 |
|
The causes of the Indian uprising of 1857. SYNOPSIS This essay argues that the Indian rebellion of 1857 was not primarily a military mutiny. It was caused by British changes to Indian society that were unwanted and resented by the Indians. These changes were social changes such as land reform, that were made without consideration to their effects on Indian customs. Nor were Indians consulted, as the British arrogantly disregarded Indian's opinions of the changes. The British were also highly insensitive to Indian religions, so much so, that the Indians feared a British conspiracy to compulsorily enforce their conversion to Christianity. This fear is shown by the fact that many Indians saw the rebellion as something approaching a religious war. The rebellion is also shown to be the outcome of British expansion and the decline of the Mugal Empire. Many Rebels saw themselves as defending the old order and traditions against the radical changes of the British. This led, in some areas, to a sense of local nationalism emerging, where the Indians saw themselves as patriots in a national counter revolution in defence of their king or territory. The Indian rebellion of 1857 was not primarily a military mutiny, although this was in fact its initial trigger. This essay will argue that the wider rebellion was caused by changes made to traditional Indian society by the British, and against the wishes of the Indian people. It will show that the mutiny was caused by a number of reasons, with the three main reasons being examined. These are, the changes to Indian society and customs by the British, and the British lack of respect for, and lack of communication with, the Indian people. The perception by the Indians that the British were threatening their religious freedom, and the fear of forced conversion to Christianity. And the emergence of a sense of nationalism, based on local identity, induced by the decay of the Mugal Empire together with the need to defend Indian's traditional way of life. In the years leading up to the rebellion, the British were making significant changes to Indian customs and society. This was seen by the British as neccessary if India was to be made into a modern nation along British lines, and in so doing, increase the rate of commerce, and therefore profits, in India.1 These reforms, such as land reform, made many Indians feel deeply aggrieved, and left them very apprehensive of future changes. By 1857 these changes had resulted in many Indians not trusting the British, nor their intentions, which effectively undermined Indian confidence in British rule.2 To the Indians, such changes were seen as meddlesome arrogance,3 with many of the British policies considered as being very obnoxious, and therefore totally unwanted.4 But for the British, the views of Indians were of little importance, due to what Lawrence calls the " . . . almost universal contempt shown towards India's existing culture and religions" by the British.5 By the time of the mutiny the Indian people had long had many grievances over British rule, grievances which were simply being ignored at best, or discounted at worst, by the British. This situation was made worse by the fact that there were no Indians in the British government of India at the time. This was seen by S.A.K. Bahadur as the ". . . one great cause [of the rebellion] to which all others are but secondary . . ."6 He believed that because of the lack of Indians in the government, there was little if any effective communication between the Indian people and their British rulers. This had the effect of creating ignorance on the part of the British to the condition and customs of the Indians, and the effects their policies would have on Indian society; and a complete misunderstanding of the intentions of the British by the Indians.7 As such, the Indian people had no real or effective means to protest against British policies they objected to,8 and were left with feelings of resentment against the British, but with no outlet for their anger. The very unpopular policies combined with British arrogance and ignorance, led many Indians to perceive that the British were leading an onslaught against traditional Indian society,9 which in turn led to Indian fear, and a deep hatred of the British.10 For the Indians, the rebellion was an attempt to defend their traditional way of life, against the unwanted and incomprehensible changes, forced upon them by foreigners outside of Indian society. At the time of the mutiny, all of these pent up grievances, resentments, fears and hatred's, found the long denied outlet, in the form of violent rebellion. Where all those with a grievance against British rule, took what they saw as the only real opportunity to remove the source of their grievance and fear. Of all the changes made to Indian society, none were more resented or feared than those which touched on religion. To the British, the Indian religions were extremely distasteful, so much so, that the dislike, according to Edwardes, was ". . . amounting at times almost to hatred . . ."11 This led the British to begin campaigns, and create policies, against the Indian religious rituals which they found offensive.12 This in turn led Indians to believe that the British were involved in, what Hibbert called, ". . . a concerted attack on their religions as a whole".13 This was a very dangerous path for British policy to take, as religion was absolutely central to Indian society, and was fundamental to an Indian's self identity, and any attack on religion was an attack on an Indian's caste. From this, came a widespread belief and fear of an insidious conspiracy by the British to erode existing religions in order to forcibly convert all Indians to Christianity.14 This fear later became a belief by the Indian regiments at Meerut in February 1857.15 The belief in a conspiracy, was for the Indian regiments, blatantly apparent by the British introduction of the new rifle and cartridge, and the British intolerance to Indian objections and concerns.16 So that the mutiny itself, like others in the past, was sparked and begun largely by religious fears.17 Yet religion, more than simply sparking a mutiny, became central to the wider Indian rebellion. This can be seen in the actions of the old Mugal Emperor Bahadur Shah, who according to Edwardes, recognised the rebellion as ". . . a clash of faiths, of one world of ideas against another".18 In proclamations issued by, or at least with the Emperor's permission, the central importance of the British threat to Indian religion is clear in statements such as: ". . . It is well known that in these days all the English have entertained these evil designs - first, to destroy the religion of the whole Hindostani army, and then to make the people by compulsion Christians".19 The Emperor then declared his revulsion and hatred to such a percieved conspiricy by calling on the people to, ". . . destroy the enemy and remove the danger to our religion and to our country, which are more dear to us than life itself".20 Thus for many Indians, the mutiny became a rebellion in defence of their religion, even being seen as a holy war fought on account of religion.21 A sense of the fear and threat felt by the Indians, from the British attack on their religions, is shown by P.C. Joshi, who argues that the motives of the British were no less than ". . . to culturally denationalise India by the method of mass conversion to Christianity".22 Many Indian rebels were not fighting only to retain their religion, but their ethnic and national identities as well. This sense of ethnic and national identity, was by 1857 becoming more important to many Indians, at least in some of the regions of India. This was the outcome of the expansion of British rule over much of India in the decades leading up to 1857. The Mugal Empire had been the loser from this expansion. Its growing weakness had created a political vacuum,23 that had allowed small states like Oudh to break away and become fairly independent,24 so that by the time of the mutiny it was an empire in name only. The breakdown of the old empire, combined with the changes forced on India by the British, had created in the years leading up to the mutiny, a period of unrest and unease.25 The outbreak of the rebellion was a reaction by what was left of the empire, a defence by those who supported it,26 against its impending demise. Many of the rebels were seen as reactionaries, whose aims and world views were distinctly backward-looking, and who were defending their traditional ways against the hated reforms of the British.27 According to Majumdar, the rebellion represented, ". . . the dying groans of an obsolete aristocracy [with its] centrifugal feudalism of the mediaeval age".28 This view of a dying India, with its traditions and customs under relentless attack from new western ideas, was perfectly summed up by Hibbert who stated, "The mutiny was the swan-song of the old India".29 Yet in the midst of the death of the old India, a new sense of nationalism seemed to be forming. This was not a sense of India as a nation, but a sense of patriotism and identity within a local region.30 This can be seen in Oudh, where Wolpert argues, ". . . there was, in fact, nothing less than a national uprising . . . ".31 S.N. Sen supports this, with the view that the uprising in Oudh was very much like a national war of independence.32 It was, he argues, a counter revolution, to restore the old order, but where the rebels were patriots fighting for their own king and country.33 In this way the uprising in Oudh, and in other areas of India, could be seen as a form of sub-nationalism, a postpacification revolt against British rule.34 Although not a part of any sense of a universal nationalism, of India as a nation in the western sense, it could still be seen as a form of proto-nationalism, as the first steps towards creating a sense of Indian identity. An identity which could later be shared with other Indians, leading eventually to India's emergence as a nation. In conclusion it can be seen that the causes of the 1857 rebellion in India came from deeper causes, than simply a military mutiny. By 1857 the British were undertaking nothing less than the destruction of India's traditional society, what could even be seen as an attempt to socially engineer all of Indian society along Western lines. With the reason for this being simply to increase Indian production, and to create a larger demand in India for consumer goods; in other words simply to create more profit. In doing this the British changed traditional Indian society in ways that left the Indians confused and scared, without any real consultation with the Indians, who had no way of protesting the changes. These changes also affected the religions of Indians, who saw British reforms as an attack on all religions, with the purpose of undermining existing religions so as to make conversion to Christianity compulsory. The rebellion was very much a defence by Indians of their religions, to the point where some even perceived it as a religious war. The rebellion also contained within it the seeds of nationalism. This was a local or sub-nationalism, where the Indians saw themselves as patriots defending both their traditional ways and their regional territory. In essence then, the rebellion was a reactionary counteraction, to defend traditional Indian customs, religions, and identity, from what they saw as radical changes being forced on them, by outsiders. ---------------------------------------------- ENDNOTES 1. M. Edwardes, Red Year: The Indian Rebellion of 1857, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1973), pp. 16-17. 2. C. Hibbert, The Great Mutiny: India 1857, (London: Allen Lane, 1978), p. 49. 3. L. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, (London: Abacus Books, 1994), p. 221. 4. S.A.K. Bahadur, The Causes of the Indian Revolt, (Benares: Medical Hall Press, 1873), pp. 2-3 5. James, op. cit., p. 221. 6. Bahadur, op. cit., p. 11. 7. Ibid., pp. 13-16. 8. Ibid., pp. 13-14. 9. P.C. Joshi, "A Social Revolution", in A.T. Embree, (ed), 1857 in India: Mutiny or War of Independence, (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1963), p. 60. 10. A. Duff, "Indian Hostility to British rule", in Embree, (ed), op. cit., p. 15. 11. Edwardes, op. cit., p. 17. 12. James, op. cit., p. 221. 13. Hibbert, op. cit., p. 50. 14. Edwardes, op. cit., p. 18. 15. Ibid., p. 23. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid., p. 21. 18. Ibid., p. 46. 19. Ibid., p. 46. 20. A Man of 9-8-1942, The Revolt of 1857, (Baroda: Jyoti Publishing,1943), p.28. 21. "An Indian Explanation: The Azimgarh Proclamation", in Embree, (ed), op. cit., p. 3. 22. Joshi, op. cit., p. 61. 23. J. Masselos, Indian Nationalism: A History, (New Delhi: Sterling Publishing, 1985), p. 33. 24. Edwardes, op. cit., p. 93. 25. Hibbert, op. cit., p. 392. 26. Ibid. 27. Hibbert, op. cit., p. 392. 28. R.C. Majumdar, quoted by Masselos, op. cit., p. 34. 29. Ibid., p. 393. 30. Masselos, op. cit., p. 32. 31. S. Wolpert, A New History of India, 4th Ed, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 235. 32. Masselos, op. cit., p. 33. 33. S.N. Sen, "The Inevitability of the Mutiny", in Embree, (ed), op. cit., p. 82. 34. Wolpert, op. cit., p. 237. -------------------------------------------------- REFERENCES A Man of 9-8-1942.1943. The Revolt of 1857. Baroda: Jyoti Publishing. Bahadur, S.A.K. 1873. The Causes of the Indian Revolt. Benares: Medical Hall Press. Edwardes, M. 1973. Red Year: The Indian Rebellion of 1857. London: Hamish Hamilton. Embree, A.T. (ed). 1963. 1857 in India: Mutiny or War of Independence. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. Hibbert, C. 1978. The Great Mutiny: India 1857. London: Allen Lane (Penguin). James, L. 1994. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. London: Abacus Books. Masselos, J. 1985. Indian Nationalism: A History. New Delhi: Sterling Publishing. Wolpert, S. 1993 (1977). A New History of India. 4th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press. --------------------------------------------- |
