Civil Rebellions & Tribal uprisings

Table of Content
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..3

CIVIL REBELLIONS……………………………………………………………4

 CAUSE OF CIVIL REBELLIONS………………….…………………........4

 WEAKNESS OF THESE REBELLIONS…………………………………..12

TRIBAL UPRISINGS………………………………………………...…………13

 CAUSEOF TRIBAL UPRISING……………………………………….......13

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………….17
Introduction
The revolt of 1857 was an endeavor that showed that people in India were no longer ready to
condone the tyranny of British rulers, although the revolt did not succeed due to many reasons as
described in the revolt of 1857. The establishment of British power was a perpetuated process
which procreated envy, antagonism and dissension at every stage. This popular contention took
three broad forms: civil rebellion, tribal uprising and peasant movements.

The British East India Company, a trading organization, slowly and gradually through wars and
diplomacy transformed itself into a political power between 1757 and 1857. The British power
made India a colony of the British and established colonial rule in India and introduced far-
reaching changes into administrative, legal, social and religious spheres.

Colonialism of the British and introduction of British values had shaken the Indian society.
While this transformation was taking place, Indians did not keep quiet as passive spectators
helplessly but the subaltern groups of peasants and trial’s expressed their resentment through
popular resistance, movements or civil disturbances mostly which were localized, sporadic,
isolated and unorganized.

Due to the unbearable British policy and exploitation of Indians in different forms, civil rebellion
took places in various part of India. Katherine Gough, an anthropologist, listed 77 per cent of
peasant uprisings and classified them as ‘restorative’, ‘religious’, ‘social banditry’, and ‘terrorist
vengeance’. K. Suresh Singh observes, “The tribal insurrections were the most militant outbreaks
and they revolted more often and far more violently than any other community including the
peasants in India”.
Civil Rebellions
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 hundred to several thousands. The civil rebellions began as British rule was established in
Bengal and Bihar, and 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.

Cause of civil rebellions

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 wide spread 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 parts 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.

Bengal and Eastern India:

The Sanyasi Revolt:
The coming of the British brought with it economic hardships symbolised by the massive famine
of 1770, and a general callousness on the part of the Company’s stooges. The restrictions
imposed on visits to holy places estranged the sanyasis. The sanyasis retaliated by organising
raids on the Company’s factories and state treasuries. Only after prolonged military action could
Warren Hastings contain the raids by the sanyasis.

Chuar Uprising:
Famine, enhanced land revenue demands and economic distress goaded the Chuar aboriginal
tribesmen of Midnapore district to take up arms. The uprising lasted from 1766 to 1772 and then,
again surfaced between 1795 and 1816.

Ho Rising:
The Ho and Munda tribesmen of Chhotanagpur challenged the Company’s forces in 1820-22,
then again in 1831, and the area remained disturbed till 1837.

Kol Mutiny (1831):

This covered Ranchi, Singhbhum, Hazaribagh, Palamau and the western parts of Manbhum. The
trouble started with large-scale transfers of land from Kol headmen (Mundas) to outsiders like
Sikh and Muslim farmers. The Kols of Chhotanagpur resented this and in 1831, the Kol rebels
killed or burnt about a thousand outsiders. Only after large-scale military operations could order
is restored.
Kandh Uprising (1837-56):
This covered Ghumsar, China- ki -Medi, Kalahandi and Patna. The Kandhs retaliated under
Chakra Bisoi against the British efforts to put an end to the Kandh’s practice of human sacrifice
(Mariah) first through persuasion and later through force. The Kandhs fought with tangis—a sort
of battle axe—bows and arrows and even swords.
Santhal Rising:
The Santhals of Rajmahal Hills resented the oppression by revenue officials, police, money-
lenders, landlords—in general, by the “outsiders’ (whom they called diku). The Santhals under
Sido and Kanhu rose up against their oppressors, declared the end of the Company’s rule and
asserted themselves independent in 1854. It was only in 1856 after extensive military operations
that the situation was brought under control. Sido died in 1855, while Kanhu was arrested in
1866. A separate district of Santhal Parganas was created by the Government to pacify the
Santhals.

Ahom Revolt:
The British had pledged to withdraw after the First Burma War (1824-26) from Assam. But, after
the war, instead of withdrawing, the British attempted to incorporate the Ahoms’ territories in the
Company’s dominion. This sparked off a rebellion in 1828 under the leadership of Gomdhar
Konwar. Finally, the Company decided to follow a conciliatory policy and handed over Upper
Assam to Maharaja Purandar Singh Narendra and part of the kingdom was restored to the
Assamese king.

Khasi Uprising:
After having occupied the hilly region between Garo and Jaintia Hills, the East India Company
wanted to build a road linking the Brahmaputra Valley with Sylhet. For this, a large number of
outsiders including Englishmen, Bengalis and the labourers from the plains were brought to these
regions.

The Khasis, Garos, Khamptis and the Singhpos organised themselves under Tirath Singh to drive
away the strangers from the plains. The uprising developed into a popular revolt against British
rule in the area. By 1833, the superior English military force had suppressed the revolt.

Pagal Panthis:
Karam Shah was the founder of the Pagal Panth—a semi-religious sect having influence in the
northern districts of Bengal. An activist fervour to the sect was impacted by Tipu, the son and
successor of Karam Shah.
Tipu was motivated by both religious and political motives and took up the cause of the tenants
against the oppression of the Zamindars. Tipu captured Sherpur in 1825 and assumed royal
power. The insurgents extended their activities to Garo Hills. The area remained disturbed in the
1830s and 1840s.

Faraizi Revolt:
The Faraizis were the followers of a Muslim sect founded by Haji Shariat-Allah of Faridpur in
Eastern Bengal. They advocated radical religious, social and political changes. Shariat-Allah son
Dadu Mian (1819-60) organised his followers with an aim to expel the English intruders from
Bengal. The sect also supported the cause of the tenants against the Zamindars. The Faraizi
disturbances continued from 1838 to 1857. Most of the Faraizis joined the Wahabi ranks.

Munda Revolt:
For over three decades, the Munda Sardar of Chhotanagpur had been struggling against the
destruction of their system of common land-holdings by the intrusion of jagirdars, thikadars
(revenue farmers) and traders- moneylenders. During the last decade of the nineteenth century,
the Mundas rose under Birsa Munda in a religious movement or rebellion (“ulgulan”) with an
agrarian and political content.

They aimed to establish a Munda rule in the land by killing thikadars, jagirdars, rajas and
hakims. To bring about the liberation, Birsa gathered a force of 6,000 Mundas armed with
swords, spears, battle-axes, and bows and arrows. Birsa was, however, captured in 1900 and he
died in jail the same year.

Western India:
Bhil Uprisings:
The Bhils, an aboriginal tribe concentrated around Khandesh, revolted against their new masters,
the East India Company, fearing agrarian hardships and the worst under the new regime. One of
their leaders was Sewaram. The Bhils revolted in 1817-19, and again in 1825, 1836 and 1846.
Cutch Rebellion:
The British interfered in the internal feuds of the Cutch and, in 1819, defeated and deposed the
ruler Rao Bharamal in favour of his infant. A British resident governed the areas as the de facto
ruler with the help of a regency council.

The administrative innovations made by the regency council coupled with excessive land
assessment caused deep resentment. The news of the British reverses in the Burma War
emboldened the chiefs to rise in revolt and demand the restoration of Bharamal. After extensive
military operations failed to control the situation, the Company’s authorities were compelled to
follow a conciliatory policy.

Waghera Rising:
A resentment against the alien rule coupled with the exactions of the Gaekwar of Baroda
supported by the British Government compelled the Waghera chiefs of Okha Mandal to take up
arms. The Wagheras carried out inroads into British territory during 1818-19. A peace treaty was
signed in November 1820.

Koli Risings:
The Kolis living in the neighbourhood of Bhils rose up in rebellion against the Company’s rule
in 1829, 1839 and again during 1844-48. They resented the imposition of Company’s rule which
brought with it large-scale unemployment for them and the dismantling of their forts.

Ramosi Risings:
The Ramosis, the hill tribes of the Western Ghats, had not reconciled to British rule and the
British pattern of administration. They rose under Chittur Singh in 1822 and plundered the
country around Satara. Again, there were eruptions in 1825-26 and the disturbances continued
till 1829.

The disturbance occurred again in 1839 over deposition and banishment of Raja Pratap Singh of
Satara, and disturbances erupted in 1840-41 also. Finally, a superior British force restored order
in the area.
Surat Salt Agitations:
A strong anti-British sentiment resulted in attacks by local Surat population on the Europeans in
1844 over the issue of the Government’s step to raise the salt duty from 50 Paise to one rupee.

Faced with a popular movement, the Government withdrew the additional salt levy. And, again
in 1848, the Government was forced to withdraw its measure to introduce Bengal Standard
Weights and Measures in face of people’s determined bid to resort to boycott and passive
resistance.

Kolhapur and Savantvadi Revolts:

The Gadkaris were a hereditary military class which was garrisoned in the Maratha forts. These
garrisons were disbanded during administrative reorganisation in Kolhapur state after 1844.
Facing the spectre of unemployment, the Gadkaris rose in revolt and occupied the Samangarh
and Bhudargarh forts. Similarly, the simmering discontent caused a revolt in Savantvadi areas.

South India:
Revolt of Raja of Vizianagaram:
The East India Company invited the wrath of the people of Northern Sarkar when, after the
acquisition of these territories in 1765, it demanded a tribute of three lakh rupees from the Raja
and also asked the Raja to disband his troops.

The Raja supported by his subjects rose up in revolt. The Raja died in a battle in 1794. Finally,
the Company offered the estate to the deceased Raja’s son and reduced the demand for presents.

Poligars’ Revolt:
The Poligars of Dindigal and Malabar rose up against the oppressive land revenue system under
the British during 1801-06. Sporadic rising of the Poligars in Madras Presidency continued till
1856.

Diwan Velu Tampi’s Revolt:

The East India Company’s harsh conditions imposed on the state of Travancore, after both of
them agreed to a subsidiary alliance arrangement under Wellesley in 1805, caused deep
resentment. The ruler failed to pay the subsidy and fell in arrears.
The high-handed attitude of the Company compelled the Diwan, Velu Tampi, to rise against the
Company, assisted by the Nair battalion. A large military operation had to be undertaken to
restore peace.

Rampa Revolt:
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. Only after a
large military operation could the rebels are defeated in 1880.

North India:
Wahabi Movement:
The Wahabi Movement was essentially an Islamic revivalist movement founded by Syed Ahmed
of Rai Bareilly who was inspired by the teachings of Abdul Wahab (1703-87) of Saudi Arabia
and Shah Waliullah of Delhi. Syed Ahmed condemned the western influence on Islam and
advocated a return to pure Islam and society as it was in the Arabia of the Prophet’s time.

Syed Ahmed was acclaimed as the desired leader (Imam). A countrywide organisation with an
elaborate secret code for its working under spiritual vice-regents (Khalifa) was set up, and
Sithana in north-western tribal belt was chosen as a base for operations. In India, its important
centre was at Patna though it had its missions in Hyderabad, Madras, Bengal, UP and Bombay.

Since Dar-ul-Harb (the land of kafirs) was to be converted into Dar-ul-Islam (the land of Islam),
a jihad was declared against the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab. After the defeat of the Sikh ruler
and incorporation of the Punjab into the East India Company’s dominion in 1849, the English
dominion in India became the sole target of the Wahabis’ attacks.

The Wahabis played an important role in spreading anti- British sentiments. A series of military
operations by the British in the 1860s on the Wahabi base in Sithana and various court cases of
sedition on the Wahabis weakened the Wahabi resistance, although sporadic encounters with the
authorities continued into the 1880s and 1890s.
Kuka Revolt:
The Kuka Movement was founded in 1840 by Bhagat Jawahar Mai (also called Sian Saheb) in
western Punjab. After the British took the Punjab, the movement transformed from a religious
purification campaign to a political one.

Its basic tenets were abolition of caste and similar discriminations among Sikhs, discouraging the
eating of meat and taking of alcohol and drugs, and encouraging women to step out of seclusion.

In 1872, one of their leaders, Ram Singh, was deported to Rangoon.

Weaknesses of These Uprisings:

i. These uprisings were massive in totality but were, in fact, localized and isolated.

ii. They were the result mostly of local grievances.

iii. The leadership was semi-feudal in character, backward- looking, traditional in outlook and
their resistance represented no societal alternative.

iv. These rebellions were centuries old in form and ideological-cultural content.

v. The less recalcitrant of these were pacified through concessions by the authorities.

On the whole, however, these rebellions were able to establish valuable traditions of local
resistance to authoritarianism.

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.

Tribal uprising

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.

Cause of tribal uprising

Extension of settled agriculture in to the tribal areas led to influx of non-tribals (dikkus) in the
tribal areas. These outsiders (dikkus) exploited them and extension of settled agriculture led to
the loss of land by the tribals which reduced them to agriculture labourers. So this disruption of
the old agrarian order of the tribal communities provided the common factor for all the tribal
uprisings.
Increasing demand for the wood from the early 19th century, first for the Royal Navy and then
Railways, led to increasing control of government over the forests lands. Some of the tribal
uprisings took place in reaction to the efforts of the landlords to impose taxes on the
customary use of the timber and grazing facilities, police exactions, exploitation by middlemen
which were generally outsiders.
Colonial administration encouraged influx of Christian missionaries into the tribal areas,
which were responsible for bringing about changes in the socio-economic and cultural aspects of
the tribal life and the mainstream society. Also, the tendency of the missionaries to discourage
people from rising against the government made the missionaries to be viewed as extensions of
colonialism and was often attacked by the rebels.
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 and 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. In time, the tribal people increasingly lost their lands and were reduced to the position of
agricultural labourers, share-croppers and rack-rented 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 cattle-feed. 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 beggar — making the tribals perform unpaid labor.

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, washer
men, barbers, drummers, and bonded laborers 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 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 haut 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.

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 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. The rebellion was crushed ruthlessly. More than
15,000 Santhals were killed while tens of villages were destroyed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 A Brief History Of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir

Other resources

 http://www.shareyouressays.com/89773/7-main-peasant-uprisingsrebellions-before-1857
 http://www.historydiscussion.net/articles/peasant-and-tribal-movements-during-british-
east-india-company/2081
 http://erenow.com/exams/indiasstruggleforindependence/3.html
 https://veronetwork.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/civil-rebellion-and-tribal-
uprisings/comment-page-1/

 http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/history/civil-rebellions-and-tribal-uprisings-in-india-
against-british-rule-1757-1900/23722/
 http://educatesquare.com/civil-rebellion-the-1857-manifestation/