Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Civil Disobedience in Indian Tradition, with Some Early Nineteenth Century Documents c5: Introduction

Civil Disobedience in Indian Tradition, with Some Early Nineteenth Century Documents c5

Language
English

Contents

Introduction

c5.1

Traditionally, what has been the attitude of the Indian people, collectively as well as individually, towards state power or political authority? The prevalent view seems to be that, with some rare exceptions, the people of India have been docile, inert and submissive in the extreme. It is implied that they look up to their governments as children do towards their parents. Text books on Indian history abound with such views.

c5.2

The past half century or so, however, does not substantiate this image of docility and submissiveness. Many, in fact, regret the supposed transformation. But all, whether they deplore or welcome it, attribute it to the spread of European ideas of disaffection, and most of all to the role of Mahatma Gandhi in the public life of India. According to them, the people of India would have remained inert, docile and submissive if they somehow could have been protected from the European infection and from Mahatma Gandhi.

c5.3

The twentieth century Indian people's protest against governmental injustice, callousness and tyranny (actual or supposed) has expressed itself in two forms: one with the aid of some arms, the other unarmed. The protest and resistance with arms has by and large been limited to a few individuals or very small groups of a highly disciplined cadre. Aurobindo, Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad (to name a few), in their time have been the spectacular symbols of such armed protest. Unarmed protest and resistance is better known under the names of non-cooperation, civil disobedience and *satyagraha*. This latter mode of protest owes its twentieth century origin, organisation and practice to Mahatma Gandhi.

c5.4

In the main, there are two views about the origins of non-cooperation and civil disobedience initiated by Gandhiji firstly in South Africa and later in India. According to one group of scholars, Gandhiji learnt them from Thoreau, Tolstoy, Ruskin, etc. According to the other, non-cooperation and civil disobedience were Gandhiji’s own unique discovery, born out of his own creative genius and heightened spirituality.

c5.5

The statements about the European or American origin of Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience are many. According to one authority on Thoreau, Thoreau’s ‘essay, *Resistance to Civil Government*, a sharp statement of the duty of resistance to governmental authority when it is unjustly exercised, has become the foundation of the Indian civil disobedience movement.’¹ According to a recent writer, ‘Gandhi got non-cooperation from Thoreau, and he agreed with Ruskin on cooperation.’² According to yet another writer, ‘Gandhi agreed with Seeley only in order to apply the lesson learned from Thoreau, William Lloyd Garrison and Tolstoy. The lesson was that the withdrawal of Indian support from the British would bring on the collapse of their rule.’³

c5.6

The protagonists of the second view are equally large in number, the more scholarly amongst them linking Gandhiji’s inspiration to Prahalada or other figures of antiquity. According to R.R. Diwakar, taking his inspiration from Prahalada, Socrates, etc., Gandhiji adapted ‘a nebulous, semi-religious doctrine to the solution of the problems of day-to-day life and thus gave to humanity a new weapon to fight evil and injustice non-violently.’ Taking note of the traditional Indian practices of *dharna*, *hartal* and *dasatyaga* (leaving the land with all one’s belongings), Diwakar comes to the conclusion that ‘their chief concern was the extramundane life and that too of the individual, not of the group or community’, and states ‘there are no recorded instances in Indian history of long-drawn strikes of the nature of the modern “general strike”.’⁴ According to an analyst of Mahatma Gandhi’s political philosophy, ‘the Gandhian method of non-violent resistance was novel in the history of mass actions waged to resist encroachments upon human freedom.’⁵ According to another recent student of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhian non-cooperation and civil disobedience ‘was a natural growth and flowering of a practical philosophy implicit in his social milieu.’⁶

c5.7

These two views are integrated in a recent introduction to Thoreau’s essay, *On the Duty of Civil Disobedience*, referred to above. The writer of this introduction states:

c5.8

Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience marked a significant transition in the development of non-violent action. Before Thoreau, civil disobedience was largely practised by individuals and groups who desired simply to remain true to their beliefs in an evil world. There was little or no thought given to civil disobedience for producing social and political change. Sixty years later, with Mahatma Gandhi, civil disobedience became, in addition to this, a means of mass action for political ends. Reluctantly, and unrecognised at the time, Thoreau helped make the transition between these two approaches.⁷

c5.9

Other writers, like Kaka Kalelkar⁸ and R. Payne⁹ though visualising some link which Gandhiji’s non-cooperation and civil disobedience had with India’s antiquity, nevertheless feel, as Kalelkar does, that it was ‘a unique contribution of Mahatma Gandhi to the world community.’ Kalelkar, however, does visualise the possibility that the practices of *traga* (Kaka Kalelkar incidentally appears to be the only modern writer aware of the practice of *traga*.), *dharna*, and *baharvatiya*, prevailing in Gandhiji’s home area, Saurashtra, may have ‘influenced the Mahatma’s mind.’¹⁰

c5.10

Recent works on ancient Indian polity, and the rights and duties of kings or other political authorities also seem to be in some conflict with the prevalent view of the traditional submissiveness of the Indian people. According to some, the very word ‘Raja’ meant ‘one who pleases’ and therefore any right of the king was subject to the fulfillment of duties and was forfeited if such duties were not performed. Further, an oft quoted verse of the Mahabharata states:

c5.11

The people should gird themselves up and kill a cruel king who does not protect his subjects, who extracts taxes and simply robs them of their wealth, who gives no lead. Such a king is *Kali* (evil and strife) incarnate. The king who after

c5.12

declaring, ‘I shall protect you’, does not protect his subjects should be killed (by the people) after forming a confederacy, like a dog that is afflicted with madness.¹¹

c5.13

Whatever may have been the ruler-ruled relationship in ancient times or the few centuries of Turk or Mughal dominance, in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, according to James Mill, ‘in the ordinary state of things in India, the princes stood in awe of their subjects.’¹² Further, according to Gandhiji, that ‘we should obey laws whether good or bad is a new fangled notion. There was no such thing in former days. The people disregarded those laws they did not like.’¹³ Elaborating on the idea of passive resistance, Gandhiji stated:

c5.14

The fact is that, in India, the nation at large has generally used passive resistance in all departments of life. We cease to cooperate with our rulers when they displease us. This is passive resistance.¹⁴

c5.15

Giving a personally known instance of such non-cooperation, he added:

c5.16

In a small principality, the villagers were offended by some command issued by the prince. The former immediately began vacating the village. (It is possible that such recourse to the vacating of villages, towns, etc., as noted by Gandhiji and as threatened in 1810-11 at Murshedabad etc., was of a much later origin than the various other forms of non-cooperation and civil disobedience described in this volume. Resort to such an extreme step as the vacating of villages etc., indicates increasing alienation of the rulers from the ruled and further a substantial weakening of the strength of the latter. Such a situation is in glaring contrast to the situation where ‘the princes stood in awe of their subjects’. Though such an extreme step at times may have still worked in relation to Indian rulers who were not yet completely alienated from the ruled in Gandhiji’s young days, its potential use against completely alien rulers, such as the British, must have become very small indeed.) The prince became nervous,

c5.17

apologised to his subjects and withdrew his command. Many such instances can be found in India.¹⁵

c5.18

It is not necessary to add that Gandhiji's discovery of civil disobedience is not just a borrowing from his own tradition. In a way it came out of his own being. His knowledge of its advocacy or limited practice in Europe and America may have provided him further confirmation. But it is the preceding Indian historical tradition of non-cooperation and civil disobedience which made possible the application of them on the vast scale that happened under his leadership.

c5.19

It appears that Mahatma Gandhi as well as Mill had a more correct idea of the ruler-ruled relationship in India than conventional historians. Even without going far back into Indian history, a systematic search of Indian and British source materials pertaining to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries should provide ample evidence of the correctness of Mahatma Gandhi's and Mill's view. Further, it would probably also indicate that civil disobedience and non-cooperation were traditionally the key methods used by the Indian people against oppressive and unjust actions of government. Even with a relatively cursory search, a number of instances of civil disobedience and non-cooperation readily emerge. These are recorded primarily in the correspondence maintained within the British ruling apparatus. For example, the Proceedings of the British Governor and Council at Madras, dated November, 1680 record the following response by 'the disaffected persons' in the town of Madraspatnam to what they considered arbitrary actions on the part of the British rulers:

c5.20

The painters and others gathered at St.Thoma having sent several letters to the several casts of Gentues in town, and to several in the Company's service as dubasses, cherucons or chief peons, merchants, washers and others and threatened several to murther them if they came not out to them, now they stopt goods and provisions coming to town throwing the cloth off of the oxen and laying the dury, and in all the towns about us hired by Pedda Yenkatadry, etc: the drum has beaten forbidding all people to carry any provisions or wood to Chenapatnam alias Madraspatnam and the men's houses that burnt chunam for us are tyed up and they forbid to burn any more, or to gather more shells for that purpose.¹⁶

c5.21

This tussle lasted for quite some time. The British recruited the additional force of the ‘Black Portuguese’, played the less protesting groups against the more vehement, arrested the wives and children of those engaged in the protest, and threatened one hundred of the more prominent amongst the protestors with dire punishment. Finally, the incident seems to have ended in some compromise.

c5.22

At a much later period, reporting on a peasant movement in Canara in 1830-31, the district assistant collector wrote:

c5.23

Things are here getting worse. The people were quiet till within a few days, but the assemblies have been daily increasing in number. Nearly 11,000 persons met yesterday at Yenoor. About an hour ago 300 ryots came here, entered the tahsildar’s cutcherry, and avowed their determination not to give a single pice, and that they would be contented with nothing but a total remission. The tahsildar told them that the jummabundy was light and their crops good. They said they complained of neither of these, but of the Government generally; that they were oppressed by the court, stamp regulation, salt and tobacco monopolies, and that they must be taken off.¹⁷

c5.24

Referring to the instructions which he gave to the tahsildar, the assistant collector added:

c5.25

I have also told him, to issue instructions to all persons, to prevent by all means in their power the assemblies which are taking place daily, and if possible to intercept the inflammatory letters which are at present being despatched to the different talooks.¹⁸

c5.26

He further stated:

c5.27

The ryots say that they cannot all be ‘punished’, and the conspirators have as it were excommunicated one Mogany, who commenced paying their Kists. The ferment has got as far as Baroor and will soon reach Cundapoor. As the dissatisfaction seems to be against the Government generally and not against the heaviness of the jummabundy, speedy measures should, I think be taken to quench the flame at

c5.28

once. But in this district not a cooley can be procured. The tahsildar arrived here yesterday with the greatest difficulty.¹⁹

c5.29

These protests were at times tinged by violence at some point. Most often, however, what is termed as violence was the resort to *traga*, *koor*, etc., (which are familiar under other names) inflicted by individuals upon themselves as a means of protest. On the occasions when the people actually resorted to violence, it was mostly a reaction to governmental terror, as in the cases of the various ‘Bunds’ in Maharashtra during the 1820-40s.²⁰ (At what point the people reacted to terror and repression by resorting to violence is a subject for separate study.) (The violence manifest in modern movements of civil disobedience and the counter violence adopted by the authorities to deal with it require deeper investigation. According to Charles Tilly in *Collective Violence in European Perspective*: ‘A large proportion of the...disturbances we have been surveying turned violent at exactly the moment when the authorities intervened to stop an illegal but non-violent action...the great bulk of the killing and wounding...was done by troops or police rather than by insurgents or demonstrators.’ Commenting on this, Michael Walzer believes that ‘the case is the same...in the United States.’ (*Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship*, 1970. p. 32).)

c5.30

Overall, the civil disobedience campaigns against the new British rulers, including the one documented in this volume, did not succeed. The reasons for this must be manifold. Partly, the effectiveness of such protests was dependent upon there being a commonality of values between the rulers and the ruled. With the replacement of the indigenous rulers by the British (whether *de jure* or *de facto* is hardly material) such commonality of values disappeared. The British rulers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century did not at all share the same moral and psychological world as their subjects. Over time, what James Mill termed the ‘general practice’ of ‘insurrection against oppression’²¹ which had prevailed up to the period of British rule, was gradually replaced by ‘unconditional submission to public authority.’ In the early 1900s, it seemed to Gopal Krishna Gokhale ‘as though the people existed simply to obey.’²²

II

c5.s1.1

Before we proceed further, it may be useful to make a brief reference to the way in which the governance of India was organised in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries.

c5.s1.2

Contrary to popular opinion, from 1784 onwards (if not from an earlier date), the East India Company hardly played a major role in decisions made in England about India. The job of decision making and, in many instances, even the first drafting of the more crucial detailed instructions from 1784 onwards became a responsibility of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, set up by an Act of the British legislature and composed of members of government, and was painstakingly executed by this Board till 1858. The change which 1858 brought was the elimination of the essentially clerical role of the Company and the entrusting of this task also to an expanded establishment in the office of the Board and styling the whole thenceforward as the department of the Secretary of State for India.

c5.s1.3

The supreme head of British administration in the Bengal Presidency was the Governor-General-in-Council, who functioned through the several departments of Government, initially constituted in 1785 on instructions from the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India. The Secret, the Political, the Military, the Public, the Revenue, and the Judicial were the major departments, all operating from Fort William (i.e. Calcutta). The Governor-General-in-Council (in the absence of the Governor-General, the Commander-in-Chief acting as president) met on specific days in the week to transact business in the particular department and the decisions and orders made were conveyed to the concerned subordinate bodies or individuals by the secretary of the concerned department who attended the council and maintained its records. Besides these departments, the instructions of 1785 had also established several Boards, subordinate to the Governor-General-in-Council, usually each of these presided over by a member of the Council, to direct and superintend some of the more extensive activities of Government. The Military Board and the Board of Revenue were the two most important amongst these subordinate Boards. (Corresponding arrangements had also been instituted in 1785 in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies.)

c5.s1.4

At this period, the job of the district ‘collector’ (in Bengal, Behar, Benares, etc.,) was mainly concerned with matters relating to revenue assessment and collection while the superintendence of the police and the performance of law and order functions were exercised by a separate official termed the ‘magistrate’ of the particular district. Ordinarily, the collector corresponded with and received his instructions from the Board of Revenue. The magistrate on the other hand corresponded with and received his instructions directly from the Governor-General-in-Council in the Judicial Department. Both the collector and the magistrate were independent and supreme in their respective spheres within their jurisdictions. It appears, however, from the nature of their respective links with the supreme presidency authority that the magistrate at this period had a slight edge over the authority of the collector. Benares, and perhaps many other districts also, further had two other independent, and superior, authorities: the court of appeal and circuit, and the military establishments. Some aspects of their mutual relationships and also differences in approach clearly come through in the documents included in this volume.

c5.s1.5

The documents in this volume, consisting of the correspondence between the various governmental authorities (These documents however do not include any correspondence on the subject of this narrative, if any such exists, between the court of appeal and circuit or the military authorities in Benares, etc., on the one hand and the Government or the Military Board at the presidency on the other.), describe a now mostly forgotten civil disobedience campaign carried out by the people of Benares, Patna, Sarun, Moorshedabad, and Bhagalpur against the British authorities during 1810-11. This is the best documented pre-Gandhian non-cooperation and civil disobedience campaign thus far uncovered. For this reason, it is being treated at some length in the pages that follow.

c5.s1.6

In 1810, on the instructions of the directing authorities in England, the Government of Bengal (Fort William) decided to levy a new series of taxes in the provinces of Bengal, Behar, Orissa, Benares and the Ceded and Conquered territories (these latter now constitute part of Uttar Pradesh). One of these, recommended by its Committee of Finance, was a tax on houses and shops. This tax was enacted on October 6, 1810 by Regulation XV, 1810. According to its preamble, the Regulation was enacted ‘with a view to the improvement of the public resources’ and to extend ‘to the several cities and principal towns in the provinces of Bengal, Behar, Orissa and Benares, the tax which for a considerable period, has been levied on houses, situated within the town of Calcutta.’ The Regulation provided for a levy of ‘five per cent on the annual rent’ on all dwelling houses (except the exempted categories) built of whatever material, and a levy of ‘10 per cent on the annual rent’ on all shops. Where the houses or shops were not rented but occupied by the proprietors them- selves, the tax to be levied was to be determined ‘from a consid- eration of the rent actually paid for other houses (and shops) of the same size and description in the neighbourhood.’

c5.s1.7

The exempted categories included ‘houses, bungalows, or other buildings’ occupied by military personnel; houses and buildings admitted to be ‘religious edifices’; and any houses or shops which were altogether unoccupied. The tax was to be collected every three months and it was laid down that when it remained unpaid ‘the personal effects of the occupant shall in the first instance be alone liable to be sold for the recovery of the arrear of tax.’ Further, if some arrear still remained ‘the residue shall be recovered by the distress and sale of the goods, and chattels of the proprietor.’ Though appeals were admissible against unjust levy, etc., ‘to discourage litigious appeals, the judges’ were ‘authorised to impose a fine’, the amount depending on the circumstances, etc., of the applicant, on all those whose appeals ‘may prove on investigation to be evidently groundless and litigious’.

c5.s1.8

The collector of the district was ‘allowed a commission of five per cent’ on the net receipts. Incidentally, such a commission accorded to the collectors was not unusual at this time. The collectors received similar commissions on net collections of land revenue.

c5.s1.9

The total additional revenue estimated to arise from this tax was rupees three lakhs in a full year. Comparatively speaking, this was not very large. Of the total expected receipts from the various new or additional levies enacted around this time, the house tax was to contribute around ten per cent. In relation to the total tax revenue of the Bengal Presidency for 1810-11 (Rs. 10.68 crores), most of it derived from the rural areas, the house tax amount was insignificant. But taken along with the other levies imposed about this time, large portions of which fell on the urban areas, this tax became a rallying point for widespread protest.

Events at Benares

c5.s1.t1.1

The protest begins at Benares. As Benares was then the largest city in northern India and possibly the best preserved in terms of traditional organisation and functioning, this was most natural. Also it may have been due to the Benares governmental authorities being more prompt in taking steps towards enforcing the house tax.

c5.s1.t1.2

The following were the main arguments against the levy of the tax, as they emerge from the documented correspondence, and from the petition of the inhabitants of Benares (rejected by the court of appeal and circuit, partly because its ‘style and contents’ were ‘disrespectful’)²³:

c5.s1.t1.3

(i) Former sooltauns never extended the rights of Government (commonly called malgoozaree) to the habitations of their subjects acquired by them by descent or transfer. It is on this account that in selling estates the habitations of the proprietors are excepted from the sales. Therefore the operation of this tax infringes upon the rights of the whole community, which is contrary to the first principles of justice.

c5.s1.t1.4

(ii) It is clear that the house tax was enacted only for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the police. In the provinces of Bengal and Behar, the police expenses are defrayed out of the stamp and other duties, and in Benares the police expenses are defrayed from the land revenue (malgoozaree). Then on what grounds is this tax instituted?

c5.s1.t1.5

(iii) If the Shastra be consulted it will be found that Benares to within five coss round is a place of worship and by Regulation XV 1810 places of worship are exempted from the tax.

c5.s1.t1.6

(iv) There are supposed to be in Benares about 50,000 houses, near three parts of which are composed of places of worship of Hindoos and Mussulman and other sects and houses given in charity by Mussulman and Hindoos. The tax on the rest of the houses will little more than cover the expenses of the Phatuckbundee. Then the institution of a tax which is calculated to vex and distress a number of people is not proper or consistent with the benevolence of Government.

c5.s1.t1.7

(v) There are many householders who are not able to repair or rebuild their houses when they fall to ruin and many

c5.s1.t1.8

who with difficulty subsist on the rent derived therefrom, how is it possible for such people to pay the tax?

c5.s1.t1.9

(vi) Instead of the welfare and happiness of your poor petitioners having been promoted, we have sustained repeated injuries, in being debarred from all advantages and means of profit and in being subject to excessive imposts which have progressively increased.

c5.s1.t1.10

(vii) It is difficult to find means of subsistence and the stamp duties, court fees, transit and town duties which have increased tenfold, afflict and affect everyone rich and poor and this tax like salt scattered on a wound, is a cause of pain and depression to everyone both Hindoo and Mussulman; let it be taken into consideration that as a consequence of these imposts the price of provisions has within these ten years increased sixteenfold. In such case how is it possible for us who have no means of earning a livelihood to subsist?

c5.s1.t1.11

The authorities of Benares appear to have been the first in implementing the house tax regulation. Possibly, this promptness resulted from their being better organised with regard to civil establishment as well as military support. Whatever the reasons for their speedy compliance within a mere seven weeks after the passing of the regulation the collector of Benares, as the authority responsible for levying and collecting the house tax, started to take detailed steps towards the regulation’s enforcement. On November 26, he informed the acting magistrate of the steps he was taking to determine the assessment on each house and requested him to place copies of the regulation in the several *thanas* for general information. He further requested the magistrate for police support for his assessors when they began their work in the *mohallas*. On December 6, the collector gave further details to the magistrate and requested speedy assistance from the *thannadars* etc. The acting magistrate replying to the collector on December 11, informed him of the instructions he had issued but stated that for the time being he did not feel that the police should accompany the assessors. He, however, assured the collector that ‘should any obstacle or impediment on the part of the house-holders be opposed to your officers in the legal execution of their duties, I shall, of course, upon intimation from you, issue specific instructions to the officers of police to enforce acquiescence.’ (pp.59-60) (Page numbers here, and on the following pages, refer to the page numbers od documents reproduced later in this volume.)

c5.s1.t1.12

The assessment having started, and meeting with instant opposition, the acting magistrate thus wrote to the Government at Calcutta on December 25:

c5.s1.t1.13

I should not be justified in withholding from the knowledge of the Right Hon'ble the Governor-General-in-Council, that a very serious situation has been excited among all ranks and descriptions of the inhabitants of the city by the promulgation of Regulation XV, 1810. (p.60)

c5.s1.t1.14

After giving the background he added:

c5.s1.t1.15

The people are extremely clamorous; they have shut up their shops, abandoned their usual occupations, and assembled in multitudes with a view to extorting from me an immediate compliance with their demands, and to prevail with me to direct the collector to withdraw the assessors until I receive the orders of Government. With this demand I have not thought proper to comply. I have signified to the people that their petitions shall be transmitted to the Government but that until the orders of Government arrive, the Regulation must continue in force, and that I shall oppose every combination to resist it. By conceding to the general clamour I should only have encouraged expectation which must be eventually disappointed, and have multiplied the difficulties which the introduction of the tax has already to contend with. (p.61)

c5.s1.t1.16

Three days later, on the 28th, he sent another report:

c5.s1.t1.17

The tumultuous mobs which were collected in various places between the city and Secrole, on the evening of the 20th instant, and which dispersed on the first appearance of preparations among the troops, did not reassemble on the morning of the 26th and I was induced to hope that the people in general were disposed to return to order and obedience.

But in the afternoon the agitation was revived: an oath was administered throughout the city both among the Hindoos and the Mahommedans, enjoining all classes to neglect their respective occupations until I should consent to direct the collector to remove the assessors and give a positive assurance that the tax should be abolished. It was expected that the outcry and distress occasioned by this general conspiracy would extort from me the concession they required. The Lohars, the Mistrees, the Hujams, the Durzees, the Kahars, Bearers, every class of workmen engaged unanimously

c5.s1.t1.18

in this conspiracy and it was carried to such an extent, that during the 26th the dead bodies were actually cast neglected into the Ganges, because the proper people could not be prevailed upon to administer the customary rites. These several classes of people, attended by multitude of others of all ranks and descriptions, have collected together at a place in the vicinity of the city, from whence they declare nothing but force shall remove them unless I consent to yield the point for which they are contending. (p.62)

c5.s1.t1.19

On December 31, the acting magistrate further reported:

c5.s1.t1.20

Several thousands of people continue day and night collected at a particular spot in the vicinity of the city, where, divided according to their respective classes, they inflict penalties upon those who hesitate to join in the combination. Such appears to be the general repugnance to the operation of the Regulation, that the slightest disposition evinced by any individual to withdraw from the conspiracy, is marked not only by general opprobrium but even ejectment from his caste. (p.64)

c5.s1.t1.21

The 'conspiracy' continued despite all efforts of the authorities. In the meantime the acting magistrate had written to the collector, as well as to the senior judge of the court of appeal and circuit who was said to have had much influence on the Rajah of Benares and other 'principal natives', to return immediately from their tours. The collector returned on January 1, 1811 and the following day he too reported to the Government at Calcutta. The acting magistrate submitted:

c5.s1.t1.22

The combination formed against the introduction of the house tax becomes daily more extended, and has assumed a very serious appearance. The people continue to desert the city, and collect in increasing numbers at the spot, where they have resolved to remain in expectation of the orders of Government: no assurance on my part or on the part of the civil authorities at this station, has the slightest effect.

c5.s1.t1.23

There is too much reason to apprehend that this combination extends throughout the province. The Lohars, who originally assembled for another purpose, soon took a principal part in the conspiracy and have collected here in great numbers from all parts of the province. The inconvenience suffered in consequence by ryots, threatens serious impediment

c5.s1.t1.24

to cultivation, and multiplies the number of the discontented. At the same time, the people are integrated to persevere by the notion which prevails, that the inhabitants of other cities have engaged to conform to the issue of the struggle at Benares. (p.66)

c5.s1.t1.25

On the same day, the collector further elaborated on the foregoing. He wrote:

c5.s1.t1.26

I am given to understand that considerably above 20,000 persons are sitting (it may be called Dhurna) declaring that they will not separate till the tax shall be abolished. Their numbers are daily increasing from the moffusil whence each caste has summoned its brethren and adjured them to unite in the cause. If one party be more obstinate and more determined upon extending the mischief than another, the Lohars, or blacksmiths, may be so charged, for they were not only the first to convoke the assembly of their near brethren but they have far and wide called upon other Lohars to join them with the intent that no implement of cultivation or of harvest (which is fast approaching) be either made or mended, and thus that the zamindars and ryots may be induced to take part with the malcontents, in short, that the whole of the country shall directly or indirectly be urged to insist on the repeal of the tax.

c5.s1.t1.27

With these Lohars, almost all other castes, sects and persuasions are in league and I am informed, under a most binding oath amongst each other.

c5.s1.t1.28

At present open violence does not seem their aim, they seem rather to vaunt their security in being unarmed in that a military force would not use deadly weapons against such inoffensive foes. And in this confidence they collect and increase knowing that the civil power cannot disperse them, and thinking that the military will not. (p.71)

c5.s1.t1.29

Referring to the links which the protest had with other towns he stated:

c5.s1.t1.30

I have learnt from good authority that the inhabitants of Patna have written to Benares to the effect that they shall be guided by these. That being more numerous, the Benares city is better able to make exertions against the tax and if it shall succeed in procuring abrogation the city of Azimabad would become exempted of course: in like manner if the Benares city submits that Patna will immediately follow its example. (p.73)

c5.s1.t1.31

By January 4, the situation seems to have quietened down and the acting magistrate had begun to be pleased with the result of the steps he had taken of exerting his pressure on the landholders to recall the Lohars and by the assistance he had received from a few of the ‘principal inhabitants’. Yet he felt:

c5.s1.t1.32

Much dependence however cannot at present be placed upon these favourable circumstances, for the religious orders of the people, and the men of rank and respectability, continue unalterable in their resolution, and encourage the multitude to persevere by every kind of artifice and persuasion. The principal people of every class are compelled to eject all those who are detected in attempting to withdraw from the combination. They also send forth spies in all parts of the city to seize the delinquent and I have apprehended many employed upon the service. I have of course inflicted upon such persons very severe punishment, but it does not deter others from committing similar outrages. (p.68)

c5.s1.t1.33

By January 8, the situation appeared really to have changed to such an extent that it made the acting magistrate report ‘with the greatest satisfaction’ that the ‘inhabitants of this city begin to be sensible of the inutility and danger of continuing in a state of insubordination to the authority of Government.’ Explaining the circumstances of the ‘alarming situation’ which he thought he had overcome, he stated:

c5.s1.t1.34

The people of all description, collected according to their several classes in the vicinity of the city, had bound themselves by oath never to disperse without extorting the object they were extending for, and they seemed to increase daily in numbers and resolution. They employed emissaries to convey a Dhurm Puttree to every village in the province, summoning one individual of each family to repair to the assembly at Benares. Several thousand Lohars, Koonbees, and Korees, were enticed from their houses, and collected here by the excitement. At the same time, the inhabitants continued to withdraw from the city, and even those who were unwilling were compelled to abandon their pursuits, to avoid the opprobrium and punishment denounced against all and inflicted upon many, who declined joining in the conspiracy. The individuals of every class, contributed each in proportion to his means, to enable them to persevere, and considerable sums of money were

c5.s1.t1.35

thus raised for the support of those, whose families depended for subsistence on their daily labour. (p.69)

c5.s1.t1.36

He further explained:

c5.s1.t1.37

The multitudes thus assembled were abundantly supplied with firewood, oil, and provisions, while nothing in the city except grain was procurable. The religious orders exerted all their power over the prejudices of the people to keep them unanimous, and the combination was so general, that the police were scarcely able to protect the few who had courage to secede, from being plundered and insulted. (p.69)

c5.s1.t1.38

Referring to the role of the mullahs (boatmen) he added:

c5.s1.t1.39

Much public inconvenience was likely to arise from the mullahs being drawn into the conspiracy, the communication with the opposite bank of the river was almost interrupted and I was compelled to proclaim that every boat abandoned by the proprietor should be forfeited to Government. The mullahs in consequence soon returned to their duties. At the same time several persons of different classes employed to extend the combination were detected by the police, and punished with exemplary severity. These examples, often repeated, began at length to deter others from incurring the consequence of similar offences. (p.70)

c5.s1.t1.40

He ended with a reference to the additional factors of ‘fatigue and privations which began to be felt seriously by all’ and of the effect of his advice that ‘it is only by dispersing that the people can expect indulgence from the Government.’ He concluded his report by stating that he had ‘little doubt that in the course of a few days this combination, now no longer formidable, will be totally dissolved.’ (p.70)

c5.s1.t1.41

By now the reports of the earlier situation had reached the Government at Calcutta. The event was first noticed by the Governor-General-in-Council on January 5, when after acknowledging the receipts of the reports up to December 31 as well as the petitions which had been received from Benares, the Government observed that it did not ‘discern any substantial reasons for the abolition of the tax’ and thought ‘it would be extremely unwise to sacrifice to riot and clamour a tax, the abolition of which is not dictated by any considerations of general policy.’ After approving the measures taken by the acting magistrate, the letter from Government added:

c5.s1.t1.42

You will of course take the same opportunity of impressing on their minds the serious evils, which they are liable to

c5.s1.t1.43

bring upon themselves by further perseverance in resistance to the authority of Government. It may at the same time be expedient to apprise them that with every disposition to afford to the people every reasonable indulgence and to protect them in the enjoyment of every right, the Governor-General-in-Council never can yield to lawless combinations or to attempts made to enforce a compliance with their applications by tumultuary meetings and proceedings. (p.74)

c5.s1.t1.44

The ‘reasonable indulgence’ to be afforded was that the people ‘should be relieved’ from the Phatuckbundee which they contributed, collected and defrayed for the repair of gateways and the payment of chokeydars on their own volition and according to their own arrangements, and that its expenses in future ‘should be defrayed from the general resources of Government.’ News of this indulgence was to be conveyed to them after consultation and appropriate arrangements with the military authorities, simultaneously to the conveying of the sentiments expressed in the foregoing passage.

c5.s1.t1.45

On the receipt of the report of January 2, which pointed out the seriousness of the situation, the Government sent further instructions on the 7th about the manner of the use of the military force. Feeling ‘that a proclamation issued by the direct authority of the Government itself may be of service in reclaiming the people’ or in ‘appraising them of the evils which they may bring upon themselves by a further perseverance in those lawless measures’, it enclosed a proclamation leaving the discretion about the time of its use to the Benares authorities. After declaring that the Government did not ‘discern any substantial reasons for repealing the provisions of that Regulation’, the proclamation added that orders ‘have been issued to the officer commanding the troops to support the magistrate and collector in the discharge of that duty’, and concluded:

c5.s1.t1.46

It is with deep concern that the Governor-General-in-Council feels himself obliged to warn the refractory part of the community of the serious evils, which under the foregoing orders, they are liable to bring upon themselves by a further perseverance in their present seditious conduct. The disposition of the Government to attend to all reasonable applications and to afford equal protection to all classes of people is universally acknowledged but it never can be induced to forego what it has deemed a just and reasonable exercise of its authority in consequence of unlawful combination and tumult. (pp.76-7)

c5.s1.t1.47

Between January 7, the date of the proclamation, and January 11 (as reported in their Revenue letter of February 12, 1811 to the directing authorities in England), it appeared to the Governor-General-in-Council ‘on mature consideration that the tax was susceptible of some modifications as calculated to obviate any just grounds of complaint on the part of those classes of the people, who from their situation in life, were most liable to be affected by its operation.’ Consequently, on receipt of the somewhat encouraging report of January, 4 from the magistrate, the Government through their two letters of the 11th drew the attention of the Benares authorities to the section pertaining to religious edifices and further decided to exempt the ‘dwellings of the lowest orders of the people’ whose ‘produce from the very inconsiderable value of the buildings could not be an object to Government.’ With regard to the conveying of the news of these indulgences to the people it added:

c5.s1.t1.48

Previously to communicating the present orders to the different classes of the people, who may be benefitted by their operation you will naturally consider in what mode it can be done, without compromising the public authority or weakening the sentiments of respect which it is so essential that the community should feel, especially at the present juncture, for the Government. (p.79)

c5.s1.t1.49

The instructions in conclusion added:

c5.s1.t1.50

His Lordship-in-Council would hope that the people may have shown themselves deserving of the indulgence proposed to be extended to them by the relinquishment of their late seditious and criminal designs and by a just submission to public authority. (p.79)

c5.s1.t1.51

Government orders of January 5, wholly rejecting the petitions, were communicated to the people of Benares on the 13th. From the 14th ‘people began again to collect together.’ By now the Government proclamation of the 7th had reached Benares and ‘thinking that it would be of service in reclaiming the people from their unjustifiable proceedings’, the acting magistrate, as he reported to Government on the 18th, ‘proposed to publish it.’ The officer commanding the troops however ‘did not consider himself in a state to afford’ the support required till he had received reinforcements from Lucknow. By now the orders of Government of the 11th (excusing religious edifices, etc., from the payment of the tax) had also reached the Benares authorities, but the acting magistrate felt: ‘As long as the people persevere in these unjustifiable proceedings, they are totally undeserving of indulgence, and it is impossible to communicate to them the benevolent intentions of the Government.’ (p.81)

c5.s1.t1.52

Two days later, on the 20th, the magistrate reported ‘little alteration’ in the situation and saw ‘little reason to hope for any very favourable change.’ He was anxious for the additional force to arrive, so that he ‘may carry into effect the orders of Government’ particularly as he felt, ‘it becomes everyday an object of greater importance to disperse the people, and compel them to put an end to their seditious and unwarrantable proceedings.’ He further added:

c5.s1.t1.53

I cannot but feel very forcibly, that such a state of things being permitted to continue in defiance of public authority, has already weakened, and weakens daily still more and more, those sentiments of respect, which it is so essential that the community should entertain for the government of the country. (pp.85-6)

c5.s1.t1.54

In the same letter he reported:

c5.s1.t1.55

Soon after the resolution of Government not to rescind Regulation XV, 1810 was promulgated, inflammatory papers of the most objectionable tendency appeared placarded about the streets. I have the honour to enclose copies of two of these papers to be laid before the Government. I have offered a reward of 500 Rs. for every man on whom such a paper may be found, and hope that this will not be thought more considerable than the nature and exigency of the case required. (p.85)

c5.s1.t1.56

The massive measures taken by the authorities had, however, begun to erode the unity and confidence of the people and the despondency of the magistrate was rather misplaced. Within a few days of the foregoing report, the impact of the various efforts of the Benares authorities became apparent. As the magistrate reported later, the people had proposed ‘to proceed in a body to Calcutta, through all the cities subject in common with themselves’ to the house tax, and that, ‘they determined that the proprietor of every house in the city should either go himself, or send a person to represent him, or contribute, in proportion to his means, to defray the expenses of those who might be disposed to go.’ But he explained:

c5.s1.t1.57

When it came to the point, few were found disposed to undertake a journey on which they were likely to be obstructed, nor were they willing to contribute to promote a

c5.s1.t1.58

scheme, the object of which, they were fully convinced, would never be accomplished. (pp. 86-7)

c5.s1.t1.59

Meanwhile, another petition, presented this time to the court of appeal and circuit, brought the verdict:

c5.s1.t1.60

This petition has been presented on the part of the people who are determinately engaged in mobs and assemblies contrary to the regulations, which is highly improper, also the style and contents of this petition are disrespectful which is an additional reason for not allowing of it. (p. 90)

c5.s1.t1.61

All these developments, according to the magistrate, led to dissension, withdrawal of support and consequently to a general breakdown of the people's morale. In such a situation the services of some 'old and faithful public servants' created further embarrassments for the people and ultimately made them seek, through the medium of the Rajah of Benares, 'the indulgence of the Government.' Yet though the people had been humbled, the situation was far from normal. The acting magistrate in his report of January 28, therefore, suggested 'a general pardon', particularly 'as the hearts of every man in this city are united with them' and as 'enough perhaps had been already done for the support of the public authority.'

c5.s1.t1.62

Taking note of the report of the acting magistrate, the Government on February 4, expressed its 'great satisfaction' at the submission of the people, gave highest approbation to the conduct of the acting magistrate; decided to bestow *khelauts* on persons who had supported the Government cause; and agreed to the suggestion of the magistrate that the Phatuckbundee should remain undisturbed and in place of the earlier order of Government, remission of an amount equal to its collection may be allowed from the assessment of the tax on houses and shops to those who contributed to the Phatuckbundee. Disagreeing with the general pardon suggested by the magistrate, the Government stated:

c5.s1.t1.63

The Governor-General-in-Council does not discern any substantial grounds for granting a general pardon to the people of Benares for their late unwarrantable and seditious proceedings. On the contrary, His Lordship-in-Council is of opinion, that public justice and obvious expediency of preventing by seasonal examples the recurrence of such evils in future, require that the persons, who have been chiefly instrumental in exciting the late disturbances, should be regularly brought to trial for that offence. (p. 91)

c5.s1.t1.64

At the same time, it instructed the acting magistrate that ‘the prosecutions need not be numerous.’

c5.s1.t1.65

Meanwhile, the humbling process, initiated through the Rajah of Benares and the other ‘loyal’ and ‘faithful public servants’ went further. On February 7, the acting magistrate forwarded to the Government a petition, presented to him by the Rajah of Benares in the name of its inhabitants. This he described as an ‘ultimate appeal’ by means of which the petitioners, in the words of the petition, ‘present themselves at last before His Lordship-in-Council’ and ‘humbly’ represented that disobedience ‘was never within our imagination.’ Instead, they added, ‘in implicit obedience’ to the proclamation of the magistrate of January 13 ‘as to the decree of fate, we got up, and returned to our homes, in full dependence upon the indulgence of the Government.’

c5.s1.t1.66

The Government however still did not ‘think proper to comply with the application of the inhabitants’ to a ‘greater extent than will be done’ by the operation of its orders of January 11. This order of Government, along with the information of the earlier modifications, was conveyed a week later, on February 23, to the Rajah and principal inhabitants of Benares by the magistrate, who in his proclamation to the inhabitants of Benares, of the same date, concluded with the view, ‘that no ground now remains for the complaint or discontent.’

c5.s1.t1.67

The people in general, notwithstanding their having submitted to the orders of Government ‘as to the decree of fate’ as stated in their petition submitted through the Rajah of Benares, did not share the magistrate’s view and exhortation. Nearly a year later, on December 28, 1811, the collector reported:

c5.s1.t1.68

At an early period I directed my native officers to tender to all the householders or tenants whose houses had already been assessed, a note purporting the computed rate of rent of each house, and the rate of tax fixed; and I issued at the same time a proclamation directing all persons who had objections of any nature to offer to the rates of rent or tax mentioned in such note to attend and make known the same that every necessary enquiry might be made and all consistent redress afforded. In the above mentioned proclamation, I fixed a day in the week for specially hearing such cases and repaired to the city for that purpose. Neither would any householders or tenants receive such note nor did any one attend to present petition or offer objection.

First 107 of 259 passages. Read on

Linked texts (3)