INTRODUCTION:

Identity politics means as individuals are defined by their identity based on race, ethnicity, gender, language or religion or whatever identity that the person perceived to be his identity (Karat, 2011). According to theory of Identity Politics, a person may have multiple identities but it is the identity which he or she perceives to be the defining one that determines that person’s identity, so, a person may be male, a worker and a black. If he perceived his colour, as the main identity, then that would be the identity by which he should be recognized. He is to be mobilized as a black person, not on the basis of his being worker. Identity politics promotes differences and separateness to stress one’s distinct identity. People getting together to mobilized on the basis of a common identity, whether race, ethnicity, caste or religion (Ibid.42)

Nation and class associated with the rise of movement for identity were started from the 19^th century onwards. The people who were mobilized by such movements was on the basis of identity of language, nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Theories of identity politics say that a particular oppression can be understood and experienced only by the people of that identity. As identity politics excludes and democrats those of one identity from others. In fact his identity ,is established by his being different from others, which is based on race, religion, caste or gender. Identity politics, of course, mobilizes only the minorities within a society. A minority based on race, religion, ethnicity etc. Identity politics seeks to mobilize such people on the basis of their perceived oppression and inculcating the consciousness of their own identity. The identity politics, in the 19^th century, mobilized the tribal to fight against the British government. This paper seeks to highlight the tribal movements in Chhotanagpur area for protection of their identity. They were very much identified themselves with land. But due to various changes in land ownership, the British ruler helped in the transformation of communal ownership of tribal villages into individual ownership, mostly of non-tribal and alien proprietors (Mathewl). All these innovations caused the tribal to rise against the landlords and British rule. A number of insurrections were organized by tribal against the various acts of oppression and exactions of tax collectors, police officers and Dikus. I have focused on certain important movements undertaken by tribal in 19^th century such as: the First Kol insurrection (1820), Ho rebellion (1820), the Second Kol insurrection (1831-32), the Great Santal insurrection, and Bisra Andolan (1895-1900).

The First Kol Insurrection (1820)

The Munda and Oran tribal were very much against the new appointment of landlords by Maharaja. Hindu, Muhammedan and Sikh merchants from North Bihar and Northern India were introduced by the Raja as lessees (Thikadars) over the heads of tribal village proprietors. They took their land and levied rents and other services and also treated them as forced labour or bethi begari. In 1820, an unrest was began all over country, against the alien Thikadars and Jagiradars. The leaders of this revolt were two Mundas named Rugdeo and Konta. The revolt was suppressed by a military operation under the command of Major Roughsedge (Mathew.p.9).

The Ho Rebellion in Singbhum

In Singhbhum the Hos carried out their tactice of irregular warfare and rose in rebellion several times to protest their freedom and check the exploitation by the Britishers and local Zamindars. As there were splendid fighting people popularly known as ‘Larka Kols’ , the local rajas made full use of them as Pawns in the game of power-politics in their fighting with each other. On Ist of February, 1820 Raja Ghanshyam Singh of Parahat signed an agreement and accepted the protection by the East India Company Government. The mains aim of the raja were to (i) recognized as lord paramount over the chiefs of Kharsawan and Saraikella (ii) to regain the family idol in possession of the Saraikella chief, and (iii) submission of the Hos with the help of the British. This agreement had far reaching consequences for the Hos. Major Rouhghsedge marched into Singhbum and camped at Chaibasa. The Hos attacked the British with bows and arrows: forty or fifty of their men were killed in the encounter. Sometime in 1920, the whole of the northern area submitted to the British. Then the Major marched into the southern area and defeated the Hos there. The freedom loving Hos did not give up. They made a major attack and defeated the British at Pokeree and Chainpur. After this a strong British military expedition was sent against the Hos. By the end of 1821 the Hos surrendered themselves to the British (Ibid., 10).

The Great Kol Insurrection

Towards the end of 1831, another outbreak, which is more formidable than the Hos insurrection, shocked the entire length and breadth of the country. To quote Daltaon ‘it was the bursting of fire that had long been smoldering’. The reasons of outburst were (i) the introduction of muscleman’s, Sikhs and other merchants by the Maharaja into the country as lessees over the heads of tribal villages. (ii) the outrages committed by these people on the tribals, like taken away their women. According to J.C. Jha, ‘the Kol Insurrection of 1831-32 was born out of frustration and anger with the new system of government and laws, and anger at the people who either enforced them on took undue advantage of them (Jha, 1964).

The real tragedy of the tribal people of this area was that their chiefs were alienated by their conversion to Hinduism, and the English administrators born and brought up in the tradition of agricultural landlordism, had no sympathy with the tradition of tribal ownership of land or idea of peasant proprietorship. The tribal custom was being undermined. The barter economy replaced by money economy, which was not yet learned by tribal people. The tribal land ownership custom was replaced by a landlord-tenant relationship. The tribal solidarity was also destroyed from within by Hinduisation of the chiefs and from without by the pressure of the British raj. The revolt was widespread on December 20, 1831 when the Sonpur Mundas resolved to carry into effect the resolution made at Lankha in Tamar. By January 1832 arrows of war were distributed throughout the country. In the middle of January the Oraons, Hos and other Munda tribes had joined the insurgent. In every village the Dikus were killed and their houses were plundered and burned. In Palamau the Kharawars and Cheros rose and fought under their own chiefs. The British Government was unprepared for such outbreak. Hence, till 1832, Captain Wilkinson with the collective help of all available forces could not succeed to suppress it. In the middle of 19^th century the Santals out of oppression and exploitation, organized Santal insurrection in 1855-1857.(Matheu, 10-11).

The Great Santal Insurrection

The Santal Insurrection or the great Santal rebellion of 1855-57, was the result of their consciousness. The Santal rebellion was the outcome of long course of oppression tolerated by Santals, who were unaccustomed to fight for their own rights. The leaders of this rebellion were the two brothers Sidhu and Kanhu (Mathew, 14). On January 30, 1855 more than 30,000 Santals assembled at Bhognadi armed with bows and arrows to march to Calcutta and to place their petition of grievances before the Governor-General in person. On the way, a police inspector, instigated by some Hindu and Muslim money lenders, tried to arrest the leaders but this so angered the mob that they hacked him and nine others to pieces. The insurgency was spread everywhere and continued for one year. The rebellion was eventually crushed by the British Government. The Santal insurgent suffered heavy losses and their leaders were caught and hanged.

After the suppression of the rebellion an inquiry was made into the grievances of the sandals by Ashely Aden, and a separate Santal Parganas was formed, placed under the control of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur. A special system of administration was also introduced through which an attempt was made to use the Santal village organization in administrating the area (Ibid.p.15). The Santal rebellion in Santal Paragana was also spread over in Hazaribag under the leadership of Lubia Majhi, Bairu Majhi. In April 1956 the rising of the Santals was widely spread. The jail at Hazaribag was stormed and set in fire. The administration had taken cruel measures to put down the Santhals. One of the most important tribal movements in Chotanagpur was the Birsa Movement in the last part of 19^th century. However this movement was a complex one of revivalism, political action and a search for utopia.

The Birsa Andolan (1895-1900)

Birsa Munda gave a leadership to his people for socio-political emancipation and religious reform. In 1895, Birsa presented himself as a new prophet to liberate his fellow-tribesmen from the foreign domination. He in order to unite the entire population, instead of accult practice and polytheism, introduced the worship of one god ‘Sing Bonga’. He claimed to posses miraculous powers. His disciples used to call him ‘Dharti Abba’ (father of earth). This sent an alert message to the rulers.

Birsa’s movement gradually began to assume a political character. He advised the people to defy the government, informed them that the ‘Raj’ of the Maharani was over, and the Munda ‘Raj’ had commenced. Birsa Munda stood out as an early protagonist of tribal rights, a pioneer in mobilizing women for the cause of freedom and as an irrepressible fighter for justice and human dignity. His movement attracted a large number of women who suffered imprisonment, faced bullets and embraced dearth. The British Government was astonished by looking at the participation of women in the agitation (Speech of K.R. Narayanan, 1998).

Birsa Munda rose from the lowest rank of peasants to mobilise people against the appropriation of tribal land and disintegration of their way of life, economy and culture by the colonial system. He issued a direction that the raiyats were to pay no rents in future but were to hold their land rent-free .Several times he planned an armed rising. In 1897 he was arrested on the event of rising and jailed, and pardoned on the jubilee of Queen Victoria but he planned another rising. On the occasion of Christmas in 1899, a large number of attacks occurred in various places in Khunti, Tamar, Basia and Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi rushed with troops to the spot of rioting. On the Dumbari Hill, he encountered the main body of Munda Forces. In the encounter many Mundas were killed. Birsa himself escaped for the moment, but was captured later on 3^rd February in Singbhum. He died of Cholera on 3rd June 1900 in Ranchi jail during the coursed of his trial. Birsa movement was an embodiment of the socio-economic and religious unrest among the Mundas, who seen by his people as saviour to redeem them from the oppression of the Dikus- the hated foreigners whether British or Indian and would establish for them a Munda Raj. The movement had such a tremendous impact that the foundation of British rule in Chotanagpur was shaken for some time.

The main reasons of the tribal revolts in the 19^th century were revolved around the socio-political and cultural life, which is related to their land rights. All the uprisings among the tribal were centered round the question of land rights. Basically the tribal are agriculturalists and the land is the basis of their identity.

When examined the tribal movement of the Nineteenth century, it is found that the simple life of the tribal was attacked by the aliens (out siders). The movements were sporadic, isolated and spontaneous. They aimed at the expulsion of the British Raj and the Hindu landlords, money lenders and traders, and wanted to usher a autonomy in their social, political and economic order which were breaking down under the impact of the colonial economy. These movements were violent and they were ruthlessly crushed. The main reason of their failure was that they were only sporadic explosions and not constant strugglers. Even to-day, the tribal struggling for their land, as the alienation of tribal lands is still going on both legally and illegally. The construction of industries, mines, dams etc. have deprived the tribal of their lands and brought them to utter destitution. All these have attacked their identity and caused untold misery to the tribal.

REFERENCES:

1. Prakash Karat; 2011; ‘The Challenge of Identity Politics’ The Marxist, Vol. XXVII, No.1-2, January-June, p.41.

2. Ibid, p.42.

3. Areeparampil Mathew, ‘An Outline History of Tribal Movements in Chotanagpur’ Unpublished thesis..

4. Ibid, p.9.

5. Ibid, p.10.

6. J.C.Jha; 1964; ‘Insurrection of Chotanagpur’, Calcutta, p.240.(In unpublished Thesis of Areeparampil Mathew,’An Outline History of Tribal Movements in Chotanagpur’ Unpublished Thesis.

7. Mathew, Ibid, pp.10-11.

8. Ibid, p.14.

9. Ibid, p.15.

10. K.R. Narayana, President of India, August 28, 1998, Delivered speech on the occasion of Unveiling of the statue of Birsa Munda in the Parliament, New Delhi.

11. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee; 1923, ‘The Study of Kol’ (In the Calcutta Review, Sept. 1923).

Received on 12.09.2014 Modified on 20.09.2014

Int. J. Rev. & Res. Social Sci. 2(3): July- Sept. 2014; Page 177-179