CHAPTER III BRITISH ENTRY INTO PALAMU AND RANCHI(August 1765-August 1771)

Section A: The Company’s Growing Interest in Palamau and Ranchi

• Diwani Grant & British Assumptions
  • On August 12, 1765, the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II granted the Diwani (revenue rights) of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the East India Company.
  • The Company assumed that Palamau (ruled by the Cheros) and Ranchi (ruled by the Nagbanshis) were part of Bihar and thus subject to tribute.
  • However, these regions had a semi-independent status and were never fully under Mughal administrative control.
• Status of the Hill Chiefs
  • The Nagbanshis and Cheros were independent rulers who paid occasional tribute under compulsion.
  • They had their own courts, armies, and hereditary succession, unlike Mughal-controlled zamindars.
• Strategic and Economic Interests
  • The Company sought safer and more profitable trade routes to Benares through Chotanagpur and Palamau.
  • British troops had already crossed the Chotanagpur plateau in 1763 during campaigns against Mir Kasim.
  • Palamau provided refuge for rebellious zamindars evading Company demands for revenue.
• Statements from Company Officials
  • Thomas Rumbold, Collector of Bihar Revenues, highlighted difficulties in collecting revenue due to Palamau’s protection of defaulters.
  • He emphasized the need to subdue the Palamau Fort to secure revenue collection and border control.
• Maratha Threat
  • Palamau’s location made it a strategic post to check Maratha incursions from Nagpur.
  • The Marathas themselves aimed to control Palamau as early as 1766.

Section B: Political Anarchy and British Intervention in Palamau

• Internal Conflicts Among the Cheros
  • Jai Krishna Rai, ruler of Palamau, was embroiled in disputes, leading to the murder of his ally Sainath Singh.
  • This triggered a rebellion led by Jainath Singh and Chitrajit Rai.
  • Jai Krishna Rai was eventually killed in 1770; Chitrajit Rai took over with Jainath Singh as Diwan.
• British Response and Gopal Rai’s Claim
  • Gopal Rai, a descendant of Jai Krishna Rai, sought British support from Patna.
  • Initially, the British were reluctant to intervene but later saw an opportunity to gain control of the Palamau Fort.
  • Negotiations began with Jainath Singh through Ghulam Hussain Khan, a Patna-based mediator and historian.
• British Terms and Military Preparations
  • The British proposed:
    1. Confirming Chitrajit Rai as Raja with British support.
    2. Granting Jainath Singh land worth ₹8,000 per year, provided he gave up further claims.
    3. Supporting Gopal Rai with a jagir but excluding him from future rulership claims.
  • Captain Camac was ordered to prepare military action in case negotiations failed.
  • Ten companies of sepoys were mobilized, and a coordinated plan was made to capture the fort if necessary.
• Deadline and Final British Decision
  • Jainath Singh requested 10 days to consult other chiefs before surrendering the fort.
  • The British, suspicious of stalling tactics and possible alliances with the Marathas, fixed January 21, 1771, as the deadline.
  • Upon non-compliance, Captain Camac was ordered to reduce the fort by force and support Gopal Rai militarily.

1. Colonel Camac’s Military Campaign (1771–1772):

• Appointment and Orders: Camac was specifically sent to Palamau in 1771 with the mission to subdue resistance and bring the region under effective East India Company control. This aligns with the East India Company’s broader post-Diwani efforts to establish military and administrative authority in Bengal and Bihar.
• Initial Opposition: Jainath Singh, a local Chero leader, offered resistance, indicative of lingering Chero authority or claims to Palamau. The fact that Camac had to fight both Jainath Singh and a “Kharwar” chief near Sonebhadra suggests a coordinated tribal or semi-tribal resistance.
• Camac’s Tactics: Using both direct assault and divide-and-rule strategies (e.g., playing zamindars against each other), Camac succeeded in overcoming resistance. The mention of bringing several parganas under control supports the idea of a gradual territorial consolidation.

2. Jainath Singh’s Role and Fate:

• Chero Legacy: Jainath Singh’s resistance is portrayed as possibly the last flicker of Chero sovereignty or pretension to it. His presence during the Company’s invasion of the fort at Palamau highlights a symbolic defense of traditional authority.
• Flight and Aftermath: After defeat, Jainath Singh escaped—his disappearance likely marks the end of Chero political significance in Palamau. His attempted resistance, however, underscores the legitimacy and persistence of indigenous power structures even after the Mughals and in the early Company period.

3. Company’s Motivation and Strategy:

• Revenue and Order: As you rightly noted, the Company’s principal concern was not conquest for conquest’s sake but ensuring revenue flow and political stability. This necessitated crushing resistance, securing forts, and placing loyal zamindars in charge (like Bhaiya Jagatpal Singh of Ranka).
• Local Politics: The mention of “internecine conflicts among zamindars” being used by the Company is significant. This exploitation of internal rivalries to facilitate conquest was a hallmark of British strategy throughout India.

4. Use of Jagirdars and Fortresses:

• Control of Forts: The seizure of Palamau fort (and potentially Satbarwa and others) was a critical step—forts were both military and symbolic centers of power. Gaining control over them meant the Company had broken the back of resistance.
• Appointment of Loyal Chiefs: Installing or supporting compliant local rulers allowed the Company to rule indirectly, reducing administrative burden and military risk.

5. Long-term Impact:

• End of Chero Rule: The campaign marked the end of the Chero dynasty’s effective rule in Palamau, paving the way for direct or indirect Company administration.
• Emergence of New Power Structures: Figures like Jagatpal Singh became the new face of local authority, with legitimacy drawn from British endorsement rather than hereditary or indigenous traditions.

British Conquest of Palamau and Surrounding Areas (1771)

Initial Communications and Resistance

• 2–4 February 1771: Letters from Singh were received by Camac but deemed ineffective due to Jainath Singh’s continued hostilities.
• Jainath Singh’s Response: He killed Budhan Singh’s envoy and declared willingness to pay revenue if Camac withdrew from Jainagar. Simultaneously, he sent a threatening letter to the Kunda ruler, Dhrij Narayan.
• 10 February 1771: Jainath Singh proposed peace terms, notably demanding the safety of his life, property, and fort, along with Company protection and support.

Camac’s Military Decision

• Camac judged Jainath Singh’s terms as insincere and resolved to capture the Palamau forts by force.
• He requested that supportive zamindars be sent to his camp to prevent further assistance to Jainath Singh.

Orders from Patna Council

• 19 February 1771: Camac was ordered to seize the Palamau Forts and confirm Gopal Rai as ruler.
• Camac was still to offer reasonable terms to Jainath Singh post-capture.

Capture of Palamau Forts

• 12 March 1771: Camac departed from Jainagar.
• 19 March 1771: His troops reached near the forts; a detachment occupied the New Fort.
• Night of 20 March 1771: A breach was made in the Old Fort’s wall.
• Early Morning, 21 March 1771: Main assault launched; defenders fled or resisted briefly.
• Afternoon, 21 March 1771: Old Fort surrendered; Company flag hoisted.

Aftermath of the Conquest

• Jainath Singh and Chitrajit Rai fled to Ramgarh.
• Mukund Singh of Ramgarh continued to support them.
• Camac dismantled resistance, removed local tallukdars, and began administrative setup.

Settlement and Governance

• Camac was instructed to:
  • Return heavy guns to Aurangabad.
  • Maintain a small garrison in the forts.
  • Store provisions and settle the region.
• 30 March 1771: Patna Council confirmed Gopal Rai as ruler; settlement arrangements initiated.

Renewed Disturbances

• June 1771: Jainath Singh returned and caused fresh disturbances.
• 21 June 1771: Expelled again by British forces.
• Outposts were established near Surguja to block further incursions.

Final Settlement

• 1 July 1771: Ghatwals submitted; Gopal Rai declared ruler.
• 16 July 1771: Revenue fixed at Rs. 12,000 per annum for three years.

British Entry into Ranchi Region

Drip Nath Shah’s Struggles and Submission

• Attempted invasions of Kolhan in 1770 failed due to fierce resistance by Larka Kols.
• Nagbanshi territories suffered from Maratha raids and Ramgarh’s hostilities.

Alliance with the Company

• February 1771: Drip Nath Shah sent his envoy to Camac, offering help during the Palamau campaign.
• Provided vital supplies and support.
• Post-victory, he visited Camac at Satbarwa and agreed to:
  • Pay Rs. 12,000 in annual revenue.
  • Support British efforts against the Marathas.
  • A symbolic turban-cap exchange sealed the alliance (allegedly involving hidden diamonds).

Formal Settlement

• August 1771: Granted permission to pay revenue directly to the Company.
• Pottah (Patta) granted for 3 years (1771–1773), fixing revenue at Rs. 36,001 inclusive of all dues.

Strategic Importance

• Camac viewed the alliance with Drip Nath Shah as crucial to closing off Maratha invasion routes and facilitating control over South Bihar and Bengal.