Major Agha H Amin (retired)

About the AuthorAbout the Author Agha H. Amin , Retired Tank corps major who served in five tank regiments and commanded an independent tank squadron and served in various staff , instructional and research assignments. In his Pakistan Army tenure he wrote three original tactical papers on Reconnaissance Troops Tactical handling, Reconnaissance support group , and RFS Concept. His writings were published in Pakistan Armys prime journals , Pakistan Army Journal and Citadel Journal of Command and Staff College Quetta. His recommendations regarding bifurcation of officer corps into command and staff cadre advanced in 1998 were later accepted. In addition his recommendation of grouping various corps into army commands advanced in an article published in Citadel Journal in 1998 were accepted in 2005 or so. Wrote The Essential Clausewitz in 1993, Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 in 1998 ,

Pakistan Army till 1965 in 1999 ,Development of Taliban Factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2010) ,Taliban War in Afghanistan (2009). Served as Assistant Editor of Defence Journal ,Executive Editor of globe and Founder Editor of Journal of Afghanistan Studies . An associate of the think tanks ORBAT and Alexandrian Defense group. Carried out various oil and gas and power transmission line surveys in West Asia. Editor in Chief of monthly Intelligence Review and monthly Military and Security Review. Heads the think tank Centre for study of Intelligence Operations established in early 2010.

Muslims as Major Leaders

The period before 1857 was that of EEIC supremacy starting from its capture of Delhi in 1803. Before 1803 the Mahrattas were masters of Delhi. But in 1857 we find that the Mahrattas main leader Nana Sahib did not get any support from the main Mahratta area of Bombay presidency. 

He was supported by the Hindustani Bengal Army sepoy who had little connection with Mahrattas by race. 

Actually some of the sepoy regiments which rebelled at Cawnpore marched to Lucknow. We see in 1857 the predominantly Hindu Regiments of Bengal Army marching to predominantly Muslim centres of rebellion i.e. Delhi and Lucknow. 

Bahadur Shah Zafar has to be given credit for at least preserving Hindu Muslim unity in Delhi in 1857. He undertook various measures to do so like banning cow slaughter in Delhi.

As per Percival Spear who is considered to be a very reliable authority on Indo-Pak history:—

"On 19 May, Maulvi Muhammad Sayyid set up the standard of Jehad or holy war in the Jamia Masjid; he was immediately ordered to remove it by the King. The Maulvi explained that it was intended against the Hindus, where upon the king declared that

Hindus and Muslims were alike to him. Hindu army officers also complained and were tactfully told that it had been intended against the English 542".

It seems that Hindu opinion just like Muslim opinion was divided. But this appears odd only to those who take Hindus or Muslims as two nations in Indo-Pak sub-continent. 

If you analyse the Hindu as the UP Hindu or the Mahrashtra Hindu and the Muslim as Hindustani Muslim or Punjabi Muslim their differences do not appear odd. 

Thus we find the Hindustani Hindu acknowledging the Mughal Muslim as king of India in 1857 because culturally they could identify with him more than the Mahrashtra Hindu to whom the Mughal king was the descendant of a dynasty of Muslim tyrants.

We find the Oudh Talukdars most of whom were Hindu Rajputs acknowledging the Nawab of Lucknow Birjis Kadar a Muslim as their Nawab and ruler. The rebels were thus not organised on communal lines. Hindu acknowledged Muslim political

supremacy by and large. 

Nana Sahib had a more limited following and his own people i.e. Mahrattas never rebelled in his favour. The Bombay Army and Maharashtra  as a region stayed loyal to the EEIC. 

It appears that the Hindustani and Bombay or Punjab people had little in common. This behaviour further reinforces the theory that India or even Pakistan are not; or cannot be strictly defined as countries but rather a marriage of convenience of a multiple member of nationalities.

 The foundation of both the states is on mutual fear; and continuance of this confrontation alone can guarantee survival of both; off course at the expense of the smaller minority ethnic groups in both the states.

But the positive side of the rebellion was that at least it was the first major outbreak in which Indians combined against the British sinking their differences based on religious considerations. 

Communal hatred in Indo-Pak sub-continent was definitely a post-1857 development and had a deep connection with the deliberate but unwritten "divide and rule" policy of the British which finally led to the increase in communal tension in post-1857 India.

Why the Rebellion was confined to only certain regions of Indo-Pak

The primary and the first reason for this is very simple. Indo-Pak subcontinent is not one country but a number of countries which have been ruled for most part of their history by one dynasty or race from Delhi till 1947 and now from Islamabad and Delhi. 

The states of Pakistan and India came into existence in their present form not because the Hindu rulers at Delhi conquered Bengal or Madras or Bombay but because these areas were conquered a long time ago by the EEIC and then subsequently transferred to the British crown in 1858 and to government of India and Pakistan in 1947. 

The two countries came into existence primarily not because all the regions of Indo-Pak wanted this to happen but because the British simply confined their freedom of choice to two options either to join "India" or "Pakistan". The fragility of this arrangement was successfully challenged for the first time by the Muslim Bengalis who gave us a new version of "two nation theory" by proving that among the Muslims of India and Pakistan also there were two Muslim nations i.e. "West Pakistan Muslims" and "East Pakistan Muslims"! 

The success of regional parties in Sindh, Balochistan Madras etc. is a clear proof that both the countries consist of different and distinct nationalities. In symbolic terms this arrangement may be compared to "Sigheh or Muttaa" i.e. a marriage limited to a certain period as practiced in Iran!!

The sub-continent had been conquered by the EEIC at different periods spread over a century and different regions viewed the British in a different line. We will study some of the regions and bring out the differences.

Bengal.

This was a very populous region of India. It was ruled by a Nawab before 1757 who had no connection with the Bengalis by race.

 His departure from the scene in 1757 hardly made any difference to the common Bengali. Bengal in terms of population was the largest province in India in 1857. 

The North West provinces (Modern UP) had also been part of the Bengal province till

1836 when it was separated. The Bengali common man was a much exploited and oppressed man. 

But this exploitation and oppression was done by his own Bengali landlords and revenue collector class both Muslim and Hindu. 

 The British did not change the system in this regard. They, however, brought one major change which made post-1857 Bengal one of the most politically conscious regions of India. 

 This was in terms of educating the people. Bengal was too big a province to worry about what was happening in the rest of India. 

 For example the Santhal uprising had little to do with the EEIC. It was an uprising of the Santhal people against oppression by money lenders and railway contractors 543. 

This rebellion broke out in 1855 and was suppressed by 1857 and the Bengal Army sepoys played a decisive role in suppressing it. The Hindustani sepoy of the EEIC was almost as much of a foreigner for the Bengali as the European.

The Bengalis had nothing in common with the Hindustani Brahman, Rajput or Mussulman sepoy of the Bengal Army. These sepoys were actually viewed

in Bengal as mercenary watchdogs of the EEIC. 

Thus although there were only 2,400 European soldiers in Bengal in 1857 as compared to more than 29,000 Hindustani sepoys 544 the rebellion did not succeed. Many sepoy regiments which rebelled were hunted down by common people led by landlords who supported the European troops in destroying them.

There were hardly any Bengali in the Bengal Army and during 1857 the British did not recruit any soldiers here. Later on in early twentieth century Bengal became one of the most anti-British area, where probably the maximum number of British officials were assassinated apart from the tribal area of NWFP. 

 But in 1857 the Bengalis were not aware enough to participate in the rebellion. They had no representation in the army so they could not have taken any part in the rebellion. They had little to share with the northwest provinces and EEIC rule had been established here exactly 100 years ago. 

In all probability the Bengalis were satisfied with the status quo. The Mughal emperor had no relevance to their problems and the only exposure which they had of the Mahrattas was as dacoits and plunderers who raided West Bengal in the pre-1857 era.

 The pre-1857 Muslim Persian/Turk Nawabs of Bengal had hardly any sympathy with the ethnic Bengali Muslim and mostly relied on Hindu officials for revenue collection.

Madras.

The rebellion found no adherents in Madras also. The Madras Army was employed in Central India and at Cawnpore and Lucknow. This does not imply that the people of the south were docile but simply because they did not identify themselves with the Hindustanis of the Gangetic plains who were far different from the Madras people.

 Administration of Madras presidency by the EEIC since 1760s had produced peace and security and the people were enjoying about 58 years of uninterrupted peace since the last Mysore war of 1799. 

But we must not forget that many parts of Madras presidency were formerly part of the Mysore State which from 1769 to 1799 had been one of the EEIC’s toughest opponent. In Madras one is inclined to believe the old theory that nations and races are like a living organism. 

They struggle, get tired and then sink into inactivity for some time in order to recuperate. The region had seen many wars from 1740 to 1799 and now was war weary at least in 1857. The higher proportion of Muslims in the Madras Army, however, illustrates that the Punjabi Muslims and the Pathans were not the only loyal Muslims. There were certain cases of individual mutiny in the Madras Cavalry since this had a proportion of Hindustani Muslims. However, these were isolated incidents and as a regiment no unit of Madras Army was disbanded or disarmed.

Bombay.

The Bombay Presidency comprising the western Ghats and modern day Maharashtra had seen more anarchy and bloodshed than any other part of India. This started from Sivaji's phenomenal war against the Mughals in 1660. The Mahrattas must not be underestimated, since it was the Mahratta insurgency which destroyed the Mughal empire more than any martial race of the area north of Jhelum or north of Khyber or Oxus! 

 Since 1660 the Mahrattas had almost constantly been fighting adversaries ranging from the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Afghans and the EEK with whom they fought some three long wars, these three wars taking place during 1775-1782, 1803-5 and the last one from 1817-18. 

The Mahrattas did not like the Purbiya or Hindustani and the Hindustanis also disliked this race since the Mahrattas were plunderers and looters like the Afghans (although a little more well mannered) and they were equally disliked by both Hindus and Muslims of the Gangetic plain. 

The word "Delhi" above all was a hateful word for a Mahratta since it was the capital of the hated Mughal who had ravaged the Mahratta home country so ruthlessly

during the great Mahratta insurgency lasting from 1660 to 1707. 

The Mahrattas were a brave and courageous people and they shattered the myth of Muslim and Mughal invincibility which had for so long kept the non-Muslim inhabitants of the sub-continent victim of an irrational inferiority complex; that they could never win against any Muslim invaders. 

The Mahrattas in this regard are a unique people in sub- continental history. We are discussing the history of Mahrattas because it is felt that it was not a question of bravery or martial prowess in 1857 but that of political awareness and unfortunately this awareness was overall lacking in the majority of regions of Indo-Pak sub-continent in 1857. 

Thus, 1857 was a period when the people of sub-continent did not really feel that the EEIC was a foreign power which was exploiting them. 

Perhaps in the short term the much needed stability and order which the EEIC restored in many regions of Indo-Pak sub-continent was preferred by the people rather than a freedom struggle which may have pushed them into the pre- 1917 medieval disorders and anarchic situation of Maharashtra and Central India. 

The greatest credit in making the people of Bombay presidency believe that the EEIC rule was best for them rests with Mountstuart Elphinstone was Resident at the Mahrattas Peshwa's court from 1810 to 1819. 

 Mountstuart was a great scholar, historian and administrator. He loved and respected India as a country and believed that the British were not in India forever. 

He was a very just man and believed in delegating some power and authority to the Indians. He was a firm believer of use of local languages in the courts and routine administrative affairs. 

He instituted reforms, greatly improved the system of public education and in general followed extremely liberal and humanitarian policies. He loved India so much that he

refused the post of Governor General of Canada545! 

It would not be an over exaggeration to say that it was Elphinstone who secured the Bombay Presidency for the EEIC by creating a system in which the Indians were made to feel as part of the system by justice and fairplay institutionalised by creation of laws, procedures and systems. Just compare the conduct of Elphinstone with racist behaviour of West Pakistani civil servants who served in East Pakistan during the first two decades after 1947!

Rajputana.

The Rajputs are a very brave and hardy race but they remained neutral during 1857. The answer for this inaction lies in the policy of neutrality followed by the Rajputs since 1707.

 The Rajputs somehow like Switzerland managed to stay neutral during the long

period of anarchy which devastated most of India during the period from 1707 to 1849. The Mahrattas did not raid Rajputana as frequently as other areas because most of it was arid desert.

 The northern Mahrattas the Afghans had also for this purpose left Rajputana alone. The EEIC also because of the arid terrain avoided bothering the Rajputana states except having a small enclave at Ajmer. The Rajputana states were large in area and few in number and had a very small population. 

Thus the EEIC only held Ajmer territory while the remaining Rajputana was under local rulers who remained loyal throughout 1857. Many of their state troops rebelled but these were mostly Hindustani and marched towards Delhi or Central India after rebelling. The Rajputs thus remained neutral in 1857. 

They had no reason to rebel since they were not under the EEIC. Arid terrain more than martial fervour had saved Rajputana from EEIC colonialism and subjugation. Another major reason for Rajput neutrality was the simple fact that the entire area except Ajmer was ruled by local dynasties of long standing. The EEIC had never hurt Rajput pride thanks to their barren terrain!

Punjab Loyalty

This is a much debated affair. The debate has degenerated in a very ugly manner into an irrational defence of Punjab loyalty by ardent modern Punjabi nationalists and misinterpreted in a very adverse manner by historians and thinkers with an anti Punjabi attitude. The job of the historian is not to defend or to condemn an action which was beyond the control of a nation or a leader at a particular time in history. The Punjabis were as much the prisoners of circumstances as the Madrasi or the Bengali or the Mahratta or the Rajput. 

The history of Punjab in the period 1707 to 1857 was actually more complex than the history of other parts of India. Leadership as far as the Muslims are concerned did not develop in Punjab because the Punjabi Muslim did not fit anywhere in the

political expediency considerations of the Mughals. The Mughals preferred to recruit Muslims of Persian, Turk or Afghan descent. Among the non Muslims their first choice was the Hindu Rajput, particularly those from Rajputana proper since the Rajputs were the most dominant class in Hindu society. 

Later on, after 1689 546 the emphasis shifted to the Mahrattas who were ennobled in large numbers by Aurangzeb as a political bribe to defeat Sivaji’s phenomenal rebellion.

Mughal historical record illustrate that the Punjabis by and large were very peaceful people. The region was prosperous and the weather and climate and fertility of soil contributed in making the inhabitants peace loving and easy to administer like most plain areas of India including the Gangetic plains etc. 

But the Mughals went wrong at one place and underestimated the resilience and moral force of a new religion which originated from Punjab in sixteenth century. Jahangir imprisoned the fifth Sikh Guru Arjun who died while being tortured under detention in 1606 547. 

Aurangzeb the mild Stalin of India had the ninth Guru Tegh Bahdur executed in 1675548. Symbolically speaking this excess proved to be a major reason for the burning Sikh desire to destroy Delhi in 1857. 

But then it is an irony of history that Delhi has been burnt destroyed and looted by Muslims from Afghanistan, Iran and Rohailkhand much more by any non Muslim army except in 1857. Keeping in view the Mughal policy; the Sikh excesses at Delhi were a normal reaction of an aggrieved community. 

Till 1605 the Sikhs remained a peaceful religious group. But Arjun’s death while in prison turned a basically peaceful religious group into more serious dissidents. 

Thus Guru Har Govind adopted a more active policy unlike the previous Sikh Gurus. Thus the Sikhs brought into Punjab’s history a healthy tradition of manly and

righteous resistance which had been missing in the region since Porus last opposed Alexander on the Hydaspes! 

Har Govind correctly assessed that without recourse to the option of militant resistance the Sikhs would be destroyed by the Mughals. 

Har Govind militarised the Sikhs and started a series of military actions which subsequently assumed the shape of a low intensity conflict or a guerrilla war against the Mughals. 

This low intensity war continued till Har Govind’s death in 1645. The Sikh resistance assumed more serious proportions once their Guru (Religions head) Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb at Delhi in 1675. This execution proved to be a watershed in Sikh-Muslim relations and Sikhs from 1675 became vehemently anti Mughal and anti Muslim since they identified Mughals with Islam. The Mughals on the other hand were doing little more than manipulating religion for rationalising oppression as all kings of the world of that time did. 

There is no human passion as powerful as revenge in driving a man! Guru Govind Singh the son of Tegh Bahadur rightly decided to avenge his father’s death. Thus the Sikhs became a truly militarised sect under Govind. It is not our intention to discuss much more of Sikh history. 

But some background of this remarkable religious group is necessary for the layman.The Sikhs were the toughest opponents of the British in battles fought on abs the population of the area they ruled in Ranjit Singh’s time. 

But being a totally militarised religious group largely composed of the Jat caste of Punjab they were more integrated than the majority Muslims and Pathans of their empire. The Muslims were firstly divided into two distinct races the “Pathans and the Punjabis”. The Pathans although of a better fibre were further sub divided into a watertight tribal society of various tribes. The Punjabi Muslims till 1849 had a negligible role in the elite power groups which controlled Punjab. The Mughals who

were ruling Punjab from 1526 to 1748 kept their own hand-picked governors, mostly of Turkish, Persian or Pathan descent. 

Merely being Muslim did not qualify the Punjabi for a respectable place in the Mughal hierarchy. There was no religious oppression since the Punjabis were Muslims by majority, but consequently the Mughals saw no need to cultivate the Punjabis by ennobling them. This was a strange paradox which is common in world history. Without oppression there is little resistance and since there was no “challenge” which the Punjabi Muslim faced unlike his Punjabi Sikh counterpart, there was no “response”. 

Thus we see two simultaneous trends. Racially the “Punjabi Muslim” and the “Punjabi Sikh” were the same people. The Sikhs belonging to one of the farming caste the “Jats” to which many “Punjabi Muslims” belonged. But their faith united them more closely than the “Punjabi Muslim” since the “Punjabi Muslim” suffered from no religious oppression. 

Thus the Sikhs who were as plainly Punjabi as the Punjabi Muslims became remarkably militant, while the Punjabi Muslim remained placidly submerged in his Lassi and routine life, without any religious cohesion or fervour that the vacuum which was left following the decline of the Mughal Empire in the Punjab was filled not by the majority Punjabi Muslim or the Pathan Muslim or the Martial Afghan but by the smaller but more effective Sikh, who was a Punjabi Jat by chance and a Sikh by choice.

Thus by 1799 the Sikhs were masters of Punjab and by 1823 they had driven the Afghans to where they belonged i.e. out of Peshawar. It may be noted that racially the Afghans and East of Khyber Pathans are one race but there are certain subtle but marked differences in the two as far as culture and history are concerned. 

The Sikhs were doing exactly what Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan were doing

in Mysore. Mysore was a Hindu majority area ruled by Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan. 

They challenged the EEIC for more than thirty years and effectively led a Hindu majority area from 1769 to 1799 defying all theories and notions about Hindu Muslim differences and rivalry. 

These two rulers were able to inspire a Hindu majority area into a willing participation in a series of wars which constituted a succession of most serious challenges to the existence of the EEIC in South India. It is an irony of Indo Muslim history that the toughest Muslim challenge to the EEIC came not from any Muslim majority region but from Mysore a predominantly Hindu area! 

Even the regions between Delhi and Benares which were the heartland of various Muslim Empires in India played no part in resisting the British after the militarily small battle of Buxar in 1764!The Sikhs could not annihilate the Muslims since it was physically impossible but they did suppress them. This does not mean that there was absolutely no Muslim participation in the government or administration of the country. 

There were many Muslim governors and subsidiary Chiefs but mostly in barren unproductive areas of Khushab Kalabagh etc. There was the Muslim Fakir family of Lahore who provided many ministers to Ranjit Singhs government. 

But the Multani Pathans or the Chahttas or the Bhattis who had resisted the Sikhs were persona non grata. Many Muslim mosques were turned into powder magazines and stables. 

Today many Pakistanis do not know this and in the process of murder of history in Pakistan in order to prove outmoded obscurantist theories about our past history the Mughals are glorified. 

But few people know that in actual fact the Mughals were not equal opportunity

employers and in this regard the Sikh attitude towards the Punjabi Muslims in connection with distribution of power and patronage was nothing new.

 The sore point about Sikh rule in Punjab was religious oppression. The Punjabi and the Pathan Muslim for the first time suffered religious oppression during the Sikh time from roughly 1780 to 1849. It is interesting to note that the highly pragmatic and opportunist Muslim Tiwana and Noon Rajputs managed to win Ranjit Singh by sophisticated sycophancy and served him loyally at a time when Muslim mosques were used as stables and magazines! 

I am convinced that had the Russians captured Pakistan following Afghanistan in 1979 these feudals would have joined the Russian Army also!

The EEIC defeated the Sikhs in two wars i.e. the First Sikh War (1845-46) and Second Sikh War (1848-49) and annexed Punjab in 1849. 

During the First and Second Sikh war both the Punjabi Muslim and the Pathan Muslim actively helped the EEIC since they viewed the Sikhs as oppressors and the EEIC as their liberator. 

This is a crucial and decisive aspect about the EEIC annexation of Punjab. The annexation was welcomed by the majority of the population since they viewed the EEIC as a liberator who deposed the unjust and tyrannical Sikhs. Hence, the Punjabi and the Pathan Muslim loyalty of 1857 to the EEIC during the near fatal period of the siege of Delhi. 

On the contrary the annexation of Oudh in 1856 was viewed by the Muslim elite and the Hindu majority population of Oudh as an act of injustice, because in Oudh there was no religious oppression. The Shia Muslim dynasty was benevolent and liberal with its majority Hindu subjects. Oudh had never been invaded unlike Punjab or Frontier or Delhi by any hostile army since 1550. 

Thus the people of Oudh were in real terms a free people unlike most parts

of India of the period 1607-1857.

The annexation of Punjab in 1849 introduced a very stable and efficient government in Punjab after ten years of absolute anarchy which had followed the death of Ranjit Singh. 

The EEIC administrators were very fair and effective and the province which had witnessed tremendous anarchy and bloodshed for a continuous decade became the most tranquil and prosperous province of India. 

The Sikhs were chivalrously and benevolently rehabilitated. The disbanded soldiers of the Sikh army were re employed, existing canals were improved and new canals were excavated. The whole country was systematically disarmed and all fortifications dismantled. 

The various Muslim mosques used as powder magazines and stables were restored to the Muslims. Most significant of these being the famous Badshahi Mosque of Lahore which was restored to the Muslims of Lahore after considerable efforts by John Lawrence the Chief Commissioner of Punjab in 1856.

The estates of many Muslims confiscated by the Sikhs were restored. The Muslims were recruited in the army, police and civil administration which were previously inaccessible to the Muslims. 

Many Muslims who had switched to the EEIC side were elevated to the status of feudal lords! It may be noted that Sikhs employed loyal Muslims mostly in the artillery only.

Thus when the rebellion broke out in 1857 the populace of the Punjab by and large felt little justification to participate in it. 

They correctly viewed the EEIC as a liberator as far as the Muslims were concerned and a just neutral party as far as the Sikhs were concerned. 

What sympathy could the Muslims have with the Mughal eighty two year old Emperor in Delhi whose ancestors had failed to protect the majority Muslim population of Punjab and trans Indus frontier from the depredations and excesses committed by plundering hordes of Persia, Afghanistan and the Sikhs from 1739 to 1849? 

The Sikhs on the other hand got a golden opportunity to destroy the accursed city of Delhi!

Every region of the Indo Pak subcontinent in 1857 was different. Leaders of one region were viewed as oppressors in another region. 

The EEIC was viewed as an oppressor in Oudh, Jhansi and in the Bengal, but as liberator in Punjab, Frontier and Rajputana. The India of 1857 was not organised on communal lines as much as the India of 1947 and merely being Muslim or Hindu could not make anyone a traitor by virtue of fighting on the EEIC side. 

If that was so the Bengal Sepoy was also a traitor for the hundred years before 1857. The word “traitor” does not suit the Indo Pak region because the region consists of various nations and religious groups.

 A more correct word for the natives fighting on EEIC is “subsidiary Collaborator”. A subsidiary collaborator fought for the EEIC for economic necessity. 

Speaking in nationalistic terms what “nationalism” could, the Hindustani fighting for the EEIC in the First Sikh war feel for the Sikh. What similarity was there to make the average Punjabi of 1857 identify with the Hindustani soldier of Bengal Army. 

Nationalism or “Pan Islamism” or any other “issues” came into existence in Indo Pak society once the people of Indo Pak subcontinent read Rosseau and Voltaire in the British created colleges and universities in the late nineteenth century. 

Even today what is similar between the Punjabi Rangers sepoy or policeman and the common man in Sindh or Karachi?

We may conclude that there was nothing abnormal in Punjab loyalty of 1857. The Punjabis were prisoners of their time and it was a twist of fate which placed the EEIC in the role of saviour of Punjabi and Frontier Muslim; and a chivalrous and religiously unbiased and liberal friend of the minority Punjabi Sikh. 

The Hariana Hindu Jat or Hindu Rajput was more politically aware since he had known more stability by virtue of EEIC rule since 1803. 

It is but a human characteristic that when man’s basic needs are satisfied, he wants higher things like sovereignty and independence. 

The Hariana and North West Provinces had know stability and peace since the EEIC annexed them in 1801 and 1803. 

They also in 1801 and 1803 welcomed the EEIC just like the Punjabi’s welcomed the EEIC in 1849. Because the EEIC in 1801 and 1803 had liberated the North West provinces and the Delhi area from the oppressive and predatory Mahrattas, Jats, Gujars, Mewatis and Rohillas. But that was 1803.

 In 1857 the people of North West provinces aspired for more. The Bengal Army sowar of 3rd Light Cavalry by resorting to the short cut of armed insurrection then was consciously fulfilling the aspirations of the people South of Ambala. 

The current of history in 1857 dictated that people of Indo Pak had to wait for nine more decades. There was nothing abnormal in the failure of the rebellion of 1857. The Indo Pak people failed where European subject nations like the brave Boers and the sturdy Irish had also failed. 

The commendable fact remains that a rebellion was attempted in 1857. On the other side the Punjab loyalty of 1857 had also its reasons. It can be best approached by being understood as it was rather than being despised or defended. 

The Punjabis squarely speaking cannot be blamed for their attitude in 1857. However, they also must not condemn the Hindustanis both Hindus and Muslims for having rebelled in 1857; as many Punjabis are doing today. Both the groups had different historical experiences and both behaved in an understandable and predictable manner.

The reader may feel that an out proportion attention has been given to the background of the Punjab loyalty of 1857. But this aspect of 1857 is relevant for us even today. We have to understand and digest this fact that belonging to the same religion cannot overcome the differences created by virtue of different perceptions produced due to different historical experiences or because of cultural and ethnic differences.

 The Muslim leaders of post 1940 Indo Pak sub continent managed to temporarily galvanise the Muslims in 1946 into sinking regional and cultural differences and establish a multi ethnic state but mere rhetoric and euphoria cannot make various ethnic groups a nation unless the political system is based on equality and mutual respect rather than mutual distrust and political manipulation based on ulterior designs. 

The result then is nothing but “Bangladesh! And perhaps many more “Deshes” “tans” and “lands” if the Neo Mughals of Delhi and Islamabad do not learn from history.

End Notes

542Page-207-History of Delhi under the Later Mughals-Op Cit.543Page-27 & 28-India's Struggle for Freedom-Op Cit. Pages-27 & 35-Cambridge History-The Indian Empire-1858-1918-Op Cit.544Page-35-Cambridge History-1858-1918-Op Cit.545Page-241-Dictionary of Modern Indian History-Op Cit.