The First War of Independence

I've been reading a lot of news articles recently on the celebrations for the 150th year of Indian Independence. You know, the 1857 "uprising" where India took up arms against the colonial British yoke. It beats me how such a normal, decent matter can end in controversy. But that's India, isn't it?

Controversy 1: Apparently a lot of the Sikh parties are being extremely vocal about the terminology "The First War of Independence". They feel, perhaps rightly, that the many Anglo-Sikh Wars in the 1840s should be termed the first. But by that logic, why not the Battles in Bengal? Or those of Tipu Sultan?
These arguments can go on for ever. The point most of these parties fail to get is that the War in 1857 was the FIRST time the country fought as a country, for the independence of India, not for a particular princely state.

Controversy 2: There was some plan to bring back the remains of Bahadur Shah Zafar to India. The RSS opposes this (surprise!) on the grounds of Muslim King, what the ,...! Which is the oddest most irritating thing about it. This man, by all accounts, was not a great king. His rule barely extended to the Red Fort. He was one of the great Sufi poets. And in the best tradition of Indian kings, he viewed his "praja" as one - irrespective of religion. He was also the last Emperor of India, unless you count Queen Victoria and King George.
The point is, it was under this king that almost all of India united, irrespective of religion and caste and royal province to overthrow the imperalists. This man was the first nationalist, and if his remains come back to India, it might well be a place of worship. A monument to the last Emperor. A place where both Hindus and Muslims would go to pay their respects. One monument that may at last bring equality out of division.
Perhaps thats why the RSS opposes it.