1

How to Write a Patriotic History of the Rebellion of 1857?

Rajanikanta Gupta’s ‘Sipahi Juddher Itihas’ and Multiple Faces of Loyalty,

Anxiety and Dissatisfaction

Ramendrasundar Trivedi (1864 – 1919), one of the great essayists and literary figures in

the early decades of the 20th

century Bengal, once mused over his reading experiences in

early school days. At the age of eight or nine, as a student of middle Anglo-vernacular

school, he came across, in a magazine called ‘Bandhab’, an article, which stated that

quite a few history text books happened to be full of lies and misinformations. A number

of books on the histories of Bengal and India, mostly written by eminent English

scholars, belonged to this category. He clearly remembered his reaction even after thirty

years. “I considered it totally unbelievable that there may be mistakes in the history

writings of any English scholar. I was unaware of this side of the human character that

great scholars would have written baseless stories, due to their partisanship . . . Moreover,

it appeared to me absolutely ridiculous that the history books which I had to cram in

order to avoid the slaps of my teacher contained mistakes”1. That very article had

announced that Rajanikanta Gupta2 (1849-1900), then an unknown person, had taken up a

project to write a comprehensive history of the Sepoy War in India; it would be written in

vernacular and it would rectify many misconceptions currently nurtured and propagated

by the English historians. Ramendrasundar, being an avid reader since his school days,

was eagerly waiting for the forthcoming book for days and finally managed to devour the

1 Ramendrasundar Trivedi’s obituary on Rajanikanta Gupta in Sahitya, 11yr, Jaishtha, 1307 B.S. /1900, published as

introduction to Sipahi Juddher Itihas (History of the Sepoy War), 4th ed. (Calcutta: the Sanskrit Press Depository,

1910). I have used this edition, unless otherwise mentioned, abbreviated as SI. These are actually two volume editions,

containing five parts. With the initiative of Rajanikanta’s son Mohinikanta, Manindrachandra Nandi of Kasimbazar had

borne out the cost of the publication of this two volume standard edition. Ramendrasundar’s speech delivered in a

memorial meeting at Sahitya Parishad and published in its magazine (1307B.S.) has also been republished in the

volume. 2 Henceforth RK

2

multiple volumes, coming out of the press over the years, one by one, running up to 1540

pages. Eventually he was entrusted to write an introduction to a royal edition, published

posthumously. Similar excitement and astonishment of a young reader that he

experienced as a young reader pervaded the whole introduction written by him—the

secretary of the Bangiya Sahitya Parishad—the premier literary society of Bengal. This

wonder arose from certain literary practices and historical perceptions entertained by RK

as well as from the life history of the historian himself.

A. The Man and his milieu

Ramendrasundar has underlined a particular social position of RK; he was a professional

writer and did nothing else for his livelihood - even rejecting the family profession of a

traditional medicine practitioner. He was a member of a poor family and due to

congenital deafness, he could not even acquire a degree. His knowledge over English was

also initially poor. Nevertheless, he had unusual confidence in himself for taking up the

career of a professional writer. Ramendrasundar has specifically mentioned this personal

choice as unique and called him ‘Daridra Bangali Granthajibi Grihastha’ (a poor Bengali

familyman who lives by writing books’)3. His life, as if, was wholly dedicated to the

service of vernacular literature like ‘a devoted son’ of ‘a poor Bengali mother’. That was

his only vow (brata).

A life dedicated to the service of vernacular literature did not mean that RK was either

unpractical or insensitive to the business environment of the then literary world of

3 Introduction, SI, Vol.1, 14. The details about the life and works of RK are available in Brajendranath Bandyopadhyay

ed. 6/17 Sahitya Sadhak Charitmala, (Calcutta: Bangiya Sahitya Parishad, 1388 B.S.), and Kiranshankar Roy and

Jyotsna Singha ed. Rajanikanta Gupta: Vyaktitya O Manisha, (Calcutta: Lekhak Samabay Samiti, 1976).

3

Bengal. Being an occasional writer in the ‘Education Gazette’, one of the premier

Bengali magazine edited by eminent educationist Bhudeb Mukhopadhyay (1827-1894),

he also became a regular contributor to the leading popular newsmagazine ‘Bangabasi’

edited and owned by Jogendra Chandra Basu (1854-1905). This magazine ran like a

regular business concern and had been identified with the politics of neo-Hinduism. RK’s

serialised articles on ancient ‘Hindu’ civilisation had been published as ‘Arya-Kirtti’

(1883-1885) by this organisation and run into several editions. He had been generally

considered by the historians as a member of this neo-Hinduite group and a close associate

of the ‘Bangabasi’. That was his brand identity correct or incorrectly, in the discussion on

literary history of Bengal4.

Yet, RK, as a professional writer, cut across the warring groups in late 19th

century world

of Bengali literature. He had used the term ‘Aryans’ more as a cultural category,

including all the inhabitants of India. His non-Aryans (Anarjyas) or tribals had played

sometimes more glorious roles in defending the homelands; in fact, they fought back the

‘Aryan’ invaders with great courage. They as the Bhils or the Mawalis were principal

followers of Pratap Singha and Shivaji. In a long discourse on the history of successive

invasions of India, he had shown interplay between words ‘Aryans’ and the ‘non-

Aryans’, the Mughals and the Muslims, the Bengalis and the Rajputs as cultural

communities, illustrating that everybody belonged to a territory defined by a common

4 Haradhan Dutta, ‘Rajanikanta and Bangabasi’, in Kiranshankar Roy, ibid, 56 – 66. For a discussion on the historian as

a group member as well as his attitude to social reform, see, For a standard account of the Bangabasi Group, Amiya etc.

For a discussion on the historian as a group member as well as his attitude to social reform, see, Shyamali Sur etc.,

Calcutta: Progressive Publishers, 2002, 82-102. Amiya P. Sen, Hindu Revivalism in Bengal, (New Delhi, Oxford

University Press), 236-254.

4

culture, even if, the sense of a common political territory called ‘Bharatbarsha’5 is of a

comparatively later phenomenon. He has repeatedly argued that the Mughal period and

the Nawabi period under Siraj-ud-daullah had witnessed the domination of the Hindus

everywhere; pre-British raj was, in fact, a ‘Bengali raj’, and Sanskrit language and

literature in Bengal had flourished under the Mughal patronage to a great extent. In fact,

he devoted a section on the development of Sanskrit studies in medieval Bengal under the

Sultanate and the Mughals in one of his textbooks, a unique subject-item in those days. In

the same text he has specifically mentioned kind and chivalrous treatment of Ghyasuddin

Tughlaq to Debal Rani, the unfortunate Rajput woman. Even in his Arya-Kirtti, hitherto

considered as his most popular text written in the support of the ideals of neo-Hinduism

for his scathing comments on the seventeenth century Indian ruler as Muslims and

Yavans, he was eloquent on the architecture of the Mughals as great memorials to the

past glory of the bygone days of his country. The slippages and overlappings of these

racial, cultural and linguistic terms in terminological specific historical context had

always created an instability of a definition in his prose.

The publication details would also show that RK adroitly maintained an adjustable

position and never identified himself completely with any particular group, either so

called conservative ‘Hindus’ or so called progressive ‘Brahmas’. One of his earlier

collections of articles in the memory of Mary Carpentar had been sponsored by the well-

known reformist lawyer Manomohan Ghosh (1844 – 1896) who had nothing to do with

5 For his account of successive invasions in India, see, his Bharat Prasanga, (Calcutta: Bengal Medical Library, 1887),

48 – 49. For the glorious role of non-Aryans as a race in the stories of defence of homeland, see ‘Bharater Anarjya Jati’

in Prabandha Manjari, Calcutta, 1894. For an account of development of Sanskrit Studies in medieval India Bharater

Itihas, (Calcutta: Sanskrit Depository Press, 1899), 82 – 83. ‘Rajbhaktir Eksesh’ (Amar Singha) Arya

Kirtti (1924), 156-157. For a recent account of the ambiguous use of term by Rajanikanta, see Swarupa Gupta, 1857

and Ideas about Nationhood in Bengal, Economic and Political Weekly, May 12, 2007, 1760 – 1767.

5

‘Bangabasi’ group. RK was also commissioned to write a short biography of Mary

Carpentar by the Brahma Samaj. In last decade of the 19th

century, his close association

with Bangiya Sahitya Parishad, as the first editor of its institutional journal, had

underlined the acceptance of his status as a writer within a wider circle of Bengali literary

elites whose members were Benoykrishna Deb (1866 – 1912) and Rabindranath Thakur

(1861- 1941). His numerous books, numbering up to twenty, had run into several editions

as late as 1920s and had been prescribed as text and rapid readers for schools all over

Bengal, probably for his contacts with Bhudeb Mukhopadhyay and Rajendralal Mitra

(1822-1891). These had been published and distributed by well-known publishers such as

Bengal Medical Library of Gurudas Chattopadhyay (1837-1918) and Sanskrit Depository

Press established and formerly owned by Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar (1820-1891)

himself. In his later days he was quite well off and built up a library of his own for his

magnum opus ‘Sipahi Juddher Itihas’. His association with Surendranath Bandyopadhyay

(1848 – 1925), the nationalist leader, was also quite well known.

Hence, a poor and physically handicapped vaidya boy, hailing from a rural area, RK

ultimately got recognition in the literary world of urban Calcutta and was moderately

successful in his career in financial terms. His successful exercise in writing the

textbooks had touched upon his serious historical writings. A few pieces from his work

on the history of 1857 had been amended and then later incorporated in the text-book like

‘Vir-Mahima’ (Glorious heroes, 1886) as model essays. He published numerous pieces as

a journalist on various topics and that too helped him to develop a prose, a prose to which

a large section of ordinary readers had already been tuned. He had finished his volumes

6

on the history of the mutiny spanning all through his literary career. He started the project

around 1870 and published the first part in 1879. He successively published other

volumes in 1886, 1890 and 1897. He sent the proof of his last volume to the press in 1900

and died just after a week. Thus, he intermittently published his volumes through

multiple literary activities. As Hirendranath Dutta, the Vice-President of the Vangiya

Sahitya Parishad has suggested that ‘Rajanibabu’ was a pioneer of the genre called

‘historical literature’ (Aitihasik Sahitya), because of his continuous literary practices and

a thorough acquaintance with the writings of the eminent prose-writers of Bengal. RK

had published a number of readers of selected Bengali prose and verses and written short

biographical pieces on literary figures6.

RK has made a vernacular version of Goldstucker’s ‘Life of Panini’ and translated Max

Mueller’s Hebert Lecture (1884) into Bengali language and wrote a well-known

pamphlet ‘Amader Vishwavidyalay’ (Our University), urging the necessity of a closer

study of vernacular language and literature by the students of Calcutta University. Thus,

he has acquired sufficient command over English language in the course of his literary

career. Unlike his great mentors and compatriots Rajendralal Mitra, Haraprasad Shastri

(1853-1951) or Nagendranath Bose (1866-1938), indologists and historians, he had never

written a piece in English. Vernacular was sole medium of his self-expression. This

example was certainly rare among the then historians, who were proficient in both the

languages and preferred to write in both. Ramendrasundar, however, missed to refer this

point.

6 For a bibliography and publication details of Rajanikanta Gupta’s writings see Kiranshankar Roy, op. cit. 172-176.

Author catalogue of Printed Books in Bengali Language, National Library, Vol. III; the Advertisement appeared to

Arya Kirtti, published by Mohinikanta Gupta, 1920. For short pieces on literary figures see, his Prativa (1896).

7

B. Fixity and Malleability in the Narrative Structure: ‘Sepoy Juddher Itihas’

‘History’ as RK Gupta, one of the first scholars to write an essay ‘on the methodology of

writing history’ in vernacular, has said ‘is no story-book’ (katha-grantha). An avid reader

of Gibbon and Carlyle, Livy and Tacitus and an admirer of Seely, RK was aware of the

emergence of a distinct genre in vernacular, called ‘historical texts’. In his early writings,

he, as a follower of the style of Bankim, would often write a passage addressing the

reader directly, pointing out the speciality of his genre, ‘Oh reader! This is not an

introduction to a novel, nor a fine piece of imagination, it is a historical piece.” Again, in

an essay on Guru Govinda Singh, he has exclaimed, “This picture has not been drawn by

the brush of imagination neither been depicted by the alluring fancy (mohini maya) of a

novel . . . this is a real historical picture (Prakrita Aitihasik Chitra), on reader”7.

In chronological terms, he was successor to Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay and

Nabinchandra Sen (1847-1909), the writer of stirring patriotic ballad called ‘Palasir

Juddha’ (1875) and was predecessor to Akshay Kumar Maitra (1861 – 1930), the author

of influential historical biography, ‘Siraj-ud-daullah’ (1898), claimed and touted to have

written on the basis of primary and original sources.

Noting the changes in evolution of historical writings in Bengal, RK had talked of two

phases: (a) old and (b) new. For the old phase, he was prepared to consider

7 ‘Rai Malla’; Sikhdiger Jatiya Unnati, (Guru Govinda Singha), Arya Kirtti, op.cit., 6, 64.

8

Mukundaram’s ‘Chandi-mangal’, the great 17th

century literary text, as a social history of

Bengal, history then being an integral part of literature.

The situation had undergone an important shift. In the late 19th

century, ‘history’ as a

genre emerged. It had two distinct claims. First, it needed to be scientific with (a) cause-

effect analysis and (b) its demand for empirical verification and validation of statements.

Notes were essential to locate the sources of assertion and analysis. Secondly, a historian

should be truthful—‘Satyabadi’. Now, the ‘truth’ or ‘satya’ was a highly contested term

in the late 19th

or early 20th

century Bengal because ‘satya’ had two distinct connotations

in historical exercises—(i) commitment to facticity and (ii) a commitment to inner vision

(‘antahdristi’), a power growing out of empathy (‘sahridayata’) and heart-felt attachment

(‘antarik anurag’)8 for the subject. As a critic, Ramendrasundar had clearly underlined

these two features in the historical consciousness of RK. How would the inner vision be

demonstrated with empirical facts? Is it possible to do so? This inter-play of double

claims, a neutral and faithful look at past and of inner vision for its understanding that

makes the ground of history contested. Through a gradual process, RK would argue, a

historian ought to be aware of this duality. In fact, an effort to master this awareness has

been acutely felt in his SI; contradiction within the awareness may not be finally

resolved.

In the introduction to his book, he had frankly admitted that the ‘History of Sepoy War in

India’ by ‘Mahamati’ (gracious) Kaye was the model for his work. In fact, the very name

8 Rajanikanta Gupta, ‘Itihas Rachanar Pranali’, Sahitya Parishad Patrika, Vol. 5, part 1, 1305 B.S. 19 – 26.

Ramendrasundar Trivedi, op.cit.

9

he has chosen happens to be a literal translation of the work. Nevertheless, a glance at the

foot-notes of his book would show that in his project of writing the first comprehensive

history of the Mutiny in vernacular covering the whole of the sub-continent, he was

always up to date; Charles Balls’ history to Forrests’ edited dispatches, Sherers’ report to

S. Ahman Khan’s pamphlet had been cited, whenever necessary, in his foot-notes as the

volumes had been published serially. He had also been a keen reader, pointing out the

difference between Kaye’s original narrative and Malleson’s later edition, particularly

regarding the debates around the ‘Red pamphlet’ and Taylor’s assessment of the situation

in Danapur, Bihar9. Finally, he had also informed us that he had extensively toured in

Bundelkhand, Bihar and Lucknow to collect indigenous materials and stories about

Kunwar Singh, Rani Lakshmi Bai and Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah. He had interwoven

those materials with the accounts of counter-insurgency on suitable occasions.

However, how did he differ fundamentally, in his approach, from Kaye, Malleson, Ball

and Forbes-Mitchell? As RK has clearly stated “As the English writers has written the

history of the Sepoy War with a commitment to their ‘national feeling’ (‘Jatiya bhav’), in

this present history, while using the materials collected by the English writers, I have

carefully attended, our ‘national feeling’ (‘Jatiya Bhav’)”10

[Emphasis added]. Their

‘Jatiya bhav’ and our ‘Jatiya bhav’ happened to be the touch-stone of difference leading

to a game of turning the tables towards them, using apparently same format of the

narrative and identical historical sources. Yet, the narrative was not quite the same, nor

the inversion, pure and simple. The very term ‘Jatiya bhav’ is problematic, to transform

9 For an asse4ssment of Kaye’s history vis-à-vis Rajanikanta’s work see Sashibhusan Dasgupta, ‘Sipahi Juddher Itihas

Prasange’ in Kiranshankar Roy op. cit. 87 – 96. 10 Introduction, SI, Vol. I.

10

the noun ‘jati’ into an adjective ‘jatiya’ in late 19th

century Bengali language had many

nuances11

. Fortunately, RK had written a lengthy article, explaining his own conception

of ‘Jatiya bhav’. To him, attachment to the culture of ‘swadesh’ (own country) is the

basis of making a national / patriotic feeling (‘Jatiya bhav’). These may have been felt

and expressed in numerous daily practices, ranging from those of religion, food, dress

and of language. “The national characteristic and essence (dharma) of every community

have been expressed in language, dress and customs”. He would suggest that one country

may be politically conquered; if that country maintained its cultural ‘self-dependence’

(‘atmanirbhar’) and refused to ape the culture of the victor, that was the beginning of the

end to her cultural and social subjugation. The people may survive even without political

independence but never without cultural autonomy (Swatantra). To hail the glorious

deeds as well as to criticise the faults of ones own countrymen on a scale of patriotism

(swadeshikatar mane) was a way out to fight out current degradation. To discuss history

and tradition is certainly a suitable way because every community living in India was like

brothers linked, some how, to the culture of Hindustan. He had also argued significantly

that the Mughals had contributed to this feeling but despite the political unity achieved by

the British rule, the English civilisation kept a distance from ‘Hindu and Bharatiya’ and

even from Asian culture. It was their rule that completely destroyed the self-dependence

of Indian culture. Only, within this yawning gap, he did dare to confront Kaye armed

with a national feeling with his pride for his own national / patriotic feeling (‘Jatiya

bhav’)12

.

11 Partha Chatterjee, ‘Nation and Its Fragements’, (New Delhi: O.U.P. 2001), 221 – 222. RK has used the term for a

number of meanings, depending on context. In the context of emergence of Khalsa, for example equality shown to Jati

by Guru, means equality for all caste. Arya-Kirtti, op.cit., 64. 12 ‘Amader Jatiya Bhav’, Sahitya, Baisakh, 1898 B.S. 15 – 35.

11

RK had expressed his ‘Bhav’ or feeling in a striking beginning to his book, probably

unique in the whole of literature of the Mutiny, with a direct reference to ‘Black-hole

tragedy’. As he wrote, “During the time of rise of British company in Bengal, the

accident of massacre at Black-hole is chilling. … After one hundred years, the whole of

India was in turmoil due to the impact of a fearful (‘bhayankar’) event. The impact of

such an event was more fearsome than the previous one”13

.

He went on explaining that the Company was a trading concern confined to the province

of Bengal around 1756, whereas around 1857, it was a possessor of a mighty empire and

the power of even an ordinary employee by the company was equivalent to that of Ashok,

Peter or of Napoleon over his subjects. Yet, the subjects rose against the master and fear,

terror and uncertainty overwhelmed the rule of the company—over a large area.

RK was clearly trying to evolve a scale, a scale in history, to judge the might of the

Company’s power and the impact of the resistance. He, had, however, used this scale also

for different purposes. Long before Akshay Kumar, in his ‘Bharat Prasanga’ (1887), RK

had come back to Black-hole incident comparing it with the incident at ‘Khuni Darwaza’,

two memorials marking historical sites of the empire. Arguing that the horror of the first

incident was exaggerated and the death of the prisoners was due to some unintentional

lapses; Hodson’s killing of the Mughal princes and treatment of their dead bodies were

cold-blooded treachery and violation of all civil norms; yet, most of the historical

accounts, while deriding Siraj-ud-daullah’s act, did hardly condemn Hodson. As he

13 SI, Vol. I, Part 1, 1 – 2.

12

wrote, “Nobody would like to defend whatever cruelty Siraj had shown. But, the very

persons who eagerly wrote books to defend the inhuman cruelty of Hodson would cite the

case of Black-hole tragedy and would snigger at the inherent cruelty of the Asians. This

is amazing and the current civilised standard was indeed bewildering”14

. It is the scale

that is crucial to RK. He always judged the war-movements, heroism and cruelty on a

scale of contextual power and situation. That was his appeal to ‘Samadarshita’ or desire

to see and judge every historical act on an even scale. Every nation has its own historical

instance of good and bad and that is specifically truthful and useful for that nation.

Historical truth as if has a use-value, provided the scale of historian points toward an

equal direction. In another context, while describing the life of young Guru Govinda, he

has written, “This youth is in penance with self-control. This self-control is meant for the

betterment of the motherland oppressed by another . . . Reader have you read the

achievement of Mazzini? Have you been impressed with the heroic poets of Garibaldi?

. . . Being a public speaker would you wish to enthuse everybody with retelling, the

stories of self-sacrifice of Mazzini? But you will see that similar thing did happen in your

own country. Please read history, you will soon understand.”15

RK has made his own context and contours, and then placed the facts gleaned from the

writings of Kaye and Martin or from any local report. We may look, in details, his

account of the insurrection at Allahabad. Kaye had introduced the town as important

primarily for military reasons. “It would be difficult to exaggerate the military

importance of the situation at the junction of the two rivers, commanding as it does, the

14 Bharat Prasanga, Calcutta, 1887, 21 – 22. cf. SI, Vol. II, Part IV, 276 – 277. 15 Arya-Kirtti, op.cit., 60.

13

great fluvial thoroughfare of Hindustan, and also the high road by land from the upper to

lower provinces”. But, Kaye made us aware that the city “has none of the wealth of

structured beauties which renders Benaras so famous among the cities of the East”. It has

little to command admiration and “called in derision by natives of Hindustan, ‘Fakirabad’

or the city of beggars”16

.

In his own introduction, RK had begun with the term ‘Fakirabad’ because of the lack of

great edifices at Allahabad. But how does it matter? It was just a recent name; its real and

ancient name was Prayag, as sacred as Benaras, honoured even by Akbar. Not only the

historians but also poets like Kalidas sang its praise in ‘Raghuvamsa’. RK has quoted in

full the relevant Sanskrit verse written by Kalidas at the beginning of his discussion. To

him, Allahabad had been a cultural category, which referred to an unbroken tradition

from Puru, Dushmantya to the rule of Akbar, of which every person, Hindu or Muslim,

poet or historian should be proud. Thus, the context of a common heritage of both royal

and sacred place would provide a different context for the insurrection at Allahabad17

.

In such a context, he had underlined the civil rebellions at Allahabad. Kaye and others

had put emphasis on ‘a perilous kind of Mohammedanism”. But, RK called it “Sarbajanin

Samuthan’ i.e. total mass insurrection. Following Kaye faithfully, almost word by word,

he wrote that the insurrection was extremely serious and it failed due to the lack of united

action on the part of the rebels. But, he talk of the failure with a tinge of regret. If this

insurrection had been properly directed and the whole of population would have united

16 John Kaye, History of Indian Mutiny, Vol.II (London: Longmans, 1971) 180 – 181. 17 SI, Vol. I, Part II, 81.

14

with a single purpose and acted accordingly, the English would have failed to reestablish

their authority. Kaye had expressed no such expression. He was sure of English victory.

RK was faintly thinking of a different possibility, of a ‘might have’ been, good or bad in

its ultimate impact.18

Finally, for example, there was also a shift in emphasis on the depiction of popular

mutiny leader. To Kaye, Maulvi Liaqat Ali was a shadowy figure, who had “great

pretensions to sanctity”, who simulated miraculous powers by obvious trickeries and by

these devious means, became the governor of Allahabad. Kaye has here pursued a

general strategy. As he has admitted, “it is to be remarked that, in proportion as the

individuality of the English leaders is distinctly and strongly marked, that of the chiefs of

the insurrectionary movement is faint and undecided.”19

Using similar facts but

presenting in a completely different language RK wrote:

“During the time of insurrection when Maulvi, with a sonorous voice

declared that Mughal rule had been reestablished at Delhi, everybody

listened to him with interest. Due to the stirring speech of the Maulvi, the

Mohammedan populace could not remain quiet”20

.

There was no mention to trickeries or suppressed pretensions of Maulvi in his account. A

capable and a genuine leader, he had the courage to govern historic city, belonging to the

heritage common to all inhabitants. There was hardly any pejorative adjectives,

qualifying the activity of Maulvi. RK described the rule with an apparently neutral tone

18 SI, Ibid, 95. Kaye, 192. 19 Kaye, Vol. I, op.cit. 2. ed.(?) Shyamali Sur, 93-94. 20 SI, Ibid, 100 – 101. Kaye, 196 – 197.

15

using certain common nouns and literally recorded and translated the words like piety

and excessive sanctity, (Niratisay Atmasudhi or Dharmanista) used by Malleson for

Liaqat Ali. It is a rare occasion that RK would rely on Malleson rather than on Kaye as a

historical source. He knew perfectly well what to omit and what to retain to make a

history of his own people, making the character of their leader as distinct as possible.

So, the context conjured up by both acts of commission and omission is decisive and that

allowed RK to put his own ‘Jatiya bhav’ replacing Kaye’s feeling as Englishman, while

outwardly remaining faithful to the structure and sources supplied by Kaye’s ‘The history

of Sepoy War’.

C. Anecdotes in narratives: The playful focus

The term anecdote has no equivalence in Bengali language and has no long genealogy of

its own, like its European counterpart since the days of the Byzantine rule21

; RK is not

fond of any similar terms like Katha, Kahini or Chutki. RK has hardly used the term

‘Kathita Ache’ / ‘it has been told’, a definitive narrative signal to begin an anecdote. But

the mutiny is full of episodes, acts of heroism and villainy. The narrative depends upon a

collage of biographies. No historian on the Mutiny, interested in the situation as an event,

can altogether ignore the allurement of biography, be it a piece on the last Mughal or

Debi Singh the zamindar of Tappa Raya, at Mathura or Jhalkari Bai, the dalit heroine.

Kaye, (the authority whom RK has respected immensely and used extensively), has

himself stated that he was uninterested in citing authority but was always prone to ‘cite

21 For the genealogy and various forms and uses of anecdote in European history, see, Lionel Gossmen, ‘Anecdote and

History’, History and Theory, 42, May, 2004, 143-168.

16

correspondence’, ‘only where there is some dramatic force and propriety in the word

cited, or when they appear calculated , without impending the narrative, to give colour

and vitality to the story’22

. [emphasis added] Words and separate evidence, chosen from

correspondence, had a definitive edge over the anecdotes, because the later were

unverifiable belonging to private sphere or of doubtful veracity23

. Yet anecdote is

important, being akin to a snapshot, not linked to a definitive sequence. It might well act

as a particular illustration, being subordinate to general, or as Kaye would have said, may

be effective ‘without impending the narrative’. There is nothing inherently subversive in

usage of anecdote as Voltaire apprehended it might be; it depends upon how the

particular anecdote in relation to the narrative often acts in a supportive role and

occasionally became subversive in a challenging mood, as if ‘the repressed of history’.

RK has mostly used his anecdotal materials gleaned from his own local investigations to

illustrate the biography of his heroes. He has clustered a number of anecdotes around

Kumar Singh, to underline and explain his social prestige and heroism, his notion of

honour and compassion shown to protect shelter-seeking enemies like the hapless

Bengali Babu employees of English concern in Arrah. He could be a master ruler because

he was very fond of listening to a ‘Katha’ from the cycles of Bhartihari tale.

Vikramaditya had temporarily entrusted the charge of his kingdom to his younger brother

Bhartihari and went on a secret errand. In order to test the sincerity of his brother,

Vikramaditya, in disguise, suddenly came to meet his brother at midnight, to discuss a

secret affair. The wife of Bhartihari refused to leave the room and in order to keep the

22 Preface, Kaye, Volume I, op.cit., 10. 23 Gossmen, op.cit., 159

17

secrecy of discussion, the King killed his wife well before the entry of Vikramaditya to

royal chamber. To Kunwar Singh this ought to be the ideal of a ruling chief. Without

batting an eye, RK has reported, ‘whenever KS used to hear this story’, he exclaimed

‘Bhartihari did the right thing’ (Besh Kaj).

According to RK, his attachment to this story simply illustrates how much KS understood

grave importance of statehood, how much he was prepared to go for the maintenance of

secrecy of kingdom. The anecdote here did not disrupt but rather confirms the tenor of

the character representation intended by the author, ‘in courage and power, in efficiency

and resoluteness, the old Rajput fellow was honoured by all’24

.

This gory and macho anecdote in the life sketch of Kunwar Singh has been published in a

book on heroic lives, male and female, written for general public. The account also ends

with an anecdote, the term ‘Kathito Achhe’ or ‘it has been told’. The anecdote reports

how one hundred and fifty young women of his family committed suicide and thus

acquired the eternal merit of self-sacrifice. In SI, RK had not mentioned any such event.

There he inserted an anecdote of a different order. After the fall of Jagdishpur no woman

committed suicide because everybody had been sent to her own paternal house. Only

with his dearest Muslim concubine, Kunwar Singh withdrew to Sasaram and was taking

rest. Suddenly Kunwar Singh began to cry, his eyes became tearful. In answer to the

question by the astonished Sardars, he said, ‘I cry because you do not know how to fight

and were unable to fight properly. I am realising that I would lose my patrimony due to

my own action . . . if I had a son, he could have cut my head on my own order, and could

24 ‘Kumar Sinha’ in Bir Mahima, Calcutta: Bengal Medical Library, 1896, 104-105.

18

go to the English authority saying, ‘“that my father was a traitor. I have brought his

severed head for you. This would have saved my ancient house and huge property. It is,

however, futile to be repentant now”’.25

This anecdote nowhere occurred in any English account and available local history. Yet

RK reported it, thus underlining weakness and vacillation in the character of his hero, the

inherent doubt and anxiety in the morality of his stand against the government. To this

old Rajput, the concern for watan (patrimony) and family lineage is of primary

importance. Other attachments are just secondary. Kaye has talked of shadowy figure of

the rebel leaders. RK has his anecdotes to enliven the charter of these leaders. Kunwar

Singh, through this anecdote, ceased to be one dimensional man, resolute to the core. He

at moments also suffered from doubt and guilt, an anathema to the very Rajput hero,

whom he depicted in his own account at Vira-Mahima as model character.

In case of his essay on Rani Lakshmi Bai, RK has frequently used the biography written

by D. B. Parasnis, whenever necessary, as a source against the judgement of the English

officials, particularly in assessing Rani’s responsibility for the massacre of the

Englishmen who took shelter at the fort. But RK was, in his own element, to narrate the

death of Rani. Amidst the conflicting and rather confused accounts of her death in a

mêlée during her retreat from Gwalior, RK has put up a coherent account drawing the

points both from official accounts and from popular tales told by Parasnis. He remained

silent on inherent contradiction between the two. Without evincing any doubt or citation,

he had narrated the death of the heroine—as a definitive historical account.

25 S.I., 4th part, 238-239.

19

“Being severely wounded Rani killed her attacker. Again on her order Sardar

Ramchandra Rao Deshmukh, her faithful companion took her into a hut. Gangadhar

Babaji put the water of Ganges into her mouth and quenched her last thirst . . . she cast a

deep look at the face of her dearest Gangadhar Rao (sic) and then lapsed into an eternal

sleep”26

. In this account, even up to the last moment, Rani decided her action, and was

brave and dutiful, pure and affectionate.

Her death scene can not be a subject of confusion or debate. It had to be genuine, heroic

and serene. How does one know about his last look at Damodar Rao? None had reported.

But RK had expected so and it goes well with the character of Rani, making her

endearing to a Bengali reader. He did not hesitate to put his own sentence in an anecdotal

form. Here RK has used anecdote as a fitting conclusion to end a heroic career. Here

anecdote did not play a subversive role but actually heightened the emotive content of her

hour of death. Accuracy does not matter here.

In fact, we may argue that RK, according to the well-known schema of Indian aesthetics,

had adroitly used anecdotes to create Rasa or moods of enjoyment or delight in his

narrative. Three anecdotes cited here would focus on three distinct moods in the

narratives, fearsome and wondrous, (Bhayanaka and Adbhuta), the tragic with its root in

grief (shoka), and the heroic and peace (Vira and Santa). These mixtures of various

moods can be done through the anecdotes that had enabled RK to add ‘colour and

26 S.I., 5th part, 424-425. D.B. Parasnis, Jhansi Ki Rani, Hindi translation, Allahabad: Sahitya Bhavan, 1964. see, S.N.

Sen, Eighteen Fifty Seven, New Delhi, 1957, 294-295. Tapti Roy, Raj of the Rani, Penguin Books, 2006, 206.

20

vitality’ to his own narrative for vernacular reader. That satisfy their expectations.

Moreover, anecdote, if suitably placed, to a great extent, dispels Indian characters’

essential fuzziness of which Kaye was wary. But RK’s SI is not simply a reading,

alternative or supplementary, to Kaye’s historical commentary on mutiny. He moves on

much beyond that.

D. Language and History

“Amar Father yesterday kichhu unwell hoate” as RK reports the way of

conversations among the educated Bengalis, “doctorke call kora gelo, tini

ekti physic dilen. Physic besh operate korchhilo, four, five times motion

holo, Adhya kichhu better bodh korchhen.”27

He was all against such a style; to him this kind of language happened to be greatest

denial of culture that the inhabitants of Bengal suffered under the rule of the English. As

the domination of single language as well as mindless aping of the language of the

conquerors has completely unhinged the intellectual and cultural pursuits, the identity of

the very indigenous community is at stake. Only through the medium vernacular one can

express the interiority of one’s feelings and moreover, can touch the innermost emotive

cord of ones’ dear and near ones. Intellectual exercises without emotive commitment are

ridiculous and barren. ‘Jatiya Bhav’ with all its inward looking orientation and insights

can fully be expressive in vernacular.

27 ‘Amader Jatiya Bhav’, op.cit, 156. Arya-Kirtti, op.cit.

21

In fact, in his essay on ‘Historical Methodology’ RK, along with his discussion of

scientific attitude for determining the proper sequence of cause and effect in analysis and

primacy of researches for facticity, put equal weightage on the power of comprehension

of the readers for whom the texts are meant. It was only through the language the reader

would understand the subject. His objectives are clear. As he wrote, “the historian would

paint and imprint the picture whatever might be his subject of the situation on the mind of

the reader.”

In numerous essays RK would express his fondness of historical presentation as Alekhya

(portraiture) and of historian as Chitra-shilpi. The historian should act as a painter and

print-maker, the technique of his language is his brush. He again, has asserted, “the great

talent of the historian lies in his technique for description (Barnana Kaushal). The

description in history ought to be organised and natural as well as simple and beautiful. If

the historian is adept in language (Lipikaushal) he may properly excel in showing literary

qualities like Uddipana or arousing enthusiasm among the readers.” Uddipana is his

forte, that he would never forget.

He has also outlined his ideals for language. “Actually language I prefer for history

should be simple and sedate. It would never eschew elegance and charm. The language

would never waver, either to right or left, forward or backward. Like a queen sitting on a

throne, the language would always maintain its own gravity and graciousness.”28

28 ‘Itihas Rachanar Pranali’, op.cit. 26.

22

The then reader responded well to the ideal of RK’s historical style. Ramendrasundar

with usual critical acumen has remarked that RK’s historical analysis of the revolt might

have been surpassed in future. But he has convincingly predicted, “In one respect RK

would remain without any rival; that is his language. In his historical pieces he had

introduced ojoswini (forceful) language and nobody is still able to imitate him. His

command over language is one of the causes of mass popularity of his books.”29

[emphasis added]. Ramendrasundar would invite his friends to his house and would recite

the pages of the book and would captivate his listeners. Anonymous reviewer had also

underlined the quality of RK’s language, passionate and picturesque, “making the text

engrossing like a novel.”30

The crucial concept, I would suggest, is the term uddipana or ojoswini, generating an

indigenous category; it means the language has ‘ojo’ quality. In common lexicography,

‘ojo’ means the generation of enthusiasm or fervour; as a reviewer commented, “while

reading his book one’s body and mind became excited.”31

In 1870s-1890s every educated

Bengali bhadralok had to go through Macaulay’s celebrated essay on Lord Clive, with

numerous notes and annotations. For writers like both RK and Akshay Kumar, both of

whom had read the essay with a distaste, ‘ojo’ as a linguistic category has political

connotation. The biographer has repeatedly informed us that RK, being a member of a

traditional Vaidya family and a student in the Sanskrit College has a thorough grounding

in Sanskrit language and literature. Sahitya-Darpan, the 16th

century text for the Sanskrit

29 Introduction by Ramendrasundar, SI, Vol.I, Part I, op.cit., 15. 30 ‘Sipahi Juddher Itihas’, Bharati, Kartik, 1318 B.C., 662-664. Here the reviewer appealed for a cheap edition of the

volumes so that every interested reader may possess his own copy. 31 Ibid., 662.

23

aesthetics was in the list of curriculum at Sanskrit College when RK was a student.

Ramendrasundar as a literary critic could not be unaware of this common and easily

available text. Biswanath Kabiraj, the author of Sahitya-Darpan, has thus described the

quality of ‘ojo gun’ in the literary style, “ojo or the quality to enthuse leads to an expanse

of mind and ignites.” (chittasya vistarupam diptamuchute). It is extremely effective in

generating Vira (heroic), Bibhatsa (gruesome) and Rudra (furious) mood through a

number of devices. In a well known commentary on the text ‘ojo’ was associated with

‘tejo’ (splendour and lustre), growing out of utsāha (energy). Edwin Gerrow has

significantly in his well-known dictionary cited the examples which signify “expression

of extra-ordinary self-assurance and arrogance”. According to the dhani-badi school, it

belonged to sub-ordinated suggestion, (Gunibhuta Vangya)32

. All these qualities (gunas)

were necessary to act as a booster for evoking a Rasa or mood. RK would like to strike a

distinct and useful note here. In a stirring passage he, in his own times, brought out a

contrast between two races, Indian and English, the conqueror and the conquered.

“One race is never saturated, never gets satisfaction from anything and

never ceases to act. And another race is always in a stage of ever

contented and of inertia. Therefore one race is ever active, motivated and

alert at every moment and another race lies in a condition of laziness,

inactivity and is ever oblivious of the surroundings.”33

32 Sahitya-Darpan ed. by Haridas Sidhanta-Bagish, Calcutta, 1949, 8.1, 537-538. Bangiya Sabda Kosh, compiled by

Haricharan Bandyopadhyay, Vol.I, New Delhi, Sahitya Academy, 1978. / Edwin Gerrow’s interesting book ‘A

Glossary of Indian Figures pf Speech’, The Hague, Morton, 1971 would show how a foremost western scholar on

Indian aesthetics cites examples from the western literature as well as from Indian to substantiate his own gloss on the

meaning and significance of the terms. Gerrow, 171-172.

33 ‘Amader Jatiya Bhav’, op.cit. 155-156.

24

He has, again and again, pointed out that the difference was not due to any essential

characteristic but was a resultant of practices and effort developed over a long time

period.

In such a diagnostic mood, RK, the Vaidya or the indigenous doctor, has developed his

own therapeutic treatment (oshudh) for his countrymen. Language was his weapon for

mobilisation and it was through various exercises in language he would have touched the

mind of his faithful reader. As Ramendrasundar has commented,

“His language grows out of his two characteristic virtues, sincerity and

empathy. His passion, commitment and attachment to his subject of study

would naturally express through his language; that very language, pouring

from his innermost heart (marma) hits out at the core of the heart of the

reader.”34

Thus strict adherence to facticity and scientific analysis does not mean a cool attitude,

aloof and distant. RK wanted to write an affective history, emotively appealing to the

reader in vernacular and making them responsive to their present situation. The language

of history determined by the very cultural situation in Bengal, had to be warm and

passionate. The passionate language and the scientific detachment for facts do not seem

morally contradictory to RK because he was speaking to a different audience and writing

for the indigenous reader, steeped in slumber, isolated and forgetful. It was only through

the language that he could make his desired community of readers attentive and

34 Ramendrasundar, op.cit.

25

responsive, both to his past and to present. ‘Ojo’ tends to be ever expansive and

resplendent as Biswanath Kaviraj has himself noted long ago. It would give the author

power to establish links with readers, to expand his range of communications with his

own people.

But in another sense, he goes beyond the aesthetics and linguistics. To write history is a

power-game. He writes as an intervention in public sphere. In his essay on Uddipana,

probably the earliest piece published on the subject, Akshay Chandra Sarkar (1846-

1917), well known to RK since his Vanga Darshan days, has clearly distinguished the

urge of enthusiasm from just an appreciation of Rāsā, for the creation of a literary effect.

Kavya-rasa is meant for emotive appreciation for the satisfaction of inward self, one’s

own self. (Kavita Rasatmatika Atma-gata Katha). But Uddipana is meant for an outward

collectivity (Samaj). Its appeal is necessarily directed towards others (Uddipana

Rasatmatika Annodishta Katha). He has clearly stated that the arousal or Uddipana as an

independent category is of recent origin due to changing social environment for action35

.

More than forty years ago, Raymond Williams, in his small pamphlet on Orwell, have

made a simple and important point. To be a writer is not a self-evident act. The act grows

out of an idea. The writer has to choose his language. The choice has to be personal as

well as social. Is language as an agent or a source of experience or both? No rigid

distinction is possible. As Raymond Williams has put it succinctly, “it is always the

relation between experience and expression, in an individual writer and in the language

35

Akshay Chandra Sarkar, Uddipana (enthusiasm), Vangadarshan, Baishakh 1279 B.S. in Akshay Sahitya-

Sambhar ed. by Kalidas Nag, Calcutta: Indian Associated Press, 1975, Vol. I , 85-98. It is necessary to note

that there is an investment in the numerous networks of register on uddipana or ojo, a register in which the

name of Bankim and Rameshchandra, Rangalal and Madhusudan would be prominent. I thank Biswajit

Roy for drawing my attention to this article.

26

and forms which he shares with his society, that is really decisive.” 36

[emphasis in

original] There is, hardly, any discussion on the specific literary devices that RK as a

writer in a colonial situation had taken up to work out for ‘ojo’ quality in essay to

numerous effects.37

To maintain a cadence in language according to the mood of a

situation and to give a twist in interpretation through this cadence is a method that he had

often taken recourse to; his use of tatsama (akin to Sanskrit) but, not obscure, words

added an element of sonority when occasion demands. He has often interjected and

interposed through a number of intelligent sentence formations, without deliberately

interrupting the narrative flow of the account itself. Two examples may be cited.

RK had described the Sikh war as the prelude to the Sepoy Mutiny. In the first few pages

of his very first chapter he, following Cunningham and Kaye, has factually described the

imprisonment and banishment of Queen Jhindan chronologically. Kaye had specifically

noted that the resident had completed his task smoothly and there was no murmur. RK

had literally translated the sentence. The he suddenly interjected a para as his own gloss.

“Thus the fact of banishment of Jhindan, the queen of Ranjit Singh had come to an end.

Like an ocean, serene and quite, Punjab had witnessed silently this despicable banishment

of her queen, no one did shed a single tear . . . as if Punjab was immersed in an inertia

like a great Jogi lying in a meditative slumber (Joga-nidra). But this inertia is not actual,

this inactivity is not real. It is a lull before the outburst of great anger and hostility”38

.

36 Raymond Williams, Orwell, London: Fontana, 29-30. 37 Bhabatosh Dutta, to my knowledge is the only writer who has written a small piece on RK’s language, Kiranshankar

Roy, op.cit., 50-54. 38 SI, Vol.I., Part I, 16.

27

This vivid language, using the specific metaphors of Jogi, and Jogo-nidra, meant for

acquiring immense power for a practitioner, had performed the task of a causal sequence

as well as emotive stance, wiping out the cool judgement of Kaye on the act of Lawrence.

It also made a shift in focus, from the pure act of administration to the emotive state of

mind existing among the people of Punjab. Affective language may well be performative

in the historical narrative constructed by RK in tandem with that of Kaye.

He, following the English historians, has written, on the depth and massive spread of

rebellion, a long chapter on the rebellion in the North-West province. He began with a

tone suitable to spell out the gravity of the situation.

“Throughout the area of Doab Ingrezs’ control had just evaporated. Those

who were at the feet of Ingrez, who tried utmost to satisfy the Ingrez-men,

and, were ever ready to protect the body of the Ingrez were now the very

same people, who were up at arms against the Ingrez and expressed their

desire to shed the blood of the Ingrez. The revolution / turning of the time

(Biplab) at Rohilkhand and Ganga-Jamuna Doab is known in history not

only for bloody massacre and the unthinkable strength (Achintanio Shakti)

of the people. Its massive spread has also aroused a deep wonder in the

mind of the historian.”

In this sentence the repeated use of the term Ingrez / Englishmen, instead of any suitable

pronoun and insertion of the word Biplab would infuse the quality of ‘ojo’ to booster the

28

‘rasa’ (mood) of ‘bira’ (heroic) ‘bhava’ of ‘utsaha’ (enthusiasm) and feeling of

‘bishmaya’ (wonder). The word ‘Ingrez’ has been uttered as if like a chant in an

incantation to have a magic spell on the descriptive acts of rebellions.

But, in the next para, through a different mode, RK had paraphrased a passage from Syed

Ahmad Khan’s celebrated pamphlet Causes of Indian Revolt. To him it is a counter-

source against the government commentary. He used it as a causal explanation for the

revolt. He expressed its content in short sentences and talked about the Ashrafs

(aristocrats).

“They have not planned to break the prisons, or to loot the treasury or

destroy the property of the Europeans. They have thought that the Inglish

had reduced them to the status of ordinary man. Under the rule of Inglish

Indians are humiliated.”39

In fact, Lalmohan Vidyanidhi, (1845-1936) another celebrated text-book writer and one

of the well-known historians on the caste system of Bengal, happened to be a senior

contemporary of RK and known to each other through the ‘Education Gazette’ and

‘Vangadarshan’, famous literary magazine edited by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.

Lalmohan’s Kavya Nirnay (1st ed. 1862) was a text on stylistics in Bengali language.

Bangla alankar Grantha is its subtitle. He has actually worked out how the Sanskrit

figures of speech can be suitably applied to Bengali language with necessary

modifications and alterations. It has run into numerous editions and became an approved

39 SI, Vol.IV, 102-103.

29

text-book for the high-schools at the turn of the century. It is interesting to note that

Lalmohan has written repeatedly that ‘ojo-guna’ is used much more frequently in Bengali

prose than in poetry. He has discussed a few techniques in Bengali prose for creating the

affect of ‘ojo’. It is true that, neither Lalmohan nor RK have mentioned each other in this

context. But as associates of Bhudev and Rajendralal as well as successful text-book

writers they can not be unaware of each other’s well-known texts.

Following Lalmohan, one would have argued that RK has followed a variation of ‘ojo’

called Samadhi dexterously used in prose. High tone and depth would contrast and act

upon low voice and short pauses (saithilya). It is an exercise in tonality, not an

interruption in the sequence of narrative. It works on the flesh of language, but does not

disrupt the inner joints and links between events within the narrative. It is a riti or marga

(way) for word placement in a particular fashion within a sentence. As Vamana the great

theoretician of Indian aesthetics during 8th

century, would have defined it as

visistapadarachana (making an deployment of particular sentence words). Gunas like

‘ojos’ lie in such a formation, it is the meaningful linguistic arithmetic, (sabda-

sanghatana) that is crucial for authorial intervention.40

Vamana like Raymond Williams, would warn us that Riti is not mere a sum of linguistic

devices, only functional in analysis; by the very performative functions it also generates

the essence or interior self (Atman) of Kavya (literature). Content and style are as if inter-

40 Lalmohan Vidyanidhi, Kavya-Nirnay: Bangla Alankar Grantha, 9th edition, 1342 B.S., 72-75. for a general

discussion on the Riti or Marga (ways) i.e. linguistic devices in Sanskrit aesthetics, see V.S. Raghavan, ‘Riti’ in Studies

on some concepts of the Alankar Sastra, Madras: Adyar Literary, 1973, 162-163. on the issues whether the term Riti

can be translated into as a style, see the acrimonious debate between S.K.De and V.S. Raghavan, see S.K. De, History

of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. II, Calcutta: Firma K. L. 1988, 90-95.

30

dependable; one continuously modulates other. RK may well be responsive to this

warning. What Vamana would have missed the social context of Riti, which would have

emphasised by Raymond Williams in deciding the writers’ preference for a particular

relation between expression and experience. A difference in the tonality of the

representation of cause and of effect, through a deployment of distinct sentence structure

may have created separate and gaping frames within which one can place facts, used by

all, according to one’s own choice and can play on perspective of insurgency, reducing or

increasing its scale. Language is, as if, self-expressive (sva-prakash). So the historian can

make the reader to go through the terrain of the same factual narrative towards a different

direction. RK was a past master in this strategy. It cannot be otherwise. Being a colonial

subject and a devotee of the Queen Victoria in the later half of 19th

century Bengal, he

could claim for his own heritage of language only through which he can savour his own

history and make others to share his delight. Through this device he had a hope of

transcending the limit imposed by the scientific division between the primary and

secondary source and dominance of a language verbal, written, and above all cultural,

imposed by the colonial master.

E. Rajbhakti / Deshbhakti: How to write a patriotic history in Colonial India?

In a seminal essay, Ranajit Guha has shown how obedience and loyalty have throughout

operated on a distinct indigenous register of idioms of Bhakti (devotion) in Bengal,

nurtured by Vaisnava theology and aesthetics as well as its revitalisation and

redeployment in late 19th

century social sphere for the improvement (unnati) of the

community and nation. The utilitarian notion of improvement always intersects the

31

Vaisnavite idiom of Bhakti (devotion) and leads occasionally unintended and unexpected

combinations and even results in a sudden combustion.41

RK has in SI written a section on Rajbhakti or devotion to the ruler. Bhakti ensures

obedience and surrender with emotion; Danda or punishment was not necessary. In fact,

one of his central concerns throughout his history is to show how Rajbhakti had broken

down, revolt had arisen and how, again, bhakti played an important role in saving the

English rule and in establishing Queen Victoria’s own administration. He has written,

“This revolt in many ways testified the immense Rajbhakti of Indian subjects.

Throughout the book I have provided numerous instances of loyalty to the Raj

(Rajnishta)”.42

He has underlined the fact, that only with the help of the Sikhs, the

Gurkhas and the Hindustani, the English generals ultimately won. Without the loyalty of

a large number of the Indian regiments and of the people living over a large area, it was

impossible for the English to recover the areas and great cities of Lucknow and Delhi

from the control of rebels. He happens to be more emphatic about the attitude of his own

community.

“A Bengalee is never devoid of Rajbhakti . . . Educated Bengalee has expressed immense

satisfaction at the victory of the British in present war. When Delhi has been recaptured,

the inhabitants of Bengal assembled at an open meeting to celebrate it . . . Actually

Bengalees have never tried to pollute their Rajbhakti.”43

RK with his faith in

41 Ranajit Guha, Dominance without hegemony, History and Power in Colonial India, Delhi: OUP, 1988, 39-55. 42 SI, Vol. V, 447 43 SI, Vol. IV, 301

32

documentary evidence, has appended memorials and newspaper reports to prove his point

at the end of his book.

In fact, as an historian of modern India, RK has developed his own thesis on Rajbhakti.

He has argued that the company as a trading concern was a thoroughbred opportunist and

just surreptitiously captured power of Bengal without any actual effort on their part. Then

it was through the courage of indigenous soldiers, through their loyalty and bravery, the

company had extended its power. As he wrote, “No Indian would wish to overthrow the

English rule. Indians would like to live with safety and without any hustle under the

British Raj. They do never wish to go out of this happy rule”. But RK has said that Bhakti

or devotion with service has its expectations. That the king would cognise the Bhakti and

would be responsive to the emotion. It may be trifle but had to be visible and tangible. It

may be a simple job or a provision for a share in the administration or just a concern for

subjects’ social identity sanctioned by custom and heritage. It would protect the ‘rightful

possession’ (Nyaya-Anugata Svatva-Raksha) of the subjects. Lack of equal treatment

(sama-darshita) has made a dent in the Rajbhakti of the British. He wrote eloquently,

“Even to the place where the European soldiers hesitate to go forward a

sipahi can without any hesitation and hindrance reach there and unfurl the

flag of his regiment. During the time of war he even parted with an

amount of his hard-won salary to help the English.”44

He has cited the historical instance of Amarsinha, who by sacrificing his own life saved

the English army against Holkar’s forces, a feat worthy for the Greek historian, Xenofen).

44 Bharat-Mahima, op.cit., 180.

33

Nobody, not even a single English master, has ever cared to record or recognise this

utmost devotion (Rajbhaktir Ekshesh) to the English rule45

. So it is Rajbhakti that

sustains the English rule and is also going to sustain the rule of Queen Victoria in the

years to come. Indians, he has argued, are Rajbhakta by nature. They do not like to rebel.

The Mutiny has become the only way left to demand a cognition from the master. RK has

thus, invoked, the heritage of service (seva) and bhakti through historical persona of the

governed,

“If the power of justice prevails, honesty rules, if governance based on the

principles of neutrality has not been disturbed, torn and subverted, then in

the very country of Raj Singha and Joy Singha, Abul Fazl and Todarmal, a

country, subordinate, oppressed by other and immensely devastated

(Paradhin, Para pirato ebam ghor Durdasagrasta) . . . the everlasting

achievement of Britannia would be written in golden words in the history

of India”.46

To RK the permanent glory for Victorian rule based on Rajbhakti is thus conditional. His

immediate reference is to the preceding Mughal rule. The transaction between the deity /

the Queen / King and the devotee or the subject is not equal. But it is not oneway traffic

either. One has the immense right derived from power to rule; but another has just an

expectation derived from the duty to serve; the lack of consonance between the two may

create a political turmoil like Mutiny.

45 ‘Rajbhaktir Ekshesh’, Arya-Kirtti; op.cit. 157-161. 46 Ibid, 198-199

34

And, here, RK’s notion of desh bhakti becomes operative.47

Desh Bhakti has been often

interchangeable with Swadesh-Anurag and Swajati-Priti. In his cultural parlance, Bhakti

has its specific expressive power in Rag or Priti. Rupa Goswami in ‘The Bhakti-Rasamrta

Sindhu’, a celebrated medieval text, has a lengthy discussion on the different types and

different modes of exchangeability between all these emotions and attachments through

various practices.48

Haridas Das, in his great lexicography, has derived the meaning of

Rag from the root Rang (colour); the emotion is colourful and pleasing. It leads to priti;

emotional involvement. One is able to perceive the beauty of the quality because it is

real. One therefore, easily reciprocates. (‘Guna Madhuri Jathartha Gyan-Hetu Priti’)49

.

Rupa has described one of these practices of perception as Sambandhanuga, in which the

Bhakta or devotee seeks to realise the feelings of relationship through familial

connections, modelled on the affection of Nanda or Jashoda or one of his dear relative.50

RK has clearly, in his mind, Sambandha-priti or Raga as a hall-mark of his Desh-bhakti.

“One’s own language is ever life-sustaining (Jivan-toshini) . . . Mother and

mother-tongue are objects of equal affection (adar), respect and devotion.

Mother sustains us and national language leads us to the path of true

human development. Disrespect to mother and to our own language

belongs to similar (offensive) acts. If both are disrespected, there is no

way to improvement in national glory. For this, it is our duty to discuss

Bengali language i.e. our mother, the Sanskrit language i.e. our father.”

47 Amader Jatiya Bhav, op.cit. 158 48 S. K. De, Early History of Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, Calcutta; 1961, 170-185. 49 ‘Raga’, Sri Sri Gauriya-Vaisnav Abhidan, ed. By Haridas Das, Vol.I, Navadip, Haribol Kutir, 501 Chaitanavda, 649. 50 S.K. De, op.cit., 179.

35

RK has repeatedly stressed that it is through this kind of Bhakti, and emotive filial mood

demanded by the parents, one may develop a belonging, a belonging valid for community

and country.

In this the shift takes place. Rupa Goswami has deployed aesthetic categories in Gaudiya

Vaishnavism to build an elaborate system of a theology of emotions. As a colonial

subject RK has used it as explanatory categories for historical action in modern India. As

a consequence he has displaced the nuance in the term. Rajbhakti becomes, albeitly,

unequally, conditional. Bhakta has an expectation. He may demand a nod of cognition

from his colonial master. In the context of ever possible danger to the loss of his identity,

devotion to the country through a deep attachment to vernacular is of primary

importance. Again, a second displacement takes place here. In the medieval concept of

Bhakti; there is a notion of hierarchy among the various emotions. An emotion belong to

a higher category includes the feeling of a lower category and then goes further. They are

not mutually exclusive.51

In a colonial situation, RK knows that these may not be true;

Rajbhakti and Desh-bhakti may well be at conflict. He does not know the resolution

politically. He would just spare a single sentence for his disapproval of Kumar Singh and

Rani’s disloyalty to the government. He would write volumes for their heroic deeds

grown out of this act of disloyalty.

51

For a beautiful exposition, Dineshchandra Sen, Subal Shekhar Kundu, Calcutta: Jigyasa, 1966 [1922],

7-12.

36

He has tried to solve this contradiction through a subjectivity growing out of historical

comparisons. In one of the last few pages of his book, he has commented on Tantia

Tope’s hanging. In this passage Tantia Tope has been compared with Hofer, Austrian

hero of popular resistance (1810) against Napolean. He has written,

“Both fought against a nation to which none of them belonged. Their own

nation had been conquered by another nation. None of them has been

associated with the revolution (Biplab) organised by their own nation due

to any motive of direct material gain. Both of them represents their own

nation . . . one as an European has been regarded as a great hero all over

world. Another man, belonging to the land of Maharashtra, is of similar

stature. Does anyone really know that his name has been still remembered

with same honour and affection (anurag) in the areas surrounding the

region around Chambal, the Narmada and Parbati river?”52

The Mutiny is a temporary break down in the structure of Raj-Bhakti among the subjects;

at that moment of break-down, courage and action, nurtured by historical heritage, did

flare up; passion for community and culture long dormant due to inertia generated by

foreign domination flickered. This is, so to speak, the best and the worst of time, for the

performance of any kind of Bhakti, either for Raja or for Desh. RK has assessed and

balanced the practices and performances of two kind of Bhakti on an even grand scale of

world history.

“This great revolution (maha-biplab) is an ever memorable and principal

event in world history. In this event we have seen the highest expression

52 SI, Vol V, 447.

37

of great human qualities; we have at the same time witnessed the

gruesome and mean attitudes and animal instincts of revenge and

vengeance. The Englishmen had shown their exemplary courage and

strength during the event . . . on the other side many real brave men

appeared among their opponents and the heroic woman, showing unusual

courage, has acquired everlasting fame.”

He has ended the book with a modest confession. The event of 1857 is, after all, a great

and terrible performance (abhinay).

“The diversities within this great performance are extremely suitable for

showing the skills of historians’ descriptive power (Barnana Chaturi

Pradarshan). It has also generated intense interest among the readers. I feel

fascinated and attracted to the event due to its immense heterogeneities,

many hidden advices and unbelievable hypnotic power . . . despite

numerous obstacles, I, a poor fellow, have completed my project through

twenty years effort. I am aware of my limitations. Whatever I have done

with my limited ability has humbly been offered to the sympathetic

(sahridaya) reader after full twenty years.”53

This has a resonance of the voice of Krishnadas Kabiraj, author of the Chaitanya

Charitamrita, the great and most popular medieval literary text on Bhakti. It is ultimately

the Bhakta-Mandali, the community of fellow Bhaktas, indigenous listeners and readers,

53 SI, ibid, 448.

38

lovers of vernacular language that would decide and chose right and suitable Bhaktis at a

suitable historical moment. He cared less for the outsiders.