'A Tale Of Two Revolts' presents a panoramic view of two revolts, three nations, one century

The Crimean war broke out in 1853, the Indian revolt in 1857, and the American civil war in 1861. Englishmen, Indians and Americans of the day were all aware of the events occurring in these other places. But there is one man who has covered all these three major wars but was not an Englishman or an American or an Indian. He was an Irishman, William Howard Russell, the London Times’ correspondent.

Rajmohan reconstructs the two wars from the point of view of Russell. His delineation of these two epochal conflicts also throw light on the choices and personalities of three giants of world history — Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy and Abraham Lincoln. In the process, Rajmohan also documents how five extraordinary individuals then living in India — Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, Jyotiba Phule, Allan Octavian Hume and Bankimchandra Chatterjee — responded (or failed to respond) to the two wars.

Russell met Bahadur Shah Zafar in Delhi and Abraham Lincoln in Washington. His description in his diary of the last Mughal, whom he saw at the Red Fort on June 5, 1858: “The moment of our visit was not propitious…was not calculated to…throw a halo of romance…around the infirm creature who was the symbol of the extinguished empire…In effect the ex-King was sick; with bent body he seemed nearly prostrate over a brass basin, into which he was retching violently…” On March 26, 1861, Russell met Abraham Lincoln in the White House, and wrote in his diary:
“Soon afterwards there entered, with a shambling, loose, irregular, almost unsteady gait, a tall, lank, lean man, considerably over six feet of height, with stooping shoulders, long pendulous arms, terminating in hands of extraordinary dimensions, which however were far exceeded in proportion by his feet. He was dressed in an ill-fitting suit of black…”

It is this eye for the revealing detail that gives Rajmohan Gandhi the mastery over a narrative that is intimidating, unwieldy but not entirely unconnected. The Americans followed the Indian revolt, the initial British defeats and later victories. Many of them supported the British, as did Marx and Engels, even as Marx saw through the British economic rapacity. Abraham Lincoln and Henry David Thoreau were silent on the Indian revolt. There were other silences on the Indian side as well. Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and Bankimchandra Chatterjee were silent too about the revolt.

If there was one Indian who had a clear and firm view of the two great events of the time, it was Jyotiba Phule. He saw things clearly and understood the implications as well. In his book, Gulamgiri published in 1873, Phule wrote, “The English are but brief and transitory visitors to this ancient land of ours. They are here today and gone tomorrow!…Therefore, true wisdom dictates that all of us Shudras should try to emancipate ourselves from the hereditary thralldom of the Brahmins with the utmost haste, and that too during the English rule in our country.” And he dedicated this book “To the good people of the United States as a token of admiration for their sublime, disinterested and self-sacrificing devotion in the cause of Negro slavery; and with an earnest desire that my countrymen may take their noble example as their guide in the emancipation of these Shudra brethren from the trammels of Brahmin thraldom.”

Rajmohan’s narration is not confined to telling detail. He says that while the Englishmen wrote about everything that had happened to them and what they did to the Indians after the victory, there are no Indian narratives to give the other side of the picture. He notes the acts of cruelties — the massacre of English women, children and wounded near Kanpur after Nana Sahib had assured a safe passage. And he notes that the Englishmen responded with as much cruelty.

While surveying the American Civil War, Rajmohan does not lose sight of the many contradictions in the situation. He unsparingly delineates Lincoln’s view of the blacks, revealing how, though he was against slavery, he was not for racial mixing. In a debate with his famous Democrat rival Stephen Douglas for the senate seat in 1858, Lincoln stated: “…I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause], that I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…” Lincoln was treading cautiously, but he was sure of one thing: that the black must have his liberty and that he is equal to the white man because that is the stated principle of the Declaration of Independence. The ideas embedded in that document were the guiding principle of Lincoln’s stand against slavery. 

On the whole, Rajmohan is not offering a popular or a populist history. He keeps the complexities intact and yet manages to delineate them with the utmost clarity. He examines the trees and does not the miss the woods.