Issue 40 Vol II, May 31, 2007

L I T E R A T U R E

The 1857 Revolt in India:
War Reporting by Karl Marx
Dr. Jaspal Singh

Karl Marx and Fredrick Angels extensively covered the 1857 Revolt of the British Indian Army for the “New York Daily Tribune”. Sitting in London, the two great philosophers and writers presented before the world the extent and range of the revolt which they christened a “national uprising” against colonial occupation of an ancient country. Their articles are finest examples of war reporting and mind they were neither embedded with the invading forces like in present day Iraq, nor were holed up in the hotels to report war going on miles away. They had the insight and right contacts to get information. Much more than those true concerns.

The revolt in north India broke out between the months of May and August. Incidentally these are the months when India is afflicted by sheering heat of May and June followed by torrential rains in July and August. Most of the tropical diseases like typhoid, cholera and malaria are active during these months. The European are not used to this kind of weather conditions. When the British forces laid siege of Delhi towards the end of May, Marx says, “4000 European troops have already fallen victims of the deathly heat and even the English papers confess that in the engagements before Delhi the man suffered more from the sun than from the shot of the enemy. In consequence of its scanty means of conveyance, the main British force stationed at Ambala consumed  twenty-seven days in its march upon Delhi, so  it moved at the rate of about one and a half hours per day.” Such weather conditions gave boost to the morale of the rebels who in any case being the natives of India were insured to such gruesome conditions.

Marx says, “The English, with their small forces, can, of course, not think of investing the town, but must storm it. However, if the next regular mail brings not the news of the capture of Delhi, we may almost be sure that, for some months, all serious operations on the part of the British will have to be suspended. The rainy season will have set in real earnest, and protect the north-eastern face of the city by filling the ditch with ‘the deep and rapid current of the Jamna’… combined with an average fall of nine inches of rain, would scourge the Europeans with the genuine Asiatic cholera… Everything, then as far as Delhi is concerned, depends on the question whether or not Gen. Barnard found himself sufficiently provided with men and ammunition to undertake the assault of Delhi during the last week of June. On the other hand, a retreat on his part would immensely strengthen the moral force of the insurrection, and perhaps decide the Bombay and Madras armies upon openly joining it.”

Marx tries to understand the war tactics of the British commander-in-chief who is supposed to conquer Delhi for the English. He says, “…Gen Barnard seems imbued with European notions of fortified towns and sieges and bombardments, rather than prone to these bold eccentricities by which Sir Charles Napier knew how to thunder strike Asiatic minds. His forces are, indeed said to have been increased to about 12000 men, 7000 European and 5000 “faithful natives”; but on the other hand, it is not denied that the rebels were daily receiving new reinforcements, so that we may fairly assume that the numerical disproportion between besiegers and besieged has remained the same.” In the battle for Delhi many skirmishes took place before the final assault. Marx writes that “on 8th of July, party was sent from British camp to destroy a canal bridge at the village of Bussy, some of six miles from Delhi, which is the former sallies had afforded the insurgents facilities for attacking the extreme British rear and interfering with the British communications with Karnal and Meerut. The bridge was destroyed on the 9th of July; the insurgents came out again in force and attacked the right rear of the British position.”

The siege of Delhi becomes a very nasty and arduous affair for the British. Marx writes, “The authorities in England must have been aware that the Indian Government itself had recently repaired the fortifications of Delhi so far that the city could be captured by a regular siege only, requiring a besieging force of at least 15000 to 20000 men and much more, if the defence was conducted in an average style. Now 15000 to 20000 men being requisite for this enterprise, it was downright folly to undertake it with 6000 or 7000. The English were further aware that a prolonged siege, a matter of course in consequence of their numerical weakness, would explore their forces in that locality, in that climate and at that season, to the attacks of an invulnerable and invisible enemy, spreading the seeds of destruction among their ranks. The chances of success, therefore, were all against a siege of Delhi.”

The capture of Delhi in course of time becomes imminent. Marx vividly captures the scene. He writes, “… on Sept 8 the English batteries were opened much in advance of the original position of their forces and within 700 yards of the walls. Between the 8th and the 11th British heavy ordnance guns and mortars were pushed forward still nearer to the works, a lodgment being effected and batteries established with little loss, considering that the Delhi garrison made two sorties on the 10th and 11th, and made repeated attempts to open fresh batteries and kept up an annoying fire from rifle pits. On the 12th the English sustained a loss of about 56 killed and wounded. On the morning of the 13th the enemy’s expense magazine, on  one bastion, was blown up, as also the wagon of a light gun, which enfiladed the British batteries from the Talvara suburbs; and the British batteries effected a practicable breach near the Cashmere gate. On the 14th the assault was made on the city. The troops entered at the breach near the Cashmere gate without serious opposition, gained possession of the large buildings in its neighbourhood and advanced along the ramparts to the Moree bastion and Kabul gate, when the resistance grew very obstinate and loss was consequently severe. Preparations were being made to turn the guns from the captured bastions on the city, and to bring up other guns and mortars to commanding points. On the 15th the Burn bastions and Lahore bastions were played upon by the captured guns on the Moree and Kabul bastions, while a breach was made in the magazine and the palace began to be shelled. The magazine was stormed at daylight, Sept 16, while on the 17th the mortars continued to play upon the palace from the magazine enclosure… the entire city of Delhi was occupied on Sunday, the 20th the main forces of the mutinies leaving the city at 3 a.m. on the same day…”

Karl Marx has penned similar narratives of the main events of the great rebellion of 1857 basing them on the actual facts and figures, which he could garner from various sources available at that time. These articles present finest pieces of war reporting and show the extent of sources which Marx had built among the knowledgeable people in London.

BACK

Krishan Chander and Lahore
Ishtiaq Ahmed

MY article 'Street theatre in Delhi' dated Saturday, March 31, 2007, evoked strong emotions in India and Pakistan because the veteran writer Krishan Chander's name had been mentioned in connection with the play I saw performed. Many of us are hugely in debt to him for inspiring in us a humanism, which has survived all the traumas of the late twentieth century. At the beginning of the twenty-first century we are still convinced with quixotic zeal that the pen is superior to the sword, and therefore it should be wielded in behalf of those who have no means to defend themselves against armed bullies and their patrons.

Krishan Chander died working at his desk in Mumbai on March 8, 1977. He had just started to write a satirical essay entitled Adab baray-e-Batakh (Literature for a duck), and wrote just one line 'Noorani ko bachpan hi sey paltoo janwaron ka shock tha. Kabootar, bandar, rang barangi chiriyaan…' (Noorani was fond of pet animals such as pigeons, monkeys, multi-coloured birds…') but before he could complete the sentence he succumbed to a massive heart attack.

I remember the news of his death was received in Stockholm by us with great anguish. Only a few weeks earlier, on an impulse entirely, I had written to him after reading one of his latest stories in which he had mentioned Mohni Road Lahore, where he once lived in the late 1930s and until he left Lahore sometime in the early 1940s for Delhi to take up a job with All-India Radio. I urged him to visit Lahore where some of his best friends were still to be found. He was needed to preach his message of peace again in Lahore. He wrote back a very moving reply dated February 21, 1977. In it he wrote, among other things:

'Lahore is a place where I was born, where I was educated, where I started my literary career, where I achieved fame. For people of my generation it is difficult to forget Lahore. It shines in our heart like a jewel -- like the fragrance of our soul'.

I sent the letter to Mazhar Ali Khan, editor of the Viewpoint, Lahore along with an obituary. Both were published in the April 8, 1977 issue on page 26 under the title 'His last letter?'

Krishan Chander's date of birth given in some publications is November 23, 1914 and the place of birth usually mentioned is Wazirabad, a small town in Gujranwala district of West Punjab. In some places Bharatpur is given as his place of birth, which must be a complete mistake. 1912 and 1913 are also mentioned as his year of birth. In a short-story entitled 'Ataa hey yaad mujh ko' (I remember it) he says that in 1920 he had entered the seventh year of his life. In that case 1914 must be the year of his birth.

According to his own account, which I have quoted above, he was born in Lahore. His father, Dr Gori Shanker Chopra, was from Wazirabad but it is possible that Krishan Chander was born in Lahore because in those days it was a common practice that wives would go to their parents' house to give birth to children. His mother could have been from Lahore.

Krishan Chander studied at F C College, Lahore, where many years later I studied as well. There is no doubt that it was in Lahore that he attained recognition and fame. Lahore was the cultural and educational capital of north-western India. It was also a paragon of communal harmony and peace.

The publishers of Krishan Chander's novels and short-stories were the Chaudhry brothers of Lahore. Muhammad Khalid Chaudhry published Krishan Chander key Sou Afsanay (100 Short-Stories of Krishan Chander) some years ago as a tribute to the late writer. An English translation is given of what he wrote in the introduction:

'When my father, Chaudhry Barkat Ali, was alive there was always a large gathering in the office of Maktab-e-Urdu and Adab-e-Lateef. Educationists, writers and political leaders were always there. From morning to evening the atmosphere was gregarious. Now, it feels like a sweet dream. Among writers who without fail visited the office of Adab-e-Lateef everyday was Krishan Chander. I was a young lad at that time, but the company of writers made me curious about literature. I knew almost all of them. Krishan Chander became my friend. When the editor of Adab-e-Lateef, Mirza Adeeb, was not in the office he would start a conversation with me. He spoke very gently and I listened to him with great interest. I still recall what he said and will always do so. I can never forget Krishan Chander. By publishing 100 of his select short-stories I am acknowledging his affection for me'.

Krishan Chander always wrote to give voice to those who ordinarily would not be considered important enough to be heard. His literary masterpieces on the Bengal famine and the savagery and barbarism in 1947 are some of the finest specimens of modern Urdu literature, but at other times too he continued relentlessly to critique the abuse of power, poverty and the suffering of the wretched of the earth; but above all he never stopped protesting casteism, fanaticism, communal violence and terror. He was born a Hindu but lived his life as just a human being.

Some say his stories were predicable, because the heroes and villains in them were known as soon as one had an idea of the class background of his characters. Such a view is grossly misleading and unwarranted. I would rather argue that in this age of uncertainty and opportunism we need voices that can be relied upon. We need to hear loudly that humanism is morally superior to religious and national bigotry.

Krishan Chander's friend, the veteran Pakistani journalist and literature critic, Hamid Akhtar, wrote an obituary in which he said:

"Krishan Chander died without coming to Lahore which was his city as it is yours or mine. He didn't belong to India alone. He belonged, among many others, to us also. Bedi, Majrooh, Kaifi, Sardar, Razia -- they are ours as much as they are India's. Will the new generation give them a chance to sit together and talk together? I am sure that the day is not far off when progressive writers on both sides of the border will get together again and the dark clouds of hatred will break and there will be love and friendship between the peoples of India and Pakistan once again/" (Viewpoint, Lahore, March 18, 1977).

That was written in 1977. Now we are midway through 2007.

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
Email: ishtiaq.ahmed@statsvet.su.se

BACK