Durgadas And Sitaram:Tales Of Loyalty In 1857

By Sabyasachi Dasgupta

Junior Fellow Nehru Memorial Museum and Library,New :110067

Introduction

Gore Aye Gore Aye

Durgadas Banerjee riveting account of his adventures during the mutiny is full of dramatic passages and vivid imagery such as these. . His account is at once thrilling and compelling. Durgadas for instance uses the imagery of mutinous soldiers and civilians crying out Gore Aye Gore Aye at the prospect of the English troops entering and wreaking vengeance on the mutineers. Gore Aye Gore Aye rather dramatically captures for us the sheer dread supposedly felt by the mutineers at the possible recapture of Bareilly by English troops, something one shall come back to later in this paper. 1

Durgadas Banerjee’s narrative of the mutiny forms a major part of his autobiography ‘Amar Jivan Charit’.It informs us that he joined the army as a clerk with the 6 th Irregular Cavalry regiment in 1853.After initial postings in Hansi and Burma,Durgadas’s regiment moves to Bareilly in late 1856.It is here that the mutiny ,revolt of 1857 or if you may like the First War of Indian independence catches up with him on the 31 st of May 1857.Durgadass’adventures during 1857 therefore have Bareilly and Rohillakhand as their geographical backdrop.

The other loyalist featured in this paper was a typical soldier of the army. Sitaram was born in the village of Tilowee in erstwhile Oudh and modern U.P in 1797.His father was a yeoman farmer who owned about 150 acres of land. Sitaram joined the army in 1812 at the behest of his uncle who was a jemedar in the . Sitaram was a typical Bengal army soldier, high caste and coming from a yeoman peasantry background. 2 He was however atypical in the sense that he unlike the vast majority of his ilk in the Bengal army choose to remain a loyalist for reasons we shall examine later.However it might be pertinent that the tumultuous events of 1857 form but a small part of Sitaram account.Sitaram’s account is mainly valuable as a native commentary on 35 years preceding the mutiny. His observations on the Bengal army and the various issues it had to confront are extremely thought provoking and if one may say disturbing for the politically correct historian. A reading of Sitaram as we shall later during the paper is like a vindication of every kind of Orientalist stereotypes one wishes to confront and challenge. These have huge ramifications for the mutiny and no mutiny historian can afford to ignore or wish away the utterances of Sitaram.

This paper therefore seeks to examine questions of loyalty, resistance, nature and reasons of the revolt, etc through the prism of two loyalist narratives. It seeks to question traditional understandings of loyalty and resistance. One contests long –term linear teleological histories of 1857, which seek to create a long-, term continuous history of discontent and resistance in the Bengal army. I argue that such notions are inherently flawed and a proper understanding of 1857 would be better served by avoiding such clichéd historiographical traps. It would be prudent to remember that the loyalist in 1857 could be the rebel of 1805 and vice versa. The paper also pitches for a fresh reappraisal of sources and a more comprehensive study of first-hand autobiographical accounts and commentaries on 1857 irrespective of their tenor. One has strongly argued for the need to go beyond the paradigm of colonial and indigenous sources. It is the historian’s duty to engage critically with his or her’s sources, to read them against the grain and to delve beyond the obvious. Artificial divisions of indigenous and colonial sources serve no purpose. One can for instance write a history of the revolt of 1857 from the Indian point of view relying largely on so-called colonial and official sources. One might well ask as to how prudent it is to treat for the sake of political correctness official and colonial sources

as necessarily biased while considering native voices and sources as inherently genuine and representative of the indigenous mind. The question one feels is not one of the real and unreal, biases and objectivity, rather one has to engage and try and bring out the nuances and subtleties inherent in sources. It is in this spirit that one has engaged with the two loyalist narratives in question.

We first contend with Durgadas and his adventures during the mutiny. His regiment after a couple of years in Burma was posted to Bareilly at the fag end of 1856.Bareilly was a place which appealed to Durgadas. He was used to life in North . He had settled down to a life of comfort. In a short span of time he made an impression in the town He became familiar with the elite of the town.Durgadas’s house became a centre for what in hindi is known as mehfils.Durgadas also tried to pick up finer pursuits like Sitar in his spare time. Things continued in this fashion for a few months.

The onset of March saw some perceptible changes in the behavior of the sepoys.As Durgadas says there was supposedly a rumour floating that the English had used cow and pork fat for the greasing paper for the new cartridges issue. This was supposedly leading to great tension in the army. There were rumours that a mutiny was imminent. Durgadas says that it was the infantry sepoys who seemed most dissatisfied. Finally the mutiny broke out in Bareilly on the 31s of May, 1857.There was total mayhem. Slaughter and loot was the order of the day. Durgadas and his brother were out on asocial visit when they heard that the mutiny had broken out.

In the chaos that flowed, Durgadas’s house was looted bare of his belongings. Currently Durgadas and his brother came face to face with a troop of cavalrymen whom they knew. The leader of the group Daffadar Mohammed Shafi reveals hilariously that they had meant to join the English. They had galloped towards the Engish troops in the cantonment with this intent but the English mistaking them for mutineers had fled. These troops now had apparently no option but to join the mutineers. 3 Durgadas was however rock solid in his solidarity towards the English. The reasons stated were that he had partaken of the salt of the English. Further the mutineers had no order and organization. He could not be expected to serve such a dispensation.

The mutineers in Bareilly were under Bakht Khan. For the time being they were masters of the situation though the scion of an old aristocratic family by the name of Nawab Bahadur Khan had established himself as Nawab. Anyway to return to Durgadas,he was brought before Bakht Khan who implored him to become the paymaster of the mutinous troops inBareilly.Durgadas steadfastly refused and Bakht Khan in a fit of rage ordered him to be imprisoned. He alleged that the and the English were hand in glove. 4 Presently the Bengali population of Bareilly would be accused of collusion with the British. Many of them were imprisoned; some were whipped, while others had to suffer their property being looted. The Bengalis had been fatally tarred with the brush of being loyalists. We however in the meantime return to follow the fortunes of a solitary Bengali, Durgadas. Durgadas after a lot of tribulations and adventures managed to each Nainital, which was still in English hands. Here he presented his credentials and the English welcomed with open arms. Presently he helped raise a body of cavalrymen in Nainital.The English conferred on him the responsibility of making it a battle worthy regiment. He was one of the principal commanders as well in charge of the overall well being of the regiment. The situation was grave as the mutineers were close at hand in Haldwani.The need of the hour was to advance and occupy Kaladunga that was held the key to the defense of Nainital. 5 Durgadas was destined to taste action, possibly the only Bengali in 1857 to do. He apparently distinguished himself in these battles; a fact which the British supposedly attest after the mutiny. He would enter Bareilly again at the head of British troops. Durgadas tells us that all seemed deserted at first. Gradually people came out of their homes to give out a tumultuous welcome to the British. The inference was that the people of Bareilly were relieved to see British troops after the oppressions they suffered at the hands of the rebels. 6

The Loyalist and 1857

A question, which naturally arises as to why, was Durgadas such an ardent loyalist? Was he representative of general Bengali attitudes or was he an exception. Or was he representative of general Bengali attitudes to the mutiny? Who constituted a loyalist?

Why does Durgadas remain loyalist despite the fact that he loses all his property in the courts of the English as he himself laments? Durgadas also had to suffer the ignominy of going to prison though he does not specify the reasons. 7 One suggests the possibility that Bengali notions of cultural superiority may have contributed to his assuming a loyalist stance during 1857.This superiority was reflected in his contempt for the Purbaiya soldier. He plainly states that the mutineers lacked in intelligence, method and organization. His snobbery towards them is apparent. He during the course of a discussion with English officials on the possibility of the mutineers advancing towards Kaladunga dismisses such a possibility. He emphatically says that these sattu drinking soldiers are less than human. They were incapable of launching offensives. It seems that Bengali notions of cultural superiority were well established by 1857. 8

Again it is difficult to pinpoint the origin of such attitudes. It is not my intention to go into them but I argue that this cultural snobbery partly dictated Bengali attitudes towards the mutiny. The Bengali was culturally incapable of identifying with the Purbaiya soldier,of joining with him in a common voice. For somebody like Durgadas who considered the mutinous sepoys to be subhuman it was impossible to visualize Durgadas throwing in his lot with the . While a lone Durgadas cannot represent general Bengali attitudes, commonsense suggests that Banerjee could be representative of wider attitudes, which informed their loyalty during the mutiny. 9

Loyalty and disloyalty were thus relative issues. The purbaiya soldiers who had rebelled had also fought loyally for the company in countless battles. There had been long periods in the Bengal army when rates of dissent were very low. 10 Therefore it is very difficult o draw a linear teleology of increasing and constant disaffection culminating in 1857.Such arguments one feels are untenable. The problem lies with existing historiography on the mutiny which search for long term causes of the mutiny and portray the Bengal army as one burdened with a long history of disaffection, discontent and disciplinary problems culminating in the grand event of 1857.A kind of linear history is posited of continuous and ever increasing discontent ultimately crystallizing into1857. One argues that it is time one gets out of such historiographical traps. Loyalty or rebellion was contextual, a situation arose in

1857 where the Purbaiya soldier chose to be rebel, and the Bengali partly out of cultural snobbery chose to remain a loyalist.

However there were exceptions to the rule and Sitaram was one such exception. He was in 1857 a rare species, a Bengal army soldier or Purbaiya who chose to remain loyal.Sitaram a month before the outbreak of the mutiny at had taken his annual leave or furlough in the month of April. He had by this time heard rumours of the greased cartridges and had tried to warn his commanding officer of the sullen disposition of the men. The Commanding officer however felt that the excitement would pass. 11

Sitaram now set out for his village and reached without any incident. Shortly afterwards Sitaram hears that the sepoys had risen in Delhi and Meerut and murdered their officers proclaiming Bahadur Shah Zafar as emperor.Sitaram says that he found the story extraordinary at first and refused to believe it. He therefore goes to the Deputy Commisioner’s office to enquire and understands that all this was indeed true. Sitaram narrates how his entire village was agog with the news of the mutiny at Meerut and Delhi by the time he returned to his village.Sitaram says that discontent spread very rapidly and every regiment was reportedly ready to mutiny. Reports came in constantly of fresh regiments having revolted and killed their officers. Sitaram narrates that the regiments at ,Sitapore and other stations in Oudh would revolt and the country would be inundated with mutinied sepoys. 12 Sitaram now discovers that he is being watched. One day a large party of mutinied sepoys comes to his village. Sitaram endeavors to persuade them to go quietly to their houses. The mutineers threaten to shoot him in anger. Sitaram is branded a traitor and is taken prisoner. He was put in irons and chains. The stated intention of the mutineers was to take him to Lucknow where he would be punished by having molten lead poured down his throat for having served the British loyally all these years. 13 Sitaram interestingly mentions that the leader of these mutineers was a sepoy though there were two in the party. 14 The leader one day showed Sitaram a proclamation from whom Sitaram refers as the King of Delhi. The proclamation called upon sepoys to rise and destroy the English promising great rewards if they did so. The proclamation also stated that the English were out to make all Brahmins into Christians.The proclamation waxed eloquent on the fact that beef and pork would be

forced down the throat of the sepoys.The proclamation therefore exhorted the sipahees to fight for their religion and drive them out of the country. 15

Sitaram says that the contents of the proclamation was believed by anyone who had heard it and even he was impressed by it.Sitaram affirms that though he knew that the company did not interfere in matters of religion and caste ,nevertheless he was filled with doubt. He now suffered a general loss in confidence in the company. Dormant grievances against the company came to the fore. He remembered instances where the company had reneged on pronouncements of field allowance. Oudh, as Sitaram comments had been annexed for no particular reason. He also started dwelling on the activities of Padre Sahibs or Christian missionaries. 16 Sitaram seemed to be greatly irritated by the aggressive proselytizing attempts of the missionaries, their ubiquitous presence in Indian in the streets of Indian towns and cities. Their attempts to ridicule Hinduism and extol the superior virtues of Christianity hurt his religious sensibilities. Sitaram contends that the missionaries would not act in this manner without the active support of the company. The protestations of the missionaries saying that they had no truck with the company cut no ice with Sitaram. 17 Sitaram possibly mirrored the mindset of the average purbaiya sepoy in those tumultuous times. It is probable that the affair of the greased cartridges had triggered off other latent grievances. These complaints insufficient by themselves to incite the sepoy to mutiny now assumed momentous proportions. It needed someone to cross the psychological barrier and strike the first blow. Others would follow suit. This was probably the case in most regiments that mutinied. Returning to Sitaram , he tells us that inspite of his disturbed state of mind and a strong feeling of discontent that he seemed to harbor ,he is reminded of the fact that the company had been his protector and he had eaten his salt for over forty years. He now resolves to support and assist the company as long as its rule endures. The company was however hit by a string of reverses and Sitaram says that he despaired of the fate of the company. He however did not lose faith over the enormous good fortune of the company. Sitaram was also of the firm belief that the mutineers who had committed such enormous crimes could not possibly enjoy a sustained spell of good luck. He implies that their crimes would catch up with them soon. 18

Sitaram’s fortune though undergoes a change when his captors are suddenly confronted by a group of mounted white troopers near .It was early morning and the suddenness of the attack rendered all resistance on the part of the mutineers ineffectual. The mutineers according to Sitaram fled into the jungle leaving him to his own devices. Sitaram informs us that he narrowly escapes being shot by one of the troopers who mistook him for a wounded sepoy. This trooper had not noticed his chains and also did not understand Hindustani. Luckily for Sitaram there was a officer who seemed to understand Hindustani. He heard Sitaram’s story and ordered for him to be relieved of his chains. 19

Sitaram was now enlisted in the corps. As he was not a good trooper, the Commanding officer preferred to exploit his knowledge of Persian by asking him to perform the services of an interpreter. Sitaram spends six weeks with this cavalry regiment during which time they apparently met and decimated several bodies of mutineers, including a hand-to-hand fight with a party of native regular cavalry of the company that had rebelled. Sitaram though is silent about his own role in these actions. 20 He possibly did not play a major part; he was an infantry soldier, mounted warfare as he himself states was not his cup of tea. Sitaram then informs us that the troop he was attached to returned to Cawnpore .Sitaram now joins an infantry regiment through the good offices of the captain of the mounted corps.It seems that Sitaram saw some action with this regiment. The language use to describe the actions of the regiment is more participatory. Sitaram says that the regiment was involved in several actions including an encounter before Lucknow.If Sitaram is to be believed the mutineers were pursued right up to Nepal.As he says ‘We pursued the mutineers right into Nepal’,the we possibly indicating his active role in these encounters. 21

Sitaram’s narrative of the mutiny ends on a dramatic note. He was entrusted the command of a firing party who were assigned the task of executing rebel soldiers who had been taken prisoners of war. Sitaram finds out that one of the captured rebels is his own son whom he had not heard of for two years. He recoils with horror at the thought of being the executioner of his own son. He requests to be relieved of his duties. Sitaram narrates that his Commanding officer after an initial hostile reaction eventually relents and relieves him from the charge of the firing party. Sitaram

narrates how his agony and moral dilemma was made worse by the taunts of the Sikh soldiers whom he heartily despised. 22

Sitaram adventures in 1857 thus end on a personally traumatic note. He has to endure the agony of his own son being shot practically before his own eyes. Yet his faith in the justness of the company’s cause seemed unshaken. Sitaram concurs that his son deserved his fate .He would have though preferred that his son die in battle rather than being shot by a firing squad. 23 The question which therefore confronts us is that what made Sitaram a loyalist?Sitaram after all did harbor some amount of discontent. He was probably no different than most Purbaiya soldiers on this score. Yet Sitaram does not rebel. He becomes one among the minority of Purbaiya soldiers who do not rebel. They were the exception in 1857 as far as the Bengal army was concerned. A long duree perspective of history would tell you that every great and widespread resistance movement in history has its small group of loyalists who choose to remain loyal. Sitaram and men like him represented that trend.

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into a general enquiry of such behavior, one can certainly hazard some opinion as to why men like Sitaram chose to remain loyal. The chief reason one concurs in the case of Sitaram was the fact that he was on furlough and was outside the confines of his regiment when the disturbances began to inflict the Bengal army. When a regiment gets widely disaffected, not every individual in the regiment would contemplate active resistance or the ultimate step of killing officers whom they considered as lawful authority till the other day. A soldier needs to cross a psychological barrier to actually kill his superior officer. This barrier is actually crossed by few. Once certain individuals in the regiment have overcome this barrier others discontented but wavering individuals may follow suit. Some of them but not actually want to commit outright mutiny involving violence and killing but peer pressure may compel them to do so. In the case of the Bengal army with its strong bonds of clan and caste apart from the strong bonds of a shared army life peer pressure assumed an added importance and value. Once certain individuals in the regiment have mutinied, the entire regiment may feel compromised and could have no option but to join in the mutiny.24 Sitaram one feels would have been harder pressed to retain his loyalty if he

had been on active service and within the environs of his regiment. Though Sitaram is captured and spends some enforced time with a body of rebel soldiers, and whose rhetoric makes him, waver for a moment, these soldiers importantly were unfamiliar with him, men with whom he shared no bond and who had not treated him particularly well. These probably made it easier for Sitaram to make a choice.

The Question of Masculinity and 1857

Thus we see two contrasting instances of loyalty. While Sitaram represents the minority among Purbaiyas in 1857, Durgadas is possibly representative of middle class Bengali who was firmly with the British.Durgadas unlike most middle –class Bengalees played an active role in support of the English, while others were content convene meetings and pass resolutions which loudly declared their loyalty to the company.

Durgadas however might have shared the sense of cultural alienation vis-à-vis the mutineers with his fellow middle class Bengalis.As one has already argued the Bengali had a sense of cultural superiority over the purbaiya soldier. A close look at his narrative reveals that the purbaiya soldier too had his notions of superiority over the middle class bengali he mostly encountered. This in turn further exacerbated the cultural divide.

To come back to Durgadas Banergee’s narrative he seems to have endeared himself with the native soldiers and had settled down n the regiment. Durgadas claims that the sepoys respected him since he was a Brahmin. They were also impressed with his physical prowess. He knew to wield various weapons and was a good wrestler. This amazed the sepoys since it was commonly held that a Bengali was physically inept. One sepoy had reportedly asked him hat how is that you despite being a Bengali are so strong? Durgadas replied that who said that a Bengali couldn’t be strong? I know Bengalis who have the strength equivalent to ten of you. 25 This intercourse makes it clear certain stereotypes of the cowardly Bengali had already take roots by 1857.A notion of martial and non- was already in

operation. How did such notions take root? Did it have indigenous origins? Were these notions age old? Or did the British generate these stereotypes? If so how were these generated? Did the recruitment policies of the Bengal army generate these stereotypes was it the other way round? One is unable to give a definite answer. Kaushik Roy argues that the initial years after 1857 would witness a balanced recruitment policy whose basic thrust was to balance various ethnic and religious communities against one another. However the impending Russian menace would force the British to rethink their recruitment policy. A view was increasingly gaining ground that certain races were martial and suited for warfare whereas certain communities like the Bengalis for instance were intrinsically timid. In the light of the supposed Russian menace it was felt that the safety first approach had to be abandoned and only the best recruits had to be chosen. Thus was born the genesis of the martial race theory. In the pre 1857 period there was no official martial race theory. However the British did follow a martial race policy through the backdoor. It was believed that the upper caste sepoy from the Avadh and the Bhojpur region of modern day Bihar was ideal soldier material. He was brave, honourable and obedient. In contrast communities like the Bengalis were debarred from army service. While there was no official injunction it was a tradition that Bengalis would not be taken in the army. 26 For example the certificate awarded to Durgadas for his services during the mutiny mentioned the fact he had never heard of a being exhibiting such bravery. The implication was of course that Bengalis were on an average timid and were not known for their bravery. Such stereotypes one feels were internalized by native societies. While communities such as the purbaiyas internalized the fact that Bengalis were cowardly race, the Bengalis also imbibed the notion that they were a non-martial race. Durgadas exhibited this tendency to a great extent. Durgadas while describing a Bengali doctor in the service of the English at Nainital paints him as an example of extreme cowardness. Durgadas makes great fun of his attempts at horse riding. There is a vivid description of the mutineers attacking the camp of the English in the early hours of the morning. The doctor apparently in sheer dread started running way from the battlefield. Presently he stumbled over a rock and fell. 27 One supposes that Durgadas was portraying himself as an exceptional Bengali. Therefore other Bengalis are depicted as cowardly. It probably showed that the Bengali believed in these stereotypes himself. Durgadas was possibly no exception

and therefore wastes no opportunity to boast of his physical prowess. It was possibly a defense mechanism, a constant reaffirmation of his masculinity. This was important since he was in constant interaction with communities who were considered martial and who fancied themselves as so. The process of self gratification meant that he also had to distinguish himself from his fellow community members were primarily a defense of his self, not his community members. 28 The purbaiya soldiers on the other hand celebrated masculinity and reveled in it. There were certain important indices that formed their masculinity. Wrestling for instance held an important place in the masculine world of the Purbaiya soldier. This was a trait, which was embedded in the society from which they hailed. Prowess in wrestling gave a male an exalted status. Dexterity in wrestling was so prized a skill that even white officers could acquire a halo if he reveled in the art of wrestling. Sitaram’s memoirs have this wonderful passage where he constructs this image of a heroic English officer whom he admires. A reading of the passage would make it clear that Sitaram image of the heroic and brave European officer invests a lot of value to the fact that this officer was an expert wrestler and could beat the native soldiers at their traditional sport. In the words of Sitaram:

There were eight English officers in my regiment and 1the captain of my Company was a real sahib. His name was Burrumpel, he was six feet three inches tall, his chest was broad as the monkey gods and he was tremendously strong. He often used to wrestle with the sepoys and universal admiration when he was in the earned. He had learnt all the throws and no sepoy could defeat him 29 .

Such deeply inscribed notions of masculinity whatever are their origin had important implications for the mutiny. Colonial bias for the high caste masculine purbaiya communities resulted in their dominance of the Bengal army, a dominance which they retained till 1857 in spite of threats from the communities like the Gorkhas and the Sikhs.. The composition of the army would in a large way influence the outbreak of the mutiny in the Bengal army.

The concept of masculine and non-masculine would also generate cultural difference with its own implications for the mutiny. It would create its own community of rebels and loyalists during of 1857.While the ‘masculine’ Purbaiya held the Bengali male or more specifically the Bengali middle class male in contempt, the Bengali in turn possibly held the Purbaiya as lowly, sub-human, retrograde, ignorant and superstition driven. The mutual contempt resulted in a gulf that made cooperation and collaboration difficult.

Memoirs as Source:

While we have so far sought to use the two narratives as an entry point to analyze the mindset of two loyalists hailing from diverse and antagonistic backgrounds, and who derived their loyalty from different vantage points, these accounts are also valuable as excellent source material to delve into the some of the long-term issues facing the Bengal army and which supposedly inflicted the Bengal army besides suggesting us new possibilities regarding the military failure of the rebels.

Dread and the rebel soldier

Durgadas Banergee’s account of the mutiny in Rohillakhand for instance captures vividly for us the dread the impending arrival of the English in Bareilly seemed to inspire in the mutineers. It seemed that the mutinous sepoys who had crossed an important barrier by openly repudiating their allegiance to the company had not totally cast off the hegemony, which the English enjoyed over their mentality. 30 If Durgadas is to be believed the sepoys were invariably apprehensive about an open encounter with the British. Contemplated attacks against the British were often marked by indecisiveness and procrastination leading to fatal delays.

Sitaram too makes the same point. Sitaram while recounting his experience of the rebels during the mutiny wonders tat the rebels seemed to lack the stomach to engage the English in open encounters. They would withstand a single volley but would then disperse before a determined charge by the company troops. Sitaram says that he could not remember a single instance where a group of rebels whether they be

Mohammedans or Hindus withstood a determined charge by the company troops. They would usually leave the battlefield in haste. Sitaram also comments adversely on the performance of the rebel troops in Delhi and says that it did not reflect well on the rebels that a body of men 70.000 strong and fortified could not defend Delhi from 10000 troops. 31 Durgadas’s and Sitaram’s comments obviously need to be treated with caution. These are loyalists who naturally hold a low opinion of the rebels whom they regard as renegades and men untrue to their salt. A certain amount of active bias against the mutineers and which would naturally inform their views is inevitable. We could even dismiss such claims offhand as the prejudices of loyalists who were eager to denigrate the rebels. One would however caution against doing so. For the question was not one of the rebels being cowards, the issue was one of the rebels overcoming the awe they had invested the company with, their belief in the ultimate victory of the English, their deeply ingrained beliefs about the innate superiority of English arms.

Durgadas and Sitaram’s observations therefore need to be treated seriously. Their observations if having a basis could explain among other factors the mutiny’ ultimate collapse. . An effective corroboration of this point would require a detailed survey of the conduct of mutinous regiments before the advent of a battle against the British. We would require going into the deliberations into the mutiny camp in the crucial moments lading to the battle. Did the mutineers show indecisiveness? Did they squander away golden opportunities to attack and catch the British unawares? Unfortunately few indigenous accounts baring the mutiny papers exist of what was gong on in the camp of the mutineers. Even the mutiny papers would not give us the psychology of a sepoy in the actual field of battle. What did the prospect of battle with his former master’s hold for him? We do not know as no mutineer has written an account of his rebellion against the sepoy.If an account is lying in some dusty old cupboard in Eastern UP or the Bhojpur region of Bihar,it still awaits its discovery. Secondly most of our sources about the encounters between the rebels and the British are colonial in their origin and would invariably be biased against the mutineers. Our notions of the lack of leadership and coordination, strategy, the apparent disunity are to a large extent informed by British sources. While we may read such sources against the grain, our perspective would have enriched by the presence of certain indigenous narratives.

The Narratives, long duree, Bengal Army and 1857:

A perusal of the two narratives reveal that they inadvertently pick up several issues which had a long-term bearing on the functioning of the Bengal army with its own significance for 1857.Durgadas’s narrative for instance brings into focus the centrality of religion in the functioning and dynamics of the Bengal army. The regiment Durgadas regiment was initially posted in Hansi in modern day Haryana.It was then assigned or service in Burma 32 .The relocation of the regiment to Burma would require the regiment to march to Kolkata and then proceed by sea to Burma.Banergee’s account contains some extremely interesting accounts of the high caste sepoy’s unwillingness to embark on sea voyage. The high caste sepoy till 1856 was legally within his rights to refuse a sea voyage. 33 Consequently sea voyages involved cajoling by the commanding officers of the regiment. Often the success or failure to persuade the sepoys to embark on an oversea journey depended upon the rapport the European commanding officer enjoyed with his native recruits. The history of the Bengal army had witnessed disturbances over the question of sea travel, Barrakpore in 1824 being one of the instances, where among other things the question of sea travel was an important contributory factor. The situation in this instance was handled with tact. Care was taken to load the ships with huge containers meant for the sepoys to partake of food and drink in ritually pure form. All this was of course done under the supervision of native officers and sepoys so that there was no cause for any suspicion. The sepoys relented and agreed to undergo the sea voyage to Burma. The question of choice over sea travel had broader implications. It was part of a wider choice and leeway he enjoyed in matters pertaining to his religion. The Bengal army motivated by stereotypes about the rigidity and immutability of the high caste soldier on questions related to his caste and religion pandered to his sentiments .For example a class of people called Ghanta pandeys were recruited to sound the gong at the quarter guard of regiment. Apparently the Bengal sepoy believed that such duties were in contravention of his caste rules. The Bengal sepoy would also often refuse to dig trenches on similar grounds. 34

The question of religious freedom and defilement had huge connotations for the Bengal army. Its history was a tale of a constant tussle between the call of military duty and the need to observe his notion of his religious duties and responsibilities. Religion would therefore assume a centrality the discourse surrounding the Bengal army .It would acquire sensitivity, which was to a large extent absent in the Bombay and Madras armies. Of course this is not to say that professional and economic factors did not influence the dynamics of the Bengal army. Sitaram,s account for instance gives us an insider’s peep into the possible professional grievances of the sepoys.Sitaram for instance is bitterly critical of the changed more bureaucratic style of command in the Bengal army .The commanding officer no longer enjoyed absolute powers and lacked effective power to punish recalcitrant sepoys. The functioning of the army as a consequence much hampered. In the words of Sitaram

The Commanding officer should have the power of life and death over the sepoy. We do not understand divided power, absolute power is what we worship. Power is much divided among the English. The Commanding Officer certainly has some power, also the and sometimes more than the Commander. The Commander-in-chief has a great deal, the governor-General a still more, but they each have to ask some even higher authority before they can do anything. The commanding officer has to ask half a dozen officers before he can punish a sepoy and the permission takes months before it is granted. By the time the punishment is inflicted half the men will have forgotten all about the case and the effect of the punishment entirely lost. 35

Sitaram further observes: In those days the sahibs could speak our language much better then they do now, and they mixed more with us.

Although officers today have to pass the language examination, and have to read books they do not understand our language. I have seldom met a sahib who could really read a letter although he had been passed by the examining board. 36

Sitaram seems to be reinforcing colonial and oriental stereotypes which hold that the Asiatic or Indian soldier was more suited to the despotic style of command. Change in the style of command had resulted in a deterioration of the command mechanism of the Bengal army and resulted in its long-term decline and increasing indiscipline. Proponents of this long-term thesis of decline like Saul David and Amiya Barat argue that the issues afflicting the Bengal army were long term and the decline in the command mechanism of the Bengal army represented in the transition to a more impersonal style of command was part of this declining trend in the disciplinary record of the Bengal army. 37

Contemporary colonial criticism was also fierce in its criticism of the new style of command .It was a constant refrain among certain influential body of colonial officials that the army was no longer what it should be as the European officer was no longer bound by the intimate ties which had previously been a feature under the old paternal style of command. While we could rationalise such criticism as being motivated by racist stereotypes that believed in the romantic ideal of the white Victorian officer leading the childlike sepoy to glory how do we cope with Sitaram’s comments? 38

Do Sitaram’s remarks mean that Orientalist notions regarding the predilection of the Asiatic to a paternal mode of command have a grain of truth to them? It is difficult to give a clear-cut answer. For several questions arise about Sitaram’s narrative. Firstly Sitaram’s account is a translated one, the original version being lost. The memoir was written in all probability at the behest of his colo0nel

Norgate with whom he shared a special bond. It is very possible that Norgate’s own views imprinted on the translation of the original memoirs. Again we have no definite answer. Also it is very difficult to form notions of sepoy mentality on the basis of one autobiography. If we consider hypothetically the existence of five other autobiographical accounts, it is not necessary that they would express the same opinions regarding the suitability of the paternal mode of command for the Indian soldier?

The scenario gets more complicated when we examine the court martial records of the Bengal army. The Court martial records of the Bengal army belie the fact that the disciplinary record of the Bengal army declined with the transition in mode of command. This therefore puts Sitaram’s comments under the scanner. While one need not reiterate the fact about a long term model of decline in the discipline of the Bengal army culminating in1857 being unsustainable, it does drive home the point that no source is sacrosanct .One should be careful while proclaiming colonial sources as biased while upholding indigenous voices of the revolt as the repository of authenticity regarding 1857. Conclusion:

These accounts therefore makes us think as to the kind of fresh sources one could utilize while exploring the phenomenon of 1857..A fresh perspective on 1857 could also require the creative use of existing sources and possibly a more comprehensive use of certain underused sources .As historians it is very important for us to delve into the causes of 1857, what did it imply? It is possible that one needs to examine clichéd questions like was it a war of independence? It is certainly very important to delve into the issue of religion and the revolt of 1857 especially in the light of the recent work ofWilliamDalrymple. 39 Was it a war of religion or was religion merely an overarching frame-work for the expression of economic and professional grievances of the sepoy? RudrangshuMukerjee and Rajat Ray have dealt with the question of religion and the revolt in some length, something which William Dalrymple strangely does not discuss in his work. Nevertheless there is possibly need for a fresh look at the question of religion and the revolt in the light of Wiliam Dalrymple’s intervention. While one may differ with Dalrymple it is true that the majority of mutiny historians have take for granted that 1857 was a glowing instance of Hindu muslim unity.

Durgadas’s account of life in Bareilly during the mutiny gives us instances of Hindu Muslim conflict .In one case a mussulman who during the had lost a case to a hindu utilized the rebellion to settle scores with the Hindu.He hired some mussulman goondas to throw pieces of a slaughtered cow inside his compound. Some Hindu rebel soldiers happened to be in the vicinity of the hindu’s house and they intervened. This led to what Durgadas describes as a full ledged fight between musulman goondas of the city and the hindu soldiery. 40 There were also instances of Hindu merchants being tortured for money by the mainly Muslim soldiery of the Nawab.Durgadas represents this as instances of Hindu Muslim conflict. 41 The historian needs to use his or her critical faculties to go beyond the obvious and decipher. Were these ostensible instances of Hindu Muslim conflict really class conflicts and the settling of old scores which had its origin actually in non religious issues, or was there a cultural angle which cannot be explained by economic reductionism? Again conventional works of history have their limitations. While they may enlighten us about the reasons and nature of the revolt they often do not give us a concrete feel of the event, about what the mutiny really meant for people living through the mutiny. It is where the role of autobiographies and literature n 1857comes in. As with partition, it is often literature, which really gives us an insight as to what 1857meant for the people who experienced it. Autobiographical accounts by Ghalib 42 ,Durgadas,the native accounts edited by Metcalfe give us an excellent entry point.RajatRay 43 and more recently Dalrymple’s work give us an excellent account of daily life during 1857,what it really meant to live in those turbulent times. 44 . To put it in a nutshell an ideal workon1857 would have an extensive interface with literature and would incorporate variety of sources creatively. Experience tells us that the ideal is rarely reached but we can always strive to do so. Literary representations of 1857 would often give us a better idea as to what 1857 really meant for those who were actually participating or directly living the experience. First hand accounts of 1857 for instance would for instance provide a personal feel to the event. Sadly these have been underused. Novels about 1857 would give us an excellent insight into what 1857 meant for the cross sections of society confronted with these tumultuous experience. Contemporary works would give us a fair idea of the kind of significance

1857 still holds for various sections of society. Therefore the need of the hour is to have a more extensive interface with literature, which would further enrich the study of 1857 by posing fresh questions. It is up to historians to take up the challenge and overcome their skepticism and cynicism about using literary sources.

1 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924.He wrote his memoirs at the behest of the editor of the Bangabasi magazine .He began writing it around 1889and an early version appeared in the Bengali periodical Janmabhoomi,189-91. 2 James Lunt,edited, From Sepoy to ,being the Life and Adventures of Subedar Sita Ram,a Native Officer of the Bengal Army written and related by himself ,Reprint,Delhi,Vikas Publications,1970,Translated and First Published by Lieutenant Colonel Norgate,,Bengal Staff Corps,1873 .Sitaram is said to have written it after his retirement at the behest of Colonel Norgate with whom he evidently shared very close relationship.The memoir will henceforth be referred to as From Sepoy to Subedar . 3 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.91 4 ibid.,p.38. 5 Ibid.,349 6 Iibid,,P.350 7 Ibid.p.10 8 Ibid, p.301 9 It is generally held that the Bengali intelligentsia which had beneifited materially andsociallye from colonial rule firmly supported the company during 1857 since they feared that the success of the rebellion would mean a reversion to the old order .A throwback to the old order the Bengali intelligentsia felt would be inimical to their interests since they considered British rule as compatible with their ideas of progress,security and order.Benoy Ghose has roughl;yargued to this effect in his article ‘The Bengali Intelligentsia And The Revolt’ in ..P.C Joshi ed Rebellion1857,a symposium Calcutta,Delhi,,K.P Bagchi and Company,first Published,1957.A perusal of the Hindoo Patriot does indicate the presence of such sentiments.TheHindoo Patriot edited by Harishchandra Mukherjee could be considered as represantative of certain strands of loyalist Bengali middle class opinion. The tone though loyalist was not necessarily servile.While the sepoys are condemmed as ignorant and superstition ridden,the editorials and certain articles were also severe on thweeEuropean community and at times adopted a tone of qualified approval of British rule in India.See Selections From English Periodicals Of 19 th Century,Bengal,Volume4 and 5.Calcutta,Papyrus,1979 10 See Sabyasachi Dasgupta’s unpublished PhD thesis In Defence Of Honour And Justice:Sepoy Rebellions in The 19 th Century,JNU,2004 11 James Lunt,edited, From Sepoy to Subedar ,Reprint,Delhi,Vikas Publications,1970,p.162 12 Ibid, pp.163-164 13 Ibid.p.164 14 Ibid.p.165 15 Ibid., 16 Ibid, pp.165-166 17 Ibid, p.166 18 Ibid., 19 Ibid.Sitaram says that though the original intention of the mutineers was to march to Lucknow they changed their mind supposedly after receiving direct orders from the Nana Saheb. 20 Ibid.p.167 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid, p.168

23 Ibid, 24 The Recruitment policy to the infantry units of the Bengal army till 1857 was strongly biased in favour of high caste recruits from Bhojpuir region of modern day Bihar and Acvadh which roughly corresponded to modern UP. Recruitment usually happened through serving soldiers on leave. They were asked to bring back clansmen, relations or neighbours from their villages.This resulted in strong and unique ties among the soldiers and the virtual replication of village life.In addition there was of course the natural bonding which army discipline and training implied in any professional armySee Sabyasachi Dasgupta,In Defwence Of Honour and Justice:Sepoy Rebellions in the 19 th Century,JNU,2004.. 25 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.10 26 Kaushik Roy,Recruitment Doctrines Of the Colonial Indian Army1859-1913, Indian EconomicAnd Social History Review .Vol.34,July 1997.For the recruitment policy of the Bengal army, see Sabyasachi Dasgupta,In Defense Of Honour and Justice:Sepoy Rebellions In the 19 th Century 27 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.321

28 Both Ashish Nandy and Mrinalini Sinha do deal with the issue of masculinity under colonialism.However their discussion stresses in differing ways more on the interface between colonialism and Indigenous society and its impact on notions of masculinity .They really do not deal with perceptions and images of indigenous communities vis-a vis one another aon issues such as masculinity.See Ashish Nandy, Intimate enemy:loss and recovery of self under colonialism ,Delhi,Oxford Publishing House,1983.Also see Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity:The manly Englishman and the effimenate Bengali in the late nineteenth century ,Manchaster University Press,1995

29 James Lunt,edited, From Sepoy to Subedar ,Reprint,Delhi,Vikas Publications,1970,p.23 30 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.91

31 James Lunt,edited, From Sepoy to Subedar ,Reprint,Delhi,Vikas Publications,1970,p.167.

32 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.20

33 Ibid.p.24 34 See Sabyasachi Dasgupta’s unpublished PhD thesis In Defence Of Honour And Justice:Sepoy Rebellions in the 19thCentury,JNU,2004 35 James Lunt,edited, From Sepoy to Subedar ,Reprint,Delhi,Vikas Publications,1970,p.174

36 Ibid, pp. 23-24 37 See Amiya Barat,:Its organisation and discipline,1796-1852,Calcutta,Firma K.L Mukhopadhyay,1962 38 See Chapter 3 of Sabyasachi Dasgupta’s unpublished PhD thesis In Defence Of Honour And Justice:Sepoy Rebellions in the 19 th Century,JNU,2004 39 WilliamDalrymple ,The Last Mughal:The Fall Of A Dynasty,Delhi,1857 ,India,Penguin Group,2006 40 Durgadas Banergee, Amar Jivana-Charit ,Calcutta,Ananya Publishers,1924,p.158 41 Ibid.159 42 Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, DastunbayA Diary of the Indian Revolt of 1857 ,Translated from the original Persian with a critical Introduction by Khwaja Ahmad Faruqi,Asia Publishing House,1970 43 See Rajat Ray,The FeltCommunty:Commonalty and Mentality before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism ,Delh,Oxford Publishing House,2003 44 WilliamDalrymple ,The Last Mughal:The Fall Of A Dynasty,Delhi,1857 ,India,Penguin Group,2006