THE MUGHAL STATE

152~1750

edited by
MUZAFFAR ALAM
SANJAY SUBRAHMANYAM

Delhi
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Calcutta Chennai Mumbai
1998

01g1t1zedby GOL1gle Ong1r al fron1

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
17
Two Frontier Uprisings in
1
Mughal lndia*
Gautam Bhadra

INTROOUCllON

The existence of a long tradition of peasant and tribal uprisings in India

is now a well-recognized fact.2 These uprisings are no longer ignored
by historians as a subject not worthy of study. Perhaps the political
role played by peasants in the nationalist and communist movements
in the Third World during this century as well as the programme of
agrarian revolution initiated by their radical leaders, have forced his-
torians of all political persuasions to revalue a hitherto submerged and
neglected tradition. Some historians, however, are attempting to ap-
propriate this tradition of peasant resistance on behalf of the rulin~
elites of Third World countries. The polemics have already begun.
*Fll'St publiSled in Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies. vol. n (Delhi. 1984).
1
1 am grateful IO Mrs Mandira Sen and Maulavi M.A. Quddu.~ for their help
and suggestions. The sketch map of the Mughal north-eastern frontier where the
rebellions occurred, is based on Rennell's Bengal Atlas (1779) and the district
map of Kamrup with additional information from Kamrupdr Buranji and
Baharistan. I am indebced to Mrs Keya Dasgupta for drawing the map.
lone of the earliest worlcs is W.C. Smith, 'Lower Class Uprisings in the
Mughal Empire', Islamic Culture (1946). For the best available general
introduction to the subject, see Irfan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India
(Bombay, 1963), ch. IX. My article in Bengali, 'Mughal Juge Krishok Vidroba'
('Peasant Uprisings in Mughal India') E/cshan. Aublmn Number ( 1385 BS).
3Eric Stokes, 'The Return of the Peasant of South History', in TM Peasan1
and the Raj (Delhi, 1978). For a review of this book. see Gyanendra Pandey, 'A
View of the Observable etc.', Journal of Peasant Stwdies, 7:3 (1980). Also see
Joy Mukhopadhyay, 'Bharate Krishok Bidroher Itihas Lekhar Samasya'
('Problems of Writing the History of Peasant Uprisings in India': in Bengali),
Deshapremi/c, Autumn Number (1387 BS).

0191t1zed by Google Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 475
Before we can understand the dynamics of such resistance movements
throughout the Third World, I suggest that we begin with an analysis
of what took place in our own countries and with this in mind I propose
to discuss two frontier uprisings in Mughal India.
In order to avoid certain misconceptions, Jet me point out that I do
not pretend to have discovered any new material. The source materials
used in this study are well known to the scholars of Mughal India.
Again, so far as the scope of the study is concerned, my treatment is
not comprehensive but selective. I have chosen to examine one region--
Kamrup-Goalpara in north-eastern India. This is panly because of the
availability of sources and panly because imponant political develop-
ments in this region have once again brought it to our attention at the
present. In this essay, after analysing the two revolts separately, I will
consider their overall imponance to the evolving Mughal polity in the
context of the problems of integration and domination and of subjection
and defiance.

THE REvOLT OF SANATAN SARDAll

The revolt of Sanatan Sardar occurred during Jahangir's reign.4 During
this time the Mughals were expanding their empire in eastern India,
and there were numerous revolts throughout Kuch Bihar and on the
borders of Assam.5 This revolt originally staned at Khuntaghat, situated
on the south bank of the Brahmaputra and within the present district

4lbe principal source is BalrmiSIDll-i-Ghaybi by Mirza Nadlan. a contemporary

Mughal general, who participated in all the major campaigns in the
north-eastern region during the reign of Jahangir. I have consulted the
transcribed copy of the only existing manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris, preserved in the Jadunath Sarkar Collection. National Library, Calculla.
All subsequent references for pagination given in this article are to this copy of
the Sarkar Collection (nos. 61 - 3) cited henceforth as Baharistan (Sarkar).
M.I. Borah has made a reliable translation of lhe same text in Borah, Bahorisran-
i-Ghaybi, 2 vols (Gauhati. 1936). Noces appended to this translation have been
extremely helpful. References to this work are cited below as Borah, 1-n.
5For a general description of Mughal expansion in this region during the
period, see Jadunath Sarkar (ed.) The History of Bengal. vol. n (reprint, Patna,
1973), passim; Sudhindra Nath Bhallacharya, Mughal North-East Fronti~r
Policy (Calcutta, 1929). An account of the rebellion of Sanatan Paik has been
given in E.W. Gait, A History of Assam (Calcuna, 1926). It is inaccurate and
confused in the sequence of events.

0191t1zed by Google Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
476 TM Mugllal State, 1526-1750

'- ..,
\
\:

011ginal frcm
01g1tlzedby Google UNIVERSITY Of MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 477
of Goalpara (AD 1614). It spread later to Kamrup, where Sanatan, a
6
headman of the paiks, emerged as its leader (AD 1615).
The immediate context of the revolt was the Mughal annexation of
Kuch Bihar and Kamrup. The death of the governor, Islam Khan, shortly
thereafter led to the appointment of Qasim Khan in his place. Qasim
Khan inaugurated a new administrative system in the conquered ter-
ritories. Under his direction, Mirza Hasan divided the parganas of Kuch
Bihar into 20 clearly defined circles. Muhammad Zaman Tabrizi was
appointed the Jwrori (revenue collector) of the pargana of Khuntaghat.
Karoris were revenue officers who collected revenue from the con-
quered area. Apart from the karoris, Mirza Hasan also appointed mus-
tajirs or revenue farmers and received the bond (qubuliat) from them
for the parganas given to them.
As the karori of Khuntaghat pargana, Muhammad Zaman Tabrizi
began to tyrannize the peasants ( raiyat) and abducted their beautiful
dau,hters and sons for his harem. The peasants killed him by poison-
ing, took action against other /caroris and mustajirs who continued to
misappropriate vast sums. Shaykh Ibrahim, the /carori at Kamrup, for
instance, increased his wealth by nearly seven lakh rupees: The extent

6in the rext. these pailcs are called archers (pailcan yani 1irandazan):
Baharis1an (Sarkar). vol. n, f. 152a. In another place, it is said that Raja
Parilcshit of Kamrup fought the Mughals with the /candi paiks or the archers:
Baharistan (Sarkar), vol. 1, f. I !Sa. Kandi may be derived from the term kari, i.e .
archers. In local dialect 'lcJJr' means arrow: see glossary appended to
Thangkluutgiya Buranji, ediled and translated by S. K. Bhuyan (Calcutta. 1933),
p. 237. Also see Baharistan (Sarkar), vol. n, ff. 146b.
1
Baharistan (Sarkar). vol. n, no. 62, 146a-146b; Borah, 1. pp. 272-3. In the
course of a description of black magic and sorcery as practised by the
inhabitants of this region. Mirza Nathan mentions some details to show how the
petty exactions and oppressions of local officials such as dihidars and pattadars
(tenure holders or revenue farmers) created an atmosphere of antagonism there.
The demand for fish at midnight when fish was not available and the use of
violence and torture in order to force the subjects to satisfy the whims of the
bailiffs had, according to Nathan, compelled the peasants to use 'black magic'
against them. That the Mughal officials came to attribute magical faculties to the
local population is itself an index of the mistrust which developed between them
and their new rulers. The latter were, as a result, always haunted by a sense of
uncertainty and fear. After Muhammad Zarnan's death Salim Beg Khaksar.
Mirza Babu and a Brahmin (tunnar-dar. i.e. holder of the sacred thread) named
Raja Ram were sent there as must4jirs. None had a very creditable record with
the people.

01g1tlz•dby Google Onginal fron1

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
478 The Mughal Stale, 1526-1750
and nature of these revenue abuses perpetrated on the newly annexed
areas can be gauged from contemporary records. In Baharistan, there
is a description of the changes introduced by the Mughals, which also
enables us to gain some idea of the pre-Mughal system of administra-
tion. Hence it deserves to be quoted in full:
After Rajah Lakshminarayan's depa1111re Mir Safi . .. introduced a number of
changes in the revenue assessment of all the parganas of Jahangirabad and the
allowances made in the form of salaries fOf the pailcs. that is, archers
(mujrai'ulf-e paikan yani 1irandaUJ11) of this area were also charged to revenue
assessment(bar jama'i' aft.uda).
Owing to his lack of intelligence, he did not pay any heed to the discord
in the region and the sedition of the cultivators and considered himself to be
loyal ... . One portion of the parganas was handed over to the karoris and
another portion to the mustajirs. Then he left them after making necessary A
arrangements for each of them. When the mustajirs after a slight increase in
assessment Uuzw-e bar jama' aft.uda) brought the pargarw.s under their own
possession and thought of increasing it more for their own benefit and expenses
(bar nafa' wa ilchrajat), it augmented the causes of discontent among the ri"aya.1

Mir Saft was, however, removed from the office of Diwan and Bakshi
in K.amrup owing to several complaints against him; but despite this
the situation did not improve much.
After the annexation of the north-eastern k.ingdoms the Mughals had
not taken any direct action against the princes of this region. Islam
Khan and Qasim Khan had promised to maintain the dignity of
Lalcshminarayan, king of Kuch Bihar, and Parikshitnarayan, king of
Kamrup. But in blatant violation of his promise, Qasim Khan placed
Lakshminarayan and Parikshitnarayan under surveillance (nau band)
and deponed them to the distant coun of the Mughal emperor. This
action roused the nobles and exacerbated tension leading to the out-
break of the revolt at Khuntaghat. During 1615-16 the peasants killed
the karoris and mustajirs. The Kuch nobles joined their rebellion and
proclaimed one of themselves as the raja. The Mughal commander
AUama Beg was killed along with many of his soldiers. The rebels
occupied the land up to Rangamati and besieged Jahangirabad, formerly
Gilahanay (about ten miles nonh of Dhubri),the principal administrative
centre, and the fonified residence of King Parikshit. Mughal authority
almost disappeared from this region. 9 Mirza Yusuf Barias, tha.nadm

1
Baharistan (Sar/car), vol. n. no. 62, 152a; cf. Borah, 1, pp. 28S-9. This
description has been corroborated by the Assamese sources, S.K. Bhuyan (ed.)
Kamrupar Buranji (Calcutta, 1930), p. 27.

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 479
from Dakhinkul, south Kamrup, described the helplessness of the
Mughal anny pleading for immediate help and pointing out that without
aid he and his forces would suffer the same fate as Allama Beg's army had:
This is a serious uprising of the enemies and they are driving us from place
to place. They have not stopped chasing us and we have been driven back to
the bank of the Brahmaputra. For the third day, we are encamped on the sandy
plains and we are besieged b,y the enemy in such a way that even a straw was
10
not available for horses, not to speak of grains.

The rebels were fmally defeated by their own vacillation and the
strategy of Mirza Nathan. But it was not a lasting defeat. Despite the
imprisonment of the rebel leader and the destruction of their forts at
Putamari and Takunia, the peasants of Khuntaghat were not effectively
subdued. They continued to offer resistance. especially during the rainy
season when Mughal communication links were weakened and Mirza
Nathan was absent.
It was at this moment that Sanatan, the Kuch chief of the pailcs,
began to harass the karori. ~aykh Ibrahim, and declaied his revolt in Kamrup.
Sanatan, one of the Kuchs in the area of Kamrup assumed kingship (Sanatan
ke ye/c-i at lcuchan dar mul/c-e Kamrup ba rajgi bardashta) and put Shaykh
Ibrahim 10 great straits. 11

The pailcs alleged that 'Shaykh Ibrahim not only put us to distress
but also takes away the beautiful girls and handsome boys of our
families and he is persisting in doing this'. 12
The Mughal anny, under the leadership of Mirza Nathan, was in-
effe.ctive against Sanatan due to his alliance with the local peasants.
The Mughals failed to occupy the paik's fon, Dhamdhama, which was
situated in the Nalbari pargana of Kamrup. Mirza Nathan sent proposals
for peace, with the assurance that Shaykh Ibrahim would be dismissed.
Sanatan's reply has been preserved in the writing of Mirza Nathan. As
the voice of a rebel leader, it is a very imponant document:
The oppres.sion perpetuated in this region you have been informed of. Now the
cultivators (ri'aya) have no strength or capacity (qudrat wa taqal) 10 pay at-
tention lo sending revenue (malguuv1). So how can your coming here satisfy

~paragraph is based on the events described in Baharistan (Sar/car). vol.

n. ff. 153, 153a-b, ff. 169a; cf. Borah, I. chs. n and JV, pp. 290-352.
10
8aharistan (Sar/car), vol, n. f. IS8a; Borah, 1. p. 302.
11
Baharistan(Sar/car), vol. n, f. 179a.
12
Ibid., ff. 180b; Borah, 1, p. 360.

01gitized by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
480 The Mughal State, 1526-1750
me? Two of our great princes have sum:ndered IO lhe emperor and paid lakhs
and crores of rupees. What benefits have they reaped which I may consider
as advantages? However, I agree 10 the following terms. I shall hand over one
of my brothers for Your Excellency's service (ba lchidmat-e lruzur) on the con-
dition that first, stern punishment should be meted out IO Shaykh Ibrahim;
secondly, the revenue should be remitted for full one year; thirdly, the Mugbal
soldiers will have IO return to Gilabanay; foll1'1hly, the allowance of the pailcs
shouJd be paid direct IO them and should not be made as an addition to the
revenue due to the government (fnlljarai'paik.an ra daklail jama·na lcanJa). 13

Mirza Nathan accepted Sanatan's first proposal but not the others.
As a result Sanatan continued the resistance. Direct assaults on his fort
were repelled again and again. Sanatan's success permitted him to
declare himself raja. In retaliation Mirza Nathan razed the neighbouring
villages to the ground so that the rebels' sources of supply were
destroyed.
It took Mirza Nathan two days to destroy those villages; nearly 2000
food suppliers were killed or taken prisoner by him. These details are
an indication of the support and loyalty enjoyed by the Kuch rebel
leader in the neighbouring villages. 14 The rebel fortress fell to the
Mughals after a siege lasting about three months. Sanatan was forced
to flee to the hill tracts, from where he continued his resistance against
Mughal authority. When Raja Parikshil's brother Baladev also known
as Balinarayan, rose in rebellion, Sanatan joined him and attacked
Mirza Yusuf. Later when Shaykh Ibrahim himself defied imperial or-
ders and took up anns, Sanatan joined him, helping his erstwhile
enemy.'s

Tue HAmtKHEDA UPRISING

Hathi kheda (capture of elephants) sparked off the second uprising in
1621. Khuntaghat was once again the centre. Elephants were indispen-
sable for the anny: they carried war materials into the jungles of Assam
and were used to seize forts in the hill tracts. It was one of the duties
of the ryots to help the Mughal anny to capture elephants. The services
of the palis were necessary in order to keep the elephants confined
within the enclosure (qamargah) while those of the gharduwari pailcs
(auxiliary footmen) were required to drive the elephants into the
enclosure. Government officers were sent with special instruments to

11
Baharistan (Sarkar), vol. n, ff. l l!Otr18 la; cf. Borah, 1. p. 370.
14
Baharistan (Sarkar), ff. 183b-184b; Borah, I, pp. 378-81.
ISBaharistan (Sarkar), ff. 207a-b.

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
- - .
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 481
16
draft the gharduwari paiks from their lands. This practice disrupted
the ryots' work on their own lands and was naturally resented by them.
Baqir Khan, a Mughal officer, carried out a hathi khtda. Some of
the elephants escaped while being put in chains. In consequence, the
leading elephant drivers among the pa/i and gharduwari paiks were
sentenced to death and the others were whipped. Baqir Khan ordered:
'Either bring the escaped elephants here or pay rupees one thousand
for each elephant.' This was the immediate cause of the revolt. In the
words of Mirza Nathan,
These discontented people instigated the people of the region (ahl-e m"/Jc ra)
against him, and they attacked at night. Baqir Khan was caught alive and was
cut in two pieces. The soldiers of the anny who fought were all killed and the
others were held prisoners, and all the elephants of the government were con-
fiscated. They proclaimed a headman of the ele~nt-drivers as their king, rose
in open revolt and created an amazing situation. 17

The rebellion spread to other classes. Bhaba Singh, the Kuch noble
and brother of Raja Parikshit, became involved in it. The tyranny of
Balabhadra, the Hindu diwan of Mirza Nathan, had roused the peasants
who joined the insurrection. The rebels imprisoned the family of Qulij
Khan, the Mughal commander of Kuch Bihar. Jahangirabad was raided
and stockades were built at Bangaoan and Madhupur on either side of
the river at Goalpara. Mirza Nathan suppressed this uprising after much
effort. The words of his rivals suggest that this revolt was conducted
by the ordinary people belonging to a particular lower caste. 'Have you
subdued any rebel', they taunted, 'other than a group of fishermen
(machwagiri) who built a fort at Goalpara?' 18

THE PAIK SYSTEM

An analysis of these two rebellions makes a few things clear. First,
these took place in the same area, though they sprang from different
causes. In the first place, it was the coercion of the cultivators by the
Mughal revenue collectors and the revenue farmers which was the main
cause of the conflict. In order to understand the nature of the uprising,
however, it is necessary to look at the complaints of the paik.s. These
were peasants who also worked as the nobles' soldiers or armed
16
Baharlsran (Sarl:ar). vol. m, no. 63, ff. 2871>-288a; Borah. n. p. 676.
17
Baharisran (Sarl:ar). vol. m. ff. 274a; Borah, n, pp. 638-9.
18
Baharis1an (Sartor), vol. m, f. 287b; Borah, n, p. 651. It is to be noted that
maclrwas meant jaliya hota in this region in the mid-nineteenth century. See
W.W. Hunter, A Statistical AccoWll ofAssam (London, 1879), vol. n, p. 44.

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
482 The Mughal State, 1526-1750
retainers. In return for serving their masters in war or manning the
border regions they were given arable land free of revenue charges.
Such land was known as paikan or chakran. In reality, in Kuch Bihar
and Assam peasants customarily paid revenue in terms of labour and
not in cash, receiving land in return. In fact the evidence of F a1hiya-
i-ibriya by Shihabuddin Talish, waqai navis (a news reporter) of Mir
Iumla and the Mughal s~s for the zamindari of Gauripur in 1676
indicates the existence of rights over land granted in exchange for this
kind of service.19
The genealogy of the princely family of Kuch Bihar and the stone
inscriptions on temples built by Chila Roy shows that the grantees of
pailcan land fell into different categories according to the services for
which such grants were made. For instance, land was given to 140
families of votaries of the temples, among whom were blacksmiths,
weavers, messengers, panegyrists and so on. 20 The official history of
Shah Jahan's reign states that such people 'were given jagirs by order
of the king. Those soldiers are known as paiks . . . for their liv,,lihood
they are employed in the work of cultivation (ba zira'al) and also in
capturing and driving elephants. ' 21 A similar account has been given
in the Fathiya-i-ibriya. 'To collect revenue from the peasant of these
areas is not the rule. From every house one person in every three was
brought for the services to the kingli_az har khanaft seh nafar yak nafar
ba /chidmal-e raja qaim numayad).
19
Ranajit Guba, 'A Report on Gauripur Archives', in Annllal Report,
Regional Record Survey Cmnminee, West Bengal, 1955-56.
Wic.L. Barua, Early History ofKamnq> (Shillong, 1933), pp. 298-300.
21
Abdul Hamid Lahori, Padshah Namah, edited by Maulavi Kabiruddin and
Maulavi Abdur Rahim, Bibliotheca lndica. vol. n (Calcutta, 1867-8), p. 71.
22
Fathiya-i-ibriya, Mss. Sarkar Collection (a copy of Asiatic Society of
Bengal Ms.) no. n. ff. S7a. For a detailed discussion, see Amalendu Guha,
'Medieval North East India: Polity, Society &: Economy, I 20G-l 500 AD',
Occasional Papers, No. 19, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta
(mirneo). There is a suggestion in some of the sources that thanks to the
elaborate revenue arrangements made by the imperial officials the pressure on
the peasants was to be Jess acute in the territory of the chiefs than in that directly
administered by the Mughals (Habib, op. cit., p. 336). Under the administrative
system of the Ahoms, the paiks were allowed 10 hold two pawas of the best
rice-lands. To an extent too Ibey had also a voice in the election of their leaders,
saikias, boras or hazarikas. Most of the land owned by the chiefs was, however.
cultivated by the slaves. See Gait, op. cit., pp. 239-40, 241-2; Bhuyan.
Kamrupdr Buranji, p. 112; Francis Buchanan-Hamilton. An Account of Assam.
ed., S .K. Bhuyan (Gauhati, 1963), pp. 22-4.

Onginal fron1
01g1tlz•db~Google UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 483
It is clear that the paikan system played an imponant role in the
agricultural economy of Assam and Kuch Bihar. All active males other
than the higher officials, slaves and priests were brought within the
purview of the paikan system through gote ('service'). Each gote
generally consisted of four peasants. A peasant became a pailc by rota-
tion. He would render his services to the king for one year while other
members of his gote looked after his land. Some difficulties regarding
the analysis of the paikan system should however be considered. The
evidence from contemporary Persian sources points to a system of land
tenure based on labour service in this region on the eve of the Mughal
administration. But the indigenous sources are of later origin and refer
to the nature of Ahom administration in Kamrup in the late seventeenth
and early eighteenth centuries rather than to the Kuch administrative
system in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. However, it
seems that the features are broadly similar, though in a subsequent
period social differentiation developed more fully. In Darrang, there is
an account of the paikan system established by Naranarayan in pre-
Mughal days. 'The king afterwards made a census and created the
paiks. ... He made four people ( chari pawa) equivalent to a gote of
paiks. ' 23 There is, of course, confirmation on the working of the system
from other vamshavalis written in almost the same period. It was said
that the soldiers of the Kuch king were given about 12 bighas of land
as an allowance in lieu of a cash payment.24 It can therefore be con-
cluded that on the whole the general information, if not the detail, sup-
plied by these local sources of the later period confirms the working
of the system as depicted in the Persian chronicles.
The Assamese sources written during Ahom rule in Kamrup in the
late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries indicate two other imponant
features of the paikan system. According to the Buranjis. lcaris or ar-
chers were associated with the lower castes. In general, under the Ahom
administration, the karis were treated as people of inferior status and
enjoyed fewer privileges than the chamuas who were skilled anisans
and not bound to go to war. A kari was allowed to enter an upper-caste
llealdev Slnya-Khari Daibagya, Darrang Raj Vamshaval~ ed., Navinchandra
Sharma (Gauhati, 1963), p. 64. The text however is a history of the Kuch k.ings
written in the late eighteenth century.
24
Khan cru.udhury Amanatullah Ahmed, Koch-Beharer llihas (in Bengali;
Calcutta, 1936), p. 125. Ripunjay Das, Maharaj-Vamshabali, ed., Nripendra
Nath Pal (Kuchbihar, 1383 BS), p. 4. Amanatullah Ahmed's book is probably
one of the best local histories written in Bengali on the basis of the information
provided by vamshavalis in this region.

01g1tizea by Google Origlr.al from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
484 The Mughal State, 1526-1750
25
group, but his position was still marked by a social stigma. The Kuch.
too, who constituted the bulk of the paiks, were treated by the eighleenth-
century Ahoms as being of rather low status. Thus among the paiks
there were many who came from lower-caste professions and were
treated as social inferiors by the Ahom elite.
Secondly, the Assamese evidence suggests a kind of growing dif-
ferentiation within this region. Haliram Dhekyal Pbukan mentioned
paiks who did not pay labour service (gamah). They were called
chamua, as mentioned earlier. He also referred to a privileged land
tenure called bhala mmuJiiya zamin or the lands enjoyed by the
bhadralolc. He compared this with a situation when the entire land had
been held revenue-free. In Kamrupiir Buranji it was suggested that
Shaykh Ibrahim introduced the pargana land administration in this area.
After 1684 the Ahoms made a hierarchical structure of revenue ad-
ministration, following the Mughal tradition, and introduced a variety
of tenures with different terms and obligations. 26 Some of the inscrip-
tions of this period also suggest the existence of various kinds of land
tenure in this area. 27 We may infer from these Assamese sources that
the impact of the Mugbal and the Ahom administrations in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries led to a growing differentiation within
the peasantry. Moreover, in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth cen-
turies the community bondage among the paiks, soldiers as well as
cultivators, was perhaps stronger within a less differentiated agrarian
society, especially where the bulk of the cultivators belonged to the
same caste group. The paiJcan system was perhaps sufficiently well
integrated with the community to make any disruption in the distributive
machinery affect both sardars and cultivators. This would explain why
their reactions were so violent and quick. Land assessment and the rigid
jama or collection were seen Its evils by the ordinary peasant because
these left him less room for manoeuvre. The Mughal land revenue ad-
ministration aimed at and achieved greater control through the lcaroris
and mustajirs who became, consequently, the target of the peasants'
anger.
25ror a detailed discussion, see S.K. Bhuyan, Altomer Din (in Assamese,
Jorhat, 1918), pp. S2-3, SS, 72. Haliram Dhekyal Phukan, Assam Burt111ji
(1829), ed., J.M. Bhattacharya (Gauhati, 1369 BS), p. S4. It is an informative
account of the Ahom administtative system in Kamrup during the eightcenlh
century by a person long connected with the administrative system in this
region. He himself belonged to the family of a local customs official of K.amrup.
~kan. op. cil., pp. Sl-4; Bhuyan, Kamrupdr Buranji, p. 112-13.
27
Maheswar Neogi (ed.), Prachya Sasanavali (Gauhati, 1974), pp. 118-19.

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 485
THE MUOHAL SYS11!M VERSUS11fl! PAIK SYSTEM
As the Mughals had the mansabdari system for procuring soldiers and
since they emphasiud the importance of the collection of revenue
directly in cash, they were not interested in maintaining the pailwn
system. Consequently, this new system acted against the interest of the
pailcs and their chiefs, that is those who were their leaders in times of
war. Moreover, the Mughals brought the hitherto untaxed pailwn land
under assessment. Taxes had now to be paid in crops or in cash. Be-
sides, the farmers increased the rate of revenue. Conflicts arose between
the fiscal system of cash or crop payment based on a rent-roll and the
centraliud military system on the one hand, and the extraction of
revenue in terms of labour-service based on decentralized local powers
on the other. As pointed out earlier, Sanatan, in his letter, spoke directly
in favour of the latter system which had been seriously disrupted by
the Mughals. He asked, therefore, for a remission of revenue and for
an exemption of the land of the pailcs from assessment His proposals
did not agree, of course, with the Mughal practice of extracting the
maximum possible social surplus. Common subjects and pailcs, or those
who were both cultivators and soldiers, revolted. It was in the context
of a general atmosphere of agrarian discontent that the rebellion led
by the Kuch nobles became formidable.
Three currents of discontent can be perceived in the first of these
rebellions as having arisen from the grievances of (a) the ordinary ryots,
(b) the pailcs or a special class of ryots and soldiers, and (c) the Kuch
nobility. The existence and leadership of armed ryots in Kamrup t.rans-
formed this revolt into a resistance which commanded wide suppon
from the people for a long time. At one stage the Mughal state power
even came out with the proposal for a c.ease-fire and was prepared to
compromise.
In the second uprising at Khuntaghat the immediate cause for the
disturbance was the state's demand of service for catching elephants.
Here the ryots who trapped and tamed elephants as a profession, were
the first to rise in revolt, and were then joined by other oppressed
cultivators. They probably belonged to a low caste, and their leadership
fell into the hands of one of their own headmen. The second rebellion
was, therefore, the work of a comparatively lower and poorer section
of the peasants. Here too we find the name of a Kuch noble, but the
pan he played is rather obscure. It appears that the leadership lay in
the hands of ryots of the lower strata and not in those of any upper-caste
group. This was perhaps because specialization in chasing elephants

01gitized by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
486 TM Mughal State, 1526-1750
had to be acquired by a particular class of ryots, giving rise to solidarity.
Since they were a cohesive group, it might have been comparatively
easy for them to provide the requisite leadership. It is clearly indicated
in the writings of Nathan that the ryots engaged in chasing elephants
were skilled in a particular profession and that it was they who took
the initiative to mobilize the common people. This uprising arose from
two currents connected with (a) the grievances of gharduwari paiks
and pali paiks, and (b) those of the ordinary cultivators.
In terms of participation and mobilization one point is to be par-
ticularly emphasized. Some of the rebellions had an obviously aris-
tocratic linkage. 1lle humiliation suffered by the traditional rulers was
certainly a factor behind the uprising. For instance, Sanatan, the rebel
leader, possessed a fort and was once described by Mirza as a raja.1-8
In his petition, he also referred to the injustice meted out to his kings.
Hence the vertical linkages within a landed society, operating between
lords, vassals and ordinary subjects, might have been invoked to mo-
bilize the people. These vertical linkages had a special importance in
the context of the specific historical development of the frontier region.
The period immediately preceding Mughal penetration here had wit-
nessed the rise of the Kuch principality under Naranarayan. It has been
suggested that they belonged to the Mech, or Bodo tribal groups. 29 It
was during this period that they were transforming themselves irito a
dominant caste. With the establishment of a strong principality in the
course of the fifteenth century, Naranarayan renovated the temples of

~athan says, 'This Rajah and his fon are not of that nature from which you
can expect any income after the conquest': Baharistan (Sarkar), vol. n, f. 180a.
1be sentence is suggestive of the fact that Sanatan was not a prosperous chief.
However, Sanatan did belong to the category of a zamindar or a feudal chief,
and was probably a hereditary leader of a number of paiks. Under the Ahom
king chief officials like Burba Gohain, Bar Gobain and Bar Patra Gohain
commanded the services of I 0.000 paiks each. Such posts were ordinarily
confmed to panicular clans and were hereditary in nature: Borah. n, p. 846.
29B.R. Hodgson, 'Koch. Bodo and Dhimal Tribes'. Jownal of the Asiatic
Soc~ty of Bengal, vol. xvm. pan n (1849), pp. 704-5. In the genealogy of this
dynasty, the fugitive Kshatriya princes were said to have married Mech women
and 12 powerful Mech houses descended from those unions. 1be wife of Haria
Munda!, the chief of the Mech. gave binh to a son named Vishnu who was the
real founder of the royal house of Kuch Bihar (Daibagya. op. cit., pp. 8-10). The
legend is suggestive of that well-lcnown social process by which a tribe aspiring
for access to economic power and political domination used the puranic
tradition to bolster its prestige within the caste hierarchy.

0191t1zed by Google Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 487
the goddess Karnakhya, patronized Sanskrit scholars and established a
claim to his family's connection with the mythical exploits of
Parashuram against the Kshatriyas. 30 Later on the Kuchs were also to
assume the appellation Rajbanshi in this area.3 1 Hence, in the early
sixteenth century the Kuch nobility and population may have felt a
strong attachment to their royal house, which became a focal point and
visible symbol of their social mobility and of the social power in this
region. This bond was strong, as suggested by Nathan's account about
the reaction of the Kuch nobles to the arrest of their kings.
Due to the circulation in lhe territory of Kuch of the news of lhe arrest of lhe
two rajas, some of lhe Kuch chiefs (raiyan-e Jcuchan) in order to wipe off !heir
bad reputation (badnami) raised an insurrection. 32

The suggestion of disgrace felt by the Kuch nobility because of the

dishonour to their rulers at the hands of the Mughal authorities is un-
mistakable here. The attitude of Sanatan Sardar merely underlined the
same sense of disgrace. The frequent insurrections by Parashuram in
Dakhinkul and Jadu Nay~ another sardar of the pailcs, in this area
also suggested the general antipathy felt by the sardars against Mughal
33
conquest. Again, in the early nineteenth century, Francis Buchanan
hinted at the caste composition of the agrarian population in this area
saying, 'Thus in the territory of the Khuntaghat on the Bisne river,
belonging to one of their powerful chiefs, almost every cultivator is
called a Rajbanshi.' 34 Hence, in this type of agrarian society, where
most of the cultivators as well as their .:hiefs belonged to the same
caste group, mobilization often followed the lines of social linkages
binding rajas, sardars and cultivators in a common struggle. Dishonou-
rable treatment meted out to a royal house, or a breach of trust with
respect to the latter, could easily have been construed as an affront to
the prestige of the community, particularly to that of the chiefs.
But in the Hathik.Mda rebellion, the opposite seems to have been
the case. It was a spontaneous insurrection of the elephant-catchers and
the language used by Mina Nathan indicates that they themselves

30
Ahmed, op cil., pp. 126-9. Daibagya, op. cil., pp. 67-8. 102-12, 123-5.
31
E. Dalton, Descriplive Erhnology of Bengal (Calcutta, 1872), p. 89; W.W.
Hunter, A S1a1istical AccolUll of Bengal, vol. x (Calcunr., 1876), p. 353.
32
/Jaharistan (Sarlcar). vol. 11, f. 153b.
33
Borah,n,pp.505-23,532-3,662-4.
l4euchanan-Hamihon, Report on Rungpur, Mss. Eur. 0. 74, book n,
ff. I-ID-I.

0191t1zed by Google Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
488 The Mughal Stale, 1526-1750
elected a leader from their midst. The ryots oppressed by Balabhadra
quickly joined their ranks. The Kuch nobles came later. It seems that
here the initiative lay with the lower strata of the peasantry and their
action was an incentive to others to follow them. These two contrasting
types of mobilization suggest that the uprisings of the peasants under
the leadership and initiative of the uunindars was not the only type of
peasant revolt witnessed in this area. There might have been other types
too characterized by a different kind of mobilization.
In spite of differences two common tendencies may be observed in
these two revolts. First. there was a tradition of frequent resistance on
the pan of the peasants and their chiefs against the Mughal imperial
power. Whatever might be the cause of conflict, whether over collection
of additional revenue or over the right to capture elephants, the peasants
of this region time and again rose in rebellion. Secondly, it appears
that those who were already engaged in strictly specialized professions
or were moving towards some degree of specialization, were in the
vanguard of rebellion, as were the militiamen and archers in the revolt
headed by Sanatan and the gharduwari and pali poi/cs in that of the
elephant-catchers.
The regional characteristics of these two revolts should also be
noted. Both revolts erupted in the border areas of Bengal and Assam.
The Mughals had recently conquered these regions. Further, the social
system and fiscal organization were quite different in these parts from
those in India. The existence of tribes over a wide area made the polity
of this region more complicated. Hence, it was comparatively easy for
the ryots to rise in revolt ever so often against the relatively weak
Mughal forces in these outposts of the empire.
In fact, the discontent among the peasantry of this region was never
anything but acute, and it reared its head as soon as an opportunity
arose. Thus the ryots of Putamari deferred payments to the Mughals
when Balabhadra, the Hindu officer of Mirza Nathan, went there. The
ryots of Khatribag, the jagir of Nathan himself, refused to pay revenue,
taking advantage of the floods. Afterwards, they were subdued with the
help of the local zomindars. When some merchants went to collect
rations for the Mughal soldiers, the peasants from the villages of Kendugiri
and Badhantara attacked and plundered them. 35 Mirza Nathan, after be
was awarded the title 'Khan', became dissatisfied with the work of the
elephant-chasers and whipped the headman of the paiks. In conse-
35Baharlstan (Sarlcar). vol. n, ff. 169a.

oig1t1ze-0 by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Two Frontier Uprisings in Mughal India 489
quence, the latter became sorely aggrieved, and the danger of another
violent insurrection loomed large. The crisis passed when another
Mughal officer, Khwaja Sadat Khan, found himself in a tight comer
and was forced to release the sardars and conciliate Baki Laskar, the
headman of elephant-catcher paiks. 36 Again, during the reign of
Aurangzeb, the people of Kuch Bihar revolted in support of their chief
against the revenue arrangement of Mir Jumla.37 Thus the defiance of
Mughal authority by various groups of people was a constant feature
in this region from Jahangir' s reign to Aurangzeb' s and the elaborate
system of dominance evolved by the Mughal authority was frequently
challenged both by the people and their chiefs.
Violence and counter-violence embedded in this type of rebellion
deserve our attention. Both Baqir Khan and Mirza Nathan demonstrably
punished the pali and gharduwari paiks for their failure in duty. The
rebels also reacted with violence in no uncertain terms against Baqir
Khan. One of the attributes of any authority lies in a right to punish.
This appears to have been understood both by the Mughal power and
the lowly peasants. Hence a counter-assertion of power by the rebels
always took the form of violent punishment meted out to the officials
such as Allama Beg or Baqir Khan. This was invariably a signal of the
temporary suspension of Mughal authority in this region and created
an atmosphere of general insurrection.

CONCLUSION

These revolts were not very large in scale and were ultimately sup-
pressed. But their frequent recurrence in this frontier area was an index
of the relative failure on the part of the Mughals to integrate peripheral
zones within the state structure. In this area the cultivators, under the
leadership of some specialized groups, participated in the insurrection.
These were more popular in character because caste solidarity as well
as community bonds were stronger in these parts for various reasons.
Horizontal and vertical linkages of mobilization were both operative in
this region. Here, however, a relatively organized system based on
service-tenure was replaced by a more centralized and hierarchical sys-
tem. The Mughal state power appeared to be an intrusion to the chiefs
as well as the members of the society. The fact of its existence as well

~d., vol. m. ff. 288b.

37
Fa1hiya, ff. 80a-b.

01gitized by Google Original frcm

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
490 TM Mughal State, 1526-1750
as the mode of its operation were disruptive to all who constituted the
agrarian society. The prestige of one of the autonomous chiefs regarded
as powerful even by the Mughal chronicler was at stake. 1be status of
the sardars was threatened. The oppression on the family as well as
the property of the ordinary cultivators was perpetuated. Rural life was
in fact greatly disturbed. Hence, the exercise of Mughal authority led
inevitably to turmoil and disintegration within this society. In this situa-
tion defiance and rebellion was the only recourse people had. In this
sense, frontier uprisings with all their variations were a part of the
general tradition of rebellion and agrarian resistance that rocked the
Mughal state time and again. In this area these uprisings also marked
the beginning of a tradition of peasant resistance that was invoked again
and again in various fonns against Mir Jumla, against the Ahoms during
the Moamaria revolt and against Britim rule in the late nineteenth
century.

0191t1zea by Google Origiral frcn1

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN