The Indian Rebellion of 1857: everything you wanted to know

Summary

History Extra Podcast Summary
Episode: The Indian Rebellion of 1857: Everything You Wanted to Know
Release Date: February 9, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of the History Extra Podcast, Spencer Mizzen engages in a comprehensive discussion with renowned military historian Saul David about the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The conversation delves deep into the causes, key events, and lasting impacts of this pivotal uprising against British colonial rule in India.

---

Terminology: Mutiny vs. Rebellion

Saul David begins by addressing the terminology used to describe the 1857 uprising, clarifying its dual nomenclature:

"You can call it both. I think if we were having this discussion in India, they would want it to be called the great rebellion of 1857." [03:12]

He explains that while historically termed the "Indian Mutiny," the more contemporary and locally appropriate term is the "Great Rebellion of 1857," reflecting its widespread and significant nature.

---

Background and Causes

David outlines the deteriorating relationship between the British East India Company and the diverse populations of India in the mid-19th century. Key factors contributing to the unrest included:

• Military Discontent: Soldiers faced stagnant pay, limited career advancement, and strained relationships with British officers. David emphasizes, "The really dangerous element was within the military. They could no longer see an outlet for ambition." [07:21]

• Cultural and Religious Frictions: British-imposed changes, such as outlawing practices like sati and the rise of Christian missionaries, fueled resentment. The Doctrine of Lapse, which allowed the British to annex territories without natural heirs, further exacerbated tensions.

• Economic Strain: British policies increasingly subsumed Indian territories, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among Indian princes and civilians alike.

---

The Role of the East India Company

David provides a historical overview of the East India Company's transformation from a trading entity to a governing body:

"By 1857, roughly 2/3 of India was under the control of the British." [09:14]

He traces the company's expansion through treaties, conquest, and coercion, highlighting the Battle of Plassey in 1757 as a foundational event. The company's governance model, heavily reliant on Indian soldiers, set the stage for the widespread discontent that culminated in the rebellion.

---

Trigger Points and the Spark of Rebellion

The immediate catalyst for the uprising was the introduction of the Lee Enfield rifle cartridges, which soldiers believed were greased with cow and pig fat, offending both Hindu and Muslim religious sensibilities:

"The cartridge question was really a non-issue. It became more of an issue because there were people [...] trying to egg them on into rebelling against the British." [13:36]

This rumor ignited existing grievances, leading to coordinated mutinies, particularly within the Bengal Presidency, where high-caste Hindu soldiers felt their traditional recruitment dominance was threatened.

---

Key Events and Locations

Sieges of Cawnpore, Delhi, and Lucknow

1. Cawnpore (Kanpur):

   • Initial Mutiny: On May 10, 1857, soldiers of the 3rd Light Cavalry released imprisoned comrades, leading to the massacre of European civilians.
   • Atrocities: The mutineers executed men and brutally murdered women and children, creating a "charnel house" as described by David:

     "The blood was so thick on the floor, according to some of the eyewitnesses." [24:03]

2. Delhi:

   • Strategic Importance: Declared Bahadur Shah Zafar as the Emperor of India, making it the rebellion's epicenter.
   • Recapture: In September 1857, British forces, led by Archdale Wilson and motivated by commanders like John Nicholson, assaulted and retook Delhi after intense fighting, marking a turning point in quelling the rebellion.

3. Lucknow:

   • Siege and Rescue: British civilians were besieged in the Residency. By December 1857, British forces successfully relieved the siege, though significant brutality persisted.

"By December 1857, the outcome is no longer in the balance. It's just a matter of time." [30:15]

Aftermath in 1858-1859:

• Continued fighting, notably involving figures like the Rani of Jhansi and Tatya Tope.
• Final suppression of the rebellion extended into 1859, with key leaders captured and executed.

---

British Suppression of the Rebellion

David discusses the brutal British response, driven by revenge and a desire to prevent future uprisings:

"Brutality bred brutality, and the Europeans behaved in a pretty brutal fashion in terms of suppressing the rebellion." [31:19]

Key aspects of the suppression included:

• Mass executions without discerning rebels from innocent civilians.
• Retaliatory massacres, such as the massacre at Cawnpore, fueling a cycle of violence.

---

Aftermath and Long-term Effects

Political Changes:

• End of the East India Company: In 1858, Britain dissolved the Company's control, transitioning India to direct Crown rule.
• Military Reforms: Improved conditions for Indian soldiers, better pay, and opportunities for advancement were implemented to prevent future discontent.
• Policy of Divide and Rule: Increased European troop presence ensured no military majority that could challenge British authority.

Impact on Indo-British Relations:

• Mutual Distrust: The rebellion left deep scars, fostering long-term mistrust and resentment between Indians and the British.
• Catalyst for Independence Movements: Viewed as an early assertion of Indian resistance, it set the stage for future independence efforts, eventually leading to India's freedom in 1947.

"From the Indian perspective, there was very much a feeling that it was our first serious attempt to throw off the yoke of British rule." [36:36]

---

Modern Memory and Legacy

David explains how the rebellion is remembered today:

• In India and Pakistan: Celebrated as a symbol of resistance and the first significant struggle for independence. The bravery and sacrifices are commemorated with great pride.

• Controversial British Legacy: The brutal suppression remains a sensitive and often criticized aspect of British colonial history.

"The great rebellion was hugely significant in terms of the way the Indians saw the British and the way the British saw the Indians." [36:36]

The episode concludes by emphasizing the rebellion's role in shaping both historical narratives and modern national identities in the Indian subcontinent.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a thorough exploration of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, shedding light on its complex causes, harrowing events, and enduring significance. Through Saul David's expertise, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of how this pivotal moment reshaped British-Indian relations and influenced the trajectory of India's quest for independence.

---

Featured Book:
Indian Mutiny, 1857 by Saul David, published by Penguin.

Podcast Production:
Produced by Daniel Kramer Arden.

Transcript

[Ryan Reynolds]

It's 2025, a new year and the best time to turn your great idea into a business. Shopify is how you're going to make it happen. Let me tell you how Shopify makes it simple to create your brand, open for business and get your first sale. Get your store up and running easily with thousands of customizable templates. All you need to do is drag and drop. Their powerful social media tools let you connect all your channels and create shoppable posts established in 2025. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com promo all lowercase go to shopify.com promo to start selling with Shopify today. Shopify.com promo Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[Mint Mobile Representative]

I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail].

[Spencer Mizzen]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Mint Mobile Representative]

See full [e-mail] this episode is brought to you by Lifelock. During tax season, your personal info travels to a lot of places between payroll, your tax consultant and the IRS. If your W2 gets exposed, that's just the ticket for identity thieves. That's why Lifelock monitors millions of every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't let identity thieves take you for a ride. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

[Amazon Prime Representative]

This episode is brought to you by Amazon Prime. From streaming to shopping, prime helps you get more out of your passions. So whether you're a fan of true crime or prefer a nail biting novel from time to time, with services like Prime Video, Amazon Music and fast free delivery, prime makes it easy to get more out of whatever you're into or getting into. Visit Amazon.comprime to learn more.

[Spencer Mizzen]

Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. In 1857, resentment against British rule in India ignited into outright violence. But what was the trigger for rebellion? How brutal was the British troops suppression of the uprising? And how did the events of 1857 Poison relations between the British and the people of The Indian subcontinent. Here in conversation with Spencer Mizzen, historian Saul David answers listener questions on the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

[Saul David]

To start, I wondered if I could ask you how we should describe this event now. Is it the Indian Mutiny or the Indian Rebellion? Because I've seen it called both.

Well, you can call it both. I mean, I think if we were having this discussion in India, they would want it to be called the great rebellion of 1857. They might even describe it, Spencer, as.

The First Great War of Independence.

I mean, there's a reason why that is problematical, that second term. But certainly the great rebellion of 1857, I think it's probably the term that most people would feel most comfortable with today. When I wrote my book Indian Mutiny, 20 or so years ago, I mean, the question was asked then, actually. But the reason I was determined to call it the Indian Mutiny is because the key event in this rebellion was the Mutiny. Without the mutiny, there's going to be no general uprising. So the real question I had to ask myself is, why did the troops rebel? There were lots of multiple factors, but the key factors I felt were specific to the military. So it did make sense at that time to call it the Indian Mutiny.

Okay. Before looking at the rebellion in detail, I wonder if we could kind of first examine the state of play on the continent just before the rebellion erupted. I mean, how would you describe the relationship between Britain and India in the early to mid-1850s?

Certainly by 1857, the relationship between the British in India in the subcontinent, and the Indians themselves. And of course, that's, you know, covers a multitude of different races, people from different parts of India, none of whom.

Really saw themselves as Indians.

They saw themselves as Punjabis or Audis or Bengalis. But certainly the relationship had deteriorated quite severely, both from the sense of the.

Soldiers themselves, that is, the soldiers in.

The employ of the British or the honorable East India Company, which was controlling India at that time, but also civilians as well. And there have been a number of factors causing that. And one of the biggest problems, at least as far as the soldiers were concerned, is that their terms of service were deteriorating. Their pay hadn't really improved for a long time. Their relationship with their officers was getting worse. And the opportunity for ambitious soldiers to.

Sort of rise to the top of.

The military had also been curtailed because you could only actually become a senior Indian officer, and that was junior to, you know, pretty much all of the Europeans who were in the military at that time. So there was no outlet for ambition for those soldiers.

And they were also disgruntled, as were.

A number of civilians, at various other issues that were happening in India at that time.

The rise of the missionaries, for example.

The outlawing of certain Indian practices like sati, which is effectively Hindus wives throwing themselves on the funeral paths. But of course, the British at that time argued that this was unacceptable. The Indians, of course, wanted to be able to carry on with their practices as they chose. But there was also the broader issue of the gradual subsuming of all Indian territories into British India. So if you think, Spencer, by 1857, roughly 2/3 of India was under the control of the British and roughly one third under control of Indian princes. That number had been steadily increasing as far as the British control was concerned. And we'd introduce a lot of very unpopular measures, like, for example, the doctrine of lapse, which meant that any Indian ruler who died and did not have a natural heir, that is, a son born of his body, that territory would automatically come under the control of the British. Now, inevitably, this was unpopular because the Indians, for generations had practiced a system whereby they would adopt sons for this very reason if they hadn't actually had any themselves. And this meant, of course, that a lot of territories were taken away from Indians who had been adopted. And this caused, inevitably, a lot of bad feeling. There were other civilians who, for various reasons, hadn't profited out of the presence of the British. And they were also pretty disgruntled, too. But I think the really dangerous element.

Was within the military.

They could no longer see an outlet for ambition, and they were also affected by some of these civilian issues, too.

And can we talk about the role of the East India Company on the subcontinent in the 1850s? We've had a question submitted on Instagram from Newstht. Basically, yeah. Asking about the East India Company and how its role sort of played into the breaking out of the rebellion. So, yeah, can you tell us a little bit about that, please?

Well, I mean, you couldn't make up the story of the East India Company, Spencer, to be truthful, because it arrives really as a presence in India in 1600 when it's given its royal charter by Queen Elizabeth and it then begins to set up a trading relationship with India. And while the trading relationship worked, the problem came in the early 18th century when the Mughal Empire began to disintegrate. So the East India Company had built up trading stations in Madras, Khadijah, Calcutta and Bombay. They, of course, all known by different names today, and it was gradually gaining influence and earning a lot of money. For the British state. But at the start of the early 18th century, as the Mughal empire began to disintegrate, this meant that of course, an awful lot of people were trying.

To fill the power vacuum.

And to protect its trade, the East India Company began to recruit local soldiers, you know, to guard its trading stations and to basically ensure that it could stay in business. Now, by the middle of the 18th century, you've got a problem with the.

French who were also trying to muscle.

In on India, but you've also got.

A problem with some of the local.

Rulers, the Nizam of Bengal for example, who's beginning to think, no, we've given the British too advantageous trading position. We want to claw some of this back. And because the East India Company had already employed a lot of Indian soldiers, it used them also with some European soldiers to then push back against these attempts to force it out.

In other words, to protect its trading.

Status, it began to take over actual territory. The first province it took over was Bengal. This, of course, was the Battle of Plassey in 1757. It's a significant date actually, Spencer, because it's not an entire coincidence that 1857 was the date for the great rebellion, because there was a sense among a lot of people, well, this is where it all began to go pear shape for India with the loss of Bengal. And we want to reverse these things in 1857. So it was like 100 years later the British are going to be turfed out of India. There was very much that feeling.

Now, following on from Plassey, and for.

The rest of the 18th century and the early 19th century, the East India Company, by a sequence of treaty, conquest and coercion, gradually expanded its footprint in India. I mean, one thing seemed to lead to another. To protect one state, it had to grab hold of the one next door. Or at least it thought it did. I don't think there was ever a design, and certainly not in the British Empire more generally, to actually take over territory, it tends to be quite expensive. You need armies to protect it, you need civil servants to administer it. But the East India Company got sucked into grabbing hold of more and more territory. So that by 1857, as I've already explained, roughly 2/3 of India is coming under the direct control of the East India Company. Now you're probably thinking, well, this is pretty bizarre. How can a company control a vast subcontinent? Well, in reality, it was doing this as the agent of the British government. By 1857, certainly by the 1830s, its trading status had diminished and it's really just a ruling body by that point, firmly or relatively firmly controlled by the Board of Control. The President, the Board of Control, effectively the Secretary of State for India, was a cabinet member by this time. So what you've got is the East India Company, no longer really a trading company, but an agent of the British government controlling two thirds of British India. I mean, it's astonishing to think that.

That'S what happened, but it was one.

Of those happenstances of history.

Right, so you've got an increasingly fractious, tense atmosphere in the 1850s. So to move on slightly, writing in on Instagram, Mario von Rumer wants to know what were the specific causes of the rebellion? What were the trigger points? You know, what ignited this sort of sense of resentment into outright violence?

Well, I mean, the ostensible trigger or spark for the mutiny was the issue of the Enfield Cartrid. So the East India Company army, as I've already explained, by 1857, was really quite sizable. It was subdivided into three separate presidencies, Bengal, Madras and Bombay. And this army of about 250,000 men was officered by Europeans. And in 1857 there was a decision, or 1856, 1857, a decision to change their weapons. They were going to be given a much more effective weapon, the Lee Enfield rifle. This was a very sensible decision by the British, but it became very controversial because at that time, loading drill, or the way you loaded a musket or a rifled musket, was by biting off.

The top of a cartridge and pouring.

The contents of the cartridge into the muzzle of the weapon and then stuffing down the ball. I mean, a cartridge contained powder and a ball that all went in. Now, the point is, as you bit.

Into the cartridge, obviously it would touch.

Your lips and if there was anything.

In the substance of the cartridge that.

Was a problem, this might be an issue for both the Hindu and the Muslim soldiers of the East India Company army. Well, a rumour got around that the cartridges were actually greased to make it easier to force the cartridge into the weapon, were greased with cow and pig fat. Now, the question is not whether this.

Was true, it probably was true.

But when the East India Company realised it was an issue, there were rumours going round. It said, okay, we're going to withdraw all the cartridges we've already made and the soldiers will be allowed to grease their own cartridges. So what became known as the cartridge.

Question was really a non issue.

It became more of an issue because there were people, in my view, disgruntled.

Soldiers, but also People outside the military.

Who were trying to egg them on into rebelling against the British, who were insisting that, you know, the cartridge question was part of a deliberate attempt by Europeans, the British government, the British, circa, as it was known, to force all Indians to convert to Christianity. So there's this kind of sense that the cartridge question is just one element and a broader conspiracy among the British to force all Indians to become Christians.

Of course, all complete nonsense.

But the reason it was believed is because of some of the points I've already made. There was an increase in missionaries, Christian missionaries operating in India. There was a kind of sense that all the old Indian practices were changing and therefore it was believable that the British might have been trying to do this. The fact is they weren't. They were very sensitive to issues of religion and caste. But this belief got a grip among Indian soldiers and they gradually, in early 1857, began to conspire among themselves for a rising. We don't know if there was a specific day, we suspect if there was a day. Some of the evidence points to 31 May 1857. And so as you move through the early months of 1857, there are signs of disaffection among a number of different regiments.

But they're all, interestingly enough, Spencer, in the Bengal Presidency, not in the Madras.

Presidency and not in the Bombay Presidency.

So the question is, why was the.

Bengal Presidency so ripe for mutiny? Well, one of the reasons is that it was the Presidency army that had the biggest proportion of high caste Hindus, that's both Rajputs and Brahmins.

And these guys had really had a stranglehold over recruitment, which was gradually being loosened.

There was a kind of sense of, oh, they're bringing in Punjabi Muslims or.

They'Re bringing in Sikhs or they're bringing.

In Gurkhas, and we're losing our monopoly effectively over recruitment. And to serve in the East India Company army prior to 1857, or certainly before pay increases made it less attractive, was something a lot of high caste.

Hindus wanted to do.

But they're beginning to feel that their position is eroded. And so you very much get a.

Sense of, prior to the actual outbreak.

Of the mutiny, that there are people conspiring, trying to drive other people in the regiment. In other words, there's probably a small number of ringleaders who are trying to encourage the others to rise at one particular moment in concert with some disgruntled.

Civilians on the outside and together they're.

Going to overthrow the British in India.

I imagine that a Lot of our listeners won't know a huge amount about the rebellion. So I wonder if you could spend a few minutes kind of giving us a blow by blow account of what happened. Talk us through sort of the milestone moments in the uprising.

Yeah, sure. Well, it officially began on Sunday 10th May, 1857, at a garrison town called Mehrut, or Meerat as it's known in northern India, when troopers of the 3rd Light Cavalry broke into the town jail and released 85 of their comrades. Now, these comrades had been imprisoned for.

Refusing to accept cartridges for loading drill.

I spoke about the cartridge question. I mean, it's ironic, Spencer, when you consider that these cartridges were not even.

The new grease cartridges.

They had no grease on them. But so paranoid had everyone got by this point that any cartridges were considered.

To be beyond the pale.

So they'd been imprisoned for refusing to accept these cartridges. They'd been arising to release them. Their comrades in the 3rd Light Cavalry were joined by two of the local native infantry regiments in the Mehru garrison. And together, these mutinous soldiers ransacked the European cantonment, which is where the Europeans.

Lived, of course, murdered several officers, European.

Officers and their families, and then marched off to Delhi, which wasn't far away, about sort of 60 or 70 miles away, to proclaim the aged Bahadar Shah Zafar, he's the King of Delhi and.

A descendant of the Moguls.

So a former. A guy who would have been Emperor of India if the Moguls hadn't been deposed as the new Emperor of India. And so this was the opening blow in the rebellion. Now, what you then get over the next few weeks and months is a number of other regiments also mutinying. So that by late June, nearly half the whole of the Bengal army, and.

The Bengal army was about 130,000 strong.

So nearly half of the Bengal army had either mutinied or been disbanded.

And as the months go on, more and more join.

So you could say that the events in Mehruz on 10 May 1857 have actually, they started the rebellion too soon. It was going to all be done at the same time. And so what you then get are copycat rebellions all across central and northern India, so that gradually more and more soldiers and more and more civilians join in the rebellion. And then, of course, it's a job for the Europeans to try and turn the tide. And one of the real problems the British have got in dealing with the rebellion is, is that they've got a relatively small number of troops in India. They've only got 40,000 troops in the whole of India. I already spoke about the total size of the East India Company army in terms of its Indian soldiers, that's about 240,000. But there are an awful lot of other soldiers in the employ of Indian princes. And the real question is, are the Indian princes going to join the mutiny or not?

The British were terrified that they might.

And therefore their job was to stamp out the rebellion as quickly as possible. But the problem, as I say, is that they don't have that many troops in India. I mean, in Bengal, which was the epicentre of the mutiny, there are only 23,000 British troops. So they're massively outnumbered. And they're also concentrated mainly in the Punjab, which had been the scene of fighting that's in northern India, with the Sikhs only a few years earlier. And it was felt that if there was going to be trouble anywhere, it would be in the Punjab. So to give you an example of how thinly spread the British were, there was only a single British regiment covering.

The 700 miles that separated Calcutta, which.

Was the headquarters of British India, from.

Lucknow, the capital of Oude, which was.

Another centre of rebellion where there were British troops at other places like Agra, Lucknow and Kungpor, they quickly withdraw behind makeshift defences, having disarmed as many sepoys as possible. So really what you get by late June is a series of sieges of these really key locations. Lucknow, Kornpur and also Delhi, where the.

British have marched some troops down from the Punjab.

But they're in this very curious position of, yes, in theory they're besieging Delhi, which they want to retake from the rebels, but actually they're on a location just to the north of Delhi, the original cantonments to the north of Delhi, and in effect, they become under siege themselves. So you've really got three sieges, one at Delhi, one at Lucknow and one at Kompor are the key beats of the story from this point onwards.

When you read histories of the rebellion, I mean, Delhi, Kompor and Lucknow really emerge as kind of a particular flashpoint. So I wonder if you could talk us through what happened in these three locations.

Yeah, well, they're all interlinked in the.

Sense that they're relatively close together. I mean, a few hundred miles separating each of them. But if you look at India as a whole, they're in this kind of epicenter of the mutiny in northern India. The key location is Delhi, but I'll deal with Kornpor first, because I think the events at Kompor tell us a lot about the bitterness of the rebellion on both sides that still exists today. Now, Cawnpore was a garrison that had no, or at least no significant number of European troops. So it didn't have a European regiment there. It had four Indian regiments and a relatively small force of European artillery, but it had a lot of Europeans in the town. And it also, of course, had all the European officers to the various regiments. So when the native regiments rose, the Indian regiments rose at Cawnpore on 5 June, 1857.

What the Europeans did is withdraw into.

A defensive position that became known as Wheeler's Entrenchment. Wheeler was the local European commander at that location, and it was really just a thin mud wall, round two barracks and, you know, not very defensible, into.

Which were put all the remaining European men, these officers, and some of the.

Artillerymen, but also all the European women.

Children and civilians in the town.

So you had about 900 people crammed into that relatively small area, which then came under siege from the rebels during most of June. And June in India is a time of extreme heat. So it was a brutal experience for these civilians in this entrenchment. They were being bombarded by missiles. They didn't have enough food to eat.

More and more casualties.

There was no way to treat people. I mean, it was horrendous conditions. And by late June, the garrison commander, Wheeler, had decided, well, the only thing to do now is to try and come to terms with the rebels, if we can. They are offered a peace deal. If they give over their weapons, they will be allowed to withdraw down the Ganges River. In fact, it's a ruse. And when they agree to those terms, they are set upon by the mutineers and butchered.

All the men are killed, including Wheeler.

Almost all the men are killed, and.

The surviving women and children are taken.

To a house called the Bibigar, which.

Was in Cawnpore, where they're imprisoned in.

Pretty rough conditions for the next few weeks. Now, meanwhile, European troops are coming up from the south, coming up from Calcutta and elsewhere to try and relieve both Cawnpore, Delhi and Lucknow. The first place they're going to get to is Cawnpore. But as they approach Cawnpore in the.

Middle of July 1857, they're led by.

Rather wonderful character called Sir Henry Havelock.

As Havelock's column is approaching Cawnpore, the.

Rebels decide that they're not going to be able to defend the city. They don't want to release the women and children.

So they order their destruction.

Four butchers, literally butchers, I mean, people who make their living out of cutting.

Up meat go in there with swords.

And they kill 197 women, children and two or three men. I think there are. There literally just butcher them with swords.

And so you can imagine what was.

You know, a place of refuge, or at least imprisonment for these civilians, becomes.

An absolute charnel house with the blood so thick on the floor.

It was 4 inches deep, according to some of the eyewitnesses. So this is an appalling atrocity that's already added onto another atrocity. And I should say, Spencer, just to finish off the story of cawnpaw, I mean, you've got a deliberate policy among the mutineers across India to kill European women and children. You might ask why the brutality? I think there was a practical reason behind it. If you can ensure that a rebellious regiment is tainted with the murder of European civilians, it means there's no way back for them. They can't. Oh, we suddenly changed our minds. We don't want to be part of the rebellion. And therefore it ensures that they stay true to supporting the rebellion. So that's the story of the siege.

Of Cawnpore, one of the most tragic.

Stories of the great rebellion. But at the same time, of course, you've got an awful lot of people imprisoned in Lucknow, which is the capital of Oude, which becomes one of the kind of big centres of the rebellion, as I've mentioned, but also Delhi. I mean, really, in effect, if you're gonna snuff out the rebellion, you need.

To recapture Delhi in particular, but also.

Lucknow, because these are big centres where.

A lot of rebels are being drawn in.

They're coming from different areas and you need to knock them out as quickly as possible. What you get in rebellious situations is the question of critical mass. If you ever reach critical mass, if enough people in India think the rebels might actually succeed, we're going to join them, and particularly the Indian princes, by August 1857, I would say that's the month, in my view, where things are really in the balance. You've had rebellions all over India.

You still have, and I'll explain in.

A minute what's going on in Lucknow and Delhi. But you've still got both of those locations where the rebels are still effectively in control. They haven't been recaptured by the Europeans, there's still a state of siege in both of those locations. And you've got the possibility of the rebellion being spread all the way into the centre and even Southern India. What the rebels really should have done is not coalesced in these locations. They should have spread out, spread the flame of rebellion in a guerrilla action.

Rather than taking on the Europeans.

One of the problems with taking on the Europeans is that they were always at a disadvantage. They didn't have as good weaponry, they didn't have as good experienced commanders, and they were effectively fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The whole command structure and supply system didn't work as well for the rebels as it did for the Europeans. So it's really a question of speed on knocking out the rebellions as quickly as possible. As far as the Europeans are concerned. As far as the rebels are concerned.

I think they made a mistake of.

Coalescing in these various locations. You could say it's a question of safety, of numbers. You could say, you know, there are some charismatic leaders. A lot of people are going to Delhi, as I've already explained, because Bahadur Shah, King of Delhi, has now been proclaimed the new emperor of India. So, you know, a lot of people are naturally drawn to go there. Well, the story of Delhi, I think, is the single most important element in the whole success or failure of the rebellion. I've already suggested that so many people shouldn't have been bottled up there. I mean, by August 1857, you've got about 100,000 rebels in and around Delhi.

And they should have really been spreading out elsewhere.

But in any case, the European troops sent to reconquer Delhi have really been.

Themselves bottled up in the cantonment, as I already explained.

Now, they've been gradually joined by a.

Few more troops, so that they probably.

Got a force by the beginning of September of about 14,000. But they're, you know, they're heavily outnumbered.

By the number of rebels, as I've already explained.

But eventually the decision is made to assault the city of Delhi, which is held by the rebels. And it's taken a long time to do this. The commander, Archdale Wilson, has been very unhappy about doing it because he fears disaster will take place. And he's eventually persuaded by a wonderful character called John Nicholson, who effectively tells him, if you don't order an assault in the next few days, I'm going to take command from you. So finally, Archdale Wilson says, okay, we'll do it. We will assault. But, you know, take it from me, it might all go horribly wrong. So they arrange a series of bombardments of Delhi's walls to make breaches in the walls, and then they prepare an assault which is going to use four different Columns attacking the city walls from four different places. And it's an amazing story. On the morning of 14 September, the assault goes in. They blow up various locations. They assault through these various breaches in the walls. They broke the Kashmir gate, where an 11 strong party of engineers creeps forward with bags of gunpowder. A lot of them get shot.

You know, it's incredibly heroic moment.

VCs are given for this, but they finally break their way through and then.

They'Re into the city.

Now, you would have thought once they're in the city, well, you know, the rebels are going to be on the back foot. But actually for the next few days, Spencer, it's nip and tuck.

I mean, there are many moments where.

Archdale Wilson, the commander, is tempted to.

Order a withdrawal, which would have been.

A disaster not just for the people at Delhi, but also for the British elsewhere, because it, of course, would have.

Given great confidence to the rebels.

We defeated the British at Delhi, now we can spread out and hopefully more princes will join us. It's interesting that not a single ruling prince joined the rebellion, but they might have done if things had gone differently at Delhi. In any case, this fight carries on for the next few days. And finally, finally, after a lot of really brutal fighting, they manage to recapture the centre, the key elements of Delhi. And a couple of days later they also take into custody Bahadur Shah, who's.

Captured just on the outskirts of Delhi.

Was that the turning point in the rebellion?

Yeah, like in any of these major conflicts, there are a series of turning.

Points, but probably the single most important.

Turning point was the recapture of Delhi, because it was the center of rebellion. It did have the new Emperor of India in location there and this was clearly a rallying point for rebels all over India. So to have recaptured it and to have taken into custody Bahadar Shah, I think was almost a mortal blow. Was it the moment where you could see the British, there was no question they were going to recapture the rest of India. I would say you do have to go on a couple of months, probably to December 1857, by which point they've relieved the siege of Lucknow, Better way of putting it, because they don't finally.

Recapture Lucknow until the spring of 1858.

But what they do is they relieve, that is withdraw to safety the 4,000 or so European and Eurasian, Christian, Eurasian civilians who've been holed up in the Residency in Lucknow. And that's another key moment. I mean, Queen Victoria back in the UK is commenting on that. Thank goodness they've rescued all those people. Because they know the consequences that they.

Don'T rescue them, they're all going to be murdered, which is what had happened at Cawnpore.

So by December 1857, you've recaptured Delhi, you've rescued everyone from Lucknow, which is another of the epicenters of the mutiny, and you've also defeated this very powerful force known as the Gwalior Contingent. So I would say by the end of 1857, although there's still a lot of mopping up required, and the final embers of resistance aren't finally extinguished both in central India and other locations until well into 1859, I would say, Spencer, by December 1857, the eventual outcome is no longer in the balance. It's just a matter of time.

Sol, can you tell us a little bit more about the British suppression of the rebellion? See, the rebels have committed a number of atrocities. How brutal was the British reaction to the rebellion?

Well, one of the great controversies of.

The rebellion is the way that the British responded to what they saw as the provocation of the murder of European civilians. Now, if you think about it, when.

Some of the European troops finally got.

To Cawnpore in July 1857, one of the first things they did is visit the site of the Bibigar. Pretty much everyone who passed through Cawnpore, and that's everyone moving up country from Calcutta would have gone through Cawnpore. They would have visited the site of the Bibigar where, you know, the charnel house was still in existence.

What the rebels had done after they'd.

Murdered everyone in the Bibigar is they'd put their bodies into a nearby well.

And you could literally see the bodies.

So they took them out, of course, and reburied them elsewhere eventually. But the site of the Bibega, with.

The remnants of body parts and blood.

And bits of clothing and children's toys.

Was there for all the Europeans to.

And everyone who went in and witnessed that sight then swore to give the rebels no quarter. And of course, so what this did is brutality bred brutality, and the Europeans behaved in a pretty brutal fashion in terms of suppressing the rebellion. The rebels were given no quarter, generally speaking, they were either shot out of hand or they were hanged. But the problem is, how do you know who's a rebel? You're in a country where an awful lot of civilians have had nothing to do with the rebellion, but everyone's sort of caught up in this. So you definitely got, in particular, when British retook Delhi, you got the unnecessary murder of enormous numbers of probably innocent Indian civilians. So it became a tit for tat all the way through, and the innocents on both sides paid the price.

And how long did this go on for? How long did it take the British to suppress a rebellion? And how long did the recriminations run on for?

Well, I mentioned the fact, didn't I.

That the final embers of resistance were not finally extinguished until 1859. So you could say that rebellion goes on effectively two years. As I say, there were a number of sort of key moments in 1858, actually, in particular, the story of the Rani of Janzi. I mean, she is the dispossessed wife of the Maharaja of Janzi, who's had his estate taken away from him because.

Of the doctrine of lapse, which I mentioned before.

And so she's naturally a disgruntled former ruler of a state who's determined to.

Regain it for her son.

And she plays a sort of key role in the rebellion in 1858. Well, Jans is finally recaptured in the spring of 1858, and she meets her end on the battlefield at Gwalior a couple of months later. So you've still got quite significant fighting and sort of serious battles taking place in India and Central India in 1858. And Tatya Tope, who was one of the senior commanders of a lot of the fighting and was fighting alongside the Rani of Janzi in 1858, is not finally apprehended until 1859. So you could say it goes on for another couple of years, but the major fighting is really 1857 and some of 1858.

So how much had the rebellion poisoned relations between the people of the Indian subcontinent and the British? I mean, what was the state of play in the early 1860s? How much did this change the picture?

Well, what the British did, I think, sensibly in 1858 is actually dissolve the control of British India from the East India Company and to the Crown, it effectively became a British colony. Now, you could say, well, you know, that's not a lot of good to all the disgruntled Indians, particularly those who feel that the suppression of the muciny was unnecessarily brutal. That's true, but there were a certain number of olive branches also handed to the Indians. For example, there was a general amnesty. Anyone who'd been involved in the rebellion, who'd maybe stolen a few things, you know, kind of assisted the rebels, was granted a general amnesty. The only people accepted from that were those who'd actually been involved in the murder of Europeans, and they were not excused if they captured Atia Topes captured, as I mentioned, in 1859, well, he.

Was hanged, as were a number of.

Other people who could be proven. There was evidence to show that they had murdered Europeans, but it still left an awful lot of people very disgruntled. I think one of the key reforms that the British did after the mutiny was with the army. It came about because Indian soldiers were unsatisfied. So we're going to make changes. We're going to improve their pay. We're going to make it possible for them to advance to higher positions in the military, reduce the number of European.

Officers, give more power to European commanding.

Officers so that they can give inducements, but also punishments to increase the discipline of their regiments. They also took precautions in terms of.

The numbers of European troops.

So they basically had the deal that they would be no more than 2 to 1. European troops would never be outnumbered by more than 2 to 1. Which meant, of course, you had to bring in a lot more European troops into India. And the result of all these reforms, some of them beneficial to the Indian soldiers, some of them, you know, keeping an eye on them, meant that there were no serious mutinies thereafter. I mean, there were one or two really minor ones, but no serious mutinies for the rest of the British time in India.

In the long term, how did the Indian rebellion affect the relationship between the two countries going on into the 20th century?

I think the great rebellion was hugely significant in terms of the way the Indians saw the British and the way the British saw the Indians. I mean, from the Indian perspective, there was very much a feeling, partly looking back in retrospect, but very much a feeling of, okay, that was our first serious attempt to throw off the yoke of British rule. And certainly there was an aspiration to do that again, maybe not by force, but through the ballot box. Sooner or later, we want to take control of our own affairs. There was very much a sense that that had to happen sooner or later. From the British perspective, it was utter shock that British, that many Indians who they thought that they were treating reasonably well, obviously they were mistaken, would have actually been prepared to take up arms against them, and not only that, to deliberately murder civilians. And there was really a kind of existential crisis among the British as to what the whole business of empire was for. They'd considered it to be a kind of civilizing mission. Sooner or later, we'll get the Indians to a point where they can run their own affairs. Or that's how the British at the Time perceived it. Now they very much felt, well, this is more of a duty really. You get this kind of sense by the end of the century, put so memorably in that phrase, white man's burden. And that was very much a kind of sense that the British, we've got to keep doing this because it's our responsibility. But we don't really have the same optimism of the business of ruling as we might have had before the mutiny. And I think there was also a paranoia among the British that the mutiny was going to happen again at some stage and they had to guard against that. And certainly you get moments like for example, the terrible overreaction in Amritsar in 1919 when there's a riot effectively, but you know, Gurkhas are ordered to shoot into the ranks of all these rioters. And one of the explanations for the overreaction among the British and the murder of a lot of unarmed civilians was a memory of the mutiny. This is going to lead to more violent protests and it could all get out of hand. So we need to nip it in the bud. And so you've got this kind of standoff really with the British being quite paranoid about what was going to happen next. Yes, giving the Indians more and more encouragement that one day they would get self rule, but the Indians also feeling we want it sooner rather than later. And this all comes to a head, as we know, in the Second World War where there's the Quit India movement. You've had the whole Gandhi protests in the 1820s and the 1830s and a.

Determination that when the war is over.

They will get their independence, which of course they did get, but in a very tragic way because it led to the division between the Muslims and the Hindus and of course all the terrible loss of life as the creation of Pakistan and India in 1847 and 1948.

And how is the rebellion remembered across the subcontinent today? And how controversial does the British suppression of the rebellion remain in India and Pakistan today?

Many Indians remember the great rebellion today with great pride. Actually. This was our first attempt at establishing nationhood and throwing off, as I say, the yoke of the British. I think it's been mischaracterized in a.

Certain number of ways.

I mean, certainly no one really thought in terms of India as a nation in those days. They thought much more in terms of their own locality. But you know, nevertheless, the principle is the same, which is we want to run our own affairs. We no longer like the idea of a foreign race who look different from us. They have a different religion to us, and they're really in charge. So it's very much seen as the first kind of attempt to remove this yoke of British control. And it's understandable that they look back on that with a certain amount of pride. I mean, I think to characterize it as the first attempt at creating a nation state of India is going a little bit too far. But obviously it was part of the process that eventually led to the end of British rule in 1947.

[Spencer Mizzen]

That was military historian and broadcaster Saul David speaking to Spencer Mizzen. Saul's book, Indian Mutiny, 1857 is published by Penguin. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Daniel Kramer Arden.