what is the nature of the great revolt of 1857(write for about 5 marks)
Answers
There is no unanimity among scholars regarding the nature of the revolt of 1857 and a debate took place between 1950-1960 focusing attentions on three perspectives: sepoy mutiny, national struggle or first war of independence or a manifestation of feudalist revival.
All the British historians, in particular. Sir John Lawrance and Seelay are of the view that it was a sepoy mutiny as the sepoys refused to use the greased cartridges of the Enfield rifles and opposed the move.
An anxious conscious attempt on the part of the British to minimize the grievances of Indians and to restrict it only to a section of army’s revolt.Further, the British tried to portray civil disturbances as the actions of selfish vested interests of the landholders and the princes.
Their attempt was to prove that the colonial rule, if not welcomed, was not detested, as many Indian historians argue. L.E.R. Reese viewed it as a religious war against Christianity. J.R. Holmes expressed the opinion that it was a conflict between civilization and barbarism. Sir James Outram, W. Taylor and others are of the view that it was a conspiracy hatched by the Hindus and the Muslims against the British.
Contesting the British interpretation as that of sepoy mutiny only, the nationalist historians and in particular V.D. Savarkar in his banned book. The Indian War of Independence of 1857, published anonymously in 1912 argues that it was the first war of Indian independence inspired by the lofty ideal of self-rule by Indians through nationalist upsurge.
Ashok Mehta in his book The Great Rebellion expressed the view that the revolt was national in character. Bishewswar Prasad observes “as the end of the alien rule was the essential object and the chief purpose and in this sense the revolt of 1857 may be termed a national war for freedom, though the sentiment of nationalism in the modern sense had not taken deep roots in the soil of India at that movement”.
Tara Chand described it as “War of Nation’s Independence” in his book. History of Freedom Movement in India. Contradicting the above views of nationalist motivated perceptions, R.C. Majumdar concludes that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the so-called first national war of independence of 1857 is neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence as it was not preplanned and was limited to certain pockets in North India.Surender Nath Sen is of the view that: “The mutiny became a revolt and assumed a political character when the mutineers of Meerut placed themselves under the king of Delhi and a section of the landed aristocracy and civil population declared, in his favour. What began as a fight for religion ended as a war of independence for there is not the slightest doubt that the rebels wanted to get rid of the alien government and restore the old order of which the king of Delhi was the rightful representative”.
Since 1970, the historical perspective has shifted from the study of ‘sepoy mutiny’ or ‘national revolt’ to the examination of social roots of the revolt by understanding specific area studies. As a result of such studies, it is now established that the relationship between land revenue settlement and the revolt is very minimum. Further, it is now suggested that the roots of the revolt are traceable to the pockets of relative poverty due to ecological factors such as less fertile soil and severe revenue assessments imposed on arable land caused undue misery to the cultivator.
It is believed that it is very difficult to make generalization of the 1857 event as the response of the people varied from one area to another and as such it is argued that the revolt of 1857 was not one movement but many. The nature of the 1857 event has become so emotive that it gave scope to multiple perspectives.