1857 War

250 years of the Battle of Plassey

In Kolkotta on June 23, a play, "Plassey" marked the completion of 250
years of the Battle of Plassey.

The Battle of Plassey took place on June 23, 1757, at Palashi, India,
on the banks of the Bhagirathi River, about 150 km north of Calcutta,
near Murshidabad, then the capital of the Nawab of Bengal. The
opponents were Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal,
and the British East India Company. The battle was waged during the
Seven Years' War in Europe (1756�1763); the French East India Company
sent a small contingent to fight against the British East India Company.

Siraj-ud-Daulah's army commander defected to the British, causing his
army to collapse. As a result, the entire province of Bengal fell to
the Company. The enormous wealth gained from the Bengal treasury
allowed the Company to significantly strengthen its military might.
Today, Plassey is judged to be one of the pivotal battles leading to
the formation of the British Empire in India.

P�lash, an extravagant red flowering tree (Flame of the forest), gives
its name to a small village near the battlefield. A phonetically
accurate romanization of the Bengali name would be Battle of Palashi,
but the spelling "Plassey" is now conventional.

Background

The ostensible reason for the Battle of Plassey was Siraj-ud-Daulah's
capture of Fort William, Calcutta (which he renamed Alinagar) during
June, 1756, but the battle is today seen as part of the geopolitical
ambition of the East India Company and the larger dynamics of colonial
conquest.

This conflict was precipitated by a number of disputes [2]:

* The illegal use of Mughal Imperial export trade permits
(dastaks) granted to the British in 1717 for engaging in internal
trade within India. The British cited this permit as their excuse for
not paying taxes to the Bengal Nawab.
* British interference in the Nawab's court, and particularly
their support for one of his aunts, Ghaseti Begum. The son of
Ghaseti's treasurer had sought refuge in Fort William, and Siraj
demanded his return.
* Additional fortifications with mounted guns had been placed on
Fort William without the consent of the Nawab; and
* The British East India Company's policy of favouring Hindu
Marwari merchants such as Jagat Sheth .

During this capture of Fort William, in June 1756, an event occurred
that came to be known as the Black Hole of Calcutta. A narrative by
one John Zephaniah Holwell, plus the testimony of another survivor,
Cooke, to a select committee of the House of Commons, coupled with
subsequent verification by Robert Orme, placed 146 British prisoners
into a room measuring 18 by 15 feet, and only 23 survived the night.
The story was amplified in colonial literature, but the facts are
widely disputed[3]. In any event, the Black Hole incident, which is
often cited as a reason for the Battle at Plassey, was not widely
known until James Mill's History of India (1817), after which it
became the grist of schoolboy texts on India.

As the forces for the battle were building up, the British settlement
at Fort William sought assistance from Presidency of Fort St. George
at Madras, which sent Colonel Robert Clive and Admiral Charles Watson.
They re-captured Calcutta on January 2, 1757, but the Nawab marched
again on Calcutta on February 5, 1757, and was surprised by a dawn
attack by the British [4]. This resulted in the Treaty of Alinagar on
February 7, 1757 [5].

Growing French influence

At the connivance of the enterprising French Governor-General Joseph
Fran�ois Dupleix, French influence at the court of the Nawab was
growing. French trade in Bengal was also increasing in volume. The
French also lent the Nawab some soldiers to operate heavy artillery
pieces.

Ahmad Shah Abdali

Siraj-Ud-Daulah faced conflicts on two fronts simultaneously. In
addition to the threat posed by the British East India Company, he was
confronted on his western border by the advancing army of the Afghan,
Ahmad Shah Abdali, who had captured and looted Delhi in 1756. So,
Siraj sent the majority of his troops west to fight under the command
of his close friend and ally, the Diwan of Patna, Ram Narain.

Court intrigue

In the midst of all of this, there were intrigues at Siraj Ud Daulah's
court at Murshidabad. Siraj was not a particularly well-loved ruler.
Young (he succeeded his grandfather in April, 1756 at the age of 23)
and impetuous, he was prone to make enemies quickly. The most
dangerous of these was his wealthy and influential aunt, Ghaseti Begum
(Meherun-Nisa), who wanted another nephew, Shawkat Jang, installed as
Nawab.

Mir Jafar, commander-in-chief of the army, was also uneasy with Siraj,
and was courted assiduously by Ghaseti. Eventually, through the
connivance of traders such as Amichand (who had suffered as a result
of the siege of Calcutta), and William Watts, Mir Jafar was brought
into the British fold.

Company policy

The Company had long since decided that a change of regime would be
conducive to their interests in Bengal. In 1752, Robert Orme, in a
letter to Clive, noted that the company would have to remove Siraj's
grandfather, Alivardi Khan, in order to prosper [6].

After the premature death of Alivardi Khan in April, 1756, his
nominated successor was Siraj-ud-Daulah, a grandson whom Alivardi had
adopted. The circumstances of this transition gave rise to
considerable controversy and the British began supporting the
intrigues of Alivardi's eldest daughter, Ghaseti Begum against that of
his grandson, Siraj.

Instructions dated October 13, 1756 from Fort St. George instructed
Robert Clive, "to effect a junction with any powers in the province of
Bengal that might be dissatisfied with the violence of the Nawab's
government or that might have pretensions to the Nawabship".
Accordingly, Clive deputised William Watts, chief of the Kasimbazar
factory of the Company, who was proficient in Bengali and Persian, to
negotiate with two potential contenders, one of Siraj's generals, Yar
Latif Khan, and Siraj's grand-uncle and army chief, Mir Jafar Ali Khan.

On April 23, 1757 the Select Committee of the Board of Directors of
the British East India Company approved Coup d'�tat as its policy in
Bengal.

Mir Jafar, negotiating through an Armenian merchant Khwaja Petruse,
was the Company's final choice. Finally, on June 5, 1757 a written
agreement was signed between the Company, represented by Clive, and
Mir Jafar. It ensured that Mir Jafar would be appointed Nawab of
Bengal once Siraj Ud Daulah was deposed.

Troops

The British army was vastly outnumbered, consisting of 2,200 Europeans
and 2,100 native Indians and a small number of guns. The Nawab had an
army of about 50,000 with some heavy artillery operated by about 40
French soldiers sent by the French East India Company.

Principal officers - British

* Major Killpatrick
* Major Grant
* Then Major Eyre Coote, later Lieutenant-General, and then Sir
Eyre Coote
* Captain Gaupp
* Captain Richard Knox, 1st CO of the 1st Bengal Native Infantry

Principal officers - Nawab

* Mir Jafar Ali Khan - commanding 16,000 cavalry
* Mir Madan
* Manik Chand
* Rai Durlabh
* Monsieur Sinfray - French artillery officer

British East India Company Regiments

* 39th (Dorsetshire) Regiment of Foot, 1st Battalion
* 1st Bombay European Fusiliers, also known as 103rd Regiment of Foot
* Royal Madras Fusiliers, also known as 102nd Regiment of Foot
* Royal Bengal Fusiliers, also known as 101st Regiment of Foot
* 1st. Bengal Native Infantry (BNI), also known as the Lal Paltan
(Hindi for Red Platoon)
* 9th Battery, 12th Regiment, Royal Artillery [7]
* 50 naval ratings from HMS Tyger [8]

Battle details

The battle opened on a very hot and humid morning at 7:00 a.m. on June
23, 1757 where the Nawab's army came out of its fortified camp and
launched a massive cannonade against the British camp. The 18th
Century historian Ghulam Husain Salim describes what followed:
" Mīr Muhammad Jafar Khān, with his detachment, stood at a distance
towards the left from the main army; and although Sirāju-d-daulah
summoned him to his side, Mīr Jafar did not move from his position. In
the thick of the fighting, and in the heat of the work of carnage,
whilst victory and triumph were visible on the side of the army of
Sirāju-d-daulah, all of a sudden Mīr Madan, commander of the
Artillery, fell on being hit with a cannon-ball. At the sight of this,
the aspect of Sirāju-d-daulah's army changed, and the artillerymen
with the corpse of Mīr Madan moved into tents. It was now midday, when
the people of the tents fled. As yet Nawāb Sirāju-d-daulah was busy
fighting and slaughtering, when the camp-followers decamping from
Dāūdpūr went the other side, and gradually the soldiers also took
to
their heels. Two hours before sun-set, flight occurred in
Sirāju-d-daulah's army, and Sirāju-d-daulah also being unable to stand
his ground any longer fled. "
[9]

At around 11:00 a.m., Mir Madan, one of the Nawab's most loyal
officers, launched an attack against the fortified grove where the
East Indian Company was located, and was mortally wounded by a British
cannonball. This cannonade was essentially futile in any case; the
British guns had greater range than those of the French.

At noon, a heavy rainstorm fell on the battlefield, wherein the tables
were turned. The British covered their cannons and muskets for
protection from the rain, whereas the French did not.

As a result, the cannonade ceased by 2:00 p.m. and the battle resumed
where Clive's chief officer, Kilpatrick, launched an attack against
the water ponds in between the armies. With their cannons and muskets
completely useless, and with Mir Jafar's cavalry who were closest to
the English refusing to attack Clive's camp, revealing his treachery,
the Nawab was forced to order a retreat.

By 5:00 p.m., the Nawab's army was in full retreat and the British had
command of the field.

The battle cost the British East India Company just 22 killed and 50
wounded (most of these were native sepoys), while the Nawab's army
lost at least 500 men killed and wounded [10].

Aftermath

The Battle of Plassey is considered as a starting point to the events
that established the era of British dominion and conquest in India.

Mir Jafar's fate

Mir Jafar, for his betrayal of the Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah and alliance
with the British, was installed as the new Nawab, while Siraj Ud
Daulah was captured on July 2 in Murshidabad as he attempted to escape
further north. He was later executed on the order of Mir Jafar's son.
Ghaseti Begum and other powerful women were transferred to a prison in
distant Dhaka, where they eventually drowned in a boat accident,
widely thought to have been ordered by Mir Jafar.

Mir Jafar as Nawab chafed under the British supervision, and so
requested the Dutch East India Company to intervene. They sent seven
ships and about 700 sailors up the Hoogley to their settlement, but
the British led by Colonel Forde managed to defeat them at Chinsura on
November 25, 1759. Thereafter Mir Jafar was deposed as Nawab (1760)
and they appointed Mir Kasim Ali Khan, (Mir Jafar's son-in-law) as
Nawab. Mir Kasim showed signs of independence and was defeated in the
Battle of Buxar (1764), after which full political control shifted to
the Company.

Mir Jafar was re-appointed and remained the titular Nawab until his
death in 1765, while all actual power was exercised by the Company.

Rewards

As per their agreement, Clive collected � 2.5 million for the company,
and � 234,000 for himself from the Nawab's treasury [11]. In addition,
Watts collected � 114,000 for his efforts. The annual rent of � 30,000
payable by the Company for use of the land around Fort William was
also transferred to Clive for life. To put this wealth in context, an
average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual
income of � 800 [12].

Robert Clive was appointed Governor of Bengal in 1765 for his efforts.
William Watts was appointed Governor of Fort William on June 22, 1758.
But he later resigned in favour of Robert Clive, who was also later
appointed Baron of Plassey in 1762. Clive later committed suicide in
1774, after being addicted to opium.

Terms of agreement

These were the terms agreed between the new Nawab and the Company:

1. Confirmation of the mint, and all other grants and privileges in
the Alinagar treaty with the late Nawab.
2. An alliance, offensive and defensive, against all enemies whatever.
3. The French factories and effects to be delivered up, and they
never permitted to resettle in any of the three provinces.
4. 100 lacs of rupees to be paid to the Company, in consideration
of their losses at Calcutta and the expenses of the campaign.
5. 50 lacs to be given to the British sufferers at the loss of Calcutta
6. 20 lacs to Gentoos, Moors, & black sufferers at the loss of
Calcutta.
7. 7 lacs to the Armenian sufferers. These three last donations to
be distributed at the pleasure of the Admiral and gentlemen of Council.
8. The entire property of all lands within the Mahratta ditch,
which runs round Calcutta, to be vested in the Company: also, six
hundred yards, all round, without, the said ditch.
9. The Company to have the zemindary of the country to the south of
Calcutta, lying between the lake and river, and reaching as far as
Culpee, they paying the customary rents paid by the former zemindars
to the government.
10. Whenever the assistance of the British troops shall be wanted,
their extraordinary charges to be paid by the Nawab.
11. No forts to be erected by the Nawab's government on the river
side, from Hooghley downwards.

* One of members of Clive's entourage at Plassey was a young
volunteer called Warren Hastings. He was appointed the British
Resident at the Nawab's court in 1757. Warren later became the first
Governor-General of India for the British East India Company between
1773 to 1786 when he was impeached for corruption.
* Clive was later awarded the title Baron of Plassey and bought
lands in County Limerick and County Clare, Ireland naming part of his
lands near Limerick City, Plassey. It retains this name to this day
and is now the site of the University of Limerick.
* The French guns captured at this battle can still be visited at
the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta.
* The infamous meeting between Mir Jafar and Watts took place at
Jaffarganj, a village close to Murshidabad. Mir Jafar's palace now
stands in ruins at the place, but close to it is a gate called
Namakharamer Deori (literally traitor's gate) where Watts is supposed
to have entered the palace disguised as a purdanasheen (Urdu for
veiled) lady in a palanquin.
* One of the unseen protagonists of the court drama was a wealthy
Sikh trader who went by the family name Jagat Sheth (Hindi: World
Banker (actual name - Mahtab Chand)). He was a hereditary banker to
the Mughal Emperor and the Nawab of Bengal and thus well conversant
with court intrigues. He negotiated a 5% commission from Clive for his
assistance with the court intrigue to defeat Siraj. However, when
Clive refused to pay him after his success, he is supposed to have
gone mad. The family (i.e. Jagat Sheths) remained bankers to the
Company until the transfer of the British head quarters to Calcutta in
1773 [13].
* The Indian rebellion of 1857 began almost exactly a century
later during May, 1857
* Plassey Day is still celebrated by 9(Plassey) Battery, Royal
Artillery

Quotes

* "A great prince was dependent on my pleasure, an opulent city
lay at my mercy; its richest bankers bid against each other for my
smiles; I walked through vaults which were thrown open to me alone,
piled on either hand with gold and jewels! Mr. Chairman, at this
moment I stand astonished at my own moderation" - Baron Robert Clive
commenting on accusations of looting the Bengal treasury after
Plassey, at his impeachment trial in 1773 [14] [15]
* "Heaven-born general" - British Prime Minister William Pitt 'The
Elder', Earl of Chatham referring to Robert Clive
* "It is possible to mention men who have owed great worldly
prosperity to breaches of private faith; but we doubt whether it is
possible to mention a state which has on the whole been a gainer by a
breach of public faith." - Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay, later
British Secretary at War, who condemned Clive's actions

References

1. ^ a b c Paul K. Davis (1999). 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient
Times to the Present. Santa Barbara, California. ISBN 1-57607-075-1.
2. ^ Dirks, Nicholas. Scandal of the Empire - India and the
creation of Imperial Britain London, Harvard University Press, 2006,
ISBN 0-674-02166-5
3. ^ Dalley, JanThe Black Hole: Money, Myth and Empire,London, Fig
Tree, June 2006, ISBN 0-670-91447-9
4. ^ Robert Clive reports to his father on his victory over
Sirajuddaulah, 23 February 1757
5. ^ Bad Link
6. ^ Hill,S.C. The Indian Record Series, Bengal in 1756-7., 3 vols.
London, 1895-1905, Vol. 2:307
7. ^ The British Army
8. ^ 9 (PLASSEY) BATTERY ROYAL ARTILLERY, THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY, 23
JUNE 1757
9. ^ Ghulam Husain Salim Riyazu-s-Salatin (Calcutta) 1902 Fasc. IV
Available Here
10. ^ Robert Clive's letter to the Select Committee of the Board of
Directors of the British East India Company reporting on the battle,
26 July 1757 - at the Project South Asia
11. ^ This requested article does not exist
12. ^ Prices & Money, The Salacious Historian's Lair
13. ^ Macaulay, Thomas Babbington Critical and Historical Essays,
London, 1828, Part III
14. ^ Bad Link
15. ^ Dirks, Nicholas. Scandal of the Empire - India and the
creation of Imperial Britain London, Harvard University Press, 2006,
ISBN 0-674-02166-5

[edit] Further reading

* Chaudhury, S. The Prelude to Empire; Palashi Revolution of
1757,, New Delhi, 2000.
* Datta, K.K. Siraj-ud-daulah,, Calcutta, 1971.
* Gupta, B.K. Sirajuddaulah and the East India Company, 1756-1757,
Leiden, 1962
* Harrington, Peter. Plassey 1757, Clive of India's Finest Hour,
Osprey Campaign Series #35, Osprey Publishing, 1994.
* Hill, S.C. The Three Frenchmen in Bengal or The Commercial Ruin
of the French Settlement in 1757, 1903
* Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York:
Norton and Company, 1999.
* Marshall, P.J. Bengal - the British Bridgehead, Cambridge, 1987.
* Raj, Rajat K. Palashir Sharajantra O Shekaler Samaj, Calcutta, 1994.
* Sarkar, J.N. The History of Bengal, 2, Dhaka, 1968.
* Spear, Percival Master of Bengal. Clive and His India London, 1975
* Strang, Herbert. In Clive's Command, A Story of the Fight for
India, 1904

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

P.C. Joshi and 1857

It is gratifying that Mainstream has published a few interesting and instructive articles as a mark of respect to the memory of the distinguished Communist leader, P.C. Joshi, on his birth centenary (April 14, 2007). The article ‘Remem-bering Puranda’ written by his cousin and namesake, a leading intellectual, captures with sensitivity the anguish and sorrows which P.C. Joshi bore stoically before he died. Until the last moment of his life, there was burning within him a passionate love for his country and countrymen, whose lot he was ever anxious to ameliorate.

I did not know P.C. Joshi nor was I drawn to the ideology of Marixt thought to which he was firmly committed, though, like many others, I benefited from it for understanding the social and economic forces operating in the vicissitudes of human affairs.

In early 1968 I was consulting the archival records in the research room of the old National Archives of India building when my eyes fell on a person bearing a dignified carriage, clad in short pant and shirt, wearing thick glasses, and peering into the Hansard volumes (the British Parliamentary debates), and taking copious notes in his old notebook. As he was leaving after an hour or so, I saw in his hand a book edited by Horst Kruger on K.M. Ashraf, and that aroused my interest. After some hesitation, I asked him whether I could see the volume for a while to which he said, ‘How are you interested in it?’ I said that ‘I had the privilege of being Dr Ashraf’s colleague in Delhi University, teaching history, and written an article for this volume’. Seeing the contents of the volume he said, ‘Well, the volume is yours. You are the author.’ I hesitated to accept his kind gift (Ashraf had died in Berlin and Kruger had brought out a volume in his honour). Joshi’s gift still occupies a prominent place in my bookshelf.

As a part of the celebration of 150th anniversary of the Revolt of 1857, the National Book Trust under the chairmanship of Professor Bipan Chandra organised a symposium on the new edition of Joshi’s book ‘Rebellion 1857’ which was published fifty years ago to commemorate the centenary of 1857. At the symposium Professor Irfan Habib, the eminent historian who had written a succinct foreword to the book, presided. A large number of people attended the seminar held in the Auditorium of India International Centre, New Delhi.

Appreciating the significance of Joshi’s book, Irfan Habib maintained that Joshi took a view of the events of 1857 completely different from those existing then and included elements that were new. Habib emphasised that being a confirmed Marxist, Joshi tried to look at Indian history on its own terms. ‘He stuck to this position in coming out with the book,’ he said. Professor K.C. Yadav, a well-known historian, pointed out that generally historians have neglected the regional dimensions of the mutinies that had challenged the British forces in different parts of the of the country. He supported Joshi’s contention that the Rebellion of 1857 was national, and not a military or sepoy.

In his Preface Joshi was modest enough to write:

I am not a professional historian and had to resort to the old fashioned method of speaking through lengthy quotations. If I annoy the modern stylist my only defence is that I am supplying the younger readers with documentation from older books, etc. which are not easily available.

Joshi’s own essay ‘1857 In Our History’, which covers less than one-third of his book, provides ample evidence of his wide scholarship, analytical skills, and lucidity of expression. In support of his views, he cites 217 sources drawn from first-class primary sources including even the Parliamentary Papers. At times he casts a dice in favour of even those historians whose views he contests while maintaining the tenor of his arguments.

Of course, Joshi was right in saying that he was not a specialist in history in the sense that he was not a professional historian nor was he trained in the austerities of historical discipline. But why should he be so modest in saying so? In fact, in many ways, non-specialists have written better history than professional historians who tend to produce their works within a narrow framework, circumscribed by the well-regulated canons of conventional research methodology that is followed with rules of the thumb.

The greatest work on the history of the Roman Empire was written by a non-professional historian. Lord Macaulay, a prominent public figure in British politics, wrote the History of England, which established him as a pioneer in the reconstruction of British social history. In our times, Michael Foot, a leader of the Labour Party, published some of the finest essays on British public life and institutions. As part of his father Winston Churchill’s biography, his son Randolph Churchill, a member of the British Conservative Party, wrote the first two brilliant volumes, which have become authoritative works of reference. In our country, Jawaharlal Nehru showed a pro-found historical sense in his books, especially in his Discovery of India, which is a testimony to India’s cultural unity in its diversity. And I have yet to find a more candid and brilliant review of the range of India’s’ history than K.M. Panikkar’s A Survey of Indian History, which, with some excisions and editing, would perhaps have served as a far better textbook for schools and colleges in the country than the kind of stuff doled out in a scissor-and-paste manner by the so-called panel of expert professional historians.

—

THE question is: why did P.C.Joshi hold a symposium on the 1857 Rebellion, and bring out a volume on it, a corporate work to which several well-known writers made contributions? What gave an impulse to his thought of making the 1857 a theme of his historical enquiry? I think that Joshi was completely disenchanted with the kind of historical works that were being produced to mark the first centenary celebrations of the 1857 Rebellion.

Joshi felt that the most widely quoted British historians, Sir John William Kaye and Lt.Col. G.B. Malleson, the authors of the History of the Indian Mutiny (in six volumes), were primarily the historians of the British Empire who ascribed the British victory over the Indian rebels to the British character of masculinity.

According to Joshi, Kaye and Malleson had provided largely a British perspective to the Rebellion of 1857. But Joshi acknowledges that Kaye did underline the disastrous effects of the British land settlement policy which brought untold misery to the peasantry in Oudh, causing unrest and rebellion against the British authority, the viewpoint which Joshi and Eric Stokes elaborated later. Joshi thought that V.D. Savarkar’s The Indian War of Independence lauded, glorified and romanticised the role of the Indian rebels, and ignored the part the people played in the rebellion. Joshi held the view that Savarkar’s study, though inspired by a spirit of patriotism, lacked a critical rigour. Savarkar wrote in an ornate style, and modelled his history on the historical novels of Sir Walter Scott, which had evoked the memory of the historic struggles of his Scottish forebears and Scottish Highland society.

Joshi felt completely dissatisfied with Jawaharlal Nehru’s presentation of the Rebellion of 1857 as a ‘feudal outburst’ headed by feudal chiefs, and their followers, and aided by the widespread anti-British sentiments. Joshi’s main complaint was that, curiously enough, Nehru called the 1857 Rebellion the Indian war of Independence but he did not call it ‘national’. Obviously, there was some ambivalence in Nehru’s views on the Revolt of 1857. On the one hand, Nehru felt deeply moved by the patriotic spirit of a large number of people during the Revolt, but, on the other, he found an utter lack of coordination and unity among the Indian rebels. It seems that Nehru was largely influenced in his understanding of the revolt by S.N. Sen’s interpretation of the Rebellion. However, there was no ambiguity in the views of R.C. Majumdar on the Revolt of 1857. With a rhetorical flourish, he proclaimed that the Revolt was neither national, nor a war, nor of indepen-dence. Majumdar wrote:

The miseries and bloodshed of 1857-8 were not the birth-pangs of freedom movement in India, but the dying groans of an obsolete aristocracy and centrifugal feudalism of the medieval age.

I think that the immediate provocation for Joshi to produce his book was the publication of Eighteen Fiftyseven by Surendranath Sen whom the Government of India had commissioned to write for celebrating the 1857 centenary. Sen was a highly respected and reputed historian of long standing who had made a definite contribution to Maratha History. He also used some new archival material in the British libraries in England. It took nearly two years for Sen to complete his work. Sen’s story of the 1857 Revolt shows his profound scholarship, a wide perspective and analytical insights. He unfolds the 1857 Rebellion region-wise with meticulous care. Sen’s main argument is that originally the Indian sepoys, provoked by the sight of the greased cartridges, revolted at one swoop, but, as the Rebellion gained a wider base, it assumed especially in Oudh some form of a national dimension where, along with the sepoys, the peasantry and others, joined together to fight the British forces.

Sen has no sympathy for the rebel leaders whom he thought were a fusty musty lot, the reactionaries, and old liners; and he argues that if the leaders of such a medieval outlook had succeeded, then the progress of Indian’s social and educational development, which the British Government had initiated, would have ended. Amazed at Sen’s view that the British rule was a blessing for the people of India, Joshi draws the inference from Sen’s contention that under the circumstances, the right thing for the country is that the British rule should continue till eternity so that the task they had undertaken may be completed.

—

JOSHI’S essay on ‘1857 In Our History’ in his book is an antidote to the orthodox British and Indian historiography. Joshi had made use of Karl Marx’s writings on the Rebellion which had appeared in the New York Daily Tribune. In Marx’s view, the Rebellion of 1857 was a ‘national revolt’. Joshi has offered a Marxist interpretation of the Rebellion. Joshi maintains that originally the 1857 Rebellion was led by Indian feudals (not of them alone) but there were ‘other social forces of the common people in action during the struggle’. Joshi adds:

the popular forces are active enough, healthy in their aspirations, clear-headed in their ideas to prevent feudal restoration in India.

To substantiate his view that the rebels had devised a plan to subvert the British rule, Joshi refers to the activities of the ‘Court of Mutineers’ set up by the rebels. According to Joshi, the ‘Court of Mutineers’ represented the institution of the soldier-peasant democracy within the framework of constitutional monarchy. (p. 207) It is true that the Court acted at times like a Panchayat, but especially in Delhi there were strong dissensions among its members which adversely affected the unity of action at critical moments. The Court forced the King Bahadur Shah to sign proclama-tions, even though he was averse to the idea of doing so.

I think that Joshi has made too much of the role of the peasantry during the Rebellion, though he is absolutely right that the Rebellion took its most intense form in Oudh, where the peasantry was most adversely affected by the British land settlement policy. The Bengal Army that fought the British Army fiercely was largely drawn from Oudh, but in the Army there were also a large number of high-caste Brahmans. According to Joshi, the rebels offered the biggest challenge to the British in Delhi, the North-Western Provinces, Bundelkhand, Rohilkhand, Oudh, and in a large part of Bihar. I think that this aspect has generally been ignored that the Rebellion took its most violent turn in the areas where no British military regiments were stationed.

Joshi repudiates Talmiz Khaldun’s thesis which he had presented in his essay ‘The Great Rebellion’. He does not agree with Khaldun’s view that the Rebellion ended as ‘a peasant war against indigenous landlordism and foreign imperialism’. Joshi found no evidence to suggest that the Indian peasantry had freed itself from the feudal bonds politically and economically. Joshi throws light on the network of Indian spies who were operating in Delhi and from whom the British were obtaining secret information about the activities of the rebels, and of what was happening in the Mughal Court in the Red Fort. There is a need for the study of Indian espionage during 1857 like the high level work produced by F.H. Hinsley on the Intelligence Service in the Second World War.

Joshi tells us how the Mughal Princes, Nawabs, Zinat Mahal Begum and the King Bahadur Shah were playing a duplicitious role during the 1857 Rebellion, while supporting the rebels on one side, and negotiating with the British for a settlement when the weather is rough on the other. Here Joshi comes closer to R.C. Majumdar’s view that the only epithet which fitted Bahadur Shah’s role was that he was a traitor, no more no less.

I do not think that Bahadur Shah was a traitor. He was a mock-king; a puppet turned this way or that by the British and the rebels. He had no heart in the rebellion. He was dragged into it. He abhorred violence. He was a poet and a mystic who revered all religions. He was a humanist who bore no ill will to anyone. He was one of the finest representatives of Indo-Muslim culture and a true descendant of his great forebear, Akbar the Great, whose cardinal principle of statecraft was Suleh-e-Kul (peace to all). A full-scale biography on Bahadur Shah has been written by Aslam Parvez, which has been translated by Azra Kidwai.I Joshi is highly critical of the role of the greedy and selfish Mughal Princes who indulged in fleshy carnal adventures with prostitutes at night, and pillaged the Hindu and Jain moneylenders in day time in Chandni Chowk.

I think that the disagreement among historians regarding the character of the Rebellion has arisen due to a lack of adequate explanation on the concept of a ‘Nation’ and ‘Nationalism’. The question arises whether there was cooperation or coordination of action among the rebels in different parts of the country. Did the rebels and their leaders devise a well-prepared plan or scheme and prepare a military strategy to fight the British authority? Did they possess adequate economic and military resources to sustain their struggle? The ideals were noble, but there was a wide gap between ideology and action. Did the rebels know what they were replacing, and whom they were setting up as their rulers in the country? What were their dreams? And what was their perspective? The poet Ghalib, a witness to the uprising, called the Revolt ‘Baija rastkhez (unnecessary resurrection)’. To put it differently, for Ghalib, the Revolt was a thoughtless venture. When I started this awhile, I mentioned Dr K.M. Ashraf’s association with Joshi. I cannot resist referring to Ashraf’s article on ‘Ghalib in the Revolt of 1857’. I will just focus on one point relating to Ghalib’s role in the Rebellion of 1857. Ghalib was, indeed, the greatest Urdu poet of his times, the last outstanding classical Persian poet, and the father of modern Urdu prose. When the mutiny burst forth in Delhi on May 11, 1857 he was living in Billimoran. Ashraf has presented in his article the anguish, despair and suffering of the poet, who confined himself to his room, and did not stir out. He had no water to drink. He felt chagrined at the death of his near and dear ones.

Ghalib started his Diary which he called Dastambu, a tendentious work, in which he tried to assure the British authorities that during the Revolt his loyalty to them remained firm. When thousands of his countrymen were dying, and, as he put it, only a thousand Muslims were left in Delhi while others had fled to save their lives, he was begging Queen Victoria to restore his pension, recognise him as a poet-laureate, and give him a due place in the Durbar to be held shortly for awarding honours to those who had stood by the British. I think Ghalib’s position in 1857 has to be explained as also Syed Ahmed Khan’s; Sir Syed’s house in Delhi had been ransacked, and his mother suffered a great deal, but for protecting several British lives, he was awarded a robe costing Rs 1000, and a pension for him and two of his succeeding generations.

—

HOW are we going to celebrate the 150th anniversary of 1857? Let us not make a ritual of the historic occasion only to laud the heroism of the rebels, and mourn the victims. History is serious business, a ruthless discipline which has no heroes. It is a rigorous mode of rational thinking. The best part of Joshi’s essay relates to the impact of the Revolt on the subsequent history of India. The Revolt is a turning point in the history of India. It led to the growth of a fervent spirit of India nationalism. It brought a parting of the ways between the Indians and the British. In about two decades of its occurrence, the Indian National Congress was founded which took it as a sacred mission to free India from the shackles of British rule.

I think that for the academics, there is a need for the evaluation of the historical works published on the 1857 Revolt. S.B. Chaudhuri had done a wonderful work on the historiography of British writings (1857-1858). I think a sequel to the volume is necessary to bring the story up to the present time. An anthology of folk songs and other poems and writings on 1857 in a single volume will be valuable for the general reader. Research on British espionage during 1857 still remains an open field for study.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, delivered a speech on the occasion of the first centenary of the Revolt at Ram Lila Grounds in Delhi on May 10, 1957. Nehru’s speech is one of the finest and most instructive documents on the 1857 Revolt. He derived some lessons from the events of 1857 as a historian, and warned the nation to rise above the evils of caste, religion and region and make the country a strong, vibrant and secular nation. I should like the text of this speech to be translated into Indian languages and distributed in the schools and colleges of the country, as also among the Members of Parliament, our rulers, who are expected to use their authority for the good and well-being of the people living in the country.

NOTES

I. William Dalrymple in his book ‘The Last Mughal: The Fall of the Dynasty, Delhi (2007) calls Islam Parvez’s biography of Bahadur Shah Zafar, ‘a wonderful work of secondary scholarship’. Why should Dalrymple call Parvez’s study a work of secondary scholarship? Parvez has used in his biography extensive primary materials of first-class importance including the Mutiny Papers with meticulous care worthy of a sound scholar. On page 498, footnote 20 of his book, Dalrymple concedes that some scholars have used the Mutiny Papers but he is the first person to have made a properly systematic use of the material.

Dalrymple has made all sorts of wild claims in his work; for example in his book on pp. 11-14, he wrote, ‘Discovering in the sheer scale of the treasures held by the National Archives was one of the highlights of the whole project.’ Surely, he is not the sole discoverer of the material. He wrote further that ‘one of the principal aims of the book (The Last Mughal) is to bring the voluminous Persian and Urdu primary and secondary sources on Delhi in 1857 before an English readership for the first time’. This claim also proves false because for his own study of the poet Ghalib and his life in 1857-1858, Dalrymple relies not on Ghalib’s own Persian and Urdu literature, but on the English translation of his works by Ralph Russell and Frau Pritchett.

The author is a Professor Emeritus of Modem History, Kurukshetra university, Kurukshetra

Given is the text of the address by the first Prime Minister of independent India, at Delhi’s Ramlila Grounds, on May 10, 1957, to observe the centenary of our First War of Independence that the Britishers had contemptuously described as Sepoy Mutiny.

The First War of Independence

by Jawaharlal Nehru

Sisters and brothers,

…I am appearing before you after a long time to mark a special occasion. I would like to draw your attention to some issues which are especially relevant today.

The newly constituted Lok Sabha met today at 11 o’clock to take the oath of office to serve India honestly and sincerely within the parameters of our Constitution. Though it is a formality, it is of great significance because when someone takes an oath with honesty and integrity, he moves on to a higher plane from the mundane, day-to-day life. It is a coincidence that the second Lok Sabha was sworn in today on the 10th of May, exactly a hundred years from the day on which the first war of independence, or the mutiny as some people call it, began in the city of Meerut. We did not choose this date deliberately. But since it has coincided with that historic day, it adds to the importance of this occasion. The Lok Sabha observed a two-minute silence in memory of all those who laid down their lives in 1857.

The real work of the Lok Sabha will begin from the 13th of this month with the Presidential Address. As you know, the President has been re-elected for another term. According to our Constitution, the President addresses both Houses of Parliament every year. That will be on the 13th of this month. Again, by a strange coincidence, the 13th also happens to be a special day for Buddha Jayanti falls on that day. You will notice there is a striking coincidence in our newly constituted Parliament being sworn in on the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the first war of independence and in the actual commencement of the work of Parliament on the Buddha Jayanti day. We must keep both these things in mind. It is not enough to think of either in isolation.



You must have heard about the war of independence which broke out in Meerut, Delhi, Lucknow and many other parts of India though very few people perhaps know the details. Almost all the earlier books and accounts of the events of 1857 were written by Englishmen. Therefore they are naturally biased: while the role of the Englishmen is praised, the Indians are dubbed as traitors and mutineers. It is true that some Englishmen have also accepted that the movement could have another aspect and praised the leaders of the movement. Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi in particular has been praised by the English officers of those days. Indians of course did not dare to write anything because during the period immediately following the events of 1857 great atrocities were committed and the people were crushed with a brutal hand. So they were afraid. Even the accounts written by Indians a little later were not very balanced historical records. They tended to lean the other way.

The time has come when we can view the events of a hundred years ago objectively and without heat. A new genre of books is now beginning to be published. One was released today.1 It was commissioned by the Government two or three years ago and is written by a very well known historian. Yet another book has been published, giving graphic details of the incidents of 1857.2 It goes into the question of whether what happened in 1857 can be called a war of independence or not. Opinions differ on that. Anyhow people must read these books.

I remember that when I was a child, which was a long time ago, there were still people around who had seen or heard about the incidents of 1857. When I was nine or ten years old, I used to listen to the tales of those old people about what happened in 1857-58 in Allahabad, Delhi, Lucknow and other places. They were real stories and the people recounting them had experienced them at first hand. As you know, such things make a deep impression on a child’s mind. It made a deep impression on me and filled me with anger.

Historians now write treaties full of complex arguments which is all right. We must read their works no doubt. But I have often wondered what impact the events of 1857 made on the minds of the common people in India. Later, when I had the opportunity of visiting Awadh and the rural areas of Allahabad district, I often heard tales of 1857 in those parts. People still talked about whole villages being burnt down as punishment. What I mean to say is that I found even the minds of the peasantry filled with the events of 1857. So there is no doubt about it that the events of 1857 did make an indelible impression on a very large part of the country. It is true that it was not the whole of India but the northern belt, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, Bihar, Delhi, and a part of Calcutta, Barrackpore, which was affected.



What led to this great outburst in 1857? It is obvious that it was an expression of the people’s anger against the British takeover of the country, and an attempt to get rid of them. Who was responsible—individuals or groups? As far as it is known, it was not a coordinated movement. But there was a general feeling of resentment spread over the whole of north India and one spark was enough to ignite a whole conflagration. There was an attempt at some coordination and you must have heard stories of chapatis being distributed, to spread the message among the people, to be prepared. But as far as it is known the movement was not organised. It was more a question of everyone taking advantage of the widespread resentment among various sections of society, particularly in the upper classes, the princes, zamindars and jagirdars and to some extent among the masses. If you say that it was an expression of deep-seated resentment against British rule and an attempt to oust it, you would be absolutely right. There is no doubt about it.

You must think a little of the circumstances which led to the establishment of British rule. That is a strange story too. It did not happen with a bang, after a great military victory, but came about gradually. People did not even realise that it was happening. The British came in search of trade and gradually acquired other rights. They bided their time for almost a hundred years and called themselves vassals of the Mughal emperor. Even their coins were issued in the name of theMughal emperor. For almost a hundred years they kept up a pretence of allowing things to go on unchanged. It was under the cloak of commerce that the British set themselves up in India. Ultimately a time came when the Mughal emperor was virtually a prisoner in the Red Fort at Delhi and his empire had diminished to just that Fort. It did not extend even to the city of Delhi. It took a long time for the common people to realise that someone else was in power. It was the same in Bengal too. In the beginning, the British were given diwani and gradually they assumed control over the State and established an empire. Just a short while before the events of 1857, they had annexed Awadh, ousting the Nawab, thus revealing their hand openly for the first time. The people were shocked to realise who their real rulers were. Until then, the British had remained in the background.

Anyhow, whatever the reasons, there can be no doubt about it that the revolt of 1857 was an expression of the people’s emotions against the establisment of British rule in India. It was not an organised movement when it began. But incidents in one place triggered off a chain reaction. But none of it would have been possible if a great deal of resentment had not already existed among the people.

I want you to bear in mind one thing in this context which people often fail to realise. India was attacked by foreign invaders, time and again, during her long history. It is believed that the Aryans came to India four to five thousand years ago crossing the mountains and settled down in this land. Then came invaders from other lands, the Huns, the Scythians and others. But all of them settled down in India and adopted it as their own country. Irrespective of their religion and their status as conquerors they came to regard India as their home. The Arabs came, though in small numbers, to the borders, and settled in Sindh. Then came the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals. But in a very short while they had intermingled with the local people. They had no homeland except India. So they learnt to live in amity with the others. The establishment of British rule in India is of special significance because for the first time in the thousands of years of Indian history, the foreign invaders owed loyalty to another country. India was merely a country over which they ruled. It made a great difference. In a sense, before the coming of the British, no matter who ruled India, it was independent. It had anIndian Government with its roots in India’s soil and which owed no allegiance to anyone else. So, in a sense, in spite of the great upheavals which took place from time to time, India remained an independent nation. For the first time in thousands of years the trend was reversed. A nation which lay thousands of miles away ruled India through its representatives. This was the great difference which the coming of the British and the establishment of their empire in India made.

When the other invaders marched into India, there was fighting in the beginning, but gradually they settled down and mingled with the people. India became their home. The races and cultures intermingled and influenced one another, and gradually learnt to live together in amity. The Britsh however, came and stayed here for a certain length of time and went back. They did not mingle with the local population. You must bear in mind that the India of today is the product of the intermingling of various races and cultures over thousands of years. There is Scythian and Hun blood in the great Rajput clans. They came to conquer India two thousand years ago and within a generation or two, assumed Indian clan names and settled down. They realised that their stature was enhanced by claiming descent from the Sun and the Moon. It is absurd to think of ourselves as being of pure blood, separate from other races of the world. India has evolved as a nation through the intermingling of various races and cultures.



It is only the British who refused to mingle. If they had no other home to go back to constantly as it happened with other races, they too would have been absorbed in the melting pot of India. But their loyalty was to Britain and moreover the differences between the two cultures were great. So they could not mix. So India was for the first time conquered by a people which ruled us from a distant land.

It is obvious that the British came and conquered India because they were advanced in modern science and technology. They were tougher, more inquiring, disciplined and had the quality to work in unity. India had become stagnant and the people were divided into small compartments. So we became backward and weak. Individually, there were people of high quality. But as a nationwe had become stagnant. So, as was inevitable, the more advanced and stronger nation with superior weapons came and conquered us. They had great courage and the spirit of adventure, which is evident from the fact that they had to cross thousands of miles of ocean to come to India. It required great courage and endurance. Hundreds of people died on the way yet the others did not give up.

In India, on the other hand, things had become so bad that it was considered foreign to leave one’s own village. Crossing the seas was considered destructive of one’s religion and those who dared to do so were ex-communicated. It was extremely stupid and all the emphasis was on rituals and shibboleths. How could a people whose attention was constantly absorbed by such trivial matters hope to progress? Casteism grew more and more rigid and people lived in small compartments. So the fact of the matter is that though the feelings against British rule were strong, the spirit of nationalism amongst Indians was not strong. Few people thought in terms of India as a whole. Indian society in those times was extremely feudal, consisting of princes and talukedars and zamindars. Even the leaders of the revolt were the princes. Not that there was anything wrong in that. I am merely pointing out the kind of social organisation that prevailed then. The peasants followed their leaders. But in the India of those times only the princes and big landlords could be the leaders. They revolted because the British were gradually reducing them in stature. Some revolted in the name of their state or religion and others for personal benefits. All these factors came together in 1857.

I shall not go into its history. There are two or three broad facts to be kept in mind. One, there is no doubt about it that whatever the causes behind it may have been, it was an Indian struggle for independence. It was an expression of resentment against the yoke of foreign rule and an attempt to get rid of it. What might have followed if the movement had succeeded is a different matter. Secondly, it is true that the religious sentiments of the Hindus and the Muslims were hurt by the suspicion that the British were forcing them to use bullets which had pork in it. But it is wrong to say that that was the cause of the revolt. The real reason was people’s anger against British rule and other factors including religion were part of it. You will find that throughout those two years, there was nocommunal disharmony of any kind in spite of our ingrained habit of internecine feuds. Both Hindus and Muslims participated in the movement and in victory as well as in defeat, they marched shoulder to shoulder. This is something noteworthy.

But, when the British entrenched themselves strongly on Indian soil, a rift between the Hindus and Muslims developed. Is that not strange? Before the coming of the British, Muslims ruled over most parts of India. It is true that in the later years, Mughal power had weakened. Shivaji had dealt a great blow to it and weakened it considerably. When the British arrived, the Marathas ruled over many parts of India. Yet the people accepted Muslim rule. In fact for years after the British had entrenched themselves fully, they had to take the shelter of the Mughal rulers. They did not dare even to mint coins in their own name. They continued to use the Mughal emperor as the figurehead. The memory of the power of the Mughals was very strong both among Hindus and Muslims.

So the events of 1857 proved that by and large, except for stray incidents, there was communal harmony. The rift appeared only later and widened because the British followed a policy of divide and rule in order to maintain their hold over the empire. So they adopted the policy of deliberately fomenting communal passions and religious antagonism. They had separate regiments of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs because they did not want them to develop a spirit of nationalism. This went on for years.

About twenty-eight years after the revolt of 1857, the Indian National Congress was born. For nearly twenty years or so after 1857, the people were too afraid to raise their heads. Then gradually they regained their spirit and the Indian National Congress was born in 1885. There were Hindus, Muslims, Christians and people of all other religions in it. It had small beginnings but within two or three years it began to worry the British because Hindus and Muslims were uniting under one banner. Immediately they started a policy of intimidating the people in the Congress, most of whom belonged to the upper classes then. Their effort was mainly to prevent Muslims from joining the Congress. As a result, the Muslims were kept apart at many levels.

Some more years passed and, for the first time, the question of elections to the assemblies came up in 1909 and the Minto-Morley reforms wereintroduced. It was a very small step towards giving local autonomy. The concept of separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims was introduced then. You can see how the whole thing progressed from 1857 onwards. The British realised the havoc that the two united communities could cause. So they thought of separate electorates. The interesting thing is that the Viceroy called a few of the top Muslim leaders and zamindars and asked them to come to him in a deputation seeking a separate electorate for the Muslims. He indicated that he would agree to it. So a delegation under the leadership of the Aga Khan3 went to the Viceroy4—the very same gentleman who is alive to this day but has grown very old. Well, he declared that the Muslims would be suppressed unless they were granted a separate electorate. You can appreciate the cunning of the Viceroy. Having instigated the demand, he made a pretence of considering it and eventually accepted it.

This is how the seeds of communal hatred and bitterness were sown. Then it gradually spread among the Sikhs and others. Even today it is extremely dangerous to bring religion into politics and elections. I have tried to show you how, in spite of all the difficulties, there was complete harmony between the Hindus and Muslims in 1857. The rift appeared later, at the instigation of the British. This is one thing.

On the other hand, there is something else about 1857, which must not be forgotten though it is not very pleasant. We pay homage to the memory of the great men who gave their lives to free India from the yoke of foreign rule. But we must also remember that ultimately their efforts were foiled with the help of Indians themselves. Many of our countrymen helped the British against their own kith and kin. No nation, particularly a vast country like ours, could be defeated except through its own weaknesses. It is only when one’s own countrymen turn traitors and stab their own brothers in the back that a country falls. You will find innumerable instances in Indian history, on the one hand, of courage, sacrifice and bravery and, on the other hand, of treachery, disunity, deception and helping the enemy.

The story of Mir Jaffer and Umi Chand is famous in Bengal. If you read history, you will find that British rule was established in India not because of the superior might of the British except in some cases but by the cunning and the treachery of some Indians. Many big provinces were createdas a reward for treachery. Zamindaris and talukedaris were given as a reward for siding with the British. Is there some special weakness in us as a people that a few of us strike at the very roots of the nation’s existence by our treachery?

Well, very few people deliberately resort to treachery. But there are many people who are more than willing to foment disunity and create dissensions. That is almost commonplace. I will not call it treachery but the effect is the same for it weakens the nation and strengthens the enemy’s hand. This is a great shortcoming in us, lack of unity and the habit of getting carried away, of internal dissension and fissiparous tendencies, whether it is in the name of religion, province, language or caste. I am not saying anything new. These are very old habits of ours.



However, as far as the revolt of 1857 was concerned, though there were grave shortcomings, like the absence of one central leadership, the lack of proper arrangements or resources, there was no disunity. We as an independent nation are much more prone to give in to this weakness. Perhaps we have become complacent after getting freedom and feel that we can behave as we like. But that is absolutely wrong. Freedom can never be consolidated absolutely. It is always in danger and threats abound on all sides to submerge it. If a nation is not prepared or lacks unity, it is bound to flounder. This is the lesson that our entire history teaches us. If we forget the fundamental rules and become complacent or talk vaguely in the air, our freedom will be in peril.

This is what I am chiefly concerned about and I want you to share my concern because we are living in dangerous times. Not a day passes without a mention of nuclear weapons and missiles in the newspapers. You can destroy a city a thousand or two thousand miles away with the help of a missile. Experts believe that even the nuclear test explosions, which are undertaken regularly, pollute the atmosphere and increase the danger of atomic radiation. Nobody knows how many millions have been affected by it already. If the level of radiation increases even slightly the atmosphere could become poisonous. Radiation is an extremely dangerous things.

You may have heard that one atom bomb coulddestroy the whole of Delhi. What can you do to escape? Some people may be able to escape into the jungles. But the city will be finished. Today there are more powerful and lethal weapons in the arsenals of the nations of the world. A direct hit is of course lethal. But the effects of radiation are more long lasting and dangerous. It affects everything all around including food and water. It can cause cancer and other skin and bone diseases even four or five years later. If a hydrogen bomb is exploded 5000 miles away, it may not affect us directly. But radiation permeates the atmosphere for thousands of miles and persists for years to come. If a nuclear explosion takes place in the Soviet Union or the Pacific we could be affected by its fallout in Delhi. Anyhow, many people believe that unless nuclear tests are banned, they will harm the world greatly. You cannot escape the consequences of nuclear fallout. If there is a nuclear war, of course, it would mean total annihilation.

What is the course open to us in such a dangerous situation? We do not have the strength to take on the responsibilities of the whole world. It would be absurd for us to make tall claims. Our first priority is to make India economically strong so that our voice is heard with respect in the world. We must foster national unity and progress quickly through industrialisation. For one thing, it would mean economic betterment for the country and, secondly, we will acquire the strength to defend ourselves. I do not mean that we can escape the consequences of a nuclear war because nobody is safe from that. But we can do a great deal to make India economically strong.

On the other hand, though there has been tremendous progress in the field of science and technology in the world, what of man’s intellect and emotions? Einstein, one of the greatest scientists the world has produced, took the first great step towards the atomic age by discovering the way to split the atom. Mankind has acquired a great source of energy. But it has now become a genie, which threatens to go out of control. In his last years, Einstein was filled with remorse for what he had done. He said repeatedly that atomic power could not be kept under control by yet more nuclear weapons. It is such a lethal thing that a totally different kind of strength is necessary to keep it under control. The great scientist felt that ultimately it is only when there is a change in human nature for the better and mankind is rid of the feelings of hatred andbitterness and violence that atomic energy can be brought under control. Einstein was no religious person.

We have reached a point in history where, unless the whole of mankind adopts the right path and eschews violence, feelings of revenge and bitterness, whatever the leaders at the top do and say will be of no consequence. Even today, the great powers are not willing to give up nuclear weapons. They talk of partial test ban and what not. Such half measures are of no use. I want you to think about this. It is a strange thing that the power to wreak violence has increased to such an extent with the invention of nuclear weapons that it can no longer be kept under a leash by moving further down that path. The world needs something else. So we come around once again to the path shown by the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi. I do not know if the world will ever follow that path wholeheartedly. But I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there is no alternative. I am not saying this as a religious dogma though every religion in the world, whether it is Islam or Christianity or Hinduism, advocates peace. I mentioned the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi because they were born in India. But Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad also preached the same ideals. It is difficult to live up to those ideals in this world of harsh realities. It is now an imperative to prevent the impending doom.



We have just had the general elections. What I am going to say now is not limited to any one party. I am naturally parital to the Congress for I belong to it and I feel that it is very essential for the Congress party to remain at the helm of affairs to maintain India’s uity. But I am not referring to any party in particular. Apart from a few setbacks here and there, the Congress has won with a thumping majority. So I can have no complaint. But I have been perturbed by these elections, not in regard to any party but the trends, which have come to the fore, of narrowmindedness, casteism and disregard for the larger national interests. I would like to tell you that these evils are to be found in all the parties, including the Congress. I do not absolve the Congress. I dare to say this because I am not trying to exmpt myself or my party.

We must pay attention to this aspect because there is a grave danger that the country may be split up and weakened under the pretence of democracy if casteism and narrowmindedness became more rampant. This is an extremely serious problem. As I have often told you, India is one entity on the map, with one government and one law. But India can become a nation only when there is complete emotional integration. We talk of nationalism and patriotism and there is no doubt about it that we do have these feelings, for otherwise we could not have won freedom. But behind that thin veneer of nationalism, you find a strange hollowness and weakness.

Last year there were riots in many parts of India over the question of language. Every Indian language is a precious heritage. But why fight over it? There were riots and fighting and the language issue has coloured people’s thinking even in these elections. We are living in an era when the world is facing a grave crisis because if there is a nuclear war, it could lead to complete annihilation of human civilisation. We do not wish to go to war with anyone. But we cannot escape the consequences if there is a war. Internally, India is at a crucial stage of its development and there are tremendous problems. We are in the middle of the Second Five Year Plan. Now that we have taken the plunge, we cannot retreat in midstream. We have to go on somehow. India is in the middle of a great adventure just now with the Five Year Plans, industrialisation, community development schemes, etc. We have taken on these great tasks with confidence and from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, the country is brimming with activity.

You must bear in mind that these activities do not bear fruit immediately. For instance, take the steel plants that we are building. A poor country like India is investing 400 crores of rupees on three steel plants. We have taken loans and aid for we could not have gone ahead without that. But it will take four to five years before they go into production. Until then we have to tighten our belts and carry a heavy burden.

I can give you many more such examples. We have decided to set up a machine-building plant in India because until we do so, we will remain dependent on Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, England and others. We want to be able to build the heaviest machinery in our country. Once wehave the infrastructure we will become free and self-reliant. We do not have to go to anyone. We have decided to do this. But all this requires vast sums of money. The machine-building plant will cost ninety or a hundred crores. The machines will become available only six to seven years later. At the moment we have to invest the money which casts a great burden upon the nation. But there is no alternative. We will reap the benefit later. Unless we take these bold steps, we will continue to stagnate in the mire of poverty. So we have to keep a balance between two things: we have to ensure that while the future is bright the present should not be too burdensome. We have no choice. The burden of taxation has to be borne. On the one hand people’s expectations are rising which is a good thing. On the other hand, we can raise their standard of living only by laying strong foundations for the future, which means that we will reap the benefit only a few years hence.

It is in this context that I said that we took a great plunge when we started the Five Year Plans. Now we cannot stop midstream for we will be neither here nor there. We have to finish building the steel plants whether we have to invest a hundred crores or four hundred crores. Only then will we reap the benefit. Similarly, we have to complete the river valley schemes, like the Bhakra-Nangal, Damodar Valley, Hirakud, Tungabhadra and Nagarjuna spread all over the country. We could have decided right in the beginning that we do not have the strength and determination to do all this. But that would have meant continuing to be poor, weak and downtrodden. A great nation like India could not have taken such a decision. So we decided to wage a war against poverty which has meant shouldering a heavy burden. We are trying to achieve in a few years what the West did in 150 years and the Soviet Union did in thirty or forty years since the Russian Revolution. Naturally the burden upon us is great and we have to go ahead against tremendous odds. We want India to have a strong economy and we want to raise the standard of living of the people. In short, we have dared to take the plunge and now we have to swim to the other side.

So we have to pit all our energy into the task of completing the great projects that we have taken up. It means that we should strengthen the structure of our society by fostering unity and byengaging the attention of the people in the task of nation-building instead of frittering away their energy in futile squabbles. A disturbing trend during these elections was the stone-throwing indulged in by our youth in many places. What is the kind of education that we are giving them that they stoop to such things? The people of India are strong and brave. But they are easily misled and often do wrong things. That is why I am drawing your attention to all this.

Violence has always been bad. But I have reached the conclusion that the capacity of mankind to inflict violence has increased so much that violence can no longer be combated by violence.

Let me give you an example. If the great powers possessing nuclear weapons wanted to destroy India we would have nothing to defend ourselves with. We are not going to produce nuclear weapons. For one thing, even if we try we cannot acquire this capability for years. Secondly, we do not wish to go in for nuclear weapons. We will certainly produce atomic energy for peaceful purposes, not for war. There are only two or three great powers in the world which possess nuclear weapons and we have nothing to fear from them. But I am giving you an example to show that if one of them were to attack us or threaten to do so, it is obvious that we do not possess weapons to combat nuclear weapons. What can we do against a hydrogen bomb? But I have no doubt whatsoever that no country, no matter what powerful weapons it may possess, can overcome us if we are strong and united as a nation. We have an army, navy and air force for India’s defence. Our young men in the armed forces are excellent and it gladdens one’s heart to meet them. But I know that we cannot compete with the great powers in armed strength. It would be like combating guns and cannons with bows and arrows.

We have friendly relations with the great powers. That is not the question. I am giving you an example to show what we can do to defend our country. We cannot bow down before aggression and accept slavery no matter how great the other power is. Then what do we do? We must have the inner strength to be able to withstand any attack, whether we have the weapons or not, and not to bow down to aggression. Ultimately, if necessary, we will fight with sticks. But we will not tolerate aggression. I am telling you what our attitude ought to be. It is not a question so much of weapons but of emotional strength and unity. If we have that no power on earth can overcome us. We must not allow ourselves to indulge in hooliganism and violence. It is absurd to indulge in stone-throwing and other wrongful acts. It is positively dangerous.



As I said, by a strange coincidence, exactly a hundred years ago today on the 10th of May, our war of independence began in Meerut and shook up pactically the whole of north India to its foundation. At no time after that can it be said tht the people of India fully accepted foreign domination. It is true that the British rule went on for a long time after that. But the flame of freedom burnt bright at all times. Then the nation took another turn and, as you know, a great movement began under the banner of the Congress, particularly under Gandhiji’s leadership. A unique movement began which eschewed weapons completely. It is true that when I was in school, fifty years ago, there was a wave of extremism and bombs were thrown on English officers. But India could not shake off the yoke of foreign rule by stray bomb-throwing incidents. That was merely the expression of anger and the frustration of some brave youth. Even then those of us who condemned it admired their courage. Everyone was frustrated and angry for there seemed no way of freeing the country. Gandhiji showed a new path which required great courage and dignity and promised results—the nation followed him wholeheartedly. Ten, twenty and then thirty years went by and ultimately we succeeded by following the path of peace and non-violence. India acquired great fame not merely because we became free but because of the unique manner in which we had done so. It was our own personal experience. As you can imagine, that was before the dawn of the atomic age. That path is even more relevant now in the atomic age with its potential for unimaginable violence. Violence is stupid and the violence which nuclear weapons can inflict makes any other kind of violence completely meaningless. As I said, it would be like combating cannons with bows and arrows. It has become more than ever necessary to follow the path shown by Gandhiji. I am not talking of principles but of realstrength. That is the only way in which we can protect our freedom with dignity and courage.

The 10th of May is a landmark. Three days hence falls Buddha Purnaima, which is yet another landmark. They are reminders of two different ways of life and we will have to choose one in this age of nuclear weapons. An arms race is not the solution. Until the world opinion chooses the other path, the danger of nuclear weapons will continue to hang over our heads like the sword of Damocles. The nuclear weapons powers say that they are only for purposes of deterrence. But in the meantime the fate of the earth hangs in the balance. Since the path of violence is obviously wrong, the only alternative before the world is to take the other path.

Therefore, I appeal to you to think of all those brave warriors who had lit the torch of India’s independence. That torch continued to burn for a century until India became free. Let us pay homage to those brave heroes and the others who came after them and carried the torch. Let us think of Gandhiji and remind ourselves that unless we see reason and defeat violence, it will bring ruin to mankind. Enmity cannot be countered by enmity. The lesson of non-violence has special implications for us who fought for our freedom with that unique weapon. If we forget it and foment disunity and quarrel over petty matters we would be betraying the sacrifices and courage of all the people who fought for freedom, and betraying Gandhiji, Gautam Buddha and, finally, ourselves. Jai Hind.

Let us stand up and observe two minutes’ silence in memory of all those who laid down their lives in 1857 and since then for India’s freedom. n

References

1. S. N. Sen, Eighteen Fifty-Seven, Publications Division, Delhi, 1957.

2. 1857, a Pictorial Presentation, Publications Division, Delhi, 1957.

3. Aga Khan III (1877-1957); spiritual head of the Ismaili Khoja community. Aga Khan III founded the Aga Khan foundation, an international philanthrophic organisation offering educational and other services.

4. A delegation headed by the Aga Khan was received by the Viceroy Minto in Shimla in October 1906. The delegation asked for guarantees that the rights of Muslims should be protected and that in any case the Muslims should not be relegated to a position of a helpless minority by the assertion of the numerically superior Hindu population.