1857: Why did it not become a revolution?

In India, 1857 revolt against the British is termed as the “first struggle for the Indian freedom", "Sipoy mutiny",  "1857 revolt" etc.  It was spontaneous, and grew out of emotional discontent of native soldiers in the English army (East India Company), local chieftains, and part of populace.  The response from both the sides, Indian revolters as well as English army [1], were emotional, which led to killing of large number of people.   The rules of conflict was broken from both the sides that led to murder of innocent people, both Indian and English.

The events of 1857 have certain similarities with several major emotional events of history.  According to me, in 1857, the desire for freedom and to dethrone unpopular rulers was similar to that seen in the French and American revolutions.  Incidentally, many centuries back (around 320 BC) duo of Chankya and Chandragupta successfully overthrew the Alexander’s army from India, and started a new Imperial tradition in India.   

Let's dig a bit deeper at these revolutions a bit, and contrast them with the 1857 revolt of India.  Strong philosophical and political processes were major reasons for the success of French, American, and Chankya-Chandragupta revolutions.  We owe ideas of modern democracy and individual freedom to the great French and American revolutions.  The thought processes were were fired by Voltaire, Russo, and many others in France, and Jefferson, Washington, and others  in America.  Of course, thoughts and military power went hand in hand, and these revolutions were successful.  It is also interesting to note that volunteers and local militia contributed to both the revolutions.  Many disagree but it is beyond doubt that the first French Republic would not have survived without Napolean Bonaparte’s inspiration to the French to destroy the local monarchs. 

Regarding Chankya-Chandragupta pair, it is worth noting that Chankya was a teacher in a major Indian university named Takshshila (present day Taxila), and he was deeply inspired to create a united India.  Chandragupta was one of his very able students.  Initially they organized local revolts in the western India to overthrow the Greek army.  After the departure of the Alexander, the duo organized a sizable army by uniting the small rulers and defeated the powerful Magadh ruler Dhanananda to create an Imperial India which extended beyond present Afganistan. Clearly the revolution succeeded due to skillful combination of sword and philosophical vision.  Chankya created a book named Arthashastra which was supposedly followed by rules in many centuries to come.

There is a notable difference between the French-American revolution and the Chankya-Chandragupta revolution.  The Chankya-Chandragupta revolution works to enforce a strong social order even at the cost of individual freedom, a system that probably worked at that time [2].   The French-American revolution precisely aim to overthrow the old decadent social order, which was stalling the progress at that time, and promote individual liberty.  This could be a reason why French revolution appears to have significant contradictions and more complex than the American revolution, possibly because the French had to overthrow more bogey of traditions than the Americans.

The Russian revolution had a major impact on the modern society.  I do not have enough expertise to write on the marxist revolution, but the strong state and a jealous political system has similarities with old social order where the individual freedom is throttled [3].  This could be one of the major reason for its decline in free or democratic times.

When we contrast the events of 1857 with the other major aforementioned revolutionary events, it is clear that there was no strong philosophical and political vision in India during mid 1800’s.  Also, there was military vacuum in the country after Aurangzeb and Shivaji.  There were no modern thinkers like Voltaire or traditional thinker like Chanakya.  Thinkers like Raja Rammohan Rai, who opposed the older decadent social rules like Sati system, did not have the global appeal to cause a major upheaval.  All that came later with Gandhiji and revolutionary like Lokamanya Tilak, Bhagat Singh, etc.  

The events of 1857 did not bear fruits because the soil was not ready.  Yet, it inspired later generations to fight for the freedom. Naturally, a major change does not come in one shot, or by well-thought  plans. Poetically speaking,  an idea comes when the time is right for that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] English army that suppressed the revolt included soldiers of the East India Company (stationed in India) and a sizable number sent by the British Govt.

[2] In Indian philosophy, individual freedom was valued along with social order.   An interesting quote in Mahabharata gives a very interesting combination of social responsibility  and individual freedom: “For the sake of a village, a family should be sacrificed. For the sake of a “country, a village should be sacrificed. For the sake of the soul (I read individual liberty), the earth should be sacrificed.” (Sec. 27, Dyut Parva)

[3] Film Dr Zivago