History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c44: Chapter XXVIII
History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c44
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c44.92 — 4 parts
- v2.c44.133 — 5 parts
Chapter XXVIII
v2.c44.1
The British conquest of Orissa in 1803 was a premeditated event, because Orissa lay between the British provinces of Madras and Bengal. It is true that after the fall of Tipu in 1799 the strategic value of Orissa had diminished considerably in the eyes of the English East India Company, yet the biggest territorial cession demanded of Raghuji II after the disaster to Maratha arms at Argaon was Orissa.
v2.c44.2
When in revenge for the murder of his brother, Yaśovant Rāo Holkar attacked Poona, the foolish Bājī Rāo II fled, after the defeat of his own troops and those of Daulat Rāo Śinde, to the English at Bombay and surrendered his own independence by entering into a Subsidiary Alliance with the English Company. The surrender of the Peshwa’s independence was a terrific blow at Maratha national prestige and honour. So long as British dominions last in India, it will not be possible to determine to what extent Yaśovant Rāo Holkar’s action was influenced by British gold, though it is certain that when Assaye, Argāon, Aligarh and Lāswari were being fought, Yaśovant Rāo’s neutrality was purchased inspite of his avowals of patriotism to Raghuji. His subsequent treatment after his surrender to Lord Lake in the Punjab proves that before his aggression Yaśovant Rāo Holkar was an ally of the English and a traitor to his own nation. While it must be said to their credit that even the useless Daulat Rāo Śinde and Raghuji Bhonsle II stood up in defence of Maratha national independence, the former, undaunted by the most indecent seduction of all European officers of his army by the brothers Wellesley, Yaśovant Rāo Holkar, the Dhangar and the traitor, stood by calmly looking at the destruction of the Maratha Empire in India.
v2.c44.3
The principal seat of the war was at first in Berar and was then transferred to North-Western India. Orissa was neglected by Raghujī Bhonsle II, impotent as he was, compared to the military equipments of Daulat Rāo Śinde and Yaśovant Rāo Holkar. Just before the Third Maratha War (called Second by some writers) Raghujī was at the apogee of his power; yet his army at that date was far inferior to those of the Peshwa, Holkar and Śinde. He made large increases in his military establishment following the lead of Mahādjī Śinde, but he did not possess the vigour and skill of that great Maratha general. Mahādjī's regular army was composed of people of Northern India, both Hindus and Musalmans. Raghujī raised and disciplined some North Indian Sepoys between 1790 and 1803. But his miserly and mean nature and habits of parsimony prevented him from employing a highly paid European Commander like De Boigne or Dudrence. His battalions therefore were not efficient and he did not know how to employ them either at Assaye or at Argaon. The principal defect of the Maratha army was the absence of anything like a national army; Assaye, Lāswari, Aligarh, Dig, Delhī and other battles were principally fought by North Indian Brahmans, Rajputs and Musalmans employed by the English East India Company against the same class of people employed by Raghujī Bhonsle II, Daulat Rāo [Figure: Nāṭamandira of the Liṅgarāja—View from North Bhuvaneśvara—Puri District]
v2.c44.4
Sinde and Yaśovant Rāo Holkar. Raghuji's cavalry was raised in Poona or other parts of the Deccan and Musalmans from Northern India and his infantry consisted of Arabs, Gosāins and Pardeśis (Northern Indian Hindus).¹
v2.c44.5
¹ British relations with the Nagpur State in the 18th Century, p. 197.
v2.c44.6
The battles of Assaye and Argaon possess a very distant relation with the History of Orissa. That province was invaded by two different armies; one from Bengal and the other from Madras. The Madras army assembled at Ganjam, which was then British territory, and started for the southern frontier of Orissa on the 8th September, 1803, though war was declared one month and five days earlier, on the 3rd August of that year. It marched along the sea-coast between the Chilka lake and the Bay of Bengal and reached Manikpatna in the Puri District on the 16th. They were not opposed by the Marathas even during the crossing of the creek connecting the Chilka with the Bay, which took two days. The army reached Narsinghpatna on the 18th or five days before the battle of Assaye and entered Puri without any opposition. A detachment of Hindu Sepoys was left to guard the temple of Jagannātha and Colonel Harcourt resumed his march after halting for two days. The Marathas had retired to the other side of the river and the first engagement took place when the English attempted to cross. The former opened a sharp fire but soon broke and fled. Colonel Harcourt crossed the river and drove the Marathas out of their entrenchments in the wood. The Marathas now employed their national method of guerilla warfare and harassed the advancing army. On the 2nd October they were surprised in their camp and driven out. They took up their stand on the 4th October before Mukundapur near Pipli and attacked the English army but were repulsed with great loss. They now retired into the jungles of Khurda and no further opposition was encountered by the advancing army. Harcourt crossed the Katjuri and entered Katak on the 8th. The fort of Barabati was captured by him six days later and Central Orissa passed into the possession of the English.¹
v2.c44.7
¹ Bengal District Gazetteer, Puri p. 43.
v2.c44.8
The Bengal army consisted of 500 Sepoys, 21 Gunners and four 6-Pounders and sailed from Calcutta for Balasore. The force came in three ships and landed at Jampada near Gabgaon near old Balasore. Their landing was not opposed and a body of Maratha horse met them only at Balighat just below Barabati fort. They were soon driven away and the English rushed forward and attacked the fort. Balasore was taken after a very faint resistance and the Faujdār, Mayūra Pandit, retired towards Katak. A third British Army started from the Medinipur border under Colonel Fergusson and arrived at Balasore without any opposition. This army marched to Katak to join the larger army under Colonel Harcourt. In the meanwhile the Rājās of Kujang, Kanika and Harishpur were trying to combine against the English. And so Colonel Harcourt marched to Kujang via Patamundai. On the approach of the Company's troops the Rājā fled and his elder brother, who had been kept a prisoner, was placed on the gadi. The Rājā was captured and sent to Katak as a prisoner. The forts of Kanika, Kujang and Harishpur were occupied and demolished and all artillery carried away to Katak. A force was despatched under Major Forbes to force the Barmul¹ pass and occupy it on the 2nd November. Lieutenant Colonel Broughton captured Sambalpur² on the 2nd January 1804. This narrative itself proves that Raghuji II had made no arrangement for defending Orissa before joining Daulat Rāo Śinde on the 4th June at Malkapur in Berar³. His crushing defeat at the battle of Argaon and the fall of his stronghold of Gāwilgadh compelled him to submit to the degrading treaty of Deogaon. This treaty was ratified by the Governor-General in Council and by the second article Raghuji Bhonsle II ceded the Province of Orissa with the fort and district of Balasore. "Senah Saheb Soubah Raghojee Bhoosla cedes to the Honorable Company and their Allies, in perpetual sovereignty, the Province of Cuttack, including the Port and District of Balasore."⁴ By the partition treaty of Poona with the Peshwa Bāji Rāo II, ratified by the Governor-General, the cession of Orissa was confirmed.⁵ It appears that the small states or Zamindaris of Sambalpur and Patna were also ceded to the British, though there is no explicit reference to them in the treaty of Deogaon. Article 10 of this treaty says : "Certain treaties have been made by the British Government with the feudatories of Senah Saheb Soubah.
v2.c44.9
¹ Ibid., Katak, Calcutta, 1906 p. 34.
v2.c44.10
² British Relations with the Maratha States in the 18th Century, op. 184-85.
v2.c44.11
³ Report on the Territories of the Rājā of Nagpur submitted to the Supreme Government of India, 1827, Re-printed at the Government Press, Nagpur 1923, p. 64.
v2.c44.12
⁴ Aitchison—A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, revised upto 1st June 1907. Calcutta 1909, p. 415.
v2.c44.13
⁵ Ibid., Vol. VI, Calcutta, 1892, p. 64.
v2.c44.14
These Treaties are to be confirmed. Lists of the persons with whom such Treaties have been made will be given to Senah Saheb Soubah, when this Treaty will be ratified by his Excellency the Governor-General in Council.”¹ It is stated in the note that Raghujī II was very reluctant to sign the treaty with this clause on but was compelled to do so when threatened with a renewal of hostility. Sir John Shore restored Patna and Sambalpur to Raghujī Bhonsle II by a separate treaty dated 24th August, 1806, which was ratified by him on the 2nd October.² Sambalpur was retained by the Bhonsles till 1818 and it was finally ceded by Raghujī Bhonsle III with more than a half of his kingdom in 1826.³ Thus by a freak of fortune the little states of Patna and Sambalpur did not come into the possession of the British till 1826, though they were a part and parcel of Orissa.
v2.c44.15
¹ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 416 and Note.
v2.c44.16
² Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 417-18
v2.c44.17
³ Ibid., pp. 425-33.
v2.c44.18
After gaining possession of Orissa, the British officers immediately made arrangements for the permanent administration of the country because they knew that it would not be restored in any case. Immediately after the conquest Colonel Harcourt and Mr. Melville C. S. were appointed “Commissioners for settling the affairs of Cuttack.” Rājā Mukunda Deva II espoused the cause of the British as soon as the conquering army entered Orissa. He had hopes of obtaining the parganahs of Lembai, Rahang, etc., which the Marathas had compelled his ancestors to cede.⁴ The Commissioners in charge of the civil administration, with the usual rapacity of Englishmen in India in the 18th Century, refused to do so. In September 1804, they accused the Rājā of an intrigue in connection with the temple of Jagannātha at Puri, and Mukunda Deva II was forbidden to issue any orders to any person residing within the limits of the Mughalbandi. A month after the issue of this order Khurda troops raided a village near Pipli. The British officers suspected that the Rājā was in league with the Marathas and called for troops from Ganjam. The Rājā’s people retreated to the fort of Khurda, which was besieged, and were followed by British troops. It was taken after three weeks and Mukunda Deva II succeeded in escaping. But he surrendered after a few days, his State was confiscated and he was carried a prisoner to Katak and then removed to Medinipur. After his release in 1807 he was permitted to come to Puri and live in his palace at Balishāhī as the Superintendent of the temple of Jagannātha. He received Rs. 2,133-5-4 as Mālikānā allowance from his former State. The British made arrangement with all Garhjat chiefs for their submission in writing, except from Mayurbhañj, immediately after occupying the country. In the first instance, treaty engagements were entered into with lowland chiefs and those Garhjat states which were near the hills. Lieutenant-Colonel Harcourt and Mr. J. Melville as Commissioners for the Ṣūbah of Orissa entered into the first treaty with the Rājā of Kanika on the 22nd November 1803. By this treaty Rājā Balabhadra Bhañja (i) promised submission and loyalty to the East India Company.
v2.c44.19
(ii) to pay a tribute of 84,840 Kāhans of Kauris or Rs. 21,240 in three instalments and (iii) to employ his own troops in case any neighbouring Rājā disobeyed the Company’s authority.
v2.c44.20
There were minor clauses regarding restitution of culprits, etc. Exactly similar treaties were entered into with twelve other chiefs :
v2.c44.21
(i) Qila’ Athgaḍh Rājā Śrikaraṇa Gopinātha Boburta Paṭṭanāyaka—tribute 28,101 Kāhans.
v2.c44.22
(ii) Qila’ Narsinghpur Rājā Mānsimha Harichandana—tribute 6601 Kāhans.
v2.c44.23
(iii) Qila’ Baramba Rājā Piṇḍika Mungraj (Mardarāja)—tribute 6340 Kāhans.
v2.c44.24
(iv) Qila’ Jourmoo Rājā Gauri Charaṇa Dev Bhañja—tribute 4500 Kāhans.
v2.c44.25
(v) Qila’ Talcher Rājā Bhāgirathi Viravara Harichandana—tribute 6715 Kāhans.
v2.c44.26
(vi) Qila’ Tigiria Rājā Champat Singh—tribute 4000 Kāhans
v2.c44.27
(vii) Qila’ Hindol Rājā Kṛishṇachandra Mardarāja Jagadeva—tribute 2500 Kāhans.
v2.c44.28
(viii) Qila’ Khandapara Rājā Bhramaravara Rāya—tribute 24100 Kāhans.
v2.c44.29
(ix) Qila’ Dhenkanal Rājā Rāma Chandra Mahendra Bahādur—tribute 23175 Kāhans.
v2.c44.30
(x) Qila’ Ranpur Rājā Vajradhara Narendra—tribute 6000 Kāhans.
v2.c44.31
(xi) Qila’ Nayāgaḍh Rājā Māndhātā—tribute 26450 Kāhans.
v2.c44.32
(xii) Qila’ Nilgiri Rājā Rāmachandra Mardarāja Harichandana—tribute 23400 Kāhans.¹
v2.c44.33
¹ Aitchison—A Collection of Treaties Engagements and Sanads, Calcutta, 1909, pp. 314-15.
v2.c44.34
In return for these treaties the East India Company granted Qabūlnāmahs on the same day agreeing to treat all Rājās impartially and not to make any other demand except the tribute. More than a year later a similar treaty was executed with Rājā Janārdan Bhañja of Keunjhar on the 16th December 1804 and his tribute fixed at 12000 Kāhans to be paid in three equal instalments. In the counter-engagement signed by Harcourt and Melville it is stated in addition to the other clauses that the land held by the Rājā in the Mughalbandi should remain in his possession in perpetuity.
v2.c44.35
Though Kanika and Kujang were the ring-leaders of the rising against the British, similar treaties were entered into with Kujang also immediately after the conquest. We learn from the sixth volume of the Treaty, etc., that Qabūlnāmahs were executed by the Commissioners mentioned above in favour of the Rājās mentioned below:
v2.c44.36
| 1. | Kanika | 12. | Bankee |
| 2. | Kujang | 13. | Jaurmoo |
| 3. | Khurda | 14. | Athgaḍh |
| 4. | Tigiria | 15. | Harishpur |
| 5. | Aul | 16. | Vishnupur |
| 6. | Dhenkanal | 17. | Murickpore (Marichpur) |
| 7. | Ranpur | 18. | Nilgiri |
| 8. | Baramba | 19. | Patiya |
| 9. | Khandapara | 20. | Hindol |
| 10. | Nayagarh | 21. | Angul |
| 11. | Bankee | 22. | Sookinda. |
v2.c44.37
There is a separate treaty with Rājā Gaurī Charaṇa Bhañja Dev of Daspalla in whose territory lay the valuable pass of Barmul, which was the key to Chhattisgaḍh and Nagpur. There is no date attached to the treaty or Qabūlnāmah. On the 3rd March a treaty was entered into with the Rājā of Baudh and Athmallik and a Qabūlnāmah given to him by the same Commissioners but without any stipulation for tribute.¹
v2.c44.38
¹ Ibid., Vol. VI, Calcutta, 1862, pp. 186-96.
v2.c44.39
Though the last Gajapati had submitted to the British and obtained a Qabūlnāmah from Harcourt and Melville and though he was the hereditary Superintendent of the holy temple of Jagannātha, he was kept a prisoner in Barabati fort till 1807 and his ancestral possession confiscated, merely on the suspicion that he might have been in league with the Marathas. He was the first and the foremost chief in Orissa in rank though not in power and therefore the British Officers in Orissa thought the rebellion of his troops to be a sufficient ground for his deposition and the confiscation of the State.
v2.c44.40
We must now return to the affairs of Mayurbhañj. Though Mayurbhañj had submitted early to the British and even helped the Company's troops considerably against the Ṣubah of Orissa did not consider it necessary to enter into a treaty with Mahārāṇī Sumitrā Deī Bhañja. The position of Sumitrā Deī was still ambiguous and Mayurbhañj was the richest and the most powerful of the Feudatory States of Orissa. The reasons of this forbearance on the part of the British Company are still unknown and we cannot understand for what reason Messrs. Harcourt and Melville neglected to enter into treaty engagements with Sumitrā or any other wife of the late Dāmodar Bhañja. We know of two other Rāṇis of Dāmodar Bhañja, named Jamunā Deī and Champā Deī, as well as an adopted son named Trivikram Bhañja from the records. The policy of conciliation adopted by Wellesley towards Mayurbhañj was continued after his departure and the representations of one Bhagnut Muhtee (Bhāgavat Mahti), *Wakil* of Rāṇi Sumitrā Bhañja, were favourably recommended and forwarded to the Board of Revenue by G. Oswald, Collector of Medinipur, on the 14th December 1804. The petition of Bhāgavat Mahti contains the information that the *parganah* of Nayabasan was extremely unprofitable and therefore a very large balance had accumulated in 1802. In the *Amli* year 1211=1803 Mahārāṇi Sumitrā Deī received a *parwanah* from the Governor-General-in-Council to assist the English army in every way. At the same time Mr. Ernst, Judge of Medinipur, sent another *parwanah* to her informing her that the collection of revenue from her *zamindari* was suspended for the time being and she was requested to afford assistance to the English army. She was also requested to guard the passes to her territories, through which the road from Medinipur to Katak passed, very carefully and to report the advance of Maratha troops, if any, to the English army. She was also informed that any expenses, which might be incurred by her, would be deducted from the revenue payable to the Company for her *zamindari*. Mahārāṇi Sumitrā Deī spent about Rs. 2000 in helping the British to conquer Orissa and therefore she failed in the payment of the revenue for Nayabasan. Then the Collector sent an Amīn into her zamindari to attach it and a portion of the dues were paid up, but Rs. 1707 still remained due from the revenue for 1803 for which Nayabasan was advertised for sale. Though the Collector of Medinipur had forgotten his promises very quickly as soon as the active need of Mahārāṇī Sumitrā Deī’s co-operation with the Company was over, the Board of Revenue remembered the case and the arrears were remitted to the extent of the interest due.
v2.c44.41
Door Jamb of Kutāitundi, Khiching
v2.c44.42
Before proceeding to the still nauseating narrative of early British attempts at the settlement of Land Revenue in Orissa we must continue the narrative of succession in the Mayurbhañj State from records available to me. Some time between 1804 and 1812 Trivikram Bhañja came into power. He was the second king of that name in Mayurbhañj, the first (1660-88) being known to us from Bowney’s “Country round the Bay of Bengal.”[1] He will therefore be styled Trivikram II. We learn from “List of Ruling Chiefs from the Annual Administration Report of Mayurbhañj State for 1894-95” sent by the late Maharaja Kṛṣṇa Chandra Bhañja to the Superintendent of Tributary Mahals that Sumitrā Deī ruled from 1796 to 1810. After her death in 1810 her name still continued on the register of zamindars and the Collector of Katak wrote on the 1st August 1811 to the Board of Revenue stating that he was unable to ascertain whether the son of the late Rājā of Angul (? Trivikram) was legitimate. The Board ordered him to ascertain and report by what means the late Rāṇī of Mayurbhañj acquired the proprietary rights of the Qila.’
v2.c44.43
¹ See Ante
v2.c44.44
The Board was informed before this date that the late Rājā Dāmodar Bhañja had adopted a son and the Board thought that the right of inheritance to the Qila’ (the entire State of Mayurbhañj) should have devolved on this adopted son. The case was evidently referred to the Governor-General in Council. Dowdeswell, as Secretary to the Government, informed the Board of Revenue on the 3rd March 1812 that the revenue (? tribute) payable by the Mayurbhañj State should be fixed at Rs. 1001 as proposed by the Board on condition of that State relinquishing all claims to the share (6-16th) realised by it from pilgrims to Jagannātha. On the same date E. S. Waring, Collector of Katak, forwarded a petition from Rāṇī Champā Dei, one of the widows left by Dāmodar Bhañja. A copy of this petition is not available to me now but it appears from Waring's letter that Champā Dei had claimed to the succession to the Gadi after Sumitrā Dei. Waring states that after receiving the Board's letter directing him to register the State in the name of its present possessor, both he and Mr. Midford issued proclamations but nobody responded to it. We learn from the same letter that Rāṇī Jamunā Bhañja had also presented a petition which had been forwarded to the Board by him on the 11th July, 1811. Further on Waring states that he has received several petitions from Jamunā Dei (? Champā) and ordered her Wakils to prove their case, who failed to substantiate the claim. They ended by stating that if the State was not to be given to Jamunā (? Champā) Dei then it must revert to the Company. The last paragraph of Waring's letter contains the very valuable information that Trivikram Bhañja, the adopted son of the late Rājā Dāmodar Bhañja, has been in possession of the State for almost two years. This statement proves definitely that the late Mahārājā Kṛṣṇachandra Bhañja was not correct in stating in 1894-95 that Sumitrā Deī was succeeded by Jamunā Deī who ruled from 1810-1813. It is now certain from the records that Trivikram Bhañja succeeded Mahārāṇī Sumitrā Deī in 1810 and Jamunā Deī was only a pretender. Waring writes again a week later to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue stating that he had every reason to believe that the person who appeared before him as the *Wakil* of Rāṇī Champā Deī was an imposter. He thought that interested persons were trying to delay the registration of this case in the name of the present possessor. One of the Rāṇīs of the late Dāmodar Bhañja had sent an acknowledgment acknowledging the present possessor as the lawful heir to the State (letter dated the 10th March, 1812). On receiving this letter the Board ordered Waring to reject the applications of Champā Deī (17th March, 1812). On receiving this letter the Collector reported on the 24th March 1812 that necessary arrangements had been made with Rājā Trivikram Bhañja in accordance with the resolution of the Government. It is therefore clear that Mahārājā Kṛṣṇa Chandra Bhañja’s list of succession of Bhañja kings bassed on State records is wrong. Sumitrā Deī was directly succeeded by Rājā Trivikram Bhañja and Jamunā Deī was a pretender till March 1812 and after that date she could not have exercised any lawful authority. The name of Jamunā Deī as the 39th ruler of the Mayurbhañj State should therefore be deleted.¹
v2.c44.45
¹ *Vanshanacharita*, Baripada 1927, Appendix VI, C.
v2.c44.46
It appears that after her declaration as an imposter the person of Champā Deī was in some danger and Dowdeswell as Chief Secretary to the Government of India wrote to Richardson, Collector of Katak, requesting him to take such measures as he thought fit for the protection of her person against any ill-designs on the part of Trivikram Bhañja. The Collector was also directed by the Governor-General in Council to enquire regarding the right of succession to Mayurbhañj according to the laws and usage of that country. On the 18th March 1815 this report was submitted and sent to J. P. Ward, Collector of Katak.
v2.c44.47
According to this report the Garhjat States are reported to be 29 in number. The Chhatisgaḍh States, including Patna, Sambalpur and Sonepur, are of course omitted from this list. The report states that "Several of the above tributary estates are subject to the operation of the British Laws and Regulations and several of them are exempted from their influence. During the Maratha government Mayurbhanja paid a quit-rent of Rs. 6000 and received 6-16ths of the pilgrim tax and transit duties at certain passes. Now the States pays Rs. 1001 to the British Government". We learn further that Mahārāṇī Sumitrā Deī had claimed exemption from tribute and made a demand for a considerable sum for damages she had sustained. This claim was rejected. The estimated revenue of Mayurbhañj was Rs. 40,000 to 50,000. The report expresses doubt about sale of this State for arrears of revenue or tribute, as it stood in an important part of the south-western frontier of British territory in 1815 and if was considered expedient to attach the proprietor to the British Government by moderation and forbearance. This is the real reason of the want of treaty engagements with Mayurbhañj till 1829. Though the British had become supreme in India after the fall of Daulat Rāo Śinde and Yaśovant Rāo Holkar in 1805, the Maratha spirit was not entirely crushed and the Holkar still possessed a considerable army. The Bhonsles had become negligible but the Peshwa was still a power, both moral and physical. Solely for this reason Mayurbhañj, the most powerful State in Orissa, received favourable treatment in not having any binding engagement with it suzerein and having to pay only Rs. 1001 out of Rs. 40000 or Rs. 50000, while the neighbouring State of Kanika, with an income of 100000 had to pay Rs. 10132-5-10. The Estate of Aul paid Rs. 26,680, after which only Rs. 15,000 remained for the proprietor.
v2.c44.48
The principal and most powerful of the 29 States of Orissa were exempt from the influence of British Laws and Regulations. The report contains a recommendation for the extension of such laws and regulations over all the Tributry Mehals of Orissa, specially Police Laws, in the interest of humanity.
v2.c44.49
While British officers in Orissa were proposing the introduction of their own laws into the semi-independent States, the same laws administered by them and carried into effect by their Bengali subordinates were ruining the nobility of Orissa and impoverishing the richest people of the country. Though the 19th century had begun, the British Officers who administered the laws in Orissa belonged to the 18th Century and carried on the tradition of the past. Bengalis of an undesirable type came into Orissa after 1803. The Oṛiyā was very backward at that time and in fact he was just like the semi-literate Panjabi after 1848. He was certainly not fit for any of the lower offices in the British Administration. Musalmans were too few, as they are still now. So in fact Bengalis of a low type ruled Orissa for nearly half a century after the conquest. They became notorious for chicanery and dishonesty, while no protest could be raised against the camouflaged dishonesty of the early 19th century English officers, known as "Nabobs," out of fear. For years the Oṛiyā suffered in silence till the Bengali became more honest by education and till the English officers became true representatives of British justice.
v2.c44.50
Having control of judicial and executive work, the Bengali found Orissa an easy means to get rich quick. He had no competitors in the field and the British officers had to rely entirely on them. Police extortion and sale of public justice was carried on entirely through Bengalis. The British East India Company realised the gravity of the offences of their officers too late in the great crisis of 1817 when the Holkar's army expiated for the sins of Yaśovant Rāo at the battle of Mehidpur and the Bhonsle's troops—for the lesser sins of Raghuji II committed in not rejoining Yaśovant Rāo Holkar and Daulat Rāo Śinde after 1803,—at the glorious battles of Sitābaldi and Nagpur. Some day the true history of the Fourth Maratha War and the great battles of Ashṭā, Koregāon, Mehidpur and Sitābaldi will be written, but the time is not yet ripe. In Orissa the contemporaneous movement was the rebellion of the pāiks, the national militia of Orissa. The causes of their discontent and that of their leader were simply the rapacity of British Officers in Orissa and their Bengali subordinates. It is useless at the present day to recapitulate the long and rambling narrative of Toynbee, the shorter sketch of O'Malley will be sufficient. At the time of the British conquest of Orissa, British officers were still imbued with the idea of the permanent settlement introduced by Cornwallis into Bengal, Behar and Benares. Immediately after the conquest, the British Commissioners for the settlement of the Ṣūbah of Orissa decided to cancel all demands on account of arrears of revenue. In 1804 the first settlement of revenue was made in Orissa and it was embodied in Regulation XII of 1805. This settlement was for one year only and was to be followed by a triennial settlement. The triennial settlement was effected but was followed in 1808-9 by another settlement for four years. Then followed a number of hasty settlements concluded according to the advice of Bengali Ministerial officers to whom a settlement always brought a golden harvest in the shape of bribes in cash and kind, nazars to the European officers and starvation and ruin alike to the peasants and their proprietors. These disastrous settlements were concluded in 1812-13 for one year, 1813-14 for two years and in 1815-16 again for one year. When the crisis came another settlement was made in 1816-17 for three years. In the meanwhile the majority of British officers were totally ignorant of the country, its capability of producing crops, and devastation on account of bad government of more than half a century, and they had to rely on their Bengali subordinates for every bit of information that they got. The Oṛiyās were very shy and mistrusted their new masters. They held back papers of Hastabud [This page is blank]
v2.c44.51
Terracotta works of Rasikarāya Temple, Haripur, Mayurbhañj State
v2.c44.52
and *Jama'-Wasil-Bāqī*. The Bengali subordinates now profited, because soon it became impossible for the Oriyā land-holders to pay the demanded revenue from their deserted villages. In all cases the Bengali subordinates possessed more accurate information about the quality of the soil, the value of the produce and the quantity of arable land of different kinds and classes lying waste than his British masters. Therefore they speculated in landed property exclusively with the help and aid of their friends in Bengal. Hundreds of old Oriyā noblemen were ruined and their ancient heritage passed into the hands of Bengali zamindars. The new assessment was on paper only, the amount was never realised and arrears accumulated rapidly. To crown all, the Bengalis in Orissa persuaded the dishonest Britisher of the day to sell defaulting estates by auction in Calcutta. For some years after 1806 the zamindaris of many old families of Orissa were sold for a mere song in Calcutta and on this gross injustice and grave inhumanity flourished "Nob Kissens" and "Ganga Govinds" of the early 19th century. Many Oriyā zamindars were frightened by the alterations in the revenue demanded by the British Government and many of them left heriditary possessions to be managed *Khās*. In O'Malley's words, "many left their estates to be held by the Collector, who in his turn either managed them through *tahsildars*, who embezzled as much as they could, or farmed them out to speculators, who rack-rented the ryots. A large portion of the revenue assessed could not be collected, the hardships of our revenue system were aggravated by repeated droughts, and the amount realized fell to 65 per cent. of the demand.”¹ The hopeless incompetence and dishonesty of early British administrative officers in Orissa, combined with the rapacity and cruelty of their Bengali subordinates, precipitated the great crisis of 1817.
v2.c44.53
¹ Bengal District Gazetteer, Cuttack, pp. 158.
v2.c44.54
The actual causes of the *pāik* rebellion were double. The *pāiks* held land on service tenure. It was a regular feudal system consisting of infeudation and sub-infeudation from the chief to the humble *pāik*. Major Fletcher, who had been placed in charge of the territories of Mukandadeva II, is still notorious in Orissa for his incapacity and dishonesty. :He was persuaded by his Bengali subordinates to resume the *Chākrān* lands of the Khurda *pāiks*. The 20th century Englishman gives a true exposition of facts nearly a century after the event. O’Malley says :—“Nor was this all. Deprived of the lands which they had enjoyed from time immemorial, they were subjected to the grossest extortion and oppression at the hands of the farmers, *sarbarāhkārs*, and other underlings to whom our Government entrusted the collection of the revenue and also to the tyrannies of a corrupt and venal police.”²
v2.c44.55
² Ibid., Puri, p. 51.
v2.c44.56
Stirling’s description of the *pāiks* of Orissa is extremely interesting and is therefore quoted in full:—“The Paiks or landed militia of the Rajwara combine with the most profound barbarism and the blindest devotion to the will of their chiefs, a ferocity and unquietness of disposition, which have ever rendered them an important and formidable class of the population of the province. They comprehend all castes and classes, chiefly perhaps the Chasa or cultivating tribes; occasionally individuals of the lowest castes are found among them, as Khandras, Pans and Bawaris (Sanscritice Berber or Barbarians;) and the fashion has often prevailed of adopting into their order some of the more savage inhabitants of the remote hills, called Khonds, as also even Mussulmans and Telingas. It is well known that they are paid by service lands, which they cultivate with their own hands in time of peace, subject to the performance of military and rude police duties whenever called upon by their chiefs. Abulfazl states the number of Paiks or zemindari militia (in the original, Sipah-i-zemindari) liable to be required for the service of the state according to the conditions of the tenure of the zemindars, at about 1,55,000 for the present districts of Cuttack and Midnapore, which probably formed but a small part of the entire force maintained by those chiefs. The Paiks of this part of the country are divided into three ranks distinguished by names taken from their occupations or the weapons which they use chiefly, viz. 1st. The Pahris, who carry a large shield made of wood covered with hides and strengthened by knobs and circles of iron, and the long straight national sword of Orissa, called the khanda. They are stationed chiefly as guards. 2nd. The Banua, who use the match-lock principally now (in lieu of their old missile weapons), but have besides a small shield and sword. It was their duty to take the field principally and go on distant expeditions. 3rdly. The Dhenkiyas who are armed with bows and arrows, and a sword, and perform all sorts of duties.
v2.c44.57
"The war dress of the Paiks consists, or did consist, of a cap and vest made of the skin of the tiger or leopard;
v2.c44.58
a sort of chain armour for the body and thighs; and a girdle formed of the tail of some wild animal. Besides the terror inspired by these unusual habiliments, they further heightened the ferocity of their appearance by staining their limbs with yellow clay, and their countenances with vermillion. Thus exhibiting altogether as savage and fantastic an air, as one can well conceive to invest the national army of any country or people. However wild and motley their appearance and composition, they certainly did not fight badly, when encouraged at least by the proximity of their jungles, since we find them constantly sustaining the most bloody battles with the Moghuls, and if may be doubted whether they were not superior to any infantry which the Berar Marhattas ever brought into the field during their government of the province.¹”
v2.c44.59
¹ *Asiatic Researches Vol. XV. pp. 200-202.*
v2.c44.60
Starvation and ill-usage compelled the pāiks of Orissa to rise against the British. In writing of the pāik rebellion European writers, even of the present century, have forgotten to include one important factor, the general unrest among the Maratha population throughout India. It is well known to every Indian that the Peshwa Sawāi Bāji Rāo was not really conquered at Ashtā and Koregāon but long before that by the pen of the Honorable Mountstuart Elphinstone at the Residency of Kirkee. The process was long and painful both to Bāji Rāo II and the entire Maratha nation. The long process of arrangements for the sale of the Maratha nation by the Maratha people themselves had awakened mixed feelings among Marathas outside the limits of Gujarat and the Deccan.
v2.c44.61
A very large number of Marathas were still residing in Orissa, especially in Katak, and there is an undetermined link, not to be determined at the present age, between the treaty of the British East India Company for the cession of certain forts dated 13th June 1817 and the pāik rebellion in Orissa. In Orissa the pāiks wanted a leader and their hereditary General Jagabandhu Vidyādhara Mahāpātra Bhramaravara Rāya, the hereditary Bakhshī of the Gajapatis of Khurda, supplied the want. There was no coherence in the great Maratha risings of 1817 and therefore the pāiks of Orissa fought in their early mediaeval way. Jagabandhu was a person of very high rank so long as the State of Khurda existed. Besides extensive landed property, he held in heredity the valuable estate of Qila' Rorang at a very low quit-rent. After the British conquest he was one of the earliest nobles of Orissa to submit to Colonel Harcourt. But though the Qila' of Rorang was settled with him at first, it was taken away from him by a Bengali and in June 1814 the Government of India ordered that no settlement should be made with him till he had established his titles to the property in a court of law. To the ordinary Englishman, firm in his faith in the Grand Jury and Petty Jury of England, there is no apparent injustice in such an order. He forgets that when "Nabobs" like Clive and Hastings ruled India, justice in British courts outside Calcutta was dispensed by Hākims sitting on a Masnad, chewing Pāns and smoking a Huqqā. More usually the Hākim's conscience was in the keeping of a lady who vended pān under a tree near the court and hawked British Justice to the highest bidder before the sitting and after the rising of the court.
v2.c44.62
Jagabandhu was fully aware of this state of affairs and the 20th century Englishman naively admits that the former “evinced the greatest repugnance to do so (i.e., to go to a British court of justice for the redress of his grievances) pleading his want of means, the degradation of suing as a pauper, and the uselessness of any reference to the courts from an Oriya when a rich Bengali was the defendant.”¹
v2.c44.63
¹ Bengal District Gazetteer, Puri, p. 52.
v2.c44.64
So the Bengali favourite of the British Officers in Orissa reduced the once mighty Jagabandhu Vidyādhara, the Commander-in-chief of the last Gajapati of Khurda, to destitution. He was maintained by voluntary contributions made by the people of Khurda in memory of his former kindness and nobility. No wonder Jagabandhu rebelled. It was only fitting that he should die fighting instead of begging from door to door. He served a noble purpose, as his rising opened the eyes of the British masters of Orissa to some extent. In any other country except India, Jagabandhu Vidyādhara would have been regarded as a national hero and a benefactor of his own people, because by rising in rebellion and sacrificing his own self he saved the nobility of Orissa from total extinction at the hands of the Bengali adventurers and the common people from longer oppression.
v2.c44.65
In March 1817 a body of Khonds marched into Khurda from the neighbouring State of Ghumsur in Ganjam and were at once joined by the pāiks. With the rise of the pāiks the entire country rose in rebellion. The people proceeded to attack the police station at Banpur, gutted all Government buildings, killed about one hundred and carried off treasure amounting to Rs. 15000. They proceeded towards Khurda and all Government officials fled. The treasury was plundered and the town sacked. Another body went into the *parganah* of Lembai and murdered an Indian official who had endeared himself to them by his attentions. When news reached Katak one detachment of troops was sent to Khurda and another to Pipli. The Collector of Katak set out on the 1st April 1817 with sixty Sepoys for Khurda. The British troops were defeated at Gangpur by a large number of *pāiks* and forced to return to Katak. The detachment which had gone to Khurda lost the British officer in command at Gangpara and was compelled to retreat with the loss of all baggage. The troops sent to Pipli were also compelled to retire and that *Thanah* was sacked. Another detachment of troops, sent to Puri, reached that town and according to the advice of the commading officer an officer with 550 men and a few guns were sent to Puri on the 9th. On the same day some *pāiks* entered Puri and burnt the court-house and other Government buildings. The Indian officers took refuge in the houses of the European officers on the sea-shore and in a desultory engagement with the Sepoys the *pāiks* were defeated on the 13th of April. Rāja Mukundadeva II joined the *pāiks* and the priests of the temple of Jagannātha proclaimed the fall of the British Raj and the restoration of the Gajapatis. The *pāiks* gained in strength and British troops abandoned Puri, reaching Katak on the 18th. Southern Orissa was entirely in the hands of the rebels and all communication by land with Katak was cut off. The larger detachment reached Khurda without opposition and hearing that the pāiks had gone to Puri, it proceeded thither by forced marches. It encountered the pāiks on the second day after leaving Khurda and easily defeated about 1000 rebels near the embankment of a tank. This force captured Puri with Rājā Mukundadeva II. Authority was re-established very easily though the pāiks hid in the jungles and committed great depredations on the defenceless villages. So in the earlier part of the next year a military force was employed to hunt them down in their jungle. The fate of the brave Jagabandhu Vidyādhara need only be guessed. Mukundadeva II was simply cast in prison for his supposed treason, where he died in November 1817. His descendants were removed to Puri, where they still live and are known as Rājās of Puri. "His son Rāmchandra II (1817-56) built a new palace on the car road at Puri and amassed much wealth by his thrifty habits. He was succeeded by Vīrakishoradeva II (1856-62), and the next Rājā was Dibyasiṅhadeva II (1862-77), who was transported for life on a charge of murder. The present representative of the family and Superintendent of the Jagannātha temple is Rājā Mukundadeva, popularly called the Rājā of Puri."¹
v2.c44.66
¹ Bengal District Gazetteer, Puri, p. 55.
v2.c44.67
The brave Mudhoji Bhonsle *alias* Āppā Ṣāhib, the son of Vyaṅkājī *alias* Manyā Bāpu, was now paying very bitterly for his attachment to the national cause and to the Peshwā Bājī Rāo II and for the sin of the murder of Pārsoji Bhonsle, the son and successor of Raghujī II. Immediately after the battles of Sītābaldī and Nāgpur Baji Rao II and his army of treacherous Marathas and Hindustanis were defeated on the Wardha. Āppā Ṣāhib surrendered but further pressure compelled him to fly to Asirgaḍh and thence to Daulat Rāo Śinde in Hindustan.¹ The Nagpur State lay prostrate at the feet of the British conqueror. Āppājī Bhonsle had been compelled to cede a great part of it to the British and this cession was confirmed by the treaty of 1826 by the child Raghujī Bhonsle III, the adopted son of Pārsojī Bhonsle.² One of the first acts of the British Government was to annul the supremacy of the chiefs of Patna and Sambalpur over the zamindars of the neighbouring countries. They were, besides Patna and Sonpur:—
v2.c44.68
¹ *Report on the Territories of the Raja of Nagpur*, by Richard Jenkins, Resident at Nagpur. 1827, reprinted at Nagpur 1923, pp. 70-73.
v2.c44.69
² Aitchison—*A collection of Treaties, engagements and Sanads*, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1909, pp. 425-33.
v2.c44.70
Rasikarāya Temple, Haripur, Mayurbhañj State
v2.c44.71
| 1. Bāmrā | 6. Bārgaḍh |
| 2. Kālāhāṇḍi | 7. Sāraṅgaḍh |
| 3. Khariār | 8. Phuljhar |
| 4. Rāirākhol | 9. Bindrā Nawāgaḍh |
| 5. Raigaḍh | 10. Śakti |
| | 11. Baṛā Sāmbar.³ |
v2.c44.72
³ *Report on the Administration of the Central Provinces up to August 1862* by Sir Richard Temple, reprinted at Nagpur 1923, pp. 78-9.
v2.c44.73
The Rājā of Sambalpur was replaced on the gadi and all other States over which he claims suzerainty were now regarded as separate states.⁴ Specimens of the engagements submitted by Mahārājā Bhupāl Dev of Patna, dated 17th February 1827 and Mahārājā Mahārāj Sāhī of Sambalpur dated 22nd February 1827 show that at the time of the British conquest they were not feudatory chiefs with a fixed Peshkash of tribute but Zamindars or Tāluqdārs whose *Jama'bandi* varied from year to year. The *Qabūliyat* executed by Mahārājā Bhupāl Dev of Patna on the 17th February 1827 shows that he agreed to pay a *Jama'* of Rs. 562-8 annually for five years from 1826-27 to 1830-31. He was therefore exactly on the same footing as the *Tāluqdars* of Oudh. The revenue was to be paid at Sambalpur. The *Qabūliyat* executed by Mahārājā Mahārāj Sahi of Sambalpur on the 22nd February was of a different nature. There is no mention of *Peshkash* and that chief simply binds himself to the right discharge of Police and Judicial duties.¹ Nārāyan Singh, the last Raja of Sambalpur, died without issue and his State lapsed to the British in 1850.² Patna and Sonpur remained to be recognised as feudatory states in April 1865.³ While Patna was formerly the chief of the *pseudo-Chauhan*⁴ chiefs, later on it had to cede its supremacy to Sambalpur. The small State of Sonpur was all along a feudatory of Patna or Sambalpur and never independent. It was a pure British creation and is subject to *Nazarana* rules.⁵ Yet these petty chiefs, all of whom were British creations, represented to the late Sir Andrew Fraser that "Their powers and status as Feudatory Chiefs were higher than those of the Feudatory States of Orissa and they feared that they might be reduced to the same level."1 The easy pliability of the late Sir Andrew Fraser, at one time Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces and Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, is now well known and it was natural for him to assure them that as to their first difficulty their powers and privileges and status would be clearly and fully defined and recorded and that no diminution in any of them would occur. The raising of the Patna and Sonpur Taluqdars to the status of Feudatory Chiefs and their claims to total independence are subjects too voluminous to be treated in full in a general narrative of the history of Orissa.²
v2.c44.74
⁴ Aitchison—*Treaties, Engagements and Sanads*, Vol. I, Calcutta 1909, p. 389.
v2.c44.75
¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 443-44.
v2.c44.76
² *Report on the Administration of the Central Provinces up to August 1862*, p. 78, Para 373.
v2.c44.77
³ Aitchison—*Treaties*, etc. Vol. I. p. 391.
v2.c44.78
⁴ Regarding the origin of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur Chauhans and all claims to Rajput origin in Orissa See Appendix III at the end of this chapter.
v2.c44.79
⁵ Aitchison—*Treaties* etc. Vol, I, p. 313.
v2.c44.80
¹ Among the Rajas and Ryots p. 317 ; B. C. Mozumdar—Orissa in the making, pp. 244-5.
v2.c44.81
² The totally unfounded claims of the Chiefs of Patna and Sonpur to independence during the Mughal and Maratha periods have been critically analysed in Appendix IV.
v2.c44.82
After 1827 came the first important administrative measures in Orissa. The Oriya States of Sambalpur, Sonpur and Patna remained attached to the Chhattisgarh Division of the Central Provinces. In the Mughalbandi a new settlement was effected for three years in 1819-20, and again in 1822-23 for five years. It was not till 1835 that some semblance of permanency in land-tenure was reached. The great settlement of 1835-45 began nominally from 1837. It was for 30 years and was the first effective revenue measure in Orissa. In the meanwhile officers in Orissa, both Indian and English, had become more capable and honest and were supported by the Government of Bengal. Settlements were also effected in 1867-97 and the country rapidly recovered from the desolate condition into which it had fallen on account of the dishonesty and incapacity of Government officials. In the *Mughalbandi* "The Commissioners for the settlement of the affair of the *Ṣūbah* of Katak were abolished in 1805 and the whole of Orissa was placed under a single Collector and a Judge. Its head-quarters were at Puri till 1816, when it was transferred to Katak. In 1829 Orissa was divided into three separate districts, Puri, Katak and Balasore to which a fourth, Angul, was added after the confiscation of that State in 1850. Like Angul many other states of Orissa were confiscated during the British period and many others were reduced to the status of ordinary zamindars. Thus Al or Aul, one of the great Qila's held by the descendants of Mukunda Harichandana the last real independent king of Orissa, consisting of three *parganahs* of Derabisi, Utihar and Quṭbshāhī, was held at the time of the British conquest by Rāmakṛiṣṇa Deva. It is held as a zamindari on the payment of an annual quit-rent or *Peshkash* and is managed by the Court-of-wards like an ordinary zamindari estate, when occasion arises. The Feudatory State of Banki was confiscated in 1835 on the simple charge of the Raja having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on a charge of murder. The British policy of confiscations upto 1856 made it necessary that all States should be confiscated as soon as the opportunity arose. At the present day the present British Gavernment would have replaced the former Rājā by his son or a relative.¹ Similarly the Bhañja State of Kanikā, once a Feudatory State, has now become an ordinary zamindari. The Feudatory State of Kujang also became a zamindari and was sold for debt and purchased by the zamindar of Burdwan in Bengal. It was one of the latest Estates of Orissa to be acquired by a Bengal Zamindar.¹ With the exception of the confiscated State of Khurda there are several escheated Estates in the district of Puri. The estate of Kodhar was in the possession of the Mahānt of Uttarapārśva-Maṭha of Puri at the time of the British conquest and its revenue was devoted to defraying the cost of a Bhoga of Jagannātha at Puri. In 1834 the British officers found out that "The Mahānt had no proprietory right to the estate and had only been granted an assignment from its revenue from the Marātha Raghuī Bhonsla." It was accordingly resumed in 1839. At the settlement of 1843 the Estate was let in farm to the former lakhirājdār at a Ṣadar-jama of Rs. 6739." When a more humane policy prevailed in British India certain money payments made to the Uttara-Pārśva-Maṭha and to the Jagannātha-Ballabha-Satra were converted into a grant of land by making over fifteen villages in the Kodhar State to the Uttara-Pārśva-Maṭha and eight to the Jagannātha-Ballabha-Satra. The British Government retained ten villages, which still form a Khās-Mahal.²
First 82 of 161 passages. Read on