PUNJABI MUSLIMS, SIKHS AND THE BRITISH

PUNJABI MUSLIMS, SIKHS AND THE BRITISH

If a few anti-Sikh and anti-British movements originated among certain groups of northern Indian Muslims as those of Ahmed Shaheed Brelvi and the 1856 revolt, similar movements were started by the Punjabi Muslims which, unfortunately, have not received due publicity. Various Muslim Jat/Rajput tribes of the Punjab such as Bhattis, Chattas, Kharals and Tarors carried on unceasing struggle against Sikh ascendancy till they were crushed by Ranjit Singh in 1799—the same year in which Tippu Sultan died fighting against the British at Seringapatam. Under the leadership of Ghulam Mohammad, the ablest Chatta chief, Muslims gained several successes against the Sikhs and captured the famous Bhangi gun. Finding themselves in a precarious position, the Sikhs treacherously murdered Ghulam Mohammad by breaking a pledge and an agreement. Similarly, the Hafizabad Muslim tribes carried on guerilla warfare against the Sikhs for a long time.

The British too did not have smooth running in the early period of their rule in the Punjab. Writing about the unrest among the Punjabi Muslims during the 1857 Mutiny, Mr. S S Thorburn, ICS, a Financial Commissioner of the Punjab has the following to say:

"The Muhammadan tribes were growing restive as the weeks lengthened….. The first to break out into blind, clumsy rebellion against order were branches of that numerous and barbarous people, the Gujjars, once supreme in Kashmir, but for centuries scattered as grazier and slovely cultivators from the Kaghan glen in Hazara to Delhi. About Ludhiana and southwards bands of them collected and began plundering, but having neither cohesion, intelligence, nor firearms, were easily suppressed. From time to time other tribes in the same neighbourhood, such as the incorrigibly lazy and improvident Ranghars and the gipsy fraternities, known as the criminal tribes, whom neither kindness nor severity has yet tamed to honest labour, also attempted risings, but were at once hunted down by police and levies, and terrorised into their normal condition of inoffensive uselessness. Later, the Kharals and Dhunds of the hills between Hazara and Rawalpindi made a combined movement against the hill sanatorium, Murree, but their insurrection fizzled out. Then, towards the end of the long tension in the third month of the struggle before Delhi, an insurrection on a large scale broke out amongst the pastoral Muhammadan tribes, Kharrals and others, inhabiting the jungly tracts between Lahore and Multan. Though their largest gang took, sacked and for some days, occupied a small town, Kot Kamalia, their rebellion was never formidable. They were merely roaming mobs of boors and cattlemen and boys. Once only did they venture on a combat with a small troop of horses. Wild and cunning as jackals in shifting from lair to lair, their suppression gave occupation for three months to several flying columns, and not until trackers followed up their spoor, and their flocks and herds were captured, did the troublesome business end." (The Punjab in Peace and War, by S.S.Thorburn)

Although Mr. Thorburn speaks the rising of Punjabi Muslims in rather derogatory terms, neverthless he does mention in some detail the actual events which prove that there was widespread unrest in the Punjab during the Mutiny. I shall quote another author to prove my assertion:

" In 1857 the native troops in Multan mutinied and were disarmed. They however, charged and took the guns of the European artillery, attacking the men with clubs and bedposts…" (The Land of Five rivers and Sind, 1883 AD, by David Ross)

" The Dhunds of the Punjab revolted against the British during the Mutiny….. Similarly, followers of Makhdum of Pak Pattan revolted against the British in 1857 which is called Gugera insurrection." (The Chiefs of the Punjab, by Griffin and others)

Therefore to blame the Punjabi Muslims for having cooperated with Sikhs and the British is unfair and incorrect. There were risings during the Sikh as well as the British periods by the Muslims of Punjab, as noted above, but they were of no avail. Similarly, the Muslims of northern India could do nothing effective against Marathas who virtually controlled the whole of northern India for almost half a century. And remember, the northern India Muslims had all the wealth and armed might of the great Mughal at their disposal. The British too did not find the northern India Muslim a tough adversary. Both the naïve ruler of Oudh and the effete Mughal Emperor surrounded by groups of depraved, could hardly put up any resistance.

For the Punjabi Muslims it was a most painful dilemma. His rulers to the east---the Delhi emperors and their armies comprising northern India Muslims---had degenerated beyond redemption. They had already been subdued both by the Marathas and the British by 1800 AD. While in the west, the dispute for the throne had thrown the Afghans into disarray so much so that they too were defeated and pushed beyond the Khyber by the vigorous Sikhs. Thus, if the two organised Muslim kingdoms of the mughals in the east and the Afghans in the west with all the wherewithal could not stand the British and the Sikh powers, how could the Punjabi Muslims, who were neither armed nor organised, overcame the same Sikhs and British? This argument becomes more cogent and convincing when considered in the light of the fact that the Punjabi Muslims had no independent kingdom or armies of their own like the Muslims of northern India or Afghanistan nor were they hardly recruited in the armies of the Mughal empire of which the Punjab formed a province.

The other accusation brought against the Punjabi Muslims is that they fought as mercenaries in the British army---sometimes even against people of their own faith. This accusation, to put it mildly, is puerile and ridiculous. Students of history are aware that instances are abundant where people professing a certain religion have fought against their co-religionists under the banner of a king or leader belonging to another faith. In the 14th century AD two independent rival kingdoms had emerged in south India when the Tughlaq empire began to disintegrate. One was the Muslim kingdom of Bahmanis and the other the Hindu kingdom of Vijianagar. Vijianagar had a large number of Muslims in its army who were always loyal to their masters and fought against the Muslim rulers of the Bahmani kingdom. Similarly, during the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1761 AD the Maratha army had its left flank manned by Muslims (mostly Pathans) under the command of Ibrahim Khan Gardi. They felt no compunction in fighting against Ahmed Shah Abdali and his Pathan soldiers. When Mahmud Ghaznavi had appeared on the sub-continent scene in 1000 AD the Ismaili rulers (Muslim) of Multan and Mansura formed alliances with Raja Jaipal and his son Anandpal and harassed Mahmud’s forces. At the battle of Tarain in 1192 AD in which Mohammad Ghori defeated Prithvi Raj, Pathan soldiers were fighting on both sides. In 1310 AD when Alauddin Khilji’s general, Malik Kafur was fighting the Raja of Coromondal Coast in south India, a large number of Arabs settled there enlisted themselves in the raja’s army and fought against Malik Kafur. Some of the leading generals of Marathas were Mughals such as Saleh Beg and Sanjli Beg. During the long-drawn-out Crusades, there are instances of some Muslim rulers having supported the Christians and fought with them against their co-religionists.

If the Muslims of any region in India first joined the British army as mercenaries and set an example in this direction, it were the Muslims of northern India. In the 100 years that elapsed between the battle of Plassey in 1757 and the Mutiny of 1857, the bulk of East India Company’s forces consisted of northern Indian Muslims and Hindus. After the conquest of the Punjab in 1848 the British discontinued the recruitment of northern Indian Muslims and started recruiting Punjabis.

If joining the Sikh or British armies and fighting against their co-religionists was a crime, Muslims of other parts of the sub-continent and of other countries were equally guilty of similar acts.