By Zinnia Aurora
The exclusion of certain stories from the mainstream narrative typifies power hierarchies that dominate the psyche of authors of historical records. A push towards creating hegemonic literature is often seen as a medium of subjugation and cannot be simply called an overlook. While it is imperative to understand the mechanics of such subordination of some histories, it is equally important to make an effort to mainstream them for setting fruitful and celebratory discourses around these unsung stories of valour and pain.
The synthesization of the entirety of the Indian National Movement into a regionalised understanding does great disservice to the freedom fighters who fought the colonial powers. A stark example of such exclusion rests in the land of clouds, Meghalaya. Although the state is a new entity, its three constituent groups – the Garo, Khasi and Jaintia tribes- have made exemplary sacrifices of personal and collective tenor. Innumerable examples of such courage rest in the seven sisters of the North-East, but a selective exclusion of the same in the mainstream narrative has reduced these imperative histories to oral historiographical traditions that now rest in the memories of their descendants.
Theorizing such exclusions, the actors responsible for the same, and the impact and undertones it has consequentially birthed upon the current dynamics is an area that must be explored to remove the inequalities that have historically been meted out to certain groups based on their ethnicity, religion, race, gender etc. Such factoral analysis not only helps in framing policies from a psychologically holistic perspective but also aids in bringing the due recognition to the contributions of these groups in the nation-building process, credits for which are largely given what the historians picks.
A cogent account of the histories of certain unsung leaders who fought the British and brought discussions of freedom and independence to the remotest of regions in the present North-eastern state of Meghalaya is imperative. Apart from giving them due credit it will also ponder upon the basis and granular reasonings behind the said sabotage. From fighting the zamindari system to standing up against the wrongful treatment meted out to people of different origins, the leaders of the Indian National Movement of Meghalaya brought laurels of trust and self-sufficiency to their communities. As custodians of community empowerment in their vicinities, these leaders involved themselves in the service of their society and peoples. From fearlessly standing on the death rope to saving their people by embracing bullets, their strategic acumen, in addition to their motivations are most definitely a source of inspiration, just like Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt. Thus highlighting these histories is key to weaving a stronger and unbreakable bond with the State and its denizens. Mainstream accounts of pre-independence history undermine the regional contributions in approaching the problem of British domination. Recognising the patriotic tenor of the North-East is as significant as economic integration of the region with the idea of India.
The seeds of colonial expansion to North-East India were laid by the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826, post which the consolidation of power became the primary motive of the British East India Company. They ingrained political and economic oppression to extract the rich resources that the region had to offer, stifling the mandate of the local people, ignoring and bashing their futures by uprooting them and playing their divide-and-rule policy. This policy was embedded in the various coercive peace agreements that were signed with different tribal groups. These made them give up their rights on the lush forest lands, shift to newer areas and more. In 1880, a draconian decree- the Frontier Tracts Regulation- was passed. Its provisions were expanded to various states, although it was primarily made for Arunachal Pradesh. Superficially speaking, the interests of the colonisers in the region were primarily encouraged by the vast economic bounties it held in terms of taxes, natural resources, water, plantations and more. They started implanting payment obligations in the North-East Frontier Province first, followed by embellished treaties and agreements to further their interests. Violation of any of the provisions of the agreements resulted in severe punishments and served as a tactic to engulf large tracts of land under itself. Some of the most arbitrary provisions included the ‘blockade system’ which traumatised the tribal population as they were prohibited from entering the plains to buy even necessary commodities. Entire villages were burnt and vandalised if so-called ‘native-offenders’ were found to be hiding there.
The British sought to systematically destroy the tribal cottage industries and crafts. The markets were filled with mill-made cloth, and other imported products that slowly killed local enterprise. Such policies are better understood through a keen reflection on the perception the British had of the tribals. As per Hopkinson’s Proposals of 1862, restraining the “savage tribes which infest our frontier” was key and that “reliance cannot be placed on only one policy”. He went on to suggest that they “must apply coercion, pure and simple, sometimes blockade” in addition to providing subsidies to “keep the tribes quiet for a long while.” A frugal foundation of mutual acceptance, especially from the British, led to a strained relationship between the two. Such troubling impositions were met with increased resistance. Tribal outrage became palpable across the landscape. The British increased military preparedness to meet the same, and favoured coercion over communication and conciliation.
During such outrage, various battles raged in this war of freedom. Additionally, they changed their outlook towards the local population, moving from regarding them as aliens to calling them their subjects. The establishment of cultural, racial, and civilizational superiority created a distorted hierarchical history that penetrated deep into Indian society. Some of the known outrages included the Munda Rebellion of 1899, Phulaguri Dhewa and Jaintia & Garo Rebellion of 1860s. The tremendous difficulties that were imposed upon the Jaintias and Garos could not break their resolve. The Garos and Jaintias, otherwise tolerant peoples, were irked by the expansionist candour of the British, especially their infrastructural incursions into their lands. The legendary U Kiang Nangbah, a freedom fighter for the Jaintias, is a symbol of courage and valour from the Jayantia Rebellion of 1862.
After the first Anglo-Burmese War, the British wanted to construct a road connecting Brahmaputra Valley with Sylhet which encroached upon the lands of these tribes. When they protested, villages the British burnt their villages to break their resistance. Various prominent tribal leaders were hanged publicly or killed at gunpoint before their countrymen to showcase their imperial might. Having subverted such monstrous intrusions of the British, the Khasi peoples fought bravely and stood steadfast upon their resolve. This was supremely exampled by the Khasi martyr, U Tirot Singh.
U Tirot Singh Syiem (1802 – 1835), was the chief of Nongkhlaw in the Khasi Hills. He was the constitutional head sharing corporate authority with other representatives. An epitome of valour, Tirot Sing fought ferociously against the British in the Anglo-Khasi War. As mentioned previously, the British were consolidating their political and economic mandate in the region and one of their endeavours to further this was the construction of a road through the Brahmaputra Valley to connect to Sylhet, which encroached upon the territories of the Khasis. This was not taken lying down. When the British Governor General for the Northern Territory found out that Tirot Singh had already begun proceedings in the durbar for seeking permission of the duars or passes through which the road would pass, he panicked. David Scott, the Governor General, tried to impress the King of Bordwar and Tirot Singh. The latter sensed betrayal from the British and the King of Bordwar. Tirot Singh went with his armed men in December, 1828 to attack Bordwar and sirened a clarion call with his confidence. The British were hereafter asked to evacuate Nongkhlaw but they disregarded this order. In response the Khasis went ahead and attacked the British Garrison in Nongkhlaw, killing two British officers. This was a clear expression of the outrage of the tribal population. Although the Khasis lacked the requisite armour and used only swords, shields, bows and arrows, they resorted to guerilla tactics to pursue their ends, dragging the war on for about four years. Though equipped only with native weapons, Tirot Singh managed to destabilise the British forces. Unfortunately, Tirot Sing was shot by a British officer and later captured by the British from a cave.
For this exemplary courage, Tirot Sing is declared an immortal martyr by the Government of Meghalaya. He is widely respected by his people in Meghalaya, but has barely been mentioned in the national podiums. Contributions of the tribal chiefs who put their lives and that of their families on the line deserves equal recognition as others to embed a sense of diversified pursuit of a common freedom that India has enjoyed for the past seventy-five years.
Lack of inclusivity in historical discourse renders such groups excluded. To know the legacy of trust and collective struggles congenially lays a common foundation of origin, thereby creating a sense of comity and respect for one another. History is not infinitely susceptible to invention and that is what differentiates it from fiction. Arjun Appadurai convincingly argued about the debatability of the past that operates in all societies. Perhaps it’s time to ask questions.
(The writer is an incoming M.Phil candidate, Department of Politics & International Studies, University of Cambridge. Awarded Kautilya Fellowship by Ministry of External Affairs & India Foundation).