The discussions on circumstances and events centred around 1857 are predominantly focussed on the Gangetic heartland. The more dramatic events of contestations between the sepoys and the then British authorities had taken plance in Delhi, Agra, Jhansi, Lucknow. As a result, it is this area that has engaged the attention of researchers,both celebratory and condemnatory accounts of 1857.
There has been a lopsided view of the geographical spread of the movement. Although the Gangetic heartland had been the core area of the revolt of 1857, one has to admit, there were several outlying areas which were not immune from the impact. The revolt of 1857 had almost a sub-continental dimension which we often miss out in general accounts of history. Take for instance the tale of Mangal Pandey.In most text-book accounts of 1857, we find the mention of Mangal Pandey. But it was more of a thunder-clap out of a clear sky. It seemed as if Bengal unwittingly provided the spark which turned into a wild fire in the Gangetic heartland. Here I find there is a need for correction.We know precious little about what happened in the outlying areas.
This year, when the Indian Council of Historical Research endeavoured to take a special look into this,one of the major emphasis is on trying to locate events and perceptions in the outlying areas. Different state archives have taken upon this task of research. Prior to Mangal Pandey’s revolt, there was a period of continous agitational run-ups. In January,1987,we had seen flare-ups in Dum Dum; this was followed by wave of discontenment among the sepoys in Barrackpore. Much before the Mangal Pandey incident, the situation in Barrackpore was tense and a British officer was quoted as saying that ` we are sitting on a landmine here(Barrackpore)'.
The third incident before Managal Pandey was a virtual mutiny in Baharampur after which the regiment was disarmed. However, this disarming took place in Barrackpore as Baharampur was much less guarded in view of an acute dearth of European soldiers. And after the revolt of Pandey, the Baharampur regiment that was removed to Barrackpore was disarmed.
So,if one looks at the chronology of events, it would be quite clear that from January, 1857 onwards, agitations had been building up prior to its culmination in May. The rebellion of 1857 had triggered tremendous panic among the British, instances of which were visible not only in Calcutta, but in suburbs as well. So much so, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court to disarm the native population in the country. However,it was found that concentration of arms was more in the hands of the Europeans than among the natives.
The rebellion had its impact in Darjeeling,Jalpaiguri in August-September in the same year while the most significant one to happen after the May uprising, was the one at Chittagang in November. Chittagang housed three native regiments which plundered the government treasury,killed some British soldiers, released all prisoners from jails and headed off towards Tripura after taking possession of all government-owned elephants. The aim was to resist the British. The rebels also succeeded in establishing some kind of linkages with Kukis and Manipuri princes for future requirements.
At the same time, rebels at Jalpaiguri made some link with the contemporary rulers of Bhutan. And it was not surprising that Bhutan was conquered in the Anglo- Bhutan   war, shortly after the suppression of the 1857 uprising.
As for its relevance in modern times, one has to bear in mind that it was a major patriotic outburst. It could be a matter of debate whether it was imbued with a spirit of nationalism. What needs to be emphasised here is that the rebels were constantly making a political choice. There had been a conscious political urge working within them to support an alternative set of administration and in this conscious choice, there had been an element of patriotism. Secondly, it was a movement of sub-continental significance. No single upsurge had  earlier affected the Indian heartland so vigorously as it had done. Thirdly, such historians as W Dalrymple who wrote ‘The Last Mughal’ (on Bahadur Shah Jafar), stressed the religious angle behind the revolt of 1857 which I find quite insignificant.
Because 80 per cent of those who revolted were Hindus,belonging to the upper caste,Brahmins and Rajputs. And again, nearly 80 per cent of the rebellious soldiers in Delhi who urged Bahadur Shah Jafar to lead them were Hindus.That Bahadur Shah belonged to the minority community was never a matter of concern to the rebels.
In fact, the underlying tone in all the major proclamations issued by Bahadur Shah was secular. They were not mere rhetorics. I disagree with Mr Dalrymple that Jehadis took control of the movement. Jehadis were everywhere; but the point remains is how you assess and shed light on events of historical importance. Here the point is how the rebels had transcended smaller loyalities to reach a solidarity inspired by the spirit of patriotism.
1857 was one such conjuncture( of events) where smaller loyalities were sunk to pave the way for patriotism built on a broadbased foundation of secularism. India today needs to remember this conjucture when we were able to transcend the smaller loyalities and succeeded in building up an overwhelming solidarity, notwithstanding regional specifics.
(Prof Chattopadhyaya is the director of West Bengal Archives & a senior professor of History in Calcutta University)
(As told to Prasanta Paul)