At Lucknow, the revolt broke out on the 30th May, and Sir Henry Lawrence, who had succeeded Mr. Jackson as Chief Commissioner, retired at the beginning of July to the Residency, with all the Europeans and Christians and about 700 loyal sepoys, and held out there only for a few days, as he was shortly afterwards killed by the bursting of a shell. The command of the besieged garrison then fell on Brigadier Inglis, who bravely defended the place against numerous assaults until Havelock and Outram fought their way at the point of the bayonet into the Residency on the 25th September with much-needed reinforcements. General Neill died at this time at Lucknow. Inglis, Havelock and Outram could not make their way out with the besieged garrison. Their final relief was effected by the middle of November by Sir Colin Campbell (afterward Lord Clyde), who came from England as Commander-in Chief of the Indian Army in August, 1857.
Sir Colin Campbell took vigorous action to suppress the rising in Oudh and Rohilkhand. With the valuable help of Jang Bahadur of NepaI, who joined him at the head of a powerful Gurkha contingent, he finally brought Lucknow under British control on the 21st March, 1858. But the Talukdars of Oudh had been infuriated by a singularly injudicious proclamation, issued by Canning at the end of March to the effect that the lands of all the Talukdars were liable to forfeiture “except those of six specifically mentioned and of others who could prove their loyalty”. They carried on a guerilla warfare. The capture of Bareilly in Rohilkhand in the month of May greatly disheartened them and they were thoroughly vanquished by the end of the year. Many of the insurgents fled across the British frontier to Nepal, to perish there miserably.
Meanwhile, the insurgents in Central India had found an able Ieader in Tantia Topi, a Maratha Brahmana, who with the mutinous Gwalior contingent, 20,000 strong, crossed the Jumna at Kalpi, joined the troops of Nana Saheb, and repulsed General Windham, who had been left in charge of Cawnpore. But he was defeated, and driven out, on the 6th December, 1857, by Sir Colin Campbell. Tantia Topi then joined Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi and carried on a desperate fight in Central India. Meanwhile Sir Hugh Rose had been conducting successful campaigns in Bundelkhand, the southernmost centre of the rising. Marching from his base of operations at Mhow early in January, 1858, he relieved the garrison at Saugor, captured Hatgarh early in February, defeated Tantia Topi on the Betwa River, and stormed Jhansi on the 3rd April. Leaving the fort of Jhansi during the night of the 4th April, the Rani went with a few followers to Kalpi, which also was captured by the English on the 22nd May. The indomitable Rani and Tantia Topi then marched to Gwalior, and drove out Sindhia to Agra. This prince had remained loyal but his army now deserted him. Nana Saheb was proclaimed as the Peshwa. Realising the danger of a Maratha rising, Sir Hugh Rose took promptRani Lakshmibai measures to check the activities of the Rani and Tantia. He recovered Gwalior after defeating the insurgents at Morar and Kotah.
The Rani of Jhansi, dressed in male attire as a sowar, died a soldier’s death in one of these battles on the 17th June, 1858. Tantia Topi, chased from place to place, was given up to the English, early in April, 1859, by Man Singh, a feudatory of Sindhia, and was hanged on charges of rebellion and murder and not for complicity in the massacre of Cawnpore as is often stated. Nana Saheb was driven into the jungles of Nepal and is said to have died there in September, 1859, according to a report of Jang Bahadur and some other reports. But, various exciting tales and rumors about his return to India and also movements outside continued to be in circulation for many years. The principal leaders of the movement found their way to Nepal. The ladies of the Peshwa’s family could spend their last days there. Begam Hazrat Mahal of Oudh also decided to stay there with her son and a small retinue. Thus ended the episode of the Revolt, and Canning proclaimed peace throughout India. Many people, both in India and England, demanded the pursuit of a “ruthless and indiscriminate policy of vengeance”. Even Nicholson spoke for legalizing “the flaying alive, impalement, or burning of the murderers of the women and children at Delhi”. But Canning uninfluenced by this clamour, judged the matter with statesmanlike prudence and cool judgment, and arranged for the proper trial and punishment of those only who were really guilty. For this he was described, in derision, as “Clemency Canning”; but it must be admitted that the Governor-General’s policy was wise and expedient and he was right in opposing measures whose only effect would have been to add to the bitterness of feeling between the rulers and ruled.
Causes of the Failure of the Revolt
The Revolt, though an outbreak of a formidable nature, failed owing to the defective equipment and organization of the insurgents. Firstly, their military equipment was inferior to that of the English; for example, their old muzzle-loaders were outranged by the newly invented breech-loaders of the English troops. Secondly, while many of the insurgents failed to understand the significance of contemporary scientific improvements and even dreaded them, the English fully utilized these advantages for their own benefit. Thus with control over a widespread telegraph system and postal communications, the latter were able to receive and exchange information from different parts of the country and to modify their course of action according to the needs of the situation. Thirdly, the English were fortunate enough to secure the loyalty of most of the feudatory chiefs, with the exception of the Rani of Jhansi, the Begam of Oudh and some minor chiefs; and, as has already been pointed out, they received invaluable assistance from men like Sir Dinkar Rao of Gwalior, Sir Salar Jang of Hyderabad, Jang Bahadur of Nepal, and the Sikhs. In the north-west, Dost Muhammad remained friendly. Fourthly, the insurgents could not secure the unstinted and universal support of the civil population in all parts of the country, many of whom were alienated by the confusion and disorder which followed the rising and involved them in considerable suffering and loss. Fourthly, there was absence of a carefully concerted general plan or a strong central organisation for guiding the movement. Lastly, there was a comparative lack of efficient leadership among the insurgents, while the British cause was ably served by a number of wise and brave leaders like Lawrence, Outram, Havelock, Nicholson, Neill and Edwardes. It should also be noted that the English by clever diplomacy succeeded in securing for themselves the support of the Sikhs and the Pathans who had been lately their enemies.
