Question : “The Revolt of 1857 seemed to call the very presence of the British into question. What it did not do was reverse these changes.”
(2007)
Answer : A mighty popular revolt broke out in Northern and Central India in 1857 and nearly swept away the British rule. It began with the mutiny of sepoys but soon engulfed wide regions and involved the masses. Millions of peasants, artisans and soldiers fought heroically for over a year and by their exemplary courage and sacrifice wrote a glorious chapter in the history of the Indian people.
The revolt broke out at Meerut on the 10th May 1857. The Meerut soldiers marched to Delhi and proclaimed the aged and powerless Bahadur Shah the Emperor of India. Delhi was soon to become the Centre of Great Revolt and Bahadur Shah its great symbol. Bahadur Shah in return wrote to all chiefs and rulers to organize confederacy to overthrow British regime. The entire Bengal army soon rose in revolt which spread quickly.
Awadh, Rohilkhand, poab, the Bundelkhand, Central India, large parts of Bihar, and East Punjab all shook off British authority.
In many princely states, rulers remarked royal to their British overload, but the soldiers revolted. Many of the Indore troops rebelled and joined sepoys. Many small chiefs of Maharashtra and Rajasthan revolted with the support of people.
The tremendous sweep and breadth of the revolt was matched by its depth. Everywhere in Northern and Central India, the mutiny of sepoys triggered popular revolts of the civilian population. After the sepoys had destroyed British authority, the common people rose up in arms often fighting with spears and axes, bows and arrows. In many places, people revolted even before the sepoys did or even when no sepoy regiments were present. It is the wide participation by the peasants, the artisans, shopkeepers and zamindars which gave it real strength as well as the character of a popular revolt, especially in the areas included in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
Here the peasants and zamindars expressed their grievances by attacking money lenders and new zamindars, British law court, revenue offices. Much of the strength of the revolt of 1857 lay in Hindu, Muslim unity. Among the soldiers and people and among leaders, there was complete cooperation between Hindus and Muslims. The Hindus and Muslims rebels and sepoys respected each other’s sentiments.
The revolt through challenging the British rule could not reverse the changes brought by the British. This was owing to many weakness from which the revolt suffered. Foremost was the revolt could not assume all India’s character. Also, the rebels did not have modern weapons and other materials of war. Also, they did not possess aforward-looking programme, a coherent ideology a political perspective or a vision of future society and economy. It represented no social alternative to be intermitted after capture of power. The revolt was first great strength of Indian people. It passed the way for rise of modern national movement.
Question : “Whatever might have been its original characters it (Rebellion of 1857) soon became a symbol of challenge to the mighty British power in India”.
(2005)
Answer : A mighty popular revolt broke out is Northern and Central India in 1857 & nearly swept away the British rule. It began with the mutiny of sepoys but soon engulfed wide regions & involved the masses. Millions of peasants, artisans and soldiers fought heroically for over a year and by their exemplary courage wrote a glorious chapter on the history of Indian people.
The revolt of 1857 marked that it was a challenge to the mighty British Empire. The spread, intensify of the revolt, and the measures taken by the British to suppress it brings out its challenging nature.
The first challenge was in terms of the very geographical spread of the revolt. The whole of North India from Punjab to Bihar rose against the British. In many of the princely states, rulers remained loyal to their British overlord, but the soldiers revolted. Many small chiefs of Rajasthan & Maharashtra revolted with the support of people who were quite hostile to the British. Local rebellions also occurred in Hyderabad & Bengal.
Every where in Northern & Central India, the mutiny of the sepoys triggered popular revolts of the civilian population. Different sections of society like peasants, workers, traders, old zimindars, religious mendicants & soldiers ensured by their participation that the uprising was of massive nature and a real challenge to the British.
This was in total contrast to the early uprisings of peasants & tribals in which a narrow section of the society participated. Further, the participation of soldiers, who had been trained and paid by the British proved to be a mighty challenge to the British.
The sepoys had been instrumental in building the British empire in India, but during the revolt, they turned the weapons and tactics learnt from the British against their masters themselves, which shocked the British.
The success of the rebels also shows that it was a mighty challenge to the British. In many places like Meerut, Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, the British power was overthrown. In Delhi, the Mughal King Bahadur Shah II was declared as the emperor of Hindustan. Further many of the able military generals.
Like Nicholson, Wheeler proved incapable during the revolt. The British had to channelise all their resources for the suppression of the revolt, which shows its mighty character.
Moreover, the administrative, military & policy changes made after the revolt were all intended to prevent such outbreak in future.
The revolt of 1857 stands as beacon light of incipient Indian Nationalism and served as perennial source of inspiration for freedom struggle.Question : ‘The tribal and peasant rebellion laid the foundation of the revolt of 1857’.
(2001)
Answer : ‘The tribal and peasant rebellion laid the foundation of the revolt of 1857.’ The British rule and its accompanying commercialization strengthened tendencies towards penetration of tribal areas by outsidersfrom the plains. Christian missions were active in many tribal areas, bringing education and some promise of social ascent but often provoking an interesting variety of reaction which included hostility as well as attempts to use some Christian tenants in antiforeign ways.
The resentment of tribals against the British exploitation can be traced back to 1768 when Chuars of Nambhum and Barabhum (West Bengal) rose in arms against the British authority. Bhils revolted against the British occupation of Khandesh in 1818. It was also suppressed through military operation combined with conciliatory measure in 1848. The British occupied Sirghbhum and Chotanagpur. Hos, the inhabitants of the area, resisted violently and tried to expel them. In all the three attempts- 1820, 1822, and 1832- they were suppressed after extensive military operations.
The repeated revolts - 1824, 1828, 1839, 1844-48 - of Kolis in Sahyadri Hills, Kols in Chota Nagpur (1831-32), Koyas in Andhra Pradesh (1840), Khonds (1846-48, 1855) in Khondmals in Orissa played a significant role in preparing the ground for the revolt of 1857.
Sidhu and Kanhu led the revolt of Santhals and established their own government in July 1855. The revolt was suppressed and a separate district of Santhal Paragana was created to prevent Santhals from revolting again in future.
The peasant rebellion was also an importantprecursor of the 1857 revolt. The colonial economic policies, the new land revenue system, the colonial administrative and judicial systems, and the ruin of handicrafts led to the over crowding of land. It transformed the agrarian structure and impoverished the peasantry. In the Vast Zamindari area, the peasents were left at the tender mercies of the Zamindars who rack-rented them and compelled them to pay illegal dues and perform begar. In the Ryotwari areas, the government itself levied heavy land revenue. This forced the peasants to borrow money from the moneylenders. Gradually, over large areas, the actual cultivators were reduced to the status of tenants at will.
When the peasants could take it no longer, they resisted against oppression and exploitation. They found whether their target was the indigenous exploiter or colonial administration. They came to realise that their real enemy, after the barriers were down, was the colonial state. Many dispossessed peasants took to robbery, dacoity and what has been called social banditry, preferring it to starvation and social degradation.
1857 can be regarded as the culmination of the orderly types of anti-British resistence, led by dispossessed Chiefs with restoration aims.
Question : The 1921 Moplah rebellion was 'in essence an expression of long-standing agrarian discontent which was intensified by the religious and ethnic identity'.
(2000)
Answer : The Mappilla (Muslim) tenants of Malabar rebelled in August 1921 against high rents, oppressive landlords, lack of any security of tensure and renewal fees, the impetus of which first came from the Malabar district Congress Conference held at Manjeri in April 1920. This conference was followed by the formation of a tenants association of Kozhikode, and soon tenants associations were set up in the region. This was supported by the Khilafat committee also. However, the arrest of prominent leaders of the region like K. Mahadevon Nair, Gopala Menon, Yakub Hasan etc. in February 1921 left the field clear for radical preachers. The raid on Tiruraingadi Mosque in August 1921, for search of arms sparked off a major rebellion which turned anti-Hindu. In the first stage, rebellion was targeted against unpopular Jenmies (Landlord), who were mostly Hindus, and other colonial symbols. But with the imposition of Martial law, the movement became communal. The communalization of the rebellion completed the isolation of the Mappillas which was ruthessly suppressed by the government. By December 1921, unofficially over 10,000 Mappillas were killed and about 50,000 surrendered on were captured. the suppression was such that, till independence, the Mappillas neither joined the national movement nor the peasants movement nor any other type of political participation was made.
Question : Do you believe that the uprising in 1857 was nationalist in nature? If not, what was its character?
(1999)
Answer : Scholars have held divergent views about the nature of the revolt of 1857. British scholars like Kaye, Trevelyan, Lawrence in addition to many eye witnesses like Munshi Jiwan Lal, Durgadas Bandopadhya, Syed Ahmad Khan etc. have held that it was ‘a mutiny’. Other described it as a ‘racial struggle’. Still others doubt it as a clash of civilization, while the nationalists call it as the first War of Indian Independence. Early national leaders like V.D. Savarkar in his book, ‘The Indian War of Independence’, to arouse national consciousness, described it as ‘a planned war of national independence’. Later on, national leaders further developed them to cite it as a shining example of the perfect accord and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims.
Dr. R.C. Majumdar and Dr. S.N. Sen agree that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of a careful planning nor were there any masterminds behind it. The mere fact that Nana Saheb went to Lucknow and Ambala in March-April 1857 and the struggle started in May of the same year can not be regarded as an evidence of planning. Even the story of the circulation of messages through ‘chapaties’ and lotus flowers do not prove anything. During the trial of Bahadur Shah, efforts were made to prove that he was a party to a pre-planned conspiracy. Infact, the course of trial made it clear that the uprising was as much surprise to Bahadur Shah as to the British. Also, both of them agree that the Indian nationalism in the middle of the 19th century was in an embroynic stage. India, at that time was not a nation and the leaders of the rebellion were no national leaders. Bahadur Shah was no national king. Infact, self motivation and profit worked as an energizer to the rebel leaders. Different groups participated different in the revolt because of reasons. The Taluqdars of Awadh fought for their feudal privileges. Attitudes of the leaders were mutually jealous. The condition of the masses was no better. The majority of the people remained apathetic and neutral.
In his book ’the Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857’, R.C. Majumdar argued thatthe uprising of 1857 was not a war of independence. He maintains that the revolt took different aspects in different region. Somewhere it was a Sepoy mutiny joined later by disgruntled elements eager to take advantage of anarchy, somewhere it was a Sepoy mutiny followed by a general revolt in which, civilians, disposed rulers, tenants and other took part. He also contends that the Sepoys were mostly inspired by the desire of material gains than any political or even religious contradiction. However, he concedes that ultimately these all gave birth to nationalism. On the contrary, Dr. Sen believes it to be a war of independence by arguing that revolutions are mostly the work of a minority, with or without the active sympathy of the masses. He contends that when a rebellion can claim the sympathies of the substantial majority of the population, it can claim a national character.
Dr. S.B. Chaudhari, in his book ‘Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinities 1857-1859’ has confined his attention to the detailed analysis of the civil rebellions which accompanied the military insurrection of 1857. He maintains that the revolt of 1857 can be bifurcated intomutiny and rebellion and the outburst of 1857 was the coming together of two series of disturbances. Marxist scholars contend that the struggle was a soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bandage which failed because of feudal betrayal. There seem to have been no ideology or programme behind the revolt as argued above.
Lala Lajpat Rai in ‘Young India’ has described the revolt of 1857 as both political as well national. Subhash Chandra Bose also conceded that it was not merely a Sepoy mutiny but a national uprising. Eric Stokes believes that in rural areas the revolt was essentially elitist in character. The mass of the population, appear to have played little part in the fighting or at most timely followed the local leadership. According to them, it was basically an unarmed rebellion.
Question : Examine the nature of the Revolt of 1857 and indicate the manifold changes in British civil and miliitary administration of India after 1857.
(1998)
Answer : Scholars have held divergent views about the nature of the revolt of 1857. British scholars like Kaye, Trevelyan, Lawrence in addition to many eye witnesses like Munshi Jiwan Lal, Durgadas Bandopadhya, Syed Ahmad Khan etc. have held that it was ‘a mutiny’. Other described it as a ‘racial struggle’. Still others doubt it as a clash of civilization, while the nationalists call it as the first War of Indian Independence. Following are the major views of scholars. John Lawrence and Seeley thought it to be a Sepoy’s mutiny. John Seeley describes the revolt as a ‘wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy mutiny with non active leadership and no popular support’. Though it is true that it began as a military rising, yet it was not everywhere confined to the army. Even the army as a whole did not join it and a considerable section fought on the side of the government. In fact, the rebels came from almost every section of the population. In the trials of 1858-59, thousands of civilians, along with the soldiers, were held guilty of the rebellion and were punished.
The views of L.E.R. Rees that the revolt was ‘a war of fanatic religionists against Christians’ is also erring. During the heat of the rebellions, the ethical principles underlying the various religions had little influence on the complaints. Both sides quoted their religious scriptures to cover their cases over the other party. Though the Christians fought the war and won it, but not the Christianity. True, Christianity like western science has influenced the Indian mind but the Christian missionaries had no astounding success in the work of proselytization. It was also not a ‘war of races’. True, all the whites in India, whatever their nationality, were ranged on one side, but not all the blacks. Leaving the non-combatants out of account, there was a high proportion of Indian soldiers in the Company’s army that took part in the suppression of the rebellion. To be more correct, it was a war between the black rebels on one side and the white ruler supported by blacks on the other side.
T.R. Holmes held that it was ‘a conflict between civilization and barbarism’. The explanation smacks of narrow racialism. During the rebellion both the Europeans and the Indians were guilty of excess. Infact, vendettas took the better of men on both sides. No nation or individual which indulges in such horrible atrocities can claim to be civilized. Sir James Outram and W. Tayler described the outbreak as the result of Hindu-Muslim conspiracy. Outram held that ‘it was a Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances’. Benjamin Disraeli, a contemporary conservative leader in England had described it as a ‘national rising’. He contended that the so called mutiny was ‘no sudden impulse but was the result of careful combinations, vigilant and well-organised, on the watch to an opportunity. Such rebellions are occasioned by accumulation of adequate causes.
Early national leaders like V.D. Savarkar in his book, ‘The Indian War of Independence’, to arouse national consciousness, described it as ‘a planned war of national indepen-dence’. Later on, national leaders further developed them to cite it as a shining example of the perfect accord and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. Dr. R.C. Majumdar and Dr. S.N. Sen agree that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of a careful planning nor were there any masterminds behind it. The mere fact that Nana Saheb went to Lucknow and Ambala in March-April 1857 and the struggle started in May of the same year can not be regarded as an evidence of planning. Even the story of the circulation of messages through ‘chapaties’ and lotus flowers do not prove anything. During the trial of Bahadur Shah, efforts were made to prove that he was a party to a pre-planned conspiracy. Infact, the course of trial made it clear that the uprising was as much surprise to Bahadur Shah as to the British.
Also, both of them agree that the Indian nationalism in the middle of the 19th century was in an embroynic stage. India, at that time was not a nation and the leaders of the rebellion were no national leaders. Bahadur Shah was no national king. Infact, self motivation and profit worked as an energizer to the rebel leaders. Different groups participated different in the revolt because of reasons. The Taluqdars of Awadh fought for their feudal privileges. Attitudes of the leaders were mutually jealous. The condition of the masses was no better. The majority of the people remained apathetic and neutral. In his book ’the Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857’, R.C. Majumdar argued thatthe uprising of 1857 was not a war of independence. He maintains that the revolt took different aspects in different region. Somewhere it was a Sepoy mutiny joined later by disgruntled elements eager to take advantage of anarchy, somewhere it was a Sepoy mutiny followed by a general revolt in which, civilians, disposed rulers, tenants and other took part. He also contends that the Sepoys were mostly inspired by the desire of material gains than any political or even religious contradiction. However, he concedes that ultimately these all gave birth to nationalism.
On the contrary, Dr. Sen believes it to be a war of independence by arguing that revolutions are mostly the work of a minority, with or without the active sympathy of the masses. He contends that when a rebellion can claim the sympathies of the substantial majority of the population, it can claim a national character. Dr. S.B. Chaudhari, in his book ‘Civil Rebellions in the Indian Mutinities 1857-1859’ has confined his attention to the detailed analysis of the civil rebellions which accompanied the military insurrection of 1857. He maintains that the revolt of 1857 can be bifurcated intomutiny and rebellion and the outburst of 1857 was the coming together of two series of disturbances. Marxist scholars contend that the struggle was a soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bandage which failed because of feudal betrayal. There seem to have been no ideology or programme behind the revolt as argued above.
Lala Lajpat Rai in ‘Young India’ has described the revolt of 1857 as both political as well national. Subhash Chandra Bose also conceded that it was not merely a Sepoy mutiny but a national uprising. Eric Stokes believes that in rural areas the revolt was essentially elitist in character. The mass of the population, appear to have played little part in the fighting or at most timely followed the local leadership. According to them, it was basically an unarmed rebellion. The reovlt of 1857 gave a several jolt to the British administration in India and made its reorganisation inevitable. The Government of India's structure and policies underwent significant changes in the decades following the Revolt. But more important for change in Indian economy and Government was the inauguration of a new stage of colonialism in India. An act of Parliament in 1858 transferred the power to govern from the East India Company to the British crown. The British had divided India for administrative convenience into provinces, three of which — Bengal, Madras and Bombay — were known as Presidencies. Local bodies were first formed between 1864 and 1868. The Indian army was carefully reorganised after 1858, most of all to prevent the recurrence of another revolt.
The rulers had soon that their bayomets were the only secure foundation of their rule. Several steps were taken to minimise, if not completely eliminate, the capacity of Indian soldiers to revolt. Firstly, the domination of the army by its European branch was carefully guaranteed. The proportion of Europeans to Indians in the army was raised and fixed at one to two in the Bengal Army and two to five in the Madras and Bombay armies. Morever, the European troops were kept in key geographical and military positions. The crucial branches of the army like artillery and later in the 20th century, tanks and armoured corps were put exclusively in European hands. The older policy of excluding Indians from the officer corps was strictly maintained. Till 1914 no Indian could rise higher than the rank of a subodar. Secondly, the organisation of the Indian section of the army was based on the policy of 'balance and counterpoise' or 'divide and rule' so as to prevent its chance of uniting again in an anti-British uprising. Diacrimination on the basis of caste, region and religion was practised in recruitment to the amry.
Question : Tribal movements should be viewed as 'History from below'. Discuss the objects and nature of the movements in 19th century India.
(1997)
Answer : Tribal movements were basically directed to preserve the tribal identity which was thought to be in danger due to intrusion of external people affecting the social, political and geo-economical position of the tribes. These movements were mostly violent, isolated and frequent. There were about seventy tribal movements from 1778 to 1947. These movements can be broadly divided into two parts i.e., movements of the frontier tribes and movements of the non-frontier tribes depending upon the geographical area of their initiation. Both these types of revolts had different sets of causes. Movement of frontier tribes was mostly revivalist and tended to be political and secular. On the contrary, the non-frontier tribes revolted usually against the ‘outsiders’ and the British administration.
The movement of the non-frontier tribes can be divided into three broad parts. First one started from 1795 and continued upto 1860. The movements of this phase were primarily politico-religious led by tribal heads. Second phase was from 1860 to 1920 in which the nature of movements changed from politico-religious to economic also. The penetration of outsiders resulted in the misbalancing of tribal economy. The leaders of these movements were from the lower class of the society. Third phase (1920-1947) coincides with the phase of intense mass movement for freedom struggle and so its impact was quite obvious on the tribal movements. This phase saw the transformation of tribal movements into a common mass movement with leaders coming also from non-tribal educated gr oups.
Bhils of Khandesh revolted against the British occupation in 1818. Their struggle lasted for thirty years which was finally suppressed after large scale military operations combined with conciliatory measures. Santhal uprising was the most massive among movements of the first phase. The Santhals of Daman-i-koh (modern Sahibganj, Godda, Pakur and Dumka districts of Jharkhand and some parts of Bhagalpur and Banka districts of Bihar) revolted and attempt to oust the dikus or the outsiders whom they considered morally corrupt. In 1854, the first impulse of the revolt was felt when the Santhals started looting money-lenders and Zamindars.
The British government started a major military campaign to suppress the rebellion. Thousands of Santhal men and women were killed. Apart from above mentioned tribal movements, there were many other rebellions which took place in first phase: Pahariyas (Jharkhand 1778); Kol Uprisings (Maharastra 1784-85); Chauri Revolt (Bihar 1798); Kherwar Uprising (Jharkhand 1870); and Gond Uprising (Baster, M.P. 1842) etc.
Nature of the movements of the first phase can be summarized in the following points:
The hill tribes, Koya and Khonda Dora of Rampa region of Chodavaram revolted in March 1879 against the depredation of the government supported zamindars and the new restrictive forest regulations. The authorities launched military campaigns against the rebellious people and several other ways were used for suppression of the movement. Tribal resentment against the imposition of forest laws and feudal system led to the rise of the revolt of the tribes of Jagdalpur region in modern Chhattisgarh. The rebels disrupted communication system, attacked symbols of colonial power and tried to seize Jagdalpur town. The British military operation in 1910 suppressed the rebellion. The Ulgulam was led by Birsa Munda during 1895-1900 in Jharkhand. On 19th January, 1900 the rebels were defeated in a fight at Sail Rakeb hill. Birsa was captured and imprisoned, where he died in June 1900. The nature of the rebellions of this phase can be concluded in the following lines:
the second decade of the 20th century, Tana Bhagat movement started initially in a religious form but later transformed into a political one under the impact of the Indian National Congress. This movement was centred on the Oran tribes of Chhotangapur in Jharkhand. Thus the resistance of the local grievances and problems was amalgamated with the National movement. Salient features of the movements of this phase are as follows:
The tribal movements in the North-East region of India were also politico-religious in nature. Due to the majority of the tribes in the region, and their economic and social position, the movements were hardly socio-economic in character. Following were the important tribal movements of North-East India:
Khasi Uprising: The conscriptions of labourers of road construction linking up the acquired Brahmaputra Valley with Sylhet passing through the Khasi region resulted in the uprising of the Khasis supported by the Garos and led by the Tirhut Singh. Though the rebellion continued for four years, it was suppressed in 1833 by the colonial power.
Kuki Uprising: The Kukis of Manipur revolted in 1917 under the leadership of Jadonang and his niece, Rani Gaidinliu. The British policy of recruitment of Kuki labourers during the First World War seriously affected the stability of the agriculture based Kuki economy. Also the system of begar imposed upon the tribes and the ban of shifting cultivation led to the rebellion. Guirella warfare of the Kukis lasted for two years when it was crushed by the British in 1919.
Singphos Revolt: Simultaneously with the Khasi uprising, the Singhphos also broke into rebellion in early 1830 which was though suppressed within some months. But the Singphos again rebelled in 1839 when many police officers were killed by them.
The tribal movements of the North-East were to same extent different in nature which can be summed up as follows:
