Revolt of 1857

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

DYAL SINGH COLLEGE

University Of Delhi
Paper - History of India - VI [C.1750-1857]
HOI - VI Assignment

TOPIC-

Discuss the nature of the Revolt of 1857.


Was it the First war of Independence?

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Jyoti Kumari
21/85098 Dr. Hari Narayan Sahu
BA (Hons) History Dept.
History Dyal Singh College
Semester IV University of Delhi
Section A
JS AUTO PVT. LTD

Name : Anil Jha

Salary - 55,000/- ( Sale of 20-25 electric vehicle)

After 25 vehicles ₹1000 commission per vehicle.

State:- (Delhi,Punjab,Haryana)

Daily Expenses (Out of Delhi):-

Hotel charges ₹1500 per day


Dining and food charges ₹500 per day

Travelling fare from company


1

ASSIGNMENT

Question:
Discuss the nature of the revolt of 1857. Was it the
first war of independence?

Answer:
Revolt of 1857
There was a significant rebellion against British rule in 1857
known as Revolt, Indian Mutiny, or First War of
Independence.The 1857 uprising was widespread even if it
failed. For the British crown, the British East India Company
served as a sovereign power in India.Regarding the initial
eruption of hatred and wrath resulting from the pervasive
discontent towards the British, the Revolt of 1857 was a
stepping stone.
In the garrison town of Meerut, on May 10, 1857, sepoys of
the company's army staged a mutiny, signalling the start of
the uprising. The Revolt of 1857 is regarded as the first
instance of concerted opposition against the British East
India Company.
Even though the uprising began as a sepoy rebellion, the
Indian populace overwhelmingly supported it. The uprising
included peasants,artisans and members of other
communities and religions. For the benefit of others, the East
India Company's troops gave their lives. In this uprising,
everyone joined forces and battled as one.
2
Nature of the Revolt
Views differ on the nature of the 1857 revolt.It was a mere 'Sepoy
Mutiny' to some British historians--- "a wholly unpatriotic and
selfish Sepoy Mutiny' with no native leadership and no popular
support", said Sir John Seeley. However,that is not a complete
picture of the event as it involved many sections of the civillian
population and not just the sepoys. The discontent of the sepoys
was just one cause of the disturbance.
Dr K. Datta considers the Revolt of 1857 to have been "in the
main a military outbreak, which was taken advantage of by
certain discontented princes and landlords whose interests had
been affected by the new political order". The last mentioned
factor give it an aura of popular uprising in certain areas. It was
"never all-Indian in character, but was localised, restricted, and
poorly organised". Further, says Datta, the movement was
marked by absence of cohesion and unity of purpose among
the various sections of the rebels.
It was at the beginning of the 20th century that the 1857 revolt
came to be interpreted as a "planned war of national
independence" , by V.D Savarkar in his book, The Indian War of
Independence, 1857. Savarkar called the revolt the first war of
Indian independence. He said it was inspired by the lofty ideal of
self rule by Indians through a nationalist upsurge. Dr S.N Sen in
his Eighteen Fifty- Seven considers the revolt as having begun as
a fight for religion but ending as a war of independence.

Dr. R.C. Majumdar , however, considers it as neither the first, nor


national, nor a war of independence as large parts of the country
of the country remained unaffected and many sections of the
people took no part in the upsurge.
3
According to some Marxists historians, the 1857 revolt was
"the struggle of the soldier-peasant democratic combine
against foreign as well as feudal bondage". However, this view
can be questioned in the light of the fact that the leaders of
the revolt themselves came from a feudal background.
Jawaharlal Nehru considered the revolt of 1857 as essentially a
feudal uprising though there were some nationalistic elements
in it (Discovery of India). M.N Roy felt the revolt was a
last-ditch stand of feudalism against commercial capitalism.
R.P Dutt also saw the significance of the revolt of peasantry
against foreign domination even as he acknowledged it to be a
defence of the old feudal order.

The revolt of 1857 is not easy to categorise. While one can easily
dismiss some views such as those of L.E.R. Rees, who considered
it to be a war of fanatic religionists against Christians, or T.R.
Holmes, who saw it in a conflict between civilisation and
barbarism, one cannot quite go so far as accept it as a war for
independence. It had seeds far as to accept it as a war for
independence. It had seeds of nationalism and anti-imperialism,
but the concept of common nationality and nationhood was not
inherent to the revolt of 1857.
It is doubtful if the separate communities that participated in
the revolt did so because they felt a common nationhood.
Furthermore, what of the southern section which was not a
part of the revolt? Each of the leaders had a personal cause for
revolting; each had a personal interest to protect. However, as
Dr Sen points out, national revolutions are mostly the work of
a minority, with or without the active support of the masses.
Fron that point, the 1857 rebellion can claim a national
character.
4
BIBLIOGRAPHY

‣ Rajiv Ahir - A Brief History Of Modern India


‣ R.C. Majumdar - The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of
1857
‣ Rudrangshu Mukherjee - Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858
(A Study of Popular Resistance)
‣ Sashi Bhushan Chaudhari - Civil Rebellion in the
Indian Mutinies (1857-18589)
‣ Sekhar Bandyopadhyay - From Plassey to Partition: A
History of Modern India
‣ Notes by Dr. Hari Narayan Sahu
Zoho Show

revolt of 1857.pdf
(This PDF has been generated using Zoho Show)

To create beautiful presentations, download Zoho Show from Play Store


h ps://zoho.to/cy7

You might also like