The establishment of British rule in India was not merely an event, but the result of a long process of colonizing the Indian economy and society and gradually subjugating it. This process bred discontent and resentment at every level of Indian society, forcing the British to face continuous sporadic resistance. The primary resistance during the first century of British rule is sometimes called ‘restorative rebellions.’ This is because they were initiated by disgruntled local rulers, Mughal officials, and dispossessed zamindars, landowners, and poligars. In most cases, the rebels received support from local peasants, whose aim was to restore the old order or previous agrarian relations. In this sequence, the rebellions of Awadh’s Raja Chet Singh and other zamindars during 1778-81, and subsequently the rebellion of the deposed Nawab Wazir Ali of Awadh in 1799, can be counted.
However, against English power, not only peasants, artisans, and soldiers from the disintegrated armies of kings and nawabs participated under the leadership of displaced rajas, nawabs, zamindars, and poligars, but tribals living in forests, hills, and surrounding areas also took up arms against the oppressive policies of English intruders, ‘outsider’ mahajans, moneylenders, and British officials.
Causes of Armed Resistance
Changes in Economy and Administration
These rebellions arose from the rapid changes made by the British Raj in the economy, administration, and land revenue system. Due to the colonial policy of the British Raj to collect maximum land revenue and continuously increase its rates, thousands of zamindars and poligars lost their lands and the revenue derived from them, as the British Raj either stripped them of their revenue collection rights or forced them to sell their land rights due to inability to pay sky-high rates.
Blow to Social Prestige and Dominance
When government officials and newly rich merchants and mahajans seized the social prestige and dominance of these zamindars and poligars, their ego suffered a severe blow. Similarly, rajas and nawabs deprived of their principalities had accounts to settle with the new rulers to regain their old economic and political status. Like rajas and nawabs, the dispossessed zamindars and poligars harbored the same anger and wanted to reclaim their lost status.
Heavy Demands of Revenue
In the late 18th or early 19th century, the land reforms and heavy revenue demands of the Company government in India affected the entire rural population so adversely that all sections of the peasant class participated in numerous violent resistances across various parts of the country. The pre-colonial Indian agrarian economy was based on subsistence thinking. Peasants were not troubled by how much was collected from them; in an environment of scarcity, if enough produce was left for their basic needs, they did not rebel.
However, due to high revenue rates, peasants either sank under the burden of debt or were forced to sell their land. The new landowners raised the rent on the land leased to peasants to such levels that paying it was beyond the peasants’ capacity, and those unable to pay were evicted without hesitation by the new owners. This disrupted the peasants’ subsistence arrangements, leading to repeated peasant revolts. In other words, ‘heavy revenue demands necessitated loans for peasants, increasing the influence of usurers and merchants on rural society, leading to evictions, transfer of lands to non-agricultural classes, and thus forming a synthesis of dominance by zamindars, usurers, and the state over the peasant.’
Zamindar-Daroga Nexus
Corruption rampant at lower levels of police, administration, and judiciary, along with the ‘zamindar-daroga nexus,’ greatly increased peasants’ troubles. The new legal system and courts further encouraged the eviction of poor peasants’ lands. Various oppressions were inflicted on peasants for collecting revenue, rent, or interest. Police looted people at will, committed all sorts of atrocities, and engaged in arbitrary exploitation. In 1859, William Edwards wrote: ‘The police have become oppressors of the public and the main cause of discontent against our government is the atrocities inflicted by the police.’
Free Trade Policy
The free trade policy of British rulers and arbitrary duties on Indian producers completely ruined Indian handicraft industries, creating a crisis of livelihood for millions of artisans. Due to the ruin of rajas, nawabs, and zamindars, customers for handicraft goods became hard to find, further collapsing the industry.
Foreign Nature of British Rule
Religious leaders and the traditionally intellectual class played an active role in inciting hatred against foreign rule and fostering rebellion. Disempowered rajas and nawabs no longer had the status to patronize poets, writers, musicians, or other artists, as well as priests, pandits, maulvis, etc. One reason for these rebellions was the foreign nature of British rule. Traditional elements of India, crushed under foreign feet, felt humiliated and wanted to expel the foreigners from India at any cost.
Religious Causes
Religion played a significant role in the various resistances of this period and served as a thread of unity. In pre-capitalist societies where class consciousness was less developed, religion provided the ideology for rebellion, such as the Sannyasi-Fakir rebellion in Bengal, Moplah rebellion in South India, Farazi movement, Wahabi movement, etc. Initially, these movements were religious in nature, but later they united against peasants, zamindars, and exploiters.
Beginning of Rebellions and Major Rebellions
The series of rebellions that began with the establishment of British rule in Bengal and Bihar expanded with the spread of English rule. Hardly a year passed without some armed resistance against the British somewhere in the country, and hardly a decade went by without a major rebellion against the British. Between 1763 and 1856, more than 40 major rebellions occurred across the country against the British. There was no count of minor rebellions.
Sannyasi-Fakir Rebellion (1763-1800)
In the eastern region of Bengal, dispossessed peasants, rajas, and soldiers from the disbanded armies of nawabs first laid the foundation of the Sannyasi rebellion under the leadership of deposed zamindars and religious leaders. This rebellion shook northern Bengal and adjacent areas of Bihar from 1763 to 1800. The Dasnami Sannyasis, famous for their warrior tradition, were landowners, lent money on interest, and traded in raw silk, retail goods, coarse cloth, copper, and spices.
The Madari Fakirs, associated with the Sufi order initiated by Shah Madar, had received ‘maafi’ (revenue-free) lands during the Mughal period and had their own armed followers. The notable philosophical proximity, mutual relations, organizational structure, and communication with followers of these two religious groups aided in mobilizing the rebels. These armed nomadic Sannyasi groups were dissatisfied with the Company’s heavy revenue demands, seizure of maafi lands, and trade monopolies. The Company government was also unwilling to tolerate armed Sannyasi gangs.
When the British imposed various restrictions on visiting pilgrimage sites, the Sannyasi-Fakir groups, with public support, began attacking Company factories and treasuries in 1763, looting government coffers. Prominent among them were Sannyasis Mohangiri and Bhavani Pathak. By 1769-70, due to famine-affected people, small zamindars, unemployed soldiers, and village poor, the number of rebel participants reached 50,000. Clashes between Sannyasi-Fakir groups and the East India Company’s armed forces continued until 1800 in a wide area of Bengal and Bihar. Finally, Warren Hastings succeeded in suppressing the Sannyasi-Fakir rebellion after a prolonged campaign. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay mentioned the Sannyasis’ rebellion in his work ‘Anand Math.’
Rangpur Rebellion (1783)
The 1783 Rangpur rebellion in the northern districts of Bengal is an ideal example of peasant resistance. In the early days of revenue farming, revenue farmers and Company officials oppressed peasants. Revenue farmers like Devi Singh or Ganga Govind Singh created terror in the villages of Rangpur and Dinajpur districts. Peasants first submitted petitions to the Company government for relief, but when justice was denied, they organized themselves, chose a leader, prepared a large army, armed themselves with primitive bows, arrows, and swords, attacked local courts, looted grain warehouses, and forcibly freed prisoners. They called their leader ‘Nawab,’ formed their own government, and collected taxes to fund the movement. On Devi Singh’s appeal, the rebellion was suppressed during Warren Hastings’ time, but after brutal suppression, some reforms were made in the revenue farming system.
Pagalpanthi Rebellion (1825-50)
Pagalpanth was a semi-religious sect. Its influence was in the Sherpur pargana of Mymensingh district in eastern Bengal. In this area, Karim Shah and his heir Tipu Shah initiated a new religious movement among Hindu-colored tribes like Garo, Hajong, and Hadi. Under Company rule, when the zamindari system strengthened under permanent settlement, discontent spread among peasants due to illegal ‘abwabs’ (taxes) collected by zamindars and the new revenue settlement by Deputy Collector Dunbar.
Around 1824, Tipu’s Pagalpanthi sect promised a new order and fair revenues. Gradually, this new sentiment spread across the area and took the form of armed rebellion. Tipu captured Sherpur in 1825 and declared himself king. The rebels caused disturbances up to the Garo hills, which could only be crushed with army help in 1833. Nevertheless, sporadic disturbances continued in the area until 1850.
Nayak Rebellion (1806-16)
In Medinipur district of Bengal, when the Company government in 1806 pressured raiyats (Nayaks) to pay increased revenue rates and seized their lands, the Nayaks launched guerrilla warfare against the Company in resistance. The rebellion was led by Achal Singh, who trained the Nayaks militarily to form an efficient army. This rebellion lasted until 1816.
Farazi Rebellion (1838-57)
Farazi was a group of nomadic religious Muslims, followers of the sect founded by Haji Shariatullah, a resident of Faridpur in Bengal. This movement was of indigenous origin. It rejected all non-Islamic practices and declared the Quran as the sole spiritual guide for Muslims. The movement’s importance lay in its social roots, as poor rural Muslims of eastern Bengal united in this religious association and rebelled against zamindars, indigo planters, and British rulers. Although their anger mainly targeted Hindu zamindars, Muslim zamindars did not feel safe either.
After Shariatullah’s death (1839), his son Dadu Miyan (1819-60) united peasants on an egalitarian ideology. He declared that all land belongs to Allah, and thus collecting revenue or tax on it violates divine law. Dadu Miyan established a network of village-level organizations in Faridpur, Bakarganj, Dhaka, Pabna, Tripura, Jessore, and Noakhali districts. He set up local courts as alternatives to British judicial organizations and collected taxes to fund his movement. Later, from 1838 to 1857, under the leadership of fakirs like Majnu Shah and Chirag Ali Shah, Farazis continuously clashed with zamindars and indigo planters.
Vizianagaram Rebellion (1794)
The British East India Company acquired the Northern Circars districts in 1765. In 1794, the Company ordered the Raja of Vizianagaram to disband his army and demanded three lakh rupees. When the Raja refused to comply with the Company’s terms, the Company seized his jagir. Compelled, the Raja rebelled against the British in 1794. The Raja received full support from his subjects and army. The Raja was killed fighting the British. Ultimately, the Company restored the jagir to the Raja’s elder son and reduced the monetary demand.
Poligar Rebellions (1790-1856)
The poligars of Tamil Nadu (Malabar) rebelled in 1790 under the leadership of Veer Kattabom Nayakan, a Pandya gar (fort lord), against the British Empire’s land revenue system. Between 1799 and 1805, the Madras government faced stiff rebellion from local chieftains (poligars) in Tirunelveli district of North Arcot and Abhyarpati districts of Andhra. The Company government considered poligars merely as zamindars receiving settlement in exchange for military service, while in local peasant society, they were seen as sovereign rulers who inherited power from the pre-Mughal Vijayanagara Empire. Therefore, when they opposed Company forces, local peasant society not only openly supported them but regarded them as folk heroes. Sporadic poligar rebellions in Madras Presidency continued until 1856.
Visakhapatnam Rebellions (1793-1834)
There was a long series of rebellions in Visakhapatnam district under Madras Presidency. The zamindar of Palakonda, Vijayarama Raje, fought several skirmishes with the British between 1793 and 1796. Subsequently, between 1821-31, the zamindar of Palakonda rebelled over revenue collection issues, and in 1830, Visakhapatnam zamindar Veerabhadra Raje rebelled over pension matters. Another zamindar of Visakhapatnam, Jagannath Raje, also rebelled in 1832-34 due to British intervention in succession disputes.
Diwan Velu Thampi’s Rebellion (1805-09)
In the south, in 1805, Lord Wellesley imposed a subsidiary alliance on the Maharaja of Travancore. The Maharaja was displeased with the alliance terms, so he did not pay the subsidiary amount, leading to accumulating arrears. Due to the British Resident’s detestable behavior, Travancore’s Diwan Velu Thampi launched an armed rebellion against the British in 1805, commanding a large army of professional soldiers and peasant volunteers. Velu Thampi contacted France and America in 1808 for help against the British. Finally, in 1809, the Company crushed the rebellion with a large military detachment.
Kittur Rebellion (1824)
After the Third Anglo-Maratha War, the British recognized Kittur (present-day Karnataka) as an independent state. However, in 1824, when the local ruler of Kittur, Shivaling Rudra, died and the British refused to recognize his adopted heir, the ruler’s widow, Maharani Chennamma, rebelled against the British with Rayappa’s help. Rani Chennamma displayed extraordinary valor against the British but could not withstand the British army for long. Ultimately, the Company government brutally crushed this rebellion. Rani Chennamma was imprisoned in Bailhongal fort, where she died on February 21, 1829.
Mysore Rebellion (1830-31)
In Mysore, after Tipu Sultan’s decisive defeat and the restoration of the old royal family, revenue demands were increased, ultimately burdening the peasants. Corrupt officials’ ruthless plunder worsened their desperate situation, forcing them into open rebellion in the Nagar province in 1830-31. The rebels challenged the Mysore rulers’ authority under their leader but could not hold against the advancing British army.
Moplah Rebellion (1840-1850)
In the 1840s and 1850s, the Moplah rebellion in the Malabar region of South India was a movement where religion played a significant role. Moplahs were descendants of Arab traders (Muslims) who settled in the area and married local Nair and Tiyar women. When the Portuguese arrived in Malabar in 1498, seized control of the spice trade, and began forcibly converting people to Christianity with guns and swords, intense hatred against whites filled the local Muslims (Moplahs). This sentiment was reflected in the 1580s in Jainul-din’s ‘Tuhfatul-Mujahidin’ and folk songs like ‘Kotupulimala.’ Later, untouchable Cherumars also adopted this new religion in large numbers, hoping for equal treatment and slight improvement in social status.
In the traditional system, crop produce was equally divided among jenmi (landowner), kanamdar (sharecropper), and cultivator (kashthakar). British rule emphasized landowners’ rights. It recognized high-caste Hindus, Nambudiri, and Nair jenmis (many of whom Tipu Sultan had expelled) as sole land owners, demoting the other two categories to tenants and revenue payers. This worsened the situation in areas with majority Muslim sharecroppers (kanamdars) and cultivators (verupattamdars). An immediate result was increased communal unity among Muslims. In 1831, there were 637 mosques in Malabar, rising to 1058 by 1851.
In the mid-19th century, due to over-assessment, heavy burden of illegal taxes, and the pro-zamindar attitude of judiciary and police, rebellions against Hindu jenmis and the British became almost endless in Eranad and Valluvanad taluks of South Malabar. Between 1836 and 1854, 22 rebellions are recorded in this area, crushed only by British armed forces. Repressive acts maintained peace for about twenty years, but Moplahs flared up again in 1870.
Coorg Rebellion (1833-34)
In South India, the 1833-34 resistance by Coorg people against English power is an example of organized civil rebellion. If the local king had shown bravery like the people, the British might have suffered a decisive defeat. Consequently, Coorg was annexed to British territory in May 1834.
Paik Rebellion (1817-25)
Paiks were soldiers using revenue-free land. When the British, like in other principalities, excessively increased land revenue in Orissa and strictly enforced collection, thousands of peasants abandoned farming and fled to forests. But local Paiks rebelled under Bakshi Jagabandhu’s leadership during 1817-1825, defeated the East India Company’s army at places like Khurda, and captured Puri. Later, the rebellion weakened.
Ganjam Rebellion (1800-1837)
The Ganjam rebellion between 1800-1805 was led by Srikar Bhanj. Subsequently, in 1835, his son Dhananjay rebelled in Gumsur (Madras) zamindari over revenue arrears. After Dhananjay’s death in 1835, the common people continued the rebellion. But in February 1837, the British succeeded in suppressing it.
Baghera Rebellion (1818-20)
Discontent against the English government was prevalent from the beginning among the Bagheras of Okha Mandal in western India. But when the Gaekwad of Baroda, with English army support, tried to collect more taxes from them, the Bagheras took up arms against the British government in 1818. Moreover, they attacked Company-occupied territories between 1818-19. This rebellion ended around 1820.
Kutch Rebellion (1819-31)
The main cause of struggle against the Company government in Kutch and Kathiawar was discontent among Kutch Raja Bharmal and his supporter Jhareja sardars. In 1819, the British deposed Bharmal and later installed his minor son as ruler. A regency council was established to administer the province under an English Resident’s direction. Changes made by this council and excessive increase in land revenue spread discontent among the people. When news of British defeat in the Burma War arrived, Bharmal’s supporters rebelled in 1819, demanding his restoration as ruler. The British government had to conduct prolonged military operations to suppress this rebellion. Another rebellion occurred in 1831, and finally, the Company adopted a policy of reconciliation.
Ramosi Rebellion (1822-26)
The Ramos (Maratha-era police) living in the Western Ghats (Poona) became unemployed under English rule. The British greatly increased revenue rates on their remaining land. In 1822, famine and hunger-stricken Ramos looted areas around Satara and attacked forts under sardar Chittar Singh’s leadership, but the rebellion was suppressed. The Ramos rebelled again in 1825-1826 under Umaji’s leadership due to severe famine and food scarcity, continuing fiercely until 1829. Later, in the 1870s, Maharashtra’s ‘Robin Hood’ Vasudev Balwant Phadke led the Ramosi struggle. Under Daulat’s leadership, Ramos fought the British until 1883.
Satara Rebellion (1840-41)
When the Company government deposed Satara’s Raja Rajpratap Singh in September 1839 and exiled him, discontent spread across the province, leading to large-scale riots in 1840-41. The rebellion was led by Narsingh Dattatreya Petkar and Dharrao Pawar. They gathered many soldiers, captured Badami fort, and hoisted their raja’s flag. But the English army counterattacked, recaptured the fort, and severely punished the rebels.
Gadkari Rebellion (1844)
This rebellion was carried out in 1844 in Maharashtra by displaced soldiers of the Gadkari caste. Gadkaris also served as soldiers in Maratha-region forts, receiving ‘revenue-free’ land in return. Around 1844, when the Company began retrenching Gadkari soldiers under the pretext of administrative reorganization in Kolhapur state, the Gadkaris rebelled against the British out of fear of unemployment, capturing Samangad, Kolhapur, and Bhudargad forts. Government treasuries were looted, and English guards killed. Even Colonel Owans was imprisoned. The British barely suppressed this rebellion. Babaji Ahirekar was among the main leaders.
Sawantwadi Rebellion (1844)
This rebellion against the English government was led by Maratha sardar Phond Sawant. With other sardars and desais, including Anna Sahab as prominent, they captured some forts in the Deccan in 1844. The rebels could only be driven out of the forts after extensive military operations. Later, many rebels fled to Goa, and remaining ones were captured and severely punished.
Bohra Rebellion (1810)
A military officer Abdurrahman led this rebellion in Bombay province in 1810. He promised to expel infidels from the country. Abdurrahman captured a British fort near Surat and declared himself ‘Messiah’ (Mahdi).
Bareilly Rebellion (1816)
The people of Bareilly violently rebelled in 1816 under Mufti Muhammad Awadh’s leadership against local English officials’ excesses. The immediate cause was the British imposing chowkidari-tax on locals and strictly collecting it.
Aligarh Rebellion (1814-17)
Farmers, zamindars, and soldiers in Aligarh under Agra province were already discontent due to East India Company’s administrative changes. Therefore, when the Company decided to increase revenue in the area, the taluqdars’ discontent erupted as rebellion in 1814-1817. The leaders were Dayaram, taluqdar of Hathras, and Bhagwant Singh, taluqdar of Mursan.
Bundela Rebellion (1842-43)
The British created a new province called North-Western Provinces, including two districts—Sagar and Damoh—from modern Madhya Pradesh seized from Marathas. The Bundelas of Jabalpur rebelled armed in 1842 under Jawahar Singh and Madhukar Singh against increased revenue rates. Although the rebellion was controlled by 1843, revenue rates were also reduced.
Wahabi Movement (1826-69)
The Wahabi movement began in the 18th century in Arabia’s Najd province as an ‘Islamic revival movement’ under Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab. The movement he led to protect Islam’s originality is called the ‘Wahabi movement.’ Its main objective was to restore Islam’s purity and eliminate embedded superstitions and malpractices.
In India, the Wahabi movement was started by Syed Ahmad Barelvi (1786-1831), a rebellious effort against English power in a religious context. This movement continued in India from the fourth to seventh decade of the 19th century (1826-1869). Syed Ahmad went to Mecca in 1821 and was influenced there by the ‘Wahabi sect’ led by Arabia’s Ibn Abdul Wahab. Influenced by Wahabi ideas, Syed Ahmad Barelvi returned to India two years later as a ‘staunch religious warrior’ and began propagating Wahabi ideas.
In India, the Wahabi movement is also called ‘Tariqa-e-Muhammadi’ or ‘Walliullahi movement’ because Syed Ahmad Barelvi was also influenced by Delhi’s saint Shah Walliullah. Walliullah wanted to remove the British from India and reestablish Islamic rule. He believed India should be made ‘Dar-ul-Islam’ (land of Islam) not ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ (land of enemies), and for this, ‘religious war’ against the British was mandatory. He believed cooperating with the British in any way was anti-Islamic. Syed Ahmad Barelvi was greatly influenced by this and was thus chosen as the ‘Imam’ leader of this ‘Jihad’ (religious war). A council was formed to assist Syed Ahmad, and four caliphs were appointed under him to build a nationwide organization. Syed Ahmad’s ideas are compiled in a Persian text called ‘Shirat-e-Mustakim.’
Beginning of Wahabi Movement
The Wahabi movement in India began in 1826. Although religious, Syed Ahmad Barelvi gave it a political form, training his followers in arms and adopting military attire himself. Taking the vow of monotheism and Hijrat—expelling enemies from India—Syed Ahmad made ‘Sithana’ in the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province his center and established an independent rule in Peshawar with 3000 supporters. Arms, money, and people began reaching the frontier province. For this, khanqahs were built from Bengal to Sithana as secret aid channels. When Syed Ahmad attempted to liberate Punjab from Sikhs, he was killed fighting them at Balakot in 1831.
There were several clashes between Wahabi supporters in Punjab and North-West provinces and the British. After Punjab was annexed to British territory in 1849, the Wahabi movement under Maulvi Ahmadullah clearly took an anti-British form. Consequently, the British destroyed Wahabi centers Sithana and Mulka. Many supporters were arrested, and several were tried, sentenced to transportation for life or imprisonment.
Wahabi Movement in Bengal
In Bengal, the Wahabi movement’s leader was Titu Mir. Farmers and artisans participated enthusiastically. Wahabi supporters (mostly peasant class) opposed zamindars increasing taxes. When Nadia (Bengal) zamindar Krishnaray increased revenue, Titu Mir attacked him. Such incidents occurred in many places where zamindars faced opposition. Thus, Titu Mir became the peasants’ messiah. Once, Titu Mir with many Wahabi supporters destroyed a fort built by the English army, but Titu Mir was killed in this struggle.
After Syed Ahmad, credit for keeping the Wahabi movement active goes to Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali. The Wahabis made Patna their main center, and Inayat Ali was given charge of Bengal. Patna Wahabis declared religious war against British rule in 1852. They received great support from rural peasants and urban residents. The British feared Wahabis might get help from Afghanistan or Russia, so after 1860, the British government conducted repressive military operations, expelling Wahabis from Bengal and Bihar and destroying the Patna center. Pir Ali, Sheikh Karamat Ali, etc., were other important Wahabi leaders.
Importance of Wahabi Movement
Although the Wahabi movement began as a revival of the Muslim community, it later changed direction. Though it started aiming to restore Muslim rule in the country, over time it remained mainly a peasant movement. When it became a peasant movement, many Hindus also joined. It is true that Wahabis raised voices against English atrocities on peasants and lower classes. By running anti-government campaigns, Wahabis prepared the atmosphere for the 1857 revolt.
In the first century of British rule, armed rebellion, social plunder, or legal anarchy was common in India. Like displaced rajas, zamindars, peasants-artisans, the urban lower classes were equally vocal in resistance. In 1833-38, grain riots and resistance occurred in western Hindustan and Delhi against grain merchants’ hoarding and intervening British officers.
Riots for rice occurred in Vellore, and between 1806 and 1858, riots against conversion to Christianity in South India. Due to the collapse of handicraft industries from British free trade policy, urban rebellions by artisan groups occurred in 1789 in Calcutta, 1790 in Surat, and between 1809 and 1818 in Ruhelkhand and Banaras. Although these rebellions were not always directly anti-colonial movements, they were related to colonial rule’s policies and conditions.
Tribal Rebellions
Tribals (janjatis) living in various parts of India also waged fierce struggles from the beginning against British control over local resources, its exploitative policies, and excesses by non-tribal agents like outsider mahajans, moneylenders, and British officials. Although economic issues related to tribal movements were often the same as those affecting non-tribal peasant movements, tribals had their own communal agrarian structure different from non-tribal peasants. Peasants subsisted only on (agricultural) land, while tribals depended on both agriculture and forests. These tribals were against zamindars, usurers, and Company’s minor officials not only because they exploited them but also because they were ‘outsiders.’
Generally, tribals kept themselves separate from the rest of society, but due to British government policies, when non-tribals infiltrated tribal areas to exploit economic resources in forests and hills, the traditional economy and entire social system of tribal society were overturned. Tribals’ lands slipped from their hands, and they gradually became farm laborers.
Colonial assault also broke their deep relationship with forests, from where they gathered food, fuel, and fodder for animals. Atrocities, exploitation, and forced exactions by police and other minor officials made tribals’ lives miserable. Revenue collectors and mahajans, as government intermediaries and brokers, exploited tribals and forced begar (unpaid labor).
Tribals’ reaction to colonial power manifested in sporadic violent rebellions, but due to Christian missionaries’ infiltration in tribal areas, education spread, and movements for internal and social-cultural reforms began, sometimes running concurrently. Such resistance occurred among tribals of Chota Nagpur and Santhal Pargana, besides some in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, and Bhils in western India.
Among tribals too, religion often served as a thread of unity, and their leaders were religious gurus who promised to lead them to a new era with supernatural means. These religious leaders claimed magical powers that could neutralize enemy bullets. This spread such a wave of hope and faith among tribals that they were ready to fight with their leader until their last breath.
Chuar Rebellion (1766-72)
Chuars were a wild tribe of Midnapur in Bengal. The Company had already taken control of the entire Midnapur district in 1760, and by 1765, all surrounding areas and mahals were under its control. Due to famine, increased land revenue, and other economic hardships, the Chuar rebellion started in 1766 under Raja Jagannath Dhal of Dhalbhum, spreading to five districts of Bengal and Bihar, lasting until 1772.
The rebels adopted a ‘self-destruction’ policy, devastating their area to leave it barren so the Company gained no benefit even after control. In many places, Chuar warriors overthrew colonial rule. A female rebel named Rani Shiromani displayed great valor but was later captured. The organized English army suppressed this rebellion with great brutality, but sporadic disturbances continued in the area until the late 18th century.
Chero Rebellion (1800-02)
In Palamau district of Bihar, when local raja and Company began seizing lands from jagirdars (Chero), the jagirdars rebelled in 1800 under zamindar Bhushan Singh against the raja and Company. This rebellion lasted until 1802.
Gond Rebellion (1833-62)
In Sambalpur, Gonds rebelled in several phases against British intervention in succession issues. The first rebellion in 1833 was quickly suppressed. In 1839, under Surendra Sai’s leadership, another rebellion flared due to increased revenue from new land settlement. This rebellion lasted long. It weakened after Surendra Sai’s surrender in 1862.
Kol Rebellion (1831-37)
In Chota Nagpur and Singhbhum areas of Bihar and Orissa, tribals had enjoyed independent authority for centuries. But British penetration and imposition of English laws created a crisis for tribal ancestral chiefs’ power. Meanwhile, the Chota Nagpur raja began evicting tribals by leasing lands at higher rates to outsiders. This settlement by non-tribals and continuous land transfers to ‘sud’ (outsiders)—merchants and usurers—gave birth to a mass rebellion.
When officials ignored tribals’ cries for justice, Kols took up arms in 1831 under Surga and Singaray against British rule. Soon, the rebellion spread to Ranchi, Singhbhum, Hazaribagh, Palamau, and western Manbhum. The rebellion targeted outsiders’ properties, not lives. In other words, looting and destruction were main forms of peasant protest, with negligible murders. Within weeks, this rebellion wiped out British rule from Chota Nagpur. Although Raja Achet Singh, his diwan, and some Palamau notables were involved, it was truly a mass rebellion. The British government had to conduct a prolonged military campaign to crush the upheaval and restore law and order. Still, the area remained disturbed until about 1837.
Khond Rebellion (1837-56)
Khonds extended from Tamil Nadu to Bengal and hilly areas of central India. From 1837 to 1856, rebellions against the British government continued in this area. Government banning human sacrifice, imposing new taxes, and entry of zamindars and moneylenders into their areas were main causes. Tribals from Ghumsur, Chinna Kimedi, Kalahandi, and Patna actively participated. The rebellion was led by Chakra Bisoi. Later, under Radhakrishna and Dandsena, Savara and some other tribes joined.
Bhil Rebellion (1812-46)
The primitive Bhil tribe earlier lived in Khandesh district on the western coast in Maratha territory. When outsiders arrived with British power expansion in 1818, Bhils’ communal life was disrupted. They rebelled between 1812-1819 against agricultural hardships and new government policies. When British forces tried suppression, Bhil agitation increased, especially upon news of British failure in Burma. In 1825, Bhils rebelled again under Sevram. The government used suppression along with conciliatory steps, but the situation remained unstable until 1831 when Ramosi leader Umaji Raje of Purandhar was captured and hanged. Again in 1846, the rebellion took the form of a popular anti-British movement.
Koliya Rebellion (1829, 1844-46)
The Koliya tribal clan in Ahmednagar district were local rivals to Bhils in power. They challenged English power in 1829, but a large army detachment quickly crushed it. The spark smoldered and flared again in 1844-46 when a local Koliya leader successfully defied the British government for two years.
Ahom Rebellion (1828-1830)
In colonial times, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Mizoram were under British province called ‘Assam.’ In 1826, when the British government converted Assam fields into tea plantations and started revenue collection, Ahoms rebelled in 1828 under Gomdhar Kunwar against the government. The Company suppressed this rebellion with its powerful army and captured and exiled Gomdhar Kunwar. But the Ahom rebellion could not be permanently suppressed.
Ahoms planned a second rebellion in 1829-1830 under Rupchandra Kunwar, but this time the Company adopted a peace policy, giving northern Assam provinces and some areas to Maharaja Purandar Singh Narendra and handing part of the state to the Assamese raja.
Khasi Rebellion (1829-1833)
The Khasi tribe lived in a 3,500 sq ft hilly region between Jaintia in the east of Bengal province and Garo hills in the west. When the British took control of Sylhet in 1765, there were three separate powerful Khasi states. After the first Burma War, when the British controlled the Brahmaputra valley in 1824, they planned a military road to connect the area to Sylhet. Many British, Bengalis, and other outsiders were sent for this work. This caused widespread discontent among Khasi chiefs. In 1829, Nanklow’s chief Tirath Singh, with Garo, Khamti, and Singhpo support in Khasi hills, launched guerrilla war to expel foreigners. This rebellion soon took the form of a popular anti-British movement. After about four years of sporadic fighting, Khasi rajas surrendered in January 1833, and the Khasi rebellion was suppressed.
Khamti Rebellion (1839-1843)
The Khamti tribe’s original home was the Borkhamti province in Burma’s Irrawaddy valley. Later, with Ahom raja’s permission, the tribe established a small state in eastern Assam. By the 1826 treaty, the British government allowed Khamtis to remain under their chief and keep 200 soldiers. In 1830, when the Singpho tribe attacked the British in eastern Assam, Khamtis supported the British. But when the Company handed justice and revenue collection to British and imposed many new taxes, Khamti chiefs became discontent. They began inciting Singpho chiefs not to compromise with the British. In 1839, Khamtis suddenly attacked a British regiment and destroyed it, killing Major White. But due to internal feuds among chiefs in 1843, Khamtis had to surrender.
Kol Rebellion in Western Ghats (1824-50)
In late 1824, Kols in the Western Ghats and bordering Kutch rebelled against English rule, suppressed in 1825. In 1839, Kols around Poona rebelled, continuing until 1850. In various phases, Bhau Sare, Chimanaji Yadav, Nana Darbare, Raghu Bhangria, Bapu Bhangria, etc., led the Kols. Ramos also cooperated in this rebellion. Ultimately, Company forces succeeded in suppressing these rebellions.
Santhal (Hool) Rebellion (1855-56)
Among early tribal rebellions, the Santhal (Hool) rebellion was the most influential. The peaceful and humble Santhal tribe was initially scattered in various eastern India districts like Cuttack, Dhalbhum, Manbhum, Barabhum, Chota Nagpur, Palamau, Hazaribagh, Medinipur, Bankura, and Birbhum, tilling the land for centuries. Due to the 1793 permanent settlement, this land became zamindars’. Due to zamindars’ excessive exploitation, the tribe left ancestral land and moved around Rajmahal hills. Santhals using ‘hal’ (plow) for farming faced opposition from hill people using ‘jhum’ farming and ‘kudali’ (hoe). The fight between ‘hal’ and ‘kudali’ lasted long. Ultimately, around 1800, Paharia people were pushed further into Rajmahal hills.
Santhals cleared Rajmahal hill forests to prepare cultivable land, naming it ‘Daman-e-Koh’ (skirt of hills). Santhal settlements grew rapidly in Daman-e-Koh. The number of Santhal villages, 40 in 1838, rose quickly to 1,473 by 1851. Santhal population also increased from 3,000 to over 82,000. When Santhal lands were leased to non-tribal zamindars and usurers (Dikus or outsiders), discontent arose. When Bengal and northern India moneylenders started usury here, Santhal discontent grew further. According to ‘Calcutta Review,’ Santhals saw their produce, animals, themselves, and families falling into moneylenders’ clutches for debts that remained even after giving everything. Subsistence became difficult. Police, revenue officers, and administrators also sided with these moneylenders. By 1854, Santhals were restless to reclaim lost areas from ‘Dikus.’
Santhals had discontent against Bengal and northern India’s so-called civilized people, but when they saw officials siding with exploiters instead of protecting them, their patience broke. Due to land evictions and court decisions favoring landowners, tribal mukhias, majlis, and assemblies began, preparing for rebellion. On June 30, 1855, in Bhagnadihi village (Sahebganj, Jharkhand), about 6,000 tribals from 400 villages assembled and unanimously decided to launch open rebellion to expel outsiders, end foreign rule forever, and establish Satyug raj—own rule based on justice and religion.
Santhals believed God was with them. Santhal Hool leaders Siddhu and Kanhu announced that Thakur Ji instructed them to take up arms for freedom. Siddhu told officials: ‘Thakur Ji said while ordering me that this country is not of sahibs. Thakur Ji will fight from our side. Thus, you sahibs and sepoys will fight Thakur Ji himself.’
These tribals held processions in villages, beating drums to call men and women to struggle. Soon, about 60,000 armed Santhals gathered. In July 1855, under Siddhu and Kanhu’s leadership, thousands of Santhals armed with bows and arrows launched open rebellion ‘against the trio of oppressors, mahajans, and government.’ Rebels burned mahajans and zamindars’ houses, police stations, railway stations, and mail carriages. They attacked almost everything that was a medium of ‘Diku’ (non-tribal) and colonial exploitation. The rebellion was so intense that Company rule almost completely ended in a large area between Bhagalpur and Rajmahal. In this fierce struggle, lower-caste non-tribal peasants actively aided Santhal rebels.
To deal with this organized tribal rebellion, the government sent ten army detachments under a Major General. In retaliation, Santhal villages were burned one after another. Rajmahal hills turned red with Santhals’ blood. By one estimate, 15-20 thousand out of 30-50 thousand rebels were killed before complete suppression. Martial law was imposed in the disturbed area, and a 10,000 reward announced for rebel leaders’ capture.
Siddhu was hanged publicly in August 1855, and Kanhu in February 1856. Ultimately, the government created a separate Santhal Pargana (non-regulation district) as a distinct unit under the 1855 Act 37, recognizing their separate tribal culture and identity. Thus, this rebellion was a freedom movement by all poor and exploited of Santhal Pargana against exploiters, British, and their employees. Even today, June 30 is celebrated as ‘Hool Revolution Day.’
Lubiya Manjhi and Bairu Manjhi (1855-56)
In 1855-56, another fierce Santhal rebellion occurred in Hazaribagh. Leaders were Lubiya Manjhi and Bairu Manjhi. In April 1856, the Santhal rebellion spread across Hazaribagh district. Rebels entered Hazaribagh jail and set fire to symbols of atrocity. The British had to use heavy force to crush this rebellion.
Outcomes of Early Resistance
Armed struggle between British forces and tribals was entirely between unequal sides. On one side was the modern-armed English army; on the other, militant tribal men and women with stones, sickles, spears, and bows-arrows, believing their leader had divine power. In this unequal struggle, lakhs of tribals were killed, and their resistance brutally suppressed.
Thus, this series of rebellions by various sections of Indian people continued for a long time, but all efforts to uproot foreign rule remained sporadic and limited to local levels, a major reason for these early resistances’ failure. Although many rebellions had similar forms due to common backgrounds and circumstances, they did not represent national efforts in any way. Another reason for failure was that the semi-feudal leaders of these rebellions were socially, economically, and politically backward with traditional outlooks. Unaware of the new world, they lived in the old. They had resistance but no alternative social option. Thirdly, the then ruling class—feudals, rajas, and principalities—began cooperating with the British colonial empire according to their traditional character, preventing necessary coordination among these sporadic rebellions. Consequently, the British brutally suppressed these early rebellions.
