ia_2009_d_barnett

=D. Analysis (500-650 words) Tips]=

The issues that were seen to be rising all over India throughout the 1850s could be viewed as a presaging of what was to go on to happen throughout the rest of the empire. Leaders of small bands of rebels were rising up all over various regions due to several factors that unsettled them. The mutiny its self is significant because last year marked the 150th anniversary, and also sparked a heated debate as to weather it was indeed a mutiny or a fight for independence, therefore the topic still remains important today. The rebellion consisting of the countries civilians was comprised of three different groups: taluqdar (rural landlords), feudal nobility and the peasants. The taluqdars, due to the land reforms after the seize of Oudh, lost over half of their land to the peasant farmers. In their discontented state the taluqdars took back the land that had been stripped from them and to the surprise of many the peasant held to their “feudal loyalty” and proposed no real opposition, many of them when on to join the rebellion, “many of whom joined the rebellion to the great dismay of the British”. [1] It has also been argued that due to heavy land revenue assessing by the British led many families who owned land to either lose it or get into great debt with money lenders who subsequently became an object of the rebels loathe as well and the HEIC. [2]   Many of the countries' nobles had had their titles and lands stripped from them under the Doctrine of Lapse  [3] , the felt bitter about it and felt that the British had been meddling with their traditional system of inheriting the thrown. Insurgent leaders by the names of Nana Sahib, who lead an assault in 1857 on the residency of Kanpur on the anniversary of Plassey (June 23rd)”it was planned to take places precisely on the anniversary” [4] , and the Rani of Jhansi  [5]  were key players in this group. The Rani of Jhansi stated that she was willing to accept the HEIC supremacy if they were prepared to accept and recognize her adopted son as her heir, “The HEIC had told the royals that only royal blood would be accepted as royalty.” [6]  In the other areas of India where royalty had not been effected in such a way the princes stayed true to the HEIC, even in places where sepoys had been rebelling. However, the rebellion was not merely the result of social discontent amongst the taluqdar and the feudal nobility. There were also military factors to the cause of the mutiny, during 1772 Warren Hastings became the first governor of the HEIC’s territories. One of his first assignments was to deal with the rapid expansion of the army, because most of the available sepoys (Indian soldiers loyal to a European power) from Bengal, had battled against the company during the battle of Plassey, and were view as disloyal. Hastings made a decision to recruit further west from areas such as the Raiputs, Oudh and Bihar, this then continued for the following 75 years. Though to avoid any social grievances the Company had to adapt, allow and accommodate for its army’s religious practices. “This encouragement of high caste ritual status, however, left the government vulnerable to protest, even mutiny, whenever the sepoys detected infringement of their prerogatives.” [7]  After the annexing of Oudh in 1856 many of the sepoys seemed troubled by the thought of the increase land revenue payments that were certain to come. [8] Then in 1857 there was a band of India soldiers who perceived the presence of missionaries as an attack on Hinduism and Islam in the country, though the sepoy loyalty was not affected by this it did cause them to keep a close watch on every move the British made. What did affect the sepoys was the changes made in what was now to be required of them. With the expansion of the Company came travel to new lands, this meant that the sepoys were serving in less familiar grounds, such as Burma in 1856 during the Anglo-Burmese Wars, leaving them discontent and resentful. Financially the British created even more friction with the sepoys through the general service act. Under this act the retired sepoys were denied of a pension, at the time it was only applied to the freshest of recruits though it was believe throughout the army that it would soon apply to all. On top of that both the Bombay and Madrass armies were paid more than the Bengal army, this only gave the sepoys more doubt about pensions. The last straw was more of a religious matter. A new rifle was introduced to the regiment, the 1853 Enfield. To be able to load the riffle sepoys had to open the cartridge with their teeth, the cartridges that were issued were greased with lard, which comes from pork fat, thus regarded as unclean by the Muslims, if it was not greased with pork fat it had been coated in tallow, which is beef fat, which is seen as sacred to Hindus. Today there is still a debate as to what the events of 1857 should be named, the Indian mutiny, or the Indian war of independence. In England it is known as the Indian mutiny whereas in India it is referred to as “the First National War of Independence”[9] Personally I view it as a mutiny as the Indians were under rule of the British and the majority were content with the ruling.

= =

[1] Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf (2006). A concise history of modern India. Page 102 Cambridge; Cambridge University Press (ISBN: 0521863627). [2] Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal (2004). Modern South Asia. Page 91 New York: Routledge (ISBN: 0415307872). [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Lapse (refused to recognise the adopted children of princes as legal heirs) [4] Lawrence James (2000). Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. Page 37 St. Martin's Griffin (ISBN: 0312263821). [5] Lakshmibai, The Rani of Jhansi, one of the principal leaders of the rebellion who earlier had lost her kingdom as a result of the Doctrine of Lapse. [6] Judith M. Brown (1994). Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Page 91 Modern India. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press (ISBN: 0198731132). [7] Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf (2006). A concise history of modern India. Page 61 Cambridge; Cambridge University Press (ISBN: 0521863627). [8] Judith M. Brown (1994). Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Page 88 Modern India. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press (ISBN: 0198731132). [9] [|www.goodreports.net/reviews/theindianmutiny.htm] (28/09/08)