War of Independence or the Great Mutiny

"Pakistan does not like it at all; the 1857 event was the final nail in the coffin of the over-lordship of Muslims over India. An entire culture, way of life, history and everything was swept away, leaving a civilisational chasm from which the Muslims have never really managed to recover. Despite now having two Muslim countries crafted out of British India, both are frankly in the dregs. The seeds of their collapse and current sad state were sown, fertilised and watered during this war."

That is quite correctly state. There is a huge disparity between the perceptions of Pakistani muslims and hindus regarding the consequences of 1857 . For an idolator hindu 1857 was final war of liberation of the hindu zimmi slaves from the clutches of the Moghuls.
It was a war of liberation from the 800 years of occupation of the hindu lands by the warriors of blood thirsty cult of Islam. It opened up the hindus towards more constructive rebuilding of their 800 old supressed faith and no longer they were to live under constant terror and Sunnat.

In retrospect , the hindu idolators made the best of the opportunity- they re-invented their social order into today's modern India- the twice born left Vedas and studied modern liberal subjects like Physics and Chemistry- they took to science rather than jyotish- and the British supported us - although there were attempts towards negative colonial potrayal of subjudicated hindus suffering from 800 years of dhimmitude that had quite literally finished them off socially, morally as well as economically.Every Hindu idolator is thankful to the British to have finally liberated them from the slavery and zimmitude of the Islamic hordes.

BDG - got you atlast. For once you rambled on in all directions - as if you are trying to satisfy all constituencies of your readership, sort of looking for a peg for your coat (either in the dark or on an overcrowded coat stand) and then decided after many paragraphs enuf is enuf I need to hang my coat on a peg somewhere.

The essay reminded me of the ISC question mutiny or independence - 1857? Both sides are valid. As you ppont out "dilli Chaloo" was the slogan. BUt your inter-pretation is slightly skewed I feel.

1857 showed the Indians that the ruling class of the times had no stomach for a decent fight. It was the ordinary folk who had a stomach and that it was from here the new class had to be developed. In India, this new class started to develop and has been developing now for some 50-60 years since 1947. The new class can be supine, clever, and bloody but not all worn out. OTOH in Pakistan the old rulling class rules the roost and we can see the way things are done there....(your para on mushairas, agararian etc etc tect ).

Whatever be the debate on 1857 what was clear was
(a) the ruling class was a bunch of effiminate wusses
(b) you need a new paradigm in India
(c) science and technology was the way forward - you needed to be an excellent killing machine - you can claim peace and brotherhood with a sheated sharp sword with knowledge to use it well is better than with nothing on you. Culture etc were fine but they did not help you when the chips were really down.

I have read bits and pieces of this book and my impression that appeared to be right and after reading this competent review by Bhaskar confirmed, that this book though very high sounding and full of some new insights in to the India of 1857, still, like the typical books on 1857 war/mutiny/uprising, misses some major points while discussing the causes or the root cause of the events in 1857. I also see that despite an excellent grasp of the event around 1857 and in spite of a good handle of the socio-economic conditions of India of that time, Bahskar makes grave errors in not correctly figuring out the issues that started the 1857 uprising.

The incident of Pig fat cartridges was not the reason; it was the trigger that started the whole thing. Bhaskar again showed mistaken judgment when he pointed to some apprehensions about, “East India Company Jawans to rebel was the idea that the soldiers would be asked to work outside of India and they would have to cross the seas”.

As I see it, most of the historians both Indians and Europeans have failed to not understand what Lord Dalhousie was up to before the crises in 1857 came to a head.
Lord Dalhousie grabbed more Indian land than any other East India company Governor-General ever did. He did that in a very short period time. He became Governor-General of India and Governor of Bengal on January 12, 1848 and from that point he embarked upon an agenda that set out to change the Indian face as it existed before 1948.

I would like people to read about him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Broun-Ramsay%2C_1st_Marquess_of_Dalhousie.

This write up still does not convey the right amount of anguish that he caused still, it provides some insight to people who have some genuine interest in Indian History.

Through his Doctrine of Lapse “the British annexed any non-British state where there was a lack of a proper male lineal heir. Under the policy he recommended the annexation of Satara in January 1849, of Jaitpur and Sambalpur in the same year, and of Jhansi and Nagpur in 1853. In these cases his action was approved by the home authorities, but his proposal to annex Karauli in 1849 was disallowed, while Baghat and the petty estate of Udaipur, which he had annexed in 1851 and 1852”. (See wiki link above).

This annexation of Indian land and usurping of Indian run states form the Indians was the root cause that led to 1857 and not some pig fat or fear of going outside though they did contribute to overall atmosphere of fear that Dalhousie’s drastic actions created.

He introduced some major reforms in the Indian system and that destroyed the status quo that existed in India for centuries.
From wiki:
“He created an imperial system of post-offices, reducing the rates of carrying letters and introducing postage stamps. He created the department of public instruction; he improved the system of inspection of gaols, abolishing the practice of branding convicts; freed converts to other religions from the loss of their civil rights; inaugurated the system of administrative reports; and enlarged the legislative council of India. His wide interest in everything that concerned the welfare of British economic interests in the country was shown in the encouragement he gave to the culture of tea, in his protection of forests, in the preservation of ancient and historic monuments”.

Please read the article at wiki and I would advise Bhaskar to read more about what Dalhousie was doing and if you understand what challenging of status quo means, then you will understand the true causes of the 1857 uprising. It was not about pig fat. It was all about some major social, economical and political changes that took place within a very short span of time before 1857.

"As I see it, most of the historians both Indians and Europeans have failed to not understand what Lord Dalhousie was up to before the crises in 1857 came to a head"
Corrction:
Failed to understand...

my heart weeps when i think of the tragedy of 1857. it was as dalrymple brilliantly researches using original documents, primary sources, primarily a fight by the muslims of india--a jihad--to restore the Mughal Empire to its former glory. IF all the people had joined in we could still have been ruling hindustan for another 1000 years. alas, twas not the Divine Will.

We'll just have to wait till the arrival of the Mahdi I guess. Right, laddu? ;-)

HP i think there were many mutinies. the mutiny of actors like Jhansi Rani had little to do with the Sepoyu mutiny.

the specific shyte of sepoys of merut and bareilly rebelling and running to dilli was somewhat economic. these pandies (name for UP-sepoys because many were pandeys) were feeling not very well-compensated by the corrupt company officials. once they mutinied, they wrongly figured that dilli-padshah had a large khajana. darlymple seems to gloss over the "cause for mutiny" anyways. he gives only emotional reason why the sepoys rushed to dilli. but there is a simpler reason, these guys were not getting paid regularly and needed food and cash. the riches of dilli-court was also the carrot company sarkar dangled in front of sikh and pathan iregulars..that they could loot that (non-existant) booty. offcourse once the sepoys came to dilli they realized that there was no khajana and many abandoned mutiny for lack of salary and food for them and their mounts.

test

I for one am glad that things turned out the way they did. Though the horrible vengeance wreaked by the British upon innocents of all hues must be condemned and exposed to the world (it was not unlike the wholesale massacre of native americans or aborigines in Australia), the end result of the British crown assuming control is the best possible result of the mutiny as far as the vast majority of Indians are concerned. It benefited non-Muslims in two ways. Firstly they were able to move away from their rigid and putrifying rituals and customs via the efforts of social reformers of Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj who had in turn been influenced by Western ideals. Secondly, the idea of Muslim supremacy was well and truly crushed. The war liberated Hindus politically from the shadow of Muslim/Mughal empire and enabled them to chart out their own destiny. If the war hadn't occured, Hindus would still be learning Persian and Arabic as Hindu intellectuals then did, and would be today wallowing in the same morass as most of the Muslim world. But by learning English and adopting the English education system, the benefits of renaissance were available to the Hindu elite and middle classes and this enabled the Hindus first to avail the opportunities available and also to reform themselves politically and socially. It is indeed ironic that the scrutiny and research done by the British on Hindu civilization and rituals, gave an impetus to Hindu consciousness through reform and debate from within. We had so many reformers in all parts of India clamoring for rights of the disadvantaged within Hinduism such as women, Dalits etc. Such reform would never have seen the light of day under Muslim rule.

Muslims also could've benefitted similarly, but they were too arrogant to let go of their old ways, which even before the war, had begun to eat away at the fabric of their society. British scrutiny rather made Muslims defensive and they began to recoil deeper and deeper into their past glory. Only a small section of Muslim intellegentsia adopted Western ways, but most of these happened to be from the feudal classes. They used their power and influence to enrich themselves and keep their privileges intact rather than bringing any true reform within Muslim society.

What a silly thing to write-?

A book Review of a book (originally published in 2006) at the end of year 2007!!!!

Kamath

Re: # 5

you got it right wolfy!!! But sorry, there is going to be no Mahdi- it is probably going to be Kalki Avatar who is going to take care of your blood thirsty cult!!

It is all good that Brits kicked the upper caste soldiers / Muslim elite a**es and gave the severed heads of the Mughal princes on a plate to the last "emperor". Good riddance.

It is interesting to know that Ambedkar's grandfather served in the Mahar regiment helping the Brits crush the mutiny..

Masan,

Soldiers dont have any ideology. Pak soldiers did show the same trait in LM episode.

Rarely does soldiers show that emotion of ideological fervor. It happened for Naval Ratings of Bombay on the eve of Independence and of course in 1857.

VRV:

What's your point?.

I have nothing but disgust at the mutiny. It is not fought for any lofty ideals like freedom / democracy / universal suffrage / fundamental human rights like the later Congress movement did. It is well known that Britain and America were having elected rulers at that time. So the concept is not new..

A bunch of displaced feudalists / sultans / ranis fought for recovering their land and lost. Some Brahmin soldier thought he would lose his caste purity by biting beef coated bullets and shot the general. and most other upper caste soldiers and Muslim jihadis supported the mutiny against the "kafirs".

I don't think Dalits / lower castes have any qualms on eating beef / pork. It is not the fight of Dalits / other lower castes. We should get rid of the habit of treating 1857 as something noble which it definitely is not..

Masan,

I said that soldiers dont have any ideology, they are just employees who hire their martial services for money. In very rare cases soldiers do get swayed by extraneous forces for altruistic reasons.

Mutiny has too many hues to be labelled as a story of single thread and it's not an all-India war. Indians in 1857 dont have an afinity beyond their castes and religions.

U can tear apart the event in history the way u like. I had many thoughts on Mutiny. I read views of Indians, Pakistanis & I also read the books by British for British people. The narratives are too gruesome; the way the any white kid, women was butchered is beyond our imagination. We only read how British fired our sepoys from the cannon barrels. As always history is abt versions. Btw I am yet to read the book of Dalrymple. It must be interesting.

Since I didnt read the book I didnt comment on this article. Hope u read the book.

who give their martial services for money