Sambalpur Revolt (1827–1862): The Heroic Struggle of Veer Surendra Sai

 

Sambalpur Revolt (1827–1862): The Heroic Struggle of Veer Surendra Sai

The Sambalpur Revolt, spanning from 1827 to 1862, stands as a shining chapter in India’s fight against British colonial rule. Led by the fearless Veer Surendra Sai, this rebellion in the region of Sambalpur (present-day Odisha) was a bold stand against injustice, exploitation, and foreign domination. Surendra Sai, a descendant of the Chauhan dynasty, became a symbol of courage and resistance, inspiring tribal communities, zamindars, and common people to challenge the mighty British Empire. This revolt, though lesser-known compared to the Revolt of 1857, played a crucial role in resisting British control in Western Odisha. These notes explore the reasons behind the revolt, its course, and its lasting results, weaving the story of a hero who fought for his people’s pride and freedom.

Reasons for the Inception of the Sambalpur Revolt

The Sambalpur Revolt was not a sudden outburst but the result of deep-rooted grievances against British policies and actions. The following reasons fueled the inception of this rebellion:

Denial of Surendra Sai’s Legitimate Claim to the Throne
Sambalpur was ruled by the Chauhan dynasty, and Surendra Sai, born in 1809 in Khinda village, was a direct descendant of Madhukar Sai, a 16th-century ruler. In 1827, when Maharaja Sai, the ruler of Sambalpur, died without a male heir, Surendra Sai staked his claim to the throne, as he was chosen as the legal successor. However, the British, who had gained influence over Sambalpur after the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817), refused to recognize his claim. Instead, they installed Maharaja Sai’s widow, Rani Mohan Kumari, as the ruler, breaking the tradition that only male rulers were acceptable. This decision sparked widespread discontent among the people, who saw Surendra Sai as the rightful heir. The British favored a pliable ruler to serve their interests, but Surendra Sai’s independent spirit and popularity made him a threat.

British Interference and the Doctrine of Lapse
The British East India Company’s policies aimed at expanding their control over Indian states. After Rani Mohan Kumari’s unpopular rule, the British removed her in 1833 and placed an elderly zamindar, Narayan Singh, on the throne. Narayan Singh’s rule was marked by high taxes and oppression, further alienating the people. When Narayan Singh died in 1849 without a male heir, the British annexed Sambalpur under Lord Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse, which allowed them to take over states without a direct male successor. This annexation ignored Surendra Sai’s claim and the sentiments of the local population, sowing seeds of rebellion.

Exploitation of Tribal Communities
Sambalpur was home to tribal communities like the Gonds, Binjhals, and Kisansw, who faced exploitation by the British and higher-caste landlords. The British raised land revenues, imposed heavy taxes, and disrupted the traditional way of life of these tribes. Surendra Sai, a charismatic leader, championed the cause of these downtrodden communities, promoting their language and culture. His support for the tribals made him a beloved figure and rallied them to his cause against British oppression.

Unpopular British Administration
The British administration in Sambalpur was marked by corruption and insensitivity. The steep increase in rents and taxes burdened zamindars and peasants alike. The British also interfered in local customs and traditions, creating resentment. The killing of a Gond zamindar, Balabhadra Deo, by Narayan Singh’s men further angered the tribal communities, who joined Surendra Sai in large numbers. The British were seen as outsiders who cared little for the welfare of Sambalpur’s people.

Surendra Sai’s Arrest and Imprisonment
Surendra Sai began protesting against British policies as early as 1827, at the age of 18. His growing influence alarmed the British, and in 1840, he was arrested along with his brother Udant Sai and uncle Balaram Singh. They were imprisoned in Hazaribagh Jail, where Balaram Singh died. This harsh treatment fueled anger among Sai’s supporters, setting the stage for a larger rebellion when he was freed during the Revolt of 1857.

These reasons—denial of rightful succession, British annexation, exploitation of tribals, unpopular administration, and Surendra Sai’s imprisonment—created a perfect storm for the Sambalpur Revolt. The people of Sambalpur, led by their courageous leader, were ready to fight for justice and freedom.

Course of the Sambalpur Revolt

The Sambalpur Revolt unfolded over several decades, marked by guerrilla warfare, strategic resistance, and unwavering determination. Surendra Sai’s leadership and the support of his followers made it a formidable challenge for the British. The revolt can be divided into key phases:

Early Resistance (1827–1840)
Surendra Sai’s rebellion began in 1827 when he opposed Rani Mohan Kumari’s rule and the British decision to deny his claim to the throne. At just 18, he rallied zamindars from Khinda, Barpali, and Sonepur, as well as tribal communities like the Gonds and Binjhals. Supported by his six brothers—Udant, Dhruba, Ujjala, Chhabila, Jajjala, and Medini—Sai organized protests and small-scale attacks against British forces. His training in guerrilla warfare and horsemanship made him a skilled fighter. However, in 1840, the British arrested him, his brother Udant, and uncle Balaram Singh, imprisoning them in Hazaribagh Jail. For 17 years, Sai remained in captivity, but his spirit of resistance stayed alive among his followers.

Revival During the Revolt of 1857
The Revolt of 1857, also known as the First War of Indian Independence, provided a turning point for Surendra Sai. In 1857, sepoys from the Ramgarh battalion broke open Hazaribagh Jail, freeing Sai and his brother Udant. Sai returned to Sambalpur and quickly mobilized a fighting force of about 1,500 men, including his brothers, sons, relatives, zamindars, and tribal warriors. He shifted his operations to the hilly tracts of Western Odisha, using the dense jungles and rugged terrain to his advantage. From 1857 to 1862, Sai led a fierce guerrilla campaign, attacking British outposts, disrupting supply lines, and rallying local support. His forces included notable associates like Madho Singh, Kunjal Singh, and Hati Singh, who fought bravely alongside him.

British Countermeasures and Challenges
The British, preoccupied with suppressing the 1857 Revolt elsewhere, initially struggled to control Sambalpur. Sai’s guerrilla tactics made it difficult for British troops to capture him, and the local population’s support further strengthened his position. The British resorted to harsh measures, such as burning villages suspected of aiding Sai and seizing rebels’ food supplies. Despite these efforts, Sai continued his resistance, even after the 1857 Revolt was largely suppressed by 1858. The British sent experienced generals like Major Forster to Sambalpur, but they failed to defeat Sai. The rugged terrain and Sai’s popularity among the people made him a formidable opponent.

Major Impey’s Amnesty Policy (1861–1862)
In 1861, Major Forster was replaced by Major Impey, who adopted a different approach. Instead of relying solely on military force, Impey introduced a policy of peace and goodwill. In September 1861, he announced amnesty for rebels who surrendered, except for Sai, his brother Udant, and son Mitrabhanu. A second proclamation in October 1861 offered a free pardon to all rebels. This conciliatory approach worked, as many rebels, weary of the long conflict, surrendered. The generous treatment of surrendering zamindars, like the Zamindar of Kolabira, encouraged others to trust the British. Sai’s son Mitrabhanu surrendered in January 1862, followed by Udant and Dhruva Sai. On May 16, 1862, Surendra Sai himself surrendered, believing in the British promise of fair treatment. He also demanded payment of arrears for his soldiers, which Impey agreed to, marking the end of the active phase of the revolt.

Arrest and Imprisonment (1864)
The surrender did not bring peace for Surendra Sai. Some British officers, like Superintendent of Police Berial, were unhappy with the lenient treatment of Sai and pressed for his arrest, accusing him of crimes like dacoity and murder. After Major Impey’s death in December 1863, the new Deputy Commissioner, Captain Cumberledge, acted swiftly. On January 23, 1864, Sai, his son, and close followers were arrested at Khinda village. They were initially held in Nagpur Jail and later transferred to Asirgarh Fort in present-day Madhya Pradesh, where Sai was imprisoned until his death.

The course of the Sambalpur Revolt was a testament to Surendra Sai’s leadership and resilience. For 37 years, he defied the British, using his knowledge of the terrain, support from tribal communities, and guerrilla tactics to keep the rebellion alive.

Results of the Sambalpur Revolt

The Sambalpur Revolt, though it did not achieve its primary goal of driving the British out of Sambalpur, left a lasting impact on the region and India’s freedom struggle. Its results can be categorized as immediate and long-term:

Immediate Outcomes

British Consolidation of Power: The British eventually suppressed the revolt, and Sambalpur was brought under the Central Provinces in 1862. The annexation of Sambalpur under the Doctrine of Lapse was solidified, and British administration was firmly established.

Imprisonment and Death of Surendra Sai: After his arrest in 1864, Sai spent 20 years in Asirgarh Fort, where he lost his eyesight and died on February 28, 1884, at the age of 75. Many of his associates, like Hati Singh, were executed or died in prisons like the Andaman’s Cellular Jail.

End of Active Resistance: The surrender of Sai and his followers in 1862, followed by his arrest in 1864, marked the end of organized resistance in Sambalpur. The British used a combination of military force and conciliatory policies to quell the rebellion.

Long-Term Impact

Inspiration for Future Generations: Surendra Sai’s heroic struggle inspired future freedom fighters in Odisha and beyond. His courage, commitment to tribal welfare, and defiance of British rule became a symbol of resistance against colonialism.

Recognition of Tribal Contributions: The revolt highlighted the role of tribal communities in India’s freedom struggle. Sai’s alliance with the Gonds, Binjhals, and Kisansw showcased the power of unity among diverse groups in fighting oppression.

Legacy of Surendra Sai: Despite being lesser-known nationally, Surendra Sai’s legacy lives on in Odisha. The Government of India honored him by installing a statue in the Parliament premises in 2005 and issuing a postal stamp in his name. In 2009, the Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology in Burla was named after him, and the Veer Surendra Sai Medical College in Sambalpur also bears his name. His 200th birth anniversary in 2009 was celebrated widely in Odisha.

Delayed British Control: The revolt delayed British control over Western Odisha, making Sambalpur one of the last regions to be fully occupied by the British Empire, excluding princely states. Sai’s resistance kept the British on edge for decades.

Historical Significance: The Sambalpur Revolt is recognized as a precursor to the broader Indian freedom struggle. It began before the 1857 Revolt and continued well after, showing the persistence of anti-colonial sentiments in India.

Cultural and Social Impact

Sai’s efforts to promote tribal languages and culture left a lasting impact on Sambalpur’s social fabric. His leadership fostered a sense of pride and identity among the tribal communities.

The revolt exposed the exploitative nature of British policies, raising awareness about the need for self-rule and justice.

Conclusion

The Sambalpur Revolt (1827–1862), led by Veer Surendra Sai, was a remarkable chapter in India’s struggle for freedom. Sparked by the British denial of Sai’s rightful claim to the throne, fueled by exploitation and annexation, and sustained by the support of tribal communities and zamindars, the revolt showcased the power of unity and courage. Surendra Sai’s 37-year fight, marked by guerrilla warfare and unwavering determination, challenged the British Empire’s might. Though the revolt did not achieve its immediate goal, it delayed British control, inspired future generations, and cemented Sai’s legacy as the “Lion of Sambalpur.”

Today, Veer Surendra Sai is celebrated as a hero in Odisha, his name etched in institutions, statues, and the hearts of the people. His life teaches us the values of justice, resilience, and the importance of standing up against oppression. For students preparing for competitive exams, the Sambalpur Revolt is a reminder of the diverse and widespread nature of India’s freedom struggle, where heroes like Surendra Sai fought not just for their land but for the dignity of their people.

 

Punjab Peasant Agitation (1890–1900): A Collective Struggle of the Peasantry

 

Punjab Peasant Agitation (1890–1900): A Collective Struggle of the Peasantry

The Punjab Peasant Agitation during the late 19th century (1890–1900) stands as a remarkable chapter in India’s history of resistance against British colonial rule. Unlike many movements led by prominent individuals, this agitation was a powerful collective effort driven by the peasantry of Punjab, united by shared grievances and a burning desire for justice. Without a single towering leader, the peasants organized themselves to challenge oppressive colonial policies, particularly those related to land revenue and agrarian reforms. This movement laid the groundwork for future peasant struggles and contributed to the growing spirit of defiance against British rule. Below is a detailed exploration of the reasons for its inception, the course of the agitation, and its results, presented in simple, clear, and engaging language.

Reasons for the Inception of the Punjab Peasant Agitation

The Punjab Peasant Agitation was born out of deep economic distress and social injustices inflicted by British colonial policies. The following factors fueled the peasantry’s unrest:

Harsh Land Revenue Policies:
After annexing Punjab in 1849, the British introduced rigid land revenue systems, such as the Mahalwari system, which imposed high taxes on cultivators. The revenue demand was often fixed at exorbitant rates, leaving peasants with little surplus to sustain their families. Unlike traditional systems that allowed flexibility during poor harvests, the British enforced strict collection schedules, even in times of drought or crop failure. This relentless pressure pushed many peasants into debt and poverty.

Indebtedness and Moneylender Exploitation:
High taxes and unpredictable agricultural conditions forced peasants to borrow money from local moneylenders, who charged crippling interest rates. Over time, many peasants lost their land to these moneylenders, who were often supported by colonial laws. The British legal system favored creditors, making it easy for moneylenders to seize land when peasants defaulted on loans. This growing indebtedness eroded the peasantry’s control over their ancestral lands, sparking widespread resentment.

Commercialization of Agriculture:
The late 19th century saw the British push for commercial crops like cotton and wheat to fuel their global trade. This shift disrupted traditional farming practices, as peasants were pressured to grow cash crops instead of food crops. While this initially brought prosperity to some, it made peasants vulnerable to market fluctuations. When global demand for crops like cotton fell (e.g., after the American Civil War ended in 1865), peasants faced financial ruin, intensifying their struggles.

Punjab Land Alienation Act of 1900 (Precursor Discontent):
Although the Punjab Land Alienation Act was passed in 1900, the discontent leading to it began in the 1890s. The British policies allowed non-agriculturists (such as urban traders) to acquire land, threatening the traditional agrarian structure. Peasants feared losing their land to outsiders, which added to their grievances. The agitation in the 1890s was partly a response to these early signs of land alienation, as peasants sought to protect their livelihoods.

Canal Colony Policies and Water Taxes:
The British developed canal colonies in Punjab to irrigate barren lands, attracting settlers from across the region. While this brought prosperity to some, it also introduced new burdens. The government imposed high water rates and taxes on canal-irrigated lands, which many peasants found unaffordable. Additionally, the allocation of canal colony lands often favored loyalists and elites, leaving ordinary peasants feeling marginalized and exploited.

Social and Cultural Awakening:
The annexation of Punjab disrupted the social fabric of the region, including the influence of Sikh institutions like the Khalsa. The British undermined traditional leadership, such as Sikh sardars and village headmen, replacing them with loyal intermediaries. This created a sense of cultural alienation among the peasantry, who were proud of their heritage. The growing awareness of their exploitation, coupled with early nationalist ideas, inspired peasants to resist colonial oppression collectively.

These factors combined to create a boiling point in Punjab’s agrarian society. The peasants, though lacking a single leader, found strength in their shared struggles, uniting as a collective force to demand justice.

Increased Political Awareness:
The agitation awakened the peasantry to the broader injustices of colonial rule. It bridged economic grievances with political consciousness, as peasants began to see their struggles as part of a larger fight against British oppression. This growing awareness contributed to the rise of nationalist sentiments in Punjab, which later fueled movements like the Ghadar Movement and the Akali agitations. The peasantry’s role as a political force became undeniable.

Partial Economic Relief:
While the agitation did not eliminate all economic burdens, it pressured the British to introduce minor reforms. In some areas, revenue assessments were adjusted, and water rates in canal colonies were reviewed. These concessions were limited and often temporary, but they provided temporary relief to some peasants and validated their collective efforts.

Legacy of Resistance:
The Punjab Peasant Agitation left a powerful legacy of resistance that inspired future generations. It showed that ordinary peasants, even without a charismatic leader, could challenge a mighty colonial empire. The movement’s emphasis on collective action and grassroots organization became a model for later agrarian struggles, including the Kisan Sabha movements of the 1920s and 1930s. The agitation also highlighted the peasantry’s critical role in India’s freedom struggle, earning them recognition as a force

for change.

Limitations and Unresolved Issues:
Despite its achievements, the agitation had limitations. The British successfully suppressed Course of the Agitation

The Punjab Peasant Agitation (1890–1900) unfolded as a series of localized protests, strikes, and collective actions across rural Punjab. Without a centralized leader, the movement relied on grassroots organization, with village communities and peasant collectives driving the resistance. The course of the agitation can be traced through the following phases:

Early Sparks of Resistance (1890–1895):
The agitation began with sporadic protests against high land revenue and moneylender exploitation. Peasants in districts like Amritsar, Lahore, and Rawalpindi organized rent strikes, refusing to pay excessive taxes or rents to landlords and colonial officials. These actions were often coordinated by village panchayats or informal peasant assemblies, reflecting the collective nature of the movement. The protests were largely non-violent, focusing on petitions and appeals to local authorities for relief. However, the British responded with repression, arresting agitators and seizing properties, which only fueled further discontent.

Growing Momentum (1895–1898):
By the mid-1890s, the agitation gained momentum as peasants began to connect their local struggles to broader colonial policies. The canal colonies, particularly in areas like Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), became hotspots of unrest. Peasants protested against high water rates and unfair land allotments, which favored non-agriculturists and colonial loyalists. Secret societies and informal networks emerged, allowing peasants to share grievances and plan collective actions. These groups operated without a single leader, relying on trusted community elders or local influencers to mobilize support.

Cultural and Political Awakening:
The agitation was not just economic but also cultural. The Namdhari (Kuka) Movement, which had earlier challenged British rule in the 1860s and 1870s, continued to inspire peasants. The Namdharis advocated for self-reliance and resistance against colonial laws, ideas that resonated with the peasantry. Additionally, early nationalist organizations like the Indian National Congress began to take notice of rural unrest, though their involvement in Punjab remained limited during this period. The peasants’ collective identity as a community wronged by colonial rule grew stronger, giving the agitation a deeper sense of purpose.

Climax and Repression (1898–1900):
The late 1890s saw the agitation reach its peak, with widespread protests across Punjab’s rural heartlands. Peasants organized large gatherings to voice their demands, including lower taxes, protection from moneylenders, and fair access to canal colony lands. In some areas, they refused to cultivate crops or pay taxes, disrupting the colonial revenue system. The British responded with heavy-handed measures, deploying police and military forces to crush the protests. Many peasants were arrested, and their lands were confiscated, but the collective spirit of the movement persisted. The agitation’s intensity forced the British to reconsider their agrarian policies, leading to the eventual passage of the Punjab Land Alienation Act in 1900.

Throughout its course, the agitation remained decentralized, with no single leader dominating the narrative. Instead, the peasantry’s collective resolve, rooted in shared hardships, drove the movement forward. This grassroots character made it difficult for the British to suppress the agitation entirely, as new leaders emerged organically from within the communities.

Results of the Agitation

The Punjab Peasant Agitation of 1890–1900 had far-reaching consequences, both immediate and long-term. While it did not achieve all its goals, it left a lasting impact on Punjab’s agrarian society and India’s freedom struggle. The results can be summarized as follows:

Passage of the Punjab Land Alienation Act (1900):
One of the most significant outcomes of the agitation was the enactment of the Punjab Land Alienation Act in 1900. This law aimed to protect agriculturists by restricting the transfer of land to non-agriculturists, such as urban moneylenders and traders. While the act was partly a response to peasant demands, it also reflected the British desire to maintain social stability in Punjab, a key recruiting ground for their army. The act provided some relief to peasants by curbing land alienation, but it did not fully address their economic hardships.

Strengthening of Peasant Unity:
The agitation fostered a sense of solidarity among Punjab’s peasantry. By organizing collectively without a single leader, peasants demonstrated their ability to unite across villages and communities. This collective spirit became a hallmark of later peasant movements in Punjab, such as the Pagri Sambhal Jatta Movement of 1907. The experience of the 1890s taught peasants the power of coordinated action, laying the foundation for future struggles.

many protests through repression, and the core issues of high taxes and indebtedness persisted. The Punjab Land Alienation Act, while beneficial to some, did not address the needs of landless laborers or tenants, who remained vulnerable. Additionally, the lack of a single leader sometimes hindered the movement’s ability to sustain momentum or negotiate effectively with colonial authorities.

Conclusion

The Punjab Peasant Agitation of 1890–1900 was a shining example of the power of collective action. Driven by the shared struggles of Punjab’s peasantry, this leaderless movement challenged the oppressive policies of British colonial rule. The reasons for its inception—harsh land revenue policies, indebtedness, commercialization of agriculture, and cultural alienation—reflected the deep injustices faced by rural communities. The course of the agitation, marked by rent strikes, protests, and grassroots organization, showcased the peasantry’s resilience and unity. Its results, including the Punjab Land Alienation Act and the strengthening of peasant solidarity, had a lasting impact on Punjab’s agrarian landscape and India’s freedom struggle.

This movement reminds us that ordinary people, when united by a common cause, can achieve extraordinary things. The Punjab peasants, with their courage and determination, sowed the seeds of resistance that would blossom into the larger fight for India’s independence. Their story is a testament to the enduring spirit of collective struggle, a legacy that continues to inspire movements for justice and equality today.

 

Phulaguri Dhewa (1861): A Peasant Collective Uprising in Assam

 

Phulaguri Dhewa (1861): A Peasant Collective Uprising in Assam

The Phulaguri Dhewa, also known as the Phulaguri Uprising, was a landmark event in the history of India’s struggle against British colonial rule. Occurring in October 1861 in the village of Phulaguri, located in Assam’s Nagaon district, this agrarian revolt stands out as the first organized peasant movement in Assam and one of the earliest in India. Unlike many uprisings led by a single charismatic leader, the Phulaguri Dhewa was a collective effort driven by the unified resolve of peasants, particularly the Tiwa (Lalung) and other tribal communities. This revolt was a bold stand against oppressive British taxation policies and economic exploitation, marking a significant chapter in India’s fight for freedom. This note explores the reasons for the uprising, its course, and its results in a detailed, simple, and engaging manner, tailored for competitive exam preparation.

Reasons for the Inception of Phulaguri Dhewa

The Phulaguri Dhewa was sparked by a combination of economic grievances, cultural affronts, and administrative indifference imposed by the British colonial regime. The following factors fueled the uprising:

Oppressive Taxation Policies: After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Crown assumed direct control of India from the East India Company. To recover the costs of suppressing the rebellion and compensating the company’s shareholders, the British introduced heavy taxes across India. In Assam, these taxes targeted agricultural produce and everyday resources, severely impacting farmers. Taxes were imposed on crops, fisheries, fodder, timber, betel nuts, betel leaves, and even trees used for silkworm feed. The Ryotwari system, which taxed individual farmers directly, added to the burden. For the peasants of Phulaguri, who relied on agriculture for their livelihood, these taxes were crippling, leaving them with little to sustain their families.

Ban on Poppy Cultivation: Poppy cultivation was a significant source of income for the Tiwa community in Phulaguri and surrounding areas. The fertile lands of the Brahmaputra Valley, enriched by flood silt, were ideal for growing poppy, which required minimal labor. In 1860, the British banned poppy cultivation in districts like Nagaon, citing concerns over opium production. However, they continued to sell opium extracted from poppy seeds, profiting while depriving local farmers of their livelihood. This ban devastated the economic stability of the Tiwa peasants, pushing them toward rebellion.

Cultural Insensitivity: The British imposed taxes on betel nuts and leaves, which held deep cultural significance in Assamese society. Betel nuts and leaves were essential in religious ceremonies, marriages, and social customs, symbolizing hospitality and status. Taxing these items was not just an economic burden but also an insult to Assamese traditions. This cultural disregard deepened the resentment among the peasants, who felt their way of life was under attack.

Exploitation by Tea Planters: The British tea planters in Assam faced a labor shortage, as many imported workers died due to malaria and poor living conditions. They sought to employ local Assamese farmers, but the fertile Brahmaputra Valley allowed farmers to sustain themselves through agriculture, making them reluctant to work on tea estates. To force compliance, the British imposed taxes to impoverish farmers, hoping to drive them into plantation labor. This exploitative strategy further alienated the peasant community.

Administrative Indifference: The British administration, particularly under Deputy Commissioner Lieutenant Herbert Sconce in Nagaon, showed little regard for the peasants’ grievances. When farmers approached Sconce to protest the taxes, he dismissed them, fined them, and even detained some for their “disorderly conduct.” His refusal to engage with the farmers’ concerns left them with no choice but to organize and resist collectively.

Socio-Economic Marginalization: The Phulaguri region was home to tribal communities like the Tiwa and Kachari, who were traditionally self-sufficient and valued their autonomy. British policies, including land alienation and taxes, disrupted their social organization and customary rights. The lack of representation and the execution or banishment of local leaders after the 1857 rebellion left the peasants to fend for themselves, fostering a sense of collective resistance.

These factors combined to create a volatile situation, where the peasants of Phulaguri, driven by economic hardship, cultural affront, and a desire for justice, united to challenge British authority.

Course of the Phulaguri Dhewa

The Phulaguri Dhewa unfolded over several weeks in 1861, transitioning from peaceful protests to violent confrontation and brutal suppression. The following is a detailed account of its course:

Initial Protests (September 1861): On September 17, 1861, around 1,000–1,500 peasants from Phulaguri and nearby areas marched to the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Nagaon to protest the new taxes and the poppy cultivation ban. Led by local leaders like Jati Kalita, they sought an audience with Lieutenant Herbert Sconce to submit a petition. Sconce, however, refused to meet them and ordered the arrest of 15–20 farmers who entered his office, accusing them of “riotous behavior.” The protesters were fined and detained, which only fueled their anger.

Second Attempt (October 9, 1861): Undeterred, a smaller delegation, including village headmen, approached Sconce again on October 9 with a polite petition requesting relief from the taxes. Sconce rejected this appeal, offering vague assurances about betel farm taxes that did little to address the farmers’ concerns. This repeated dismissal pushed the peasants toward a more organized form of resistance.

Organization of Raijmel (October 15–17, 1861): Frustrated by the administration’s indifference, the peasants convened a raijmel (people’s assembly) in Phulaguri starting October 15. This traditional Assamese institution allowed farmers to discuss grievances, debate strategies, and reach a consensus. Over five days, thousands gathered, including Tiwa, Kachari, and other tribal peasants, as well as some middle-class supporters. The raijmel decided on a non-cooperation strategy, resolving not to pay taxes to the British. This marked the first instance of a non-cooperation movement in India’s freedom struggle, predating Gandhi’s later campaigns. The assembly was peaceful but resolute, with participants armed with lathis (bamboo sticks) for self-defense.

Confrontation with British Forces (October 18, 1861): When Sconce learned of the raijmel, he declared it illegal and sent a police team led by a daroga to disperse it and arrest the leaders. The police failed to break up the assembly, as the peasants, numbering over 3,000, stood firm. On October 18, Lieutenant G.B. Singer, Assistant Commissioner of Nagaon, arrived with 20 policemen to enforce Sconce’s orders. Singer met with Jati Kalita, urging the crowd to disarm and disperse, and suggested they submit a written petition instead. When the peasants refused, Singer ordered his men to seize their lathis, and he attempted to snatch some himself. In the ensuing scuffle, a fisherman named Babu Doom struck Singer on the head with a lathi, killing him. Two policemen were also killed, and Singer’s body was thrown into the Kolong River.

Peasant Offensive: Emboldened by the incident, some peasants attacked a police station in Raha and a government magazine house in Kachalukhowa. They also moved toward the government treasury in Nagaon, intending to plunder it, but were intercepted by British sepoys. These actions reflected the peasants’ growing defiance and their intent to challenge British authority directly.

British Retaliation (October 19–23, 1861): News of Singer’s death reached Sconce, who feared a larger uprising. He split Nagaon’s police force, sending one group to retrieve Singer’s body and another to guard the treasury. On October 19, British forces fired on peasants in Phulaguri, killing several. Major Henry Hopkinson, the Assam Commissioner, arrived from Tezpur with reinforcements from the 2nd Assam Light Infantry. By October 23, Hopkinson, supported by Captain Chambers, launched a brutal crackdown in the Raha-Phulaguri region. British troops fired on unarmed peasants, killing at least 39 on the spot and injuring hundreds. Official estimates report 69 peasant deaths, though local accounts suggest up to 141 were arrested, with many tried and executed or exiled.

Surrender and Punishment: Disturbed by the British atrocities, key peasant leaders, including Laxman Singh Deka Senapati, Rangbar Deka, and Changbar Lalung, surrendered, confessing to Singer’s killing. They were hanged in Nagaon jail. Others, such as Bahoo Kaibarta, Banamali Kaibarta, and several Lalung leaders, were banished to the Andaman Islands. The British used these harsh measures to crush the uprising and deter future resistance.

Results of the Phulaguri Dhewa

The Phulaguri Dhewa was ruthlessly suppressed, but its impact reverberated across Assam and India. The results of the uprising can be categorized as immediate and long-term:

Immediate Results:

Suppression and Loss of Life: The British quelled the uprising with overwhelming force, resulting in significant loss of life. Official records note at least 69 peasant deaths, though unofficial estimates suggest higher numbers. The execution of leaders and exile of others dismantled the immediate resistance.

Arrests and Punishments: The British arrested 141 individuals, with trials held in Nagaon and Calcutta. Many received death sentences or life imprisonment, and some were deported to the Andaman Islands. This harsh response aimed to instill fear and prevent further uprisings.

Temporary Concessions: The intensity of the revolt forced the British to reconsider some policies. Although the poppy ban remained, the government withdrew plans to tax betel farms in response to the unrest, indicating the uprising’s partial success in challenging oppressive measures.

Long-Term Results:

Inspiration for Future Movements: The Phulaguri Dhewa inspired later peasant revolts in Assam, such as those in Darrang and Kamrup in 1893–94. It planted the seeds of anti-colonial resistance, influencing the broader Indian freedom movement. Historians note its role as a precursor to Gandhi’s Champaran movement, highlighting its significance as an early non-cooperation effort.

Symbol of Peasant Unity: The uprising showcased the power of collective action. Without a single leader, the peasants organized through the raijmel, demonstrating democratic decision-making and tribal solidarity. This model of grassroots resistance became a hallmark of Assam’s contribution to India’s freedom struggle.

Highlighting Tribal Resistance: The revolt, led predominantly by the Tiwa and Kachari tribes, underscored the role of tribal communities in resisting colonial oppression. It brought attention to the marginalization of indigenous groups and their fight to protect customary rights and economic autonomy.

Neglect in National Narrative: Despite its significance, the Phulaguri Dhewa remains underrecognized in India’s national history. Local commemorations occur annually, but the lack of national acknowledgment has been a point of contention. Historians and residents argue that the uprising deserves recognition akin to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre for its anti-colonial spirit.

Cultural and Historical Legacy: The Phulaguri Dhewa is remembered as a symbol of Assamese resilience. Annual tributes by locals and statements from leaders like Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma in 2021 reflect its enduring legacy. The site of the massacre, Manuh Pura Beel, where 69 peasants were buried, is proposed for preservation as a historical landmark.

Conclusion

The Phulaguri Dhewa of 1861 was a courageous stand by Assam’s peasants against British colonial exploitation. Driven by oppressive taxes, the poppy cultivation ban, and cultural insensitivity, the uprising was a collective effort rooted in the democratic institution of the raijmel. Though brutally suppressed, it left a lasting impact, inspiring future resistance and highlighting the strength of peasant unity. The sacrifice of the Phulaguri martyrs, who fought without a single leader but with shared resolve, remains a powerful testament to the spirit of freedom. For students preparing for competitive exams, understanding the Phulaguri Dhewa offers insights into Assam’s role in India’s freedom struggle and the dynamics of grassroots movements. Its story, though often overlooked, is a beacon of courage and collective action that continues to inspire.