Academic literature on the topic 'India – History – Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858'

The scholars have paid scant attention to the role of the Bhil and the Mina tribes of southern Rajputana States of Mewar, Banswara and Partapgarh in the 1857 national war of independence. These tribals were dissatisfied with the settlement of British paramountcy in the Rajputana States in 1818 as it was responsible for depriving them of their right to collect rakhwali (protection tax) from the neighbouring States, restraining their movements by stationing the Mewar Bhil Corps and the Kota Contingent in tribal regions, creating a fissure in their society by recruiting a section of tribals as soldiers in these Political Corps and, above all, penalising them as criminals for witch swinging and witch murdering in contravention of their community resolution. Disgruntled with the series of these innovations the Bhil chiefs, such as those of Pahara Bhomat in Mewar Hill Tracts, Onkar Rawat of Mowree Khera and Dalla Rawat of Sodulpur in Banswara State, and the Minas of Uncha village (in Jahazpur district of Mewar State) on the border of Deoli cantonment, revolted to end the British rule under the spell of the 1857 rebellion of the native sepoys of the British regiments at Neemuch, Nasirabad and Mhow cantonments. These tribal uprisings spread, far and wide, in Banswara, Partapgarh and Mewar Hill Tracts in southern Rajputana on the spur of Rawat Kesri Singh of Salumbar, a powerful Sisodia Rajput jagirdar of Mewar State, the Vilayati mercenaries (Makranis and Arabs) and Maratha General Tantia Tope who campaigned with his rabble force throughout Rajputana States between June 1858 and April 1859 for seeking support of people to overthrow the British government and also for punishing those Rajput rulers who had sided with it and surrendered to it the rebel leaders. Of course, the British government suppressed the tribal rebellions with the support of the Rajput rulers of Mewar, Partapgarh and Dungarpur States, but the prolongation of the 1857 tribal rebellions in southern Rajputana even after the restoration of British power in the imperial city of Delhi (September 1857) and in Lucknow (March 1858) confirmed the contention of the eminent historian V. D. Savarkar that the 1857 rebellion was the Indian War of Independence. Thus, the tribals have left a legacy of their valour and patriotic fervour during the 1857 national war of independence in Princely Rajputana.

The article examines the doctrine of lapse, which was actively used in the 1840-1850s by the British authorities in India. The status of princely state could be abolished and the land was transferred to the East India Company if the ruler was either manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir. In 1854, this was the fate of the Nagpur princely state, one of the largest political formations in the South Asian subcontinent. The liquidation of the court and princely privileges took several years and was accompanied by an exchange between Bhosle family and the British officials of memoranda, notes and letters, which reveal in detail the “kitchen” – practices and theoretical justifications – of this kind territorial annexations. Methodologically, the proposed analysis is localized in the field of Emotion Studies and is specifically devoted to imperial feelings that developed in the zone of interaction between different levels of the power hierarchy formed by the colonial situation. The Sepoy uprising of 1857-1858, which became one of the consequences of the “doctrine of lapse” policy and endangered the very existence of the British Raj, forced the British authorities to abandon the further territorial expansion and pay more attention to the sentiments of local rulers, many of whom sided with the rebels. Later establishing ties with local traditional elites, building emotionally trusting relationships with them became an important area of activity of the colonial administration, in which a lot of funds and efforts were invested.

AbstractThe judicial and summary punishment of whipping—absent from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860—was passed into law through Act No. VI of 1864. This legislation, tacked on as an appendage to the IPC, invested the judge with wider discretionary powers to administer violence across Indian society. In this case what emerged was an evolving attempt to enlarge the colonial state's capacity for quotidian violence, targeting certain bodies to reaffirm, manage, and police the social hierarchies upon which colonial sovereignty depended. In the context of a slow imperial movement away from the cast-iron distinctions that had been made between groups in the early nineteenth century—distinctions that had, among other things, supported a legally enforced system of slavery—new methods to mark the value of different bodies were created. The events of the 1850s, in particular the rebellion of 1857–1858, saw the re-emergence of the colonial idea that certain bodies could withstand violence, and that violence itself could be used to create economically productive colonial societies, in debates around penal law and punishment. This article will trace this history through formal legal restrictions and informal legal-cultural practices in relation to corporal punishment in colonial India. Over the course of the period under study, this legislation introduced into law what one official termed ‘the category of the “whippable”’.1 Charting the changing shape of this legal category along lines of race, gender, caste, class, and age, the article will argue that a logic of exceptionality, channelled here through the application of judicial violence, attempted to structure and manage Indian society in complicated ways.