The Nature of the Revolt of 1857

revolt 1857
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  The Revolt of 1857 was a major anti-colonial movement which shook the foundations of British rule in India. Diverent views have !een e #ressed reardin the nature of the out!reak of 1857. Theseviews can !e !roadl$ divided into two classes. %ome think that the out!reak was #rimaril$ and essentiall$ a mutin$ of se#o$s& thouh in certain areas it drifted into arevolt of the #eo#le. 'thers hold that it was reall$ a re!ellion of the #eo#le rather thanmerel$ a mutin$ of the soldiers. (harles Ball and ).*. +a$e were amon the #ioneers who wrote a!out 1857 from the,se#o$s mutin$ #ers#ective. Both Ball and +a$e attached tremendous im#ortance tocaste status& which the se#o$s thouht were undermined in the cantonments. The$ alsore#resent the out!reak of 1857 as an oranied cam#ain to drive awa$ the British fromIndia.British historians who took to hihlihtin the ,cons#irac$ theor$ include /.B. 0allesonand +a$e. 0alleson& in his !ook the Indian 0utin$ of 1857& e #lains the entire re!ellionas an outcome of the #remeditated desins of a handful of leaders. 0alleson also !rouhtout the differences of race as the reason for the re!ellion. +a$e& 0alleson and other mention Bahadur %hahs corres#ondence with the %hah of ersia detailin his rievances aainst the British in su##ort of the cons#irac$ theor$. Butthis cannot lead us to conclude that there was a #re#lanned cons#irac$. R.(. 0ajumdar states that the utmost that can !e said is that ersian alliance was desired !$ Bahadur %hah who ho#ed that such an alliance would hel# them drive out the British $et in viewof the international situation little im#ortance should !e iven to the so-called cons#irac$.2urthermore& there is little evidence of #remeditated cons#irac$ !ecause the variousout!reaks durin the revolt were uncoordinated and unoranied and the se#o$s once freeof British authorit$ rarel$ knew what to do ne t. The wide circulation of cha#attis just !efore the out!reak is rearded !$ man$ as anim#ortant evidence in favour of an oranied cons#irac$. 3owever& it should !e concededthat at the time of the out!reak no!od$ knew an$thin definite a!out the oriinal sourcefrom which the cha#attis oriinated. %ome #eo#le !elieve that it was intended as a #reventive measure aainst some calamities. 'thers took it to !e as a #re#aration for anout!reak. To 4uote R.(. 0ajumdar& even if it is to !e taken for ranted that the cha#attiswere deli!eratel$ desined !$ some as a sinal for the out!reak& we ma$ safel$ assert thatit was not understood !$ the #eo#le as such.6*ith the rise of nationalism& nationalist historians and freedom fihters !ean to look u#on the u#risin as a #art of the countr$s strule for freedom. The revolt came toassume the character of a strule for inde#endence. This view was stronl$ #ut forward !$ .D. %avarkar who in 19 titled his !ook on the revolt as The olcano or the 2irst*ar of Indian Inde#endence. 3e arues that #eo#le rose u# in arms in 1857 for   safeuardin swadharma :their reliion; and for winnin !ack swaraj :their inde#endence;. The nationalist inter#retation of the revolt ained further su##ort from the 0ar ist schoolof historians who rearded it as a t$#ical national li!eration u#risin of the #easantr$.+arl 0ar as a corres#ondence of the <ew =ork Dail$ Times wrote a series of articlesdurin 1857-58 descri!in it as such. .(. )oshi in an article on the Revolt of 1857claimed that the #easantr$ was the s#earhead of #o#ular revolutionar$ movement.3owever& to read the events of 1857 as a #easant revolt do not ive a com#lete #ortra$alof the whole #icture. In recent $ears leadin Indian historians have turned awa$ from the nationalist historiansviews. %en& in his !ook >ihteen 2ift$-seven& focused on the towns as centres of re!ellion. 3e narrated the course of the u#risin !$ descri!in the manner in which there!els struck at the British #ower in these towns and their encounters with the counter-insurenc$ forces. 3e also deals with the issue of whether the revolt was a reliious war or a racial strule and whether moral issues were involved. %en arues that the mutin$ was inevita!le as no de#endent nation can for ever reconcileitself to forein domination. 3e writes& *hat !ean as a fiht for reliion ended as a war of inde#endence& for there is not the slihtest dou!t that the re!els wanted to et rid of thealien overnment and restore the old order of which the +in of Delhi was the rihtfulre#resentative.6 %en arues that in the a!sence of #atriotism reliion served as the most #otent force in unitin #eo#le from all walks of life. %en also states that in ?wadh therevolt assumed nationalistic dimensions !ut the term national must !e used in a limitedsense for the conce#t of Indian nationalit$ was $et an em!r$o. 3e writes the #atriots of ?wadh fouht for the kin and the countr$ !ut the$ were not cham#ions of freedom for the$ had no conce#tion of individual li!ert$. 'n the contrar$ the$ would if the$ couldrevive the old order. %.B. (haudhuri& in his !ook (ivil Re!ellion in the Indian 0utinies& em#hasies the !ifurcation of 1857 into two distinct historical as#ects @ the militar$ mutin$ and the civilre!ellion. ?ccordin to him& whereas the se#o$s struck the first !low& the$ did not #roduce the leadershi# necessar$ to canalie the activities of the re!ellious troo#s. These#o$s in such a circumstance came to !e led !$ leaders from the aristocratic and rulinfamilies which chaned the militar$ character of the revolt and saw the merin of themilitar$ u#risin into a #o#ular re!ellion. (haudhuri states that the fact that overnmentesta!lishments were destro$ed& records !urnt and telera#hic lines cut off& show that itwas !oth a mutin$ and a re!ellion. (haudhuri arues that the out!reak was an anti-British and anti-colonial movement thathad definite #recedents in earlier u#risins and which antici#ated the later strule for national freedom. The civil u#risin in 1857 was led !$ feudal lords who !rouhttoether diverse #eo#le of all classes and the outcome was the creation of a national front.3e feels the insurenc$ was essentiall$ an e #ression of a national out!urst aainstBritish rule caused !$ intense reliious and economic discontent.  R.(. 0ajumdar refutes the views of %avarkar& %en& and %.B. (haudhuri in his !ook titled%e#o$ 0utin$ and the Revolt of 1857. 3e does not reard the revolt as the first nationalwar of inde#endence. 3e states that it would !e a travest$ of truth to descri!e the revoltof the civil #o#ulation as a national war of inde#endence. <ational it certainl$ was not&for& the u#sure of the #eo#le was limited to a com#arative narrow reion of India&com#risin at !est the reater #art of Anited rovinces and a narrow one to its east westand south. The whole of Benal& ?ssam& 'rissa& Rajasthan and reater #art of unja!&Bihar and 0adh$a radesh as well as the whole of India south of the <armada valle$witnessed no act of re!ellion on the #art of the #eo#le. 3e further arues that even withinthis narrow one where the civil #o#ulation revolted there were considera!le sectionswho were friendl$ to the >nlish. 3e ives the e am#les of certain rulin chiefs certainsections of the landed aristocrac$ who remained lo$al or did not !reak out into o#enre!ellion. R.(. 0ajumdar is thus dou!tful a!out the national character of the 1857 re!ellion.?ccordin to him& even thouh the se#o$s and local #eo#le fouht toether aainst the>nlish& one misses that real communal amit$ which characteries a national effort. 3ewrites that there was communal tension in Delhi& in some #arts of A and that some of the #roclamations issued also show that 0uslims were e ertin themselves to the utmostwhile the 3indus were lukewarm. 0ajumdar also feels that communal discord wassu##lemented !$ racial animosit$. The 0uslims in 3$dera!ad were e cited !$ anti-British feelins $et were hostile towards the 0arathas. The Raj#uts& 0arathas and the%ikhs were aainst the 0uhals and did not favour the restoration of the 0uhals.0ajumdar also denies that the leaders and re!els were im!ued with nationalistic feelins.3e feels that the re!els fouht aainst the British !ecause the latter constituted a rulinauthorit$ !ut the$ did not take u# arms with the conscious and definite o!jective to freeIndia from forein rule. R.(. 0ajumdar is critical of the motive uidin the civil #o#ulation and the leaders. ?sreards the civil #o#ulation& he writes that #eo#le in each localit$ revolted onl$ when theBritish authorit$ had left it and the administrative machiner$ had !roken down. 3e statesthat& >ach rou# or individual leader fouht for self-interest and had no alleiance to acommon cause.6 0ajumdar !rins u# the false #erce#tion of #eo#les role in the u#risinand the wron !elief that #revailed in the dominant circles that 1857 re!ellion was anattem#t to drive out the British #ower. There is a consensus amon the historians that the revolt was not the first of its kind. Itwas also not an isolated out!reak rather it was the culmination of accumulated discontentamon various classes due to different factors. %econdl$& the re!el leaders fouht for the #reservation of their rihts and #rivilees. The$ all fouht for the status 4uo $et thestrule in 1857 took on a wider conte t without chanin its feudal character. The historians of the revolt have tended to move awa$ from the nomenclature de!ate of the %en-0ajumdar da$s to a more s#ecific serious 4uestion a!out the ararian roots&social com#osition and detailed area-wise !reakdown.  %ome historians have looked at the revolt from the view#oint of the #easants. To them the #easants were the revolutionar$ #otential for the re!ellion. The se#o$s who inited theflame of revolt came from the societ$ of #easants. >ric %tokes& in his !ooks easant andthe Raj and The easant ?rmed& has tried to answer 4uestions relatin to the historical #ro!lems concernin the #rocess !$ which militar$ mutin$ was converted into civilre!ellion and how the landed class came to #rovide leadershi# to !oth se#o$s mutin$ andcivil re!ellion. %tokes writes that the #easantr$ formed the vital link !etween militar$mutin$ and rural tur!ulence. 3e em#hasied that the re!ellion of 1857 was& in asinificant sense& a #easant revolt. Ranajit /uha& in his !ook >lementar$ ?s#ects of easant Insurenc$ in (olonial India&discovered elements of conscious hostilit$ in the Revolt of 1857. 3e arues is that theviolence !$ the #easants durin the revolt was directed at #articular tarets. The #easantsaner was directed towards the !ankers and mone$lenders #articularl$ in A. /uha feelsthis taret s#ecific violence shows how the #easants were a!le to distinuish !etweenenemies and allies. /uha states that there were attacks on overnment #ro#ert$& British #ersonnel and also on Indian colla!orators of the Raj. In some areas a revolt aainst thewhite #eo#le was turned into violence aainst local landlords and vice versa. Therefore&the #easants out!reak durin the revolt were directed as much aainst the overnment asaainst the mone$lenders. %tokes states that #easant risins aainst the 0ahajans and auction #urchasers weremotivated more !$ #olitical and less !$ economic considerations. %tokes also comes u#with the arument that the rural revolt in 1857 was essentiall$ elitist in character& that isthe leadershi# was definitel$ in the hands of the landed manate class. 3e calls the revoltas the last major traditional resistance movement. %ome of the elements which define itstraditionalit$ are the revolt was com#osed of heteroeneous elements held toether loosel$ !$ anti-forein sentimentsC leadershi# was in the hands of the landlordsCleadershi# made use of reliion to enlare its a##eal. %tokes also #oints out that the ruralleadershi# was motivated !$ !oth economic and #olitical reasons. =et not man$ ruralleaders were a!le to look !e$ond their local horions.0ukherjee& in his !ook ?wadh in Revolt& has hihlihted the role #la$ed !$ the #easantr$. 3e writes that resistance in ?wadh was not alwa$s elitist in character and ivese am#les to show that the #easantr$ did take inde#endent initiative on man$ occasions.%u!altern studies have a s#ecial #lace in the historiora#h$. /autam Bhadra has tried tohihliht the role of four ordinar$ leaders namel$ %hah 0al& small landlord of Baraut&Devi %inh& a hih caste cultivator of 0athura& /onoo& a tri!al of (hota <a#ur&?hmaddula %hah& a maulvi in ucknow. 3e writes that even thouh their leadershi# wasshort lived !ut their contri!ution was not incidental and formed an interal #art of therevolt. *e ma$ conclude after a stud$ of the events of 1857 that the revolt was somethin morethan a se#o$ mutin$ and less than national revolt. The re!el leaders fouht aainst the


Jul 24, 2017


Jul 24, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!