1857 Mutiny

“All credit goes to Mangal Pandey for starting the revolt for Indian freedom in1857.”

Abstract

        In Spring 1857 sporadic violence in villages and military camps in the north of India led to massacres on both sides from Meerut to Delhi and its capital Calcutta, gradually turning India into a battlefield of vicious conflict between tribal and religious sects who were either opposed to or allianced with the country's British rulers. A Queen, disinherited from her destiny by the East India Company, found herself at the epicentre of the troubles which turned her from widow to warrior in what became the largest mutiny in the world. In fact, with the development of Indian nationalism, 1857 and the events that occurred as part of the rebellion were soon incorporated and appropriated as a part of nationalist.

Introduction

        The Revolt of 1857 was a major upheaval against the British Rule in which the disgruntled princes, to disconnected sepoys and disillusioned elements participated. However, it is important to note that right from the inception of the East India Company there had been several resistance from divergent section in different parts of the sub-continent. This resistance offered by different tribal groups, peasant and religious factions remained localized and ill organized. There were series of civil disturbances and local uprising which were scattered, localised and mostly violent. Most of these movements arouse due to popular discontent with the British rule, but some of them were owing to the individual grievances. Madras, Bombay, Bengal, and the Western Punjab remained undisturbed, even though the popular feeling in these provinces favored the rebels.

 

Revolt was not for all

        "The Friendly rulers and chiefs "acted as the breakwaters to the storm which would have otherwise swept us in one great wave."

                                                        By Governor-General Canning

        Even though spread over a vast territory and widely popular among the people, the Revolt of 1857 could not embrace the entire country or all the groups and classes of Indian society .Most rulers of the Indian states and the big zamindars, selfish to the core and fearful of British might, refused to join in.

        On the contrary, the Sindhia of Gwalior, the Holkar of Indore, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Raja of Jodhpur and other Rajput rulers, the Nawab of Bhopal, the rulers of Patiala, Nabha, Jind, and Kashmir, the Ranas of Nepal, and many other ruling chiefs, and a large number of big zamindars gave active help to the British in suppressing the Revolt. In fact, no more than one per cent of the chiefs of India joined the Revolt.

        Except for the discontented and the dispossessed zamindars, the middle and upper classes were mostly critical of the rebels; most of the propertied classes were either cool towards them or actively hostile to them. The money-lenders were the chief targets of the villagers' attacks. They were, therefore, naturally hostile to the Revolt. The merchants too gradually became unfriendly. The rebels were compelled to impose heavy taxation on them in order to finance the war or to seize their stocks of foodstuffs to feed the army.

        The merchants often hid their wealth and goods and refused to give free supplies to the rebels. The big merchants or Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras supported the British because their main profits came from foreign trade and economic connections with the British merchants. The zamindars of Bengal also remained loyal to the British. They were after all a creation of the British.

        The modern educated Indians also did not support the Revolt. They were repelled by the rebels' appeals to superstitions and their opposition to progressive social measures. The educated Indians wanted to end the backwardness of the country. They mistakenly believed that British rule would help them accomplish these tasks of modernization while the rebels would take the country backward.

The mean of shift in mutiny, 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 that hitherto had been the focus of contemporary British officials, or statesmen like Benjamin Disraeli. 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. The "mutiny" component of 1857 that shifted and soon assumed the nature of a "civil rebellion”.

        The spirit of the Indian national movement influenced some historians. This meant that some of them referred to ideas like nationalism that were supposedly witnessed during the rebellion or saw the very inception of the national movement in the 1857 movement. Nevertheless, they went beyond the simple categorisations that had seen two dominant and opposing narratives one that lauded the British as the victors who had "won" the war and on the other, the claims of the "rebellious Indians", who had been "defeated".

        The shift in the nationalists saw in its failure the shattering of the last vestiges of feudal power. They were emphatic about the "revolution of 1857" being a struggle between the worn out feudal system and the newly introduced commercial capitalism, that sought to achieve political supremacy over the former. 1857 as a major peasant revolt, even though it was led by the decaying feudal forces, fighting to get back their privileges and turn back the tide of foreign domination.

Rani Lakshmi Bai  

                    “Khoob Ladi Mardani Vo to Jhansi Wali Rani Thi.”
                                                                  By Subhadra Kumari Chauhan

        The allegedly beautiful Lakshmi Bai, was well educated, spoke English and skilled in the martial arts of riding, shooting and fencing. She married the elderly Maharaja of Jhansi, a city in the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India.

        As the town burned, the queen escaped on horseback with her son, Damodar, tied to her back. Historians have not reached a consensus on how she managed to pull this off. Some contend that her closest aide, laxmi bai, disguised herself as the queen to distract the British and buy time for her to get away.

    In the end, the British took the town, leaving 3,000 to 5,000 people dead, and hoisted the British flag atop the palace.

Doctrine of Lapse

I personally believes that the Queen of Jhansi participated the revolt because of this law. The former king of Jhansi Rao Gangadhar had no child so he adopted a child, According to the British law and order the adopted son had no right to sit on the Throne of his father. So, providing a better king the queen of Jhansi jumped into the revolt.

        The practical application of Doctrine of Lapse of Lord Dalhousie’s produced unprecedented discontent in the directly affected states. As a result number of rulers were debarred from adopting any son for the purpose of religious ceremonies after their death. This was considered as a direct encroachment by the British upon their religious practices. The Punjab and Sikkim were conquered and annexed to the British Empire. By applying the Doctrine of Lapse, Dalhousie annexed the principalities of Satara, Jaipur, Sambhalpur, Bhagat. Udaipur, Jhansi, and Nagpur. Thus in the eyes of the Indians, all the ruling princes were in danger and the annexation of all the states in India was considered only a question of some time. It was a General belief amongst the people in India that the native states were being swallowed up. All These actions manifested the lack of sensitivity of the British towards the Indian Rulers.

        In the last there are so many assumption on Lakshmi Bai that she was not captured by her enemies and cruelly dispatched by fire. Instead, the Indian warrior Queen died in battle fighting the British in a manner that earned her respect and admiration by her enemies. And another story says that the Queen of Jhansi uses is katar (small knife) to kill herself.

Mangel Pandey                            

                            Na Iran Ne Kiya, Na Shah-e-Russ Ne…
                            Angrez Ko Tabha Kiya, Kartoos Ne...
                                                                       By Bahadur Shah Zaffar

        The first mutiny began on 10 May 1857 in the garrison town of Meerut, forty miles northeast of Delhi. As the headquarters of both the Bengal Artillery and a division of the Bengal army, the beautiful city of Meerut was a key military station. It was here when eighty-five Muslim and Hindu soldiers were tried for collective disobedience, after refusing to fire rifle cartridges they believed were contaminated, that a punishment of ten years imprisonment with hard labour acted as the fuse to an explosive bloody rebellion across the country. The spark that lit the fuse was provided by rifle cartridges allegedly greased with pig and cow fat, which the sepoys had to tear open with their teeth before loading. Consuming pork and beef violates dietary laws of Muslims and Hindus, respectively. Although there is no evidence that either material was, in fact, used, the company had upset religious sensibilities on previous occasions. It had abolished sati in 1829, the Hindu custom of burning widows alive with the corpses of their husbands. The company had supported Christian missionary activity for decades, while an 1850 law allowed converts to Christianity to inherit ancestral property, which effectively promoted Christianity over the Hindu faith.

        In Barrackpur, on 29th March, the soldiers of 34th Native Infantry refused to use the greased cartridges and a sepoys named Mangal Pandey broke the lines and fired at Lieutenant Baugh. Mangal Pandey was arrested and executed. At Berhampur, which also had disobeyed the authorities were disbanded. The First major outbreak that finally led to the Revolt of 1857 occurred at Meerut. Following the court martial of eighty-five sepoys of the Cavalry Regiment for refusing to use the greased cartridges, on 10th May 1857, the sepoys broke out in open rebellion, shot their officers, released their fellow sepoys and marched towards Delhi. On 12th May, the sepoys captured the city of Delhi and occupied the palace proclaimed Bahadur Shah II as the emperor of India. On 23rd, within a short period, the revolt spread to Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Jhansi, Central India, Bihar, Orissa, and many other places. However, the Indian rulers remained loyal to the British and rendered valuable service in the suppression of the revolt. The British were on the defensive during the early part of the revolt. First of all, they made a sustained effort to recapture Delhi from the sepoys. In September 1857, Delhi was recaptured by the British. Emperor Bahadur Shah II was arrested and exiled to Mandalay, Burma, where he died a few years later. Two of his sons and a grandson were shot dead at Delhi gate in Daryaganj. Thus, The British ended the Mughal dynasty from the Indian scenario. The attack on the Red For Delhi. The sepoys besieged the Residency at Lucknow. Sir Henry Lawrence and some loyal sepoys lost their lives while defending the Residency. In March 1858, British forces captured Lucknow with the help of the Gurkha Regiments. Nana sahib, the adopted son of the Ex-Peshwa Bajirao II led the sepoys at Kanpur. Nana Sahib was joined by Tantia Tope. After the recapture of Lucknow, General Campbell occupied Kanpur on 6th December 1857 Tantia Tope joined Rani Lakshmi Bai the widow of Raja Gangadhar Rao fought against the British. In 1858, Tatya Tope was captured and put to death a year later. Nana Sahib fled to Nepal where he died in due course.

Conclusion

        According to the assignment and few facts and figures I conclude that:

 1. The Indian people and the Indian rulers were against the British and wanted to get rid of them.

 2. The common people also took part in that uprising, though they were few in number.

 3. It is true that the uprising was started by the soldiers but their move was not to achieve their individual concessions, instead they also wanted to expel the British from India.

 4. It is also true that the uprising did not spread in many parts of India But it does not mean that the people belonging to these parts did not independence. They were waiting for the suitable opportunity, so that they might join the war against the British.

 5. In that uprising the Hindus and Muslims had sacrificed their lives together. They had performed such type of deeds to set India free from the slavery of the British.

References

1. The Indian Mutiny.  By David, Saul (2002).

2. Wagner, Kim A. The Great Fear of 1857: Rumours, Conspiracies and the Making of the Indian Uprising.

3. Sen, Surendra Nath: 1857

 ( https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.43239/page/n15/mode/2up  )

4. The Rani of Jhansi: Gender, History and fable in India By Harleen Singh.

5. The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination By Gautam Chakravarty.

6. Mangal Pandey: Brave martyr and accidental hero. By Rudrangshu Mukherjee.