The Revolt of 1857 was a major anti-colonial movement which shook the foundations of

British rule in India.

Diverent views have !een e"#ressed reardin the nature of the out!reak of 1857. These
views can !e !roadl$ divided into two classes. %ome think that the out!reak was
#rimaril$ and essentiall$ a mutin$ of se#o$s& thouh in certain areas it drifted into a
revolt of the #eo#le. 'thers hold that it was reall$ a re!ellion of the #eo#le rather than
merel$ a mutin$ of the soldiers.
(harles Ball and ).*. +a$e were amon the #ioneers who wrote a!out 1857 from the
,se#o$s mutin$- #ers#ective. Both Ball and +a$e attached tremendous im#ortance to
caste status& which the se#o$s thouht were undermined in the cantonments. The$ also
re#resent the out!reak of 1857 as an orani.ed cam#ain to drive awa$ the British from
India.
British historians who took to hihlihtin the ,cons#irac$ theor$- include /.B. 0alleson
and +a$e. 0alleson& in his !ook the Indian 0utin$ of 1857& e"#lains the entire re!ellion
as an outcome of the #remeditated desins of a handful of leaders. 0alleson also !rouht
out the differences of race as the reason for the re!ellion.
+a$e& 0alleson and other mention Bahadur %hah-s corres#ondence with the %hah of
1ersia detailin his rievances aainst the British in su##ort of the cons#irac$ theor$. But
this cannot lead us to conclude that there was a #re#lanned cons#irac$. R.(. 0ajumdar
states that the utmost that can !e said is that 1ersian alliance was desired !$ Bahadur
%hah who ho#ed that such an alliance would hel# them drive out the British $et in view
of the international situation little im#ortance should !e iven to the so-called cons#irac$.
2urthermore& there is little evidence of #remeditated cons#irac$ !ecause the various
out!reaks durin the revolt were uncoordinated and unorani.ed and the se#o$s once free
of British authorit$ rarel$ knew what to do ne"t.
The wide circulation of cha#attis just !efore the out!reak is rearded !$ man$ as an
im#ortant evidence in favour of an orani.ed cons#irac$. 3owever& it should !e conceded
that at the time of the out!reak no!od$ knew an$thin definite a!out the oriinal source
from which the cha#attis oriinated. %ome #eo#le !elieve that it was intended as a
#reventive measure aainst some calamities. 'thers took it to !e as a #re#aration for an
out!reak. To 4uote R.(. 0ajumdar& 5even if it is to !e taken for ranted that the cha#attis
were deli!eratel$ desined !$ some as a sinal for the out!reak& we ma$ safel$ assert that
it was not understood !$ the #eo#le as such.6
*ith the rise of nationalism& nationalist historians and freedom fihters !ean to look
u#on the u#risin as a #art of the countr$-s strule for freedom. The revolt came to
assume the character of a strule for inde#endence. This view was stronl$ #ut forward
!$ 7.D. %avarkar who in 1898 titled his !ook on the revolt as The 7olcano or the 2irst
*ar of Indian Inde#endence. 3e arues that #eo#le rose u# in arms in 1857 for
safeuardin swadharma :their reliion; and for winnin !ack swaraj :their
inde#endence;.
The nationalist inter#retation of the revolt ained further su##ort from the 0ar"ist school
of historians who rearded it as a t$#ical national li!eration u#risin of the #easantr$.
+arl 0ar" as a corres#ondence of the <ew =ork Dail$ Times wrote a series of articles
durin 1857-58 descri!in it as such. 1.(. )oshi in an article on the Revolt of 1857
claimed that the #easantr$ was the s#earhead of #o#ular revolutionar$ movement.
3owever& to read the events of 1857 as a #easant revolt do not ive a com#lete #ortra$al
of the whole #icture.
In recent $ears leadin Indian historians have turned awa$ from the nationalist historians-
views. %en& in his !ook >ihteen 2ift$-seven& focused on the towns as centres of
re!ellion. 3e narrated the course of the u#risin !$ descri!in the manner in which the
re!els struck at the British #ower in these towns and their encounters with the counter-
insurenc$ forces. 3e also deals with the issue of whether the revolt was a reliious war
or a racial strule and whether moral issues were involved.
%en arues that the mutin$ was inevita!le as no de#endent nation can for ever reconcile
itself to forein domination. 3e writes& 5*hat !ean as a fiht for reliion ended as a war
of inde#endence& for there is not the slihtest dou!t that the re!els wanted to et rid of the
alien overnment and restore the old order of which the +in of Delhi was the rihtful
re#resentative.6 %en arues that in the a!sence of #atriotism reliion served as the most
#otent force in unitin #eo#le from all walks of life. %en also states that in ?wadh the
revolt assumed nationalistic dimensions !ut the term national must !e used in a limited
sense for the conce#t of Indian nationalit$ was $et an em!r$o. 3e writes the #atriots of
?wadh fouht for the kin and the countr$ !ut the$ were not cham#ions of freedom for
the$ had no conce#tion of individual li!ert$. 'n the contrar$ the$ would if the$ could
revive the old order.
%.B. (haudhuri& in his !ook (ivil Re!ellion in the Indian 0utinies& em#hasi.es the
!ifurcation of 1857 into two distinct historical as#ects @ the militar$ mutin$ and the civil
re!ellion. ?ccordin to him& whereas the se#o$s struck the first !low& the$ did not
#roduce the leadershi# necessar$ to canali.e the activities of the re!ellious troo#s. The
se#o$s in such a circumstance came to !e led !$ leaders from the aristocratic and rulin
families which chaned the militar$ character of the revolt and saw the merin of the
militar$ u#risin into a #o#ular re!ellion. (haudhuri states that the fact that overnment
esta!lishments were destro$ed& records !urnt and telera#hic lines cut off& show that it
was !oth a mutin$ and a re!ellion.
(haudhuri arues that the out!reak was an anti-British and anti-colonial movement that
had definite #recedents in earlier u#risins and which antici#ated the later strule for
national freedom. The civil u#risin in 1857 was led !$ feudal lords who !rouht
toether diverse #eo#le of all classes and the outcome was the creation of a national front.
3e feels the insurenc$ was essentiall$ an e"#ression of a national out!urst aainst
British rule caused !$ intense reliious and economic discontent.
R.(. 0ajumdar refutes the views of %avarkar& %en& and %.B. (haudhuri in his !ook titled
%e#o$ 0utin$ and the Revolt of 1857. 3e does not reard the revolt as the first national
war of inde#endence. 3e states that it would !e a travest$ of truth to descri!e the revolt
of the civil #o#ulation as a national war of inde#endence. <ational it certainl$ was not&
for& the u#sure of the #eo#le was limited to a com#arative narrow reion of India&
com#risin at !est the reater #art of Anited 1rovinces and a narrow .one to its east west
and south. The whole of Benal& ?ssam& 'rissa& Rajasthan and reater #art of 1unja!&
Bihar and 0adh$a 1radesh as well as the whole of India south of the <armada valle$
witnessed no act of re!ellion on the #art of the #eo#le. 3e further arues that even within
this narrow .one where the civil #o#ulation revolted there were considera!le sections
who were friendl$ to the >nlish. 3e ives the e"am#les of certain rulin chiefs certain
sections of the landed aristocrac$ who remained lo$al or did not !reak out into o#en
re!ellion.
R.(. 0ajumdar is thus dou!tful a!out the national character of the 1857 re!ellion.
?ccordin to him& even thouh the se#o$s and local #eo#le fouht toether aainst the
>nlish& one misses that real communal amit$ which characteri.es a national effort. 3e
writes that there was communal tension in Delhi& in some #arts of A1 and that some of
the #roclamations issued also show that 0uslims were e"ertin themselves to the utmost
while the 3indus were lukewarm. 0ajumdar also feels that communal discord was
su##lemented !$ racial animosit$. The 0uslims in 3$dera!ad were e"cited !$ anti-
British feelins $et were hostile towards the 0arathas. The Raj#uts& 0arathas and the
%ikhs were aainst the 0uhals and did not favour the restoration of the 0uhals.
0ajumdar also denies that the leaders and re!els were im!ued with nationalistic feelins.
3e feels that the re!els fouht aainst the British !ecause the latter constituted a rulin
authorit$ !ut the$ did not take u# arms with the conscious and definite o!jective to free
India from forein rule.
R.(. 0ajumdar is critical of the motive uidin the civil #o#ulation and the leaders. ?s
reards the civil #o#ulation& he writes that #eo#le in each localit$ revolted onl$ when the
British authorit$ had left it and the administrative machiner$ had !roken down. 3e states
that& 5>ach rou# or individual leader fouht for self-interest and had no alleiance to a
common cause.6 0ajumdar !rins u# the false #erce#tion of #eo#le-s role in the u#risin
and the wron !elief that #revailed in the dominant circles that 1857 re!ellion was an
attem#t to drive out the British #ower.
There is a consensus amon the historians that the revolt was not the first of its kind. It
was also not an isolated out!reak rather it was the culmination of accumulated discontent
amon various classes due to different factors. %econdl$& the re!el leaders fouht for the
#reservation of their rihts and #rivilees. The$ all fouht for the status 4uo $et the
strule in 1857 took on a wider conte"t without chanin its feudal character.
The historians of the revolt have tended to move awa$ from the nomenclature de!ate of
the %en-0ajumdar da$s to a more s#ecific serious 4uestion a!out the ararian roots&
social com#osition and detailed area-wise !reakdown.
%ome historians have looked at the revolt from the view#oint of the #easants. To them the
#easants were the revolutionar$ #otential for the re!ellion. The se#o$s who inited the
flame of revolt came from the societ$ of #easants. >ric %tokes& in his !ooks 1easant and
the Raj and The 1easant ?rmed& has tried to answer 4uestions relatin to the historical
#ro!lems concernin the #rocess !$ which militar$ mutin$ was converted into civil
re!ellion and how the landed class came to #rovide leadershi# to !oth se#o$s mutin$ and
civil re!ellion. %tokes writes that the #easantr$ formed the vital link !etween militar$
mutin$ and rural tur!ulence. 3e em#hasi.ed that the re!ellion of 1857 was& in a
sinificant sense& a #easant revolt.
Ranajit /uha& in his !ook >lementar$ ?s#ects of 1easant Insurenc$ in (olonial India&
discovered elements of conscious hostilit$ in the Revolt of 1857. 3e arues is that the
violence !$ the #easants durin the revolt was directed at #articular tarets. The #easants-
aner was directed towards the !ankers and mone$lenders #articularl$ in A1. /uha feels
this taret s#ecific violence shows how the #easants were a!le to distinuish !etween
enemies and allies. /uha states that there were attacks on overnment #ro#ert$& British
#ersonnel and also on Indian colla!orators of the Raj. In some areas a revolt aainst the
white #eo#le was turned into violence aainst local landlords and vice versa. Therefore&
the #easants- out!reak durin the revolt were directed as much aainst the overnment as
aainst the mone$lenders.
%tokes states that #easant risins aainst the 0ahajans and auction #urchasers were
motivated more !$ #olitical and less !$ economic considerations. %tokes also comes u#
with the arument that the rural revolt in 1857 was essentiall$ elitist in character& that is
the leadershi# was definitel$ in the hands of the landed manate class. 3e calls the revolt
as the last major traditional resistance movement. %ome of the elements which define its
traditionalit$ areB the revolt was com#osed of heteroeneous elements held toether
loosel$ !$ anti-forein sentimentsC leadershi# was in the hands of the landlordsC
leadershi# made use of reliion to enlare its a##eal. %tokes also #oints out that the rural
leadershi# was motivated !$ !oth economic and #olitical reasons. =et not man$ rural
leaders were a!le to look !e$ond their local hori.ons.
0ukherjee& in his !ook ?wadh in Revolt& has hihlihted the role #la$ed !$ the
#easantr$. 3e writes that resistance in ?wadh was not alwa$s elitist in character and ives
e"am#les to show that the #easantr$ did take inde#endent initiative on man$ occasions.
%u!altern studies have a s#ecial #lace in the historiora#h$. /autam Bhadra has tried to
hihliht the role of four ordinar$ leaders namel$ %hah 0al& small landlord of Baraut&
Devi %inh& a hih caste cultivator of 0athura& /onoo& a tri!al of (hota <a#ur&
?hmaddula %hah& a maulvi in Ducknow. 3e writes that even thouh their leadershi# was
short lived !ut their contri!ution was not incidental and formed an interal #art of the
revolt.
*e ma$ conclude after a stud$ of the events of 1857 that the revolt was somethin more
than a se#o$ mutin$ and less than national revolt. The re!el leaders fouht aainst the
British and to a remarka!le e"tent even su!mered their racial and reliious differences
in a joint 3indu-0uslim effort to shake off >nlish rule. 3owever& the re!el leaders were
not in areement with each other a!out the future. <one were concerned a!out India as an
inde#endent unified countr$. The$ ave a call for a return to the #ast which conceived
dee#-a!idin conflicts amon them. %ome of them wanted to revive the 0uhal >m#ire&
others wanted to have a #owerful 0aratha state.