1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

Amin saheb:

A bit disappointed at this article. After your interacts on another thread, one was ready for a more thought-provoking essay.

Here is my "uninformed" opinion. I believe that the version that you mention as the Hindustani Muslim version is basically a Delhi Muslim version. It is a fact that Muslims in Delhi were a special target of the British fury against the mutineers even though Hindus shouting "Har har Mahadev" and "Ganga Mai ki jai" were the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who marched to Delhi as mutineers.

It was probably because the ruling aristocracy in Delhi was Muslim, although if Ghalib's narratives are to believed, not all of the aristocracy took part in the rebellion. Another reason why Hindus were spared in Delhi (but not elsewhere) from the British retribution was perhaps the fact that the British had used Sikh soldiers for fighting the mutineers; while they could count on the Muslim-Sikh enmity to help them out, the Sikhs would not have supported harsh actions on "fellow Hindus" (fellow hindus in quotation as Sikhs no longer consider themselves as Hindus).

Re: # 33 My Dear Sir

This is just a part from my book Sepoy Rebellion so it concentrates on just one aspect of 1857.

What I have basically tried to state is that wherever the sepoy regiments which had rebelled went and controlled there was rebellion.Like Delhi which was the favoured place of rebels.I have nowhere stated that Delhi nobility were heroes.What I have said is that Delhi was the focal point not because its people were great but because some 70 % of the sepoy regiments converged to Delhi.

About Sikhs also I have nowhere said that they were in majority in the English Company's force.My analysis , although not covered here that a substantial part of the collaborator Indian force with the English Company at Delhi was Punjabi Muslim and Pathan.After all the English East India Company was the knight in shining armour which rescued the Punjabi and Pathan Muslim from constant rape by the Sikhs !

Delhi was essentially seen as a Muslim poltical centre by the British and was a Muslim dominated city so it inadvertently suffered the maximum.It was condemned to the political pubishment of being a district of Punjab from 1857 till 1911.

Re: # 33 Further to my previous humble submissions Dost Mittar Sahib, below are some figures again from my book from which this small piece was summarised for Chowk:---

A glance at units employed at Delhi and Lucknow puts at rest all doubts about the ethnic composition of the native troops:-

Delhi
1st Punjab Cavalry(Later famous as pavocavalry) Sikhs - Punjabi Muslims Pathans-Some Hindustani Muslims.

2nd Punjab Cavalry Sikhs - Pathans - Punjabi Muslims - Some Hindustani Muslims

5th Punjab Cavalry As above

Hodson’s Irregular Force Sikhs/Punjabi Muslims

Sirmoor Battalion Gurkha
Kumaon Battalion Gurkha
Corps of Guides Pathan/Sikh/Punjabi Muslims
4th Sikh Infantry Sikh + Punjabi Muslims
1st Punjab Infantry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
2nd Punjab Infantry ditto
4th Punjab Infantry ditto
Baluch Battalion Baluchis -All Muslim

Note:- It may be noted that the Hindustani Muslims/Ranghars were the nucleus of all new Punjab Cavalry as well as Infantry units raised during the period 1846-56 including the Corps of Guides.



Lucknow - March 1858
1st Sikh Irregular Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims
2nd Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
5th Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
Oudh Irregular Cavalry Sikh, Punjabi Muslims
1st Punjab Cavalry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
Hodson’s Horse Sikh - Punjabi Muslims
Regiment of Ferozepur Sikh Pure
4th Punjab Rifles Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan
2nd Punjab Infantry Sikh - Punjabi Muslims - Pathan

It is interesting to note that 5th Punjab Infantry in its regimental history claims to have killed Subedar Bakht Khan the sepoy leader at Delhi in the Nawab Ganj area in 1858. It was stated in the history of the Frontier Force Rifles compiled by W.E.H. Condon and published in 1953540 that Naik Habibullah and sepoy Fateh Singh of 5th Punjab Infantry killed Subedar Bakht Khan in the Oudh Nepal rain forest area of Terai in 1858 and both of these soldiers were awarded the Indian Order of Merit. John Lawrence the Chief Commissioner of Punjab in his letter dated 25 May 1858 appended in the Punjab Mutiny reports addressed to Mr. Edwonstone, Secretary to the Government of India stated the composition of the Irregular Forces of Punjab as following 541:-

Muslims - Punjabi - 24,027

Sikhs - 13,344

Hillmen - 2,203

Hindustanis - 2,430

Hindus - Punjabi - 5,336

Christians - 16

Our aim is not to condemn any caste or community but to merely analyse the figures and dismiss baseless myths that Muslims were the foremost anti-British people in India in 1857. Why the Punjabi Muslims did not join Hindustani Muslims is a complicated question. It was not certainly opportunism alone because of which they remained loyal. There were other reasons for this loyalty which we will discuss in the subsequent part of this analysis. It is important to analyse another person or race's point of view rather than despising them. We despise the Afghan King, however, because he could have gained much more than a paltry sum of 12 lakh rupees per year! He by intervention could even have created conditions which would have led to participation of Punjabi Muslims and Pathans in support of the "Rebel Hindustani sepoys". Unfortunately Dost Mohammad Khan failed to muster the resolution which had made him famous in 1840! An year and half in exile in Calcutta transformed hsi perceptions and he knew that it was no mean job to fight the English Company.

Some further excerpts may be relevant here ;--

The period before 1857 was that of EEIC supremacy starting from its capture of Delhi in 1803. Before 1803 the Mahrattas were masters of Delhi. But in 1857 we find that the Mahrattas main leader Nana Sahib did not get any support from the main Mahratta area of Bombay presidency.

He was supported by the Hindustani Bengal Army sepoy who had little connection with Mahrattas by race. Actually some of the sepoy regiments which rebelled at Cawnpore marched to Lucknow. We see in 1857 the predominantly Hindu Regiments of Bengal Army marching to predominantly Muslim centres of rebellion i.e. Delhi and Lucknow. Bahadur Shah Zafar has to be given credit for at least preserving Hindu Muslim unity in Delhi in 1857. He undertook various measures to do so like banning cow slaughter in Delhi.

As per Percival Spear who is considered to be a very reliable authority on Indo-Pak history:—

"On 19 May, Maulvi Muhammad Sayyid set up the standard of Jehad or holy war in the Jamia Masjid; he was immediately ordered to remove it by the King. The Maulvi explained that it was intended against the Hindus, where upon the king declared that Hindus and Muslims were alike to him. Hindu army officers also complained and were tactfully told that it had been intended against the English 542".

It seems that Hindu opinion just like Muslim opinion was divided. But this appears odd only to those who take Hindus or Muslims as two nations in Indo-Pak sub-continent. If you analyse the Hindu as the UP Hindu or the Mahrashtra Hindu and the Muslim as Hindustani Muslim or Punjabi Muslim their differences do not appear odd. Thus we find the Hindustani Hindu acknowledging the Mughal Muslim as king of India in 1857 because culturally they could identify with him more than the Mahrashtra Hindu to whom the Mughal king was the descendant of a dynasty of Muslim tyrants.

We find the Oudh Talukdars most of whom were Hindu Rajputs acknowledging the Nawab of Lucknow Birjis Kadar a Muslim as their Nawab and ruler. The rebels were thus not organised on communal lines. Hindu acknowledged Muslim political supremacy by and large. Nana Sahib had a more limited following and his own people i.e. Mahrattas never rebelled in his favour. The Bombay Army and Maharashtra as a region stayed loyal to the EEIC. It appears that the Hindustani and Bombay or Punjab people had little in common. This behaviour further reinforces the theory that India or even Pakistan are not; or cannot be strictly defined as countries but rather a marriage of convenience of a multiple member of nationalities. The foundation of both the states is on mutual fear; and continuance of this confrontation alone can guarantee survival of both; off course at the expense of the smaller minority ethnic groups in both the states.

But the positive side of the rebellion was that at least it was the first major outbreak in which Indians combined against the British sinking their differences based on religious considerations. Communal hatred in Indo-Pak sub-continent was definitely a post-1857 development and had a deep connection with the deliberate but unwritten "divide and rule" policy of the British which finally led to the increase in communal tension in post-1857 India.

#36 Posted by pavocavalry on January 10, 2008 3:22:49 am

Indo-Pak subcontinent?

Why add a parasitic word 'Pak' in Indian subcontinent? Why an Assami, Bhutani, Maldivian, Sri Lankan or a Malabari wud accept this parasitic word Pak, leave abt the academic circles in the world?

Further to the argument about most favoured place of all rebel regiments as I proved in my book Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 Reinterpreted :--

1-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully ,6 cavalry and 23 regiments fought at Delhi (including 3 present there initially).Some 6 Cavalry and 20 infantry regiments marched to Delhi.Some came from as far as Cawnpore,Ferozpur,Jullundhur and Mhow.

2-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully some 6 cavalry and 16.5 Infantry Regiments went to Lucknow including some 7 already stationed there.

3-Out of 18 Cavalry and 53.5 Regiments that Rebelled successfully , 1 Cavalry and 5 infantry fought at Cawnpore under the Martaha political leader Nana Sahib.These included some 3 regiments stationed at Cawnpore already before the rebellion.

Re: # 37 Your objection is entirely valid although all such assertions are subjective.

Re: # 33 I have continuously written to prove that Muslims were no more martial than Hindus and Sikhs.Its all situational.One of my conclusions in my book Pakistan Army Since 1965 was that gallantry awards of pore 1947 prove that therre was no significant difference in martial qualities based on religion.Some conclusions in the award of Victoria Cross were :--

1- First World War Victoria Cross recipients:--

Gurkha-Hindu - 2
Indian Hindu - 4
Sikh - 1
Muslim - 2

2- Second World War Victoria Cross recipients:--

Gurkha-Hindu - 10
Indian-Hindu - 9
Sikh - 3
Muslim - 4

Then Bangladeshis call it : Indo-Bangla subcontinent

Sri Lankans : Indo-Sri Lankan Subcontinent

Nepalese : Indo-Nepal Subcontinent

etc.,

Ur hardwordk and scholarship wud be clouded by the silly mistakes u make.

Re: # 41 My Dear , again I say it is subjective.Call it what you may .

Pl explain ur rationale i/o hiding behind an excuse (subjective), dear.

I am insisting coz there's an established nomenclature. If u still call it subjective then I let it go.

My Dear Sir , I am not hiding behind anything.I dont believe in any established nomenclatures.

That's much clearer now.

Njoy ur 'research'.

OK, a good last suggestion.

Pl start a new name i.e Pakistan Subcontinent. It sounds cool and puts Pakistan in the centre of this subcontinent. I dont mind calling myself as a person from Pakistan subcontinent.

(thumbs up icon)

i am not for any country. we can call it Indian Sub Continent.

Re: # 28
"The debate Laddu ji, is not about the finality. At least in mind.

It is about what you express and paint as momeen. "

I need not paint what is momeen. You should read original Quran, Hadiths and other tafsirs from mullahs if you think momeen DOES NOT BELIEVE in the finality of the Prophet and the message!!
I have a doubt if you understand momeen thought at all!!