Zakat distribution system must be reformed: Dr.Rahmatullah |
UPA government’s financial inclusion policy and economic empowerment of Muslims |
 Federation of Muslim Women’s Aid Societies formed in TN |
1857: first war of Independence?
Submitted by Anonymous on 7 May 2008 - 12:02am.
By Maulana Muhammad Wali Rahmani,
Historians and historiographers are expected to study and narrate an event objectively and without showing loyalty to any affiliation – regional, communal or philosophical. People need pure and plain history, not a history coloured with saffron, red or green. But the history of Independence war in India is replete with violations of ethics of historiography.
Veer Savarkar was the first author who described the war of 1857 as the first war of Independence. This is entirely untrue. The war against India’s British government began much much earlier. Such wars were fought under the leadership of Tipu Sultan, Sirajuddaula, Mir Qasim and others.
The arguments in favor of the popular perception about the war of 1857 do not hold ground in light of the historical facts hidden deliberately from the public eye. To say that the war of 1857 was the first Independence war because the Indian nation took part in it is not a strong point. Because, Tipu Sultan, Ali Wardi Khan and Sirajuddaula, though individuals, led an army against the British army and their people were behind them too. The number of casualties in the war between Sirajuddaula and the British army was much higher than that in the war of 1857.
Similarly, the argument that pre-1857 wars were led by nawabs and kings, and thus they were not popular wars is also weak in view of the historical facts. In 1857, people reinstated Bahadur Shah Zafar as the ruler so that the war could be fought under his command. Besides, big heroes of the 1857 war were nawabs and kings – Rani Jhansi, Tantia Tope to name a few. Can the Indo-China war be called a war between India’s ruling Congress Party and China? If not, and surely not, then how can the wars fought by Tipu Sultan, Mir Qasim, Ali Wardi Khan and Sirajuddaula be categorized as their personal wars? Those pre-1857 wars were fought by the people and for the people and the casualties were public not an Ali Wardi Khan or a Mir Qasim.
Here one point is important to keep in mind while studying or writing history. Whenever a battle takes place, there is a system in the place and a symbol representing the system. System may be imperial or parliamentary and democratic. Status or significance of a war cannot be determined on the ground of a system under which it is fought. To do so will be injustice to historiography and will not be accepted by the philosophy of history.
In Indo-China war, then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was a symbol for India. Even though the Indian system was parliamentary and democratic but what was said about Nehru after the war is public knowledge. During Bangladesh war, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was the symbol. After the creation of Bangladesh, Atal Behari Vajpayee called him “Durga” (a reference to her bravery though she was thousands of miles away from the front). Her popularity spread thick and wide. The pre-1857 wars were fought by Ali Wardi Khan (1754), Sirajuddaula (1757), Mir Qasim (1763) and Tipu Sultan (1799) under the system of their time. There was no parliamentary system then. It was the era of nawabs, kings and feudals. Those very people were the symbol of their system and centre of public inspiration. That’s why in 1857 Bahadur Shah Zafar was accepted as a symbol.
If historians and researchers go through books and journals in Urdu and Persian published in those days, they will be exposed to facts and truth about India’s Independence struggle like never before. Very few know that Tipu Sultan was the first to raise the slogan of “India for Indians.” He launched a movement for swadeshi by writing letters to nawabs, kings, pundits and Ulema wherein he urged them to boycott British goods. He set up first of its kind homogenous arms factory. More than 95% arms and ammunition with his army was home-made. His system was more relying on Indian goods and technology than today’s system is.
Today India is bound to depend on foreign governments and companies in almost every field from science and technology to defense and research. Even for the construction of bridges and roads we look toward them.
Tipu Sultan, Mir Qasim and Sirajuddaula loved to fight against the foreigners rather than depending on them. That spirit resulted in armed struggle against British rule in Bihar, Bengal and Deccan and other states and culminated into a big war of 1857. That war began on 10th January 1857 in Bengal and through Lucknow and Meerut ended in the defeat of Indians on 14th September 1857 in Delhi.
That war witnessed Ulema fighting against the British army from the front. Maulana Qasim Nanotwi and Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi were among the leading Ulema fighting the war. The war of 1857, which is described as the first war of Independence, was in fact the last war against the East India Co. This is a fact which must not be neglected.
Maulana Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi was the first to write on independence, safety of non-Muslims and Hindu-Muslim unity. He raised the issue of arrival of Britishors and its impacts on India in his writings and speeches.
It can be said that struggle for independence was initiated by Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi and was later led and strengthened by Ali Wardi Khan, Sirajuddaula, Mir Qasim, Tipu Sultan and in the end Bahadur Shah Zafar.
(Adapted from his speech in Urdu By Mumtaz Falahi for TwoCircles.net. Speech given during the three-day seminar (May 3-5) held in Munger, Bihar on 'Role of Bihar and Bengal in Independence War and the Contribution of Urdu Language and Literature'. Maulana Rahmani is the Chairman of Rahmani Foundation, Sajjada Nasheen of Khanqah Rahmania and Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board.)
Print/Email/Share this article:
Unless otherwise noted, you can republish our articles and photographs for free. You just have to credit us and link to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately. (We're licensed under 
muslim freedom fighter
1857 revolt is combine revolt of allindia irrespective of religion but freedom fighter from small cities are not been highligted so much or their records are wiped out by present governing system due to religion or jealousy about community by respected authority .Freedom fighter from bundelkhand like MIR QADIR ALI,KAZI ROSHAN ALI etc. of KALPI Uttar Pradesh.This treatment to these unsung heroes make us unhappy and shamefull.
sophisry is not an answer for justfying an argument
the precise time for the birth of nationalism is still adebatable point in india.but it is only clear after 1850 that we see a series of leaders whether kings nawabs educated men like nauroji, gandhi, birth of congress, such other incidents point towards the nationalist movement looking at the british rule as alienand against the country. your assumption seems that muslims kings before 1850 were great nationals.im sorry u have forgotten to add another word before nationalist muslim kings or nawabs that word is "anti". india was divided into two countries due to muslims, how can u say muslims that were nationalists. the real nationalists were hindus that is why they fought for united india and maintains neutral stance in religioius affairs, what are pakistanis and bangladeshis doing is that they are islamist their whole country must be islamic.dont ever use nationalism with muslims. ur whole idea is to kill other religions and set up ur moss like green colour islam on others. go to mysore and ask a common man he will tell u how much anti national he was and how he raped women and destroyed the temples of the natives. dont call him a national . muslims are muslims they cannot come out of that either kings or common people. u are callings the descendants of ghazni, ghoris, taimur as nationalists. i also advise u to take refuge in sophism. and become asophist in greece.
Independence war
Role of Tipu Sultan can not be denied. But he had not become slave of British. After his defeat only British power was established. That may be last fight by independent India, but not war of independence. After 1857 war, at least 1 crore persons were killed in reprisals from Ara to kanpur.See-http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2008/September/opinion_September88.xml§ion=opinion&col= Khaleej Times Online >> News >> OPINION Hidden Story of the First-Ever Indian Holocaust-Amaresh Misra (ISSUES)- On August 30th 2008, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi apologised to Libya for damage inflicted by Italy during the colonial era and signed a five-billion-dollar investment deal by way of compensation….during the wars fought during 1857 — called the ‘Mutiny’ by the British but the ‘First War of Independence’ by Indians, British troops appeared to have killed 10 million Indians. The deaths reported are from all religions, communities and castes that fought together during this revolt that lasted 10 years…The Indian subcontinent at that time had a total population of about 150 million; it can be said safely therefore that during the entire course of the 1857 revolt roughly seven per cent of the Indian population was killed; in World War II, more than 10 million lives were lost—but that amounted to 2.5 per cent of the world’s population. 1857 was proclaimed jointly a jihad by Muslim Ulemas and a dharmayuddha (holy war) by Hindu Sadhus. The Muslims fought all over the present state of Uttar Pradesh (UP)—India’s most populous state, and the custodian of its culture and honour. Western and North UP (the area known today as Ruhelkhand) alone possessed more than 5000 madrasas where Hindus and Muslims studied together. Each madrasa had more than 5000 students; computed to the 56 UP districts, and deducting a large number that might have migrated and melted away, the Ulema and madrasa student death figure crosses the 1500,000 mark. Post-1857 Hindi language records of the Sanatani Niranjani and Juna akhadas (ascetic cum commercial cum warrior orders) of Hindus speak, of a 90 per cent drop in their membership. The records also explicitly claim that 3000,000 Hindu Sanatan Dharmis perished in the Ghadar or the disturbances of 1857. While recounting the horror of British reprisals in Allahabad and other middle UP districts, Indian chronicles speak of more than 5,000 deaths every weak, for a period extending from June, 1857, to April, 1858. If this figure is computed to all middle UP districts, the figure in UP (barring the central UP area of Avadh) crosses the 5,000,000 mark. Then in Avadh, which the British had to re-conquer virtually village by village, land survey records and Gazetteers published after 1857 record a drop of almost 20 per cent population in all districts. Field officer Mitchell, writing to the Central Road Department in 1871 writes: “on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days, millions of wretches seemed to have died. My estimate is 20 per cent in each of the 12 Oudh districts”. Research in postal records reveals that, following the Ghadar, 2,000,000 letters were returned back from their addresses in Avadh. In the 1870s, in a letter addressed to Mansfield, a senior employee of the Postal Department of the United Provinces (UP), the Avadh Head Post Master Rowling wrote that “I do not know what to do with these letters. When you will hear this figure….it is astounding….more than 2000,000 letters have been lying unmarked in the GPO godown ….a native employee told me that these letters belong to those who fought and were killed in that mutiny….all of them belong to the Oudh region. The matter that 20,00,000 letters were returned between 1857 and 1861 shows the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindus and Mohammadens….” As per British records, the rough estimate is about 2,500,000 killed in Avadh; already, the UP figure is touching the 7,500,000 or the 7.5 million mark; this is independent of East UP and the neighbouring province of Bihar — places where again, the Bhojpur district 1870s land survey, records a drop of more than 30 per cent population. The 1860s Bundelkhand road and railway surveys in South-west UP complain of a 70 per cent drop in labour availability; a 1880s Road Survey report of the region claims that “road construction” could “not be sustained” due to labour shortage and people killed in the ‘Mutiny’…It is time that Britain apologises to India for the loss of life and development that occurred during colonial rule. Compensation should be given specially to areas that suffered economically because of unimaginable British atrocities in 1857. Most of these areas remain woefully backward and poor to this day and time.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/30guest.htm -21 September 2008-Incomes actually rose during the Raj -Deepak Lal- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's address on accepting an honorary degree at Oxford on 8 July, 2005
to all bigots
Your whole arguement which is pointless anyway is based on bigotry. Nationalism firstly is not limited to any one religion especially in our country, if it is not related to islam then it is not realted to hinduism or hindus either- there was nothing like hinduism in the medieval era, there were several sects cults dieties worshipped in different parts and you are grossly incorrect in considering it a monotheistc religion like islam, it was only during the national struggle that this tag name of hindu was adopted....so if u call yourself a hindu cus you dont even know where you or this identity tag that you carry comes from.
One thing you and bigots like u who think this way should remember is that you could be one of the descendants of ghori,ghazni taimur or even mongols and afghans...they obviously intermingled freely with the indian population then. So save your frustrations and do everyone a favour by not spreading your hate...especially to your children, i hope people like u dont have any.
ur anti hindu thought can be heard to binladen
hello mr anonymous . by the way u didnt mention ur name atleast a pseudo name it only shows the qualities of a criminal who kills people secretely and runs . away. i argued against the principle that kings and nawabs before 1857 were also great nationals. you notice the fact who divided the country , then the answer would be unanimously muslims. muslim league under jinnah demanded a seperate state where muslims were in majortity.if muslims were nationals and considered religion as personal affair, they would not have divided the country. if u dont know about the origin of the hindu word and hindusim .u had better sit silent or join hands with either laskar e taiba or ladens family.muslims themselves called every one of us living west to river indus as hindus or sindus. i know that it is a misnoma. u need not teach me. i also know th meaning of a monotheistic religion. sorry u are wrong islam is not a monotheistic religion. it is a monstrous monotheistic religion. the origin of words are funny. by12 century onwards all the people of india were called hindus or indicas. study the chronicles of fahien, hieuntsang. razzag. hindus, vaidikis, sanatan dharma vadis, these are all inter changeable terms. who are u to deny the integral identity of hindu based on different cultural or religious practices. the hindu term includes all the achievements made by the people both inscoial and spiritual spheres. first of all u are totally ignorant of the hindu civilisation and its contribution to humanity. go and study the vivekananda"s chicago lectures on hinduism. every nation shows a certain character as a whole. the very character of hindus inl india is spirituality and tolerance. ei come on how dare u compare a hindu to be descendant of ghazani or ghori. never that can be. fie upon thee. i is u who are descendant of ghazani and ghori . if hindus were ghazanis descendants then the fifteen crore muslim heads would have been cut off long back. go study study it is tippu sultan who is an anti national ...., and all bengal nawabs pucca ..... taimur cut off onelakhs heads of hindus because they were not muslims. in a span of one hour . go and study muslim chronicles of medieval history of india. another proof that muslims are pucca anti nationals is that during the formation of bangladesh muslim pakistani army killed 30 lakhs bengalis. out of 30 lakhs 25 lakhs of them were of hindus. out of one crore refugees that flooded to indian territory 80 lakhs were hindus. a genocide was undertaken on the natives of the land. u cannot digest these facts because u are a hardcore terrrorist of islam and a guranteed descendant of ghazani, ghori, interesting fact that whole land of pakistanis are lunatics and fanatics of islam is that they even named their missiles with the names of previous fanatic and lunatic muslim invaders like ghazani and ghori.
muslims and patriotism
By the way which nationalist invited the muslims in India?Those were Hindus,is not it? In fact the atrocities of Brahmins on lower caste(? were they really lower caste, not human being?) destroyed the Hindu fabric of India.When Muslims were called by rebels (or Hindu traitors?) to destroy their own country, their own brothers who were ruling India then the political situatin in India changed.Is not it?Muslims in India have not come from Arab countries.They are sons of this soil like you.Their religious belief is different.What is your problem if they consider themselves at par with you? Please leave the quarrel, go to Mumbai,ask the Pakistani or CIA agent Raj Thakerey to stop spitting venom against north Indians which will alienate the Marathas from rest of India. About thousands year ago similar situation prevailed in India when Muslims were called to save the situation.Now Americans will be called or Chinese would be invited not by Muslims, but by Hindus themselves.Guess who will call them? Marxists or Nationalist Hindus? History will repeat itself again.
Forced conversions by Tipu
It is a known fact in Mysore that Tipu indulged in forced conversion whenever some there was some uprising from a group of non muslims. His thinking was if they were Muslims, they will support him.
When Muslims were given a seperate homeland why did some of them stay back in India. If all had migrated India would have been such a nice place...
Post new comment