Other Rebellions and Resistance

The Khurda Uprising – A Case Study

The Khurda Uprising, also known as the Paika Rebellion of 1817, was a significant armed revolt against the British East India Company's rule in Odisha. It is often considered one of the earliest instances of large-scale anti-British resistance in India.

Background

Khurda was a small kingdom situated south of Puri in Odisha. Its ruler, Raja Mukunda Deva II, was a tributary king under the Marathas. In 1803, the British conquered Odisha from the Marathas. Initial British rule in Khurda was marked by harsh revenue policies and administrative changes that disrupted the traditional life of the people, especially the Paikas.

The Paikas

The Paikas were the traditional landed militia of Odisha. They were warrior-cultivators who received rent-free land grants from the King for their military services. They formed the backbone of the Khurda army and enjoyed a respectable status in society.

Causes of the Uprising

Several factors contributed to the Khurda Uprising:

• Resumption of Rent-Free Lands: The British government, viewing the Paikas as a security threat, resumed the rent-free lands (Jagirs) given to them in exchange for military service. This act deprived the Paikas of their traditional source of livelihood and status.
• High Revenue Demand: The new land revenue settlement implemented by the British was exorbitant and oppressive compared to the previous system. Peasants found it difficult to pay the high taxes, leading to widespread discontent.
• Salt Monopoly: The British enforced a salt monopoly, which led to a sharp increase in salt prices. This affected the common people significantly as salt was an essential commodity.
• Oppressive Administration: The British administrators were perceived as corrupt and indifferent to the needs of the local population. The introduction of a new administrative system also led to confusion and distress.
• Displacement of Raja and Officials: The British had dethroned Raja Mukunda Deva II and exiled him. Many of his loyal officials and servants were also removed, creating resentment among the ruling elite.

The Uprising (1817)

The rebellion erupted in March 1817. The spark was ignited when a group of Kandhas from Ghumsar entered Khurda and openly revolted against the British. Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar Mohapatra Bharamarbar Rai, the military chief of the Khurda Raja, emerged as the leader of the uprising.

Bakshi Jagabandhu, who had himself suffered at the hands of the British (his ancestral estate was confiscated), gathered the disgruntled Paikas and other sections of society. They attacked British establishments, government buildings, and police stations. The rebels marched towards Puri, where they received support from the temple priests (pandas).

The rebellion spread rapidly across Khurda, Banapur, Pipili, and other parts of Odisha. The British faced serious challenges in containing the revolt, as the rebels used guerrilla tactics and had popular support. Martial law was imposed in the affected areas.

Suppression of the Uprising

The British eventually managed to suppress the rebellion through military force and repressive measures. Reinforcements were brought in, and the rebels were systematically hunted down. Many leaders, including Bakshi Jagabandhu, initially evaded capture but eventually surrendered or were apprehended. The rebellion was largely crushed by mid-1817, although sporadic resistance continued for a few more years.

Outcome and Significance

Although the Khurda Uprising was suppressed, it forced the British to acknowledge the grievances of the people. They introduced some administrative reforms, reduced the revenue demand in certain areas, and attempted to improve the judicial system. The rebellion demonstrated the deep-seated discontent against British rule and highlighted the challenges faced by the Company in establishing its authority in newly conquered territories.

The Paika Rebellion holds immense significance as an early example of collective resistance against colonial power in India, predating the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 by several decades.

A Revolt In The Countryside The Bombay Deccan (Peasant Rebellion)

In 1875, peasants in the Bombay Deccan region of Western India revolted against the increasing distress caused by the oppressive revenue system and the practices of moneylenders. This rebellion provides valuable insights into the rural conditions under British rule and the dynamics between peasants, moneylenders, and the colonial state.

Account Books Are Burnt

One of the primary targets of the rebels was the account books and debt bonds (bonds or promissory notes) held by the moneylenders. The rebellion began in the village of Supa in Poona district in May 1875. Ryots (peasants) from surrounding villages gathered and demanded that moneylenders hand over their account books and debt bonds. When the moneylenders refused, the ryots attacked their shops and houses, looted grain and property, and set fire to account books.

The goal was not just to recover debts but to destroy the evidence of debt. The burning of account books symbolised a rejection of the system that had trapped them in perpetual debt.

A New Revenue System

The rebellion was rooted in changes brought about by British rule. Before the British, the revenue system in the region involved a share of the produce being collected as revenue. The British introduced a new system called the **Ryotwari System** in the Bombay Deccan.

Under the Ryotwari system:

• The revenue was fixed directly with the individual cultivator (ryot).
• The revenue was assessed on the land itself, not on the produce.
• The revenue rates were often very high.
• Revenue collection was rigid; taxes had to be paid in cash regardless of the harvest.

The high and inflexible revenue demand forced peasants into the hands of moneylenders to pay their taxes, especially during periods of poor harvests or falling prices.

Revenue Demand And Peasant Debt

The initial land revenue assessments under the Ryotwari system in the Bombay Deccan were excessive. While the British claimed that the demand was based on the soil type and capacity to pay, in reality, it was often arbitrarily high. The revenue demand was also subject to periodic revisions (settlements), usually every 30 years, which often resulted in further increases.

For example, in the 1860s, revenue demands in the Bombay Deccan were increased by 50% to 100%. This increase came at a time when agricultural prices were fluctuating, and peasants were already struggling.

Unable to pay the high cash demand, peasants had to borrow from moneylenders. Once in debt, it was difficult to escape, as interest rates were often exorbitant. Over time, debt mounted, and peasants were forced to mortgage their land to the moneylenders. Eventually, many peasants lost their land entirely to the moneylenders.

The cycle of debt looked something like this:

High Revenue Demand $\rightarrow$ Need for Cash $\rightarrow$ Borrow from Moneylender $\rightarrow$ High Interest Rates $\rightarrow$ Debt Increases $\rightarrow$ Unable to Repay $\rightarrow$ Mortgage Land $\rightarrow$ Loss of Land

Then Came The Cotton Boom

In the early 1860s, a temporary factor exacerbated the situation – the American Civil War (1861-1865). The war disrupted cotton supplies from the USA to Britain. As a result, Britain turned to India for cotton, leading to a "cotton boom" in the Bombay Deccan, a major cotton-growing region.

Peasants were encouraged to grow cotton. Prices soared, and for a few years, peasants had access to credit and felt a sense of prosperity. Many took out loans to expand their cultivation. However, this boom was short-lived. When the American Civil War ended in 1865, cotton exports from the USA resumed, and cotton prices in India plummeted.

The sudden collapse of the cotton market left the Deccan ryots with huge debts contracted during the boom, falling prices for their produce, and the continued burden of high land revenue demand.

The Experience Of Injustice

The rebellion was not just about high taxes or debt; it was fundamentally about the peasants' experience of **injustice**. They felt that the moneylenders, often outsiders or not from their immediate community, were cheating them through fraudulent practices, manipulating accounts, and charging exorbitant interest rates.

The new British legal system also seemed to favour the moneylenders. Previously, under local customs, the transfer of land was less formal and more tied to community norms. The British codified property rights, allowing moneylenders to easily take over peasants' land through legal procedures when they defaulted on loans. Peasants saw the British courts as instruments of the moneylenders.

The combined effect of high revenue, falling prices, mounting debt, perceived cheating by moneylenders, and the biased legal system created a deep sense of grievance and led to the eruption of the revolt in 1875.

The rebellion was largely confined to specific districts like Poona and Ahmednagar. It was eventually suppressed by the British government. However, it prompted the government to appoint a commission of inquiry, which led to the passing of the **Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1879**. This Act aimed to protect peasants from moneylenders by restricting interest rates and facilitating redemption of mortgaged land, although its effectiveness was limited.

The “Blue Rebellion” And After (Indigo Revolt)

The "Blue Rebellion," or the Indigo Revolt of 1859-60, was a widespread peasant uprising in Bengal against the oppressive system of indigo cultivation imposed by European planters.

The System of Indigo Cultivation

Indigo was a cash crop used for dyeing textiles. European planters established factories (kothis) in Bengal and forced peasants (ryots) to cultivate indigo instead of food crops. There were two main systems of indigo cultivation:

1. Nij Cultivation: The planter produced indigo on lands that he directly controlled. This could be land he bought, rented, or leased from zamindars.

• Problems with Nij Cultivation: Planters found it difficult to expand Nij cultivation. Indigo required large areas of fertile land, which was densely populated. Acquiring large continuous plots was hard. It also required a large labour force, especially during harvest, which clashed with the time peasants needed to cultivate rice.

2. Ryoti System: This was the more common system. The planter forced the ryot to sign an agreement (satta) to cultivate indigo on a specified area of his land. He provided the ryot with a cash advance (loan) at a low interest rate to cover the cost of cultivation.

• Problems with Ryoti System:
  • Low Price: The price paid by the planters for the indigo produced was very low, often less than the market price.
  • Forced Contracts: Ryots were often forced to sign the sattas through coercion, intimidation, and even physical violence.
  • Perpetual Debt: Once a ryot took the advance, he was trapped in a cycle of debt. Even after supplying indigo, the debt would often carry over to the next year, forcing him to sign a new satta.
  • Infertile Land: Planters often insisted that indigo be cultivated on the best land, which was needed for rice cultivation. Indigo cultivation also depleted the soil.
  • No Choice: Peasants were not allowed to grow rice on land designated for indigo, leading to food scarcity.
  • Violence and Oppression: Planters and their agents (lathiyals) were notorious for using force, kidnapping ryots, burning villages, and beating anyone who resisted.

Why the Rebellion?

By the late 1850s, the ryots were fed up with the brutal and exploitative indigo system. Several factors contributed to the rebellion:

• Cumulative Oppression: Decades of exploitation, low wages, forced contracts, and violence reached a breaking point.
• Support from Zamindars: Some zamindars were unhappy with the planters expanding their power and supported the ryots.
• Village Headmen's Support: Many village headmen mobilised the ryots against the planters.
• Influence of Intellectuals: Bengali intellectuals, journalists, and missionaries wrote about the plight of the indigo cultivators, creating public sympathy and support for the rebellion. The play Nil Darpan by Dinabandhu Mitra (published 1860) was particularly influential in highlighting the horrors of the indigo system.
• Rumours of British Support: Rumours spread that the British government, particularly the Lt. Governor, was sympathetic to the ryots and did not support the planters forcing indigo cultivation. When the Lt. Governor visited the region in the winter of 1859, his visit was interpreted as a sign of government support for their cause.

The Rebellion (1859-60)

In March 1859, thousands of ryots in Bengal refused to grow indigo. They attacked indigo factories with swords, spears, bows, and arrows. Women also participated, fighting with pots and pans. They refused to pay rent to the zamindars who sided with the planters. They swore they would no longer take advances to grow indigo or be bullied by the planters' lathiyals.

Aftermath - The Indigo Commission

The rebellion was so widespread that the government had to intervene. The military was called in to protect the planters, but the government also set up the Indigo Commission in 1860 to inquire into the system of indigo production.

The Commission held the planters guilty and criticised the coercive methods they used. It declared that indigo cultivation was not profitable for the ryots and that they should not be forced to grow it. The Commission recommended that the sattas were not binding and that ryots could refuse to cultivate indigo if they wished.

Significance

The Indigo Revolt was a major success for the ryots. It demonstrated the power of collective peasant resistance. Planters were forced to wind up their operations in Bengal and move to other areas like Bihar. The rebellion showed that peasants could organise and fight against injustice, forcing the colonial government to change its policies.

Birsa Munda (Tribal Uprising)

Birsa Munda (1875-1900) was a charismatic tribal leader and folk hero from the Chota Nagpur plateau region of present-day Jharkhand. He led a significant tribal uprising against the British and the Dikus (outsiders - including moneylenders, traders, missionaries, Hindu landlords) who had encroached upon the tribal way of life.

Tribal Life Before British Rule

Before the arrival of the British, tribal societies in many parts of India lived relatively isolated lives, with their own customs, social structures, and economic systems. In areas like Chota Nagpur, the Munda people practiced a communal landholding system known as **Khuntkatti**, where the land was owned collectively by the clan.

Impact of British Rule on Tribals

British rule brought significant changes to tribal areas, leading to distress and rebellion:

• Disruption of Land System: The British introduced new land settlements that recognised individual ownership of land. They encouraged zamindars and moneylenders (Dikus) to enter tribal areas, who easily acquired tribal lands, displacing the original owners and breaking up the communal Khuntkatti system.
• Forest Laws: The British declared forests as state property and enacted Forest Laws. These laws restricted tribal access to forests, which were essential for their livelihoods (jhum cultivation, collecting forest produce, hunting). Some forests were reserved, and tribals were completely banned. In others, they were allowed to practice jhum cultivation only on the condition of providing labour for the forest department.
• Entry of Missionaries: Christian missionaries entered tribal areas, often criticising tribal customs and trying to convert them. While some missionaries provided education and healthcare, they also disrupted traditional tribal beliefs and social structures.
• Exploitation by Dikus: Moneylenders and traders from outside exploited the tribals. They charged high interest rates on loans and paid very low prices for forest produce. Tribals were trapped in debt and often forced into bonded labour.
• Forced Labour: Tribals were often forced to work as labourers for the British officials, contractors, or Dikus, often without proper wages (begar).

Birsa Munda and His Movement (Ulgulan)

Birsa Munda was born in the mid-1870s. He received some education and was influenced by missionary teachings, but also by local religious movements and the hardships faced by his people. Around 1895, Birsa proclaimed himself a messenger of God and started a socio-religious movement aimed at reforming tribal society.

His early movement called for:

• Giving up drinking liquor.
• Cleaning their village.
• Giving up belief in witchcraft and sorcery.
• Stopping animal sacrifice.
• Returning to their traditional ways and worshipping one God.

This initial phase aimed at internal purification and strengthening tribal identity.

However, the movement soon took a political turn. Birsa's followers began to identify the Dikus and the British as the cause of their suffering. The movement came to be known as the **'Ulgulan'** (the Great Tumult or Revolt).

The objectives of the Ulgulan were:

• To regain their land rights (restoration of Khuntkatti system).
• To drive out the Dikus (moneylenders, landlords, traders).
• To overthrow British rule and establish Munda Raj (tribal self-rule).

The Uprising (1899-1900)

The Ulgulan intensified around 1899. Birsa's followers attacked police stations, churches (seen as symbols of Diku influence), and properties of moneylenders and landlords. They raided bazaars. They targeted symbols of British power and Diku exploitation.

Birsa's followers believed that he had divine powers and could make them immune to bullets. However, the British response was brutal.

Suppression and Aftermath

The British government deployed troops to suppress the rebellion. There were clashes between the rebels and the British forces. Birsa Munda was eventually arrested in February 1900. He died in jail in June 1900, reportedly from cholera, although the circumstances of his death are debated.

The Uprising was suppressed, and many tribal leaders and participants were arrested or killed. However, the Ulgulan was a significant challenge to British authority and the Diku system.

Although the goal of establishing Munda Raj was not achieved, the movement did force the British government to take some action. The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act of 1908 was passed, which partially restricted the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals and recognised some of the traditional rights of the tribals.

Significance of Birsa Munda

Birsa Munda remains a highly revered figure among the Munda people and other tribal communities. He is remembered as a leader who fought against colonial and Diku oppression and for the rights and identity of tribal people. His movement inspired later tribal movements and highlighted the unique issues faced by indigenous populations under colonial rule.