ABSTRACT
The Great Rebellion of 1857 or what was supposed to be a ‘sepoy mutiny’ has undoubtedly been a major landmark in colonial South Asian history.1
Besides posing what was undoubtedly the most serious military challenge to the might of British colonialism over the nineteenth century, its vibrations and memories lasted much longer than had been expected by those carrying out the colonial counter-insurgency operations.2 The early accounts and testimonies, including contemporary accounts, saw the Great Rebellion from a typically colonial perspective.3 The most common among these was to locate it as a ‘sepoy mutiny’. This projection was aimed at erasing the problems posed by colonial expansion and exploitation4 and provide comfort to the colonial bureaucracy and those at ‘home’. In fact, colonial sources depict the Great Rebellion as a ‘sepoy mutiny’ that developed into a ‘rebellion’ – a theme that has, as we shall see, haunted the imagination of generations of historians, including nationalist historians and the ‘subalterns’. This interpretation related to the ‘sepoy mutiny’ drew upon the ‘anxiety’ of
the sepoys that was related to the use of Enfield rifles. Thus, the introduction of the new Enfield rifle in 1857 meant that the bullets were coated with grease made from the fat of cows (sacred to Hindus) and of pigs (abhorred by the Muslim). As the cartridges had to be bitten before being used, the Hindu and Muslim sepoys interpreted it as part of a plot to convert them to Christianity, by defiling their caste and their religion. As was to be expected, these features formed the basis of the construct that
saw 1857 as a religious conflict. Thus, initially, it was seen as a plot of the Dharma Sabha of Calcutta, which aimed to preserve Hinduism from the onslaughts of the English. What is striking is the way this idea of a ‘religious plot’ soon shifted and came to be identified as a ‘Muslim conspiracy’ – a point that seems to have a remarkable continuity even today. Thus, one can see its imprints even on present-day scholars. And, if considered holistically, one can easily see how these components were incorporated into imperialist historiography and served to reinforce the dominant idea of a ‘clash of cultures’ or a ‘clash of civilisations’. This was an idea that, occasioned by such ‘encounters’, developed over the nineteenth century. The power of imperialist historiography needs to be stressed when it comes to making this idea
‘acceptable’ even today. After all, the phraseology of the ‘clash of civilisations’ is being written and rewritten in the twenty-first century as well. Consequently, what needs to be reiterated is that the Great Rebellion of 1857 forms a major milestone in the germination of this idea. Again significant was the effort by colonial historiography to map the
region affected by the Great Rebellion as being confined only to parts of northern India. Thus, other regions were ‘silenced’ in an effort to virtually ‘contain’ the Rebellion. This was intended to make the colonialists draw solace from the fact that it was not a widespread rebellion.5
