NE NEWS SERVICE
AGRA, AUG 11
Unfazed by the charge that her assertions could open up a Pandora’s Box of controversies and trigger a North-South debate, Dr S Chandni Bi, eminent historian, says there is a need for a thorough review and rewriting of history of the pre-independence India, with a national perspective, objectively assessing the role of each region and community according to certain norms.
It may be recalled that some years ago because of her persistence, the Tamil Nadu government had to bring into light the obscured pages of history that offered a fresh insight and gave South India’s freedom struggle movement a new perspective.
Dr S Chandni Bi from Salem, Tamil Nadu, presently teaching South Indian History at the Department of History, Centre of Advanced Study, Aligarh Muslim University, said that she had been raising her voice for the promotion of South Indian history, she told IANS.
She further said: “Time and again we are told that the 1857 rebellion of sepoys against the British East India Company was the First War of Independence. The sentiment found echo in the movie ‘Mangal Pandey – The Rising’ which depicts the hero as the first man to rise against the British.
True, the 1857 rebellion of the sepoys against the East India Company was a major move in the process of the evolution of the Indian freedom movement. But, can that be called as India’s First War of Independence? If it were to be, were there not similar and much more organised and violent uprisings in different parts of the country, against the company rule much earlier, she asked.
As far as the 1857 mutiny is concerned “there seemed to be as many motives for the resistance as the number of people involved in the mutiny. The soldiers of the East India Company refused to use the cartridges and the animal (cow or pig) fat to grease them. The anger was borne out of their religious sentiments. There is nothing to concretely suggest antipathy to alien rule,” she explained.
Chandni says the Indian historians do have clear parameters to judge which incidents qualify for the national status and which do not. According to her “these are: the incident should involve a significantly large number of people (a mass movement); their goal should be inspired by a single motive and finally feeling of oneness among all sections/stretch of people involved against their common enemy.”
With these yardsticks, if we measure all the incidents / revolts / rebellions that occurred before the Swadeshi Movement of 1920s, we cannot call them national by any stretch of imagination. “Hence to call 1857 revolt as the First war of India’s Independence is far-off the mark and unacceptable,” Chandni said.
Talking about the freedom struggle movement in South India, Chandni said, “There were many incidents of revolt against the Company and the British regime on both sides of the Vindhyas that reflected aversion to alien rule. There are incidents that took place in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, a half century or more before the 1857 revolt of Mangal Pandey.”
Even Veer Savarkar had noted in his book the Vellore Mutiny of 1806 AD, as one similar to the 1857 revolt. Vellore has a fort where the Company kept the successors of Tipu Sultan under arrest. The sepoys and soldiers who were kept under arrest in this fort revolted overnight and freed themselves.”
When a committee, appointed by the union government under the Presidentship of Dr S Radhakrishnan to write the history of the freedom movement, immediately Tamilarasu Kazhagam, a Tamil nationalist movement in Tamil Nadu, had protested saying that the history of the freedom movement should start from the revolt of Veerapandiya Kattabomman from the land of PanchalanKurichi in Tamil Nadu.
“This personality, Veerapandiya Kattabomman was the Palayankarar (ruler) of the Palayam (a political division) PanchalanKurichi, who agitated against the Company’s overlordship and refused to pay the taxes. He questioned their right over the land. Finally, he was betrayed by a friend and arrested by the Company. There was an open trial for not paying the dues and he was sentenced to death. He dared to kiss the noose of death by himself and refused the touch of the Company’s servants,” Chandni said.
This indeed was the first case involving an Indian who challenged the empire and refused to obey the diktats and the reasons were very much political relating to freedom and dignity, Dr Chandni said. Apart from the 1806 Vellore mutiny, similar acts of defiance were reported from Mysore and Kerala, as early as 1790s.
Obviously, there is a need to rewrite the earlier history of resistance and freedom struggle with all the inputs now being provided by South Indian historians, Dr Chandni concluded. Courtesy: IANS
