See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350966683

Revolt of 1857 - Evaluating the Sikh Assistance to British & their Participation
in the Mutiny

Article · April 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,983

1 author:

Inderjeet Singh
Institute of Sikh Studies Chandigarh
14 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Inderjeet Singh on 19 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REVOLT OF 1857 11

REVOLT OF 1857
– EVALUATING THE SIKH ASSISTANCE TO BRITISH &
THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE MUTINY –

INDERJEET SINGH*

BACKGROUND
In 1957 the Government of India decided to commemorate the
Centenary (1857-1957) of the ‘Revolt of 1857’. A committee by the
name of Indian Freedom Struggle Centenary (1857-1957) Souvenir
Committee based at New Delhi was formed. During the seminar, the
general consensus was that “Indian struggle for freedom (1857) failed
as the Sikhs had betrayed and sided with the British”. The Secretary
to the Committee, in his letter dated 13th June 1957, asked eminent
Sikh historian Dr Ganda Singh to rebut the charge, if possible.
Accordingly, Ganda Singh wrote number of articles in “The Tribune”
newspaper during the months of August & September 1957.1 However,
even after the lapse of 64 years, the same allegations are being repeated
every year.
SIKH POPULATION IN 1857
Dr Ganda Singh states that the Sikhs constituted about 1% of
population of united (or pre-partitioned) India. The rest of 99% could
have arisen and negated the effect of 1%. In Punjab, the Sikhs were
not more than 10% during this period.2 Did the rest 99% namely the
Hindus and the Muslims rise to the rebellion? If not, why? How many
Indian people or the states had joined the mutiny? Let us examine
these questions

* The writer is the author of book, Afghan Hindus & Sikhs: History of a Thousand
Years and writes regularly for Abstracts of Sikh Studies Journal of Institute of Sikh
Studies. E-mail <inderjeet08@yahoo.com>
12 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

WHO DID NOT JOIN THE REBELLION?

Two eminent historians and their works published in 1957 are
being used here in this discussion. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (RCM)
wrote The Sepoy Mutiny & Revolt of 1857. Majumdar is regarded more
of a ‘right-wing’ historian. While he is particularly liked by the
‘Nationalists’, Surendra Nath Sen’s book Eighteen Fifty-Seven was
commissioned by the then Government of India and it could be
considered as ‘Left-wing Marxist’ historian’s work. Both of them were
great historians and for the purpose of this discussion, their contrasting
background and philosophy will give readers a balanced picture about
this event. Both works have used a lot of contemporary and original
sources. Let’s examine what these esteemed historians have to say
about the role of other states in the 1857 revolt?
Rajasthan: Majumdar states “The people remained quiet and
the Rajput chiefs particularly the Raja of Jodhpur helped the British.
The only exception was Thakur Kusal Singh, the chief of Ahua who
had some specific grievances against the British”3
Bengal: Majumdar writes “Bengal was practically unaffected by
the Mutiny with the exception of two sporadic outbursts at Dacca &
Chittagong” (both are now in Bangladesh).4
Bombay Presidency: The present states of Gujarat, Maharashtra
& Sindh (now in Pakistan) were part of it. Majumdar notes “In general
the Bombay army remained loyal but there were some sepoys who
shared the feeling of their comrades in Northern India. Attempts at
mutiny failed at Ahmadabad and Hyderabad in Sindh, and though a
mutiny broke out in Karachi, it was easily put down”5
South India: Sen writes “The Presidency of Madras remained
unaffected all through, though some slight signs of restlessness were
perceived in the army. The educated community unreservedly ranged
itself on the side of law and order and condemned the rising in
unambiguous terms”.6
Maratha ruler Scindia of Gwalior, Holkar of Indore and Gaikwad
of Baroda actively helped British even though Nana Sahib, adopted
son of Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao II had plunged into the rebellion. Ranbir
 REVOLT OF 1857 13

Singh Dogra, ruler of Jammu & Kashmir also assisted British in

subduing the revolt.
JC Marshman in History of India published in 1867 strongly
advocated continuing the princely states of India based on their help
in suppressing the revolt. “But so exemplary was their loyalty to the
British Government in the days of its extremity, that the advocates of
native dynasties (Scindia, Holkar, Gaekwad, Nizam etc) have adduced
it as one of the strongest arguments for maintaining them.”7
WHY DID THE SIKHS NOT JOIN?
Dr Ganda Singh has rightly stated that Sikhs were neither
approached nor consulted to join the revolt. The rebel sepoys had
declared Bahadur Shah Zafar, scion of Mughal family who lived on
British pension and whose influence did not extend beyond Red Fort.
This was not acceptable to the Sikhs as Mughals had a history of
persecuting the Sikhs. The list is rather long.
a) Martyrdom of fifth Guru, Guru Arjan Dev by Emperor Jahangir
in 1605.
b) Martyrdom of ninth Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur by Emperor
Aurangzeb in 1675.
c) Execution of younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh by Mughal
governor of Sirhind in 1705.
d) Royal edict to kill Sikhs on sight by Emperor Bahadur Shah in
1710.
e) Royal edict to kill Sikhs on sight by Emperor Farrukh Siyar and
execution of Banda Bahadur & moe than 700 Sikhs in Delhi in
1716.
f) Killing of Sikhs & putting a price on the head of a Sikhs and
persecution under Mughal Governors of Punjab namely Zakriya
Khan, Yahya Khan till Mir Mannu’s death in 1752.
Mir Mannu later became Governor of Lahore under Ahmed Shah
Abdali who was himself involved in destroying Harmandar Sahib,
Amritsar twice and killing more than 20,000 Sikhs in a single day.
Abdali was not a Mughal but an Afghan ruler who invaded north India
no less than 8 times.8 The British conveniently reminded the Sikhs of
the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, when rebel sepoys declared
14 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

Bahadur Shah Zafar, descendant of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb as

the ruler of India. Across Punjab, posters were pasted reminding Sikhs
of the Mughal atrocities.
REBEL BENGAL ARMY
There was no love lost between Punjabis (particularly Sikhs) and
soldiers of British East India Company who had fought two Anglo
Sikhs war in 1845/46 and 1848/49. These soldiers were known as
Purbeas (Easterners) or Hindustani. They were mostly Muslims,
Brahmins & upper caste Hindus from Uttar Pradesh & neighbouring
regions. The Sikhs and Punjabis had sent feelers to these soldiers’
during two Anglo-Sikh wars asking them to join them and oust the
British from the country but to no avail. Consequently, the Punjabis
blamed them for their defeat. The attitude of Hindustani soldiers and
treatment towards Punjabis and Sikhs was very hostile during this
interim period of 1849-57. As these soldiers had rebelled, it evoked
little sympathy from the Punjabis. The British were able to exploit this
distrust.9
ABSENCE OF SIKH LEADER
Duleep Singh, the son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had been taken
to England by the East India Company. His mother Maharani Jind
Kaur was living in exile in Nepal. Chattar Singh and his son Sher Singh
Attariwala who had led the second Anglo Sikh war in 1848-49 were
exiled in Banaras. The former had already died. Sher Singh had died in
1858. Other prominent leaders of the second Anglo-Sikh war were
either dead or forced to live an isolated life. Bhai Maharaj Singh who
was exiled to Singapore had died in 1856. Baba Bikram Singh (Bedi)
of Una another leader was forced to leave Una and spend rest of his
life in Amritsar. All these leaders and those who were expected to
cause trouble were under strict surveillance by the British throughout
the revolt.
EXTENTION OF THE REVOLT
The Sepoys of Bengal army had revolted at number of places
but in most places the people and the local rulers kept aloof. Majumdar
writes that the extent of the revolt where people also participated was
 REVOLT OF 1857 15

limited to Uttar Pradesh, Delhi (& neighbouring areas) and a few parts
of Central India. The revolt took a national character in these areas.
Hence he writes that he has chosen the title of his book Sepoy Mutiny
and Revolt of 1857. He has produced letters of Nana Sahib written to
British after the revolt (but before he joined) promising loyalty and
redressal of their personal grievances. Nana was an adopted son of
Peshwa and wanted recognition and pension for his father. They were
not unjust demands and Lord Dalhousie’s much maligned policy of
‘Doctrine of Lapse’ where a state would pass on to the British if they
did not have a natural heir, was responsible for forcing him, Jhansi and
Awadh (in Uttar Pradesh, which was annexed on superficial grounds)
to join the revolt.
ATTITUDE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Maulana Azad a proponent of Hindu-Muslim unity but a scholar
captures the attitude of general public in the lengthy foreword to the
book written by Sen. He writes, “They were very often mere spectators
of the struggle and lent their support to whichever side was more
powerful at the moment. An idea of their attitude may be gained from
the fate which overtook Tatya Tope. When he was finally defeated, he
resolved to struggle back across the Narmada into Madhya Pradesh.
He was convinced that once he reached the Maratha region, the people
would offer him support. With almost superhuman courage and
tenacity, he eluded his pursuers and did cross the Narmada. When he
reached the other bank, he could not find one village which would
give him shelter. Everybody turned against him so that he had to fly
again and resort to the forests. It was a professed friend who finally
betrayed him while he was asleep.”10
Another close confidante of Nana Sahib was Rao Saheb. Sen
writes that “Rao Saheb was betrayed, not by a Rajput, but by a man
from Maharashtra.
NATIONAL WAR OR FIRST WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE
In early part of 20th century, a number of Indians wrote about
revolt of 1857 as ‘first war for independence’ and glorified the Indian
rulers who fought in the revolt as ‘freedom fighters’. It was perhaps
the need of the hour to instil a nationalist sentiment among the people
16 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

of the country. But this is not true. Even in Central India, where the
revolt had popular following, there were number of instances where
Hindus and Muslims had major disputes and skirmishes. Hence
Majumdar has stated “To regard the outbreak of 1857 as either
national in character or a war for independence of India betrays
a lack of true knowledge of the history of Indian people in
nineteenth century.”11
Sen is slightly more sympathetic than Majumdar “Outside Oudh
and Shahabad there is no evidence of that general sympathy which
would invest the Mutiny with the dignity of a national war. At the
same time it would be wrong to dismiss it as a mere military rising.
The Mutiny became a revolt and assumed a political character when
the mutineers of Meerut placed themselves under the King of Delhi
and a section of the landed aristocracy and civil population declared
in his favour. What began as a fight for religion ended as a war of
independence for there is not the slightest doubt that the rebels wanted
to get rid of the alien government and restore the old order of which
the King of Delhi was the rightful representative.”12
BENGAL ARMY’S ROLE IN DESTROYING INDIAN STATES
Majumdar has rightly pointed out that the Bengal Army (consisting
of Muslims & upper caste Hindus) was responsible for defeating the
Gorkhas, the Marathas and the Sikhs. After helping and assisting the
British to win whole of India (there were 7 Indians to 1 British soldier
in Bengal Army), the Bengal sepoys mutinied for religious reasons. He
writes that Anglo-Sikh war was the most opportune time to revolt
against the British, but Bengal soldiers helped British to defeat Sikhs
and Indian leaders who revolted in 1857 were still friends with British
at this stage. He further writes:
“In this connection a very important fact is often forgotten by
those who claim the outbreak of 1857 as a national war of
independence, for which patriotic sepoys shed their blood, and political
leaders had been preparing grounds for a long time. The Panjab was
conquered by the British with the help of the sepoys less than ten
years before the outbreak of Mutiny. The battle of Chillianwala which
proved the valour and heroism of the Sikhs, and their ability, under
 REVOLT OF 1857 17

more favourable circumstances, to defeat the English, was fought in

1849, only eight years before the Mutiny. If there were really a
movement for freeing India from the British yoke, obviously this was
the most suitable opportunity. But we have not the least evidence to
show that the Indian leaders like Nana Sahib and others mentioned
above raised their little finger to help the cause of the Sikhs. The
sepoys themselves, who are supposed to have sacrificed their all for
the sake of their country in 1857, had not the least scruple to fight the
Sikhs who were the last defenders of liberty in India There are even
allegations that the Sikhs entreated the sepoys to refuse help to the
British, but in vain.
Although this cannot be definitely proved, it should have occurred
to every sepoy, who had real love for his country, that by defeating the
Sikhs he would only forge the last link in the chain by which India was
being fettered by the British. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that
the attitude and activities of the sepoys in 1849 certainly did not
correspond to the patriotic fervour with which they are supposed to
be endowed in 1857. Unless, therefore, we suppose that this sentiment
was suddenly developed during the short interval of eight years, we
can hardly regard the sepoys, who rebelled in 1857, as being inspired
by the idea of liberty and freedom. Incidentally, the Sikh War also
proves the absence, in 1849, of any serious conspiracy or organisation
against the British, although, according to Sitaram Bawa, such
conspiracy against the British was going on for many years in almost
every native court. Surely the Sikh War would have been the most
suitable opportunity, if ever there were any, which the conspirators
should have taken “advantage of for organising a war of independence
against the British.”13
THE SIKHS WHO JOINED THE REBELLION
The general Indian masses are taught that the Sikhs sided with
the British East India Company during the revolt of 1857. The Sikh
princely states of Patiala and others in Cis Sutlej area supported the
British during the Sepoy Mutiny but so did the Maratha states (Scindia,
Gaekwad & Holkar) and Rajput states (Jaipur, Jodhpur and Hill Rajputs
including Jammu). They all had a subsidiary alliance with the British.
18 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

According to Majumdar & Sen, the revolt of 1857 became a popular

movement only in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Jhansi and some surrounding
areas. In rest of the country it was a Sepoy Mutiny.
The Sikhs from Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s territory (known as Majha
Sikhs) were not recruited for they were considered unreliable by the
British as they had fought the British twice in a span of 3 years (1845/
46 & 1848/49). However, the Sikhs from Cis Sutlej region were
recruited to form Regiment of Ludhiana and Regiment of Ferozepur
in 1846. Shamsul Islam did a yeoman service in 2007 by writing Rebel
Sikhs in 1857 where using contemporary Indian and British sources he
gave instances where Sikhs joined the uprising of 1857. He notes an
entry by British spy Gauri Shankar dated 23rd August 1857 that
approximately 1500 Sikhs soldiers of the rebel army had been posed
to guard the gates of the city (Delhi).14
Among the academic circles it is known for a long time that Sikhs
were both among the ‘rebels’ and the forces besieging Delhi during
May-September 1857, but this is practically unknown among Indian
population. Let us now point out to the Sikh participation among
‘rebels’ at various places.
DELHI - MUNSHI JEEWAN LAL’S DIARY
Munshi Jeewan Lal was the head clerk attached to the British
Governor General’s agent at Delhi when ‘rebel’ sepoys at Delhi declared
independence on 11th May 1857. Jeewan Lal was instructed to stay
back in Delhi and provide information to British, basically work as a
spy. Jewan Lal maintained a diary which was translated and published
by Charles Theophilus Metcalfe, a senior British official and a
benefactor of Jeewan Lal in 1885. The diary contained material and
information to be passed on to the British who had besieged the city.
The following entries in the book Two Narratives of the Mutiny in Delhi
about the participation of Sikhs in the rebellion and defence of Delhi
will be an eye-opener for many.15
28th May 1857 - “About 200 men arrived from Lahore and
Ferozepur to join the mutineers.”16
1st June 1857 - “News came from Patiala that the two native
regiments sent to assist the English had joined the mutineers, and,
 REVOLT OF 1857 19

had had a fight with the English. It was reported that the whole of the
Patiala force was hostile to the English. The soldiers openly
remonstrated with the Maharajah for sympathizing with the English,
when the natives were fighting in defence of their religion. They
reminded him that he had gained nothing by his behaviour during the
Punjab war…”17
27th July 1857 - “Today two Sikhs came on behalf of the chiefs
of Lahore to say that 200,000 cartridges had been safely delivered to
the troops in the Nimuch camp. Orders were issued that these were
not to be wasted, as the supply in the Magazine was running short.”18
29th July 1857 - “Several Sikhs, retainers of the Rajah Narunder
Sing (Narinder Singh of Patiala), deserted from the English camp and
appeared at the Durbar, and they reported that the English were’ badly
off for artillery horses, but had plenty of guns.”19
5th August 1857 - “Certain Sikhs presented a petition to the king
(Bahadur Shah) complaining that they were in the habit of attacking
the English entrenchments, but had to return, as the Purbeahs would
give them no assistance and would not co-operate; they prayed to the
King to form a regiment of Sikhs from amongst the regiments of Delhi,
and to entrust them with two field guns, that they might attack the
English with some chance of success. They were encouraged and told
not to despair of victory.”20
26th August 1857 - “Ghosh Mahommed, the General
commanding the Nimuch force…asked for reinforcements. One
regiment of Sikhs and four of cavalry were placed under his
command.”21
DELHI - MAHMOOD FAROOQUI’S BOOK
In 2010, Mahmood Farooqui wrote an excellent book on the revolt
of 1857 in Delhi titled Besieged Voices from Delhi 1857translating
contemporary Persian and Urdu sources. The book makes a lot of
reference to Sikhs soldiers among the ‘rebels’. The author has provided
a dateline and particularly interesting are the entries relating to 21st
August and 22nd August 1857 which are as follows
21st August 1857 - “Commander in Chief (Mirza Mughal)
20 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

forwards Sikhs petition complaining discrimination (from Bengal

regiment soldiers) and asking to be formed into a separate regiment.”
22nd August 1857 - “Bahadur Shah Zafar tries to conciliate Sikhs
in the Bareilly regiment.”22
Here in 1857 these ‘rebel’ Sikhs were from Cis-Sutlej territories
where rulers where pro-British since 1809 but it seems that the Bengal
soldiers could not make the distinction between Trans-Sutlej Sikhs
who mistrusted them and Cis-Sutlej who has no history of discontent
with them.
DELHI - ABDUL LATIF’S DIARY
Abdul Latif, an elite resident of Delhi wrote a diary in Persian
during the siege of the Delhi by the British. The Urdu translation is
titled Tareekhi Roznamcha. His diary is very good source of information.
The important entries related to Sikhs are as follows:
17th August 1857 - “200 Sikhs sepoys belonging to the army of
Jammu Raja came to join the rebel forces.”
The Raja of Jammu, Ranbir Singh Dogra sent his army to assist
British during the siege of Delhi. Out of this army, 200 Sikhs mutinied
and joined the ‘rebel’ forces. Sikhs and Dogras usually paint a rather
bleak picture of their relations post 1846 when Raja Gulab Singh
Dogra refused to fight first Anglo-Sikh war and gave military
intelligence to British officer Col. Wheeler at Ludhiana.23 Despite all
this it did not stop some Sikhs from serving under the ‘Jammu Fox’
and his successor.
REBELLION IN CIS- SUTLEJ PUNJAB
The Sikhs had reasons not to join the rebellion. The Mughals had
a history of persecuting Sikhs and as explained earlier there was no
love lost between Sikhs and Porbeah soldiers. The British exploited
this distrust to their advantage. But in Cis-Sutlej Punjab there were
rebellions which were crushed. Sardar Mohur Singh was sentenced to
death for his role in rebellion in Ropar.
Reverend J. Cave-Brown, a Christian clergyman accompanied the
British forces which moved from Peshawar to Delhi. In his memoirs,
 REVOLT OF 1857 21

The Punjab & Delhi in 1857 he mentions that the mutinous troops at
Ropar had Sikhs. He writes “five men concerned in the riot at Roopar
(Ropar) were identified, and tried by a civil commission, and, with the
Sirdar Mohur Singh, were sentenced to death.”24
At Ludhiana, a Sikh made an attempt to the life of British officer.
The Ludhiana District Gazetteer states “Of the two men of the
regiment (of native British troops at Ludhiana) who met their death,
one was a Jhelum Mussulman, caught as a spy; another who attempted
on Lieutenant Yorke’s life, and was shot by him was a young Majha
Sikh.”25
SIKH REBELLION IN AWADH (CENTRAL UTTAR PRADESH)
Martin Richard Gubbins was the Revenue Commissioner and a
member of the British Commission which governed Awadh after its
annexation for fourteen months just before the revolt of 1857. After
the revolt, he became one of the chief advisors of Sir Henry Lawrence
(Commissioner of Awadh), managed the Intelligence Department and
stayed with the British forces till they were forced to vacate Lucknow
in November 1857. His memoirs were published in 1858 in London
under the title An Account of the Mutinies in Oudh has following details
about the Sikh ‘rebels’ in Awadh.
On 31st May 1857, Gubbins led British sepoys were able to
capture a group of rebel sepoys in a village outside Lucknow. It was
found by Gubbins that “three of the men belonged to the 48th Native
Infantry and three to the 13th Native Infantry, and one man was a
Seikh (Sikh).”26
GUBBINS ALSO NOTES
“Many of these men (Sikhs) deserted us during the siege; and the
rest were, during the whole time, a constant source of alarm and
anxiety. They were in constant correspondence with the enemy, through
their deserters, who used to come up under the walls of the squares
and converse with their brethren inside…The object of these visits of
the Siekh (Sikh) deserters was…to induce their brethren to desert
also.”27
Gubbins’ narration of Awadh rebellion mentioned the fact that
22 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

by the end of July 1857 there prevailed ‘great despondency’ among

the British troops as every day native and Sikh soldiers joined the
ranks of the rebels.”We daily lost men, sometimes six or seven in a
day; and they had begun to think that relief was impossible. Many
desertions had taken place, and several of the Seikhs (Sikhs), including
sixteen men of the 13th Native Infantry had been of the number.”
Gubbins while describing the events of the month of August
(1857) wrote that Sikh troops continued giving “much anxiety. Many
of them had deserted; and we were not sure that the rest who were
known to maintain clandestine communication with the enemy, might
not any time follow the example of their brethren.”28
SIKH PLOT TO KILL SENIOR BRITISH OFFICER
Gubbins writes the details of an abortive plot which allegedly
was hatched by the Sikh soldiers against Gubbins himself. As a
precaution he banned entry of Sikh soldiers into his enclosure
(tent).”Their plan was stated to be the following: the Seikhs (Sikhs)
were to enter my enclosure by twos and threes, on pretence of speaking
to me about obtaining an issue of pay. My native artillerymen were
then, at a given signal, to turn the guns of my post on the European,
when a rising of the native was to take place everywhere, while an
attack from the outside was to be made by the enemy.”29
BENARAS - LARGE SCALE KILLING OF ‘REBEL’ SIKH SOLDIERS
The book Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab (Volume I) written
by Sir Lepen Griffins contains details of large-scale rebellion of
Ludhiana Sikh troops of the British army stationed at Benares
(Varanasi) and their massacre by the British. “On the 4th June 1857
the 37th Native Infantry was disbanded at Benares, and some suspicious
movement being observed in a corps of Ludhiana Sikhs present on
the ground, the guns, which were being served against the 37th, were
turned against the Sikhs. The whole affair seems to have been a
miserable mistake; and there is no reason to believe that the corps was
anything but loyal. But it was not prepared for so severe a test of its
loyalty, and accordingly charged the guns; but was repulsed with great
loss and driven from the field.”
 REVOLT OF 1857 23

Lepen notes the role played by Sardar Surat Singh, a veteran of

2nd Anglo Sikh war who was exiled in Benaras by the British. Lepen
writes, “When the Sikh guard hears of the fate of their comrades,
their agitation and rage was extreme, and they would certainly have
mutinied, seized the treasure, and attacked the Europeans, had not
Sardar Surat Singh one in among them and, by his personal influence
and expostulations, kept them to a sense of their duty. Through that
long June night, the Sardar, ably seconded by Pandit Gokal Chand,
argued and entreated till, towards morning, the little party were escorted
to the mint by a European force.”30
JAUNPUR - REBELLION OF SIKH SOLDIERS
The city of Jaunpur which is less than 40 miles from Benaras
(Varanasi) has had a contingent of Sikhs soldiers from Ludhiana
regiment and they revolted after hearing the massacre of their regiment
in Benaras. They killed their commanding officer and marched to
Lucknow, the capital of Awadh which was still under the ‘rebels’.
Lepen writes
“At Jaunpur another detachment of the Ludhiana (Sikh) Regiment
was stationed. When these men heard of the destruction of their
regiment, they rose in fury, shot their Commanding Officer murdered
the Joint Magistrate, and marched to Lucknow with the treasure.”31
ROLE REVERSED - SARDAR SURAT SINGH
Most readers would not know that all Sikh chiefs who joined the
second Anglo- Sikh war 1848/49 were treated harshly by the British
and their jagirs (lands) were confiscated and given nominal pension.
The more serious ‘offenders’ were sent to exile outside Punjab. Sardar
Surat Singh was one of them. His jagir worth Rs 22,600 was confiscated
and he was sent to Benaras in exile on an annual pension of Rs 720 in
1849. He was under constant surveillance by the British. After lapse
of 8 years people had switched sides. The Bengal regiment soldiers
who fought from British’ side and did not respond to Sikh’s call to join
them and ouster the British in 1848/49 were now fighting the British.
Surat Singh who had fought the British before, in 1857 used his personal
influence (as a Sikh Chief) to stop further desertions to ‘rebels’ who
24 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

were soldiers from Bengal regiment that defeated Sikhs, Marathas and
Gurkhas. In India it is common to use the terminology of ‘freedom
fighter’ and ‘traitor’ and it is fashionable to see the events in black and
white. History is more complex and there is lot of ‘grey’ areas.
SANDHANWALIA SARDARS
The Sandhanwalia Sardars who share the ancestral lineage with
Maharaja Ranjit Singh fought in revolt of 1857. Damandeep Singh
Sandhanwalia, scion of the family and a bright young man informs the
author of the article that Sardar Thakur Singh Sandhanwalia was the
son-in-law of Raja Nahar Singh, Jat ruler of Bhallabgarh who joined
the rebellion with his father-in-law. Following the capture of the Jat
ruler (& subsequent execution) Thakur Singh came to Punjab. His
role in Singh Sabha movement and trying to restore Maharaja Duleep
Singh to the throne of Lahore is well known. Shamsul Islam has quoted
letters from the British spies in his book which confirms that the
Sandhanwalia Sardars joined the rebellion in 1857.32
CONCLUSION
Since the Sikh princely state of Patiala and others had actively
assisted British by sending their soldiers and numerous Hindu princely
states including Dogra, Hill Rajputs, Marathas (states of Sindhia,
Holkar & Gaikwad), Rajputana and state of Travancore actively helped
the British in suppressing the revolt, why are Sikhs specifically
targeted for betraying the nation? Is it because they are an easy
target and do not form a vote-bank outside Punjab? Both the
historians Majumdar and Sen have rightly stated that nationalism
was still in infancy among Indians and those who fought the
British had some personal grievances against them.
It is very fashionable across the Raavi to paint the revolt as a
Muslim struggle to regain the Empire where the Hindus did not assist
them. The Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab of Malerkotla, Karnal, Punjabi
Muslims (except Rai Ahmed Khan Kharal) and Pathans, did not join
the revolt even when Bahadur Shah Zafar, scion of old Mughals was
declared the Emperor of India. These rulers and communities helped
British to crush the revolt.
 REVOLT OF 1857 25

Sikhs are not devoid of patriotism. The Sikh contribution in

freedom struggle against British is not taught outside Punjab. Another
myth is propounded by many that Sikhs actively helped British by
joining their army. By WW2, Sikhs formed about 20% of the forces,
the Punjabi Muslims & Pathans formed a third of all forces (33%) and
remaining were all Hindus (about 47%). These figures explode this
myth.
Vast majority of the Indian native rulers remained loyal with the
British and that included rulers from all three religions. In 1861 The
British Government in India gave the ‘Most Exalted Order of the Star
of India’ to Indian princely rulers for their loyalty and help in
suppressing the revolt. The list contains the ‘usual suspects’ namely
Nizam of Hyderabad, Scindia of Gwalior, Ranbir S Dogra, Holkar of
Indore, Gaekwad of Baroda, Nawab of Rampur & Bhopal, ruler of
Nepal and Patiala among others.33
To blame the Sikhs alone for the failure of this revolt and partial
mutiny is to miss the wood for the trees as the documentary evidence
produced above goes against the false charge of traitorship against
the Sikhs. It is time to sift the grain from chaff and set the record
straight. The Sikhs have proved more patriotic than their compatriots
at every stage of India's history.
~~~

REFERENCES

1. Ganda Singh (1969) The Indian Mutiny of 1857 & the Sikhs. Delhi:
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee p. 1-2
2. Ibid p. 14
3. RC Majumdar (1963) The Sepoy Mutiny & the Revolt of 1857. 2nd ed.
Calcutta:Firma K.L p. 92
4. Ibid p. 88
5. Ibid p. 94
6. Surendra Nath Sen (1957) Eighteen Fifty-Seven. Delhi: Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting p. 407
7. JC Marshman (1867) The History of India Vol 3. London: Longmans p.
 26 ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES: APRIL-JUNE 2021/ 553 NS

451
8. Please check, History of the Sikhs Vol 1 & 2 by HR Gupta and Sikhs in
the Eighteenth Century by Surjit Singh Gandhi
9. Kirpal Chandra Yadav (1996) British Policy Towards Sikhs, 1849-1857 in
Punjab Past And Present Essays In Honour of Dr. Ganda Singh. 2nd
Ed. Patiala: Punjabi University p185-203
10. SNS p. xv
11. RCM p. 412
12. SNS p. 411
13. RCM p. 408
14. Shamsul Islam (2007) Rebel Sikhs in 1857. New Delhi: Vani Prakashan p.
85
15. CT Metcalfe (1898) Two Narratives of the Mutiny in Delhi. Westminster:
Archibald Constable
16. Ibid p. 105
17. Ibid p. 110
18. Ibid p. 168
19. Ibid p. 172
20. Ibid p. 183
21. Ibid p. 208
22. Mahmood Farooqui(2010) Besieged voices from Delhi. New Delhi: Penguin
23. See Gulab Singh entry in Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh
published by Punjabi University, Patiala
24. Rev. J Cave-Browne (1861) The Punjab & Delhi in 1857, Vol I. London:
William Blackwood p. 213,225
25. SI, p. 92
26. MR Gubbins(1858) An Account of the Mutinies in Oudh. London: MR
Bentley p. 109
27. Ibid p 211
28. Ibid p. 274
29. Ibid p276
30. Lepel Griffin et al (1940) Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab. Lahore:
Govt. of Punjab p. 416
31. Ibid p. 417
32. SI p. 82
33. Joseph Haydn & Horace Ockerby (1890) The Book of Dignities. London:
WH Allen. P800-802

View publication stats