Chapter 1 The First War of Independence, 1857 Introduction The process of the British conquest of India and the consolidation of British rule was accompanied by resentment amongst the Indians. Hardly a year passed till 1857 when some part of the country or the other did not rise in revolt against the British domination of India. However, these rebellions were local, scattered and isolated. They did not pose a serious challenge to the British. Nonetheless, these revolts establish a local tradition of struggle against the foreign rule. The culmination of such opposition to British rule came with the First War of Independence in 1857, in which millions of peasants, artisans and soldiers participated. It shook the British government to its very foundation. Let's learn more about it. Causes of the First War of Independence The first hundred years of British in India, that is from 1757 to 1857, were marked by the British conquests and rapid expansion of their dominion in India. The combined effect of British expansionist policies, economic exploitation and administrative changes adversely affected all segments of Indian society. The ruling classes were dispossessed of their power, the peasantry was deprived of its land rights and the artisans lost their livelihood. The middle and upper classes of Indian society, particularly in northern India, were annoyed because of their exclusion from the well-paid, higher posts in the administration. Men who followed cultural or religious activities like priests and scholars found themselves without income as they lost their patrons. And who were these patrons? Well, the Indian rulers, princes and zamindars who had themselves lost their authority. The Company's Indian soldiers were discontent with their low pay, hard life and the ill treatment meted out to them by the British officers. Thus, by 1857, conditions were ripe for a mass uprising and the accumulated grievances of the people burst forth in the form of the First War of Independence. In this chapter, we shall study about following causes. Political Causes, Socioreligious Causes, Economic Causes, Military Causes Political Causes The political reasons which antagonized the Indian rulers were the following. 1. Policy of Expansion The British policy of control and gradual extinction of the native Indian states was one of the major grievances of the Indian rulers. Ever since the Battle of Plassey in June 1757, the East India Company's territorial power increased rapidly. The British tried to expand their political power in India four ways, i.e. by outright wars, by by the system of subsidiary alliance by adopting the doctrine of lapse and on the pretext of alleged misrule a by outright wars to expand their territorial power in india and to safeguard their economic and political interests the british waged many wars The Battle of Buxar in 1764 established the British as masters of Bengal, Bihar and Odisha. As a result of their success in Anglo-Mysore Wars 1767-1799, the East India Company annexed most of the territories of the Mysore state. After the Third Anglo-Maratha War, The Peshwa's entire dominions and all Maratha territory north and south of the Narmada River were acquired by the British. The Punjab was annexed in 1849 after the Sikhs were defeated in the Second Anglo-Sikh War. From 1823 to 1856, the British further extended their empire by conquering Sindh, Territories of Assam, Arakan and Tener Serim and Pegu in Myanmar b. The Subsidiary Alliance Some Indian states were brought under the British control without actually annexing them. This was done by following the Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wesley. Under this system, the Indian rulers who agreed to the subsidiary alliance a. Accepted the British as the supreme power b. Surrendered their foreign relations to the East India Company and agreed that they would not enter into any alliance with any other power and would not wage wars. c. Accepted a British resident at their headquarters and agreed not to employ any European in their service without consulting the company. d. Agreed to maintain British troops at their own cost. e. Virtually lost their independence. By 1856, practically all the Indian states had either been annexed or had entered into alliances with the company. The British had become the supreme power and the Indian princes were reduced to puppets. If you want to see all the chapters of your syllabus in this format, then call us at the number given in the description. See, by using the doctrine of lapse. Lord Dalhousie, the Governor General of India, annexed many Indian states to the Company using the doctrine of lapse. Lapse Now, according to this doctrine, heirs adopted without the consent of the company could inherit only the private property of the deceased ruler and not his territory which would come under the company's rule. When the ruler of Jhansi died in 1853 leaving no natural heir, the widowed Rani was pensioned And their adopted son, Ananda Rao, was not recognized as a lawful successor to the throne. The other prominent states which became victims to the doctrine were Satara, Jaithpur, Sambalpur, Udaipur and Nagpur. The principle of lapse was also applied to take away the titles and pensions of the rulers of some states. Legal titles of the Nawabs of Karnatak and Tanjore were taken away. This caused discontent among the rulers as well as among the people in general. The rulers of Indian states believed that their states were annexed not by the application of doctrine of lapse, but due to the lapse of all morals on the part of the British. What do you feel? d. On the pretext of alleged misrule. In 1856, Lord Dalhousie annexed Awadh to the Company's dominions on the pretext of alleged misuse. The annexation of Awadh was arbitrary as the British seemed to have broken their promises made to the ruling chiefs. This caused resentment among the Indians in general and Awadh in particular. Lord Dalhousie justified the annexation of Awadh on the pretext of the good of the governed, but the people of Awadh on the contrary had to face more hardships. They had to pay higher land revenue and additional taxes on food, houses, ferries and justice. The dissolution of the Nawab of Awadh's army and administration threw thousands of nobles, officials and soldiers out of jobs. The British confiscated the estates of the talukdaars or zamindars. The dispossessed talukdaars became the opponents of the British rule. The company's sepoys, of whom 75,000 were from Awadh, were the worst affected. These soldiers had helped the British to conquer the rest of India. But they did not like that their homelands should come under the foreign sway. The annexation of Awadh also affected the soldiers'financial position. They had to pay higher taxes on the land their families held in Awadh. In fact, Awadh played a major role in the uprising of 1857. Disrespect Shown to Bahadur Shah Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Mughal ruler, was under the protection of the Company and received a pension from the British. In 1849, Lord Dalhousie announced that successors of Bahadur Shah Zafar would not be permitted to use the Red Fort as their palace. They were required to shift to a place near the Kutam Minar. In 1856, Lord Canning announced that after the death of Bahadur Shah, his successors would not be allowed to use the imperial titles with their names and would be known as mere princes. Now this decision of the British hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Consequently, Zeenat Mahal, The wife of Bahadur Shah began plotting against them. If you want to see all the chapters of your syllabus in this format, then call us at the number given in the description. 3. Treatment given to Nana Sahib and Rani Lakshmi Bai Nana Sahib was the adopted son of Bajirao II, the last Peshwa. The British refused to grant Nana Sahib the pension they were paying to Bajirao II. Nana Saheb was forced to live at Kanpur, far away from his family seat at Pune. This was widely resented at the Maratha region. Nana Saheb had inherited wealth from the former Peshwa, which he utilised in sending emissaries to different parts of the country for generating awareness among the Indians about the British policies. Nana Saheb travelled between Delhi and Lucknow to gather support for the movement. Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi, who became the victim of the doctrine of lapse, became a bitter enemy of the British, as her adopted son was not accepted as the heir to the throne. The other Indian rulers, who were not adversely affected, became suspicious lest they should meet the same fate. Absentee Sovereignty of the British Absentee Sovereignty means that India was being ruled by the British government from England at a distance of thousands of miles. Absentee sovereignty of the British rule was resented by the Indians. The earlier rulers, like the Mughals, who had conquered India, had in course of time settled in India. The revenues they collected from the Indians were spent in India only. But here in the case of Britain, the Indians felt that they were being ruled from England and India's wealth was being drained to England and not utilised for their welfare. Socio-religious Causes The British government's attempt to interfere in the social and religious life of the Indians led to the widespread fear among the masses. 1. Interference with Social Customs Some of the social reforms introduced by the British in India were aimed at improving the conditions of the people. However, while introducing such reforms, the feelings of the people were not taken into consideration. The result was that the reforms like the abolition of Sati in 1829, the introduction of the Widow Remarriage Act in 1856 and the opening of Western education to girls were not welcomed by the masses. 2. Apprehensions about Modern Innovations The introduction of modern innovations such as railways and telegraphs was misunderstood by the people. There were rumours that the telegraph poles were erected to hang people who were against the British rule. Similarly, the orthodox Indians noted that in the railway compartments, the higher castes and the lower castes were made to sit side by side. They believed that the British had introduced such practices to defy their caste and religion. 3. Reality of racial discrimination The British officers were rude and arrogant towards the Indians. They believed that they were superior to Indians and followed a policy of contempt towards the Indians. They dubbed the Muslims as cruel and unfaithful. Some European officers ill-treated and insulted Indians. Such acts of unjust discrimination alienated the British from the Indian masses. If you want to see all the chapters of your syllabus in this format, then call us at the number given in the description. To watch more educational videos like this, subscribe to our channel, Home Revised.