Indian Rebellion of 1857

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a turning point for the British for their views on colonial policy as Indian Sepoys and civilians turned to revolt in order to protest growing resentment within India. Britain's lack of understanding and interference in Indian culture and society, especially in regard to Muslim and Hindu beliefs, lead to fear of rapid westernisation within India causing a revolt between the “Old against the New”. What followed has caused decades of debate, was it a Mutiny or the first War of Independence? The Indian Rebellion is a case of Britain’s attempt to keep the jewel in the crown of its colonies.

Causes

A major long term cause of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was Indian resentment towards the British over actions which caused major economic and social interference in India. These actions resulted in Indian to feeling oppressed and led to a revolt from the Indian Sepoys which quickly spread to a civilian rebellion. The actions and believed intentions of the East India Company in particular caused massive interference as the company had a change in mind set from being trade focused to governance focused. The East India Company had historically been focused on trade and maximising profits for their shareholders through increasing trade to and from India through exports such as textiles and spices. To protect their trade investments they had their own private arms. They eventually realised that their influence in the regions of India (economically and militarily) would allow them to collect tax from Indians, a far more profitable venture. This caused discontent among the Indians who believed that the majority of the money collected was not being spent to help or protect India at all. Investments from the British in railways and telegraphs were not able to contain the discontent as the British had destroyed the Indian textile industry through its own form of mass production.

“It is plain that the infidel and treacherous British government have monopolised the trade of all the fine and valuable merchandise, such as indigo, cloth, and other articles of shipping, leaving only the trade of trifles to the people, and even in this they are not without their share of the profits, which they secure by means of customs and stamp fees, &c., in money suits, so that the people have merely a trade in name”

This quote from an Indian Rebel Manifesto shows the resentment caused by the destruction of native Indian industries as Britain took control to maximise profits.

Furthermore the railways, telegraphs and mass education were in those days a cultural shift and this has led some to label the Indian revolt as “Old against the new”. Other have argued this quote shows colonial bias suggesting the new innovations were always helpful to Indian society which was not always the case. The East India Company also used their influence to confiscate and redistribute land to the peasantry which exacerbated the resentment causing natives in the north of India to rise up and protest believing they had suffered enough under heavy land taxes. More land disputes and resentment was created through the Doctrine of Lapse policy of 1848 by the East India Company which allowed the company to inherit land when the ruler of the land died without children. This was especially controversial due to Hindu culture which encouraged adoption when the ruler of a land dies childless.

British interference in cultural and social customs caused bitterness among Indians as they felt that their customs and traditions were being oppressed. This sense of imposing westernisation was brought about by “ethnocentric attitudes and laws that belittled Indian culture” caused some to rise up and try reclaim India. Some of this British arrogance can be seen when Thomas Babington Macaulay said in his attempt to reduce publishing support for non-English texts “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.” Indians begrudged newly introduced laws such as the Widow Remarriage Act which advocated Hindu widow’s remarriage following their husband's death which was against traditional Indian culture and forbade practices practises such as widow burning.

Britain had made the official language of the Indian Government, English, and legalised Christian missionaries when it introduced the 1813 Regulatory Act in their attempts to westernise India. Britain wanted to control economic and cultural life in India through the weakening of power from Hindu princely states. Historian Kristian Ola argues that the cause of the Mutiny was “out of arrogance or ignorance the British administration had failed to heed too many cultural factors in their rule.”

The East India Company employees were rarely punished for crimes they committed in India showing an inherent lack of justice for British criminals. Even the murder to Indians by company officials did often not lead to a conviction. British disruption of Indian culture and religion and a lack of justice for British officers led to a sense of British superiority and westernisation which angered Indians.

There is historical debate about the importance of religion as a cause in the Indian Mutiny.

Historian William Dalrymple argues that the Indian Mutiny was “primarily a war of religion” which is against a common view that the rebellion was a “rising to British economic policies” He argues that until recently the Rebellion or Mutiny has been examined by historians through the use of British documents which sometimes discount the religious view. Through his examination of over 20,000 documents he argues that rebel Sepoy texts show their intention is to protect their religions.

One significant cause of the Indian Rebellion was growing disconnect among native Indian Sepoys in the East India Company’s private army. Unease within the military had been growing for years due to new policies adopted by the British. Decreases in pay and pension were economic factors which caused anger. Sepoys were also ineligible for promotion and higher pay as the officers in the army were strictly British. The distance between the officers and the troops allowed a rift to form with negative views towards the officers worsened by the fact they were seen as arrogant. Historian Michael Edwardes argues that complacency within the officer core led to a lack of respect from Sepoys. In the beginnings of the Private army, generals were keen to make their mark and earn a fortune serving from the frontline and embracing the same dangers as they Sepoys. Newer generations of East India Company officers were less eager for success and the language barrier became more pronounced leading to further distance from the men. There is historical debate around whether Indian Sepoy arrogance was also a cause of the revolt. Some argue that the Bengal army had become “rusty and antiquated, and discipline was lax” and in seeing Britain involved in wars overseas believed it forces to be superior. This sense of Bengal Army superiority was reinforced by the victories they had fought and won believing their success was entirely their own despite the victories being under British generalship. The Sepoys were opportunists trying to take the destiny of India into their own hands he argues. Others argue more important causes to be the dissatisfaction at pay prospects and religious missionaries in the army to be larger causes for a revolt. Increased resentment was also prompted by changes in practices which they interpreted as forcing them to adopt Christianity. Missionaries within the military were seen to be trying to convert young Muslim and Hindu soldiers towards Christianity.

The immediate cause of the Indian Mutiny was the introduction of Enfield rifles which used new cartridges that in Britain were greased with pork or beef. To load it, the cartridges had to be bitten open. Muslims are forbidden to eat pork and Hindus don’t eat beef and so the suspected inclusion of these meats was seen as a deliberate attack on religions other than Christianity in India and compromised Sepoys religious purity. Historian Priti Joshi argues “The Greased Cartridge serves as a popular explanation, but it fails to explain the spread of uprisings to garrisons where no Sepoy was punished for refusing to bite the bullet, nor explains the involvement of a vast range of civilians. Further, it masks deeper sources of dissatisfaction as it reduces rebels to merely religious fanatics.” her suggestion is that the cartridge explanation is too simple and the textbook answer written in British History books ignored the resentment and poor foresight of the British. Furthermore, after the controversy involving the new cartridges, Sepoys even began to avoid the old cartridges. The officers claimed the cartridges were made from vegetable oil and not pork or beef as rumoured, the replacement of the cartridges to appease the Sepoys further aggravated native Indians leading them to believe the cartridges had been intentionally tampered with otherwise they wouldn't need to be replaced. The refusal of Sepoys to respect their officer’s word

The Rebellion

The “mutiny” or rebellion started on March 29, 1857 in Barrackpore when a Sepoy, Mangal Pandey, fired the first shot of Mutiny at Sergeant-Major James Hewson. His regiment was about to be punished for refusing to bite open rifle cartridges that had been rumoured to contain pork and beef fat. An English general claimed he later believed Pandey’s attack to be a "religious frenzy" and he attempted to kill himself in fear of dishonourable death by British. This view parallels closely to what today is considered terrorism even though in India even today he is considered a hero. More widespread mutinies began to occur through April, May and June from units in the Bengal Army in India and regiments who had been punished for refusal were freed by other mutineers. The fear of Sepoys was exploited by Indian nationalists who refused to believe the claims of British officers that the cartridges were made with vegetable oil.

"The death of Colonel Finnis on the parade ground at Meerut," Illustrated London News, 1857

The depiction above published in the London News shows the British perspective on the Mutineers in 1857.

The revolt of Sepoys in Meerut was a significant turning point in the mutiny as its success resulted in the spread of the Mutiny to places such as Delhi, Cawnpore and Lucknow. The uprising in Meerut started when officers ordered 90 to perform firing drills. 85 Sepoys refused and were court martialled and given 10 year prison sentences. The following day, Indians revolted and released the imprisoned soldiers leading to an attack on British quarters where men and 210 women and children were killed.  Mutineers from Meerut traveled to Delhi to revolt against the British and slaughtered many British officers but also British civilians such as women and children. News of the revolt spread across India and in an attempt to limit Sepoy damage, some British forces blew up ammunition that would soon have been used against them.  

The ineffectiveness of the Sepoys resulted in British being able to re-establish power in India. Bahadur Shah Zafar claimed himself to be the emperor of India but his Islamic faith turned many Muslims away from the uprising as an inner conflict began between Muslim and Islamic rule. The Sepoys lacked a centralised command who would have been able to initiate and organise troops when the British finally began to counterattack.

The British established a siege of Delhi from September and even though they had the artillery advantage, they lacked the numbers to create an effective blockade. Despite this advantage the British attacked the city suffering heavy losses reaching Red Fort and reclaiming Delhi.

The besiegement of Cawnpore was a significant factor in the British retaliation and reclamation of India as Cawnpore become the signature mark of Indian brutality. Indian Sepoys besieged the town of Cawnpore for three weeks as the British endured a lack of water and food. An offer was made by Indian Sepoys to allow British to exit the town freely but this offer was not upheld. British men who were injured from the fighting and who were slowing the movement of the British away from Cawnpore were killed along with Sepoys who had been loyal to the British. Following an incident while moving British on boats, the Indian Sepoys killed all the men. They moved the women and children to the Nana Sahib where they were held hostage for two weeks before they too were hacked to death.

The “mutiny” was declared over on July 8th 1859 following months of fighting. The British had been slow to respond at the start of the war but were able to regain control of India. The responsive of the British has been described as waves of attacks to clean up the mutineers. The British were aided by the fact many Sepoys maintained their loyalty to the British. In Delhi, 7,900 of the 11,200 troops had been Indian allowing the British to suppress the threat more easily. Furthermore, the British had received reinforcements from Britain and had the support of the Sikhs.

Consequences

Retribution

British retribution was a significant consequence of the Indian Rebellion as British sought excessive justice and punishment in an attempt to quash a nationalist Indian movement and in the process demonstrated the new relationship in India with the British regime. The murder of women and children enraged British soldiers and help create support for fighting the mutiny back home as places such as Cawnpore became infamous for Sepoy murder. English newspapers in Britain often misrepresented the Indian Sepoys and inflated the brutality with one source “describing the rebels as tossing British babies into the air and bayoneting them for sport”. This Indian brutality was used as justification for Britain's own form of retribution however there is evidence of British retribution before they knew these murders had even taken place. The British wanted to take a tough stance on those responsible bust some officers believed death by hanging was too light a punishment. The British instead blasted some mutineers out of cannons denying them and their families proper Muslim or Hindu religious burial. Furthermore, British soldiers forced Sepoys to eat pork and beef further dishonouring their religious purity.

British Raj

The most significant consequence of the Indian Rebellion was the end of the East India Company's rule and the establishment of the British Raj allowing Britain more direct control and more influence in non-economic areas of society. The India Act in 1858 removed the East India Company imposing new governor Viceroys. The rebellion was also important as it irreversibly sighed the first seeds of Indian nationalism ultimately leading to India's independence from Britain in 1947. The British government took direct control in making India an official colony of Britain following the rebellion ending the 200 year reign of the East India Company.

The mutiny had shifted British attitudes towards India. On one level it had shown religious interference to have strong negative reactions however it also showed the British would need to be more strict to retain control. Part of the change in British attitude can be seen in the policies of the Legislative Council. This council up until 1857 had only contained Europeans and before the Mutiny had been accused of arrogance and miscommunication with the Indian people. Following the rebellion, Indians were elected into this council. The first move by the Raj was to give more respect to property landlords.. Princes were promised their territories would not be annexed in direct contrast to the Doctrine of Lapse before the mutiny in 1848. Furthermore, more money was invested in expansive railways and canals systems increasing irrigation in farms and productivity.

Religious freedom was granted from the strong message sent to the British by the Indian people. The British government distanced itself from the Christian missionaries which the East India Company had legalised and declared in the Queen’s proclamation that they would not impose “our convictions on any of our subjects”

In 1858 Lord Ellenborough stated in causes of the Mutiny “I can come to no other conclusion than that the source of all that discontent and mutiny is the apprehension that there is an intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the religion of the natives. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion.”

War of Independence or Mutiny

There is significant historical debate surrounding to what extent the Indian Rebellion was a Mutiny or a War of Independence. These days, most historians agree that the Rebellion was more significant than simply military disobedience in the barracks instead it was somewhere in between a reactionary move from Indians and a War of Independence.

The British had historically called the Rebellion a “Mutiny” despite its being significantly larger than a mutiny, because the name implied that they still had control and the movement was not nationalist and implied no civilian involvement. Dr Crispin Bates implies that the British used the word mutiny to downplay the significance of the uprising.

“Even during the uprising itself the British often tried to convince themselves, even as their houses burned and their women and children were slaughtered, that the majority of Indians were still 'loyal' and that it was solely the rebelliousness of a few thousand (actually 139,000) Indian Sepoys that was the cause of the problem. This idea made the restoration of British rule post-1857 a far simpler matter than might otherwise have been, but it flew in the face of the reality that was experienced”

The painting Retribution by Edward Armitage in 1858 shows the British perspective on the events in India as to it being a mutiny. The painting shows a Bengal tiger which has not been slain yet implying that while Indians are brutal beasts and don’t carry European morals, all they need is to be controlled. This painting is British propaganda for the war in India showing the dead women and children killed the mutiny as well as the strong Britannia who shows Britain is greater than any beast. This source is perfect evidence to show how the press exaggerated the events taking place in India. The artist, Edward Armitage, painted this from London based solely on events described in the British press having never been to India.

The argument of mutiny is supported by evidence that the mutineers were “poorly organised, had few weapons, and lacked good leadership.” suggesting a reactionary force as the uprising had not been planned. This particular source (Indian encyclopaedia) suggested instead that the mutineers would have been incapable of leading a war against the British due to various power struggles in India. The clash in views between Muslim and Hindu leaders was also a reason as to why India was unable to unite against the British. Only isolated groups of civilians were united on the cause, partially show by a letter written to the Court of Directors by native Bengal Indians criticising the leniency of the government towards the mutineers.

“My Lord,

We the undersigned Rajahs, Zemindars, Talookdars, Merchants, Tradesmen, Agriculturists, and other Natives of the Provinces of Bengal, Behar and Orissa, … beg leave to approach your Lordship in Council with this address expressive of our deep sense of gratitude for the several measures of security adopted by your Lordship in Council since disturbances have broken out in the Upper and Central Provinces of British India …. Now that My Lord, they have ventured to carry their misstatements to the foot of the Throne, it is time, and justice to ourselves and to our countrymen demands – that a national protest against these most unjustifiable proceedings should be thus placed upon record.“

This letter shows many the support towards the British of many native Indians.

Historian Michael Edwardes argued that a British win in India was inevitable and safe and that “There had been no real danger that British rule in India would be overthrown. The majority of the native soldiers had remained loyal.” suggesting that the mutiny itself was very isolated and the idea of a war of independence to be incorrect. it ignore the effect of a nationalist movement which could have easy shift across more of India though.

Historian Peter Robb argues “the uprising was not a coordinated or even a related set of events. Rather it was a mass of separate happenings and responses that fed off one another” implying the suggesting of a nationalist rebellion is only brought around by possible coincidences. The argument that Britian had too much power for it to be a War of Independence ignores the nationalist intent of the soldiers which makes it a war of independence however.

Indian historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee opposed this saying “The outbreak of the mutinies was not chaotic or disorderly. On the contrary, the sipahis showed a remarkable degree of planning and coordination in the way the mutinies were carried out”. Mutiny spreading so rapidly supports this claim that the rebellion was more organised on the indian side than many other historians suggest. This view doesn’t to match up with other evidence describing them as poorly organised, so there are clearly mixed views among historians.

Joshi Priti argues an alternative view that “What began as a military mutiny in several garrisons of the Bengal Army morphed into or converged with a civilian rebellion.” he carefully avoided using the words independence suggesting his personal view is that it was not a war. The destruction of item associated with colonial rule as Indians tried to distance themselves from the British suggests that Indians were more that frustrated and wanted Britain out.

Significance to New Zealand

The Indian Mutiny was significant to New Zealand mostly because of Governor George Grey as he served from 1861 to 1868 following his work in India during the Rebellion. He was well known and respected due to his efficiency in repressing natives in India through his military support while in South Africa. While in the Cape colonies he had sought to unite India and the Cape colonies as an opportunity for closer relations. The events in India changed how the British undertook imperial relations forever. The revolt showed a greater need for force from the British as in India the British had been too slow to react and the mutiny had been able to spread. The shifts in India's policy, also shifted how he ruled his own colonies such as South Africa and New Zealand. Grey even used the events in India to justify his new policies.

Just like in India, land disputes under a flawed Treaty of Waitangi was causing great tension between Maori and the British settlers. Resentment of British had caused strained relations in New Zealand just like in India. Governor grey's task was to “give every sort of means for an effectual settlement of the native question” meaning he was to acquire important land at any cost and had the full permission of the government in London. Grey’s previous good relations with Maori were forgotten and war broke out at Waikato in 1863 in the Waikato Wars. Imperial troops had to be sent into to end the war and he felt out of liking with the British government for his poor communication and organisational skills. Yet his actions could not be taking back, his ultimatum to the Maori people in Waikato had started the war and this aggressive negotiating/invading continued on upsetting tribes such as Ngati Toa.

Many British troops who served in the mutiny also later settled within New Zealand but the most significant effect was un doubtedly Governor Grey's influence on colonial policy in New Zealand.

Conclusion

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a mutiny that grew into a nationalist movement.  While nationalist, more would have needed to be  involved and supporting for this to have been the first war of independence.  British arrogance and lack of respect for indian customs in combination with economic factors caused the Indian Rebellion. Though there was never any doubt as to whether the British would retain control of India, the seeds had been planted and would lead the way to India eventually gaining independence in 1947. Certain aspects of the Rebellion share resemblances to Maori-Pakeha relations in New Zealand with a build up for tension over culture and land leading to conflicts. The “Mutiny” also undoubtedly shifted imperial policy away from forced religious conversion of missionaries to that of less social interference but increased military force and the involvement of Governor Grey in these policies results in them being implemented.