Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Recalling the legacy of the 1857 Revolt

K.N. Panikkar

It was unmistakably a struggle for independence, and is worth recalling when the country is steadily slipping into dependence in the name of development.

THE CELEBRATION of 150 years of the Revolt of 1857 has rekindled popular and academic interest in this important event in the colonial history of India, although the official enthusiasm does not match that prevalent during the centenary celebrations in 1957. The Revolt was the most formidable challenge the Colonial rule had to face in India, even if it did not cover the entire country. It was confined to northern and central India. The south and the east remained largely unaffected, both the army and the civil population. Yet the revolt almost swept the British away, coming as it did as the culmination of a series of incidents of armed resistance against colonial conquest and consolidation. The success of the British in quelling the Revolt, albeit with the support of some Indian rulers and the vacillation and uncertainty of some of its leaders, marked the end of armed resistance against the British rule led by the feudal order. Thereafter the resistance to colonialism entered a new phase, developing slowly into a popular agitation and mass movement.

There were three streams in the Revolt of 1857 — military mutiny, civil rebellion, and feudal participation. All the three were occasioned by the adverse impact of colonial rule on the people of India. By 1857 the soldiers, sepoys in colonial officialese, had become quite dissatisfied with their service conditions. Their pay was limited, promotion chances very rare, and the new regulations impinged upon their religious sensibilities. The monthly salary of a sepoy was no more than Rs.7, which was nothing much to write home about. Moreover, the sepoys carried the burden of the distress of the civil population as they were, in the words of Eric Stokes, peasants in uniform. The soldiers of the Bengal army, which was the backbone of the Revolt, were mainly drawn from the rural population of Oudh, Bihar, Ganges-Jamuna-Doab, Rohilkhand, and Bundelkhand. There was not a single agricultural family in Oudh that did not have at least one member in the army. As a result, there was a close nexus between the mutiny and civil rebellion. In 1857 there were 1,35,767 Indians in the Bengal army, half of whom rose up in revolt. At the all-India level, of the 2,33,000 sepoys only about 90,000 joined the revolt. That the majority of the soldiers remained loyal saved the day for the British.

The leadership of the Revolt was provided by the former rulers and the displaced territorial aristocrats, the most prominent being Bahadur Shah, Nana Saheb, the Rani of Jhansi, Kunwar Singh, and Tantia Tope. The British policy towards Indian rulers and aristocrats, beginning with the system of subordinate alliances to the Doctrine of Lapse had systematically deprived them of their powers and prerogatives. Most of them saw the Revolt as an opportunity to regain their lost status.

The Revolt was the collective expression of the resentment of all these sections against British rule. What brought them together was the mutiny that provided the occasion for the coalition of these forces to gain independence from British rule. It is true that these three sections were not part of an organisation nor were they planning a concerted and well-coordinated uprising. Yet, they did betray political consciousness and commitment to the traditionally accepted form of sovereignty. On March 10, when the sepoys marched to the capital of the former Mughal Empire they expressed their sense of allegiance to the pre-colonial polity. More so when they persuaded Bahadur Shah to accept their leadership and acknowledged him as the emperor of Hindustan. Although the British had relegated him to the position of a pensioner, he continued to command the people's respect. Despite the neglect and irreverence shown to him by the British, the Indian rulers acknowledged his sovereignty and sought recognition from him on ceremonial occasions. Even the Maratha leaders, traditional enemies of the Mughals, had no difficulty in accepting him as the leader. This, however, did not mean that Indian rulers were united in their opposition to the British. A fairly large number of them, particularly from central India and Punjab, supported the British with men and material. The British officers had opined that if Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior had supported the Revolt at a crucial juncture the outcome would have been different. Similarly, the capture of Delhi was possible only with the assistance of the rulers of Punjab. Yet, it is undeniable that in Bahadur Shah the rebels sought to create a political symbol with whom the people would be able to identify. In doing so the rebels were not moved by religious considerations but by political motivation.

Role of religion

This is not to suggest that religion was not a factor in the Revolt. In fact, it played a decisive role. However, it was a causative and not an ideological factor. What moved the sepoys initially was their apprehension that the conditions of service in the army were infringing upon their religious susceptibilities. Such a fear was felt during the Afghan and Burma wars. The fear was exacerbated by the rumour about bone dust in the wheat flour supplied to them. The introduction of Enfield rifles with cartridges smeared with animal fat proved to be the proverbial last straw. One of the proclamations during the Revolt stated: "Be it known to all Hindu and Muhammadan inhabitants of India... that within the last few years the British commenced to oppress the people of India under different pleas and contrived to eradicate Hinduism and Muhamadinism and to make all the people embrace Christianity... Since the real purpose of this war was to save religion, let every Hindu and Musalman render assistance to the utmost." Yet, their worldview was not influenced by religious identity, which enabled them to fight together — both Muslims and Hindus — against the British. What persuaded them to do so was their perception of the British as a common enemy. In doing so neither their religion nor that of the enemy assumed an ideological role.

An interesting aspect of the Revolt was the difference in the perception of its importance by the traditional and the colonial intelligentsia. Sensing the possibility of resurrecting the traditional way of life that was being undermined by the British, the former supported the Revolt and some of them even participated in it. The colonial intelligentsia, however, saw in the Revolt the return of the feudal order and hence favoured the continuation of British rule. In Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras they even convened meetings and passed resolutions praying for the success of the British. Their perception possibly was that the Revolt was a reaction of traditional conservative forces against modernity. Since the success of the Revolt certainly would have meant freedom from colonialism what turn history would have taken is difficult to conjecture. One thing is certain: it would have saved the country from the "benefits" of colonial modernity. Would it have led to the resurrection of the feudal order as Jawaharlal Nehru feared or would it have enabled an independent path of development towards modernity? No one can be certain. At any rate the anti-colonial legacy of the Revolt is worth recalling, as it was unmistakably a struggle for independence, when the country is steadily but surely slipping into dependence in the name of development.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Murderous attack on media freedom
Recalling the legacy of the 1857 Revolt
How they slipped through the net
If it's Saturday, it must be Karachi
Food shortage likely in global rush for biofuel: U.N.
Corrections and Clarifications
Press freedom
Life term
U.P. elections
Fake encounters
Appalling apathy

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu