The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: General Topics (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Member Articles (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Thread: The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I (/showthread.php?tid=660)

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 09-23-2005

The Great Rising of 1857 - Part I
By Anand K

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 09-10-2006

wasn't that a mutiny!! and why on earth did the indians installed a muslim emperor after capuring delhi?

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Bharatvarsh - 09-10-2006

Here is an answer:
QUOTEFrom: "Kalavai Venkat" <history_judge@...>
Date: Thu Jun 16, 2005Â 11:38 am
Subject: Re: The Mutiny of 1857Â history_judge
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Dear Dr. C J S Wallia,

Ref msg # 76179.

<<<As I wrote before, the objective of the Mutiny in the Bengal army was to reinstate the authority of the Mughals in Delhi, an objective wholly repugnant to the Sikhs. Moreover, the Bengal army had only eight years earlier invaded the Punjab.>>>

Dr. Elst made some correct observations about Ranjit Singh. No matter how revisionists like to see him, the fact is that Ranjit Singh remained servile to the British. The British had taken some solid whipping at the hands of the Nepalis in 1816 CE. The Nepalis proposed a treaty with Ranjit Singh [which they again repeated in 1824 CE] and given the bashings that the British took in Burma in 1824 CE, any such pact would've weakened the British and actually strengthened Ranjit. But he declined and remained loyal to the British. Likewise, he declined to join forces with the Maratha [deposed] and the Bharatapur rulers in 1824 and 1825 CE respectively.

Of course, despite their outward shows of friendships ï¿½ donating horses and going on a poaching mela ï¿½ the British had no respect for Ranjit Singh. They actually aided and abetted the Wahhabi uprising against the Sikhs, which certainly weakened Ranjit Singh. Despite the death of Sayyid Ahmad at Bareilly in 1831 CE, the Wahhabis had proved to be formidable and treacherous enemies of the Sikhs. So, if at all the Sikhs had any animosity, it was towards the Muslims, who were also fighting the British in the mutiny. It was not against the practically defunct Mughal.

Contrary to what most revisionists like to believe, the origins of the Mutiny were in Vellore, Tamilnadu in 1806 CE. The British had banned the use of Hindu caste and religious marks, including wearing of the tilak or vibhuti on the forehead. Of course, the exiled family of Tipu Sultan was opportunistic enough to join hands with the mutineers. The substantial Muslim population of the Arcot district joined the mutiny once the Tipu Sultan connection was materialized. The British put the mutineers down.

The next phase of the uprising was in 1824 CE during the Burmese war. The Hindu soldiers at Barrackpur had been agitating against the unjust pay terms imposed by the British. The British reversals in Burma gave them the ideal setting to mutiny.

The 1857 Mutiny was merely a continuation of these two earlier revolts. Once again, the 1857 Mutiny started in the barracks of Dum Dum by the Hindu soldiers. The Muslims would join later. The trigger was again violation of religious code even though the discontent had been brewing for nearly 5 decades. Mangal Pandey made the first open call for the sepoys to unite for protecting their religious codes. In the ensuing dual, he knocked down the 2 British officers that combated him as thousands of soldiers watched. The sight of a Hindu soldier single-handedly fighting 2 horse-borne British officers and knocking them down set the adrenalin of the Hindu soldiers flowing. Till this point, the Mutiny was a Hindu affair ï¿½ to be precise, remembering Ambedkar's repeated pleas of Mahar loyalty to the British, it was largely an upper caste Hindu rebellion motivated by religion and exploitative pay terms.

After Pandey was executed, the British disbanded the 34th NI and the 19th, the predominantly Hindu regiments. No Muslim regiments were disbanded. The disbanded soldiers constituted the ideal recruiting base for the Mutiny. So, the Mutiny started entirely as a Bengal regiment Hindu rebellion against the British on 2 considerations: religion and pay. They simply didn't have any vision for the long-
term.

Even though the Bengal regiment Hindu soldiers had started the Mutiny in January 1857 CE, it would take them another 4 months to reach Delhi. The mutineers suffered some serious setbacks in Kanpur and Meerut en route. It was at that time that the proposals to declare Bahadur Shah as the emperor of India were heard for the first time. The reasons aren't hard to figure: Once the Mutiny spread to UP, a large number of Muslim soldiers joined.

So, the declaration of the powerless Bahadur Shah as the emperor of India was rather a late development. It was not at all part of the original vision. It is worth noting that the Sikh contingents hadn't supported the Mutiny even in its early stage from January to May. It is a travesty of facts to claim that this was due to the Bahadur Shah factor, as that simply didn't exist then. A better answer is that as evident from the policies and practices of Ranjit Singh, the Sikhs found it beneficial to be loyal to the British. Ravi Chaudhary may be right that the Sikh population may not have been disposed against the mutineers. But, we don't have a way of evaluating that unless someone familiar with the primary sources from Punjab can discuss them. It is clear that the powers that be among the Sikhs had been loyal to the British as discussed above.

Thanks.
PS: For an excellent discussion on this topic, please see "British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance," Parts 1, 2 and 3, Ed. R C Majumdar, A K Majumdar and D K Ghosh.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/76413

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - ramana - 09-12-2006

If you see it as Mutiny - the rebellion of soldiers against their officers then Vellore happened first. But if you see it light of overtrhow of English Rule then the 1857 incident becomes the First war for Independence from English rule. Vellore Mutiny and the Burmese mutinies were not movements to overthrow the English Rule.

One could argue that in 1857 started as a mutiny and went on to become the First War of Independence. I think this is the most accurate description.

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 10-14-2006

Most Indians of means at that time, as it is in the present were opportunists. Therefore, some of the Indian rulers ganged up to exploite the situation for their own material gain. We Indians of the present to glorify our past do try to capitalise on the event.
Do you think that a few thousand British soldiers spread over this vast country could have been able to re gain control without the sizable and effective help of a substantial number of Indians.

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 11-28-2006

QUOTE(Ravish @ Oct 14 2006, 04:53 PM)Most Indians of means at that time, as it is in the present were opportunists. Therefore, some of the Indian rulers ganged up to exploite the situation for their own material gain. We Indians of the present to glorify our past do try to capitalise on the event.
Do you think that a few thousand British soldiers spread over this vast country could have been able to re gain control without the sizable and effective help of a substantial number of Indians.
[right][snapback]59095[/snapback][/right]


It started as a revolt of the Indian soldiers against the Britishers, but it soon assumed the character of a mass uprising in large parts on India. British were able to regain not because of substantial help from Indians. In fact if you read some of Marx's journalism on the revolt, you will realise that large contingents on proper British (read White) forces were being sent to India. In fact Marx was the doomsday predictor for the British fully convinced that the British would be ousted out of India. After the beginning of the war, the Britishers did not trust any Indians, so they did not win due to Indian support, though they had the Sikhs, Gurkhas and some Indian principalities on thier side. In fact it is not the British who won, they definitely tried and they had some outstanding generals, but rather it is us who lost. After overthrowing the Britishers the sepoys did not have a plan B. The revolt was very much a spontaneous reaction against the Company's insensitivities, not a thought out coordinated action. So you had various theatres of action, but no strategy between them. The various rulers joined them against the British for their own reasons. You may all accuse me of scenario building but even if we had won, you think we would have won permanently. You think after what the British had enjoyed in India for close to 100 years, they would have let go off so lightly. Maybe they would have lost out in 1857 and 58, but would have come back again. After winning Delhi the sepoys had pretty sufficient time before the British could gather themselves and put Delhi to seige again. Was there anything happening in interim to suggest that we would put off the British permanently.

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 11-29-2006

Yes I agree with your observations. In fact, to term the Sepoy mutiny as the First War of Indipendence is perhaps an after thought. If you follow the chronology of the mutiny you will observe that initially the mutiny at Kolkata was fermented by certain instigators and naturally the sepoyes had no plans beforehand.Once it started a majority of Units followed the revolt. However, it is laos true that a substantial part of the Company's Indian Forces remained loyal to the British and this is the main cause for the ultimate failure of the revolt.Otherwise, it would not have been possible for a handful of British forces to subjugate the entire Indian forces of the East India Company.

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 11-29-2006

QUOTE(Ravish @ Nov 29 2006, 02:53 PM)Yes I agree with your observations. In fact, to term the Sepoy mutiny as the First War of Indipendence is perhaps an after thought. If you follow the chronology of the mutiny you will observe that initially the mutiny at Kolkata was fermented by certain instigators and naturally the sepoyes had no plans beforehand.Once it started a majority of Units followed the revolt. However, it is laos true that a substantial part of the Company's Indian Forces remained loyal to the British and this is the main cause for the ultimate failure of the revolt.Otherwise, it would not have been possible for a handful of British forces to subjugate the entire Indian forces of the East India Company.
[right][snapback]61501[/snapback][/right]


Let me get some data on the number of British forces. They were definitely more than the usual. But I think it is also not right to term it as just another mutiny. There were revolts and mutinies earlier too, but this one also had popular support. It was a general mass uprising.

But I will still stick to my original theory about whether the British won or the Indians lost. I don't think the British could have won inspite of their Indian support, inspite of their generals, if our sepoys had better coordination and an overall strategy.

The Great Rising Of 1857 - Part I - Guest - 03-24-2007

"The various rulers joined them against the British for their own reasons. You may all accuse me of scenario building but even if we had won, you think we would have won permanently. You think after what the British had enjoyed in India for close to 100 years, they would have let go off so lightly. Maybe they would have lost out in 1857 and 58, but would have come back again. After winning Delhi the sepoys had pretty sufficient time before the British could gather themselves and put Delhi to seige again. Was there anything happening in interim to suggest that we would put off the British permanently. "
c
The brits had said on more than one occasion that had Scindia joined the Uprising, they would not have been able to hold India. You must remember that the brits at that time were very small in number. I would be surprised if the grand total of all the brits in India in 1857 exceeded more than 20,000 possibly 40,000 . If you just do the arithmetic you will see that there were not many Brits in india at any time. It was also a matter of economics. The East India company would not have been able to make a profit had they hired more than a certain number of englishman

Not only were they small in number but at any given location there were only a few Brits. If every Indian had decided that they did not want the Brits in india they had a smaller chance of holding on to India than .

The truth is in fact very sad. it is we indians who helped the Brits stay in india. Of course we can put the blame on the Scindias and Ranjit Singh. Unpalatable though it may seem, while we may not be able to say that the English stayed with the consent of the governed, they had the support of enough Indian (rulers and soldiers)to make them feel confident that they could hold on.
It would have been a relatively easy matter to finish off all the british officers in one fell swoop in the early hours of any morning, if sufficiently well organized.. After all the soldiers knew where the officers lived .

One should call a spade a spade and Sir penderel Moon was absolutely right when we wrote in his book that

Sir Penderel Moon6
â The British conquered the country with the assistance and connivance of Indians themselves, and then ruled it for over a century with their collaboration and tacit consent. The empire was from start to finish far more of a joint Anglo-Indian enterprise than either party has usually been inclined to admit. As early as 1795 one of the companyâs servants, Sir John Shore, wrote âOur dominion of India has been established and is maintained by the natives themselvesâ

It was not to be . Because enough numbers of Indians wanted them to stay

But nothing is for ever and the brits were aware that sooner or later the Indians would realize they could drive them out on any given day if they so wished
, so they went about assuring their stay in an entirely different way which is
what we describe in the South Asia File

As for calling it the 1st war of independence, the same reasoning applies. sufficient numbers of indians did not wish the Brits to leave. After the initial antagonism carried over from europe, the Brits cottoned on to the Muslims and the Muslims reciprocated by supporting the Brits , and their share in the armed forces exceeded 30%. Many Hindus breathed a sigh of relief that there was a semblance of law and order in the subcontinent after continuous warring for 600 years. Upto 1857 there was not much distinction between the behavior of the lower castes and the higher castes (in fact the present caste system has evoved after the first census of 1871 organized by the Brits)and the recruitment into the army was based on mythical martial race theories of the British which generally favored the higher castes. The impoverishment of India was proceeding at an alarming rate and the army provided a means of sustenance for the people who were increasingly dispossessed of their land. The vast majority of the people had no opinion one way or the other about the righteusness of the Great Uprising of 1857, and were busy scratching a living. IT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY AN UPRISINGOF A MAGNITUDE TO MAKE THE BRITS VERY ALARMED coupled with the loss of life of British officers and the ultimate impact was that they would never again trust the Hindu, an attitude which persists to this day when the Anglo American Alliance deals with india over a broad range of issues.