1857 revolt

In 1856, Lord Canning succeeded Lord Dalhousie as the Governor General of India. The reign of Dalhousie had been quite momentous for the Britishers as he had pursued a policy of territorial aggrandisement and extended the dominions of the empire. The reign of his successor witnessed a big conflagration-the Great Revolt of 1857. It was the cumulative result of the misrule and oppression of the East India Company over a span of hundred years. The Great Revolt was so meticulously planned that the Company rule would have totally collapsed but for the fact that the revolutionaries did not have the backing of all sections of the people.  The upsurge was so widespread that some of the contemporary observers called it a “national revolt”.

Causes

The main reason for the revolt was the ruthless exploitation of the Indian people by the British. When the Battle of Plassey was won in 1757, the British successfully imposed their trade monopoly over the area under their control, eliminated competition from the India traders and forced the artisans to sell their products to them. The artisans were now paid so low that they could hardly survive. The legend has it that the weavers of Dhaka cut their thumbs to protest against such low payments by the East India Company for their superb work on muslin renowned for its fine texture.

Exploitation of the peasantry

Although the trade monopoly enriched the East India Company considerably, its main source of income was now derived from the land. After entrenching itself in Bengal, it spread its power in India through wars and treaties. To extract as much money as possible it devised new systems of land settlements-Permanent, Ryotwari and Mahalwari-each more oppressive than the other.

• The Permanent Settlement which was effective in Bengal Presidency and in large parts of north India did not recognize the hereditary rights of the peasants on land, which they had earlier enjoyed. The loyal zamindars and revenue-collectors were now given the proprietary rights on land. The cultivators were reduced to the status of simple tenants. But even the newly created landlords were not given absolute rights. Their situation was also deliberately left very precarious. They had to pay to the Company 10/11th of the entire rent derived from the cultivators and if they failed to do so, their property was sold to others.
• The other land settlements were no better. In all of these the peasants had to pay beyond their means and any adverse natural shifts like droughts or flood compelled them to go for loans to the money lenders who charged exorbitant interest. This made the peasants so heavily indebted that they were ultimately forced to sell their land to these money lenders. It is because of this that the money lenders were so hated in rural society.

Alienation of the middle and upper strata of Indians

• During the period of the Mughals or even in the administration of the local princes and chieftains, the Indians served at all the places - both lower and higher. The disappearance of these Indian states and their replacement by the British administration deprived the Indians of higher posts which were now taken mainly by the British.
• The Indians now served only as subordinates and on other petty positions in the administration. Even the most brilliant of Indians were subordinated to the second or third rate Britishers who as a matter of right, grabbed all the higher paid positions. Further more, the cultural personnel like poets, dramatists, writers, musicians etc, who were earlier employed by the native states were now thrown out. The religious men like Pandits and Maulvis also lost all their former power and prestige.

Annexation of princely states

The East India Company did not spare even its former allies.

• The native state of Awadh was annexed by Dalhousie in 1856 on the pretext that Nawab Wazid Ali Shah was mismanaging the state.
• Even before this he had annexed Satara in 1848 and Nagpur and Jhansi in 1854 on the pretext that the rulers of these states had no natural heir to succeed them after their death.
• These annexations embittered the rulers of these states, making Rani of Jhansi and Begum of Awadh staunch enemies of the British.
• Further the British refusal to pay pension to Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II worsened the situation.
• The annexation of Awadh was also resented by the sepoys as most of them came from there. This action hurt their patriotic loyalty and sense of dignity. Moreover, since their relatives had now to pay more taxes on land, it adversely affected the purses of the sepoys themselves.

Impact on the sepoys

The revolt of 1857 originated with the mutiny of the Sepoys. As we have seen, the rapacious policies followed by the East India Company were impoverishing and ruining the peasantry. This must have affected the Sepoys also. Infact, most of them had joined the military service in order to supplement their fast declining agricultural income.

• But as the years passed by, they realised that their capacity for doing so declined.
• They were paid a monthly salary of 7 to 9 Rupees out of which they had to pay for their food, uniform and transport of their private baggage.
• The Post Office Act( 1854) took away the privilege of free postage hitherto enjoyed by the sepoys. The cost of maintaining an Indian Sepoy was only one-third of his British counterpart in India. Moreover, the Indian Sepoy was treated roughly by the British officers. They were frequently abused and humiliated.

Threat to religion

The proselytizing zeal of the missionaries and some of the British officials instilled fear in the minds of the people that their religion was in danger. At several places conversions to Christianity were reported to be made.

• Even the army maintained chaplains at state cost and Christian propaganda was carried among the sepoys. Furthermore, the sepoys were forbidden to wear their castemarks, and in 1856 an Act was passed under which every new recruit had to give an undertaking to serve overseas, if required.
• The conservative beliefs of the sepoys were thus shaken and they sometimes reacted strongly. For example in 1824, the 47th Regiment of sepoys at Barrackpore refused to go to Burma by sea-route because their religion forbade them cross “black water”. The British reacted ruthlessly, disbanded the Regiment, and put some of its leaders to death.
• In 1844, seven battalions revolted on the question of salaries and bhatta (allowance). Even during the Afghan War from 1839 to 1842 the soldiers were almost on the verge of revolt. Like sepoys, the people of India had also risen in revolt against the oppressive British rule. The most important of these uprisings were the Kutchh rebellion (1816-32), the Kol uprising in 1831 and the Santhal uprising in 1855-56. The main point with regard to the 1857 challenge, however, was that both the military and civilian revolts merged and this made it really formidable.

The army and the revolts

• On 29th March 1857 in Barrackpore near Calcutta, there took place a disturbance when a sepoy, Mangal Pandey killed one of the European officers.
• This disturbance was easily suppressed but in the next few weeks, disturbances in the army gathered momentum.
• The mutiny of the Meerut sepoys who killed their European officers on 10 May 1857 and crossed over to Delhi on the 11th to appeal to Bahadur Shah II, the pensioner Mughal emperor, to become their leader, led to the revolt of 1857.
• Almost half of the 2,32,224 sepoys of the East India Company rebelled. The bulk of the sepoys were upper caste Hindus from the North Western Provinces and Awadh. Nearly one-third came from Awadh, thus forming a homogeneous group within the army.

Over the years the upper caste sepoys had found their religious beliefs in conflict with their service conditions.

• In 1806 the replacement of the turban by a leather cockade caused a mutiny at Vellore.
• In 1824 the sepoys at Barrackpore refused to go to Burma because crossing the sea would mean loss of caste,
• In 1844 there was a mutinous outbreak of the Bengal army sepoys for being sent to far away Sind. Crossing the Indus was perceived as causing loss of caste.
• Closer to the revolt of 1857 there had been reports of bone dust in the atta (flour) ration. The cartridges of the Enfield rifles (introduced around January 1857) which had to be bitten off before loading were reportedly greased with pork and beef fat. This seemed to confirm fears about their religion being in danger.

In addition there was professional discontent:

• An infantry sepoy got only seven rupees per month, and a cavalry sawar 27 rupees, out of which he had to pay for his uniform, food and the upkeep of the mount
• There was racial discrimination in matters of promotion, pension and terms of service,
• Annexations had deprived the sepoys of bhatta (extra pay) for Foreign Service.
• There were fears of being edged out by new recruits from Punjab.

The immediate cause

The atmosphere was so surcharged that even a small issue could lead to revolt.

• The episode of greased cartridges, however, was a big enough issue to start the rebellion on it own.
• Cartridges of the new Enfield rifle which had recently been introduced in the army had a greased paper cover whose end had to be bitten off before the cartridge was loaded into rifle. The grease was in some instances made of beef and pig fat. This completely enraged the Hindu and Muslim sepoys and made them believe that the government was deliberately trying to destroy their religion. It was the immediate cause of the revolt.

Causes of failure

Lack of a unified programme and ideology

• The rebellion swept off the British system of government and administration in India. But the rebels did not know what to create in its place! They had no forward-looking plan in mind. This made them rely on the outmoded feudal system with Bahadur Shah at its head. The other prominent leaders of rebellion like, Nana Saheb, Begum of Awadh, Rani of Jhansi, etc., were also representatives of the old feudal world.

Lack of unity among Indians

• While sepoys of the Bengal army were revolting, some soldiers in Panjab and south India fought on the side of the British to crush these rebellions.
• Similarly, there were no accompanying rebellions in most of eastern and southern India.
• The Rajput chieftains in Rajasthan and Nizam in Hyderabad were so much harassed by the Marathas that they dreaded the revival of Maratha power. Besides this, there were some elements of the peasantry that had profited from the British rule. They supported the British during the revolt.
• The zamindars of Bengal Presidency were the creation of the British; and had all the reasons to support them. The same applied to be big merchants of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras who did not go over to the rebels but supported the British.

Lack of support from the educated indians

The modern educated Indians also did not support the revolt because, in their view, the revolt was backward-looking. This educated middle class was the product of the British system of education and they believed mistakenly that the British would lead the country towards modernization.

Military superiority of the British

Another major factor for the defeat of the rebels was the British superiority in arms. The British imperialism, at the height of its power the world over and supported by most of the Indian princes and chiefs, proved militarily too strong for the rebels. While the rebels were lacking in discipline and a central command, the British continued to have a constant supply of disciplined soldiers, war materials and money from British. Sheer courage could not win against a powerful and determined enemy who planned its strategy skillfully. Because of poor discipline the rebels lost more men and material than the British in every encounter. Many sepoys, after seeing that the British had an upper hand, left for their villages.

These were the main factors responsible for the failure of the revolt.

The British resistance

• Delhi-Lieutenant Willoughby, John Nicholson, Lieutenant Hudson.
• Kanpur-Sir Hugh Wheeler, Sir Colin Campbell
• Lucknow-Henry Lawrence, Brigadier Ingles, Henry Havelock, JamesOutram, Sir Colin Campbell
• Jhansi-Sir Hugh Rose
• Benaras -Colonel James Neil

• Bhadur Shah II – Deported to Rangoon, where he died in 1862.  His sons were shot dead.
• Nana Sahib & Begun Hazrat Mahal – Escaped to Nepal
• Rani Jhansi – Died in the battle field.
• Tantia Tope- Was captured & executed on 15th April 1859.

Impact

Despite the fact that the revolt of 1857 failed, it gave a severe jolt to the British administration in India. The structure and policies of the re-established British rule were, in many respects, drastically changed.

• The first major change was that the power to govern India passed from the East India Company to the British Crown through an Act of 1858. Now a Secretary of State for India aided by a Council was to be responsible for the governance of India. Earlier this authority was wielded by the Directors of the Company.
• The second drastic change was affected in the army. Steps were taken to prevent any further revolt by the Indian soldiers. Firstly, the number of European soldiers was increased and fixed at one European to two Indian soldiers in Bengal Army and two to five in Bombay and Madras armies. Moreover, the European troops were kept in key geographical and military positions. The crucial branches of the army like artillery were put exclusively in European hands. Secondly, the organisation of the Indian section of the army was now based on the policy of “divide and rule”. Regiments were created on the basis of caste, community and region to prevent the development of any nationalistic feeling among the soldiers.
• This policy of “divide and rule” was also introduced in the civilian population. Since the British through that the revolt was a conspiracy hatched by the Muslims the latter were severely punished and discriminations made against them in public appointments and in other areas. This policy was later reversed and a belated appeasement of Muslims began. A policy of preferential treatment of the Muslims was adopted towards the end of the 19th century. These policies created problems for Indian freedom struggle, and contributed to the growth of communalism.
• Another important change was in the British policies towards the Princely states. The earlier policy of annexation was now abandoned and the rulers of these states were now authorised to adopt heirs. This was done as a reward to those native rulers who had remained loyal to the British during the revolt.Thus Britishers used Princely states as ‘Breakwaters in the storm ‘. However, this authority of the Indian rulers over particular territories was completely subordinated to the authority of the British and they were converted into a Board of privileged dependents.
• Besides these changes, the British now turned to the most reactionary groups among the Indians, like the zamindars, princes and landlords, for strengthening their fortune in the country. They started respecting and even promoting their traditional status and claims so as to make new allies among the Indians to act as breakwaters in case of any subsequent unrest.
•  

THE NATURE OF THE REVOLT: DEBATE

Between the 1950s and 1960s historians focused much of their attention on whether the revolt was a sepoy mutiny, national struggle or a manifestation of feudal reaction. Let us sum up the essential arguments of this earlier debate.

Sepoy mutiny

• Anxious to minimize Indian grievances, for many years, British historians had maintained that the revolt had been nothing more than a sepoy mutiny and hence the name. Such accounts generally narrated:
• Details of the greased cartridges,
• The activities of rebel sepoys,
• And the British campaigns on 1857-58 that suppressed the revolt.
• Not only was the rebellion of the people made light of, but the civil rebellion was attributed to merely the selfish interests of landholders and princes. In essence, this interpretation ignored the colonial context in which the revolt had occurred and of which it was a reflection.

National struggle or feudal reaction?

• With emergence of nationalist agitations against the colonial government the revolt of 1857 came to be looked upon as part of that struggle and the focus shifted from the greased cartridges to the oppressions of the British. V.D. Savarkar’s The Indian War of Independence of 1857 published anonymously in 1902 remained banned in India almost till the end of British rule.
• However, several works coinciding with the centenary year of the revolt argued variously:
• That the absence of a general plan of rebellion went against such an interpretation
• That the leaders were not imbued with national sentiment and ‘would have put the clock back’,
• That 1857 was not the inauguration of a freedom movement but ‘the dying groans of an obsolete aristocracy’.
• On the other hand there were objections to the restrictive use of the term ‘national’ and the implicit minimization of the anti-imperialist content of the revolt and of the evidence of the Hindu-Muslim unity during 1857-58.
• More recently it has been noted that though the rebel mission may not have been ‘national,’ their political horizon was not restricted to their ilaqas. Also that the aim of the rebels was not so much an attempt to establish a new social order as to restore a world that was familiar i.e. the traditional world of hierarchy, lineage, patronage and deference.

Select opinions on the revolt of 1857

1. “The crisis came: at first as a mere military mutiny, it speedily changed its character and became a national insurrection” — G.B. Malleson

2. “The decline and fall of empires are not affairs of greased cartridges. Such results are occasioned by adequate causes and by the accumulation of adequate causes” — Benjamin Disraeli

3. “It is a mutiny or is it a national revolt?” —Benjamin Disraeli

4. “The entire movement lacked a unified and forward looking programme to be implemented after the capture of power.” — Bipin Chandra

5.  “It is in fact an anachronism to describe the mutiny as the first essay towards modern independence. It was rather, in its political aspect, the last effort of the old conservative India”.                                     —Percival Spear   

6." The so called first national war of Independence of 1857 is neither first ,nor National nor war of Independence"--- R.C .Mazumdar.  

7. "Wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support"   —     John Seeley

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE 1885

The Indian National Congress was not the first political association to be established in India. Various associations had been established earlier.

• The beginning of organized political activity in India generally dates back to the establishment of landholders’ society in 1837. It was an association of landholders of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and its principal objective was to guard its class interests. In 1843 was formed another association named Bengal British India society. Its objective was wider, i.e. to protect and promote general public interests. The landholders’ society represented the aristocracy of wealth, the Bengal British India society represented the aristocracy of intelligence.
• In 1851 the two associations were merged, giving rise to a new one, named the British India Association. This was the time when the Charter of the British East India Company was due for renewal and a need was felt to make the views of Indians known to the authorities in London. Associations were also formed about this time in Bombay and Madras.
• These were called the Bombay Association and the Madras Native Association respectively and were established in 1852. All these associations were dominated by wealthy landed gentry. Similar, but lesser known associations were established in other parts of India too. Deccan Association can be mentioned as one of them.
• The three Presidency associations sent petitions suggesting changes in East India Company’s Charter. These suggestions give us a fairly good idea of the attitude of the publically conscious classes in India at that time. Broadly speaking, the petitioners wanted that Indians should be appointed to the legislative bodies. Company’s monopoly of salt and indigo should be abolished and the state should give aid to indigenous industry.
• It was also stated that the local governments should have greater powers and Indians should have bigger share in the administration of their country. So far as agrarian issues were concerned, a desire was expressed for the preservation of existing interests in land. Each petition also expressed concern about the need to improve the condition of peasants. In the petition sent by members of the British Indian Association it was stated that while Indians acknowledged ‘the blessings of an improved form of government’, they could not but feel that they had ‘not profited by their connection with Great Britain to the extent which they had a right to look for’. Many of their demands were later taken up by the Congress.
• As has already been mentioned, during the 1860s and 1870 ideas of nationalism and patriotism were very much in the air. A number of political associations were established in different parts of the country during this period to propagate the cause of reform in various spheres of administration and to promote political consciousness among various sections of people. Of these, the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, established by M.G. Ranade, G.V. Joshi, S.H. Chiplankar and his associates in 1870, proved to be the most important. This Sabha brought out a journal from 1878 which did much for arousing political consciousness.
• To carry on political propaganda in England, some Indian students like Pherozeshah Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji, Dadabhai Naoroji and Manmohan Ghose founded the East India Association in December, 1866.
• The half century from the establishment of Landholders society in 1837 was more a period of aspirations than of achievements. But the stage was set during this period for the emergence of a national body. The need for a national platform began to be keenly felt. In Calcutta, dissatisfaction with the British Indian Association had been growing. Its subscription was Rs. 50 per annum which was too high for the middle class. Its membership was, therefore, confined to the wealthy people. In 1876 the Indian Association was founded in Calcutta.
• The membership fee was kept at five rupees, per annum. It soon became very popular amongst the educated people and became a major force in Bengal and subsequently in Indian politics. Surendranath Banerjee, a young member of the middle class who had been ejected from the Indian Civil Service on what appeared to be insufficient grounds was mainly responsible for its establishment. The aims of the Indian Association included developing a strong public opinion, promoting Hindu-Muslim friendship, establishing contact with masses and generating wider awareness amongst the Indian people. These are certainly ingredients of a broad based nationalist movement. Surendranath Banerjee said that the new association was based on the conception of United India derived from the inspiration of Mazzini - the main architect of the Italian Unification.
• Many other political bodies were established in other parts of India, like the Madras Mahajan Sabha, the Bombay Presidency Association, the Allahabad People’s Association, the Indian Association of Lahore etc. Many of these bodies had branches in the Mofussil towns. After 1885 these became the regional arms of the Congress.
•  

RISE OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The rise of national consciousness in the nineteenth century was essentially the result of the British rule.

The term nation is more a cultural term and less a political term. It implies collectivenss of people having common religion, language, food, dresses and other aspect of culture. People living in far away are also part of the nation. Nationalism implies feeling of togetherness based on different traits of culture like language, religion, etc. When people begin to associate themselves with a country, the term nationalism assumes political colour. People even living in far flung areas associate themselves with a country and such country becomes nation. The feeling of belongingness with nation is called Nationalism.

• British rule provided material, moral and intellectual conditions for rise of Nationalism in India. British rule was new system of governance with new administrative machinery. It was inherently different from traditional Indian system of governance.
• British rule in India resulted in clash of interests of various classes and communities. British followed colonialial policies, which were characterized by exploitation. Indian reaction to such policies was in two forms. One was a series of revolts and rebellion what we called civil rebellions. These revolts were carried out by civilians in reaction to British socio-economic policies. The second form of reactions was socio-political consciousness in form of socio-religious reform movements. These movements began to associate people with new and modern ideas thus contributing to the growth of nationalism.
• The British rule provided uniformity to India; earlier India was divided into different kingdoms and states. British unified whole India into one unit. They implemented single uniform administration, law and order system, economy, political system and land revenue system. However such systems were introduced for colonial intersts, yet it unified the Indians and provided an opportunity for interaction and sharing their grievances at the pan Indian level.
• The means of Communication developed by British enabled Indians to share their feelings and grievances. People began to interact with each other. Means of communication like railway lines, roads, post and telegraph etc made people to people contact and interaction easy. It helped in spreading new ideas of liberty, nationalism etc. Press played vital role in strengthening the spirit of Nationalism. During 18th and 19th century, press began to play its due role. It began to reach up to masses. The ideas of Nationalism now reached common man.
• Their agriculture policy and industrial policy led to impoverishment of masses. Such policies created discontent among Indian people who began to suffer. The painful experience prompted people to come close to each other. It also contributed to the feeling of Nationalism. Industrialisation integrated the whole country in one industrial unit. It encouraged the workers to be geographically mobile which provided them opportunity to share their sentiments. It paved the way for growth of nationalism.
• British introduced new Education system in India. They discarded India’s old traditional value system. The new education system imparted the values like Liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy etc. It prompted political consciousness in India.
• The modern education strengthened middle class in India. Such middle class carried forward the spirit of Nationalism. They provided platform to whole India to cement their internal relations. Indians went abroad for study and they studied the ideas of J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Kant etc. Later they popularized same ideas in India. Such progressive ideas strengthened the spirit of Nationalism. The educated intelligentsia led the movement of Nationalism from the front. They began to mobilize people in the name of the nation.
• It was the educated middle class who with the modern education and knowledge of the outside world exposed the exploitative nature of the British rule before the masses thereby contributing towards the formation of an anti-British sentiment across the nation.
• During socio religious reform movement also it was the intelligentia who united the people. The leading figures in this regard were Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Soami Dayanand, Soami Vivekanand, Rabindra Nath Tagore etc.
• Many international events too intensified the spirit of nationalism in India. The unification of Italy and Germany was product of Nationalism. It inspired many Indians to carry forward the process of one independent India. Later Japan, a small country defeated a known power Russia which again inspired Indians to unite against common enemy.
• British had adopted very discriminatory and reactionary policies both in civil as well as in military administration. They discriminated in the name of race against Indian army soldiers and civil servants. Such discrimination further gave boost to the spirit of nationalism.
• Certain policies of different Governor Generals also aroused the feeling of Nationalism. For example, Lord Lytton held Delhi Darbar while country was suffering from severe famine. Similarly, Lord Curzon parted Bengal into two parts. He also got passed the Universities Act of 1904. All such activities aroused the feeling of Nationalism.

• Hurdles in the rise of Nationalism

  There were many hurdles in the rise of National consciousness which slowed down the process of nationalism. These hurdles were like vastness of India, poor means of communication, lack of awareness or prevalence of traditional ideas or values among people or people were denied of progressive values, British Economic Policies and impoverishment of India.