India Marching: Reflections from a Nationalistic Perspective

Contents

Dedication

Disclaimer

Acknowledgements

Introduction

I. The Freedom Struggle

II. The Partition

III. The Independence

IV. The Post-Independence Era

Dedication

This book is dedicated to the six generations of strong-willed females I’ve had to contend with during my life-time: my (maternal) great grandmother, who must have been in early sixties at the time of my birth; my (paternal) grandmother, who should have been in her early fifties that time; my mother, who was barely twenty years old then; my wife, who happened to be slightly under twenty-six years of age at the time of my marriage to her; and my daughter, born to her when I was twenty-nine years of age. No doubt all of them have been strong-headed females, but they have also been blessed with a sort of clear thinking that has helped them to successfully achieve their goals. The last but not the least in the family tree have been my two very young, sensible and lovely granddaughters – the older born when I was 59, and the younger coming five years later. Both are clear-headed and intelligent. The youngest one appears to be even more strong-headed at this tender age. I believe they all helped me learn various facets and traits of human character along with an insight into different divergent aspects of life. It had always been a sheer pleasure for me interacting with any and every one of them from time to time. I am deeply indebted to them for their role. Each one among them deserves at least part of the credit for whatever little I could achieve in my life.

Disclaimer

This book gives an account, based on personal recollections, on the subject closest to the heart of the author i.e. the progress of a democratic republic – and, in particular, of the country where he was born and where he has chosen to stay on. This choice was made in order to make his life more meaningful by doing his bit for her people and trying to pay back his gratitude for being born there. The author, unlike a vast majority of his class fellows and friends from the 1963 class of Medical College Amritsar made a conscious decision not to settle abroad. He did not shun the country to look for greener pastures in developed and far better democracies though he has had the opportunity to travel to nearly eighty countries and stay abroad for varying lengths of time.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this Book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this Book and specifically disclaim any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Acknowledgements

My first two teachers were my nanaji (maternal grandfather) and my padnani (his mother and my great grandmother). I spent eleven years of my childhood from the age of two years and eight months in their house, which was rather big compared to others that existed during those times, even though it was located outside the municipal limits of my home town. I was imbued with a strong sense of patriotism by my grandfather who was a freedom fighter, homoeopathic physician, Sanskrit scholar, and, by pastime, an astrologer – all rolled into one. My padnani, though widowed at age fourteen as an illiterate person, learned Sanskrit and Hindi later, and was well versed in our ancient Hindu scriptures. She used to recite meaningful stories from them in place of the usual lullabies meant for kids of my then early age. I am grateful to the many friends and neighbors of my nanaji, who lived both around his clinic and his residence for providing real insight into the role of various different players in the freedom struggle of my enslaved country. The usual topic of discussion when they met in our house was the sacrifices, sometimes extreme, of the revolutionaries. All of them apprised me on the relative roles of the two different streams: the revolutionaries fighting hard to snatch freedom from the British and the Congress, enamored of white skin, who have merely played second fiddle to the Raj.

I am grateful to my daughter who has been pestering me to write a book for nearly two decades even before she left the country for studies abroad. She wanted me to write on my travels and travails, and that I shall certainly do. But the subject matter of the present book has been closer to my heart ever since I came to understand the world around me.

My gratitude goes to the innumerable authors and writers and to a host of makers of the related documentaries I went through. It is difficult to thank each one separately but my indebtedness to anyone among them is a blind fact and hence cannot be refuted. I am sure they all will excuse me for not listing them separately. I am indebted to so many persons who helped me in various ways during the three-and-half years that took me in writing the book. They have to bear with me since it may not be possible for me to thank each of them personally.

My thanks are due to iUniverse, my publishers. First and foremost to Mr. John Potts with whom I got in touch two-and-half years ago during my 2009 visit to that great country known as America – the world’s oldest continuously functioning democracy. Editorial Consultant Manager Ms. Sarah Disbrow and Publishing Coordinators Ms. Meredith Lefkoff and Ms. Rebecca Potter helped me and deserve my gratitude for that.

Introduction

Depending on which version one is reading, history may or may not depict the truth. The truth need not become history. History is dictated or narrated by the victors of wars or the rulers of any particular land, or else by their sycophantic followers. We were taught in school that Alexander – the Greatest, of Macedonia – defeated the strong and valiant Indian king Porus after crossing the upstream Jhelum where the river’s flow was narrow. The British, who initially meddled with our history, wanted us to look silly and weak. Upon a visit to Athens some twenty years ago, I came across a map (in the topmost heritage hotel of the city) that showed the vast empire of the first of the three greatest generals the world has seen. It depicted the Jhelum – the westernmost of the five rivers of the great Punjab – as the easternmost boundary of his vast empire that encompassed the then-known world. Sitting at the bar counter on the penultimate day of my stay, I spoke with the steward who introduced me to his boss. The manager was kind enough to then introduce me to the general manager of the hotel. This gentleman, in turn, arranged a complimentary breakfast meeting with an eminent Greek historian who vouched for the authenticity of the map. If Alexander never crossed the Jhelum, how did he defeat Porus, whose kingdom lay east of that river? Or, was he defeated by Porus who spared his life, like any other benevolent Indian Hindu king would have done, when Alexander was produced in the court? If the map is indeed authentic, the narration of the dialogue has been reversed by British historians. In this case, the more accurate version might have included an interesting exchange. The following answer to Porus’s question: What should be done to you? may then have come from the brave Alexander: As one king does to the other. This first-ever defeat of the most ambitious young general would have halted the further eastward progression of his army. This in turn would have forced the just thirty-three year-old crest-fallen Alexander to return to his capital, Babylon. The excuse advanced in history that his army personnel were too tired to advance would then seem less tenable than the above version. Likewise, we currently teach our geography students that J&K is wholly our state, even although the ground realities are different. There has been an interesting ad titled ‘Incredible India’ consistently run by the government of India on the state-owned TV channel, Doordarshan highlighting the beauty of this state. In a way, this indeed may be incredible since we control only forty-five percent of the land in J&K (the remaining fifty-five percent is held by Pakistan and China), but still we have the audacity to represent the whole of the state of J&K as part of India.

My love for my country started before I started going to school at age five because of the influence of my freedom fighter Nanaji (maternal grandfather) with whom I was living. My fascination with the ‘real’ history of our freedom struggle against the British, especially during the critical years of the twentieth century, started during my middle school days in the mid-1950s. History was not the subject of my choice though a compulsory subject for my matriculation examination. I decided to become a physician at an early age of five even months before joining the primary school. But nonetheless it was one of the five subjects on which one was examined by the Panjab University during my times and one had to pass in all the subjects. The possible reasons for this preferential liking were: the encouraging atmosphere all around, during the early years of life of independent India, was highly charged with the passion for patriotism and a spirit for do or die, coupled with the strong influence of my widowed freedom fighter maternal grandfather. I was living with him and his mother from age of less than three years till I became nearly fourteen and was in ninth grade. He got disenchanted with the ruling Congress party, during early 1950s run by selfish first prime minister as his fiefdom. My nanaji was in favor of the newly formed Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded by Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who was fighting hard for the integration of J&K into the Indian Union. Mookerjee was Nehru’s colleague in the first Union ministry after independence that was a truly national government. However, the national character lasted for a couple of years. My great grandmother did not know the three R’s at the time of her early marriage and was widowed at the very young age of 14 years or so, learnt to read and write Hindi and Sanskrit. She used to narrate me stories from the Hindu scriptures as well as an account of the freedom struggle starting with the ‘First War of Independence’ against East India Company.

It is disgusting and shameful that the Congress ‘participated’ in India’s freedom struggle with the sole purpose of occupying the high chair to rule the country rather than serving her people. The rulers distorted and suppressed some important facets altogether in an effort to prove their contribution which was never significant enough to bring independence. In the process, they did her best to sideline so many eminent leaders and freedom fighters opposed to or not aligned to Mahatma Gandhi’s adopted scheme of nonviolence and noncooperation, his dirty politics and mean methodology. Gandhi was an autocrat par excellence and a highly selfish individual. So was his protégé Nehru. In fact Gandhi should be called the founder of dynastic politics in India unheard of in any democracy. These two ‘qualities’ – autocracy and singing praises about them – were shared by Nehru’s daughter and her descendants belonging to the ‘first political family’. Consequently it became exceedingly difficult for the generations born after independence to know, quantify and evaluate the role of the Congress during freedom struggle or for that matter numerous other luminaries and important personalities who selflessly plunged into that noble cause and sacrificed their lives at a much younger age. Indira Gandhi believed in the dogma that if you repeat a lie hundred times it becomes a truth.

A strong case has been made out by the first rulers of free India that Congress alone won freedom for the country. This amounted to falsifying the actual sequence of events. This is far removed from the real truth behind the actual story of Indians’ struggle for freedom. Innumerable persons, living both inside and outside the subcontinent, played different roles in unison. These persons contributed their might towards creating a global awareness of India’s oppression by the British Raj. They motivated the people of the subcontinent, especially the younger generations, to rise to the need and the occasion. They sacrificed their young lives in very large numbers in the process of ousting the white rulers and winning their freedom from slavery. The independence of the country, but not the Partition, was the net result of their collective effort, wherein the citizens fulfilled their mission truly and well as real patriots with the highest sense of nationalism and responsibility. No doubt there were a few black sheep as well, who were prepared to sell their consciences for the sake of petty rewards. The Partition was the handiwork of the three musketeers who had served the Congress party for varying lengths of time. This was the consequence of highly skewed thinking and faulty strategy by the Congress leadership notably the Mahatma, the uncrowned king of the party, together with his protégé Nehru and, to some extent, Patel on one side and the one who flummoxed them – the intelligent demon Jinnah on the other. Gandhi, who handed over the ‘Rajaji Formula on Partition’ to Jinnah during the course of his epic 18-day dialogue during September 1944, provided the mechanics of division of the subcontinent. This laborious effort produced no benefit to the country. The Mahatma, though gleefully accepted and supervised Partition of India, was christened as the ‘father of the nation’. In a way, this was a payback for accepting the ‘throne’ given to Nehru.

To remain in limelight and/or in power, by hook or crook, has been the credo of our politicians in the subcontinent, right from the most famous Gandhi – the greatest manipulator and showman among Indian politicians. Nehru learnt the tricks of trade from his ‘Bapu’. Nehru – the creator and master of the Kashmir problem soon after independence and the subsequent ignominious 1962 Chinese debacle – never resigned after bringing untold misery to the army and abundant shame to the country. Nor did he do so after a stroke two months later.

On the contrary he preferred to continue in office eventually dying due to the rupture of an aneurysm of abdominal aorta. He never allowed or tolerated any dissent much like a dictator. Subsequently politicization in every field was the prerequisite to wield unlimited power and make immense ill-gotten money. This started the era of ‘License, Quota and Permit’ Raj and creation of scarcities, artificial or otherwise, which caused the consolidation of power in the hands of the politicians and bureaucrats. The business community had to grease their palms in order to run their businesses, big or small. During early part of their career, the ‘resourceful’ and ‘far thinking’ bureaucrats began courting the ruling politicians of promise and thus earned their ‘big’ loaf of bread even beyond their retirement. This multiplied the already existing corruption in the Congress which proliferated into practically each and every department of the government and even percolating to the armed forces. This set up a vicious cycle from which the country could never come out.

The result has been ever increasing sky high levels of all-pervading corruption in each and every walk of life about which everybody in this country is aware but nobody seems seriously interested in doing anything to control, curb, reduce and eliminate. It is exceedingly rare that a selfless leader like Anna Hazare takes the cudgels on behalf of helpless masses. This monster (of corruption) is not only denigrating and downsizing the image of the country in the international arena but also dwarfing development and widening the disparities between the minority of the rich and powerful ones on the one hand vis-à-vis the vast numbers of the poor and weaker sections of the society on the other. The richest man in India paid an electricity bill of rupees seventy lakhs (seven million) for the first month in his new mansion before he started living there whereas tens or may be hundreds of millions of Indians have to do without electricity. There are people earning rupees three million an hour and there must be more than three hundred million without shelter over their head. This is a country with sharp but unfortunately wide contradictions and contrasts. The people of India seem to have inexhaustible patience!

Voltaire’s words: One owes respect to the living; to the dead one owes nothing but the truth, have guided me in writing this book. I have relied on documented source material both written and that personally experienced by others, including the freedom fighters.

I. The Freedom Struggle

Swaraj (total freedom) is my birthright and I shall have it, thundered the first great leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1906. Freedom comes to those who dare and act, said the second great leader Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1942. A critical, dispassionate, and unbiased appraisal of the intervening 36 years between these utterances, together with that of the ensuing five years taken to attain freedom, can tell us exactly how the yoke of colonialism was eventually shed off. A highly publicized one-sided, misguided, misleading and self-serving viewpoint has been presented to the countrymen. The statement: ‘The nationalist sentiments were awoken by the Indian National Congress, only when MK Gandhi took over its leadership’ was erroneously vigorously propagated all along for purely selfish reasons – Congress being the sole beneficiary of India’s independence. The ferment of nationalistic sentiments started long before the grand old party came into existence. Factually and dispassionately speaking, nationalist feelings in India were present in 1857, or maybe even earlier. The Congress was only piggy-banking on the British Raj before freedom, and trying to help diluting the sense of nationalism after independence!

Nehru successfully obtained the highest seat of power and, in a way, his throne. This was clearly due to the courtesy of the Mahatma who had taken of his political career right from 1929 when Nehru was made President of the Congress in place of duly elected Patel. A mutually beneficial relationship existed between the ‘Bapu’ and his protégé. As barter for the final act of benevolence of allotting the chair of authority, legitimacy, and power Gandhi thrust upon Nehru, the latter reciprocated by bestowing the title: ‘Rashtra Pita’ (‘Father of Nation’) upon Gandhi. Earlier in 1921, MK Gandhi did not fully deserve the title: ‘Mahatma’ bestowed upon by Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore. Gandhi was no Mahatma by the strict definition of the pious word. He was only feigning as one – a fact he admitted in a prayer meeting on 10th June 1947: "In India, public opinion is not as vigilant as in England. Had it been so, a worthless fellow like me should not have presumed to become a mahatma. And even after I became a mahatma, everything that I did would not have been put up with. As it is, in India everyone who is called a mahatma ceases to be answerable to the public, whatever – right or wrong – he might do".

Tilak was a rare leader among the then pro-Raj lot that existed prior to independence. He was the first Indian leader to study in a college. Not many following him could do so. Tilak gave the first clarion call for total freedom (Swaraj) from the Britain when the Congress party, already in existence for two decades, was clamoring for nothing more than an appendage to the British Raj and seeking support and favors from it. He talked of total freedom at a time when the Congress was not even thinking of dominion status and building bridges with the Raj to secure a piece of the pie for higher level government jobs, hitherto the monopoly of the whites. In fact the Congress, only under great pressure from the innumerable revolutionaries in India and abroad and with Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru as the general secretaries of the party, moved its first resolution for Swaraj from the bank of the Ravi, nearly a quarter of century later. In spite of that pronouncement, the trio of Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, in that order, settled for a dominion status and Partition of the subcontinent during the final round of negotiations with Mountbatten in June 1947.

Tilak, for his fierce nationalism coupled with sincerity of purpose and clarity of vision, was sidelined much like the only two other great leaders who followed him. He was not allowed to have his sway by the moderates led by Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta who were at the helm of affairs of the mild ‘political’ agglomeration known as Indian National Congress at the beginning of 20th century. Though a call for Swaraj was given in 1929, this remained on paper. Even as late as 9th September 1939, in order to take the Congress out of hibernation or slumber, Netaji urged Congress to launch a mass movement to wrest India’s freedom. This was after he was unceremoniously and high-handedly ousted by Gandhi from the position of democratically elected president. However, Congress unclear of its goals and unwilling to go against the Raj had a characteristic lukewarm response.

On the contrary, in sheer haste, folly, frustration and anger, Congress pulled out from all the eight provincial assemblies in December 1939 which it was ruling for two years. Losing your bargaining power and strength is not a protest but stupidity. This happened on the absurd and silly advice from autocratic Gandhi who was running the Congress as his fiefdom and personal jagir (property) even though he was opposed to jagirdari (feudalism). This was one of the many blunders to which the Congress party was accustomed to committing regularly before freedom. Habits and practices die hard and the blundering by the party continues even after independence. In between those years, an equally intelligent Jinnah, when compared to Netaji and too far above the mediocre, mischievous and mundane Gandhi, was not allowed to have his say and sway in party affairs having been denied even one-time president-ship of Congress party and forced to stay in wilderness. He joined Congress long before Gandhi and was an established and respected leader when Gandhi re-returned to India for the fourth time on 9th January 1915 as an unknown, untried and untrusted politician. A small observation of the cunningly shrewd nature of Gandhi is the fact he boarded the ship at Durban with a western outfit but at Bombay came out with traditional Kathiawar attire including a huge turban.

The expressions of Indian nationalism, both within the geographical boundaries of the subcontinent and in alien lands, manifested themselves in various forms all through the course of the British Raj. On the contrary, it may not be wrong to say that Gandhi, not to deride him, remained faithful to British Empire for a long time. Undoubtedly he was a steadfast well-wisher of the Empire and its Raj in India. At the outbreak of World War I, he offered his services to the British government either in Europe or the Middle East which were rejected because of his middle age. It is well known that bulk of freedom fighters, whether revolutionaries or Satyagrahis, were treated harshly and kept under subhuman conditions during their imprisonment. Contrarily Gandhi received all the affection and care of the Raj through a preferential treatment. During the cane charges on accompanying protestors, he always escaped without even a minor bruise. Why all this? On the night of 8th August 1942, on the eve of his call for ‘Quit India’ whereas all the members of the Congress Working Committee were incarcerated in a specially improvised jail in Ahmednagar Fort, Gandhi along with his paraphernalia including wife, secretary, doctor, and a battery of attendants was lodged in the luxurious Agha Khan Palace in Poona.

Many a time, the term of Gandhi’s imprisonment was curtailed substantially on one pretext or the other. In 1924, he was released just after two years of his six-year term for treason. It is worth remembering that all others charged for treason before him, including Tilak and Savarkar, had to complete the full imprisonment term in Burma or Andaman islands. Even on 6th May 1944, Gandhi was sent home thirteen months before all the other members of the Congress Working Committee, charged under the same offence, were released. There had to be a basis for such a differential treatment meted out to Gandhi by the obnoxious British Raj which otherwise ruled with an iron fist without applying the same rules they governed their own country! Gandhi enjoyed a cozy relationship with the top brass of the British Raj because he must have served them some useful purpose. It is on record that all his non-cooperation movements were abruptly called off (maybe to please the white rulers) for no valid reason and without any consultation with other stake holders. Hence it may not be wrong to say that none of these reached fruition, maybe with the exception of Dandi March which, for some queer reason, was not curtailed by the Raj. The movements were all a simple waste of effort taking the hapless and ignorant masses for a rude ride and putting them at total discomfiture with hardly any net benefit.

In the past, the clever British led by even cleverer Robert Clive of the East India Company, emboldened on the purpose of his life after two unsuccessful attempts at committing suicide, got entrenched in power on 2nd July 1757 after winning the battle of Plassey (after the mango orchard of Palashi near Murshidabad, the capital of the erstwhile huge state). Bengal of those days comprised of the present states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal, and Bangladesh. Thus it occupied a much bigger chunk of the subcontinent. The last king Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula was defeated on the banks of the Ganges through sheer bribe and intrigue. Clive had a phenomenal rise from a clerk in East India Company to be the Governor of Bengal. On 23rd June 1757, defying official orders to move to the Madras residency, he along with his tiny army of 800 Europeans and 2,000 Indian sepoys was up against more than 50,000-strong army of the Nawab. The C-in-C, Mir Jaffer and another Hindu general were purchased by Clive. Thus the bulk of Siraj-ud-Daula’s army did not take part in the battle. Clive’s annexation of huge land led to his reprieve for disobeying official orders. During the following ten years Clive drained Bengal of her seemingly inexorable wealth in cash and kind, and carrying back home few hundred thousand pounds sterling. Thus he became a filthy rich man by the time he returned to London, having amassed ill-gotten wealth – much like the present politicians of independent India. He constructed a palatial mansion on London compared to those frugal times.

This British victory essentially reaffirmed British power in eastern India and subsequently gained total administrative rights over Bengal following the Battle of Buxar against Dupleix in 1765. The Battle of Buxar extinguished the French colonial designs in India once for ever but for Chandernagore, and the small coastal colony of Pondicherry ceded by the British. Bombay was already given in dowry by the Portuguese during the previous century. After their success in south India against Tipu Sultan in the battle of Srirangapatnam, once again by buying Mir Qasim, the British became the undisputed power thereby eclipsing other colonists holding small chunks of territories scattered across the subcontinent. Subsequently, they conquered regions ruled by the rulers of the Maratha Empire by defeating them in several wars. Punjab was annexed in 1849 after the defeat of the Sikh armies again by bribery and intrigue in the First (1845–46) and then the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49). The other reasons for British ascendancy were: the Moghul power on the decline in the north during the first half of 18th century, the Marathas unable to consolidate their power especially after their loss in the 3rd Battle of Panipat, and the kings in the south in total disarray fighting against one another. This entrenchment of the East India Company also brought an end to the Indo-Mohammedan era, the intermediary phase of the Indian history as propounded by Nirad Choudhry in his maiden but famous book: ‘The autobiography of an unknown Indian’.

The policies of abolition and annexation of the princely states greatly alarmed the Indian ruling classes. There were over five hundred kings ruling states, big or small. These deep-seated feelings of fear and unease were also shared by a majority of ordinary people. Combined with greatly increased Christian missionary activity of the times, it created an impression that the Indian religion and culture were in danger. This resulted in the awakening of the masses by some notable reformers. Proselytizing, with the connivance of the Raj, was in full swing converting the hapless poorer classes and/or lower castes into Christianity. Dr. Anandi, wife of Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh, was the first Indian woman to obtain FRCS from England. The couple had asked for government help for her education. She was offered full subsistence for higher studies in Britain provided she converted into Christianity. This assistance at the cost of changing one’s religion was duly declined.

Exactly a century after the battle of Plassey, a reasonably large number of Indians fought the British by answering a bullet for bullet. In 1857, the number of troops in British Indian army was 200,000 which comprised of only 10,000 European whites mostly as officers. Nineteen times was the number of brown Indian subordinates and soldiers called as ‘sepoys’ from the Indian word ‘sipahi’ for soldier. This goes on to prove that we were always prepared to fight and destroy our own compatriots and land under recently arrived aliens without any hesitation. Ostensibly that was to make a livelihood, without thinking for a moment that it was an anti-national act directed against their brethren and country. Still millions of Indians worked in the British army as well as the police and, of course, in the bureaucracy mostly as ‘babus’ (clerks). The flame of patriotism was not burning high in the hearts and minds of each and every Indian. It was only a small minority of dare-devil Indians who held their head high and it was through their valiant efforts that independence was won after paying a very heavy price.

Incidentally this bizarre and lopsided ratio between the whites and the browns within the British forces posed a dangerous imbalance. This was awaiting ignition, if somebody could do so. The credit, for blowing off the fuse on 12th February 1857 and thereby, in a way, initiating this type of armed struggle towards the goal of independence, goes to Mangal Pandey. He was serving at Barrackpore cantonment close to the British India capital of Calcutta in the north-east. The resulting revolt by other sepoys spread like a wild fire. The reason: Those days the bullet for the newly introduced Lee-Enfield rifle had to be bitten before loading. It was widely circulated that it contained animal fat both from the cow and the pig and hence the Hindus and the Muslims could not do so as per their respective religious beliefs or taboos. It goes without saying that Pandey was later arrested and executed. Pandey was a ‘faithful’ brave soldier of the British Indian army and had earlier fought valiantly in the Anglo-Afghan War and saved the life of his British commander by risking his own. Ironically this white senior officer remained a bye-stander and mere onlooker during the sham military trial. This highly patriotic effort by Pandey of standing up against the might of British Empire created an instantaneous ripple effect throughout the Gangetic plains and the adjoining central and western India culminating in the ‘First War of Indian Independence’ dubiously dubbed as the famous ‘Indian Mutiny’.

Two months after Pandey’s act in east India, it was Satguru Ram Singh in the Punjab over 1,100 miles away in north-western India who, on the Baisakhi Day, founded the ‘Namdhari’ sect among the Sikhs in the small non-descript village of Bhaini Sahib, in my home district in the erstwhile east Punjab. A decade later, he founded its armed wing: ‘Kuka fauj’ (Kuka army). The tales of British debauchery on this clan of freedom fighters – the first ones ever to use force against the British in that region – are depicted on a tablet on the wall of Ludhiana railway station. There were a very large number of other unsung heroes from different parts of the subcontinent even including Adivasis especially from central India who fought against the British in small groups during/after the ‘First War of Independence’. These facts have been nonchalantly ignored by the majority of the Indian historians, maybe because of some pecuniary benefits. This War was the first ever military confrontation at the national level between the patriotic Indian soldiers and the ‘loyal’ British Indian forces. This event signified a really high degree of nationalism and Hindu-Muslim unity, maybe as a direct consequence of unhappiness and hatred towards the British occupation. This was indirectly due to the reformist movements that started from the early years of 19th century enabling the people to be more alive to the changing times, considered as meddling into Indian religions and culture.

The notable contributors to this spontaneous, patchy, reactionary, unplanned, disjointed and uncoordinated but patriotic armed struggle directed against the British were the rather too old and unwilling octogenarian Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last nominal Moghul (poet) king of Delhi whose empire had shrunk to practically a naught confined to the Red Fort in Delhi when compared to that of his most illustrious ancestor, the 3rd Mughal king, Akbar the Great; Maharani Lakshmibai, the 23-year young ruler of Jhansi who, strictly speaking, did not fight for the independence of the county but under different circumstances of gross injustice, valiantly fought until the last drop of her blood riding her faithful horse with swords in both her hands and the reins of her horse in mouth along with her young toddler son carefully tucked to her back; Nana Fernvis of Nagpur, the son of the last Peshwa, the ruler in Maratha Empire, who was meted gross injustice by the British on similar grounds– the adopted son cannot be named as successor – and from whom the British were mortally afraid and who simply vanished and perhaps disappeared into Nepal after his defeat, he or his body could not to be traced by the British; Tantia Tope – the resourceful nobleman who fought the British and was executed in March 1858; and Kanwar Singhe from the north-east mortally wounded during the fight against the British. This list of freedom fighters is not exhaustive but merely representative. There were innumerable soldiers and lower ranks possessing burning patriotism in their hearts that simply laid down their lives and perished for the sake of their country. The colonists had to undertake a long and concerted drive over the ensuing 20 months to come to terms with the failed uprising. India came to be ruled by the orders of British parliament in 1858 thus ending the reign of the East India Company. Queen Victoria was later pronounced as the Empress of India.

On 10th May, the sepoys at Meerut cantonment broke rank and turned on their commanding officers, killing some of them. They then reached Delhi the next day, set the Company’s toll house afire, and marched into the Red Fort, the residence of the last Mughal king. They asked the monarch to become their leader and reclaim his throne. He was reluctant at first, but eventually agreed and was compelled to sign documents under his seal. He was proclaimed ‘Shehenshah-e-Hindustan’ or ‘Emperor of India’. The rebels killed many Christians living in the neighboring Darya Ganj. They also murdered much of the European, Eurasian, and Christian population of the rest of the city. The freedom fighters nominated Zafar as their formal commander-in-chief. Zafar in his 80s was too old to lead. He seemed not to be a sword-wielding general but rather a pen-holding poet. The reluctance of the king was more than compensated by his eager princes especially Mirza Moghul to join hands with freedom fighters and provide somewhat fractured leadership. However, their turbulence knew no limits or bounds. It spread like a wild fire.

Revolts broke out in other parts of Oudh in the east and the north-western provinces of the subcontinent as well, where civil rebellion followed the mutinies leading to popular uprisings. The British were initially caught off-guard and were slow to react, but eventually responded with force. The lack of effective organization among the rebels, coupled with the military superiority and the intrigue of the British, brought a rapid end to this ‘first war of independence’. Surprisingly the rebels never thought of disrupting telegraph lines between the British capital of Calcutta and Delhi as also elsewhere. The British fought the main army of the rebels near Delhi and after prolonged fighting and a siege, defeated them with the help of Sikh soldiers drafted from recently annexed Punjab and retook the city on 20th September 1857. Subsequently, revolts in other sectors were also crushed. The last significant battle was fought in Gwalior on 17th June 1858 during which Maharani Lakshmibai was killed while still on her horse-back having been denied entry into the fort. Sporadic fighting and guerrilla warfare, led by Tantia Tope, continued until 1859, but most of the rebels were eventually subdued. Of course, Tantia Tope could not be arrested. Not to forget the martyred generals, there were innumerable unnamed soldiers and other ranks that either lost their lives in different battles against the British forces or were summarily executed after their capture.

The mentality of Indians was the same as it is today: seriously fractured, fiercely divided and fragmented into provincialism and regionalism for selfish motives with their egos being supreme. No single unified command and coordination existed among the Indian generals. The unorganized approach coupled with the well-known British intrigue supported by our own countrymen, including those from the recently vanquished Sikh army of the Punjab and help from a number of other kings, who came out in the support of British, were the reasons for the failure of this monumental first noble effort towards independence. The Madras and Bombay armies remained loyal as did the big princely states of Baroda, Hyderabad and Indore. The defeated/surrendered forces were tried under the military commission constituted under Act XIV of 1857, contrary to all established national and international norms. They were executed mercilessly to serve as a deterrent for any future reprisal.

Zafar was hiding at Humayun’s tomb and captured alive on 22nd September 1857, his three sons and one grandson having been executed and their heads produced before him. In all 22 of his 24 sons were killed by the British. Zafar was exiled to Rangoon on 7th October 1858. He was accompanied by his beloved wife Zeenat Mahal, minor son Mirza Zumma Bakht, and others. The Royal caravan traveled on bullock carts and took many months to reach Rangoon where he lived for three years or so. He died on 7th November 1862 in harness as a shattered man of 87 years. He penned down his famous last couplet in Urdu ironically addressed to him but sung by number of Indians: ‘Lagta nahin hai ji ujde dyar mein, Hai kitnaa badnaseeb Zafar, dafan ke liye do gaz zamin na mili ku-e-yaar mein’ which means, ‘I am not at ease in this devastated place, how unfortunate is Zafar, he could not get two square yards for the final burial in his beloved place (of native land).’ This was the end of last nominal Moghul king who was on rupees 100,000-pension from the British.

Lakshmibai needs special mention since she was forced to fight the battle of Jhansi in 1858. The circumstances created were such that there appeared no other recourse for this young queen with a tremendous degree of self-respect, nationalism and outstanding valor. The British Raj had decreed that all independent kingdoms which did not have a natural male heir or successor to the throne had to merge with the Empire. An adopted son could not be considered as a successor. This was the modus operandi for the important British policy of annexation. This caused problems for Lakshmibai whose adopted son, Damodar Rao, would not have been able to ascend the throne after her husband, Raja Gangadhar Rao, dies. She told the British envoy that she would not part with her kingdom of Jhansi despite knowing she could land into trouble. She had consulted her subjects in order to gain their concurrence and a tacit approval. The populace in turn had enthusiastically supported her in taking up the issue with the British legally, if not militarily. The residents of Jhansi were made aware of the new situation: ‘If the legal battle did not go in her favor, she would have no choice but to take to arms against the Raj.’ In a way, Maharani Lakshmibai set up an important precedent for the science and practice of management. Involve the team in the decision making process: ‘When one has the buy-in, it yields better results’. This could be a lesson in management for senior managers and even the politicians. There was a bitter siege of Jhansi and a desperate hand-to-hand and door-to-door fighting in which at least 5,000 persons were killed before the city’s fall. The Maharani was refused entry into the castle by the Maharaja of the neighboring Gwalior – an ancestor of the current minister of state in the UPA-led Union government as also of his deceased father – an erstwhile Union cabinet minister and colleague of Rajiv Gandhi and a hopeful for prime minister-ship.

The decades following the ‘First War of Independence’ were a period of growing political awareness, manifestation of Indian public opinion and emergence of Indian leadership at national and provincial levels. Dadabhai Naoroji formed East India Association in 1867. Surendranath Banerjee founded Indian National Association in 1876. In December 1884, the annual convention of the ‘Indian Theosophical Society’ was held in Madras where some leading figures decided to inaugurate an All India National Movement. Inspired by a suggestion made by Scotsman AO Hume, a retired British civil servant, seventy-three Indian delegates met in Bombay in 1885 and founded the Indian National Congress. They were mostly members of the upwardly mobile and successful western-educated provincial elites, engaged in professions such as law, teaching, and journalism including one or two medical doctors. At its inception, the Congress had no well-defined ideology and commanded few of the resources essential to a political organization. It functioned more as a debating society that met annually to express its loyalty to the British Raj and passed numerous resolutions on less controversial issues such as civil rights or opportunities in government, especially the civil service. These resolutions were submitted to the Viceroy’s government and occasionally to the British Parliament, but the Congress’s early gains were too meager. Despite its claim to represent all Indians, the Congress voiced the interests of urban elites; the number of participants from other economic backgrounds remained negligible and by invitation only.

The influences of socio-religious groups such as Brahmo Samaj (founded, amongst others, by the great reformist Raja Ram Mohan Roy) and Arya Samaj (started by Swami Dayanand Saraswati) became evident in pioneering reform of Indian society. The inculcation of religious reform and social pride was fundamental to the rise of a public movement for complete nationhood. The work of men like the famous warrior-saint Swami Vivekananda with his guru Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh who later set up Aurobindoville at the French conclave of Pondicherry, Subramanya Bharathy, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee – the creator of the famous Hindustani salutation Vande Matram, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Rabindranath Tagore and Dadabhai Naoroji spread the passion for rejuvenation and freedom. The rediscovery of India’s glorious past by several European and Indian scholars also led to the rise of nationalism among the Indians by providing reinforcement to prevailing thought.

In Bengal which was at the vanguard of success at that time, there were various political organizations that preceded the Congress. In 1843 was founded the ‘British Indian Society’ which later merged with ‘British Indian Association’. This body had such stalwarts as Rajendra Lal Mitra, Ram Gopal Ghosh, Pearey Chand Mitter and Harish Chandra Mukherjee. In Bombay there was the ‘Bombay Association’ with Jagannath Shankershett, Dadabhai Naoroji, VN Mandlik, among others. "Nadir Shah looted the country only once. But the British loot us every day. Every year wealth to the tune of 4.5 million dollars is being drained out, sucking our very blood. Britain should immediately quit India.’’ That’s what ‘The Sind Times’ wrote on 20th May 1884, a year-and-half before the Congress was born.

The Congress remained a party of the elite British-educated persons with only moderate views and strongly pro-British leaders at the helm of affairs. This organization functioned more as an appendage of the British Raj and looked at the right of self-rule within the British Empire. The only exceptions among Congress leaders were the likes of the great Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Bombay presidency, Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh in the Punjab, Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal, and Chidambaram Pillai in the South to name a few important radical leaders who aimed