I had been reading this book ‘Last Mughal’ and I have mixed feelings when I read about the treatment meted out to Bahadur Shah Zafar. Sometimes I feel nauseating and angry at the audacity and inhumanness of the so-called civilized British. But sometimes I feel fairly blank as if I am reading a story.
As William Dalrymple says, the history about the 1857 riots is always one-sided depending on who writes about it. It is either a Mutiny if the British historians do the writing or the First War of Indian Independence if the RSS types write it. Truth is somewhere in between. It was a culmination of many events starting from religious unrest to urban riots.
Anyway, the riots ultimately happened to end as a power struggle for Delhi (a city according to Kushwant Singh has seen more blood on its streets than any other) and so everyone was ultimately marching towards Delhi to either defend it or win it. This is what is anathematic to the Hindu nationalists and to a great extent to me also. The Hindu nationalists could not bear the fact that people were rallying behind Bahadur Shah Zafar to restore the glory of Mughal Empire.
So am I unable to bear it, not because I am a Hindu myself. But because I could not understand the logic behind it!! What makes it ok to back the frail old king against the British?? Is it the frailness, lost glory, familiarity of an old foe than a new one, or is it the Stockholm syndrome?
According to me, both the Mughals and British are invaders. They never belonged to this land. They came from somewhere, claimed ownership and governed the country. Neither of them were religiously tolerant, though there will be claims about the British being so. Both had their interests foremost in their minds, which is the Indian wealth and the grace and charm of the land. Both believed that the locals were unfit to govern themselves and were infidels with their idol worship etc.
As much as the Mughals were willing to mix races, there had been British – Indian marriages too (it will make an interesting research to see the original cross marriages, the British were marrying the Muslims more than the real locals) The British that way were still unwilling to look at the natives, as the Mughals were willing to.
But the point is, as I said both were Invaders. Just because one did it 500 years earlier than the other, does not make it better or them as the rightful owner of the country. And what kind of loyalty or attachment would make the natives fight against the British to restore the Mughal throne I can’t fathom.
Reality is somewhere in the midst of all these. Bahadur Shah was more a figurehead in the first war. He was anyway incapable of rallying people for a cause, good or bad and as all Mughal Emperors were, he was more run by his Empress who was 50 years younger than him and he was smitten on.
But prompts me to think what kind of a tolerant society we are. Despite all the skills and power, even now we are being treated in a biased manner. There are match referees who punish a humble and true guy like Sachin and the Australians who are nothing but forest inhabitants go scot-free on all crimes they commit.
If Victors wrote History and they can get away with their crimes, then it is time to rewrite History. Because we are the Victors now and the Jallianwala Bagh’s and the 1857 Delhi riots were nothing but war crimes committed by the British.
We should be fighting these now; demand and get an apology from the throne and the Kohi-Noor back symbolically. Otherwise, in another few centuries we will have new masters and we can do what we do best. Be Slaves.
As William Dalrymple says, the history about the 1857 riots is always one-sided depending on who writes about it. It is either a Mutiny if the British historians do the writing or the First War of Indian Independence if the RSS types write it. Truth is somewhere in between. It was a culmination of many events starting from religious unrest to urban riots.
Anyway, the riots ultimately happened to end as a power struggle for Delhi (a city according to Kushwant Singh has seen more blood on its streets than any other) and so everyone was ultimately marching towards Delhi to either defend it or win it. This is what is anathematic to the Hindu nationalists and to a great extent to me also. The Hindu nationalists could not bear the fact that people were rallying behind Bahadur Shah Zafar to restore the glory of Mughal Empire.
So am I unable to bear it, not because I am a Hindu myself. But because I could not understand the logic behind it!! What makes it ok to back the frail old king against the British?? Is it the frailness, lost glory, familiarity of an old foe than a new one, or is it the Stockholm syndrome?
According to me, both the Mughals and British are invaders. They never belonged to this land. They came from somewhere, claimed ownership and governed the country. Neither of them were religiously tolerant, though there will be claims about the British being so. Both had their interests foremost in their minds, which is the Indian wealth and the grace and charm of the land. Both believed that the locals were unfit to govern themselves and were infidels with their idol worship etc.
As much as the Mughals were willing to mix races, there had been British – Indian marriages too (it will make an interesting research to see the original cross marriages, the British were marrying the Muslims more than the real locals) The British that way were still unwilling to look at the natives, as the Mughals were willing to.
But the point is, as I said both were Invaders. Just because one did it 500 years earlier than the other, does not make it better or them as the rightful owner of the country. And what kind of loyalty or attachment would make the natives fight against the British to restore the Mughal throne I can’t fathom.
Reality is somewhere in the midst of all these. Bahadur Shah was more a figurehead in the first war. He was anyway incapable of rallying people for a cause, good or bad and as all Mughal Emperors were, he was more run by his Empress who was 50 years younger than him and he was smitten on.
But prompts me to think what kind of a tolerant society we are. Despite all the skills and power, even now we are being treated in a biased manner. There are match referees who punish a humble and true guy like Sachin and the Australians who are nothing but forest inhabitants go scot-free on all crimes they commit.
If Victors wrote History and they can get away with their crimes, then it is time to rewrite History. Because we are the Victors now and the Jallianwala Bagh’s and the 1857 Delhi riots were nothing but war crimes committed by the British.
We should be fighting these now; demand and get an apology from the throne and the Kohi-Noor back symbolically. Otherwise, in another few centuries we will have new masters and we can do what we do best. Be Slaves.
3 comments:
The decadance of Elite ruling class , the indifference of the vast literati and the ruthless opportunism of the British , the still-prevailing sense of internal rivalry within our own ranks .. all captured with a sense of impartiality and almost impersonal interest by dalrymple! And he presents a truly vivid imagary of Delhi of those times.. and i loved in particular the parts on Ghalib and other notable poets of the time and their works .And he rightly shatters the myth that 1857 was the first armed battle in the War of Indian Independence- the motives of the rebels was hardly based on nationalist ideals. Dalrymple is known to be a disciple of Salman Rushdie.. but I feel the " chela " has outdone the "guru" as far as writing about India and Indians is concerned!!!White Mughal was more of a juicy gossip column.. Last mughal is a truly moving account of those eventful years
And by thw way , did you ever read bahadur Shah's couplets or ghazals? try reading atleast the translations.. he wasnt the best ruler this country had but definitely one of the most soulful and lyrical poets!!!
In fact that was what surprised me. We had been given a dose of the inhumanness of the Mughal Emperors barring Akbar( as if all historians had a duty of image building ). But many of them surprise me. Never knew that Aurangazeb was a teetotaller and less of bigotry than many of his ilustrious predecessors.
Have you read 'City of Djinns' by Dalrymple? Try that too.
Post a Comment