UNIT 6 DBQ

Document 1 In this excerpt from a much longer proclamation, the unidentified author, possibly an heir of the Mughal emperor, calls on all Indians to support the fight against the British in 1857. It is well known to all, that in this age the people of Hindustan [India], both [Hindus] and [Muslims], are being ruined under the tyranny and oppression of the treacherous and infidel English ...Regarding Artisans: It is evident that the Europeans, by the introduction of English articles into India, have thrown the weavers, the cotton-dressers, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, and the shoemakers, etc., out of employ, and ... every native artisan has been reduced to beggary. But under the [new] government the native artisan will exclusively be employed in the services of the kings ... and this will no doubt insure their prosperity. Therefore the artisans ought to renounce the English services, and assist the Mujahedeens [religious freedom fighters] engage in the war, and thus be entitled both to secular and eternal happiness ...All the sepoys [infantry men] and sowars [cavalry men] who have for the sake of their religion, joined in the destruction of the English... should present themselves to me without the least delay or hesitation. Foot soldiers and [cavalrymen] ... will be paid double of what they get in the British service ...Lastly, be it known to all, that whoever, out of the above-named classes, shall ... still cling to the British government, all his estates shall be confiscated, and his property plundered, and he himself, with his whole family, shall be imprisoned, and ultimately put to death.

Source: “The Azamgarh Proclamation.” Delhi Gazette, 29 September 1857. Reproduced here: http://www.csas.ed.ac.uk/mutiny/Texts-Part2.html.

Document 2 This excerpt is from an article by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The New York Daily Tribune in which they commented on the 1857 Indian Mutiny, an uprising that was put down by mid-1858. ... It is the first time that sepoy [Indian soldier serving British] regiments have murdered their European officers; that [Muslims] and [Hindus], renouncing their mutual antipathies, have combined against their common masters; ... that the mutiny, has not been confined to a few localities; and lastly, that the revolt in the Anglo-Indian army has coincided with a general disaffection exhibited against English supremacy on the part of the great Asiatic nations, the revolt of the Bengal army being, beyond doubt, intimately connected with the Persian and Chinese wars.

The alleged cause of the dissatisfaction which began to spread four months ago in the Bengal army was the apprehension on the part of the natives lest the Government should interfere with their religion. [Their] cartridges [bullet casings], the paper of which was said to have been greased with the fat of bullocks and pigs, and the compulsory biting of which was, therefore, considered by the natives as an infringement of their religious prescriptions, gave the signal for local disturbances ... On the 25th of February the 19th native regiment mutinied ... the men objecting to the cartridges served out to them. On the 31st of March ... the 34th sepoy regiment ... allowed one of its men to advance with a loaded musket upon the parade-ground in front of the line, and, after having called his comrades to mutiny, he was permitted to attack and wound the Adjutant and Sergeant-Major of his regiment. During the hand-to-hand conflict, that ensued, hundreds of sepoys looked passively on, while others participated in the struggle, and attacked the officers with the butt ends of their muskets ...

Source: Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “The Revolt in the Indian Army.” New York Daily Tribune, 15 July 1857. Reproduced here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/07/15.htm

Document 3 This 1879 image shows British artillerymen next to two Gatling guns, which were essentially the first modern machine guns, firing and reloading themselves rapidly as the operator turned a hand crank. These guns were used against anti-colonial resistance fighters, or to threaten or massacre peaceful protestors.

Source: “A pair of Gatling guns, 1879” from a photograph album compiled by Lieutenant-Colonel Wilfred Turner Anderson/Zulu War. National Army Museum, London, UK. Public domain. https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1989-10-2-58.

Document 4 This speech was given by Yaa Asantewaa (1840–1921) in March of 1900. Yaa Asantewaa was a queen mother, a powerful leader in the Asante (Ashanti) Empire in what is today Ghana. She led an Asante rebellion against British colonialism.

“How can a proud and brave people like the Asante sit back and look while whitemen took away their king and chiefs, and humiliated them with a demand for the Golden Stool [royal throne]. The Golden Stool only means money to the whitemen; they have searched and dug everywhere for it. I shall not pay one [cent] to the governor. If you, the chiefs of Asante, are going to behave like cowards and not fight, you should exchange your loincloths for my undergarments. ... Is it true that the bravery of the Asante is no more? I cannot believe it. It cannot be! If the men of Asante will not go forward, then we, the women, will. We will fight the white men until the last one of us falls in the battlefields.”

Source: This quote is from two sources. The first portion before the ellipses is from Aidoo, Agnes Akosua. “Asante Queen Mothers in Government and Politics in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 9, no. 1 (1977): 1-13. The second portion is from Asante, Molefi Kete. The History of Africa: The Quest for Eternal Harmony. New York: Routledge, 2019

Document 5 Banned by British authorities in India, Mohandas K. Gandhi’s book, Indian Home Rule (1909) was an early expression of some of the ideas that would shape his leadership over the coming decades.

I would say to the extremists: “I know that you want Home Rule for India; it is not to be had for your asking ... Brute-force is not natural to Indian soil ... You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal.” I would say to the moderates: “Mere petitioning is derogatory; we thereby confess inferiority ...”

There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so ... I would ... say that anarchy under Home Rule were better than orderly foreign rule ...

To [the English] I would respectfully say: “I admit you are my rulers ... I have no objection to your remaining in my country, but although you are the rulers; you will have to remain as servants of the people. It is not we who have to do as you wish, but it is you who have to do as we wish. You may keep the riches that you have drained away from this land, but you may not drain riches henceforth ... We hold the civilization that you support to be the reverse of civilization. We consider our civilization to be far superior to yours ... We consider your schools and courts to be useless. We want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The common language of India is not English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learn it. We can hold communication with you only in our national language.”

Source: Gandhi, Mohandas. Indian Home Rule. Phoenix, Natal, South Africa: International Printing Press, 1910. Reproduced here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080522001539/http://www.mkgandhi.org/swarajya/coverpage.htm

Document 6

These are excerpts are from an article, “The New Nationalist Movement in India,” by Unitarian minister Jabez T. Sunderland. Writing from the United States in 1908, Sunderland’s article reflects a critical response to colonialism in this era, and a shift in global opinion.

The Nationalist Movement in India may well interest Americans. Lovers of progress and humanity cannot become acquainted with it without discovering that it has large significance, not only to India and Great Britain, but to the world ...

Why is England in India at all? Why did she go there at first, and why does she remain? ...

We find that Calcutta and Bombay have a large commerce. To whom does it belong? Mainly to the British. ...

The great, disturbing, portentous, all-overshadowing fact connected with the history of India in recent years is the succession of famines. What do these famines mean? [A British civilian writes], “... I rode out on horseback, morning after morning, I passed crowds of wandering skeletons, and saw human corpses by the roadside, unburied, uncared for, and half devoured by dogs and vultures; how, sadder sight still, children, ‘the joy of the world,’ as the old Greeks deemed, had become its ineffable sorrow ...” and he estimates the number of deaths in the first eight decades of the last century at 18,000,000 ...

Here we get a glimpse of the real India ... the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England. ...

But it is only a part of the wrong done to India that she is impoverished. Quite as great an injustice is her loss of liberty—the fact that she is allowed no part in shaping her own political destiny ... India is kept in absolute subjection.

Source: Sunderland, Jabez T. “The New Nationalist Movement in India.” The Atlantic, October 1908. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1908/10/the-new-nationalist-movement-in-india/304893/

Document 7

This is an excerpt from a letter by Phan Ðình Phùng (1847–1896) to Huàng Cao Khải (1850–1933). The two Vietnamese scholars exchanged these letters in the 1890s while living under French rule. In an earlier letter, Huàng, who was then serving the French, praised his friend’s courage, but asked him to stop fighting the French since the fighting has been so destructive.

The French, separated from our country until the present day by I do not know how many thousand miles, have crossed the oceans to come to our country. Wherever they came, they acted like a storm, so much so that the Emperor had to flee. The whole country was cast into disorder. Our rivers and our mountains have been annexed by them at a stroke and turned into a foreign territory. These events affected the whole country, the entire population ...

Ten years have elapsed since the birth of our movement. Among those who gave themselves to the cause of righteousness, many have been imprisoned and many have been killed, but the determination of those who are left has never diminished. On the contrary, they continue to sustain me with all their efforts and the number of these courageous persons increases daily. They did not abandon their families to tread my path because they found pleasure in adventure and danger. They simply trusted me, they had confidence in me; because of my determination, they could endure all these hardships without a murmur. Such is the people’s disposition. Were you in my place, could you abandon all these men without a pain in your heart? ...

You and I are from the same province ... but we are now removed from each other by several thousand miles. In spite of this distance, you still care for the place of your birth. How much then do I, who suffer this situation with my own body and witness it with my own eyes? The difficulty is that I am bound by circumstances. I must accept my destiny.

Source: Lam, Truong Buu. Patterns of Vietnamese Response to Foreign Intervention, 1858–1900. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Reproduced here: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/vietnam/family_nation.pdf