Ever since the victory of Plassey in 1757 AD, and putting the French East India Company to its political doom, the British East India Company established its rule in Indian and gradually tightened its grip over the major part of the country. The British introduced significant changes in the different spheres, which proved disastrous to the solidarity of their rule. The rival forces joined their hands, thus leading to the great upheaval in 1857.
I
Divergent views are held on the nature of the 1857 uprising, whether it was a military mutiny or the first national war of independence, or a Hindu -Muslim voice against the impending danger of Christianity - is a matter of controversy among the historians. Sir John Lawrence and James Seeley feel that the uprising of 1857 was a “wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support.” This opinion is accepted by Trevelyan, C. Raikes, P. E. Roberts, and Edwards and Garratt. The contention of these writers is that the uprising was influenced by the sepoys, who had their own grievances and held the British government responsible for the same. The revolt had started from the cantonments and remained effective around the same. Obviously, it was the case of greased cartridges which sparked the fire. Onthe other hand, the civilians, by and large, remained unaffected by all these developments. Indeed, the Indian rulers, who had grievances against the British, rose to the occasion after the sepoy uprising; otherwise they had no courage to take such a step.
Kaye and Malleson name it an organised Hindu - Muslim rising, which Reese prefers to call it a war of religious fanaticism against Christianity. J. Outram is of the opinion that “it was a Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances.” However, Benjamin Disraeli observes that it was a well-planned, well-organised and vigilant event.
There is a nationalist approach to this event, forwarded by V. D. Savarkar, K. M. Panikkar and Ashok Mehta, who observe that it was the First National War of Independence, in which Indian masses from all walks of life participated. The grievances of the people, as a consequence of one hundred yeas of British rule, forced them to stand in unison, putting aside all their differences, as matters caste and religion. The evidence came when even the Hindus acknowledged Bahadur Shah II as their ruler. The Hindus and the Muslims swore by the Ganges and the Holy Quran to get rid of the British rule, which was the common objective of the rebels everywhere. The event was confined not only to the military Mutiny, but spread rapidly and achieved the character of “a popular rebellion and a war of Indian Independence.”
After going through the above analysis, one comes to certain conclusions:
(a) It was a military mutiny.
(b) It was a religious war of the Hindus and the Muslims against Christianity.
(c) It was a national war of independence aimed at the freedom from the alien rule, and in which Indians from all walks of life participated.
However, there are certain limitations in accepting any of these views. In fact, the movement was never religious in character. Christianity was being supported by the British government, which was posing a general threat to the Hinduism and the Islam. But in this struggle those who were defeated were the followers of a religion and not religion itself. Secondly, it was not on the whole, a sepoy mutiny. Though the sepoys provided boon to other elements to operate, they did not take part in it from all over the country. In many places, many of them even supported the British cause. Thirdly, the revolt did not cover the whole of the country, but its scope was limited only to certain parts. The majority of the North and the Deccan remained entirely unaffected or fought on the side of the foreigners against the rebels. The revolt had nothing constructive as its objective rather than the anti-British base. There is a recent approach towards the character of the mutiny, led by Dr. R. C Majumdar. He holds the view that “the so called First National War of Independence of 1857 is neither first nor National, nor a War of Independence.” According to him, those who participated did so not out of any nationalist consideration, but only to further their self - interests. In fact, the population was, by and large, unaware of nationalism during 1857. The struggle was much less for the freedom of India, but for Jhansi or Oudh etc. It is the general contention that the civilians also participated in the revolt along with the sepoys, and that the former were punished to death in great number because of this reason. But it is significant to understand the social stratification of the civilians in this uprising. The major role in the rural areas was played by the peasant, who held the moneylenders as the source of their agony. These moneylenders were supported by the British which caused unrest among the peasants against the government. However, the revolt was strong in the rural areas only where the moneylenders’ position was weak and the hereditary caste and clan groups were strong. There were certain castes and tribes in the Central and Northern India, which had been subdued, found an opportunity when the British rule was shaken. They again returned to their traditional profession of loot and plunder, and there was nothing national in it. As matters the feudal lords, they had an intention of regaining their old status of the medieval times.
From the above survey, it is not proper to name this event either the military uprising, because it remained active in and around the cantonments; or the first war of independence, because people from all walks of life took active part in it without any distinction of caste or religion. People lacked the sense of national consciousness, and those who rebelled did so influenced by a variety of grievances. The revolt, however, sowed the seeds of national awakening, which were to be observed in the coming years.
II
The major reason regarding the outbreak of the revolt is associated with the greased cartridge controversy. The soldiers were provided with the new Enfield Rifles and the cartridges were allegedly greased with the fat of cow and pig. These cartridges were to be opened with the mouth before using in the rifles. It enraged the Hindus and the Muslim soldiers, because it hurt their religious sentiments. When the soldiers objected to its use, they were court-martialled, thus “falling as a spark on dry tinder.” However, the cartridge issue was not the whole important. Obviously, it had only enraged the soldiers and gave the military feed to the discontented general masses and the ruling classes, who hated the British rule for its political, economic, socio-religious and military policies. In fact, “the first century of British rule in India set the stage for the great tragic drama which was to celebrate the centenary of its foundation in the blood and tears.”
The British came to India as traders and took advantage of its political weaknesses, created by its lack of unity and mutual distrust. As a consequence of the French defeats in the Carnatic Wars, and the British victories at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764), the East India Company established its rule in Bengal. Apart from defeating the Marathas and the Mysore, the British made a successful bid to hold their political control over different States in India. The Subsidiary Alliance System, formed by Lord Wellesley, set up the British influence in many States including Oudh, Tanjore, Carnatic, Hyderabad, Mysore, Nagpur, Indore, Gwalior, Baroda, Jaipur, Jodhpur and Bhopal, and annexed many parts into the Company’s Empire. The work of the political conquests was carried on by Lord Hastings, William Bentick and Ellenborough . The crises reached its climax under Lord Dalhousie. The Doctrine of Lapse gave the authority to the Company Empire to annex all the States of the heirless rulers. The adopted sons of such rulers could not succeed unless permitted by the East India Company. Luckily or otherwise, the States of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, Jaitpur, Sambalpur, Udaipur and Bhagalpur fell a prey to this policy which caused restlessness among the ruling classes. The titles and pensions of the Raja of Tanjore, the Nawab of Carnatic and Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II were abolished. Dalhousie’s imperialism crossed all the limits, when in 1856, Oudh was annexed to the Company’s rule on the pretext of mal-administration. Even the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, was informed that his sons would be deprived of the title, fort and palace, which hurt the Muslim sentiments in the country and added fuel to the fire. The Mughal Empire was, in fact, looked upon as the pillar of Islamic State in India and the loss of the Empire was, in other terms, a loss to the position of the Muslims.
The administrative set up was also a cause of discontentment to the Indians. The British ruled the country from England. They had no sentiments, and no sense of gratitude for the Indians. The natives were deprived of the high posts in the administration. Though the Charter Act of 1833 mentioned that caste, creed or colour would not become a barrier to appointments, it was not implemented. No doubt, Lord William Bentick had appointed Indians on lower posts, but the key posts were reserved for the Europeans. The Charter Act of 1853, recommended for the competitive examinations for those aspiring to higher administrative positions, but the Indians found its terms too harsh for themselves to get through. The examinations were conducted in England, and the maximum age limit was 22 years. The highest office any Indian could aspire for, was that of a Deputy Collector in the Executive and a Sadar Amin in the Judiciary. The natives could not approach their English officers easily, and were ill-treated by them. They were considered inferior “even to the backward persons of the most backward of the European countries.” Sir Syed Ahmed Khan exposed in The Causes of the Indian Revolt that the absence of Indian representatives in the Governor-General’s Legislative Council was an important factor leading to the revolt. The Government could not understand the feeling of the subjects. In his opinion, it was in the general interest of the government to have the representative voice in its Council.
Suspicions and hatred towards the British rule increased on the socio-religious grounds. The government allowed the Christian Missionaries in 1813 to spread their religion in India, and they did so with much zeal. Even the government supported their cause. Missionary schools were opened with this very object. During a severe famine in 1837 in Upper India, the relief work was left with the charitable institutions, and it gave an opportunity to the missionaries to undertake their proselytizing task. Those who converted to Christianity were fed properly. The Disabilities Act of 1856 guaranteed the rights over inheritance, even after conversion, but only to Christianity.
The spread of Western education, the introduction of female education and the establishment of railways and telegraph system were looked upon by the Indians an instrument to crush their religion. They government also started interfering into the social structure of the Indians. The abolition of Sati and female infanticide, and the introduction of secular legal system was a danger to the prevailing structure. The abolition of Persian in the courts also offended the Muslims. The new system affected the priestly classes to a large extent and they toyed with the fears of the common masses in instigating them against the government.
Here the blame rests not with the common masses, as they were ignorant of the objectives and utilization of all these innovations, but with the officials themselves. They issued certain statements, which raised the fears in the minds of the natives. Mangles, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, declared in the House of Commons, “Providence had entrusted the extensive Empire of Hindustan to England in order that the banner of Christ should wave triumphant from one end of India to the other. Every one must exert all his strength — in continuing in the country the grand work of making all Indians Christians.” The statement of Major Edwards that “the Christianization of India was to be the ultimate end of our continued possession of it,” made the Indians deadly against the British rule. The British officials, military as well as civil, used abusive language for Lord Rama and the Prophet, and prevailed upon their subordinates to convert to Christianity. The Indians were discriminated even in the courts where they were meted out harsh punishments even for minor crimes, while the Christians received mild punishments for complex crimes.
The economic policies of the British had grave consequences on the Indian public, which stood to revolt. The economic exploitation of India started since the British established their rule here. The British economic policy proved beneficial to England, while it had drastic results over India. The Indian trade was kept in the hands of the British traders and were given many concessions, which had a negative impact on the economy of Indian traders. The Charter Act of 1813 brought to an end the monopoly of the East India Company to trade with India, while the Company rule began to serve the commercial interests of the English traders and the industrialists. To start with, the British opened their trade in spices, cotton, etc. but after the industrial revolution their policy in trade matters also changed. “India became a milch cow, while her own sons were gradually pushed to the starvation wage.” India exported raw materials to England at cheap rates, while became a ready market for the sale of finished goods at high prices. The government aimed at destroying the Indian trade and manufactures; therefore it imposed heavy custom duties on Indian made goods in England, while a nominal duty was imposed on British manufactures in India. The result was that India became an economic colony for the British.
Not only were the trade and industry of India destroyed, but also the British rule led to the deterioration of agriculture. The revenue policy of the British did no favour either to the peasants or the zamindars. Revenue was imposed on the rent-free lands given in the form of religious grants as well. To make the matters worse, Lord William Bentick had confiscated land from a number of landlords who could not prove that these were assigned to their forefathers by the then rulers.
The army’s role in the revolt was very significant, but the soldiers had their own grievances. The inequality in the status of the Indians and European soldiers was disliked by the Indian troops. All the commissioned ranks were reserved for the Europeans, and the highest rank in the army an Indian could aspire for was that of a Subedar with a salary of Rs. 60 per month. However, their European counterparts used to draw the salary 7 to 8 times more than the Indians. The additional bhattas (allowances) of the soldiers was also stopped. The efforts of the British Generals to propagate Christianity among their ranks, was also a cause of misery to the Indian mercenaries. The number of the Indian soldiers in the army was much larger as compared to the Europeans. The heavy losses that the British had to suffer in Afghanistan encouraged the Indian soldiers. Discipline among them was waning and Lord Dalhousie had informed the authorities in England about it. To make the matters worse, the soldiers were abandoned to send the revenue free letter according to the Post Office Act, 1854. They had been enjoying this privilege so far. The General Services Recruitment Act, 1856, required the new recruits to serve any part they were sent. Though the new Act did not affect the old incumbents, it became very unpopular, because service in the Bengal Army was almost hereditary. It was felt against the social and religious beliefs to go across the sea. Earlier too, the Barrackpur Regiment was disbanded in 1824, when the soldiers had refused to go to Burma.
In the meantime, the controversy regarding the greased cartridges caught much fire, ultimately leading to the mutiny. Soon, it spread among the civilians as well, who were waiting for an opportune moment to strike.
III
The banner of revolt was raised at Barrackpur on March 29, 1857. A young Brahmin sepoy Mangal Pandey, refused to use the greased cartridges and killed hisEuropean officers. The government disbanded the 34 N.I. Regiment and punished the guilty rebels.The mutiny spread like wild fire and in May 1857, 85sepoys of 3rd Cavalry Regiment, at Meerut, were court-martialled on their refusal to use the cartridges. On May 10, the rebels killed many European officers and got their fellows released.Even General Hewlett, at the command of 2200 soldiers, could not dare resist the mutineers.
On May 12, the rebels attacked Delhi. Lt. Willoughby surrendered after putting some resistance. Bahadur Shah Zafar was declared the Emperor of India, to which he hesitantly accepted. The loss of Delhi was very tragic to the British position.
Soon the rebellion centered around Lucknow, Kanpur, Barreily, Benaras, Jhansi and many towns in the Central and Northern India. To crush the revolt, Lord Canning felt the expediency of re-establishing the British authority over Delhi. Military assistance was sought from the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras and the Chief Commissioner of Punjab Sir, John Lawrence. The British got valuable services from the Gorkhas, the Sikhs and a number of rulers from the Indian states. Delhi was besieged under Sir Henry Bernard and Wilson, while the rebels fought bravely under Mirza Mughal and Bakht Khan. However, General Nicolson succeeded in recapturing Delhi on September 14, but soon after succumbed to his injuries received during the battle. Bahadur Shah was arrested from the tomb of Humayun by Lt. Hudson, while his two sons and a grandson were publicly shot. The loot and plunder of Delhi by the British troops continued for three days and surpassed even the loot of Nadir Shah.
The revolt broke out in Lucknow on June 4, 1857. The rebels attacked the British Residency and killed its Resident, Sir Henry Lawrence. The efforts of Havelock and Outram to recover Lucknow failed. Later on Sir Colin Campbell at the head of the Gorkha Regiment, entered the city in March 1858, but the guerilla activities continued till September.
In June 1857, the revolt broke out in Kanpur also and the rebellious troops occupied the city. Nana Sahib declared himself the Peshwa and forced Sir Hugh Wheeler to surrender on June 27. Taking revenge of the atrocities committed on the Indians by General Neil at Allahabad and Benaras, the Indian troops murdered many English men and women in Kanpur. On July 17, Gen. Havelock defeated Nana Sahib and forced him to retreat towards Fatehgarh, but after
The decisive battle was fought in the first week of December, when Sir Colin Campbell defeated the rebels on December 6. Nana Sahib fled towards Nepal, while Tantia Tope escaped and joined Laxmibai, the queen of Jhansi. Laxmibai, the widow of King Gangadhar Rao, led the rebels in Jhansi in June 1857. On April 3, 1858, Sir Hugh Rose attacked Jhansi and recaptured it. Laxmibai fled to Kalpi, where assisted by Tantia Tope, inflicted many losses on the enemies. Ultimately, the British defeated the rebels on May 24. Laxmibai and Tantia Tope fled to Gwalior and sought Sicindia’s help. But Sicindia, showing loyalty to the British refused to assist them. However, the troops of Gwalior revolted against Scindia and forced him to flee towards Agra. Sir Hugh Rose attacked Gwalior on June 11, and after a fierce battle of 8 days, captured the town Rani Laxmibai gave a fine expression of her bravery, but died on the battlefield. Tantia Tope, who had fled to the South, was arrested in April 1859.
The death of Laxmibai proved to be a death knell to the revolt. Though there were rebellions in Rohilkhand, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Bihar, parts of Rajputana, and the Maratha territories, these had no impression on the destruction of the alien rule and were very easily crushed. By December 1858, the British were able to re-establish their authority all over India.
IV
The rebels had shown the signs of their extreme bravery, but the British had their day. Varieties of factors are held responsible for the failure of this upheaval from the Indian point of view. The superiority of the British arms, discipline in their troops and their control over telegraph system played a very significant role in the Company’s success over the rebels. At this critical juncture, the British secured valuable support from many Indian States including Patiala, Jind, Nabha, Kapurthala, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Rampur etc. Even Canning observed that the British would have been forced to pack, had Scindia joined the rebels. Even the warrior
The political diplomacy of the British had its own role in this success. They created the communal differences among the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs to a great extent and successfully played on these. On the other hand, they won the support from the rulers of the States. In his analysis, Dr. R. C. Majumdar observes, “A race which could successfully employ the sepoys against the Sikhs, and then the Sikhs against the sepoys, the sepoys against the Pathans and the Gurkhas, and then the Pathans and the Gurkhas against the sepoys, certainly deserves a Empire.”
A serious drawback on the part of the rebels, was the lack of any common solid objective. Apart from their limited resources, indeed, the rebels had an anti-British attitude in common, but they had nothing national in them. Each party had its divergent interests and had only to fulfil the same. While Bahadur Shah, Laxmibai and Nana Sahib were eager to achieve their political interests, they were not serious towards the hardships of the peasantry and the menial classes. Their unity with the sepoys was also only to strengthen their military positions. Moreover, inefficiency of the rebel leaders against the British was also observed. Obviously, they fought bravely, but it was their strategy that mattered.
Last but not the least important factor was the attitude of the civilians towards the sepoys. The plundering activities and the reckless destruction on their part had alienated the general masses from them. Civil population did not help them at any stage, which was ultimately a factor of the failure of the cause of the revolt.
V
The Mutiny was suppressed, but it had the long-drawn consequences over the Indian history, which affected almost each and every sphere of life. P. E. Roberts writes, “The suppression of the Mutiny was deemed a fitting time for the Crown finally to take over the control of the Indian government.” The suppression led, on the one hand, to the end of the Mughal rule in India, and on the other of the East India Company, which had established its political authority with the conquest of Plassey (1757). The Company protested against the decision and held that she established the rule in India at a time when the Crown was losing her significant colonial government in the United States. John S. Mill even filed a petition against the decision but of no use, and the administration passed over to the Crown on November 1, 1858. Sir H. S. Cunningham remarked that it was “a formal than a substantial change.” According to the Act of 1859, the Board of Control and the Court of Directors were abolished, and their place was taken over by the Secretary of State for India. The Council of India was formed consistently of seven members. The Indian administration was to be supervised by the Viceroy of the Crown. “For a few years, Crown and Parliament showed a keen desire to supervise Indian affairs, but this gradually diminished. Towards the end of the sixties hardly a dozen members took any active interest in India.” Soon certain factors strengthened the importance of the Secretary of State and his position in the Cabinet increased his authority over the finances and political activities of the government of India.
A very significant aspect of the aftermath of the revolt was the enactment of Indian Councils Act of 1861. As the British had acquaintance of the Indian reaction towards the government’s policies, the Indians were nominated to the Legislative Council. The annexation policy of the East India Company, especially the Doctrine of Lapse, was a prime factor of many States raising the banner of revolt, even though the Company’s officials deny this fact. The timely assistance provided by other States helped in crushing the revolt and consequently deeply affected the policy of the Government towards the Indian States during the future course. Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State for India, expressed his views before the House of Commons: “I think also that the Government, whether in India or in this country, have profited sufficiently by the recent and costly experience, not to feel inclined to pursue that policy of annexation, which, whether well or ill-founded, has undoubtedly, in a great degree, been the cause of the present disaster.” The valuable support of the Indian States had defended the British cause. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner of Punjab, reported to Lord Canning, “Had they (the Sikh chiefs of cis-Sutlej territories) deserted our cause any time before the fall of Delhi, the communications with the Punjab would have been cut off. . These chiefs not only remained staunch, but acted vigorously on our behalf.” Those who supported the government at this critical juncture were announced many rewards - monetary, territorial as well as titular. To conciliate these Princes, the Queen in her proclamation assured of the safety of their territories and to respect their rights, dignity and honour. They were given the rights of adopting sons and nominating them as their political heirs. Lord Canning realised both at home and in the Council. Metcalfe assesses that “should British power ever in the future be challenged by a foreign foe, or British resources be drained from India to fight a European war, the support of these princes would be worth more to the Empire than any number of British troops.”
The revolt had a serious impact on the Indo-European relations, which caused racial bitterness on both the sides. While the Indians were furious over the British atrocities committed on them, the British could not forget the Indians “behaving like brutes and killing English men, women and children” during the days of the revolt.
The Queen had declared that everybody would be granted equal protection of the law and that recruitment to different services and promotions were to be made on the basis of merit, though it was not implemented. The bureaucrats were not willing to treat the Indians on the same footing. Wells, a judge in the Calcutta High Court, explained in the Legislative Council, “It is insulting to place the Europeans on the same level, and subject them to the same regulations as those tainted with the spirit of rebellion. Between the Indians and the Europeans there could be no equality.” The only policy of the British was to increase the respect for the Europeans and to treat the Indians as a subject race. Efforts were made to keep the Indians away from the higher administrative services.
A very serious effect of the revolt was on the Hindu-Muslim relations as well. Though both the communities had actively participated in it, but the Muslims showed more zeal and vigour. The British officers in Agra, Aligarh and Rohilkhand had also reported that the Muslims were “for the most part against us,” while the Hindus remained “almost universally friendly.” Similar views were held by the Government of Punjab. On the other hand, the Hindu and the Muslim leaders blamed each other for not extending full co-operation. The British took full advantage of those differences and adopted the policy of divide et imperis. They adopted the strategy of political counterpoises, which continued throughout their rule. All the avenues of progress and enhancement were opened in the Hindu dominated areas, while the Muslims lagged behind in the political, economic and cultural spheres.
The British learnt a lesson from the sepoy mutiny and felt it expedient to do away with the practices originally responsible for it. The Indian soldiers out-numbered their European counterparts by more that 5 times, and some cantonments were held only by the Indians. Consequently, the number of the Europeans was increased to such an extent that they should not be less than half the number of the Indians. Artillery was put strictly under the control of the Europeans. In order to check the possibility of the break-out of any such revolt, the units were divided on communal basis, e.g. the Jat regiment, the Sikh regiment, the Gorkha regiment etc. The number of the Brahmans and the Muslims in the army ranks was reduced, while those who had supported the British at this juncture, were recruited in great numbers. Moreover, the sepoys were forbidden to read the Indian newspapers.
Another relatively significant aspect was that the government showed no more interest in the social and religious reforms. It became also very much cautious in extending its support to the Christian missionaries.
The post mutiny period paved the way for the reorganisation of the fiscal system. The government’s finances were greatly shattered in her efforts to crush the revolt. Experts in the fiscal affairs were called from England and economic reforms were introduced, which began a new era in Indian economy. Annual budgets, income tax etc. were introduced. Additional taxes, apart from the land-revenue, on the landholders were also introduced. While free trade policy was adopted for exports on the raw material and tea, the custom duties were reduced on imports. The government undertook the steps to check the expenditures. However, the new commercial policy became highly detrimental to the Indian interest. Now, the basic aspect of the policy was the economic exploitation by the British as a whole. The Indian trade and industries had already been hampered, and the agriculture ruined. The British now created a wedge among the social classes, appeasing those who could be helpful for the continuance of their rule. The government supported the interests of the landlords and the feudal lords, while divided the peasant by granting certain concessions to the larger peasant farmers, and by enacting laws under which peasant lands could be bought and sold.
The Revolt of 1857 proved to be a turning point in the British rule in India. It was a cumulative result of a number of factors, each having its own importance. The revolt had created a sense of national awakening among the Indians, who in the future raised the banner of independence from the British rule. The revolt had failed in 1857, but it gave many lessons to the Indians to learn from its failure.
