Angela K.C. History 226 Modern India Prof E.I.

Brodkin 03/21/09

The Making of the Sepoy Mutiny: The 1857 War of Independence

Northwest India 1857: A hundred years had passed since the Battle of Plassey and the ascent of the British stronghold in India achieved through the defeat of the Nawab of Bengal. Rumors had begun to spread about a thousand-year-old Muslim prophecy by a sage who foretold the end of the Raj would be during the centennial of its reign1. The Maulavi Ahmad-ullah had started to sow the seeds of patriotism and independence by the symbolic distribution of chapattis throughout the Northwestern provinces after the annexation of Awadh. An act which was completely incomprehensive for the British but for the Indians it was a silent vow of unity against the alien aggressors2. Simultaneously in Bengal, a messenger of the initiators of the Revolution went to the army barracks with a red lotus. The lotus was passed to the chief officer who then passed it around to his garrison of sepoys as a vow to uphold the act of defiance3. Nana Sahib of Maratha had decided that nothing was to be achieved from negotiating with the British but swords had to be drawn to win the cause of freedom4. He began to send missionaries, Hindus and Muslims to other princely states and provinces to awaken the sense of nationalism among them, so that they are keen to fight under the banner of the United States of India. Such is the described preface for the much glorified First War of Independence that saw the ardent efforts of a myriad of leaders, freedom fighters and martyrs.
1 2

Savarkar, V.D., The Indian War of Independence, p.44 Malleson, G.B., Was there Conspiracy?, p.33 3 Savarkar, V.D., The Indian War of Independence, p.45 4 Savarkar, V.D., The Indian War of Independence, p.43 1

The question that remains is whether the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 was a legitimate freedom fight of the native people against the British to overthrow their rule completely or was it rather an uprising to bring about a power shift from the autocratic Britons to the feudal landlords, Nawabs and princes of the old. In fact, communal clashes between the Hindus and the Muslims were so common in many parts of the United Provinces that bringing together under a banner of independence would have been a hard feat to achieve5. Moreover, the Sikhs in Punjab had sided with the British and were fighting against the other Northern provinces. When Bahadur Shah proclaimed himself as the ruler of Delhi, his declaration was not backed by many of the states, mainly the Rajputana and the Maharastra. Contrary to the popular belief, there were no actions on part of these divided and misanthropic states to support the restoration of the Mughal rule in India. Maharastra was fighting for the hierarchical power of Nana Sahib, while the Rajputs wanted their traditional Hindu rulers on their thrones. Had there been a common feeling of patriotism, then the divided states would have come together to aid the war of Sikhs against the British in 1849, whose legendary military valor would have been enough to assure the other states that the cause would not have gone futile6. This elucidates the complete lack of nationalistic sentiments in among the people of different provinces. The racial differences were conspicuous enough that it seems quite unlikely that the whole population had come together to struggle against the British regime. During the late nineteenth century and the start of the twenty first century, most of the academic narration about the uprising attributed it to commonly felt feelings of Swadharma, Swatantra and Swaraj, that are, duties towards the nation and their religions
5 6

Majumdar, R.C., The Absence of Nationalism, p. 87 Majumdar, R.C., The Absence of Nationalism, p. 89 2

and of independence and self-governance, respectively7. The Indian National Congress had just been formed in 1885 by a group of well-educated and progressive thinking people with the sole aim of emancipating the country from the foreign colonists and establishing a democratic nation. Meanwhile, the rest of the country was still submissive to the British while covertly forming ideas of a unified state of India. The loyalty to of the people towards their princes had long gone as their conviction started to shift from monarchy to democracy as the only tool of salvaging what they had lost since 1757. The scholarship of these times glorified the protagonists of 1857 as being national heroes fighting for independence and how the Hindus and Muslims came together at that point for the unified cause. India was now seeing an emergence of a revolutionary philosophy of the whole political and social structure. It is not that people had just realized what was righteously theirs but their feelings and attitudes towards regaining what was lost got more pronounced. The massive failure of 1857 when they tried to go back to the previous princely states made sure that for the next uprising the whole country was to unite to depose unyielding British governance. No longer were the people enthusiastic about fighting for their hierarchical leaders after the failed efforts of 1857 when individual groups were fighting at different fronts for personal reasons. This being the designs of the comparatively new age scholars was certainly not the viewpoint of the larger masses of people about five decades before. Therefore, the faith of people in democracy was certainly not a factor the uprising of 1857 but rather a strategic act on the part of the new writers who transmutated history to suit their cause and beliefs. The Indian people had always felt a strong aversion towards the British. The
7

Savarkar, V.D., The Indian War of Independence, p.41 3

structure of the Indian society had been challenged since the beginning of the British influence in India. The caste system was criticized and scores of their traditions were abolished, much to the dismay of the Brahmins. Many of their religious practices were labeled as superstitions8. Even the education system was vastly changing. The Arabic and Indian literature were declared as having neither literary nor scientific meaning. Their texts on history, astronomy and sciences were declared as false because of their bases in false religions and were replaced by Western systems9. The Governor-generals who succeeded Wellesley had failed to show empathy towards the language and culture of the natives10. They had acquired a demeanor towards the Mughal Emperor that was viewed as treason and had formed policies that were apathetic to his citizens causing discontent and hostility. The British were viewed as usurpers of Indian sovereignty. Countless numbers of the people having privileged positions were sacked from their posts. A great deal of changes had been made in every administrative office. The British civil law had morphed the property and land rights vastly, and so had the taxation policies. The landowners were greatly afflicted by the new revenue and taxation systems and most of them ended up losing their properties11. The traditional landowners had been reduced to impoverish conditions. The agro-products were heavily taxed submerging the talukdars in debts. The traditional relationship between the money lending castes and the debtors had been revised alienating the feeling of mutual prosperity that lead to propriety mutations and change of talukdars. By 1857, the rural wealth was completely drained out of the lands through colossal land revenues. Thus, creating landless peasants and vastly changing the rural land
8 9

Kaye, Sir John; The War as a Brahmanical Protest; p. 29 Macaulay, Thomas Babington; p. 44-45 10 Buckler, F. W., The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny, p. 75 11 Brodkin, E.I., Proprietary Mutations and the Mutiny in Rohilkhand, p.667-668 4

rights. Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution had been instituted in Britain so through their colonies they viciously exploited the native resources to fuel their industries. The cultivation of cash was decidedly emphasized that lead to the lack of food products for the Indians themselves12. Also, Indian exports to Britain like muslin, were heavily taxed, further contributing to the poverty of the Indian textile and agro-based workers. The company drained the riches of the states and withheld revenues for their personal expenses. The disposed talukdars, thus, supported by the civilians rose against the oppressors for their princes to be given back their thrones and their influences over the principalities. This is relevant in case of Avadh where people were revolting for their hereditary chiefs and were not motivated by the desire of a unified democracy13. When Lord Dalhousie amended the succession laws and introduced the Doctrine of Lapse and Canning succeeded him as Governor General, the grievances had culminated enough for suppressed to take action against such varied forms of injustice14. The two fabled heroes of this war, Nana Sahib and the Queen of Jhansi were both the victims of no heir rule under the Doctrine of Lapse that required them to cede their territories to the British government15. Their discontentment towards this law prompted them to hold a rebellion against the colonists for their individual causes. However, there is no indication whatsoever that the two had made a pact to simultaneously operate against the British. The legal discontent was equally matched by the religious disparities. For the Mughal Emperor, his political authority was justified by being comprised within the
12

Bhatia, Nandi; Staging the 1857 Mutiny as "The Great Rebellion": Colonial History and Post-Colonial Interventions in Utpal Dutt's "Mahavidroh", p.172 13 Chaudhuri, S.B., The Union of the Civil and Military Rebellions, p. 65 14 Buckler, F. W., The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny, p. 74 15 Malleson, G.B., Was there Conspiracy?, p.33 5

spheres of the Islamic religious authority. Hence, he was fighting to save his religion as much as he was fighting to save his crown16. The Muslims throughout the North were fighting separately from the Hindus to restore the Mughal stronghold, whereas, the Hindus were revolting to restore their Vedic traditions. However, both were motivated by the desire to receive eternal beatitude from their gods17. A sense of distinction between the English and the Indian cultures and antagonism towards the British had led to a sense of righteousness to let the rebellion be set in motion18. The uprising, in fact, was a political insurgency felt by the withering dominions of once autonomous states, which felt the common impulse to act concurrently after the initial strike by the Sepoys. Hence, the first stage of the revolt was initiated on 24th April, 1857, when 85 soldiers in Meerut believing that the top of the cartridges were greased with lard and tallow, refused to chew off the top. The soldier were later tried, convicted and imprisoned, paving way for the greater Sepoy Rebellion on the 10th of May. The British were blamed to be apathetic towards the religious sentiments of the Indians and had plans to defile them from them religion and deprive of their castes19. When people realized this plan of the British, outbreaks started mainly in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, where the states had either recently or vastly experienced British injustice, while states like Bengal, Orissa and South India were content being the spectators. Like the case of Avadh, which was annexed in 1856, has been widely regarded the immediate cause of the uprising and a massive blunder on Dalhousies account20.
16 17

Buckler, F. W., The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny, p. 74 Majumdar, R.C., The Absence of Nationalism, p. 87 18 Chaudhuri, S.B., The Union of the Civil and Military Rebellions, p. 65 19 Bhatia, Nandi; Staging the 1857 Mutiny as "The Great Rebellion": Colonial History and Post-Colonial Interventions in Utpal Dutt's "Mahavidroh", p.171-172 20 Majumdar, R.C., The Absence of Nationalism, p. 85 6

Thus, an orchestra of individually conducted revolts triggered by the uprising among the sepoy was later joined by aristocrats and civilians suffering from financial and proprietary disarray. The personal grievances had given rise to a spontaneous rather than organized and attuned act of revolt. The animated and enthusiastic crowds were showing aggression for personal benefits rather than fighting for a national cause. Hence, the disparities between discourse and events have clearly made the mutiny as popularly acclaimed First War of Independence.

Bibliography:
Savarkar, V.D., The Indian War of Independence, An Indian Nationalist, London, 1909 Malleson, G.B., Was there Conspiracy?, The Indian Mutiny of 1857, New York, 1891 Majumdar, R.C., The Absence of Nationalism, The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857, Calcutta, 1957. Kaye, Sir John; The War as a Brahmanical Protest; A History of the Sepoy War in

India 1857-1858. London 1864 Macaulay, Thomas Babington; Minute on Education Buckler, F. W., The Political Theory of the Indian Mutiny, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, Vol. 5, 1922 Brodkin, E.I., Proprietary Mutations and the Mutiny in Rohilkhand, The journal of Asian Studies, Volume XXVIII, Number 4, August 1969 Bhatia, Nandi; Staging the 1857 Mutiny as "The Great Rebellion": Colonial History and Post-Colonial Interventions in Utpal Dutt's "Mahavidroh", Theatre Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2 (May, 1999) Chaudhuri, S.B., The Union of the Civil and Military Rebellions, Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinites, Calcutta, 1957