What's new

Remembering Freedom fighters.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
Hi

This thread is intended for the freedom fighters who fought for the independence of India Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their sacrifices go beyond the boundaries which we share today.....


To start with

Bhagat Singh

Bhagat Singh (September 28, 1907[2] – March 23, 1931) was an Indian freedom fighter, considered to be one of the most influential revolutionaries of the Indian independence movement. He is often referred to as Shaheed Bhagat Singh (the word shaheed means "martyr").

Born to a family which had earlier been involved in revolutionary activities against the British Raj in India, Singh, as a teenager, had studied European revolutionary movements and was attracted to anarchism and communism.[3] He became involved in numerous revolutionary organizations. He quickly rose through the ranks of the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA) and became one of its leaders, converting it to the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA). Singh gained support when he underwent a 64-day fast in jail, demanding equal rights for Indian and British political prisoners. He was hanged for shooting a police officer in response to the killing of veteran freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai. His legacy prompted youth in India to begin fighting for Indian independence and also increased the rise of socialism in India.[4]

Later revolutionary activities

[edit] Lala Lajpat Rai's death and the Saunders murder

The British government created a commission under Sir John Simon to report on the current political situation in India in 1928. The Indian political parties boycotted the commission because it did not include a single Indian as its member and it was met with protests all over the country. When the commission visited Lahore on October 30, 1928, Lala Lajpat Rai led the protest against Simon Commission in a silent non-violent march, but the police responded with violence.[15] Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten with lathis at the chest.[15] He later succumbed to his injuries.[15] Bhagat Singh, who was an eyewitness to this event, vowed to take revenge.[16] He joined with other revolutionaries, Shivaram Rajguru, Jai Gopal and Sukhdev Thapar, in a plot to kill the police chief, Scott. Jai Gopal was supposed to identify the chief and signal for Singh to shoot. However, in a case of mistaken identity, Gopal signalled Singh on the appearance of J. P. Saunders, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, Saunders, instead of Scott, was shot. Bhagat Singh quickly left Lahore to escape the police. To avoid recognition, he shaved his beard and cut his hair, a violation of the sacred tenets of Sikhism.

[edit] Bomb in the assembly

In the face of actions by the revolutionaries, the British government enacted the Defence of India Act to give more power to the police.[citation needed] The purpose of the Act was to combat revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. The Act was defeated in the council by one vote.[citation needed] However, the Act was then passed under the ordinance that claimed that it was in the best interest of the public. In response to this act, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association planned to explode a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly where the ordinance was going to be passed. Originally, Chandrashekhar Azad, another prominent leader of the revolutionary movement attempted to stop Bhagat Singh from carrying out the bombing. However, the remainder of the party forced him to succumb to Singh's wishes. It was decided that Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, another revolutionary, would throw the bomb in the assembly.[citation needed]

On April 8, 1929, Singh and Dutt threw a bomb onto the corridors of the assembly and shouted "Inquilab Zindabad!" ("Long Live the Revolution!").[17] This was followed by a shower of leaflets stating that it takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear.[18] The bomb neither killed nor injured anyone; Singh and Dutt claimed that this was deliberate on their part, a claim substantiated both by British forensics investigators who found that the bomb was not powerful enough to cause injury, and by the fact that the bomb was thrown away from people[citation needed]. Singh and Dutt gave themselves up for arrest after the bomb.[citation needed] He and Dutt were sentenced to 'Transportation for Life' for the bombing on June 12, 1929.

[edit] Trial and execution
Front page of The Tribune announcing Bhagat Singh's execution.

Shortly after his arrest and trial for the Assembly bombing, the British came to know of his involvement in the murder of J. P. Saunders. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were charged with the murder. Bhagat Singh decided to use the court as a tool to publicize his cause for the independence of India.[citation needed] He admitted to the murder and made statements against the British rule during the trial.[citation needed] The case was ordered to be carried out without members of the HSRA present at the hearing. This created an uproar amongst Singh's supporters as he could no longer publicise his views.

While in jail, Bhagat Singh and other prisoners launched a hunger strike advocating for the rights of prisoners and those facing trial. The reason for the strike was that British murderers and thieves were treated better than Indian political prisoners, who, by law, were meant to be given better rights. The aims in their strike were to ensure a decent standard of food for political prisoners, the availability of books and a daily newspaper, as well as better clothing and the supply of toilet necessities and other hygienic necessities. He also demanded that political prisoners should not be forced to do any labour or undignified work.[19] During this hunger strike that lasted 63 days and ended with the British succumbing to his wishes, he gained much popularity among the common Indians. Before the strike his popularity was limited mainly to the Punjab region.[20]

Jinnah, one of the politicians present when the Central Legislative Assembly was bombed,[21] made no secret of his sympathies for the Lahore prisoners - commenting on the hunger strike he said "the man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul, and he believes in the justice of his cause." And talking of Singh's actions said "however much you deplore them and however much you say they are misguided, it is the system, this damnable system of governance, which is resented by the people".[22]

Bhagat Singh also maintained the use of a diary, which he eventually made to fill 404 pages. In this diary he made numerous notes relating to the quotations and popular sayings of various people whose views he supported. Prominent in his diary were the views of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[23] The comments in his diary led to an understanding of the philosophical thinking of Bhagat Singh.[24] Before dying he also wrote a pamphlet entitled "Why I am an atheist, as he was being accused of vanity by not accepting God in the face of death"]].[citation needed].

On March 23, 1931, Bhagat Singh was hanged in Lahore with his fellow comrades Rajguru and Sukhdev. His supporters, who had been protesting against the hanging, immediately declared him as a shaheed or martyr.[25] According to the Superintendent of Police at the time, V.N. Smith, the hanging was advanced:

Normally execution took place at 8 am, but it was decided to act at once before the public could become aware of what had happened...At about 7 pm shouts of Inquilab Zindabad were heard from inside the jail. This was correctly, interpreted as a signal that the final curtain was about to drop.[26]

Singh was cremated at Hussainiwala on banks of Sutlej river. Today, the Bhagat Singh Memorial commemorates freedom fighters of India.[25]

[edit] Ideals and opinions
Bhagat Singh in jail at the age of 20

Bhagat Singh was attracted to anarchism and communism.[3] Both communism and western anarchism had influence on him. He read the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Mikhail Bakunin.[27][28] Bhagat Singh did not believe in Gandhian philosophy and viewed that Gandhian politics will replace one set of exploiters by another.[29] Singh was an atheist and promoted the concept of atheism by writing a pamphlet titled Why I am an Atheist.]].[citation needed]

Bhagat Singh was also an admirer of the writings of Irish revolutionary Terence MacSwiney.[citation needed] When Bhagat Singh's father petitioned the British government to pardon his son, Bhagat Singh quoted Terence MacSwiney and said ""I am confident that my death will do more to smash the British Empire than my release" and told his father to withdraw the petition.[citation needed]

Some of his writings like "Blood Sprinkled on the Day of Holi Babbar Akalis on the Crucifix" were influenced by the struggle of Dharam Singh Hayatpur.[citation needed]

[edit] Anarchism

From May to September, 1928, Bhagat Singh serially published several articles on anarchism in Punjabi periodical Kirti.[3] He expressed concern over misunderstanding of the concept of anarchism among the public. Singh tried to eradicate the misconception among people about anarchism. He wrote, "The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular." As anarchism means absence of ruler and abolition of state, not absence of rule, Singh explained, "I think in India the idea of universal brotherhood, the Sanskrit sentence vasudhaiva kutumbakam etc., have the same meaning." He wrote about the growth of anarchism, the "first man to explicitly propagate the theory of Anarchism was Proudhon and that is why he is called the founder of Anarchism. After him a Russian, Bakunin worked hard to spread the doctrine. He was followed by Prince Kropotkin etc."[3]

Singh explained anarchism in the article:

The ultimate goal of Anarchism is complete independence, according to which no one will be obsessed with God or religion, nor will anybody be crazy for money or other worldly desires. There will be no chains on the body or control by the state. This means that they want to eliminate: the Church, God and Religion; the state; Private property.[3]

[edit] Marxism

Bhagat Singh was also influenced by Marxism. Indian historian K. N. Panikkar described Singh as one of the early Marxists in India.[29] From 1926, Bhagat Singh studied the history of the revolutionary movement in India and abroad. In his prison notebooks, Singh used quotations from Lenin (on imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism) and Trotsky on revolution.[3] In written documents, when asked what was his last wish, he replied that he was studying the life of Lenin and he wanted to finish it before his death. [30]

[edit] Atheism

During his teenage years, Singh was a devout Arya Samajist. However, he began to question religious ideologies after witnessing the Hindu-Muslim riots that broke out after Gandhi disbanded the Non-Cooperation Movement.[31] He did not understand how members of these two groups, initially united in fighting against the British, could be at each others' throats because of their religious differences. At this point, Singh dropped his religious beliefs, since he believed religion hindered the revolutionaries' struggle for independence, and began studying the works of Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky — all atheist revolutionaries. He also took an interest in Niralamba Swami's[32] book Common Sense, which advocated a form of "mystic atheism".[33]

While in a condemned cell in 1931, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he discusses and advocates the philosophy of atheism. This pamphlet was a result of some criticism by fellow revolutionaries on his failure to acknowledge religion and God while in a condemned cell, the accusation of vanity was also dealt with in this pamphlet. He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others held close to their hearts. In this pamphlet, he acknowledged the fact that religion made death easier, but also said that unproved philosophy is a sign of human weakness.

[edit] Death

Bhagat Singh was known for his appreciation of martyrdom. His mentor as a young boy was Kartar Singh Sarabha.[34] Singh is himself considered a martyr for acting to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, also considered a martyr. In the leaflet he threw in the Central Assembly on 9 April 1929, he stated that It is easy to kill individuals but you cannot kill the ideas. Great empires crumbled while the ideas survived.[35] After engaging in studies on the Russian Revolution, he wanted to die so that his death would inspire the youth of India to unite and fight the British Empire.

While in prison, Bhagat Singh and two others had written a letter to the Viceroy asking him to treat them as prisoners of war and hence to execute them by firing squad and not by hanging. Prannath Mehta, Bhagat Singh's friend, visited him in the jail on March 20, four days before his execution, with a draft letter for clemency, but he declined to sign it. [36]

[edit] Controversy

Bhagat Singh's life is the subject of controversy.

[edit] Last wish
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2009)

Singh is said to have mentioned to Randhir Singh[discuss], prison inmate, Gadhar revolutionary and a known figure in Sikh circles, that he (Bhagat Singh) had shaven "hair and beard under pressing circumstances" and that "It was for the service of the country" that his companions "compelled him to give up the Sikh appearance" adding to it that he was "ashamed" [37][38]. He had supposedly expressed, as last wish before being hanged, the desire to get "amrit" from Panj Pyare including Randhir Singh and to adorn full 5 k's[38][39]. However, his last wish, of getting "amrit" from Panj Pyare was not granted by the British[39].

This version of events was largely discussed by Randhir Singh himself and so it has come under question. Some scholars[who?] claim that it was Bhagat Singh's meeting with Randhir Singh that compelled him to write his famous "Why I Am An Atheist" essay.

[edit] Conspiracy theories

Many conspiracy theories exist regarding Singh, especially the events surrounding his death:

[edit] Mahatma Gandhi

One of the most popular ones is that Mahatma Gandhi had an opportunity to stop Singh's execution but did not. This particular theory has spread amongst the public in modern times after the creation of modern films such as The Legend of Bhagat Singh, which portray Gandhi as someone who was strongly at odds with Bhagat Singh and did not oppose his hanging.[40] A variation on this theory is that Gandhi actively conspired with the British to have Singh executed. Both theories are highly controversial and hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that Gandhi did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.

Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh's patriotism. He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh's execution, Gandhi said, "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only."[41] Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it."

Gandhi had managed to have 90,000 political prisoners who were not members of his Satyagraha movement released under the pretext of "relieving political tension," in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. According to a report in the Indian magazine Frontline, he did plead several times for the commutation of the death sentence of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, including a personal visit on March 19, 1931, and in a letter to the Viceroy on the day of their execution, pleading fervently for commutation, not knowing that the letter would be too late.[36]

Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, later said:

As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved.[36]

[edit] Saunders family

On October 28, 2005, a book entitled Some Hidden Facts: Martyrdom of Shaheed Bhagat Singh—Secrets unfurled by an Intelligence Bureau Agent of British-India [sic] by K.S. Kooner and G.S. Sindhra was released. The book asserts that Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were deliberately hanged in such a manner as to leave all three in a semi-conscious state, so that all three could later be taken outside the prison and shot dead by the Saunders family. The book says that this was a prison operation codenamed "Operation Trojan Horse." Scholars are skeptical of the book's claims.[42]

[edit] Legacy

[edit] Indian independence movement

Bhagat Singh's death had the effect that he desired and he inspired thousands of youths to assist the remainder of the Indian independence movement. After his hanging, youths in regions around Northern India rioted in protest against the British Raj.[citation needed]

[edit] Modern day

Singh's contribution to Indian society[43] and, in particular, the future of socialism in India. To celebrate the centenary of his birth, a group of intellectuals have set up an institution to commemorate Singh and his ideals.[44]

Several popular Bollywood films have been made capturing the life and times of Bhagat Singh.[45] The oldest is Shaheed in 1965, starring Manoj Kumar as Singh. Two major films about Singh were released in 2002, The Legend of Bhagat Singh and 23rd March 1931: Shaheed. The Legend of Bhagat Singh is Rajkumar Santoshi's adaptation, in which Ajay Devgan played Singh and Amrita Rao was featured in a brief role. 23 March 1931: Shaheed was directed by Guddu Dhanoa and starred Bobby Deol as Singh, with Sunny Deol and Aishwarya Rai in supporting roles. Another major film Shaheed-E-Azam, starring Sonu Sood, Maanav Vij, Rajinder Gupta, and Sadhana Singh, and directed by Sukumar Nair, also was produced by Iqbal Dhillon under the banner Surjit Movies.[46]

The 2006 film Rang De Basanti is a film drawing parallels between revolutionaries of Bhagat Singh's era and modern Indian youth. It covers a lot of Bhagat Singh's role in the Indian freedom struggle. The movie revolves around a group of college students and how they each play the roles of Bhagat's friends and family.

The patriotic Urdu and Hindi songs, Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna (translated as "the desire to sacrifice") and Mera Rang De Basanti Chola ("my light-yellow-colored cloak"; Basanti referring to the light-yellow color of the Mustard flower grown in the Punjab and also one of the two main colors of the Sikh religion as per the Sikh rehat meryada(code of conduct of the Sikh Saint-Soldier) ), while created by Ram Prasad Bismil, are largely associated to Bhagat Singh's martyrdom and have been used in a number of Bhagat Singh-related films.[45]

In September 2007 the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Khalid Maqbool, announced that a memorial to Bhagat Singh will be displayed at Lahore museum, according to the governor “Singh was the first martyr of the subcontinent and his example was followed by many youth of the time."[47][48]

[edit] Criticism

Bhagat Singh was criticized both by his contemporaries and by people after his death because of his violent and revolutionary stance towards the British and his strong opposition to the pacifist stance taken by the Indian National Congress and particularly Mahatma Gandhi.[49] The methods he used to make his point—shooting Saunders and throwing non-lethal bombs—were quite different from the non-violent non-cooperation used by Gandhi.[49]

Bhagat Singh has also been accused of being too eager to die, as opposed to staying alive and continuing his movement. It has been alleged that he could have escaped from prison if he so wished, but he preferred that he die and become a legacy for other youths in India. Some lament that he may have done much more for India had he stayed alive.[4]


Video dedicated to him
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Bakht Khan Rohilla (1797 - 1859) was nominal commander-in-chief of Indian rebel forces in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 against the East India Company.

Background

Bakht Khan was a Pashtun related to the family of Rohilla chief Najib-ul-Daula, from a branch of the Yusufzai tribe. He was born in Bijnor in Rohilkhand and later became a subedar in the army of the East India Company, gaining forty years of experience in the Bengal horse artillery and seeing action in the First Anglo-Afghan War.

The Rebellion

When sepoys in Meerut revolted against the British in May 1857, Bakht Khan organized, trained and built up the Rohilla sepoys and then left for Delhi.

By the time Khan arrived at Delhi on July 1, 1857, the city had already been taken by rebel forces and the Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah II had been proclaimed Emperor of India. The emperor's eldest son, Mirza Mughal, also called Mirza Zahiruddin, had been given the title of chief general, but this prince had no military experience. This was the time when Bakht Khan along with his forces arrived in Delhi on Wednesday 1 July 1857. With his arrival the leadership position did improve. Bakht Khan's superior abilities quickly became evident, and the emperor gave him actual authority and the title of Saheb-I-Alam Bhadur, or Lord Governor General. Khan was virtual commander of the sepoy forces, although Mirza Zahiruudin was still the commander in chief.

Bakht Khan faced many problems which needed his immediate attention. The first and foremost problem was financial, to solve which he obtained from the Emperor authority to collect taxes. The second problem was the logistical one of supplies, which became more and more acute with the passage of time and even more so when British forces assaulted the city in September. The British had many spies and agents in the city and were constantly pressurizing Bahadur Shah to surrender. The situation around Delhi proceeded to deteriorate rapidly; Bakht Khan's leadership could not compensate for the rebels' lack of organization, supplies and strength on the part of their monarch. Delhi was besieged on June 8. On September 14 the British assaulted the Kashmiri Gate and Badur Shah fled to Humayun's Tomb before surrendering to the British, against Bakht Khan's pleas, on September 20, 1857.

Bakht Khan himself fled Delhi and joined rebel forces in Lucknow and Shahjahanpur. In 1857 he was mortally wounded and died unattended in the dense forests of Terai.


Bakht Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
:) ah again Bhagat Singh issue.

If he is a freedom fighter than what about all those whome India calls militants?
 
. .
mangal pandey

Mangal Pandey (c. 19 July 1827 – 8 April 1857) (Hindi: मंगल पांडे) was a sepoy (soldier) in the 34th Regiment of the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) of the English East India Company. He is widely seen in India as one of its first freedom fighters. The Indian government has issued postage stamps commemorating him as freedom fighter and his life and actions have been adapted to the silver screen.

Life

Mangal Pandey was born in the village of Nagwa in district Ballia (Uttar Pradesh), that time, administrative headquarter of Ghazipur in a Bhumihar Brahmin family[1] of Saryupareen Brahmin division.[2] He joined the English East India Company's forces in 1849 at the age of 22, as per this account. Pandey was part of the 5th Company of the 34th B.N.I. regiment and is primarily known for attacking the officers of that regiment in an incident that was the first act of what came to be known as the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 or the First War of Indian Independence. It is said that Mangal Pandey was a devout Hindu and that he practiced his religion diligently, although there are no sources to confirm this.

[edit] The 1857 Incident

At Barrackpore (now on March 29, 1857, in the afternoon, Lieutenant Baugh, Adjutant of the 34th Native Infantry, was informed that several men of his regiment were in an excited state. Further, it was reported to him that one of them, Mangal Pandey raged in front of the regiment's barracks on the parade ground, armed with a loaded musket, calling upon the men to rebel and threatening to shoot the first European he set his eyes on. Baugh immediately buckled on his sword, placed loaded pistols in his holsters, mounted his horse, and galloped to the lines. Pandey, who heard the hoof-beat of the approaching horse, took position behind the station gun, which was in front of the quarter-guard of the 34th, took aim at Baugh and fired. He missed Baugh, but the bullet struck his horse in the flank, and both horse and rider were brought down.[3] Baugh quickly disentangled himself, and, seizing one of his pistols, advanced towards Pandey and fired. He missed. Before Baugh could draw his sword, Pandey attacked him with a talwar (an Indian heavy sword) and closing with the adjutant, slashed him on the shoulder and neck and brought him to the ground. It was then that another sepoy, Shaikh Paltu, intervened and tried to restrain Pandey even as he tried to reload his musket.[3]

The English Sergeant-Major, Hewson, had arrived on the ground, summoned by a native officer, prior to Baugh. He had ordered the jemadar in command of the quarter-guard to arrest Mangal Pandey. To this, the jemadar expostulated that he could not take Pandey on alone. At this, Hewson ordered him to fall in his guard with loaded weapons. In the meantime, Baugh had arrived on the field shouting 'Where is he? Where is he?' Hewson called out to Baugh, 'Ride to the right, Sir, for your life. The sepoy will fire at you!' [4] At that point Pandey fired, with the consequences outlined in the last paragraph.

Hewson had charged towards Pandey as he was fighting with Lieutenant Baugh. He then locked in combat with Pandey and was knocked to the ground from behind by a blow from Pandey's musket. The sound of the firing had brought other sepoys from the barracks; they remained mute spectators. At this juncture, Shaikh Paltu, while trying to defend the two Englishmen called upon the other sepoys to assist him.[3] Assailed by other sepoys, who threw stones and shoes at his back, he called on the guard to help him hold Pandey, but they threatened to shoot him if he did not let go of Pandey. [4]

On the order of the Jemadar of the troops, a man called Ishwari Prasad, the sepoys advanced and struck at the two prostrate officers. They then threatened Shaikh Paltu and ordered him to release Pandey, whom he had been vainly trying to hold back. However, Paltu continued to hold Pandey until Baugh and the sergeant-major had had time to rise.[3] Himself wounded by now, Paltu was obliged to loosen his grip. He backed away in one direction and Baugh and Hewson in another, while being struck with the butt ends of the guards' muskets.

In the meantime, report of the incident had been carried to the commanding officer General Hearsey, who then galloped to the ground with his two sons. Taking in the scene, he rode up to the guard, drew his pistol and ordered them to do their duty by seizing Mangal Pandey. The General threatened to shoot the first man that disobeyed. The men of the guard fell in, and followed Hearsey in the direction where Pandey was still ranting and raving. Pandey, then realizing the situation he had put himself in, put the muzzle of the musket to his breast and discharged it by pressing the trigger with his foot. He collapsed burned and bleeding but not mortally wounded.[3]

He recovered and was brought to trial less than a week later. When asked whether he had been under the influence of any substances, he admitted to having used bhang (cannabis) and opium of late. He pleaded to not knowing what he was doing when intoxicated. He stated steadfastly that he had mutinied on his own accord and that none had played any role in egging him on. When asked to defend himself, he said "I did not know what I was doing. I did not know who I wounded and who I did not. What more shall I say? I have nothing more to say. I have no evidence." [4] He was sentenced to death by hanging along with the Jemadar. His execution was scheduled for April 18, but was carried out ten days prior to that date. The Jemadar Ishwari Prasad joined him on the gallows on April 21. [3]

The 34th N.I. Regiment was disbanded "with disgrace" on May 6 as a collective punishment, after a detailed investigation by the Government, for failing to perform their duty in restraining a mutinous soldier and protecting their officer. This came after a period of six weeks in the course of which, petitions for leniency were examined in Calcutta. Shaikh Paltu was promoted on the spot to the post of Havaldar (native sergeant) by General Hearsey, for his gallant conduct. .[3]

[edit] Motivation

The primary motivation behind Mangal Pandey's behaviour is attributed to a new type of bullet cartridge used in the Enfield P-53 rifle which was to be introduced in the Bengal Army that year.

The cartridge was rumoured to having been greased with animal fat, primarily from pigs and cows, which are not consumed by Muslims and Hindus respectively, the former being abhorrent to Muslims and the latter a holy animal of the Hindus).[5] The cartridges had to be bitten at one end prior to use.[6] The mutineers were of the opinion that this was an intentional act of the British, with the aim of defiling their religions.

Commandant Wheeler of the 34th BNI was known as a zealous Christian preacher, and this may also have impacted the Company's behaviour. The husband of Captain Wilma Halliday of 56th BNI had the Bible printed in Urdu and Nagri and distributed among the sepoys, thus raising suspicions amongst them that the British were intent on converting them to Christianity.[7]

Also, the 19th and 34th Native Infantry were stationed at Lucknow during the time of annexation of Oudh for misgovernment by the Nawab on February 7, 1856. The annexation had another implication for sepoys in the Bengal Army (a significant portion of whom came from that princely state). Before the annexation, these sepoys had the right to petition the British Resident at Lucknow for justice—a significant privilege in the context of native courts. As a result of the annexation, they lost that right, since that state no longer existed. Moreover, this action was seen by the residents of the state as an affront to their honour, the annexation being done in violation of an existing treaty.

Thus, it was quite natural that sepoys were affected by the general discontent which had been stirred up by the annexation. In February 1857, both these regiments were situated in Barrackpore.

The 19th Native Infantry Regiment is important because it was the regiment charged with testing the new cartridges on February 26, 1857. However, right up to the mutiny the guns had not been issued to them and the cartridges in the magazine of the regiment were as free of grease as they had been through the preceding half century. However, the paper used in wrapping the cartridges was of a different colour, arousing suspicions. The non-commissioned officers of the regiment refused to accept the cartridges on the 26 February. This information being conveyed to the commanding officer, Colonel Mitchell, he took it upon himself to try to convince the sepoys that the cartridges were no different from those they had been accustomed to and that they need not bite it. He concluded his exhortation with an appeal to the native officers to uphold the honour of the regiment and a threat to court-martial such sepoys as refused to accept the cartridge. However, the next morning the regiment rose in rebellion and it was only due to the persuasive powers of Colonel Mitchell and his sagacity that the sepoys were convinced to return to their barracks. A Court of Enquiry was ordered which after an investigation lasting nearly a month, recommended the disbanding of the regiment. The same was carried out on the 31 March. The 19th N.I. Regiment, far from being dismissed with dishonour, as is held by some, were allowed to retain their uniforms and provided by the Government with an allowance to return home.

[edit] The Enfield Rifle and Cartridge

The P-53 was officially known as the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket. Introduced in the British Army by the War Department during 1854 in the Crimean War, they proved very effective at a range of 50 to 300 yards (270 m). It was introduced in the Bengal Army by the East India Company in early-1857.

The rifle used a Metford-Pritchitt cartridge that required the use of a heavy paper tube containing 2½ drams (68 grains) of musket powder and a 530-grain (34 g), pure lead bullet. As the bullet incorporated no annular grease rings like the French and American minié ball bullets introduced in 1847, it was wrapped with a strip of greased paper to facilitate loading. The cartridge itself was covered with a thin mixture of beeswax and linseed oil for waterproofing (although rumours abounded it was actually beef or pork fat).

To load his rifle, the sepoy had to first bite off the rear of the cartridge to pour the powder down the barrel. He then inverted the tube (the projectile was placed in the cartridge base up), pushed the end-portion into the muzzle to the approximate depth of the bullet and tore off the remaining paper. The bullet could then be easily rammed on top of the charge.

Since Hindus consider cows as sacred and Muslims regard pigs as dirty, native sepoys could be expected to have reservations in its usage. The company therefore kept this fact suppressed. Thus, when it came out as a rumour, it had an even more damaging effect, as all kinds of rumours started spreading. For instance, it was thought that the British planned to make their sepoys outcaste in the society in order to force them to convert to Christianity. Another rumour said the British had adulterated the wheat flour distributed to the sepoys with ground bone-dust of bullocks.

The matter could have been worsened by the fact that an overwhelming number of sepoys in the Bengal Native Infantry were Brahmins from Awadh, Purvanchal and Western Bihar. As Brahmins are generally devout Hindus and therefore vegetarians, they are not supposed to eat or touch meat, the resistance was even stronger.

The Commander-in-Chief, General George Anson reacted to this crisis by saying, "I'll never give in to their beastly prejudices," and despite the pleas of his junior officers, he did not compromise.

Later, the British contemplated reducing the discontent by allowing the sepoys to use their own grease made of ghee (clarified butter). Lord Canning sanctioned a proposal of Major-General Hearsey to this effect. However, the proposal was shot down by the Meerut-based Adjutant-General of the Army Colonel C. Chester, who felt it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and could therefore worsen the matter.[8] He falsely claimed that the sepoys had been using cartridges greased with mutton fat for years and that there was therefore no reason to give in now. This claim was however not correct as native sepoys had till then only used Brown Bess muskets for which unsmeared paper cartridges were employed. The Government let itself be convinced and rescinded the order allowing the usage of ghee.

[edit] Consequences

The attack by, and punishment of, Pandey is widely seen as the opening scene of what came to be known as the 'Indian Rebellion of 1857'. He is often referred to in India as Shaheed (Martyr) Mangal Pandey.
 
.
:) ah again Bhagat Singh issue.

If he is a freedom fighter than what about all those whome India calls militants?

Did he kill innocents?
Remember Saunders?
Remember the assembly blast.

By the way Bhagat Singh not just fought for Indian independence if you are not ignorant and deny the fact..
 
.
According to you: Bakht Khan Rohilla should also be deemed terrorist....

According to us we consider all those as freedom fighters who are fighting against occupation of their areas by any outsider country. So according to our defination Kashmiris, Bhagat Singh, Bakhat Khan, Afghan Taliban all are freedom fighters.

On the other hand India considers Bhagat Singh as freedom fighter but calls Kashmiris, Afghans, and others as militants.


So by your defination all these including Bhagat and Bakhat are militants and terrorists.
 
.
:) ah again Bhagat Singh issue.

If he is a freedom fighter than what about all those whome India calls militants?

would you call the Baloch 'freedom' fighter as being revolutionaries?
I dn't like giving counter-arguments as giving a counter-argument shows that you lack a stomach for giving straight answer but just that it's a beautiful thread...and let us not spoil it.
 
.
According to us we consider all those as freedom fighters who are fighting against occupation of their areas by any outsider country. So according to our defination Kashmiris, Bhagat Singh, Bakhat Khan, Afghan Taliban all are freedom fighters.

On the other hand India considers Bhagat Singh as freedom fighter but calls Kashmiris, Afghans, and others as militants.


So by your defination all these including Bhagat and Bakhat are militants and terrorists.

So this means the afghans that Pakistan Army is fighting on the western borders are freedom fighters...
 
.
According to us we consider all those as freedom fighters who are fighting against occupation of their areas by any outsider country. So according to our defination Kashmiris, Bhagat Singh, Bakhat Khan, Afghan Taliban all are freedom fighters.

On the other hand India considers Bhagat Singh as freedom fighter but calls Kashmiris, Afghans, and others as militants.


So by your defination all these including Bhagat and Bakhat are militants and terrorists.

Bhagat Singh did not killed the innocent where as these freedom fighters are involved with the mass killing of innocents. Blasts in the valley are one of the example and they are not limited to army installations i believe. Bombay train blasts, delhi blasts are these acts of terrorism or freedom struggle. Killing innocents does not come in the circle of freedom struggle.
 
.
So this means the afghans that Pakistan Army is fighting on the western borders are freedom fighters...

For god sake have some sense they are not AFGHANS....
I dont want to fight in this thread so plz stop posting ur 'lack of knowledge', you are going to call those stupid *****, who be head ppl, who kill children going to school, who blow up schools & hospitals, who kill themselves to kill others, freedom fighters??? :angry:
 
Last edited:
.
would you call the Baloch 'freedom' fighter as being revolutionaries?
I dn't like giving counter-arguments as giving a counter-argument shows that you lack a stomach for giving straight answer but just that it's a beautiful thread...and let us not spoil it.

Balochistan is legal part of Pakistan not some invaded or occupied country hence anyone there doing ant anti-state activity is a terrorist.

By this defination i also did not call Mosits fighting against india as freedom fighters. They are also militants.


Whereas Kashmiris are freedom fighters. Afghan Taliban fighting invaders US and NATO are also freedom fighters.
 
.
Bhagat Singh did not killed the innocent where as these freedom fighters are involved with the mass killing of innocents. Blasts in the valley are one of the example and they are not limited to army installations i believe. Bombay train blasts, delhi blasts are these acts of terrorism or freedom struggle. Killing innocents does not come in the circle of freedom struggle.

That is not a criteria for calling someone a freedom fighter. He did use grenades its another matter that he failed to kill
 
.
Balochistan is legal part of Pakistan not some invaded or occupied country hence anyone there doing ant anti-state activity is a terrorist.

By this defination i also did not call Mosits fighting against india as freedom fighters. They are also militants.


Whereas Kashmiris are freedom fighters. Afghan Taliban fighting invaders US and NATO are also freedom fighters.

By the way is there a Pakistani Army presence in so called Azad Kashmir (Pakistan occupied Kashmir)...I think that is also called Forced occupation.... Kashmirs never Invited Pakistanis to Protect their borders...It was Pakistan fed So called Army men who did that in 1947.....

The Indian army came to Jammu and Kashmir not as army of invasion; rather they came on request of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

On 22 October 1947 some parts of the State were invaded by unruly tribal warriors, killing and pillaging on their way to Srinagar, the Maharaja's forces were not able to defend the State territory.

The Maharaja had two choices: either let these tribesmen run over the country and destroy everything or seek help from India - he chose the later.

The Maharaja could not have got help from the government of Pakistan as they betrayed his trust; and despite the Standstill Agreement with the Maharaja, they stopped all the necessary supplies to the State and managed the tribal invasion to punish the Maharaja for not yielding to the demands of the Pakistani rulers who wanted State's accession to Pakistan.

The Maharaja requested help from India, and signed an accession treaty on 26th October 1947, which was 'provisionally' accepted by the government of India. In line with the request of the Maharaja the Indian forces landed in Srinagar on 27th October 1947. Their primary purpose was to save the State from the invaders; and protect 'life', 'liberty' and 'property'.
 
.
That is not a criteria for calling someone a freedom fighter. He did use grenades its another matter that he failed to kill

If you know the history then those grenades were not intended to kill. They did not head sharpeners in them. They were intended to throw the slips and then he himself surrendered. Motivation behind which was to get to the message to public using the trial in the court.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom