Modern History Quiz: The revolt of 1858 and its aftermath (Administrative Changes) | 24th Dec, 2020

Begum Hazrat Mahal took over the reigns at Lucknow where the rebellion broke out on June 4, 1857 and popular sympathy was overwhelmingly in favour of the deposed nawab.
At Bareilly, Khan Bahadur, a descendant of the former ruler of Rohilkhand, was placed in command. Not enthusiastic about the pension being granted by the British, he organized an army of 40,000 soldiers and offered stiff resistance to the British.
In Bihar, the revolt was led by Kunwar Singh, the zamindar of Jagdishpur. An old man in his seventies, he nursed a grudge against the British who had deprived him of his estates. He unhesitatingly joined the sepoys when they reached Arrah from Dinapore (Danapur).
Maulvi Ahmadullah of Faizabad was another outstanding leader of the revolt. He was a native of Madras and had moved to Faizabad in the north where he fought a stiff battle against the British troops.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 178.

The most outstanding leader of the revolt was Rani Laxmibai, who assumed the leadership of the sepoys at Jhansi. Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general, had refused to allow her adopted son to succeed to the throne after her husband Raja Gangadhar Rao died, and had annexed the state by the application of the infamous ‘Doctrine of Lapse’.
Driven out of Jhansi by British forces, she gave the battle cry—”main apni Jhansi nahin doongi” (I shall not give away my Jhansi). She was joined by Tantia Tope, a close associate of Nana Saheb, after the loss of Kanpur. The Rani of Jhansi had died on the battlefield earlier in June 1858. Jhansi was recaptured by Sir Hugh Rose.
“Here lay the woman who was the only man among the rebels.”
—Hugh Rose
(a tribute to the Rani of Jhansi from the man who defeated her)
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 179.

Centres of Revolt and Leaders
•Delhi – General Bakht Khan
•Kanpur – Nana Saheb
•Lucknow – Begum Hazrat Mahal
•Bareilly – Khan Bahadur
•Bihar – Kunwar Singh
•Faizabad – Maulvi Ahmadullah
•Jhansi – Rani Laxmibai
•Baghpat – Shah Mal
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 190.

The British Resistance
•Delhi – Lieutenant Willoughby, John Nicholson, Lieutenant Hudson
•Kanpur – Sir Hugh Wheeler, Sir Colin Campbell
•Lucknow – Henry Lawrence, Brigadier Inglis, Henry Havelock, James Outram, Sir Colin Campbell
•Jhansi – Sir Hugh Rose
•Benaras – Colonel James Neill
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 190.

Nature of the Revolt:
•R.C. Majumdar and S.N. Sen— “Not an organised ‘national’ revolt”
•R.C. Majumdar— “Neither first, nor National War of Independence”
•V.D. Savarkar—“War of independence”
•Eric Stokes—“Elitist in character”
•Lawrence and Seeley—“Mere sepoy mutiny”
•T.R. Holmes—“A conflict between civilisation and barbarism”
•James Outram—“A Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances”
•Percival Spear—Three phases of the revolt
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 191.

Socio-Religious Causes: Racial overtones and a superiority complex characterised the British administrative attitude towards the native Indian population. The activities of Christian missionaries who followed the British flag in India were looked upon with suspicion by Indians. The attempts at socio-religious reform such as abolition of sati, support to widow-marriage and women’s education were seen by a large section of the population as interference in the social and religious domains of Indian society by outsiders.
These fears were compounded by the government’s decision to tax mosque and temple lands and making laws such as the Religious Disabilities Act, 1856, which modified Hindu customs, for instance, declaring that a change of religion did not debar a son from inheriting the property of his ‘heathen’ father.
Discontent Among Sepoys: The conditions of service in the Company’s Army and cantonments increasingly came into conflict with the religious beliefs and prejudices of the sepoys. Restrictions on wearing caste and sectarian marks and secret rumours of proselytizing activities of the chaplains (often maintained on the Company’s expenses which meant at Indian expense) were interpreted by Indian sepoys, who were generally conservative by nature, as interference in their religious affairs.
To the religious Hindu of the time, crossing the seas meant loss of caste. In 1856, Lord Canning’s government passed the General Service Enlistment Act which decreed that all future recruits to the Bengal Army would have to give an undertaking to serve anywhere their services might be required by the government. This caused resentment.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 173-174.

The Act for Better Government of India, 1858:
The 1857 revolt had exposed the Company’s limitations in administering under a complex situation. Till then, there had not been much accountability. The 1858 Act sought to rectify this anomaly—
•India was to be governed by and in the name of the Crown through a secretary of state and a council of 15. The initiative and the final decision was to be with the secretary of state and the council was to be just advisory in nature. (Thus, the dual system introduced by the Pitt’s India Act came to an end.)
•Governor-general became the viceroy (his prestige, if not authority, increased).
The assumption of power by the Crown was one of formality rather than substance. It gave a decent burial to an already dead horse—the Company’s administration.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 526.

It was at the beginning of the twentieth century that the 1857 revolt came to be interpreted as a “planned war of national independence”, by V.D. Savarkar in his book, The Indian War of Independence, 1857.
Savarkar called the revolt the first war of Indian independence. He said it was inspired by the lofty ideal of self rule by Indians through a nationalist upsurge.
Dr S.N. Sen in his Eighteen Fifty- Seven considers the revolt as having begun as a fight for religion but ending as a war of independence.
Dr R.C. Majumdar, however, considers it as 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.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 183.

No Unified Ideology: 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 lack of unity among Indians was perhaps unavoidable at this stage of Indian history. Modern nationalism was as 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.
Hindu-Muslim Unity Factor: During the entire revolt, there was complete cooperation between Hindus and Muslims at all levels—people, soldiers, leaders. All rebels acknowledged Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, as the emperor and the first impulse of the Hindu sepoys at Meerut was to march to Delhi, the Mughal imperial capital. According to Maulana Azad, “Two facts stand out clearly in the midst of the tangled story of the Rising of 1857.
The first is the remarkable sense of unity among the Hindus and the Muslims of India in this period. The other is the deep loyalty which the people felt for the Mughal Crown.” Rebels and sepoys, both Hindu and Muslim, respected each other’s sentiments. Immediate banning of cow slaughter was ordered once the revolt was successful in a particular area.
Both Hindus and Muslims were well represented in leadership, for instance Nana Saheb had Azimullah, a Muslim and an expert in political propaganda, as an aide, while Laxmibai had the solid support of Afghan soldiers.
Thus, the events of 1857 demonstrated that the people and politics of India were not basically communal or sectarian before 1858.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 182.

To begin with, domination of the European branch over the Indian branches was ensured. The commissions of 1859 and 1879 insisted on the principle of a one-third white army (as against 14% before 1857). Finally, the proportion of Europeans to Indians was carefully fixed at one to two in the Bengal Army and two to five in the Madras and Bombay Armies. Strict European monopoly over key geographical locations and departments, such as artillery, tanks and armed corps, was maintained. Even the rifles given to Indians were of an inferior quality till 1900, and Indians were not allowed in these high-tech departments till the Second World War.
No Indians were allowed in the officer rank, and the highest rank an Indian could reach till 1914 was that of a subedar (only from 1918 onwards were Indians allowed in the commissioned ranks). As late as 1926, the Indian Sandhurst Committee was visualising a 50% Indianised officer cadre for 1952.
Source: Spectrum’s A Brief History of Modern India, Page 539.