War Of Independence 1857

 

The revolt (war of independence) of 1857 was an important landmark in the history of the subcontinent. It marked the beginning of the country's struggle for independence after a century of foreign domination. The country witnessed a popular upsurge of deep-seated and widespread discontent against the alien rulers. In the words of K. Ali, "the revolt of The sepoys, accompanied by the civil population, were so disruptive that the foundations of British rule in Indo-Pakistan were shaken. It appeared for some time that the company RaJ had disappeared from the land’. The independence movement was the culmination of large-scale discontent that had been accumulating for a long time against the policies of the British in India. The company pursued political and economic exploitation of the natives, which created dissatisfaction and distrust. It was preceded by many low-level and sporadic revolts, such as those at Bareilly in 1816, by the Kols in 1831–33, by the people in the Kangra Valley in 1848, and by the Santhals in 1855–56. The immediate cause, however, was the greased cartridges, which were provided by the Indian soldiers.

political:  ever since the Battle of Plassey, the territorial power of the company had been growing very fast, and the Indian states began to feel its weight. The political can be identified as follows:political: ever since the Battle of Plassey, the territorial power of the company had been growing very fast, and the Indian states began to feel its weight. The political can be identified as follows:

• The expansionist policy of the British: sowed distrust among the rulers and the ruled of the then-          existing Indian states alike. They feared that sooner or later the British would snatch their                        kingdoms away from them. By 1818, when the last Peshwa was dethroned, practically all the                  Indian states had either been annexed or had entered into treaties with the company on humiliating          terms.

• Annexation policies of Lord Dalhousie: Lord Dalhousie was the most notorious in this regard; it          seemed that the British wanted complete annexation of all the native states. The Sindh was                      annexed in 1843, the Punjab in 1849, and the Oudh in 1856.

• Doctrine of lapse: according to this doctrine, no adopted son was allowed to accede to the throne,          and no ruler could nominate any heir to his throne in case he had no decedent. The territory would           then be annexed by the company. This policy created discontent among Indians.

• Humiliation of Muslim rulers: the Muslims had yet another grievance against the British. The             British sometimes showed disrespect to the Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah. Lord Canning even             declared that the Mughal Empire would be abolished after the death of Bahadur Shah, and his                 palace and fort would be taken over by the British. The courage Indian Muslims had  always felt             themselves involved with the honour of the Mughal emperor; therefore, they developed a strong             hatred for the British.

Administrative Causes

• Administrative reforms: The Indians was disliked and distrusted the administration of the British. The new system, which had replaced the centuries-old one, was too arcane to be understood by them.

Therefore, they looked at it with distrust. The British system had destroyed several intermediaries like jagirdars, taluqdars, etc., with whom the people had direct contacts and drew certain advantages as well.

• Change of official language: The replacement of Persian by English as the court language was also not liked by the people. The British system scarcity the personal touch to which the Indians were habituated from past centuries. While in the previous system the people could meet their masters, there was less opportunity for the people to meet their British masters.

• Replacement of the Judicial System: The judicial system of the British was costly, mechanical,     and involved much time. The poor could draw no advantage from it. The rich was disliked it because they could be brought to trial even by the requests of the common man, who had been subservient to them for centuries. The police system of the British was not effective by that time, and the people always felt insecure about their property, lives, and honour. The most damaged part of administration was revenue, under which the peasants and the zamindars endured equally. The peasants had to pay heavy taxes while the Zamindars were deprived of their special privileges. The revenue system was so distasteful to the people that the British had to use force in collecting taxes. In Panipat, there were only twenty-two horsemen to maintain peace and order, while there were one hundred and thirty-six housemen to help in collecting the revenue.

• Exclusion of Indians: The British excluded Indians from all high civil and military jobs. These were reserved for the Englishmen. In the olden days, the highest post an Indian could get was that of a Subedar earning sixty or seventy rupees per month.The highest position in the civil service for which an Indian could qualify was that of a Sadar Amin, who was paid Rs. 5,300 a month. The British never fulfilled their assurance givenint eh Charter Act of 1833 that no Indian shell by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place office or employment under the East India Company'.It was very dissatisfied to the  educated Indians, who expected to get gainful employment in the service of the company and political influence in the country after getting an English education. The Muslims also felt aggrieved by this policy because they thought it was their right to get high executive posts in the government just because they were enjoying them prior to British rule.

Economic causes:

·         The beginning  motive of the political domination of India by the British was her economic exploitation. The British utilised their political power to exploit the economic resources and wealth of India for the benefit of Britain.

·         Agrarian policy: The British established their political power first in Bengal and within a few decades drained off its resources to the extent that its people were not left even with the bare minimum of its resources. That was also the fate of the people in other places where British rule was subsequently established. The revenue policy of the British reduced its agricultural production.

·         Trade policy: the trade interests of the British resulted in the destruction of the cottage industries of India, which reduced the once rich and industrially advanced India to the position of a poor and backward country. Even the British accepted that when the merchant adventurers from the west first arrived in India, the country's industrial development was not in any way inferior to that of the more advanced European nations.Heavy tariffs were imposed on Indian goods. Indian weavers and craftsmen were subjected to forced labour and were highly underpaid. It destroyed the cotton textile industry, which was the largest and most beneficial industry in India. "The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. There is the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India."

·         Extreme poverty in India: Ultimately, India became a vast field for the production of raw products to feed the British industries and a wide market to accept the British manufacture. It reduced her to extreme poverty. The policies of Britain and the government of India were also criticised by certain Englishmen. Martin said: India is as much a manufacturing country as she is an agricultural one. She is a manufacturing country; her manufacturers of various

descriptions have existed for ages and have never been able to be competed with by any nation, wherever fair play has been given to them. To reduce her now to an agricultural country would be an injustice to India." But, men like Mr. Martin were only a few in Britain and were in no position to change the policy of the
Britain or the company? The view of the majority of the British people was expressed by Mr. Cope before a committee of the British parliament in 1840. He said: I certainly pity the east Indian labourer, but at the same time I have a greater feeling for any family than for the east Indian labourer’s family. I think it is wrong to sacrifice the comforts of my family for the sake of the East Indian labourer because his condition happens to be worse than mine."

Social and religious causes

The British deemed the Indians as belonging to an inferior race. They therefore looked down upon them as a socially inferior class. Incidents were quite common when the British contempt  the Indians in

public places, dishonoured their women, and engaged in physical assault on them, sometimes resulting in death. The Indian could not travel in the first-class compartment of the railways. They were kept away from all social gatherings and were banded to mix up with the Englishmen. They were addressed as niggers and suars (pigs). They were band all entry into hotels and clubs managed by the Europeans. It was clearly mentioned at their gates that Indians and dogs were not allowed."

• Conversion of Muslims to Christianity: Another serious cause of discontentment among all classes of Indians was the fear that the English were attempting to convert them all to Christianity. The Christian missionaries gave them genuine grounds for their apprehension. Prior to 1813, the British government had not permitted the missionaries to enter India. But the Charter Act of 1813 disband this restriction, and the missionaries started coming to India in large numbers. Initially, the company’s government was reluctant to support the missionaries because of the fear of alienating the Indians. But gradually, the missionaries got patronised.
• Missionaries educational institutions: the missionaries established educational institutions in different parts of the country, particularly in backward areas, to encourage conversion to Christianity while providing education. The study of the Bible was made compulsory in most of the schools. The missionaries openly criticised the tenets of Hinduism and Islam.
• Prisoners conversion to Christianity: The prisoners in jails were also tempted to accept Christianity. Christian tents were taught to the prisoners. Those  prisoners who were accepted Christianity been released.
• Hospital regulations: the regulations framed by the government in its hospitals also created apprehension in the minds of the Indians. A contemporary writer, Hidayat Ali, wrote: "In 1849 or 1850, the authorities of Saharanpur caused a large hospital to be constructed up just for the sick of all creeds and persuasions. The principal authorities issued a proclamation, saying that all sick people, men or women, high or low Purdah Nasheen or others, must resort to this hospital for treatment, and all native practitioners are forbidden to prescribe or attend any sick person. In their ignorance, people imagined that it was the intention of the British to take away the dignity and honour of all.
• Orphans converted to Christianity: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan wrote that during the period of
  
  
  famine in 1837, many orphans were converted to Christianity by the missionaries, and the people in the North-Western Provinces apprehended that the British deliberately attempted to make the country poor so that they could get converted in large numbers.
• Company’s laws for the people: the Indians had misgivings even about the useful social legislation passed by the British. For instance, William Bentineck prohibited the practise of sati in 1829, which was supported by liberal Hindus as well. Yet the people in general doubted the aim of the government. In 1832 and 1850, laws were passed concerning the succession of property. The Religious Disabilities Act of 1856 also decided that no one would be deprived of his hereditary property on the ground of changing religion. The people guess that these were meant to encourage conversions to Christianity. In 1856, the Widow Remarriage Act was passed by Lord Canning, and the Hindus felt that the government was interfering in their social and religious affairs. It is accepted that some measures taken by the government were certainly useful, and the government did not support conversions to Christianity as a state policy. But it is also a fact that the government officials supported the cause of the Christian missionaries, which let the Indian people develop serious apprehensions against the government concerning their religion and society. They felt that the Brits were bent on destroying their culture and religion. Many contemporary writers expressed this fear of the people. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan wrote:"All persons, whether intelligent or ignorant, respectable or otherwise, believed that government was really and sincerely desirous of interfering with the religion and custom of the people, transforming them all, whether Hindus or Mohammedans, to Christianity, and powerfulness  them to adopt European manners and habits."

Military causes: Hidayat Ali pointed out the following causes of the dissatisfaction among the Indian soldiers:

• The soldiers of the Bengal Army mostly belonged to Abadh, and they felt indignant when Abadh
  
  
  
  was annexed to the British Territory.
  
  
  
• All those Sikh and Muslim soldiers who were recruited by the British after the annexation of Punjab were assured that they would not be asked to remove their beard or hair. But later on, orders were passed to remove them, and those who refused to obey the orders were dismissed.
• The soldiers shared their feelings with the civilians that the Britishers were bent on destroying their religion.
• In September 1856, a general order was passed by which all the now-recruits were asked to take an oath that they would go for fighting at any place wherever required. It confirmed their suspicion of the intentions of the British because, in that case, they were liable to undergo sea travel, which was believed to be a loss of their caste.
• The news of the greased cartridges convinced them that the British were determined to make them lose their religion.

 

• Low salaries: besides, the soldiers had certain other grievances against the British. They were paid very low salaries. The Bengal army was regarded as the backbone of the Indian Army of the British. Mostly, it consisted of the Rajputs and the Brahmanas. But later on, the British started recruiting people of lower castes as well. That sparked dissatisfaction among its soldiers. In The
  
  
  Annexation of Avdh, Maulana Azad writes, "The annexation of Avdh marked the beginning of a rebellious mood in the army generally and in the Bengal Army in particular. It gave a rude shock to the people; they suddenly realized that the power which the company had acquired through their service and sacrifice was utilised to liquidate their own king." The soldiers in general were dissatisfied because they were asked to go to distant places without any extra remuneration of bhatta (allowance) and were not assigned any honor or reward after the success in the battles, as had been the case under the service of the native rulers.
• Solders were deprived of their privileges. In 1854, the troops = were deprived of their privilege of postage-free letters. And, furthermore, In 1856, Lord Canning passed the General Service Enlistment Act, which not only decreed that all future recruits in the Bengal Army wherein service was hereditary would be found unfit for service in a foreign country but would not be given a pension but a job in the cantonment, The soldiers. Therefor, they felt that while their sons, desirous of joining the army, would, in all likelihood, lose their castes, they themselves had been deprived of a privilege to which they were so far entitled.
• India soldiers vs. British soldiers: the proportion of Indian soldiers as compared to British
  
  
  soldiers had increased in the army. The number of Indian soldiers in the army was 233000, while the English soldiers numbered only 45322. Many of the English officers were deputed as administrative officers in the newly conquered territories by the British, and therefore, the number of officers had also been reduced in the army. The morale of the English soldiers was also at a low ebb because of the odds that the British had faced in the Crimean War in Europe. In these circumstances, the Indian soldiers felt that if they struck at the opportune time, they had quite good chances of driving out the British from India. The Indian soldiers were spurred to revolt because of the realization of this fact.
• Grievances of Indian Soldiers: Thus, the Indian soldiers had several grievances of their own besides sharing many others with the civilians. Their feeling of resentment can be assessed from their proclamation issued during the period of revolt.
• Enfield Rifle: In 1856, the government of India introduced the Enfield Rifle in the army, and arrangements for its training were made at Dum Dum, Ambala, and Sialkot. The top of the
  
  
  cartridge in this rifle was to be removed by the month before loading it in the rifle. In 1857, a story spread in the Bengal Army that the cartridges were greased by the fat of the pig and the cow. The British refused the story at once, but the soldiers remained unconvinced. They believed that the Brits were deliberately attempting to spoil the religions of both Hindus and Muslims because, while the Hindus revered the cow, the Muslims hated the pig. The soldiers therefore became determined to refuse their service and ultimately revolted. Thus, the primary and immediate cause of the revolt was the use of the greased cartridges. Some historians have even expressed the opinion that there would have been no revolt if the greased cartridges had not been introduced.
• The fat of the pig and cow was used in cartridges. There is complete unanimity among scholars that the fat of the pig and the cow was certainly used in preparing these cartridges, though it
  
  
  might not have been a deliberate attempt on the part of the English. A military officer in his book, Mutiny of the Bengal Army, written after the revolt, mentioned that "the Enfield rifle required a particular species of cartridge, which was greased with lard made from the fat either of hogs or oxen." Field Marshall Lord Roberts also reported. The recent research of Mr. Forest in the Government of India proves that the lubricating mixture used in preparing the cartridges was actually composed of the objectionable ingredients, cow’s fat and lard, and that an incredible disregard for the soldier’s prejudices was displayed in the manufacture of these cartridges. The greased cartridges were thus the primary cause of the revolt. The revolt started within the army, and when it initially succeeded at Meerut and Delhi, the people also joined it in large numbers. Bishop Heber had remarked as far back as 1824: "The natives of India do not really like us; if a fair opportunity be offered, the Musalmans, in particular, would gladly avail themselves of it to rise against us. Certainly, the people had many grievances against the British rule, and they desired the opportunity to uproot it. That opportunity was provided to them by the revolt of the soldiers.
• Controversy among the historians: There is a controversy among historians regarding the organization of the revolt. One group of historians has asserted that the revolt was the result of a widespread and well-organized conspiracy. Dr.Ishwari Prasad is content that breads were distributed and taken from villages, and red lotus was transferred from one regiment to another as a token of their agreement to participate in the revolt. It has also been expressed by this group of Hoorians that Nana Sahib, Maulvi Ahmed Shah of Faizabad, and some others organized the conspiracy against the British, and even the date of the revolt was fixed as May 31. However, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad also wrote that the events of 1857 were not the result of careful planning, nor was there any mastermind behind them.

Causes of the Failure of Independence

• The area of the revolt remained limited: the entire south of India, Punjab, and the territory towards its north and west, Rajastan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Bengal, remained aloof from the revolt. Thus, a nearly complete North India did not participate in it. It was limited only to
  
  
  Delhi, Avadh, Bihar, Rohelakand, and their neighboring territories. Moreover, The British felt no needs to diffuse their strength all over the country and could utilize it effectively against the revels in the limited area.
• The British had better resources than the rebels. Gradually, the number of English speakers increased. The rebels were fighting mostly with swords and spears, while the English were using newly introduced rifles.
  
  
  The English possessed good artillery, while the rebels either lacked it or could not utilize it on the battlefield. The telegraph proved a very useful tool for the English. It kept them informed about the movements of the rebels and largely helped them keep contact among themselves.
• Native rulers support for the British: many native rulers gave useful support to the English. The rulers of Patiala, Jind, Gwalior, Hyderabad, etc. supported the British by all possible means at their command. The king of Nepal also helped the English by putting his soldiers at the command of the English. If the native rulers had decided to support the rebels instead of the English, the fate of the English in India would have probably been different. A contemporary Englishman said: If Hyderabad had risen, we could not escape insurrection, practically over the whole of Deccan.
• Rebels were not supported by educated Indians; the educated Indians did not support the rebels. On the country, their feelings were against it. Therefore, the revolt could neither be organized nor fed on intellectual and emotional grounds.
• Lack of strategy: the primary cause of the failure of the revolt,
  
  
  however, was a lack of planned efforts, the absence of a central organization, and the inferiority of the rebels in generalship, strategy, military skill, and discipline as compared to that of the English. The revolt was not organized under one person or one command, either before it began or afterward. The leaders of the revolt did not coordinate their efforts at any stage. Emperor Bahadur Shah, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Nana Saheb, Tentia Tope Tani Lashmi Bai, and others neither planned untidily nor operated with one another as one unit. Each of them was a leader in his or her region. On the contrary, the English acted under one command, in one direction, and with one fixed aim.
• Absence of a capable leader: the one primary cause of the failure of the revolt was the absence of a capable leader who could organize the scattered forces of the rebels into one unit that could act on a well-planned policy and aim. Nana Saheb,
  
  
  Bahadur Shah, Rani Lakshmi Bai, Tantia Tope, and Kanwas Singh have been regarded as the commanders. Each of them failed to provide proper leadership to the rebels. Therefore, the rebels could not be organized into an effective fighting force against the British, and the rebels failed to get national involvement.
• Diplomatic skill of the English: The English succeeded against the rebels also because of the aim or intention and leadership of their military commanders like Havelock, Neill, Nicolson, and Hugh Rose. The bilingual skill of the British was equally responsible for their success. They enlisted the support of the tribes in the territory of the North West and Afghanistan. They had annexed Punjab hardly ten years ago, yet they could command the loyalty of the Sikh army. It was all because of the absence of the spirit of nationalism among the Indians. The English utilized it most successfully in their favor through their diplomatic skill.