Literature Review

Project-2

Subject- History

Submitted To:

Sir Hota Agnikumar

Submitted By- Vedika Singh

1st Year, 1st Semester

2019-5LLB-113

NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Contents

Objective of Literature Review..................................................................................................3

Research Methodology...............................................................................................................4

Overview of the subject under consideration.............................................................................5

Essay- specific Analysis.............................................................................................................7

“The Beginning of ‘People’s War’ in India” by Kaushik Roy..............................................7

“The Rebel Army in 1857: At the Vanguard of the War of Independence or a Tyranny of

Arms?” by Sabyasachi Dasgupta...........................................................................................9

Conclusion................................................................................................................................11
Objective of Literature Review

Literature Review means searching and evaluating critically various literatures proposed by
different historians on a particular topic, while coming across the historians’ own biases and
preference for one side over another. It also includes recognising such biases, such gaps or
shortcomings in the body of the study and thus summarizing the context through analysis and
application of critical thinking by overcoming personal prejudices.

The author has chosen the following two essays for the review purpose: -

1. “The Beginning of ‘People’s War’ in India”1 by Kaushik Roy2

2. “The Rebel Army in 1857: At the Vanguard of the War of Independence or a Tyranny
of Arms?”3 by Sabyasachi Dasgupta4

These chosen pieces of study are taken from book “1857: Essays from Economic and
Political Economy”5, published in 2008. This book looks at several perspectives of 1857
revolt, not only involving directly with the various events that constituted the uprising but
also assessing the political, social and military repercussions of such scenarios. Starting from
looking at the historical perspectives, moving to military aspects, mentioning the viewpoints
of Dalits, also showing how 1857 is depicted in literature and ending with how it inspired
theatrical, musical and art worlds, the book tells us how historiography has granted its own
interpretation to 1857 and how it affects the debates and discussions on 1857 Revolt even
now.

1
Kaushik Roy, “The Beginning of 'People's War' in India”, Vol. 42, Issue No. 19, 12 May, 2007.
2
Guru Nanak Chair Professor in the Department of History, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, &Global
Fellow at Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Norway, till 2017.
3
Sabyasachi Dasgupta, “The Rebel Army in 1857: At the Vanguard of the War of Independence or a Tyranny of
Arms?”, Vol. 42, Issue No. 19, 12 May, 2007.
4
Assistant Professor, Visva Bharati University, Shantiniketan, West Bengal.
5
1857, essays from Economic and political weekly. (2008). Hyderabad: Orient Longman in association with
Sameeksha Trust.
Research Methodology

Kaushik Roy argues that the manner of British rule fundamentally changed over the
upcoming decades, after looking at their response to the 1857 mutiny. Also, according to the
author of this article, mutiny of 1857 was totally different from the battles fought before in
several aspects. It exhibited the coming on of "people's war" as against the "limited war" of
earlier times. Not only were mercenaries and local duties growing from among the populace
but also the calculated barbarity exacted on the overpowered civilian masses was a
deliberated strategy of deflating the foes. Targeting religion and intentional use of rumour
were some other operational tactics that were polished to pull civilians into the warfare.

Sabyasachi Dasgupta contends in the article the role of the soldiers of the company in the
incidents of 1857. As one could see in many instances that quite a few regiments were head-
on against the British, but that resistance did not represent the wider class and community
interests. Evaluating the sepoys’ chiefly unplanned and even unprompted resistance across
many centres of mutiny reflects that they did not desire to bring back the traditional order of
things, or to even take up the interests of the old peasant society from which many of them,
especially those in the Bengal army, originated. Moreover, there were also indications that
the sepoys sought to establish institutions or initial orders in centres such as Delhi or Gwalior
that were more "democratic" and qualitatively egalitarian.
Overview of the subject under consideration

The native fighters and sepoy troops were opposing British forces not just to gain the control
of the country but were fighting a battle for their own national and cultural existence. This
gave new dimension to the conflict in such a way that though increased civilian involvements
were seen yet it also resulted in increased civilian suffering. This new happening is explained
by Kaushik Roy as a "Peoples War" in his article of the same title. 1857 revolt was not just a
battle but was more lethal than that as it was wider in its scope and had very intense impact
on society. One such fatal impact could be seen as of how the prisoners of war were treated
by both the British troops and the rebels. EIC troops led by Colonel John Nicholson killed
and captured and again blew away those captured when a few miles away from Peshawar,
55th Infantry Regiment rebelled. Also, Roy writes about an incident that when mutineers
seized Fort Jhansi, agreeing to spare the lives of British if they surrendered, so as soon as
they surrendered, the prisoners were put to death. So, the distinction between the combatants
and the non-combatants vanished. No sign of mercy could be seen from both the sides. An
intentional and not the collateral damage was classified when along with captured soldiers,
both sides unreservedly and insatiably attacked civilians. 1857 and post-1857 warfare also
saw an anomaly with regards to both the British and the rebels looting the civilians and how
women too were central part of this movement, for example, Begum Hazrat Mahal was a
first-grade plotter and a fine administrator, and never surrendered to the British. The mutiny
was also painted as a “caste war” as both the colonised and the colonisers used the religious
symbols as a means to spread rumour. Since rumour stirred up comradeship it helped in
mobilisation of the insurgents and thus inflicted terrible anxieties on British.

Though the Meerut mutiny triggered a kind of evolution of the participation from different
sections of society and thus made us interpret the scenario as being indicative of some unified
force in country the opposite was actually the true case as argued by Sabyasachi Dasgupta.
This essay talks about how the sepoy assertion was not synonymous with people’s power.
Sepoys were not the peasants in the uniform but held for themselves a distinct identity that
aspired to become the new elite. They definitely led the conflict against British government
and according to various other authors like Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Rajat Ray, etc. were a
dynamic force, possessed power to help in restoration of indigenous societies that got
liberated from British rule. But the author of this essay thinks that they were a force in
themselves and after gaining the confidence by working for so many years for the company
they thought of themselves being capable of making bold and assertive statements. The
military lifestyle to this day creates a culture of its own. Many people might assume that they
fought for a common cause but in actual they spared no one whosoever tried to come in
between them gaining the upper hand. This turn in attitudes was seen most lucidly in the
sepoy treatment of native citizens post-mutiny. Dasgupta believes, seemingly correctly, that
the insurgents and local mutineers were just interested in freeing themselves from British
dominion so as to develop their own a new system with no intention to return to the pre-
existing cultural norms of the day. The uprising, for a moment, made them the masters of the
situation. They didn’t like to be dictated to. Therefore though the sepoys hardly showed
assuaging attitude towards the people and primarily might have called of possessing authority
over the people and to a lesser extent over the old elite class yet there existed the
contradiction when one could see the element of democracy and egalitarian thread within
their own zone of operation or sphere of sovereignty. The hierarchal systems of the caste,
largely tied with the traditional Hindu culture and bound by respect, seemed at odds with this
“new elite” class of sepoy.
Essay- specific Analysis

“The Beginning of ‘People’s War’ in India”6 by Kaushik Roy7

In era of people’s war in 19th century, all the distinctions that were created by old warfare
system were vanished. Soldiers had their own ideology behind the fight, cultural attitudes
aided the dehumanization of warfare, citizens acted as soldiers and had their own contribution
in supporting the war effort. Therefore, people’s warfare here refers to interstate warfare.
How the people’s war proceeded during 1857-59 shows the varying degrees in flaming the
mutiny. During this period neither the British nor the rebels cared about the lives of the
prisoners of power. Neither Hugh Rose’s troops that occupied the fort of Rahatgarh and
captured the prisoners nor the rebels that seized the fort of Jhansi and asked the British
soldiers to surrender showed mercy on such prisoners. There remained no distinction between
combatants and non-combatants in such period of people’s war. Also, the rebels were
determined to destroy everything that was of the white or the old elite or that what stood for
the “west”, thus challenging the legitimacy of the British Raj. Even the civilians were not
spared by the violence inflicted by both the parties. British attacked civilians to frighten them
into subservience and make them visible their authority. The rebels attacked those Indian
counterparts who were the collaborators in clerical establishment of the Company Raj.
During 1857 and post-1857 warfare civilians also became the prey of the pillaging by the
British as well as the rebels as for the survival. Though women played a little role at the
“firing line” yet they constituted an important part of the warfare. To name some heroines of
revolt of 1857, first comes the Begum Hazrat Mahal who despite being chased by both the
British troops and the Nepali Army and being denied the political asylum by Maharaja Jung
Bahadur never surrendered. And also, Rani Lakshmi Bai who was the symbol of the spirit of
resistance in Jhansi and died in the battlefield.

The ideology to fight and die for, religious fanaticism and anti- ‘goralog’ nationalism played
a vital role in 1857 uprising. Rumours in the name of religion were spread in order to
encourage the suppressed resistance among the rebels. And one of the chief sources of
rumours being the free press like how papers published in Persian language in May 1857
encouraged the Muslims to fight against the ‘feranghis’. The British were never free from the

6
Supra note 1.
7
Supra note 2.
effects of rumour and the fatalist rumour for EIC being the one regarding greased cartridges
which conflagrated the flame. Marginal groups also participated in the movement. Casteism
being prevalent in the ancient times and the growing influence of British created the intense
anti-British bias among the high caste people. This forced the British mobilised the low
castes and sometimes even the “wild tribes” during emergency. But such informal forces
raised by the British were less than the regular soldier contingents. On the other hand, though
the entry of low castes and Eurasians was not allowed in the rebel groups yet they mobilised
a large number of men. But at the same time, they suffered more casualties than British. Main
reasons behind such casualties were illiteracy, no test to pass before getting promotion, not
combat effective either physically or mentally, lack of coordination and proper
commandments by the rebels and also their inability in understanding the tactical
complexities. British were rather well educated in military academics and handy at the
application of war technicalities. This is how the ‘people’s war’ took place.
“The Rebel Army in 1857: At the Vanguard of the War of Independence or a Tyranny of
Arms?”8 by Sabyasachi Dasgupta9

Travelling the journey of how the sepoys of middle farmer background and believers of ties
of caste and clan tried to establish their own identity and to become the new elite, we could
across some authors according to whom the sepoys were the peasants in the uniform but for
the author of this essay it was not the true case. The links that sepoys shared with their parent
society could be seen in the composition of the Bengal Army which constituted high caste
sepoys of a yeoman farmer background and expanded its membership by telling their
recruited sepoys and officers to bring back their high caste relatives and neighbours, when
have completed their furlough and also how huts created by the native recruits didn’t differ
much from that of native villages. These links led many historians like Rudrangshu
Mukherjee and Rajat Ray to argue that the participation of peasants in 1857 revolt was of
greater significance because the sepoys were after all the peasants, closely tied to the
hierarchies of the indigenous society. The other arguments made by them are that the most
democratic part of the rebellion was when it was considered that the people’s rebellion had
the mutiny of sepoys at its heart and the perspective of such sepoys widened from that what
was of average villager when they served the army. What else was posited that they created
their own zone of authority so as to act as decisive voice in reinstatement of the indigenous
power in areas that got liberated from the British and also set up councils to exercise powers
in their centres of power.

What the author of the essay argues here is that it is not right to call the rebellion as people’s
war with the sepoys as flag-bearers. The sepoy was not only fighting against the British
government but also looking for the power within his own parental society. He was
determined to make the most of the advantages offered to him by the Company Service and
also to maintain his final say as far as decision making was concerned. Years of service made
them to put aside the traditional subjugation confidently and make forthright and forceful
statements. They had created terror on both the sides. In pre-1857 mutinies, the sudden rise in
their numbers and the imbalance and the disturbances that they created in British
administration used to give them psychological boost. And this caused sometimes increase in

8
Supra note 3.
9
Supra note 4.
their number of attacks whenever the certain sentiments and obligations towards them were
not honoured by those who sought their allegiance. But 1857 was different in a way that it
challenged the basic foundations of British rule. The sepoys created their own power and
regime in ways like reviving old practices of ‘Panch’, their anger and resentment not sparing
even the emperor and even possessing the audacity to command everyone without their
power being challenged. This revolt made them the masters of the situation for the time
being. And also made them think that they can dictate terms to anybody.
Conclusion

1857 was unchallenged in its span, idea and significance. Kaushik in his essay basically
talked about how both the sides of the revolt were firm on bolstering their war efforts and
thus destroying the demographical and financial potential and affecting their morale. There
were ideological commitments from both sides behind such brutalities. Muscular Christianity
and revenge gave ignition to the British and on the other hand, a mix of religion and caste
pride formed a kind of pre-modern nationalism for rebels. Women though played an
important role in the mutiny but their active participation in actual combat remained minimal.
Military manpower conscription was infinitesimal during 1857 by both the rebels and the
Company. Though marginal groups and tribes and low castes too contributed to the
momentum yet were in small numbers as they were basically recruited by the British only as
high caste were more inclined towards helping the sepoys so as to maintain their superiority
and royalty.

After analysing Dasgupta’s essay one could ask that what was the importance of the mutiny?
What did the sepoy rebellion represent if not the rebellion of the people? Why do we
celebrate the 50th or 100th of 1857 revolt and not the other uprisings like that of Santhal, Bhils,
etc.? It might be said that the uprising was not only just unprecedented in its range and
conception but also encountered the old feudal elite. The somewhat leverage provided to
them during their serving in the army was kind of a boost in making them confident and
pushy so as to propose an alternative archetype of government. Even if we consider the
situation where this sepoy rebellion against the British might have been successful it would
not have tried to go back to the old native forms of government but would rather have come
up with a new order. A type of authoritarianism of sepoys over the masses and to some extent
the old elite class might have been perceived in such new order but there would also have
existed contradiction in terms of how the internal world of the sepoys also composed of
democratic and egalitarian strands.

Thus, both the authors present different views with regards to what constituted the 1857
revolt and how it was both a people’s war and also the sepoys’ volition but still turned out to
be wider in its scope. Also, how this rebellion churned out to have a profound effect on
various communities, groups and other participants in the mutiny and also the subaltern
theorists.