The Indian Mutiny (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Indian Mutiny

Background to the mutiny

In the years leading up to 1857, tensions between the British authorities and Indian soldiers (sepoys) in the East India Company's army reached breaking point. Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General, dismissed warnings about growing sepoy discontent and proceeded with plans to equip the Indian army with the new Enfield rifle. This decision proved disastrous.

The paper cartridges for the Enfield rifle were reportedly coated with grease made from pork and beef fat. Since the cartridges had to be bitten off before loading, this created serious religious offense. Muslims regarded the pig as unclean, while Hindus considered the cow to be sacred. Although the army command withdrew the offending cartridges quickly, the damage had been done. Many sepoys in 1857 remained unconvinced by British reassurances.

The outbreak of the mutiny

In May 1857, the situation exploded at Meerut. Eighty-five sepoys were court-martialled for refusing to accept the new cartridges. They received sentences of ten years' hard labour in prison. The following day, three sepoy regiments at Meerut mutinied, killing all the British officers they could find.

The mutineers then marched on Delhi and quickly captured India's ancient capital, killing every European they encountered. The mutiny spread rapidly to Oudh, Cawnpore and Lucknow. Within weeks, Britain lost control of much of north-central India. Approximately 70,000 sepoys mutinied, whilst a further 30,000 deserted their posts.

The military mutiny was accompanied by wider civil rebellions, driven by accumulated grievances against British rule. The 80-year-old former Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah (heir to a Muslim dynasty which had ruled much of India from 1526 until 1858), was proclaimed as ruler by the rebels.

Why the mutiny was contained

Despite the initial shock, several factors worked in Britain's favour:

• The majority of Indian princes who had existing treaties with Britain remained loyal to British authority.
• Britain raised a large irregular force through the Punjab's tribal chiefs, who provided military support.
• Sepoy troops in Bengal, the Punjab, Bombay and Madras remained loyal throughout the crisis.
• The mutiny or rebellion was geographically confined to northern India. Even within this region, many Indians opposed the rebels rather than supporting them.
• No outstanding Indian leader emerged to unite the disparate rebel forces. Consequently, there was no unified command structure, no coherent strategy and little coordination between different rebel groups.
• The rebels lacked (for the most part) Enfield rifles, relying instead on muskets which were far less accurate and effective.

The British response and suppression

Britain nevertheless faced massive problems in restoring control. It took three months for British troops to restore order at Delhi. Large numbers of British reinforcements arrived – approximately 90,000 in total – before Britain could begin to recapture lost cities. British officers consistently demonstrated skill and determination. The struggle for Lucknow, the capital of Oudh, lasted twelve months before British troops regained full control in March 1858.

British and loyal sepoy troops effectively suppressed the revolt in mid-1858 when they retook Gwalior. Resistance in some areas continued into 1859. The Viceroy finally declared a state of peace in July 1859.

Atrocities and casualties

Terrible atrocities were committed by both sides during the conflict. Mutineers slaughtered British men, women and children. At Cawnpore, approximately 200 British women and children were murdered. British reprisals proved equally brutal. Large numbers of mutineers and rebels were executed, often without any pretence of a trial. Some were hanged, whilst others were tied to cannon mouths and blown to pieces. Entire rebel villages were burned to the ground.

Britain lost some 2000 soldiers killed in military action. A further 9000 died from disease. Indian casualties probably exceeded 100,000.

Many Indians concluded from the mutiny's failure that attempting to overthrow British rule by force could lead only to catastrophe. The defeat of the mutiny and rebellion thus helped to consolidate British rule rather than weaken it.

Historiographical perspectives

The Indian Mutiny (to use its British name) has generated heated historical debate. Indian historians once viewed the mutiny as a national revolution against British rule. Today, however, most Indian scholars think that 'rebellion' provides a better description than 'revolt'. The mutiny is increasingly seen as backward-looking, with the rebels and mutineers focusing their dislike of British rule on the policy of Westernisation. Their main desire was not for a new united India but a return to past ways, or at least a regionalised 'old' India.

For historian Jadunath Ghosh (writing in the 1930s), the mutiny represented the last gasp of the Mughal Empire rather than the first flowering of Indian nationalism.

British historians once viewed the mutiny as a localised army revolt, sparked by the introduction of the Enfield rifle and new cartridges. Most now emphasise the importance of broader social, economic and political discontent resulting from the policy of Westernisation. They tend to see the mutiny as historian Christopher Hibbert (1973) characterised it: 'the last swan song of Old India'. It was more than an army mutiny but a good deal less than the 'first Indian war of independence'. Confined to northern India, it was a mixture of military uprising, political coup, religious war, peasant revolt and race riot: a reaction against both long-standing and immediate grievances.

Indian reforms

In 1858, the administration of India was taken from the East India Company and placed directly under the British Crown and Parliament. A secretary of state and a council of fifteen ministers were appointed to run Indian affairs. A viceroy replaced the governor-general as the new ruler.

The Indian army was also reformed:

• Indian soldiers were never to outnumber British troops by more than two to one.
• All artillery in India was placed under British control.
• The new Indian army was recruited almost entirely from loyal Punjabis and hardy hill farmers – the so-called 'martial races'.
• After 1858, British officers treated Indian troops with greater respect.

The military reforms ensured that British rule would continue. India's armed forces could be – and were – used for imperial purposes, helping to maintain Britain's other territories around the Indian Ocean.

British rule after 1858

After 1858, rather than train a new Western-educated elite (which had been the aim before 1857), Britain sought to work with India's traditional rulers. Britain hoped that the latter would ensure that most Indians remained loyal. Princes and other traditional rulers thus became an important collaborating class.

Social, religious and cultural matters were left in their hands. British administrators made no effort to overthrow the caste system. Nor, after 1857, did they challenge Hinduism or Islam. Christian evangelism was discouraged. The new emphasis was on holding India rather than preparing it for self-rule.

The caste system

The caste system fixed people's position in Indian society and prevented mobility from one caste to another (for example, by marriage). In the Hindu caste system there were four main caste divisions: brahmins (priests), ksatriyas (warriors), vaisyas (merchants) and sudras (serfs). Outside these groups were the 'outcastes' or untouchables. Each system was elaborately subdivided. The 1901 census identified 2378 main castes, some of which had several hundred subcastes.