‘It was the weaknesses of the Indian rebels that explains the defeat of the
Indian Rebellion of 1857.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?
(19/20 , A* gained in the Essay)
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was sparked from a plethora of causes which was underpinned by
religious and cultural tensions which reached a tipping point after Lord Dalhousie’s doctrine of lapse
and paramountcy. This rebellion was eventually won by the British and lost by the rebels, to assess
what “explained” this defeat we must look at the fundamental root cause of this failure. The root
cause of the failure was the diverse, divided, and weak Indian rebels. Although British
supremacy/ruthless reaction is a significant factor in crushing the rebellion as well as loyalty from
Sikhs, Sepoys and other presidencies creating a stronger British force, the weakness of the Indian
rebels who were unable to see past their religious ties stands out as the prominent factor.
The weakness of the Indian rebels is shown through their lack of a cohesive force. Their lack of
cohesion was caused by the wide range of groups eg mutineers in Meerut, aggrieved landowners in
Awadh and peasants. Most importantly within these groups there was distinct cultural and religious
differences resulting in a list of grievances and motivations. This can be seen in the main centres of
revolts in Delhi, Cawnpore and Lucknow which had 2 Muslim leaders and 1 Hindu leader which were
unwilling to co-operate with each other. This is significant as instead of merging and creating a strong
force national rebel front, they had a weaker less organised group of local rebels rather than national
rebels. Distinct religious grievances meant widespread support wasn’t achieved due to the
entrenched prejudices from both the Hindus and Muslim rebels. The leaders of these rebel groups
were selfish, goals were mutually incompatible, and their competence was low eg Nana Sahib hoped
to revive Peshwa title (pre-Mughal Hindu leadership) which was against the Muslim leaders wishes
such as Bahadur Shah. Bahadur Shah was a weak Delhi King who had little influence over the rebels,
he reluctantly became leader, and his sons were unwilling to take control. This is significant as it
created multiple rebellion fronts such as Cawnpore, Lucknow, Delhi and Meerut under various
leaders who were left by themselves with a lack of support. The view that Indian rebels failure to
create a national front as the cause for the failure is the majority consensus for Indian historians such
as R.C Majumdar and H.Chattopadhyaya who argue that the isolated outbreaks with no common
leader or plan could hardly succeed against a stronger, more unified British force. Therefore, the
weakness of the Indian rebels can be seen as the reason for the failure as seen in the American
revolution had the Indian rebels created a stronger unified force they could have been much more of
a threat.
Contrastingly, it can be argued Britain ruthless suppression and revolt was a highly pivotal factor in
the failures of the Indian Rebellion. In Cawnpore two Indian regiments rebelled against Sir Hugh
Wheeler’s garrison under the leader Nana Sahib. The British surrendered after 18 days as they were
overpowered by the 12-15,000 Indian soldiers, sustained bombardment and lack of supplies after 18
days. The British response was brutal the relief force who saw the dead bodies of the British across
the riverbanks and believed that they were betrayed resulted in them retaliating with violence
though looting, burning and summary executions. Rebels who were believed to be a part of it was
forced to lick the floor, whipped, force fed beef and pork, hanged and lick the blood. Some were tied
to a cannon and blown apart. The British allegedly screamed “Remember Cawnpore” showing their
deep vengeance, their retaliation led to mass executions without evidence. In Delhi, Bahadur Shah
three sons were arrested, stripped and shot by William Hodson. The British response was significant
as it was crucial in creating a deterrent for future conflict and was example of British supremacy and
retribution. A rebellion like this was not seen for decades showing how the aftermath of the rebellion
