http://military-security-review.blogspot.com/,Why the Rebellion was confined to only certain regions of Indo-Pak-A.H Amin-1998

Why the Rebellion was confined to only certain regions of Indo-Pak
A.H Amin
1998

The primary and the first reason for this is very simple. Indo-Pak subcontinent is not one country but a number of countries which have been ruled for most part of their history by one dynasty or race from Delhi till 1947 and now from Islamabad and Delhi. The states of Pakistan and India came into existence in their present form not because the Hindu rulers at Delhi conquered Bengal or Madras or Bombay but because these areas were conquered a long time ago by the EEIC and then subsequently transferred to the British crown in 1858 and to government of India and Pakistan in 1947. The two countries came into existence primarily not because all the regions of Indo-Pak wanted this to happen but because the British simply confined their freedom of choice to two options either to join "India" or "Pakistan". The fragility of this arrangement was successfully challenged for the first time by the Muslim Bengalis who gave us a new version of "two nation theory" by proving that among the Muslims of India and Pakistan also there were two Muslim nations i.e. "West Pakistan Muslims" and "East Pakistan Muslims"! The success of regional parties in Sindh, Balochistan Madras etc. is a clear proof that both the countries consist of different and distinct nationalities. In symbolic terms this arrangement may be compared to "Sigheh or Muttaa" i.e. a marriage limited to a certain period as practiced in Iran!!
The sub-continent had been conquered by the EEIC at different periods spread over a century and different regions viewed the British in a different line. We will study some of the regions and bring out the differences.
Bengal.
This was a very populous region of India. It was ruled by a Nawab before 1757 who had no connection with the Bengalis by race. His departure from the scene in 1757 hardly made any difference to the common Bengali. Bengal in terms of population was the largest province in India in 1857. The North West provinces (Modern UP) had also been part of the Bengal province till 1836 when it was separated. The Bengali common man was a much exploited and oppressed man. But this exploitation and oppression was done by his own Bengali landlords and revenue collector class both Muslim and Hindu. The British did not change the system in this regard. They, however, brought one major change which made post-1857 Bengal one of the most politically conscious regions of India. This was in terms of educating the people. Bengal was too big a province to worry about what was happening in the rest of India. For example the Santhal uprising had little to do with the EEIC. It was an uprising of the Santhal people against oppression by money lenders and railway contractors 543. This rebellion broke out in 1855 and was suppressed by 1857 and the Bengal Army sepoys played a decisive role in suppressing it. The Hindustani sepoy of the EEIC was almost as much of a foreigner for the Bengali as the European.
The Bengalis had nothing in common with the Hindustani Brahman, Rajput or Mussulman sepoy of the Bengal Army. These sepoys were actually viewed in Bengal as mercenary watchdogs of the EEIC. Thus although there were only 2,400 European soldiers in Bengal in 1857 as compared to more than 29,000 Hindustani sepoys 544 the rebellion did not succeed. Many sepoy regiments which rebelled were hunted down by common people led by landlords who supported the European troops in destroying them.
There were hardly any Bengali in the Bengal Army and during 1857 the British did not recruit any soldiers here. Later on in early twentieth century Bengal became one of the most anti-British area, where probably the maximum number of British officials were assassinated apart from the tribal area of NWFP. But in 1857 the Bengalis were not aware enough to participate in the rebellion. They had no representation in the army so they could not have taken any part in the rebellion. They had little to share with the northwest provinces and EEIC rule had been established here exactly 100 years ago. In all probability the Bengalis were satisfied with the status quo. The Mughal emperor had no relevance to their problems and the only exposure which they had of the Mahrattas was as dacoits and plunderers who raided West Bengal in the pre-1857 era. The pre-1857 Muslim Persian/Turk Nawabs of Bengal had hardly any sympathy with the ethnic Bengali Muslim and mostly relied on Hindu officials for revenue collection.
Madras.
The rebellion found no adherents in Madras also. The Madras Army was employed in Central India and at Cawnpore and Lucknow. This does not imply that the people of the south were docile but simply because they did not identify themselves with the Hindustanis of the Gangetic plains who were far different from the Madras people. Administration of Madras presidency by the EEIC since 1760s had produced peace and security and the people were enjoying about 58 years of uninterrupted peace since the last Mysore war of 1799. But we must not forget that many parts of Madras presidency were formerly part of the Mysore State which from 1769 to 1799 had been one of the EEIC’s toughest opponent. In Madras one is inclined to believe the old theory that nations and races are like a living organism. They struggle, get tired and then sink into inactivity for some time in order to recuperate. The region had seen many wars from 1740 to 1799 and now was war weary at least in 1857. The higher proportion of Muslims in the Madras Army, however, illustrates that the Punjabi Muslims and the Pathans were not the only loyal Muslims. There were certain cases of individual mutiny in the Madras Cavalry since this had a proportion of Hindustani Muslims. However, these were isolated incidents and as a regiment no unit of Madras Army was disbanded or disarmed.
Bombay.
The Bombay Presidency comprising the western Ghats and modern day Maharashtra had seen more anarchy and bloodshed than any other part of India. This started from Sivaji's phenomenal war against the Mughals in 1660. The Mahrattas must not be underestimated, since it was the Mahratta insurgency which destroyed the Mughal empire more than any martial race of the area north of Jhelum or north of Khyber or Oxus! Since 1660 the Mahrattas had almost constantly been fighting adversaries ranging from the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Afghans and the EEK with whom they fought some three long wars, these three wars taking place during 1775-1782, 1803-5 and the last one from 1817-18. The Mahrattas did not like the Purbiya or Hindustani and the Hindustanis also disliked this race since the Mahrattas were plunderers and looters like the Afghans (although a little more well mannered) and they were equally disliked by both Hindus and Muslims of the Gangetic plain. The word "Delhi" above all was a hateful word for a Mahratta since it was the capital of the hated Mughal who had ravaged the Mahratta home country so ruthlessly during the great Mahratta insurgency lasting from 1660 to 1707. The Mahrattas were a brave and courageous people and they shattered the myth of Muslim and Mughal invincibility which had for so long kept the non-Muslim inhabitants of the sub-continent victim of an irrational inferiority complex; that they could never win against any Muslim invaders. The Mahrattas in this regard are a unique people in sub- continental history. We are discussing the history of Mahrattas because it is felt that it was not a question of bravery or martial prowess in 1857 but that of political awareness and unfortunately this awareness was overall lacking in the majority of regions of Indo-Pak sub-continent in 1857. Thus, 1857 was a period when the people of sub-continent did not really feel that the EEIC was a foreign power which was exploiting them. Perhaps in the short term the much needed stability and order which the EEIC restored in many regions of Indo-Pak sub-continent was preferred by the people rather than a freedom struggle which may have pushed them into the pre- 1917 medieval disorders and anarchic situation of Maharashtra and Central India. The greatest credit in making the people of Bombay presidency believe that the EEIC rule was best for them rests with Mountstuart Elphinstone was Resident at the Mahrattas Peshwa's court from 1810 to 1819. Mountstuart was a great scholar, historian and administrator. He loved and respected India as a country and believed that the British were not in India forever. He was a very just man and believed in delegating some power and authority to the Indians. He was a firm believer of use of local languages in the courts and routine administrative affairs. He instituted reforms, greatly improved the system of public education and in general followed extremely liberal and humanitarian policies. He loved India so much that he refused the post of Governor General of Canada545! It would not be an over exaggeration to say that it was Elphinstone who secured the Bombay Presidency for the EEIC by creating a system in which the Indians were made to feel as part of the system by justice and fairplay institutionalised by creation of laws, procedures and systems. Just compare the conduct of Elphinstone with racist behaviour of West Pakistani civil servants who served in East Pakistan during the first two decades after 1947!
Rajputana.
The Rajputs are a very brave and hardy race but they remained neutral during 1857. The answer for this inaction lies in the policy of neutrality followed by the Rajputs since 1707. The Rajputs somehow like Switzerland managed to stay neutral during the long period of anarchy which devastated most of India during the period from 1707 to 1849. The Mahrattas did not raid Rajputana as frequently as other areas because most of it was arid desert. The northern Mahrattas the Afghans had also for this purpose left Rajputana alone. The EEIC also because of the arid terrain avoided bothering the Rajputana states except having a small enclave at Ajmer. The Rajputana states were large in area and few in number and had a very small population. Thus the EEIC only held Ajmer territory while the remaining Rajputana was under local rulers who remained loyal throughout 1857. Many of their state troops rebelled but these were mostly Hindustani and marched towards Delhi or Central India after rebelling. The Rajputs thus remained neutral in 1857. They had no reason to rebel since they were not under the EEIC. Arid terrain more than martial fervour had saved Rajputana from EEIC colonialism and subjugation. Another major reason for Rajput neutrality was the simple fact that the entire area except Ajmer was ruled by local dynasties of long standing. The EEIC had never hurt Rajput pride thanks to their barren terrain!