The battle of Cawnpore - the entire British garrison died at Cawnpore (now Kanpur), either in the battle or later massacred with women and children. Their deaths became a war cry for the British. Photograph: Hulton Archive/Getty
A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them. In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.
Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.
The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.
"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian. His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.
The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."
There is a macabre undercurrent in much of the correspondence. In one incident Misra recounts how 2m letters lay unopened in government warehouses, which, according to civil servants, showed "the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindoos and Mohammadens, who killed our women and children."
Misra's casualty claims have been challenged in India and Britain. "It is very difficult to assess the extent of the reprisals simply because we cannot say for sure if some of these populations did not just leave a conflict zone rather than being killed," said Shabi Ahmad, head of the 1857 project at the Indian Council of Historical Research. "It could have been migration rather than murder that depopulated areas."
Many view exaggeration rather than deceit in Misra's calculations. A British historian, Saul David, author of The Indian Mutiny, said it was valid to count the death toll but reckoned that it ran into "hundreds of thousands".
"It looks like an overestimate. There were definitely famines that cost millions of lives, which were exacerbated by British ruthlessness. You don't need these figures or talk of holocausts to hammer imperialism. It has a pretty bad track record."
Others say Misra has done well to unearth anything in that period, when the British assiduously snuffed out Indian versions of history. "There appears a prolonged silence between 1860 and the end of the century where no native voices are heard. It is only now that these stories are being found and there is another side to the story," said Amar Farooqui, history professor at Delhi University. "In many ways books like Misra's and those of [William] Dalrymple show there is lots of material around. But you have to look for it."
What is not in doubt is that in 1857 Britain ruled much of the subcontinent in the name of the Bahadur Shah Zafar, the powerless poet-king improbably descended from Genghis Khan.
Neither is there much dispute over how events began: on May 10 Indian soldiers, both Muslim and Hindu, who were stationed in the central Indian town of Meerut revolted and killed their British officers before marching south to Delhi. The rebels proclaimed Zafar, then 82, emperor of Hindustan and hoisted a saffron flag above the Red Fort.
What follows in Misra's view was nothing short of the first war of Indian independence, a story of a people rising to throw off the imperial yoke. Critics say the intentions and motives were more muddled: a few sepoys misled into thinking the officers were threatening their religious traditions. In the end British rule prevailed for another 90 years.
Misra's analysis breaks new ground by claiming the fighting stretched across India rather than accepting it was localised around northern India. Misra says there were outbreaks of anti-British violence in southern Tamil Nadu, near the Himalayas, and bordering Burma. "It was a pan-Indian thing. No doubt." Misra also claims that the uprisings did not die out until years after the original mutiny had fizzled away, countering the widely held view that the recapture of Delhi was the last important battle.
For many the fact that Indian historians debate 1857 from all angles is in itself a sign of a historical maturity. "You have to see this in the context of a new, more confident India," said Jon E Wilson, lecturer in south Asian history at King's College London. "India has a new relationship with 1857. In the 40s and 50s the rebellions were seen as an embarrassment. All that fighting, when Nehru and Gandhi preached nonviolence. But today 1857 is becoming part of the Indian national story. That is a big change."
What they said
Charles Dickens: "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
Karl Marx: "The question is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton."
L'Estaffette, French newspaper: "Intervene in favour of the Indians, launch all our squadrons on the seas, join our efforts with those of Russia against British India ...such is the only policy truly worthy of the glorious traditions of France."
The Guardian: "We sincerely hope that the terrible lesson thus taught will never be forgotten ... We may rely on native bayonets, but they must be officered by Europeans."
yea sure they did and the pink flying elephants exist also.
Muslims conquered most of the world, toppled 3 superpower empirers and ruled the world for centuries. If they were anything like the white ethenocentric christion zealous, most of the world they ruled would've been Muslim or dead. The very fact india is hindu majority religion contradicts your silly allegations. Now how about you stick to the topic of british and their good little deeds rather then derailing the topic as you neocons always do.
You just contradicted your own argument. Weren't the Brits white ethenocentric christion zealous at the time they occupied India? Aren't the majority still Hindu?
Akbar created his own religion right? Din-i-Elahi...
Yes, more of a cult status for himself. But his persection of non-muslims was halted by his meeting with Dhan Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and aknowledged him to be a Fakir of God.
BTW - What a match yesterday! Turkey cameback from 0 - 3!
Ėk Gusā Alhu Mėrā
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahraaj Ji!
Kal Meh Bėḏ Atharbaṇ Hū Nā Kẖuḏā Alhu Bẖa.
In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Atharva Veda became prominent; Allah became the Name of God.
Yes, more of a cult status for himself. But his persection of non-muslims was halted by his meeting with Dhan Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and aknowledged him to be a Fakir of God.
BTW - What a match yesterday! Turkey cameback from 0 - 3!
What's a "Fakir of God". In Arabic "Faqir" means "poor man"
You just contradicted your own argument. Weren't the Brits white ethenocentric christion zealous at the time they occupied India? Aren't the majority still Hindu?
British war criminals were there to commit holocaust and steal the natural resources, not to "save" the "colored heathens". 10 million murdered aren't enough for you?
Charles Dickens: "I wish I were commander-in-chief in India ... I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race."
British war criminals were there to commit holocaust and steal the natural resources, not to "save" the "colored heathens". 10 million murdered aren't enough for you?
I take it you haven't yet stopped playing ostrich in order to research some earlier Indian history, then?
Look, I know this probably won't sink in but the point is we have no more idea of how many were killed by the British than we have how many were were killed by muslims centuries earlier. Both articles are not lists of 'facts' but theories based on limited evidence gathered by their authors. Accepting one as 'true' and totally rejecting the other with a puerile argument is ludicrous. Neither seem to represent mainstream positions regarding the number of deaths although, in both cases, it is clear a great many innocents may have been killed. We all have to face up to the past... I'm afraid muslims are not immune.
BTW, Charles Dickens was a novelist, not a politician or soldier. I don't think he ever got any nearer to India than Switzerland.
I take it you haven't yet stopped playing ostrich in order to research some earlier Indian history, then?
Look, I know this probably won't sink in but the point is we have no more idea of how many were killed by the British than we have how many were were killed by muslims centuries earlier. Both articles are not lists of 'facts' but theories based on limited evidence gathered by their authors. Accepting one as 'true' and totally rejecting the other with a puerile argument is ludicrous. Neither seem to represent mainstream positions regarding the number of deaths although, in both cases, it is clear a great many innocents may have been killed. We all have to face up to the past... I'm afraid muslims are not immune.
BTW, Charles Dickens was a novelist, not a politician or soldier. I don't think he ever got any nearer to India than Switzerland.
We have plenty of evidence. It's just buried by the colonial war criminals. These two articles i posted in here are an attempt at researching these and what we discover is that british committed holocaust of 10 million people there and covered it up under the guise of shortage of food or what not. You can play the denial card for only so long till it sinks in....
Charles dickens remarks shows the mentality of these people. If a novelist can say that, then what about the military people?
apparently 10 million dead doesn't mean much to you and rather then deal with this fact, you (like few other trolls here) like change topics or try to turn the tables.
Muslims conquered most of the world, toppled 3 superpower empirers and ruled the world for centuries.
Romans, Persians, which was the third?
If they were anything like the white ethenocentric christion zealous, most of the world they ruled would've been Muslim or dead.
Interestingly, the second Islamic Caliphate/dynasty, the Umayyads, were racist and ethnocentric, but in a different way to Western colonialism. The Umayyads believed that Islam was for Arabs only, and actually made converting to Islam very difficult. They certainly wouldn't want to force anybody to convert to Islam, as they believed that a non-Arab that became Muslim willfully was insincere, let alone somebody who was compelled!
At the end of the Umayad's reign, only about 40% of people in the Caliphate were Muslims, whilst at the end of the Abbasids (the next dynasty) the number was near 100%. The Abbasids were the dynasty during which the Islamic golden age took place.
Now how about you stick to the topic of british and their good little deeds
Some British people do have a habit of sweeping Colonialism under the carpet with remarks such as 'the British were better than the French, at least!' and 'we brought them roads and modern infrastructure'. I don't really see why Americans would have this attitude though, opposing colonialism is part of American patriotism as America used to be a British colony.
Just to clarify, The Roman Empire was long gone by the time the Turks took Constantinople, and the Byzantines were hardly a superpower either.
In Islamic sources the Byzantines are usually referred to as 'Romans'. In fact, the name 'Byzantine' is just an invention by modern historians, not what the Bzyantines actually called themselves.
The main damage Muslims did to Byzantium was to conquer the middle east and north Africa from them. The rest just screwed itself up eventually due Arab raids, the Crusaders and various Turks. The Ottomans just delivered the finishing blow.
In a way the Ottomans replaced the Byzantines, at the height of the Ottoman Empire it controlled all the territory of the eastern Roman Empire and more.
Some British people do have a habit of sweeping Colonialism under the carpet with remarks such as 'the British were better than the French, at least!' and 'we brought them roads and modern infrastructure'. I don't really see why Americans would have this attitude though, opposing colonialism is part of American patriotism as America used to be a British colony.
At the risk of taking this further off-topic I would point out that "the Americans" were in fact the colonizers themselves, not the native inhabitants. The weren't remotely concerned with "opposing colonialism", only in no longer being a colony (or colonies, to be precise) themselves. What did happen to the native inhabitants was every bit as bad as any British colonial excesses. Again, though, this all happened a long time ago.
As to the quoted remarks very few Brits these days do "sweep colonialism under the carpet". What I, and indeed most of us, will not do is go on some sort of massive guilt trip because of something done before our great-grandparents were born. Particularly when we all have skeletons in the ancestral cupboard - even those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and cry "off topic!" rather than admit them.
At the risk of taking this further off-topic I would point out that "the Americans" were in fact the colonizers themselves, not the native inhabitants. The weren't remotely concerned with "opposing colonialism", only in no longer being a colony (or colonies, to be precise) themselves. What did happen to the native inhabitants was every bit as bad as any British colonial excesses. Again, though, this all happened a long time ago.
It's still part of their patriotism though, the idea of being free and 'keeping the king of England out of your face'. Whether they actually violated their principles is a different matter.
As to the quoted remarks very few Brits these days do "sweep colonialism under the carpet". What I, and indeed most of us, will not do is go on some sort of massive guilt trip because of something done before our great-grandparents were born. Particularly when we all have skeletons in the ancestral cupboard - even those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and cry "off topic!" rather than admit them.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts.
Sign Up
Bookmarks