White mutiny

Until 1861 there were two separate military forces under British control operating in India. One comprised those units of the British Army serving tours of duty in India and known as the "Queen's" army; the other were the units of the East India Company (EIC). The Company's troops were a mixture of "European" regiments of Britons recruited specifically for service in India and "Native" regiments recruiting from the locality with British officers.

The Queen's Army was the sovereign crown's military force. The British Army officer class was characterized by Officers who had "Purchased commission" and then risen by further purchase, seniority or battlefield commission. The positions of officers of the European regiments were not bought by purchase but advancement was normally by seniority. In both armies promotion could be accelerated by losses or transfers on active service.

Units of the EIC received batta – extra allowances of pay to cover various expenditures relating to operations out of the home territories while British Army units did not. However, officers of the British Army were senior to those of the same rank in the EIC.

The dissimilarities in the physical makeup of these two forces led to many cultural differences in how they operated and how they viewed each other. These cultural differences led to deep misunderstandings between the two forces.

The Government of India Act 1858 transferred units of the East India Company to the control of the British Crown.

In the negotiations of the terms for the transfer there were several issues. One was that the Governor General, Canning, did not give the "European Forces" notice of their transfer to the "Queen's Army".^{[citation needed]} Another was a result of Canning's legalistic interpretation of the laws surrounding the transfer. A third was in the misunderstanding that stemmed from cultural differences between the two forces. This was aggravated by influential articles printed by British periodicals of the time that wrongly painted the European Force as undisciplined, unhealthy, and mutinous in nature.

The laws were quite clear and the legality of the transfer was well established, but because both the British government and the Government of India ignored the views of those it was to affect, the officers and men of the European Forces were alienated to the point of open mutiny. Aggravating the condition was the still unsettled Indian rebellion of 1857. The White mutiny of the European Forces was seen as a potential undermining of the already rocky British rule in India with a potential of inciting renewed rebellion among the "still excited population throughout India".

Soldiers of the 1st Bengal European Light Cavalry performed "only guard and barrack duties" and "refused to turn out for parade, and mutinous language was used."^[2]

The White mutiny was highly successful in meeting its aims. The demands of the European Forces officers and men were centralized around a demand for either an enlistment bonus/bounty or release from their obligations. In this aim they were highly successful, achieving a promise of free and clear release with free passage home. Events that had occurred at some of the installations, including open rebellion and physical violence both on the part of the men and the officers of the European Forces, were such that there was little possibility of the European Forces being generally accepted into the Queen's Army. Ultimately 10,116 men opted to return home, of whom only 2,809 re-enlisted.^[3]

• In Robert A. Heinlein's novel The Number of the Beast, a form of nonviolent protest consisting of exact and literal obedience to instructions is referred to as a "White Mutiny".
• It is used in that sense in Patrick Rothfuss's novel The Name of the Wind (p. 593, New York: DAW Books, 2008 paperback).
• A synonym for "malicious compliance"

• Peter Stanley White Mutiny: British Military Culture in India 1825–75 (Christopher Hurst, London, 1998).