<P> Thomas Metcalf has stressed the importance of the work by Cambridge professor Eric Stokes (1924--1981), especially Stokes' The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India (1978). Metcalf says Stokes undermines the assumption that 1857 was a response to general causes emanating from entire classes of people . Instead, Stokes argues that 1) those Indians who suffered the greatest relative deprivation rebelled and that 2) the decisive factor in precipitating a revolt was the presence of prosperous magnates who supported British rule . Stokes also explores issues of economic development, the nature of privileged landholding, the role of moneylenders, the usefulness of classical rent theory, and, especially, the notion of the "rich peasant ." </P> <P> Professor Kim Wagner has the most recent survey of the historiography, and stresses the importance of William Dalrymple's The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857 . Dalrymple was assisted by Mahmood Farooqui, who translated key Urdu and Shikastah sources and published a selection in Besieged: Voices from Delhi 1857 . Dalrymple emphasized the role of religion, and explored in detail the internal divisions and politico - religious discord amongst the rebels . He did not discover much in the way of proto - nationalism or any of the roots of modern India in the rebellion . Sabbaq Ahmed has looked at the ways in which ideologies of royalism, militarism, and Jihad influenced the behaviour of contending Muslim factions . </P> <P> Almost from the moment the first sepoys mutinied in Meerut, the nature and the scope of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 has been contested and argued over . Speaking in the House of Commons in July 1857, Benjamin Disraeli labelled it a' national revolt' while Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, tried to downplay the scope and the significance of the event as a' mere military mutiny' . Reflecting this debate, an early historian of the rebellion, Charles Ball, used the word mutiny in his title, but labelled it a' struggle for liberty and independence as a people' in the text . Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be considered a war of Indian independence or not, although it is popularly considered to be one in India . Arguments against include: </P> <Ul> <Li> A united India did not exist at that time in political, cultural, or ethnic terms; </Li> <Li> 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; </Li> <Li> Many of the local rulers fought amongst themselves rather than uniting against the British; </Li> <Li> Many rebel Sepoy regiments disbanded and went home rather than fight; </Li> <Li> Not all of the rebels accepted the return of the Mughals; </Li> <Li> The King of Delhi had no real control over the mutineers; </Li> <Li> The revolt was largely limited to north and central India . Whilst risings occurred elsewhere they had little impact because of their limited nature; </Li> <Li> A number of revolts occurred in areas not under British rule, and against native rulers, often as a result of local internal politics; </Li> <Li> The revolt was fractured along religious, ethnic and regional lines . </Li> </Ul>

Who called the revolt of 1857 as national revolt