Capitalism in Japan
The remote ancestors of the four major and nearly three thousand minor islands of Japan came from China, Manchuria and Korea. May be some of them came from South East Asia. No history of these migrations are available to us. We have only some mythical stories[1] which tell us how the invaders came and supplanted the existing inhabitants of Japan, Ainu.[2]
Geographically, Japan is a mountainous country. It has two plains: Kanto in the east and Kansai in the east. Tokyo, Yokohama and Kawasaki is in the east. The big cities of the west are Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe. The ancient capitals changing with every new emperor, were all in this Kansai area until a permanent capital was established in 794 at Kyoto. This remained the metropolis till 1868.
In the ancient days Japan had been heavily influenced by China which was considered very civilised and where from came ideographic script and the Buddhist religion. Buddhism arrived here in the middle of sixth century. But, in Japan Buddhism could not supplant the indigenous religion Shinto. Japanese ideas mostly came from China but these were remoulded in Japan.
Although the Emperor of Japan was the son of Heaven by virtue of divine descent very few Emperors exercised real power. From the 8th century to the 12th the governmental power rested in the hands of powerful family, Fujiwara. From 12th to mid 19th the real powers were enjoyed by a succession of Shogun (generalissimo). In this phase the military class was most powerful. The last great family of Shogun, the Tokugawa had adopted in the 17th century a policy of national seclusion and it had kept Japan somewhat aloof from the changes taking place in other countries. Some foreigners, however, like the Dutch and the Chinese, were allowed to a limited trade from only one centre- Nagasaki. No other foreigners were allowed in Japan and Japanese were forbidden to go abroad. Other religions like the Christianity, introduced in the sixteenth century by Portuguese Jesuits, were suppressed.
The intrusion of the outside word came in 1850s when Commodore Perry of the United States forced the Japanese Emperor to open the gate of Japan for foreigners.
The Shogun’s government was overthrown by a combination of feudal lords and their retainers from south west Japan. This led to the Meiji restoration which had aimed to bring back real powers to the sacred king. Now the capital shifted from Kyoto (west) to a new city Tokyo in the east. With this began modernisation of Japan.
Modernisation of Japan
After the Meiji Restoration Japan became an eager pupil of the West. To move ahead, the founding father of modernisation in Japan decided, the country needed compulsory state education. New techniques were learnt in a hurry and very soon Railways, steamships, harbours, banks, printing presses, and post offices were established in Japan. With that came modernisation of army and navy. By 1890s Japan was strong enough to challenge China militarily. In the war it defeated China and Japan got Farmosa and some other territories. In the next ten years, in 1905, Japan was able to defeat Russia also. After the First World War Japan was considered a super power and it was given a permanent seat on the Council of the league of Nations. This rise of Japan as a great super power was in some ways more spectacular than the rise of Germany.
The period between 1873 and 1905 has been divided into two phases: the years of caution (1873-94) and Power in the East (1894-1905).
These successes, however, brought new set of problems for Japan. As a historian puts it : “ Japan now became engaged in international rivalries at a level which threatened to exceed her resources. She also discovered that her territorial expansion aroused resentments among her neighbours that were hindrance to her trade, becoming distasteful on that account to many Japanese whose livelihood depended on industry and commerce. As a result, the focus of debates on foreign policy changed. After 1905 the point at issue was not so much the choice between adventure and caution, as between different ways of extending Japanese influence overseas.”[3]

The problems generated by Japanese Capitalism

1. Japan’s total population in 1873 was about 35 million. In the next three decades it reached to about 46 million and in 1925 its population rose to 60 million. This added population mostly depended on commerce and industry and they lived in cities and towns. Life in these cities was very different from that of Tokugawa times. The slums, suburbs of the pattern of western industrial societies became part of Japanese society also. New kind of experiences like using things which had been only used by the samurais in old days ( like straw mat floor [tatami] and rice paper partition [shoji]. Better supply of goods, use of kerosene lamps, more options of foodstuffs, new clothes and so on. Per capita income increased from 170 yen a year in 1893-7 to 220 in 1918-22. The figures for industrial workers rose from 316 yen to 444 yen in the same period but incomes in agriculture and forestry rose only from 83 yen to 163 yen.[4] As the picture was not uniform and the growth was uneven for some people the changes were not satisfactory. A foreign visitor to Japan was told by a Japanese villager just before 1920: “In the old days the farmer did not complain; he thought his lot could not be changed. He was forbidden to adopt a new calling and he was restricted by law to a frugal way of living. Now farmers can be soldiers, merchants or officials and can live as they please. They begin to compare their standard of living with that of other callings.”[5]
[1] According to these myths Japan was created by the gods and the grandson of the sun goddess came down, at her command , to rule Japan. Since then the king is considered sacred and even modern Japanese nationalism believed in this mythology.
[2] Some of these Ainu descendents still live in the northern island of Hokkaido.
[3] W.G. Beasley, Text book, The Rise Of Modern Japan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p.140.

[4] Beasley, Ibidi, p. 123.
[5] J. W. Robertson Scott, Text book, The Foundations Of Japan (London: Murray, 1922), p. 65, cited in W.G. Beasley, Text book, The Rise Of Modern Japan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p.123-24.

Thoughts on 1857: The Intelligentsia Response to It and the Emerging Trends of Dalit Histories of 1857

Hitendra K. Patel


Till recently, recorded histories of events of 1857 told us the stories of important leaders like Lakshmibai, Nana Saheb, Kunwar Singh, Tantia Tope and others. Now, due to efforts of some scholars the tale of common lower caste peoples’ participation is being recorded[1]. These efforts use variety of local sources to bring before stories of the likes of Ranajit Baba (Ram), Uda Devi, Matadin Bhangi, Puran Kori, Jhalkari Bai, Chetram Jatav, Ballu Mehtar, Banke Chamar, Vira Pasi, Avanti Bai, Ranaji Yadav, Zulfikar, Maiku Mallah, Dharman bi, Ibrahim Khan, Lakhia, Rajjab Ali, Miyan Khan, Khuda Baksha, Gaus Khan and so many other heroes and heroines who had either been overlooked in 1857 literature or given marginal spaces so far. On the histories of these popular figures historians can raise doubts whether these are to be taken as valid history or a mere reflection of marginal groups’ desire to carve out their spaces in the national history. On this, traditional historians differ from new historians. The new historians are using literary sources, popular songs, different caste histories and other kind of sources to delve into the histories of different lower caste groups to give us stories which have the possibilities of being taken as histories. This brings before us a whole range of possibilities. These new histories, emanating from low caste group literature and popular stories, are increasingly not only trying to establish the heroes and heroines coming from the Dalits but also trying to dethrone the existing high caste heroes from the mainstream narratives.[2]
In this context, it can be suggested that the history of histories of 1857 is as important as the history of 1857 itself. How history of 1857 evolved throughout the national movement, how Hindi literature treated the rebels’ in its representations, how different icons emerged, shaped and reshaped before independence and after and so on , all these become relevant today. We need to answer a question why there were hardly any sympathizers of 1857 rebels among the nationalist intelligentsia in 1907 and in 2007 there will be very few who would not support 1857 rebels’ cause. Second pertinent question could be why all those who supported the rebellion perished or suffered miserably while the supporters of the British government became the future rulers of India? Third question should be asked: Can we write a history of 1857 leaving out the British concentrating only on the Indians themselves?
In this paper, I have tried to argue that the nationalist intelligentsia had used the story of 1857 to advance their national ideological campaign in a particular stage of their struggle against the colonial rule. In this process they created various icons, and tried to popularize these icons among the common people. In this context, one can find the use of different heroes of different areas to use popular sympathy of the people of that region. In the changed context the addition of an icon was done as per convenience. Interestingly, the literature ignored 1857 rebels till the strengthening of Nationalism while the people of different regions revered, at least the local heroes of 1857. In the 1920s, the rebels became nationalist icons in literature thereby the popular histories made inroads into classical literature and history. Today, there is a possibility that the low caste heroes, ignored so far, will carve out more space with the strengthening of Dalitism. A scholar who had studied English literary responses to 1857 revolt had said that “the myth of Mutiny was ripe for exploitation and the British (novelists) took up the business of elevating and feeding British vanity”.[3] It has been suggested that in the twenties of twentieth century Nationalism of the intelligentsia had tried to arouse Indians against the British by evoking the memory of 1857 rebels.[4] In the 1990s and in this decade Dalit activists are selectively using the heroes of 1857 to build collective memory in the psyche of people whom they wish to mobilize politically. Badri Narayan sums up this by saying, “ The stories are narrated in such a manner that the Dalits imagine the story of the making of the nation in which they claim to have played a significant role.”[5]
In this paper, some evidences are put forward to narrate the story how the colonial intelligentsia in general and Hindi intelligentsia in particular had not understood the spirit of the rebels of 1857 and for them the rebels’ defeat was understandable and it was justified.

1857 and the Intelligentsia in till 1920s

Namwar Singh, a leading critic of Hindi, had famously claimed that in the renaissance period Hindi literature the resonance of 1857 do not exist in shisht (classical) Hindi literature.[6] He added, however, that in lok (folk, popular) literature references to 1857 are in good numbers.[7] This has been criticized in a very well written monograph by Pradip Saxena. But, this criticism is directed towards the distinction made between shisht and lok literature. Pradip Saxena gave an impressive list of documents to suggest that there did exist the support for the rebels in the nineteenth century. But, no evidence is cited from Hindi literature. Barring Bharatendu Harischandra’s mention of kathin sipahi droh we do not have anything to say which can suggest that the writers had supported the spirit of 1857. On the contrary, we find so many references of writers mentioning their disgust and disliking for the violence of 1857 caused by insane and misguided people. Any review of the literature of the Bharatendu era of modern Hindi writings would confirm that the proclamation of the British Queen of 1858 was hailed as a very fortunate development as Indian society was now in “safe hands”. In 1897, on the occasion of Victoria Jubilee Mahotsav, Pattan Lal ‘Sushil’ published a book containing 60 poems which had this dedication: “ This little book ‘jubilee sathika dedication mala’ (containing 60 poems on the Diamond Jubilee ) is respectfully dedicated to your most gracious Majesty. By itself it is not so valuable as to deserve the honour of dedication to your gracious Majesty’s feet as a token of humble loyalty and love with the fond hope that it will be accepted. – Pattan Lall.”[8]
Brajnanadan Sahay, leading Hindi writer of Bihar, wrote a ‘ullala’ on 20 June 1997 saying that “Hind anand apar hai” ( the country is full of happiness). Mahant Baba Sumer Singh compared Queen Victoria with satis ( revered women) like Draupadi, Kunti, Anusuyya and others. Kamalanand Singh ‘Saroj’ wrote ‘Shri Edward Battisi’ in 1902. These kind of eulogistic poems were written with the sincere belief that the British rule was good for India’s progress. Bihar Bandhu, leading newspaper of Bihar summed up this attitude well when it wrote that the British took the responsibility of ruling India on sympathetic grounds as this country was in extremely bad shape.[9] It is important here to note that not all were so insensitive to the heroes of 1857. We find evidences of poems composed in Bhojpuri which saw the heroes like Kunwar Singh very differently from the Hindi intelligentsia. In this context, Tofa Rai’s ‘Kunwar Pachasa’ can be cited which was a collection of poems in Bhojpuri.[10] Radhavallabh Joshi wrote ‘Vipraballabh’ which was sympathetic to the heroes of 1857.[11]
Chaudhuri Pandit Badri Narain Upadhyaya ‘Prem-Ghan' (1855-1921), a rais (large land owner) of Mirzapur and a close associate of Bhartendu wrote: The East was in fear, men were terror-stricken and those who thought that religion and caste were in danger took with them a few foolish soldiers and some evil men and caused great havoc, sowing seeds of their own ruin.[12] If one believes that these loyalist responses were confined to late nineteenth century writers only one can see the evidences from the Dwivedi era as well. For Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi Tantia Tope and Nana Saheb were cruel murderers (nrishansh hatyare).[13] He even justified the capture of Avadh by the East India Company by dethroning Wajid Ali Shah on the basis of an agreement of 1801.[14]
Gyanendra Pandey sums this up by saying that, in the nineteenth century context it was a dangerous moment when ‘order’, ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’, three most important concerns of the Hindi intelligentsia were threatened.[15] It would not be wrong to say that what G. O. Trevelyan wrote in his book Cawnpore, published in 1865, could be considered valid for Hindi writers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For writers like Trevelyan, ‘Mutiny’ was a ‘devil’s wind’.[16]
The contemporary history books had been unanimous that the revolt had been a bad thing for India. A noted scholar of late nineteenth century Haraprasad Sastri wrote History of India for schools in 1896 in which he concluded : “ The ability, promptitude and scientific skill with which the English suppressed the Mutiny, added greatly to their prestige in the popular estimation.”[17] To his judgement, “ the people in general remained friendly to the English, and even in the districts affected, showed no sympathy for the mutineers.”[18] Most remarkable passage in his chapter on ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ is his last chapter which told the school goers : “ All opposition being at the end, the English proclaimed a general amnesty. Only those who had been actually implicated in killing Europeans were excluded from the pardon, while those who had helped the English were rewarded … . English opinion in Calcutta was loud in its condemnation of the leniency thus displayed by Lord Canning, and he obtained the derisive name of “Clemency Canning”.”[19]
It is often argued in defence of the intelligentsia that they always had lived in terror and anything in support of 1857 might have brought disaster for them. Certainly this pressure was at work but a careful look into the writings of Hindi intelligentsia would reveal that saying critical things against the government was not unusual for them particularly issues related to the religion and the cow protection. It does not seem plausible that the intelligentsia had been critical of the rebels merely to win Government’s favour.
Paradigm shift in the approach of the intelligentsia in 1920s

Ramvilas Sharma, Bhagwan Das Mahore, Pradip Saxena and others have argued that the support for 1857 had been considerable among people and the intelligentsia came out open when the mass phase of freedom struggle began .[20] This looks untenable. Karmendu Sishir has closely followed the arguments of Ramvilas Sharma and he has accepted the idea of Hindi renaissance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries put forward originally by Sharma. But, he has not tried to project the intelligentsia as a sympathizer of 1857. He carefully examined the writings of the intelligentsia and concluded that it would be wrong to say that the sympathy for 1857 rebels existed in renaissance writers. He refers to the writings of the editor of Sar Sudha Nidhi , an important newspaper, to say that the editor had said negative things about the rebels.[21]
The earliest sympathizers of the rebels were the militants of Bengal and the Ghadar Party supporters. 1907 marked the beginning of a new understanding of 1857 and the role of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was crucial. In this context, R. P. Singh’s assessment is fair: “ There is no doubt that he wrote, for the first time, a full length version of the story of 1857. Although Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had preceded him in diagnosing the “causes” of the revolt, their outlooks differed diametrically, Sir Syed could not think of future for India without British presence and he was convinced that the resources and might of the British arms would ultimately crush the rebellion… Savarkar, on the other hand, drew his inspiration from the liberation of American colonies from the British exploitative colonial rule and , on purpose, designed his work as Indian War of Independence.”[22]
Since the publication of Savarkar’s book, [23] 1857 began to be seen as the war of independence for a number of radicals who had been trying to mobilise nationalists in London and America. Copies of this book were smuggled into India. One of the boxes carrying copies of Savarkar’s book was brought to India by Sikandar Hayat Khan who later became a famous politician of Pubjab. These books were distributed among the revolutionaries of India. Few editions of this book, published in France and England were also in circulation among the revolutionaries of India and abroad. This book set the trend of calling the 1857 revolt the war of independence for Indians. His original publisher wrote in 1909 in the foreword of the book: “Fifty years have passed and yet those who died for the honour of their soil and race are looked upon as madmen and villains by the world abroad while their own kith and kin, for whom they shed their blood, are ashamed to own them.”[24] Savarkar wrote in 1908 urging nationalists of India to come forward and “write the nationalist history of 1857 as soon as possible as the people who had seen the events from close quarters would not be alive to tell the story.” Inspired by the commemoration of 1857’s fiftieth anniversary in 1907 at London, a young lecturer Hardayal, after reaching America as a teacher tried to popularise 1857 as a nationalist symbol, largely through his organ Gadar, named after 1857. This journal’s issues were published in Indian languages including Hindi and this might have had some influence on the Hindi intelligentsia. Still, when Ishwari Prasad Sharma and some others wrote in 1922 the histories of 1857 they tried not to see 1857 the way the Gadar Party sympathisers might have seen it. In the book list of the three histories of 1857 produced in a short span of time in 1922 the only Indian language source referred to is a Bengali novelist’s five volume history of 1857.
The change of perception towards 1857 changed qualitatively in 1920s. The rebel leaders who had so far been confined mainly to popular songs and folk literature now creeping into the pages of classical literature and history books. The change of mood can be traced to the pages of Prabha of 1924 when this magazine started publishing essays on Lakshmi Bai. Then two important numbers- Chand ka Phansi Ank and Hindu Punch ka Balidan Ank brought a significant change in assessment of 1857 rebel leaders. [25]
Crucial to all this was the book penned by Pandit Sundarlal. In his book of the history of Modern India he relied heavily on the English works of Major B. D. Basu. But, as this book was in Hindi the restless and agitated minds of young revolutionaries were able to make most of it. Soon this book, along with Savarkar’s book on 1857 became the most important history books from which thousands of people got inspiration from. In this phase, the poem of Subhadra Kumari Chauhan on Lakshmi Bai became popular and many songs were composed in different regions on different heroes of 1857. Poems written on Kunwar Singh became very popular among the Bhojpuri speaking regions.[26] In the 1930s there were a number of publications which openly described the rebels as freedom fighters. Risabhcharan Jain’s Ghadar was the first novel in Hindi which boldly supported the rebel protagonist in mid 1930s.[27]
It can be said that the rebel leaders and the revolt history started to be taken seriously in 1920s and 1930s only when the nationalist intelligentsia had accepted these as ‘national’.
The Rebel leaders in present context
As already discussed in the beginning of this paper, in the last decade a number of studies have come up which give centrality to those leaders who came from lower caste backgrounds. Now, the same story gives more importance to those characters who had been there but these characters had not been given much importance. For example, while discussing the struggle of Jhansi the focus gets shifted from the queen Lakshmi Bai’s valour to that of a Koeri woman Jhalkari Bai. Mohandas Nemishray and others have argued that the real heroine was Jhalkari Bai who looked like Lakshmi Bai who decided to engage the British army so as to make opportunity for the queen to go out of Jhansi towards Kalapi. She fought so bravely that the British army failed to pay attention to a brigade which somehow managed to move out of Jhansi. Lakshmi Bai was part of this brigade. Jhalkari Bai was noticed as an important character first by Vrindavan Lal Verma who wrote a historical novel on the life of Lakshmi Bai. Now, in the altered context, she became the centre of the whole plot for writers like Nemishray. In this ‘Dalit histories’ Dalit ‘Viranganas’ like Jhalkari Bai of Koeri caste, Uda Devi, a Pasi, Avanti Bai, a Lodhi, Mahabiri Devi, a Bhangi, and Asha Devi, a Gurjari have become the the symbols of bravery of that particular caste to which these women belonged.[28] Some scholars like Chandra Bhan Prasad, V. N. Rai and Kanwal Bharati have tried to see 1857 as a revolt of the upper caste men. They have tried not to give much significance to the events of 1857 for the depressed sections of people. But, to Dalit historians like Brij Bihari and Suresh Pajjam this was not so. While Brij Bihari puts forward the thesis that the so called ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ was actually the revolt of Dalit Sepoys who had clearly understood the true nature of the exploitative rule of the British. The ever exploited depressed people had been deprived of all opportunities and they had no option but to join army to survive. The English had given all jobs to upper castemen and they did not pay any attention to the welfare of Dalits. This thesis is, in his formulation, based on Ludhiana lecture of Ambedkar delivered in 1951 in which the great leader of Dalits had heavily criticized the British rule.[29] Similar arguments have come from Suresh Pajjim who gave a detailed statistical accounts of how Dalits have been the main agents of activities during the revolt of 1857.[30]
One can find that in these Dalit historians’ writings the accounts do not provide us all claims of historian duly attested by some archival record or authenticated source. But, what is significant is that there are so many claims coming from these histories of Dalits which try to associate with 1857. This desire to see their caste’s share in this ‘national’ movement is of immense importance.
We are entering into a time in which a new kind of history of modern India would be written whose contents would be aiming primarily to accommodate the aspirations of newly empowered social groups. These groups would be creating /discovering their own histories/collective memories to see their past. As long as they find their faces missing in the mirror of the past they would create/discover the past they aspire for. This way, the present would be guiding how the past should look like. The strength of the events like 1857 lies in the fact that all groups aspire to see their faces in its history. Where they do not find themselves they try to create their presence. These creations of histories would be considered ‘ordered’ history or the ‘imagined’/aspired history by the old practitioners but for new historians these histories would be of paramount importance. Not long ago the Nationalist Intelligentsia had imagined a ‘national’ history of 1857 and now Dalit Intelligentsia is out to imagine Dalit histories of a ‘national’ movement.










[1] Among these scholars most valuable contributions came from Badrinarayan who have not only given us an idea of how many low caste leaders had played significant roles during 1857 but also explained the efforts of modern day Dalit political parties to highlight Dalit participation in the revolt for mobilizing Dalits in the United Provinces. (See Badrinarayan, "National Past and Political Present," Economic and Political Weekly XXXIX, 30 (July 2004). Badrinarayan’s approach is followed with gender perspective by Charu Gupta. (See Charu Gupta, “Dalit ‘Viranganas’ and the Reinvention of 1857” in National Conference on Historiography of 1857: debates in the past and present state of knowledge, 9-10 December 2006). Mohandas Nemishray and other Dalit scholars have also contributed towards this. Mohandas Nemishray, Swatantrata Sangram ke Dalit Krantikari (New Delhi: Nilkanth Prakashan, 1999). Also see Suresh Pajjam, "1857 Vidroh Mein Daliton ki Bhumika," Dalit Today (Lucknow), August 2007;Brij Bihari, "1857 Aur Dalit," Dalit Today (Lucknow), August 2007.
[2] Badri Narayan, ‘Dalits and memories of 1857’ in National Conference on Historiography of 1857…”.
[3] Shailendra Dhari Singh, Novels on the Indian Mutiny (New Delhi: Arnold Heineman India, 1973), p. 73.
[4] I have tried to argue this elsewhere. See Hitendra K. Patel, "Aspects of Nationalist Response to 1857 in the Early Twentieth Century," Modern Historical Studies (Calcutta) 4 (March 2007).
[5] Badri Narayan, Ibid.
[6] Namwar Singh, Editorial, Aalochana, 79, p. 3. cited in Pradip Saxena, 1857 Aur Navajagaran ke Prashna: Punarsameeksha Aur Pratitarka (Delhi: Navachetan Prakashan, 2004), p.342.
[7]
[8] Ramniranjan Parimalendu, Ibid. , p. 258.
[9] Ibid. , p. 261.
[10] Ibid. , p. 281.
[11] Radhavallabh Joshi was born in 1831 and died in 1901.
[12] Cited from Lakshmi Sagar Varshney, Adhunik Hindi Sahitya (1850-1900), p.25 in Ramesh Rawat, op. cit.
[13] Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi, ‘Shivaji aur Angrez’, Saraswati, January- February 1904, cited in Harprakash Gaur, ‘Saraswati’ aur Rashtriya Jagaran, New Delhi: National Publishing House, 1983, p. 5.
[14] Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi , ‘Avadh mein Angrezon ka Pahla Ishtahar’ Ibid. For more evidences of loyalist writings which appeared in Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi edited Saraswati see Harprakash Gaur, ‘Saraswati’ aur Rashtriya Jagaran, pp. 2-5.
[15] Gyanendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, Delhi: OUP, 1992, p.117.
[16] G. O. Trevelyan, Cawnpore, 1864, p. 49, cited in Shailendra Dhari Singh, Novels on the Indian Mutiny (New Delhi: Arnold Heinemann India), 1973, p.227.
[17] Haraprasad Sastri, History of India (Calcutta: Sanskrit Press Depository, 1896), p. 232.
[18]Ibid, p. 232.
[19] Ibid, p. 236.
[20] Their views have been discussed in Hitendra K Patel, Nationalism and Representation of an Icon in Literature in Colonial India: Rani Lakshmibai in Modern Hindi Literature, presented at Jadavpur University, Kolkata 2007. ( Publishing shortly)

[21] Karmendu Sishir, ‘1857 ki Rajyakranti: Vichar aur Vishleshan’ in Pahal (booklet), Jabalpur, January 2007, p.57.
[22] R. P. Singh, ‘Re-assessing Writings on Rebellion Savarkar to Surendra Nath Sen’ in ‘National Conference on Historiography…’. For an interesting discussion on Savarkar’s treatment of 1857 history also see B. Surendra Rao, ‘History as Manifesto: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and V. D. Savarkar on 1857’ in ‘National Conference …’.
[23] Savarkar’s book was published in 1909 in English in London.
[24] Original Publisher’s Preface (London, dated 10 May 1909) in V. D. Savarkar, The Indian War of Independence ( National Rising of 1857), London: the publisher’s name and year of publication are not given.
[25] For a detailed study of these changes see Hitendra K. Patel, ‘Aspects of …’. For a striking change of attitude towards Lakshmi Bai see Hitendra Patel, ‘Nationalism and Representation…’.
[26] See For a detailed discussion on this see Rashmi Choudhury, ‘Bharatiya Rashtravad ka Nimna vargiya Prasang: Sandarbha 1857 aur Kunwar Singh’, in Devendra Chaube (ed), Sahitya ka Naya Saundarya-Shahtra, Delhi: Kitab Ghar Prakashan, 2006, pp.55-70. This paper documents an impressive list of materials which document how Kunwar Singh had been revered as a hero for the common people of Bihar.
[27] For details of Hindi literary works on the 1857 revolt see Bhagwan Das Mahoref1, book, 1857 ke Swatantrata Sangram ka Hindi Sahitya Par Prabhav
Krishna Brothers
1976.
Ajmer:Krishna Brothers, 1976.
[28] See Charu Gupta, op. cit.
[29] SeeBrij Bihari, "1857 Aur Dalit," Dalit Today (Lucknow), August 2007.
[30] Suresh Pajjam, "1857 Vidroh Mein Daliton ki Bhumika," Dalit Today (Lucknow), August 2007.

The history of the histories of 1857 is as interesting subject as the history of the events of 1857. It is very important to note how the events of 1857 were received and interpreted in different stages of our national movement. The events of 1857 did not find favourable mention in the writings of the intelligentsia of Bihar till 1920s. There are evidences of support for Kunwar Singh and others in Bhojpuri folk songs but in Hindi literature Kunwar Singh remained almost absent till 1922 when Iswari Prasad Sharma wrote favourably for him in his book. Clearly, this evidence supports my contention that modern Hindi literature discovered 1857 as a national movement in 1920s.[1] Like Lakshmi Bai Kunwar Singh became acceptable as a national icon for writers in 1920s. Interestingly one would find echo of Lakshmi Bai saga, so powerfully brought in Hindi literature by 22 years old young poetess from Jhanshi Subhadra Kumai Chauhan, in the literary representations of Kunwar Singh saga also. In this paper, I seek to prepare an account of various representations of Kunwar Singh in literature and historical accounts and then pose certain problematic. I have tried to argue that the nationalist intelligentsia had used the story of 1857 to advance their national ideological campaign in a particular stage of their struggle against the colonial rule. In this process they created various icons, and tried to popularize these icons among the common people. In this context, one can find the use of different heroes of different areas to use popular sympathy of the people of that region. In the changed context the addition of an icon was done as per convenience. Interestingly, the literature ignored 1857 rebels till the strengthening of Nationalism while the people of different regions revered, at least the local heroes of 1857. In the 1920s, the rebels became nationalist icons in literature thereby the popular histories made inroads into classical literature and history. Today, there is a possibility that the low caste heroes, ignored so far, will carve out more space with the strengthening of Dalitism. A scholar who had studied English literary responses to 1857 revolt had said that “the myth of Mutiny was ripe for exploitation and the British (novelists) took up the business of elevating and feeding British vanity”.[2] It has been suggested that in the twenties of twentieth century Nationalism of the intelligentsia had tried to arouse Indians against the British by evoking the memory of 1857 rebels.[3] In the 1990s and in this decade Dalit activists are selectively using the heroes of 1857 to build collective memory in the psyche of people whom they wish to mobilize politically. Badri Narayan sums up this by saying, “ The stories are narrated in such a manner that the Dalits imagine the story of the making of the nation in which they claim to have played a significant role.”[4]
Kunwar Singh had always been a hero for the people of Shahabad district where he had led an unsuccessful but heroic struggle against the British for more than a year. After his natural death his illustrious brother carried on the struggle and troubled the British somewhat like Tantia Tope. His military strategy and mobilisational efforts had been appreciated even by Engels.[5] Kunwar Singh’s novelty lies not only in military campaigns which had some successes also, but also in bringing people into the movement by systematic campaigns, military marches to the North and Central India, various efforts to keep his people happy with his rule and overall keeping the popular sentiments with his campaign. He was an old man when he decided to take the risk of going against the British and like Lakshmi Bai once decided he was all for the revolt with all his power. He was not a very powerful Raja as is generally believed. He was technically a Maharaj Kumar who worked under the Raja of Dumraon. With little resources but with great popularity he struggled against the British. His popularity can be gauged by Rajani Kanta Gupta’s observation made in 1880s when it was virtually impossible to praise rebel leaders. He wrote that whatever people say about the ‘Kanwar Singh’ ( Kunwar Singh) he was worshipped by the people of Bihar even after decades for his good deeds.[6] Nagendra Nath Gupta, who lived in the area Kunwar Singh came from, wrote a novel on Amar Singh in 1897 in Bengali which was translated by a famous Hindi writer into Hindi and later published by the most important Hindi press of India ,Khadagvilas Press in 1907. This book gives us some interesting insights into the time and its memory. It confirms that for Nagendra Nath Gupta had tried to project Kunwar Singh and his brother as patriotic and popular figures who had been betrayed by lowly born traitors.
In fact, it would not be wrong to say that for Hindi writers who mostly came from upper caste backgrounds the revolt of 1857 was a wrong moment in which many ill advised people unreasonably revolted and brought misery for the countrymen.[7] Brajnanadan Sahay, leading Hindi writer of Bihar, wrote a ‘ullala’ on 20 June 1997 saying that “Hind anand apar hai” ( the country is full of happiness). Mahant Baba Sumer Singh compared Queen Victoria with satis ( revered women) like Draupadi, Kunti, Anusuyya and others. Kamalanand Singh ‘Saroj’ wrote ‘Shri Edward Battisi’ in 1902. These kind of eulogistic poems were written with the sincere belief that the British rule was good for India’s progress. Bihar Bandhu, leading newspaper of Bihar summed up this attitude well when it wrote that the British took the responsibility of ruling India on sympathetic grounds as this country was in extremely bad shape.[8] It is important here to note that not all were so insensitive to the heroes of 1857. We find evidences of poems composed in Bhojpuri which saw the heroes like Kunwar Singh very differently from the Hindi intelligentsia. In this context, Tofa Rai’s ‘Kunwar Pachasa’ can be cited which was a collection of poems in Bhojpuri.[9] Radhavallabh Joshi wrote ‘Vipraballabh’ which was sympathetic to the heroes of 1857.[10] But, these should be considered exceptions.
Scholars have laboured hard to explain why the writers did not want to refer to 1857. Most of them refer to the fear of Government as the primary reason why writers , inspite of keeping sympathy for the rebels in their hearts, feared to speak about them in open. Once the mass movement began in Gandhian phase these writers started speaking for the revolt.[11] This does not seem an adequate explanation as we find quite unnecessary criticisms of the revolt and its leaders in the writings of some of the leading writers of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One can see references of this kind in the writings of Sadanand Mishra, Radhacharan Goswami, Premghan, Shivanandan Sahay, Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi, Braj Ratna Das and others. Gyan Pandey , a historian, gives us a far more convincing reason for their approach by saying that, in the nineteenth century context it was a dangerous moment when ‘order’, ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’, three most important concerns of the Hindi intelligentsia were threatened.[12] This becomes obvious when we review the socio-cultural and political ideas of the intelligentsia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Bihar. Seeing extensive literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in which the writers were tried to strengthen forces of a social order which had been anti-Muslim and believers in Varnashram dharma ideals.[13] For most of them, Muslim rule was a dark phase of Indian history and the coming of the British replacing the barbaric Muslims had been a welcome change. For these writers 1857 could not have inspired much as this was based on Hindu-Muslim unity and there was hardly anything in its progress in different parts of Northern India that might have given the orthodox writers the feeling that caste ideals were not disturbed. Badrinarayan tells us that “in folk culture the Revolt of 1857 is not described as a struggle of caste, religion or specific class. In the popular perception, it is imprinted as a war of liberation from foreign oppression, and humiliation. The communal and caste harmony was much evident in this struggle.”[14] He gives us a list of leaders who are repeatedly referred to in Bhojpuri folk literature as heroes of 1857 which include names like Ranjit Yadav, Zulfikar, Maiku Mallah, Dharman bi, Ibrahim Khan, Lakhiya ( a lower caste woman), Rajjab Ali and Miyan Khan. Songs of chivalry of many Muslim and lower caste heroes are quite common in the folklores. One may find Panwara (chivalry songs) of Zulfikar Khan, Ibrahim Khan, Rajab Khan, Umed Ali in Bhojpuri folklores. Even today, the folklore about Khudabaksh and Ghaus Khan (the supporters of Lakshmi Bai) are sung with respect. Badrinarayan adds : “ In the folklore of Bundelkhand many narratives describing the brave deeds of Jhalkhari Bai, a lower caste woman, are available. Further, a deep influence of this Revolt is observed in the lower caste popular cultural forms of Dhobi, Kumhar, Luhar, etc. Historical narratives of 1857 reveal that lower castes in the Bhojpur region were no less involved in this war of independence. There is a popular Dhobi Geet (song), in this region.”[15] This kind of list of heroes in which Yadav, Mallah, Khan, Lakhia would have been just too much for Hindi writers whose list include hardly any name beyond Dwija names in the period of our discussion.[16]
Two very important sources for the history of the intelligentsia of Bihar in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries- Bihar Darpan and ------ also do not give any details of anybody among educated people who had dared to say anything about the revolt days. Perhaps the most significant pointer towards this is the example of Babu Ramdin Singh, a proud Rajput who wanted to arouse feeling of pride among the Kshatriya ( Rajputs). He had brought out a magazine Kshatriya Patrika which highlighted glorious history of the Kshatriyas. Had he nourished any sympathy for Kunwar Singh and his struggle he would have had referred to him or at least had enlisted his name among the Rajput greats of Bihar. He did not do that.
The Yugantar Party organs and the Ghadar Party publications made rebel leaders like Lakshmi Bai and Nana Saheb very popular among its leaders but Kunwar Singh could not get adequate attention. But, in Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s book he was given some importance. By the early 1920s Kunwar Singh was known as a rebel leader who led the people of Jagdishpur against the British. But, the subsequent iconization in Hindi literature and writings made him a Bihari icon comparable to Jhansi ki Rani of Lakshmi Bai.
In 1920 there was no book available in Hindi which can be considered history of 1857. A publisher of Calcutta, then the most important centre of Hindi publications, lamented over this and he gave the assignment of writing a book on the history of 1857 on a prolific writer from Arrah, Bihar, Ishwari Prasad Singh. Before Ishwari Prasad Sharma could complete his history book on 1857 two other books on 1857 history came out from Calcutta. Of these early books on 1857 we find a clear indication that these writers had not tried to relate their interpretations with those of the Ghadar Party. Rather the main source of their information had been the five volumes of Rajani Kanta Gupta who himself based his descriptions on the English writers although in a different language. This attitude towards 1857, however, started changing in the late twenties with the publications of articles in Prabha, Chand ka Phansi Ank, Hindu Punch ka Balidan Ank, Pandit Sundarlal’s history of India and the book of poem on Lakshmi Bai by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan. In the thirties came Risabhachandra Jain’s novel Ghadar which boldly defended the rebel leaders.
In Bihar, similar trends can be noticed. Like the iconization of Lakshmi Bai we find the iconization of Kunwar Singh. As Lakshmi Bai turned out to be a symbol of the pride of Bundelkhand in general and Jhansi in particular, Kunwar Singh was depicted as a symbol of pride of Bihar in general and Arrah in particular. The similarities are too obvious to be ignored. One can see the poem written on Kunwar Singh by a respectable poet Manoranjan Prasad of Dumraon who was the principal of Rajendra College:
“Tha boodha par veer bankura Kunwar Singh mardana tha,
Masti kithi chhidi ragini , aazadi ka gana tha,
Bharat ke kone kone mein, hota yehi tarana tha,
Udhar khadi thi Lakshmibai, aur peshwa Nana tha,
Idhar Bihari Bankura, khada hua mastana tha.
Assi barson ki haddi mein jaga josh purana tha
Sab kahte hain Kunwar Singh bhi, bada veer mardana tha.”
Directly taking the inspiration from the poem of Subhadra Kumari Chauhan this poem contains these lines:
“Khaul uthi san sattavan mein sabka khoon purana tha,
sab kahte hain Kunwar Singh bhi bada veer mardana tha,
Bangale ke Barrackpore mein, aag droh ki sulgai,
Lapte uski uthi zor se, Dilli aur Merrut dhai,
Kashi uthi



[1] I have dealt with this question elsewhere. See
[2] Shailendra Dhari Singh, Novels on the Indian Mutiny (New Delhi: Arnold Heineman India, 1973), p. 73.
[3] I have tried to argue this elsewhere. See Hitendra K. Patel, "Aspects of Nationalist Response to 1857 in the Early Twentieth Century," Modern Historical Studies (Calcutta) 4 (March 2007).
[4] Badri Narayan, Ibid.
[5]
[6] See his ------------
[7] I have discussed the Hindi intelligentsia response in details elsewhere. See
[8] Ibid. , p. 261.
[9] Ibid. , p. 281.
[10] Radhavallabh Joshi was born in 1831 and died in 1901.
[11] Ramvilas Sharma, Bhagwan Das Mahore and others have maintained this view.
[12] Gyanendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, Delhi: OUP, 1992, p.117.
[13] I have dealt with this aspect in detail in ‘Communalism and the Intelligentsia in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Bihar’ ( PhD thesis, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 2006).
[14] Badri Narayan, Popular Culture and 1857: A Memory Against Forgetting, Social Scientist. v 26, no. 296-99 (January-April 1998), p. 89.
[15] Badri Narayan, op. cit., pp. 89-90.
[16] See

A movement of dissent should challenge not this or that policy of the parties but the kind of politics in which different parties broadly operate, with some differences and some similarities there. It should be realised that in major democracies where the free will of general public opinions seem to be the ulitmate thing the major parties often carry similar kind of political, economic and cultural agendas. It was once pronounced often by Leftists that different parties often carry the ruling classes' agenda even when they look likely fiercely opposing each other at political platforms. In India, the coming of T. V. and strengthening of the new middle class have created a different kind of world view in last one and half decades which want to see the whole society moving in the desired direction of this new class. Slowly and geadually this class has taken over the popular mediums in a way that often what is seen as the popular mandate is really the opinion of this new class.
Two things should be carefully thought about: What is the history and philosophy of this new class? and; Should this class be considered carriers of new forces of this society?
It is not difficult to agree that this new class is the product of globalisation, a process which can not be traced back before 1980s. This new class had evolved largely through the colonial and post colonial middle classes these classes have successfully guided this society in last hundred years or so. In a way, this new class loves to see itself as sucessor of the colonial national middle class. Whether this claim is valid or not is subject to debate on which we will come little later. At this moment let us consider whether it is justified to call middle classes as a class? Can't we say that what is perceived as middle class is a conglamaration of different classes which share many things but these groups have had so many differences as well. So, these middle classes should not be seen as a class but as social groups which represent different shades of opinions and it would be wrong to bracket all of them under the same group- middle class. The Indian experience is quite different from those of European countries as in the latter societies there had emerged industrial societies which shaped this new class- the middle class or bourgeosie somewhat in a similar fashion. In India the process of the rise and growth of middle classes have been far more complex. Here, the rise of middle class has been marred by uneven development of modern forces and the modern middle classes have always been forced to collaborate with the feuadal forces to carry forward their agenda. In pre-Independence this class had to fall back on feudal forces' support to strenghthen national movement. And, after independence, despite Nehru and Socialist endeavours the modern middle class never enjoyed the strength to challenge the feudal forces. As a result, India had had a middle class which was by orientation a modern class but by compulsion a class which could not follow modern agenda beyond a point.
The middle class’ success lies in successfully maintaining a democratic system which made it possible for the lower classes to move ahead economically and socially. The compulsion of ensuring greater numerical support to survive politically different contesting partied had to take populist measures which ultimately gave opportunities for greater democratization, at least since 1960s. The democratization threatened that section of middle class which had a liberal orientation as a large number of people started entering into institutions which controlled Indian society. The tensions, hot contestations for political spaces in different parts of India in late 60s and entire 70s brought into forefront two issues which had not been figuring very high in middle class action plans. These two factors were Hindu Muslim equation and the Caste question. Both these questions were becoming major issues of mobilizations and soon political parties started realizing that unless we take into considerations these issues the political survival would be impossible.
The new middle class came after that. The growing political tensions, opening of new forces generated by government supported liberalization measures created the possibility of the emergence of a new class which did not share the world view of old middle class. In a very short time the political elites started wearing Ray Ban glasses, Nike shoes, expensive suits, and speaking in English as if English should be the new language of Indian generation next. In a year or two there was the original India shining campaign in which India was being projected as a new emerging global power which can boast of crores of computer savy people and millions of professionals who share their dreams of Americans and so on. This new shift in the thinking of Indian middle class is a little understood development. Since then, the old Indian middle class had been in retreat.
What began as a dream in 1884 started looking like a possibility for the new middle class of India. It is interesting to note that in between the government of 1984 and 1991 came a government which can not be considered as a government of the new middle class. Still, it furthered the process initiated by the government of 1984 and when government of 1991 took the task of changing the fabric of Indian economy there was really no political challenge before them. The rivals were even more enthusiastic about the changes. Meanwhile, the fall of Socialist systems in different European countries made this new middle class even more confident.
The philosophy of this new middle class is very simple- money, money and more money. Only thing which matters is money power. The new class found ample opportunities in the form of I. T. jobs which offered them salaries which not many had even thought of a generation ago. A young man getting jobs giving him more than 2/3 lacs monthly salary was unheard of in the days of old middle class. Jolted, the old middle class tried to adjust and it also started to think that in the changed order of the world we should change and it may be possible that opening up of economy was not that bad. Now, entire India looks ready to accept the logic of globalization which is in line of capitalist growth in the entire world.
Above mentioned trajectory is perhaps only one side of picture. The other side is as follows. The old middle class had always been idealists in the sense that it believed that the world can be a better place for all. The idealism of middle class had made them the social leaders of this country. Entire country looked up to them for inspiration and lead. But, as the retreat of the idealist middle class started in 1980s and the power of money becoming more visible a new morality and axis of socio-economic and political control started emerging. Soon, new leaders, new goondas, new players in economic fields had emerged and people could see before their eyes how people were becoming millionaires with out doing anything except buying shares ! Harshad Mehtas became new icons, Dawood Ibrahims became new bosses and all this was done under the nose of and possibly in connivance of the political leaders who projected great Indian future. Since then, with all hiccups and some lows, the process of globalization had remained the guideing force for Indian politicians be it right, centre and, I am afraid, the left! It can be debated that among Narsimha Rao, Bajpeyi, Manmohan Singh and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who has internalized the logic of globalization more than others!
In today’s India people of this country are sharply divided into, at least two halves: one which wants to be part of this new world order which would give them greater financial benefits and more choices of life and ; the other which is ignorant of or in opposition to this penetration of new world capitalism into their societies. The current politics has to make a choice between these groups. The rise of popular media also a significant player as it informs and hopes to guide the popular perception. Today, it is interesting to see how media is trying to put pressure on governments to see the reason which is invariably the view of the dominant class. The media, although look like carrying all shaded of popular opinions, carry the voice of the dominant class. Take for example, two issues- the Reservation of OBCs and the signing of Nuclear Treaty with the USA. On the first, there existed both kind of view among people- for and against the reservation, but the media projected anti-OBC voices so prominently in such a way that the pro-reservations voices did not get any prominence.
Today, the Left had decided to put some check on government’s initiatives to accept a nuclear treaty with the USA. Even before their voices are heard the entire media is concluding that the Left is wrong and if elections are held the Left would lose more than one third of its strength in the Lok Sabha. The message is clear- Do not dare to pull out the support from the government which is bent on signing a nuclear treaty with the USA even without proper debate over its results. This attitude of media makes us think whether we should think in terms of issues or should we think in change of terms in which we think. Why should we give our judgement on issues which are set in terms of new class’ interests and this class is representing the aspirations of only those who are with the globalization. Can we think, before anything else, whether globalization is good for people of India or not?

Joshi ji

While thinking of our existence we tend to get confused on many fronts. It is generally prescribed among spiritualists that if we remember the inevitability of death which can came any moment your soul remains alert. Does it work ? Netra Ballabha Joshi says that the chant of a man should be 'Jab- Tab' signifying that the end may come any moment.

1857

Nationalism and Representations of an Icon in Literature in Colonial India: Rani Lakshmibai in Modern Hindi Literature

The 1857 Revolt represents the most powerful anti-colonial movements which united the peasants and the landed sections , the Hindus and the Muslims and upper caste Hindus and lower caste Hindus against the ruthless East India Company rule. It is a widely written subject as hundreds of books have been written by British historians, Indian nationalist and Marxist historians and writers on how this great revolt had rocked the British East India Company rule in 1857-58. Pradip Saxena, a leading scholar of the rebellion, claims that sources spread over more than one and half lac pages on the rebellion are known to him. In this, he excludes Government records! Even if this claim is exaggerated, there is no doubt that fairly large amount of literature available in non-English languages remains somewhat ignored by historians so far. This paper seeks to use literary evidences to prepare an account of how Lakshmi Bai, the great queen of Jhansi was represented in modern Hindi literature. This representation was not uniform and the change in perception about the queen in literature took place around 1920. Before that, Hindi writers did not write about Lakshmibai favourably. It needs to be stated at the outset that this article does not deal with history of Lakshmibai and the focus is on how her history was represented in Hindi literary sources. It helps us in understanding how despite many historical claims that her contributions have been grossly exaggerated the nationalist appeal somehow remains intact and the functional value of her historic persona remains important even after 150 years. People still get emotional with the memory of the queen and, as Mahashweta Devi has mentioned, many people in Bundelkhand believe she is still alive ! Her story, as it comes to us, is very fascinating. The journey of a humble Marathi Brahmin official’s daughter Chhabili from a little tomboyish girl of nine years to the inspiring queen of Jhansi –Lakshmibai is part of folk-lore of Bundelkhand region. Her influence was so powerful that Tapti Roy, a biographer of Lakshmibai, says that "The 400-year-old town of Jhansi still feels that it owes its fame to a young Rani who ruled for four-and-a-half years.”[ii] So fresh and powerful image of Lakshmibai is in popular memory that recently when a chief minister of Rajasthan went to unveil the statue of Lakshmibai large number of people protested as the chief minister belonged to Scindhia family which had helped the British against the queen during the rebellion.
* * *
The story of Laksmibai is a classic example of how popular perception of leaders of popular movements ultimately can be so overwhelming that the official historical versions become somewhat irrelevant. Simply speaking, we have three different versions of the story of Lakshmibai. The historical version tells us a history of Lakshmibai, a rebel who rose against the East India Company and threatened its existence first in Bundelkhand and then, by collaborating with other rebel leaders Nana Saheb and Kunwar Singh, in the North India. She died as a martyr after being defeated by the British. The other version comes to us through popular folk songs and plays of Bundelkhand which give us a heroic struggle of a queen who put up a strong resistance to save the dignity of Jhansi and to fight for independence of this country against the firangees ( foreigners). This is most fascinating area of research and historians have tried to understand how this remarkable young lady became so prominent in the popular imagination of Jhansi and other regions of Bundelkhand. The third version, the main concern of this paper, comes to us through Hindi literature. How this lady’s stories were taken up by Hindi intelligentsia and how the assessment of Lakshmibai changed in course of our national movement is discussed in this paper.
Hindi literary history tells us that Hindi emerged in a new form during the time of Bharatendu Harischandra in 1870s. A number of powerful literary personalities worked towards what is commonly referred as ‘Hindi renaissance’. This renaissance had its limitations but it can be said that primary concern of the writers associated with it was to see the progress of this country along modern lines. The writers were convinced that their duty was to arouse popular sentiments for national development. As Hindi emerged as a modern language in a post 1857 scenario the question of the writers’ attitude to 1857 is a good pointer to the ideological make up of the Hindi intelligentsia. The areas which were epi-centers of 1857 revolt could not forget the brutal suppression of all those who were seen as supporters and sympathizers of the revolt by a revengeful British government. But, the writers of this region remain silent on 1857 till 1920s. Scholars like Ramvilas Sharma, Bhagwan Das Mahore[iii], Karmendu Sishir and others have talked about the terror as the real reason of their silence. Certainly, the difficulty in talking about the revolt was a real one, but if we closely examine the writings of Hindi literature of the two important eras of Hindi literary history- Bharatendu era and Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi era we can say that mere fear factor does not explain the attitude of the Hindi intelligentsia towards 1857. It can be suggested that the writers did not appreciate the spirit of the rebels in going all out to oust British rule from Indian soil by showing a remarkable communal solidarity between the Hindus and the Muslims. To these writers 1857 was a ‘dangerous’ moment which brought bloodshed and ultimately misery to this country. It was only in 1920s that this ‘wrong moment’ became national moment.[iv] It is understandable that there is nothing on the great queen of Jhansi in Hindi literature till 1920. Before that it was not unusual to find Hindi writers using unkind words for the rebels in their journals. There are some embarrassing passages in the pages of Saraswati, the famous magazine edited by Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi, in which the queen was criticized and referred as ‘nrishansh hatyare’ ( ruthless murderers) along with Nana Saheb.[v] Even before that Sadanand Mishra, the famous editor of Sar Sudha Nidhi, had referred the rebels as sirfira (insane) and lootera ( grabbers) in 1880s.[vi]
The attitude towards 1857 changed afterwards in published literature. A leading authority on the relationship between 1857 and Hindi literature Bhagwandas Mahore observes that “ in published literature the entry point of 1857 as the struggle of independence was the mainly through the gate of Lakshmibai.”[vii] The first book on Lakshmibai was written by a Bengali writer Chandicharan Sen who wrote a fiction of about 350 pages in 1888. Its second edition came out in 1894 proved that it was received well by the readers. But, the book which truly launched the story of Lakshmibai in the Indian literary scene was the celebrated work of Dattatreya Balwant Parasnis ( 1870-1926) who wrote a book in Marathi, Jhansi Samstanchya Maharani Laksmibaisaheb Hayenchen Charitra in 1894.[viii] This became a source book of a large number of texts, both published and unpublished, on Rani of Jhansi which were in circulation in 1920s. Another Marathi book –Majha Pravas of Vishnubhat Godse ( 1827-1903), published in 1907, also narrated stories related to the heroic struggles of Laksmibai. Godse had written an eye-witness account of revolt days and he was imprisoned for a month at Jhansi during the revolt.[ix] These two books became references for many subsequent Hindi publications. Taking these accounts as historically valid descriptions writers added their imaginations to give various accounts of the life of Lakshmibai. In the next section a narrative is prepared to document how Lakshmibai was described in various Hindi writings of 1920s and thereafter. By 1895 the story of Lakshmibai had become a subject of creative imaginations of writers. Apart from the book of Parasnis, mentioned before, another play The Rani of Jhansi or the widowed queen’ written by an Englishman Alexander Rogers Westminister, came out in 1890s. This book is somewhat derogatory for the queen as she was seen luring a patriot Englishman who decided to sacrifice life rather than to get lured by blood thirsty queen Lakshmibai. This book, however, tried to show that the revolt had been a support of all nationalities of this country. When this play was published in 1890s showing Lakshmibai as a sexually driven queen out to lure an Englishman it received no protest from any quarter from Indians. But in 1930s when an English writer Phillip Cox wrote a play treating the queen similarly, nationalist raised a powerful protest against the book.Its copies were burnt and newspapers wrote against this kind of maligning writing resulted in the deletion of objectionable portions of the book and apology from its publisher.[x]
The saga of Laksmibai had undergone significant changes from time to time. In 1890s her struggle was interpreted differently by Indian and British writers but we find Lakshmibai as a queen who was victim of injustice who fought against the British with dignity and bravery. This continued in following decade also. Thakur Surya Kumar Verma wrote Maharani Lakshmi Bai ka Jivan Charit in 1909. It was based on Parasnis thesis that Lakshmi Bai was the victim of circumstances and she should be appreciated for her bravery and not for fighting against the British as a nationalist. In this book Surya Kumar mentions that as she fought against the British in the revolt which was a blemish (kala dag) in her story writers do not want to write about her. He says : “ Sipahi vidroh ke kalank ka tika unke mathe par lag jane ke karan unka jivan charit likhana mano apni dayamay British sarkar ke ram rajya ke viruddha lekhani chalakar apne sar par bhi ek kalank ka tika lagakar maha patak karna hai.”. He added that Lakshmi Bai was was the rebels due to some reasons but her bravery was to be appreciated. The view of Surya Kumar gets more clear when we consider his view expressed in his biography of another queen- Maharani Bayaji Bai Sandhia, a queen who was also ill-treated by the British but she had the wisdom to side with the British against the “ avichari vidrohi”.Surya Kumar appreciated this queen for her wisdom.
But, by 1920s the Lakshmi Bai story started getting some what different treatment. In some writings she was looked upon as a divine lady, an incarnation of various goddesses of Hindu faith and her struggle was seen as the struggle against evil forces which inspired meek Indians. A writer wrote in an important magazine in 1924 :
Bharatiya navayuvako ki jarjarit haddiyon mein khoon dalne walon mein pratah smaraniya maharani Lakshmibai hain. Angrez lekhakon nei unki kirti jyoti ko vyakta nahi kiya kyonki unhone swadesh aur swadharmartha Chandi rupa dharan karke apni bhayankar talwar ki dhar se anek yuddha pravin angrezi sena ko kai bar gajar muli ki tarah kat dala. Samay nahi beeta, sambhav hai ab bhi do char parthiv sharir dhari vidyaman hon jinhone maharani ke divya darshan kiye hon. Maharani ne sipahi vidroh mein angrezon ke viruddha apni katkari talwar kheenchi thi, wah apne liye nahi , waran Bharat mata ke karun krandan se vihwal hokar, usko dasata ke pash se mukta karne ke liye. Yeh bharat wasion ka durbhagya hai ki we Maharani ke jivan se anbhigya hain. Prabha ke pathakon aur vishesh kar navayuvakon ke liye vir ras ki murti shatru sanharini devi Chandi swarupa Lakshmibai ki nispaksha jivani di jati hai.[xi]

Prabha regularly published articles related to Lakshmibai to highlight her as an inspirational nationalist leader. It wrote :
Mansik patan aur dasata ka is se adhik ghrinopadak udaharan aur kya hoga ki Dayar ki murti ke liye Bharat wasion ki thailiyan khul pade aur bharatiya swatantrata ki murti, Bharatiya vipalva ki aadi pujarini maharani Lakshmibai ka gun gan na ho….1857 ki har ne humko british sarkar ka dasanudas bana kira-makora bana diya. Maharani ki mrity kya hui Bharat ki shri hi lupta ho gayi…. Bharatiya swatantrata ki is aawegmayi jwala ko aao ham sab milkar ek bar atyant lajja ke sath pranam karein.[xii]
Some more publications can be cited as examples of this new kind of writing. Balmukund Bajpeyi wrote a book Gora Cham Kale Kam which was published by Pratap Karyalaya, Kanpur in 1925. Since the Gadar Party’s foundation in America and publication of its organ Gadar since 1916-17 considerable literature had come out in print which considered 1857 as the first war of independence. [xiii]
One can notice that by late 1920s the attitude of writers towards the rebel leaders of 1857 had completely been changed and now these leaders were seen as national heroes. In 1928, in an article widely believed to be penned by Bhagat Singh, the Punjabis who had supported the British during the mutiny had been criticized. It was termed as a ‘betrayal’.[xiv] The respect for the sacrifices made by Lakshmibai was openly expressed and the need to work for independence of this country was termed as the real respect for the queen. An article of 1930 clearly expressed these sentiments :
Yadi we (Lakshmibai ) bharatiyon ka, apne deshwasion ka sath na dekar angrezon ki sahayata kartein to aaj koi unhein aadar ke sath smaran na karata….Unka yeh balidan ham kayaron ke hriday mein swatantrata ka bhav bhare. Jis rakchhasi pravitti ke karan unka is prakar ant hua, uska ant kar apne bharat ko swatantra karane mein unka yeh balidan hamari sahayata kare. Aur hamlog swatantra hokar unke prati aadar se mastak ooncha karein. Jab tak ham Bharat ko swatantra nahin karate, tab tak yeh sansar yehi kahega ki maharani ke balidan ka hamane uchit mulya nahi diya hai[xv].
Sundarlal’s famous history booj Bharat mein Angrezi Raj came out in 1928. This book produced a huge impact on contemporary Hindi intelligentsia. It was not an original history book and Sunderlal himself stated that his work was based on Major B. D. Basu’s works. Major Basu not only gave his permission to use his works but also saw manuscripts which Sundarlal showed him before publications. Sundarlal’s work soon became a major publication in Hindi world and it’s impact was so powerful that the British government banned it. The illegal editions of this book, however, remained in circulation among the nationalists and this was a widely respected source of history of 1857. This book gave a detailed history of the struggles of Lakshmibai. He quoted from D. B. Parasnis’s works to narrate how Laksmibai was wrongly treated by the British and how great she was but, he also quoted from English historians’ works and government papers like Jhansi papers to substantiate his story.
The first Hindi literary fiction, which dealt with 1857 situation without bothering much about the British government’s attitude, Gadar, written by Risabhcharan Jain, came out in 1932. In this novel the main protagonist is Ajimullah, dewan of Nana Saheb, who went to London to plead the case of his master. His personal experiences of witnessing the Crimean war convinced him that the real strength of British was its possession of India. In this novel Nana Saheb was depicted as a proud Maratha who fought valiantly against the British. An Englishman Charles had molested Nana Saheb’s daughter and the enraged Martha leader captured him and tore his chest and tasted his blood to fulfill his ‘pran’ (oath). This book was proscribed by the Government for obvious reasons.
Lakshmibai was theme of some plays and stories of 1920s also. But, these plays remained unpublished. These unpublished plays, however, give us a clear idea of how the queen was given a goddess like stature by writers of Bundelkhand before the mainstream Hindi writers gave her this status some years later. Ladliprasad Srivastava’s play ‘Jhansi ki Rani’ was written in 1924 and this play was proscribed by the Government before it could be published. According to Bhagwandas Mahore, who had consulted the unpublished text, in this play Lord Krishna emerged to show his respect for the great queen and took her atma (soul) with him to paradise. The queen’s surviving soldier Ghulam Khan became a faqir who spent his entire life looking after samadhi of the queen. This play was based on Parasnis’ book but these imaginative twists were added by Srivastava to pay his tribute to Lakshmibai. It was common among the folk songs and the stories narrated by the old people of Bundelkand to glorify the bravery of Lakshmibai. This could be confirmed by the most important Hindi poem, written by famous Subhadra Kumari Chauhan, which made Laksmibai a famous name among Hindi intelligentsia throughout India : “Bundele Harbolo ke humne suni kahani thi/ khoob ladi mardani wo to Jhansi wali rani thi.” About Chauhan’s poem we will discuss little later. Another play Prayschit ka phal written by Tulsidatta Shaida treated the heroes of 1857 sympathetically. In one of its three scenes, the atma of Gandhi was seen pained to ‘see’ the defeat and plight of the Indian rebels during the revolt of 1857.The Hindi literary journals started publishing one act plays, plays and poems related to 1857 since 1923. It began with Mangla Prasad Singh’s Sher Singh which was published in Prabha, a literary journal of repute, in July 1923.[xvi] Seth Govind Das’ play Siddhant Swatantrya, written in 1931, can also be considered in this tradition. This play impressed Munshi Premchand so much that he published it in his magazine in two fairly long instalments.
In late 1920s Lakshmibai had become a symbol of defiance to foreign rule and a goddess of liberty. In a major poetic tribute to Lakshmibai a poet Balkrishna Sitaram Tengshe wrote a text of five volumes in between 1925 and 1930. The division of these volumes clearly suggest the influence of Parasnis’ book on the story line but the poet had added the stories which he had learnt from his ancestors.[xvii] In this the goddess of liberty Lakshmibai said : “ Mera to kahana yeh hi hai aazad raho ya mar jao.”[xviii] Ramlal Pamdey, a teacher of Jhansi also wrote a poem in 1925 which was published in a magazine called Matribhumi.[xix]
Probably the most significant publication on Lakshmibai after Parasnis’ book was Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s book of poems Jhansi ki Rani in 1928. This book was published first from Jabalpur’s Samalochak Karyalaya. After two years, in 1930 a Delhi publisher Bharat Book Agency published this poem which turned out to be one of the best known Hindi poems of all time which seemed to have immortalized Lakshmibai as a great queen and a symbol of liberty for the entire Hindi speaking region. Written by a woman of 22 year, this poem did not add any divinity to Laksmibai and gave details of the story in minimum words summing up the mood of 1857 days. The sheer poetic force was so overwhelming that the ultimate defeat of Laksmibai became somewhat immaterial and the spirit of 1857 loomed large as the reader finished the poem. This Hindi poem summed up the spirit of folk songs popular in Bundelkhand, gave rythmatic details of war, heroic acts of all great rebel leaders- Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh and others and, gave a sense of moral victory of the rebels. To get a sense of the sheer force of a vir-rasa poetry these lines can be seen :
“Sinhasan hil uthey raajvanshon ney bhrukuti tani thi,budhey Bharat mein aayee phir se nayi jawani thi,gumee huee azadi ki keemat sabney pehchani thi, door phirangi ko karney ki sab ney man mein thani thi.Chamak uthi san sattavan mein, yeh talwar purani thi,Bundeley Harbolon key munh hamney suni kahani thi,Khoob ladi mardani woh to Jhansi wali Rani thi. This was a new kind of assessment which marks the advent of a new image of Lakshmibai as the queen of Jhansi who was fighting not for her own but for the people of Jhansi. This image was so far confined to popular songs and folk tales of Bundelkhand region. Now the literary world of Hindi was ready to accept this. We come across to many examples of poems written in 1930s along these lines. A poet Hayaran Mitra wrote : Lakshmi bai ki su smriti ka gata hoon anupam aakhyan / khoja karata hoon Durga ki pad raj pavan punya mahan.”.Another example : Dhanya dhanya Lakshmi maharani dhanya tera balidan tan man dhan nyochhavar karke rakha matribhoomi ka man.”
The most significant Hindi publication based on historical understanding of Lakshmibai came in 1946 when Vrindavan Lal Verma wrote Jhansi ki Rani Lakshmibai.Initially Verma wanted to write a book of history. Later he changed the idea and he used the materials collected for a long time for writing the novel. He writes that his grand mother had seen Lakshmi Bai fighting and she used to narrate the story of the great queen to the young Vrindavan. In this volume of 520 pages he successfully changed the image of Lakshmibai . In his narrative Lalshmi Bai was a popular leader who had consciously tried to ally with rebels to oust the foreigners from Indian soil. She was not a product of feudal culture and she was seen as a person who believed that the Britishers could be ousted by concerted efforts. She had been in close association with Nana Saheb and other rebel leaders as well as the Sanyasis and Fakirs who worked as a carrier of her ideas to her people who adored her. The plan of a nation wide revolt was secretly scheduled on 31 May . But, Mangal Pandey episode brought a premature beginning of the revolt much to the disadvantage of the rebel leaders. The army of Merrut revolted and reached to Delhi to announce Bahadurshah Zafar as the Badshah. When this news reached Jhansi army killed the Britishers who lived in Jhansi. The massacre was an act of the bagi sipahi and the queen had nothing to do with it. Lakshmi Bai had sent a letter to the British Commissioner to say that she was ruling Jhansi on behalf of the English government. But, in Verma’s narrative it was designed to dupe the British. The Britisers soon realiszed their mistake and asked for Lakshmi Bai’s surrender which the proud queen refused to accept. She was encircled by British forces but she pierced through the seize and reached Kalpi. There the feudal forces had been in the helm of affairs and she was worried that the people there were unable to realize the gravity of situation. Later, when Britishers came and Rani’s advice was sought she came forward to lead the defence. While in Kalapi she used to go to Baba Ganga Das’s cottage to discuss about the future of India. Baba advised her not to think too much about the result but to concentrate on her duties. Even if she failed she would be doing great service by becoming foundation stone (neev) of the palace of Swaraj. This inspired the queen and she decided to fight without bothering too much about the result.
This narrative was a continuation of nationalization of Lakshmibai something which Subhadra Kumari Chauhan had tried two decades ago. In this novel, full of local dialogues in which people’s appreciation to what Lakshmi Bai was doing[xx], the story of the struggle of Lakshmibai becomes the story of entire Jhansi : story of Sundar, Rashmi Bai, Bakshi, Jhalkar Bai ( a Koeri by caste), Joohi and Moti Bai ( daughters of a prostitute) all got woven together. The queen got perturbed not by the sight of war but by the destruction of the famous Jhansi library.
Since Vrindavan Lal Verma’s book which turned out to be a classic and hugely popular book the story of Lakshmi bai as a queen who was inspired by the ideals of nationalism Hindi literay world had acknowledged to the image the legends have carried for generations. The queen as a great symbol of Indian war of Independence had been decisively established . After independence a large number of books were written in Hindi which iconized the queen further.[xxi] Some of these books even claimed that the queen did not die and the orginal queen escaped to the Himalayas ! When legend meets history the former gets more prominence. Hindi literature had finally realized the need to saluate the legend of Lakshmibai carried by millions who continue to love this remarkable lady and get inspiration from it.
( For all reference list contact me at hkp27_1@hotmail.com)

Some thoughts on Indian progress in the West ; Preliminary observations

Our country is being looked upon as an emerging superpower. In India, at least, a large number of people believe that this country is going to be the site for great changes along with the China. It is being circualted among the middle classes that because of the language power this country is going to be in an advantageous position. In India a sizable number of people use English. This number, although less than 2% of the entire population, is quite big in number. Indian English using middle classes have proved themselves as most rootless elites of modern world. Most of them feel proud just to live in the western countries especially in USA. The entry of a few lakh Indian Americans with millions of dollars in this category of people called Non Resident Indians have been widely publicized as a new force in America. It is projected as a class which is gaining strength in America economically. The political elites of America no longer treat them with disdain anymore. In other countries also the Indians' image has changed from a backward country to a rapidly advancing country with huge prospects of economic prosperity. It needs to be analysed how this change is justified. It also needs to be seen how this image of powerful Indians living in America is changing the perceptions of middle classes in India. ( to continue...)