Chapter 13: The Mutiny of 1857

Chapter 13

The Mutiny of 1857

Jakobsh takes another aim in a long series of swipes at the Sikhs:

The mutiny of 1857 clinched the British association with the Punjabis. … Inflamed by rumours of East India Company’s 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.¹

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).²

Leading religious families were also patronised, as were mahnts, 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.³

She has echoed what the Hindu “propaganda machine” has been saying since the foundation of Arya Samaj in Punjab in the 1870s, about the role Sikhs played in the 1857 Mutiny. However, her Eurocentric mind does not allow her to call the mutiny as the “first war of independence” in accordance with the dictates of the Hindu propagandists. Let me first cite the views of well-known Hindu historians about the so-called “first war of Independence” before discussing her 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 Superstition’s 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 hits the nail on the head when he says, “It was neither ‘first’, nor ‘national’ nor ‘a war of independence’.”⁴

First of all, only an ignorant, or mentally deranged or an intellectually dishonest or a paid propagandist would assert that the Sikhs benefited the most from British colonial rule. How could it be since the Sikhs lost their empire to the British? From rulers they became “victims of alien rule.” 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 insignificant lifeless minority! The Muslims started ruling over Hindus from the early eighth century when Mohammed Bin Qasim conquered Sindh and, from there on they kept conquering more and more of the Indian territory. By the time European traders came most of India was under 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, but the “white devil” did! Hindus 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 one 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 kilometres from Calcutta, under the inspiration of a Muslim called Titu-Meer. The Hindus feared that the revolt, if successful, would bring back the Mughal rule.⁴

“Nineteenth century leaders (comprising obviously the Bengali middle class intelligentsia) were proper Victorians, and their political and social advocacies better suited to Engilsh than to Indian audience,” observed Charles Heisman.⁴

The 1831 revolt was caused by the “deindustrialized 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.”⁴

“It is well-known that the Bengalee 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 Bengalees in particular.”⁴

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.⁵

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.”⁶

But I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world.⁷

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 1881 census of Punjab, Brahmans and Hindu traders¾Khatris, Aroras and Banias who constituted only 10% of Punjab’s total population dominated government posts and urban professions.⁸ And Khatris who did not display any martial traits for centuries were elevated from Vaisyas to Kshatriyas.⁹

Second, who were those Sikhs who supported the British in the Mutiny of 1857? They 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.” (Nepal’s population is mostly Hindu, ruled by Hindu kings for more than two thousand years; the king is regarded as the reincarnation of Vishnu). Head of other Hindu princely states - Scindia, Holkar, and Gaikwad too aided the British, as did the Nizam of Hyderabad, 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!⁴

Besides, mercenaries like Baba Sir Khem Singh Bedi, mahants and other religious leaders, who were made the custodians of Gurdwaras, were not Sikhs. They were Hindus disguised as Sikhs as they opposed every Sikh movement against the British or religious reform movement to purge Sikhism of Brahmanical practices and beliefs. They declared again and again that Sikhs are Hindus.

To say that no Sikh fought against the British during the mutiny is also not correct. According to Salah-ud-din, the first man to be hanged in Punjab for sedition was a Sikh civilian, Mohar Singh of Ropar.⁴

Third, 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 1857 Mutiny, the 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, Marhathas 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.⁴

Of the Bombay Army, only a portion of the two battalions (26th and 27th) took part in the revolt. About 8,000 Marhathas 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.”⁴

As for the Bengal Army, it was only a portion of the caste-ridden men of the so-called high classes--that is, the U.P. 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.”⁴

Fourth, 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 Jabuary 13, 1949, the British suffered the worst defeat on the Indian subcontinent loosing Brigadier Pennyuick and 3,000 British officers and men.¹⁰ 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. Moreover, Hindu Rajputs (Dogras) and Poorbia Brahmans who joined Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s 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 Singh’s 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.”⁴ The Poorbias who fought against the Sikhs also helped the British in the subjugation of Jats, Marhathas, Rajputs, Gorkhas and the Pathans.⁴“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.”⁴ “The Poorbia Sepoys, writes R.C. Majumdar, “had not the least scruple to fight the Sikhs.”⁴

Fifth, 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 disaffection 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 thousand 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.”⁴

To harass, humiliate and terrorise the Punjabis, especially the Sikhs, the 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.⁴

Sixth, 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 Mughals, to spill their blood to crown the Mughals on the throne of Delhi!

Does Jakobsh know that when Mughals 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 that Sikhs responded to Britsh overtures; of the 60,000 men recruited from Punjab during 1857-1858, nearly a third were Sikhs, the rest were Punjabi Hindus and Muslims.¹³

It is preposterous on Jakobsh part to assert: “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 today. Even today Indians do not understand “what it means to be a nation or nationalist.” For example, since 1947 India’s 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% minorities) than the British colonists did in three centuries. Yoginder Sikand’s 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 the 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.¹⁴

I may point out that the city of Banglore is touted in the Western and Indian media as “Silicon Valley” of India.

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.”¹⁵

References

1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 67.

2. Ibid., pp. 68-69.

3. Ibid., p. 85.

4. Lt-Col. Gulcharan Singh (retired). “Sikhs and the 1857 Mutiny.” The Sikh Review, 1983, 31(8), pp. 26-41.

5. G. B. Singh. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004, p. 92.

6. Ibid., p. 97.

7. Ibid., p. 125.

8. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 364.

9. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 56.

10. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 127.

11. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 121-130.

12. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 119-127.

13. Ibid., p. 136.

14. Yoginder Sikand. “Kashmir Quake, Delhi Bombings and Our Response.” SikhSpectrum.com, November 2005.

15. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 113.

Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Print this Article Email this Article Comment on this Article