Coronation Durbar of Delhi (December 1911):
- Occasion: Delhi was made the new capital in place of Calcutta.
- Attendees: Hill chiefs were invited to attend the Imperial Durbar.
- Prominent Rulers Present:
- Raja Amar Prakash of ‘Sirmaur’
- Raja Amar Chand of ‘Bilaspur’
- Raja Bijai Sen of ‘Keonthal’
- Raja Bhim Sen of ‘Suket’
- Raja Bhuri Singh of ‘Chamba’
- Rana Bagat Chand of ‘Jubbal’
- Raja Dip Singh of ‘Baghat’
Role During World War I (1914-1918):
- Loyalty: “Almost all” hill chiefs remained loyal and provided “valuable services” to the British.
- Contributions: They provided both men (recruits) and materials. Each ruler tried to excel in providing as many recruits as possible.
- Dual Benefits:
- For Subjects: It earned the princes the gratitude of their subjects, who were suffering from poverty and unemployment and now had an opportunity for employment in the army.
Topic: Unintended Consequences of World War I
- Context: The hill rulers had earned goodwill from the Political Department by providing troops for the war.
- An Unexpected Outcome: Something they “had not bargained for” occurred after the war when the army men returned to their states.
- Exposure to New Ideas:
- During the war, these army men came into contact with people from other free countries.
- They witnessed people living “free, democratic and dignified” lives.
- Political Awakening:
- This knowledge “generated discontentment” and became a primary cause of “political awakening amongst the hillmen.”
- They began talking about new concepts like ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, and ‘justice’.
- Result: The “fire of liberation” started brewing, which ultimately led to the rise of local movements against tyrannical and undemocratic rule.
Topic: Two Types of Movements in the Hills (‘Praja Mandal’ vs. ‘Freedom Movement’)
- Two Types of Hill Areas: Present-day Himachal Pradesh consists of two types of areas:
- Princely States: Areas that were ruled by native princes.
- British Areas: Areas that were under the direct administrative control of the British (these came to Himachal Pradesh in 1966).
- This distinction led to two different, simultaneous movements:
- 1. The ‘Praja Mandal Movement’:
- Location: This movement took place in the Princely States.
- Objective: The main aim was the ‘democratisation of the administration’.
- Key Distinction: It cannot be characterized as a freedom movement in the traditional sense, as its objective was never the “overthrow or total elimination” of the princely rulers.
- Influence: It was, however, influenced by the nationalist movement in British India.
- 2. The ‘Freedom Movement’:
- Location: This movement took place in the areas under direct British control.
- Objective: The specific goal was “overthrowing alien British rule.”
- Overlap:
- The text notes that this distinction “does not imply that there was not overlapping in the personnel” of these movements.
- Praja Mandal workers participated in various agitations in the British-administered areas.
- Crossover: Members of political organizations from the British areas also “crossed over” into the state territories to help the Praja Mandal workers in their agitation.
Topic: Early Social & Religious Reform Movements
- Initial Focus: In the beginning, people organized themselves against certain social and religious evils.
- Organizations:
- ‘Rajput’ and ‘Brahman Sabhas’
- ‘Sanatana Dharam’ and ‘Arya Samaj Sabhas’
- ‘Sewak Sanghs’ and ‘Sudhar Sammelans’
- ‘Prem Sabhas’ and ‘Seva Samities’
- ‘Evils’ Campaigned Against:
- ‘Reet’ (a form of marriage by purchase)
- Untouchability
- Child Marriage
- Anti-widow re-marriage
- ‘Bethu’ land tenure system
- Various levies (taxes) imposed arbitrarily and “collected ruthlessly” at times of marriages, deaths, accession to the throne, and other religious ceremonies.
- Goal: These associations began to raise their voices for the abolition of these levies and practices.
Topic: Rulers’ Response to Grievances & Early Reforms
- Executive Council (Shimla Hill States): To redress their subjects’ grievances, the rulers of the Shimla Hill States formed an executive council.
- Chairman: Raja of Baghat (Solan).
- Recommendation: The committee recommended reforms in political, police, education, and general administration.
- ‘All India Federation’ Idea (1935): Due to active cooperation, the rulers of ‘Sirmaur’, ‘Bilaspur’, ‘Baghat’, and ‘Mandi’ contemplated this idea.
- Growing Awareness: Rulers became “acutely aware” of the momentum gained by the states’ people, especially after their participation in the ‘Quit India Movement’ of 1942.
Topic: Early Constitutional & Judicial Reforms
- States with Reforms: Bilaspur, Bushahr, Mandi, and Sirmaur had already introduced some constitutional reforms.
- Mandi (1933):
- Constituted a legislative council.
- The council had two members: one elected and one nominated by the Raja.
- The ‘Mandi Legislative Council’ passed a ‘Panchayat Act’.
- Sirmaur & Bilaspur: Enacted Panchayat Acts on the same model as Mandi.
- Judicial System: Was strengthened and “modelled on modern lines.”
- Key Fact: Among the Shimla hill states, ‘Mandi’ was the first princely state to enact the Panchayati Raj Act.
Topic: Princes’ Reluctance and the Stance of Bilaspur
- Princes’ Attitude: The princes were “touchy” and resistant to interference or dictation from two bodies:
- The ‘British Government’
- The ‘National Interim Government’ (constituted in 1936, under Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru).
- Raja of Bilaspur’s Stance:
- He opposed the idea of ‘grouping’ states together.
- He wanted each state to be ‘Sovereign’ once British paramountcy lapsed.
- He wanted to keep Bilaspur as a “separate entity” in independent India.
- Consequence: Because of this desire for sovereignty, the Raja of Bilaspur “emerged last to merge his state with Himachal Pradesh.”
- Overall Failure of Princes:
- Although a number of reforms were introduced, the princes “failed to assess fully the strength and aspirations of their people.”
- They “could not carry their people with them” to find a workable solution for the future political setup of the country.
Topic: INC as a Mass Movement & its Impact on Hill States
- Pre-1920: The INC’s participation was confined to “certain elite sections of the society.”
- Post-1920 (Under M.K. Gandhi): The INC became a mass movement.
- Trickledown Effect:
- Political consciousness and “ferment caused by its activities” began to “tickle down to hill people.”
- Hill people started making efforts to set up their own people’s organizations.
- Operational Strategy:
- When it was not possible to organize inside a state’s territory (due to “Princes’ coercion”), adjoining British territories were used as centers for political activities.
- Example: Pt. Padam Dev of Bushahr made Shimla his headquarters to launch the struggle against the hereditary rulers.
- Congress Resolution (September 1920):
- For the first time, Congress asked the princes to grant their people “full responsible government.”
- At the same time, Congress refused to interfere with the “internal affairs of the states.”
- However, people from the states were free to become members of the Congress party.
Topic: Evolution of INC Policy Towards Princely States
- Initial Policy: The INC continued its policy of ‘Non-interference’ in the internal affairs of princely states for a long time.
- Key Clarification: However, the INC made it clear that it “would not sacrifice the interests of the state’s people” in any future settlement with the British for India’s independence.
- The Shift (Post-1936): A significant change occurred after the Congress formed ministries in 1936.
- New ‘Activist’ Policy: The old policy of “keeping itself aloof” was rapidly replaced by a more ‘activist’ policy.
- Nature of New Policy: This new approach was characterized by:
- “Undisguised hostility” towards the princely state governments.
- “Open encouragement” to agitation against the rulers, both from within and outside the states.
Topic: Evolution of INC Policy Towards Princely States (Continued)
- Final Policy Change: The Congress’s attitude further changed when it saw the “undying spirit” and willingness of the state’s people to “undergo sufferings” to get their grievances redressed.
- Key Resolutions:
- Haripur Session (1936)
- Tripuri Session (1938, Jabalpur district)
- These sessions passed resolutions calling for “the ever increasing identification of the Congress with the state’s people.”
- Impact on Movements:
- This policy made the ‘Quit India’ Movement more popular in the hill states.
- People from these states began joining movements in British India in “greater numbers.”
- 1945 Subcommittee:
- The INC appointed a subcommittee to formally “bring the people of the states within the fold of the Congress organisation.”
- Members: Jawahar Lal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, Vallabh Bhai Patel, and J.B. Kriplani.
- The Final Outcome:
- This greater participation paved the way for the Praja Mandals in the Hill States to join the Indian National Congress.
Topic: Conflicting Aims: Butler Committee vs. AISPC
- Core Conflict: The Butler Committee and the All India States’ People’s Conference (AISPC) had directly conflicting objectives regarding the future of the princely states.
- Butler Committee’s Stance (Pro-Prince/Crown):
- Goal: To protect the interests of the princely rulers and the British Crown.
- Key Recommendations:
- Reaffirmed that British paramountcy must remain supreme.
- Stated that states would not be transferred to a responsible Indian government (in British India) without the rulers’ prior consent.
- Emphasized the states’ direct link to the British Crown (via the Viceroy), not the government of British India.
- AISPC’s Stance (Pro-Democracy/Integration):
- Goal: Directly opposite to the Butler Committee.
- Key Demands:
- To establish representative and responsible governments within the states.
- To integrate the princely states with British India in a federal structure.
- Outcome:
- The Butler Committee’s report was widely criticized by the AISPC and nationalists.
- It was seen as preserving the “autonomous and autocratic position of the princes” under British protection, directly opposing the AISPC’s goals of democratic reform and integration.
AISPC First Meeting:
- Date: 17th December 1927.
- Attendance: 700 delegates attended.
- Hill States’ Participation: No delegate from the Hill States attended this first session.
Aim of AISPC: To influence the states as a whole to initiate necessary administrative reforms, using the “force of the collective opinion of the people.”
Difficulties Faced: The functioning of the AISPC was hindered by:
- The “hostile attitude of the princes.”
- A “lack of modern means of transport and communication.”
Topic: Praja Mandal Movement: Principles & Support Structure
- Guiding Philosophy: The Praja Mandals and organizations of State subjects were organized on the ‘Gandhian principles’.
- Success: They were highly successful (“in a great magnitude”) in developing political consciousness among the hill people.
- Formation of Local Bodies: Exposure to national organizations led to the formation of local bodies, which became the “‘breathing images’ of people’s aspirations and aims.”
- External “Launching Grounds”:
- The Praja Mandal movements often derived sustenance from adjoining British-controlled districts, which served as launching grounds.
- Dehradun: Served as a launching ground for Sirmaur and Bushahr.
- Shimla: Served as a launching ground for the Shimla Hill States and Bilaspur.
- Kangra and Gurdaspur: Served as launching grounds for Chamba and Kangra.
- Hoshiarpur: Served as a launching ground for Mandi, Bilaspur, and Suket.
Topic: Early Revolts Against Slavery & Feudalism
- Historical Context: History shows that the hill people “took up arms against slavery and feudalism” well before the formation of any large-scale political organizations.
- General Cause: These were instances of people revolting against the “rule of terror and injustice.”
- Specific Examples:
- 1859 (Rampur Bushahr): The people revolted against the “high handedness” of Government officials regarding the recruitment of the labour force.
- 1862 & 1876 (Suket): The people revolted against the ruler and his minister, Narottam.
- 1876 (Nalagarh): The people rose up against the atrocities committed by a minister named Ghulam Qadir Khan.
- 1883 & 1930 (Bilaspur): The subjects revolted against the “oppression and injustice of State officials.”
- 1905 (Baghal): The people revolted against their chief.
Major Revolts & Movements in Himachal Pradesh (By District)
📍 Bilaspur : click
- Jhugga Satyagraha: 1883
- Dandra Movement / Bhoomi Bandobast Abhiyan (Peasant uprising against land revenue): 1930–1933
- Bilaspur Satyagraha (Against Raja’s refusal of reforms): 1946 (Dec 21)
📍 Chamba : click
- Farmers’ Movement (Bhattiyat Wazirat) : 1895–1896
- Chamba People’s Defence League formed: 1932
- Chamba Agitation against Wazir Madho Ram’s oppressive rule: 1939
📍 Mandi : click
- People’s Movement in Suket (Against Raja Ugar Sen II and Wazir Dhaungal): 1862
- Movement in Mandi State (Against Wazir Gosawn and Shiv Shankar Purohit’s corruption): 1870
- Revolt in Suket (Against Raja Rudra Sen’s policies and heightened begar): 1878
- Mandi Revolt (Led by Shobha Ram against Raja Bhawani Sen): 1909
- Mandi Conspiracy (Ghadar Party influence, looting of Nagchala treasury): 1914
- Revolt in Suket (Spontaneous uprising against Raja Laxman Sen and maladministration): 1924
- Suket Satyagraha (Non-violent campaign by Praja Mandal leading to GoI takeover): 1948 (Feb 18)
📍 Sirmaur : lick
- PEASANT MOVEMENT : 1878
- Early Political Awakening (Formation of a secret revolutionary society led by Chaudhary Sherjang): 1920
- Pajhota Kisan Andolan / Pajotha Movement (Extension of the Quit India Movement): 1942 (Oct)
- Pajhota Movement Suppression (Martial law imposed; army attack on villages): 1943 (May)
📍 Shimla & Kinnaur (including Bushahr, Theog) : click
- Dumh /dujam Movement (Bushahr State, against cash tax system): 1859
- Theog Peasant Movement (Against forced labor and high taxation): 1898
- Revolt in Beja and Theog Thakurais: 1898
- keonthal 1897
- Dodra Kwar Revolt (Ranbahadur Singh’s attempt to make the region independent from Bushahr): 1906
- Rampur Bushahr Movement (Non-cooperation against officials and British forest exploitation): 1906
- Theog and Madhan Movement (Early signs of revolt): 1926–1928
- Bushahr Praja Mandal Satyagraha (Against interim council): 1947 (March)
- Independent Theog Government (Established by Praja Mandal post-independence): 1947 (Aug 15)
📍 Solan (including Nalagarh, Baghal, Kunihar, Dhami) : click
- Movement in Nalagarh (Against increased taxation): 1877
- Revolt in Baghal State (Against excessive land revenue): 1897 and 1905
- Kunihar Struggle (First voice against autocratic behavior of Rana Hardev Singh): 1920
- Kunihar Praja Mandal Victory (Rana accepts demands): 1939 (July 9)
- Dhami Tragedy (Firing on procession led by Bhag Mal Sautha): 1939 (July 16)
freedom struggle : clck