Was Dalhousie responsible for the outbreak of the first war of independence/ Revolt of 1857?
Dalhousie’s responsibility for the Revolt of 1857:
A storm had been gathering in India for a number of years. It
burst out in 1857, a year after Lord Dalhousie left India. Dalhousie’s policy,
however justified and legitimate it might have been, had caused great disquietude
among Indian princes. The ruling princes, in the words of V. A. Smith, ‘knew nothing
about subtle distinctions of ‘dependent’ and ‘subordinate’ states… They simply
saw that principality after principality were escheated and annexed for one reason
or another, so that no ruler of a native state felt safe… the pace was too fast
and the cumulative effect of the transactions was profoundly unsettling’. The Doctrine
of Lapse disregarded the customs and prejudices of the Indian people. It broke
away from precedents and gave new interpretations to outdated and outmoded
doctrines.
V. A. Smith blames Lord Dalhousie for lack of foresight. Smith
writes ‘The outgoing governor general certainly had not the slightest prevision
of the storm that was to break the next year in May and had not made any
arrangements to meet it…he must share with his predecessors the censure due for
permitting the continuance of a most dangerous military situation in India. He had
not taken any precautions to protect the enormous store of munitions at Delhi, which
was left in the hands of the native army, or to secure the essential strategical
position of Allahabad. Whatever thought was devoted to military preparation in
India was directed to the Punjab. Everywhere else the old haphazard distribution
of the troops continued and nobody in authority, military or civil, seems to
have realized the obvious perils incurred.’
T. R. Holmes absolves Dalhousie of responsibility for the
weak military condition of the East India Company and blames the commander in chief
for his failure to remedy the indiscipline in the army and for his neglect to
safeguard Delhi and Allahabad. T. R. Holmes on the other hand, believes that
the rebellion that broke out in Oudh was ‘due not to annexation, but to the
harshness with which the Talukdars were treated’; the excesses committed in
Jhansi are attributed ‘to the failure of Havelock’s earlier attempts to relieve
the Residency’. Holmes credits Dalhousie for his wise policy and constructive
administrative work and says: ‘By the construction of road and telegraphs, and
by the administration which he bestowed upon the Punjab, he contributed much to
the power by which the mutiny was quelled’.
It must, however, be stated that Dalhousie’s annexations
and escheats worsened the situation. He went too far too fast. His ruthless and
injudicious policy provided leaders like the Rani of Jhansi, Nana Saheb, Tantia
Tope, etc., who channelized the prevalent discontent and proved the brain
behind the movement once the soldiers had mutinied. Responsibility for the
rebellion of 1857-58 partly rests on the shoulders of Lord Dalhousie.
No comments:
Post a Comment