The East India Company had already conquered large swaths of India in the first half of the 19th century, but it still had two goals which were to maintain its conquests and to profit from the commerce. The Company’s disloyalty and greed had no bounds in achieving these goals. Many of the countries under native rule were occupied by the British Empire before 1857 A.D (Roy, 2003). People and rulers alike were being drained of blood by the British government, preying on both. In addition, the British East India Company was facing uprisings worldwide. Thus, it is appropriate to mention the major events that occurred in the historical period according to the sources.
Background
The East India Company faced various opposition in different sections of the subcontinent from the very beginning. Despite the efforts of many ethnic groupings and peasant and religious organizations, this opposition remained dispersed and poorly coordinated. There were several violent civil unrests and uprisings across the country. Popular dissatisfaction with the British rule sparked many of these protests; others sprang from specific complaints. Religious and political uprisings against the British East India Company erupted as well. This includes the Bengali Sanyasi and Faquir uprisings, Wahabi, Punjabi Kukka movement, and others. Dissatisfaction had been building for years before the rebellion of 1857 (Tinker, 1958). A few of these uprisings were quickly handled, but others lasted for a lengthy period and resulted in terrible losses for the British.
Nature and Character of Revolt
A Military Revolt
The Revolt of 1857 has been dubbed a military uprising by many historians. According to Sir John Lawrence, it was only an army uprising and nothing more (Wagner, 2011). Other British Historians have portrayed it as a mutiny, which did not have the support of most of the people. Many contemporary Indians, including Munshi Jiwan Lal, Moinuddin, Durgadas Bandopadhyaya, and Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, shared this sentiment. There were no leaders or popular support for the Uprising of 1857, according to Seeley, who characterized it as an uprising by troops who were greedy and without patriotism. Likewise, P. E. Roberts shared Sir John Lawrence’s assessment that the uprising was solely a military one, with the event of cartridges serving as its catalyst (Starling, 2010). Although R.C. Mujumdar, a leading Indian Historian, believes that the insurrection of 1857 was not a war of independence, it is still widely accepted that it was a rebellion (Hall, 2010). The uprising was only regarded as a military revolt by all of these academics.
Arguments in Favor
Only parts of northern India had been affected by the uprising. In South India, it has not extended, and in many parts of North India, particularly in Punjab, it has not spread either.The military cantonment area was the starting point of the uprising, and it spread from there, as did its influence (Klein, 2000). In 1857, the peasants and other residents had only a minor role in the uprising. The uprising was confined to the cities and towns and did not expand to the rural areas. Nana Sahib, Bahadur Shah, and Rani of Jhansi all desired to avenge themselves against the British, and they indeed did. But when British soldiers took up arms against the British, they armed themselves. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been able to take up arms. Small numbers of British troops couldn’t have stopped 1857’s rebellion if it had been the National War of Independence.
First War of Independence
The Revolt in 1857 was referred to as the First War of Independence by many Indian historians and scholars. It was referred to as a “National Revolution” by Dr. K.M. Panikar (Joshi, 2007). Pandit Nehru and Jai Chand Vidyalankar recognized the Revolt of 1857 A.D. in India as the First War of Independence. Even Dr. S.N. Sen thinks that the uprising of 1857 was a war of independence. In his view, most revolutionaries are minorities acting on behalf of the general public’s active sympathies (Joshi, 2007). According to this author, it is comparable to the American and French revolutions of 1775-83. It was referred to as a “National Mutiny” by the current head of the Conservative Party of England, Benjamin Dasraily (Joshi, 2007). It was not the consequence of an immediate cause but rather a purposeful and organized strategy.
The Indian uprising of 1857, which swept the country, demonstrates that the British were driven out of India by a mutiny of people, regardless of class or caste. Workers in Kanpur and fishers in Allahabad were among those who participated in the uprisings. The cooperation of the native soldiers and the native authorities in the insurrection was also evident. The common people and the Zamindars worked hard to see the uprising through to its conclusion. As a result, everyone from the average man to the kings participated in the uprising. As a result, the uprising is known as a “National Revolt.”
The uprising got underway quickly and lasted for several months. The rebellion could continue for a considerable time and start quickly if the population popularly endorses it. If it had been a mutiny of soldiers, it could not have started quickly and lasted so long. The National Mutiny resulted from these two elements (Spencer, 2017). It was the beginning when Hindus and Muslims joined forces to fight the British. The declaration of the Delhi mutineers indicated that there were no theological distinctions between the two groups. As a result of this Hindu-Muslim alliance, the insurrection can be referred to as the National War of Independence. Most people who suffered during British rule were ordinary residents, not military personnel.
The British could not have punished the commoners if they had not participated in the uprising. Since it wasn’t a military insurrection, it became known as the National War of Independence in 1857. Although many rulers did not participate in the uprising, they were waiting for the right moment to take action against the British in India. Even during the British government’s takeover of several Indian nations, the Indian people resisted the British and backed their rulers. Because of this, it may be concluded that the Indian people possessed a strong sense of independence and nationalism.
The conclusion is that the Indian nation and the Indian governors were anti-British in their sentiment and desired them to abandon their country. Even though they were small in number, the common people took part in that rebellion. Even though the troops were the ones who instigated the revolution, their goal wasn’t just to get concessions for themselves; they also intended to kick the British out of India altogether (Joshi, 2007). Although the rebellion did not spread to all of India, this does not mean that people of those areas were denied their right to self-determination. They were just waiting for the right moment to join the fight against the British.
Hindus and Muslims had fought side by side in that rebellion. To free India from British rule, they had carried out heroic exploits. As a revolt, it was more than a simple sepoy mutiny. S. N Sen and Dr. R. C Mujumdar have shown that the sepoys of Meerut proclaimed the restoration of Bahadur Shah II while the landowners and civil population proclaimed their loyalty in his favor after they had reached Delhi, where the Mughal emperor met them.
Undoubtedly, the rebels intended to overthrow the foreign administration and return to the ancient order of which the Mughal emperor was the true embodiment. As said by Pandit Nehru, “It was much more than a military mutiny, and it grew swiftly and gained the character of an Indian Independence war ” (Joshi, 2007, p. 48). According to Professor Bipan Chandra, there was a civil rebellion and the Sepoy Rebellion, particularly in the Northwestern Provinces and Aouda, where the Bengal Army had gained their Sepoys.
Causes of the War
Despite the fact that the Revolt began as a military uprising, its beginnings may be traced back to the evolving realities of the historical period in which it took place. An array of grievances against British rule, which were expressed in a variety of ways, served as the impetus for the revolution. In addition to the armed opposition, elements of the political, administrative, socio-cultural and economic, religious, and local communities all played an important role in the rebellion.
Political Causes
Many of the displaced rulers and their descendants were unhappy with the East India Company’s invasion of their lands. Many ruling families’ dependents lost their income, and the population became frustrated with foreign governments. The Dalhousie family was annexed by Lord Dalhousie (Hall, 2010) to add insult to injury. As a result of Ranjit Singh’s actions, Dalip Singh, the eldest of Ranjit Singh’s children, was forced into exile in England. It was auctioned off the properties of the Lahore Darbar. As a result of the British policy of territory annexations, many monarchs and chiefs were forced to flee their homes.
Subsidiary Alliance and the Doctrine of Lapse policies were aggressively implemented, which enraged the upper echelons of society. Lord Wellesley’s subordinate coalition played a significant role in the British advance in India. As a result of this union, the rulers of India were denied the right to maintain a separate armed force. Although they were promised protection, they had to pay the Company’s “secondary forces,” which were intended to guard them. The result was that many Indian monarchs living under British protection ceded sovereignty over their foreign policy to the British. Most subservient states instead maintained British troops to protect themselves against assault by disbanding their forces.
There was a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction in those regions that were thought to have lost their independence. Because of the Subsidiary Alliance, many troops and officers lost their families’ livelihoods, resulting in poverty and deterioration. Moreover, under Lord Wellesley, the East India Company’s policy of “effective control” and “gradual extinction” of the Indian native governments took on a distinct form (Starling, 2010). When put into practice, Lord Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse resulted in unprecedented dissatisfaction in the targeted states.
However, the resulting animosity and rebellion were unavoidable because the British never honored their commitments in writing or verbally. The British had been guarding the Mughal rulers since 1803. Finally, it was acknowledged that he had a legitimate claim to respect and authority. Humble servant was emblazoned on the seal of the Governors-General. The relationship between the Mughal emperor and the governor-general gradually changed. Amherst made it clear to the emperor that his kingship was only a formality; he was addressed as such only as a matter of courtesy. In 1849, Lord Dalhousie made it clear that his successor had to abandon the Red Fort and relocate to the vicinity of the Kutub Minar. Bahadur Shah, the Mughal emperor, nearing the end of his life and hence opposed the establishment of an imperium imperio, had already accepted Fakir Uddin as his heir apparent. Still, he had imposed several harsh requirements on the new ruler.
Fakruddin died in 1856, which is either fortunate or bad. After his death, Viceroy Lord Canning declared that Fakiruddin’s successor would be stripped of all dignity and authority in Delhi, including the right to sit on the royal thrones (Wagner, 2011). This signifies that the Mughal dynasty’s title of supremacy will also be over. Lord Canning’s declaration of War on the Indian Muslims was a devastating blow to their aspirations, and they were frightened.
Both England and India exploited Indian assets for the welfare of the English nation.As a result, the Indians couldn’t help but be enraged by the British, and they joined the Mutiny of 1857 to support the rebels (Panasenkova, 2021). By increasing their payouts, they hoped to make sure the Indian administration of their firm followed the country’s economic trends. As a result, some of the Company’s Indian chiefs had their pensions reduced or suspended. A reduction of 15,000 pounds to 1,200 pounds was made to Rani Jindan’s annual stipend as Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s wife (Spencer, 2017). Nana Sahib and Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi had their pensions halted. Denominational supremacy of the Nawab of Karnatik and Tanjore was also eliminated. As a result, they decided to fight the British.
Administrative Causes
British control ushered in a new era of administration marked by a lack of personality and a lack of human connection. They were not only unreachable but also arrogant and dismissive of the Indians. It was difficult for Indians to adapt to British-instituted administrative systems in countries they had invaded and annexed since the new administration was different from the previous Mughal-era structure. After the East India Company’s annexation program, nobles in India were no longer afforded economic and social benefits. For example, rent-free land was handed to a huge number of religious and educational institutions by the Indian kings.
The East India Company government appointed the Inam Commission, which resulted in widespread confiscation of rent-free land, leading to the financial ruin of numerous individuals and institutions. About 20,000 estates were confiscated by the Bombay Inam Commission, for example (Joshi, 2007). Even the traditional rights of landlords were taken away from them. As a result, they had no possibility of restoring their former power and status under the British government, whereby the Indians were particularly miffed and annoyed by this situation.
There were no jobs for Indians in the new administrative machinery in both the civil and military departments (Roy, 2003). All of the British administration’s most prestigious positions were reserved for English citizens to exclude Indian citizens. If an Indian was a Subhedar, they could expect a monthly salary of up to rupees 60 or rupees 70, and if they were an Amin, they could expect a monthly salary up to rupees 50 (Wagner, 2011). As a result, the Indians’ chances of promotion were severely limited. The Indians believed that the British had a specific plan to reduce them to the status of saw hewers and water drawers. In addition, the British viewed Indians as unsuitable for higher administrative positions because of their cultural differences.
However, because of the British administration’s complex procedures, the poor and vulnerable elements of society could not benefit from the new system. For those who were clever and well-off, the new legal system set up by the British in India proved to be a weapon of tyranny oppression when used by intelligent and well-off people. There is no rule of law in Britain, as evidenced by the brutality of the police and the arrogance of the government (Panasenkova, 2021). The government did not believe it had any responsibility for the well-being of the common person. Rex, a judge of the Agra Sadar Court, had said: “The Indians did not like our judicial system in many respects” (Panasenkova, 2021). Flogging for civil infractions was abolished and replaced with prison sentences. The general public was not in favor of these. As a result, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the British leading to the Great Mutiny.
Economic Causes
The sole goal of the business was to generate as much revenue as possible while exerting as little work as possible. In comparison, William Bentinck himself confessed that by 1833-34: “The agony barely finds a counterpart in the history of commerce” (Wagner, 2011, p.761). The bones of cotton weavers are bleaching India’s plains. India’s aristocracy lost their employment and influence due to the annexation of the Indian states and their economic and social status and advantages. The colonial policies of the British shattered the Indian society’s economic foundations. In the words of Karl Marx, “the British subjected the Indians to both physical and economic forms of class oppression”(Wagner, 2011, p.760) The British policy concerned everyone: farmers, talukdars, craftsmen, traders, and the rest. Through high tariffs on Indian products, the British attempted to strangle Indian business and commerce.
As a result, they pushed for the importation of British goods into India. As a result, cotton and silk exports from India essentially ceased by the middle of the nineteenth century.
A straightforward connection was established between the farmers and the British officials of the government as the British introduced new systems of income from the land in the reacquired states. Consequently, the great Talukdars and Zamindars, who had once gathered land income, lost their monetary and social status. It was a requirement for those with land freeships to provide proof to the government that their ownership rights were legitimate on the land in question (Wagner, 2011). It was a bold move when Lord Dalhousie commissioned the Inam Commission to look into landowners’ title documents in 1852. Ownership rights were revoked for those who failed to provide documentary proof of their ownership.
The land was taken from them and sold at auction to the highest bidder, the highest bidder. As a result, 20,000 estates in western India were seized. As the storm center of the Revolt, 21,000 Taluqdars had their lands taken and were left with no income. Aud was the heart of a revolt against the British because of Jackson’s policy of eliminating Indian soldiers from the army and the British government’s relentless requirement to establish their title to the property. Royal families were brought to abject poverty as a result of the newly implemented land revenue system.
The British administration’s strategy of promoting cotton merchandise imports from England to India decimated all Indian cotton textile industries. Rural India was self-sufficient in every field until the British took control of the country. Until recently, people living in rural areas had to produce their necessities and wants. It was feared that Indian manufacturers would be destroyed if British products began flooding the Indian market.
India began to use the products made in English factories since they were attractive and reasonably priced. India’s handicrafts couldn’t hold a candle to those made in England. Small-scale and handicraft industries in India were wiped out as a result. The authorities of the East India Company did little to prevent the tragedy. Indian Manufacturers were wiped out, and rural economies were decimated (Starling, 2010). According to some people in England, liberal trade and the non-application of protective duties to English engineering products had ruined Indian manufacturers.
Causes of the Failure of the Rebellion
Even though the uprising was large and widespread, it remained largely localized, restricted, and uncoordinated. The Mutiny did not take place in all parts of the country. R.C. Mazumdar says: It was never an all-India character but was localized, confined, and poorly organized. Punjab, United Provinces, Rohilkhand, Oudh Territory between the Narbada and Chambal, and Western sections of Bengal and Bihar in the North-East were affected by the earthquake. Afghanistan was a protected place during the time of Dost Mohammad. Rajputana was loyal to Sindh, and Sindh was quiet.
The native battalions mutinied in Kolhapur in the Southern Marathon area. There were also numerous hazardous eruptions of feelings in Hyderabad, the Nizam’s capital, which was ruled by the sultan of Hyderabad (Hall, 2010). The British were able to put down the insurrection in central and eastern Bengal thanks to the help of Nepal. It was not a national one since it was merely a local uprising. Due to the rising occurring prematurely or before the date set for this purpose, the entire planned program was rendered useless. The date of the national uprising was set for May 31st, 1857. Only three officers from each regiment and the heads of each administrative center were privy to the date.
However, the execution of Mangal Pandey, the disbandment of the 19th and 34th Indian regiments, and the trial of and subsequent hanging of the 34th regiment’s Subedar all made the Indian soldiers impatient for a revolt, and one broke out ahead of schedule, May 10th, when it started in Meerut (Hall, 2010). It was a grave error of judgment that may have ended my life. Dr. Eswari Prasad considers that the catastrophe of Mirut preserved the British Empire from the ravages that Nana Sahib and associates had intended. Scholars like Wilson, White, and Mailson are unanimous in their assessment that the Meerut uprising was lucky for the Company and disastrous to its cause. In many locations, local leaders had no idea what to do because it threw the rebels’ entire strategy for action into disarray. Many people reacted in a spontaneous and unplanned manner as a result.
The Indian rebels lacked organization, or if they did, it was a weak one at the center. While its leaders lacked nothing in the way of bravery and boldness, they lacked the kind of organizational and concerted action experience that would have made their actions stand out. With just tiny depredations and surprise attacks under the Gorilla tactics of War, they could not recapture their lost freedom (Joshi, 2007). British government commissions and boards investigated the Mutiny. However, none of these commissions or committees could uncover any evidence that would have allowed them to identify the source of any organized mutiny plots.
The Critical Evaluation
It is essential to recall the painting “Liberty Leading the People” by Eugène Delacroix, who positioned himself not as a revolutionary but a rebel, enlivened by the air of freedom and accomplished victories. The plot of the picture describes a fragment of a battle, where a troop of armed rebels, through the bodies of their dead comrades and the whistling of balloons, is fighting its way to its goal. Thus, the picture illustrates the events of July 1830, when fierce street fighting was taking place in Paris, leading to the overthrow of Karl X (Burke, 2008). The painter’s brush impeccably underscored the various outfits of the rebels, indicating that the street barricades were being fought side by side by representatives of the most diverse strata of society.
The image is pertinent to the Indian rebellion, which involved princes, disillusioned sepoys, and other population segments. They struggled to regain rule in their own territories and gain freedom from the British. It is significant to mention that the visual source presented describes the symbol of the struggle and the unity of the people. Thus, the painting enables the viewer to appreciate the spirit and dynamics of the fight.
It is important to note that Tosh (2013) stated that researchers would have hypotheses about a historical event on two primary bases. Therefore, he must first investigate a primary source, such as the records in the archives of the Great French Revolution. Then, after formulating a specific historical question, the researcher proceeds to examine relevant sources to gain a holistic view of the historic occasion. Accordingly, historians’ opinions on the nature of the India Company are not ordinarily shared, which emphasizes that they used different study methods. Hence, the sources presented in this paper explore the Indian rebellion from a variety of perspectives in order to establish the most appropriate one.
Bloch (1992) notes that military leaders who plan and conduct the fight then describe its results. This is required to explain its consequences to senior leaders or others. Therefore, the military leader cannot be an observer of a rebellion or war. He receives information from a subordinate or confidant. Consequently, it is impossible to determine how reliable and sufficient it is. Accordingly, the paper presents sources that take these factors into consideration.
Significantly, Bates (2007) explain in detail the periods that existed in Indian history. At the same time, the author describes the lives of the people during British rule and the attempts of all the individuals to rebel. The book is written using accurate information about the crucial characters of those experiences. This enables readers to learn about marginal and often missed moments from history. Accordingly, the authors provide detailed material to establish the cause of the rebellion mentioned above. At the same time, the use of this source enables us to establish the level of research on the topic. Therefore, it can be specified that the presentation of different perspectives and chronology of events allows one to state that a qualitative literature was selected.
References
Bates, C. (2007). Subalterns and Raj. South Asia since, 1600. Routledge.
Bloch, M. (1992). The historian’s craft. Manchester University Press.
Burke, P. (2008). Eyewitnessing: The uses of images as historical evidence. Cornell University Press.
Hall, E. (2010). Chapter 2: British Refractions of India and The 1857 ‘Mutiny’ Through The Prism of Ancient Greece and Rome. Bulletin of The Institute of Classical Studies, 53(33-49).
Joshi, P. (2007). Mutiny Echoes: India, Britons, and Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities. Nineteenth-Century Literature, 62(1), 48-87. Web.
Klein, I. (2000). Materialism, Mutiny, and Modernization in British India. Modern Asian Studies, 34(3), 545-580. Web.
Panasenkova, M. (2021). The coverage of the Indian Mutiny 1857-1859 through “Moscovskie Vedomosti.” Clio, (3), 13-21. Web.
Roy, K. (2003). The Indian Mutiny: 1857 (review). The Journal of Military History, 67(4), 1289-1290. Web.
Spencer, C. (2017). The tears of the Rajas: Mutiny, money, and marriage in India 1805–1905, India conquered: Britain’s Raj and the chaos of empire. International Affairs, 93(1), 203-204. Web.
Starling, P. (2010). The Indian Mutiny 1857 – 1858. Journal of The Royal Army Medical Corps, 156(2), 104-105. Web.
Thornton, A., & Hibbert, C. (1979). The Great Mutiny: India, 1857. Pacific Affairs, 52(2), 350. Web.
Tinker, H. (1958). 1857 and 1957: the Mutiny and Modern India. International Affairs, 34(1), 57-65. Web.
Tosh, J. (2013). The pursuit of history: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history. Routledge.
Wagner, K. (2011). The Marginal Mutiny: The New Historiography of the Indian Uprising of 1857. History Compass, 9(10), 760-766. Web.