Tribal revolts in British India and also in princely states were not unconnected with the general popular discontent resulting from their ruthless exploitation. Although the British were not directly responsible for the dissatisfaction and occasional outbursts of anger by the tribals, they altogether cannot be exonerated from the blame.
In the opinion of Raghavaiah enhancement of rent and cesses, eviction from lands by wealthy moneylenders, sufferings caused by wars and harassment by the disbanded soldiery was responsible for dissatisfaction among the tribals, agrarian community and small communities in India.
Along with social and cultural causes Stephen Fuchs (1965) has given due importance to the economic factors also. According to him intense dissatisfaction existed among the tribal societies against the social and economic conditions which they were forced to accept.
Image Source: upload.wikimedia.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The utter neglect of the area by the British was also responsible for the revolt of Bhumijs under the leadership of Ganganarain Singh.
K.S. Singh considers the land problem as one of the main causes of the rebellion of the Mundas under Birsa in 1899-1900. Due to ignorance about their rights on the land, the British enforced their laws on Mundas. Their areas were also included under the permanent land settlement introduced by Cornwallis.
The regulations for the conservation of forest dispossessed the Mundas from their traditional rights. Under these regulations they were prevented from cutting wood free of cost for domestic consumption. They could not graze their cattle in the forests and were not allowed to utilize land in the forests for tilling. In the famines of 1896-97 and 1899-1900 the Mundas suffered heavy loss of lives and cattle.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Similarly, the loss of traditional rights in the forests was one of the main causes of the revolts by Gonds in eastern Mandala. In the Andaman Islands also, the aboriginal inhabitants opposed the intrusion of the British in the areas of their peaceful co-existence.
Haimendorf Furer has given yet another important reason for the decadence in the position of tribals. The British established a system of law which encouraged the outsiders to enter into the tribal hinterland and exploit their life. Similar was the opinion of Verrier Elwin.
The outsiders were prevented from exploiting the tribal people to a great extent. For realizing their debts the moneylenders did not get any support from the government of the area. In order to earn their livelihood they had to depend on the goodwill of the tribals.
The establishment of organized government under the British in different areas deprived the tribal communities from this effective safeguard against the attempts of the outsiders to evict them from land by instituting cases in the court.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The position of the tribals in south Rajasthan was more or less the same. The attempts of the rulers to enforce law in the areas ruled by them indirectly helped the moneylenders.
The pattern of agriculture, which the Bhils were advised to adopt, was unsuited to their habits and traditions. The land under their possession was small in size and unproductive.
The Bhils of south Rajasthan, Gujarat and western Madhya Pradesh suffered intensively from frequent natural calamities in the form of scarcities and famines.
Stephen Fuchs has also analyzed the causes of the revolts engineered by the tribals of central India during the British period. The high caste Hindus ill-treated the tribals. In case of subordination the tribals suffered exploitation.
Feelings of nativism, i.e., rejection of alien elements and attempts to restore their pristine culture and religion are also considered as responsible for the rise of messianic movements among the tribals.
Ghanshyam Shah (1990), who has analyzed tribals movements in India, argues that though there are several reasons for tribal movements in India, a few of them are basic, for instance, most of the tribes live in forests.
In other words, forests were the main source of tribal livelihood. In order to get the forest products the British government introduced certain regulations and permitted timber merchants and contractors to cut the forests.
These regulations not only curtailed the rights of tribals over forest products, but also made them victims of harassment by the forest bureaucracy. The tribals resented this. Verrier Elwin (1945) observed that the “tribals firmly believe that the forests belong to them and that they have a right to do what they will with it.
They have been there, they say, for centuries; it is their life and they consider themselves justified in resisting any attempt to deprive them of it”.
The Soora tribe of Andhra Pradesh revolted violently against the forest department. “Opposition to the toddi tax was an important issue in the Rampa rebellion in this state.
The Kharwar of Palamau (Bihar), participated in the forest satyagraha in 1930s demanding restoration of their customary rights to extract timber and collect forest produce for consumption.”