Character of Mutiny

• Sir John Lawrence believed the Mutiny had its origin in the army, triggered by the greased cartridges, and was not caused by any prior conspiracy.
• Sir John Seeley also viewed the Mutiny as a “wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny” with no native leadership or popular support.
• Outram argued that the Mutiny was the result of a Mohammedan conspiracy, taking advantage of Hindu grievances, with the cartridge incident merely precipitating it.
• Indian nationalists describe the Mutiny as a War of Independence, with Savarkar authoring “War of Indian Independence” and Ashoka Mehta highlighting its national character.
• Sepoys were the main force of the rebellion, bearing the brunt of the struggle, but millions of Indians, including civilians, participated.
• Civilians also faced the same casualties as sepoys, showing widespread mass support in several areas.
• The rebellion spread rapidly, with some native civilians even helping sepoys by non-cooperating with the British and socially ostracizing those who sided with them.
• At Kanpur, labourers pressed into service by the British managed to escape, showing how even common people resisted British rule.
• The communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims during the Mutiny was evident, with the Mughal Emperor taking steps to unite both communities.
• The Mughal Emperor prohibited cow-slaughter and urged the unity of all native rulers to expel the British, offering to relinquish imperial power if a unified confederacy of native princes took control.
• Nana Sahib declared allegiance to the Mughal Emperor, showing Hindu-Muslim cooperation in the rebellion.
• Sikhs only joined the British army after the fall of Delhi, showing the fluctuating alliances during the revolt.
• The Mutiny lacked prior planning, with the Chapatis and Rani of Jhansi’s letter being viewed as forgeries or having different meanings for different people.
• Although the revolt started with the army, it was not merely a military mutiny. The march to Delhi and the proclamation of Bahadur Shah II as Emperor indicated political intent.
• British writers tried to dismiss the revolt as a mutiny, stemming from their racial arrogance and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their role in the conflict.
• The sepoys shared the general grievances of the people, particularly that the British Government was trying to destroy their faith and caste fabric.
• The sepoys acted not just as soldiers but as representatives of the people, inspiring widespread civilian support.
• The revolt was national in a limited sense, with Hindus and Muslims uniting against the British. Outram’s view about a Muslim conspiracy also supports the idea of a joint Hindu-Muslim effort.
• Bahadur Shah stopped attempts by misguided Muslims to start a Jehad against Hindus, ensuring unity among the communities against the British.
• The revolt of 1857 should not be called a national war in the modern sense, as Indian nationalism as we understand it today was not yet developed.
• The people of India did not view India as a political unit and were not fully aware of the democratic process of governance.
• The Mutiny was essentially a feudal revolt, led by princes and zamindars seeking to restore their old privileges.
• The peasant activity during the revolt was driven by personal grievances against money-lenders, landlords, and petty government officers.
• Peasants lacked organisations and followed the leadership of feudal chiefs, withdrawing when the chiefs failed.
• Professor P.E. Roberts supported John Lawrence and Seeley’s view, seeing the Mutiny as mainly military in origin but occurring at a time of widespread social and political discontent.
• Thompson and Garratt downplayed the revolt as an organised national movement, pointing to the small size of the army that suppressed it and the failure of its leaders.
• They emphasized the minor role played by the better elements in India, downplaying the courage and ability of the Indian resistance.