02.CIVIL UPRISINGS

CIVIL UPRISINGS

The Revolt of 1857 was the most dramatic instance of traditional India’s struggle against foreign rule. But it was no sudden occurrence. It was the culmination of a century long tradition of fierce popular resistance to British domination. 

The establishment of British power in India was a prolonged process  of  piecemeal  conquest  and  consolidation  and  the colonialization of the economy and society. This process produced discontent,  resentment  and  resistance  at  every  stage.  This popular  resistance  took  three  broad  forms:  civil  rebellions,  tribal uprisings  and  peasant  movements.

The  series  of  civil  rebellions,  which  run  like  a  thread through  the  first  100  years  of  British  rule,  were  often  led  by deposed  rajas  and  nawabs  or  their  descendants,  uprooted  and impoverished  zamindars,  landlords  and  poligars  (landed  military magnates  in  South  India),  and  ex-retainers  and  officials  of  the conquered  Indian  states.  The  backbone  of  the  rebellions,  their mass  base  and  striking  power  came  from  the  rack-rented peasants, ruined artisans and demobilized soldiers. 

These  sudden,  localized  revolts  often  took  place  because  of local  grievances although for short  periods they acquired a broad sweep,  involving  armed  bands  of  a  few  hundreds  to  several thousands. The major cause of all these civil rebellions taken as a whole  was  the  rapid  changes  the  British  introduced  in  the economy,  administration  and  land  revenue  system.  These changes  led  to  the  disruption  of  the  agrarian  society,  causing prolonged and widespread suffering among its constituents Above all,  the  colonial  policy  of  intensifying  demands  for  land  revenue and  extracting  as  large  an  amount  as  possible  produced  a veritable  upheaval  in  Indian  villages.  In  Bengal,  for  example,  in less than thirty years land revenue collection was raised to nearly double the amount collected under the Mughals. The pattern was repeated  in  other  us  of  the  country  as  British  rule  spread.  And aggravating the unhappiness of the farmers was the fact that not even  a  part  of  the  enhanced  revenue  was  spent  on  the development of agriculture or the welfare of the cultivator. 

Thousands of  zamindars  and  poligars  lost control over their land  and  its  revenues  either  due  to  the  extinction  of  their  rights by the colonial state or by the forced sale of their rights over land

because  of  their  inability  to  meet  the  exorbitant  land  revenue demanded.  The  proud  zamindars  and  poligars  resented  this  loss even  more  when  they  were  displaced  by  rank  outsiders  —government  officials  and  the  new  men  of  money  —  merchants and  moneylenders.  Thus  they,  as  also  the  old  chiefs,  who  had lost  their  principalities,  had  personal  scores  to  settle  with  the new rulers. 

Peasants  and  artisans,  as  we  have  seen  earlier,  had  their own reasons to rise up in arms and side with the traditional elite. Increasing demands for land revenue were forcing large numbers of peasants into growing indebtedness or into selling their lands. The  new  landlords,  bereft  of  any  traditional  paternalism  towards their  tenants,  pushed  up  rents  to  ruinous  heights  and  evicted them  in  the  case  of  non-payment.  The  economic  decline  of  the peasantry  was  reflected  in  twelve  major  and  numerous  minor famines from 1770 to 1857. 

The  new  courts  and  legal  system  gave  a further  fillip  to  the dispossessors  of  land  and  encouraged  the  rich  to  oppress  the poor. Flogging, torture and jailing of the cultivators for arrears of rent or land revenue or interest on debt were quite common. The ordinary  people  were  also  hard  hit  by  the  prevalence  of corruption at the lower levels of the police,  judiciary and general administration.  The  petty  officials  enriched  themselves  freely  at the  cost  of  the  poor.  The  police  looted,oppressed  and  tortured the  common  people  at  will.  William  Edwards,  a  British  official,wrote  in  1859  that  the  police  were  ‘a  scourge  to  the  people’  and that  ‘their  oppression  and  exactions  form  one  of  the  chief grounds of dissatisfaction with our government.’ 

The  ruin  of  Indian  handicraft  industries,  as  a  result  of  the imposition of free trade in India and levy of discriminatory tariffs against  Indian  goods  in  Britain,  pauperized  millions  of  artisans. The  misery  of  the  artisans  was  further  compounded  by  the disappearance  of  their  traditional  patrons  and  buyers,  the princes, chieftains, and zamindars. 

The  scholarly  and  priestly  classes  were  also  active  in inciting  hatred  and  rebellion  against  foreign  rule.  The  traditional rulers  and  ruling  elite  had  financially  supported  scholars, religious preachers, priests, pandits and maulvis and men of arts and literature. With the coming of the British and the ruin of the traditional  landed and bureaucratic elite, this patronage came to an end, and all those who had depended on it were impoverished. 

Another  major  cause  of  the  rebellions  was  the  very  foreign character of British rule. Like any other people, the Indian people too  felt  humiliated  at  being  under  a  foreigner’s  heel.  This  feeling of  hurt  pride  inspired  efforts  to  expel  the  foreigner  from  their lands. 

The civil rebellions began as British rule  was established in Bengal and Bihar, arid they occurred in area after area as it was incorporated  into  colonial  rule.  There  was  hardly  a  year  without armed opposition or a decade without a major armed rebellion in one  part  of  the  country  or  the  other.  From  1763  to  1856,  there were  more  than  forty  major  rebellions  apart  from  hundreds  of minor ones.

Displaced  peasants  and  demobilized  soldiers  of  Bengal  led by religious monks and dispossessed  zamindars  were the first to rise  up  in  the  Sanyasi  rebellion,  made  famous  by  Bankim Chandra  Chatterjee  in  his  novel  Anand  Math,  that  lasted  from 1763  to  1800.  It  was  followed  by  the  Chuar  uprising  which covered five districts of Bengal and Bihar from 1766 to 1772 and then,  again,  from  1795  to  1816.  Other  major  rebellions  in Eastern  India  were  those  of  Rangpur  and  Dinajpur,  1783; Bishnupur and Birbhum, 1799; Orissa  zamindars,  1804-17; and Sambalpur, 1827-40.

 In  South  India,  the  Raja  of  Vizianagram  revolted  in  1794, the  poligars  of  Tamil  Nadu  during  the  1790’s,  of  Malabar  and coastal  Andhra  during  the  first  decade  of  the  19th  century,  of Parlekamedi during 1813-  14. Dewan Velu Thampi of Travancore organized  a  heroic  revolt  in  1805.  The  Mysore  peasants  too revolted  in  1830-31.  There  were  major  uprisings  in Visakhapatnam  from  1830-34,  Ganjam  in  1835  and  Kurnool  in 1846-47. 

In  Western  India,  the  chiefs  of  Saurashtra  rebelled repeatedly from 1816 to 1832. The Kolis of Gujarat did the same during 1824-28, 1839 and 1849. Maharashtra was in a perpetual state of revolt after the final defeat of the Peshwa. Prominent were the Bhil uprisings, 1818-31; the Kittur uprising, led by Chinnava, 1824;  the  Satara  uprising,  1841;  and  the  revolt  of  the  Gadkaris. 1844. 

Northern India was no  less turbulent. The present states  of Western U.P. and Haryana rose up in arms  in 1824. Other major rebellions were  those  of Bilaspur, 1805; the  taluqdars  of Aligarh, 18 14-17; the Bundelas of Jabalpur, 1842; and Khandesh, 1852. The  second  Punjab  War  in  1848-  49  was  also  in  the  nature  of  a popular revolt by the people and the army. 

These  almost  continuous  rebellions  were  massive  in  their totality,  but  were  wholly  local  in  their  spread  and  isolated  from each  other.  They  were  the  result  of  local  causes  and  grievances, and were also localized in their effects. They often bore the same character  not  because  they  represented  national  or  common efforts  but  because  they  represented  common  conditions  though separated in time and space. 

Socially,  economically  and  politically,  the  semi-feudal leaders of these rebellions were backward looking  and traditional in  outlook.  They  still  lived  in  the  old  world,  blissfully  unaware and  oblivious  of  the  modern  world  which  had  knocked  down  the defences of their society. Their resistance represented no societal alternative.  It  was  centuries-old  in  form  and  ideological  and cultural content. Its basic objective was to restore earlier forms of rule  and  social  relations.  Such  backward  looking  and  scattered, sporadic and disunited uprisings were incapable of fending off or overthrowing foreign rule. The British  succeeded  in pacifying the rebel  areas  one  by  one.  They  also  gave  concessions  to  the  less fiery rebel chiefs and  zamindars  in the form of reinstatement, the restoration of their estates and reduction in revenue assessments so  long  as  they  agreed  to  live  peacefully  under  alien  authority. The  more  recalcitrant  ones  were  physically  wiped  out.  Velu Thampi  was,  for  example,  publicly  hanged  even  after  he  was dead.

The  suppression  of  the  civil  rebellions  was  a  major  reason why the Revolt of 1857 did not spread to South India and most of Eastern  and  Western  India.  The  historical  significance  of  these civil  uprisings  lies  in  that  they  established  strong  and  valuable local  traditions  of  resistance  to  British  rule.  The  Indian  people were  to  draw  inspiration  from  these  traditions  in  the  later nationalist struggle for freedom. 

The  tribal  people,  spread  over  a  large  part  of  India, organized  hundreds  of  militant  outbreaks  and  insurrections during  the  19th  century.  These  uprisings  were  marked  by immense  courage  and  sacrifice  on  their  part  and  brutal suppression and veritable butchery on the part of the rulers. The tribals had cause to be upset for a variety of reasons. The colonial administration  ended  their  relative  isolation  and  brought  them fully  within  the  ambit  of  colonialism.  It  recognized  the  tribal chiefs  as  zamindars  and  introduced  a  new  system  of  land revenue and taxation  of tribal products. It encouraged  the influx of  Christian  missionaries  into  the  tribal  areas.  Above  all,  it introduced a large number of moneylenders, traders arid revenue farmers as middlemen among the tribals. These middlemen  were the  chief  instruments  for  bringing  the  tribal  people  within  the vortex  of  the  colonial  economy  and  exploitation.  The  middlemen were  outsiders  who  increasingly  took  possession  of  tribal  lands and  ensnared  the  tribals  in  a  web  of  debt.  hi  time,  the  tribal people  increasingly  lost  their  lands  and  were  reduced  to  the position  of  agricultural  labourers,  share-croppers  and  rackrented  tenants  on  the  land  they  had  earlier  brought  under cultivation and held on a communal basis. 

Colonialism  also  transformed  their  relationship  with  the forest. They had depended on the forest for food, fuel and cattlefeed. They  practiced  shifting cultivation  (jhum,  podu,  etc.), taking recourse  to  fresh  forest  lands  when  their  existing  lands  showed signs  of exhaustion. The colonial government  changed all this. It usurped  the  forest  lands  and  placed  restrictions  on  access  to forest products, forest lands and village common lands. It refused to let cultivation shift to new areas. 

Oppression  and  extortion  by  policemen  and  other  petty officials  further  aggravated  distress  among  the  tribals.  The revenue  farmers  and  government  agents  also  intensified  and expanded  the  system  of  begar  —  making  the  tribals  perform unpaid labour. 

All  this  differed  in  intensity  from  region  to  region,  but  the complete  disruption  of  the  old  agrarian  order  of  the  tribal communities  provided  the  common  factor  for  all  the  tribal uprisings.  These  uprisings  were  broad-based,  involving thousands of tribals, often the entire population of a region. 

The  colonial  intrusion  and  the  triumvirate  of  trader, moneylender  and  revenue  farmer  in  sum  disrupted  the  tribal identity  to  a  lesser  or  greater  degree.  In  fact,  ethnic  ties  were  a basic  feature  of  the  tribal  rebellions.  The  rebels  saw  themselves not as a discreet class but as having a tribal identity. 

At  this  level  the  solidarity  shown  was  of  a  very  high  order. Fellow  tribals  were  never  attacked  unless  they  had  collaborated with the enemy.At  the  same  time,  not  all  outsiders  were  attacked  as enemies. Often there was no violence against the non-tribal poor, who  worked  in  tribal  villages  in  supportive  economic  roles,  or who  had  social  relations  with  the  tribals  such  as  telis,  gwalas, lohars,  carpenters,  potters,  weavers,  washermen,  barbers, drummers,  and  bonded  labourers  and  domestic  servants  of  the outsiders. They were not  only spared, but were seen as allies. In many  cases,  the  rural  poor  formed  a  part  of  the  rebellious  tribal bands.

The rebellions normally began at the point where the tribals felt  so  oppressed  that  they  felt  they  had  no  alternative  but  to fight.  This  often  took  the  form  of  spontaneous  attacks  on outsiders,  looting  their  property  and  expelling  them  from  their villages.  This  led  to  clashes  with  the  colonial  authorities.  When this  happened,  the  tribals  began  to  move  towards  armed resistance and elementary organization. 

Often,  religious  and  charismatic  leaders  —  messiahs emerged  at  this  stage  and  promised  divine  intervention  and  an end  to  their  suffering  at  the  hands  of  the  outsiders,  and  asked their  fellow  tribals  to  rise  and  rebel  against  foreign  authority.Most of these leaders claimed to derive their authority from God. They  also  often  claimed  that  they  possessed  magical  powers,  for example,  the  power  to  make  the  enemies’  bullets  ineffective. Filled  with  hope  and  confidence,  the  tribal  masses  tended  to follow these leaders to the very end. 

The warfare between the tribal rebels and the British armed forces  was  totally  unequal.  On  one  side  were  drilled  regiments armed  with  the  latest  weapons  and  on  the  other  were  men  and women  fighting  in  roving  bands  armed  with  primitive  weapons such  as  stones,  axes,  spears  and  bows  and  arrows,  believing  in the  magical  powers  of  their  commanders.  The  tribals  died  in lakhs in this unequal warfare.

Among  the  numerous  tribal  revolts,  the  Santhal  hool  or uprising  was  the  most  massive.  The  Santhals,  who  live  in  the area  between  Bhagalpur  and  Rajmahal,  known  as  Daman-i-koh,rose  in  revolt;  made  a  determined  attempt  to  expel  the  outsiders —  the  dikus  —  and  proclaimed the complete ‘annihilation’ of  the alien regime. The social conditions which drove them to  insurrection  were  described  by  a  contemporary  in  the Calcutta  Review  as  follows:  ‘Zamindars,  the  police,  the  revenue and  court  alas  have  exercised  a  combined  system  of  extortions, oppressive  exactions,  forcible  dispossession  of  property,  abuse and  personal  violence  and  a  variety  of  petty  tyrannies  upon  the timid and yielding Santhals. Usurious interest on loans of money ranging from 50 to 500 per cent; false measures at the  haul  and the  market;  wilful  and  uncharitable  trespass  by  the  rich  by means  of  their  untethered  cattle,  tattoos,  ponies  and  even elephants, on the growing crops of the poorer race; and, such like illegalities have been prevalent.’

The Santhals considered the dikus and government servants morally  corrupt  being  given  to  beggary,  stealing,  lying  and drunkenness. 

By  1854,  the  tribal  heads,  the  majhis  and  parganites,  had begun  to  meet  and  discuss  the  possibility  of  revolting.  Stray cases  of  the  robbing  of  zamindars  and  moneylenders  began  to occur.  The  tribal  leaders  called  an  assembly  of  nearly  6000 Santhals,  representing  400  villages,  at  Bhaganidihi  on  30  June 1855.  It  was  decided  to  raise  the  banner  of  revolt,  get  rid  of  the outsiders and their colonial masters once and for all, the usher in Salyug, ‘The Reign of Truth,’ and ‘True Justice.’ 

The Santhals believed that their actions had the blessings of God.  Sido  and  Kanhu,  the  principal  rebel  leaders,  claimed  that Thakur  (God)  had  communicated  with  them  and  told  them  to take  up  arms  and  fight  for  independence.  Sido  told  the authorities  in  a  proclamation:  ‘The  Thacoor  has  ordered  me saying  that  the  country  is  not  Sahibs  .  .  .  The  Thacoor  himself will  fight.  Therefore,  you  Sahibs  and  Soldiers  (will)  fight  the Thacoor himself.’

The  leaders  mobilized  the  Santhal  men  and  women  by organizing huge processions through the villages accompanied by drummers  and  other  musicians.  The  leaders  rode  at  the  “d  on horses and elephants and in palkis. Soon nearly 60,000 Santhals had  been  mobilized.  Forming  bands  of  1,500  to  2,000,  but rallying  in  many  thousands  at  the  call  of  drums  on  particular occasions,  they  attacked  the  mahajans  and  zamindars  and  their houses, police stations, railway construction sites, the  dak  (post) carriers  —  in  fact  all  the  symbols  of  dila4  exploitation  and colonial power. 

The  Santhal  insurrection  was  helped  by  a  large  number  of non-tribal  and  poor  dikus.  Gwalas  (milkmen)  and  others  helped the  rebels  with  provisions  and  services;  lohars  (blacksmiths) accompanied  the  rebel  bands,  keeping  their  weapons  in  good shape. 

Once  the  Government  realized  the  scale  of  the  rebellion,  it organized  a  major  military  campaign  against  the  rebels.  It mobilized  tens  of  regiments  under  the  command  of  a  major-general,  declared  Martial  Law  in  the  affected  areas  and  offered rewards of upto Rs. 10,000 for the capture of various leaders. 

The  rebellion  was  crushed  ruthlessly.  More  than  15,000 Santhals  were  killed  while  tens  of  villages  were  destroyed.  Sido was  betrayed  and  captured  and  killed  in  August  1855  while Kanhu was arrested by accident at the tail-end of the rebellion in February  1866.  And  ‘the  Rajmahal  Hills  were  drenched  with  the blood  of  the  fighting  Santhal  peasantry.’  One  typical  instance  of the  heroism  of  Santhal  rebels  has  been  narrated  by  L.S.S. O’Malley: ‘They showed the most reckless courage never knowing when  they  were  beaten  and  refusing  to  surrender.  On  one occasion,  forty-  five  Santhals  took  refuge  in  a  mud  hut  which they  held  against  the  Sepoy’s.  Volley  after  volley  was  fired  into it…  Each time the Santhals replied with a discharge of arrows. At last,  when  their  fire  ceased,  the  Sepoys  entered  the  hut  and found  only  one  old  man  was  left  alive.  A  Sepoy  called  on  him  to surrender, whereupon the old man rushed upon him and cut him down with his battle axe.”

Describing  briefly  three  other  major  tribal  rebellions. The  Kols  of  Chhotanagpur  rebelled  from  1820  to  1837. Thousands  of  them  were  massacred  before  British  authority could  be  re-imposed.  The  hill  tribesmen  of  Rampa  in  coastal Andhra  revolted  in  March  1879  against  the  depredations  of  the government-supported  mansabdar  and  the  new  restrictive  forest regulations. The authorities had to mobilize regiments of infantry, a squadron  of  cavalry and two companies  of  sappers and miners before  the  rebels,  numbering  several  thousands,  could  be defeated by the end of 1880.

The rebellion (ulgulan)  of the Munda tribesmen, led by Birsa Munda,  occurred  during  1899-19.  For  over  thirty  years  the Munda  sardars  had  been  struggling  against  the  destruction  of their  system  of  common  land  holdings  by  the  intrusion  of jagirdar, thikadar (revenue farmers) and merchant moneylenders.

Birsa, born in a  poor share-cropper household in  1874, had a  vision  of  God  in  1895.  He  declared  himself  to  be  a  divine messenger,  possessing  miraculous  healing  powers.  Thousands gathered  around  him  seeing  in  him  a  Messiah  with  a  new religious message. Under  the influence of the  religious movement soon acquired an agrarian and political Birsa began to move from village to village, organizing rallies and mobilizing his followers on religious  and  political  grounds.  On  Christmas  Eve,  1899,  Birsa proclaimed  a  rebellion  to  establish  Munda  rule  in  the  land  and encouraged  ‘the  killing  of  thikadars  and  jagirdars  and  Rajas  and Hakims  (rulers)  and  Christians.’  Saiyug  would  be  established  in place  of  the  present-day  Kalyug.  He  declared  that  ‘there  was going to be a  fight  with the dikus,  the ground  would be as red as the  red  flag  with  their  blood.’  The  non-tribal  poor  were  not  to  be attacked. 

To  bring  about  liberation,  Birsa  gathered  a  force  of  6,000 Mundas  armed  with  swords,  spears,  battle-axes,  and  bows  and arrows.  He  w,  however,  captured  in  the  beginning  of  February 1900  and  he  died  in  jail  in  June.  The  rebellion  had  failed.  But Birsa entered the realms of legend.