some of them are in print as well. Nevertheless, rare magazines are not easily accessible. Nayar has done a commendable job in making available articles from rare journals such as Blackwoodâs Edinburgh Review, The Daily News and The Englishman to the readers. After turning the pages of this book, scholars would think twice before categorizing all European writing on the revolt of 1857 as representatives of âcolonial historiographyâ.
KAUSHIK ROY
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->