The British Empire: A source for good or evil? February 2014 | Page 17

A united India did not exist at that time in political, cultural, or
ethnic terms
The rebellion was put down with the help of other Indian
soldiers drawn from the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the
Sikh regiments, 80% of the East India Company forces were
Indian
Many of the local rulers fought amongst themselves rather than
uniting against the British.
Many rebel Sepoy regiments disbanded and went home rather
than fight.
Not all of the rebels accepted the return of the Mughals.
The King of Delhi had no real control over the mutineers.
The revolt was largely limited to north and central India. Whilst
risings occurred elsewhere they had little impact due to their
limited nature.
A number of revolts occurred in areas not under British rule,
and against native rulers, often as a result of local internal politics.
The revolt was fractured along religious, ethnic and regional
lines.
Even though the rebellion had various causes most of the rebel
sepoys who were able to do so, made their way to Delhi to revive
the old Mughal empire that signified a national symbol for even
the Hindus amongst them.
So, the english took India
by using the conflicts
inside the country. That's
why when they left, India
broke up between
muslims in Pakistan and
Hindoos in India.
1) What were the main
religions in the Indian
Empire ?
2) For you, what do you
thnik about this methods ?
Are they good to rule or are
they bad for the colonies ?