The Great Revolt of 1857- 2 | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Causes of the Failure of the Revolt

• Limited Territorial Spread: The Revolt of 1857 was localized, restricted, poorly organized.
• The eastern, southern, western parts of India remained largely unaffected. The Bombay and Madras armies remained loyal.
• India south of the Narmada was very little disturbed. Sind and Rajasthan remained quiet, Nepal's assistance was significant in suppressing the Revolt.
• Dost Mohammad, the ruler of Afghanistan, remained friendly. The Punjab was effectively controlled by John Lawrence.
• The worst-affected areas were Western Bihar, Oudh, Rohilkhand, Delhi, the territory between the Chambal and the Narbada.
• Certain classes and groups did not join and, in fact, worked against the revolt.
• Big zamindars acted as "breakwaters to storm"; even Awadh tahacildars backed off once promises of land restitution were spelled out. Moneylenders and merchants were harmed by the mutineers and found their class interests better protected under British rule.
• Modern educated Indians viewed the revolt as regressive and mistakenly hoped the British would bring modernization.
• Most Indian rulers refused to join and often aided the British (e.g., Scindhia). By some estimates, only one-fourth of the area and one-tenth of the population were affected.
• Poorly Equipped Indian Soldiers vs. Better Equipped British The resources of the British Empire were far superior to those of the rebels.
• Lucky for the British, the Crimean and Chinese wars had ended by 1856, British troops numbering 112,000 were sent to India from around the world. About 310,000 additional Indian soldiers were recruited in India.
• Indian soldiers had very few guns and muskets, primarily fighting with swords and spears. European soldiers, on the other hand, were equipped with the latest weapons of war, like the Enfield rifle.
• Better Communication Among British The electric telegraph kept the commander-in-chief informed about the movements and strategies of the rebels.
• Poor Organization: The leaders of the Revolt showed bravery but lacked experience and effective organization. Surprise attacks and guerrilla tactics were insufficient to regain independence. Government commissions after the rebellion found no coherent plan behind the movement. The trial of Bahadur Shah indicated that the rebellion caught even him off guard.
• Leadership: The main rebel leaders, such as Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh, Laxmibai, were outmatched by the British in terms of military strategy. The East India Company benefited from capable leaders like the Lawrence brothers, Nicholson, Outram, Havelock, Edwards, who managed tough battles in the early stages of the Revolt.
• The mutineers lacked a clear understanding of colonial rule and did not have a forward-looking program, coherent ideology, political perspective, or societal alternative. The rebels represented diverse groups with different grievances and had no common ideal except anti-foreign sentiment. Hindu-Muslim differences were temporarily set aside against the common enemy.
• Feudal and Nationalistic Elements: The revolt was primarily feudal in nature, with some nationalistic elements. Feudal lords from regions like Oudh and Rohilkhand led the rebellion, while other feudal princes aided in its suppression. British historians praised figures like Sir Dinkar Rao and Salar Jang for their loyalty. Canning wisely assured Indian princes of support, rewarding them after the rebellion's suppression.
• Lack of Unity: Modern nationalism was not yet present in India. However, the revolt played a crucial role in fostering a sense of unity among the Indian people, contributing to their consciousness of belonging to one nation.

Hindu-Muslim Unity:

• During the entire revolt, there was complete cooperation between Hindus and Muslims at all levels—people, soldiers, leaders. All rebels acknowledged Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, as the emperor.
• Rebels and sepoys, both Hindu and Muslim, respected each other’s sentiments.
• Immediate banning of cow slaughter was ordered once the revolt was successful in a particular area.
• Both Hindus and Muslims were well represented in leadership.
  • Nana Saheb had Azimullah, a Muslim and an expert in political propaganda, as an aide.
  • Laxmibai had the solid support of Afghan soldiers.

Different views of historians on the Great Revolt of 1857

The Mutiny:

• Western scholars labeled the revolt of 1857 as "The Mutiny of 1857," viewing it as a military outbreak due to British imperial bias.
• Historian Prof. F.G. Hutchins argues that the British termed it a mutiny to emphasize its treasonous nature and to suggest it was limited to Indian troops.
• British historians like Kaye, Malleson, Trevelyan, Lawrence, and Holmes depicted it as a mutiny confined to the army, lacking popular support.
• Contemporary Indians like Munshi Jiwan Lal, Moinuddin, Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya, and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan shared similar views.
• Sir John Seeley and some British historians saw it as a selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and limited popular support, acknowledging some Indian states' involvement due to grievances against Lord Dalhousy's annexation policy.

Dr. K. Datta:

• Described the revolt primarily as a military outbreak, exploited by discontented princes and landlords affected by the new political order.
• Noted the lack of cohesion and unity among the rebels.
• Some historians viewed it as: 
  • A racial struggle between Blacks and Whites.
  • A conflict between Oriental and Occidental civilization.
  • A Hindu-Muslim conspiracy against British rule.
• Indian nationalists saw it as a planned national struggle, calling it "the first war of Indian independence.

A war of fanatic religionists against Christians:

• L.E.R. Rees viewed the revolt as a war of fanatic religionists against Christians.

Criticism:

• During the rebellion, ethical principles of religions had little impact on combatants.
• Both sides used religious scriptures to justify their actions against each other.
• Christianity won, but not in terms of religious conversion; Hindus and Muslims were defeated, but their religions persisted.
• While Christianity and Western science influenced Indian thought, Christian missionaries did not achieve significant success in proselytization.

Hindu-Muslim Conspiracy:

• Sir James Outram and W. Tayler viewed the 1857 outbreak as a result of a Hindu-Muslim conspiracy.
• Outram believed it was a Muslim conspiracy exploiting Hindu grievances.
• This explanation is considered inadequate and unsatisfactory.

Conflict Between Civilization and Barbarism:

• Historians like T. R. Holmes argued that the Revolt of 1857 was a struggle between civilization and barbarism, reflecting narrow racialism.
• Both Europeans and Indians committed excesses during the rebellion.
• Indians were guilty of murdering European women and children in places like Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow.
• The British also engaged in barbaric acts:
• Hodson was involved in indiscriminate shooting in Delhi.
• Neill bragged about hanging hundreds of Indians without trials.
• Even street urchins were hanged in Banaras.
• Both sides were driven by vendetta, such atrocities question the claim of being civilized.

Struggle Between White and Black:

• Some British historians framed the Revolt of 1857 as a racial struggle between the White and the Black.
• However, it was not merely a war of races.
• While all Whites in India were united, not all Blacks were against the British.
• Many Indians served in the British camps as cooks and caretakers.
• Indian palanquin bearers helped transport wounded British soldiers.
• A significant number of Indian soldiers in the Company’s army participated in suppressing the rebellion.
• It was essentially a conflict between Black rebels on one side and White rulers supported by other Blacks on the other.

War of national Independence

Benjamin Disraeli, a conservative leader in England, referred to the 1857 uprising as "a national rising."  He argued that it was not a spontaneous event but the result of careful planning and organization, suggesting that the decline of empires is due to adequate causes and not trivial incidents like greased cartridges.

Early national leaders reinterpreted the 1857 uprising as a people's revolt and its leaders as national heroes. For example,V. D. Savarkar described it in his book The Indian War of Independence(1909) as a "planned war of national independence." He also argued that earlier uprisings were rehearsals for 1857.

Later national leaders emphasized the popular character of the Revolt, highlighting the unity between Hindus and Muslims in the struggle for freedom from British rule.

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru:

• He described the Revolt of 1857 as a feudal uprising led by feudal chiefs and supported by anti-foreign sentiment.
• Nehru emphasized the rural base of the Revolt, noting that even the feudal chiefs were disorganized and lacked a constructive ideal.
• The rulers of the princely states generally stayed aloof or supported the British, fearing for their own holdings.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad:

• Azad questioned whether the uprising was solely a result of nationalist fervor. He argued that while participants were motivated by patriotism, it was insufficient on its own to spark a revolt.
• He believed that patriotism needed to be coupled with religious passion to incite the people into action.
• Azad expressed disappointment in the Indian national character, noting that the leaders of the revolt were divided and jealous of one another, which he felt significantly contributed to their defeat.

Azad noted that the leaders of the revolt were unable to unite and were more focused on their personal rivalries than on the common cause. He believed that these internal conflicts were major factors in the failure of the uprising.

• Majumdar observed that some segments of Indian society did fight against the British, but their motives were often driven by material interests and religious considerations.
• He argued that in few instances, rulers were motivated by a genuine desire to free the country from British rule.
• Majumdar concluded that the Revolt of 1857 is neither First, nor National, nor a War of Independence.

Dr. R.C. Majumdar and Dr. S.N. Sen on the Uprising of 1857:

• Both historians, Dr. R.C. Majumdar and Dr. S.N. Sen, believe that the Uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful planning or masterminds behind it.
• The timing of Nana Sahib's visits to Lucknow and Ambala in early 1857 does not prove that he planned the uprising.
• The idea that Munshi Azim Ullah Khan and Rango Bapuji were the masterminds behind the uprising is not convincing.
• Azim Ullah Khan's trip to London was to advocate for Nana Sahib's pension rights, Rango Bapuji's mission was to secure the rendition of Satara; their London missions do not indicate involvement in a conspiracy.
• The story of messages being circulated through chapatis or lotus flowers lacks evidence.
• During the trial of Bahadur Shah, the evidence collected did not persuade even the British officials. It became clear that the uprising surprised both Bahadur Shah and the British authorities.
• Majumdar and Sen agree that Indian nationalism in the mid-nineteenth century was in its early stages.
• Dr. Sen described India in the early 19th century as a mere geographical entity.
• In 1857, people from different regions like Bengal, Punjab, Hindustan, Maharashtra, Madras did not see themselves as part of the same nation.
• The leaders of the Rebellion were not national figures.
• Bahadur Shah was not a national king; he was forced to lead by the soldiers.
• Nana Sahib raised the revolt after failing to secure his pension from London and even considered making peace with the British for the pension.
• The conflict in Jhansi was about succession rights and annexation, with the Rani's slogan being "mera Jhansi, dungi nahin" (I will not give up my Jhansi).
• The Nawab of Oudh, known for his debauchery, could not be a national leader. The taluqdars of Oudh fought for their feudal privileges and the king, not a national cause.
• Most leaders were jealous of one another, the general populace was indifferent. The movement lacked widespread popular support, except in some areas like Oudh and Shahabad district in Bihar.
• True nationalism, as understood today, had not yet emerged.

R. C. Majumdar's Analysis of the Revolt of 1857:

• In his book "The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857," R. C. Majumdar provides an analysis of the 1857 uprising.
• Majumdar argues that the uprising was not a war of independence, stating it was "neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence" because large parts of the country were unaffected and many people did not participate.
• He notes that the revolt could be considered a war of independence only if it meant any fight against the British, which would also apply to other conflicts like the Pindari and Wahabi uprisings.
• Majumdar explains that the revolt had different aspects in different regions:
  (i) In places like Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, it started as a sepoy mutiny joined by others taking advantage of the chaos.
  (ii) In areas like Uttar Pradesh, parts of Madhya Pradesh, western Bihar, it began as a sepoy mutiny followed by a general revolt involving civilians, especially dispossessed rulers, landlords, tenants.
  (iii) In regions like Rajasthan and Maharashtra, the civil population sympathized with the rebels but did not engage in open rebellion.
• He emphasizes that the sepoys were the most significant fighters against the British, driven by their own grievances similar to past local mutinies.
• Majumdar argues that the sepoys were primarily motivated by material gain rather than political or religious reasons, as seen in their actions at Delhi, Bareilly, Allahabad, where they engaged in plunder and loot.
• He points out that the sepoys inspired fear rather than sympathy among the people, with instances like the sepoys at Delhi refusing to fight without their salaries.
• Majumdar believes that the national significance of the revolt was indirect and came later. He compares it to Julius Caesar’s posthumous power, stating that the 1857 Mutiny became a symbol of resistance against British rule and an inspiration for future nationalism in India, eventually being seen as the first national war of independence.

Dr. S. N. Sen's Views on the 1857 Mutiny:

• Inevitability of the Mutiny: Dr. Sen argues that the Mutiny was bound to happen because no dependent nation can accept foreign rule indefinitely. He believes that a despotic government ultimately relies on force, in India, this force was held by the Sepoy Army. The Sepoys had no common bond of race, language, or religion with their foreign rulers. While the Mutiny was not unavoidable in 1857, it was a fundamental aspect of the empire's structure.
• Religious to Independence Shift: He views the revolt as starting as a religious struggle but transforming into a war for independence.
• Role of Minorities in Revolutions: Dr. Sen contends that revolutions are often driven by a minority, with or without the support of the majority. He cites the American and French Revolutions as examples where a significant portion of the population remained loyal to the crown or supported the old regime.
• Lack of National Character: In India, the majority of people were indifferent or apathetic, preventing the Rebellion of 1857 from having a national character. However, it was more than just a military uprising.
• Political Character of the Mutiny: Dr. Sen concludes that the Mutiny became a revolt with political significance when the Meerut mutineers aligned with the King of Delhi, parts of the landed aristocracy and civil society supported him. The initial religious fight evolved into a war of independence, as the rebels aimed to overthrow the foreign government and restore the old order represented by the King of Delhi.

Dr. S. B. Chaudhuri's Perspective on the 1857 Revolt:

• In his book Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinies, 1857-59, Dr. Chaudhuri focuses on the detailed analysis of the civil rebellions that accompanied the military insurrection of 1857.
• Dr. Chaudhuri distinguishes between mutiny and rebellion in the context of the 1857 revolt. He argues that the outburst of 1857 was a convergence of military and civil disturbances, each triggered by independent grievances.
• While Dr. R. C. Majumdar views the pre-1857 outbreaks as isolated incidents leading to the 1857 conflagration, Dr. Chaudhuri emphasizes the distinct nature of military and civil grievances.
• Dr. Chaudhuri firmly believes that the 1857 revolt was the First War of Independence. He considers it a unique anti-foreign combine involving all classes of people from various provinces, aiming to expel the alien ruling power. He notes the unprecedented scale and unity of this struggle in Indian history.

Rural Base of the Revolt:

• Recent research into Indian agrarian society has shed light on rural participation in the Revolt of 1857.
• S.B. Chaudhuri argues that rural areas united in the revolt primarily due to the loss of land rights to urban moneylenders and traders, exacerbated by the British land revenue system.

Eric Stokes:

• Stokes challenges Chaudhuri's view, suggesting that violence and rebellion were strongest where land transfers were low and moneylender influence was weak.
• He contends that the Revolt of 1857 in rural areas was elitist, driven by traditionally dominant class communities who felt politically and economically deprived under British rule.
• Stokes argues that the majority of the population played a minimal role in the fighting, often following the lead of local caste leaders.
• The rural elite was divided, with different responses even within the same district. For instance, in Meerut district, Jats in Hapur supported the British, while Jats in Bataut and Barnawa opposed them and aided the rebels in Delhi.

Marxist Historians:

• They view the revolt as a struggle of the soldier-peasant alliance against foreign and feudal oppression, which failed due to feudal betrayal.
• However, this perspective is questioned because the leaders of the revolt came from feudal backgrounds.
• There appears to have been no coherent ideology or program behind the revolt, only local grievances or anti-British sentiments.

Conclusion:

• The 1857 revolt is difficult to classify.
• Historians generally agree that the idea of nationality, in the modern sense of nationalism, was still developing in the mid-19th century.
• Professor S. N. Sen notes that in 1857, India was seen as "a geographical expression," with people from different regions like Bengal, Punjab, Hindustan, Maharashtra, the South not yet aware of their shared national identity.
• While the revolt had elements of nationalism and anti-imperialism, the notion of a unified nation was not fully present.
• However, the 1857 revolt can be seen as the first major effort by Indians to resist British rule.
• It established local traditions of resistance that would later contribute to the modern national movement.
• Recent research shows that although it started as a military mutiny, the uprising quickly evolved into a widespread popular rebellion.
• Professor Stanley Wolpert describes the 1857 revolt as "far more than a mutiny... yet much less than a first of independence."
• Regardless of its specific nature, the Revolt of 1857 became a symbol of resistance against British imperial rule in India. During the freedom struggle, leaders and the general public drew inspiration from the heroic events of 1857.
• Undoubtedly, the Revolt of 1857 marked a significant turning point in Modern Indian History.

Consequences of the Great Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857 and Its Aftermath:

• Although the Revolt of 1857 was completely suppressed, it weakened the foundations of British rule in India. The methods of controlling India, which were well-established by 1857, were later confirmed and applied uniformly.
• The British strengthened their control by protecting and encouraging reactionary and vested interests. The policy of divide and rule became a key strategy for British control, along with tight European oversight over crucial civil and military positions.

Transfer of Control:

• The Government of India Act 1858 ended Company rule and transferred direct administrative responsibility to the British Crown.
• At a durbar in Allahabad, Lord Canning announced the Crown's assumption of Indian governance in the Queen's Proclamation of 1858.
• According to Sir H.S. Cunningham, the change was more formal than substantial.
• The same Governor-General, military, civil service remained in place in India.
• The Act of 1858 established a Secretary of State for India in Britain, supported by an Advisory Council of fifteen members, some of whom were former Company directors.
• No new policies were introduced; instead, the proclamation of November 1, 1858, continued the Company’s policies.
• Since 1784, the Crown had significant influence over Indian affairs through the Board of Control. The Act of 1858 made the Crown directly responsible for managing Indian affairs, ending the dualism in control.

No Extension of Territorial Possessions:

• The era of annexations and expansions ended, with the British promising to respect the dignity and rights of native princes. Indian states were to recognize the paramountcy of the British Crown.
• The Queen’s proclamation rejected any desire for territorial expansion and promised to respect the rights and dignity of native princes.
• Indian states were seen as protection against potential upheaval, preserving them became a key British policy.
• The Taluqdars of Oudh, who participated in the rebellion, were reinstated and continued in their estates under promises of loyalty and good behavior.
• These Taluqdars, referred to as the ‘Barons of Oudh’, became pillars of British rule.
• Feudal and reactionary elements were favored by imperialism, becoming important supporters of British rule.

Civil Services Reform:

• The Proclamation of 1858 promised that people of all races and faiths would be fairly considered for government positions based on their qualifications.
• To fulfill this promise,Indian Civil Service Act of 1861 was enacted, introducing annual competitive exams in London for the Covenanted Civil Service.
• However,examination rules effectively restricted higher service positions to the British.

Reorganizing the Indian Army:

• The Indian Army was a key factor in the 1857 crisis and underwent major restructuring based on the policy of 'division and counterpoise.'
• The Army Amalgamation Scheme of 1861 transferred the Company’s European troops to the Crown's service.
• European troops in India were regularly replaced through the 'linked battalion' scheme.
• European troop strength increased from 45,000 to 65,000, while Indian troops were reduced from 238,000 to 140,000.
• All Indian artillery units were disbanded.
• The European to Indian troop ratio varied by presidency:Bengal 1:2,Bombay 1:3,Madras 1:3.
• Provincial corps were established to maintain regional differences and rivalries, as per the Panjab Committee on Army Organisation, 1858.
• Senior positions in the army and artillery were reserved for Europeans.

Development of Representative Institutions:

• It was increasingly realized that one basic cause for the Revolt of 1857 was the lack of contact between the ruler and the ruled.
• The association of Indians in the task of legislation was believed to help the rulers understand Indian sentiments and feelings, reducing the chances of misunderstandings.
• Thus, a humble beginning towards the development of representative institutions in India was made by the Indian Councils Act of 1861.

Racial Bitterness:

• Racial hatred and suspicion between Indians and the English were aggravated.
• Indians were often viewed as subhuman, compared to gorillas and negroes, were thought to need control by superior force.
• The agents of imperialism in India regarded the Indian populace as untrustworthy, subjecting them to insults, humiliation, contemptuous treatment.
• The entire structure of the Indian government was restructured on the premise of a master race. This neo-imperialism was justified by the philosophy of the White Man’s Burden and England’s civilizing mission in India.
• The divide between the rulers and the ruled widened, leading to political controversies, demonstrations, instances of violence.

End of an Era:

• The Revolt of 1857 marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.
• The period of territorial expansion shifted to an era of economic exploitation.
• For the British, the threat from feudal India was over; the new challenge to British Imperialism came from progressive India, influenced by the ideas of John Stuart Mill and 19th-century British liberals.