History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
It is still debated whether the Indian Rebellion of 1857 in British India was just a soldiers' mutiny or a National revolt for the independence.
But in July 1857, in House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli labeled it as a national revolt.
So, what compelled him to do so?
There is an explanation here:
In his speech Disraeli had contended that the incident involving the greased cartridges had simply been the spark to the powder and that the true causes of the rebellion, which he now referred to as a national revolt, were a combination of interference by the British in local land rights and property succession, the abolition of certain religious customs, and the displacement of ancient royal houses. In response The Saturday Review totally ridiculed the idea that there could be any affection between the Sepoys and any of the deposed royal families and used the fact that the Sepoys had sought out the employ of a foreign power to dismiss the idea that there was any discontent with the abolition of religious customs and land rights. In a later article of the same date, The Saturday Review takes its anti Indian royal families stand a step further in proclaiming that the only mistake that had been made was in failing to dethrone all such families and to totally take away any vestiges of power. In this was they would not have been available to be used as rallying points for the rebellious Sepoys.
