The uprising of 1857: What led to it, why it failed, and its aftermath.
Date : 05/05/2024
Introduction 1
The uprising of 1857 in India has been referred to as the Sepoy Mutiny by Western commentators — presumably because they cannot pronounce the word “Sipahi”. However, several Indian historians have also referred to it as the Sepoy Mutiny. A deeper question is why this uprising should be referred to as a “mutiny”. A mutiny refers to a revolt against a sovereign authority. The East India Company (henceforth EIC) against whom the uprising took place, was a private limited company, not a sovereign authority. So, the uprising should not be described as a mutiny. Veer Savarkar provided the best description of the events that occurred in Northern India during 1857-59 when he called it India’s First War of Independence.
The 1857 uprising was not the first uprising against the EIC. Small localized attempts at revolt had occurred in Vellore, the indigo plantations Bengal and by the group led by Birsa Munda in modern Jharkhand. But the 1857 uprising was the first uprising to have a pan-Indian character. This uprising is regarded as the greatest uprising against colonial rule during the 19" century — just as the American War of Independence is regarded as the greatest uprising against colonial rule during the 18th century. The difference is that the American uprising succeeded whereas the Indian one failed. Hence, the American War of Independence is (rightly) glorified in literature and folklore whereas the Indian War of Independence gets to be called a “mutiny”. There were other similarities between the two wars of independence. For instance, both suffered from a perceived lack of unity. A famous quote from Benjamin Franklin “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately” shows the trepidation about the lack of unity among American freedom fighters. The Indian struggle failed largely due to the lack of unity among the principal protagonists.
Background of the Uprising
Resentment against EIC rule was one of the principal reasons for the uprising. Three key elements of Indian society resented the practices that the EIC had adopted to rule India. These elements and the resentment they held against EIC dominance are briefly discussed below.
Crisis in Agrarian India
Since India was a largely agricultural country what happened to agriculture and farmers were keen determinants of economic and social outcomes. The Mughal Empire traditionally taxed agricultural produce during the Industrial Revolution in Britain. This required a switch in the cropping pattern from food grains to commercial crops like cotton and jute. Furthermore, the EIC required huge amounts of labor for its infrastructural projects, particularly railways. The new agricultural policies of the EIC were designed to facilitate this movement of labor. The strategy used involved the deprivation of village society and economy through means such as inducing famines which forced peasants to move to infrastructural projects in towns in order to seek sustenance.” 2
Resentment among Indian troops serving the EIC
Indian troops serving the EIC had many reasons to be disgruntled with their employers. First, their pay and conditions were distinctly inferior to their European counterparts. Second, the social practices of the EIC often went against the religious beliefs of the soldiers. For instance, the EIC had enacted laws to force Indian troops to cross oceans to fight wars overseas. This was used initially in the three Anglo-Burmese wars (1824-26, 1852, 1885), two of which were fought during EIC rule. Indian troops did not mind using the land route to fight in Burma but held the belief that crossing the ocean was against their religion. This law was used again and again to transport Indian troops to fight in the two World Wars where their performance was one of utmost bravery and daring. There was resentment against the sudden revocation of some bad social practices. It was also being suggested that the bullets used by the troops were laced with beef and pork lard which had to be bitten off before use. Both Hindu and Muslim soldiers resented this. Starting in the 1830s the EIC encouraged religious conversion to Christianity including passing laws to ensure that those who had converted retained rights to inherit their ancestral properties. This was resented by most of the population. Furthermore, most of the soldiers came from farming backgrounds and were well aware of the hardships prevalent in the agrarian sector. People were well aware of the gigantic economic drain from India. 3
Resentment of Kings and Nawabs
Around 1818 the Mughal Empire had more or less dissipated. The British had taken over India from the Marathas, not the Mughals. But the Marathas, themselves, were in a state of disunity so that large parts of the country were ruled by local kings and nawabs. Nevertheless, the Mughal throne retained considerable symbolic value. So, when Lord Dalhousie announced in 1849 that Bahadur Shah Zafar would be the last Mughal emperor of India, the political effect was stunning. The EIC had expanded its territories by a number of means including outright conquest and invoking the Doctrine of Lapse. Under this doctrine when a king or nawab died without a male heir their kingdom would automatically come under EIC rule. Many local rulers suffered under this doctrine. For instance, Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi wanted her adopted son to inherit the kingdom of Jhansi but was denied. Several other rulers were facing similar conditions. These included Rani Avanti Bai of Madhya Pradesh, Nana Saheb, Tatya Tope, and others. From the mid 18" century facilities of kings and nawabs were gradually reduced.
The unfolding of the Uprising
On 29 March 1857, Mangal Pandey, a soldier working for EIC in Meerut was hanged for rebelling against the company. In reaction soldiers of his group rebelled. They captured prisons of the EIC and freed the soldiers being held there, declared war, captured weapons, killed British officers, and burnt the properties of the EIC. The uprising spread throughout the country. Farmers joined — in particular by withholding taxes. Rebellion by some soldiers had become a people’s revolt. On 10 May 1857 Indian troops from Meerut entered Delhi under the cover of darkness and took it over. They went into the Red Fort where, after one unsuccessful effort, they were able to persuade Bahadur Shah Zafar to lead the revolt. He then wrote to a number of kings and nawabs seeking their support for the uprising. The British abandoned Delhi and for several months Delhi was not under their control. Many regional leaders of the uprising came up. These included several women leaders: Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Begum Hazrat Mahal of Lucknow, Rani Avanti Bai of M.P. (who led 4,000 troops). Other major leaders included Tatya Tope, Nana Saheb (who forced the British to abandon Kanpur), and Babu Kunwar Singh from Bihar, among several others.
The British Fight-back
The British responded by getting more troops from England and by repealing many objectionable laws e.g. the Doctrine of Lapse. They also promised Indian rulers protection so long as they accepted the British monarch as their sovereign. They also changed the composition of their army by reducing the proportions of soldiers from Bihar and U.P. and increasing those of Gurkhas, Sikhs, and Pathans. With a refurbished force they put down the uprising ruthlessly. Sons of Bahadur Shah Zafar were shot dead and the last Mughal Emperor was imprisoned in Rangoon where he died a lonely death.
Reasons for the failure of the Uprising
One reason for the failure of the uprising was the absence of a central authority. Between 1526 (the advent of Babur) to 1707 (death of Aurangzeb), there were only 6 Mughal Emperors whereas between 1707 and 1857 there were 21 Mughal rulers. Financial resources were lacking and the British met with success in their efforts to co-opt many small rulers and nawabs.
Aftermath of the Uprising, the EIC was disbanded and India came under the direct rule of the British throne.
Mishra (2012) notes that after the uprising the British became very suspicious of and bitter towards Indians and those who looked like Indians.4 They were apprehensive of continued unity among Indians and started their policy of “divide and rule”. At the same time, they decided to start listening to the views of prominent Indians. The Indian National Congress was established in 1885 by Hume — a Scotsman. Indians were not allowed in until several years later.
The 1857 Uprising had major implications for the subsequent Freedom struggle. The Freedom struggle under the Congress emphasized mobilization of the peasantry (just like in the Uprising) and galvanization of important leaders (not just kings and nawabs but also influential lawyers). The third leg of the Uprising was added on by Subhash Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army. As is well known, the two played an absolutely critical role in the decision of the British to finally grant India independence.5
—
(1) The views expressed in this article are my own and should not be attributed to any organization. This essay draws on chapters 5 and 6 of the first volume of my two-volume book Facets of India’s Economy and Her Society, Hampshire, UK, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
(2) Carey, H. (1853) The Slave Trade: Domestic and Foreign: Why it exists and how it may be eased, Philadelphia: A. Hart and C. Hart publishers argues that such famines were part of deliberate policies of the EIC and the Crown government. India’s population was low at that time and much labor was required for purposes of building up infrastructure. It has been estimated that as many as 52 million people died from famines during British rule. There is a precise definition of death due to famine and normal deaths are not included in this figure.
(3) Dutt, R. (1902) The Economic History of India under Early British Rule: From the rise of the British Power in 1757 to the Ascension of Queen Victoria London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
(4) Mishra, P. (2012) From the Ruins of Empire: The revolt against the West and the remaking of Asia, London: Penguin Books.
(5) See Jha, R. op. cit. chapter 6.
-----
Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons
This article was originally given as a talk by Prof. Raghabendra Jha at an event organized by the Indian High Commission in Canberra, Australia, on 16th December 2021, and has been reproduced here with the prior permission of the author.
Tags :
Note: Your email address will not be displayed with the comment.
.png)