| Revision as of 10:48, 11 May 2007 view source220.225.0.52 (talk) →Prophecies, omens and signs← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:50, 11 May 2007 view source RaiderAspect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,352 edits Indian Mutiny is a common term for the conflict. This has been gone over to death.Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} | {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} | ||
| {{Wikisource1911Enc|Indian Mutiny}} | {{Wikisource1911Enc|Indian Mutiny}} | ||
| The '''Indian Rebellion of 1857''', often known as the '''First War of Indian Independence''' (Hindi: १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम),<sup>]</sup> was a period of armed uprisings against ] of the ] in India between early 1857 and mid 1858. It was concentrated mainly in north central India, with some outbreaks elsewhere. Small precursors of brewing discontent involving incidences of ] in ] areas began to manifest themselves in January 1857. Later, a large-scale rebellion broke out in May and turned into what may be called a full-fledged war in the affected regions. This war brought about the end of the ]'s rule in India, and led to direct rule by the British government (]) of much of the Indian subcontinent for the next 90 years, although ] retained nominal independence under their respective ]s, or kings. | The '''Indian Rebellion of 1857''', often known as the '''Indian Mutiny''' and the '''First War of Indian Independence''' (Hindi: १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम),<sup>]</sup> was a period of armed uprisings against ] of the ] in India between early 1857 and mid 1858. It was concentrated mainly in north central India, with some outbreaks elsewhere. Small precursors of brewing discontent involving incidences of ] in ] areas began to manifest themselves in January 1857. Later, a large-scale rebellion broke out in May and turned into what may be called a full-fledged war in the affected regions. This war brought about the end of the ]'s rule in India, and led to direct rule by the British government (]) of much of the Indian subcontinent for the next 90 years, although ] retained nominal independence under their respective ]s, or kings. | ||
| == Brief history of British expansion in India == | == Brief history of British expansion in India == | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| ===Prophecies, omens and signs=== | ===Prophecies, omens and signs=== | ||
| Another rumour that spread was an old prophecy that the ]'s rule would end after a hundred years. Their rule in India had begun with the ] in 1757. ]es and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "''Sub lal |
Another rumour that spread was an old prophecy that the ]'s rule would end after a hundred years. Their rule in India had begun with the ] in 1757. ]es and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "''Sub lal hogea hai.''" (Everything has become Red.), passed around by people from town to town and village to village, as a symbol of the prophecy and a sign of the coming revolt.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | ||
| == Start of the war == | == Start of the war == | ||
Revision as of 10:50, 11 May 2007
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
The Indian Rebellion of 1857, often known as the Indian Mutiny and the First War of Indian Independence (Hindi: १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम), was a period of armed uprisings against colonial authority of the East India Company in India between early 1857 and mid 1858. It was concentrated mainly in north central India, with some outbreaks elsewhere. Small precursors of brewing discontent involving incidences of arson in cantonment areas began to manifest themselves in January 1857. Later, a large-scale rebellion broke out in May and turned into what may be called a full-fledged war in the affected regions. This war brought about the end of the British East India Company's rule in India, and led to direct rule by the British government (British Raj) of much of the Indian subcontinent for the next 90 years, although some states retained nominal independence under their respective Rajas, or kings.
Brief history of British expansion in India
The British East India Company won the power of Diwani in Bengal after winning the Battle of Plassey in 1757, under Robert Clive. Their victory in the Battle of Buxar in 1764 won them the Nizamat of Bengal as well. Following the Permanent Settlement of Bengal shortly thereafter, the Company began to vigorously expand its area of control in India.
In 1845 the Company managed to extend its control over Sindh province after a gruelling and bloody campaign (of Napier's 'Peccavi' fame). In 1848 the Second Anglo-Sikh War took place and the Company gained control of the Punjab as well in 1849, after the British India Army won a hard-fought victory against the Khalsa Army, who were betrayed by the Kashmiri Dogra Ministers Lal Singh and Gulab Singh (who were not Sikhs). Lal Singh was a Sikh and not a Dogra while Gulab Singh was not a minister of the Lahore government but hereditary ruler of Jammu, an allied princely state. None of the other Sikh princely rulers assisted the Lahore government. To show their appreciation the British made Gulab Singh the Maharaja of Kashmir which was part of Punjab. Gulab Singh was already a maharaja of Jammu and Ladakh and the British sold him the province of Kashmir for 75 lakhs. In 1853 the adopted son of Baji Rao the last Maratha Peshwa, Nana Sahib was denied his titles and his pension was stopped.
In 1854 Berar was annexed into the Company's domains. In 1856 the state of Awadh/Oudh was also annexed by the Company.
Causes
The rebellion or the war for independence had diverse political, economic, military, religious and social causes.
The sepoys (from shepai, Bengali for soldier, used for native Indian soldiers) of the Bengal Army had their own list of grievances against the Company Raj, mainly caused by the ethnic gulf between the British officers and their Indian troops. It was also rumoured that the British had started to issue new gunpowder cartridges that had cow and pig fat on them, which insulted both Hindus and Muslims. Other than Indian units of the British East India Company's army, much of the resistance came from the old aristocracy, who were seeing their power steadily eroded under the British.
Frictions
Some Indians came to believe that the British intended to convert them either by force or by deception (e.g. causing them to lose caste) to Christianity. This view was perhaps not entirely unfounded, as the British religious fashion of the time was Evangelism, and many East India Company officers took it upon themselves to try to convert their Sepoys. This was strongly discouraged by the Company, which was aware of the potential for religion to become a flashpoint.
The Doctrine of Lapse, part of the British policy of expansionism, was also greatly resented. If a feudal ruler did not leave a male heir through natural process i.e. their own child, not an adopted one, the land became the property of the British East India Company. In eight years Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor-General of India, had annexed many kingdoms including Jhansi, Awadh or Oudh, Satara, Nagpur and Sambalpur, adding up to a quarter of a million square miles (650,000 km²) of land to the Company's territory. Nobility, feudal landholders, and royal armies found themselves unemployed and humiliated. Even the jewels of the royal family of Nagpur were publicly auctioned in Calcutta, a move that was seen as a sign of abject disrespect by the remnants of the Indian aristocracy. In addition the Bengal army of the East India Company drew many recruits from Awadh; they could not remain unaffected by the discontent back home.
Indians were unhappy with the heavy-handed rule of the British which had embarked on a project of rather rapid expansion and westernisation, that, however well-meaning they may have been, were imposed without any regard for Indian tradition or culture. For example changes introduced by the British, such as outlawing Sati (the ritual burning of widows) and child marriage, were prohibitions on Indian religious customs and seen as steps towards a forced conversion to Christianity.
The justice system was considered inherently unfair to the Indians. In 1853, the British Prime Minister Lord Aberdeen opened the Indian Civil Service to native Indians; however, this was viewed by some of educated India as an insufficient reform. The official Blue Books — entitled "East India (Torture) 1855–1857" — that were laid before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857, revealed that Company officers were allowed an extended series of appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against Indians. The Company also practised financial extortion through heavy taxation. Failure to pay these taxes almost invariably resulted in appropriation of property.
Many of the Company's modernising efforts were viewed with automatic distrust; for example, it was feared that the railway, the first of which began running out of Bombay in the 1850s, was a demon.
However, some historians have suggested that the impact of these reforms has been greatly exaggerated, as the British did not have the resources to enforce them, meaning that away from Calcutta their effect was negligible. This was not the view taken by the British themselves after 1857: instead they scaled down their programme of reform, increased the racial distance between Europeans and native Indians, and also sought to appease the gentry and princely families, especially Muslim, who had been major instigators of the 1857 revolt. After 1857, Zamindari (regional feudal officials) became more oppressive, the Caste System became more pronounced, and the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims became marked and visible, which some historians argue was due in great part to British efforts to keep Indian society divided. This tactic has become known as Divide and rule.
Another important reason for the rebellion was the unfair attitude towards the Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general of India at the time had insulted the Emperor by asking him to leave the Red Fort. The governor-general also said that his successors would also have to leave the Red Fort. Later, Lord Canning, the next governor-general of India, announced in 1856 that Bahadur Shah's successors would not even be allowed to use the title of the king. Such discourtesies were resented by the people and the Indian rulers.
Economics
The British East India Company was a massive export company that was the force behind much of the colonization of India. The power of the Company took nearly 150 years to build. As early as 1693, the annual expenditure in political "gifts" to men in power reached nearly 90,000 pounds. In bribing the Government, the Company was allowed to operate in overseas markets despite the fact that the cheap imports of South Asian silk, cotton, and other products hurt domestic business. By 1767, the Company was forced into an agreement to pay 400,000 pounds into the National Exchequer annually.
By 1848, however, the Company's financial difficulties had reached a point where expanding revenue required expanding British territories in South Asia massively. The Company began to set aside adoption rights of native princes and began the process of annexation of more than a dozen independent Rajas between 1848 and 1854. In an article published in The New York Daily Tribune on July 28, 1857, Karl Marx notes that "... in 1854 the Raj of Berar, which comprise 80,000 square miles of land, a population from four to five million, and enormous treasures, was forcibly seized".
In order to consolidate and control these new holdings, a well-established army of 200,000 Indians officered by 40,000 British soldiers dominated India by 1857. The last vestiges of independent Indian states had disappeared and the Company exported untold quantities of gold, jewels, silver, silk, cotton, and a host of other precious materials back to England every year. This extraordinary quantity of wealth, much of it collected as 'taxes', was absolutely critical in expanding public and private infrastructure in Britain and in financing British expansionism elsewhere in Asia and Africa. In no uncertain terms, this very wealth funded, in large part, the Industrial Revolution.
The land was reorganised under the comparatively harsh Zamindari system to facilitate the collection of taxes. In certain areas farmers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as indigo, jute, coffee and tea. This resulted in hardship to the farmers and increases in food prices.
Local industry, specifically the famous weavers of Bengal and elsewhere, also suffered under British rule. Import tariffs were kept low, according to traditional British free-market sentiments, and thus the Indian market was flooded with cheap clothing from Britain. Indigenous industry simply could not compete, and where once India had produced much of England's luxury cloth, the country was now reduced to growing cotton which was shipped to Britain to be manufactured into clothing, which was subsequently shipped back to India to be purchased by Indians.
The Indians felt that the British were levying very heavy taxation on the locals. This included an increase in the taxation on land.
Sepoys
Sepoys were native Indian soldiers (also called Sowars in cavalry units) serving in the armies of the British East India Company under British officers trained in the East India Company College at Addiscombe, the company's own military school in England. The presidencies of Bombay, Madras and Bengal maintained their own army each with its own commander-in-chief. Together, they fielded more troops than the official army of the British Empire. In 1857 there were 257,000 Indian troops.
Unlike the Bombay and Madras Armies, which were far more diverse, the Bengal Army recruited its regular soldiers almost exclusively amongst the landowning Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs of the Ganges Valley. Partly owing to this, Bengal Sepoys were not subject to the penalty of flogging as were the British soldiers. Caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army were not merely tolerated but encouraged in the early years of the Company's Rule. 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. In 1851-2 sepoys were required to serve overseas during a war in Burma. Hindu tradition states that those who 'travel the black waters' (Kala Pani) will lose their caste and be outside the Hindu community. The Sepoys were thus very displeased with their deployment to Burma.
The sepoys gradually became dissatisfied with various aspects of army life. Their pay was relatively low and after Awadh and the Punjab were annexed, the soldiers no longer received extra pay (batta) for service there, because they were no longer considered "foreign missions". Finally, officers of an evangelical persuasion in the Company's Army (such as Herbert Edwardes and Colonel S.G. Wheeler) had taken to preaching to their Sepoys in the hope of converting them to Christianity. The controversy over the new Enfield Rifle, in the eyes of many Sepoys, added substance to the alarming rumours circulating about their imminent forced conversion to Christianity.
In 1857, the Bengal Army contained 10 regiments of Indian cavalry and 74 of infantry. All the cavalry units and 45 of the infantry units mutinied at some point; and all but 5 of the infantry units which did not mutiny (or were disarmed before they could do so) had to be disbanded. Once the first mutinies took place, it was clear to most British commanders that the grievances which led to it were felt throughout the Bengal army and no Indian unit could wholly be trusted. Whether a unit mutinied or not depended on opportunity.
The Bengal Army also controlled, sometimes loosely, 29 regiments of irregular horse and 42 of irregular infantry. Some of these units were raised in frontier areas to maintain order locally. Others previously belonged to states absorbed into British-administered territory. Of these, two large contingents from the states of Awadh and Gwalior readily joined the growing rebellion. On the other hand, few of the frontier units did so, and two groups in particular (the few Gurkha units from Nepal and 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. There were also a number of units from the British Army (referred to in India as Queen's troops), but in 1857 several of these had been withdrawn to take part in the Crimean War. 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
The mutiny was, literally, 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 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 breach 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 cartridge case, which was typically paper coated with some kind of grease to make it waterproof, into the musket as wadding, before loading it with a ball.
A rumour spread that the cartridges that were standard issue with this rifle were greased with lard (pork fat) which was regarded as unclean by Muslims, or tallow (beef fat), regarded as sacred to Hindus. A Hindu who ate cows' flesh would lose caste, with dreadful consequences both in the present life and the next.
The sepoys' British officers dismissed these claims as rumours, and suggested that the sepoys make a batch of fresh cartridges, and grease these with beeswax or mutton fat. This, not too surprisingly, reinforced the rumour 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 troops to fire three to four rounds per minute. An integral part of the loading procedure involved biting off the bullet from the cartridge so that one hand could hold the musket steady whilst the other hand poured the charge of powder into the barrel. 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 Commander in Chief in India, General George Anson reacted to this crisis by saying, "I'll never give in to their beastly prejudices", and despite the pleas of his junior officers he did not compromise.
Prophecies, omens and signs
Another rumour that spread was an old prophecy that the Company's rule would end after a hundred years. Their rule in India had begun with the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Chapaties and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "Sub lal hogea hai." (Everything has become Red.), passed around by people from town to town and village to village, as a symbol of the prophecy and a sign of the coming revolt.
Start of the war
Several months of increasing tension and inflammatory incidents preceded the actual rebellion. Fires, possibly the result of arson, broke out near Calcutta on 24 January 1857. On February 26, 1857 the 19th Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) regiment came to know about new cartridges and refused to use them. Their Colonel confronted them angrily with artillery and cavalry on the parade ground, but then accepted their demand to withdraw the artillery, and cancel the next morning's parade.
Mangal Pandey
Main article: Mangal PandeyOn March 29, 1857 at the Barrackpore (now Barrackpur) parade ground, near Calcutta, Mangal Pandey of the 34th BNI attacked and injured the adjutant Lt. Baugh with a sword after shooting at him, but instead hitting his horse.
General John Hearsey came out to see him on the parade ground, and claimed later that Mangal Pandey was in some kind of "religious frenzy". He ordered a Jemadar Ishwari Prasad to arrest Mangal Pandey, but the Jemadar refused. The whole regiment with the single exception of a soldier called Shaikh Paltu drew back from restraining or arresting Mangal Pandey.
Mangal Pandey, after failing to incite his comrades into an open and active rebellion, tried to take his own life by placing his musket to his chest, and pulling the trigger with his toe. He only managed to wound himself, and was court-martialled on April 6. He was hanged on April 8.
The Jemadar Ishwari Prasad too was sentenced to death and hanged on April 22. The whole regiment was disbanded - stripped of their uniforms because it was felt that they harboured ill-feelings towards their superiors, particularly after this incident. Shaikh Paltu was, however, promoted to the rank of Jemadar in the Bengal Army.
Sepoys in other regiments thought this a very harsh punishment. The show of disgrace while disbanding contributed to the extent of the rebellion in view of some historians, as disgruntled ex-sepoys returned home back to Awadh with a desire to inflict revenge, as and when the opportunity arose.
April saw fires at Agra, Allahabad and Ambala.
3rd Light Cavalry at Meerut
On 9 May, 85 troopers of the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry at Meerut refused to use their cartridges. They were imprisoned, sentenced to ten years of hard labour, and stripped of their uniforms in public. Malleson records that the troops were constantly berated by their imprisoned comrades while processing on a long and humiliating march to the jail. It was this insult by their own comrades which provoked the mutiny. The sepoys knew it was very likely that they would also be asked to use the new cartridges and they too would have to refuse in order to save their caste, religion and social status. Since their comrades had acted only in deference to their religious beliefs the punishment meted out by the British colonial rulers was perceived as unjust by many.
When the 11th and 20th native cavalry of the Bengal Army assembled in Meerut on 10 May, they broke rank and turned on their commanding officers. They then liberated the 3rd Regiment and attacked the European cantonment where they are reported to have killed all the Europeans they could find, including women and children, and burned their houses. There are however some contemporary British accounts that suggest that some sepoys escorted their officers to safety and then rejoined their mutinous comrades. In Malleson's words: "It is due to some of them to state that they did not quit Meerut before they had seen to a place of safety those officers whom they most respected. This remark applies specially to the men of the 11th N.I., who had gone most reluctantly into the movement. Before they left, two sipáhís of that regiment had escorted two ladies with their children to the carabineer barracks. They had then rejoined their comrades". Some officers and their families escaped to Rampur, where they found refuge with the Nawab. Despite this, at the time wild rumours circulated about the complete massacre of all Europeans and native Christians at Meerut, the first of many such stories which would lead British forces to extremely violent reprisals against innocent civilians and mutinous sepoys alike during the later suppression of the Revolt.
The rebellious forces were then engaged by the remaining British forces in Meerut. Meerut had the largest percentage of British troops of any station in India: 2,038 European troops with twelve field guns versus 2,357 sepoys lacking artillery. Some commentators believe that the British forces could have stopped the sepoys from marching on Delhi, but the British commanders of the Meerut garrison were extraordinarily slow in reacting to the crisis. They did not even send immediate word to other British cantonments that a rebellion was in process. It seems likely that they believed they would be able to contain the Indians by themselves. This misjudgment would cost them dearly.
Support and opposition
The rebellion now spread beyond the armed forces, but it did not result in a complete popular uprising as its leaders hoped. The Indian side was not completely unified. While Bahadur Shah Zafar was restored to the imperial throne there was a faction that wanted the Maratha rulers to be enthroned as well, and the Awadhis wanted to retain the powers that their Nawab used to have.
The war was mainly centred in northern and central areas of India. Delhi, Lucknow, Cawnpore, Jhansi, Bareilly, Arrah and Jagdishpur were the main centres of conflict. The Bhojpurias of Arrah and Jagdishpur supported the Marathas. The Marathas, Rohillas and the Awadhis supported Bahadur Shah Zafar and were against the British.
There were calls for jihad by some leaders including the millenarian Ahmedullah Shah, taken up by the Muslims, particularly Muslim artisans, which caused the British to think that the Muslims were the main force behind this event. In Awadh, Sunni Muslims did not want to see a return to Shiite rule, so they often refused to join what they perceived to be a Shia rebellion.
In Thana Bhawan, the Sunnis declared Haji Imdadullah their Ameer. In May 1857 the famous Battle of Shamli took place between the forces of Haji Imdadullah and the British.
The Sikhs and Pathans of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province supported the British and helped in the capture of Delhi. The Sikhs wanted to avenge the annexation of Punjab 8 years ago by the British with the help of Purbhais (Bengali's and Marathi's - Easterner) who helped the British.
Most of southern India remained passive with only sporadic and haphazard outbreaks of violence. Most of the states did not take part in the war as many parts of the region were ruled by the Nizams or the Mysore royalty and were thus not directly under British rule.
Initial stages
Bahadur Shah Zafar proclaimed himself the Emperor of the whole of India. Most contemporary and modern accounts however suggest that he was coerced by the sepoys and his courtiers - against his own will - to sign the proclamation. The civilians, nobility and other dignitaries took the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. The Emperor issued coins in his name, one of the oldest ways of asserting Imperial status, and his name was added to the Khutbah, the acceptance by Muslims that he is their King.
Initially, the Indian soldiers were able to significantly push back Company forces. The sepoys captured several important towns in Haryana, Bihar, Central Provinces and the United Provinces. The British forces at Meerut and Ambala held out resolutely and withstood the sepoy attacks for several months.
The British proved to be formidable foes, largely due to their superior weapons, training, and strategy. The sepoys who mutinied were especially handicapped by their lack of a centralised command and control system.
Rao Tularam of Haryana along with Pran Sukh Yadav fought with the British Army at Nasibpur and then went to collect arms from Russia which had just been in a war with the British in the Crimea, but he died on the way. When a tribal leader from Peshawar sent a letter offering help, the king replied that he should not come to Delhi because the treasury was empty and the army had become uncontrollable.
Delhi
The British were slow to strike back at first but eventually two columns left Meerut and Simla. They proceeded slowly towards Delhi and fought, killed, and hanged numerous Indians along the way. At the same time, the British moved regiments from the Crimean War, and diverted European regiments headed for China to India.
After a march lasting two months, the British fought the main army of the rebels near Delhi in Badl-ke-Serai and drove them back to Delhi. The British established a base on the Delhi ridge to the north of the city and the siege began. The siege of Delhi lasted roughly from the 1st of July to the 31st of August. However, the encirclement was hardly complete—the rebels could easily receive resources and reinforcements. Later the British were joined by the Punjab Movable Column of Sikh and Pathan soldiers under John Nicholson and elements of the Gurkha Brigade.
Eagerly-awaited heavy siege guns did not guarantee an easy victory against the numerical superiority of the sepoys. Eventually the British broke through the Kashmiri gate and began a week of street fighting. When the British reached the Red Fort, Bahadur Shah had already fled to Humayun's tomb. The British had retaken the city.
The troops of the besieging force proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens were slaughtered in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian 'collaborators' that had been killed by the rebel sepoys. Artillery was set up in the main mosque in the city and the neighbourhoods within the range of artillery were bombarded. These included the homes of the Muslim nobility from all over India, and contained innumerable cultural, artistic, literary and monetary riches. An example would be the loss of most of the works of Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, thought of as the greatest Indian poet of that era.
The British soon arrested Bahadur Shah, and the next day British officer William Hodson shot his sons Mirza Mughal, Mirza Khizr Sultan, and Mirza Abu Bakr under his own authority at the Khooni Darwaza (the bloody gate) near Delhi Gate. Their heads were reportedly presented to their father the next day.
Cawnpore (Kanpur)
In June, sepoys under General Wheeler in Cawnpore, (now known as Kanpur) rebelled and besieged the European entrenchment. The British endured three weeks of the Siege of Cawnpore with little water or food, suffering continuous casualties to men, women and children. On June 25 the Nana Sahib told British troops to surrender and Wheeler had little choice but to accept. The Nana Sahib promised them safe passage to a secure location but when the British boarded riverboats, firing broke out. Who fired first has remained a matter of debate.
During the march to the boats, loyal sepoys were removed by the mutineers and lynched along with any British officer or soldier that attempted to help them, although these attacks were ignored in an attempt to reach the boats safely. After firing began the boat pilots fled, setting fire to the boats, and the rebellious sepoys opened fire on the British, soldiers and civilians. One boat with over a dozen wounded men initially escaped, however, this boat later grounded, was caught by mutineers and pushed back down the river towards carnage at Cawnpore. The female occupants were removed and taken away as hostages and the men, including the wounded and elderly, were hastily put against a wall and shot. Only four men eventually escaped alive from Cawnpore on one of the boats: two privates (both of whom died later during the mutiny), a Lieutenant, and Captain Mowbray Thomson, who wrote a firsthand account of his experiences entitled The Story of Cawnpore (London) 1859. The history sections of Cawnpore based college libraries with majorly native literature (printed clandestinely by nationalist press during British rule and inducted into institutions after independence) however, explain it differently. They say that Nana Sahib had agreed to let the besieged British leave and arranged for the boats. They had already boarded the boats and Tatya Tope raised his right hand to signal their departure. That very moment someone from the crowd blew a loud bugle which created disorder and in the ongoing bewilderment, the boatmen jumped off the boats. British soldiers and officers. coming straight out of the cantonment, still had their arms and ammunition and they fired shots at these boatmen. Rebels lost all their patience and started shooting indiscriminately. Nana Sahib, who was momentarily staying in Savada Kothi (Bungalow) nearby, got the message and immediately came to stop it. Remaining men were, however, killed to ensure no further unrest.
The surviving women and children from the massacre by the river were led to the Bibi-Ghar (the House of the Ladies) in Cawnpore. On the 15th of July, after noticing the approach of the British forces and believing that they would not advance if there were no hostages to save, their murders were ordered. The other motive to order these killings was to ensure that no information was leaked to the British garrison after the fall of Cawnpore. After the sepoys refused to carry out this order, four butchers from the local market went into the Bibi-Ghar where they proceeded to hack the hostages down with cleavers and hatchets. The victims' bodies, were thrown down a well.
The killing of the women and children proved to be a mistake. The British public was aghast and the pro-Indian proponents lost all their support. Cawnpore became a war cry for the British and their allies for the rest of the conflict. The Nana Sahib disappeared and was never heard of again.
The misinterpretation that British retaliation was ghastly only after Cawnpore & Bibi Ghar is deliberate in some accounts. Other British accounts state that indiscriminate punitive measures were taken much earlier, specifically by Lieutenant Colonel James Neill of the Madras Fusiliers (a European unit), commanding at Allahabad while moving towards Cawnpore, who explicitly ordered all villages beside the Grand Trunk Road to be burned, and their inhabitants to be hanged. Another British source specified that these events happened in early June, two weeks before Bibi-Ghar, while another also states that Neill's methods were "ruthless and horrible" and may well have induced previously undecided sepoys and communities to revolt. Neill was killed in action at Lucknow on September 26 and was never called to account for his actions, though contemporary British sources lionised Neill and his "gallant bluecoats". By contrast with the actions of soldiers under Neill, the behaviour of most rebel soldiers was creditable. "Our creed does not permit us to kill a bound prisoner", one of the matchlockmen explained, "though we can slay our enemy in battle."
When the British retook Cawnpore later, the soldiers took their sepoy prisoners to the Bibi-Ghar and forced them to lick the bloodstains from the walls and floor. They then hanged or "blew from the cannon" the majority of the sepoy prisoners. Although some claimed the sepoys took no actual part in the killings themselves, they did not act to stop it and this was acknowledged by Captain Thompson after the British departed Cawnpore for a second time.
Lucknow
Main article: Siege of Lucknow
Rebellion erupted in the state of Awadh (also known as Oudh, in modern-day Uttar Pradesh) very soon after the events in Meerut. The British commander of Lucknow, Sir Henry Lawrence, had enough time to fortify his position inside the Residency compound. British forces numbered some 1700 men, including loyal sepoys. The rebels initial assaults were unsuccessful, and so they began a barrage of artillery and musket fire into the compound. Lawrence was one of the first casualties. The rebels tried to breach the walls with explosives and bypass them via underground tunnels that led to underground close combat. After 90 days of siege, numbers of British were reduced to 300 loyal sepoys, 350 British soldiers and 550 non-combatants. This action quickly became known as the Siege of Lucknow.
On the September 25 a relief column under the command of Sir Henry Havelock and accompanied by Sir James Outram (who in theory was his superior) fought its way to Lucknow in a brief but well commanded campaign in which the numerically small column defeated Mutineer forces in a series of increasingly large battles. This became known as 'The First Relief of Lucknow', as this force was not strong enough to break the siege or extricate themselves and so was forced to join the garrison. In October another, larger, army under the new Commander-in-Chief, Sir Colin Campbell, was finally able to relieve the garrison and on the 18th of November they evacuated the city, the compound women and children leaving first. They then conducted an orderly withdrawal to now-retaken Cawnpore.
Jhansi
Jhansi was a Maratha-ruled princely state in Bundelkhand. When the Raja of Jhansi died without a male heir in 1853, it was annexed to the British Raj by the Governor-General of India under the Doctrine of Lapse. His widow, Rani Lakshmi Bai, protested that she had not been allowed to adopt a successor, as per Indian custom.
When war broke out, Jhansi quickly became a centre of the rebellion. A small group of British officials and their families took refuge in Jhansi's fort, and the Rani negotiated their evacuation. However, when they left the fort, they were massacred by the rebels. Although the treachery might have occurred without the Rani's consent, the British suspected her of complicity, despite her protestations of innocence.
In September and October 1857, the Rani led the successful defence of Jhansi from the invading armies of the neighbouring rajas of Datia and Orchha. In March 1858, the Central India Field Force, led by Sir Hugh Rose, advanced on and laid siege to Jhansi. The British captured the city, but the Rani fled in disguise.
These events, with significant embellishments, form the basis of John Masters' book, Nightrunners of Bengal.
Other areas
On 1 June 1858, Rani Lakshmi Bai and a group of Maratha rebels captured the fortress city of Gwalior from the Scindia rulers, who were British allies. The Rani died on the 17th of June, the second day of the Battle of Gwalior probably by a carbine shot flying from the 8th Hussars, according to the account of three independent Indian representatives. The British captured Gwalior within the next three days. In descriptions of the scene of her last battle, she was compared to Joan Of Arc by some commentators.
The Rohillas centred in Bareilly were also very active in the war and this area was amongst the last to be captured by the rebels.
Retaliation — "The Devil's Wind"
From the end of 1857, the British had begun to gain ground again. Lucknow was retaken in March 1858. On 8 July 1858, a peace treaty was signed and the war ended. The last rebels were defeated in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. By 1859, rebel leaders Bakht Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled. The British adopted the old Mughal (often rendered Mogul in English) punishment for mutiny and sentenced rebels were lashed to the mouth of cannons and blown to pieces. It was a crude and brutal war, with both sides resorting to what would now be described as war crimes. In the end, however, in terms of sheer numbers, the casualties were significantly higher on the Indian side. A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the "Bombay Telegraph" and subsequently reproduced in the British press testified to the scale of the retaliation:
".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed".
Another brief letter from General Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi exposes how the British military high command approved of the cold blooded massacre of Delhites: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!"
Another comment on the conduct of the British soldiers after the fall of Delhi is of Captain Hodson himself in his book, Twelve years in India: "With all my love for the army, I must confess, the conduct of professed Christians, on this occasion, was one of the most humiliating facts connected with the siege."
Edward Vibart, a nineteen year-old officer, also recorded his experience: "It was literally murder... I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..."
As a result, the end of the war was followed by the execution of a vast majority of combatants from the Indian side as well as large numbers of civilians perceived to be sympathetic to the rebel cause. The British press and British government did not advocate clemency of any kind, though Governor General Canning tried to be sympathetic to native sensibilities, earning the scornful sobriquet "Clemency Canning". Soldiers took very few prisoners and often executed them later. Whole villages were wiped out for apparent pro-rebel sympathies. The Indians called this retaliation "the Devil's Wind."
Reorganisation
The rebellion saw the end of the British East India Company's rule in India. In August, by the Government of India Act 1858, the company was formally dissolved and its ruling powers over India were transferred to the British Crown. A new British government department, the India Office, was created to handle the governance of India, and its head, the Secretary of State for India, was entrusted with formulating Indian policy. The Governor-General of India gained a new title (Viceroy of India), and implemented the policies devised by the India Office. The British colonial administration embarked on a program of reform, trying to integrate Indian higher castes and rulers into the government and abolishing attempts at Westernization.
Militarily, the rebellion transformed both the 'native' and European armies of British India. The British also increased the number of British soldiers in relation to native ones. Regiments which had remained loyal to the British were retained, and Gurkha units, which had been crucial in the Delhi campaign, were increased. The inefficiencies of the old organisation, which had estranged sepoys from their British officers, were addressed, and the post-1857 units were mainly organised on the "irregular" system. Sepoy artillery was abolished also, leaving all artillery (except some small detachments of mountain guns) in British hands. The post-rebellion changes formed the basis of the military organisation of British India until the early twentieth century. The viceroy stopped land grabs, decreed religious tolerance and admitted Indians into civil service, albeit mainly as subordinates. Bahadur Shah was tried for treason by a military commission assembled at Delhi, and exiled to Rangoon where he died in 1862, finally bringing the Mughal dynasty to an end. In 1877 Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of India on the advice of her Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli.
Debate over name of conflict
There is no agreed name for the events of this period,
- In Indian and South Asian it is commonly termed the "War of Independence of 1857", and "First War of Independence" (Hindi: १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम)
- In Britain it is commonly called the "Indian Mutiny", but other terms such as "Great Indian Mutiny", the "Sepoy Mutiny", the "Sepoy Rebellion", the "Great Mutiny", the "Rebellion of 1857" and the "Revolt of 1857" have also been used. William Dalrymple, in his recent work on the event, The Last Mughal, refers to it as "the Uprising".
Although many Indian historians do term it as mutiny as well, on the Indian subcontinent it is commonly referred to as a "War of Independence", and the use of the term "Indian Mutiny" is considered by many as unacceptable and offensive, as it is perceived to belittle what they see as a "First War of Independence" and therefore reflecting a biased, imperialistic attitude of the erstwhile colonists.
For example, in October, 2006, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament said:
The War of 1857 was undoubtedly an epoch-making event in India’s struggle for freedom. For what the British sought to deride as a mere sepoy mutiny was India’s First War of Independence in a very true sense, when people from all walks of life, irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and language, rose against the British rule.
...
Not only did these martyrs give up their lives for the sake of the country’s freedom but also left a message for the future generations --- a message of sacrifice, courage of conviction, a strong belief in the ultimate victory of the people in their war against oppression.
...
With these words, I once again pay my humble tributes to the martyrs of the 1857 War of Independence...
— Chaterjee, Somnath - Office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
Debate over the national character of the rebellion
Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be considered a war of Indian independence or not, although it is popularly considered to be one in India. Arguments against include:
- A united India did not exist at that time in political terms;
- The mutiny was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers drawn from the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments;
A second school of thought while acknowledging the validity of the above-mentioned arguments opines that this rebellion may indeed be called a war of India's independence. The reasons advanced are:
- Even though the rebellion had various causes (e.g. sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the Doctrine of Lapse etc.), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Mughal empire, that signified a national symbol for them, instead of heading home or joining services of their regional principalities, which would not have been unreasonable if their revolt were only inspired by grievances;
The hanging of two participants in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Albumen silver print by Felice Beato, 1858 - There was a widespread popular revolt in many areas such as Awadh, Bundelkhand and Rohilkhand. The rebellion was therefore more than just a military mutiny, and it spanned more than one region;
- The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over: Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and executive powers to the Sepoy Commandant in the city). The objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from their conception of the entirety of "India", signifies a nationalist sentiment;
- The troops of the Bengal Army were used extensively in warfare by the British and had therefore travelled extensively across the Indian subcontinent, leading them perhaps to develop some notion of a nation-state called India. They displayed for the first time in this mutiny, some contemporary British accounts (Malleson) suggest, patriotic sentiments in the modern sense.
Besides this, a contemporary British chronicler, Thomas Lowe, in Central India during the rebellion, wrote in 1860: “To live in India, now, was like standing on the verge of a volcanic crater, the sides of which were fast crumbling away from our feet, while the boiling lava was ready to erupt and consume us.” Further, he exclaimed: “The infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Mussalman, had joined together in the cause; cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater… had revolted together.” -
In short, we may summarise the discussion in following terms.
- If the criterion of a National War of Independence is set as "a war (or numerous conflicts) spread all over the nation cutting across regional lines", the rebellion in that case does not qualify as a war of India's independence.
- If the criterion for a National War of Independence is set as "a war, which even if geographically confined to certain regions, is waged with the intention of driving out from the complete national area a power perceived to be foreign", then it was a war of national independence.
This discussion shows that the term "national war" is subject to individual opinions and cannot be answered decisively.
In Popular Culture
Plans are afoot by the Government of India to celebrate 2007 as the 150 anniversary of what Indians term as "India's First War of Independence". In the Union Budget of 2007, an amount of Rs. 10 crore was set aside for the celebration. The (British) National Army Museum in London is mounting a display to mark the 150 anniversary on 10 May, and there is also an online exhibition called "India Rising".
- The 2005 Bollywood film "Mangal Pandey: The Rising" is set immediately prior to the outbreak of the Rebellion.
- The 1981 Bollywood film "Kranti" is set during these times.
- In the 1984 Hollywood film "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," the Rebellion is referenced by Captain Philip Blumburtt while discussing the Thuggees at a dinner hosted by the Maharajah of the fictitious princely state of Pankot
- The film "King of the Khyber Rifles" is set during this time (although the book is set during World War I).
- The book "Flashman in the Great Game" (5th book in the Flashman series) is a historical novel by George MacDonald Fraser set in India during the mutiny and involves many of the locations and persons involved.
References
- India Rising: Introduction website of the British National Army Museum
- Eric Stokes “The First Century of British Colonial Rule in India: Social Revolution or Social Stagnation?” Past and Present №.58 (Feb. 1973) pp136-160
- Seema Alavi The Sepoys and the Company (Delhi: Oxford University Press) 1998 p5
- Christopher Hibbert The Great Mutiny (London: Allen Lane) 1978 pp51-4
- Figures on Bengal Army from Major A.H. Amin, orbat.com
- Memorandum from Lieutenant-Colonel W. St. L. Mitchell (CO of the 19th BNI) to Major A. H. Ross about his troop's refusal to accept the Enfield cartridges, 27 February 1857, Archives of Project South Asia, South Dakota State University and Missouri Southern State University
- Sir John Kaye & G.B. Malleson.: The Indian Mutiny of 1857, (Delhi: Rupa & Co.) reprint 2005 p49
- Qizilbash, Basharat Hussain (30th June 2006) The tragicomic hero. The Nation. Nawai-e-Waqt Group.
- J.W. Sherer, Daily Life during the Indian Mutiny, 1858, p. 56
- ^ Andrew Ward, Our bones are scattered - The Cawnpore massacres and the Indian Mutiny of 1757, John Murray, 1996
- Ramson, Martin & Ramson, Edward, The Indian Empire, 1858
- Michael Edwardes, Battles of the Indian Mutiny, Pan, 1963 ISBN 330-02524-4
- Somnath Chatterjee - Office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha on the name of the conflict, October 2006
- Sitaram Yechury - Hindustan Times Jan 2006 - The Empire Strikes Back -
- Anniversary of the First War of Indian Independence, National Army Museum
- , National Army Museum
Further reading
- Raikes, Charles: Notes on the Revolt in the North-Western Provinces of India, Longman, London, 1858.
- Russell, William Howard, My Diary in India in the years 1858-9, Routledge, London, 1860, (2 vols.)
- Trevelyan, Sir George Otto, Cawnpore, Indus, Delhi, (first edition 1865), reprint 2002.
- Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad, Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind 1859; Translated as The Causes of the Indian Revolt, Allahabad, 1873.
- Kaye, Sir John & Malleson, G.B.: The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Rupa & Co., Delhi, (1st edition 1890) reprint 2005.
- Roberts, Field Marshal Lord, Forty-one Years in India, Richard Bentley, London, 1897
- Forty-one years in India at Project Gutenberg
- Innes, Lt. General McLeod: The Sepoy Revolt, A.D. Innes & Co., London, 1897.
- Fitchett, W.H., B.A.,LL.D., A Tale of the Great Mutiny, Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1911.
- Sen, Surendra Nath, Eighteen fifty-seven, (with a foreword by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad), Indian Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Delhi, 1957.
- Barter, Captain Richard The Siege of Delhi. Mutiny memories of an old officer, London, The Folio Society, 1984.
- Hibbert, Christopher, The Great Mutiny : India 1857, London, Allen Lane, 1988.
- Roy, Tapti, The politics of a popular uprising : Bundelkhand 1857, Delhi, for the Oxford University Press, 1994.
- Stanley, Peter, White Mutiny: British Military Culture in India, 1825-1875, Christopher Hurst & Co., London, 1998.
- Taylor, P. J. O., What really happened during the mutiny : a day-by-day account of the major events of 1857 - 1859 in India, Delhi, for the Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Rizvi, Syed Khurshid Mustafa: 1857 - History of the Indian Struggle for Freedom, Raza Library, Rampur, 2000 .
- Mukherjee, Rudrangshu: Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001.
- Saul David, The Indian Mutiny : 1857,Penguin Books, 2003.
- Farrell, J.G. "The Siege of Krishnapur", New York Review of Books, 2004.
- Wilberforce, Reginald G, An Unrecorded Chapter of the Indian Mutiny, Being the Personal Reminiscences of Reginald G. WIlberforce, Late 52 Infantry, Compiled from a Diary and Letters Written on the Spot London: John Murray 1884, facsimile reprint: Gurgaon: The Academic Press, 1976.
- Godse Vishnubhat, Maza Pravas: 1857 cya Bandaci Hakikat, ed. Datto Vaman Potdar, Pune: Venus Prakashan, 1974. (This text is in Marathi)
- Pandey Sita Ram, From Sepoy to Subedar, Being the Life and Adventures of Subedar Sita Ram, a Native Officer of the Bengal Native Army, Written and Related by Himself, trans. Lt. Col. Norgate, (Lahore: Bengal Staff Corps, 1873), ed. James Lunt, (Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1970).
Continued... Facts & Figures
- "Indian Mutiny." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Online. http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro/342/91.html. 23 Mar. 1998.
- "Lee-Enfield Rifle." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Online. http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=index/in/dia/73.html. 23 Mar. 1998.
- Campbell, Sir Colin. Narrative of the Indian Revolt. London: George Vickers, 1858.
- Collier, Richard. The Great Indian Mutiny. New York: Dutton, 1964.
- Kaye, John William. A History of the Sepoy War In India (3 vols). London: W.H. Allen & Co., 1878.
- Keene, H. George. British Administration During the Revolt of 1857. New Delhi: Inter- India Publications, 1985.
- Malleson, Colonel G.B. The Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York: Scribner & Sons, 1891.
- Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959.
- Palmer, J.A.B. The Mutiny Outbreak at Meerut In 1857. Cambridge: University Press, 1966.
- Stokes, Eric. The Peasant Armed: The Indian Revolt of 1857. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
- Ward, Andrew. Our Bones Are Scattered. New York: Holt & Co., 1996.
Fictional & Narrative Literature
- Kilworth, Garry Douglas. Brothers of the Blade: Constable & Robinson, 2004.
- Alavi, Seema. The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition 1770-1830. New York: Oxford U P, 1995.
- Farrell, J.G.. The Siege of Krishnapur. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1985 (orig. 1973; Booker Prize winner).
- Fenn, Clive Robert. For the Old Flag: A Tale of the Mutiny. London: Sampson Low, 1899.
- Grant, James. First Love and Last Love: A Tale of the Mutiny. New York: G. Routledge & Sons, 1869.
- Kaye, Mary Margaret. Shadow of the Moon. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979.
- Masters, John. Nightrunners of Bengal. New York: Viking Press, 1951.
- Raikes, William Stephen. 12 Years of a Soldier's Life In India. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1860.
See also
- Vellore Mutiny
- Azimullah Khan
- History of South Asia
- British Raj
- Titumir
- Syed Ahmad Khan
- Martial Race
External links
- History of Bharat on Bharatadesam.Com
- The Bollywood film The Rising depicts events around the life of Mangal Pandey
- Truth behind 1857 part I
- Truth behind 1857 part II
- Truth behind 1857 part III
- First War of Independence - Sify
- Development of Situation-January to July 1857 - Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC
- The Library of Congress (US) - Research Centers - Country Study - India @ 1857
- Alexander Ganse (World History at KMLA - Mutiny 1857
- The Sepoy War of 1857 - Emory.edu
- The Indian Mutiny @ The British Empire
- 1857 - Sikh Point of View
- Some interesting Paintings related to 1857 Indian War of Independence
- Betraying The White Queen's Salt: Introductory Notes For The Indian Mutiny, 1857-59 Compiled By John French
- British Army Official Records of the Era
- Karl Marx, New York Tribune, 1853-1858, The Revolt in India
- India marks uprising anniversary - BBC News 7th May 2007
- India 'neglects' its historic heritage - BBC News 10th May 2007