BBC: Indian Mutiny of 1857 was really a Jihad
William Dalrymple, a supposedly "acclaimed writer and historian" (I had never heard of his name) claims that the 1857 riots against the British was in fact, an effort to "preserve the religions" of India.
I say that this is just a publicity stunt to get publicity for his forthcoming book, because calling 1857 Mutiny as a "Jihad" is wrong and misleading.
- There certainly was a religious angle to the riots of 1857, which is very well known and documented (the rumor that the new military equipment was made with cow and pig gelatins). But how can people of as diverse faiths as Hindu and Muslim can unite to fight against yet another religion (Christianity)? It seems far fetched to me.
- Dalrymple says "Between 65-85% of the sepoys in each regiment were upper-caste Hindus." This is impossible, given India's strong tradition of the caste system. Can you imagine a brahmin in the 19th century working as a Sepoy? My guess would have been between 65%-85% of the sepoys would have come from lower-castes.
- He says "Indian Freedom Movement was led by the new Anglicised and educated colonial service-class who emerged from English-language schools after 1857, and who by-and-large used modern Western structures and methods - political parties, strikes and protest marches - to gain their freedom". Since when prayer and protest (key elements of Satyagraha) western concepts? Also, the power-of non-violence is a distinctly Indian concept. Personally Non-violence as a weapon would not have worked in any other country. Since Gandhi's success, it has been partially successful in USA (during the civil rights campaigns) and in South Africa.
- I do not contest the author's research, but the conclusions he makes (or as portrayed by BBC) do not merit a revision to Indian history.
Amma: Col. Mark Wilkes (1760-1831 C.E.) led an extraordinary life on two different parts of the world. He saw the demise of Tipu Sultan in India, and Napoleon in St. Helena.
