Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Indian Mutiny 1857

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Tamrhind (U956597) on Sunday, 15th January 2006

  I've been thru' the first 120-odd thread headers and couldn't find a discussion on this topic (there are 461 headers and I just didn't have the time or the patience to go thru' them all, so forgive any reptition).
  
  I just read Professor Marshall's article on the 'before-and-after' of the Mutiny (he calls it the Great Rebellion, a title I've never heard used before) and just thought I toss my tuppence worth in.
  
  As Prof. Marshall suggests, the standard textbook reasons for the Mutiny - use of fat in cartridges, imperial parochialism, etc. - while perhaps going a short way in providing explanations, are far too general and simplisitic.
  
  Reading "Nightrunners of Bengal" by John Masters - an OLD novel (1951) by a 5th-generation Raj military man -recently provided a few, more specific possibilities.
  
  He makes a suggestion regarding a prophecy, made after Clive triumphed at Plassey exactly a century previous to the Mutiny, that British rule would end in 100 years.
  
  This was then used by people in high, trusted positons for their own ends - politicians, after all, never change their spots.
  
  Combining disgruntlement, superstition, alienation, nationalism and a whole host of other emotive inducements, these people (with British imperial arrogance aiding their cause) convinced staggeringly-large numbers of historically-loyal sepoys to rise and murder their European comrades.
  
  This, to my reading at least, was Mr. Master's proposal.
  
  P.S. I'm Indian-born and British-raised, so I'm very interested in Raj history.

  Link to this forum: Indian Mutiny 1857

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 15th January 2006

  Tamrhind, hi,
  
  You may be disappointed to learn that the Indian Mutiny doesn't make its way onto these boards much. I, however am delighted that someone else has turned up with an interest in the Raj.
  
  It is difficult (for me) to assess the causes of the Indian Mutiny without referring to the generalisations that Professsor Marshall quotes. So, I'll list the generalisations, together with a little more detail.
  
  You are quite correct, there was an Indian prophecy that British Rule in India would end 100 years after Plassey. No doubt some local Indian rulers were using this prophecy for there own ends.
  
  The General Service Enlistment Act of 1856 which required recruits to serve overseas if required was a dangerous piece of legislation as a sepoy travelling overseas would, I believe I'm correct in saying, have broken his caste, requiring expensive rituals too remove the taint.
  
  This increased the fear of Christianisation amongst the Sepoys. Already they had seen the increasing presence of missionaries in India, intent on spreading Christianity. Indeed certain Colonels used the Sunday parades to deliver Christian sermons to the troops. Although there were many excellent officers in the East India Company (EIC), there were some who allowed their religous zeal to overcome the pragmatism of not interfering with others religous beliefs. This tohgether with the supression of suttee and the Thugee sect although admirable in western eyes and probably in a lot of Indian eyes was an interference in religous practices.
  
  The quality of the officers, in terms of understanding and seeing to the comfort of the troops under their command, was, in general, not as good as it had been. There were various isolated incidents which I've read about, where Sepoys were "insulted" by the European troops and British civilians. These insults probably arose more out of ignorance than a deliberate attempt to provoke. A more sensitive officer may have been able to smooth over the incidents and allay the fears of the Sepoys. A better officer in the European regiments may have ensured that his troops understood the customs and practices of Hinduism and Islam.
  
  This, however, may be a bit of a utopian dream of mine. There does appear to have been a schism in the EIC Army. The officers commanding the European Regiments appear to have been a bit contemptuous of the officers commanding the Native Regiments, their main complaint being the comparitively softer treatment handed out to the Sepoys and Sowars. (In the EIC a native soldier could not be flogged, but a European one could, for example).
  
  I'll also add in here that in the Bengal Army, the Oude sepoys had further grievances. The recent annexation of Oude cost them certain privileges. Add in that the more recent recruits undoubtedly were better educated and more sophisticated than the officers were used to. Also add in that the troops in the Bengal Army recieved less pay and poorer terms of service than those in the Madras and Bombay armies.
  
  Add to this rumours of "polluted" flour (with additives forbidden by the dietary laws of Islam and Hinduism), and finally the cartridge greased with beef and pork fat (which was, actually waxed).
  
  There is a potentially explosive situation developing.
  
  However, the British were warned of the unrest, when the 19th Bengal Infantry were disbanded for refusing the cartridge, and the 34th Bengal Infantry for the same reason plus not apprehending Mangal Pande for attempting to shoot the regimental adjutant. These regiments were disbanded. (Mangal Pande was later hung after a court-martial).
  
  The British still ignored the warnings, which came to a head when a company of the 3rd Bengal Cavalry, almost to a man refused the cartridge. They were court-martialled for insubordination, found guilty and sentenced to ten years hard labour. (Now here I struggle a bit, as disbandment was regarded as a harsh punishmnet, as was hanging, however it appears that hard labour was an even worse punishment in the minds of the Sepoys and Sowars). This is probably why the rest of the garrison decided to take direct action in freeing their comrades, and so the "mutiny" started.
  
  I believe it's part of the Officer training nowadays at Sandhurst that you should never give an order you think won't be obeyed. Carmichael-Smith would have been wise to have followed this instruction.
  
  Now, all of these resentments were real in the minds of the Sepoys and Sowars. Some were truely real. They all contributed to the outbreak of "Mutiny" which wasn't really a mutiny, as the Madras and Bombay Armies were almost unaffected.
  
  Phew, could post more, however would be most interested in your thoughts as to my modest attempt.
  
  Cheers AA.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Indian Mutiny 1857

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Tamrhind (U956597) on Sunday, 15th January 2006

  <quote user='Arnald Almaric' userid='1756653'>You may be disappointed to learn that the Indian Mutiny doesn't make its way onto these boards much. </quote>
  
  I am indeed. Very important event in Indian history books.
  
  <quote>This increased the fear of Christianisation amongst the Sepoys. Already they had seen the increasing presence of missionaries in India, intent on spreading Christianity. Indeed certain Colonels used the Sunday parades to deliver Christian sermons to the troops. Although there were many excellent officers in the East India Company (EIC), there were some who allowed their religous zeal to overcome the pragmatism of not interfering with others religous beliefs. This tohgether with the supression of suttee and the Thugee sect although admirable in western eyes and probably in a lot of Indian eyes was an interference in religous practices.</quote>
  
  <quote>However, the British were warned of the unrest, when the 19th Bengal Infantry were disbanded for refusing the cartridge, and the 34th Bengal Infantry for the same reason plus not apprehending Mangal Pande for attempting to shoot the regimental adjutant. These regiments were disbanded. (Mangal Pande was later hung after a court-martial).</quote>
  
  Other big factors that John Masters points to.
  
  He also makes his central character, a Captain Savage of the 13th Rifles, Bengal Native Infantry of the Honourable East India Company, the son of the man he feels is responsible for eliminating the cult of thuggery.
  
  <quote>The officers commanding the European Regiments appear to have been a bit contemptuous of the officers commanding the Native Regiments, their main complaint being the comparitively softer treatment handed out to the Sepoys and Sowars. (In the EIC a native soldier could not be flogged, but a European one could, for example).</quote>
  
  This was just the general mode of life as a colonist though, wasn't it? It was what Orwell despised most about the British in Burma, their treatment of the Burmese.
  
  </quote>

  Link to this forum: Indian Mutiny 1857

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 15th January 2006

  Tamrhind,
  
  I'll have to reread my Eric Blair (George Orwell), [apologies, I have to show off every now and again]. However he was talking about events 70 or 80 years later? Still relevant though.
  
  The Indian Mutiny is a very interesting subject, note I am choosing my words carefully, as I don't believe it was a conflict or war, more, in a more modern idiom a management / labour dispute, which has been distorted by assumed religious differences by historians as a convenient peg to hang a theme on.
  
  (I'd compare the Indian Mutiny to mining disputes in the 1980's in Britain, just my own personal opinion).
  
  I'm a white caucasian, brought up in the UK, heh what do I know?!
  
  To be honest, if you can refer me to any "balanced" histories of the Indian Mutiny written by Indian Authors I'd be very grateful.
  
  As I've said on another thread I do attempt to get a balanced view and new understanding through listening to others.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Indian Mutiny 1857

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Tamrhind (U956597) on Monday, 16th January 2006

  Tamrhind,
  I don't believe it was a conflict or war, more, in a more modern idiom a management / labour dispute, which has been distorted by assumed religious differences by historians as a convenient peg to hang a theme on.Β 
  
  Right on, couldn't agree more!
  
  I'm a white caucasian, brought up in the UK, heh what do I know?!
  
  To be honest, if you can refer me to any "balanced" histories of the Indian Mutiny written by Indian Authors I'd be very grateful.Β 
  
  Please do not ever make the mistake of asumuing that non-Europeans are somehow more universally rational and objective about national histories than Europeans are about theirs.
  
  That, in my mind (having experienced and lived in both 'worlds), is simply not the case - bigotry and intolerance are universal.

  Link to this forum: Indian Mutiny 1857

  Report message5

Back to top