The Curious Case of Bastar

British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The curious case of Bastar
Author(s): AJAY VERGHESE

Source: Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 50, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER 2016), pp. 1619-1644
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44157763
Accessed: 16-01-2022 04:52 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Modern Asian Studies
This content downloaded from 103.158.42.31 on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 04:52:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Modem Asian Studies 50, 5 (2016) pp. 1619-1644. © Cambridge University Press 201 5
doi: 10. 101 7/S002 6749X1400068 7 First published online 19 August 2015
British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India:

The curious case of Bastar *
AJAY VERGHESE
University of California, Riverside -, United States of America

Email: [email protected]
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 post-
independence 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. Funding for this research
was generously provided by The Sigur Center for Asian Studies and the Konosuke
Matsushita Memorial Foundation.
Note on the documentation of archival sources: All archival material for this article
was collected from the National Archives of India in New Delhi (NAI), the British
Library in London (BL), and the Deshbandhu Press Library (DPL) in Raipur. I use
the following citation formats - for NAI: title, date, department, branch, year, file
number. For BL: title, date, shelfmark, year. For DPL: subject number, bin number,
article number. Sometimes larger files from these archives were numbered, so I also
include page numbers where applicable.
16x9
1Ô20 AJAY VERGHESE
Introduction
The Pax Britannica is so firmly established that the idea of overt rebellion is
always distant from our minds, even in a remote State like Bastar.
- B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central

Provinces, 19 101
In February of 1 9 1 o the tribal population of the princely state of Bastar

in eastern India rose in rebellion against a small British force stationed
within the kingdom. This event, referred to as bhumkal (earthquake),
established Bastar as a major battleground for tribal (< adivasi)2 revolt
during the colonial period. Almost exactly 100 years later, in April
2010, 76 members of the Indian Central Reserve Police Force were
ambushed and massacred by Naxalite rebels, most of them adivasis , in
the thick jungles of the Bastar region.3 The puzzling fact about Bastar,
however, is that unlike so many other regions of India beset by tribal
conflict, it never came under the direct control of the British during
the colonial period.
A large body of historical literature has documented how British
colonialism gave rise to widespread rural unrest in India.4 During
the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there was
a major increase in the number of tribal revolts throughout the
country. Kathleen Gough has noted that 'British rule brought a
degree of disruption and suffering among the peasantry which was,
1 B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces to

the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, 16 December 1910,
National Archives of India [hereafter NAI], Foreign Department, Secret-i, 1911,
#34-40, p. 4.
The term adivasi means original inhabitant ; I use the terms tribal and adivasi
interchangeably.
The Naxalites are Maoist revolutionaries who are attempting to overthrow the
Indian state. They are mainly drawn from Scheduled Tribes and, to a lesser extent,
Scheduled Castes. For good overviews of the Naxalite movement, see Dasgupta, B.
(1974)- The Naxalite Movement , Allied Publishers, New Delhi; Louis, P. (2002). People
Power: The Naxalite Movement in Central Bihar , Wordsmiths, New Delhi; and Ray, R.
(2002). The Naxalites and Their Ideology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
For excellent overviews see Gough, K. (1974). Indian Peasant Uprisings, Economic
and Political Weekly 9:32, pp. 1391-1412; Stokes, E. (1978). The Peasant and the Raj,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Guha, Ranajit (1999). Elementary Aspects of
Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India , Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Specifically on tribal revolts, see Simhadra, V. C. (1979). Ex-Criminal Tribes of India,
National Publishing House, New Delhi; Mathur, L. P. (2004). Tribal Revolts in India
Under British cRaf, Aavishkar Publishers, New Delhi; and Hasnain, N. (2007). Tribal
India, New Royal Book Co., Lucknow.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BASTAR 1621
it seems likely, more prolonged and widespread than

in Mogul times.'5 Ranajit Guha writes, 'For agrarian
in many forms and on scales ranging from local rio
campaigns spread over many districts were endem
the first three quarters of British rule until the ve
nineteenth century.'6 Along these lines, scholars hav
new colonial policies, such as the commandeering of
and increased rural taxation, led to widespread di
rebellion among indigenous groups. Eric Stokes notes
that 'resentment against [moneylenders] boiled over
into violence among tribal people like the Bhils, San
the Gonds'.7 Historians have also shown that after i
the new Indian government did not reform a number
policies, especially those dealing with forestry,8 and
continued to occur throughout the country, especially in
of direct British rule like Bengal, Bihar, and Jharkhand
movement became the main vehicle for tribal revolt in c
India.
But the fact that Bastar, a former princely state ruled by a Hindu
dynasty, was one of the epicentres of tribal violence poses a major
challenge for the literature linking colonialism and contemporary
conflict.9 Although the British did exert final authority over the native
states, princes often had large amounts of internal discretion within
their territories, and these kingdoms - at the very least - featured
less of a colonial footprint. Why then has Bastar experienced such
intense periods of tribal rebellion - both in the colonial and post-
colonial period?
This article makes two central arguments in offering answers to
these questions. First, using a wide array of primary source material,
I demonstrate that during colonialism, tribal conflict began in Bastar
precisely because of increasing British influence in the state. Three
5 Gough, Indian Peasant Uprisings, p. 1392.

Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency , p. 1 .
Stokes, The Peasant and the Raj, p. 245.
Guha, Ramachandra (1983). Forestry in British and Post-British India: A
Historical Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly 18:45/46, pp. 1940-1947; and
Kulkarni, S. (1983). Towards a Social Forest Policy, Economic and Political Weekly 18:
6, pp. 191-196.
Bastar is not the only former princely state that experiences tribal conflict - the
Naxalites are also active in Orissa and Telangana. But the districts that comprise
Bastar are unique in that they have the highest levels of Naxalite conflict in India, as
I detail.
1 622 AJAY VERGHESE
specific policies were implemented in Bastar th
revolt: colonial officials took direct control ov
displaced tribais from their land, and they he
succession to the throne, which upset the nativ
I show that the post-independence Indian gove
often in uncannily similar ways, as I detail - most
era policies in the region that had initially led
These decisions in Bastar led to the rise of the con
insurgency, which is only the latest incarnation o
region. The case of Bastar, therefore, reaffirm
British colonialism in producing tribal conflict in
its effects even in areas that never formally cam
direct rule. Importantly, however, the continu
concurrently implicates the post-colonial governm
the root causes of the bloodshed.
Despite its remote location, the political developments in colonial
Bastar that led to persistent rebellion provide important insights for
other states throughout Asia. The British practice of retaining areas
of indirect rule within a colony was taken from India and exported
to later colonial territories such as Burma and Malaya.10 Therefore,
understanding contemporary violence in other post-colonial states
in Asia - ethnic separatism throughout former areas of indirect rule
in Myanmar, for example - can be informed by analysing what first
transpired in Bastar.
This article contains four major sections. In the first two, I discuss the
general history of tribal revolt in colonial and then post-colonial India.
In the final two, I examine these broad trends within the kingdom of
Bastar, again in the colonial and post-colonial periods.
Tribal revolts in British India and the princely states
Colonial rule in India produced several new policies that had

deleterious consequences for the indigenous population of the
country. In the broadest sense, the British approached the jungles
with an overarching goal of bringing 'primitive' peoples under the
10 Fisher, M. (1991). Indirect Rule in India: Residents and the Residency System , 1764-
1858, Oxford University Press, Oxford; and Metcalf, T. R. (ņoo*f).Impenal Connections:
India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860-1920, University of California, Berkeley.
control of a modern, centralized bureaucracy.11 This led to the
official classification of tribal populations - a chief example was the
institution of the Criminal Tribes Act in 1871, which sought to control
the movement of certain tribes with a history of criminal activity.12
But under the Act all members of a designated tribe were considered
criminals, even if they had never committed a crime, which led to
widespread social stigmatization.
Another major change dealt with forest policies and tribal land
displacement. Colonial rule marked the first time in Indian history
that a government claimed a direct proprietary right over forests.13
This was something the preceding Mughals, for example, had not
done.14 The British state became the conservator of forests when
it passed the Indian Forest Act of 1878. Hundreds of thousands of
acres of forest lands that adivasis had used unfettered for centuries
were suddenly kept in reserve, a practice that did not change for
the rest of the colonial period.15 With British control of the forests
came the concomitant rise of moneylenders, traders, and immigrants,
and the influx of these new intermediary groups led to widespread
adivasi land displacement.16 These are only some of the major changes
1 1 Sivaramakrishnan, K. ( 1 999) . Modern Forests : Statemaking and Environmental Change

in Colonial Eastern India , Stanford University Press, Palo Alto; Skaria, A. (1 999). Hybrìd
Historìes : Forests, Frontiers , and Wildness in Western India , Oxford University Press, New
Delhi; and Bhukya, B. (2013). The Subordination of the Sovereigns: Colonialism and
the Gond Rajas in Central India, 1818-1948 9 Modern Asian Studies 47:1, pp. 288-317.
Abraham, S. (1999). Steal or 1 11 Call You a Thief: Criminal Tribes of India,
Economic and Political Weekly 34:27, pp. 1751-1753; D'Souza, D. (1999). De-Notified
Tribes: Still 'Criminal'?, Economic and Political Weekly 34:51, pp. 3576-3578; and
Radhakrishna, M. (2001). Dishonoured by History: Críminal Trìbes and Brìtish Colonial
Policy , Orient Longman, New Delhi.
Guha, Forestry in British and Post-British India.
Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf, Austrian tribal ethnologist and one time
director of the nizam (ruler; the term is generally used to refer to Hyderabad State)
of Hyderabad's tribal policies, notes: 'Now and then the campaign of a Mughal Army
extending for a short spell into the wilds of tribal country would bring the inhabitants
briefly to the notice of princes and chroniclers, but for long periods the hillmen and
forest dwellers were left undisturbed. Under British rule, however, a new situation
arose. The extension of a centralized administration over areas which had previously
lain outside the effective control of princely rulers deprived many of the aboriginal
tribes of their autonomy.' Von Fürer-Haimendorf, C. ( 1 983). Tribes of India: The Struggle
for Survival , University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 34.
Guha, Ramachandra, and Gadgil, M. (1989). State Forestry and Social Conflict
in British India , Economic and Political Weekly 123:1, pp. 141-177; Sivaramakrishnan,
Modern Forests ; and Guha, Ramachandra (2000). The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change
and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya , University of California Press, Berkeley.
Mathur, Tribal Revolts in India ; and Gandhi, M. (2008 ).Denotified Tribes: Dimensions
of Change , Kanishka, New Delhi.
1624 ajay verghese
instituted during the colonial period; myr
such as the introduction of money rather th
transformed the nature of tribal society du
rule.
Consequently, revolts among the indige
routine occurrence during colonialism, es
century. For instance, in 1855 the Sant
Naikdas; in 1873 the Kolis; and in 1895 the
smattering of the total number of confli
over 110 different colonial-era peasant rev
at least 77 since the advent of British rule.1
Colonial administrators, however, only
quarters of the population of India; the r
autonomous princely states. These areas did
same level of tribal discontent or conflict. D
as feudal autocrats, many princes pursue
the same tribal groups that rebelled in B
for example, both the Bhil and Mina trib
the structure of the princely governmen
recognized them as the original inhabitant
were also charged with ceremonially pl
powder mark used during the coronation
the newly crowned king. In Jaipur, the M
guardians of the royal treasury.19 In Tra
groups were given ownership of their lan
improve it, and were shielded by special
imposition of the outsiders who were a m
throughout British India.20 In Jammu and
of the Bakkarwal tribe were employed as t
became an important part of the Dogra go
of the rulers of the Eastern Feudatory Sta
17 Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency . No

tribal groups, although Guha's work discusses many t
Gough, Indian Peasant Uprisings - see p. 1392 sp
pre-British peasant revolts. Data on these conflicts is
Ramusack, B. (2004). The Indian Prìnces and Their
Press, Cambridge, p. 201.
Mohanty, P. K. (2006). Encyclopaedia of Scheduled Tr
New Delhi, p. 178.
21 Tandor, R. (2005). A Case for Conservation ofTrìbal He
Areas , INTACH Press, New Delhi, p. 24.
(although it was not implemented) declaring that tribal groups ought
to be the first claimants to forest lands and should also have the
right to be governed by independent panchayats (village councils).22
Princes displayed much more tolerance for tribal groups, and adivasis
fared better under their rule than that of British administrators
in the provinces. The same encroachments on tribal society that
occurred in British India were largely absent in the princely states;
as Verrier Elwin, famed anthropologist of Indian adivasis , summarized
the situation, it was 'most refreshing to go to Bastar from the reform-
stricken and barren districts of the Central Provinces'.23
Tribal revolts in contemporary India: the Naxalite conflict
Tribal revolts did not end once India gained independence in 1947,
and in some parts of the country they became endemic. In the broadest
sense, the new government did not end a number of colonial policies
that were the cause of tribal revolts - in fact, it exacerbated the
situation. For example, in comparing British and post-1947 forest
policy, Ramachandra Guha notes: 'The post-colonial state has taken
over and further strengthened the organizing principles of colonial forest
administration - the assertion of state monopoly right and exclusion
of forest communities.'24 Richard Haeuber similarly writes: 'Despite
the transition from colonial to independent status, forest resource
management changed little: exclusionary processes accelerated ... to
consolidate state authority over forest resources.'25
Consequently, tribal conflict continued into the post-independence
era, and the Naxalite movement became the face of contemporary
rebellion. Though no one knows the precise constitution of the various
Naxalite cadres, it is widely believed that the majority of members
come from poor tribal groups such as Scheduled Tribes.26 Scheduled
22 Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (2003). Local Forest Management: The Impacts of

Devolution Policies , Earthscan Publications, London, p. 184.
23 Guha, Ramachandra (2006). Savaging the Civilised: Verrier Elwin and the Tribal
Question in Late Colonial India , Economic and Political Weekly 3 1 :35/37, pp. 2375-2389,
P- 2379-
Guha, Forestry in British and Post-British India, p. 1940, emphasis added.
Haeuber, R. (1993). Indian Forestry Policy in Two Eras: Continuity or Change?,
Environmental History Review 17:1, pp. 49-76, pp. 49-50, emphasis added.
For example, the Hindustan Times piece 'Naxalites meet to analyse tribal revolt
against them' of 25 June 2005 noted that tribal groups are 'considered the backbone
of the ultra-left movement' - Deshbandhu Press Library [hereafter DPL], 24, IB, 210.
1626 AJAY VERGHESE
Castes are also involved in the movement. In t
Naxalites are poor peasants.27 Brutal poverty
historically been a major problem among these g
Naxalite leadership has successfully mobilize
grievances. Home Secretary G. K. Pillai confi
that the government and its policies were largel
of Naxalism.28
The term 'Naxalite' encompasses several d
militant groups operating guerrilla campaigns
country. These movements are not necessari
with one another. One of the historic and re
the Naxalites is the former British areas of W
Naxal insurgents also operate in Orissa, Chha
Pradesh (the 'Red Corridor'), and have been a
the Malabar regions of Kerala. By some roug
cadres are currently functioning in roughly
districts.
The Naxalites come from the long and complicated history of
the communist movement in India. The Communist Party of India
abandoned violent revolution and adopted parliamentary politics in
1951, which subsequently led to the creation of a splinter faction, the
Communist Party of India, Marxist. In 1967 another split occurred
and the far-left Communist Party of India, Marxist-Leninist was
established. Most contemporary Naxalite groups originate from the
Communist Party of India, Marxist-Leninist. These groups are Maoist,
drawing on the tactics of Mao Zedong's insurgency during the Chinese
Civil War.
There are generally considered to be three historical phases in
the Naxalite movement. During the first, from 1967 to 1975, the
campaign began in West Bengal and spread to the surrounding
regions. The beginning of the conflict is dated to an uprising of
peasants against landlords in 1967 in the West Bengali village of
Naxalbari (providing the name of the movement). The uprising was
led by former Communist Party of India, Marxist member Charu
Majumdar - the nominal founder of the Naxalites - and most of the
27 This is not the case everywhere; for instance, in Jharkhand, many Naxalites
come from the rural elite. See Shah, A. (2010). Alcoholics Anonymous: The Maoist
Movement in Jharkhand, India, Modern Asian Studies 45:5, pp. 1095-1 117.
'Maoists looking at armed overthrow of state', Times of India , 6 March
2010; available at: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.c0m/2010-03-06/india/
281 i9932_i_maoists-indian-state-forest-land, [accessed 25 June 2015].
peasants involved in the revolt belonged to the Santhal tribe. By 1975
the initial rebellion was effectively stamped out. Then, from 1975
until the early 2000s, the various Maoist groups became severely
fragmented and had limited success in carrying out attacks against
the Indian government. Beginning over the last decade, however, the
movement reorganized successfully under new leadership and has
now come to pose a major threat to Indian political stability. The
culmination of the rebirth of the movement came in 2004 when two
of the largest Naxalite factions, the People's War Group and Maoist
Communist Centre, joined together to form the Communist Party of
India, Maoist. In 2006 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that
Naxalites were 'the single biggest internal security challenge ever
faced by our country'.29 He later also admitted that the Government
of India was losing the war against them.30
Naxalites were estimated at one point to control one-fifth of the
land mass of India.31 In many of these swaths of territory they
operate parallel governments, grouping together villages into new
districts, selecting administrators, and setting up police stations,
schools, and even courts where oppressive landlords and moneylenders
suffer retribution. The insurgents are said to be armed with advanced
weaponry such as AK-47S, improvised explosive devices, and even solar
panels to charge electrical equipment. Their attacks are sophisticated,
well-organized, and extremely deadly.32 The rebels are also aided in
that they operate in the deepest parts of India's jungles, areas which
are often impossible to visit. In Bastar, for example, as far back as 1881
the deputy superintendent of the census for the Central Provinces
wrote to his superiors that 'there is little prospect of a Census being
possible [in Bastar]' and also noted that the figures from 1871 were
'manifestly incorrect'.33 Even today, travelling from Jagdalpur, the
capital of Bastar district, to its surrounding villages can be difficult.
29 'India's secret war', Time , 29 May 2008; available at: http://www.time.com/

time/maffazine/article/o.Qi 71 ,1810160-1, oo.html, f accessed 2* Tune 201 k1.
30 India is "losing Maoist battle'", BBC News, 1 5 September 2009; available at:
http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/south_asia/8256692.stm, [accessed 25 June 2015].
Gupta, D. (2007). The Naxalites and the Maoist Movement in India: Birth,
Demise and Reincarnation, Democracy and Security 3, pp. 157-188, p. 158.
For an excellent overview from a journalist who camped and travelled with
the Naxalites, see Roy, A. (2010). 'Walking with the Comrades', Outlook India ,
29 March, available at: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspxP264738, [accessed
2P) June 2015].
Deputy Superintendent of Census, Central Provinces to Census Commissioner
of India, 31 January 1881, NAI, Home Department, Census Part B, March 1881, #7
1628 AJAY VERGHESE
The violence in the Naxalite insurgency has b
past several years. According to conflict dat
Incidents Tracking System,34 which is ope
Counterterrorism Center, 1,920 people died f
during the years 2005-2009, while another 1,4
Indian government has responded to this movem
terrorism campaign, begun in November 2009
troops are involved (Operation Green Hunt). T
have continued their attacks relentlessly.
Given that princely rulers often enforced l
adivasis , and that the Naxalite movement began
in former areas of direct British rule, what acc
historical conflict in Bastar? How is it that this small and isolated
princely kingdom became ground zero for tribal violence in both
colonial and post-colonial India?
British influence and tribal revolt in Bastar
The former Bastar kingdom is located in the state of Chhattisgarh.

During the British period Bastar was over 13,000 square miles, or
roughly the size of Belgium. It had a population, in 1901, of 306,501.
Adivasis constituted the largest segment of the population, and Gonds
were the major tribe inhabiting the area. The state was governed by a
lineage of Hindu kings who were not adivasis themselves but Rajputs.
The founders of the Bastar state were, according to legend, driven from
their former home in Warangal by Muslim invaders in the fourteenth
century. They then settled in Bastar and became high priests of the
goddess Danteshwari, whom the tribes of Bastar worshipped. The
princely state was known for its unique celebration of the Dasera
festival. The raja is 'abducted' by tribais on the eleventh day of Dasera
and then returned to the throne the next day, a ritual that symbolizes
the close linkage between the adivasis and their king.35
During the pre-colonial period, Bastar had been incorporated as
part of the Mughal and then Maratha empire. Due to its rough terrain
and geographical inaccessibility, however, it always retained a certain
34 Information available at: http://www.state.g0v/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195555.htm,

[accessed 25 June 2015].
Geli, A. (1997). Exalting the King and Obstructing the State: A Political
Interpretation of Royal Ritual in Bastar District, Central India, The Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 3:3, pp. 433-450.
level of isolation - Deputy Commissioner of the Central Provinces
and Berar Wilfrid Grigson remarked that Bastar was a 'backwater
in Indian history'.36 The entire region is one of the most heavily
forested areas in India (it is the site of the Dandakaranya forest),
and colonial officials often referred to Bastar as one of a number of
'jungle kingdoms'.
When the British finally broke Maratha power in central India in
1818 they subsequently began to enter into a political relationship
with Bastar (a former tributary state of the Marathas), and in 1853
the kingdom officially came under the system of British indirect
rule. Bastar State was included as part of the Central Provinces
administration.
The British immediately began to interfere in Bastar's
administration in three ways: by implementing new forest policies,
displacing tribais from their land, and heavily interfering in succession
to the throne - that is, removing rajas and replacing them with
compliant officials. At first, this interference in the state came under
the pretext of preventing human sacrifice. An official inquiry in 1855,
however, showed that human sacrifice was not a local tradition. The
reporting officer wrote that it was 'pleasing to find that there did not
exist ... a tradition of human sacrifices. In the low country it was
said that these hill tribes never sacrificed human beings and for once
the account was strictly true.'37 A more likely cause of intervention
was the fact that Bastar had extremely large iron ore deposits, as
well as other precious minerals, timber, and forest produce.38 Over
time, British influence in Bastar increased - beginning first with forest
administration - due to efforts to appropriate its natural resources,
and by 1876 colonial administrators effectively governed the state,
the raja ruling in name only.
Colonial influence bred rebellion in Bastar. The state experienced
two important tribal revolts during colonialism, in 1876 and 1910.39
The cause of the first rebellion was trivial enough - the arrival of the
36 Quoted in Shukla, H. L. (1988). Trìbal History: A New Interpretation , with Special

Reference to Bastar , Allied Publishers, New Delhi, p. 13.
Report of Captain J. Mac, 10 March 1885, NAI, Home Department, Public,
April 1855, #47.
Sundar, N. (1997). Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of Bastar ,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 8-9.
In the period before British rule Bastar was not immune to tribal conflict.
There were, in fact, several violent episodes in and around the area - for example,
the Halba Rebellion in 1774 and the Paralkot Rebellion in 1825. However, even
these conflicts can be partially attributed to burgeoning British influence in the
1630 AJAY VERGHESE
Prince of Wales to India. The diwan of Bastar att
a meeting between the prince and the raja. The
interpreted this as an attempt by the British to
within hours they mobilized in large numbers and p
leaving the state. Though traditionally referred t
conflict in reality was relatively minor and featu
W. B.Jones, chief commissioner of the Central Prov
the incident in a confidential report from 1883:
In March of 1876 a disturbance broke out at Jugdalpur, t

has never been quite satisfactorily explained. The imm
outbreak was the Raja's setting out for Bombay to m
Wales. The people assembled in large numbers and com
to Jugdalpur. Their ostensible demand was not that he sh
he should not leave behind the then Diwan Gopinath
shepherd by caste) and one Munshi Adit Pershad (a Ka
Raja's Criminal Court), whom the people charged with
simply demanded that the two men mentioned above sho
Were the adivasis rebelling against the raja? The

were sceptical. An officer sent to investigate dis
noting that 'Relations between Raja and subjects
good, very good.'41 Commissioner Jones also noted t
committed no violence and professed affection
worst, the adivasis were upset with the raja's ch
But another central cause of the disturbance wa
influence in the state - for example, Jones made su
adivasis earlier in the year had reacted very negativ
missionaries who had arrived in the kingdom.43
region, although colonial administrators did not yet contr

D. Banerjea notes about the Halba Rebellion: The presence
the terror caused by the East India Company . . . precipitat
the Paralkot Rebellion, he similarly writes: The presence o
British threatened the identity of the Abujmarìa [tribe] and th
organising the rebellion.' Though local tribes in the region
resistance to any outside influence, large-scale rebellions i
coincided with the rise of the British in India. Quotations t
(2002). Crìminal Justice India Series, Volume 19: Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, p. 12.
Memo by the Chief Commissioner W. B.Jones, 28 Septemb
Department, A-Political-I, January 1884, #1 17-125, pp. 6-7
41 Ibid., p. 13.
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
4á Ibid., p. 16.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BASTAR 163I
colonial policies combined to create a rising sense of embitterment
among the tribal population.
After the death of Raja Bhairam Deo in 1891, the British began
to penetrate the princely administration ever more steadily. As the
raja's son, Pratap Deo, was only six years old at the time, the British
directly administered the state for the next 16 years. During eight of
these years the state was even governed by Englishmen. This direct
control over Bastar in reality also continued after Pratap Deo became
raja in 1908. Extra Commissioner Rai Bahadur Panda Baijnath acted
as superintendent during the last four years of Pratap Deo's minority,
and then continued to act as diwan after the raja finally took the
throne. E. A. De Brett, officer on special duty in Bastar, wrote about
Pratap Deo's lack of power, noting that he was 'bound in all matters
of importance to follow the advice of his Diwan and has never taken
an active part in State affairs'. The chief commissioner of the Central
Provinces concluded later that 'the Diwan was the virtual ruler of the
State'.44
The 1910 rebellion was much more violent and widespread than
its predecessor. One of the chief instigators of the conflict was Lai
Kalendra Singh, the first cousin of the raja and a former diwan
himself. He had been angling for a return to power after he had
been removed by the British due to 'incompetence'. He mobilized the
adivasis by declaring that if he was returned to the throne he would
drive the British out of Bastar completely. A contemporary report from
a Christian missionary living in Bastar, Reverend W. Ward, sheds some
light on the rebellion:
In the second week of February we first heard of the unrest among the
Aborigines south of Jagdalpur. Vague rumours were afloat but none of a
very serious nature. On the 18th a Christian living among the Prajas -
Aborigines - came to me with the story that the Prajas were all armed and
were moving toward Keslur, where the Political Agent, Mr. E. A. De Brett,
I.C.S., was camping, to make known their grievances . . . A branch of a mango
tree, a red pepper, and an arrow were tied together, and sent to all villages in
the State. The mango leaves stand for a general meeting; the red pepper, a
matter of great importance is to be discussed and that the matter is necessary
and urgent; the arrow, a sign of war.45
44 B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces to

the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, 16 December 1910,
NAI, Foreign Department, Secret - 1, 1911, #34-40, p. 3.
Reverend W. Ward. 'A Missionary's Experience', Undated, BL, IOR/R/1/1/415:
1910.
1632 AJAY VERGHESE
The entire state rose in revolt and the existing
only 250 armed police was quickly overwhelmed.
robbery, and arson plagued the entire kingdom. By
additional troops from Jeypore and Bengal ha
rebellion was finally put down. Hundreds of pris
including Lai Kalendra Singh, who was expelled
later died in prison.
The British conducted several inquiries into
1910 rebellion. The chief commissioner of the C
summarized the British government's position i
report that stated:
from an examination of the evidence before them the Government of India

were of opinion that a too zealous forest administration might not improbably be
the main cause of the discontent of the hill-tribes.46
De Brett also conducted an inquiry on the rebellion and discerned 1 1

main causes, ranking chief among them 'the inclusion in reserves of
forest and village lands'.47
Prior to colonialism, the rajas that ruled Bastar did not reserve
forest lands, giving adivasis almost unrestricted access to these areas.48
Alfred Gell notes that prior to the arrival of British administrators
'the tribal population [in Bastar] enjoyed the benefit of their extensive
lands and forests with a degree of non-exploitation from outside which
would hardly be matched anywhere else in peninsular India'.49 Nandini
Sundar similarly highlights that prior to British rule there was not even
a recorded forest policy for the kingdom.
The colonial state began reserving forests in Bastar in 1891,
especially areas rich in various kinds of forest produce. This meant
timber most of all, but also a class of items known as non-timber
forest product, which included rubber, medicinal plants, berries, and
tendu leaves, used for rolling tobacco. Due to this new reservation
policy, entire adivasi villages in reserved areas were forcibly moved by
46 Report from the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, 16 December

1910, NAI, Foreign Department, Secret-i, 191 1, #34-40, emphasis added.
Confidential Report by E. A. De Brett, Officer on Special Duty, Bastar State to
the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Division, Raipur, Central Provinces, 23 June 1910,
NAI, Foreign Department, Secret-i, 1911, #34-40.
Sundar, N. (2001). Debating Dussehra and Reinterpreting Rebellion in Bastar
District, Central India, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7:1, pp. 19-35,
p. 24.
Gell, Exalting the King, p. 435.
colonial authorities. Corporations, like those involved in the timber
trade or iron mining, entered areas where adivasis had lived and were
granted a monopoly right over forest produce. Once a forest area was
officially reserved, adivasis no longer had any claim to these lands
and were charged fees for collecting produce or grazing in these
areas.50 L. W. Reynolds, another officer stationed in Bastar, noted the
singular importance of this policy of forest reservation in promoting
rebellion:
The proposal to form reserves was not finally sanctioned until June 1909
and action giving effect thereto must therefore be nearly synchronous with
the rising. In his telegram of the 17th March 1910 the Chief Commissioner
stated that one of the objects of the rising was the eviction of foreigners.
I believe it to be the case that in connection with the exploitation of the
forests Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot and Company, who have a contract
in the State, have introduced a large number of workmen from Bengal
. . . the [tribes] resent the introduction of these foreigners. It is not
unnatural.51
All of the contemporary reports pointed to the same causes -

foremost, new forest policies that displaced adivasis from their land.
Sundar also found that the main participants in the 1910 rebellion
were from areas that suffered the most under new colonial land
revenue demands.52 Despite the admission to an 'overzealous' forest
administration, British policy in Bastar did not change substantial
in the wake of rebellion. They continued to sign various forest mining
agreements or renewals of previous agreements - in 1923, 1924
1929, and 1932. The 1923 agreement, for example, renewed a licenc
for Tata Iron and Steel to mine Bastar's 'enormous reserves of iron
ore'.53 Forest lands also continued to be reserved. As late as 1940
the administrator of Bastar State wrote to the political agent of
Chhattisgarh States that cMost of them [adivasis] dislike the proposals
for forest reservation . . . However if these areas are not reserved it
will be impossible to reserve any good teak forests in the Zamindari.
50 Sundar, Debating Dussehra, p. 24.

Report by Chief Commissioner L. W. Reynolds, 19 April 1910, BL,
IOR/R/1/1/415, 1910, p. 15.
Sundar, Subalterns and Sovereigns, p. 98.
'Bastar Mining', 16 May 1923, NAI, Foreign and Political Department, Internal,
1932, #1424-1.
1634 AJAY VERGHESE
(It is a most unfortunate fact that the best teak areas and
well cultivated Maria [Gond] villages coincide)**
Aside from new forest policies, the British also co
govern the state through various machinations,
had been disastrous in 1910. In 1922 Rudra Pratap
a male heir, and his daughter, Profulla Kumari
the throne as a child. One British administrator noted: 'She is about
eleven years of age and no reference is made as to her eventual fitness
to rule, but this is unimportant as she could always rule through
a Manager or Dewan.'55 Bastar therefore experienced yet another
minority administration. Then, in 1936, when the Maharani of Bastar
died suddenly of surgical complications in London, the British installed
her eldest son, Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo, on the throne, although he
was only seven years old at the time. The Maharani's husband, Raja
Prafulla Bhanj Deo, who was the first cousin of the ruler of the nearby
Mahurbhanj State, had been passed over as a possible successor. This
was an attempt to continue directly ruling the state instead of turning
over power to the queen's consort. In fact, colonial administrators
in charge of the guardianship of Pravir Chandra were themselves
confused as to the justification behind his minority administration.
Administrator E. S. Hyde commented:
I am not altogether clear what is meant in this case by guardianship ... It

would, however, be of assistance to me and my successors if our position could
be defined. It is certainly an unusual and somewhat delicate one, for normally
when a Chief is a minor his father is dead.56
R. E. L. Wingate, joint secretary to the Government of India, Foreign

and Political Department, noted that passing over Prafulla for the
throne was against the queen's wishes:
It is her [the Maharani's] desire that Profulla should have the title of
Maharaja and that he should share her role as Ruling Chief, being co-equal
54 Administrator, Bastar State to Political Agent, Ghhattisgarh States,

20 February 1940, NAI, Eastern States Agency, F. Files, 1940, #F-6- 19/40^),
emphasis added.
Office Memorandum to Mr. Ghondu Singh, 14 March 1922, NAI, Foreign and
Political Secretary, Internal, 1922, #319-!.
E. S. Hyde, Administrator of Bastar State to G. H. Emerson, Secretary to the
Agent to the Governor General, Eastern States, 25 March 1936, NAI, Eastern States
Agency, D. Files, 1936, #D-5i-Ci36.
with her and succeeding her as Ruler in the event of her death before him,
her son not succeeding to th cgaddi [throne] until his death.57
Despite this, Prafulla - who had been educated and gained high marks
at Rajkumar College in Raipur - was deemed 'exceedingly vain and
filled with self-conceit ... he is a man of very questionable moral
character and completely unstable'58 and was denied the throne.
Prafulla had also been very popular with tribal groups in Bastar. E. S.
Hyde noted a meeting between adivasis and Prafulla in 1936 after he
had been passed over for control of the kingdom:
First of all the Mahjis told Prafulla that they had confidence and trust in him
and that he was their 'mabap' [mother and father]; to this he replied that
he could do nothing for them, that he had no powers. He was willing to do
anything for them but ... he could do nothing.
Even before the death of the maharani in 1936 there had been a
movement to install Prafulla as the hereditary raja, in 'joint rulership'
of Bastar with his wife; later came an attempt to at least establish a
council of regency and make him the regent.60 Both movements were
squashed by the British. They believed that Prafulla was responsible
for several anti-British pamphlets that had appeared over the past
several years in newspapers throughout India. Administrators noted,
however, that 'there is no actual proof as the printer's name is absent
from the pamphlets'.61 The British eventually even removed Prafulla
as the guardian of his children and deemed that he should not be
allowed to enter Bastar State.62
The British found fault with almost all of the occupants of the throne
of Bastar, and managed to have them removed from power in order
to clear the way for direct colonial administration of the kingdom. Lai
Kalendra Singh was removed as diwan because colonial authorities
57 Confidential Note by R. L. Wingate, Joint Secretary to Government of India,

Foreign and Political Department, 12 January 1935, BL, IOR/R/ 1/1/2 703: 1935, p.
4- __
™Ibid., p. 2.
E. S. Hyde to Colonel A. S. Meek, Agent to the Governor General, Eastern States,
28 April 1936, NAI, Eastern States Agency, D. Files, 1936, #D-5i-Ci36.
'To seek life of a recluse', The Statesman , 9 February 1937.
Letter from Eastern States Agency to C. L. Cornfield, Secretary to the Crown
Representative in Simla, Undated, BL, IOR/R/1/1/2973: 1937.
'Bastar Affairs', Undated, BL, IOR/R/1/1/2805: 1936.
1636 AJAY VERGHESE
came to realise he was 'totally unfit to be trusted w
Rudra Pratap Deo was a Very weak-minded and st
considered unfit to exercise powers as a Feudator
Bhanj Deo was an agitator, unstable, and neede
from his own children. And by the dawn of inde
administrators were already beginning to have se
the abilities of his son, Pravir Chandra, who was
throne.
The colonial history of Bastar after the mid nineteenth century

featured British officials taking control over forest lands, displacing
tribais, and finding ways to govern the state directly rather than
through native rajas supported by the local population. All of these
factors increased unrest among the adivasis of Bastar and led to two
tribal rebellions against British rule.
Tribal revolt in contemporary Bastar: the rise of the Naxalites
After independence, Pravir Chandra was removed as the official ruler

of Bastar, and was relegated to a ceremonial position. He retained his
title as the raja of Bastar, as well as his personal fortune. Bastar State
then acceded to the Central Provinces and Berar in 1948 and became
part of the new state of Madhya Pradesh in 1950.
Despite the history of tribal revolt in the region, the new Indian
government did not reverse many policies inherited from the erstwhile
British administration. Foremost among them was colonial forest
policy: just as the inclusion of forest and village lands as reserves
was the major cause of pre-independence rebellions, the post-
independence government continued and even exacerbated this policy.
From 1956 to 1981, for instance, one-third of the total amount
of forest felled in Bastar District was for a variety of development
projects,65 and land displacement among adivasis in the region
continued to constitute a significant problem. Similarly, the continuing
influx of immigrants and traders exacerbated adivasi discontent; these
63 E. A. De Brett, Officer on Special Duty, Bastar State to The Commissioner,

Chhattisgarh Division, Raipur, Central Provinces, 23 June 1910, NAI, Foreign
Department, Secret - 1, 1911, #34-40.
Curzon House to Sir John Wood, Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign
and Political Department, 15 January 1919, BL, IOR/R/1/1/922: 1919.
* Sundar, Subalterns and Sovereigns , p. 198.
groups, often with assistance from corrupt local officials, were able to
privately reserve forest and village lands, and buy forest produce at
below-market prices.
Exceptional insight into this continuing maltreatment of adivasis
even after independence comes from the writings of Devindar Nath, an
Indian Administrative Service officer and collector of Bastar District
in the 1950s. He notes how adivasis were often cheated out of their
land, relating a story from 1955:
Each of the tenure-holders found himself in possession of property worth

several thousands of rupees, but in their ignorance and illiteracy, they were
neither conscious of their rights of property, nor had they any realisation of
its value. Timber merchants belonging to different parts of the country made
their appearance in the villages and purchased timber from the Adivasis for
small sums. Gangs of labourers were employed to fell trees in the cultivators'
fields, and transport of teak on a large scale started. The Adivasis were not
paid even a small fraction of the value of their teak . . . the stage was set for
complete denudation of the Adivasis* fields.66
Furthermore, just as another cause of colonial-era revolts had been

interference in succession to the throne of Bastar, the new Congress
government also continued this policy. They began agitating against
Pravir Chandra almost immediately after independence, exactly as
the British had done against the previous rulers of the state. From
the perspective of the Indian government, simply removing Pravir
Chandra as raja would have upset the large tribal population in Bastar.
Instead, they relied on the well-worn colonial policy of declaring as
insane those rulers whom they did not support. In a letter to Lord
Curzon in 1899, Lord George Hamilton, secretary of state, explained
this policy:
I felt that, if ever it became necessary to take so strong a step as deposition

[of a prince], you would be less likely to frighten the Native Princes generally
if you took that step, not on a plea of misgovernment but of insanity.
For instance, in 1920 Raja Rudra Pratap Deo was briefly banned from
entering his state when he returned from a trip abroad. The main
reason was because he, on three occasions, refused to meet with the
British Resident stationed in Bastar, which was considered a sign of
66 Nath, D. (1972). Of Logs and Men, in New Challenges in Administration, Committee

on Case Studies, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, p. 1.
Ernst, W. and Pati, B. (eds) (2007). India's Princely States: People , Princes and
Colonialism , Routledge, London, p. 103; emphasis added.
1638 AJAY VERGHESE
his instability. He apologized, stating that a family
been ill at the time. He was also surprised by the Br
The post-colonial Indian government attacked P
similar reasons. The first step came in 1953 when th
government had the prince's property taken fr
under the Court of Wards, which they argued wa
Pravir Chandra was insane. The prince was, by mo
an enigmatic and bizarre man. His British car
'he has always been delicate'.69 His father Prafu
a 'young PuPPy whom the British have ruined'.7
G. B. Pant once wrote in a letter to a Madhya Prades
people say that he was almost an idiot. I cannot say
correct; but there is no doubt that he is erratic and
But the Indian government also made numerou
against him. For example, the secretary of the
complained in May 1953 that 'the Maharaja h
enormous beard and his hair had come down rig
The nails of his fingers are very long. He looks
[renouncer] . . . His is not a presentable appea
subsequent meeting the secretary also wrote: 'H
said that he has taken to the practice of Yogic ex
that he was too young for that and that he had bet
a decent family life.'73 Finally, he recounted a co
raja in 1953:
I told the Maharaja that he had acted very improperl

respect to the President of India when the latter had
Madhya Pradesh. The Maharaja in reply disowned any
68 'Maladministration of the Bastar State', Undated, NAI,

Department, Deposit-Internal, 1920, #54.
E. S. Hyde, Administrator of Bastar State to G. H. Emer
Agent to the Governor General, Eastern States, 25 March 19
Agency, D. Files, 1936, #0-51-0136.
Prafulla Chandra Bhanj Deo to Government of India, 2
Ministry of States, Political (B) Section, 1951, F.26(23)-PB/
G. B. Pant, Home Minister to Dr. K. N. Katju, Chief Minist
27 November i960, NAI, Ministry of Home Affairs, Political I
III., Vol i,p. 315.
Note from Secretary, Ministry of States, 14 May 1953, NA
Political Branch, 1953, #i8(4)-PB/53 (Secret).
Note from Secretary, Ministry of States, 1 July 1953, NA
Political Branch, 1953, #i8(4)-PB/53 (Secret).
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BASTAR 163g
be disrespectful but said that his inability to be present at the President's
arrival was due to his illness. He was then down with high fever.74
Even the evidence of insanity the post-independence state used

mirrored that of the British - Pravir Chandra's refusal to meet the
president (legitimate or not), like that of his grandfather, was taken
as proof that he should be removed as ruler of Bastar.
Pravir Chandra was embittered by losing his property. In 1955 he
formed the Adivasi Kisan Mazdoor Sangh (Tribal Peasants Workers'
Association), a political organization that was partly created to help
restore his land, but also pressed for better policies for villagers in
the state. In 1957 he was recruited by the Congress Party (apparently
despite the fact that he was insane) to stand for election. He viewed
this as another opportunity to have his property returned. However,
Congress would not relent and the shaky alliance quickly ended. After
that the Indian government began to work towards removing Pravir
Chandra from the Bastar throne, intending to replace him with his
brother, Vijay Chandra. In their internal memos they make a clear
link to the past in pursuing this line of action:
The adivasis have seen and read the articles appearing in certain news-papers
regarding the Maharaja's derecognition. They have taken a serious view and
are stirring up agitation . . . There was a similar move at the time of the
death of his grand-father Shri Rudrapratap Deo and the adivasis stirred up
a violent agitation, but the British Government was wise enough to put his
mother on the Gaddi. History will repeat itself now.75
Congress finally succeeded in removing Pravir Chandra from the

throne in 1961, and he was replaced by his brother.
The failure of the post-independence government to reform colonial-
era policies led to two major post-colonial tribal conflicts in Bastar,
both notable in that they featured the raja and the adivasis on one side
and the new Indian government on the other. The first occurred in
1961. After his deposition in that year, Pravir Chandra was briefly
arrested for anti-government activities, which led to the adivasis
besieging the police station where they believed (incorrectly) he was
being held. For several days Bastar was locked in a state of panic. Huge
protests gripped the kingdom and the new raja, Vijay Chandra, was
74 Ibid.
75 H. S. Kamath, I.C.S., Chief Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh to The
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 16 February 1962,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Political III Branch, 1961, #5/5/61 -Poll-Ill. , Vol. 1.
1640 AJAY VERGHESE
unable to quell the disturbance because the adivas
him as their king. Thirteen protestors were kil
violence. Thousands of signatures were collected
Chandra to power, and G. B. Pant bemoaned tha
continue to cherish their traditional feelings of res
the erst-while Princes.'76
The second major conflict occurred in 1966. On
year Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo was gunned down
on the steps of his palace. Though the police and
claimed that it was the adivasis that had been con
palace who had led the revolt, most were in fact arm
and arrows. A subsequent investigation by Justic
discredited this theory and blamed the police.77
To this day the so-called 'police action' is highl
and it is widely believed that Pravir Chandra's de
assassination. Though only a small number of adiv
rumours still abound that hundreds or even thou
The adivasis in the former Bastar State today co
Pravir Chandra. Since, 25 March has been styled
'The Day of Sacrifice'.79 While both the British g
new Congress government had a plethora of com
ruler of Bastar after another, the only group no
their adivasi subjects.
The continuation of colonial-era policies in B
political space for the Naxalites. They became an im
when they entered the Bastar area in the early
villagers around their economic grievances - one
promises was higher wages for collecting tendu leav
76 G. B. Pant, Home Minister to Dr. K. N. Katju, Chief M

Pradesh, 27 November i960, NAI, Ministry of Home Affair
1961, #5/5/6 1-P0II-IIL, Vol. 1, p. 315.
Sundar, Subalterns and Sovereigns , pp. 2 1 8-2 1 9.
See, for example, the Amrit Sandesh article 'Ambassad
and Martyr Pravirchandra Bhanjdev Spilled His Blood in S
which the author suggests that 'the total number of deaths
mystery, as several people claim that hundreds or even tho
my translation). Sandesh, A. (2007). 'Ambassador of the R
Pravirchandra Bhanjdev Spilled His Blood in Sacrifice for B
24, lB, un-numbered.
'Maharajah Pravirchandra Bhanjdev, Messiah of Tribais' (Hin
Highway Channel , March 2009, DPL, 24, lB, un-numbered.
Navlakha, G. (2010). Days and Nights in the Maoist Hear
Political Weekly 45:16, pp. 38-47, p. 43.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BASTAR 164I
earliest Naxalites came from tribal movements in Andhra Pradesh,
and they began a 'Go to the village' campaign in the Bastar area
to enlist tribal support. Two of the main initial recruiting grounds
for the Naxalites in Bastar were hostels and schools, especially
special schools for adivasis. Youth hostels had also been an important
recruiting ground for communists during the Telangana mobilization
in the 1940s. The two main groups operating in Bastar now are the
Communist Party of India, Marxist-Leninist and the People's War
Group.
From the 1980s to the 2000s, the Naxalites enlisted tribal support
in Bastar by highlighting the failure of development efforts in
the region to improve the lives of adivasis . On the surface there
appear to be many attempts at reform. In Bastar alone there
is an absurd number of overlapping development organizations:
the Community Development Programme, Community Area
Development Programme, Whole Village Development Programme,
Drought Prone Area Programme, Hill Area Development Programme,
Intensive Rural Development Programme, Tribal Area Development
Programme, Intensive Tribal Development Programme, and the
Bastar Development Authority. However, while various development
projects have raised money for the Indian government as well as
private corporations, adivasis have reaped few benefits. For example,
every year some 50 million rupees is spent on development schemes
in Bastar, but forest and mineral wealth in the region generates
almost 10 times as much for the government.81 Another example
is the Bailadilla iron ore mine in Dantewada, which is one of the
most profitable in India but employs no local adivasis .82 By the late
1980s - despite numerous development efforts - only 19 per cent of
the villages in Bastar were electrified, and there was only one medical
dispensary per 25,000 villagers.83 Similarly, only 2 per cent of land
in the entire Bastar region was irrigated.84 An Economic and Political
Weekly piece on Bastar summarized the situation in 1989:
We have met representatives of almost all of the political parties, in addition

to leading advocate [mc] and journalists. All of them are of the view that the
Naxalite movement is essentially a socio-economic problem. The failure of
81 Sundar, Debating Dussehra, p. 24.

Sundar, Subalterns and Sovereigns , pp. 8-9.
(1989). Bastar: Development and Democracy, Economic and Political Weekly 24:
40, pp. 2237-2241.
Navlakha, Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland, p. 43.
1642 AJAY VERGHESE
development programmes, exploitation by middle-men
corruption among the officials are the most common
of them even acknowledged the failure of the political p
champion the cause of the adivasis.85
Because development projects have not resulted in

of living for adivasis in Bastar, tribal violence h
time. Bastar State is presently made up of the d
Dantewada (South Bastar), and Ranker (North
2005 to 2009 these three districts experienced a t
and injuries from Naxalite violence. This constit
the total number of Naxalite casualties in India duri
Dantewada district alone experienced a staggerin
472 injuries - it is the single deadliest Naxalite-affec
country. In the end, it is fitting - considering how l
the tribes of Bastar - that the name of the main co
front organization in the region is Adivasi Kisan
almost the exact name of Pravir Chandra's tribal org
in 1955.
Conclusion
The rise of the British in India in the eighteenth century led t

a number of major adivasi revolts throughout the country. Colon
officials implemented a number of policies that aggrieved the nat
population - in the broadest sense, they regarded tribais as primit
peoples that needed to be brought under the control of a mode
centralized state. They took direct control over and restricted access
forests, thereby displacing tribais from land over which they had ha
privileged access for centuries. While British officials implement
these policies in the provinces, native princes generally enforce
liberal policies towards adivasis , and tribal rebellion was much le
severe in the princely states.
After independence, the new Indian government did not refo
many of the colonial-era policies that had led to tribal revolt in
first place; for example, they continued to exercise complete cont
over the country's forests. This, in turn, led to a continuation of tri
rebellion in the form of the Naxalite movement. This insurgen
85 Bastar: Development and Democracy, p. 2241.
driven mostly by poor adivasis , is still strongest today in areas of former
British rule.
Given these two facts - that tribal revolts mostly occurred in British
provinces, and that princely rulers enforced liberal tribal policies - it
is surprising that a major centre of tribal conflict throughout both the
colonial and post-colonial period is the princely state of Bastar. What
accounts for the immense historical conflict in this small and remote
princely kingdom?
Using a wide variety of primary sources, I detailed that Bastar State
experienced extensive British interference during the colonial period.
Colonialism in Bastar led to the implementation of new forest and
landholding policies, the dismissal of several popular rajas from power,
and ultimately the rise of tribal rebellion in the region. The case
of Bastar therefore reaffirms the negative impact of British rule on
India's indigenous communities. While Bastar experienced extensive
colonial interference, it may not have been alone. Recent historical
work suggests that the roots of the Telangana conflict in Hyderabad
State, for example, may also have been due in large part to British
policies imposed on the niżami
But the case of Bastar also implicates the post-colonial government
in continuing and even exacerbating many colonial-era policies that
had initially led to rebellion - for example, removing another of
Bastar's rajas from power in the early post-independence period.
Furthermore, the socio-economic grievances that originated during
the colonial period have not dissipated in recent years, and Bastar
remains one of the least developed regions of eastern India. Existing
development projects have been beneficial to the state and private
interests, but have done little to assist adivasis specifically. This
explains the rise of Naxalism in the area, which is only the latest
incarnation of a long history of tribal revolt. The colonial past,
therefore, continues to cast a long shadow over the ongoing tribal
rebellion in the vast jungles of the Indian republic.
As British administrators began to colonize other parts of Asia in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they took with
them the belief that maintaining some form of indirect rule was
imperative to governing successfully. This was a lesson culled from
the Indian experience. And so colonial officials created the Shan
States, Chin Hills, and Kachin State of 'Native Burma' and placed
86 Bhukya, B. (2010). Subjugated Nomads: The Lambadas under the Rule of the Nizams ,
Orient Blackswan, Hyderabad.
1644 AJAY VERGHESE
them under indigenous rulers.87 In Malaya they
the 'Unfederated Malay States' and placed them
of sultans.88 Contemporary conflicts continue t
these regions - in modern Myanmar, for exampl
indirect rule have seen a number of ethnic sepa
since independence.89
The history of political developments in Bas
colonialism can provide insights into explaining s
conflicts across British colonial Asia. The case of Bastar foremost
prompts a fundamental question: was indirect rule in the British
empire truly indirect, or was it merely a facade hiding the creeping
influence of colonial administrators? If Bastar provides a preliminary
answer, colonialism may be responsible for violence occurring even
beyond the borders of direct rule. And whether the post-colonial
leaders of states like Myanmar and Malaysia have dealt better with
their colonial inheritances than the politicians of modern India is
a question that will go a long way towards determining whether
contemporary violence persists.
87 Taylor, R. H. (2009). The State in Myanmar , National University of Singapore,

Singapore.
Emerson, R. (1937). Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule , Palgrave
MacMillan, New York.
89 Brown, D. (1994). The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia , Routledge, New
York.

The Curious Case of Bastar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Curious Case of Bastar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Curious Case of Bastar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Author(s): AJAY VERGHESE

British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India:

University of California, Riverside -, United States of America

British colonial rule in India precipitated a period of intense rebellion among

- B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central

In February of 1 9 1 o the tribal population of the princely state of Bastar

1 B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces to

it seems likely, more prolonged and widespread than

5 Gough, Indian Peasant Uprisings, p. 1392.

Tribal revolts in British India and the princely states

Colonial rule in India produced several new policies that had

1 1 Sivaramakrishnan, K. ( 1 999) . Modern Forests : Statemaking and Environmental Change

17 Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency . No

Tribal revolts in contemporary India: the Naxalite conflict

22 Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E. (2003). Local Forest Management: The Impacts of

29 'India's secret war', Time , 29 May 2008; available at: http://www.time.com/

British influence and tribal revolt in Bastar

The former Bastar kingdom is located in the state of Chhattisgarh.

34 Information available at: http://www.state.g0v/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195555.htm,

36 Quoted in Shukla, H. L. (1988). Trìbal History: A New Interpretation , with Special

In March of 1876 a disturbance broke out at Jugdalpur, t

Were the adivasis rebelling against the raja? The

region, although colonial administrators did not yet contr

44 B. P. Standen, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces to

from an examination of the evidence before them the Government of India

De Brett also conducted an inquiry on the rebellion and discerned 1 1

46 Report from the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, 16 December

All of the contemporary reports pointed to the same causes -

50 Sundar, Debating Dussehra, p. 24.

I am not altogether clear what is meant in this case by guardianship ... It

R. E. L. Wingate, joint secretary to the Government of India, Foreign

54 Administrator, Bastar State to Political Agent, Ghhattisgarh States,

57 Confidential Note by R. L. Wingate, Joint Secretary to Government of India,

The colonial history of Bastar after the mid nineteenth century

Tribal revolt in contemporary Bastar: the rise of the Naxalites

After independence, Pravir Chandra was removed as the official ruler

63 E. A. De Brett, Officer on Special Duty, Bastar State to The Commissioner,

Each of the tenure-holders found himself in possession of property worth

Furthermore, just as another cause of colonial-era revolts had been

I felt that, if ever it became necessary to take so strong a step as deposition

66 Nath, D. (1972). Of Logs and Men, in New Challenges in Administration, Committee

I told the Maharaja that he had acted very improperl

68 'Maladministration of the Bastar State', Undated, NAI,

Even the evidence of insanity the post-independence state used

Congress finally succeeded in removing Pravir Chandra from the

76 G. B. Pant, Home Minister to Dr. K. N. Katju, Chief M

We have met representatives of almost all of the political parties, in addition

81 Sundar, Debating Dussehra, p. 24.

Because development projects have not resulted in

The rise of the British in India in the eighteenth century led t

85 Bastar: Development and Democracy, p. 2241.

87 Taylor, R. H. (2009). The State in Myanmar , National University of Singapore,

You might also like