Retracing Bandhu Singh's contribution in 1857 revolution : A subaltern narrative (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reconstructing an event: The Great Rebellion of 1857–8 and Singhbhum Indigenes
Routledge, 2011
Introduction The early historicization of Adivasi anti-colonial movements in Jharkhand is replete with methodological problems.2 Since the celebration of the centenary of the Great Rebellion of 1857–8, scholars reconstructing narratives of anti-colonial struggles sought to prove that these were truly pan-Indian in character (Majum- dar 1962: 196–9).Those belonging to the nationalist and leftist schools tended to subsume these struggles, to use Ranajit Guha’s expression, under the ‘pre- history’ of the national and socialist-communist movements (Guha 1983: 4). Even if nationalism had inspired the making of provincial narratives where tribal or Adivasi struggles found space (Datta 1940, 1957: 66–76; Roy Choudhury 1959: 74–9; Das Gupta 2007: 96–119; Sen 2008: 82–107), the historiographic agenda were more or less to enrich the national mainstream.
The History of a Legend: Accounting for Popular Histories of Revolutionary Nationalism in India
Narratives about the revolutionary movement have largely been the preserve of the popular domain in India, as Christopher Pinney has recently pointed out. India’s best-known revolutionary, Bhagat Singh - who was executed by the British in 1931 for his role in the Lahore Conspiracy Case - has been celebrated more in posters, colorful bazaar histories and comic books than in academic tomes. These popular formats have established a hegemonic narrative of his life that has proven to be resistant to subsequent interventions as new materials, such as freshly-declassified intelligence reports and oral history testimonies, come to light. This paper accounts for why Bhagat Singh’s life story has predominantly prevailed in the domain of the popular, with special reference to the secrecy of the revolutionary movement and the censure and censor to which it has been subjected to in the 1930s.
Mutiny or Revolution? The Consequences of Events in India in 1857
The focus of this project is on both the nature and consequences, for India, of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Classic British historians have offered a clear simplistic view that events should be classed as a Mutiny. However, I focus on the debate between the Indian historians that emerged in the twentieth century. I conclude that the events of 1857 must be characterised initially as a military Mutiny, but later as a collective conservative rebellion for the protection of religion, and the rejection of British rule. I go on to discuss the short term effects, looking at the social and military reform undertaken by the British, which represents how their attitudes to the culture and native peoples of India was shifted by the uprising against British rule. This shift moves away from legislative reforms imposed from above, to focus on shifting young Indian’s attitudes gradually and naturally, through Victorian style education. Furthermore I discuss the short term reorganisation of the Indian militaries, and how the events in 1857 led to the development of a material race ideology. Lastly, I discuss how the Rebellion, and its consequences led to a national sentiment developing, which leads to the onset of the early Independence Movement.
SIKHS AND INDIA’S FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857: MYTHS AND FACTS
In the last 165 years, which followed the nation-wide rebellion of 1857 against the rule of the East India Company in India, many of the misconceptions have been put at rest and a number of myths demolished regarding the nature and course of this great upheaval. For instance much has been written by the historians, both Indian as well as foreign, supplemented with contemporary documents, upholding the fact that it was not a ‘Mutiny’, on the contrary, a rebellion which drew wide support from different sections of the Indian people in most of the affected areas. Even the then British rulers who initially declared it as a mere ‘Mutiny’ of the ‘Poorbeah’ (people from eastern India, the British used this term in derogatory sense) sepoys, ‘Budmashes’ (Urdu term for rascals which the British often used to describe the rebels) and ‘Pandies’ (followers of the rebel Mangal Pandey), soon realized the hollowness of this claim. Major W. S. R. Hodson (Commander of the British cavalry battalion which was created in his name itself, the ‘Hodson Horse’ and chief of the army’s intelligence wing) who played a major role in capturing Delhi, and was responsible for mass killings of Delhites including Mughal Princes in the most savage manner, in September 1857, in a letter to his wife from Delhi British army camp [July 26, 1857], did admit the fact that it was “an entire army and a whole nation” which was in revolt. Another official, Thomas Lowe, commander of the medical corps, who accompanied the British army in its campaign to crush rebellion in the Central India in 1857-58, and was present at the battle of Kotah-ki-Sarai (Gwalior, June 18, 1858) in which Rani Laxmi Bai was martyred, in his narrative, underscored the reality that it was not a ‘Mutiny’ but a national revolt organized by the ‘cunning, educated fiends’ with the result that “the infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Musselman [sic], and the luxury-loving, fat-paunched [sic] ambitious Mahrattah [sic]…they all joined together in the cause; the cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater, the crier of ‘Allah is God and Mahomet [sic] his prophet’ and the mumbler of the mysteries of Bram [Brahma].” However, a terrible myth continues to flourish about the complicity of Sikhs as a community in helping the Firangees in suppressing the 1857 revolt. There is no dearth of otherwise well-meaning historians and commentators who even today argue that the 1857 War of Independence was lost mainly due to the betrayal by Sikhs who either on the orders of Sikh native rulers of Punjab or on their own, recruited in the British army in large numbers, thus playing crucial role in subjugating India, which was then striving hard to liberate itself from the clutches of the British imperialism. Sikh community is thus presented as the main culprit responsible for helping out the British in securing India in the aftermath of 1857 rebellion. This paper presented in a conference at Punjab University, Patiala IN 2007 was an attempt to put facts as those happened at that time of the great liberation war.
Military Aspects of the Indian Uprising, MAM Vol IV: Introduction
Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857 -- Volume IV: Military Aspects of the Indian Uprising, 2013
The SAGE Team: Shambhu Sahu, Punita Kaur Mann xvi Gavin Rand and Crispin Bates marginal in recent literature. Despite the fundamentally military origins of the rebellion and counter-insurgency, the histories of those who fought in and commanded the belligerent armies, their motivations, experiences and memories have received less scholarly attention than might have been expected. Similarly, while contemporary responses to the military rebellion have been usefully surveyed to reveal various competing narratives of class, gender, locality and religion, the contours of military life and administration during (and after) 1857 are less clearly defi ned. This absence refl ects a wider neglect of the imperial military within the extant historiography: whilst both South Asian studies and 'the new imperial history' have enjoyed signifi cant expansion in recent years, and questions of empire and military power are frequently invoked in wider discussions of modernity and global history, there are, with notable exceptions, relatively few accounts of the military in British India, unquestionably the preeminent imperial military institution of the colonial period. 5
The year 1857 marks an important turn of events in the history of India and is often remarked the First war of Indian independence. Studies on the events of 1857 are ample, but the focus seems to have been predominantly on a few cities and figures, presented through the standardized Colonial narrative or the Indian National narrative. The larger context of rural participation is underexplored, allowing complexities to be subdued into these standardized narratives. Raja Nahar Singh is a historical figure of significance in this regard. He was the last king of Ballabgarh, a principality 24 miles south of Delhi. He was among the major local rulers in the Delhi region during the 1857 uprising against the East India Company. Through a study of Raja Nahar Singh's story based on evidence from written and oral historical records can help counter the reductive impulses of the colonial and Indian nationalist narratives.
Topic: Pan-Indian character of the Revolt
2022
Shiv Gajrani has focused on the Revolt if 1857 in Punjab and especially focused on the Sikhs. Surprisingly, almost a majority of historians agree that the Punjabees, particularly the Sikhs cooperated with the British, and aided their victory in 1857. This conclusion, ignores very important issues relating to the nature of the Revolt , a primitivist response to the western threat. Shiv Gajrani argues that the important question is whether the Sikhs acted as a community in favour of the British. In pre-modern societies cohesion has always been far less than in modern societies because in rural economics the role of economic exchange was very confined or limited. The aristocracy interrelated with wider society through institutions which expressed society as a whole, secondly through their political authority. The unit of organised action for the peasantry was either the community or the tribe. In the pre-modern hierarchically stratified society initiative rested with the top. Lower section of the society, especially the peasantry could merely exhibit a readiness to follow a direction. This was the reason that the Revolt took the found individual heroism rather than a General Revolt heroism. Another important point of the Revolt if 1857 was that it was spearheaded by the agrarian based military elite of the poor bias.
DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE UPRISING OF 1857
Utkal Research Journal , 2021
In order to understand the nature of the revolt of 1857, they have to turn to the historical development that is at odds with both the modern British historians and the Indian scholars. Most of the writings and write ups, appeared in the 19 th and 20 th centuries for depicting the different aspects of Indian History and Culture from the earliest to the modern times, have been the subject of severe debate, criticism and distortions. Often a loop-sided picture of Indian history, tilting towards subjectivity and bias, sidelining and omitting the concept of cause and effect, has been displayed, thus endangering, thereby, the much desired 'Rational Model' and 'Consensus Model'. The first extensive major event in the annals of freedom movement against the foreign rule broke out in 1857 and shook the foundation of the colonial rule but it lacking objective assessment and systematic and scientific marshalling of facts. There has been a tug of war whether to call it a 'Sepoy Mutiny' or a 'Great Revolt'. The tradition and conservative British writers have fashioned to highlight only the military character of the revolt and completely ignoring mass participation therein. To them it was completely a military insurrection. This research paper attempts to report different European historian's interest in Indian affairs and their observations, views, liberal approaches and analysis of the events unfolding during the uprising of 1857 in India.
War of 1857: Achievements of Indians in their struggle against British
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities , 2014
The war of 1857 was a great event that influenced the future course of history of sub-continent. The war has been a topic of academic discourse for historians and social scientists across the world. Today it has been more than 150 years and this war still attracts researchers for their study. There are several dimensions of this war, such as the causes of the war, events that took place during the war, the people who supported British and those who fought against British, results and consequences. In terms of results many scholars are of the opinion that this war was a failure for those who initiated it. It is generally believed that the section of population of India who fought this war against British authority were unable to achieve their objectives. The war also resulted in many benefits for Indian however these achievements get overshadowed by the debate about the failure. This research effort highlights the achievements of the war for India and the value of them was also extraordinary.