First war of independence: 1857

[ramana]

Pioneer Book Review:





The War that shook the Raj

AGENDA | Sunday, April 24, 2011 | Email | Print | | Back





War that shook raj

April 26, 2011 12:13:41 AM





Vishnu Bhatt’s narrative of the 1857 rebellion is part autobiography and part history, say Prafull Goradia and KR Phanda



1857: The Real Story of the Great Uprising

Author: Vishnu Bhatt (English translation by Mrinal Pande)

Publisher: Harper Perennial

Price: Rs 250



The book, 1857: The Real Story of the Great Uprising, by Vishnu Bhatt was written in Marathi and published in 1907. Later, it was independently translated into Hindi by Amritlal Nagar, a well-known Hindi writer, and Madhukar Upadhyaya, a journalist. Mrinal Pande now gives us an elegantly translated version of this volume in English.



A large number of books and articles have already been published on the 1857 uprising. Both British and Indians — Hindus and Muslims — have written about the causes that led to this revolt and shook the British Empire to its roots. While British authors regard the upheaval as the “Great Mutiny”, Indian historians call it the “Great War of Independence”. In fact, it was neither. It was a revolt.



Bhatt’s narrative is unique in more ways than one. One, it is part autobiography and part history. Two, the write up is based on what he saw and heard from those who had either participated in the event, or been witness to the actual happenings on the ground. Three, it provides details about the atrocities committed by the British on even those who didn’t participate in the uprising. Four, it tells us how fellow princely states collaborated with the British against native rulers who had challenged the authority of the East India Company. Such details are rarely available in the history books prescribed for school/college students. Pande has done an excellent job in providing the English translation of the uprising that changed the future of India. It was this event that forced the British to end the rule of the company. Henceforth, India became a colony of the British crown.



Born in 1827, Bhatt belonged to a poor Brahmin family. He decided to leave his village in Alibagh district of the then Bombay province to earn some money and repay the huge debt that his family had incurred in the course of the marriage of his brother and sisters. Bhatt commenced his journey in 1858. He was told that the dowager queen of Gwalior had decided to conduct a yagna in Mathura for which she had earmarked a substantial amount of `7-8 lakh. Learned Brahmins in Nagpur and Poona had received invitations to participate. Bhatt also decided to go to Hindustan — this is how the country was then called beyond the Vindhyas. Little did he realise that he would unwittingly become a witness to the upheaval that struck the country. During the course of his travel, which lasted for three years, he stayed in Gwalior, Kanpur, Lucknow, Jhansi, Bundelkhand, Kalpi, etc.



Near the Mhow military camp in Indore, Bhatt heard about the impending mutiny. He was told that the British had rejected the pleas of the Indian sepoys not to force them to load the new Enfield rifle with the new cartridges greased with cow fat and lard of the pigs. Instead, the Governor General invoked a conclave of the rulers of princely states and asked them to follow a set of 84 new and inviolable rules. These, among others, stipulated that if one brother became a Christian, he would not be denied share in the family property; he would also be free to reside in his ancestral house; a Hindu widow would be free to remarry; she and her children would not be denied share in ancestral property, etc.



The rulers returned to their respective capitals, unhappy. The sepoys, on their part, resolved that Hindus and Muslims would never convert to another religion. “Letters have been surreptitiously circulated to the effect that, on the 10th of June, when the commanders summon us, starting with the camp at Meerut, all the soldier brothers will say thrice to their commanding officers: ‘We won’t accept the cartridges, we won’t, we won’t’. And if the White men do not relent, they shall be thrown out bodily and all their ammunition, guns and monies will be confiscated by the native soldiers and their army camps will then be set on fire,” Bhatt was told by an Indian soldier.



While Bhatt was at Gwalior, he heard several stories about the spread of mutiny. There were speculations about which side the Maratha sardars would be on.



Lord Dalhousie, who was Governor General between 1848 and 1856, had pursued policies that aimed at turning India into Asian Britain. With this objective in mind, he introduced railways, uniform postage and electric telegraph. These measures, according to Dalhousie, were the three engines of social improvement. This is what had made the Western nations what they were. However, the methods Dalhousie used for acquiring further territories for the British went against the country’s traditions. He also violated the treaties entered into with the native rulers by his predecessor, Lord Wellesley. According to the Doctrine of Lapse, enunciated by Dalhousie, any princely state or territory under the direct influence of the East India Company would be annexed if the ruler was either “manifestly incompetent or died without a direct heir”. This was first applied in 1848 to Satara and thereafter to six more states, including Nagpur and Jhansi. Also, he applied the excuse of “misrule” for the annexation of Oudh in 1856. Even Nana Sahib was dispossessed of his pension.



KM Panikkar, a well-known historian, administrator and diplomat, observes in his book, A Survey of Indian History (1947): “In spite of the oppression, misrule and obvious degeneration, Oudh represented to the Mussalmans of north India the greatness of Islamic rule. With its annexation by the British, the last vestiges of Muslim authority had vanished and from Delhi to Murshidabad Muslims felt that their sun had indeed set. As for the Marathas, the great Houses of Scindia and Holkar still held vast tracts of north India in sovereignty. It was the annexation of Satara, Nagpur and Jhansi that they felt irretrievable blows to their prestige. The two great peoples (Hindus and Muslims), who had lost the empire of India, were in a sullen mood and the disaffection soon manifested itself in an open rebellion... Within 48 hours, Delhi had been occupied and Bahadur Shah proclaimed the Emperor of India. The whole of north India (except Punjab), especially the Gangetic valley, threw off the British yoke.”



The rulers of the states who had suffered at the hands of the British took part in the revolt. Bhatt tells us how the Rani of Jhansi died fighting the British. The fate of other rulers, big and small, was no different. They were either killed in battle or hanged, if caught alive. The British, however, didn’t only took their revenge on the rulers; they also reduced entire cities to vast cremation grounds, observes Bhatt.



Bhatt’s narrative gives details of more than half-a-dozen places where the British had let loose a reign of terror during 1857-58. Any such incident in Europe would have turned the entire area into a centre of pilgrimage. Not so in India. The new Indian leadership, ruling the country since its independence in 1947, has done nothing more than paying a lip service to those who had sacrificed their lives in 1857. The only explanation that can justify this behaviour is that Hindu leaders mostly suffer from slavish mentality or what Austrian psycho-analyst Chevalier Leopold von Sacher-Masoch calls “Masochism”.