*** Excerpts from “Why is England in India at all?” by Jabez T Sutherland ***

What causes this awful and growing impoverishment of the Indian people? Said John Bright, “If a country be found possessing a most fertile soil, and capable of bearing every variety of production, and, notwithstanding, the people are in a state of extreme destitution and suffering, the chances are there is some fundamental error in the government of that country.”

One cause of India’s impoverishment is heavy taxation. Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland. According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the annual average income per person in India is about $6.00, and the annual tax per person about $2.00. Think of taxing the American people to the extent of one-third their total income! Yet such taxation here, unbearable as it would be, would not create a tithe of the suffering that it does in India, because incomes here are so immensely larger than there. Here it would cause great hardship, there it creates starvation. Notice the single item of salt-taxation. Salt is an absolute necessity to the people, to the very poorest; they must have it or die. But the tax upon it which for many years they have been compelled to pay has been much greater than the cost value of the salt. Under this taxation the quantity of salt consumed has been reduced actually to one-half the quantity declared by medical authorities to be absolutely necessary for health. The mere suggestion in England of a tax on wheat sufficient to raise the price of bread by even a half-penny on the loaf, creates such a protest as to threaten the overthrow of ministries. Lately the salt-tax in India has been reduced, but it still remains well-nigh prohibitive to the poorer classes. With such facts as these before us, we do not wonder at Herbert Spencer’s indignant protest against the “grievous salt-monopoly” of the Indian Government, and “the pitiless taxation which wrings from poor ryob nearly half the products of the soil.”

Another cause of India’s impoverishment is the destruction of her manufactures, as the result of British rule. When the British first appeared on the scene, India was one of the richest countries of the world; indeed it was her great riches that attracted the British to her shores. The source of her wealth was largely her splendid manufactures. Her cotton goods, silk goods, shawls, muslins of Dacca, brocades of Ahmedabad, rugs, pottery of Scind, jewelry, metal work, lapidary work, were famed not only all over Asia but in all the leading markets of Northern Africa and of Europe. What has become of those manufactures? For the most part they are gone, destroyed. Hundreds of villages and towns of India in which they were carried on are now largely or wholly depopulated, and millions of the people who were supported by them have been scattered and driven back on the land, to share the already too scanty living of the poor ryot. What is the explanation? Great Britain wanted India’s markets. She could not find entrance for British manufactures so long as India was supplied with manufactures of her own. So those of India must be sacrificed. England had all power in her hands, and so she proceeded to pass tariff and excise laws that ruined the manufactures of India and secured the market for her own goods. India would have protected herself if she had been able, by enacting tariff laws favorable to Indian interests, but she had no power, she was at the mercy of her conqueror.

A third cause of India’s impoverishment is the enormous and wholly unnecessary cost of her government. Writers in discussing the financial situation in India have often pointed out the fact that her government is the most expensive in the world. Of course the reason why is plain: it is because it is a government carried on not by the people of the soil, but by men from a distant country. These foreigners, having all power in their own hands, including power to create such offices as they choose and to attach to them such salaries and pensions as they see fit, naturally do not err on the side of making the offices too few or the salaries and pensions too small. Nearly all the higher officials throughout India are British. To be sure, the Civil Service is nominally open to Indians. But it is hedged about with so many restrictions (among others, Indian young men being required to make the journey of seven thousand miles from India to London to take their examinations) that they are able for the most part to secure only the lowest and poorest places. The amount of money which the Indian people are required to pay as salaries to this great army of foreign civil servants and appointed higher officials, and then, later, as pensions for the same, after they have served a given number of years in India, is very large. That in three-fourths if not nine-tenths of the positions quite as good service could be obtained for the government at a fraction of the present cost, by employing educated and competent Indians, who much better understand the wants of the country, is quite true. But that would not serve the purpose of England, who wants these lucrative offices for her sons. Hence poor Indian ryots must sweat and go hungry, and if need be starve, that an ever-growing army of foreign officials may have large salaries and fat pensions. And of course much of the money paid for these salaries, and practically all paid for the pensions, goes permanently out of India.

Another burden upon the people of India which they ought not to be compelled to bear, and which does much to increase their poverty, is the enormously heavy military expenses of the government. I am not complaining of the maintenance of such an army as may be necessary for the defense of the country. But the Indian army is kept at a strength much beyond what the defense of the country requires. India is made a sort of general rendezvous and training camp for the Empire, from which soldiers may at any time be drawn for service in distant lands. If such an imperial training camp and rendezvous is needed, a part at least of the heavy expense of it ought to come out of the Imperial Treasury. But no, India is helpless, she can be compelled to pay it, she is compelled to pay it. Many English statesmen recognize this as wrong, and condemn it; yet it goes right on. Said the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman: “Justice demands that England should pay a portion of the cost of the great Indian army maintained in India for Imperial rather than Indian purposes. This has not yet been done, and famine-stricken India is being bled for the maintenance of England’s worldwide empire.” But there is still worse than this. Numerous wars and campaigns are carried on outside of India, the expenses of which, wholly or in part, India is compelled to bear. For such foreign wars and campaigns—campaigns and wars in which the Indian people had no concern, and for which they received no benefit, the aim of which was solely conquest and the extension of British power—India was required to pay during the last century the enormous total of more than $460,000,000. How many such burdens as these can the millions of India, who live on the average income of $6 a year, bear without being crushed?

Perhaps the greatest of all the causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people is the steady and enormous drain of wealth from India to England, which has been going on ever since the East India Company first set foot in the land, three hundred years ago, and is going on still with steadily increasing volume. England claims that India pays her no “tribute.” Technically, this is true; but, really, it is very far from true. In the form of salaries spent in England, pensions sent to England, interest drawn in England on investments made in India, business profits made in India and sent to England, and various kinds of exploitation carried on in India for England’s benefit, a vast stream of wealth (“tribute” in effect) is constantly pouring into England from India. Says Mr. R. C. Dutt, author of the Economic History of India (and there is no higher authority), “A sum reckoned at twenty millions of English money, or a hundred millions of American money [some other authorities put it much higher], which it should be borne in mind is equal to half the net revenues of India, is remitted annually from this country [India] to England, without a direct equivalent. Think of it! One-half of what we [in India] pay as taxes goes out of the country, and does not come back to the people. No other country on earth suffers like this at the present day; and no country on earth could bear such an annual drain without increasing impoverishment and repeated famines. We denounce ancient Rome for impoverishing Gaul and Egypt, Sicily and Palestine, to enrich herself. We denounce Spain for robbing the New World and the Netherlands to amass wealth. England is following exactly the same practice in India. Is it strange that she is converting India into a land of poverty and famine?”

*** End of Excerpts ***

And if you think Mr Sutherland is exaggerating, think again and take a brief tour of the points made in these posts: A Restorative Historical Account of Victorian Holocausts...  Also look at The Myth of a Benevolent “Raj”, The “truth” about a “benevolent Empire”

Loot – in search of East India Co. (excerpts) and Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British “Raj” (recommended)

Sadly, most Indians still retain a very rose-tinted image of the “Raj” and such talk is heresy in most “educated” circles in India. Yet this is recorded history – and cannot be denied (indeed has not been denied). How long can the truth be hidden? Read the article in full here (its long but worth it) and please share this with friends and family – especially the younger ones. They remain our hope.

*** A restorative Historical Account of Victorian Holocausts by Amitabh Soni ***

Over the past few months I have been reading horrid accounts of British Imperialism in India.  I think, the greatest achievement of British Imperialism, was to tone down the “dislike” of the Indians towards them to such drastic levels that it started bordering towards “liking” them in many a ways. Don’t we always get to hear that the British gave us Railways, Parliamentary democracy, an administrative structure, an international language, science & technology, modernity etc . Most of us have very little idea about what & how much they took away from us. At school , I often heard my teachers saying in one way or the other, ‘Thank God ! The British came to India.” Truth be told, the ills of the Raj heavily out weigh its benefits. It is like somebody taking everything away from your house, burning it down & saying. “Hey ! Dont worry, have got this bike for you”. Would you then debate the benefits of the bike ? Unless you are made to believe that the worth of whatever you had was much less than that of the bike.

It isn’t that the British wanted to serve us some good & noble purpose & faltered midway. On April 29, 1875 Marquis of Salisbury, former Prime Minister of Great Britain,remarked,“As India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood is congested, or, at least is sufficient , not to those which are already feeble from the want of it”

We believe that the British did provide us with an education system, but this is what John Bright said in the British Parliament in 1853, “While the government has overthrown almost entirely the native education that had subsisted throughout the country so universally, that a schoolmaster was so regular a feature in every village as the ‘Patil’ or headman, it had done next to nothing to supply the deficiency which had been created , or to substitute a better system.” (1)

The following is an extract from India Resource website on South Asian History,

The literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11%! …… Perhaps – the British had concentrated on higher education ….? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in universities or higher educational institutes. In a nation of then over 350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were published in that year (i.e. 1 per 20,000).( 2)

Some of us may think that famines could have been caused due to lack of rain or poor farming practices. But one of the main reasons for famines was over taxation.  ”It is anything but a moderate tax, for I have shown in the above mentioned work , it is in all cases exorbitant ; and strange to say , in some instances even exceeds the gross produce of the lands or plantations on which it is.” Robert Rickards in evidence before Committee on East India Company’s affairs” 1831 (3)

The famine of Bengal in 1770 caused 10 million deaths (5).  And yet the East India Company continued to urge “rigour” in tax collection. By then the famine was in full force.(6)  ”All through the stifling summer of 1770 the people went on dying. The husbandmen sold their cattle;they sold their implements of agriculture; they devoured their seed grain; they sold their sons & daughters, till at length no buyer of children could be found; they ate leaves of trees and the grass of the field ; and in June 1770 the Resident at (Murshidabad) affirmed that the living were feeding on the dead… A third of the people of Bengal, numbering about 10 million, perished.”(7)

The famines of 1877 and 1878, of 1889 and 1892, of 1897 and 1900 killed 15 million of people. “The poverty of the Indian population at the present day is unparalleled in any civilised country; the famines which have desolated India within the last quarter of the nineteenth century are unexampled in their extent and intensity in the history of ancient or modern times. By a moderate calculation, the famines of 1877 and 1878, of 1889 and 1892, of 1897 and 1900, have carried off fifteen millions of people. The population of a faired-sized European country has been swept away from India within twenty-five years. A population equal to half of that of England has perished in India within a period which men and women, still in middle age, can remember.” Romesh Dutt, Lecturer in Indian history at University College London in (UCL) in 1901 (4)

Further, this is what Lord Curzon had to say in 1902 :

There is no spectacle which finds less favour in my eyes or which I have done more to discourage than that of a cluster of Europeans settling down upon a Native State and sucking from it the moisture which ought to give sustenance to its own people.(8)

The British sailed back to England in 1947  but chose to keep mum about the Victorian Holocausts they caused in India. But have our governments done any better? Has any effort been made till date to bring the causes these deaths in millions into mainstream public discourse? I can only recall my history books vaguely mentioning the Bengal famine. Why were these chapters not discussed in the Modern History of India? Were the British still ruling us even after their last ship reached London?

Nehru (First Prime Minister of India ) who studied at the posh Harrow School in London & then at Cambridge, went on to say that he would be the last British to rule India. Did he, and after him his people kept under the wraps the ugliest face of British Imperialism? Before, the British rule, India’s global output was about 25% & when the British left it was even less than 1 %.  Clearly, even the British public was kept in the dark about the prosperity that that Imperialists brought back home. George Monbiot, who writes for “The Guardian” remarks, “It is not illegal to discuss the millions who were killed under our empire. So why do so few people know about them?”  Most of the people born in “free India” lead exceedingly underprivileged  lives with confused & broken beliefs about their prosperous past.

We grew up, with very little sense of history about what we owned & how much and when & to whom  we lost our prosperity ?

Where did the prosperity chain break ? or did we always belong to the poorest of the poor in India ?

This confusion is understandable as this issue has been completely absent from mainstream discourse. Post independence, the Indian government wanted us to continue with sustaining our trivial & inconsequential lives & not bother with anything else. The Marxist, Leninist  economists fed by Nehru did everything to keep us feeling ashamed and apologetic about  our  “Hindu social evils & stigmas” at different levels of our learning & education. As a result, generation after generations were brought up upon covertly administered injections of  “Thank God the British came to India”. This essentially meant “Thank God they came & civilised us”.

After almost 65 years of Independence, one may ask, what is the way forward ? What are we to gain by merely exposing what has already happened, when it can’t be undone ?  I have just 2 points to make :

1: Looks like now every citizen has to have a  ”right to history”. Sounds absurd ? Yes it does, but what is more absurd that we are being made to  demand the right to right history; Pure & unadulterated history !  History can not be deleted or added to suit a person’s or a group’s/ nation’s  interests or shall we say disinterests. Of course, there can be different takes on history but the complete deletion of distinguishable  historical events (like this one) or addition of fictitious  events ( like the Aryan Invasion Theory) is unacceptable   & criminal.

2: The natural flow of a nation is disrupted when it’s people have a perverted sense of history. A people who don’t know where they are coming from can’t determine where they are headed. They may well be headed backwards again, as during a nation’s journey many a big & complex round-abouts need to be negotiated & woven through.

During its past, a nation could have been dharmically (righteously) powerful & prosperous. After a deep slumber, it needs to know WHY & HOW could it sustain that status of eminence over long periods of time? What were the set of values and attitudes it was endowed with to achieve such grand prominence? What  core  competencies are naturally embedded in its civilisational genealogy that can be revived to reclaim that lost grandeur? Similarly, in its  past, a nation could have been a victim or could have victimised another,  needs to know WHY & HOW much it had bled or how much blood was/is on its hands ?

Which of its philosophies & policies gave the impression to other nations that its boundaries & the minds of its people were penetrable ? Or, which of its philosophies & policies gave it the impression that it had the burden to civilize “savages” of other nations? What set of doctrines, prompted them to kick the savages in their faces, to knock some sense into their brains ? What kind of “sense of being civilised’ was it to rob people of their wealth and make them crawl generation after generation for every single piece of bread ? Could people be said to have been civilised if they were devoid of any form of dignity, for centuries ? A nation that wishes to reflect back in time, will always get a flawed image of its own, if it sticks to ruptured & adulterated history. Hence, creating a false “self image”. It may appear be too beautiful or too ugly, but not necessarily true & genuine.

Unaltered & non perverted history enables a nation to re-align & retain its civilisational balance & momentum. The alignment of its fathomable past with it’s foreseeable future, precipitates learning for its own good & the greater good of humanity.  Bearing all of the above in mind, we have made a humble beginning to  bring to light the dark chapters of British imperialism in India. In due course we hope that the people & governments of both countries will make more serious & profound efforts in this direction. Until then we urge people to follow us on our Facebook page.

References:

1. John Bright, “Debates in Parliament on the India question in 1853
2. http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html. Statistics and data for the colonial period taken from Rajni-Palme Dutt’s India Today (Indian Edition published in 1947); also see N.K. Sinha’s Economic History of Bengal (Published in Calcutta, 1956); and “Late Victorian Holocausts” by Mike Davis
3. Robert Rickards in evidence before Committee on East India Company’s affairs” 1831. Report of Committee, vol. V, Answer to Question 2827
4. Preface pg VI, London 1901 “The Economic History of India under early British rule” sixth edition.  From the rise of the British power in 1757 to the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837  by Romesh Dutt, CLE. Lecturer in Indian history at University College London (UCL), former  commissioner of Orissa and member of the Bengal Legislative Council.
5. Churchill’s Secret War – Madhusree Mukerjee, p xv
6. Bose, Peasant Labour & Colonial Capital, 18
7. Hunter – The Annals of Rural Bengal,26; Kumar & Raychaudhari, The Cambridge Economic History of India. Vol II,229
8. Lord Curzon, former Viceroy of India, in a speech  at Jaipur in November 1902.

*** End ***

Related Posts: The Myth of a Benevolent “Raj”, The “truth” about a “benevolent Empire”

Loot – in search of East India Co. (excerpts) and Economic Exploitation and the Drain of Wealth during British “Raj” (recommended)

Also read: Late Victorian Holocausts: The Indian Famines

As some of you would know, by the time India became a republic in 1950, Savarkar was already on the path to oblivion. A few years later, he died – unsung and hardly mourned.  In the 45  years since, he has become a deeply polarising figure in the pantheon of leaders who fought  for India’s Independence.

I had long wanted to read more about him…but something or the other always prevented a detailed research.  In the meantime, I stumbled on this piece by Sh Arvind Lavakare – and felt this was as good a place to start. On this occasion of his 128th birth anniversary, I hope to begin a re-examination of this great historical figure. Today, excerpts from “A Saint vs. A Patriot” by Sh Lavakare (emphasis added):

…That same cocktail of political ideology had previously caused President K R Narayanan to sit so long on the Vajpayee government’s recommendation of a Bharat Ratna for Savarkar that it was finally forced to wither away. It’s the same ideology that recently boycotted the ceremony to install Veer Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament and even appealed to the nation’s President to refrain from unveiling the portrait.

It was perverse enough that this bunch of democratically elected leaders should have shown total irreverence to the norms of parliamentary democracy by daring to obstruct a decision of a Parliamentary committee that included representatives of that cocktail.  What is worse is that in opposing Savarkar’s posthumous entry into Parliament, this bunch of politicking creatures overlooked the totality of the revolutionary and inspiring incandescence of freedom that was lit by him in the early 20th century when the country’s British masters were crushing our aspirations and milking our resources.

The life of Savarkar (1883-1966) was so uniquely variegated that it is almost unbelievable that one individual could possess such an intellect, such talent, such intensity as to be a firebrand freedom fighter from childhood, a potential barrister, a writer of history, of poetry and Sanskrit prayers, a social reformer, and a distinctive political ideologue with a prophetic vision on the fate of Kashmir, the formation of Pakistan along with its subsequent hostility, the mass Muslim infiltration from East Bengal into Assam and China’s hoodwinking Nehru on his Panchsheel.

He suffered six months of solitary confinement, seven days standing handcuffed, ten days of cross bar fetters and other tortures in the cellular jail on the infamous Andaman islands of old where he was sent in 1911 to serve a total of 50-year life imprisonment for his alleged involvement in two cases: the murder of the English district magistrate of Nashik and efforts in Bombay to ‘overthrow the legally formed government of the country.‘ He was in the Andaman prison till 1921, from where he was shifted first to Alipore jail and then, in January 1924, released from prison but confined in his movements to Ratnagiri district (in present Maharashtra) with stringent conditions. It was in May 1937, when Jamnadas Mehta of the Tilak Democratic Swaraj Party agreed to support the new Cooper ministry in Bombay on the express condition of Savarkar’s unconditional release, that Savarkar was finally rid of colonial shackles. And he soon plunged into politics, becoming the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, even as those engaged in the freedom movement sought his views and advice. Included in that lot was Subhas Chandra Bose whom he inspired to make India free through military action.

…

But the Congress and Communists of 2003 are not moved by all that Savarkar did or suffered in trying to win freedom for his beloved country, by how Savarkar kindled the minds and hearts of millions, including Bose and Bhagat Singh. They choose, instead, to complain that Savarkar submitted amnesty petitions to his colonial masters for his early release from the Andaman prison and made promises to them of constitutional conduct instead of willing to suffer pain and all, death included, as the price to be paid for upholding his cause. This bunch of politicking creatures also believe Savarkar was a part of the conspiracy which led to Nathuram Godse assassinating Mahatma Gandhi but was let off by the court on a mere technicality. And, finally, this bunch brands Savarkar as a Hindu fanatic, who must have no niche whatsoever in this oh-so secular country of ours. Therefore, they proclaim, Savarkar has no place on the walls of our august Parliament in New Delhi.

Image courtesy: www.Savarkar.org

What is concealed in the criticism of Savarkar’s pleas for release is the remark that McPherson, Britain’s home secretary, put on one such petition. As cited by Shyam Khosla in Rajasthan Patrika of February 26, 2003, that note said, ‘It will be dangerous for the British Empire to release Savarkar. His pleas are a ruse to get out the jail. Once out he will organise an underground movement against the British. I therefore reject the petition on the ground that it will be a danger to public safety.‘ Need more be said? And if prison life had, as alleged, transformed him into a pro-British imperialist, why did Bose, Nehru and M N Roy welcome him to full freedom in 1937? Why did S M Joshi and Achyut Patwardhan want him to join their political party? Why did his Hindu Mahasabha vehemently oppose the Cripps Mission proposals of 1942 and the Cabinet Mission’s plan of 1946?

Regarding Savarkar’s connection with Godse, the Special Court appointed for the trial did not accept the evidence of Digamber Badge who had turned approver and stated that Savarkar had blessed the assassins in their mission. In Godse’s reply to the charge sheet against him — reproduced fully in May it Please You Honour (Surya Bharti Prakashan, New Delhi, 1987) — he had categorically denied the prosecution’s stand that he was guided in his action by Savarkar and that, but for Savarkar’s complicity, he could not have acted the way he did. What’s more, Godse’s reply stated ‘I take the strongest exception to this untrue and unjust charge and I further regard it as an insult to my intelligence and judgement.’ (Ibid page 45). Indeed, Godse’s reply indicated his disenchantment with Savarkar’s belief that free India having got its own government, all parties should conduct their propaganda on constitutional lines rather through anarchical tactics and undemocratic conduct. (Ibid page 56).

In any case, the question remains: Why didn’t the prosecution under Nehru’s Congress government appeal against Savarkar’s acquittal? The answer is in the silence.  There’s finally that visceral accusation of Savarkar’s Hindutva and his alleged two-nation demand.

The riposte to that is the excerpt below from Savarkar’s presiding address to the Hindu Mahasabha’s Ahmedabad session of 1937 cited at page 117 of “The Tragic Story of Partition” (Jagaran Prakashana, Bangalore, 1984) by (RSS leader) H V Seshadri.

‘Let the Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinction whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognisance be taken whatsoever of a man being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian state be treated according to their worth irrespective of their religion or racial percentage in the general population.’

Even 66 years after Savarkar spoke the above words, have you got a better enunciation of what secularism should mean for the Indian nation? Silence is the answer.  In that silence lies the Indian tragedy of prejudiced and pernicious eyes that see a jewel in a pseudo-saint and a thorn in a true patriot.

To round off this tribute, a couple of quotes on Veer Savarkar courtesy, “Rediscovering Gandhi by RP Misra. The first by C Rajagopalachari,

Savarkar was a symbol of courage, bravery and patriotism, an ’abhitirth’ in the long battle for freedom.

And this one by  the late PM Indira Gandhi:

Savarkar was a great figure of contemporary India and his name is by-word for daring and patriotism. He was cast in a mould of a classic revolutionary and countless people drew inspiration  from him.

Additional references: An essay on Veer Savarkar by Sanjeev Nayyar based on Dhananjay Keer’s biography (can be downloaded from here) and Information on Savarkar gathered by British Secret Police between 1906-09 .

Related Post: “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation” – Excerpts from Chapter 1

The reason?

…presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined.

These are the words of Justice P Sathasivan quoted in a recent HT news-report. Lack of definition does not prevent anyone from “interpreting” what it means…and so we have Justice Sathasivan saying:

…in Indian context secularism meant “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” ie tolerance for all religions, which springs from due deliberation for one’s own happiness and also for welfare of all beings.

Above: One of the banners seen during protests in UK against the French ban on “Hijab”

In the meantime, commentators like Sh Ram Puniyani find even “Bhoomi Puja” as an act that violates this “basic principle of Indian Constitution“.  Can someone please ask Sh Puniyani where exactly does he find a definition of “Secularism” in the Constitution that would outlaw Bhumi Pujan?

Related Posts: Time to dump some anachronisms? Secularism or Politics of Appeasement?

Must we separate religion from politics? On Religious Freedoms and Secularism – Part I and Part II.

सिंहासन हिल उठे राजवंशों ने भृकुटी तानी थी
…

बुंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी
खूब लड़ी मर्दानी वह तो झांसी वाली रानी थी

One of the finest introductions to the story of Rani Lakshmi Bai comes from this biographical sketch by N S Ramaprasad:

It was one evening after the rainy season. Outside Bethur, along the road on the banks of Ganga, three horses were galloping. Two riders were young men and one a girl. When one of the young men overtook her, the little girl galloped her horse faster and overtook him. Was the young man to accept defeat? Of course, he tried to overtake her but his horse stumbled and he feel down.

“O Manoo, I am dead”

When she heard that sorrowful cry, the girl rode back. The young man had been hurt and wad bleeding. With difficulty she lifted him mad him sit on her horse. By that time the other rider also joined them. All the three returned to the palace.

When the horse returned without the rider, Baji Rao the Second, the Peshwa of the Mahrata Empire, was quite disturbed. Although Moropanth who was with him tried to soothe him, his mind was troubled. When his children returned he breathed a sigh of relief.

The injured youth was Baji Rao’s adopted son Nana Saheb and his companion, his younger brother Rao Saheb. The girl was Manubai, the only daughter of Moropanth, a member of the Peshwa’s council.

When they returned home Moropanth said: “Manu, how unfortunate! Nana has been seriously hurt.”

“Not so, father; he has been hurt just a little. Did not Abhimanyu continue to fight although seriously injured?”

“Those times were different, Manu.”

“What is the difference, father? It is the same sky, the same earth. The sun and the moon are also the same.”

“But Manu, the fortunes of the country have changed. This is the age of British. We are powerless before them.”

The father’s reasoning did not appeal to the daughter. The father himself had taught her the lessons of the lives and the examples of the saintly Seeta, the brave Jeejabai and the brave Tarabai.

Another incident happened in the same town of Bethur: Nana saheb and Rao Saheb went out on an elephant. Baji Rao wanted to send Manubai with them. Moropanth also wished it. But their wish was not fulfilled. Nana Saheb asked the mahout to move on. Manu was disappointed.

The father said to the daughter when they were back home: “Manu, we must move with the times. Are we chieftains or kings to ride elephants? We should not wish for something for which we are not destined.”

“No, not so, father; I am destined to own not one but several elephants,” replied Manu.

“So, be it.”

Manubai of course was none other than the future queen of Jhansi, Rani Lakshmi Bai. As N S Ramaprasad writes,

Jhansi Rani Lakhsmi Bai brought glory to the women of Indian, nay to the women of the world.

…She was a woman although in her tender body there was a lion’s spirit.…..when she went to war and took up arms she was the very embodiment of the War Goddess Kali…She was young in years. But her foresight and firm decisions were mature.

Her courage and leadership were praised even by the enemy..British General Sir Hugh Rose, who fought against the Rani several times, once said:

“Of the mutineers the bravest and the greatest commander was the Rani.”

One of the best pieces of historical research on Rani Lakshmi Bai is to be found in the work of Allen Copsey. I stumbled on Allen’s web-page while doing some background research. Allen’s site is easily amongst the most informative websites on the Rani of Jhansi. Here is a brief extract:

Her (Rani Lakshmi Bai’s) story first caught my attention in a book in which she only rated a couple of paragraphs. Not surprisingly since in the scope of the Rebellion in particular, or Indian history in general it is just one episode among many, a footnote. Indeed in some works on Indian history the whole episode is not mentioned.

She was cheated twice by the British. Firstly, in 1854 when they annexed Jhansi on the death of her husband, the Raja. Secondly, when they unjustly accused her of complicity in the mutiny and massacre that occurred in Jhansi 3 years later. As a result of the actions of the British, and others, she was catapulted from being a ‘housewife’ to the leader of an army and the most important leader of the Indian Rebellion in the space of less than a year. Her death on June 17th 1858, effectively ending the Indian resistance.

...Today her name is commonplace throughout India, renowned as a leader of the Rebellion, but she was more than a martial leader. In her brief time she cast aside many conventions to unite peoples of all castes and religions in her cause. She put aside purdah, which she only observed with respect to the British in any case, encouraged other women to do the same and trained them to fight and support the main army; Lakshmibai was not the only Jhansi woman to die fighting the British. She cut across the social norms of the time, refusing to accept her fate ‘as a woman’. She cared for all her people, and consulted with them at crucial times, and carried them with her.

This is, I suppose, my homage to a remarkable woman and to all the other Lakshmibai’s the world over, those women who have had to fight, whether with words or swords, to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and, sadly, still are fighting.

As the wikipedia entry on Rani Lakshmi Bai notes,

…Because of her bravery, courage, and wisdom, and her progressive views on women’s empowerment in 19th century India, and due to her sacrifices, she became an icon of Indian independence movement.

As some of you would know, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army had a women’s unit named after the Rani – the first such regiment in Asia at the time…and of course many of you would have read Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s poem on her. As Subhadra-ji wrote in her concluding lines, the Rani does not need a memorial for us to remember her…she herself will remain an indelible mark on our memories (emphasis mine):

तेरा स्मारक तू ही होगी, तू खुद अमिट निशानी थी
बुंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी
खूब लड़ी मर्दानी वह तो झांसी वाली रानी थी

The Rani’s story is particularly apt for the times we live in…Rani Lakshmi Bai risked social norms and refused to take her “fate” lying down…This is all the more remarkable considering the circumstance and social conditions of 19th century provincial India…Her story is not just an inspiration to women everywhere, it is a reminder to every Indian of our proud heritage…something that we risk squandering away today by our indifference and inaction. On this day of her anniversary, let us remember the Rani’s sacrifice and take a pledge to make ourselves worthy of her legacy…Pl share widely with your family and friends. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

Related Posts: Reading History: The Extraordinary Story of Mata Gujri and Remembering Devi Ahilya

P.S. Here is the English translation of Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s poem and a link to a biography of Rani Lakshmi Bai in Hindi (pdf file; I have not read this yet).

Image courtesy: Wikipedia