Geopolitical knowledge was essential to those planning shipboard uprisings. Niklas Frykman et al. have emphasized that seizing control of a vessel ‘was, after all, only the first step in a successful mutiny; after that, the ship had to be taken to a spot where the mutineers could sell it or at least get ashore safely’. History's most successful mutineers have been able to exploit relations between states in order to escape capture by owners, admiralties and governments. Cases such as the Hermione in 1797, the Amistad in 1839 and the Potemkin in 1905 demonstrate the need for mutineers to find governments that are both willing and able to protect them.

Less successful mutineers often have fallen victim to unfavourable political and diplomatic circumstances. This famously occurred in 1970 after the Columbia Eagle was hijacked by American sailors Clyde McKay and Alvin Glatkowski in protest against the Vietnam War. The pair took the vessel to Cambodia, where it gained temporary asylum with the neutralist government of Norodom Sihanouk. Within days, however, a coup brought Lon Nol's pro-American faction to power. McKay managed to escape but Glatkowski was extradited to the USA, where he faced trial and imprisonment.

This chapter moves beyond the shipboard dimensions of mutiny to explore the strategic and diplomatic problems faced by lascars. These include the timing of mutiny, the search for refuge and attempts to escape recapture. The first section focuses on the strategic calculations made by lascars who contemplated seizing ships. It assesses the ability of crews to stage mutiny and the logic that informed their decision to do so. The second section follows the trajectories of mutineers who were able to maintain control of vessels and make landfall. It focuses on the complex and varied interaction between lascars and rulers from around the rim of the Indian Ocean. The third section covers attempts by the British to recover mutineers, ships and cargoes from foreign territory. These issues enable us to explore the wider repercussions of lascar mutiny and the geopolitical setting in which it took place.

Staging mutiny

Most shipboard takeovers, as we have seen, were preceded by some form of planning. The available source material provides some insight into the complex process by which mutinous suggestions became definite plans to take a vessel. Mutinous lascars would have congregated in a vessel's hold, forecastle or in secluded corners of the deck to formulate their plans.