Rani Laxmibai: Warrior-Queen of Jhansi

By Pratibha Ranade

RANI LAXMIBAI was a capable ruler, an intelligent communicator, and defender of the faith. She was sagacious when it came to her people and astute in dealing with her enemies. The widowed Queen had to repeatedly face gruelling challenges but drew strength from adversity, relying on her sense of justice, her dignity, and her magnanimity. She never surrendered to destiny, choosing instead to shape her own life. The British annexed Rani Laxmibai's kingdom, took away her political rights, and humiliated her. But she valiantly fought the foreign power and died a hero. Written after extensive research, this book portrays the making of a remarkable queen. Rani Laxmibai, the brave warrior-queen, remains a source of inspiration to us all.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Harper India
• Release date: Jan 25, 2019
• ISBN: 9789353026059

Pratibha Ranade

Pratibha Ranade is the author of six books in Marathi, some of which have been translated into English. She has won several literary awards for her works. Dr Sanjay Ranade is the translator of this title. He is associate professor at the Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Mumbai.

Book preview

Introduction

The writing of history has always been a vibrantly debated topic of discussion for historians and intellectuals all over the world. The discussion revolves around the method of writing history and the motives behind writing it. Will Durant, the famed historian, writes in The Story of Civilization: The writing of history to a great extent relies on inference and logic. Biases too affect the writing of history somewhat. I would like to add a little to what Durant has said. A writer of history can delve deeper into the historical subtext when he explores the complexities of human nature, relationships, people’s aspirations, their pride and their sense of mortification. The writer also has to comprehend the contemporary social tensions, movements, and the subtle undercurrents flowing silently under the social-political-cultural-religious surface.

In the history of India, the Uprising of 1857 is an extremely important event. Lokmanya Tilak wrote about this Uprising in his editorial for the Kesari of 7 May 1895 titled Jhanshichi Rani (The Queen of Jhansi): There would be a rare human being in India whose mind is not torn apart at the memory of that event. The memory still touches one deeply even today after 150 years. After the Uprising, India came completely under the control of the British. Queen Victoria established British rule by taking over the governance of India from the East India Company. All the princely states, big and small, who had not participated in the Uprising of 1857 continued to rule their own territories and became tributaries of the British Empire. The effects of the Uprising penetrated deep into the psyche of Indians and into Indian politics as well. These effects turned out to be far reaching. Of course, the Uprising greatly affected the British too. India had become their crowning glory. However, at the same time the slaughter of the white- skinned by the Indian soldiers during the Uprising had embedded fear so deep in the minds of the British that when India got its independence in 1947, they were afraid that the Indians would once again slaughter them. Hence, a majority of the British and white-skinned Anglo-Indians left for England before 15 August 1947.

On 26 February 1857, the infantry-cavalry at Behrampur, and Mangal Pandey from the cavalry at Barrackpore, had rebelled by refusing to accept new cartridges given to the army. Rumours had been rampant that these cartridges were greased with cow and pig fat. On 3 May, the cavalry at Lucknow rebelled for the same reason. The British punished those who rebelled, sent some of them away to be a part of the army at China, and hanged the rebel sepoys Mangal Pandey and Eshwar Pandey on 8 April and 21 April respectively. Thereafter, on 10 May 1857, the sepoys of Meerut rebelled and within no time the rebellion had spread to all of Northern India. Since then, whether this Uprising was a rebellion by the sepoys or a war for independence has been a topic of intense discussion and differing opinions.

The rebellion first started with the sepoys but soon included the rulers of the states and the common people too. Although they all joined the rebellion against a common enemy, their reasons for participating in it differed. The rulers fought the British out of self-interest in retaining their kingdoms. They had no vision of an independent India. The sepoys, on the other hand, fought because they did not want to serve the British, they did not want foreign rule, and therefore after the rebellion they reinstalled their previous kings as rulers. The Meerut sepoys reinstated Bahadur Shah Zafar on the throne when they came to Delhi, the Kanpur sepoys wanted Nana Saheb to rule as the Peshwa, and similarly the sepoys of Jhansi forced Rani Laxmibai to take over as their ruler. The horror that their religion would be corrupted while breaking the cartridges on which pig and cow fat was applied led the sepoys to take up arms. There was no idea of national or political independence. Those who shared this perspective, called the war the sepoy mutiny or shipai gardi (sepoy mob). Prior to Independence, due to the sensitivity of the times, people called it a mutiny. Even after Independence, several eminent people such as socialist Manavendra Roy, historian and writer Dr. Surendranath Sen, and Dr. R.C. Mujumdar have referred to this Uprising as a mutiny. N.R. Phatak, eminent doctor, social worker and MLA, picked up the same thread and called the rebels a sepoy mob.

They argued that this flare had only spread over a small region in India. Out of all the Indian sepoys who were in the service of the British, only a few soldiers revolted, while the rest fought on the side of the British. Among the common people, many were well-disposed towards the British and, in fact, helped them. The British-educated neo-intellectuals too, leaned towards the British. At the same time, the kings, nobles and landowners had virtually no communication with each other. Everyone was fighting for their own self-interest. There were no visible feelings to unite and fight the British; no nationalist emotion beyond their selfish motives. As a result, the rebel sepoys did not have a gritty, resolute, and nationalist leadership. The revolt was scattered and the British curbed it with the help of the Hindu kings and nobles, Hindu sepoys, and the common masses. As a result, feudalism was destroyed and India, which until then was a motley gathering of different kingdoms, now emerged as a single nation under the British regime. Antiquated, traditional thoughts found new direction in modern, progressive ideas like individualism, equality, and justice. A single, resolute government provided to the masses assurance, security, and new opportunities. A feeling of gratitude is visible in the writings of some writers. On the occasion of the centenary of the 1857 Uprising, the Government of India published Dr. Mujumdar’s The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 and Dr. Sen’s 1857 in the year 1957, while Phatak’s Atharashe Sattavanache Shipai Garde (The Sepoy Mob of 1857) was published in 1958.

People’s Participation

Dr. Sen has stated in his book that in 1857 the issue of India as a nation was in its infancy. This was a fact. This meant that the feeling of nationalism had not taken root in the minds of the people; there was no awakening among them. The common people had a parochial view. They owed allegiance to the local village head, king, emperor or noble who ruled the region they belonged to, rather than the ruler in Delhi. There was a lack of concern among the masses in the more remote regions about who occupied the throne of Delhi. It did not matter who was at the centre, who the emperor was, or whether a Sultan or the Mughals replaced the ruler later. The repeated battles between the kings and nobles were the only things that disrupted their life. Their loyalty was to their own king or ruler. People had been following this order for hundreds of years. The idea of one nation and nationalism originated for the first time in Europe during the Renaissance period. It was the age of the revival of art, architecture, literature, sciences, different branches of knowledge and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, growth of capital economy, and colonialism but the most important factor was the bitter clash between the Roman Church and the European monarchy for political power, which necessitated the spirit of nationalism. Due to the non-existence of similar conditions in India during the nineteenth century, the need for the European model of nationalism was not felt. This consciousness originated in India after 1857 due to the Uprising.

Even today the notion of nationalism as defined in Europe has not germinated completely in India and this was even more so at the time of the Uprising. The people of the north considered the region to the south of the Narmada River as an almost alien culture. The fact that Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam are four different languages spoken in the southern region was unknown to the people of the north for several years even after Independence. Although the people in those times were patriotic, they did not perceive India to be a nation in the sense that nationhood was understood in Europe. However, it would be incorrect to say that the people did not have any nationalist feeling—the concept of nationalism has to be understood in the social and political context of those times.

It is true that several Indian sepoys from the British army were loyal to the British. The autobiography of Subhedar Sitaram provides a peek into this aspect of the mind-set of the sepoys. His promotion to the post of Subhedar, after having served in the Bengal army for forty years as a sepoy did upset him. He felt humiliated because he had to work under and follow the orders of younger, inexperienced officers promoted only because they were British. Yet, his allegiance towards his masters remained firm. In 1857, he was captured by the rebel army who tried to convince him to leave the British and join them. However, Sitaram did not forsake his allegiance to his masters. When he was freed by the rebel army, he fought against them once more. It was on the insistence of his British officer that he had written and published in Hindi his memoirs of working as a soldier of the British army. Later in 1873 the memoirs were translated into English and published under the title From Sepoy to Subhedar.

The book provides a better understanding of Sitaram and other innumerable sepoys like him. In the chaos of the war, Sitaram got separated from his unit and wandered from place to place. Along the way, he encountered the rebel sepoys. The sepoys tried to lure him to their side. He was even convinced of their reasoning, but refused to bite the hand that had fed him. The sepoys threatened to kill Sitaram, yet his allegiance to his masters remained firm. Later, he learnt that his young son was part of the rebel sepoys captured by his unit. The thought of pumping bullets into the sepoys tore at Sitaram’s heart and he pleaded with his British officer not to make him shoot his own son. He was given that concession but the son fell to the bullets nevertheless. The Major gave Sitaram permission to perform the last rites of his son. This simple act where he was given this privilege while the other rebels were simply buried together overwhelmed Sitaram. He felt obliged to the Major and prayed that he be promoted to General! Although he was devastated at the death of his son he was also ashamed of him—how could his son be such a wretch? How could he turn against his master, the British benefactor?

Sitaram’s way of thinking may appear extreme and rare. However, the root cause of it is misplaced loyalty to the master, lack of a sense of honour and self-respect, and the fear of an uncertain future prevalent at the time. From Sitaram’s autobiography, we realise how strongly these factors influenced the mentality of the Indian soldiers fighting for the British.

From the writings of a few British authors we can also gauge the apathy of the masses towards the war. The fact is that the masses always try to keep themselves away from the inevitable effects of wars. Even during the Mahabharata war between the Kauravas and Pandavas, people around Kurukshetra gathered around but stood afar watching the spectacle. After sunset when the war stopped, they provided aid to the wounded but they never participated in the war. These people were common folk who worked on the basis of their caste- assigned businesses. They could not afford to stop working and actively participate in the war. Those involved in trade needed a stable government for their businesses to flourish hence they too did not want war. They wanted a ruler who would provide them with a stability and security after the war. In the 1857 battle in Delhi, as soon as the moneylenders and the rich merchants realised that the British were winning, they helped them in every way possible. The British later rewarded them handsomely. Even today, these families are enjoying the benefits of their allegiance.

At the same time, British officers Sylvester, Mead and Hugh Rose had clearly noted the opposition of the masses and their behaviour towards the British. During the journey from Jhansi to Kalpi, and then from Kalpi to Gwalior and on to Bundelkhand, the British army passed through several villages. The farmers, carpenters, blacksmiths, cobblers, other artisans, businessmen and the masses in these villages did not do any work for the British army even if they were willing to pay for it. They did not help the British or their army. They even refused to offer them water to drink. On the contrary, they would curse and threaten to ostracise the Indian soldiers who were fighting for the British. Sadhus, saints, fakirs, and folk artists were doing the work of instigating the masses against the British. They would speak to the people as they travelled from village to village and narrate tales of how the British were looting and torturing people. In the region surrounding Jhansi, there were sanyasis called Harbole who would go about the village at dawn singing to the notes of a one-string instrument called the ektari. They did not ask for alms but accepted whatever was offered to them. Two lines from their song went thus:

"Dhan bides chale jata hai

Dukh bhare hoy…"

(The wealth is going away abroad;

The sorrow has become too heavy to bear.)

This manner of raising public awareness was used everywhere. British officers such as William Russell (My Diary in India, in the year 1858-59) and T. Rice Holmes (A History of the Indian Mutiny), too, have referred to it in their books. Another medium of raising public awareness was posters: Everything will turn red; the Shah of Iran, the Russian Czar, are coming to help India. These posters had been stuck on the walls of Jama Masjid, Red Fort, and Sadar Adalat in Delhi even before 10 May. When British officers saw these posters, they would tear them off. Nevertheless, the posters would be put up again and again and the masses in Delhi would gather around and discuss them. In the gullies and mohallas of Delhi, there was talk that there was going to be a big battle against the British and blood would flow. In Lucknow too, similar posters were pasted on the walls of important buildings in the city. The posters had been plastered even far south, in Madras. Charles Ball in his 1858 book The History of the Indian Mutiny has given an example of what the posters stuck everywhere said: "O countrymen, devout, faithful, wake up! Be prepared! Get ready to throw out the British kafir from India! ...There is only one way to free India from the terrible torture that the British are inflicting. That is to wage war against the British. Those who die on the battlefield will become martyrs. The gates of heaven will open for the brave fighters fighting for the country, religion, and those who oppose, who shirk from this national duty, for them the gates of hell shall open. O countrymen, you have to decide which way you choose to go." It is clear from these examples that there were systematic efforts undertaken to instigate the masses against the British. The newspapers of the time illustrate the concern of the masses regarding the war, although they did not participate in it. S.G. Malshe has brought the contribution of newspapers of the time to light in his small book called Sattavanche Uthavache Samakalen Katran (Contemporary Newspaper Clippings of the 1857 Revolt). In the book, Malshe has reproduced articles from reputed Marathi newspapers like Dnyanprakash, Dnyanodaya and Indu Prakash.

The spark for the war was ignited in Meerut on 10 May but the newspapers had already begun to reflect the anxiety among the masses much before that. On 23 February 1857, the Dnyanprakash carried a news item dated 10 February from the English daily Englishman that said, The Governor General Lord Canning has ordered all commanding officers that the bullets with the fat were for the white and not the black-skinned sentries. Then appeared the news about the chapattis distributed at the army cantonments. On 18 May, the Dnyanprakash said, "The plan of the Bengal unit to kill all the Whites has been exposed because of which the Blacks [sic] working in the army will lose their jobs and may invite self-destruction. Hence, the paper advised those who wanted to bring about a revolt not to think of it at this time…" After this, the Dnyanaprakash carried the news that following a declaration by the Governor General’s council, the people of Pune and Mumbai prayed for a British win. Newspapers continuously reported the wave of the sepoy discontent at various places and also the anger of the kings, emperors, nobles, queens and several others who joined them. The Dnyanaprakash, quoting English newspapers on 12 March 1860, said that Laxmibai, the Rani of Jhansi, is not dead and is hale and hearty with the Queen of Lahore! The Pune Observer had carried an article from the Englishman titled The treachery among the rebels which was later published in Dnyanaprakash on 7 October 1857. The article stated: Although the government has announced a big prize for anybody who helps capture the rebels, the people have not helped the government to arrest anybody. This kind of unity is not seen anywhere in the Asian continent. However, as the tide turned against the rebels some people did betray them and hand them over to the British. The Dnyanodaya in its edition dated 1 February 1832 said, Nana Saheb Peshwa’s brother, Bala Saheb, was caught by the treacherous King of Cooch Behar but as a mark of respect for the Peshwa, Bala Saheb was handed over to the British with silver shackles on his feet. Until October 1894 news about Nana Saheb Peshwa and his arrest kept appearing in the newspapers. Yet, until the very end, Nana Saheb Peshwa’s whereabouts were uncertain. In the Dnyanodaya edition dated 16 January 1860 it was said, The marble stones in the mansion of Nana Saheb at Bithoor were seized by the government and transported to Kanpur to make the flooring of the government Christian church there. From the articles in these newspapers one thing becomes clear. Although the Dnyanprakash and the Indu Prakash denounced the rebels there was a feeling of disquiet, despondency, and a feeling of helplessness among the masses. Dnyanprakash called it an anti-State revolt rather than a rebellion and even cautioned against it, while the Dnyanodaya called the British lions and the rebels wolves thereby degrading them. Could that be because the missionaries published Dnyanodaya?

In the Kesari dated 7 May 1895, Tilak wrote an editorial on D.B. Parasnis’ biography of the Rani of Jhansi. He said, What can be more contemptible and damaging than the so-called intelligent and objective writers amongst us relying completely on English writers and trying to prove that our own people are worse than thieves and dacoits?

This mentality noted by Tilak in 1895 was not limited to that time alone. Later writings on 1857 also display the same approach to the Uprising.

Dr. Alexander Duff, a Scottish missionary, had a different point of view of looking at this Uprising. In 1857, he was in Kolkata, and to let people in London know the situation in India, he wrote twenty-five letters to Rev. Dr. Tweedie, the convenor of the Free Church of Scotland’s Foreign Mission Committee. In 1858, these letters were published in the form of a book titled The Indian Rebellion: Its Causes and Results. In his fifteenth letter, Duff says, "To say, then, with The Times and a certain class of home politicians, that the present revolt is a purely military one and nothing more, is an egregious mistake, and as mischievous as it is egregious. To say, on the other hand, with the press and another class of home politicians, that the rebellion is a national one, in any true sense of the word national, is a mistake just as egregious, and scarcely less mischievous. In reality it is a revolt or rebellion of the Mohammedan, Brahmin, Rajput, and other fraternising sepoys, plus the whole shoal of political intriguers connected with the fallen dynasties, royalties, and chieftainships [sic] of Mohammedanism and Hinduism, together with the armed classes, which constitute so large a population of Northern and Central India. Duff further advises that if the British wanted to ensure their rule in India, one indispensable preliminary

measure . . . must be a stern and relentless disarmament of the restless, turbulent, and warrior classes throughout the whole of Northern and Central India . . . And while the civil power, in its own department, proceeds to the adoption and establishment of healing measures, let the Protestant Churches of Great Britain, America and Germany, pour in upon the chafed and parched soil the waters of life and salvation; and India may soon become the Lord’s! He refers to the similar treatment given to the Scottish Highlanders by the British. As a Scottish Highlander, I know how bitter was the act which disarmed the clans after the decisive Battle of Culloden; but as a Christian man I feel how necessary that apparently despotic act was for the subsequent evangelisation of the Highlands, and how thoroughly it was justified by its blessed results!"

Duff was recommending that the religious identity of India should be wiped out. It is not surprising then that there were feelings of disaffection, hatred, and dread for the Christian missionaries amongst the Hindus and Mussulmans of India.

Leaders and the Feeling of Nationalism

The important leaders of the war of 1857 were Nana Saheb Peshwa, Laxmibai (the Rani of Jhansi), and Tatya Tope who was Nana Saheb’s army chief. In 1851, after the death of Peshwa Baji Rao II, the East India Company had stopped the pension of his son, Nana Saheb Peshwa. Jhansi had been annexed and the British had invoked the Doctrine of Lapse to ensure that Rani Laxmibai’s adopted son was not accepted as her heir. Nana Saheb and the Rani of Jhansi therefore had reason to fight the British. Those who call the war a mutiny are of the opinion that both Rani Laxmibai and Nana Saheb had no nationalist feeling in them and participated in the war only for their self-interest. From the available literature, we can see that this is only half the truth. No doubt Nana Saheb wanted the pension and Rani Laxmibai wanted her kingdom back. According to them, this was their right, which the British had unfairly snatched from them. They had participated in the war to rightfully take back what was theirs. From their perspective, their own kingdom was their nation. The connotation that we assign to the word nation today did not exist at that time. Regardless of the king sitting on the throne of Delhi, every king and noble was independent within his/her own kingdom. That was his/her nation and their subjects too identified with it.

The real cause behind the Uprising of the sepoys was religion. If the sepoys could overthrow the foreign rulers who professed an alien religion then the rule of the local people would return and their religion would be safe. It was this feeling that led the sepoys to kill the British in the Meerut cantonment and the city. They established the deposed Bahadur Shah on the throne and the reign of the Badshah was proclaimed. Without a nationalist feeling the sepoys, instead of going to Delhi, would have simply put forward their demands: not to use cow and pig fat on the cartridges, a pay hike, promotion according to seniority, pay and perquisites equal to the British officers, and all allowances equal to the British. The rebellion would have ended immediately. However, apart from Delhi, the sepoys rebelled in various parts India and later marched towards Delhi. This was because the sepoys believed that in India the central seat of power was in Delhi, the Emperor of India was in Delhi and it was necessary to establish his rule.

After the rebellion of the sepoys at Kanpur and Jhansi, Nana Saheb and Rani Laxmibai took over the reins of governance. Nana Saheb established his position as the Peshwa in a ceremony and made a proclamation to that effect. Rani Laxmibai left the city palace and went back to stay at the Jhansi Fort. She started administering the kingdom. They did not stop there, but began to communicate with people near and afar. They united to try to drive the British beyond the seas.

Rani Laxmibai was in constant communication with the neighbouring King of Banpur underlining the importance of unity to keep fighting the British. In her letters, the Rani says, India is our country…it is not right to live in slavery under the foreigners, we should fight them…it is my opinion that the foreigners should not rule India and I have faith in myself and I am preparing a big army to fight the British… The intentions of Rani Laxmibai are clear from these letters, and establish, without doubt, her thoughts regarding the war.

Nana Saheb similarly tried to communicate with several people. He wrote letters to Holsingh, the Kotwal of Kanpur, Kalikaprasad Kanungo of Avadh, and the Thanedar of Shirsol. A letter from Nana Saheb was found with the King of Nargund after his defeat in 1858. In this letter Nana Saheb has said, "The kafir British came to this country as traders and then by the policy of deceit captured the kingdoms of the Hindus and Muslims. Feigning fairness, these kafir robbed us of wealth, and with insolence they are out to