One thing you need to remember is that the revolt of 1857 was not inspired by the "Enlightened Nationalism" which characterized the fredoom struggle in the first half of the 20th century. It was purely a religious frenzy which gripped the sepoys and the Zamindars alike across North India. The Muslims would charge the British with cries of "Deen-Deen-Deen" and the Hindus with cries of "Dharm, Dharm, Dharm". So if it had succeeded, it could not have been replaced by a better system of governance. It would have been a very immature adminstration in place of the British Raj. If you read about the American War of Independence on the other hand, It was clear cut in every sense. There was a constitution, A war strategy and a goal and a set of mature leaders who were well versed in every aspect of statecraft. Not so with the rebellious sepoys of 1857. The atrocities to which the British resorted after putting down the revolt defy imagination I would say close to half a million Indians were massacred, hanged, blown from cannons etc. A majority of these victims were mere by standers to the rebellion.
RE:There were atrocities on both sides.
by pratyush singh on May 12, 2007 10:07 AM Permalink
what an interpretation,bravo!you have ensconced yourself in the catagory of intellectuals.but you missed some points sir,first the american war of independence;you say it had 'a war strategy'.well if you go through history,it ironicaly comes out that it was one of the most ill organised rebellion led by peasents and later joined by 'mature people' and we all know how immature Mangal Pandey,Veer Kunwar singh and Rani Laxhmi Bai were,because they refused to be humiliated in their own land by a bunch of white men carrying a heavy burden to civilize the world and they didnt have the foresight to see that they would end up putting an 'immature administration'in place of british raj."religious frenzy",this is what you term our first war of independence!what a shame!!Mr,the war brought together hindus ans muslims together as they accepted Bahadur shah Zafar as their leader.anyways no point talking to people like you who have no sense of pride and self respect,this is for people who are ignorant of indian freedom movement and might bd misguided by your vile imagination.
RE:There were atrocities on both sides.
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2007 09:24 PM Permalink
Mr Pratyush, I know my history well. George Washington had the help of this Gentlemen whose expertise proved decisive: Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin Freiherr von Steuben (* September 17, 1730; %u2020 November 28, 1794) was a German-Prussian General who served with George Washington in the American Revolutionary War and is credited with teaching the Continental Army the essentials of military drill,discipline and strategy . He reorganised the Continental Army and guided it to a decisive victory over the British. You quote a few determined individuals like the Rani of Jhansi, Kunwar Singh etc. who went charging into the battlefield against British cannons and musketery only to loose their lives heroically. This makes you sound like a person who lacks the power of analysis. Finally what happened ? The rebels were crushed. If the sepoys were that sophisticated in their thinking, they would have beaten the British. Yes, It was religious frenzy on part of the Mussalmans and the fear of caste defilement on the part of the Hindus which was the primary cause of the revolt. There was never a committee in place to strategize and never a clear cut goal, not a charter for the rights of citizens and no demarkation on what geographically constituted the landmass of India. The South was firmly in the hands of the British and all Indian ports were free to allow passage for allowing more and more troops of the crown to come pouring in to crush the revolt. The rebels were way behind in all aspects of warfare. You need to weigh your words next time before you post.
