INTERNAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAPER- DELHI THROUGH AGES

Submitted by: Kruthi P(789) & Pravina Kh(794)

THE REVOLT OF 1857 : SEPOY MUTINY

BACKGROUND
To regard the rebellion merely as a sepoy mutiny is to underestimate the root causes leading to it.
British paramountcy—i.e., the belief in British dominance in Indian political, economic, and cultural
life—had been introduced in India about 1820. The British increasingly used a variety of tactics to
usurp control of the Hindu princely states that were under what were called subsidiary alliances with
the British. Everywhere the old Indian aristocracy was being replaced by British officials. One notable
British technique was called the doctrine of lapse first perpetrated by Lord Dalhousie in the late 1840s.
It involved the British prohibiting a Hindu ruler without a natural heir from adopting a successor and,
after the ruler died or abdicated annexing his land.

INTRODUCTION
The revolt of 1857 forms one of the most important chapters in the history of the struggle of the
Indian people for liberation from the British rule. It shook the foundations of the British empire in
India and at some points it seemed as though the British rule would end for all time to come. What
started merely as a sepoy mutiny soon engulfed the peasantry and other civilian population over wide
areas in northern India. The upsurge was so widespread that some of the contemporary observers
called it a "national revolt.”

CAUSES
The main reason for this was the ruthless exploitation of the Indian people by the British. The British
rule which was formally established after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 in Bengal, strove to fill the
coffers of the East India Company at the expense of the Indians. The East lndia Company was
governed by greedy merchants and traders who could go to any extent to enrich themselves. The
Company was formed in 1600, and was given a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth which conferred
on it the exclusive privilege to trade with the East. Its main aim was to assume the trade monopoly in
India. It was not an ordinary merchant company formed for trade but had its train of soldiers who
fought battles with the Portuguese and the French trading companies in the 17th and 18th centuries
in order to establish its trade monopoly.
A. Exploitation of the peasantry

Although the trade monopoly enriched the East India Company considerably, its main source of
income was now derived from the land. After entrenching itself in Bengal, it spread its power in India
through wars and treaties. To extract as much money as possible it devised new systems of land
settlements - Permanent, Ryotwari and Mahalwari -each more oppressive than the other. The
Permanent Settlement which was effective in Bengal Presidency and in large parts of north India
did not recognise the hereditary rights of the peasants on land, which they had earlier enjoyed. The
loyal zamindars and revenue-collectors were now given the proprietary rights on land. The cultivators
were reduced to the status of simple tenants. But even the newly created landlords were not given
absolute rights. Their situation was also deliberately left very precarious. They had to pay to the
Company 10/1lth of the entire rent derived from the cultivators and if they failed to do so. their
property was sold to others.

This made the peasants so heavily indebted that they were ultimately forced to sell their land to these
money lenders. It is because of this that the money lenders were so hated in rural society. The
peasantry was also oppressed by petty officials in administration who extracted money on the slightest
pretexts. If the peasants went to the law court to seek redress of their grievances, they were bound to
be totally ruined. When the crop was good the peasants had to pay back their past debts; if it was bad,
they were further
indebted. This nexus between the lower officials, law courts and money lenders created a vicious
circle which made the peasantry desperate and ready to welcome any opportunity for change of
regime.

B. Alienation of the Middle and Upper Strata of Indians

During the period of the Mughals or even in the administration of the local princes and chieftains, the
Indians served at all the places -both lower and higher. The disappearance of these Indian states and
their replacement by the British administration deprived the Indians of higher posts which were now
taken mainly by the British. The Indians now served only as subordinates and other petty positions
in the administration. Even the most brilliant of Indians were subordinated to the second or third-rate
Britishers who as a matter of right, grabbed all the higher paid positions.
C. Annexation of Princely States

The East India Company did not spare even its former allies. The native state of Awadh was annexed
by Dalhousie in 1856on the pretext that Nawab Wazid Ali Shah was mismanaging the state. These
annexations embittered the rulers of these states, making Rani of Jhansi and Begums of Awadh
staunch enemies of the British.

D. The Alien Rule

Another important reason of the unpopularity of the British was the alien nature of their rule. They
never mixed with the Indian people and treated even the upper class Indians with contempt. They had
not come to settle in India but only to take money home.

E. Impact on the Sepoys

The revolt of 1857originated with the mutiny of the Sepoys. These Sepoys were drawn mainly from
the peasant population of North and North-West India. As we have seen, the rapacious policies
followed by the East India Company were impoverishing and ruining the peasantry. This must have
affected the Sepoys also. In fact, most of them had joined the military service in order to supplement
their fast declining agricultural income. But as the years passed, they realised that their capacity for
doing so declined. They were paid a monthly salary of 7 to 9 Rupees out of which they had to pay for
their food, uniform and transport of their private baggage. The cost of maintaining an Indian Sepoy
was only one-third of his British counterpart in India. Moreover, the Indian Sepoy was treated roughly
by the British officers. They were frequently abused and humiliated. The Indian Sepoy, despite his
valour and great fighting capacity. could never rise above the rank of a Subedar while a fresh recruit
from England v:as often appointed his superior overnight.

F. Threat to Religion

An impression was created among them that their religion was being attacked by the British. This
belief was also shared by the general civilian population. The proselytising zeal of the missionaries
and some of the British officials instilled fear in the minds of the people that their religion was in
danger. At several places conversions to Christianity were reported to be made. The Government
maintained the chaplains at its own cost and in some cases also provided police protection to the
missionaries. Even the army maintained chaplains at state cost and Christian propaganda was carried
among the sepoys.

G. The Immediate Cause

The atmosphere was so surcharged that even a small issue could lead to revolt. The episode of greased
cartridges, however, was a big enough issue to start the rebellion on its own. Dry tinder-box was there
and only a spark was needed to set it ablaze. Cartridges of the new Enfield rifle which had recently
been introduced in the army had a greased paper cover whose end had to be bitten off-before the
cartridge was loaded into rifle. The grease was in some instances made of beef and pig fat. This
completely enraged the Hindu and Muslim sepoys and made them believe that the government was
deliberately trying to destroy their religion. It was the immediate cause of the revolt.

THE REBELLION

On 29th March, 1857, a young soldier, Mangal Pandey, stationed at Barrackpore, revolted single-
handedly attacking his British officers. H e was hanged, and not much notice was taken of this event.
But it showed the resentment and anger aroused among the sepoys. Less than a month later, on 24th
April, ninety men of the Third Native Cavalry, stationed at Meerut, refused to use the greased
cartridges. Eighty-five of them were dismissed and sentenced to ten years imprisonment on 9th May.
The rest of . the Indian sepoys reacted strongly to this, and the next day, on 10th May, the entire
Indian garrison revolted. After freeing their comrades and killing the British officers, they decided to
march on to Delhi. This shows that they did have in mind some sort of alternative to the British.

It was not merely army mutiny was that the people from surrounding areas began to loot the military
bazaars and attacked and burnt the bungalows of the British as soon as they heard the shots fired by
the sepoys on their officers. The Gujars from the surrounding villages poured into the city and joined
the revolt. Telegraph wires were cut and horsemen with warning messages to Delhi were intercepted.
As soon as the sepoys from Meerut reached Delhi, the Indian garrison also revolted and joined the
rebels. They now proclaimed the old Bahadur Shah, as the Emperor of India. l h u s in twenty-four
hours. what began as a simple mutiny had swelled into full-scale political rebellion.

With the revolt in army, the police and local administration also collapsed. These revolts were also
immediately followed by a rebellion in the city and countryside. But in several places the people rose
in revolt even before the sepoys. Wherever revolt broke out, the government treasury was plundered,
the magazine sacked, barracks and court houses were burnt and prison gates flung open. In the
countryside, the peasants and dispossessed zamindars attacked the money lenders and new zamindars
who had displaced them from the land. They destroyed the government records and money lenders'
account books. They attacked the British established law courts, revenue offices, revenue records and
thanas (police stations). Thus the rebels tried to destroy all the symbols of colonial power.

In central India also, where the rulers remained loyal to the British, the army revolted and joined the
rebels. Thousands of Indore's troops joined in Indore the rebellious sepoys. Similarly, over 20,000 of
Gwalior's troops went over to Tantya Tope and Rani of Jhansi. In the whole of north and centraI lndia
the British power was limited only to the towns of Agra, and Lucknow. Elsewhere the entire British
army and administration fell like a house of cards.

One of the most remarkable thing about the rebellion was its solid Hindu-Muslim unity. The Hindu
sepoys of Meerut and Delhi, unanimously proclaimed Bahadur Shah as their Emperor. All the sepoys,
whether Hindu or Muslim. accepted the suzerainty of the Emperor and gave the call "chalo Delhi"
(onward to Delhi) after their revolt. Hindus and Muslims fought together and died together. Wherever
the sepoys reached, cow-slaughter was banned as a mark of respect to the sentiments of the Hindus.

THE REBELLION IN DELHI

The kernel of the revolt in Delhi for the sepoys was at Shajahanabad, and for the British it was the
rocky eminence of the Aravallis, known as the northern Ridge, where the British cantonments
were located. There was massive destruction of architecture and ways of using the architecture in
Delhi.

Delhi, prior to the British invasion, was a Mughal empire, and so the sepoys and rebels attacked all
forms of British power and private property, which included the Delhi Bank in the Chandni
Chowk, houses of Europeans in localities like Daryaganj and the Kashmir bazaar, Metcalfe
House where Theophilus Metcalfe, the Joint Magistrate, lived, and the British army
cantonments…etc. Apart from these, the symbols of British power and wealth such as the treasury
which was plundered and it’s contents returned to the king, the jail whose prisoners were released,
and the Main Guard captured by mutinous soldiers as it adjacent to the Kashmiri gate, which was
an important point for connecting the walled city and the cantonments.

The rebels tried to seize the powder magazines as well. The smaller one, located inside the city
known as the Expense Magazine was blown up by the British. However, the main magazine (with
a 1000 barrels of powder), situated ourisde the city, in the banks of the Yamuna river was
successfully captured.

The revolt had an ideological ground, wherein even the Church property that was evocative of the
British religious sentiments, were attacked. Eg: the first church built in 1837 in Delhi, the St. James
church (See, Hibbert 1978). Further, the Baptist mission of Delhi, resulted in the killing of two
British ministers and the first Indian resident of the city who had been converted by the mission, Dr
Chaman Lal.

The British Loot of Delhi happened between September-December 1857, when four military
columns simultaneously attacked the city. The army was allowed three continuous days of
unrestricted loot, after which the property of Delhi residents came to be legally treated as prize
and official digging tickets were given to specially appointed Prize Agents. British soldiers
plundered whatever they could find in the Red Fort, such as portable artefacts, ranging from the
jewels, weapons and the clothes of royal family to in situ marble slabs and inlay work. The Delhi
loot also reached England, since a large number of British non-commissioned officers and soldiers
bought their collection following the end of the revolt. Eg: the rare pietra dura panels that formed
the backdrop to the throne

of the emperor in the Hall of General Audience (Diwan'i Am) in the Red Fort, were taken away by
Captain John Jones in 1857 , and was later included in the Indian collection of artefacts in the
Victoria and Albert Museum.

Architectural changes made to the Red Fort:

Inside: Major clearances were made in it’s interior for the occupation of the fort by the European
barracks and other regiments (Secretary Punjab 1863). The grounds were levelled, the debris from
this was used as glacis around the fort walls. Many minor buildings of less value were demolished.
Barracks were constructed in large parts of the Fort while historic buildings were converted to suit
the functions of the garrison there. Officers were quartered in the drum house (Naqar Khana). The
Zafar Mahal was used as a bath for soldiers. Wooden doors and iron gratings were put up in
the Hall of General Audience (Diwan'i Am). Cookhouses, privies, and urinals were built in
various parts of the historic complex, near the Zafar Mahal.

Outside: It involved the clearance of buildings within a 450-yard limit from its walls, for military
reasons. Examples include the Akbarabadi mosque (built by one of Shah Jahan’s woves under her
name, Urdu bazar and Khas bazar through which the emperor would pass to go to Jama Masjid,
and the S'a-ad-ullah Khan square (Prime Minister of Shah Jahan).
Internal desacralization involved city mosques as well. Eg: The Jama Masjid was closed for
worship for five years, and was given to the Sikh soldiers to be used as barracks by them. Likewise,
the Zinat-Ul—Masjid, which was to the south of the fort, was converted into a bakery and used as
a dwelling place.

Changes in the rural and village areas of Delhi:

The British confiscated a large number of plots of agricultural land from thirty-three villages of
Delhi such as: Alipur, Chandrawal, Kotla Mubarakpur, Mehrauli, Indraprastha, Palam, Raisina, and
Wazirabad (Gupta 1981), citing reasons such as plundering the cantonments and the high roads
during war (Temple, 1858). A great deal of this land was given as reward for 'loyal service' or was
bought by persons who were not the residents of the villages, thus changing the social geography of
Delhi.

British memoralization of the revolt in Delhi:

The British commemorated their victory by instilling graves, and epitaphs of those who valiantly
fought for the glorious sacrifice to their country and lost their lives in the defense of the honor of
their beloved Queen and country in avenging their murdered countrymen and women. Ironically, a
separate military cemetery for the British army men who died in the revolt, was not set up,
marking intra-racial and classist differences in honoring their own men for winning the revolt.
Examples also include the epitaphs of the Europeans and natives whose names are not mentioned
like that of the high-ranking British officials who died in the war. Out of the 1,029 army men who
perished, only forty-seven are specifically mentioned. Further, as part of the Baptist mission, funds
were collected to build a church in the memory of the English and Indian Christians who lost
their lives on the outbreak of the revolt (the St Stephen's Memorial Church).

Impact:

There was an imperial assemblage after twenty years (in 1877) celebrating the new title of Queen
Victoria in 1876- that of Empress of India. The grand gathering organized by the ‘Firangis’ was
held in Delhi, although Calcutta was the nerve center of British India, as the Delhi city represented
the erstwhile Mughal capital, upon which the Queen’s sovereignty is to imply to. It was planned to
re-arouse the victory of the British in the mutiny of 1857, wherein on one side, there was the ridge
of the British cantonment and on the other, Nujufgarh Canal that formed the rear of the besieging
force (Wheeler 1982).
The assemblage was part of a policy to develop better ties between Indians, especially the 'native'
aristocracy of the country, and the Crown; and to ‘undo’ the damage that had been inflicted on
Muslim sentiment in Delhi in 1857. This resulted in the opening up of the Zinat-Ul-Masjid and
the Fatepuri Masjid for public worship. In the latter case, the son of Chunna Mal, Umarao
Singh, was paid more than a lakh rupee of compensation to transfer the shops, and quadrangle to
the Muslims (Deputy Commissioner 1877). However, this did not mean a return to the pre-mutiny
times. Eg: Jamma Masjid though was reopened for worship in November 1862, The government
also reserved the right to resume possession if the managers of the mosques failed to act upon the
stipulated conditions.

Another imperial assemblage was organized by Curzon for the coronation of King Edward VII as
the Emperor of India, 25 years later in January 1903. Like the first assemblage, these rituals too
invoked the feelings of the 1857 revolt. Eg: An amphitheater was constructed along Lord Lytton’s
Darbar, which stood at the site where the British fought the rebels in 1857; A prominent place in the
Darbar was assigned to the mutiny survivors of the Britishers who fought in Delhi and Lucknow.

Like the first assemblage, there were policies taken to mitigate the destruction wreaked by the
whites at the structures and people of Delhi. Eg: In the Red Fort, structural restorations by the
Archaeological Survey of India were undertaken with Darbar funds, simultaneously at the time
of the second assemblage, which explains the British intention to create a beneficent imperial
identity.

Post-Independence Impact:

Delhi witnessed a huge change in the cultural, social and political background since the onset of the
independence and the partition of India and Pakistan, particularly as Delhi is traditionally a Mughal
state. This led to s a massive transfer of population - nearly 500,000 refugees arrived in the city
while as many as 330,000 Muslims left Delhi. The demographic changes, led the earlier rural
settlers of Delhi during the colonial rule, to demand back their lands in the villages hat were
confiscated by the British during the revolt of 1857. Such demands were made by the villages of
Chowkri, Mubarakbad, Wazirpur, Khampur and Chandrawal (Deputy Commissioner 1948).

Indian memorialization:

Indians in general, have shown apathy toward the British’s ‘brave’ conceptualization of the epitaphs
in India for their men who fought in the 1857 revolt. One example, is that of the
Nicholson/Kashmiri Gate cemetery, wherein during the 1947 disturbances, the cemetery and the
graves there were badly damaged by refugees who were encamped in that area (High Commissioner
1963). In 1956 again, the cemetery was deliberately vandalized by a milk seller called
Bhooran/Bhawaran Singh, who damaged, broke, and upturned nearly 200 graves. He was charged
with hurting the sentiments of Christians by breaking their tombstones.

Apart from an from the aggressive “Hindustanis” displaying their anger on the colonial rule and it’s
memories by destroying their graves, tombs, churches, and architectural developments, the Indian
government too tried to alter the narrative of the epitaphs that the British had constituted in their
graves in India, and has thus given a vociferous reply of truth against the colonial
conceptualizations of their ‘victorious’ revolt. Eg: The Mutiny Memorial on the Northern Ridge,
whose inscription on the monument at the entrance read: “For those martyrs who rose and fought
against the British during 1857 AD,” was changed after independence by the government to, “The
enemy of the inscriptions on this monument were those who rose against colonial rule,” thus
challenging the British perspective of commemorating the revolt.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The revolt of 1857 was a crucial one for the British to impose their superiority over the Indians, by
taking control of the nerve centers of uprisings by the rebels such as Delhi, Kanpur, Jhansi, Awadh,
and Bihar. They realized that the uprisings in different parts of North India, followed the ones in
Delhi as it was the hub of the perceived Emperor of India and felt the need to control Delhi first,
in order to “save” the rest of India faster.

The British destroyed the mosques during the rebellion probably because of their subordinate role in
the previous “resident” system from 1803-1857, which was a form of ‘dyarchy’ wherein the Delhi
was ruled both by the Mughal Emperor and the British East India Company (although the masses
considered the Mughals to be the sovereign rulers of Delhi. The British thereby sought both
revenge on the Mughal rulers and the widening of misconceptions and unity amongst the
Hindus and Muslims through their demolition and confiscation of mosques, and their handing over
to Sikh soldiers (in the case of the Jama Masjid), and other Hindu merchants and commoners (Eg:
Fatehpuri mosque to Chunna Mal, one of the richest Hindu merchants in Delhi), to achieve a
stronger hold on the Indian subjects.

The “nationalization of the revolt”, in the memorialization of it by the Indian government through
its establishment of the freedom museum of India's Freedom Struggle. Inaugurated in
September 1995 in the Red Fort in Delhi, it is an example of how scanty attention has been paid
to the remembrance of the ‘local’ leaders and rebels of Delhi who have led the revolt.
In the light of the recent researches on the mutiny of 1857, it can be understood that the revolt was
not just limited to North India, and was beginning to ignite in the southern parts as well such as
the Malabar district of the Madras presidency (Eg: U Shumais, 2017). But the British tried to
create rumors such as calling the revolt in North India as the “Bengal sepoy mutiny”, to prevent
it’s spread to the southern areas. This fear later made them rule directly through the crown after the
suppression of the revolt, leading to major policy changes pertaining to the reorganization of the
army, internal and security concerns, while upholding their divide and rule policy to break the
Hindu-Muslim unity to instill a beneficent imperial authority for another 60 years of unhindered
oppressive colonial rule in India.

A lot of scholars have written on the nature of the revolt of 1857, wherein the nationalists such as
VD Savarkar called it “The First War of independence”’; the Indians who have offered a Marxist
perspective such as Tapati Roy and Rudrangshu Mukherjee, have regarded it as a “peasant
revolt”, and as a “mass people’s resistance” respectively; While others like Rajat Ray has
described the revolt as a “race war” (between the dominant race of the whites and the subordinate
one of the Indians), “patriotic war” (focusing on the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood, of what he
termed as “inchoate social nationality”), and “religious war” (between the ‘true’ religions of
Hinduism and Islam, and the false one of Christianity). Therefore, the mutiny of 1857 must be
carefully and contextually analyzed before restricting it with epigrams such as “Sepoy”, “North-
Indian Revolt of 1857”, “Delhi uprising of 1957”….etc, as the very essence of the uprisings across
India at that epoch were characterized by numerous ways in which the Indian people perceived the
British rule.

THE DEFEAT

The British captured Delhi on 20 September, 1857. Even before this the rebels had suffered many
reverses in Kanpur, Agra, Lucknow and some other places. These earlier reverses did not dampen the
rebel's spirits. But the fall of Delhi, on the other hand, struck a heavy blow to them. It now became
clear why the British concentrated with so much attention to retain Delhi at all cost. And for this they
suffered heavily both in men and material. In Delhi, Emperor Bahadur Shah was taken a prisoner and
the royal princes were captured, and butchered. One by one, all the great leaders of the revolt fell.
Nana Sahe), was defeated at Kanpur after which the escaped to Nepal early in 1859 and nothing was
heard of him afterwards.

Tatya Tope escaped into the jungles of central India where he carried on bitter guerrilla warfare until
April 1859when he was betrayed by a zamindar friend and captured while asleep. H e was hurriedly
tried and put to death on 15th April, 1859. The Rani of Jhansi died on the field of battle oh 17th June,
1858. By 1859, Kunwar Singh, Bakht Khan, Khan Bahadur Khan of Bareilly, Maulavi Ahmadullah
were all dead, while the Begum of A wadh escaped to Nepal. By the end of 1859, the British authority
over India was reestablished, fully and firmly.

CAUSES OF FAILURE

A. Lack of a Unified Programme and Ideology

The leaders had no forward-looking plan in mind. The uprising was scheduled to be held on 31st May
1857, which was known only to the leaders of each organizational centre and three officers of
each of the regiments. But certain events - (i) Mangal Pandey was tried and was ordered to be
hanged, (ii) the soldiers of 19th and 34th Indian regiments were disbanded, (iii) the Subedar of 34th
regiment was hanged, made the Indian soldiers impatient for the rebellion and launch sudden attacks
on the British. The rebellion swept off the British system of government and administration in India.
But the rebels did not know what to create in its place! This made them rely on the outmoded feudal
system with Bahadur Shah at its head. The other prominent leaders of rebellion like, Nana Saheb,
Begum of Awadh, Rani of Jhansi, etc., were also representatives of the old feudal world, who fought
for their own interests. This system had lost its vitality and was unable to withstand the onslaught
of the British. It was because of the failure of these rulers, that the British had earlier been able to
conquer almost the whole of India. Reliance on these elements made it difficult for the rebel forces
to create a new sense of unity among the Indian people which alone could have created a viable
alternative to the British rule.

B. Lack of Unity Among Indians, and the local nature of the Revolt:

no broad based unity among the Indian people could emerge. While sepoys of the Bengal army were
revolting, some soldiers in Panjab and south India fought on the side of the British to crush these
rebellions. Similarly, there were no accompanying rebellions in most of eastern and southern India.
The areas affected were the Punjab, the United Provinces, Rohilkhand, Oudh, the Territory
between the Narmada and the Chambal and the Western parts of Bengal and Bihar on the
North-East. There were also many dangerous outbursts of feelings at Hyderabad, the Nizam's
Capital. Central and Eastern Bengal were undisturbed, and Nepal rendered the British valuable
assistance in putting down the revolt. The Sikhs also did not support the rebels. All these groups
had their reasons to do so. The possibility of the revival of Mughal authority created a fear among the
Sikhs who had faced so much oppression at the hands of the Mughals. Similarly, the Rajput chieftains
in Rajasthan and Nizam in Hyderabad were so much harassed by the Marathas that they dreaded the
revival of Maratha power. Besides this, there were some elements of the peasantry that had profited
from the British rule. They supported the British during the revolt. The zamindar of Bengal
Presidency were the creation of the British; and had all the reasons to support them. The same applied
to the big merchants of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras who did not go over to the rebels but supported
the British.

C. Lack of Support from the Educated Indians

The modern educated Indians also did not support the revolt because, in their view, the revolt was
backward-looking. This educated middle class was the product of the British system of education and
they believed mistakenly that the British would lead the country towards modernisation.

D. Disunity Among the Leaders

The main problem however, was lack of unity in the ranks of rebels themselves. Their leaders were
suspicious and jealous of each other and often indulged in petty quarrels. The Begum of Awadh, for
example, quarrelled with Maulavi Ahmadullah, and the Mughal princes with the sepoy-
generals. Azimullah, the political adviser of the Nana Saheb, asked him not to visit Delhi lest he
be overshadowed by the Emperor Bahadur Shah. Thus, selfishness and narrow perspective of the
leaders sapped the strength of the revolt and prevented its consolidation. Maulana Abdul Kalam
Azad claimed that there were no ‘masterminds’ behind the revolt, and that spies such as Molvi Raza
Ali was recruited to look inti the moves of the British, but the British’s unity amongst it’s leaders,
and supremacy won them the won and the rule of India for 60 more years!

E. Military Superiority of the British

Another major factor for the defeat of the rebels was the British superiority in arms. The British
imperialism, at the height of its power the world over and supported by most of the Indian princes
and chiefs, proved militarily too strong for the rebels. While the rebels were lacking in discipline and
a central command, the British continued to have a constant supply of disciplined soldiers, war
materials and money from British. Sheer courage could not win against a powerful and determined
enemy who planned its strategy skilfully. Because of ill-discipline the rebels lost more men and
material than the British in every encounter. Many sepoys, seeing that the British had an upper hand.
left for their villages.

IMPACT

Despite the fact that the revolt of 1857failed, it gave a severe jolt to the British administration in
India. The structure and policies of the re-established British rule were, in many respect, drastically
changed.

A. Transfer of Power

The first major change was that the power to govern India passed from the East India Company to
the British Crown through an Act of 1858. Wow a Secretary of State for India aided by a Council was
to be responsible for the governance of India. Earlier this authority was wielded by the Directors of
the Company.

B. Changes in Military Organisation

The second drastic change was effected in the army Steps were taken to prevent any further revolt by
the Indian soldiers. Firstly, the number of European soldiers was increased and fixed at one European
to two Indian soldiers in Bengal Army and two to five in Bombay and Madras armies. Moreover, the
European troops were kept in key geographical and military positions. The crucial branches of the
army like artillery were put exclusively European hands.

Secondly, the organisation of the Indian section of the army was now based on the policy of "divide
and rule". Regiments were created on the basis of caste, community and region to prevent the
development of any nationalistic feeling among the soldiers.

C. Divide and Rule

This policy of "divide and rule" was also introduced in the civilian population. Since the British
thought that the revolt was a conspiracy hatched by the Muslims the latter were severely punished
and discriminations made against them in public appointments and in other areas. This policy was
later reversed and a belated appeasement of Muslims began. A policy of preferential treatment of
the Muslims was adopted towards the end of the 19th century. These policies created problems for
Indian freedom struggle, and contributed to the growth of communalism.

D. New Policy towards the Princes

Another important change was in the British policies towards the Princely states. The earlier policy
of annexation was now abandoned and the rulers of these states were now authorised to adopt heirs.
This was done as a reward to those native rulers who had remained loyal to the British during the
revolt. However, this authority of the Indian rulers over particular territories was completely
subordinated to the authority of the British and they were converted into a Board of privileged
dependents.

SUMMARY

The events of 1857, which we have discussed in the Unit are important not only because they
represented the crystallisation of popular feelings against the alien rule but also because of the many
changes that they produced in the country. These changes pertained not only to the policy formulation
and the political structure but also to popular beliefs, ideas, and attitudes regarding the nature of
British rule. The invincibility of the British rule was shattered once for all and the stage was set for
an organised and long drawn out struggle against the alien rule. This led to the beginning of the
National Movement which ultimately, ended the foreign rule and brought independence to the country
in 1947.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Clare (2007), Indian Uprising of 1857–8: Prisons, Prisoners and Rebellion, New York:
Anthem Press, p. 217

Hibbert, Christopher (1980), The Great Mutiny: India 1857, London: Allen Lane, p. 472

Ray, Rajat Kanta (2002), The Felt Community: Commonality and Mentality before the Emergence of
Indian Nationalism, Oxford University Press, p. 596
Stokes, Eric (1980), The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in
Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, p. 316

Gautam Bhadra. 1987. ‘Four Rebels of Eighteen-Fifty- Seven’, Subaltern Studies, IV. Oxford
University Press, Delhi.

Rudrangshu Mukherjee. 1984. Awadh in Revolt, 1857-58. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Tapti Roy. 2006. Raj of the Rani. Penguin, New Delhi.

Lahiri, Nayanjot. “Commemorating and Remembering 1857: The Revolt in Delhi and Its Afterlife.” World
Archaeology, vol. 35, no. 1, 2003, pp. 35–60, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3560211. Accessed 10 Apr. 2022.