May 10, 2007
1857History
If we had a tradition of open threads here, I would just open one here today and ask all of y’all to share your thoughts on the Sepoy Mutiny, a.k.a. Rebellion, a.k.a. First War of Independence, a.k.a. perhaps some other name, depending on your viewpoint and the importance you assign to nomenclature in history. I know shamefully little about this fundamental event in the history of the Indian Subcontinent, and even less about the debates that it has spurred among historians, except that I know that these have been complicated and sometimes heated.
But today marks the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the start of the Mutiny/Rebellion/War, and by way of launching the conversation, I present three different takes that are in the news today. First we have Mani Shankar Aiyar, India’s Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports, who gave the official start to a youth march from Meerut to Delhi a couple of days ago. His remarks to a RediffNews correspondent emphasized the secular nature of the uprising; he observed that India today can learn from the uprising the importance of pluralism, secularism and religious understanding:
The significance of 1857 for today’s youth is that it makes you realise that we all are one people in spite of our diversity.
The freedom-fighters who revolted against the British in 1857 were mostly Hindus in Meerut. After disobeying their British superiors they went straight to the Mughal king, Bahadur Shah Zafar, and made him their king.
They had no ill-feeling for the Mughal king though he was a Muslim. This is the kind of secular bonding these soldiers had in them.
Our young generation must remember that united we stand, and though we are a diverse people we have to maintain our unity. That is what the message of 1857 was to all Indians. …
This is another message that Bahadur Shah Zafar and the freedom-fighters of 1857 wanted to pass on to the future generations. No matter what your religion and region be, respect all religion and maintain harmony. …
We have to remember the fact that India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. We have more Muslims than in Pakistan and Bangladesh but we Indians live together peacefully and I am proud to say all Muslims are my brothers.
Next up is the White Mughal himself, William Dalrymple Saheb. You knew he’d turn up somewhere! In an opinion piece today in the Guardian he argues that 1857 bears lessons for certain other interventions and occupations that Britain might happen to be involved in today. Here’s one of the similarities he points out:
The British progressed from removing threatening Muslim rulers to annexing even the most pliant Islamic states. In February 1856 they marched into Avadh, also known by the British as Oudh. To support the annexation, a “dodgy dossier” was produced before parliament, so full of distortions and exaggerations that one British official who had been involved in the operation described the parliamentary blue book (or paper) on Oudh as “a fiction of official penmanship, [an] Oriental romance” that was refuted “by one simple and obstinate fact”, that the conquered people of Avadh clearly “preferred the slandered regime” of the Nawab “to the grasping but rose-coloured government of the company”.
Dalrymple concludes:
Yet the lessons of 1857 are very clear. No one likes people of a different faith conquering them, or force-feeding them improving ideas at the point of a bayonet. The British in 1857 discovered what the US and Israel are learning now, that nothing so easily radicalises a people against them, or so undermines the moderate aspect of Islam, as aggressive western intrusion in the east. The histories of Islamic fundamentalism and western imperialism have, after all, long been closely and dangerously intertwined. In a curious but very concrete way, the fundamentalists of all three Abrahamic faiths have always needed each other to reinforce each other’s prejudices and hatreds. The venom of one provides the lifeblood of the others.
Before we go too far down that track, here’s a third perspective, from Rudrangshu Mukherjee in the Telegraph:
[I am] surprise[d] at the sudden burst of enthusiasm among historians about the great uprising. There is nothing like a state-sponsored anniversary to stoke the interests of historians in a subject. The adjective, state-sponsored, is used advisedly. In a country with as rich and as diverse a history as India’s, every year is an anniversary of something or the other. In June will come the 250th anniversary of the battle of Plassey. Is the Indian state celebrating that anniversary? The answer is no. The decision to celebrate the revolt of 1857 with some fanfare is based on the conclusion — put forward by some historians and accepted by the government of India — that the rebellion is worth celebrating because it represented India’s first war of independence.
Mukherjee argues that “1857 should be remembered but not commemorated,” because of the extreme violence of both the insurrection and the counter-insurrection.
The events of 1857 churned around a vicious cycle of violence. The rebels killed mercilessly without considerations of gender and age. Witness the massacre on the river in Kanpur where nearly the entire British population was killed in a spectacular show of rebel power. The British killed indiscriminately to punish a population that had transgressed the monopoly of violence that rulers have over the ruled.
He concludes:
Today, as the celebrations begin to mark the 150th anniversary of the rebellion, some questions need to be asked: is 1857 an occasion to celebrate? Can the Indian state uphold the violence that is inextricably linked to that year? Can the Indian state say that it is loyal to the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, and in the same breath celebrate 1857 when so many innocent people, on both sides, were brutally killed?
The questions are important because in India, there is no mode of remembering without celebrating. We commemorate to remember, sometimes even to forget. Eighteen fifty-seven is an event to remember, as all events of the past are; it is an event to comprehend and analyse because, as Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, it showed “man at his worst”. That comprehension and analysis is best done outside the aegis of the State.
I present these three perspectives somewhat arbitrarily. I imagine there are many others and I hope people will share them, honest in their opinions and generous with their explanations.
siddhartha on May 10, 2007 09:15 AM in Events, History, News, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I'm writing about it for zadeblog and will link to your post Siddharta!
I agree with Mukherjee - nothing to celebrate here, just remember the event as even Mutineers did not come out as rose in the 1857 murder spree.
And Aiyar seem to be using the event to further his own agenda with all talk about "secular" nature of Mutiny.
>>>he observed that India today can learn from the uprising the importance of pluralism, secularism and religious understanding
Mutineers did not kill or attack British who had converted to Islam and were living in Redfort area - some had converted to get favours from king etc - and they were not attacked. Ultimately mutiny fizzled out because fellow Delhi'tes got sick of the "mutiny" mob.
And Aiyar seem to be using the event to further his own agenda with all talk about "secular" nature of Mutiny.
Also the Sikhs from Punjab did not participate in this mutiny.
Well Franz Fannon has argued that violence has a quality of redemption. I don't think we should be ashamed that our ancestors violently fought the English East India Company. On the contrary I think it is important for us to know that there were people willing to fight against injustice. Of course the violence didn't get us anywhere, it perpetuated racism and brought about a whole host of evils, which is why we should be thankful that we ended up winning independence through peaceful means eventually.
OK, I'm not a historian, just an arm-chair kind of commenter when it comes to these things, but...
First of all, Dalrymple seems to imply that these were Islamic kingdoms (Avadh and the like). Whereas, in fact, the rulers were Muslim, but the vast majority of the populace were not. So that makes the analogy with what's going on in Iraq today much weaker. Very different cultural dynamics.
As for the Mutiny, it's very clear that people today (Aiyer for example, Indian school history books as well) are imposing modern interpretations on it, to further today's agenda of unity or secularism or whatever, and also make Indians feel that they did have some militancy (or martial traits) in them and didn't take EVERYTHING lying down (which Mukherjee addresses in a different way).
My take...the Mutiny had many different, complicated reasons, but if boiled down, essentially represented the frustrations of certain groups (Muslims, high-caste Hindus) of the Hindi-speaking region against the British. It is a testament to how disorganised and spontaneous it was, that it had little effective leadership or clear goals...had they actually won, northern India would have been thrown into chaos for another several decades, of petty kingdoms and warlords. It was just a mutiny, not a war of independence as it is being proclaimed today. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
Amitabh,
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the rebellion spread well beyond millitary personell. Kings joined the rebellion, as did peasants. Read Eric Stokes' The Peasant Armed. - I am a historian (at least one pursuing a PhD in it).
Aniruddha
First, thanks for writing about it Siddhartha.
There has been another incident. Some MPs from Punjab have claimed that the 1845 Anglo-Sikh war is the first war of independence. If so, the Barrackpore Mutiny in 1824 ought to be the 'first'. Or the 1757 Battle of Palashi.
Some intellectuals in India are self-critical to the point of being disgusting. Rudrangshu Mukherjee has another book called: Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero? I have no idea what problem Mr. Mukherjee has to offer a pathetic apology to his white friends at Oxford. We should celebrate both June 23 and May 10.
The history of human civilization is of one acquisition after another - primarily of land and the unique products it has to offer - and then, maintain exclusivity (by patrolling the borders) over the exploits.
And please, do not highlight Mani Shankar Aiyar's antics. He is a cunning fellow. He is using this occasion to further the cause of the Congress party. Quite a chameleon.
The 1857 Sepoy Mutiny is a protest against that dominance of world-view, and of ignorance of local customs (feigned or otherwise). I don't know why Nehru and others have to ride the high horse to the ivory tower. If you are so enlightened, start a campaign to ban nation states, passports and visas.
Again, for complicated reasons, the Sikhs actually helped put down the Mutiny.
Interestingly, on that topic, a friend emailed me this today:
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/05_2007/sikh-uprising-for-status-in-history-40159.html
This is a great post, very very interesting perspectives. Thanks Siddhartha.
As a DBD who received most of his schooling in India, I must say that the attention the mutiny is receiving this year did catch me by surprise. I don't remember the mutiny being mentioned as often when I was growing up except for the occasional rare mention in the media or in conversation of Rani Laxibai, Bahadur Shah Zafar, the catalytic cartridges or Tatya Tope. But thats all I remember about the mutiny besides some glorified but brief description in high school history,
I must say (rather embarrassingly) that my own knowledge about the uprising (which is what I grew up calling it, not the mutiny, not the first war of Independence though we did use those terms too). While to most Indians I knew in India (which was primarily restricted to the west and north of India - I am not sure what the perceptions are in the south and the east and so would avoid generalizations and presumptions here) it is an important event, it never registered as that important an event. When I was younger, to me it conjured up romantic notions of soldiers fighting and bravery and death for a cause but nothing as important politically (which may be due to a lack of information or the way it was glorified in my text books). Now a little older, when I think of the freedom fight I always think of Gandhi and Nehru, Bose and Tilak and Patel, even Jinnah - early 1900s to 1947 but not 1857 on a first thought.
It's interesting to read about the mentioned unity of the Hindus and the Muslims. I think when the people who had a lot more in common than the Goras found themselves and their way of life being attacked by a external force, it was natural for them to get united and fight. But that does not mean that the underlying tensions prevalent in the subcontinent between the two faiths disappeared completely. They just took a back burner for sometime unlike what Mr Ayer might want us to believe. The tensions between the two communities have historically waxed and waned and this was a case of them waning due to a fundamental human reaction under a greater threat.
However, Mr Mukherjee's claim that this is not a big event to commemorate is also something I am not sure. It was after all the first time an uprising of this scale happened against the British where at least some sections of India decided to unite and fight!
Agreed.
Ardy,
You are imposing 20th century tensions between Hindus and Muslims to the 1850s. During that time period most Indians didn't even know whether they were Hindu or Muslim - let alone fight about it. Religion was a very priviledged affair. Census' undertaken even in the 20th century returned replies frm million who claimed they were Hindu-Mohammedan.
Aniruddha
Aniruddha - think Aurangzeb etc etc.
Again, for complicated reasons, the Sikhs actually helped put down the Mutiny.
Well the fact that Punjab sat out the mutiny was one of the primary reasons that the British declared people from that area to be of a martial race fit enough to join the British Indian army. This has led to generations of Sikhs and Pakistani Punjabis harbor insane delusions about their martial character though its clear that the British chose them for their compliance in the mutiny.
Ardy,
Aurungzeb was a king - an elite - so he knew a lot more abt religion than average Joe. Also, he has been misrepresented. He was a lot more Hindu friendly than believed. He had Rajputs serving as generals, he also allowed Holi to be celebrated in court for a long time. He grew radical for a while to appease the ulema.
I'm derailing the comment thread a bit...
Hey Aniruddha,
I'll take your historian credentials without any cynical suspicion :) Can you suggest any good, online indian-history resources that offer multiple perspectives. Or books that do? Thanks.
Yes but you have to ask WHY they sat out the mutiny. I'm a little short on time right now, but depending how this thread develops I might try to chime in on that later today.
Zai,
Oxford University Press has a collection called Debates in Indian History. Seema Alavi edited the one for the 18th century.
Well Southern historians claim numerous mutinies and rebellions have taken place before 1857 in the south.
I don't like the term "Mutiny", I prefer "Rebellion". Although Sepoys were part of British Army, British were perceived as foreign rulers, that's not the case with Muslim rulers at that time.
Sepoys can also be characterised as mercenaries, similar to whats happening in Iraq today. According to Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, there are 100,000 to 120,000 mercenaries/private contractors/support staff in Iraq, that's equivalent to number of American troops in Iraq.
One problem in India is the lack of quality journals, and an incentive for academicians to publish. There are few institutions which can contain the argumentation before they degenerate into flak sessions. As a result, typically one-sided views (pardon my bias here - but of the Marxist historian variety) have found proliferation. Op-eds in newspapers are no substitute for scholarship. The consequences are obvious.
Sanskrit is confused with religion, the philosophy of the Upanishads is best studied at Oxford, the benefits of Yoga are more appreciated in the US, the healing power of medicinal plants need certification from abroad, and now that the fruits of prayer are validated by researchers in the US, Indians will be very relieved.
The only solution is to jettison autistic text-weaving and give more importance to the use of evidence in argumentation. Anecdotes, large sample statistics, experiments all should work.
If any academician is listening, please take some initiative in starting quality journals in the social sciences.
Aniruddha - I am not talking about whether people practiced their religion or knew too well about it. What I am saying is there were periods of tensions and it was not all peachy secular as Aiyer would like you to believe. The nature of the tensions may have been quite different than what we have now, but there was enough of a relating to ones kin/religion/people/community to have a degree of us and them. There were cases of secularism where people respected the other mans faith but there was a fair number of cases of discrimination, religion based laws, conversions, taxes, etc.
Except for those to whom the violence is committed.
I thought it was because Sikhs wanted to help finish off the Mughal rule that had done so much to persecute them.
I thought it was because Sikhs wanted to help finish off the Mughal rule that had done so much to persecute them.
The Mughals had lost all power by then. It had more to do with the fact that they had recently lost the Anglo-Sikh war.
I doubt the fact that the Mughals had lost all power by then had much to do with the willingness of those Sikhs who fought to fight them. Their historical memory would have been one of persecution. To put it crudely, it was payback.
I just read Dalrymple's recent (2006) book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty: Delhi, 1857. The ideas you've quoted from the Guardian piece are developed in his introduction. I thought the book was great, largely based on new materials translated for the first time. The books paints a picture of Delhi life before, during, and after the Mutiny, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in either Indian history or the city of Delhi.
Well, if you invade a country and oppress it using violence, you can't complain when violence is done to kick you out. So while what happened to the British in the uprising was not pretty, I can't understand why they would complain about it. Do unto others...
This link describes the economic history immediately preceding the Mutiny.
I remember reading about Charles Dicken's reaction to the old flare up, just googled and found it, it's quite happily genocidal and tasty:
+++
“I wish I were a commander in chief in India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental Race with amazement . . . should be to proclaim to them . . . that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I was . . .now proceeding, with . . . merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the Earth”
+++
Lots of other good stuff at that link.
I doubt the fact that the Mughals had lost all power by then had much to do with the willingness of those Sikhs who fought to fight them. Their historical memory would have been one of persecution. To put it crudely, it was payback.
Well, the Mughals had indeed lost all their power by then. Also it was not a question of fighting for the Mughals. There were major rebellions in the Bengal and Madras presidencies. They were not fighting for the restoration of Mughal power.
Yeah, but just imagine, Sikhs have the chance to give 'the Mughals' a good whipping? That's what they were thinking. Why wouldnt they relish the chance to get stuck in given their history? As for the sepoys not fighting to restore the Mughal power or not, well, Bahadur Zafar was the name and icon around which many rallied, it wouldnt be difficult to contextualise it in that way.
Very nice post, Siddhartha! The multiple perspectives and commentary have been quite enlightening.
Just a couple of quick points - Amitabh made the point about 'Sikhs' helping put down the 'Mutiny'. This was, as he mentions, for a complicated set of reasons: British manipulation of the chiefdoms; pre-existing ethno-religious tensions between 'Punjabis' on one side and 'Bengalis, Awadhis and Biharis' on the other; the relative recency of the Anglo-Sikh Wars, and so on.
But I hope nobody calls into question the sense of inherent defiance of arbitrary authority (rebelliousness against tyranny, if you will) that is and has been a bedrock of the Sikh faith throughout its history, both at an individual and at a community level. And while Sikhs did well as a community under the post-1857 British dispensation, there were many other Sikhs who, individually and collectively, 'mutinied' throughout the British era.
Among the many examples that can be cited are the Sikh Mutiny of February 1915 in Singapore and the largely Sikh 'Azad Hind Fauj' of Subhas Chandra Bose, (again formed in Singapore) 1942-45. Of course, even as these mutinies unfolded, other Sikhs did fight in the colonial armies, in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa during WW-I and WW-II.
On the post-1947 conceptions of the Mutiny: One of the reasons that post-Independence Congress governments did not particularly commemorate it, is that they always wanted to 'contain the popular infectious mutinous sentiment' that it embodied. They stood to gain from the status-quo, and therefore took steps downplay the 'Mutiny' and its official historians misrepresented its significance, continuing the British policy in this regard.
I'm really glad we have professional historians like Aniruddha on board here at SM. While I'm not sure I agree that people in 1857 "did not know whether they were Hindu or Muslim", I would say that the current conception of Hindu-ness and Muslim-ness date directly from the post-1857 British manipulation of socio-religious identities - in the best 'divide et impera' tradition.
Yeah, it wasnt that long before Northern Europeans were liquidising women and children in concentration camps, firebombing Dresden women and children, massacring women and children in Amritsar, not long before they packed African women and children into ships to rape and enslave on plantations, and all that other malarkey. Shove it up your genocidal-impulse apologising nose --- Fear the awakened saxon, and fuck the racist bastard Charles Dickens.
He was a great writer though, Oliver Twist is one of my faves.
[The Mughal king] believed in democracy and panchayti raj and therefore he had proper representation for every section in his council of ministers.
Hmmm. Very, umm, thought-provoking.
... and I am proud to say all Muslims are my brothers. ... We respect everyone's religion and also people like me who is an atheist.
Nice. So. 'We ... respect me'?
Let's not feed the troll.
SM Intern, Troll alert!
Guys, let's not derail the thread by replying to the troll.
Can we please return to the subject at hand, the Indian Mutiny of 1857, instead of taking about race relations and playing the 'who was a racist' game. The thread was interesting and informative before troll debuchery took over.
I think the whole discussion of "who's more racist" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Mukherjee argues that “1857 should be remembered but not commemorated,” because of the extreme violence of both the insurrection and the counter-insurrection.
That's an interesting perspective, but it seems to suggest that no battle/war/watershed event is worth commemorating. Should the US simply stop celebrating any anniversary of 1776, since the Declaration of Independence did ultimately lead to extreme violence on both sides? What about World War II?
I think it's possible to get just a little too "hagiographic" about the 1857 Mutiny, but I don't see any real harm in a state-sponsored commemoration of the event. It was a bright-line, easily identifiable event, with a clearly discernible goal, whatever the motives of the individuals may have been at the time. You can commemorate an event without condoning the violence that accompanied it, after all.
Can we please return to the topic at hand?
The troll is not open to reason and even if he is, this is not the thread to discuss it. This is specifically about the Indian mutiny of 1857, not about biases and what not.
Wasn't this some kind of watershed?
Following comment #40, similar prior experiences, and high observed correlation to bigotry and insensitivity, may I suggest a new SM landing page? One that asks the user to spell 'Gandhi'. Anyone that offers 'Ghandi' or 'Gandhi' should be redirected to an alterna-universe SM, inoculating them from the rest.
P.S: Thanks for the pointer Aniruddha.
Karmabyte, you are right, it was when the rumor got around that the cartridges had cow and pig fat that the rebellion started.
I am not a historian, not even of the armchair kind. What I think is really shameful is how distorted and revisionist textbooks are in India. I grew up on the propaganda that the Mutiny was a glorious time in Indian history, something to be unequivocally proud of.
The Gandhi reputation is another example of revision. How many Indians care to know about his racism (even if relatively mild)? I was force-fed on his super-clean legend and have spent most of my adulthood adding layers and layers of caveats and complexities.
It was eye-opening to see this article and read the links and comments. Fantastic work.
The mutiny was a turning point in the history of recruitment of soldiers for the Raj...the brits were then becoming sick the native recruits who were upper caste with constant demands about ritual purity and phobias about mingling with low caste sepoys.The Sikhs were easier to deal with and didn't have unreasonable demands about ritual purity.The British Military then turned into a sikh dominated one.
Thanks for this post, Siddhartha. My friends and fam were just discussing this (mostly because we were surprised by the increased attention the mutiny is getting this year). Like Naiverealist mentioned, I personally think the mutiny is important to commemorate and understand, but it's a bit selective to call it the "first" revolt against the British. There were a lot of resistance wars that had happened before, and would happen after. I guess the other issue at hand is whose India did these folks represent at the time? Given that India itself is a fairly modern construct, what does it mean to attribute the "first revolution" to the Sepoy Mutiny/Revolt/Rebellion?
Personally, what I find interesting in all this is that the government is embracing the fact that the independence movement was not inherently non-violent. I think the violence - particularly civilian fallout - of the whole process is tremendously underplayed, and I think that that lack of historical memory does everyone a huge disservice.
Oh, and Red, I don't think Sikhs helped put down the mutiny because they were trying to "get back" at the Mughals. The issue wasn't vindictiveness, there were a lot of other complex issues at hand. Also, it's not entirely true that Sikhs weren't supporting the Mutiny as well. There was a lot of divide in the community, but also, there's a substantial difference between the actions of professional soldiers employed by the Empire and civilians. I'm with chachaji on his analysis.
Also, not to get into it with the troll, but measuring the relative righteousness or badness of people at war is stupid, and comparing the Sepoy Mutiny to the American Civil War is not at all analogous. If you're going to compare it to anything Anglo-American, it would have to be the American War of Independence.
No expert on this but my impression was that Spain was quite multi religious and peaceful till the inquisition. Due to religio-political reasons and the influence of the Church, the muslims were later forced to become Christians (conversos) but continued to practice Islam in secret and were thus expelled. Thus it seems like the expulsion was not because of their 'invader' status but due to religious reasons?
rani lakshmibai
To be honest I did not know about this first wave of rebellion until I came across you guys, never really looked into it until now. There has been a fair bit of literature released in the past few weeks.
One in our local gujji paper highlights one of the commanders of the mutiny, Rani Laxmibai. It was interesting, she died in battle at 22, widowed at 18 and had an adopted son. But at a young age she gained the respect of the British generals, “the queen of Jhansi, of all the mutineers, the bravest and greatest commander was the Rani”. British general Sir Hugh Rose.
But like I said I do not know much, but this story of the Rani I thought was cool.
Very cool post!
The mutiny was less of a war of Independance than a blowback against the preceived inroads Christianity was making in India amongst other things.The British were not hated particularly as a imperial foreign imperial power because India had then been ruled by Afghans,Iranians,Uzbeks,Tajiks,Turks,Mameluks at various points of time.
What really set the flames blowing was restrictions placed on certain religious practices such as banning of widow burning,widow remarriage,breakdown of caste structures,ritual pollution,the ban on turbans for the sepoys replaced by 'christian hats',percieved loss of caste by having to cross the seas to other countries and exposure to pig fat in cartridges.
That it was primarily a reaction against christianity can be evidenced from the fact that one of the first actions of the mutineers was the slaughter of all christians including hindu converts to christianity, prominent among them the physician to Bahadur Shah Zafar who was a christian convert from a hindu background.
Let's hope so. Spare your blood pressure, prevent incontinence.
Camille, do you think historical memory played no part in Sikh participation? There probably was a whole brew of feelings and motives, but surely you can't discount that one as part of it.
There has been a fair bit of literature released in the past few weeks.
There has been fair amount literature released for 100s of years. Some serious books, including one by British historian Saul, and also recently by William Dalrymple ("The Last Mughal"). Almost, all Indian thinkers in pre-Independence used it as their focal point.
Rani Jhansi has the status of "Joan of Arc" in the Indian subcontinent. They have been hazaar (thousand) if not more books, movies, songs on her.
1857 Mutiny has its significance......it galvanized a fair amount of Indian subcontinent (different interest groups) to rebel for the first time, before that it was more localized, and mostly regional. Like Vande Mataram, it became a powerful symbol of yearning during freedom struggle in British India.
OK everyone, the troll has been shown the door and I'm also removing comments that are solely aimed at rebutting the troll. Avi is right -- good discussion here and I'm appreciating the perspectives. Carry on!
Yes, because at the same time, a large number of Jews were also expelled, who had been living under the Muslim regime quite happily for a very long time. A very large number of these expelled Jews ended up in Turkey. (Of course, this is a tangent - but hopefully still brings some perspective)
Camille, thanks. And I should add the Ghadr movement of the 1910s and 1920s to the short list of anti-Raj 'Mutinies' that Sikhs were a significant part of.
Red Snapper,
You are second, second guessing......that is what you do quite well regularly, and extrapolate.
In fact, a few months before 1857 uprising, some Namdhari sikhs was tied to canons and blown to bits by the British. Yes, Camille is true that some Sikhs supported the Mutiny.
As a whole, the Sikh establishment had fought two wars with British (Anglo-Sikh Wars), and was not willing to cross swords again. Same with Gurkhas.
1857 has a lot of significance......it was the first concerted challenge.....even though a lot of it had to with Doctrine of Lapse by Lord Dalhousie.
It is almost tragic that everyone in response to Dalrymple invokes Sati....and Mukherjee translates firanghi as white man instead of the more accurate term foreigner. I cannot stand apologists like Ferguson but let us all be honest for once. We owe it ot the Brits who gave us our democracy...I would not want to be under no Nawab or Maharajah. Things suck in INdia, but atleast we have a chance to do something about it...IMagine having to live under a ruler. we would all be worse off.
''Spain was quite multi religious and peaceful till the inquisition. Due to religio-political reasons and the influence of the Church, the muslims were later forced to become Christians (conversos) but continued to practice Islam in secret and were thus expelled''
I dont see how the Church could have any influence in Spain and force conversions after it had been conquered by the Arabs.
It was a policy after the Arab conquest of the Levant (Palestine) and parts of Europe to leave the administrative structures in place which was primarily compose of Jews and Christians since the Arabs had no experience in administration...they were primarily desert tribes who captured vast swathes of territory in a blitzkrieg.
The spaniards fought back against the Arab invaders and expelled them when Arab rule became intolerant.
Not sure what you mean here. I know about Namdhari Sikhs and their history, my cousin is married to a Namdhari Sikh who is a respected classical musician --- they have art in their home commemorating the rebellion against the British, which was sparked, as I understand, by protest against cow slaughter in Punjab.
The discussions on the Sikh army is fascinating. Maybe we've been reading the 1857 story wrong. Do you think we should see this story less as a British vs Indian story, and more a Punjab Army vs Bengal army story?
We owe it ot the Brits who gave us our democracy...
Isn't "gave" just a bit expansive (and even a little too generous) in this case? I concede that India's adoption of parliamentary democracy was largely because of the British-educated elite.
However, before we laud the British for opening up the halls of education to the natives, I think we should consider why the British were motivated to do this. The British Raj was an administrative nightmare, and training Indians to staff administrative and legal offices was just plain practical.
That those educated in the British system ultimately turned their back on Britain and colonial rule was, I think, an unexpected (and largely undesirable) consequence, from the British perspective.
Kush Tandon, fair point. i did mean in local press.
like i said, i do not know much about it, but the Rani story i thought was interesting which got me more interested. Cheers for the references will check them out.
G-Dawg in #56
It seems like we may simply be talking about different periods/incidents. I just did a quick wiki search and found this. Also, the parts about the Moriscos seems to be what I was thinking about. Also, check out the background section which talks about how all the muslims did not leave after the initial expulsion.
That is not necessarily true Mani. Democracy could have come to India organically. We'll never know.
Because you are a historian, I am sure you will do your own research (e.g., collect some primary sources) before you arrive at a conclusion. But in social sciences, believing is seeing.
As Colbert says, reality has become a commodity. Enjoy bringing democracy to information. ;)
Guys, listen carefully to what Anirudha is saying. He knows what he is talking about.
It is true that Indian mutiny of 1857, the rebellion was led by the Bengal Army, and a lot of others who fell on the wrong side of Doctrine of Lapse, and Bahadhur Shah Zafar became their focal point/ inspiration even though he had become a paper mache. Then and their the concept of modern India was born. Amartya Sen would argue that goes back even - fair enough.
Read David Saul's book.
Also, It is also true (even to this day), in rural India, people change religion at the drop of the hat in India - from Hindu to Sikh (first born, etc.), from Hindu to Christian to Hindu again (tribal India, NE India), Hindu to Muslim (often by marriages, as Muslim custom requires conversion at the wedding. Sometimes two Hindus become Muslim for weddings - Dharmendra and Hema Malini).
There is a lively debate about whether Indian nationalism was a reaction to British rule, or if it predated British rule, albeit in a different cultural form (in other words, was articulated differently). Its an interesting question, because many argue that the form of nationalism that predated the British was more of a "civil society" nationalism, not tied to a state. See for example, Rajat Kanta Ray's The Felt Community: Commonalty and Mentality before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press 2003). If this is plausible then it can be argued that the Mutiny was the beginning of a particular kind of nationalism, wedded to state power and hence commemorated by the state. In other words, what the British rule produced was a statist nationalism, where communities demand their own instrument of organized violence to be protected against other states. Another argument that is a natural corollary of this is that this statist nationalism with its violent tendencies was a peculiarly European creation since the Europeans were the first to turn war into science (note I am not however arguing that there was no violence before statist nationalism, but that violence was not necessarily a part of nationalism). Tangentially, I don't remember the name, but I recall a quote from a historian of war to the effect that "in most of the world, warfare was an art, it was in Europe that it was turned into Science" (could have been martin van crevald).
"That is not necessarily true Mani. Democracy could have come to India organically. We'll never know."
as amartya sen points out, democracy as a concept, and elements of democracy, existed long before the british and did not arrive in india with them. neither did the concept of education. can't remember who it was, but i think it was in an article (obituary) in the hindu about an indian scholar who did research about the levels of general education amongst the population in some areas (and not just among the elite) before the British and during the British rule.
Nada,
We will never know is right, but this was really not as bad as it would have probably become without British rule. The British system of democracy is rooted in the development of institutions...As Amreekans will now know, it is very difficult to develop institutions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan...And then they gave us English, a language free of caste and religion. One musn't shun modern values just because they are english or xtian or whatever. One can be objectively well meaning without being sentimental. We needed the British then to break us from our idiotic mould..of caste and gender discrimination. Good ideas and values are for all, be they white or black. They are part of our history, and we must celebrate them. After all, your ranis and rajas didnt fight for the common man...the mutiny was as much about preserving the oppressive status-quo. The only reason we are not Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal or Sri Lanka (all are f***ed up theocratic/stone-age states) is because our Brit recruited elite classes, who irrespective of caste or religion shaped India into a secular and modern state..
Why deny modern values to the rest of Indians what so many of us in Amreeka and west enjoy.
INfact, I think we must ban parties like the BJP/RJD/TDP/DMK/ADMK/Muslim League.....We shuld have evolved from a single party-congress system to a bi-party system like in britain or Amreeka....instead, we have gulti party, Bal Thock-rey ;) Shiv Sena....and what not RSS chadi gang parties like that Modi in Gujrat.. YSR in Andhra is another such chadi wala.... INdia is now being ruled by 2nd rate politicians....yet...because of democracy, there is hope...
Like Nirad C. Chaudhari wrote: from wiki
“ To the memory of the British Empire in India,
Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.
Amazon link to David Saul's "The Indian Mutiny/b>".
Please do read the comments, and reviews.
One sentence stands out:
After suppressing the revolt, India's British rulers used the old tactic of divide and rule to crush India's strivings for democracy and self-rule. "Divide et impera was the old Roman motto and it should be ours", Lord Elphinstone advised in 1859.
Till Gandhi came along.
Talking of democracy in India, I find it dubious when people imply that India would not have had democracy without the British. From wikipedia below
I like Amartya Sen, but only the economist in him..The argumentative INdian read like a congress party manifesto....like Rajiv Gandhi would add "Hum Jante hain"...blah blah...
And that hindu democracy is all crap..Hindus in the north are no better than purdahwallas...my cousin married this northie and now is under ghunghat..and in pune, mahars were made to walk around with pots around their necks...so that their spit would not soil the pure brahmin city....I am a brahmin myself...but stupidity need not be my caste qualifier..better as Indians...hindu or muslim or sikh, let us all embrace modernity,sex and free love..
peace:)
For those who think democracy is western, please read some of Sen's writings.
However, far better than the comrades who swear by the enlightenment, and always looks for a reason for everything (e.g., why should I love my mother? What is the reason? Sen by his incredible sleight of hand, and 'remarkable' selection ability to further his arguments refers to Mommie Dearest in this article)
Instead, read this book by Rajat Kanta Ray, current upacharya at Visva-Bharati:
The Felt Community: Commonalty and Mentality Before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Rajat Kanta Ray (Oxford University Press, November 2002 (India); January 2003 (U.S.A.)
Here is a review.
And you will understand nationalism needs no greater imagination than a daughter's love for her mother. Dare I expand the family from the nuclear one to include grandmothers and grandfathers?
It is all about filial bonds. One can go even further and say that simply by living side by side for a length of time, we will stand up for each other. It is a sense of shared destiny, shared understanding and shared practices.
Post-modernists do not like emotions as it is difficult to be represented in text. But that's the basis of what we do. We smell, taste, see, touch. That's data too.
Mani, I have read Nirad C Chaudhuri's book. It is much deeper than the stanza people often quote, which then sends all pseudo-intellectuals into a tizzy. It is an excellent analysis of Indian history. Please read the last chapter: An Essay on the Course of Indian History. I am sure you will enjoy the ideas, and the excellent English.
Talking of democracy in India, I find it dubious when people imply that India would not have had democracy without the British
That really wasn't the implication. In fact, I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that some form of indigenous democracy pre-dated the arrival of the British in India. But considering the form of democracy that India ultimately adopted, it's very difficult to dismiss British influence outright.
And then they gave us English, a language free of caste and religion
Again with the "gave"? Jeez. Should I get down on my knees and thank the British profusely for this?
Hema, that comment was not a response to your comment rather to Mani's statements.
Agreed.Hemaji,
alright agrees I, that gave is being too generous...My Hajee Hajee english is a product of years of servitude...that is why I gave been given so much....My back hurts...bending bending...They gave I Bending...
hajee Hajee..
hajeely Bending yours,
Anand
mani, my comment wasn't so much an approval of amartya sen or whatever his politics may/may not be or to gloss over inequities, but a reminder that these concepts are not exactly alien to indian culture. for those who know nothing or very little about india or get their ideas from old hollywood movies, india appears to be some sort of empty slate upon which the british wrote all that is good and decent. some good yes, some unintended consequences - good and bad, and some bad. yes, parliamentary democracy didn't exist, but democracy itself is not really a "western" invention and to say that india (or whatever form the region would have taken) would not have been democratic without them is a stretch, in my opinion. for whatever values and good the british gave india, india certainly didn't get it for free- they exacted more than their weight in gold -- so i don't think we have to go on being slavishly grateful. a healthy mutual respect and healthy mutual criticism/skepticism is more in order.
I cease to exist. this moment.
Er, Mani...I didn't mean any offense. Just grousing about some words that are my pet peeves. Sorry and all that.
Hema: no problem....is what mani would have said..
India 'neglects' its historic heritage
Funny how the "heritage" evoking these tears is all from the East India/Raj days. India does a crap job of maintaining historical sites, we all make value based judgements and for a poor country like India I say pre-colonial sites take precedence. Maintained correctly, sites like Dholavira can be a significant boost to the economies of surrounding villages & towns. I hear that the Angkor temple complex generates about 30% of Cambodia's GDP. Make the old sites something of value for villagers and they will protect them from looters.
If the English want to engage in Raj sentimentality "Heritage UK" can pay for it
The british might have given us democracy, but they also gave us fabian socialism.
One thing however, we where colonized by the british,, we where colonized by the mughals, and where we not colonized by the Soviet as well. I mean not literally, but in practice. We could focus on the Sepoy Mutiny of course, but why not try to understand what KGB really did in our country first. Because as far as I am concerned that is the root to our poverty.
"the Sepoy Mutiny, a.k.a. Rebellion, a.k.a. First War of Independence, "
This is the first time I heard the Sepoy Mutiny referred to as the First War of Independence. I thought the concept of independence came much later, probably with Mahatma Gandhi. Until the early 20th century, which would be 50 some years after the Mutiny, Indians were only asking for Home Rule.
I guess naming it the First War of Independence is harmless nationalism, because it was a first major opposition to the British, but my concern is whether it is an accurate summation of what happened or just revisionist history. I know colonial Indian history has had to undergo some revision, necessitated by the lopsidedness of the earlier versions. Come on, historians, I need a little education here. Great topic, Siddhartha, and many great comments!
What I'm trying to say is that Jeltsin kicking out that bald headed bastard out of Kremlin was a far far greater moment for me.
Samjay can you give me more info about KGB did in India?????
I have to be honest have had no idea about anything to do with India and the KGB.
Jestlin kicking out that bald headed bastard out of Kremlin
don't forget that red mark on his bald head
Anyone remember this from CBSE? It's great to chant.
बूंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी,
ख़ूब लड़ी मर्दानी, वह तो झाँसी वाली रानी थी I
Bribed politicians and journalist, funded the Congress and secured the Gandhi familys tight grip on Indian politics, and ultimately ensured that the madness and tragedy called License Raj impoverished hundreds of millions of people for 40 years. True independence came with the down fall of socialism, not before.
Read Mithrokhin Archives if you are interested .
Three alternative takes of my own, courtesy of Monty Python:
And next...
and also:
I live in India and studied here. this is the first time that I have seen the map of India as it was in 1857. it says vomumes of the lack of quality education and discussion that such a map is not known at all to even highly educated people.
There's also a translation in English, but it's nowhere near being as good as the original, and of course does not get either the rhyme or the lyricality of the original, most evident in the refrain (which Kurma posted). The transliteration into Roman is:
which basically 'translates' to something like:
The poem is great, but I do have a problem when events from barely 150 years ago become mythologized like this. She may very well have been everything the poem makes her out to be, but a factual history would have been nicer still to know. A job for the historians to seize!
Salil made the Python reference before I did... damn!
;-)
You could do a P.F.J. pastiche for almost every people in history:
"What have the [people] ever done for us?"
[insert reply]
Thanks for pointing out Charles Dickens' anti-Indian rant... whoa!
:-o
re #80, you raise an important point and bone of contention. some time ago, the telegraph's reporter in india, on his blog, wrote about the neglect by the authorities of old british cemeteries - in this case of one particular person with a contentious reputation if i remember correctly -- but as others pointed out to him, india is littered with historical sites, many mughal and pre-mughal, that are also "neglected." everyone's priorities are different, rightly or wrongly. a lot of people have been so conditioned by popular culture and literature (and naturally if they are british, they have an interest in raj-era sites) that they cannot think of an indian history beyond the raj, just as some think that indian architecture begins and ends with the taj mahal.
To all the DBDs who claim not to know much about the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny or to never have seen a map of old India - speak for yourselves only please and desist calling into question all education in India.
I remember studying about the mutiny in some detail in school in India ( 7th grade or earlier) .While the violence was glossed over, we definitely studied analysis of why it failed: because it was a spontaneous eruption of anger, sparked by tales of bullets being dipped in pig fat ( which was anathema to hindu and muslim soldiers alike).It was not well planned and therefore not well executed. The Mutiny however does have historical value because it was the spark that ultimately resulted in the idea of getting independent from the British.
Personally, I think its revisionist to call it the first war of independence or claim that its proof of secularism.Mani Shankar Aiyar is right in that we can learn lessons from it - as we can from all history.So whats the harm in remmbering the date without going overboard?
As for the pseudo -intellectual Mukherjee quoted , for every violent Mutiny perpetrated by Indians on the British , there is a Jalianwallah Baug perpetrated by the British on Indians.The issue with violence is this - its almost never justified.
On another note: Kush , please don't use Dharmender and Hema Malini as an example of people changing religon at the "drop of a hat "- trvializes the entire issue!
meant to add, i think there's now a private british group that raises funds for the upkeep of british cemeteries in india.
I guess naming it the First War of Independence is harmless nationalism, because it was a first major opposition to the British, but my concern is whether it is an accurate summation of what happened or just revisionist history
The father of Hindu nationalism, Veer Savarkar, dubbed it the First War of Independendence, which is the title of a book he wrote with the assistance of his buddy the revolutionary VVS Aiyar, no relation, I think, to Mani Shankar Aiyer, who sees the antecedents of "secularism" in it. Clearly the Mutiny is one event where everyone sees what they want to see.
Isn't "Sepoy Mutiny" also a bit of a misnomer, or at least very misleading? The mutineeing sepoys were only a small part of the overall movement, which included leaders and armies that owed no allegiance to the British, and were therefore not in mutiny at all.
Anyone remember this from CBSE? It's great to chant.
Love that poem.
Of the people involved in the events of 1857, I think Lakshmi Bai does deserve special mention. Another person who deserves mention is Tantya Tope, the energetic commander under Nana Saheb (who himself gained his power only as hereditary peshwa). Bahadur Shah Zafar, another hereditary ruler, had almost no power, and his role was primarily symbolic (although that symbolism changed the rebellion into a politcal one). Even Mangal Pandey played a primarily catalytic role during the events of 1857.
Aniruddha points out that the rebellion went beyond the military. As the discussion shows, and from what I know, it also went beyond urban/rural, high caste/low caste, peshwa/nawab/..., linguistic and Hindu/Muslim (I disagree with Aniruddha that Indians did not know whether they were Muslims or not) divides. I think Mani Shankar Aiyer is right to characterize the events as secular and pluralistic. But the rebellion was essentially staged by a very loose set of princely/British-ruled states (and purely regional rebellions continued to happen even after 1857), and it was not a fully pan-Indian movement like Gandhi's non-violent one. I think the term "mutiny" for the events of 1857 would be understating it. Calling it a Rebellion (or maybe a War of Independence because the central theme was being against "foreign rule" (but was it really the first war?))) might be better. The rebellion was not pan-Indian, but the British government in India was itself not pan-Indian. Each presidency had its own administration and its own army.
My take:
..Reality: It is funny to read that people from all walks of life, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and language rose agsinst the British rule.
Geographically, the mutiny was focussed on a just a few regions Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur. Meerut, Jhansi etc.. If you compare it with modern geography, those regions are narrowed down into modern U.P/Bihar and parts of the Maratha land. The other vast regions of India, Bombay, Punjab and Madras remained calm and even the native soldiers in the British regiments of those areas did not participate in the "mutiny".
It is hard to believe that people irrespective of caste rose against the British rule. Maybe in a few villages, but not in the entire region even under the mutiny. The mutiny was started by and carried forward by the "upper caste sepoys" and "Muslims" who felt that their religion and caste rules were trampled by the "Bible" toting missionary military generals.. We should take note of the fact the whole thing was started by a Brahmin Mangal Pandey, who felt that biting a bullet coated with cow's fat made him an outcaste and Muslims were angry that "pork fat" was used. Even now, Dalits and other lower castes have no taboos on eating beef or pork. I don't think the situation was different then. The famous son of India, Dr. Ambedkar's grand father served in the Mahar regiment helpiing the Brits crush the mutiny.
Even the much touted Hindu-Muslim unity is doubtful. Brits got the support of "Pathans"/"Nizam of Hyderabad" and many Hindu princes. They were all sidekicks of the brits and played minor to major role in crushing the mutiny. Even if we assume the so called "upper caste Hindu - Muslim" unity, why should we celebrate it now. Who were they united against?. Chrisitans??. The mutineers cut down any Christian they found in Delhi after they took over Delhi, even the natives who converted to Christianity. And "Sikhs" played a major role in crushing the mutiny. So when we celebrate the mutiny as "Hindu-Muslim" friendship day, does that mean we should treat Christians and Sikhs as traitors??.
Now comes the language part, what are those people who fought against the British irrespective of their language. Did the Kannadigas/ Telugus/Tamils/Malayalees/Oriyas/Kashmiris/Punjabis fight against the Brits in 1857??
I agree that the pre-Independence leaders needed something to motivate people against the British and mythologised 1857. But it is against common sense to celebrate the event now as some kind of a "First war of Indian Independence". The goals of people who fought against the Brits in 1857 are not the same as the goals of modern India now. It is better to treat that as a significant event in history rather than spend government money in trying to create a 'halo' around it.
Sorry for the long post.
Ponniyin Selvan,
Did the Kannadigas/ Telugus/Tamils/Malayalees/Oriyas/Kashmiris/Punjabis fight against the Brits in 1857??
The Maharaja of Kashmir supported the British. The South Indians were not affected very much. Check out the wikipedia entry which covers "Debate over name of conflict" and "Debate over the national character of the rebellion".
you listened to my suggestion! i feel important. and if you didn't, and it's a coincidence, don't tell me. ignorance is bliss.