NCERT Solutions Class 12 History Chapter 10 Rebels and the Raj

Concept used. Erstwhile rulers means the kings, nawabs, ranis and zamindars who had ruled or held power before the British conquest. To fight an empire, the sepoys needed leadership and organisation, and a recognised ruler could give the revolt unity, legitimacy and a cause.

The sepoys turned to these old rulers for several reasons:

1. They needed leadership and organisation. A mutiny of soldiers could seize a town, but to fight the British across regions the rebels needed leaders who could command obedience and run a campaign. The old ruling houses had the standing to do this.
2. The old rulers gave the revolt legitimacy. When the Meerut sepoys rushed to Delhi and made the aged Bahadur Shah accept the leadership, the revolt at once acquired a kind of legitimacy, because it could now be carried on in the name of the Mughal emperor. A rising under a king looked like a just war, not mere disorder.
3. These rulers had their own grievances against the British. Many had been dispossessed by annexation. In Kanpur Nana Sahib (successor of Peshwa Baji Rao II), in Jhansi the rani, in Arrah the zamindar Kunwar Singh, and in Lucknow Birjis Qadr (young son of the exiled Nawab) were all hailed as leaders, often under popular pressure.
4. They were familiar symbols of an older world. People wanted to restore the pre-British order they had lost, so a known king or taluqdar became the natural rallying point for that hope.

The sepoys turned to old rulers because a rising needed leadership and organisation, and a recognised king gave it legitimacy: making Bahadur Shah the nominal head meant the revolt could be carried on in the Mughal emperor's name. These rulers (Nana Sahib, the Rani of Jhansi, Kunwar Singh, Birjis Qadr) had their own grievances against annexation and were familiar symbols of the older world that people wished to restore.

Concept used. Planning and coordination means that the mutinies were not random, isolated outbursts but were communicated, discussed and in some measure organised between places. The question asks you to gather the pieces of evidence in the chapter that point to this.

The evidence indicating planning and coordination:

1. A similar pattern everywhere. The sequence of events in every cantonment followed a similar pattern: a signal (the evening gun or the bugle), seizing the bell of arms, plundering the treasury, attacking jail, telegraph office and records, then targeting everything connected with the white man. Such uniformity suggests a shared plan.
2. Communication between sepoy lines. There was clear contact between cantonments. After the 7th Awadh Irregular Cavalry refused the new cartridges, they wrote to the 48th Native Infantry that "they had acted for the faith and awaited the 48th's orders". Sepoys and their emissaries moved from one station to another.
3. The Sisten incident. The conversation between the police inspector Sisten and a Bijnor tahsildar ("How does the work progress, brother? ... The direction of the business is in able hands") shows that plans were being talked about and that a network of rebels existed.
4. Collective decisions through panchayats. When the 41st Native Infantry wanted Captain Hearsey killed, the dispute was settled by a panchayat of native officers. Charles Ball noted that panchayats were a nightly occurrence in the Kanpur sepoy lines, so the sepoys took some decisions collectively.
5. Chapatti and proclamation networks. Chapattis were passed from village to village and proclamations in Hindi, Urdu and Persian were put up in the cities, signs of an organised circulation of news and signals.

The evidence includes the strikingly similar pattern of mutiny in every cantonment, letters between sepoy lines (the 7th Awadh Cavalry writing to the 48th Native Infantry), the Sisten-tahsildar conversation showing a rebel network, nightly panchayats of native officers taking collective decisions in the Kanpur lines, and the circulation of chapattis and trilingual proclamations. Together these show planning and coordination, though direct documents naming the planners are scarce.

Concept used. The question asks "to what extent", so you must show how strongly religious beliefs, fears and symbols moved people in 1857, while not reducing the revolt to religion alone, since material grievances over land, revenue and power were also central.

Religious beliefs shaped the events in major ways:

1. The greased cartridges. The spark was the rumour that the new Enfield cartridges were greased with the fat of cows and pigs. Biting them, the sepoys feared, would corrupt the faith of both Hindus and Muslims, the very reason the Meerut sepoys gave Bahadur Shah for their rising.
2. Rumours of a plot against religion. People believed the British had mixed the bone dust of cows and pigs into the flour (atta) and meant to convert Indians to Christianity. Sepoys and common people refused to touch the atta, and these fears "stirred men to action".
3. Prophecies and holy men. A prophecy said British rule would end on the centenary of Plassey, 23 June 1857. Religious leaders and self-styled prophets preached the destruction of British rule. A fakir at Meerut and the Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah, believed invincible, drew thousands and preached jehad.
4. Religious appeals for unity. The proclamations harked back to a shared Hindu-Muslim past; the one in Bahadur Shah's name asked people to fight under the standards of both Muhammad and Mahavir.

But not religion alone. The same proclamations and the taluqdars' words show that grievances over annexation, land revenue and lost livelihoods were just as important. Religion gave the revolt its language and emotional charge, but it rode on top of deep material discontent.

Religious belief shaped 1857 powerfully: the greased-cartridge fear, the rumour of bone dust in the atta, the dread of forced conversion, the Plassey prophecy and preachers like Ahmadullah Shah all drove people to act, and proclamations appealed to a shared Hindu-Muslim faith. Yet religion was not the whole story: grievances over annexation, land revenue and ruined livelihoods were equally central. Religion gave the revolt its language and unity, riding on deep material discontent.

Concept used. Unity among the rebels means bringing together people of different religions, castes and classes (Hindus and Muslims, sepoys, peasants, zamindars, artisans) into a single fight against the British. The question asks what was deliberately done to build that unity.

The measures taken to ensure unity:

1. Proclamations appealing to all, regardless of caste and creed. The rebel proclamations of 1857 repeatedly appealed to all sections of the population, irrespective of their caste and creed, so that the rebellion was seen as a war in which both Hindus and Muslims had equally to lose or gain.
2. Addressing Hindu sentiments even in Muslim-led appeals. Many proclamations were issued by Muslim princes or in their names, but even these took care to address the sentiments of Hindus, so as not to divide the two communities.
3. Invoking a shared pre-British past. The ishtahars harked back to the Hindu-Muslim past and glorified the coexistence of communities under the Mughal Empire. The proclamation under Bahadur Shah's name called on people to fight under the standards of both Muhammad and Mahavir.
4. Resisting British attempts to divide. Religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims were hardly noticeable, despite British efforts to create them. At Bareilly in December 1857 the British spent Rs 50,000 to incite Hindus against Muslims, and the attempt failed.
5. A common enemy and a common cause. The proclamations urged people to unite to save their livelihood, faith, honour and identity, a fight for the "greater public good", which gave all groups one cause.

Unity was built through proclamations that appealed to all, regardless of caste and creed, framing 1857 as a war in which Hindus and Muslims had equally to lose or gain. Even Muslim-led appeals addressed Hindu sentiments and invoked a shared pre-British past, the call to fight under both Muhammad and Mahavir being the clearest example. The rebels held together against British efforts to divide them, as when the Rs 50,000 spent at Bareilly to set Hindus against Muslims failed.

Concept used. To quell the uprising means to put down the rebellion by force and by law. The British used a combination of special legislation, military reconquest, the symbolic recapture of Delhi, and the breaking of rebel unity by rewards and punishments.

The steps the British took:

1. Passed special repressive laws. Before sending out troops, they passed a series of Acts in May and June 1857 that put the whole of North India under martial law. Military officers and even ordinary Britons were given the power to try and punish Indians suspected of rebellion; the ordinary processes of law and trial were suspended.
2. Made rebellion punishable by death. It was put out that rebellion would have only one punishment, death, and rebels were blown from guns or hanged, often in public, as a "performance of terror" to spread fear.
3. Brought in reinforcements and reconquered systematically. Armed with the new laws and reinforcements from Britain, they mounted a two-pronged attack, one force moving from Calcutta into North India and the other from the largely peaceful Punjab.
4. Recaptured Delhi. Recognising the symbolic value of Delhi, they attacked it from June 1857; the city was finally captured in late September after heavy fighting, since rebels from all over North India had come to defend it.
5. Reconquered the countryside village by village. In the Gangetic plain and in Awadh, where the population was hostile and resistance long (Forsyth estimated three-fourths of adult males in revolt), the British had to fight village by village, controlling Awadh only by March 1858.
6. Broke rebel unity with rewards. Besides military force, they tried to split big landholders from peasants by promising to return their estates to loyal landholders, while dispossessing rebel ones.

The British passed special Acts (May-June 1857) imposing martial law and letting officers and even civilians try and execute suspected rebels, with death as the sole punishment. Reinforced from Britain, they mounted a two-pronged advance from Calcutta and Punjab, recaptured the symbolically vital Delhi by late September 1857, and reconquered the Gangetic plain and Awadh village by village until March 1858. They also broke rebel unity by promising loyal landholders their estates while dispossessing rebels.

Concept used. The essay has two parts: why Awadh became the storm centre of 1857, and what drove its three rural groups, peasants, taluqdars and zamindars, into the revolt. The answer lies in the resentment built up by the annexation of 1856 and the land settlement that followed.

1. The annexation of Awadh and the Nawab's exile. In 1856 the British annexed Awadh on the plea of misgovernment, and dethroned and exiled the popular Nawab Wajid Ali Shah to Calcutta. He was widely loved; crowds followed him singing songs of lament, and a deep sense of grief and loss spread, captured in the line "the life was gone out of the body". The removal of the Nawab dissolved the court and its culture, so musicians, dancers, poets, artisans, cooks, retainers and officials lost their livelihood. This emotional and material upheaval made Awadh exceptionally bitter.

2. Why the taluqdars joined. The annexation dispossessed the taluqdars, who for generations had held estates, forts and armed retainers. Immediately after annexation they were disarmed and their forts destroyed. The Summary Settlement of 1856 treated them as interlopers and removed them where possible: the share of villages they held fell from 67 per cent to 38 per cent, and southern Awadh's taluqdars were the hardest hit. Stripped of land, power and status, they had every reason to rebel, and many joined Begum Hazrat Mahal in Lucknow.

3. Why the peasants joined. The British claimed that removing taluqdars would help the peasants, but it did not. Revenue demand was overassessed, rising 30 to 70 per cent in places, and collection was inflexible. Worse, the peasant lost the taluqdar's old protection: there was no longer any guarantee of reduced demand in a bad harvest or of loans in times of need. The "father figure" was gone.

4. Why the zamindars joined. The Azamgarh Proclamation lists the zamindars' grievances: exorbitant revenue, estates auctioned for arrears, the humiliation of being summoned, arrested and disgraced in courts at the suit of "a common ryot", and taxes for schools, hospitals and roads. They were promised dignity and light revenue under a restored Badshahi government.

Conclusion. Awadh combined the grief of a deposed, beloved Nawab with the ruin of taluqdars and the overtaxing of peasants, and the sepoys (the "nursery of the Bengal Army" was Awadh) carried these grievances into the lines. That fusion of prince, taluqdar, peasant and sepoy is why the revolt was deepest and longest here.

Awadh was the storm centre because the 1856 annexation and exile of the beloved Wajid Ali Shah caused widespread grief and threw court dependants out of work. Taluqdars joined because they were disarmed, their forts razed and their share of villages cut from 67 to 38 per cent by the Summary Settlement of 1856. Peasants joined because revenue was overassessed (up 30 to 70 per cent) and they lost the taluqdar's old protection. Zamindars joined over auctioned estates and court humiliation. A chain of grievances linked prince, taluqdar, peasant and sepoy.

Concept used. The question has two halves: the shared aims of the rebels (what they wanted) and the differences between social groups. The difficulty, the chapter warns, is that the rebels left few records, so we read their aims mainly from the surviving proclamations and ishtahars.

What the rebels wanted (the shared vision).

1. To drive out the firangi and restore the old world. The proclamations completely rejected everything associated with British rule and wanted to restore the pre-British world they had lost. The rebel leadership in Delhi, Lucknow and Kanpur even set up short-lived administrations, harking back to the eighteenth-century Mughal world.
2. Unity across caste and creed. They appealed to all sections irrespective of caste and creed, glorifying the Hindu-Muslim coexistence of the Mughal past (fighting under both Muhammad and Mahavir).
3. To protect faith, livelihood and honour. They voiced the fear that the British meant to destroy caste and religion and convert people to Christianity, and called on all to fight for "the greater public good".

How the visions of different groups differed. The Azamgarh Proclamation addressed each group's own interest:

1. Zamindars wanted light revenue, an end to estate auctions and the restoration of their dignity and absolute rule in their zamindaries.
2. Merchants wanted freedom from the British monopoly of valuable trade (indigo, cloth) and from tolls and taxes.
3. Public servants (sepoys, officials) wanted respect, higher pay and the dignified posts that the British reserved for Englishmen.
4. Artisans wanted protection from cheap English imports that had ruined the weavers, carpenters and smiths.
5. Pundits and fakirs were called to defend their religions in a holy war.

The deeper difference. There was also a more radical vision among the poor. In the villages, rebels burnt account books and ransacked moneylenders' houses, an attempt to overturn traditional hierarchies, a glimpse of a more egalitarian society. But this vision was not articulated in the proclamations, which sought to unify all groups, including elites, against the firangi. So the elite vision (restore the old order) and the popular vision (overturn all oppressors) pulled in different directions.

The rebels wanted to drive out the firangi and restore the pre-British, eighteenth-century Mughal world, uniting across caste and creed to protect faith, livelihood and honour. But the visions differed by group: the Azamgarh Proclamation promised zamindars light revenue and dignity, merchants free trade, public servants respect and pay, and artisans protection from imports. A more radical, egalitarian vision among the poor, who attacked moneylenders and hierarchies, went unstated in the proclamations, which sought to unite even the elites.

Concept used. Visual representations are the paintings, pencil drawings, etchings, posters, cartoons and bazaar prints produced about 1857. Because the rebels left few records, these images, mostly British, are an important source. The question asks what they tell us and how historians read them.

What the visual representations tell us:

1. They celebrated British "saviours". Paintings like "Relief of Lucknow" by Thomas Jones Barker (1859) commemorate the heroes (Campbell, Outram, Havelock) at the centre of the canvas, with the dead in the foreground and the rescued Residency behind, reassuring the British public that British power had been re-established.
2. They portrayed English women as victims or heroines. "In Memoriam" by Joseph Noel Paton shows helpless women and children awaiting violence, stirring anger without showing gore; "Miss Wheeler" shows a woman heroically defending her honour and Christianity (the Bible at her feet), with the rebels demonised.
3. They demanded vengeance. The Punch print "Justice" shows an allegorical female figure trampling sepoys, her face full of rage; "The British Lion's Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger" and images of public executions (blowing from guns, rows of hanged sepoys) sanctioned brutal repression.
4. They mocked mercy and, later, inspired nationalism. "The Clemency of Canning" ridiculed leniency; in the twentieth century, nationalist prints and poems (Subhadra Kumari Chauhan's lines on the Rani of Jhansi) recast 1857 as the First War of Independence.

How historians analyse these representations:

1. They read the artist's perspective. The images show how the painters perceived the events, what they felt and what they wished to convey, so historians treat them as evidence of viewpoint, not neutral fact.
2. They distinguish reflecting from shaping. The images did not only reflect emotions; they also shaped sensibilities, the British public sanctioned brutal repression, and nationalist imagery shaped the nationalist imagination.
3. They examine the visual elements. Historians study composition, gesture, light, symbols (the lion and tiger, the Bible, the allegory of Justice) and captions to identify the perspective and purpose of each image.

Visual representations (British paintings, prints, cartoons and bazaar prints) tell us how 1857 was seen: they celebrated British saviours ("Relief of Lucknow"), cast English women as victims and heroines ("In Memoriam", "Miss Wheeler"), demanded vengeance ("Justice" in Punch, execution scenes) and mocked mercy ("Clemency of Canning"), while later nationalist images made the Rani of Jhansi a heroine. Historians analyse them by reading the artist's perspective, showing how images both reflected and shaped public feeling, and decoding their visual elements (composition, symbols, captions).

Concept used. The victor is the British, the vanquished the rebels. The question asks you to pick one visual and one text source from the chapter and read each for the point of view it carries. A good pair is the visual Felice Beato photograph of Secundra Bagh (the victor's view) and the text source "What the sepoys thought", the rebel arzi (the vanquished's view).

The visual source: Felice Beato's photograph (victor's view).

1. What it shows. The photograph of Secundra Bagh, the pleasure garden built by Wajid Ali Shah, shows a desolate, ruined building with skeletons strewn on the ground, where British forces under Campbell killed over 2000 rebel sepoys in 1857.
2. The viewpoint. This is the victor's image. The strewn skeletons were "meant to be a cold warning of the futility of rebellion". After 1857, British photographers recorded innumerable images of desolation and ruin, proclaiming British power and the hopelessness of resistance.

The text source: the sepoys' arzi (vanquished's view).

1. What it says. In "What the sepoys thought", a surviving rebel arzi (petition) explains that the sepoys had loyally served the British and helped them conquer India, but rose only when ordered to bite cartridges greased with cow and pig fat and to eat flour mixed with bone dust, which would destroy their religion. It ends: "If the religion of a Hindoo or Mussalman is lost, what remains in the world?"
2. The viewpoint. This is the vanquished's voice. It justifies the revolt as a defence of faith and honour, presents the sepoys as wronged, loyal men forced into war, and shows a Hindu-Muslim unity in a common cause.

How they differ. The photograph, a victor's record, treats the rebels as dead objects, a warning, with no voice; it shows power and finality. The arzi, a vanquished's record, gives the rebels reasons, feelings and dignity, presenting their cause as just. Read together, they reveal how each side framed 1857: the British as the restoration of order, the rebels as a fight to save their world.

A strong pair is Felice Beato's photograph of Secundra Bagh (visual) and the sepoys' arzi "What the sepoys thought" (text). The photograph is the victor's view: ruined walls and strewn skeletons stage British power as "a cold warning of the futility of rebellion", the rebels reduced to silent dead. The arzi is the vanquished's view: it justifies the revolt as a defence of faith ("if the religion of a Hindoo or Mussalman is lost, what remains in the world?"), giving the rebels reasons and dignity. Each source frames 1857 from its own side.

Concept used. This is a map-work task. You mark the three Presidency capitals (the seats of British power) and then plot the storm centres of the revolt, finally judging the distance between the two. Below is the guide; on your own outline map of India, mark each city and shade the revolt zone.

1. Mark the three centres of British power.
   • Calcutta (Kolkata) in the east (Bengal), the capital of British India.
   • Bombay (Mumbai) on the west coast.
   • Madras (Chennai) on the south-eastern coast.
   Note that all three are coastal port cities.
2. Plot the most widespread areas of revolt. Using Maps 1 and 2, shade the belt of the Ganga valley and central India: Delhi, Meerut, Kanpur, Lucknow and the rest of Awadh, Jhansi, Bareilly, Aligarh and Arrah. This is the heartland of North India.
3. Judge the distance. The revolt was concentrated in the interior of North and central India and was far from the three coastal colonial cities. Bengal around Calcutta, the Bombay region and the Madras south remained largely quiet, while the rising raged in the inland Gangetic plain.

Mark Calcutta (east), Bombay (west) and Madras (south-east), the three coastal Presidency capitals, then shade the revolt heartland of the Ganga valley and central India (Delhi, Meerut, Kanpur, Lucknow and Awadh, Jhansi, Bareilly, Arrah). The most widespread revolt was in the interior of North India, far from the three coastal colonial cities, which stayed largely peaceful. Add a key separating the power centres from the areas of revolt.

Concept used. This is a project (source criticism). You read a biography of one 1857 leader (for example the Rani of Jhansi, Nana Sahib, Bahadur Shah, Kunwar Singh, Begum Hazrat Mahal or Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah), then study the sources the biographer used and ask whether they agree. There is no single right answer; you are marked on how carefully you examine the evidence.

1. Choose a leader and a biography. Pick one leader of the revolt and find a reliable biography (for example, Tapti Roy's Raj of the Rani on the Rani of Jhansi, suggested in the chapter's reading list).
2. List the kinds of sources used. Look at the references and notes and classify them: government reports (mutiny records, official despatches), newspaper accounts (British and Indian), stories and ballads in regional languages, visual material (paintings, prints, photographs), and anything else (letters, memoirs, oral traditions).
3. Compare what the sources say. Ask whether they agree. British government reports may demonise the leader as a rebel, while regional ballads and nationalist accounts may glorify the same person as a hero, as with the Rani of Jhansi, "a masculine figure" in popular prints.
4. Explain the differences. Account for the disagreement by the point of view of each source: the victor's records versus the vanquished's memory, the colonial press versus folk tradition.
5. Write the report. Present your findings: the leader, the biography, the range of sources, and where and why they differ.

Pick one 1857 leader (such as the Rani of Jhansi via Tapti Roy's Raj of the Rani), and classify the biographer's sources: government reports, newspaper accounts, regional-language stories and ballads, visual material and letters or memoirs. Compare them: British official sources often condemn the leader while regional and nationalist sources glorify the same person. Explain the differences by each source's point of view, and present a report on the leader, the sources and where they disagree.

Concept used. This is a project (film analysis). You watch one film on 1857 (for example Mangal Pandey: The Rising, The Tiger and the Flame / Jhansi Ki Rani, or a documentary) and analyse how it represents the revolt and its different groups. There is no fixed answer; you are marked on careful, evidenced observation.

1. Describe how the film represents the revolt. Note whether it treats 1857 as a heroic First War of Independence or as a mere mutiny, and how it stages the key events (Meerut, Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur, Jhansi).
2. Depiction of the British. Say how the film portrays the British: as oppressors, as victims, as a mix? Note whether they are individualised or shown as a faceless ruling power.
3. Depiction of the rebels and the loyalists. Examine how the rebels are shown (heroic, desperate, divided) and how those who remained loyal to the British are treated (as traitors, as pragmatists, sympathetically?).
4. Depiction of the social groups. Look for peasants, city dwellers, tribals, zamindars and taluqdars: which groups are made central, which are ignored, and how their roles and motives are shown.
5. The response it seeks to evoke. Decide what feeling the film aims for: patriotic pride, anger at injustice, sympathy, or critical reflection; and how its music, dialogue and imagery work to produce it.

Watch one film on 1857 (such as Mangal Pandey: The Rising or a Jhansi Ki Rani film) and analyse its representation: how it frames the revolt (heroic war or mutiny), how it depicts the British (oppressors or victims), the rebels (heroic or divided) and the loyalists (traitors or pragmatists), and which social groups (peasants, city dwellers, tribals, zamindars, taluqdars) it centres or ignores. Finally judge the response it seeks, pride, anger, sympathy or reflection, and how music and imagery produce it.