KOL MUTINY

The Kol uprising, Kol rebellion, sometimes known as the Kol mutiny in British records, was a revolt by the adivasi Kol people of Chhota Nagpur. The Kols are indigenous people from the Chota Nagpur area, which was part of the Bengal presidency during British control in India. These tribes include the Kols, Bhils, Hoes, Mundas, and Oraons. These people have vastly distinct cultures, customs, and traditions than the rest of the world.

Kol Mutiny – Background

  • The Kol uprising, Kol rebellion, also known in British records as the Kol mutiny, was a revolt by the adivasi Kol people of Chhota Nagpur between 1829 and 1839 in response to economic exploitation brought on by the East India Company’s land tenure and administrative systems.
  • The Kol people were joined by other communities such as the Mundas, Oraons, and Hos, prompting some authors to refer to it as the Munda rebellion.
  • Around 1819, a rebellion erupted in response to the appointment of a Political Agent to the Government in South Bihar and newly surrendered territories nearby.
  • As a result, many people moved into these territories, which were home to several adivasi tribes.
  • These tribes had no rulers, and their territory was split into families that were joined together by “parhas,” or conferences.
  • The Kols were exploited by strangers migrating into the region and engaging in agricultural and commercial activities that were alien to tribe culture as a result of the implementation of new land regulations.

Kol Mutiny

  • The Kols, along with other tribes, live in Chotanagpur, Ranchi, Singhbhum, Hazaribagh, Palamau, and the western sections of Manbhum were all included.
  • The issue began in 1831 with large-scale property transfers from Kol headmen to foreigners such as repressive Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim farmers and moneylenders who demanded exorbitant levies.
  • Furthermore, British judicial and revenue practices harmed the Kols’ customary social situations.
  • In addition, in 1820, the King of Pohrat consented to pay mass taxes to the British government.
  • This argument was rejected by the Kols, resulting in a mutiny.
  • New land laws were enacted that took advantage of aboriginal tribes’ tribal cultures. Their farm was seized under the pretext of security for unpaid loans.
  • Their coercive techniques, high tax rates, and British judicial and revenue systems devastated these indigenous tribes’ customary social lives.
  • They were tormented both psychologically and physically. Moneylenders and zamindars wielded authority, posing a serious danger to their hereditary domains.
  • The Kols were enraged, and in 1831, under the leadership of Buddho Bhagat, the Kol rebels slaughtered or burned over a thousand strangers.
  • The order could not be restored until large-scale military operations were completed.
  • This rebellion occurred in response to the appointment of a political agent to the government in South Bihar’s newly conquered area.
  • The Kol uprising was led by Buddhu Bhagat, Joa Bhagat, and Madara Mahato. Mundas later joined the insurrection as well.
  • Buddhu Bhagat was the “only leader who distinguished himself.” They battled bravely to the end of their lives.
  • They murdered numerous non-tribals and burnt down their homes. They were not alone in their struggle, as other tribes such as, Oraons, and Mundas joined them.
  • This uprising lasted two years before being put down by British modern weaponry.
  • Buddhu and his companions battled using conventional weapons such as talwars and battle axes. Despite a valiant struggle, they were beaten in the end.

Conclusion

The Kols are indigenous people from the Chota Nagpur area, which was part of the Bengal Presidency during British control in India. These tribes are culturally homogeneous and have primitive technology because they are insulated from wider cultural influences. The Kol revolt of 1831-32 sprang from tribal discontent and resentment at the new form of government and laws. More than 70% of tribals become bound laborers for life. These colonial strong people had little tolerance for native land ownership traditions.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *