The Uprising In 1857

However Delhi did appear centrestage at least once in the road to the British rise to power: in the controversial Indian Uprising of 1857. Debate has continued and will always go on about whether 1857 was actually the first Indian War of Independence or simply a mutiny. There is enough evidence to support the fact that the Uprising had been planned for months before the actual outbreak. What did the revolutionaries in, apart from the fact that they failed to spread the word beyond Central India and Delhi, was that the Uprising did not go according to plan. It broke out before the appointed date! If D-day had gone as per schedule, the uprising would have broken out in many areas simultaneously and would have been very difficult for the British to control. However as things turned out, trouble broke out sporadically in various places in May 1857 and there was little, if any, coordination happening. So, the British were able to curb it with relative ease.

The Tales of 1857 Revolt There are stories and stories about the British and Indian confrontation in Delhi in 1857. There are tales of valour and bravery from both sides; and also accounts of unimaginable horror and barbarity. While books are full of vivid reports of the horror and humiliation that the British had to face and the courage they displayed, very little has been written about what innocent Indians were put through by vindictive British on the teach-the-natives-alesson path. What made the Indians rebel in the first place hasnt been written about much either. It is true that the old poet-king in Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar and his cohorts, Tatia Tope of Gwalior (Gwalior itself did not rebel, Tope was merely a general), the Rani of Jhansi and so on had very narrow and selfish aims to achieve their petty kingdoms, money and power.

None of them would have rebelled if the British had not snapped their pursestrings, the compensation they were paid by the British in return for a share in government. The common people - of Delhi, Lucknow, Gwalior and so on however had nothing to gain. Except independence. A place to call their own. Their war was not for a small kingdom, they were fighting for freedom. Which is why, while admitting that 1857 was limited in its scope, one cannot just dismiss it as a mutiny. Far too many emotions and resentments were involved which the British had long ignored. 1857 convinced the British that they could no longer just sponge off India, getting rich at its expense without giving anything back. That was what led the Crown to formally relieve the East India Company of its charge and take over itself.

Pre-Independence It was not until 1931 however that New Delhi was inaugurated as the capital of India. A spanking new city, its new look, promised in 1911 by King George V and Queen Mary, was created and realized by the temperamental Sir Edward Lutyens, along a team of eminent architects including Sir Herbert Baker and Robert Tor Russell. However, the British did not live long in the beautiful New Delhi they had created, thus fulfilling the age-old prophecy that anyone who built a new city in Delhi would lose it.

Arrival of Lord Mountbatten In 1946, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi amid a buzz of political activity. The British, following their World War II concerns, wanted to wash their hands of India. The Indians meanwhile, were hankering for what was rightfully theirs. But there were too many emotional ties, the British and the Indians went too far back together for the British to just pack up and leave. They had a responsibility. Unfortunately Mountbatten, although a favorite with the Indians because of his youthful good looks, was the wrong man for the job. He was in such a hurry to get

back to England that he just went along with the first proposal that found favor with both the Congress and the Muslim League without taking into account what the people wanted. The rest is history. Partition, the worst mass movement of people in the 20th century, with the exception of the Jews who fled Germany in World War II, took its toll on both India and Pakistan. Two republics were born on August 15, 1947. The capital of India was, and remains, the much-destroyed and much-built Delhi.

The Sepoy Rebellion of India 1857

One of the most well-known uprisings during the British colonization of India was a mutiny of the native troops known as "sepoys". When it began on Sunday, May 10, 1857 the Sepoy rebellion was a complete surprise to the British, many of whom were "blind to the unrest that had been created, in part, by the rapid imposition of direct British control over two-thirds of India" [1]. The campaign to suppress the revolt lasted until April 1859 [2]. Return to "India under British Rule" Chronology The British East India Company began recruiting native citizens as troops in 1667, in order to maintain control during their trading operations. In 1748, the British government followed suit and began recruiting and training Indians to fight with their weaponry and methods. The Indian units were called "native sepoys" and soon became the largest part of the British forces in India, eventually outnumbering European troops ten to one [3]. After Britain had gained two-thirds of India's land and imperialism had begun to affect every part of Indian life (whether by technology like the telegraph, evangelical missionary efforts, or administrative and land ownership reform), there was an

incredible amount of tension that only needed a small spark to set off a huge revolt. There had been minor outbreaks within the sepoy ranks before 1857, but these had all been quickly and brutally suppressed. The "spark" that came to begin this period of revolts was the introduction of the new, more accurate breech-loading Enfield rifle. The loading of these rifles entailed the biting of a greased cartridge, which the sepoys feared was made with either cow or pig fat - "the first, from an animal sacred to the Hindus, and the second from an animal held unclean by the Muslims. The Hindu sepoys saw this as an attempt to break their caste as a preliminary to making them all Christians" [4]. The Muslim troops were disgusted and no less insulted than the Hindus: the revolts were about to happen. The first event was the bloody uprising at the garrison in Meerut, in which the mutineers murdered every European they found. Then they marched to Delhi and "placed themselves under the leadership of the impotent and bewildered Mogul Emperor Bahadur Shah" [5]. Throughout May and June the idea of mutiny spread through the Ganges valley, the Rajputna, Central India, and parts of Bengal. "By June, Cawnpore had surrendered to Nana Sahib, and Lucknow, the only British-held outpost in Oudh, was besieged" [6]. On July 17 it was discovered that 200 European men, women, and children had been murdered a month earlier in the mutiny and siege at Cawnpore. Vengeance was swift and harsh: suspected mutineers were tied to cannons and executed. "In six months, the mutiny had been broken, and, within the next year, British power was restored" [7]. These rebellions would be remembered later by some Indian freedom fighters as the first stages of the struggle for independence from colonialism - whether they were related to later uprisings or not, the sepoy rebellions certainly sent a message to the British that demanded to be heard.

THE Revolt of 1857 was born out of various features ranging from the British policy of conquest and expansion to the colonial exploitation of India. Geographically speaking, it affected north-western, north and central India. The Sepoy Mutiny as it was labelled initially by the colonial official writings, focused on the Mutiny theme. To colonial officials and writers it was the handiwork of a set of discontented sipahis who were unhappy with the introduction, in 1857, of the new Enfield rifle, with its distinct ammunition, which required the bullet to be bitten before loading. Rumours that the grease used on the bullets was either from the fat of cattle or pigs had symbolic implications. Thus, whereas cows were considered sacred by the Hindus, the Muslims considered pigs to be polluting. This created strong animosities and was located as an attack

on Hindu and Muslim religious beliefs. As can be expected, this understanding gave primacy to the religious factor and reinforced a line of thinking which saw the Revolt as a Muslim conspiracy, that gained acceptance among contemporary officials. Syed Ahmad Khan (1817 - 1898) wrote a tract (Asbab-e-Baghawat-eHind viz. The Causes of the Indian Revolt) to counter this allegation, where he sought to examine the underlying features that determined the nature of 1857. And taken together these seem to be the basis for formulations like the clash of civilisations, echoes of which are heard even today in the post-9/11 context. Contemporary writings in the mid-nineteenth century generated political hysteria and racism, which legitimised the barbaric image of the Indian. Nevertheless, the 1857 Revolt demonstrated the way English opinion itself was divided at home. Thus, Chartists like Ernest Jones hailed the Revolt and unmasked the colonial exploitation of India (The Revolt of Hindoostan; or, The New World, London, 1857). Of course the most serious dissenting voice was that of Karl Marx who linked the colonial exploitation of India to the anger that was displayed by the people during the Revolt. Marx and Engels hailed the unity displayed by the different religious communities who opposed British colonialism (Marx and Engels, The First War of Independence, 1857-1859, Moscow,1975). Interestingly, the Indian National Congress after its formation (1885) actually denounced the 1857 Revolt, given the social background of most of the leaders who were pro-British in their thinking. However, by the end of the nineteenth century the Revolt attracted and inspired the first generation of the Indian nationalists. Thus, V.D.Savarkar, who was perhaps the first Indian to write about the Revolt in 1909, called it The Indian War of Independence of 1857. His pronationalist stance made Savarkar reject the colonial assertion that linked the Revolt with the greased cartridges. As he put it, if this had been the issue it would be difficult to explain how it could attract Nana Sahib, the Emperor of Delhi, the Queen of Jhansi and Khan Bahadur Khan to join it. Besides, he also focused on the fact that the Revolt continued even after the English Governor General had issued a proclamation to withdraw the offending greased bullets. Savarkar went ahead and connected the Revolt to the atrocities committed by the British. At the same time, the importance he gave to religion illustrates the influence of the imperialist writers on him. From the 1920s, efforts were made to analyse the Revolt from a Marxist position by pioneers like M.N. Roy (M.N. Roy in collaboration with Abani Mukherji, India in Transition, 1922) and Rajni Palme Dutt (India Today, 1940). Roy was rather dismissive about 1857 and saw in its failure the shattering of the last vestiges of

feudal power. He was emphatic about the revolution of 1857 being a struggle between the worn out feudal system and the newly introduced commercial capitalism, that aimed to achieve political supremacy. In contrast, Palme Dutt saw 1857 as a major peasant revolt, even though it had been led by the decaying feudal forces, fighting to get back their privileges and turn back the tide of foreign domination. Consequently, one witnesses the beginnings of a process that interrogated and critiqued the internal feudal order, even while lauding the popular basis of the Revolt. The access to sources after the independence of India saw interesting developments related to the studies on the 1857 Revolt. What developed was a rather sophisticated Nationalist historiography that harped on the complexities of the Revolt. It included Nationalist historians like R.C. Majumdar, S.B. Chaudhuri, S.N. Sen, and K.K. Datta, (viz. R.C. Majumdar, The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857, 1957; S.B.Chaudhuri, Civil Revolt in the Indian Mutinies, 1857-59, 1957 and Theories of the Indian Mutiny, 1965; S.N. Sen, Eighteen Fifty-Seven, 1957; and, K.K. Datta, Reflections on the Mutiny, 1967). These historians were not uniformly comfortable with the idea that the 1857 Revolt was the First War of Indian Independence. Moreover, they referred to ideas like nationalism that were supposedly witnessed during 1857 or saw the very inception of the national movement contained in the Revolt. Nevertheless, they went very clearly beyond the simple categorisations that had seen two dominant and opposing narratives lauding the British, the victors who had won the war and the claims of the rebellious Indians, who had been defeated. This meant a shift in focus, with efforts being made to locate the internal contradictions (viz. the Indian rich, which included the moneylenders and buniyas) and the popular basis of 1857 and not concentrate merely on the influential classes which had been the focus of contemporary British officials. It is here that Nationalist historiography worked on and developed the legacy of the Marxists, even as some Nationalist historians inscribed their disapproval of seeing it as the First War of Independence. In this sense at least, the Nationalist historians accorded a space howsoever limited to the popular basis of the Revolt. Since peasants did not/do not write their histories, they did not document their interaction with the 1857 Revolt. But, is it possible to ignore the folklore and traditions of resistance associated with the 1857 Revolt? Moreover, can one afford to ignore the connections between 1857 and the peasant revolts of the preceding phase, or those outside the northern region of India? One can for example refer

here to the Revolts of the Bhills in 1852 (in Khandesh, Dhar and Malwa), the Santals in 1855-6 (in Rajmahal, Bhagalpur, Birbhum), the Mapillas over the 18361854 period in Malabar, the Kandhas in Ghumsar and Baudh (1855-60), the Savaras of Parliakhemedi (1856-57), or, for that matter, the Indigo Revolt in Bengal (that began in 1859 and was directed against white planters) inspite of being told repeatedly about the role of the Permanent Settlement and the bhadraloks, that supposedly left Bengal as a zone of peace in this phase. Unless one locates historical processes in a narrow, factual manner, it would be indeed almost impossible to assume that peasants cannot think or incorporate components from the past while struggling against colonial rule as well as their immediate oppressors. In this sense at least, it is difficult to study the Revolt unless one takes into account the social history of peasant protest prior to 1857 and in the phase after it. This would show the peasants in a bitter anti-imperialist political struggle, where the internal exploiter in the form of the sahukar or buniya was not spared. It would also undermine a point that has almost got frozen as common sense viz. that the impact of the 1857 Revolt was not felt outside the IndoGangetic plain. With the passage of time the development of other historical approaches generated a lot of debates on the nature of 1857 among historians. The first exhaustive work on the Revolt was published in 1957 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the event. Edited by P.C.Joshi (1857: A Symposium, 1957), it focused on both the diversities and the specificities of the 1857 Revolt . This included assessing 1857 against the colonial backdrop, examining aspects of participation and focusing in a major way on the internal contradictions. This volume also sought to highlight dimensions of popular culture by incorporating folk poems that have survived. One has in mind here the contributions especially of P.C.Joshi and Talmiz Khaldun. In many ways this work inspired a serious spell of writings on the Revolt. Here mention must be made of Eric Stokes who examined issues ranging from the way the nature of 1857 was conditioned by the background, the demographic and ecological features to the social composition and the role of the peasants, especially the rich peasants (viz. Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Peasant Society and Agrarian Revolt in Colonial India, 1978; and his The Peasant Armed: The India Revolt of 1857, 1986). Interestingly, his research guided Stokes to reassess his position. Thus, whereas in his first work he had focused on the rich peasant leadership and mobilisation, in Peasant Armed Stokes enlarged the social basis of peasant participation in the Revolt.

However, it was left to historians like Rudrangshu Mukherjee (Awadh in Revolt, 1857-58: A Study of Popular Resistance,1984) and Tapti Roy (The Politics of a Popular Uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857, 1994) to enrich our understanding of the Revolt by their focus on the popular level of the Revolt. Their effort was based on specific area studies viz. Awadh and Bundelkhand that brought to light fascinating complexities of popular militancy that had remained ignored. Alongside, historians likes Iqtidar Alam Khan have studied questions related to organisation (The Gwalior Contingent in 1857-58: A Study of the Organisation and Ideology of the Sepoy Rebels, Social Scientist, January-April 1998, pgs. 5375; hereafter S.Sct.), Gautam Bhadra and Saiyid Zaheer Husain Jafri have focused on the middle level leadership (Four Rebels of Eighteen Fifty Seven, in Ranajit Guha, ed. Subaltern Studies IV, 1985, pgs. 229-75; and Profile of a Saintly Rebel - Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah in S.Sct., respectively). Scholars like Khaldun (in P.C.Joshi, pgs. 1-70) and E.I.Brodkin (The Struggle for Succession: Rebels and Loyalists in the Indian Mutiny of 1857, in Modern Asian Studies, 1972, pages 277-90) have focused on activities in the areas where British authority had been subverted, and if 1857 was indeed a restorative Revolt. More recently since the 1990s historians have focused on the popular dimensions of 1857. Here one can refer to scholars like K.S.Singh who have highlighted the participation of adivasis (The Tribals and the 1857 Uprising, S.Sct. pgs. 76-85); Badri Narayan who has focused on low and outcastes and popular culture (Dalits and Memories of 1857, ICHR Conference Proceedings, December 2006, unpublished; and Popular Culture and 1857: Memory Against Forgetting, S.Sct. pgs. 86-94); and Rajat Ray who has studied the mentalities of 1857 (The Felt Community: Commonality and Mentality before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism, 2003, pgs. 353-534). Moreover, working within the paradigms of cultural studies scholars like Jenny Sharpe (Allegories of Empire: The Figure of Woman in the Colonial Text, 1993) and Nancy Paxton (Writing Under the Raj: Gender, Race and Rape in the British Colonial Imagination, 1830-1947, 1999) have delineated the way the theme of the rape of white women that was virtually created to fuel racism, which emerged as a major fall-out of the Revolt. What needs to be emphasised is that the 1857 Revolt represents possibly one of the most powerful and dramatic anti-colonial movements which united the peasants and the landed sections against the ruthless imperialist onslaught over the first half of the nineteenth century. At the same time, it also questioned the internal exploiters like the moneylenders and buniyas. What has been delineated illustrates the evolution of the historiography on the 1857 Revolt. As seen, historians have

shifted their focus from the mutinous sepoys, and seeing in it the origins of Indian nationalism to studying the diversities of the Revolt both in terms of popular participation and regions affected by it as also highlighting the internal contradictions. Presently some historians are engaged in resarching gender-related issues, which would undoubtedly enrich our understanding of the Revolt of 1857. MAIN EVENTS OF 1857 The Sepoys of Dum Dum in Calcutta were the first to express their resentment at the use of greased cartridges on January 23, 1857. The news spread to the cantonment at Barrackpore where an Indian sepoy killed two British officers, when he was forced to use greased cartridges. He was arrested and hanged to death on April 8, 1857. The regiment posted at Barrackpore was disbanded. The news then travelled to Meerut cantonment. Events at Meerut On 6th May, 1857 A.D. when the new cartridges were issued to 90 Indian soldiers in Meerut, 85 of them refused to bite them with their teeth. These 85 soldiers were court-martialled and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. They were stripped of their uniforms in the presence of the entire Indian garrison. It was too much of a disgrace to be put up with and this incident sent a wave of indignation. On 10th May 1857, the Indian soldiers at Meerut broke into open revolt. They released their companions and murdered a few European officers. The sky was rent with deafening shouts ofMaro Firangee Ko. On the night of 10th May the mutineers marched to Delhi and thousands of able-bodied civilians also joined them. Events at Delhi The revolutionaries from Meerut reached Delhi on 11th May, 1857 and the small British garrison at Delhi could not resist and consequently fell into their hands within 2 days. The Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, joined the revolutionaries after initial vacillation and was proclaimed Emperor of India. The loss of Delhi lowered the prestige of the British in India. To retrieve their prestige they put everything at stake and Sir John Lawrence sent a strong British contingent commanded by John Nicholson. After a long siege of four months, the British were able to recover Delhi in September 1857 A.D. The Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II was captured by the British from the tomb of Humayun. Two of his sons and a grandson were shot in cold blood before his eyes. The emperor was deported to Rangoon where he died in the year 1862 A. D.

Events at Kanpur At Kanpur the struggle for independence was led by Nana Sahib Dondu Pant, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II. The British Commander, Hugh Wheeler finding the odds heavy against him surrendered on June 20, 1857 A.D. A large number of Englishmen, women and children fell into the hands of Nana Sahib and he promised them a safe passage to Allahabad. But the news about the inhuman massacre of the Indians at the hands of General ONeil at Allahabad and Benares infuriated the crowd which in vengeance killed all the Englishmen in their custody. However, later researches reveal that Nana Sahib had no hand in these killings. General Havelock captured Kanpur after defeating Nana Sahib in a hotly contested battle on June 17, 1857 A.D. In the meantime, Tantya Tope, the able General of Nana Sahib, was successful in winning over the troops at Shivajinagar and Morar by appealing to their sense of patriotism. With the concerted strength of these troops Nana Sahib and Tantya Tope recaptured Kanpur in November 1857 A.D. But they could not keep Kanpur under their charge for long because the English General Campbell appeared there with a large force. The British won a decisive victory against the forces of Nana Sahib in the battle which was fought from December 1 to 6, 1857. Nana Sahib fled towards Nepal, where he probably died, while Tantya Tope migrated to Kalpi. Events at Lucknow The tide of revolution touched its highest mark in Oudh. Not only the Hindu and Muslim Taluqdars but even the common people went all out to help the dispossessed Nawab, Wajid Ali Shah. As soon as the revolt broke out the people carried out a complete massacre of the Englishmen. The Chief Commissioner, Sir Henry Lawrence, sought refuge with 1000 English and 700 Indian soldiers inside the Residency. The revolutionaries besieged the Residency and killed most of the Englishmen, including Sir Henry Lawrence and the notorious English General ONeil. At last, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in India, General Collin Campbell, himself marched towards Lucknow, at the head of English and Gurkha soldiers. Lucknow fell into the hands of the British after a fierce battle in March 1858. Events at Jhansi and Gwalior The leader of the revolutionaries in Central India was Rani Laxmi Bai of Jhansi. General Sir Huge Rose attacked Jhansi in March 1858 but the brave Rani Laxmi Bai kept the British General unnerved for quite sometime. Her appeal to Tantya Tope for help brought Tantya Tope rushing to Jhansi, but not before her troops

were severely defeated on the banks of the river Betwa. Laxmi Bai had to hold on to her fortress alone. The British resorted to deceit and treachery and bribed the guards to open the gates of the fortress. But the Britishers could not capture Rani Laxmi Bai who slipped out of the fort and reached Kalpi where she was joined by Tantya Tope, the brave General of Nana Sahib. Both fought many successful battles against the British. At last they had to leave Kalpi as well and they fell upon Gwalior with lightning speed and captured the fort of Jayaji Rao Scindia, a dependent ruler of the British company. A fierce battle was fought between the British and the revolutionaries under Rani Laxmi Bai and Tantya Tope from June 11 to June 1 8, 1 858 A. D. But the personal valour of Rani and Tantya Tope could not match the resources at the command of the British. The Rani fell fighting the British. Sir Huge Rose paid a tribute to the valour of Rani Laxmi Bai when he said "Laxmi Bai was the bravest and the best of military leaders of the rebels." Tantya Tope was betrayed by the Gwalior Chief Man Singh and fell into the hands of the British. He was subsequently hanged on April 18, 1859. Events in Bihar In Bihar, the Revolt was led by Kunwar Singh, a zamindar of Jagdishpur. Though he was eighty years old, he played a prominent part in the revolt. He fought the British in Bihar and then joined Nana Sahibs forces and took part in various encounters with the English in Oudh and Central India. He died on April 27, 1858, leaving behind a glorious record of valour and bravery. Events at Faizabad The Revolt at Faizabad was led by Maulvi Ahmadullah, a native of Madras. He aroused the Muslim community against the British rule and took part in various battles in Oudh and Rohilkhand. He was, however, treacherously killed. Nature of the Revolt Most of the European historians have dubbed the Revolt in 1 857 as a mere Sepoy Mutiny. They point out that it was a revolt of Indian soldiers who were offended at the use of greased cartridges. In their opinion, the discontented sepoys were incited by the landlords and the deposed native princes and the people of India were not directly involved in this rebellion. They further assert that it was not a national war of independence, in as much as the revolt was confined to a particular region and not to the whole of India; large areas like the Punjab, Sind and Rajputana remained unaffected. The nationalists in India, prominent amongst whom are Subhash Chandra Bose and Vir Savarkar, have hailed it as the First War of Indian Independence. It was admittedly a great and courageous effort by patriotic Indians to get rid of the foreign dominatio

n. It was a glorious landmark in our history in as much as Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder to win back their lost independence. At places even women took swords and fought the aliens. One cannot but admire the patriotic spirit of boatmen of Lucknow who refused to carry British soldiers across the river. The sepoys and the people fought gallantly upto the very end. Though the revolt was unsuccessful, the spirit of the people remained unshaken. The revolt left an indelible impression on the minds of the Indian people and thus paved the way for the rise of a strong national movement. In the words of Dr. Majumdar, it has been said that Julius Caesar when dead was more powerful than when he was alive. The same thing may be said about the Mutiny of 1857. Whatever might have been its original character, it soon became a symbol of challenge to the mighty British power in India. It remained a shining example before the nascent nationalism in India in its struggle for freedom from the British yoke.