A.A.Hamim tinyurl.

com/EMBnotes Page 1

Reasons

Interpretations

Govt of India Act (1958)

A.A.Hamim tinyurl.com/EMBnotes Page 2

REASONS:
It is important to recognize the significance of 1857 in history. It marked the first major uprising against the British Empire since the
Battle of Plassey in 1757. The timing is not coincidental; it took place exactly 100 years later. The people had reached a tipping point, having
endured British colonialism for a century, and their anger and frustration culminated in this revolution. What makes 1857 remarkable is that
individuals from almost every section of society participated in this movement, reflecting the widespread discontent with British rule.

Initially, the British respected the religious practices of their mercenaries, like the upper-caste Hindus who avoided crossing large
bodies of water. But as the British became more confident, they started disregarding these beliefs. In 1813, a crucial decision worsened tensions.
The British allowed Anglican missionaries into the Indian subcontinent to convert people to Anglican Christianity. This created fear, as the locals
saw the British not just as conquerors but also as imposing their religion on them. This fear of forced religious conversion added to the growing
discontent towards British rule.

Economic activities, like taking resources and bringing in new industrial things such as telegraph and railroads, also played a part.
Making railroads meant taking land, sometimes destroying cultural and religious places. The British, especially after the 1810s, didn't care much
about these sites, thinking no one would resist them. In 1856-1857, the British gave soldiers the Lee Enfield rifle. To use it, they had to bite
cartridges coated with cow and pig fat. This went against the beliefs of upper-caste Hindus and practicing Muslims. The Awadhian soldiers, who
were the majority of the mercenary army, had already seen the British take over Awadh and other princely states and humiliate their king and
families in 1856. This rifle was the last straw, leading to the 1857 uprising.

INTERPRETATIONS:
1857⇒ A Sepoy Mutiny?
If we label it a mutiny, we assume the British
Empire's rightful authority in the Indian subcontinent, which
may not be accurate. Alternatively, viewing it solely as a sepoy
rebellion overlooks the widespread participation of various
societal sectors in the 1857 uprising against British rule. It
wasn't confined to sepoys or mercenaries; rather, it emerged
as the largest 19th-century anti-colonial movement in the
Indian subcontinent, involving people from all walks of life in
resistance against Western colonial power.
A third interpretation is the Restorationist campaign,
suggesting that 1857 was an attempt to restore the rule of
various factions. Scholars argue that the presence of the
Mughal Emperor and the desire of Maratha aristocrats to
revive Maratha's rule support this perspective. Additionally,
even the Queen of Awadh, though her husband was not
particularly brave or intelligent, displayed courage and
charisma by leading the rebellion to restore Awadh as an
independent kingdom. Hence, the events of 1857 can be
viewed as a restorationist campaign to regain and revive
different forms of rule.

1857⇒ A War of Independence?

An alternate viewpoint is the War of Independence,
advocated by anti-colonial activists against the British Empire.
However, not everyone supported the uprising. In regions like
Bengal, some landlords maintained favorable relations with the
British, and certain individuals feared the Empire's brutal
tactics. While not a strong justification, it's a historical reality
that unity against the British Empire was lacking. Interestingly,
even among participants, goals varied post-British removal.
For instance, soldiers reinstating Bahadur Shah II as the
Emperor of Mughal India in Delhi didn't align with the desires
of Maratha kings and princes who, despite participating in the
revolution, weren't keen on restoring Mughal rule. Therefore,
labeling 1857 as a War of Independence poses challenges due
to differing motivations and objectives among those involved.
1857⇒ A Restorationist Campaign?
1857⇒ A Revolution?
The fourth and final way to look at 1857 is to
combine elements from the previous three interpretations and
call it a revolution. A revolution means moving forward, and in
this case, everyone agrees on one thing: they want to get rid of
the British Empire, which has caused a lot of harm in Bengal
and the Indian subcontinent. So, this interpretation sees 1857
as a revolution that includes all the different perspectives
discussed before.There are some potential weaknesses or
missing aspects in the interpretations of the revolution and the
war of Independence. One such weakness is the failure to
consider the absence of a modern nation-state as the ultimate
objective. It is important to remember the lessons from the
French Revolution, which exemplify the modern concept of a
nation-state as a territorial unit where a nation resides.

After the revolution

Now, during the repression of the 1857 revolution, the British Empire acted brutally. By waging a race war, they targeted and fought
against all people regardless of their opinions or background. The British killed hundreds of thousands, and some scholars argue that the numbers
may have reached millions of innocent people. Shockingly, while just taking control of Delhi from Shah Zafar II, they killed anywhere between 50,000
to 100,000 people. The British Empire showed no mercy and killed indiscriminately, even when people begged for their lives or claimed loyalty to the
Empire.

After quelling the 1857 uprising against British rule, the British devised a plan to reorganize the royal families and establish princely
states. They created more than 500 such states, ranging from small villages to larger administrative kingdoms like Hyderabad. However, the British
had a hidden agenda. While these princes and rulers had some autonomy, they were essentially puppets of the British Raj. The British manipulated
them to serve their interests and maintain control over the region. The selection of these rulers was not based on competence or intelligence; many
were known for being cruel, foolish, and inept. Why did the British let such individuals rule in princely states? One reason was to use the
A.A.Hamim tinyurl.com/EMBnotes Page 3

incompetence and cruelty of these rulers as proof of their own superiority and the necessity of British rule to bring civilization and stability to India.
This became part of their ideological justification for their presence in the region.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858)

After the killing stops, the British government needs a new plan, because killing many people isn't the best way to rule a
colony. The more they kill, the more people resist. So, the British Empire is revealing itself, stepping out from behind the British East
India Company. They introduced a new system in India called the "Government of India Act." At the top is the Viceroy, the direct
representative of the British monarch. Below are provincial governors for places like Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, etc. Now, there's
someone above the Viceroy, the Secretary of State for India, a permanent cabinet-ranked official in the British government.

Clickable Reading Materials!

1. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, “The British Rule in India”, New-York Tribune, June
1953.

2. Marx, Karl, “The Future Results of British Rule in India”, New-York Tribune, August 1953.
3. British India: 1757-1857
3. Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture and Political Economy
(New York and London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 53-59

4. Schendel, Willem Van, A History of Bangladesh (New York: Cambridge University Press,
(2009), pp. 47-66

5. Sarkar, Sumit, Modern India: 1885-1947 (New Delhi: Pearson, 2014), Chapter 2, pp. 22-24