Finally, a review for a current movie!
It was with great hopes I had gone to watch Kesari. This was, after all, the story of one of the most famous last stands in military history. Twenty-one Indian Army men against more than ten thousand Afghans. Even Alamo pales in comparison! 21 Men at Saragarhi, a tiny heliographic transmission station in the Samana Hills on the North-Western Frontier, basically stopped the ambitions of the Afghans to conquer parts of India, till the Germans and Turks again stoked those fires in the First World War. But that is another story….
So how did Anurag Singh handle the story of 21 of the bravest men who ever graced the rolls of the incredibly brave Indian Army?
Good, but it could have been better. Far better.
Historical accuracy is maintained better than most Indian period movies. The uniforms, the Martini-Henry single-shot breech loading rifles, the frame packs, the large turbans and the flowing beards of the Sikh soldiers. The Smith & Wesson revolvers with the British officers, the side-mounted spike bayonets. The basic architecture of the forts, the heliograph signalling sets.
However, some inaccuracies persist. The Vickers or Maxim (it was not visible enough to be identified clearly) machine gun, shown early in the movie, was not really in service in the North-Western Frontier at that time. The famous volley fire of the British Armies (including their Colonial Forces), which decimated Napoleon’s vast columns almost a century back and the Kaiser’s vaunted Grenadiers 18 years later, was not in evidence, the firing being more of the “fire at will” type favoured by Americans (and of course, Hollywood).
No picture of Sikh Soldiers in the British service could be found wearing the chakram on their turbans, so I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of that particular piece of gear.
But….. untrained Afghan qabailies firing muzzle-loading muskets as fast as the highly-trained British-Indian troops fire Martinis?
That effeminate Afghan sniper using a smooth-bore musket to shoot at impossible distances? Unless it was a Baker or Snider rifle, in which case, the shape is all wrong!
That Afghan sniper seems to be inspired by the Janissaries of the old Ottoman Empire, most of whom were eunuchs, renowned for their bravery as well as savagery, and utilised for, let’s say “other purposes” in times of relative peace.
The Martinis were not really a .303 calibre rifle, although some were produced in that calibre at the very end of the production run, so Martini-Henrys chambered for the British .303 ball cartridge could have been sent to the NW Frontier. So the .303 Ball Cartridge boxes may not be an inaccuracy. The design of the boxes and the stencils are accurate enough.
Every Soldier, for some reason is shown wearing a different type of shoe. Probably the only authentic period military footwear is the pair of shoes that one of the Soldiers is saving for his father. Akshay Kumar’s Havildar Ishar Singh wears canvas shoes (not introduced till the First World War, and even then not a part of combat uniform). Some Soldiers are wearing Punjabi jooties!
The military side, weapons et al, will probably be noticed by some crazy loon like me, but did Sikhs really get married in western jackets in the 1890s?
And then the cliches! Is no history of the British Army in India complete without a racist British Officer? And can no movie with a Sikh hero be made without having a crash course on the entire history of the Sikhs?
Yes, British officers were racist. Racism was a fact of life, as was casteism. Especially post the Mutiny, the British added “untrustworthiness” to the other faults of the Indians. The closeness between white officers and Native NCOs/ORs reduced drastically after 1857. They didn’t realise, poor ignorant Europeans that they were, that the greatest force in India was casteism. You just couldn’t play with a man’s caste!
However, Sikhs and Gurkhas were largely exempt from this odious behaviour, mainly because they had helped the British win the Mutiny. A British officer, especially a mere Lieutenant, being racist to a senior Sikh NCO seems highly surprising! And history (written by the British) states that the British were fully aware of the valour of the Sikhs, so clubbing them with the rest of Indians as “cowards” is even more surprising! The Lieutenant in the movie behaves childishly, pettishly to a senior NCO. Reason enough for the officer to lose his commission! Especially as the Havildar seems to be respected by the senior officers (Colonel Haughton). And was “fucker” even in common use among the officer class in the 1890s? Remember, British Officers were gentlemen first, i.e. they had to be noble-born. Commoners couldn’t easily make officers. Nobility just didn’t use such words!
I must mention here that I could find no record which shows the real Havildar Ishar Singh actually disobeying orders. If a Soldier disobeys orders, he must be punished. That’s the Army for you. Irrespective of his motives, a Soldier acting contrary to general and specific orders is always punished, our civilian sensibilities be damned.
The revertal of Havildar Ishar Singh and his men to the legendary valour of Sikhism, as opposed to the simple “duty” of the Soldier, is purely a ploy to sell the movie. The whole melodrama of wearing a saffron (Kesari) turban, the cursing of the British Raj, the yearning for freedom on the part of Ishar Singh, seem to be further ploys to show the Soldiers as “Indian Patriots” rather than “British Soldiers”.
It is not needed. The incredibly brave men that fought like devils and died like heroes at Saragarhi do not need to be turned into Swadeshi patriots or Sikh religious warriors to enhance their bravery. They fought for their paltan, as most Soldiers fight. They fought for their duty. They fought because it was their job. This is why Soldiers fight. This is why brave men go out, every day, to kill and die. Patriotism is for civilians, for the militia, for freedom fighters (or terrorists, depending upon your political and national position), for brain-washed minions of totalitarian regimes. For real Soldiers, duty is enough.
And this is my biggest crib against the movie. The historical inaccuracies can be excused. Tying a telescope to a Martini to convert it into a Dragunov can be kept aside. Showing Akshay as a superhero can be excused (the real Havildar Ishar Singh died equally, if not more, heroically, guarding the gate to the inner fort after pushing the remnants of his force inside). Even if the director made the Soldiers use AK-47s, it could be ignored.
But not the perversion of Soldierly purity of purpose to civilian jingoism and trumpet-blasting.
As far as highlighting a forgotten battle goes, the movie is a good attempt. We, the people of India, are woefully misinformed regarding the valour of our Soldiers fighting in the Royal Indian Army. Not only Saragarhi, but a thousand battlefields from Lucknow to Libya, from Myitkyina (pronounced Michina) to Monte Cassino, has been hallowed by the blood of Indian soldiers fighting for the Empire. A large part of this willful neglect is due to seeing these brave-hearts as “traitors” because they fought for the British Raj. What we civilians fail to realize is that patriotism, as we understand it, does not exist naturally, without an accompanying propaganda machine. The trumpets and songs and speeches are a basic necessity for the existence of jingoistic patriotism, and of course, the sounds of bullets hitting flesh and screams of the wounded do not make for a great advertisement for the life martial!
The intolerable ennui of Military life (ask anyone who has been on sentry duty), coupled with the risk of sudden death, then the nightmares that come after (ever heard of PSTD?) makes it a very, very tough life. What makes a man, especially a not-very-educated private soldier (sepoy or jawan) live this life, happily, is an Army which takes care of them, officers who inspire them, and comrades who the can rely on. Which is why highly disciplined and trained Armies composed of volunteers have a lower rate of desertion, cowardice, and panic than under-trained conscript Armies. The design of the flag, the constitution of the country, the colour of the political ideology, does not matter to the man in the trenches!
For centuries, our rulers (brown and white) had been using poor villagers as cannon-fodder. With the exception of the great Shivaji, and later to some extent of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, no Indian ruler treated the “troops” as anything but cannon-fodder.
But the British – some of them at least – realised the value of treating their men well. Not out of any sympathy, but because throughout their history they always fought in battles where they were outnumbered (Crecy, Agincourt, Balaclava), and the last, the humblest bowman or pikeman or infantryman was valuable as a fighter. This lowliest private or man-at-arms had to be inspired, to be ready and willing to fight. Which is why Shakespeare has Henry V call every man who fought with him at Agincourt as his “brother”.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Clive himself, Eyre Coote, Wellesley (later Lord Wellington), Nicolson, down to Slim, actually, genuinely, fought their own establishments to improve the life of the men (both British and Indian) under them. And that is what leads to loyalty. Great leadership also leads to great loyalty. All the above – from Shivaji to Slim (including Henry V) – provided great leadership. Leadership which leads. From the front. Leadership which is not based on flowery speeches, but on genuine concern for the men, each of the men as an individual human, not as a statistic. Leadership based on personal bravery.
We civilians have an easy way out to prove our loyalty (to whatever). Play the music loud. Patriotic music, party slogans, politically tinged songs. Wave the flag. Scream.
The Soldier has to get in there and feel the pain. He does not have the luxury of screaming. In the movie, Lance Naik Chanda Singh, shot in the shoulder, keeps firing his rifle. Imagine the pain. The shock of the recoil smashing against an already-shattered shoulder. And those old black-powder Martinis were brutal in the recoil!
No, Havildar Ishar Singh and his brave men do not need to prove they are Indians. They were incredibly brave. Braver than you or I can ever be. The last man standing, Sepoy Gurmukh Singh, the nineteen-year-old heliograph operator, actually killed more than 20 Afghans while on fire himself. A nineteen-year-old kid. On fire. Fighting and killing. I can only weep for the 21, and shout along with a burning, dying boy…..
Bole so Nihal, Sat Sri Akal!
Thank you, bravehearts, for saving me from Taliban rule!
Note:
The list of the 21 Immortals, as per wikipedia, is as below:
- Havildar Ishar Singh (regimental number 165)
- Naik Lal Singh (332)
- Lance Naik Chanda Singh (546)
- Sepoy Sundar Singh (1321)
- Sepoy Ram Singh (287)
- Sepoy Uttar Singh (492)
- Sepoy Sahib Singh (182)
- Sepoy Hira Singh (359)
- Sepoy Daya Singh (687)
- Sepoy Jivan Singh (760)
- Sepoy Bhola Singh (791)
- Sepoy Narayan Singh (834)
- Sepoy Gurmukh Singh (814)
- Sepoy Jivan Singh (871)
- Sepoy Gurmukh Singh (1733)
- Sepoy Ram Singh (163)
- Sepoy Bhagwan Singh (1257)
- Sepoy Bhagwan Singh (1265)
- Sepoy Buta Singh (1556)
- Sepoy Jivan Singh (1651)
- Sepoy Nand Singh (1221)
The inscription on the memorial, commissioned by the British Raj:
The Government of India have caused this tablet to be erected to the memory of the twenty one non-commissioned officers and men of the 36 Sikh Regiment of the Bengal Infantry whose names are engraved below as a perpetual record of the heroism shown by these gallant soldiers who died at their posts in the defense of the fort of Saragarhi, on the 12 September 1897, fighting against overwhelming numbers, thus proving their loyalty and devotion to their sovereign The Queen Empress of India and gloriously maintaining the reputation of the Sikhs for unflinching courage on the field of battle.