75

CHAPTER – III

ROLE OF RAJA RAJENDRA SINGH IN 1857

REVOLT IN JAINTIA HILLS

76

ROLE OF RAJA RAJENDRA SINGH IN 1857 REVOLT IN

JAINTIA HILLS

The reverberations of 1857 had its imprints on Jaintia, a mountainous region in the Eastern

Frontier of British India. There, the ex-Raja Rajendra Singh and his brother in-law Onkoot Kooer

were highly influenced by the widespread Revolt of 1857, and also, by the rumour of the fall of

British Empire in India. The Raja who had been associating with the British getting a pension of

500/ Sicca Rupees since 1835 went to the Jaintia Hills and made conspiracies with his Dolois

(chiefs in hill Jaintia). Mr. Allen, Member of the Sudder Board of Revenue on deputation to look

after the affairs of North East Frontier relating to 1857, reported in the third week of August

1857, “The Hill Chiefs were unsettled in consequence of extremely exaggerated rumours

regarding the fall of the British power having reached that part of the country.”1

Indeed the ex-

Raja made preparations to recover his lost possessions in consultation with his Dolois and village

elders of the Jaintia Hills Territory. In another special narrative of the last week of August 1857,

it was again reported, “The ex-Rajah of Jyuteah who was living at the fort in the hills, was found

to be intriguing with the Dolloys and village elders of the Jyuteah Hills Territory to recover his

lost possessions.”2 Consequently, Jaintia became one of the hot pots of 1857 which could have

burst at any moment during the Revolt of 1857.

3.1 Historical background

The original people of Jaintia Hills (Pnar) appear to be the descendants from some of the earliest

Mongoloid immigrants in India who changed their language through contact with Austic

speakers either in Burma or in the soil of India. Before its state formation, there were

independent villages each under the control of the Langdoh (priest) who exercised religious as

well as civil and criminal functions. The process of polity formation among the Jaintias started

with the development of village or Chnong consisting of group of families belonging to different

clans or Kurs.3 By the way, Kurs (clans), Chnong (a village), Raid (a group of villages), Elaka (a

group of Raids) and Hima/state (confederation of Elakas) became the ascending order of political

units of Jaintias. Here, an Elaka was under a headman called Doloi; and a Hima or a state was

headed by a Syiem. When the Syiems were living in hills in the past, they made Sutnga as their

headquarters, thus the former was known as Sutnga Syiem. By that time, due to unsuitable nature

for paddy cultivation, the Syiems wanted to shift their headquarters from Sutnga and in that

77

process they annexed Jaintiapur, a plain area neighboring Sylhet, to their kingdom. Hence, with

the conquest of the Jaintia plains in the 13th

century, the Syiem had direct access to the plains

areas and the people of the plains addressed him as the Rajah.4

The Syiem was the nominal head of the state which, in reality, was a union

(confederation) of twelve Doloiships which were autonomous circles. A Doloi was elected from

among the clan or groups by the people and exercised his judicial and administrative power with

the help of village councils. Tradition states that at particular times, the Dolois used to fight

among themselves but they remained loyal to the Syiem. In spite of a loose confederation, strong

usages were observed to keep intact the unity of the kingdom and in the event of dangers from

foreign aggressions, the Dalois and their people united against a common enemy.5

A sketch map of Jaintia Hills

(Courtesy: - Dr. Shobhan N. Lamare, Resistance Movements in North-East India.)

The dominions of the Raja of Jaintia included two entirely distinct tracts of country,

namely, the Jaintia Hills which are inhabited by a Khasi tribe called Synteng, and the plains

country south of these Hills and north of the Barak River in the Sylhet district known as the

Jaintia Parganahs which is inhabited by Bengalee Hindus and Muhammadans. These plains

comprised of a tract about 45 miles in length and 15 miles in breadth east to west from the

Kachari Kingdom to the market town of Pandua.6 The river Surma, the only navigable channel of

communication of Sylhet with Calcutta flowed partly through Raja‟s territory and partly through

78

his neighbors. The other place of Raja‟s territory called Satbak or Seven Reaches lay to the south

of Surma. Jaintiapur, the capital of the kingdom, was not very far from the town of Sylhet.

As customary in the hills residents of the soil never paid revenue for the use of common

lands or for holding private lands. Royal lands were given rent free to cultivators who

acknowledged royal ownership by returning gifts and sacrificial animals to the Syiems. But lands

in the plains which formed the Jaintia Parganas (as they were known) came under the absolute

control of the Syiem, his status being that of a Zamindar.7 Therefore, the main sources of

Jaintia‟s income were the tolls collected on the River Surma in the south, and that of

Chappermookh Chocky in the north neighboring Assam. Hence, the Kingdom of Jaintia had a

very small amount of revenue.

The Syiems were described as Brahamanical kings on the ground that they adopted

Hindu names and symbols, observing tantric rites at the shrine of a Goddess, Jainteswari. Hence,

it is true that the Sutnga Syiems later adopted Brahamanical rites and customs, prominent among

which, was a custom of human sacrifice to the Kali.8 Therefore, the cult of human sacrifice had

become common to the Jaintias even before they shifted their capital to Jaintiapur.

3.2 Anglo-Jaintia Relation

The contact of Jaintias with the English can be traced back to the 18th

century. Oral tradition

stated that the people would make use of the navigable rivers to frequent the frontiers of eastern

Bengal and at times reach Calcutta in pursuit of their trade and commerce.9

Their intercourse

“became more frequent as the interest of the Company gradually increased and expanded in the

district of Sylhet in Bengal which had a hundred miles of common frontier with the territories of

the independent chiefs of Khasi and Jaintia Hills.”10

The early concern of the Company in this

region was commercial. Prior to 1765, they acquired only a share of the lucrative lime stone

trade from Mir Kasim, Nawab of Bengal. After the acquisition of Diwani (right over revenue) in

1765, the Company‟s interest increased in Sylhet as they succeeded the Mughal Government in

the latter‟s right on the land revenue of the region, and in view of the importance of trade with

independent kingdoms in North East India. W.M. Thackeray was appointed Collector of Sylhet

district in 1772. With the establishment of direct British administration, the Company also took

the responsibility for the defense of Sylhet frontiers. Since the Company‟s territories had an

extensive and undefined frontier, they were subjected to occasional raids and incursions of the

mountain tribes. Indeed, the later carried their lawlessness to its farthest limits. The Raja of

79

Jaintia, a Jaintia was “one of the worst offenders” in this respect.11

Besides, the competition

between the local traders and the Company‟s merchants made resentments to the Jaintias who

had been owning its major share of profit in that trade for many years. Over and above, it is

expressed:

“The interest of the Company‟s merchants to carry out trade in limestone by signing

treaties with the Khasi Chiefs and the dispute over the Satbak parganas within the Jaintia

Kingdom, which the Company officials wanted to occupy, caused misunderstanding and

friction between the Jaintias and the Company officials.”12

As the Jaintia kingdom also included some portion of the river Surma, its Rajas were accustomed

to levy tolls on all boats which plied in the said river. The Company‟s officials stated that the

Raja “time and again, obstructed the Company‟s boats as they passed down to Dacca, exacting

tolls, looting their contents and causing them endless delays and annoyance.”13

Here, the

Company, being mercantile in character, would like a free and safe passage down the river

Surma. Owing to such tussles on economic and territorial interests, the Jaintia Raja committed

many raids within the British Territory affecting seriously the latter‟s revenue collection.

Here, it was generally concluded that the expedition of Mr. Ellerker (1774) was mainly to

control the water way on the river Surma. By this time, William Thackeray, the collector of

Sylhet district, urged on the Dacca council and the Board of Revenue for vigorous measures

against Jaintia. However, the Board dissuaded owing to the large expenditure that would incur,

and above all, the existence of the policy of non-interference on native territories. Thackeray,

however, urged on Barwell, the chief of the Dacca Council, the imperative necessity of military

action as he expressed about the necessity “to make (the Raja) an example.”14

Being convinced,

the Company‟s Government sent Captain Ellerker in 1774, to command the Company‟s forces

sent against Jaintia. There was a sharp engagement at Jaintiapur where the hill men under their

king Chatra Singh were completely routed by the British, and hence, Jaintiapur was occupied on

29th

March, 1774, by the Company. On the report of the capture of Raja‟s capital, Thackeray

recommended the annexation of the plains land in Sylhet called Jaintia Pargana. He also held out

the hope of material gains to the Company by acquiring this tract. Hence, as early as 1774, the

Company had cast an envious eye on the Jaintia Pargana.

Later, a treaty was signed on 12th

June, 1774, between the Company and the Raja. It

provided that the Raja would pay Rs. 15,000/ as compensation for the cost of the expedition.

80

Beside free and unimpeded navigation of the Surma River, the Raja undertook also never in

future to interfere in any respect with whatever may concern the honourable Company. Hence,

the superior Company‟s Government, to a large extent, reduced the Jaintia income through trade

which the Raja once claimed “a major source of income of his State.”15

Raids and encroachments

on the British territory continued during the time of Lindsay, another Collector of Sylhet. Serious

complains of encroachment on the British territory was lodged even during the period of John

Willes, Lindsay‟s successor. However, the Government refused to take any action against the

Raja presumably on the ground that some of the plundered Pargunas were disputed. They were

said to have been seized by the Raja from the Mughals long before the arrival of the British on

the scene.16

In the midst of these economic and territorial conflicts, possibly, because of annihilating

British excesses, some agents of the Raja were captured when they attempted to carry off British

subjects for sacrifices before the “Jainteswar” Kali in 1821. The Company now issued a solemn

warning to the Raja that “any repetition of so horrible an offence would be followed by the

immediate confiscation of his territory.”17

3.3 David Scott and the Jaintia Hills

By 1823, the British Government no longer insisted on the cession of the Satbak Pargana. An

amicable solution was brought about under the directives of David Scott, Agent N.E. Frontier, by

which the Company recognized the Raja‟s title on that tract. David Scott‟s moderation on the

said Pargana could have been the aggression of Burma (Ava) which had resulted in the

annexation of Assam to the Burmese kingdom. Because of this political development, the Agent

might have wanted to maintain cordial relation with the Raja of Jaintia. Although the Raja was

unwilling to compromise his independence by an engagement, yet at last, a treaty was signed on

10th

March, 1824. By the treaty, the Raja acknowledged allegiance to the Company and placed

Jaintia under Company‟s protection. He was to govern his country according to the ancient

customs of his land, and in case of abuse, it was agreed to rectify the same agreeably on the

advice of the Governor-General. In a separate article of that treaty, it was so stated:

“Rajah Ram Singh engages, that to assist in the war commenced in Assam between the

Honourable Company‟s Troops and those of the king of Ava, he will march a force and

attack the enemy to the east of Gowhatty; and the Honourable Company agrees, upon the

81

conquest of Assam, to confer upon the Raja a part of that territory proportionate to the

extent of his exertions in the common cause.”18

In this treaty, the Agent did not like to impose any tribute as he thought that the revenue of the

Raja was very meager. Scott also added that “his subjects are of warlike disposition, and were

firearms put into their hands ... they would prove useful allies in such a country at that east of

Berhampooter.”19

Raja Ram Singh was very sincere to the treaty obligations. When the Agent passed

through the territory of Jaintia Kingdom in1824 on his march along with three companies of his

army, Ram Singh extended his maximum assistance. On this occasion, Pemberton writes:

“Mr. Scott represents the reception he met with from the Raja as most cordial; and his

personal exertions in procuring porters for the party, and pacifying some differences

amongst them, are said to have greatly exceeded anything that could have been expected

from a person of his rank.”20

In the memorial of Raja Rajendra Singh dated, 18th

July, 1836, it was also stated on his

predecessor, Ram Singh:

“The terms and articles of that treaty were not only fully complied with by the Rajah

but he was so fortunate as by his faithful attachment and zealous exertions in the

supply of men and provisions to the military forces in Assam to obtain the esteem and

approbation of the British Authorities.”21

However, Pemberton in a dramatic style wrote, “None of these conditions, however, did he fulfill

with sincerity; and it was notorious, that during the war, he permitted a Burmese detachment

from Assam to occupy his territory in direct violation of the treaty...”22

This statement of

Pemberton seems to be extremely colonial in character as it is contradicted by a source from the

then Military department which expressed:

“In May the British retired to Gauhati, supplies being short. The results of these

operations were that the British held the country up to Gauhati, and the Burmese

remained in possession of upper Assam. Although their force at Moora Mukh did not

exceed 1,000 men, the Burmese reoccupied Koliabar, Rahagong and Nowgong, and

ravaged the whole of Northern and Middle Assam. They also attacked our ally, the Raja

of Jaintia, to whom we failed to give assistance.”23

82

This clear statement refutes the statement of Pemberton and also cast a new light on the

incapability of the British Government to thwart the Burmese onslaughts at that point of time

during the First Anglo-Burmese War. Indeed, Ram Singh assisted Scott and his party during their

journey from Sylhet to Assam in April 1824. After his restoration the British Government

constructed a road of strategic importance connecting Sylhet and Assam via Jaintia. This made

Ram Singh‟s territory an important link in the chain of defense arrangements in north eastern

India. But a dispute arose between Ram Singh and the British Government in connection with

the establishment of a Chokey (frontier outpost) at Chaparmukh at the confluence of the Kapili

and Doyang rivers. The Kapili formed the boundary between Assam and Jaintia. At the Chokey

the Jaintia Raja levied tolls on all goods passing through the Ghat (landing place on the bank of a

river), drawing an income exceeding Rs. 2000 per annum. On the other side of the Kapili, on the

north bank, there was a Chokey of the British Government where also tolls were levied, the

annual income amounting to Rs. 1200.Thus goods coming from the British territory into Jaintia

were doubly taxed. Scott requested Ram Singh to remove the Chokey, but Ram Singh‟s response

was negative.

At this juncture, although the Burmese were defeated later in the said war, it took up

serious strides for another war against the British. In December 1830, Mr. Burney, British

Resident at Ava, reported, “Some of my former reports expressed an opinion that the present

king of Ava will take the first favourable opportunity of engaging in another contest with us…”24

Therefore, the British Indian Government had to take up prompt steps militarily and financially

to face that challenge. They had already assisted Manipur to become a powerful buffer kingdom

against Ava and also had spent a huge amount of money in making a good road from Sylhet to

Manipur Valley. Under such circumstances, the annexation of Jaintia Plains, over which the

Surma flows, became a part of the British policy to avoid any obstruction from the Jaintia Raja

and also to possess this rich economic zone of Jaintia Kingdom. By this time, David Scott died

on 28th

August, 1831, and Mr. W. Cracroft officiated as the Agent till April 1832.

3.4 Robertson and the Jaintia Hills

Indeed, Mr. T.C. Robertson who had become Agent, N-E Frontier, in April 1832, coveted the

rich possessions of Jaintia Raja. By this time, Capt. Fisher, Superintendent of Cachar, expressed

on the Raja of Jaintia:

83

“The Raja held besides the hills two fertile tracts on the north and south populous, well

cultivated and capable of yielding a revenue estimated at a lakh and half of Rupees

sufficient to maintain four or five company‟s of sepoys or pay a subsidy equivalent to the

cost of maintaining such a body of troops.”25

Mr. Robertson also had equivocal design on Jaintia and expressed, “The expenses to be incurred

in the attempt to improve and benefit Munnipoor may be covered by a tribute to be levied from

Jyutea.”26

These statements show that Jaintia has a great source of income, which, if annexed

preferably to the British territory, would support a powerful British army and benefit Manipur

against Ava (Burma).

As stated above, Ram Singh, because of the previous treaty, annexed a tract of land from

Assam including Chaparmukh. But the Raja died on the 25th

September, 1832, and Rajendra

Singh, a young lad of seventeen years, became the new Raja. The Company, therefore, got a

chance to make a bargain on the question of the recognition of the new Raja. Here, it is to be

noted that by 1833, neighboring territories of south Cachar and Tirat Singh‟s Khasi Hills had

come under the control of the Company. Therefore, by annexing the Jaintia plains, the Company

also wanted to accrue to its political and economic security by clearing the land as well as river

traffic from Sylhet to Baskandi (on Manipur border). Here, a military source stated, “Finally,

Rajah Tirat Singh, the instigator of the attack on the British officers was captured and brought to

justice. The Rajah of Jaintiapur was the next to be called to account.”27

Fisher again expressed

that the previous treaty was defective on the part of the British since it accepted military service

in place of „tribute‟ from Jaintia. Therefore, the treaty should be amended to exact a tribute from

Jaintia.

Robertson, thus, tried to charge the Jaintia Raja from many angles to justify the British

design of collecting a huge tribute from Jaintia and the latter be annexed in the event of failing to

pay the tribute so imposed. Here, the Agent alleged that Ram Singh, the previous Raja, had

appropriated considerable tracts of land from Assam including Chaparmukh. R.B. Pemberton

also writes on the Raja:

“He was repeatedly, but fruitlessly, ordered by Mr. Scott to remove a chocky, which

he had established without authority at Chapper Mookh, at the confluence of the

Kopili and Dimla rivers; and the remonstrances of Mr. Robertson, at a subsequent period,

on the same subject, were treated with similar indifference.”28

84

Ultimately, Robertson recommended to the Government the revision of the treaty inserting a new

clause providing for the payment of a tribute of Rs. 10,000/ by the young Jaintia Raja and

recognition to the latter‟s position should be made dependent on his agreeing to pay the tribute.

This idea of taxation in the kingdom of Jaintia was not an easy thing to execute as its people did

not have the tradition of giving taxes in the form of money.

On 21 May, 1833, when Rajendra Singh met the Agent, the latter pointed out to the

young chief that the treaty entered into by his predecessor needed renewal and that an additional

article should be inserted under which he would be required to pay a tribute of Rs. 10,000 per

annum. The young king did not come to terms and left the place after expressing that the Agent

would be intimated within two weeks. Robertson became furious and denied customary honour

due to a prince. The Agent also told that the Raja „would be regarded as a mere “Jemedar”

(custodian) of his state till he agreed to renew the treaty according to the demands of the

Government.‟29

The insults, indignities and the subsequent attempts made by Robertson to interfere in the

internal affairs of Jaintia compelled Rajendra Singh to lodge a protest against the Company as

Barpujari writes:

“With reference to limited resources of the country and the recognition of the past service

of Jaintia, the chief prayed for exemption of the tribute, the demand of which, he pointed

out, was in direct contravention of the agreement as well as established regulations of the

Honourable Company.”30

Another pitiable statement of the Raja on the large amount of tribute runs, “The Jyntea State is

but a petty one; its resources are scanty, and according to established customs contributions for

any purpose are chiefly raised by personal service. What little is collected in money goes to meet

the maintenance of the establishment etc.”31

The question of tribute from the Raja of Jaintia

came to the final stage when it was refuted by the Court of Directors stating that if there was no

document to show that the Jaintia treaty was a personal one liable to revision on the death of the

Raja “we see no reason to assume that we are at liberty to consider it annulled by the event.”32

Thus, the Court expressed their repugnance at the attempt to force a large tribute on the Jaintia

Raja.

85

As the Company‟s first design of annexing Jaintia in the event of the latter‟s inability to

clear a tribute (proposed excessively) failed, Robertson took up the question of human sacrifice.

Here, Barpujari again expressed:

“…as to the seizure of the British subjects, the Agent to the Governor-General remained

satisfied, and the attention of the Governor- General was not drawn on the subject until

the close of July1833, just two months after Rajendra Sing‟s refusal to enter into a

new agreement.”33

Meanwhile Rajendra Singh had also created internal complications which weakened his position.

Contrary to the usages of Jaintia, he had put two leading Dolois in irons without calling a Durbar

(court). His own version was that some chiefs „hoped to supplant him in his rights, and even

entered into a league to depose him and to possess themselves of his territory‟.34

Thus, by 1834,

Jaintia was in a political deadlock.

3.5 Human sacrifice and the annexation of Jaintia

It is mentioned before that the British Government issued a serious warning to the Raja of Jaintia

in 1821 to annex the latter‟s territory if it repeated the act of human sacrifice. The next two

abortive attempts of the same took place in 1827, and another, in February 1832. It was in the

fourth attempt in August 1832, that the real sacrifice was done. Robertson took up this cause as

the best means to justify if Jaintia was to be annexed. He, therefore, solicited permission of the

Governor-General in-Council to call upon the Raja of Jaintia to hand over the chief and other

perpetrators, and in the event of non-compliance, measures should immediately be taken up to

remove him from the throne according to the warning already given to his predecessors.

According to the chief of Nartiang, who was revolting against Rajendra Singh, it is stated, “Sova

Singh, the chief of Gova, not his predecessor, Chutter Singh who was detained by Ram Singh,

perpetrated the human sacrifice under the orders of heir apparent Rajendra Singh.”35

Robertson,

then, requested the Government to authorize him to call upon the Raja to surrender the chief of

Gobha and other perpetrators of the crime.

In the mean time, Jenkins assumed the charge of Agency in January 1834. After a

thorough study he rightly conceived that the Treaty of 1824 could not be considered personal,

and thus, „observed that to consider the treaty with the Raja of Jaintia as “personal” and

abrogated with the death of the original signatory was “unusual”.‟36

Meanwhile, the

Government‟s attitude towards the Raja seemed to have been stiffened. It asked Jenkins on 15th

86

May, 1834, to insist on the Raja to punish the perpetrators of human sacrifice, the Raja of Gobha

and his accomplices. If the Raja failed on any account, “Jenkins was asked to inform the Raja

that the Government would consider Gobha dissevered from his dominion.”37

It resulted in

September 1834 to surrender Sobha Singh and those persons alleged to have been implicated in

the seizure and sacrifice of the British subjects. However, the investigation, which the Agent

conducted towards the close of the year, could not legally convict any one of the persons

apprehended. Sobha Singh, being found entirely innocent, was released forthwith.

Jenkins, then, submitted a report on 31 January, 1835, which stated:

“Should the Government consider the fact of the sacrifice established and that the privacy

(Sic) to the crime by the present Raja be sufficiently proved to justify his deposition, I

would suggest.....that the lowlands on either side of the hills on the plains of Assam and

Bengal should be taken under our own management...... and that the intermediate tract

should be governed by a chief of their own independent of the British Government.”38

Although there were insufficient evidences, yet the Governor-General in Council considered that

the guilt of the Raja was proved. Therefore, the Government, on 23 February, 1835, resolved to

confiscate the Raja‟s possessions in the lowlands leaving him in possession, as before, of the

territory in the hills. Accordingly, on 15 March, 1835, under the directions of the Government,

Captain Lister and his Assistant, Lieutenant Harry Inglis, carried out the order annexing the plain

areas of the Jaintia Raja. Lots of gold, precious ornaments and other treasures, according to a

tradition, were looted and transported to Chatak. Caves and underground tunnels were filled up,

many sacred places were damaged.39

This sudden turn in Jaintia politics shocked the entire

Synteng population including those who had challenged the authority of Rajendra Syiem. Here,

Hamlet Bareh writes, “A wave of bewilderment swept the country. Even those who opposed the

Rajendra Syiem then twenty years old now, repented about the misdeed they committed in

openly instigating against him and entering into a conspiracy with a foreign power.”40

Rajendra Singh and his followers offered no opposition to the British annexation of

Jaintia plains. However, the Raja informed Lister that he had resigned not only his plain

territories neighboring Sylhet and Assam but also the Jaintia Hills which was left to him by the

Government. The annexation so carried out and the entire withdrawal of the Rajah caused great

surprise with repentance to the people in hills. It was also a blunder on the part of the Raja to

87

surrender even the hills without the consent of the Dolois. Therefore, the latter revolted against

the British, attacking the camp of Lister.

The Court of Directors also stood tooth and nail against the annexation stating on 28

March, 1838, that the confiscation of his territory “has always appeared to us as a very summary

measure and one of very doubtful propriety.”41

The former also advised the Company‟s

Government “not on any future occasion to have recourse to so extreme an measure without a

previous reference to our authorities.”42

Indeed, either imposition of a large amount of tribute or annexation of Jaintia was the

predetermined objective of the then British forward policy in North East India. When the

question of tribute was objected to not only by the petty Raja but also the Court in England, the

Company‟s Government took up the case of human sacrifice which they considered “more

plausible diplomatic excuse to punish the obdurate Raja.”43

Hence, they put up a charge against

Rajendra which seemingly could not be questioned on the ground of humanity though that

charge itself was hardly proved. On this ground, Jaintia was annexed in 1835. Later, Rajendra

Singh was given a pension of Rs. 500/ per month and allowed to stay in Sylhet.

3.6 1857 Revolt and the Objective of Jaintia Raja

The annexation of Jaintia was indeed unjust, and therefore, so painful to Raja Rajendra Singh.

Later, he submitted a memorial to the Authorities in Calcutta on 18th

July, 1836, expressing the

detail political development in which the Government had illegally demanded a tribute from

Jaintia and the unjust accusation of his involvement in human sacrifice. In the last part of the

memorial, the Raja “earnestly solicits that he may be restored to the possession of the small

territory of which he had been deprived and that the treaty of the British Government with the

Raja of Joyntiapore may be renewed on such terms either of tribute or otherwise, as your wisdom

and justice shall dictate.”44

Being unheeded to, in May, 1837, the ex-Raja again submitted another petition to the

Governor-General-in-Council through his Muktear (agent), Gora Chand Mitra “soliciting His

Lordship‟s gracious permission for personally presenting a memorial connected with the

confiscation of his Raj and for performing ablution in the Ganges on account of Dusserah

festival.”45

This petition was also turned down and he was told to submit his petition in future

through the Commissioner. Thus, the ill-fated Raja tried his utmost to restore his lost position.

88

There, in Jaintia Hills, the Dolois enjoyed maximum freedom as Capt. Lister followed a policy of

the least interference with the Syntengs from 1835.

Again, in 1855, “the ex-Raja, Rajendra Singh made an abortive attempt to obtain the

settlement of the Jaintia hills.”46

But, the Government declined to entertain his request. As the

administration in the hills of Jaintia was carried out by Dolois and their assistants with little or no

interference from the Company‟s Authorities, the Dolois were enjoying the maximum degree of

independence and economic autonomy. The ex-Raja, therefore, wanted to enjoy his share of

economic rights in Jaintia Hills. Ultimately, in 1856, the Raja demanded from the Government

his right of establishing Keddah on the Jaintia Hills, but the Supreme Government rejected it as it

was stated, “Right of the Ex-Rajah of Jynteah of establishing Keddah on the Jynteah Hills-

negative vide Govt. of India.”47

Hence, by 1856, Rajendra Singh, then about forty-two years of

age, became one of the most discontented ex-Rajas of North East India. He, therefore, wanted

not to lose any chance in his efforts to restore his kingdom.

3.7 The Raja and the Revolt

In the event of 1857, Raja Rajendra Singh endeavored to make intrigues not only with his Dolois

but also with the Cherra Raja. Indeed, in the third week of August, 1857, the ex-Raja of Jaintia

acted against the British Government as it was reported, “Rajendro Singh is intriguing with the

Dolloys or village olders of the Jyutea Hills with a view of bringing out his restoration to the

Jyutea Guddee.”48

Beside the Raja, the second most important leader of the conspiracy was his

brother-in-law, Ookut Kooer. The British Government, intending to thwart the Raja‟s secret

designs, directed him “to return at once to his residence at Rajnuggur and informed that serious

consequences to himself would ensure if he interfered, directly or indirectly, with the affairs of

the Jyuteah Territory.”49

Consequently, in the last week of August 1857, the Commissioner was

directed “to seize and send the ex-Raja to Calcutta.”50

But, Mr. Allen thought that the Raja‟s

sending to the Presidency might give an importance to the latter‟s act of conspiracy. Therefore,

the former wanted the matter to be kept, for the time being, under his discretion as a report also

stated that “it is not expedient at present to send the Rajah of Jynteeah to the presidency and

desires to be allowed to exercise his discretion in sending him whenever it may become

necessary.”51

Hence, the matter was left to the Commissioner as it was expressed, “The Lt.

Governor leaves it to him to determine whether or when it will be advisable to send the ex-Rajah

to the Presidency and also approves of the orders issued by him in the matter.”52

Ultimately, Mr.

89

Allen issued an order that “the Ex-Rajah, as well as his brother-in-law, Ookut Kooer, who for the

reasons specified is also mixed up in his intrigues, to reside at Sylhet and requested the

magistrate of that district to keep his eye upon them.”53

Therefore, after the unsuccessful

conspiracy for a revolt against the British in 1857, Rajendra Singh was detained in Sylhet under

the strict supervision of the British.

3.8 Subordination of the Raja to the British

Even if the Raja put his maximum efforts to restore his lost kingdom in 1857, he failed to

succeed. The following are some of the reasons which had rendered the Raja to submit to the

British in 1857.

First, the response of the Raja of Cherrapunjee was not dependable. As early as June,

1857, the Cherra Raja had offered his assistance to the British Government as a report expressed,

“Submits a copy of a letter from Rajah Ram Sing, the Chief of Cherrapoonjee, expressing his

willingness to tender assistance to the Government.”54

Therefore, Rajendra Singh‟s request to

Cherra Raja for a united revolt against the British had no value.

Secondly, the Dolois were apparently not serious to the cause of their ex-Raja. Although

the Raja was the head of a loose confederation of twelve Dolois, yet the Dolois of Nartung were

so formidable that they could influence the decision of their Raja. Here, Pemberton writes:

“Of the hill chieftains who acknowledge the supremacy of the Jynteeah Rajah, the one of

Nurtung appears to be the principal; and so powerful is the influence he exercise, that the

Rajah is unable to dispossess any other offending head of a tribe, without the concurrence

of this formidable vassal.”55

Hence, the Dolois of Nartung were not in good term with the Raja. Besides, when Jaintia

plain was annexed to British territory in 1835, the Raja was given pension and also offered

management of Hill Districts in commutation of his pension. However, the Raja preferred to get

more pension than management in hills leaving the latter in utter uncertainty. Here, Col. F.

Jenkins reported, “The Rajah was offered the management of the Hill Districts of his former

country in commutation of his pension, and declined it.”56

Over and above this, in a letter to the

Magistrate Rajendra Singh wrote, “When I was Rajah and had the power to resist I quietly

submitted when my country was taken from me, and moreover delivered up all the arms in the

country, and looked up to Govt. for support and protection.”57

Hence, Rajendra Singh

90

surrendered not only his entire kingdom with all arms but also sought the Government‟s

protection from his rival hill chiefs and also support to his future life. Here, Dr. H. Bareh writes

on the ex-Raja, “Rajendra Syiem also relinquished his hold in the hills...because he was not

confident of the measures of co-operation he could derive from the powerful Dalois such as

Nartiang and Jowai.”58

It justifies that the relationship of the Raja with some of his Dolois

became very strain, and therefore, the former took shelter in Sylhet. Here, Dr. Lahiri writes that

the ex-Raja was given a pension and he retired to the British district of Sylhet.59

Therefore, the

political short sightedness of Rajendra Singh in his early career and also the unfriendly nature of

the Dolois of Nartung and Jowai were some of the grounds by which the ex-Raja failed to make

a collision with his people for a revolt against the British in 1857.

Thirdly, the British Government, after the annexation of Jaintia, never interfered with the

affairs of Dolois in Jaintia Hills. It even rejected the proposal of Col. Lister on house tax of

Syntengs in March, 1849, with this statement, “In March 1849, Colonel Lister submitted a

proposition to Govt. for the imposition of a house tax on them; but the Govt. of the day negatived

that suggestion.”60

Mr. Mills also put up the same proposal in 1853, stating “to exact some

payment, however trifling the amount may be, from the mountaineers of our possession as a

token of submission.”61

Here also, the Government remained adamant. Above all, in judicial

administration the British Government also remitted those fines imposed upon different Khasi

people as the Directors expressed:

“With respect to the fines which we observe have been at various times imposed upon

different Cossya Chiefs and villagers for the acts of hostility against the British

territories, and most of which still remain unpaid, we approve of your having authorized

Captain Jenkins to remit or commute them, with reference to the degree of punishment

already suffered by those on whom they were imposed.”62

Hence, the Dolois enjoyed maximum autonomy in Jaintia Hills and thus, there was a high

possibility of their being hesitant to the design of their ex-Raja.

Lastly, the British Government also took up serious steps to prevent any collision against

them as Mr. Allen was intimated, “Lt. Gov. concurred in his views regarding the necessity of

preventing a collision between the parties mentioned, and that he would be justified in using the

force at his disposal if necessary in putting down any attempt at a breach of the peace.”63

Therefore Mr. Allen directed Rajendra Singh to return to his residence at Rajnagur and also

91

warned that serious consequences will be faced if the Raja interfered with the affairs of Jaintia

territory. The Government even advised Mr. Allen to arrest the Raja and send to Calcutta. Hence,

it was very difficult for the Raja to make a collision against the British.

From the above study, it is therefore concluded with this view that had there been a

united effort of the Jaintias under a popular leader in 1857, no British policy would have

intimidated them and thus Jaintia would have occupied a prominent place in the history of 1857

Revolt.

92

References

1. Judicial General Letters to Court of Directors, Special Narrative (16-22 August, 1857), 5

Sept. 1857, No. 22, para 59, Govt. of Bengal, West Bengal State Archives (Hereafter,

WBSA).

2. Judicial General Letters to Court of Directors, Special Narrative (23-29 August, 1857), 9

Sept. 1857, No. 23, para 111, Govt. of Bengal, WBSA.

3. Dr. Shobhan N. Lamare, Resistance Movements in North-East India: The Jaintias of

Meghalaya, (Regency Publication, Delhi, 2001), p. 19.

4. Ibid.

5. Dr. Hamlet Bareh, The History and Culture of the Khasi People, (Spectrum Publications,

Gauhati, 1997), p. 58.

6. Promatha Nath Dutta, Impact of the west on the Khasis and Jaintias, (Cosmo

Publications, New Delhi, 1982), p. 29.

7. Dr. Hamlet Bareh, op. cit., p. 50.

8. Ibid., p. 51.

9. Dr. Shobhan N. Lamare, op. cit., p. 22.

10. P. N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 28.

11. Ibid., p. 29.

12. Dr. Shobhan N. Lamare, op. cit., pp. 22-23.

13. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., pp. 29-30.

14. Ibid., p. 30.

15. J.B. Bhattacharjee, Trade and Colony: The British Colonisation of North East India,

(North East India History Association, Shillong, 2000), p. 6.

16. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 33.

17. Ibid.

18. Manilal Bose, Historical and Constitutional Documents of North-Eastern India 1824-

1973, (Concept Publishing Company, Delhi, 1979), p. 73.

19. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 34.

20. R B Pemberton, The Eastern Frontier of India, (Mittal Publications, New Delhi, 2008),

p. 212.

21. Manilal Bose, op. cit., p. 74.

93

22. Pemberton, op. cit., p. 212.

23. Capt. St. John F. Michell, The North- East Frontier of India, (a topographical, political

and military report), (Vivek Publishing House, Delhi, 1973), p.36.

24. Anil Chandra Banerjee, Eastern Frontier of British India (1784-1826), (A. Mukherjee &

co. Private Ltd., Calcutta, 1964), p. 377.

25. H.K. Barpujari, Problem of Hill Tribes North East Frontier (1822-42), (Lawyers Book

Stall, Gauhati, 1970), p. 89.

26. Foreign Political Consultations, 7 January 1833, No. 82, to George Swinton Esqr., from

T.C. Robertson, Agent to G.G., 14 Dec. 1832, National Archives of India (Hereafter,

NAI).

27. Lt-Col. H.J. Huxfotd, Hirtory of the 8th

Gurkha Rifles (1824-1949), (The Army Press,

Dehra Dun, 1965), p. 8.

28. Pemberton, op. cit., p. 213.

29. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 81.

30. H.K. Barpujari, op. cit., p. 91.

31. Ibid., p. 92.

32. Ibid., p. 92.

33. Ibid., pp. 93-94.

34. H.K. Barpujari (ed.), The Comprehensive History of Assam, Vol. IV, (Publication

Board, Gauhati, 1992), p. 109.

35. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 83.

36. Ibid., p. 84.

37. Ibid.

38. H.K. Barpujari, op. cit., pp. 96-97.

39. Dr. Hamlet Bareh, op. cit., p. 157.

40. Ibid., pp. 158-59.

41. H.K. Barpujari, op. cit., p. 98.

42. Ibid.

43. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 86.

44. Manilal Bose, op. cit., p. 79.

94

45. Dr. Rebati Mohan Lahiri, The Annexation of Assam (1824-1854), (Firma K.L.

Mukhapadhyay, Calcutta, 1975), p. 159.

46. P.N. Dutta, op. cit., p. 88.

47. Judicial Index 147 of 1856, Proceedings, 14th

August, No. 76B/76D, to Military Dept.,

Date, 9th

August, Govt. of Bengal, WBSA.

48. Judicial Index 149 of 1857, Proceedings, 10 Sep. No. 1090/1, from officiating Member,

Board of Revenue on Deputation, date, 21 Aug. 1857, WBSA.

49. Judicial general Letters to C of Directors, Special Narrative, (23-29 Aug. 1857), 9 Sep.

1857, No. 23, para 112, Govt. of Bengal, WBSA.

50. Ibid., para 113.

51. Judicial Abstract Proceedings of Lt. Governor of Bengal 1857 for 31st Dec. 1857, letter

from W.J. Allen Esqr., on special duty at Cherrapoonjee, No. A2, 12th

Sep. 1857, WBSA.

52. Abstract Proceeding of Mutiny, Govt. of Bengal, Dt. 29th

Sep. 1857, No. 2843, WBSA.

53. Judicial Abstract Proceedings of Lt. Governor of Bengal 1857 for 31st Dec. 1857, letter

from W.J. Allen Esqr., on special duty at Cherrapoonjee, No. A2, dated 12th

Sept.

1857, WBSA.

54. Judicial Index 149 of 1857, Proceedings, Dt. 10 Aug. No. 879/80, letter from officiating

member of the Board of Revenue on deputation, 18 June, WBSA.

55. Pemberton, op. cit., p. 220.

56. Home Public, 13th

Oct. 1860, No. 59-81A, letter from Col. F. Jenkins, Agent to the G.G.

North East Frontier, para 3, NAI.

57. Home Public, 13th

Oct. 1860, No. 59-81A, translation of a letter from Rajah Rajendra

Sing to the Magistrate, NAI.

58. Dr. Hamlet Bareh, op. cit., p. 158.

59. Dr. Rebati Mohan Lahiri, op. cit., p. 159.

60. Home 1860 Dept. Public Consultations, 19 May, 1860, No. 39, an extract from a report

on the administration of Cossah and Jynteah Hill Territory by W.J. Allen Esqr.,

member of the Board of Revenue, on deputation, para 263, date Cherrapoonji, the

14th

Oct. 1858, NAI.

61. Ibid.

62. India dispatch from Court of Directors, 1836, No. 24, para 28, NAI.

95

63. Judicial Index 149 of 1857, Proceedings, 10 Aug. No. 883, to W.J. Allen Esqr. on

deputation, date 30 June, Govt. of Bengal, WBSA.