Thursday, December 13, 2007
Education under British Rule
British records show that indigenous education was widespread in the 18th century, with a school for every temple, mosque or village in most regions of the country. The subjects taught included Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Theology, Law, Astronomy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Medical Science and Religion. The schools were attended by students representative of all classes of society. But scholars have questioned the validity of such an argument. They argue that proponents of indigenous education fail to recognize the importance of the widespread use of printed books in the West since the sixteenth century, which led to a remarkable advancement of knowledge.
Printed books were not used in Indian schools till the 1820s or even later. There were institutions such as Gresham's college in London that encouraged scientific learning. In fact, there were a number of such academic and scientific societies in England, often supported by Puritan and non-Conformist merchants, the like of which probably did not exist in India. The entire claim of indigenous education proponents is based on the thesis advocated by Dharampal which says that there was a general decline in Indian society and economy with the coming of British rule.
In the process, indigenous education suffered. This, however, is too broad a generalization, and the exact impact of British rule on different regions at different times has to be studied more carefully before we conclude that the curve everywhere steadily declined. He argues that pre-British schools and colleges were maintained by grants of revenue-free land.
The East India Company, with its policy of maximizing land revenue, stopped this and thus starved the Indian education system of its financial resources. Again, we need more detailed evidence to show how far inam lands were taken over by the government. More often, military officers, zamindar.~,and talukdars were deprived of revenue-free land rather than temples, mosques, madrasas. Recent research has revealed that inam lands continued to exist well into the nineteenth century, much more than was previously suspected.
The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced & funded by the British in the 19th century, following recommendations by Macaulay. Traditional structures were not recognized by the British government and have been on the decline since. Gandhi is said to have described the traditional educational system as a beautiful tree that was destroyed during British rule.
The British established many colleges like St. Xavier's College, Sydenham College, Wilson College and Elphinstone College in India.
According to Prof. Emeritus M.G. Sahadevan, F.R.C.P. (London), the first medical college of Kerala was started at Calicut, in 1942-43, during World War II. Due to shortage of doctors to serve the military, the British Government decided to open a branch of Madras Medical College in Malabar, which was under Madras Presidency then. After the war, the medical school at Calicut was closed and the students continued their studies at Madras Medical College.
Source:Wikipedia
British records show that indigenous education was widespread in the 18th century, with a school for every temple, mosque or village in most regions of the country. The subjects taught included Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Theology, Law, Astronomy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Medical Science and Religion. The schools were attended by students representative of all classes of society. But scholars have questioned the validity of such an argument. They argue that proponents of indigenous education fail to recognize the importance of the widespread use of printed books in the West since the sixteenth century, which led to a remarkable advancement of knowledge.
Printed books were not used in Indian schools till the 1820s or even later. There were institutions such as Gresham's college in London that encouraged scientific learning. In fact, there were a number of such academic and scientific societies in England, often supported by Puritan and non-Conformist merchants, the like of which probably did not exist in India. The entire claim of indigenous education proponents is based on the thesis advocated by Dharampal which says that there was a general decline in Indian society and economy with the coming of British rule.
In the process, indigenous education suffered. This, however, is too broad a generalization, and the exact impact of British rule on different regions at different times has to be studied more carefully before we conclude that the curve everywhere steadily declined. He argues that pre-British schools and colleges were maintained by grants of revenue-free land.
The East India Company, with its policy of maximizing land revenue, stopped this and thus starved the Indian education system of its financial resources. Again, we need more detailed evidence to show how far inam lands were taken over by the government. More often, military officers, zamindar.~,and talukdars were deprived of revenue-free land rather than temples, mosques, madrasas. Recent research has revealed that inam lands continued to exist well into the nineteenth century, much more than was previously suspected.
The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced & funded by the British in the 19th century, following recommendations by Macaulay. Traditional structures were not recognized by the British government and have been on the decline since. Gandhi is said to have described the traditional educational system as a beautiful tree that was destroyed during British rule.
The British established many colleges like St. Xavier's College, Sydenham College, Wilson College and Elphinstone College in India.
According to Prof. Emeritus M.G. Sahadevan, F.R.C.P. (London), the first medical college of Kerala was started at Calicut, in 1942-43, during World War II. Due to shortage of doctors to serve the military, the British Government decided to open a branch of Madras Medical College in Malabar, which was under Madras Presidency then. After the war, the medical school at Calicut was closed and the students continued their studies at Madras Medical College.
Source:Wikipedia
Monday, October 22, 2007
Anniversary of Provisional Government of Free India Observed
Imphal, October 21: The 64th anniversary of the Provisional Government of Free India founded by Indian National Army (INA) under the leadership of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was observed today at Moirang, where the tri-colour flag was hoisted for the first time.
The event jointly organised by the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Manipur and INA Advisory Committee at INA Memorial complex, Moirang was attended by Chief Minister O Ibobi as chief guest, MLA Mairembam Manindra as functional president and Director of Art and Culture Dr Kh Sorojini Devi as guest of honour.
Chief Minister O Ibobi led other dignitaries and people present at the occasion in offering floral tributes to the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose installed inside the memorial complex.
Speaking on the significance of the Provisional Government of Free India which was installed only for a short period, Prof Y Modhu Singh recounted that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who was the leader of Indian Independence League, later came to be known as INA declared formation of the Provisional Government of Free India on October 21, 1943 at Singapore and nine countries including Japan recognised it.
Three days after the declaration of formation of Provisional Government of Free India with the help of the then powerful countries like Japan and German, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose declared war against the British.
Under the slogan of Delhi Challo, the Army of the Provisional Government not only reoccupied Andaman and Nicobar Islands but also proceeded till Moirang of Manipur after crossing the Arakan Range of Myanmar.
On April 14 of 1944, the tricolour flag of India was hoisted for the first time at Moirang and after setting up the advance headquarters there continue to rule till July 16.With a command of over 40,000 army and 1500 officers which was divided into five Division, the Provisional Government liberated over 1500 square miles of land in Manipur from the British rule.
The whole of Moirang supported Subhas Chandra Bose.
Even if the end of the Provisional Government and th subsequently breakdown of INA was another story, there is no two argument on the influence of Netaji on the free struggle of India.
In fact, there had never been such Provisional Government in the history of th world, Prof Modhu said.
In his address as chief guest of the function, Chief Minister O Ibobi said Moirang where the tri-colour flag of India was unfurled for the first time would remain as an important asset for all of us.
Indian leaders like Netaji, Gandhiji, etc, as well Bir Tikendrajit, Thangal General, etc are true leaders who not only led and lit the torch for us but also inspire us.
However, the prevailing culture of targeting the people under the cloak of patriotism is really unfortunate and all concerned should think over it, the Chief Minister said.
On conservation of Loktak lake at Moirang, the Chief Minister said an amount of Rs 4 crores has been set aside for further development of the lake to attract tourists and help the fishermen who depend on the lake for their livelihood.
So removal of the floating bio-masses have already begun and each of the fishermen who attended their co-operation would be entitled to get Rs 13,000.Side by side, necessary arrangements for upgrading and expansion of the road leading to Sendra from Moirang as four-lane, construction of retaining walls and installation of street lamps would be taken up soon, the Chief Minister said, while appealing to the encroachers concerned to voluntarily shift away before the Government evicts them.
The Chief Minister further informed that the Govt has also sanctioned Rs 14 crores for setting up Tamupat as a regional water sports complex.
Moreover, plans are also afoot for construction of a watch tower at INA complex and a guest house at Moirang, he added.
Source: The Sangai Express
Provisional Government of Free India
The Provisional Government of Free India consisted of a Cabinet headed by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as the Head of the State, The Prime Minister and the Minister for War and Foreign Affairs.
Captain Doctor Lakshmi Swaminathan (later married as Lakshmi Sehgal) was the Minister in Charge of Women's Organization. She held this position over and above her command of the Rani Jhansi Regiment, a brigade of women soldiers fighting for the Indian National Army. For a regular Asian army, this women's regiment was quite visionary; it was the first of its kind established on the continent. Dr. Lakshmi was one of the most popular and prosperous gynecologists in Singapore before she gave up her fabulous practice to lead the troops of the Rani of Jhansi Regiment.
Other public administration ministers of the Provisional Government of Free India included:
* Mr. S. A. Ayer - the Minister of Broadcasting and Publicity
* Lt. Col. A. C. Chatterji - the Minister of Finance
The Indian National Army was represented by Armed Forces ministers, including:
* Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmed
* Lt. Col. N. S . Bhagat
* Lt. Col. J. K. Bhonsle
* Lt. Colonel Guizara Singh
* Lt. Col. M.Z. Kiani
* Lt. Col. A. D. Loganathan
* Lt. Col. Ehsan Qadir
* Lt. Col. Shahnawaz Khan
The Provisional Government was also constituted and administered by a number of Secretaries and Advisors to Subhas Chandra Bose, including:
* A.N. Sahay - Secretary
* Karim Ghani
* Debnath Das
* D.M. Khan
* A. Yellapa
* J. Thivy
* Sirdar Isher Singh
* A. N. Sarkar - the government's official Legal Advisor
All of these Secretaries and Advisory officials held Ministerial rank in the Provisional Government. The extent of the Provisional Government's day-to-day management of affairs for Azad Hind is not entirely well-documented.
Azad Hind had diplomatic relations with nine countries: Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Fascist Italy, the Independent State of Croatia, Wang Jingwei's Government in Nanjing, Thailand, Burma, Manchukuo and the Philippines. On the declaration of its formation in Singapore, President Eamon de Valera of the Irish Free State sent a note of congratulations to Bose. Vichy France, however, although being an Axis collaborator, never gave formal political recognition to Azad Hind. Recent researches have shown that the USSR too had recognised the Provisional Government of Free India. This government participated as a delegate or observer in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Imphal, October 21: The 64th anniversary of the Provisional Government of Free India founded by Indian National Army (INA) under the leadership of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was observed today at Moirang, where the tri-colour flag was hoisted for the first time.
The event jointly organised by the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Manipur and INA Advisory Committee at INA Memorial complex, Moirang was attended by Chief Minister O Ibobi as chief guest, MLA Mairembam Manindra as functional president and Director of Art and Culture Dr Kh Sorojini Devi as guest of honour.
Chief Minister O Ibobi led other dignitaries and people present at the occasion in offering floral tributes to the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose installed inside the memorial complex.
Speaking on the significance of the Provisional Government of Free India which was installed only for a short period, Prof Y Modhu Singh recounted that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who was the leader of Indian Independence League, later came to be known as INA declared formation of the Provisional Government of Free India on October 21, 1943 at Singapore and nine countries including Japan recognised it.
Three days after the declaration of formation of Provisional Government of Free India with the help of the then powerful countries like Japan and German, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose declared war against the British.
Under the slogan of Delhi Challo, the Army of the Provisional Government not only reoccupied Andaman and Nicobar Islands but also proceeded till Moirang of Manipur after crossing the Arakan Range of Myanmar.
On April 14 of 1944, the tricolour flag of India was hoisted for the first time at Moirang and after setting up the advance headquarters there continue to rule till July 16.With a command of over 40,000 army and 1500 officers which was divided into five Division, the Provisional Government liberated over 1500 square miles of land in Manipur from the British rule.
The whole of Moirang supported Subhas Chandra Bose.
Even if the end of the Provisional Government and th subsequently breakdown of INA was another story, there is no two argument on the influence of Netaji on the free struggle of India.
In fact, there had never been such Provisional Government in the history of th world, Prof Modhu said.
In his address as chief guest of the function, Chief Minister O Ibobi said Moirang where the tri-colour flag of India was unfurled for the first time would remain as an important asset for all of us.
Indian leaders like Netaji, Gandhiji, etc, as well Bir Tikendrajit, Thangal General, etc are true leaders who not only led and lit the torch for us but also inspire us.
However, the prevailing culture of targeting the people under the cloak of patriotism is really unfortunate and all concerned should think over it, the Chief Minister said.
On conservation of Loktak lake at Moirang, the Chief Minister said an amount of Rs 4 crores has been set aside for further development of the lake to attract tourists and help the fishermen who depend on the lake for their livelihood.
So removal of the floating bio-masses have already begun and each of the fishermen who attended their co-operation would be entitled to get Rs 13,000.Side by side, necessary arrangements for upgrading and expansion of the road leading to Sendra from Moirang as four-lane, construction of retaining walls and installation of street lamps would be taken up soon, the Chief Minister said, while appealing to the encroachers concerned to voluntarily shift away before the Government evicts them.
The Chief Minister further informed that the Govt has also sanctioned Rs 14 crores for setting up Tamupat as a regional water sports complex.
Moreover, plans are also afoot for construction of a watch tower at INA complex and a guest house at Moirang, he added.
Source: The Sangai Express
Provisional Government of Free India
The Provisional Government of Free India consisted of a Cabinet headed by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as the Head of the State, The Prime Minister and the Minister for War and Foreign Affairs.
Captain Doctor Lakshmi Swaminathan (later married as Lakshmi Sehgal) was the Minister in Charge of Women's Organization. She held this position over and above her command of the Rani Jhansi Regiment, a brigade of women soldiers fighting for the Indian National Army. For a regular Asian army, this women's regiment was quite visionary; it was the first of its kind established on the continent. Dr. Lakshmi was one of the most popular and prosperous gynecologists in Singapore before she gave up her fabulous practice to lead the troops of the Rani of Jhansi Regiment.
Other public administration ministers of the Provisional Government of Free India included:
* Mr. S. A. Ayer - the Minister of Broadcasting and Publicity
* Lt. Col. A. C. Chatterji - the Minister of Finance
The Indian National Army was represented by Armed Forces ministers, including:
* Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmed
* Lt. Col. N. S . Bhagat
* Lt. Col. J. K. Bhonsle
* Lt. Colonel Guizara Singh
* Lt. Col. M.Z. Kiani
* Lt. Col. A. D. Loganathan
* Lt. Col. Ehsan Qadir
* Lt. Col. Shahnawaz Khan
The Provisional Government was also constituted and administered by a number of Secretaries and Advisors to Subhas Chandra Bose, including:
* A.N. Sahay - Secretary
* Karim Ghani
* Debnath Das
* D.M. Khan
* A. Yellapa
* J. Thivy
* Sirdar Isher Singh
* A. N. Sarkar - the government's official Legal Advisor
All of these Secretaries and Advisory officials held Ministerial rank in the Provisional Government. The extent of the Provisional Government's day-to-day management of affairs for Azad Hind is not entirely well-documented.
Azad Hind had diplomatic relations with nine countries: Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Fascist Italy, the Independent State of Croatia, Wang Jingwei's Government in Nanjing, Thailand, Burma, Manchukuo and the Philippines. On the declaration of its formation in Singapore, President Eamon de Valera of the Irish Free State sent a note of congratulations to Bose. Vichy France, however, although being an Axis collaborator, never gave formal political recognition to Azad Hind. Recent researches have shown that the USSR too had recognised the Provisional Government of Free India. This government participated as a delegate or observer in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Monday, October 15, 2007
British Intrigues to Rule India
The Honourable East India Company (HEIC), often colloquially referred to as "John Company", was an early joint-stock company (the Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock). It was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favouring trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created HEIC a 21 year monopoly on all trade in the East Indies.
In 1617, the Company was given trade rights by Jahangir the Mughal Emperor. One hundred years later, it was granted a royal dictate from Emperor Farrukhsiyar exempting the Company from the payment of custom duties in Bengal, giving it a decided commercial advantage in the Indian trade. A decisive victory by Sir Robert Clive at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 established the Company as a military as well as a commercial power. By 1760, the French were driven out of India, with the exception of a few trading posts on the coast, such as Pondicherry. In South-East Asia, the company would establish the first trading posts and exert its military dominance leading to the eventual establishment of British Malaya, Hong Kong and Singapore as British Crown Colonies.
The Company also had interests along the routes to India from Great Britain. As early as 1620, the company attempted to lay claim to the Table Mountain region in South Africa; later it occupied and ruled St Helena. Piracy was a severe problem for the Company. This problem reached its peak in 1695, when pirate Henry Avery captured the Great Mughal's treasure fleet. The Company was held responsible for that raid, because according to Indian popular opinion of the time, all pirates were by definition English. Later, the Company unsuccessfully employed Captain Kidd to combat piracy in the Indian Ocean; it also cultivated the production of tea in India. Other notable events in the Company's history were that it held Napoleon captive on St Helena, and made the fortune of Elihu Yale. Its products were the basis of the Boston Tea Party in Colonial America.
Its shipyards provided the model for St Petersburg, while elements of its administration, the Honourable East India Company Civil Service (HEICS), survive in the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Its corporate structure was the most successful early example of a joint stock company. However, the demands of Company officers on the treasury of Bengal contributed tragically to the province's incapacity in the face of a famine, which killed millions of people in 1770-1773.
Chronology -- Modern India -- 1757 AD to 1947 AD
1757 Battle of Plassey: The British defeat Siraj-ud-daulah
1760 Battle of Wandiwash: The British defeat the French
1761 Third battle of Panipat: Ahmed Shah Abdali defeats the Marathas; Accession of Madhava Rao Peshwa; Rise of Hyder Ali
1764 Battle of Buxar: The British defeat Mir Kasim
1765 The British get Diwani Rights in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa
1767-1769 First Mysore War: The British conclude a humiliating peace pact with Hyder Ali
1772 Death of Madhava Rao Peshwa; Warren Hastings appointed as Governor of Bengal
1773 The Regulating Act passed by the British Parliament
1774 Warren Hastings appointed as Governor-General
1775-1782 The First Anglo-Maratha war
1780-1784 Second Mysore War : The British defeat Hyder Ali
1784 Pitt's India Act
1790-1792 Third Mysore War between the British and Tipu
1793 Permanent Settlement of Bengal
1794 Death of Mahadaji Sindhia
1799 Fourth Mysore War: The British defeat Tipu; Death of Tipu; Partition of Mysore
1802 Treaty of Bassein
1803-1805 The Second Anglo-Maratha war: The British defeat the Marathas at Assaye: Treaty of Amritsar
1814-1816 The Anglo-Gurkha war
1817-1818 The Pindari war
1817-1819 The last Anglo-Maratha war: Marathas finally crushed by the British
1824-1826 The First Burmese war
1829 Prohibition of Sati
1829-1837 Suppression of Thuggee
1831 Raja of Mysore deposed and its administration taken over by East India Company
1833 Renewal of Company's Charter; Abolition of company's trading rights
1835 Education Resolution
1838 Tripartite treaty between Shah Shuja, Ranjit Singh and the British
1839-1842 First Afghan war
1843 Gwalior war
1845-1846 First Anglo-Sikh war
1848 Lord Dalhousie becomes the Governor-General
1848-1849 Second Anglo-Sikh war : (Rise of Sikh Power) British annex Punjab as Sikhs are defeated
1852 Second Anglo-Burmese war
1853 Railway opened from Bombay to Thane; Telegraph line from Calcutta to Agra
1857 First War of Indian Independence: The Sepoy Mutiny
1858 British Crown takes over the Indian Government
1861 Indian Councils Act; Indian High Courts Act; Introduction of the Penal Code
1868 Punjab Tenancy Act; Railway opened from Ambala to Delhi
1874 The Bihar Famine
1877 Delhi Durbar: The Queen of England proclaimed Empress of India
1878 Vernacular Press Act
1881 Factory Act; Rendition of Mysore
1885
First meeting of the Indian National Congress; Bengal Tenancy Act
1891
Indian Factory Act
1892
Indian Councils Act to regulate Indian administration
1897
Plague in Bombay; Famine Commission
1899
Lord Curzon becomes Governor-General and Viceroy
1905
The First Partition of Bengal
1906
Formation of Muslim League; Congress declaration regarding Swaraj
1908
Newspaper Act
1911
Delhi Durbar; Partition of Bengal modified to create the Presidency of Bengal
1912
The Imperial capital shifted from Calcutta to Delhi
1913
Educational Resolution of the Government of India
1915
Defence of India Act
1916
Home Rule League founded; Foundation of Women's University at Poona
1919
Rowlatt Act evokes protests; Jalianwalla Bagh massacre; The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms offer limited autonomy
1920
The Khilafat Movement started; Mahatma Gandhi leads the Congress; Non-co-operation Movement
1921
Moplah (Muslim) rebellion in Malabar; Census of India
1922
Civil Disobedience Movement; Chauri-Chaura violence leads to Gandhi suspending movement
1923
Swarajists in Indian Councils; Certification of Salt Tax; Hindu-Muslim riots
1925
Reforms Enquiry committee Report
1926
Royal Commission on Agriculture; Factories Act
1927
Indian Navy Act; Simon Commission Appointed
1928
Simon Commission comes to India: Boycott by all parties; All Parties Conference
1929
Lord Irwin promises Dominion Status for India; Trade Union split; Jawaharlal Nehru hoists the National Flag at Lahore
1930
Civil Disobedience movement continues; Salt Satyagraha: Gandhiji's Dandi March; First Round Table Conference
1931
Second Round Table Conference; Irwin-Gandhi Pact; Census of India
1932
Suppression of the Congress movement; Third Round Table Conference; The Communal Award; Poona Pact
1933
Publication of White Paper on Indian reforms
1934
Civil Disobedience Movement called off; Bihar Earthquake
1935
Government of India Act
1937
Inauguration of Provincial Autonomy; Congress ministries formed in a majority of Indian provinces
1939
Political deadlock in India as Congress ministries resign
1942
Cripps Mission to India; Congress adopts Quit India Resolution; Congress leaders arrested; Subhash Chandra Bose forms Indian National Army
1944
Gandhi-Jinnah Talks break down on Pakistan issue
1945
First trial of the Indian Army men opened
1946
Mutiny in Royal Indian Navy; Cabinet Mission's plan announced; Muslim League decides to participate in the Interim Government; Interim Government formed; Constituent Assembly's first meeting
3 June 1947
Announcement of Lord Mountbatten's plan for partition of India
15 Aug 1947
Partition of India and Independence
The Honourable East India Company (HEIC), often colloquially referred to as "John Company", was an early joint-stock company (the Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock). It was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favouring trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created HEIC a 21 year monopoly on all trade in the East Indies.
In 1617, the Company was given trade rights by Jahangir the Mughal Emperor. One hundred years later, it was granted a royal dictate from Emperor Farrukhsiyar exempting the Company from the payment of custom duties in Bengal, giving it a decided commercial advantage in the Indian trade. A decisive victory by Sir Robert Clive at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 established the Company as a military as well as a commercial power. By 1760, the French were driven out of India, with the exception of a few trading posts on the coast, such as Pondicherry. In South-East Asia, the company would establish the first trading posts and exert its military dominance leading to the eventual establishment of British Malaya, Hong Kong and Singapore as British Crown Colonies.
The Company also had interests along the routes to India from Great Britain. As early as 1620, the company attempted to lay claim to the Table Mountain region in South Africa; later it occupied and ruled St Helena. Piracy was a severe problem for the Company. This problem reached its peak in 1695, when pirate Henry Avery captured the Great Mughal's treasure fleet. The Company was held responsible for that raid, because according to Indian popular opinion of the time, all pirates were by definition English. Later, the Company unsuccessfully employed Captain Kidd to combat piracy in the Indian Ocean; it also cultivated the production of tea in India. Other notable events in the Company's history were that it held Napoleon captive on St Helena, and made the fortune of Elihu Yale. Its products were the basis of the Boston Tea Party in Colonial America.
Its shipyards provided the model for St Petersburg, while elements of its administration, the Honourable East India Company Civil Service (HEICS), survive in the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Its corporate structure was the most successful early example of a joint stock company. However, the demands of Company officers on the treasury of Bengal contributed tragically to the province's incapacity in the face of a famine, which killed millions of people in 1770-1773.
Chronology -- Modern India -- 1757 AD to 1947 AD
1757 Battle of Plassey: The British defeat Siraj-ud-daulah
1760 Battle of Wandiwash: The British defeat the French
1761 Third battle of Panipat: Ahmed Shah Abdali defeats the Marathas; Accession of Madhava Rao Peshwa; Rise of Hyder Ali
1764 Battle of Buxar: The British defeat Mir Kasim
1765 The British get Diwani Rights in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa
1767-1769 First Mysore War: The British conclude a humiliating peace pact with Hyder Ali
1772 Death of Madhava Rao Peshwa; Warren Hastings appointed as Governor of Bengal
1773 The Regulating Act passed by the British Parliament
1774 Warren Hastings appointed as Governor-General
1775-1782 The First Anglo-Maratha war
1780-1784 Second Mysore War : The British defeat Hyder Ali
1784 Pitt's India Act
1790-1792 Third Mysore War between the British and Tipu
1793 Permanent Settlement of Bengal
1794 Death of Mahadaji Sindhia
1799 Fourth Mysore War: The British defeat Tipu; Death of Tipu; Partition of Mysore
1802 Treaty of Bassein
1803-1805 The Second Anglo-Maratha war: The British defeat the Marathas at Assaye: Treaty of Amritsar
1814-1816 The Anglo-Gurkha war
1817-1818 The Pindari war
1817-1819 The last Anglo-Maratha war: Marathas finally crushed by the British
1824-1826 The First Burmese war
1829 Prohibition of Sati
1829-1837 Suppression of Thuggee
1831 Raja of Mysore deposed and its administration taken over by East India Company
1833 Renewal of Company's Charter; Abolition of company's trading rights
1835 Education Resolution
1838 Tripartite treaty between Shah Shuja, Ranjit Singh and the British
1839-1842 First Afghan war
1843 Gwalior war
1845-1846 First Anglo-Sikh war
1848 Lord Dalhousie becomes the Governor-General
1848-1849 Second Anglo-Sikh war : (Rise of Sikh Power) British annex Punjab as Sikhs are defeated
1852 Second Anglo-Burmese war
1853 Railway opened from Bombay to Thane; Telegraph line from Calcutta to Agra
1857 First War of Indian Independence: The Sepoy Mutiny
1858 British Crown takes over the Indian Government
1861 Indian Councils Act; Indian High Courts Act; Introduction of the Penal Code
1868 Punjab Tenancy Act; Railway opened from Ambala to Delhi
1874 The Bihar Famine
1877 Delhi Durbar: The Queen of England proclaimed Empress of India
1878 Vernacular Press Act
1881 Factory Act; Rendition of Mysore
1885
First meeting of the Indian National Congress; Bengal Tenancy Act
1891
Indian Factory Act
1892
Indian Councils Act to regulate Indian administration
1897
Plague in Bombay; Famine Commission
1899
Lord Curzon becomes Governor-General and Viceroy
1905
The First Partition of Bengal
1906
Formation of Muslim League; Congress declaration regarding Swaraj
1908
Newspaper Act
1911
Delhi Durbar; Partition of Bengal modified to create the Presidency of Bengal
1912
The Imperial capital shifted from Calcutta to Delhi
1913
Educational Resolution of the Government of India
1915
Defence of India Act
1916
Home Rule League founded; Foundation of Women's University at Poona
1919
Rowlatt Act evokes protests; Jalianwalla Bagh massacre; The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms offer limited autonomy
1920
The Khilafat Movement started; Mahatma Gandhi leads the Congress; Non-co-operation Movement
1921
Moplah (Muslim) rebellion in Malabar; Census of India
1922
Civil Disobedience Movement; Chauri-Chaura violence leads to Gandhi suspending movement
1923
Swarajists in Indian Councils; Certification of Salt Tax; Hindu-Muslim riots
1925
Reforms Enquiry committee Report
1926
Royal Commission on Agriculture; Factories Act
1927
Indian Navy Act; Simon Commission Appointed
1928
Simon Commission comes to India: Boycott by all parties; All Parties Conference
1929
Lord Irwin promises Dominion Status for India; Trade Union split; Jawaharlal Nehru hoists the National Flag at Lahore
1930
Civil Disobedience movement continues; Salt Satyagraha: Gandhiji's Dandi March; First Round Table Conference
1931
Second Round Table Conference; Irwin-Gandhi Pact; Census of India
1932
Suppression of the Congress movement; Third Round Table Conference; The Communal Award; Poona Pact
1933
Publication of White Paper on Indian reforms
1934
Civil Disobedience Movement called off; Bihar Earthquake
1935
Government of India Act
1937
Inauguration of Provincial Autonomy; Congress ministries formed in a majority of Indian provinces
1939
Political deadlock in India as Congress ministries resign
1942
Cripps Mission to India; Congress adopts Quit India Resolution; Congress leaders arrested; Subhash Chandra Bose forms Indian National Army
1944
Gandhi-Jinnah Talks break down on Pakistan issue
1945
First trial of the Indian Army men opened
1946
Mutiny in Royal Indian Navy; Cabinet Mission's plan announced; Muslim League decides to participate in the Interim Government; Interim Government formed; Constituent Assembly's first meeting
3 June 1947
Announcement of Lord Mountbatten's plan for partition of India
15 Aug 1947
Partition of India and Independence
Friday, October 12, 2007
"Sepoy Mutiny" and Historical Distortions
The intellectuals of India today derive their recognitions and rewards because of their pro-Western attitude. As a result what should be a gigantic celebration for 150th anniversary of the India’s First War of Independence or what the British called “Sepoy Munity” is now reduced to arguments and counterarguments between politicians and historians about the specific version, which should be acceptable to them. Some historians of India recently are pursuing a policy to reflect and amplify the Anglo-American and Pakistani opinion, which is hostile towards India and the Indian history. The so-called “Sepoy Mutiny” is the latest victim.
British historians and their Indian followers like Sir Jadunath Sarkar have tried to prove that the revolt in 1857 was nothing but a mutiny of some undisciplined, uneducated soldiers, who had caused a lot of chaos and destructions but were unconnected to nationalist movement which came later. According to the British, the battle of Plassey in 1757 was a war between the French and the British where the Nawab of Bengal foolishly had supported the French. Similarly, they cannot not see the reason why the Indians who were saved from the ‘thugis’ and ‘sati’ would revolt against the British who did their best to bring civilization to this dark sub-continent.
The hero of the so-called ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ Mongal Pandey was described, by Rudranshu Mukherjee a very pro-British historian in his book ‘Mongal Pandey – brave martyr or accidental hero’, published by the Penguin Press, as a drunk, characterless person suddenly under intoxications had attacked his superior officer and he had nothing to do with the uprising of 1857. The same description of Mongal Pandey was there also in various history books written by the British historians (Sir Colin Campbell, Narrative of the Indian Revolt. London: George Vickers, 1858; John William Kaye, A History of the Sepoy War In India (3 vols). London: W.H. Allen & Co., 1878; Colonel G.B Malleson, The Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York: Scribner & Sons, 1891).
Although the above description of Mongal Pandey was disputed by Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar (Struggle for freedom, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1969) and many other notable Indian historians, I will not quote from them, as they are already dismissed by the British historians and their Indian followers from Jawaharlal Nehru University( JNU), Delhi University and Aligarh Muslim University( AMU) as “communal historians”.
“Sepoy Mutiny” as described by Karl Marx:
Recently Sitaram Yachury of the CPI(M) called for a fresh look at the Sepoy Mutiny. But what he has in mind is the JNU-AMU and Pakistani version of the revolt which was first described as the “ First War of Independence” by Karl Marx, as the historians of India could not understand the true significance of that revolt and still in the text books in India we can see only the British explanation of that event. During the revolt of 1857, Karl Marx was writing regularly in the New York Daily Tribune about the progress and the suppressions of that revolt. His description of the Mongal Pandey’s courageous act is as follows:
“On the 22nd of January, an incendiary fire broke out in cantonments a short distance from Calcutta. On the 25th of February the 19th native regiment mutinied at Berhampore; the men objecting to the cartridges served out to them. On the 31st of March that regiment was disbanded; at the end of March the 34th Sepoy regiment, stationed at Barrackpore, allowed one of its men to advance (i.e., Mongal Pandey) with a loaded musket upon the parade-ground in front of the line, and, after having called his comrades to mutiny, he was permitted to attack and wound the Adjutant and Sergeant-Major of his regiment. During the hand-to-hand conflict, that ensued, hundreds of sepoys looked passively on, while others participated in the struggle, and attacked the officers with the butt ends of their muskets.” (Karl Marx on 4 August 1857, New York Daily Tribune).
Thus, Mongal Pandey was not alone; he was not drunk or intoxicated but he was a part of the Sepoys who could not tolerate any more the continuous humiliations or torture of their countrymen by the British. According to the British historians and Rudranshu Mukherjee Mongal Pandey’s action was unconnected to the subsequent revolt that took place in Meerut much later in 1857. The famous Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar also supported this British view. However, according to Karl Marx, the action of Mongal Pandey was the beginning of the revolt, which spread like bonfire after that incident.
Marx wrote, “Subsequently that regiment was also disbanded. The month of April was signalized by incendiary fires in several cantonments of the Bengal army at Allahabad, Agra, Umballah, by a mutiny of the 3rd regiment of light cavalry at Meerut, and by similar appearances of disaffection in the Madras and Bombay armies. (Karl Marx in August 4 1857, New York Daily Tribune).
The cause of the revolt was not just religious taboo or superstitions, as the British historians and their Indian agents have suggested, but torture and humiliations the people suffered in the hands of the army of the East India Company. On August 28, 1857, Marx published an article in The New York Daily Tribune in order to show that “the British rulers of India are by no means such mild and spotless benefactors of the Indian people as they would have the world believe”.
Marx cited the official Blue Books -- entitled "East India (Torture) 1855-57"-- that were laid before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857. The reports revealed that British officers were allowed an extended series of appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against Indians. Concerning matters of extortion in collecting public revenue, the report indicates that officers had free reign of any methods at their disposal. Marx also refers to Lord Dalhousie"s statements in the Blue Books that there was "irrefragable proof" that various officers had committed "gross injustice, to arbitrary imprisonment and cruel torture".
According to Karl Marx, before this there had been mutiny in the Indian army, but the present revolt is distinguished by characteristic and features. It is the first time that sepoy regiments have murdered their European officers; that “Mussulmans and Hindoos, renouncing their mutual antipathies, have combined against their common masters”; that “disturbances beginning with the Hindoos, have actually, ended in placing on the throne of Delhi a Mohammedan Emperor;” that the mutiny, “has not been confined to a few localities”; and lastly, that “the revolt in the Anglo-Indian army has coincided with a general disaffection exhibited against English supremacy on the part of the great Asiatic nations, the revolt of the Bengal army being, beyond doubt, intimately connected with the Persian and Chinese wars”.
“The ‘unorganized peasants’ of India fought one of the most powerful empires in the world to near defeat with limited resources and even more limited training. It is clear that British interference governments and the oppression of the Indian people, religious and economic, created a bloody revolution”.
“If there is a lesson to be learned from any of this, it is that a people, once pushed into a corner, will fight for nothing more than the freedom to fight, and live, if not for religion then for their basic right to live in freedom.” (in Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959).
Mongal Pandey has initiated that first war of independence in 1857 and he should be respected as such. However, the pro-British historians of India are now doing their best to diminish the importance of both Mongal Pandey and the 1857 revolt. The JNU and Pakistani historians on the other hand is glorifying only the Mughal rulers and the contributions of their followers ignoring the role of the indigenous Indians
Conclusion:
Pro-Britishand pro-Pakistani journalists and historians of India want to malign and admonish the revolutionaries and important personalities of India, modern, medieval, or ancient. They have taken up the task to satisfy their masters in the West, who as Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan wrote, “… tried their best to persuade India that its philosophy is absurd, its art puerile, its poetry uninspired, its religion grotesque and its ethics barbarous.” [in ‘Indian Philosophy’, Vol.II, Allen& Unwin, London, 1977, p.779].
The historians following the British tradition describe India as an inferior civilization, always poor, always defeated and fragmented. Both James Mill in 19th century (in The History of British India) and Gunner Myrdall in 1970 (in Asian Drama) said that India is a civilization without any quality. According to the British historians, whether MaxMuller in 19th century or F.R.Allchin and Bridget Allchin in 21st century, everything in Indian civilization was borrowed starting with the Sanskrit language and the Aryan civilization, which were both of foreign origin. It is unfortunate that some Indian journalist and historians are propagating for the British journalists and historians to gain favour and the Indian establishment supports them.
Yvette Rosser in her PhD thesis, “Curricula as Destiny: Forging National Identities in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh" in the University of Texas in Austin, has proved that the source of the recent writings of the JNU-AMU-Delhi historians are the Pakistani textbooks. In India, some recent historians from the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Jamia Milia Islamia, and Delhi University, Satish Chandra, K.M. Shrimali, K.M.Pannikar, R.S. Sharma, D. N. Jha, Gyanendra Pandey, Irfan Habib, Arjun Deva, Musirul Hussain, Harbans Mukhia, and Romila Thaper, are called Marxist historians. However, a closer look at their writings would show that they are not Marxian but loyalist of the British and Pakistani historical traditions, which are anti-Marxist, and anti-Indian. Unfortunately Sitaram Yachury is asking people to follow this pro-Pakistani version of the “Sepoy Mutiny” ignoring version given by Karl Marx.
Dr.Dipak Basu
(The author is a Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan)
The intellectuals of India today derive their recognitions and rewards because of their pro-Western attitude. As a result what should be a gigantic celebration for 150th anniversary of the India’s First War of Independence or what the British called “Sepoy Munity” is now reduced to arguments and counterarguments between politicians and historians about the specific version, which should be acceptable to them. Some historians of India recently are pursuing a policy to reflect and amplify the Anglo-American and Pakistani opinion, which is hostile towards India and the Indian history. The so-called “Sepoy Mutiny” is the latest victim.
British historians and their Indian followers like Sir Jadunath Sarkar have tried to prove that the revolt in 1857 was nothing but a mutiny of some undisciplined, uneducated soldiers, who had caused a lot of chaos and destructions but were unconnected to nationalist movement which came later. According to the British, the battle of Plassey in 1757 was a war between the French and the British where the Nawab of Bengal foolishly had supported the French. Similarly, they cannot not see the reason why the Indians who were saved from the ‘thugis’ and ‘sati’ would revolt against the British who did their best to bring civilization to this dark sub-continent.
The hero of the so-called ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ Mongal Pandey was described, by Rudranshu Mukherjee a very pro-British historian in his book ‘Mongal Pandey – brave martyr or accidental hero’, published by the Penguin Press, as a drunk, characterless person suddenly under intoxications had attacked his superior officer and he had nothing to do with the uprising of 1857. The same description of Mongal Pandey was there also in various history books written by the British historians (Sir Colin Campbell, Narrative of the Indian Revolt. London: George Vickers, 1858; John William Kaye, A History of the Sepoy War In India (3 vols). London: W.H. Allen & Co., 1878; Colonel G.B Malleson, The Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York: Scribner & Sons, 1891).
Although the above description of Mongal Pandey was disputed by Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar (Struggle for freedom, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1969) and many other notable Indian historians, I will not quote from them, as they are already dismissed by the British historians and their Indian followers from Jawaharlal Nehru University( JNU), Delhi University and Aligarh Muslim University( AMU) as “communal historians”.
“Sepoy Mutiny” as described by Karl Marx:
Recently Sitaram Yachury of the CPI(M) called for a fresh look at the Sepoy Mutiny. But what he has in mind is the JNU-AMU and Pakistani version of the revolt which was first described as the “ First War of Independence” by Karl Marx, as the historians of India could not understand the true significance of that revolt and still in the text books in India we can see only the British explanation of that event. During the revolt of 1857, Karl Marx was writing regularly in the New York Daily Tribune about the progress and the suppressions of that revolt. His description of the Mongal Pandey’s courageous act is as follows:
“On the 22nd of January, an incendiary fire broke out in cantonments a short distance from Calcutta. On the 25th of February the 19th native regiment mutinied at Berhampore; the men objecting to the cartridges served out to them. On the 31st of March that regiment was disbanded; at the end of March the 34th Sepoy regiment, stationed at Barrackpore, allowed one of its men to advance (i.e., Mongal Pandey) with a loaded musket upon the parade-ground in front of the line, and, after having called his comrades to mutiny, he was permitted to attack and wound the Adjutant and Sergeant-Major of his regiment. During the hand-to-hand conflict, that ensued, hundreds of sepoys looked passively on, while others participated in the struggle, and attacked the officers with the butt ends of their muskets.” (Karl Marx on 4 August 1857, New York Daily Tribune).
Thus, Mongal Pandey was not alone; he was not drunk or intoxicated but he was a part of the Sepoys who could not tolerate any more the continuous humiliations or torture of their countrymen by the British. According to the British historians and Rudranshu Mukherjee Mongal Pandey’s action was unconnected to the subsequent revolt that took place in Meerut much later in 1857. The famous Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar also supported this British view. However, according to Karl Marx, the action of Mongal Pandey was the beginning of the revolt, which spread like bonfire after that incident.
Marx wrote, “Subsequently that regiment was also disbanded. The month of April was signalized by incendiary fires in several cantonments of the Bengal army at Allahabad, Agra, Umballah, by a mutiny of the 3rd regiment of light cavalry at Meerut, and by similar appearances of disaffection in the Madras and Bombay armies. (Karl Marx in August 4 1857, New York Daily Tribune).
The cause of the revolt was not just religious taboo or superstitions, as the British historians and their Indian agents have suggested, but torture and humiliations the people suffered in the hands of the army of the East India Company. On August 28, 1857, Marx published an article in The New York Daily Tribune in order to show that “the British rulers of India are by no means such mild and spotless benefactors of the Indian people as they would have the world believe”.
Marx cited the official Blue Books -- entitled "East India (Torture) 1855-57"-- that were laid before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857. The reports revealed that British officers were allowed an extended series of appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against Indians. Concerning matters of extortion in collecting public revenue, the report indicates that officers had free reign of any methods at their disposal. Marx also refers to Lord Dalhousie"s statements in the Blue Books that there was "irrefragable proof" that various officers had committed "gross injustice, to arbitrary imprisonment and cruel torture".
According to Karl Marx, before this there had been mutiny in the Indian army, but the present revolt is distinguished by characteristic and features. It is the first time that sepoy regiments have murdered their European officers; that “Mussulmans and Hindoos, renouncing their mutual antipathies, have combined against their common masters”; that “disturbances beginning with the Hindoos, have actually, ended in placing on the throne of Delhi a Mohammedan Emperor;” that the mutiny, “has not been confined to a few localities”; and lastly, that “the revolt in the Anglo-Indian army has coincided with a general disaffection exhibited against English supremacy on the part of the great Asiatic nations, the revolt of the Bengal army being, beyond doubt, intimately connected with the Persian and Chinese wars”.
“The ‘unorganized peasants’ of India fought one of the most powerful empires in the world to near defeat with limited resources and even more limited training. It is clear that British interference governments and the oppression of the Indian people, religious and economic, created a bloody revolution”.
“If there is a lesson to be learned from any of this, it is that a people, once pushed into a corner, will fight for nothing more than the freedom to fight, and live, if not for religion then for their basic right to live in freedom.” (in Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959).
Mongal Pandey has initiated that first war of independence in 1857 and he should be respected as such. However, the pro-British historians of India are now doing their best to diminish the importance of both Mongal Pandey and the 1857 revolt. The JNU and Pakistani historians on the other hand is glorifying only the Mughal rulers and the contributions of their followers ignoring the role of the indigenous Indians
Conclusion:
Pro-Britishand pro-Pakistani journalists and historians of India want to malign and admonish the revolutionaries and important personalities of India, modern, medieval, or ancient. They have taken up the task to satisfy their masters in the West, who as Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan wrote, “… tried their best to persuade India that its philosophy is absurd, its art puerile, its poetry uninspired, its religion grotesque and its ethics barbarous.” [in ‘Indian Philosophy’, Vol.II, Allen& Unwin, London, 1977, p.779].
The historians following the British tradition describe India as an inferior civilization, always poor, always defeated and fragmented. Both James Mill in 19th century (in The History of British India) and Gunner Myrdall in 1970 (in Asian Drama) said that India is a civilization without any quality. According to the British historians, whether MaxMuller in 19th century or F.R.Allchin and Bridget Allchin in 21st century, everything in Indian civilization was borrowed starting with the Sanskrit language and the Aryan civilization, which were both of foreign origin. It is unfortunate that some Indian journalist and historians are propagating for the British journalists and historians to gain favour and the Indian establishment supports them.
Yvette Rosser in her PhD thesis, “Curricula as Destiny: Forging National Identities in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh" in the University of Texas in Austin, has proved that the source of the recent writings of the JNU-AMU-Delhi historians are the Pakistani textbooks. In India, some recent historians from the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Jamia Milia Islamia, and Delhi University, Satish Chandra, K.M. Shrimali, K.M.Pannikar, R.S. Sharma, D. N. Jha, Gyanendra Pandey, Irfan Habib, Arjun Deva, Musirul Hussain, Harbans Mukhia, and Romila Thaper, are called Marxist historians. However, a closer look at their writings would show that they are not Marxian but loyalist of the British and Pakistani historical traditions, which are anti-Marxist, and anti-Indian. Unfortunately Sitaram Yachury is asking people to follow this pro-Pakistani version of the “Sepoy Mutiny” ignoring version given by Karl Marx.
Dr.Dipak Basu
(The author is a Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan)
Satyagraha and India"s freedom Movement
Yogi Ramdev’s courageous statement that we must not forget the role of the revolutionaries in the freedom movement of India has called for a reexamination of the role of Mahatma Gandhi and his Satyagraha. "Satyagraha’ literally means insistence on truth. According to Gandhi, the doctrine of Satyagraha “came to mean vindication of Truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but ones own self. Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering.”
Recently the Prime minister Manmohan Singh went to South Africa to celebrate the centenary of Satyagraha, which was started in 6 September 1906 in South Africa as a protest against the identity card that the non-Europeans were asked to carry in that country. What that got to do with Indian freedom movement against the British Empire is the question. The answer given by the official historian is that Gandhi through Satyagraha fought the mightiest empire of the world in a peaceful way, which is novel in both theory and application. However, the truth is very different from the official version of history of the freedom movement in India.
Gandhi in South Africa:
Gandhi arrived in South Africa in 1893 as an employee of a Gujarati merchant for a year. When he agreed to stay on in South Africa to serve the Indian community, he was provided retainers by Indian merchants to enable him to live in proper style as a barrister and entertain Europeans. He helped found the Natal Indian Congress, which was an elite organization, just like the Indian National Congress at that time, restricted to the very rich people and the empire-loyalists.
Gandhi had visited India for five months in 1896 and met a number of public leaders to secure their support to redress the grievances of Indians in South Africa. In his second visit for a year in 1901-2 he attended the Congress session in Calcutta and spent more than a month with G.K. Gokhale, who was very loyal to the British and was opposed to the ideas of freedom movement of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Chittaranjan Das, Surendranath Banerjee and Bipin Pal. Thus, Gandhi has joined the Empire-loyalist camp within the Congress, disinterested in the Swaraj movement of Tilak.
Gandhi’s first Satyagraha:
Returning to South Africa, Gandhi began to defy the Transvaal Asiatic Ordinance, where the government wanted all Asiatic, Arabs and Turks to carry a pass all the time to prove their eligibility to stay in South Africa. It was not a big issue, as in most countries even today foreigners must carry such documents anyway. Throughout the Satyagraha, Gandhi emphasized that it was not so much for the rights of the Indians in South Africa as for the honour of the motherland, but which "motherland’ Gandhi was talking about was not clear. One of the most dramatic events of the Satyagraha was the burning of the passes. The question is did that help the Indians in South Africa. The answer is definitely negative. Indians were rounded up and deported in many cases. The campaign lasted for over seven years, and in 1913 hundreds of people went to jail - and thousands of striking Indian miners faced imprisonment and injury.
Even when General Smut decided to meet Gandhi, it was made clear that there would be no further immigration of the Indians to South Africa. Passes were withdrawn temporarily but soon after laws were passed to restrict the non-Europeans into designated areas in every cities; that was the beginning of the legal racial segregations in South Africa. By all means Gandhi’s Satyagraha was not a success, but that had not stopped certain people and the English language media in India at that time to propagate Gandhi as victorious against a racist government of British origin for whom Gandhi had worked as medical orderly in the war against the Dutch settlers in South Africa and became a recruitment agent during the First World War. Gandhi had practically no contact with the African and their liberation movement. Maureen Swan wrote in her book, "Gandhi: the South African Experience’:
In choosing not to attempt to ally with the articulate politicized elements in either the Coloured or African communities, Gandhi facilitated the implementation of the divisive segregationist policies which helped ease the task of white minority rule in South Africa.
The European rulers in South Africa enforced racial segregation and differential policies despite of Gandhi are Satyagraha and tried to incite Africans against the Indians and attempted to degrade the status of the Indians to just “coolies”.
When Gandhi left South Africa, he still believed in the British Empire though tentatively. He said, Though Empires have gone and fallen, this empire may perhaps be an exception....it is an empire not founded on material but on spiritual foundations....the British constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to the British constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondsman. (in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary)
Impacts of Gandhi on South Africa’s freedom struggle were practically insignificant. Mainly African ANC (African National Congress), like its counterparts in the adjacent Portuguese colonies in Mozambique, and Angola, was strongly influenced, financed and armed by the Soviet Union and was not at all interested in non-violence methods of Gandhi. Nelson Mandela, in his speech from the dock in April 1964, pointed out that he and his colleagues had decided to undertake organized underground and armed resistance in order to avert uncontrolled violence unleashed by the racist government of South Africa against the black and coloured people.
Gandhi returned to India in 1914. Gandhi himself had twice volunteered for service in the First World War for the British, in France and in Mesopotamia, because he had convinced himself that he owed the empire that sacrifice in return for its military protection (in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary).
Gandhi’s Second Satyagraha :
Through extraordinary good fortune, due to the deaths of Tilak by September 1920 Gandhi in an extraordinary political coup was elected himself as the president of the All-India Home Rule League and steered a resolution in favour of Non-Cooperation to preserve the Khilafat but got rid of the freedom movement in the Congress session in Calcutta. Later all the important leaders of the Congress, Bipin Pal, Surendranath Banerjee, Ajit Singh were either expelled or neutralized by Gandhi. Tilak had gathered about Rs.10 lakhs, a huge sum these days to finance his freedom movement. Gandhi used that up to please the followers of Turkish Khalifa, who was defied by the Muslims in the Turkish occupied Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and in Turkey itself by the reforming leader Kamal Attaturk. Gandhi and the Muslim leaders of India were ignorant about these political developments in the Middle East.
The agitation to save the Turkish Sultan by the "Non-Cooperation’ of the Congress party was initiated by the Khilafat leadership, not by the Congress. Gandhi without consulting other leaders of the Congress made these two issues his own by presiding over the All India Khilafat Conference in Delhi in November 1919, and started his programme of peaceful non co-operation with the British included boycotts of British goods and institutions to protect the Turkish Sultan, leading to arrests of thousands of the people for defying British laws. Thus, the second Satyagraha has nothing to do with the freedom movement of India and was a regressive movement to preserve the violent crude feudal Sultanate of Turkey who had colonized a vast part of the world, from Iraq to Greece with its inhuman rule.
The Khilafat movement was discredited by the Muslims in Malabar Coast who had resorted into massive violence to slaughter the Hindus in Kerala and Mysore. Gandhi called off the Khilafat movement after the Chauri Chaura violence without even consulting his Muslim allies. Gandhi’s decision created deep consternation in Congress circles. Subhas Chandra Bose wrote: To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity. The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das, Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison, shared the popular resentment. I was with the Deshbandu at the time, and I could see that he was beside himself with anger and sorrow. (quoted from Indian Struggle by Subhas Chandra Bose, p.90)
Motilal Nehru, Lajpat Rai and others sent from prison long and indignant letters to Gandhi protesting at his decision to which Gandhi replied that men in prison were civilly dead and had no claim to any say in policy. In March 1922, Gandhi was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was released after two years, but by then the political landscape had changed dramatically. The Congress Party had split and Hindu-Muslim unity had disintegrated. Sri Aurobindo said:”When Gandhis movement was started, I said that this movement would lead either to a fiasco or to great confusion. And I see no reason to change my opinion. Only I would like to add that it has led to both.”
Gandhi’s third Satyagraha:
Gandhis political influence was minimal for some years, until the Calcutta Congress in December 1928, where he demanded dominion status for India, and threatened a nation-wide campaign but he had also expelled Srinivas Iyenger from the Congress for demanding complete independence of India. Subhas Chandra Bose was expelled along with more than 200 of his followers from the Congress party for similar reason in 1939.
On March 12, 1930 Gandhi started a March in Dandi, Gujarat to break the law, which had deprived the people of his right to make his own salt, although for most of the people of India it was only symbolic as they never did used to make their own salt in any way. On April 6, 1930 Gandhi broke the Salt law at the sea beach at Dandi. This simple act was immediately followed by a nation-wide defiance of the law. This movement came to be known as Civil Disobedience Movement. Within a few weeks about a hundred thousand men and women, thinking mistakenly that it was the beginning of the freedom movement, were in jail, throwing mighty machinery of the British Government out of gear. Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930.
After his arrest, a more aggressive non-violent rebellion took place in which 2500 volunteers raided salt depots at Dharsana. In April 1930 there were violent police-crowd clashes in Calcutta. Approximately over 100,000 people were imprisoned in the course of the Civil disobedience movement (1930-31), while in Peshawar unarmed demonstrators were fired upon by the British. Gandhi withdrew himself from the movement. Sacrifice of the people was in vain. The British government had never withdrawn the tax on salt.
In January 1931, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, ordered the release of Gandhi and together they signed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which called for an end of Congresss civil disobedience. In August, Gandhi went to London to represent the Indian National Congress at the Second Round Table Conference; the first one was held without Congress participation in November 1930. That Conference in 1931has failed mainly because of the change of government in Britain.
Gandhi returned to India and decided to resume the civil disobedience movement in January 1932. India was then under the repressive policies of the new Viceroy, Lord Willingdon. The Indian National Congress had been outlawed. Gandhi had restricted the civil disobedience movement to him and suspended it completely in 1934.Gandhi then had started his campaign against untouchability. Thus, Gandhi’s second Satyagraha also could not achieve anything much because Gandhi as usual refused to continue it. That was Gandhi’s last and the only Satyagraha as a mass political movement for the freedom movement.
Quit India movement is not a Satyagraha:
In 1942, Japan already liberated Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Subhas Chandra Bose hoisted Indian flags there. Free India government in exile or Azad Hind Government was recognized by the Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Imperial China. Indian national army and Imperial Japanese army was on the doorstep of the British India. Gandhi refused to be outsmarted by Netaji Subhas and started his last mass movement, which was not a Satyagraha.
In August 1942, Gandhi gave forth the slogan Quit India for the British but he had no plan how to execute the programme. The Congress passed a resolution on 8 August 1942, which stated that, the immediate ending of the British rule in India, was an urgent necessity both for the sake of India and the success of United Nations. The congress resolved to launch a mass Civil Disobedience struggle on the widest possible scale for the vindication of India’s unalienable right to freedom and independence if the British rule did not end immediately. The day after the resolution was passed, the Congress was banned and all the important leaders were arrested including Gandhi. That provoked spontaneous demonstrations at many places and people resorted to the use of violence, not Satyagraha, to dislodge the foreign rule.
Unarmed crowds faced police and military firing on many occasions and they were also machine gunned by low- flying aircraft. Repression also took the form of taking hostages from the villages, imposing collective fines, whipping of suspects and burning of villages. By the end of 1942, over 60,000 persons had been arrested. Martial law had not been proclaimed but the army did whatever it wanted. The brutal and all-out repression succeeded within a period of 6 or 7 weeks in bringing about a cessation of the struggle. As usual Gandhi already withdrew himself from that movement within a few days after it has started.
Since 1942, Gandhi was busy making plans to partition India to create Pakistan, the idea of which Gandhi has accepted even in 1940, according to both B.R.Ambedkar and Sri Aurobindo. Nehru and Patel as representative of Gandhi were in regular consultations with the Vice-Roy of India on how best to help the British war efforts against Japan and the Azad Hind Fauz. Freedom movement was not in their mind.
Gandhi had initiated a number of his personal Satyagraha on a number of issues unrelated to the freedom movement; most of these were not successful. Sri Aurobindo made this comment about Satyagraha:
“Gandhi fasted in the Ahmedabad mill-hands strike to settle the question between mill- owners and workers. The mill-owners did not want to be responsible for his death and so they gave way, without of course, being convinced of his position. But as soon as they found the situation normal they reverted to their old ideas. The same thing happened in South Africa. He got some concessions there by passive resistance and when he came back to India it became worse than before.”
Gandhi’s fast in Calcutta in 1947 has ended communal riot only in Calcutta for a while, but thereafter the whole country engulfed itself in communal murders and mayhem. Gandhi’s fast in 1948 to force the newly independent India government to pay the due financial share to Pakistan was against his closest admirers and disciples, and it was bound to be successful. However, these have nothing to do with the independence movement.
Analysis:
It is a common belief in India and in the Western world that Gandhi through his non-violence Satyagraha has gave India independence from the British rule. The truth is somehow very different.
According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, the creation of the INA( Indian National Army) and mutiny the RIN ( Royal Indian Navy) of February 18–23 1946 made the British realise that their time was up in India. An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:
“When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: "The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, "Minimal’.”
(in Anuj Dhar’s website: www.hindustantime.com/news/specials/Netaji/; Dhanjaya Bhat, The Tribune, February 12, 2006; Majumdar, R. C., Jibanera Smritideepe, Calcutta, General Printers and Publishers, 1978, pp. 229-230; R.Borra, "Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of Indias Liberation’, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 4), pages 407-439; http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p407_Borra.html)
Indian soldiers of the Royal Indian Navy have started their revolt at Bombay harbour on 18 February 1946 in association with the growing unrest in India when the British had started mass executions of the members of the Azad Hind Fauz, as reported in The Hindustan Times, 2 November 1945. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support all over India, from Karachi to Calcutta and involved 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 soldiers. Industrial workers in Bombay area joined in. In Madras and Pune the British garrisons had to face revolts within the ranks of the Indian army. However, both the Congress and the Muslim League betrayed that revolt. Although both Gandhi and Jinnah condemned it, but it had a decisive role for the independence of India by forcing the British to realize they cannot depend on the Indian in the army, navy or in the air force. Lord Mountbatten has described India in 1946 as a burning ship in the mid-ocean.
Famous historian Ramesh Chadra Majumdar dismissed the contribution of Satyagraha to the eventual independence of India. He said, “ The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence… In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India. (Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of Indias Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
Thus, one should not just believe in the official version of the recent Indian history, which has propagated that only Gandhi and Nehru through the Satyagraha has brought freedom to India. The reality is quite different, but was hidden so far due the massive state power to advertise Satyagraha, which as a mass movement has failed everywhere whether in India or in South Africa.
Dr.Dipak Basu
(The author is a Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan)
Yogi Ramdev’s courageous statement that we must not forget the role of the revolutionaries in the freedom movement of India has called for a reexamination of the role of Mahatma Gandhi and his Satyagraha. "Satyagraha’ literally means insistence on truth. According to Gandhi, the doctrine of Satyagraha “came to mean vindication of Truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but ones own self. Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering.”
Recently the Prime minister Manmohan Singh went to South Africa to celebrate the centenary of Satyagraha, which was started in 6 September 1906 in South Africa as a protest against the identity card that the non-Europeans were asked to carry in that country. What that got to do with Indian freedom movement against the British Empire is the question. The answer given by the official historian is that Gandhi through Satyagraha fought the mightiest empire of the world in a peaceful way, which is novel in both theory and application. However, the truth is very different from the official version of history of the freedom movement in India.
Gandhi in South Africa:
Gandhi arrived in South Africa in 1893 as an employee of a Gujarati merchant for a year. When he agreed to stay on in South Africa to serve the Indian community, he was provided retainers by Indian merchants to enable him to live in proper style as a barrister and entertain Europeans. He helped found the Natal Indian Congress, which was an elite organization, just like the Indian National Congress at that time, restricted to the very rich people and the empire-loyalists.
Gandhi had visited India for five months in 1896 and met a number of public leaders to secure their support to redress the grievances of Indians in South Africa. In his second visit for a year in 1901-2 he attended the Congress session in Calcutta and spent more than a month with G.K. Gokhale, who was very loyal to the British and was opposed to the ideas of freedom movement of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Chittaranjan Das, Surendranath Banerjee and Bipin Pal. Thus, Gandhi has joined the Empire-loyalist camp within the Congress, disinterested in the Swaraj movement of Tilak.
Gandhi’s first Satyagraha:
Returning to South Africa, Gandhi began to defy the Transvaal Asiatic Ordinance, where the government wanted all Asiatic, Arabs and Turks to carry a pass all the time to prove their eligibility to stay in South Africa. It was not a big issue, as in most countries even today foreigners must carry such documents anyway. Throughout the Satyagraha, Gandhi emphasized that it was not so much for the rights of the Indians in South Africa as for the honour of the motherland, but which "motherland’ Gandhi was talking about was not clear. One of the most dramatic events of the Satyagraha was the burning of the passes. The question is did that help the Indians in South Africa. The answer is definitely negative. Indians were rounded up and deported in many cases. The campaign lasted for over seven years, and in 1913 hundreds of people went to jail - and thousands of striking Indian miners faced imprisonment and injury.
Even when General Smut decided to meet Gandhi, it was made clear that there would be no further immigration of the Indians to South Africa. Passes were withdrawn temporarily but soon after laws were passed to restrict the non-Europeans into designated areas in every cities; that was the beginning of the legal racial segregations in South Africa. By all means Gandhi’s Satyagraha was not a success, but that had not stopped certain people and the English language media in India at that time to propagate Gandhi as victorious against a racist government of British origin for whom Gandhi had worked as medical orderly in the war against the Dutch settlers in South Africa and became a recruitment agent during the First World War. Gandhi had practically no contact with the African and their liberation movement. Maureen Swan wrote in her book, "Gandhi: the South African Experience’:
In choosing not to attempt to ally with the articulate politicized elements in either the Coloured or African communities, Gandhi facilitated the implementation of the divisive segregationist policies which helped ease the task of white minority rule in South Africa.
The European rulers in South Africa enforced racial segregation and differential policies despite of Gandhi are Satyagraha and tried to incite Africans against the Indians and attempted to degrade the status of the Indians to just “coolies”.
When Gandhi left South Africa, he still believed in the British Empire though tentatively. He said, Though Empires have gone and fallen, this empire may perhaps be an exception....it is an empire not founded on material but on spiritual foundations....the British constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to the British constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondsman. (in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary)
Impacts of Gandhi on South Africa’s freedom struggle were practically insignificant. Mainly African ANC (African National Congress), like its counterparts in the adjacent Portuguese colonies in Mozambique, and Angola, was strongly influenced, financed and armed by the Soviet Union and was not at all interested in non-violence methods of Gandhi. Nelson Mandela, in his speech from the dock in April 1964, pointed out that he and his colleagues had decided to undertake organized underground and armed resistance in order to avert uncontrolled violence unleashed by the racist government of South Africa against the black and coloured people.
Gandhi returned to India in 1914. Gandhi himself had twice volunteered for service in the First World War for the British, in France and in Mesopotamia, because he had convinced himself that he owed the empire that sacrifice in return for its military protection (in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary).
Gandhi’s Second Satyagraha :
Through extraordinary good fortune, due to the deaths of Tilak by September 1920 Gandhi in an extraordinary political coup was elected himself as the president of the All-India Home Rule League and steered a resolution in favour of Non-Cooperation to preserve the Khilafat but got rid of the freedom movement in the Congress session in Calcutta. Later all the important leaders of the Congress, Bipin Pal, Surendranath Banerjee, Ajit Singh were either expelled or neutralized by Gandhi. Tilak had gathered about Rs.10 lakhs, a huge sum these days to finance his freedom movement. Gandhi used that up to please the followers of Turkish Khalifa, who was defied by the Muslims in the Turkish occupied Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and in Turkey itself by the reforming leader Kamal Attaturk. Gandhi and the Muslim leaders of India were ignorant about these political developments in the Middle East.
The agitation to save the Turkish Sultan by the "Non-Cooperation’ of the Congress party was initiated by the Khilafat leadership, not by the Congress. Gandhi without consulting other leaders of the Congress made these two issues his own by presiding over the All India Khilafat Conference in Delhi in November 1919, and started his programme of peaceful non co-operation with the British included boycotts of British goods and institutions to protect the Turkish Sultan, leading to arrests of thousands of the people for defying British laws. Thus, the second Satyagraha has nothing to do with the freedom movement of India and was a regressive movement to preserve the violent crude feudal Sultanate of Turkey who had colonized a vast part of the world, from Iraq to Greece with its inhuman rule.
The Khilafat movement was discredited by the Muslims in Malabar Coast who had resorted into massive violence to slaughter the Hindus in Kerala and Mysore. Gandhi called off the Khilafat movement after the Chauri Chaura violence without even consulting his Muslim allies. Gandhi’s decision created deep consternation in Congress circles. Subhas Chandra Bose wrote: To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national calamity. The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das, Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison, shared the popular resentment. I was with the Deshbandu at the time, and I could see that he was beside himself with anger and sorrow. (quoted from Indian Struggle by Subhas Chandra Bose, p.90)
Motilal Nehru, Lajpat Rai and others sent from prison long and indignant letters to Gandhi protesting at his decision to which Gandhi replied that men in prison were civilly dead and had no claim to any say in policy. In March 1922, Gandhi was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was released after two years, but by then the political landscape had changed dramatically. The Congress Party had split and Hindu-Muslim unity had disintegrated. Sri Aurobindo said:”When Gandhis movement was started, I said that this movement would lead either to a fiasco or to great confusion. And I see no reason to change my opinion. Only I would like to add that it has led to both.”
Gandhi’s third Satyagraha:
Gandhis political influence was minimal for some years, until the Calcutta Congress in December 1928, where he demanded dominion status for India, and threatened a nation-wide campaign but he had also expelled Srinivas Iyenger from the Congress for demanding complete independence of India. Subhas Chandra Bose was expelled along with more than 200 of his followers from the Congress party for similar reason in 1939.
On March 12, 1930 Gandhi started a March in Dandi, Gujarat to break the law, which had deprived the people of his right to make his own salt, although for most of the people of India it was only symbolic as they never did used to make their own salt in any way. On April 6, 1930 Gandhi broke the Salt law at the sea beach at Dandi. This simple act was immediately followed by a nation-wide defiance of the law. This movement came to be known as Civil Disobedience Movement. Within a few weeks about a hundred thousand men and women, thinking mistakenly that it was the beginning of the freedom movement, were in jail, throwing mighty machinery of the British Government out of gear. Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930.
After his arrest, a more aggressive non-violent rebellion took place in which 2500 volunteers raided salt depots at Dharsana. In April 1930 there were violent police-crowd clashes in Calcutta. Approximately over 100,000 people were imprisoned in the course of the Civil disobedience movement (1930-31), while in Peshawar unarmed demonstrators were fired upon by the British. Gandhi withdrew himself from the movement. Sacrifice of the people was in vain. The British government had never withdrawn the tax on salt.
In January 1931, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, ordered the release of Gandhi and together they signed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which called for an end of Congresss civil disobedience. In August, Gandhi went to London to represent the Indian National Congress at the Second Round Table Conference; the first one was held without Congress participation in November 1930. That Conference in 1931has failed mainly because of the change of government in Britain.
Gandhi returned to India and decided to resume the civil disobedience movement in January 1932. India was then under the repressive policies of the new Viceroy, Lord Willingdon. The Indian National Congress had been outlawed. Gandhi had restricted the civil disobedience movement to him and suspended it completely in 1934.Gandhi then had started his campaign against untouchability. Thus, Gandhi’s second Satyagraha also could not achieve anything much because Gandhi as usual refused to continue it. That was Gandhi’s last and the only Satyagraha as a mass political movement for the freedom movement.
Quit India movement is not a Satyagraha:
In 1942, Japan already liberated Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Subhas Chandra Bose hoisted Indian flags there. Free India government in exile or Azad Hind Government was recognized by the Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Imperial China. Indian national army and Imperial Japanese army was on the doorstep of the British India. Gandhi refused to be outsmarted by Netaji Subhas and started his last mass movement, which was not a Satyagraha.
In August 1942, Gandhi gave forth the slogan Quit India for the British but he had no plan how to execute the programme. The Congress passed a resolution on 8 August 1942, which stated that, the immediate ending of the British rule in India, was an urgent necessity both for the sake of India and the success of United Nations. The congress resolved to launch a mass Civil Disobedience struggle on the widest possible scale for the vindication of India’s unalienable right to freedom and independence if the British rule did not end immediately. The day after the resolution was passed, the Congress was banned and all the important leaders were arrested including Gandhi. That provoked spontaneous demonstrations at many places and people resorted to the use of violence, not Satyagraha, to dislodge the foreign rule.
Unarmed crowds faced police and military firing on many occasions and they were also machine gunned by low- flying aircraft. Repression also took the form of taking hostages from the villages, imposing collective fines, whipping of suspects and burning of villages. By the end of 1942, over 60,000 persons had been arrested. Martial law had not been proclaimed but the army did whatever it wanted. The brutal and all-out repression succeeded within a period of 6 or 7 weeks in bringing about a cessation of the struggle. As usual Gandhi already withdrew himself from that movement within a few days after it has started.
Since 1942, Gandhi was busy making plans to partition India to create Pakistan, the idea of which Gandhi has accepted even in 1940, according to both B.R.Ambedkar and Sri Aurobindo. Nehru and Patel as representative of Gandhi were in regular consultations with the Vice-Roy of India on how best to help the British war efforts against Japan and the Azad Hind Fauz. Freedom movement was not in their mind.
Gandhi had initiated a number of his personal Satyagraha on a number of issues unrelated to the freedom movement; most of these were not successful. Sri Aurobindo made this comment about Satyagraha:
“Gandhi fasted in the Ahmedabad mill-hands strike to settle the question between mill- owners and workers. The mill-owners did not want to be responsible for his death and so they gave way, without of course, being convinced of his position. But as soon as they found the situation normal they reverted to their old ideas. The same thing happened in South Africa. He got some concessions there by passive resistance and when he came back to India it became worse than before.”
Gandhi’s fast in Calcutta in 1947 has ended communal riot only in Calcutta for a while, but thereafter the whole country engulfed itself in communal murders and mayhem. Gandhi’s fast in 1948 to force the newly independent India government to pay the due financial share to Pakistan was against his closest admirers and disciples, and it was bound to be successful. However, these have nothing to do with the independence movement.
Analysis:
It is a common belief in India and in the Western world that Gandhi through his non-violence Satyagraha has gave India independence from the British rule. The truth is somehow very different.
According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, the creation of the INA( Indian National Army) and mutiny the RIN ( Royal Indian Navy) of February 18–23 1946 made the British realise that their time was up in India. An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:
“When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: "The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, "Minimal’.”
(in Anuj Dhar’s website: www.hindustantime.com/news/specials/Netaji/; Dhanjaya Bhat, The Tribune, February 12, 2006; Majumdar, R. C., Jibanera Smritideepe, Calcutta, General Printers and Publishers, 1978, pp. 229-230; R.Borra, "Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of Indias Liberation’, The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 4), pages 407-439; http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p407_Borra.html)
Indian soldiers of the Royal Indian Navy have started their revolt at Bombay harbour on 18 February 1946 in association with the growing unrest in India when the British had started mass executions of the members of the Azad Hind Fauz, as reported in The Hindustan Times, 2 November 1945. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support all over India, from Karachi to Calcutta and involved 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 soldiers. Industrial workers in Bombay area joined in. In Madras and Pune the British garrisons had to face revolts within the ranks of the Indian army. However, both the Congress and the Muslim League betrayed that revolt. Although both Gandhi and Jinnah condemned it, but it had a decisive role for the independence of India by forcing the British to realize they cannot depend on the Indian in the army, navy or in the air force. Lord Mountbatten has described India in 1946 as a burning ship in the mid-ocean.
Famous historian Ramesh Chadra Majumdar dismissed the contribution of Satyagraha to the eventual independence of India. He said, “ The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence… In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India. (Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of Indias Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
Thus, one should not just believe in the official version of the recent Indian history, which has propagated that only Gandhi and Nehru through the Satyagraha has brought freedom to India. The reality is quite different, but was hidden so far due the massive state power to advertise Satyagraha, which as a mass movement has failed everywhere whether in India or in South Africa.
Dr.Dipak Basu
(The author is a Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan)
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
PM's address at the Birth Anniversary Celebrations of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
January 23, 2007
New Delhi
“It is a great honour and privilege for me to participate in these celebrations of the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Netaji Bose was one of the tallest leaders of our freedom struggle. A great son of India, he was also a great citizen of the world.
The image of Netaji as a restless young man driven by the sole cause of freedom of India endures in the popular imagination of our countrymen. There was in him the fire and the zeal to pursue that single goal with firm sense of determination. Any obstacle in his way was never regarded as insurmountable.
He had a fiercely independent mind and refused to follow the beaten track. On one occasion he wrote, “There is nothing that lures me more than a life of adventure away from the beaten track and in search of the unknown. In this life there may be suffering, but there is joy as well; there may be darkness, but there are also hours of dawn. To this path I call my countrymen.”
Netaji was impatient in his desire to liberate our country from foreign rule. He left the coveted Indian Civil Service, joined the freedom movement and displayed rare sense of heroism in the relentless pursuit of his goal. He united Indians of all faiths, all communities and languages and gave shape to the idea of a modern resurgent India.
This year is also the 150th anniversary of the first war of independence. Netaji was inspired by its example when he created the famous Azad Hind Fauj. Netaji glowingly referred to the first war of independence and urged his soldiers to fulfil the unfinished task of the sepoys of 1857. One of the regiments of the Indian National Army was named Rani Jhansi Regiment.
Netaji’s clarion call “Dilli Challo,” echoed the call to arms of 1857 and inspired the whole Nation once more. He dreamt of hoisting the tricolour on the ramparts of the Red Fort. But instead his men were tried in that Fort. Jawaharlal Nehru put on the robes of a barrister and defended gallant young men. Ironically that trial became the trial of the British Empire.
The idealism and the spirit of sacrifice of Netaji for the cause of the nation remains the high point of our struggle for independence. Netaji once wrote, “… no suffering, no sacrifice is ever futile. It is through suffering and sacrifice alone that a cause can flourish and prosper, and in every age and clime, the eternal law prevails, ‘the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church’.” Today we salute that suffering and sacrifice of the men and women who marched under Netaji’s command.
Netaji’s magnetic personality also won the admiration of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Though Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, rejected Netaji’s methods, he always admired his zeal, his commitment, his patriotism and his nationalism. Gandhiji once observed: “the greatest lesson that we can draw from Netaji’s life is the way in which he infused the spirit of unity amongst his men so that they could rise above all religions and provincial barriers and shed together their blood for common cause.”
It is this spirit that is required today to take our country forward. To help us pursue a more inclusive and equitable path to social, economic progress. The national movement forged the unity of our diverse land. It brought people of diverse faiths, diverse creeds, diverse languages together. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose remained deeply committed to Hindu- Muslim unity and amity. They were both deeply spiritual men, but equally secular. They understood that India’s great contribution to humankind is the idea of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava”.
In celebrating Netaji’s birth anniversary we also celebrate the ideas and principles we associate with him and our national movement for freedom. We recall his extraordinary courage as the Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army, but we also recall his constructive approach to nation building. That vision of Netaji has immense relevance for the 21st century and for our fight against the forces of communalism, terrorism and extremism.
While commemorating Netaji’s birth anniversary I am reminded of his historic statement concerning the processes of nation building. He was in favour of guaranteeing rights to all citizens. But at the same time he stressed on taking special measures for minorities and other disadvantaged sections of society. As the President of the Indian National Congress in 1938, he articulated a vision that is of abiding relevance. Netaji’s view that all minority communities be allowed their due space in cultural as well as governmental affairs testified to his humanism and commitment to egalitarian values. A commitment to equity is not appeasement. It is a mark of one’s commitment to humanism.
Netaji had a sense of history and a far-sighted vision of India's place in the world. As far back as 1929, he said :
"History tells us how Asia conquered and held sway over large portions of Europe. The tables are turned now but the wheel of fortune is still moving ………Time is not far off when a rejuvenated Asia will be resplendent in power and glory and take her legitimate place in the comity of free nations."
Netaji Subhash Bose had many firsts to his credit. He was one of the first leaders of our country who cautioned the nation about population growth in the 1930s and suggested steps for controlling it. His historic decision to establish, for the first time in our history, the National Planning Committee under the Chairmanship of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru made him one of the key architects of planning in our country. He interacted with a wide spectrum of public figures including economists and scientists. He wanted to build modern India as much on the firm base of industrialization and science and technology as on our ancient culture and civilization.
Much has been said about the differences between Netaji Subhash Bose with Mahatma Gandhi. But much has not been said about their common approach and vision of a free India. It was Netaji who, as the Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army, had named its various brigades as Nehru Brigade, Azad Brigade, etc. From the battlefield, he sent a message to Gandhiji addressing him, probably for the first time, as the Father of our Nation. He sought Gandhiji’s blessings and good wishes for his Herculean endeavours.
In 1945 Mahatma Gandhi wrote in the Harijan, “The hypnotism of Indian National Army has cast a spell on us. Netaji’s name is one to conjure with. His bravery shines above all.” Let us all today bow our heads before his bravery and leadership in our struggle for Independence. In paying tribute to his memory, and on the eve of Republic Day, let us be imbued with the values of our freedom struggle and rededicate ourselves to the cause of India’s progress.
Jai Hind.”
January 23, 2007
New Delhi
“It is a great honour and privilege for me to participate in these celebrations of the birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Netaji Bose was one of the tallest leaders of our freedom struggle. A great son of India, he was also a great citizen of the world.
The image of Netaji as a restless young man driven by the sole cause of freedom of India endures in the popular imagination of our countrymen. There was in him the fire and the zeal to pursue that single goal with firm sense of determination. Any obstacle in his way was never regarded as insurmountable.
He had a fiercely independent mind and refused to follow the beaten track. On one occasion he wrote, “There is nothing that lures me more than a life of adventure away from the beaten track and in search of the unknown. In this life there may be suffering, but there is joy as well; there may be darkness, but there are also hours of dawn. To this path I call my countrymen.”
Netaji was impatient in his desire to liberate our country from foreign rule. He left the coveted Indian Civil Service, joined the freedom movement and displayed rare sense of heroism in the relentless pursuit of his goal. He united Indians of all faiths, all communities and languages and gave shape to the idea of a modern resurgent India.
This year is also the 150th anniversary of the first war of independence. Netaji was inspired by its example when he created the famous Azad Hind Fauj. Netaji glowingly referred to the first war of independence and urged his soldiers to fulfil the unfinished task of the sepoys of 1857. One of the regiments of the Indian National Army was named Rani Jhansi Regiment.
Netaji’s clarion call “Dilli Challo,” echoed the call to arms of 1857 and inspired the whole Nation once more. He dreamt of hoisting the tricolour on the ramparts of the Red Fort. But instead his men were tried in that Fort. Jawaharlal Nehru put on the robes of a barrister and defended gallant young men. Ironically that trial became the trial of the British Empire.
The idealism and the spirit of sacrifice of Netaji for the cause of the nation remains the high point of our struggle for independence. Netaji once wrote, “… no suffering, no sacrifice is ever futile. It is through suffering and sacrifice alone that a cause can flourish and prosper, and in every age and clime, the eternal law prevails, ‘the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church’.” Today we salute that suffering and sacrifice of the men and women who marched under Netaji’s command.
Netaji’s magnetic personality also won the admiration of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Though Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, rejected Netaji’s methods, he always admired his zeal, his commitment, his patriotism and his nationalism. Gandhiji once observed: “the greatest lesson that we can draw from Netaji’s life is the way in which he infused the spirit of unity amongst his men so that they could rise above all religions and provincial barriers and shed together their blood for common cause.”
It is this spirit that is required today to take our country forward. To help us pursue a more inclusive and equitable path to social, economic progress. The national movement forged the unity of our diverse land. It brought people of diverse faiths, diverse creeds, diverse languages together. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose remained deeply committed to Hindu- Muslim unity and amity. They were both deeply spiritual men, but equally secular. They understood that India’s great contribution to humankind is the idea of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava”.
In celebrating Netaji’s birth anniversary we also celebrate the ideas and principles we associate with him and our national movement for freedom. We recall his extraordinary courage as the Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army, but we also recall his constructive approach to nation building. That vision of Netaji has immense relevance for the 21st century and for our fight against the forces of communalism, terrorism and extremism.
While commemorating Netaji’s birth anniversary I am reminded of his historic statement concerning the processes of nation building. He was in favour of guaranteeing rights to all citizens. But at the same time he stressed on taking special measures for minorities and other disadvantaged sections of society. As the President of the Indian National Congress in 1938, he articulated a vision that is of abiding relevance. Netaji’s view that all minority communities be allowed their due space in cultural as well as governmental affairs testified to his humanism and commitment to egalitarian values. A commitment to equity is not appeasement. It is a mark of one’s commitment to humanism.
Netaji had a sense of history and a far-sighted vision of India's place in the world. As far back as 1929, he said :
"History tells us how Asia conquered and held sway over large portions of Europe. The tables are turned now but the wheel of fortune is still moving ………Time is not far off when a rejuvenated Asia will be resplendent in power and glory and take her legitimate place in the comity of free nations."
Netaji Subhash Bose had many firsts to his credit. He was one of the first leaders of our country who cautioned the nation about population growth in the 1930s and suggested steps for controlling it. His historic decision to establish, for the first time in our history, the National Planning Committee under the Chairmanship of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru made him one of the key architects of planning in our country. He interacted with a wide spectrum of public figures including economists and scientists. He wanted to build modern India as much on the firm base of industrialization and science and technology as on our ancient culture and civilization.
Much has been said about the differences between Netaji Subhash Bose with Mahatma Gandhi. But much has not been said about their common approach and vision of a free India. It was Netaji who, as the Supreme Commander of the Indian National Army, had named its various brigades as Nehru Brigade, Azad Brigade, etc. From the battlefield, he sent a message to Gandhiji addressing him, probably for the first time, as the Father of our Nation. He sought Gandhiji’s blessings and good wishes for his Herculean endeavours.
In 1945 Mahatma Gandhi wrote in the Harijan, “The hypnotism of Indian National Army has cast a spell on us. Netaji’s name is one to conjure with. His bravery shines above all.” Let us all today bow our heads before his bravery and leadership in our struggle for Independence. In paying tribute to his memory, and on the eve of Republic Day, let us be imbued with the values of our freedom struggle and rededicate ourselves to the cause of India’s progress.
Jai Hind.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's speech on 150 years of struggle for Independence
May 11, 2007
New Delhi
Today, we have gathered to commemorate a very historical event in real sense. This day 150 years ago, a gate of Old Delhi city was thrown open for revolutionary sepoys of Meerut. From this gate only, those revolutionaries entered the city and presented a strong challenge to the British rulers. Their slogans resonated through the city of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and Mirza Ghalib. That incident triggered a prolonged battle against foreign rule, which continued for 100 years. From that time to 1947, we struggled a great deal. The spark of 1857 which was extinguished momentarily lighted a lamp of desire for freedom in the hearts of all Indians, which continued to guide the countrymen. The most special aspect of 1857 war of independence was that in this war people from all religions, languages and regions became united. This was a war for freedom and for shaping one’s own destiny. That historical moment integrated kings, Jamindars, farmers, peasants, artisans under one banner. Perhaps, this show of unity was unprecedented in Indian history. There is no doubt about the fact that 1857 was the dazzling example of India’s national unity. It was a unique instance of unity in diversity. It was a living testimony of our colourful civilisation and culture. This is what is known as ‘Ganga-Jamuni culture’. Even today, sometimes, attempt is made to divide us in the name of religion. Most important facet of 1857 was that religious boundaries were obliterated, distances were removed and all Indians came to the battle-field as one. In fact, religious tolerance brought people on a single platform against Britishers.
Today, we are passing through an age of economic and social transformation. India is changing along with entire world and marching ahead with great speed. I wish that our youth should understand the hardships which were faced to attain independence. I wish that every citizen should know the sacrifice that our elders made and they should understand the feelings and ideals on which freedom struggle was based. It is the good luck of the people of this great country that such big leaders emerged here to give us a new and independent India. Come, brothers and sisters, let us work together and show our unity. We pay homage to those great souls who gave us independence through their sacrifice, hardwork and discipline. Come, let us prove ourselves to be worthy of that independence which was attained through the continuous hardwork of our elders. Our freedom struggle is based on unity and diversity and this is also the basis of our national integration of today.
Come, let us work together to create a new prosperous India.
Jai Hind.
May 11, 2007
New Delhi
Today, we have gathered to commemorate a very historical event in real sense. This day 150 years ago, a gate of Old Delhi city was thrown open for revolutionary sepoys of Meerut. From this gate only, those revolutionaries entered the city and presented a strong challenge to the British rulers. Their slogans resonated through the city of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and Mirza Ghalib. That incident triggered a prolonged battle against foreign rule, which continued for 100 years. From that time to 1947, we struggled a great deal. The spark of 1857 which was extinguished momentarily lighted a lamp of desire for freedom in the hearts of all Indians, which continued to guide the countrymen. The most special aspect of 1857 war of independence was that in this war people from all religions, languages and regions became united. This was a war for freedom and for shaping one’s own destiny. That historical moment integrated kings, Jamindars, farmers, peasants, artisans under one banner. Perhaps, this show of unity was unprecedented in Indian history. There is no doubt about the fact that 1857 was the dazzling example of India’s national unity. It was a unique instance of unity in diversity. It was a living testimony of our colourful civilisation and culture. This is what is known as ‘Ganga-Jamuni culture’. Even today, sometimes, attempt is made to divide us in the name of religion. Most important facet of 1857 was that religious boundaries were obliterated, distances were removed and all Indians came to the battle-field as one. In fact, religious tolerance brought people on a single platform against Britishers.
Today, we are passing through an age of economic and social transformation. India is changing along with entire world and marching ahead with great speed. I wish that our youth should understand the hardships which were faced to attain independence. I wish that every citizen should know the sacrifice that our elders made and they should understand the feelings and ideals on which freedom struggle was based. It is the good luck of the people of this great country that such big leaders emerged here to give us a new and independent India. Come, brothers and sisters, let us work together and show our unity. We pay homage to those great souls who gave us independence through their sacrifice, hardwork and discipline. Come, let us prove ourselves to be worthy of that independence which was attained through the continuous hardwork of our elders. Our freedom struggle is based on unity and diversity and this is also the basis of our national integration of today.
Come, let us work together to create a new prosperous India.
Jai Hind.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Battle of Plassey, 23 June 1757
Battle that followed on from the accession of Suraj Dowlah as Nabob of Bengal (1756). Bengal had a long standing treaty with the East India Company, who held Calcutta, but the new Nabob ignored the treaty, and occupied Calcutta, after which he threw the captured servants of the Company into the infamous black hole of Calcutta. The East India Company responded with an army led by Robert Clive (Clive of India), which recaptured Calcutta, took Chandernagore off the French, and then caught up with the Nabob's army at the village of Plassey. Clive had just over 3,000 troops, of whom 2,000 were Indian, while the Nabob had over 50,000 men, with French artillery. However, the Nabob began the battle with an all out bombardment, using up all of his ammunition to no effect, The Bengali troops of the Nabob fled the battle without offering any further resistance, and the British were able to overwhelm the French artillery. Clive had won a famous victory against overwhelming odds, for the loss of between 20 and 70 men, an outstanding achievement that gained effective control over Bengal for the British, and drove the French out of northern India. Although there was little or no British government involvement in India at this time, the victory of the East India Company destroyed French trade in India, which helped Britain in the Seven Years War.
Source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_plassey.html
Battle that followed on from the accession of Suraj Dowlah as Nabob of Bengal (1756). Bengal had a long standing treaty with the East India Company, who held Calcutta, but the new Nabob ignored the treaty, and occupied Calcutta, after which he threw the captured servants of the Company into the infamous black hole of Calcutta. The East India Company responded with an army led by Robert Clive (Clive of India), which recaptured Calcutta, took Chandernagore off the French, and then caught up with the Nabob's army at the village of Plassey. Clive had just over 3,000 troops, of whom 2,000 were Indian, while the Nabob had over 50,000 men, with French artillery. However, the Nabob began the battle with an all out bombardment, using up all of his ammunition to no effect, The Bengali troops of the Nabob fled the battle without offering any further resistance, and the British were able to overwhelm the French artillery. Clive had won a famous victory against overwhelming odds, for the loss of between 20 and 70 men, an outstanding achievement that gained effective control over Bengal for the British, and drove the French out of northern India. Although there was little or no British government involvement in India at this time, the victory of the East India Company destroyed French trade in India, which helped Britain in the Seven Years War.
Source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_plassey.html
नेताजी का ऐतिहासिक भाषण
1857 में हुई आज़ादी की पहली लड़ाई की 150वीं वर्षगाँठ इस वर्ष देश भर में मनाई जा रही है। इस मौके पर भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के नेताजी द्वारा प्रथम संग्राम के देशभक्त नायक की स्मृति में दिए गए इस दुर्लभ भाषण को नेताजी के दिल के करीब की ज़ुबाँ में पेश करते हुए हमें खुशी हो रही है। "राष्ट्रभाषा के नाते काँग्रेस ने हिन्दी (या हिन्दुस्तानी) को अपनाया, इससे अंग्रेजी का महत्व समाप्त हुआ" - इस उपलब्धि का श्रेय नेताजी महात्मा गाँधी को देते हैं। यह भाषण नेताजी ने सम्राट-कवि बहादुरशाह ज़फ़र की मज़ार पर हुए आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की आनुष्ठनिक कवायद और जलसे में 11 जुलाई, 1944 को दिया था। नेताजी की 'ब्लड बाथ' नामक पुस्तिका में यह संकलित है। यह पुस्तिका पहले-पहल 'आज़ाद हिन्द सरकार' के 'प्रेस, प्रकाशन तथा प्रचार विभाग' द्वारा बर्मा से प्रकाशित हुई थी तथा नेताजी जन्मशती के मौके पर, 1996 में, जयश्री प्रकाशन ( 20 ए प्रिंस गुलाम मोहम्मद रोड, कोलकाता - 700026) द्वारा पुनर्प्रकाशित की गई है। हिन्दी अनुवाद : अफ़लातून।
पिछले साल सितम्बर महीने में हमने भारत की आज़ादी की पहली जंग और इंकलाब के रहनुमा सम्राट बहादुरशाह की मज़ार पर आनुष्ठनिक कवायद का आयोजन किया था। पिछले साल हुआ जलसा भारत की आज़ादी के लिए हो रहे संघर्ष के लिहाज से ऐतिहासिक था चूँकि आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की टुकड़ियाँ मौजूद थीं और जलसे में उन्होंने शिरकत भी की थी। मैं उस जलसे को ऐतिहासिक क़रार दे रहा हूँ चूँकि वह पहला मौका था जब हिन्द की नई इन्कलाबी फौज द्वारा भारत की पहली इंकलाबी फौज के सेनापति को श्रद्धांजलि दी गई। पिछले साल की कवायद में हम में से जो लोग भी शरीक थे उन लोगों ने सम्राट बहादुरशाह के काम को आगे बढ़ाने और भारत को ब्रिटिश गुलामी के जुए से निजात दिलाने की क़सम ली थी। मुझे इस बात की खुशी और फक्र है कि उस कसम को आंशिक तौर पर पूरा करने में हमें कामयाबी मिली है। पिछले साल के जलसे में मौजूद ज्यादातर सैनिक इस वक्त अग्रिम मोर्चा संभाले हुए हैं। भारत की सरहद को पार कर आज़ाद हिन्द फौज आज मातृभूमि की मिट्टी पर लड़ रही है।
इस साल के आयोजन के साथ यह असाधारण, शायद दैविय संयोग था कि सम्राट बहादुरशाह की पुण्य तिथि और 'नेताजी सप्ताह' एक साथ पड़े हैं। 'नेताजी सप्ताह' के दौरान समूचे पूर्वी एशिया में रहने वाले भारतीय भारतीयों ने मुकम्मिल आज़ादी हासिल करने तक अपनी लड़ाई जारी रखने का विधिवत संकल्प लिया है। यह दैविय संकेत है कि आज़ादी के जंग के पहले सेनापति की समाधि का स्थल भारत की आज़ादी की आखिरी जंग का मुख्य केन्द्र है। इसी पवित्र अड्डे से हमारी अपनी मातृभूमि की ओर अग्रसर है। आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की आनुष्ठनिक कवायद में इसी स्थान पर पुन: जुट कर हम अपने संकल्प की आंशिक पूर्ति की खुशी महसूस करने के साथ-साथ भारत की भूमि को अनचाहे अंग्रेजों से निजात दिलाने तक अनवरत संघर्ष के लिए कमर-कस कर तैयार हो रहे हैं।
अंग्रेज इतिहासकारों ने 1857 की लड़ाई के बारे में यह दुष्प्रचार कर रखा है कि वह अंग्रेज फौज में सेवारत भारतीय सैनिकों का विद्रोह-मात्र था। हकीकत है कि वह एक कौमी इन्कलाब था जिसमें भारतीय सैनिकों के साथ-साथ नागरिकों ने भी शिरकत की थी।
यहाँ 1857 के घटनाक्रम पर एक नज़र डालना वाजिब होगा। अंग्रेज इतिहासकारों ने 1857 की लड़ाई के बारे में यह दुष्प्रचार कर रखा है कि वह अंग्रेज फौज में सेवारत भारतीय सैनिकों का विद्रोह-मात्र था। हकीकत है कि वह एक कौमी इन्कलाब था जिसमें भारतीय सैनिकों के साथ-साथ नागरिकों ने भी शिरकत की थी। इस राष्ट्रव्यापी जंग में कई राजा शरीक हुए जबकि यह दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण रहा कि कई राजा खुद को दरकिनार किए रहे। इस जंग के शुरुआती दौर में कई फतह हुईं, अन्तिम दौर में ही बड़ी ताकत के बल पर हमें पराजित किया गया। किसी क्रान्ति की तवारीख़ में ऐसा होना बिलकुल असामान्य नहीं है। दुनिया के इतिहास में यह मुश्किल से मिलेगा जब क्रान्ति पहले संघर्ष में ही कामयाब हो गयी हो। "आज़ादी की लड़ाई एक बार आरम्भ होती है तो पुश्त-दर-पुश्त चलती है"। बवक्तन यदि इंकलाब नाकामयाब भी होता है या दबा दिया जाता है तब भी उसके कुछ सबक हासिल होते हैं। आगे आने वाली पीढ़ियाँ इन सबक को लेकर अपनी लड़ाई ज्यादा असरकारक तरीके से, ज्यादा तैयारी के साथ फिर से खड़ी करती हैं। हम ने 1857 की नाकामयाबी से सबक लिया है और इस तजुर्बे का इस्तेमाल भारत की आज़ादी की इस आखिरी जंग में किया है।
यह सोचना भूल होगी कि 1857 में एक दिन अचानक लोगों ने अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ हथियार उठा लिए। कोई भी क्रान्ति जल्दबाजी में या अललटप्पू तरीके से नहीं लायी जाती है। 1857 के हमारे रहनुमाओं ने अपने तईं पूरी तैयारी की थी, लेकिन अफ़सोस कि वह पर्याप्त नहीं थी। उस पवित्र युद्ध के एक प्रमुख नेता नाना साहब ने मदद और सहयोग हासिल करने के मक़सद से युरोप तक की यात्रा की थी। दुर्भाग्यवश उन्हें इस कोशिश में कामयाबी हासिल नहीं हुई और नतीजतन 1857 में जब क्रान्ति शुरु हुई, तब अंग्रेजों का बाकी दुनिया से कोई झगड़ा नहीं था और वे अपनी पूरी ताकत और संसाधन हिन्द के लोगों को कुचलने में लगा सके। मुल्क की भीतर जनता और भारतीय सैनिकों के बीच काबिले गौर होशियारी के साथ गुप्त सन्देश प्रचारित कर दिये गये थे। इस वजह से संकेत होते ही देश के कई हिस्सों में एक साथ लड़ाई शुरु हो सकी। फ़तह पर फ़तह हासिल होती गयी। उत्तर भारत के महत्वपूर्ण शहर अंग्रेजों के चंगुल से मुक्त हो गये तथा उनमें इन्कलाबी फौज ने जीत का परचम लहराया। अभियान के पहले चरण में हर जगह इन्कलाब को कामयाबी मिली। दूसरे चरण में जब दुश्मन का जवाबी हमला शुरु हुआ तब हमारे सैनिक टिक न सके। तब ही यह पता चला कि क्रान्तिकारियों ने एक राष्ट्रव्यापी रणनीति नहीं बनाई थी तथा उस रणनीति के संचालन और समन्वय के लिए एक गतिमान नेता का अभाव था। देश के कई भागों के राजा निष्क्रीय और उदासीन रहे। बहादुरशाह ने इस बाबत जयपुर, जोधपुर, बिकानेर, अलवर आदि के राजाओं को लिखा :
"मेरी प्रबल आरज़ू है कि अंग्रेज किसी भी कीमत पर, किन्हीं भी उपायों से हिन्दुस्तान से खदेड़ दिए जायें। मेरी उत्कट कामना है कि समूचा हिन्दुस्तान आज़ाद हो। इस उद्देश्य से छेड़ा गए इन्कलाबी युद्ध के माथे पर विजय का सेहरा तब तक बँध नहीं सकता जब तक ऐसा कोई व्यक्ति सामने नहीं आता जो पूरी तहरीक की जिम्मेदारी अपने कन्धों पर ले सके, राष्ट्र की विभिन्न शक्तियों को संगठित कर सके तथा पूरी जनता को इस जागृति के दौरान राह दिखाये। अंग्रेजों को हटाने के बाद भारत पर राज करने की मेरी कोई तमन्ना नहीं है। आप सभी अपनी म्यानों से तलवार खींच कर दुश्मन को भगाने के लिए तैयार हो जायें तब मैं तमाम शाही-हकूक भारतीय राजाओं के संघ के हक़ में छोड़ने के लिए तैयार हूँ।"
यह ख़त बहादुरशाह ने अपने हाथ से लिखा था। देशभक्ति और त्याग की भावना से सराबोर इस पत्र को पढ़कर हर आज़ादी-पसन्द हिन्दुस्तानी का सिर प्रशंसा और अदब से झुक जाएगा।
बहादुरशाह बूढ़े और कमजोर हो चुके थे और इसलिए उन्हें लगा कि खुद इस जंग का संचालन करना उनके बूते के बाहर होगा। उन्होंने छ: सदस्यीय समिति गठित की जिसमें तीन सेनापति और तीन नागरिक-प्रतिनिधि थे। इस समिति को पूरे अभियान को संचालित करने की जिम्मेदारी दी गई। उनके द्वारा किए गए तमाम प्रयास निष्फल रहे क्योंकि भारत की पूर्ण आजादी के लिए परिस्थितियाँ परिपक्व नहीं हुई थीं।
एक और तथ्य इस बुजुर्ग नेता के इन्कलाबी जज़्बे और जोश का द्योतक है। उत्तर प्रदेश के बरेली शहर की दीवारों पर अंकित बहादुरशाह का यह फ़रमान गौरतलब है :
" हमारी इस फौज में छोटे-बड़े का भेद भूलकर बराबरी के आधार को नियम माना जाएगा चूँकि इस पाक जंग में तलवार चलाने वाला हर शक्स समान रूप से प्रतापी है। इसमें शामिल सभी लोग भाई-भाई हैं, उनमें अलग-अलग वर्ग नहीं होंगे। इसलिए मैं अपने सभी हिन्दुस्तानी भाइयों से आह्वान कर रहा हूँ जागो तथा दैवी आदेश और सर्वोच्च दायित्व का निर्वाह करने के लिए रण भूमि में कूद पड़ो। "
मैंने इन तथ्यों का हवाला इसलिए दिया है ताकि आप यह जान सकें कि मौजूदा आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की बुनियाद 1857 में पड़ चुकी थी। आज़ादी की इस आखिरी जंग में हमें 1857 की जंग और उसकी खामियों से सबक लेना होगा।
इस बार दैव-योग हमारे पक्ष में है। शत्रु कई मोर्चों पर जीवन-मृत्यु के संघर्ष में उलझा हुआ है। देश की जनता पूरी तरह जागृत है। आज़ाद हिन्द फौज एक अपराजेय शक्ति है और उसके सभी सदस्य अपने राष्ट्र की मुक्ति के साझा प्रयत्न के लिए एकताबद्ध हैं। पूर्ण विजय हासिल करने तक चलने वाले इस अभियान के लिए हम एक दूरगामी साझा रणनीति से लैस हैं। हमारा आधार-अड्डा अच्छी तरह संगठित है और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है कि अपना जौहर दिखाने की प्रेरणा के लिए हमारे पास बहादुरशाह की यादें और मिसाल है। अंतिम विजय हमारी होगी इसमें क्या कोई शक रह जाता है?
यदि आप चाहते हैं कि आपके देशवासी अतिमानवीय साहस और शौर्य की ऊँचाइयों को छू सकें तब आपको उन्हें देश के प्रति प्रेम के साथ - साथ शत्रु से घृणा करना भी सिखाना होगा।
जब मैं 1857 के घटनाक्रम का अध्ययन करता हूँ और क्रान्ति के विफल हो जाने के बाद अंग्रेजों द्वारा ढाये गए जुल्म और सितम को याद करता हूँ तब मेरा खून खौल उठता है। अगर हम मर्द हैं, तब 1857 और उसके बाद के वीरों पर अंग्रेजों द्वारा ढाये गए जुल्म और बर्बरता का पूरा बदला ले कर रहेंगे। अंग्रेजों ने निर्दोष व आज़ादी पसन्द हिन्दुस्तानियों का खून न सिर्फ युद्ध के दौरान बहाया बल्कि उसके बाद भी अमानवीय अत्याचार किए। उन्हें इन अपराधों की कीमत चुकानी होगी। हम भारतीय, शत्रु से पर्याप्त घृणा नहीं करते। यदि आप चाहते हैं कि आपके देशवासी अतिमानवीय साहस और शौर्य की ऊँचाइयों को छू सकें तब आपको उन्हें देश के प्रति प्रेम के साथ - साथ शत्रु से घृणा करना भी सिखाना होगा।
इसलिए मैं खून माँगता हूँ। शत्रु का खून ही उसके अपराधों का बदला चुका सकता है। किन्तु हम खून तब ही ले सकते हैं जब खून देने के लिए तैयार हों। इस युद्ध में बहने वाला हमारे वीरों का खून ही हमारे किए पापों को धो डालेगा। हमारा आगामी कार्यक्रम खून देने का है। हमारी आजादी की कीमत हमारे वीरों के खून की कीमत है। हमारे वीरों के खून, उनकी बहादुरी और पराक्रम ही भारत की जनता द्वारा ब्रिटिश आतताइयों और जुल्मियों से बदला लेने की माँग पूरा करना सुनिश्चित करेंगे।
वृद्ध बहादुरशाह ने पराजय के बाद इसी पैगम्बरी अन्तर्दृष्टि के साथ कहा था :
" गाजियों में भी रहेगी, जब तलक ईमान की,
तख़्ते लन्दन तक चलेगी, तेग हिन्दुस्तान की। "
जय हिन्द
http://www.nirantar.org/0507/vatayan/netaji
1857 में हुई आज़ादी की पहली लड़ाई की 150वीं वर्षगाँठ इस वर्ष देश भर में मनाई जा रही है। इस मौके पर भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के नेताजी द्वारा प्रथम संग्राम के देशभक्त नायक की स्मृति में दिए गए इस दुर्लभ भाषण को नेताजी के दिल के करीब की ज़ुबाँ में पेश करते हुए हमें खुशी हो रही है। "राष्ट्रभाषा के नाते काँग्रेस ने हिन्दी (या हिन्दुस्तानी) को अपनाया, इससे अंग्रेजी का महत्व समाप्त हुआ" - इस उपलब्धि का श्रेय नेताजी महात्मा गाँधी को देते हैं। यह भाषण नेताजी ने सम्राट-कवि बहादुरशाह ज़फ़र की मज़ार पर हुए आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की आनुष्ठनिक कवायद और जलसे में 11 जुलाई, 1944 को दिया था। नेताजी की 'ब्लड बाथ' नामक पुस्तिका में यह संकलित है। यह पुस्तिका पहले-पहल 'आज़ाद हिन्द सरकार' के 'प्रेस, प्रकाशन तथा प्रचार विभाग' द्वारा बर्मा से प्रकाशित हुई थी तथा नेताजी जन्मशती के मौके पर, 1996 में, जयश्री प्रकाशन ( 20 ए प्रिंस गुलाम मोहम्मद रोड, कोलकाता - 700026) द्वारा पुनर्प्रकाशित की गई है। हिन्दी अनुवाद : अफ़लातून।
पिछले साल सितम्बर महीने में हमने भारत की आज़ादी की पहली जंग और इंकलाब के रहनुमा सम्राट बहादुरशाह की मज़ार पर आनुष्ठनिक कवायद का आयोजन किया था। पिछले साल हुआ जलसा भारत की आज़ादी के लिए हो रहे संघर्ष के लिहाज से ऐतिहासिक था चूँकि आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की टुकड़ियाँ मौजूद थीं और जलसे में उन्होंने शिरकत भी की थी। मैं उस जलसे को ऐतिहासिक क़रार दे रहा हूँ चूँकि वह पहला मौका था जब हिन्द की नई इन्कलाबी फौज द्वारा भारत की पहली इंकलाबी फौज के सेनापति को श्रद्धांजलि दी गई। पिछले साल की कवायद में हम में से जो लोग भी शरीक थे उन लोगों ने सम्राट बहादुरशाह के काम को आगे बढ़ाने और भारत को ब्रिटिश गुलामी के जुए से निजात दिलाने की क़सम ली थी। मुझे इस बात की खुशी और फक्र है कि उस कसम को आंशिक तौर पर पूरा करने में हमें कामयाबी मिली है। पिछले साल के जलसे में मौजूद ज्यादातर सैनिक इस वक्त अग्रिम मोर्चा संभाले हुए हैं। भारत की सरहद को पार कर आज़ाद हिन्द फौज आज मातृभूमि की मिट्टी पर लड़ रही है।
इस साल के आयोजन के साथ यह असाधारण, शायद दैविय संयोग था कि सम्राट बहादुरशाह की पुण्य तिथि और 'नेताजी सप्ताह' एक साथ पड़े हैं। 'नेताजी सप्ताह' के दौरान समूचे पूर्वी एशिया में रहने वाले भारतीय भारतीयों ने मुकम्मिल आज़ादी हासिल करने तक अपनी लड़ाई जारी रखने का विधिवत संकल्प लिया है। यह दैविय संकेत है कि आज़ादी के जंग के पहले सेनापति की समाधि का स्थल भारत की आज़ादी की आखिरी जंग का मुख्य केन्द्र है। इसी पवित्र अड्डे से हमारी अपनी मातृभूमि की ओर अग्रसर है। आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की आनुष्ठनिक कवायद में इसी स्थान पर पुन: जुट कर हम अपने संकल्प की आंशिक पूर्ति की खुशी महसूस करने के साथ-साथ भारत की भूमि को अनचाहे अंग्रेजों से निजात दिलाने तक अनवरत संघर्ष के लिए कमर-कस कर तैयार हो रहे हैं।
अंग्रेज इतिहासकारों ने 1857 की लड़ाई के बारे में यह दुष्प्रचार कर रखा है कि वह अंग्रेज फौज में सेवारत भारतीय सैनिकों का विद्रोह-मात्र था। हकीकत है कि वह एक कौमी इन्कलाब था जिसमें भारतीय सैनिकों के साथ-साथ नागरिकों ने भी शिरकत की थी।
यहाँ 1857 के घटनाक्रम पर एक नज़र डालना वाजिब होगा। अंग्रेज इतिहासकारों ने 1857 की लड़ाई के बारे में यह दुष्प्रचार कर रखा है कि वह अंग्रेज फौज में सेवारत भारतीय सैनिकों का विद्रोह-मात्र था। हकीकत है कि वह एक कौमी इन्कलाब था जिसमें भारतीय सैनिकों के साथ-साथ नागरिकों ने भी शिरकत की थी। इस राष्ट्रव्यापी जंग में कई राजा शरीक हुए जबकि यह दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण रहा कि कई राजा खुद को दरकिनार किए रहे। इस जंग के शुरुआती दौर में कई फतह हुईं, अन्तिम दौर में ही बड़ी ताकत के बल पर हमें पराजित किया गया। किसी क्रान्ति की तवारीख़ में ऐसा होना बिलकुल असामान्य नहीं है। दुनिया के इतिहास में यह मुश्किल से मिलेगा जब क्रान्ति पहले संघर्ष में ही कामयाब हो गयी हो। "आज़ादी की लड़ाई एक बार आरम्भ होती है तो पुश्त-दर-पुश्त चलती है"। बवक्तन यदि इंकलाब नाकामयाब भी होता है या दबा दिया जाता है तब भी उसके कुछ सबक हासिल होते हैं। आगे आने वाली पीढ़ियाँ इन सबक को लेकर अपनी लड़ाई ज्यादा असरकारक तरीके से, ज्यादा तैयारी के साथ फिर से खड़ी करती हैं। हम ने 1857 की नाकामयाबी से सबक लिया है और इस तजुर्बे का इस्तेमाल भारत की आज़ादी की इस आखिरी जंग में किया है।
यह सोचना भूल होगी कि 1857 में एक दिन अचानक लोगों ने अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ हथियार उठा लिए। कोई भी क्रान्ति जल्दबाजी में या अललटप्पू तरीके से नहीं लायी जाती है। 1857 के हमारे रहनुमाओं ने अपने तईं पूरी तैयारी की थी, लेकिन अफ़सोस कि वह पर्याप्त नहीं थी। उस पवित्र युद्ध के एक प्रमुख नेता नाना साहब ने मदद और सहयोग हासिल करने के मक़सद से युरोप तक की यात्रा की थी। दुर्भाग्यवश उन्हें इस कोशिश में कामयाबी हासिल नहीं हुई और नतीजतन 1857 में जब क्रान्ति शुरु हुई, तब अंग्रेजों का बाकी दुनिया से कोई झगड़ा नहीं था और वे अपनी पूरी ताकत और संसाधन हिन्द के लोगों को कुचलने में लगा सके। मुल्क की भीतर जनता और भारतीय सैनिकों के बीच काबिले गौर होशियारी के साथ गुप्त सन्देश प्रचारित कर दिये गये थे। इस वजह से संकेत होते ही देश के कई हिस्सों में एक साथ लड़ाई शुरु हो सकी। फ़तह पर फ़तह हासिल होती गयी। उत्तर भारत के महत्वपूर्ण शहर अंग्रेजों के चंगुल से मुक्त हो गये तथा उनमें इन्कलाबी फौज ने जीत का परचम लहराया। अभियान के पहले चरण में हर जगह इन्कलाब को कामयाबी मिली। दूसरे चरण में जब दुश्मन का जवाबी हमला शुरु हुआ तब हमारे सैनिक टिक न सके। तब ही यह पता चला कि क्रान्तिकारियों ने एक राष्ट्रव्यापी रणनीति नहीं बनाई थी तथा उस रणनीति के संचालन और समन्वय के लिए एक गतिमान नेता का अभाव था। देश के कई भागों के राजा निष्क्रीय और उदासीन रहे। बहादुरशाह ने इस बाबत जयपुर, जोधपुर, बिकानेर, अलवर आदि के राजाओं को लिखा :
"मेरी प्रबल आरज़ू है कि अंग्रेज किसी भी कीमत पर, किन्हीं भी उपायों से हिन्दुस्तान से खदेड़ दिए जायें। मेरी उत्कट कामना है कि समूचा हिन्दुस्तान आज़ाद हो। इस उद्देश्य से छेड़ा गए इन्कलाबी युद्ध के माथे पर विजय का सेहरा तब तक बँध नहीं सकता जब तक ऐसा कोई व्यक्ति सामने नहीं आता जो पूरी तहरीक की जिम्मेदारी अपने कन्धों पर ले सके, राष्ट्र की विभिन्न शक्तियों को संगठित कर सके तथा पूरी जनता को इस जागृति के दौरान राह दिखाये। अंग्रेजों को हटाने के बाद भारत पर राज करने की मेरी कोई तमन्ना नहीं है। आप सभी अपनी म्यानों से तलवार खींच कर दुश्मन को भगाने के लिए तैयार हो जायें तब मैं तमाम शाही-हकूक भारतीय राजाओं के संघ के हक़ में छोड़ने के लिए तैयार हूँ।"
यह ख़त बहादुरशाह ने अपने हाथ से लिखा था। देशभक्ति और त्याग की भावना से सराबोर इस पत्र को पढ़कर हर आज़ादी-पसन्द हिन्दुस्तानी का सिर प्रशंसा और अदब से झुक जाएगा।
बहादुरशाह बूढ़े और कमजोर हो चुके थे और इसलिए उन्हें लगा कि खुद इस जंग का संचालन करना उनके बूते के बाहर होगा। उन्होंने छ: सदस्यीय समिति गठित की जिसमें तीन सेनापति और तीन नागरिक-प्रतिनिधि थे। इस समिति को पूरे अभियान को संचालित करने की जिम्मेदारी दी गई। उनके द्वारा किए गए तमाम प्रयास निष्फल रहे क्योंकि भारत की पूर्ण आजादी के लिए परिस्थितियाँ परिपक्व नहीं हुई थीं।
एक और तथ्य इस बुजुर्ग नेता के इन्कलाबी जज़्बे और जोश का द्योतक है। उत्तर प्रदेश के बरेली शहर की दीवारों पर अंकित बहादुरशाह का यह फ़रमान गौरतलब है :
" हमारी इस फौज में छोटे-बड़े का भेद भूलकर बराबरी के आधार को नियम माना जाएगा चूँकि इस पाक जंग में तलवार चलाने वाला हर शक्स समान रूप से प्रतापी है। इसमें शामिल सभी लोग भाई-भाई हैं, उनमें अलग-अलग वर्ग नहीं होंगे। इसलिए मैं अपने सभी हिन्दुस्तानी भाइयों से आह्वान कर रहा हूँ जागो तथा दैवी आदेश और सर्वोच्च दायित्व का निर्वाह करने के लिए रण भूमि में कूद पड़ो। "
मैंने इन तथ्यों का हवाला इसलिए दिया है ताकि आप यह जान सकें कि मौजूदा आज़ाद हिन्द फौज की बुनियाद 1857 में पड़ चुकी थी। आज़ादी की इस आखिरी जंग में हमें 1857 की जंग और उसकी खामियों से सबक लेना होगा।
इस बार दैव-योग हमारे पक्ष में है। शत्रु कई मोर्चों पर जीवन-मृत्यु के संघर्ष में उलझा हुआ है। देश की जनता पूरी तरह जागृत है। आज़ाद हिन्द फौज एक अपराजेय शक्ति है और उसके सभी सदस्य अपने राष्ट्र की मुक्ति के साझा प्रयत्न के लिए एकताबद्ध हैं। पूर्ण विजय हासिल करने तक चलने वाले इस अभियान के लिए हम एक दूरगामी साझा रणनीति से लैस हैं। हमारा आधार-अड्डा अच्छी तरह संगठित है और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है कि अपना जौहर दिखाने की प्रेरणा के लिए हमारे पास बहादुरशाह की यादें और मिसाल है। अंतिम विजय हमारी होगी इसमें क्या कोई शक रह जाता है?
यदि आप चाहते हैं कि आपके देशवासी अतिमानवीय साहस और शौर्य की ऊँचाइयों को छू सकें तब आपको उन्हें देश के प्रति प्रेम के साथ - साथ शत्रु से घृणा करना भी सिखाना होगा।
जब मैं 1857 के घटनाक्रम का अध्ययन करता हूँ और क्रान्ति के विफल हो जाने के बाद अंग्रेजों द्वारा ढाये गए जुल्म और सितम को याद करता हूँ तब मेरा खून खौल उठता है। अगर हम मर्द हैं, तब 1857 और उसके बाद के वीरों पर अंग्रेजों द्वारा ढाये गए जुल्म और बर्बरता का पूरा बदला ले कर रहेंगे। अंग्रेजों ने निर्दोष व आज़ादी पसन्द हिन्दुस्तानियों का खून न सिर्फ युद्ध के दौरान बहाया बल्कि उसके बाद भी अमानवीय अत्याचार किए। उन्हें इन अपराधों की कीमत चुकानी होगी। हम भारतीय, शत्रु से पर्याप्त घृणा नहीं करते। यदि आप चाहते हैं कि आपके देशवासी अतिमानवीय साहस और शौर्य की ऊँचाइयों को छू सकें तब आपको उन्हें देश के प्रति प्रेम के साथ - साथ शत्रु से घृणा करना भी सिखाना होगा।
इसलिए मैं खून माँगता हूँ। शत्रु का खून ही उसके अपराधों का बदला चुका सकता है। किन्तु हम खून तब ही ले सकते हैं जब खून देने के लिए तैयार हों। इस युद्ध में बहने वाला हमारे वीरों का खून ही हमारे किए पापों को धो डालेगा। हमारा आगामी कार्यक्रम खून देने का है। हमारी आजादी की कीमत हमारे वीरों के खून की कीमत है। हमारे वीरों के खून, उनकी बहादुरी और पराक्रम ही भारत की जनता द्वारा ब्रिटिश आतताइयों और जुल्मियों से बदला लेने की माँग पूरा करना सुनिश्चित करेंगे।
वृद्ध बहादुरशाह ने पराजय के बाद इसी पैगम्बरी अन्तर्दृष्टि के साथ कहा था :
" गाजियों में भी रहेगी, जब तलक ईमान की,
तख़्ते लन्दन तक चलेगी, तेग हिन्दुस्तान की। "
जय हिन्द
http://www.nirantar.org/0507/vatayan/netaji
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
1857 mutiny revisited
India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'
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]