Raj of the Rani By Tapti Roy, Penguin, Rs 295

That last quotation might surprise readers of the present book which claims to be a biography of Lakshmi Bai. The question might justifiably be asked: if the moves and manoeuvres of the Rani did not deserve too much attention for a reconstruction of the revolt in Jhansi, does her life warrant a biography? The question is important because without the revolt in Jhansi, Lakshmi Bai would not have been a figure in history. The rebellion is central to her life and her actions. If the argument is that her actions are not critical for understanding the revolt in Jhansi ? this is the clear implication of the sentence quoted above ? then her life loses its salience, and this makes a biography somewhat irrelevant.

Roy is entitled to change her opinions, but I wish she explained why she chose to do so and why she felt compelled to ?pay respect? to Lakshmi Bai whom she describes as an ?extraordinary woman?. In 1994, she was not only not described as an extraordinary woman but she did not even deserve the space and attention that other historians had given to her. Why the change? It is not because of any new findings since Roy admits that her book is based on well-known material. The change thus lies in Roy?s altered perspective, which she fails to clarify, let alone explain. At the risk of sounding harsh, I would suggest that on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the revolt, Roy has herself become implicated in a piece of nationalist myth-making. This is unfortunate since Indian historians today are trying to break myths rather than perpetuate them. The position of a respect-payer ill fits the historian.

The pitfalls of this position are obvious. For example, in the reconstruction of Lakshmi Bai?s last battle, Roy cites ?Indian accounts?. The problem is that the two texts used by her were published in 1938 and 1958 respectively. Unless we are told what sources these texts used, how can we be certain of their veracity? Roy?s reading of the texts is utterly uncritical. Similarly, her account of Lakshmi Bai?s early life is entirely based on secondary sources. Mahasweta Devi may have written a stirring book on the Rani, but what is its status as a source of history?

A biographer of the Rani of Jhansi must begin with the admission that very little is actually known about Lakshmi Bai. Much of what the British wrote about her was coloured. Except for Vishnubhatt Godse?s account, there is hardly anything that is contemporary from the Indian side. Roy has a chapter on Lakshmi Bai?s married life which is entirely based on surmise and 20th-century accounts.

Thus, the beginning is based on surmise and the end on accounts written long after Lakshmi Bai died. A biography with such a beginning and such an ending is bound to be ill-fated. In the middle is the story of Lakshmi Bai grappling with events which were completely beyond her control, but events that completely overwhelmed her and her beloved Jhansi. Roy writes in the preface that the people of Jhansi are fond of saying that the best thing to have happened to Jhansi was Lakshmi Bai. Roy should have paused to consider that the exact opposite might be nearer the truth.

In her earlier book, as I have shown, Roy wrote about the ambivalence of persons like the Rani of Jhansi. This point needed development in this book. The Rani, as Roy notes, was writing to the British even in January 1858 to come to her aid. Roy argues that she fortified Jhansi to protect it. From whom? The rebels or the British? If that was her aim, she failed. She also had to abandon her ambivalence as popular pressure all around her and British suspicions that she was guilty of killing the British in Jhansi forced her to join the rebellion. One wonders if this makes her a martyr. In a land full of martyrs, it would be crowding the field to make a reluctant rebel into one. Especially if, as for Roy in 1994, it was simplistic to call her a national hero.