The Truth About The First Indian War of Independence by Raphael Warjri
The Truth About The First Indian War of Independence
Raphael Warjri
The British was already in acquisition of Assam in 1824 prior to the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826 and thereafter gained control over the Brahmaputra valley. With the strategy to expand the British empire in India, David Scott, the agent to the British Governor-General for the Northern Territory, realised that Syiem Tirot Sing was eager in regaining the territory of his province in the plains captured by the neighbouring dominion, which was assumed to have been acquired by the British. In 1827 David Scott identified Nongkhlaw as a suitable site for the construction of a road and accordingly approached Syiem Tirot Sing, the chieftain of the princely State of Nongkhlaw for necessary clearance. However, the Khasi democratic procedure does not empower the chieftain to make any decision without the endorsement of the executive council of the nobles or the Dorbar Hima. The Durbar Hima is the authority for any resolution and the chieftain or the Syiem is the titular head to execute the decision of the Dorbar Hima. Therefore, Syiem Tirot Sing convened the meeting with his nobles and after a prolong deliberation the British officials grew impatient and offered a crate of alcoholic beverages to the Durbar Hima Nongkhlaw, to which they cordially refused until the completion of the meeting. Thereafter, David Scott negotiated with Syiem Tirot Sing and offered possession of the same in return for the permission for the road project. When the meeting resumed on the subsequent day, the Dorbar Hima overlooked the trick of the British and agreed to grant the permission. It is pertinent to state certain facts that ware also endorsed by the British officials on the civilised conduct and decorum of debates and deliberation in the Khasi Dorbar of Hima Nongkhlaw, which indicates the effectiveness and relevance of Khasi folk democracy. The British officials remarked that the deliberation is more civilised than the chaotic debates of British parliament. Ultimately, the resolution was passed by the Dorbar Hima Nongkhlaw in favour of the British request for road construction with certain conditions including the return of their territory in the plains. The alliance between Syiem Tirot Sing Syiemlieh with David Scott was made for construction of the road connecting Gauhati in the Brahmaputra valley of Assam with Sylhet in the Surma valley of Bengal.
The road construction had been going on for almost a year and the cordial relationship prevailed, even as the British soldiers displayed their arrogance towards the local inhabitants. The residents of Hima Nongkhlaw could not tolerate the attitude of the British soldier. Further, in December 1828 when Balaram Singh, Raja of Ranee, disputed the demand of Syiem Tirot Sing for his area in the plains, the latter confronted the Raja to establish his claim of the land. He thought that the British would honour their word; instead, his passage was obstructed by the sepoys. When Syiem Tirot Sing came to know that the British were reinforcing forces in Assam, he convened a Dorbar Hima again and orders were passed for the British to evacuate Nongkhlaw.
Consequently, the conflict escalated and warfare erupted resulting in the execution of two British army officers along with several soldiers by the warriors led by Tirot Sing Syiem himself on the 4th April, 1829, which was popularly known as the Nongkhlaw massacre. The description by the British official, Charles Allen revealed that, 'On the morning of 4 April (1829) the occupants of the Nongkhlao sanatorium woke up to find the bungalow surrounded by some five hundred armed Khasi warriors. Fortunately for David Scott he had set off for Cherrapunjee only the day before, so it was Lt. Richard Gurdon Bedingfield, the older of the two officers, who went out to talk to the crowd. According to the account published in the Bengal Observer, he was given no opportunity to find out what the disturbance was all about:
‘They immediately seized him, and after tying his hands behind his back and cutting the tendons of his legs, commenced shooting at him with their arrows. It i said that he told them, if it was his life they wanted, to kill him outright at once, which they accordingly did and, cutting off his head, placed it on a rock’.
Another officer Lt. Philip Bowles Burlton retaliated but could not resist for long and escaped with few other soldiers. However, they were chased and assaulted by the Khasi warriors near Khanapara and Burlton along with few soldiers died in the altercation. Thereafter, the full scale first Anglo Khasi war broke out with the Khasi warriors using bows and arrows, swords and shields and the spear, while the British were armed with sophisticated guns and pistols, besides military armoured gears, swords and shields. The Khasi warriors were not acquainted with open ground battle and resorted to guerrilla tactics, which demoralised the supreme power of the British empire. The armed British soldiers shamelessly took recourse to harassing the women and children in the villages, although one brave lady, Phan Nonglait had engaged in a ploy to devastate the British hostile behaviour. She would entertain them with local rice beer and exhibited seductive gesture, while she tactfully seized their arms and threw in the gorge, before she signaled the warriors for the attack.
Meanwhile, the war escalated to the neighbouring territories and Bormanik Syiem, the chieftain of Shyllong province or Hima Shillong and later Sngap Sing Syiem of Maharam province or Hima Maharam collaborated with Tirot Sing Syiem in the war against alien forces. The mastermind of the Anglo Khasi War was Bormanik Syiem, while Tirot Sing Syiem and Sngap Sing Syiem were the commanders in the battlefield. The innovation of Khasi guerrilla warfare was discovered at Nongnah village where the topography and local resources of natural cannon boulders, poison ivies were used to crush the mighty armaments and mammoth force of British soldiers. The British soldiers had been either injured or crushed by the hailstorm of boulders from the natural trench or succumbed to the poison ivies through the assumed safer jungle trail.
Unfortunately few other subjugated provinces, particularly Hima Sohra that provided refuge to David Scott owed allegiance to the British supremacy and disrupted the freedom struggle; and this is the infamous divide and rule policy of the British. Ultimately, Tirot Sing Syiem along with his warriors succumbed to the betrayal of trust by the British forces under the guise of reconciliation mediated by the fellow brethren. The treachery was however, perpetrated by the shrewd and unscrupulous British trader, Mr Henry Inglis by violation of the sacred Khasi oath of licking salt from the blade of the sword. The treason led to the arrest of Tirot Sing Syiem on January 1833 after four years of rigorous violent aggression and he was kept in custody at the Dacca jail in Bengal as a prisoner till his demise on 17th July, 1835. However, the British historical account stated that Tirot Sing Syiem had surrendered, but actually the simple Khasi chieftain was tricked by the clever British merchant, unbecoming of a gentleman. When Bormanik Syiem of Hima Shyllong came to know about the treachery, he attempted for a rescue mission for Tirot Sing Syiem, but there was obscure versions on his mysterious disappearance from the entire operation, while Sngap Sing Syiem was demoralised and could no longer resist the consistent aggression of the British forces.
It is interesting to note without any disparaging remark but simply placing facts on the historical records about the assumed and alleged blunder on the chronology of freedom struggle in India. It was commonly believed that history was written by the conqueror, while in the instant case it was allegedly observed as the negligence of the subjugated mainstream community on the actual freedom struggle in the remote and isolated regions of the country. The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 was a rebellion by the Indian soldier, Mangal Pandey who served as a sepoy under the British East India Company. The failed rebellion against the British imperialism lasted for ten days only, but was officially taken as the first Indian revolt against British colonialism. Whereas, the warfare that erupted on 4th April, 1829 known as the Nongkhlaw massacre led by the independent Khasi chieftain Tirot Sing Syiem that claimed the casualty of two senior British army officials and a host of other British soldiers was not in the authentic historical records of the country. The Nongkhlaw massacre escalated into a violent war along with the alliance of two other Khasi provinces led by their chieftains for more than four years until Tirot Sing Syiem was arrested on January 1833. Mangal Pandey rose in rebellion against the British on 29 March 1857 and killed few officers before he was immediately arrested and sentenced to death by hanging on the 8 April, 1857. Moreover, the encounter of three Khasi princely states under the leadership of Tirot Sing Syiem along with Bormanik Syiem and Sngap Sing Syiem against the forces of British empire was a full scale war between sovereign states that lasted for more than four years, while the revolt of Mangal Pandey revolted against the exploitative mercenaries that he sacrificed his life within ten days of resistance against the East India Company. The pages of Indian history need to be corrected for justification and for the honourable phenomenon of freedom struggle.
If nationalism is desired by the country, it would be justified for the nation to retrospect on the sentiments of regionalism and gracefully alter the facts of history in the highly regarded perspective. It is not required for anybody to demand anything from the central government, but it would be a decent solidarity along with the entire country to analyse and scrutinise the authentic information in the annals of history.
….………..