According to books I read as a child, the 1857 Rebellion in India was sparked by the use of pig and cow fat in the grease for rifle cartridges, offending Muslim and Hindu troops, respectively. Were these greases used? Did they cause controversy? And how significant was it in kicking things off?

The greases were used lubricate “bullets” and protect them, and the gunpowder within, from the elements, and possibly aid in firing by creating a seal.

This was before the invention of a metal encased cartridge. The “cartridge” was actually a paper cartridge filled with gunpowder. Soldiers had to bite the cartridge in their teeth and tear at it with one hand. They couldn’t easily use both hands as the other hand was busy holding their weapon.

Once the cartridge was torn, they would pour the gunpowder into the rifle and then stuff the paper in to use as wadding, and ram it all into the muzzle.

This new type of cartridge had a grease coating. This was meant to protect the contents from moisture and the elements, and then to help the paper act as a seal when it was used as wadding.

The grease itself could be from a range of materials, including beeswax or goat tallow, but pork and beef tallow were cheap and commonly used in Great Britain, so it is conceivable that they made it to India.

This meant there was a chance that a solder could eat a small bit of these fats.

The chance went up if the grease Instructions had melted or rubbed off the bullet. In this case, soldiers were instructed to use their spit - to lick or even put the greased paper in their mouth.

At least some British officers were aware of the risk and worried about it. In December 1853, Colonel Henry Tucker, Adjutant-General of the Benga ll Army, wrote to the Secretary to the Military Board saying,

I am at the same time to communicate the Commander-in-Chief’s opinion, that, unless it be known that the grease employed in these cartridges is not of a nature to offend or interfere with the prejudices of caste, it will be expedient not to issue them for test to Native corps, but to European soldiers only to be carried in pouch.

But was this the cause of the rebellion?

Not all by itself. It was more of a contributing last straw for many mutineers.

The mutineers were not happy with, among other things

taxes
land seizures by the British East India company.
loss of power and policies further eroding power and holdings of Indian elites
legal restrictions on Hindu religious observance and favoring Christian ones
broken promises about overseas military service. The Bengal Army had promised Indian soldiers would never be sent abroad, but then they changed the rule (which also meant they risked being expelled from their caste, as they couldn’t cook their own food on ships and could be “polluted” by food handled by persons of the “wrong” caste).
Expanding military recruitment to include lower-caste Indians
Growing numbers of British officers, who had priority, and slow promotion policies for Indian officers meant that many Indian soldiers would retire before reaching ranks they expected/had been led to believe were possible
opposition to religiously-inspired (Christian) social reform, including land reform giving small landholders more land, the abolition of sati (widows burning themselves alive) and child marriage, persecution of local astrologers and medical practitioners while promoting Western medicine, and British-run schools emphasizing the sciences and not traditional beliefs
a general fear that the British wanted to convert people to Christianity with a combination of legal preferences and more than 200 missionary groups
economic policies by the East India Company that enriched them at the expense of others

Note that a lot of these issues overlap with concerns of the upper classes, especially the Hindu upper classes. This is in part because regional rulers who had lost privileges, assets and power were more likely to support the rebellion, but also because the military mutineers came from the Bengal Army, which recruited mainly from the upper classes, often Hindu.

Another issue was the weakness of the Bengal Army, where the mutiny began. For starters, it had less soldiers than usual, especially British ones. The British had sent soldiers to Crimea and needed them in Burma as well. The Bengal Army also a reputation for worse terms of service and worse discipline than others. They did not handle growing concern over the cartridges well either, essentially telling soldiers with serious concerns to just deal with it.

In regions where elites had not been as diminished, or where people felt more secure in their faith and social situation (often Sikhs and Muslims), there was not much of a rebellion and often assistance again the mutineers. These regions also had soldiers less unhappy about their own situation.

More/organization to come. It is Mother’s Day and the child calls...