A turning point
Whatever views we may hold of
the revolt of 1857 — whether it was a sepoy mutiny or a military
rebellion, national or feudal — the fact is that it offered the biggest
challenge to the largest European empire,
says Prof V.N. Datta
 Delhi, May 11, 1857 |
The
revolt of 1857 has been
seen essentially as a military rebellion, which was produced by the
British follies of political ineptitude. Some scholars have
interpreted the 1857 revolt as a Muslim conspiracy exploiting Hindu
grievances. Politically, the revolt has been viewed as the last
desperate effort of conservative India to protect its traditional
institutions from the impending threat of modernity.
I think that the revolt
of 1857 marked a turning point in the history of India. It was the
heralding of a new age. It crowned the dawn of India’s independence
from the fetters of foreign rule that had bound her. It was, in fact,
the first essay in India’s advent to freedom. It laid the foundation
of Indian nationalism. It acted as a great inspiration to our
countrymen, who felt inspired by the example set by the rebels who had
died fighting the British despite the heavy odds against them.
The revolt brought many
changes in the British system of governance in the country. The
immediate result of the revolt was the extinction of Mughal rule; and
the end of the East India Company as the ruling power. The East India
Company was replaced by the British Crown with Queen Victoria as the
Empress of India. The Indian army was organised on communal lines; and
the artillery came under the British control. The Bengal army that had
been involved in the mutiny disappeared, and the army was unified
under a single Commander-in-Chief. The revolt brought to an end the
progress of social and material advancement, which Lord William
Bentinck and Lord Dalhousie had initiated.
 General view of Delhi in 1857, just before the Mutiny. The Jama Masjid is in the Centre. (Sketch by Prince Alexis Soltykoff in The Illustrated Times) |
The mutiny proved
calamitous in the sense that it led to racial and religious
chauvinism. The bitter memories of 1857 sowed the seeds of mutual
distrust and resentment among the British and Indians, and estranged
their relations. The age of Sir William Jones and Thomas Munro, the
admirers of the antiquity of Indian culture, was over, and that of the
aggressive Imperial-minded Curzon and Michael O’ Dwyer had come.
The revolt exposed to
Indians the oppressive and exploitative nature of British rule, and
warned the British of the precariousness of their dominion. The
British showered immense benefits on the princes and the landed gentry
for their loyalty and support during the 1857 crisis. The princes
began to play the British game, and acted as a bulwark against the
rising tide of Indian nationalism.
Enormous literature has
appeared on the revolt of 1857. Sir John William Kaye and Col. J.B.
Malleson published the first authoritative historical work entitled
"History of the Sepoy War" in six volumes (1897). Kaye and
Malleson were the historians of the empire, who attributed the British
success over the rebels to the British character of muscularity. Kaye
also emphasised that the economic factor played a crucial role in
causing unrest among the peasantry in Oudh, which P.C. Joshi and Erick
Stokes developed later in their studies.
V.D. Savarkar, a
firebrand revolutionary, published his book "The Indian War of
Independence" in 1909 which the British authorities banned
immediately. Savarkar glorified the heroism of Indian rebels, who had
died fighting for the love of their country. Savarkar’s object in
writing his book was to arouse a spirit of patriotism among the rising
Indian youth.
In his writings and
speeches Jawaharlal Nehru maintained that the revolt of 1857 was a
feudal outburst headed by feudal chiefs, and their followers and aided
by others. He did not deny the popular character of the revolt, though
he did not call it national, the expression which Karl Marx and the
British conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli used. R.C. Majumdar, in
his study "The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857" (1857)
proclaimed with a rhetorical flourish that the revolt of 1857 was
neither national, nor war nor of independence.
Surrendra Nath Sen, a
reputed historian, was commissioned by the Government of India to
write a book on the 1857 revolt. His book entitled "Eighteen
Fifty Seven" was released in 1957 to mark the centenary
celebrations of the revolt. Sen came to the conclusion that originally
the army revolted but later in Oudh, the revolt assumed some form of a
national dimension in a restricted manner.
Sen’s study provoked
communist leader P.C. Joshi to publish his "Rebellion in
1857" (1957). Joshi’s study is an antidote to the orthodox
Indian and British historiography. By using the Marxist methodology
Joshi makes too much of the role the Indian peasantry played in the
rebellion. In his foreword to Sen’s book, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,
the Education Minister, doubted whether there was any trace of a
patriotic or nationalist sentiment among the Indian rebels.
It would be clear from
the foregoing account that there is a complete disagreement among
historians and writers on the character of the revolt of 1857. The
question boils down to whether the revolt was national, feudal or
local or a combination of these elements in varying degrees.
I think this
historiographical confusion has risen due to the use of the Western
concept of "national" and "nationalism" . If
national revolt means, as it does in a looser sense, a rebellion of a
subjected people against its foreign exploitative rulers, then the
Indian revolt qualifies itself to be called a national one. But if a
national revolt means the revolt of a politically organised community
of a whole country sharing a common identity and fighting jointly
against the ruling power, then the revolt of 1857 is not national.
History is a serious
business. It has no heroes or darlings. It is an explanatory mode of
thinking. There are certain questions to be asked when we are
celebrating the 150th anniversary of the revolt of 1857. We greatly
admire the rebels, our forbears, who had fought with courage the
greatest European power with meagre economic and military resources.
But what were they fighting for, what was the cause dear to their
heart?
The sepoys had felt
outraged when asked to use the greased cartridges containing the beef
and pig fat. Did the feudal chiefs, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Sahib, Kunwar
Singh and Tatya Tope think of the country or only of region, estate or
locality? Were they motivated by personal interests or by moral
ideals? Did they want to restore the Mughal sovereignty of Bahadur
Shah as their emperor? Of course, the Maulavi of Faizabad, Ahmadulla
Khan, was clear in his aims. Wearing a green turban he fought the
British bravely and wanted to protect Islam from the onslaught of
Christianity. The poet Ghalib fretted and sulked, and called the
Revolt of 1857 as rast khez-i-Beyja (unnecessary insurrection).
S.N. Sen, P.C. Joshi,
Majumdar and other writers have deplored the treacherous role of
Bahadur Shah Zafar and the Mughal princes. The princes were
prostituting at night, and in day time they were fleecing the Chandni
Chowk Jain and Marwari moneylenders and accumulating wealth. It is
true that Bahadur Shah was not a freedom fighter as made out by Mehdi
Hasan and other writers. Bahadur Shah was a mock-king, a puppet in the
hands of his wife, Mumtaz. He had no heart in the rebellion. He was
dragged into it. He was a poet, a humanist, who abhorred violence. He
was one of the finest representatives of Indo-Muslim culture, a true
descendant of his ancestor, Akbar the Great, whose watchword was
Suleh-e-Kul (Peace with all).
As I close this article,
certain images of the past float, and the first is that of rebel
sepoys fighting the British at Meerut on 10 May, 1857, and then
rushing to Delhi. The next day the Indian troops face Bahadur Shah
Zafar, and proclaim him the Emperor of India. The scene shifts to
Indian House, London and the occasion is 50th anniversary of the
revolt on 10 May 1907. The speaker is V.D. Savarkar who is exhorting
the Indian youth to overthrow the British rule by revolutionary means,
if necessary.
On the centenary
celebrations of the revolt, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of
India, addressed a huge rally at Ram Leela ground, New Delhi on May
10, 1957. As a historian, Nehru drew lessons from the revolt
experiences, and warned the nation to rise above the menace of caste,
religion and region and dedicate themselves to making India a strong
and vibrant nation.
Nehru’s speech is one
of the most moving and instructive documents. I should like the text
of his remarkable speech to be translated in Indian languages and
distributed among the youth in the college and universities of the
country, as also among our members of Parliament, our rulers, who are
expected to serve this nation with a sense of moral responsibility for
the welfare of our countrymen.
Year-1857 : Revolt at Meerut in May 1857.
NNNN
No comments:
Post a Comment