The revolt of 1857 AD is known by various names like Sepoy revolt, grand revolt, India's first freedom struggle etc. Different historians have tried to argue different points of view on this issue. The perspectives that emerge when analyzing the views of various historians on the nature of the Sepoy Rebellion are discussed below:
Sepoy Rebellion:
Some historians and thinkers think that the revolt of 1857 AD was merely a Sepoy revolt. Roberts, John K, John Silly and Dadabhai Naoroji, Rajnarayan Bose, Durgadas Bandyopadhyay, Syed Ahmed Khan and others are supporters of this view. Ramesh Chandra Majumder has made a similar comment in his book ‘History of Freedom Movement in India’. Adolescent Chad Mitra said, “This revolt was purely the fate of the sepsis. There was no element of mass movement in it.”
The arguments for calling the revolt of 1857 a Sepoy revolt are:
1) The revolt of 1857 AD took place for the sepsis and by the sepsis.
2) Most of the native monarchies were either neutral in this revolt or opposed the sepsis.
Again 3) Educated and common people were away from this rebellion.
Reason against or national rebellion:
It is not reasonable to call this revolt a mere Sepoy revolt. Many people prefer to call Sepoy revolt as national revolt. Historians such as Holmes, Duff, Maleson, J.B. Karl Marx, the father of socialism, also called it a national uprising.
The reasons behind calling the Sepoy Rebellion a National Rebellion / not a Sepoy Rebellion are-
1) This revolt was started by the sepsis but soon civilians from different places joined it.
2) The rebels revolted by declaring Bahadur Shah II, the last deposed Mughal emperor, as emperor.
3) From the point of view of political science, nationalism is created by mixing political motives with nationalism. From then on, almost the entire Indian population joined the Sepoy revolt to liberate India from British exploitation. So it is reasonable to call it a national revolt. / So it is better not to call it a Sepoy revolt.
Argument not to call the revolt of 1857 a national revolt:
The revolt of 1857 cannot be called a national revolt because:
(1) The rebels had no specific goals, plans or organization.
(2) Unity or understanding was limited to sepsis only.
(3) The rebel leaders did not have much contact with the sepsis.
(4) There were differences in goals and ideals between the different groups and leaders of the rebellion. The revolt was not conducted in the national interest.
Reasons to call the revolt of 1857 the first freedom struggle:
Binayak Damodar Savarkar in his book Indian War of Independence referred to the Sepoy Rebellion as India's first freedom struggle.
Argument in favor:
(1) This revolt against the long exploitation and rule of the English Company was a burning protest of the people in the heart of India.
(2) The rebels wanted to end British rule.
(3) Although the revolt of 1857 was not all over India, even though it had no clear plan and purpose, most of the Indians in their hearts fought together for the expulsion of the British and made Bahadur Shah II the Emperor of India.
(4) There has never been such a massive anti-British movement in India. Therefore, it is reasonable to call this famine a struggle for independence without the usual judgment.
Argument against: Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar and Surendranath Sen did not call the revolt of 1857 as India's first freedom struggle because
(1) According to them, the revolt was confined to some parts of India; Therefore, this struggle cannot be called the struggle of the whole of India.
(2) This revolt was an expression of the dissatisfaction of the sepsis, which did not fall into the category of national revolt.
(3) Most of the feudal lords and zamindars were loyal to the English Company and opposed the revolt.
4) The rebels revolted not for the freedom of all, but for the fulfillment of individual objectives.
(5) The educated middle class Bengali society as well as the newspapers of contemporary Bengal opposed the revolt.
6) There was no sense of nationalism among the rebels then, that is, nationalism was not born at that time.
Conclusion: -
It would not be right to call this revolt a mere Sepoy revolt, a feudal revolt or a traditional revolt. The revolt was not just for religious reasons or for the Enfield Rifle totter. This revolt is the manifestation of the long accumulated protests of the people. Most of the participants in the uprising were ordinary people. They forced Bahadur Shah, Nanasaheb, Lakshmibai and other leaders to join the revolt. In spite of various errors, disturbances and animosities, the mass character of this revolt can never be denied or it is no exaggeration to call it a freedom struggle. However, the exact nature of this rebellion cannot be understood by analyzing it with a particular opinion, so a particular opinion is not entirely acceptable, nor is it baseless. There is some truth behind every opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment