British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The curious case of Bastar

Abstract

British colonial rule in India precipitated a period of intense rebellion among the country's indigenous groups. Most tribal conflicts occurred in the British provinces, and many historians have documented how a host of colonial policies gave rise to widespread rural unrest and violence. In the post-independence period, many of the colonial-era policies that had caused revolt were not reformed, and tribal conflict continued in the form of the Naxalite insurgency. This article considers why the princely state of Bastar has continuously been a major centre of tribal conflict in India. Why has this small and remote kingdom, which never came under direct British rule, suffered so much bloodshed? Using extensive archival material, this article highlights two key findings: first, that Bastar experienced high levels of British intervention during the colonial period, which constituted the primary cause of tribal violence in the state; and second, that the postindependence Indian government has not reformed colonial policies in this region, ensuring a continuation and escalation of tribal conflict through the modern Naxalite movement. * I would like to thank Henry Farrell, Henry Hale, Emmanuel Teitelbaum, the staffs of the National Archives of India, British Library, and Deshbandhu Press Library, and two anonymous reviewers from Modern Asian Studies.

Super-exploitation of Adivasi Migrant Workers: The Political Economy of Migration from Southern Rajasthan to Gujarat

“…11.The districts in southern Rajasthan were part of the Mewar and Western Rajputana princely states (within the larger Rajputana agency) during the colonial era. Verghese (2015) argues that despite their direct absence in princely states, the British tended to control forest resources through their policy of indirect rule. Skaria (1997, 1999) reaffirms that Adivasi Western India (including southern Rajasthan), in many of its aspects was effectively managed by British officers (despite the rule of Rajput princes), and that colonial forest policies were responsible for a disruption in the historical rights of Bhils over forests.…”

Conquest and Conflict: The Colonial Roots of Maoist Violence in India

“…This period, during which the British commandeered forests from local tribes and instituted heavy land taxes, led to a series of tribal rebellions. 96 Although there has been serious violence in many districts in the former Table 1.…”

Colonial legacies, armed revolts and state violence: the Maoist movement in India

“…The most significant change brought about by the British colonial administration was the Indian Forest Act of 1878, through which the government claimed a direct proprietary right over forests. 49 This single Act not only dispossessed the traditional owners of the forest lands but also brought in a wave of immigrants which led to widespread displacement of the tribes people. The spread of market economy and land revenue administration into these hitherto secluded areas ruined the traditional systems followed by the tribal society.…”

“…The colonial administration considered the entire community belonging to certain tribes and castes as hereditarily criminal and placed them under strict regulations and constant surveillance. 84 All members placed on the criminal tribes list had to report to the police at regular intervals and had to inform the authorities if they moved away from their designated homes even for a day, to avoid fines and punishments. The Act was made far more draconian in 1911 by the introduction of the mandatory fingerprinting of all the members of the declared criminal tribes at the nearest police station.…”