Like I said in my previous post on the subject, I had many thoughts as I watched the movie and now I move on to the other important facet of the whole incident that a patriotic Indian should ponder over.
Ever since India came under the British rule, Indians internalized that we do not have execution capability, especially in political and military domain. We are a “soft” people. The logic went that since the Hindus came to be dominated by just about every invader who chose to attack India, we must be devoid of political skills and fighting capability and are easily “taken”.
This line flies in the face of all available evidence. India came under Islamic rule much later than parts of Europe did. Even the British could establish their rule not because they had inherently superior military capabilities but because they were part of a growing and expanding civilization that achieved modernity before anyone else. Simply compare how easily Islam established it's rule over other civilizations and how easily the west too did and it will be clear that Hindu resistance to advancing cultures was more stubborn and longer lasting than other comparable nations.
However, the British had to demoralize the majority Hindus and also put us under the sway of their terror and so did everything they could to institutionalize this thinking in Indians (or let us say, Hindus). They were remarkably successful in this and to this day, the educated elite of India cannot bring itself to believe that we too are capable of great political achievements.
Once you closely examine the sheer skill and generalship shown by Surjyo Sen and his group in the Chittagong matter, you realize how much Indians can do. Sure enough, they failed in their plans. But anyone who has been any kind of executive in life and made a difference in his field (and not armchair “commentators”), will appreciate how much skill and capability was shown by the revolutionaries.
They planned extremely well. 65 revolutionaries trained with muskets and pistols for months and no one came to know of it till they actually hit the British installations. They took over all the installations as planned and cut Chittagong off from the rest of the country as they had planned. Then the gaps in their planning caught up on them. They had no idea that ammunition for 303 rifles was kept away from the guns and so were not able to arm themselves as planned and had to make do with older technology muskets and pistols. They did not know that on a Good Friday, all “Europeans” would vacate the club and go home early so were not able to execute them as planned.
They still make good their escape. After a few days there was an encounter with the British at Jalalabad. The encounter was of course lost by the revolutionaries but here are some facts to be considered – they were 65 while the British troops were a few thousand. They had only muskets and pistols. The British not only had 303 rifles – advanced technology of the day, but also machine guns. And finally, the British troops were trained for years. On our side (yes ! OUR side !) were mostly teenagers with very little practice. Sure, we had the advantage of height but all things considered, the fact that in Jalalabad encounter we had 12 casualties while the British had 80 + says something of the fighting spirit of Indians.
They had to retreat again in the face of machine gun fire. They scattered themselves and hid wherever possible. There were a few more encounters. Our revolutionaries killed many and lost few in ALL encounters in spite of the handicaps and it took the British 2 years to finally capture all including the leader – Surjyo Sen. By the end of the fight, the British lost a total of 242 men, 22 of them officers. Out of 65 revolutionaries, 32 were finally aquitted. Rest were killed in encounters or sent to prison for life or hanged.
The whole incident energized India. It stunned the British not only in India but also in Britain. While we have become fond of deriding our own political capabilities, I can bet the British themselves who had much more experience in these matters, would have been full of secret admiration for the courage and skill of this band of mostly teenagers and Surjyo Sen himself. Even though the revolutionaries failed in their objectives, indirectly they did succeed – each such incident convinced the British that their rule in India was unsustainable. They could put out one fire using terror and ruthlessness but one day all India would revolt and they would not be able to suppress all hundreds of millions. I am convinced that Chittagong uprising contributed in it's own way towards the departure of British from India.
I would now like to highlight where we need to improve in our political endeavors, again with Chittagong uprising as the example. I think these gaps remain even now and we would do well to correct them so that the world takes us more seriously.
I think (and this is opinion based on limited knowledge of Surjyo Sen's circumstances from the movie and a bit of internet research) that Surjyo should have first understood the full measure of British power. Even if he had succeeded in his design, what would have been achieved ? Chittagong and perhaps nearby areas would be free from the British, but only for a limited time. People could feel a few days' joy, celebrate, enjoy. And after that ?
The British power was spread all over the subcontinent with hundreds of thousands of trained troops, police force and most modern weaponry. Would the public of Chittagong have been able to hold out against this mighty empire ? With the strongest will and desire too, it would have been impossible without the means. Did Surjyo Sen think that the incident would cause spontaneous uprising all over India ? That too is doubtful. Did he plan that eventually he and the Chittagong people would be overpowered but they will have made the point and the British would be encouraged to leave ? I have doubts if he intended it this way.
I think that before starting his insurrection, he should have tried to form an all India group with people of similar ideology and skills. The might of the British empire would be tested only if there were similar incidents all over India simultaneously. As it was executed, even if the plan had succeeded, it would not have achieved much. It gave the impression of anger at the British being taken out in whatever way possible, rather than an authentic attempt to remove the British from India except in an indirect way.
The other gap we need to consider plugging in our political behavior is a lack of ruthlessness. Politics is, by nature, a cynical and amoral game. Even the finest ideology, if it needs to be successful, has to recognize the brutality of the political world and build it into it's plan and, in measured ways, exercise it too.
During their raid on the armory, the revolutionaries had to contend with a few hundred of British troops (actually Indians but working for the British) who were sleeping in a barrack in the armory complex. The revolutionaries knew where they were sleeping and locked them up while they slept. As the raid proceeded, some of the guards fired, got killed and the sounds awakened the troops. They armed themselves – as it happens all the 303 ammo was with them all along, broke open the doors and came out to fight.
Any “skilled” politician would have burned the barrack and killed the troops while they slept. Looking at the tactics followed by the states, emperors and even the modern day democracies, none would hesitate to act with such ruthlessness while going about an important mission.
Surjyo lacked that ruthlessness and I think so do Indians till today. Contrast this with the attitude of Americans and British who had no hesitation in exterminating their enemies as needed. The Americans have allied with the worst terrorists in fulfillment of their strategic missions in modern times. The British had no hesitation in lying, cheating and killing their opponents when they built their empires.
I do not advocate a complete cynicism in conduct of politics. Certainly this sort of amoral behavior should not become a value by itself as it did in case of many political ideologies. But to understand that the world of politics is like this only and to exercise it in exigencies in limited ways would be in accord with the Dharma and Niti of politics. I really wish we Indians realized it and sent a message to the world that beyond a point, Indians too are capable of it.
Ever since India came under the British rule, Indians internalized that we do not have execution capability, especially in political and military domain. We are a “soft” people. The logic went that since the Hindus came to be dominated by just about every invader who chose to attack India, we must be devoid of political skills and fighting capability and are easily “taken”.
This line flies in the face of all available evidence. India came under Islamic rule much later than parts of Europe did. Even the British could establish their rule not because they had inherently superior military capabilities but because they were part of a growing and expanding civilization that achieved modernity before anyone else. Simply compare how easily Islam established it's rule over other civilizations and how easily the west too did and it will be clear that Hindu resistance to advancing cultures was more stubborn and longer lasting than other comparable nations.
However, the British had to demoralize the majority Hindus and also put us under the sway of their terror and so did everything they could to institutionalize this thinking in Indians (or let us say, Hindus). They were remarkably successful in this and to this day, the educated elite of India cannot bring itself to believe that we too are capable of great political achievements.
Once you closely examine the sheer skill and generalship shown by Surjyo Sen and his group in the Chittagong matter, you realize how much Indians can do. Sure enough, they failed in their plans. But anyone who has been any kind of executive in life and made a difference in his field (and not armchair “commentators”), will appreciate how much skill and capability was shown by the revolutionaries.
They planned extremely well. 65 revolutionaries trained with muskets and pistols for months and no one came to know of it till they actually hit the British installations. They took over all the installations as planned and cut Chittagong off from the rest of the country as they had planned. Then the gaps in their planning caught up on them. They had no idea that ammunition for 303 rifles was kept away from the guns and so were not able to arm themselves as planned and had to make do with older technology muskets and pistols. They did not know that on a Good Friday, all “Europeans” would vacate the club and go home early so were not able to execute them as planned.
They still make good their escape. After a few days there was an encounter with the British at Jalalabad. The encounter was of course lost by the revolutionaries but here are some facts to be considered – they were 65 while the British troops were a few thousand. They had only muskets and pistols. The British not only had 303 rifles – advanced technology of the day, but also machine guns. And finally, the British troops were trained for years. On our side (yes ! OUR side !) were mostly teenagers with very little practice. Sure, we had the advantage of height but all things considered, the fact that in Jalalabad encounter we had 12 casualties while the British had 80 + says something of the fighting spirit of Indians.
They had to retreat again in the face of machine gun fire. They scattered themselves and hid wherever possible. There were a few more encounters. Our revolutionaries killed many and lost few in ALL encounters in spite of the handicaps and it took the British 2 years to finally capture all including the leader – Surjyo Sen. By the end of the fight, the British lost a total of 242 men, 22 of them officers. Out of 65 revolutionaries, 32 were finally aquitted. Rest were killed in encounters or sent to prison for life or hanged.
The whole incident energized India. It stunned the British not only in India but also in Britain. While we have become fond of deriding our own political capabilities, I can bet the British themselves who had much more experience in these matters, would have been full of secret admiration for the courage and skill of this band of mostly teenagers and Surjyo Sen himself. Even though the revolutionaries failed in their objectives, indirectly they did succeed – each such incident convinced the British that their rule in India was unsustainable. They could put out one fire using terror and ruthlessness but one day all India would revolt and they would not be able to suppress all hundreds of millions. I am convinced that Chittagong uprising contributed in it's own way towards the departure of British from India.
I would now like to highlight where we need to improve in our political endeavors, again with Chittagong uprising as the example. I think these gaps remain even now and we would do well to correct them so that the world takes us more seriously.
I think (and this is opinion based on limited knowledge of Surjyo Sen's circumstances from the movie and a bit of internet research) that Surjyo should have first understood the full measure of British power. Even if he had succeeded in his design, what would have been achieved ? Chittagong and perhaps nearby areas would be free from the British, but only for a limited time. People could feel a few days' joy, celebrate, enjoy. And after that ?
The British power was spread all over the subcontinent with hundreds of thousands of trained troops, police force and most modern weaponry. Would the public of Chittagong have been able to hold out against this mighty empire ? With the strongest will and desire too, it would have been impossible without the means. Did Surjyo Sen think that the incident would cause spontaneous uprising all over India ? That too is doubtful. Did he plan that eventually he and the Chittagong people would be overpowered but they will have made the point and the British would be encouraged to leave ? I have doubts if he intended it this way.
I think that before starting his insurrection, he should have tried to form an all India group with people of similar ideology and skills. The might of the British empire would be tested only if there were similar incidents all over India simultaneously. As it was executed, even if the plan had succeeded, it would not have achieved much. It gave the impression of anger at the British being taken out in whatever way possible, rather than an authentic attempt to remove the British from India except in an indirect way.
The other gap we need to consider plugging in our political behavior is a lack of ruthlessness. Politics is, by nature, a cynical and amoral game. Even the finest ideology, if it needs to be successful, has to recognize the brutality of the political world and build it into it's plan and, in measured ways, exercise it too.
During their raid on the armory, the revolutionaries had to contend with a few hundred of British troops (actually Indians but working for the British) who were sleeping in a barrack in the armory complex. The revolutionaries knew where they were sleeping and locked them up while they slept. As the raid proceeded, some of the guards fired, got killed and the sounds awakened the troops. They armed themselves – as it happens all the 303 ammo was with them all along, broke open the doors and came out to fight.
Any “skilled” politician would have burned the barrack and killed the troops while they slept. Looking at the tactics followed by the states, emperors and even the modern day democracies, none would hesitate to act with such ruthlessness while going about an important mission.
Surjyo lacked that ruthlessness and I think so do Indians till today. Contrast this with the attitude of Americans and British who had no hesitation in exterminating their enemies as needed. The Americans have allied with the worst terrorists in fulfillment of their strategic missions in modern times. The British had no hesitation in lying, cheating and killing their opponents when they built their empires.
I do not advocate a complete cynicism in conduct of politics. Certainly this sort of amoral behavior should not become a value by itself as it did in case of many political ideologies. But to understand that the world of politics is like this only and to exercise it in exigencies in limited ways would be in accord with the Dharma and Niti of politics. I really wish we Indians realized it and sent a message to the world that beyond a point, Indians too are capable of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment