"In keeping with
precedents set by Begum Hazrat Mahal—representing Nawabs of Awadh in the 1857
war—at Lucknow—and Peshwa Nana Sahib—at Kanpur—Kandarpeswar Singha agreed to
rule Assam after expelling the British as a vassal of Bahadur Shah Zafar!
Mughals were never able to capture upper Assam from Ahoms. But in a revolutionary,
political moment of Indian history, Ahom and Mughal houses united in struggle
against British rule! "
Assam: The very Idea of India is
under threat
Part II
British Rule
As a political-military force, the British entered Assam during the
first Anglo-Burmese war—prior to that the Maomoria rebellion (see
`Last
Days of Ahom Monarchy’,
written by SL Baruah, 1993, New Delhi, `A History of Assam’, written by Edward A Gait, 1906, Calcutta
and `Medieval and Early Colonial Assam’, written by Amalendu Guha, 1991, Calcutta)—a fight between Ahom rulers and the Vaishnava sattras—in which the latter got the support of another Ahom Court
faction—severally weakened the Ahom polity. Taking advantage of the unsettled
conditions, the Burmese invaded Assam committing numerous atrocities on the
people.
Due to the mayhem caused by the Burmese,
people and leaders of Assam, the Ahom Raja, and some North Eastern tribes, welcomed
the British initially. But the real, imperial nature of the British became
apparent soon after the treaty of Yandabo (1826) between the British and the
Burmese. For several years, British
officials kept avoiding a settlement with Ahom rulers. After much delay and
dithering, the British signed a treaty with Purandar Singha, the Ahom King, in
1833.
Maniram Dewan
Belonging to an old elite family of
Kayastha administrators of North Indian (Kannauj) origin, Maniram Dewan
(originally Maniram Barua), was a vital link between the British and the Ahom
Kings. Working as part of the British bureaucracy in the 1820s, Maniram was
also given the additional charge of borbhandar
(Prime Minister), at Purandar Singha’s court in 1833.
Maniram discovered the potential of tea
plantation in Assam. He surprised Bessa Gam—a local Singpo chief—by turning up
at his village one fine morning, in the 1820s—with Robert and Charles Alexander
Bruce—of the legendary Bruce Brothers fame—credited with identifying tea in
Assam—in tow. But BEIC Calcutta officials refused to acknowledge the
genuineness of Maniram’s discovery. However, after 1833, when the BEIC lost its
tea trade monopoly with China, BEIC officials were forced to eat their own
words.
On 1st February, 1834, Governor
General William Bentinck established the Tea Committee. Maniram met Dr. Wallich, the same man who had
rejected his samples earlier, as a representative of Purandar Singha.
Besides
monopolising tea plantations and trade, the British had other evil designs in
mind. A 26th February, 2009 Assam Tribune article, written by Dr. HK
Goswami, observes that soon after Maniram’s meeting with Dr. Wallich, “Jenkins,
the North-East Agent of the Governor General, visited Purandar Singha’s
territory on a fact-finding mission...one man who strongly defended the Raja
was Maniram Dewan, Chief Counsellor of the Raja. Purandar Singha was deposed in 1838 on the
plea of bad governance and default in payment of the tribute and the British
annexed his territories (http://www.assamtribune.com/
All through
the 1840s and 50s, the BEIC administration annexed several states in India on
the trumped up charge of bad governance. But, despite Jenkins’ adverse
comments, Maniram outflanked the Governor General’s Agent, becoming in 1839,
the Dewan of the
Assam Tea Company at Nazira, drawing a
salary of 200 rupees per month.
But Maniram
felt suffocated working under the British. A surprisingly well researched Wikipedia
entry on Maniram Dewan notes that “in the mid-1840s, Maniram quit his job due
to differences of opinion with company officers...he established his own tea
garden at Chenimora in Jorhat, thus
becoming the first Indian to grow tea commercially in Assam...Maniram
established another tea plant in Sibsagar. Apart from
the tea industry, Maniram also ventured into iron smelting, gold
procuring and salt production. He was also involved in the manufacturing of
goods like matchlocks, hoes and
cutlery. His other business activities included handloom, boat making, brick
making, bell-metal, dyeing, ivory work, ceramic, coal supply, elephant trade,
construction of buildings for military headquarters and agricultural products.
Some of the markets established by him include the Garohat in Kamrup, Nagahat
near Sibasagar, Borhat in Dibrugarh, Sissihat in Dhemaji and
Darangia Haat in Darrang” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Here
we have—in the person of Maniram—much before Tatas and Birlas appeared on
India’s business stage—the first example of a modern, Indian entrepreneur.
Imagine an Indian in the 1840s and 50s, establishing not only tea plantations
but extending activities to a whole range of goods and products, staggering by
even today’s standards. In fact, Tatas began as British middlemen in the China
opium trade in the 1850s and 60s. Birlas also started their businesses as
middlemen in about the same period.
But
rather than becoming a comprador (intermediary) bourgeoisie subservient to
Imperialism, Maniram chose Independence and the path of a nationalist
bourgeoisie. Like Americans today—the British—then the foremost Imperialist
world power—tolerated even encouraged, compradors. But they regarded Independent,
nationalist entrepreneurs as an anathema. The Wikipedia entry further notes
that, “Maniram faced numerous administrative
obstacles in establishing private tea plantations, due to opposition from
competing European tea planters. In 1851, an officer seized all the facilities
provided to him due to a tea garden dispute. Maniram, whose family consisted of
185 people, had to face economic hardship.”
Another Assam Tribune article notes that “As a matter
of fact, Maniram wanted to build up a self-dependent economy. Incidentally, former
President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam in his Republic Day speech of 2005 stressed on
making entrepreneurial course ‘compulsory’...it may be surmised that what
Assam thought 143 years ago...the credit for this goes to the father of
modern Assamese nationality—Maniram Dewan (http://www.assamtribune.com/
Soon,
Maniram’s “property was auctioned at a very nominal price to George Williamson”.
Misery of Assam and the North-East
Maniram’s
disenchantment with the British occurred against the backdrop of widespread
discontent in Assam and the North-East. After 1826, the BEIC had gone on to
acquire territory after territory including Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Manipur. Despite treaties and agreements with
various tribes, the essential British policies of rack ranting the tribes and
peasantry produced revolts.
The Singhpos
and the Nagas were the first to rebel, the Anglo-Naga war extending from 1835
to 1852 AD.
Under
British rule, peasants of Assam in particular had to pay three times the land
revenue they delivered under the Ahoms. Minor delays in payments—overlooked in
the Ahom-paik system of decentralized
revenue—which favoured local factors and leniency—saw properties both of small
peasants and distinguished upper/Eastern Assamese service-military gentry—being
attached. Erstwhile lords and labourers alike were reduced to penury. Plus, the
British began importing Santhals from Bengal to work as indentured labour in
the tea gardens, being set up by the British in both upper (eastern) and lower
(western) Assam. By the 1850s, economic
hardship became so severe, that apart from Ahoms, several erstwhile Koch and
Bodo men of influence were working as labourers in tea gardens.
British Impact on Local Culture
But the
worst part of British rule was the interference in local culture. It was the British
who began identity politics in Assam. Large sections of specific tribes—the
Kukis and some Naga sub tribes to begin with—were converted to Christianity. British administrators also
began insisting on `pure bloodlines’; chieftains with mixed religious or tribal
heritage were shunned.
Simultaneously,
the impact of the Bengal renaissance and the Brahmo Samaj movement was felt in
Assam. Even though Assam lacked a Bengal
style, pro-British, colonial middle class, Anandram Dhekial Phukan( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
However,
Maniram refused to go over to the reformist-collaborationist, pro-British, Bengal-renaissance
side, which distorted and confused reformist-modernist figures like Debendra
Nath Tagore, the father of Rabnindra Nath Tagore. Instead, Maniram Dewan,
the indigenous modernist, took the revolutionary path.
In a famous
petition/manifesto (http://books.google.co.in/
Freedom Movement in Assam
In
1857, Maniram Dewan formed an underground network of revolutionaries. His main
hope lay in the Jorhat-Sibsagar based 1st Assam Light Infantry (ALI)
and the Gauwahati based 2nd ALI. The Assam regiments were a mixed
cauldron with Poorabias from western Bihar (Arrah) rubbing shoulders with mainstream Assamese
Muslim warriors, Nepalis, Manipuris, Jarrowas and Doaneas (the last two born
out of mixed Assamese-Singhpo union).
Especially
after the revolt of Bengal Army Regiments at Danapur (near Patna), Bihar on 25th
July 1857, Poorabia elements of the
Assam Infantry began talking about British overthrow and the installation of
Bahadur Shah Zafar as India’s Emperor. (http://books.google.co.in/
Dewan’s
circle’s inimitability rested in its diverse nature: it included Mayaram and
Krishna Chandra Mazumdar—two Golaghat based Assamese of Bengali origin—Madhu
Malik—a Dibrugarh Bengali—Ganesh Chaudhary, Umakant and Khageshwar—of mixed
Bengali-Assamese heritage—Piyali Barua, Ditiram Barua and Marangikhowa
Gohain—three major Ahom figures—and Ramdas and Visnhudev Mahanta—two sattra Vaishnavite spiritual leaders.
Thus
1857 bridged also, the fault-lines and political lacunae left by the Ahom-sattra struggle that was instrumental
both, in the Burmese invasion and the military march of the British into
Assam.
The
pan-Assam unity achieved by Maniram included Urbidhar Barua, Mayaram Barbora,
Chitrasen Barbora, Kamala Charingia Barua, Mahidhar Sarma Muktear, Luki
Senchowa Barua, and Deoram Dihingia Barua.
Bahadur Gaonburha and Sheikh Formud Ali—two leading
Muslim personalities of Assam—helped Maniram—who was in Calcutta in May,
1857—establish direct linkages to Shiekh Bhikun and Noor Muhammad—two Muslim
Subedars of Assamese origin—posted in the Nogore detachment—of the Sibsagar
based 1st ALI unit.
Acting on Maniram’s advice—Kandarpeswar Singha—the
grandson of Purandar Singha—the last Ahom King—met Sheikh Fomud Ali and Bahadur
Gaonburha. Soon, Subedars Sheikh Bhikun and Noor Muhammad were corresponding
with Kandarpeswar Singha (also called Charing Raja) secretly.
Promising to double the salaries of all ALI Sepoys,
the Charing Raja gave his consent to lead the Assam revolution. In keeping with
precedents set by Begum Hazrat Mahal—representing Nawabs of Awadh in the 1857
war—at Lucknow—and Peshwa Nana Sahib—at Kanpur—Kandarpeswar Singha agreed to
rule Assam after expelling the British as a vassal of Bahadur Shah Zafar!
Mughals were never able to capture upper Assam from Ahoms. But in a revolutionary,
political moment of Indian history, Ahom and Mughal houses united in struggle
against British rule!
The Role of
Bodos and Kochs in 1857
Maniram had also enrolled in the freedom movement
personalities like Madhuram Koch—a
Koch Rajbongshi figure who owned a tea plantation but was relegated by the
British to the status of labourer; Rupahi and Lumbai Aideo—two Assamese women
pensioners; and Usubar, Laochiklang and Maalu Sikhla—three Bodo warriors
The
inclusion of Bodo warriors in the anti-British, 1857 plot was a masterstroke. Imagine
the Indian history in which Bodos fought for India’s freedom struggle under the
leadership of Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Mughal King! Revealed in an obscure book
written by a descendant of one of the Poorabia survivor of 1857 in Assam (San Sattavan ki Ankahee Kahani, written
by Prem Dutt Pandey, 1957, Prayaga Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad), this aspect presents a great challenge before Indian and
Bodo historians. Even Bodos in general seem unaware of their heroes who fought
against the British in 1857. This is just the beginning; more work—especially
with regard to Bodo sources—needs to be done in this field.
After
losing completely, their Barak valley based kingdom to the British in 1832,
Bodo-Kacharis had spread—by 1857—to nearly all parts of present-day Assam.
Members of the Bodo-Kachari nobility migrated as far as Kashi (see Benaras ka Anootha Itihaas, written by
Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Hindi, 1962, Prayag Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad).
However,
a large section of Bodos, settled in the Darrang area on the Bhutan border,
were never part of the Barak valley kingdom. Darrang-Kokrajhar Bodos either
survived as roving, Independent tribes—practicing jhum cultivation not bowing to any authority—or as nominal subjects
of the western Assam, Koch kingdom.
Usubar,
Laochiklang and Maalu Sikhla were all Darrang-Kokrajhar Bodos. They followed
the martial traditions, codes of fierce Independence, and the
religion—revolving around the worship of Bathou—of the roving tribes.
Folk
songs—celebrating the struggle between Bodos and Bhutias of present-day Bhutan—survive
to this day (http://www.aygrt.net/
Goraya dabradw Bachiram Jwhwlao
Gonggar chubaya phwilaygou
(Ride
on horse Bachiram
Bhutiyas are coming in a body)
Interestingly,
in the `The Oral Poetry of the Bodos: Ethnic Voices and Discourses’, written by
Anil Kumar Boro, Department of Folklore Research, Guwahati University, Assam,
the author mentions the depiction of Lord Bathou as Lord Siva (or Sibrai). The Anil Boro article goes on to mention Gibi Bithai, a traditional Bodo scripture
that provides an astounding Bodo world view (http://wiki.indianfolklore.
In
this, Lord Siva is opposed to Lord Brahma, God of the white skinned people, and
Lord Vishnu, God of the dark skinned people. It seems that Bodos carried their
own interpretation of history that spoke of the coming of white skinned Aryans
and dark skinned (Dravidians?) from the western parts of the Indian
sub-continent to their lands. Of Tibeto-Burman stock, Bodos not only resembled
the American Red Indians. Their religion, warrior folklore, and sense of
peripatetic sovereignty, recalled the North American warrior tribes who put up
a heroic fight against European settlers during the early history of the USA.
(To be Continued...)
