SYLLABUS:
Peasant movements and tribal uprisings in the 18th and 19th centuries - Including the Rangpur Dhing (1783), the Kol Rebellion (1832), the Mopla Rebellion in Malabar (1841-1920), the Santal Hul (1855);
The Great Revolt of 1857 – Origin, character, causes of failure, the consequences;
Shift in the character of peasant uprisings in the post-1857 period; Indigo Rebellion (1859-60), Deccan Uprising (1875) and the Munda Ulgulan (1899-1900); The peasant movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINS QUESTIONS:
Tribal movements should be viewed as‚ ‘History from below‛. Discuss the objects and nature of the movements in 19th century India. [1997, 60m] || How far is it correct to say that the 19th Tribal uprisings are a part of subaltern nationalism? [2016]
Discuss briefly the tribal revolts in Eastern India from 1817 to 1857. Were they directed against land lords and colonialism? [1988, 60m]
Discuss the origins and character of major peasant and tribal uprisings in the late 18th and 19th centuries’. Were these protest movements backwards-looking? [1992, 60m]
“Tribals revolted more often and far more violently than any other community including peasants in India.” Elaborate [2011, 30m]
Tribal movements were basically directed to preserve the tribal identity which was thought to be in danger due to intrusion of external people affecting the social, political and geo-economical position of the tribes. These movements were mostly violent, isolated and frequent.
There were about 70 to 110 [different historians] tribal movements from 1778 to 1947. These movements can be broadly divided into two parts i.e. movements of the frontier tribes and movements of the non-frontier tribes depending upon the geographical area of their initiation. Both these types of revolts had different sets of causes. Movement of frontier tribes was mostly revivalist and tended to be political and secular. On the contrary, the non-frontier tribes revolted usually against the 'outsiders' and the British administration.
1st Phase (middle of 19th C) | 2nd Phase (later 19th C) | 3rd Phase (early 20th C) | 4th Phase (1930s 1940s) |
Landlords, moneylenders, local off - target Violent methods throughout | Elements of anti-colonialism absent. Citizen of Br Queen i.e. direct rule => save from LL and ML Use of violent methods got reduced. Dragger ML and LL to court - focus on burning records | Organized into associations UP Kisan Sabha 1918 Awadh KS 1920 Eka mmt 1921 All India KS 1936 | Merged with mainstream nationalism. Prg of socialist in consonance w/ aspiration of peasantry. JLN, SCB, JP, Acharya Narayan demanded - Reduction in LR, target Zamindars, safety of peasants. |
The movement of the non-frontier tribes can be divided into three broad parts. First one started from 1795 and continued up to 1860. The movements of this phase were primarily politico-religious led by tribal heads. Second phase was from 1860 to 1920 in which nature of movements changed from politico-religious to economic also. The penetration of outsiders resulted in the misbalancing of tribal economy. The leaders of these movements were from the lower class of society. Third phase (1920-1947) coincides with the phase of intense mass movement for freedom struggle and so its impact was quite obvious on the tribal movements. This phase saw the transformation of tribal movements into a common mass movement with leaders coming also from non-tribal educated groups.
Santhal Hool - Santhals cleared an area around RajMahal hill for themselves and called in Damin-i-koh. But their tribal land was leased out to non-Santhal Zamindars and Moneylenders. Railways also penetrated in their area. This completely destroyed their familiar world and forced them to rise in Rebellion against these outsiders (dikus).
The British government started a major military campaign to suppress the rebellion. Thousands of Santhal men and women were killed. Apart from above mentioned tribal movements, there were many other rebellions which took place in first phase: PAHARIAS (Jharkhand 1778); KOL uprisings (MH 1784-85); CHAURI revolt (BH 1798), GOND uprising (Baster MP) etc.
The hill tribes, KOYA and KHONDA of Rampa region of Chodavaram revolted in March 1879 against the depredation of the government supported zamindars and the new restrictive forest regulations. The authorities launched military campaigns against the rebellious people and several other ways used for suppression of the movement. Tribal resentment against the imposition of forest laws and feudal system led to rise of revolt of tribes in Jagdalpur region in modern Chhattisgarh. The rebels disrupted communication system, attacked symbols of colonial power and tried to sieze Jagadalpur town. The Br military operation in 1910 suppressed the rebellion.
The Ulgulam was led by Birsa Munda during 1895-1900 in Jharkhand. On 19th January, 1900 the rebels were defeated in a fight at Sail Rakeb hill. Birsa was captured and imprisoned, where he died in June 1900.
The nature of rebellions of this pahse can be concluded in following lines:
The movements of this phase changed from politico-religious to economic also.
The leaders come from the lower class of tribal society.
In this phase also, the non-tribal poor and service castes were spared.
Attack on colonial symbols was given priorities.
The second decade of 20th century, Tana Bhagat movement started initially in a religious form but later transformed into a political one under the impact of INC. This movement was centred on Oraon tribes of Chotanagpur in Jharkhand. Thus the resistance of the local grievances and problems was amalgamated with the National movement. Salient features of the movements of this phase are as follows:
These movements coincide with the national movement and hence the leadership also came from non-tribal educated groups.
This phase saw the transformation of tribal movements into mass movements.
Various legislative and administrative measures were adopted by the British government to suppress the movement.
The tribal movements in NE region of India were also politico-religious in nature. Due to the majority of the tribes in the region, and their econoic and social position, the movements were hardly socio-economic in character. Following were the important tribal movements of NE India:
Khasi Uprising - conscriptions of labourers of road construction linking up the acquired Brahmaputra Valley with Sylhet passing through the Khasi region resulted in uprising of the Khasis supported by the Garos and led by Tirhut Singh. Though the rebellion continued for 4 years, it was suppressed in 1833 by the colonial power.
Kuki Uprising: Kukis of Manipur revolted in 1917 under the leadership of Jadonang and his niece, Rani Gaidinliu. The Br policy of recruitment of Kuki labourers during the First World War seriously affected the stability of the agriculture based Kuki economy. Also the system of begar imposed upon the tribes and ban of shifting cultivation led to the rebellion. Guerrilla warfare of the Kukis lasted for 2 years when it was crushed by Br in 1919.
Singhpos Revolt: Simultaneously with the Khasi uprising, the Singhpos also broke into rebellion in early 1830 which was though suppressed within some months.
“The tribal and peasant rebellion laid the foundation of the revolt of 1857.” Comment. [2001, 20m]
The changing economic relations in the colonial period contributed to peasant grievances. Similarly, a growing interference of the British in tribal areas disturbed their traditional way of living. This led to many peasant and tribal revolts in the 18th century and early 19th century.
Peasant rebellions:
Rangpur Rebellion of 1783: The Hindu and Muslim peasants in the northern districts of Bengal fought side by side against revenue contractors and company officials due to increased revenue demand and collection of illegal cesses.
PAGAL PANTHI movement: in Mymensingh district of Bengal Karim Shah and Tipu Shah started a rebellion against the illegal abwabs exacted by Zamindars and against the new revenue settlement. Various Peasants joined this rebellion which was ultimately crushed with the help of army in 1833.
MOPLAH Uprising: Moplahs of Malabar rose in revolt against a huge burden of illegal cesses and pro-landlord attitude of the judiciary and police. They suffered due to new land revenue policy which turned them into mere tenants who can be evicted any time.
Tribal Revolts:
Bhil Uprising - British occupation of Khandesh region brought in the outsiders and led to the dislocation of Bhils. Bhils rose in revolt during 1819 but they were crushed and their leader Umaji Raje was executed in 1831.
Kol Rebellion - Kol Rebellion of 1831-32 took place in Chota Nagpur and Singbhum region. British penetration posed a threat to the power of hereditary tribal chiefs. Finally, the British army had to move in to restore order.
Apart from these peasant and tribal revolts various other revolts took place such as the Santhal hool, Sanyasi and Fakir rebellions of Northern Bengal, TARIQAH-i-MUHAMMADIYA movement of TITU MIR in 24 Pargana of Bengal and FAIRAZI movement under which Muslim poor united against the Zamindars, indigo planters and the British rulers. Thus, all these rebellions laid the foundation for the revolt of 1857.
The revolt of 1857 was hence joined by this aggrieved rural society which proves that it was certainly more than an 'armed mutiny'.
Other Rebellions: [Important]
Paikas revolted against the British after the later took over their rent-free land, 14 years after Odisha came under British rule in 1803.
Paikas were essentially the peasant-militias or traditional land-owning militia of the Gajapati rulers of Odisha who rendered military service to the king during times of war while taking up cultivation during times of peace. They unfurled the banner of rebellion against the British under the leadership of Baxi Jagandhu Bidyadhara as early as 1817 to throw off the British yoke.
Many scholars, researchers and historians have opined that the Paika Rebellion of 1817 was India’s first organized armed rebellion against British Raj.
Sannyasi Rebellion or Sannyasi is a term used to describe activities of Sannyasi and fakirs, or Hindu and Muslim ascetics respectively, in Bengal, India in the late 18th century. It took place around Murshidabad and Baikunthupur forests of Jalpaiguri.
Sannyasi oppressed by the British policies retaliated by organizing raids on the companies factories and state treasuries under leadership of ‘Kena Sarkar’ and ‘Dirji Narayan’ in West Bengal and Bihar.
Perhaps, the best reminder of the Rebellion is in literature, in the Bengali novel Anandamath, written by India's first modern novelist Bankim Chandra Chatterjee
‘Neel Darpan’ – It is the name of a book and famous play by writer Deen Bandhu Mitra. It highlighted the plight of Indigo farmers.
Nalkelberia Uprising led by Syed Mir Nisar Ali, or Titu Mir, a peasant leader in 1831 — is often considered the first armed peasant uprising against the British.
His controversial comeback 190 years later in Bengal’s politics through a chapter in a prescribed tenth grade history textbook claims Titu Mir “killed” many Hindus and destroyed several temples.
Celebrated in folklore as a peasant leader, Titu Mir remains a controversial political figure in Bengal for his religious identity as an Islamic preacher after he converted to Wahabism.
Vellore Mutiny
In Madras where the Commander in Chief of the Madras army passed an order designed to impose uniformity of appearance on the sepoys at the cost of their caste marks, beards and moustaches. In the event, and this must be said to his credit, Governor William Bentinck’s efforts to have this order reversed failed and the violent Vellore Mutiny of 1806 broke out.
The Vellore Mutiny was also a result of various other factors. Increasing missionary activity, the presence of significant sections of the recently defeated Mysore aristocracy including many sons of Tipu Sultan in and around the Vellore fort and issues emanating from low pay and harsh service conditions following the last Mysore and Maratha wars were some import causes of large scale sepoy discontent in the Madras army.
“The Santhal hool began in July 1855. The core of the movement was economic, the basic cause of the uprising was agrarian discontent.” – Elucidate [2012, 10m]
The Santhal uprising was the prominent and massive among the tribal revolts of 19th century. The tribal’s revolted against the alien rule. There new land revenue system and economic policies subjugated the tribal.
The British rule exploited the tribal’s to the core and made them as poor labour. The new land policy of British introduced money lenders, revenue farmers as middlemen. These middle men are outsiders called as dikkus and badrukas, played key role in bringing tribal people to the vortex of the colonial economy and exploitation.
The policy of permanent settlements 1794 caused the displacement of tribes from their habitats. Santhals lost their control over lands to the Zamindars. With the land mortgage system tribes caught into the web of debt. Forest laws of 1842 levied tax on forest products. This brought inconsistency in Santhals who depends on forest products for their survival. Santhals went up to Bengal in search of new lands and, there existed a situation where no more land was left to go.
This agrarian discontent turned as immediate cause for the massive tribal revolt. The Santhal rebellion of 1855 remained as inspirational symbol for 1857 revolt and further freedom struggle.
“The military, feudal and traditional overtones of the Revolt of 1857 were overshadowed by its nationalist or proto-nationalist character.” Critically examine.
The revolt of 1857 have been interpreted by many differently based upon their understanding of the event and its subsequent consequences. For British, it was a mere sepoy mutiny which was later exploited by few groups to create law & order problems. On the other hand, for hardcore nationalists such as V.D.Savarkar, it was none less than the “Indian war of Independence”.
However, there have been many views which have a balanced approach to understand the revolt. The mutiny without any doubt was an initiative of sepoys without any plan or conspiracy, which was later complimented with support from the deposed Rajas and landed Zamindars/Taluqdar along with rural peasantry. The revolt invariably was inclined towards going back to the feudal structure of the society with provincial rulers functioning with considerable autonomy, but acknowledging the Mughal emperor. Hence, the revolt had the military and feudal aspects with traditional overtones.
However, as the newer analysis of the revolt puts it, certain doses of nationalism, at least larger than the earlier tribal and peasant revolts, was present. Historians such as Gautam Bhadra, Rajat Ray and C.A. Bayly have explicitly affirmed in their views that nationalist tinge was certainly more than earlier events of such nature and in terms of the magnitude, it certainly surpassed all previous revolts.
“The Mutiny was not inevitable in 1857, but it was inherent in the constitution of the Empire.” Comment. [1983, 20m]
Fundamental Causes: Used as colony - no welfare / progress of Indians. Despotic - no Indian participation in decision making. Ruled through superior military means (force). Racist outlook - Indian's insulted. Discriminatory - all high offices monopolised by Europeans. Charter A of 1793 - reserved for Europe Pound 500+ offices/annum. Judicial system - exploited masses. Famines - no effort to help; only money Imperialist outlook - annex N. states => dispossessed N. rulers - revolted. Heavy burden of LR; Handicrafts ruin, Peasants deprived of LR. | Nature and Character of P & T Revolts: Backward Looking History from below = Sub-Altern approach: developed by Marxist H - focus on contri of Workers, Peasants, Tribal.
Unplanned - sudden outburst. Localised Phenomenon - small geographical spread. Violent in Character - Landlords and moneylenders attacked. Failed: Br. Suppressed them ruthlessly. Contribution: est. a tradition of opposition to exploitation and suffering.
|
“Whatever might have been its original character, it (Rebellion of 1857) soon became a symbol of challenge to the mighty British power in India.” Comment. [1988, 20m] [2005, 20m]
“The annexation of Awadh shook the loyalty of the Sepoy’s, as it was for them an ultimate proof of untrustworthiness of the British.” Comment. [2009, 20m]
Awadh’s fertile plains between the Ganges and Yamuna rivers were strategically very important and so the British wanted absolute control over it. In 1856, Lord Dalhousie annexed Awadh on grounds of mismanagement and refused to introduction of reforms.
Awadh was a protectorate under the British by the Subsidiary Alliance of 1801. The Nawab had to disband his force and allow the British to place their troops in his kingdom. The company used Awadh’s vast treasures and took loans at extremely low rates. The revenues from running Awadh’s armed forces brought them useful revenues.
In the BR army 75000 men were from Awadh. Awadh land was annexed by the British, increase the land revenues and confiscated the land attached to charitable trust.
The British also dispossessed the Taluqdars of the region. The taluqdars were disarmed and their forts destroyed. By the summary settlement of 1856 the taluqdars land holding dropped to 38% from 67%.
The British dethroned the Nawab on grounds of unpopularity (although he was widely loved) and declared that the taluqdars has gained control over land through force and fraud.
The sepoys often complained of low salary and difficulty of getting leave. The above activities brought a sense of frustration and untrustworthiness among the sepoys. The dispossession of taluqdars meant the breakdown of entire social order. The ties of loyalty and patronage that had been bound to the Br were completely disrupted and eventually surfaced in the 1857 revolt by the Bengal Army (Awadh, Bihar, Rajputs, Pathan etc). In Awadha the resistance against the Br was intense and long lasting and these people joined Begum Hazrat Mahal (Nawab’s wife) in Luvknow to fight the Br and some even remained with here till defeat.
“In 1857, the rebel sepoys showed a remarkable centripetal tendency to congregate at Delhi.” Do you agree? Substantiate. [2011, 30m]
“The Mutiny of 1857 was much moiré than a Mutiny of Sepoys and much less than a National Rebellion,” Comment. [2016]
Do you believe that the uprising in 1857 was nationalist in nature? If not, what was its character? [1999, 60m]
“On the whole, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the so-called First National War of Independence was neither First, nor National, nor a war of Independence.” Comment. [1985, 20m]
The original outbreaks, of which the one at Meerut is typical, took place in an environment governed by military discipline. They were obviously and classically mutinies (so ‘more than a’ mutiny). The mutineers were later joined by others who were not soldiers or in any way bound by military rules. In that obvious additional sense the events were more than ‘mutinies’ or ‘a mutiny’.
Was it a war? Not in the classic legal sense since there were just hostilities, with no formal declaration.
Was it national? Traditionally the 1857 events have been assigned to the Ganges valley, but recent writers have tried to suggest that they were ‘national’ because disorders were observed widely across the sub-continent. In fact, although there were disturbances as far east as Chittagong, as far west as Peshawar and further south than Mumbai, a glance at the movements of the British relief armies shows them heading north from Chennai, north-east from Mumbai, south-east from Peshawar and west from Calcutta. The British did not err in believing that the revolt was essentially contained within north central India. In this sense it was ‘less than national’.
Because many Indians did not support the rebels, it has been argued that the revolts were regional, sectarian, or particularistic rather than national, and thus not deserving of the grand title ‘War of Independence’
Should we reject both ‘mutiny’ and ‘war of independence’ in favour of ‘War of Religion’? There were religious issues in the military environment, such as the cartridges and caste threatening expeditions 'across the dark sea', and there were many other religious disputes which existed in the world beyond the barracks of which the sepoys were well aware (such as the activities of Christian missionaries and the generally contemptuous attitude of the British towards non-Christian religions). It was not just a war of religious independence because there were so many non-religious issues in it. Plus fraternal spirit between the Maulvi Ahmedullah and the Hindu Begum of Awadh during the siege of Lucknow as evidence of a national unity transcending religious differences.
For Marxists the phrase 'economic causes' is tautology (दोहराना), since all causation in history is in their eyes economic. Nevertheless one must agree with the Marxists that there were a number of economic issues in the revolt: there were legions of Indians disadvantaged by the economic arrangements of the Raj. Farming for food had been reduced in favour of farming for cash crops such as indigo and, infamously, opium. Famine, DoH, etc. There were many social grievances felt by the Indians against the British.
Constitutionally the rising would have been a rebellion rather than a mutiny had it been undertaken by British subjects against the British crown. It is rebellion in the sense that mutineers were sepoys in Br Army.
Rani Jhansee, Nana Saheb, Bahadur Shah, Muslims seeking to restore Caliphate, Darbhanga’s Zamindar - different sections had different interests.
Critically examine the nature of the Revolt of 1857. How did it affect the British policy in India after 1858? [1980, 60m]
“The new attitude of caution and conservatism can detected in almost every sphere of British activity in India after the Revolt of 1857.” Comment. [1994, 20m]
Examine the nature of the Revolt of 1857 and indicate the manifold changes in British civil and military administration of India after 1857. [1998, 60m]
“The Revolt of 1857 seemed to call the very presence of the British into question. What it did not do was reverse these change.” Comment. [2007, 20m]
THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES
The direct effects of the Revolt of 1857 may be summed as follows:
The Revolt of 1857 exposed the danger involved in allowing a commercial organisation to rule over a country. Thus British government passed Government of India Act 1858 on August 2, 1858, according to which the power that the company enjoyed was snatched and a direct rule was established. The British government was now established. The British was now directly responsible for ruling India
The supreme executive and legislative authority in India henceforth came to be known as the Governor-General and the Viceroy Lord Canning so far known as the Governor General of India also became the first Viceroy of India.
The British assured the people of India that there will be no more territorial expansion. They also assured the people of India that religious and social practices would be respected and not be interfered.
The proportion of Indian soldiers in the army was reduced and the number of European soldiers in the army was increased.
The ruling chiefs of the country were assured that their territories would never be annexed by the British. The Doctrine of Lapse was also abolished hereby allowing rulers to pass on their kingdoms to adopted sons.
Policies were made to protect landlords and Zamindars and give them security of rights over their lands.
Muslims were considered to be responsible for the rebellion in a big way. Hence their land and property was confiscated on large scale.
A new agrarian policy was introduced to guarantee security of tenure and to fix rent for lands. This policy freed the cultivators from tedious settlements and excessive demands of the state. The financial system was also decentralized by entrusting some items of taxation to local governments.
THE INDIRECT CONSEQUENCES
Far more important than the direct results were the indirect ones which followed the Revolt of 1857.
The Revolt of 1857 further widened the difference between the ruler and the ruled.
In the post-Revolt period, to maintain supremacy in India, British followed the policy of communal disharmony. The seed of communal discord planted by the English in India sprouted like a poison and bore the fruits of communalism.
After the revolt, although British did not followed the policy of territorial expansion in India, the period was yet marked by a new era of economic exploitation of India by British
From now on, the British adopted a policy of opposing the educated middle class and supporting the landlords and the native princes.
“The decades following the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion were a period of growing political awareness, manifestation of Indian public opinion and emergence of Indian leadership at both national and provincial levels.”
Learnings from 1857:
We learn from 1857 that the defeat of a resistance movement is not the end of the struggle, as those involved in it always learn a lot as a result of defeat and correct their approach for the next engagement. The events that followed 1857 were a mix of violence and non-violence. It was not the constitutional approach alone but also resistance which consequently led to our independence.
History tells us that imperialism cannot succeed in occupying another country without local collaboration. Today, we are facing the same situation in Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and Palestine on the other. We are hearing the same arguments that with the help of foreign powers and intervention, religious extremism and terror will be wiped out. Again, history tells us that it is not correct. We cannot rely on others to fight our wars.
“The peasant movements of the second half of the nineteenth century lacked a positive conception which would unite the people in a common struggle on a wide regional and all-India plane and help develop long-term political developments.” Critically evaluate. [2012, 10m]
Colonial Economic Policies and new LRS transformed the agrarian structure and impoverished the peasantry. When peasants could not take it any longer they resisted. Various peasant uprisings took place after the revolt of 1857, such as the INDIGO revolt, PABNA Uprising, the Deccan Riots, Ramosi Peasant Uprising etc. The common features of all these uprisings were -
Peasants showed solidarity that cut across religious and caste lines.
Peasants co-opted and crushed the landlords, chiefs and princes and directly fought for their demands.
Peasants developed a strong awareness of his legal rights and asserted them.
Peasants used the judicial and administrative machinery for redressal of their grievances.
Peasants were often supported by the modern nationalist intelligentsia.
Often the British government brought out legislations and notifications to address the demands of peasants, such as the Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act of 1879.
But there were certain shortcomings in these Peasant movements -
Their demands were almost wholly economic and they fought just against their immediate enemies like the foreign planters, Zamindars and moneylenders.
They did not make colonialism their target. They had very limited objective.
Their territorial reach was also limited.
They also lacked continuity of struggle or long-term organisation.
These movements did not have any new social, economic and political programme.
Thus, these movements lacked an understanding of colonialism. They lacked a positive conception of an alternate society, a conception which would unite the people in a common struggle on pan-India plane and help develop long term political movements. Most of these weaknesses were overcome in the 20th century when peasant discontent merged with anti-imperialist discontent and thus strengthened the national movement.
“The Indigo Revolt of 1859-60 holds a very significant place in our history of national liberation movement. For the first time in the history of our anti-colonial struggle, its two independent currents– spontaneous peasant resistance and constitutional agitation in defence of peasantry – came into mutual contact.” Critically examine. [2015, 10m]
The Indigo revolt in Bengal of 1859-60 was due to the oppression of peasants by the indigo planters. Due to high demand and commercial profit for indigo dye, the planters forced the peasants to grow them instead of food and other money fetching cash crops. This forced the farmers to take loans without generating profit. The callous attitude of administration regarding oppression with exorbitant revenue demand provided a ground for revolt by farmers
Motivation for Indigo peasants to revolt:-
Support of Intelligentsia – ‘Neel Darpan’ by Din Bandhu Mitra highlighted the plight of Indigo peasants, later it was translated in English by Michal Madhusudan dutt, due to which the outreach was increased. Harish Chandra Mukherjee, editor of Hindoo Patriot- published regular reports from his correspondents in the rural areas on planter’s oppression, official’s partisanship and peasant resistance. Missionaries also supported the Indigo Ryots.
Support of Legal Methods – Peasants took the help of judiciary, petitions, initiated legal action to convey their frustration, thus its peaceful nature was not suppressed by British forces.
Support of officers and authorities – Officers like Hem Chandra Kar who was deputy magistrate, supported the peasants and considered their pain. He gave proclamation to policemen to be careful that no indigo planter nor anyone else be able to interface in the matter.
Use of Physical force – Zamindars employed Lathiyals to attack peasants and forced them to cultivate Indigo. This motivated them to oppose through formation of armed group at village level.
However, these motivation were helpful in addressing the problems of Indigo ryots through the formation of Indigo commission. This led to movement of Indigo planters to Bihar, which led to problem of ‘Tinkathiya system’, pressing Mahatma Gandhi to visit Champaran in 1916.
Identify the various forms of ‘rural protest’ in India in the second half of the nineteenth century. Were they expressions of anti-landlord or anti-foreign discontent? [1987, 60m]
Tribal revolts were a reaction to an alien, unfeeling administration. Elucidate with reference to the British tribal policy in Eastern India in the nineteenth century. [1982, 60m]
Analysis of Colonial and post-Colonial Tribal movements [special reference to Bastar / Naxalite]
British colonialism gave rise to widespread rural unrest in India. During the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there was a major increase in the number of tribal revolts throughout the country.
‘British rule brought a degree of disruption and suffering among the peasantry which was, it seems likely, more prolonged and widespread than had occurred in Mogul times.’ Colonial rule marked the first time in Indian history that a government claimed a direct proprietary right over forests. This was something the preceding Mughals, for example, had not done.
Criminal Tribes Act in 1871, which sought to control the movement of certain tribes with a history of criminal activity. But under the Act all members of a designated tribe were considered criminals, even if they had never committed a crime, which led to widespread social stigmatization.
With British control of the forests came the concomitant rise of moneylenders, traders, and immigrants, and the influx of these new intermediary groups led to widespread adivasi land displacement.
New colonial policies, such as the commandeering of forest lands and increased rural taxation, led to widespread discontent and rebellion among indigenous groups. ‘Resentment against [moneylenders] boiled over most readily into violence among tribal people like the Bhils, Santals, and. . . the Gonds’.
After independence, the new Indian government did not reform a number of colonial-era policies, especially those dealing with forestry, and tribal conflicts continued to occur throughout the country, especially in former areas of direct British rule like Bengal, Bihar, and Jharkhand.
Three specific policies were implemented in Bastar that engendered tribal revolt: colonial officials took direct control over the forests, they displaced tribals from their land, and they heavily interfered in succession to the throne, which upset the native population.
Princes displayed much more tolerance for tribal groups, and adivasis fared better under their rule than that of British administrators in the provinces.
In Jaipur, the Minas were designated the guardians of the royal treasury. In Travancore and Cochin, tribal groups were given ownership of their land, government subsidies to improve it, and were shielded by special policies that limited the imposition of the outsiders who were a major problem for adivasis throughout British India. In Jammu and Kashmir, many members of the Bakkarwal tribe were employed as tax collectors (zaildaars) and became an important part of the Dogra government.
The roots of the Moplah uprising (1921) were clearly agrarian. Do you agree? [1986, 20m] [1990, 60m]
The 1921 Moplah rebellion was “in essence an expression of long-standing agrarian discontent which was intensified by the religious and ethnic identity.” Comment. [2000, 20m]
In Malabar, nominal right on land was traditionally held by Brahmins (Brahmaswom) or Temples (Devaswom). They were entitled for a small portion (typically 1/10th) of the produce based on this nominal right. This right was traditionally effected through affluent Nambiar/Nair chieftains. Moplahs and Thiyyas were the actual farmers whereas the untouchable Dalits (mainly Cheruma etc.) were the real tillers of the soil. This arrangement worked for a long time till Tipu's invasion in the early 18th century. Tipu handed over the rights of the land to Farmers and started collecting taxes directly from them which impugned on the nominal rights described above. So when the British defeated Tipu, upper caste Hindus appealed for restoration of their rights.
The British not well versed with the property ownership modes existent in Malabar for centuries, gave absolute land ownership to the previous nominal right holders. This allowed them to increase their share (bhagam) at will and dispossess the land from the farmer as they pleased. Soon farmers were reduced to penury and rebellions started in different forms. Moplahs (and less frequently Thiyyas) clashed with upper caste landowners for their rights. Desperate Moplahs were known to get into a rage (Halilakkom) and kill the landlords with whatever weapon they could find. William Logan records several such incidents in the 18th and 19th centuries. This was the case in the beginning of 20th century as well and that is why Moplah rebellion was mainly against this landowning Janmi class and fellow farmer castes including Thiyyas took a lenient stand. Thus it is accurate to describe events leading to Moplah rebellion as a class struggle which later assumed religious ones. And the attacks were not just towards Landlords but also their English Masters.
When we look at history, it is difficult to compartmentalize incidents as black or white. Incidents happen seldom in isolation, and is often the result of social precipitations over a long time.
Write a brief essay on the peasant movement in India between 1921 and 1947. [1980, 60m]
Analyze the nature of peasant movements during the nationalist phase and bring out their shortcomings. [2015, 20m]
Deccan Peasants Uprising (1875):
It was against the corruption of the Marwari and Gujarati money lenders. It started as social boycott of the moneylenders by the peasants but was later transformed into an armed peasant revolt in the Poona and Ahmadnagar districts of Maharashtra.
The peasants then attacked the moneylender’s houses, shops and burnt their records and bond documents down.
The uprising later received support from M G Ranade of Poona Sarvajanik Sabha.
Moplah U (1921)
The Bardoli Satyagraha (1928):
In Surat district, the Bardoli taluk was the centre of this intensely politicised peasant movement.
It was led by Vallabhai Patel. The locals gave him the title of “Sardar” for his leadership.
When the British government increased the land revenue by 30% in present day Gujarat, resistance was showed by the residents.
This led to the organisation of a ‘No-Revenue Campaign’ by the Bardoli peasants including women.
There were unsuccessful attempts by the British to suppress the movement. But finally an Inquiry committee was appointed to look into the matter. It found the hike unjustified.
Tebhaga Movement (1946):
In Bengal rich farmers (Jotedars) leased the farms to sharecroppers known as Bargadar.
The Flood Commission, had recommended tebhaga, under that the Bargadars (sharecropper) should get 2/3 of crop share and the Jotedar (landlord) should get 1/3rd of crop produce share.
Tebhaga movement was aimed at getting the recommendations of Flood Commission implemented through mass struggle.
It was led by – Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha, against the zamindars, rich farmers (Jotedars), moneylenders, local bureaucrats and Traders.
The Muslim league government led by the Suharwardy introduced the Bargardari Bill along with repression by force.
0 Comments