Why are India and Pakistan reluctant to honour their common hero?
By Jawed Naqvi
Monday,July 02, 2007
A FEW years ago I asked Zameer Akram, then Pakistan’s ambassador in Nepal, why his country was not doing anything to show some respect toBegum Hazrat Mahal’s memory, whose unmarked wayside grave in the heart of Kathmandu is open to abuse by humans and stray animals alike. He said there was in fact a joint agreement with India to build a grand mausoleum at the site. So what has happened to that plan, nobody knows.
On May 10 this year, when India was celebrating 150 years of the 1857 uprising against colonial rule, a revolt in which the Begum was a vital player, several readers asked me whether Pakistan too was marking the occasion with due fervour. I told them that as far as I could see Pakistan was too busy with its internecine bloodbath in Karachi and elsewhere to spare the time for a tryst with history. I am not sure if I was right, but there was nothing in the Pakistani media that I noticed to indicate any official celebration of the anti-British rebellion across the border, much less about Begum Hazrat Mahal’s unique, if largely unsung role in it.
I recently came across a fine tribute to the Begum, possibly one of a very few that throw light on the life of this tenacious fighter and an unrelenting rebel. Samarendra Nath Chanda wrote the article for The Sunday Statesman of Delhi on February 1, 1959, perhaps in the wake of the 100th anniversary celebrations of the revolt. Also, in Lucknow, the Publication Bureau of Uttar Pradesh has compiled rare articles on the freedom struggle in Oudh. They contain a must read proclamation by Hazrat Mahal even after her armies were defeated.
The document is today and was during her time known as a “counter-proclamation” because it was really a rejoinder to the proclamation by Queen Victoria about a new equation her government would have with India after 1857. Indians and Pakistanis need to read this piece of prose in Urdu which the British rulers translated into English. They would have been aghast at the extent of solidarity that existed between India’s Hindus and Muslims not so long ago against their common foe, the foreign occupiers.
After the capture of Lucknow the Begam was listed by the English as No.1 of the enemies still at large. From Lucknow she retired with a large following across the River Ghagra and posted herself in the fort of Baundi, in Bahraich district. She fortified the stronghold with heavy guns and armed men. A correspondent of the government reported: “….a force is encamped on all sides of the fort, numbering about 15,000 or 16,000 including followers. Among these there are 1,500 cavalry and 500 mutineer sepoys, the rest are ‘nujeebs’ and followers.”
Unlike Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi, the Begum, says Samarendra Nath, had a different beginning to her career. She was born at a time and brought up in a manner suitable only for a life of gay abandon. Her obvious place was in the royal harem of the extraordinary King Wajid Ali Shah, essentially a poet par excellence and a connoisseur of beauty. William Howard Russell in his ‘My Indian Mutiny Diary’ writes: “The Sepoys, during the siege of the Residency, never came on as boldly as the zamindari levies and nujeebs (irregulars). This Begum exhibits great energy and ability. She has excited all Oudh to take up the interests of her son, and the chiefs have sworn to be faithful to him. Will the Government treat these men as rebels or as honourable enemies? The Begum declares undying war against us. It appears, from the energetic character of these Ranis and Begums, that the zenanas and harems (wield) a considerable amount of actual mental power and, at all events, become able intriguantes. Their contests for ascendancy over the minds of the men give vigour and acuteness to their intellect.”
Tidbits of information available about the Begum’s career as a sovereign reveals the statesman in her. To fortify the city of Lucknow against advancing relief forces of the English she sanctioned five lakhs of rupees to “have a wall built round the city.” Then, when she was informed that the English had purchased the friendship of Rana Jang Bahadur of Nepal with the promise of Gorakhpur and a share of Oudh, she immediately made the Rana a counter-offer of “Gorakhpur, Azimgurh, Arrah, Chupra and the provinces of Benaras, if he would unite with her.” Her battle tactics too bear the stamp of an expert schemer, says Samarendra Nath. Through efficient agents, she contacted the officers of the Indian regiments serving the English at Cawnpore and settled with them that when they were to face the Begum’s forces “the regiments should fire blank ammunition” and afterwards “turn upon the Europeans”. She even personally appeared in the field (on February 25, 1858) on elephant back, along with other officers to supervise defence operations.
While the English were busy in re-establishing their authority in Lucknow, Begum Hazrat Mahal once again successfully fired up the rest of Oudh to rebellion. In fact, 1858 saw a series of sporadic outbursts in different areas of Oudh, and the English experienced some of the toughest encounters of the whole history of the rebellion. The heroes were mainly and obviously the taluqdars and zamindars of Oudh, and there is enough evidence on record to show their attachment to the Begum.
After the Queen’s Proclamation, the English wanted to win her over by offers of royal clemency and even of a pension. But Begum Hazrat Mahal replied with a counter-proclamation under the seal of her young son and heir to the Oudh crown, Birjis Qadar, warning the people of Oudh not to be misled by false promises. The Begum’s Proclamation, as it is called, stated: “At this time certain weak-minded, foolish people, have spread a report that the English have forgiven the faults and crimes of the people of Hindoostan. This appears very astonishing, for it is the unvarying custom of the English never to forgive a fault, be it great or small, so much so that if a small offence be committed through ignorance or negligence, they never forgive it….. therefore we, the ever-abiding government, parents of the people of Oude, with great consideration, put forth the present proclamation, in order that the real object of the chief points may be exposed, and our subjects placed on their guard.”
In the counter-proclamation, Begum Hazrat Mahal comes across as a secular person who was greatly troubled by the domination of any one religion over others. Her exiled husband Wajid Ali Shah was enriched as much by Hindu lore as by his own Shia creed to fortify Oudh with an enviably syncretic worldview. She rebuts Queen Victoria’s assertions point by point, but the following one surpasses all. “In the proclamation it is written, that the Christian religion is true, but that no other creed will suffer oppression, and that the laws will be observed towards all. What has the administration of justice to do with the truth or falsehood of religion? That religion is true which acknowledges one God, and knows no other. Where there are three gods in a religion, neither Mussulman nor Hindoo- nay, not even Jews, Sun-worshippers, or Fire-worshippers can believe it true. To eat pigs and drink- to bite greased cartridges, and to mix pig’s fat with flour and sweetmeats — to destroy Hindoo and Mussalman temples on pretence of making roads to build churches — to send clergymen into streets and alleys to preach the Christian religion — to institute English schools , and to pay a monthly stipend for learning the English sciences, while the places of worship of Hindoos and Mussalmans are to this day entirely neglected; with all this, how can the people believe that religion will not be interfered with? The rebellion began with religion, and, for it, millions of men have been killed. Let not our subjects be deceived; thousands were deprived of their religion in the North-West, and thousands were hanged rather than abandoned their religion.” Any taker for the Begum’s grave in Kathmandu — Indian, Pakistani, or, preferably, both?
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/jawed/jawed.htm