Indian Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857, also known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857 or the First War of Independence, was an uprising against British rule in India. The rebellion began when Mangal Pandey, a sepoy of the 34th Native Infantry of the Bengal Army, attacked a Sergeant-Major at Barrackpore on March 29, 1857, in Bengal. Though he was executed and his regiment disbanded, a few weeks later, on May 10, the soldiers of Meerut defied British authority, killed English officers, and marched toward Delhi. The Indian Revolt of 1857 had begun.

Nature of the Indian Revolt of 1857

For long, colonial historians called it a 'mutiny,' a term first used by Earl Stanley, later by T.R. Holmes, G.W. Forrest, M. Innes, etc. Sir John Lawrence, for instance, maintained that the mutiny had its origin in the army due to the use of greased cartridges (the cover of which was reported to be made of cow's and pig's fat). T.R. Holmes called it a conflict between civilization and barbarism. Sir James Outram and W. Taylor called it the revolt of a Hindu-Muslim conspiracy, especially a Muslim conspiracy. Meanwhile, Benjamin Disraeli, an important leader of the Conservative Party, termed it a 'national revolt.'

The first Indian to write a book on 1857 was Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan. In his book Asbab-i-Baghawat-i-Hind (Causes of the Revolt of India), he tried to identify the real cause as the lack of political organization to represent the Indians. There was no political party that could have acted as a link between the government and the common people.

V.D. Savarkar, a revolutionary and ideologue of Hindutva, called it India's first national war of independence in his book The War of Indian Independence. Interestingly, R.C. Majumdar wrote that it was neither national nor a war of independence.

The views of both colonial and nationalist historians lack historical evidence. There is no doubt that the revolt began as a military mutiny, but it was not confined to the army. It spread very soon to almost every section of society. However, at the same time, it is premature to call it a national war of independence as the feeling of nationalism itself was in an embryonic stage.

A careful study of historical records, the mutiny papers, the police records, and contemporary literature, especially the literature of Delhi, Lucknow, and Patna, provides an insight into this revolt. No other literature captured the tragedy of 1857 as Urdu did because it was the language of both the elite and commoners, especially in north India, the centre of the revolt. The poetry of Ghalib, Bahadur Shah Zafar, and the letters of Mirza Ghalib, known as Khatut-i-Ghalib, reflected the pain of the people caused by the revolt.

Causes of the Indian Revolt of 1857

Military Causes

The revolt broke out over the issue of greased cartridges when the news spread that the cover of the cartridges was made of cow and pig fat. Most of the soldiers in the Bengal army were Hindus or Muslims, especially of the upper Hindu caste. The soldiers had many other grievances. Some upper-caste Hindu sepoys had earlier revolted on religious issues. In 1852, the 38th Native Infantry refused to go to Burma, as crossing the sea meant losing caste for upper-caste Hindus. Discontent among the soldiers also arose because of a discriminatory pay package. The highest-paid Indian soldier was a subedar, who earned less than a raw English recruit. A sepoy in the infantry received seven rupees a month, whereas a sawar earned 27 rupees. Their chances of promotion were almost nil. Many of them joined the army as risaldars and retired in the same rank. They were regularly humiliated by their officers. Suar and nigger (black) were common abuses. Rumours about converting sepoys to Christianity worsened the situation. Christian missionaries actively preached in the cantonments and openly ridiculed other religions. A large number of soldiers in the Bengal army were upper-caste Hindus. When the news of bone dust being mixed in atta (flour) and cartridges greased with fat spread, they were convinced that the Company was conspiring against their religion and caste.

Political Causes

An important reason for the outbreak of the revolt was the controversial and unjustified policy of the Doctrine of Lapse imposed by Lord Dalhousie on Satara (1848), Jaitpur, Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1853), and Nagpur (1854). The adopted sons of these states were not recognized, and they were annexed. The most controversial annexation was that of Awadh in 1856. The Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, was accused of misgovernance, although he had always been faithful to the British government. A large number of the Company's soldiers were from Awadh, and they sympathized with their Nawab. The annexation of Awadh meant that the relatives of these soldiers had to pay more taxes because a new land revenue policy was introduced there. Many taluqdars or zamindars opposed British rule as their estates were confiscated.

The Company also stopped the annual pension of Nana Sahib, the adopted son of the last Peshwa, Baji Rao II. He proved to be a deadly enemy of the British.

The annexation of native states meant that many Indians lost important administrative posts. Ever since English became the official language (1835), the Persian-Urdu elite, known as ashraf, suffered the most, as they had held important assignments in the judicial and revenue departments. When the revolt broke out, they participated with hopes of regaining their lost positions and glory.

Economic Causes

Apart from the British revenue policy, their policy of discouraging traditional industries was also related to the outbreak of the revolt. Once Indian states were annexed, there was virtually no one to patronize Indian industries, as they were the largest consumers of Indian manufactured goods. The East India Company government only encouraged British goods. The ruin of Indian industries led to large-scale unemployment, and when the revolt broke out, they joined the rebellion.

The efforts of some reformists were also seen as a conspiracy against the Hindu religion and interference in the internal matters of Hindus. The Religious Disabilities Act of 1850 permitted a converted person to inherit property, contrary to Hindu social laws. There is no reason to believe that the Company intended to give equal rights in property to all family members. In fact, the Company wanted to encourage conversion. A Christian, they believed, was more likely to accept British rule and products in India than Hindus or Muslims. The Widow Remarriage Act of 1856 was also opposed by orthodox Hindus. Even Bal Gangadhar Tilak later opposed the Act.

The Muslim orthodox group, led by the Wahabis, wanted to make India, especially Punjab, a Dar-ul-Islam (land of peace) instead of Dar-ul-Harb (land of infidels). After the annexation of Punjab (1849), their struggle was directed against the British. When the revolt broke out, the Wahabis of Bihar, especially from Sadiqpur, Patna, played a pivotal role. They were better organized and armed than the rebellion itself. They declared the revolt as jihad (holy war), which made it more energetic. The clash between the Islamic and Christian worlds was not new.

Description of the Indian Revolt of 1857

After firing on their senior officers, the soldiers of Meerut marched towards Delhi. After crossing the Yamuna River, they burnt the toll house and knocked on the southern gate of Red Fort (Qila-i-Moalla). The last Mughal king, Bahadur Shah Zafar, an old and sick man, was reluctant to open the gate, but his wife Zeenat Mahal, with the help of a cook, opened the gate. The sepoys declared Bahadur Shah as the 'Shahenshah' of India, who was in reality only the Shahenshah of Red Fort—not even of the Yamuna, flowing behind the fort, or Chandni Chowk, situated opposite the fort. Then they attacked Daryaganj, where a large number of Europeans lived. Within days, Delhi became a battleground. Hundreds of people, first the English and later the Indians, were killed. Mirza Mughal, the Mughal Commander-in-Chief, failed to lead properly. Mohammad Bakhtawar Khan, a havaldar of the Bareilly force, became the actual commander. But the city became chaotic, and criminals started dominating. It became difficult to find out who were guilty and who were innocent. Mirza Ghalib, a great Urdu-Persian poet and an eyewitness to the revolt in Delhi, wrote to his friend: 'Ab ki baar itne yaar mare ki ab jo mai marunga to koi rone wala na hoga' (This time I lost so many friends that when I die, no one will be left to cry for me).

Once Delhi was captured, the revolt spread to different parts of the country. Avadh became the real battle zone, as most of the sepoys were from this region. Lucknow, Kanpur, Bareilly, Allahabad, Banaras, Faizabad, Jhansi, Jagdishpur (Arrah), Danapur, and Patna were engulfed in fire. In Lucknow, the revolt started on June 4, led by Begum Hazrat Mahal, who declared her son, Birjis Qadar, as the Nawab of Avadh. The British Resident, Henry Lawrence, was killed. Havelock and Outram also failed. Sir Colin Campbell was pressed into service, and with the help of the Gorkha regiment, he managed to save the Europeans.

Nana Sahib led the movement from Kanpur, supported by Tantya Tope. Sir Hugh Wheeler, the commander of the garrison, surrendered on June 27, 1857. Some Europeans, including children, were killed. Later, in December, Sir Campbell recaptured Kanpur. Tantya Tope escaped and joined Rani Laxmibai.

Rani Laxmibai tried to reverse the decision of Lord Dalhousie when Jhansi was annexed after the death of her husband, and her adopted son was not recognized. When her efforts failed, she finally revolted. The soldiers declared the widow of Raja Gangadhar Rao, Rani Laxmibai, as the ruler of Jhansi. Tantya Tope joined her. When Sir Hugh Rose captured Jhansi in April 1858, Rani and Tantya Tope attacked Gwalior. The Indian soldiers welcomed them, but the Scindia decided to remain loyal to the British. He escaped to Agra. Gwalior fell in June 1858. Rani died fighting bravely on June 17, 1858. Later, Tantya Tope was arrested with the help of Scindia’s men and executed.

At Jagdishpur (Bihar), Kunwar Singh led the revolt, having been deprived of his estates. When the sepoys of Danapur (near Patna) reached Arrah, he led them from the front and defeated the British forces near Arrah. He also fought in Eastern U.P.

In Bareilly, Khan Bahadur Khan, a descendant of the former ruler of Rohilkhand, led the revolt. In Faizabad, Maulvi Ahmadullah led it, while in Patna, it was Maulvi Pir Ali. They were important leaders of the Wahabi movement. The Wahabis had already waged a jihad against the British. Once the revolt broke out, they joined enthusiastically.

Causes of the Failure

Most of the revolt centres fell by mid-1858. An important reason for its failure was that it was not an all-India revolt, though the British army was spread all over India. South India was not affected by this revolt. The Madras army remained completely loyal to the British. In fact, half of the Company's troops did not join the revolt and fought against the Indians. Punjab, Sindh, Rajputana, and East Bengal remained undisturbed. The Gorkhas also helped the British cause.

Most of the Rajas and Nawabs also helped the British. In fact, only those Rajas or rulers participated in the revolt who had lost their state or whose pensions were stopped. Sir Dinkar Rao of Gwalior and Salar Jung of Hyderabad did everything to suppress the rebellion. It is no wonder that the British, for a long time, paid gratitude to the Nizams.

Poor leadership, lack of coordination, and lack of a common plan were important reasons for the failure of the revolt. With few exceptions, most leaders did not do enough. The weakest link was perhaps Bahadur Shah Zafar, who was more concerned about his own safety along with that of his wife, Zeenat Mahal. They had no faith in the sepoys, and neither did the sepoys have great respect for him. He was chosen as a leader because there was no other unifying figure.

The rebels had no vision or forward-looking program. The revolt was led by old feudal lords, not by the enlightened, educated middle class. These people had already been defeated many times. They hardly had anything new to challenge the mighty British rule.

The moneylenders and zamindars were pro-British, as their existence depended on British rule. They helped the British in times of crisis. The merchant class also supported the British, as their economic interests were linked with English traders and foreign trade.

The educated middle class also did not participate in the revolt. Firstly, they were small in number. Secondly, they saw British rule as an instrument of removing social orthodoxy and bringing modernization to India. Perhaps they were also not sure about the outcome of the revolt. The Indian Revolt was not planned but spontaneous.

Impact of the Indian Revolt of 1857

The East India Company's rule came to an end after the revolt. Through Queen's proclamation, and later through the Government of India Act, 1858, the Crown's rule was established. A new post, Secretary of State for India, was created with an India Council, which had 15 members. However, this change was more formal than real, as the British government had already started regulating the Company's rule ever since the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's India Act of 1784 were passed.

The policy towards Indian states also changed. Queen Victoria announced in 1858 that the British government would not annex Indian states. The loyalty of Nizam, Rajput, Maratha, and Sikh chiefs was appreciated, and they were duly rewarded through sanads and certificates. Many of them had personal relations with the monarch.

The army was reorganised, as the revolt had been started by the army. It was reorganized on the policy of division and counterpoise. The number of European soldiers was increased to 65,000 from 40,000, and the number of Indian soldiers was reduced to 1,40,000 from 2,38,000. In the Bengal Army, the ratio between European and Indian soldiers was brought to 1:2, whereas in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies, this ratio was 1:3. To discourage nationalist feelings, caste and regional identities were encouraged in the army. The Gurkha, Sikh, Jat, Rajput, and Pathan battalions were strengthened. Artillery and important weapons were reserved for Europeans only.

The Hindu-Muslim unity during the revolt had threatened British rule. After the revolt, they did everything to divide them. Muslims were blamed for the revolt, and they were discouraged from government jobs. A person like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan tried his level best to prove that Muslims were not anti-British. In fact, the revolt had affected Muslims both materially and culturally. Important literary centres like Delhi, Lucknow, and Patna were almost ruined. Muslims and the Urdu language had to face the catastrophe of the revolt.

However, the revolt of 1857 had one positive impact too. The feeling of nationalism grew more rapidly after its failure, especially among the educated middle class. The formation of various political parties, like the East India Association (1866), Poona Sarvajanik Sabha (1867), Indian League (1875), Indian Association (1876), Madras Mahajan Sabha (1884), Bombay Presidency Association (1885), and finally, the Indian National Congress (1885), was the result of growing national consciousness.

Views on the Indian Revolt of 1857

• British historians like Lawrence, Holmes, Malleson, Kaye, Trevelyan, and Seeley called it 'a mutiny' (rebellion of the army).
• Seeley: "The revolt of 1857 was a wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support."
• Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan was the first Indian who wrote on the 1857 revolt. In his book, Asbab-i-Baghawat-i-Hind (Causes for the Revolt of India) (Urdu), he wrote that the lack of political representation of the people led to the revolt.
• L.E.R. Rees: "A war of fanatic religionists against Christians."
• Captain J.G. Medley: "A war of races, a struggle between the White and the Black."
• T.R. Holmes: "The revolt of 1857 was a conflict between civilization and barbarism."
• Sir James Outram and W. Tayler: "The outbreak was the result of a Hindu-Muslim conspiracy."
• Benjamin Disraeli, a leader of the Conservative Party in England: "A national rising."
• V.D. Savarkar: "A planned war of national independence" (The Indian War of Independence, 1909, London.)
• R.C. Majumdar: "The Revolt took different aspects at different places" (The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857). "It is neither First, nor National or War of Independence."
• S.N. Sen: "The rising of 1857 was a war of independence" (in his book 1857).
• Dr. S.B. Chaudhri: "The outburst of 1857 was the coming together of two series of disturbances, the military and the civil, each provoked by independent grievances" (Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinies, 1857-59).
• Jawaharlal Nehru: "Essentially it was a feudal outburst headed by feudal chiefs and their followers and aided by the widespread anti-foreign sentiment" (The Discovery of India).
• Prof. Stanley Wolpert, an American historian: "It was far more than a mutiny... yet much less than a first war of independence."