By Maulana Muhammad Wali Rahmani,
Historians and historiographers are expected to study and narrate an event objectively and without showing loyalty to any affiliation – regional, communal or philosophical. People need pure and plain history, not a history coloured with saffron, red or green. But the history of Independence war in India is replete with violations of ethics of historiography.
Veer Savarkar was the first author who described the war of 1857 as the first war of Independence. This is entirely untrue. The war against India’s British government began much much earlier. Such wars were fought under the leadership of Tipu Sultan, Sirajuddaula, Mir Qasim and others.
The arguments in favor of the popular perception about the war of 1857 do not hold ground in light of the historical facts hidden deliberately from the public eye. To say that the war of 1857 was the first Independence war because the Indian nation took part in it is not a strong point. Because, Tipu Sultan, Ali Wardi Khan and Sirajuddaula, though individuals, led an army against the British army and their people were behind them too. The number of casualties in the war between Sirajuddaula and the British army was much higher than that in the war of 1857.
Similarly, the argument that pre-1857 wars were led by nawabs and kings, and thus they were not popular wars is also weak in view of the historical facts. In 1857, people reinstated Bahadur Shah Zafar as the ruler so that the war could be fought under his command. Besides, big heroes of the 1857 war were nawabs and kings – Rani Jhansi, Tantia Tope to name a few. Can the Indo-China war be called a war between India’s ruling Congress Party and China? If not, and surely not, then how can the wars fought by Tipu Sultan, Mir Qasim, Ali Wardi Khan and Sirajuddaula be categorized as their personal wars? Those pre-1857 wars were fought by the people and for the people and the casualties were public not an Ali Wardi Khan or a Mir Qasim.
Here one point is important to keep in mind while studying or writing history. Whenever a battle takes place, there is a system in the place and a symbol representing the system. System may be imperial or parliamentary and democratic. Status or significance of a war cannot be determined on the ground of a system under which it is fought. To do so will be injustice to historiography and will not be accepted by the philosophy of history.
In Indo-China war, then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was a symbol for India. Even though the Indian system was parliamentary and democratic but what was said about Nehru after the war is public knowledge. During Bangladesh war, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was the symbol. After the creation of Bangladesh, Atal Behari Vajpayee called him “Durga” (a reference to her bravery though she was thousands of miles away from the front). Her popularity spread thick and wide. The pre-1857 wars were fought by Ali Wardi Khan (1754), Sirajuddaula (1757), Mir Qasim (1763) and Tipu Sultan (1799) under the system of their time. There was no parliamentary system then. It was the era of nawabs, kings and feudals. Those very people were the symbol of their system and centre of public inspiration. That’s why in 1857 Bahadur Shah Zafar was accepted as a symbol.
If historians and researchers go through books and journals in Urdu and Persian published in those days, they will be exposed to facts and truth about India’s Independence struggle like never before. Very few know that Tipu Sultan was the first to raise the slogan of “India for Indians.” He launched a movement for swadeshi by writing letters to nawabs, kings, pundits and Ulema wherein he urged them to boycott British goods. He set up first of its kind homogenous arms factory. More than 95% arms and ammunition with his army was home-made. His system was more relying on Indian goods and technology than today’s system is.
Today India is bound to depend on foreign governments and companies in almost every field from science and technology to defense and research. Even for the construction of bridges and roads we look toward them.
Tipu Sultan, Mir Qasim and Sirajuddaula loved to fight against the foreigners rather than depending on them. That spirit resulted in armed struggle against British rule in Bihar, Bengal and Deccan and other states and culminated into a big war of 1857. That war began on 10th January 1857 in Bengal and through Lucknow and Meerut ended in the defeat of Indians on 14th September 1857 in Delhi.
That war witnessed Ulema fighting against the British army from the front. Maulana Qasim Nanotwi and Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi were among the leading Ulema fighting the war. The war of 1857, which is described as the first war of Independence, was in fact the last war against the East India Co. This is a fact which must not be neglected.
Maulana Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi was the first to write on independence, safety of non-Muslims and Hindu-Muslim unity. He raised the issue of arrival of Britishors and its impacts on India in his writings and speeches.
It can be said that struggle for independence was initiated by Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi and was later led and strengthened by Ali Wardi Khan, Sirajuddaula, Mir Qasim, Tipu Sultan and in the end Bahadur Shah Zafar.
(Adapted from his speech in Urdu By Mumtaz Falahi for TwoCircles.net. Speech given during the three-day seminar (May 3-5) held in Munger, Bihar on ‘Role of Bihar and Bengal in Independence War and the Contribution of Urdu Language and Literature’. Maulana Rahmani is the Chairman of Rahmani Foundation, Sajjada Nasheen of Khanqah Rahmania and Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board.)