DBWI: What if in 1857, the Indian sepoys actually rebelled over the Shell misunderstanding.

mad orc

Banned
In 1857, the sepoys in Northern India came very close to outright rebellion against the company over false rumours which endangered their religious beliefs.

What if they actually rebelled?
Would this have started of a chain reaction?

Would the Rajas have supported them?
 
In 1857, the sepoys in Northern India came very close to outright rebellion against the company over false rumours which endangered their religious beliefs.

What if they actually rebelled?
Would this have started of a chain reaction?

Would the Rajas have supported them?
Too much depends on the scale and coordination of the Rebellion; The R.H.E.I.C would move swiftly and brutally against isolated uprisings to keep them from linking up, and control the rails and communications system. Unless the Sepoy commanders can organize their mutinies to go off at roughly the same time and build a critical mass (including supply sources), Loyal Company forces would chew them up peicemeal.
 

mad orc

Banned
But wouldn't the Rajas complicate things?
Some would support while others would not.
What about them?
 
The question, in my opinion is of whether the leadership is up to the task and can offer something beyond a return to the seventeenth century, which knowing the intellectual paucity of Indian leaders after being neutered by the British after roughly 1800 seemed to lack.

Does the rebellion get declared a jihad by an established Muslim ruler? This would make it legal according to sharia, but if not, rebellions are strictly haram so it would have a hard time getting support from the Muslim population.

Can the Hindus and Muslims put aside their differences long enough to oust the British?

Do they manage to secure foreign aid (I’d doubt it but stranger things have happened)

The odds would be stacked against them so I really consider this an improbable scenario.
 
What misunderstanding? Plenty of the lard sold was indeed pig and cow fat, rather than that from sheep. It was cheaper and the British merchants got to pocket a lot of extra cash. I think some groups were considered semi-Untouchable for betraying their face and people in such a manner.
 
What about the long-term impact of such a rebellion, if it fails like most believe? For starters, the Mughals wouldn't have remained, albeit in a largely titular role, until independence due to the British probably removing them after such a failed mutiny and India would have probably become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy.
 
What about the long-term impact of such a rebellion, if it fails like most believe? For starters, the Mughals wouldn't have remained, albeit in a largely titular role, until independence due to the British probably removing them after such a failed mutiny and India would have probably become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy.

Well to be fair, that really depends on whether it butterflies Patrani Gayatri Devi, the wife of Mughal emperor Jahangir II, as it was really her who managed to make the Mughal dynasty politically relevant again by emphasising their position as a symbol of Hindu Muslim unity and national pride around independence. Without that, they would’ve just been one among many Indian anachronisms with a mixed legacy who’d not been relevant political actors since the seventeenth century.

Then again, getting rid of the dynasty could have been better for India- even with Gayatri Devi there was a lot of support for a republic and it would’ve definitely averted the Khalistan rebellion. After all the Sikh identity was formed around ousting the evil Mughals and putting a Mughal right back on the throne of Delhi was bound to inflame tensions, considering how deep wounds run when it comes to faith. Even with Gayatri Devi’s outreach attempts, that conflict ended up scarring the Punjab basically til the present day although wounds are beginning to heal. Maybe with a republic that wouldn’t have happened?
 
Last edited:
Top