Loyalty has to be earned
“A disgrace to faith, a disgrace to humanity, and a disgrace to the motherland,” Allama Iqbal had said of Mir Jafar, who deceived Nawab of Bengal Siraj-ud-Daulah in the Battle of Plassey against Robert Clive in 1757. His stronger army surrendered without fighting, Mir Jafar became the Nawab, and the move laid the foundation of British rule in India.
Two centuries later, his name is a key phrase in Pakistan’s political rhetoric. All key political and military leaders of Pakistan have been accused of treason, especially those who oppose the military establishment. The most recent recipient of the title is Hussain Haqqani.
Haqqani is back in Pakistan with his side of the story. But Mir Jafar is dead. Does that mean we should not look at the situation he was in? Is loyalty essentially good and defection always bad? Even in the case of Shah Mahmood Qureshi?
Mir Jafar’s boss Siraj-ud-Daulah was a 20-year-old drunken opium addict and a cruel tyrant.
“Mirza Mohammed Siraj, a youth of seventeen years, had discovered the most vicious propensities, at an age when only follies are expected from princes,” British historian Robert Orme wrote about Siraj-ud-Daulah’s youth in Ali Vardi Khan’s palace.” (History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from 1745)
“Taught by his minions to regard himself as of a superior order of being, his natural cruelty, hardened by habit, in conception he was not slow, but absurd; obstinate, sullen, and impatient of contradiction.” During his youth in Ali Vardi Khan’s palace, Siraj-ud-Daulah “lived in every kind of intemperance and debauchery, and more especially in drinking spiritous liquors to an excess, which inflamed his passions and impaired the little understanding with which he was born,” Omre said.
Orme was no neutral observer. He had been a member of the St Fort St George Council in Madras and was instrumental in sending Robert Clive with a military expedition to Calcutta to avenge what is known as the Black Hole incident of 1756. After recapturing Calcutta, Siraj-ud-Daulah had put 146 British men in a 20 square foot closed chamber. Of them, 123 had died by the next morning. Reports of the incident are perhaps exaggerated, but even the French, who were friends with Siraj, did not have a favourable opinion of him.
“Before the death of Ali Vardi Khan the character of Siraj-ud-Daulah was reported to be one of the worst ever known,” Jean Law, who knew Siraj as chief of the French East India company in the West Bengal city of Cossimbazar, wrote in his memoir.
“In fact, he had distinguished himself not only by all sorts of debauchery, but by a revolting cruelty. The Hindu women are accustomed to bathe on the banks of the Ganges. Siraj-ud-Daulah, who was informed by his spies which of them were beautiful, sent his satellites in disguise in little boats to carry them off. He was often seen, in the season when the river overflows, causing the ferry boats to be upset or sunk in order to have the cruel pleasure of watching the terrified confusion of a hundred people at a time, men, women, and children, of whom many, not being able to swim, were sure to perish.”
The British would refuse him admission into their Cossimbazar factory and their houses, he wrote, “because, in fact, this excessively blustering and impertinent young man used to break the furniture, or, if it pleased his fancy, take it away.”
A Muslim historian of the time, Ghulam Husain Tabatabai, said the following about Siraj-ud-Daulah: “Making no distinction between vice and virtue, he carried defilement wherever he went, and, like a man alienated in his mind, he made the house of men and women of distinction the scenes of his depravity, without minding either rank or station. In a little time he became detested as Pharaoh, and people on meeting him by chance used to say, ‘God save us from him!’”
Peter Harrington defended Siraj-ud-Daulah (Plassey 1757: Clive of India’s Finest Hour) saying Siraj’s “alleged pastime of pulling the wings off birds or watching boats deliberately overturned so that he could watch the occupants drown” were not true. But he did quote Muslim historian Ghulam Hussain Salim:
“Owing to Siraj-ud-Daulah’s harshness of temper and indulgence, fear and terror had settled on the hearts of everyone to such an extent that no one among his generals of the army or the noblemen of the city was free from anxiety. Amongst his officers, whoever went to wait on Siraj-ud-Daulah despaired of life and honour, and whoever returned without being disgraced and ill-treated offered thanks to God.”
Why would Mir Jafar want to be loyal to such a tyrant? Siraj-ud-Daulah only “displayed facets of a character common to oriental dynastic politics of the period”, Harrington says in his defence. That might be true, but then, so did Mir Jafar.
The writer is a media and culture critic and works at The Friday Times. He tweets @paagalinsaan and gets email at [email protected]
I thought that Pakistan Today was a rational news outlet. But after reading this nonsense historical referece, thinking otherwise. It seems that if you can write in English, you are welcom and we will print it.
Author attempted to produce a letter but came out as litter.
"Author attempted to produce a letter but came out as litter." I'm glad you're so self-critical, and humble to talk of yourself in third person. Men like you are an extinct specie…
Surely Haris wrote an article and you wrote a modern version of a letter.
About time Siraj-us-Daulah was depicted as he truly was – a nasty, vicious young man – and definitely not a hero as painted by latter day propagandists. While Mir Jaffar has become a pejorative for treason, one wonders how anyone could have owed an iota of loyalty to someone so loathsome.
Haris Bin Mir Jafar—
The drift taken by Sub-continent towards extremism after the defeat of Dara Shikoh was very dangerous. Had it not been for the Company/ Raj interregenum we would have been into what is not even imaginable.
well well well it is first time in my life tat i see Mr. Siraj-u-dula being criticized. rather any one of our leaders who lost fighting against British hegemony being criticized so i would congratulate Mr. Harris for a daring article. its also the first time i see a person vilified for treason being defended …. so i think we should also laud this attempt. Not being a student of istory i find myself unable to contest these facts
But dear sir even if i take all the facts quoted above to be true it doesn't washes Mir Jaffer's sins away. May be our rulers were at that time indolent, selfish, cruel, corrupt to the extent that the only purpose of their life was their personal gain (btw this does rings some bells. doesn't it) it doesn't mean that handing over the rule british was the right way out.
As we all are so fond of drawing parallels so "Mir Jafar" will be the person who fed up of incompetence of Mr. Zardari's rule hands over our nuclear assets or sovereignty of our state to some foreign power i.e America. and i think that even a broadminded person like you will be good enough to call him a villain.
On the other hand what i would like to ask you what would you call Mr. Sirajudula if he handed over Bangal to British while being the incompetent, tyrannical ruler that he was. because that's what the situation in our country seems to be headed to.
The Classic orientalist mistake, you cant quote British sources to support your views regarding their adversary Sirajudaula . The British colonial administration would go to inordinate lengths to vilify their opponents.
Its like if I write an article on Churchhill sourcing the war time German press and the Nazi propaganda machine (Who maintained he was an incoherent boorish drunkard who had slaughtered many in the colonies, largely true lol). The only native you quoted had very mild views about Sirajudaulah even judged by the out of context single paragraph provided.
There are many articles right now defending the good ambassador in the Atlantic, Foreign Policy etc from his neocon patrons. I would not rely on them to reach a judgement against him. Just like I wont rely on the oped of the daily ummat.
Thank you for the comment, Ali Wazir, but it is always a good idea to read the article before commenting on it 🙂
I quoted two local sources not one, of which the first one is anything but mild. The French were friends with Sairajud Daula, I also quoted a French man who knew him personally. And I quoted two British historians, one who vilified Siraj and another who defended him.
I read the article carefully before commenting and you missed my point completely in your unfortunate passive aggressive reply, which still stands. 🙂
Showing Sirajudaulah was of a mean disposition does not equal a defense of the actions of Mir Jafar, Surely that isnt a hard argument to follow?? As for the French views, even that is from an essential colonial perspective. If you read British sources they were routinely dismissive of their nominal "Allies". Read accounts of the Sikh court or British accounts of the Dogras in Kashmir or British accounts of "allied" NW tribes like Khattaks or Banuchis.
Opponents never stood a chance, for instance I have read the British accounts about Mirza Ali Khan and the British were unforgiving in their potrayel and vilification. To the point he is still referred he is to this day still refered to as "Faqir of ipi".
Your essential argument is that Mir Jaffer was a reasonable man who actions against Sirajuddulah were justified based on Sirajudaullah notoriety. My counterpoint is that the internal justification of "traitors" is of little interest to most people . There are good reasons why he is remembered the way he is. All attempts by the British to whitewash and legitimize him failed, he will be remembered as essentially a 'traitor".
Just to illustrate my point, the events of 1857 can be seen either as a Mutiny or a war of independence. If you are from the subcontinent you will chose the later if you are a British Historian you choose the former. If you are from the Subcontinent and still see it as a mutiny that has to do with your value system not the History ,which has been defined succinctly by Edward said as "orientalist". II dont use that pejoratively at all.Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.
Your defense of Mir Jaffer is essentially the same light. Nothing new and nothing profound, I am sure there are ,many a gazeteers, and British colonial histories filled with the same views, quoting the same sources.
Ali Wazir, one of the two British sources I quoted defended Siraj. You have continued to ignore two contemporary Muslim historians I cited. The French would of course have a colonial perspective, but that does not mean Siraj had a native perspective. He was wooing other colonizers, and not fighting a war of independance. The state and the society here were breaking down, like they are today, and the choices we face in such times must be seen in context.
Your orientalism argument applies to only one source cited in here, and that I acknowledged as I cited it. I highly recommend that you read Edward Said's original book yourself and try again.
Well Haris you will need a thicker skin then that. Thank you for the recommendation but I have already Ed Said "original book" (which I will assume you mean) Orientalism. But the more serious question is have you??
Because if you did you will know Ed Said argument was way more then just pointing out simple bias, it referred to Western scholar (or the Western minded scholar) false assumption that he needed to provide a "narrative" to historical event without acknowledging the elephant in the room the inherit Bias of the occidental position vis a vis the near historical skewed power relationship. Its an attempt to appropriate History , Culture in guise of academic pursuit. Itsnotoriously hard to detect by the offender and as it seems ongoing.
The fact the French were nominally allied to Sirajudaullah does not take away from my oriental "deconstruction". The French were colonialist a temporary alliance would do nothing to centuries worth of cultural indoctrination regarding the oriental "other". Sirajudaullah was a native period.I fail to understand how he could assume any other perspective.
Its not about objectivity that I have a problem with. I would rather have some one make his biases clear and present a passionate one sided well made argument, and not hide behind the mythical "objectivity"..its about the assumption you make that History as popularly understood from Oriental cultural millieu (Iqbal) needs "rectifying", which I found troubling.That what I am referring to quintessentially orientalist.
And that is how its popularly understood and used, its never used to my knowledge as just an accusation of a lack of "objectivity".
Do read the book its surprisingly short read. And as a art critic you will love the references to classic western "Oriental" paintings. The section on Kipling is the most relevant for us in the Subcontinent . The one about Mansur Hallaj depiction by french orientalist Louis Masagnon was the most compelling. There is a section on the "reverse orientalist" if I remember correctly, that you will find helpful.
Sorry to say, I may not be able to reply after this post ,as the marrow has been sucked from this bone, there was little to begin with.
Ali Wazir,
Building a narrative out of blocks of signs that have an arbitrary relationship to their meaning is an aesthetic endeavour at least several thousand years old and is very broad in its scope.
Orientalism, like any other recent social/scientific attempts to narrativize historical events using an interface that hides its own biases, was a project of Humanism.
I take an anti-humanist position here that you fail to see and that's where you are wrong. This column is not about an objective history narrated by a transcendental human subject, but about narratives and counternarratives. I questioned a prevalent narrative with various counternarratives.
Your orientalist criqitue (not 'deconstruction') applies only to one of the sources I cited, and I acknowledge that as such in the column.
Even you exclude that source, and the French one too if you insist, where do the two local Muslim sources fit in your story? What about the British source who defends Siraj's actions by contextializing them? I respond to that in the last paragraph saying we must contextualize Mir Jafar's actions the same way.
You, on the contrary, had insisted in your previous response that the grand narrative that vilifies Mir Jafar should not be questioned and counternarratives of 'internal justification' must be dismissed. That is odd coming from someone who claims his approach deconstrutctive and follows Edward Said.
Now look at the basis of your critique and take it one step further, questioning your own notions.
India was never one country, culturally or geographically, in its entire history, except under the British. It had been ruled by various invaders for several thousand years. Your notion that 'if you are from the subcontinent' you are tied in some sense and are all 'natives' who deserve 'independance' has no basis. Except in a modern humanist democratic narrative. Where does that come from???
Not sure if my comments are appearing in the right place. This is in reply to the third piece by Ali Wazir. You say you have a problem with 'the assumption you make that History as popularly understood from Oriental cultural millieu (Iqbal) needs "rectifying"'. Few points:
1. Where does Iqbal come into all this (and don't tell me in the parenthesis).
2. History as known and understood anyhow and anywhere always needs, not necessarily rectifying, but to be seen in different perspectives until the myth is dissolved. Absolute objectivity in human affairs is impossible but a certain amount of it can be achieved by observing the same object of study from as many perspectives as possible. Afterall enlightenment is all about disassociation of myth from history, and this is best achieved by constant 'rectification' (observe the inverted commas). If one doesn't do this, one becomes a rabid imbiber and propagator of the dominant ideology. I shudder to think of the day when the majority of our population will blindly accept the "Pakistan Studies" perspective of events.
3. It is not an assumption Haris makes but an attempt at presenting a fresh perspective regardless if it is acceptable to many people or not.
And finally a few of my own thoughts: how many works of history, literature or academic writing (like PhD theses) have been written about Mir Jaafer in Pakistan and India from 1757 to today. Hardly any, if at all. So the whole Mir Jaafer story as it is commonly known is a popular legend more than any serious work of history. It is entirely possible that this popular legend was used by Muslims of India after 1857 rebellion (because I'll stay with Ghalib and say what else is a group of disorganized mob who rebels against their officers called but mutineers and rebels? The rebels were never really organized enough to be called an army who had could then declare a war except in a few states) to illustrate, as popular legends often do, the black-and-white pro- and anti-colonial stand and personify it in the persons of Mir Jaafer and Sirajuddaula.
Therefore, what Haris has done is nothing more than question our commonly held assumptions with some scholarly input and multiple perspectives. You may carry on what he started and disprove his assumption if you find the right sources, or you may decide to keep quiet and hold the common assumption. You have the right to criticize but do not start without a base. If the original piece refers to historical works, your criticism can only be valid with counter-references. As for deconstruction, it is a much more tedious task and require thorough and rigourous analysis. If you know anything about it, you'd know that not on Derrida but all of the Frankfurt School have been very insistent about rigour. If deconstruction is not rigorous, it is nothing; worse: it becomes synonymous with fecal material.
Interesting argument, but makes it all the more confusing; the concept of history. History, be it orientalist or imperialist remains a narration of a certain point of view, thus subjective in nature affected by one's value system.
The second last paragraph from your reply takes a dichotomous approach towards an historical event of far reaching consequences.Quite a few local historians and artists of greatest repute have approached 1857 as mutiny (Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mirza Ghalib et al.) If someone is from sub-continent and chooses to view 1857 as a mutiny then that too is essentially a part of history. I fail to see it any other way. You may invoke the argument of neutrality or objectivity in regard to historical perspective, but then again I guess we are a bit too old for that kind of idealistic notion.
Mir Jafar may have been motivated by myriad of arguments to choose the path that he walked on, but it would be overtly simplistic to just associate his actions to his greed and despise for muslim monarchy. The article just presents some historical narratives regarding his actions and builds upon them to shed some light on the usually overlooked aspect of that event. I'd assume that it was aimed to be a thought provoking piece and personally speaking I do find it as such.
Just jumping in to highlight some inconsistencies. Debates are good but should follow a certain acceptable level of logical argumentation, Ali.
There's nothing pejorative about the title Faqir of Ipi but you say "… to the point that he is to this day referred to as 'Faqir of Ipi,' as if something wrong with this title. The man was a faqir in the same sense that sufis are known as faqirs (not in the sense of beggar, but what we call 'faqeer fillah' or a poor man in the way of God), and he was from, or at least based himself in Ipi. If, on the other hand, he was called a 'Mohammadan Fanatic' as many were, it'd be different.
Events of 1857: if they are seen as a mutiny by someone from the sub-continent, his value systems are 'orientalist.' So Mirza Ghalib was an orientalist, as were many other Indian (or 'native' if you prefer) scholars of that time.
And finally your 'counterpoint' refuses to let itself up to any argument; it is partly based on presumption ('… is of little interest to most people') and partly on closed logic without justification: 'internal justification… is of little value' (why?) and 'there are good reasons he is remembered the way he is' (what are they?). This is weak.
What rubbish! Is this really a newspaper? Is this article suggesting that Haqqani was justified in joining forces with Mullen?
This is a rubbish at its best. The point is that Mir Jaffar joined forces with a foregin invader. No one said Siraj-ud-dola was the best human being ever. Drawing a parallal would in our case be, that our opposition lead joins forces with a foregin invader because the current ruling elite (Zardari et al) are corrupt to the core.
Seems like you can get away with writing rubbish in English in Pakistan as the masses dont read it. Try getting this junk published in an Urdu daily, I dont like your chances……l
Waqar, Arabs and Turks were also foreign invaders. If this is 'junk', you wouldn't have to resort to death threats
this is precisely the point bro! when in a society speaking out one's mind on a subject as remotely sacred as a provincial prince becomes a matter of life and death then there is something gravely wrong about it. Its so sad that u missed the irony.
thank you…..We would only follow our text book Lies…!
Absolute master piece of trash put together to be served in todays news. Haris might be feeling proud of it, Even iblees felt proud of standing against Allah's order to bow infront of Adam(A.S). So what! The author is trying hard to defend the fact of "buying the loyality" and defending Haqqani. But he has to be far too good then he think he is to make us vaguely interested in his posture about world affairs.
Good luck Haris!! May be one day sense may prevail to you !
crappy crap
Not withstanding the erroneous parallel between Haris and Iblees (you didn't really do that, did you?), you got Iblees all wrong. If you'd read your Quran as one is supposed to (i.e. with translational and using your own brain plus numerous commentaries), you'd know that we're not told WHY Iblees defied God's order. Is it entirely impossible that Iblees was defiant, not out of pride but due to his extreme loyalty to the concept of God's unity and worship-worthiness: i.e. he refused to bow infront of a man because one should only bow in front of God? It is not only I but numerous scholars (some famous, some like Ibn al Arabi venerated and some, like Mansour Hallaj, vilified) have pondered over the "alternative" Iblees version. Why can't you let Haris live and ponder over Mir Jaafer.
Forget Mir Jaafer, our favourite and most dear poet, Mirza Ghalib defended the British in 1857 with most high praise and justified their rule using both philosophical and religious arguments. Will you, like Waqar (above) ask for his murder as well?
i wanted to comment but at the end of the article i read that you tweeted as paagal insaan. so now i dont find any reason to comment.
then why did you comment?
hahahahahah funnyyyyyyyy:P well
A) Iblees did not bow because he was proud …………. I am made of fire and Adam made of dirt he is inferior i shall not bow …………….. no such thing as extreme Loyality or any such thing ………. for if he were loyal he must have done exactly as Allah Said and i.e. BOW BEFORE ADAM……………
B) who gives a f$%^& if siraj u daula was a tyrant or blah blah …………. but Mir Jaffar was a traitor …………. i wonder if the opposition(SUPPOSEDLY) asks the indians to save PAKISTAN from zardari (THE TYRANT) ………………. how would u rate the opposition??
No need to answer …………. @haris i get wot u are made of where u lived wot u heard wot u read wot defined u ………………. reason logic reason logic and all that crap………..
i have started reading this but just at start it appears that writer is either biased or did not bother to go through history. Nawab Saraj ud daulla is termed as drunken opium addict where as Luke Scraton (One of the directors of the British East India Company from 1765-1768) says that Siraj swore on the Quran at Alivardi's death bed that after that in future he would never touch any intoxicating liquor, and he kept the promise ever after. You don't need extensive research for that rather just open wikipedia. I don't think that this article worth wasting time in reading complete article.
u are a scourge of journalism if that is what it is. And u r quoting the British historians ….wow.. now that is one hell of a reliable source that u manged to find and put forth. Why should i waste time commenting on this piece of trash. Go to hell
Comments are closed.