RETHINKING 1857 Edited by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya
Indian Council of Historical Research
First published in 2007
When the 150th Anniversary of the First War of Independence – Sepoy or military mutiny to the colonial rulers – was observed in 2007, one question which eluded the occasion was, How different was 1857 from 1947? Could the freedom fighters of 1857 have achieved something which the politicians of 1947 could not? Assuming for a moment that they achieved their immediate or short term aim of restoring Bahadur Shah Zafar to the throne of Delhi, would the leaders of 1857 have gone on to establish an egalitarian and a non-denominational society in the country? The biggest of all questions, would they have prevented the partition of India?
In an excellent introduction to the book, which is a collection of papers presented in a conference held in December, 2006 Prof. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya hints at the path the uprising would have taken while dealing with the social agenda of the rebellion as reflected in the proclamations of the leaders. These leaders perceived any infringement of caste hierarchy under British rule as part of the evils of British rule. The proclamation issued from the court of Birjees Qadr, Walee of Lucknow distinguishes “the persons of a lower order such as Sweeper, Chamar, Dhanuk, or Pasee” from the “persons of good descent.....Syed, Sheikh, Moghul or Pathan among Muhammedans or Brahmans, Chuttee, Bais or Kaith among the Hindoos.” The proclamation charges the British that they did not recognise the “honour and respectability of the higher orders” that under the instance of a chamar, “they force the attendance of a Nawab or a Rajah” whereas “under a Native government”, people of different castes “retain their respectability according to their respective ranks.” Certain other proclamations also oppose the legislation of the British to abolish the practice of Sati. Thus, the stress was on maintaining the status quo and, therefore, the ideal of social equality, which is one of the bedrocks of modernity, was not high on their agenda.
Other questions raised and answered in the introduction are, Was the outbreak of 1857 mainly Inspired by hurt religious sentiments activated by the composition of the grease on Enfield cartridges? Was it actually a Jihad? Was it correct to portray the rebellion as a ‘mutiny’ rather than as a rebellion with wider popular participation? In the opinion of Prof. Bhattacharya in the fluid situation of that turbulent year, many identities formed the bases of alliance and conflict such as regional and linguistic identities, interest groups – merchants, money lenders etc - occupational identities besides religious identities. Appeal to these groups was seen as the immediately unifying and effective way of mobilising people. Therefore, it is incorrect to privilege one particular identity over all others as the key to understand the events of 1857. In this context, Prof. Bhattacharya also points out an important distinction between the identities that are articulated in the public sphere in publicly proclaiming agendas of a political nature on the one hand, and identities which belong and usually remain the private sphere and find objectification in private practices and action of the individual and the family.
Was it Jihad? There were a number of proclamations and appeals which call for waging a Jihad and a war to save religion. Curiously enough, immediately afterwards, they also appeal to both Hindus and Muslims to fight the British unitedly, as for example in the following: “conjointly exert ourselves for the protection of lives, property and religion “(Muhammad Feroze Shah) and “All you Hindus are hereby solemny adjured by your faith in the Ganges, Tulsi and all you Mussulmans by your belief in God and the Koran “ (Maulvi Syed Kutb Shah). In Prof. Bhattacharya’s opinion the term Jihad was used by these leaders without religious connotation in a more general way meaning “a just war” or a “righteous war.” By all accounts, which includes British too, the Hindus and Muslims of the rebel forces fought unitedly and there was no rift between them. If Jihad had any religious meaning then this kind of unity would not have been possible. Similarly, the revolt was not confined to the soldiers as other classes such as religious leaders, traders, merchants and peasants participated in it. In fact, the revolt and the reprisal of the British resulted in the death of over a million people, which indicates the spread of the rebellion.
Prof. K.C. Yadav and William Dalrymple argue their case about the nature of the rebellion. Each has his own point of view and the evidence they marshal are noteworthy. In the end what goes against the religious interpretation was that the rebels fought together and there were hardly any instance of a fight between the Hindus and Muslims amongst them. Prof. Yadav draws attention to one pamphlets –that of Ernest Jones, a Chartist – amongst the many unfavourable accounts of the events of 1857 as described by various shades of opinion in London, which stands out for its sympathy for the rebels. The contents need to be quoted in full, not just for its brilliance but also for the moral courage of the author. Ernest Jones wrote in the pamphlet thus: “There ought to be but one opinion throughout Europe on the revolt of Hindustan. It is one of the most just, noble and necessary revolts ever attempted in the history of the world. Naples and France, Lombardy and Poland, Hungary and Rome present no tyranny so hideous as that enacted by the miscreants of Leadenhall Street and Whitehall in Hindustan. The wonder is, not that 170 million people should now rise – the wonder is that they should have every submitted at all. They would not, had they not been betrayed by their princes....a great cause is at issue – that cause is just, it is holy, it is glorious. Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, what would you say if a colony of Dutch Jews came here and asked permission to build a factory on Woolwich march; and if they, having gained time for strength and power, rushed upon you, unawares, sacked and burned your cities, outraged your women and murdered your population and thus, in the air of your surprise, dismay and weakness, subjugated you and your country – what would you say and do?.. What, we repeat, would you say and do? You would rise – rise in the holy right of insurrection and cry to Europe, and the World, to Heaven and earth, to bear witness to the justice of your cause.”
The three pieces on the uprisings in Jharkhand, Singhbhum and Chotanagpur chronicle the events in these regions. What comes out clearly from these writings are the constantly shifting alliances, the internecine quarrels between various factions and the completely lack of coordination between them. The British could re-establish their dominion over these wide territories with their characteristic doggedness helped by the poor coordination of their adversaries.
Tapti Roy returns to the question of the raison detre of the rebellion as reflected in the various rebel writings of 1857. The author emphasises that the soldiers were not fighting Christianity but the British State while at the same time giving a religious explanation to the uprising. The author relies on the Delhi Proclamation of 11 May 1857 which says that it was the British state which was guilty of mixing religion with politics by using the authority of State to spread Christianity and thus failing in its principal duty of protecting the interest of the people. Therefore, it was legitimate to rise against this perceived threat to the faith and beliefs of the community. In the author’s opinion, Deen and Dharma did not signify merely the religious beliefs of Muslims and Hindus, but rather their entire existence based on practised religious values, social conventions and cultural norms. The political objective of the Uprising was to overthrow British rule and replace it with an alternate order that would ensure the safety of people’s lives in this and the next world.
We need to return to the question raised at the beginning; whether the rebels had an alternative political vision for the country and its people? The cruel answer is ‘no’. The contra focal question: What course India would have taken had the rebels driven the British out of the country? Again, from whatever one gathers from this Book, the answer will be unflattering. We would have gone back to the safety of our castes and communities and left the larger question of nation building to the mercies of the Emperors, Feudatories, Zamindars and religious leaders. The inescapable conclusion is – in the words of Deep Kanta Lahiri Choudhury who writes about the communication crisis besetting the rebels – that 1857 represents the last of the medieval wars and was a part of the painful passage to the modern world. 1857 was not – again in the words of Prof. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya – an aborted harbinger of modernity.
Posts
