Preface, and the Causes That Were Not

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

[TN: The quatrain below is in Persian in the original.] Humility and supplication become the servant;
forgiving the servant becomes God.

If I do what is unbecoming of me,
do Thou all that is becoming of Thee.

In answer to the question of the rebellion of Hindustan, I had set down what I took to be the real causes of the revolt. I had wished to wipe them now from the page of the world, and even to forget them myself, because the proclamation issued by Her Majesty Queen Victoria (may her reign endure) is in truth a complete remedy for every one of the real causes of the revolt. The truth is that, on reading the proclamation, the pen fell from the hands of those who were writing about the causes of the revolt. No one needs to diagnose them any longer, since their cure is now complete.

Yet I consider it a true service of loyalty to my Government to reflect on the real causes of this disorder and to state them honestly, as they truly are. So I am bound, even though the cure has been well applied, to make known the causes that are in my mind as well. It is true that very wise and experienced men have written on the causes of this revolt, but I expect that perhaps no native of Hindustan has written anything on it. It is better that the opinion of one such person should be on record too.

The Question

What caused the rebellion of Hindustan?

The Answer

Before answering, we must say what rebellion means. Know that it is rebellion to oppose one's own Government, or to join its enemies, or with hostile intent to refuse and fail to carry out its orders, or fearlessly to break through the rights and limits of the Government. For example:

1. A servant or a subject fighting and opposing his own Government.

2. Or, with hostile intent, refusing and failing to carry out its orders.

3. Or helping its enemies and joining them.

4. Or subjects fearlessly fighting among themselves and overstepping the limits fixed by the Government.

5. Or not holding love and loyalty for one's Government in one's heart, and not taking its side in its hour of trouble.

In the critical time that passed in 1857, there is no kind of rebellion among these that did not take place. Indeed, very few wise men will be found who were free of the last kind, although this last kind, small as it looks, is very great in weight.

The intention to rebel that arises in the heart always has one cause: the occurrence of things that go against the nature, temper, purpose, resolve, customs, character and instincts of the people who rebelled.

From this it follows that no single particular matter can cause a general rebellion. A general rebellion can come either from some general matter that goes against everyone's nature, or from many matters, one turning the temper of one group and another of another, until little by little the rebellion becomes general.

This is what happened in the rebellion of 1857. Many things had been gathering in people's hearts over a long time, and a very large magazine had been stored up. All that remained was to set fire to it quickly, and last year the mutiny of the army set it alight.

In 1856 chapatis were passed from village to village in most districts of Hindustan, and the rebellion came at about the same time. Cholera was raging across Hindustan at that time, and one may suppose this was done as a charm to ward it off, for ignorant Hindustanis practise many such charms. But the truth is that its real cause has not come to light to this day. There is no doubt, however, that a chapati cannot be the basis of a conspiracy. It is the rule that a thing of this kind is at most a token to vouch for a spoken message, and it is plain that no spoken message went with these chapatis. Had there been one, it could not have stayed hidden while it was carried about and spread among men of every community and every temper. The very way the rebellion spread in Hindustan, running from here to there and from there to there, is clear proof that there was no conspiracy beforehand.

To think that the rebellion in Hindustan came from a conspiracy with Russia and Iran is entirely baseless. How could a conspiracy with the Russians be possible for Hindustanis, who know not what to make of the Russians? The Hindus could not possibly conspire with the Iranians. Agreement between the Muslims of Hindustan and the Iranians is as impossible as between Protestants and Roman Catholics. If day and night can meet at one time, then such a conspiracy can happen too. It is strange to imagine a conspiracy when, while Russia and Iran had affairs on hand, nothing happened in Hindustan, and when the disorder broke out in Hindustan, nothing was happening there.

The proclamation that is said to have been found in the tent of the Persian prince contains not one word pointing to a conspiracy with Hindustan. Its content is plainly an appeal to the people of its own country. Hindustan's troubles are mentioned so that the Iranians may be readier for war, not to say that a conspiracy with Hindustan had already been made.

We see nothing strange in the deposed King of Delhi writing a *farman* (royal decree) to Iran. Such was the state of the deposed King of Delhi that if he had been told the king of the jinns in fairyland was his vassal, he would have believed it and written not one decree but ten. The deposed King of Delhi always fancied that he could turn into a fly or a mosquito and fly off and bring back news of people and countries. He believed this in his own mind, and asked his courtiers to confirm it, and they all confirmed it. It is no wonder if such a melancholic man wrote some decree at someone's prompting, but God forbid that it should be the basis of any conspiracy. Is it not astonishing to suppose that so great a conspiracy had been going on for so long and our officers knew nothing of it? Even after the rebellion, no rebel, soldier or civilian, ever spoke of any conspiracy among themselves, though after the rebellion whom had they to fear?

Nor do we take the annexation of Oudh to be a cause of this rebellion. No doubt everyone was displeased by the annexation of Oudh, and everyone believed that the Honourable East India Company had acted against its treaties and promises. In general, the subjects were as displeased by the annexation of Oudh as they always were whenever the Company conquered a country, which will be discussed later. The greatest fear, alarm and displeasure was felt by the independent rulers and chiefs of Hindustan. All were sure that everyone's lands, states and governments would be seized in the same way. Yet we see that not one of the ruling chiefs rebelled. Those in this disorder are mostly people whose lands are not in their hands. Do not answer this by saying that the Nawab of Jhajjar and the Raja of Ballabgarh and so-and-so rebelled.

Nor should one suppose that the whole people united and rebelled out of grief and regret that a foreign nation had taken over the ancient land of the Hindustanis. It should be understood that our nation's rule did not come to Hindustan all at once, but little by little, its beginning being counted from 1757, when Siraj-ud-Daula was defeated at Plassey. Until a short while ago, the hearts of all the subjects and chiefs were drawn towards our Government. Hearing of the manners and virtues, the mercy and generosity, the firm keeping of treaties, the care for subjects, and the peace and security of our Government and its officers, the Hindu and Muslim states that neighboured our Government wished to come under the shade of its rule. The kings of foreign countries too placed complete trust in our Government, and held the treaties and covenants they had made with it to be very firm, like a line cut in stone. And this although our Government now has far greater power than before, while, unlike them, the chiefs, governors and rulers of Hindustan now have not a tenth of a tenth of the power and authority they had before. In those times our Government fought many wars with every community of Hindustan, Hindu and Muslim, and went on winning, and all Hindustanis were certain that one day the whole of Hindustan would be under our Government's rule, and that all these subjects of Hindustan, Hindu and Muslim alike, would one day come into its grasp. In spite of all this, there was no rebellion of any kind and no resistance to the Government in that period, and all the histories are silent on it. If this disorder had come from that cause, examples of such disorders would surely be found in those times as well, all the more since such disorders had more opportunity then, during the wars that began in 1839, when no rebellion of any kind took place in Hindustan, although for hundreds of years Hindustan had been ruled from the thrones of the kings of those very countries with which the wars were being fought, and through those very kings the Muslims had come to Hindustan and risen there. So it cannot even be imagined that the present disorder was made by the Muslims out of grief at the loss of their rule and empire.

No one at all longed for the rule of the deposed King of Delhi. The foolish and absurd conduct of that family had lowered its worth and standing in everyone's eyes. True, people in the outlying regions, who did not know the King's state, conduct, power and authority, no doubt held the King in high regard, and thought of him as the King of Hindustan and of the Honourable East India Company as the administrator of Hindustan. But the people of Delhi itself and its neighbourhood gave the King no weight at all. In spite of all this, none of the people of Hindustan felt any grief at the King's passing. It will be remembered that when in 1827 Lord Amherst declared openly that our Government was no longer in any way subordinate to the Timurid house but was itself the sovereign of Hindustan, the subjects and rulers of Hindustan thought nothing of it, though the royal family itself may have been somewhat grieved.

It is entirely baseless to say that the Muslims had long been conspiring and consulting together with the intention of uniting to wage *jihad* (holy war) against people of another religion and freeing themselves from their rule. Since the Muslims were *mustamin* (people living under a granted protection) of our Government, they could in no way wage jihad within its territory. Twenty or twenty-five years ago a very great *maulvi* (Muslim scholar), Muhammad Ismail, preached jihad in Hindustan and urged everyone to it. At that time he stated plainly that the inhabitants of Hindustan, who live under the protection of the English Government, could not wage jihad in Hindustan. So thousands of fighters for jihad gathered from every district of Hindustan, made no disturbance of any kind within the Government's territory, and went and fought on the western frontier of the Punjab. And as for the name of jihad being raised in every district by rabble and ignorant men, even if we suppose it to have been jihad, there was no plot or plan for it at all before the tenth of May 1857.

Consider that those who raised the banner of jihad at that time were such wicked, ill-behaved and dissolute men that they had no occupation but drinking, watching shows and looking at dancing and revelry. How could such men be counted leaders and guides of a jihad? Nothing at all in this upheaval was done according to religion. Everyone knows that by religion it was not right for servants to embezzle the Government treasury and property held in trust, or to betray their salt. It is plain that killing the innocent, above all women, children and old men, was a great sin according to religion. How then could this upheaval of the mutiny be a jihad? It is true that a few villains used the name of jihad out of worldly greed, for their own profit, to fulfil their own designs, to mislead the ignorant and to gather a following. This too was one of the rogueries of the mischief-makers, not jihad in reality.

The *fatwa* (religious ruling) for jihad printed in Delhi is thought to be strong proof of a jihad, but I have heard for certain, and there is much evidence for it, that it was entirely without foundation. I have heard that when the faithless army came from Meerut to Delhi, someone asked for a fatwa on jihad, and all ruled that jihad could not be waged. I have seen a copy of this first fatwa, but since the original is lost, I cannot say how far the copy can be trusted. But the second fatwa, issued when the Bareilly army reached Delhi, the famous one in which jihad is declared obligatory, was certainly not genuine. The printer of this fatwa, a mischief-maker and a villain of long standing, gave it weight by writing and printing people's names on it to mislead and stir up the ignorant, and even printed the seal of one or two men who had died before the mutiny. It is also said that a few men did put their seals to it under the force and oppression of the rebel Bareilly army and its mischievous companions.

There was in Delhi a very large group of maulvis and their followers who, on religious grounds, held the deposed King of Delhi to be very bad and a *bid'ati* (one who introduces innovations into religion). Their belief was that prayer is not valid in those mosques of Delhi that are under the King's control and management, so they did not pray even in the Jama Masjid, and fatwas on this matter, printed long before the mutiny, still exist. Can reason ever accept that these people gave a fatwa that jihad was lawful and that the King should be made leader? Some of the men whose seals were printed on that fatwa gave shelter to Christians and protected their lives and honour. Not one of them went out to fight or came forward to resist. If they really thought as is commonly said, why would they have done these things? In short, in my opinion it never even occurred to the Muslims to unite and wage jihad against rulers of another religion. The clamour of the ignorant and the mischief-makers, crying "jihad, jihad", and going about shouting a *na'ra-e-haidari* (war cry of Ali), is not to be trusted. What displeasure the Muslims did feel on account of religion, and why, we shall state clearly further on. There is no doubt that the Muslims were more displeased than the Hindus in every respect, and that is why in some districts the Muslims were more rebellious than the Hindus, though in the districts where the Hindus made trouble it was no less.

There was certainly no consultation or plan for revolt in the army beforehand. It is a fact that the rebel soldiers never spoke of such a thing among themselves even after the revolt. True, after the incident at Barrackpore, and especially at the time when men of several regiments were gathered in the Punjab to be taught the new drill, it was agreed among them that they would never use the new cartridges. Even then they had no other intention or purpose, and they were sure the Government would withdraw the matter. It was withdrawn, but after the tenth of May 1857 the withdrawal did nothing to quell the disorder that had already broken out, and that fire could not be put out by such measures.

To say that the rebel army had conspired beforehand with the deposed King of Delhi is entirely baseless. No one thought the King of Delhi a saint or holy man. People flattered him to his face and laughed behind his back. They became his *murids* (spiritual disciples) for some advantage, not out of belief. It is not strange if some *tilanga* (sepoy) or *subedar* (Indian officer) of some regiment became his disciple too, but that has nothing to do with a conspiracy to revolt. No doubt the rebel army gathered at Delhi, but once it had broken with the Government, to whom else but the King of Delhi could it turn? No prior conspiracy was needed for that. No doubt the position the Government had given the King of Delhi was always unsuitable and open to objection, and the proposal made by Lord Ellenborough certainly deserved approval; indeed, more ought to have been done. Truly, the King of Delhi was a spark in the embers that, carried by the force of the wind, set all Hindustan ablaze.