Analysis Of The Revolution Of 1857

The scholarship surrounding the Revolution of 1857 illustrates both the bias interred in colonial history and Western assumptions about Indian society. Appearing in The London Quarterly Review, the first article characterizes the revolt as a barbaric mutiny against modernity and order. The second source, written by V. D. Savarkar, argues that the Revolution of 1857 unified India against dictatorial colonial rule and heralded the future struggle for Indian independence.

The London Quarterly Review IX, published in October of 1857, is emblematic of the widespread media coverage surrounding the Revolution of 1857. Western readers saw India as a primitive land where events like the Black Hole of Calcutta contrasted native barbarity with European

The author, V. D. Savarkar, identifies an error in colonial history: bullet cartridges greased with animal fat sparked the revolt. As the author notes, this misconception masks colonial exploitation and paints the Indian people as undeveloped, immature, and barbaric. The systematic dehumanization of natives, the tampering with custom and law, and the seizure of princely lands united India against the East India Company. Both writings accept colonial action as the primary cause of revolution, but the article in The London Quarterly Review exonerates the British. By introducing innovation to the country, colonialists were bringing advancement to a dark and backward population. V. D. Savarkar, however, identifies the biased assumptions of British policy. The colonial government oppressed the native population, removed the possibility of swarajya, and instituted quasi-slavery where death was preferable. Both sources pinpoint British action as the spark behind the Revolution of 1857, but the differing views of British policy reveal contrasting conceptions of colonial

In the first source, the stratification of society belied the dysfunctionality of Indian culture. But as Savarkar argues, the unity among the castes contributed to the short-term success of the uprising. “Hindu and Mahomedan, Brahmin and Sudra, Kshatriya and Vaisya, prince and pauper, men and women, Pandits and Moulvies, Sepoys and the police, townsmen and villagers, merchants and farmers” combated the attack on Indian sovereignty by foreign powers. Next, the first source reports that small British mandates sparked mutiny, but Savarkar identifies this narrative as a faulty support to Western assumptions of Indian immaturity. The articles differ most fervently in their portrayal of Hindu and Islamic antagonism. According to The London Quarterly Review, the factions of a bifurcated society were repeatedly warring for control. Muslims and Hindus were immutable groups that competed for power. The Indian War of Independence, 1857, disputes this assumption, noting that Muslim and Hindus united against British rule. Although they differed in religious doctrine, both groups respected each other as “children of