SIKHS AND INDIA'S FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857: MYTHS AND FACTS

 

SIKHS AND INDIA'S FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857: MYTHS AND FACTS

Shamsul Islam

[It is a truncated version of author’s book Rebel Sikhs of 1857 available in English, Hindi and Punjabi which appeared in 2008.]

In the last 150 years, which followed the nation-wide rebellion of 1857 against the rule of the East India Company in India, many of the misconceptions have been put at rest and a number of myths demolished regarding the nature and course of this great upheaval. For instance much has been written by the historians, both Indian as well as foreign, supplemented with contemporary documents, upholding the fact that it was not a ‘Mutiny’, on the contrary, a rebellion which drew wide support from different sections of the Indian people in most of the affected areas.

Even the then British rulers who initially declared it as a mere ‘Mutiny’ of the ‘Poorbeah’ (people from eastern India, the British used this term in derogatory sense) sepoys, ‘Budmashes’ (Urdu term for rascals which the British often used to describe the rebels) and ‘Pandies’ (followers of the rebel Mangal Pandey), soon realized the hollowness of this claim. Major W. S. R. Hodson (Commander of the British cavalry battalion which was created in his name itself, the ‘Hodson Horse’ and chief of the army’s intelligence wing) who played a major role in capturing Delhi, and was responsible for mass killings of Delhites including Mughal Princes in the most savage manner, in September 1857, in a letter to his wife from Delhi British army camp [July 26, 1857], did admit the fact that it was “an entire army and a whole nation” which was in revolt.1

Another official, Thomas Lowe, commander of the medical corps, who accompanied the British army in its campaign to crush rebellion in the Central India in 1857-58, and was present at the battle of Kotah-ki-Sarai (Gwalior, June 18, 1858) in which Rani Laxmi Bai was martyred, in his

narrative, underscored the reality that it was not a ‘Mutiny’ but a national revolt organized by the ‘cunning, educated fiends’ which united,

“the infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Musselman [sic], and the luxury-loving, fat-paunched [sic] ambitious Mahrattah [sic]…they all joined together in the cause; the cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater, the crier of ‘Allah is God and Mahomet [sic] his prophet’ and the mumbler of the mysteries of Bram [Brahma].”2

However, a terrible myth continues to flourish about the complicity of the Sikhs as a community in helping the Firangees in suppressing the 1857 revolt. There is no dearth of otherwise well-meaning historians and commentators who even today argue that the 1857 War of Independence was lost mainly due to the betrayal by Sikhs who either on the orders of the Sikh native rulers of Punjab or on their own, recruited in the British army in large numbers, thus playing crucial role in subjugating India, which was then striving hard to liberate itself from the clutches of the British imperialism. The Sikh community is thus presented as the main culprit responsible for helping out the British in securing India in the aftermath of the 1857 rebellion.

Of course, there are reasons for such a myth to exist, flourish and resonate. A noted historian and an inexhaustible writer, R. C. Majumdar, who refused to treat 1857 rebellion either as ‘national’ or ‘war of independence’ and out rightly rejected the claim that it was led by any kind of ideal like ‘patriotism’, was most vocal in propounding the theory that Sikhs as a community whole-heartedly supported the British military campaign to crush the revolt throughout the country and that too for religious reasons. According to his logic, it was hatred for the Mughal rulers who persecuted Sikhs in the past that the latter joined the British bandwagon to settle scores.

Following this logic, Majumdar in one of his prominent works on ‘Mutiny’ declared:

“It is on record that high British officials in the Panjab [sic] were able to persuade the Sikhs to caste in their lot with them by describing in vivid language the injuries and insults they had suffered in the past in the hands of the Mughal Emperors. Having impressed this point on their mind, they held out before them the grand opportunity they now had of taking full vengeance. There can be hardly any doubt that the Sikhs were largely influenced by such considerations in whole heartedly offering their services to the British Government.”3

This myth gets strengthened with the selective reading of the narratives of some of the writers, mainly British, who either witnessed or played important role in suppressing the rebellion. One such writer, often referred to and relied on, is William Howard Russell, a well-known war correspondent who came to India (1857-58) to cover ‘Mutiny’ for The Times, London. In one of dispatches he wrote:

“Our siege of Delhi, would have been quite impossible, if the rajahs [sic] of Patiala and of Jhind [now known as Jind in Haryana] had not been our friends, and if the Sikhs had not recruited (in) our battalions, and remained quite in Punjab. The Sikhs at Lucknow did good service; and in all cases our garrisons were helped, fed, and served by natives, as our armies were attended and strengthened by them in the field.”4

Russell was with the British military commanders on March 9, 1858 when the Lucknow defences of the army of Begum Oudh [Avadh, Awadh] were breached. He testified the fact that these were the Sikh battalions which were the first to enter the city.5   Even when Kaiserbagh, the main Palace of Oudh rulers was attacked these were Sikhs who were in the forefront.6

The crucial fact not to be missed here is that Russell while describing the prominent role of the Sikh army men who had “slaughtered hundreds of the budmashes” during first attack on Lucknow confused all Punjabis with Sikhs as he also wrote that these “men were the wildest, finest looking fellows possible—part of Probyn’s detachment of Punjabi Irregular [name of a British regiment]’ whom Russell also called as ‘savage Punjabis”.7

By the end of 1858 the British were able to crush the rebellion to a great extent and once again took control of India. Russell’s diary, dated October 9, 1858 contained a detailed analysis of the factors responsible for the British victory. It gave full credit to the Sikh princely states for the British victory. According to Russell’s conclusion the colonial masters,

“must have lost Delhi if the Rajah of Patiala had not, in conjunction with the chiefs of the neighbouring States, kept open our communication with the Punjab, and rendered the dispatch of supplies practicable…the authorities in the Punjab were able to hold their own, and to organize that remarkable system of supplies which enabled us to remain before Delhi till we got force sufficient to strike the rebels a death-blow. But that system must have utterly failed if the Sikh States south of the Sutlej had revolted, for we never could have maintained our communication with the Punjab; and the political effects of such a rising would have probably paralysed the efforts of Sir John Lawrence and his able colleagues to raise the Sikh levies which gave us such invaluable aid.”8

The view that ‘Sikh States’, specially the Patiala State, played the most crucial role in the British victory was not Russell’s personal perception but was shared by many among the then British top brass in India too, as we find while going through his diary.

“I have heard it said, over and over again, by good authority, India would have been lost. Our Empire would have surely gone, had the Rajah [Raja of Patiala] thrown off his allegiance in the hour of our trial, when there was scarce a

straggling fiber of the roots we had struck into the Indian soil which was not rudely torn asunder, and when the great growth which had sprung up so rapidly, and had spread its mighty shadow so swiftly over all the thrones of the East, was lying prostrate in the dust. But the Rajah of Patiala never hesitated; his trumpets gave no uncertain sound. Whether it was from love, or from calculation, or political sagacity, that he acted with such spirit and resolution, and gave us aid beyond price, it were ungracious and unprofitable to inquire.

“He at once equipped and raised a large force, in addition to his regular army, and placed it at our disposal, to clear the road, to escort baggage, stores, and munitions of war. He gave us all the transport animals and carts he could collect; and he opened his coffers, and, at a low rate of interest, and on security which to any but very keen eyes was inappreciable, he lent us money when silver was worth its weight in gold…all the physical power of his State was devoted to the re-establishment of our rule, and to the overthrow of the rebellion.”9

It is true that the Sikh regiments and Sikh sepoys supplied by a number of the princely states, whose rulers professed Sikhism, played important role in capturing Delhi for the British in September 1857, which according to William Kaye (the British official historiographer of the ‘Mutiny’), “was a turning point in the life of our Anglo-Indian Empire”.10   The contemporary British official records corroborate the fact that the Sikh rulers of the princely states like Patiala, Jind, Nabha and Kapurthala rendered immense help in supplying war materials as well as levies (sepoys) to the British army which marched from the then Punjab, went out to crush the rebellion and finally captured Delhi and Lucknow; two most prominent centres of the nation-wide uprising. There is enormous British archival material available, which greatly sings the praises of these Sikh rulers and glorifies their support to the British cause.

The Imperial Gazetteers of India series in 25 volumes which contains the most authentic British version of the ‘Mutiny’, describes the contribution of Maharaja Narendra Singh of Patiala State in the following words:

“The conduct of the Maharaja on the, outbreak of the Mutiny is beyond praise…On hearing of the outbreak, he marched that evening with all his available troops in the direction of Ambala. In his own territories he furnished supplies and carriage, and kept the roads clear. He gave a loan of 5 lakhs to Government and expressed his willingness to double the amount. His troops served with loyalty and distinction on many occasions throughout the campaign.”11

Patiala ruler’s loyalty to the British was not only acknowledged but fully rewarded too.

“After 1857 Narendra Singh’s splendid services were rewarded with the gift of sovereign rights in the Narnaul division of the forfeited State of the Jhajjar Nawab…also permitted to purchase the Kanaud pargana of Jhajjar and the taluka of Khamaon in perpetual sovereignty…Narendra Singh was made a K.C.S.I., in 1861…The Maharaja ranks first in the precedence list of the Native States in the Punjab and enjoys a salute of seventeen guns. He is entitled to be received and visited by His Excellency the Viceroy.”12

Raja Sarup Singh of Jind State too sided with the British with all his might. The contemporary British documents testify the fact that as an old supporter his

“loyalty was again conspicuous during the mutiny. He occupied the cantonment of Karnal with 800 men, and held the ferry over the Jumna at Bhagpat, twenty miles north of Delhi…The Raja was personally engaged in the battle of Alipur on the 8th of June, and received the congratulations of the Commander-in-Chief, who presented him with one of he captured guns. His contingent ultimately took a prominent part in the assault on Delhi, scaling the walls with the British troops, and losing many of their number in killed and wounded. Raja Sarup Singh was the only chief who was present in person with the army at Delhi…

“After the fall of Delhi the Raja sent 200 men with General Van Cortlandt to Hansi, 110 more with Colonel R. Lawrence to Jhajjar, while 250 remained to garrison Rohtak…These splendid services received a fitting reward in the bestowal upon him of the Dadri territory covering nearly 600 square miles, forfeited for disloyalty by the Nawab of Bahadurgarh. He was also given thirteen villages, assessed at Rs. 1, 88,000 in the Kalaran Pargana, close to Sangrur, where the Raja now has his capital, and a house at Delhi valued at Rs. 6,000, together with additional honorary titles, was conferred on him. His salute was raised to eleven guns…”13

The Raja was nominated a Knight Grand Commander of the Star of India a few months before his death.

Another Sikh ruler who openly sided with the British in 1857 was Bharpur Singh of Nabha State. According to the British archival material,

“He acted throughout with exemplary loyalty, performing services not less distinguished than these of the other chiefs of the Punjab. He held charge of the station of Ludhiana and of the neighbouring Sutlej ferries at the commencement of the outbreak, and a Nabha detachment of 300 men took the place of the Nasiri Battalion which had been detailed to escort a siege train from Phillaur to Delhi, but had refused to march…The Raja also dispatched a small contingent to Delhi, which did good service at the siege…

“His services were rewarded with the grant of the divisions of Bawal and Kanti, assessed at over a lakh of rupees, in the confiscated territory of Jhajjar, on conditions of military and political service in times of general danger and disturbance. Like the other Phulkian Chiefs he was also formally granted the power of life and death over his subjects…In precedence the Raja of Nabha ranks fourth among the chiefs of the Punjab, and is entitled to a return visit from the Viceroy.”14

Raja Randhir Singh of Kapurthala State was another prominent Sikh ruler who helped the British and the colonial masters minced no words in praising him.

“On the first news of the out break of the Mutiny the Raja, with his younger brother Kunwar Bikrama Singh, marched into Jullundur at the head of his men and helped to hold the Doab, almost denuded of troops, until the fall of Delhi. The political effect of this active loyalty on the part of the leading Sikh chief north of the Sutlej was of the utmost value; and the Raja’s able assistance was promptly acknowledged by the bestowal upon him of the title of Raja-i-Rajgan, and by a reduction of Rs. 25,000 annually in the amount of his tribute payment. In 1858, the Punjab continuing quiet Raja Randhir Singh was permitted to lead a contingent of his soldiers to Oudh and take part in the pacification of the disturbed districts.”15

For these great services,

“the Raja was rewarded with a grant of the two confiscated estates of Bundi and Bithauli, in the Bharaich and Bara Banki districts in Oudh…The Raja of Kapurthala stood fifth in order of precedence among the chiefs of the Punjab. He was entitled to a salute of eleven guns, and to receive a return visit from the Viceroy.”16

Wazir Singh, the ruler of Faridkot State was not only an unwavering ally of the British during the 2^nd Anglo-Sikh War but also remained a firm supporter in 1857. According to the contemporary British official documents,

 

“In the Mutiny he placed himself under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Ferozpore and assisted in guarding the Sutlej ferries against the passage of the rebel troops. He also sent a detachment to Sirsa, and with a body of horse and two guns he personally attacked a notorious rebel, Sham Das, and destroyed his stronghold. The Raja’s reward took the form of an increase in his salute, and he was exempted from the service of ten sowars [cavalrymen], hitherto provided in lieu of an annual-tribute payment in cash.”17

Then there were smaller Sikh rulers like Sobha Singh and his son Lehna Singh of Kalsia State who rendered “good service in 1857, supplying a contingent of one hundred men, who were sent to Oudh… Kalsia ranks sixteenth among the Native States the Punjab and the Chief is entitled to be  received  by  His  Excellency  the  Viceroy”18    and  landlords  like  Deva Singh of Mansurwal of Ferozpur District (conferred the title of Star of the   Order   of   British   India),19      Shamsher   Singh   of   Amritsar   (made Magistrate in his own jagir),20   Punjab Singh of Amritsar “rewarded with the Orders of Merit and of British India; and he received a grant of land in the Kheri District of Oudh, which now yields about Rs. 4,000 per annum”21   for their invaluable services to the British in 1857.

The letters of Major Hodson (W. S. R. Hodson who played a very prominent role in capturing Delhi) from the British camp from Delhi in 1857, are testimonials of the fact how the British relied on the support of these Sikh rulers for capturing Delhi. In a letter dated May 15, 1857, he wrote: “Fortunately the Maharaja of Puttiala [Patiala] is stanch, and so are other Sikh chiefs hereabouts.”21A   Another letter (June 7, 1857) gleefully underlined the fact that out of ‘Jheend [Jind] Rajah’s troops,’ “I am empowered to demand as many as I want, and whenever I want them. I have twenty-five men on constant duty with me, and to-day have asked for double that number for extra duty…”22   Hodson’s letter dated June 10, 1857 while reporting a battle with the mutineers in which he was almost killed, was all praise for the ruler of Jind State and his ‘Jheend men’ who,

fought [with him] like excellent soldiers. The good General [Raja of Jind] came up when it was over, and shook hands with me, and then with the men nearest. Their Rajah has given the native officer a pair of gold bangles, and doubled his pay. This is the way to encourage soldiers, European as well as native: reward them, if but with thanks, on the spot.”23

Hodson, in mid-August 1857, led an attack on Rohtak which had turned into a rebel strong hold and how he acknowledged the support of the Jind ruler would be clear from the following letter [August 19, 1857]:

“This morning I was joined by a party of Jheend horse, whom my good friend the Rajah sent as soon as he heard I was coming Rohtuck-wards, so I have now 400 horsemen, more or less, fresh ammunition having come in this morning, and am quite independent.”24

There has been a concerted attempt to show as if the three Mughal Princes, Mirza Moghul, the King’s nephew whom the British believed to be the kingpin of rebellion in Delhi, Mirza Khizar Sultan, another Prince who was also regarded as a principal rebel leader and Abu Bakht, the commander-in-chief and heir apparent to the throne were killed on September 22, 1857, near Delhi Gate (now known as Khooni Darwaza opposite to Ferozshah Kotla) in order to assuage the hurt religious feelings of the Sikhs who were part of the British army and their bodies were taken to the spot [Kotwali] where Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured and killed by the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb, two hundred years back.

Such a narrative gets legitimacy from a foot-note of George Hodson (real brother of Captain Hodson, who compiled and edited Major Hodson’s letters in a book form in 1859) which he added to the letter of his brother in which he described how the princes were murdered. In fact, Hodson’s letter made no such claim as the perusal of the letter would show. According to Hodson’s version he went to Humayun’s Tomb on September 22, to capture the ‘villain’ princes who played prominent role in the uprising at Delhi with the express orders from the General that “don’t let me be bothered with them”24A   which only meant that they should be killed. According to Hodson’s version:

“I went to look for my prisoners, who with their guard, had moved on towards Delhi. I came up just in time, as a large mob had collected, and were turning on the guard. I rode in among them at a gallop, and in a few words I appealed to the crowd, saying that these were the butchers who had murdered and brutally used helpless women and children, and that the Government had now sent their punishment: seizing a carbine from one of my men, I deliberately shot them one after another. I then ordered the bodies to be taken into the city, and thrown out on the ‘Chiboutra’ [platform] in front of the Kotwalie where the blood of the innocent victims still could be distinctly traced. The bodies remained before until this morning [September 24], when for sanitary reasons, they were removed. In twenty-four hours, therefore, I disposed of the principal members of the house of Timur the Tatar. I am not cruel, but I confess I did rejoice at the opportunity of ridding the earth of these wretches. I intended to have had them hung, but when it came to a question of ‘they’ or ‘us’ I had no time for deliberation.”25

According to Lt. MacDowell who accompanied Hodson on this killing trip, the latter before shooting ordered the Shahzadas [Mughal Princes] to quit the cart in which they had been placed and strip themselves to their under- vestments.26

The above letter written by Hodson made no such claim that Hodson by killing the princes intended to lease Sikhs or it was done to avenge the cruel killing of a Sikh Guru. He was very clear about his motive behind dastardly killing of the Mughal princes as he wrote in the above mentioned letter that within twenty-four hours of capturing Delhi “I disposed of the principal members of the house of Timur the Tatar. I am not cruel, but I confess I did rejoice at the opportunity of ridding the earth of these wretches.”

McDowell’s letter throws light on the religious identity of the British troops who accompanied the two officers; Hodson and McDowell, to capture  the  Princes.  They  were  all  natives;  both  Muslims  and  Sikhs.27 But editor of Hodson's letters, George Hodson, by adding the following foot-note did try to make it Muslim versus Sikh issue. According to this foot-note, the ‘Chiboutra’ where he dead bodies of the Mughal princes were thrown was the same

“spot that the head of Gooroo Teg Bahadoor [sic] had been exposed by the order of Aurungzebe [sic], the Great Mogul, nearly two hundred years before the Sikhs considered that in attacking Delhi they were ‘paying off an old score.’ A prophecy had long been current among them, that by the help of the white man they should re-conquer Delhi. After this they looked on Captain Hodson as the ‘avenger of their martyred Gooroo,’ and were even more ready than before to follow him anywhere.”28

It was an astonishing claim that the British were the defenders of the Sikh faith. It was not even a decade back that they had subjugated whole of the Punjab by waging the first Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846) and then second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-1849) destroying not only a united Sikh Kingdom of Punjab but also many independent Sikh princely states in the region.

However, the myth that Sikhs as a community betrayed the 1857 War of Independence and were mainly responsible for the British victory over Indians remains a favourite belief, not only with lay persons but also intellectuals. In this myth is also woven another myth that it was due to the betrayal of Sikhs; the Punjab remained completely unaffected by the great upheaval.

This paper tries to examine the above myth solely in the light of the contemporary documents like the British official records, gazetteers and narratives (both British and Indian) which include personal diaries, letters and memoirs of those who played significant role either in suppressing or supporting this rebellion. Some of these sources being accessed for the first time bring forth startling facts which completely demolish the myth of culpability of Sikhs, as a community, in helping the colonial masters in suppressing the great rebellion which started in May 1857.

The methodology adopted in this paper to find out truth is that the whole gamut of the above referred contemporary narratives has been thoroughly scanned to find out the answer to the following three fundamental questions:

(1) Did the Sikh princes/landlords who sided with the British represent Sikh community?

(2) Were there Muslim and Hindu ruling clans from Punjab who also joined the British bandwagon in 1857?

(3) Were there Sikhs and Punjabis who actively joined the great rebellion and fought against the British in 1857?

The startling facts which come out of this search, not only show the hollowness of the anti-Sikh myth concerning 1857 rebellion but also throw light on the fact that how myths continue to survive as researchers and historiographers instead of digging into historical documents rely on stereotypes. The propagation of this kind of stereotypes tends to accomplish another nasty aim, that is, to belittle the crimes of the British rulers in suppressing the great revolt, and instead, hold Sikh community responsible for the excesses and savagery committed by them.

DID THE SIKH PRINCES/LANDLORDS WHO SIDED WITH THE BRITISH REPRESENT SIKH COMMUNITY?

It would be nothing but travesty of facts to present the active support of few Sikh ruling families of Punjab to the British cause in 1857 as siding of the whole Sikh community with the British. In fact, the Sikh princely states under discussion even themselves did not claim that they represented Sikhs or Sikh interests. Even today the personal websites of these rulers proudly display the titles which they secured from the Mughal Kings and the British rulers. A simple perusal of the contemporary documents as presented below would show on whose side these rulers stood on the eve of outbreak of 1857 rebellion.

The Patiala Sikh ruling family was a trusted ally of both the Mughal rulers as well as the British. The contemporary documents corroborate the fact that the

“title of Maharaja was conferred on the Patiala chief [Raja Sahib Singh] in 1810 by the Emperor Akbar II on the recommendation of General Ochterlony…After the First Sikh War, the Maharaja Narendra Singh’s assistance was acknowledged by the gift of a portion of the confiscated Nabha territory.”29

The Kapurthala Sikh rulers were old loyalists to the British Empire building project in India. The family solidly stood with the British in the Second  Sikh  War  of  1848-1849.30    The  Sikh  rulers  of  Jind,  too,  were historically close allies of the British in both the wars against Sikh Kingdom in Punjab. The contemporary British official documents gratefully acknowledged the fact that

“Raja Sarup Singh’s behaviour during the first Sikh War was satisfactory…When the second Sikh War broke out in 1849, Raja Sarup Singh offered to lead his troops in person to join the British army at Lahore.”31

The rulers of Nabha State were also old dependable allies of the British rulers in Punjab. Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha

“was formally taken under the protection of the British in May 1809 with the other Cis-Sutlej [group of small states in the Punjab region between River Sutlej on the north, Hiamalyas on the east, River Jamuna on the south and Sirsa district on the west] chiefs…The Raja always proved a faithful ally of the British, and aided us without stint

when his assistance was required. He furnished supplies for Ochterlony’s Gurkha campaign in the Simla Hills and also helped in the Bikaner affair of 1818. At the time of Kabul campaign of 1838 he offered services of his troops to the Governor-General and advanced six lakhs of rupees towards the expenses of the campaign.”32

Raja Wazir Singh of Faridkot State’s choice of siding with the British in 1857 was part of this ruling family’s long tradition of standing with the foreign rulers. His father, Pahar Singh fought with the British during the first Anglo-Sikh War against Sikhs. Wazir Singh remained also loyal during the second Sikh War [1848-49] to the British before supporting them in ‘Mutiny’.33

Thus the contemporary documents make it, doubtlessly, clear that, there were princely states ruling by families professing Sikhism which actively supported the British in suppressing the ‘Mutiny’, but that did not mean that they represented the Sikh community as such or all Sikhs agreed with their perception and activities. These rulers were mainly led by their personal and political interest as most of the ruling clans do. They had nothing to do with any project related to Sikhism or Sikh Kingdom.

WERE THERE MUSLIM AND HINDU RULING CLANS FROM PUNJAB WHO ALSO JOINED THE BRITISH BANDWAGON IN 1857?

In this whole discourse one important aspect which is generally overlooked is whether there were Muslim and Hindu ruling clans and landlords who, too, actively helped the British in suppressing the ‘Mutiny’. The fact is that there were a large number of families from Punjab, belonging to both these religions, which greatly helped the colonial masters in crushing the rebellion.

The two volumes; Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab, volume I (1909) and volume II (1910) present startling data about the number of acknowledged British stooges in Punjab which is of great help in critically evaluating the myth of Sikh culpability in right perspective. According to this exhaustive work on Punjab, the notable ruling princes or land lord families which openly helped the British military campaign against rebels of 1857, if divided on religious basis were as follows: Muslims 48, Sikhs 47 and Hindus 21. This data clearly shows that these were not only sections of Sikh princes and landed aristocracy which sided with the British in 1857, but there were also Muslims and Hindus of the same categories which sided with the British. The contributions made to the British cause by these Muslim and Hindu ruling families and rewards bestowed on them by the foreign rulers, well-documented, are worth knowing.

MUSLIMS

Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan who headed a renowned landlord family of Karnal immediately after hearing the news of the outbreak of ‘Mutiny’ at Meerut,

“placed the whole of his horse and footmen at the disposal of Government. They were stationed at Thanesar, and assisted in preserving order and in supporting the executive authority.”34

The services rendered by another Muslim feudal lord from the same area, Nawab Ahmad Ali Khan were acknowledged in a letter from Lord Canning in the following words:

"His Lordship is of opinion that the liberality of Government in the acknowledgment of the Nawab's services [in 1857] should be as unstinted as his support and assistance have been unhesitating. The Nawab's services have been most valuable, as testified by all officers, both Civil and Military, who have had an opportunity of forming a judgment on the subject."35

The services of a prominent Muslim landlord of Panipat, Amanullah Khan, are mentioned in the following words:

 

“He was forward on all occasions in offers of assistance to the District authorities, and during the Mutiny he was actively loyal, helping to the best of his ability in preserving order in his native town and in furnishing supplies for the troops before Delhi.”36

Hamid-ullah Khan of Kangra District during the ‘Mutiny’ “furnished levies [sepoys] who were employed in Hoshiarpur, Kulu, Kangra and Dharmsala” and in recognition of these services Hamid-ullah Khan was conferred the title of Raja Bahadur.37

Maulvi Sayed Rajab Ali of Jagraon (Ludhiana Dist) was an old loyalist of the British rulers. He was a close confident of Sir Henry Lawrence. In the wake of 1857 uprising he was one of those three spies and conspirators (other two being Mirza Ilahi Baksh and Munshi Jeewan Lal) who managed to stay back in Delhi as part of the city’s elite circles during the siege by the British and played prominent role as Fifth Columnists in  securing  Delhi  to  the  British.38     When  Hodson  went  to  arrest  the Mughal King and hunt for the Mughal Princes to be shot later by him, Rajab Ali was in tow and Hodson used to lovingly call him ‘my one- eyed Moulvie Rujub Ali [sic]’.39   The Maulvi was bestowed with the title of Khan Bahadur in 1846 and that of Arastu Jah (the Aristotle of the age) in 1853.40

Sarfaraz Khan of Kharal tribe in Montgomery District was another British stooge who tipped off the British about mass rebellion of his tribe in September 1857. The British were grateful to him that

“when a large portion of his tribe, under Ahmed Khan, rebelled, Sarfaraz Khan remained loyal…he received the title of Khan Bahadur, a khilat of Rs. 500, and a jagir of Rs. 525 for life.”41

The great services which Ali Raza Khan Qazil Bash of Lahore rendered to the British in this period were numerous. He came forward to recruit  for the British

“A troop of horse [regiment of cavalry] for service before Delhi…at his own expense…Forming part of the celebrated ‘Hodson's Horse’ the troop raise by Ali Raza Khan served throughout the campaign.”42

After the campaign he received the First-class Order of Merit, the title of Sardar Bahadur and also received a grant of a talukdars of one hundred and forty-seven villages in Baraich, Oudh, worth Rs. 15,000 per annum. He also received the title of Khan Bahadur…He was created a hereditary Nawab in 1864, two years before his death.43

The book Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab recorded in details the crucial contributions of many other Muslim feudal lords which were made to support the British military campaign to crush ‘Mutiny’. The Lahore based Sadozai family’s head; Khan Bahadur Shahzada Sultan Ibrahim Jan served during the Mutiny as Adjutant of a corps of Afridi Jezailchis [a group of Pashtun tribesmen], whereas another son of this family, Shahzada Faridan, obtained a commission  as  Jemadar  of  the  2nd  Punjab  Infantry  in  1857.44    Khan Bahadur Shiekh Nashruddin of Lahore raised, under the orders of the Government, two battalions of cavalry for service at Delhi.45   Kamal-ud- din Khan of Kasur raised one hundred horsemen, and with his nephews proceeded to Hissar under General Van-Cortland.46

The great deeds which Muhammad Shah of Lahore performed for the British military campaign in 1857 were recorded in the following words:

“On the frontier he was known as a first-rate officer both for bravery and intelligence. As senior native officer of his squadron he served throughout the siege and capture of Delhi, the relief and capture of Lucknow, the capture of Bareilly, and the actions of Bulandshahar, Fatehgarh, Agra and Aligarh. He received the Order of British India…”47

The well-known Muslim feudal family of Kadian [Qadian] which was headed by Ghulam Murtaza proved to be a steadfast ally of the British in 1857 as is clear from the following statement:

“The family did excellent service during the Mutiny of 1857. Ghulam Murtaza enlisted many men, and his son Ghulam Kadir was serving in the force of General Nicholson when that officer destroyed the mutineers of the 46th Native Infantry, who had fled from Sialkot, at Trimu Ghat. General Nicholson gave Ghulam Kadir a certificate, stating that in 1857 the Kadian family showed greater loyalty than any other in the district.”48

Another large Muslim feudal clan, known as Tiwana family of Shahpur District, led by Malik Fateh Sher Khan

“was one of the first of the great chiefs who answered to the call made upon them by John Lawrence at the outbreak of the Mutiny in 1857. He at once raised a regiment of irregular cavalry and joined the Hariana [sic] Field Force under General Van Cortlandt. He and his men were engaged in several actions, notably at Hissar, Bangali and Jamalpur, and were on every occasion distinguished for their dash and gallantry…For his fidelity and courage he was rewarded with the title of Khan Bahadur…”49

From the same district another big landlord, Malik Sher M. Khan,

“raised a body of three hundred horse, which was employed first in keeping order in the Cis-Sutlej and Delhi Divisions and in 1858 was on active service under the Commander-in- Chief in Oudh, where it took part in several actions with distinction”50   and for his loyal services was conferred the title of Khan Bahadur.

Malik Sahib Khan, Malik Jahan Khan Tiwana and Malik Jahan Khan of Shahpur raised troops in large numbers for the British army which helped “in preserving order around Cawnpore and then accompanied General Napier in his Central India campaign. For Mutiny services Maliks were awarded the titles of Khan Bahadur…”51

another significant aspect of the support of Muslim leading families of Punjab to the British cause was that many mutawallis [custodians/chiefs] of the leading Muslim shrines too joined the British camp. Mukhdum Shah Mahmud, custodian of the Baha-ud-din shrine at Multan, rendered great help to the British Government during ‘Mutiny’.

“He offered the Commissioner information of every important occurrence that came to his knowledge; provided twenty men and horses for Ghulam Mustafa Khan’s Risala [platoon], and several for the now police force. He also supplied men for the police and infantry levies. With twenty-five horsemen he accompanied Colonel Hamilton against the insurgents, took upon himself a portion of the camp duties, and protected the baggage on the line of march…In 1860 the Makhdum, on the occasion of the Viceroy’s visit to Lahore, received, a personal grant of a garden, worth Rs. 150 per annum, known as the Bhangiwala Bagh.”52

Likewise both the in chiefs of Ghauspur shrine at Multan, Muhammad Hayat and Murad Shah, rendered assistance in 1857 and received suitable rewards in return.53  Murad Shah one of the custodians of Gardezi shrine of Multan also joined the British bandwagon and according to the British records, “he received a sanad and khilat of the value of Rs. 200 for good service during mutiny.”54

Sir Charles U. Aitchinson who was Lt. Governor of Punjab during 1882- 1887, admitted the fact that

 

“Sir John Lawrence had dexterously drawn to his service the marauders of the border. Adventures from many tribes- Afridis and Mohmands Daudzais and Yusafzais, even robbers from Boner and zealots from Swat-had answered his call, and marched, regiment after regiment, to fight our battles on the Ridge at Delhi and on the plains of Hindustan.”54

Aitchinson who had access to all the official papers of the military strategists in Punjab who organized campaign to crush the ‘Mutiny’, highlighted a very significant aspect of the support which the British drew from Punjab, when he wrote:

“It is remarkable that the Muhammadans [sic], especially the Border Pathans, Edwardes’ old men, were the first to flock to our standard. They were rigid Mussalmans, ‘who never missed a prayer and many of whom rode with the Koran at their saddle-bow.’ Sikhs enlisted, but not in great numbers. They held back until Delhi had fallen, and then recruits came in thousands from the Manjha.”55

It only shows that the British army which went out to crush the ‘Mutiny’ was not recruited from a single community or one region of Punjab. It did not differentiate between Muslims and Sikhs. And in fact it had large participation of Hindus, too, as we will see in the following.

HINDUS

The leading Hindu families of Punjab also did not lag behind in rendering assistance and great help to the Firangis is again well- documented. The book Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab described how strongly many of the Hindu princes, landlords and notable families were committed to the British cause. The perusal of the description available in this book of some of these families is quite informative and startling.

Diwan Hari Chand and Nihal Chand of Gujranwala were senior commanders of the forces of Jammu Raja (Maharaja Gulab Singh), the former being the chief commander. When the ‘Mutiny’ broke out, according to the British records, Hari Chand

“was sent to Delhi in charge of the Jammu contingent of one cavalry and four infantry regiments and a battery of Artillery. He died there of cholera in 1857. Diwan Nihal Chand…hastened to Delhi in 1857 on hearing of his brother’s death, and took over command of the troops, rendering useful service later on it connection with the trial of the Nawab of Jhajjar for participation in the rebellion.”56

Gulab Singh of Kangra District [now in Himachal Pradesh] was also part of this Jammu army and “commanded one of the regiments of the Jammu Contingent, which marched to Delhi and did excellent service in the Mutiny.”56A  Later the title of Raja was conferred upon him.

Pirthi Singh, son of Raja Jodhbir Chand, again from Kangra District

“fought during the Mutiny in Central India, winning the Order of Merit and receiving a khilat of Rs. 500. For his good services generally, the Raja was made a Knight Commander of the Star of India in 1868, and was granted a salute of seven guns as a personal distinction…”57

Tek Chand of Indaura family of Kangra, too,

“rendered good service during the rebellion of 1848-49, and again in the Mutiny, when he assisted in the capture of rebels, and furnished a number, of men for patrol duty” and his family was also conferred the title of Rai Sahib.”58

Wazir Gosaun of Bir of Mandi Kangra was another ruling family which actively came forward to join the British campaign against the rebels.

“During the Mutiny of 1857, as Regent of Mandi, he placed the resources of the State at the disposal of Government [British]…He had also made arrangements for furnishing an additional batch of five hundred men if any call had arisen for their services.”59

Rai Ratan Chand of Babhaur (Hoshiarpur Dist) came forward with

“loyal assistance on the occasion of the Mutiny, proceeding to Delhi with a number of his kinsmen and doing excellent service side by side with the British Troops throughout the rebellion.”60

Pran Nath of Lahore belonging to a family of tehsildars played prominent role in killing the rebel sepoys at Lahore. His cruel deeds are thus recorded in the above referred book.

“He was at Ajnala in 1857, and on the 31st of July about 500 the disarmed sepoys of the 26th Native Infantry which had mutinied at Lahore…arrived on the left bank of the Ravi near Balghat and prepared to cross the river. Pran Nath collected the villagers and the police, and attacked the mutineers with vigour, and killed some 150 of them.”61

Both the volumes of Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab also recorded the loyalist deeds of the following Hindu families and prominent individuals.

Karam Chand of Gujranwala was at Lahore in command of joined General Van Cortlandt and was him “at all the actions fought by the General between Ferozepore and Rohtak.”62   Rana Bishan Chand of Koti assisted in guarding the station against the approach of the Nasiri Battalion of Gurkhas whose behaviour at Jutog, when ordered to proceed to the plains, brought them under the suspicion of disloyalty; and he afterwards gave shelter to many Europeans who had left Simla.63  

Kishan Singh of Baghal State provided,

 

“a contingent of footmen to assist in watching the roads leading from Jullundur whence an attack upon Simla by the mutineers of the 3rd, 33rd and 35th Bengal Regiments was expected…was rewarded for his loyalty by receiving the title of Raja…”64

A through perusal of the contemporary archival material would make it clear that these were not only notable Sikh families which stood on the side of the British but also Muslim as well as Hindu families of the same class. In fact, in most of the cases they worked jointly and that too with full vigour. For instance the ‘Montgomery Sahib ka Risala,’ which became the nucleus of the famous ‘Hodson’s Horse’ and was the first British contingent to reach Delhi immediately after ‘Mutiny’ originally consisted of three regiments of cavalry, “one raised by Nawab Imam-ud-din Khan, one by Raja Tej Singh, and the third by…Man Singh…”65

The British chief commander Wilson while describing the ethnic character of the British armed forces which besieged Delhi in 1857 admitted that “such a ‘heterogeneous force’ consisting of Beloochees [sic], Afghans, Sikhs, Pathans, Dograhs [sic]” was never collected under the British command in history.66

Kaye who witnessed ‘Mutiny’ was forthright in his conclusion that these were native stooges of all creeds who helped the British in recapturing India after 1857 revolt. According to him

“It was one of the most curious characteristics of the mutiny- war, that although the English were supposed to be fighting against the native races, they were in reality sustained and supported by the Natives of the country, and could not have held their own for a day without the aid of those whom we hated as our national enemies.”67

Thus the contemporary narratives and documents make it abundantly clear that the British army which invaded Delhi, apart from Sikh troops, also included large numbers of Muslim, Hindu sepoys (often referred to as Punjabees) who were recruited (or sent by Muslim-Hindu rulers and landlords) from Punjab and as far away as Afghanistan. Kaye’s account even confirms the fact that “Balochee [sic] regiment was the first to arrive. They were steadfast in their loyalty and fought well.”68

Those who single out Sikhs as the main culprit for the defeat of Indians in the 1857 rebellion overlook another crucial fact that is the participation of thousands of Gurkha troops sent by the Nepal rulers to augment the depleted British army in the aftermath of ‘Mutiny’. The British commanders relied on Gurkhas (who were all Hindus) immensely for invading Delhi. According to Kaye’s narration, Major Charles Reid who was assigned the task of capturing Kishengunje and Subzimandi, the most difficult parts of Delhi, had great

“reliance on Goorkhas [sic]. Their indomitable spirit was something beautiful to behold…Reid’s heart was gladdened that he was taking with him two hundred of the sturdy Goorkhas who had clung to him so nobly from the first.”69

At Lucknow front the Nepal ruler, Jung Bahadur personally came leading a large Gurkha force on March 10, 185870   which played crucial role in capturing the city for the British.

WERE THERE SIKHS AND PUNJABIS WHO ACTIVELY JOINED THE GREAT REBELLION AND FOUGHT AGAINST THE BRITISH IN 1857?

The perusal of contemporary narratives and documents doubtlessly proves that Sikhs and Punjabis participated in the rebellion in large numbers not only in Punjab but also outside Punjab. In this study we are only focusing on Sikhs and Punjabis and not on the rebellion of native troops of the British army often referred as ‘Poorabeah’ troops who revolted in thousands in almost all cantonments of Punjab and were ruthlessly punished  and killed.

The India Office Library in London retains important contemporary material on 1857 which no other library or archives in the world has. Amongst its collection of ‘Montgomery Papers’ is a section ‘Delhee News’ containing original letters of the spies which were sent from within the besieged city of Delhi to the British army commanders during June-September, 1857. In this collection we find two British spies, Jawahar Singh and Mamraj, informing the British on July 2 that “35 Sikhs had reached from Benares, and were encamped at the Kootub [Qutab]. They were brought into Dehlee [sic].”70A

Another letter from spy, ‘Ramjee Dass of Alleepoor’ informed the British masters on July 19, that in deference of the Hindu and Sikh rebel sepoys in Delhi the King, Bahadur Shah Zafar decreed that ‘anyone guilty of Cow-killing will be blown away from a gun’70B

References to Sikhs in these letters only confirm the fact that patriotic forces which gathered to defend Delhi against the British siege had substantial participation of rebel Sikhs.

Munshi Jeewan Lal was Mir Munshi or head clerk attached to the British Governor General’s Agent at Delhi on the eve of ‘Mutiny’. When rebels at Delhi declared their independence on May 11, 1857, Jeewan Lal on the instructions of his British masters stayed back in Delhi to work as their spy as he himself admitted

“I was moved by the thoughts that for many years I had eaten the salt of the English Government and wished it well, and now was an opportunity to do all that was possible with heart and soul for those I had served.”71

Throughout his stay in Delhi he maintained a diary which was translated and published by Charles Theophilus Metcalfe, a senior British official and a benefactor of Jeewan Lal in 1885. Jeewan Lal’s diary basically contained material and  lots of information to be passed to the British who had besieged the city, had the following entries about the participation of Sikhs and Punjabis in the rebellion, specially defence of Delhi, which a well-wisher of the British would never have reported if were without substance. Here are some of the entries in chronological order from his diary highlighting the participation of Sikhs and Punjabis in the 1857 Uprising.

May 27 [1857]:

“Two regiments of the Punjabis demanded an audience of the King to complain that the Sahibs [the British] at Ferozepur [sic] had shot several men of the regiments to which they belonged, and requested that the King should take care that they should not be treated like their brethren at Ferozpur. They demanded guarantees from the King that he would protect them, otherwise they asked for permission to disband themselves. The King assured them that he was able and willing to protect them.”72

May 28 [1857]:

“About 200 men arrived from Lahore and Ferozepur to join the mutineers.”73

June 1 [1857]:

“NEWS came from Patiala that the two native regiments sent to assist the English had joined the mutineers, and, had had a fight with the English. It was reported that the whole of the Patiala force was hostile to the English. The soldiers openly remonstrated with the Maharajah for sympathizing with the English, when the natives were fighting in defence of their religion. They reminded him that he had gained nothing by his behaviour during the Punjab war…”74

June 21 [1857]:

“A sowar [cavalryman] came to announce the arrival of three regiments of foot and cavalry from Jullundur, who offered their services to the King; they were ordered to encamp outside the city.”75

July 8 [1857]

“A dispatch received from the Peshawur [sic] forces intimating that 20,000 men were willing to join the King and would shortly arrive.”76

July 15 [1857]:

Two companies of the Grenadier Regiment from Umballa came in, and reported that the Rajah of Patiala had shot down a thousand Sepoys who were marching through his territory towards Delhi.”77

July 27 [1857]:

“To-day two Sikhs came on behalf of the chiefs of Lahore to say that 200,000 cartridges had been safely delivered to the troops in the Nimuch camp. Orders were issued that these were not to be wasted, as the supply in the Magazine was running short.”78

July 29 [1857]:

“Several Sikhs, retainers of the Rajah Narunder Sing [ruler of Patiala State], deserted from the English camp and appeared at the Durbar, and they reported that the English were' badly off for artillery horses, but had plenty of guns.”79

August 5 [1857]:

“Certain Sikhs presented a petition complaining that they were in the habit of attacking the English entrenchments, but had to return, as the Purbeahs would give them no assistance and would not co-operate; they prayed the King to form a regiment of Sikhs from amongst the regiments of Delhi, and to entrust them with two field guns, that they might attack the

English with some chance of success. They were encouraged, and told not to despair of victory.”80

August 6 [1857]:

“The Punjabis living on Saadut Ali Khan's Canal promised to pay to the King 41,000 rupees.” 81

August 26 [1857]:

“Ghosh Mahommed, the General commanding the Nimuch force…asked for reinforcements. One regiment of Sikhs and four of cavalry were placed under his command.”82

September 2 [1857]:

“Five cavalry soldiers from Lahore came in without arms.”83

There is another personal diary available of the days of siege of Delhi by the British, titled 1857 ka Tareekhi Roznamcha penned by Abdul Latif. It is the Urdu translation of a diary which was originally written in Persian. He was a resident of Delhi, belonging to a family of the elites, having direct access to the court of Bahadur Shah Zafar. Latif hated rebels, however, his diary has an entry dated July 27, 1857 which reads:

“Few Sikhs after traveling all the way from Lahore appeared in the court of the King [Zafar] and made a representation that in Lahore it is rumoured that the King had decreed the beheading of Sikhs and announced a reward of ten rupees for every head brought The King responded by saying that he practiced only kindness and nothing else, he treats people of all creeds and religions with equal love and whoever has spread this rumour is a liar.”84

This entry in the diary only underlines the fact that there were Sikhs in Lahore who felt attached to the Mughal King who had declared his independence from the British hegemony. Most likely it was a rumour spread by the British and their henchmen in Punjab to keep Sikhs away from joining the rebel forces at Delhi and these anti-British Sikhs came to Delhi [a dangerous and real heroic deed in those days when even a bird could not fly in or out of Delhi due to the British siege] to clarify matters and get assurance.

Latif’s diary also mentions the fact that on August 17, 1875,

“200 Sikhs sepoys belonging to the army of Jammu Raja came to join the rebel forces. They also reported that the rulers of Patiala, Nabha and Jind have provided a large force to the British for capturing Delhi.”84A

These are not the diaries of Jeewan Lal and Abdul Latif only which disclose the fact that Sikhs and Punjabis joined hands with rebels in large numbers. J. Cave-Brown, who as a Christian priest accompanied the British forces which moved from Peshawar to Delhi, corroborated the fact that Sikhs too joined the 1857 rebellion. He, in his memoirs, while describing the punishment meted out to mutinous troops at Ropar admitted the fact that there were Sikhs among rebels. According to his description,

“five men concerned in the riot at Roopar [Ropar] were identified, and tried by a civil commission, and, with the Sirdar Mohur Singh, were sentenced to death.”85

The British Gazetteer of Ludhiana district acknowledged the fact that

“Of the two men of the regiment [of the native British troops at Ludhina] who met their death, one was a Jhelum Mussulman, caught as a spy; another who attempted Lieutenant Yorke’s life, and was shot by him was a young Manjha Sikh.”86

M. R. Gubbins was Revenue Commissioner and a member of the British Commission which governed Oudh after its annexation for fourteen months just before the 1857 rebellion. After the uprising, he became one of the chief advisors of Sir Henry Lawrence (Commissioner of Oudh), managed the Intelligence Department and stayed with the British forces till they were forced to vacate Lucknow in November 1857. His diary published under the title The Mutinies in Oudh (1858, London) has following details about the Sikh rebels in Oudh.

On May 31, 1857, Gubbins led British sepoys were able to capture a group of rebel sepoys in a village outside Lucknow. It was found by Gubbins that “three of the men belonged to the 48th   Native Infantry and three to the 13th  Native Infantry, and one man was a Seikh [Sikh].”87

It is true that British relied heavily on the Sikh troops mainly supplied by the Sikh princes of Punjab but a crucial fact should also not be overlooked that there were large number of Sikhs who joined the ranks of rebels also. While describing the attitude of Sikh troops during the siege of Lucknow by the rebel forces, Gubbins admitted that

“Many of these men [Sikhs] deserted us during the siege; and the rest were, during the whole time, a constant source of alarm and anxiety. They were in constant correspondence with the enemy, through their deserters, who used to come up under the walls of the squares and converse with their brethren inside…The object of these visits of the Siekh [Sikh] deserters was…to induce their brethren to desert also.”88

This largely did not happen because there were British loyalist Sikhs who worked as spies to thwart any such possibility. Gubbins underscoring the role of such stooges wrote:

“We had a party of four of them, more trusty it must be admitted than the rest, under the Risaldar Sheyre Singh, in my garrison. They at night occupied a post on the roof of the outhouses on the south face. Sheyre Singh one night informed us, that, if we chose, we might overhear a conversation which was invited by a deserter outside with the men of his post. Captain Hawes accordingly went down and concealed himself behind the rampart. The deserter [Sikh] approached, and for some time used every endeavour to induce his Seikh brethren to desert. He assured them that our defences could not long keep the enemy off: that no succour could possibly arrive; and that, if the place was taken, they would share our slaughter. On the other hand they were assured of receiving high pay and consideration from the mutineers. After sometime passed in converse of this nature, Sheyre Singh informed them that a ‘sahib’ was listening, when the emissary at once took to flight.”89

Gubbins’ narration of Oudh rebellion mentioned the fact that by the end of July 1857 there prevailed ‘great despondency’ among the British troops.

“We daily lost men, sometimes six or seven in a day; and they had begun to think that relief was impossible. Many desertions had taken place, and several of the Seikhs [Sikhs], including sixteen men of the 13th   Native Infantry had been of the number.”90

Gubbins while describing the events of the month of August (1857) wrote that Sikh troops continued giving

“much anxiety. Many of them had deserted; and we were not sure that the rest who were known to maintain clandestine communication with the enemy, might not any time follow the example of their brethren.”91

Gubbins’ memoirs even contain details of an abortive plot which allegedly was hatched by the Sikh army men against the British officers.

“Their plan was stated to be the following: the Seikhs [Sikhs] were to enter my enclosure by twos and threes, on pretence of speaking to me about obtaining an issue of pay. My native artillerymen were then, at a given signal, to turn the guns of my post on the European, when a rising of the native was to take place everywhere, while an attack from the outside was to be made by the enemy.” Gubbins wrote that as a measure of precaution Sikh troopers were prohibited from entering his [Gubbins’] enclosure and “nothing eventually came of the supposed plot.”92

Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab (volume I) contains details of large scale rebellion of Sikh troops of the British army stationed at Benares, their massacre and how it was sabotaged by a British stooge, Surat Singh.

“On the 4th June 1857 the 37th Native Infantry was disbanded at Benares, and some suspicious movement being observed in a corps of Ludhiana Sikhs present on the ground, the guns, which were being served against the 37th, were turned against the Sikhs. The whole affair seems to have been a miserable mistake; and there is no reason to believe that the corps was anything but loyal. But it was not prepared for so severe a test of its loyalty, and accordingly charged the guns; but was repulsed with great loss and driven from the field.

“It happened that the Benares treasury, which contained several lakhs of rupees and the jewels of the Maharani-Jindan,  valued at twenty lakh, was guarded by a detachment of the Sikh regiment which had been cut up. Hard by the treasury was the Collector's Court, a strong masonry building, on the roof of which some twelve Civilians had taken their stand to defend the treasure and their own lives in the event of an outbreak. When the Sikh guard hears of the fate of their comrades, their agitation and rage was extreme, and they would certainly have mutinied, seized the treasure, and attacked the Europeans, had not Sardar Surat Singh gone in among them and, by his personal influence and expostulations, kept them to a sense of their duty. Through that long June night, the Sardar, ably seconded by Pandit Gokal Chand, argued and entreated till, towards morning, the little party were escorted to the mint by a European force. At Janupur another detachment of the Ludhiana Regiment was stationed. When these men heard of the destruction of their regiment, they rose in fury, shot their Commanding Officer murdered the Joint Magistrate, and marched to Lucknow with the treasure. But for the gallantry and loyalty of Surat Singh, the same tragedy might have taken place at Benares.”93

So, as the contemporary documents show, these were not only Sikh ruling families in Punjab who supported the British but also well-known rich families amongst Hindus and Muslims who joined the British campaign against the 1857 rebellion. This reality was no different from the rest of India, where rulers of Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhopal, Dhar and many more native states joined hands with the British in crushing the great War of Independence.

It is a matter of serious discussion, and concern that why the support of the rulers of princely states like Patiala, Nabha, Jind or Kapurthala (which in no way represented the Sikh community) to the British is only singled out to be identified in terms of the religion professed by its rulers. This terrible confusion could be found even in one of the last letters of Nana Saheb of Bithoor which he addressed to his countrymen. In  this  letter  dated  7th    Sudi  of  Kartik,  Samvat  1915  (1858)  he  wrote:

“This was the defeat of the entire country not mine [of the revolutionaries]. It was because of Gorkhas, Sikhs and the princely order.”94    

Despite the fact that Gorkhas happened to be Hindus and ‘princely order’ which supported the British also belonged to Hindu and Islamic faiths, he singled out Sikhs as pro-British community. He can be excused as he did not have all the information but it is really unfortunate that researchers in post Independent India did not bother to verify facts but continued to believe in a myth based on sheer falsehood. The matter does not end here. The whole discourse on 1857 easily forgets to take note of the Sikh revolutionaries who fought and sacrificed for the liberation of India in 1857.

This stereotype also saves the British from the shame and disrepute which would have naturally been accrued on them for the savagery and unparalleled repression in suppressing the rebellion. These were Sikhs who did all the savage acts and British were not responsible, this is the bottom-line of this kind of logic. Every anniversary of this great liberation war is an opportune moment to take note of the true facts and undo the injustice which has continuously been done to the Sikhs as a community in relation to the 1857 War of Independence.

Shamsul Islam,

Link for some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:

http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/

Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com

LINK FOR BOOKS BY SHAMSUL ISLAM CURRENTLY AVAILABLE (Updated January 2021)

https://www.academia.edu/40952491/ALL_BOOKS_OF_SHAMSUL_ISLAM_WITH_BUYING_LINKS

 

REFERENCES:

1  George H. Hodson (ed.), Twelve Years of a Soldier’s Life in India: Being Extracts from the Letters of Major W. S. R. Hodson, John W. Parker & Son, London, 1859, p. 246.

2  Thomas Lowe, Central India: During the rebellion of 1857 and 1858: A Narrative of Operations of the British Forces From the Suppression of Mutiny in Aurangabad to the capture of Gwalior Under Major General Sir Hugh Rose, GCB, and Brigadier Sir C. Stuart, KCB, Longman, London, 1860, p. 324.

3  Majumdar, R. C. (ed.), British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Mumbai, 2002, p. 618.

4  William Howard Russell, My Indian Mutiny Diary, [Edited by Miachel Edwardes with an essay on the Mutiny and its consequences], Cassell & Company, London, 1957.pp. 150-151. 5 Russell, 84.

6  Ibid, p. 96.

7  Ibid, p. 80. In fact, any body and specially a foreigner that had seen the native recruits in the then British army would have had this kind of confusion. The natives recruited from Punjab generally put on a headgear (pugree or turban) as part of their uniform. For instance the uniform of ‘Hodson’s Horse’ was a dust coloured tunic, with a scarlet sash worn over the shoulder, and ‘scarlet turban’. Thus every soldier would probably look like a Sikh. See Hodson, p. 260.

8 Ibid, p. 192.

9  Russell: page no. 192-194.

10             Kaye, John William Kaye, A History of the Sepoy War in India 1857-1858, Vol. III, London, 1870 (Indian reprint as A History of the Great Revolt 1988, p. 570.)

11             Imperial Gazetteers of India, Vol XX, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1908, pp 37-38.

12  W. L. Conarn & H. D. Craik, Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab, Vol. II, Punjab Government, Lahore, 1910, p. 395, 398.

The British Lt. Governor of Punjab, Sir Robert Montgomery (1859-1865) wished to produce a volume documenting facts about the rulers and big landlord clans in the Province who supported the East India Company’s military campaign to crush the 1857 ‘Mutiny’. The task was assigned to a senior official Lepel H. Griffin who produced a volume titled Punjab Chiefs in 1865; it was revised in 1890 by Charles Francis Massy. Since it was not comprehensive enough W. L. Conarn and H. D. Craik revised and corrected titled Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab, Volume I & II in 1909 and 1910 respectively.

13             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 408.

14             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, pp. 413-414.

15             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, pp. 420-421.

16             Ibid, p. 424.

17  Ibid, p. 464.

18  Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, pp. 472-473.

19  Chiefs and Families , Vol, I, p. 221.

20  Ibid, p. 414.

21  Ibid, p. 475.

21A  Hodson. p. 183.

22  Hodson. pp. 197-198.

23             Hodson, p. 201.

24             Hodson, p. 269.

24A  Hodson, p. 300

25  Hodson, pp. 301-302.

26             Cited in Hodson, p. 313.

27             Lt. MacDowell cited in Hodson, p. 313.

28             Hodson, p. 302. It seems Sikh factor was brought in by the editor of Major Hodson’s leters (George H. Hodson, who also happened to be elder brother of Major Hodson) in order to ward off the outcry against his brother’s savage treatment of the Mughal Princes before and after killing them. According to George H. Hodson’s argument, Major Hodson was not that inhuman but indulged in that kind of savagery for Sikhs.

29             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 395

30             Ibid, pp. 420-421.

31  Ibid, pp. 407-408

32             Ibid, p. 412

33             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 464.

34              Chiefs and Families, Vol. 1, p.20.

35             Ibid, p.32.

36             Cited in Chiefs and Families, Vol. 1, p. 46.

37             Ibid, p. 98-99.

38  Ibid, pp. 201-202

39             Hodson, p. 301.

40             Chiefs and Families, Vol. 1, pp. 202-203.

41             Chiefs and Families, Vol. 1, p. 231.

42  Ibid, p. 256-257.

43  Ibid, p. 257.

44  Chiefs and Families, Vol. 1, p. 291.

45  Ibid, p. 322.

46  Ibid, pp. 332-333.

47  Ibid, p. 396.

48  Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 41.

49  Ibid, p. 179.

50  Ibid, pp. 180-181.

51  Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, pp. 181-182, 189.

52  Ibid, pp. 306-307.

53  Ibid, p. 308.

54             Charles Aitchison, Rulers of India: Lord Lawrence, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1892, p. 72. 5

55             Ibid, p. 81.

56             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 132. 56A  Ibid, Vol I, p. 76.

57             Chiefs and Families, Vol I, p. 79.

58              Ibid, p. 108.

59  Ibid, p. 118.

60  Ibid, p. 143.

61  Chiefs and Families, Vol I, pp. 265-266.

62  Ibid, Vol. II, p. 136.

63             Ibid, Vol. II, p. 457.

64             Chiefs and Families, Vol. II, p. 483-484. 65  Ibid, p. 99.

66             Letter dated September 23, 1857 cited in Kaye, vol. iii, p. 656.

67             Kaye, Vol II, p. 603.

68  Ibid, p. 611.

69             Kaye, vol. iii, pp. 605-606.

70             Russell, p. 89.

70A  British Library, London, India Office Records, Private Papers of Sir Robert Montgomery, Mss Eur D1019/3, [Volume III: The Mutiny, including reports by spies made during the siege of Delhi in 1857].

70B  Letter No. 4, Ibid.

71             Charles Theophilus Metcalfe (Tr.), Two Narratives of the Mutiny in Delhi, Delhi, [Indian Edition] 1974, p. 77.

72  Ibid, p. 103.

73  Ibid, p. 105.

74  Ibid, p. 110.

75  Ibid, p. 125.

76  Ibid, p. 143.

77  Ibid, p. 152.

78  Ibid, p. 168.

79  Ibid, pp. 171-172.

80  Ibid, p. 183.

81  Ibid, p. 184.

82  Ibid, p. 208.

83  Ibid, p. 217.

84             Abdul Latif (Tr. & ed. Khaleeque Ahmed Nizami), 1857 ka Tareekhee Roznamcha, Nadwatul Mussanefeen, Delhi, 1958, p. 152.

84A  Ibid, 162.

85             J. Cave-Browne, The Punjab & Delhi in 1857, Vol I, Govt. of Punjab, Amritsar, 1970 (First edition 1861), vol. 1, p. 225.

86             Ludhiana District Gazetteer, Govt. of Punjab, Lahore, 1914, p. 88.

87             M. R. Gubbins, The Mutinies in Oudh, MR Bentley, London, 1858, p. 109. 88  Ibid, pp. 211-212.

89  Ibid, p. 212.

90  Ibid, pp. 228-229.

91  Ibid, p. 274.

92             Ibid, pp. 276.

93             Chiefs and Families, Vol I, pp. 428-429.

94             Cited in Chaturvedi, D. N. (Tr.), Remember Us Once in a While, Govt. of India, 1998, p. 15.

[END OF THE REFERENCES]