Aspects of Lower Caste Hindu Mobilization and two strands of Hindu nationalism in Bihar[1]
Hitendra K. Patel

The manner in which different social groups understood and interpreted the ideology of nationalism, or visions of nation, has not been adequately researched.[2] Linked with this is the complexity involved in mobilisation if Hindus by Hindu nationalists. With the beginning of mass phase of national movement in India, Hindu nationalists had to evolve a new strategy to mobilise lower caste men to really represent the “Hindu political voice” of this country. Towards this, some leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya had advocated a policy in which the lower caste men had been welcomed as Hindus. But, this move was resented by other Hindu leaders who reiterated the continuation of old social order. To this orthodox variety of Hindu nationalists, the Congress did not represent the Hindus and this community needed a Hindu political organisation at the national level. This paper seeks to narrate the story how these two strands stood Bihar in the 1920s and the thirties.
Hindu nationalists tried to organise Hindus of the backward castes in 1920s. Scholars have argued how ideologically and strategically Hindu nationalism proposed to confront the problem of mobilising the dalit and the backward castes without whose participation the idea of a Hindu nation, consisting of all Indians who were non-Muslims, non-Christians and non- Sikhs as Hindus, would not gain the necessary legitimacy and power.[3] By 1920s the Hindu ideological campaigns had been visible in different parts of northern India. For Hindu nationalists these campaigns were part of ongoing national movement. In Bihar, these Hindu communal campaigns and mobilisational efforts were aiming to unite Hindus.[4] This required a more flexible idea of Hinduism which had been in circulation for last five decades. In the period between 1870s and 1920s Hinduism was primarily defined by the orthodox Hindus, Sanatanis, in Brahmanical terms which advocated the observance of Varnashram dharma as the essence of Hinduism. But, as this article seeks to demonstrate, to mobilise Hindus in large numbers Hindu leaders had to change their approach towards backward Hindus. In this process the old notions of real Hindus got changed and adjusted to suit the needs of mobilisational schemes of Hindu leaders.
* * *
In the writings of the Intelligentsia of Bihar one can discern three tendencies working at the same time: First, a concern for their country; second, concern for their religion; and third, a concern for the safeguarding of age-old customs and traditions. The intelligentsia of Bihar had a close relation with influential writers based in Banaras and Calcutta. Among those who had a strong influence on the writers of Bihar the most important name was Bharatendu Harischandra. For Harischandra's generation[5] there was no intrinsic contradiction between the emerging national consciousness and communal identities. [6] These writings were also respectful of varnashram dharma, which accepted the caste system as the basis of Hindu society. This complexity makes the study of national regeneration a study of social transformation and a change of consciousness as well in the nineteenth century context.
There is an interesting instance of a writing of a Hindi writer of Bihar in which the caste sabhas and their activities are criticised, as those sabhas do not respect the norms of varnashram. The writer says: “ All those people who wish well for varnashram dharma should consider only those sabhas as national sabha which respects varnashram norms, and Brahmins are present” The writer believes that the organisers of the caste sabhas were afraid of dharma and they did not have any respect for varnashrama dharma. That is why they organised their sabhas in which Brahmins are absent. Criticising the Arya Samaj the writer says that they are also following the Brahmo Samaj in criticising Hindus and thus going downhill (adhogami).[7]
We find some references to the writings in which caste system was considered an obstacle for the national progress the writing of the period 1874 and 1900 overwhelmingly thought in caste terms. Ramdeen Singh, the man behind the Khadagvilas Press, the most influential press of Bihar, started a magazine called Khatriya Patrika in 1881. In its inaugural issue he wrote : “although this has taken birth in a Kshatriya’s home the Brahmins are revered. For fellow Kshatriyas the caste religion (jati dharma) is there. Vaishyas are obviously our associates and without the Shudras the superiority of all these castes cannot be established.” [8] All Hindus were welcomed to support this magazine, but the manner in which all castes were addressed is a clear indication of how the orthodox Hindu view, supportive of caste hierarchies, were at work.
In the nineteenth century literature most of the Brahmin writers had the tendency to present history in a way that gave centrality to the Brahmin’s role in Hindu society. Pratap Narayan Mishra wrote an article Nirnay Shatak in 1892, in which he said, “The Brahmins used to take all decisions about everything. In religious and social affairs even today they take the decisions. But, since Muslim rule began (and thereafter British rule) all political decisions were taken by them not the Brahmins.”[9]
All along, however, writers emphasised the need for the attempts to unite the Hindus so that a strong and organised Hindu nation could be formed. There were some tensions in this as many of the writers were strong supporters of the varnashram dharma and the unity of the Hindus demanded the devaluation of varnashram. This desire explains why so many articles were written in different Hindi newspapers against the continuance of the varna system as a divisive force in Hindu society. But we must also pay attention to the fact that in Bihar; Sanatan dharma supporters staunchly backed the caste system and were very critical of any attempt to disturb it. That is why they were against the reformists who were facilitating the upward mobility of the lower castes by giving them the authority to wear the sacred thread. What Saran Saroj, a respectable Hindi magazine published from Saran, wrote in December 1888 gives us an idea about how strongly the Sanatan Hindus felt about the social changes taking place at that time. It write that as a result of English education and reformist propaganda the lower castes were dreaming of being at par with their higher caste counterparts. This was undesirable and it was not considered beneficial and rewarding for the lower castes. It would ultimately leave them nowhere to fall back as they would be discarded even by their own castes.[10]
We find a number of articles and letters to editors that ridiculed and opposed any kind of “upper caste-isation” of the lower castes. In one letter a writer laughs at the wishful thinking of Koris (Koeries) and Chamars (low castes) to be vipra (Brahmins) due to their association with reformists.[11]
It would be misleading, however, to say that all writers had been supporters of caste or that they were against social reforms. Hindi Pradip wrote in 1889: “Without the annihilation of the caste system we and our country will not progress with all our efforts.” Using very strong language in condemning the system that was weakening our nationalism, it added: “Oh God! What wrong had we committed that we had to take birth in this, the worst kind of society where a caste system exists.” Towards the end the writer wished that in his next birth he could be born in any place, be it the deserts of Sahara, but not in this sinning society of Bharat.[12] But, these kind of voices were very rarely expressed. In most cases, the writers were emphasising the need to unite countrymen for the progress of the country. The problem was that their countrymen rarely included the non-Hindus. Radhacharan Goswami wrote that the country’s progress, the National Congress, social reform and women’s liberation were the dearest issues for him.[13] The order in which he listed the issues was probably similar to that of most other Hindi writers of his age. He wrote that Hindu is the name of the Nation in which Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Antyaz, Chandal, Brahmo, Jains, Sikhs are all included.[14] His “all” did not include non-Hindus!
In the writings of nineteenth and early twentieth century writings of Bihar and north Indian Hindi writers there were efforts to emphasise the need of mobilising all Hindus under one head. The reference point was the nationalism of the European kind, which had proved to be so beneficial to them. A booklet[15] by Ayodhya Prasad ‘Hariaudh’ begins with these lines: “Sanatan Dharma is a very divine name. All those who are born of Hindu blood must feel proud hearing these words. Today attempts are being made to weaken and destroy this great Sanatan Dharma.”[16]He talks about the importance of our ancient texts. “Our ancestors were great people who could see the past, present and future (trikaldarshi). Now we do not have great souls like Manu or Yagyavalyakya nor are Vashistha or Vyas with us today. But, there are many great souls amongst our twenty crore strong Hindu nation who can guide us during this troubled and difficult time.”[17] Appreciating the likes of Bhagwandin, Pandit Tulsiram, Lala Lajpat Roy, Lala Hansraj for their services to the Arya Samaj he says, “These people might be great enemies of our Hindu dharma or Hindu nation but there cannot be any soul who would not appreciate their devotion to their own religion.”[18]
The regeneration of Hindus was clearly given prominence in a large number of writings of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Hindi writings. But, it should also be underlined that the terms of exposition were Brahmanical. The reforms movements, inter-caste social mixing and assertions of lower castes were frowned upon and generally looked upon as signs of degradation of great Hindu values. In Kalikal (Kaliyug) poem a poet says: “See the state of our Kaliyug/ Leaving varnashram, even the Bhangis are having ‘bhele’/ touching those people your father would have bathed/ assembling 6-7 in numbers in every village people are out to start a new religion/ These people are being treated as Brahmins by lower people- Bheel and Chamars.[19]
Even in those poems where the Congress-type reformist approach is evident in many poems, poets refrained to speak against the ideals of varnashram dharma. A poet, hailed as a “national poet”, lamented in his poem ‘Chaturvanya’ (Four Varnas): “Today the honour of Dwija has been lost and we all are like Shudras these days. The Kshatriya has lost its dharma… All Hindus should be proud of their culture. Organise yourself. Hindus would be liberated one day. On this rests the future of Hindutva.”[20]
These poems clearly reveal the Brahmanical Hindu mind of our national poet. In these poems in Bharat Bharati Maithili Sharan Gupta had taken up all issues which could be considered vital for the Congress-supporting nationalist people and the poet appealed to all concerned Hindus, Muslims, Christians, lower castes, supporters of the entry of lower castes into temples to come forward for the sake of national regeneration, but the terms of the exposition are such that the Brahmanical Hindu ideological moorings are quite clearly seen. Even the reluctance to criticise varnashram is evident. The poet was pained to see that low caste men were trying to be like their dwija (upper caste men) by wearing the sacred thread.
This continuous support for varnashram dharma is also present in the statements of the leaders of Bihar in the 1920s. The meetings organised to mobilise the Hindu masses heard speeches by Hindu leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya at the Gaya session in which varnashram dharma’s ideals were clearly accepted. Madan Mohan Malaviya was a Hindu leader who could be considered a liberal Hindu in the sense that he wanted Hindu unity, a goal which required a liberal approach towards lower caste men. Even he had to be very cautiously advocate the urgent need for Hindu unity. For him caste system was to be defended. At the Gaya session of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, he said: “Gentlemen! The Hindu nation is divided into four varnas who are assigned different duties. The Brahmins are given the job of the mind and it is their job to think and show the true path of religion to all. The Kshatriyas have been assigned the job related to force and the Vaishyas have the power of money and the Shudras are assigned the job of service to all others. All varnas are brothers and like different parts of the same body they cannot harm any other varna…There is nothing to fight about amongst us. Yet, we remain divided. We are organisationally weak. The census indicates that the number of Hindus is declining consistently. Diseases affect Hindus more. Whenever there is any natural calamity like the plague or cholera we Hindus get killed in large numbers. Muslims are poor too, but they eat well and remain fit. Whenever there is a riot the Hindus keep themselves behind closed doors. The rioters loot and we cowards allow them to do so. In this country of Hindus this is shameful. This is so because we are not united. … For us, religion should be more dear than our lives.”
Malaviya reminded the Hindus of Gaya that it is because of Hindu weakness that Hindus get killed in Malabar and elsewhere. After giving details of riots in which Hindus were killed and their women humiliated and molested he called upon the Hindu women to be strong enough to protect themselves like the Christian women of Europe. He even advocated the women should be trained to fight with guns, so that their attackers could be countered.
Up to this point he was saying what had been said for decades. But, in the 1920s the most important was the issue of Hindu unity for which lower caste men are to be mobilised. So, Malaviya also had to talk about the organisation of Hindus in every locality. He advised that Hindu organisation should meet at least once every fortnight. Even Bhangis and Chamars should be welcomed in this assembly of Hindus. He told the upper caste Hindus to be kind to the low castes as a sympathetic attitude would be sufficient to win their hearts. He did not forget however to add: “I do not say that the differences of marriage relations and food habits be removed. If the Brahmins are offered the high seats in the assembly then the Raidases ( people belonging to Chamar caste) should be allowed to sit below. But allow them to come and attend the meeting of the Hindus.” How he was conscious of maintaining the ideals of varnashram dharma can be understood by his narrating a story.
He said: “There is a story in the Puranas that once a king was passing through a village when he saw that a katha, a religious one, was taking place in a house of Ahirs. The Ahirs requested the king to come and attend the katha and offered him the Prasad ( offering). The king did not accept the Ahirs’ prasad and returned. When he reached his home he found that all his sons had fallen sick. The moral of the story (according to Malaviya) was that the devotees of God must not be disrespected.” During the entire speech he was passionately advocating the unity of Hindus but without disturbing the ideals of varnashram dharma.[21]
The ideals of varnashram dharma and the regeneration of Hindus were two important motifs of the speech delivered by Darbahnga Maharaj, another well known leader of Hindu nationalists. He delivered a lecture on 10 January 1923 in Bombay on the theme: ‘The ways for the development of Sanatan dharma’. He said: “Let us think over the issue which is becoming a life and death question for the Hindu nation. As I can see it, resolving this issue is the crux of our problem. That crucial question is the question of our varnashram dharma and our social organisation.”[22] He declared that, “If a Hindu gets the highest post by losing Hindutva he deserves no respect from me.” Elaborating on his views he added that Western education and influences had adversely affected the social organisations of the Hindus.
In this age, which he describes as “the age of commercialisation”, if the Hindus did not try hard, their Hindu nation and Hindutva would be in grave danger. To defend the ‘national individuality’ (used in the text) he advocated respect for language, dress and feeling (‘bhasha’, ‘bhesh’ and ‘bhav’). He added, “To those people who believe that varnashram dharma and the caste system are hurdles in the path of the progress of national consciousness, I want to say that if we progress in commerce and political fields by ignoring our national (here implying caste) identities that progress would not be the progress of Hindu Bharat.”[23] He advocated the formation of a Defence Association of Hindus (“along the lines of the Salvation Army of the Christians”), which he called “the fauj (soldiers) of Sanatan dharma”. In this army of Sanatan dharma he wanted millions of sanyasis, who could not fight without leadership. Through these types of Sanatan dharma sevaks he hoped the country would progress. He also mentioned that there was a need to educate young boys for which there were no real arrangements, to instruct them on their history through education.[24] He called for young people to join the army of the Sanatan dharma Sena. He also wished to see a close collaboration between all Sanatan dharma organisations including Bharat Dharma Mahamandal. All these Sanatan dharma organisations were urged to elect only Sanatan dharma followers in any election.[25]
Here, one can clearly see that there was a sharp difference between the approaches of Malaviya and that of the Maharaja. The former had realised that the need of the hour was to accommodate the lower caste men in Hindu mobilisational schemes whereas the Maharaja had been following the old path.
Since the late nineteenth century, Sanatan dharma supporters had taken the reformist efforts of the Arya Samaj and other organisations as threats to weaken the Hindu unity. When Malaviya kind of approach came it was also taken as a wrong path. To the votaries of old varnasharmi supporters there was no need to change their attitude towards the lower caste men. We find the continuation of this kind of attittude of the Sanatan dharma supporters was common in mid 1920s also. At times, the Sanatanis took the Malaviya approach as a degradation. The Sanatani magazines were particularly severe at the Arya Samaj for bringing disorder into Hindu society. Criticising the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj, Priyajan Sankhyatirtha wrote some extremely damaging pieces in Sanatan Dharma Pataka in 1926. The attitude of the Sanatan dharma supporters can be understood by studying their criticism of even Hindu leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya whom they considered akin to the Arya Samajis in their reformist attitudes. In Chhapra there was a shashtrartha (discourse) between the Sanatan dharma supporter, Pandit Kaluram Shastri, and the Hindu Sabha leader Babu Chandrika Prasad. Pandit Kaluram Shastri was furious to see that his opponent was citing ancient religious texts to prove that one could mix with the Shudras for the broader solidarity of Hindus. While he was not against the development of the Shudras he could not accept the ideals of Hindu dharma, which he equated with varnashram dharma being violated. He quoted extensively from Parashar Smriti to say that: “If a dwija take water from a chandal (untouchable) he should vomit the entire intake to be pure. He should do praysachit.”[26] He also quoted Manusmriti to say this: “Chandals should be allowed to live out of the village and they should be allowed to possess as wealth dogs and donkeys only. Their clothes would be the left over of the dead or the old ones. During the time of any religious occasion do not see, talk or interact with them at all. They should interact and marry among equals. They must not wander at night in village or cities.”[27]
Any review of the Hindi papers and magazines of the 1920s reveals that faith in varnashram dharma was strongly asserted by writers. Faith in the greatness of the Brahmins was asserted. The anti-Brahmin speeches of the Arya Samajis were criticised. In Madhuri of 1927 Ramsevak Tripathi counters the accusations against Brahmins made by Santaram of the Jat Pat Torak Mandal in Lahore. He says, “ They (Brahmins) have always kept themselves engaged with knowledge selflessly. They have never bowed before the Muslims. Brahmins have given power to Kshatriyas and commercial power to Baniyas. These days we all are blindly following the West.”[28]
The appeal of varnashram dharma did not lose its appeal even in the writings of such reputed authors like Shivapujan Sahay. He wrote an article ‘Siksha Paddhati aur Sanatan Dharma’ (Education System and the Sanatan Dharma) in which he advocated the teaching of history in a proper manner, in which the greatness of Hindus, Sanatani Hindus, comes through. He observes: “These days the kind of education given to students is so poisonous that it kills the deeply imbibed and rooted ancient, sacred Hindu sanskara in their hearts. They forget the greatness of their forefathers. They take no pride in the greatness of their great ancient civilisation. They do not know how many jewels our civilisation has produced. They do not know how developed we Hindus were centuries ago.”[29]
Deeply suspicious of the content of the histories taught in educational institutions he
says: “In the name of history what is being taught to them is not fit to be called history at all. That is a curse (kalank) in the name of the Hindu nation (jati). That informs us that Hindu civilisation is merely a two or two-and-half thousand-year old civilisation. It tells us that we are not the original inhabitants of this country. We came from outside… Can this kind of history give any pride in history to the students who study it?”[30] About varnashram he says: “About varnashram what is taught is condemnable and ignoble. Students learn that varnashram never existed. As the Aryas were not civilised their necessities were minimal. As their requirements grew they started doing things which were required for their convenience. … As a result those who did the work of priests became Brahmins, those who were militant became Kshatriyas and the traders became Vaishyas and the servants became Shudras. This is how society got organised and the Aryas became civilised.” To Shivapujan Sahay this was all illogical, absurd and wild imagination.
Shivapujan Sahay wanted Hindu boys to be taught the history of their civilisation in such a way that they could feel proud of their history. He says: “ If Hindu boys learn history the way Muslim boys learn their history, that their ancestors had established rule by conquest and by force of their military strength they would not have remained so pale (nistej). When the history of the Muslim and British period is taught the version of only one side is taught. Hindus are depicted in a poor light and as objects of ridicule. If they had been taught that their ancestors had fought so bravely for the pride of their religion then the Sanatan dharma would not have fallen into such difficult days as it has today. Unless the polluted education system is not rectified, its destructive impact will not stop working on the minds of Hindu boys. The faith in Sanatan Dharma cannot be restored without this.”[31] In conclusion, Shivapujan Sahay said that students should be taught the stories of the Vedic and Puranic ages and the stories of the great heroes of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Unless the stories of great heroes like God Ram, Krishna, Bhishma, Arjun, Pratap, Shivaji, Ramtirtha, Vivekanand and the great heroines like Sita, Rukmini, Savitri, Damayanti, Anusuyya and Mirabai were not taught to Hindu students they would not get to know how great their Sanatan Hindu civilisation was.[32] These ideas actually led him to write stories like ‘Mundamal’ in which the greatness of a Rajput lady and the bravery of a Rajput king are dramatically narrated.[33]
Shivapujan Sahay was not alone in preaching this faith on the virtues of Sanatan dharma that was being polluted by modern education. The Sanatan Dharma ideals can be seen as dominant in the ideas of many contemporary writers.[34] The most striking names in this category would include Ishwari Prasad Sharma who had edited three important journals—Manoranjan, Lakshmi and Hindu Punch between 1912 and 1927.

The biggest obstacle in the path of Hindu organisational unity at this stage was the conflict between the traditional orthodox Sanatanis and reformists like the Arya Samajis. Hardcore Sanatanis were so hostile to any change in their rituals and social practices that they were more critical of the Arya Samajis than of the Muslims. When they discovered that the Hindu Sabha was also supporting some reformist demands they became very critical of the Sabha as well. The debate over the status of untouchables must have disheartened Hindu Sabha leaders.
They wished to see the untouchables and lower castes of Bihar coming to their meetings whereas for the Sanatan dharma supporters it was anti-religion. The organ of Sanatan dharma supporters had consistently opposed the reformist inclination of the Hindu leaders. As they saw in the activities of Hindu Sabha shades of the Arya Samaj they described the Hindu Sabha as ‘virtually Arya Sabha.’[35] The main objections of the Sanatan supporters were that the Hindu Sabha did not respect varnashram dharma, the backbone of the Hindu religion. For Sanatan dharma leaders the battle lines were very clear. They considered Congress leaders, including Gandhi, as people who were bent on weakening the solidarity of the Hindu Samaj by weakening the social organisation of Hindu society. They also condemned Madan Mohan Malaviya for his inclination to be open to both sides, Gandhi and Darbhanga Maharaj.
To be able to make a compromise between these two was for them an attempt to make the North Pole meet the South Pole.[36] In a write-up that sums up the approach of the Sanatan dharma supporters we find these words: “Some cynical reformists have made Malaviya agreeable to some anti-religion proposals. First the Arya Samajis have organised a party by provoking the Christians and the untouchables. Now, the Hindu Sabhaites are out to create permanent tension between the Sanatanis and the untouchables by raising some unavoidable issues.”[37] The differences between the approaches of the Sanatanis and the Hindu Sabhaites are clearer in the shashtrartha (discourses) held at Chhapra between Babu Chandrika Prasad of the Hindu Sabha and Pandit Kaluram Shastri of the Sanatan Dharma.[38] This debate clearly demonstrates how any type of mixing with the untouchables was unacceptable to the Sanatanis, whereas the Hindu Sabha had been advocating the inclusion of Dom-Mehtars into the fold of Hindu jati for the solidarity of Hindus. Kaluram Shastri quotes ancient Hindu texts to say this: “Brahmanees ke sath Shudra ke sansarg se jo santan hoti hai uska nam chandal hai. Wah lohe ke aur sheeshe ke zevar pahine , gale mein baddhi bandhe, kankh mein peti rakhe din ke poorvardha mein nagar ka mal (pakhana) saf kar de uttarardha mein phir nagar mein na jaye ye ikatthe hokar nagar ke bahar rahein. Aisa na karein to dandaneeya hain.”[39]He also quotes from Parashar Smriti, in which it is said: “Yadi chandal ka darshan ho jaye to Surya ka avalokan karo aur yadi chandal ka sparsha ho jawe to pahire hue vastron ko dhowo aur snan karo. Yeh dharma shashtra ki aagya hai.”[40] When countered strongly by Babu Chandrika Prasad who quoted ancient texts in support of receiving water and food from the homes of Shudras, Pandit says: “Aap itna bhi nahin jante ki shudron ke sath Hindu jati ka kya vyawahar hai. Sat shudra, asat shudra, antyaj, chandal, swapach shudron mein paanch bhed hain. Shastra mein pancon ke sath prithak prithak vyawahar hai. Hum sat shudron ka pani bhi peete hain aur unka anna bhi le sakte hain.wahan shudron ka vivid nahin hai kewal chandal aur swapachon ka hai.”[41]
This debate summed up the situation for modern Hindu nationalists like Malaviya who had been conscious of the need to widen the scope for Hindu national mobilisation. To his discomfort, the old Sanatanis had not waken up to the new realities which demanded a new approach to bring in the lower caste support.

[1] I am grateful to Majid Siddiqi and Rajsekhar Basu for their comments.
[2] Adapa Satyanarayana, ‘Nation, Caste and the Past: Articulation of Dalit-Bahujan Identity, Consciousness and Ideology’ (Sectional President’s Address), Proceedings of the Indian History Congressi, 65th Session, Bareilly, Delhi, 2005, p. 420.
[3] For a very persuasive article forwarding this view see Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Caste, Culture and Hegemony
(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004), pp. 192-95.
[4] To get an idea of Hindu political mobilization in Bihar see Hitendra K. Patel, ‘Aspects of Hindu Mobilisation in Modern Bihar’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 65th Session, Bareilly ( Delhi: Indian History Congress, 2005), pp.798-824.
[5] Bharatendu Harishcandra (1850-1884); the greatest writer of nineteenth century Hindi literature who acquired iconic status as a renaissance man and ‘father of modern Hindi’ among Hindi writers from Rajasthan to Calcutta; by lineage linked with great trading family of Jagat Seth who spent all his financial and intellectual resources for the promotion of Hindi; had very good contact with Rajendra Lal Mitra, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, Bankimchandra Chatterjee and other leading Bengali writers; besides writing great masterpieces, editing leading literary journals and promoting a number of young Hindi writers he also tried to raise public issues like the question of swadeshi, drain of wealth, use of Hindi as official language, cow-protection etc.; Ballia speech delivered in the last phase of his career is hailed as one of the most significant speeches of the nineteenth century writers. The period between 1874, when he started his famous paper Kavi Vachan Sudha (Banaras), and 1884, the year of his death, is referred as Bharatendu ‘yug’ (era). In Hindi literary history the period up to 1900 is referred as Bharatendu era.

[6] Sudhir Chandra, ‘Communal Elements in Late Nineteenth Century Hindi Literature, Occasional Paper XV’, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.
[7] Saran Saroj, June, 1888.
[8] Kshatriya Pataka, Bankipur, Patna, editorial, 1881, p.31.
[9] Brahman, February 1892.
[10] Saran Saroj, December 1888, pp.5-7.
[11] Saran Saroj, June 1889.
[12] This remarkably radical piece appeared in Hindi Pradip, April 1889.
[13] Radhacharan Goswami, Radhacharan Goswami ki Chuni Hui Rachnayein, Karmendu Shishir (Allahabad: Parimal Prakashan, 1990), p.24.
[14] Bharatendu, 1 March, April, May, June, 1891.
[15] Hariaudh wrote a booklet in support of Sanatan dharma. The title and year of publication is not given in the brittle copy which was consulted at National Library, Calcutta. In the text there is a mention that this booklet was written on the sixtieth year of Annie Besant which means the year of publication should be 1907. (Annie Besant was born in 1847).
[16] Ibid, page number is not clear.
[17] Ibid, p. 20.
[18] Ibid, p. 21.
[19] “ See how Kaliyug has changed people as people are ignoring the norms of varnashram dharma . Bhangis are having good time. Your fathers would have had bathe after those people (Bhangis). Very few people come together and dare to start a new religion.” See, Sanatan Dharma Pataka, 1926, p.34.
[20] ‘Shakti Sanchay’ (poem).of Maithilisharan Gupta in Hindu, 1987(1912),p.174,

[21] See the reproduction of his speech’s in Brahman Sarvaswa, January 1923. This meeting was held at Gaya during the annual Congress conference. It was delivered on 30 December 1922.
[22] This speech was reproduced in the different Indian newspapers. For a complete text of his speech see ‘Sanatandharmoddhar ka upay’ in Brahman Sarvaswa, January 1923, pp.58-63.
[23] To get the real feel of his speech it is imperative to read his speech in the language he delivered it. On this point he remarks: “By merging ourselves with other nations and religions we can gain much. But, we should try to progress along the path of Sanatan dharma. Only that can be considered the real progress.”
[24] On this point he says: “If any body or any nation has done something extraordinary it is only due to his religion. Remember the jehad of seventh century byMuslims, crusades in the eleventh century by Europeans and the religious movement of sixteenth century Germany. These are burning examples how religion can inspire even ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things.] ”
[25] This obviously is a remarkable summary of the approach of a leading person of Bihar who was a revered and acknowledged supporter of nationalism and the Hindu cause throughout Bihar.
[26] Sanatan Dharma Pataka, year 26, No.9, p.11.
[27] Ibid, p.13.
[28] Madhuri, year 6, khand 1, Sankhya 1, p.164.
[29] Shivapujan Sahay, Bharat Mitra, 9 July 1925,Calcutta.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] In this story the newly-wed king is so fond of his new bride that he goes to the battlefield with a divided mind. Sensing her husband’s weakness of the brave queen cuts her own head and sends it to the beloved husband as a mark of their togetherness even in death. Dividing her blood-filled long hair into two halves the king hangs her head on his neck like a garland and moves ahead to the battlefield. This story was taught in the schools of Bihar for many years.
[34] To appreciate the kind of ideas some of the writers followed one can see the life sketches of the prominent writers in Hindi Sahitya aur Bihar Vols. II, III and IV.
[35] For an article of Sanatan Dharma Pataka see its issue of 1926, No 2, pp.27-34.
[36] Ibid., p.29.
[37] Ibid., p.31.
[38] See Sanatan Dharma Pataka, 1926, No. 9.
[39] Ibid, p.8.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid, p. 10.

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