The Revolt of 1857- A Million Mutinies
Tapas
21 June 2007, 11:49(Continued from The Revolt Of 1857: A New Perspective)
What is history? Simply speaking, history is that which has happened- Wikipedia defines history as “the systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity”. We arrive at an idea of how things might have occurred at a particular age by deciphering the written texts and accounts of people of that age, inscriptions, archaeological excavations, etc…
But is our idea of history perfect? No. Since our historical records are limited, our history can only hope to be a summary at best- a pale shadow of what actually happened. Hence, history is never static. It can be best described as a flux of ideas. With each new discovery [of artifacts/documents, etc], our concepts of history undergoes changes.
And the best example that I can think of at the moment is the Revolt of 1857. In 2002, William Darlymple and his colleagues Mahmood Farooqui and Bruce Wannel discovered a treasure trove of Persian and Urdu documents relating Delhi in 1857, which are now known as the Mutiny Papers. He also was able to get access to the Punjab Archive in Lahore which contained the complete records of the British Residency in Delhi until 1857, and the National Archives at Rangoon which had the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar’s prison records.
Incorporating all these new information, Darlymple wrote a book titled The Last Mughal, in which he challenges “the traditional concepts of the single coherent mutiny or patriotic national war of independence beloved of Victorian or Indian nationalist historians”. He says ”it was not one single unified movement but many, with widely differing causes, motives and natures”. But more of Darlymple in my next post.
A couple of days after my previous post, I received a reply from a visitor to my blog who referred me to an editorial in the Times of India on the Revolt of 1857 by a historian named Amaresh Misra. In this editorial, he argued that contrary to popular opinion, the Revolt of 1857 was neither confined to a particular geographical region nor organized by a particular caste or community. He also provided numerous examples from different parts of India to give credence to his statement.
In fact, he says that-
New research reveals that the 1857 uprising encompassed not only the entire Indian subcontinent but also several castes, communities and classes. Bahadur Shah Zafar’s August 1857 Delhi manifesto is path-breaking. It has separate sections dealing with material benefits accruing to peasants, landlords, merchants, public servants, artisans as well as pundits, fakirs and other learned persons. The attempt to move beyond religion and caste is clear.
For those who didn’t know, the Manifesto of the King of Delhi, as it came to be called, was almost wholly secular in tone and was aimed at a broad base of different interest groups; indeed it was akin to a manifesto of national independence. It notes that “both Hindus and Muslims are being ruined under the tyranny and oppression of the infidel and treacherous English” and calls on “pundits and fakirs” to join the Mughal armies.
But most of its space is devoted to complaints that the English have overtaxed the landowners, monopolized “all the posts of dignity and emolument” in the civil and armed services, and put Indian artisans out of business by flooding the market with cheap British goods. With its explicit mentions of economic and social grievances, it also says that the revival of Mughal rule shall rectify these problems.
Mr. Amaresh Misra’s next statement is-
Though it is commonly believed that Sikhs, incensed by the Poorabia sepoys’ pro-British role during the two Anglo-Sikh wars in the 1840s helped the colonial rulers in crushing the Delhi and Lucknow rebellions, documents in the Patna archives reveal that there was a plan even in the 1840s of a Poorabia sepoy mutiny in conjunction with the Khalsa army.
Moreover, after the disbanding of the Khalsa army, it was the ex- Khalsa soldiers who took the lead in several Punjab mutinies- in Sialkot, Peshawar and Lahore. Punjabi Muslims and Pathans also played prominent roles in revolts all over what is now Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh.
Meanwhile, in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, revolutionary movements were begun by diverse castes like the Jats, Gujjars, Mewatis and Meenas.
Mr. Misra also offers numerous examples of uprisings by various communities as well as revolts by sepoy regiments throughout west, south and east India.
What is interesting is that the groups who collaborated together were usually of disparate castes, communities and religions. The most prominent among this is the rebellion in Hyderabad by anti-Nizam Rohilla Pathans, Hadhrami Arab warrior/traders and Hindu Kayasthas in July 1857.
Another major civil rising along the east coast, in the Godavari-Andhra region, saw Girijan adivasis collaborating with anti-British Reddy landlords. Further south in Malabar[now a part of the state of Kerala], Moplah Muslim and Nambuthiri Brahmin agitators jointly organised a revolt that was sadly short lived and were arrested for unleashing anti-British propaganda.
In Saurashtra, the Okhamandal-Dwarika area produced the only instance of anti-British naval resistance, which continued till the 1860s. From 1858 to 1860, a regular guerilla war spearheaded by Mahar, Maratha and Poorabia sepoys, as well as Konkan Bhandaris and Chitpavan Brahmins, raged all along the Indian west coast in the Raigad-Mangalore belt. There were also numerous instances of revolt by the sepoy regiments in Bombay, Karachi, Gujarat, Salem, Assam and Chittagong. Thus, the inference is that the Revolt of 1857 took place on a much larger and widespread scale than was previously thought of.But then, if so many revolts and uprisings occurred in that period, why didn’t the Revolt of 1857 succeed? The fragmented nature of the revolt is probably the main factor.Most of these movements had totally different natures and were led by different sections of society. And the British [alongwith those regiments who hadn’t revolted] were better organised to fight such a war and had access to the latest in munitions, artillery, etc..
If there was a unified leadership that had coordinated the revolt, the British East India Company would have definitely lost the war lock stock and barrel. What would have happened if Bahadur Shah Zafar was a young man? What if….? Such questions are never easy to ponder.
It is of utmost importance that we do not forget the factors that led to the rise of British East India Company as well as the root causes of the Revolt of 1857 and the reasons for its failure. For, as Edmund Burke said, those who fail to learn from history are always destined to repeat it.
