Early Resistance Movement in Odisha- Paika Rebellion, Vir Surendra Sai & Revolt of 1857.

Paika Rebellion

Background

Odisha witnessed a number of resistance movements against the British Raj in the nineteenth century, led by common people, landholders, Zamindars, and feudatory chiefs.
All of these resistance movements occurred in Odisha as a result of a strong dislike for the new rule, the oppressive revenue system, high rent, the threat to vested landed interests’ traditional privileges, and other factors endangering the lives and property of the Odisha people.
The Raja of Khurda had surrendered to the Marathas the Mahals of Lambai, Rahang, and Puri in exchange for military assistance in his war against the Raja of Paralakhemundi. Following the Marathas’ expulsion, the Raja anticipated that the British would restore Mahlas to him.
Mukundadeva-II, Raja of Khurdha (1795-1817), greeted the British in 1803 following their conquest of Orissa. He hoped that the British would restore to him the four Parganas (Rahang, Serain, Chaubiskud, and Lembai) that he had lost to the Marathas.
Due to the king’s minor status, his regent Jayakrisna Rajguru, or Jayi Rajguru traveled to Cuttack to argue for the restoration of the Parganas and a reduction in the annual Peshkash.
They refused to comply with both demands. Rather than that, they pressed the king to sign an agreement on their terms. They desired Rajguru’s dismissal by the king. Jayi Rajguru foresaw the British’s evil designs.
He formed an alliance with the chiefs of the states of Khurdha, Kujanaga, and Kanika. The king of Khurdha made all necessary preparations for war with the British.
Harcourt was naturally concerned that such disaffection would spread to other tributaries and requested permission from the Governor General to take stern exemplary action against the Raja of Khurda in order to deter others from becoming hostile to the British.

Results of the Khurda rising

In December 1804, the British captured the fort of Khurdha.
In January 1805, the fugitive king was apprehended through the treachery of one Fateh Muhammad.
Balabhadra Bhanja, the Raja of Kanika, was imprisoned.
The Raja of Kujang was deposed and his elder brother succeeded him.
Jayakrisna Rajguru or Jayi Rajguru, the regent of the king of Khurda, was hanged.
Khurdha was seized and placed under the British’s direct (khas) management.
The Raja was compensated for his administration of the Jagannath temple.
His headquarters were established in Puri.
He retained the title of Maharaja despite the fact that he lacked a kingdom.
Khurda’s resistance movement was a watershed moment in modern Odisha’s history. This was the country’s first resistance movement, and Jai Rajguru was the country’s first martyr. Although the British Raj suppressed the movement, it served as a catalyst for subsequent movements in the country.

Paika Rebellion 1817 CE and Buxi Jagabandhu

The Paika rebellion of 1817 was a watershed moment in modern Odisha’s history. The people of Odisha welcomed the British Government in order to be liberated from the Marathas’ exploitation.
Their aspirations, however, were dashed when they encountered the administrative structure and economic exploitation, the two tentacles of British imperialism.
To these miseries were added a flawed land revenue policy, a salt monopoly, the deprivation of local servants by the British administration, and the rulers’ callous attitude toward the ruled, all of which poisoned the minds of the people of Odisha.
British rule reached a nadir in its degeneration when Jayi Rajaguru, Raja Mukundadeva 11 of Khurda’s indomitable minister, was hanged and the estate of Khurda was permanently confiscated.
The British authority’s direct management of Khurda from 1805 enraged the indigenous people and laid the groundwork for an armed rebellion by the Paikas in 1817, led by the Raja of Khurda’s commander, Buxi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar Mahapatra Bhramarabara Ray. This uprising is referred to as the Paik Rebellion.

Causes

Numerous factors contributed to the outbreak of the Paika Rebellion of 1817, which can be discussed in detail below.

British policies of exploitation

After the Raja of Khurda was deposed, Major Fletcher assumed command of the estate’s entire administration. Thus began the British administration’s exploitative policies, which became increasingly intolerable for the people of Odisha.
They were unable to comprehend British regulations because they were not available in Odia and were only available in Bengali and Persian.
Their ignorance was exploited by clerks who were not indigenous people but Bengalis who crowded Odisha’s offices. The local populace was extremely reliant on the Bengali clerks who collected large sums of money from them in a variety of important matters such as revenue collection, court cases, and so on.
At the time, obtaining a favorable judgment from the court was a pipe dream for the local populace. They were unable to air their grievances before British authorities due to the chasm that existed between the general populace and the British government.

Faulty revenue policy

The British government’s erroneous revenue policy harmed the local zamindars and royats. Short-term land revenue settlements disproportionately impacted zamindars who had failed to pay their dues to the British authority.
The British never granted remission or time to local zamindars for revenue collection.
Zamindaries who failed to pay revenue to the British government in Calcutta on time lost their zamindarships for a variety of reasons, including crop failure, drought, flood, and other natural calamities.
The assessments and over-assessments of the short-term settlements added to the peasants’ misery.
The British government’s erroneous land revenue policy disappointed not only the zamindars but also the royats.

British salt policy

Another factor that contributed to the rebellion was the British salt monopoly. It had wreaked havoc on the common people of Odisha.
Odisha’s long sea coast produced an enormous amount of salt, which was freely used by the people of this land. However, the British government stripped the zamindars and indigenous peoples of the coastal region of their traditional rights to salt manufacture.
Due to the heavy importation of Liverpool salt, every household in this land felt an increase in the price of salt.

Difficulties of the Khurda people

The amlas involved in administration smuggled large quantities of salt and profited handsomely. The common people of Khurda, who relied on smuggled salt, faced utter destitution.
They violated British salt laws by producing salt. They were sentenced to prison for this violation of the law, which was a social stigma at the time.
Individuals who were imprisoned were excommunicated from society upon their release. People attempted to draw the British government’s attention to the oppressive nature of the salt laws, but their efforts fell on deaf ears, enraging the people of Odisha.

The new monetary system

Another factor that contributed to the Paik rebellion was the British authority’s introduction of a new currency system in Odisha.
Cowrie was the primary medium of exchange in Odisha during the Maratha period. It had an exchange rate with silver coins.
During the early years of the British administration in Odisha, the scarcity of cowrie currency was acute. As a result, British troops found it exceedingly difficult to obtain small items for daily consumption from the local market. As a result, the British government introduced sicca rupees in Odisha in November 1804. The zamindars, peasants, and Talukdars all encountered difficulties when it came to collecting revenue in cowrie currency.
Villagers encountered numerous difficulties in dealing with the new currency and were grossly exploited by the local mahajanas.

The contemporary political condition of Khurda

Khurda’s people were rebellious due to the country’s political situation at the time. The hanging of Jayi Rajaguru, the deposition of Raja Mukundadeva II, and Major Fletcher’s reorganization of Khurda’s administration enraged the local populace. They were determined to resist British rule in Khurda at all costs.

The displeasure of Buxi Jagabandhu

Buxi Jagabandhu’s displeasure was the immediate trigger for the Paik rebellion. He was the Raja of Khurda’s Commander, and his position was hereditary.
He commanded respect from the populace on a par with the king.
As a reward for his service, the Raja granted him jagir lands known as Buxibari, which included the quilla of Rorung and four paraganas, namely Rahang, Lembai, Sarai, and Chabiskud.
Major Fletcher deprived Buxi of the quilla Rorung when he established new administration in Khurda. Additionally, Chandra Prasad Singh’s mischievous role resulted in the sale of the above-mentioned four paraganas of Buxi to Lakshmi Narayan, who ultimately gave them to Krishna Chandra Singh, a relative of Chandra Prasad Singh.
When the truth was revealed, Buxi testified before Commissioner Richardson regarding this covert deal. The court challenge brought by Krishna Chandra against Jagabandhu’s right to these paraganas and Buxi’s own cousin Gadadhar Vidyadhara’s claim to such property prompted Richardson to depose Jagabandhu of his right to these paraganas and, as a result, all sources of income.
This reduced Buxi to begging. To add insult to injury, the Daroga of Khurda attempted to arrest Buxi based on false information provided by Charan Patnaik, the Sarbarakar of Khurda who informed the Daroga about Buxi’s secret connection with the Pindaris. This contributed to Buxi Jagabandhu’s rebellion.

Major Events of the Rebellion

The Paika rebellion in Khurda began on 29 March 1817. On that day, a group of 400 men known as the Kandh of Ghumsur in Ganjam entered the Cuttack district, where they were joined by the Paikas and Dulbeheras of Pergunnah Khurda and committed various acts of rebellion under the leadership of a man named Jagabandhu.
The insurgents attacked the police station and government buildings in Banapur, killing over 100 men and stealing Rs. 15,000 in government funds. They attacked Charles Becher, the Southern Division’s Salt Agent, and pillaged his boats on the Chilka Lake.

Rebellion in Khurda

The Paikas of Khurda united with the Chuhars Kandhs of Ghumsur under the leadership of Buxi Jagabandhu.
They set fire to government buildings and looted Khurda’s government treasury. The insurgents advanced towards Lembai, where they assassinated Charan Patnaik at Rathipur.
Khurda and the surrounding areas were quickly placed at the mercy of these rebels. They erected barricades and the rebellious Paikas guarded the Gangapara Pass, the main route connecting Cuttack and Khurda.

Edward Impey’s Steps

The insurgents’ activities alerted the British authorities to the alarming situation at Khurda.
Edward Impey dispatched troops to Khurda and Pipli under the command of Lieutnants Prideaux and Faris, respectively, to deal with the emergency.
On 1 April 1817, he marched towards Gangapara with a detachment of sepoys, accompanied by Lieutenant Travis. British troops were unable to cross the barricade and advance towards Khurda.
On the other hand, the concealed Paiks attacked the British sepoys intermittently and forced them to retreat.

Revolutionary assaults

Lieutenant Faris pursued the insurgents on Captain Wellington’s orders and was shot along with one Indian Subahdar. Pipli was captured by the insurgent Paiks. Police stations and government buildings were destroyed in the fire.
On 7 April 1817, some insurgents led by Rajballav Chhotrai attacked Hariharpur and severely beaten the Tahasildar of Kothdes.
Additionally, they expelled the new zamindars of Balarampur and Budhakera. The common people of Lembai, Pipli, and Kothdes joined the insurgents and punished the zamindars who supported the British.
Additionally, they set fire to villages and destroyed crops. The insurgents captured and looted Rani Mukta Dei of Sambalpur, who had taken up residence in her Panehgarh Jagir under British protection. Additionally, on Buxi’s orders, they assassinated Jagabandhu Patnaik and members of his family who were spies against Buxi.

Mukundadeva is proclaimed king

After achieving success in various locations such as Khurda, Lembai, Pipli, Gangapara, Kothdes, and Hariharpur, the insurgents advanced to Puri town. They also set fire to and demolished public and private structures.
Buxi arrived in Puri on 14 April, accompanied by a large number of his followers. The temple’s priests greeted him. They denounced British rule and installed Raja Mukundadeva as their ruler, who was indifferent to such matters. Impey’s correspondence with the Bengali government reveals that the revolt gradually spread to Gope, Kujang, Pattamudai, Golra, Harishpur, and Praharajpur, among other places.

Le Fevre’s measures

With this in mind, the British government unlocked Pandora’s box of methods for putting down the rebellion. Puri, Pipli, and Lembai were all placed under martial law.
Captain Le Fevre marched towards Puri with large military detachments, burning several Paik villages along the way. Le Fevre captured the Raja and his son Ramachandradeva and brought them to Cuttack.
The British government’s action undermined the insurgents’ morality. However, anti-British sentiment became widespread in Pattamundai, Kujang, and Gope, among other places. Captain Wellington now commands the troops to put down the rebellion. Captain C.R. Kennet was assigned to suppress the revolt at Gope, Golra, and the surrounding areas. Captain A.Macleod proceeded to Pattamundai in order to quell the rising tide of insurrection.
Finally, the Raja of Kujang surrendered, and Captain Kennet was successful in apprehending Narayana Paramaguru and Bamadeva Patajoshi, two key leaders of the Paik rebellion, and their followers. They were escorted to Barabati’s fort. This restored normalcy in Pattamundai, Asureswar, and Praharajpur, among other places.

Revolutionaries’ new tactics

Buxi and his followers sought refuge in Nayagarh and Ranapur due to the British authorities’ repressive measures.
However, the combined military operation from Ganjam and Cuttack forced Buxi and his followers to relocate frequently.
Finally, Buxi proposed to his followers, including Krushnachandra Bhramarabara Rai, Damu Subudhi, and Gopal Chhotrai, that they travel to the jungles and fight from there.
The insurgents prevented the Sarbarkars from concluding any revenue-sharing arrangement with the British. The resistance to British authority began with the Khonds of Banapur, who pillaged the British officers’ camps. The fire spread from Banapur to Khurda, Puri, Balakati, Gope, tiran, and Bolgarh, among other places. The government attempted to put an end to these uprisings.
Attempts have been made to apprehend Buxi Jagabandhu. Major E. Roughsedge, assisted by Lieutnant D. Ruddell, attempted to apprehend Buxi and his followers who escaped from Baud in September 1818 with the assistance of the Raja of Dasapalla, including Biswanath Harichandan, Adikanda Bidyadhara, Dinabandhu Santara, Gopal Chhotrai, and Padmanava Chhotrai.

Efforts made to apprehend Buxi

As a precaution, the British authorities threatened the Raja of Nayagarh with confiscation of his estate if he assisted the insurgents. Meanwhile, some of Buxi’s followers were apprehended.
British authorities announced rewards of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 2,000 for the capture of Buxi Jagabandhu and Krushnachandra Bhramarabara Rai, respectively. Finally, on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Cuttack, the Governor-General-in-Council declared that Buxi would receive a monthly allowance of Rs. 200 if he surrendered.
Buxi responded by sending a representation to the government through his adopted son outlining the heinous manner in which he was deprived of his property, the capricious rule of Major Fletcher at Khurda, the British government’s salt monopoly’s role in sowing widespread discontent among the people of Khurda, and so forth, but the government remained deaf to it.

Creation of circumstances for Buxi’s surrender

Meanwhile, two of Buxi’s wives and a large number of his followers were apprehended. Buxi, on the other hand, did not surrender.
Commissioner W. Blunt of Cuttack recommended that Buxi and his staunch supporter Krushnachandra Bhramarabara Rai be pardoned.
On the basis of Blunt’s report, the Governor-General-in-Council ordered that if Buxi and his friend surrendered, they would be pardoned and their pensions set at Rs. 100 and Rs. 50 per month, respectively, and they would live near Cuttack and be prohibited from leaving without the permission of the magistrate. Wilkinson, the magistrate of Khurda, communicated this to Buxi and his friend via the rebellious leader’s adopted son, requesting that they surrender within two months of 1 December 1822. Though Buxi received the order in January 1823, he rejected the proposal.
He remained silent for two years. Krushnachandra, his friend, abandoned him. His followers were apprehended or surrendered in the hope of gaining government employment. Finally, Buxi chose to surrender.

British government negotiations with Buxi Jagabandhu

W. Blunt, the Commissioner of Cuttack, sent Waz Mohammed, the Sheristadar of the Office Superintendent of Tributary Mahals, to negotiate with Buxi during this time period. Both of them spoke at Nayagarh, and Buxi surrendered with his followers in Cuttack on 27 May 1825.
Buxi and his followers were pardoned. His monthly remuneration was set at Rs. 150. He practically lived as a prisoner in Cuttack. He prayed for the restoration of his former possessions and permission to reside at Rorang, but the Governor-General-in-Council denied his request. Buxi died in Cuttack on 24 January 1829.

Consequences

The 1817 Paika uprising had far-reaching consequences, which are detailed below.

Odisha’s administrative changes

Changes have been made in the administrative field. Odias was employed by the government and entrusted with important tasks. This enables the indigenous people to develop a relationship with the British authorities through these employees.

Modifications to the judicial process

Changes were also made in the judiciary. Because Persi was the court language, the Odias were unable to comprehend the judicial procedure and verdict.
Now, judges have been instructed to visit even the interior villages of a district accompanied by the Odia Amlas and redress the people’s grievances on the spot.

Salt price reduction

The price of salt was reduced and more salt was made readily available to the populace. The British government took this measure to appease the common people of Odisha in general and the people of Khurda in particular.

Management of the Jagannath temple of Puri

Raja Mukundadeva II’s death on 30 November 1817 allowed his son Ramachandradeva III to relocate to Puri. He was granted a pension of Rs. 24,000 per year and given charge of the Jagannath temple in Puri. The British government gained the support and sentiment of the Odisha people through this arrangement.

Reduced revenue burden on local zamindars

The British government relieved local zamindars of their revenue burdens. The way properties are handled has been altered. In several instances, the government purchased defaulters’ estates and returned them to their original owners.
On the other hand, the Paiks were treated with contempt and contempt. They were compelled to abandon their profession as king’s militial men and take up cultivation and other manual labour as a means of subsistence.

Odisha’s British administrative structure reorganized

The British government took appropriate measures to restructure its administrative structure in Odisha. The commissioner was appointed and given special authority to enact a variety of reform measures.
He retained control of the Board of Revenue, the Board of Trade, the Provincial Court of Appeal, and the Circuit Courts, among others.
No military administration, but amity and cooperation with the local populace became his motto for effectively running the Odisha administration.

Vir Surendra Sai & Revolt of 1857

The role of Veer Surendra Sai in the resistance movement of Sambalpur against British colonialism is a landmark in the history of the freedom movement of Orissa. The achievements of Surendra Sai and his uncommon heroism for the safety of the tribal people of Sambalpur have few parallels in the history of India

Background

Surendra Sai was a pivotal figure in the 1817 Revolt. As is well known, Balaramadeva, the scion of Patnagarh’s Chauhan dynasty, was instrumental in establishing the Sambalpur kingdom in the second half of the sixteenth century.
The British forces had already occupied Sambalpur in January 1804 AD. After defeating the Bhonsla Raja in the Third Anglo-Maratha War of 1817, the British decided to establish their paramountcy over Sambalpur.
The Nagpur Bhonsles imprisoned Jayanta Singh and his son Maharaj Sai, both members of the same dynasty, and established their control over the kingdom. The British occupied the land in 1804 and, following proper negotiation, restored Maratha rule there until 1817 when it was surrendered to the British, who freed Jayanta Singh and his son Maharaja Sai from the Maratha clutch and installed the former on the throne of Sambalpur.
Maharaja Sai succeeded to the throne following his death in 1820, after Rani Mukta Dei recommended him as the successor. Maharaja Sai died without a son in 1827. Now the British have nominated Rani Mohan Kumari, the widow of the deceased king, whose claim to the throne of Sambalpur was challenged by Surendra Sai, a descendant of Raja Madhukara Sai, the fourth Raja of Sambalpur’s Chauhan dynasty because This was against the established norms where only the male rulers were acceptable to the population.
This was done against the local customs and laws of the land. Never in the history of Chauhan's rule of Sambalpur, a woman had been raised to such a position.
Surendra Sai popularly known as Surendra, was born in the Chauhan family of Rajpur-Khinda. His father Dharam Singh was a descendant of Aniruddha Sai, son of Madhukara Sai, the fourth Chauhan Raja of Sambalpur. The member of this Sai family demanded the throne, being the next to the main line of Sambalpur after the demise of Maharaja Sai in 1827 AD.
As Maharaja Sai had no son, Surendra Sai who then represented the Rajpur-Khinda family, asserted his claims for the 'Gadi' of Sambalpur. At that time British set aside the claims of Surendra because he was a man of independent thinking. The first choice of the British went in favor of Mohan Kumari, the widow Rani of Maharaja Sai.
Disturbances immediately broke out, and for some years there was constant discord between the recognized ruler and other claimants to the chiefship. Ultimately, Rani Mohan Kumari proved herself an incapable ruler. Due to her defective measures, the people revolted against her authority.
Surendra Sai initiated the revolt in light of the foregoing circumstances. His battle with the British Government demonstrates his valour and heroism. At Sambalpur, he put up a valiant fight against British imperialism. Born in Sambalpur’s village Khinda, he had six brothers named Udanta, Dhruba, Uliala, Chhabila, Jajjla, and Medini, as well as one sister named Anjana. Surendra’s accomplished manner made him popular among the populace, including tribal groups such as the Gonds and Binjhals.
He rose to prominence in 1828 when he opposed Rani Mohan Kumari’s claim to the throne of Sambalpur. Despite the fact that he had gathered popular support, his claim was rejected by the British authorities. The following sequence of events led him to incite rebellion against the British Government.
Surendra revolted against Queen Mohan Kumari with the support of the zamindars of Khinda, Barapali, Sonepur, and Gauntias, as well as his brothers Udanta.
Despite the fact that Captain Wilkinson initiated military operations against them, he was unable to put an end to the rebellion. To address the issue immediately, Wilkinson deposed the queen of Sambalpur and sent Rani Mohan Kumari to Cuttack to remain as a pensioner in 1833 AD. On 11th October 1833 installed Narayan Singh, an elderly member of the Chauhan dynasty, as king in 1833. His accession to the throne sowed widespread discontent among the inhabitants of that region.
Narayan Singh had no capacity for administration due to extreme old age. His right to the throne was challenged by other contending members of the Rajpur-Khinda family.
Balaram Singh, a brother of Dharam Singh of the Khinda family took up the cause of his nephew, Surendra Sai, and guided the rebellion on the ground that they had more legitimate claims over the throne.
Raja Narayan Singh's men killed Balabhadra Deo, the 'Gond Zamindar' of Lakhanpur, who was a supporter of Surendra Sai in a skirmish with British sepoys in September 1837, and Surendra Sai escaped. Durjaya Singh, Rampur’s sole zamindar, backed Narayan Singh. Surendra launched an attack on his home, killing Durjaya Singh’s father and son.
The supporters of Surendra Sai then avenged the murder of Balabhadra Deo by murdering the father and son of Durjaya Singh, the unpopular 'Zamindar' of Rampur who was a supporter of Raja Narayan Singh.
This was a spontaneous revolt but Surendra Sai had no role in it. But the British Government implicated Surendra Sai in this case and arrested him and his uncle Balaram Singh and brother Udyanta Sai.
They were sent to the Hazaribag Jail as prisoners for life in 1840 AD. Balaram Singh who was a guide of the rebels died in jail some time, after his imprisonment. There Surendra Sai spent as many as 17 years till the mutineers broke open the jail in 1857.

Application of the Doctrine of Lapse in Sambalpur

Narayan Singh died on 10th September 1849 leaving no son to succeed him. Governor General Lord Dalhousie then annexed Sambalpur by applying the Doctrine of Lapse
J.H. Crawford, the Governor-Agent, took over the administration of Sambalpur. The people of that region’s economic grievances multiplied.
With the addition of new revenue settlements, the amount of revenue levied on the residents of that area increased. Without giving preference to indigenous peoples, the British authority settled some villages in favor of Europeans, particularly the English, who extracted more revenue from the villagers through their tyrannical measures.
This resulted in widespread dissatisfaction among Sambalpur’s citizens. Tribal groups such as the Gonds and Binjhals, feudal chiefs, the business community, and the common people, among others, became adversaries of the British Raj.

Revolt 1857: Surendra Sai

When the sepoys of the Great Revolt of 1857 arrived in Hazaribag in August 1857, they broke open the town’s two jails and liberated a large number of prisoners.
Surendra Sai and his brother Udanta were among the prisoners who were released and fled to Sambalpur, igniting a political storm in the city. Both of them were greeted warmly by their relatives and the general populace of Sambalpur.
Captain R.T. Leigh, Sambalpur’s senior Assistant Commissioner, desired to apprehend Surendra and his followers. He had to receive a detachment from the 40th Regiment, M.N.I.(Madras Native Infantry), the majority of which joined forces with the rebellious persons led by Surendra Sai.

Surendra Sai’s negotiations with the British authorities

Captain Leigh was compelled to send Parwanas to Surendra for negotiations with the British authorities in light of the foregoing circumstances.
Surendra agreed not to revolt in exchange for the British authority canceling the remaining terms of imprisonment imposed on him and his brother Udanta on 7 October 1857. Secondly, he should be recognized as Sambalpur’s king. Captain Leigh accepted the first proposal and directed Surendra to remain in Sambalpur with twenty followers pending consideration of the latter’s second proposal.

Revolt declaration

Meanwhile, Surendra Sai addressed two petitions to the Commissioner of Chhotnagpur, both of which contained the same prayer.
The Commissioner rejected his prayer for the throne and advised him to remain in Sambalpur as a political prisoner.
Captain Leigh, on the other hand, proposed deporting the Sai brothers to Cuttack. Meanwhile, detachments were sent to Sambalpur under the command of Captains J. B. Knocker and Hadow.
Surendra Sai declared an open revolt against the British authority on 1 November 1857, smelling something strange.

Surendra and his associates’ revolt strategy

The tribal zamindars of Ghens, Kolabira, Paharsirgira, Laida, l.olsinqa, Lakhanpur, Machida, Kodabaga, Bheden, and Patkulanda, among others, had banded together to support Surendra.
Surendra strategically located his supporters in Jharghati and Khinda. At Jharghati, twelve miles from Sambalpur, one of these parties attacked Captain Knocker, killing one sepoy and wounding another.
Another group disrupted postal communications on the Cuttack road connecting Nagpur and Bombay, as well as between Sambalpur and Burma. They wreaked havoc on the British administration.

Operation against Surendra Sai

With this in mind, the British authorities launched an operation against Surendra Sai. British troops became ill while fighting Surendra’s followers in the forests. As a result, Cuttack Commissioner G.F. Cockburn dispatched two medical officers, Dr. T. Moore, and Dr. D. Hanson, along with a small troop, to monitor the health of the British sepoys in the Sambalpur forest areas.
On 17 November 1857, the rebels attacked the two doctors and their party near Jujumura, led by Madhu Gauntia and Srikrishna Bora. Dr. Moore fought alongside the insurgents and was assassinated. Dr. Hanson entered the jungle and was rescued by British troops two days later.
Naturally, Captain Leigh paid a visit to the location with fifty soldiers, but the majority of his men were killed or injured by the insurgents.
Following this incident, Cockburn dispatched military officers from Cuttack, including Captains Wood, Woodbridge, Sweeny, and Valiance, to assist Captain Leigh in Sambalpur.
Cockburn and Major Wyndham later arrived in Sambalpur to conduct direct operations against insurgents. On the other hand, the rebels employed all available means to oppose the British troops.
The British authorities warned local zamindars and Rajas that they would lose their property and titles if they assisted the rebels. Simultaneously, they were offered several rewards in exchange for assisting the British in suppressing the revolt.
By the second week of December 1857, Sambalpur had gathered 1500 rebels. Captain Saxton, the assistant Surveyor General, was assaulted by rebels. On 17 December, they laced Lieutenant Hadow’s, Lieutenant Chisttlen’s, and Hannath Singh’s combined attack. The insurgents fled into the jungle, unable to face the British troops’ cannons.

Captain E.G. Wood’s Assault

Captain E.G. Wood attacked the insurgents at Kudopali on 30 December 1857.
Wood demonstrated his retreat by fully preparing the detachment beneath him.
Unable to comprehend the Captain’s strategy, the rebels emerged from their hiding places and attacked the retreating party.
Captain Wood retreated with his cavalry and slaughtered 53 rebels. Surendra Sai managed to flee, but his brother Chhabila Sai was fatally shot. This prompted the British authorities to take a more aggressive stance against the rebels.
Major Bates besieged the Jharghati Pass on 7 January 1858 and then attacked Kolabira, an insurgent stronghold. He was later joined by Captain Wood.

Assault on the Wood Bridge

The insurgents intended to avenge Chhabila Sai’s murder. On 12 February 1858, such an opportunity presented itself. On that particular day, Captain Woodbridge besieged the Paharasirgida hills fort.
Woodbridge was assassinated during the battle by insurgents. Captain Leigh, Captain Wood, and Captain Dyre immediately marched to the location.
The insurgents evaded British troops by fleeing to the jungles. Surendra Sai maintained his composure. He moved with his followers to the hills near Dewaree, but British troops quickly arrived and took control of the rebels’ large store of arms and supplies, which had fled the area upon the arrival of the British troops.

Colonel Forster’s measures

Colonel Forster’s arrival in March 1857, when he took over command of Sambalpur from Captain Leigh, marked a sea change in the situation.
He arbitrarily arrested and punished individuals. The Raja of Patna was refunded the Rs. 1,000 fine imposed previously on him for providing asylum to Ujjala Sai, whom he captured and surrendered to Colonel Forster.
He apprehended and tried a large number of suspected insurgents. The zamindars of Kolabira, Karkutta, Bheden, Khorsal, Patkutunda, and Rampur had their zamindaries confiscated and offered to zamindar Rai Rup Singh Bahadur as a reward for assisting the British in locating the rebels.
Surendra Sai fled to the central provinces and encamped in the zamindari of Khurral in 1860, aided and abetted by the Raipur Garjat chiefs.
Colonel Forster’s repressive measures remained in place in Sambalpur and the surrounding areas. As a result, the insurgents were unable to enter Sambalpur.

The rebels’ actions

Despite Colonel Forster’s efforts, the rebels led by Khageswar Deo assassinated Trikait Deo of Kusumunda, a British spy.
They established their camp at Barapahar with assistance from the Khalsa villages of Sambalpur. They attacked the village of Manpura in the final week of January 1861.
It was only because the villagers had backed the British authorities. Captain J. Smith, Lieutenant R. Dundas, Captain John Dyre, and Lieutenant Cornish collaborated to foil their attempt, and the rebels fled to Bamara territory.

Amnesty proclamation

In April 1861, Major Impey was appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Sambalpur in place of Colonel Forster.
He firmly believed that only conciliatory measures would induce the rebels including the leader Surendra Sai to surrender. On studying the critical situation, Impey adopted this policy for the voluntarily surrender of rebels.
On 24th September, 1861 amnesty was proclaimed for all except Surendra Sai, his brother Udyant Sai and his son Mitrabhanu.
The second Proclamation was issued on 11th October, 1861 offering free pardon to all rebels who would surrender. The Proclamations attracted a large number of rebels who wanted to settle peacefully with their family and friends. Because of Proclamations, many rebels returned from jungles and surrendered.
Towards the end of 1861 Mr. R.N. Shore, the Commissioner of Cuttack came to Sambalpur under express orders of the Government to enquire into matters connected with the rebellion. He found that Major Impey had succeeded to create ample confidence in the minds of local people and his conciliatory policy was highly appreciated.
The Government of Bengal also confirmed the terms of the Proclamation regarding the restoration of property to the rebels. The Zamindar of Kolabira, a staunch supporter of Surendra Sai, received very generous treatment after his surrender and Impey's conciliatory gesture convinced the rebels about the sincerity of the British Government to restore peace and order in the long troubled district.
Negotiations continued with rebels and ultimately the policy of Major Impey was crowned with success. Mitrabhanu, the only son of Surendra Sai, was the first man of the Sai family who surrendered to Major Impey on 7th January, 1862.
Two days after that Dhruva Sai and Udyant Sai announced their surrender. Hati Singh of Ghens also surrendered before British authorities in the first week of February, 1862 AD.
Early in May SurendraSai started negotiation with the British authorities. He again asked for recognition of his claim to the throne of Sambalpur. But that claim was rejected by British authority. Major Impey assured him that he would be given liberal pension for that. Surendra Sai then demanded some money to pay the arrears to his soldiers. Major Impey sanctioned five hundred rupees to him.
Thereafter, he surrendered to Major Impey on 16th May, 1862. He was granted a pension of Rs.1200/- per annum. Liberal pensions (Rs.4, 400) were also granted to other members of his family. Almost all other rebel leaders except Kunjal Singh and Kamal Singh surrendered to Major Impey. The resistance movement of Sambalpur thus came to an end.

Rattray Operation

Major Rattray’s operation against the rebels in the final week of December shattered the rebels’ spirit to a greater extent. This prompted Surendra Sai to write to Impey regarding his surrender in exchange for consideration of his claim for the gadi (throne), which Impey denied. On the other hand, he assured Surendra that he would be provided for liberally. Thus, on 16 May 1862, Surendra Sai surrendered with his 40 followers to Major Impey, who guaranteed him a free pardon. Surendra Sai and his family received a pension of Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 4,600 per annum, respectively. Surendra was to remain in the village of Bargaon.
Sambalpur was now enveloped in peace and tranquillity. The two rebellious leaders, Kunjal Singh and Kamal Singh did not surrender.
Chief Commissioner Richard Temple paid a visit to Sambalpur in March 1863. The district’s prominent citizens petitioned Richard Temple to restore the Chauhan dynasty to Sambalpur’s throne, but the prayer was categorically rejected by Chief Commissioner.
J.N. Berrill, Sambalpur’s Superintendent of Police, revealed Surendra’s association with the dacoits. Additionally, it was suggested that Surendra incited the populace to make such representations to the Chief Commissioner in order to secure his restoration to the Sambalpur gadi. Impey is now under pressure to imprison Surendra Sai. He, however, rejected that argument and maintained his complete faith in Surendra Sai’s honesty and integrity.

Major A.B. Cumberledge’s ruthless actions

Some British officers were not happy with the conciliatory measures of their Government. The Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, objected to the grant of pardon to criminals like the Ghens brothers and demanded that the order should be withdrawn. J.N. Berial, the Superintendent of Police of Sambalpur, asserted that Surendra Sai was connected with the dacoity committed by Kamal Singh and Kunjal Singh and suggested his immediate arrest
Major Impey died at Sambalpur in December 1863, and in his place Captain Cumberledge joined as Deputy Commissioner on 19th January 1864.
Several British officers, including Captain Stewart, the Chhatisgarh Division’s Deputy Inspector General of Police, and J.N. Berill, the Sambalpur Superintendent of Police, convinced Cumberledge that Surendra Sai and his followers were plotting an attack on Her Majesty’s government.
In the night of 23 January 1864, an angry mob led by Cumberledge surrounded the house of Surendra Sai in Bargaon. Naturally, Surendra had fled the house by that time, only to be apprehended at Sambalpur by Dayanidhi’s treachery. Subsequently, Mitrabhanu Sai, Surendra’s son, was apprehended and imprisoned, as were Dhruba Sai, Udanta Sai, and Dharanidhara Misra.

Surendra Sai’s Trial and Final Days

The trial of Surendra Sai and others began on 23 June 1864 at the Raipur Sessions Court. J.B. Balmain examined the reports and found Surendra Sai, Udanta, Dhruba, Khageswar Deo, and numerous others guilty of treason, sentencing them to life in prison and confiscating all of their property.
The accused rebel leaders appealed to John Scarlett Campbell, the Central Provinces’ judicial Commissioner, against the Sessions Court verdict. Campbell delivered his judgement on 18 August 1864, after hearing the petition and completely reversing the Sessions Court’s decision. The court declared the session court’s judgement unconstitutional.
The judicial commissioner’s order exposed the corrupt intentions of Sambalpur’s government officials completely.
Richard Temple, on the other hand, justified the arrest of Surendra Sai and other rebels in Sambalpur through administrative and police action by government officers. Surendra Sai and six other prisoners, including Udanta, Dhruba, Medini, Mitrabhanu, Khageswer Deo, and Lokanath Panda, were ordered to be detained in the Nagpur jail upon its transfer from Raipur under Regulation III of 1818.
Surendra and others appealed to the Governor-General-in-Council in 1866, through Attorney M.T. Pearson, against their illegal detention despite their acquittal by the Central Province’s Judicial Commissioner. The Governor-General-in-Council rejected the petition.
Petitioners filed additional petitions in 1871 and 1876. Medini Sai and Lokanath Panda had already expired at that point. Dhruba Sai and Mitrabhanu Sai were released on 22 November 1876 as a result of the king of Bonai’s surety.
Surendra Sai died in Asirgarh’s cell on 28 February 1884. With his demise, the Sambalpur revolt came to an end.

The outcome of Surendra Sai’s revolt

Although Surendra Sai failed to obtain the Gadi, the revolt launched by Surendra Sai had far-reaching consequences.

In Sambalpur, peace and stability have been established.

With Surendra Sai’s arrest and subsequent imprisonment, Sambalpur regained its peace, tranquillity, and political stability. The government officers were relieved of their responsibility for dealing with the rebels.
Their sleepless nights inside the jungles and their encounters with the rebels were now over.

Restriction imposed on local zamindars

The British authorities imposed restrictions and regulated the activities of the local zamindars. They will never again become the undisputed rulers of their communities.
The bethi and begari systems were abolished. Additionally, effective measures have been taken to ensure the regular settlement of land revenue in Sambalpur.

Sambalpur is transferred to the Central Province and Odisha Division.

Sambalpur was annexed by the Central Province in 1864. It created numerous difficulties for the administrative authority as a result of Sambalpur’s ethnic and linguistic differences with the districts of the Central Provinces.
As a result, Sambalpur was once again transferred to Bengal’s Odisha Division in 1905.

Imperialism by the British

Additionally, the people of that region felt the full force of British imperialism. The manner in which Surendra Sai’s claims were dismissed, the manner in which Surendra and his supporters were allegedly apprehended and imprisoned following the judicial commissioner’s verdict, and so forth exposed the British authoritative attitude toward the people of that region. Of course, the British government was successful in suppressing the revolt launched against it by Surendra Sai using these coercive methods.

Sambalpur remained under British control in perpetuity.

Sambalpur remained permanently under British control following the suppression of the revolt. There was no subsequent cry for the restoration of the Chauhan dynasty to the gadi of Sambalpur.
The revolt demonstrated that regardless of how powerful the indigenous rebels were, they were powerless to resist the British power that ultimately suppressed them.

Final Remarks

Surendra Sai’s revolt was anti-British in nature due to his inability to obtain the Gadi. It was an insurrection against the illegal annexation of Sambalpur to British suzerainty under the Doctrine of Lapse, despite Surendra Sai’s legitimate claim.
Over time, not only the local populace, zamindars, and kings, but also the tribal populace of Sambalpur and the surrounding area rallied to Surendra Sai’s cause.
It was primarily an uprising, a resistance movement led by the tribal majority.
Although Surendra Sai’s revolt failed, it galvanized the British administration in Odisha.