Kanara’s koot revolts of 1830-31 and 1837

Koot or koota in Kannada means a union or assembly. In the context of peasant uprisings of 1830-31, 1837, it refers to the union or assemblies of peasants expressing their grievances against, and seeking redress from the Government. These disturbances are referred to as “koots” in the administrative records of the British East India Company.

In Kanara, the primary factor involved in the koot uprisings was the peasant resistance to the imposition of high land revenue assessments and exaction along with other grievances like salt and tobacco monopoly, introduction of law courts and stamps, customs and so on. The burden of taxes was particularly felt by the peasants due to the state of economic depression and the absence of lucrative markets for agricultural products.

Private ownership of land was deep-rooted in South Kanara. Following its occupation by the British in 1799, Thomas Munro, its first collector, introduced the ryotwari system of land revenue administration by which the assessment was made on those who held a proprietary right or mulawarga title over the land irrespective of whether or not they actually cultivated the land. Many owners leased their land to tenants for cultivation through various systems of tenancy that prevailed in the region. This system of leasing and sub-leasing gave scope for the exploitation of the poor peasants by landlords.

The system by which land revenue was assessed and collected had many serious defects. There was no regular system of surveying and classification of the land, resulting in over assessments. The jummabundy price or the rate fixed by the government for the value of agricultural produce was quite often higher than the market price. Further, the government demanded its share of revenue only in cash and not in kind, though this had been the practice in the pre-British era. This resulted in peasants being forced to sell a large quantity of their produce, and sometimes mortgaging, even selling their land to meet the government’s tax demands. Middlemen and moneylenders exploited the situation, while the government confiscated and auctioned property and land to realise tax arrears. All his led to the general impoverishment of agriculture and the ryots.

Through the late 1820’s and early 1830’s, economic depression engulfed Kanara. The period between 1827 and 1830 saw a considerable fall in the price of rice, pepper, cardamom, coconut, and other agricultural produce due to the lack of domestic and foreign demand. The price differential between the market price of agricultural goods and the rate fixed by the government for tax assessment was considerable.

By 1830-31, over assessment had caused problems like land mortagage, rural indebtedness, transfer of property from the poor to the rich, and the rise of merchant moneylenders. Dickinson, the collector, wrote that the prevailing “utmost distress” among farmers  made it absolutely necessary to forego permanently a considerable amount of revenue in order to save them from utter ruin, and the fixed amount of assessment should be reviewed.

In 1830-31, Kanara’s harvest failed.  Farmers petitioned the government and complained of their losses, the unjust manner of tax administration, and demanded revenue remissions. In January 1831, peasants started their kòots to discuss their problems, the ways and means of solving them, and the organisation of the movement. Temples became koot centres, and anonymous pamphlets spread information among the peasants. Each koot had its own leader, and all of them met and discussed at the Grand Koot of January 1831 held at the Manjunatha Temple at Kadri.

This peasant unrest, in which government servants were attacked in some cases, continued from November 1830 to March 1831, when Cameron, the new collector, promised to review their petitions and consider remissions. By April 1831, the rumblings died down.

The leaders of these peasant uprisings were mainly Brahmans and Bunts, the two important landholding communities. They included government officials, who were also landholders. Some names are known: Soorupa, the head munshi of Dickinson's cutcherry at Brahmawar; Krishna Rao, the Head serishtadar; Ranga Rao, his brother and serishtadar of Mangalore; Vyasa Rao, serishtadar of Bekal (Kasaragod); Namappa, a record-keeper.

John Stokes, who was commissioned to investigate, concluded that the koots were the result of Brahmin intrigues. These Brahmans had complained that the Christians had misinterpreted their petitions to the collector properly, and took bribes. Among those they complained against were Manoel Coelho (Naib Serishtadar), his brother I.S. Prabhu (Treasurer), their relative Boniface Fernandes (police munshi), and another munshi named Nicolao Prabhu.

Arguing that the most important instigators of the koots were Krishna Rao, Ranga Rao, Vyasa Rao, and Derebyle Ramiah, Stokes felt these Brahmans wished to discredit the Kanara Christians, and have them removed from the government’s administration, thereby restoring their ascendancy in the government offices. He added: “The native Christians of South Kanara form a valuable connecting link between the Hindus and their European superiors. In language and in local information, they assimilate with the former, in religion and education, with the latter.” In actual fact, the number of Christians in the Company service was very low when compared to the number of Muslims and Hindus.

Cameron, the new collector, ordered an enquiry into the charges against the Christians. Manoel Prabhu, who had been charged with bribery, resigned in March 1831. S. Coelho was held responsible for the deficiency in a remittance of treasury dispatched from Mangalore in January and dismissed. Koot leaders in government service were also punished. Krishna Rao and many other important officers were dismissed, and the property of some of the defaulters was attached. Warrants were issued for the apprehension of the ring leaders in Mangalore.

The rebel peasants were asked to sign a moochilka (a written agreement) in which they agreed that they would not rise in rebellion for the second time until a fresh jummabundy was fixed. 

With much of its leadership coming from the bureaucracy, the ryots showed considerable organisational ability in defying the government.

References

N.Shyam Bhat. A Peasant Uprising In South Kanara (1830-31)