A Leader for the Indian Mutiny

[Tony Jones]

As I understand it one of the causes of the Indian Mutiny failing, or at least failing in the way it did, was the lack of leadership among the mutineers, which led to their having numerous factions which did not always cooperate well with one another, as well as causing problems like the troops not being paid.

What if there had been an effective unifying leader who had overcome those problems? How much of a problem might this been for the British, over and above the problems the Mutiny caused in OTL? What might the final outcome have been?

 

[B_Munro]

Perhaps Prince Dakkar of Bundelkhand?

Bruce

 

[Anaxagoras]

There was no shortage of charasmatic leaders for the rebels- they simploy lacked any useful experience. The major problem the rebels had was that the sepoy system meant that no native solider would ever rise above the level of an NCO. Without a cadre of experienced officers, much less anything resembling high-level leadership, the British were going to win.

The obvious POD is a change in the sepoy system allowing for native soldiers to advance higher up the chain of command. But if you have this, you also take away many of the basic causes of the rebellion in the first place.

 

[Tony Jones]

I was thinking more a POD during the Mutiny itself, when someone rises out of relative obscurity and leads the Indians to a more sucessful outcome, if not necessarily outright victory.

I can imagine some skilled and charimatic NCO, with military talent, who has learned from the officers he's served with and does actually know better than them, but who hasn't been able to rise because of his race. He would, I should think, be able to make a difference. Even perhaps using his 'one of us' background to his advantage.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I can imagine some skilled and charimatic NCO, with military talent, who has learned from the officers he's served with and does actually know better than them, but who hasn't been able to rise because of his race. He would, I should think, be able to make a difference. Even perhaps using his 'one of us' background to his advantage.

If such a thing had happened, it certainly would have made things much more difficult for the British. But because of the lack of middle-level leadership among the rebels, for reasons already stated, the British would have still won in the end.

When we look at the Mutiny, we see British and rebel forces arrayed against each other, with the men of both sides brave, well-trained and well-armed. But the British win every stand-up fight. Why? Because of their unsurpassed (even today) officer corps, which the rebels had no substitute for.

 

[stevep]

Tony

Another problem with your idea is that if you think the British military at the time was hidebound and racist, what do you think the Indians were like? I doubt if a low ranked Indian would be viewed with anything but the deepest suspicion by most of the rulers and fellow leading rebels. This may have been one reason why so many rulers were reluctant to support the rebellion, apart from the believe it would be crushed and the fact that in many cases the 1st step of many of the rebels when they co-opted one of the rulers into the mutiny was to demand substantial wage increases.

You might have more chance of one of the traditional leaders had early on shown support for the mutiny. However even if the Sultan of Delhi had moved quickly to support and try and lead the rebellion that would have probably caused at least some Hindu groups a lot of concern.

Either way, especially with the other Indian armies not supporting the Bengal mutiny and the tribes of the NW and the Gorki’s and Sikhs staying loyal there was considerable local loyalty. As well as a number of rulers in the area in question who hide and protected British and other European refugees. Despite the propaganda being put out by elements of the current Indian government it was nothing like a serious widespread independence movement.

Which was probably a good thing for India. Given the importance of India to Britain at the time I doubt if it could afford the loss of prestige losing such an important region. Especially with the massacres at Cawnpore and what may well have happened elsewhere if the rebellion had been more successful. Under those conditions British retribution, which was bad in places, could have been a hell of a lot worse. With the degree of control Britain had had I don't think the Indians would have had the organisation and resources to sustain serious rebellion. What it would really have needed would have been Britain being already involved in a major war elsewhere already to distract enough attention that London, and the EIC, being willing to cut its losses.

Steve

 

[maverick]

Perhaps Prince Dakkar of Bundelkhand?

Bruce

But then there wouldn't be any Nautilus

 

[Tony Jones]

OK, it sounds like a leader who could unify the mutineers enough to give a win against the British is very, very unlikely.

But what if the leader is able to rally/unify the mutineers enough to make the British suppression of the Mutiny a longer and harder job. What might happen then? I can imagine a much worse 'Devils Wind' taking place, perhaps even to the level of total extermination in mutinous areas, depending on how bad things get (I wouldn't quite call it genocide, because it's unlike that any ethnic groups would be wiped out, but it could still be an immense slaughter). Then a political backlash against it in the UK, undying hatred of the British by parts of the Indian population. Nothing very good really...

 

[Melvin Loh]

Mangal Pandey

Well, what about Mangal Pandey ? He was probably the closest the mutineers had to a unifying leader- WI he'd lived & been more successful in leading the sepoys ? & if there'd been more like him ?

 

[Johnnyreb]

We're looking at it as though there was some kind of united India. I don't think that was the case. The Indian sub-continent was a collection of disparate states. Even the Mogul Emperors (who, BTW, were no more Indian than the British were) managed only a loose confederation and their satraps held princely authority in their areas. By the time the Brits arrived the Moguls were so depraved, their jurisdiction had virtually ceased to exist and the satraps were operating independantly.

There was no emotional pull for a united India at that time. In effect, the British united India.

Another point is that the British forte was (and still is) administration. Their troops got paid regularly, the mutineers did not. As soon as the opportunities for loot ran out, large numbers of mutineers started to desert ( and indeed rejoin the British forces.)

 

[Tony Jones]

We're looking at it as though there was some kind of united India. I don't think that was the case. The Indian sub-continent was a collection of disparate states.

I don't think we are. Well, I'm not. I'm quite aware that India at the time was not a unified state, which was part of the problem for the mutineers. But solving this (and their other) problems is basically what this thread is about!

Also, I wouldn't use the word 'depraved' to describe the Mughals. Screwed by the decades war war forced on them by the emperor Aurangzeb, certainly, which led to much of what was the Mughal Empire breaking away and taking its own path. Not to mention Aurangzeb's changing the politics of India from being based on tribal and geographic boundaries, as they were for centuries, to being based on peoples identification with and alignment to their religion. Also, I think you'll find that the Mughals were well-integrated with India as a whole, unified their realm, and could certainly be considered to have been better for their people than the British and other Europeans. However, we're getting off the point a bit here.

Another point is that the British forte was (and still is) administration. Their troops got paid regularly, the mutineers did not. As soon as the opportunities for loot ran out, large numbers of mutineers started to desert ( and indeed rejoin the British forces.)

Well, part of my question was and is, what if an Indian or Indians learn this from the British and can apply what they have learned on the side of the Mutiny? For example, as you say, the importance of paying ones troops?

I'm quite sure there were enough intelligent Indians around at the time for this to not be out of the question!

In a similar way to how I speculated on a leader being able to rally/unify the mutineers enough to make the British suppression of the Mutiny a longer and harder job.