July 25, 2006

Advancement in History Research Methodology


While writing a post titled "Working in the Browser" on optimizing the search activity for pursuing an answer to a question or a research work, William J. Turkel made the following remarks.

"Working with digital sources means that historians will spend more time working with computers. Most already use e-mail and word processing, search library catalogs and archival finding aids, read online journal articles and book reviews. Digital history puts primary and secondary sources onto the computer, too, and provides new opportunities for historical research and writing: blogging, digitization, web and wiki authoring, programming, and so on."

In the above quoted statement, the author has explained in a brief and an effective manner the change in the research methodology of history owing to advancement in the technology.


I have extracted it here because it tries to answer different questions which generally appears in the NET examination of India wherein it is asked that what are the new changes seen in the field of research methodology. Or, the question can be that how can ICT and computer be useful in research in history.


Turkel works in a realm of knowledge, skill and understanding which is presently beyond my capability, knowledge and skills, but I have also tried something in my article titled "Quasi Mutiny of 1824 by 47 Native Infantry at Barrackpore" . I have yet to complete the writing on this topic but I have used different digital resources already available online along with in-print secondary sources. No doubt, therein, I have done everything manually and there is less of software based activity and syndication as it is being done with coming of new tools now and then or rather every next second. The topic of quasi Mutiny was identified and located through online sources. The question was already with me but I did not have a starting point to explore my question. The question is that what is the real nature of historiography on Indian Nationalism. I had been commenting and criticizing which amounted to nothing much. In the topic which I have pursued there, I have used the digital sources, made right links to the primary and secondary sources and within the article used tags to present it as an article of research as it is presented in the field of history. The activity is not of the level which Turkel has achieved by establishing his own server and then optimizing the server itself as the storehouse of the primary and secondary sources using different computation devices that I have already admitted that I am incapable of understanding and less capable of practicing for the time being. But it is also a paradigm which lesser people like me can practice. No doubt, it is not all that original idea. There are similar paradigm found in Guttenburg ebooks. I have just tried to bring it out in open as to me it seems that it is also a good way of developing an archive. One topic is taken. The sources on online are located. The thesis is presented. All the references are given link to their source where they are needed. Continue to do it till that article reaches a saturation point. Ultimately, you will have a topic wherein you will find all the authentic and authoritative references at one place.


Well, I will be interested in the comments now.


Credit and Acknowledgement :
William J. Turkel at Digital History Hacks

July 21, 2006

Ban Is Lifted from Blogs In India


"A week ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem out pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially."


I am using Reliance Infocom for accessing internet. Now I can open my blogspot sites. I can also access typepad site. It seems that the ISPs have released these sites. I hope the rest of neticians can also open any site which they like on different blog portals.


I also hope that the government of India will review the procedures to implement their decisions in this technically advanced milieu. They have faced the music. They now know that the bloggers may be a "miniscule minority" but they can do great damage to the reputation of the government if the government behaves like an archaic state and conduct itself in a clumsy manner.

I also feel that some good has also come out of it. For me, I have learned about proxy servers. I am not going to remove the logo of Slap the block. I believe that it has bound the bloggers into a community. It may have popularized this activity of blogging.


I also want to thank the foreign media who had actually played a major role in voicing our concern. The Indian media had played its role but dear friends, it was on the milder site. They shout from the top of the roof on some clumsy stink operations or Matuk Das Chaudhary (Patna) lover affair with his student Julie. But they did not find the block on blogs as gagging of the freedom of the expression. No, they did not play the role which was expected of them.


Let us hope that there will be no next time.


Now, in future, I will be more abrasive and straightforward.


I will now return back to the theme of this blog and start posting history related articles. However, I will not remove those posting which were made on the issue of blocking of blogs in India.

July 20, 2006

Gift From Pakistan for the Indian Blocked Blogs


Pkblogs has gifted to Indians their own INTRUSION site.
It says, "Unable to view pictures on your blog??check http://www.inblogs.net to access banned blogs "with pictures" from India"
Check it

July 18, 2006

pkblogs.com

The blogspot, Typepad and geocities sites are blocked in India.

The bloggers were using various proxy servers to reach their sites. They were using pkblogs.com for blogspot sites.

It seems that it is now blocked. It also shows that blocking is being done intentionally. It is not that it is has been done by some foolish babu or something like that.

The government is becoming nasty. It is crub on fundsmental right of freedom of expression. The emergency days seems to be returning. No Pakistan has a case to present before Bush that India is more dictorial than General Musharaff.



On can keep on ranting on it. But it seems now is the time to take up some concrete action and check how this new technology can be a force.


An Update (July 20, 2006): It seems that pkblogs.com sometimes go off the web for some time. It might be that I had accessed it at such a time that prompted me to make the above remark.

The portal pkblogs.com is very much alive. Just visit the link "Funny Message on blocking the Access".

July 17, 2006

Use RTI against Blocked Blogspot, Typepad and Geocities


Nandan has made a point.


Now the word has spread that sites are blocked in India. However, there is no clarity about why this has happened. There is mere commotion and sweet wishes but no concrete suggestion on how to go about it and react in the right manner.


Nandan has made a suggestion at "Blogger has been blocked in India". Kindly read it. He suggests that the blogger should make use of Right to Information Act. He is quite right. He has even suggested the draft of the application for that. I think that it is a practical solution. I will follow it.


This post is related to "The Ghost of Lord Lytton is Still Alive in India" and "Cough Problem with Blogspot".


Here is a compendium of the posts gathered through technorati.com in the twenty four hours.


the-indian-government-does-a-big-brother
access-to-blogspot-has-been-banned
http://www.pkblogs.com/labnol
indian-government-blocking-access-to-blogspot
http://www.withinandwithout.com/?p=854
what-is-up-with-blogspot-blogger-sites
http://www.pkblogs.com/nanopolitan
http://www.pkblogs.com/indiauncut
blogspot-blocked-in-india
http://www.pkblogs.com/gauravsabnis
http://www.yogeshsarkar.com/blog/2006/07/16/indian-government-blocking-access-to-blogspot/
http://www.pkblogs.com/barbarindians
http://www.withinandwithout.com/?p=854
http://www.pkblogs.com/labnol
looks-like-even-airtel-is-blocking-blogspot
soon-you-may-not-be-able-to-see

http://www.pkblogs.com/dhoomk2/2006/07/censorship-against-blogspot.html
http://www.shivamvij.com/2006/07/somebody-must-have-blocked-some-sites-what-is-your-problem.html
http://www.pkblogs.com/nonedone/2006/07/blogger-has-been-blocked-in-india.html It has some practical action plan.
http://anupmankar.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/government-planning-to-ban-blogspot/
http://soumyadip.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=72866
http://www.pkblogs.com/doesthisthat/2006/07/1984.html
http://www.withinandwithout.com/?p=854
http://www.pkblogs.com/sumirsharma/2006/07/cough-problem-with-blogspot.html
Funny Message on Blocking from Access

It is seen that some of the bloggers are still adopting a typical Indian escapist approach. They are giving very innocent responses and diverting the attention from the real issue. They are raising points like BSNL and MTNL have yet not done it. They suggest that it means that the situation is not that bad and probably this is a foolish act on the part of a babu or the ISPs. They are so nice in suggesting that the people, who blocked it, are in their rights to do that. It is not the right approach. One of them even suggested that it was a usual Saturday maintenance activity of google. Dear friends, it started around 5 pm on July 14, 2006.


Ghori invaded Somnath and 5000 Rajputs lost their lives. The rest of the people just prayed that the situation would improve. Kindly come out of that mindset. Learn to call spade a spade. Do not expect that a Bhagat Singh should definitely take a rebirth but in a house of a neighbour.


Kindly go and watch Rang De Basanti.

July 16, 2006

The Ghost of Lord Lytton is Still Alive in India


The Ghost of Lord Lytton is still alive in India.


Somewhere on July 13, 2006, many blogs were blocked in India. All the blogs which contained the term "blogspot" or "typepad" in their addresses did not open. They are not accessible till this day. As per the subdued whisper among the bloggers in India, the sites of the blogs had been blocked on the orders of ‘the ministry’. The users of Tata Indicom ISP are able to access it. However, the users of Reliance, Spectranet and MTNL can not access their sites. The knowledgeable people have suggested a way out which was being used by Pakistan bloggers. One can reach his/her blog through proxy server and one of the suggested site for access is www.hidemyass.com. Even the Pakistan crusaders have their solution and one can use that also. ( Through dependable sources)


I do not go into the reasons and causes of this ‘Irish Coercion Act 1870’ activity. I do not find all the people in that All India Service cadre as bright chaps. They always adopt the worst and funniest responses to the crisis (7/11 and Zero Tolerance boosting). And the worst is that lot (politicians) which runs government as the elected members. I do not find complaints against them genuine because they are elected representatives and it is ‘we the people of India’ who are bound to suffer because of our exalted faith in ourselves wherein we believe we know better than everyone else. ‘All knowledge is there in Vedas mentality’ pervades without actually knowing what is there in Vedas. Even if some of us who know something about it, we have learnt it from the writings of the English scholars of western countries.


The episode of blocking of blogs has shattered my plans on writing on blogs. Earlier, it was the erratic supply of electricity which was the major problem. Then there was problem of broken roads which reduces your movement around the city and between the cities. The problem of unsupportive attitude of library people is always there and I have in my possession some emails which contain complaints against such attitudes. Now, some great great grand ****** son of Lytton has blocked the blogs because he might have thought that it was an intelligent way of undertaking an investigation.


The blocking of blogs has all the ingredients of Lytton Press act.


Lytton was the author of great tragedy of the Second Afghan War. He was strongly and ferociously condemned by the Indians. Lytton reacted like a mentally sick person. On March 13, 1878, he sent a telegram to the Secretary of State for India requesting to permit through reply telegram to allow him to issue an executive order on the lines of the Irish Coercion act of 1870. He got the sanction for the bill the next day that was March 14, 1878. Within the couple hours from receiving the permission, he issued the law called the Vernacular Press Act. It was nick named as "The Gagging Act" by the Indian people. It is on record in a statement of S. N. Banerjea, that "Within less than fifteen months, the vernacular press all over India, save that of Madra, was muzzled. ( V. D. Mahajan, Modern Indian History from 1707 and the Present Day; 1995; S. Chand and Company Ltd.; New Delhi. Pp. (487-499)


There was an ingredient of ‘Rang De Basanti’ in the sequel to the Gagging Act which the present day administrators may not know. It is believed and emphasized by many historians that it was the activity which followed this act, that laid the action plan of future protest movements that won freedom for India. It was undertaken in the following manner. A demonstration (first of its kind in the history of India) was organized in Calcutta in the Town Hall to discuss the Gagging Act. The activity continued through different public bodies and Press. The most interesting act was performed by Amrita Bazar Patrika of Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh. The act was against the Press in regional languages. When the act came into force on March 14, 1878, Ghosh converted it into an English Newspaper. (Bipin Chandra and others; India’s Struggle For Independence 1857-1947; Penguin Books India (P) Ltd. New Delhi; pp. 105). This act of Amrita Bazar Patrika is now played by Bloggers by accessing their site from proxy servers and for blogspot sites they are getting assistance from Pakistan bloggers who beat their government for similar bans.


Now these dates 13 and 14 are against the freedom of speech fundamental rights of Indians.


One really gets exasperated by the intellectually stifling and gagging atmosphere in India. There is so much talk of ICT, Edusat and e-governance in India. On the one hand, the infrastructure to support the economic growth (it seems that economic growth is only termed in earning money) is not at place and on the other hand there is myopic attitude and adhocism in every sphere. There may be one problem and crises but the solutions are always out of context. The government may be undertaking investigation in Bombay Bombing of 7/11. They have learnt that the anomaly groups are using cyberspace to communicate. They have found the solution. They are banning the cyberspace. On the other hand, the government is so proud in telling that how it is using GSAT – III (The Edusat – the name by which it is popularly known ) for the promotion of education and promoting forward looking technologies but on the other hand, the great great grand sons of Lytton are stifling this activity because they want to investigate.


One can only pray that they may release the blocked sites. Till then, Proxy Servers Rang de Basanti.

July 14, 2006

Quasi Mutiny of 1824 by 47 Native Infantry at Barrackpore

The mutiny of 1824 was quite significant from history perspective. It is proved from the fact that it has found special mention in many of the contemporary sources and as well been given due attention by various historians. However, it is other thing that they have not mentioned the name of Bindee Tiwari. On the other hand, there are many references in different sources that there was a Brahmin who had taken over the responsibility of leading the troops in revolt or who headed the revolt or who was remembered by the troops after he was hanged. In spite of these facts, this event has not found due place in regular history of Modern India. They are many reasons for that but here the aim is to identify that the event had taken place and it was an important event.


In case of the cause of the mutiny of 1824, there were a variety of causes which had been listed by different authorities. The causes which had been mentioned by the authorities who were directly involved in the administration of the affairs of East India Company whether sitting in London or in the field areas, were mainly related to the administrative shortcomings. They have viewed the mutiny in 1824 as a result of the shortcomings on the part of the British government or the officers of the East India. It is surprising that it had not been emphasized. The reason can be easily sought. There had been two types of history dominating the Indian history. One history was written by Cambridge school of historians who had tried to project Britain on a mission to civilize the world. The second history is by the nationalist historians of India who had tried to project that Britain was an imperialist power who was bent upon destroying the Indian culture and civilization. In between, they lost the scientific attitude of looking at the facts as they existed. As a result where the authorities had developed the feeling that it was their mismanagement and lack of concern due to pervading doctrine and policy, the Cambridge historians did not emphasized it because it weakened their thesis. The nationalist historians did not emphasize such aspects because they did not want to be identified as sympathizers of the imperialist power.


A review of the several sources on the incidence of the mutiny of 1824 will be a useful exercise to bring out the relevance of above observation.



The sources discussed here are mainly the online sources. However, this does not lower the credibility of this dissertation because those sources are such sources which are available in the archives and established libraries which are drawn upon for any serious research. The only difference is that some of the libraries and the archives have come online. The only difference is that a scholar now does not need to go to the buildings of the archives and libraries and sit in there to pursue these sources. Now, he can do the same job by watching at the screen of his monitor. However, some of the printed secondary sources have been cited and duly acknowledged while researching the details of this event from different perspectives of the historians and contemporary sources available online.



The Event of 1824:


There is need to first determine that the event occurred through various sources with special emphasis on the online contemporary sources.


According to Majumdar, the 47th Native Infantry was moved to Barrackpur in order to proceed to take part in some of the operations of the Burmese War during the early months of 1824. 1


According to Leitch Ritchie account of 1846, it was in the middle of 1824, the 47th Native were marched to Barrackpore, with a view of being sent thence to Rangoon. Leitch Ritchie had given a graphic account on the basis of the an eyewitness information that “On the 1st November a parade took place at daybreak, but the order to fall in was only partially attended to.” As per his account, when the officer at that time, General Dalzell tried for total compilation of his command, all the troops, “dashed forward in a body, drove off their officers, tore the knapsacks from the backs of the soldiers of the fifth company, established themselves on the parade fronting the line, and having piled their arms, planted a cordon of sentries round them, openly raised the standard of revolt.” 2


Majumdar had attributed the information of this event to S. C. Chaudhari. In his account, he traced the event to the date October 30, 1824. As per his account, “In the parade held on October 30, 1824, they (the soldiers of 47th Native Infantry) appeared without their knapsacks and refused to bring them even when asked to do so, on the ground that they were unfit for use. A part of the regiment then declared that they would not proceed to Rangoon or elsewhere by sea and they would not move at all unless they were to have double batta. The Commanding Officer, unable to subdue the discontent, dismissed the regiment and proceeded to Calcutta to consult the Commander-in-Chief. After his return he held a parade on November 1. At this parade the sepoys burst into acts of open violence. The same mutinous spirit also affected the other regiments which were stationed at Barrackpur, preparatory to their proceeding on service.” 3


Jyoti Singh in an article in the Tribune without referring to the sources describes the event somewhat like this. The English officers at Barrackpore ordered the 47th infantry to march to Chittagong and from there to Rangoon by sea in 1824. The sepoys opposed this ordered due to number of issues. They also opposed the order “saying that there was not mandatory clause in their contract about serving overseas. In order to check their resistance against the imperial might, the British officers not only remained adamant but also stopped extra allowance. The hardened stand lead the sepoys to desist with an equal force. They got together to oppose the British and elected a commander – Bindee Tiwari – from amongst them. 4


Unable to face the ire of the speoys under Tiwari’s command, the British officers had no other option but to flee. For two days Barrackpore was under the command and control of Tiwari and his men.” 5


According to the research of Kanaippada Roy, the 47th regiment of Binda Tiwari was ordered to proceed to Rangoon (The present day Yangon). Lord Amherst was the Governor General at that time. “Binda refused to go to Rangoon. Several Native colleagues joined him in the refusal and later, as the things turned nasty, Binda and his men fired at the British officers killing some of them.”6


According to the official website of the Barrackpore cantonment maintained by Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Barrackpore is the older cantonment in the sub-continent. It was the symbolic seat of military power of Britain since 1765 and remained so upto 1910. It is emphasized on the web site that the “modern history of Barrackpore revolves around three historic events.” Out of the three events, the second event was the revolt in 1824. To quote from the site, “As a result of this Mutiny, native sepoys under the leadership of Bindce Tiwary famously called as Bindi Baba, Sepoy of 47 infantry rebelled on the order of British to move to Chittagong and on to Rangoon. Barrackpore was virtually under the control of 47 Native Infantry led by Sepoy Bindce Tiwary for 2 days and thereafter the rebellion was crushed with great force by British. All the rebels were mercilessly massacred. 7


Further, continuing the narration of the history of the place, the third event is described as follows.
“The third event happens to be the most prominent and tipped to had started first was of Indian Independence in 1857, when the first shot against British was fired by Sepoy Mangal Pandey on 29 March at Barrackpore. The thread of social events running through these periods is best left to the imagination of oneself since this mutiny of 1857 has had a tranquil existence.” 8


On the web site of Barrackpore, among the heritage structures, a Hanuman Temple is included and mentioned prominently. It is called the Bindee Baba’s Hanuman Mandir. The following details has given.
“The facts which have been gathered are that in the mutiny of 1824, 47th native Infantry was abandoned by the Officer and was Commanded for two days by a Sepoy named Bindee Tiwary. He was caught and later hanged in chains and his body was left hanging as a warning to potential recalcitrant. Later offering were made by Sepoys to his remains as he was considered a martyr. Folklore made him 'Colone' Bindee and the temple stand today where his body was left hanging.” 9



According to George Francis Train, an American, “During the Burmese war in 1824 (the year before the panic) the Barrackpore regiments refused to go to Burmah.” 10


According to St. George Tucker, in his book published in 1853 posthumously and edited by John William Kaye, “The quasi mutiny at Barrackpore, in 1824, was one of the most unfortunate occurrences in our military history – one which I have always deplored. The regiment could not move without the means of conveyance for its baggage, which had not been provided; ….”11


Hence, it can be safely said that the sepoys of 47 Native Infantry mutinied in year 1824 at Barrackpore, a seat of Military power near Calcutta, the seat of the Governor General of British India. Lord Amherst was the Governor General. He was pursuing a Anglo Burmese War which is also remembered as First Anglo-Burmese War. During the course of the war, 47 Native Infantry was ordered to move to Rangoon but it mutinied.


The next question is, What were the causes of the mutiny of 1824? It will be taken up in a future posting.


Footnote 1:
(return)(R. C. Majumdar_British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance_Part I, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Bombay, Third Edition, 1988. pp 428.)





Footnote 2:
(return)( Leitch Ritchie, “The British World in the East – A Guide Historical, Moral, and Commercial, to India, China, Australia, South Africa, and the other Possessions or Connexions of Great Britain in Eastern and South Sea. Two Volumes. ” by Leitch Ritchie, W. H. Allen, 1846.pp 278, (Source: Books Google, accessed on June 20, 2006, link: Leithch Ritchie on Google Books





Footnote 3:
(return)R. C. Majumdar Op. Cite. pp 428.





Footnote 4:
(return)Bindee Tiwari by Joyti Singh: as accessed on July 14, 2006.






Footnote 5:
(return)Bindee Tiwari by Joyti Singh: as accessed on July 14, 2006.





Footnote 6:
(return) Who first sounded bugle of freedom – Mangal or Binda? Accessed on June 19, 2006. The same article has appeared at different portals also.





Footnote 7:
(return)History of Barrackpore Cantonment as accessed on July 14, 2006.





Footnote 8:
(return)History of Barrackpore as accessed on July 14, 2006.





Footnote 9:
(return)Heritage Sites of Barrackpore as accessed on July 14, 2006.





Footnote 10:
(return)
Geroge Francis Train, Date of Accessing: Friday, June 30, 2006





Footnote 11:
(return)St. George Tucker

July 09, 2006

Happiness of Mind through Tantra Vidya


The name of the blog is Manasollasa ( मानस उल्लाह्स). The etymology and composite(सन्धिविछेद्द ) of the word is given in the very title of the blog. The meaning of the word Manasollasa, which can be derived from the elucidation, is the Happiness of Mana or The Mind. The blog is located through a posting at Jinajik, a blog by Ian Sinclair, a scholar of Vajrayana with special interest on Nepal Buddhist Tantraism and also a writer on South Asian history and culture. His remark is imbued with some amazement and he wrote:
"This semi-‘experiential’ yogin’s diary, peppered with Sanskrit soundbites, echoes tantric literature in its subject matter as well as in its sheer eclecticism: proper ritual procedure, useful mantras, lineage authenticity, mythical history, and pseudo-real reports of encounters with deities and Sadhakas."


Well, the contents are really awesome. However, it leaves you unsatisfied. The author (agnikula : probably the caste and gotra of the author or may be the name) has adopted a style of notations for writing the Sanskrit Mantras. It becomes difficult to read them with their real sound pattern in their given form. The display of the contents shows that the blogger knows about the technical aspects of making a site and HTML quite well. He may have adopted UTF 8 code for writing the Devnagri and that would have been more effective. It seems that the author is addressing to the audience who know English. However, the author can get good assistance from the Hindi bloggers like Akshargram, Chittahvishav or e-swami if interested in giving Devanagri version of the mantras.


The Tantrism has its roots in Vedic literature. The Tantraism traces its origin to the contents of Black Yajur Veda (Yajur Veda has two renditions namely White Yajur Veda and Black Yajur Veda. It is Black Yajur Veda, which contains Tantric practices) and Atharva Veda. In eighth century A. D., tantraism dominated the Indian religious scene. The Vajrayana after Hinayana (Thervada) and Mahayana involved tantraism in Buddhist religion.


There are many postings which are of great interest. I was really attracted to the contents of the Gatha on the founder of our nation. There are many more such posts which are related to the history as well as to tantraism as explained by Ian Sinclair. The author has interest in Ornithology and paleontology. The blogger has special interest for cricket. There are many postings related to history of other continents.


I regret that I have not introduced these sites to Miland Brown for Asian History Carnival 5.


I have made a noting to this blog because I take a particular view of the definition of history. I do not consider history merely a continuity and change relations over a period of time and space based on written records. This definition is good if you are interested merely in political history. For me, history is also a continuity of customs, traditions, rituals and collective memory over a period of time on the basis of such records which are available in present also. From that point of view, all the rituals, folklores, faiths, customs, traditions are part of history subject. From this perspective, the study of Tantrism and its development in India forms the subject matter of history also. That is other thing, that I have never undertaken this definition in practice. On the other hand, there are many rituals in daily life of an Indian which points towards tantric practice. Whenever one visits a cremation ground, before living the cremation ground, the mourners pick up a small twig or dried piece of a stamp, break it and throw over theri heads behind them. It is generally taken as a ritual and tradition. But it is believed that it is a very strong tantric device. It saves from malevolent spirits which may follow back to your house. This act works as a weapon to throw them back into the cremation ground. There are many such rituals and practices which are ingrained into social practices and they have their origin in tantric practices. Even in case of numerous revolts during the colonial periods, it were the traditions which became the source of the strength and all such traditions were not based on any written records.


Apart from such aspects of social life, there is a sect of Aghoris who practice Tantrism and they played a big role in history of India. Similarly, Lingyats and Shulikas, who are considered to be devotees of Lord Shiva practice Tantric practices. Lord Shiva himself is called the Bhottnatha who is always accompanied by goblins, dakanis and pichshasa.


Well, I have yet to fully explore the above mentioned site but as Ian Sinclair was fascinated by its presence on cyberspace, same is the case with me.


I end this note with another observation. I have pointed out somewhere else, that all such people who talk about esoteric sciences and mysticism, they prefer to pick black background for their site. It intrigues me. There must be some logic on their part for adopting such a background. As far I am concerned, I prefer white back ground.

June 29, 2006

History Student in a Lighter Mood

Sun did It (Other Title)

“As one saith in a brave kind of expression, the sun never sets in the Spanish dominions, but ever shines upon one part or other of them.”


The above given comment was made by Bacon for Spain under Habsburg Dynasty. It was made when Britain was not all that big and great empire and reached to level of giant proportion afterwards for which it latter came to be known for. It was latter that the same comment was used for British Empire. Bacon belonged to England.


Gibbon also used the term “The Roman World” in the same tone and tenure to suggest the greatness of the Roman Empire as the biggest empire of the world.


Describing the giant proportion of the British Empire, Webster had said “her morning drumbeat following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth daily with one continuous and unbroken strain of its martial airs.”


Kaiser William did not like the tone of such quotations. He sought the place in the sun.


Finally, the First World War was fought.


It means Bacon started all this.


Historians used sun to write quotations.
Sun saw history making nations.
A nation saw sun every where.
Other nation sat on sun to see every nation.
In between, the world wept for their sons.

June 26, 2006

Henry Every ‘An Arch Pirate’ and Mughal Emperor Connection


Henry was a pirate who had looted the ships Ganj-i-Sawai and Fateh Mohamed which belonged to Emperor Aurangzeb of Mughal Empire in India. He was the most renowned pirate of his time.


Other names of Henry Every were John Avery, Long Ben, Henry Avery and Benjamin Bridgeman. It is believed that during the last stage of his life, he adopted the name Benjamin Bridgeman and died with that name. 1


He was native of Devonshire (near Plymouth, England). He started his pirate career in 1691 under Captain ‘Red Hand’ Nicholls. He undertook his first individual pirate activity on the ship Charles II (also called Duke in some different source). The ship was under Captain Gibson. He went on Pirate strolls in 1695 on the ship of Captain Gibson by naming it as The Fancy. In the same year he attacked the ship Gang-i-Sawai and Fateh Mohamed somewhere near Red Sea. Those two ships belonged to Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (1657-1707). It is believed that the ship Gang-i-Sawai had 62 guns, 500 (approximate) musketeres and 600 aboard the ship. Both the ships were not able to any fight to Henry Every because an accident took place on Gang-i-Sawai when a gun busted at the time of firing. Both the ships surrendered. It is believed that Every looted nearly five lakhs pieces of silver and gold. In addition to that he laid hands on a large numbers of rubies, jewels and women. 2


The looting of the ship of the Mughal Emperor is termed as the "Richest Single Crime in the World". The total cost of the booty was rated at 5.2 millions rupees or in other words 52 lakh rupees. The event took place in 1695. 3


The raid on Mughal Ships proved his wrong doing. Emperor Aurangzeb did not take it lightly. The ships were part of the trading activity of the women of the Mughal Royal family. The Mughal Emperor stopped all the trades of East India Company in India. It was the period, when the East India could not dare to earn the wrath of the Mughal Emperor. 4

It is on record that East India company offered an extra reward of 4000 rupees for the capture of the pirate Henry Every. The document containing this record can be accessed at Fact Files of British Library. 5

It is believed that after that it became difficult for Henry Every to pursue his pirate career. He was soon reduced to beggary and died without money even for a coffin. The attack on Gang-i-Sawai and Fateh Mohamed ended his career. 6


References:

Footnote 1:
(return)

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/407998 part of Famous Pirates Biographies at Ancient Worlds as accessed on June 26, 2006 and Henry Every at Wikipedia.



Footnote 2:
(return)

ibid. accessed on June 26, 2006.



Footnote 3:
(return)

Henry Every at Wikipedia as accessed on June 26, 2006



Footnote 4:
(return)

A. L. Srivastva, Mughal History. Agra.



Footnote 5:
(return)

Rivals of East Indian Company in Fact Files on East Indian Company on British Library as accessed on June 26, 2006.



Footnote 6:
(return)

Ancient Worlds Op. Cit as accessed on June 26, 2006.


History Carnival XXXIV


June 18, 2006

Bindee Tiwari


An article titled ‘A Salute to Bindee Tiwari’ by Jyoti Singh has appeared in the Spectrum section The Tribune dated June 18, 2006.


The article of Jyoti Singh has really humbled me. I believed that I had read a lot about 1857 and the First War of Independence. I have in my record a good amount of details about the year 1857 derived from secondary sources. I have gone through different books and even well researched article written by my friend Prof. Rajneesh Khanna which I have modified also by adding some details. I remember that I have mentioned about the first revolt of the Indian soldiers against the British colonial authorities in the eighteenth century in that article. I have made a note of the revolt of the Indian infantry in 1824 while borrowing from R. C. Majumdar and S. L. Sikri. There is reference to the revolt of the Indian soldiers in 1824 in my notes, but no where, I have mentioned the name of Bindee Baba, as he was popularly known and even today, that is the term used for the temple in his name at Barrackpore.


Coming back to the article of Jyoti Singh, it is suffice to say that it is a fine article. It was written for a newspaper. Therefore, there are no mention of the references and the ideology which went behind in forming the body of the article. The article definitely conveys the meaning and message which went behind it while writing. The spirit behind the article becomes clear in the lines which Jyoti Singh wrote and I quote;


"Their masters (The high caste soldiers who constituted the army of the British East India Company) let them observe their religious customs, etc. and the common man read it as their generosity. They were too gullible to discern that the picture of brotherhood that the British maintained was simply a subterfuge to extend their imperial designs. Everything was fine between them until English officers at Barrackpore ordered an expedition of the 47th Native infantry to Chittagong and then to Rangoon by sea, in 1824."


I do not know what made the author write these lines. The author may have in her possession a book by some historian or may have access to some sources from where she gathered actual picture of the episode. But those who know the history of India, they can well appreciate that by 1824, the directors of the company were more concerned with what was left with them after the charter of 1813. Secondly, by 1818, they have ended the power of Marathas, the only force which they feared at that time. The company and its officers were now coming out in their true colours.


Continuing with the narration of the episode, the author of the article brought out very nicely the working of the mechanism which provoked the Indians to raise the standard of revolt in Barrakpore. I quote;


"The sepoys felt offended by this order ( the order of voyage to Rangoon through sea), as this also meant that they would be unable to perform their ritual – cooking food, taking a dip, and doing puja – during the voyage."


Further, the author emphasized that the soldiers objected because there was no clause in their contract about serving overseas. The British reacted by stopping their allowances. There is need to consider the aspect of stopping of allowance in 1824, and if it is backed by primary proofs, then it is the most important aspect of the article. The scholars and even the contemporary officials who evaluated the causes of the uprising of 1857 had been emphasizing that the event of 1857 was mainly a result of the grouse against the reduction of the allowances and bhattas in 1850s. It means, it was merely taken as an excuse. The imperial ruler had been going back from their commitments in the contracts while recruiting the soldiers. They had breached the contract again and again. This was the actual story. They were doing it with everyone.


Another fact that is referred to in the article is also very important. It is written that "the sepoys got together to oppose the British and elected a commander – Bindee Tiwari – from amongst them" This is something which if supported by proofs, is highly important feature. It destroys thesis of the moderates of 1880s who had been giving the thesis of "nation-in-making".


The rest of the detail is the story, a part of which is also available on the web site of Barrackpore Cantonment. The event of the revolt took place on November 1, 1824. No doubt, there is more details in the article. Finally Bindee Tiwari was captured probably by November 4 or 5 and soon afterwards hanged. No body was allowed to claim his corpse. His body remained hanged from a pipal tree where now a temple stands.


I did not know about this fact of history in detail as it is given in the article. I made google and yahoo search. I did not find anything on yahoo search but google search took me to the site of Barrackpore Cantonment. Now that was another surprise. The web site of Barrackpore provides some original documents from 1870. Secondly, it also provides you with the references. Now this something opposite to what I had been ruing about concerning Indian history sources online. However, this is one example where original sources on Indian history available online.


On the web site of the Barrackpore Cantonment, the list of the references and old records are available in the Bibliography of the Cantonment and Vintage Documents links.


Finally, it is now again repeated that there is need to rewrite the history of India. There is need to define the concept of nation from the point of Indian history. India was not a nation in making in 1880 which was nurtured by educated middle class. One should remember, the awareness of western thinkers and thoughts did not dawn upon India after 1857. Before 1824 itself, the Hindu College had already established its credentials. The Derozio episode had taken place by that time. Even Sultan Tipu was fully aware of the designs of the British imperialistic activities. The recent movie, Range Dai Basanti has already shown that there was one other face of the national consciousness that pervaded and is still alive. No doubt, the movie is work of fiction but it suggests that a peculiar consciousness of history has meaning for the present also and that is true nation and history. The main requirement is to define it rightly and not to distort it through half baked history – the history as it is found and also that one which post Ramjanambhoomi agenda wants to write. There is need to bring out the revolutionary and virile features of Indian character. India is definitely a country of non-violence but a country of Jains and Buddha non-violence is a force because it is virile also. There is a history of this country which is existing in the minds of the people through their Indian way of life which is required to be written.


If I am not able to make myself in the preceding paragraph, then let me put in other words. There is need to give the right place to works of the armed revolutionaries in Indian history. Do not feel shy in telling that Ajatshatru killed his father Brihadrath to acquire the throne.


Note: The link on the above article is not available on the site of The Tribune online. I have written an email to them. Let us see if they respond.
An Update: The link to article ‘A Salute to Bindee Tiwari’ mentioned above is now active. The link is place above at the appropriate place. The note stands withdrawn.
Editing Notes:
Edited for changing the structure of a sentence on June 19, 2006.

June 13, 2006

Huge Data Base on A Secondary Source


During the course of solving the recent Civil Services Preliminary General Studies paper (2006), I stumbled upon a commercial site and left amazed and flabbergasted by the amount of data available there in. The site is called Internet Movie Data Base or simply IMDB.


There is a strong debate going on among the different group of historians. They are fighting by making groups like revisionists, nationalists, oral history, dictated histories, subaltern history, Marxist, Post-modernist, Ranke, Romanists and what not. What may be the views of the contending groups, I am convinced that the movie people also work in the field of history and help in preserving history and giving interpretation to the historic sources. Through the film media, they try to recover the past. I accept that they can not be included in the list of actual historians. They have freedom to use their imagination as they want and then articulate their views through the medium of film. Secondly the actors who enact the historic character also try to give some non-historic articulation. But on the whole, they are definitely assisting in the field of interpretation, preservation of data and showing the relevance of history for the present times.


In the recent years in India, there is a spate of historic movies. In case of one historic personality, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, there were five movies in a row which were released. Then came the Sardar Patel and then the Mangal Pandey and Netaji Subash Chander Bose: The Forgotten Hero. This year (2006), Rang De Basanti added a new dimension in the field of historic films. I will soon write an article on this movie. I am not concerned with the movie as it is, but I am definitely excited by the theme and the story line. It is a new thing to happen in the field of film production as well of significance of history for the present. No doubt, there are some other experiments which are coming up in which the real character are going to play the reel characters. One of the satisfying results were found in case of Gone with the Wind, Titan, Lawrence of Arabia, Shatranj Ke Khilari, Guide etc. In each case I got the chance to learn about basic data, some additional information and other useful stories.


Coming back to IMDB, I say that I am completely amazed. I made some searches on this site. It was confined mainly to Indian Movies. I picked the older movies especially those which were released in 60s and 70s. Do you know that there was a movie Dewaar released in Pakistan in 1954? This is what I found when I tried to search for Dewaar of Amitab Bachchan and Shashi Kapoor. I got similar results on Zanjeer, Don (along with similar titles from other countries), Sholay (Including five more of them: Do you know about them?) etc. I made an experiment with the term "Hanste Zakham", the movie I like for its story, music and acting of Priya Rajvansha. (Sorry, present day Damsels of Bollywood, None of you stand anywhere near her. Not even Preeti Zinta and Juhi Chawla. I do not reckon Aishwarya or Sushimta anywhere or some of the new ones who attract but I do not remember their names. )


The data available is really comprehensive. You learn about the producer, writer, director, actors (with their names and the character they played), anecdotes, music directors, cinematographers and all people with the related fields of movie production. There is further detail on each person who was or is associated with the movie. No doubt, more detailed data is available only if you are ready to pay. But the amount of data which they provide, is enough for starting a detailed study on any movie.


I strongly recommend it to the teachers, scholars and researchers to check this site to make their own judgement if they do not already know about this site.

Further, as a bonus, you get to know a lot about the latest releases in any language.



*-*-*
Validation Through Examples:
The American President Blog has described Ronald Reagan through details from IMBD. (Located on July 24, 2006)

June 12, 2006

Eight Tips for American Separatists – A lesson for the rest of the Separatists



In the month of May, 2006 I tried to study the events, sequence and documents of secession before the Civil War of America. I read the World History blog by Miland Brown but somehow I did not read his post titled "The Dominion of British West Florida and Tips for Creating an American Separatist Cause". In the month of June, he reproduced the "Tips" to claim a separate country for oneself if one likes. When I read it, I stopped from making further postings on the American History.


I wondered why Miland talked like that. The second thought which came to mind and remained for long was that how far this could be relevant in case of India. In India, the Kashmir, North East states especially Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Tripura, then Hyderabad State, Junagadh State, Goa, Sikkim, even Punjab as it was in 1849, and even for that all the states which were annexed during the period of Dalhousie, must try to understand and read them.


While reading the secession declaration of South Carolina and Texas, I was once convinced that they had the reason and legal argument to establish themselves as separate state. Even before that, when I studied American history for the first time, at one stage, I felt that the thirteen colonies had virtually occupied and snatched the country from the Red Indian Tribes. I even once joked that one should enter America and then claim ownership on the land on the basis of their history on the continent. However, a student of history does not sit a judge over the past events. He has to study the past on the basis of the facts as it existed and the cause and effect relation of a period of time and concerning a region or space. He has to identify a fact as it exists and existed. If today, a good lawyer is given chance to plead the case of South Carolina and Texas and all the eleven states which later joined to form the Confederacy of States, he could prove that they had suffered at the hands of the North States and they had valid point to secede.


Well, those who have this a job to read, write, read, ponder and then elaborate, come up with such thoughts and understanding which only the people of their class and ilk can understand. Sometimes, they come out with such amusing thoughts. No doubt, the post in question is of the same genre.


The comment of Jennie W of Kent, the blogger of Jennie’s Rumbles, is most pertinent. She says, "This is simply hilarious". Miland knew it at the time of posting it.


He did not boost in vain when he wrote, "I really should start my own separatist cause. With my knowledge of history, the Web, and how to play the separatist game, I could have a lot of fun! Or maybe not...".


The elementaryhistoryteacher really got serious with this post the way I became when I first read it. Jennie W also joined in the comment section and Miland got the chance to take a pinch at them by playing to the gallery. I am sure, while writing the reply to the comment he might have mischievous smile. Now doubt, he remarked, "Hello the CSA lost!"


On the whole, it is really enjoyable to read and share such thoughts because they come to regular readers and scholars now and then. They are not shared only because they are just minor spin off of reasoning faculty.


However, point 4 to 8 are written in lighter vein but they are very pregnant with great possibilities. The present form of Internet may change with change in technology. However, with time, the interconnectivity of internet paradigm will remain and it will be a force. The day, that will become true, the day, many people will join together on world wide web with new devices and formats, the tips of 4 to 8 can work as big bombs. Today, it may be taken in lighter vein, but they can be implemented with deafening results. I do not know why I feel that some separatist is reading those lines again and again.


Miland, get serious. Your later part is worth putting in practice. I will claim my share when you succeed.


Kindly note: It is re-posting. It has already appeared as Dear Separatists, "Historians are Definitely not Boring".

May 25, 2006

Munshi Premchand Stories online in Hindi





At the blog Munshi Premchand ki Kahniyan, one can read the short stories of Munshi Premchand in Hindi online. (The visitors to the blog of Munshi Premchand are requested to read the post at To the Readers of Munshi Premchand. )

The author has not revealed his identity but he is probably a person by the name of Raman.

He has done a great job. I think, it is one example of its kind, wherein some Indian has tried to do some substantial work on internet in order to exploit the full potential of this medium and technology for the benefit of the language Hindi as well as the History of India. Munshi Premchand is the first writer who tried to talk about the common man in simple Hindi. His stories reflect the time of early twentieth century and also the struggle of Indians against the British Imperialistic rule.

I think the people who are maintaining the Digital Library of India may look at this work and learn what it actually means to creat a digital library. By giving a list of links to other libraries which have already done the job, is no substantial work. They should also check the last posting on Social Scientist.

I was just wondering about the hardword and technichal excellece of the author of the blog Munshi Premchand. It is very difficult to convert the Devnagri into UTF-8 and then post it on blogger.com. Whenever your posting is more than two or three pages, blogger takes time to upload it. Sometimes all your efforts go waste. However, this guy had achieved a hurculean task.

The people who are working on social history of 20th century India, will definitely find this source useful provided they know to read Hindi.

May 21, 2006

Social Scientist on Digital South Asia Library

Social Scientist is an important History Journal on Indian History. The digital form of the Social Scientist is available on Digital South Asia Library.

It is a chance finding. I have not found enough sources and authoritative writings on Indian history. The digital versions of the Journal are available from 1972 to 2001. It is a hurried posting and rest of the comments later.

May 14, 2006

Texas Secession Declaration

This Declaration was issued on February 2, 1861. Before it, South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi had already made public their stand on the justifications and causes to secede from the United States of America.

The declaration of Texas remembered that how on December 29, 1845, Texas, from being an Independent country became part of the Confederated Union for “her welfare, domestic tranquility and thereby sought peace and liberty for her people.

The Texas declaration emphasized that when Texas joined the Union then that union was based on a pact which protected her right of property over the African slaves. It also reminded that they had common link on this issue with other Southern States. It presented the stand that by joining the United State of America, the ties with those states had further strengthened.


However, the declaration questioned the nature of the Federal government towards them since that day.

The declaration also pointed out that in its march towards Pacific Ocean, the Federal Government and non-slaving States had knowingly harmed Texas and “her sister slaveholding States.”


The declaration accused that the Federal government and the Non-Slave Holding States had encouraged crime against the South States. It accused that in Kansas territory, they had harmed the lives and property of the Southern people.


The declaration of Texas had also pointed out that in their fight against the Indians, the Federal Government had not played the positive role. The government had also not protected them against the attacks from Mexico.


The declaration sepcifically identify that the states of Maine, Vermong, New Hamshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pannsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa had breached the Clause 4 of the Federal Constitution and thereby breach the compact signed between Texas and the Federal Government in December 1845.

The declaration also emphasised the breach of the “good faith and comity” on the part of the North States. The declaration also expressed the fear of the actual agenda based on “the doctrine at war with nature” of the Sectional Party which was going to take over the reigns of the government in the month of March 1861.

The declaration also accused that the discord had been sowed by the sectional party which was going to take over the power whereas the south states had been showing great restraint all through four decades.


The declaration also accused the North States, their sectional party and the Federal Government for making direct attack on the institutions of South, security and peace of the South, property of south and lives of the south people. It also pointed out that they were encouraging and promoting all such organizations which were indulging in harming the South States. For that, the declaration had counted seventeen such States which could be charged with such anti-national activity. Their policy was declared as non-Christian in nature.

Texas’s declaration identified that with them and by that time, six states had separated themselves from the United States of America and the Texas was the seventh one. Thus, the declaration placed before the world the causes and justifications for secession. The Declaration was issued on February 2. 1861 and Ordinance of Secession was issued on February 1, 1861 a day before.


Summary Observation:

The Texas was the youngest State to secede from the Union. The tone, diction, argument and sharpness of the declaration had similarity with the declaration of South Carolina and Mississippi.

Texas identified as the breach of the compact on account of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution as the cause of secession.

Texas also complained that the Federal government was favouring the North States in the march of the nation towards west.

Texas complaint that Federal government did not adopt any policy against the dangers and expenses of South states while dealing with Indians and the attacks from Mexico.

Texas also feared the future course of the destiny of the nation under the Sectional Party under Lincoln and Johnson.

Texas complained that it had suffered in life and property after having joined their fate with United States of America.



Reference:

American Civil War Homepage
Justifications and Causes for Secession on Eve of Civil War Through online Sources
Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession
Mississippi Secession
Texas State Library and Archives Commission
A similar comment by Walter L. Buenger at Texas State Historical Association

May 13, 2006

Mississippi Secession

The reasons given by Mississippi declaration of the causes of the secession from the union reads like a list of points given to a question.


Mississippi declaration clearly states that the state was seceding only because of the issue of slavery. The declaration had explained the institution of slavery as vital for the material well being of the state. The rest of the declaration reads like a list of the arguments given as the causes of secession.

The declaration emphasized that the attack on the institution of slavery had started since 1787. It was practically executed in case of Louisiana territory, Texas and Mexico.

By denying the right of the South over their slaves as their property, the Union had breached the compact and it was the main argument of the declaration.

The declaration also pointed that the North states had used their institutions like press, schools, public to raise insurrection in South State.


The North states had promoted such associations which had only one aim of ending the institution of slavery and thereby destroy the South.


Finally, the declaration accused that they had given over the government to such a group that had only one agenda and that was to destroy the South completely.

Summary Observations:

Mississippi declaration was short and categorically stated that they were separating from the Union because the new government had the plan to end the slavery.

They had also equated the separation to the act of separation of colonies from the Crown of England. This argument was also used in South Carolina declaration of separation.

They had also called the attack on the institution of slavery as a breach of contract. This was the argument which was also adopted by the South Carolina declaration of secession.


A peculiar feature is that there is no reference in the body of the declaration itself about the date when it was issued. In case of the South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, the dates are emphasized but there is no such reference. However, The Ordinance of Secession was issued on January 9, 1861. It was the second state to pass the resolution to secede from the Union after South Carolina had executed the process of secession on December 20, 1860.

May 12, 2006

Georgia Declaration of Causes of the Secession


Georgia placed before the world the reasons to secede from the United States of America on January 29, 1861.

The declaration placed on record two categorical statements. The first statement declared that they serious and numerous complain against their non slave holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. In the second statement they stated that "they (non-slave-holding States)have endeavoured to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common territories of the Republic.

The declaration emphasized that they had put for long with the insults, injuries and dangers perpetrated by the North States on the South state because they had regard for their national sentiments. It also emphasized that they had persuaded them to desist from continuing such activities. They had also told clearly that a sectional party (Republican Party) should not be entrusted with the government of the country. The resolution accused that the Republic party which had been called as Lincoln party by the resolution was a party of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, and advocate to commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in administration of government and anti-slavery was its only mission.

The declaration tried to remind that the question of slavery was taken care of during the very inception of the constitution. The acceptance of the constitution was invariably related to recognizing slavery within the body of the constitution. After that was settled, the constitution worked for the benefit of the whole nation for nearly a half century and never was that question brought to realm of contentious issue during that period.

The declaration emphasized that since the inception of the constitution, it was the North which had been receiving undue protection for its material growth. The nation had conceded to their demands for special protection at the expense of the agricultural interests of the rest of nation. The navigating, commercial and manufacturing interests of North had been allowed to seek special privileges. It was the treasury of the Federal government which had been paying for material benefit of the North states at the expense of overall benefit of the whole nation. The beneficiaries of accommodating Federal government was Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding states. The Federal government had condescended to their demands because their economic activities were in its infancy, there was scarcity of labour and capital, the other countries were hostile to them, they had provided material goods during the time of war and need money to pay their debts which they had incurred during the war of independence. Therefore, they were being compensated during that period.

The declaration observed that by 1846, the special privileges doled out to them were withdrawn after the debate in which the whole nation participated. As per the basic spirit and nature of the American nation, the special privileges were then stopped to them. It was replaced by the principle of free trade, low duties and economy in public expenditure. The change was smooth and it worked well for the benefit of the whole nation.

However, after that, a section took up of the issue of anti-slavery only to regain the earlier benefits. They tried to revive the anti-slavery sentiment of the North. The section got the chance when Mexico was acquired. The resolution reminded that Mexico was acquired with blood and money of South. However, when the North tried to use Congressional Legislation to curb the slavery in that region, the South met with great moderation though it was an insult to them.

The declaration also reminded that through the ordinance of 1787, the right over property of South was secured by the constitution. It also recorded that Virginia had parted with her territory only when it was given constitutional guarantee that South would be allowed to retain their property right over slaves. Before Missouri compromise, the North States again tried to damage their property right over slaves. By 1852, the anti-slavery group lost all their political significance. It was then, the Lincoln party again organized itself. In 1860, the Lincoln party had won the election by exploiting the antislavery sentiment and it was unacceptable to Georgia.

It was lamented in the declaration, that constitutional had secured their property, the Supreme Court had passed judgements in favour of that right, the nation had debated the issue for forty years and given verdict in favour of equal enjoyment of their property right but in 1860, the North Sates were about to deny that right. Not only that, the North States had also tried to raise rebellion in South states. They had tried to destroy the peace of the South States and the Federal government had failed to secure them peace and justice.

Finally the deceleration placed on the record that why they were not ready to accept the government in the hands of the Republic party. Giving the reason, the placed on record that because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3000000000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the bad of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in site of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed porpoise is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars and our fireside.

Summary Observations:
  • The Georgia declared that "they (non-slave-holding States) have endeavoured to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common territories of the Republic."

  • The North States had unduly used the Federal Treasury during the earlier years of the Union for the material benefit. It was allowed then because, South was not dependent on the Federal support for its material progress whereas it was needed by North. However, that material support was ended by 1846.

  • The North States harmed their material gains when it forced the South to adopt the Missouri Compromise and again when Mexico was taken over.

  • A group of wrong political notions, had tried to exploit dormant sentiment of North state only for gaining the political power. North wanted to regain the material support of the treasury and harm the South by denying it freedom to use the constitutional right, it had allowed that political group, then known as Republican Party.

The South States had been suffering insult and harm to them for long. Therefore, when Republican party, which had made anti-slavery an issue only to gain power, Georgia had separated itself to regain liberty, equality, security and tranquility.

May 08, 2006

Our Documents by NARA: Online Source to form a more perfect Union An USA Department Initiative


A discussion had started on H-TAH list. The question was placed by Paul Leslie of Nicholls State University.

The responses were quite fruitful. The query was to "list fifteen documents/speeches that reflected America's past over the last 306 years". Gary Daynes and Debra Schneider directed the attention to Our Documents.

On the site one can find 100 such documents starting from Lee Resolution (1776) to Voting Rights Act (1965).


Daynes finds the list idiosyncratic (?!!) but simultaneously refer to the discussion by NARA (National Archives and Records Administration – USA) on the issue of selecting or excluding of the documents.

Schneider of Merrill F. West High School, Tracy, California has pointed out that this list is there for the last two years.


I quote from the site about its aim.


"We invite all Americans to participate in a series of events and programmes to us thinking, talking and teaching about the rights and responsibilities of citizens in our democracy. At the heart of this initiative are 100 milestone documents of American history."

It is desired there that students, teachers, parents, and the general public direct attention to them in order to form a "more perfect union"(Is it a reference to Civil War?).

As a teacher, I am delighted to learn about this. I hope that it is going to remain there for long.


Apart from the motive, it is exhilarating and amazing to find such a thing on the web. I have been talking about the need of online sources and using for technology for the Human resource development along with other like minded people and teachers. Here I am finding a case which shows the way that it can be achieved through such a model. I am presently also working on an article on misuse of Mobile Phones for cheating, memory sticks and pen scanners for cheating in AIIMS Exams, using sms for solving IIT entrance exams. Everyone say that the student should be penalized and all such devices should be banned. On the other hand, it is desired under ICT project to use the new technologies to promote research, human resource development and fruitful interaction. Then, there are sting operations, hidden cameras and like activities to contain corruption but it is raising the issue of privilege of privacy. The same devices are being used to film immoral activities. One is just at loss to understand that what actually we are going to make out of these technologies. But here is an answer. May the Bhartiyas (Indians with capital at New Delhi) look at it !!

As a teacher I am amazed, happy and highly enthusiastic on finding this source. I read the Article of Confederation and Constitution of America especially Article 4 which had been identified in the Secession Resolution of South Carolina on December 24, 1860 in order to declare that there was a breach of compact. Now, I have the source to read and counter check all the references to all such historic documents in original. In case of India, one can find the Parliamentary debates since 1946 at India Image. However, it requires lot of skills to locate them. I always reached by fluke to the desired documents not knowing how to reach a same document again and again. The ICT projects of UGC have not directed their attention to similar type of public responsive initiative by the archives. The National Archive of India has placed the web site but with the hope to decide upon the model on which they are going to make the documents available to the general public. It is left to all those resourceful people to acquire money to reach there but people like me, who do not like any binding while working would never get there. The Digital Library of India is ready but one does not know when they will bring documents in different languages online apart from the Telegu documents.

Well, this is something good. It is yet another important and useful Online Source for teachers and research scholars regardless of the aim of the site with which they have envisaged this model. Let us hope they maintain it there for long.

May 06, 2006

Justifications and Causes for Secession on Eve of Civil War Through online Sources


The Convention of the delegates of South Carolina met at Columbia. It then shifted to Charleston. On December 20, 1860, by an ordinance, it dissolved the union between the state of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America." (Reference: University of Tennesse Sunsite )

The same convention on December 24, 1860 dissolved its union between South Carolina and other States of North America and simultaneously by words, declared it self as a nation among the nations of the world. The resolution to this effect was titled "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which induce and justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union".

The following observations can be made on the contents of the resolution of December 24, 1860 which gave the justification and causes of the secession.

The Convention of delegates of South Carolina mentioned to her resolution of April 26, 1852 in beginning of the resolution.

It pointed out that therein, the Convention of South Carolina had observed that there was "frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal government." Through those violations, the resolution of the South Carolina observed, that the Federal Government had made "encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States". It also emphasized that it was in the year 1852 itself, that the convention of the South Carolina had worked and thought on the line of secession from the union because of the violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government.

The convention of South Carolina observed with great concern that they had been showing the virtue of great forbearance but in face of frequent violations of the Constitution of Unites States America, the virtue had lost its appeal when faced with such breach of trust.

With the above mentioned forces at work, the convention of South Carolina declared that it had resumed her separate and equal place among the nations.

With that reality to live, the convention of South Carolina continued in the resolution to give words to the causes and elucidate the justifications in order to emphasize the causes that have led to that act.

The resolution first gave the justification of attaining the status of an independent state among the community of the independent nations. It emphasized that on July 4, 1776, when the thirteen colonies started the American resolutions, they stood as "free and Independent States" and they fought against the British rule with that status. Referring to that event, the resolution emphasized that the urge to undertake the revolution was guided by the basic principle which was, that when a "government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government. It was under this principle, that the colonies at that time had broken their links with the British Empire.

It tried to remember in the resolution itself that it was for the security of the states on collective level that the independent states had come under the a league by writing the Articles of Confederation and the Congress of the United States had come into existence. The war was fought by that Congress and that Congress did not retain any power which was not entrusted to it and those powers remained with the states which had come together under that Congress.

On the basis of the above arguments, the South Carolina emphasized that at that time two principles were fully accepted and practiced. The first principle was that the state had the right of self government. It was first the constitution of the states, which came into existence and the constitution of the United States had come on a later date and rectified by the states working under their own constitution at that time. The second principle that was the cause of the birth of the new independent free and self governing states was that the people of the state had the right to abolish the government which becomes destructive of the ends of which it was instituted.

It emphatically pointed out that it was in 1787 that the states sent her deputies to revise the Articles of Confederation and the existing constitution of America came into existence only then.

The secession resolution of South Carolina had pointed out that the constitution which South Carolina accepted on May 23, 1788, was in nature a compact between the states. The South Carolina had joined the compact along with eight other states. Later two more states accepted the constitution. It was after along time that rest of the two states joined in.

The acceptance of the constitution equated to a compact in which the residual powers were with the states. These states had come into existence by a Declaration of Independence granting them the status of a sovereign state. It was so recognized by Great Britain on September 3, 1783.


The main argument which ran through the resolution was that the states were free and sovereign which was granted to them by the Declaration of Independence. Further, that any form of government when becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government.

Thirdly that the acceptance of constitution by the state was similar to the compact wherein the residual powers remained safe with the constituent state.

The South Carolina convention of December 1860 evaluated the acceptance of constitution of America by South Carolina a compact. The convention also averred in the resolution that the performance of the material part of a compact is responsibility of each party that had joined in the compact. Any breach by any one party release the other party form the obligation of honouring the terms of the compact and thereby release the other party to exercise its own judgement to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences.

With the above rationale, the South Carolina convention declared that the federal government had breached the pact and pointed out by name fourteen such states which committed the breach.

The South Carolina convention asserted that the breach had taken place in respect of the fourth Article of the constitution of America. The fourth Article stipulated that "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up, on claim of th party to whom such service or labour may be due."

The convention also placed on the record that Virginia joined the United States or in other words accepted the constitution when the article four was enshrined in the constitution. The convention also emphasized that it was the obligation of ‘General Government’ (Federal Government) as the common agent of the parties who had joined the compact to ensure the performance of the material part of the article. The Convention named the fourteen States that violated the spirit of the article four. The convention also accused the General Government of her failure to perform the material part of the article 4 in the role of a common agent.

The states which were accused of breaching were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. The convention finally asserted that "the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

The Convention accused that the fourteen non-slaveholder states had openly went against the article 4 of the Federal Government. The resolution gave specific case in case of some of them.

The convention also observed with great concern that by their acts, the fourteen non-slaveholding North States had tried to damage some of the established institutions of South States. They were encouraging open insurrection against Slave Holding South States.

On the basis of above accusations, the resolution incorporated the conclusion that, "the constituted compacts has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the Non-Slave Holding States, and the consequences follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

The Convention observed that Federal Government also failed to maintain the spirit of the compact on another front. According to South Carolina, that it was the basic goal of the constitution that through its material operation, it would "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defence, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The Convention observed that the Federal Government had failed in that goal which was enshrined in the constitution. It expressed its disapproval by putting it on records that "we affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by action of the non Slaveholding States."

The resolution observed that the section of North State were "deciding upon the propriety of our (their) domestic institutions," ‘denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States’ that had been otherwise recognized by the constitution. The delegates of the convention observed that the North States had termed some of their established institutions which were recognised by the constitution, as sinful. They were destroying the institutions of South States by encouraging insurrection, by sending emissaries and by using books and pictures.

The Convention observed that the North States were knowingly denying their constitutional rights, destroying their established and recognized institutions and calling their institutions sinful for 25 years.

The Convention further observed that at that pint of the time that had openly "secrued to its aid the power of the Common Government."

By making a final case in favour of the secession, the convention placed on record that, "a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself." Further, "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union…." The North States had united to elect a President of the United States, who had declared that "Government can not endure permanently half slave and half free." The South Carolina thus expressed her stand and policy before the new president took oath of the office. The Convention also observed that it was a design of North States to subvert the Constitution by extending voting rights to such person who were incapable of becoming citizens. They had planned to use their votes to "inaugurate a new policy hostile to South and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

The Convention feared that afte 4th day of March next, the Federal Government will have become their enemy. The Federal Government, it was feared, would work on sectional lines.

The Convention observed that from then onwards, "erroneous religious beliefs" would work behind every policy decision.

The South Carolina finally wrote, "We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that Union, heretofore, existing between this State and other States of North America is dissolved."

Thus the South Carolina separated herself from the rest of the Unites States of America by separating herself from the compact and the other North States. After separation, it accorded a status to itself in the following words.

"The State of South Carolina resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent States; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." It was signed and adopted on December 24, 1860.


Summary Observations:

  • These are the eight major observations on the justifications and causes of secession by South Carolina on the basis of the Convention which begun on December 17, 1860 and held at Columbia and then Charleston.

  • There was violation of the Constitution by the Federal Government. The Federal Government had made encroachments on the reserved rights of the States.

  • The Convention emphasized that the very existence of the Union was on the working of the pure truth that had established them ( 13 colonies in 1776) as "as free and independent states on July 4, 1776. They attained that status on the working and exercise of the truth which the convention states as follows:
    "When a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government"
  • The Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution of United States of America had left the rights not specified in their body with the states and working of those rights could be carried out by the states with full freedom and independence.
  • The Constitution of United States of America which South Carolina accepted on May 23, 1788, was in nature a compact between the states. Under that compact, the residual powers were left with the States. The Federal Government under the constitution of United States America came up as a general agent and a general government for the Union and its constituting states.
  • The joining of any state in the union was in nature a compact. The working of the compact required that all parties honour their obligation and work for the working of the material part of the compact. Any breach by any one party release the other party from the obligation of honouring the terms of the compact and thereby release the other party to exercise its own judgement to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences. As and when it is established that the compact was breached, then South Carolina was free to determine its future course of after coming out of the compact from which it was released when other parties breached the compact.
  • South Carolina observed that the breach of the compact had taken place with respect o Article 4 of the Constitution of United States of America. The act of breaking the compact had been continuously carried out by 14 North States for last 25 years. The act of breach had been done by 14 non-slaveholding North States by attacking the domestic institutions of South States, by calling their institutions as sinful and failing to fulfill their obligation with respect to Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
  • The 14 non-slaveholding North States had also tried to raise insurrection in South States. The General Government had extended them her protection in their act of damage to South State and thus failed in aim for which it had been jointly raised. The aim of the General Government was "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defence, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." On the contrary, the General Government had extended protection to North States in raising insurrection in South States.
  • Finally, the resolution observed that a sectional party had come up which had united the North States for damaging the domestic institution s of South states. They had drawn a geographical line between north and south states. They were guided by "erroneous religious beliefs." They wanted to extend the right of voting to such persons, who were incapable of becoming citizens and finally they had elected a President who asserted that "Government can not endure permanently half slaves and half free." From March 4, 18612, all the acts of General Government would be carried on sectional lines guided by erroneous religious beliefs.

Hence, South Carolina, which had already dissolved its compact with the constitution, also dissolved the union with other states.


References and Sources:


  1. For the text of resolutions of secession by various states on the eve of Civil War, refer to: University of Tennessee Sunsite as Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, *South Carolina Secedes* (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81
  2. For the various ordinances in original refer to Documenting The American South

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *