DC-1

PAPER-3 Nationalism In India

Lesson: Early Indian Responses to Colonialism: Exploring

the Peasant and Tribal Uprisings

Lesson Author: Dr. Md. Aftab Alam

College/Dept: Deptt. Of Political Science
Zakir Husain Delhi College
University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 1

INTRODUCTION

The historic events of twentieth century led to a world-wide recognition

that peasants, who constitute the largest single segment of mankind, may
have a special role to play in shaping our destinies. In interpreting the
historical moments of the peasant and tribal uprisings/revolts/resistance,
there have been widely different, even opposite, outlooks and analyses.
Yet all of them have inspired renewed explorations and interests into the
past of the peasants and tribals with a view to discovering its
contributions and of capacities of resistance and change.

In India an endeavour began for reconstructing the history of the

peasants as a pre-condition for identifying the main historical periods and
processes: D D Kosambi and R S Sharma, together with Daniel Thorner,
brought the peasants into the study of Indian history for the first time. In
what follows the debt to these and other scholars for knowledge as well
as inspiration would be obvious.1

There have been various approaches/perspectives to look at the modern

history in general and peasants and tribal uprisings in particular. Of the
three basic approaches that have emerged in the writings of modern
Indian history - the imperialist or neo-imperialist, the nationalist and the
Marxist - it is to the broad Marxist approach or tradition that the vast
majority of writings on peasant resistance have tended to belong. The

1
Irfan Habib, ‘The Peasant in Indian History’, Social Scientist, Vol. 11, No. 3, Marx Centenary Number (Mar.,
1983), pp. 21-64.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 2

imperialist and neo-imperialist school is virtually silent on this aspect, and
the nationalist contribution has been quite meagre.2

However, during 1980s, there has been a fresh attempt and a new trend
of historiography that emerged, popularly identified as the „subaltern‟
school, which dismisses all previous historical writing as elite
historiography which has something to offer by way of an understanding
of the history of the people.3 It seeks to replace this „old‟, „blinkered‟,
„elite‟ historiography with what it claims is a new „subaltern‟ or people‟s
historiography. Quite evidently, Ranajit Guha makes a provocative
statement in the beginning itself that „the historiography of Indian
nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism.‟ 4

Two major themes that have emerged in the writings of the scholars
writing under the „subaltern‟ approach are: (a) peasant resistance and
peasant consciousness in colonial India and (b) the relationship between
the peasantry and the national movement. This chapter tries to throw
some light on both the aspects. It attempts to provide an account of
peasant and tribal resistance/uprisings, their consciousness and analyse
their significant contributions in the larger national movement.

The struggle for the Indian Independence was the bucket of several
prolonged movements which resulted in the long Indian struggle for the
achievement of complete freedom. The British conquest of India was not
a simple spontaneous event but rather took place through various stages.

2
Mridula Mukherjee, ‘Peasant Resistance and Peasant Consciousness in Colonial India: 'Subalterns' and
Beyond’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 41 (Oct. 8, 1988), pp. 2109-2120.
3
The volumes edited by Ranajit Guha under the title of Subaltern Studies are an obvious part of what goes by
the name of the ‘subaltern school’, but the other writings of the scholars who form part of the ‘subaltern’
group are also to be treated as part of the writing of this school. On this basis I have treated Gyanendra
Pandey’s The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India and Popular
Movements and Middle Class Leadership,---Partha Chatterjee’s Bengal 1920-1947. The Land Question,
Stephen Henningham’s Peasant Movements in Colonial India and of course, Ranajit Guha’s Elementary Aspects
of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India as part of the writing of this school. I have, however, omitted David
Hardiman’s article in Subaltern Studies I as well as his Peasant Nationalists of Gujarat from consideration as
part of the subaltern school, because I believe that neither of these two studies reflect the ‘subaltern’
approach.
4
Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, ‘From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India’, Orient Longman, 2004, p.188

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 3

The exploitative and discriminatory nature of colonizers resulted (or bow
the seeds) in spreading consciousness and growth of various social
movements in India against the British Rule.

The emergence of the various social classes in India was the direct
consequence of the established new social economy, a new type of state
system, administrative machinery and the spread of new education during
the British rule.5 The new capitalist economic structure developed in India
was the result of the British conquest which led to the emergence of these
social classes and struggle.

The basic capitalist economic transformation of Indian society resulted

into the reshuffling of Indian into new social groups and social classes.
The process of the rise of new social classes was due to the fact that the
new social economy spread was dependent on the growth of political
power of Britain in India. The different parts of the country became more
or less economically transformed on the new economic bases in
consequence of their political subjugation.

Bengal was the first province which came under the influence of British,
where the British government created, for the first time in Indian history,
private property in land in the shape of the zamindari. Due to this, two of
the new social classes, the zamindars and the tenants, were established
in Bengal. Similarly, it led to the emergence of other new classes i.e.
industrialists and proletariat in Bengal and Bombay. Further, it was for the
same reason that in these provinces Britain established a complex, well
ramified, administrative system and introduced new educational
institutions imparting knowledge in modern medicine, law, etc. thereby
leading to the growth of the professional classes.6 However, the British
conquest of India gave rise to new social classes which soon spread on a
national scale.

5
Refer D.R.Gadgil. The Industrial Evolution of India in recent times (1933), M.N.Roy, India in Transition (1922) &
K.B. Krishna, ‘The Problem of Minorities’ (1939)
6
Refer G. Adhikari, ‘Pakistan and National Unity’ (1944) and W.C. Smith, ‘Modern Islam in India’ (1943)

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 4

In his book, “Social Background of Indian Nationalism”, A.R. Desai
enumerates the new social classes which evolved in the Indian society
during the British rule. In agrarian areas, these were principally (1)
zamindars created by the British Government, (2) absentee landlords, (3)
tenants under zamindars and absentee landlords, (4) the class of peasant
proprietors divided into upper, middle and lower strata, (5) agricultural
labourers, (6) the modern class of merchants, (7) the modern class of
money-lenders.

In the urban areas, these were principally (1) the modern class of
capitalist, industrial, commercial and financial, (2) the modern working
class engaged in industrial, transport, mining and such other enterprises,
(3) the class of the petty traders and shopkeepers bound up with modern
capitalist economy, (4) the professional classes such as technicians,
doctors, lawyers, professors, journalists, managers and others,
comprising the intelligentsia and the educated middle class.7

According to L.S. Vishwanath8, among the major peasant revolts that took
place during colonial rule were the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, the
Moplah rebellion of 1836 and 1896, the Santhal and Munda revolts of the
1890s. Towards the close of the colonial rule, two major peasant
upheavals took place. These were the Tebhaga movement in Bengal in
1946 and the Telengana uprising in Andhra in 1946-48. Besides these
major peasant revolts, there were a large number of minor peasant
revolts. In a brief survey, Gough9 discovered 77 peasant revolts during
colonial rule. The smallest of these involved several thousand peasants
and the largest, such as the revolt of 1857, covered „vast bodies of
peasants in north India over an area of more than 500 square miles‟.

7
A.R. Desai, ‘Social Background of Indian Nationalism’, Popular Prakashan,Mumbai, 1948. 163-4.
8
L.S. Vishwanath, ‘Peasant Movements in Colonial India: An Examination of Some Conceptual Frameworks’,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jan. 13, 1990), pp. 118-122.
9
Kathleen Gough, 'Indian Peasant Uprisings', Economic and Political Weekly, Special Number, August 1974,
p.1393

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 5

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, peasant movements and
struggles, began to be organised by political parties. In order to redress
peasants‟ grievances and also to enlist their support for the nationalist
cause, the Congress started mobilising various sections of the peasantry.
From the 1930s the communists through their Kisan Sabha organisations,
sought to mobilise peasants. For ideological and political reasons, the
communists wanted to have a broad base among the peasantry in the
countryside.

It is important to mention that movements in colonial India were not

confined to any one social group. A number of movements, which were
chiefly agrarian in character, took place among the tribals. The more
prominent struggles among the tribals were those of the Mundas led by
Birsa Munda and among the Santhals. The tribals were dispossessed of
their lands through evictions. Tribals who used to brew their own liquor
were prohibited from doing so when the British gave licenses to liquor
contractors. This was a source of revenue to British government and a
source of income to the contractors, but it ruined the tribals who were
forced to purchase liquor and sell their land. There were also
encroachments by caste Hindus on forest lands where tribals lived.

All this contributed to rebellion among tribals. Resorting to armed

rebellion against the British, the tribals often put their faith in a messiah
who would one day deliver them from their miseries. We shall now
discuss briefly some of the peasant and tribal movements/uprisings in
colonial India and attempt an analysis of these.

PEASANTS UPRISINGS

The peasants uprising was the protest against the colonial exploitative
forces and the emergence of peasant rebellion was the result of the
vacuum created by the British policy of either co-opting or crushing of the

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 6

princes, chiefs and landlords. The peasant protests often characterized as
natural and spontaneous reaction of the peasantry to its social condition
and economic issues. The exploitative colonial economic policies, land
revenue system such as Zamindari and Ryotwari system, the colonial
administrative and judicial systems and existential threat to the
established position of the peasants and tribals.

The colonial rule resulted in what Ranajit Guha has called the
“revitalization of landlordism”.10 Due to the changes in property relations,
the peasants lost their occupancy right and were turned into tenants at
will, which meant a great transformation in their status. The creation of
land property in the form of Ryotwari generated/invoked the class of
peasants‟ proprietors in India which soon developed national
consciousness because it had directly to deal with the state to which it
paid the land tax. Swami Sahajanand, Professor N.G. Ranga, Indulal
Yagnik and other leaders played an important role in bringing up the
peasant movement during the British period. The Kisans began to develop
political consciousness, took part in organized national struggles and
movements for independence.

The struggle of peasants was of significance as it touched almost every

part of the country. It is quite difficult to present analytic and evaluative
account of the contribution of peasant movements. The main objectives of
the struggle were limited and specific and the most disastrous part of the
movements was that once the particular objectives were achieved, its
organization, as peasant solidarity built around it, dissolved and
disappeared. The subsequent result was that these movements were not
in a position to challenge the British supremacy, for instance, the Indigo
strike, the Pabna agrarian leagues and the social-boycott movement of
the Deccan Ryots.

10
Ranajit Guha, ‘Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India’, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 1994, p.7.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 7

Let us study in detail about the different peasant movements which took
place in the different parts of the country. Looking at the peasant
movements, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay argues that the peasant themselves
often on their own initiative offered resistance to British rule. The
Rangpur rebellion of 1783 in the northern districts of Bengal is an ideal
example of such opposition. In the early days of revenue farming system,
the peasantry was oppressed by the revenue contractors and company
officials, imposing high revenue demands and often collecting illegal
ceases. The worst offenders were revenue contractors like Debi Singh or
Gangagobinda Singh, who had unleashed a reign of terror in the villages
of Rangpur and Dinajpur districts. The peasant initially sent a petition to
the Company‟s government asking for redress. But when their appeal for
justice went unheeded, they organized themselves, elected their own
leader, raised a huge army, equipped themselves with primitive bows,
arrows and swords and attacked the local cutchery (a court of law), looted
grains stores and forcibly released prisoners. Both Hindu and Muslim
peasants fought side by side and stopped paying revenue. The rebels
sought to legitimize their movements by invoking what Sugata Bose has
called “the symbols of the pre-colonial state system”. They called their
leader „nawab‟, started their own government and levied charges to meet
the costs of their movement. On Debi Singh‟s appeal, the Company‟s
government under Warren Hastings sent troops to put down rebellion. Its
brutal suppression was, however, followed by some reforms in the
revenue farming system. Similarly in the south, the final overthrow of
Tipu Sultan and reinstatement of the old ruling dynasty of Mysore brought
in enhanced revenue demands that fell ultimately on the peasants.
Rampant extortion by corrupt officials further aggravated their desperate
situation, motivating them to rise in open rebellion on 1830-31 in the
province of Nagar. Here too the rebels elected their own leaders, defied
the authority of the Mysore rulers and ultimately bowed down to the
advancing British troops.11 What is important in all these movements and
11
Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar, ‘From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India’, Orient Longman,

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 8

bold steps is taking on British empire single-handedly and articulating the
demands and grievances which was the result of British oppression and
their policies against peasantry‟s interests.

In the 19th Century, the most widespread peasant revolt was the Indigo
Revolt of 1859-67. It was against the Indigo planters (mostly Europeans)
where the tenants were compelled and forced to grow Indigo, which led to
the great loss of cultivators. Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, J.B. Grant
commented that “the root of the whole question is the struggle to make
the raiyats grow indigo plants without paying them the price of it.”
However, gradually the peasants lost their patience because of continuous
excessive atrocities committed against them and hence the people rose in
rebellion. They started refusing to cultivate the indigo plants and this
resistance was spread in different parts of Bengal. Thus, the government
was forced to set up an Indigo Commission in March 1860. Meanwhile, No
Tax Campaign was being launched by the peasants and they stopped
paying rent to indigo planters and zamindars. Many intellectuals and
missionaries lent their support to the peasants. The determination,
harmony and unity of the peasants turned out to be their greatest
strength. Thus, Neel Rebellion continues to occupy a distinct place in the
record of history of the peasant movements in India.

In the Maharashtra Deccan, the rich peasant development brought about

by the cotton boom of the 1860s had been abruptly cut short by the fall in
prices in the next decade- a fall which coincided with sharp upward hikes
in land revenue from 1867 onwards. The result was widespread
indebtedness, and the immigrant Marwari moneylender became an
obvious target of popular anger. The anti-sowkar Deccan riots of May-
September 1875 affected 33 places in 6 talukas of Poona and
Ahmednagar districts, and took the form of forcible seizure of debt bonds
by enraged villagers led their traditional headmen (patels). Riots were
significantly uncommon in areas where the moneylenders were not

2004, p.160.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 9

outsiders but local petty-landholder or rich peasant elements turning to
usury and trade. Four years after the disturbances, the Deccan
Agriculturalists‟ Relief Act of 1879 provided some limited protection to
better-off peasants through strengthening judicial procedures and
remedies.12

Another peasant uprising/rebellion occurred in Bengal. In his book

“Colonialism in India”, Ram Chandra Pradhan13 writes that Pabna
Rebellion has a historic place in the history of the peasants‟ revolt in
India. Under the Act X of the 1859 declaration, the peasants had been
given occupancy right over the lands they have been cultivating for a long
time. But zamindars were employing all kind of tricks and
instrumentalities to prevent the peasants from exercising their rights.
They increased and enhanced the land revenues in an excessive manner
and several types of taxes were also being imposed on them. In 1873,
peasants of Yusufshahi paragana organized an agrarian league which
raised funds to meet litigation expenses, held mass meetings to which
villagers were called by the sounding of buffalo horns, drums and night
cries of passing from hamlet to hamlet, and also occasionally withheld
rent.14 This rebellion led to a new Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 which
provided that a peasant‟s family cultivating a piece of land for 12 years or
more would be entitled to have ownership right over it. In this way, the
peasant felt great relief from the exploitative nature of zamindars and
colonial land revenue system. But all these peasant movements were
localized in their nature and aimed for a spontaneous reaction. Through
their resistance, people forced the government to take effective and
useful steps for the redressal of their grievances.

Other major agrarian protest occurred in the Poona and Ahmednagar

districts of Maharashtra in 1857. Assam had the series of peasant riots

12
Sumit Sarkar, ‘Modern India: 1885-1947’, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi, 1983, p.50.
13
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Colonialism in India’, Macmillan Publishers, New Delhi, 2013,p.199.
14
Sumit Sarkar, ‘Modern India: 1885-1947’, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi, 1983,p.51

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 10

during 1893-94 against the high land revenue.15 These are called as No-
Revenue Movements. In the Kamrup and Darrang districts of Assam, a
new revenue settlement in 1893-94 which enhanced rates by 50 to 70
percent was met by the organization of raij mels, mass assemblies of
villagers led by the rural elite (Brahmans, Gossains and Dolois) which
enforced non-payment of revenue through the weapons of social boycott
or ostracism of those who broke the popular consensus by submitting to
the government. Thus a traditional instrument of caste authority was
being used against the rulers, anticipating by more than a decade
methods which middle-class nationalism would begin to use only after
1905. There was also some looting of bazars, and two cases of police
firing, at Rangiya and Patharugat, in January 1894. The demand for
revenue reduction was supported by the Jorhat Sarvajanik Sabha, and the
issue was raised at the Imperial Legislative Council by the Moderate
Congress leader of Bengal, Rashbehari Ghosh; eventually some
concessions were obtained. But at the other end of the social scale, folk
memory has also preserved the names of some plebian militants, like
Pusparam Kanhar, the bell-metal artisan of Sarukhetri. Further,
Rajasthan, Mewar also experienced the number of important peasant
movements which was the result of the oppression and exploitation of the
peasantry by the British with the feudal class, like Bijolia peasant
movement.

Meanwhile, the other part of the country was also experiencing the
development of the peasant resistance. Mappila (Moplahs) movement
of 1921 was also widespread in Malabar district of Kerala. The main
reasons for the rebel was high rents, renewal fees, lack of any security of
tenure & the oppressive behavior of landlord. But the immediate reason
was the arrest of Ali Musaliar, a highly respected priest and Khilafat
leader by the District Magistrate of Eranad taluq, E.F. Thomas after

15
Sumit Sarkar, ‘Modern India: 1885-1947’, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi, 1983.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 11

raiding from the mosque on 20 August 1921.16 The rebellion then became
violent when police opened fire on the peaceful and unarmed crowd in
which many were killed. Subsequently, it had resulted in the destruction
and burning of government‟s offices and records. Initially, it was an anti-
British movement but soon acquired a communal colour. The scenario
became worse when the British declared Martial law and the immediate
consequence was that many Hindus were either forced to help the
authorities or in some instance gave voluntarily assistance. It deepened
the existing anti-Hindu feelings among the poor Mappilas those who were
inspired by the religious ideology.

Here, there was complete/total transformation in the nature of

movements which was intended against government and landlord and
took the shape of strong communal sense/feeling. It is important to note
that religion played a significant role in providing a discursive field within
which the peasants understood the colonial rule and domination.

Further, other prominent movements like Eka movement (Unity

movement) of 1922 and United Province Kisan Sabha were of
significance in their own way against the dejection and exploitation of the
colonial rule and system. As far as U.P. (United Province) Kisan Sabha is
concerned, it was started by the active members of the Home Rule
League in U.P. on the modern line in February 1918 by Gauri Shankar
Misra and Indra Narain Dwivedi. It had nearly 450 branches in the 173
tehsils. These activities led to awareness in the large number of Kisans
which was seen in the Delhi and Amritsar sessions of the Indian National
Congress in December 1918 and 1919. It was in the later part of the
1920s that a number of peasants organized and raised their voices
against the excessive exploitative land and administrative system of the
British India.

16
K.N. Pannikar (1979),’Peasant Revolt in Malabar in the Nineteenth & Twentieth Centuries’, in A.R.Desai,
editor, ‘Peasant Struggles in India’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 601-630.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 12

The real momentum of the peasant movement was given by launching of
Non-Cooperation Movement, led by Mahatma Gandhi, in 1920. A
number of Kisan associations came up in Punjab and U.P. during 1925-28.
The Andhra Provincial Ryots Association was formed in 1929. The
formation of Workers and Peasants Party (WPP) in 1928 was one of the
major developments in this direction.17

Another very significant and important movement which had a distinct

place in the history of peasant‟s protest uprising in India was the Bardoli
Satyagraha (1928-31). Gandhi had selected Bardoli Taluka for an
intensified Civil Disobedience Movement where a number of prominent
constructing Gandhian workers emerged from the area and among them
two brothers were of prominence- Kalyan and Kunver Mehta, who worked
among the poor sections of the society. Thus, when the government
wanted a 30 percent increase in land revenue, a hue and cry was raised
and the Bardoli enquiry committee was set up, which submitted a report
in July 1926 and found that the proposed increase was unjustified. This
was followed by a protest movement, as a result of which, the
government agreed to bring down the increase to 22 percent. This was
too meagre a concession and hence a new movement under the
leadership of Sardar Patel was launched in 1928. The main issue was that
peasants were to refuse to pay the enhanced rent until the government
accepted the earlier amount as full payment and appointed as
independent enquiry committee. Sardar Patel displayed his rare
organizational skills and his ability to mobilize the masses during the
Bardoli Satyagraha. And it was here that the people gave him the title of
Sardar. Women were mobilized in large numbers and they became the
mainstay of the movement. The Bardoli Satyagraha attracted support
from different organizations from all over the country. Gandhi himself
camped in August in 1928. Ultimately, the government was forced to

17
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and Nationalism in India’, Macmillan
Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.264

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 13

reduce the enhanced rent from 30 percent to the tune of a mere 6.03
percent.18

The emergence of new social classes‟ movements and resistance, against

the British exploitation & domination, accelerated fast when the Civil
Disobedience Movement was launched in 1930. This, further, took the
form of No-Tax and No-Rent Campaign, and helped in spreading these
forms of movements in different parts of the country for the Indian
freedom struggle. During 1930s, the period of the Great Economic
Depression, Indian National Congress (INC) launched a new phase of
mass struggle which has immense influence on the peasant movements.
The depression caused a huge decline in the agricultural price, raised the
burden of high tax and rents on peasants. Under dynamic leadership of
Swami Sahajanand Saraswati as its president, the All-India Kisan Sabha
was formed with the motive of securing complete freedom from economic
exploitation/oppression and achievement of full economic & political
power to the peasants. Subsequently, a Kisan Manifesto was prepared
which greatly influenced the issues which were raised & incorporated in
the 1937 Election Manifesto of the Congress. The period from 1937-39
was a remarkable period in the life of the peasant movements. Some
major agrarian reforms like debt relief, restoration of lands lost during
earlier movements, and security of tenancy were introduced.19

The peasant movement got a major boost with the formation of the
Congress ministry in several provinces. From 1937-39, it was a
remarkable phase in the life of the peasant rebellions/uprising. Major
agrarian reforms were introduced like debt relief, restoration of lands, and
security of tenancy. A significant peasant movement emerged in Kerala in
the wake of mobilization of Kisan organizations for more radical measures

18
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and Nationalism in India’, Macmillan
Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.265.
19
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and Nationalism in India’, Macmillan
Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.261-70.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 14

under the banner of CSP, which demanded reduction in tax, debt relief
and stopping of victimization of tenants. It also demanded the
amendment of the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1929 which resulted in the
passing of a debt relief law by Madras legislature in 1938. In Andhra also,
a powerful peasant movement emerged under the leadership of NG
Ranga, who led many agitations against zamindars. One of the novel
methods of peasant mobilization adopted by the Andhra Kisan Sabha was
the long march in 1938 in which 2,000 peasants covered a distance of
1,500 miles. On the way they interacted with a large number of Kisans
and on 27 March 1938, presented a petition to the Madras provincial
legislature which demanded debt-relief. Consequently, the Madras
legislature set up a zamindari enquiry committee. In Andhra, another
novel way introduced was study classes which were addressed by
prominent leaders. Thus, Andhra became a main center for peasant
mobilization.20

In Punjab, where peasants were earlier mobilized under the banner of

Naujawan Bharat Sabha and Kirti Kisan Congress the Akalis got a boost
when the Punjab Kisan Committee was formed in 1937. The Punjab
peasants were mobilized around the main demands of reduction of taxes
and moratorium on debts. The immediate issue was increase in water tax,
which led to Lahore Kisan Morcha in 1939, in which thousands of peasants
courted arrest. In the districts of Multan and Montegomery, the
movement was organized against feudal levies being imposed on the
tenants. Central Punjab, mostly comprising Sikh peasantry, was the main
centre of agitation. In Punjab, some of the important leaders were Baba
Sohan Singh, Teja Singh, Baba Raj Singh, and Master Harisingh.21

After having discussed the various forms of peasant movements, it is

quite obvious to present and give an analytical, evaluative and critical

20
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and Nationalism in India’, Macmillan
Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.267.
21
Ram Chandra Pradhan, ‘Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and Nationalism in India’, Macmillan
Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, p.268.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 15

study of their contribution to the national struggle in general and to the
cause of the peasants in particular. Although, these peasant movements
were specific, limited and spontaneous in nature, they contributed directly
and very substantially to the birth of Gandhian nationalism especially in
Champaran in North-east Bihar and Kheda district of Gujarat. One of the
greatest and landmark achievement of the prolonged struggle of peasant
movements was the Abolition of Zamindari System, which was one of the
main source for the exploitation and deprivation of peasants. Peasant
movements directly or indirectly forged crucial connections between
nationalism and grassroots agitation in the long struggle for Indian
freedom & independence.

TRIBAL UPRISING/RESISTANCE/REBELLION

The peasant rebellions in pre-1857 India were participated exclusively by

the tribal population, whose political autonomy and control over local
resources were threatened by the establishment of British rule and the
advent of its non-tribal agents.22 In 1980s, Sumit Sarkar, Ranajit Guha
and others attempted to catch the plural voice (marginalized/unheard
voices) of Indian national movement. They showed the mass participation
in the Indian nationalist movement. In his book, “Modern India: 1885-
1947”, Sumit Sarkar also captured the participation of the tribal and lower
strata of people in anti-imperialist, political and nationalist movement. But
Sarkar is also critical about the tribal and peasant movements as these,
according to him, tended to drive against immediate oppressor rather
than the distant British overload.

Normally, the term „tribe‟ reflects a way of life that predates, and is more
natural, than that in modern states. Tribes also privilege primordial social
ties, are clearly bounded, homogeneous, and parochial and stable. In
Indian context, according to Sumit Sarkar, “the term

22
Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, ‘From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India’, Orient Longman, 2004, p.164

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 16

„tribe‟ is used to distinguish people socially organized from „caste‟ and
should not convey a sense of complete isolation from the mainstream of
Indian life”. Further, he argues that, apart from some isolated & primitive
food-gatherers, the tribals were and are very much a part of Indian
society on the lowest stratum of the peasantry subsisting through shifting
cultivation, agricultural labourers, and increasingly, coolies recruited for
work in distant plantations, mines and factories.23

Quite similarly, as the other part of society such as peasants, tribes were
also being badly exploited by the domination of British Raj. In 1880s &
90s, British started increasing its control in the forests & revenue
purposes. The social life of the tribal society intervened by the middleman
or officials who were instrumental to the collection of revenue for British
authorities. Even so many forest areas were made to monopolize and
reserved for the economic purposes.

The tribal peasant who lived at the periphery of the settled Hindu peasant
societies and enjoyed autonomy of culture was based on an egalitarian
ethos. But over the period, the Hinduisation brought them under the
dejection of ritual hierarchy and the extension of the British land revenue
system fully destroyed the autonomy of the tribal peasants. Further, the
imposition of British rule had resulted in the loss of their autonomous
domains of power, freedom and culture. The destruction of their imagined
golden past by the intruding outsiders- the „suds‟ and „dikus‟- led to
violent outbursts. These peasants and tribal uprisings of the early colonial
period have been imagined and taken in different ways such as British
administration treated them as problem of law and order; the rebels were
portrayed as primitive savages resisting civilization and the nationalists
projected peasant and tribal histories as the pre-history of modern
nationalism. Others like D.N. Dhanagare would regard the peasant
rebellions as „pre-political‟, because of their lack of organization, program

23
Sumit Sarkar, ‘Modern India: 1885-1947’, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi, 1983, p.44-45

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 17

and ideology24. Ranajit Guha, on the other hand, has argued that “there
was nothing in the militant movement of……[the] rural masses that was
not political”.25 Guha contends that these movements were very much
political in character and had an agenda, objective and programme.

As mentioned earlier, similar to peasant movements, tribal uprising was

also the product and offspring of the extreme unbearable exploitation of
British rule. Now, we will briefly study some of the major tribal revolts
and resistance. One of the most important and effective tribal movement
was the Santhal hool (rebellion) of 1855-56. The Santhals were located
in Rajmahal hills and adjoining areas, now a part of Jharkhand state.
Earlier, they had their autonomy over the land and forest areas but with
the arrival of British power, they had to loose their natural autonomy. Due
to various activities like railroad construction, deforestation and driven
out of tribal lands in the hands of non-Santhal zamindars and
moneylenders invoked them to attack against outsiders which led to the
clash with authorities. They were displaced and driven from their
homeland. This penetration of outsiders called dikus by Santhals-
completely destroyed their familiar world, and forged them into action to
take possession of their lost territory.

In July 1855, when their ultimatum to the Zamindars and the government
unheeded, several thousand Santhals, armed with bows and arrows,
started an open insurrection “against the unholy trinity of their
oppressors-the zamindars, the Mahajans and the government.” The
insurrection spread rapidly and a wide region between Bhagalpur and
Rajmahal the Company‟s rule virtually collapsed. The Santhal rebels were
also being actively helped by the low caste non-tribal peasants. This
invited brutal counter-insurgency measures; the army was mobilized and
Santhal villages were burnt one after another with vengeance. According
to one calculation, out of thirty to fifty thousand rebels, fifteen to twenty
24
D. N. Dhanagare, ‘Peasant Movements in India, 1920-50’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1991, p.82
25
Ranajit Guha, ‘Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India’, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 1994, p.7

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 18

thousand were killed before the insurrection was finally suppressed.
Hence, the British government became more cautious about them and the
Santhal inhabited areas were constituted into a separate administrative
unit, called the Santhal Paraganas, which recognized the distinctiveness
of their tribal culture and identity.26

It is important to note that the tribal groups were also one of the worst
victims of the British rule in India. In 1879-80, a frightening tribal
rebellion occurred in the hills of the neighbouring Godavari agency. This
revolt was waged against their overlord in the Rampa area of
Chodavaram and major reasons for this revolt were the increase in taxes
on timber & grazing, exploitation by the moneylenders, prohibition on
shifting cultivation (podu) and preparation toddy in forests.

Mundas were another group which rose in rebellion during 1899-1900

under the leadership of Birsa Munda, residing in Chhota Nagpur region.
Munda were used to collective farming but their system of collective
farming was totally destroyed after the arrival of the British raj.
Thousands of Mundas joined the leader Birsa, who declared himself as a
messenger of God and Mundas started looking upto him as their liberator.
They came up with their armed movement against the British domination
and attacked government offices. The rebellion was ruthlessly suppressed
and destroyed by the army and Birsa also known as Birsa Bhagavan was
captured during 1900 and died while being lodged in the jail.

Another major tribal rebellion was the Bhils (1818-1831), who were
concentrated in the hill ranges of Khandesh in the previous Maratha
territory. The Bhils were basically agriculturalists and were being
perpetrated atrocities, harassed and oppressed by the moneylenders and
zamindars. As a reaction, this led to a feeling of strong resentment among
the Bhils. They started a general insurrection in 1819 but the situation

26
Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, ‘From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India’, Orient Longman, 2004, p. 165

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 19

still remained unsettled until 1831 when the Ramoshi leader Umaji Raje of
Purandhar was finally captured and executed.

During 1831-32 a similar revolt took place among the Kols who were
located in the Chhota Nagpur region. This was also subdued and mollified
by the superior British forces. Thus, the period between 1818-1831 saw
many turbulent uprisings among the Bhils. Hence, these tribal movements
had contributed a significant role in the Indian struggle for freedom.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, we can say that there were two simultaneous movements in

the country. The first movement comprised a separate movement of
various social classes pursuing their own respective interests, aims and
goals such as the peasants, workers, industrialists, women and others.
Each social class or group organized itself and arose numerous distinct
movements of various classes to serve their specific interests. The other
movement was the joint movement of all against foreign rule. It took the
form of the Indian nationalist movement for Home Rule, Dominion Status
or Complete Independence. This movement was based on the common
interest, namely the removal of political control of India by another
nation. Each social class, however, had its own conception of the form of
state and socio-economic structure after the achievement of power. Desai
argues that the phenomenon of separate class movements on a national
scale and a united national movement for political freedom, economic
advance and cultural progress, was non-existent in pre-British India.27

However, there is no denying the fact that the peasantry‟s first steps
towards the attainment of its self-awareness is an achievement of the
National Movement, for whose success the peasants were so largely
responsible.

27
A.R. Desai, ‘Social Background of Indian Nationalism’, Popular Prakashan,Mumbai, 1948, p.203

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 20

We need to understand what the peasantry felt and incoherently knew,
when they agitated/protested against their enemy i.e. Zamindars/British
etc. We also need to analyse the growing self-consciousness of the
peasantry and how it contributed to the wider process of radical
transformation of society and their consciousness itself.

The specific events and features of Indian peasant uprisings deserve

careful consideration and attention. One can debate on the level of their
class-consciousness, but nevertheless, their objective of securing specific
changes in their legal and economic status (and sometime specific
parochial demand) will have to be recognized.

We can conclude by saying that the peasants and tribal movements have
contributed a lot in the Indian nationalist struggle. It posed serious
challenge for British rule by consistently mobilizing themselves against
their exploitation & oppression and fought with their common enemy. One
can not ignore the emergence of embryonic forms of class consciousness,
while analysing the peasant & tribal rebellions which were a complex
mosaic of newly emerging anti-feudal and anti-colonial sentiments as well
as traditional loyalties to their respective tribal values and norms which
helped them in a large measure to unite against common enemies.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 21

References

Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar, „From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India‟,

Orient Longman, 2004.
Chatterjee, Partha, „Bengal 1920-1947. The Land Question‟.
Desai, A.R., „Social Background of Indian Nationalism‟, Popular
Prakashan,Mumbai, 1948.
Dhanagare, D. N., „Peasant Movements in India, 1920-50‟, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 1991.
Gadgil, D.R., The Industrial Evolution of India in recent times (1933).
Gough, Kathleen, 'Indian Peasant Uprisings', Economic and Political Weekly,
Special Number, August 1974, p.1393
Guha, Ranajit, „Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India‟,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1994.
Habib, Irfan, „The Peasant in Indian History‟, Social Scientist, Vol. 11, No. 3,
Marx Centenary Number (Mar., 1983).
Henningham, Stephen, „Peasant Movements in Colonial India‟.
Krishna, K.B., „The Problem of Minorities‟ (1939).
Mukherjee, Mridula, „Peasant Resistance and Peasant Consciousness in Colonial
India: 'Subalterns' and Beyond‟, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 41
(Oct. 8, 1988), pp. 2109-2120.
Pandey, Gyanendra, „The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh’.
Pannikar, K.N., (1979),‟Peasant Revolt in Malabar in the Nineteenth & Twentieth
Centuries‟, in A.R.Desai, editor, „Peasant Struggles in India‟, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.
Pradhan, Ram Chandra, „Colonialism in India‟, Macmillan Publishers, New Delhi,
2013.
Pradhan, Ram Chandra, „Raj to Swaraj: A textbook on Colonialism and
Nationalism in India‟, Macmillan Publishers, New Delhi, 2008.
Roy, M.N. India in Transition (1922).
Sarkar, Sumit, „Modern India: 1885-1947‟, Macmillan India Ltd, New Delhi,
1983.
Sarkar, Sumit, „Popular Movements and Middle Class Leadership‟.
Smith, W.C., „Modern Islam in India‟ (1943)
Vishwanath, L.S., „Peasant Movements in Colonial India: An Examination of
Some Conceptual Frameworks‟, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 2
(Jan. 13, 1990), pp. 118-122.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 22

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi 23