GS Notes

1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 16

21 min read

Based on the provided summary, here are the detailed academic notes in the requested format.

Elaborate Notes

The Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857 was a major, widespread, but ultimately unsuccessful uprising in India between 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company. It began as a mutiny of sepoys of the Company’s army and soon escalated into a widespread civilian rebellion, primarily in the upper Gangetic plain and central India.

Outbreak and Spread of the Revolt

  • The Initial Spark: On 29th March 1857, Mangal Pandey, a sepoy of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry stationed at Barrackpore (near Calcutta), fired at his British officers. His fellow Indian sepoys refused the order to arrest him. Subsequently, Mangal Pandey and the quarter-guard jemadar who had defied the British officer were hanged.
  • The Meerut Mutiny: The definitive outbreak occurred on 10th May 1857 in Meerut. Sepoys of the 3rd Native Cavalry, who had been punished for refusing to use the new greased cartridges, broke open the prison, freed their comrades, and killed several British officers. They marched to Delhi overnight.
  • Proclamation of a New Emperor: On 11th May 1857, the Meerut sepoys reached Delhi. They were joined by the local infantry stationed there, and they proclaimed the aged, reluctant Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as the Emperor of Hindustan. This act transformed a sepoy mutiny into a larger political revolt, providing a traditional symbol of authority around which the rebels could rally.
  • Widespread Rebellion: The revolt quickly spread to other cantonments in the North-Western Provinces and Awadh. The civil population, including peasants, artisans, and feudal lords, joined the sepoys. For a period from May 1857 until the spring of 1858, British rule effectively collapsed in these regions. Delhi was a key symbolic and strategic centre, and its recapture by the British on 20th September 1857, after a prolonged siege, was a major blow to the rebellion.

Reasons for the Sepoy Mutiny

  • Racial Discrimination: The British army institutionalised racism.

    • Salaries and Pensions: Indian sepoys were paid significantly less than their European counterparts. For instance, an Indian Subedar, the highest post an Indian could attain, earned only 60-70 rupees a month, a fraction of what a junior European officer received.
    • Social Humiliation: Indian sepoys were treated as racially inferior. British officers frequently used derogatory slurs like ‘pigs’ or ‘niggers’. This constant humiliation bred deep resentment. As historian William Dalrymple notes in The Last Mughal (2006), the racial arrogance of the British officers was a significant factor.

  • Economic Grievances:

    • Reduced Emoluments: To finance their expansionist wars (e.g., Anglo-Afghan Wars, Anglo-Sikh Wars), the Company cut costs. This included reducing the salaries of sepoys and, critically, the passage of the General Service Enlistment Act of 1856. This Act abolished the extra allowance (batta) for service outside their own regions, which was a significant financial loss for the sepoys.

  • Socio-Religious Reasons:

    • Erosion of Caste Privileges: Initially, the Bengal Army recruited heavily from upper-caste Hindus (Brahmins, Rajputs) from Awadh and Bihar, and respected their caste customs. As the empire expanded, the army’s composition diversified, making it difficult to maintain these privileges.
    • Promotion of a Uniform Military Culture: The British, influenced by utilitarian and evangelical ideas, sought to create a more homogenous and disciplined army. This meant suppressing caste-based identities in favour of loyalty to the regiment. Policies like forbidding religious symbols (e.g., caste marks, turbans, beards) and forcing sepoys to undertake overseas travel to places like Burma (prohibited by caste rules, as it meant crossing the kala pani or black waters) were seen as direct attacks on their religion.
    • Fear of Christian Conversion: The Charter Act of 1813 had permitted Christian missionaries to operate in India. Their presence in cantonments and barracks, coupled with the open proselytising activities of some officers, created a deep-seated fear that the British state was aiming for mass conversion.
    • Offensive Legislation: A series of social reforms were perceived as deliberate interference with Indian customs.
      • Abolition of Sati (1829): Led by Governor-General William Bentinck.
      • Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act (1856): Drafted under Lord Dalhousie, it allowed Hindu widows to remarry.
      • Religious Disabilities Act (1850): Also known as the Lex Loci Act, it protected the civil rights of converts from Hinduism and Islam, allowing them to inherit ancestral property. This was seen as a measure to encourage conversion.
      • Taxation of Religious Places: The British government began taxing lands belonging to mosques and temples, which had traditionally been exempt.

  • The Immediate Cause: Greased Cartridges and Rumours:

    • The introduction of the new Enfield Rifle was the final trigger. Its cartridges were rumoured to be greased with the fat of cows and pigs.
    • To load the rifle, soldiers had to bite off the end of the paper cartridge. This action would directly defile both Hindus, for whom the cow is sacred, and Muslims, for whom the pig is unclean.
    • This was widely interpreted as a deliberate British plot to destroy the religion and caste of the sepoys, making them outcastes and thus easier to convert to Christianity. This fear was compounded by rumours of bone dust from cows and pigs being mixed into the flour (atta) sold in the market.

  • Political and Agrarian Grievances: The Case of Awadh:

    • A majority of the sepoys in the Bengal Army hailed from Awadh. As historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee argues in Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858 (1984), the sepoy was a “peasant in uniform”.
    • Annexation of Awadh (1856): The annexation of Awadh by Lord Dalhousie on the pretext of misgovernance was seen as a gross act of betrayal, as the Nawabs of Awadh had been loyal British allies for a century. This deeply hurt the sepoys’ pride and loyalty.
    • Agrarian Discontent: Following the annexation, the British introduced a Summary Settlement in 1856. This land revenue settlement was harsh, often dispossessing the talukdars (local landlords) and over-assessing the peasants. The sepoy, being from a peasant family, was directly affected by the ruin of the rural economy. His family’s loss of land and status fuelled his anger against the British regime.

Reasons for the Civil Rebellion

  • Grievances of Feudal Elements: The British policy of annexation and consolidation had dispossessed numerous rulers and nobles.

    • Nana Saheb: Adopted son of the last Peshwa, Baji Rao II, was denied his father’s pension and forced to live in Kanpur. He led the revolt there, assisted by his general, Tatia Tope.
    • Rani Lakshmibai: Her adopted son was not recognised as the heir to the throne of Jhansi due to the Doctrine of Lapse.
    • Begum Hazrat Mahal: The wife of the deposed Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, she led the revolt in Lucknow, ruling in the name of her minor son, Birjis Qadr.
    • Kunwar Singh: A 70-year-old zamindar from Jagdishpur, Bihar, whose estates had been taken over by the British Board of Revenue.
    • Bahadur Shah Zafar: In 1856, Governor-General Lord Canning announced that after Bahadur Shah’s death, his successors would lose the imperial title and have to vacate the Red Fort. This was a direct insult to the Mughal legacy.

  • Grievances of Talukdars:

    • In Awadh, the Summary Settlement of 1856 dispossessed a majority of the talukdars, who lost their lands, status, and control. Their forts were demolished and their private armies disbanded. They emerged as natural leaders of the peasant rebellion, seeking to restore the pre-British order.

  • Peasants and Artisans:

    • Economic Ruin: Peasants suffered under exorbitant land revenue demands. They became trapped in a cycle of debt to moneylenders and often lost their land. The British judicial system was seen as favouring the moneylender. Consequently, moneylenders and their account books were frequent targets during the revolt.
    • Artisans were devastated by the influx of cheap, machine-made goods from Britain, which destroyed traditional Indian handicrafts.

The overarching goal for most participants in the civil rebellion was the restoration of the pre-British world, a moral and social order they felt the British had systematically dismantled.

Prelims Pointers

  • Initial Incident: Mangal Pandey, 34th Bengal Native Infantry, Barrackpore, 29th March 1857.
  • Main Outbreak: Meerut, 10th May 1857.
  • Proclamation of Emperor: Bahadur Shah Zafar declared Emperor of Hindustan on 11th May 1857 in Delhi.
  • Key Centres and Leaders:
    1. Delhi: General Bakht Khan (real commander), Bahadur Shah Zafar (symbolic head).
    2. Kanpur: Nana Saheb, Tatia Tope, Azimullah Khan.
    3. Lucknow: Begum Hazrat Mahal, Birjis Qadr.
    4. Jhansi: Rani Lakshmibai.
    5. Bareilly: Khan Bahadur Khan.
    6. Arrah (Bihar): Kunwar Singh.
    7. Faizabad: Maulvi Ahmadullah (a prominent leader who called for a holy war).
  • British Officials:
    • Governor-General during the revolt: Lord Canning.
    • British Commanders: John Nicholson (recaptured Delhi), Sir Hugh Wheeler (at Kanpur), Sir Colin Campbell (Commander-in-Chief), Henry Lawrence (died at Lucknow), General Havelock.
  • Key Legislations Preceding the Revolt:
    • Abolition of Sati (1829).
    • Religious Disabilities Act (1850).
    • Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act (1856).
    • General Service Enlistment Act (1856).
  • Immediate Cause: The introduction of the Enfield Rifle with cartridges greased with cow and pig fat.
  • Regiments that Remained Loyal: Madras and Bombay Presidencies, Gurkha regiments, and Punjabi soldiers.
  • Princely States that Helped the British: Hyderabad, Gwalior, Patiala, and Nepal.
  • Primary cause of Sepoy Discontent in Awadh: Annexation in 1856 and the subsequent Summary Settlement.
  • Consequence: End of East India Company rule and transfer of power to the British Crown via the Government of India Act, 1858.

Mains Insights

Historiographical Debate: Was it a “War of Independence”?

  1. The Colonial View (Sepoy Mutiny): British officials and historians like Sir John Lawrence and J.W. Kaye portrayed the event as a mutiny confined to the sepoys, driven by their service grievances. The civilian uprising was dismissed as opportunistic rioting by lawless elements taking advantage of the breakdown of order. This view minimised the scale and popular nature of the uprising.

  2. The Nationalist View (First War of Independence): Popularised by V.D. Savarkar in his book The Indian War of Independence, 1857 (1909), this perspective saw the revolt as a planned, organised war to oust the foreign rulers. It emphasised the elements of Hindu-Muslim unity and the common goal of achieving Swaraj (self-rule) and protecting Swadharma (one’s own religion). Karl Marx, a contemporary observer, also termed it a “national revolt”.

  3. The Post-Colonial Academic Consensus: Historians like S.N. Sen (Eighteen Fifty-Seven, 1957) and R.C. Majumdar (The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857, 1957) offered more nuanced views.

    • S.N. Sen: Concluded that “What began as a fight for religion ended as a war of independence.” He highlighted that it lacked a cohesive, all-India character but had a nationalistic spirit in the regions where it was fought.
    • R.C. Majumdar: Famously argued that the revolt was “neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence.” He pointed to the lack of planning, the absence of a unified leadership, and the limited geographical spread. He also noted that many leaders were fighting to regain their lost feudal privileges, not for a modern concept of a nation-state.

  4. Subaltern Perspective: Historians like Ranajit Guha and Rudrangshu Mukherjee focus on the popular, mass-based nature of the revolt. They argue that the initiative often came from the common people—sepoys, peasants, and artisans—who forced the elite leaders like Bahadur Shah Zafar and Rani Lakshmibai to assume command. The sepoy, as a “peasant in uniform,” acted as the bridge between the military mutiny and the agrarian rebellion. This view emphasizes the revolt as a people’s struggle against colonial oppression.

Why the Revolt Failed: An Analysis

  • Lack of Unified Ideology and Leadership: The rebels lacked a forward-looking political programme or a shared vision for a post-British India. Leaders were bound by regional and feudal loyalties. Nana Saheb dreamed of a revived Maratha confederacy, while Rani Lakshmibai fought for her kingdom. There was no central command to coordinate the efforts.
  • Limited Geographical Spread: The revolt was primarily concentrated in North and Central India. The presidencies of Bombay and Madras remained largely unaffected. The crucial support of the Punjab, where Sikh leaders still harboured resentment against the Mughals and the Purbiya sepoys, was instrumental in the British victory.
  • Lack of Support from Key Sections of Society:
    • Princely States: Many large princely states like Hyderabad, Gwalior, and Patiala actively supported the British, providing them with men and material. Lord Canning later called them “breakwaters in the storm.”
    • Educated Middle Class: The newly Western-educated Indians in cities like Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras saw the British as agents of modernisation and the rebels as representatives of a feudal, backward-looking order. They remained aloof or supported the British.
    • Big Zamindars and Merchants: These classes had largely benefited from British rule and feared the chaos that would ensue from a change in power. The zamindars of Bengal, created by the Permanent Settlement, were staunchly loyal.
  • British Strengths:
    • Superior Military Technology and Resources: The British had modern firearms, a well-organised army, and vast financial resources.
    • Superior Communication: The newly introduced electric telegraph system allowed the British to communicate swiftly and coordinate their military operations effectively.
    • Effective Leadership: The British side had capable and ruthless commanders like the Lawrence brothers, Nicholson, Outram, and Havelock who executed a clear strategy.

The Revolt as a Watershed Moment

The Revolt of 1857 was a turning point in Indian history, fundamentally altering the nature of British rule and shaping the future of Indian nationalism.

  1. Constitutional and Political Impact: The most direct result was the Government of India Act, 1858, which ended the rule of the East India Company and brought India under the direct control of the British Crown. The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 renounced further territorial annexation and promised to respect the rights, dignity, and honour of Indian princes, effectively making them subordinate allies.
  2. Shift in Social Policy: The British abandoned the pre-revolt era of social and religious reform, believing it had alienated their subjects. They adopted a policy of non-interference in religious matters and began to patronise orthodox and traditional elements of society (princes, zamindars) as a bulwark against future unrest. This marked the end of the “civilising mission” rhetoric.
  3. Military Reorganisation: The Indian army was completely reorganised to prevent another mutiny. The proportion of European soldiers was increased, key positions and artillery were placed exclusively in British hands, and the policy of recruiting from “martial races” (like Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Pathans who had helped suppress the revolt) was introduced, while recruitment from Awadh and Bihar was drastically reduced.
  4. Widening Racial Gulf and ‘Divide and Rule’: The revolt created a legacy of deep distrust and racial animosity. The British increasingly saw Indians as untrustworthy and racially inferior. This led to the implementation of a more systematic policy of ‘divide and rule’, particularly by creating a narrative of historical antagonism between Hindus and Muslims to prevent a unified challenge to their authority in the future.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims Questions (Last 5 Years)

  1. With reference to the history of India, who of the following were known as “Kunwar Singh”? (UPSC Prelims 2021 - Note: This is a slight rephrasing of a question type, focusing on a key figure) (a) Leader of a rebel group in the Kol Uprising (b) A leader of the Revolt of 1857 in Bihar (c) A prominent leader of the Santhal Rebellion (d) A philosopher and social reformer in the 19th century

    Answer: (b) A leader of the Revolt of 1857 in Bihar. Explanation: Kunwar Singh was an aged zamindar from Jagdishpur near Arrah in Bihar. Despite being nearly 80, he was one of the most effective military leaders of the 1857 Revolt.

  2. What was the immediate cause of the Revolt of 1857? (UPSC Prelims - Model Question based on common themes) (a) The policy of Doctrine of Lapse (b) The suspicion about British interference in religion (c) The introduction of the greased cartridges (d) The annexation of Awadh

    Answer: (c) The introduction of the greased cartridges. Explanation: While other factors were long-term causes that created discontent, the introduction of the Enfield Rifle and its greased cartridges was the immediate trigger that sparked the mutiny in Meerut.

  3. Consider the following pairs: (UPSC Prelims 2019 - Modified)

    1. Nana Saheb : Kanpur
    2. Begum Hazrat Mahal : Lucknow
    3. Khan Bahadur Khan : Delhi
    4. Rani Lakshmibai : Jhansi Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched? (a) 1, 2 and 3 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

    Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4 only. Explanation: Khan Bahadur Khan led the revolt in Bareilly, not Delhi. Delhi was symbolically led by Bahadur Shah Zafar, with the real military command under General Bakht Khan.

  4. The ‘Queen’s Proclamation’ of 1858, which announced the transfer of power from the East India Company to the British Crown, promised which of the following? (UPSC Prelims - Model Question)

    1. End to the policy of territorial annexation.
    2. Respect for the ancient rights, customs, and traditions of India.
    3. Appointment of Indians to all high posts in the government. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only. Explanation: The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 promised to end the policy of annexation (like the Doctrine of Lapse) and to respect Indian religious beliefs and customs. It did not promise the appointment of Indians to all high posts; in fact, the post-1857 era saw increased racial discrimination in civil and military services.

  5. Which of the following sections of Indian society largely did not participate in the Revolt of 1857? (UPSC Prelims - Model Question)

    1. Big Zamindars
    2. Peasants
    3. Western-educated middle class
    4. Moneylenders Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1, 3 and 4 only (d) 2, 3 and 4 only

    Answer: (c) 1, 3 and 4 only. Explanation: Peasants were major participants in the revolt. However, big zamindars (especially in Bengal), the Western-educated middle class, and moneylenders largely remained loyal to the British or stayed aloof from the rebellion.

Mains Questions (Last 5 Years)

  1. “The Revolt of 1857 was a watershed moment in the history of modern India.” Elaborate. (UPSC Mains GS-I - Model Question)

    Answer: The Revolt of 1857 was far more than a mere sepoy mutiny; it was a watershed moment that fundamentally reshaped the political, administrative, and social fabric of British India and laid the groundwork for the future Indian national movement. Its significance can be elaborated through the profound changes it brought about.

    Political and Administrative Transformation:

    • End of Company Rule: The most significant outcome was the Government of India Act, 1858, which abolished the East India Company and transferred governance directly to the British Crown. This ended the anomaly of a trading company ruling a vast subcontinent.
    • Queen’s Proclamation, 1858: The proclamation by Queen Victoria renounced the policy of territorial annexation, such as the Doctrine of Lapse. It promised to respect the rights and dignity of native princes, turning them into subordinate allies and securing their loyalty.
    • Centralised Control: A Secretary of State for India was appointed in the British cabinet, creating a direct and more accountable (to the British Parliament) line of authority, thereby tightening metropolitan control over India.

    Military Reorganisation:

    • The British, having been shaken by the sepoy-led revolt, completely restructured the army. The proportion of European soldiers was increased, and key installations like artillery were placed exclusively in their hands.
    • The policy of “divide and rule” was institutionalised in the army through the theory of “martial and non-martial races.” Communities that had supported the British, like Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Pathans, were declared “martial races” and recruited heavily, while those from the epicentre of the revolt (Awadh, Bihar) were sidelined.

    Shift in Social and Religious Policy:

    • The pre-1857 era of active social reform, driven by a “civilising mission,” came to an abrupt end. The British concluded that their interference in religious customs (like Sati abolition, widow remarriage) had alienated the populace. The Queen’s Proclamation explicitly promised non-interference in India’s religious and social customs.
    • The British now adopted a policy of patronising orthodox and conservative elements of Indian society (princes, zamindars) as a bulwark against future mass uprisings.

    Impact on Nationalism:

    • Widening Racial Gulf: The revolt created deep bitterness and racial antagonism. The British adopted a stance of blatant racism, viewing Indians as inherently untrustworthy. This ended any possibility of a genuine partnership and fueled resentment among educated Indians.
    • Inspiration for Future Freedom Fighters: Despite its failure, the revolt served as a source of inspiration for later nationalists. The heroic resistance of leaders like Rani Lakshmibai and the remarkable display of Hindu-Muslim unity became symbols for the future freedom struggle.

    In conclusion, the Revolt of 1857 marked the end of one era of colonialism and the beginning of another. While it failed to achieve its immediate goal, it fundamentally altered the nature of British rule, making it more direct, racially charged, and strategically cautious. It was the violent end of the old order of resistance and, in its legacy, the inadvertent beginning of the new, modern nationalist movement.

  2. Why did the ‘sepoy mutiny’ of 1857 fail to develop into a full-fledged national movement? Analyse the key factors. (UPSC Mains GS-I - Model Question)

    Answer: The Revolt of 1857, while widespread and popular in certain regions, failed to transform into a pan-Indian national movement due to a combination of inherent weaknesses in the rebellion and the strategic strengths of the British.

    Key Factors for Failure:

    1. Lack of a Unified, All-India Leadership and Ideology:

    • Fragmented Leadership: The revolt was led by disparate regional leaders like Nana Saheb in Kanpur and Begum Hazrat Mahal in Lucknow, each fighting for their lost privileges. There was no central command to coordinate military strategy across regions. Bahadur Shah Zafar was a symbolic head but lacked real authority.
    • Absence of a Forward-Looking Vision: The rebels sought to restore the pre-British feudal order. They lacked a modern political ideology or a shared vision for a unified Indian nation-state, which limited their appeal to the newly emerging educated classes.

    2. Limited Geographical and Social Base:

    • Regional Confinement: The uprising was primarily concentrated in the Indo-Gangetic plain and Central India. The presidencies of Bombay and Madras remained largely peaceful, and crucial territories like the Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal did not join the revolt.
    • Non-Participation of Key Social Groups:
      • Educated Intelligentsia: The Western-educated middle class in cities like Calcutta and Bombay saw the rebels as backward-looking feudalists and believed British rule was necessary for India’s modernization.
      • Princely States: Many powerful rulers, such as the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Scindia of Gwalior, actively sided with the British, providing critical resources and acting as “breakwaters in the storm,” as Lord Canning acknowledged.
      • Certain Landed and Merchant Classes: Groups that had benefited from British rule, such as the Bengal zamindars and big merchants, remained loyal to the Company.

    3. British Strengths and Superiority:

    • Superior Military Resources: The British possessed modern weaponry, a disciplined army, and a vast empire to draw resources from. The end of the Crimean War also freed up experienced troops for deployment in India.
    • Effective Communication Network: The newly established electric telegraph system proved a decisive advantage, enabling the British to quickly transmit information and coordinate troop movements, while the rebels lacked any such system.
    • Capable Leadership: The British had a cohort of ruthless and skilled commanders like John Nicholson, Colin Campbell, and the Lawrence brothers who executed a coherent strategy to suppress the revolt region by region.

    4. Nature of the Revolt:

    • The revolt was, in many ways, the last gasp of the old feudal order against the encroachment of modern colonialism. Its failure highlighted the inability of the old dispensation to challenge the organised power of a modern state.

    In conclusion, the Revolt of 1857 failed to become a national movement because it was ideologically fragmented, geographically limited, and socially divided. The lack of a unified vision and the non-participation of crucial sections of society, combined with decisive British military and technological superiority, ensured its eventual suppression.

  3. Explain why the mutiny of the sepoys in 1857 was accompanied by a civil rebellion in many parts of North and Central India. (UPSC Mains GS-I - Model Question)

  4. Discuss the various historiographical perspectives on the nature of the 1857 Revolt. Was it merely a ‘sepoy mutiny’? (UPSC Mains GS-I - Model Question)

  5. Analyse the impact of the annexation of Awadh on the outbreak and course of the 1857 Revolt. (UPSC Mains GS-I - Model Question)

Graph View