FOR the past few years, the status and stature of Tipu Sultan have unnecessarily been mired in controversy. Every year, especially around the date of his birth anniversary which falls on 20 November, debate gets heated up in the state of Karnataka in India. Right-wing groups cobble up a few leaves from different books to support their view that Tipu Sultan killed several Hindus, oblivious of the fact that most of such books which have been written in the past 200 years extract references from volumes penned by English writers who harbored nothing but hatred for Tipu Sultan. Certainly, history is better viewed from historical evidence of the time of its unfolding, as history written or presented later gets distorted and altered in varying degrees.

First things first: From the time of his father, Seringapatam, a small place surrounded by the Cauvery river deriving its name from an ancient Hindu place of worship, had been the capital seat of the state of Mysore. Tipu Sultan had all the power and authority to change the name of the town, as is being done now right and left. Who would have objected if he had renamed the capital “Sultanabad” or “Fatehnagar”? Nor did he desecrate or damage any of the temples in that town or elsewhere.

As evident from numerous letters exchanged between Tipu Sultan and the trustees of one temple “Sringeri Sharada Peetham” which was desecrated by the soldiers of Marhatta during the Mysore-Marhatta War in 1791 and for which Marhatta later regretted, Tipu Sultan sent money and materials for its repair and restoration. Besides Puraneah, who was part of what could be called the Privy Council of Tipu Sultan, there were many high-ranking Hindu military and civil officers in the employment of Tipu Sultan. All these are clear indications of Tipu Sultan’s interest in maintaining the status quo insofar as the faith and customs of people were concerned. This undeniable evidence is enough to suppress the baseless allegations of religious bigots who are inclined to make political capital out of heresy and rumors.

Now, let us look at the “Memoirs of Tipu Sultan”, a biography written in June 1800, a little over one year after his defeat and death. Published with a grand portrait of Tipu Sultan in the European Magazine in its June, 1800 edition, the work purported to provide first-hand information about Tipu Sultan to English readers. However, the chief objective of presenting that biography of Tipu Sultan, as established clearly in the concluding part of the Memoirs was to warn the Princely States of India to remain subdued and not to commit the folly of challenging or conspiring against the East India Company.

Lamenting the ambitions of Tipu Sultan, the Memoirs aimed to coerce erstwhile rulers to assist and enable the English to consolidate their power in India. Tipu Sultan was a staunch adversary and the only impediment in the relentless endeavors of the British forces to strengthen their stranglehold over India, so it was but natural for the English biographers to present him as a tyrant and a dreadful person. Because of the defeats which the Company suffered at the hands of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan in southern India, they were afraid of losing their hold over what would later become a jewel in the British Crown.

They were also terrified of the parleys between Napoleon Bonaparte and Tipu Sultan as they knew that the entry of Napoleon on the Indian scene would certainly deal a lethal blow to their ambition to rule the golden bird which was almost in their hands by then. In fact, the British celebrated their victory in the last battle against Tipu Sultan very extensively not only in India but also in Britain and other places for having defeated their most formidable foe of the time. The Memoirs vehemently criticized Tipu Sultan for lending a hand of friendship to what they called foreigners as if they happened to be non-aliens and the natives of India.

Although, not an intentional or a deliberate adoration, the Memoirs could not conceal the bravery and boldness of Tipu Sultan when it cited his oft repeated assertion, made in both public and private, that he preferred to live two days as a tiger than 200 years as a sheep. The biographer tried to sideline or screen that resolve of Tipu Sultan by terming it his penchant for military preparations and his love for war. The book talks about Tipu Sultan’s ambitious nature, with the author presenting him as cruel and full of pride and avarice.

Now, one would argue, what is wrong with a person or a ruler being ambitious or determined even by today’s standards or why is there a need to denounce the pride in defending one’s State and its people? The Memoirs also condemn and deprecate Tipu Sultan’s constant resolve to extract revenge against the Company over his lost territories, monies and people. Again, these are all natural traits and throughout history kings, emperors and rulers have not rested until they got back their territories and avenged the losses they had suffered.

It was fine for the Englishmen of that time to present Tipu Sultan as a devil or an oppressor since he was a real threat or rather the sole threat to the existence of the East India Company. The Memoirs and many books that followed clearly pointed out that expulsion of the English forces from India was Tipu’s continual and consistent objective. Regardless of what other things Tipu Sultan did or did not do, his strong and undeniable determination to evict the English from India should singularly be celebrated by all Indians as he was the first to wage a full-scale war against the British on his own. One would wish that the state of Hyderabad and Marhatta had supported him or at least had remained passive during the wars. At any rate, though it serves no practical purpose to consider in hindsight as to what would have happened if Tipu Sultan had been victorious or if he had survived the last battle; there is no doubt that he tried hard to thwart the attempts of the British forces to make further inroads into India. For the British, he was a traitor and a rebel and was so duly depicted in the books they wrote. However, the valor and valiant endeavors of Tipu Sultan to drive the English from the soil of India should be placed on a pedestal of respect and honor as his success would have saved the nation from falling into the clutches of foreigners.

The Memoirs and many books which were published in the 19th and 20th centuries based their works mostly on “Select Letters of Tippoo Sultan” arranged and translated by William Kirkpatrick in February, 1811 who was a colonel in the East India Company. A cursory look at the cover note addressed to Richard M. Wellesley, who was then serving as the British Foreign Secretary, indicates that the chief purpose of that work was to magnify the victory secured under the leadership of Wellesley who had ordered the assault on Tipu Sultan. Kirkpatrick demonstrated his amazing dexterity in selecting letters with utter bias and prejudice and then in lending his voice to observations which serve to mislead readers. Again, howsoever hard he tried, the book failed to disguise Tipu Sultan’s magnanimity and thoughtfulness toward his subjects. For instance, in one letter to the chief of one region, Tipu Sultan reprimanded the behavior of the chief in evicting servants by force. In another instance, Tipu Sultan instructed one of his officers to administer proper medicine to a Hindu solder bitten by a mad dog.

There are instances reported in the accounts of Tipu Sultan dealing harshly with prisoners of wars and mutineers. Again, he dealt with the Coorg Hindus and Nairs in the same fashion as he did with Muslims under the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Mappila Muslims of Kerala. If viewed in the right historical context, such treatment for treason and the waging of war against the State was a norm and practice at that time.

What British playwright and poet, Sir Walter Scott commented with regard to Napoleon’s abdication of the throne: “Napoleon might have shown the same resolve and dogged spirit of resolution which induced Tippoo Saib to die manfully upon the breach of his capital city with his saber clenched in his hand” depicts nothing but the bravery of Tipu Sultan.

Safi H. Jannaty,

Dammam