The Sepoy Mutiny

I've done a whole lot of reading about this, and while religion always factors into these sorts of things, it was not a planned event and people had very diverse motivations for participating, most of which were economic or political, not religious. Also, once fighting begins, a lot of what people say is colored with religious imagery. We do it too - not to get political, but Bush claimed God is on our side after 9-11, and has used the word "Crusade", which has strong implications for Middle Easterners. Likewise, the word Jihad has a different meaning to the modern Western ear than should be written into letters by ordinary soldiers.

It certainly had nothing to do with Wahhabism. The most Wahhabi-infuenced place in India was Hyderabad, which actively assisted the British to suppress the revolt.

In general I don't like to depend upon the work of one author, especially if he is quite radically revisionist.

Yes, it was a revolt. Not a general one though, the civilian population of west Bengal formed posses and rounded up mutiniers.



No, it really was a religious uprising. This is a fairly recent finding done by actually bothering to read the mutiniers own documents by Dalrymple etc.
 
I would have to agree with Abdul Hadi Pasha, there were a number of factors that contributed to the Sepoy revolt -- and although religion was certainly a component, it wasn't the single component that ignited the revolt. Some say that if the British had responded more decisively during the beginning of the revolt, it might not have grown and spread as far as it did. While this might be true, based on the quality of officers in the country at the time, I don't really see things playing out much differently than they did. In fact, if the mutineers had been more united and better organized, the war could have been much more costly for the British, especially since the mutiny seemed to catch so many of them off-guard and they were far outnumbered by the natives. In addition, the Brits were also involved in the second Opium War with China, so the Empire's manpower and resources might have been spread a bit thin.

On another forum, I started doing magazine-type coverage of sports and history beginning with 1857 (that's the year the National Association of Baseball Players organized in the U.S.) and the coverage of the Sepoy Revolt in India is prominently featured. Here's the link if anyone is interested.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-dynasty-reports/124307-sports-history-dynasty.html
 
Last edited:
In fact, if the mutineers had been more united and better organized, the war could have been much more costly for the British, especially since the mutiny seemed to catch so many of them off-guard and they were far outnumbered by the natives.
Moreover, if the native princes had joined the mutineers sooner then the British would have had more difficulties. In fact some of them did not "join" the Mutiny until after the British had successfully mopped up some areas.

As for being more united and better organized, it is worth remembering that this was a top bottom rather than top down revolt. Under such circumstances it can be difficult for local leaders to submit to an overall commander. Whilst they were untied against the British they were divided by religion and very divided if the carnage during the later Partition is anything to go by.
 
Moreover, if the native princes had joined the mutineers sooner then the British would have had more difficulties. In fact some of them did not "join" the Mutiny until after the British had successfully mopped up some areas.

As for being more united and better organized, it is worth remembering that this was a top bottom rather than top down revolt. Under such circumstances it can be difficult for local leaders to submit to an overall commander. Whilst they were untied against the British they were divided by religion and very divided if the carnage during the later Partition is anything to go by.

Religious divisions back then were pretty minimal compared to what you might expect - those developed later for a variety of reasons, including British "divide and conquer" and Indians adopting the nationalist paradigm to combat imperialism, plus, horrendous bloodshed pretty much always results from trying to partition things along ethnic or sectarian lines.

A successful revolt requires a lot of planning, preparation, organization, unity, and outside assistance. That the Mutiny shook the foundations of British power without any of these, which begs the question what would have happened if there had been a revolt intended, instead of just sparked.
 
Religion wasn't the core reasoning behind the ringleaders of the revolt but I would agree that they used it and it was a huge factor in drawing large numbers of the ignorant to their side.
 
You probably didn't mean it this way, but this is frankly revolting.

Does it occur to you that having your country ruled by a for-profit company that leeches all the wealth out of your homeland might be enough cause for a revolt and it doesn't have to be about religious fanaticism?

Yes, this was why all India rose and not just the Ganges Valley. Especially the recently conquered Sikhs who, by your reasoning, would have had the freshest grudge to bear against the Sirkar. There would be neither a rupee nor a virgin left between Kerala and the Khyber Gate. Except that didn't happen- the Mutiny was generally confined to the upper Ganges valley and the Sikh regiments stayed conspicuously loyal to the Company.

Not that I agree with 67th Tiger's "proto-Wahabbist" theory either.
 
Perhaps go for root causes....

Can we get John Company to sell out to the British Government (who, having nothing better to do, quashes the most blatant abuses and settles for titular overlordship outside of the lands the EIC ran itself)?

Maybe the place gets run in a manner akin to the German Confederation, with eventual road to Dominion status before 1900.

HTG
 
Why would it be necessary for ALL of India to revolt? First of all, you keep saying that it was totally localized, but it was not confined to the Ganges Valley, and even if it were, the Ganges Valley contains a huge proportion of the population of India, not to mention geographic extent, and is full of the people who lost the most due to EIC rule.

I'm not sure why this subject brings out that degree of hyperbole in you. For an unplanned revolt, the strength and extent of this was huge and it shook the British Empire in a way that nothing else ever did. If it had been caused by Islamic fundamentalism, it wouldn't have had so many Hundu adherents.

Yes, this was why all India rose and not just the Ganges Valley. Especially the recently conquered Sikhs who, by your reasoning, would have had the freshest grudge to bear against the Sirkar. There would be neither a rupee nor a virgin left between Kerala and the Khyber Gate. Except that didn't happen- the Mutiny was generally confined to the upper Ganges valley and the Sikh regiments stayed conspicuously loyal to the Company.

Not that I agree with 67th Tiger's "proto-Wahabbist" theory either.
 
If it had been anything resembling a true national revolt the hopelessly outnumbered British would have been doomed. Survival was due to the fact that vast majority of India was either disinterested or openly supportive of the British, including the other two armies in India.

In contrast, had the British made a modest effort to avoid tensions the revolt might well have fizzled and even a few actions after violence began, if taken with proper speed, would likely have dramatically reduced the scope of the revolt.
 
Top