Faraizi Movement (1838–1857): A Socio-Religious and Agrarian Uprising Under Dudu Miyan

 

Faraizi Movement (1838–1857): A Socio-Religious and Agrarian Uprising Under Dudu Miyan

The Faraizi Movement, spanning from 1838 to 1857, was a significant socio-religious and agrarian uprising in Eastern Bengal (present-day Bangladesh) that blended Islamic revivalism with a fierce struggle for peasant rights. Led by the charismatic and visionary leader Muhsinuddin Ahmad, popularly known as Dudu Miyan, the movement transformed from a religious reform initiative into a powerful resistance against oppressive landlords and British colonial rule. This elaborate note explores the reasons for the movement’s inception, its course under Dudu Miyan’s leadership, and its lasting results, presented in simple, engaging, and beautiful language to meet competitive standards.

 

Reasons for the Inception of the Faraizi Movement

The Faraizi Movement was born in a time of deep distress for the Muslim peasantry in Eastern Bengal. Several intertwined factors—religious, social, and economic—set the stage for its emergence:

Religious Decay and the Call for Reform
The early 19th century saw a decline in the purity of Islamic practices among Bengali Muslims. Many had adopted local customs and rituals, such as Hindu festivals or un-Islamic ceremonies, which were seen as deviations from true Islam. Haji Shariatullah, the founder of the Faraizi Movement and Dudu Miyan’s father, returned from Mecca in 1818 with a vision to purify Islam. He preached strict adherence to Faraiz (obligatory duties mandated by Allah), such as prayer, fasting, and charity, and condemned bid’ah (innovations) not rooted in the Quran or Sunnah. This religious zeal laid the foundation for the movement, attracting Muslims eager to reclaim their faith.

Economic Exploitation by Zamindars and Indigo Planters
The Permanent Settlement of 1793, introduced by the British, empowered landlords (zamindars) to collect taxes from peasants. These zamindars, often Hindus, imposed illegal taxes called abwabs (e.g., cesses for Hindu festivals like Durga Puja) and banned practices like cow slaughter during Eid-ul-Adha, which angered Muslims. European indigo planters further exploited peasants by forcing them to cultivate indigo under harsh conditions, paying meager prices and seizing their lands. This economic oppression fueled resentment, making the Faraizi Movement a beacon of hope for the downtrodden.

British Colonial Oppression
British rule disrupted the socio-economic fabric of Bengal. The Muslim peasantry, already marginalized, felt alienated by policies that favored Hindu landlords and British planters. Haji Shariatullah believed British rule had corrupted Islamic values and practices, declaring India Dar al-Harb (a land of war where certain Islamic obligations, like Friday prayers, were not mandatory). This anti-colonial sentiment resonated with peasants, who saw the movement as a way to resist foreign domination.

Socio-Economic Disparities
The Muslim peasantry in districts like Faridpur, Dhaka, Barisal, and Comilla faced stark inequalities. Zamindars and planters lived in luxury, while peasants toiled in poverty, unable to afford basic necessities. The Faraizi Movement’s message of equality and brotherhood, championed later by Dudu Miyan, appealed to this oppressed class, uniting them under a common cause.

Legacy of Haji Shariatullah
Haji Shariatullah’s early efforts (1818–1840) gave the movement its religious core. His expulsion from Nayabari in 1831 by landlords and arrests for inciting unrest showed the movement’s potential to challenge authority. After his death in 1840, his son Dudu Miyan inherited this legacy, shifting the movement’s focus to agrarian issues while retaining its religious spirit.

These factors—religious zeal, economic exploitation, colonial oppression, and social disparities—created a fertile ground for the Faraizi Movement. Under Dudu Miyan, it evolved into a powerful force that addressed both spiritual and material grievances.

 

Course of the Faraizi Movement Under Dudu Miyan (1838–1857)

Dudu Miyan (1819–1862), born Muhsinuddin Ahmad in Madaripur, Faridpur, was a dynamic leader who transformed the Faraizi Movement into a socio-economic and political force. Though less scholarly than his father, his energy, diplomacy, and organizational skills made him a hero among peasants. The movement’s course under his leadership can be traced through key developments:

Shift to Agrarian Focus
After Haji Shariatullah’s death in 1840, Dudu Miyan took charge at the age of 21. He recognized that religious reform alone could not address the peasants’ suffering. He declared, “The land belongs to the tiller,” a revolutionary idea that challenged the zamindars’ authority. This agrarian focus made the movement a rallying point for peasants—Muslims, Hindus, and even native Christians—who faced exploitation. Dudu Miyan urged his followers not to pay illegal taxes (abwabs) to zamindars or cultivate indigo for planters, sparking widespread resistance.

Organizational Structure: The Khilafat System
Dudu Miyan’s genius lay in his ability to organize. He created a hierarchical Khilafat system to govern Faraizi communities:

Village Khalifas: Each village had a gram khalifa (village representative) to coordinate with villagers and settle disputes.

Circle Superintendents: Groups of villages formed a gird (circle), overseen by a superintendent khalifa.

Lathials: A volunteer corps of clubmen (lathials) was trained to protect peasants from zamindars’ hired thugs.
This structure, centered in Bahadurpur, acted as a parallel government, resolving disputes, enforcing judgments, and minimizing reliance on British courts. It brought peace and order to Faraizi areas from 1838 to 1857.

Resistance Against Zamindars and Planters
Dudu Miyan led bold campaigns against oppressors. In 1846, he attacked an indigo plantation in Auliapur, symbolizing defiance against European planters. His followers ransacked indigo kuthis (factories) and refused to pay zamindari taxes, disrupting the economic system. These actions won him immense popularity, as peasants saw him as their protector. Landlords and planters retaliated by filing false cases against him, leading to his arrests in 1838, 1844, and 1847. However, his popularity ensured courts rarely found witnesses against him, and he was released each time.

Diplomatic Approach to British Authority
Unlike other rebel leaders like Titu Mir, who was crushed by the British in 1831, Dudu Miyan was cautious. He maintained cordial relations with British officers, even hunting with them, to avoid direct confrontation with the East India Company. He recognized legal land revenues due to zamindars but opposed illegal cesses. This diplomacy kept the movement within legal bounds, allowing it to thrive without facing military suppression until 1857.

Role in the Indian Rebellion of 1857
The Faraizi Movement peaked during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a nationwide uprising against British rule. Dudu Miyan’s anti-zamindar and anti-planter stance aligned with the rebellion’s spirit, though his direct involvement remains debated. Fearing his influence, the British arrested him as a precaution and detained him in Alipore Jail, Kolkata, from 1857 to 1859. He was released in 1859, rearrested, and freed again in 1860. Despite these disruptions, his organizational structure kept the movement alive.

Widespread Support and Challenges
The movement gained traction in Dhaka, Faridpur, Barisal, Mymensingh, Comilla, Jessore, and Khulna, uniting diverse communities under the Faraizi banner. However, it faced opposition from conservative Muslim scholars, non-Faraizi Muslims, and rival reformist groups like the Taiyunis. Landlords’ propaganda, accusing the Faraizis of rebellion, also posed challenges. Despite these hurdles, Dudu Miyan’s leadership sustained the movement’s momentum.

Dudu Miyan’s tenure was marked by bold resistance, meticulous organization, and strategic diplomacy. His efforts empowered peasants, challenged oppressive systems, and left an indelible mark on Bengal’s history.

 

Results of the Faraizi Movement

The Faraizi Movement, under Dudu Miyan, had far-reaching consequences, both immediate and long-term. While it declined after his death, its impact on religion, society, and politics endured.

Religious Revivalism
The movement succeeded in reviving Islamic practices among Bengali Muslims. By emphasizing Faraiz and rejecting un-Islamic customs, it restored religious pride and identity. Many Faraizis later joined the Wahhabi movement, continuing the push for Islamic reform. The movement’s focus on the Hanafi school, with unique practices like skipping Friday prayers in Dar al-Harb, shaped Bengal’s Islamic discourse.

Socio-Economic Empowerment
The Faraizi Movement empowered peasants by protecting their rights against zamindars and planters. The refusal to pay illegal taxes and cultivate indigo disrupted the exploitative system, improving peasants’ socio-economic conditions. The Khilafat system fostered unity and self-governance, reducing dependence on British courts. This empowerment inspired future peasant movements in Bengal.

Resistance to Colonial Oppression
By challenging zamindars and planters, the movement indirectly resisted British colonial policies that propped up these elites. Its alignment with the 1857 rebellion highlighted its anti-colonial spirit, inspiring later nationalist movements. The Faraizis’ call for social justice and equality influenced reformist ideologies in the region.

Decline and Transformation
Dudu Miyan’s death in 1862 marked the movement’s decline. He appointed a board of guardians for his minor sons, Ghiyasuddin Haydar and Abdul Gafur (Naya Miyan), but internal disagreements and lack of strong leadership weakened the movement. By the time Naya Miyan matured, it had lost its agrarian zeal and survived as a religious sect. Most Faraizis merged with the Wahhabi movement, diluting its distinct identity.

Legacy and Influence The Faraizi Movement left a lasting legacy. It highlighted the power of grassroots mobilization against injustice, inspiring later socio-religious movements like the Deoband and Aligarh movements. Its focus on peasant rights influenced Bengal’s agrarian struggles, such as the Tebhaga Movement (1940s). The movement’s blend of religious and socio-economic goals set a precedent for combining spiritual and material aspirations in reform efforts.

Challenges and Limitations
The movement faced setbacks due to its reliance on Dudu Miyan’s leadership, lack of a robust organizational structure after his death, and opposition from landlords and conservative groups. Its failure to sustain armed resistance against the British limited its political impact. Additionally, its religious exclusivity alienated some non-Muslims, restricting its broader appeal.

Conclusion

The Faraizi Movement (1838–1857), under the inspiring leadership of Dudu Miyan, was a remarkable chapter in Bengal’s history. Born from Haji Shariatullah’s vision to purify Islam, it evolved into a powerful struggle against economic exploitation and colonial oppression. Dudu Miyan’s revolutionary ideas, organizational brilliance, and diplomatic finesse transformed the movement into a beacon of hope for peasants. Though it declined after his death, its legacy of religious revival, peasant empowerment, and resistance to injustice continues to inspire. The Faraizi Movement reminds us that faith and justice, when woven together, can spark profound change, even in the face of mighty odds.

Deccan Riots of 1875: A Peasant Uprising Without a Single Leader

 

Deccan Riots of 1875: A Peasant Uprising Without a Single Leader

The Deccan Riots of 1875 stand as a powerful chapter in India’s history, showcasing the strength and anger of peasants united against injustice. This uprising, centered in the Deccan region of Maharashtra, particularly in the Poona (now Pune) and Ahmednagar districts, was a collective rebellion driven by rural farmers, or ryots, without a single leader. It was a spontaneous outburst against oppressive economic systems, exploitative moneylenders, and colonial policies. The riots highlighted the struggles of ordinary farmers and left a lasting impact on British agrarian policies. This detailed note explores the reasons for the inception of the Deccan Riots, their course, and their significant results, presented in simple and engaging language.

Reasons for the Inception of the Deccan Riots

The Deccan Riots were not a sudden event but the result of years of growing distress among peasants. Several economic, social, and administrative factors came together to ignite this rebellion. Below are the key reasons:

1. Oppressive Ryotwari System

The British introduced the Ryotwari system in the Bombay Deccan during the 1850s, following their victory in the Anglo-Maratha War (1818). Unlike the Zamindari system, where landlords collected revenue, the Ryotwari system required farmers (ryots) to pay land revenue directly to the colonial government. While this system was meant to be fair, it became a burden for several reasons:

High Revenue Demands: The revenue was fixed annually based on soil type and the farmer’s ability to pay. However, the amounts were often too high, leaving farmers with little to survive on. In 1867, the government increased land revenue by 50%, making it nearly impossible for peasants to meet these demands.

No Flexibility: The system was rigid, with no relief offered during poor harvests or droughts. If rains failed or crops were destroyed, farmers still had to pay the full amount, pushing them into debt.

Land Loss: If farmers failed to pay, their land could be seized and sold, often to non-farming moneylenders, leaving peasants landless and desperate.

This system placed immense pressure on small farmers, who formed the backbone of the Deccan’s agrarian economy.

2. Exploitation by Moneylenders

Moneylenders, known as sahukars or sowkars (often Gujarati or Marwari), played a central role in the peasants’ misery. Unable to pay the high land revenue, farmers turned to these moneylenders for loans. However, the terms were exploitative:

High Interest Rates: Moneylenders charged extremely high interest rates, sometimes as much as 50–100% per year. In one case documented by the Deccan Riots Commission, a loan of Rs. 100 led to an interest charge of over Rs. 2,000.

Fraudulent Practices: Moneylenders often manipulated accounts, refused to issue loan receipts, or forced farmers to sign fraudulent bonds under pressure or ignorance.

Debt Peonage (Kamiuti): Once in debt, farmers were trapped in a cycle of borrowing to repay earlier loans, losing control over their land and labor. This system, called kamiuti, enslaved peasants to moneylenders, who could seize their property or force them to work without wages.

The moneylenders’ greed and insensitivity violated the traditional rural norms of mutual support, fueling anger among the peasants.

3. Economic Crises and Cotton Market Collapse

The global economy also played a role in the peasants’ distress. Before the 1860s, three-fourths of Britain’s raw cotton came from the United States. When the American Civil War (1861–1865) disrupted this supply, British demand for Indian cotton soared, leading to a cotton boom in the Deccan. Moneylenders and merchants offered easy credit to farmers to grow more cotton, often forcing them to sign bonds.

Post-War Collapse: After the Civil War ended, American cotton flooded the market again, causing cotton prices to crash. Deccan farmers, who had borrowed heavily during the boom, could no longer repay their loans. Moneylenders responded by seizing land and charging even higher interest, pushing peasants to the brink.

Falling Agricultural Prices: From the 1830s, agricultural prices, including those of grains, fell sharply and remained low for over a decade. Combined with high taxes, this reduced farmers’ income, making it harder to survive.

Famine and Drought: The Deccan faced a devastating famine in 1832–34, which killed one-third of the cattle and half the human population in some areas. Periodic droughts and poor rainfall continued to plague the region, leaving farmers with no savings or resources to fall back on.

4. Social and Cultural Tensions

The economic hardship was compounded by social changes under British rule:

Loss of Traditional Support: Traditional village systems, where communities supported each other during crises, were undermined by the individualistic policies of the British, such as the Ryotwari system. Moneylenders, often outsiders (Gujarati or Marwari), were seen as exploiting the local Maratha and Kunbi peasants, creating social tensions.

Deindustrialization: The influx of cheap British manufactured goods destroyed local industries, such as handloom weaving. Artisans, unable to compete, turned to farming, increasing competition for land and resources.

Sense of Powerlessness: Peasants felt politically helpless under colonial rule, with no way to address their grievances through official channels. This frustration boiled over into collective action.

5. Triggering Event

The immediate spark for the riots came in May 1875 in Supa, a market village near Poona. Here, peasants, fed up with the moneylenders’ exploitative practices, organized a social boycott, refusing to buy from their shops or work for them. When this boycott failed to force change, it escalated into violent action, marking the beginning of the Deccan Riots.

These combined factors—oppressive colonial policies, moneylender exploitation, economic collapse, and social disruption—created a “combustible” situation, as described by the Deccan Riots Commission, ready to ignite at the slightest spark.

Course of the Deccan Riots

The Deccan Riots unfolded over four months, from May to September 1875, spreading across more than 30 villages in the Poona, Ahmednagar, and Satara districts. The uprising was remarkable for its collective nature, lack of centralized leadership, and focused targeting of moneylenders. Below is a detailed account of how the riots progressed:

1. The Spark in Supa (May 12, 1875)

The riots began in Supa, a bustling market village in Poona district, on May 12, 1875. A group of peasants, led by village headmen, gathered in the marketplace where many Gujarati moneylenders lived. Their primary goal was to destroy the moneylenders’ account books, debt bonds, and other documents that trapped them in debt.

Initial Actions: The peasants demanded that the moneylenders hand over their records. When refused, they attacked the moneylenders’ houses and shops, burning account books, looting grain stores, and, in some cases, torching homes.

Social Boycott: Alongside the violence, the peasants organized a social boycott, refusing to buy from moneylenders’ shops, work in their fields, or interact with them socially. This boycott aimed to isolate the moneylenders and pressure them to relent.

2. Spread Across Villages

The unrest spread rapidly to over 30 villages in Poona and Ahmednagar districts, with some activity in Satara. The riots followed a similar pattern in each village:

Systematic Attacks: Peasants targeted the homes and shops of moneylenders, seizing and publicly burning debt bonds, decrees, and other documents. These acts were symbolic, aimed at breaking the chains of debt peonage.

Collective Action: The riots were a collective effort, with entire villages participating. Men, women, and even children joined in, attacking moneylenders’ properties and destroying records. Women played a significant role, often leading efforts to burn debt documents.

No Central Leadership: Unlike other rebellions, the Deccan Riots had no single leader. Village headmen coordinated local actions, but the movement was driven by the shared anger and unity of the peasant collective. This lack of centralized leadership made the uprising spontaneous but also limited its organization.

3. Nature of the Violence

While the riots were violent, they were surprisingly restrained in terms of physical harm:

Focus on Property: The peasants’ main objective was to destroy debt records, not to kill. The Deccan Riots Commission noted a “small amount of physical crime,” with most violence directed at property—burning account books, looting shops, or damaging homes.

Targeted Anger: The riots were directed solely at moneylenders, particularly Gujarati and Marwari sahukars, who were seen as outsiders exploiting local farmers. There was no anti-colonial agenda, and British officials were not targeted.

Community Support: The movement gained support from local organizations, such as the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, co-founded by M.G. Ranade, which advocated for peasant rights and criticized moneylender exploitation.

4. British Response

The British colonial authorities were initially slow to react, dismissing the riots as a minor disturbance. However, the memory of the 1857 Revolt prompted the Government of India to push for action:

Military Suppression: By June 1875, the British deployed military and police forces to quell the uprising. Hundreds of peasants were arrested, and punitive measures were enforced to restore order.

Continued Boycott: Despite the crackdown, the social boycott of moneylenders persisted in many villages, showing the depth of peasant resentment.

The riots lasted until September 1875, with varying intensity across the region. While some areas saw significant violence, others remained relatively peaceful, reflecting the uneven spread of the uprising.

Results of the Deccan Riots

The Deccan Riots left a lasting mark on Indian history, exposing the harsh realities of colonial rule and peasant exploitation. Their outcomes were both immediate and long-term, influencing British policies and inspiring future movements.

1. Deccan Riots Commission (1877–1878)

The British Government of India, concerned about the unrest, pressured the Bombay government to investigate. In 1877, the Deccan Riots Commission was established to examine the causes of the riots. Its findings, presented to the British Parliament in 1878, were significant:

Key Findings: The Commission identified poverty and indebtedness as the primary causes of the revolt. It criticized the high land revenue demands of the Ryotwari system and the exploitative practices of moneylenders, including fraudulent accounting and excessive interest rates.

Focus on Agrarian Issues: The Commission focused more on the underlying agrarian distress than the riots themselves, acknowledging that the peasants’ grievances were legitimate.

2. Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act (1879)

One of the most important outcomes was the passage of the Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act in 1879, aimed at protecting peasants from moneylender exploitation:

Key Provisions: The Act prevented farmers from being arrested or imprisoned for unpaid debts. It also introduced measures to regulate moneylending, such as requiring written agreements and limiting interest rates.

Impact: While the Act provided some relief, it was not a complete solution. Moneylenders found ways to bypass the regulations, and the Ryotwari system’s high revenue demands remained unchanged. However, the Act marked a shift toward pro-peasant policies.

3. Changes in British Agrarian Policy

The riots forced the British to rethink their agrarian policies:

Revenue Reforms: The British introduced some reforms to reduce the burden of land revenue, such as periodic reassessments to account for agricultural conditions. However, these changes were often limited and did not fully address peasant distress.

Legal Amendments: The British amended the Code of Civil Procedure in 1877 to provide further protections for debtors, reflecting the lessons learned from the riots.

4. Rise in Peasant Consciousness

The Deccan Riots awakened a sense of collective power among peasants:

Inspiration for Future Movements: The riots proved that collective action could challenge oppression, inspiring later agrarian movements across India. They also laid the groundwork for anti-colonial struggles, as seen in the violent campaign led by Vasudeo Balwant Phadke in 1879, which aimed to overthrow British rule.

Social Boycott Legacy: The social boycott of moneylenders continued in many villages, showing the peasants’ determination to resist exploitation. This tactic influenced later movements, including the Non-Cooperation Movement.

5. Highlighting Colonial Injustices

The riots brought global attention to the plight of Indian peasants:

Criticism of British Rule: Figures like Florence Nightingale criticized the British for ignoring the peasants’ suffering. She highlighted the Deccan Riots Commission’s findings, pointing to the “utter demoralization” caused by debt and colonial policies.

Socioeconomic Insights: The riots offered historians a window into the socioeconomic changes in rural Maharashtra, particularly the tensions between cultivators and moneylenders under British rule.

6. Long-Term Legacy

The Deccan Riots are remembered as a symbol of peasant resistance:

Symbol of Unity: The collective, leaderless nature of the riots showed the power of community action, even without formal organization. This model of resistance influenced later peasant movements.

Agrarian Struggles: The riots highlighted the ongoing struggles of Indian farmers, a theme that remains relevant today, as seen in modern farmer protests in Maharashtra and beyond.

Conclusion

The Deccan Riots of 1875 were a remarkable uprising driven by the collective anger of Maharashtra’s peasants against oppressive colonial policies and exploitative moneylenders. Sparked by the harsh Ryotwari system, economic crises, and social tensions, the riots saw farmers unite without a single leader to demand justice. Over four months, they attacked moneylenders’ properties, burned debt records, and boycotted their oppressors, spreading their message across more than 30 villages. Though suppressed by British forces, the riots led to significant outcomes, including the Deccan Riots Commission and the Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act of 1879. More importantly, they awakened peasant consciousness and exposed the injustices of colonial rule, leaving a legacy that inspired future struggles. The Deccan Riots remain a shining example of ordinary people coming together to fight for their rights, proving that even without a leader, a united community can shake the foundations of oppression.