| Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | |||||||||||||||
Chapter 10 Rebels And The Raj
Introduction
This chapter explores the Revolt of 1857, examining what colonial rule meant for those living in the countryside and how people responded to British policies. We will look at different regions affected by the revolt, including Bengal (zamindars), the Rajmahal hills (Paharias and Santhals), and the Bombay Deccan. The focus is on how the English East India Company (E.I.C.) established its authority (raj), implemented revenue policies, and the impact of these on different social groups and everyday lives.
Laws imposed by the state have tangible consequences, influencing social and economic outcomes, determining who gains or loses land, and impacting peasants' access to resources. However, the people subjected to these laws did not passively accept them; they actively resisted based on their own understanding of justice. This resistance played a role in shaping how the laws operated and their ultimate effects.
The historical sources for this period come primarily from official archives of the British Raj: revenue records, surveys, journals, travellers' accounts, and reports from enquiry commissions. Studying these sources presents challenges for historians in interpreting events and understanding the perspectives of the various groups involved.
The Mutiny And The Spread Of Rebellion
The Revolt of 1857 began dramatically on the afternoon of 10 May in the cantonment of Meerut. Mutinying sepoys seized weapons, attacked Europeans and their property, and destroyed government buildings and records. They cut the telegraph line to Delhi, and a group of sepoys rode to Delhi.
Arriving at the Red Fort early on 11 May, the sepoys appealed to the aged Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah. They reported killing Englishmen due to the greased cartridges (rumoured to be coated with cow and pig fat), which they believed corrupted their religion (both Hindu and Muslim faiths). Other sepoys and ordinary citizens in Delhi joined the uprising, resulting in widespread attacks on Europeans and looting of the wealthy. Delhi fell under rebel control. Sepoys entered the Red Fort, demanding Bahadur Shah's blessings. Having limited options, the emperor agreed to be the nominal leader, lending the revolt a semblance of legitimacy under the Mughal name.
News of Delhi's fall and Bahadur Shah's support spread quickly. Across the Gangetic valley and west of Delhi, cantonments rose in mutiny through 12 and 13 May and subsequent days. The rebellion gained momentum.
Pattern Of The Uprising
The mutinies across different locations followed a remarkably similar pattern, suggesting planning and coordination among the rebels. The sequence of events in one town often triggered similar actions in the next as news travelled.
How The Mutinies Began
Mutinies often began with a signal, like the firing of a gun or sounding of a bugle. Sepoys first seized the 'bell of arms' (weapons store) and plundered the treasury. They then targeted government buildings (jail, treasury, telegraph, record room, bungalows), burning records. Europeans and anything connected to them became targets. Proclamations in local languages (Hindi, Urdu, Persian) were issued, urging Hindus and Muslims to unite and eliminate the 'firangis' (foreigners).
As ordinary people joined the revolt (Fig. 10.2), targets expanded to include moneylenders and the rich in major towns like Lucknow, Kanpur, and Bareilly. Peasants viewed them as oppressors and allies of the British, looting and destroying their houses. The sepoy mutiny rapidly evolved into a wider rebellion, marked by a general defiance of authority and hierarchy.
In May and June, the British were overwhelmed; British rule "collapsed like a house made of cards." (Source 1 provides reports on the breakdown of routine life in Delhi).
Source 1. Ordinary life in extraordinary times
What happened in the cities during the months of the revolt? How did people live through those months of tumult? How was normal life affected? Reports from different cities tell us about the breakdown in routine activities. Read these reports from the Delhi Urdu Akhbar, 14 June 1857:
The same thing is true for vegetables and saag (spinach). People have been found to complain that even kaddu (pumpkin) and baingan (brinjal) cannot be found in the bazaars. Potatoes and arvi (yam) when available are of stale and rotten variety, stored from before by farsighted kunjras (vegetable growers). From the gardens inside the city some produce does reach a few places but the poor and the middle class can only lick their lips and watch them (as they are earmarked for the select).
... There is something else that needs attention which is causing a lot of damage to the people which is that the water-carriers have stopped filling water. Poor Shurfas (gentility) are seen carrying water in pails on their shoulders and only then the necessary household tasks such as cooking, etc. can take place. The halalkhors (righteous) have become haramkhors (corrupt), many mohallas have not been able to earn for several days and if this situation continues then decay, death and disease will combine together to spoil the city’s air and an epidemic will spread all over the city and even to areas adjacent and around.
Answer:
The Delhi Urdu Akhbar viewed the actions of the people with a mixture of observation, concern for the breakdown of essential services, and perhaps some implicit judgment on certain groups. It objectively reports the scarcity of basic goods (vegetables) and the difficulty in obtaining them.
However, there's a notable bias in describing the plight of the "Poor Shurfas (gentility)" forced to carry water, suggesting a lament for the disruption of the usual social order where such tasks were performed by lower-status groups. The strong language used for the halalkhors ("righteous have become corrupt") who have stopped working indicates a negative judgment on their refusal to perform their customary duties, linking it directly to potential decay, disease, and epidemic, thereby framing their actions as harmful to the city's overall welfare. This reflects a concern for maintaining the established social hierarchy and the functioning of urban services, possibly coloured by the newspaper's or reporter's own social position or perspective on the disruption caused by the revolt.
Firangi: A derogatory term for foreigners, often Europeans.
Mutiny: Collective disobedience in armed forces.
Revolt/Rebellion: Uprising of people against authority. In 1857 context, 'mutiny' refers to sepoys, 'revolt' to the civilian population.
Lines Of Communication
The synchronised pattern of mutinies suggests underlying planning and coordination. Communication networks existed between sepoy lines, with sepoys or emissaries moving between stations, spreading the message of rebellion (Source 2 recounts an anecdote suggesting covert communication). For instance, after the 7th Awadh Irregular Cavalry's refusal of new cartridges, they sought orders from the 48th Native Infantry.
Source 2. Sisten and the tahsildar
In the context of the communication of the message of revolt and mutiny, the experience of François Sisten, a native Christian police inspector in Sitapur, is telling. He had gone to Saharanpur to pay his respects to the magistrate. Sisten was dressed in Indian clothes and sitting cross-legged. A Muslim tahsildar from Bijnor entered the room; upon learning that Sisten was from Awadh, he enquired, “What news from Awadh? How does the work progress, brother?” Playing safe, Sisten replied, “If we have work in Awadh, your highness will know it.” The tahsildar said, “Depend upon it, we will succeed this time. The direction of the business is in able hands.” The tahsildar was later identified as the principal rebel leader of Bijnor.
Answer:
This conversation suggests that plans were being communicated and discussed through informal networks among individuals who were sympathetic to the rebellion. The tahsildar's direct question ("What news from Awadh? How does the work progress, brother?") and his subsequent confident statement ("Depend upon it, we will succeed this time. The direction of the business is in able hands.") imply that there was organised activity ("the work") happening in different regions (Awadh) and coordinated leadership ("in able hands"). The conversation wasn't overt, likely using coded language or shared understanding, suggesting clandestine communication among trusted individuals.
The tahsildar likely regarded Sisten as a potential rebel because Sisten was a "native Christian police inspector in Sitapur" (part of Awadh). Despite his position within the colonial police force, his identity as a "native Christian" might have made him suspect to the British, while his native background and connection to Awadh might have been perceived by the tahsildar as potential grounds for sympathy with the anti-British movement, especially given the widespread disaffection in Awadh and among native troops and populations.
While direct evidence of specific planners is limited, observations like the nightly meetings of 'panchayats' (councils) in the Kanpur sepoy lines suggest collective decision-making among sepoys. Their shared living spaces, lifestyle, and common caste backgrounds likely facilitated these collective discussions, indicating that sepoys were active agents in shaping their own rebellion.
Leaders And Followers
The revolt required leadership and organisation. Rebels often turned to individuals who held positions of authority or influence before British rule. The sepoys in Meerut, for example, immediately sought the leadership of the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah in Delhi (Fig. 10.1), providing legitimacy to the revolt.
Similar situations occurred elsewhere: Nana Sahib (successor of Peshwa Baji Rao II) in Kanpur (Fig. 10.4), Rani Lakshmi Bai in Jhansi (Fig. 10.3), and Kunwar Singh (a local zamindar) in Arrah, Bihar, were compelled by popular pressure to lead the uprising in their respective regions. In Awadh, the populace rallied behind Birjis Qadr, the young son of the deposed Nawab Wajid Ali Shah.
Leadership was not limited to traditional elites. The message of rebellion was carried by ordinary people and religious figures like fakirs (wandering ascetics) and maulvis (Islamic scholars). Local leaders also emerged, mobilising peasants, zamindars, and tribal communities. Examples include Shah Mal, who mobilised villagers in Uttar Pradesh, and Gonoo, a tribal cultivator leading the Kol tribals in Chotanagpur (Source on Two rebels of 1857 details lives of Shah Mal and Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah).
Rumours And Prophecies
Rumours and prophecies played a significant role in inciting action during the revolt. The rumour about the greased cartridges, coated with the fat of cows (sacred to Hindus) and pigs (forbidden to Muslims), spread rapidly through sepoy lines, fueling fears of a British conspiracy to defile their religion and caste. This specific rumour may have originated from an incident involving a lower-caste worker and a Brahmin sepoy at Dum Dum. Despite British denials, the rumour persisted.
Other rumours included the belief that the British were mixing bone dust of cows and pigs into flour sold in markets, reinforcing fears of forced conversion to Christianity. These rumours created an environment of fear and suspicion, driving people to action. Prophecies also contributed, such as the belief that British rule would end exactly 100 years after the Battle of Plassey (23 June 1857).
Mysterious events like the distribution of chapattis from village to village (where a watchman receives a chapatti and is asked to make and distribute more) were also interpreted as omens of impending upheaval, though their exact meaning remains unclear today.
Why Did People Believe In The Rumours?
The power of rumours lies not in their factual accuracy but in how they resonate with people's existing fears, suspicions, faiths, and convictions. The rumours of 1857 gained traction because they tapped into deep-seated anxieties stemming from British policies implemented since the late 1820s.
Under Governor General Lord William Bentinck and his successors, the British actively pursued policies aimed at 'reforming' Indian society based on Western ideas and institutions. This included establishing English-medium education, abolishing practices like sati (1829), and legalising widow remarriage. Simultaneously, the British annexed numerous kingdoms and principalities (including Awadh, Jhansi, Satara) on various pretexts (misgovernment, doctrine of lapse).
These annexed territories saw the imposition of British administration, laws, and new, often heavier and inflexible, land revenue settlements. The cumulative impact created a profound sense of loss and disruption among the Indian population. They perceived their cherished traditions – kings, socio-religious customs, landholding patterns – being systematically dismantled and replaced by an impersonal, alien, and oppressive system. The activities of Christian missionaries further heightened fears of cultural and religious destruction.
In this climate of uncertainty and perceived threat, rumors spread with remarkable speed and were readily believed because they aligned with the people's fears that their world was under attack.
Awadh In Revolt
Awadh (modern-day Uttar Pradesh) was one of the most significant centres of the Revolt of 1857. Understanding the specific grievances in Awadh is crucial to understanding the widespread nature of the rebellion.
“A Cherry That Will Drop Into Our Mouth One Day”
Governor General Lord Dalhousie's quote in 1851 reflected the British desire to annex Awadh. Five years later, in 1856, the kingdom was formally absorbed into the British Empire. The annexation was the culmination of a process that began with the imposition of the Subsidiary Alliance in 1801. Under this alliance, the Nawab of Awadh was forced to disband his army, accept British troops within his kingdom, and follow the advice of the British Resident stationed at his court. This stripped the Nawab of his military power and made him dependent on the British, weakening his ability to control rebellious chiefs and taluqdars.
The British were increasingly interested in Awadh's fertile land, suitable for cash crops like indigo and cotton, and its strategic location as a potential market centre for Upper India. By the 1850s, with most other parts of India annexed, the takeover of Awadh completed the territorial expansion that began in Bengal a century earlier.
Subsidiary Alliance: A system devised by Lord Wellesley (1798) where rulers accepted British protection in exchange for maintaining British troops (at their expense), disbanding their own forces, and relinquishing independent foreign policy.
Resident: A British representative living in a state under indirect British rule, advising the ruler and monitoring affairs.
“The Life Was Gone Out Of The Body”
The annexation of Awadh and the dethronement and exile of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah to Calcutta in 1856 caused immense disaffection, particularly because the Nawab was widely loved by his people. The British plea of 'misgovernance' was seen as false by the population, who were deeply grieved by his departure. Contemporary observers described the profound sense of loss, comparing the town losing its Nawab to a body losing its life. Folk songs expressed sorrow and resentment over the British takeover ("Angrez Bahadur ain, mulk lai linho" - the honourable English came and took the country).
This emotional impact was coupled with significant material losses. The dissolution of the court meant a wide range of people dependent on royal patronage – musicians, dancers, poets, artisans, cooks, officials, etc. – lost their livelihoods. (Source 3 provides excerpts from a song mourning the Nawab's exile).
Source 3. The Nawab has left
Another song mourned the plight of the ruler who had to leave his motherland:
Noble and peasant all wept together
and all the world wept and wailed
Alas! The chief has bidden adieu to
his country and gone
abroad.
Answer:
People mourned the departure of Wajid Ali Shah for multiple intertwined reasons:
- Emotional Attachment: Despite the British portrayal of him as unpopular, he was "widely loved," suggesting a genuine emotional bond between the ruler and his subjects.
- Symbol of Their World: His removal symbolised the end of their familiar political and cultural order ("The life was gone out of the body"). The Nawab represented a world they valued and respected.
- Loss of Livelihoods: His court supported a vast number of people across various professions (musicians, artisans, officials). His exile led directly to widespread unemployment and economic hardship for these groups.
- Sense of Dispossession: The annexation felt like a violation and theft of their country ("the honourable English came and took the country"), with the Nawab's exile being the most visible manifestation of this loss.
- Shared Grief: The song highlights that "Noble and peasant all wept together," indicating that the grief transcended social divisions, suggesting a collective sense of loss among people from different strata who felt a connection to the Nawab and the kingdom he represented.
Firangi Raj And The End Of A World
In Awadh, a combination of grievances linked various social groups – princes, taluqdars, peasants, and sepoys. All came to associate 'firangi raj' (British rule) with the destruction of their established social order and cherished values. The revolt in Awadh was a powerful expression of popular resistance against an alien system.
The annexation not only affected the Nawab but also dispossessed the taluqdars, powerful landholders who had historically controlled land and maintained armed retainers and forts, enjoying autonomy under the Nawab's suzerainty in exchange for revenue. The British, seeking to centralise control, disarmed the taluqdars and destroyed their forts immediately after annexation.
The British land revenue policy further undermined taluqdars. The Summary Settlement of 1856 viewed taluqdars as illegitimate interlopers who gained control through force. It aimed to settle land directly with supposed 'actual owners,' removing taluqdars where possible. This drastically reduced the number of villages held by taluqdars (from 67% to 38% in pre-British times). While officials hoped this would reduce peasant exploitation and increase state revenue, it failed. Revenue demands significantly increased (30% to 70% overassessment in places), and collection became inflexible. Neither taluqdars nor peasants benefited from the annexation.
The removal of taluqdars disrupted the traditional social order and the ties between peasants and taluqdars. Although some taluqdars were oppressive, they also offered support and loans in times of need or during festivities. Under the British, peasants faced high, rigid revenue demands with no guarantee of relief during hardship. This led taluqdars and peasants to unite in resistance, particularly in Awadh. Many taluqdars joined Begum Hazrat Mahal in fighting the British (Source 4 reflects a taluqdar's perspective).
Source 4. What taluqdars thought
The attitude of the taluqdars was best expressed by Hanwant Singh, the Raja of Kalakankar, near Rae Bareli. During the mutiny, Hanwant Singh had given shelter to a British officer, and conveyed him to safety. While taking leave of the officer, Hanwant Singh told him:
Sahib, your countrymen came into this country and drove out our King. You sent your officers round the districts to examine the titles to the estates. At one blow you took from me lands which from time immemorial had been in my family. I submitted. Suddenly misfortune fell upon you. The people of the land rose against you. You came to me whom you had despoiled. I have saved you. But now – now I march at the head of my retainers to Lucknow to try and drive you from the country.
Answer:
This excerpt tells us that the attitude of the taluqdars like Hanwant Singh was one of deep resentment and a strong sense of injustice regarding the British annexation and land settlement policies. Despite his immediate act of saving a British officer, his words convey bitterness over being dispossessed of ancestral lands and the removal of the Nawab (their king).
By "the people of the land," Hanwant Singh meant the local population, likely including peasants, villagers, and others in the countryside who rose up against the British. This shows a sense of shared identity and grievance beyond just the taluqdar class.
Hanwant Singh gives two primary reasons for the anger of the people:
- Removal of the King: The British "drove out our King."
- Dispossession of Land: The British examined titles and "at one blow took from me lands which from time immemorial had been in my family." This act of taking ancestral land and disrupting traditional landholding patterns caused widespread anger among landholders and likely affected peasants as well (as seen in other sources).
His statement reflects the combination of loyalty to the deposed ruler and the material grievance of losing land as key drivers of the rebellion from the taluqdar's perspective.
The grievances in Awadh villages directly impacted the sepoy lines, as most sepoys in the Bengal Army were recruited from Awadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh, often from Brahmin or 'upper' castes. Changes and perceived threats in their villages were relayed to the sepoys (Fig. 10.7 shows Bengal sepoys). Sepoy fears (new cartridges, leave issues, racial abuse from officers) were communicated back to the villages. This strong link meant that when sepoys mutinied, their village brethren quickly joined, resulting in widespread popular rebellion in towns and countryside.
What The Rebels Wanted
Understanding the rebels' motivations is challenging, as few records directly convey their perspective. Most rebels were non-literate sepoys and ordinary people. Historians rely heavily on British accounts, which often portray rebels negatively. However, some rebel proclamations and notifications (ishtahars) provide insight into their goals.
The Vision Of Unity
Rebel proclamations repeatedly called for unity among all sections of society, regardless of caste or religion. Even those issued by or in the name of Muslim leaders appealed to Hindu sentiments. The rebellion was framed as a shared struggle against the British where both communities had everything to lose or gain. Ishtahars evoked a pre-British past of Hindu-Muslim coexistence under the Mughal Empire, calling for fighting under the banners of both Muhammad and Mahavir. Despite British attempts to incite religious divisions (e.g., spending money in Bareilly), religious unity was notable during the uprising.
The Azamgarh Proclamation (25 August 1857) is a key source detailing rebel demands and appeals to various social groups (Source 5 provides excerpts).
Source 5. The Azamgarh Proclamation, 25 August 1857
This is one of the main sources of our knowledge about what the rebels wanted:
It is well known to all, that in this age the people of Hindostan, both Hindoos and Mohammedans, are being ruined under the tyranny and the oppression of the infidel and treacherous English. It is therefore the bounden duty of all the wealthy people of India, especially those who have any sort of connection with the Mohammedan royal families, and are considered the pastors and masters of their people, to stake their lives and property for the well-being of the public. …
Several of the Hindoo and Mussalman Chiefs, who have long since quitted their homes for the preservation of their religion, and have been trying their best to root out the English in India, have presented themselves to me, and taken part in the reigning Indian crusade, and it is more than probable that I shall very shortly receive succours from the West. Therefore for the information of the public, the present Ishtahar, consisting of several sections, is put in circulation and it is the imperative duty of all to take into their careful consideration, and abide by it. Parties anxious to participate in the common cause, but having no means to provide for themselves, shall receive their daily subsistence from me; and be it known to all, that the ancient works, both of the Hindoos and Mohammedans, the writings of miracle workers, and the calculation of the astrologers, pundits, … all agree in asserting that the English will no longer have any footing in India or elsewhere. Therefore it is incumbent on all to give up the hope of the continuation of the British sway, side with me, and deserve the consideration of the Badshahi, or imperial government, by their individual exertion in promoting the common good, and thus attain their respective ends; otherwise if this golden opportunity slips away, they will have to repent for their folly, … .
Section I – Regarding Zemindars. It is evident, that the British Government in making zemindary settlements have imposed exorbitant Jumas (revenue demand) and have disgraced and ruined several zemindars, by putting up their estates for public auction for arrears of rent, in so much, in the institution of a suit by a common Ryot, a maid servant, or a slave, the respectable zemindars are summoned into court, arrested, put in goal and disgraced. In litigation regarding zemindaries, the immense value of stamps, and other unnecessary expenses of the civil courts, … are all calculated to impoverish the litigants. Besides this, the coffers of the zemindars are annually taxed with the subscription for schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Such extortions will have no manner of existence in the Badshahi Government; but on the contrary the Jumas will be light, the dignity and honour of the zemindars safe, and every zemindar will have absolute rule in his own zemindary …
Section II – Regarding Merchants. It is plain that the infidel and treacherous British Government have monopolised the trade of all the fine and valuable merchandise, such as indigo, cloth, and other articles of shipping, leaving only the trade of trifles to the people, … Besides this, the profits of the traders are taxed, with postages, tolls and subscriptions for schools, etc. Notwithstanding all these concessions, the merchants are liable to imprisonment and disgrace at the instance or complaint of a worthless man. When the Badshahi Government is established all these aforesaid fraudulent practices shall be dispensed with, and the trade of every article, without exception, both by land and water will be opened to the native merchants of India, … It is therefore the duty of every merchant to take part in the war, and aid the Badshahi Government with his men and money, … .
Section III – Regarding Public Servants. It is not a secret thing, that under the British Government, natives employed in the civil and military services have little respect, low pay, and no manner of influence; and all the posts of dignity and emolument in both the departments are exclusively bestowed on Englishmen, … Therefore, all the natives in the British service ought to be alive to their religion and interest, and abjuring their loyalty to the English, side with the Badshahi Government, and obtain salaries of 200 and 300 rupees a month for the present, and be entitled to high posts in the future. …
Section IV – Regarding Artisans. It is evident that the Europeans, by the introduction of English articles into India, have thrown the weavers, the cotton dressers, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, and the shoemakers, etc., out of employ, and have engrossed their occupations, so that every description of native artisan has been reduced to beggary. But under the Badshahi Government the native artisans will exclusively be employed in the service of the kings, the rajahs, and the rich; and this will no doubt ensure their prosperity. Therefore these artisans ought to renounce the English services, … .
Section V – Regarding Pundits, Fakirs and Other Learned Persons. The pundits and fakirs being the guardians of the Hindoo and Mohammadan religions respectively, and the Europeans being the enemies of both the religions, and as at present a war is raging against the English on account of religion, the pundits and fakirs are bound to present themselves to me, and take their share in the holy war… .
Answer:
The Azamgarh Proclamation highlights a wide range of issues against British rule, appealing to different social groups. Key issues are:
- Oppression and Tyranny: The British are described as "infidel and treacherous," ruining the people of Hindustan (Hindus and Mohammedans).
- Threat to Religion: Europeans are called "enemies of both the religions," and the war is framed as a "holy war" for the preservation of faith.
- High Revenue Demand and Dispossession (for Zamindars): British settlements imposed "exorbitant Jumas," leading to the "disgrace and ruin" of zamindars through auctions and legal humiliation in courts.
- Monopolisation of Trade (for Merchants): The British are accused of monopolising valuable trade items, leaving only "trifles" to native merchants, and taxing profits. Merchants also faced legal vulnerability.
- Discrimination and Low Status (for Public Servants): Native employees in British service had "little respect, low pay, and no manner of influence," with high posts reserved for Englishmen.
- Ruin of Native Artisans: Introduction of English goods ruined native artisans, leaving them in beggary.
The proclamation is formulated in formal, persuasive language, using strong, emotionally charged terms ("infidel," "treacherous," "tyranny," "oppression," "ruined," "disgraced," "holy war," "golden opportunity"). It directly addresses each social group, detailing their specific grievances under British rule and promising restoration of their former status and prosperity under a revived "Badshahi Government." It appeals to sentiments of religious identity, economic self-interest, social status, and a desire to return to a perceived better past.
Source 6 provides an arzi (petition) from rebel sepoys, outlining their grievances, particularly the greased cartridges incident as the trigger for the mutiny. They also express loyalty to the Badshahi Government and their commitment to preserving their faith (Source 6: What the sepoys thought).
Source 6. What the sepoys thought
This is one of the arzis (petition or application) of rebel sepoys that have survived:
A century ago the British arrived in Hindostan and gradually entertained troops in their service, and became masters of every state. Our forefathers have always served them, and we also entered their service … By the mercy of God and with our assistance the British also conquered every place they liked, in which thousands of us, Hindostani men were sacrificed, but we never made any excuses or pretences nor revolted …
But in the year eighteen fifty seven the British issued an order that new cartridges and muskets which had arrived from England were to be issued; in the former of which the fats of cows and pigs were mixed; and also that attah of wheat mixed with powdered bones was to be eaten; and even distributed them in every Regiment of infantry, cavalry and artillery …
They gave these cartridges to the sowars (mounted soldiers) of the 3rd Light Cavalry, and ordered them to bite them; the troopers objected to it, and said that they would never bite them, for if they did, their religion and faith would be destroyed … upon this the British officers paraded the men of the 3 Regiments and having prepared 1,400 English soldiers, and other Battalions of European troops and Horse Artillery, surrounded them, and placing six guns before each of the infantry regiments, loaded the guns with grape and made 84 new troopers prisoners, and put them in jail with irons on them … The reason that the sowars of the Cantonment were put into jail was that we should be frightened into biting the new cartridges. On this account we and all our country-men having united together, have fought the British for the preservation of our faith … we have been compelled to make war for two years and the Rajahs and Chiefs who are with us in faith and religion, are still so, and have undergone all sorts of trouble; we have fought for two years in order that our faith and religion may not be polluted. If the religion of a Hindoo or Mussalman is lost, what remains in the world?
Answer:
Comparing the reasons for the mutiny as stated in the arzi (Source 6) with those mentioned by the taluqdar (Source 4):
Similarities:
- Threat to Religion/Faith: Both sources highlight the threat to religion as a primary cause. The sepoys explicitly mention the greased cartridges and bone dust in flour as attempts to destroy their faith. The taluqdar doesn't detail this specific issue but frames the overall uprising as the "people of the land ros[ing] against you" after "misfortune fell upon you," implying a deep-seated grievance that resonates with religious fears, which were widespread (as seen in Source 5). Source 5 explicitly links the war to religion.
- Anti-British Sentiment: Both share a strong anti-British sentiment. Sepoys recount the history of British conquest and their forefathers serving them before the betrayal. The taluqdar directly blames the British for driving out their king and taking their land. Both are now fighting to drive the British out.
- Claim of Legitimacy: Both imply a sense of righteous cause. The sepoys are fighting "for the preservation of our faith." The taluqdar sees the British misfortune as a sign and is fighting to reclaim their country ("try and drive you from the country").
Differences:
- Specific Grievance: The sepoys' arzi focuses heavily on the immediate trigger: the greased cartridges and bone dust in flour, detailing the sequence of events related to their introduction and the punishment faced by those who refused. The taluqdar does not mention this specific sepoy grievance.
- Land/Political Grievance: The taluqdar's statement focuses on the political act of the British driving out the king and the material grievance of the British examining titles and taking ancestral lands. While the sepoys were recruited from rural areas affected by these policies, the arzi itself does not explicitly mention the loss of land or the plight of the taluqdars/peasants as a *direct* cause of the mutiny, although these underlying rural grievances likely contributed to the sepoys' disaffection.
- Social Group Perspective: The arzi reflects the specific concerns of sepoys as soldiers regarding their service conditions, pay (mentioned elsewhere), and threats to their religious practices within the army. The taluqdar's statement reflects the concerns of the landed elite regarding their dispossession and loss of political power.
Against The Symbols Of Oppression
Rebel proclamations explicitly rejected everything associated with British rule, framing it as 'firangi raj'. They condemned annexations, broken treaties, and the British as untrustworthy. They particularly attacked British land revenue settlements for dispossessing landholders and British commerce for ruining artisans.
The rebels aimed to restore a familiar and cherished pre-British world. Proclamations appealed to people to fight for their livelihood, faith, honour, and identity, portraying the struggle as being for the "greater public good."
The rebellion often extended to attacks on perceived British allies or local oppressors, such as moneylenders and elites. Burning account books and looting moneylenders' houses symbolised resistance against economic exploitation and an attempt to overturn existing power structures. This suggests an underlying desire for a more egalitarian society, although this specific vision was not explicitly articulated in the broader rebel proclamations, which focused on uniting all groups against British rule.
The Search For Alternative Power
Following the collapse of British authority in centres like Delhi, Lucknow, and Kanpur, the rebels attempted to establish alternative structures of authority and administration. This was a conscious effort to recreate the pre-British world, often modelled after the 18th-century Mughal court culture. They appointed officials, arranged for revenue collection, managed troops, and issued orders to maintain order and prevent looting.
These structures, though short-lived due to the British counter-offensive, reveal the rebel leadership's aspiration to restore a lost political order, with the Mughal world serving as a powerful symbol of what had been lost. While the administrative efforts were primarily geared towards supporting the war effort, detailed plans for counter-attack and command hierarchies were maintained, particularly in Awadh, where resistance was prolonged (Source 7 describes problems British faced with villagers in Awadh).
Source 7. Villagers as rebels
An officer reporting from rural Awadh (spelt as Oude in the following account) noted:
The Oude people are gradually pressing down on the line of communication from the North … the Oude people are villagers … these villagers are nearly intangible to Europeans melting away before them and collecting again. The Civil Authorities report these villagers to amount to a very large number of men, with a number of guns.
Answer:
According to this account, the problems faced by the British in dealing with these villagers were:
- Large Numbers: The villagers constituted a "very large number of men," indicating widespread participation in the rebellion.
- Armed Resistance: They possessed "a number of guns," suggesting organised armed opposition, not just passive resistance.
- Tactical Mobility/Intangibility: They were "nearly intangible to Europeans," "melting away before them and collecting again." This describes guerrilla tactics where villagers would disperse when faced with direct British forces but regroup elsewhere, making it difficult for the British to engage them decisively or completely suppress them. They blended into the local population and landscape, making them hard to track and pin down.
This source highlights that the rebellion in rural Awadh was not just sepoy activity but involved the active, numerous, and strategically mobile participation of the local villagers.
Repression
Putting down the rebellion was a difficult and protracted task for the British. Before launching their counter-offensive, they enacted special laws to facilitate repression. Acts passed in May and June 1857 imposed martial law across North India, granting military officers and even ordinary British citizens the power to try and punish suspected rebels with immediate execution.
Armed with these laws and reinforcements from Britain, the British began suppressing the revolt. They recognised the symbolic importance of recapturing Delhi and launched a two-pronged attack: one force from Calcutta and another from the relatively peaceful Punjab. British efforts to recapture Delhi started in June 1857 but the city was only finally taken in late September after heavy fighting, as rebels from across North India converged there to defend the capital.
Reconquering the Gangetic plain was slow, requiring village-by-village campaigns due to widespread hostility from the countryside and its people. British officials realised this was a popular uprising, not just a sepoy mutiny. In Awadh, an official estimated that three-fourths of adult males were in rebellion, and the area was only controlled by March 1858 after prolonged conflict.
The British used immense military force but also employed political strategies. In parts of Uttar Pradesh with united resistance from landholders and peasants, they tried to divide them by promising to restore estates to loyal big landholders. Rebel landholders were dispossessed, while loyalists were rewarded. Many rebels died fighting or fled to Nepal, perishing from illness or starvation.
Images Of The Revolt
Much of our understanding of the revolt, rebel actions, and repression comes from British accounts and visual representations, as rebel perspectives are limited. British officials, military men, and newspapers provided numerous accounts reflecting their fears, anxieties, and perceptions of the rebels. Pictorial images produced by British and Indian artists—paintings, drawings, etchings, posters, cartoons, bazaar prints—also offer valuable insights into how the revolt was viewed and represented.
Celebrating The Saviours
British pictures often aimed to evoke specific emotions and reactions, commemorating British heroes and celebrating victories. Thomas Jones Barker's "Relief of Lucknow" (1859, Fig. 10.10) is an example. It depicts the moment British forces relieved the besieged garrison at the Lucknow Residency. The painting focuses on the British commanders (Campbell, Outram, Havelock), highlighting their heroism, the suffering endured (dead/injured foreground), and the re-establishment of British control (triumphant horses). Such images reassured the British public, portraying the rebellion as overcome and the British as victorious saviours.
English Women And The Honour Of Britain
Reports and images focusing on alleged violence against English women and children inflamed public opinion in Britain, leading to demands for revenge and retribution. Artists like Joseph Noel Paton depicted English women and children as helpless victims. His painting "In Memoriam" (1859, Fig. 10.11) shows them huddled together, suggesting impending violence and dishonour, provoking anger against the (invisible) rebels. The arrival of British rescue forces is shown in the background as saviours.
Other images portrayed English women as heroic, actively defending themselves. Miss Wheeler (Fig. 10.12) is depicted single-handedly fighting rebels, her struggle framed as a defense of personal honor and Christianity (symbolised by the Bible). These representations demonised the rebels as brutal attackers.
Vengeance And Retribution
The desire for vengeance in Britain was intense. Visuals shaped this sentiment, portraying brutal repression as just and necessary. Images depicted allegorical figures of Justice aggressively trampling sepoys while Indian women and children cower in fear (Fig. 10.13). Other images and cartoons in the British press sanctioned violent reprisal, reinforcing the British desire to demonstrate their invincibility after the threat of the rebellion.
Source 14. The British Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger
The caption at the bottom reads “The British Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger”, Punch, 1857.
Answer:
This picture (Fig. 10.14) projects the idea of fierce British retaliation against the Indian rebels. The picture is meant to symbolise British power and vengeance triumphing over Indian resistance.
The figures of the lion and the tiger are symbolic representations: The British Lion represents the might and ferocity of the British Empire, particularly its determination to take vengeance. The Bengal Tiger represents the Indian rebels, particularly associated with Bengal (where the revolt began and spread). The image of the lion attacking and subduing the tiger signifies the British forcefully crushing the Indian rebellion.
The figures of the woman and the child depict innocent British victims (representing English women and children caught in the violence). They are shown looking on from the side, symbolising the perceived need for the British vengeance as a response to the suffering inflicted upon their countrymen/women, thereby justifying the brutal repression shown in other images.
The Performance Of Terror
The brutal execution of rebels was widely publicised to instill fear. Images of rebels being blown from guns or hanged were circulated in popular journals (Figs 10.15 and 10.16). These executions were staged as public spectacles, not merely punishment, but a theatrical performance of state power meant to deter further rebellion and convey the chilling consequences of resistance to British rule.
No Time For Clemency
Amidst calls for vengeance, attempts at moderation were often ridiculed in the British press. Governor General Canning's proposal for leniency towards sepoys to regain loyalty was mocked. Cartoons depicted Canning as naive, offering protection to a sepoy still holding blood-stained weapons, implying misguided mercy (Fig. 10.17).
Nationalist Imageries
In the 20th century, the Indian nationalist movement drew inspiration from the events of 1857, framing it as the 'First War of Independence,' where all Indians united against imperial rule. Nationalist art, literature, and history celebrated the revolt, portraying leaders as heroes fighting for freedom. Rani Lakshmi Bai, the queen of Jhansi, became a prominent symbol, depicted as a courageous warrior (Fig. 10.18), embodying resistance against injustice and alien rule.
Visual representations from the revolt reflect the perspectives and intentions of their creators. British images shaped public opinion in Britain, sanctioning brutal repression, while nationalist imageries helped shape the nationalist imagination, promoting a narrative of unified resistance against colonial rule.