|
|
|
|
|
||
Mutiny of 1857
The Search for Truth
- Baldev Singh
David
Harowitz in his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in
America addresses his mounting concerns about perverse
culture of academics that are poisoning the minds of today's college students. It
appears that this disease is afflicting institutions of higher learning,
particularly the department of humanities.
We also have observed that works published on Sikhism from Western
universities (USA and Canada), especially the ones with endowed Sikh
chairs, distort Sikhsim under the cloak
of academic research. A case in point is the work of Doris R. Jakobsh whogot her PhD in 2000 from the University of British Columbia under the
supervision of Prof. Hajot Oberoi. My recent critical review of her Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity demonstrates unequivocally that she has used gender study as a ploy to
spread false information about Sikh Gurus and Sikhs.1 For example,
her portrayal of the role of Sikhs in the
mutiny of 1857 is in stark contrast to the events that took place in
1857 and the views of prominent Indian historians.
The
mutiny of 1857 clinched the British association with the Punjabis.
Inflamed
by rumours of East India Companys
stipulation of use of pork and beef fat to grease cartridges, the sepoys of the
Bengal Army throughout northern India revolted. Mutinous soldiers seizing Delhi
and raising anew the standard of the Mughal empire were joined by other
discontented groups throughout the country. Sikh royalty, on the other
hand, sent troops to contain the uprisings. To the Sikhs the British now owed
allegiance, for they stemmed the tide of insurrection and had thus allowed the
imperial army to tighten its hold over mutinous natives.2
Needless to say, the events of 1857 severely intensified the perceived
chasm of difference between the Indian and the Briton.
The Sikhs, through
their propitious display of loyalty moved into a position of privilege and
honour.
The Sikhs, characterised as the pinnacle of the martial races,
reaped the benefits of their propitious display of loyalty to the British for
years to come. Punjab chiefs who had stood by the Bitish during the uprising
were given monetary and territorial rewards, and Indian honorary titles were
meted out to loyal princes and officials (Latif 1994: 582-3).3
Leading religious families were also patronised, as were mahants, the
custodians of Gurdwaras and shrines. The Britsh patronage of Sikh religious
elite remained advantageous to the political designs of both for many years to
come. For example, Baba Khem Singh Bedi supported the British during the mutiny
by raising troops to stem the tide of insurrection. He continued to support the
British administration in many and varied forms.
Further, in return for British patronage, the mahants of
principal religious shrines issued hukamnamas [edicts] in support of the
Raj in times of political crisis.4
Jakobsh has echoed what the Hindu propaganda machine has
been saying about the role of Sikhs in the 1857 mutiny, since the foundation of
Arya Samaj in Punjab in the 1870s. Let me first cite the views of well-known
Hindu historians about this so-called first
war of Independence before discussing Jakobshs
absurd statements point by point.
According to Sir J. N. Sarkar, The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom; it was in fact, King Cobra
Superstitions last bite before his head
was smashed. J. P. Kriplani says, It was nothing but an attempt by the old order to get back their
kingdoms and principalities. And
R. C. Majumdar was right in saying, It was
neither first, nor national nor a war of independence.5
1. How could any scholar in his or her right
mind assert that the Sikhs benefited the most from British colonial rule? This
is a false statement because the Sikhs lost their empire to the British? From
rulers they became victims of alien rule.
From free people
they became co-slaves with the rest of Indians. The
only real beneficiaries of British rule were the Hindus. Had the British not
replaced Muslim rulers, the Hindus would still be under Muslim yoke and their
majority might have been reduced to an insignificant minority! Muslims started
ruling over Hindus from the early eighth century when Mohammed Bin Qasim
conquered Sindh and, from there onward they kept conquering more and more of
Indian territory. By the time European traders came, most of India was under
the Muslim rule. Not even Shiva with his army of evil spirits, or Rama with his
army of monkeys or Krishna who masterminded the victory of Pandvas over the
Kaurvas, or the mighty Hanuman with his gadda (mace) or Ganesh with his
elephant head, or the mighty multi-armed Durga, or the blood-thirsty Kali Devi
could deliver the Hindus from the yoke of Muslim rule. However, the white devil did!
In
the history of the fateful forty-five years (1295-1345) traced by us so far,
the one distressfully disappointing feature has been the absence, in
Maharashtra, of the will to resist the invaders. The people of Maharashtra
were conquered, oppressed and humiliated, but they meekly submitted like dumb
driven cattle.6
What
is painful is that, sometimes, a handful of foreigners overran vast tracts of
the land without countering any sizable resistance. Shihab-ud-din Gauri won the
second battle of Tarain (near Delhi) in 1192, and within fourteen years his
Genral, Bakhtiyar Khilji had reached the bank of Brahmputra. Nadiya was occupied
with an advance party of no more than eighteen horsemen
and this opened the way for the establishment of Muslim rule in Bengal.6
Hindus, however, celebrated the defeat of both the Muslim and Sikh rulers. The new set of circumstances pleased them as they shared their co-slaves status with Muslims and Sikhs under the British rule. Hindu intelligentsia extended wholehearted support to the British imperialists without any hesitation:
Raja Ram Mohan Roy extolled the merits of the British Government in India and suggested India
required many more years of English rule. Raja Rammohan Roy and his compatriots hated the Muslims so much that
they considered the British as deliverers.
Their hatred towards the Muslim was so intense that the Bengali Hindus refused
in 1831 to support the revolt that took place in Nadia and Barasat, a few
kilometers from Calcutta, under the inspiration of a Muslim leader named
Titu-Meer. The Hindus feared that the revolt, if successful, would bring back
the Mughal rule.5
Nineteenth century leaders (comprising
obviously the Bengali middle class intelligentsia) were proper Victorians, and
their political and social advocacies better suited to English than to Indian
audience, observed Charles Heisman.5
The 1831 revolt was caused by the de-industrialized cotton-weavers
millions of whom were thrown out of work because of the industrial policies
adopted by the British. A large majority of these workers were Muslims. The
Bengali Hindu intelligentsia, writes Abhijit Dutta, failed to appreciate the socio-economic distress of the moulvees
(Muslims) and show sympathy with them.5
It is well-known that the Bengali intelligentsia hailed the suppression
of the Revolt of 1857, writes Tarasankar Bannerjee, not so
much because they did not have any patriotic feeling, but due to their
conviction that the British rule in India was not inconsistent with the
interest of Indians in general and Bengalis in particular.5
About five decades later, away from the Indian
shores, Mahatma Gandhi, the twentieth century Hindu Avatar was also preaching the gospel
that the British Empire is good for the world. In his sermons to Indian
community during the Zulu rebellion (1906) Gandhi declared:
What
is our duty during these calamitous times in the Colony? It is not for us to
say whether the revolt of the Kaffirs is justified or not. We are in Natal by
virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore
our duty to render whatever help we can.7
Then,
on May 29, 1906, he let the South African authorities know that he and the
British Indian Association have always admitted
the principle of White predominance and has, therefore, no desire to press, on
behalf of the community it represents, for any political rights for the sake of
them.8
But I
then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world.9
Further, in Punjab, who benefited the most from
the British Raj? Certainly not the Sikhs!
It was the descendants of those who remained voiceless and lifeless from
time of the defeat of last Hindu Shahi ruler in the tenth century to the
conquest of Punjab by the British in 1849. In the 1881 census of Punjab,
Brahmans and Hindu traders, Khatris, Aroras and Banias, who constituted only
10% of Punjabs total population
dominated government posts and urban professions.10 And Khatris who
did not display any martial traits for centuries were elevated from Vaisyas to
Kshatriyas.11
2. Who were those Sikhs who supported the
British in the Mutiny of 1857? These Sikhs were the Chiefs of Phulkian States.
These were the same Chiefs who also supported the British in their war against Sarkar-i-Khalsa
(Khalsa Raj), the Punjab kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. They supplied
8,000 men in total. But they were not alone; Raja Ranbir Singh of Jammu and
Kashmir, whose father, Gulab Singh betrayed the Sikhs during Anglo-Sikh war and
for which he received Kashmir as a reward, supported the British in suppressing
the mutiny with 3,000 troops.
A contingent of 10,000 Nepalese Gorkhas under
the command of Jang Bahadur came to the assistance of the British and, in the
words of Lord Canning acted as breakwater
of the storm, which would otherwise have swept over us in one great wave. (It is worth noting that Hindu kings have continuously ruled over Nepal
for more than two thousand years. The population is predominantly Hindu and the
king is regarded as the reincarnation of Vishnu.) Similarly, the heads of other
Hindu princely states Scindia, Holkar and Gaikwad (Marathas) and Rajput chiefs
also aided the British, as did the Nizam of Hyderabad, who was himself a
Muslim. The appeal of Bahadur Shah (head of the Mutiny) went unheeded by Dost
Muhhamed of Kabul. Leaders and chiefs of the
Muhammadan Multan and Frontier tribes under the influence of Edwards and the
frontier officers raised regiment after regiment of their Multani, Pathan, and
other followers, who marched down to the seat of war, and aided the British in
the conflict at Delhi, writes General Innes. Nor was
there any response from the Amirs of Sindh.5
Besides, mercenaries like Baba Sir Khem Singh
Bedi and mahants who were made the custodians of Gurdwaras and the
so-called leading religious families were not Sikhs. They were Hindus disguised
as Sikhs who opposed every Sikh movement against the British and religious
reforms intended to purge Sikhism of Brahmanical practices and beliefs. These
custodians declared again and again
that Sikhs are Hindus.
To say that no Sikh fought against the British
during the mutiny is also incorrect. According to Salah-ud-din, the first man
to be hanged in Punjab for sedition was a Sikh civilian named Mohar Singh from
Ropar.5
3. Was it a countrywide revolt as Jakobsh
claims? Not according to the evidence recorded by observers and participants in
the mutiny. At the time of the1857
Mutiny, East India Company had about 260,000 sepoys in three different armies
under its command: The Bengal Army, the largest and the most powerful of the
three armies, was mainly composed of Brahmans and Rajputs with 140,000 men
comprising the regular cavalry and infantry regiments. The other two, the
Madras Army and the Bombay Army were smaller. The Madras Army was mainly
composed of South Indians and the Bombay Army was made up of several groups,
notably Brahmans, Rajputs, Marathas and others. Of these three armies, none of
the Madras units took part in the Mutiny. On the other hand they were employed
in suppressing the mutineers. The Madras Artillery, in particular, was of great
help in dealing with the mutineers at Kanpur and in Oudh. Six native battalions
of the Madras Army were deployed in Madhya Pradesh, and another fifty-two
battalions stood fast throughout the mutiny period.5
Of the Bombay Army, only a portion of the two
battalions (26th and 27th) took part in the revolt. About 8,000 Marathas of the
Bombay army stood firm with the British, in spite of Nana Sahib, the revolt
leader, who was considered to be their Peshwa. The Bombay Army supplied most men to subdue the mutiny, especially in
the campaigns under Sir Huge Rose, wrote
Masson. The Madras and Bombay Armies writes Lt-Gen MacMunn, as
well as the Hyderabad Contingent, took active part in suppressing the rebellion
in various parts of India, notably in central India.5
As for the Bengal Army, it was only a portion
of the caste-ridden soldiery, Brahmans and Rajputs who revolted. Mutiny was
thus an insubordination and, the revolt was limited to a part of the soldiery
of one of the three Presidency Armies, which the Hindu propagandists call first war of independence. The
whole mutiny effort was an uncoordinated and aimless affair. If the Muslims had
decided to attack on a particular day, it was considered inauspicious by the
Hindu pundits. Luckily, wrote General Wilson to Mr. Colvin in July 1857, the enemy has no head and method, and we hear dissensions are breaking
out among them.5
4. The British annexed Punjab in 1849 only
eight years before the 1857 Mutiny. The conquest of Punjab cost the East India
Company more men and material than the conquest of the rest of India. In the
battle of Chillianwala on January 13, 1949, the British suffered the worst
defeat on the Indian subcontinent loosing Brigadier Pennyuick and 3,000 British
officers and men.14 In the three-year Anglo-Sikh war, British forces
were mainly composed of native Indians, except Punjabis. There is no evidence
that non-Punjabi Indians showed any sympathy for the Sikhs or even a single
British Indian sepoy revolted or deserted in sympathy with the Sikhs.
Instead, Hindu Rajputs (Dogras) and Poorbia
Brahmans who joined Maharaja Ranjit Singhs
administration in Khalsa form and became ministers and generals turned out to
be saboteurs and traitors. While the Dogras (Dhian Singh, Hira Singh, Gulab
Singh) engineered the destruction of Maharaja Ranjit Singhs family, Lal Singh and Tej Singh betrayed the Sikh armies at the
battles of Ferozepur and Mudki. With a
little enterprise, writes Thorburn, Tej Singh might have taken Ferozepur and Lal Singh Moodki, and thus
captured the whole baggage and stores of the Anglo-Sepoy forces.5 The Poorbias (Bengal army) who fought against
the Sikhs also helped the British in the subjugation of Jats, Marathas,
Rajputs, Gorkhas and the Pathans.5 Not only the Indian men,
writes Bipan Chandra, but even Indian revenues were
used to conquer the rest of India and to consolidate British rule.5 The
Poorbia Sepoys, writes R.C. Majumdar, had
not the least scruple to fight the Sikhs.5
5. After the annexation of Punjab, the British
completely disarmed the Khalsa forces and disbanded them. Their non-government
fortifications were razed to the ground, manufacture and sale of arms and
ammunition was forbidden to them. Their leaders, who might have become the
center of revolt in 1857, were either killed during the Anglo-Sikh war or were
deported away from Punjab. During the first year of the British administration,
8,000 people, mostly Sikhs, were arrested. Thus, the Sikhs were left leaderless
and rudderless. Virtually no capable person of any importance was left among
them who could lead the Sikh masses. Richard Temple, the Secretary to the Chief
Commissioner of Punjab, observed, Upon
these sturdy and courageous people the British victories seemed to have acted
like a spell.5
To harass, humiliate, and terrorize Punjabis,
especially the Sikhs, East India Company posted 10,000 British troops and
36,000 regular Hindustani troops, mostly from the Bengal army consisting of
Poorbias. During the 1857 Mutiny there was no uprising in this army and instead
Subedar Sita Ram declared that if the people of Punjab should rebel and fight
the sirkar (British government), there would be 100,000 Hindustanis ready and
willing to fight against them.5
6. The mutineers rallied around Mughal Emperor
Bahdur Shah. By that token it is unfair to expect of the Sikhs, who pay homage
in their daily prayer (Ardas) to men, women and children who suffered
unspeakable atrocities at the hand of Mughal rulers, to spill their blood to
crown Bahadur Shah on the throne of Delhi. Does Jakobsh not know that when
Mughal rulers put price on the heads of Sikhs, Hindu booty-hunters made the
most of it?
Given these circumstances, it is not difficult
to understand why some Sikhs responded to British overtures; of the 60,000 men
recruited from Punjab during 1857-1858, nearly one-third were Sikhs, the rest
two-third were Punjabi Hindus and Muslims.15
It is preposterous for Jakobsh to assert that Mutinous soldiers seizing Delhi and raising anew standard of the Mughal
empire were joined by other discontented groups throughout the country. Sikh
royalty, on the other hand, sent troops to contain the uprisings.
In 1857, Indians had no concept of nationhood or nationalism or country as we understand it today.
Even today Indians do not understand what it means to be a nation or
nationalist. For example, since 1947 Indias massive army has been fighting insurgencies in the Northeast and
Northwest relentlessly and, there are frequent violent religious conflicts
between Hindus and minorities -- Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, aborigines and
Dalits (untouchables). Then there is the Naxalite (communist) insurgency in
Andhra, Orissa, Bihar and Maharastara. Since 1947 the Indian government had
killed more of its own citizens (95% were minorities) than the British
colonists did in three centuries of rule. Yoginder Sikands thoughtful and provocative article Kashmir Quake, Delhi Bombings and Our Response sums up very well the fate of modern Indian nationhood:
Hussain,
a teacher I met in Tangdhar on my visit there last week, remarked how Indian
NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and corporate houses had responded
generously in the wake of the quake in Kutch and the Tsunami in South India,
and contrasted this with their reaction to the quake in Kashmir. He had a point
when he noted that this indifference probably owed to the fact that victims of
the quake in Kashmir were almost all Muslims, and Kashmiri Muslims at that.
A
neighbor in Bangalore had virtually slammed the door on my face when I
approached him for clothes that we were collecting for the victims of the
Kashmir quake. They are all Muslims, so it is not our problem, he told me, shamelessly. I
heard similar explanations from several other people I had approached, who all
uniformly declined my appeal. The fact that most of the few people in my
locality who sent me material for the victims happened to be Muslims saddened
me, because it provided more evidence that the quake was seen by many in
essentially communal terms. Yet, this was hardly surprising. For many people in
my largely middle-class and upper caste Hindu locality in
Bangalore, the Kashmir quake was not a human tragedy but, rather, simply a
Muslim affair. One of my neighbors was so brutally frank as to tell me that the
quake victims deserved their fate for allegedly supporting terrorism and
advocating secession from India.
Such
deep-rooted prejudices also probably account, in no small measure, for the fact
that few Indian NGOs have responded to the quake at all. While several Muslim
organizations, from Kashmir as well as from other parts of India, in addition
to some Christian groups and larger international NGOs, are active in providing
relief in the quake-affected parts of Kashmir, one gets the distinct impression
that the victims of the quake are not a pressing priority for most Indian NGOs.
This explains their virtual absence in the ongoing relief efforts in the region.16
I may point out that the city of Bangalore is
touted by Western and the Indian media as Silicon Valley of India.
7. Finally, in her statements about the 1857
Mutiny, Jakobsh displays gross ignorance of Indian geography and history.
Probably, she is not aware of the Sikh Empire Sarkar-i-Khalsa
(1799-1839) that was annexed by the British in 1849. An Austrian traveller
Baron Charles Hughel remarked that the state established by Ranjit Singh was
the most wonderful object in the
whole world. Like a skilful architect the
Maharaja raised a majestic fabric with the help of rather insignificant or unpromising fragments.17
References
1.Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In
Sikh History:Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
2. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In
Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 67.
3. Ibid., pp. 68-69.
4. Ibid., p. 85.
5. Lt-Col. Gulcharan Singh (retired). Sikhs and the 1857 Mutiny. The Sikh Review, 1983, 31(8), pp. 26-41.
6.Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective
View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 148-150.
7. G. B. Singh. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of
Divinity. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004, p. 92.
8. Ibid., p. 97.
9. Ibid., p. 125.
10.
Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity
and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 364.
11. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In
Sikh History:Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 56.
12. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab.
New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 127.
13.
Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 121-130.
14. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab.
New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 119-127.
115. Ibid., p. 136.
16. Joginder Sikand. Kashmir Quake, Delhi Bombings and Our Response.
SikhSpectrum.com,
November 2005.
17. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New
Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 113.
Copyright© Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article