Popular Uprisings and Revolts Against British Before 1857

Before 1857, there was only a big fight led by the British. Many people were upset about how the British controlled the subcontinent. In 1857, this was noted by scholars who studied the British rule. They looked at issues such as trade, the burden on farmers and workers, public anger, the history of British control, the presence of European soldiers, and the pain felt by women under British rule. Over time, these issues caused many people in India to rise up against British control. This lasted nearly a year and sparked strong Indian resistance after 1857. However, this feeling was much more influenced by the events of 1857 and the mid-1800s.

The period before the 1857 Revolt witnessed various instances of people’s opposition to British rule, which is often considered as the initial significant display of discontent against the British, who were represented by the East India Company’s governance. However, before the 1857 revolt, numerous incidents indicated growing dissatisfaction and resentment towards the foreign administration. This discontent was evident through multiple instances of resistance by various groups of people across different regions in India.

Table of Contents

People’s Resistance: Meaning

Regarding the resistance of people against British rule, the term ‘people’ encompasses various segments of Indian society that were affected by foreign governance. This includes peasants, artisans, tribals, ruling classes (both active and dispossessed), military personnel (including those under the East India Company and former soldiers of Indian rulers), as well as religious leaders from Hindu and Muslim communities. These different groups fought to safeguard their respective interests, sometimes independently and sometimes collectively. Instances of resistance took place in different forms and locations. For instance, the protest in Benares in 1810 against a house tax imposed by the colonial government, the Surat riots in 1814 opposing the salt duty, and the uprising in Bareilly in 1816 against police and municipal taxes, exemplify urban movements where individuals from lower social strata such as artisans, small shopkeepers, and the urban poor joined forces with the wealthier urban gentry. Although the specific grievances varied among these resistance movements, they all converged with the common goal of ending British rule. According to historian Bipan Chandra, people’s resistance can be broadly categorized into three forms: civil rebellions, tribal uprisings, and peasant movements. To provide a comprehensive study of people’s resistance, military revolts involving Indians employed in the East India Company’s forces have also been considered as a form of resistance.

Genesis of People’s Resistance

In pre-colonial India, protests by the people against rulers and officials were not uncommon. Factors such as exorbitant land revenue demands by the State, corrupt practices, and the harsh attitudes of officials often served as triggers for such protests. However, the establishment of colonial rule and its policies had a significantly devastating impact on the Indian population as a whole. The colonial administration showed little interest in addressing the grievances or problems of the people, focusing primarily on extracting revenue. The colonial legal system and judiciary prioritized the interests of the government and its allies, such as landlords, merchants, and moneylenders. Consequently, the people felt unheard and disregarded, leaving them with no recourse but to resort to armed resistance to defend themselves. The conditions faced by tribal communities were not dissimilar to those experienced by people in other regions of India. However, the encroachment of outsiders into their autonomous tribal territories intensified their grievances and resulted in more widespread violence.

Causative Factors for People’s Uprisings

The major factors that contributed to the resentment and uprisings of the people against the rule of the East India Company can be attributed to the following causes:
Colonial land revenue settlements: The imposition of land revenue settlements by the colonial administration placed a heavy burden on the people. This included excessive taxation, eviction of peasants from their lands, and encroachments on tribal territories.
Exploitation in rural society: The growth of intermediary revenue collectors, tenants, and moneylenders in rural areas led to the exploitation of the rural population. This further exacerbated the grievances of the people.
Expansion of revenue administration over tribal lands: The extension of revenue administration into tribal areas resulted in the loss of tribal people’s control over agricultural and forest lands. This encroachment on their traditional territories added to their discontent.
Promotion of British manufactured goods: The British administration actively promoted their own manufactured goods while imposing heavy duties on Indian industries, particularly through export duties. This policy had a devastating impact on Indian handloom and handicraft industries, leading to economic hardships and resentment.
Destruction of indigenous industry: The destruction of indigenous industries under British rule resulted in a significant migration of workers from the industrial sector to agriculture. This increased the pressure on land and agricultural resources, intensifying social and economic pressures on the population.
These factors collectively contributed to the grievances and frustrations of the people, prompting them to rise in protest against the Company’s rule.

Civil Uprisings

The term “civil” in the context of uprisings refers to those movements that were not directly related to military or defense actions. However, in this context, we include uprisings that were typically led by deposed native rulers or their descendants, former zamindars (landlords), poligars (territory holders in South India), ex-retainers and officials of conquered kingdoms, or occasionally by religious leaders. The mass support for these uprisings typically came from oppressed peasants burdened with high rents, unemployed artisans, and demobilized soldiers. However, it is important to note that the core leadership of these uprisings often comprised individuals from the previously influential classes who had lost power and authority.

Major Causes of Civil Uprisings

The civil uprisings during the Company rule were driven by several major causes, including:
Economic and administrative changes: The rapid changes in the economy, administration, and land revenue system implemented by colonial rule were detrimental to the interests of the people. These changes often led to increased exploitation and hardships.
Personal grievances of zamindars and poligars: Many zamindars and poligars, who had lost control over their lands and revenues due to colonial rule, harbored personal resentments and a desire to settle scores with the new rulers.
Ego and status concerns: Traditional zamindars and poligars felt their status undermined as they were sidelined in rank by government officials and a new class of merchants and moneylenders. This wounded their pride and contributed to their opposition to colonial rule.
The devastation of Indian handicraft industries: Colonial policies, including the promotion of British manufactured goods and heavy taxation on Indian industries, resulted in the decline and impoverishment of millions of artisans. The disappearance of their traditional patrons, such as princes, chieftains, and zamindars, further exacerbated their misery.
Influence of priestly classes: The priestly classes, including religious preachers, priests, pundits, and maulvis, had a vested interest in the traditional landed and bureaucratic elite. The decline of zamindars and feudal lords directly affected their social and economic standing, leading to the instigation of hatred and rebellion against colonial rule.
Alien rule and contemptuous treatment: The foreign origin and detached attitude of the British rulers, who remained outsiders to the land, along with their disdainful treatment of the native population, wounded the pride and dignity of the people. This sense of cultural and national pride fueled resentment and opposition to colonial rule.
These causes collectively contributed to the emergence of civil uprisings as various sections of society, including dispossessed rulers, zamindars, poligars, artisans, and religious leaders, united against the oppressive policies and attitudes of the British rulers.

General Characteristics of Civil Uprisings

Civil uprisings during the Company rule shared certain general characteristics, despite occurring at different times and in various locations. These characteristics include:
Common conditions: The uprisings were often driven by similar conditions prevalent across different regions, despite being separated by time and place. These conditions could include economic hardships, social inequality, and political grievances arising from colonial policies.
Semi-feudal leaders: The leaders of civil uprisings typically belonged to semi-feudal backgrounds and held conservative and traditional views. They aimed to restore previous forms of governance and social relations, seeking to reclaim the power and privileges they had lost under colonial rule.
Local causes and grievances: Civil uprisings were largely rooted in local causes and grievances. They were often sparked by specific injustices or oppressive measures imposed by the colonial administration, such as excessive taxation, eviction of peasants, or encroachment on land rights. These local issues served as catalysts for broader resistance movements.
Localized consequences: While the uprisings had significant local impacts, their consequences were often limited to the immediate regions where they occurred. The scope and scale of these uprisings were primarily localized, as they were driven by local grievances and lacked extensive coordination or nationwide reach.
Overall, civil uprisings emerged as localized responses to specific injustices and as attempts to restore traditional power structures and social relations. They represented the resistance of semi-feudal leaders and their communities against colonial oppression, with their consequences primarily confined to the local level.

Important Civil Uprisings

Sanyasi Revolt (1763-1800)

The Sanyasi Revolt took place from 1763 to 1800 in Eastern India. It was triggered by the devastating famine of 1770 and the oppressive economic policies imposed by the British colonial administration. The revolt involved a group of sanyasis, who were originally peasants, including those who had been evicted from their lands. They were joined by dispossessed small zamindars (landlords), disbanded soldiers, and the rural poor.
The sanyasis conducted raids on Company factories and treasuries, engaging in armed resistance against the British forces. The rebellion required a prolonged military action by Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India, to suppress the uprising. The revolt witnessed significant participation from both Hindus and Muslims, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fakir Rebellion.
Notable leaders during the Sanyasi Revolt included Majnum Shah (or Majnu Shah), Chirag Ali, Musa Shah, Bhawani Pathak, and Debi Chaudhurani. The participation of Debi Chaudhurani highlights the role of women in the early resistance against British rule. The significance of women taking part in the struggle against an alien rule that threatened traditional Indian values was recognized by writers such as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. Bankim Chandra authored the semi-historical novel “Anandamath,” which was based on the Sanyasi Revolt. He also wrote a novel called “Devi Chaudhurani,” emphasizing the importance of women in the resistance movement against British colonialism.

Revolt in Midnapore and Dhalbhum (1766-74)

The revolt in Midnapore and Dhalbhum occurred from 1766 to 1774 in the region of Midnapore, which was taken over by the English in 1760. Before the English arrival, there was a harmonious relationship between the approximately 3,000 zamindars (landlords) and talukdars (revenue collectors) and their ryots (tenants).
However, this harmony was disrupted when the English introduced a new land revenue system in 1772. The zamindars of Midnapore started supporting the ryots in conflicts with English revenue collectors. The zamindars in regions such as Dhalbhum, Manbhum, Raipur, Panchet, Jhatibuni, Karnagarh, and Bagri, which were part of the Jungle Mahals in the west and northwest of Midnapore, were gradually dispossessed of their zamindaries (landed estates) by the 1800s.
Damodar Singh and Jagannath Dhal were important leaders during the uprisings in Midnapore and Dhalbhum. They played significant roles in organizing and leading the resistance against the British administration in the region. Their efforts were aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the zamindars and ryots who were affected by the new land revenue system and the encroachment of British authority.
The revolt in Midnapore and Dhalbhum represents a specific instance of local resistance against British colonial rule and the impact of the new land revenue system on the traditional socio-economic structure of the region.

Revolt of Moamarias (1769-99)

The revolt of the Moamarias, which took place from 1769 to 1799, posed a significant challenge to the authority of the Ahom kings in Assam. The Moamarias were low-caste peasants who followed the teachings of Aniruddhadeva, a spiritual leader who lived from 1553 to 1624. Their rise was similar to that of other low-caste groups in northern India who sought to assert their rights and challenge oppressive social hierarchies.
The Moamarias’ revolts had a detrimental effect on the Ahom kingdom, weakening its authority and creating opportunities for external forces to attack the region. In 1792, the King of Darrang, Krishnanarayan, supported by his band of burkandazes (demobilized soldiers of Muslim armies and zamindars), launched a revolt. To suppress these uprisings, the Ahom ruler had to seek assistance from the British.
The Moamarias established their headquarters in Bhatiapar, while the regions of Rangpur (now in Bangladesh) and Jorhat were particularly affected by the rebellion. Although the Ahom kingdom managed to survive the revolt, it eventually succumbed to a Burmese invasion and ultimately came under British rule.
The revolt of the Moamarias exemplifies the challenges faced by the Ahom kings in maintaining their authority in the face of internal uprisings and external invasions. It also highlights the complex dynamics between local revolts, external interventions, and the eventual establishment of British colonial control in the region.

Civil Uprisings in Gorakhpur, Basti and Bahraich (1781)

In 1781, civil uprisings occurred in the regions of Gorakhpur, Basti, and Bahraich, which were part of Awadh (Oudh) in present-day Uttar Pradesh, India. The events leading to these uprisings were connected to Warren Hastings’ efforts to generate revenue to fund the Company’s military expenses against the Marathas and Mysore.
Hastings devised a plan to involve English officers as izaradars, or revenue farmers, in Awadh. Major Alexander Hannay, who knew the region, was appointed as an izaradar in 1778. Hannay obtained the izara (revenue farming contract) for Gorakhpur and Bahraich, which amounted to 22 lakh rupees for a year. This initiative was essentially a covert experiment by the East India Company to assess the actual surplus revenue available in practice.
However, Hannay’s oppressive and excessive demands for revenue created panic and discontent among the people of the region, which had previously been flourishing under Nawab’s administration. The zamindars (landlords) and cultivators rose up against the unbearable exactions in 1781. Within a few weeks of the initial uprising, Hannay’s subordinates were either killed or besieged by guerilla forces led by the Zamindars.
Although the rebellion was eventually suppressed, Hannay was dismissed from his position, and his izara was forcibly revoked. The uprisings in Gorakhpur, Basti, and Bahraich served as a reaction to Hannay’s oppressive revenue collection practices and demonstrated the resistance of the local population against the Company’s attempts to extract surplus revenue from the region.

Revolt of Raja of Vizianagaram (1794)

The revolt of the Raja of Vizianagaram took place in 1794 in the Vizianagaram region of present-day Andhra Pradesh, India. The events leading to the revolt can be traced back to a treaty made between the English East India Company and Ananda Gajapatiraju, the ruler of Vizianagaram, in 1758. The purpose of the treaty was to collaborate in expelling the French from the Northern Circars, and together they succeeded in this mission.
However, in typical fashion, the English Company did not honor the terms of the treaty and failed to fulfill its obligations. Ananda Raju, unfortunately, passed away before he could effectively address this issue with the English. The East India Company then demanded a tribute of three lakh rupees from Vizayaramaraju, the successor Raja of Vizianagaram, and insisted that he disband his troops.
This demand angered the Raja as there were no outstanding dues to be paid to the Company. In response, the Raja, supported by his subjects, rose in revolt against the English. In 1793, the English captured the Raja and offered him exile with a pension, but he refused. In 1794, the Raja died in a battle at Padmanabham, which is located in the modern Visakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh. Following the Raja’s death, Vizianagaram came under the direct rule of the East India Company.
Later, the Company offered the estate to the deceased Raja’s son and reduced their demands for presents. This indicates a compromise on the part of the Company to maintain control and appease the local population.

Revolt of Dhundia in Bednur (1799-1800)

The revolt of Dhundia in Bednur took place between 1799 and 1800 in the aftermath of the English conquest of Mysore. Dhundia Wagh, a local Maratha leader who had been converted to Islam by Tipu Sultan and imprisoned for his actions, was released following the fall of Seringapatam. Seizing the opportunity, Dhundia quickly assembled a force consisting of anti-British elements and established his small territory.
However, Dhundia’s fortunes turned when he suffered a defeat at the hands of the English in August 1799. He was forced to seek refuge in the Maratha region, where he instigated disappointed princes to join the fight against the English. Taking on a leadership role himself, Dhundia continued to resist British forces.
In September 1800, Dhundia was killed while battling against the British forces led by Wellesley. Although Dhundia ultimately failed in his revolt, he gained immense popularity and became a revered leader among the masses. His resistance against the British left a lasting impact, inspiring others to continue the struggle against colonial rule.

Resistance of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (1797; 1800-05)

The resistance of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja took place in 1797 and from 1800 to 1805. Also known as Kerala Simham or the Lion of Kerala, Pazhassi Raja was the de facto leader of Kottayam in the Malabar region of Kerala. He had previously fought against Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan and later engaged in a struggle against the British.
During the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92), the English extended their control over Kottayam, disregarding an earlier agreement in 1790 that recognized the region’s independence. Vira Varma, the uncle of Pazhassi Raja, was appointed as the new Raja of Kottayam by the British. However, Vira Varma imposed high taxes on the peasants to meet the revenue targets set by the East India Company. This led to a mass resistance by the peasants under the leadership of Pazhassi Raja in 1793.
Pazhassi Raja employed guerilla warfare tactics and fought bravely against the British forces. In 1797, a peace treaty was reached, but a dispute over Wayanad in 1800 reignited the conflict, leading to insurgent warfare. Pazhassi Raja organized a sizable force consisting of Nairs, supplemented by Mappilas and Pathans. The Pathans were demobilized soldiers of Tipu Sultan who had become unemployed after Tipu’s death.
In November 1805, Kerala Simham died in a gunfight near present-day Mavila Todu. Despite his ultimate defeat, Pazhassi Raja left a significant legacy as a symbol of resistance against colonial rule in Kerala. His courageous efforts inspired future generations in the struggle for independence.

Civil Rebellion in Awadh (1799)

In 1799, a civil rebellion took place in Awadh (present-day Uttar Pradesh, India) involving Wazir Ali Khan, the fourth Nawab of Awadh. Initially, Wazir Ali Khan had ascended the throne of Awadh with the support of the British in September 1797. However, his relationship with the British deteriorated, and he was eventually replaced by his uncle, Saadat Ali Khan II.
In January 1799, a significant incident occurred known as the Massacre of Benares. Wazir Ali Khan, while in Benares (now Varanasi), killed a British resident named George Frederik Cherry, who had invited him to lunch. Wazir Ali’s guards also attacked and killed two other Europeans and even assaulted the Magistrate of Benares. This act of violence sparked a major confrontation between Wazir Ali Khan and the British.
Wazir Ali Khan managed to gather an army consisting of several thousand men but was ultimately defeated by General Erskine. Following his defeat, Wazir Ali fled to Butwal and sought refuge with the ruler of Jaipur. However, at the request of Arthur Wellesley (later known as the Duke of Wellington), the British asked the Raja of Jaipur to extradite Wazir Ali Khan.
The Raja of Jaipur agreed to extradite Wazir Ali Khan on the condition that he would not be executed or put in fetters. In December 1799, Wazir Ali surrendered and was subsequently confined to Fort William in Calcutta (now Kolkata), where he remained under British custody.

Uprisings in Ganjam and Gumsur (1800, 1835-37)

In the early 19th century, there were uprisings in Ganjam and Gumsur, located in the Northern Circars region of present-day Odisha, India. The revolt was led by Strikara Bhanj, a zamindar (landlord) of Gumsur in Ganjam district.
The unrest began in 1797 when Strikara Bhanj refused to pay revenues to the British authorities. By 1800, he openly rebelled against British rule and challenged the public authorities. To suppress the rebellion, the British replaced the oppressive collector named Snodgrass with a new official.
During the uprising, Strikara Bhanj was supported by other local leaders such as Jlani Deo of Vizianagar (Poddakimedi) and Jagannath Deo of Pratapgiri (Chinakimedi). However, in 1804, Jagannath Deo was captured and sent to Masulipatnam (Machilipatnam). The British, in an attempt to pacify the situation, assigned certain districts to Strikara Bhanj.
In 1807-08, Dhananjaya Bhanj, the son of Strikara, forced his father to leave the estate and took control. Dhananjaya later rebelled against the British in June 1815 but was eventually forced to surrender. As part of a compromise with the government, Strikara Bhanj was reappointed as the zamindar of Ganjam.
However, the arrears accumulated, and Dhananjaya Bhanj, unable to pay the substantial debts, rose in rebellion for the second time in November 1835. The British forces occupied Gumsur and Kolaida, but the resistance continued even after Dhananjaya’s death in December 1835.
To address the situation, the British government appointed Russell with full discretionary powers to deal with the rebellion. The struggle persisted until February 1837 when Doora Bisayi, a formidable leader, was arrested. As a result of the uprising, the zamindari (landlords) of Gumsur was forfeited by the British authorities.

Uprisings in Palamau (1800-02)

In the early 19th century, the region of Palamau, located in present-day Jharkhand, India, experienced uprisings and rebellion. The political situation in Palamau was marked by issues related to agrarian landlordism and the feudal system.
In 1800, Bhukhan Singh, a prominent Chero chief, led a rebellion against the prevailing conditions. The specific grievances and motivations behind the uprising are not detailed in the information provided. However, it can be inferred that the rebellion was a response to the oppressive practices of the local landlords or the feudal system in Palamau.
To suppress the rebellion, Colonel Jones and his forces camped in Palamau and Sarguja for two years. They aimed to quell the uprising and restore order in the region. The British forces engaged in military operations and other measures to counter the rebellion and assert their control.
The uprising gradually subsided after the death of Bhukhan Singh in 1802. With the loss of their leader, the rebels likely faced challenges in sustaining their resistance. As a result, the insurrection in Palamau came to a halt, and the region returned to a state of relative calm.
Further details about the specific causes and consequences of the rebellion in Palamau would require more comprehensive historical information.

Poligars’ Revolt (1795-1805)

The Poligars’ Revolt, also known as the Palayakkarargal Rebellion, took place in South India between 1795 and 1805. The rebellion primarily occurred in regions such as Tinneveli (Thirunelveli), Ramanathapuram, Sivaganga, Sivagiri, Madurai, and North Arcot.
The root cause of the revolt can be traced back to 1781 when the Nawab of Arcot granted control of Tinneveli and the Carnatic Provinces to the East India Company. This arrangement was met with resistance from the poligars who had long considered themselves as independent sovereign authorities within their territories.
The initial revolt of the poligars against the British was driven by issues related to taxation but also had broader political implications. The English viewed the poligars as enemies, further exacerbating the conflict. One notable leader in the rebellion was Kattabomman Nayakan, the poligar of Panjalankurichi, who led the insurrection from 1795 to 1799. After a fierce battle, in which Veerapandiya Kattabomman defeated the Company forces, a price was placed on his head. This led to increased rebellion among the poligars.
With reinforcements, the British forces eventually managed to defeat Kattabomman, who fled into the Pudukottai forests. However, a betrayal by Ettappan, the Raja of Pudukottai, who struck an agreement with the British, resulted in the capture of Kattabomman. He was subsequently hanged, along with Subramania Pillai, a close associate, while another rebel leader named Soundara Pandian was brutally killed. The Panjalankurichi polayam and the estates of five other poligars who joined the rebellion were confiscated, and several prominent poligars were either executed or imprisoned.
The second phase of the revolt, which was more violent than the previous one, began in February 1801 when the imprisoned poligars in the fort of Palamcotta managed to escape. The rebels seized control of numerous forts and even captured Tuticorin. British forces were reinforced from Malabar to counter the rebellion. The fugitives, led by Oomathurai, the brother of Kattabomman, sought refuge in Sivaganga in Ramnad and joined the rebellion of the ‘Marudus,’ led by Marathu Pandian. This rebellion was suppressed in October 1801, and the fort of Panjalankurichi was destroyed.
Meanwhile, the Nawab surrendered the civil and military administration of all the territories and dependencies of the Carnatic exclusively to the East India Company in perpetuity. Between 1803 and 1805, the poligars of North Arcot rose in rebellion after being deprived of their right to collect kaval fees. The region, particularly in the palayams of Chittur and Chandragiri, was in a lawless condition. The poligar of Yedaragunta, who displayed great daring and determination among the insurgent chiefs, was joined by the dispossessed poligar of Charagallu. By February 1805, the rebellion was suppressed. Some chiefs were ordered to reside in Madras, while others were granted an allowance of 18% on revenues from their estates.
The Poligars’ Revolt encompassed a vast area of South India. The proclamations made by the rebels reflected their belief in a mass movement against foreign rule, seeking independence for themselves and their territories.

The uprising in Bhiwani (1809)

In 1809, an uprising occurred among the Jats of Haryana in the town of Bhiwani. The Jats, an agricultural community, rebelled against the British authority and fortified themselves in Bhiwani to resist colonial rule.
To suppress the revolt, a brigade consisting of various military units equipped with a powerful battering ram was deployed. The purpose of the battering ram was to breach the fortifications and gain control over the rebellious Jats.
The British forces engaged in a fierce battle with the Jats in Bhiwani. After facing significant resistance, the rebellion was eventually quelled by the brigade, and the fortified position of the Jats was dismantled. The uprising in Bhiwani demonstrated the determination of the Jats to resist British rule but was ultimately suppressed by the superior military might of the colonial forces.

Diwan Velu Thampi’s Revolt (1808-1809)

Diwan Velu Thampi’s revolt took place from 1808 to 1809 in the state of Travancore in present-day Kerala, India. The revolt was triggered by the harsh conditions imposed by the East India Company on Travancore following their subsidiary alliance agreement in 1805.
Under the subsidiary alliance, Travancore was required to pay a subsidy to the East India Company. However, the ruler of Travancore fell into arrears and was unable to fulfill their financial obligations. Additionally, the British resident in Travancore was interfering in the internal affairs of the state, which further fueled resentment among the local population.
Prime Minister Velu Thampi, also known as Dalawa, took a stand against the oppressive actions of the East India Company. He rallied the support of the Nair troops and openly called for armed resistance against the British, advocating for their expulsion from the native soil. This call to arms became known as the Kundara Proclamation and sparked a large-scale rebellion against the British.
To suppress the revolt and restore peace, the British launched a major military operation. The Maharaja of Travancore, who had initially shown some support for the rebellion, eventually defected to the side of the East India Company. In the face of mounting pressure, Velu Thampi chose to take his own life rather than be captured by the British forces.
With the death of Velu Thampi, the rebellion gradually lost momentum and eventually petered out. The revolt of Diwan Velu Thampi highlighted the grievances of the people of Travancore against the oppressive actions of the East India Company and their desire for self-rule.

Disturbances in Bundelkhand (1808-12)

The disturbances in Bundelkhand occurred between 1808 and 1812, following the British conquest of the region during the Second Anglo-Maratha Wars (1803-1805). Bundelkhand, a vast province, was placed under the Presidency of Bengal by the British.
The Bundela chiefs, who were local rulers in Bundelkhand, resisted the new British government and continued to hold onto their forts, which numbered around 150. The first significant resistance came from Lakshman Dawa, the killadar (fort commander) of Ajaygarh Fort. Initially, Lakshman was allowed to retain control of the fort for a temporary period of two years, ending in 1808. However, he desired to continue his hold on the fort beyond the agreed term. Ultimately, in February 1809, Lakshman surrendered and was taken to Calcutta.
The next resistance came from Darya Singh, the killadar of Kalanjar, whose rebellion was suppressed in January 1812. However, the most serious threat to British authority in Bundelkhand came from Gopal Singh, a renowned military adventurer. Gopal Singh had a dispute with his uncle, who was supported by the British. For four years, Gopal Singh successfully evaded the British forces’ vigilance and military tactics.
To quell the disturbances in Bundelkhand, the British adopted a policy of binding the hereditary chieftains of the region through a series of contractual obligations known as Ikarnamahs. These agreements aimed to establish control over the Bundela chiefs and ensure their loyalty to the British government.
The disturbances in Bundelkhand reflected the resistance of the local Bundela chiefs to British rule and their efforts to maintain their authority and independence. The British had to employ various measures, including military force and contractual obligations, to subdue the unrest and establish their control over the region.

Parlakimedi Outbreak (1813-34)

The Parlakimedi outbreak occurred between 1813 and 1834 in the region of Parlakimedi, located on the western border of Ganjam district, which is now in Odisha.
During the acquisition of Ganjam by the East India Company, Narayan Deo was the raja of Parlakimedi. He resisted British rule, prompting the Company to send an army led by Colonel Peach in 1768. Colonel Peach defeated Narayan Deo and installed Gajapathi Deo, Narayan’s son, as the proclaimed zamindar of Parlakimedi.
However, Narayan Deo and his son and brothers continued to revolt against British authority. Their resistance persisted, leading the Madras Presidency to appoint George Russell as the commissioner of the region in 1832. Russell was given extensive powers to suppress the revolt and restore peace in the area.
Under Russell’s administration and with his full authority, the rebellion in Parlakimedi was pacified by 1834. The resistance of the zamindars and rajas in the region gradually subsided, and the British were able to establish their control over Parlakimedi.

Kutch or Cutch Rebellion (1816-1832)

The Kutch or Cutch Rebellion took place from 1816 to 1832 in the region of Kutch (or Cutch), which is located in present-day Gujarat, India.
In 1816, a treaty was signed between the British and Maharaja Bharamal II of Kutch, which vested power in the throne. However, a power struggle ensued between the Maharaja and a group of chieftains within Kutch. The British intervened in the internal feuds of Kutch, which further complicated the situation.
In 1819, Raja Bharamal II raised Arab and African troops intending to remove the British from his territory. The chieftains sided with him in this rebellion. The British forces eventually defeated and deposed Raja Bharamal in favor of his infant son. A British resident was appointed to govern the region as the de facto ruler, assisted by a regency council.
The administrative changes implemented by the regency council, coupled with high land assessments, caused resentment among the people of Kutch. Some of the chieftains continued their resistance against British rule. The news of the British reverses in the Burma War further emboldened the chiefs to rise in revolt and demand the restoration of Bharamal II.
Efforts to control the rebellion through military operations proved unsuccessful, prompting the British authorities to adopt a conciliatory approach. To pacify the situation, the Company’s authorities pursued a policy of reconciliation with the rebels and made concessions to address their grievances.
Over time, the rebellion in Kutch gradually subsided, and a semblance of stability was restored in the region. The British maintained their control over Kutch, but the events of the rebellion highlighted the challenges they faced in governing the area and the need for a more conciliatory approach to maintaining control.

Rising at Bareilly (1816)

The uprising in Bareilly in 1816 was triggered by the imposition of a police tax, which caused widespread resentment among the citizens. The issue took on a religious dimension when Mufti Muhammad Aiwaz, a respected elder, submitted a petition to the magistrate of the town in March 1816. The situation escalated when the police, while collecting the tax, injured a woman, leading to a violent clash between Mufti’s followers and the police.
Within two days of the incident, armed Muslims from neighboring regions such as Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, and Rampur joined the rebellion in support of the Mufti and the defense of their faith. In April 1816, the insurgents even murdered the son of Leycester, the judge of the provincial court in Bareilly.
To suppress the uprising, significant deployment of military forces was required. The British forces engaged in heavy combat, resulting in the death of over 300 rebels, with many more wounded and imprisoned. It appears that the uprising was fueled more by general discontent rather than specific grievances, as the underlying factors contributing to the discontent were rooted in the alien administration imposed by the British.
The uprising in Bareilly highlighted the challenges faced by the British in governing the region and managing religious and social tensions. It demonstrated the deep-seated dissatisfaction among the populace and the potential for such discontent to escalate into armed resistance against British rule.

Upsurge in Hathras (1817)

In 1817, Hathras, a district in Aligarh, witnessed an upsurge led by Dayaram, a talukdar who held control over several villages in the region. Hathras was known for its formidable fort, considered one of the strongest in India, often referred to as a “second Bharatpur.” The fort was fortified with high and thick walls, a deep ditch, and mounted artillery.
The East India Company had settled with Dayaram, appointing him as the farmer of the Hathras estate. However, Dayaram continually failed to pay the increasing high revenues and engaged in hostile activities by providing shelter to fugitives from the government.
As a result, in February 1817, the East India Company launched a large-scale military attack on Hathras. Dayaram displayed great bravery during the battle, fighting for more than 15 days and managing to escape unharmed. However, he eventually had to return under the condition of submission and settled down with a pension.
Another prominent rebel in the region was Bhagwant Singh, the Raja of Mursan. Faced with the prospect of having his fort dismantled, Bhagwant Singh chose to submit to the government.
These uprisings in Hathras reflected the challenges faced by the East India Company in asserting its control over the region and managing the resistance of local talukdars and rulers. The Company relied on military force to suppress the rebellions and enforce its authority, often reaching settlements or agreements with rebel leaders to maintain a degree of control.

Paika Rebellion (1817)

The Paika Rebellion, also known as the Paika Bidroh, occurred in 1817 in Odisha, India. The Paiks were the traditional landed militia of the region, serving as foot soldiers and maintaining rent-free land tenures in exchange for military and policing duties. However, the conquest of Odisha by the British East India Company in 1803 and the removal of the Raja of Khurda diminished the power and status of the Paiks.
The oppressive land revenue policies of the Company, which affected both zamindars (landlords) and peasants, had created widespread discontent. The imposition of taxes on salt, the abolition of cowrie currency, and the requirement to pay taxes in silver further aggravated the grievances of the common people.
Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar, who had served as the military chief of the Raja of Khurda, faced personal hardships when his ancestral estate, Killa Rorang, was taken over by the Company in 1814. The rebellion was sparked by the arrival of Khonds from Gumsur in the Khurda territory in March 1817. With the support of Mukunda Deva, the last Raja of Khurda, and other zamindars, Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar led a diverse army of Paiks, forcing the retreat of the East India Company forces.
The rebellion spread across the entire province of Odisha, with the rebels achieving initial success against the British government. Bakshi Jagabandhu and other rebel leaders declared outlaws and were given shelter by the Raja of Nayagarh. Although some rebels surrendered in November 1818, Jagabandhu managed to evade British capture. Despite the British regaining control over Khurda by mid-1817, the Paika rebels resorted to guerrilla tactics.
The rebellion was brutally suppressed by 1818, with priests at the Puri temple, who had sheltered Jagabandhu, being captured and hanged. The Paiks suffered greatly during this period. In 1825, Jagabandhu surrendered under negotiated terms, though some sources claim he was captured and died in captivity in 1829. The Paika Rebellion achieved significant concessions, including remission of arrears, reductions in assessments, the suspension of estate sales, and the establishment of a new settlement system based on fixed tenures, reflecting a more liberal governance approach.

Waghera Rising (1818-1820)

The Waghera Rising took place between 1818 and 1820 in the Okha Mandal region, which is located in present-day Gujarat, India. The uprising was fueled by the resentment of the local Waghera chiefs against foreign rule, as well as the oppressive policies and exactions imposed by the Gaekwad of Baroda, who was supported by the British government.
The Waghera chiefs, feeling the burden of these exactions and driven by their discontent, took up arms against the British and launched incursions into British-controlled territory during 1818 and 1819. These actions were aimed at challenging the authority and dominance of the British administration and their allied ruler, the Gaekwad of Baroda.
After a period of conflict and unrest, a peace treaty was eventually signed in November 1820. The exact terms of the treaty are not specified, but it can be inferred that some sort of agreement was reached between the Waghera chiefs and the British authorities, likely addressing the grievances and demands of the Wagheras to some extent. The signing of the treaty marked the end of the uprising and a period of relative stability in the region.

Ahom Revolt (1828)

The Ahom Revolt of 1828 was a rebellion that occurred in Assam, a region in northeastern India, following the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826). The British had initially promised to withdraw from Assam after the war but instead attempted to incorporate the territories of the Ahom kingdom into British dominion.
The rebellion was led by Gomdhar Konwar, an Ahom prince, along with other prominent figures such as Dhanjoy Bongohain and Jairam Khargharia Phukan. The rebels gathered near Jorhat and formally declared Gomdhar Konwar as the king. The uprising was a response to the British reneging on their promise to respect the independence of the Ahom kingdom.
In the face of the revolt, the British authorities ultimately decided to adopt a conciliatory approach. They handed over Upper Assam to Maharaja Purandar Singh Narendra, while also restoring a portion of the kingdom to the Assamese king. This conciliatory policy was aimed at appeasing the Assamese people and resolving the tensions that had led to the rebellion.
The Ahom Revolt of 1828 marked a significant moment in the history of Assam and the relationship between the Ahom kingdom and the British colonial administration. It demonstrated the resistance of the local population against the British expansionist policies and eventually led to a more inclusive approach by the British towards the governance of the region.

Surat Salt Agitations (1840)

The Surat Salt Agitations took place in the 1840s in Surat, a city in the western part of present-day Gujarat, India. These agitations were driven by strong anti-British sentiments among the local population.
The first wave of agitations occurred in 1844 when the British government decided to increase the salt duty from 50 paise to one rupee. This move was met with widespread opposition by the people of Surat, who viewed it as an unfair burden on the already impoverished population. In protest against the increased salt levy, the local population launched attacks on Europeans in the city.
Faced with a popular movement and growing unrest, the British government eventually decided to withdraw the additional salt levy. The success of the agitation in achieving the withdrawal of the salt duty increase was seen as a significant victory for the people of Surat and their resistance against British policies.
Another round of agitations took place in 1848 when the British government attempted to introduce Bengal Standard Weights and Measures in Surat. The local population vehemently opposed this measure and resorted to boycotts and passive resistance as a means of protest. The government, faced with determined opposition, was forced to retreat and withdraw its plans to introduce the new weights and measures.
The Surat Salt Agitations of the 1840s highlight the active resistance of the local population against the British colonial administration. These protests were driven by socio-economic grievances and a desire to challenge and resist British policies that were perceived as exploitative and oppressive. The successful outcomes of these agitations served as examples of the power of collective action and nonviolent resistance in achieving concessions from the colonial government.

Kolhapur and Savantvadi Revolts

The Kolhapur and Savantvadi Revolts were two separate uprisings that occurred in the 19th century in the regions of Kolhapur and Savantvadi, located in present-day Maharashtra, India.
In the case of Kolhapur, the revolt was instigated by the Gadkari community, who belonged to a hereditary military class that was traditionally stationed in the Maratha forts. However, after administrative reorganization in Kolhapur state in 1844, the garrisons of the forts were disbanded, leading to the unemployment of the Gadkaris. Faced with the prospect of losing their livelihoods, the Gadkaris rebelled against the state and occupied the Samangarh and Bhudargarh forts as a means of protest.
On the other hand, the revolt in Savantvadi was driven by long-standing discontent among the local population. The people of Savantvadi had already revolted against British rule in previous instances, notably in 1830, 1836, and 1838. The last revolt in 1838 was triggered by the British deposition of their ruler, which further fueled their resentment. In response to the ongoing unrest, the British authorities implemented various laws and measures to assert control over the region.
The revolts in both Kolhapur and Savantvadi were indicative of the simmering discontent among the local populations in the face of administrative changes and perceived British interference in their affairs. These uprisings represented resistance against colonial rule and the social and economic disruptions caused by the British presence. The British authorities sought to quell the revolts and maintain control through the implementation of laws and policies aimed at pacifying the regions.

Wahabi Movement

The Wahabi Movement, also known as the Wahhabi Movement or Wahhabi Rebellion, was an Islamic revivalist movement that emerged in India during the 19th century. It was founded by Syed Ahmed of Rai Bareilly, who was inspired by the teachings of Abdul Wahab of Saudi Arabia and Shah Waliullah of Delhi. The movement aimed to revive and purify Islam, rejecting what it perceived as Western influences and advocating for a return to the principles and practices of early Islam.
Under the leadership of Syed Ahmed, the Wahabi Movement established a countrywide organization with a secret code and spiritual vice-regents known as Khalifas. Their base of operations was in Sithana, located in the northwestern tribal belt of India. The movement had significant centers in Patna, Hyderabad, Madras, Bengal, the United Provinces, and Bombay.
The Wahabis declared a jihad, or holy war, against the Sikh kingdom of Punjab, seeking to convert the territory from Dar-ul-Harb (land of chaos) into Darul-Islam (land of Islam). However, after the defeat of the Sikh ruler and the incorporation of Punjab into British India in 1849, the focus of the Wahabis shifted to the British dominion in India itself. They played a significant role in spreading anti-British sentiments and became a target for the British authorities.
The British conducted a series of military operations against the Wahabis in the 1860s, primarily targeting their stronghold in Sithana. Additionally, the Wahabis faced sedition charges in various court cases. These actions by the British weakened the Wahabi resistance, although sporadic encounters between the Wahabis and the authorities continued into the 1880s and 1890s.
Overall, the Wahabi Movement in India sought to revive and strengthen Islamic principles and reject Western influences, with a focus on challenging British colonial rule. However, its resistance efforts were gradually subdued by the British through military operations and legal measures.

Kuka Movement

The Kuka Movement, also known as the Namdhari Movement, was founded in 1840 by Bhagat Jawahar Mal, also known as Sian Saheb, in western Punjab, which was then under British rule. The movement gained significant momentum under the leadership of Baba Ram Singh, who founded the Namdhari Sikh sect.
Initially, the Kuka Movement was focused on religious purification, aiming to abolish caste-based discrimination among Sikhs and promoting social reforms such as the discouragement of meat consumption, alcohol, and drugs, and the practice of seclusion for women. The movement advocated for intermarriage and widow remarriage, challenging conservative social norms prevalent at the time.
However, with the British annexation of Punjab, the Kuka Movement transformed into a political campaign. The Kukas aimed to remove British rule and restore Sikh sovereignty over Punjab. They promoted the use of hand-woven clothes, advocated for the boycott of English laws, education, and products, and espoused the concepts of Swadeshi (indigenous production) and non-cooperation.
The Kuka Movement’s principles of Swadeshi and non-cooperation predated their adoption in the Indian national movement of the early 20th century. The movement gained popularity among the Sikh community in Punjab, posing a challenge to British authority.
In response, the British authorities took several measures to suppress the Kuka Movement between 1863 and 1872. In 1872, Baba Ram Singh was deported to Rangoon (now Yangon), Myanmar, marking a significant blow to the movement’s leadership. Despite the British efforts to crush the movement, its ideas and aspirations continued to influence Sikh society and contribute to the broader struggle for independence from British colonial rule in India.

Peasant Movements with Religious Overtones

Peasant movements with religious overtones played a significant role in the agrarian protests and uprisings in India before the outbreak of the Revolt of 1857. Here are some examples:

Narkelberia Uprising

The Narkelberia Uprising was led by Mir Nithar Ali, also known as Titu Mir, in West Bengal. Muslim tenants rose against Hindu landlords and British indigo planters who imposed a beard tax on the Faraizi Muslims. The revolt initially focused on economic grievances but later merged into the Wahabi movement, which had religious undertones.

The Pagal Panthis

The Pagal Panthi movement was led by Karam Shah and later his son Tipu among the Hajong and Garo tribes in Mymensingh district (formerly in Bengal). The tribal peasants organized themselves against the oppression of the zamindars (landlords). From 1825 to 1835, they refused to pay excessive rent and attacked the houses of the Zamindars. The movement was violently suppressed by the government.

Faraizi Revolt

The Faraizi Revolt was associated with the Faraizi sect, founded by Haji Shariat-Allah in Faridpur, Eastern Bengal. The Faraizis called for religious, social, and political changes and supported the cause of tenants against the Zamindars. Led by Shariat-Allah’s son, Dadu Mian, the Faraizi followers aimed to expel the British intruders from Bengal. The Faraizi disturbances lasted from 1838 to 1857, and many Faraizis later joined the Wahabi ranks.

Moplah Uprisings

The Moplah uprisings occurred among the Moplahs, a Muslim community in Malabar, due to an increase in revenue demands, reduction of field size, and oppression by officials. Between 1836 and 1854, there were twenty-two rebellions, but none were successful in achieving their objectives. A second Moplah uprising took place in the 1920s during the Non-cooperation Movement, but Hindu-Muslim differences and other factors led to a distancing between the Moplahs and the Congress.
These peasant movements with religious overtones reflected the grievances of the rural population, including economic exploitation, social discrimination, and political oppression. While some of these movements had limited success, they laid the groundwork for future agrarian and nationalist movements in India.

Peasants’ Role in the 1857 Revolt

Peasants played a significant role in the 1857 revolt, also known as the Indian Rebellion or the First War of Independence. However, their participation varied across different regions affected by the rebellion. In some areas, particularly in western Uttar Pradesh, peasants actively joined the revolt against British rule.
Peasants often aligned themselves with local feudal leaders and zamindars (landlords) in their opposition to foreign rule. They saw the revolt as an opportunity to challenge the oppressive policies of the British East India Company, which had adversely affected their livelihoods. Peasants and zamindars fought together against the British forces, aiming to overthrow their rule and regain control over their land and resources.
After the suppression of the revolt, the British government took measures to consolidate its power and appease the landed classes. This often came at the expense of the peasants’ interests. In regions like Avadh (Oudh), the British restored land to the taluqdars (landed elites) and granted them significant powers, while disregarding the concerns of the peasants. The provisions of the 1859 Bengal Rent Act, which aimed to protect tenant rights, were not extended to the peasants in Avadh, further exacerbating their plight.
Additionally, as a form of punishment for their participation in the revolt, some regions imposed additional cess (tax) on the peasants, further burdening them economically.
Overall, while peasants played an active role in the 1857 revolt, their aspirations for improved social and economic conditions were largely unfulfilled in the aftermath of the rebellion. The British government favored the landed elites, neglecting the interests and rights of the peasant population.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What were some significant rebellions or revolts against British rule prior to 1857 in India?

A: Significant rebellions or revolts against British rule included the Sannyasi Rebellion (1770s), the Vellore Mutiny (1806), and the Paika Rebellion (1817-1820).

Q: What were the primary causes of these popular uprisings?

A: The major causes of these uprisings included British exploitation of the Indian economy, discriminatory policies, the introduction of new land revenue systems, social and cultural issues, and the use of Indian soldiers (sepoys) in foreign military campaigns.

Q: What was the British response to these uprisings prior to the Indian Rebellion of 1857?

A: The British response to uprisings were a mix of military action, penal action, and amendments to policies. The British often dealt with uprisings through repression, in order to maintain control over India.

Q: Did these uprisings against British rule contribute to the larger movements in the Indian Rebellion of 1857?

A: Yes. These uprisings contributed to a larger mobilization and resistance against British imperialism, by serving as examples of resistance and galvanizing Indian identity and unity, which helped lay the ground for the larger Indian Rebellion of 1857.

Q: Were there any specific leaders and/or important figures associated with these pre-1857 uprisings?

A: Yes, significant leaders and figures like Raja Chait Singh, Velu Thampi Dalawa, and Bakshi Jagabandhu led significant resistance and uprisings in the various regions of India prior to 1857. While their leadership for these uprisings were largely local, they contributed to the spirit of resistance against British colonialism.

To get free counseling/support on UPSC preparation from expert mentors please call 9773890604

Join our Main Telegram Channel and access PYQs, Current Affairs and UPSC Guidance for free – Edukemy for IAS
Learn Economy for free- Economy for UPSC
Learn CSAT – CSAT for UPSC
Mains Answer Writing Practice-Mains Answer Writing
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

Popular Uprisings and Revolts Against British Before 1857 – UPSC Modern History Notes