Historians have disagreed about the causes of the Indian Mutiny in 1857.
To what extent did the clash of religions act as a cause of the Indian Mutiny?
By early 1857, the East India Company, who oversaw and conducted trade in India, had become the de facto leaders on behalf of the authoritative British government, who had power over two thirds of the Country. The capability of the East India Company to effectively control such a vast land was due to its considerable company army. It consisted of 230,000 native Indian soldiers, known as the sepoys, and just short of 50,000 Europeans. Due to the extensive number of soldiers, it would appear as though the sepoys' service to their country was their utmost priority, however, the loyalty to the company would remain subordinate to their culture and religion. The economic and political upheaval that would follow the actions of the East India Company, such as the loss of monopoly on the industry after the Charter Act of 1813, would arguably be the trigger of the Indian Mutiny, beginning in May 1857 in Meerut. However, the cultural discontent suffered by the Indian population, due to the corrupt and insensitive nature of the company alongside the growing British territorial take over, contributed enormously to the debate among historians of the cause of the mutiny. Most notably, the sepoys were anxious about the stability of their religions due to the evangelical Christian attempt to convert the Indians to Christianity. For instance, it was seen as an opposition to the caste system for Hindus to travel over water, thus assumption over the intended destruction of the caste system resonated in the native population. The undermining of native religions through the building of Christian schools and strong sense of superiority indicated the motifs of the British to achieve complete self-rule over the country.
This debate regarding the true cause of the Indian Mutiny has been considered widely among historians, and is still an issue of controversy today. In his account, 'The Great Mutiny,' written in 1978, Christopher Hibbert argues that it was not only the threats to religion but also the unpopular reforms by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie that sparked discontent in the native regiments. He declared that the lack of understand between officers and native troops contributed to the rumbling discontent that provoked the uprising. William Dalrymple puts forward a similar argument in, 'The Last Mughal,' declaring that the rise of Evangelical Christians combined with the imperial arrogance from the increasingly powerful British generated the discontent that triggered the mutiny. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, however, in, 'The Indian War of Independence,' offers a somewhat contrasting opinion concluding that it was the rupture of local traditions in conjunction with the British annexations that caused the rebellion. He stated it was the British imperial self-interest and disregard toward new acquisitions that enflamed nationalist passion and subsequently initiated the rebellion. The causes of the Indian Mutiny are reflected in debate among historians as a definitive interpretation of the argument remains unidentified.
To what extent did the clash of religions act as a cause of the Indian Mutiny?
In the early 19th century, the British government had intentions to increase political control of India and to secure the financial solvency of the East India Company. This meant that the East India Company was strongly regulated by the British government. Subsequently, the attitudes to the British Government in India were becoming increasingly poor and were not helped by the insensitive treatment of the Indian population and the lack of awareness for cultural traditions. As a result of the actions of the East India Company between 1829 and 1857, a number of grievances built up in the native populations under British rule. It could be contended that the rebellion was fundamentally a reaction to the challenges to traditional religious and cultural foundations, yet there arguably were several other contributors that caused the rebellion of 1857.
In the mid 1800s, a sense of cultural superiority was emerging in the Company, which resulted in the unjust ambition to 'improve' the native population. For both the British and the Indians, religious motivation functioned as a powerful rationale for the uprising and it was used as legitimation for their actions. One of the most controversial and insensitive features of British involvement was the introduction of new weaponry for the company armies. The sepoys had been issued with a new Enfield rifle alongside canisters that were lubricated with cow and pork fat, deeply forbidden by Hindus and Muslims respectively. The caps of the canisters had to be removed by biting them off before inserting the powder into the weapon, which lead to an increase in outrage towards the British and their lack of sympathy and understanding of local customs. Despite attempt to reverse the carelessness of the East India Company, by substituting the forbidden fats, the sepoys considered the 'carelessness' of the company to be a deliberate stratagem to undermine the foundations of their religions. It was not only the undermining of their religions but also the active attempt to convert the Indian nationals to Christianity. This lead to an appeared increase in racial superiority of the British as well as a definitive representation of the lack of awareness of traditional cultural behaviors. However, the opinions of the Indians were not considered by the British, thus the company operators and officials only became less tolerant of local customs and religions. As this was such a critical component of the British ignorance, in the short term, it acted as an extremely violent trigger for the uprising. Thus, indicating that the clash of religions was the most decisive cause of the Indian Mutiny.
From a more political position, between 1833 and 1857, Governors Bentinck and Dalhousie instituted powerful national reform. Lord William Bentinck, initiated the abolition of the thagi and sati, as well as the decision to make English the official language of government, seen in the Education Act 1835. The suppression of the thagi, those who practiced highway robbery, was seen as another attempt to reform India by the British. Ultimately, the campaign led by Colonel William Sleeman punished around 3,000 thagi for their crimes. Although movement was not hugely resented by the Indians, the British saw the success of the campaign as reasoning to continue reforming the subcontinent. However, this level of tolerance after the eradication of the thagi was not replicated with the Act of Abolition against the sati in 1829. This was the traditional Hindu ritual where husband’s widows would sacrifice themselves after the death of their husbands. This was a hugely important religious tradition as it represented the sanctity of the marital bond, and the abolishment of it left a serious impact on the local population. In 1813, William Wilberforce forced amendment to the Charter Act to allow missionaries to preach against the sati. This interference by the British was again seen as a direct attack on caste purity and further intensified resentment towards the British for their insensitivity and supposed superiority.
Another argument for the immediate causes of the Indian Rebellion is the forms made by Dalhousie, who was governor general from 1848 to 1856. His primary aim was to change the societies which the Company now governed as a result of the Mughal Empire's disintegration. In his text, 'The Indian Mutiny,' Julian Spilsbury states that 'Lord Dalhousie was keen on bringing to the people of India the benefits of modern Western notions of government' and goes on to described the dissatisfaction and discontent felt by the natives as a result of Dalhousie's reforms. Dalhousie's modernizing ambitions saw, for example, the rapid expansion of Indian infrastructure on the Western lines, expanding the network of railways and roads. Despite being seemingly beneficial for the population, the Hindu tradition forbade the sharing of roads between different caste systems, which again highlighted alleged attempt to destroy the caste system. This, however, was not Dalhousie's most controversial move. He assumed British paramountcy, declaring that the British would intervene in the affairs of the subcontinent. Similarly, that under the Doctrine of Lapse, Britain would obtain power should the native ruler die without a legitimate heir. This is some sense refers, again, to an insensitivity towards Hindu law and succession allowed for an adopted son, should there be no other legitimate heir. The Doctrine of Lapse would prove to be Dalhousie's downfall, and a primary cause of the mutiny. On account of the Doctrine, the British annexed the province of Awadh on 7 February 1856, the seventh annexation to occur under Dalhousie. This lead to significant resentment among the residents of Awadh that was only further increased by the announcement that all land would be taken from talukdars, who were unable to legally identify the ownership of their land. In his analysis, 'Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858,' Rudrangshu Mukherjee states that the 'pattern of settlement with the village proprietors disturbed the internal structure of the estates,' and that it was this 'disturbance' that acted as a trigger for the rebellion. This attack on the native social order hugely undermined the population, thus acting as an immediate cause of the rebellion. It appears as though each cause of the rebellion has religious connotations, regardless of its primary intention. Therefore, it could be argued that the clash of religions is the most decisive cause of the rebellion.
One of the long term causes of the mutiny was the arrival of missionaries in the late 18th century. Surprisingly, the East India Company were against their arrival as they wanted to avoid conflict due to the clash of religion that already existed. The first Baptists that arrived concentrated on education and the translation of the Bible into Bengali. The Baptists concentrated on education and translation of the Bible in to Bengali, which despite appearing to be conscious of the Indian culture, the introduction of the Bible was hugely resented. Similarly, they set up a college of training indigenous ministers and ensured that the Anglican and Baptist ministers were focused on the education of Indians in English. Their influence became powerful enough to lift the ban on missionaries seen in the Charter Act of 1813 and this increased the infiltration of the missionaries greatly. This interference by the missionaries was a direct attempt to change the religious beliefs of the natives, that were so fundamental to their culture. Moreover, the intentional undermining of the religious beliefs of the natives was seen as the most excessive feature of modernization and indicates that the main cause of the mutiny was the clash of religions.
Ultimately, it could be argued that the actions of the governors, the Doctrine of Lapse and the control of the East India Company are all contributing factors to the cause of the Indian Mutiny. However, each of these events have several religious consequences that acted as immediate triggers for the rebellion. The modernizing vision of the British in contrast to the traditional culture seen within the subcontinent act as both a long term and short term causes of the mutiny. The insensitivity of the British and the defensive nature over religion of the Indians sparked the severe opposition that, in-turn, caused the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
(b) Differing Interpretations
Hibbert, Savarkar and Dalrymple all have different views on the extent to which the clash of religions acted as a cause of the Indian Mutiny.
In his works, 'The Great Mutiny,' Christopher Hibbert argues that the discontent in the native regiments was due to Dalhousie's unpopular reforms and the threats to their religion. He concluded that the introduction of new cartridges and lack of understanding between officers and native troops all contributed to the rumbling discontent that sparked the mutiny. He argues,
Dalhousie's reforms, while considered sensible and just by most of their British masters, were not seen in the same light by most Indians. Throughout Dalhousie's years in office intensive efforts had been made to establish the rights of landholders to the property which they claimed to own and the amount of money which out to be received from it. Several great landowners had been dispossessed of large parts of their estates. Thousands of lesser landowners had been dispossessed entirely… so they, too, felt deeply aggrieved by the Government's reforms, apprehensive as to what further deprivations their British rulers might have in mind.
Hibbert's argument is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, he argues that the reforms made by Governor-General Dalhousie, that were initially 'considered sensible' by the British, were the main trigger for the aggravation of the Indian natives. This is controversial as many historians argue that the Indian Mutiny was not a direct repercussion of the actions of Dalhousie, but direct attack on religion through the missionaries and wider insensitivity of the British. Hibbert somewhat rejects this view, appreciating that it was partially the threat to religion, seen with the introduction of the new musket rifle, but argues that the most compelling factor was the actions of General Dalhousie. This evidence indicates the widespread discontent among the native inhabitants and that the actions of Dalhousie were a considerable trigger for the rebellion.
Secondly, Hibbert augments his argument by declaring how the peasants 'preferred their own old ways to the strange ones being imposed upon them by the foreigners.' By this, Hibbert solidifies his argument that it was the disregard for traditional values in the sub-continent, by the British, that resulted in the cataclysmic discontent. This indicates that the argument proposed by some historians regarding the causes of the Indian Mutiny is debateable, due to the extensive impact made by the actions of Governor-General Dalhousie.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar argues a fairly similar view of the causes of the Indian Mutiny in, 'The Indian War of Independence.' He concluded that it was the rupture of local traditions in conjunction with the British annexations and the actions of Lord Dalhousie that caused the rebellion. He stated it was the British imperial self-interest and disregard toward new acquisitions that enflamed nationalist passion and subsequently initiated the rebellion. Savarkar describes the arrival of Dalhousie saying,
With the result of a hundred years of wicked English policy behind him, obstinate by nature, possessed of boundless self-confidence, his flesh and blood permeated by the glory and pride of an unjust Empire, the bold, if not clever, man landed on the shores of our land.
In his argument, Savarkar declares that it is no coincidence that the rebellion happened on the Centenary of the Battle of Plassey, which was a decisive victory for the East India Company, highlighting the 'hundred years of wicked English policy.' He continues to consider the fact that Dalhousie pursued the method of an 'unjust Empire' and declares that the unceasing annexations were a cause of the resounding discontent that sparked the rebellion. Similar to the argument of Hibbert, Savarkar asserts that Dalhousie's actions reduced India to a fraction of its former glory and that the continued disruption of the British Empire eventuated in Indian War of Independence.
Somewhat contrastingly, William Dalrymple, in his book, 'The Last Mughal,' argues that it was the rise of Evangelical Christians alongside the imperial arrogance from the increasingly powerful British that contributed to the cause of the Mutiny. Dalrymple argues that economically, politically and culturally the British had no interest in the traditions of the Indians and only sought to impose their perception of 'favourable' civilization. He declared that the arrogance of the British in combination with the rise of Evangelical Christianity hugely effected the relations between the British Empire and the natives of the sub-continent, and ultimately resulted in the Indian Mutiny.
Additionally, Dalrymple, unlike the two other historians considered, focused solely on the undermining of legitimate religious activities, seen most strongly through the influx of British missionaries. He argued that the approach of the missionaries, strongly promoting Christianity, was both aggressive and insensitive, highlighting the supposed superiority of the British. He declared the clash between Islamic fundamentalism and European imperialism, that subsequently re-enforced the other's prejudices, acted as the primary source of conflict that led to the rebellion. Dalrymple's argument is almost entirely contradictory to that of both Savarkar and Hibbert, who give little reference to the influence of missionaries being a cause of the rebellion. Despite all outlining the clash of rival fundamentalisms; Evangelical British, Muslims and Hindus, the historians propose varying, yet valid arguments for the cause of the Indian Mutiny.
These three views considered are different to a degree, yet interestingly take alternate stances on the fundamental cause that is the religious insensitivity of the British. Hibbert argues almost exclusively that it was the crass actions of Governor-General Dalhousie that caused the significant unrest among the natives that, in turn – resulted in the mutiny. Savarkar somewhat agrees with Hibbert's perspective, declaring that it was the actions of Dalhousie combined with the rupturing of cultural traditions that sparked the Indian War of Independence. Finally, Dalrymple disagrees with the idea that it was solely the actions of Dalhousie, but the imperial arrogance of the entire British Empire in contrast to the defensive nature of the inhabitants of the sub-continent that was the central cause of the rebellion.
(c) Explain the differences you have identified
These different interpretations can be explained in a number of ways. First, the historians had access to very different sources. Hibbert's, 'The Great Mutiny,' was published in 1980, over one hundred years after the rebellion. Therefore, Hibbert was able to meticulously research a vast number of sources, in order to obtain the most forthright argument. Hibbert made extensive use of unpublished materials as well as contacting many Indians when working in their country. He made sure to underscore the importance of the perspective of the ordinary Indian civilians, which was hugely fashionable during this time of writing, the 1970s. Hibbert followed the historical narrative movement, known as, 'People's History,' that attempted to account for the historical events from the viewpoint of 'common people', as opposed to the more typical view of officials. As well as considering documentation from more formal sources, such as the National Archives of India, Hibbert studied a 'great number of family papers, letters, diaries and memoirs'. This broad understanding of the experience of the Indian Natives, enabled Hibbert to give a holistic judgment of the causes of the Indian Mutiny. Savarkar wrote, 'The Indian War of Independence,' in 1909, far nearer the time of the rebellion. He declared that, at his time of writing, the War of 1857 had 'crossed the limits of current politics' and had been 'relegated to the realms of history'. Therefore, Savarkar focused strongly on the nationalistic tendencies of the mutiny and attempted to portray a far more positive view of the events of 1857. Like Hibbert, Savarkar collected the evidence from those who witnessed the rebellion and perhaps even took a leading part in the war, which enabled a distinctly comprehensive view of the mutiny. However, contrastingly, William Dalrymple wrote a far more contemporary piece on the rebellion. He considered previously unexamined Persian and Urdu manuscripts, that included eyewitness accounts of those present during the mutiny, which made for a coherent argument from the perspective of the sufferers. Writing in the early 21st century, Dalrymple had the awareness of decades of interpretations of the mutiny, making for an interesting take on its cause.
Secondly, the historians had very different political agendas and reasons for writing their interpretations. In Hibbert's writing, it is clear he has a somewhat left-wing influence, which is typical when writing in the theme of People's History. It is evident that he is in support of social equality through the consideration of the damaging effect British imperialism had on the Indian natives. Hibbert also portrays a Marxist tone in his writing, basing his analysis of the Indian Rebellion on the different classes and cultures effected, as well as considering the social transformation in the sub-continent, as a result of British intervention. His devote Christian upbringing would have enabled him to have a stronger sense of sympathy for the uprooting of traditional religious beliefs, as well as clearly understand the work of the missionaries. One of his reasons for writing was to convey a more balanced depiction of the sepoy revolt, and somewhat reduce the image of the dominance of the British in existing documentation. This parallels Savarkar's work that incorporated features of utilitarianism and humanism. He focuses strongly of the notion of the Indians fighting for their freedom and independence, rather than an unjust uprising. Savarkar, like Hibbert, wrote his works in order to portray an Indian interpretation of the mutiny and debunk the idea that it was an organised political uprising to destroy British imperialism in India. Lastly, Dalrymple also produced a balanced account of the uprising, being both empathetic for the rupture of tradition and considerate of the effect on the Indian population, before, during and after the mutiny. Dalrymple sought to portray the transformation of the East India Company from a benign state to an 'imperial monster', and with this highlighted the insensitive nature of the British. Like the other two historians considered, Dalrymple writes from the perspective of the individuals caught up in the mutiny and his sensitivity regarding the social hierarchy and hardship of the Indian natives indicates a distinct purpose in his writing: to bring a more coherent understanding of the story of the natives of the sub-continent.
Thirdly, the three historians focus on very different aspects of the past as well as having varying methodologies and styles of writing. Hibbert writes in a distinctly narrative style, ensuring the depth and detail of the events are covered. As Hibbert is most widely known for his popular historiography, it was key that he write from the political viewpoint of the Indian nationals. As well as wanting to convey an accurate analysis of the events of 1857, Hibbert intended to portray a more balanced view; focusing on experiences from both sides of the rebellion. Contrastingly, as Savarkar was a Hindu and Indian Nationalist, his take on the clash of religions in the mutiny would have been from a far more political perspective. In his text, Savarkar asserted that the Indian Mutiny was the first expression of Indian mass rebellion against the British colonial rule, which manifested as a major feature of Hindu nationalist ideology. This active focus meant Savarkar's interpretation of the events was hugely defensive, yet entirely balanced and honest. Lastly, William Dalrymple, is somewhat a combination of the two other historian's styles of writing. He integrates both scholarship and story-telling to convey a trans-cultural depiction of the events of the mutiny. He comments closely on the Anglo-Indian relations, focusing particularly on the geography of India, specifically Delhi. This geographical precision enabled Dalrymple to focus on the significant cultural impact of one specific area, alongside the political unrest in India's past as a whole.
Evidently, there are a variety of reasons concerning why the historians have different interpretations of the causes of the Indian Mutiny. The sources they had access to, their diverse political agendas and their conceptual focus as writers all contributed to the ultimate conclusions that they reached.
(d) Conclusion
In conclusion, Hibbert’s argument that the Indian Mutiny began as a result of the unpopular reforms by Governor-General Dalhousie is effective as it incorporates both the perspective of the British as well as the native Indians. However, Hibbert takes a non-specialist approach in his writing and describes the entire chronicle of the events of the Mutiny. This is arguably beneficial to his style of writing, yet the lack of specificity reduces the amount of new information regarding the causes of the mutiny.
However, Savarkar's argument, concluding that it was the rupture of local traditions in conjunction with the actions of Dalhousie that caused the War of Independence, was more controversial as he was a leading revolutionary himself. This ensured the text had an authentic and reliable opinion of the causes of the rebellion. However, it could be argued that the writer imbues a biased undertone to the writing, portraying the heroism and bravery of the natives, as opposed to the oppressive nature of the British imperials.
Compared to the other two historians considered, Dalrymple’s argument that it was the rise of the Evangelical Christians combined with the imperial arrogance of the increasingly powerful British is far more balanced. This is effective because Dalrymple's writing style is a combination of the passionate nationalist views of Savarkar and detailed narrative of Hibbert. However, his argument focuses almost exclusively on the missionaries’ involvement in the subcontinent, and lacks broad discussion on the other factors contributing to the cause of the Mutiny.
Ultimately, I believe that, due to the extensive variety of sources and perspective of the natives of the sub-continent, Christopher Hibbert's argument is the most convincing. In the final analysis, having reviewed the three historian’s arguments, it is clear that the clash of religions was arguably the most significant cause of the Indian Rebellion. However, I agree that the driving imperialism of the British and the actions of the officials, not exclusively in terms of religion, also acted as a trigger for the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
Bibliography
Works:
‘The Last Mughal’, William Dalrymple, 2006.
'The Indian War of Independence.', Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, 1909.
‘The Great Mutiny’, Christopher Hibbert, 1978.
Supplementary works:
‘Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858’, Chapter 2, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, 1984.
‘The Indian Mutiny’, Page 8, Julian Splisbury, 2007.