HOI 6 (C.

1750-1857) ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC – NATURE OF THE REVOLT OF 1857

BY VARUN KUMAR
ROLL NO.- 1592

INTRODUCTION

The Revolt of 1857, commonly called as the Sepoy Revolt, was the first organized
revolt against British rule in India. It was the culmination of the manifold
grievances that Indians had against the East India Company’s rule. It was to a
great extent a popular revolt led by exiled princes and displaced landlords. The
revolt was largely confined to North and Central India. The transfer of the Indian
administration from the English East India Company to British Crown was the
important result of the Revolt. The revolt has been hailed as the watershed or the
‘great divide’ in the colonial history of British India.

NATURE

The nature and character of this revolt remained a controversial subject both
among the contemporary British writers and the present ones. Historians have
written treatises full of complex arguments on this subject. The historiography of
the revolt is as old as the event itself. Almost all the earlier books and accounts of
the events of 1857 were written by Englishmen. They have dubbed Indians as
traitors and mutineers while they have praised the role of the Englishmen. The
Indians did not dare to write anything because during the period immediately
following the revolt, great atrocities were committed by the British and the
Indians were crushed brutally. Ever since the publication of the book ‘First War of
Independence’ by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1909, the nature and character
of the revolt has been debated among the nationalists and historians. The main
strands of debates on the nature of the revolt of 1857 can be understood by four
main questions.
• The first question is – Was it merely a ‘Sepoy mutiny’ or a civil rebellion’?

The more dominant contemporary official interpretation of the revolt of 1857 was
that it was primarily a Sepoy mutiny, the civil unrest being a secondary
phenomenon, which happened as the unruly elements took advantage of the
breakdown of law and order. Charles Ball and J.W. Kaye were among the
pioneers who wrote about 1857 from the ‘Sepoy mutiny’ perspective. Both
attached tremendous importance to caste status, which the sepoys thought were
undermined in the cantonments. They also represent the outbreak of 1857 as an
organized campaign to drive away the British from India.

British historians who took to highlighting the ‘conspiracy theory’ include G.B.
Malleson and Kaye. Malleson, in his book the Indian Mutiny of 1857, explains the
entire rebellion as an outcome of the premeditated designs of a handful of
leaders. Malleson also brought out the differences of race as the reason for the
rebellion.

Kaye, Malleson and other mention Bahadur Shah’s correspondence with the
Shah of Persia detailing his grievances against the British in support of the
conspiracy theory. But this cannot lead us to conclude that there was a
preplanned conspiracy. R.C. Majumdar states that the utmost that can be said is
that Persian alliance was desired by Bahadur Shah who hoped that such an
alliance would help them drive out the British yet in view of the international
situation little importance should be given to the so-called conspiracy
However, according to Talzim Khaidun, the revolt was a civic rebellion as he
points to prolonged continuation of resistance to the British well after the latter’s
reoccupation in regions like Chakradhpur and Sambalpur bordering Bengal.

Furthermore, there is little evidence of premeditated conspiracy because the

various outbreaks during the revolt were uncoordinated and unorganized and the
sepoys once free of British authority rarely knew what to do next. The wide
circulation of chapattis just before the outbreak is regarded by many as an
important evidence in favor of an organized conspiracy.
However, it should be conceded that at the time of the outbreak nobody knew
anything definite about the original source from which the chapattis originated.
Some people believe that it was intended as a preventive measure against some
calamities. Others took it to be as a preparation for an outbreak.

To quote R.C. Majumdar, “even if it is to be taken for granted that the chapattis
were deliberately designed by some as a signal for the outbreak, we may safely
assert that it was not understood by the people as such.”

• The second question is – Was it a ‘revolt’ or ‘the first war of Indian

independence’?

V. D. Savarkar claimed that the revolt was ‘war of independence’, which aimed
at mobilizing people in the emerging freedom movement. It was a planned war of
national independence.

With the rise of nationalism, nationalist historians and freedom fighters began to
look upon the uprising as a part of the country’s struggle for freedom. The revolt
came to assume the character of a struggle for independence. This view was
strongly put forward by V.D. Savarkar who in 1909 titled his book on the revolt as
The Volcano or the First War of Indian Independence. He argues that people rose
up in arms in 1857 for safeguarding swadharma (their religion) and for winning
back swaraj (their independence).

The nationalist interpretation of the revolt gained further support from the
Marxist school of historians who regarded it as a typical national liberation
uprising of the peasantry. Karl Marx as a correspondence of the New York Daily
Times wrote a series of articles during 1857-58 describing it as such. P.C. Joshi in
an article on the Revolt of 1857 claimed that the peasantry was the spearhead of
popular revolutionary movement. However, to read the events of 1857 as a
peasant revolt do not give a complete portrayal of the whole picture.

In recent years leading Indian historians have turned away from the nationalist
historians’ views. Sen, in his book Eighteen Fifty-seven, focused on the towns as
canters of rebellion. He narrated the course of the uprising by describing the
manner in which the rebels struck at the British power in these towns and their
encounters with the counterinsurgency forces. He also deals with the issue of
whether the revolt was a religious war or a racial struggle and whether moral
issues were involved.
Sen argues that the mutiny was inevitable as no dependent nation can forever
reconcile itself to foreign domination. He writes, “What began as a fight for
religion ended as a war of independence, for there is not the slightest doubt that
the rebels wanted to get rid of the alien government and restore the old order of
which the King of Delhi was the rightful representative.” Sen argues that in the
absence of patriotism religion served as the most potent force in uniting people
from all walks of life. Sen also states that in Awadh the revolt assumed
nationalistic dimensions but the term national must be used in a limited sense for
the concept of Indian nationality was yet an embryo. He writes the patriots of
Awadh fought for the king and the country but they were not champions of
freedom for they had no conception of individual liberty. On the contrary they
would if they could revive the old order.

S.B. Chaudhuri, in his book Civil Rebellion in the Indian Mutinies, emphasizes the
bifurcation of 1857 into two distinct historical aspects – the military mutiny and
the civil rebellion. According to him, whereas the sepoys struck the first blow,
they did not produce the leadership necessary to canalize the activities of the
rebellious troops. The sepoys in such a circumstance came to be led by leaders
from the aristocratic and ruling families which changed the military character of
the revolt and saw the merging of the military uprising into a popular rebellion.
Chaudhuri states that the fact that government establishments were destroyed,
records burnt and telegraphic lines cut off, show that it was both a mutiny and a
rebellion.

Chaudhuri argues that the outbreak was an anti-British and anti-colonial

movement that had definite precedents in earlier uprisings and which anticipated
the later struggle for national freedom. The civil uprising in 1857 was led by feudal
lords who brought together diverse people of all classes and the outcome was the
creation of a national front. He feels the insurgency was essentially an expression
of a national outburst against British rule caused by intense religious and
economic discontent.

However, according to R.C. Majumdar, the revolt took different aspects at

different places. It was neither First nor National or War of independence. He
states that it would be a caricature of truth to describe the revolt of the civil
population as a national war of independence. National it certainly was not, for,
the upsurge of the people was limited to a comparative narrow region of India.
R.C. Majumdar is doubtful about the national character of the 1857 rebellion.
According to him, even though the sepoys and local people fought together
against the English, one misses that real communal harmony which characterizes
a national effort.
R.C. Majumdar refutes the views of Savarkar, Sen, and S.B. Chaudhuri in his book
titled Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857. He does not regard the revolt as the
first national war of independence. He states that it would be a travesty of truth
to describe the revolt of the civil population as a national war of independence.
National it certainly was not, for, the upsurge of the people was limited to a
comparative narrow region of India, comprising at best the greater part of United
Provinces and a narrow zone to its east west and south. The whole of Bengal,
Assam, Orissa, Rajasthan and greater part of Punjab, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh
as well as the whole of India south of the Narmada valley witnessed no act of
rebellion on the part of the people. He further argues that even within this
narrow zone where the civil population revolted there were considerable sections
who were friendly to the English. He gives the examples of certain ruling chiefs
certain sections of the landed aristocracy who remained loyal or did not break out
into open rebellion.

R.C. Majumdar is thus doubtful about the national character of the 1857
rebellion. According to him, even though the sepoys and local people fought
together against the English, one misses that real communal amity which
characterizes a national effort. He writes that there was communal tension in
Delhi, in some parts of UP and that some of the proclamations issued also show
that Muslims were exerting themselves to the utmost while the Hindus were
lukewarm. Majumdar also feels that communal discord was supplemented by
racial animosity. The Muslims in Hyderabad were excited by anti-British feelings
yet were hostile towards the Marathas. The Rajputs, Marathas and the Sikhs were
against the Mughals and did not favor the restoration of the Mughals. Majumdar
also denies that the leaders and rebels were imbued with nationalistic feelings.
He feels that the rebels fought against the British because the latter constituted a
ruling authority but they did not take up arms with the conscious and definite
objective to free India from foreign rule.
R.C. Majumdar is critical of the motive guiding the civil population and the
leaders. As regards the civil population, he writes that people in each locality
revolted only when the British authority had left it and the administrative
machinery had broken down. He states that, “Each group or individual leader
fought for self-interest and had no allegiance to a common cause.” Majumdar
brings up the false perception of people’s role in the uprising and the wrong belief
that prevailed in the dominant circles that 1857 rebellion was an attempt to drive
out the British power.

• The third question is – Was it ‘popular’ or ‘elitist’ in character?

Karl Marx believed it to be popular and identified the peasantry as the

revolutionary force.

According to Talmiz Khaldun, the revolt was developing into a peasant war
against indigenous landlordism and foreign imperialism.

There is a consensus among the historians that the revolt was not the first of its
kind. It was also not an isolated outbreak rather it was the culmination of
accumulated discontent among various classes due to different factors. Secondly,
the rebel leaders fought for the preservation of their rights and privileges. They all
fought for the status quo yet the struggle in 1857 took on a wider context without
changing its feudal character.

The historians of the revolt have tended to move away from the nomenclature
debate of the Sen-Majumdar days to a more specific serious question about the
agrarian roots, social composition and detailed area-wise breakdown.

Some historians have looked at the revolt from the viewpoint of the peasants. To
them the peasants were the revolutionary potential for the rebellion. The sepoys
who ignited the flame of revolt came from the society of peasants. Eric Stokes, in
his books Peasant and the Raj and The Peasant Armed, has tried to answer
questions relating to the historical problems concerning the process by which
military mutiny was converted into civil rebellion and how the landed class came
to provide leadership to both sepoy’s mutiny and civil rebellion. Stokes writes that
the peasantry formed the vital link between military mutiny and rural turbulence.
He emphasized that the rebellion of 1857 was, in a significant sense, a peasant
revolt.

Ranajit Guha, in his book Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial

India, discovered elements of conscious hostility in the Revolt of 1857. He argues
is that the violence by the peasants during the revolt was directed at particular
targets. The peasants’ anger was directed towards the bankers and moneylenders
particularly in UP. Guha feels this target specific violence shows how the peasants
were able to distinguish between enemies and allies. Guha states that there were
attacks on government property, British personnel and also on Indian
collaborators of the Raj. In some areas a revolt against the white people was
turned into violence against local landlords and vice versa. Therefore, the
peasants’ outbreak during the revolt were directed as much against the
government as against the moneylenders.

Stokes states that peasant risings against the Mahajans and auction purchasers
were motivated more by political and less by economic considerations. Stokes
also comes up with the argument that the rural revolt in 1857 was essentially
elitist in character, that is the leadership was definitely in the hands of the landed
magnate class. He calls the revolt as the last major traditional resistance
movement. Some of the elements which define its traditionality are: the revolt
was composed of heterogeneous elements held together loosely by anti-foreign
sentiments; leadership was in the hands of the landlords; leadership made use of
religion to enlarge its appeal. Stokes also points out that the rural leadership was
motivated by both economic and political reasons. Yet not many rural leaders
were able to look beyond their local horizons.

Mukherjee, in his book Awadh in Revolt, has highlighted the role played by the
peasantry. He writes that resistance in Awadh was not always elitist in character
and gives examples to show that the peasantry did take independent initiative on
many occasions.

Subaltern studies have a special place in historiography. Gautam Bhadra has tried
to highlight the role of four ordinary leaders namely Shah Mal, small landlord of
Baraut, Devi Singh, a high caste cultivator of Mathura, Gonoo, a tribal of Chota
Nagpur, Ahmaddula Shah, a maulvi in Lucknow. He writes that even though their
leadership was short lived but their contribution was not incidental and formed
an integral part of the revolt.

P.C. Joshi identifies the elitist nature of leadership. The peasants fought against
the new type of landlords who were created by the policies of the British and not
against the traditional landlords.

• The fourth question is – Was it secular or religious?

British officials serving in the North West Provinces were convinced of the Islamic
character of the revolt. It was felt that the old Muslim elite had conspired to
arouse political rebellion among the masses.

Contemporary Englishmen regarded the revolt as a handiwork of the Muslim.

J. Outram holds that it was result of Muhammaden conspiracy making capital of

Hindu grievance, and the cartridge incident merely precipitated it and it broke out
before this military uprising had been thoroughly planned and adequate
arrangements for its simultaneous outbreak at important political centres of the
country had been finalized. However, the causes of the revolt show that Hindu-
Muslim alike had grievances against the British.

According to C. A. Bayley, the rebellion of 1857 was a set of patriotic revolts. The
rebels demanded the restoration of the Indo-Mughal patrias. Within the broader
constellation of Mughal legitimacy, animated by mutual respect and a healthy
balance between lands and people.

According to S. N. Sen, what began as a fight for religion ended as a war of

independence for there is not the slightest doubt that the rebels wanted to get rid
of the alien government and restore the old order of which the king of Delhi was
the rightful representative.

According to Jawaharlal Nehru, it was essentially a feudal outburst headed by

feudal chiefs and their followers and aided by the widespread anti-foreign
settlement.
MN Roy regarded 1857 revolt as the last ditch stand of feudalism against
commercial capitalism.
RP Dutt recognized the significance of the revolts of the peasantry against foreign
domination, even as he saw it as a defense of the old feudal order

Conclusion

We may conclude after a study of the events of 1857 that the revolt was
something more than a sepoy mutiny and less than national revolt. However,
the rebel leaders were not in agreement with each other about the future. None
were concerned about India as an independent unified country. They gave a call
for a return to the past which conceived deep-abiding conflicts among them.
Some of them wanted to revive the Mughal Empire, others wanted to have a
powerful Maratha state.