2.2.2. Rebellion in the Countryside

From the cities, the Non-Cooperation Movement spread to the countryside. It drew into its fold the struggles of peasants and tribals which were developing in different parts of India in the years after the war. In Awadh, peasants were led by Baba Ramchandra – a sanyasi who had earlier been to Fiji as an indentured labourer. The movement here was against talukdars and landlords who demanded from peasants exorbitantly high rents and a variety of other cesses.

The Non-Cooperation Movement transitioned from urban areas to rural regions, involving the fight of peasants against oppressive practices by landowners. Specifically, in Awadh, farmers, led by Baba Ramchandra, opposed harsh taxation and exploitation by landlords. They sought to end the charges imposed on them, fighting for fair treatment and basic rights over the lands they cultivated.

Imagine a group of farmers in a small town banding together to fight against a large corporation that charges them an unreasonably high price for the land they need to farm. This is similar to how farmers in Awadh united against landlords who demanded high rents and forced labor.

Peasants had to do begar and work at landlords’ farms without any payment. As tenants they had no security of tenure, being regularly evicted so that they could acquire no right over the leased land. The peasant movement demanded reduction of revenue, abolition of begar, and social boycott of oppressive landlords.

The conditions for peasants were dire; they were forced into unpaid labor and faced regular eviction without any rights to possess the land they used. In response, they called for a decrease in taxes, the elimination of forced labor, and sought to ostracize landlords from community services to protest against their exploitative practices.

Think of a scenario where tenants who farm a piece of land are compelled to work without wages and can be kicked out at any moment. In this situation, they would naturally unite to demand fair wages, job security, and a support system from their community, similar to how these peasants sought justice.

In many places nai – dhobi bandhs were organised by panchayats to deprive landlords of the services of even barbers and washermen. In June 1920, Jawaharlal Nehru began going around the villages in Awadh, talking to the villagers, and trying to understand their grievances. By October, the Oudh Kisan Sabha was set up headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, Baba Ramchandra and a few others.

Local councils, or panchayats, played a crucial role in supporting the rebellion by organizing community-wide efforts to stop landlords from receiving traditional services. Jawaharlal Nehru actively engaged with the peasants to address their struggles, leading to the formation of the Oudh Kisan Sabha, which united the farmers under a single leadership to strengthen their cause.

This is like a community gathering to support one of its own who is facing unfair treatment. Leaders rally community members to withdraw support from those exploiting the farmer, illustrating how one strong voice can lead to collective action.

The peasant movement, however, developed in forms that the Congress leadership was unhappy with. As the movement spread in 1921, the houses of talukdars and merchants were attacked, bazaars were looted, and grain hoards were taken over. Local leaders told peasants that Gandhiji had declared that no taxes were to be paid and land was to be redistributed among the poor.

As the Non-Cooperation Movement gained traction in rural areas, the peasants' actions became more radical, leading to property damage and unrest. Misinterpretations of Gandhiji's peaceful teachings led to violent outbursts, straying from the principles of non-violence that Congress espoused.

Consider a protest that starts peacefully but escalates into vandalism, where strikers begin attacking businesses instead of just calling for change. This mirrors the reaction of some peasants who took radical steps, believing they were justified by a misrepresentation of a peaceful leader’s ideals.

Tribal peasants interpreted the message of Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of swaraj in yet another way. In the Gudem Hills of Andhra Pradesh, for instance, a militant guerrilla movement spread in the early 1920s – not a form of struggle that the Congress could approve.

Tribal groups, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, took Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of independence in a different direction, opting for radical resistance. Unlike the primarily peaceful approach of the Congress leadership, these groups engaged in armed revolt against colonial authorities, reflecting their unique frustrations and struggles.

Think of different ways people respond to an injustice—some might march peacefully, while others take up arms for what they believe in. The Gudem Hill tribes represent this latter reaction, demonstrating how diverse interpretations can arise from the same call for freedom.

When the government began forcing them to contribute begar for road building, the hill people revolted. The person who came to lead them was an interesting figure. Alluri Sitaram Raju claimed that he had a variety of special powers: he could make correct astrological predictions and heal people, and he could survive even bullet shots.

Alluri Sitaram Raju emerged as a charismatic leader among the Gudem tribes, rallying them not just with promises but also with claims of supernatural abilities. This notion of swaraj was more aggressive, focusing on armed struggle rather than peaceful negotiation, appealing to the local myths and spiritual beliefs of the tribes.

Think of a local leader in modern times who can inspire their community not just through political ideals but by tapping into cultural narratives and stories—much like Raju did in his community. People resonate with such leaders, especially when facing oppression.

--