Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of the causes of the War in India of 1857.
Passage A
The secret organisation of the Revolution, which was first started in Brahmvarta was now growing at a tremendous rate. Nuclei had been established in various places in Northern India and regular communication had been established between them. The palace at Brahmvarta was the focus of the activities at Cawnpore; the same function was performed for Delhi by the Dewan-I-Khas. Ahmad Shah had woven the webs of jehad – the war of independence – through every corner of Lucknow and Agra. Kumar Singh had taken the leadership of his province and in consultation with Nana had been busy gathering materials for war. The seeds of the Jehad had taken root in Patna and the whole city was a haunt for the Revolutionary Party. Landowners, farmers, merchants and students were ready to give their lives for freedom and independence. Near Calcutta, the Nabob of Oudh had persuaded the Sepoys to act. The Muslim population of Hyderabad had begun to hold secret meetings. The states of Patwardhan were ready to fight under the banner of a united nation in the coming war. In Madras, in the beginning of 1857, the following proclamation began to appear from the walls of the city ‘Countrymen and faithful adherents of your religion, rise up!’ To link together the innumerable groups of the various provinces which were working separately, men were employed to travel secretly and letters were rarely used. While everywhere activity of this kind was going on, the blunder of the cartridges, born of the criminal desire to spite the religious feelings of the Sepoys, was committed by the English.
Adapted from V. D. Savakar, The Indian War of Independence, published in 1909.
Passage B
Even though the Awadh mutineers once referred to themselves as ‘the Army of India’, there is nothing in what they said or did to suggest that they could have comprehended, let alone wanted, an equivalent to the Indian state that emerged during the twentieth century. Individually and collectively, Indians were not bent on the creation of a unified nation state. Instead what came out of the mutiny was a fragmentation which would have gathered momentum if more men like Devi Singh had been free to emerge. The old ways returned in the district around Mathura almost the moment that British authority dissolved. In some places, domestic slavery and sati made a comeback. Where national consciousness was evident among the rebels, it was defined as a loathing for the British which, at times, seemed so intense that it appeared that they were waging a racial war of extermination. There was wholesale destruction of all things British including railway engines which were shattered by canon fire at the orders of rioters at Allahabad. Intelligent Indians shared the British horror at this manic Luddism*. The barrier and prejudices created by religion, caste, clan and tribes were still too strong to allow the cultivation of national sentiment or cohesion even if the rebels attempted to do so. The princes were unwilling to commit themselves to a rebellion. Once the war began to swing in Britain’s favour, it was prudent to show active support.
*Luddism – this refers to a movement in nineteenth century Britain which saw workers breaking machines in protest against job losses due to new technology.
Adapted from L. James, Raj, The Making and Unmaking of British India, published in 1997.
[30]
Answer
