Causes of the Failure: The Revolt of 1857 | History for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Causes of the Failure of the Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857 was the largest and most widespread Indian uprising against the East India Company in the nineteenth century. Despite initial successes at many places, it ultimately failed to overthrow British rule. Multiple interrelated reasons — military, political, social, economic and organisational — explain why the rebellion collapsed. This chapter examines those reasons in detail and outlines the immediate constitutional and administrative consequences of the uprising.

Nature and Immediate Context of the Revolt

• Origin: The immediate spark was the grievance over the new pattern of rifle cartridges (the greased cartridge controversy) and broader army grievances; these triggered sepoy mutinies at Meerut (May 1857) and other cantonments.
• Character: The revolt combined sepoy mutiny, local peasant and landlord agitations and some princely interventions. It was not a single centrally-directed national movement with a uniform political programme.
• Leadership claim: Rebels in Delhi declared Bahadur Shah II as a nominal leader and symbol of legitimacy, but the emperor remained a largely symbolic figurehead without centralised control.

Main Reasons for the Failure

The following factors, often working together, explain the collapse of the rebellion.

1. Localisation and lack of a pan-Indian movement

• The revolt was intensely localised: major centres of revolt included Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur, Jhansi, Bareilly and parts of central India, Bihar and Awadh, but large areas such as Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency and much of southern India remained peaceful and loyal to the Company.
• There was no single national objective or agreed political programme (no shared manifesto declaring a replacement governmental structure); most rebels sought local aims (restoration of old rulers, revenge, agrarian relief), so co-ordination was weak.

2. Premature outbreak and lack of preparation

• The uprising broke out suddenly and unpredictably; many local leaders and sympathisers had neither arms nor a plan for sustained operations.
• Lack of stockpiled weaponry, limited artillery and inadequate supply lines prevented long-term siege warfare or coordinated offensives against major British strongholds.

3. Military superiority and British logistical advantages

• The British retained superior organisation in artillery and disciplined European units; crucially, the Company could bring reinforcements from Britain and from other colonies because of naval supremacy.
• Post and telegraph systems and the growing railway network allowed rapid communications and movement of troops and supplies in favour of the British.
• The Royal Navy controlled sea approaches, preventing external aid or the transfer of large rebel forces by sea.

4. Lack of unity of purpose and organisation among rebels

• Different groups (sepoys, dispossessed princes, taluqdars, peasants, artisans) had divergent aims: restoration of former rulers, re-establishment of traditional rights, economic relief, or simply revenge.
• There was no central command structure to co-ordinate operations across provinces or to manage civil administration in captured territories.
• Personal jealousies and rivalries among rebel commanders and chiefs further undermined cooperation.

5. Weak political leadership

• Bahadur Shah II acted as a unifying symbol but was an elderly, ailing man without effective political or military control; he lacked the capacity to direct a wide-ranging national struggle.
• Some prominent rebel leaders (e.g. Nana Sahib, Tantia Tope, Rani Lakshmibai) showed courage and tactical skill, but there was no agreed supreme leadership or a consistent strategy to replace British rule.

6. Non-participation or active support of many native rulers

• Several princely states and landlords supported or sided with the British either out of fear of losing their privileges or because they were beneficiaries of the Company’s policies.
• The withdrawal of the 'Doctrine of Lapse' had not yet produced confidence or uniform support for the revolt among princes; many calculated that British power, if restored, would protect their positions.

7. Social, communal and caste divisions

• Indian society was divided along caste, religious and regional lines. Rebels could not overcome sectarian mistrust to form a united front across communities.
• Many peasants and lower orders did not join the revolt as they feared social disruption; in some regions rural populations actively opposed or betrayed rebels to the British.

8. No foreign aid or wider international sympathy

• No external power intervened on behalf of the rebels. The international balance and British naval power denied rebels access to foreign arms, training or political support.

9. Effective British counter-measures and reprisals

• British forces, using concentrated artillery and disciplined European regiments, systematically recaptured key towns and garrisoned strategic lines of communication.
• Brutal reprisals and public punishments deterred many from supporting the rebels and undermined morale.
• Officials such as Lord Canning combined firmness with conciliation—prosecutions of rebels were accompanied by policies aimed at stabilising administration and securing loyalty.

10. Failure to replace the British administrative machinery

• Even where local rulers were expelled or British control temporarily broken, rebels often lacked civil bureaucrats, revenue officers and judiciary personnel capable of running the state — resulting in administrative paralysis.
• Rebels were unable to mobilise resources for prolonged conventional warfare, and they could not maintain long sieges or hold large territories against organised counter-attacks.

Specific Military and Organisational Factors

• Artillery shortage: The British retained superiority in heavy artillery. The rebels had limited access to trained artillerymen and large calibre guns.
• European officers: Many European officers remained loyal; where Indian units were unreliable the British deployed European troops.
• Discipline and training: British troops were better trained for prolonged military campaigns and siege warfare.

Role of Key Individuals and Policies

• Bahadur Shah II: The Mughal emperor became a rallying point in Delhi but lacked military or administrative authority to act as a national leader; he was later arrested and sent to Rangoon (Burma).
• Lord Canning: As Governor-General, Canning pursued a policy of “firmness and conciliation” — he supervised punitive actions but also offered amnesty to those who submitted, sought to restore civil order and prepared the constitutional transition that followed.
• Queen Victoria’s Proclamation (November 1858): The Crown assured Indians of non-interference in religious matters and promised protection to princes’ rights, which helped pacify some sections.

Immediate Constitutional and Administrative Consequences

The failure of the Revolt of 1857 led to fundamental constitutional changes and reforms in governance, law and the army. The major outcomes included:

Government of India Act, 1858 — main clauses

• The East India Company’s rule in India ceased; India was to be governed in future directly by the British Crown in the name of Parliament.
• The office of the Governor-General of India became the Viceroy — the Crown's representative.
• All treaties and agreements previously made by the Company with Indian states were to be honoured and accepted by the Crown.
• The Doctrine of Lapse and the policy of annexation by lapse were abandoned; princely states were assured of non-annexation and the right to adopt successors.
• The Indian Civil Service and administration were reorganised under Crown control, and Indians were gradually associated with limited legislative functions (further developed by the Indian Councils Act, 1861).

Changes in the Army

• The European element in the army was strengthened; European regiments and officers became a permanent and central feature of the Indian Army.
• Artillery was largely removed from Indian (native) units and placed under European control.
• An Army Commission (appointed 1859) recommended reorganisations: the Company’s irregular regiments were reviewed; many were disbanded and others restructured.
• Soldiers and regiments became directly the servants of the Crown rather than the Company.
• Territorial expansion was checked; the British sought to secure existing boundaries and guaranteed the integrity of many princely states.
• The Mughal imperial dynasty effectively ended; Bahadur Shah II was deposed and exiled to Burma.

Other administrative, legal and social reforms

• Higher education: Following reforms connected with Wood’s dispatch (1854) and the post-1857 settlement, universities were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras (formalised in 1857), and modern administrative and legal education expanded.
• Bengal Tenancy and Rent measures: The Bengal Rent Act of 1859 provided certain security and occupancy rights for cultivators who had held land for specified periods and limited arbitrary rent rises.
• Indian Penal Code and legal reorganisation: Codification and reform of criminal law continued; the Indian Penal Code (drafted earlier under Macaulay’s influence) became the basis of criminal law in subsequent years.
• Judicial reorganisation: Company's Sadar Courts and the Crown’s Supreme Court arrangements were reformed and High Courts were established at Presidency towns under later Acts.
• Official assurances of freedom of religion and equal treatment were given in attempts to reduce future causes of communal grievance.

Other Popular and Tribal Movements in the 19th Century

Although not direct causes of the failure of 1857, contemporary tribal and regional uprisings illustrate the fragmented nature of anti-British resistance across nineteenth-century India. 

Ranchi and Chhotanagpur (Munda and allied movements)

• 1789, 1794–95: Revolts in the Taman District (Chhotanagpur).
• 1807–08: Chhotanagpur tribal revolt.
• 1820, 1832: Munda revolts against revenue and land policies.
• 1858–59: Incidents of land seizure and resistance.
• 1869–80: Movements pressing claims to tribal land due to district surveys and missionaries’ presence (Catholic and Lutheran).
• 1889: Sardars (Munda) leaders agitations against British policies.
• 1890–91:Birsa Munda movements in Ranchi.
• 1920–21:Tana Bhagat movement in Chhotanagpur.

Santhal movements

• 1855: Revolt of the Santhals in Paragnas districts led by Sidhu and Kanhu; initial grievances were chiefly economic — exploitative moneylenders and traders — but later they confronted the administration and disrupted communications (postal and railway) between Bhagalpur and Rajmahal.
• 1871–72: Agrarian protests and land surveys.
• 1874–75: Famine-related religious-political movement under Bhagirath.
• 1880–81: Religious movement inspired by Dubia Gosain.
• 1884–86: Government review of policy towards moneylenders.
• After suppression many Santhal movements evolved into social-religious sects (Sapha Hor, Samra, Babaji) whose members later participated in wider freedom struggles.

Andhra (Koya, Gond and Rampa movements)

• 1862, 1879: Revolts in the Andhra Agency (Koya Pradesh) against petty landlords (muttdars) and their British supporters.
• 1922:Rampa rebellion under Alluri Sitarama Raju (given in input as Allurli Sreerama Raju) in the Godavari Agency.
• 1941: Gond and Kilam agitations led by Bhimu in Adilabad district (Andhra) against colonial authorities.

Northeast and hill tribes

• 1824–26: First Burmese War impacted Assam; the British intervened against Burmese occupation and later extended control over Assam.
• 1835: Deposition of the Raja of the Jaintia Hills for anti-British activities.
• Other tribal resistances in Khasi, Garo and Kuki areas (e.g. Khasi raids and reprisals, 1830s–1890s) showed the varied pattern of local resistance to colonial administration and infrastructure projects.

Conclusion

The failure of the Revolt of 1857 cannot be attributed to a single cause. It resulted from an interplay of military inferiority in certain arms (artillery), lack of a unified political leadership and programme, limited geographic spread, the continued loyalty or neutrality of many princes and communities, and the swift, organised British response augmented by superior communications and naval power. The defeat, however, produced decisive constitutional changes: direct Crown rule (Government of India Act, 1858), army reorganisation, legal and administrative reforms, and policy changes toward Indian princes and religion — all of which shaped subsequent colonial governance and the political environment in which later nationalist movements emerged.