By Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
Just after the Mutiny of 1857, Syed Ahmad Khan wrote Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind (Causes of the Indian Revolt), pointing out the weaknesses of the British Government. When the House of Commons discussed the pamphlet Mr Sale Beadon, the Foreign Secretary, vehemently opposed it and asked the Government to imprison such a revolutionary writer. But Parliament did not support him. On the contrary, most of the British papers supported the views of Syed Ahmad and advised the Government to act upon the valuable recommendations made by him. In 1873 the pamphlet was translated into English by Sir Auckland Colvin and Lieut. Colonel Graham and appeared as the Causes of the Indian Revolt. (Abridged)
The primary causes of rebellion are, I fancy, everywhere the same. It invariably results from the existence of a policy obnoxious to the dispositions, aims, habits, and views of those by whom the rebellion is brought about.,.
As regards the Rebellion of 1857, the fact is, that for a long period many grievances had been rankling in the hearts of the people. In course of time, a vast store of explosive material had been collected. It wanted but the application of a match to light it, and that match was applied by the mutinous army. . .
The manner in which the rebellion spread, first here, then there, now breaking out in this place and now in that, is alone good proof that there existed no widespread conspiracy.
Nor is there the slightest reason for thinking that the rebels in Hindustan received any aid from Russia or from Persia. The Hindustanees have no conception of the views of Russia, and it is not probable that they would league themselves with her.
Nor can I think that they would ever be likely to receive any help from Persia. As between Roman Catholics and Protestants, so between the Mussulman of Persia and of Hindustan, cordial cooperation is impossible. To me it seems just as credible that night and day should be merged in one, as that these men should ever act in concert. Surely, if such were the case, it is very strange that during the Russian and Persian wars, Hindustan should have remained completely tranquil. Nor, on the other hand, is it less strange that while Hindustan was in flames, there should have been in those countries no visible stir whatever. The notion of an understanding existing between these countries must be set aside as preposterous. . .
I see nothing strange in the fact, if fact it were, of the ex-king of Delhi having written a Farman[1] to the Persians. Such an imbecile was the ex-king, that had one assured him that the angels of heaven were his slaves, he would have welcomed the assurance, and would have caused half-a-dozen Farmansto be prepared immediately. The ex-king had a fixed idea that he could transform himself into a fly or gnat, and that he could in this guise convey himself to other countries, and learn what was going on there. Seriously, he firmly believed that he possessed the power of transformation. He was in the habit of asking his courtiers in Durbar if it were not so, and his courtiers were not the men to undeceive him. Is there anything wonderful in the fact of such a dotard writing a Farman to any person, or at any man’s instigation? Surely not. But it is perfectly incredible that such a Farman should have formed the basis of any league.
Strange that such wide conspiracies should have been for so long hatching, and that none of our rulers should have been aware of them! After the revolt had broken out, no volunteer, whether soldier or civilian, ever alluded to such a thing; and yet had any league existed, there could then have no longer been any reason for concealing it.
Nor do I believe that the annexation of Oudh[2] was the cause of this rebellion. No doubt men of all classes were irritated at its annexation; all agreed in thinking that the Honourable East India Company had acted in defiance of its treaties, and in contempt of the word which it had pledged. The people of Oudh felt on this occasion much as other men have felt whose countries have been annexed by the East India Company. Of this, however, more hereafter. But what I mean here is, that the men who would be the most irritated and dismayed at such a step, were the noblemen and independent princes of Hindustan. These all saw that sooner or later such a policy must lead to the overthrow of their own independence, and confiscation of their own lands. Nevertheless we find that there was not one of the great landed princes who espoused the rebel cause. The mutineers were for the most part men who had nothing to lose—the governed, not the governing class. To cite in contradiction of what I say the cases of the Nawab of Jhujjar and the Rajah of Bulubgarh, and other such petty feudatories, would show little else than ignorance of the status of the various Hindustanee chiefs…
There are, again, no grounds for supposing that the Mohammedans had for a long time been conspiring or plotting a simultaneous rise or a religious crusade against the professors of a different faith. The English Government does not interfere with the Mohammedans in the practice of their religion. For this sole reason it is impossible that the idea of religious crusade should have been entertained. Thirty-five years ago a celebrated Moulvie, Mohammad Ismael[3] by name, preached a religious crusade in
Hindustan, and called upon all men to aid him in carrying it out. But on that occasion he distinctly stated that natives of Hindustan, subject to the British Government, could not conscientiously take part in a religious war within the limits of Hindustan. Accordingly, while thousands of Jehadees[4] congregated in every district of Hindustan, there was no sort of disturbance raised within British territory. Going northwards, these men crossed the Panjab frontier, and waged war in those parts of the country. And even if we should imitate the know-nothings in the various districts and call the late disturbance a religious war, it is very certain that no preparations were made for it before the 10th of May 1857…
I do not found my belief on any speculative grounds or any favourite theory of my own. For centuries, many able and thoughtful men have concurred in the views I am about to express. All treatises and works on the principles of government bear me out. All histories either of the one or the other hemisphere are witnesses to the soundness of my opinions.
Most men, I believe, agree in thinking that it is highly conducive to the welfare and prosperity of Government—indeed is essential to its stability—that the people should have a voice in its councils. It is from the voice of the people only that Government can learn whether its projects are likely to be well received. The voice of the people can alone check errors in the bud, and warn us of dangers before they burst upon and destroy us.
A needle may dam the gushing rivulet: an elephant must turn aside from the swollen torrent. This voice, however, can never be heard, and this security never acquired, unless the people are allowed a share in the consultations of Government. The men who have ruled India should never have forgotten that they were here in the position of foreigners—that they differed from its natives in religion, in customs, in habits of life and of thought.
The security of a Government, it will be remembered, is founded on its knowledge of the character of the governed, as well as on its careful observance of their rights and privileges. Look back at the pages of history, the record of the experience of the past, and you will not fail to be struck with the differences and distinctions that have existed between the manners, the opinions, and the customs of the various races of men—differences which have been acquired by no written rule, or prescribed by any printed form. They are in every instance the inheritance of the peculiar race. It is to these differences of thought and of custom that the laws must be adapted, for they cannot be adapted to the laws. In their due observance lies the welfare and security of government. From the beginning of things, to disregard these has been to disregard the nature of man, and the neglected of them has ever been the cause of universal discontent.
The evils which resulted to India from the non-admission of natives into the Legislative Council of India were various. Government could never know the inadvisability of the laws and regulations which it passed. It could never hear as it ought to have heard the voice of the people on such a subject. The people had no means of protesting against what they might feel to be a foolish measure, or of giving public expression to their own wishes. But the greatest mischief lay in this, that the people misunderstood the views and the intentions of Government. They misapprehended every act, and whatever law was passed was misconstrued by men who had no share in the framing of it, and hence no means of judging of its spirit. At length the Hindustanees fell into the habit of thinking that all the laws were passed with a view to degrade and ruin them, and to deprive them and their fellows of their religion. Such acts as were repugnant to native customs and character, whether in themselves good or bad, increased this suspicion. At last came the time when all men looked upon the English Government as slow poison, a rope of sand, a treacherous flame of fire. They learned to think that if to-day they escaped from the hands of Government, tomorrow they would fall into them; or that even if they escaped the morrow, the third day would see their ruin. There was no man to reason with them, no one to point out to them the absurdity of such ideas. When the governors and the governed occupy relatively such a position as this, what hope is there of loyalty or of goodwill? Granted that the intentions of Government were excellent, there was no man who could convince the people of it; no one was at hand to correct the errors which they had adopted. And why? Because there was not one of their own number among the members of the Legislative Council. Had there been, these evils that have happened to us would have been averted. The more one thinks the matter over, the more one is convinced that here we have the one great cause which was the origin of all smaller causes of dissatisfaction. . .[5]
I do not wish to enter here into the question as to how the ignorant and uneducated natives of Hindustan could be allowed a share in the deliberations of the Legislative Council, or as to how they should be selected to form an assembly like the English Parliament. These are knotty points. All I wish to prove here is, that such a step is not only advisable, but absolutely necessary, and that the disturbances are due to the neglect of such a measure. As regards the details of the question I have elsewhere discussed them, and those who wish to enter into it can read what I have said.
This mistake of the Government, then, made itself felt in every matter connected with Hindustan. All causes of rebellion, however various, can be traced to this one. And if we look at these various causes separately and distinctly, we shall, I think, find that they may be classed under five heads:
1. Ignorance on the part of the people; by which I mean misapprehension of the intentions of Government.
2. The passing of such laws and regulations and forms of procedure as jarred with the established customs and practice of Hindustan, and the introduction of such as were in themselves objectionable.
3. Ignorance on the part of the Government of the condition of the people, of their modes of thought and of life, and of the grievances through which their hearts were becoming estranged.
4. The neglect on the part of our rulers of such points as were essential to the good government of Hindustan.
5. The bad management and disaffection of the army. . .
I would here say that I do not wish it to be understood that the views of Government were in reality such as have been imputed to them. I only wish to say that they were misconstrued by the people, and that this misconstruction hurried on the rebellion. Had there been a native of Hindustan in the Legislative Council, the people would never have fallen into such errors.
Interference in Matters of Religion: There is not the smallest doubt that all men, whether ignorant or well-informed, whether high or low, felt a firm conviction that the English Government was bent on interfering with their religion, and with their old established customs. They believed that Government intended to force the Christian religion and foreign customs upon Hindu and Mussulman alike. This was the chief among the secondary causes of the rebellion. It was believed by every one that Government was slowly but surely developing its plans. Every step, it was thought, was being taken with the most extreme caution. Hence it is that men said that Government does not speak of proselytising Mohammedans summarily and by force; but it will throw off the veil as it feels itself stronger, and will act with greater decision. Events, as I shall presently show, increased and strengthened this conviction. Men never thought that our
Government would openly compel them to change their religion.
The idea was, that indirect steps would be taken, such as doing away with the study of Arabic and Sanskrit, and reducing the people to ignorance and poverty. In this way, it was supposed, the people would be deprived of a knowledge of the principles of their own faith, and their attention turned to books containing the principles of the Christian creed. It was supposed that Government would then work on the cupidity and poverty of its subjects, and, on condition of their abjuring their faith, offer them employment in its own service.
In the year 1837, the year of the great drought, the step which was taken of rearing orphans in the principles of the Christian faith, was looked upon throughout the North-West Provinces as an example of the schemes of Government. It was supposed that when Government had similarly brought all Hindustanees to a pitch of ignorance and poverty, it would convert them to its own creed. The Hindustanees used, as I have said, to feel an increasing dismay at the annexation of each successive country by the Honourable East India Company. But I assert without fear of contradiction that this feeling arose solely from the belief in their minds, that as the power of Government increased, and there no longer remained foreign enemies to fight against, or internal troubles to quell, it would turn its attention inwards, and carry out a more systematic interference with their creed and religious observances.
In the first days of British rule in Hindustan, there used to be less talk than at present on the subject of religion. Discussion on this point has been increasing day by day, and has now reached its climax. I do not say that Government has interfered in these matters; but it has been the general opinion that all that was done was according to the instructions and hints of Government, and was by no means displeasing to it. It has been commonly believed that Government appointed missionaries and maintained them at its own cost. It has been supposed that Government, and the officers of Government throughout the country, were in the habit of giving large sums of money to these missionaries, with the intention of covering their expenses, enabling them to distribute books, and in every way aiding them. Many covenanted officers and many military men have been in the habit of talking to their subordinates about religion; some of them would bid their servants come to their houses and listen to the preaching of missionaries, and thus it happened that in the course of time no man felt sure that his creed would last even his own lifetime.[6]
The missionaries, moreover, introduced a new system of preaching. They took to printing and circulating controversial tracts, in the shape of questions and answers. Men of a different faith were spoken of in those tracts in a most offensive and irritating way. In Hindustan these things have always been managed very differently. Every man in this country preaches and explains his views in his own mosque or his own house.
If any one wishes to listen to him, he can go to the mosque or house and hear what he has to say. But the missionaries’ plan was exactly the opposite. They used to attend places of public resort—markets, for instance, and fairs, where men of different creeds were collected together—and used to begin preaching there. It was only from fear of the authorities that no one bade them be off about their business. In some districts the missionaries were actually attended by policemen from the station. And then the missionaries did not confine themselves to explaining the doctrines of their own books. In violent and unmeasured language they attacked the followers and the holy places of other creeds, annoying and insulting beyond expression the feelings of those who listened to them. In this way, too, the seeds of discontent were sown deep in the hearts of the people.
Then missionary schools were started in which the principles of the Christian faith were taught. Men said it was by the order of Government. In some districts covenanted officers of high position and of great influence used to visit the schools and encourage the people to attend them; examinations were held in books which taught the tenets of the Christian religion. Lads who attended the schools used to be asked such questions as the following, ‘Who is your God?’ ‘Who is your Redeemer,’ and these questions they were obliged to answer agreeably to the Christian belief—prizes being given accordingly. This again added to the prevailing ill-will. But it may be said with some justice, ‘If the people were not satisfied with this course of education, why did they let their children go to the schools?’ The fact is, that we have here no question of like or dislike. On the contrary, we must account for this by the painfully degraded and ignorant state of the people. They believed that if their children were entered at the schools, they might have employment given them by Government, and be enabled to find some means of subsistence. Hence they put up with a state of affairs in reality disagreeable enough to them. But it must not be thought that they ever liked those schools.
When the village schools were established, the general belief was that they were instituted solely with the view of teaching the doctrines of Jesus. The pergunnah visitors and deputy inspectors who used to go from village to village and town to town advising the people to enter their children at these schools, got the nickname of native clergymen. When the pergunnah visitor or deputy inspector entered any village, the people used to say that the native clergyman had come. Their sole idea was, that these were Christian schools, established with the view of converting them. Well-informed men, although they did not credit this, saw nevertheless that in these schools nothing but Urdu was taught. They were afraid that boys while reading only Urdu would forget the tenets of their own faith, and that they would thus drift into Christianity. They believed, also, that Government wished such books as bore upon the doctrines of the former religions of Hindustan to fall into entire disuse. This was to be done with the view of ensuring the spread of Christianity. In many of the eastern districts of Hindustan where these schools were established, boys were entered at them by compulsion, and by compulsion only. It was currently reported, that all this was in pursuance of the orders of Government.
There was at the same time a great deal of talk in Hindustan about female education. Men believed it to be the wish of Government that girls should attend and be taught at these schools, and leave off the habit of sitting veiled. Anything more obnoxious than this to the feelings of the Hindustanees cannot be conceived. In some districts the practice was actually introduced. The pergunnah visitors and deputy inspectors hoped, by enforcing the attendance of girls, to gain credit with their superior. In every way, therefore, right or wrong, they tried to carry out their object. Here, then, was another cause of discontent among the people, through which they became confirmed in error.
The large colleges established in the towns were from the first a source of suspicion. At the time of their establishment Shah Abdulazeez, [7] a celebrated Moulvie of Hindustan, was alive. The Mohammedans asked him for a Fatwa on the subject. His answer was distinct. ‘Go,’ he said, ‘read in the English colleges, and learn the English tongue. The laws of Islam admit it.’ Acting on this opinion the Mohammedans did not hesitate to enter these colleges. At that time, however, the colleges were conducted on a principle widely different from that which is at present adopted. Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, and English were equally taught. The ‘Fickah,'[8] ‘Hadees,'[9] and other such books were read. Examinations were held in the ‘Fickah’ for which certificates of proficiency were given. Religion was not in any way thrust forward. The professors were men of worth and weight—all scholars of great reputation, wide knowledge, and sound moral character. But all this had been changed. The study of Arabic is little thought of. The ‘Fickah’ and ‘Hadees’ were suddenly dropped. Persian is almost entirely neglected. Books and methods of teaching have been changed. But the study of Urdu and of English has greatly increased. All this has tended to strengthen the idea that Government wished to wipe out the religions which it found in Hindustan. The professors are no longer men of weight or acquirements. Students at the college, in whom people have not gained confidence, have for some time past been appointed professors. And hence it is that throughout the country these colleges have fallen into disrepute.
Such was the state of the village schools and the colleges, such the general feeling of distrust throughout the country as to the views of Government about conversion, when a proclamation was issued by Government to the following effect: Whoever had studied and passed an examination in certain sciences and in the English language, and had received a certificate to that effect, was to be considered as having prior claims for employment in the public service. Petty appointments were granted on the production of certificates from the deputy inspectors—the very men who had hitherto been nicknamed native clergymen. This came as a blow to every one. Suspicion increased tenfold. The rumour again arose that Government wished to deprive the Hindustanees of all means of subsistence and by impoverishing them gradually, to substitute its own religion in the place of theirs. . . . In 1855 E. Edward, a missionary, issued a circular and sent it to all Government offices that all people should embrace one faith as there is unity everywhere.
The laws providing for the resumption of revenue free lands, the last of which was Regulation 6 of 1819, were most obnoxious. Nothing disgusted the natives of this country more with the English Government than this resumption of revenue free lands. Sir T. Munro and the Duke of Wellington said truly enough that to resume lands granted revenue free, was to set the whole people against us, and to make beggars of the masses. I cannot describe the odium and the hatred which this act brought on Government, or the extent to which it beggared the people.
Many lands which had been held revenue free for centuries were suddenly resumed on the flimsiest pretexts. The people said that Government not only did nothing for them itself, but undid what former Governments had done. This measure altogether lost for the Government the confidence of its subjects. It may be said that, if revenue free lands were not resumed, some other source of income would have to be sought, or some new tax imposed to meet the charges of Government; so that the people would have still to bear the burden. This may be so; but the people do not see it. It is a remarkable fact that wherever the rebels have issued proclamations to deceive and reduce the people, they have only mentioned two things: the one, interference in matters of religion; the other, the resumption of revenue free lands. It seems fair to infer that these were the two chief causes of the public discontent. More especially was it the case with the Mohammedans, on whom this grievance fell far more heavily than on the Hindus.
Under former rules and in old times, the system of buying and selling rights in landed property, of mortgage, and of transfer by gift, undoubtedly prevailed. But there was little of it, and what little there was, was due to the consent and wishes of the parties concerned. To arbitrarily compel the sale of these rights in satisfaction of arrears of revenue, or of debt, was a practice in those days unknown. Hindustanee landlords are particularly attached to this kind of property. The loss of their estates has been to them a source of the deepest annoyance. A landed estate in Hindustan is very like a little kingdom. It has always been the practice to elect one man as the head over all. By him matters requiring discussion are brought forward, and every shareholder in proportion to his holding has the power of speaking out his mind on the point. The cultivators and the Chowdries[10] of the villages attend on such an occasion, and say whatever they have to say. Any matter of unusual importance is settled by the headmen of some of the larger villages. You have here, in fact, in great perfection, a miniature kingdom and parliament. These landlords were indignant at the loss of their estate, as a king at the loss of his empire. But the Government acted in utter disregard of the state of things formerly existing. Dating from the commencement of English rule to the present time, there is probably not a single village in which there have not been more or less transfers. In the first days of British rule, sales of landed property were so numerous that the whole country was turned upside down. To remedy this, Government passed the law which is called Regulation 1 of 1821, and appointed a Commission of Inquiry. This Commission, however, gave rise to a thousand other evils. Finally, the affair was not brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and at last the Commission was abolished. I shall not here enter into the question as to how Government could ensure the payment of the land revenue, if it gave up the practice of sales or its right to enforce sales as arising from the fact of the land being pledged for the payment of revenue. All that I now say is, that whether this system of sales was the result of necessity or of ignorance, it has at all events had a hand in bringing on the rebellion. . . . I will only mention here that it is open to grave doubt whether the land is pledged for the payment of revenue. The claim of the Government lies, I take it, upon the produce of the land, not upon the land itself.
So, too, the practice of sale in satisfaction of debt has been most objectionable. Bankers and money-lenders have availed themselves of it to advance money to landlords, resorting to every kind of trickery and roguery to rob them of their property. They have instituted suits without end in the civil courts—some fraudulent, some correct enough. The consequence has been, that they have very generally ousted the old landlords, and insinuated themselves into their properties. Troubles of this kind have ruined landlords throughout the length and breadth of the land…
There is no doubt that Government were but slightly acquainted with the unhappy state of the people. How could it well be otherwise? There was no real communication between the governors and the governed, no living together or near one another, as has always been the custom of the Mohammedans in countries which they subjected to their rule. Government and its officials have never adopted this course, without which no real knowledge of the people can be gained. It is, however, not easy to see how this can be done by the English, as they almost all look forward to retirement in their native land, and seldom settle for good amongst the natives of India.
The people again, having no voice in the government of the country, could not well better their condition; and if they did try to make themselves heard by means of petitions, these same petitions were seldom if ever attended to, and sometimes never even heard.
Government, it is true, received reports from its subordinate officials; but even these officials themselves were ignorant of the real thoughts and opinions of the people, because they had no means of getting at them. The behaviour of these subordinates as a rule, their pride, and their treatment of natives, is well known. In their presence native gentlemen were afraid, and if they had told these officials of their want of knowledge of the people of their districts, they would only have been summarily ejected for their pains. All the Amlah (readers and clerks) and the civil functionaries, as well as wealthy native gentlemen, were afraid, and consequently did nothing but flatter.
Now Government, although in name only a Government subordinate to a higher Government, was in reality the real Government of this country, and as such it ought to have received the complaints and petitions of its people direct, and not, as it did, invariably by reports from its district officers. These are some of the reasons why the real feelings and ways of its people, why the action of new laws passed for that people, their working for good or for bad, for the prosperity or otherwise of the countrymen, were unknown, or only slightly known, to Government. The people were isolated, they had no champion to stand up for their rights and to see justice done to them, and they were constrained to weep in silence.
I feel it most necessary to say that which is in my heart, and which I believe to be true, even at the risk of its being distasteful to many of the ruling race. What I am now going to treat of is that which, if only done in a right way, will attract even wild animals, causing them to love instead of to dread, and which, therefore, will, in a much greater degree, attract men. I cannot here state at length what the benefits of friendship, intercourse, and sympathy are; but I maintain that the maintenance of friendly relations between the governors and the governed is far more necessary than between individuals: private friendships only affect a few, friendship and good feeling between a Government and its subjects affect a nation. As in private friendships two persons are united by the bond of a common friendship, so also should a Government and its people be knit together in like manner. The People and the Government I may liken to a tree, the latter being the root, and the former the growth of that root. As the root is, so will the tree be. What! Was such intimacy impossible under this Government? Most certainly not. We have numerous instances in which foreigners and natives of countries have been brought in contact with each other, and of their becoming friends, even when their religions and countries were different and widely separated. And why was this? Just because they wished, and did their utmost, to become so. How often do we not see strifes and enmities between people of the same race, religion, and customs! Friendship, intercourse, and sympathy are therefore not wholly dependent for their existence merely on the givers and recipients being of the same religion, race, or country.
Does not the Apostle Paul admonish us in these beautiful words?—’And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you’ (1st Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, iii. 12) And does not Jesus admonish us in these?—’Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets . . . ‘ (Matt. vii. 12).
These were meant to inculcate friendship and love to all men; and no one, no wise and thoughtful man, will say that the admonition is wrong, that friendship and love to our fellowmen are not beneficial, that their results are nil, and that they do not blot out much that is wicked. As yet, truth compels me to state, Government has not cultivated the friendship of its people, as was its duty to do. The Creator has instilled it into the heart of man and the instinct of animals, that the strong should be kind to and care for the weak. The father loves his child before the child loves him. The man tries to win the woman, not the woman the man. If a man of low degree try to win the esteem of one in high position, he is liable to be styled a flatterer and not a friend. It was, therefore, for Government to try and win the friendship of its subjects, not for the subjects to try and win that of the Government. If it had done so, the results would have been great, and the people would have rejoiced. Alas that it has not done so! If Government say that what I say is untrue—that they have tried to cultivate friendship and have only been repaid with enmity—I can only say, that if it had gone the right way to work, its subjects would most undoubtedly have been its friends and supporters, instead of, as in many instances, rising up in arms against it. Now friendship is a feeling which springs from the heart, and which cannot be kindled by “admonitions.” Men may meet on very friendly terms, but it does not therefore follow that they are friends in the real sense of the word—that they are friends at heart as well as in outward signs. This is a link, as it were, between hearts: a man instinctively feels that he likes a man or the contrary. Government has hitherto kept itself as isolated from the people of India as if it had been the fire and they the dry grass—as if it thought that, were the two brought in contact, the latter would be burnt up. It and its people were like two different sorts of stone, one white and the other black, which stones, too, were being daily more and more widely separated. Now the relations between them ought to have been close like those between the streaks of white and black in the stone called Abri, in which we see the former close alongside of the latter, the one blending with the other.
Government was, of course, perfectly right in maintaining special friendly relation with its Christian subjects (the English), but it was at the same time incumbent upon it to show towards its native subjects that brotherly kindness which the Apostle Paul exhorts us to in these words, “And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity” (2 Peter i. 7). It must be borne in mind that the blood of the Mohammedan conquerors and that of the people of the country was not the same; that their faith was not the same; their manners and customs not the same; that in their hearts the people did not like them; and that at first there was little or no amalgamation of the two. What, then, was the secret of their becoming friends? Let us glance at the former Indian dynasties. First came that of the Mohammedan conquerors. In the reign of the Turks and Pathans, there was no intercourse between the conquerors and the conquered until the Government of the former was made firm and easy. A feeling of cordiality was first established in the reign of the Mogul Emperor, Akbar I [11] and continued till the reign of Shah Jehan.[12] No doubt, owing to many defects in the system of Government, the people were subjected to many evils; but these were lightened by the feelings just mentioned. This feeling unfortunately ceased during the reign of Alumgeer,13 A.D. 1779, when, owing to the rebellion of several Hindus of note, such as Sewajee,[14] the Mahratta, etc., Alumgeer vowed vengeance against them all, and sent orders to all his lieutenants to treat them with rigour and harshness, and to exempt none from paying tribute. The injury and disaffection which therefore ensued are well known. Now the English Government has been in existence upwards of a century, and up to the present hour has not secured the affections of the people.
One great source of the stability of a Government is undoubtedly the treating of its subjects with honour, and thus gaining their affections. Though a man’s income be but small, treat him with honour, and he is far more gratified than if he were presented with three or four times the amount and be treated with contempt. Contempt is an ineradicable wrong. Being treated contemptuously sinks deep into a man’s heart, and although uninjured by the same as to his worldly goods, he still becomes an enemy. The wound rankles deep, and cannot be healed; that given by a sword can be healed, but that inflicted by a contemptuous word cannot. The results of kindness are different: an enemy even, if treated courteously, becomes a friend; friends by friendly intercourse become greater friends, and strangers if treated in a friendly manner are no longer strangers. By kindness we make the brute creatures our willing slaves; how much more then would such treatment cement the bonds between a Government and its people? Now in the first years of the British rule in India the people were heartily in favour of it. This good feeling the Government has now forfeited, and the natives very generally say that they are treated with contempt. A native gentleman is, in the eyes of any petty official, as much lower than that official as that same official esteems himself lower than a duke. The opinion of many of these officials is that no native can be a gentleman.
Owing to the paucity of the European element, the people of India only stood in awe of the sepoy, who thus became puffed up with pride, and thought there were none like them in the world. They looked upon the European portion of the army as a myth, and thought that the many victories which the English had gained were gained entirely by their own prowess. A common saying of theirs was, that they had enabled the English to conquer Hindustan from Burmah to Cabul. This pride of the sepoys was most marked after the Punjab was conquered. So far had it gone, that they made objections to anything which they did not like, and, I believe even remonstrated when ordered to march consequent on the yearly reliefs. It was precisely at this time, when the army was imbued with this feeling of pride, and the knowledge or rather conjecture that Government would grant anything they stood out for, that the new cartridges were issued —cartridges which they really believed were made up with fat, and the using of which would destroy their caste. They refused to bite them. When the regiment at Barrackpore was disbanded, and the general order announcing the same was read out to each regiment, the deepest grief was felt throughout the army. They thought that the refusal to bite the cartridges, the biting of which would have destroyed their caste, was no crime at all; that the men of the disbanded regiment were not in the least to blame, and that their disbandment was an act utterly devoid of justice on the part of Government. The whole army deeply regretted ever having had anything to do with Government.
They felt that they had shed their blood in its cause, and conquered many countries for it; that in return it wished to take away their caste, and had dismissed those who had justly stood out for their rights. There was, however, no open rebellion just then, as they had only been disbanded and had not been treated with greater severity; but, partly from feeling certain that the cartridges were mixed with fat, partly from grief at seeing their comrades disbanded at Barrackpore, and still more by reason of their pride, arrogance, and vanity, the whole army was determined, come what might, not to bite the cartridges.
Correspondence was undoubtedly actively carried on in the army after the events at Barrackpore, and messages were sent telling the men not to bite the cartridges. Up to this time there was a strong feeling of indignation and irritation in the army, but, in my opinion, there was no intention of rebelling.
The fatal month of May 1857 was now at hand, in which the army was punished in a manner which thinking men know to have been most wrong and most inopportune. The anger which the news of this punishment created in the minds of the sepoys was intense. The prisoners, on seeing their hands and feet manacled, looked at their medals and wept. They remembered their services, and thought how they had been recompensed; and their pride, which, as I have before said, was the feeling of the whole army, caused them to feel the degradation all the more keenly. Then the rest of the troops at Meerut were fully persuaded that they would either be compelled to bite the cartridges or undergo the same punishment. This rage and grief led to the fearful events of the 10th of May, which events are unparalleled in the annals of history. After committing themselves thus, the mutineers had no choice left but to continue in their career of rebellion.
Footnotes:
1 A Royal letter.
2 Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India was convinced that for the security of N. W. Frontier, Oudh must be under British control. Zaman Shah’s invasion was thought to be an excuse for demanding from the Nawab of Oudh the reduction in his army and the increase of the Company’s troops. He compelled the Nawab to sign a treaty on 10th Nov. 1801, by which the Nawab had to surrender the rich tracts of Rohilkhand and the Lower
Doab. When Lord Dalhousie came to India as the Governor-General he took over the administration of Oudh while allowing its ruler to retain his palace and titles. But the Court of Directors ordered for its immediate annexation which was done on 13th February 1856. Wajid Ali Shah, the last Nawab was deported to Calcutta where he passed his last days on an annual pension of Rs. 12 lakhs. This caused bitter resentment among his subjects and was one of the reasons for the Mutiny of 1857. But Sir Syed had denied it.
3 Moulvi Muhammad Ismail was a noted preacher and had his connections with the Shah Abdul Aziz School of Delhi which was to purify Islam from corrupt vices. With Hazrat Syed Ahmad Shaheed he led a Jehad in 1831 against the Sikh states of the Punjab and fell fighting in one of the crusades against the Sikhs.
4 Men fighting for the cause of religion.
5 This criticism of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan received due attention of the Home Government and next year nominated Raja Narendra Singh (Rais Patiala), Raja Devi Narain (Rais Banaras), and Raja Dinkar Rao (Dewan of Gwalior) to the Legislative Council,
6 Sir Syed was perfectly right in revealing this weakness. History corroborates that the missionary activities continued so ruthlessly that the Indian press and public condemned it outright. See Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India (collected from Bombay Govt. records), vol. I (1818-1885), Bombay 1957, pp.171, 172.
7 Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi (1750-1828) was the son of Hazrat Shah Waliullah (1703-1765) who was a great preacher. He translated the Holy Quran into Persian and popularised the teachings of Islam. He founded a school in Delhi to impart his teachings.
8 The Mohammadan Law.
9 The sayings of the Prophet.
10 Headmen.
11 Jalaluddin, popularly known in the history of India as Muhammad Akbar, son of Humayun, was born on 23 November 1542 at Amarkot. He defeated Sikandar Sur and his capable general and minister, Himu, in the battle of Panipat in 1557. His was the golden period in Mughal history. He passed away in 1605 and was buried in Sikandra near Agra.
12 Succeeded Jehangir in Oct. 1627. His reign is considered as the golden period of Mughal rule in India which was marked by pomp and splendour. He is the builder of the famous Taj, Jama Masjid, Red Fort, Delhi, etc. He was arrested by Aurangzeb in 1657 and was kept in Agra Fort where he passed his last days.
13 Aurangzeb, the sixth Mughal Emperor, succeeded his father, Shah Jehan, in 1658. On his succession he assumed the title of Alamgir (Conqueror of the World). He ruled India for about fifty years. The date written by Sir Syed is incorrect as Aurangzeb passed away in 1707.
14 Shivaji was a Maratha general who continued fighting with the Mughals and finally founded a Maratha State.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This abridged version appeared in the book “Writings and Speeches of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan” compiled and edited by Shan Mohammad published by Nachiketa Publications.