11 Peasant Movements

Prof.Pranshu Prakash

Background

The imposition of colonial regime in South Asia led to varied responses from different sections of the sub-continental society. The colonial state’s bid to impose a new revenue apparatus based on strict assessment and their proclivity to rack rent led to a veritable crisis in the agrarian economy that threatened both the traditional elite as well as peasants. While the relationship between these two sections had traditionally been far from harmonious, in the early nineteenth century this new order more often than not led to their joining hands to resist the changes that were threatening to dissolve most of the institutions their ancestors had taken for granted. Consequently most of the peasant rebellions of the first phase of the colonial government were aimed at restoring the old order of things.

Early peasant rebellions

Most of the peasant rebellions during the first century of the British rule may be bracketed under what Kathleen Gough (Gough, Kathleen, 1979, in ‘Peasant struggles in India’, ed. A.R. Desai. Bombay, Oxford University Press) has characterized as ‘restorative rebellions’. Most of these were initiated by disaffected and dispossessed elements of the older regimes that were crumbling slowly but steadily under the assault of new colonial revenue machinery. While it is true that in most instances the leadership was provided by the older landed gentry, rich and middle peasants as well as landless peasants too took active part against what was perceived as an external enemy threatening the entire traditional agrarian order. One the first rebellions of this kind were led by Raja Chait Singh of Awadh in 1778-81. Though this rebellion was suppressed swiftly, trouble continued for many decades to follow. Similarly in 1842 Bundela Rajput chieftains rose up in revolt under similar circumstances. The trouble was not confined to north India; in south Madras presidency had to grapple with rebellions in the Tirunelveli district. Here local chieftains called poligars could mobilize the support of broad sections of the peasantry against the new regime. Their legitimacy was embedded in the peasant consciousness to the extent that even after being vanquished they managed to retain a place in the popular memory as local folk heroes and kept inspiring subsequent generations of rebels. Another rebellion that rocked the Madras province was that of VeluThampi, the Dewan of Travancore. British response to these rebellions was not uniform. In some instances efforts were made to co-opt the disaffected sections of the rebellious gentry but in an overwhelming number of cases they resorted to brutal suppression. Kathleen Gough notes that in such instances the tactic adopted by colonial government was to make an example of the captured rebels by punishing them so brutally that a firm message of terror may be conveyed to all potential rebels contemplating rebellion.

Though the above mentioned rebellions were led by the traditional elite, in some instances peasants organized themselves on their own accord against what they believed to be a breach of the moral economy by the new regime. Before the institution of permanent settlement in Bengal, the countryside was being laid to waste by dissolute revenue farmers. Peasants at Rangpur raised the standard of revolt against the exploitative colonial revenue apparatus. In such rebellions, as Ranajit Guha (Guha, Ranajit, 1994.’Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India’. Delhi: Oxford University Press) has pointed out, the first targets were always the external symbols of the colonial government like the law court, the police station etc which were attacked, arsoned and demolished to proclaim the destruction of the new order. And simultaneously efforts were made evoke the traditional sources and symbols of authority. In the case of Rangpur rebellion for instance, the began to call their leader ‘nawab’ and even set about building up a parallel apparatus of administration and revenue collection. Such acts reveal that the peasant rebellions were far from being ‘spontaneous uprisings of savages’ without a program or political consciousness as they have been made out to be in the traditional historiography. On the contrary most of these uprisings were marked by a peasants’ realm of consciousness which was autonomous and yet comprehensive in its own right. Violence rather than being mindless or sporadic was rife with symbolism and reflected the desire to build an alternative set up based upon a distinctly subaltern world view.

The newly established colonial state was extremely hostile to numerous wandering communities which were looked upon by it as disruptive and potentially criminal. Modern states dislike itinerants because they are almost impossible to tax and also defy the cherished ideal of modern states to ensure regularity, uniformity and efficiency in administration. Therefore since its very inception the colonial began to take steps to curb the autonomy and mobility of such communities. The Sanyasi and Fakir rebellions that rocked northern Bengal and parts of Bihar in the last two decades were partly a result of the conflict world-views, as outlined outlined above and partly a result of the massive famine in this region in 1769-70. Though this rebellion was eventually suppressed, similar conflicts arising out the colonial state’s distrust of wandering communities remained a recurring feature of the nineteenth century and partly also the first half of the twentieth century.

In most of these peasant rebellions religion had a very important role to play. In pre-capitalist, pre-modern societies conceptual categories like class or nation were nonexistent. The category of ‘political’ too, in its modern sense was absent. In such contexts economic-political and social were fused together into an indistinguishable whole and religion and community were the predominant paradigms within which the peasants made sense of oppression or conceptualized resistance. It is for this reason that in almost all the major peasant rebellions of these period religious idioms predominated the language and symbols deployed by the rebels. Most of these rebellions were marked by a spirit of egalitarianism conceived within a religious worldview. Some other features are messianism and millenarianism (Fuchs, S. 1992. ‘Godmen on the Warpath: A Study of Messianic Movements in India’ New Delhi: Munshilal Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.). Often these movements were led by some charismatic leader thrown up from among the ranks of these peasants-endowed with supernatural powers and bearing a divine mandate to build the society anew. It is not uncommon for these charismatic leaders to evoke a golden past when everything was just vis-a-vis the corruption and oppression of the present. To fight and strive for justice then becomes not merely a matter of economic necessity but a divinely ordained moral duty. These elements are unmistakable in the rebellions led by Karim Shah and his successor Tipu Shah in east Bengal (Pagalpanthi rebellion), Titu Mir’s rebellion against the local zamindar’s and Haji Shariatullah and DuduMian’s rebellions in east Bengal. Malabar’s Moplah rebellion too was similar to some extent. Though unmistakably religious in outlook these peasant movements must not be confused with modern day communalism. Communalism, as understood in the south Asian context is by nature pan-local and modern; an entire community unified by a sense of common past, culture, destiny and interests mobilizes itself. On the contrary the peasant movement that we examined above were strictly local in outlook and the sense of community too did not extend beyond the restricted geographical-cultural areas where these movements were waged. Specific economic grievances often fused with pre-existing religious consciousness to give rise to a community based movement but it would be anachronistic to treat these either as the pre-history of communalism or nationalism.

The coming of colonial state marked a break from the pre-existing pattern in many ways. Zamindars were almost suddenly raised from the status of being co-sharers in the agrarian revenue to proprietors of land, particularly so in the areas of Permanent Settlement. Peasants lost their customary right to occupancy and were transformed into tenants-at-will. For a long time the colonial government passed almost no laws to protect the tenants. Increasing vulnerability of the peasants contributed to rising peasants’ militancy and resistance. Despite the establishment of police apparatus and courts, the local power of Zamindars continued unabated allowing them to impose several legal and illegal cesses. This along with the new court apparatus which due to several factors was almost always ranged in the favor of the Zamindars, the police who appeared as petty oppressors to the peasants and the increasing penetration of money lenders with the creation of a land market under the colonial government, led to the creation of the unfamous- ‘sarkar, sahukar and zamindari’ nexus that was the target peasant rebellions in the majority of cases.

In the official colonial archives these rebellions have been looked upon as spontaneous uprisings of swinish, brutish savages resisting the onset of civilization. Nationalists on the other hand, as we have seen above, have tried anachronistically to project these as the prehistory of the nationalist movement for liberation from colonialism. Among modern historians there is a lively debate regarding their scope and nature. Subaltern historians have criticized the Marxist historiography for projecting these movements as being ‘pre-political’ and for presuming that these movements lacked a well formulated program, organization and ideology. It has been argued that these early peasant movements cannot be condemned by us moderns for not charting the same path and taking recourse to the same processes that we think they ought to have. Early peasant movements had their own independent sphere of what they considered political and in most cases they displayed a well formulated worldview, ability to organize and the vision of an alternate social order. So the subaltern historians are not beside the point in stating that these rebellions cannot be considered ‘merely reactive.’ But we still need to ask whether they had the potential to actually bring about the transformation that they were striving for. Despite all their preparation, worldview and organization, as subaltern historians would themselves concede, most of these movements were local and territorial in nature. And probably the subaltern school would not object if one were to say that their conception of what constituted the ‘political’ was not adequate for the purpose of taking on an aggressor like the colonial government with its vast resources and global presence. For these early peasant movements to truly assume the character of ‘political’ (defined in the sense of being capable of bringing about a genuine transformation) they needed to spill over from the local context and assume the form of a universal resistance against the colonial state. Because the overwhelming majority of these early peasant movements were unable to transcend the local and assume a universal form, probably from a definite perspective, at the pain of being called teleological by some, one could probably call these movements ‘pre-political’.

Peasant movements the second half of the nineteenth century

During the revolt of 1857 too peasant joined in to resist the new tax regime. In this instance though the colonial state had greater difficulty in restoring their control because its own soldiers too rebelled and were in fact the main force behind the rebellion. A vast majority of the colonial army was drawn out from among the peasantry and the agrarian discontent, along with a number of other factors played a major role in instigating the rebellion. Particularly the ruin of peasantry in Awadh had a direct bearing upon the morale and loyalty of the colonial native army. A vast majority of these ‘peasants in uniform’ did not just rebel but they also helped fan the rebellion by going back to their villages and utilizing their caste-community ties to instigate the peasants to join the rebellion (Stokes, E. 1978, ‘The Peasant and the Raj’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

This pattern of early peasant rebellions continued through the greater part of the nineteenth century. Despite the broad sweep of the rebellion in 1857, peasant’s resistance had still retained its prior localized, disjointed pattern. Though it cannot be denied that the rebels were conscious of a wide ranging concerted effort to throw out the colonial state but their objective wasn’t yet to build a unified nation state of their own; at best this rebellion may be described as an attempt to go back to the decentralized polity of the eighteenth century. Moreover, though there were innumerable peasants’ uprisings in the course of the rebellion, there wasn’t yet a consciousness among them of belonging to a unified class ranged against the colonial state as a block over common grievances; everywhere mobilization was done through the local communities over grouses that were perceived at the local level.

In the post 1857 period, as the British set about building modern institutions of governance, there were signs of change in the mode of protesting. In some instances peasants began to use these new channels to seek redress through ‘legal means’. Moreover, in this new phase, when the colonial state began to set up institutional channels to connect with and govern the masses, the traditional rural elite increasingly began to seem out of sync with the changed times; in other words what was required now was a new type of leadership capable of representing the peasants in parliamentary-legalistic manner howsoever incipient these institutions might as yet be. Consequently there were some beginnings of new middle class’s participation in the peasant movements and in some instances these peasant movements threw up their own leaders to fulfill these roles. Indigo uprising in Bengal in the districts of Nadia, Murshidabad and Pabna was one of the first uprisings in of this sort, which tried to use legalistic means to gain redress against the practice of forceful indigo plantation. It had all the signs of the modern form of protesting- the use of government institutions, petitioning, collective legal struggle and appeal to the liberal opinion through the use of press. (Kling, B.B, 1966. ‘The Blue Mutiny: The Indigo Disturbances in Bengal’,1859-62. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Deccan riots of 1875 were an uprising of an older kind- increasing commercialization of agriculture under the new regime and the creation of a market in land created opportunities for a new class of moneylenders to penetrate the rural economy and assume control over land. Peasants resented this penetration of ‘outsiders’ and indulged in rioting against the Marwari moneylenders (Hardiman, David. 1996.’Feeding the Bania: Peasants and Usurers in Western India’. Delhi: Oxford University Press).

Post the formation of Congress, for the first time a platform was created for the coming together of localized and disjointed struggles in various parts of the country. Realizing the potential of peasant activism, gradually attempts began to be made to harness the force of peasant movements to the career of Indian nationalism. Despite vigorous attempts by various leaders, an obvious disconnects between the stated ideals of the nationalist leadership and the objectives of the peasant movement persisted, some historians would argue till 1947 and even beyond. Peasants movements did break out during all the major movements launched by the Congress leadership, but as the subaltern historians have argued that they have a history of their own and they should not be looked upon as the ‘prehistory of the freedom movement.’ In most instances peasants demonstrated the ability to organize themselves and the middle class/elite leaders were generally harnessed by them to establish channels of communication with other similar movements, channels of negotiation with the government and to even appropriate the nationalist movement to its own ends, rather than vice versa.

Peasants movements in the era of nationalist struggle

As we saw above, with the rise and growth of the nationalist movement, there were attempts, mainly by leaders belonging to the middle class to harness the energy of the peasant movements for the cause of the anti-colonial struggle. During the home rule league movement attempts were begun to organize the peasants in Kisan-Sabhas. Congress leader Madan Mohan Malviya rendered his support to Gauri Shankar Mishra and Indra Narayan Dwivedi who played a leading role in setting up the UP Kisan Sabha in Feb. 1918. As there had been a pre-existing groundswell in UP, the Kisan Sabha spread rapidly and by June 1919 it had as many as 450 branches. But conflicts with the nationalist leadership were frequent as they were often reluctant to go ahead with the radical demands of the peasants. It is for this reason that in Oct. 1920 the Awadh Kisan Sabha came into existence which launched radical tenancy rights struggles and also raised voices against illegal taxes and forced labor imposed by the zamindars. In the last months of 1921 and early 1922 Eka movement raged in the UP districts of Hardoi, Bahraich and Sitapur to protest against the zamindari oppression and high rents imposed by them on land. Forced eviction of tenants and forced labor remained persistent issues for the peasants’ outrage against zamindars.

Bardoli Satyagraha was started following outrage among peasants of the region against the government decision in 1926 to increase the land revenue demand by 30 per cent. The Congress leadership intervened and Vallabhbhai Patel arrived to assume the leadership of the movement. Bardoli peasants decided to refuse the payment of revenue at the revised rates. Soon the movement became a national issue and the government fearing its spillover to other areas decided to reach a compromise with the peasants.

All India Kisan Sabha was founded in April 1936 with Swami Sahajananda as the president and NG Ranga as the general secretary. AIKS though formally allied to the Congress was by no means controlled by it. Though it had close relationship with the leaders of the Congress socialist party, a number of Communist leaders too worked within it. Within a few years it was able to spread its organization and build its mass base to the extent that it could even exert pressure upon the Congress party to take up some its demands. The AIKS and the Congress held simultaneous sessions at Faizpur in 1936 and the Congress manifesto for the 1937 provincial elections had strong reflections of the AIKS agenda. Soon AIKS activities assumed a life of their own and in most instances it was almost impossible for the national leaders to control them from above.

In Kerala’s Malabar region peasant unrest was extremely acute. A number of Congress Socialist Party activists, many of whom went on to join the Communist part later were active in the region, as a result of which a number of ‘KarshakSanghams’ came up and started agitations against the landlords. The legacy of these anti zamindar movements survived for many years to come and helped break the back of probably the most organized and ruthless section of zamindars in the subcontinent through years of sustained movements.

Similar anti-zamindar movements continued in Andhra. The most influential peasant leader here and one of the founding members of the AIKS was NG Ranga. The militant peasant movement in this region gradually grew disillusioned with the Congress leadership which failed to endorse the most radical anti-zamindar demands despite its stated intention to do so. As a result soon the leadership began to pass into the hands of Communists.

The provincial Kisan Conference of Bihar gave a clarion anti-zamindari slogan in 1935. In this region the movement was given leadership by charismatic kisan leaders like Swami Sahajanand and other stalwarts like Rahul Sankrityayan. Like elsewhere, here too relationships with the Congress party remained ambiguous with its leadership at times seeking to utilize the peasants discontent and other times looking to pacifying the zamindari class.

Tebhaga movement- In Bengal the Flood Commission had recommended ‘tebhaga’- two-thirds’ share to the bargadars, (the share-croppers) instead of the existing practice of giving them one-half share. In September, 1946, the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha gave the clarion to enforce the ‘tebhaga’ through militant mass movements. Communist cadres and sympathetic urban youth threw in their lot with the share-croppers and helped organize them. The movement was particularly militant in north Bengal. Both Hindu and Muslim sharecroppers joined hands to fight against the state repression and zamindari backlash. The movement, despite its extreme popularity soon dissipated as a result of communal frenzy that gripped the masses in the wake of impending partition. In the east Bengal itself, the Muslim League was able to hijack the movement by adopting appropriating communist slogans and giving a communal color to the anti-zamindari movement by dint of the fact that most of the Zamindars in east Bengal were upper caste Hindus.

Telangana movement-The biggest anti-feudal guerrilla struggle in the history of modern India erupted in Telangana. (Sarkar, Sumit, 1983. ‘Modern India 1885-1947’, New Delhi, and Macmillan) At its peak as many as 3 million peasants participated in it. As Sumit Sarkar puts it “The princely state of Hyderabad under AsafjahiNizams was marked by a combination of religious-linguistic domination (by a    small Urdu-speaking Muslim elite ruling over predominantly Hindu-Telugu, Marathi, Kannada-speaking groups), total lack of political and civil liberties, grossest forms of forced exploitation by deshmukhs, jagirdars, doaras (landlords) in the form of forced labor and illegal exactions.” During the Second World War the communists were able to build strong guerrilla bases in the Telangana area and began struggles around anti-feudal issues like excessive rent, forced labor and wartime exactions of the colonial government. Armed with primitive weapons peasants clashed with Razaqdars (Nizam’s elite corps) and the zamindari thugs. Despite facing brutal repression, the movement refused to subside and the princely state’s army was almost decimated. Starting from Nalgonda, the movement soon engulfed Warangal and Khammam, reaching its peak between August 1947 and September 1948. In the course of ‘police action’ by the Indian security forces, the movement was suppressed. But even in its suppression it achieved much and set the tone for more anti-feudal struggles in the post independence period.

Conclusion

Peasant movements during the colonial period were a response to the two pronged exploitation and oppression that the peasants faced at the hands of the imperialists and the indigenous landed elite. In the first phase of the colonial government, peasants generally threw in their lot with the indigenous elite because as outsiders who set about building the most comprehensive revenue apparatus yet and whose appetite for ever increasing returns seem to know no bounds, the colonialists appeared to be threatening the entire traditional order. However, in its later phase, when the primary focus of the colonial state shifted from realizing revenue to securing raw material, markets and channels for investment, the alliance between the indigenous elite and peasants seen during the first phase began to break down. The indigenous landed gentry increasingly seemed on the same side as the colonial state and the former also learnt to use the ruling apparatus set up by the latter to its advantage. Now on, the protests of the peasantry were generally seen to be directed at both in the equal measure. The Congress party led anti-colonial movement tried to channelise the peasants’ anger to advance the nationalist struggle but often due to their diffidence and to some degree due to their collaboration with the same forces that oppressed the peasants, they were not always able to inspire confidence among them. The peasants’ struggle maintained a fair degree of autonomy of action, will and consciousness through the entire period of anti-colonial struggle. The end of British rule in 1947 was a great leap forward for the peasants’ movement but it did not; at one stroke solve all their problems, a fact that reflects in their continuation in the post independence.

References

• ‘Peasant struggles in India’, ed. A.R. Desai. Bombay, Oxford University Press
• ‘Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India’. Guha, Ranajit, 1994 Delhi: Oxford University Press
• ‘Godmen on the Warpath: A Study of Messianic Movements in India’ Fuchs, S. 1992 New Delhi: Munshilal Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd
• ‘The Blue Mutiny: The Indigo Disturbances in Bengal’,1859-62.Kling, B.B. 1966, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
• ‘The Peasant and the Raj’, Stokes, E. 1978 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• ‘Modern India 1885-1947’, Sarkar, Sumit, 1983.New Delhi, Macmillan
• ‘’Feeding the Baniya: Peasants and Usurers in Western India’.Hardiman, David. 1996 Delhi: Oxford University Press