Mutiny or War of Independence?
Rebels counter-attack at Delhi. NAM 1971-02-33-495-8
Many Indian historians feel that the term ‘Indian Mutiny’ is belittling to what they see as a nationalist war. The fact that sepoys rallied around Bahadur Shah as a national symbol adds strength to this argument. The rising was not confined to sepoys, so it was not just a ‘sepoy mutiny’, thousands of ordinary civilians took part.
They were united in wanting to rid India of the British, but they were not looking to unite India. The rising was geographically limited, and when British rule in northern India temporarily collapsed, there was no unified nationalist revolt, but rather a struggle for succession by different local rulers. Other Indian soldiers were crucial in putting down the uprising, so the Indian people cannot be seen as united.
The slow-burning fuse of nationalism had been lit in 1857. A traditional society made its protest against ‘alien’ and ‘modern’ influences. From 1859 any hope of India’s old rulers leading a revival of the Indian past and an exclusion of the British diminished.
Traditional structures of Indian society began to break down, and there emerged a strong Anglicised and educated colonial-service class with a heightened sense of nationalism. Using modern, ‘western’ methods, such as political parties (chiefly the Indian National Congress), strikes and protest marches, independence was achieved in 1947.
