1 P.J.O. Taylor, A Companion to the Indian Mutiny of 1857, p S.B. Chawdhury, English Historical Writings on the Indian Mutiny, p.165.

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-IV WRITINGS OF G.W. FORREST AND 20 TH CENTURY HISTORIOGRAPHY Sir George Forrest is one of the eminent historians on the rebellion. His three volume account is one of the standard histories on the Uprising and it was produced sufficiently long after the events and justly regarded as objective and comprehensive. 1 Forrest's 'History of the Indian Mutiny' is a very large book which produced in easier sequence, what Kay and Malleson have written without the aid of 'State papers'. The voluminous state papers on which the three volume history of the Indian Mutiny was based furnish not many new facts, he deals with his subject in the same style as books by other British writers. Forrest's work is a purely external narrative essentially limited to accounts of the various military campaigns. The constitutional, economic, intellectual and social elements are almost wholly neglected. 2 G.W. Forrest, son of Lieutenant Forrest was the Director of Records, Government of India. Lieutenant Forrest was one of those who were assisting Lieutenant Willioughby at the time of the explosion of the Delhi magazine on 11 May Lieutenant Forrest was asked to report on this magnificent exploit. G.W. Forrest son of Lieutenant Forrest, obviously shared the legacy of those hectic days. He has dedicated the first volume of his work to the sacred memory of his father, Captain George Forrest, V.C. (Victoria Cross) one of those gallant nine who defended the Delhi Magazine. While dealing with this great event Forrest gives a vivid description of the danger to which his father, Buckley and others were exposed. They continued to load and 1 P.J.O. Taylor, A Companion to the Indian Mutiny of 1857, p S.B. Chawdhury, English Historical Writings on the Indian Mutiny, p

2 fire the guns in rapid succession. Forrest accepted that, 'the Indian Mutiny was not a mere ordinary incident of Anglo-Indian History but an event of great intellectual and emotional sequence, a noble epic 'which speaks to every Englishman wherever he may be, and calls up past and glorious memories'. 3 Forrest describes the causes of the Mutiny and says that the pressure of the government's demand in many districts was greatly too high. The Company servants were anxious to show a large balancesheet to the court of Directors to prove them the profitable nature of new acquisition. To increase the total collection, they increased, therefore the rate of land revenue, the settlement of the land revenues was also cruel. 4 He says that Lord Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny who took harsh action towards the Nana. Lord Dalhousie merely carried out the views of the local government of the North Western Provinces. 5 He says that Uprising was a not religious revolution. He says that the Uprising was a revolution in which Brahmin and Sudra, Mahomeden and Hindu, were united against the British. He condemned the theory of Kay and Mallson that it was a brahmenical movement and says that it was a big Uprising in which every cast and religion involved. 6 The causes for the Punjab's antipathy to the rebellion were many and varied. G.W. Forrest writes that, "A summary and equitable settlement of land revenue had increased the prosperity of the ryot and made him contented. 7 Because of the Punjab's proximity to the Frontier, they had not meddled with its land tenure system. The construction of 3 G.W. Forrest, A History of the Indian Mutiny, Vol. I, Preface p.vii. 4 Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p

3 new roads, canals, and bridges and the preservation of forests and grazing tracts had been undertaken vigorously. 8 In short the Punjabis came to know of the benefits of a strong government after years of unrest and anarchy. The Sikh sardars were afraid of the restoration of the Moghul hegemony as it would have meant their own certain suppression." 9 Forrest says that British commanders were very strong and he also glorifies the works of the British. He describes in his book that, "Brigadier-General Nicholson arrived in camp, having ridden in before his column of all the heroes who have made the Indian Mutiny an epic, none strike the imagination like John Nicholson. He was a knight belonging to the time of King Arthur rather than to the nineteenth century. A Tall person with majestic presence, he well justified the title of lion of the Punjab. Strong and brave, he had the high moral grace which makes bravery and strength beautiful. He was but a lad when at Ghazni he heard the order given for British soldiers to surrender their arms. He was engaged in introducing peace and order in the Peshawar Valley when the Mutiny occurred, and it was at a council of war held at Peshawar that Nicholson suggested the idea of organising a movable column to suppress mutiny wherever it might appear in the Punjab. " 10 G.W. Forrest praised his officers and denied the heroic act of Indian soldiers. His attitude was based on racial thing. He says that, "In May 1857 the officer in command of the Cawnpore division was Major General Sir Hugh Wheeler, K.C.B., a soldier of noble Celtic blood, whose long military career had been a life of honour." 11 He says that, "Neill was a dashing brave soldier, but he was by temperament totally 8 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.I pp Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p

4 incapable of taking the measure of Havelock's courage or ability, or of fathoming the high motives of his conduct. A man of great ardour, of a strong will, conscious of the applause he had won by his decisive action at Benares and Allahabad. 12 The Indians had learnt a lot from the revolt and it provide a very strong lesson to the British. In the words of G.W. Forrest the story of the Mutiny conveys many lessons how the future should be solved and in what spirit they should be faced power and strength there must be to discipline peace. 13 Forrest praised the British officers he says in his IInd Volume that Havelock welcomed Outram his former friend. He says that both were brave, resolute, energetic soldiers and their higher natures were of a kind which every could not din nor jealousy tallish. 14 But he used the word "scoundrels" for the Indian army. 15 Further Forrest writes that Colonel Campbell, in command of the 90 th, was shot in the leg and died after suffering amputation of the limb. "For promptitude and vigour of action, cool judgement, and impetuous bravery he was pre-eminent." Major Cooper, Brigadier Commanding Artillery, and Lieutenant Colnol Bazeley, a volunteer with the force, were killed. Captain Pakenham of the 8 4th an able officer and devoted soldier was shot dead as he was cheering his men on when entering the city. "Of him it might with truth be said that he foremost fighting fell." Many noble soldiers fell that day. But the bravest of the brave dead was Neill. A soldier of the 78 th Highlanders wrote on September 28 th to his brother: "And here, when success had crowned our efforts, shocking to relate, our brave General 12 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.I. p G.W. Forrest, A History of the Indian Mutiny, Vol. II, P. Introduction (xxxii). 14 Ibid, p Ibid, p

5 Neill fell. He was an honour to the country, and the idol of the British Army." 16 At the death of Havelock writer wrote that "On Christmas Day 1857 news reached England of the Relief of Lucknow, and on January the 7 th the joy of a nation was turned into mourning by the tidings of Havelock's death. He writes: "Bold Havelock died Tender and great and good, Any every man in Britain says I am of Havelock's blood!" 17 Forrest does not enter into any critical discussions about the greased cartridges and other events leading to the outbreak. According to Forrest, sepoys discontent and the greased cartridges had to spark and he called the 10 th of May a Military outbreak at the Meerut cantonment and along with it there were economic grievances, which swept over the land. 18 According to G.W. Forrest, "It is too often forgotten that it is possible to arm and discipline too many native troops, which may became a source of difficulty and danger costly in themselves and doubly costly when they must be watched by European regiments, while the European force gradually decreased. At the close of Lord Dalhousie's rule the Native army was 233,000 while the European force numbered 45,322 with the increased number of Indians in the army their importance was accepted but it was never shown. With whatever determination and bravery the sepoys participated in the war they were not given promotion or their income increased. On the other side his white comrade in arms were given all facilities and promotions. 16 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.II, pp Ibid, P G.W.Forrest, A History of the Indian Mutiny, Vol, III, pp xxxii-xxxiii. 100

6 The sepoys were also not provided the extra allowances when they had to participate in the overseas war. Whenever the sepoys served the overseas they expected extra allowances and whenever obstacles were experienced in satisfying during the thirteen years preceding the great explosion, the regiments concerned being the 34 th Native Infantry in 1844, the 22 nd Native Infantry in 1849, 66 th Native Infantry in 1850 and the 38 th Native Infantry in 1852." 19 Forrest says that Rani Luxmi Bai fought only with religious cause. He writes that, "The Ranee protested in vain against the decision of the Government, and the Mahratta Queen, full in stature and handsome in person, young, energetic, proud and unyielding, from that moment indulged the stern passions of anger and revenge. The news of the Mutiny at Meerut on the 18 th of May inspired her with the hope of gratifying them. She dexterously employed religious mendicants, the dark engines of fanaticism always to be found in India, to fan among the people the embers of religious hate cause by the open slaughter of kine for the purpose of food amid a Hindu population. She used them to increase the fear and religious passion which had been aroused among the sepoys by the question of the greased cartridges, and to scatter among them the seeds of disloyalty and contention." 20 Forrest praised Indians who helped British during the Uprising and according to him this was the major cause of British's victory. He says about the Dunkar Rao Scindia, Prime Minister or Diwan of Gawalior. He says that, "Dunker Rao a young Brahmin of great ability and integrity, who had already proved his tallent for administration Diwan or Prime Minister. He improved the revenue and judicial administration, and with a firm hand he attempted to put 19 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.III, pp.xxii-xxiii. 20 Ibid, p

7 down bribery and extortion." 21 Further he writes, "Scindia was a born soldier, not an administrator. His education had been nearly confined to the use of his horse, lance, and gun, whence his tastes were purely and passionately military. He seemed to enjoy no occupation save drilling, dressing, ordering, transforming, feasting, playing with his troops, and the unwearied study of books of evolution, and he grudged no expenditure connected with that amusement." 22 In the spring of 1857, Scindia, accompanied by the Resident, the Diwan, and several of the Gwalior chiefs paid a visit to Calcutta, Scindia and Dunker Rao inspected that colleges and schools as models to be reproduced at Gwalior. The Maharajah went down the Hughly and saw a spinning mill at work. 23 The third volume of Forrest's Indian Mutiny which covers the far flung operation of Sir Hugh Rose's famous Central India Field Force is a gem of historical composition, very readable with a simple and lucid style and imaginative sympathy. Forrest does not agree with Sir Hugh Rose's estimate of the Rani of Jhansi who said that she was the bravest and best military leader of the rebels. He very much resented that some thought of the Rani as Indian 'Joan of Arc. He comments that "the Rani of Jhansi was an ardent, daring, licentious woman and though appropriate regard should be paid to her memory, She cannot be absolved from the responsibility of the massacre of the Europeans at Jhansi." 24 In the third volume the historian deals with all other matters relating to the last phase of the struggle, such as, the Oudh Proclamation, the war of the talukdars, the struggle at Jagasdispur, the 21 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.III, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid,p

8 Terai campaigns, all of which are more or less similar to Malleson's treatment of these topics. He concludes his great work by a reference to Tatya Tope's flight and his eventual execution on 18 April He writes, "on 27 th June 1857 at Satichauraghat, Cawnpore, Tatya massacred the European. The cries of the slaughtered women and children were in the book recorded." 25 Forrest describes some letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Mcintyre in his book "Selections from the Letters Despatches and other State Papers" and he writes that, "The supply of food for the Native followers did not exceed the consumption of a few days, and we had little or nothing for the cattle but what could be procured by foraging parties. Fortunately, some crops of rice and other grain, nearly ripe, were on the ground sufficiently near to enable us together them under the protection of our guns. As these became consumed, the sufferings of the Native followers from want became, I regret to say, very great." 26 G.W. Forrest like C.A. Ball, J.W. Kaye, G.B. Melleson, C.V. Browne and other British historians writes only about the bravery of the British soldiers but he never describe heroism of Indian soldiers. He uses 'sepoy' world for Indian soldiers. He never describe one Indian name, when he praised heroism of the soldiers. While praising the bravery of the British Officers and Commanders, Colonel Mcintyre writes that, "I trust the Major General will not think it presumptuous on my part to bring to his notice the names of those officers (in addition to those already mentioned) who were most conspicuous in the performance of their duties, and deserve much credit. They are Captain MayCock, Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General, lieutenant Gordon, Bengal Artillery, who 25 G.W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol.III p G.W. Forrest, Selections from the Letters Despatches and Other States Papers, Vol, III,, p

9 commanded the detachments of artillery until the arrival of captain Moir, Lieutenant Sandwith, Her Majesty's 84 th Regiment, Acting Field Engineer (Lieutenant Sandwith was subsequently killed in Lucknow); Lieutenant Haldane, Her Majesty's 64 th Regiment, Acting Field Engineer, Lieutenant Morland, Acting staff officer (1 st Bengal Fusiliers). The unwearied attention of Surgeon Innes, of Her Majesty's 84 th Regiment and Surgeon Domincnette, of Her Majesty's 75 th Regiment, to the sick and wounded, and their exertions on entering the Alumbagh with 64 wounded men deserve the greatest praise." 27 G.W. Forrest, however, writes about the Gurkhas and provided information that Gurkhas helped to the British. He say that, "The force commanded by Maharajah Jung Bahadoor before Lucknow numbered 15,000 men of all arms, and consisted of 23 battalions with 24 guns. This includes the force of Gurkhas which came up with General Franks." 28 Captian C.P. Lane writes that "I beg to record the services of Brigadier "Junga Doge," of Colonel Purtmon Koer Ranajee, Commanding the "Srinath" Regiment of Colonel Srikrishan Sonoy of the "Junganath" Regiment, of Colonel Soorut Tappah, of the "Shumshere Dull" Regiment. I am desirous that their conduct, as well as that of all the officers and men under them, should be brought to the favourable notice of His Highness the Maharajah." 29 Forrest says that the British won because of the Bengal army and Punjab army were loyal to British till the end of the suppression of the Uprising. 30 The revolt was the most wide-spread and reached its highest peak in Oudh and he pays the following tribute to the humanism and self discipline of Oudh people. The troops mutinied and the people 27 G.W. Forrest, Selection from the Letters. Despaches and Other State Papers, Vol. III, p Ibid, p Ibid. p G. W. Forrest, Selection from the Letters. Despaches and Other State Papers, Vol. IV, p

10 threw off their allegiance, but there was no reverse and no cruelty. The brave and turbulent population, with a few exceptions, treated the fugitives of the ruling race with marked kindness and the high courtesy and chivalry of the Barons of Oudh was conspicuous in their deal ings with their fallen masters." 31 The documentary study of the Mutiny was for the first time seriously undertaken by Forrest and he has written with a mastery of the source that no historian has ever approached and is perhaps the most 'adequate' of the British histories on the Mutiny. An interesting interpretation of the events of 1857 was given by F.W. Buckler, an English historian, at the meeting of the Royal Historical Society in According to Buckler, this war has been misunderstood because it was seen as either a revolt or a nationalist Uprising when in fact it was neither. The clue to the meaning of the war was to be found, he argued, in the legal relationship that existed between the East India Company and the Mughal Emperors. 32 Buckler says in 'The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny', that Oudh was the main recruiting ground of that portion of the Mughal army which was under their command of the Diwan of Bengal. As the deposition of the king of Oudh was followed by similar action against the claims of the Mughal Shanzada threatening the Mughal Emperor with extinction, the sepoys clung to the cause of their King and Emperor against the intrigue of their commanding officer the Diwan of Bengal, the East India Company, which, for them, was the Mutineer of Acts of Parliament they knew nothing, and even if they did, they could carry no weight against the commands of their Khalifan. F.W. Buckler has further referred to Hakim Ullah Khan, a Mughal noble, who had stated that, "I consider that the native army was impregnated 31 G. W. Forrest, op.cit., Vol. IV, p A.T. Embree (Ed), India in 1857, The Revolt Against Foreign Rule, p

11 with malevolent intention towards the British Government, and had even the new cartridges not been issued, they would have made some other pretext to Mutiny, because if they had been actuated by religious motives alone they would have given up the service and if they had wished to serve they would not have Mutined." But if the army belonged to the Mughal Padishah, and he claimed to be "the drive vice regent in spiritual matter..." the service becomes part of the religious duty-jihad." 33 One of the conspicuous features of British Writing on 1857 had been an emphasis on the atrocities committed by Indians and Europeans. That the British soldiers had sometimes acted with great ferocity was well known, but the explanation usually given was that they had been maddened by the deeds of the rebels, and that on the whole the British had behaved with remarkable magnanimity towards their enemies. In a book appropriately entitled 'The other side of the Medal, Edward J. Thompson, who sought to redress the balance in terms of the atrocities committed during the rebellion, argued that they were by no means all on the rebel side. He deals with English atrocities against Indians during the rebellion, and claims that native memories of the Mutiny are a heavy obstacle to friendship and understanding. His book is valuable, and almost Unique in its approach. 34 Edward J. Thompson showed that the actions like the massacre of Cawnpore by the Indians followed only because of the British brutality which occurred earlier. He writes that the villagers were assembled on the bank of the river flashed with their easy triumph over the Mutineers of whom some 150 had been shot, mobbed backwards into the river, and 33 F.W. Buckler, The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny in the Royal Historical Society to Transactions, Series4, Vol.V, 1982, p P.J.O. Taylor, op.cit., p

12 drowned inevitably too weakened and fanished they must have been after their forty miles fight to battle with the flood. The main body had fled upwards, and swam over on pieces of wood, or floated to an island about a mile off from the shore, where they might be descried qouching like a broad of wide fowl. It remained to capture this body, and having done so, to execute condign punishment at once. 35 Indian history appears to be remarkably free of large scale peasant revolt of the kind that have provided historians of Europe and China with materials for assessing class antagonisms for the reason the War of 1857 has been of special interest to writers with a left wing political bias who wished to demonstrate the working of the same historical forces in India as they had identified elsewhere. Lester Hutchinson an Englishman who was deeply involved in trade union and working class movement. Hutchinson sees the war as the last protest of a feudal order that felt itself in undated by the forces of modernity. 36 He says that, it was not a Mutiny because it was not conf ined to the troops, but was supported by the vast majority of the peasants and people of northern India. It was a revolt precipitated by the revolutionary changes introduced by British. Capitalism into India, and by the British attempts to break down the feudal isolation of the villages and the states in order to weld India into an economic and political unit under British was almost as bad. When the sepoys mutinied at Meerut, the British officer were paralysed with astonishment and terror, and the garrison of British troops, which might have checked the mutineers, continued their routine drill while the comparatively ill armed sepoys, having destroyed the gaol and released the convicts, were marching on the road to Delhi. At Delhi the population rose to receive them, and the 35 Edward J. Thompson, The other side of the Medal, pp Lester Hutchinson, The Empire of the Nababs, pp Intro vi-vii. 107

13 English garrison, after exploding the Magazine, were forced to flee. From Delhi the rebellion raged through the North West Provinces and Oudh down to Bengal, and many of the princes in Central India threw in their lost with the rebells. 37 Another 20 th century historian, Hugh Tinker, a British scholar was particularly interested in the growth of self government in India in the Modern period. Tinker examines the results of the war on both Indian and British after He suggests that, "One of the general results of imperial rule everywhere in Asia, but particularly in India, was a sense of divided loyalist among the educated elite, since a man of ability and ambition who sought a career in public service had to compromise with the foreign systems that dominated his country. This can be related to the failure of the educated classes to support the revolt in 1857, they saw their future was bound up with the new order, as much as they might dislike it, rather than with the old rulers. Tinkers also points out that because of the Mutiny the British became extremely cautions about taking any course of action that might give offence to religious susceptibilities, thus closing the door to aggressive social reform of the kind that had been foreshadowed in the 1830's. It might be argued, then, that after 1857 the Government became more sensitive to Indian opinion, and more acceptable to the groups that had political ambitions. Another difficulty that Tinker sees in the celebration of 1857 as the beginning of the nationalist movement is its resort to violence, which stands in contradiction to the version of history that sees India's independence won through non-violence." 38 One of the most representative work on the rebellion is of William Forbis Mitehell who was a Sergeant in the British Indian Army 37 Lester Hutchinson op.cit., p Hugh Tinker, The Mutiny and Modern India in International Affairs, Vol.34, Jan 1958, pp

14 and who served throughout the period of the rebellion, particularly in and around Lucknow, and indeed stayed on in India after his discharge. His reminiscences were published in London in 1910 and it reads more like a collection of anecdotes than genuine history, but make excellent reading for all that. It is possible that he has exaggerated on even concocted events so as to make a good story, but his book represents the view of the man in the ranks, who, often in War, is ignorant of the grand strategy involved, but only too well aware of the detail that affects his personal safety and comfort. 39 William Forbes Mitchell entitled his book as 'Reminiscence as the Great Mutiny ' He covered the entire period from the second relief of Lucknow to the battle of Bareilly 5 May 1858 and describes the scencs in which he himself was an actor. It is a straight forward and soldier like story, a continuation of lady Inglis 'work, told effortlessly with a charm of its own. The many amusing incidents of camp life, interesting anccdotes and various other involvements which afford glimpses of the milier combine to make this 'Reminiscences' so interesting and so exciting. 40 Forbes Mitchell reminds the Mutiny historians of a type of British soldiers susceptible to wider contacts, that the Indian Mutiny brought to the fore, a tribe how extinct but not forgotten. 41 Mitchell also described during the Uprising Europeans played important role to help the rebel or some Europeans took part or fought to the side of the rebels. He describes the situation of the some Europeans among the rebels. He says that, "Brigadier Adrian trope was killed in the abortive attack on the fort of Rogyah, by a shot fired from a high tree 39 William Forbes Mitchell, Reminiscences of the Great Mutiny , p. Intro iii. 40 Ibid, p Ibid, p

15 inside the fort, and how it was commonly believed that the man who fired the shot a European." 42 The other European was a man of superior stamp, who came to Delhi from Rohilcund with the Bareilly Brigade, and the king gave him rank in the rebel army next to General Bukht Khan, the titular commander in chief. This European commanded the siege of Delhi, as he had formerly been in the Company's artillery and knew the drill better than any man in the rebel army." 43 Another significant British historian is Thomas R. Metcalf who has argued that the Uprising of 1857 was a result of the agrarian grievances arising from the British over assessment and the passage of landed property to the money-lenders. Metcalf writes a chapter on the causes of the revolt and their varying interpretations which is profoundly critical and intensive. He takes up a very interesting point, the influence of the Mutiny on the whole concept of the British Empire and attempts to develop the idea in his own way. But the author maintains a definite Anglo-Marx as filtered through the correspondents of the New York Harold Tribune. 44 Another historian, Major-General Richard Hilton's 'The Indian Mutiny' is a monograph written in defence of British attitudes and the soldiers who upheld British prestige. He says that it was only a sepoy Mutiny because of, "Oudh was, in fact, the only part of India where the great rising of 1857 assumed anything like the appearance of a national movement against the British. In all other parts the outbreak remained exclusively a military mutiny by the sepoys, supported only by disgruntled aristocrats and priests and the dregs of the civil population such as the released inmates of jails, the scum of the big cities, and 42 William, Forbes Mitchell, op.cit., p Ibid, pp Thomas R. Metcalf, The Aftermath of Revolt, pp

16 certain criminal tribes know as Gujars. Outside Oudh the vast major ity of the ordinary country people either took no part at all in the fighting or, in many cases, actively assisted British refugees during the darkest days of the troubles, often at extreme peril to themselves." 45 Further he says that "The Punjab thanks to his administration, proved to be the backbone of the British cause during the Mutiny." 46 The danger of trouble spreading north west word was not so great, because the Punjab contained adequate British troops. 47 Why was the Punjab helped British during the Uprising, he answered that 'Thanks to the parismonious economic policy of past years, the whole transport service of the Army had been reduced practically to nothing. Three years before the Mutiny, the permanent transport establishments of the Army had been abolished by Dalhousie as a measure of economy. 48 He discussed that The Punjab and Afghan frontiers were more lavishly filled with British troops that was the main cause of Sikh for not participated during the Uprising. 49 Hilton describes in his book that all the English officers had bounding with each other for the beneficial of their own country. "These two fine soldiers, Outram and Havelock, are said to have been closer in mutual friendship than many brothers." 50 The author also gives a critical account of the activities of Tatya Tope, a guerilla leader of the front rank and makes a comparative estimate of his abilities with reference to the exploits of Christian Dewet at the end of Boer war and Von Lettowerbeck in German East Africa. 51 At last the author described 45 Richard Hilton, The Indian Mutiny: A Centenary History, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Richard Hilton, op.cit., p Ibid, p

17 that Indian Uprising failed because of their lack of leadership. He writes "The British on the other hand, were extraordinarily well provided with first class leaders. John Nicholson, colin camplell, Edwards, Adrian Hope, Neill, Havelock, Outram, Rose, Hope Grant." 52 But he said that lack of good leadership on the rebel side. 53 Richard Collier's 'The Great Indian Mutiny', the English edition of which was entitled 'The Sound of Fury', combines exciting reading and careful research. He has attempted to recreate in dramatic language the actual events and the atmosphere of a selected number of major incidents in the course of the mutiny/rebellion, especially connected with Delhi, Kanpur and Lucknow. The result is not fiction but sometimes reds as though it were. 54 Richard Collier describes the role of newspaper at London when Uprising was arose. He says that the newspaper Washington Union opined: "All Christendom except the slave holders of America will suffer alike." From Rome, Pope Pius IX urged a world-fund be set up for the sufferers. In Damascus a merchant's son, named White, invested part of a 2 Million fortune in raising a private army of Britons, Greeks and Italians armed with fowling-pieces to fight the rebels. To speed relief forces on their way the Emperor Napoleon III agreed that India-bound troops should use the overland route through France to Marseilles, from whence they could sail to Alexandria, goby barge to Cairo, and take the desert railway to Suez before again boarding a boat." 55 Further, Richard Collier has covered a new ground of the old story of the Sepoy Mutiny by his massive research in which he exhausted a kind of material hitherto unread and, indeed, not explored 52 Ibid, p Ibid, p Richard Collier, The Sound of Fury. p Richard Collier, op.cit., p

18 by professional historians, a bunch of letters, diaries, memories of those on the spot. 56 He has offered a new and personal picture of what it was like to experience the Indian Mutiny, and manages to tie all his investigations together in many vivid touches to project the impression of a small group of people about their involvement. 57 The author has attempted to write a definite history, but he offers a narrative of events with emphasis on the siege of Delhi 58 and the relief of Lucknow 59 with on impressive skill. His intellectual affinity and intensity of interest in the great revolt of India is clear from his reference to the works of the Indian Mutiny. 60 J.A.B. Palmer is a author of a comprehensive guide to the events of 10 May 1857 at Meerut and 11 May 1857 at Delhi. This is an authoritative and standard work. An exhaustive account based on the accessible sources containing eye witness accounts or reminiscences or statements and reports or despatches. J.A.B. Palmer's 'The Mutiny outbreak at Meerut in 1857' is a scholarly work of exceptional value. It is a specialised study in depth and offers a close interpretative analysis of the Meerut Mutiny and the Delhi revolt. The author also offers his views about the causes of the Uprising and its character. He writes that Greased Cartridges were the main cause of the Uprising of 1857 at Meerut. 61 He says that the handling of the European troops was not crutable the Uprising. He says that, "The Government of India, on 28 June 1857, removed General Hewitt from the command of the Meerut Division. That is at least some justification for the opinion that the handling of 56 Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, pp J.A.B. Palmer, The Mutiny Outbreak At Meerut in 1857, pp

19 the European troops on the evening of 10 th May was not creditable. However, Willon was left to fight another day, and the decision to remove Hewitt was taken by Sir Patrick Grant in Calcutta, where he certainly did not have full information about all the circumstances on the evening of 10 May. So his decision is not conclusive. It cannot have been uninfluenced by outcry against the Meerut commanding officers which rose immediately and grew louder as the disasters of May and June 1857 accumulated, disaster for which these officer at Meerut were held indirectly responsible in addition to their alleged defaulters on that evening itself. 62 J.A.B. Palmer finds evidence to support the theory of a premeditated organisation and planning behind the outbreak though it was not firmly set. 63 But the critical study of the initial stages of the revolt with reference to original sources and authoritative works which he offers is one more proof of the excellence that continues to characterise the finest scholarship of British historiography on the Indian Mutiny. Another historians of 20 th century was Sir Henry W. Norman and Mrs. Keith Young who wrote 'Delhi 1857'. Sir Henry Wyle Norman a Field Marshal had joined Bengal Army in 1844 and was present in a staff capacity at Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur and the campaign in Oude (Awadh). His despatches, reports, comments are particularly valuable as they are both shied and well informed. He had the unusual distinction of having refused the offer to become Governor-General of India in Mrs Keith Young was motivated to publish his husband's letters and Diaries with the desire that his children and 62 Ibid, p Ibid, p P.J.O. Taylor op.cit., P

20 friends may be able to read them. 65 She described a letter of Colonel H.B. Henderson to Colonel Keith Young of London, 26 th June. H.B. Henderson discussed the causes of Uprising with K. Young. He has recorded that "I quite agree with you that our restrictions and harsh manner of dealing with those who are entitled to go on the invalid establishment must be doing us great harm with the Sepoys. Originally, when we held out the benefits of retirement to the Native Soldiery, the cost was small, but of late years the pensioners have increased to a terrible extent, and the non effective charges are getting beyond what was ever contemplated. Still it was this boon that created our Native Army, and is the grand hold we have on its fidelity. If men are sent back to their regiments rejected wholesale by the examining committees, we must expect they will be discontented and spread the disaffection throughout the whole of the army. Our seniority system also is distasteful to good and young soldiers, and the promotion of old, worn-out men by mere rule of service renders the non-commissioned class a useless one, and our Soubadars and Jemadars still worse. But I must drop these subjects; it is rather farcical that I should write on them to you out there, who must known everything practically connected with them a hundred times better than I can possibly do." 66 The 19 th century historians did not raise the seniority question of army. Another 20 th century historian is Michael Edwardes, who is the author of a popular book, 'Red year the Indian Rebellion of 1857." He wrote about the Neill cruelty and he has discussed that why Neill was so much cruel for Indians rebellious. He writes in his book that, "On 23 May, 900 men of the 1st Madras European Fusiliers arrived at Calcutta from the South. In command was Colonel James Neill. Neill a Scotsman 65 Sir Henry W. Norman & Mrs. Keith Young, Delhi 1857, p. Int. xvii. 66 Young, op.cit., P

21 aged forty-seven with thirty years of military service behind him, had hoped he would be called to take part in the suppression of the rebellion. From the quite of Madras, he had looked upon the behaviour of the northern sepoys with nearer and had though that God might call him to take his part in its suppression. This was not unreasonable. Neill's God was the 'God of battles', the harsh unbending Jehovah of the old Testament. Neill himself was a stern figure, inordinately proud of his faith and of his physique. His tenderness, however, was not extended to anyone, black or white, whom he considered an enemy. H e knew, when he embarked for Bengal, and he brooded for Bengal, that there was stern work before him, and he brooded over the future so intently, that the earnestness and resolution within him spoke out ever from his countenance, and it was plain to those around him that, once in front of the enemy, he would smite them with an unsparing hand, and never cease from his work until he should witness its full completion or be arrested by the stroke of death." 67 At Banaras, Neill was certainly responsible for the hasty decision to disarm the 37 th, an affair so inefficiently handled that the Sikhs and Cavalry were drawn into resistance. Neill did not view it like this. He had done God's work and smitten the enemy." 68 He writes further "Neill was bloodthirsty". 69 Neill was exhausted by his rapid journey in the great neat, and could not stand up for long. His bodily weakness exasperated him, but was not allowed to interfere with his determination to crush the rebels. 70 Captain Lionel J. Trotter wrote two books, first one as 'Life of John Nicholson' and second one as, 'The Bayard of India'. These books are, however, dedicated to praising the Idols and are narrative about the 67 Michael Edwards, Red Year : The Indian Rebellion of p Michael Edwards, op.cit., p Ibid, p Ibid, p

22 role of John Nicholson and James Outram. In his first book he said that rebellions chooses summer season (whether) for the uprising because they know that British could not survive in that season. He write that when the James Outram was on the way to Lucknow on July-Sept. 1857, James Outram wrote to his wife that "for our imperilled country men in India July had been a month of torturing anxiety." 71 remarked about the role of spies that "British spies, however had forewarned him of the enemy's purpose, how the Hindus had sworn by the Ganges, and the Muhammadans on the Koran that they would slay the Farangis on Perish in the attempt." 72 Specially reference for Outram that he had worked many net season in India. 73 Captain Lionel J. Trotter has argued that Nicholson, eager to press on, had taken step against the press He Nicholson took steps against the Mutineers punishment of the Sialkot Mutineers. Punjab participation in the Uprising heavily with the heroic disregard of orders, Nicholson carried off a body of European gunners from the Fort of Philur. 75 The author accepted that Punjab heavily participation in the Uprising Peshawar to Rawalpindi. 76 Sir Courtenay Ilbert's book 'The Government of India' described the effect of Uprising on the Indian army. He says that it has been seen that under the authority given by various Acts the Company raised and maintained separate military forces of their own. The troops belonging to these forces, whilst in India, were governed by a separate Mutiny Act, perpetual in duration, though re-enacted from time to time with amendments. The Company also had a small naval force, once known as 71 Captain Lionel J. Trotter, A Life of General Sir James Outram, p Ibid, p Ibid, p L.J. Trotter, The Life of Jhon Nicholson. p L.J. Trotter, op.cit., p Ibid, p.255.

23 the Bombay Marine, afterwards as the Indian Navy, and later represented by the Royal Indian Marine. The Act of 1858 transferred to the service to the Crown all the naval and military forces of the company, retaining, however, their separate local character, with the same liability to local service and the same pay and privileges as if they were in the service of the Company. Many of the Europeans troops refused to acknowledge the authority of Parliament to make this transfer. They demanded re-engagement and bounty as a condition of the transfer of their services and failing to get these terms were offered their discharge. 77 Further he discussed that In 1860 the existence of European troops as a separate force was brought to an end by an Act which after reciting that it is not expedient that a separate European force should be continued for the local service of Her Majesty in India, formally repealed the enactments by which the Secretary of State in Council was authorized to give directions for raising such forces. In 1861 the officers and soldiers formerly belonging to the Company's European forces were invited to join, and many of them were transferred to the regular army under the authority of an Act of that year. Thus the European army of the late East India Company, except a small residue, became merged in the military forces of the Crown. 78 Reginald Reynolds writes in his book 'The White Sahibs in India' about the massacre of Cawnpore. At Cownpore a British garrison was forced to surrender to the Mutineers. They were promised a safe - conduct to Allahabad, but the boats which they boarded for the journey were set on fire. Only one boat made its escape, and in this boat, four 77 Sir Courtenay Ilbert, The Government of India, a brief Historical survey of Parliament legislation Relating to India. p Sir Courtenay Ilbert, op.cit., pp

24 men only survived. Reynolds's comment on this episode is interesting and informative: "Death was the accepted punishment for Mutiny. Wholesale execution is the appropriate punishment for wholesale Mutiny. The blot on British conduct does not lie in the military punishments which were exacted but in the conduct of a number of officers who took a bloody revenge upon guilty and innocent alike. Indiscriminate executions had accompanied the suppression of the Mutinies at Benaras and Allahabad. They help to explain the pitilness slaughter of Cownpore, and both miserably prove how cruel men are made by fear." 79 He described a general massacre followed of English women and children in Cawnpore, though the Mutineers refused to take part in this. They said they were soldiers, not butchers. On 7 th July 1857, Havelock entered Cawnpore at the head of a British force. He writes that, "Like Edwards and Nicholson he was a devout evangelical constant in prayer, convinced that his cause was the cause of God as well as his country. Because of Englishmen boasted that they had "spared no one" and that "Peppering away at niggers' was a very pleasant pastime enjoyed amazingly". He estimated that about six thousand Indian were summarily executed during a period of three months, in addition to those killed without the formality of a trial of whose death no statistics are available." 80 All prospect of social revolt collapsed with the defeat of the Sepoy army. Reynolds argues that, "When civil government vasished, the villagers had plundered and sometimes murdered local money lenders and grain dealers, paying off old scores, and falling cheerfully in to annarchy. But when the Mutineers were beaten and the 79 Reginold Reynolds, The White Sahib in India, p Reginald Reynolds, op.cit., pp

25 district officials reappeared, they were met with the old respect and obedience." th century British historians views on Uprising is slightly liberal other than 19 th century historian. But they have also accepted it was only a sepoy mutiny. 81 Reginald Reynolds, op.cit., p