History

The Truth About The Indian Mutiny of 1857:
Part I

 

 

 

The Sepoy revolt of 1857 is an engrossing subject.

The Government of India commemorated this event with great enthusiasm on August 15, 1957, Independence Day. The mutiny at Meerut on May 10, 1857, which later became widespread and developed into a revolt in some parts of the U.P. and neighboring territories, has been called by some writers 'the Indian War of Independence'.

This view, however, has not been accepted by most recent researches of any Indian historian of international fame.

The full-throated praise showered by some of our modern political leaders on the sepoy mutineers and their so-called leaders have all been undeserved. And equally, if not more, undeserved have been the censures and charges of betrayal and treachery leveled against those who did not espouse the mutineers' act, or were opposed to their activities.

The worst sufferers in the latter case have been the people of Punjab, particularly the Sikhs. This is because of the intensive propaganda of some politicians who do not appear to care for historical truths.

Some people say that the "Indian struggle for freedom (1857) failed because the Sikhs betrayed their comrades and sided with the British."

The charge of `betrayal' against the Sikhs could be justified only if they 'had given up,' or 'had been disloyal to, or had violated allegiance to a cause, person or trust they had at any time befriended or owned.'

As history knows, the Sikhs were never at any time privy to, or took up the cause of the mutiny of 1857. They had never been taken into confidence. They had neither been consulted nor invited. The Poorbia sepoys, the soldiers of U.P., which formed the Bengal army were then, and are still called in Punjab, had not the moral courage to approach the Sikhs for co-operation and assistance against the British as they had themselves helped the British to destroy the independent kingdom of the Punjab in 1845-46 and reduced it to British subjection in 1848-49.

As such, there was not much love lost between the Poorbia sepoys and the people of the Punjab.

The offensive airs of the Poorbia garrison in the Punjab had been particularly galling to the martial Sikhs. Their behavior towards the civil population during their first march in 1846 from the theatre of war to the capital of Lahore, and during the British occupation of the country before and after the annexation, had caused such, deep wounds in the hearts of the people as could not be healed in so short a period.

NOTHING NATIONAL ABOUT THE MUTINY

The Sikhs could not volunteer to help these erstwhile enemies of the Punjab, nor could they, for evident reasons, espouse the cause of the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, whom the mutineers had raised to the throne.

For over two centuries, the Sikhs had fought against the Mughal tyranny and they could not now be persuaded to support an alliance which might have resulted in re-establishment of tyrant Mughal rule. Moreover, as the mutiny later turned out to be, there appeared to be nothing national or patriotic in it to appeal to the noble sentiments of the Sikhs to attract them, to the side of the mutineers.

The wrath of the mutineers was mostly directed against the Christians, who had interfered with their religion.

A large number of unsuspecting Englishmen and their women and children were indiscriminately murdered in Meerut, Delhi, and other places. The first man to be killed in Delhi was an Indian Christian Dr. Chamanlal, who was standing in front of his dispensary. Their next victims were banias and mahajans whose shops they plundered, and account books and debt-bonds burnt or destroyed. Beyond this, there was no planned or organized scheme or effort on their part either to subvert the rule of the East India Company, or to weaken the administrative hold of the British over the country.

Moreover, the mutiny was exclusively confined to the Poorbia sepoys of the Bengal army. Territorially, too, it was limited to the U.P. and its neighborhood, while the remaining 80 per cent of India was practically unaffected by it. Even in the U.P., there were a number of pockets which remained undisturbed.

The reason for this lack of interest in, and sympathy with, and, in many cases, active opposition to the continuance and progress of the sepoy mutiny, was the absence of any common cause, any planned scheme, any unity of interests.

The early activities of the sepoys in Delhi and its neighborhood were repugnant not only to the civil population of the country but also to the non-Poorbia soldiers, the Rajputs, the Mahrattas, the Madrasis, the Garhwalis, the Gorkhas, the Dogras, the Punjabi Musalmans, the Sikhs and the Pathans who could not associate themselves with the murderers of innocent women and children and the despoilers of their own countrymen.

RELIGIOUS RIOT

The mutiny at best was a religious riot of the Hindu and Muslim soldiers of the U.P. against the indiscreet but, perhaps, unintentioned callousness of some British military officers, who happened to be careless about the religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims offended by greased cartridges. With passions inflamed, and a number of murders committed in Meerut and Delhi, the sepoys could not retrace their steps.

They were then joined by a large number of hooligans set free from jails, and of professional dacoits and plunderers from the criminal tribes of the neighboring areas.

BAHADUR SHAH, A PUPPET KING

It is true that the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah had been proclaimed king, in whose name they professed to have risen in defence of Hinduism and Islam. But in practice, this was nothing more than a mere pretence to seek a cover for their crimes and misdeeds.

His authority they openly flouted, and his orders they publicly disobeyed. They insulted him on his very face and treated him insolently in his own palace. Such behavior, as this was certainly not becoming of the faithful and devoted soldiers towards the king whom they themselves raised to the throne.

But, in truth, they had done so only to use him as a handy tool. If he were not to be useful to them, they would have no hesitation in renouncing him.

"The sepoys at Delhi refused to fight unless they were paid their salaries, and that on an adequate scale - a demand which is hardly in consonance with the spirit which should guide a fighter in a war of independence¹.. . .

The king himself was only a victim of circumstances. He had no hand either in organizing or encouraging the mutiny. He might have been glad within his heart to see the English humbled, but he was too old to plan or lead an insurrection. In fact, he had no knowledge of the rising of the sepoys till they had actually arrived at the palace gates and called upon him to assume command.

He pleaded infirmity and poverty, but the sepoys would hear nothing of the sort. He sent a fast camel rider to Agra to inform the Lieutenant Governor, of the mutiny in Meerut and of the arrival of the mutineers in Delhi.

Finding himself helpless before the increasing violence of the armed sepoys violating the sanctity of the palace itself, the old king quailed before them. In fear, he issued the proclamation desired by the sepoys and outwardly espoused their cause.

Within a week, the undisciplined sepoys disregarded the king's authority and refused to be commanded by his nominee, Bakht Khan, and transferred their allegiance to Prince Abu Bakr whom, on May 17, they elected as their king in place of the old emperor.

The king's confidant, Ahsanullah, then complained that 'the mutineers were a treacherous, bloodthirsty class on whom no dependence could be placed.'

BAHADUR SHAH & HIS FAMILY SEEK TO ASSIST THE BRITISH

The king himself had no faith in the sepoys or in the success of the mutiny. He therefore, entered into secret negotiation with the British and offered to have the gate of the fort and to the city of Delhi opened to them if they guaranteed his life, pension, and privileges.

These negotiations came to nothing, it is true, but they "show Bahadur Shah in his true color so far as his attitude to the mutiny, is concerned.”

The principal queen, Zinat Mahal, on her own part, offered to assist the British if her son, Jawan Bakht, was recognized as successor to the old emperor to the exclusion of other princes. The Mughal princes, too, were not sincere and faithful to the mutineers. They, as well, offered their services to the British in the occupation of Delhi on condition of favor being shown to them.

‘During the brief term of their authority,' the princes ‘occupied themselves in feathering their nests,' with the loot of the city, and then ‘their only anxiety was to save their skin as best they could.'

All this leaves no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family betrayed the cause not only of the mutineers, of whom he was the nominal head, but also of the whole country.

SELFISH MOTIVES OF THE LEADERS OF THE MUTINY

Raja Nahar Singh of Ballabhgarh, Nawab Abdur Rahman Khan of Jhajjar and Rao Tula Ram of Rewari, who were supposed to have identified themselves with the king and the mutineers, were playing a double game and negotiating with the British for a settlement.

Their double dealings, however, did not succeed with the British who treated them as other mutineers and hanged them.

About the other prominent leaders of the sepoys, the less said the better.

In the words of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, supported by the evidence adduced in recent researches in mutiny records : ‘With a few honorable exceptions - of whom the most distinguished were Ahmadullah and Tatya Tope - most of the leaders who took part in the struggle did so for personal reasons. They did not rise against the British till their personal interests had been damaged. Even after the revolt had begun, Nana Sahib declared that if Dalhousie's decisions were reversed and his own demands met, he would be willing to come to terms.'

RANI OF JHANSI: A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES

The Rani of Jhansi had her own grievances.

There is nothing on record to say that she had any hand in planning, instigating or organizing the mutiny of sepoys at Jhansi. In fact, she informed the British that she had been ill-treated by the mutineers and forced to pay money, and she asked for their help to maintain order.

Believing in her innocence, the Commissioner of Saugor division nominated her to rule in Jhansi till the British could re-establish their administration. When the British changed their attitude and suspected her of complicity in the mutiny, she sent pathetic appeals to the authorities pleading her innocence and professing her loyalty to the British.

If she had succeeded in dispelling the suspicions of the British, she would have gone to their side. But when at last she found that the British held her responsible for the mutiny and massacre at Jhansi, she preferred to fight. And it may be said to her credit and glory that she died heroically in the battlefield.

TANTIA TOPE, A FUGITIVE

Tantia Tope was neither an organizer nor a leader of the mutineers, but only a follower of Nana Sahib, to whom he was devotedly attached. But luck did not favor him. He was driven from place to place and could not find even a single Maratha village across the Narbadda to give him shelter. He had, therefore, to fly to the forests where he was betrayed to the British by a professional rebel friend, Raja Mansingh of Narwar, a feudatory of Sindhia.

HINDU-MUSLIM CONFLICT

The mutiny having broken out all of a sudden, and nobody having an idea of the turn it would take, there was no understanding between the Hindus and Muslims. Whereas, in the chaos and confusion that followed the arrival of the Meerut sepoys at Delhi, a number of Muslims were oppressed and their homes plundered, a regular jehad was proclaimed against the Hindus by Muslims in a number of places.

Some clever adventurers found in the mutiny an opportunity for the revival of an Islamic kingdom and used the cover of religion for their anti-Hindu activities. The green flag of holy war was not unoften displayed in Delhi. It was hoisted in Bareilly, Bijnor, Moradabad and many other places where the Hindus were plundered and massacred. This estranged the feelings between the Hindus and Muslims.

As fellow-sufferers, the Hindus in many places took the side of the English, protected their lives and property and prayed for their victory.

'It was generally held', says Dr. Sen, ‘that as the Hindus were as a community well disposed towards the British and the Muslims as a community were hostile, the Hindus should be exempted from any penalty. Some Hindus of the trading classes were allowed to return (to the city of Delhi) ... It was ultimately realized that disaffection towards the British government was not the monopoly of any particular community, and there were exceptions in both ... It was, therefore, decided that every citizen who desired to return should pay a fine, but there should be a discrimination in the rate on a communal basis. Whereas the Muslim had to pay a fine equivalent to 25 per cent of the value of his real property, the Hindu was required to pay 15 per cent less.’

RIVAL FACTIONS

A close and critical study of the mutiny records reveals a very sad story of "everyone for himself and no one for the country." The Mughal Emperor, the proclaimed head of the mutiny, the Queen and the princes, and other leaders of the revolt all pulled in their own directions and played a double game to secure their ends and interests.

. The sepoys of Oudh fought for the restoration of their own king. Nana Sahib and the Rani of Jhansi pressed their own claims.

. A number of smaller adventurers, not inspired by any patriotic impulse, sprang up to exploit the opportunity offered by the mutiny.

. Khan Bahadur Khan, a grandson of Hafiz Rahamat Khan, set himself up as Viceroy or Naib Nazim of Rohilkhand.

. The Banjaras of Saharanpur set up a king of their own.

. The Gujjars had different rajas in different areas. Fatva was proclaimed as the king of the Gujjars.

. A Devi Singh proclaimed himself king of fourteen villages in the Mathura district.

. Similarly a Mahimaji Wadi, a dacoit, and Belsare, a Maratha Brahmin, were attracted to the rebel camp to improve their fortunes.

For the independence of India was a thing unknown both to the so-called leaders of the mutiny and to the Poorbia sepoys who bad been instmmental during the past hundred years in the destruction of the independence of the various Indian kingdoms.

The Marathas, the Mysorians, the Malabaris, the Rajputs, the Gurkhas, the Pathans, the Sikhs and the Assamese had all been reduced to dust with their help and never had the Poorbias raised their little finger in protest, much less in their defence. This was not a creditable record for attracting the non-Poorbias to their side. 

To Be Continued Tomorrow ...

 

Dr. Ganda Singh was a celebrated historian (1900 - 1987), who by his sustained and pioneer work in the field of historical research initiated new trends in historiography. The Government of India honoured him with the award of Padma Bhushan in 1983. The Indian History Congress honoured him in November 1987 as one of the "five distinguished historians of India". 

May 26, 2012

read other articles in History