First war of independence: 1857

**acharya** · 02-26-2007, 02:36 AM

1857 Uprising should be studied objectively and dispassionately, says Mushirul Hasan

Special Correspondent

Event basically viewed from perspective of victor and vanquished

# Neutral genuine voices must be recovered
# Calls for systematic analysis of Ghalib

NEW DELHI: Historian and Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia University Mushirul Hasan on Sunday described the 1857 Uprising as a dramatic milestone in India's history whose significance could never be belittled.

"There must be an objective and dispassionate study and analysis of the 1857 revolt, but the problem arises when the state tries to appropriate the whole discourse and legitimise whatever it has been doing over the years," he said at the concluding seminar of the Sahitya Akademi's Festival of Letters on "Rising 1857: Colonialism, Literature and March to Freedom."

Prof. Hasan said the histories of the 1857 revolt were basically viewed from the perspective of the victor and the vanquished. "We should move away from this perspective and recover those neutral genuine voices that have not been in the historical discourses." The French revolution was objectively and dispassionately studied and analysed by historians, but this had not been the fate of the histories of the 1857 revolt.

He also called for a systematic analysis of Ghalib and other Urdu poets and writers whose works were not so sympathetic to Bahadur Shah Zafar.

Gujarati writer Sitanshu Yashashchandra said: "1857 was a time when India first revolted against Hylomorphism [doctrine that production is imposition of formal order on chaotic or passive matter] of the West. To remember 1857 fully and truly is to remember and recognise its relation with the 1908 satyagraha. The composite memory should make us think and act today to ensure that no company sarkar, nor any multi-national company impose its architectonic designs on the Indian people mistaking it for a chaotic and passive object."

Writer and director of the Bhartiya Bhasha Parishad Indra Nath Choudhuri and poet and former bureaucrat Keki Daruwala presided over the seminar. They said historians and writers needed to be more accommodative and objective in their representations on the 1857 events.

Mr. Daruwala described 1857 as a chain of sporadic events that had several elements of religious bias and caste prejudice.

Speaking about the literary and scholarly works produced so far on Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Harish Trivedi, critic, observed how considerations of gender had entered and modulated the way she was viewed. "She is a larger figure outside history, than in history."

Maharashtra scholar Harishchandra Thorat believed that the 1857 events made a deep impact on the Maharashtrian psyche and captured the imagination of contemporary Maharashtra.

Urdu scholar Wahab Ashrafi, Punjabi critic Gurbhagat Singh, Tamil writer Vasanthi and Oriya critic Prafulla Kumar Mohanty also participated in the seminar.

ramana · 02-26-2007, 09:38 PM

X-posted

William Darlymple's interview to Indian Express

QUOTEâIn 1857 a largely Hindu army found a symbol in the Mughal emperor. The contrast with the Babri demolition in â92 is strikingâ

...
 â¢ Eighty-five per cent upper-caste Hindus who need a symbol, and this symbol for them is the Mughal emperor in Delhi. No matter how decrepit he is, but they want that symbol and they have no problem with the fact that he is a Muslim. Right?

Sure. What it implies is that the big division with the two great religions took place after 1857. Took place in the second half of the 19th century and not before. And I think thatâs really important.

â¢ It is said the British figured it and they figured that their future lay in pushing ahead that divide. If not creating a divide, then widening the divide. And divide and rule begins then, leading to the partition.

Well, you have references to divide and rule earlier, but what I think really is the case is that you get much more self-consciousness of Hindus and Muslim identities. Among Muslims, you have Deoband growing up. Among Hindus, you have the Arya Samaj.
------------------------
Another thing to do is to review the Urdu and Hindi literary output of the post 1857 era to understand the deep impact of the Rising.

ramana · 03-12-2007, 10:47 AM

More on Mangal Pandey's death.
Deccan Chronicle, 13 March 2007
QUOTEIssurie was hanged for âinactionâ

By Akhilesh Mithal

Historical awareness in India, despite 2007 being the 60th year of independence (two generations of Indians have been born free) is mind-boggling.Â The political parties who are the beneficiaries, battening on the misinformation that causes and cements the communal divide (such as the RSS parivaar and its allies like the Shiva Sena and the Akali Dal), are interested in ignoring and suppressing the truth lest the very ground under their feet disappear to leave them high and dry and out of power which brings daily black money income and pomp and pageant, which feudal lords of the medieval past would be envious of.

As the Congress is second to none in playing the community or caste card, specially at election time, its vaunted "secular" credentials are doubtful if not entirely bogus as demonstrated on December 6, 1992, when P.V. Narasimha Rao and his cabinet of Congress and like-minded parties allowed the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque.

The consequence is that "Bharat Mein Angrezi Raj" (British Rule in India: 1757-1947) continues to be read from the British point of view. Those who perpetrated the worst crimes and atrocities, like what the British did in 1857, lie low wishing to be forgotten lest they be arraigned before world public opinion and asked to apologise and make at least token amends.

The descendants of their accomplices, those who betrayed the Indian nation by siding with the British in 1857 such as the Scindias of Gwalior and the Dogras of Kashmir and the Jat and Ahluwalia rulers of Patiala and Kapurthala, have retained wealth and power and added to it by becoming sycophants of the Nehru-Ghandy dynasty ruling independent India.

The Indian people and others who want the truth about 1857 are made to face silence or distorted history as if 1947 never occurred. Recently, and because of a movie, the name Mangal Pandey has become familiar to Indians. As insufficient research has gone into the making of the film, the image created is that of an almost isolated individual rising in revolt and paying for his act by death through hanging.

Mangal is shown striding up to the gallows in a heroic manner. In fact, Mangal was in no physical condition to even stand up, answer questions, cross examine witnesses or offer any kind of defence.

On the day of the occurrence, March 29, 1857, his musket, turned on himself and fired with the toe, sent the ball furrowing through the flesh and muscles of his torso and the flaming powder set his clothes alight. He suffered such great injury, burns and loss of blood that the senior officer present there, General Hearsey thought him dead and ordered an inquest. It was after the army surgeonâs examination showed signs of life still flickering that a Court of Enquiry was undertaken.

Mangalâs wounds were soon festering and his condition became parlous necessitating an almost dawn to late into the night court examination on April 6 and 7, 1857. The trial of (the dying of burn injuries, blood loss and spreading sepsis) Mangal Pandey was unusual as it took place throughout the those two days instead of the 11 am to 5 pm norm for court proceedings in British-ruled-India.

The prisoner answered questions by moving his head in the affirmative or negative, no questions were asked by him. Mangal was hanged at 5.30 am on April 8. Although an intrepid resolute and skilled warrior, he could not have faced the gallows by striding up to the scaffold. In all probability, he was hoisted from his sick bed and on to the springboard.

Mangal Pandeyâs action continued to reverberate long after his hanging. Jemadar Issurie Pandey was hanged on April 21, after a protracted trial to prove his inaction in the matter of Mangalâs revolt. He provided no succour to the two British officers injured by Mangal and even refused to lend his own sword to one of them after the latter had his own broken by Mangal.

The British report on Jamadar Issurrie Pandeyâs execution, records: "The prisonerâs behaviour and bearing upon the scaffold were manly and becoming the solemn position of one about to be launched into eternity." It is interesting to note that the British assessment in the spring of 1857, was that the Hindus of the Bengal Army were disaffected and the Muslims and Sikhs, loyal.

ramana · 03-18-2007, 10:20 PM

Ashok Mitra in Telegraph, Kolkota, 16 March 2007

QUOTE ANNIVERSARIES
- Three milestones in the nationâs annals
Cutting Corners - Ashok Mitra

Observing anniversaries has turned out to be more than a casual ritual; it is now almost de rigueur. There are some dates it would be heresy to run away from. In Anno Domini 2007, the patriotic-minded here feel particularly duty-bound to commemorate two events that happened two hundred fifty and one hundred years ago respectively: the battle of Plassey took place in 1757, and 1857 was the year of the Great Indian Uprising.

Historians have debated over the relative significance of the two occurrences, and will continue to do so. Plassey has a distinct emotional context for the Bengalis; that was the occasion, they love to think, they were deflowered of their liberty. Facts do not quite endorse this assumption. The protagonists on either side of that battle amid the mangroves of Plassey were not one hundred per cent, or even ten per cent, of Bengali vintage. The East India Company personnel apart, Siraj-ud-Daula, his grandfather, Alibardi Khan, and the rest of the lot were presumably of Pathan stock; so too was Mir Jafar. Such characters as Mir Kasim and Mir Madan belonged, one is pretty sure, to the tribe of Biharis who converted to Islam some generations ago. Mohanlal was a Kashmiri. Amir Chand and Jagat Sheth, the two financiers of Robert Clive, must have been banias who travelled down from the wilderness of Oudh or Rajputana. Even if these descriptions are erroneous in detail, it does not really matter, for the Bengalis in any case were nowhere in the picture; they were a docile flock who had accustomed themselves, over the centuries, to paying their fief to this or that rung of diverse feudal hierarchies. The rise of the Bengalis â specially of their Hindu species â actually coincided with Cliveâs conquest of eastern India.

Few will, however, quibble over the proposition that the outcome of the battle of Plassey provided the East India Company with a firm foothold on Indian territory, and allowed them the breathing space to plan the strategy of subjugating the rest of the subcontinent. In that sense, the seeds of the Indian Empire were indeed planted at Plassey, not so much by armed forces directly owing their allegiance to the British crown, but by mercenaries of the trading company. Bengali histrionics notwithstanding, there can, therefore, be no question that the year 1757 marks a watershed in the countryâs history.

What would have happened if Napoleon had not met his Waterloo in 1815 is a different matter. In the course of the century following Plassey, the British though succeeded even beyond their wildest expectations. Formally, it was still not British state power that kept winning the laurels, but the board of directors of the East India Company. This was, in many ways, unique: a bunch of traders annexing foreign lands on their own, without overt state support, except for the fortuitous possession of a royal charter.

On to 1857, which was a very near thing for the till-then-all-conquering Company; heterogeneous elements from different parts of the country were on the verge of expelling the white interlopers. Never mind if it was chance-erected, once the uprising took off, it was touch and go; the hegemony of the Company was saved only by the skin of the teeth. London realized it was much too risky to leave the affairs of this prized possession to the care of a freewheeling mercantile body of men. Although the rebellion was quelled, 1857 also marked the eclipse of the East India Company. The Empire of India qua Empire of India was ushered in; the empress, Victoria Regina, was certainly amused in this instance.

It was a coming together of disparate elements, with vastly divergent backgrounds and causes, who engineered the great rebellion of 1857, and, despite its eventual failure, it evoked widespread patriotic emotions. The Bengalis, however, were not a part of this grand national coalition. Their present descendants are welcome to suffer from a retrospective sense of shame for the role their forefathers played during the nationwide stir against the British, but that is neither here nor there. Circa the 1850s, the Bengali bhadralok community had just started to emerge. They never had it so good, thanks to British dispensations. They were solidly with the raj, and presented a united front against the beastly sepoys and suchlike who had the audacity to question the rule of law set up by the Cornwalises and the Bentincks. Mangal Pandey was no Bengali, but a Brahmin from the Prayag region. Barely a quarter of a century after the revolt was quelled, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee wrote a novel, Anandamath, to inform fellow Bengalis about the salient positive aspects of the British reign and how it would save Hindu culture and civilization from the oppression let loose by filthy Muslim infidels.

Anyway, by now, controversies over the significance of Plassey and, a century later, the siege of Delhi, Lucknow and Kanpur, have been rendered somewhat passÃ©. All the greater reason to wonder why the anniversary of another happening, which took place much closer in the past â exactly fifty years ago, in 1957 â is apparently receiving so little attention. By no means it was an event deserving to be passed over in silence. Till that year, 1957, the only instance of a communist party coming to power under what is described as a âfreeâ democratic system was the sleepy Italian canton of San Moreno. San Moreno was however never taken seriously; it was just a curiosum. What could be cured had to be endured: both the Italian regime presided over by the strongly entrenched Christian Democratic Party and the Catholic Church chose to put up with this aberration on the part of the otherwise well-behaved men and women of San Moreno â voting term after term for the communists.

San Moreno was not much more than a village; Kerala was a vastly different proposition. It was a state belonging to the Union of India, and its frontiers had been recently redrawn along linguistic lines. It had the highest rate of literacy in the country and it had the reputation of producing the smartest set of civil servants. And yet, come 1957, it voted the communists to power in the state assembly elections that year. That occurrence transmitted a shock wave across the nation and the continents: how could such an absurdity take place, the communists are not supposed to win in a freely-fought election contested by a multiplicity of parties. A frenzy of intolerance took over. The blessed Article 356 of the countryâs Constitution was availed of to pack off the communist chief minister, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, and his wretched flock. This blatant act of authoritarianism was crucially necessary, the people were informed, to rescue them from the menace of authoritarian communism.

1957 still made the point. It buried, once and for all, the notion of a monolithic India even as it destroyed the inviolability of the supposed axiom that free social choice will always exclude the communists. None can therefore refute the claim of that year being another milestone in the nationâs annals.

The town cynic is however irrepressible in all seasons. The year 1957, he will pass the judgment, also signalled the beginning of the end of the communist movement in India: once the comrades, to their own surprise, began to win âfreeâ democratic polls, some of them convinced themselves that a revolution is not a necessary condition for the establishment of a popular democratic society. From there, it was only a short haul to reach the conviction that not necessarily socialism, capitalism too could bring about peopleâs liberation. It is hardly surprising â the cynic will add, egregiously or otherwise â that comrades from Bengal are in the vanguard of those propagating this brave new thesis.
To

Yet it still in 2007, has not been realized by the Communists that they were ahead of their Chinese counterparts!

ramana · (This post was last modified: 03-19-2007, 10:58 PM by ramana.)

Husky, Your comments on parts of Ashok Mitra's article really belong in the commie thread. Thanks, ramana

GOI Calender celebrating From First War of Independence to Independence

Download Pdf and print in color on legal or tabloid paper and hang in you cubicle!!!

Husky · (This post was last modified: 03-20-2007, 09:50 PM by Husky.)

Post 145 (Ramana):
You're right. Besides, my post was little more than a rant anyway (moved to Monitoring Indian Communists - 2 thread)

**acharya** · 04-12-2007, 01:55 AM

Indians were fighting invaders for a thousand years

1857 was not the first but a continuation of war for Independence.

This is a gist of the speech by the former Chairman of the National Minorities Commission Shri Tarlochan Singh in the Rajya Sabha

The Presidentâs Address is injustice to the history in a way when he said that 1857 was the first war of Independence. Earlier also so many wars of Independence were fought. We can take the names of Dr. Sir Jadunath, Dr. R.C. Majumdar, DR. Sunder Nath Sen etc. Shivaji also fought against Mughalâs and Maharana Pratap also fought. All these wars were the symbol of freedom. First anglo-Sikh war was fought in 1845. 100th birth anniversary of Shaheed Bhagat Singh is going to fall on 27th September this year but the Government is sleeping. Is it so that Shaheed Bhagat Singh had played no role in the struggle of Independence? Only Satyagraha is being worshiped.

âSecularismâ has found place in address of the Honâble President. But who is breaking secularism. A new slogan is coined every day about secularism. A Bill was brought to give Constitutional status to the Minority Commission. But after two years, the Bill is seen no where. Whether it has been withdrawn or the Government does not want to bring it again. A Minority Ministry has since been formed by the UPA government. But what the minorities have gained from this. After one year, we have seen a news item that the Ministry has acquired its own office. A good man, who was earlier the Chief Minister of a State, is wasting his time in the Ministry. What the Ministry has done during a period of last one year?

There is a Ministry for Minority, Minority Commission and in addition to that there are four Committees. What does the Minority mean? Minority means only a particular community. In the name of secularism, the Government is dividing the society. Communal feelings are being spread in the name of secularism.

Sachchar Committee has written that if the minorities are better in Bangladesh and Pakistan, then why they are coming to India? This means that we are ahead of these two countries. Only this Government is telling that they are backward. I never saw any Islamic School in my district whereas Sikhs have a number of schools there. The Government should call a meeting of muslim scholars and discuss the matter of their backwardness and take a decision to improve their condition. If a community has its own entrepreneurship, no body on earth can stop them from improving. But the UPA Government is ruling the country in the name of secularism.

For the first time, we have seen in Punjab that Sikhs and Hindus fought together and won without using the name of religion. The Congress used the name of religion and lost the election. The Congress has displayed one advertisement with the photo of Gandhiji in Sirsa in Haryana. We also respect Gandhiji but never used his photo for any electoral gains.

I want to say one more thing which is about NCERT. Every government want to teach the students its own theory. We should decide it once for all by sitting together and discuss it. We should decide that what is to be taught or what is not to be taught. Text books should not be changed so frequently on the mercy of political babudoms. After all we have the history of more than 5,000 years and we all came from that. We have to maintain that rich cultural heritage.

I regret that a meeting of National Integration Council was convened after a long gap. All the leaders including Prime Minster and ex-Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee attended the meeting. We can take a decision and come to the conclusion for a permanent solution. I also want to raise a point on population explosion. No political party have a courage to say about this. Unless, we control the population which is 28-29 per cent today, we cannot prosper. At the same time we should also control price rise by producing more grains. I am happy that former Agriculture Secretary to the Government of India Dr. M.S. Gill and former Governor of Reserve Bank of India are the Members of this House. We can use their experience and knowledge. If they are allowed to deliver special lectures, then the country would be benefited.

ramana · 05-04-2007, 10:41 PM

Book Review:

The Telegraph, Kolkota, 4 May 2007

The Penguin 1857 Reader

QUOTEOld 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
The Penguin 1857 reader Edited by Pramod K. Nayar, Rs 295

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

**Hauma Hamiddha** · (This post was last modified: 05-06-2007, 11:06 PM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

1857 ceremonies begin in Meerat

Many Anglo-American authors saw this as a war between Christianity and paganism. This angle should not be brushed aside-- in India it is often ignored. 1857 did have elements of a religious war although different participants and beholders saw this differently.
Anglo-Americans: holy war on pagans and holy war on traditional Abrahmistic rivals the Mohammedans.
Moslems: Jihad on the Christians
Hindus: defense of their land first and then religious customs.

Of all participants the Hindus probably had the weakest sense of a religious war (though it was not absent). This situation has not been historical uncommon amongst Hindus- they often interpret the Abrahamistic ideologies through their lenses.

But the fact remains that there were many assaults on Hindu customs by the Britons including wanton killing or humiliation of brAhmaNas as practiced by the Islamic marauders before them.

ramana · 05-07-2007, 07:38 PM

Deccan Chronicle, 76 may 2007

QUOTEA lesson for the corrupt
Â
By Akhilesh Mithal

By the 18th Century the Mughal Empire had kept inva-ders out of India for 200 years (1526-1739). The excellence of the government provided can be judged from the steady increase the production of wealth.

The revenue collected in the reign of Shah Jahan (1628-1658) was double that of Akbar (1556-1605). The war of succession following Shah Jahanâs illness in 1657 caused great damage to the military prowess of the Empire. Aurangzebâs Deccan campaign of 30 years sapped resources further. Aurangzeb lived so long (94 Islamic years) and his successor, a very old man at accession, died only five years later.

The wars of succession that followed sapped the military prowess of the Empire further. Prosperity acted as an opiate.Â No country in the world would yield the wealth that could accrue to a person from landing a plum job such as commander-in chief or Vizier to the Mughal. Corruption?

Perhaps being a minister in India today is equally lucrative if illegal income is taken into account. When Nadir Shah defeated the emperor Muhammad Shah at Karnal on 13 February, 1739, the invader initially agreed to depart after collecting a ransom of only two crores of rupees. This pact was destroyed by the ambitions of the Nawab Vizier of Awadh, Saâadat Ali Khan. 

The Commander-in-chief, Samsamuddowlah, Khan Dauran had created a job vacancy by dying in battle.Â That plum job had not come to Saâadat Ali Khan but gone to a rival. The incensed and frustrated Saâadat Khan advised Nadir Shah to continue his advance into Shahjahanabad Dillee and collect many times two crores.

Some twelve solid gold thrones each weighing over 1,250 kilos and studded with emeralds rubies and pearls (with the Peacock throne alone carrying jewels worth 50 lakhs at 18th century prices) were lost along with several tones of coined bullion and utensils. The total value of the loot is inestimable.

The far-reaching effects of the Battle of Karnal (13th February 1739) on the administration of India were a dilution in the authority of the emperor. 

The history of Bengal provides an example of how values changed. The governor (Nawab Nazim) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Shuja Khan died at about the same time as the disastrous defeat. The kind of man he was can be judged from the account of a contemporary:

It would be difficult to mention all the good qualities of that worthy man. For there was not a man in his service whom he had not obliged by some personal favour, and â finding his dissolution at hand â he made a present of two monthâs wages to every nobleman, every man, civil or military, and to every soldier or trooper in his service, without excepting the servants of his household, or the women that attended as menial servants in his seraglio; and a few days before his death, he sent to ask pardon from every one of them, entreating their forgiveness.

He was so impartial an observer of justice, and a judge of so much benignity that the poorest suitor was sure of being in his presence upon a footing with his very son`85.

When Shuja Khanâs son Alauddowlah Sarfaraz Khan succeeded him to the musnud of Murshi-dabad all hitherto constant values such as the absolute authority of the Mughal Emperor and loyalty to the salt of patrons had been diluted.

It was "every man for himself".

Alivardi Khan made a representation to the Emperor that he would present Rs one crore to the presence in addition to all the property of Alauddowlah Sarfaraz Khan if he were appointed to the post of Nawab Nazim Bengal Bihar and Orissa.

In the battle that followed Alivardi Khan prevailed.

A grandson was born to him on the day of his victory, and he gave him his own name, Mirza Muhammad and the title Sirajuddowlah. He looked after his education and training and formally declared him as his heir on 6 th May, 1752.

The Battle of Plassey (Palaashee) in 1757 saw Mirza Muhammad Sirajuddowlah betrayed by Rai Durlabh Biswas and Mir Jaâafar. This was 250 years ago. Is there a lesson for the corrupt in power today?



Again its group and individual dynamics and not any idea of a nation.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 05-07-2007, 08:57 PM by Bodhi.)

05-09-2007, 07:35 PM

Brave and beautiful: the Rani of Jhansi in British eyes

**acharya** · 05-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Dr D N Tripathi

The glorious example of the heroes of 1857

May 09, 2007

The country is celebrating the 150th anniversary of what is variously termed as the First War of Independence, War of Independence of 1857, Indian Mutiny, the Great Indian Mutiny, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, the Rebellion of 1857 or the Revolt of 1857.

To understand the nature of the uprising of 1857, it is necessary to examine the historiography, divergent in opinion among the contemporary British historians and Indian historians as well as the present ones.

There have been nationalist, imperialist and Orientalist depictions of the 1857 uprising. But to really understand what happened in 1857, one has to study the 'native' sources and oral histories.

Barely 50 years ago, at the initiative of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the well-known work on 1857 was written by the then director of the National Archives, Dr Surendra Nath Sen. And with the publication of William Dalrymple's book, The Last Mughal, the controversy is very much alive even today.

Joseph Mazzini, an Italian patriot, described the uprising of 1857 in India as an insurrection of the first magnitude, which shook the foundation of British rule in India. Charles Raikes regarded it as primarily and essentially a mutiny of sepoys.

The same view was expressed by Kishori Chand Mitra, Sambhu Chandra Mukhopadhyaya, Harish Chandra Mukherjee and Sir Syed Ahmad. Some contemporary Englishmen viewed the uprising mainly as handiwork of the Muslims. Roberts, Coopland, Alexander Duff and many others regarded it as a long concocted Mohammedan conspiracy against the supremacy and rule of the English in India.

John William Kaye and C B Malleson were of the view that the rebellion as a joint endeavour of the two great communities -- Hindus and Muslims. John Bruce Norton regarded the uprising as a rebellion of the people rather than merely a mutiny of the soldiers. Many English writers, such as Malleson and Kaye, subscribed to this view and considered the uprising of 1857 as an organised campaign to drive away the English from India.

Benjamin Disraeli, the British prime minister, while speaking in the House of Commons, recognised the real character of the upheaval and declared the movement as a national revolt. V D Savarkar and Pandit Sunder Lal were the first Indian writers who claimed the uprising of 1857 as the First War of Independence.

The two historians, Tara Chand and S N Sen described it as 'a war of independence'. Jawaharlal Nehru also wrote: 'It is much more than a military mutiny and it spread rapidly and assumed the character of a popular revolt and a war of Independence'.

However, R C Majumdar expressed a radically different view. He said that the 'so- called First National war of Independence in 1857 is neither First, nor National, nor a war of Independence'. He holds the view that a general revolt or a war of Independence necessarily involves a definite plan and organisation, broad in perspective. The uprising of 1857 was however limited only to a greater part of UP and a narrow zone of its east, west and south.

In October 2006, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee, said: 'what the British sought to deride as a mere sepoy mutiny was India's First War of Independence in a very true sense, when people from all walks of life, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and language, rose against the British rule'.

Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be considered a war of Indian independence. Arguments against this include the fact that a united India did not exist at the time in political terms or that the rebellion remained confined to the ranks of the Bengal army (which nonetheless was the largest of the armies in India) and in North-Central India.

Arguments in favour say that even though the rebellion had various causes (sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the Doctrine of Lapse, etc), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Mughal Empire, which signified a national symbol for them, instead of heading home or joining services of their regional principalities, which would not have been unreasonable if their revolt were only inspired by grievances. However, it is clear that most of the Indian people accept the latter view and consider it as the First War of Independence.

After 1857, the British scaled down their programme of reform, increased the racial distance between Europeans and native Indians, and also sought to appease the gentry and princely families, especially Muslims, who had been major instigators of the 1857 revolt.

After 1857, the zamindars (regional feudal officials) became more oppressive, the caste system became more pronounced, and the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims became marked and visible. This as some historians argue, led to the policy of 'divide and rule'.

Marx's position is that the Indians were victims of both physical and economic forms of class oppression by the British. In his analysis, the clash between the soldiers and their officers was the inevitable conflict that resulted out of capitalism and imperialism. Local industry, specifically the famous weavers of Bengal and elsewhere, also suffered under British rule. Tariffs were kept low in accordance with the traditional British free market sentiments. Indigenous industry simply could not compete.

Whereas once India had produced much of England's luxury cloth, the country was now reduced to growing cotton for Britain's textile industry, the finished products of which were subsequently marketed back to India.

In conclusion I would say that the movement of 1857 was in expanse and significance greater than just a mutiny in the army. To my mind its most significant characteristic was the unity of the Hindu and Muslim communities in the struggle against foreign rule.

The last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II himself in his proclamation emphasised the necessity for unity between Hindus and Muslims. Further, in the battleground in 1857, the sepoys of both the communities fought shoulder to shoulder. The ultimate defeat of the movement does not in any way detract from the significance of the united struggle.

Today, in particular, when some forces in our country tend to erode the very basis of unity of the Indian people and, in particular, the harmony between the two larger communities, it is necessary to bear in mind the glorious example set by the heroes of 1857.

Professor D N Tripathi is a former chairman of the Indian Council for Historical Research. This article first appeared in the ICHR newsletter and appears with kind courtesy ICHR.

ramana · 05-10-2007, 09:35 PM

From The Telegraph, Kolkota, 10 May 2007

QUOTEKILL THE WHITE MAN
- The revolt of 1857 was too violent an event to celebrateÂ
Rudrangshu Mukherjee

<img src='http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070510/images/10top.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Mani Shankar Aiyar at the inauguration of the 150th anniversary celebrations of the âFirst War of Independenceâ, New Delhi, May 8Â

I must declare a vested interest in the revolt of 1857. Immediately after I finished my Masterâs in history, I decided, much to the surprise of all my teachers, save one, to write a doctoral dissertation on the revolt in the area the British called Oudh â a quaint anglicization of the name Awadh. The reason that all my teachers were surprised at my choice of subject was the belief, common among most historians in the Seventies, that there was nothing new to be said about the revolt. The subject was sterile and all that had to be said had been said in the centenary year and its immediate aftermath.

The lone voice of encouragement came from Barun De, who believed that 1857 was an event which had not really been worked upon. There was another source of inspiration. This was the famous Cambridge historian, Eric Stokes, whose essays on the subject I had read with excitement and profit. I was to get to know Eric later and learn an enormous amount from him, till cancer claimed him very untimely.

The point of this autobiographical sojourn is to set the context for my surprise at the sudden burst of enthusiasm among historians about the great uprising. There is nothing like a state-sponsored anniversary to stoke the interests of historians in a subject. The adjective, state-sponsored, is used advisedly. In a country with as rich and as diverse a history as Indiaâs, every year is an anniversary of something or the other. In June will come the 250th anniversary of the battle of Plassey. Is the Indian state celebrating that anniversary? The answer is no. The decision to celebrate the revolt of 1857 with some fanfare is based on the conclusion â put forward by some historians and accepted by the government of India â that the rebellion is worth celebrating because it represented Indiaâs first war of independence.

I hold a dissenting view, since I believe that 1857 should be remembered but not commemorated. Let me try and explain my reasons for holding this particular opinion. The reasons are embedded in the events themselves.

One hundred and fifty years ago today, the sepoys in the cantonment of Meerut mutinied. They killed their superior officers and every single British man, woman and child they could find. They burnt the bungalows in which the white people lived, and destroyed all government offices and buildings. âMaro firanghi ko [Kill the white man]â was the cry and the destruction was near total. A group of sepoys, after having cut the telegraph wires to Delhi, sped off towards the old Mughal capital. Arriving there on the morning of May 11, they entered the walled city and the Lal Qila. They asked the old Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah, to accept the nominal leadership of the revolt. Outside the Red Fort, violence and destruction reigned and Delhi passed out of British control by May 12. In both Meerut and in Delhi, common people, peasants from the surrounding countryside, artisans and the poor joined the sepoys in the killing, looting and destruction. A mutiny of the soldiery, as soon as it occurred, acquired the character of a general uprising.

The fall of Delhi was followed by the spread of the uprising all over north India. In station after station and cantonment after cantonment, the soldiers mutinied and killed white men, women and children. In every place, common people joined the sepoys. All over north India â from Delhi to Patna and from the Terai to Jhansi, British rule, one British officer noted, had collapsed âlike a house made of cardsââ. The Britons who had escaped the wrath of the rebels cowered in fear within the walls of the Residency in Lucknow, behind the âentrenchmentââ in Kanpur and in the Ridge in Delhi.

British administration was quick to recover from the shock and to retaliate. The shock grew, in the words of John Kaye, who wrote in the 19th century a magisterial history of what he called the Sepoy War, from âthe degradation of fearing those whom we had taught to fear usââ. The retaliation was brutal. In the summer of 1857, through a series of Acts, individual Britons were given powers to judge and to execute any Indian they suspected of being a rebel. The result was devastating. Kaye wrote, âIt is on the records of our British Parliament, in papers sent home by the Governor-General of India in Council, that â the aged, women and children, are sacrificed, as well as those guilty of rebellionâ. They were not deliberately hanged, but burnt to death in their villages. Englishmen did not hesitate to boast that they had âspared no oneâ.ââ

The events of 1857 churned around a vicious cycle of violence. The rebels killed mercilessly without considerations of gender and age. Witness the massacre on the river in Kanpur where nearly the entire British population was killed in a spectacular show of rebel power. The British killed indiscriminately to punish a population that had transgressed the monopoly of violence that rulers have over the ruled.

The British won and, like all victors everywhere, they memorialized their triumph. In Kanpur, to take one example, they transformed the well into which the bodies of the victims of a massacre had been thrown into a shrine. A weeping angel carved in marble by Marochetti was placed over the well. The shrine was an exclusive preserve of the white man till August 15, 1947. On that day, people damaged the nose of the angel, which had to be removed. In its place, a statue of Tantia Topi was erected. One icon was replaced by another.

Today, as the celebrations begin to mark the 150th anniversary of the rebellion, some questions need to be asked: is 1857 an occasion to celebrate? Can the Indian state uphold the violence that is inextricably linked to that year? Can the Indian state say that it is loyal to the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, and in the same breath celebrate 1857 when so many innocent people, on both sides, were brutally killed?

{Wow Wait a minute. How can you drag in MG in the discussion on 1857? Confine yourself to the fact that you as an intellectual abhor violence and were it not for the violence of 1857 you would not be able to tak and write about it.It was teh road of 1857 on whihc MG strode to help gather momentum to drive the British out. }

The questions are important because in India, there is no mode of remembering without celebrating. We commemorate to remember, sometimes even to forget. Eighteen fifty-seven is an event to remember, as all events of the past are; it is an event to comprehend and analyse because, as Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, it showed âman at his worstââ. That comprehension and analysis is best done outside the aegis of the State.



I think it is time to analyse the writers of 1857 to get an idea of what the elite are thinking. I submit that the inteelctuals want to deride the event while the politicians understanad its suicide to ignore it.

1957 had JLN at the helm does anyone have info on how it was commomerated/remembered?

This thread has collected the info from over three years and is the best online resource on 1857.

Highlighting acharya's post:

QUOTEDr D N Tripathi

The glorious example of the heroes of 1857

May 09, 2007

The country is celebrating the 150th anniversary of what is variously termed as the First War of Independence, War of Independence of 1857, Indian Mutiny, the Great Indian Mutiny, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, the Rebellion of 1857 or the Revolt of 1857.

To understand the nature of the uprising of 1857, it is necessary to examine the historiography, divergent in opinion among the contemporary British historians and Indian historians as well as the present ones.

There have been nationalist, imperialist and Orientalist depictions of the 1857 uprising. But to really understand what happened in 1857, one has to study the 'native' sources and oral histories.

Barely 50 years ago, at the initiative of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the well-known work on 1857 was written by the then director of the National Archives, Dr Surendra Nath Sen. And with the publication of William Dalrymple's book, The Last Mughal, the controversy is very much alive even today.

Joseph Mazzini, an Italian patriot, described the uprising of 1857 in India as an insurrection of the first magnitude, which shook the foundation of British rule in India. Charles Raikes regarded it as primarily and essentially a mutiny of sepoys.

The same view was expressed by Kishori Chand Mitra, Sambhu Chandra Mukhopadhyaya, Harish Chandra Mukherjee and Sir Syed Ahmad. Some contemporary Englishmen viewed the uprising mainly as handiwork of the Muslims. Roberts, Coopland, Alexander Duff and many others regarded it as a long concocted Mohammedan conspiracy against the supremacy and rule of the English in India.

John William Kaye and C B Malleson were of the view that the rebellion as a joint endeavour of the two great communities -- Hindus and Muslims. John Bruce Norton regarded the uprising as a rebellion of the people rather than merely a mutiny of the soldiers. Many English writers, such as Malleson and Kaye, subscribed to this view and considered the uprising of 1857 as an organised campaign to drive away the English from India.

Benjamin Disraeli, the British prime minister, while speaking in the House of Commons, recognised the real character of the upheaval and declared the movement as a national revolt. V D Savarkar and Pandit Sunder Lal were the first Indian writers who claimed the uprising of 1857 as the First War of Independence.

The two historians, Tara Chand and S N Sen described it as 'a war of independence'. Jawaharlal Nehru also wrote: 'It is much more than a military mutiny and it spread rapidly and assumed the character of a popular revolt and a war of Independence'.

However, R C Majumdar expressed a radically different view. He said that the 'so- called First National war of Independence in 1857 is neither First, nor National, nor a war of Independence'. He holds the view that a general revolt or a war of Independence necessarily involves a definite plan and organisation, broad in perspective. The uprising of 1857 was however limited only to a greater part of UP and a narrow zone of its east, west and south.

In October 2006, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee, said: 'what the British sought to deride as a mere sepoy mutiny was India's First War of Independence in a very true sense, when people from all walks of life, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and language, rose against the British rule'.

Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be considered a war of Indian independence. Arguments against this include the fact that a united India did not exist at the time in political terms or that the rebellion remained confined to the ranks of the Bengal army (which nonetheless was the largest of the armies in India) and in North-Central India.

Arguments in favour say that even though the rebellion had various causes (sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the Doctrine of Lapse, etc), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Mughal Empire, which signified a national symbol for them, instead of heading home or joining services of their regional principalities, which would not have been unreasonable if their revolt were only inspired by grievances. However, it is clear that most of the Indian people accept the latter view and consider it as the First War of Independence.

After 1857, the British scaled down their programme of reform, increased the racial distance between Europeans and native Indians, and also sought to appease the gentry and princely families, especially Muslims, who had been major instigators of the 1857 revolt.

After 1857, the zamindars (regional feudal officials) became more oppressive, the caste system became more pronounced, and the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims became marked and visible. This as some historians argue, led to the policy of 'divide and rule'.

Marx's position is that the Indians were victims of both physical and economic forms of class oppression by the British. In his analysis, the clash between the soldiers and their officers was the inevitable conflict that resulted out of capitalism and imperialism. Local industry, specifically the famous weavers of Bengal and elsewhere, also suffered under British rule. Tariffs were kept low in accordance with the traditional British free market sentiments. Indigenous industry simply could not compete.

Whereas once India had produced much of England's luxury cloth, the country was now reduced to growing cotton for Britain's textile industry, the finished products of which were subsequently marketed back to India.

In conclusion I would say that the movement of 1857 was in expanse and significance greater than just a mutiny in the army. To my mind its most significant characteristic was the unity of the Hindu and Muslim communities in the struggle against foreign rule.

The last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II himself in his proclamation emphasised the necessity for unity between Hindus and Muslims. Further, in the battleground in 1857, the sepoys of both the communities fought shoulder to shoulder. The ultimate defeat of the movement does not in any way detract from the significance of the united struggle.

Today, in particular, when some forces in our country tend to erode the very basis of unity of the Indian people and, in particular, the harmony between the two larger communities, it is necessary to bear in mind the glorious example set by the heroes of 1857.

Professor D N Tripathi is a former chairman of the Indian Council for Historical Research. This article first appeared in the ICHR newsletter and appears with kind courtesy ICHR.


Interesting view of Sri Tripathi in above post. Looking for syncretic threads as can be seen in the last para.

However there was a difference. The Hindus were looking at the Mughal Emperor as a symbol of political unity for Hindusthan and the Muslims as Dalrymple and others wrote were looking at restoring the Muslim rule. And that is why they cooperated. The Brits understood that and sought to divide and rule by selective pandering.

The genius of Mahatma was that he was able to evoke the desire for freedom across the whole nation and not just in some regions and mane the IFM a truly national movement.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 05-12-2007, 03:07 AM by Bodhi.)

05-12-2007, 10:02 AM

Regime change, nation building 
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Was Nana Saheb proposing a United States of India? In this engaging extract from The War of Independence: 1857, VD Savarkar describes how the last Peshwa made plans for the coming war, carefully building a coalition.

In Brahmavarta [Bithoor, near Kanpur, seat of Nana Saheb], a programme was being prepared as to how to organise properly all the materials for the war so as to bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion. In the third chapter, we left Rango Bapuji [who led the Chhataprati of Satara's embassy to Britain] and Azimullah Khan [who led Nana Saheb's embassy to Britain] holding secret interviews with each other in some London rooms. Though history cannot record the exact conversation the Brahmin of Satara held with the Khan Sahib of Brahmavarta, still, it is as certain as anything can be that the map of the rising was being prepared by these two in London.

After leaving London, Rango Bapuji went straight to Satara, but it was not possible for Azimullah Khan to go direct to Hindusthan. The extent of the dominions and the diplomacy of those against whom the war was to be waged were not now confined to Hindusthan alone. Hence, it was necessary to attack the British Empire in as many places as possible. It was also essential that it should be ascertained from what quarters in Europe direct help or moral sympathy could be expected.

With this object, Azimullah Khan made a tour in Europe before returning to India. He went to the capital of the Sultan of Turkey, famed throughout the world as the Khalifa of all Moslems. Being informed that, in the Russo-Turkish War then going on, the English had been defeated in the important battle of Sebastopol, he stayed some time in Russia.

Many English historians have a suspicion that Azimullah had gone there to ascertain whether Russia would pursue the war against England in Asia, and, if possible, to enter into an offensive and defensive treaty. When the trumpet of National War had been blown, all people openly declared that the Nana had completed a treaty with the Tsar of Russia and the Russian army was ready to fight against the Feringhis. If we bear this in mind, the above suspicion is strengthened.

When Azimullah was in Russia, he had an interview with the well-known writer [William] Russell, the military correspondent of the London Times. The poor man could not have even dreamt that, immediately after the Turko-Russian War, he would have to send from Hindusthan news of the wonderful activities of his guest. As soon as Azimullah heard the news of the defeat of the English, and that the Russians had beaten back the attack of the united forces of the English and the French on June 18 [1855], he obtained admittance into the English camp. His dress was Hindusthani and rich like that of a prince.

As soon as Russell came out, Azimullah said to him, "I want to see this famous city and those great Rustoms, the Russians, who have beaten the French and the English together." Undoubtedly, Azimullah was a past master in irony and satire. This curiosity on the part of Azimullah to see these brave Rustoms who defeated both the English and the French Russell undertook to satisfy, by inviting him to his tent. On that day, till the shades of sunset closed round them completely, "He was looking with marked interest at the fire of the Russian guns." One cannonball of the Russian guns burst right at his feet, but he did not move.

Azimullah, before returning home in the evening, said to Russell, "I have my serious doubts whether you could ever capture this strong fortified position." That night, Azim slept in Russell's tent, and he left the next day, early in the morning. On the table was left this note: "Azimullah Khan presents his compliments to Russell, Esq., and begs to thank him most truly for his kind attentions."

Planning a post-war India

It is difficult to say where Azimullah went after leaving Russia. Yet, from the mention in the Proclamation of Cawnpore later on, it would appear as certain that he was trying to put through some diplomatic scheme in Egypt also. So, Azimullah then completed his European tour and returned to Brahmavarta. As soon as Azim reached Brahmavarta, the whole political atmosphere of the palace was changed ...

Nana's programme was first to fight a united fight, to make India free and, by removing internecine warfare, to establish the rule of the United States of India which would, thus, take its rightful place in the council of the free nations of the earth. He also felt that the meaning of "Hindusthan" was thereafter the united nation of the adherents of Islam as well as Hinduism.

As long as the Mahomedans lived in India in the capacity of the alien rulers, so long to be willing to live with them like brothers was to acknowledge national weakness. Hence, it was up to then necessary for the Hindus to consider the Mahomedans as foreigners. And moreover this rulership of the Mahomedans, Guru Govind in the Panjab, Rana Pratap in Rajputana, Chhatrasal in Bundelkhand, and the Maharattas by even sitting upon the throne at Delhi, had destroyed; and, after a struggle of centuries, Hindu sovereignty had defeated the rulership of the Mahomedans and had come to its own all over India. It was no national shame to join hands with Mahomedans then, but it would, on the contrary, be an act of generosity.

So, now, the original antagonism between the Hindus and the Mahomedans might be consigned to the past. Their present relation was one not of rulers and ruled, foreigner and native, but simply that of brothers with the one difference between them of religion alone. For, they were both children of the soil of Hindusthan. Their names were different, but they were all children of the same Mother; India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by blood. Nana Sahib, Bahadur Shah of Delhi, Moulvi Ahmad Shah, Khan Bahadur Khan, and other leaders of 1857 felt this relationship to some extent and, so, gathered round the flag of Swadesh leaving aside their enmity, now so unreasonable and stupid.

In short, the broad features of the policy of Nana Sahib and Azimullah were that the Hindus and the Mahomedans should unite and fight shoulder to shoulder for the independence of their country and that, when freedom was gained, the United States of India should be formed under the Indian rulers and princes.

How to achieve this ideal was the one all-absorbing thought of everyone in the palace of Brahmavarta. Two things were necessary for the success of this terrible war that was to be waged to win back freedom. The first thing was to create a passionate desire in Hindusthan for this ideal; the second was to make all the country rise simultaneously ... These two things it was necessary to accomplish; and this in such a manner that the Company's government should not suspect anything while the scheme was yet unripe ...

Nana sends out emissaries

A little before 1856, Nana began to send missionaries all over India to initiate people into this political ideal. In addition to sending missionaries to awaken the people, Nana also sent tried and able men to the different princes from Delhi to Mysore, to fill their minds with the glorious ideal of the United States of India and to induce them to join in the Revolution. These letters, which were sent into every Durbar secretly, clearly pointed out how the English were playing the game of reducing India to insignificance by annexing Swadeshi kingdoms under the pretext of "no heir", how those states which were spared yet would soon be reduced to the same fate as the others and how, under the yoke of slavery, country and religion were both being trampled underfoot; and they concluded by exhorting the princes to work for the Revolution which was to make them free.

Direct evidence is available that messengers and letters from Nana were sent to the states of Kolhapur and Patwardhan, to the Kings in Oudh, the princes in Bundelkhand, and others. The English arrested one of such messengers at the Durbar of Mysore. The evidence given by this man is so important that we give it word for word below:

"Two or three months before Oudh was annexed, Shrimant Nana Sahib had begun sending letters. First, no one would reply, for no one hoped for any success. After Oudh was annexed, however, Nana began a regular battery of letters and, then, the opinions of Nana began to appeal to the Sirkars of Lucknow. Raja Man Singh, the leader of the Purbhayas, was also won ever. Then the Sepoys began to organise amongst themselves and the Sirkars of Lucknow began to help them. No replies to letters were received till Oudh was annexed; but as soon as that was accomplished, hundreds of people came forward boldly and replied confidentially to Nana. Next came the affair of the cartridges and, then, the disaffection was so great that letters were simply showered on Nana."

This very agent has given a long list of the letters sent by Nana to the various Durbars.

While agents of Nana were moving from one Durbar to another from Delhi to Mysore in order to draw them into the War of Independence, it was in the Dewan-i-Khas of Delhi, more than in any other Durbar, the seeds of Revolution began to take root ... At this juncture, the English were engaged in a war with Persia. Seeing that a simultaneous rising in India would be a help, the Shah of Persia began to open diplomatic correspondence with the Emperor of Delhi.

In the Declaration of the Emperor of Delhi, it had been made quite clear that a confidential agent had been sent to Persia from the Delhi Durbar. While this intrigue was going on at the Durbar of the Shah, right in the city of Delhi agitation was started to stir the public feeling to its very depths.

For this work, even public Proclamations were sometimes posted up on the walls of the town. In the beginning of 1857, a Proclamation couched in the following terms appeared boldly: "The army of Persia is going to free India from the hands of the Feringhis. So, young and old, big and small, literate and illiterate, civil and military, all Hindusthanee brothers should leap forth into the field to free themselves from the Kaffirs" ...

Missionaries of revolution

After sending letters to the various Durbars from Brahmavarta, Nana exerted himself thoroughly to awaken all the latent power of the people. When Brahmavarta, Delhi, Lucknow, Satara and such other big and prominent princes figured conspicuously in the Revolutionary Organisation, how could this organisation suffer for want of money?

To preach to all those who were a power among the people, thousands of Fakirs, Pundits, and Sanyasis were sent out in an incredibly short time. It is not true to say that all these Fakirs were true Fakirs; for, some of the Fakirs and Sadhus lived with the grandeur of Amirs. Elephants were given to them for travelling. Guards armed to the teeth travelled with them, and every stage on their way was a regular camp. Provided with such paraphernalia, they could influence and impress the people better, and the Sirkar also had fewer reasons to suspect them. Influential and noble Moulvies were appointed to preach the political Jehad, and they were rewarded with thousands of rupees. Through towns and villages, these Moulvies and Pundits, these Fakirs and these Sanyasis began to travel, from one end of the country to the other, preaching secretly the war for political independence ...

This work of preparing for revolutionary rising was done so cautiously and secretly that not much inkling of what was going on could reach even such cunning people as the English, until the explosion actually took place. When such a Fakir or a Sanyasi went to a village, a strange agitation and an unrest began in that village, and of this the English were sometimes cognisant. Whisperings went on in bazaars; "sahibs" were refused water by the bhishtis, ayahs left English homes without permission; baberchis purposely stood before the memsahibs half-dressed; and Indian messenger boys walked insolently and slovenly before their "masters" when sent out.

These Fakirs and Pundits used to walk round and about the military cantonments more particularly. From Barrackpore to Meerut, Umballa and Peshawar, they started secret societies and, more than that, practically surrounded every military cantonment. The Hindu and Moslem Sepoys in the army being very devoted to their religious teachers, the Sirkar, though they might suspect them, could hardly proceed against them. For they feared that the Sepoys would find in it another grievance against the government ...

That patriot Moulvie Ahmad Shah, whose sacred name has cast a halo round Hindusthan, whose glorious achievements we shall have to describe very soon, began similarly to tour through the country preaching the Revolutionary War. At last, when he began to preach in Lucknow itself, to thousands and tens of thousands in open meetings, that there was no other way of saving the country and the religion than by killing the English, he was arrested for sedition and sentenced to be hanged ...

Coalition of the willing

The secret organisation of the Revolution, which was first started in Brahmavarta, was now growing at a tremendous rate. By this time, nuclei had been established in various places in Northern India and regular communication had been established between them. Rango Bapuji was trying hard to create nuclei of this organisation in the Deccan. The palace at Brahmavarta was the focus of the activities at Cawnpore; the same function was performed for Delhi by the Dewan-i-Khas.

The great and saintly Ahmad Shah had woven fine and cleverly the webs of Jehad - the War of Independence - through every corner of Lucknow and Agra. Kumar [Kunwar] Singh, the hero of Jagadishpur, had taken the leadership of his province and, in consultation with Nana, had been busy gathering materials for war. The seeds of the Jehad had taken such root in Patna that the whole city was a regular haunt of the Revolutionary party.

Near Calcutta, the Nabob of Oudh and his Vizier, Ali Nakkhi Khan, had seduced all the Sepoys and were ready for the occasion. The Mahomedan population of Hyderabad began to call secret meetings. The coils of the Revolution began to wind themselves round the Durbar of Kolhapur. The states of Patwardhan, and the father-in-law of Nana, at Sangli, were ready to fight - with their followers - under the banner of the united nation in the coming war.

Why, right in Madras, in the beginning of the year 1857, the following Proclamation began to appear from the walls of the city:

"Countrymen and faithful adherents of your religion, rise, rise ye, one and all, to drive out the Feringhi Kaffirs! They have trampled underfoot the very elements of justice, they have robbed us of Swaraj; determined are they to reduce to dust our country. There is only one remedy, now, to free India from the insufferable tyranny of the Kaffir Feringhis, and that remedy is to wage a bloody war. This is a Jehad for Independence! This is a religious war for justice! Those who fall in such battles will be their country's shahids.

Opened wide are the doors of Heaven for the shahids. But Hell is burning fierce to engulf those wretches, those cowardly traitors, who turn away from this national duty! Countrymen, of these, which would ye have? Choose now, even now!"

-- This book was written on the 50th anniversary of 1857. Though archaic, spelling used by the author has been largely retained. http://www.dailypioneer.com/AGENDA1.asp?ma...t&counter_img=6

05-15-2007, 07:43 PM

Ramana,
QUOTE1957 had JLN at the helm does anyone have info on how it was commomerated/remembered?

Not much details available online. In 1957 Govt of India did have centinnial celebrations and it created a lasting impression on a 11 year old American kid named Andrew Ward who was visiting India. Andrew Ward was inspired by this to dig into history and write the book Our Bones Are Scattered on this 1857 war.
Book review here

05-21-2007, 06:51 AM

Some interesting facts in an HT article. But not posting the link since it contains baseless anti-RSS propaganda.

QUOTENew research is revealing astounding facts. The view that Sikhs sided with the British in 1857 is false. Patiala, Nabha, Jind and Kapurthala cis-Sutlej Rajas, the men to send soldiers against Zafar to Delhi, were even anti-Ranjit Singh. They sided with the British during Ranjit Singhâs lifetime as well as during the two Punjab wars. After Ranjit Singhâs death in 1840, his Khalsa army took control of the Lahore Durbar. Like the Bengal army sepoys, the Khalsa soldiers too were âpeasants in uniformâ. After being disbanded in 1849, they fanned out into the Punjab countryside. In 1857, Mohar Singh, a Khalsa army veteran, declared openly in Bahadur Shah Zafarâs favour, going as far as declaring a KhalsaMughal Raj in Ropar.

So it was only the cis-Sutlej Sikhs that supported the British. But here too, in 1858, the 10th Sikh Infantry revolted. British officers and the rulers of Patiala, Nabha and Jind were on record stating that they could not trust their soldiers, and that even cis-Sutlej Sikhs were âgetting excited by news from Awadh and the Hindustani areasâ.

This is sensational because the entire 10th Sikh Infantry revolt has been suppressed. Students of history are mostly unaware of their pro-Zafar role, including the Benaras-Jaunpur revolt of the Ludhiana Regiment. Zafarâs proclamations and the 1857 ânational songâ mentions Sikhs, along with Hindus and Muslims, as patriotic Indians. No less revealing is the role of the Bombay army and the Maharashtra-Gujarat-Karnataka risings. Bombay army infantry and cavalry units revolted in Kolhapur, Satara, Karachi, Bombay Aurangabad, Nasir , abad and Ahmedabad. No one knows that two sepoys ââ one Hindu and one Muslim ââ of the Bombay infantry were blown to bits from a cannonâs mouth, in what today is Azad Maidan in Mumbai.

The 1858 Konkan-West Coast guerrilla fight stretched from Raigad and Ratnagiri to Savantwadi. In it, Mahar, Maratha, Kannada and Tulu warriors fought shoulder to shoulder. Nearly every Indian district ââ whether in the UP-Bihar-Madhya Pradesh belt, in Orissa and Assam-Bengal, or in west India ââ showcases an amazing pattern of âone Hindu, one Muslimâ martyr. In Jharkhand, a plaque in Chatra commemorates Jaimangal Pandey and Sheikh Nadir Ali. The 1857 prisoners from Assam sent to the Andaman penal colony were split equally between Hindus and Muslims. In Maharashtra, Pathans and Arabs figure prominently in the 1857 Khandesh (Nasik-Jalgaon-Dhule) struggles launched by the Bhils and Kolis. In Karnataka, the Gulbarga, Dharwar, Raichur risings saw Lingayat-Ramoshi-MarathaMuslim participation.

It is commonly believed and propagated that the Madras army and the Madras Presidency was bereft of risings. Yet, in Vaniyambadi of Madras, which was full of Labbai Muslims, the 8th Madras Cavalry rose. Elsewhere, led by Thevar-Vellala sepoys, several men of the 37th Madras Infantry deserted. In Vellore, in 1858, Madras army sepoys killed their British officers. In the Andhra-Telangana country Girijan tribes of the , coastal-Godavery belt rose under a Reddi leader and a Muslim-Pathan ex-soldier. In Adibalad and Warangal, and Cuddapah and Nellore in Rayalseema, Pathans and Sheikhs formed a small army with Gond and Kapu help. In Kerala, Moplah agitators, helped by Ezvhas (scheduled castes) and Namboodiris (Brahmins), staged risings in the Malabar.

06-07-2007, 12:38 AM

Devotees offer cigarettes at Captain Baba's mausoleum in Lucknow
QUOTEIt is said Gore Baba alias Mohammad Ashim, worked as Captain in the British Army when the British ruled India. He died during the uprising of 1857. But he had a special liking for the "Capstan" brand of cigarette. 

After his death, a mausoleum was built and today it is revered as "Captain Baba's Dargarh". As he was known for smoking cigarettes, the followers started a convention to offer the same at his mausoleum.The devotees bring this particular brand as their expression of affection for the Baba.

Gore Baba was a highly respected person and some believed he had divine qualities. Later, admirers started calling him Captain Baba.

**acharya** · 06-09-2007, 01:15 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._states_map.svg

<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Indian_revolt_of_1857_states_map.svg/530px-Indian_revolt_of_1857_states_map.svg.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Login




Remember me Lost Password?