Alwar peasant movement and the Neemuchana massacre.
Social Fabric of Alwar State: Relation between Court and the Rajputs
Hereditary Rule: Alwar, like other Rajput states, functioned with a hereditary monarchy. The Maharaja held significant power, but not absolute.
Rajput Privileges: Rajputs enjoyed land grants, held military positions, and wielded influence in the court. This created a social hierarchy with Rajputs at the top.
Feudalism: Land revenue collection often involved intermediaries, leading to exploitation of peasants by zamindars (landlords) who were often Rajput.
Background of the Alwar Peasant Movement (1920s)
Economic Grievances: High taxes, forced labor (begar), and arbitrary fines burdened peasants.
Landlord Oppression: Rajput zamindars often demanded exorbitant rents and misused their power over peasants.
Post-War Unrest: Returning WWI veterans brought ideas of equality and challenged traditional hierarchies.
Leadership Emergence: Tejaji, a peasant leader, mobilized support and championed the cause of fair treatment.
Course of the Movement
Non-Violent Protests: Initially, peasants resorted to petitions and peaceful demonstrations demanding tax reduction and end of begar.
Escalation: The unresponsive Alwar court led to a more organized movement with boycotts and refusal to pay taxes.
Neemuchana Tragedy (1920): A peaceful gathering of peasants at Neemuchana village was brutally fired upon by the Alwar state forces, resulting in a massacre.
Consequences
Nationwide Attention: The Neemuchana Massacre drew national outrage and exposed the plight of peasants under princely rule.
Decline of Princely Power: The incident highlighted the need for reforms in princely states, ultimately contributing to their eventual abolition.
Legacy of Tejaji: Tejaji became a symbol of peasant resistance against feudal oppression.
