The ancient Khasi community prior to the British colonial period had encounters with the neighbouring communities engaging in either harmonious or conflict situations during the course of history. There is a conjecture that the Khasi race has existed in the region since fifty-seven thousand years ago and there were remnants of Khasi heritage in different parts of the sub-continent, including the present Assam territories, significantly the famous Kamakhya temple, whose name is being derived from Khasi terminology ‘Ka Meikha’, which means the paternal mother. In the Khasi matrilineal system, the mother is revered as the deity of procreation and the Ka-Meikha cult is the Khasi sacred reverence for fecundity, which was allegedly usurped by the Hindu Tantric tradition of erotic science and the manifestation of a ‘Yoni’ goddess in Kamakhya.
Among all the communities in the periphery of the Himalayas, the Khasi identified the name ‘Makashang’ for the magnificent mountain range which none of the other communities has any such distinct nomenclature. Almost all of the Khasi folklore and history are treasured orally and bereft of any scriptures and written records. Therefore, most of the records are found in the ancient chronicles of the neighbouring cultures, predominantly in the Ahom Buranji. The initial encounter of the British with the Khasi territory was the invasion of Jaintiapur in 1774 and subsequently, counter-resistance and conflict arose from time to time in different parts of the Khasi region. Since then, there are written historical accounts of the Khasi territory in the British record.
The British had already acquired 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 Tirot Sing Syiem, the Chieftain of Nongkhlaw province, was eager to regain his territory in the plains captured by the neighbouring dominion, which was already acquired by the British. In 1827, David Scott identified Nongkhlaw as a suitable site for the construction of a road and accordingly approached Tirot Sing Syiem, 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, Tirot Sing Syiem convened the meeting with his nobles and after a prolonged 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 Tirot Sing Syiem and offered possession of the same in return for permission for the road project. When the meeting resumed on a 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 were 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 the 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 agreement was signed on 3rd November 1826 and an alliance between Tirot Sing Syiem and David Scott was made for the 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 soldiers, particularly their misbehaviour towards the ladies. Further, in December 1828, when Balaram Singh, Raja of Ranee, disputed the demand of Tirot Sing Syiem for his territory in the plains, the latter confronted the Raja to establish his claim on 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.
Meanwhile, the armed British soldiers shamelessly took recourse to harass the women and children in the villages, although one brave lady, Phan Nonglait of Nongrmai village had engaged in a ploy to devastate the British hostile behaviour. Ka Phan Nonglait resented the abusive indulgence of womenfolk by the British soldiers, in which she was also molested and fiercely resisted their misdeeds. Thereafter, she vowed to avenge the perpetrators of her modesty along with other affected ladies and, in one instance, while the British troupe rested near the waterfall, she pretended to entertain them with seductive gestures. She served a local brew of rice beer to them that she carried in her sack and they savoured the alcoholic beverage without any suspicion. Within a short while, they were intoxicated and not aware that Ka Phan Nonglait had discreetly seized their weapons and thrown them into the nearby gorge. Hurriedly, she signalled the warriors and all the soldiers were ambushed and killed on the spot before they could realise that their arms and ammunition had disappeared. The gruesome incident took place on 2nd April 1829 when thirty-two British soldiers fell into the trap laid by Ka Phan Nonglait and her accomplices.
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 is 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 a few soldiers also 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 gear, 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 army.
Meanwhile, the war intensified in 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 the alien forces. The mastermind of the Anglo Khasi War was Bormanik Syiem, while Tirot Sing Syiem and Sngap Sing Syiem were the commanders on the battlefield. The innovation of Khasi guerrilla warfare was discovered at Nongnah village where the topography and local resources of natural cannon boulders, and poison ivies were used to crush the mighty armaments and mammoth force of British soldiers and sepoys of the native infantry. The British troops 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 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 his 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 in 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 mischievous British merchant, unbecoming of a gentleman. When Bormanik Syiem of Hima Shyllong came to know about the treachery, he attempted a rescue mission for Tirot Sing Syiem, but there were obscure versions of his mysterious disappearance from the entire operation, while Sngap Sing Syiem was demoralised and could no longer resist the consistent aggression of the mammoth 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 in the chronology of the 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 ignorance of the 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 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 and Indian sepoys 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 in January 1833. Mangal Pandey rose in rebellion against the British on 29th March, 1857 and killed a few officers before he was immediately arrested and sentenced to death by hanging on 8th 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 alien forces of the British empire was a full-scale war between sovereign states that lasted for more than four years; while the rebellion of Mangal Pandey against the exploitative and abusive British mercenaries, 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.
Lest the Quit India Movement serves as the benchmark of the freedom movement; however, there are some unsung heroes of the freedom struggle against British imperialism. 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. The conscious freedom struggle of India led by Mahatma Gandhi started in 1915 otherwise, prior to that, every territory in the entire Indian subcontinent was fighting against British colonial supremacy for personal integrity and local sovereignty.
The alleged insubordination of an Indian sepoy that cost his life within ten days and the four years’ warfare of the Khasi provinces against the British’s East India Company along with various other armed conflicts across the Indian subcontinent are considered as the resistance movement and freedom struggle from colonial supremacy. It might not be ethical to demand anything from the central government, but it could be a decent expression of solidarity with the entire country to analyse and scrutinise the authentic information in the annals of history. The Azadi Ki Amrit Mahotsav could be a celebration with a genuine purpose to observe the 75th Anniversary of India’s Independence through a judicious exercise of careful examination and scrutiny in an inclusive manner pertaining to the chronology of freedom struggle in India.
