When discussing politics in India, we often find ourselves taking a trip down memory lane, akin to a Quentin Tarantino nonlinear movie. A recent event involved Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra visiting a memorial in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, to pay respects to Rani Lakshmibai. Gwalior holds significant historical connections, particularly to Union Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia, a former member of the Congress party who was once trusted by the Gandhis. The Scindia family had ruled the former Gwalior state.
During this visit, a serious accusation was directed at Scindia. He was labelled as a gaddar or traitor because in 2020, he left the Congress and joined the BJP, which led to the downfall of the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh. However, it’s essential to understand that the term ‘traitor’ carries a historical context. Congress party strategist Sandeep Singh claimed on Twitter that Scindia’s ancestors had betrayed Rani Lakshmibai during the revolt of 1857.
This particular “event” was immortalised through a poem written by Hindi poetess Subhadra Kumari Chauhan. The rough translation of the couplet goes like this:
“The friend of the British, Scindia, left the capital,
We heard the story from the mouth of Bundel bards,
Fought gallantly, she was the Queen of Jhansi.”
This poem is included in all Hindi courses, and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh cited it to criticise Scindia.
Has he forgotten Subhadra Kumari Chauhan's immortal poem on the Rani of Jhansi?
अंग्रेज़ों के मित्र सिंधिया ने छोड़ी राजधानी थी,
बुंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी,
खूब लड़ी मर्दानी वह तो झाँसी वाली रानी थी॥https://t.co/JOz45i574f
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) April 5, 2023
However, that is not the complete truth. Let’s take a closer look at the Scindias’ role during that period and explore why these allegations might not be entirely valid when considering all the facts.
– 1714: Shahu, the grandson of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, appointed Balaji Vishvanath Bhat as the Peshwa, a position that became hereditary, passed on to Bhat’s son, Baji Rao I.
– 1749: After Shahu’s death, Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao assumed effective control over Maharashtra. The Peshwas seized power from the descendants of Shivaji, confining them to their palace in Satara, and took over the rule of the Maratha Empire.
– 1761: The Peshwa suffered a significant defeat at the Battle of Panipat. Following this, Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao led a confederacy composed of four northern chiefs, namely the Scindias (or Shinde) of Gwalior, the Holkars of Indore, the Gaekwads of Baroda, and the Pawars of Dhar. Bhonsle of Nagpur was another Maratha chief.
– 1802: Baji Rao II, the Peshwa at the time, was defeated by the Holkars. In response to this loss, he sought protection from the British through the Treaty of Bassein.
– 1818: The Peshwa rule was conclusively ended when the British Army won the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. After the defeat at Koregaon, the Peshwa was exiled to Bithur near Kanpur.
Forty years later, the Scindias found themselves in a complex situation during the time of the 1857 revolt. They ruled Gwalior under the suzerainty of the British, not due to any perceived allegiance but through a set of treaties and agreements (the Treaty of Gwalior, 1817) common among princely states at that time. When the revolt broke out, it wasn’t straightforward for the Scindias to switch sides as one might assume.
The revolt in that part of British India was led by Nana Saheb Peshwa of Bithur, who was trying to regain his past glory.
Thus, the question before the Scindias was whether to support the Peshwa or the British. It was a matter of strategy, not about treachery or patriotism. One may ask, why should a Maratha king have supported the Peshwa who brought an end to the Maratha Empire? What would have been the fate of Scindia if Nana Saheb Peshwa had won the revolt?
Also read: Mughals failed India in science. Just see what Europe did between 1526 and 1757
Did the Scindias ‘betray India’?
Another argument revolves around the dilemma the Scindia faced during the revolt. They were put in an impossible position. If they supported the British, they were viewed as traitors by the rebels; if they supported the rebels, they risked losing their kingdom and facing the wrath of the British. The Scindias’ decision to maintain their allegiance to the British could be seen as a pragmatic move rather than a betrayal.
It’s also worth remembering that the British held formidable power during this period. Any overt opposition or defiance could lead to severe consequences, not only for the rulers but also for the people under their rule. The Scindias, arguably, chose what they thought was the path of least harm for their subjects.
Moreover, the notion of a unified India as we understand it today didn’t exist during the 1857 revolt. The princely states were largely autonomous and had their unique interests to protect. Expecting the Scindias to have acted in a spirit of pan-Indian nationalism, which wasn’t an evolved concept at the time, seems anachronistic.
Even Rani Lakshmibai might not have been fighting this battle if the British had agreed to her demand of accepting her foster son as the legitimate heir to the throne. In such a scenario, would she have been fighting to curb the rebels? This is not an invalid possibility.
In any case, hundreds of Kings were supporting or remained neutral to the British during the 1857-58 revolt. If someone wishes to compile a list of prominent kings supporting the British, they can refer to the Raj period ‘houses’ in Delhi like Kota House, Mandi House, Travancore House, Nizam Palace, Jaipur House, Patiala House, etc. It’s quite a long list. Singling out Scindia House at Connaught Place and subjecting it to a different type of scrutiny by branding them traitors would be quite unfair and an incorrect reading of history.
Finally, the idea of the Scindias ‘betraying’ Rani Lakshmibai is based on the presumption that there was an established alliance to be betrayed. However, historical evidence does not suggest such an alliance existed. Rather, Jhansi and Gwalior both had alliances with the British. The alliance with Jhansi became sour due to historical reasons.
From the arguments above, it seems clear that branding the Scindia clan as traitors is an oversimplification of historical events and realities. The Scindias were one of the most powerful rulers of central India and fought against invading armies and the expansionist British. They fought when the Peshwas surrendered. At some point it time, fighting the British became an un viable option for all Indian Kings.
Context matters in history, and it’s essential not to lose sight of it amid political point-scoring.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)
Did print just became right wing propoganda tool now?