To What Extent Was the Indian Mutiny of 1857-1858 the Sole Responsibility of the British?

great misery" [3]. He also suspected the British of their "wicked desire to destroy our holy religion", Hinduism, and enforce upon the people of India the teachings of Christianity. The extent to which this is true is debatable. Charles Grant, who later became the chairman if the Court of Directors of the East India Company thought that "the conversion of Indians to the 'truth' - Western Christian truth - would not only raise their moral standards" [4], but would make them less ignorant and therefore make them better people. It can be said that the influences and integration of Christianity in India rose rapidly after the Company was forced to open its territories to Christian missionaries in 1813. However, there were many paranoid Indians who thought that every action of the 'white man' was a part of a large conspiracy. In fact, they were so mistrustful that they may have missed the bigger picture, that the occupation of India by the British achieved marvellous advancements in terms of the economical and technological development of India and was not a ploy to destroy their religion, as nationalist people who homed in on minor incidents believed. Furthermore, the Indian historian Suresh Chandra Ghosh believes in the aforementioned statement and stated that Dalhousie had a "plan for development, but concentrated on the application of Western technology especially of the field of communications" [5]. To have an Indian historian such as Ghosh, who does not hide his nationalism in his writings must mean there is some truth in that the British did want to better the country.To examine the causes of an incident in history one must evaluate the situation that India was in at that time in terms of pre-mutiny relations between the British and Indians. From the very beginning associations between the British and the Indians had been deteriorating. Karl Marx cited that "the British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction." [6]. By doing this the British had abolished the only way India new how to govern itself; the only way it new in which to live and historian Thomas Metcalf suggests that this act of sheer barbarism left a "level of widespread unrest amongst the civilian population" [7]. Metcalf also believes this 'discontent amongst the masses' to be a major cause behind the outbreak of the rebellion in 1857. Furthermore, historian Christopher Hibbert points out that many native servants were treated quite harshly if they were 'careless' and in particular the privately printed memoirs of "Henry Ouvry of the 9th Lancers more than once records administering a good thrashing" [8] to servants. Byron Farwell goes on to say that the native servants and "most peasants in the villages feared … the fury of the British" [9] and dared not to stand up to them as a form of retaliation. Therefore the discontent bared by the population was not aptly dealt with grew predominantly in the areas surrounding Bengal, where the 'Sepoy army of Bengal' resided.Most historians believe that it was the accumulating grievances of the Sepoy army of Bengal which was the major cause of the mutiny in 1857. These grievances were results of many incidents that took place whilst Indians were serving under the British, especially because many British shunned Indians serving in the army. Englishmen such as Brigadier-General John Jacob, a famous leader of the Indian cavalry assumed that the British were the masters of India because they were "superior beings by nature to the Asiatic". [10] Historian John Harris supports this by considering many of the British to be full of "racial pride" [11] and looking upon the Indian religion with distaste. The native soldiers were treated with a kind of amused contempt, and grew accustomed to insults and abuse, as the servants of many officers were. Sergeant Pearlman recalled how "a British soldier hurled a boot at one of the 'black' men who came into the barracks room of a morning with large earthen vessels on their heads … the vessel broke and the steaming coffee ran down the poor man's body" [12]. This all led to a general 'deterioration of morale' within the army and Thomas Metcalf argues that this feeling was furthered by the actions of the many "Brahmins and other high caste Hindus" present. In Hinduism, Brahmins have the caste of priesthood, the highest caste attainable, and are therefore extremely passionate about their religion. They believed that the British were attempting to enforce Christianity upon the Indian society and therefore assisted in promoting a "focus of sedition" [13] in the army. The fear of forcible conversion to Christianity became even more apparent in the army in 1856 when the General Service Enlistment Act was passed. This stipulated that recruitments were required to accept service in the army along the same conditions as the men enlisted into the Madras and Bombay armies, and that they must serve overseas if they were required to do so. However, this was impossible for a faithful Hindu to go to sea, as his faith obliged him to perform certain duties, such as having his own fire to cook his own food, and these could not be carried out on a wooden ship. Consequently there was much apprehension bared on the side of the Hindu's as fundamental aspects of their religion were being broken by British regulations. This also intensified the negative feelings possessed by the Indian towards the British.  Historian, Christopher Hibbert also argues that the growing discontentment portrayed by the sepoy's was also a result of the announcement that "those found unfit for active service would no longer be allowed to retire on invalid pensions but must be employed on cantonment duty" [14], which would force them to reside in a military camp. This was added to by the fact that Indians, in the future, had to pay for postage on their letters rather then being allowed to send them for free under their commanding officer, and this meant that the lack of improvement to the overall position of the Indian men serving in the Indian army supplemented to the level of tension, which was on the verge of erupting. However, these grievances were nothing compared to the alarm aroused by the rumours of the issue of a new rifle cartridge that was to be distributed throughout the army.In 1857, the new 'Enfield rifle' ammunition cartridge was developed in an attept to increase the accuracy of the rifle. However, this new cartridge had to be bitten or nipped before it could be used, and when rumours spread that the grease on the cartridge was a "mixture of cow fat and hog fat" [15], which would be degrading to Hindus - as cows are deemed sacred animals - and offensive to Muslims, anarchy broke out and the rumour spread like wildfire through the regiments. These rumours turned out to be factual and in effect this was the trigger the initiated the mutiny of 1857.Many historians concur that this was in fact the trigger of the rebellion and say that the other factors, which amounted to the widespread grievances of most of the population, including the army, were simply the long term causes. Historian John Harris even goes as far as to argue that it was not the "cartridge that had done the trick" [16], but it was the "consciousness of power" [17] that had been recognised by the Indians which could only result in mutiny. In effect, he deduced that the mutiny was an inevitability and that if the cartridge incident had not occurred another excuse would have been found, due to the growing discontentment in India at that time. In fact the British government actually issued an order for the cartridges to be degreased, but it proved to be an exercise in futility as the damage had been done. In argument to this, many historians would argue that no event in history is inevitable and there is a definite possibility that the rebellion could have been avoided.  Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of England in 1868 saw the root cause of the rebellion as the inability of British government's administration and believed that it had "alienated or alarmed almost every influential class in the country" [18]. He failed to see how it was the result of the general discontentment in India. Sir John Lawrence on the other hand, who was actually an administrator in the Indian civil service and also a key figure in containing Punjab during the mutiny, was in precise opposition to Disraeli's sentiments and believed that the root cause of the mutiny was the lack of discipline in the army and believes that it is irrational to blame the government administrative system. We must examine the reliability of Lawrence's ideas, as being an administrator himself, he is not going to condemn his own government. However, his opinion should not be dismissed as it does provide us with a sufficient argument to challenge Disraeli.Another historian who opposes the views of Disraeli is the nationalist historian Savarkar. Savarkar believes that the core cause of the mutiny was the fact that the British "committed so many atrocities" [19]. Savarkar believed that the mutiny was the first "Indian War of Independence" [20], which was also to be the title of his book on the matter, and feels that it was the first stirrings of Indian nationalistic movement to gain self rule. Savarkar, like many Indian historians, questions the fact that if the subject of the 'Enfield cartridge' was one of the main causes of the 'war', then what was the reasoning behind royalty such as the Queen of Jhansi and the Emperor of Delhi fighting, and continuing to fight even after the order had been issued to degrease the cartridges.      On the contrary, British historians favour calling it the "Indian mutiny", because generally, to them it was a result of the deterioration of the army in terms of increasing indiscipline and lack of appropriate command. Although the mutiny occurred only in sections of the military, the British viewpoint fails to recognise the parts of the civilian population that participated in the rebellion. If the mutiny was in fact a "war of independence" as Savarkar puts it, then it would be globally acknowledged, but the facts suggest otherwise. For example in the British magazine 'Punch', reported no significant changes in the social, political or economical climate of India. The only report that gives any indication that there is a conflict is a brief note for Monday July 6th 1857 reporting on an enquiry about how the troops were being shipped to India, which is two months after the breakout of the mutiny. Even the word 'mutiny' conjures up an image of a small, disorganised group of people exercising disobedience. As it turns out, this is not far from the truth as, the entire population of India did not participate in the mutiny, especially with the large number of Sikh troops, who served under the British command in Punjab and remained "true to [their] salt" [21]. Furthermore, Savarkar's opinions, which are written in hindsight, may reflect the nationalistic sentiments of his own campaign against the British, that he conducted in the early part of the twentieth century and therefore may prove unreliable.The truth is that rebellion that occurred in the May of 1857 was clearly not as extreme as a 'war of independence', and this is justified by the fact that the entire south of India played no part in it. However, I believe that the revolt was much more then a mutiny, as British historians depict it, as it did have some nationalistic elements, and the ramifications of it will forever be studded in history. I believe that the rebellion was in reality somewhere between the two extremes, and form the factual evidence I have analysed it seems to be much closer to the British viewpoint.It can be said that India did prosper under British rule. In terms of economics and development, agricultural output increased by manifold, and the railway network was formed, which provided a major contribution to the economic boom. Furthermore, trade expanded and industrial development was on the rise. However, there was a blatant conflict of interest, in terms of the British wanting to change the way in which the Indians lived their lives, even though the latter were perfectly content with what they had. Hand in hand with the conflict of interest came the problems between the two races. There are many reasons you can blame the British for the mutiny of 1857, but perhaps it was the fact that India was simply not ready to integrate such rapid economic and social changes into the country that created such problems. I believe the major factor which interacted to bring about the mutiny from the very beginning of British rule in India was the inability of the two nations to comprehend each other. The consequences of a lack of information between the two races, was what led to the instable predicament that India was placed in, and I believe that it was this that ultimately led to the rebellion in 1857.