Nature and Effect of the Revolt
The Revolt was not a thoroughly organized national movement or”a war of independence”, as James Outram, a contemporary, believed it to have been, or as it has been represented by some modern writers. Nor was it a mere military rising. It started as a military outbreak, which was taken advantage of by certain discontented princes and landlords, whose interests had been affected by the new political order. The last-mentioned factor gave it in certain areas the character of a popular rising and constituted a menace to the British Empire for several months, particularly in Bihar, Oudh and Rohilkhand. In fact, it gradually developed in these areas as a “general revolt”‘ in which sections of “the civil population of all types and classes” who were discontented due to various reasons, took part and which was “the first great and direct challenge to British rule in India on an extensive scale”. It was never all-Indian in character, but was localized, and in certain respects restricted and poorly organized. Only one of the three provincial armies mutinied; and all the Indian sepoys did not rise against the British Government. As we have already noted, important Indian princes and chiefs aided with the English; and of the thousands of landlords, recently dispossessed of their property, only the Talukdars of Oudh actively helped the insurgents. There was no leader of outstanding ability among the mutineers, except the heroic figure of the Rani of Jhansi, whom Sir Hugh Gough esteemed as “the best and bravest military leader of the rebels”. Further, the movement was marked by absence of cohesion and unity of purpose among the different sections of the insurgents. Unfortunately it was characterised by a disregard of the rules of civilized warfare on both sides, and “was fought with peculiar savagery”. If the mutineers were guilty of terrible enormities, the British troops also on occasions tarnished the fair name of their country by a severity that was hardly tempered by good sense or moderation.
For more reasons than one, the Revolt marks a turning-point in the history of India. In a sense it demonstrated that the hold of the Company on India was still rather weak, and its lessons continued to influence British administration in India for several generations. “I wish,” remarked the late Lord Cromer, “the young generation of the English would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the history of the Indian Mutiny; it abounds in lessons and warnings.” It directly produced three important changes in the system of administration and the policy of the Government.
Firstly, the control of the Indian Government was finally assumed by the Crown, in spite of protests from the Company. An Act for the Better Government of India was passed on the 2nd August, 1858, which provided that “India shall be governed by, and in the name of, the Sovereign through one of the principal Secretaries of State, assisted by a council of fifteen members”. At the same time the Governor-General received the new title of Viceroy. This was, however, “rather a formal than a substantial change”, because the Crown had been steadily increasing its control over the affairs of the Company since the latter had become a territorial power in India, and the actual control had been exercised so long by the President of the Board of Control, who was a Minister of the Crown. The Directors had functioned as a mere advisory council.
The assumption of the government of India by the Sovereign of Great Britain was announced by Lord Canning at a darbar at Allahabad in a Proclamation issued on Ist November, 1858, in the name of the Queen. The Queen’s Proclamation, described as the Magna Charta of the Indian people, confirmed the treaties and engagements of the East India Company with the Indian princes; promised to respect the rights, dignity and honour of the native princes and to pay due regard to the ancient rights, usages and customs of India; disclaimed all desire for the extension of British territorial possessions in India through “encroachment on those of others”; granted a general amnesty to “all offenders, save and except those who have been, and shall be convicted of having directly taken part in the murder of British subjects”; proclaimed a policy of justice, benevolence and religious toleration, enjoining the Government to “abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship”‘ of the subjects; and declared that all “of whatever race or creed, may be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge “.
Secondly, the army, which took the initiative in the outbreak, was thoroughly reorganized; and, for the next fifty years, “the idea of division and counterpoise” dominated British military policy in India. The Presidency armies were kept entirely separate till 1893; the European element in them was strengthened, and placed in sole charge of some essential services; and the number of European soldiers was increased. The Commission on Indian Army Organisation of 1879 observed: “The lessons taught by the Mutiny have led to the maintenance of two great principles, of retaining in the country an irresistible force of British troops and keeping the artillery in the hands of Europeans.”
Thirdly, the British Government now took up a new attitude towards the Indian States. These States had henceforth to recognize the paramountcy of the British Crown and were to be considered as parts of a single charge.
One indirect effect of the Revolt is clearly seen in the birth and rise of extremism in Indian politics. The excesses of the movement engendered a feeling of hostility in the minds of some Indians as well as some Englishmen in India, which, being aggravated by the growing racial discrimination between the two, has been influencing political thought and administrative policy in India in modern times. Russell, the Times Correspondent in India, rightly observed in his Diary that
“the mutinies have produced too much hatred and ill-feeling between the two races to render any mere change of the rulers a remedy for the evils which affect India, of which those angry sentiments are the most serious exposition. . . . Many years must elapse ere the evil passions excited by these disturbances expire; perhaps confidence will never be restored; and, if so, our reign in India will be maintained at the cost of suffering which it is fearful to contemplate”.
