|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besieged: Voices from Delhi 1857 A general tendency among the present-day historians persists in claiming too much for their achievements, however ill-deserved they may be. The writer of this study, Mahmood Farooqui, however, differs from the tribe of such self-righteous advertisers. In the preface, Farooqui asks his readers in utter modesty to "accept his lot as a translator or transmitter of historical (or historic) legacy". Indeed, Farooqui is much more than a translator or transmitter—he has compiled, annotated and edited with meticulous care a large number of Urdu documents written in Shakista (cursive) on the 1857 Ghadar, lying and gathering dust on the shelves of the National Archives of India hitherto neglected by scholars.
Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib’s role in the stormy 1857 days which engulfed Delhi was duplicitous. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad lamented in his paper Il-Hilal that when Delhi was bleeding, Ghalib was pleading with the British authorities to confer on him a title, give him a liberal pension, a robe and a seat in the durbar for his unstinted loyalty to the ruling Later, Hasan Nizami (1878-1957), a distinguished Urdu writer, captures with sensitivity the anguish of Dilliwalas. What is the value of the documents of the present work? Do they add anything new to our understanding of the 1857 rebellion? Does the nature and quality of source-material help the scholars to break new ground in our interpretation of the 1857 rebellion? The basic question which has engaged the historians and scholars of 1857 from V.D. Savarkar to R.C. Majumdar, S.N. Sen, Eric Stokes, P.C. Joshi to S.B. Chaudhuri is whether India’s challenge and defiance of British authority in 1857-1858 constituted a rebellion, revolt, or a war of Indian independence? With magisterial authority, R.C. Majumdar proclaimed that the 1857 sepoy mutiny was neither national nor war, nor of independence. S.N. Sen and Eric Stokes did not deny people’s participation in the revolt, but limited it to a smaller dimension. The present Urdu collection confirms with blinding force P.C. Joshi, S.B. Chaudhuri and K.C. Yadav’s contention that in addition to the sepoys, there was a larger participation of people in their fight against the British ruling authority. However, there may be difference of opinion whether the rebels had a clear vision of the independence of India. These documents throw light on the life and experiences lived through by the people during 1857-58. They also unfold how the people perceived and reacted to the challenges offered to them. Percival Spear’s Twilight of the Mughals presented a vivid account of the impact of the rebellion on the day-to-day life and thinking of the British civil and military authorities. However, in Farooqui’s compilation we have the story from the other side of the coin, like holding the stick from its end—the people’s voice: echoes, fears and sighs. Farooqui emphasises that the rebellion in Delhi was purely an "urban phenomenon". Surely, it cannot be denied that a large number of people from the surrounding rural areas jumped into the whirlwind of the struggle to throw out the British who were entrenched in Delhi. The rural chiefs of Ballabgarh, Bahadurgarh, Patudi and Jahajjahar, too, supported the rebels. Generally, historians have viewed the 82-year-old Bahadur Shah as a feeble, inert, dotard, flying kites, playing chess, living in penury as a British pensioner, counting his days and indulging in fibs and frivolities. But the documents in this work show that Bahadur Shah, despite his frailties and vices, was very active in collecting money, issuing orders, ever anxious to protect the life and property of his own people in critical times. When the furious soldiers attacked and pillaged the house of Hakim Ahsanullah, the King’s physician and confidant, Bahadur Shah threatened to go and become a sweeper at the shrine of Bakutiyar Kaki, popularly known as Khwaja Sahib, the patron-saint of Delhi at Mehrauli. Delhi suddenly exploded in a rebellion. It is commendable that within a short time, immediate and concrete steps were taken by the rebels to organise themselves to fight the foe that was far better militarily equipped with enormous financial resources. A Court of Mutineers was set up headed by Mirza Mughal and the staff of the Commander of the Bareilly contingent, Bhakht Khan. The court functioned efficiently with the object of meeting the needs of the people under the overall supervision of Emperor Bahadur Shah. It would be interesting for the researcher to analyse the fluctuating public opinion in Delhi during 1857-1858, which oscillated between rebellion, reconciliation and finally, to submission to the British in extraordinary circumstances. In this compilation, the
explanatory notes are full, informative and exemplary, and personal
comments, though in short breath, are insightful.
|
||
|
|
||
Most
historical works published on the revolt, rebellion or the War of
Indian Independence, whatever one may call it, are largely based on
the official British records and memoirs. On the suffering of the
people of Delhi during the 1857 traumatic events, some of the Muslim
scholars and public men such as Syed Ahmad Khan, Altaf Husain Hali,
Mohammad Hussain Azad and Deputy Nazir Ahmed who were eyewitnesses
to/or knowledgeable about the British atrocities chose to be evasive
and ambiguous. C. P. Andrews’ romantic sallies and other small
voices in his defence look divisive.