Which one of the following opinions on the nature of 1857 Mutiny is not correct?

Question

Question

This question was previously asked in

Telangana Police SI Prelims 2022 Official Paper

John Seeley: “The Revolt of 1857 was a wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support.”
James Outram & W. Tayler: “The outbreak of 1857 mutiny as a result of Hindu-Muslim conspiracy.”
R.C. Majumdar: “1857 Sepoy mutiny was not a war of Independence. There is nothing in the conduct or behaviour of the sepoys which would justify us in the belief or assumption, that they were inspired by love for their country or fought against the British with the definite idea of freeing their motherland.”
William Darlymple: “It is a conflict between civilization and Barbarism.

Answer 1

The correct answer is William Darlymple: “It is a conflict between civilization and Barbarism.”

Key Points

William Dalrymple has been a prominent historian and author who has extensively written about the Indian subcontinent. However, the statement “It is a conflict between civilization and Barbarism” does not reflect the nuanced interpretation expected from historians regarding the 1857 revolt.
This statement oversimplifies the complex socio-political and cultural dimensions of the revolt and is not aligned with the broader academic discourse surrounding the event.
Most modern historians, including Dalrymple himself, focus on the economic, cultural, and political grievances of Indians during the revolt, rather than framing it as a simplistic conflict between “civilization” and “barbarism.”
The revolt of 1857 is widely acknowledged as a multifaceted event involving various ethnic, religious, and social groups coming together under shared grievances against British colonial rule.

Additional Information

John Seeley: John Seeley famously described the revolt as a “wholly unpatriotic and selfish sepoy mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support.” This perspective reflects the colonial mindset of British historians, who sought to minimize the revolt's significance as a nationalist struggle.
James Outram & W. Tayler: They characterized the revolt as a conspiracy between Hindus and Muslims to overthrow British rule. This interpretation highlights the communal unity observed during the uprising, despite British attempts to divide Indian society along religious lines.
R.C. Majumdar: R.C. Majumdar, an Indian historian, argued that the revolt was not a war of independence. He emphasized that the sepoys' actions lacked a unified vision of national liberation and were primarily driven by local grievances.
William Dalrymple: Dalrymple has written extensively on the revolt, particularly in his book The Last Mughal. He examines the revolt's impact on Delhi and its significance in shaping modern India. However, the simplistic statement attributed to him here does not align with his nuanced scholarship.