19 July 1827|
Nagwa, Ballia district, Uttar Pradesh, India
|Died||8 April 1857
Barrackpore, Calcutta(now ), West Bengal, India
|Occupation||Sepoy (soldier) in the 34th Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) regiment of the British East India Company|
|Known for||Mutineer / Indian freedom fighter|
Mangal Pandey ( listen (help·info); 19 July 1827 – 8 April 1857), was an Indian soldier who played a key part in events immediately preceding the outbreak of the Indian rebellion of 1857.Mangal Pandey was a sepoy (private) in the 34th Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) regiment of the British East India Company. While contemporary British opinion considered him a traitor and mutineer, Pandey is widely regarded as a freedom fighter in modern India. In 1984, the Indian government issued a postage stamp to commemorate him. His life and actions have also been portrayed in several cinematic productions.
- 1 Early life
- 2 The 1857 incident
- 3 Film and stage adaptations
- 4 English language
- 5 Commemoration
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 Further reading
- 9 External links
Mangal Pandey was born on 19 July 1827 in Nagwa, a village of upper Ballia district, Uttar Pradesh, in a Bhumihar Brahmin family. He joined the East India Company's army in 1849 at the age of 22. Pandey was a soldier in the 6th Company of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry and is primarily known for his involvement in an attack on several of the regiment's officers. This incident marked an opening stage in what came to be known as the India's First War of Independence or Indian Mutiny of 1857. In line with the modern Indian perspective of his historical role, it is now claimed[by whom?] that Pandey was a devout Hindu who practiced his religion diligently.
The 1857 incident
At Barrackpore on the afternoon of 29 March 1857, Lieutenant Baugh, Adjutant of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry (BNI), 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. Baugh immediately buckled on his sword, placed loaded pistols in his holsters, mounted his horse, and galloped 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, and horse and rider were brought 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 tried to reload his musket.
English Sergeant-Major Hewson, had arrived on the parade ground, summoned by a native officer, before Baugh. He had ordered Jemadar Ishwari Prasad, the Indian officer in command of the quarter-guard, to arrest Mangal Pandey. To this, the jemadar expostulated 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 other sepoys, who threw stones and shoes at his back, he called on the guard to help him hold Pandey, but they threatened to shoot him if he did not let go of Pandey.
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 were 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.
In the meantime, a report of the incident had been carried to the commanding officer General Hearsey, who then galloped to the ground with his two officer sons. Taking in the scene, he 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 breast and discharged it by pressing the trigger with his foot. He collapsed bleeding and with his regimental jacket on fire but not mortally wounded.
Pandey recovered and was brought to trial less than a week later. When asked whether he had been under the influence of any substances, he stated steadfastly that he had mutinied on his own accord and that no other person had played any part in encouraging him. 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 was scheduled for April 18, but was carried out ten days before that date. Jemadar Ishwari Prasad was executed by hanging on April 21.
The 34th B.N.I. Regiment was 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 protecting their officer. This came after a period of six weeks while petitions for leniency were examined in Calcutta. Shaikh Paltu was promoted on the spot to the post of Havaldar (native sergeant) by General Hearsey, for his conduct during the incident.
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 Berhampur 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.
The cartridge was thought to be greased with animal fat, primarily from pigs and cows, which could not be consumed by Muslims and Hindus respectively (the former being abhorrent to Muslims and the latter a holy animal of the Hindus). The cartridges had to be bitten at one end before use. The Indian troops were of the opinion that this was an intentional act of the British, with the aim of defiling their religions.
Commandant Wheeler of the 34th BNI was known as a zealous Christian preacher, and this may also have impacted the Company's behaviour. The wife of Captain William Halliday of 56th BNI had the Bible printed in Urdu and Devanagari and distributed among the sepoys, thus raising suspicions amongst them that the British were intent on converting them to Christianity.
Also, the 19th and 34th Bengal Native Infantry were stationed at Lucknow during the time of annexation of Oudh because of alleged misgovernment by the Nawab, on 7 February 1856. The annexation had another implication for sepoys in the Bengal Army (a significant portion of whom came from that princely state). Before the annexation, these sepoys had the right to petition the British Resident at Lucknow for justice — a significant privilege in the context of native courts. As a result of the annexation, they lost that right, since that state no longer existed. Moreover, this action was seen by the residents of the state as an affront to their honour, the annexation being done in violation of an existing treaty.
The sepoys were accordingly affected by the general discontent which had been stirred up by the annexation. In February 1857, both these regiments were situated in Barrackpore.
The 19th Bengal Native Infantry Regiment is important because it was the regiment charged with testing the new cartridges on 26 February 1857. However, right up to the mutiny the new rifles had not been issued to them, and the cartridges in the magazine of the regiment were as free of grease as they had been through the preceding half century. The paper used in wrapping the cartridges was of a different colour, arousing suspicions. The non-commissioned officers of the regiment refused to accept the cartridges on 26 February. This information was conveyed to the commanding officer, Colonel Mitchell; he took it upon himself to try to convince the sepoys that the cartridges were no different from those they had been accustomed to and that they need not bite it. He concluded his exhortation with an appeal to the native officers to uphold the honour of the regiment and a threat to court-martial such sepoys as refused to accept the cartridge. However, the next morning the sepoys of the regiment seized their bell of arms (weapons store). The subsequent conciliatory behaviour of Mitchell convinced the sepoys to return to their barracks. A Court of Enquiry was ordered which, after an investigation lasting nearly a month, recommended the disbanding of the regiment. The same was carried out on 31 March. The 19th BNI were allowed to retain their uniforms and provided by the Government with an allowance to return home.
The Enfield rifle and cartridge
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (March 2011)|
The P-53 was officially known as the Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket. Introduced in the British Army by the War Department during 1854 in the Crimean War, they proved very effective at a range of 50 to 300 yards (270 m). It was introduced in the Bengal Army by the East India Company in early 1857. At the time of Mangal Pandey's outbreak rearming of the sepoy regiments with the new weapon was only in its early stages.
The rifle used a Metford-Pritchitt cartridge that required the use of a heavy paper tube containing 2½ drams (68 grains) of musket powder and a 530-grain (34 g), pure lead bullet. As the bullet incorporated no annular grease rings like the French and American minié ball bullets introduced in 1847, it was wrapped with a strip of greased paper to facilitate loading. The cartridge itself was covered with a thin mixture of beeswax and linseed oil for waterproofing (although rumours abounded that it was cow or pork fat).
To load his rifle, the sepoy had to first bite off the rear of a cartridge to pour the powder down into the barrel. He then inverted the tube (the projectile was placed in the cartridge base up), pushed the end-portion into the muzzle to the approximate depth of the bullet and tore off the remaining paper. The bullet could then be easily rammed on top of the charge.
Cultural considerations and rumours
Since cows are sacred to Hindus and pigs are strictly forbidden to Muslims, the Bengal sepoys could be expected to have reservations about the cartridges. Thus when the rumour that animal fat was being used began to circulate, it had a very damaging effect. Other unsettling accounts started spreading. For instance, it was thought that the British planned to make their sepoys outcastes in order to force them to convert to Christianity.
crisis was deepened by the fact that an overwhelming number of sepoys in the Bengal Native Infantry regiments were Brahmins from Awadh, Purvanchal and Western Bihar. As Brahmins are generally devout Hindus and therefore vegetarians, they were not supposed to eat or touch meat in any form.
Later, the British contemplated reducing the discontent by allowing the sepoys to use their own grease made of ghee (clarified butter). Lord Canning sanctioned a proposal of Major-General Hearsey to this effect. However, the proposal was dismissed by the Meerut-based Adjutant-General of the Army Colonel C. Chester, who felt it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and could therefore worsen the matter. He claimed that the sepoys had been using cartridges greased with mutton fat for years and that there was therefore no reason to give in now. This claim was misleading as (except for some riflemen) the majority of sepoys had until 1857 only used Brown Bess muskets for which un-greased paper cartridges were employed. The government let itself be convinced and rescinded the order allowing the usage of ghee.
The attack by, and punishment of, Pandey is widely seen as the opening scene of what came to be known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Knowledge of his action was widespread amongst his fellow sepoys and is assumed to have been one of the factors leading to the general series of mutinies that broke out during the following months. He is referred as Shaheed (Martyr) Mangal Pandey in India.
Film and stage adaptations
The Rising (2005)
A film based on the sequence of events that led up to the mutiny entitled Mangal Pandey: The Rising starring Indian actor, Aamir Khan along with Rani Mukerji, Toby Stephens and Amisha Patel, directed by Ketan Mehta was released in August 2005.
The Roti Rebellion (2005)
The life of Mangal Pandey was the subject of a stage play titled The Roti Rebellion, which was written and directed by Supriya Karunakaran. The play was organized by Sparsh, a theatre group, and presented in June 2005 at The Moving Theatre at Andhra Saraswat Parishad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
White Teeth (2000)
Samad Iqbal, a fictional descendant of Mangal Pandey, is a central character in Zadie Smith's debut novel White Teeth. Pandey is an important influence on Samad's life and is repeatedly referenced and investigated by the novel's characters.
In the English language, Pandey is best remembered for the word his surname and his actions helped coin: pandy — a traitor, particularly a rebellious sepoy of the Mutiny of 1857. Once a colloquial term widely used by English speakers in India, the word is now obsolete.
The Government of India commemorated Mangal Pandey by issuing a postage stamp bearing his image on 5 October 1984. The stamp and the accompanying first-day cover were designed by Delhi-based artist C. R. Pakrashi.
Mangal Pandey Park
A park is named 'Sahid Mangal Pandey maha udyan' in the memory of Mangal Pandey where he attacked British officers and was hanged, at Barrackpore road in Barrackpore sub-divisional town in North 24 Parganas district.
- Bahadur Shah II
- British East India Company
- Indian Rebellion of 1857
- Mangal Pandey: The Rising (2005)
- Mughal Empire
- Mangal Pandey: True Story of an Indian Revolutionary, 2005, Rupa & Co. Mumbai
- M.G., Agrawal. Freedom Fighters of India (Volume 3). Isha Books. p. 144. ISBN 81-8205-471-0.
- [Source: The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Col. G. B. Malleson, reprint 2005, Rupa & Co. Publishers, New Delhi]
- Saul David, page 69, "The Indian Mutiny", Penguin Books 2003
- [Source: The Great Mutiny, Christopher Hibbert, 1978, Penguin Books]
- The Great Mutiny, Christopher Hibbert, page 74, 1978, Penguin Books]
- Durendra Nath Sen, page 50 Eighteen Fifty-Seven, Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, May 1957
- Proceedings of a Special Court of Inquiry concerning the Native Infantry, 6 February 1857 Archives of Project South Angel, Missouri Southern State University
- Memorandum from Lieutenant and Brevet-Captain J. A. Wright to the Adjutant of the Rifle Instruction Depot concerning the reaction of the Indian soldiers to the Enfield cartridges, 22 January 1857 Archives of Project South Angel, Missouri Southern State University.
- Memorandum from Major-General J. B. Hearsey to Major W. A. J. Mayhew concerning the rumour that sepoys must embrace Christianity, 28 January 1857 Archives of Project South Angel, Missouri Southern State University
- Durendra Nath Sen, page 48 Eighteen Fifty-Seven, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, May 1957
- 'British India 1818-1875' by Sanderson Beck)
- Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, W. & R. Chambers Limited, Edinburgh, 1983
- Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, The Standard Dictionary Company, London and New York, 1929
- Mangal Pandey Park, Amusement Parks / Auditoriums / Clubs, kmcgov.in
- Mangal Pandey breathes life into Barrackpore's past, samrat ray, 1 December 2008, merinews.com
- Amin, Agha H., The Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59: Reinterpreted, 1998, Strategicus and Tacticus
- Hibbert, Christopher, The Great Mutiny, 1978, Penguin Books
- Malleson, G.B., The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Delhi, Rupa & Co. publishers, 2005 (first published: 1890)
- Misra, Amaresh, Mangal Pandey: True Story of an Indian Revolutionary, 2005, Rupa & Co. publisher, Delhi
- Mukherjee, Rudrangshu, Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero?, 2005, Penguin Books (India), ISBN 0-14-303256-9
- Mangal Pandy A Real Hero - View his profile
- Indian Postal Service's commemorative stamp on Mangal Pandey
- Man who led the mutiny
- In the Footsteps of Mangal Pandey
- The Great Mutiny: India's War for Freedom
- Review of The Roti Rebellion in The Hindu (8 June 2005)
- Mangal Pandey: The Rising at the Internet Movie Database
- First War of Independence Marathi - Pictorial Presentation स्वातंत्र्यसमर १८५७ चा