HPAS 2025 Mains GS-1 Question 3
Examine critically the Land Movement of Sirmour and Bhagal in the 19th Century.
Solution:
I. The Nature of “Restorative” Rebellion
These movements were not revolutionary (aiming to change the system) but restorative (aiming to return to a “Golden Age” of fair taxation).
The Target: Notice that the violence or protest was almost always directed at the Wazirs (ministers) or Lumberdars (tax collectors), not the Raja himself. The peasants viewed the Raja as a father figure who was being “misled” by corrupt outsiders.
The “Moral Economy”: Borrowing from historian E.P. Thompson, the peasants had a “moral economy.” They accepted the Raja’s right to rule but rejected his right to over-tax.
Collective Bargaining: By abandoning their fields simultaneously, the peasants hit the state where it hurt—the revenue.
Cultural Legitimacy: Because the Dhum was rooted in ancient hill traditions, the Raja could not easily dismiss it as “treason.” It was a recognized, legitimate way for the “Praja” (subjects) to speak to their “Raja.”
Lack of Pan-State Unity: The movement in Sirmour didn’t coordinate with the movement in Bhagal. They were “localized eruptions.”
Transition to Political Consciousness: These 19th-century movements were the essential precursor to the Pajhota Movement (1942). Without the “rehearsal” of the 19th-century land movements, the later Praja Mandal movements would not have had a grassroots base.
The Role of the British: “Master and Mediator”
The British policy in 19th-century Himachal was one of Double-Subjugation.
- Support for Autocracy: The British needed the Rajas to be strong enough to provide labor (Begar) and resources for British cantonments (like Dagshai or Subathu).
- Interventionist Excuse: However, when a revolt like the one in Bhagal (Arki) became too large, the British used it as proof of the Raja’s “maladministration” to justify taking over the state’s finances or appointing a British Manager.