A religious frenetic or not, MP was a courageous man to have done what he did, and of course he wasn't made famous by media hype or government propaganda. He must have done something stark for his time to capture imagination of so many contemporaries. Anyway, I think I remember from my textbooks a fact that the regional rulers [ Laxmibai,Tope et al.] already had a well etched out plan for imminent national uprising. And that these plans were completely thrown out of gear when Mangal Pande's unexpected revolt snowballed and preponed the mutiny. The event is partially blamed for the failure of the 1857 revolt. This must be an important observation and I just can't understand why none of these online coverages has any mention of this. So If the lone guy triggered something big enough to upset the kings' organised plans, that something must have been significant. And of course, thanks to him we have an 'uprising' attributed to 'common men' and not a revolt by a 'coterie of rulers' to reclaim there lands (Successful, would they have made a prosperous, united 'INDIA'?) Maybe it was the legend of Mangal Pande that enabled people to think of a country in contest of a common man.
if u hold the right to edit our messages and not showcasing the views of citizens in your web then you are puckkaa followers of Indian governments since 1950.
What we learnt in history books, tells me that it was not by an accident that Mangal Became a hero or firt revolutionary from an ordinary sipoy. Badshah Zafar, Rani of Zansi and other kings were preparing for the revolt and had decided some date for it. They had started serculating a lotus and a 'ROTI'. The person who accepts it, became one of the many who were preparing for the first freedom movement. So Mangal must be aware of the 'LOTUS AND ROTI' movement. He denied the orders of his officer and started the revolution ahead of its planned date. So the british had the time to prepare for some major movement from the indians and the revolutionaries (like Badshah Zafar, Begum Hazarat Mahal, Rani of Zansi as I learnt from History) were short of time for the proper communication and arrangements. This was the major reasons why the first revolution of freedom failed and we had to wait for another 100 years for freedom.
So Mangal Pandey was really a firt freedom fighter and not a lucky sipoy who by accident became a hero.
Gee...entirely ifted off wikipedia...Should have atleast given credit to the page instead of putting your ame directly...Unless I am entirely mistaken and the wiki page was written by this author... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey
For your information, mangal pandey was not the first freedom fighter. Kattabomma Nayak of Panchalamkurichi was the first one to fight the british army and he was hanged to death by collector Jackson of Thirunelveli.
Please refer to the book: # * National Movement in Tamil Nadu, 1905-1914 - Agitational Politics and State Coercion, N.Rajendran Madras Oxford University Press, * indicates link to Amazon.com bookshop on line
Excerpts from the book:
Collector Jackson singled out Kattabomma Nayak of Panchalamkurichi as the main leader of the rebellion. That came to be known as the First Poligari War was declared on 5 September 1799. Although Kattabomman managed to escape from the field of battle, he was captured a month later in Pudukottai. After a summary trial, he was sentenced to death by Major Bannerman, Commander of the East India Company troops. He was publicly hanged near Kayattar Fort, close to the town of Tirunelveli, in front of fellow poligars who had been summoned to witness the execution.
Even after Kattabomman, there were lot of people including famous Marudu brothers(well before 1857) fought against british and hanged to death.
Yes, I do completely agree with the view that he was the first Indian to rise up against the British,but to elevate him to him to the status of a national hero is historically and factually incorrect. The term 'Nationalism' was a very vague concept those days . Even today, in the inttectual circles this word is a point of discussion.Thus with this basic concept we cannot confer him the the status of a national hero,at least to be honest factually. However, in the contemporary sense,as we approach the day when our nation took a rebirth we have to shed such views, not to be dishonest to the truth ,but simply because such an analysis of the past ,atleast to an extent,is irrelevant. Let us all,at this moment, strive to be what we ought to be as envisioned by all those people who sacrificed their lives for us. JAI HIND.
