The Noncooperation Movement of 1920-22, led by Mahatma Gandhi, challenged every aspect of British rule in India. It was supported by people from all levels of the social hierarchy and united Hindus and Muslims in a way never again achieved by Indian nationalists. It was remarkably nonviolent. In all, it was one of the major mass protests of modern times. Yet there are almost no accounts of the entire movement, although many aspects of it have been covered by local-level studies.
This volume of Non-Cooperation in India (Westland Books, 2023) both brings together and builds on these studies, looking at fractious all-India debates over strategy; the major grievances that drove local-level campaigns; the ways leaders braided together these streams of protest within a nationalist agenda; and the distinctive features of popular nonviolence for a righteous cause.
The following is an excerpt from the book.
Protests against Indigo and Tea Planters
Indigo Planters of Bihar
The campaign against indigo planters was, as before, strongest in north Bihar on estates where white planters – known as ‘gora sahebs, or ‘white gentlemen’ – rented land from zamindars and princes. Though the position of such planters was in general weakened considerably by the satyagraha of 1917,39 some who were renting land on long-term leases managed to maintain their position through various exactions. They demanded higher rents on the land that they sub-let to peasants, extra payments for timber use, rents for the land on which the peasants had built their houses, new payments in kind, such as cattle hides, and a variety of cesses. The people in such areas soon realised that their exploitation had hardly abated, and from 1919 onwards began to refuse rents to the planters. In March 1919, three activists even claimed that Gandhi had told them to refuse their rent – advice of which the Mahatma himself was unaware. The protests intensified during the Noncooperation Movement, particularly in the districts of Muzaffarpur, Champaran and Purnea districts. The nationalist leaders in Bihar were now actively involved in promoting this campaign, linking it up with the wider movement. There were demonstrations, boycotts of indigo factories and planters’ haats (weekly markets) – with the setting up of alternative markets – refusal of rents and strikes in the indigo factories by contract labourers. Though this was all conducted largely nonviolently, there were a few cases of violence and some arson.
Many peasants in these three districts enrolled as volunteers. A notable local organiser was a mahant (chief priest) of a temple at Paharchak called Raghunath Gir, who became President of the Bariapur Taluka Noncooperation Sabha in Muzaffarpur District. He promised that once swaraj came he would become headman of Bariapur, and he would divide the land of the local Motipur factory among the peasantry. They would pay only a very low rate of two annas per bigha (around a quarter of a hectare of land) to the government. Tenants were persuaded to pay no rent or supply labour or carts to the Motipur factory. The factory labourers were told to stop work and threatened with social boycott if they did not comply – and this was enforced with washermen and barbers refusing to serve those who remained in their jobs. As a result, many of the largely low caste workers resigned their positions and joined the movement. The planter managed to employ some new rent collectors (amlas), but when two of them tried to collect rents in Paharchak they were abused and then beaten to death by a crowd. In the same district, there was opposition also to the Belsand planter, who controlled one thousand bighas of rented land. A large crowd surrounded his factory on 4 January 1922, shouting ‘Gandhiji ki jai!’ There were similar demonstrations at other factories. The amlas of the Karnoul factory were threatened with assault. The sugarcane crops of the Mia Chapra factory were destroyed – the ringleaders were prosecuted. The factory was then picketed, and the factory manager boycotted.
There was intense anti-planter protest also in Champaran District, with many factory workers being persuaded to give up their posts. Those who refused to do so were threatened. There was great resentment towards those amlas who remained in their posts trying to collect the rent and other payments. As they were visiting villages to do this without protection, they were in a particularly vulnerable position. At Madhubani village in the west of the district, for example, the protest against the Piprasi factory was led by one Baiju Gir. There was violence in June 1921 when two amlas assisted by a factory peon tried to confiscate a herd of around one hundred cattle that were grazing on an uncultivated tract that the planter claimed as his. One hundred villagers led by Baiju Gir intervened with the intention of releasing the cattle. The police reported afterwards that Baiju Gir had been unable to control the enraged crowd and some of them had attacked the three men, beating one of them unconscious. The other two fled. The cattle were then released. In the northwest of Champaran, an amla of the Chautera factory who had tried to impound some cattle was beaten, leading to a police case against the villagers. The amlas of this factory, and particularly the head amla, Kali Singh, were notoriously oppressive and hated in the area as a result. There was also anger against some Magahiya Doms (untouchables from Magadh who handled cattle carcasses) who had been appointed as chaukidars (watchmen). On 1 November 1921, 150 to 200 people from the villages of Patilar and Lagunaha gathered outside the Chauterwa factory shouting ‘Gandhiji ki jai!’ The local panchayat head and some villagers tried to maintain order as the crowd quickly swelled to some five thousand. They surrounded the house of the amlas, who cowered inside. Windows and doors were broken, and the occupants challenged to come out. When they refuse to come, their houses were set on fire, forcing them out. They were attacked, and one older amla was beaten severely. The crowd then set other buildings on fire, causing over Rs 100,000 worth of damage. The planter’s big bungalow was among those damaged. Poor peasants were the ones mainly involved in the attack. All over the district, peasants began to graze their land freely on the land that the planters claimed they had a right over.
Many haats owned or leased by planters in Champaran were boycotted in October 1921 and alternative haats were established. The planters earned a considerable income from their haats by levying fees on merchants and vendors, and the boycott was a direct challenge to them. In the new haats, the fees were either much lower or nonexistent. Merchants who refused to sell at the new haats were subject to social boycott. This was a local initiative, not coming from the Congress leaders. Indeed, they did not approve of it, and even went to the villagers that had established such markets to dissuade them from continuing. In June 1921, there was a confrontation in Dhanaha (also Champaran), between a force of mounted police that was accompanied by the local planter, Mackinnon, and his amlas. He was trying to ensure that the villagers supplied carts and labour. The police looted goods and money from the houses of the villagers, whereupon they were surrounded and threatened. They had to release their looted goods. There were rumours that many factories were to be attacked, though in fact there were only a few incidents of minor arson on them. A deputation of the planters met the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division asking for firm action to stop the assaults on their factories. In late 1921, mounted police were sent to patrol the area, and a fine was ordered from the villagers as compensation for the arson and security against further such attacks. Those who had contributed to the Tilak Swaraj Fund and Khilafat Fund were ordered to pay a similar amount to the planters. The people refused to cooperate with this. The district-level Congress leaders disapproved strongly of the violence. Immediately after the attack on the Chauterwa factory, they rushed to the place to warn the people against perpetrating any more such acts, arguing that such violence undermined the chances of success for the movement. They were instructed as to the advantages of conforming strictly to nonviolence.
In Purnea District, there was a strong campaign in April and May 1921 against a few planters who were known for being particularly harsh in their exactions. Their factories were boycotted, and peasants refused to cultivate indigo or pay any rent. Planters with better reputations were left alone. In May 1921, the District Magistrate agreed to meet a delegation of around 500 tenants who expressed their grievances. He also heard the factory owners put their side of the case. Two of the most notorious planters, the Shillingford brothers, agreed to reduce fees and rents, and allow the peasants freedom to grow trees on their rented lands and use them in ways not hitherto permitted. They were not to be forced to grow indigo. Once this was agreed, the peasants paid their arrears and ended the boycott of the brothers and their factory.
In 1921–22, the planters found that as a rule, they were getting less support from the provincial-level authorities in acting in oppressive ways. Only if the law was broken in an obvious way was firm action being taken. The hegemony of the planters was fast being eroded, and they now felt very isolated in their factories scattered over the region. They complained of being subjected to ‘race hatred’ and sent a delegation to meet the Governor on 22 January 1921 to express their fears, demanding stronger action to quell what they saw as sedition, but they no longer found the government so willing to side with them. They were told that the movement was also directed against Indian zamindars, so it was not specifically anti-European. The colonial state was no longer prepared to countenance the abuses committed by the planters of Bihar and demanded that they grant concessions to the peasants.
In this protest, the Congress leaders were unable to prevent some physical assaults on amlas, two of whom were killed. No planter was harmed in any way, though they were vulnerable to attack. There was also arson and destruction of indigo crops, though on a relatively minor scale. The extensive burning of the factory at Chauterwa was the chief exception to this rule. The foremost weapons employed by the protestors were boycott of the factories and employees who refused to resign, the non-payment of rents to the planters, and refusal to pay their demands for various fees and grazing charges. It was the strength of these nonviolent tactics that proved most successful in curtailing the oppression of the most notorious planters, rather than the relatively sporadic though more dramatic cases of violence.
