DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

HISTORY II

BRITISH REACTION TO THE REVOLT OF 1857

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR VANDANA SINGH AKSHAT GOLIA

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (HISTORY) ENROLLMENT NUMBER - 170101018

DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA SEMESTER II (2017-18)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SECTION – A (BATCH OF 2022)
LUCKNOW
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to convey my gratefulness to a lot many people who have helped
and supported me in making this project.
I would like to thank my family and friends who have always been supportive
of my endeavours.
Words are inadequate in offering my deep sense of gratitude to my
Professor, Dr Vandana Singh for her precious guidance. From assigning
me this topic to instructing me on how I should move forward with my work,
her enthusiasm and knowledge have always been of utmost importance.
I would also like to thank the librarians of Dr Madhu Limaye Library who
extended their assistance to me by helping me out consult the relevant books.
I know that despite my best efforts some discrepancies might have crept in
which I believe my humble Professor would forgive.
Thanking You All

Akshat Golia

1
• TABLE OF CONTENTS

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 1
• TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 2
• INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3
• NATURE OF THE REVOLT- BRITISH REACTION ................................................................ 4
• PUBLIC REACTION IN ENGLAND ....................................................................................... 6
• END OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY .................................................................................. 9
• MILITARY RESPONSE OF THE BRITISH............................................................................ 11
• CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 13
• BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 14

2
• INTRODUCTION

The revolt of 1857 has been a topic of many and captures the attention of multitudes. The
courageous way in which the sepoys revolted against their commander's cum masters and how
Hindu and Muslim sepoys united to fight the British and how the British used inhumane and
horrifying methods to crush the first Indian dash to a free India. This is how most Indians know
the revolt of 1857 or we are taught in our history books, the First War of Independence.

The revolt began in Meerut on the centenary of the Battle of Plassey and spread in regions of
Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. The sepoys revolted over the issue of greased
cartridges and ever-increasing fears of forced religious conversion by the Britishers. The
sepoys were able to capture Delhi and proclaim the Mughal monarch Bahadur Shah Zafar as
the Emperor of India. The revolt witnessed several Hindu and Muslim rulers working together.
The revolt lasted for almost a year before the British were able to win the war. The revolt led
to the end of company rule in India and led to several changes in the way British governed
India.

This paper seeks to review and study the revolt from the other side, that is the British reaction
to the revolt and to analyse what reaction was given by different sections of the British society
such as the public and the government. This would also help in analysing as to why the British
government took some steps they did and also to ascertain some of the policy changes if any,
that occurred after the rebellion.

3
• NATURE OF THE REVOLT- BRITISH REACTION

The nature of the uprising has been debated between British historians and Indian nationalist
often. Indians term it as they're, ‘First War of Independence’ while the British just refer to it as
the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’. Despite this in 1857 British themselves debated the nature of the uprisings.

The outbreak of rebellion in 1857 was initially taken lightly by both, Governor-General Lord
Canning as well as British Prime Minister Henry Temple Palmerston. The news of the mutiny
was not an unusual event for the British as similar insurrections had happened in the past and
the government was simply unable to gauge the scale of the events happening. Even the public
could not believe that the uprising was indeed civil in nature since the British rule in India was
seen as something which was beneficial for India. Ideologically it was easy to dismiss the revolt
as a military mutiny since accepting it as a civil rebellion would negate Britain’s image as a
benevolent ruler.

The government and the East India Company in order to advance their notion that it was indeed
a military mutiny, they contended that India was not a nation but a mere geographical
expression. Furthermore, the government believed that it was discontent among the sepoys and
discriminatory practice between them and their European counterparts which led to the mutiny
and that the civilian population was perfectly happy with the British rule.

The military mutiny interpretation soon failed as more news of the situation flooded in Britain.
Accounts of military officers, missionaries and civil servants made it clear that it was indeed a
civil uprising. Benjamin Disraeli representing the opposition at the time termed the events of
1857 as a National revolt. Disraeli pointed out that greased cartridges were indeed just the
immediate cause and that the revolt was actually the result of British expansionist policies with
no regard to native customs. The blame for the revolt quickly shifted to the policies and
administration of the East India Company. It was argued that the rule by a group of merchants
was hard to accept to the nobility of India and the fact that EIC plundered the Indian
subcontinent with much thought to its prosperity may have led to the revolt. The exclusion of
Indians from all positions of importance, the land revenue system of the East India Company,
the system of courts and justice were all blamed for the revolt and that relation between India
and Britain was called that of a ‘robber and the bandit’.

The British were also surprised by the unity and organisation shown by the sepoys and it led
some to believe that the revolt was not spontaneous but instead planned well in advance. It was

4
also believed that the Hindus and Muslims had united against the British with Nana Sahib
declaring for Bahadur Shah and him proclaiming Hindu friendly policies. Some Britishers saw
the rebellion as an attempt to restore Mughal rule. This was enforced by prophecies promising
an end to British rule on the centenary of the Battle of Plassey.

The debate on whether the events of 1857 were a sepoy rebellion, a civil uprising or a Muslim
conspiracy ended with the government and majority populace believing that the revolt was
indeed a civil uprising1.

1
Salahuddin, Malik. “Popular British Interpretations of ‘The Mutiny’ Politics and Polemics.” Mutiny at the
Margins: New Perspective on the Indian Uprising of 1857, Vol 2: Britain and the Indian Uprising. Ed. Andrea
Major, Ed. Crispin Bates. New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2013. 25-49. Print.

5
• PUBLIC REACTION IN ENGLAND

The news of the sepoy mutiny did not reach London until June 13th, 18572, nearly a month after
the sepoys of the East India Company revolted in Meerut, murdering their officers and
marching on Delhi. The initial reaction was non-existent. Neither the people nor the
government thought much of the reports of sepoys revolting against their British officers. It
was simply assumed that the mutiny was of a very limited nature and that the situation would
soon be under control3.

The Times and The Sunday Review even went on to speculate that the mutiny was already over
and taken care of by the British in response to criticism garnered by a French newspaper
towards the situation in India towards the British on 4th July. This shows the arrogance which
the British entitled themselves to in respect to their military prowess and its invincibility4.

As the grim fact of the situation came to be known about to the general public, the mood of
the people turned tense and a sense of anxiety loomed large over the condition in India. The
public under this duress petitioned the government to declare a fast day. The government along
with the Queen's support decided to declare October 7th, 1857 as the National Humiliation Day
to express their concern over the sad state of affairs in India and to extend support to her
subjects abroad in India5.

As the further news came that the revolt had spread to the whole of northwestern India and that
Delhi had fallen the public blamed the government for such a crisis. It was also revealed to the
public that the British Army chief had been killed. Viscount Palmerston, the British Prime
Minister of the time was also criticized by some for slow reaction of the government and for
downplaying the seriousness of the situation. Despite the rebellion spreading, newspaper
reports show that a victory was certain of and it was also believed that the disturbance was just
a sepoy mutiny and not a national war of independence. This view though was contested by
several British politicians like British MP Disraeli6.

2
Rail, Sandeep. 1857 revolt news clippings: Reports went from fair to pro british- Times Of India. 10 May
2015. 21 March 2018.
3
Hobson, Kevin. The British Press and the Indian Mutiny. n.d. 21 March 2018.
4
Ibid 2
5
Shafeeq, Samuel. British Reaction to The Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858. 1970.North Texas State University, MA
Thesis, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc131301/m2/1/high_res_d/n_04183.pdf
6
Ibid 4

6
By July, public outrage towards the mutineers reached such heights that public demanded an
eye for an eye. It was deemed necessary and just to soot or hang every one of the mutineers.
Lord Canning was one of the few who complained against tactics such as blowing rebels from
canons. These views later found a heart with the British public and soon the need for a
permanent solution to the Indian problem was emphasised7.

The public in the search for a solution to the rebellion turned its eyes toward the company itself.
The people identified the East India Company and its policies as the cause of discontent among
Indians. Several publications insisted that the company’s policy had disturbed the Indian
aristocracy and that company’s acts were not in line with Indian customs, which angered the
Indian poor and rich alike. The demand for the removal of company rule was voiced by several
leaders and a cry was to unify the Indian rule and military command structure. By December
of 1857, it was clear to Palmerston that company rule will have to be replaced by that of the
crown.

The events of India in 1857 were unique for Britain. It was for the first time that events of an
imperial conflict reached the British masses in such gory detail and consequently, the massacre
of British women and children in Kanpur and other places allowed the British government to
justify the equally greater retribution it dealt towards the rebels. The government was able to
justify the murders as a righteous moral crusade of vengeance8.

The mood of the British public shifted once the news of atrocities, often exaggerated by the
newspapers committed by the rebels reached the British public. Before the public blamed the
East India Company and its extortionist policies but later the public openly called for
vengeance. The stories of a woman raped and children murdered led to gatherings to contribute
money to the British victims of the revolt9.

Indians In Britain

The Indians who lived in Britain during the time had to face a difficult time. Each Indian,
whatever his inner feeling towards the revolt might have been, had to come out against it in
public. The Indians living in Britain earlier had some attraction from natives due to their colour
and culture but as news about atrocities committed by the sepoys spread that too gave way to

7
Ibid 4
8
Streets, Heather. “The Rebellion of 1857: Origins, Consequences and Themes.” Teaching South Asia- An
Internet Journal of Pedagogy 1.1(2001) 94-98. Web. 23 March 2018
9
Ibid 7

7
hatred towards Indians. All Indian men especially were viewed with suspicion. Indians who
left Britain for India during this time were thought to be supporters of the rebel cause. The
Indian ambassadors from Jodhpur, for example, were arrested in Bombay after coming back
from London on charges of treason. Stereotypes against Indian men were established and
hardened during this period too. In reaction to this, Indians in England found solidarity in their
own nationality. The gender relations between British women and Indian men were most
affected due to the crisis of 185710. The attitude also deferred from working class to royals. As
such all lost favour for a while but royals were able to regain it after a while but the working
class was viewed with distrust.

10
Fisher Michael H. “Multiple Meanings of 1857 for Indians in Britain.” Economic and Political Weekly 42.19
(2007): 1703-1709. Web. 25 March 2018.

8
• END OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

The Whig government in Britain blamed the revolt on corrupt and oppressive policies of the
East India Company. Consequently, on 1st November 1858, Lord Canning read out the Queen's
proclamation ending the rule of East India Company and transferring all power directly to the
crown. The transfer of power witnessed fall of a government and intense debates in the British
Parliament11.

Palmerston, the Whig Prime Minister agreed to abolish the East India Company in face of
public demand. The issue was deemed so important that it was given preference over other
issues facing the House of Commons. Palmerston realised the problem of double government
under company rule. The Government of India act of 1784 formed a Board of Director's head
by a minister, selected by the crown but controlled by the Parliament. The Board and the
minister represented the interest of the crown. The law also allowed the establishment of a
Court of Directors selected by the East India Company, it served as an administrative council.
The problem, however, lays in their jurisdictions. The court of directors worked for the
company while the Board worked for the government and with both of them having control
over the same issues, policy problems arose and it led to confusion since both of their
jurisdictions overlapped. The same was criticised by the opposition leader, Benjamin Disraeli.
The company’s dual function as a political and economic organisation also did not let it govern
effectively.

Aware of these problems, the government sought to limit the political authority of the East
India Company. The government promised that India would be placed under the authority of
the crown. To be governed by the responsible ministers of the crown. On 18th February 1858,
Palmerston introduced the Government of India Bill to transfer the authority of the company
to the Crown. The bill handed all the power of India to a single minister in India. Some Tory
legislators argued that such a position allowed for indiscriminate control. The bill was passed
after much debate with a thumping majority, however, with the fall of the Palmerston
government, it died. The government was replaced by Lord Derby’s Tory government.
Benjamin Disraeli became the Chancellor of Exchequer.

11
Brereton, J., M. “The White Mutiny.” History Today, Vol. 29, Issue 4, 1979, https://www.historytoday.com/jm-
brereton/white-mutiny. Accessed 26 March. 2018.

9
The new government introduced on 26th March 1858 a second India Bill, it outlined the
structure of government in India such that all executive power would rest with the Minister of
Crown in India. He would also lead a Council of India which would be partly elected. The bill
nonetheless did not get sufficient votes due to internal politics of the time. The bill was
reintroduced again for the third time, this time several amendments were proposed as to the
size of the council under the Minister of India, their pay, how they were to be elected and other
matters as such. The bill in July 1858 reached the House of Lords where a similar discussion
took place. The main issue between the supporters and the naysayers regarding the bill was the
indefinite term for the members of the committee headed by the Minister of India. The Whigs
protested the same while the conservatives supported it. The bill after several amendments was
passed by both the houses of the Parliament and on 2nd August 1858, the Queen gave her
consent for the bill, ending the rule of East India Company and replacing it with that of the of
the government. The President of the Board of Control was replaced by a Secretary of the State
and it was hoped that this arrangement would better tame the golden goose that was India to
Britain.

10
• MILITARY RESPONSE OF THE BRITISH

Before truly analyzing the military accounts, a knowledge of the British military in India is
required. Military service in India during the middle 1800s was unique from all other tours of
duty. The different physical terrain, societal, and linguistic barriers that faced British soldiers
serving in India separated them from their European and American based counterparts. Also,
further complicating their military service was the fact that there were in effect two officially
active British military forces in India at the same time, the British East India Company’s units
and those belonging to the royal military. In reality, there were three different types of British
soldiers in India at this time. The first was “soldiers of fortune” or mercenaries who served
native Indian rulers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on a “for hire” basis. Second,
there were the officers and NCOs of the British East India Company’s native infantry units.
Many of these 50 volunteers did so on a desire to quickly acquire wealth through a series of
expansionist military campaigns by the East India Company.115 Third, there were the soldiers
serving on behalf of the British army, horse, and foot regiments. The distinguishing
characteristic of these units was an attached prefix of “HM” (her majesty’s) prior to the
regimental number of the unit12.

Delhi fell into the rebel Sepoys hands in May 1857 and Emperor Bahadur Shah quickly claimed
himself as the ruler of India and issued coins to substantiate his sovereignty. The British and
the company forces were unable to quell the rebellion swiftly due to lack of military
organization. Delhi has recaptured again after a hard battle by end of August 1857. The Sepoys
in Cawnpur ambushed British men, women and children who were promised safe passage by
Nana Sahib, many were taken hostage only to be later murdered by him. The British enraged
committed similar barbaric acts of revenge. A brutal siege also took place in Lucknow, the
British forces first relieved British force under Henry Lawrence from the siege and helped them
escape to Cawnpore before returning in early 1858 to defeat the rebel forces in the city.
In all of the British operations, the bravery and dedication of the Sikhs are referred to with
much proud and their loyalty is often admired in all the recollections and diaries of the British.
This shift in army structure was of great concern.

12
Walden, Harley Derek, "Sahib and Sepoy : The British Perspective on the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857" (2011).
Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 43, 9-72.

11
Though the British had emerged victorious in Bengal, the native army there— once the pride
of the Company’s forces—lay in ruins. All ten regiments of the Bengal Light Cavalry had
mutinied, and nearly all of the Infantry had either mutinied or had been disbanded in
anticipation of mutiny. The sepoys of that army, who had so recently been praised for their
physique, manner, and gentlemanly behaviour, were now in disgrace. The men who stood in
their place at the end of 1859 were very different. During the crisis, large numbers of new
recruits had hastily been raised to fight the rebellious sepoys. The majority, however, were
from the newly annexed Punjab province, which was under the efficient and ruthless leadership
of John Lawrence. At the outbreak of the Rebellion, Lawrence had moved quickly to quell a
mutiny in the regiments of the Bengal army stationed in Punjab, and then, on his own initiative,
began raising local Punjabi troops to fight the rebels. As a result of this initiative, by the end
of 1858 Lawrence had increased the number of Punjabis serving in the Indian army from a
mere 30,000 to a grand total of 75,000 men13.

It was clear to most contemporaries that there was no going back to the old structure of the
1857 army. Less clear was the problem of how the army should be structured in the future now
that the immediate crisis had passed. How could a new army be recruited and organized to
prevent future discontent from igniting into mass rebellion? The recommendations of the Peel
Commission, a special Parliamentary Committee charged with reviewing the state of the Indian
army in 1858, helped determine the size of the new Indian army. After hearing testimony from
a number of British officers who decried the small size of the European forces in India, the
commissioners recommended a 1:2 ratio of British to Indian soldiers in Bengal. The Peel
Commission did not make any specific recommendations about how the future Indian army
should be recruited, but its report did recommend recruiting from as many different
nationalities as possible. Eventually, recruiting from Punjab became institutionalized as a
matter of army policy, and by the end of the nineteenth century, such policy had transformed
the geographical base of the Indian army14.

13
Ibid 8 91-92
14
Ibid 8 92-93

12
• CONCLUSION

The British reaction to the revolt of 1857 is of as much importance as the event itself. Studying
the reaction of British helps us ascertain their nature towards Indians and how the revolt
changed that. The initial reaction of the British was to deny that it was even a revolt or a national
struggle for independence. Instead, the British government claimed that it was just a sepoy
rebellion which will be quickly resolved by the British and East India Company forces in India.
Later on, when the true scale of the revolt was discovered it devastated the public and put the
government in crosshairs for its inaction on the issue. The public outrage and hatred towards
the Indian class also increased when the news of inhumane atrocities committed by the Sepoys
surfaced in English newspapers. The British government passed the blame onto the Est India
Company and its corrupt practices which induced the sepoys to revolt. The government also
dispatched troops to India to suppress the revolt. Meanwhile, the government came up with
plans to transfer the authority of the East India Company and the control of India to the Crown
and install a government minister to manage affairs in India.

After careful study of the subject matter, the reaction of the government seems to have two
phases to it. The first, where the government just means to pass on the blame of the crisis onto
another body, in this case the East India Company and second, where the government comes
to he realises that the company’s policy of exploitation and extraction of Indian labour and
resources for its own benefit will never let peace be established in the Indian subcontinent. The
government on the basis of this understanding removes the East India Company in hope that it
will lead to better administration of India.

Of importance here is also the change in the composition of the British Indian Army after the
revolt. The army before consisted of a majority of high-class Hindu troops but after the revolt
consisted of low cast Hindu and Sikh troops. Such a drastic shift was due to firstly, emergency
recruiting by John Lawrence in Punjab and due to loss of belief in upper caste troops due to
them rebelling. Also, on notice here is the fact that the British commanders on several occasions
still believed in the loyalty of the sepoys.

13
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Streets, Heather. “The Rebellion of 1857: Origins, Consequences, and Themes.” Teaching
South Asia: The Internet Journal of Pedagogy, vol. 1, no. 1, 2001, pp. 85–104.
2. Luscombe, Stephen. “The British Empire, Imperialism, Colonialism, Colonies.” The
British Empire, www.britishempire.co.uk/article/mutinypress.htm.
3. Walden, Harley Derek. “Sahib and Sepoy: the British Perspective on the Sepoy Rebellion
of 1857.” 2011.
4. Felluga. “Priti Joshi, ‘1857; or, Can the Indian Mutiny Be Fixed?".” BRANCH,
www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=priti-joshi-1857-or-can-the-indian-mutiny-be-
fixed#_ftn9.end.
5. Michael H. “Multiple Meanings of 1857 for Indians in Britain.” Economic and Political
Weekly, vol. 42, no. 12, 2007, pp. 1703–1709.
6. Andrea, and Crispin, editors. Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian
Uprising of 1857; v. 2: Britain and the Indian Uprising. Vol. 2, Sage Publications, 2013.
7. “The White Mutiny.” History Today, www.historytoday.com/jm-brereton/white-mutiny.
8. Samuel. “BRITISH REACTION TO THE SEPOY MUTINY, 1857-185S.” North Texas
State University, 1970.

14