Get complete information on the nature of 1857 Revolt

i. Historians have held divergent view about the nature of the outbreak of 1857, 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 Lai, Moinuddin, Durgadas Bandyopadhyaya, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan among many others.

ii. Others described it as a ‘religious war against the Christians’ or ‘a racial struggle for supremacy between the Black and the White.’ Still others described ‘a struggled between Oriental and Occidental civilisation and culture’. A few described it 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’.

The British Government, as the constituted authority of the land suppressed the revolt and restored law and order. The interpretation is unsatisfactory. Unquestionably, the Revolt began as a military rising, but it was not everywhere confined to the army.

Even the army as a whole did not join the revolt and a considerable section fought on the side of the government. 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.

Nor was it 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. In the British war-camps Indians served as cooks and looked after the comforts of the soldiers.

It was the black palanquin-bearers who carried the white wounded soldiers out of the danger zone. Leaving the non-combatants out of account there was a high proportion of Indian soldiers Company’s army that took part in the suppression of the rebellion. It was a war between the Blacks rebels on one side and the White rulers supported by other Black on the other side

Some English historian led by T.R. Holmes popularised the view that the Revolt of 1857 was a conflict between civilisation 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 equally tarnished by dark deeds which were no less and barbaric that those of the Indians.

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. 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.

R.C. Majumdar gave his analysis of the revolt of 1857 in his book entitled The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857. Subsequently he elaborated some of his arguments; he contributed to the Bhartiya Vidva Bhavan’s British Paramountcy and the Indian Renaissance, vol. ix. The main trust of Maj umdar’s argument is the uprising of 1857 was not a war of independence.

He maintains that the Revolt took different aspects at different places. In some regions it was a mutiny of sepoys joined later by disgruntled elements eager to take advantage of anarchy. In other area 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 still other parts of the country the civil population sympathised with the rebels, but kept themselves within bounds of law and did not take part in overt acts of rebellion.

Dr. S.N. Sen believes that the rising of 1857 was 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 immigrated to Canada after the war was over. 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 and even apathetic. The Rebellion of 1857 cannot be invested with a national character.

The Marxist interpretation of the Revolt of 1857 as the struggle of the soldier- peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bondage which failed because of feudal betrayal goes off the mark. There seems to have been no ideology or programme behind their revolt except local grievances or anti- gritish sentiments.

0n reading of various readings the commenting upon the nature of revolt historian has held divergent views. The British historians have called it a sepoy mutiny by over emphasising the greased cartridges activities of rebel sepoys and British campaigns, but this way not only do they make the rebellion light, but also attribute it to merely the selfish interest of landholders and princes.

Rationalist historians on the other hand shifting their focus to oppressive polices of the British have looked upon in the part of national struggle, but absence of general plan, lack of sentiments among its leaders are some of arguments that go against the interpretation.

The land revenue settlement is also a reason for the movement. Therefore to sum up the variegated political response in different geographical sub-zones leads as to conclude that the revolt of 1857 was not one movement, but many and that is impossible to generalise until the facts up as a result research were available.