CHAPTER IV EARLY BRITISH RELATIONS WITH PALAMAU AND RANCHI(September 1771-June 1813)

SECTION A — THE FIRST PHASE: FROM HOSTILITY TO POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT (1771–1813)

I. CAMAC’S EXPEDITION AND ITS IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH

• Context of British Expansion:
  • After the conquest of Bengal, the East India Company turned its attention to the hinterlands of Bihar, including Palamau.
  • The Cheros, who had previously paid tribute to the Mughals, grew defiant and refused to recognize British authority.
• The Camac Expedition (1771):
  • Captain Camac was sent to subdue the Palamau zamindars and assert Company control.
  • He successfully defeated the Cheros and expelled their leader, Jainath Singh, who fled into the forests.
• Aftermath of the Expedition:
  • Jainath Singh attempted to regain power but was captured and exiled to Calcutta.
  • The Company began efforts to restructure the region administratively, transitioning from military occupation to political control.

II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BRITISH AUTHORITY

• Challenges to Consolidation:
  • The local population was resistant to foreign rule and loyal to traditional Chero leadership.
  • The dense forests and continued support for the Cheros hampered British efforts.
• Administrative Measures:
  • British officers were appointed to oversee revenue collection and enforce Company law.
  • A system of tribute and taxation was introduced to formalize British claims over the region.
• Role of Local Collaborators:
  • Some zamindars were co-opted into the British system in exchange for privileges and protection.
  • These alliances became crucial for the stabilization of colonial control in Palamau.

III. RESIDUAL CHERO RESISTANCE AND THE STRATEGY OF CO-OPTATION

• Continued Resistance:
  • Despite the fall of Jainath Singh, Chero resistance continued in the form of guerrilla warfare and sporadic uprisings.
  • These actions revealed the limits of British military supremacy in the region.
• British Response:
  • Recognizing the inefficacy of sustained military action, the Company shifted to a policy of selective engagement.
  • Members of the Chero elite who were willing to cooperate were offered administrative roles and land security.
• Long-Term Impact:
  • Through patronage and incorporation of former elites, British authority was gradually entrenched.
  • Open conflict declined, and a new political arrangement began to take shape, marking a shift from confrontation to cautious collaboration.

The Turmoil in Palamau (1777–1801)

Collapse of Order and British Military Intervention

• Sugandh Rai, leading the Cheros, retreated into forests and renounced British authority.
• Gopal Rai was confined, halting revenue collection.
• Captain Ashe struggled with limited forces; two companies under Captain Hardy were sent in October 1777.
• In early November:
  • A decree from the Nawab of Bengal sentenced Gopal Rai and Karnpal Rai to life imprisonment.
  • The Collector of Ramgarh advocated a harsher penalty, citing Gopal Rai’s notorious reputation.

Continued Depredations and British Response

• Sugandh Rai launched widespread depredations in Palamau.
• Reinforcements were sought as Hardy’s troops proved insufficient.
• In December 1777:
  • Captain Ashe was ordered to Dinapur, escorting Gopal Rai to Patna.
  • The Calcutta Council, weary of constant troop deployment, aimed to withdraw forces.

Gajraj Rai’s Appointment and Local Opposition

• Gajraj Rai, uncle of Gopal Rai, was appointed revenue administrator in February 1778.
  • Chosen due to his influence and previous service to the Company.
• Opposition from Sugandh Rai and Thakurai Shiv Prasad Singh destabilized the region.
• Ramus reported:
  • The district was ravaged, with cultivation neglected.
  • Only Sugandh Rai and Shiv Prasad Singh remained rebellious.

Military Withdrawal and Continuing Unrest

• Calcutta Council insisted on troop withdrawal by May 1778.
• Ramus was directed to:
  • Strengthen the militia.
  • Avoid reliance on sepoy battalions.
• In August 1778, Ramus lamented:
  • The displacement of inhabitants due to warfare.
  • The remaining population lived in anarchic conditions.

Creation of the Ramgarh Battalion and Further Conflicts

• On 18 September 1778, the Ramgarh Battalion was raised:
  • Five companies of sepoys.
  • Stationed at Chatra under Captain Crawford and Lt. Gumley.
• Daljit Rai attempted to restore Medini Rai’s dynasty.
• In 1780, Calcutta Council recognized Basant Rai (Gopal Rai’s brother) as successor.
• In 1781, Gajraj Rai was captured at Belaunja; Sugandh Rai withdrew in 1784.

Brief Rule of Basant Rai and Succession

• Basant Rai died in 1783 at age 17.
• His mother resisted rival claims until 1786.
• In 1784, Churaman Rai was recognized as successor.

The Rule of Churaman Rai (1784–1813)

Early Years and Rise of Shiv Prasad Singh

• Period marked by:
  • Maratha incursions
  • Pindari raids
  • Growing Thakurai power
• Shiv Prasad Singh, nephew of Jainath Singh, returned in 1778 and gained prominence.
• In 1786, Collector M. Leslie:
  • Settled revenue directly with Shiv Prasad, bypassing Churaman.
  • Omitted Churaman’s name from the sanad.

Jagirdari Settlements

• Revenue agreements:
  • Sugandh Rai retained Deogan.
  • Chhatrapati Rai and Dharni Rai (sons of Gajraj) got Bishrampur and Baraon.
  • Thakurais reinstated.
  • Ram Bakhsh Singh, son of Jainath Singh, regained land.
• Churaman’s dues fixed at ₹12,812 + police expenses.

Formal Recognition and Administrative Changes

• In 1788, Churaman Rai formally invested as Raja:
  • Paid ₹5,000 as peshkash.
• In 1789:
  • Decennial Settlement allowed Shiv Prasad to manage estate until Churaman matured.
• In 1795, Churaman came of age and received his sanad.

Revenue Decline and Corruption

• Shiv Prasad implemented rent commutation:
  • Accepted lump sums instead of annual rent.
  • Caused ₹2,000 revenue decline by 1805.
• Jagirdars began misclassifying land as jagir to evade taxes.
• Churaman requested a sazawal (revenue officer) in May 1795 due to difficulties in collection.

Insurgency and Suppression (1800–1801)

Chero Uprising Led by Bhukhan Singh

• In October 1800, Bhukhan Singh:
  • Led 1,500 men from Surguja, Chotanagpur, and Tamar.
  • Aided by Daljeet Singh, a Maratha in Surguja.
• In February 1801:
  • Bhukhan attacked Ranka Fort.
  • Shiv Prasad Singh’s son was fatally shot; 17 others killed/wounded.

British Military Response

• Commandant S. Jones:
  • Requested reinforcements from Major William Duff at Gaya.
  • Cleared Shiv Prasad Singh of suspicion due to his personal losses.
• Troops under Lt. E. Roughsedge forced Bhukhan’s retreat to Surguja.
• 1,500 cattle were lost by Shiv Prasad Singh.
• Bachu Bhogta and Shiv Bakhsh Bhogta, early collaborators, surrendered.

Early British Relations with Palamau and Ranchi (1801–1813)

British Campaign in Surguja (1801–1802):

• Col. Jones and Maj. Davidson led an expedition into Surguja via Palamau with sepoys and cannons.
• Initially instructed to avoid hostilities, but the failure of negotiations with Balbhadra’s representatives forced military action.
• Bhukhan Singh and others fled to Sambalpur and Chhattisgarh.
• The British stayed in Surguja till mid-1802 to secure reparations and ensure frontier security.
• Col. Jones died at Sherghati on June 29, 1802; Lt. Glade had died earlier on May 29, 1802.
• Many sepoys returned sick, indicating a costly and taxing campaign.

Impact on Churaman Rai (Zamindar of Palamau):

• Financial Burden:
  • Heavy expenses incurred supporting British troops and securing passes.
  • Revenue collection was hampered due to insurgent activities.
  • Petitioned for revenue remission; only ₹7,000 was sanctioned, though he claimed losses worth ₹20,000.
• Official Neglect:
  • Despite recognizing his support, British authorities cited difficulty in assessing losses as an excuse for inadequate compensation.

Further Struggles (1803–1811):

• War with Nagpur (1803):
  • Ordered to guard Palamau’s passes; received no compensation.
• Drought of 1803:
  • Led to mass starvation; revenue collection dropped drastically.
  • Amin’s report confirmed severe loss, but no significant relief was given.
• Police Responsibility (1805–1811):
  • Entrusted with policing Palamau without any financial relief for the added burden.

Internal Challenges and Decline:

• Jagirdar Recalcitrance:
  • Jagirdars refused to pay dues or obey orders, undermining Churaman Rai’s authority.
  • His petition (Feb 24, 1813) expressed despair and helplessness.
• Key Offenders:
  • Principal defaulters included his relatives Chhatrapati Rai and Shiv Bakhsh Rai.
  • Jagirdars lived in remote, fortified areas, often fleeing to Berar to avoid compliance.
• Corruption and Mismanagement:
  • Akhauri Shiv Charan Ram facilitated fraud by taking bribes and issuing false sanads.
  • Churaman Rai’s passive role in the malpractice worsened the situation.

British Intervention (1810):

• Assistant Collector E. Parry sent to Palamau to resolve revenue arrears.
• He:
  • Took stamped kistbandis (revenue agreements) from each jagirdar.
  • Cancelled Churaman Rai’s sanads and reinstated M. Leslie’s Decennial Settlement.
  • Directed payments directly to the Chatra treasury.
• Resistance came from Bikramjit Singh (Ranka) and Chhatrapati Rai (Bishrampur).

Collapse of Churaman Rai’s Rule and British Takeover of Palamau (1810–1815)

Jagirdars’ Recalcitrance and Internal Weaknesses:

• Jagirdars resided in remote jungle and hill areas, often with mud forts that aided in evading civil or military actions.
• They fled to Berar when coerced and lived extravagantly, often beyond Churaman Rai’s means.
• Most were dissolute, debt-ridden, and unwilling or unable to pay moderate rents.
• Though some had ancient ties to their lands, they were historically dispossessable by the Chero rulers.
• Over generations, the Chero rulers became powerless, dominated by their jagirdars.

Mismanagement and Corruption:

• Churaman Rai failed to act against jagirdars due to personal indolence and poor counsel.
• Akhauri Shiv Charan Ram, a key advisor, took bribes and issued false sanads.
• Churaman Rai signed these documents without understanding them, not knowing Persian.

British Takeover and Attachment of Estate (1810–1813):

• In 1810, Assistant Collector Parry bypassed Churaman Rai and collected revenue directly from jagirdars.
• Parry annulled Rai’s sanads, reinstating M. Leslie’s earlier Decennial Settlement—an act the Board of Revenue later ratified.
• The estate of Palamau was attached, and an Amin was deputed to manage it.
• The Board of Revenue recommended removing Churaman Rai from estate management, offering him a 10% revenue allowance until arrears were cleared.

Sale of Palamau Estate (1812–1813):

• Captain E. Roughsedge and the Board of Revenue pushed for the estate’s sale to the Government.
• The Governor-General-in-Council approved the sale and a secret government purchase plan.
• A proclamation in December 1812 announced the public sale due to ₹55,000 in arrears.
• Despite Churaman Rai’s last-minute effort to secure a money-lender and repay the debt, the estate was sold for ₹51,000 before his petition reached authorities.

Churaman Rai’s Appeal and Final Decision (1813–1815):

• Rai made an emotional appeal to the Board, asking for reinstatement, offering to pay dues and provide guarantees.
• Assistant Collector H. Robertson supported Rai’s plea, citing his sincerity and limited guilt.
• Despite this, the Government finally decided on July 29, 1815, not to return the estate.
• This marked the end of the Chero dynasty’s centuries-old rule in Palamau.

Broader Implications:

• The British justified the sale on revenue grounds, but deeper political and military motives were at play.
• Palamau’s frontier with Surguja was considered militarily vulnerable.
• British sought direct control over the area to curb turbulence and secure strategic interests.

Early British Relations with Ranchi (1771–1773)

East India Company Consolidation

• British authority grew in the Ranchi region, diminishing the power of the Nagbanshi rulers.
• The period witnessed frequent Maratha incursions and internal disturbances.
• This unrest set the stage for the later Kol Insurrection of 1831–32.

Alliance with Drip Nath Shah

• Drip Nath Shah requested a Khilat (dress of honour), which was granted on December 12, 1771, by the Patna Council at Capt. Camac’s recommendation.
• He received it from Camac at Curriah (likely modern Bakoria).
• In return, Drip Nath Shah pledged:
  • Loyalty to the Company.
  • Protection of strategic passes.
  • Intelligence-sharing on Maratha and Deccan movements.

Conflict with Nanna Shah

• Drip Nath Shah reported that Capt. Carter was supporting Nanna Shah, who claimed to be the rightful ruler of Chota Nagpur.
• Nanna Shah took the title Maharaja Umraon Shah Deo and declared himself ruler.
• He gained the support of Mukund Singh of Ramgarh and some local chiefs.
• Camac and the Patna Council rejected Nanna Shah’s claims:
  • Ordered Carter to hand over Nanna Shah to Camac.
  • Prohibited interference in revenue and governance of Chota Nagpur.

Maratha Invasion

• A large Maratha force (~1,200 horsemen, 4,000 plunderers) invaded Drip Nath Shah’s territory.
• The Raja of Tori revolted and expelled Shah’s agents and Company sepoys.
• Drip Nath Shah was forced to retreat to Palkot.
• Marathas demanded tribute and cantonment rights.

British Military Response

• Camac advocated for immediate reinforcement:
  • Cited the risk of a broader Maratha alliance with disaffected chiefs.
• Patna Council (July 20, 1772):
  • Ordered Camac to take field command.
  • Requested Col. Alexander Champion to send 4 Companies of sepoys.
• Reinforcements arrived, initially from Dinapur, later replaced by sepoys from Monghyr.

Campaign Against the Marathas

• Camac arrived at Kunda on August 20, 1772.
• Dispatched troops into Chota Nagpur while securing the frontier.
• Marathas camped near Palkot; Camac’s forces were nearby.
• Most mountain passes were blocked except one controlled by Raja of Burwa, who aided the Marathas.

Maratha Retreat and Aftermath

• Marathas attacked Lt. Thomas Scott but were repelled:
  • Maratha losses included several men and 16 horses.
  • Scott’s forces had minor casualties.
• Marathas retreated; local Ghatwal plundered their baggage.
• They abducted Thakur Gulab Singh and Mukund Singh Shahi during retreat.

Subordinate Chiefs and Local Rebellions

• Several of Drip Nath Shah’s vassals stopped paying revenue and defied authority:
  • Notably the chiefs of Tori, Tamar, and Burwa.
• Silli Chief:
  • Most rebellious; looted British supplies and raided Ramgarh territory.
  • Camac dispatched sepoys in January 1773, but they failed to capture him.

British Campaign and Military Movements (1772–1774)

• July 1772:
  • Camac, ill but determined, informed the Patna Council of his intention to join his detachment to face the Marathas.
  • Requested reinforcement of 5–6 Companies of sepoys.
• Late July 1772:
  • Patna Council requested Col. Champion to send 4 Companies; they were later recalled and replaced by sepoys from Monghyr.
• August 20, 1772:
  • Camac reached Kunda; sent sepoys into Chota Nagpur while monitoring frontier activity.
• September 1772:
  • Marathas encamped near Palkot; Camac’s sepoys came within 11 Nagpur Coss of them.
  • Most passes closed; only Burwa pass (under a Maratha ally) remained open.
  • Lt. Scott’s camp attacked but Marathas were repulsed with losses.
  • Marathas retreated; their baggage plundered by a former ally (Ghatwal); they abducted Gulab Singh and Mukund Singh Shahni.

Conflict with Local Chiefs

• Chiefs of Tori, Tamar, Burwa, and especially Silli defied Drip Nath Shah.
• The Silli Chief:
  • Raided British territories and looted officer Steatly’s baggage.
  • Camac’s initial attempts to subdue him (early 1773) failed.
  • Eventually submitted through mediation by Thakur Jagmohan Singh.

Revenue Dispute with Drip Nath Shah

• Drip Nath Shah:
  • Repeatedly refused to pay revenue; tried to link payment to restoration of disputed lands.
  • Withheld revenue since February 1773, despite Camac’s persuasion.
  • Cut off supplies and surrounded a Company of sepoys sent to demand payment.
• Response:
  • Lt. Fennell sent (Sept–Dec 1773); failed to extract payment.
  • Camac marched personally in Jan 1774, attacked Drip Nath Shah’s forces on 18 Jan 1774.
  • Shah paid arrears in Feb 1774.

Administrative Reforms and Continued Resistance

• May 3, 1774:
  • Calcutta Council approved continuing moderate revenue rates due to unrest among chiefs.
• 1775:
  • S.G. Heatly appointed as Civil Collector for Ramgarh, Palamau, and Nagpur.
  • Camac instructed to hand over revenue collection responsibilities.
• 1776:
  • Drip Nath Shah continued to withhold payment; Ashe’s planned campaign against him was cancelled due to Calcutta Council’s intervention.

Persistent Hostility and British Concerns (1777–1782)

• Drip Nath Shah:
  • Never visited the British Collector post-submission.
  • Regularly fled to Maratha-controlled Surguja upon British threats.
  • Lived in temporary shelters to avoid British capture.
• James Crawford (1781):
  • Urged strong measures, including Shah’s displacement if necessary.
  • Highlighted Shah’s strategic ties with Maratha border rajas and his deceitful nature.
• Political Structure:
  • Shah held ceremonial power to confer the teeka on other chiefs, maintaining symbolic authority.
• Tamar Region:
  • Rebellious and largely autonomous since mid-18th century.
  • Drip Nath’s efforts to subdue it failed; it became a haven for bandits and freebooters.
  • Early 1782: renewed disturbances; Tamarites devastated Gola in Ramgarh.

Disturbances in Tamar and British Military Response (1781–1798)

• 1783 (December):
  • Major James Crawford entered Tamar to suppress unrest.
  • The locals surrendered under the condition they wouldn’t be tried for earlier depredations.
  • He ordered:
    • Demolition of strongholds.
    • Return of captured plunder.
• 1789:
  • Insurgents: Bishnu Manki & Mauji Manki.
  • Defiance: Refused to pay revenue; repulsed British sepoys.
  • Suppression:
    • Lt. Cooper led a campaign in July 1789, subdued them.
• 1794 (November):
  • Tamar became refractory again.
  • 1795 (January 2):
    • Board of Revenue informed the Collector of Ramgarh about government orders to suppress the unrest.

Campaign of Captain B. Bayne (1796)

• February 16, 1796:
  • Capt. B. Bayne marched into Tamar; camped at Babakunda.
  • Villagers fled to the hills with cattle.
  • He faced extreme shortage of supplies (meagre quantities of dal, ghee, salt, and collese [possibly meat]).
• February 17, 1796:
  • Visited by local Rajas and zamindars.
  • Narendra Shahi (Raja of Rahe) requested Bayne to march to Sonahatu to recover unpaid revenue from Thakur Das.
• February 19, 1796:
  • Bayne marched to Sonahatu with Narendra Shahi.
  • Villagers’ resistance:
    • Villagers fled, returned, and attacked Bayne’s position.
    • Two sepoys wounded.
  • Bayne’s action:
    • Moved camp, dismissed Narendra Shahi on February 21.
• February 23, 1796:
  • Bayne marched to Jhalda due to supply issues.
  • He advocated:
    • Stationing a permanent corps at Jhalda.
    • Severe punitive action against Tamar’s inhabitants.
    • Quote: “Our mild Government does not correspond with their principles.”

Widespread Insurrection (February 1796 Onwards)

• February 27, 1796 (7th Phagun):
  • Ram Shahi Munda and Thakur Das Munda (relatives of Dulal Munda):
    • Seized the fort of Rahe (Narendra Shahi’s).
    • Plundered the fort and 12 villages.
    • Captured Kanhaiya, Narendra Shahi’s brother.
• Result:
  • Full-scale rebellion across Khunti subdivision (modern-day Ranchi).
  • All Mundas, Mankis, and zamindars of Silli, Rahe, and Tamar joined the rising.

Further British Campaigns (1797–1798)

• Principal rebel leaders:
  • Thakur Bishwanath Singh (Silli)
  • Thakur Bholanath Singh (Tamar)
  • Thakur Hiranath Singh (Bissunpur)
  • Thakur Shivnath Singh (Bundu)
• Supporters:
  • Many influential Mundas and Mankis.
• Grievances:
  • Constant military expeditions against them.
  • Collusion of Narendra Shahi with British troops.
• December 20, 1797:
  • Lt. T.H. Welsh:
    • Received the heads of Lal Singh Munda and Ram Charan Munda (key rebels).
    • Surrounded and injured Diggumbar Singh Munda and 15 others.
• Early 1798:
  • Bholanath Singh conducted new raids in Gola (1 killed, 5 wounded).
  • W.W. Hunter asked Maj. Dyson Marshall to assist Lt. Welsh in apprehending Bholanath.
• April 1798:
  • Capt. Limond apprehended several key leaders.
  • Capt. Bayne captured Bholanath Singh.
  • W.W. Hunter captured another insurgent (previously had 300-rupee bounty).
  • Shivnath Singh surrendered to Lt. Welsh.

Outcome:

• By mid-1798, peace was restored in Silli, Rahe, Tamar, and Sonahatu after nearly 17 years of intermittent rebellion (since 1781).

Govind Nath Shah’s Rule and Conflict with the British (1806–1812)

• Accession and Early Troubles (1806–1808)
  • Deo Nath Shah died in late 1806, succeeded by his son Govind Nath Shah.
  • Faced family disputes—his brothers claimed parts of the estate based on earlier grants.
  • Govind Nath dispossessed them, leading to allegations of murder and criminal acts.
  • Dispute over pargana Udaipur also broke out; Govind supported one claimant, expelling others.
• Influence of Diwan Din Dayal Nath
  • By 1808, Diwan Din Dayal Nath dominated the administration, issuing orders in the Raja’s name.
  • Local tenure-holders were dispossessed and left with ineffective legal recourse.
  • The Raja evaded responsibility, referring complaints to sluggish Civil Courts.
• British Intervention and Submission (1808–1809)
  • Government instructed Magistrate and Capt. Roughsedge to intervene militarily.
  • Din Dayal fled to Calcutta, was arrested and brought back to Chatra.
  • Govind Nath Shah submitted, agreed to:
    • Pay arrears of Rs. 35,000,
    • Introduce police reforms,
    • Submit disputes to arbitration.
  • Received a Khilat (honorary gift) and letter of approbation from the Vice-President-in-Council in 1809.
• Implementation of Police System (1809)
  • New police system effective from June 4, 1809.
  • Raja managed and paid the police, but control lay with the Magistrate of Ramgarh.
  • Govind Nath reluctantly accepted it, soon tried to undermine its effect.
  • Mundas and Oraons also resented the new system.
• Growing Discontent and Revolt (1811–1812)
  • British legalism and use of non-local officials led to widespread unrest.
  • In 1811, major uprising of Mundas and Oraons erupted.
  • Chief rebel: Baidyanath Shahi (Buctour Soah) of Nawagarh.
    • Conducted raids and plundered villages in Burwa and Jashpur.
    • Killed Hira Ram, Raja’s agent sent to negotiate.
• British Military Response (1812)
  • Feb 11: Lt. H. O’Donel led a detachment from Hazaribagh.
  • Reached Nawadiha on Feb 19; delayed attack until Feb 26.
  • Night attack on Feb 26–27 failed due to:
    • Difficult terrain,
    • Hidden enemies,
    • Heavy gunfire from unknown directions,
    • High ammunition use with minimal success.
  • O’Donel withdrew on Feb 27, suffering casualties and low supplies.
• Roughsedge’s Reinforcement and Final Attack (March 1812)
  • Capt. Roughsedge mobilized troops from Bankura, Gaya, and Chatra.
  • Sought reinforcement from Dinapur (approved by Commander-in-Chief).
  • Reached Nawadiha on March 24, attacked Nawagarh on March 28.
  • Baidyanath Shahi escaped to Surguja.
  • British returned to Hazaribagh on April 1, 1812.
• Aftermath
  • Major disturbance ended, though minor loot and plunder continued.
  • Govind Nath Shah used the turmoil as pretext to delay revenue payments.
  • British had no effective mechanism to enforce obedience, often resorted to sending reminders.