Indians talk of the "First War of Independence" and the British talk of the "Indian Mutiny" but what happened in 1857? In the latter days of the British empire the "Mutiny" was described by the British as an ungrateful and barbaric Indian minority rejecting civilisation and good government. On the Indian side, following independence the events of 1857 have become an opportunity for describing how the heroic Indian Nationalists had fought the ruthless foreign invaders. Both of these myths are wrong. The reality is far more interesting.
The first problem for both the British and Indian stories is that Britain did not rule India before 1857. The East India Company, the corporation that gave the USA its flag, was the main player and, being a commercial undertaking, it did not rule, it managed events for a profit.
In the eighteenth century the Company traded spices for cloth, machines for porcelain and diamonds for cutlery between the East and Europe. The Suez Canal had not yet been built so its traders were as much as six months by sail from home and "home" had little control over them. The Company did not stop at trading goods, it also discovered that renting out private armies was extremely lucrative. The eighteenth century was a wild time for European powers and there was scarcely a year when Britain was not at war with the Spanish, French or Dutch. This meant that there were large numbers of British sailors, soldiers and officers washed up in every part of the world. When a trading outpost was attacked the Company could easily hire British mercenaries to protect it. "Clive of India", a Company clerk, realised that these mercenaries could be forged into an army and by the late eighteenth century the "Company" had become a major military power in its own right and hired out its soldiers to any petty monarch who could pay. The business was so lucrative that it also hired British regular army units when it could get them.
Here are some views of the role of the East India Company (the "Company") by a Victorian, G. Malleson, who worked in India in the 1850s as Chief of the Commissariat Department in Kanpur:
"The gradual conquest of India by a Company of merchants inhabiting a small island in the Atlantic has ever been regarded as one of the most marvellous achievements of which history makes mention."
Would we be so happy today to let BMW or Microsoft have its own army and run half of Africa? Looking back on this from the exalted heights of the 21st century, what do you make of a corporation that is six months away from any government control having a major army at its disposal? This was bound to end badly. However, in the early nineteenth century people seemed to think such a thing was laudable. This approval did not last, as Malleson, an old Company supporter, notes, after the Mutiny the British woke up to the problem and he writes of the Mutiny that:
"Meanwhile, in England, it has been found necessary, as usual, to find a scapegoat for the disaster which had fallen upon India. With a singular agreement of opinion the scapegoat was declared to be the Company which had won for England that splendid appanage. In consequence it was agreed to transfer the administration of India from the Company to the Crown. An Act carrying out this transfer was signed by the Crown on the 2nd August 1858."
Those revisionist historians who try to portray India as governed by the British before 1858 should take note of this comment by a senior Company man who was there at the time. He is clear that, from the viewpoint of those on the ground, the Company was robbed of its right to rule in 1858.
So much for the "British" in the Indian sub-continent, what of the Indians? In the late eighteenth century the Mughal Empire was in decay. By 1800 it was almost three hundred years since the Mongol Emperor Timur had swept out of central asia and imposed his rule over northern India and the Mughal Empire was now fragmenting, furthermore the southern half of India was ruled by a variety of Sultans and kings. There was no India. The subcontinent was an anarchic collection of sometimes warring states and kingdoms. Even the Mughal Empire itself was subject to civil wars. Not only was there no India but the rulers of the northern part of the subcontinent were swash-buckling Persians and Afghanis such as Muhammed Amin or were immediately descended from these adventurers.
That was the sub-continent in 1800, a major corporation romping out of control, swash-buckling Persians, warring states - it was anarchy.
The European wars allowed the Company to refresh its army with trained, freebooting soldiers who were familiar with the latest tactics and armaments of moden warfare. They were a valuable resource that the Company used as a protection racket. The Company approached warring Princes and offered a military upgrade for a price. The Princes and Kings were only too happy to pay for this guarantee of military supremacy. As an example Sadaat Ali Khan paid the Company for military support to become Nawab of Awahd, a state centred on Lucknow, The price was high, he signed a treaty in 1801 which ceded half of Awahd to the Company and agreed to pay about 8 million rupees a year to keep a Company army in Awahd. This is quite shocking to modern sensibilities, we think that modern corporates are inclined to be a bit "out of hand" but they have nothing on the Company and its aristocratic clients. By 1850 the large local garrison meant that the majority of native troops in the Company army, who were known as "sepoys", were from Awahd.
The Company was running a protection racket but what happened when the Kings could not, or did not want to, keep up the payments and did not meet Company managerial standards?
In the early 1850s it became apparent to the Company that Awahd was not yielding sufficient return and was unlikely to keep up the payments. In 1856 the Company massed troops on the frontier of Awahd then moved in, arresting the ruler, Wahid Ali Sha, and taking direct rule. Company "sepoys" mutinied in Meerat and were initially successful and this provided a model for the factions in Awahd who opposed the Company. They encouraged local sepoys to mutiny and formed an army that was led by a brave heroine called the Rani of Jhansi and a dispossessed Maratha Prince called Nana Sahib. At first they had a string of military successes using the Company trained troops and Company equipment. The British and native troops loyal to the Company retreated to "The Residency" in Lucknow and the famous siege of Lucknow took place in which the Company troops, their dependents and assorted Europeans held out against months of continual attacks until they were relieved. Only about 30% survived. The initial success of the mutinies in places such as Lucknow meant that it spread amongst other States on the sub-continent that were suffering from the protection racket. These events were called the "Indian Mutiny" because some of the sepoys, locally born soldiers under Company control and employment, mutinied to join forces with the local rulers. Had these troops not mutinied the superior Company forces and firepower would have crushed any enemy in weeks. Unfortunately for the local aristocracy the Company had some crack troops stationed in the North West and these captured Delhi and Lucknow was relieved. Within 18 months the mutiny was suppressed.
The events related above are based on the local version of the "Indian Mutiny" as told in a Lucknow pamphlet written by an Indian historian - notice that there is no mention of pork fat on bullets and religious tensions, just a simple story of unbelievably anarchic times. It should be noted that the Mutiny was largely confined to the islamic states, principally Awahd, and many of the Hindu states actually supported the Company.
The more considered of British histories tell a story which is not too discrepant from the Lucknow version. The British accounts have a wider perspective with the Persians, Russians, Afghans and Wahabbis all having an interest in precipitating a moslem led uprising in India. In1857 the Company had also decided, with the permission of the Company Court of Directors in London, to remove the title of "king" from the heir to the Mughal throne. The British also report how the landowners in Awahd were upset with new regulations on land tenancy and the Princes and landowners were upset with new regulations that prevented the recognition of adopted heirs. The heirless Rani of Jhansi and the adopted heir to the Maratha Confederacy, Nana Sahib, were particularly incensed by these regulations. These victims of Company policy used as their agent Ahmad-ullah, the "Maulavi of Faizebad", to organise a simultaneous rebellion and mutiny across Awahd and into Delhi and the North West. The most disturbing aspect of these British accounts is how the British officers of the time and later British historians just cannot believe that Awahdi sepoys would be loyal to Awahd rather than to the Company. It literally "does not compute". It is like a British company of mercenaries invading France and the officers and historians being unable to come to terms with the desertion of their French troops.
The rebellion in Awahd and the mutiny by Awahdi sepoys did not go unnoticed in Britain. By 1857 the Suez Canal had been built and there were even undersea telegraph cables being laid. News of the Mutiny got back to Britain before the Company could put a suitable gloss on events. The British newspapers were appalled at the cruelty of the engagements and woke up to the reality of a British corporation being out of control. Demands were made in the press and Parliament for Britain to take over the Company's interests in India and put government on a proper footing. This was the start of the British Raj, or Empire in India. The Raj created a single state out of the warring factions and laid the foundations for the creation of modern India. India has the distinction of fighting tyrany in two World Wars and, through the greatness of Gandhi, achieved independence without war. It continues, despite all of its problems, to provide a beacon of democracy in Asia.
So why do modern Indian history books call the Mutiny the "First War of Independence"? In 1857 there was no India, no British Rule to rebel against and more Indian states supported the Company than fought it, but there was a Company, by modern standards an outrageous enterprise that leaves us gasping in admiration and horror, and there was a Mutiny against this enterprise by some of its native employees and a rebellion against it, especially in Awahd and Delhi. The Indians are mistakenly mythologising the events for the purpose of modern Nationalism. The British are just as dishonest as the Indians when they tell this story because they are embarassed at having allowed a corporation to run wild and at having loaned British regular soldiers to the Company. The British Raj were particularly cunning in the telling of the story, by focussing on pork and beef fat being used on bullets they diverted everyone's attention from the arrogance of the Company when it deposed an Emperor and annexed Awahd and its negligence in doing these things when its army was composed of Awahdi sepoys.
It is interesting to ask yourself whether, had you been a Company manager in the sub-continent and received the first request from a local ruler to borrow some idle troops from the Company for a few hundred thousand rupees you would have turned down the cash and whether, when this started to become common practice and the sacks of gold kept coming in, you would have been able to say "no". After all, as a Company manager you would only have been there to make money....
It is also interesting to imagine yourself as a young Awahdi man in 1835. You would have been brought up on stories of brave warriors and battles and may have dreamt of being a warrior yourself. The most amazing of all these battle stories would be told about the Company Army, an army of hand picked Indians working with dauntless British professionals who owed allegiance to no country and practiced the art of war to perfection. The old sepoys returning to Lucknow would recount tales of how a thousand or so Company troops would time and again face 10000 or even 20000 of the enemy and prevail. As a young man you would be proud to be selected as one of these pure warriors. Later you would be disappointed as your army became increasingly British and incandescent with fury when it was ordered to attack your own Awahd.
Mall eson, G.B., 1890. The Indian Mutiny of 1857. Rupa Publications. New Delhi 1998
See
The massacre at Amritsar in 1919 and the rise of Indian Nationalism
Michael Wood and the History of India
Travel, India, multiculturalism and Derrida
Caste,casteism, nepotism and corruption
The first problem for both the British and Indian stories is that Britain did not rule India before 1857. The East India Company, the corporation that gave the USA its flag, was the main player and, being a commercial undertaking, it did not rule, it managed events for a profit.
In the eighteenth century the Company traded spices for cloth, machines for porcelain and diamonds for cutlery between the East and Europe. The Suez Canal had not yet been built so its traders were as much as six months by sail from home and "home" had little control over them. The Company did not stop at trading goods, it also discovered that renting out private armies was extremely lucrative. The eighteenth century was a wild time for European powers and there was scarcely a year when Britain was not at war with the Spanish, French or Dutch. This meant that there were large numbers of British sailors, soldiers and officers washed up in every part of the world. When a trading outpost was attacked the Company could easily hire British mercenaries to protect it. "Clive of India", a Company clerk, realised that these mercenaries could be forged into an army and by the late eighteenth century the "Company" had become a major military power in its own right and hired out its soldiers to any petty monarch who could pay. The business was so lucrative that it also hired British regular army units when it could get them.
Here are some views of the role of the East India Company (the "Company") by a Victorian, G. Malleson, who worked in India in the 1850s as Chief of the Commissariat Department in Kanpur:
"The gradual conquest of India by a Company of merchants inhabiting a small island in the Atlantic has ever been regarded as one of the most marvellous achievements of which history makes mention."
Would we be so happy today to let BMW or Microsoft have its own army and run half of Africa? Looking back on this from the exalted heights of the 21st century, what do you make of a corporation that is six months away from any government control having a major army at its disposal? This was bound to end badly. However, in the early nineteenth century people seemed to think such a thing was laudable. This approval did not last, as Malleson, an old Company supporter, notes, after the Mutiny the British woke up to the problem and he writes of the Mutiny that:
"Meanwhile, in England, it has been found necessary, as usual, to find a scapegoat for the disaster which had fallen upon India. With a singular agreement of opinion the scapegoat was declared to be the Company which had won for England that splendid appanage. In consequence it was agreed to transfer the administration of India from the Company to the Crown. An Act carrying out this transfer was signed by the Crown on the 2nd August 1858."
Those revisionist historians who try to portray India as governed by the British before 1858 should take note of this comment by a senior Company man who was there at the time. He is clear that, from the viewpoint of those on the ground, the Company was robbed of its right to rule in 1858.
So much for the "British" in the Indian sub-continent, what of the Indians? In the late eighteenth century the Mughal Empire was in decay. By 1800 it was almost three hundred years since the Mongol Emperor Timur had swept out of central asia and imposed his rule over northern India and the Mughal Empire was now fragmenting, furthermore the southern half of India was ruled by a variety of Sultans and kings. There was no India. The subcontinent was an anarchic collection of sometimes warring states and kingdoms. Even the Mughal Empire itself was subject to civil wars. Not only was there no India but the rulers of the northern part of the subcontinent were swash-buckling Persians and Afghanis such as Muhammed Amin or were immediately descended from these adventurers.
That was the sub-continent in 1800, a major corporation romping out of control, swash-buckling Persians, warring states - it was anarchy.
The European wars allowed the Company to refresh its army with trained, freebooting soldiers who were familiar with the latest tactics and armaments of moden warfare. They were a valuable resource that the Company used as a protection racket. The Company approached warring Princes and offered a military upgrade for a price. The Princes and Kings were only too happy to pay for this guarantee of military supremacy. As an example Sadaat Ali Khan paid the Company for military support to become Nawab of Awahd, a state centred on Lucknow, The price was high, he signed a treaty in 1801 which ceded half of Awahd to the Company and agreed to pay about 8 million rupees a year to keep a Company army in Awahd. This is quite shocking to modern sensibilities, we think that modern corporates are inclined to be a bit "out of hand" but they have nothing on the Company and its aristocratic clients. By 1850 the large local garrison meant that the majority of native troops in the Company army, who were known as "sepoys", were from Awahd.
The Company was running a protection racket but what happened when the Kings could not, or did not want to, keep up the payments and did not meet Company managerial standards?
In the early 1850s it became apparent to the Company that Awahd was not yielding sufficient return and was unlikely to keep up the payments. In 1856 the Company massed troops on the frontier of Awahd then moved in, arresting the ruler, Wahid Ali Sha, and taking direct rule. Company "sepoys" mutinied in Meerat and were initially successful and this provided a model for the factions in Awahd who opposed the Company. They encouraged local sepoys to mutiny and formed an army that was led by a brave heroine called the Rani of Jhansi and a dispossessed Maratha Prince called Nana Sahib. At first they had a string of military successes using the Company trained troops and Company equipment. The British and native troops loyal to the Company retreated to "The Residency" in Lucknow and the famous siege of Lucknow took place in which the Company troops, their dependents and assorted Europeans held out against months of continual attacks until they were relieved. Only about 30% survived. The initial success of the mutinies in places such as Lucknow meant that it spread amongst other States on the sub-continent that were suffering from the protection racket. These events were called the "Indian Mutiny" because some of the sepoys, locally born soldiers under Company control and employment, mutinied to join forces with the local rulers. Had these troops not mutinied the superior Company forces and firepower would have crushed any enemy in weeks. Unfortunately for the local aristocracy the Company had some crack troops stationed in the North West and these captured Delhi and Lucknow was relieved. Within 18 months the mutiny was suppressed.
The events related above are based on the local version of the "Indian Mutiny" as told in a Lucknow pamphlet written by an Indian historian - notice that there is no mention of pork fat on bullets and religious tensions, just a simple story of unbelievably anarchic times. It should be noted that the Mutiny was largely confined to the islamic states, principally Awahd, and many of the Hindu states actually supported the Company.
 |
| States in revolt are black and brown, those that aided the Company are blue. Courtesy Wikimedia. |
The more considered of British histories tell a story which is not too discrepant from the Lucknow version. The British accounts have a wider perspective with the Persians, Russians, Afghans and Wahabbis all having an interest in precipitating a moslem led uprising in India. In1857 the Company had also decided, with the permission of the Company Court of Directors in London, to remove the title of "king" from the heir to the Mughal throne. The British also report how the landowners in Awahd were upset with new regulations on land tenancy and the Princes and landowners were upset with new regulations that prevented the recognition of adopted heirs. The heirless Rani of Jhansi and the adopted heir to the Maratha Confederacy, Nana Sahib, were particularly incensed by these regulations. These victims of Company policy used as their agent Ahmad-ullah, the "Maulavi of Faizebad", to organise a simultaneous rebellion and mutiny across Awahd and into Delhi and the North West. The most disturbing aspect of these British accounts is how the British officers of the time and later British historians just cannot believe that Awahdi sepoys would be loyal to Awahd rather than to the Company. It literally "does not compute". It is like a British company of mercenaries invading France and the officers and historians being unable to come to terms with the desertion of their French troops.
The rebellion in Awahd and the mutiny by Awahdi sepoys did not go unnoticed in Britain. By 1857 the Suez Canal had been built and there were even undersea telegraph cables being laid. News of the Mutiny got back to Britain before the Company could put a suitable gloss on events. The British newspapers were appalled at the cruelty of the engagements and woke up to the reality of a British corporation being out of control. Demands were made in the press and Parliament for Britain to take over the Company's interests in India and put government on a proper footing. This was the start of the British Raj, or Empire in India. The Raj created a single state out of the warring factions and laid the foundations for the creation of modern India. India has the distinction of fighting tyrany in two World Wars and, through the greatness of Gandhi, achieved independence without war. It continues, despite all of its problems, to provide a beacon of democracy in Asia.
So why do modern Indian history books call the Mutiny the "First War of Independence"? In 1857 there was no India, no British Rule to rebel against and more Indian states supported the Company than fought it, but there was a Company, by modern standards an outrageous enterprise that leaves us gasping in admiration and horror, and there was a Mutiny against this enterprise by some of its native employees and a rebellion against it, especially in Awahd and Delhi. The Indians are mistakenly mythologising the events for the purpose of modern Nationalism. The British are just as dishonest as the Indians when they tell this story because they are embarassed at having allowed a corporation to run wild and at having loaned British regular soldiers to the Company. The British Raj were particularly cunning in the telling of the story, by focussing on pork and beef fat being used on bullets they diverted everyone's attention from the arrogance of the Company when it deposed an Emperor and annexed Awahd and its negligence in doing these things when its army was composed of Awahdi sepoys.
It is interesting to ask yourself whether, had you been a Company manager in the sub-continent and received the first request from a local ruler to borrow some idle troops from the Company for a few hundred thousand rupees you would have turned down the cash and whether, when this started to become common practice and the sacks of gold kept coming in, you would have been able to say "no". After all, as a Company manager you would only have been there to make money....
It is also interesting to imagine yourself as a young Awahdi man in 1835. You would have been brought up on stories of brave warriors and battles and may have dreamt of being a warrior yourself. The most amazing of all these battle stories would be told about the Company Army, an army of hand picked Indians working with dauntless British professionals who owed allegiance to no country and practiced the art of war to perfection. The old sepoys returning to Lucknow would recount tales of how a thousand or so Company troops would time and again face 10000 or even 20000 of the enemy and prevail. As a young man you would be proud to be selected as one of these pure warriors. Later you would be disappointed as your army became increasingly British and incandescent with fury when it was ordered to attack your own Awahd.
Mall eson, G.B., 1890. The Indian Mutiny of 1857. Rupa Publications. New Delhi 1998
See
The massacre at Amritsar in 1919 and the rise of Indian Nationalism
Michael Wood and the History of India
Travel, India, multiculturalism and Derrida
Caste,casteism, nepotism and corruption
Comments