[ad_1]
Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted about Hul Diwas on June 30, remembering the sacrifice of Adivasis in their fight against British colonial authorities.
The Santal rebellion or ‘Hul’ – literally, revolution – began in 1855, two years before the the uprising of 1857, often referred to by mainstream nationalist historians as “the first war for Indian independence”.
It was an “organised war against colonialism” led by the Santals, standing against the myriad forms of oppression – economic and otherwise – they were subjected to by the British and their collaborators. Led by two brothers Sidhu and Kanhu, it saw the participation of as many as 32 tribes rallying behind them.
The rebellion took place in the lush Damin-i-Koh region – ‘Damin-i-Koh’ meaning the ‘skirts of the hills’ – and took the British by complete surprise. This region falls in present-day Jharkhand, more specifically, around the Rajmahal Hills of eastern Jharkhand’s Sahibganj district.
Today, the state of Jharkhand celebrates June 30 as ‘Hul Diwas’, marking the beginning of the rebellion, even though some historical accounts date it to the first week of July instead.
The popular spelling of ‘Santhals’ today is the one used by the British, and experts say ‘Santal’ is a more accurate way of documenting how the community identified itself.
Who were the Santals?
The Santal people – or Santalis – were not the original inhabitants of modern day Santhal Pargana – which includes the six districts of Dumka, Pakur, Godda, Sahibganj, Deoghar and parts of Jamtara. They had migrated from the Birbhum and Manbhum regions (present-day Bengal), starting around the late 18th century.
The 1770 famine in Bengal caused the Santals to begin moving and soon, the British turned to them for help. With the enactment of the Permanent Settlement Act of 1790, the East India Company was desperate to bring an ever-increasing area in its control under settled agriculture. They, thus, chose the area of Damin-i-Koh, at the time heavily forested, to be settled by the Santals, in order to collect a steady stream of revenue, dislodging the indegenous Pahariya community who lived off the forest.
However, once settled, the Santals bore the brunt of colonial oppression. IAS officer (Retired) Ranendra, an authoritative figure on the tribal history of Jharkhand and currently the Director of Ram Dayal Munda Tribal Research Institute, told The Indian Express that the Santal migration was “forced” by the British merely to collect more revenue. Predatory money-lenders and the police were a byproduct of this system.
Today, the Santal community is the third largest tribal community in India, spread across Jharkhand-Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal.
Why did the Hul happen?
The social conditions which drove the peasants to rebel against the British are succinctly described in a contemporary edition of the Calcutta Review.
“ Zamindars, the police, the revenue and court alas have exercised a combined system of extortions, oppressive extractions, forcible dispossession of property, abuse and personal violence and a variety of petty tyrannies upon Santhals. Usurious interest on loans of money ranging from 50 to 500 percent; false measures at the haut and the market; willful and uncharitable trespass by the rich by means of their untethered cattle, tattoos, ponies or even elephants, on the growing crops of the poorer race; and such like illegalities have been prevalent.”
By 1854, there was talk of rebellion in tribal councils and meetings. The rebellion finally began after a massive assembly of over 6,000 Santhals representing around 400 villages that took place on June 30, 1855. With Sidhu and Kanhu taking the lead, the rebellion saw the mobilisation of Santal people across the region, who picked up arms and declared their autonomy from the British. Moneylenders and zamindars were executed or forced to flee, and police stations, railway construction sites and dak offices – all symbols of colonial rule – were attacked.
As per some accounts, approximately 60,000 Santhals took part in this rebellion.
How ‘organised’ was the Hul?
A prevalent theory about the ‘Hul’ suggests that it was merely an an “unorganised chaotic uprising”. However, this is incorrect.
There is evidence of a “direct denial” of British rule and a highly organised rebellion, states Jharkhand-based Ashwini Pankaj, in his book 1855 Hul Documents. The book presents evidence of “preparations related to the war such as formation of guerrillas and military teams, appointment of detectives, fixing of secret bases, logistics, network of message carriers for mutual coordination, etc.” which shows that the Hul was not unorganised, unplanned, or chaotic, but a “deliberate and well planned political war”.
Ashwini Pankaj also says that many non-Adivasi Hindu castes too participated in the Hul and thus, calling it just a Santhal rebellion “would never be appropriate”, he says.
Some lesser-known facts about the Hul
TRI Director Ranendra says that there are accounts of excesses committed by the Britishers where in a bid to control the uprising they invoked the Martial Law, killed thousands, burned down villages after villages and hanged people on various corners of the road. He says that three important lessons emanate from the ‘Hul’–First, it was not merely the Santal community which fought but had the participation from 32 communities (tribals and non-tribals both). Second, he says that the sisters Phulo-Jhano had led an army of 1,000 women whose jobs included providing food supply, gathering information and also attacked the East Indian camps during the night. Third, which is the most interesting, Ranendra says: “The East India army was defeated twice during the rebellion. The first was in Pirpainti and the second in Birbhum–all part of lower Bengal then–and the narrative that the East India Company’s army could not be defeated was exposed.”
What was the narratives of the British?
As per the book compiled by Ashwini Pankaj, there are various personal narratives of Britishers, Church Mission Society among others. One particular report of AC Bidwell, who was the Special Commissioner for the suppression of the ‘Hul’, stands out.
Bidwell in his letter to the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Fort William said: “For the causes of insurrection…the manifestos of the insurgents (say) that there were grievances of…excessive taxation…prevalence of falsehood, negligence of Sahibs(Britishers), extortion of Mahajans, corruption and oppression.” However, after examining various accounts, he said that he found there were no signs of over taxation(land rent), but he felt more needed to be done to obviate the sufferings inflicted by ‘Mahajans’(money lending).
Frederick Halliday, the first Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, account said: “…To the wild Sonthal, justice was far off and very difficult of access at Bhagalpur courts…It was no wonder that the ignorant and helpless Sonthals should fall easy victims to the unscrupulous mahajan. Once in the clutches of the usurers, they became with their families their bond slaves…(who) felt the contrast between themselves and free workers. Thus it was the grinding oppression of the Bengali mahajans on the semi savage Sonthals that was the main cause of the outbreak.”
What were the accounts of the prisoners after the ‘Hul’?
In the uprisings of tribal communities against Britishers or oppression, there are accounts of how a deity appeared in their dreams or before them asked to go on a particular path. Tribal icon Birsa Munda accounts by an IAS officer K Suresh Singh have also mentioned it in his book of a deity appearing in Munda’s dream. In the case of ‘Hul’ too similar accounts have come into picture.
As per the book ‘HUL DOCUMENTS’, the judicial proceedings record of the ‘Examination of Kanoo Sonthal’, after he was taken captive, stated that a deity appeared in front of Kanoo and after he sent a ‘Parwana’ (an order) to the ‘Bada Sahib’ in Calcutta. The proceedings quoting Kanoo said: “…(in the parwana I wrote that)…the mahajans were committing great oppression and taking 20 pice for 1 and that I was to place them at a distance from Sonthals and if they do not go away, then to fight them.”
The judicial proceedings of Seedo Sonthal stated, quoting him: “We consulted for two months ‘that Pontent (Mr Pontent was a Britisher who worked as incharge of the area) and others don’t listen to our complaints and no one acts as our Father and Mother then God descended from heaven in the form of cartwheel and said to me to kill Pontet and the Darogah and Mahajuns then you will have justice and Father, Mother.”
Did it have any lasting impact?
Inder Kumar Choudhary, former HoD of History at Ranchi University, who has also written a book ‘From Region to Nation: The Tribal Revolts in Jharkhand 1855-58’, told The Indian Express that it was not that the 1855 uprising died down. “In 1857, when there was a mutiny (as reported the first such in British India), the Santals in Hazaribagh and Manbhum area(current Dhanbad and Purulia area)had also led a war against the Britishers. So the idea of ‘Hul’ rebellion did not die down with its suppression.”
[ad_2]
