Devdas

That was an alliance of convenience as they shared a common enemy, all of them knew Mughals were powerless king.

mnsr

No doubt, Bahadur Shah was much weaker as compare to Nana Sahib. I dont think anybody can dispute that.

But the question that nobody wants to answer is that why Nana Sahib accepted Bahadur Shah as the leader of India, and presented himself as his sub-ordinate ?

Aupmanyav

Real-politik.

Just like when Rajiv Gandhi accepted Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister.

Junius

This right here.

mnsr

Aupmanyav ji could you please elaborate as what circumstances would have forced Nana Sahib to accept Bahadur Shah as his leader ?

Why Nana Sahib's subordinates like Rani Lakshmibai never objected to this ?

Why Hindu and Muslim sepoys never got divided on the question of Bahadur Shah vs Nana Sahib ?

Until now, after analysing this discipline and hierarchy, one thing I can say that the point that all these guys were fighting for just themselves is an illogical assumption.

greatstreetwarrior

You guys forget the Peshwas were always used to a role of being actual executors of a ceremonial head. They did so with the Marathas and the same could be true of why Nana did with Bahadur Shah. The power however was certainly with one person. He might have also wanted to settle the issue later once the Brits were out.

Aupmanyav

It is like when Aryans and indigenous people merged. One party accepts a few points of the second, and the second party accepts a few points of the first. Both happy.

Nanaji accepted Bahadur Shah, Muslim soldiers accepted Nanaji, and the Hindu and Muslim soldiers tried to fight the British together irrespective of who led them in the war. I am sure that even the Maratha army had Muslim soldiers. Hindus and Muslims united under Gandhi also to fight British. Did they asked who was a Hindu or who was a Muslim at that time?

greatstreetwarrior

My point is even majority of Muslim soldiers pledged only nominally to Bahadur. Mughals were paying taxes to the Marathas as tribute very much till British arrival. Hence, its clear who was the real ruler. Begum Hazrat Mahal, Amanullah Khan and Rani Laxmibai all accepted Nanasaheb as the chief strategist of the revolt. Nana Saheb alone could call to arms multiple regiments. His impact on the field was profound. The British feared Marathas/Peshwas more than the puppet residue of the Mughals.

Aupmanyav

The mutineers were not under a united command.

mnsr

Yes, the comparison of 1857 rebels with later freedom fighters is more apt. But Gandhi can be best compared with Indian States who were neutral in 1857.

I will compare these sepoys with the veterans of Azad Hind Fauj. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs joined together under the leadership of Subhash Chandra Bose.

Yes, I would say the mutiny was mostly unplanned and uncoordinated. And the reason is that the outbreak was just spontaneous, there was no pre-planning. But once the war started everyone understands the need of national unity and Bahadur Shah was proclaimed as the Emperor of India against the illegitimate East India Company.

Apart from lack of planning, we cannot ignore that there were many Indian States who were supporting the British with Army, many were sympathetic to British and many were just neutral.