Q. “The Mutiny was not inevitable in 1857, but it was inherent in the constitution of the Empire.” Comment. 

Ans:

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major uprising in India in 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company. The rebellion began on 10 May 1857 in the form of a mutiny of sepoys of the company’s army in the garrison town of Meerut, 64 km northeast of Delhi. It then erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions.

The given statement has been given by the historian S.N. Sen in his book “Eighteen Fifty-Seven” written in 1957.

• The Mutiny was not inevitable in 1857:
  • The Mutiny was not inevitable in 1857 as there was no planning, no masterminds behind it and Indian Nationalism was still in an embryo form.
  • 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.
    • Sen rejected Savarkar’s notion of a nationalist uprising. Only in Oudh and Shahabad was there “evidence of that general sympathy which would invest the Mutiny with the dignity of a national war”.
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • As per Majumdar, there was “no coherence” between the “several distinct elements” of the general revolt, “each being limited in extent and objectives”, and “no definite plan, method, or organisaton, it cannot be regarded as a national rising, far less a war of independence”. Instead the “miseries and bloodshed of 1857-58 were not the birth-pang of a freedom movement in India, but the dying groans of an obsolete aristocracy and centrifugal feudalism of the mediaeval age”
• Mutiny was inherent in the Constitution of the Empire:
  • The mutiny came about because sepoys were just as susceptible to the type of nonprofessional grievances – particularly socio-religious and economic – that had affected the rest of Indian society for many years previously.
  • Dr S.N. Sen conceded that the sepoys had professional grievances – in particular their maltreatment by European officers and N.C.O.s, grievances with regard to pay, pension rights, and terms of service”, the loss of the “special privileges” which the sepoy had enjoyed as the “servant of the Company” with the annexation of Oudh, and a “general dissatisfaction at the limited prospects of promotion, at the enervating system of seniority
  • The controversy over the greased cartridges in early 1857 produced a genuine fear among sepoys that their religion and caste were in danger.
    • Such a fear had been “reinforced by similar feelings of the civil population in respect of religion arising from the ever increasing pressure of western civilization including the whole series of progressive measures from the establishment of the railways to the legalisation of widows’ marriages and the dissemination of female education”, the “missionary activities against early marriage and the purdah system, the compulsory system of shaving, and the enlistment order of 1856”, all of which had “ruffled the feelings of caste and strengthened the suspicion that the government intended to force them all to embrace christianity”.
  • Earlier historians have greatly emphasised the importance of military grievances and the greased cartridges affair as the most potent causes which led to the great rising of 1857. But ‘the greased canridge was not the only cause, nor even the most important of them.
  • No dependent nation can for ever reconcile itself to foreign domination. A despotic government must ultimately rule by the sword. In India the sword was apparently in the custody of the Sepoy Army. Between the Sepoy and his foreign masters there was no common tie of race, language and religion.
  • Economic factors:
    • The colonial policies of the East India Company destroyed the traditional Indian trade and industry.
    • Unpopular revenue settlement + loans from moneylenders/traders (led to their eviction from land).
  • Administrative factors:
    • The Indian aristocracy was deprived of power and position. It found little chance to gain the same old position in the new administrative set-up, as under the British rule all high posts, civil and military, were reserved for the Europeans.
  • Political factors:
    • Loss of political prestige of East India Company due to their greedy policy and frequent breaking of pledges and oaths.
    • Dalhousie’s annexations and the Doctrine of lapse had caused suspicion and uneasiness in the minds of almost all ruling princes in India.

The mutiny of 1857 was not inevitable in 1857 if immediate causes like controversy over the greased cartridges was not present but it was bound to happen due to the constitution of the Empire as it created social, religious, political, economic dissatisfactions among the general population including sepoys.

Sen comes to the conclusion: “The Mutiny became a revolt and assumed a political character when the mutineers of Meerut placed themselves under the King of Delhi and a section of the landed aristocracy and civil population declared in his favour. 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.” ©selfstudyhistory.com