• Odisha Review
• ISSN 0970-8669

Theterm‘Subaltern’literallymeans‘subordinate,’ ‘of lower rank', 'an officer, below the rank of Captain in the British army’. In modern historiography the term has been used as a synonymforthenon-elitesectionsofthesociety. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), the Italian Marxist woveideasabout subalternidentityinto the theories of class struggle. In course of time Gramsci’sideasgotwidelycirculated. Inmodern IndianhistoriographyRanajitGuhaintroducedthe concept of ‘subaltern’, and the theory of ‘subaltern autonomy’, when he brought out an edited volume, called Subaltern Studies, vol.1 (Oxford, 1982) and published his own work, parts) and labour in plantation, mines and industries (alongwith urban casual labour).As a resultofgrowingemphasisonhistoryfrombelow and more and more research on peasants and tribal’s andpublicationofadozenofvolumes of

Subaltern Studies the Subaltern school has

carved out a place for itself in modern Indian historiography.ThetheoryofSubalternautonomy hasbeenaffirmedbysomescholarswho studied agrarianmovementsinUPduringGandhianEra, such as D.N. Dhanagare (Agrarian Movement and Gandhian Politics Agra, 1975), Gyanendra

Pandey (The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, 1962-1934: A study in

The Role of Subalterns in the Indian Freedom
Struggle: A Case Study of the Undivided
Balasore District

Dr. Atul Chandra Pradhan

entitled Elementary Aspects of Peasant
Imperfect Mobilisation. Oxford, 1978) and
Insurgency in Colonial India (Oxford, 1983).
Majid HayatSiddiqi, (Agrarian Unres t i n North

Guhahasusedtheterm‘subaltern’inthecontext

India: The United Provinces, 1918-1922. New

Delhi, 1978). But the Subaltern theory has also ofcolonialIndia,anddefined‘subaltern’inanunMarxistandnegativeway;hehasrepresentedthe been challenged. Some have hinted at the demographydifferencebetweenthetotal Indian

necessity of non-Subaltern mediation in the population and the elite ( foreign and Indian) as

Subalternmovement.SumitSarkarhassuggested
Subaltern classes. Sumit Sarkar who initially

thattheconceptof Subalternautonomymightbe subscribedtosubalterntheoryhas triedto givea

valid in a relative sense. In fact the character of morespecificenumerationofthesubalternclasses

freedom movement in a particular localitywas in the context of Bengal; he has identified three

determined notmerelybydirection from top but socialgroupsunderthesubalternhead-tribaland

also by the initiative, drives, perception and lowcasteagriculturallabourandshare-croppers,

land holdingpeasants generallyof intermediate castestatus (togetherwith their Muslim counter character of the people who carried on the movement at the grass-root level. Thereforeit is

27

AUGUST - 2018

• ISSN 0970-8669
• Odisha Review

phenomenon.” He further holds that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru recognized “that theAwadhpeasantmovementwasanteriortoand independentoftheNon-cooperationmovement, though there is evidence too of the interaction between the two and the strength one lent to the other”. Regardingthe role of thepeasants in the Gandhian movement Sumit Sarkar holds that although popular initiative unleashed manyof Gandhi’s movements, and his movements got radicalized in the process of descending to the lower levels, he repeatedlyused breaks to check the elemental insurgencyof the masses. Sarkar holds that Gandhi used such brakes not in the interestofoverallanti-imperialistunitybutinfavour of the propertied interests both urban and rural. According to Partha Chatterji Gandhi made the peasantswillingparticipantsinastrugglewholly conceivedanddirectedbyothers. Chatterjiholds that Gandhi firmlyrefused to involvehimself in masses’ struggle against exploitation and oppression and failed to go beyond the limits of theclass interests of bourgeoise. necessary to study the social base of freedom struggleindifferentlocalities.

Freedom struggle in India is broadly divided into twophases–the pre-nationalist and nationalist. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thereweremanypeasantinsurrections, based on the agrarian discontent. With the formation of Indian National Congress the educatedmiddle classes started theirmovement inwhichthemasseshardlyplayedanyrole.With theemergenceofMahatmaGandhi astheleader of the IndianNational Congress masses entered intothenationalistmovement, beingattractedby hischarisma.InOdisha,duringthepre-Gandhian nationalisterathepubliclifewasmostlydominated bytheelitistmovementofOdiaintelligentsia,Rajas and Zamindars, aiming at the merger of Odiaspeaking tracts. Two questions maybe asked as totherelationshipbetweenGandhiannationalist movement and the peasants – What was the influence of the Gandhian movement upon the peasants and their movement and what was the roleofpeasants intheGandhianmovements.As regards the first question three points of view have been held-(1) the nationalist movement helpedthepeasant movement tostandonits feet and spread, (2) the nationalist movement exercisedrestrictiveinfluenceoverthepeasants; it hadno programme of radical agrarian reform, asitwasbasicallyamulti-classmovementagainst the imperialist rule, (3) TheSubaltern historians hold that the peasant movement remained an “autonomous domain”, clearlymarked offfrom the‘domainofelitepolitics”. Whilestudyingthe peasant movement of Oudh during 1919-22, GyanendraPandeyholdsthat “manyofthemost important peasant insurrections in the country werelargelyautonomous,andthattheintervention ofoutsideleaderswas amarginalandoftenalate
II
TheNon-cooperationmovementpartially removedthetraditionalfearofgovernmentfrom the people’sminds. Emboldened bythespirit of the movement and at the call of local Congress the peopleof the Balasore district boycotted the landsettlementorderedbyGovernmentin1922. Since the settlement operation was started at a time when the people were busyin harvesting, theywerenotin aposition toco-operatewiththe operation. The zamindar association of the Balasore district, led by Narendra Nath Sarkar supportedthetenants’smoveinthefaceofthreats from government. Finally at the suggestion of Chaudhury Bhagabat Prasad Samantaray

28

AUGUST - 2018

• Odisha Review
• ISSN 0970-8669

Mahapatra in the Bihar and Odisha Legislative Council thesettlementoperationwas postponed foroneyear.AccordingtoH.K.MahtabthepostNon-Cooperation situation was congenial for lunchinganagitationagainstthelandrevenuepolicy of Government and securing some concessions for the tenants. But only in one zamindari i.e. Kanikaapartofwhich(panchmuka)wassituated in Bhadrak sub-division there was a serious tenants’agitation. Towards the end of 1921 the tenants started mobilizing themselves in Raj Kanika the headquarters of the zamindari. Soon thereafter village committees of tenants were formed in Kanika for the withdrawal of enhancement of rent made by the zamindar in 1916, and implementation of Congress programme. Thevillagecommittees discharged thefollowingfunctions-enrolmentofCongressmen, promotion of Khadar, settlement of disputes througharbitration, persuadingthepeoplenot to payenhancedrentandchowkidari taxand social boycott of the loyalists. The movement within Kanika was supported by Congressmen like Ramdas Babaji and Madausudan Pattanayak from outside. GopabandhuDas, thePresident of UPCCsympathizedwiththetenants’movement inKanika. TheRajaofKanikafiledanumberof defamation cases against Gopabandhu Das for thelatter’sstatementsinSamajaboutoppression inKanika.Finallyhewassentencedtotwoyears’ simpleimprisonment.WhethertheKanikatenants' agitation was an agrarian movement or a movementengineeredbytheCongressmenbythe opponents of the Raja of Kanika who was opposed to the Non-cooperation movement? Perhapstherewasafusionofagrariandiscontent and Congress movement in Kanika, as it borne out by the following statement made by H.K. Mahatab in a pamphlet circulated in February, 1922:
The Kanika Sarkarthinking that he will obstruct thewaves of the Noncooperationmovementbystretching out his hand. But be it remembered theawakeningofthepeople,caused bytheNon-cooperation movement will lower the head not onlyof the Kanika Sarkar butalso of theDelhi Sarkar. Now we are awakened. Let the faint light of the awakening be kept up in our hearts. Eventually it will spread like wild fire, grow furiousandserveasaguidetomany countries.

TheBoardofRevenuerecordsshowthat the adamant stand of the Raja ofKanika to raise rent at will and obstruct transfer of occupancy holdings withouthisconsent wasthebasiccause of the unrest in Kanika. Well aware of this, the British authorities were supporting the Raja of Kanikaonlyforpoliticalreasons.WhentheHigh Court acquitted Chakradhar Behera and other tenant leaders who had been arrested under section 107, it held thattheKanikaagitationwas onlytenants’agitationhavingnotaintoftreason. That is why, as pointed out by H.K. Mahtab, CongressmenwithdrewfromKanikaaffairsafter the withdrawal of Non-cooperation movement, as in 1920’s the tenants’ movement was not a partoftheCongress programme. In 1930’safter thewithdrawalofCivilDisobedienceMovement the Congress Socialists tried to integrate the tenants’questionintotheprogrammeofstruggle forfreedom.AtthattimeGokulanandaMohanty emerged as a peasant leader in Bhadrak. There wereotherCongresssocialistsinBalasoredistrict such as GourachandraDas and RabindraMohan Das. ThoughnotasocialistH.K.Mahtabbecame the PresidentofOrissa Kisan Sabhain 1935-36.

29

AUGUST - 2018

• ISSN 0970-8669
• Odisha Review

In 1937 election for the Odisha Legislative Assemblyin the eastern Bhadrak constituency Chakradhar Behera, thepeasant leader defeated GirishChandraRoy,asonoftheRajaofKanika. shoreoftheBalasoredistrict salt satyagrh atook place.At Eram, on 21 May 1930, 2500 people including 700 women collected salt earth, and when theywere returning, thepolicelet the men go, butlathichargedwomen, snatchedawaytheir ornamentandeven molested them.
There was a wide base of popular support forthesaltlawviolationcampaigninthe Balasore seashore. Alarge number of cases of salt law violations had occurred in the coastal districts in the years preceding the Civil Disobedience Movement. Largest number of such cases had occurred in theBalasore district. As pointed by Nilamani Pradhan, Secretary, UPCC, “AftertheLahoreCongressandthegreat mass awakening on the Independence Day (26 January1930), there was a movement afoot in the coastal areas of the district of Balasore to organize some form of salt satyagraha even if theUtkalPCCdidnottaketheinitiativeinstarting the satyagraha”. FinallyInchudi was chosen as the main centre of salt satyagraha. At Inchudi the salt satyagraha could beorganized with the helpofthevillagersbelongingtotheneighbouring villages.AsinstructedbythelocalCongressleader SurendraNathDas thevillagers not onlywholeheartedly cooperated with the satyagrahis but completely boycotted Government officials. Consequently during the satyagraha the Government officials, whoencampedat Inchudi had to procure all their requirements from the Balasore town. An important feature of salt satyagraha at Inchudi was the participation of 1500ruralwomenon20April1930.Thevillagers rendered help and first aid treatment to the satyagrahis, wounded bypolicemen.After the arrest of Congress satyagrahis the villagers themselvescarriedontheillicitmanufactureofsalt, and the Government allowed them to do so, provided theydid not utter the name of Gandhi or Congress. At twenty one places on the sea
Psychologically speaking, the salt satyagraha generated a spirit of militancyand defiance among the public. Police attack and encounterbetweenthepoliceandthepublicwere the natural sequel of such popular militancy. In the Shrijang village, situated in the vicinity of Inchudi, on 12 July1930, thevillagers attacked thepolicemen,protestingagainstthearrestofthree satyagrahisoflocalAshramand twovillagerson the alleged ground of carrying on campaign for the non-payment of Chowkidari tax. By9. P.M. onthesameday, whenthedistrictmagistrateand superintendentofpolicearrivedinthevillagewith fortyarmedpolicemen,themalefolkofthevillage had fled away, leaving behind women, children and their movable properties. Then followed looting by the police, posting of policemen in Shrijang and its neighbouring villages and collection of punitive tax. Most probably there wasnocampaignfornon-paymentofChowkidari tax the union where Shrijang was situated. The peoplewereaggrievedagainsttheUnionpresident whohadnotgivenreceiptforthetax alreadypaid and asked for police help for silencing the complainant villagers. The police authorities wanted a protest to chastise thevillagers for the active role they had played in the Inchudi salt satyagraha in defiance of the authorities. “So whenthepresidentapproachedthepoliceforhelp, theyjumpedattheopportunityofteachingalesson toShrijang”.

For the local people in Shrijang their violent encounter with the police after salt

30

AUGUST - 2018

• Odisha Review
• ISSN 0970-8669

satyagrah is more glorious than the non-violent participation in salt satyagrah at Inchudi. Not indoctrinated in non-violence here the people followedatechniqueofterrorizingthepolicei.e. assembling in large number in response to the blowingofconchshellwithlathisinhandswitha view to attack or unnerve the small number of policemen. This techniquewas alsofollowed by the people of Eram and Lunia for encountering policemenduringQuitIndiamovement. the former and some innocent people sacrificed their lives. InEram, on 28 September1942, as a result of police firing upon a gathering of about 6000 people in the Melana ground, 28 persons including a woman were killed and 56 persons wereinjured.AtTudigadia,becauseofpolicefiring on 26 September, three people were killed. At Lunia, on22Septemberthepolicefireduponthe mob, andkilled ninepersons.

The Prajamandal Movement in Nilgiri
Garhjatwhichgained momentumfromMay1938 onwards as a result of Congress Party’s support fortheState'sPeople’smovementatall-Indialevel andrevitalizationofOdishaStatesconferencewas closelylinkedwithfreedommovementinBalasore district. Though the movement had a local leadership which initially consisted of petty landlordsandvillageheadmenand subsequently a left wing emerged under the leadership of BanamaliDas,itwasbackedbyall-Orissaleaders like Harekrushna Mahtab (Balasore Congress stalwart) Nabakrushna Chaudhury and Sarangadhar Das and its headquarters was functioning fromAlasua (Soro P.S.) and Goura Chandra Das, theSecretaryof Balasore District Congress Committee was actively helping the movementinNilagirifromAlasuaAshram.From AlasuaAshramGouraChandraDaswasbringing out the cyclostyled newspaper, titled Rana Dak on behalf of the Nilagiri Prajamandal. The Prajamandal Movement aimed at abolition of feudalduesandexactionsandgrantofdemocratic right to the people and establishment of representativeassemblyand government within the state. The movement had a wide base of popularsupport.Thecommonpeasantsincluding tribalsjoinedthePrajamandalmovementaswell as the Communist-led movement. The Raja of Nilagiriconcededsomeofthedemands.Because
Large scale mobilization of people and popularmilitancywereseenduringtheQuitIndia MovementinsuchplacesasEram(Basudevpur), Lunia (Dhamnagar), Tudigadia (Khaira), BhandaripokhariandKhairadihi.Intheseplaces the local Congressmen(such as Kamala Prasad Kar,GourangaChandraMohantyandAniruddha Mohanty in Basudevpur, Baidyanath Rout in Tudigadia,andMuralidharPandainDhamanagar) were carrying on propaganda for noncooperation in warefforts and non-payment of tax and defiance of government officials. The overall situationin the countrywas tense due to war, failure of Cripps Mission and shortage of foodstuff(the richpeoplewereapprehensive of theirfoodstockbeinglooted). InBasudevpurthe people declared an area (called Banchhanidhi Chakalaindependent. Meetingsandprocessions roused the spirit of militancy and defiance. In Eram, according to one account the villagers refused to carry the luggage of the deputy superintendent of policeKunja Bihari Mohanty and according to another source the villagers obstructed the Chowkidars who were carrying the luggage of the D.S.P. to the house of local zamindar.At Lunia the policemen had to cajole thedefiantpeopletoget backtherifles, snatched away by the latter. Ultimately when the mob refused to obeythe police, the latter fired upon

31

AUGUST - 2018

• ISSN 0970-8669
• Odisha Review

Purushottam Kar, Indian National Congress and

Orissa, Cuttack, 1987

ofhisinefficiencyhewasforcedtoremainoutof power for five years from 1942 onwards. He returnedtohisstatesometimebeforethetransfer of power. After return to Gadi he tried to strengthenhispositionbycreatingasetofloyalists amongtheAdivasisinthestate,andsettingthem againstthecasteHinduPrajamandalleaders. But theprincelyorderwasnotdestinedtosurviveany longer when the forces of democracy and nationalismhadtriumphedoverimperialism,the mainstay of the princely order. Because of conflictsbetweentheCommunistsandtheloyalist tribals the Governments of India and Odisha decided to intervene in the affairs of Nilagiri. ConsequentlyNilagiri becamethe first princely State to be taken over bythe Indian Dominion. This take-over from above became necessary because ofpressure from below.

Atul Chandra Pradhan, The Nationalist Movement in a Regional Setting (1920-34) : The Rise of Congress to Power in Orissa, Delhi, ND.

Department of Culture, Government of Odisha, Freedom Struggle in Odisha.

Department of Culture, Government of Odisha, Freedom Struggle in Odisha, Vol.II, Bhubaneswar, 2006.

Towards Merger, Bhubaneswar, 1998. Nilamani Routray, Smruti OAnubhuti (Odia), Cuttack, 1986.

Bibliography:

Harekrushna Mahtab, Sadhanara Pathe (Odia), Cuttack, 1972—Dasha Varshara Odisha (Odia), Cuttack, 1977

Dr. Atul Chandra Pradhan, MIG-68, Baramunda Housing Board Colony, Bhubaneswar-751003.
Muralidhar Mallik, Biplabi Chakradhar (Odia), Haldia, 1973

32

AUGUST - 2018