Nature of the Revolt of 1857: Historiographical Views
Modern History › The Revolt of 1857 · Topic 10.7
Historians differ on the nature of the Revolt of 1857. Seeley saw a sepoy mutiny, Datta a military outbreak exploited by discontented elites, Savarkar a planned war of independence, Majumdar neither first nor national, and Marxist writers a soldier-peasant struggle. The chapter concludes it had seeds of nationalism but not a common nationhood.
7 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · The Revolt of 1857
At a Glance
- What it is The debate over how to describe the Revolt of 1857
- Imperial view A mere sepoy mutiny (Seeley)
- Nationalist view First war of independence (Savarkar)
- Sceptical view Neither first, nor national, nor a war of independence (Majumdar)
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: The Revolt of 1857
Where Does It Fit?
This is the seventh topic of the category on the Revolt of 1857. The previous topics told the causes, course and failure of the revolt. This topic collects the different interpretations of its nature. The next and last topic covers the consequences and significance. Previous topic: Why the Revolt Failed.
Was It a Sepoy Mutiny?
To some British historians it was a mere sepoy mutiny. Sir John Seeley called it a wholly unpatriotic and selfish mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support. The chapter replies that this is not the complete picture, because the revolt involved many sections of the civilian population and not just the sepoys, and the discontent of the sepoys was only one cause of the disturbance, as in Socio-Religious Causes, Outside Events and Sepoy Discontent.
Dr K. Datta thought the revolt was in the main a military outbreak, which certain discontented princes and landlords, whose interests had been affected by the new political order, took advantage of. The last factor gave it the look of a popular uprising in certain areas. It was never all-Indian in character, but localised, restricted and poorly organised, and there was no cohesion or unity of purpose among the various sections of the rebels.
Was It the First War of Independence?
At the beginning of the twentieth century V.D. Savarkar, in The Indian War of Independence, 1857, interpreted the revolt as a planned war of national independence and the first war of Indian independence, inspired by the ideal of self-rule through a nationalist upsurge. Dr S.N. Sen, in Eighteen Fifty-Seven, considered that it began as a fight for religion but ended as a war of independence, since it assumed a political character when the Meerut mutineers placed themselves under the king of Delhi and part of the landed aristocracy and civil population decided in his favour, as in Beginning and Spread of the Revolt: Meerut and Delhi.
Dr R.C. Majumdar rejected this. He held that it was neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence, because large parts of the country remained unaffected and many sections of the people took no part.
What Did Marxist and Other Historians Say?
Some Marxist historians described the revolt as the struggle of a soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign as well as feudal bondage. The chapter questions this, since the leaders of the revolt themselves came from a feudal background.
Jawaharlal Nehru, in The Discovery of India, considered it essentially a feudal uprising though with some nationalistic elements. M.N. Roy felt it was a last-ditch stand of feudalism against commercial capitalism. R.P. Dutt saw the significance of the peasants’ revolt against foreign domination while acknowledging it as a defence of the old feudal order. The chapter dismisses two other views: L.E.R. Rees, who saw a war of fanatic religionists against Christians, and T.R. Holmes, who saw a conflict between civilisation and barbarism.
How Do the Views Compare?
| Historian | View |
|---|---|
| Sir John Seeley | A wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny |
| K. Datta | A military outbreak used by discontented princes and landlords; localised and poorly organised |
| V.D. Savarkar | A planned war of national independence, the first |
| S.N. Sen | Began as a fight for religion and ended as a war of independence |
| R.C. Majumdar | Neither first, nor national, nor a war of independence |
| Marxist historians | A soldier-peasant democratic struggle against foreign and feudal bondage |
| Jawaharlal Nehru | Essentially a feudal uprising with some nationalistic elements |
| M.N. Roy | A last-ditch stand of feudalism against commercial capitalism |
| R.P. Dutt | A peasant revolt against foreign domination, also a defence of the old feudal order |
| Eric Stokes | A fortuitous conjuncture of social forces, like 1848 in Europe, without a clear issue |
| S.B. Chaudhuri | The first combined attempt of many classes to challenge a foreign power |
| Tara Chand | Hindus and Muslims cooperated out of personal loyalties, not loyalty to a common motherland |
| Stanley Wolpert | Far more than a mutiny, yet much less than a first war of independence |
What Is the Balanced View?
The chapter concludes that the revolt is not easy to categorise. One cannot quite accept it as a war for independence. It had seeds of nationalism and anti-imperialism, but the concept of a common nationality and nationhood was not inherent in it. It is doubtful that the separate communities that took part did so out of a feeling of common nationhood, and the south did not take part. Each leader had a personal interest to protect.
Dr Sen points out that national revolutions are mostly the work of a minority, with or without the active support of the masses, and from that point of view the 1857 revolt can claim a national character. One may say that it was the first great struggle of Indians to throw off British rule, though some historians feel that earlier uprisings, such as those in Important Civil Uprisings (I): Eastern and Central India, were equally serious but got less attention. S.B. Chaudhuri sees it as a real, if remote, approach to the later freedom movement.
As an analytical point, the debate depends on the test used. If nationalism means a common programme, the revolt falls short. If it means the first combined challenge by many classes to the British, it qualifies. The two readings differ in the definition of nationalism, not in the facts. The reasons that limited its reach are in Why the Revolt Failed.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Direct Prelims questions Matching historians with their views is a regular format
- Mains essay The nature of the revolt is a repeated theme
- Skill It trains balanced evaluation, a key mains skill
What Came Next?
The next and last topic of this category covers the consequences and significance of the revolt. Next topic: Consequences and Significance of the Revolt.
Key People and Terms
- Historiography The study of how historians interpret events
- Sepoy Mutiny The imperial label for the revolt as only a soldiers’ rising
- First war of independence Savarkar’s description of the revolt
- Soldier-peasant combine The Marxist description
- Feudal uprising Nehru’s description of the revolt
- Common nationhood A sense of belonging to one nation, absent in 1857 according to many historians
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Seeley: sepoy mutiny.
- Savarkar: first war of independence (book on 1857).
- S.N. Sen: religion to independence.
- R.C. Majumdar: neither first, nor national, nor war of independence.
- Nehru: feudal uprising.
Do Not Confuse With
- Sen and Majumdar Sen: began as religion, ended as independence war; Majumdar: not national
- Nehru and Marxists Nehru: feudal uprising; Marxists: soldier-peasant struggle
- Seeley and Datta Seeley: mutiny; Datta: military outbreak used by discontented elites
Memory Hook
Seeley said mutiny, Savarkar said war, Majumdar said neither.
Mains Angle
Questions ask for a balanced view of the nature of 1857. These points add depth.
- Definition matters Nationalism can be tested as programme or as combined challenge
- Mixed character Military, feudal and popular elements co-existed
- Legacy It left a tradition of resistance, whatever its nature
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Was the Revolt of 1857 a sepoy mutiny or the first war of Indian independence? Discuss.”
How to Answer
- Set out views Seeley, Savarkar, Majumdar, Sen.
- Evidence Civilian role, Bahadur Shah, regions untouched.
- Balance Seeds of nationalism without a common nationhood.
- Conclude State your own view.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Sir John Seeley say about the Revolt of 1857?
Sir John Seeley, a British historian, called the revolt a wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support. The chapter notes this ignores the many sections of the civilian population who took part.
Who called the Revolt of 1857 the first war of independence?
V.D. Savarkar, in his book The Indian War of Independence, 1857 at the start of the twentieth century, described the revolt as a planned war of national independence inspired by the ideal of self-rule through a nationalist upsurge.
What was R.C. Majumdar's view of the Revolt of 1857?
R.C. Majumdar held that the revolt was neither the first, nor national, nor a war of independence, because large parts of the country remained unaffected and many sections of the people did not take part in it.
What was S.N. Sen's view of the Revolt of 1857?
Dr S.N. Sen, in Eighteen Fifty-Seven, considered that the revolt began as a fight for religion but ended as a war of independence, because it assumed a political character when the Meerut mutineers placed themselves under the king of Delhi.
How did Nehru and Marxist writers view the Revolt of 1857?
Nehru considered it essentially a feudal uprising with some nationalistic elements, while some Marxist historians called it a struggle of a soldier-peasant democratic combine against foreign and feudal bondage, a view the chapter questions because the leaders were feudal.
What is the balanced view of the nature of the revolt?
The revolt had seeds of nationalism and anti-imperialism but did not have a concept of common nationhood. Many leaders had personal interests, and the south was not part of it, yet it can be seen as the first great combined challenge to British rule.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 V.D. Savarkar described the revolt as the first war of Indian independence.
His book was The Indian War of Independence, 1857.
2 R.C. Majumdar held the revolt to be the first national war of independence.
He held it was neither first, nor national, nor a war of independence.
3 Nehru considered the revolt essentially a feudal uprising.
He wrote this in The Discovery of India.
4 Sir John Seeley described the revolt as a mutiny with no native leadership or popular support.
The chapter finds this incomplete.
5 S.N. Sen held that the revolt began as a war of independence and ended as a fight for religion.
He held the opposite: religion first, independence later.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index