Peasant Revolts of Jats, Satnamis, Sikhs and Marathas | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

In the early 18th century, the Mughal Empire faced strong opposition from various groups, including the Jats,Satnamis,Sikhs, and Marathas.

• Scholars like Jadunath Sarkar interpreted these challenges as a Hindu reaction against Muslim oppression.
• Irfan Habib offered a systematic approach, arguing that the revolts were not a Hindu response but a combined attack by zamindars and peasants against Mughal authority.
• Moreland provided an economic theory for the Mughal decline, viewing revolts through the lens of Oriental Despotism.
• Chetan Singh noted that the Mughal state relied on agrarian surplus, with land revenue forming a major part of its income.
• Satish Chandra described the tripolar relationship of peasantry,zamindars, and jagirdars in revenue collection.
• Jagirdars, often transferred every few years, prioritized maximizing revenue without concern for peasant welfare.
• The practice of transferring jagirs increased during Aurangzeb's reign.

Impact of Mughal Land-Revenue on Peasantry and Empire

• Mughal land-revenue was set at the highest level, leaving peasants with only subsistence income.
• Jagirdars put additional pressure on peasants, leading to negative consequences for both the peasantry and the Mughal Empire.
• Irfan Habib argued that increasing jama figures did not reflect agricultural development due to the rise in prices.
• Assessment and extortion during collection made agrarian development impossible.

Reports of Peasant Suffering

• Manrique reported that arrayatos(peasants) faced severe punishment if they could not pay the land revenue.
• Manucci witnessed peasants selling women,children, and cattle to meet revenue demands.
• Peasants often abandoned their lands, as seen in the Karori experiment, especially during the reigns of Jahangir,Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb.

Peasant Resistance and Rebellion

• Irfan Habib noted that refusal to pay land revenue was a common act of defiance among peasants.
• Some peasants were pushed into rebellion, leading to the classification of villages into malwas(rebellious) and raiati(tax-paying).
• Villages protected by ravines,forests, or hills were more likely to resist authorities compared to those in open plains.
• Until Aurangzeb's reign, these conflicts were mostly local and isolated.
• The upper strata khudkashts faced less oppression, while the lower strata such as pahis,gaveti-palti(Jats, Gurjars, Ahirs),gharuhalas,rezariaya, and balahars were the real victims.

Factors Uniting Peasants: Caste and Monotheistic Influence

• Caste Factors: Played a crucial role in the Jat revolts and the lawless activities of Mewatis, Wattus, and Dogars.
• Monotheistic Influence: The Satnami opposition was significantly influenced by the radical ideas of monotheistic movements.

Monotheistic Leaders:

• Most leaders of monotheistic movements like Kabir, Ravdas, Dadu, and Haridas came from low castes and rejected caste barriers.
• They promoted unity and contempt for caste but did not advocate violence.

Impact on Sikhs and Satnamis:

• Their teachings inspired Sikhs and Satnamis to rebel against the Mughal authorities.

Irfan Habib's Perspective on Peasant Unrest:

• Peasant unrest was transformed by the involvement of zamindar elements with their own motives against the Mughal ruling class.

Two Processes of Transformation:

1. Peasant rebellions came under the leadership of zamindars or peasant leaders assumed zamindar status.
2. Desperation of peasants from the start provided recruits for rebelling zamindars.

Zamindar Definition:

• Holders of various land rights, from autonomous chiefs to individuals claiming perquisites from a village.

Primary Zamindars:

• General phenomenon throughout the Empire, with large areas under tributary chiefs.

Zamindari Rights:

• Hereditary, not granted by the Emperor, but acquired through clan-settlement, usurpation, or purchase.
• Possession of armed force was often necessary.

Conflict with Imperial Authorities:

• Mainly over the size of zamindars' share in land revenue or surplus produce.
• Primary zamindars were seen as tax-gatherers for the state.

Zamindari Unrest:

• Began in Akbar’s reign, peaking under Aurangzeb.
• Revisionist scholars argue that zamindari unrest was driven by the desire to expand their own zamindaris.

Collaboration with Peasantry:

• Zamindars adopted a conciliatory attitude towards peasants for mutual defense and support.

Shift in Struggle:

• By Aurangzeb’s reign, the struggle shifted from defensive to aggressive.

In the late-17th and early-18th centuries, the Agra and Yamuna regions experienced uprisings led by the Jats, who had previously been labeled as ganwars. These revolts were spearheaded by Rajput zamindars and involved the Jats, primarily a peasant caste, with some becoming zamindars.

• Jat Rebellions: Led by Jat zamindars like Gokula Jat, Raja Ram Jat, and Churaman Jat.
• Chamars were recruited for military support, showing the Jats' dominance over this semi-servile community.
• The Jat revolt evolved into a large-scale plundering movement driven by the narrow caste perspectives of the peasantry and the plundering instincts of their zamindar leaders.
• While the Jat rebels were not connected to any specific religious movement, the Satnami and Sikh revolts were significantly influenced by religious factors.

The Satnamis or Mundiyas were a sect of the Bairagis founded in 1657. In their teachings, an attitude of sympathy with the poor and hostility towards authority and wealth is apparent. Such a religion could best appeal to the lower classes. As Ishwardas says, Satnamis did not differentiate between the Muslims and the Hindus, which is reflected in their plebeian charater. The revolts of these peaceful turned seditious robbers were mainly confined to Narnaul and Bairat. However, after some initial successes, a large imperial army cowed down these primitive militants.

• Sikh Religion as 'Peasant Religion': Historians like Habib define Sikhism itself as a 'peasant religion' due to its egalitarian nature.
• Guru Hargobind: A crucial figure who transformed the Sikhs into a military power,colliding with Mughal forces.
• Sikh Militancy: Strengthened under Gurut Gobind Singh and Banda Bahadur, who drew support from various lower-class groups, including scavengers, tanners, banjaras, and even Muslims.

In various struggles, peasants like the Meos in Mewat sometimes expressed their anger by fighting against zamindars, as seen in Mewat.

• R P Rana highlighted the extent of bhoomia oppression leading to raiyati-zamindari conflicts.
• Other notable revolts include the Koli rebellion in Gujarat and the Bundela rebellion.
• Irfan Habib's theory of peasant revolts leading to Mughal decline was dominant until the 1975 symposium.
• According to Habib,Maratha rebellions were a significant force behind the downfall of the Mughal Empire.

Contemporary historian Bhimsen argues that the oppression by jagirdars and amildars forced peasants to migrate, and even mansabdars are said to have migrated.

• Shivaji and the Marathas were seen as favorable to the peasants.
• Before Shivaji's rise, the indigenous peasantry of Dakhin began to migrate due to invasions by large imperial armies.
• Shivaji's army, composed largely of peasants, became formidable by 1658, prompting Aurangzeb to consider severe punishments for peasants, deshmukhs, and patels in imperial territories.
• It is important to note that Shivaji and Maratha chiefs should not be labeled as leaders of a peasant uprising, as they aspired to be zamindars themselves.
• Peasants were used as tools by these leaders to fulfill their own zamindari ambitions.
• Bhimsen's account reveals that Maratha military operations did not provide relief to cultivating peasants, who suffered greatly from the actions of both the Maratha armies and their opponents.
• However,Cambridge historians M N Pearson and J F Richards attribute the Mughal decline to Aurangzeb's misguided decision to expand in the Deccan and convert lands into khalisa.

Aurangzeb and the Mughal Authority

• Aurangzeb was aware of the weakening Mughal authority. In his later years, he noted that there were tumults caused by non-Muslims in every province and district, and since they were not punished, they had established themselves everywhere.

Peasant Distress and Rebellions

• The rebellions that shook the Mughal Empire were rooted in peasant distress. However, the rebels did not focus on alleviating this distress in their objectives or actions. This sets the Indian agrarian revolts apart from similar uprisings in China and Europe.
• Historian Irfan Habib argues that the Indian peasants lacked class consciousness and failed to see a common bond among themselves due to the diversity of castes and religious sects.

Peasant Revolts: Different Perspectives

• While Habib views the 18th-century revolts as peasant uprisings, historian Muzaffar Alam argues that these revolts were driven by zamindars(landlords).
• In his analysis of Awadh(a region in northern India), Alam emphasizes the role of local zamindars, merchants, and madad-i-maash holders (people who received state assistance) in shaping regional power dynamics.
• In another study of Punjab, Alam suggests that the revolts failed due to internal social divisions among zamindars and the organization of peasants along caste and community lines.

The Role of Tribes

• Historian Chetan Singh argues that the focus on zamindars and peasants overlooks the role of tribal communities in the agrarian system.
• In his study of Punjab, Singh highlights that local tribes were as integral to the agrarian system as any other caste or class.
• He suggests that peasant revolts and tribal conflicts against the Mughal Empire provide a more comprehensive picture of the agrarian crisis.

Revisionist Theories and Regional Centralization

• Revisionist theories propose that the 18th century was not just a period of agrarian crisis but also a time of regional centralization.
• Historians like Muzaffar Alam, Chetan Singh,Stewart Gordon, and C. A. Bayly argue that the century was marked by the continuity of regional powers despite the decline of the Mughal Empire.
• Examples of regional centralization include the Nawabi states of Hyderabad,Bengal, and Awadh, as well as the military fiscal states of the Marathas and Mysore.