The Indian Mutiny: 1857
£4.55
A pleasant surprise - Having expected a revisionist view of the Mutiny, I got one. However, instead of having to endure the cheap revisionism of an author just contradicting everyone else, I was instead wowed by excellent analysis and compelling logic.David tells the story and then interprets it in a very measured and steady fashion. This is not to imply that he is boring. Quite the reverse. It is just that interpretation is as important for him as the facts themselves. As a result I found the book far more intellectually stimulating than anything else I have read on the Mutiny.The central thesis that the Bengal Army mutinied to better itself cuts across both British and Indian myth making. Actually this interpretation makes the entire sequence of events more chilling. David is right, though. Promotion by seniority was killing ambition or opportunity. Pay could no longer be supplemented by booty or extra allowances. Officers were no longer close to their men to the degree that had worked before. Reputation, particularly for poor Brahmins in the infantry was being eroded. Before I get carried away and write an essay, I need to stop and say Well done, Saul. You managed to analyse without boring, narrate without irritating, theorise without dehumanising. We have all this - without being robbed of an amazing story - fights against huge odds, sudden flights into the jungle, horrific crimes, horrific retribution, remarkable people, ordinary people in remarkable times.
Essential reading for Indian history - Saul David does a sterling job of providing an entertaining and gripping account of the Indian mutiny which all but sealed the fate of the East India Company which was subsequently dissolved in 1858.Once the narrative gets going it becomes very hard to put down this book and very little foreknowledge of the subject matter is demanded. There are sections when the some of the seiges and battles can get a bit repetitive but luckily those sections are few and far between.I would recommend this as a starting point for anyone who wants to find out more about this pivotal event in both Indian and British history. The mutiny inspired the first serious attempts at independance from British rule but it also strengthened the British Empire when they were victorious.The book focuses on the title so if you are looking for more background on the events leading upto the mutiny, British India or the East India Company this would not be the book for you. However, if you wanted to know about how the mutiny started, the misrepresentations in the British press and a very well put together account of the mutiny and subsequent rebellion attempts then jump straight in, you won t regret it. However, it only gets 4 stars as I would ve liked a little bit more from the Indian viewpoint.
All too conventional an account of the subject - This book is a useful, start to studying the events of 1857, when the people of India fought for their national sovereignty and for independence from the British Empire. The Empire s servants called, and some still call, the revolt a `Mutiny , defining it as illegitimate. But it was the foreign rule that was illegitimate, because it denied India democracy and self-rule. As G. B. Malleson, Adjutant-General of the Bengal Army and the revolt s first historian, wrote, what was at first apparently a military mutiny ... speedily changed its character and became a national insurrection. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs all played a full part. The Raj was a despotic regime dependent on military power. From the 1780s, the Imperial dogma was, we acquired our Influence and Possessions by force, it is by force we must maintain them. As Lord James Bryce wrote in 1912, The government of India by the English resembles that of her possessions by Rome in being virtually despotic. General Henry Rawlinson, India s Commander-in-Chief, said in 1920, You may say what you like about not holding India by the sword, but you have held it by the sword for 100 years and when you give up the sword you will be turned out. You must keep the sword ready to hand and in case of trouble or rebellion use it relentlessly. Montagu calls it terrorism, so it is and in dealing with natives of all classes you have to use terrorism whether you like it or not. In 1793, the Empire s rulers had imposed a `Permanent Settlement on India which privatised the land and dispossessed the peasants. The Empire took 50-60% of the peasants income in tax, more than the Mughal Emperors had taken, forcing the peasants into debt and then to sell their land to the bunyahs, the moneylenders. India s wealth was pillaged and her agriculture starved, in order to rack profit and rent up. The profits went to British investors, the rents to the Empire s allies, the landlords and princes. The British enquiry commission of 1832 admitted, The settlement fashioned with great care and deliberation has to our painful knowledge subjected almost the whole of the lower classes to most grievous oppression. Charles Ball, a historian of the revolt, wrote, in Bengal an amount of suffering and debasement existed which probably was not equaled and certainly not exceeded, in the slave-sates of America.The Empire s rule was vicious. Governor-General Lord Dalhousie wrote in 1855, torture in one shape or other is practised by the lower subordinates in every British province. The Report of the Commission for the Investigation of Alleged Cases of Torture at Madras, 1855, admitted `the general existence of torture for revenue purposes . Torture was also normal police practice.The revolt was violent, though nowhere near as bloody as its suppression. Karl Marx noted of Britain s newspapers, while the cruelties of the English are related as acts of martial vigour, told simply, rapidly, without dwelling on disgusting details, the outrages of the natives, shocking as they are, are still deliberately exaggerated. A British officer said, We hold court-martials on horseback, and every nigger we meet with we either string up or shoot.Although the revolt was defeated, it did overthrow the East India Company s rule and its regime of robbery and corruption, the Company was wound up in 1874. After suppressing the revolt, India s British rulers used the old tactic of divide and rule to crush India s strivings for democracy and self-rule. Divide et impera was the old Roman motto and it should be ours, Lord Elphinstone advised in 1859. The British state promoted Muslim separatism and set up separate electorates, a sure way to tear people politically apart. In the Punjab, the British won over the Sikhs by reminding them of the injuries and insults they had suffered under the Mughal Emperors. Sir Henry Lawrence, Chief Commissioner of Oudh, spread false rumours that Muslim rebels had desecrated Hindu temples.The Empire then used the revolt s failure to justify their continued rule. If Indians could not revolt successfully, they could not rule themselves. Besides, as an MP said, if we were to leave ... we should leave it to anarchy. The Empire s servants stressed its `superior qualities of race and religion and its mission to `pacify and `civilise the Indians `savagery . As the Viceroy Sir John Lawrence wrote modestly, we are here through our moral superiority, by the force of circumstances and by the will of Providence. But as a critic of empire noted, a mission, historically speaking, is little more than another name for a tendency to rapine.A century later, Winston Churchill said in Cabinet in 1940 that the Hindu-Moslem division had long been a bulwark of British rule in India. The Times agreed, The divisions exist and British rule is certain as long as they do. John Colville reported that in Cabinet, Winston rejoiced in the quarrel which had broken out afresh between Hindus and Moslems, said he hoped it would remain bitter and bloody. After the revolt, the Indian people continued to oppose foreign rule, winning their independence in 1947. Once the majority of a country s people want an occupier out, no amount of military force can keep the occupier in.
An average account - Whilst I love reading about all periods and aspects of history, it is true to say that military history can be particularly boring. There is nothing more turgid than reading about meaningless lists of battalions and regiments and who commanded who. They also are invariably right-wing in nature and fail to be objective. Accordingly, it is those writers such as Lynn MacDonald who have introduced the human aspect into their research that have produced the a more interesting narrative and, perhaps, a more commercially viable product for the general reader. This account of the Indian Mutiny tends to fall between the two extremes - the lists of regiments who mutinied reflecting the less interesting aspect that contrast sharply with the shocking stories of the atrocities against women and children as told through letters and other accounts. In the latter instance, the chapter of Cawnpore is difficult to put down and fleshed out my scant knowledge of the events. However, it is true to say that the author is clearly on the side of the British , arguing that the Indian army rebelled through lack of opportunity to earn the money available in the times before the British Empire rather than religious or nationalistic motives. This may be true to some extent and the four appendices stuck at the end of the book serve to reinforce this point. The stories to daring-do seem to have leapt from the books read by schoolboys many years ago and the list of characters includes both the traditional dashing heroes and bumbling officers. Unfortunately, the reference to the geography of India is a constant frustration as the maps are inadequate to follow the spread of the conflict and knowledge of the country would be a huge benefit to anyone interested in this book. ( This is nothing compared with the similar-sounding names of the Indian protagonists !! ) To summarise, this is an interesting and readable account of the mutiny, if somewhat conservative in it s conclusions and probably not definative. Readers may also wish to seek out Niall Flemings excellent Empire: How Britain made the modern world which has a more though-provoking approach to this period of history.
My thoughts on The Indian Mutiny - The scene depicted on the front cover of this book, and the title immediately caught my attention. The back cover overview made me want to know more. However, the first couple of chapters failed to keep the attention as much as the back cover, as if the Saul had a problem getting started. Once started however, the pace picked up. I could barely put it down after that.The revelations about Mangal Pandy being the instigator and the facts about the greasing of cartridges with pork and beef fat are compelling. You’re further drawn in on hearing the inequalities between sepoys and their British officers: lower pay, having to pay for their uniform, lower pensions, little prospect of promotion. The list went on. Having explained the build-up to the mutiny – but not in enough depth I felt – Saul drew a picture of what was happening across the affected areas of India. Again, factual and believable. From then on though, while readable, the book gives the impression of being blatantly one-sided, showing events from the British perspective. A more rounded account from both sides would have been fairer and would have done history justice. Evidence from the Indian account of events does exist but Saul rarely dips into this. On many occasions the accounts from British officers seems to contradict that of their colleagues so you have to make up your own mind about what happened. I would also have liked to hear more about the East India Company which featured so heavily in the account of events. What was their view of events, what action had they taken to quell the mutiny, and perhaps more about the relationship between them and the British Government. Little attention is paid to these aspects.On the whole though, very compelling reading and one that makes you want to know more and research the object more.