Certainly, historians treat them as forming the most dramatic event in the 19th century empire, a turning point indeed in British-Indian relations.

There is no dispute about that.

Where there is dispute, and it is ongoing, concerns the causes of the mutiny and to a lesser extent its consequences.

The Mutiny constitutes one of history's outstanding and unresolved historiographical debates.

Disagreement revolves around a number of issues: who participated in it and why; the impulses that underlay such involvement; and appropriate nomenclature - what to call it?

Yet most of the evidence has been quarried and most of the 'facts' are accepted.

Part of the trouble can be traced to historians attempting to fit the events of 1857 into some meaningful, almost prearranged pattern, from which significance can be deduced.

Thus if the Mutiny is categorised as a 'War of Independence' then it follows that its causes must be a love of country, a desire for freedom, and a concept of nationhood.

A 'Peasant's Revolt' similarly connotes the image of an agrarian uprising aimed at the elimination of landlords and by extension the foreign system that introduced and sustained landlordism.

The tutorial on this subject will attempt to demythologise the events of 1857-58 by subjecting each broad interpretation to examination - do they fit the 'facts' as we know them?

Above all we will test the validity of extrapolating general, all-India, grievances as a causal explanation of events that were regionally confined and regionally inspired.

Synoptic Lecture Notes

LECTURE 4

THE INDIAN 'MUTINY' [1857-8]

Mutiny treated as the great turning point in history of the raj

Certainly there were significant changes

EICo rule gave way to rule by the Crown

New Hard-headed approach to empire

Admission that India was acquired through process of Conquest.

Providence [God] had nothing to do with it.

British rule based on firmer foundations

Yet Mutiny subject of continuing historiographical debate centred on:

- significance of the Mutiny

- causes of it

- nomenclature (what to call it ? : A Mutiny, a peasant's war, a war of independence?...)

Initial Response [European]

Cross-section of Enfield Cartridge 'spark of the great Indian Mutiny' From: Guards Museum Wellington Barracks

1. Mutiny = military revolt pure and simple

- it was thus an affair of soldiers [Lawrence]

2. Mutiny = result of widespread conspiracy

- by whom? [Chappatis] [Malleson]

3. Mutiny = possesses all the characteristics of a 'National Uprising' [Karl Marx]

4. Mutiny = result of Brahmanical Protest [Kaye]

[Consult: A.T. Embree, 1857 in India, Problems in Asian civilisations series, D.C. Heath][BOOK 3]

Later Indian Responses:

5. Mutiny = 1st war of Independence [V.D. Savakar 1909 : revolutionary poet]

6. Mutiny = basically a civilian revolt - hence popular. Emphasis on forward-looking nature of uprising. No mere recoil of past [S.B. Chaudhuri 1958]

7. Mutiny = Social revolution, expressing class antagonisms. It was therefore war against landlordism and imperialism. Emphasis on peasantry, religion used as symbolic 'casus belli'. [P.C. Joshi - Sec. of Communist Party 1932-45]

8. Mutiny = inevitable response by Indians to foreign domination. Stresses general all-Indian causes. [S.N. Sen 1957. Official Govt of India Centenary History] [see also R. Mukherjee]

Revisionist Historians:

These tend to look at what happened in the localities, in each district and village to ascertain patterns of disaffection and response.

9. Eric Stokes - Attempts to establish why some Taluqdars revolted, while others did not.

- was disaffection due to high taxes?

- was it result of land redistribution?

10. John Pemble - isolates specific factors peculiar or unique to OUDH.

11. J. Masters - Maverick ['Night Runners of Bengal']

Mutiny presented as a who-dunnit, Irish to blame

Upshot:

A great deal of historical 'begging the question' involved

eg. From name given to uprising can be deduced the cause

- If Mutiny is called a peasants' revolt

Then causes = Agrarian in nature : taxes ... over rent ... landlessness

- If Mutiny is called a War of Independence

Then causes = love of country ... desire for freedom ... vision of nation

And so on and so forth!

Basically historical dispute centres on:

(a) general, all-India causes v (b) specific, regional causes

Can the two be reconciled?

Problem: If all-India causes, why not all-India revolt?

Problem: If regional causes, are all-India grievances against the British a factor at all?

Wild Card - throw British Military and Administrative incompetence into the equation

= Potent mixture in the circumstances

What happened?

* Can we determine course of 1857/8 happenings?

i Background: greased cartridge incident

ii Meerut breakout

iii Chain reaction of Mutiny throughout OUDH

What emerges is that many of the above theories do not seem to meet the facts.

Regional Characteristics/inputs seem to be telling

Since Mutiny confined to Oudh, can we identify ingredients that were specific to it and not applicable to centres of British power: Madras, Bombay, Calcutta

- very little exposure to British rule

- traditional rulers still strong

- Oudh = a heavily armed province

- The British seem militarily inept

- immediate grievances

Compare the volatile Punjab [under John Lawrence], which did not revolt, with Oudh - explanation?

The Geriatric Factor

Dad's Army in OUDH

Tutorial Questions to Address

1. The general all-India causes of the Mutiny:
- religious interference
- military grievances
- agricultural policies
In what ways can they explain, if at all, the events of 1857?

3. Historiography
Has too much been made of the Mutiny by historians and others?
Does its significance lie not in what it was, but in what commentators have maintained it was?

Core Reading

Brown, Ch II

Hibbert

Hutchins, Chs. 3, 4

Masselos, Chs. 2, 3, 4

Woodruff, Vol. 1, part III, Ch XII

Additional Reading

C.A. Bayly, Peasant Armed. Indian Revolt of 1857

S.B. Chaudhuri, Civil Rebellion in the Indian Mutinies 1857-9

A.T. Embree (ed.), 1857 in India. Mutiny or war of Independence? (Very useful for range of interpretations - good starting point for essay 2.)[See BOOK 3]

R. Mukherjee, Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858: A Study of Popular Resistan

J. Pemble, The Raj, the Indian Mutiny and the Kingdom of Oudh 1801-1859

S.N. Sen, Eighteen Fifty-Seven [Ch in BOOK 3]

E. Stokes, The Peasant and the Raj

Articles

Special Issue of Indo-British Review: 'The East India Company Raj', Vol. XXI, no. 2 (1996). Articles by Latham and Blake.

E.I. Brodkin, 'The Struggle for Succession: Rebels and Loyalists in the Indian Mutiny', Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 6, 1972

E. Stokes, 'Rural Revolt in the Great Rebellion of 1857 in India', Historical Journal, 12, 1969