Jihad has indeed enjoyed a colorful history. Throughout the 19th century, inspired by the Wahabis, the Muslims waged jihad against the British in India. In his book The Indian Muslims (George Alien and Unwin, London, 1967), M Mujeeb states that in the first years of the 19th century, Shah Abdul Aziz issued fatwas declaring India to be dar-ul-harb. He complained that in the city of Delhi, "Imamal Muslimeen wields no authority, while the decrees of the Christian leaders are obeyed without fear. From Delhi to Calcutta the Christians are in complete control. "Haji Shariatullah of Bengal declared that India had become dar-ul-harb and the jumma and Id prayers should not be performed publicly. Shah Abdul Shahid stated that it's a basic doctrine of Islam to carry jihad against kafirs and to insult them is to honour and praise the Prophet.
Mujeeb goes on to quote Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, to say in 1913 that this was reason enough for jihad to follow inevitably, and no one can be a Muslim or even a believer in one God unless he undertakes jihad (Al Hilal No.3, Vol.II7 January 1, 1913). In line with the Wahabi thinking, Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi worked hard to establish a new Islamic state in the northwest frontier area and assumed for himself the title of Imam and Commander of the Faithful (The Oxford History of Islam; New York; 2000; page 528). In 1821, he appointed two khalifas or representatives, based in Patna. This was confirmed by Sir William Hunter in his well known work, The Indian Musalmans, originally published in 1871 and reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, in 1969. Incidentally, Sir William wrote this book as an apologia to a question mooted by Lord Mayo, the then Viceroy of India. The question was: "Are the Indian Musalmans bound by their Religion to rebel against the Queen?" The answer to the question evidently was yes. As Hunter put it, "the jihad of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid against the British was carried on intermittently for over twenty years."
As early as 1831, most of the region north and east of Calcutta lay at the mercy of jihadis led by Titu Miyan, alias Nisar Ali. The three districts of 24 Parganas, Nadia and Faridpur especially were in the hands of Miyan's followers. As Sir William has described, on November 6, 1831, some 500 of the jihadis raided many a village, murdered the temple priest, slaughtered cows, defiled the temple with their blood and hung the carcasses before the idol, their way of proclaiming the extinction of English rule and the re-establishment of Muhammaden power. It was after a prolonged action that the English militia was able to defeat this detachment of jihadis and kill Titu Miyan. Nevertheless, the followers of Imam, Sayyid Ahmad and Titu Miyan, continued to appeal to every Musalman join the holy war against the English infidels. To recall the inspiration behind this jihad was one Abdul Wahab, who grew up in Damascus during the 18th century. Thus he preached that the true believer must be loyal to jihad. Being a loyal servant of the British Company, Sir William called the Wahabi ring leaders traitors. However, not sentenced to death, they were subjected to lengthy trials. Those convicted were transported for life, presumably to the Andamans. However, Indians couldn't have agreed with Sir William about the Wahabis being traitors, rather, they must have looked upon the British as the aliens. It should also be noted that the Hindus were mostly at the receiving end of the jihadi brutalities and, as a result, were against the movement.The introduction of the secular penal code and the appointment of judges who could dispense justice according to it also made a great difference, whereby the Qazis also became redundant. The senior ulema felt that with the abolition of the Qazis, a dar-ul-Islam in India had become a dar-ul-Harb. As Hunter put it, had the Musalmans been wise, they would have perceived the change, and accepted their fate. But an ancient conquering race could not digest itself of the traditions of its nobler days. How could the Muslim tolerate a system which now gave no advantage to him over the Hindu whom he hated as an idolater and despised him as servile?
This was not all to vindicate the jihad; there was more to add to the deprived interest of the Muslims. With the advent of the British, several other privileges he enjoyed during the rule of his co-religionist dwindled. He ceased to be the obvious candidate for army officership which he had been in the large tracts of India, since company's army was led by the white man. In Hunter's words: "The Musalman monopoly of rural oppression ceased, due to the newly introduced 30 years resumption laws, the landlords, most of whom were Muslim, became insecure. After Lord Cornwallis's Permanent Land Settlement, the majority of the new zamindars happened to be Hindu, which proved to be a deathly blow to Muslim prosperity."
The hurt pride of the Muslims fuelled
by the Quranic ideology of jihad and fanned by his economic displacement,
sustained the holy war. It spilled over into the cataclysm of 1857, which
was triggered off by the soldiers of the company, but which in effect was
the final military tussle between the Indian princes and the English. The
princes, mainly Muslim, including a few Hindu rajas, joined forces hoping
to recover their fiefdoms. As Hunter recorded: "During the mutiny of 1857,
the first act of a Musalman rebel, when he proclaimed the Delhi Rule in
a city, was to call on some Muhammadan local saint for a fatwa declaring
holy war against the English. " To quote RC Majumdar, "the news of the
mutiny of sepoys at Mirat, followed immediately by the capture of Delhi
and the declaration of Bahadur Shah as the Emperor of Hindusthan."