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.