|
Book Review
Interrogating the past
NALINI TANEJA
RETHINKING 1857: Sabyasachi Bhattacharya — Editor; Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd., 1/24, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
Rs. 695.
This is one among the interesting collections of essays brought out in the 150th anniversary of 1857. The essays are divided, in terms of thematic unity or convergence of focus, into four sections: the first addresses the questions of historiography and interpretative trends; the second is about the impact of 1857 on “marginal” communities; the third section contains some essays dealing with the events outside the North India belt; and section four analyses the complexities of the rebel discourse.
The stated aim of the book, as spelled out by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, is to carry forward from the researches and papers brought out during the course of the centenary celebrations in 1957, in terms of new questions and new perspectives not explored then. Obviously it has taken another anniversary, 50 years later, to inspire another round of explorations into the events: the essays in the book resulted from an international seminar organised by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) last year.
Contestation
The introduction quickly goes over the old ground of contesting the imperialist vision of a “mutiny” and defending the Indian perspective which underlined the larger goals of 1857, particularly the strong links between the revolt of the sipahis (soldiers) and the civil rebellions in towns and the rural areas, most specifically the peasant contribution to the 1857 rebellions. It underlines that “in the fluid situation of that turbulent year, with alliances and conflicts between individuals and groups forming and dissolving rapidly, many identities formed the bases of alliance and conflict,” particularly as reflected in the public sphere and that it would therefore be misplaced to give primacy to the religious factor. As this theme has re-emerged into historiography of the events with the publication of William Dalrymple’s The Last Moghul, it is given some importance, with Dalrymple’s own essay in the book once again privileging religion and K.C. Yadav’s contribution being essentially a critique of Dalrymple’s book as well as John William Kaye’s A History of the Sepoy War in India which had argued for the religious factor as primary.
Rebel discourse
Religion and politics in the rebel discourse also gets discussed in the last section, with Tapti Roy arguing on the basis of popular literature circulated that the rebellion was certainly against the British state and rule even if it was articulated in the language of religion and carried out on the strength of “deen” and dharma. In his case study of the role of Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah, Jaffri illustrates that in the case of many participants a strong religious identity did not preclude deep involvement or even leadership of rebel forces that cuts across religions. Irfan Habib carries forward the Left understanding of 1857 as a crucial battle against imperialism. Within this broad framework, he argues that it is not possible to characterise the revolt as either feudal or bourgeois, as “the time for one was past, the time for the other had not come.” He identifies elements that were modern — primarily the soldiers — and those that were feudal and, underlines their integral role in the opposition to British rule in the context of colonialism.
L.N. Rana’s study of Jharkhand and two studies on Chotanagpur by Sanjukta Das Gupta and Sashank Sinha corroborate the large picture of a civil rebellion sparked off by the mutiny of the soldiers, but also warn against ignoring the local roots of rebellions, and illustrate micro-level interests and conflicts creating a far more complex picture than an across the board unity against the British.
Dalits’ memories
In Jharkand the rebellions included the tribal people as well as the feudal aristocracy that saw its privileges threatened but these incorporated class conflict with moneylenders and rivals in the regional power structure, a factor that resulted in a new turn after 1858 — a mulkui larai, i.e., a struggle for the land which continued for four decades after the rebellion.
The Hos in the Singhbhum district of Chotanagpur did unite with the rajas during the rebellion, but neither the rajas nor the Hos were all against the British, no doubt due to their internal conflicts. Further, the variations across six districts brilliantly illustrate the complex motives and latent conflicts that manifest themselves during the rebellions.
Badri Narayan’s narration of the Dalits’ memories of 1857 and its heroes and heroines shows that this narration is also a reflection of their conflicting interests with those they see as representing the mainstream renderings of 1857. Basudev Chattopadhyay describes the situation of general panic in Calcutta and how the British went about disarming Indians; N. Rajendran that not all was quiet in the Madras Presidency either; and David R. Siemlieh that despite little popular support, disaffection was expressed by the Ahom princes and the princes of Manipur and in the Barak valley. Two essays deal with the differential access of rebels and the British to technology and means of communication and the extent to which these affected the outcome.
The book certainly contributes to our understanding of 1857, and one hopes the promised second volume is on its way.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Book Review
|
