CHAPTER -1

INTRODUCTION:

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major, but ultimately

unsuccessful, uprising in India in 1857–58 against the rule of
the British East India Company, which functioned as a sovereign
power on behalf of the British Crown. The rebellion began on 10
May 1857 in the form of a mutiny of sepoys of the Company's army
in the garrison town of Meerut, 40 mi (64 km) northeast of Delhi
(now Old Delhi). It then erupted into other mutinies and civilian
rebellions chiefly in the upper Gangetic plain and central
India, though incidents of revolt also occurred farther north and
east. The rebellion posed a considerable threat to British power in
that region, and was contained only with the rebels' defeat
in Gwalior on 20 June 1858.[ On 1 November 1858, the British
granted amnesty to all rebels not involved in murder, though they
did not declare the hostilities to have formally ended until 8 July
1859. Its name is contested, variously described as the Sepoy
Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, the Revolt of 1857,
the Indian Insurrection, and the First War of Independence. The
Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse
perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh
land taxes, summary treatment of some rich landowners and
princes, as well as scepticism about the improvements brought
about by British rule. Many Indians rose against the British;
however, many also fought for the British, and the majority
remained seemingly compliant to British rule. Violence, which
sometimes betrayed exceptional cruelty, was inflicted on both
sides, on British officers, and civilians, including women and
children, by the rebels, and on the rebels, and their supporters,
including sometimes entire villages, by British reprisals; the cities
of Delhi and Lucknow were laid waste in the fighting and the British
retaliation.
After the outbreak of the mutiny in Meerut, the rebels quickly
reached Delhi, whose 81-year-old Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah
Zafar, was declared the Emperor of Hindustan. Soon, the rebels
had captured large tracts of the North-Western
Provinces and Awadh (Oudh). The East India Company's
response came rapidly as well. With help from
reinforcements, Kanpur was retaken by mid-July 1857, and Delhi
by the end of September.[10] However, it then took the remainder of
1857 and the better part of 1858 for the rebellion to be suppressed
in Jhansi, Lucknow, and especially the Awadh countryside. Other
regions of Company controlled India—Bengal province,
the Bombay Presidency, and the Madras Presidency—remained
largely calm.[i][7][10] In the Punjab, the Sikh princes crucially helped
the British by providing both soldiers and support. The large
princely states, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir, as
well as the smaller ones of Rajputana, did not join the rebellion,
serving the British, in the Governor-General Lord Canning's words,
as "breakwaters in a storm."
In some regions, most notably in Awadh, the rebellion took
on the attributes of a patriotic revolt against European
oppression. However, the rebel leaders proclaimed no articles of
faith that presaged a new political system. Even so, the rebellion
proved to be an important watershed in Indian and British
Empire history. It led to the dissolution of the East India Company,
and forced the British to reorganize the army, the financial system,
and the administration in India, through passage of
the Government of India Act 1858. India was thereafter
administered directly by the British government in the new British
Raj. On 1 November 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation
to Indians, which while lacking the authority of a constitutional
provision, other British subjects. In the following decades, when
admission to these rights was not always forthcoming, Indians
were to pointedly refer to the Queen's proclamation in growing
avowals of a new nationalism.

Condition of Indian people before 1857:

 Social life and culture in the 18th century were marked by
stagnation and dependence on the past.
 There was, of course, no uniformity of culture and social
patterns all over the country. Nor did all Hindus and all
Muslims form two distinct societies.
 People were divided by religion, region, tribe, language, and
caste.
 Moreover, the social life and culture of the upper classes,
who formed a tiny minority of the total population, was in
many respects different from the life and culture of the lower
classes.
Hindu
 Caste was the central feature of the social life of the Hindus.
 Apart from the four vanes, Hindus were divided into
numerous castes (Jatis), which differed in their nature from
place to place.
  The caste system rigidly divided people and permanently
fixed their place in the social scale.
 The higher castes, headed by the Brahmins, monopolized all
social prestige and privileges.
 Caste rules were extremely rigid. Inter-caste marriages were
forbidden.
 There were restrictions on inter-dining among members of
different castes.
 In some cases, persons belonging to higher castes would
not take food touched by persons of the lower castes.
 Castes often determined' the choice of ' profession, though
exceptions did occur. Caste regulations were strictly
enforced by caste councils and panchayats and caste chiefs
through fines, penances (prayaschitya) and expulsion from
the caste.
 Caste was a major divisive force and element of
disintegration in India of 18th century.
Muslim
 Muslims were no less divided by considerations of caste,
race, tribe, and status, even though their religion enjoined
social equality.
 The Shia and Sunni (two sects of Muslim religion) nobles
were sometimes at loggerheads on account of their religious
differences.
 The Irani, Afghan, Turani, and Hindustani Muslim nobles,
and officials often stood apart from each other.
 A large number of Hindus converted to Islam carried their
caste into the new religion and observed its distinctions,
though not as rigidly as before.
 Moreover, the sharif Muslims consisting of nobles, scholars,
priests, and army officers, looked down upon
the ajlaf Muslims or the lower class Muslims in a manner
similar to that adopted by the higher caste Hindus towards
the lower caste Hindus.
 The family system in the 18th century India was
primarily patriarchal, that is, the family was dominated by
the senior male member, and inheritance was through the
male line.
 In Kerala, however, the family was matrilineal. Outside
Kerala, women were subjected to nearly complete male
control.
 Women were expected to live as mothers and wives only,
though in these roles they were shown a great deal of
respect and honor.

 Even during war and anarchy, women were seldom

molested and were treated with respect.
 A European traveler, Abbe J.A. Dubois, commented, at the
beginning of the 19th century −
"A Hindu woman can go anywhere alone, even in the most
crowded places, and she need never fear the impertinent
looks and jokes of idle loungers....A house inhabited solely
by women is a sanctuary which the most shameless
libertine would not dream of violating."
 The women of the time possessed title individuality of their
own. This does not mean that there were no exceptions to
this rule. Ahilya Bai administered Indore with great success
from 1766 to 1796.
 Many Hindu and Muslim ladies played important roles in
18th century politics.
 While women of the upper classes were not supposed to
work outside their homes, peasant women usually worked in
the fields and women of the poorer classes often worked
outside their homes to supplement the family income.
 The purdah was common mostly among the higher classes
in the North. It was not practiced in the South.
 Boys and girls were not permitted to mix with each other.
 All marriages were arranged by the heads of the families.
Men were permitted to have more than one wife, but except
for the well-off, they normally had only one.
 On the other hand, a woman was expected to marry only
once in her life-time.
 The custom of early marriage prevailed all over the country.
 Sometimes children were married when they were only three
or four years of age.
 Among the upper classes, the evil customs of incurring
heavy expenses on marriages and of giving dowry to the
bride prevailed.
 The evil of dowry was especially widespread in Bengal and
Rajputana culture.
 In Maharashtra, it was curbed to some extent by the
energetic steps taken by the Peshwas.
 Two great social evils of the 18th century India, apart from
the caste system, were the custom of sati and the
harrowing condition of widows.
 Sati involved the rite of a Hindu widow burning herself (self-
immolation) along with the body of her dead husband.

 Sati practice was mostly prevalent in Rajputana, Bengal, and

other parts of northern India. In the South it was uncommon:
and the Marathas did not encourage it.
  Even in Rajputana and Bengal, it was practiced only by the
families of rajas, chiefs, big zamindars, and upper castes.
 Widows belonging to the higher classes and higher castes
could not remarry, though in some regions and in some
castes, for example, among non-Brahmins in Maharashtra,
the Jats and people of the hill-regions of the North, widow
remarriage was quite common.
 There were all sorts of restrictions on her clothing, diet,
movements, etc. In general, she was expected to renounce
all the pleasures of the earth and to serve selflessly the
members of her husband's or her brother's family,
depending on where she spent the remaining years of her
life.
 Raja Sawai Jai Singh of Amber and the Maratha General
Prashuram Bhau tried to promote widow remarriage but
failed.

Causes of Revol of 1857:

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 had diverse political, economic,
military, religious and social causes. An uprising in
several sepoy companies of the Bengal army was sparked by the
issue of new gunpowder cartridges for the Enfield rifle February,
1857. The cartridges were rumored to have been made from cow
and pig fat. Loading the Enfield required tearing open the greased
cartridge with one's teeth. This would have insulted both Hindu and
Muslim religious practices; cows were considered holy by Hindus,
while pigs were considered unclean by Muslims. Underlying
grievances over British taxation and recent land annexations by
the BEIC were ignited by the sepoy mutineers, and within weeks,
dozens of units of the Indian army joined peasant armies in
widespread rebellion. The old aristocracy, both Muslim and Hindu,
who were seeing their power steadily eroded by the East India
Company, also rebelled against British rule. Another important
source of discontent among the Indian rulers was that the British
policies of conquest had created unrest among many Indian rulers.
The policies like the doctrine of lapse, Subsidiary Alliance deprived
Indian rulers of their power. One of the main reasons for the revolt
was that the British east India company also started meddling with
India’s political and financial system. So the people of India broke
out for revolt in 1857.
Some Indians were upset with the draconian rule of the
Company who had embarked on a project of territorial expansion
and westernisation that was imposed without any regard for
historical subtleties in Indian society. Furthermore, legal changes
introduced by the British were accompanied by prohibitions on
Indian religious customs and were seen as steps towards forced
conversion to Christianity. As early as the Charter Act of
1813 Christian missionaries were encouraged to come to Bombay
and Calcutta under BEIC control. The British Governor-General of
India from 1848 to 1856 was Lord Dalhousie who passed
the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856 which allowed women to
remarry, like Christian women. He also passed decrees allowing
Hindus who had converted to Christianity to be able to inherit
property, which had previously been denied by local
practice. Author Pramod Nayar points out that by 1851 there were
nineteen Protestant religious societies operating in India whose
goal was the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Christian
organisations from Britain had additionally created 222
"unattached" mission stations across India in the decade
preceding the rebellion. Religious disquiet as the cause of rebellion
underlies the work of historian William Dalrymple who asserts that
the rebels were motivated primarily by resistance to the actions of
the British East India Company, especially under James Broun-
Ramsay reign, which were perceived as attempts to impose
Christianity and Christian laws in India. For instance, once the
rebellion was underway, Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar met
the sepoys on May 11, 1857, he was told: "We have joined hands
to protect our religion and our faith." They later stood in Chandni
Chowk, the main square, and asked the people gathered there,
"Brothers, are you with those of the faith?"[4] Those European men
and women who had previously converted to Islam such as
Sergeant-Major Gordon, and Abdullah Beg, a former Company
soldier, were spared. In contrast, foreign Christians such as Revd
Midgeley John Jennings, and Indian converts to Christianity such
as one of Zafar's personal physicians, Dr. Chaman Lal, were killed.
Dalrymple further points out that as late as 6 September, when
calling the inhabitants of Delhi to rally against the upcoming
Company assault, Zafar issued a proclamation stating that this
was a religious war being prosecuted on behalf of 'the faith', and
that all Muslim and Hindu residents of the imperial city, or of the
countryside were encouraged to stay true to their faith and creeds.
As further evidence, he observes that the Urdu sources of the pre-
and post-rebellion periods usually refer to the British not
as angrez (the English), goras (whites) or firangis (foreigners), but
as kafir (disbeliever) and nasrani (Christians). Some historians
have suggested that the impact of British economic and social
'reforms' has been greatly exaggerated, since the Company did
not have the resources to enforce them, meaning that away from
Calcutta their effect was negligible.
Many Indians felt that the company was asking for heavy tax
from the locals. This included an increase in the taxation on land.
This seems to have been a very important reason for the spread of
the rebellion, keeping in view the speed at which the conflagration
ignited in many villages in northern India where farmers rushed to
get back their unfairly grabbed title deeds. The resumption of tax
free land and confiscation of jagirs (the grant or right to locally
control land revenue) caused discontent among the jagirdars and
zamindars. Dalhousie had also appointed Inam Commission with
powers to confiscate land.[7] Several years before the sepoys'
mutiny, Lord William Bentinck had attacked several jagirs in
western Bengal. He also resumed the practice of tax free lands in
some areas. These changes caused widespread resentment not
only among the landed aristocracy but also caused great havoc to
a larger section of the middle-class people. Lands were
confiscated from the landlords and auctioned. Rich people like the
merchants and moneylenders were therefore able to speculate in
British land sales and drive out the most vulnerable peasant
farmers.
Subadar of the 21st Bengal Native Infantry (1819):
During the late eighteenth century and the early part of the
nineteenth century, the armies of the East India Company, in
particular those of the Bengal Presidency, were victorious and
indomitable — the term "high noon of the sepoy army" has been
used by a military historian. The Company had an unbroken series
of victories in India, against the Marathas, Mysore, north Indian
states, and the Gurkhas, later against the Sikhs, and further afield
in China and Burma. The Company had developed a military
organisation where, in theory, fealty of the sepoys to the Company
was considered the height of "izzat" or honour, where the
European officer replaced the village headman with benevolent
figures of authority, and where regiments were mostly recruited
from sepoys belonging to the same caste, and community. Unlike
the Madras and Bombay Armies of the BEIC, which were far more
diverse, the Bengal Army recruited its regular soldiers almost
exclusively amongst the landowning Bhumihars and Rajputs of
the Ganges Valley. Though paid marginally less than the Bombay
and Madras Presidency troops, there was a tradition of trust
between the soldiery and the establishment — the soldiers felt
needed and that the Company would care for their welfare. The
soldiers performed well on the field of battle in exchange for which
they were rewarded with symbolic heraldic rewards such as battle
honours in addition to the extra pay or "batta" (foreign pay)
routinely disbursed for operations committed beyond the
established borders of Company rule.
Until the 1840s there had been a widespread belief amongst
the Bengal sepoys in the iqbal or continued good fortune of the
East India Company. However much of this sense of the
invincibility of the British was lost in the First Anglo-Afghan
War where poor political judgment and inept British leadership led
to the massacre of Elphinstone's army (which included three
Bengal regiments) while retreating from Kabul. When the mood of
the sepoys turned against their masters, they remembered Kabul
and that the British were not invincible.
Caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army were
not merely tolerated but encouraged in the early years of the
Company's rule. Partly owing to this, Bengal sepoys were not
subject to the penalty of flogging as were the European soldiers.
This meant that when they came to be threatened by modernising
regimes in Calcutta, from the 1840s onwards, the sepoys had
become accustomed to very high ritual status, and were extremely
sensitive to suggestions that their caste might be polluted.[11] If the
caste of high-caste sepoys was considered to be "polluted", they
would have to expend considerable sums of money on ritual
purification before being accepted back into society.
There had been earlier indications that all was not well in the
armies of the East India Company. As early as 1806, concerns that
the sepoys' caste may be polluted had led to the Vellore Mutiny,
which was brutally suppressed. In 1824, there was another mutiny
by a regiment ordered overseas in the First Anglo-Burmese War,
who were refused transport to carry individual cooking vessels and
told to share communal pots. Eleven of the sepoys were executed
and hundreds more sentenced to hard labour.[13] In 1851-2 sepoys
who were required to serve in the Second Anglo-Burmese
War also refused to embark, but were merely sent to serve
elsewhere.
The pay of the sepoy was relatively low and after Awadh and
the Punjab were annexed, the soldiers no longer received extra
pay (batta or bhatta) if posted there, because this was no longer
considered "foreign service". Since the batta made the difference
between active service being considered munificent or
burdensome, the sepoys repeatedly resented and actively
opposed inconsiderate unilateral changes in pay and batta ordered
by the Military Audit department. Prior to the period of British rule,
any refusal to proceed on service until pay issues were resolved
was considered a legitimate form of displaying grievance by Indian
troops serving under Indian rulers. Such measures were
considered a valid negotiating tactic by the sepoys, likely to be
repeated every time such issues arose. In contrast to their Indian
predecessors, the British considered such refusals at times to be
outright "mutinies" and therefore to be suppressed brutally. At
other times however the Company directly or indirectly conceded
the legitimacy of the sepoy's demands, such as when troops of the
Bengal and Madras armies refused to serve in Sindh without batta
after its conquest.
Bengal Army sepoys considered the transfer of the numeral
66th from a regular battalion of Bengal Native Infantry, disbanded
over refusal to serve without batta, to the 66th Regiment of
Gurkhas (seen here in native costume) as a breach of faith by the
East India Company.
The varying stances of the British government, the reduction
of allowances and harsh punishments, contributed to a feeling
amongst the troops that the Company no longer cared for them.
Certain actions of the government, such as increased recruitment
of Sikhs and Gurkhas, peoples considered by the Bengal sepoys
to be inferior in caste to them, increased the distrust of the sepoys
who thought that this was a sign of their services not being needed
any more. The transfer of the number 66th which was taken away
from a regular Bengal sepoy regiment of the line disbanded over
refusal to serve without batta, and given to a Gurkha battalion, was
considered by the sepoys as a breach of faith by the Company.[16]
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, British officers were
generally closely involved with their troops, speaking Indian
languages fluently; participating in local culture through such
practices as having regimental flags and weapons blessed by
Brahman priests; and frequently having native mistresses. Later,
the attitudes of British officers changed with increased intolerance,
lack of involvement and unconcern of the welfare of troops
becoming manifest more and more. Sympathetic rulers, such as
Lord William Bentinck were replaced by arrogant aristocrats, such
as Lord Dalhousie, who despised the troops and the populace. As
time passed, the powers of the commanding officers reduced and
the government became more unfeeling or distant from the
concerns of the sepoys.
Officers of an evangelical persuasion in the Company's Army
(such as Herbert Edwardes and Colonel S.G. Wheler of the 34th
Bengal Infantry) had taken to preaching to their Sepoys in the
hope of converting them to Christianity.
The General Services Enlistment Act of 1856 required new
recruits to serve overseas, if asked. The serving high-caste sepoys
were fearful that this requirement would be eventually extended to
them, violating observance of the Kala Pani prohibition on sea
travel. Thus, the Hindu soldiers viewed the Act as a potential threat
to their faith.
In 1857, the Bengal Army contained 10 regular regiments of
Indian cavalry and 74 of infantry. All of the Bengal Native Cavalry
regiments and 45 of the infantry units rebelled at some point.
Following the disarming and disbandment of an additional
seventeen Bengal Native Infantry regiments, which were
suspected of planning mutiny, only twelve survived to serve in the
new post-mutiny army. Once the first rebellions took place, it was
clear to most British commanders that the grievances which led to
them were felt throughout the Bengal army and no Indian unit
could wholly be trusted, although many officers continued to vouch
for their men's loyalty, even in the face of captured
correspondence indicating their intention to rebel.
The Bengal Army also administered, sometimes loosely, 29
regiments of irregular horse and 42 of irregular infantry. Some of
these units belonged to states allied to the British or recently
absorbed into British-administered territory, and of these, two large
contingents from the states of Awadh and Gwalior readily joined
the growing rebellion. Other irregular units were raised in frontier
areas from communities such as Assamese or Pashtuns to
maintain order locally. Few of these participated in the rebellion,
and one contingent in particular (the recently raised Punjab
Irregular Force) actively participated on the British side.
The Bengal Army also contained three "European" regiments
of infantry, and many artillery units manned by white personnel.
Due to the need for technical specialists, the artillery units
generally had a higher proportion of British personnel. Although
the armies of many Rajas or states which rebelled contained large
numbers of guns, the British superiority in artillery was to be
decisive in the siege of Delhi after the arrival of a siege train of
thirty-two howitzers and mortars.
There were also a number of regiments from the British Army
(referred to in India as "Queen's troops") stationed in India, but in
1857 several of these had been withdrawn to take part in
the Crimean War or the Anglo-Persian War of 1856. The moment
at which the sepoys' grievances led them openly to defy British
authority also happened to be the most favourable opportunity to
do so.
The Enfield Rifle
India Pattern Brown Bess 3rd model smoothbore musket

Pattern 1853 Enfield rifled musket

The two weapons which used the cartridge supposedly sealed with
pig and cow fat. The rebellion was started over a gun. Sepoys
throughout India were issued with a new rifle, the Pattern 1853
Enfield rifled musket—a more powerful and accurate weapon than
the old but smoothbore Brown Bess they had been using for the
previous decades. The rifling inside the musket barrel ensured
accuracy at much greater distances than was possible with old
muskets. One thing did not change in this new weapon — the
loading process, which did not improve significantly until the
introduction of breech loaders and metallic, one-piece cartridges a
few decades later. To load both the old musket and the new rifle,
soldiers had to bite the cartridge open and pour the gunpowder it
contained into the rifle's muzzle, then stuff the paper cartridge
(overlaid with a thin mixture of beeswax and mutton tallow for
waterproofing) into the musket as wadding, the ball being secured
to the top of the cartridge and guided into place for ramming down
the muzzle. The rifle's cartridges contained 68 grains of FF
blackpowder, and the ball was typically a 530-grain Pritchett or a
Burton-Minié ball. Many sepoys believed that the cartridges that
were standard issue with the new rifle were greased with lard (pork
fat) which was regarded as unclean by Muslims and tallow (cow
fat) which angered the Hindus as cows were equal to a goddess to
them. The sepoys' British officers dismissed these claims as
rumours, and suggested that the sepoys make a batch of fresh
cartridges, and greased these with pig and cow fat. This reinforced
the belief that the original issue cartridges were indeed greased
with lard and tallow. Another suggestion they put forward was to
introduce a new drill, in which the cartridge was not bitten with the
teeth but torn open with the hand. The sepoys rejected this,
pointing out that they might very well forget and bite the cartridge,
not surprising given the extensive drilling that allowed 19th century
British and Indian troops to fire three to four rounds per minute.
British and Indian military drills of the time required soldiers to bite
off the end of the Beeswax paper cartridge, pour the gunpowder
contained within down the barrel, stuff the remaining paper
cartridge into the barrel, ram the paper cartridge (which included
the ball wrapped and tied in place) down the barrel, remove the
ram-rod, return the ram-rod, bring the rifle to the ready, set the
sights, add a percussion cap, present the rifle, and fire. The
musketry books also recommended that, "Whenever the grease
around the bullet appears to be melted away, or otherwise
removed from the cartridge, the sides of the bullet should be
wetted in the mouth before putting it into the barrel; the saliva will
serve the purpose of grease for the time being" This meant that
biting a musket cartridge was second nature to the Sepoys, some
of whom had decades of service in the Company's army, and who
had been doing musket drill for every day of their service. The first
sepoy who rebelled by aiming his loaded weapon at a British
officer was Mangal Pandey who was later executed.
Prophecies, omens, signs and rumours : There was rumour
about an old prophecy that the Company's rule would end after a
hundred years. This took the form of Muslim millenarianism, with
preachers in Lucknow foretelling the end of the raj. In some
districts like Muzaffarnagar and Saharanpur, Bose and Jalal argue
that "the revolt took on a distinctly millenarian flavour."[26] Their rule
in India had begun with the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
Before the rebellion, there were reports that "holy men" were
mysteriously circulating chapatis and lotus flowers among the
sepoys. Leader of the British Conservative Party and future prime
minister Benjamin Disraeli argued these objects were signs to
rebel and evidence of a conspiracy, and the press echoed this
belief.
After the rebellion, there was rumour in Britain
that Russia was responsible.
Nature of Revolt 1857:
There is no unanimity among scholars regarding the nature
of the revolt of 1857 and a debate took place between 1950-1960
focusing attentions on three perspectives: sepoy mutiny, national
struggle or first war of independence or a manifestation of feudalist
revival.
All the British historians, in particular. Sir John Lawrance and
Seelay are of the view that it was a sepoy mutiny as the sepoys
refused to use the greased cartridges of the Enfield rifles and
opposed the move.
An anxious conscious attempt on the part of the British to
minimize the grievances of Indians and to restrict it only to a
section of army’s revolt.
According to Seeley, the Revolt of 1857 was a wholly unpatriotic
and selfish sepoys mutiny with no native leadership and no
popular support. He further maintains that it was a rebellion of the
 Indian sepoys. Some states, which had grievances against their
annexation, also joined the rebellion.
Whatever be the nature of the uprising of 1857, it is
generally hailed as The First War of Independence, because: It
was the first mass uprising in which all sections of Indian society
participated against a common enemy, i.e.,the British. It paved the
way for the rise of modern national movement .

Causes of the failure of the Sepoy Munity:

 Lack of Planning and Co-ordination.

 Weak Leadership of the 1857 Mutiny.
 Superior British Army.
 Limited Supplies and Lack of Modern Communication.
 Lack of Societal Alternative.
 The Princes and Educated Classes did not participate.
 Limited Spread of the Revolt.

Firstly, the resources of the British Government were far superior

to those of the rebels. Luckily, for the British, the Crimean and the
Chinese wars had been concluded by 1856 that helped the British
Government to concentrate the entire energy on India. The electric
telegraph kept the Commander-in-Chief informed about the
movement of the Indian soldiers.

Secondly, the people of India could not be inspired by the spirit of

nationalism to resist the foreign soldiers for a long period. No
doubt the princes joined the revolution to regain their lost prestige,
the taluqdars jointed it to get back their privileges, and the
peasants fought in it for their economic discontent yet in a positive
sense there was no great ideal to unite all Indians in a common
platform.

The revolt thus could not be prolonged. The rebels could not
organize a united military front against the British army. They
fought in separate groups. In moments of need, they could not
combine all their forces which worked as strength to their enemies.

Causes of the failure:

Firstly, the resources of the British Government were far superior
to those of the rebels. Luckily, for the British, the Crimean and the
Chinese wars had been concluded by 1856 that helped the British
Government to concentrate the entire energy on India. The electric
telegraph kept the Commander-in-Chief informed about the
movement of the Indian soldiers.
Secondly, the people of India could not be inspired by the spirit of
nationalism to resist the foreign soldiers for a long period. No
doubt the princes joined the revolution to regain their lost prestige,
the taluqdars jointed it to get back their privileges, and the
peasants fought in it for their economic discontent yet in a positive
sense there was no great ideal to unite all Indians in a common
platform.
The revolt thus could not be prolonged. The rebels could not
organize a united military front against the British army. They
fought in separate groups. In moments of need, they could not
combine all their forces which worked as strength to their enemies.

The Revolt or uprising of 1857 was a valiant effort by disgruntled

Indian sepoys to overthrow the colonial power from Indian shores,
however, it ended in failure. The reasons for the failure of the 1857
Revolt are many and can be grouped into Administrative, Military
and Political causes. We will look into each cause of the failure of
the 1857 mutiny.
Weak Leadership of the 1857 Mutiny
The rebel sepoys declared the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II
as the Emperor of India and the symbol of the revolt. However
Bahadur Shah II was already into semi-retirement and hesitant to
lead the revolt. Apart from this there were multiple leaders at
different storm centres of the revolt and all were fighting the British
for their own reasons and not one single cause.

Military Causes of Failure of 1857 Revolt

Following are the Military reasons of failure of mutiny of 1857.

Superior British Army

The Indian rebels possessed great courage and will to fight the
British enemy, however, they lacked the sophisticated arms and
ammunition of the British army. The European soldiers were
equipped with the latest weapons like the Enfield rifle. While the
Indian rebels fought the 1857 mutiny mostly with swords and
spears and very few guns and muskets.

Limited Supplies and Lack of Modern Communication

The Indian rebels had limited military supplies. They used
weapons and bullets from wherever they could loot or they already
possessed while the British soldiers had advantage of the modern
Railways and the Telegraph that had already started to
communicate and plan quickly. The British also possessed almost
unlimited supplies of modern artillery to quickly suppress the 1857
Revolt.
Political Reasons for the Failure of 1857 Revolt

Following are the Political causes of failure of 1857 mutiny.

Lack of Societal Alternative

By proclaiming Bahadur Shah as the leader of the Revolt, the
mutinous sepoys demonstrated a lack of societal alternative to the
British occupation. One foreign power was to be supplanted by
former feudal powers. For this reason the masses did not
participate in the Revolt.

The Princes and Educated Classes did not participate

Most of the Princely rulers and big Zamindars did not support the
1857 Revolt and actively sided with the British. Their dominions
remained free of any anti-colonial uprisings. Governor
General Lord Canning remarked that these rulers and
chiefs “acted as the breakwaters to the storm which would have
otherwise swept us in one great wave”.

The educated middle and upper classes were mostly critical of the
rebels since they were repelled by the rebels appeals to
superstitions and their opposition to progressive social measures.

Limited Spread of the Revolt

The 1857 Revolt remained concentrated in the Central India and
some parts of north-Western India. It did not spread to South India
and most of Eastern and Western India. Madras, Bombay, Bengal
and the Western Punjab remained undisturbed.

The British had modern weapons and enormous resources but

Indians lacked it. 2) Indians were poorly organised and not well
coordinated. 3) The major cause for the failure was the disunity
among Indian rulers. Only rulers of central India supported in
the revolt.

Results of the Revolts of 1857:

There is no unanimity among scholars regarding the nature of the

revolt of 1857 and a debate took place between 1950-1960
focusing attentions on three perspectives: sepoy mutiny, national
struggle or first war of independence or a manifestation of feudalist
revival.
All the British historians, in particular. Sir John Lawrance and
Seelay are of the view that it was a sepoy mutiny as the sepoys
refused to use the greased cartridges of the Enfield rifles and
opposed the move.
An anxious conscious attempt on the part of the British to minimize
the grievances of Indians and to restrict it only to a section of
army’s revolt.
Further, the British tried to portray civil disturbances as the actions
of selfish vested interests of the landholders and the princes.
Their attempt was to prove that the colonial rule, if not welcomed,
was not detested, as many Indian historians argue. L.E.R. Reese
viewed it as a religious war against Christianity. J.R. Holmes
expressed the opinion that it was a conflict between civilization and
barbarism. Sir James Outram, W. Taylor and others are of the
view that it was a conspiracy hatched by the Hindus and the
Muslims against the British.
Contesting the British interpretation as that of sepoy mutiny only,
the nationalist historians and in particular V.D. Savarkar in his
banned book. The Indian War of Independence of 1857, published
anonymously in 1912 argues that it was the first war of Indian
independence inspired by the lofty ideal of self-rule by Indians
through nationalist upsurge.

The 1857 revolt though failed and crushed by the superior military force of the
British was a significant event of far-reaching consequences in the history of
British rule in India. It marks the end of an era of mercantile capitalism and
early colonial rule and the beginning of direct imperial hegemony of the
British crown. While in the first century, i.e., from 1757 to 1857, the British
crown indirectly ruled India, in the second century, i.e., from 1858 to 1947, the
British crown directly ruled India through the Viceroy appointed by the
Monarch.

The results of the 1857 revolt may be subdivided as:

(i) Constitutional changes,

(ii) Changes in the army,

(iii) Religious, judicial and diplomatic effects, and

(iv) Social effects.

Constitutional Changes:
The most significant result of the mutiny was the transfer of power
from a trading company to a sovereign power of Britain by the
Government of India Act of 1858. This Act of 1858 completed the
process initiated by the Charter Act of 1853. In the place of the
President of the Board of Control, the Secretary of State for India
was appointed. The Secretary of State for India was assisted and
helped by a 15-member body of India Council. Out of the fifteen,
eight were appointed by the crown and the rest were to be
appointed by the court of the directors.
The designation of the Governor General of India was changed to
Viceroy. In case of the rulers of the Indian states, the crown made
categorical announcement that all the treaties and agreements
entered into by the East India Company will be honoured and
respected and made it clear that no renewal was necessary.

The 1857 revolt though failed and crushed by the superior military
force of the British was a significant event of far-reaching
consequences in the history of British rule in India. It marks the
end of an era of mercantile capitalism and early colonial rule and
the beginning of direct imperial hegemony of the British crown.
While in the first century, i.e., from 1757 to 1857, the British crown
indirectly ruled India, in the second century, i.e., from 1858 to
1947, the British crown directly ruled India through the Viceroy
appointed by the Monarch.

The results of the 1857 revolt may be subdivided as:

(i) Constitutional changes,

(ii) Changes in the army,

(iii) Religious, judicial and diplomatic effects, and

(iv) Social effects.

Constitutional Changes:
The most significant result of the mutiny was the transfer of power
from a trading company to a sovereign power of Britain by the
Government of India Act of 1858. This Act of 1858 completed the
process initiated by the Charter Act of 1853. In the place of the
President of the Board of Control, the Secretary of State for India
was appointed. The Secretary of State for India was assisted and
helped by a 15-member body of India Council. Out of the fifteen,
eight were appointed by the crown and the rest were to be
appointed by the court of the directors.

The designation of the Governor General of India was changed to

Viceroy. In case of the rulers of the Indian states, the crown made
categorical announcement that all the treaties and agreements
entered into by the East India Company will be honoured and
respected and made it clear that no renewal was necessary.

The British crown gave up the policy of subordinate isolation and

advocated a policy of subordinate union in respect of native states.
The administrative apparatus in India was centralized effectively
due to the improvement in communications. The British crown
reinstated the Taluqdars of Oudh to their old positions. They gave
up the idea of the ruthless expansionist policy of their territorial
boundaries in and outside India.

Changes in the Army:

Before the revolt of 1857, the army of the British in India was
divided into two major divisions – king’s forces and company’s
troops. As a result of the revolt the two forces were united and
called king’s forces and one-third of it should consist of the
Europeans.

The artillery section was exclusively kept under the British. As a

consequence of more European soldiers in the army, the expen-
diture on the army doubled up. The Bengal Army was virtually
abolished. They reduced the Brahmins from the army and
recruited Gurkhas, Sikhs, Jats and Rajputs of the Punjab.

Religionist, Judicial and Diplomatic Effects:

Queen Victoria’s proclamation of 1 November, 1858 guaranteed
freedom of faith and equal treatment to all Indians. The Queen
made it clear that there was to be no distinction between one
individual and another on the pretext of race, religion, sex and
creed.

The British crown agreed to provide employment to the Indians in

the bureaucratic structure of the times, which was denied
previously. In the sphere of judiciary, the Sadar courts and
Crown’s Supreme Court were amalgamated into High Courts
which were established in the presidency towns of Madras,
Bombay and Calcutta. In the sphere of diplomatic ties between
India and Britain, now there was a change and the British began to
show greater interest in the internal development of India than in
foreign affairs.

Social Effects:
In the sphere of social relations, the gulf between the Europeans
and the Indians not only widened but animosity and hatred
between the two social groups became marked, and there was
definite social estrangement between Indians and Europeans.

Detestation, contempt, ferocity and vengeance became marked

features of the British in India in the post-mutiny period. The
Indians too did not lag behind in maintaining social distance. What
we notice in this period was abandonment of social and
educational welfare measures by the British purposefully and
willingly.

As if it is not sufficient, orthodoxy, religious superstitions,

communal, caste and religious discrimination began to be
practiced by the Indians. The British who were quite aloof in the
beginning realized their mistake and changed their policy with
1861 Indian Council Act.

A very disturbing feature of post-mutiny period in India was the

growth of social distance between the Hindus and Muslims which
ultimately led to communalization of social life and partition of India
on communal lines.

The post-mutiny period also witnessed setback to Muslim

renaissance and efforts of modernity. At the end, we may conclude
by agreeing with Tarachand: “imperialist Britain treated India as a
satellite whose main function was to sweat and labour for the
master, to sub-serve its economy and to enhance the glory and
prestige of the empire”.

Leaders of the Revolt of 1857:

he Revolt of 1857 was not mere a product of Sepoy but was

accumulated grievances of the people against the Company’s
administration and of their dislike for the foreign regime. Here
is the List of important leader Associated with the Revolt of
1857, so that aspirant can easily learn it.
SHAKEEL ANWAR
MAR 13, 2019 15:59 IST

Important leaders Associated with the Revolt of 1857

The Revolt of 1857 is also called the Sepoy Mutiny or India's First
War of Independence. It was started on 10 May 1857 at Meerut, as
a mutiny of sepoys of the British East India Company's army.

It was a prolonged period of armed uprising as well as rebellions in

Northern and Central India against British occupation of that part of
the subcontinent .It was not mere a product of Sepoy but was
accumulated grievances of the people against the Company’s
administration and of their dislike for the foreign regime.

Important leader Associated with the Revolt of 1857

Place Leader
Barrackpore Mangal Pandey
Delhi Bahadur Shah II,
General Bakht Khan
Delhi Hakim Ahsanullah (Chief
advisor to Bahadur Shah
II)
Lucknow Begum Hazrat Mahal,
Birjis Qadir, Ahmadullah
(advisor of the ex-
 Nawab of Awadh)
Kanpur Nana Sahib, Rao Sahib
(nephew of Nana),
Tantia Tope, Azimullah
Khan (advisor of Nana
Sahib)
Jhansi Rani Laxmibai
Bihar Kunwar Singh, Amar
(Jagdishpur) Singh
Allahabad and Maulvi Liyakat Ali
Banaras
Faizabad Maulvi Ahmadullah (He
declared the Revolt as
Jihad against English)
Farrukhabad Tufzal Hasan Khan
Bijnaur Mohammad Khan
Muradabad Abdul Ali Khan
Bareilly Khan Bahadur Khan
Mandsor Firoz Shah
Gwalior/Kanpur Tantia Tope
Assam Kandapareshwar Singh,
Manirama Datta
Orissa Surendra Shahi, Ujjwal
Shahi
Kullu Raja Pratap Singh
Rajasthan Jaidayal Singh and
Hardayal Singh
Gorakhpur Gajadhar Singh
Mathura Sevi Singh, Kadam
Singh
The revolt of 1857 was marked by intense anti-British feeling and the
administration was invariably toppled everywhere Mutiny took place. In
the absence of any leaders from their own ranks, the insurgents turned to
the traditional leaders of Indian society-the Territorial aristocrats and the
feudal chiefs who had suffered at the hands of the British.

Storm Centres and Leaders of 1857 Revolt

However, not everywhere were the leaders' people of the court – ranis,
rajas, nawabs and taluqdars. Often the message of rebellion was carried
by ordinary men and women and in places by religious men too. E.g.
Shah Mal mobilised the villagers of pargana Barout in Uttar Pradesh;
Gonoo, a tribal cultivator of Singhbhum in Chotanagpur, became a rebel
leader of the Kol tribals of the region.

What motivated the leaders of the revolt?

The concept of nationalism had not evolved in India of those times. The
great personalities of the revolt, namely Bahadur Shah, Nana Sahib, Rani
Lakshmi Bai, Kunwar Singh had not joined the mutiny of the Sepoys at
the beginning, and had, in fact, denounced the sepoys. However, they
were forced against their will to join the ranks of the mutineers.

The leaders thought of recovering their territories, honours, privileges

they had lost, gaining new lands and wealth within easy reach or paying
off old scores against an enemy.
Storm Centres and Leaders of the Revolt
[caption id="attachment_152689" align="aligncenter" width="529"]

Storm Centres of Revolt of 1857[/caption]

Bahadur Shah Zafar

[caption id="attachment_152683" align="aligncenter" width="259"]

Bahadur Shah Zafar[/caption]

The sepoys for the third cavalry at Meerut revolted on 10 May 1857, then
they marched towards Delhi and entered it on 11th May 1857 and they
persuaded if not coerced Bhahdur Shah Zafar to become their leader. He
was proclaimed the Shahenshah-e-Hindustan.

Bahadurshah was recognised as an emperor by all the rebel leaders.

Civilians, nobility and other dignitaries took an oath of allegiance. The
British, who had long ceased to take the authority of the Mughal Emperor
seriously, were astonished at how the ordinary people responded to
Zafar's call for war.
Bakht Khan

[caption id="attachment_152695" align="aligncenter" width="196"]

Bakht Khan[/caption]

Bahadur Shah Zafar remained only the symbolic leader of the revolt. The
real command of the rebellion, at Delhi, lay in the hands of General
Bakht Khan. He was a Subedar in the army of the East India Company
and had led the revolt of sepoys in Bareilly and brought them to Delhi.

The administration of Delhi was run by a Court of rebels, headed by

General Bakht Khan. The court consisted of ten members, six from the
army and four from the civilians. The court conducted its affairs in the
name of the emperor.
Nana Sahib

[caption id="attachment_152688" align="aligncenter" width="263"]

Nana Sahib[/caption]

At Kanpur, the revolt was led by Nana Sahib, the adopted son of the last
Peshwa, Baji Rao II. He was refused the family title and pension by the
British. However, the company stopped the pension after the death of
Baji Rao II and banished him from Poona, on the grounds that He was not
a natural born heir. Nana Sahib was highly offended and was looking for
an opportunity to settle the score with the British. He got this opportunity
when the revolt broke out.

On persuasion of the rebels, Nana sahib assumed the leadership of the

revolt in Kanpur, proclaimed himself the Peshwa and acknowledged the
suzerainty of the Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. Nana Sahib's
childhood associates included Tantya Tope and Azimullah Khan.

He forced the British garrison in Kanpur to surrender, and then executed

the survivors, gaining control of Cawnpore (Kanpur) for a few days. At
the end of 1858, when the rebellion collapsed, Nana Sahib escaped to
Nepal. The story of his escape added to the legend of Nana Sahib’s
courage and valour.

Tantya Tope

[caption id="attachment_152692" align="aligncenter" width="188"]

Tantya Tope[/caption]

Tantya Tope was a general in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and one of its
notable leaders. He was born as Ramachandra Panduranga to a Maratha
Brahman family and took on the title Tope, meaning commanding officer.

A personal adherent of Nana Sahib of Bithur, he progressed with

the Gwalior contingent after the British reoccupied Kanpur and forced
General Windham to retreat from the city. Later on, he came to the relief
of Rani Lakshmi of Jhansi and with her seized the city of Gwalior.
However, he was defeated by General Napier's British Indian troops at
Ranod and after a further defeat at Sikar abandoned the campaign and
fled into the Jungles. He was later captured and executed by the British
Government in 1859.
Begum Hazarat Mahal

[caption id="attachment_152697" align="aligncenter" width="210"]

Begum Hazarat Mahal[/caption]

In areas like Awadh where resistance during 1857 was intense and long
lasting, the fighting was carried out by taluqdars and their peasants. Many
of these taluqdars were loyal to the Nawab of Awadh, and they joined
Begum Hazrat Mahal (the wife of the Nawab) in Lucknow to fight the
British.

She soon seized control of Lucknow and proclaimed her son, Brijis
Qadir, as the Nawab of Awadh. Her administration included both Hindus
and Muslims. The British residency in Lucknow was besieged by the
rebels and Sir Henry was killed during the siege. The City was finally
recovered by the British in March 1858. Begum Hazarat Mahal had to
retreat to Nepal where she finally found asylum.
Khan Bahadur

[caption id="attachment_152684" align="aligncenter" width="263"]

Khan Bahadur[/caption]

The command of the rebellion in Bareilly rested with Khan Bahadur

khan, a descendant of the former ruler of Rohilkhand. He resented the
British and was not enthusiastic with the pension granted to him by the
latter. When the rebellion failed, Bareilly, too, was recovered by the
British. He escaped to Nepal where the Nepalese captured him and turned
him over to the British. Khan Bahadur Khan was sentenced to death and
hanged in 1860.
Kunwar Singh

[caption id="attachment_152685" align="aligncenter" width="220"]

Kunwar Singh[/caption]

In Bihar, the fight against the British was led by Kunwar Singh. He was a
local zamindar in Arrah in Bihar. He was popularly known as Veerk
Kunwar Singh. He resented the British for depriving him of his estates.

He was in his early eighties when he joined the war but he fought
valiantly and remained invincible till the end. He was an expert in the
gureilla warfare. His tactics left the British puzzled and clueless.

He got injured during his last battle fought on 23 April 1858, near
Jagdispur and soon succumbed to his injuries.
Rani Lakshmi Bai

[caption id="attachment_152690" align="aligncenter" width="199"]

Rani Lakshmi Bai[/caption]

Rani Lakshmi bai was the queen of the Princely state of Jhansi. Her real
name was Manikarnika Tambe. 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 annexed her state under the
infamous doctrine of lapse.

She resented the British and was soon persuaded by the rebels to assume
the leadership of the rebellion in Jhansi. She was an outstanding warrior
and one of the leading figures of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. She
became a symbol of resistance to the British Raj for Indian nationalists.
She gave the battle cry, “Mai apni Jhansi nahi dungi”. She was aided by
Tantia tope, a close associate of Nana Sahib, after the loss of Kanpur.

Many songs and poems have been written describing her valour. In fact,
children in many parts of India grow up reading the lines of Subhadra
Kumari Chauhan: “Khoob lari mardani woh to Jhansi wali rani thi”.
The unsung heroes

Apart from those acknowledged leaders who are remembered for their
patriotism and courage, there were many unknown and unacknowledged
but no less valiant leaders among the sepoys, peasantry and petty
Zamindars. They also fought the British with the exemplary courage to
expel them from India. Peasants and sepoys laid down their lives for the
cause of their country, forgetting their religious and caste differences and
rising above their narrow personal interests.

Conclusion
Though it is said that most of the leaders of the revolt of 1857 were
coerced into joining the rebellion against their wishes, their valour in the
field of battle does not justify this construct. All the leaders of the revolt
were fearsome warriors and fought valiantly. Even though for a short
period, they shook the foundations of the British Empire in India. Though
the rebellion failed due to a variety of reasons, their valour in the
battlefield is still imprinted in the minds of every Indian.

References:
1) The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 by R.C. Majumdar