Reading History of Moamariya Rebellion: a Critical Study of the Historiography of Swarna Lata Baruah

Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 6, 2020

Review Article READING HISTORY OF MOAMARIYA REBELLION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SWARNA LATA BARUAH

Pabitra Missong

Ph.D. Scholar, Department of History, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 05.02.2020 Revised: 02.03.2020 Accepted: 07.04.2020

Abstract Moamariya rebellion (1769-1806 A.D.), a reflection of the widespread popular discontentment against the Ahom kings and the nobles in the Ahom state was a significant phenomenon which changed the course of history of medieval Assam and definitely has been an area of great interest for historian of several generations. Historians are divided in their views regarding the Moamariya rebellion. Some historians basically see it on religious angle and some other analyzes it on the basis economic hypothesis. Swarna Lata Baruah (1939-1915), a historian of national repute of her time from Assam did tremendous job in the study of the Moamariya rebellion. She adopting Ranke’s method of study which is based on objective or unbiased or history in accordance with facts and uninfluenced by subjectivity or prejudice mind was successful in clearing many controversial points centering round the Moamariya rebellion through rigorous collection of data and interpreting it rationally.

Key WORDS: Historiography, Kala Samhati Sect, Mayamara Sect, Neo-Vaishnavism, Marxist Etc.

INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS The Moamariya Rebellion (1769-1806) was a conflict between There are several works available in the academic domain on the people under the leadership of disciples of the Mayamara Moamariya rebellion. Scholars are divided on their opinions Vaishnavite satras (Monasteries Mayamara Vaishnava sect) regarding the character of the Moamariya revolt. British against the Ahom state in the 18th century. The rebellion colonial officers like Lt. Macgregor used to interpret it as an reflected the widespread popular discontentment against the internal commotion organized by some adventurous chiefs to Ahom kings and the nobles in Ahom state (Ahom dynasty ruled fulfill their own ambitions. Sir Edward Gait saw only religious Assam nearly six hundred years from 1228 to 1826 A.D.). Due fanaticism in the uprisings. Historian Gunabhiram Barua to the Moamariya rebellion Ahom kings lost control over for opined that Moamariya rebellion was the result of harassment two times. The Ahom kings failed recover his entire of domain. and insult done to the disciples of Mayamara Mahanta by the The eastern part and Bengmara region of the Ahom state Ahom monarchy. He described the causes of discontentment became practically free from it. Long disturbances caused by amongst the Mayamaras against Ahom monarchy on the basis the Moamariya rebellion affected the entire state economically of historical sources. He says that the act of repression against and politically. The rebellion was so strong that it broke down the Moamariyas only for being disciples of Mayamara the backbone of the Ahom state and firstly it fell to the Mahanta, adopted by Gonshyam Burhagohain, after the Burmese invasion and ultimately led to occupation of Assam restoration of Lakhsmi Singha on the throne and Purnananda by British colonial power in 1926 A.D. Therefore the Burhagohain in the second Moamariya rebellion without Moamariya rebellion was a significant phenomenon which proper investigation was not reasonable. Padmanath Gohain changed the course of history of medieval Assam and Baruah opines that Phuleswari Konwari, in order to make the definitely has been an area of great interest for historian of monarch’s religion as people’s religion , invited Mayamara several generations. Historians are divided in their views Mahantas to attend the celebrations connected with the regarding the Moamariya rebellion. Some historians basically Worship of Durga and ordered their foreheads to be see it on religious angle and some other analyzes it on the besmeared with the blood of sacrificial animals and compelled basis economic hypothesis. Swarna Lata Baruah (1939-2015), them to accept the nirmali and prasad, which was a grave a historian of national repute of her time from Assam did insult to Mayamara vaishnavas. It was for this reason the tremendous job in the study of the Moamariya rebellion. She Mayamara Mahanta summoned his disciples and planned adopting Ranke’s method of study which is based on objective schemes of vengeance and it resulted in the outbreak of the or unbiased or history in accordance with facts and Moamariya rebellion. Gohainbaruah uses both the words, uninfluenced by subjectivity or prejudice mind was successful “Moran Bidruh” (Moran rebellion) and “Moamariya Bidruh” in clearing many controversial points centering round the (Moamariya rebellion) while discussing the Moamariya Moamariya rebellion through rigorous collection of data and rebellion. He stated that it proved the weakness of the Ahom interpreting it rationally. monarchy. According to Surya Kumar Bhuyan the rebellion was a culmination of an urge coming spontaneously from the OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY hearts of whole population bound together by common Main objectives of the study are- sufferings at the hands of the enemy. He compares the clash 1. To critically analyze Swarnalata Baruah’s works on between Moamariya and Ahom government with that of the history of Moamariya Rebellion of Mediaeval Assam. clash between Sikhs and Mughal government. He says that in 2. To study Swarna Lata Baruah’s approach of writing both cases the fighting elements in their sectarian history of Moamariya Rebellion of Mediaeval Assam. organisations were introduced as a result of the clash of the 3. To study differences and similarities between Swarna Gurus with the government of the land. Moheswar Neog Lata Bar uah‘s historiography and historiography of interprets it is a crusade of the Mayamariya Bhakats other historians. (disciples) as it was organized under the banner of religion. Though there were many causes of the rebellion, the main cause was the insult to the Mayamara religion of the descents of Anniruddha by the Ahom monarchy. Dandinath Kalita

Journal of critical reviews 936

READING HISTORY OF MOAMARIYA REBELLION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SWARNA LATA BARUAH describes it as the first popular revolution in the history of Sankardeva appealed the tribesmen, as a result within a short Assam. Dimbeswar Neog refers to it as the first socio-political period a large number of them entered the Vaishnava faith. movement in the history of Assam, made for the people by the Scared at its growing popularity, Ahom rulers started stern people. Sarbananda Rajkumar interprets it as an Assamese measures to crush the Vaishnavite movement. She depicted Rebellion, partly violent or revengeful and a rebellion, on hope another reason which gave impetus to suspicion of Ahom of throne. rulers. That is the development of new relational patterns among the members of the Neo-Vaishnavite sect. Vaishnava Amalendu Guha is the first historian who initiated an preceptors along with their missionary works taught the interpretation of Moamariya rebellion in the Marxist frame people, the tribal converts in particular, improved techniques work on the basis of historical sources which differed from of cultivation such as ploughing instead of jhuming, as well as that of the earlier scholars. He advanced a proposition that of sericulture. She refers that the Vaishnava preceptors who Mayamaria uprisings signified Assam Peasants’ war against opened Khats or pams and employed the paiks allotted to feudal oppression and discussed the economic conditions of them by state or those at their command in cultivating different classes. Guha states the basic structure of the Ahom different crops. She draws evidence of it from “Katha Guru state was undergoing slow changes towards a centralization of Charit” (Biographis of Vaishnava saints of Medieval Assam) the corvee and political authority for which Neo-Vaishnavism where Madhavdeva’s (a Vaishnava preacher of Medieval provided the necessary ideological support to the evolving Assam) teaching to a Yogi improved techniques of rearing feudal social formation but feudalism headed towards a crisis cocoons. She argues that the paiks granted to Satras, led a in the late eighteenth century. Guha emphasizes that neo- higher mode of living and enjoyed greater freedom than the Vaishnavite ideology could no longer harmonize the interests regular peasantry, as they were relieved from the payment of of the exploiters and the exploited. Guha did not emphasize all kinds of taxes to the state, ordinarily not required to serve ethnic and religious factor to explain the nature of the revolt. the militia and had privilege to learn some crafts in the Satra He argues that the need and demand for the commutation of itself and mature their intellect by listening to or participating feudal labour rent for a light money tax contributed to the in religious discussions held there. She attributes this open fight between the temporal and the spiritual lords on the advantages as the reason for which a large number of regular one hand and the peasantry and the unconsolidated trader and peasants were taking shelter in the Satras and opines that to artisan elements on the other. Hiren Gohain, dealing with this paiks, in particular, the guru was not only their spiritual different aspects of the Mayamara rebellion, speaks of four head but also the temporal overlords, to whom they paid their characteristics clashes, implanted within the Ahom feudal all obedience and in course of time, every religious head was state, which found an expression during the rebellion e.g. converting himself into feudal lord, and making his satra a revolt of general labourers against the severe subduing state within the state. Marxist historians like Amalendu Guha, policies of Ahom beaucracy, rebellion of oppressed sub-caste Hiren Gohain and Dhrubajyoti Barah who interpret the and subjugated states against Ahom rule, rebellion of a branch character of the Moamariya rebellion in the Marxist of Neo-vaishnavism against Brahmanical Hindu religion and framework also call the heads of the satras as feudal lords. clashes between Ahom Dangarias (officers), between royal They also suggested the growth of new relational patterns bloods, between royal houses and Dangarias (officers). Of the between the heads of the satras and its disciples and gradual above mentioned clashes, the revolt of general labourer conversion of the heads of the satras from religious heads to subjects against the severe subduing policies of Ahom feudal lords. As a matter of fact, the main ideological base of beauracy was the most important. Dr. Dhrubajyoti Barah Vaishnavism was devotionalism. This ideal of devotionalism opines that the cause of the rebellion was the social class had an association with unreasonable belief and question of struggle. While a chunk of population enjoyed the surplus of unflinching loyalty. the production without labour, the system such as paik , slave system made the lives of general people deplorable. As a result In the post Sankardeva period there were attempts to spread of the rigid control and severe subduing policies of the Ahom the Vaishnava tenets to various parts of Assam by Vaishnava administration, many of the ruling class lost their many preachers. The most notable among them was Gopaldeva of traditional rights and joined hands with the rebellers. Bhavanipur who established many satras (Vaishnavite monastery) in different parts of Assam. Swarnalata Baruah As it has been noticed historians are divided into two depicted meticulously how Gopaldeva propagated the categories on the basis of method and approach they used in teachings of Mahapurushiya Dharma (Religion of the interpretation of the Moamariya rebellion prior to the Mahapurusha or Great Sankardeva) among the tribal people of study of Swarnalata Baruah. One group of historians mainly upper Assam, like the Marans, Barahis, Chutiyas, Kacharis and emphasizes on interpretation of the phenomena of the Ahoms and added that he, for this reason had to make some Moamariya rebellion on the basis of religious angle and the changes in the external practices of the faith in order to make other attempts at Marxist interpretation of whole phenomena it amenable to the social behavior and individual temperament of the Moamariya rebellion on economic hypotheses. of the tribes, while preserving at the same time the basic Swarna Lata Barua discusses about the whole phenomena of philosophy and the principles of the religion. These changes, the Moamariya rebellion rationally on the basis of historical though outward, led in course of time, to some distinctive facts and interpretation of facts in her two books, A features of the Kala-samhati satras, which were seen not only comprehensive History of Assam (1985) and Last Days of Ahom in their egalitarian and humanitarian outlook but also in their Monarchy (1993). She has collected the data primarily from indifferent attitude towards all Brahminic rites, strict various sources both primary and secondary sources. Besides, adherence to monotheism and extreme reverence shown to the works of earlier scholars have been consulted for the their guru. The Kala samhati sect allowed to its satras enjoying interpretation of the Moamariya rebellion. By using primary autonomy, which favoured their growth on distinct lines, but sources such as charit puthis, buranjis, coins etc. views and they had to abide by the norms that the Samhati enjoined upon works of previous scholars such as Gunabhiram Barua, S.K. them. Among the six Sudra satras of Kala-samhati, the Bhuyan, Accounts of British officers, Edward Gait, Maheswar Mayamara sub-sect was the most notable. Aniruddhadeva was Neog, Dimbeswar Neog etc have also been consulted. Her main the founder of the Mayamara satra who built his permanent focus was on the people’s participation in the rebellion. Hence, headquarter near Moamari lake at Majuli. Aniruddhadeva also she calls the first Moamariya rebellion as first popular stayed for some time at Tengapani located on the bank of the challenge to the Ahom monarchy. She discusses social, Burhi Dihing, where he might have built another satra. It was religious and political background that fomented the rebellion. from this place that he was offering initiation to the tribal people of the area. The Marans were the first to be converted, She argues that the ideology of the rebellion was drawn from followed by the Kacharis, Chutiyas, Barahis, Ahoms, certain the tenets of the Neo-vaishnavism propounded by Vaishnava professional communities and some Hindu caste. According to preacher of medieval Assam Sankardeva who taught equality Baruah Aniruddhadeva gathered a large following and of all people and universal brotherhood. This teaching of occupied among them a position higher than that of a temporal

Journal of critical reviews 937

READING HISTORY OF MOAMARIYA REBELLION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SWARNA LATA BARUAH overlord, so much so that they would bow their heads to none the banner of religion. Maheswar Neog is of the opinion that except him. the rebellion was, in the beginning and also in its later part, a crusade of the Mayamariya Vaishnavas against the rulers who Swarna Lata Baruah narrates antagonistic relation between caused the death of their gurus and brought them (the gurus) the Mayamara satra and the Ahom state at work which made a extreme humiliation by sacrilegious violation of their articles room for Moamaria rebellion. She opines that increasing of faith, calumnying words of a low order and physical assault. popularity of the Mayamara Satra aroused jealousy and Again Neog observes as the rivalry between the Bamuniya suspicion of the Ahom king. Meanwhile, prominent Ahom and the Non-Bamuniaya satras which soon became a conflict nobles were receiving initiation from the Mayamara Mahanta, between the Bamuniyas and the Kala-sanghati Mahanttas and which had alarmed the king. She mentions some occasions, as other Kalasanghati Mahantas were too tame and which gave fuel to the discontentment of Moamarias. She compromising and were not bold enough to challenge the draws such incidents from two books, “Aniruddhadevar assaults on their creed, the warfare for epicopal hegemony charitra aru mayamara Satra Vamsavali and Buranji Vivek remained between the bamuniyas under the helmet of royal Ratna. On one occasion, Pratap singha executed one of the power, and the Mayamariyas. Amalendu Guha says that the disciples of Mayamara satra for his remark that the king’s hall image of the Moamariyas as killers of the Brahmans and cows would make a commodious place for religious recital and was projected by court scribes like Dhamadeva Sharma, prayer. Learning that the Moamariyas would not bow their Maniram Dewan and even by King Gaurinath Singha. He says heads before anyone except their guru, he tested their that the anti-brahman edge of the Momariya violence in Majuli unflinching obedience to their preceptor by making four of and other places was directed only against enfeoffed priest them gallop their horses against swords placed horizontally to and abbots who were on the royal side. He argues that they their necks. While undergoing the test, his two Dangarias lost had no quarrel with ordinary brahmans, some of whom were their lives, at which, other two were dissuaded from even followers of several Kala-Samhati Satras including theirs undertaking the experiment. But, the incident brought wide and even as late as 1803, Sunanda the Brahmin abbot of popularity to the satra and its strength increased in leaps and Katanipar Satra (Kala-Samhati) was banished for complicity in bounds. a plot hatched by the rebels. S.L. Baruah does not interpret it S.L. Baruah narrates several such execution of Mayamariya as a crusade as fought between the Vaishnavas and the saktas Satradhikar which antagonised relation between or between the Mayamara and the other satras and a battle of Mayamamariya Vaishnava sect and the Ahom kings. In the adharma against dharma. She writes: reign of Siva Singha, the Mayamara mahanta’s strict adherence “True it is that it was the culmination of a conflict to monotheism was seriously wounded, when the Bar Raja between the Ahom state and the mayamara satra, but Phuleswari compelled him to prostrate before the goddess while it progressed, its dimension so increased as to Durga and accept the Nirmali and Prasad and have his draw into its perimeter all disaffected elements of the forehead besmeared with the blood of the sacrificed animal. kingdom, groaning under an oppressive government. She sates that the Mahanta (Vaishnava teacher) then For instance, the people of Darrang and Nowgong also summond his disciples and planned schemes of vengeance. rose in rebellion against the injustice and oppression Again, Astabhuja was contemporary to the Ahom king of the Ahom rule and put the monarchy into most Rajeswar Singha, during whose reign fresh insults were humiliating positions.” heaped upon the mahanta by his most powerful officer, Kirtichandra Barbaruah. In the opinion of S.L. Baruah, when As the rebels captured political power, their loyalty towards oppression was extended to the lay disciples as well, they got their guru eroded and they looked for leadership amongst mobilized round the banner of their Satra and broke out in themselves than to their spiritual guide. Hence, S.L. Baruah, rebellion against the exploitative government. As the came to the conclusion that the triumph achieved by the rebels immediate cause of the rebellion, she mentions the incident was therefore not of the Mayamara satra over the state but of relating to Nahar khora and Ragha Maran, both disciples of the the people over despotic government, of egalitarianism over Mayamara satra, who were mercilessly beaten and the ears of bureaucracy and tyranny. the former was cut off at the orders of the Barbaruah on the alleged charge of bringing for him a lean elephant. She does not blame only Kirtichandra Barbarua for anti- Mayamara policies. S.K. Bhuyan does not mention the part Assessing character of the Moamariya rebellion she says that played by king Rajeswar Singha. Though Kirtichandra became amongst the Moamariyas, there was complete equality and fault-monger of Mayamariya section the vaishnavas and did fraternity. A Brahmin could not claim a superior rank to a not miss any opportunity to humiliate them but raising of the fisherman or a scavenger because of his caste hierarchy. She Dihiangiya mahanta to the eminent position at the royal court emphasizes that it is because of this fraternization that the was not an act of Kirtichandra Barbaruah alone. However, he downtrodden throughout the country joined the rank of the had played important role in this direction. S.L. Baruah says Moamariyas and their number went on so increasing that even that getting a scent of the rebellious attitude of the repeated mass killing failed to exterminate them. She also says moamariyas, Rajeswar Singha, at the instance of Kirtichandra, that again, when the royalists were facing the crisis of soldiers, adopted diplomatic means to isolate the Mayamara Mahanta so much so that the premier had to allure the youths by from his counterpart of the Dihing Satra, the other powerfull offering money or threat of punishment to join the royalist member of the kala-samhati. Therefore, both Kirtichandra and camp, the Moamariyas were drawing numerous volunteers king Rajeswar singha are made accountable for the act in her ready to give up their lives for the revolutionary cause. She narration. added that innumerable women stalwarts also came out of their homes to undertake military training and take their Again, Surya Kr. Bhuyan and Maheswar Neog use both Marans position in the first line of the army, and thousands of them and Moamariyas to imply the rebellers. Padmanath perished in the royalist’s swords. Gohainbarua calls the rebellion as Moran rebellion and as Matak troubles by Maniram Dewan. But the word “Marans” S.L. Baruah sees a religious element in the Moamariya should not be used as a synonym of “Moamariyas” because it rebellion which led her say that the rebellion started on a was not rebellion of Maran people only. According to religious pretext as an attempt to vindicate the persecution Amalendu Guha, the insurgency would not have been so and insults heaped upon the Mayamara Mahanta and his widespread had the adherents of the Moamariya faith alone disciples by the Ahom Government. The common vocabulary been the participants. Swarnalata Baruah says that the of hope and protest, in fact, the revolutionary psychology was Moamariya rebellion was largely confined to the region supplied to the Moamariyas by their gurus. Their early slogan between the Brahmaputra and the Burhi Dihing which was was also in the name of their gurus, and under the banner of mostly inhabited by the Marans, Chutiyas and Kacharis. their satra that they got organized. Moheswar Neog calls it a Amongst them again the most conspicuous were the Marans so crusade of the Mayamariya bhakats as it was organized under the first popular uprising is often termed as a Maran rebellion.

Journal of critical reviews 938

READING HISTORY OF MOAMARIYA REBELLION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SWARNA LATA BARUAH

However, some critical areas are also seen in her study. She says that “the moamariy as were all peasants”. The scholars, gives us information regarding the participation of the people, who interpret the revolt in the Marxist framework, do not give irrespective of caste and creed, who wanted to get rid of the central importance on the Moamariya oppression by Royal exploitation of the government. Amalendu Guha also says that house though they have explored fresh grounds of the the Moran tribe-incidentally was also Moamariya by faith and rebellion. Swarna Lata Baruah analyses the causes of the started the revolt and they were soon joined by large sections Moamariya rebellion giving more emphasis on oppression of the depressed and discontented people of the other ethnic meted out by the Moamariyas at the hands of Ahom origins. But she does not give us a clear picture of the government. But, she does not call the rebellion as a conflict exploitative nature of the government. She informs us about between the Ahom State and Mayamara mahanta and his people’s disliking of Paik system but does not elaborate. She disciples. She calls the rebellion as a popular uprising which says that what people detested was not only compulsory was “an oppressed commonality’s struggle against a cruel and manual service to the state, but also that they are being tied to exploitative government”. About the solidarity and vigour of a particular place all the year around. She added that as the the Moamariyas, she says that they grew up afresh from every Ahoms fought the Mughals and the rebellious chiefs, the need attempt to crush them and indeed with greater energy and for more men in armed forces and in war-time constructions vigour till they overturned the sovereign power and made the and the need of more money to meet the expenses thereof Swargadeo or the God of heaven, as the Ahom king was called, compelled the king inevitably to resort to a policy of ruthless a helpless exile who was compelled to seek foreign assistance exploitation. She states that in the absence of a standing army to maintain his own existence. Marxist historians like and centralized administrative machinery, the officers of the Amalendu Guha, Hiren Gohain and Dhrubajyoti Barah also lower rank were to be fully entrusted with the work intended interpret the rebellion as the rebellion of the oppressed class to meet the demands of the time. According to her many of the such as peasants, labourer subject etc. who revolted in a officers sided with the people against the oppressive system, religious garb against the Ahom monarchy. However, they try whereas some of them remained loyal to the king only to make to establish in it a character of class struggle emerged out of life miserable for their subjects for which people’s disliking for economic disparities. Historians, who interpret the rebellion this system grew silently during the war of resistance and giving importance on the interpretation on the basis of their resentments took the form of popular rebellion under the historical evidences like Maheswar Neog, do not accept the leadership of rising feudal lords or heads of the satras. proposition of class struggle which emerging out of economic disparities because there are no definite proofs of any class Again, privileges enjoyed in the Satras were not only the cause formation on industrial and economic basis or any class for which a large number of regular peasants took shelter in conflict. S.L. Baruah who also interprets the rebellion on the the Satras . The Ahom State administrative system “Paik and basis of historical sources never mentioned the rebellion as Khel system”, which is called as “Beaucratic feudalism” by class struggle. But, though she sees religious elements in the Hiren Gohain, “Semi-Tribal Feudalism” by Amalendu Guha, and rebellion but rejects the proposition of Maheswar Neog saying “state’s centrally organized direct labour expoloitation” by that never was it a crusade between the vaishnavas and the Dhrubajyoti Barah, was also responsible for it. The common saktas or between the Mayamara and other satras. Neither was people, who were generally kanri paiks, were excessively it conflict between the vaishnavas and the ruling authority. She exploited through this system for which the paiks were eager has rightly pointed out that the monarchy and its creed was to free themselves from the exploitation and wanted to come saktism and was supported by large number of Vaishnava out of the system. The feudal privileged ruling class extracted satras, like those of Auniati and Garamur and even that of surplus of the production of paiks for the maintenance of the Dihing, a member of Kala Samhati to which mayamara satra state and the nobility. Also in this feudal productive system itself belonged. Again, there were many in the rebel’s camps there were evidences of large- scale evasion of paik services. A who were disciples of Satras other than mayamara or those of considerable number of eligible adult populations took the Kala-samhati. She argues that leaving aside the advantages of the weak machinery of the state in not getting commoners, prominent Ahom princes like Mohanmala Gohain their names entered on the paik register. One convenient form Barmua Gohain and officers like Baskatia Barbarua, Chetia of evasion was to join the monastery as a household monk. Barphukon Helimeli Solal Gohain either participate actively in Gadadhar Singha brought back many a type of vaishnavas back the rebellion or extended their moral support to it. The staging and they were engaged in the building of roads. We find of a drama named Dharmadaya in Lakhsmi singha’s court, indication in the “Katha Guru Charit” of such paiks who which was written at his command by the court-poet wanted to free themselves from manual paik service by paying Dharmadatta sarma depicting the restoration of the ahom commutation money. monarchy as rise of Dharma or justice over the Moamariyas, S.L. Baruah quotes the following line from S.K. Bhuyan’s book, who aimed at Adharma or injustice suggests, according to S.L. “Anglo-Assamese Relation, Baruah that to the royalists themselves as it was a battle of Dharma (justice) against Adharma (injustice). Therefore S.L. “the Moamariyas discontentment was promoted Baruah has rightly established that in spite of its religious not only by oral propaganda but also by literature appearance, the Moamariya rebellion was a rebellion of the which was revolutionary in tone.” people against existing government and all those who disfavoured a change in it joined hands with the royalists. But, Guha says that S.K. Bhuyan wishfully suggests that the Thus, S.L. Baruah goes one step further than S.K. Bhuyan and Moamaria discontent was possibly promoted by a literature Maheswar Neog in the rational interpretation of Moamariya which was revolutionary in tone. No such literature is however rebellion on the basis of Historical sources. Though, she does extant. Dr. Maheswar Neog also does not agree with it. He says not give importance on economic factors of the rebellion, but that the instances as Dr. S.K. Bhuyan cites from the manuscript has established the rebellion as a people’s rebellion against chronicle of Lashmisingha is inadequate evidence for such a oppressive government without interpreting it in the Marxist reading to have force. framework on economic hypotheses.

CONCLUSION REFERENCES S.L. Baruah does not interpret the rebellion in the Marxist 1. Baruah, S.L. Last Days of Ahom Monarchy, Delhi, 1993, framework nor mentioned about the interpretations of Marxist P.169. historians who interprets the Moamariya rebellion by giving 2. E.A, Gait, A History of Assam, Guwahati, 2004. more emphasis on socio-economic roots. Moreover, she does 3. G.Baruah , Asam Buranji, Guwahati, 1972, pp:107-109 not see the rebellion only as religious fanaticism or as law and 4. P. Gohainbarua., Asomar Buranji, Guwahati, 1976, P. 89. order problem, what is, according to her, a narrow view of the 5. S.K., Bhuyan, Anglo-Assamese Relation, Guwahati,1990, revolt. According to her, the revolt was organized by the p.254 people for some greater ends. She does not call the rebellion as 6. M. Neog, Sri Sri Sankardeva, Guwahati, 2006, p.151. peasant uprising as opined by Amalendu Guha, though she 7. D.Kalita,Gana Biplav, 1951

Journal of critical reviews 939

READING HISTORY OF MOAMARIYA REBELLION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SWARNA LATA BARUAH

8. D.Neog, New Lights on some Aspects of Asomiya Literature, Guwahati, 1962, p.282 9. S. Rajkumar, Itihase Honwora Shashata Basar, Banalata, Dibrugarh, 1968, p. 31. 10. A.Guha, Medieval and Early Colonial Assam, Guwahati,2015, p.150 11. H. Gohain, Kal Brahmar, Nalbari ,1977, p.48. 12. D.Barah,Moamariya Gana Atvyutthan, Nalbari, 1983, p.6 13. S.L.Baruah,1993,op.cit., p.46. 14. D. D. Kosambi The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India, London, 1970, p.208 15. Anniruddhadevar Charitra aru Mayamara sattrar Vamsavali, (ed.)C.Goswami, Mayamara Vaishnava, Dibrugarh, 2012, pp.47-48. 16. Maheswar Neogar Rachanavali, (Compiled). P.S. Neog, Part-III,2009,p.205. 17. A. Guha, 2015,op.cit,p.156. 18. S.L. Baruah, 1993, p. 167. 19. S.N.,Sarma, Neo-Vaishnavite Movement and Satra Institution of Assam,1962,p.188 20. A, Guha,op.cit,2015.p.155. 21. S.L Baruah,, Acomprehensive History of Assam,Delhi,1985p.395 22. Maheswar Rachanavali,2009,op.cit,pp.210-211. 23. Maheswar Neogr Rhacchanavali,2009,op.cit.p.266

Journal of critical reviews 940