Monday, August 27, 2007
 |
Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1858, just after his show trial in Delhi and before his departure for exile in Rangoon. This is possibly the only photograph ever taken of a Mughal emperor.Courtesy British Library |
In this year's commemorations in India and Pakistan, since most of the areas where conflagration started or the heaviest fighting took place, like Delhi, the imperial capital, Agra, Khansi, Ahmadabad and Meerut, lie in present day India, celebrations there were much more emotional.
Tens of thousands of Indian people marched from Meerut to Agra to trace the path of the imperial troops who came to succor the ailing emperor, exactly 150 years ago, and had declared his sovereignty over the whole of India.
At the Red Fort in Delhi, the prime minister of India Manmohan Singh addressed the celebration and paid rich tributes to the warriors of 1857 who laid down their lives for the defense of the empire. The prime minister reminded the South Asians that it was in the true spirit of inter-faith unity between Muslims and Hindus that all came together to defend the emperor who was a Muslim. In fact, all the seven major dynasties that ruled India since it started its journey towards a political unity had been Muslim ones.
In Pakistan, the National Commission for Historical and Cultural Research held a widely attended symposium in which the historians debated the causes and effects of the war and its real nature. President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan also in their messages paid rich tributes to the defenders of South Asia who tried to resist impending colonization of their land and tried to sustain the moribund empire from the Western powers' "scramble for Asia." Calls were made to make a monument to remember the countless heroes and heroines, five hundred thousands of whom were butchered mercilessly by British troops after the defeat of the emperor who was exiled to Rangoon, where he died and got buried five years later in 1862. It was also demanded that the remains of the emperor be brought back and re-buried with full military honours either in India or in Pakistan.
The British call the war of 1857 as the great Mutiny. Mutiny, it definitely was, but not a "great" one. It was a mutiny of British officers of the company in the service of the Indian emperor against him, and not the other way round. That is why I have chosen the word "unique" for this mutiny since it is the first major mutiny the facts of which have been so disfigured by the new British rulers that our own textbooks sixty years after independence still call it as a mutiny of the Indian emperor against his British servants/subjects. What a mutilation and dishonesty towards history as well as a linguistic paradox. Mutiny is a rebellion by servants against master. A master cannot be said to be rebelling against servants.
Let us understand the nature of the 1857 war first. In many parts of the Indian empire, it had been a franchise issue just like the governance itself in the last century of the imperial rule had been. Most provinces were fully or semi-independent and owed little or nominal allegiance to the emperor at Delhi. This all changed when the subjects of the emperor felt the existential threat to the empire due to the division and fragmentation. Bakht Khan, a military general from the independent state of Awdh, descended in and defended Delhi, while taking over the command of the imperial forces on the emperor's behalf. The Rani of Jhansi, Satay Ram, Maulvi Ahmadullah Khan, and many local political and military leaders rose to the occasion, professed their allegiance to the emperor and tried to expel the rapacious British servants of the East India Company from the India soil. It is a misfortunate that neither in India nor in Pakistan, any of the top military medals is named after the military heroes of the 1857 war.
Now, let us shed some light on theoretical part, on war's historiography, that is. 1857 was not a war of independence for the Indians since the British had not conquered India till that point in time. True, the Company was ruling three presidencies but that was area-wise less than one tenth of India, and in fact, even there it was ruling and collecting the taxes in the name of emperor to whom they paid an annual tribute.
Till as late as 1835, Persian had remained the imperial language for the court and the country and official one for the Company too. The Company's so-called governor of Bengal paid ritual obeisance to the emperor every year. The emperor's was the de jure government and Company was exercising de facto delegated authority mainly on revenue and law and order matters in a limited part of his domains.
Same was the case of around 564 other rulers, sultans, dukes and princes, who were ruling their own mini-kingdoms within the empire. Bahadur Shah Zafar, the 38th ruler of united India and the 17th and the last one from the Mughul dynasty, was on the throne.
At the beginning of the outbreak of hostilities, history tells us, the old and ailing poet-emperor was not hopeful of winning the war to expel the British intruders, but seeing the zeal of his subjects, he gave in and accepted to lead them as their symbolic head. Since it was the emperor who wanted to get rid of the British, it would be frivolous to call it as an independence struggle since emperor is not supposed to be getting "independence" from disloyal subjects. We can call his campaign as the one of retribution towards his British subjects who had shown seditionist tendencies, i.e. the officers of the British East India Trading Company that was operating under a license by the great ancestor of the incumbent, Emperor Shah Jehan in consideration of medical help that the British doctors had provided in a serious burn injury to a princess.
It may be recalled that Indian sub-continent boasts of one of the oldest civilisations of the known history. The Indus valley civilisation whose relics are found in Punjab province of what is now Pakistan, date back to 2500 BC when people lived in properly designed urban settlements and were fairly advanced in arts and learning. The Arab Muslims first conquered and annexed parts of India between 668 to 712 AD. The latter date marks the conquest of Deebal a town near the present day Karachi, now a bustling port metropolis of 12 million people, by the Arabs. Between 998 and 1030 AD the Afghans, who had by then turned Muslims under Sultan Mahmood of Gazna, invaded India seventeen times for plunder. By 1206, the Muslims had captured Delhi and at least the northern half of the sub-continent had become a political unity under Sultan Qutbuddin Aibak, the first Muslim ruler of Delhi and the founder of slaves' dynasty. The rule continued for around seven centuries under successive dynasties like the Tughlaqs, the Khiljis, the Syeds, the Lodhis, and the Suris. It was under the Mughals that the whole of India came under a single rule. By the early 19th century, anarchy and chaos best described Indian political landscape. A trading company, named East India Comapny became powerful and a time came that even the emperor was apprehensive of its power. Though the trouble started with Indian soldiers of the Company over the use of gun-lids allegedly made of cow fat, but once the emperor saw his opportunity to throw his weight behind and try to get rid of the British it became a national struggle. Now it was emperor and his loyalists fighting against the ones, whom the emperor wanted out of his realms.
Let's un-write the British-centric history of the 1857 war and let's unread their interpretation. Let us call it a mutiny on board HMS (sic) Indian empire, where the British servants mutinied, captured the palace, deposed the emperor, murdered the crown prince and four other princes, and than went on to slay countless of men and women on the streets in cold blood. The Company captured the Red Fort and turned for political guidance to Windsor Castle which decided to annex India to British domains and company's rule ended no sooner had it formally began. British rule had some positive effects, but, by and large, it was a 90 year-long spell of oppression and suppression.
Saad S. Khan
The writer is a Research Consultant with Juris-Consults and an Oxford-published scholar on politics of the Muslim world
The Daily Star
India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'
Author says British reprisals involved the killing of 10m, spread over 10 years
A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them.In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.
Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.
The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.
"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.
His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.
The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."
There is a macabre undercurrent in much of the correspondence. In one incident Misra recounts how 2m letters lay unopened in government warehouses, which, according to civil servants, showed "the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindoos and Mohammadens, who killed our women and children."
Misra's casualty claims have been challenged in India and Britain. "It is very difficult to assess the extent of the reprisals simply because we cannot say for sure if some of these populations did not just leave a conflict zone rather than being killed," said Shabi Ahmad, head of the 1857 project at the Indian Council of Historical Research. "It could have been migration rather than murder that depopulated areas."
Many view exaggeration rather than deceit in Misra's calculations. A British historian, Saul David, author of The Indian Mutiny, said it was valid to count the death toll but reckoned that it ran into "hundreds of thousands".
"It looks like an overestimate. There were definitely famines that cost millions of lives, which were exacerbated by British ruthlessness. You don't need these figures or talk of holocausts to hammer imperialism. It has a pretty bad track record."
Others say Misra has done well to unearth anything in that period, when the British assiduously snuffed out Indian versions of history. "There appears a prolonged silence between 1860 and the end of the century where no native voices are heard. It is only now that these stories are being found and there is another side to the story," said Amar Farooqui, history professor at Delhi University. "In many ways books like Misra's and those of [William] Dalrymple show there is lots of material around. But you have to look for it."
What is not in doubt is that in 1857 Britain ruled much of the subcontinent in the name of the Bahadur Shah Zafar, the powerless poet-king improbably descended from Genghis Khan.
Neither is there much dispute over how events began: on May 10 Indian soldiers, both Muslim and Hindu, who were stationed in the central Indian town of Meerut revolted and killed their British officers before marching south to Delhi. The rebels proclaimed Zafar, then 82, emperor of Hindustan and hoisted a saffron flag above the Red Fort.
What follows in Misra's view was nothing short of the first war of Indian independence, a story of a people rising to throw off the imperial yoke. Critics say the intentions and motives were more muddled: a few sepoys misled into thinking the officers were threatening their religious traditions. In the end British rule prevailed for another 90 years.
Misra's analysis breaks new ground by claiming the fighting stretched across India rather than accepting it was localised around northern India. Misra says there were outbreaks of anti-British violence in southern Tamil Nadu, near the Himalayas, and bordering Burma. "It was a pan-Indian thing. No doubt."
Misra also claims that the uprisings did not die out until years after the original mutiny had fizzled away, countering the widely held view that the recapture of Delhi was the last important battle.
For many the fact that Indian historians debate 1857 from all angles is in itself a sign of a historical maturity. "You have to see this in the context of a new, more confident India," said Jon E Wilson, lecturer in south Asian history at King's College London. "India has a new relationship with 1857. In the 40s and 50s the rebellions were seen as an embarrassment. All that fighting, when Nehru and Gandhi preached nonviolence. But today 1857 is becoming part of the Indian national story. That is a big change."
What they said
Charles Dickens: "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
Karl Marx: "The question is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton."
L'Estaffette, French newspaper: "Intervene in favour of the Indians, launch all our squadrons on the seas, join our efforts with those of Russia against British India ...such is the only policy truly worthy of the glorious traditions of France."
The Guardian: "We sincerely hope that the terrible lesson thus taught will never be forgotten ... We may rely on native bayonets, but they must be officered by Europeans."
Randeep RameshGuardian
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]