Article Written By EIH Researcher And Writer
Tanisha Kaushik
Several works have analyzed in detail the objective reasons for the 1857 Revolt. But certainly, the day of the commencement of Revolt in Delhi, was not something that could have impelled Ghalib to anticipate the sweeping changes in his life that the day would bring. There has been some controversy regarding Ghalib’s involvement in the Revolt. There was no defining choice: you were either against the British and for the king, or against the king and for the British. For Ghalib and his likes, the Revolt was the ultimate nightmare given the diminished degree to which divided loyalties existed.
During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Ghalib was 62 years old and although he was associated with the court of the Mughal ruler, he had been a pensioner of the East India Company until 1820, but lost that privilege due to a family dispute. Ghalib’s loyalties were divided between the company and the ceremonial court before the Rebellion even began. His views of the Rebellion are therefore influenced by his dual identities: being associated with the Muslim nobility and his reliance on the East India Company.
As the turbulent times were spelling in, it dawned upon Ghalib to spontaneously write a diary. His ‘Dastanbuy’ along with important letters he wrote to Munshi Hargopal Tafta, provide the most important evidence about Ghalib’s approach to chronicling the rebellion in his interpretation. Because of the text’s callous disapproval of the Rebellion and pro-British sentiments, it challenges popular perceptions of Ghalib as an honest and bold Indian poet. As we know from historical records, Ghalib wrote the diary in the middle of the post-Rebellion prosecutions of the Muslim Shurfaa. We are also aware of his fearfulness of being incriminated in the Rebellion’s conspiracy. So, in this sense, the diary becomes a legal document, written in the most abstruse language and handed to those overseeing the decision of Ghalib’s immediate fate as a wartime noble as well as his future pension.
Ghalib inhabits a unique position in interpreting the turmoil in Delhi in 1857. The diary contains two main fragments: the first part covers the period when Ghalib was under rebel forces, while the second part focuses on the time when Delhi was recaptured by the British. A personal entreaty to the British is implanted between these two configuring narratives, creating a hinge between the personal and public. Despite being a poet and writer in a feudal setting, Ghalib knew this was the only way to protect himself from the power-ups. The purpose was limited to influencing the authorities. The Dastanbuy was part of such a category, and as such he was able to protect himself in this manner. He looked upon the Dastanbuy in this light. Ghalib very calculatingly tried to reach through his writing the powerful elite.
The Muslim elite needed to create a place for themselves in the emerging new order in light of the harsh treatment they received from the British after the takeover of Delhi and the subsequent retaliations. The Diary of Ghalib represents a new way of dealing with British power based on the rule of loyalty. It reflects the impact of this new power structure.
Ghalib writes,
“On that infamous day [May 11, 1857], the walls and ramparts of the Red Fort shook with such force that the vibrations were felt in the four corners of the city. On that infamous day rebellious soldiers from Meerut, faithless to the salt, entered Delhi thirsty for the blood of the British … They did not leave their bloody work until they had killed officers and Englishmen, wherever they found them, and had destroyed their homes.”
Ghalib’s narrative makes it clear from the start that he views the Rebellion as a conflict between law and disorder and a clash between loyalty to one’s ‘salt’. Interestingly, salt is a metaphor that is very crucial to grasp. In Persian or Urdu, namak-halaal means loyal to one’s patrons, whereas namak-haaram means disloyalty towards them. Disloyalty to their employers was the first breach of this salt covenant for Ghalib, as the natives who crossed the threshold disturbed the rule of law. As a writer, Ghalib must attempt to present the Rebellion as the result of upheaval from a specific group, the Sepoys, who he views as disloyal. Consequently, the Rebellion is not viewed as a general uprising braced by all social groups of India, but rather as a class rebellion. The helpless loyal subject, Ghalib himself, can then be inserted into this specificity.
Ghalib contrasts the accounts of the rebels with those few loyal to the British:
“A few poor, reclusive men, who received their bread and salt by the grace of the British, lived scattered … quite distant from one another. These humble, peaceful people did not know an arrow from an axe; their hands were empty of the sword; and even the sound of the thieves in the dark frightened them … I was one of these helpless, stricken men.”
By stating his own story during the Rebellion, he can demonstrate the degree of interiority, because this assertion enables him to make a case for British sponsorship, which ultimately led him to obtain the British support he sought.
The diary also emphasizes the class specificity of the Rebellion: he sees the conflict as tragic not only for the British but also for the noblemen. Hence, Ghalib wrote, “the rebels looted the city throughout the day and slept in silken beds at night,” while “there was no oil for the lamps in the noblemen’s homes”. This class-specific visualization allows Ghalib to see no good in the Rebellion. While there are no mentions of sympathizing with the rebels throughout the diary, many references are made to how the Rebellion destroyed the class hierarchies and destroyed the peace and order of the city, which were maintained by the just order of the East India Company previously.
It is now his hope that he can make a case for the return of his pension, having already proven his position regarding rebels and the British. As a whole, Ghalib’s diary is meant to highlight his pension case.
A dilemma confronted Ghalib: he must make a humanistic claim to British benefaction by outdoing the nativist view of history; he must present the Rebellion as a tragedy from his perspective. When we read Dastanbuy in conjunction with Ghalib’s letters of the time, it becomes apparent that it was never meant to be a private account of Ghalib’s Rebellion. Rather it was a public document demonstrating Ghalib’s loyalty to the new dominant elite and arguing that Ghalib’s pension should be reinstated. It is for this reason that we must examine Dastanbuy from its context.
Ghalib’s account highlights, therefore, the very extraordinary nature of Muslim society after the Rebellion, as the outcome of the Rebellion was primarily a political tragedy. While avoiding direct blame on the British, Ghalib tells us about the everyday struggles of the people by being thoughtful of his word choice. He becomes the chronicler of others’ pain in this process, then he gradually shifts from the outside view to his internal perspective. Subsequently, following his account of Delhi after the Revolution, Ghalib then tells his own story, his case to the British.
References
Pavan K. Varma (1989) Ghalib: The Man, the Times
Masood Ashraf Raja (2009) The Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Mirza Ghalib’s Narrative of Survival, Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism
