Rani of Jhansi

1857: The real story of the great uprising By Vishnu Bhatt Godshe Versaikar, Harper, Rs 250

In European and in Indian tradition, autopsy, or to see, is considered the best proof. In ancient times histor meant ‘witness’, “a witness in that he knows, but first and foremost in that he has seen”. The Satapatha Brahmana says, “If, now, two men are in dispute, one saying, ‘I saw for myself’ and the other saying ‘I heard for myself’, the one who says, ‘I saw for myself’ is the one we must believe.’’ Based on these traditions, historians have always privileged eyewitness accounts. The latter rank very high in the hierarchy of sources and are invariably referred to as “primary sources’’.

One of the problems that historians face when studying the revolt of 1857 is the paucity of accounts of it emanating from the Indian side. There are only a handful of these. Maajha Pravas, written in Marathi by Vishnu Bhatt Godshe Versaikar, is thus a rare item. The volume under review is the first English translation of this text. The translation is by Mrinal Pande. The value and importance of Maajha Pravas are enhanced by the claim that it is an eyewitness account. This review will try and assess that claim. A few words are first in order about the provenance of the text.

The author was a Chitpavan Brahmin from Alibagh in the Kolaba district near what is now Mumbai. Vishnu Bhatt used to wax eloquent about his experiences in north India during the uprising. A client of his asked him to write down his experiences. So 24 years after the experiences had actually taken place, Bhatt wrote them down. He did not want his account published till after his death. Thus it was not published till 1907. The printed version did not escape editorial emendations. The friend who had asked Bhatt to write and to whom Bhatt had given the manuscript for safekeeping — a man called Chintamani Vinayak Vaidya, a practitioner of traditional medicine — decided to omit certain sections that he considered unnecessary. According to Mrinal Pande, “He felt that he should reshape the book to make it seem like a work of fiction’’. We don’t know if Bhatt would have approved of such changes since he had died in 1903.

The original manuscript on which the translation is based had no chapter divisions. However, the author signed off wherever a particular series of events ended. More importantly, the book had no title, only a subtitle — 1857 Chya Bandachi Hakikat, which translates, according to Mrinal Pande, as “A Factual Account of the 1857 Mutiny’’. I have no Marathi so I am interested to know which of the three Marathi words of the subtitle suggest the epithet “Mutiny’’. Did Bhatt actually use any term which was a Marathi equivalent of Mutiny? The question is not without importance as the term Mutiny is used more than once in the English translation.

This short introduction makes one thing obvious. Even if the book was an eyewitness account, it lacked the quality of immediacy since it was written many years after the events it recounted had actually occurred. Indeed, Bhatt’s book was a feat of memory. It would be interesting to locate where memory had served to filter or even distort history, where Mnemosyne had threatened autopsy.

One problem with Bhatt’s narrative is dates. The first chapter, which recalls his early life and how he set out on a journey to north India, has very precise dates all given in the Saka era. Thus he says he began his journey on Tuesday, panchami, the fifth day of the bright lunar fortnight in the month of Phalguna. The year was Saka 1778. This would mean sometime in February-March 1856. Another precise date is in the section on Jhansi where Bhatt writes “On 9 June 1857, a day before the mutiny began…’’ Did Bhatt actually mention the date following the Western calendar? Could an orthodox Brahmin in the middle of the 19th century have been familiar with dates in the Western calendar? Or is this the translator’s addition? If yes, what was the actual date mentioned by Bhatt? According to all available documentation, the sepoys mutinied in Jhansi on June 5-6, 1857. How did Bhatt arrive at the date June 10 as the onset of the mutiny in Jhansi?

The section on Jhansi and Bundelkhand is preceded by the one on Gwalior, Kanpur and Lucknow. The uprising began in Lucknow on May 31 and in Kanpur on June 4. If we are to accept that Bhatt was an eyewitness to the events in Lucknow and Kanpur, then he could not have been present in Jhansi when the mutiny began there on June 5-6. One of the two sections is based on hearsay. In fact, a reading of the section on Lucknow and Kanpur reveals that Bhatt was not an eyewitness to the events. As someone who has done some research on the revolt of 1857 in Lucknow and Kanpur, I can say that Bhatt’s account bristles with too many inconsistencies to have the ring of authenticity.

On Jhansi, the reader is on somewhat firmer ground. But here too, the reader has to be careful to distinguish between what Bhatt saw and what Bhatt heard. For example, Bhatt’s retelling of the rani of Jhansi’s early life and the history of pre-annexation Jhansi could not have been based on first-hand knowledge. He must have heard it from someone, maybe from more than one person. Is the account then authentic?

The inconsistencies in Bhatt’s narrative have made historians of 1857 sceptical about its value. S.N. Sen, the author of 1857, who knew Marathi, listed the book in his bibliography but did not use it extensively. This was because much of what Bhatt wrote, even about Jhansi, cannot be corroborated from other sources. It is standard practice among historians to cross check sources. Bhatt’s text does not quite pass the scrutiny. The text also bears too many signs of dependence on memory and hearsay to be given the status of an eyewitness account.

Bhatt was obviously a raconteur who charmed his friends and audiences when he narrated his experiences in north India in 1856-57. What he said was part what he had himself seen and part what he had heard as he moved across a vast terrain. Added to these was the act of recollection and all the tricks that human memory is heir to. Does all this make for a “factual account’’ as Bhatt claimed? Historians will continue to be sceptical.