Historians have disagreed about the extent to which the British treatment of the sepoys in the years 1800-1857 caused the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
What is your view about the extent to which the British treatment of the sepoys in the years 1800-1857 century caused the Indian Mutiny of 1857?
In 1857, Indian soldiers, working for the East India Company (sepoys), started a national uprising in Meerut. This uprising is now known as the Indian mutiny, and was an attack against the British, started by the sepoys against their British officers. There is some debate as to what extent it was the British treatment of the sepoys throughout the 19th century that caused the mutiny, or whether it was more political and cultural factors. It could be argued that it was the cultural oppression of the sepoys by their British superiors that caused the mutiny, which was only possible through the rising British power in the subcontinent throughout the 19th century.
British historians, Julian Spilsbury, Christopher Hibbert, and William Dalrymple, all have varying views as to what extent it was the treatment of the sepoys that caused the mutiny. Spilsbury takes a very political stance on the topic, going into vast detail about what enabled the British to have such great political and military power that they could treat the Indians so badly. On the other hand, Dalrymple goes into detail of how the British forced Christianity onto the Muslim and Hindu population in India, although he does say that it was particularly forced upon the sepoys by their British military leaders. Finally, Hibbert talks about the change in the general life of sepoys ‘ what their living standards were like, how they were treated by the British, and what changed for them in the 19th century. These historians provide some insight into the nature of the mutiny, and how much the treatment of the sepoys contributed to its breakout.
(a) To what extent was the British treatment of the sepoys in the years 1800-1857 cause the Indian Mutiny of 1857?
There is no ambiguity to the fact that the treatment of the Indian people, but more specifically, the sepoys, became increasingly worse as the British imposed their own politics, culture, and military regime onto India. These huge alterations to the subcontinent are likely what caused the Indian Mutiny, as they saw a huge rise in tension between the natives and the British, and seriously depleted Indian morale. The people at the heart of the Mutiny were the sepoys, and it is their treatment that became significantly worse between 1800 and 1857, as tension built up.
In the 18th century, India was mainly ruled by the East India Company (EIC), which had a monopoly over all trade, and the Mughal Empire, which was a member of the Muslim dynasty. However, in the early 1700s, the Mughal Empire collapsed which left a large power vacuum in India that the British quickly moved in on. The British didn’t invade India, but formed alliances with local tribes and power holders, establishing a strong foundation in the subcontinent, before working on a relationship with the Company to increase their power. In the early 1800s, the East India Company won battles with the local power holders, winning control over civil and legal administration. This seriously benefitted Britain because the Company began to act as a regularised subsidiary to the Crown in 1786, meaning that it was regulated by the British monarch and parliament. Despite the Charter Acts in both 1813 and 1833 which ended India’s monopoly on trade, they still gained huge economic and political control of India which the British took great advantage of. Furthermore, the British had direct control over the Company due to the Regulating Act of 1773 which created a ‘governing council of five’, which had two Company members and three British parliament members, ensuring a parliamentary majority. The Company also started to nominate governor generals who oversaw the council, however the governor general was ultimately decided by the king. Later, in 1784, the Board of Control was set up which included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Indian Secretary of State, and four privy councillors. Whilst this seemed like a compromise because of the inclusion of an Indian power holder, the Indian voice was a minority and the governor general had the power to override the Board anyway. The Company had several presidencies: the Bengal presidency, the Madras presidency, and the Bombay presidency. This meant that they could expand their territory, which in actual fact, became an expansion of what British representatives saw, as their expansion of territory. Because of this the tightening relationship between the East India Company and British parliament moved from being about protecting British economic interests, to an expansion of British political influence throughout the subcontinent, and resulted in a great influx of British representatives in India. The British became interested in tax collection and local administration, leading to a great deal of resentment from indigenous people who had already established their own customs. This was further enhanced by the company’s ability to raise private armies, which were often stronger than the local Muslim and Hindu armies, meaning that they were often surrendered to and could form alliances with local groups who wanted to protect themselves, meaning that the EIC gained both support, and more tax revenue. This particularly affected the people from rural areas as the British had more flexibility there than they did in the city. This caused unrest amongst the people living in the subcontinent, including aristocrats and princes, however, the job of a sepoy for the armies of the company’s presidencies brought high status, and so for a long-time, soldiers wouldn’t revolt against the British. It wasn’t until the British started bringing in soldiers from Nepal in 1857 who didn’t see themselves as elite and therefore didn’t act so privileged, that the original sepoys from the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay armies started to join in with rebellion. Whilst the rise of British control over the East India Company and the subsequent tax and imposition on local administration did increase tension between the British and the native people from the subcontinent, it could be argued that the rebellion wouldn’t have been able to occur without the sepoys stepping in. However, their treatment may have just been a contributory factor compelling them to fight, rather than the main cause of the mutiny.
When the British tried to take control over the subcontinent politically, they imposed a lot of their culture over the indigenous people, implementing evangelical Christianity over Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, teaching English in the colleges that the British set up, and abolishing traditions such as the sati. These civil reforms, largely led by Governors Bentinck and Dalhousie, were an attempt to ‘modernise’ India. This caused a rise in civil unrest for the indigenous people because the British wanted to change and ‘improve’ their traditional cultures, as they saw themselves as racially superior. This was radically different to life under the Mughal empire, when the nabobs (British Company workers) almost envied the life of the Mughal elite who lived far more luxurious lives to Stuart and Georgian England. The fact that the Indian people experienced such a transformation in such a short period meant that it perhaps was more noticeable and tension became higher than perhaps what they might have previously been. When Bentinck became governor general in 1828, his first reforms were beneficial to the subcontinent. He got rid of the outdated tradition of the sati, whereby women were condemned to death after their husbands died, and the thagi, which was the act of highway theft and murder, which had become highly normalised. Because these changes were existentially good for the people of India, it encouraged Bentinck and the council to implement more changes that they thought would also be good for India. This, however, became a problem when the Indian people disagreed with the council as to what was in their best interests. This is particularly shown by the Bentinck’s implementation of the English language in schools, universities, the government, and even high legal courts, through the Education Act of 1835. He was actually trying to help the subcontinent because he, and a lot of other academics thought that the English language provided ‘access to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the earth have created’. The ignorance of the British to the Indian culture left them feeling oppressed, giving them even more reason for rebellion. Furthermore, the missionaries that arrived in the late 18th century were hugely in favour of English education because it was often taught through Western ideas, Christian teachings and the Bible. The evangelical Christians hoped that this would weaken the influence of the Brahmin caste, who specialised as priests and protectors of Hinduism, by spreading Christian ideology. However, as with the political problems in India pre-1857, the local people couldn’t do much to stop their oppression until the sepoys rebelled, so saying that their religious and cultural oppression caused the mutiny isn’t necessarily correct. Having said that, the mutiny perhaps wouldn’t have had such a great effect on the British had the vast numbers of non-military personnel not got involved.
Finally, something that had an enormous impact on the sepoys starting an uprising was the fact that the way they were treated by their superiors at the East India Company got considerably worse between 1800 and 1857, when they put their foot down. As I have previously said, in the early years of the East India Company being a Bengal, Madras, or Bombay sepoy was a highly prestigious job. This was partly due to the honour that came with the job of working for the British regiment, but it was more because the British had nobody else to fight against the various local power holders on their behalf at the time. In the 1810s, sepoys and their commanders would be incredibly civil towards each other, and even friendly. However, when the British started to exploit the company’s purpose and use it for political gain instead of monetary gain, they needed a uniformly dedicated army who didn’t expect the high quality of life that the sepoys originally did, and they discovered that they could get this from poorer countries like Nepal. This meant that to keep their jobs, the sepoys from the subcontinent had to fully obey their commanders and give in to being treated poorly. However, the British took advantage of this and even ended up making the sepoys grease their rifles with fat from pigs and cows, going against the Islam and Hindu religions respectively. This was a large contributing factor that triggered the revolt. The sepoys uprising is what led to the uprising of non-combatants all over the subcontinent.
In conclusion, whilst the rising cultural oppression and the spread of forced British power over the subcontinent are what caused the regular people to join in with the mutiny, it was the sepoys being deeply offended by the way that they were treated that ultimately triggered the mutiny. Having said that, it was the change in political nature of the country that caused a change in the treatment of the Indian sepoys. The huge expansion of the armies that the British implemented to try and establish power over the subcontinent is what led to them mistreat the sepoys, and the mistreatment of the sepoys was largely cultural and religious insensitivity. Therefore, the detrimental treatment of the sepoys may have been what triggered the mutiny, but one cannot deny the huge contribution of cultural and political factors also.
(b) Differing interpretations
Historians, Julian Spilsbury, William Dalrymple, and Christopher Hibbert, all have very different ideas as to what caused the Indian Mutiny and to what extent it was caused by the detrimental treatment of the sepoys.
Spilsbury argues that the mutiny was largely due to the rise of British power in the subcontinent because of the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Moghul Empire and the shift in the interest of the East India Company from pure trade to general control over India. Spilsbury argues:
By the eighteenth century, with the anarchy that accompanied the decline of the Mogul Empire, the Company found itself fighting for survival against the French, and various native princes, themselves eager to profit from the weakening of the power of the Emperor at Delhi . . . . By the 1850s the Company had ceased trading altogether and existed solely to run the civil and military affairs of India, as agents of the British Government . . .
Whilst Spilsbury doesn’t explicitly say that this caused the mutiny, the alterations in the running of ‘civil and military affairs’ is what caused a rise in unrest of the Indian people, who had become accustomed to a certain way of life that was changed under the British government. Furthermore, Spilsbury argues that the Company expand their territory gracefully, but through ‘brute force’ provided by the sepoys. The fact that the sepoys were being forced against their own people, may have been what caused such civil unrest.
Having said that, Spilsbury also provides evidence that it was the changing treatment of the sepoys that triggered the mutiny. He quotes sepoy, Sita Ram, who was in the Company’s army from 1812 to 1857, on these changes:
We liked the sahib who always treated us as if we were his children . . . . By 1857, one thousand officers of the Bengal Army were on detachment . . . . those that remained were often duller or less enterprising officers . . . . such men often hated India and its people . . .
Ram claims that in 1812, the British officers would treat the sepoys as equals and were kind to them as if they were his ‘children’. However, when the older officers went on detachment or started focusing on their domestic lives due to the influx of British women into India, the younger officers replaced them. They were racist and would ‘curse and swear at them’. Spilsbury also sheds light on some of the unruly annexations of princely states, namely the Annexation of Oude in 1857. Whilst the annexations of the princely states undermined the Doctrine of Lapse, the annexation of Oude also removed a sepoy privilege that gave them a right of petition to the British Resident at Lucknow, meaning that they had some influence in the court of law. When customs like this were removed, it caused severe anger for all the residents of the subcontinent, as everyone was effected, and according to Spilsbury, this was part of the cause of the mutiny.
Dalrymple puts forward a different point of view in his book ‘The Last Mughal’. He claims that the mutiny was caused by imperial arrogance ‘combined with the rise of Evangelical Christianity’. He uses Reverend Midgeley John Jennings, who was the Christian chaplain of Delhi from 1852, as an example of how the missionaries were willing to use force to convert the Muslims and Hindus:
Jennings’ plan was to rip up what he regarded as the false faiths of India, by force if necessary . . .
According to Dalrymple, Jennings believed that the Hindu and Islam people were corrupt and in the dark, and by converting them, both the missionaries and the Muslims were being saved from eternal damnation. However, the people of the subcontinent did not believe that their religions were ‘false faiths’, and so in 1852, when two high society Delhi Hindus, a professor and a doctor no less, were publicly baptised by Jennings, there was a ‘violent agitation throughout the city’. It is here that it becomes apparent that the he Indians were equally as prepared to use force to protect their religion as the Christians were.
Another argument that Dalrymple puts forward is the idea that it was the very abrupt change in the cultural respect of the Indians by the British that caused the mutiny. He clearly shows that in the eighteenth century, during the rule of the Mughal empire, the European mercenaries developed a hybrid lifestyle, or what Dalrymple calls an ‘Anglo-Mughal Islamo-Christian buffer zone’. Young officers would go over to the subcontinent and marry Indian women and adopt their lifestyles. He even provides examples of British people, notably William Fraser, who became friends with natives, learned their languages, and explored their cultures. However, in the early to mid-nineteenth century, the relationship between the Mughals and the British started to deteriorate. This was largely due to the increasing number of missionaries and scholars infiltrating into the subcontinent, and the building of British schools and colleges by government officials who claimed that English was the key to accessing the worlds knowledge. Dalrymple quotes the man behind the move to remodel the education system, Charles Trevelyan;
The languages of Western Europe civilized Russia. I cannot doubt that they will do for the Hindoo what they have done for the Tartar.
Dalrymple implies the fact that Trevelyan says that the Indians are not ‘civilized’ due to their language and religion is the sort of racial insensitivity that caused the war in the first place. Furthermore, it is this sort of arrogance and sense of British superiority and overconfidence that is what caused so much confict between the British and the Indians. We also can see a very obvious decline in the relationship between British mercenaries and officers and Indian civilians:
The wills of Company officials show that it was at this time that the number of Indian wives of bibis being mentioned begins to decline: from turning up in one in three wills in the period 1780-85, the practise had gone into steep decline. Between 1805 and 1810, bibis appear in only one in every four wills; by 1830 it is one in six; by the middle of the century they have all but disappeared.
Dalrymple says that the decline of presence of ‘bibis’ (Indian girlfriends, companions, or wives) shows a clear deterioration in the relationship between the British and the Indians and a decrease in the acceptability of British officials taking Indian wives, thus showing a rise in misunderstanding and disrespect of the Indian culture by the British. Rather controversially, Dalrymple makes it out that it is a common misconception that the reason for a decrease in hybrid marriages was because of a huge influx of British women into the subcontinent. He says that this happened after 1857 and was because officers started to come over after university, when they were already married. The reason for a decrease in cross marriage was more to do with the fact that it was no longer socially acceptable amongst the young soldiers to marry Indians, as they were seen to be of a lesser religion and an inferior race and class.
Finally, in his book, ‘The Great Mutiny’, Christopher Hibbert puts forward different ideas again. Although it is along a similar theme to Dalrymple and Spilsbury, which is the lack of understanding between the Indian and British culture caused the mutiny, it goes into the specifics of how that effected the military and the divide between British soldiers and Indian sepoys, who are the people that ultimately started the uprising. He argues, like Spilsbury, that at the start of the mutiny, the sepoys were treated with respect and even ‘affection’ by the British soldiers. However, unlike Spilsbury, he draws attention to the fact that they were still often the servants of the British and were given far smaller areas to live in. Whilst British soldiers lived amongst Bazaars and lived a life of luxury with prostitutes and as much alcohol as they wished, the sepoys lived a simpler, but arguably a happier life. A British officer argued that a sepoy was a, ‘cheerful, good-natured fellow, simple and trust-worthy.’
Hibbert most likely includes statements about how happy the Sepoys lives were to show how drastically their treatment changed leading up to the mutiny. Hibbert, like Dalrymple, talks about the ‘forcible conversion to Christianity’ but he also includes how it ‘became stronger than ever in the army in 1856’. Whilst the conversion of Muslims and Hindus was a great threat within the towns, it was even worse in the military due to the General Service Enlistment Act, passed in 1856, meaning that all new recruits of the Bengal Army had to agree to serve overseas if required. This was ‘impossible for a faithful Hindu’ because they had certain rituals that they had to keep and foods that they had to cook over their own fire, that they simply could not do overseas. The climax of the British disrespect for sepoy religion and culture, however, was the new rifle cartridge that the British introduced in 1857 to the Company armies. The sepoys had to bite the cartridge to load it into the gun, but it was greased with pig and cow fat.
. . . . if it contained beef fat it would be degrading to Hindus and if it contained pig fat it would be offensive to Mohammedans.’
This was the final act of the British that triggered the mutiny, and Hibbert really stresses the movement from a respectful environment to an environment where the British would overtly offend Indians in general, but more specifically, the sepoys.
These three views, whilst having some undeniable similarities, differ on what extent it was the treatment of the sepoys that led to the mutiny, and whether the changes in India were fundamentally of political, cultural, or military nature. Spilsbury argues that the decline of the Moghul empire at the end of the 18th century led to a power vacuum, which meant that the British could insert themselves into the subcontinent, and that the Crown could take over the East India Company. It also refers to the shift in interest of the East India Company under the British from trade to civil administration, which led to reforms that angered the natives. Dalrymple on the other hand, argues that the mutiny was really due to the attempt by the British to convert Muslims and Hindus to Christianity, and the cultural oppression that came with that. Finally, Hibbert argues that the mutiny was caused to a huge change in the treatment of the sepoys. Whilst this is a military change, the shifts in treatment were largely cultural and religious, and Hibbert argues that the Indian frustration that arose from this was what caused the mutiny.
(c) Explain the differences you have identified
There are several reasons why these sources vary in their accounts of the Indian Mutiny. Firstly, all three authors, are likely to have very different views on sepoys and the mutiny. Hibbert, whilst studying at Oxford, was called up and had to join the army. He was in active service between 1943 and 1945 and was awarded the military cross. This sort of military experience may have made him stress the importance of the treatment of the sepoys in causing the mutiny, and therefore him to write about it more convincingly. Despite being a highly acclaimed author, Hibbert didn’t specialise in any part of History so whilst he may know a lot about the military, he may not have as much of a well-rounded view of the causes of the mutiny as Darlymple, who has lived in India since 1989. Darlymple hugely specialises in the history of South Asian countries and religions. ‘The Last Mughal’ is just one of his books about India at the time of the mutiny, so whilst he does talk about religion predominantly in the chapter that I have used for my source, he does have a very deep understanding of the sepoys role in the mutiny. Spilsbury, like Hibbert, has a lot of military knowledge, being the writer of military obituaries for the telegraph, which means that he may have great interest in the military factors that contributed to the mutiny, thus being the reason that he writes about the rise of the East India Company and its armies, so convincingly.
Secondly, all three historians may have different political agendas. Julian Spilsbury writes military obituaries for the Daily Telegraph newspaper which is a fairly balanced paper, but does comment on British politics. Hibbert was also British, and was educated at Oxford. Whilst the mutiny was between the British and the Indians, the British don’t have as much of a sense of nationalism as the Indians do on this topic, as they weren’t the ones being subjected to cultural and religious oppression. Dalrymple is also British, but he may sympathise with the Indian sense of nationalism slightly more, because he’s lived in India and his wife has strong Indian connections.
Another reason for the different accounts of the mutiny, or at least Hibbert’s account being different, was the fact that he was writing far earlier than Dalrymple and Spilsbury. Hibbert didn’t have access to the same sources as the other two because he was writing in 1978, and therefore didn’t have access to the internet. Dalrymple’s account may also be largely informed by Indian sources and points of view. Whilst it is possible for this nationalism to slightly distort real accounts of the story, I am exploring the causes of the mutiny, and since it was the Indians who actually rebelled, Indian sources are helpful because they give us their point of view.
In the chapters that I have read of each historian, they are all focussing on different causes of the mutiny in general, so it’s no wonder that they differ. Whilst there are still a lot of similarities between them, mainly being the fact that Indian culture started to be ignored and looked upon as inferior to British culture, it is only really Hibbert who looks specifically into how that affected sepoy culture, using specific camps as examples. Dalrymple looks more into the cultural and religious decline generally in India, and instead goes into specific British characters, such as Jennings, to show how treatment of all Indian people, including sepoys, got worse. Spilsbury, again, doesn’t talk about the treatment of the sepoys specifically, but more the political changes to the country, and the Crown’s increased involvement in civil administration. Spilsbury does, however, go on to talk about how this subsequently affected the sepoys, and even quotes the same sepoy, Sita Ram, as Hibbert. Therefore, whilst the main focus of all of the sources isn’t necessarily on the sepoys, they are all very useful because they tell us how the changes that the British imposed on India all of the people, especially the sepoys. These changes in their treatment were what caused them to rebel, and similar uprisings to happen all over India.
(d) Conclusion
In conclusion, Hibbert, whilst giving invaluable insight into the changing lives and treatment of the sepoys from 1800-1857, gives information that is almost too specific, into changes in the military. Although it was the sepoys that started the uprising, it wouldn’t have been such a wide spread rebellion had the Indian civilians not also felt a similar sort of oppression to the sepoys. Hibbert does however, talk directly about the changing treatment of the sepoys for the entirety of the chapter, and how the Indian lifestyle differed from the British. Something about this source that was particularly convincing was the fact that Hibbert goes into the extremity of the changes, by giving examples of the respect that the sepoys were given before the cultural reforms. As far as my question of to what extent was the mutiny caused by the treatment of the sepoys between 1800 and 1857 goes, this source provides a clear view into the sepoys worsening treatment, and how in turn, this caused the mutiny.
Dalrymple however, provides us with information about the changes in India that eventually caused the mutiny, but doesn’t go into specific enough detail as into how this effected the sepoys, who actually started the mutiny. He does go into more detail that Hibbert on the religious and cultural changes that the British implemented in Britain, and gives a military example of this in saying that the British officers did preach to their inferior sepoys and actively try to convert them. However, whilst Dalrymple provides us with this information, he doesn’t give us anything on how the sepoys reacted to or felt about this. Hibbert and Spilsbury give us specific examples of the sepoys mind set before the mutiny. If one were to only read Dalrymple’s chapter, they would simply have to assume that this caused the sepoys to react rashly.
In contrast to Hibbert and Dalrymple, Spilsbury provides an excellent overview with how the British rose to power in India. He tells us the political nature of the subcontinent leading up to the mutiny, and how the British were subsequently able to impose themselves in civil administration. Once the British had established political power, they were able to spread their culture, which is something that Spilsbury does comment on. Whilst the political nature of the subcontinent isn’t necessarily that valuable in establishing how the changing treatment of the sepoys caused the mutiny, it tells us how the British were able to force their culture on India, and subsequently the sepoys.
Ultimately, it has to be argued that the discontent of the sepoys is what caused the Indian Mutiny in 1857, as they are the ones who started rebelling in Meerut, and the civilians joined in after the sepoys set this example. Whilst some may say that it was the cultural changes in India in general that caused the mutiny, made possible by the increase in political power, the sepoys really bore the brunt of these cultural changes. Examples that Hibbert gives of the most extreme changes that the British put on the sepoys, are the General Service Enlistment Act of 1856, and the changes in rifle cartridges to be greased with pig and beef fat. These changes did not affect anyone apart from the sepoys, and they are really what triggered the mutiny. Therefore, whilst I do fully understand that the factors put forward by Spilsbury and Dalrymple did contribute to causing the mutiny, I believe that they only did so because they heavily affected the sepoys for the worse. Therefore, as implied by Hibbert, I would say that the Indian Mutiny was caused by the changing treatment of the sepoys by the British, between 1800 and 1857.
In the final analysis, some of the key features of Stalinism such as indiscriminate mass terror, were never truly part of Leninism. Nonetheless, the key trends of Leninism continued under Stalin. However, I agree with Cohen that the key features that persisted were not necessarily the key features that Lenin intended.
WORD COUNT: 5269
Bibliography:
Works:
The Indian Mutiny, Julian Spilsbury, (2007), p. 1-19
The Last Mughal, William Dalrymple, (2006)
The Great Mutiny, Christopher Hibbert, (1978), p. 41-58
Supplementary works:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/27/obituary-christopher-hibbert-historian
https://literature.britishcouncil.org/writer/william-dalrymple
http://www.sheilland.com/julian-spilsbury