Unity, Perspectives, Nature and Character of the Revolt of 1957

The nature of the 1857 revolt has been a subject of differing perspectives. While some British historians have labelled it a mere ‘Sepoy Mutiny,’ dismissing it as a self-serving rebellion without native leadership or popular backing, this view offers an incomplete understanding. The event encompassed various segments of the civilian population, not solely the sepoys. The sepoys’ discontent was just one factor in the upheaval. 

Hindu-Muslim Unity Showcased 

During the entirety of the 1857 revolt, there was a remarkable spirit of unity between Hindus and Muslims across all levels—among the common people, soldiers, and leaders alike. 

• Recognition and Rallying: They collectively recognized Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, as their emperor, and Hindu sepoys in Meerut were initially driven to march towards Delhi, the historic Mughal capital. 
• Unity and Loyalty: According to Maulana Azad, two standout truths emerged amidst the complexities of the 1857 Rising: first, the extraordinary sense of togetherness among Hindus and Muslims in India during this period; and second, the profound loyalty people felt towards the Mughal Crown. 
• Mutual Respect: Hindu and Muslim rebels and sepoys demonstrated a deep respect for each other’s beliefs. 
  • Immediate bans on cow slaughter were enforced in areas where the revolt succeeded. 
• Shared Leadership: Both Hindus and Muslims held prominent positions in leadership roles. 
  • Ex: Nana Saheb was aided by Azimullah, a Muslim known for his political expertise, while Laxmibai received staunch support from Afghan soldiers. 

This underscores that, prior to 1858, the events of 1857 revealed an India where people and politics were not fundamentally divided along communal or sectarian lines.

Historians Viewpoints

Nature and Scope of the Revolt: According to Dr K. Datta, the revolt was primarily a military uprising, which was seized upon by discontented princes and landlords whose interests were impacted by the changing political landscape. 

• Localized Nature: This element lent it an air of a widespread uprising in certain regions. 
  • The revolt, however, was never uniformly nationwide; it remained localised, confined, and inadequately organised. 
• Lack of Cohesion: Additionally, Datta notes that the movement lacked cohesion and a unified purpose among the different factions of the rebels. 
• Diverse Historical Perspectives on the 1857 Outbreak: Historians have held varying opinions regarding the nature of the 1857 outbreak. 
• • British historians, such as Kaye, Malleson, Trevelyan, Lawrence, and Holmes, have characterised it as a ‘mutiny’ confined to the army, lacking widespread support from the people. 
  • Many contemporary Indians, like Munshi Jiwan Lal, Moinuddin, Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya, and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, shared a similar perspective based on their eyewitness accounts. 
  • Others viewed it as a ‘religious war against the Christians,’ a ‘racial struggle for supremacy between the Black and the White,’ or a clash between ‘Oriental and Occidental civilization and culture.’ 
  • First War of Independence: Some even saw it as the result of a Hindu-Muslim conspiracy to overthrow British rule. 
    • Certain Indian nationalists hailed it as a well-planned national struggle and referred to it as ‘the first war of Indian independence.’
• Reinterpretation of the 1857 Revolt: Sir John Lawrence and Seeley believed it to be solely a Sepoy’s Mutiny. Sir John Seeley characterised the 1857 Revolt as an ‘entirely unpatriotic and self-serving Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support.’ According to him, it was a rebellion by Indian sepoys against the established government. 
  • Indian States and Grievances: While some Indian states did join the revolt, it’s acknowledged that they harboured grievances due to Lord Dalhousie’s annexation policy. 
    • However, this interpretation is considered unsatisfactory. 
  • Broader Scope of the Revolt: The Revolt began as a military uprising, but it was not confined to the army alone. 
    • Not all of the army participated, and a significant faction fought on the government’s side.
  • Wide Support Across Social Segments: In reality, rebels hailed from nearly every segment of the population. 
    • In Oudh, it garnered substantial support from the masses, and this was also true in some districts of Bihar. 
    • During the trials of 1858-59, thousands of civilians, along with soldiers, were found guilty of rebellion and faced punishment.
• Debunking the Religious Conflict Theory of the 1857 Revolt: It is challenging to agree with L. E. R. Rees‘ assertion that the Revolt was solely a conflict between religious zealots and Christians. 
  • Religious Justifications: During the uprising, the ethical principles of the various religions had little sway over the combatants. 
    • Both sides selectively quoted their religious scriptures to justify their actions against the other party. 
  • Victory and Defeat: While the Christians emerged victorious, it wasn’t a triumph for Christianity. Similarly, the Hindus and Muslims were defeated, but not their respective religions.
    • Christianity, along with Western science, has indeed influenced the Indian mindset, but Christian missionaries did not achieve remarkable success in converting the populace.
  • Beyond Racial Divides: Furthermore, it wasn’t strictly a racial war, a battle between the White and the Black. 
    • While all the Whites in India, regardless of their nationality, sided with one faction, not all the Blacks did so. 
• Narrative of Civilization vs. Barbarism: Some English historians, notably led by T. R. Holmes, propagated the perspective that the Revolt of 1857 represented a clash between civilization and barbarism. In reality, both Europeans and Indians were culpable of committing atrocities during the rebellion.
  • Mutual Atrocities: While some Indians were responsible for the tragic deaths of European women and, in certain cases, children in Delhi, Kanpur, and Lucknow, the British also engaged in brutal acts that were no less barbaric. 
  • Excesses of Retribution: Hodson, for instance, engaged in indiscriminate shootings in Delhi, while Neill boasted about hanging hundreds of Indians without any form of trial. 
    • Around Allahabad, almost every tree became a gallows for unfortunate peasants. 
    • In Banaras, even street children were apprehended and hanged. 
  • Inhumane Practices: Russell, a correspondent for The Times, reported that Muslim nobles were sewn into pig skin and force-fed pork. 
    • Vengeance took precedence over reason on both sides. 
    • Any nation or individual that partakes in such horrendous acts cannot lay claim to being civilised.
• Outram and Tayler’s Conspiracy Theory: Sir James Outram and W. Tayler suggested that the outbreak was the outcome of a Hindu-Muslim conspiracy, with Outram asserting that it was a Mohammedan conspiracy capitalising on Hindu grievances. 
  • However, this explanation is deemed insufficient and unsatisfactory.
• Disraeli’s Perspective on the National Rising: Benjamin Disraeli, a contemporary conservative leader in England, characterised the 1857 uprising as a “national rising.” 
  • Methodical Approach Behind the Outburst: He argued that it wasn’t a sudden outburst, but rather the result of careful planning and well-organised efforts, constantly on the lookout for an opportunity. 
  • Cumulative Impact of Long-Term Factors on Empire Decline: Disraeli emphasised that the decline and fall of empires aren’t caused by minor incidents, but by significant underlying factors that accumulate over time.
• Early Indian Nationalist Reinterpretations: Early Indian national leaders sought to ignite a sense of national identity among the people by reinterpreting the 1857 uprising as a revolt of the people, with its leaders being hailed as national heroes who envisioned a free India. 
  • V. D. Savarkar, in his 1909 book “The Indian War of Independence,” published in London, described it as a meticulously planned war for national independence. 
    • He argued that earlier uprisings in 1826-27, 1831-32, 1848, and 1854 were rehearsals for the significant event of 1857. 
  • Symbol of Hindu-Muslim Unity: Later national leaders expanded on the idea of the Revolt’s popular character and cited it as a prime example of the seamless cooperation between Hindus and Muslims in the struggle for freedom from British rule. 
  • In 1957, India celebrated the centenary of the 1857 events with immense fervour and enthusiasm, treating it as if it were a true war of independence.
• Modern Historians’ Analysis: Recently, two eminent Indian historians, Dr. R. C. Majumdar and Dr. S. N. Sen, conducted an extensive study of all available records, both official and non-official. 
  • Common Ground in Historical Interpretations: While the two scholars hold different interpretations of the events of 1857-1858, they do agree on certain key points. 
    • Both assert that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful planning nor were there any masterminds orchestrating it.
  • Key Figures’ Movements: The fact that Nana Sahib visited Lucknow and Ambala in March-April 1857, with the struggle starting in May of the same year, does not necessarily indicate premeditation. 
    • The notion that Munshi Azim Ullah Khan and Rango Bapuji were the architects of the uprising is considered untenable. 
    • Azim Ullah Khan had travelled to London to advocate for Nana Sahib’s right to the pension previously paid to Baji Rao II.
    • Rango Bapuji was dispatched to London to secure the return of Satara. 
      • Their missions in London should not be construed as evidence of their involvement in a conspiracy.
• Insufficient Evidence of Conspiracy: Even the narrative of messages being circulated through chapatis or lotus flowers is viewed as insufficient proof. 
  • During Bahadur Shah’s trial, the evidence collected failed to convince even the British officers. 
  • The trial proceedings made it apparent that the uprising was as much of a surprise to Bahadur Shah as it was to the British. 
  • Both Dr. Majumdar and Dr. Sen concur that in the mid-nineteenth century, Indian nationalism was in its infancy.
  • Dr. Sen states, “India in the first half of the nineteenth century” was merely a geographical expression. 
    • In 1857, various regional identities, such as Bengalis, Punjabis, Hindustanis, Maharashtrians, and Madrasis, did not perceive themselves as belonging to the same nation.

• Lacunas in Leadership and Motivation in the Rebellion: The leaders of the Rebellion were not considered ‘national’ figures. 
  • Leadership Under Duress: Bahadur Shah was not a ‘national’ king; he was compelled by the soldiers to assume a leadership role. 
    • Nana Sahib only raised the flag of revolt after his envoy in London failed to secure Baji Rao II’s pension. 
  • Negotiation Attempts: Even after the revolt began, he expressed willingness to negotiate with the English if the pension was granted.
  • Local Struggles: The turmoil in Jhansi revolved around issues of succession and annexation. 
    • The Rani’s rallying cry was “mera Jhansi, dungi nahin” (“My Jhansi, I will not give it away”). While the Rani undoubtedly met a heroic end, she never indicated that her cause was a national one.
• Feudal Loyalties and Limited Support: The Nawab of Oudh, known for his reckless lifestyle, could never be considered a national leader. 
  • Feudal Loyalties and Internal Conflicts: The taluqdars of Oudh fought for their feudal privileges and their king, not for any broader national cause. 
    • Most leaders harboured mutual jealousy, and the messiness of their interactions was evident. 
  • Limited Popular Support: The majority of the populace remained apathetic and neutral. The movement failed to garner widespread popular support, except in Oudh and the Shahabad district of Bihar. 
    • The kind of nationalism we understand today had yet to fully develop at that time.

• Majumdar’s Regional Analysis of the Revolt: In his book “The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857,” R. C. Majumdar provides a detailed analysis of the 1857 uprising. 
  • Majumdar’s primary argument centres around the assertion that the 1857 Revolt was not a war of independence. 
  • Regional Variations: According to him, the nature of the Revolt varied across different regions of India. 
    • In certain areas, like large portions of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, it began as a mutiny among sepoys, which was later joined by dissatisfied elements seeking to exploit the ensuing chaos. 
    • In other regions, such as the United Provinces (U.P.), specific parts of Madhya Pradesh, and the western parts of Bihar, the mutiny of sepoys transitioned into a broader revolt. 
  • This phase involved not only soldiers but also civilians, particularly the dispossessed rulers of Indian states, landlords, tenants, and others. 
  • Sympathy without Action: Finally, in some parts of the country like Rajasthan and Maharashtra, the civilian population sympathised with the rebels, but they refrained from engaging in overt acts of rebellion, maintaining their adherence to the law.

Conclusion

The 1857 revolt was a multifaceted event that defies simplistic labels. While British perspectives often viewed it as a limited mutiny, the revolt was marked by significant Hindu-Muslim unity and widespread discontent across various societal segments. Though it lacked cohesive national leadership and widespread popular support, it showcased early signs of collective resistance against British rule. Its legacy as a precursor to India’s struggle for independence highlights its complex and pivotal role in shaping modern Indian nationalism.

DOWNLOAD PDF