Nature of the Revolt

There are differing views regarding the nature of the 1857 revolt. Some British historians regarded it as a mere "Sepoy Mutiny," portraying it as an unpatriotic and self-centred uprising with no native leadership or popular support, as expressed by Sir John Seeley. 

However, this perspective fails to capture the complete picture of the event, as it involved various sections of the civilian population beyond just the sepoys (Indian soldiers). 

The sepoys' discontent was just one factor contributing to the disturbance.

• Dr K. Datta views the revolt of 1857 primarily as a military outbreak that was taken advantage of by discontented princes and landlords whose interests were affected by the changing political order. This factor gave it the semblance of a popular uprising in certain regions. It was never a nationwide movement but rather localized, limited, and poorly organized, lacking cohesion and a unified purpose among the different rebel groups.
• In the early twentieth century, V.D. Savarkar interpreted the revolt as a planned war of national independence in his book "The Indian War of Independence, 1857," considering it the first war of Indian independence. Dr S.N. Sen saw the revolt as initially a fight for religion but evolving into a war of independence. On the other hand, Dr. R.C. Majumdar viewed it as neither the first war, nor national, nor a war of independence, pointing out that large parts of the country remained unaffected, and many sections of the population did not participate.
• Some Marxist historians characterized the 1857 revolt as the struggle of a soldier-peasant democratic alliance against foreign and feudal bondage. However, this perspective can be challenged given that the leaders of the revolt themselves came from a feudal background. Jawaharlal Nehru considered it primarily a feudal uprising with some nationalistic elements, while M.N. Roy saw it as a final stand of feudalism against commercial capitalism. R.P. Dutt also acknowledged the revolt as a defence of the old feudal order while recognizing its significance as a revolt of the peasantry against foreign domination.

Categorizing the revolt of 1857 is not straightforward. While certain views, such as considering it a war of fanatic religionists against Christians or a conflict between civilization and barbarism, can be dismissed, it is difficult to accept it as a war for independence. 

It had elements of nationalism and anti-imperialism, but the concept of common nationality and nationhood was not inherent to the revolt of 1857. It remains doubtful if the various communities that participated in the revolt did so based on a shared sense of nationhood. 

Additionally, the southern section of India was not part of the revolt.

Views

The views on the nature of the 1857 revolt vary. Some historians argue that it was a significant event in a historical continuum, not a direct result of social forces but a fortuitous conjunction of circumstances that unleashed underlying social forces. They compare it to the uprisings of 1848 in Europe, describing it as an uprising without a clear objective but occurring during a period of societal modernization.

• Eric Stokes considers it the "First War of Independence," emphasizing the unprecedented scale of the anti-foreign alliance involving various classes and provinces of India. According to S.B. Chaudhuri, it was a war lasting over a year, simultaneously fought in multiple regions with the aim of dethroning the alien ruling power, making it unique in Indian history.
• On the other hand, R.C. Majumdar argues that the revolt of 1857 cannot be considered the first, national, or war of independence. He questions its nationalist character, as India was not yet politically a nation in 1857. Tara Chand also notes that the cooperation between Hindus and Muslims was driven more by personal loyalties rather than a shared sense of a common motherland.
• However, some historians contend that despite the absence of a clear nationalistic sentiment, the revolt had a national character as it involved various classes of people challenging foreign rule. They see it as the first major struggle of Indians against British dominance. This view acknowledges that earlier uprisings may have made similar efforts to throw off foreign control but did not receive the same level of attention

In summary, while opinions differ on the nature and significance of the revolt of 1857, it is acknowledged as a notable event in India's history, marking a combined effort by diverse classes to challenge British rule, even if the concept of a unified Indian nation was not fully formed at that time.