Describe the nature of the Revolt of 1857. What were its results? 1857 के विद्रोह की प्रकृति का वर्णन कीजिए। इसके क्या परिणाम थे ? [BPSC, 1999]

OR

Throw light on the causes of the failure of the Revolt of 1857. What was its impact on Indian politics ? 1857 के विद्रोह की असफलता के कारणों पर प्रकाश डालिए। भारतीय राजनीति पर इसका क्या प्रभाव पड़ा ? [BPSC, 2009] ©selfstudyhistory.com

Ans:

Nature of the Great Revolt of 1857

Different views of historians:

• The Mutiny:
  • Western scholars labelled the revolt of 1857 as ‘ The Mutiny of 1857’ (i.e.. a military outbreak). This interpretation is the outcome of the British imperial bias.
    • Prof. F.G Hutchins, a USA based historian expresses writes: “The uprising of 1857 was termed a mutiny by the British because they wished to emphasise its treasonous nature and in addition to convey the impression that it was confined to the Indian troops of the British Army.
  • British historians like Kaye, Malleson, Trevelyan, lawrence, Holmes have painted it as ‘a mutiny’ confined to the army which did not command the support of the people at large.
    • A similar view was held by many contemporary Indians like Munshi Jiwan Lal, Moinuddin (both eye witnesses at Delhi), Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya (eye witness at Bareilly), Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (Sadr Amin at Bijnor in 1857) among many others.
  • Sir John Seeley (and some other British historians):
    • A mere ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ —”a wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support”.
    • Some Indian states, it is conceded, also joined in the revolt but these were states which nursed a grievance because of the annexation policy of Lord Dalhousie.
    • However, it is not a complete picture of the event as it involved many sections of the civilian population and not just the sepoys.
      • The discontent of the sepoys was just one cause of the disturbance.
      • Unquestionably, the Revolt began as a military rising, but it was not everywhere confined to the army.
        • In fact the rebels came from almost every section of the population.
        • In Oudh it enjoyed the support of the masses and so also in some districts of Bihar.
        • In the trials of 1858-59 thousands of civilians, along with the soldiers, were held guilty of rebellion and punished.
      • Even the army as a whole did not join the revolt, and a considerable section fought on the side of the government.
  • Dr K. Datta:
    • It was mainly a military outbreak, which was taken advantage of by certain discontented princes and landlords, whose interests had been affected by the new political order.
    • He also says, the movement was marked by absence of cohesion and unity of purpose among the various sections of the rebels.
• Many historians described it as:
  • a racial struggle for supremacy between the Black and the White.
  • a struggled between Oriental and Occidental civilization and culture.
  • the result of ‘ Hindu Muslim conspiracy to overthrow the British rule.
  • Some Indian nationalists have called it a well planned national struggle and as ‘the first war of Indian independence’.
• A war of fanatic religionists against Christians:
  • L. E. R. Rees:
    • According to him, the Revolt was ‘a war of fanatic religionists against Christians’.
    • Criticism:
      • During the heat of the rebellion the ethical principles underlying the various religions had little influence on the combatants.
      • Both sides quoted their religious scriptures to cover their excesses over the other party.
      • The Christians ultimately won but not Christianity. The Hindus and Muslims were defeated but not their respective religions.
      • True, Christianity like Western science has influenced the Indian mind but the Christian missionaries had no astounding success in the work of proselytization.
• Hindu Muslim conspiracy:
  • Sir James Outram and W. Tayler described the outbreak as the result of Hindu Muslim conspiracy.
  • Outmm held “it was a Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances”.
  • The explanation is inadequate and unsatisfactory.
• Conflict between civilization and barbarism:
  • Some English historian led by T. R. Holmes popularized the view that the Revolt of 1857 was a conflict between civilization and barbarism. The explanation smacks of narrow racialism.
  • During the rebellion both the Europeans and the Indians were guilty of excesses.
  • If the Indians were guilty of the murder of European women and in some cases children in Delhi, Kanpur and Lucknow, the record of the British was no less and barbaric.
    • Hodson indulged in indiscriminate shooting at Delhi.
    • Neill took pride in the fact that he hanged hundreds of Indians without any trial whatsoever.
    • At Banaras even the street urchins were caught and hanged.
    • In fact, vendetta took the better of men on both sides. No nation or individual which indulges in such horrible atrocities can claim to be civilised.
• A struggle between the White and the Black:
  • Some British historians describe the Revolt of 1857 as a struggle between the White and the Black.
  • But it was not a war of races, a struggle between the White and the Black.
    • True, all the Whites in India, whatever their nationality, were ranged on one side, but not all the Blacks.
    • As Captain J. G. Medley point out : “in fact for every white man in camp there certainly twenty black ones”.
    • In the British war camps Indians served as cooks and looked after the comforts of the soldiers.
    • It were the black palanquin bearers who carried the white wounded soldiers out of the danger zone.
    • There was a high proportion of Indian soldiers in the Company’s army that took part in the suppression of the rebellion.
    • In fact, it was a war between the Blacks rebels on one side and the White rulers supported by other Black on the other side.
• War of national Independence:
  • Benjamin Disraeli, a contemporary conservative leader in England, described it ‘a national rising’.
  • Early national leaders, looking for ideals to arouse national consciousness among the people, reinterpreted the uprising of 1857 as a people’s revolt and its leaders as national heroes gifted with the vision of a free India.
    • V. D. Savarkar who in his book The Indian War of Independence, published in London in 1909, described it “ a planned war of national independence” and tried to prove that the rising of 1826-2, 1831-32, 1848, 1854 were rehearsals of the great drama played in 1857.
    • Later national leaders further developed the theme of the popular character of the Revolt and cited it as a shining example of the perfect accord and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims in the fight for freedom from British.
  • Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru:
    • He wrote: “Essentially it was a feudal outburst headed by feudal chiefs and their followers and aided by the widespread anti foreign sentiment”.
    • Nehru refers to the rural base of the Revolt and points out that even the feudal chiefs were unorganised and had no constructive ideal or community of interests“.
    • The rulers of princely States as a whole kept aloof or helped the British, fearing to risk what they had acquired or managed to retain.
  • Maulana Abul Kalam Azad:
    • The question naturally arises if the uprising was a result of a nationalist upsurge alone. The answer cannot be an unqualified affirmative if nationalism is understood in its modern sense.
    • There is no doubt that the participants were moved by patriotic considerations, but these were not strong enough to provoke a revolt.
    • Patriotism had to be reinforced by an appeal to religious passion before the People arose.
    • He says:
      • It is sad conclusion that Indian national character had sunk very low.
      • The leaders of the revolt could never agree. They were mutually jealous and continually intrigued against one another. They seemed to have little regard for the effects of such disagreement on the common cause. In fact, these personal jealousies and intrigues were largely responsible for the Indian defeat.
  • Prof. R. C. Majumdar argues that some segments of Indian society in many parts of India fought against the British, but their motives seems to have material interest and religious considerations and in very few individual cases the rulers were moved by the disinterested and patriotic motive of freeing the country from the yoke of imperial British rule.
    • Majumdar concludes : “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the so called First National War of Independence of 1857 is neither First, nor National nor War of Independence”.’
• Dr R.C. Majumdar and Dr S.N. Sen:
  • Dr. R. C. Majumdar and Dr. S. N. Sen, both agree that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful planning nor were there any master minds behind it.
    • The mere fact that Nana Sahib went to Lucknow and Ambala in March April 1857 and the struggle started in May of the same year cannot be regarded as evidence that he planned it.
    • The view that Munshi Azim Ullah Khan and Rango Bapuji prepared the plans for the uprising is untenable.
    • Azim Ullah Khan and gone to London to plead before the Court of Directors the right of Nana Sahib for the pension paid to Baji Rao II. On his way back he visited Turkey and met Omar Pasha on battlefield of Crimea. Rango Bapuji was sent to London to secure the rendition of Satara.
      • The fact that both had been in London on missions cannot be regarded as pointing to their participation in the conspiracy.
    • Even the story of the circulation of messages through chapatis or lotus flowers does not prove anything.
    • During the trial of Bahadur shah efforts were evidence collected did not convince even the British officers. In fact, the course of the trial made it clear that the uprising was as much a surprise to Bahadur Shah as to the British.
  • Both Dr. Majumdar and Dr. Sen agree that in middle of the nineteenth century Indian nationalism was in an embryo form.
    • Dr. Sen: “India in the first half of the nineteenth century was a geographical expression”.
    • In 1857 the Bengalis, the Panjabis, the Hindustanis, the Maharastrians, the Madrasis never realised that they belonged to the same nation.
    • The leader of the, Rebellion were no ‘national’ leaders.
    • Bahadur Shah was no ‘national’ king. He was compelled by the soldiers to assume their leadership.
    • Nana Sahib raised the banner of revolt only after his envoy in London had failed to get for him the pension of Baji Rao II.
      • Even after the revolt had begun he declared that he would come to terms with the English if only pension was sanctioned.
    • The trouble in Jhansi was over the right of succession and annexation.
      • The Rani’s slogan was “mera Jhansi, dungi nahin”.
    • The Nawab of Oudh, a worthless debauchee, could never aspire to national leadership.
      • The taluqdars of Oudh fought for their feudal privileges and for their king, not for any national cause.
    • Most of the leaders were mutually jealous and messes was no better. The majority of the people remained apathetic and neutral.
    • The movement failed to enlist popular support except some areas like in Oudh and Shahabad district of Bihar. Nationalism, as it is understood today, had yet to come.
  • R. C. Majumdar:
    • He gave his analysis of the revolt of 1857 in his book entitled “The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857.”
    • The main trust of Majumdar’s argument is the uprising of 1857 was not a war of independence.
    • “It was Neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence” as large parts of the country remained unaffected and many sections of the people took no part in the upsurge.
      • It would thus appear that the outbreak of the civil population in 1857 may be regarded as a war of independence only if we take that term to mean any sort of fight against the British.
        • But, then, the fight of the Pindaris against the English and the fight of the Wahabis against the Sikhs in the Punjab should also be regarded as such.
    • He maintains that the Revolt took different aspects at different places.
      • In some regions (like large parts of Madhya Pradesh and the Panjab) it was a mutiny of sepoys joined later by disgruntled elements eager to take advantage of anarchy;
      • in other area (like the U. P., some parts of Madhya Pradesh and western parts of Bihar) the mutiny of sepoys was followed by a general revolt in which apart from the soldiers, civilians, particularly the dispossessed rulers of Indian states, landlords, tenants and others took part;
      • in some parts of the country (like Rajasthan and Maharashtra) the civil population sympathised with the rebels but kept themselves within bounds of law and did not take part in overt acts of rebellion.
    • He stresses the point that the most important elements who fought against the British were the sepoys.
      • The sepoys had their own grievances, similar to those which had led them to local mutinies on many previous occasions.
      • He contends that the sepoys were mostly inspired by the desire of material gain than any political or even religious considerations.
      • The sepoys at Delhi, Bareilly and Allahabad indulged in plunder and loot and both Europeans and Indians were their victims.
      • These soldiers inspired a sense of dread and terror rather than that of sympathy and fellow feeling among the people.
      • The sepoys at Delhi refused to fight unless their salaries were paid.
      • There is nothing in the conduct or behaviour of the sepoys which would justify us in the belief that they were inspired by love for their country of fought against the British with the definite idea of freeing their motherland.
    • He, however, maintains that its national importance was indirect and posterior.
      • He writes: “It has been said that Julius Caesar 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 nascent nationalism in India in its snuggle for freedom from the British yoke, and was invested with the full glory of the first national war of independence against the British.”
  • Dr. S. N. Sen:
    • He believes that “the revolt as having begun as a fight for religion but ended as a war of independence.”
    • He contends that revolutions are mostly the work of a minority, with or without the active sympathy of the masses.
      • Such was the case with the American Revolution of 1775-83 and the French Revolution.
        • A very large percentage of American settlers remained loyal to the British crown and about 60,000 of them emigrated to Canada after the war was over.
        • Similarly, in Revolutionary France there many royalists.
    • Dr. Sen contends that when a rebellion can claim the sympathies of the substantial majority of the population, it can claim a national character.
    • Unfortunately in India the majority of the people remained disinterested and even apathetic.
    • The Rebellion of 1857 cannot be invested with a national character. However, it was not merely a military rising.
    • He comes to the conclusion: “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.”
• Dr. S. B. Chaudhuri:
  • He, in his book Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinies, 1857-59 has confined his attention to the detailed analysis of the civil rebellions which accompanied the military insurrection of 1857.
  • Dr. Chaudhuri maintains that the revolt of 1857 can be bifurcated into two sub divisions, mutiny and rebellion.
  • He believes that the outburst of 1857 was the coming together of two series of disturbances, the military and the civil, each provoked by independent grievances.
    • Dr. R, C. Majumdar, however, maintains that the outbreaks before 1857, whether civil or military, were “a series of links following one single chain-the isolated ebullitions which culminated in the great conflagration of 1857.”
  • Dr. Chaudhuri says:
    • It was certainly the First War of Independence as in the whole canvas of the recorded history of India it would be difficult to find a parallel to this gigantic anti foreign combine of all classes of people and of many provinces of India. There was never a war in India lasting continuously for more than a year and simultaneously in all the regions which had for its objective the abasement and ejectment of the alien ruling power.
• Rural Base of the Revolt:
  • Recent studies in Indian agrarian society have thrown interesting sidelights on the rural participation in the Revolt of 1857.
  • SB. Chaudhuri put forward the thesis that the rural areas rose as one man and the principal cause was the loss of land rights to the urban moneylender and trader under pressure of British land revenue system.
  • Eric Stokes:
    • He disagrees with this view and on the basis of some regional studies comes to the conclusion that violence and rebellion were often the fiercest and the most protracted where land transfers were low and the hold of the moneylender the weakest.
    • Eric Stokes believes that in rural areas the Revolt of 1857 was essentially elitist in character.
    • He maintains that the major agrarian violence did not come from peasant group but from traditionally superior class communities for whom British rule had meant loss of political influence and relative economic deprivation.
    • He believes that the mass of the population appear to have played little part in the fighting or at most followed the behest of its local caste leadership.
    • Not that the entire rural elite was on the side of the rebels; rather it was split down the middle with the result that even within the same district peasant proprietors or magnates reacted in quite opposite directions.
    • In Meerut district, for example, while the Jats of Hapur pargana fought on the British side, the Jats in Bataut and Barnawa parganas (on the other side of the Hindon river) fought against the British forces and sent supplies to the rebels at Delhi.
• Marxist historians:
  • It was struggle of the soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bondage which failed because of feudal betrayal.
  • However, this view does not stand scrutiny in the light of the fact that the leaders of the revolt themselves came from a feudal background.
  • There seems to have been no ideology or programme behind their revolt except local grievances or anti British sentiments.
• Conclusion:
  • The revolt of 1857 is not easy to categorise.
  • There is a broad general consensus among historians that in the middle of the 19th century conception of nationality-if nationalism is taken in the modern sense-was in embryo.
    • Prof S. N. Sen remarks that Indian in 1857 was “a geographical expression” and the Bengalees, the Punjabis, the Hindustanis, the Maharastrians and the people in the south did not realise that they belonged to the same nation.
    • It had seeds of nationalism and anti-imperialism but the concept of common nationality and nationhood was not inherent to the revolt of 1857.
    • One may say that the revolt of 1857 was the first great struggle of Indians to throw off British rule.
    • It established local traditions of resistance to British rule which were to pave the way for the modern national movement.
  • It is clear from recent scholarly researches that while it began as a military mutiny, the uprising quickly assumed the character of a popular rebellion.
  • Prof. Stanley Wolpert writes about the Revolt of 1857. “It was far more than a mutiny ….. yet much less than a first of independence.”
  • Whatever the nature of the Revolt of 1857, it soon become a symbol of challenge to the British imperial rule in India. During our freedom Struggle, our leaders and people in general drew inspiration from some of the heroic events of 1857. Undoubtedly, the Revolt of 1857 became a turning point in Modern Indian History.

Consequences of the Great Revolt of 1857

• The Revolt of 1857 though completely suppressed had shaken the British rule in India from its very foundations. The techniques of controlling India though well established by 1857 were confirmed and uniformly acted upon thereafter.
• The reactionary and vested interests were well protected and encouraged and became pillars of British rule in India: the policy of divide and rule was deliberately pursued and made the main prop of British control; tight European control over key positions both in the civil and military administration was maintained.
• Transfer of control:
  • The direct responsibility for the administration of the country was assumed by the British Crown and Company rule was abolished by The Government of India Act 1858.
    • Lord Canning at a durbar at Allahabad in the ‘Queen’s Proclamation’ (1858) announced the assumption of the Government of India by the sovereign of Great Britain.
  • In the words of Sir H.S. Cunningham the change was ‘formal’ rather than ‘substantial’.
  • In India the same sort of Governor General and the same military and civil service continued as before.
  • In Britain the Act of 1858 provided for the appointment of a Secretary of State for India, who was to be assisted by an Advisory Council of fifteen:
    • Eight members to be nominated by the Crown and seven members at first to be selected by the Court of Directors and afterwards by co-option by the Council itself.
    • Thus the former directors of the Company sat on the India Council.
  • No new policy was inaugurated. Rather, in the proclamation of 1 November 1858 the Queen announced a continuation of the Company‘s policies.
  • Ever since 1784 the Crown through the Board of Control had exercised considerable influence over Indian affairs and, in fact, had the deciding voice in all major issues.
    • The Act of 1858 ended the dualism in the control of Indian affairs and made the Crown directly responsible for management of Indian affairs.
• No extension of territorial possesions:
  • The era of annexations and expansion ended and the British promised to respect the dignity and rights of the native princes. The Indian states were henceforth to recognise the paramountcy of the British Crown.
  • The Queen’s announcement declared against any desire for “extension of territorial possessions” and promised “to respect the rights, dignity and honour of native princes as their own”, while general amnesty was granted to “all offenders except those who have been or shall be convicted of having directly taken part in the murder of British subjects”.
  • The Indian states had served as “breakwaters to the storm which would otherwise have swept over Britain in one great wave” and to preserve them as the bulwark of the Empire became a cardinal principle of British policy.
  • The Taluqdars of Oudh who had joined in large numbers in the rebellion were reinstated and continued in their estates subject to promises of loyalty and future good behaviour.
    • In the words of Pt. Nehru, these taluqdars took pride in calling themselves the ‘Barons of Oudh‘ and became one of the pillars of British rule.
  • Thus feudal and reactionary elements became the favourite children of imperialism.
• Civil services reform:
  • The Proclamation of 1858 contained an assurance that “our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely, and impartially admitted to office in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity duly to discharge”.
  • To give expression to this pledge the Indian Civil Service Act of 1861 was passed, which provided for an annual competitive examination to be held in London for recruitment to the Covenanted Civil Service.
  • Unfortunately, the detailed rules framed for the conduct of this examination had the effect of keeping the higher services a close preserve of the Englishman.
• Reorganising Indian army:
  • The Indian Army had been mainly responsible for the crisis of 1857.
  • It was thoroughly reorganised and built up on the policy of ‘division and counterpoise’.
  • The Army Amalgamation Scheme of 1861 transferred the Company’s European troops to the services of the Crown.
    • The European troops in India were constantly renovated by periodical visits to England in what came to be known as the ‘linked battalion’ scheme.
  • The strength of European troops in India was increased from the pre 1857 figure of 45,000 to 65,000 and the number of Indian troops reduced from the pre 1857 figure of 238, 000 to 140,000.
  • All Indian artillery units were disbanded.
  • The general formula followed was that in Bengal Presidency the proportion between the European and Indian troops should be 1: 2. while for Bombay and Madras Presidencies it should be 1: 3.
  • Besides the policy of counterpoise of natives against natives was to be followed which was explained by the Report of the Panjab Committee on Army Organisation, 1858, in these words: “To preserve that distinctiveness which is valuable, and which while it lasts makes the Mohammedan of one country fear and dislike the Mohammedan of another, corps should in future be provincial, and adhere to the geographical limits within which differences and rivalries are strongly marked”.
  • All big posts in the army and the artillery departments were reserved for the Europeans.
• Development of representative institution:
  • It was increasingly realised that one basic cause for the Revolt of 1857 was the lack of contact between the ruler and the ruled.
  • The association of Indians in the task of legislation, it was believed, would at least acquaint the rulers with the sentiments and feelings of the Indians and thus provide an opportunity for avoidance of misunderstandings.
  • Thus, a humble beginning towards the development of representative institutions in India was made by the Indian Councils Act of 1861.
• Racial bitterness:
  • Racial hatred and suspicion between the Indians and the English was aggravated.
  • Indians were considered as a subhuman creature, half gorilla, half negro who could be kept in check by superior force only.
  • The agents of imperialism in India dubbed the entire Indian people as unworthy of trust and subjected them to insults, humiliation and contemptuous treatment.
  • The entire structure of the Indian government was remodelled and based on the idea of a master race. This neo Imperialism was justified by the philosophy of the Whiteman’s burden and the civilising role of England in India.
  • The gulf between the rulers and the ruled widened and erupted occasionally in political controversies, demonstrations and acts of violence.
• The Revolt of 1857 ended an era and sowed the seeds of new era.
  • The era of territorial aggrandisement gave place to the era of economic exploitation.
  • For the British, the danger from the feudal India ended for ever; the new challenge to British Imperialism came from progressive India fed on the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and British liberals of the nineteenth century.

Causes of the Failure of the Revolt

• Limited territorial spread:
  • The Revolt of 1857 was localized, restricted and poorly organised.
  • The eastern, southern and western parts of India remained more or less unaffected.
  • The Bombay and the Madras armies remained loyal.
  • India south of the Narmada was very little disturbed.
  • Sind and Rajasthan remained quiet and Nepal’s help proved of great avail in the suppression of the Revolt.
  • Dost Mohammad, the ruler of Afghanistan, remained friendly.
  • The Punjab was effectively controlled by John Lawrence.
  • The worst affected area were Western Bihar, Oudh, Rohilkhand, Delhi, and the territory between the Chambal and the Narbada.
• Certain classes and groups did not join and, in fact, worked against the revolt.
  • Big zamindars acted as “breakwaters to storm”; even Awadh tahacildars backed off once promises of land restitution were spelt out.
  • Moneylenders and merchants suffered the wrath of the mutineers badly and anyway saw their class interests better protected under British patronage.
  • Modern educated Indians viewed this revolt as backward looking, and mistakenly hoped the British would usher in an era of modernisation.
  • Most Indian rulers refused to join and often gave active help to the British (e.g Scindhia). By one estimate, not more than one-fourth of the total area and not more than one-tenth of the total population was affected.
• Poorly equipped Indian soldiers and better equipped British:
  • The resources of the British Empire were far superior to those of the rebels.
  • Luckily for the British the Crimean and the Chinese wars had been concluded by 1856, and British troops numbering 1,12,000 poured into India from all parts of the world.
  • About 3,10,000 additional Indian soldiers were recruited in India.
  • The Indian soldiers had very few guns and muskets and mostly fought with swords and spears.
  • On the other hand, the European soldiers were equipped with the latest weapons of war like the Enfield rifle about which Nana Sahib said: “The blue cap kills before they fire”.
  • Better communication among British:
    • The electric telegraph kept the commander-in-chief informed about the movements and strategy of the rebels.
• The Revolt was poorly organised:
  • The leader of the Revolt were not lacking in bravery, but were deficient in experience, organising ability and concerted operations.
  • Surprise attacks and guerilla tactics could not win them their lost independence.
  • The various commissions and boards appointed by the Government of India and provincial governments alter the suppression of the rebellion could not find any plan behind the rebellion or any scheme on which the movement was launched.
  • The trial of Bahadur Shah proved that the rebellion was as much a surprise to him as to the British.
• Leadership:
  • The principal rebel leaders—Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh, Laxmibai—were no match to their British opponents in generalship.
  • The East India Company was fortunate in having the services of men of exceptional abilities in the Lawrence brothers, Nicholson, Outram, Havelock, Edwards etc. They fought the toughest battles in the initial stages of the Revolt and controlled the situation till reinforcements were received from abroad.
• The mutineers lacked a clear understanding of colonial rule; nor did they have a forward looking programme, a coherent ideology, a political perspective or a societal alternative.
  • The rebels represented diverse elements with differing grievances and concepts of current politics.
  • The rebels had no common ideal before them except the anti-foreign sentiments.
    • Bahadur Shah II was declared the Emperor at Delhi, while at Kanpur and Gwalior Nana Sahib was proclaimed the Peshwa. Hindu Muslim differences lay dormant against the common enemy, but were not dead.
  • The peasants and the inferior castes showed no active sympathies; the soldiers in the Bombay and Madras armies were recruited from the lower castes and they remained loyal.
• The revolt of 1857 was mainly feudal in character carrying with it some nationalistic elements.
  • The feudal elements of Oudh, Rohilkhand and some other pans of Northern India led the rebellion; other feudal prices like the Rajas of Patiala, Jhind, Gwalior, Hyderabad helped in its suppression.
  • European historians have greatly praised Sir Dinkar Rao, the Minister of Gwalior, and Salar Jang, the Wazir of Hyderabad, for their loyalty.
  • Canning acted very wisely when he gave solemn assurances to the Indian princes and thus won over their support.
  • The Indian princes were amply rewarded after the suppression of the Rebellion.
    • The districts of Berar were restored to the Nizam and his debts remitted.
    • Nepal was rewarded by the cession of some Oudh territory.
    • The Sindhia, the Gaikwar and the Rajput princes also received some rewards or concessions.
• Lack of unity among Indians: Modern nationalism was yet unknown in India.
  • In fact, the revolt of 1857 played an important role in bringing the Indian people together and imparting to them the consciousness of belonging to one country. ©selfstudyhistory.com