An Assessment of the Motives of the Rebels in 1857-A.H Amin

An Assessment of the Motives of the Rebels in 1857

A.H Amin

1998

The British authors even today describe the rebellion as mutiny. By and large the Britishers think that British rule in India was very beneficial for Indians. Strictly, technically speaking the Bengal Army did mutiny. It is true that they had been serving the English East India Company loyally for some 100 years before they mutinied. But when we look at it from the other angle we are surprised as to, how could so many men from so many regiments decide to no longer obey their previous masters. They defied death and continued to do so despite being fully aware about their fate from March 1857 till May 1858. A mutiny in the history of an army normally breaks out due to war weariness and defeat in war like in the Russian Army in 1904-5, the French Army in WW one or in the Russian Army in 1917. Sometimes it breaks out due to oppressive conduct of an individual commander or an officer. Here in 1857 there was no war weariness and yet more than a hundred regiments rebelled and fought till annihilation, a long protracted war knowing fully well the consequences of their actions. We see regiments starting rebelling from March 1857 and doing so without fail till May 1858 at a time when no one in India had any doubt that the British had won. We see a group of soldiers belonging to a number of Asian races rebelling against a company consisting of individuals from one single European race. Even in ethnic terms the differences are too glaring. But the British even today want us to believe and have actually convinced many Indo Pak intellectuals into believing that it was a mutiny. Mutiny was not certainly the motive of the sepoys. The same could not be said for earlier mutineers of the Bengal Army, who mutinied as a protest against not getting certain financial benefits. But in 1857 the sepoy was speaking for all the Indian and was trying to unilaterally get what Indians got in 1947 after a long series of constitutional and political negotiations. The sepoy was a patriot and when 3rd Light Cavalry seized Delhi on 11 May 1857 they were freedom fighters. The feudals of Oudh or the King of Delhi or the dispossessed Rajas or Ranis were opportunists. They were only interested in their personal privileges and as long as the EEIC accepted their demands they were happy. There is reason to believe that Bahadur Shah Zafar was happier with the EEIC pension of some 10,000 pounds a month which the EEIC gave him. He was 82 years old and had just a few more years to live. On 11 May 1857 a role of freedom fighter was thrust upon him and he accepted it under severe pressure of the Meerut Sepoys and many of his relatives. Actually, he never had any choice since the sepoys had occupied Delhi and no EEIC relieving force was in sight till 8th of June 1857. The EEIC response, specially the masterly inaction of the Meerut Division British officers convinced him that the EEIC was not invincible. Anyway the sepoys gave him little respect and used to address him as "Old Man" etc. Narrative of Syed Mubarak Shah and Jivanlal confirms this. There is absolutely reliable evidence which proves that Bahadur Shah Zafar tried to secretly negotiate with the British after Delhi had been seized by the sepoys but the British turned down his request and refused to negotiate with him 467. The only thing the king wanted were continuation of his personal allowances and privileges. The Nawab of Oudh and his family were also a bunch of opportunists. As long as the state was not annexed the EEIC was good. The Nawab as a matter of fact enjoyed a British pension till many decades after 1857 at Calcutta. Some feudals like Rao Tula Ram of Hariana468, the Raja of Ballabghar and some Talukdars of Oudh were patriots. These were the ones who went into exile to Nepal and never returned. On the top of this list was Hazrat Mahal of Oudh who withdrew with the sepoys to Nepal after the capture of Lucknow in March 1858 and refused an offer of a British pension. This dancing girl who later on became a wife of Wajid Ali Shah was more of man than all the feudal Khans, Tiwanas, Rajas, Syeds and Nawabs of post 1857 India whose descendants subsequently became our Prime Ministers and leader after 1947. In any case, it required a bigger and stouter heart even to be on opportunist on the “Rebel” side and a more calculating and dishonest mind to join the British. In the final analysis on the “Rebel” side there were fewer opportunists than on the British side. Feudals like the Nawabs of Rampur, Pataudi, Loharu and Bhopal did not join the rebels although all around their territory the area was held by the sepoys. There was a third category which did the maximum harm to the "Rebel" cause. These were the city and the rural riff raff who joined with rebellion for cheap thrills. These were the one who were most directly involved in atrocities committed on the European women and children. There was yet another group who joined the rebels. There were internally motivated civilians who were neither feudal nor a Bengal Army sepoy. These included leaders like Maulvi of Faizabad regarded by the British as one of the finest tacticians of 1857. He was a chivalrous man who even the Britishers acknowledged was never involved in any atrocity committed against any civilian or non combatant. We have Tantia Topi another civilian who was again a brilliant tactician and strategist. We have the common civilians of Delhi, Lucknow, Gugera, Murree, Bareilly etc. who the British called Ghazis. These men had little to gain and everything to lose, yet they joined the rebellion. the rebellion of 1857 was an inspiring event but the period from 1857 till 1947 and even today was the triumph of opportunism!