All-India participation was absent

• The revolt of 1857 was not a widespread, all-India uprising. It had limited territorial spread and did not encompass the entire country. The revolt primarily took place in the northern and central regions of India, including areas such as Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Jhansi, and Awadh.
• There are several reasons why the revolt did not have pan-Indian participation. One factor was the brutal suppression of earlier uprisings by the British East India Company in the eastern, southern, and western parts of India. These regions had experienced rebellions and resistance movements prior to 1857, and the Company had employed harsh measures to quell them, resulting in a sense of fear and subjugation among the local populations. This may have deterred widespread participation in the revolt.
• Additionally, there were regional variations in grievances and socio-political conditions that influenced the extent of participation. The northern and central regions of India, which saw more active participation in the revolt, had experienced economic and social disruptions due to land policies, taxation, and cultural issues such as the cartridge controversy. These factors contributed to the discontent and willingness to rise up against the British.
• However, it is important to note that while the revolt did not have a pan-India veneer, it did have significant regional significance and local leadership. Different regions had their own leaders and centres of rebellion, such as Rani Laxmibai in Jhansi, Kunwar Singh in Bihar, and Maulvi Ahmadullah in Awadh. The revolt also inspired nationalist sentiments and paved the way for future movements against British colonial rule in India.

All classes did not join

• Not all classes participated in the revolt. Some specific classes and groups even opposed it and worked against the uprising. Wealthy landlords, known as zamindars, acted as barriers to the rebellion. Even taluqdars (landowners) in Awadh retreated once they were assured of land restitution. Money lenders and merchants suffered severe consequences from the mutineers and saw their class interests better protected under British rule.
• The educated Indians saw the revolt as regressive, supporting the feudal order, and driven by conservative forces resisting modernity. They had high expectations that the British would bring about a period of modernization. The majority of Indian rulers refused to join the rebellion and often provided active assistance to the British. Among the rulers who did not participate were the Sindhia of Gwalior, the Holkar of Indore, the rulers of Patiala, Sindh, and other Sikh chieftains, as well as the Maharaja of Kashmir. In fact, according to one estimate, the affected area constituted no more than one-fourth of the total territory and involved no more than one-tenth of the total population.

Poor Arms and Equipment

• The Indian soldiers faced significant limitations in terms of their arms and equipment. They were generally armed with swords and spears, with very few guns and muskets at their disposal. In contrast, European soldiers were equipped with advanced weapons such as the Enfield rifle. Furthermore, the use of electric telegraph technology allowed the commander-in-chief to stay updated on the rebels' movements and strategies, providing a significant advantage to the British forces.

Uncoordinated and Poorly Organized

• The revolt suffered from a lack of organization and coordination, lacking a central leadership to guide its efforts. The prominent rebel leaders, such as Nana Saheb, Tantia Tope, Kunwar Singh, and Laxmibai, were outmatched by the strategic skills of their British counterparts. In contrast, the East India Company benefited from the exceptional abilities of individuals like the Lawrence brothers, John Nicholson, James Outram, and Henry Havelock.

No Unified Ideology

• The rebels lacked a unified ideology and a clear understanding of colonial rule. They did not possess a progressive program, a cohesive ideology, a political perspective, or an alternative vision for society. The rebellion encompassed diverse elements with varying grievances and political concepts. At this point in Indian history, the absence of unity among Indians may have been inevitable. Modern nationalism had yet to emerge in India. In fact, the revolt of 1857 played a crucial role in uniting the Indian people and instilling in them a sense of belonging to a single country.

Hindu-Muslim Unity Factor

• A significant factor during the revolt was the unity between Hindus and Muslims at all levels—among the people, soldiers, and leaders. All rebels recognized Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Muslim, as the emperor, and the initial response of Hindu sepoys in Meerut was to march towards Delhi, the capital of the Mughal Empire. Maulana Azad highlighted two notable aspects of the 1857 uprising: the remarkable sense of unity among Hindus and Muslims in India during that period, and the deep loyalty people felt towards the Mughal Crown. Rebels and sepoys, regardless of their religious background, respected each other's sentiments. Upon successfully capturing a particular area, the immediate ban on cow slaughter was enforced. Hindu and Muslim individuals held significant leadership roles, as seen in examples like Nana Saheb having Azimullah, a Muslim expert in political propaganda, as an aide, and Laxmibai enjoying strong support from Afghan soldiers. Thus, the events of 1857 demonstrated that the people and politics of India were not inherently communal or sectarian before 1858.