jharkhandexam.in

Wings To Fly!

Tag: Palamau fort history

  • CHAPTER V PALAMU AND RANCHI ON THE EVE OF THE KOL INSURRECTION (July 1813-December 1830)

    1. Colonial Expansion & Administrative Changes

    • British East India Company Influence:
      By the early 1800s, Palamau and Ranchi were under indirect British control following the decline of regional powers and the expansion of Company rule after the Battle of Buxar (1764).
    • Zamindari System Introduction:
      Traditional tribal land rights were disrupted by the Permanent Settlement (1793) and the introduction of the Zamindari system. Tribal land was handed over to non-tribal landlords (Dikus).
    • Revenue Pressures & Legal Changes:
      The British focus on revenue extraction led to the imposition of unfamiliar legal and administrative systems, often favoring moneylenders and landlords over indigenous communities.

    2. Tribal Communities & Rising Discontent

    • Key Tribes:
      • Kols (an umbrella term used by the British for various tribes)
      • Mundas
      • Oraons
      • Hos
    • Core Grievances:
      • Loss of Land: Alienation from ancestral land due to debt, land grab by Dikus, and legal manipulation.
      • Exploitation: Tribal people were often reduced to tenants, bonded laborers, or landless workers.
      • Erosion of Tribal Autonomy: Displacement of traditional tribal leaders (Mankis and Mundas) by revenue agents and courts.

    3. The Kol Insurrection (1831–1832)

    • Outbreak and Spread:
      Originated in Chotanagpur Plateau, particularly in Ranchi, Palamau, Singhbhum, and Hazaribagh.
      Triggered by growing resentment against landlords, moneylenders, and colonial authorities.
    • Nature of the Uprising:
      • Tribal groups launched coordinated attacks on zamindars, moneylenders, and colonial establishments.
      • It was both an anti-colonial and socio-economic revolt, deeply rooted in defense of tribal autonomy and land rights.
    • British Response:
      The uprising was brutally crushed using military force by early 1832.
      British officers underestimated the depth of tribal anger and the organizational ability of the insurgents.

    4. Aftermath & Legacy

    • Suppression and Control:
      The rebellion was suppressed, but it forced the British to recognize the volatility of tribal regions.
    • Policy Changes:
      The British adopted a more cautious approach in tribal areas, later formalized in the “Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas” provision of the Government of India Act (1935).
    • Historical Significance:
      • One of the earliest large-scale tribal uprisings against British rule in India.
      • Set the stage for later uprisings like the Santhal Rebellion (1855–56) and Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan (1899–1900).

    📌 Core Themes and Context Before the Kol Insurrection

    1. Root Causes of Unrest in Tamar and Chotanagpur

    • Discontent with British authority: Many zamindars (e.g., of Itaki and Tamar) never fully acknowledged British civil or military authority.
    • Terrain and geography: The hilly, forested regions provided excellent defense for local tribes and insurgents.
    • Poor communication and trust: There was little governmental effort to bridge the understanding gap with the tribals; legal recourse was inaccessible, and retaliation became the norm.
    • Oppressive local rulers: Chiefs like Govind Shahi were seen as oppressive, triggering resentment and violent uprisings.

    2. Key Figures and Incidents

    • Govind Shahi (Tamar Chief): Allegedly oppressive, his disputes with local chiefs and common people catalyzed unrest.
    • Major Roughsedge: British military officer trying to suppress the rebellion, strategically cautious but ultimately forceful.
    • Colvin (Magistrate of Jungle Mahals): Tasked with understanding and resolving the disturbances diplomatically, emphasizing mild and conciliatory approaches.
    • Kunta Munda & Rudan: Charismatic tribal leaders of the rebellion, eventually captured but remained symbols of resistance.

    3. Timeline of the Tamar Disturbances (1819–1821)

    • August 1819: Outbreak begins; unrest escalates rapidly by September.
    • Late 1819: British send small forces; insurgents gain ground and attack Govind Shahi’s stronghold.
    • Dec 1819 – Jan 1820: Major engagements, insurgents entrenched in Purana Nagar, eventually pushed back to forest areas.
    • March 1820: Rebellion is mostly suppressed; leaders like Rudan still at large.
    • July 1820: Rudan arrested.
    • Early 1821: Rumors of renewed uprisings led by Kunta; ultimately foiled by British vigilance.
    • Mid-1821: General pacification in Tamar and Chotanagpur.

    4. Extension into Chotanagpur (1821)

    • Inspired by Singhbhum’s Larka Kols, unrest spreads to Chotanagpur.
    • Fuelled by internal political tension (e.g., return of Radhanath Pandey).
    • Suppressed again by May 1821.

    🧩 Broader Historical Significance

    • The Kol Insurrection of 1831 did not erupt in a vacuum—it was preceded by decades of tribal discontent, land disputes, oppressive tenures, and disregard for tribal customs.
    • Tamar’s experience (1819–1821) reveals a prototype of tribal rebellion: charismatic leaders, localized grievances, strong terrain advantage, and deep-rooted mistrust of external rulers.
    • The British, while attempting some conciliation, largely relied on military suppression and cooperation with compliant local rulers like Govind Shahi.

    Palamau and Ranchi Before the Kol Insurrection

    I. Decline of Traditional Authority

    1. Nagbanshi Ruler’s Waning Influence

    • Jagannath Shah Deo, the Nagbanshi ruler, was held in high esteem by subordinate chiefs and tenure-holders even in 1827.
    • His authority included:
      • Formal recognition of inheritance.
      • Conferment of titles to subordinates.

    2. British Humiliation of Native Authority

    • British officers viewed the Nagbanshi’s continued authority as intolerable.
    • Jagannath Shah Deo resented British policies and was aware of the exploitation of his people.
    • W. Blunt (1832) wrote that the management system in Chotanagpur was “extremely unpalatable” to the Rajah.

    II. Oppression of the Tribal Population

    1. Economic Exploitation

    • Tribals were burdened with:
      • Obnoxious taxes.
      • Illegal exactions from jagirdars, thikadars, and lessees.
    • J. Thomason described how:
      • Tribals were forced to provide unpaid labor.
      • Fined for events like deaths in their own homes.
      • Subject to cesses for horses, palanquins, cows, and even pan.

    2. Violation of Tribal Autonomy

    • The Hundeea tax imposed on homemade liquor violated domestic privacy.
    • Although abolished in 1826, its negative legacy persisted.

    III. Breakdown of Justice and Administration

    1. Displacement and Dispossession

    • Tribals were often evicted from ancestral lands.
    • British courts were inaccessible and alien to tribal customs.
    • Tribals were viewed as rebels rather than rightful claimants.

    2. Administrative Alienation

    • After 1817, local magistrates were replaced by outsiders from Bengal and Bihar.
    • These officials:
      • Did not understand tribal life.
      • Often participated in exploitation.

    3. Corruption and Illegal Exactions

    • Subordinate officers demanded:
      • Gonaligaree, Sulamee (customary payments).
      • Opium fines, post charges, and more.

    IV. Widespread Discontent and Preparations for Revolt

    1. Beyond the Tribes

    • Discontent was not limited to tribals.
    • Even big landlords and zamindars were dissatisfied due to:
      • Short-term revenue settlements.
      • Legal technicalities causing estate auctions for arrears.

    2. Humiliation of Elites

    • British legal system was perceived as leveling:
      • Even high-ranking natives were subject to criminal prosecution.
      • Considered culturally humiliating by Hindus and Muslims alike.

    3. Move Toward Insurrection

    • The situation led to a climate ripe for revolt:
      • A sense of shared suffering across communities.
      • Tribals were especially motivated to reclaim autonomy.

    V. Historical Context and Final Push Toward Insurrection

    1. Historical Sovereignty

    • Nagbanshis and Cheros had resisted Mughal dominance, retaining real control.
    • Their political culture developed in relative isolation but absorbed external influences (e.g., architecture, administration).

    2. Company Annexation

    • By 1760s–1770s:
      • British East India Company sought to annex Palamau and Ranchi due to:
        • Maratha threats.
        • Refuge of rebellious zamindars.
      • Drip Nath Shah of Chota Nagpur submitted peacefully.
      • Chitrajit Rai of Palamau resisted but was eventually subdued in 1771.

    3. Reduction of Native Power

    • By 1813, the Chero dynasty was extinguished.
    • In 1817, Nagbanshis were reduced to the status of zamindars.
    • Tribal leaders and former allies like Jainath Singh, Sugandh Rai, and Gajraj Rai resisted British authority.

    VI.Seeds of Insurrection

    • The British failed to understand or address:
      • Cultural values.
      • Land rights.
      • Administrative justice.
    • Frequent revolts (1775–1830) foreshadowed the Kol Insurrection.
    • The rebellion was not merely spontaneous—it was the culmination of decades of suffering, humiliation, and systemic neglect.
    • The Kol Insurrection (1831–32) became an expression of collective resistance:
      • By tribals.
      • By former ruling families.
      • By dispossessed elites.

  • 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.

  • CHAPTER II “Palamu’s Political Evolution (1658–1765): From Mughal Rule to British Diwani”

    Raghunath Shah (r. ~1658–1690)

    • Ruled during most of Aurangzeb’s reign; known for religious and charitable nature.
    • Guru Harinath inspired Raghunath Shah to add “Nath” to his name and become his servant.
    • From this time, Nagbanshi rulers used both “Nath” and “Shah” in their names.
    • Capital: Doisa remained the headquarters.
    • Architectural Contributions:
      • Built temples in Doisa, notably the Jagannath Temple (Samvat 1739 / 1682 A.D.).
      • Built Madanmohan Temple at village Borea (Samvat 1722 / 1665 A.D.).
      • Temples at Chutia, including a Ram-Sita temple by Hari Brahmachari in 1685.
    • Era marked by prosperity and relative Mughal non-interference.
    • Conflict: According to Chero traditions, Medini Rai of Palamau invaded and looted Doisa; supposedly took a large stone gate, known in Palamau as the Nagpur Gate (story possibly exaggerated).
    • Succeeded Raghunath Shah; ruled for ~25 years.
    • Inscription in Kapilnath Temple (1710 A.D.) confirms his reign.
    • Relations with Mughals (Aurangzeb) remained cordial.
    • Paid revenue to the Mughals via Orissa Subah: Rs. 9,705 in 1692 A.D.
    • Little known about internal affairs of his reign.
    • Possibly ruled 9–10 years; described as energetic.
    • Took advantage of post-Aurangzeb Mughal instability and withheld tribute.
    • May have lost Pargana Tori to Ranjit Rai of Palamau in 1719 (with Ramgarh’s help).
    • 1717 A.D.: Faced a Mughal expedition by Sarbuland Khan, Governor of Bihar.
      • Yadunath Shah submitted without resistance.
      • Paid Nazrana of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 45,000 in cash, rest in diamonds).
      • Possibly led to capital shift from Doisa to Palkot due to security concerns.
    • Died in 1724 A.D.; had 12 sons, succeeded by Shivnath Shah.

    Shivnath Shah (r. 1724–1733)

    • Eldest son of Yadunath Shah.
    • First six years of reign were uneventful.
    • Mughal authority over Chota Nagpur was minimal during this period.

    Udainath Shah (r. 1733–1740)

    • Succeeded Shivnath Shah.
    • Period marked by external threats:
      • Alivardi Khan appointed Deputy Governor of Bihar in 1733.
      • In 1734, Alivardi campaigned against Tekari’s zamindar; came close to Chota Nagpur.
      • Ramgarh’s chief Bishun Singh submitted and promised tribute, possibly covering Udainath Shah’s dues.
    • After 1734, no major events recorded until the end of Udainath’s reign in 1740.

    Nagbanshi and Maratha Interactions (1740–1765)

    • Accession of Shyamsundar Nath Shah (1740 A.D.) marked the beginning of a new era in Chota Nagpur history.
    • Maratha Invasions (1742–1751 A.D.):
      • Maratha incursions began during Shyamsundar’s reign and persisted till early 19th century.
      • Bhaskar Pandit entered Chota Nagpur via Chhattisgarh en route to Bengal during the first Maratha invasion (1742).
      • Grant Duff notes Maratha forces emerging near Ramgarh, attacking Pachet (modern Raniganj area).
      • The Maratha route passed through Ranchi’s dense forests, especially Gumla and Burwa.
      • After defeat at Katwah, Bhaskar Pandit fled via Ramgarh but retreated through Orissa instead of Chota Nagpur due to Alivardi Khan’s pressure and difficult terrain.
      • Maratha Bairagis (mendicant raiders) continued minor raids after Bhaskar’s retreat, chased by Alivardi Khan to Ramgarh.
    • Raghuji Bhonsla’s Bengal Campaign (1743 A.D.):
      • Followed Bhaskar’s earlier invasion route.
      • Chased by Peshwa Balaji Rao, Raghuji fled to Nagpur.
      • Peshwa passed through ‘Bedugarh’ in Chota Nagpur, possibly not modern Ramgarh.
    • Maratha Influence:
      • Frequent Maratha passage weakened Mughal authority in Chota Nagpur.
      • August 31, 1743: Agreement between Peshwa and Raghuji divided influence zones; Chota Nagpur fell under Raghuji’s sphere.
      • Maratha extortion of Nagbanshi territories persisted till early 1800s.

    Nagbanshi Rulers’ Timeline (1740–1790):

    • Shyamsundar Nath Shah (1740–1745): Died childless.
    • Balaram Nath Shah (1745–1748): Younger brother of Shyamsundar.
    • Mani Nath Shah (1748–1762): Son of Balaram, ruled 14 years.
      • Consolidated Nagbanshi authority.
      • Subdued local chiefs (Bundu, Silli, Barwa, Rahe, Tamar) who began paying nazrana and recognized the Nagbanshi as their overlord.
    • Drip Nath Shah (1762–1790): Son of Nrip Nath Shah, cousin of Mani Nath Shah.
      • Reign marked by:
        • Decline of Mughal authority
        • Continued Maratha incursions
        • Local unrest
        • British entry into Chota Nagpur
      • By 1765, Chota Nagpur listed as a ‘dismembered territory’ in revenue records of Bihar.
      • Under Mir Qasim (1760–63), parts of Birbhum were defended against inroads from Palamau, Ramgarh, and Kharagdiha.
      • Nagbanshis became de facto independent and began raiding adjacent territories.

    This rich historical account vividly illustrates the intense Mughal-Chero conflict during Aurangzeb’s reign, particularly the campaign led by Daud Khan Quraishi against Medini Rai, the Chero ruler of Palamau. Here’s a summarized breakdown of the key events and significance based on your excerpt:

    Background & Prelude

    • The Cheros, under Medini Rai, had long resisted Mughal authority, refusing to pay tribute and raiding nearby imperial lands.
    • Medini Rai, ambitious and defiant, even launched military expeditions against neighboring territories like Kokrah, plundering it and seizing artifacts such as the stone-gate from Doisa, now known as the Nagpur Gate.
    • The construction of the New Palamau Fort signaled a strategic strengthening of Chero defenses.

    Aurangzeb’s Response

    • Upon ascending the throne, Aurangzeb took immediate note of the Chero defiance.
    • He ordered Daud Khan, the Governor of Bihar, to subjugate Palamau, collect the overdue tribute, and potentially annex the territory if resistance continued.
    1. Initial Movements:
      • Daud Khan was joined by key Mughal officers and local allies, including the Nagbanshi ruler of Kokrah (likely motivated by revenge).
      • Key Mughal commanders included Mirza Khan, Tahawwur Khan, Shaikh Tatar, and Raja Bahroz.
      • The campaign began with the strategic capture of Kothi, followed by Kunda, where the local chief Chun Rai briefly submitted before being assassinated by his brother Surwar Rai, at the behest of Medini Rai.
    2. Siege of Palamau:
      • Daud Khan rejected peace offerings from Medini Rai, including a substantial peshkash (tribute) and attempted negotiations.
      • Multiple earthworks and trenches were constructed by both sides.
      • A vigorous cannonade followed, with heavy losses on both sides. The Cheros used the terrain to their advantage but were technologically outmatched.
      • Medini Rai’s defensive tactics and attempts at diplomacy failed, particularly after his forces intercepted an imperial convoy—prompting further Mughal aggression.
    3. Battle at the Oranga River:
      • Mughal forces attacked from three sides, forcing the Cheros to retreat first to the lower fort, and later to the upper fort.
      • Despite fierce resistance, the forts were eventually overrun.
      • Medini Rai escaped into the forests under cover of night, though much of his army was killed, captured, or dispersed.

    Aftermath

    • The campaign ended in a Mughal victory, with:
      • Both Palamau forts captured.
      • Temples destroyed, and Islamic practices imposed in the region.
      • The Chero state severely weakened, though not completely eradicated.
    • The battle showcased the limits of local resistance against the Mughal war machine but also highlighted the cultural and martial resilience of indigenous polities like the Cheros.

    Historical Significance

    • This encounter is a prime example of Aurangzeb’s assertive Deccan and frontier policy, seeking to consolidate control over rebellious chieftains and regional powers.
    • Medini Rai emerges as a symbol of resistance, while Daud Khan’s campaign shows the imperial commitment to subjugate dissent.
    • The event also reveals the tactical interplay between hill forts, tribal resistance, and imperial military discipline in 17th-century India.

    1. Mughal Campaigns and Medini Rai’s Restoration (1658–1674)

    • Aurangzeb’s Governor in Bihar: Daud Khan was succeeded by Yadgar Beg (Jan Nisar Khan / Lashkar Khan) in 1665. Palamau came directly under the Governor of Bihar.
    • Medini Rai’s Return: After Mankali Khan was transferred in 1666, Medini Rai returned from exile (Surguja) and regained control. His reign (till 1674) is remembered as a golden age for Palamau.
    • Reforms and Prosperity: Medini Rai is praised for agrarian recovery, abolishing taxes, and promoting public welfare. Folk memory celebrates his compassion and justice.

    2. Continued Mughal Oversight and Local Rule (1674–1707)

    • Chero Successions: Rudra Rai (1674–1680), Drikpal Rai (till ~1697), Sahab Rai (till 1716).
    • Mughal Grants:
      • Village Untari was granted to Anirudh Rai as lakharaj jagir (1661); confirmed for his son Nirhar Deo (1667).
      • Tribute settlements, like the one by Bihari Das (~Rs. 16,637), show partial integration of Palamau into Mughal revenue networks.
    • Sahab Rai and Tribute Withholding: Post-Aurangzeb, Sahab Rai stopped paying tribute, showing a decline in Mughal influence.

    3. Rising Regional Challenges and the Chero Decline (1716–1740s)

    • Ranjit Rai’s Reign (1716–1722): Defiant of Mughal authority; temporarily seized Tori from Nagbanshis with Ramgarh’s help.
    • Chero Civil War & Jai Krishna Rai’s Rise: Babuan faction overthrew Ranjit Rai. Jai Krishna Rai became ruler with help from Diwan Amar Singh Thakurai.
    • Invasions and Tribute Settlements:
      • Sarbuland Khan’s expedition under Farrukh-Siyar.
      • Fakhruddaula’s attack in 1730, resisted by local guerrilla tactics.
      • Alivardi Khan’s punitive expedition (1734) further weakened the Cheros.

    4. Final Mughal Interference and Maratha Pressure (1740–1765)

    • Last Mughal Campaign: Hedait Ali Khan’s 1740 campaign was the final direct intervention. Annual rental fixed at Rs. 5,000.
    • Maratha Intrusions:
      • Balaji Rao may have passed through Palamau (1743); village names like Marhatiya and Peshka hint at Maratha presence.
      • Surguja, under Bhonslas, launched regular incursions from the south.

    5. Fragmentation of Authority and British Opportunity (1750s–1765)

    • Mughal Grants vs. Local Autonomy:
      • Emperor Muhammad Shah granted Japla and Belaunja to Hedait Ali Khan, but local Rajput (Sonpura) resistance was strong.
      • Only Japla was secured; Belaunja remained contested.
    • Rise of Rajput and Muslim Zamindars: Northern Palamau came under the control of the Bhaiyas of Untari, Thakurais of Chainpur and Ranka.
    • Court Intrigues & Decline of Chero Power: Jai Krishna Rai’s court became unstable. The southern Cheros remained nominally strong, but weakened.
    • British Entry: This fragmentation and the weakened political structure made British control (after Diwani of 1765) relatively easier.

  • THE NAGBANSHIS AND THE CHEROS

    Introduction

    Long before it became a defined part of Bihar, the Chotanagpur region—comprising present-day Ranchi and Palamau—was a little-known frontier in Indian history. Often studied for its rich tribal culture and anthropology, the region’s political history remained largely in the shadows. This pioneering historical study brings to light the complex and dynamic political developments that unfolded between 1585 A.D. and 1830 A.D., a period marked by Mughal invasions, Maratha influence, and British conquest.

    The focus lies on two key dynasties: the Nagbanshi rulers of Ranchi (then known as Kokrah) and the Chero rulers of Palamau, tracing their interactions, resistance, and eventual submission to external powers. The narrative unfolds against the backdrop of larger imperial ambitions—from the Mughal Empire to the East India Company.

    One fascinating detail is the evolution of Ranchi’s name—from Kokrah during Mughal times, to variations like Chutia Nagpore, Chhota Nagpore, and finally Chotanagpur by the mid-19th century. Palamau, on the other hand, retained its name throughout, albeit with minor spelling changes.

    The content is structured into five detailed chapters:

    • Chapters I & II delve into the Mughal period, covering early invasions, the establishment of Chero rule, and growing Maratha threats.
    • Chapter III marks the transition to British rule, highlighting the East India Company’s growing interest and military expeditions in the region.
    • Chapter IV explores the resistance against British control, internal revolts, and the decline of both the Nagbanshi and Chero dynasties.
    • Chapter V captures the final phase of indigenous political power, as local rulers were reduced to zamindars and direct British administration took over.

    This work offers a fresh perspective on a neglected chapter of Indian history, piecing together the political transformation of a region that played a quiet but significant role in the subcontinent’s shifting power dynamics. For history enthusiasts, students, and researchers, it opens a crucial window into the political fabric of eastern India before the full establishment of colonial rule.

    Chapter I

    Early Mughal Contacts with Ranchi and Palamau (1585–1657 A.D.)

    Section A: Ranchi

    • Durjan Sal later refused to pay tribute, drawing Mughal military action.

    Nagbanshi Rule:

    • Region under the control of the Nagbanshi dynasty, descended from Phani Mukut Rai.
    • Capital shifted from Sutiambe to Khukra, which later became synonymous with the whole kingdom.
    • Medieval Muslim sources referred to the region as Kokra, Khokhra, or Kukra-desh.

    Pre-1585 Situation:

    • Nagbanshi rulers lived in relative isolation, secure in forested terrain.
    • Early Muslim expeditions to Bengal/Orissa bypassed Kokrah; it remained untouched.

    Mughal Interest Under Akbar:

    • Triggered by tales of diamonds in Kokrah’s rivers.
    • Political motive: the region had been a refuge for Sher Shah and Afghan rebels.
    • Mughals aimed to secure their eastern frontier.

    Prelude to Invasion:

    • In 1575, Afghan leader Junaid attempted to reach Bihar via Jharkhand; was defeated near Rampur (Hazaribagh).
    • Indicated Mughal awareness of Kokrah’s strategic location.

    Mughal Invasion (1585 A.D.):

    • Shahbaz Khan Kambu led Mughal forces into Kokrah.
    • The region was plundered; Nagbanshi ruler submitted and agreed to pay tribute.

    Identity of the Ruler:

    • Akbarnama and Maathir-ul-Umara mention the ruler as Madhu Singh.
    • Some British-era records call him Bairi Sal, likely a misidentification.
    • Scholars identify him as Madhu Karan Sahi (Madhukar Shah).

    Post-Invasion Developments:

    • Madhu Karan Sahi possibly visited the imperial court and earned Mughal trust.
    • Nagbanshi rulers began using the title ‘Shah’ or ‘Sahi’, imitating the Mughals.

    Service to the Empire:

    • In 1592, Madhu Karan Sahi joined a Mughal campaign in Orissa, serving under Yusuf Chak.
    • Marked his status as a trusted feudatory of the Mughals.

    After Madhu Karan Sahi:

    • Likely died before 1600; Nagbanshi records say he ruled till 1608.
    • Succeeded by Durjan Sal, mentioned in Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri as ruler during Jahangir’s reign.

    The Nagbanshis and the Mughals

    Diamonds, Defiance, and Dynasties in Early Jharkhand

    • Kokrah (Ranchi region) drew Mughal attention in the early 17th century due to:
      • Strategic location
      • Diamonds in the Sankh River
    • Durjan Sal, the Nagbanshi ruler, defied Mughal authority by withholding tribute under Emperor Jahangir.
    • Mughal Campaigns:
      • 1612: Zafar Khan’s invasion reached the diamond areas but was cut short.
      • 1615: Ibrahim Khan invaded, captured Durjan Sal, and seized diamonds and elephants.
      • Durjan Sal was imprisoned at Gwalior Fort.
    • Diamond Expertise Saves the King:
      • Summoned to Jahangir’s court to test a diamond.
      • Used two rams to demonstrate authenticity—exposing the fake.
      • Jahangir, impressed, released him, restored his kingdom, and gave him the title ‘Shah’.
    • Return and Reclaiming the Throne (1627):
      • Found his throne usurped during exile.
      • Reclaimed power with help from other exiled rajas.
    • Capital Shift & Legacy:
      • Moved capital from Khukra to Doisa.
      • Commissioned construction of Navratangarh, a five-storeyed fort-palace with Mughal-inspired architecture.
      • Ruled for 12–13 more years, remembered for:
        • His resilience
        • Diplomatic recovery
        • Architectural contributions
    • Legacy: Durjan Sal’s life symbolized a rare moment when local knowledge and defiance triumphed over imperial power.

    Diamonds, Dynasties & Diplomacy

    Durjan Sal and the Mughal Conquest of Kokrah

    • Early 17th century: Mughal interest in Kokrah (modern Ranchi region) grew due to:
      • Diamonds in the Sankh River
      • Strategic location in eastern India
    • 1585 onward: Mughals had limited contact; Jahangir initiated direct action for diamonds.
    • First Campaign (c. 1612):
      • Led by Zafar Khan
      • Abandoned due to illness and reassignment
    • Second Campaign (1615):
      • Led by Ibrahim Khan, new Governor of Bihar
      • Rejected Durjan Sal’s peace offering (diamonds & elephants)
      • Captured Durjan Sal from a cave hideout
      • Looted Kokrah; sent Durjan Sal to Gwalior Fort
    • Redemption Through Diamonds:
      • Jahangir summoned Durjan Sal to judge two suspicious diamonds
      • Used rams to test authenticity—correctly identified the real gem
      • Impressed Jahangir:
        • Released Durjan Sal
        • Restored his kingdom
        • Granted title of ‘Shah’
        • Allowed to sit in the Emperor’s presence
        • Fixed annual tribute of Rs. 6,000
    • Return to Kokrah (c. 1627):
      • Found throne usurped by a relative
      • Reclaimed rule with help from fellow exiled rajas
      • Some nobles chose exile over civil conflict
    • Cultural Legacy:
      • Moved capital from Khukra to Doisa (Navratangarh)
      • Built Navratangarh Fort:
        • 5-storeyed palace
        • Moat and “water gate”
        • Inspired by Mughal architecture
    • Legacy:
      • Symbol of resilience, diplomacy, and cultural fusion
      • Remembered in folk songs and ruins of Navratangarh

    The Forgotten Conflict

    Raghunath Shah’s Resistance Against the Mughals (1640–1690 A.D.)

    • Raghunath Shah:
      • Nagbanshi ruler of Kokrah (modern Ranchi region)
      • Reigned approx. 1640–1690 A.D.
      • Often confused with Ram Shah, but inscriptional evidence (Borea Temple, 1665) confirms Raghunath’s rule during mid-century
    • Mughal Threat:
      • Local tradition speaks of a Mughal invasion during Shahjahan’s reign
      • Repelled by Raghunath Shah, though not recorded in major Mughal chronicles
    • Tavernier’s Account:
      • French traveler Jean-Baptiste Tavernier mentions a Mughal expedition to “Soumelpour”, near diamond rivers
      • Scholars believe “Soumelpour” refers to Kokrah
      • The “Gouel” river is likely the Sankh River, known for diamonds
    • Scorched Earth Strategy:
      • Raghunath Shah evacuated people, burned surplus grain
      • Mughals suffered famine, forcing a truce
      • Raghunath agreed to pay a nominal tribute to avoid further conflict
    • Legacy:
      • A rare example of non-violent resistance and strategic brilliance
      • Blends local folklore, foreign observations, and epigraphic evidence
      • Highlights the resilience of regional powers in the face of Mughal imperialism

    Early Mughal Contacts: Ranchi & Palamau – A Turning Point in Chotanagpur

    Ranchi: From Isolation to Integration

    • Nagbanshi ruler Raghunath Shah witnessed initial conflict, followed by improved ties with the Mughals.
    • Ended centuries of isolation; ushered in exposure to North Indian political and cultural systems.
    • Adopted primogeniture, new administrative models, and temple architecture inspired by Mughal norms.
    • Northern Brahmins and soldiers were granted land—bringing religious and social shifts.
    • Migration increased, with low-caste Hindus and Muslims settling under Mughal or Hindu Jagirdars.
    • Territorial expansion into Tamar and Burwa reflected growing regional consolidation.

    Palamau: Rise of the Cheros

    • Known in Mughal records as Palaun/Paloon.
    • Chero dynasty rose around 1613 A.D. under Bhagwat Rai (possibly as early as 1585 A.D.).
    • Displaced Raksel Rajputs, gained support from tribes like the Kharwars.
    • Used military land grants to cement power; originally migrated from Rohtas.
    • Linked with Maharta Chero, who resisted Sher Shah Suri in 1538.
    • Features legend of Khawas Khan’s expedition to seize a white elephant—symbolic of Mughal ambition.
    • Mughal subjugation of the Cheros was delayed, with only partial success by the late 16th century.

    The Cheros of Palamau: Resistance & Rivalry

    Mughal Campaigns Under Akbar

    • 1590: Raja Man Singh led a Mughal expedition against Bhagwat Rai, Chero ruler of Palamau.
    • Cheros blocked mountain passes but were defeated; 54 elephants and booty sent to Akbar.
    • Mughal troops were stationed, but Palamau remained loosely integrated.
    • Pundag (Palamau) listed in Todar Mal’s rent-roll with imaginary revenue.

    Rebellion & Reassertion Under Jahangir

    • After Akbar’s death, Mughal control weakened.
    • Anant Rai succeeded Bhagwat Rai; Afzal Khan (governor of Bihar) launched a failed campaign in 1607.
    • Sahbal Rai succeeded Anant Rai; known for defying Mughal authority and looting imperial caravans.
    • Chero tradition claims he was captured and killed in Delhi in a barehanded tiger fight, though unverified.

    Pratap Rai & Fortification

    • Pratap Rai built the Old Palamau Fort near Satbarwa.
    • Refused to pay the Rs. 1,36,000 tribute demanded by the Mughal governor of Bihar in 1632.
    • Faced ongoing pressure, but maintained regional autonomy.

    Territory & Boundaries

    • Chero kingdom stretched from the Kanhar River to ~71 miles south of Patna.
    • Forts at Kothi, Kunda, and Deogan secured its frontiers.

    Legacy

    • Cheros embodied tribal resistance against Mughal expansion.
    • Their legacy, like that of the Nagbanshis of Kokrah, highlights local resilience in the face of empire.

    Mughal-Chero Struggles in the 17th Century

    Prelude to Conflict

    • Pratap Rai, Chero ruler, defied Mughal authority in the early 1640s.
    • Governor Abdullah Khan ignored Pratap due to other conflicts; new Governor Shayista Khan launched a campaign.
    • Oct 12, 1641: Mughal army of 20,000 marched from Patna toward Palamau.

    First Siege of Palamau (1642)

    • Guerilla tactics delayed Mughals, but artillery caused heavy Chero losses.
    • Pratap Rai surrendered, paid Rs. 80,000, pledged loyalty.
    • Shayista Khan withdrew due to heat and monsoon.

    Renewed Rebellion & Internal Strife (1643)

    • Pratap rebelled again; uncles Dariya Rai and Tez Rai conspired with Mughals.
    • Dariya handed over Deogan Fort; Tez briefly took power.
    • Pratap escaped captivity and reclaimed leadership.

    Second Siege & Mughal Victory (1643–1644)

    • Mughal forces led by Zabardast Khan captured Mangarh.
    • Pratap Rai surrendered, paid Rs. 100,000, received mansab of 1,000 horses.
    • Palamau granted to him as a Tuyul (feudal estate) in 1644.

    Aftermath & Rise of Medini Rai

    • Pratap loyal until ~1647; possibly died before 1657.
    • Briefly succeeded by Bhupal Rai, but power shifted to Medini Rai around 1658.
    • Medini Rai would later revitalize Chero strength during Mughal instability.