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.
Monday 3 September 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
Kunwar Singh had always been a hero for the people of Shahabad district where he had led an unsuccessful but heroic struggle against the British for more than a year. After his natural death his illustrious brother carried on the struggle and troubled the British somewhat like Tantia Tope. His military strategy and mobilisational efforts had been appreciated even by Engels.[5] Kunwar Singh’s novelty lies not only in military campaigns which had some successes also, but also in bringing people into the movement by systematic campaigns, military marches to the North and Central India, various efforts to keep his people happy with his rule and overall keeping the popular sentiments with his campaign. He was an old man when he decided to take the risk of going against the British and like Lakshmi Bai once decided he was all for the revolt with all his power. He was not a very powerful Raja as is generally believed. He was technically a Maharaj Kumar who worked under the Raja of Dumraon. With little resources but with great popularity he struggled against the British. His popularity can be gauged by Rajani Kanta Gupta’s observation made in 1880s when it was virtually impossible to praise rebel leaders. He wrote that whatever people say about the ‘Kanwar Singh’ ( Kunwar Singh) he was worshipped by the people of Bihar even after decades for his good deeds.[6] Nagendra Nath Gupta, who lived in the area Kunwar Singh came from, wrote a novel on Amar Singh in 1897 in Bengali which was translated by a famous Hindi writer into Hindi and later published by the most important Hindi press of India ,Khadagvilas Press in 1907. This book gives us some interesting insights into the time and its memory. It confirms that for Nagendra Nath Gupta had tried to project Kunwar Singh and his brother as patriotic and popular figures who had been betrayed by lowly born traitors.
In fact, it would not be wrong to say that for Hindi writers who mostly came from upper caste backgrounds the revolt of 1857 was a wrong moment in which many ill advised people unreasonably revolted and brought misery for the countrymen.[7] Brajnanadan Sahay, leading Hindi writer of Bihar, wrote a ‘ullala’ on 20 June 1997 saying that “Hind anand apar hai” ( the country is full of happiness). Mahant Baba Sumer Singh compared Queen Victoria with satis ( revered women) like Draupadi, Kunti, Anusuyya and others. Kamalanand Singh ‘Saroj’ wrote ‘Shri Edward Battisi’ in 1902. These kind of eulogistic poems were written with the sincere belief that the British rule was good for India’s progress. Bihar Bandhu, leading newspaper of Bihar summed up this attitude well when it wrote that the British took the responsibility of ruling India on sympathetic grounds as this country was in extremely bad shape.[8] It is important here to note that not all were so insensitive to the heroes of 1857. We find evidences of poems composed in Bhojpuri which saw the heroes like Kunwar Singh very differently from the Hindi intelligentsia. In this context, Tofa Rai’s ‘Kunwar Pachasa’ can be cited which was a collection of poems in Bhojpuri.[9] Radhavallabh Joshi wrote ‘Vipraballabh’ which was sympathetic to the heroes of 1857.[10] But, these should be considered exceptions.
Scholars have laboured hard to explain why the writers did not want to refer to 1857. Most of them refer to the fear of Government as the primary reason why writers , inspite of keeping sympathy for the rebels in their hearts, feared to speak about them in open. Once the mass movement began in Gandhian phase these writers started speaking for the revolt.[11] This does not seem an adequate explanation as we find quite unnecessary criticisms of the revolt and its leaders in the writings of some of the leading writers of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One can see references of this kind in the writings of Sadanand Mishra, Radhacharan Goswami, Premghan, Shivanandan Sahay, Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi, Braj Ratna Das and others. Gyan Pandey , a historian, gives us a far more convincing reason for their approach by saying that, in the nineteenth century context it was a dangerous moment when ‘order’, ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’, three most important concerns of the Hindi intelligentsia were threatened.[12] This becomes obvious when we review the socio-cultural and political ideas of the intelligentsia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Bihar. Seeing extensive literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in which the writers were tried to strengthen forces of a social order which had been anti-Muslim and believers in Varnashram dharma ideals.[13] For most of them, Muslim rule was a dark phase of Indian history and the coming of the British replacing the barbaric Muslims had been a welcome change. For these writers 1857 could not have inspired much as this was based on Hindu-Muslim unity and there was hardly anything in its progress in different parts of Northern India that might have given the orthodox writers the feeling that caste ideals were not disturbed. Badrinarayan tells us that “in folk culture the Revolt of 1857 is not described as a struggle of caste, religion or specific class. In the popular perception, it is imprinted as a war of liberation from foreign oppression, and humiliation. The communal and caste harmony was much evident in this struggle.”[14] He gives us a list of leaders who are repeatedly referred to in Bhojpuri folk literature as heroes of 1857 which include names like Ranjit Yadav, Zulfikar, Maiku Mallah, Dharman bi, Ibrahim Khan, Lakhiya ( a lower caste woman), Rajjab Ali and Miyan Khan. Songs of chivalry of many Muslim and lower caste heroes are quite common in the folklores. One may find Panwara (chivalry songs) of Zulfikar Khan, Ibrahim Khan, Rajab Khan, Umed Ali in Bhojpuri folklores. Even today, the folklore about Khudabaksh and Ghaus Khan (the supporters of Lakshmi Bai) are sung with respect. Badrinarayan adds : “ In the folklore of Bundelkhand many narratives describing the brave deeds of Jhalkhari Bai, a lower caste woman, are available. Further, a deep influence of this Revolt is observed in the lower caste popular cultural forms of Dhobi, Kumhar, Luhar, etc. Historical narratives of 1857 reveal that lower castes in the Bhojpur region were no less involved in this war of independence. There is a popular Dhobi Geet (song), in this region.”[15] This kind of list of heroes in which Yadav, Mallah, Khan, Lakhia would have been just too much for Hindi writers whose list include hardly any name beyond Dwija names in the period of our discussion.[16]
Two very important sources for the history of the intelligentsia of Bihar in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries- Bihar Darpan and ------ also do not give any details of anybody among educated people who had dared to say anything about the revolt days. Perhaps the most significant pointer towards this is the example of Babu Ramdin Singh, a proud Rajput who wanted to arouse feeling of pride among the Kshatriya ( Rajputs). He had brought out a magazine Kshatriya Patrika which highlighted glorious history of the Kshatriyas. Had he nourished any sympathy for Kunwar Singh and his struggle he would have had referred to him or at least had enlisted his name among the Rajput greats of Bihar. He did not do that.
The Yugantar Party organs and the Ghadar Party publications made rebel leaders like Lakshmi Bai and Nana Saheb very popular among its leaders but Kunwar Singh could not get adequate attention. But, in Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s book he was given some importance. By the early 1920s Kunwar Singh was known as a rebel leader who led the people of Jagdishpur against the British. But, the subsequent iconization in Hindi literature and writings made him a Bihari icon comparable to Jhansi ki Rani of Lakshmi Bai.
In 1920 there was no book available in Hindi which can be considered history of 1857. A publisher of Calcutta, then the most important centre of Hindi publications, lamented over this and he gave the assignment of writing a book on the history of 1857 on a prolific writer from Arrah, Bihar, Ishwari Prasad Singh. Before Ishwari Prasad Sharma could complete his history book on 1857 two other books on 1857 history came out from Calcutta. Of these early books on 1857 we find a clear indication that these writers had not tried to relate their interpretations with those of the Ghadar Party. Rather the main source of their information had been the five volumes of Rajani Kanta Gupta who himself based his descriptions on the English writers although in a different language. This attitude towards 1857, however, started changing in the late twenties with the publications of articles in Prabha, Chand ka Phansi Ank, Hindu Punch ka Balidan Ank, Pandit Sundarlal’s history of India and the book of poem on Lakshmi Bai by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan. In the thirties came Risabhachandra Jain’s novel Ghadar which boldly defended the rebel leaders.
In Bihar, similar trends can be noticed. Like the iconization of Lakshmi Bai we find the iconization of Kunwar Singh. As Lakshmi Bai turned out to be a symbol of the pride of Bundelkhand in general and Jhansi in particular, Kunwar Singh was depicted as a symbol of pride of Bihar in general and Arrah in particular. The similarities are too obvious to be ignored. One can see the poem written on Kunwar Singh by a respectable poet Manoranjan Prasad of Dumraon who was the principal of Rajendra College:
“Tha boodha par veer bankura Kunwar Singh mardana tha,
Masti kithi chhidi ragini , aazadi ka gana tha,
Bharat ke kone kone mein, hota yehi tarana tha,
Udhar khadi thi Lakshmibai, aur peshwa Nana tha,
Idhar Bihari Bankura, khada hua mastana tha.
Assi barson ki haddi mein jaga josh purana tha
Sab kahte hain Kunwar Singh bhi, bada veer mardana tha.”
Directly taking the inspiration from the poem of Subhadra Kumari Chauhan this poem contains these lines:
“Khaul uthi san sattavan mein sabka khoon purana tha,
sab kahte hain Kunwar Singh bhi bada veer mardana tha,
Bangale ke Barrackpore mein, aag droh ki sulgai,
Lapte uski uthi zor se, Dilli aur Merrut dhai,
Kashi uthi
[1] I have dealt with this question elsewhere. See
[2] Shailendra Dhari Singh, Novels on the Indian Mutiny (New Delhi: Arnold Heineman India, 1973), p. 73.
[3] I have tried to argue this elsewhere. See Hitendra K. Patel, "Aspects of Nationalist Response to 1857 in the Early Twentieth Century," Modern Historical Studies (Calcutta) 4 (March 2007).
[4] Badri Narayan, Ibid.
[5]
[6] See his ------------
[7] I have discussed the Hindi intelligentsia response in details elsewhere. See
[8] Ibid. , p. 261.
[9] Ibid. , p. 281.
[10] Radhavallabh Joshi was born in 1831 and died in 1901.
[11] Ramvilas Sharma, Bhagwan Das Mahore and others have maintained this view.
[12] Gyanendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, Delhi: OUP, 1992, p.117.
[13] I have dealt with this aspect in detail in ‘Communalism and the Intelligentsia in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Bihar’ ( PhD thesis, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 2006).
[14] Badri Narayan, Popular Culture and 1857: A Memory Against Forgetting, Social Scientist. v 26, no. 296-99 (January-April 1998), p. 89.
[15] Badri Narayan, op. cit., pp. 89-90.
[16] See
A movement of dissent should challenge not this or that policy of the parties but the kind of politics in which different parties broadly operate, with some differences and some similarities there. It should be realised that in major democracies where the free will of general public opinions seem to be the ulitmate thing the major parties often carry similar kind of political, economic and cultural agendas. It was once pronounced often by Leftists that different parties often carry the ruling classes' agenda even when they look likely fiercely opposing each other at political platforms. In India, the coming of T. V. and strengthening of the new middle class have created a different kind of world view in last one and half decades which want to see the whole society moving in the desired direction of this new class. Slowly and geadually this class has taken over the popular mediums in a way that often what is seen as the popular mandate is really the opinion of this new class.
Two things should be carefully thought about: What is the history and philosophy of this new class? and; Should this class be considered carriers of new forces of this society?
It is not difficult to agree that this new class is the product of globalisation, a process which can not be traced back before 1980s. This new class had evolved largely through the colonial and post colonial middle classes these classes have successfully guided this society in last hundred years or so. In a way, this new class loves to see itself as sucessor of the colonial national middle class. Whether this claim is valid or not is subject to debate on which we will come little later. At this moment let us consider whether it is justified to call middle classes as a class? Can't we say that what is perceived as middle class is a conglamaration of different classes which share many things but these groups have had so many differences as well. So, these middle classes should not be seen as a class but as social groups which represent different shades of opinions and it would be wrong to bracket all of them under the same group- middle class. The Indian experience is quite different from those of European countries as in the latter societies there had emerged industrial societies which shaped this new class- the middle class or bourgeosie somewhat in a similar fashion. In India the process of the rise and growth of middle classes have been far more complex. Here, the rise of middle class has been marred by uneven development of modern forces and the modern middle classes have always been forced to collaborate with the feuadal forces to carry forward their agenda. In pre-Independence this class had to fall back on feudal forces' support to strenghthen national movement. And, after independence, despite Nehru and Socialist endeavours the modern middle class never enjoyed the strength to challenge the feudal forces. As a result, India had had a middle class which was by orientation a modern class but by compulsion a class which could not follow modern agenda beyond a point.
The middle class’ success lies in successfully maintaining a democratic system which made it possible for the lower classes to move ahead economically and socially. The compulsion of ensuring greater numerical support to survive politically different contesting partied had to take populist measures which ultimately gave opportunities for greater democratization, at least since 1960s. The democratization threatened that section of middle class which had a liberal orientation as a large number of people started entering into institutions which controlled Indian society. The tensions, hot contestations for political spaces in different parts of India in late 60s and entire 70s brought into forefront two issues which had not been figuring very high in middle class action plans. These two factors were Hindu Muslim equation and the Caste question. Both these questions were becoming major issues of mobilizations and soon political parties started realizing that unless we take into considerations these issues the political survival would be impossible.
The new middle class came after that. The growing political tensions, opening of new forces generated by government supported liberalization measures created the possibility of the emergence of a new class which did not share the world view of old middle class. In a very short time the political elites started wearing Ray Ban glasses, Nike shoes, expensive suits, and speaking in English as if English should be the new language of Indian generation next. In a year or two there was the original India shining campaign in which India was being projected as a new emerging global power which can boast of crores of computer savy people and millions of professionals who share their dreams of Americans and so on. This new shift in the thinking of Indian middle class is a little understood development. Since then, the old Indian middle class had been in retreat.
What began as a dream in 1884 started looking like a possibility for the new middle class of India. It is interesting to note that in between the government of 1984 and 1991 came a government which can not be considered as a government of the new middle class. Still, it furthered the process initiated by the government of 1984 and when government of 1991 took the task of changing the fabric of Indian economy there was really no political challenge before them. The rivals were even more enthusiastic about the changes. Meanwhile, the fall of Socialist systems in different European countries made this new middle class even more confident.
The philosophy of this new middle class is very simple- money, money and more money. Only thing which matters is money power. The new class found ample opportunities in the form of I. T. jobs which offered them salaries which not many had even thought of a generation ago. A young man getting jobs giving him more than 2/3 lacs monthly salary was unheard of in the days of old middle class. Jolted, the old middle class tried to adjust and it also started to think that in the changed order of the world we should change and it may be possible that opening up of economy was not that bad. Now, entire India looks ready to accept the logic of globalization which is in line of capitalist growth in the entire world.
Above mentioned trajectory is perhaps only one side of picture. The other side is as follows. The old middle class had always been idealists in the sense that it believed that the world can be a better place for all. The idealism of middle class had made them the social leaders of this country. Entire country looked up to them for inspiration and lead. But, as the retreat of the idealist middle class started in 1980s and the power of money becoming more visible a new morality and axis of socio-economic and political control started emerging. Soon, new leaders, new goondas, new players in economic fields had emerged and people could see before their eyes how people were becoming millionaires with out doing anything except buying shares ! Harshad Mehtas became new icons, Dawood Ibrahims became new bosses and all this was done under the nose of and possibly in connivance of the political leaders who projected great Indian future. Since then, with all hiccups and some lows, the process of globalization had remained the guideing force for Indian politicians be it right, centre and, I am afraid, the left! It can be debated that among Narsimha Rao, Bajpeyi, Manmohan Singh and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who has internalized the logic of globalization more than others!
In today’s India people of this country are sharply divided into, at least two halves: one which wants to be part of this new world order which would give them greater financial benefits and more choices of life and ; the other which is ignorant of or in opposition to this penetration of new world capitalism into their societies. The current politics has to make a choice between these groups. The rise of popular media also a significant player as it informs and hopes to guide the popular perception. Today, it is interesting to see how media is trying to put pressure on governments to see the reason which is invariably the view of the dominant class. The media, although look like carrying all shaded of popular opinions, carry the voice of the dominant class. Take for example, two issues- the Reservation of OBCs and the signing of Nuclear Treaty with the USA. On the first, there existed both kind of view among people- for and against the reservation, but the media projected anti-OBC voices so prominently in such a way that the pro-reservations voices did not get any prominence.
Today, the Left had decided to put some check on government’s initiatives to accept a nuclear treaty with the USA. Even before their voices are heard the entire media is concluding that the Left is wrong and if elections are held the Left would lose more than one third of its strength in the Lok Sabha. The message is clear- Do not dare to pull out the support from the government which is bent on signing a nuclear treaty with the USA even without proper debate over its results. This attitude of media makes us think whether we should think in terms of issues or should we think in change of terms in which we think. Why should we give our judgement on issues which are set in terms of new class’ interests and this class is representing the aspirations of only those who are with the globalization. Can we think, before anything else, whether globalization is good for people of India or not?
Two things should be carefully thought about: What is the history and philosophy of this new class? and; Should this class be considered carriers of new forces of this society?
It is not difficult to agree that this new class is the product of globalisation, a process which can not be traced back before 1980s. This new class had evolved largely through the colonial and post colonial middle classes these classes have successfully guided this society in last hundred years or so. In a way, this new class loves to see itself as sucessor of the colonial national middle class. Whether this claim is valid or not is subject to debate on which we will come little later. At this moment let us consider whether it is justified to call middle classes as a class? Can't we say that what is perceived as middle class is a conglamaration of different classes which share many things but these groups have had so many differences as well. So, these middle classes should not be seen as a class but as social groups which represent different shades of opinions and it would be wrong to bracket all of them under the same group- middle class. The Indian experience is quite different from those of European countries as in the latter societies there had emerged industrial societies which shaped this new class- the middle class or bourgeosie somewhat in a similar fashion. In India the process of the rise and growth of middle classes have been far more complex. Here, the rise of middle class has been marred by uneven development of modern forces and the modern middle classes have always been forced to collaborate with the feuadal forces to carry forward their agenda. In pre-Independence this class had to fall back on feudal forces' support to strenghthen national movement. And, after independence, despite Nehru and Socialist endeavours the modern middle class never enjoyed the strength to challenge the feudal forces. As a result, India had had a middle class which was by orientation a modern class but by compulsion a class which could not follow modern agenda beyond a point.
The middle class’ success lies in successfully maintaining a democratic system which made it possible for the lower classes to move ahead economically and socially. The compulsion of ensuring greater numerical support to survive politically different contesting partied had to take populist measures which ultimately gave opportunities for greater democratization, at least since 1960s. The democratization threatened that section of middle class which had a liberal orientation as a large number of people started entering into institutions which controlled Indian society. The tensions, hot contestations for political spaces in different parts of India in late 60s and entire 70s brought into forefront two issues which had not been figuring very high in middle class action plans. These two factors were Hindu Muslim equation and the Caste question. Both these questions were becoming major issues of mobilizations and soon political parties started realizing that unless we take into considerations these issues the political survival would be impossible.
The new middle class came after that. The growing political tensions, opening of new forces generated by government supported liberalization measures created the possibility of the emergence of a new class which did not share the world view of old middle class. In a very short time the political elites started wearing Ray Ban glasses, Nike shoes, expensive suits, and speaking in English as if English should be the new language of Indian generation next. In a year or two there was the original India shining campaign in which India was being projected as a new emerging global power which can boast of crores of computer savy people and millions of professionals who share their dreams of Americans and so on. This new shift in the thinking of Indian middle class is a little understood development. Since then, the old Indian middle class had been in retreat.
What began as a dream in 1884 started looking like a possibility for the new middle class of India. It is interesting to note that in between the government of 1984 and 1991 came a government which can not be considered as a government of the new middle class. Still, it furthered the process initiated by the government of 1984 and when government of 1991 took the task of changing the fabric of Indian economy there was really no political challenge before them. The rivals were even more enthusiastic about the changes. Meanwhile, the fall of Socialist systems in different European countries made this new middle class even more confident.
The philosophy of this new middle class is very simple- money, money and more money. Only thing which matters is money power. The new class found ample opportunities in the form of I. T. jobs which offered them salaries which not many had even thought of a generation ago. A young man getting jobs giving him more than 2/3 lacs monthly salary was unheard of in the days of old middle class. Jolted, the old middle class tried to adjust and it also started to think that in the changed order of the world we should change and it may be possible that opening up of economy was not that bad. Now, entire India looks ready to accept the logic of globalization which is in line of capitalist growth in the entire world.
Above mentioned trajectory is perhaps only one side of picture. The other side is as follows. The old middle class had always been idealists in the sense that it believed that the world can be a better place for all. The idealism of middle class had made them the social leaders of this country. Entire country looked up to them for inspiration and lead. But, as the retreat of the idealist middle class started in 1980s and the power of money becoming more visible a new morality and axis of socio-economic and political control started emerging. Soon, new leaders, new goondas, new players in economic fields had emerged and people could see before their eyes how people were becoming millionaires with out doing anything except buying shares ! Harshad Mehtas became new icons, Dawood Ibrahims became new bosses and all this was done under the nose of and possibly in connivance of the political leaders who projected great Indian future. Since then, with all hiccups and some lows, the process of globalization had remained the guideing force for Indian politicians be it right, centre and, I am afraid, the left! It can be debated that among Narsimha Rao, Bajpeyi, Manmohan Singh and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who has internalized the logic of globalization more than others!
In today’s India people of this country are sharply divided into, at least two halves: one which wants to be part of this new world order which would give them greater financial benefits and more choices of life and ; the other which is ignorant of or in opposition to this penetration of new world capitalism into their societies. The current politics has to make a choice between these groups. The rise of popular media also a significant player as it informs and hopes to guide the popular perception. Today, it is interesting to see how media is trying to put pressure on governments to see the reason which is invariably the view of the dominant class. The media, although look like carrying all shaded of popular opinions, carry the voice of the dominant class. Take for example, two issues- the Reservation of OBCs and the signing of Nuclear Treaty with the USA. On the first, there existed both kind of view among people- for and against the reservation, but the media projected anti-OBC voices so prominently in such a way that the pro-reservations voices did not get any prominence.
Today, the Left had decided to put some check on government’s initiatives to accept a nuclear treaty with the USA. Even before their voices are heard the entire media is concluding that the Left is wrong and if elections are held the Left would lose more than one third of its strength in the Lok Sabha. The message is clear- Do not dare to pull out the support from the government which is bent on signing a nuclear treaty with the USA even without proper debate over its results. This attitude of media makes us think whether we should think in terms of issues or should we think in change of terms in which we think. Why should we give our judgement on issues which are set in terms of new class’ interests and this class is representing the aspirations of only those who are with the globalization. Can we think, before anything else, whether globalization is good for people of India or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
