Abstract
The aboriginal settlers of Jharkhand, called Kol by the Britishers, have a remarkable contribution to the tribal and freedom movements of India. It was in the year 1765 that the grant of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa (now spelt Odisha) was given to the East India Company by the last Mughal emperor, Shah Alam. Consequently, Jharkhand known as Chotanagpur during that period was a part of the Subah of Bihar and naturally came under the control of the British. However, the actual entry of the British in this area commenced from the year 1772, and as a result, the local rajas of Chotanagpur became tributary chiefs of this area. This new and forced setup of political apparatus brought a catastrophic change in the life of its inhabitants, specially, in life of the tribal people. This particular change in the land pattern was preluded without considering the culture of the people, which had different features from Bengal as well. As a matter of fact, a clear dissatisfaction prevailed in and around the Chotanagpur area against the new rule and the colonial rulers. From the last decade of eighteenth century, sporadic unrests were reported all over Chotanagpur. In this context, special mention may be given to the Kol revolt of 1831–32. It can be referred to as the first massive tribal unrest of Jharkhand in view of its nature and outcome. It continued for a long time but it also can be said that it was a war of united tribes against the contemporary rulers, which affected every part of the then Chotanagpur except the Santhal Pargana. This paper is designed to present chronological description of the Kol revolt, factors influencing it and the after-effects of the revolt.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
T. H. Ansari in his book, ‘Mughal Administration and the Zamindars of Bihar’ suggests, the Chero Raja ruled over an extensive area which roughly denotes the present Palamau, Lohardaga, Hazaribagh, Chatra, Kodarma and Ramgarh districts of Jharkhand. The Zamindar of Khokra, who was none other than the Nagvanshi Raja, believed to rule in Jharkhand from the beginning of Christian era, but historical records trace their rule from fifteenth Century CE. Unlike Palamau, the early historical accounts did not mention about Kokhra. On the basis of name suggested by T. H. Ansari, present Ranchi, Gumla, Khunti and some parts of Simdega districts had formed the Kokhra territory. Thus, the state-expansion policy of Akbar was strictly executed in jungle areas of Jharkhand. However, time to time the Mughal imperial authority interrupted but outer influences continued in the form of trade and settlement of new communities.
- 2.
The Medinipur district of Orissa only came under the possession of British and rest of Orissa was ruled by the Maratha.
- 3.
Jadunath Sarkar (1934: 567) informs that the mutual agreement between Shah Alam, the last Muhgal emperor and the East India Company, led to grant of Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa means, Company has the legal right to take all the revenue proceeds of three Subas. However, the actual share of revenue amount came after deducting 26 lakhs for the Emperor, administrative expenses of Bengal, cost of military expense incurred on the defence of the three Subas and 50 lakhs for the family of Nawab of Murshidabad. This Diwani also reduced the position of Mughal Emperor to an English pensioner.
- 4.
The Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the affairs of the East India Company, Vol-I, Bengal Presidency, London in 1812. Madras: Law Book Seller and Publishers, 1866: 269 &508.
- 5.
The tenancy of the descendant of the Munda founder of the village is called ‘Bhuinhari’.
- 6.
The then newspaper, India Gazette, dated 25th March, 1832, confirms the prolonged dissatisfaction that prevailed among the Kols that caused mass revolt and profuse disturbance in the whole Jharkhand area. According to the newspaper reports that what ‘the portion the ryot gets is barely sufficient to keep him from starvation; consequently there can be no feelings of respect, affection, or esteem between the governors and their dependents; the stream of petty oppressions gradually swells till in time it washes away the slight bond of allegiance and opens the flood gates of rebellion’.
- 7.
Just to understand the administrative division of the British time, the Imperial Gazetteer of India: Provincial Series, Vol. 1, 1909, informs that, the Chota Nagpur Division was divided into five Districts viz., Hazaribagh, Ranchi, Palamau, Singhbhum and Manbhum. The Santhal Pargana of today was not included in Chota Nagpur Division. In the light of this information it is clear that the Kol insurrection was almost spread over Jharkhand.
- 8.
Laraka is the epithet given to the Ho due to their fighting attitude.
- 9.
In the Bengal District Gazetteer: Singhbhum, Saraikela and Kharsawan, it is clearly mentioned about the background in which the Larka had participated in the insurrection. The Diwani power of Bihar was transferred to British but in true sense, it was only in 1820 the Raja of Sighbhum, Saraikela and Kharsawan came under the effect of Diwani. Soon after the willing acceptance of British Raj, the three Chiefs requested urgent help to subdue the Larka Kols who till then did not recognize their authority. As a result, the British made expedition in 1821; after a month the Hos were compelled to accept the agreement and payment of eight Anna for each plough. This negotiation was soon broken. In the absence of strong action against their misconducts, they indulged in old practice of pillage and plunder. Unchecked authority over freedom lover fighter Ho made them more powerful and fearless. Consequently, they out reached to help their neighbouring fellow Mundas in the Kol insurrection, 1831–32.
- 10.
DhangarmKol is popularly known as Oraon, theKurukh speaking tribe belong to Dravidian race.
- 11.
Three columns were named after three geographical areas namely, Tiko, Choria and Pithoria.
- 12.
A letter of Neave to Patna Commissioner, 25 January, 1832, paragraph 1, Bengal Cr. Judl Cons 4 of 7 February 1832 (140/3).
- 13.
On 21 February, Raja of Kunda (in Chatra) inform Hawtrey that group of insurgents on foot leading to Palamau. (Similarly Larka Kol had given unconditional support to their neighbouring Kols (Jha, 1987: 93).
- 14.
Sads are being used by the Kol who were Hindus.
- 15.
The then Agent Captain Wilkinson, by the Rule 27 under Civil Rules, 1837 declared, ‘No sale, transfer, or mortgage of any landed property, on account of claims for rent or any other account shall be legal until the authority of the Governor-General’s Agent for such sale, transfer, or mortgage shall previously have been obtained.’(Roy, 1911: 434).
References
Anynymous. (1869). The Kol: the Insurrection of 1832 and the Land Tenure Act of 1869. Calcutta Review, 50(97), 109–157. (Barham Hill & Co. Dalhousie Square).
Ansari, T. H. (2019). Mughal administration and the Zamindars of Bihar. Routldge
Bradley Birt F. B. (1910). Chota-Nagpure: A little known province of the empire. Smith, Elder & Company.
Datta, K. K. (1957). Unrest against the British Rule in Bihar 1831–1859. The Superintendent of Secretariat Press.
Dalton, E. T. (1872). Descriptive ethnology of Bengal. Superintendent of Government Printing.
Dalton E. T. (1868). The “Kol” of Chota-Nagpore, Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London (Vol. 6, pp. 1–41). Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.
Guha, R. (1983a). Subaltern studies 2- writings on South Asian history and society. Oxford University Press.
Guha, R. (1983b). Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency in Colonial India. Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, W. G. (1946). The Kol Tribe of Central India. The Asiatic Society.
Hunter, W. W. (1877). A statistical account of Bengal (Vol. 16). Trubner & Co.
Jha J. C. (1987). The Tribal Revolt of Chotanagpur (1831–1832), Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
Jha J. C. (1958). The Kol Rising of Chotanagpur (1831–33): Its Causes. Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 2: 440–446. Indian History Congress.
Jha J. C. (1985). Chuars and other Tribal Movements. In P. N. Chopra (Ed.), India’s Struggle for Freedom: Role of Associated Movement (Vol. 3, pp. 457–507). Agam Prakashan.
Kumar, A. (2001). The Unknown Chapters of Kol-Insurrection. Proceedings of Indian National Congress, 62: 621–626. Indian History Congress.
Khan, A. R. (1985). Suba of Bihar under the Mughal (1582–1707) (Ph.D. thesis). Centre for Advance Studies, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
O’Malley L. S. S. (1910). Bengal District Ga etteer: Singhbhum, Saraikela and Kharsawan. The Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.
Rennell, J. (1788). Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan of the Mughal Empire. M Brown.
Roy, S. C. (1911). The administrative history and land tenure of the Ranchi District under British Rule. Calcutta Review (Oct, 1911), 133(266): 414–471. C. J. A. Pritchard.
Roy, S. C. (1912). The Munda and their country. The Kuntaline Press.
Roy, S. C. (1946a). The theory of rent among the Mundas of Chota Nagpur. Man in India, 26, 156–180.
Roy, S. C. (1946b). The Aborigines of Chota Nagpur: Their proper status in the reformed constitution. Man in India, 26, 120–136.
Roy, S. C. (1958). The Kol Rising in Chotanagpur (1831–33)-Its Causes. In Proceeding of Indian National Congress (Vol. 21, pp. 440–446. Indian History Congress.
Sarkar, J. (1934). Fall of the Mughal Empire. (Vol.II,1754–1771). M.C.Sarkar and Sons Ltd. and Luzac and Co.
Srivastava, A. L. (1986). The Mughal Empire (1526–1803). Shivalal Agrawal & Co.
Thornton, E. (1859). The History of the British Empire in India. W H Allen & Co.
Vidyaalankar, J. (1940). Bihar: EkAitehasikDigdarshan. PustakBhandar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Minz, S.M., Choubey, P. (2021). Revisiting Kol Revolt (1831–32). In: Behera, M.C. (eds) Tribe-British Relations in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3424-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3424-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-3423-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-3424-6
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)