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.