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 revolt of 1857 forms one of the most important chapters in the history of the struggle of the India people for liberation from the British rule. It shook the foundations of the British Empire in India and at some points it seemed as though the British rule would end for all time to come. What started merely as a sepoy mutiny soon engulfed the peasantry and other civilian population over wide areas in northern India. 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. The British rule which was formally established after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 in Bengal, strove to fill the coffers of the East India Company at the expense of the Indians. The east India Company was governed by greedy merchants and traders who could go to any extent to enrich themselves. The Company was formed in 1600, and was given a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth which conferred on it the exclusive privilege to trade with the East. Its main aim was to assume the trade monopoly in India. It was not an ordinary merchant company formed for trade but had its train of soldiers who fought battles with the Portuguese and the French trading companies in the 17th and 18th centuries in order to establish its trade monopoly. After these rival powers had been defeated it also tried to humble the Indian traders who offered competition. 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.

The peasantry was also oppressed by petty officials in administration who extracted money on the slightest pretexts. If the peasants went to the law court to seek redress of their grievances, they were bound to be totally ruined. When the crop was good the peasants had to pay back their past debts; if it was bad, they were further indebted. This nexus between the lower officials, law courts and money lenders created a vicious circle which made the peasantry desperate and ready to welcome any opportunity for change of regime.

Alienation of the middle and upper strata of Indians

It was not merely the peasantry that got alienated from the British rule, the middle and upper strata Indians also felt oppressed. 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[1]. 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.

The alien rule

Another important reason of the unpopularity of the British was the alien nature of their rule. They never mixed with the Indian people and treated even the upper class Indians with contempt. They had not come to settle in India but only to take money home. So the Indians could never develop any affinity towards them.

Impact on the sepoys

The revolt of 1857 originated with the mutiny of the Sepoys. These Sepoys were drawn mainly from the peasant population of North and North-West India. 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. The Indian Sepoy, despite his valour and great fighting capacity, could never rise above the rank of a Subedar while a fresh recruit from England was often appointed his superior overnight.

Threat to religion

Apart from degrading service conditions, another factor inflammed the feelings of the sepoys. An impression was created among them that their religion was being attacked by the British. This belief was also shared by the general civilian population. 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. The Government maintained the chaplains at its own cost and in some cases also provided police protection to the missionaries. 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 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. Dry tinder-box was there and only a spark was needed to set it ablaze. 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.

Organisation

What kind of organisation did the rebels employ in order to raise their banner against the British? On this question there has been a good deal of controversy among historians. One view is that there was a widespread and well-organized conspiracy, while another view maintains that it was completely spontaneous. The fact seems to be that some kind of organized plan was in existence but it had matured sufficiently when the revolt broke out.

As the rebels formed a clandestine set-up they did not keep any records about the nature, functions and structure of their secret organisation. Another view is that if they did keep any records these were destroyed by the victors (British). But the stories which have come down to us talk about the red lotuses and chappatis, symbolizing freedom and bread, being passed from village to village and from one regiment to another. Besides these means speeches were also delivered and quiet preaching conducted by the roaming sanyasis and fakirs to mobilize and rally anti-colonial forces. All these stirred the sepoys to revolt.

Also, the pattern of the rebellion[2] across the cities was very similar thereby symbolizing some level of organization and planning on the part of the rebels.

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. This system had lost its vitality and was unable to withstand the onslaught of the British. It was because of the failure of these rulers, that the British had earlier been able to conquer almost the whole of India. Reliance on these elements made it difficult for the rebel forces to create a new sense of unity among the Indian people which alone could have created a viable alternative to the British rule.

Lack of unity among Indians

As mentioned above, no broad based unity among the Indian people could emerge. 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 Sikhs also did not support the rebels. All these groups had their reasons to do so. The possibility of the revival of Mughal authority created a fear among the Sikhs who had faced so much oppression at the hands of the Mughals. Similarly, 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.

Disunity among the leaders

The main problem however, was lack of unity in the ranks of rebels themselves. Their leaders were suspicious and jealous of each other and often indulged in petty quarrels. The Begum of Awadh, for example, quarreled with Maulavi Ahmadullah, and the Mughal princes with sepoy-generals. Azimullah, the political adviser of the Nana Saheb, asked him not to visit Delhi lest he be overshadowed by the Emperor Bahadur Shah. Thus, selfishness and narrow perspective of the leaders sapped the strength of the revolt and prevented its consolidation.

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.