When over-the-top, State-sponsored celebrations of the revolt of 1857 have begun in right earnest, Rudhrangshu Mukherjee, the historian and editor, has struck a dissenting note in today’s Telegraph, saying the event should only be remembered, not commemorated.
“Today, as the celebrations begin to mark the 150th anniversary of the rebellion, some questions need to be asked: is 1857 an occasion to celebrate? Can the Indian state uphold the violence that is inextricably linked to that year? Can the Indian state say that it is loyal to the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, and in the same breath celebrate 1857 when so many innocent people, on both sides, were brutally killed?
“The questions are important because in India, there is no mode of remembering without celebrating. We commemorate to remember, sometimes even to forget. Eighteen fifty-seven is an event to remember, as all events of the past are; it is an event to comprehend and analyse because, as Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, it showed “man at his worst’’. That comprehension and analysis is best done outside the aegis of the State.”
Read the full article here: Kill the white man
This blog puts into words what i have been feeling this past week… which is about when the torrent of articles began to flood the media.
The theme of celebration seems to be in common, in both print and electronic media.
What I found surprising was the common point of view…. Not a single article departed from its presentation of the Mutiny as a momentous victory and a lesson to the British.
Though the articles were ‘factually’ correct….. they were anything but solemn. Rejoicing at an “Indian victory” might *seem to be the right thing to do… but the festive manner in which it is being done is in bad taste.
It then goes from being a celebration, of the resolve of soldiers to free themselves from the yoke of their colonial master, to a glorification, of the bloodletting and violence that was the Revolt.
For a start there is nothing much to celebrate.
I think the Revolt of 1857 was the closest we have to an ‘Indian’Civil War. It was hardly the natives v. British as is made out by many ‘nationalistic’historians. It was more of some of the natives+disgruntled princes v British+ the rest of the natives+not-so-disgruntled princes. UNlike the American Civil War, what divided most INdians was who they’d rather be ruled by. The success of the British, although it’ll take us another 150 years to accept, shows the ‘current of popular opinion’.
If that wasn’t bad enough, consider the rallying calls of those who fought the British. They sound suspiciously similar to either the Jihadic calls of the mullahs of today, or the ‘Hindutva’ of the VHP. The only difference was that the outsider was seen as the more immediate enemy. It was only a matter of time, with a lot of British help, that these rallying calls were soon directed against the members of the other religion. The protection of religion that served as the unifying factor in 1857 led, almost irrevocably to 1947, and to Babri Masjib, 1991.
Remember, never forget, but don’t ‘celebrate’.
I totally disagree with the views of Rudhrangshu Mukherjee. Macaulay still lives? The 1857 revolt or the first stugle for Independence is an occasion. We are not celebrating how it happened and what really happened………..we celebrating it because the feeling behind it. Fist time across the country starting with ‘Sipoy’s to the general public stood against british rule and british astocities across the country.
I feel pity on those who oppose it like the gentleman Mr.Mukherjee, who don’t want to celebrate it because it was against Mr. Gandhi’s principles.
Pingback: To celebrate or to remember? « Entertaining Research