Biography of Rabindranath Tagore

Rabindranath Tagore was a Bengali polymath - who worked as a poet, author, playwright, musician, composer, philosopher, social reformer, painter, and was one of the foremost figures of the Bengal Renaissance. In 1913, Tagore became the first Indian and non-European to win a Nobel Prize in any category, and also the first lyricist to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. A significant moulder of culture within Bengal and the Indian subcontinent, he wrote and composed the national anthems of India and Bangladesh.

He reshaped Bengali literature and music as well as Indian art with Contextual Modernism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was the author of the "profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful" poetry of Gitanjali. Tagore's poetic songs were viewed as spiritual and mercurial; his elegant prose and magical poetry were widely popular in the Indian subcontinent. He was a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society. Referred to as "the Bard of Bengal", Tagore was known by the sobriquets Gurudeb, Kobiguru, and Bishwokobi.

A Bengali Brahmin from Calcutta with ancestral gentry roots in Jessore and Bardhaman districts, Tagore wrote poetry as an eight-year-old. At the age of sixteen, he released his first substantial poems under the pseudonym Bhanusiṃha ("Sun Lion"), which were seized upon by literary authorities as long-lost classics. By 1877 he graduated to his first short stories and dramas, published under his real name. As a humanist, universalist, internationalist, and ardent critic of nationalism, he denounced the British Raj and advocated independence from Britain. As an exponent of the Bengal Renaissance, he advanced a vast canon that comprised paintings, sketches and doodles, hundreds of texts, and some two thousand songs; his legacy also endures in his founding of Visva-Bharati University.

Tagore modernised Bengali art by spurning rigid classical forms and resisting linguistic strictures. His novels, stories, songs, dance dramas, and essays spoke to topics political and personal. Gitanjali (Song Offerings), Gora (Fair-Faced), and Ghare-Baire (The Home and the World) are his best-known works. His poetry, short stories, and novels were both praised and criticised for their lyricism, colloquial tone, naturalism, and philosophical introspection. His compositions were chosen by two nations as national anthems: India's "Jana Gana Mana" and Bangladesh's "Amar Sonar Bangla". The Sri Lankan national anthem was also inspired by his work. His song "Banglar Mati Banglar Jol" has been adopted as the state anthem of West Bengal.

Family background

The name Tagore is the anglicised transliteration of Thakur. The original surname of the Tagores was Kushari. They were Pirali Brahmin ('Pirali' historically carried a stigmatised and pejorative connotation; an insult that ostracised Piralis from other Brahmin sub-castes) who originally belonged to a village named Kush in the district named Burdwan in West Bengal. The biographer of Rabindranath Tagore, Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyaya wrote in the first volume of his book Rabindrajibani O Rabindra Sahitya Prabeshak that

The Kusharis were the descendants of Deen Kushari, the son of Bhatta Narayana; Deen was granted a village named Kush (in Burdwan zilla) by Maharaja Kshitisura, he became its chief and came to be known as Kushari.

Life and events

The youngest of 13 surviving children, Tagore (nicknamed "Rabi") was born on 7 May 1861 in the Jorasanko mansion in Calcutta, the son of Debendranath Tagore (1817–1905) and Sarada Devi (1830–1875).

Tagore was raised mostly by servants; his mother had died in his early childhood, and his father travelled widely. The Tagore family was at the forefront of the Bengal renaissance. They hosted the publication of literary magazines; theatre and recitals of Bengali and Western classical music featured there regularly. Tagore's father invited several professional Dhrupad musicians to stay in the house and teach Indian classical music to the children. Tagore's oldest brother Dwijendranath was a philosopher and poet. Another brother, Satyendranath, was the first Indian appointed to the elite and formerly all-European Indian Civil Service. Yet another brother, Jyotirindranath, was a musician, composer, and playwright. His sister Swarnakumari became a novelist. Jyotirindranath's wife Kadambari Devi, slightly older than Tagore, was a dear friend and powerful influence. Her abrupt suicide in 1884, soon after he married, left him profoundly distraught for years.

Tagore largely avoided classroom schooling and preferred to roam the manor or nearby Bolpur and Panihati, which the family visited. His brother Hemendranath tutored and physically conditioned him by having him swim the Ganges or trek through hills, by gymnastics, and by practising judo and wrestling. He learned drawing, anatomy, geography and history, literature, mathematics, Sanskrit, and English—his least favourite subject. Tagore loathed formal education—his scholarly travails at the local Presidency College spanned a single day. Years later, he held that proper teaching does not explain things; proper teaching stokes curiosity.

After his upanayan (coming-of-age rite) at age eleven, Tagore and his father left Calcutta in February 1873 to tour India for several months, visiting his father's Shantiniketan estate and Amritsar before reaching the Himalayan hill station of Dalhousie. There Tagore read biographies, studied history, astronomy, modern science, and Sanskrit, and examined the classical poetry of Kalidasa. During his 1-month stay at Amritsar in 1873 he was greatly influenced by melodious gurbani and Nanak bani being sung at Golden Temple, for which both father and son were regular visitors.

Bardoli Satyagraha

The Bardoli Satyagraha, was a farmers' agitation and nationalist movement in India against the increased taxation of farmers by the colonial government. It demanded a cancellation of the 22% tax hike being levied in Bombay Presidency. The movement began on 12 February 1928, and successfully ended by August. It was eventually led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and its success gave rise to Patel becoming one of the main leaders of the independence movement.

Background

In 1926, the tricennial land revenue reassessment was due in the Bombay Presidency. The land revenue assessment for the taluka of Bardoli was done by the inexperienced Settlement Officer Jaykar of Surat who recommended a 30% increase in the tax. Settlement Commissioner Anderson got his hands on the report and performed several revisions with incorrect accounting. Both reports made their way to the Bombay government, who accepted pieces and parcels of each, eventually settling on a 29% tax increase for the taluka.

In 1926, the taluka of Bardoli in Surat district of Gujarat suffered financial troubles. However, the government of the Bombay Presidency had raised the tax rate by 30% that year, and despite petitions from civic groups, it refused to cancel the raise in the face of the calamities. The situation for the farmers was grave enough that they barely had enough property and crops to pay off the tax, let alone feed themselves afterwards.

Considering options

The Gujarati activists Narhari Parikh, Ravi Shankar Vyas, and Mohanlal Pandya talked to village chieftains and farmers and solicited the help of Gujarat's most prominent freedom fighter, Vallabhbhai Patel. Patel had guided Gujarat's farmers during the Kheda struggle, and had served recently as Ahmedabad's municipal president. He was widely respected by common Gujaratis across the state.

Patel told a delegation of farmers frankly that they should realise fully what a revolt would imply. He would not lead them unless he had the understanding and agreement of all the villages involved. Refusing to pay the taxes could lead to their property being confiscated, including their lands, and many would go to jail. They could face complete decimation. The villagers replied that they were prepared for the worst but definitely could not accept the government's injustice.

Patel then asked Gandhi to consider the matter, but Gandhi merely asked what Patel thought, and when the latter replied with confidence about the prospects, he gave his blessing. However, Gandhi and Patel agreed that neither the Congress nor Gandhi would directly involve themselves, and the struggle would be left entirely to the people of Bardoli taluka.

Struggle

Patel first wrote to the Governor of Bombay on 6 February, asking him to reduce the taxes for the year in phase of the calamities. But the Governor ignored the letter and reciprocated by announcing the date of collection.

Patel then instructed all the farmers of Bardoli taluka to refuse payment of their taxes. Aided by Narhari Parikh, Ravi Shankar Vyas and Mohanlal Pandya, he divided Bardoli into several zones, each with a leader and volunteers specifically assigned. Patel also placed some activists close to the government, to act as informers on the movements of government officials.

Above all, Patel instructed the farmers to remain completely nonviolent and not to respond physically to any incitements or aggressive actions from officials. He reassured them that the struggle would not end until all taxes had been cancelled for the year and all seized property and lands had been returned to their rightful owners.

The farmers received complete support from their compatriots in Gujarat. Many hid their most precious belongings with relatives in other parts, and the protestors received financial support and essential supplies from supporters in other parts. However, Patel refused permission to enthusiastic supporters in Gujarat and other parts of India to go on in sympathetic protest.

The government declared that it would crush the revolt. Along with tax inspectors, bands of Pathans were gathered from northwest India to seize the property of the villagers and terrorize them. The Pathans and the men of the collectors forced themselves into the houses and took all property, including cattle (resisters had begun keeping their cattle inside their locked homes when the collectors arrived to prevent them from seizing the animals from the fields).

The government began to auction the houses and the lands, but not a single person from Gujarat or anywhere else in India came forward to buy them. Patel had appointed volunteers in every village to keep watch. As soon as he sighted the officials who were coming to auction the property, the volunteer would sound his bugle. The farmers would leave the village and hide in the jungles. The officials would find the entire village empty. They could never find out who owned a particular house.

However, some rich people from Bombay came to buy some lands. There was also one village recorded that paid the tax. A complete social boycott was organized against them, and relatives broke their ties to families in the village. Other ways that the social boycott was enforced against landowners who broke with the tax strike or purchased seized land were to refuse to rent their fields or to work as labourers for them.

Members of the legislative council of Bombay and across India were angered by the terrible treatment of the protesting farmers. Indian members resigned their offices and expressed open support of the farmers. The government was heavily criticised, even by many in the government's offices.

Resolution

In 1928, an agreement was finally brokered by a Parsi member of the Bombay government. It agreed to restore the confiscated lands and properties, to cancel revenue payment for the year and to cancel the 22% raise until after the succeeding year. The government had appointed the Maxwell-Broomfield Commission to look in to the matter. After a rigorous survey, the raise in taxes was decided to be just 6.03%. However, the basic problems of the peasants were left unsolved, and bonded labour continued.

The farmers celebrated their victory, but Patel continued to work to ensure that all lands and properties were returned to every farmer and that no one was left out. When the government refused to ask the people who had bought some of the lands to return them, wealthy sympathisers from Bombay bought them out and returned the lands to the rightful owners.

Simon Commission

The Indian Statutory Commission, also known as the Simon Commission, was a group of seven members of the British Parliament under the chairmanship of John Simon. The commission arrived in the Indian subcontinent in 1928 to study constitutional reform in British India. One of its members was Clement Attlee, who would later become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1945–1951).

Some of the most prominent supporters of the Simon Commission were Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and Chaudhary Chhotu Ram.

Background

The commission was constituted because, at the time the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms were introduced in 1919, the British Government had declared that a commission would be sent to India after 10 years to examine the effects and operations of the constitutional reforms and to suggest further reforms.

In November 1927, the British government appointed the Simon Commission two years ahead of schedule. The commission was strongly opposed by the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, and prominent Indian leaders including Nehru, Gandhi, and Jinnah, because it contained only British members and no Indians. However, it was supported by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and Chaudhary Chhotu Ram.

Prominent Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai led a protest against the commission in Lahore. He suffered a brutal police beating during the protest and died of heart attack eighteen days later on 17 November 1928.

The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced the system of diarchy to govern the provinces of British India. Indian opinion clamoured for a revision of this form of government, and the Government of India Act 1919 provided that a commission would be appointed after 10 years to investigate the progress of the government scheme and to suggest new steps for reform. The Secretary of State for India F.E. Smith feared that the ruling Conservative government was facing imminent electoral defeat at the hands of the Labour Party, and hence feared that the commission would be filled by its members and sympathizers. Hence, the commission was appointed ahead of time, and seven MPs were selected to constitute the promised commission to examine the state of Indian constitutional affairs. He also ensured that there were no Indians in the commission, as he believed the Labour MPs and Indian members would join. The Viceroy of India Lord Irwin too supported the decision to exclude Indians, as he too thought they would vote together with the Labour MPs, but also because he thought the Indian representatives would fight each other.

Some people in India were outraged and insulted that the Simon Commission, which was to determine the future of India, did not include a single Indian member. The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras (now Chennai), resolved to boycott the Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian populace. A faction of the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the commission.

In the face of the opposition from the Congress, F.E. Smith wanted to publicise the meetings of the commission with "representative Muslims" in order to "terrify the immense Hindu population by apprehension that the Commission is being got hold of by the Muslims and may present a report altogether destructive of the Hindu population."

However opinion was divided, with support for co-operation coming from some members of the Muslim League and also both Hindu Mahasabha and members of the Central Sikh League. An All-India Committee for Cooperation with the Simon Commission was established by the Council of India and by selection of the Viceroy, Lord Irwin. The members of the committee were: C. Sankaran Nair (chairman), Arthur Froom, Nawab Ali Khan, Shivdev Singh Uberoi, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Hari Singh Gour, Abdullah Al-Mamun Suhrawardy, Kikabhai Premchand and Prof. M. C. Rajah.

In Burma (Now known as Myanmar), which was included in the terms of reference of the Simon Commission, there was strong suspicion either that Burma's unpopular union with India would continue, or that the constitution recommended for Burma by the commission would be less generous than that chosen for India; these suspicions resulted in tension and violence in Burma leading to the rebellion of Saya San.

The commission found that the education was being denied to the untouchables who were ill-treated in the name of caste.

Protests and injuries of Lala Lajpat Rai

The Simon Commission left England in January 1928. Almost immediately with Its arrival in Bombay on 3 February 1928, its members were confronted by throngs of protesters, although there were also some supporters among the crowds who saw it as the next step on the road to self-governance. A strike began and many people turned out to greet the commission with black flags on which was written 'Simon Go Back'. Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi led the demonstrations against Simon Commission in Patna. Similar protests occurred in every major Indian city that the seven British MPs visited.

One protest against the Simon Commission became infamous. On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived at Lahore where it was met by protesters waving black flags. The protest was led by the Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab in February 1928. The protesters blocked the road in order to prevent the commission members from leaving the railway station. In order to make way for the commission, the local police led by Superintendent James Scott began beating protesters. Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured and died on 17 November 1928 due to heart attack.

Recommendations

The Commission published its 2-volume report in June 1930. The commission proposed to abolish the diarchy, an extension to autonomy of provinces by establishing representative government in provinces. However it allowed the British governors of provinces to retain much of their emergency powers, hence in practice very little autonomy was to be given to the provinces. Most notably the commission's report did not mention dominion status at all. The commission also recommended to retain separate electorates as long as inter-communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims remained.

Chauri Chaura incident

The Chauri Chaura Incident took place on 4 February 1922 at Chauri Chaura in the Gorakhpur district of United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) in British India. The police fired upon a large group of protesters participating in the non-cooperation movement. In retaliation, the demonstrators attacked and set fire to a police station, killing all of its occupants. The incident led to the deaths of three civilians and 22 policemen. Mohandas Gandhi halted the non-cooperation movement on the national level on 12 February 1922 as a direct result of the incident. Nineteen arrested demonstrators were sentenced to death and 14 to life imprisonment by the British colonial authorities.

Background

From 1920 onwards, Indians, led by Mohandas Gandhi, were engaged in a nationwide non-cooperation movement. Using non-violent methods of civil disobedience known as Satyagraha, protests were organized by the Indian National Congress to challenge oppressive government regulatory measures such as the Rowlatt Act, with the ultimate goal of attaining Swaraj (home rule).

The incident

Two days before the incident, on 2 February 1922, volunteers participating in the non-cooperation movement led by a retired soldier of the British Indian Army named Bhagwan Ahir, protested against high food prices and liquor sales at Gauri Bazaar. The demonstrators were beaten back by the local Daroga (inspector) Gupteshwar Singh and other police officers. Several of the leaders were arrested and put in the lock-up at the Chauri Chaura police station. In response to this, a protest against the police was called on 4 February, to be held at the Bazaar.

On 4 February, approximately 2,000 to 2,500 protesters assembled and began marching towards the market lane at Chauri Chaura. They had gathered to picket the Gauri Bazaar Liquor Shop. Armed police were dispatched to control the situation while the protesters marched towards the bazaar, shouting anti-British slogans. In an attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd, Gupteshwar Singh ordered his 15 local police officers to fire warning shots into the air. This only agitated the crowd who began to throw stones at the police.

With the situation getting out of control, the sub-inspector Prithvi Pal ordered the police to open fire on the advancing crowd, killing three and wounding several others. Reports vary on the reason for the police retreat, with some suggesting that the constables ran out of ammunition while others claimed that the crowd's unexpectedly assertive reaction to the gunfire was the cause. In the ensuing chaos, the heavily outnumbered police fell back to the shelter of the town chowki (police station) while the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the gunfire into their ranks, the crowd set the chowki a blaze, killing all of the policemen trapped inside, including Inspector Gupteshwar Singh.

Aftermath

In response to the killing of the police, the British colonial authorities declared martial law in and around Chauri Chaura. Several raids were conducted and hundreds of people were arrested.

Appalled at the outrage, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (popularly Mohandas Gandhi) went on a five-day fast as penance for what he perceived as his culpability in the bloodshed. In reflection, Gandhi felt that he had acted too hastily in encouraging people to revolt against the British colonial government without sufficiently emphasizing the importance of ahimsa (non-violence) and without adequately training the people to exercise restraint in the face of attack. He decided that the Indian people were not ready and needed preparation to do what was needed to achieve independence. Mahatama Gandhi was also arrested and sentenced to six years of imprisonment but was later released in February 1924, on grounds of his ill health.

Jawaharlal Nehru and most of the workers of the Congress, who were in prison when Gandhi made this decision, felt that this was a hasty and incorrect decision at a time when the nation was reaching the epoch of support for the Indian independence movement. A few months after this withdrawal, the colonial government arrested M. K. Gandhi and jailed him.

Memorial

A memorial to the dead policemen was dedicated by the British colonial authorities in 1923. Following independence, the words Jai Hind were added to it, as well as a verse by poet Jagdamba Prasad Mishra which is made famous by revolutionary poet Ram Prasad Bismil. The verse reads: Shaheedon ki chitaaon par lagenge har baras mele ("On the pyres of martyrs, there will be fairs every year").

In 1971, local inhabitants formed an association named Chauri Chaura Shaheed Smarak Samiti. In 1973, this Samiti constructed near the lake at Chauri Chaura a 12.2-metre-tall (40 ft) triangular minaret on each side of which a figure is depicted hanging with a noose around his neck. The minaret was built at a cost of Rs 13,500 contributed by popular subscription.

Later another Shaheed Smarak (now the main one) was built by the Government of India to honor those hanged after the incident. This tall memorial has names of those executed engraved upon it. A library and museum related to the independence struggle has been set up near the memorial.

Indian Railways have named a train to honor those executed after the Chauri Chaura incident: the Chauri Chaura Express runs from Gorakhpur to Kanpur.

Indian Home Rule movement

The Indian Home Rule movement was a movement in British India on the lines of the Irish Home Rule movement and other home rule movements. The movement lasted around two years between 1916–1918 and is believed to have set the stage for the Indian independence movement under the leadership of Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak to the educated English-speaking upper class Indians. In 1920, All India Home Rule League changed its name to Swarajya Sabha.

Flag

Five red and four green horizontal stripes. On the upper left quadrant was the Union Flag, which signified the Dominion status that the movement sought to achieve. A crescent and a seven-pointed star, both in white, are set in top fly. Seven white stars are arranged as in the Saptarishi constellation (the constellation Ursa Major), which is sacred to Hindus.

Background

The Indian Home Rule movement began amidst the backdrop of the ongoing First World War. The 1909 Government of India Act failed to satisfy the demands of Indian nationalist leaders. However, the split in the congress and the absence of leaders like Tilak, who was imprisoned in Mandalay, meant that nationalistic response to the British policies remained tepid. By 1915, many factors set the stage for a new phase of nationalist movement. The rise in stature of British activist Annie Besant (who was of Irish descent and a firm supporter of the Irish Home Rule movement), the return of Tilak from exile and the growing calls for solving the split in congress began to stir the political scene in India. The Ghadar Mutiny and its suppression led to an atmosphere of resentment against British colonial rule. Wartime policies such as the 1915 Defence of India Act, which were perceived as oppressive restrictions, also contributed to the rise of the Indian Home Rule movement.

In context of World War I

Most Indians and Indian political leaders had been divided in their response to World War I and the Indian soldiers fighting on behalf of the British Empire against Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The latter's involvement irked India's Muslims, who saw the Sultan as the Caliph of Islam.

Many Indian revolutionaries opposed the war, while moderates and liberals backed the war. The issue divided India's political classes and left the increasing demand for self-government going nowhere. Besant however declared, "England's need is India's opportunity". As editor of the New India newspaper, she attacked the colonial government of India and called for clear and decisive moves towards self-rule. As with Ireland, the government refused to discuss any changes while the war lasted. This set the stage for the movement.

Foundation

Between 1916 and 1918, when the war was beginning, prominent Indians like Joseph Baptista, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, G. S. Khaparde, Sir S. Subramania Iyer, and the leader of the Theosophical Society, Annie Besant, decided to organize a national alliance of leagues across India, specifically to demand Home Rule, or self-government within the British Empire for all of India. Annie Besant an important personality in the Ireland history created the first Irish home rule league from which Tilak got inspired and created the first Indian home rule league to which Besant supported. Tilak found the first indian home rule league at the Bombay provincial congress at Belgaum in April 1916. Then after this Annie Besant founded second league at Adyar, Madras in September 1916. While Tilak's league worked in areas like Maharashtra (excluding Bombay city), Karnataka, Central provinces and Berar, Annie Besant's league worked in the rest of India.

The move created considerable excitement at the time, and attracted many members of the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League, who had been allied since the 1916 Lucknow Pact. The leaders of the League gave fiery speeches, and petitions with hundreds of thousands of Indians as signatories were submitted to British authorities. Unification of moderates and radicals as well as unity between Muslim League and Indian National Congress was a remarkable achievement of Annie Besant.

The government arrested Annie Besant in 1917 and this led to nationwide protests. The movement actually spread out and made its impact in the interior villages of India. Many moderate leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah joined the movement. The League spread political awareness in new areas like Sindh, Punjab, Gujarat, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa and Madras, which all sought an active political movement.

The pressure of the movement, especially after Annie Besant's arrest, led to the Montague's declaration on 20 August 1917 which stated that "progressive realization of responsible government in India" was the policy of the British government.

During this time various meetings were held in Nellore, Kurnool, Bellary, Cuddapah, Kakinada, Rajahmundry and Vizagapatnam. In Kurnool a prominent leader, Raja Sir P. V. Madhava Rao of Panyam has supported the home rule league. The speech given by him in a meeting held in kurnool is highlighted here in which he thrashed the British Government saying the (bulk of) bureaucracy has failed to understand the needs of the people and the requirements of time. Later after the completion of meeting's in Madras Presidency many prominent leaders gave support to the league under the leadership of Annie Besant.

Significance and impact of Home Rule movement in India

In India, the Home Rule movement resurrected Nationalist activities. It paved the way for extremists' re-entrance into Congress. The movement put tremendous pressure on British rule. The movement of home rule continued to provide strength to nationalist sentiments in the future and this sequence of activities eventually resulted in the Independence of India in 1947.

Biography of Mangal Pandey

Mangal Pandey (died 8 April 1857) was an Indian soldier who played a key role in the events that led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, which resulted in the dissolution of the East India Company and the beginning of the British Raj through the Government of India Act 1858. He was a sepoy in the 34th Regiment of the Bengal Native Infantry. In 1984, the Republic of India issued a postage stamp in his memory. His life and actions have also been portrayed in several Indian cinematic productions.

Early life

Mangal Pandey was born into a Brahmin family from Nagwa, a village of upper Ballia district, Ceded and Conquered Provinces (now in Uttar Pradesh) .

Pandey had joined the Bengal Army in 1849. In March 1857, he was a private soldier (sepoy) in the 5th Company of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry.

Mutiny

On the afternoon of 29 March 1857, Lieutenant Baugh, Adjutant of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry, then stationed at Barrackpore was informed that several men of his regiment were in an excited state. Further, it was reported to him that one of them, Mangal Pandey, was pacing in front of the regiment's guard room by the parade ground, armed with a loaded musket, calling upon the men to rebel and threatening to shoot the first European that he set eyes on. Testimony at a subsequent enquiry recorded that Pandey, unsettled by unrest amongst the sepoys and intoxicated by the narcotic bhang, had seized his weapons and ran to the quarter guard building upon learning that a detachment of British soldiers was disembarking from a steamer near the cantonment.

Baugh immediately armed himself and galloped on his horse to the lines. Pandey took position behind the station gun, which was in front of the quarter-guard of the 34th, took aim at Baugh and fired. He missed Baugh, but the bullet struck his horse in the flank bringing both the horse and its rider down. Baugh quickly disentangled himself and, seizing one of his pistols, advanced towards Pandey and fired. He missed. Before Baugh could draw his sword, Pandey attacked him with a talwar (a heavy Indian sword) and closing with the adjutant, slashed Baugh on the shoulder and neck and brought him to the ground. It was then that another sepoy, Shaikh Paltu, intervened and tried to restrain Pandey even as he began to reload his musket.

A British Sergeant-Major named Hewson had arrived on the parade ground before Baugh, summoned by an Indian naik (corporal). Hewson had ordered Jemadar Ishwari Prasad, the Indian officer in command of the quarter-guard, to arrest Pandey. To this, the jemadar stated that his NCOs had gone for help and that he could not take Pandey by himself. In response Hewson ordered Ishwari Prasad to fall in the guard with loaded weapons. In the meantime, Baugh had arrived on the field shouting 'Where is he? Where is he?' Hewson in reply called out to Baugh, 'Ride to the right, sir, for your life. The sepoy will fire at you!' At that point Pandey fired.

Hewson had charged towards Pandey as he was fighting with Lieutenant Baugh. While confronting Pandey, Hewson was knocked to the ground from behind by a blow from Pandey's musket. The sound of the firing had brought other sepoys from the barracks; they remained mute spectators. At this juncture, Shaikh Paltu, while trying to defend the two Englishmen called upon the other sepoys to assist him. Assailed by sepoys who threw stones and shoes at his back, Shaikh Paltu called on the guard to help him hold Pandey, but they threatened to shoot him if he did not let go of the mutineer.

Some of the sepoys of the quarter-guard then advanced and struck at the two prostrate officers. They then threatened Shaikh Paltu and ordered him to release Pandey, whom he had been vainly trying to hold back. However, Paltu continued to hold Pandey until Baugh and the sergeant-major was able to get up. Himself wounded by now, Paltu was obliged to loosen his grip. He backed away in one direction and Baugh and Hewson in another, while being struck with the butt ends of the guards' muskets.

Intervention of General Hearsey

In the meantime, a report of the incident had been carried to the commanding officer of the garrison Major-General John Bennet Hearsey, who then galloped to the quarter-guard with his two officer sons. It was now late afternoon and off-duty sepoys from the 43rd BNI, another regiment forming part of the Barrackpore brigade, had joined the crowd on the parade ground. While all were unarmed, Hearsey saw the possibility of general mutiny and sent orders to British troops to assemble at the Governor-General's residence.

Taking in the chaotic scene at the bell-of-arms (arsenal) of the 34th BNI, Hearsey then rode up to the guard, drew his pistol and ordered them to do their duty by seizing Mangal Pandey. The General threatened to shoot the first man who disobeyed. The men of the quarter-guard fell in and followed Hearsey towards Pandey. Pandey then put the muzzle of the musket to his chest and discharged it by pressing the trigger with his foot. He collapsed bleeding, with his regimental jacket on fire, but not mortally wounded.

With British and Indian officers now in control of the situation Mangal Pandey, "shivering and convulsed", was taken to the regimental hospital for treatment under guard.

Execution

Pandey recovered and was brought to trial less than a week later. He was sentenced to death by hanging, along with Jemadar Ishwari Prasad, after three Sikh members of the quarter-guard testified that the latter had ordered them not to arrest Pandey.

Mangal Pandey's execution took place on 8 April 1857, before all of the Indian and British units stationed in Barrackpore. The Delhi Gazette of 18 April described the hanging in some detail, stating that Pandey had refused to make any disclosures and that the occasion "had a most disheartening effect upon the sepoy regiments upon the ground". 

Jemadar Ishwari Prasad was separately executed by hanging on 21 April. In contrast to the silent Mangal Pandey, the jemadar expressed regret for his actions and urged the sepoys present to obey their officers in future.

Aftermath

The seven (out of ten) companies of the 34th B.N.I. Regiment stationed at Barrackpore on 29 March were disbanded "with disgrace" on 6 May as a collective punishment after an investigation by the government: for failing to perform their duty in restraining a mutinous soldier and in assisting their officers. That came after a period of six weeks while petitions for leniency were examined in Calcutta. Sepoy Shaikh Paltu was promoted to havildar (sergeant) and decorated with the Indian Order of Merit for his behaviour on 29 March, but he was murdered in an isolated part of the Barrackpore cantonment shortly before most of the regiment was discharged.

The Indian historian Surendra Nath Sen notes that the 34th B.N.I. had a good recent record and that the Court of Enquiry had not found any evidence of a connection with unrest at Berhampore involving the 19th B.N.I. four weeks before (see below). However, Mangal Pandey's actions and the failure of the armed and on-duty sepoys of the quarter-guard to take action convinced the British military authorities that the whole regiment was unreliable. It appeared that Pandey had acted without first taking other sepoys into his confidence but that antipathy towards their British officers within the regiment had led most of those present to act as spectators, rather than obey orders.

Battle of Haldighati

The battle of Haldighati was fought on 18 June 1576 between the Mewar forces led by Maharana Pratap, and the Mughal forces led by Man Singh I of Amber. The Mughals emerged victorious after inflicting significant casualties on Mewari forces, though they failed to capture Pratap, who reluctantly retreated persuaded by his fellow commanders.

The siege of Chittorgarh in 1568 had led to the loss of the fertile eastern belt of Mewar to the Mughals. However, the rest of the wooded and hilly kingdom was still under the control of the Sisodias. Akbar was intent on securing a stable route to Gujarat through Mewar; when Pratap Singh was crowned king (Rana) in 1572, Akbar sent a number of envoys entreating the Rana to become a vassal like many other Rajput leaders in the region. However, Pratap refused to enter into a treaty, which led to the battle.

The site of the battle was a narrow mountain pass at Haldighati near Gogunda in Rajasthan. Sources differ on the strength of the respective armies but probably the Mughals outnumbered the Mewar forces by a factor of four to one. Despite initial successes by the Mewaris, the tide slowly turned against them and Pratap found himself wounded and the day lost. A few of his men under Jhala Man Singh covered his retreat in a rearguard action. The Mewar troops were not chased in their retreat by Man Singh for which he was banished from the Mughal court for some time by Akbar.

Despite the reverse at Haldighati, Pratap continued his resistance against the Mughals through guerrilla warfare, and by the time of his death had regained much of his ancestral kingdom.

Background

After his accession to the throne, Akbar had steadily settled his relationship with most of the Rajput states, with the exception of Mewar, acknowledged as the leading state in Rajasthan. The Rana of Mewar, who was also the head of the distinguished Sisodia clan, had refused to submit to the Mughal. This had led to the siege of Chittorgarh in 1568, during the reign of Udai Singh II, ending with the loss of a sizeable area of fertile territory in the eastern half of Mewar to the Mughals. When Rana Pratap succeeded his father on the throne of Mewar, Akbar dispatched a series of diplomatic embassies to him, entreating the Rajput king to become his vassal. Besides his desire to resolve this longstanding issue, Akbar wanted the woody and hilly terrain of Mewar under his control to secure lines of communication with Gujarat.

The first emissary was Jalal Khan Qurchi, a favoured servant of Akbar, who was unsuccessful in his mission. Next, Akbar sent Man Singh of Amber (later, Jaipur), a fellow Rajput of the Kachhwa clan, whose fortunes had soared under the Mughals. But he too failed to convince Pratap. Raja Bhagwant Das was Akbar's third choice who too failed to prompt Pratap in a treaty. According to the Abul Fazl version, Pratap was swayed sufficiently to don a robe presented by Akbar and sent his young son, Amar Singh, to the Mughal court. However, this account of Abu-Fazal is an exaggeration as it is not corroborated even by the contemporary Persian chronicles, this account is not mentioned by Abd al-Qadir Badayuni and Nizamuddin Ahmad in their works. Further, In Tuzk-e-Jahangiri, Jahangir, stated that eldest son of Mewar king never visited the Mughal court prior to the treaty concluded in 1615 CE.

A final emissary, Todar Mal, was sent to Mewar without any favourable outcome. With diplomacy having failed, war was inevitable.

Prelude

Rana Pratap, who had been secure in the rock-fortress of Kumbhalgarh, set up his base in the town of Gogunda near Udaipur. Akbar deputed the Kachhwa, Man Singh, to battle with his clan's hereditary adversaries, the Sisodias of Mewar. Man Singh set up his base at Mandalgarh, where he mobilised his army and set out for Gogunda. Around 14 miles (23 km) north of Gogunda lay the village of Khamnor, separated from Gogunda by a spur of the Aravalli Range called "Haldighati" for its rocks which, when crushed, produced bright yellow sand resembling turmeric powder (haldi). The Rana, who had been apprised of Man Singh's movements, was positioned at the entrance of the Haldighati pass, awaiting Man Singh and his forces. The battle commenced three hours after sunrise on 18 June 1576.

Army strength

Mewari tradition has it that the Rana's forces numbered 20,000, which were pitted against the 80,000-strong army of Man Singh. While Jadunath Sarkar agrees with the ratio of these numbers, he believes them to be just as exaggerated as the popular story of Rana Pratap's horse, Chetak, jumping upon Man Singh's war elephant. Jadunath Sarkar gives the Mughal army as 10,000 strong. Satish Chandra estimates that Man Singh's army consisted of 5,000–10,000 men, a figure which included both the Mughals and the Rajputs.

According to Al Badayuni, who witnessed the battle, the Rana's army counted amongst its ranks 3,000 horsemen and around 400 Bhil archers led by Rana Punja, the Rajput chieftain of Panarwa. No infantry are mentioned. Man Singh's estimated forces numbered around 10,000 men. Of these, 4,000 were members of his own clan, the Kachhwas of Jaipur, 1,000 were other Hindu reserves, and 5,000 were Muslims of the Mughal imperial army.

Both sides possessed war elephants, but the Rajputs bore no firearms. The Mughals fielded no wheeled artillery or heavy ordnance, but did employ quite a number of muskets.

First Battle of Panipat

The First Battle of Panipat, on 21 April 1526 was fought between the invading forces of Babur against Ibrahim Khan Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi, in North India. Babur's forces, employing gunpowder firearms and cannons, defeated Ibrahim. This was one of the earliest battles involving gunpowder arms on the Indian subcontinent. The victory marked the beginning of Mughal rule in India.

Background

In 1504, Babur succeeded his late uncle Ulugh Beg II by force of arms, taking control of the latter's kingdom based around Kabul and Ghazni. Opposed by Muhammad Shaybani to the northwest, Babur sought to expand his kingdom to the southeast, into Punjab, the land of the five rivers. By 1519, he had reached the Chenab River.

At that time, most of North India was part of the Delhi Sultanate, under the rule of Ibrahim Lodi of the Lodi dynasty. However, Ibrahim was locked in a power struggle with his relatives and ministers. Daulat Khan Lodi, Governor of Punjab, offered to defect to Babur. Babur started for Lahore, in 1524 but found that Daulat had been driven out by forces sent by Ibrahim. The Lodi army marched out to engage Babur and was routed. Babur also took control of Jhelum, Sialkot, Kalanaur and Dipalpur before returning to Kabul. He placed Dipalpur under control of Alam Khan, a rebel uncle of Ibrahim.

At the end of 1525, Babur was to return to northern India, crossing the Indus in December. After securing his conquest of Punjab, Babur advanced towards Delhi. It was at Panipat he was to meet and engage a much larger army assembled by Ibrahim.

Battle

Ibrahim's army is reported to have had an effective strength of between 50,000 and 70,000 with 1,000 war elephants but lacked gunpowder arms. Babur's army was 12,000 strong. At least part of the force were equipped with matchlock muskets. His cavalry fought as horse archers. He also had between 15 and 20 cannons.

Babur defended his position with 700 wagons tied together in a line. Between every second wagon was a breastwork for his musketeers to fire from. At several places in the line, he left sally points 150 riders wide for his cavalry to advance through. Babur secured his right flank against the city of Panipat. On the left, he dug a trench filled with branches as an obstacle against cavalry.

When Ibrahim attacked, the frontage presented by Babur was too narrow for him to effectively employ his force. Musket and cannon pinned Ibrahim's centre while horse archers harried the flanks and rear. The noise of cannon panicked the elephants, adding to the casualties. Ibrahim and 20,000 of his men were killed in the battle. Thousands more died as the army retreated.

Aftermath

The battle of Panipat was militarily a decisive victory for Babur. However, to secure his position, Babur was still to fight the Mewar ruler Rana Sanga at Khanwa in 1527, and the eastern Afghans at the Ghaghra River in 1529. Politically it gained Babur new lands and initiated a new phase of his establishment of the Mughal Empire in the heart of the Indian subcontinent – an empire that lasted for over 200 years.

Green Revolution

The Green Revolution, or the Third Agricultural Revolution, was a period during which technology transfer initiatives resulted in a significant increase in crop yields. These changes in agriculture initially emerged in developed countries in the early 20th century and subsequently spread globally until the late 1980s. In the late 1980s, farmers began incorporating new technologies, including high-yielding varieties of cereals, particularly dwarf wheat and rice, and the widespread use of chemical fertilizers (to produce their high yields, the new seeds require far more fertilizer than traditional varieties), pesticides, and controlled irrigation.

At the same time, newer methods of cultivation, including mechanization, were adopted, often as a package of practices to replace traditional agricultural technology. This was often in conjunction with loans conditional on policy changes being made by the developing nations adopting them, such as privatizing fertilizer manufacture and distribution.

Both the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation were heavily involved in its initial development in Mexico. A key leader was agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution", who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. He is credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. Another important scientific figure was Yuan Longping, whose work on hybrid rice varieties is credited with saving at least as many lives. The basic approach was the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. As crops began to reach the maximum improvement possible through selective breeding, genetic modification technologies were developed to allow for continued efforts.

Studies show that the Green Revolution contributed to widespread eradication of poverty, averted hunger for millions, raised incomes, limited the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, reduced land use for agriculture, and contributed to declines in infant mortality.

History

Use of the term

The term "Green Revolution" was first used by William S. Gaud, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in a speech on 8 March 1968. He noted the spread of the new technologies as:

These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution.

Development in Mexico

Mexico has been called the 'birthplace' and 'burial ground' of the Green Revolution. It began with great promise and it has been argued that "during the twentieth century two 'revolutions' transformed rural Mexico: the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920) and the Green Revolution (1940–1970)."

The genesis of the Green Revolution was a lengthy visit in 1940 by U.S. Vice President-elect Henry A. Wallace, who had served as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture during President Franklin Roosevelt's first two terms, and before government service, had founded a company, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, that had revolutionized the hybridization of seed corn to greatly increase crop yields. He became appalled at the meager corn yields in Mexico, where 80 percent of the people lived off the land, and a Mexican farmer had to work as much as 500 hours to produce a single bushel of corn, about 50 times longer than the typical Iowa farmer planting hybrid seed. Wallace persuaded the Rockefeller Foundation to fund an agricultural station in Mexico to hybridize corn and wheat for arid climates, and to lead it, he hired a young Iowa agronomist named Norman Borlaug.

The project was supported by the Mexican government under new President Manuel Ávila Camacho, and the U.S. government, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For the U.S. government, its neighbor Mexico was an important experimental case in the use of technology and scientific expertise in agriculture that became the model for international agricultural development. Mexico sought to transform agricultural productivity, particularly with irrigated rather than dry-land cultivation in its northwest, to solve its problem of lack of food self-sufficiency. In the center and south of Mexico, where large-scale production faced challenges, agricultural production languished. Increased production promised food self-sufficiency in Mexico to feed its growing and urbanizing population with the increase in a number of calories consumed per Mexican. The science of hybridization was seen as a valuable way to feed the poor and would relieve some pressure of the land redistribution process. In general, the success of "Green Revolution" depended on the use of machinery for cultivation and harvest, on large-scale agricultural enterprises with access to credit (often from foreign investors), government-supported infrastructure projects, and access to low-wage agricultural workers.

Within eight years of Wallace's visit, Mexico had no need to import food, for the first time since 1910; within 20 years, corn production had tripled, and wheat production had increased five-fold. In 1943, Mexico imported half of its wheat requirements, however by 1956 it had become self-sufficient and it was exporting half a million tons of wheat by 1964. Within 30 years, Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ultimately saving two billion people from starvation.

Mexico was the recipient of knowledge and technology of the Green Revolution, and it was an active participant with financial supports from the government for agriculture and Mexican agronomists. In the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, the government had redistributed land to ejidatarios in some parts of the country which had broken the back of the hacienda system. During the presidency of Lazaro Cárdenas (1934–1940), land reform in Mexico reached its apex in the center and south of Mexico. Agricultural productivity had fallen significantly by the 1940s.

After Borlaug's agricultural station was established, in 1941, a team of U.S. scientists, Richard Bradfield (Cornell University), Paul C. Mangelsdorf (Harvard University), and Elvin Charles Stakman (under whom Borlaug had studied at the University of Minnesota) surveyed Mexican agriculture to recommend policies and practices. In 1943, the Mexican government founded the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), which became a base for international agricultural research.

Jallianwala Bagh massacre

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab, British India, during the annual Baisakhi fair to protest against the Rowlatt Act and the arrest of pro-Indian independence activists Saifuddin Kitchlew and Satyapal. In response to the public gathering, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer surrounded the people with Gurkhas of Nepalese origin and Sikh infantrymen of the British Indian Army.

The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, Dyer ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was low and they were ordered to stop. Estimates of those killed vary from 379 to 1,500 or more people; over 1,200 others were injured, of whom 192 sustained serious injury. Britain has never formally apologised for the massacre, but expressed deep "regret" in 2019.

The massacre caused a re-evaluation by the Imperial British military of its role when confronted with civilians to use "minimal force whenever possible" (although the British Army was not directly involved in the massacre; the British Indian Army was a separate organisation). However, in the light of later British military actions during the Mau rebellion in the Kenya Colony, historian Huw Bennett has pointed out that this new policy was not always followed. The army was retrained with less violent tactics for crowd control.

The level of casual brutality and the lack of any accountability stunned the entire nation, resulting in a wrenching loss of faith of the general Indian public in the intentions of the United Kingdom. The attack was condemned by the Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill, as "unutterably monstrous", and in the UK House of Commons debate on 8 July 1920 Members of Parliament voted 247 to 37 against Dyer. The ineffective inquiry, together with the initial accolades for Dyer, fuelled great widespread anger against the British among the Indian populace, leading to the non-cooperation movement of 1920–22.

Background

Defence of India Act

During World War I, British India contributed to the British war effort by providing men and resources. Millions of Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the Indian administration and the princes sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. Bengal and Punjab remained sources of anti-colonial activities. Revolutionary attacks in Bengal, associated increasingly with disturbances in Punjab, were enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration. Of these, a pan-Indian mutiny in the British Indian Army planned for February 1915 was the most prominent amongst a number of plots formulated between 1914 and 1917 by Indian nationalists in India, the United States and Germany.

The planned February mutiny was ultimately thwarted when British intelligence infiltrated the Ghadar Movement, arresting key figures. Mutinies in smaller units and garrisons within India were also crushed. In the context of the British war effort and the threat from the separatist movement in India, the Defence of India Act 1915 was passed, limiting civil and political liberties. Michael O'Dwyer, then the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, was one of the strongest proponents of the act, in no small part due to the Ghadarite threat in the province.

The Rowlatt Act

The costs of the protracted war in money and manpower were great. High casualty rates in the war, increasing inflation after the end, compounded by heavy taxation, the deadly 1918 flu pandemic, and the disruption of trade during the war escalated human suffering in India. The pre-war Indian nationalist sentiment was revived as moderate and extremist groups of the Indian National Congress ended their differences to unify. In 1916, the Congress was successful in establishing the Lucknow Pact, a temporary alliance with the All-India Muslim League. British political concessions and Whitehall's India Policy after World War I began to change, with the passage of Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, which initiated the first round of political reform in the Indian subcontinent in 1917. However, this was deemed insufficient in reforms by the Indian political movement. Mahatma Gandhi, recently returned to India, began emerging as an increasingly charismatic leader under whose leadership civil disobedience movements grew rapidly as an expression of political unrest.

The recently crushed Ghadar conspiracy, the presence of Raja Mahendra Pratap's Kabul mission in Afghanistan (with possible links to Bolshevik Russia), and a still-active revolutionary movement especially in Punjab and Bengal (as well as worsening civil unrest throughout India) led to the appointment of a sedition committee in 1918 chaired by Sidney Rowlatt, an Anglo-Egyptian judge. It was tasked to evaluate German and Bolshevik links to the militant movement in India, especially in Punjab and Bengal. On the recommendations of the committee, the Rowlatt Act, an extension of the Defence of India Act 1915 to limit civil liberties, was enacted.

The passage of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 caused large-scale political unrest throughout India. Ominously, in 1919, the Third Anglo-Afghan War began in the wake of Amir Habibullah's assassination and the institution of Amanullah Khan in his place. As a reaction to the Rowlatt Act, Muhammad Ali Jinnah resigned from his Bombay seat, writing in a letter to the Viceroy, "I, therefore, as a protest against the passing of the Bill and the manner in which it was passed tender my resignation ... a Government that passes or sanctions such a law in times of peace forfeits its claim to be called a civilised government". Gandhi's call for protest against the Rowlatt Act achieved an unprecedented response of furious unrest and protests.