The History Of Rebellion Of 1857 In Modern India

The history of Rebellion of 1857 is much debated and volumes of writings are written on this particular issue. There are different interpretations in which this iconic event has been portrayed in historiographies of modern India, and to the debates that have come to surround its nature and nomenclature. This interpretive spectrum encompasses colonial interpretation, feudal interpretation, subaltern interpretation and the nationalist interpretation. Among all such interpretations, it is nationalist interpretation which captures the popular imagination most. So, it is worthwhile to analyse the character of the rebellion as a national war against foreign rule and the messages with which it associates.
The rebellion has had a significant impact
It analyzes the two works which seek to claim 1857 for nationalist ethos. For the respective historians of their respective works, the revolt of 1857 was linked to the national movement through however jagged a line and however circuitous a route. The essayist in his concluding remark claimed that the 1857 rebellion had to be a part of bigger national narrative and should not be seen as an event in its own. It is the main idea of the entire essay which contrasts the work of two historians. It tried to analyze how the nationalist element in the rebellion was restrained because of the feudal element in it. It looked at how the sources could affect the tone and change the discourse in a different manner. So, the obsession of S.N. Sen with the British sources affected his writing in a sense that it failed to look at the activities of the rebels, their strength, their strategy and so forth. It was a peculiar condition where the rebellion is seen as war of independence but no efforts are made to tell about the rebel and their activities. Moreover, given the belief that Britishers are the harbinger of modernity which coloured his conscience, it was not surprising that he did not take into fold in his narrative about the colonial exploitation and persecution of the indigenous people. But, it is surprising in a way that this assessment by a historian brought under the nationalist ethos, since he was
The dangerous thing with the history is if there is only one version and it becomes popularly available to everyone”. The history of the revolt of 1857 should not be an exception to this position. It is in that regard it is important to criticize the appropriation of the meaning of the revolt of 1857 by vested interests. So, it is not only important to have a critical look at the nationalistic interpretations but one should also be able to locate the tensions within the nationalist assessments. One should, on the one hand, acknowledge and appreciate the struggle of rebels against the foreign rule and its suppression and oppression but at the same time one should be wary of the kind of “terrible propositions” being set out for the future generations as was done by Veer Savarkar. It could be better if the historical past can be connected to the political present. For example, the idea of retribution, revenge and retaliation are often put forth by Hindutva fundamentalists when it comes to dealing with their “foe”. However, a slight hint has been made in that regard. As far as the article of Rudraganshu Mukherjee is concerned, it failed to mention the specific reasons for underplay of religion by the historians. Underplay of history could be attributed to religious chauvinism and communal tensions afterwards which the two historians under the nationalist ethos cannot afford to put into picture. Secondly, it is not necessary for