Upload
lethien
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER III
CONFRONTATION WITH THE
BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY
The Carnatic Wars (1746-48, 1749-54, 1758-63) paved the way for the
British to have a strong foothold in the politics of Tamilnadu. As an ally of the
Nawabs of Arcot, the British East India Company waged a series of wars against
the kingdoms of Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai and Thanjavur, and
against the Palayakarars and ultimately reduced them to submission. While
subjugating the powers who were unwilling to accept the overlordship of the
Nawab, the Company was very keen on its own gains. In the meantime the
Company had fought four important wars against Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of
Mysore. During the course of the wars, and after the death of Tipu Sultan in the
fourth Anglo-Mysore war (1799) a major portion of his territories was taken over
by the Company. While assisting the Nawab, the Company had engineered its
own design of becoming master of Carnatic. Though the Nawab was well aware
of these designs, he could not check the growing power and influence of the
Company. Unable to withstand the pressure exerted by the Company, the
Nawab surrendered his possessions one after another by signing a series of
treaties with the Company. After the suppression of the uprising of 1800-1801,
on 31st July 1801 a fresh treaty was concluded between the Company and the
61
Nawab by which the Nawab had surrendered all his territories to the Company
and became a pensioner. The British East India Company became the virtual
master of Tamilnadu.1
By the end of 1801 the process of the transformation of the British East
India Company, a commercial organization basically, into a political power came
to a successful completion in Tamilnadu. This rendered the transfer of power
inevitable. With the acquisition of Kongunadu from Mysore, Thanjavur from the
Marathas, Madurai from Khan Shahib and the Carnatic from the Wallajah
Nawabs the Company gained possession of the entire Tamil country.2
Right from the beginning the relation between the Company and the
Kavalkarars was marked by confrontations and conflicts. The policies adopted
by the Company against the Kavalkarars of Tamilnadu were considerably
influenced by the bitter experiences it had with them during its operations against
the revolting Palayakarars. The Kavalkarars as a local base of political power
had made common cause with the Palayakarars during their struggle against the
Company in 1800-1801 and even earlier. Consequently the Company
considered the Kaval system as a threat and convinced that it should be
annihilated soon.
Towards the last quarter of the 18th century when the Company was
collecting taxes from the Palayakarars on behalf of the Nawab of Arcot it faced
stiff resistance not only from the Palayakarars but from the Kaval chiefs too.
1 Lord Edward Clive in Council, 1 October 1801, Letter, S.D to England, Vol.2, p.116.
2 Ibid.,
62
Company and the Kavalkarars: Early Experiences
According to the treaty concluded between the Company and the Nawab
on 2nd December 1781 the Nawab had accepted for the transfer of the revenue
of Carnatic to the Company for a period of five years.3 Collecting revenue from
the subordinate powers was not that smooth. But it was in Tirunelveli that the
Company witnessed stiff resistance especially from the Maravar Kaval chiefs of
Nanguneri and Kalakad regions.
Sivarama Thalaivar
In the Tirunelveli region Jackson, a British military officer was entrusted
with the work of subduing the rebel chiefs. Among the Maravar chiefs the most
important was Sivarama Thalaivar, the Kaval chief of Tirukkurungudi in the
Kalakad region.4 Probably he was the first among the Kaval chiefs to resist the
British attempts to usurp their power. He was powerful enough to have his own
fort and armed men and appointed one Sudalaimuthu Pillai of Panagudi to collect
taxes.5 Declaring himself as the Circar he plundered the Nawab’s treasury and
granary and fought with the Nawab and British forces.
The Company from its base at Palayamkottai dispatched a British force
under Jackson against Sivarama Thalaivar. His fort at Thirumalapuram situated
3 C.Atchinson, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, Government Press,
Calcutta, Vol.5, p.181.
4 In Tamil the word Thalaivar means Chief, head man and leader.
5 Sivarama Thalaivar Kummi (Unpublished).
63
at Dalavaipuram near Thirukkurungudi was attacked by cannons and destroyed.
Regarding this Bishop Caldwell has stated that,
In 1782 a poligor named Sivarama thalaivar had erected a fort near
Thirukurungudi and was plundering the neighbourhood. The
commandant sent a detachment which took the fort and destroyed
it. ‘Sivaramathalaivar’ is the hereditary name of the head of a
powerful Marava family in that place.6
During this attack among those who were killed on the side of Sivarama
Thalaivar there was one soldier by name Sudalaimuthu. His family members
built a small temple at Tirukkurungudi in memory of the deceased soldiers. Even
today his descendants from the neighbouring villages are performing poojas
once in a year.7
When the fort at Thirumalapuram was destroyed by the British forces,
Sivarama Thalaivar constructed another fort at Kombai a place situated in the
western ghats adjoining Tirukurungudi and continued to plunder the Circar
granaries. Though some more attempts were made by the Company it could not
suppress Sivarama Thalaivar completely. After few years there was a dispute
between the Maravars of Manad and the Maravars of Elavankulam over the
collection of Kaval fee from the inhabitants of Valliyur, in which Sivarama
Thalaivar took side with Elavankulam Maravars. Towards the end Veerakutti and
6 Bishop R.Caldwell, A History of Tinnevelly, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1881,
p.144.
7 Sivarama Thalaivar Kummi (Unpublished).
64
Kathakutti the leaders of the Maravars of Manad bribed the bodyguard of
Sivarama Thalaivar and treacherously killed him.8
Periya Waghaboo
Periya Waghaboo Muthukumarasamy Nainar, popularly known as Periya
Waghaboo, was a Kaval chief of Sirkali in Mayavaram, Subha of Thanjavur
district. Along with another Kaval chief known as Chinna Waghaboo (who might
have been his brother or a close relative) he had joint Kaval control over sixty
eight villages in Sirkali region. The annual gross receipt as Kaval dues collected
by him was 1024 chuli chakrams 9 fanams and 67 casues.9
The first name Periya Waghaboo is a Muslim name but the second name
Muthukumarsamy Nainar is a Hindu name causing confusion. Further in the
British records he is described as a close relative of one Thondaimanpadayatchi,
a Kavalkarar of Kumbakonam. Thondaimanpadayatchi is also a Hindu name.
However in the same material his son’s name is recorded as ‘Subbaraya Ravutta
Muhaideen’ a mixture of both Hindu and Muslim names. In all probability we may
assume that Periya Waghaboo might have been a convert to Islam or this may
be an instance of fluid identity.10
As per the treaty signed by the Maratha king of Thanjavur with the British
East India Company in 1796 two subhas of the kingdom, Kumbakonam and
8 Ibid.
9 “Statement showing the number of cavilgars and poligors in the district of Chidambaram with
the former and present revenue”, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.5B, p.7533; Vide Appendix – I.
10 Benjamin Torin, Resident, Thanjavur to F.A.Grant, Collector, Mayavaram, 3 October 1799,
Judicial Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.570-571.
65
Mayavaram respectively, were brought under the temporary management of the
Company.11 Sirkali was a sub divisional administrative unit of Mayavaram subha.
Consequently, the Kaval chiefs of these two subhas were expected to obey the
orders of the Company and to surrender their Kaval rights, and they were
deprived of their traditional right to collect Kaval dues.
However the development was contrary to the expectations of the
Company. Periya Waghaboo the Kaval chief of Sirkali openly challenged the
authority of the Company and started revolting against the Company. For the
Kavalkarars their office was not only an avenue of income. The Kavalship was a
source of power, a symbol of social status, prestige and privilege. Kavalship was
considered by them as their traditional right, and surrendering it to an alien power
was unacceptable to them and they were ready to protect this right at any cost.
Periya Waghaboo was no exception.
After establishing its power over the Mayavaram region the Company’s
administration started replacing the native system of administration with that of
their own. Consequently the inhabitants were motivated not to pay the
customary Kaval dues to their Kavalkarars. Hence the people stopped paying
Kaval fee to Periya Waghaboo. Deprived of his traditional power, social status
and prestige coupled with the closure of all the avenues of income Periya
Waghaboo began to involve himself in extortion from the people who were
nominally, under his Kavalship. To maintain himself and his army he was in
11
Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Serial No.7410, pp.64-69.
66
need of money which he collected from the people through the means of force.12
In a petition written by the affected inhabitants to Francis Alexander Grant, the
then Collector of Mayavaram the following interesting observation was made
which indicates under what circumstances Periya Waghaboo turned be a rebel.
“…Periya Waghaboo having assembled an armed force, he
from the year 1797 to this period has seized and imprisoned the
inhabitants and their people in the villages, plundered houses,
carried away seed grains. In the course of these three years the
property which he has plundered from us amounted to 10,000
chuckrams and our losses in paddy amounts also 10,000
chuckrams making together 20,000 chuckrams… He has burnt and
pulled down many houses… In our district there are two
cavilcarrahs one called Periya Waghaboo, the other Chinna
Waghaboo and each of them has separately his free gift lands,
Varesaypattoo, Pannay bramum and watching villages, and in the
enjoyment of these privileges they conducted themselves
agreeable to established custom and to the satisfaction of the
inhabitants until Ratchasa warcham after which Periya Waghaboo
became refractor and he acted contrary to the usual custom…”.13
12
Petition submitted by the inhabitants of Sirkali district to Francis Alexander, 1 September 1799, Judicial Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.547-548, Vide Appendix II.
13 Ibid., Vide Appendix II.
67
The above description is self explanatory and it is clearly stated that
Periya Waghaboo conducted himself agreeable to the people until ‘Ratchasa
Warcham’ [Tamil year corresponding to 1797] i.e., one year before the take over
of administration by the Company.
The British East India Company was much worried about the rebellious
nature of Periya Waghaboo and the frequent raids he was repeatedly conducting
in the countryside because, it affected their revenue collection and prevented the
farmers from cultivating their lands.14 Consequently the Company took a
decision of suppressing him by destroying his fort at Woothengudi.
Before the actual commencement of military operation against Periya
Waghaboo elaborate arrangement were made by the Company, detachments of
British military were ordered to move towards Sirkali and Mayavaram and
intelligence were gathered about his movement. When they received information
that Periya Waghaboo was at his fort at Woothengudi a strong detachment was
dispatched under the command of one Roopsing which surrounded the fort on
29th September 1799. In the battle that ensued four soldiers of the Company,
including Muhamad Sahib, the Subedar were killed, and fourteen others were
wounded. Among those killed the bodies of three soldiers were collected by
Waghaboo’s men and buried inside the fort.15
14
Col.A.Brown to Captain Smith, commanding a detachment to Mayavaram, dated 3 October 1797, Judicial consultations, Vol.6A, pp.578-581.
15 Subedar Roopsingh to F.A.Grant, Collector of Thanjavur, dated 29 September 1799, Judicial
Consultations, Vol.6A, pp.555-559.
68
The defeat of the Company’s army in the hands of a Kaval chief was a
humiliation that greatly hurt the prestige of the Company. So the Company had
to put much effort to track down the rebel Kaval chief. The British army stationed
at various centers were pressed in this job. The Governor in Council at Madras
was appraised of each and every move. A great hunt followed.
In tracking down Periya Waghaboo the Company sought the co-operation
of the king of Thanjavur.16 Apart from that, the Company enlisted the co-
operation of Chinna Waghaboo too in their operation against Periya Waghaboo.17
Administrative offices and treasury buildings were provided with additional
guards because the British thought that they may be attacked any time and
plundered by Periya Waghaboo.
However all these efforts proved futile because Periya Waghaboo vacated
his fort at Woothengudi after his battle with the British detachment on 29th
September 1799 and retreated to the jungle. Inspite of its elaborate arrangement
and extensive spy network the British army could not even locate his
whereabouts. But they were successful in destroying his fort at Woothengudi
after he vacated it. About 150 people were employed for many days to demolish
the fort.18 Lieutinent A. Fraser commanding detachment, 2nd Battalian, 13th
16
Torin, Resident, Thanjavur to the Collector, 3 October 1799, Judicial consultations, Vol.6A, pp.570-571.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
69
Regiment who led the demolition team was very much surprised the way in which
the fort was cunningly constructed.19
Periya Waghaboo continued to disturb Company’s administration with his
armed men even after the evacuation and destruction of the fort. With the help
rendered by his fellow Kavalkarars such as Muthaiah Moopen, the Kavalkarar of
Pavanasam, Thondaiman Padaiyatchi the Kavalkarar of Kumbakonam and
Aundiappa Udayar, the Kavalkarars of Caddalangudi he escaped the hunt and
continued his resistance.20
The Company’s administration could not gather any reliable information
regarding the whereabouts of Periya Waghaboo. This might have been partly
because of the respect he commanded over the inhabitants and partly due to the
fear of the inhabitants regarding the impending repercussion. In order to extract
information from Muthaiah Moopan, the Kavalkarar of Pavanasam and a close
associate of Periya Waghaboo, Captain Smith commanding a detachment at
Sirkali decided to take him under his custody. But a stern warning came from
Benjamin Torin, the Resident at Thanjavur saying that “Moopan is an influential
man in the society. Any attempt to apply violence to extract truth from him would
create problem which will endanger collections”.21
19
Ibid.
20 Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.618-620.
21 Benjamin Torin to Captain Smith, 27 October 1799, Judicial consultations, Vol.6B, pp.648-
651.
70
Regarding the inability of the Company in tracking down Periya Waghaboo
the Collector of Thanjavur lamented the power enjoyed by the Kavalkarars in his
letter to Captain Smith in the following words.
…I feel disappointed at the prospect of being unable to make an
example of this offender, and though fully sensible of the eventual
inconvenience which the public service may liable to form his
escape. Yet being well apprized of the many difficulties you have
had to contend within a country completely under dominions of the
cavilcarrah and whose utmost influence will no doubt had exercised
to defeat an object wherein their common interest is so materially
concerned…22
The above said assessment of the British officials about the Kavalkarars
indicates the respect and fear commanded by the Kavalkarars among the
inhabitants.
The struggle between the Company and Periya Waghaboo continued for a
few more years. In the meantime the Company, in consequence of its treaty with
the king of Thanjavur on 25th October 1799, brought the entire Kingdom under its
direct rule.23 The king was pensioned off. With the annexation of the kingdom of
Thanjavur the Company continued its hunt for Periya Waghaboo with renewed
vigor. Towards the final stage of the prolonged struggle the Company finally
22
Francis Alexander Grant, Collector of Thanjavur to Captain Smith, Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.651-657.
23 Madras Council, Military Consultations, 26 October 1799, Vol.No.269, pp.6736-6796.
71
gained an upper hand over Periya Waghaboo. In the military point of view it was
the Company which was more powerful. It was resourceful enough to press as
many soldiers as needed. From the monetary point of view Periya Waghaboo
was not a match to the Company. The Company had everything under its
command.
On the other hand the position of Periya Waghaboo became weak and he
started loosing ground. Encircled by the enemy forces on all sides he could not
mobilize funds necessary for maintaining his army and for replenishing arms and
ammunitions. When he was unable to pay his soldiers many of them deserted
and retired to their villages. Moreover the continuous travel as a result of the
relentless chase by the Company’s army coupled with abnormal life condition in
the jungles shattered his health and spirit.
As a last resort the Company fixed one thousand chakrams of price
money on Periya Waghaboo’s head which yielded the expected result.
I.Wallace, Collector of Tiruchirapalli district, having informed of the presence of
Periya Waghaboo in the woods of Udaiyarpalayam region ordered his Thasildar
to arrest him. On the night of 28th September 1803 he was apprehended in a
small village named Kottaikadu situated in the woods of Udaiyarpalayam. When
he was arrested there was nobody to guard him and he did not offer any
resistance. Thus the prolonged struggle came to an end.24 The prize money as
announced earlier was distributed to eight soldiers of the Company viz.
24
I.Wallace, Collector of Trichirapally District to Charles Harris, Collector of Thanjavur, 2 October 1802, Judicial Consultations, Vol.No.6B pp.660-663; Trichirapally District Records, Vol.3662, pp.176, 177.
72
Lakshmana Singh, Bhavani Singh, Muhamad Selar, Rengapa Naick, Arunachala
Naick, Alagiri Naick, Roop Singh and Kulla Appoo, who were instrumental in
apprehending Periya Waghaboo.25
A few days after his arrest, on 2nd October 1803 Periya Waghaboo
submitted the following explanation when he was called for26
My name is Periya Waghaboo. I was the cavilgar of the Shially
district in Mr.Grants time. It is true that I shot at the sepoys that
came against me. I did not know them to be the Company’s
sepoys. I thought they were attached to Chinnawaggupoo my
enemy. On the next day when I found them to be the company’s
sepoys through fear I ran away.
(signed) Periya Waggupoo
The explanation is highly evasive. Following this Periya Waghaboo was
kept in confinement for nearly two years and later on transported to the island of
Penang for a period of seven years on the charges of rebellion and crimes
committed against the government.27 Thus Periya Waghaboo’s resistance,
which commenced in 1796 came to an end after nearly a decade.
25
I.Cotton, Collector of Thanjavur to the Secretary to the Government, Judicial Department, Fort St.George, 28 August 1804, Judicial Consultations, Vol.7, pp.1068-1071.
26 Judicial Consultations, Vol.6B, pp.660-663.
27 Resolution passed on the basis of the communication sent by T.B.Hurdis, The Registrar,
Thanjavur on April 9, 1805 to the Chief Secretary, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.No.10, pp.225-226.
73
Maravars of Tirunelveli
Another striking example of the Kavaklarar’s resistance to the British East
India Company was the resistance posed by the Maravar Kavalkarars of
Nanguneri and Kalakad regions of Tirunelveli district. These Maravar
Kavalkarars belonged to the Kondayamkottai branch of the Maravar community
which formed the majority Maravar population of the Tirunelveli region. Oral
history has it they were originally form Ramand and they migrated to the
Tirunelvel region during 15th century in different batches. These Maravar
Kavalkarars were highly independent and behaved like independent rulers in
their region may be owing to the fact of the absence of any Palayakarars nearby.
The Maravars of Nanguneri were popularly known as Arupangunadu
Maravars. Arupangunadu comprised of six villages. The Maravars of these
villages were in charge of Kaval of the neighbouring villages. In all these six
villages there were Kudi Kavalkarars functioning under Men Kavalkarars. In turn,
all of them were controlled by their Desa Kaval chief hailing from Marugalkuruchi.
In the Kalakad region the Kaval was controlled by the Desa Kaval chief of
Thirukkurungudi. While the Nanguneri Maravars had Kaval rights over the
Vaisnavite temple at Nanguneri, the Maravar Kaval chief of Thirukkurungudi
enjoyed Kaval rights over the vaisnavite temple at Tirukkurungudi.28
The power and influence enjoyed by the Maravar Kavalkarars of
Nanguneri and Kalakad was well observed by Nicholas B.Dirks in his Hollow
Crown as stated below:
28
David Ludden, Peasant History in South India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1993, p.50.
74
“Below the regional kings of three great mantalams - ranged from
Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai on the one hand to the tiny
estates of certain Tirunelveli Palayakaras on the other. At an even
lower level, the developmental process of becoming a little kingdom
probably include certain kavalkarars (Protection chiefs) as well for
example the Maravar Kavalkarars of Kalakkatu and Nankuneri
regions of Tirunelveli”.29
After the defeat of Panchalamkuruchi in 1801 some of the close relatives
and associates of Oomaidurai namely Dalawaipillai, Veera Pandia Nayak and
Muthaiah Nayak escaped from Panchalankuruchi and found asylum with the
Maravar Kavalkarars of Nanguneri and Kalakad regions.30 Notifications were
issued against them by the Company demanding the surrender of men from
Panchalamkuruchi and directing the Kavalkarars to surrender themselves with
Captain Hazard, the commander of Company’s troops at Kalakad.31
However the Maravar Kavalkarars were neither ready to surrender the
men from Panchalamkuruchi nor to surrender themselves. On the other hand
they continued their struggle in some form or other. This tendency of the
Maravar Kavalkarars was well described by S.R.Lushington the Collector of
Tirunelveli.
29
Nicholas B.Dirks, The Hollow Crown: Ethno History of an Indian Kingdom, pp.154-155.
30 ‘Notification of the Principal Maravas of Nanguneri’, by S.R.Lushington, Collector of
Tirunelveli on 20 September 1801, Tirunelveli District Records Vol.No.3579, pp.160-163; Vide Appendix III, IV.
31 Ibid.
75
From the general satisfaction given by the kavalkarars in general,
you are aware, that I have to except the marava kavalkarars of
Nanguneri. The notorious profligacy and savageness of their
character always checked any sanguine expectation of retaining
them, but no effort was omitted to accomplish their reform by
convincing them of the justice of the company’s Government. But
their obstinate concealment and protection of the rebels proscribed
by Col. Agnew and their refusal to tender any surety of their
submission and allegiance compelled the exercise of that coercion
which was explained in my correspondence of October…32
However at the final stage these Maravar Kavalkarars were suppressed
by the Company’s forces. About eight Kaval chiefs of Nanguneri region were
arrested and imprisoned at Tuticorin. It seems from the report of S.R.Lushington
the Collector of Tirunelveli district that those eight Maravar Kaval chiefs might
have been transported to the Island of Penang.33 Their names are furnished
below:
1) Erulappa Thevan of Nanguneri
2) Madasamy Thevan, S/o Ramasamy Thevan of Marugalkuruchi
3) Narayana Thevan of Marugalkuruchi
4) Periya Pitcha Thevan of Marugalkuruchi
5) Chinna Pitcha Thevan of Marugalkuruchi
32
S.R.Lusington’s Report to Board of Revenue, 28 May 1802.
33 Ibid.
76
6) Kauthakutti Thevan of Marugalkuruchi
7) Veera Perumal Thevan of Thennimalai
8) Veera Perumal Thevan of Pudhupalaipudhur
Apart from these Kaval chiefs about forty Kudi Kavalkarars were also
arrested and imprisoned in a fort at Kamudhi in Ramnad district. They were
banned from entering Tirunelveli District. S.R.Lushington the Collector of
Tirunelveli in his communication to Col. Martin, commander of Ramnad district,
directed him to take necessary steps to strengthen the Kamudhi fort.34 He also
mailed a list of names of those Kavalkarars who were arrested.35 The names of
the arrested Kudi Kavalkarars were mentioned below:
1) Woodaiyar Maravar Pudhur
2) Kulathuran Maravar Cunneyvetti
3) Muthumandi Maravar Pudhur
4) Vanamamalai Maravar Mayilam
5) Mandiramoorthy Maravar Cunneyvetti
6) Maligen Maravar Manchangkulam
7) Ananja Perumal Maravar Mudalaikulam
8) Rakkamuthu Maravar Mudalaikulam
9) Palavesam Maravar Sethoor
10) Veerabadiran Maravar Elanthaikulam
11) Aundy Maravar Shevalmangapuram
12) Vanniyan Maravar Kalandhaneri
13) Petchiyan Maravar Konnemarpatti
14) Woodaiyar Maravar Marugalkuruchi
15) Veerabadiran Maravar Marugalkuruchi
34
S.R.Lushington, Collector, Tirunelveli to Col.Martin, Commander, Ramnad District, 25 March 1802, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.135B, pp.3868-3871.
35 Ibid.
77
16) Subban Maravar Marugalkuruchi
17) Kuppan Maravar Dalawaipuram
18) Veerabadran Maravar Thuvaraikulam
19) Muthan Maravar Dalawaipuram
20) Petchiyan Maravar Thavanalloor
21) Muthu Maravar Shevalmugaperi
22) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Pudhur
23) Velan Maravar Marugalkuruchi
24) Veeralakutti Maravar Kadampadugai
25) Kumaran Maravar Kadampadugai
26) Thevan Maravar Kadampadugai
27) Iyam Perumal Maravar Kadampadugai
28) Aundy Maravar Cannimarpatti
29) Vanamamalai Maravar Yeerapalai
30) Chinnu Maravar Coundaperumalkulam
31) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Pallapatti
32) Tavoo Maravar Kadamparavoo
33) Sudalaimuthu Maravar Oyanery
34) Madan Maravar Manjankulam
35) Veeranan Maravar Kadamparavu
36) Velu Maravar Tennimalai
37) Veerabadran Maravar Oyanery
38) Rakkamuthu Maravar Pudhur
39) Kumaran Maravar Pudhur
40) Vanamamalai Maravar Manjankulam
The Kaval privileges hitherto enjoyed by these subordinate Kavalkarars
were taken over by the Company and given to local Nadars.36
36
In the opinion of the Company, the Nadars were the original custodians of the Kaval System in Nanguneri region. The Nadars of Nanguneri showed to S.R. Lushington a copper plate grant regarding their Kaval rights.
78
These Kavalkarars who were apprehended in the Nanguneri region were
transported to Ramnad to be imprisoned in the fort of Kamudhi and Pamban.
After a few months, as a reform measure each one of them was provided with
five pagodas for the purpose of procuring cattle and rent free agricultural land.37
This programme was carried out by the Company with the hope that these steps
would make them to turn towards peaceful way of life. They were also released
with special orders that they should not return to Tirunelveli District. However the
programme failed miserably.
After some years these Maravar Kavalkarars violating the special orders
of the Company regarding externment returned to Nanguneri on some pretext or
other and tried to reestablish their Kaval hold and committed robberies too.
Consequently there were direct confrontation between these Maravar
Kavalkarars and the Nadar Kavalkarars newly appointed by the Company. In
one such incident when the Nadar Kavalkarar were chasing the Maravar robbers
one Nadar by name Swamikutti was killed and many others were wounded, and
the Maravars took refuge in the hills.38
Kallars of Madurai
Resistance of a different nature took place in the Dindugal region of
Madurai district. Dindugal, Salem and Baramahal regions had been a part and
parcel of Mysore kingdom. They were taken over by the Company after the
defeat of Tipu Sultan in the Third Anglo-Mysore war (1790-92).
37
I.Cottan, Magistrate of Tirunelveli to the Secretary to the Government in the Judicial Department, 11 October 1808, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.135B, pp.315-318.
38 Ibid.
79
Following this development the Company introduced a new system of
administration in these regions. The Permanent Land Revenue Settlement was
also implemented in 1803. In consequence of these changes the tax free lands
enjoyed by the Kallar Kavalkarars as Kaval grants in the villages were
appropriated by the new administration.39 Kaval system was brushed aside and
the inhabitants were encouraged not to pay Kaval dues to the Kavalkarars. Thus
the avenue of income of the Kallar Kavalkarars was closed and their economic
well being and social prestige were at stake.
Inspite of the stringent measures adopted by the Company’s
administration to curb the power of the Kavalkarars, they continued to exercise
their powers as before. The Kallar Kavalkarars sent Olais40 to the inhabitants of
the villages which were under their Kaval control previously, demanding supply of
grains and cattle and other food stuffs. If there was no positive response from
the villages concerned, then they would be plundered by the Kavalkarars. One
such Olai sent by the Kallars of Pudur and Vellappanery and Nalluthevanpatti
sent to Bodappa Naicker, the village head man of Kandamanayakanpatti and the
village headmen of Kannayapillaipatti and Vadugarpatti reads as follows:
It is well known to you that from the time of your forefathers we
have continued to obey your commands.
39
George Parish, Collector of Madurai to the Police Committee, 10 July 1805, Madurai
Collectorate Records, Vol.1148.
40 Olai means Palm leaf with message written on it. The former Kallar Kavalkarars of Dindigul
region used to send such Olais to the principal inhabitants of villages demanding supply of grains and cattle.
80
It is further in the knowledge of the Poligor that you used to pay us
kaval Kattanams of your villages. This also is known to you. From
the time you ceased to grant us the kaval, we have received only
one year profit from it. The balance due to us you have not given.
Now it is well known among you that we have two of the circar
Poligors with us and that we are become a proud and independent
people despising and holding in contempt both the orders of the
poligors and that of the Circar and as we have now occasion for
money for all expenses you will accordingly be pleased to send us
by some of your people forty black rusnel and twenty sheep. If you
do not do so we shall consider it as a breach of faith, to avoid
which, you will act as we have described and we shall ever keep in
memory the favours you may grant us.41
John Ravenshaw, Assistant Collector of Dindugal while reporting about
the prevailing situation to J.B.Hurdis the Collector stated that “…Sending Olais in
this way is only their way of declaring war. I suspect an incursion will be made in
this quarter and I am prepared to receive them”.42
The anti-British struggle of Sivarama Thalaivar, Periya Waghaboo, the
Kallars of Madurai and the Maravars of Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district are a few
cases to prove the stubborn nature of the Kavalkarars of Tamilnadu in their
41
Madurai District Records, Vol.1176, pp.232-233.
42 Madurai District Records, Vol.No.1176, p.227.
81
struggle against the British prior to the abolition of Desa Kaval in 1802. During
the Palayakarar Wars they made common cause with Palayakarars against the
combined efforts of the Nawabs of Arcot and the British East India Company.
Regarding the Maravar Kavalkarars S.R.Lushington the Collector of Tirunelveli
stated that “During the rebellion of Panchalamkuruchi they [Kavalkarars]
fomented and aided the disturbance in every quarter”.43 It was true that by 1801
all these Kavalkarars who resisted the encroachment of the Company were
suppressed by the Company. But it was not the end. The Kavalkarars continued
their struggle relentlessly against the colonial state up to 1947. In the mean time
the colonial government had taken much effort against the Kavalkarars by means
of enacting laws against them in 1806 and 1816 and reorganizing its police
machinery repeatedly to face the challenges of the Kavalkarars. However for the
Company, a complete success over the Kavalkarars was always elusive and a
distant dream. Of late in 1943 G.H.P.Bailey Superintendent of Police of
Tirunelveli district has stated that, “It is century old skeleton for which the
cupboard is the Madras Village Police Regulation Act of 1816. The bones are
now exposed in their grain and dismal nakedness”.44
Abolition of Desa Kaval
After the suppression of the upsurge of 1800-1801 the Company had
established its virtual control over entire Tamilnadu. Those Palayakarars who
were loyal to the Company were crowned as Zamindars and those Palayakarars
43
Lushington’s Report to Board of Revenue, 28 May 1802, p.7.
44 G.O. Home, No.1802, 31 July 1943.
82
who resisted were expelled and their territories were either annexed by the
Company or distributed among the loyal Palayakarars.
When Panchalamkuruchi Palayam was occupied it contained 104 villages.
They were divided into two portions and given to the Palayakarars of
Ettayapuram and Maniyatchi in recognition of their support to the Company in the
time of Palayakarar War.45
In the meantime the process of consolidation which commenced earlier,
parallel with the conquest was geared up further by the Company. It was during
this stage that the Company had to confront the Kaval system which threatened
the administrative control of the Company.
During the course of consolidation the Company aimed at establishing a
new and uniform system of administration resembling the western models. In
this venture utmost caution was exercised by the Company’s administration.
Some aspects in the traditional system of administration, if found beneficial and
inevitable were incorporated in the new system and the rest were abolished.46 In
the agenda of abolition the Kaval system found the first place.
The Kaval system, the power and influence enjoyed by the Kavalkarars,
their rebellious and independent nature were not conducive for the Company to
implement its plans. Moreover the huge amount of money collected by the
Kavalkarars in the name of Desa Kaval and Kudi Kaval fee was a constant irritant
45
H.R.Pate, Tinnevelly District Gazetteer, p.272.
46 George Parish, Collector, Madurai District to the Police Committee, 10 July 1805, Madurai
Collectorate Records, Vol.1148.
83
to the Company. Hence the Company was determined to replace the Kaval
system by a new police system of its own creation. It was estimated by the
Company that the total amount of money collected in the name of Kaval fee was
more than enough to maintain a new and efficient police system.47
During the course of consolidation calculated measures were adopted by
the Company against the Kaval system. In the minds of the colonial
administrators soon both the Desa Kaval and Kudi Kaval were equated with
oppression and misgovernance. The bulky volumes of colonial records of
Collectors of the southern districts of this period are almost unanimous in
condemning the Kaval system as a world of criminals. Invariably all the British
officials had accepted that the ancient origin of Kudi Kaval and praised it for its
simplicity and transparency. But all of them in a single voice condemned the
‘Desa Kaval’ as a creation of the Palayakarars to plunder and exploit the people.
In due course the Company was successful in constructing a distorted
image of the Kaval system and the Kavalkarars. It described that ‘thieving’ was
the traditional occupation of the communities involved in the Kaval system. The
crimes committed by the Kavalkarars were exaggerated and amplified. The
Kaval fee paid by the inhabitants was equated with protection fee or ransom paid
to the Kavalkarar in order to prevent him from plundering the properties of the
inhabitants. A single incident of crime committed by a Kavalkarar was
47
Letter from R.H.Young, Magistrate of Tinnevelly District to the Chief Secretary to the Government, 31 March 1813, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Reports), Vol.4A, pp.51-59.
84
generalized, conceptualized, theorized and applied to the whole lot of the
Kavalkarars and even to the caste he belonged to. The land revenue
settlements made by the Company in the beginning of the 19th century were also
targeted at closing the avenues of income of the Kavalkarars. Agricultural lands
allotted to the Kavalkarars as Kaval grants were assumed by the colonial
administration.48 Finally both the Desa Kaval and Men Kaval were officially
abolished through the Regulation of 1802 A.D which reads as below:
The establishment existing in the Zillah of Caroongooly for the
purpose of police having been committed to certain poligors and
cavilgars have proved by long experience under the administration
of the said poligors and cavilgars to be inadequate to the
prevention of crimes or the apprehension of offenders; and have by
the abuse of power entrusted to the poligors and cavilgars, being
converted into additional means of disturbing the order of society
with impunity; Therefore the Governor in Council has resolved to
abolish the office of Poligors and cavilgars and substitute a more
efficient plan of police for the Zillah of Caroongooly.49
To start with these two systems were abolished in Tirunelveli and
Karunkuli (Chengalpat district) in 1802. Gradually it was extended to other
48
George Parish, Collector of Madurai in his report to the President and members of the Committee investigating and reporting upon the present establishment of police, 10 July 1802, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.8B, p.1878.
49 Regulation of 1802 A.D. No.XXV; The History of The Madras Police, Centenary Volume
(1859-1959) Madras, p.212.
85
districts. The Kavalkarars were asked to renounce all their claims to police
authority and Kaval fee.
By the regulation of 1802 the Men Kaval system was abolished by the
Company and the Palayakarars and other Men Kaval chiefs were asked to
renounce all their claims to police authority and collection of Kaval dues.
Following this the process of consolidation commenced. It was a period of
transition for the Company becoming a land-revenue financed state from that of a
tribute based state. The Company felt the need to assert its legitimacy by
maintaining order and protecting its subjects especially in the rural tract, the
social base of the emerging land-revenue-financed state.50 Maintaining order
and providing protection to the people necessitated the creation of a vast
administrative network which included the establishment of a new police and
judicial administrative machinery. This process if to be completed successfully
needed the investment of huge amount of money. Unfortunately the Company
was not in a position to meet out the necessary financial requirements. Hence it
was decided to collect the Desa Kaval fee from the inhabitants through the
revenue servants, to be spent for the new police establishment. The following
statement made by R.H.Young, Magistrate of Tirunelveli District is pertinent here:
The police of this province was formerly entrusted to Desh and
Tallam cavilgars, the former having general protection of the
50
Sandira Freitag, “Sansiahs and the State: The Changing Nature of ‘Crime’ and ‘Justice’ in Nineteenth-Century British India”, in Michael R.Anderson, Sumit Guha (eds), Changing Concepts of Rights and Justice in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p.84.
86
country and high roads and the later acting under their orders as
the immediate watchers of villages. The Desacavil was
sequestered in the year 1800 and its revenue collected on account
of government, these appear to have amounted in the first year of
fusly 1209 [A.D.1800] chakrams 68635-0-3 casu a sum fully
adequate to defray the expenses of efficient police.51
Table 3:1 provides details of the amount collected by the Company from
the province of Tirunelveli from 1800-1805 as given by the Magistrate.52
51
R.H.Young to Chief Secretary, 31 March 1813, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries), Vol.No.4A, pp.51-54.
52 Ibid., p.81.
87
Table No. 3:1
Statement of Desa Kaval collections in the District of Tirunelvely (1800 – 1805)
S.No. Year Fusly Amount
Chuli Chakrams Fanam Casu
1 1800 1209 68635 - 3
2 1801 1210 58421 - -
3 1802 1211 53831 7 33
4 1803 1212 49530 1 -
5 180 1213 40402 - 10½
6 1805 1214 32862 - 15¾
Total 3036682 - 14¼
Tirunelveli
17th December 1812
Source : Judicial Proceedings (Sundries), Vol. No.4A, 1812, 1813, p.81.
88
This method of collecting Kaval fee through the revenue administration
was prevalent in other districts as well. Regarding Thanjavur district it was
categorically stated in the following terms.
After the abolition of Kaval system in Tanjore district, the Company
collected the Kaval fee as it was before and spent it for police
establishment created by Regulation I of 1816. This fee with house
tax were kept in separate account till 1852 then it was incorporated
in to general account. It 1854 this was intimated by the Collector
suggesting the discontinuation but the government insisted on its
collection due to growing expenses of police establishment.53
The abolition of Desa Kaval and Men Kaval in 1802 followed by the
confistication of land grants enjoyed by the Kavalkarars rendered the Kaval
chiefs jobless and closed their avenues of income. Changing occupation
overnight was not that easy to any community that too in an agrarian society
which is compartmentalized into many castes and each one of them bound to
traditionally pursue a particular occupation. So changing occupation and at the
same time relinquishing power and status enjoyed traditionally were
unacceptable to the Kavalkarars. The atmosphere that prevailed then was
charged with discontent and it was conducive enough for the outbreak of
disturbances.
53
G.O. Judicial No.1028, 19 July 1897; G.O. Judicial No.1385, 3 September 1897.
89
On the other hand the abolition of Desa Kaval and Men Kaval system
paved the way for an increasing number of crimes. This was because when
these Kaval systems were abolished the Kaval chiefs withdrew the Kudi
Kavalkarars employed by them and there was no machinery to look after the
police functions.54
Another important development during this period was the demobilization
of the armies of the Palayakarars. After the suppression of the upsurge of 1800-
1801 the Company had ordered for the general demobilization of the armies of
the Palayakarars and surrender of arms. Consequently a considerable section of
the martial communities like Maravars, Naickers, Kallars and Padaiyachis who
were serving in the armies of the Palayakarars were disbanded and deprived of
their livelihood. Further the Company conceived that there was every possibility
for an understanding and co-operation between the former soldiers and the
Kavalkarars which would jeopardize its future plans.
Taking cognizance of the prevailing situation the colonial state came out
with a new strategy of minimum compromise of providing pension to the
Kavalkarars. To cite an example the Kavalkarar of Parur of South Arcot district,
Ponnambala Kachi Rao was granted a life pension of Rs.104-12-08 after his
Kaval rights were resumed by the Company. He died in 1838 and the
government sanctioned the continuance of half the pension to his son.55 There is
a long list of Kavalkarars of Arcot, Vandavasi and Vellore of North Arcot district
and the amount received by them as pension annually is found in the report
submitted by the Collector of Chittoor the head quarters of North Arcot district
(Table 3:2).56
54
D.Cockburn, Judge and Magistrate of the District of Dindugal, to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Judicial Department, 2 October 1802, Judicial Consultations, Vol.13, pp.2075 - 2076.
55 W.Francis, South Arcot District Gazetteer, Madras, 1906, pp.392, 393.
56 Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Report), Vol.6A, pp.875-881.
90
Table No.3:2
Statement of Allowances Annually paid to
Men Cavilgars by the Collector of the Zillah of Chittor
[Extract]
District Cavilgars Amount of Allowance per Year
Star Pagodas
Panam Casu
Tiruvallam Siddhama Nayak 24 - -
Guruvappa Nayak 24 - -
Venkatachala Nayak 12 - -
Paupery Perumal 24 - -
Vellore Kulasagudi Ram Nayak 6 - -
Pullpettai Ram Nayak 6 - -
Mummalai Pettai Ram Nayak 6 - -
Kanahaiya Nayak 6 - -
Nelvay Rama 6 - -
Kumaresa Samutram Muniya 6 - -
Munangipet Venkatesa 6 - -
Permaga Perumal Nayak 6 - -
Senbaganallur Kulappa nayak 6 - -
Alamelumangapuram Veerapa Nayak 6 - -
Venkatapuram Samy Nayak 6 - -
Ammapuram Perumal Nayak 6 - -
Kanniyampadi Lakshmana Nayak 6 - -
Kanniyampadi Dauthappa 6 - -
Cholavaram Parusuram Nayak 6 - -
Thuthepettai Perumal Nayak 6 - -
Total 180 - -
Source : Judicial Proceedings (Sundries Police Committee Report), Vol.6A, 1812, pp.875-881.
91
Regarding the abolition of Kudi Kaval the colonial state approached the
matter with utmost caution. When compared with Men Kavalkarars the Kudi
Kavalkarars were numerically superior and more closely associated with the
people and their affairs. They were an integral part of the everyday life of the
inhabitants. Kudi Kavalkarar was a person who possessed intimate knowledge
of villages - its inhabitants, details of their properties, livestock and revenue
particulars. For a government which was still not that familiar with the people
and its knowledge about the land and people it was going to govern being narrow
and limited, the service of the Kudi Kavalkarar was essential and inevitable.
Regarding this, George Parish the Collector of Madurai district observed:
In their present situation of restraint they are incapable of doing
material injury, because whenever the kavalgar is employed, it is
always in a subordinate situation acting under police officers
immediately appointed by myself and in this capasity their local
knowledge and general acquaintance with the characters of people
under them is useful instruments in the hands of the government.57
Yet another important factor which prompted the Company’s government
to think in favour of the continuation of Kudi Kaval was the numerical strength of
the Kudi Kavalkarars.58 S.R.Lushington the first Collector of Tirunelveli district is
one of his report has stated that “abolition of it will be a danger. They may turn to
57
George Parish to the President and Members of the Committee for investigating and reporting upon the present establishment of police, 10 July 1805, Judicial Proceedings (Sundries, Police Committee Reports), Vol.8-B, p.1875.
58 Vide Appendix, V.
92
robbery which cannot be suppressed”. Later in 1808 when Woodcock, the then
Magistrate of Kumbakonam when asked about his opinion regarding the abolition
of Kudi Kaval he cautioned the government in the following terms:
…attempting a total abolition of the institution [Kudi Kaval] in this
rich and fertile province would be brought with serious danger to
the country affecting as well the realization of the revenue as the
property and the safety of the inhabitants.59
If this was the situation in 1808, the power of the Kudi Kavalkarars in the
earlier century may well be imagined. Hence the Company decided to permit the
Kudi Kaval system to continue under the supervision of the government.60
59
Fifth Report from Select Committee on the Affairs of British East India Company, Madras Presidency, Vol.II, London 1812.
60 Woodcock to Secretary to the Government, Judicial Proceedings, Vol.40, p.4368.