THE GREAT REBELLION (Talmiz Khaldun)

The Indian Mutiny has been a popular subject among both British and Indian historians. For British
historians it was just a sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support. But Indian
historians have glorified it as a War of Independence as it was up to then the biggest upsurge against
the British.

Causes which led to the revolt of 1857:

The political causes of the revolt may be traced to the British policy of expansion through the Doctrine
of Lapse and direct annexation. A large number of Indian rulers and chiefs were dislodged, thus arousing
fear in the minds of other ruling families who apprehended a similar fate. Satara, Nagpur and Jhansi
were annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse.

So far as the military causes of Indian National Movement were concernedthe conditions of service in
the Companys Army and cantonments increasingly came into conflict with the religious beliefs and
prejudices of the sepoys. To the religious Hindu of the time, crossing the seas meant loss of caste. The
Indian sepoy was equally unhappy with his emoluments compared to his British counterpart. A more
immediate cause of the sepoys dissatisfaction was the order that they would not be given the Foreign
Service allowance (bhatta) when serving in Sindh or in Punjab. The annexation of Awadh, home of many
of the sepoys, further inflamed their feelings.

The British also suffered defeats in first Afghan war (1838-1842) and in Punjab war (1845-1849). These
defeats shattered the belief that the Britishers were invincible.

As for the economic reasons of Indian National Movement, under the British rule, India was converted
into colonial economy to serve the British capitalists interests. The colonial policies of the East India
Company destroyed the traditional economic fabric of the Indian society. British rule meant misery to
the peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen. After the Industrial Revolution in England, there was an
influx of British manufactured goods into India which ruined industries, particularly the textile industry,
of India. Besides, a large number of Zamindars were dispossessed of their lands and estates due to
British revenue settlement. In Awadh, the storm centre of the revolt, 21,000 taluqdars had their estates
confiscated and suddenly found them without a source of income, unable to work, ashamed to beg,
condemned to penury.

The socio-religious causes responsible for the revolt were many and different. The attempts at socio-
religious reforms such as abolition of sati, support to widow-remarriage and womens education were
repugnant to Indian customs and traditions and looked upon as examples of interference in the social
customs of the country. Colonel Sleeman had written to Dalhousie saying native states might unite in
some desperate act.

EXTENT

But the direct cause was something different. The reports about the mixing of bone dust in Atta (flour)
and the introduction of the Enfield rifle enhanced the sepoys growing disaffection with the Government.
The cartridge of the new rifle had to be bitten off before loading and the grease was reportedly made of
beef and pig fat. The Army administration did nothing to allay these fears, and the sepoys felt their
religion was in grave danger.The greased cartridges did not create a new cause of discontent in the
Army, but supplied the occasion for the simmering discontent to come out in the open.

Many historians believe that there was a widespread and well-organised conspiracy against the British.
Stories have come down talking about the red lotuses and chappatis symbolising freedom, being passed
from village to village and from one regiment to another. Besides secret meetings were also held where
speeches and quite preachings were conducted to mobilise and rally anti-colonial forces.

Finally, the revolt began at Meerut on May 10, 1857 where Indian sepoys murdered their British officers
and broke open the jail. After the outbreak of the mutiny in Meerut, the rebels very quickly reached
Delhi and declared Bahadur Shah Zafar as the Emperor of Hindustan. The revolt that was started by the
dissatisfied sepoys soon became a general rising against the British government. Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi,
Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh of Bihar, Nana Sahib, the Begum of Oudh and Ahmadulla of Faizabad were
some of the important leaders of this revolt. Entire north India from Bihar to the Punjab was in arms
against the British but in Oudh and modern Uttar Pradesh the revolt took a serious turn as the
annexation of Oudh in 1856 was a blow to the prestige of the ruling classes, the local population and the
sepoys. Apart from Delhi, Oudh was the second most important centre of the revolt. Multiple causes
were present here in their true form. About three- fourth of the Companys sepoys were recruited from
Oudh and any change in the agrarian set-up and in the cultural fabric would also be acutely felt by them.
Annexation of Oudh in 1856 on the pretext of maladministration became an important cause for many
of those who participated. The annexation led to the exile of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah and disbanding of
his army. It also dispossessed the taluqdars and affected aristocracy who previously depended on royal
patronage for their livelihoods. So they bore a deep- seated grievance against the British.

But the revolt of 1857 lasted only for a few months. The British mobilized forces from Eastern (Bengal),
Western (Bombay) and Southern India and suppressed the rebellion. In July 1857, British troops
captured Kanpur and Bitnur where Nana Saheb was stationed. In September 1857, Delhi fell to the
British troops where Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar who was crowned Emperor of India by the
rebels was subdued by the British. Begum Hazrat Mahal who administered Lucknow in the name of her
son Birjis Kadr escaped to Nepal. Jhansi was also recaptured by Sir Hugh Rose and Rani Laxmibai and
Tantia Topi could no longer resist against the British. Thus by early months of 1859 the revolt was
completely suppressed by the British.

There were a number of causes which led to the failure of the revolt.

Causes of Failure of Revolt:

Limited territorial spread was one factor; there was no all-India veneer about the revolt. The eastern,
southern and western parts of India remained more or less unaffected. By one estimate, not more than
one-fourth of the total area and not more than one-tenth of the total population was affected.
Certain classes and groups did not join and, in fact, worked against the revolt. Big zamindars supported
the British; even Awadh taluqdars backed off once promises of land restitution were spelt out.
Moneylenders and merchants suffered the wrath of the mutineers badly and anyway saw their class
interests better protected under British patronage. Many Indians supported the British, partly due to
their dislike at the idea of return of Mughal rule and partly because of the lack of a notion
of Indianness. The Sikhs and Pathans of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province supported the
British and helped in the capture of Delhi. At Delhi the nominal and symbolic leadership belonged to the
Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah, but the real command lay with a court consisted of ten members, six
from the army and four from the civilian departments and headed by General Bakht Khan who had led
the revolt of Bareilly troops. Exhausted by court and its system, he also wanted to side with the British.
The large princely states,Punjab, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir, as well as the smaller
ones of Rajputana also refused to join and often gave active help to the British. Lord Canning said they
acted as the breakwaters to the storm which would have otherwise swept us in one great wave.

Modern educated Indians also viewed this revolt as backward looking, and mistakenly hoped the British
would usher in an era of modernisation. The Indian soldiers were poorly equipped materially, fighting
generally with swords and spears and very few guns and muskets. On the other hand, the European
soldiers were equipped with the latest weapons of war like the Enfield rifle. The electric telegraph kept
the commander-in-chief informed about the movements and strategy of the rebels.

Besides, the revolt was poorly organised with no coordination or central leadership. The principal rebel
leadersNana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh, Laxmibaiwere no match to their British opponents
in generalship.They lacked a clear understanding of colonial rule; nor did they have a forward looking
programmer, a coherent ideology, a political perspective or a societal alternative.

Some Effects:

The revolt of 1857 marks a turning point in the history of India. It led to the changes in the system of
administration and the policy of the Government. The direct responsibility for the administration of the
country was now assumed by the British Crown abolishing the Company rule. The Army, which was at
the forefront of the outbreak, was now thoroughly reorganised and British military policy came to be
dominated by the idea of division and counterpoise. Differences started arising between the Hindus
and Muslims as Muslims were regarded as the chief instigators of the revolt.To teach them a lesson
many Nawabs were hanged, muslim property was confiscated and they were made to pay 35% of their
immovable property as punitive fine as against 10% paid by the Hindus. The Muslims were falling into a
state of material indigence and intellectual decay and this uneven development of the two communities
further raised Hindu-Muslim problem. Besides, British territorial expansion in India practically ceased
after the revolt, and the era of imperialist consolidation set in which witnessed a rapid growth in trade
and industry.

MUSLIM REVIVALISTS AND THE REVOLT OF 1857 (by K.M. Ashraf)

In this section we propose to examine the role of the Wahabis during the revolt of 1857.
A number of Muslim revivalist groups, Wahabis in particular, played an important role in the Revolt. Tipu
Sultan of Mysore was well-known for his opposition to the British rule. He not only preached jihad
against the British within his dominions and in the neighbouring state of Hyderabad but also sent his
emissaries to far-off Bengal and Kathiawar. Shah Waliullah of Delhi also condemned the western
influence on Islam and advocated a return to pure Islam and society. According to the traditional Muslim
perspective, the whole land, from Delhi to Calcutta, had passed into the possession of the 'Nasranis' (the
British), and India ceased to be the Dar-Ul-Islam (land of Islam). It was henceforth considered Dar-Ul-
Harb (enemy territory). It was incumbent upon Muslims to wage a jihad or holy war against the British
or migrate to some free Muslim country. Sayyad Ahmad Barelvi inspired by the teachings of Abdul
Wahab of Saudi Arabia and Shah Waliullah, was declared as Imam (desired leader) who would conduct a
jihad or holy war against the British. A countrywide organization was also set up with Sithana in north-
western tribal belt chosen as a base for operations. The Wahabis enjoyed the backing of a network of
organized centers spread all over northern India and moral influence over Muslim intelligentsia in the
entire country. There was broad unity among different sections of the Muslim community --
expropriated aristocrats, ruined handicraftsmen, frustrated Ulema and discontented soldiers -- in the
sentiment against the British rule. Since the land of kafirs was to be converted into the land of islam, a
Zehad was declared against the Sikh kingdom of Punjab. After the defeat of the Sikh ruler and
incorporation of the Punjab into East India Companys dominion in 1849, the British dominion in India
became the sole target of the Wahabis attacks. In the post-Mutiny period, belief about Muslim
responsibility for the Revolt was so strong among the British officials that Sayyid Ahmed Khan also had
to wage active and incessant efforts to rescue Muslims of the stigma of disloyalty.

Faraizi Revolt

Faraizis, a revivalist movement founded in Bengal in 1804, united the peasantry against the exactions of
the new zamindars in the name of resuscitated faith. They were the followers of a Muslim Sect founded
by Haji Shariat-Allah of Faridpur in Eastern Bengal. They advocated radical religious, social- political
changes. Shariat- Allahs son Dadu Miyan organized his followers with an aim to expel the English
intruders from Bengal. The Faraizi disturbance continued from 1838 to 1857. Most of the Faraizis also
joined the wahabi ranks.

THE BENGALI INTELLIGENTSIA AND THE REVOLT

BY BENOY GHOSH

He tries to explain the apathy of the Bengali Intelligentsia towards the sepoys by pointing out that they
thought that to support the rebels and their cause would have amounted at the time to a negation of
all the principles and ideals (i.e. social and religious reforms) for which the intelligentsia had fought for
over half-a-century. They stood by the British rulers because they had won their battles against the
immense resources of reaction mainly with British support. They followed the British for their own class
interest as their economic and intellectual status raised during the British era.

1857 IN OUR HISTORY

 BY P.C. JOSHI

He argues that the revolt constituted a great national patriotic uprising, widely supported by all classes
of the Indian people, but doomed to failure through the inevitable treachery of the feudal leadership.
He grants that the concept of India as a common motherland had not yet emerged but suggests that the
great experience of the 1857 rising helped it to grow. In answer to the argument that the rebellion
cannot be termed a national uprising because it was localized within a specific area, he insists that
although the struggle in Oudh was the most developed but it was not qualitatively different from the
struggle in other places. He points out that never before 1857 had there been an armed insurrection of
this type against the British authority, in which people of various castes, tribes, nationalities and
religions rose together in unprecedented unity. He writes that the mass of Indians took up arms to
defend their way of life and their nationhood. As opposed to the idea that the rising was predominantly
feudal and reactionary, he seems determined to bring into the foreground or to discover popular and
progressive aspects. He also speaks of large scale peasant participation, and cites from the accounts of
British officials numerous instances in which villagers took revenge on moneylenders, burnt records,
destroyed govt. buildings, and ejected landlords as well as giving active aid to the rebel forces. However,
he considers that the leadership in these activities was taken by traditional elements i.e. the former
landlords who had been dispossessed by the British or by moneylenders. He grants that the traditional
landlords who emerged as the leaders of the 1857 rebellion were fighting for the restoration of the old
feudal order but the insurgent peasants and the sepoys followed them only because they thought it was
the best to deal with the main common enemy first. Had the rebellion been successful, the victorious
peasantry would have proceeded to the next stage, the prosecution of their own class conflicts with the
landlords.