The Rising - Ballad of Mangal Pandey (The Revolt)

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major, but ultimately unsuccessful, uprising in India in 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company, which functioned as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown.

세포이 항쟁(1857년 ~ 1858년)은 인도인 용병들을 중심으로 일어난 반영(反英) 항쟁이다. 영국은 동인도 회사를 통해 인도를 간접적으로 통치하고 있었고 동인도 회사는 군대를 보유하고 있었는데, 세포이는 영국 동인도 회사에서 고용한 인도인 용병을 가리키는 말이었다. 이 항쟁은 인도 독립 운동의 시작이라는 평가를 받기도 한다. 인도는 90년 후인 1947년에 영국으로부터 독립하였다.

세포이 항쟁은 세포이 반란, 1857년 인도 항쟁, 제1차 인도 독립 전쟁 등으로도 불린다. 이 명칭들 가운데 '반란'이란 것은 다분히 영국측 시각을 반영한 것이고, 인도인의 입장에서 이 항쟁은 영국의 제국주의에 대한 저항으로 평가되었다.

세포이 항쟁은 빠른 속도로 인도 각지에 확산되어 각계 각층이 영국에 대항하는 항쟁으로 발전하였다. 주요 교전은 주로 갠지스 강 상류 삼림 지역과 인도 중부 지역에서 이루어졌다. 오늘날 인도의 행정 구역으로 보면 우타르프라데시 주, 비하르 주, 마디아프라데시 주 북부, 그리고 델리 등지에서 교전이 있었다.

세포이 항쟁은 영국 동인도 회사의 종교에 대한 몰이해에서 촉발되었고, 1858년 6월 20일에 과리오르가 함락되면서 절정을 맞았다.

세포이 항쟁은 인도 전역을 포괄하지는 못하였다. 항쟁이 지속되는 동안에도 벵골, 뭄바이, 마드라스와 같은 지역은 상대적으로 큰 사건이 일어나지 않았다. 펀자브의 시크교 제후는 오히려 영국 동인도 회사를 지지하여 병력을 동원하기도 하였다. 하이데라바드, 마이소르, 트라반코르, 카시미르, 라즈푸탄 등과 같은 다른 많은 지역의 토후국들은 항쟁에 가담하지 않았다.

한편, 아와드(주)와 같은 일부 지역에서는 항쟁이 유럽 국가 전체에 대한 배격운동 양상을 띄었다. 락슈미 바이와 같은 항쟁의 지도자들은 항쟁 이후에도 인도 독립 운동의 상징으로 추앙받았다. 그러나, 세포이 항쟁의 지도자들은 새로운 질서에 대한 일관적인 이념을 공유하지는 않았다.

세포이 항쟁으로 인해 영국 동인도 회사는 해체되었고 영국은 인도에 대한 직접 지배를 위해 군사, 재정, 행정 등 각 분야를 개편하지 않을 수 없었다. 세포이 항쟁을 진압한 영국은 영국령 인도 제국을 출범시켜 정부 직할로 편재하였다. 이로써 빅토리아는 인도 제국의 군주라는 새로운 지위를 더하게 되었다.

[lieutenantkettch]

Strange to think that these soldiers weren't British Army regulars, but troops of the East India Company. Basically what today would be corporate security forces.

[khaelamensha]

To say the first man who put himself in front of the cannon is brave is quite an understatement.
To say Mitchell was not up to the task of commanding is also an understatement....

[gwine]

The British government had a habit of allowing "companies" to run colonies. The East Indian Company and Hudson's Bay company being examples. Both were only interested in profit and could be brutal.

[DrumsTheWord]

Can I just say, the extras, uniforms and attention to detail in this is superb!

[manolitarosales]

That was a good resistance from the Sepoys. British officers felt superior in their own way. I think this was the first revolt conducted by Sepoys in 1857. Indian history called it as first war for independence while the British military called it Indian mutiny.

[masterpenguin]

We got this story in our social book in class 8
Our teacher explained it like a legend tale
But unfortunately we didn't pay much attention to it and now we are watching movies about this

[richardduplessis]

Officers should never give orders they believe will be disobeyed.

[brianhowe]

The Company never bothered to explain to the sepoys, who most likely started the rumor (soldiers hate new things and change), that the grease used was made of vegetable oil.

[a.h.s.]

British Officer: "Let's call those soldiers that make a bulk of our forces superstitious savages instead of carefully explaining that the cartridges do not contain animal fat, that would never go wrong!"

[imranhazim]

British officer: should we EXPLAIN about the new cartridge with facts?
British Commander: Nah, they will figure out by themselves.

[davidscoltock]

The funny thinh is the cartridges where greased by a derivative of vegetable oil.
The British couldnt afford to use beef or pork grease for ammunition. That shit was expensive!

[leifewald]

Marching up to a cannon at point blank range and demanding to fire as a signal for rebellion?

That’s soldiering….

[MondoBeno]

How did they march in the heat in those uniforms? That alone would've made me want to mutiny.

[flemhawker]

Don’t give an order if you are not a hundred percent certain it’s going to be obeyed.

[christopherfranklin]

"They're coming to attack us ..."
"Get your weapons!"
Whoa!I ain't using greasy cartridges!"

[bhanumanhas]

I intend to address three issues here which have been discussed in comments :
1. Someone commented that the Armies of East India Company can be compared to contemporary Corporate security forces. Today's corporate security forces wouldn't hold water even in front of a single regiment of East India Company. Here I'm talking from the perspective of military professionalism and military effectiveness and not technology. To understand what I'm saying here just consider this question 'If Jeff Bezos starts a corporate security force and you are part of it, would you be willing to even sacrifice your life for Jeff Bezos?'
The armies of East India Company for all their faults were led by true military leaders (at least in the beginning when it comes to Bengal Army) and not by some corporate managers and that's why they were so successful against the armies of Indian princes which were no walkover armies either.

2. Someone commented how civil war broke out immediately after India gained independence. This person is a liar. There has never been a civil war in the modern Indian nation unlike Britain and America. What happened was that the British partitioned British India into India and Pakistan and then in the 1971 Indo-Pak war India dismembered Pakistan which gave birth to the new nation of Bangladesh. The British logic for partition of India was that they couldn't imagine that India will stay United and become an Asian giant after they left India. They imagined that civil war will break out in India and India will disintegrate into many smaller states. So they created a Muslim state namely Pakistan as an additional buffer other than Afghanistan between the Indian subcontinent and Soviet Union. For all their time in India the British were obsessed with Russian invasion of India.
3 Someone made a disparaging reply to my previous comment. Many of us Indians are deeply uncomfortable with the British Indian Army. But the fact is that many of the modern Indian Army Regiments have preserved and cherish their history carefully and which can go back from a century to more than 250 years, making them some of the oldest regiments in the world. That's because the Indian soldiers of these regiments are fully aware of what their military ancestors accomplished even under British rule.
The fundamental mistake the contemporary individual makes while trying to understand history is they see history from their own perspective.
Maybe it's because that's how movies on history, present history. That's because a movie doesn't have the time to go into the details of history.
If you really want to learn history, well researched history books are much better source.

[mrnobody]

All complaining that these revolters murdered women and children forget that even the British soldiers have had a history of rapes and murders of innocent Indians, why doesn't anyone talk about the famines and rapes when we discuss about the colonization of British, because it proves that they the actual villian in this story and the Indians were the victims

[johnadams-wpyb]

Isn't it amazing?. The British ruled India with 2 blokes and a bicycle, but now can't organise a piss up in a brewery.

[operationfairplay]

I think Bakht Khan depicted here is Bakht Khan Rohilla, who commanded the rebellion in Delhi.

[bhanumanhas]

This movie historically is pretty inaccurate. If someone is interested in the fascinating history of British Indian Army, I recommend you read 'A Matter of Honour' by Philip Mason. It's one of the best military history book ever written.