The 1857 Rebellion, a turning point in India’s struggle against British colonial rule, was caused by multiple factors, many of which originated from the British East India Company’s failure to understand and respect Indian culture and society. The rebellion was not the result of a single policy but rather the culmination of systemic political, cultural, and religious failures. Key factors such as the exclusion of native voices in decision-making and the violation of local practices and religion played crucial roles in sparking widespread resistance. This essay will explore these causes, demonstrating how British pride and ignorance led to the uprising.

1. political structure as major cause

no action was taken or awareness to stop discrimination of culture; Native Voices Were Excluded in Policy Making (Doc C, Doc D)

Doc C: “I reported this curious story to my officer but no notice was taken. He only told me not to talk about it.” Doc D: - “The people had no means of protesting against what they might feel to be a foolish measure, or of giving public expression to their own wishes.” - “But the greatest mischief lay in this, that the people misunderstood the views and intentions of Government. They misapprehended every act, and whatever law was passed was misconstrued by men who had no share int he framing of it, and hence no means of judging of its spirit. At length the Hindustanees fell into the habit of thinking that all the laws were passed with a view to degrade and ruin them, and to deprive them and their fellows of their religion.” - “no one was at hand to correct the errors which they had adopted. And why? Because there was not one of their own number among the members of the Legislative Council.”

Same: Native people’s voice were neglected by BEIC in the process of decision making, causing widespread misunderstanding on the aim of every act and contributing to further resentment and mistrust.

Different: - Doc C: gives a primary account of how local concern were ignored. The officer’s report was directly overlooked and was told ‘not to talk about it’. - Doc D: points out the underlying reason that caused the ignorance is exclusion of native people in Legislative Council, which means the native had not a single means to express their voice. This led to further misinterpretation on the laws as aiming to ruin them.

Analysis: It was the exclusion of local people and lack of transparancy in decision-making that caused the passed laws to insult local practice and flourish distrust of the native. Without native input, the British failed to appreciate the significance of these cultural practices, which led to the misconception that the laws were intended to undermine native religions and social structures.

2. violation of local practice

Neglect of caste (Doc B)

Doc B: - “We will suppose that one company is composed of 20 Mahometans, 40 Brahmins, and 40 Rajpoots and lower-caste Hindoos. The influence of the Brahmins over the 80 Hindoos is paramount, and the Mahometans, being a small minority, would not contest the palm with them. The whole company may, therefore, be said to be under Bhraminical influence. Thus, if a low-caste Hindoo happened at the time to fill the responsible post of subahdar, he would be entirely under the spiritual guiding of the Brahminical clique.” - “It is easy to see, then, that any considerable offense offered to the Brahminical order, or the the prejudices of the religion which it represents, might seriously endanger the fidelity of the native troops; and there seems to be little doubt that offence has been given. Injudicious attempts to convert sepoys to Christianity have been made, and whether mistaken or not, it is undoubted that they were at length imbued with the idea that a general attempt was to be made to over-ride one of the most tender prejudices of their faith, and, in fact, that they were to be converted by compulsion.”

Summary: The source describes the subahdar (a rank of responsibility in the army) being under the influence of Brahmins if he were low-caste, which may imply that the British did not sufficiently account for the spiritual and hierarchical needs of soldiers.

Analysis: By assigning military roles without considering caste distinctions, the British inadvertently not only ignored a critical aspect of Indian social order that shaped the behavior and loyalty of the soldiers, but also failed to respect the significance that caste held for many Hindus. This intensified conflicts within ranks and contributed to breakdown of trust.

Doctrine of Lapse (Doc A, Doc C, Doc E)

Doc A: - “These princes governed states scattered about over India, though they were not allowed to make war with one another. Many of them had governed very badly, had ruined their subjects by hard taxation, and had spent the money they thus obtained in vicious and riotous living. The English Government in India had interfered with some of these, and had dethroned them, annexing their territories to its own, and ruling the people who had been their subjects by means of its own officers.” - “The consequence was that some of the princes who had been left in possession of authority thought that their turn would come next, and that they too would be dethroned before long. These men were therefore ready to help against the English, if they thought that they had a chance of succeeding.”

Doc E: - “Lord Dalhousie, Governor General of India (1847-56) introduced the so-called Doctrine of Lapse, a formula which allowed the East India Company to extend its control into Indian territory when a native ruler died without what the Company considered a legitimate heir. Indian tradition held that adopted children had the same inheritance rights as birth children. But the Company did not recognize adopted heirs.” - “In Oudh, the application of the Doctrine was considered a final outrage of British conquest. Oudh was such a rich and historic part of India that this seizure was seen as a cultural insult.”

Doc C: “sepoys’ minds had been inflamed by the seizure of Oudh”

Same: Doctrine of Lapse was introduced to allow BEIC to annex a native ruler’s land if he dies without ‘what the Company considered a legitimate heir’.

Different: - Doc A: From the colonial perspective, Doctrine of Lapse enabled the company to get rid of rulers who ‘had governed very badly’ and better govern the subjects. Doc A also reflected the consequence of princes rebel against the doctrine, stating their reason was to defend their throne. - Doc E: points out the doctrine was against the local practice for not recognizing adopted heirs.

In addition…

Doc E and Doc C: Capture of Oudh was considered a direct insult to India’s Culture and inflamed the army.

Analysis: It is unknown if the annexed rulers were riotous or vicious described in Doc A, but the reaction of the native rulers reflects their dissatisfaction and offense at the British interference in their traditional practices. The refusal to recognize adopted heirs challenged the long-established cultural norm in India, fueling a sense of betrayal and injustice among the local population. Even worse, the annexation of Oudh, the symbol of wealth and culture, humiliated local people as a deliberate attack to native culture. This further amplified the local’s resentment and intensified the desire for resistance and rebellion against British rule.

3. violation of native religions

cow fat (Doc A, Doc C, doc E)

Same: The army were equiped with improved rifles, which required to be greased. The grease was believed to be made of cow fat. This infuriates the Hindoos who made up of a bulk of the army.

Difference: - Doc A: The grease were not made of cow fat. - Doc C: (More information) The piece of information of using cow fat as grease spread across regiments, causing widespread excitement. - Doc E: E regard it as a ‘catalyst’ rather than ‘the initial outbreak’ and C agrees it by mentioning the outbreak of Oudh conquer, while A consider it to be pivot (A put this event parellel to other cause Doctrine of Lapse)

-> Analysis: Although Doc A mentioned the grease were not made of cow fat, it is difficult to verify the truth of the claim. However, regardless of the grease’s actual composition, the fact that Hindoo soldiers were inflame depicts the tension between the BEIC and them was severe. The spread of the information, regardless it is true or not, intensified the relation, contributing to further disatisfication and excitement.

Assertion: This demonstrates that beyond the material reality of the cartridges, the perception of British disregard for local customs played a significant role in escalating the rebel.

proselytising (Doc D, Doc C)

Doc C: - “Interested parties were quick to point out that the great aim of the English was to turn us all into Christians, and they had therefore introduced the cartridge in order to bring this about, since both Mohammedans and Hindus would be defiled by using it.” - “I had also remarked the increase of Padre sahibs during recent years, who stood up in the streets of our cities and told the people that their cherished religion was false, and who exhorted them to become Christians.”

Doc D: “There is not the smallest doubt that all men whether ignorant or well-informed, whether high or low, felt a firm conviction that the English Government was bent on interfering with their religion and with their old established customs. They believed that Government intended to force the Christian Religion and foreign customs upon Hindu and Mussulman alike. This was the chief among the secondary causes of the rebellion.”

Same: The BEIC tried to convert native Mohammedans and Hindus to Christians by exhortion and force. Doc C provides a firsthand witness from an officer, while Doc D presents a historian’s perspective, reinforcing the idea that widespread resentment of religious interference was a significant factor in the uprising.

Difference: Doc C provides more details and evidence than Doc D. - reaction of Sepoys that they wanted to fight back and ‘drive detested foreigners out of the country’ according to ‘the King’s proclamation’ - methods used by the English to defile native beliefs: - “one hundred Padres were about to be stationed in Oudh” - and “forcing everyone to eat beef and pork”, a deliberate insult on religious customs. (brutal) - public exhortion by Christian missionaries where a group of Padre sahibs “stood up in the streets of our cities and told the people that their cherished religion was false”.

Analysis: It is hard to verify whether the proclamation was issued by the King. Nevertheless, the belief of this proclaim was widespread, as Doc C stated “Every man who heard it believed every word of it”. This reflects the Sepoys strong determination to defend its religion and resentment caused by the English proselytising act. It was this desire that directly drove the rebellion to happen, which, therefore, acted as one of the major causes of the rebellion.

Conclu

%%In conclusion, the British East India Company’s disregard for local customs, including caste, proselytization, and the cow fat issue, fueled resentment among native troops and contributed significantly to the rebellion. Their failure to respect Indian traditions deepened tensions and reduced trust, contributing to the uprising.%%

The 1857 Rebellion was not merely the result of a single policy or event, but the outcome of a chain of failures by the British. By excluding native voices from decision-making, they failed to respect the local cuture and religion. BEIC not only neglected local practices like caste hierarchy and enforced policies such as the Doctrine of Lapse, but also tried to brutally convert locals to Christians. This cultural and religious disconnect created an environment ripe for resistance, highlighting the colonial pride of imposing foreign rule without understanding or respecting the complexities of local societies.