The Revolt of 1857: Analysis on the nature of revolt

Nature of the Revolt

+ Event Details

Different Interpretations: Views on the 1857 revolt vary widely. British historian Sir John Seeley considered it a mere 'Sepoy Mutiny,' describing it as "a wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support." However, this view overlooks the involvement of various civilian sections and not just the sepoys.
Dr. K. Datta's Perspective: Dr. K. Datta views the revolt as "a military outbreak" that certain discontented princes and landlords exploited. This gave the revolt an appearance of a popular uprising in some areas. Datta characterizes it as "never all-Indian in character," being localized, restricted, and poorly organized. The movement lacked cohesion and unity among the rebels.
V.D. Savarkar's Interpretation: V.D. Savarkar, in his book *The Indian War of Independence, 1857*, regarded the revolt as a "planned war of national independence," calling it the first war of Indian independence. He saw it as driven by the ideal of self-rule through a nationalist upsurge.
Dr. S.N. Sen's View: Dr. S.N. Sen in *Eighteen Fifty-Seven* argues that the revolt began as a fight for religion but evolved into a war of independence.
Dr. R.C. Majumdar's Opinion: Dr. R.C. Majumdar considered the revolt neither the first nor a national war of independence, noting that large parts of the country remained unaffected, and many people did not participate.
Marxist Historians' View: Some Marxist historians interpret the revolt as “the struggle of the soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bondage.” This view is contested due to the feudal backgrounds of many rebel leaders.
Jawaharlal Nehru's Perspective: Jawaharlal Nehru saw the revolt as a feudal uprising with some nationalistic elements (as mentioned in *Discovery of India*).
M.N. Roy and R.P. Dutt: M.N. Roy considered the revolt as a last stand of feudalism against commercial capitalism, while R.P. Dutt saw it as a peasant revolt against foreign domination, acknowledging its defense of the old feudal order.
Difficult to Categorize: Categorizing the revolt is challenging. Views like those of L.E.R. Rees, who saw it as a war of fanatic religionists against Christians, or T.R. Holmes, who saw it as a conflict between civilization and barbarism, are not widely accepted. While it had elements of nationalism and anti-imperialism, the concept of common nationality was not inherent to the revolt.
Regional and Personal Motivations: The southern section of India was not involved, and many leaders had personal reasons for revolting. Dr. Sen points out that national revolutions are often driven by a minority with or without mass support, which gives the 1857 rebellion some claim to national character.
First Great Struggle: The revolt of 1857 is considered by some as the first major struggle against British rule. However, some historians argue that earlier uprisings were also significant but received less attention. S.B. Chaudhuri views the revolt as "the first combined attempt of many classes of people to challenge a foreign power," representing an early stage of India's freedom movement.