An Analysis

The Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59

(The first thirteen chapters of this book were serialised in DJ from July 1999 till October last year. This analysis covers the first 150 pages,and is now being serialised in DJ).

Columnist AH AMIN re-interprets the so-called 1857 Indian Mutiny.

A Victory of Indiansover Indians

Here I will simply quote Michael Edwards, Edwards very correctly said “The reforms that followed the Mutiny left one factor basically unchanged; the British still depended for their power upon native soldiers. In fact they could not have defeated the rebels without them. Before Delhi, for example out of 11,200 effective no fewer than 7,900 were Indians. Even if the British had not had the service of loyal sepoys, they could not have moved an inch without the vast army of non- combatants — whom there were 20 to every white soldier. Indians cooked the food, Indians brought water, and Indians carried the wounded awry from the battlefield 612”.

Common Perceptual Problems in Analysingthe Rebellion

It is felt that considerable conviction that most serious barriers to any movement in intellectual conceptual or even physical terms are not actual on ground realities but perceptual barriers which interfere with our assessment of events in their true light. In this regard we will examine certain common perceptual problems in analysing the rebellion of 1857. Historians of Indo-Pak subcontinent suffer from various hang-ups and complexes in dealing with the rebellion. They are at a loss to see that the movement failed and thus erroneously conclude that it was not a national popular movement. On the contrary the Congress and League are projected as successful because India gained independence in 1947. Here the historians forget that Independence of 1947 had a deeper connection with the two world wars which Britain fought than with any agitation mounted by Congress or League which in any case was a loyalist party till 1946. In this regard we will see how liberation movements fared in other parts of the world.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw some radical changes in armaments and technology. Sociologically the 20th century was unique in having witnessed the detailed application of total war in two World Wars fought over three continents. Thus except the US war of independence in which French intervention played a crucial role most of the other armed insurrections failed except in situations where the “foreign intervention factor” was decisive. Thus two Polish wars of independence were crushed by Russia in 1830 and 1863 since no foreign power assisted the Poles. The Hungarians failed to win their independence from Austria in 1848. so did the Italians who succeeded only in 1859 once France intervened on their behalf and defeated Austrians in Northern Italy. Similarly the Germans were able to overthrow the French in 1813 only with Russian help. The Balkan Christian states failed to become independent till Russia came to their aid in WW one. Most of the countries of Eastern Europe got their independence only after the Austrian and Russian Empires disintegrated as a result of defeat in WW one. The record of last two hundred years clearly demonstrates that wars of independence waged by subject nations on their own steam failed to dislodge a colonial or imperialist power. All nations whether European or Asian or African prove this point. Thus the First and Second World Wars and the Russo Turk wars and not indigenous armed insurrections in themselves resulted in success of a war of independence. In this regard it is really commendable that the Indians in 1857 managed to make an attempt to dislodge a foreign occupying state at all. The fact that the war of 1857 failed should not surprise us and incline us to dismiss the rebellion as an insignificant affair. Many historians of Indo-Pak are a victim of this pitfall. The fact that the rebellion forced the British Empire to send the biggest British Army till that date in British History more than all the British strength even in the US war of independence raises the status of the war of 1857 to at least a little more than the successful US war of independence. Historians like Majumdar were the leaders in down playing the great event and many of its participants. Thus Majumdar noted that Kunwar Singh was a “small Talukdar in the interior of Bihar, utterly impoverished beyond hopes of recovery613 but nowhere mentions that the British had to deploy some 7,000 regular troops614 to deal with his insurrection. Without foreign intervention or defeat in a major war or moral or material exhaustion as the result of a major war no subjugated nation or race gained its independence in the history of at least two hundred years. In 1857 none of these factors existed. Great Britain was at the height of its power, no foreign power intervened on behalf of the rebels, no great war like WW One or WW Two had exhausted Britain. Keeping in view all these factors 1857 was a bigger achievement than 1947 when Britain had been morally and materially exhausted by two world wars. USA was exerting considerable pressure on Britain to give independence to India etc. Historians of today are baffled by personal grievances of 1857's principal leaders. But these personal grievances have always been a decisive force in history. Personal grievances, temperamental differences egoistic problems have always played an important role in history. There are very few leaders in the history of mankind who are free of the above mentioned problems. Lenin's hatred of Czarism had a deep connection with execution of his brother. Khomeini's keep hatred of the Shah had a definite connection with his son's assassination by Savak agents. Jinnah's differences with Congress leaders were not merely ideological but also temperamental and personality dominated. Stalin's differences with Trotsky similarly had little to do with communist theory. If the Talukdar of Oudh was concerned with his status and power what was so unusual about that. Was not Nehru obsessed with being the first Prime Minister of India and Jinnah with being first Governor General of Pakistan! Subsequent evidence indeed proved that the Oudh Talukdars were hostile to the British not basically because of the land revenue settlement but because of loss of their powers of military lordship and jurisdiction 615! Thus they joined the rebellion because their feudal authority over their own tenants was curtailed and not because of any Nationalistic or Patriotic considerations! There were few exceptions like the great Hindu Rajput and Jat Talukdars Beni Madho of Shankarpur, Devi Baksh of Gonda, Gulab Singh of Biswah etc. These indomitable men unlike the more pliable Muslim and Hindu Talukdars of Mahmudabad Pirpur Balrampur refused to take advantage of the British amnesty and restoration of their lands and preferred dying as free man in the jungles of Nepal616!

The historian who is looking for idealism or absolute motives in any world historical event will only come to grief. Man is motivated by a multitude of factors and idealism though very important is not the only factor. Idealism and human rights came to America only after they had destroyed the Red Indians just like Hitler destroyed the Jews at Auschwitz or elsewhere! This idealism etc. is a very elusive affair! Even today European historians are debating about the motive of crusaders and many very eminent historians have serious doubts that the Crusaders acted from anything which may be called idealism at all. Thus as late as 1950s Sir Steven Runciman concluded his masterpiece History of the Crusades with the following words “The Holy war itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost”617. The rebels of 1857 were thus accused for plundering, looting and destroying property and thus dismissed by many outwardly clever but essentially pedantic Indo- Pak historians as mere opportunists. This is merely an irrational over simplification of the whole affair. Clive was motivated by personal considerations in Bengal yet no one can deny that he achieved the greatest victory for his country as far as India was concerned. The personal motives of individuals go side by side with collective interest of nations and the two cannot be separated since they are interdependent. What is important is the ultimate net outcome. In that context 1857 was the most decisive event of British right till 1947. The Congress or the League on the other hand were two results of a deliberate British policy designated to mellow down Indian extremism. Both the parties operated within rules framed by the British rulers. The Congress failed to achieve much by extra constitutional methods, while the League was merely a group of negotiators looking after the Muslim interest in general and the interests of the newly created Muslim middle class and the feudal classes in particular; in a situation in which Indian independence was in any case inevitable.

All these above mentioned aspects tempt many historians to under estimate the significance of 1857. We have seen that the middle class educated in western ideas was planned by the British independent of the events of 1857. Muslims were bound to get education even if MAO College Aligarh or Islamia College, Lahore had not been established. Later on myths were deliberately cultivated and encouraged about various personalities and institutions. Theories were created to rationalise historical events as a logical outcome of religious differences, but only with the benefit of hindsight. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who was actually looking after Hindustani Muslim interests in the post-1857 scenario was portrayed as an All India Leader. The Muslim League which was a mouthpiece of Hindustani Muslims was portrayed as an idealistic party committed to serve the All India Muslim cause from 1906! Political expediency of the Jinnah Sikandar Pact of 1938 created a movement towards certain tangible aims from 1940 to create a Muslim state in the north west and north east. This was justified and understandable. However, to assert that this had started from 711 or even from 1857 can only be described as naive and unrealist.

The terrain and weather factor in sepoy failureto successfully sever the British LOC (Line of Communication)

This aspect has been largely ignored by all historians specially the British. This is a common human failing. All nations suffer from it once writing their own history. Thus the great Russian sacrifices in WW One and Two were degraded and downplayed by western historians by falsely claiming that weather more than Russian resistance was the main reason of the German failure in Russia. The British should not forget that they were saved from French or German occupation in 1805 or in 1940 primarily because of the sea ditch of English Channel much more than any indomitable bravery at Dunkirk! But when it comes to the British everything they did was because they were intrinsically or genetically superior. There is no doubt that the British nation is great but this in no way diminishes the role that the English Channel played in their relatively stable growth as a great nation without much interference caused as a result of the external invasion disruptions in the post-Hastings era. Similarly the unfordable Jumna River and the Western Jamna Canal and the Najafgarh Drain, all played an important role in adding to the security and safety of the British line of communication at Delhi. Again at Lucknow the wide Ganges which was unfordable played an important role in the safety of the British line of communication from Allahabad till Cawnpore. Neill’s arbitrary hangings of villagers played an important role in discouraging the villagers from providing any boats to the Oudh Lucknow sepoys which could help them in crossing the Ganges.

It is significant to note that Tantia Topi was able to cross the Jamna only in December since at this time of the season it was almost dry and fordable at Kalpi.

It may be noted that the Ganges is some two to five miles wide and is difficult to cross even in a boat in battle conditions specially from April to October. To say that only the Ganges saved the British LOC will, however, be as wrong as stating that indomitable resolution alone and not the English Channel saved Britain after Dunkirk! The British were great but Ganges and the English Channel were also there by some divine design.

Impact of the rebellionon the future politics ofthe  Indian Muslims

The rebellion was a decisive event in British Indian history. The fact that it failed increased its significance and impact on future British policies in India. It was not a mutiny as the British are trying to prove till today. It was a positive reaction by Indians of many races, classes and religions to overthrow a foreign company which was unjustly exploiting Indian people and their natural resources. It is again a misconception that had it succeeded India would not have developed as much as it actually did under the British Crown during the period 1858-1947. Freedom is always a step in the positive direction and to believe that a country can develop in a better manner under foreign subjugation is the worst possible form of mental and spiritual slavery. Those who forward this argument are even today not fully free, at least spiritually. The pride which a half starved Ethiopian feels is far better than the self-defeating complexes which hamper and retard the mental and spiritual growth of an African American who is much better fed and clothed than his Ethiopian counterpart! Foreigners may be surprised but even today a large number of educated Pakistanis believe that the British rule was the best thing which ever happened to this region! The British gave us many things in terms of infra-structure, educated institutions and legislation. They left things which we can see with the naked eye and which are still in operation and full use. But on the other hand they left things which we cannot see, but whose negative effects are devastatingly eroding the foundations of peace and progress of this region. They gave us roads, railways, canals, universities, things which have played a very important part in our progress, but they took our initiative, pride self- respect, tolerance etc. After 1857 they encouraged the divisive tendencies in the Indo-Pak subcontinent, sometimes inadvertently and sometimes by design. They encouraged communalism and separatism and divided India dooming it to long-term eternal Balkanisation and fragmentation whose first stage was witnessed in 1947 and the other stages may be round the corner in the next few decades. Here we observe another very common tendency in today's Indo Pak subcontinent. The British are accused for almost everything that goes wrong in both the country. Eminent intellectuals compulsively have a section in which their presentations on dissertation which focuses on “Our Colonial Legacy”. The British were not angels but it is unfair to accuse them for all the maladies that afflict our soul or intellect or our foreign relations or our electoral systems. “Divide and Rule” as a policy was adopted by them after 1857 because they wanted to rule and exploit the region in a peaceful manner! Here also many of their Viceroys and Governors etc. were genuinely trying to do something for the Indo- Pak people it is again a misconception to think that the pre-1947 Indo- Pak was groaning under the British hell! Nothing can be further from the truth than the assertion that the British were despotic. They were too sensible to be so and this is what distinguishes them and off course makes them superior to their French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or Russian Colonial counterparts. In this regard it is no exaggeration that the British by conquering India with the sensible employment of their European troops assisted by the mercenary Bengal Madras and Bombay armies saved Indo-Pak not only from the Afghan and Mahratta predators but also from the really tyrannical rule of the Portuguese, French, Dutch, Spanish or Russians. The simple fact of history however, much we deny it now remains that Indo-Pak subcontinent would have been colonised by one European power or another in case British had not done so through the good offices of the honourable EEIC! The Indians were lucky that the British did so rather than any other European power! Had any other European power colonised India the whole course of history may have been different in two aspects. Firstly there would have been much more oppression exploitation and social injustice and thereby the people of Indo-Pak would have suffered much more than they ever actually did under the British Colonial rule. Secondly the Indians i.e. the Indo-Pak people would have become much more politically aware and extremist in their struggle for freedom than they ever were under the British rule. The leadership that may have emerged as a result of this struggle may have been qualitatively much superior and of a sturdier stuff than the one which we actually inherited in the post-1947 era. The British have an uncanny ability to create docile mediocre and unimaginative leadership in the countries they have ruled.

The above mentioned comparative merits of British rule over their other colonial contemporary states still does not mean that independence in 1857 was not as desirable as in 1947. The “Sepoys” were a surprisingly enlightened lot who were more Indian in their outlook than both Congress and the Muslim League. They achieved more in terms of Hindu Muslim unity in 1857 than was ever subsequently achieved at Lucknow or in the Khilafat movement.

There is a marked tendency in modern historians both in Indo-Pak and outside the subcontinent to dismiss the rebellion as an attempt by a decadent reactionary class of disgruntled princes to reimpose an unjust and antiquated social order in India, which would have taken the Indo-Pak subcontinent back into the medieval ages! While many reactionary disgruntled and decadent feudal lords and princes actively participated in the rebellion motivated by personal grievances and grudges, no one can deny the fact that the “Sepoy” who had been soldiering for the EEIC at the risk of his life for a mere seven rupees a month618 had all to lose and little to gain by defying the greatest empire of nineteenth century! The punishment of rebellion or mutiny was death by hanging or by a musket ball or bayonet or by being tied up and blown into bits by a nine pounder gun! The sepoys must not be compared to the worthless feudals whether in the North West Province (present UP or Uttar Pradesh) or Central India! These men were not like the Opportunists or casual but highly successful professional men who finally became our post-1857 leaders. A man who marches all the way from Mhow near Narbadda River all the way upto Delhi some 500 miles in the north during the phenomenally hot season of July-August of a Central Indian summer must not be compared to or equated with a loyal Nawab of Rampur or a Tiwana or Noon or Hayat from Punjab! We will not brand the last four as traitors because India in 1857 was not a country. But keeping in view the quality of motivation the “Sepoy” was fighting for a collective cause i.e. “Freedom” for entire Indo-Pak if he could successfully overthrow the British, whereas the Nawab or the Tiwana or the Noon or the Hayat were mercenaries fighting for personal gain, and to prolong the rule of a foreign power over India, however, humane for ninety more years! The Begam of Lucknow Hazrat Mahal was only a concubine elevated to the rank of wife before 1857 but her conduct in 1857 and thereafter raised her stature much higher than most notable chiefs of Indo-Pak Sub Continent. We may state with conviction that she was more of a man than any man in Indo-Pak who stayed loyal to the British. She preferred exile even when she was offered a pension and pardon by the British in an age when so-called respectable Indians were dying to get one favour or the other by resorting to the lowest strategies of sycophancy and boot licking. The Raja Ballabgarh and Jagirdar Rao Tula Ram of Haryana area despite being Hindus fought for a Muslim King when Muslim soldiers were vying with Sikhs and Gurkhas in plundering predominantly Muslim cities like Lucknow and Delhi. We see indomitable Rajputs, Talukdars like Beni Madho of Shankarpur, Devi Baksh of Gonda and Gulab Singh of Biswah refusing to go back and live under British subservience even when the British offered them the complete restoration of their Jagirs in Oudh! These brave Rajputs who were lords of fertile estates preferred the rigours of an uncertain exile in inhospitable Nepal over living in subservience at a time when many other Rajputs both Muslim Rajputs and Hindu Rajputs enriched themselves at the cost of independence and sovereignty of India! But what did they know about independence for just nine years ago they had been kicked by the Sikhs who had converted the Muslim mosques into stables and gunpowder magazines! The biggest joke of the century is that these gentlemen in the post-1857 were termed as “Chiefs” hailing from “Martial Races” How can a chief be martial when his people silently and docilely suffered while a minority religious group turned his mosques into stables and gunpowder magazines!

Another factor which distinguishes 1857 from all other previous British Indian wars is the fact that it was the first war of its type which could be called “Total War” or “Peoples War”. All previously fought wars were essentially like wars of Kings in pre-1789 Europe. The populace was not really bothered about the outcome and for the average Bengali the EEIC or Sirajuddaula were little different from each other. In 1857 the populace was actively involved, whether as an ordinary peasant helping Tantia Topi in Central India or as in the Pathan civilian assisting the British in the chase of the mutineers in Peshawar or Mardan! The populace specially in the Muslim dominated old centres of political power like Delhi and Lucknow suffered as much as the sepoys. The populace in Oudh actively assisted the sepoys and this was one of the principal reasons why the sepoys were fighting in many parts of Oudh right till May- June 1859.

Another factor which has seriously disturbed many Indo-Pak historians’ perceptions about the study of rebellion is lack of participation in the rebellion by many areas of India. Thus Majumdar being a Bengali could not digest the fact of viewing an event in which Bengalis  played no role as a war of independence. Similarly the “Punjab Loyalty” factor has biased most of the Punjabi historians into viewing the rebellion in a negative manner. The answer to this dilemma is not difficult provided a historian for some time sets aside his nationality and views the events of 1857 dispassionately. The simple fact is that all regions of Indo-Pak resisted the British at various periods in the rough 200 year British domination period in India. The south in the shape of Mysore and the Mahrattas resisted the EEIC tenaciously during 1760-1803. That they failed is another issue which still does not prove that they were docile any more than the sturdy Irish who the British ruled for some 700 years. The Bengalis were revolutionary in their own way but Bengali grievances were different from UP or Maharatta grievances. Thus the Bengalis were active against the British while other parts were relaxing specially in the post- 1857 period. The Sikhs in Punjab were the toughest British opponents during the two Sikh Wars of 1845-46 and 1848-49. The British suffered more casualties fighting against the Sikhs than in fighting against the Afghans in the First or Second Afghan Wars. This regional bias against 1857 is both irrational and detrimental to the cause of Indo Pak history. The reason again lies in the most common fallacy of Indian history i.e. viewing the Indo-Pak sub-continent as a country. The term India or Indian merely donates a geographical area, there never has been and never will be an Indian nation. The whole region is a jigsaw puzzle of various nationalities of different religions who have just one thing in common i.e. “common masters”. At various times in history they have been ruled by foreigners who initially came for loot and rapine and later became more systematic and settled down and finally got absorbed in the Indo-Pak society. The reason that one community or region did not participate make it more “docile” or more “martial” two terms with poisonous connotations. The “anti-Punjabi” historians brand the Punjabis specially the “Punjabi Muslims” and “Sikhs” as “Traitors” or “docile”! Both the terms are incorrect but show that historians are also human beings and prove the idea that to be a historian we have to stop being as human as we may like to be. Unfortunately all ethnic groups are a victim to this tendency. The “Urdu speaking” or “Hindustani” projecting school of historians started an exercise of condemning all other parts of India as Collaborators after 1857. They projected the “Hindustanis” as the only aware people and as the true patriots. This line of thought was negative and counter-productive. The Punjabis became more anti-Hindustani. Partly the actual culprits of this poisonous trend were the British. The rebellion was a traumatic event and it really shattered their confidence in the previously believed irrational myth of their superiority. For the first time since their arrival in India their nights became sleepless out of fear of another rebellion. They adopted “Divide and Rule” as a policy. On one side they first created the term “Punjab Loyalty” projecting the Punjabi as a “hero” and the “Hindustani” as a “Blackguard”! The fatal administrative decision of transferring the Delhi province containing the old districts of Panipat, Delhi, Rohtak and Gurgaon and off course Delhi city to Punjab province from 1858 was the foundation stone of the ever-growing Hindustani Punjabi tension which has retarded the growth of at least Pakistan as a nation. This tension is compounded by other anti Punjabi feelings held by the Sindhi Baloch, Pathan, Seraiki and Northern Area people! The disease is serious and yet hilarious. As a Gentleman Cadet at the Pakistan Military Academe,. I was shocked and amused at a get-together organised by an officer instructor on the basis of belonging to the “Gujar Gaste”! If even among Punjabis there are people who are thinking in the terms of “Gujar”, “Arain” etc. then God help us! Coming back to the point the award of Delhi territory was openly declared by the British as a reward for “Punjab Loyalty” and as a “Political punishment” to the people of Delhi for having actively helped the sepoys in 1857. The funniest as well as the most tragic part of this decision was the fact that in the long run it harmed the Punjabi Muslims much more seriously than any other single decision taken by the British regarding Punjab affairs from 1849 to 1947! This administrative decision whose dire implications are somehow missed or ignored by seemingly clever historians including ardent Punjabophiles reduced the majority of the Punjabi Muslims from some 61% to 56% because the percentage of non- Muslims in these areas was much higher than West Punjab! The people of Delhi, Rohtak and Gurgaon etc. were subjected to a province with whom they had little in terms of a common cultural or historial heritage. They had to travel all the way from Delhi or Rohtak to Lahore for any major civil or legal business! The British officials in Punjab encouraged the Punjabis to look down upon the Hindustanis as detesting intriguers and black guards! The fact that European education came to Punjab slower than UP just like education in UP came long after it came to Bengal or Bombay further made this tension more complicated. The Upites despised the Punjabis as simpletons and duffers while the Punjabis resented the fact as some grand Urdu speaking clique conspiracy! The simple position was that European education came slowly to India from East to West, successively as the EEIC advanced westward from Bengal following Plassey (1757), Buxar (1764) Laswari (1803), Gujrat (1849). The fact that the Bengali Hindus were more successful in the ICS (Indian Civil Service) Examination was not because the Bengalis were more intelligent but simply because the Bengalis got a greater opportunity in terms of time to study in British sponsored universities and colleges. Few people today know that in 1880s the Upites were as scared of the Indian Civil Service open merit examination as Punjabis or Sindhis in Pakistan right from 1947 when they succeeded in imposing a quota system for selection to civil service right from 1950s till today. Thus in 1886 Pandit Ajudia Nath who was regarded as a spokesman of Hindu educated opinion in the UP told the Public Services Commission that the services ought not to be recruited by competitive examination unless this was done on a strictly provincial basis. The Pandit further explained the rationale behind his opinion by stating that the difference in the education of the different provinces made this necessary, particularly since opinion in upper India held strongly that it is better to be ruled by gentleman who belong to the same province. UP men backward in English education when compared with those in the presidencies felt that they would stand little chance in competition for the ICS places if thrown in with candidates from the maritime provinces, particularly Bengal 6. Later on during the pre-1947 and post-1947 period many Urdu speaking intellectuals started looking down on the Punjabi Muslims as intellectually inferior. The Urdu speaking historians thus described docility and cowardice as prime attributes of Punjabi Muslims in 1857. The Punjabis were naturally antagonized and a clear cut tendency emerged in post-1947 historians in Pakistan to avoid discussing 1857 and condemning it as a Hindustani dominated negative event! Both these tendencies on part of the Punjabi and Hindustani (Urdu speaking) intellectuals are negative. The reasons why the Punjabis did not participate in the rebellion have already been discussed in detail in our analysis portion. The presence of this negative tendency of mutual distrust and condemnation is self-defeating and dangerous. If we pick up any work dealing with Pakistani history we find a marked tendency to criticize each other. A Punjabi Muslim writing history will always make it a point to criticize Liaquat Ali Khan just because he was a Hindustani! While Liaquat Ali Khan was not an angel or an ideal choice is an open secret. The fact that the founder of the nation selected him as his principal lieutenant and number two man shows one thing very clearly i.e. he had no choice, if there would have been any other choice Jinnah would have selected a Punjabi or a Pathan. But there was none and he selected Liaquat. The fact that Liaquat failed in four years to do what Nehru in India did in two years only shows the mediocre standard of Muslim leadership in India in general and the Muslim majority provinces i.e. both Punjab and Bengal in particular! If we believe that Jinnah liked yes man and selected Liaquat because he was a yes-man then Jinnah had a very big choice since 99% of Muslim leaders of post-1857 India were yes-men! And the unionist party which dominated Punjab policies till 1946 had 100% yes-men. If Liaquat is criticised for being simply incompetent I will support the person who does it openly but if he is criticised just because he was not a Punjabi or a Pathan, I will defend Liaquat for all that he did. This bias based on ethnicity is our major intellectual failure. This bias has its roots in 1857 and in the myths of docility and superiority to which the rebellion gave birth! Another malady which afflicts almost every historian in Pakistan is the “Traitor branding complex”. The Urdu speaking intellectuals called the Punjabi Muslim traitors of 1857, the Punjabis called the Bengalis traitors in 1971, the Sindhis were branded as such in 1983 or in 1990 and today the people of Karachi are traitors. In 1975 Mr. Bhutto called Mr. Wali Khan a traitor. If this methodology is followed all successful Muslim leaders of the post-1857 period were traitors or descendants of traitors. We in Pakistan are inhabitants of a multi-ethnic state created on the basis of vague slogans of “religion” which were merely used to galvanize people. Till 1940 when there was no clear cut objective of the Muslim League and till August 1947 no one was clear about the boundaries of Pakistan. “Vagueness” and “Doubt” are two key words of the post-1857 history of Indian Muslims. Fear of Hindu domination temporarily united the Indian Muslims in  the period of 1940-47. The pre-1916 struggle of Sir Syed was also not a struggle for Pakistan but for political survival of the UP Muslims in particular in the post-1857 period, during which the British became more anti-Hindustani and considerably pro-Punjabi. The real changes in the post-1857 period was that the Hindustani Muslims were branded as the main culprits while the Punjabi Muslims were hailed as heroic members of a martial race who were good cannon fodder for the British during the Battles of the Indian Mutiny as the British called them! Both were myths since those who rebelled and those who stayed loyal did so because of equally compelling reasons.

Thus essentially wrong concepts were nurtured by both the UP and Punjab Muslims regarding the pre-1946 period. The UP Muslims were supporting the League before 1946 not because they were more patriotic than the Punjabi Muslims but essentially because the League till 1937 and even till 1951 was a UP Muslim dominated organisation. Till 1940 the League had no concrete tangible goal and this shows that the Punjabi Muslims were doing perfectly the right thing by voting for the Unionist party. The Punjabi Muslim politicians disliked the pre-1940 League not because of any ideological reasons but because it was dominated by Non-Punjabi Muslims just like the Sindhi of today dislikes the Muslim League because he views it as primarily a Punjabi Muslim League which as a matter of fact it has been since Junejo was booted out in 1988 in particular and since 1985 when it was resurrected by the dubious military junta of Pakistan!

END NOTES

612 Ibid.

613 Pages-224 to 239- The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 -R.C Majumdar-Mukhopadyay-Calcutta-1957.

614 Page-374-C. Hibbert-Op cit.

615Pages-48, 111 & 112-Article "The Context of the 1857 Mutiny Rebellion in India" in Past and Present-Issue No-46-August-1970 by Eric Stokes-

616End Note-Six-Page-432-C. Hibbert-Op Cit.

617Quoted on Page-158- The Atlas of the Crusades-Edited by Jonathan Riley Smith-Facts on File Inc-New York-1991.

618Page-111-T.A Heathcote-Op Cit. till 1895 the Infantry soldier who was the three fourth element of the Indian Army was paid just Rs 7/- per month.