History of Armed Revolution against British Rule (contd-3)

Reprint of authors own post

Monday, July 4, 2011

Titumir of Bengal
Titu Mir (1782-1831) a peasant leader who resisted the oppression of the local zamindars and European indigo planters on the peasantry with ultimate object of liberating the country from British domination. He was a leader of the tariqah-i-muhammadiya in Bengal and his movement initially aimed at socio-religious reforms, elimination of the practice of shirk (pantheism) and bidat (innovation) in the Muslim society and at inspiring the Muslims to follow Islamic principles in their day to day life.

The real name of Titu Mir was Sayyid Mir Nisar Ali. He was born on 14 Magh 1188 BS (1782 AD) at village Chandpur (controversially Haiderpur) under Bashirhat sub-division of the district of 24 Parganas in West Bengal. His father was Sayyid Mir Hasan Ali and his mother's name was Abida Rokaiya Khatoon. Titu's family claimed descent from Hazrat Ali (R). His predecessor Sayyid Shahadat Ali came to Bengal from Arabia to preach Islam. Sayyid Abdullah, son of Shahadat Ali, was appointed the chief qazi of Jafarpur by the emperor of Delhi and was invested with the title of Meer Insaaf. Henceforth the descendants of Shahadat Ali used both the hereditary titles 'Sayyid' and 'Mir'.

Titu Mir had his early education in the village Maktab and then entered into a local Madrasah. He was a Hafiz, excelled in three languages- Bangla, Arabic and Persian and developed keen interest in Arabic and Persian literature. He was well versed in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, tasawwaf (Islamic mysticism) and mantiq. While a student in the madrasah Titu Mir grew up into a good gymnast and a renowned pahlwan (wrestler).

Titu Mir went on a pilgrimage to Makka in 1822 AD and came in close contact with the great Islamic reformer and revolutionary leader Sayyid Ahmad of Bareilly who inspired him to free his fellow countrymen from un-Islamic practices and foreign domination. On his return from Makka in 1827 Titu Mir started preaching among the Muslims in the districts of 24 Parganas and Nadia. He advised them to refrain from practising shirk and bidaat and inspired them, especially the weavers and peasants, to follow the Islamic way of life. But soon he was in conflict with the Hindu zamindar Krishnadeva Rai of Purha for his sectarian attitude towards the Muslims and imposing illegal taxes on them. Titu Mir happened to be in conflict with other landlords like Kaliprasanna Mukhopadhyay of Gobardanga, Rajnarayan of Taragonia, Gauri Prasad Chowdhury of Nagpur and Devanath Rai of Gobra-govindpur for their oppression on the peasantry.

To face the situation and to give protection to the peasants Titu Mir formed a Mujahid force and trained them in lathi and other indigenous arms. His disciple and nephew Ghulam Masum was made commander of the force. The increasing strength of Titu Mir alarmed the zamindars who however attempted to take united stand and to involve the English in their fight against him. Being instigated by the zamindar of Gobardanga, Davis, the English kuthial (factor) of Mollahati, advanced with his force against Titu Mir, but was beaten back. The zamindar of Gobra-govindpur was killed in a conflict with Titu Mir. Alexander, the collector of Barasat, advanced against Titu with the daroga of Bashirhat and sustained a severe defeat in the hands of Titu Mir. By this time Titu Mir filed a complain to the government of east india company against the oppression of the zamindars, but to no result.

Titu Mir built a strong fort with bamboo poles at Narkelbaria in October 1831, recruited mujahids and gave them military training. The number of Mujahids rose to nearly five thousand. Having completed his military preparation Titu Mir declared himself Badshah (king) and urged upon the people to participate in jihad against the British. He soon established his control over the districts of 24 Parganas, Nadia and Faridpur. Titu Mir demanded tax from the zamindars of Taki and Gobardanga who implored protection of the English. An English contingent was sent from Calcutta. But the combined forces sustained severe defeat in the hands of the mujahids. Subsequently Lord william bentinck sent a regular army against Titu Mir under Lieutenant Colonel Stewart consisting of 100 cavalry, 300 native infantry and artillery with two cannons.

The English launched attack on the mujahids on 14 November 1831. The mujahids with traditional arms failed to resist the English army equipped with modern arms and took shelter inside the bamboo fort. The English opened fire and totally destroyed the fort. There was heavy casualty on the side of the mujahids. Titu Mir along with many of his followers fell in the battle (19 November 1831). 350 mujahids including their commander Ghulam Masum were captured. Ghulam Masum was sentenced to death and other 140 captives were sentenced to imprisonment on different terms.

History of armed revolution against British Rule (contd-2)

Reprint of authors postMonday, July 4, 2011


Rebillion in South India in 1800's

Palaiyakkarar, Poligar, Polygar or Palegar or Polegar was the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military chiefs (Knights and Barons) appointed by the Naicker rulers of South India (notably Vijayanagar Empire, Madurai Nayaks and the Kakatiya dynasty) during 16th - 18th centuries. The word is an English corruption of Palaiyakkarar (Tamil) or Palegaadu (Telugu) or Paaleyagaara (Kannada). The Polygars of Madurai Country were instrumental in establishing administrative reforms by building irrigation projects, forts and religious institutions. Their wars with the British after the demise of Madurai Nayaks is often regarded as one the earliest Indian Independence struggles. Many were hanged and some banished forever to Andaman Islands by the British. Puli Thevar, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Dheeran Chinnamalai, Marudu brothers were some of the most notable Polygars who rose up in revolt against the British rule in South India. The war against the British forces predates the Sepoy Mutiny in Northern India by many decades but still largely given less importance by historians

Polygar Wars.

Polygar War is a series of wars fought by a combine of Palaiyakkarar's against the British troops, between 1798 and 1805. The war between the British and Kattabomman Nayak (Veerapandiya Kattabomman) is often classified as First Polygar war (1799), while Second Polygar War 1800-1805 against the British was fought by a much bigger combine over entire western Tamil Nadu headed by Dheeran Chinnamalai and Marudhu Pandiyan brothers of the Sivaganga.

The Polygars often had artillery and resisted stubbornly and the storming of their hill forts proved on several occasions’ sanguinary work. The British columns were exposed throughout the operations to constant harassing attacks; and had usually to cut their way through almost impenetrable jungles fired on from under cover on all sides. It took more than a year to suppress the rebellion completely, resulting in the abolition of the Polygar system.

End of the Polygar systemAfter a long and expensive campaign the British finally defeated the revolting Polygars, of whom many were beheaded and hanged while others were deported to the Andaman Islands. Of the Polygars who submitted to the British some of them were granted Zamindari status, which has only tax collection rights and disarmed them completely. (The Zamindari system originated in Bengal, but was adopted by the British.)

Karnataka did not tamely submit to the foreign rule of the British. There were anti-British violent uprisings between 1800 and 1858. The earliest of these was of Dhondia Wagh, who after the fall of Tipu, unfurled the flag of revolt against the British in 1800 from the Bidanur-Shikaripur region; many former princes joined him. His revolt spread from Jamalabad to Sode in Coastal Districts and above the Ghats upto Belgaum and Raichur Districts. He was killed at Konagal in September 1800, and his colleague Krishnappa Nayak of Belur (Balam) was killed in February 1802. This was followed by the Koppal Rebellion led by one Virappa in 1819. The year-1820 saw the Deshmukh rebellion near Bidar. A strong revolt was witnessed at Sindhagi in Bijapur District in 1824. The revolt of Kittur Channamma in 1824 and of Sangolli Rayanna in the same kingdom in 1829 are also famous. This was followed by the Nagar Uprising of 1830-31 accompanied by similar agrarian revolts in the Kanara District in 1831. Sarja Hanumappa Nayak of Tarikere also joined the insurgents. Though this revolt failed, it cost Krishnaraja III his throne. There was an uprising in Kodagu during 1835-37, which was also strong in Dakshina Kannada (Sullya and Mangalore). One former official of the Peshwa called Narasappa Petkar organized a revolt against the British in 1841. Karnataka responded to the 1857-58 uprisings positively. In November 1857, the Halagali Bedas revolted against the Arms Act. The rulers of Naragund and Surapur, joined by Mundargi Bheemarao, a Zamindar and the Desais of Govanakoppa, Hammige, Soraturu etc, also revolted in 1858. There was a long revolt in Supa jointly led by men from Goa and Uttara Kannada who included some Siddis (Negroes) in 1858-59.

Though the uprisings were suppressed, their lessons were not totally forgotten. It was the Nagar Uprising (1830) which ultimately resulted in the founding of Mysore Representative Assembly in 1881. The British learnt to respond to the grievances of the people quickly. Local self governing bodies were founded in towns in 1850's and 1860's. People also learnt that without proper organisation, it is not possible to free the country from the British. The British also felt the need to improve the means of transport and communication to enable them to meet situations of breach of peace. The communication facilities initiated by them mainly served their colonial economic purposes
Monday, July 4, 2011


Santal rebellion, 1855

The Santhal rebellion (sometimes referred to as the Santhal rebellion), commonly known as Santal Hul was a native rebellion in present day Jharkhand, in eastern India against both the British colonial authority and corrupt upper caste zamindari system by the Santal people. It started on June 30, 1855 and on November 10, 1855 martial law was proclaimed which lasted until January 3, 1856 when martial law was suspended and the movement was brutally ended by troops loyal to the British Raj. The rebellion was led be the four Murmu Brothers - Sindhu, Kanhu , Chand and Bhairav.

Background of the rebellionThe insurrection of the Santals began as a Tribal reaction to racism and corrupt usury moneylending practices, and the zamindari system and their operatives, in the tribal belt of what was then known as the Bengal Presidency.

Before the advent of the British in India, Santals resided in the hilly districts of Cuttack, Dhalbhum, Manbhum, Barabhum, Chhotanagpur, Palamau, Hazaribagh, Midnapur, Bankura and Birbhum. They engaged in their agrarian way of life by clearing the forest and also by hunting for subsistence. But as the agents of the new colonial rule claimed their rights on the lands of the Santals, they retreated to reside in the hills of Rajmahal. After a brief period, the British operatives along with their native counterparts, i.e., the local upper caste landlords and zamindars jointly started claiming their rights in this new land as well. The unsophisticated and unlettered Santals felt cheated and betrayed. The Santal tribes were turned into slaves by the zamindars and the money lenders who first appeared to them as businessmen and traders and had allured them first by goods lent to them on loans. However hard a Santal tried to repay these loans, they never ended. In fact through corrupt practices of the money lenders, the compound interest accumulated on the principal amount of the loan multiplied to large sum, an amount (for repaying) which an entire generation of an indigent Santal family had to work as slaves. Furthermore, the Santali women who worked under labour contractors were sexually disgraced and used as concubines and comfort women by the money lenders, zamindars and agents of the Raj. This loss of freedom and respect that the Santals enjoyed turned them into rebels and finally they took oath to launch an attack on the most visible symbol of authority, i.e., the British Raj.

The Santal rebellionOn 30 June 1855, two Santal rebel leaders, Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu, mobilized ten thousand Santals and declared a rebellion against British colonists.

The Santals initially gained some success in guerilla war tactics using bows and arrows but soon the British found out a new way to tackle these rebels. As the legend goes, the Santals skilled in archery could fire arrows extremely accurate and with great impact. The British soon understood that there was no point fighting them in the forest but to force them come out of the forest. So in a conclusive battle which followed, the British, equipped with modern firearms and war elephants, stationed themselves at the foot of the hill on which the Santals were stationed. When the battle began, the British officer ordered fire without bullets. As the Santals could not trace this trap set by the much experienced British war strategists, they charged in full force. This step proved to be disastrous for them for as soon as they neared the foot of the hill, the British army attacked with full power and this time by using real bullets. The hapless Santals were cut to pieces.

Thereafter the British attacked every village of the Santals, plundered them, raped their women and whipped and castrated their teenagers, to make sure that the last drop of revolutionary spirit was annihilated. Although the revolution was brutally suppressed, it marked a great change in the colonial rule and policy. The day of rebellion is still celebrated among the Santal community with great respect and spirit for the thousands of the Santal martyrs who sacrificed their lives along with their two celebrated leaders in their glorious albeit unsuccessful attempt to win freedom from the rule of the zamindars and the British operatives.

Although its impact was largely shadowed by that of the other rebellion, the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the legend of the Santal Rebellion lives on as a turning point in Santal pride and identity. This was reaffirmed, over a century and a half later with the creation of the first tribal province in independent India, Jharkhand.

Mrinal Sen's film Mrigaya (1976) is set in this time

History of armed revolution against British Rule (contd-1)

(Reprint author's article of Saturday, June 25, 2011)

Movement Against Colonial Rule

To expand the colonial rule throughout India the British undertook several measures.1. to occupy the areas governed by the kings they enforced the annexation policy was a deadly weapon for conquest which increased the East India Company rule to the elevation of glory. The annexation policy was known as the Doctrine of Lapse. The Doctrine of Lapse was based on the forfeiture for the right rule in the non-appearance for a natural successor. By Doctrine of Lapse policy the province of Satara was annexed in 1848, the state of Sambhalpur in 1849, the state of Jhansi in 1853 and the state of Nagpur in 1954 was also annexed.

Additional system of annexation brought victory. The state of Punjab was annexed in 1849 after the Second Anglo Sikh war. The state of Burma also known as Pegu in 1852 was annexed. In 1853, the territory of Berar and in 1856, Oudh was also annexed By this way they occupied during 1848-1858 Satara, Nagpur, Jhancy, Sambalpur, and many other Kingdoms.After the death of the King of Tanjore and Nawab of Carnatak their titles as king and Nawab were abolished.As the loan of Hyderabad were unpaid, they captured the vast fertile lnd of cotton at Berar. From 1831 Mysore came under the rule of British. Though the King got his pension but his descendants were deprived of getting it. For misruleof the king of Audh, the map of the province of Audh had been wiped out from the map of India since 1856.
After the demolition of the Kingship, they closed their council of Ministers. As a result the members were deprived of their allownces, The kings also closed their set of soldiers. During the time of draught or flood there were loss of harvest . but the farmers didnot get any help from the British and hence the economic condition of the farmers became depressed. The British withdrawn the prestiguous position of the family members of the Kings for which they were also agrieved. For all these reasons the Indian people, specially the farmers under the leadership of the feudal lords began to revolt. The colonial policy for the tribes was not friendly, they had also joined the revolts. as a result several revolts took place in the whole India. This happened since the first half of nineteenth century. The British had to stop all these revolts during 1801-1805 and again from 1813 -1914 and 1831 by lathi charge and other forms of suppression.
In 1807 the whole of Delhi was in armed revolt. In 1814 armed Rajput farmers , in 1817-1818 farmers of Orissa, in 1826-1829 people of Pune were in revolt
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar rightly pointed out, "Of all the ruling princes of this period Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan were the most uncompromising opponents of the growth of British Political power in India, and they realised, more than others, the great peril which it meant to India."
Immediately after Tipu's death, Dhoondia Bagh, a Maratha by birth, and a military officer under Tipu, put himself at the head of the body of soldiers, mostly those disbanded from Tipu's army, and secured, without any fight, a number of important forts in Bednore  districts.After being secured in these forts, he tried for a "political confederacy" against the British. On Sep 10, 1800, Wellesly encountered Dhoondia's army, and though it was strongly posted defeated completely.
Even Thornton grudgingly admits that Dhoondia's "character and his attempt may be regarded as having gained something of dignity from the fact of the greatest general of modern times having takenthe field against him". He should rather be looked upon as typifying the spirit of hostility and resistance against the British that manifested itself after the conquest of Mysore.        

History of armed revolution against British Rule

Both Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim revolted against British rule though they have been put to the throne by the British. Mir Qasim became the Nawab of Bengal from the year 1760 till 1764. The British East India Company made him the Nawab of Bengal by replacing Mir Jafar, the father-in-law of Mir Qasim, who was also installd by by the British as a prize for his treachery in the Battle of Palashi ti defeat Sira-ud-daullah. But in search of Independence, Mir Jafar engaged himself with the Dutch East India Company to assert independence, the British finally defeating Mir Jafar and the dutch forces at Chinsura and  and made Mr. Qasimthe new Nawab.
After becoming the Nawab of Bengal, Mir Qasim was subject to pay a huge outstanding date of the former Nawab, Mir Jafar. In the pursuit of pleasing the British, Mir Qasim robbed all, seized lands by resuming vast amount of rent free lands after conducting a new survey of land and increased his revenue. He also transferred the the districts of Midnapore, Burdwan and Midnapore to British East India Company. He thought that he would be given full Independence. He undertook some strategic measures. 1. He collected ample fund to creat a military like British one, 2. Changed his capital from Murshidabad to Munger, and also changed the land revenue system and wanted to rationalise the tax structure of export and import. Mir Qasim formed a confederacy with Shuzaudddaula, the Nawab of Oudh, and Emperor Shah alam II but was defeated in he battle of Buxar on 22 Oct 1764.The success at Buxar established the claims of the English in a real sense than did the Battle of Palashi.              
There were several other serious uprisings against the British in the late 18th and 19th century. These were the Chuar rebellion in western Bengal ,the Paik rebellion in Orissa,Vishakapatnam revolts in Andhra,Khasi uprising in Assam.Bundela rebellion in central India,Polygar rebellion in South India, Indigo uprising in Bengal,Deccan riots ,Kol-Munda-Ho uprisings of Chotanagpur region.Tribal uprising under Birsa Munda and so on. All these movements showed clear anti-imperialist feelings and were directed against British oppression and exploitation. People from different castes, creeds and

The Chuar Rebellion of Midnapore and Bankura

The Chuar Rebellion of Midnapore and Bankura (1798-99) and the Laik Rebellion of Midnapore (1806-16) In 1798-99, the massive rebellion that broke out in South-West Bankura and in North-West Midnapore, is known in history as the Chuar Rebellion. The British rulers and some Zemindars of Midnapore insultingly called the tribal and oppressed people of Midnapore, Bankura and Jangal Mahal as chuars. They depended for their existence on the wealth of the forests and cultivated with primitive methods. The collector of Midnapore in a letter to the Board of Revenue wrote: Those who were enjoying the right to this land since the antiquities, when they saw that their land was being taken away from them without any rhyme or reason, or thqt an excessive amount of revenue was sought to be extracted from them, then they took to arms in defence of their rights. This was no matte;'of su;Prise (Letter written on 25 May 1798). During the Mughal period, law and order was maintained in the villages with the help of Paiks. When they were dismissed from service en masse, they too joined the chuar revolt. In 1798, nearly 1500 rebels led by Durjan Singh, established their rule in 30 villages of Raipur Pargana. They attacked the headquarters of the Government's seat of power in this area and after a day long bloody battle, they were defeated. But in Salbani, the rebels were victorious and destroyed the army barracks. They burnt all Zemindary documents. A few Zemindars also joined the ranks of the rebels. Ultimately, by means of bloody repression and the usual policy of divide and rule, British were able to crush the Chuar Rebellion. In 1806, the British confiscated the Irlnd of the Laiks of Bogir and at once the L~ik Re~lIion started. The Laiks were close to the chuars With the deep Sal forest of Gangani near Garbeta their headquarters and led by the indomitable Aehal Sinha, the Laiks revolted against the Raj. They adopted guerilla tactics. Ultimately the British destroyed the entire forest by heavy artillery fire. Yet some Laiks, headed by Achal Sinha escaped and repeatedly harried the British. An act of treachery led to the arrest of Achal and he was promptly shot dead. In 1816 the rebellion was finally crushed and some 200 rebels were brutally executed

communities actively participated in these movements

The First Congress of INC

First President of Indian National Congress

Womesh Chandra Banerjee was the first President of Indian National Congress (INC). Indian National Congress was founded in 1885 by educated Indian elite. The first session of the Indian National Congress was held in Bombay in December 1885. Retired British ICS officer AO Hume played a key role in the formation of INC. The formation of Indian National Congress initially had the blessings of the British Government. The government welcomed the establishment of an organisation by the western educated upper class Indians to function as a 'safety valve' for the escape of growing resentment of Indians against British rule. The birth of INC heralded the entry of new educated middle-class into politics and transformed the Indian political horizon.

The proposed Conference, of the Indian National Congress started its first session in the hall of the Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College , Bombay, on 28 Dec, 1885, Poona having been found unsuitable on account of outbreak of Cholera there. The president was W.C. Bonerjee, a leading lawyer of Calcutta.

In his presidential address Bonerjee stressed the representatives and constitutional character of the gathering . The four main aims and objects of the Congress as defined by Bonerjee ;
1. Promotion of personal intimacy and friendship amongst all the more earnest workers in the country's cause,
2. eradication of direct friendly intercourse of all possible race, creed, or provincial prejudices amongst all lovers of the country and the fuller development and consolidation  of the sentiments of national unity,
3. Recording of matured opinions of the educated classes in India on some of the more important and pressing  social questions of the day..
4. determination of the lines and methods of action to be pursued by the Indian politicians for public interests during the next 12 months. 

Birth of Indian National Congress (contd-3)

Dr. R.C.Majumdar also concluded that the foundation of Congress was not for securing representative Government for India nor was it actuated by the more moderate desire of training the Indians in the Parliamentary  form of government. " It was solely designed to hold back the Indian intelligentsia, from joining an apprehended general outbreak against the British".

R.P.Dutt, a radical critic of the Congress also argued that the national Congress was brought into existence "through the initiative and under the guidance of direct British government policy, on a plan secretly pre-arranged with the viceroy, as an intended weapon for safe-guarding British rule against the rising forces of popular unrest and anti-British feeling."

In march 1885, Hume issued a confidential circular to the inner circle of his political collaborators, announcing that a "Conference of the Indian Union " would be held at Poona in December, 1885 which would be attended by delegates chosen from leading politicians well acquainted with the English language from all parts of the presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras.the direct objects of the Conference would be "to enable all the most earnest labourers in the cause of national progress ......"the conference  indirectly form ' the germ of a native Parliament.'     

Birth of Indian National Congress (contd-2)

Pattabhi Sitaramayya

Born 1880. Studied in Madras and started Medical practice at Masulipatnam. Inspired by the Swadeshi upsurge he entered public life in 1906 and distinguished himself in politics in Andhra. Renounced his lucrative practice in 1916 and became a full-time worker of the Congress. In 1919 he started an English journal, Janmabhumi which served as the organ of the Congress. His fearless writings often led to the Government framing seditious charges against him. President of Andhra Provincial Congress Committee in 1938, the President of the: Indian National Congress in 1948. Governor of Madhya Pradesh in 1952. Pattabhi was imprisoned several times. Besides political activities, devoted his energies to the constructive programmes and founded several institutions. As the historian of the Congress, was a forceful proponent of Gandhism.
Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his "History of the Indian National Congress" published by the working committee of the Congress stated;
" Apart from the great Darbar of 1877 or the International exhibition in Calcutta (1866-Hindu Mela), are supposed to have furnished the model for the great national assemblage, It is also said that the idea was conceived in a private meeting of seventeen men after the theosophical convention held at Madras in Dec 1884....that the idea was there in the air which is felt by Mr. Allan Octavian Hume"  who took the initiative of assembling all the relevant resources in a conference convening all the leaders of the different parts of India."
This statement was contradicted by Dr. R.C Majumdar who opined that neither the Delhi Darbar of 1877 nor the International Exhibition of 1866, the idea of a National Conference was first suggested by Surendra Nath Banerjee who offered a suitable date for holding it. This view, however, was accepted by Mr. A.C.Majumdar, another president of the Congress, stated that the Calcutta National Conference held in 1883, convened by Indian Association, Calcutta prepared the ground for Indian National Conference which Mr.Allan Octavian Hume had given a concrete shape.
The evidence which convinced Hume of "the imminent danger of a terrible outbreak - was contained in seven large volumes shown to him These contained a vast number of communications from over thirty thousand different reporters from the different parts of India.These seemed to indicate that even men of the lowest classes all over the country were determined to do something, and that something meant violence.The possible nature of the violence was thus described in the memorandum;
"Innumerable entries referred to to the secretion of old swords, spears, and matchlocks that the immediate result in its stages would be a revolt against our Government.