What were the results of Revolts of Velu Tampi Dalava of Travancore?

Like Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja and Marudu Pandyan, Velu Tampi Dalava took, was one of the foremost filters against the British in India. We find also in Paliat Achen, the Dewan of Cochin, a counterpart of Velu Tampi in anti-British belligerency.

Even though the revolts of Velayudhan Chembakaraman Tampi (1765-1809) and Paliat Achen did not produce the desired effect, they did shake the very foundations of British power in South India. The revolt directed the attention of all British power in South India. The revolt directed the attention of all British statesmen to revise their policy in India and since then efforts were made to tighten their hold on Indian soil.

Having started his career as a Tahsildar Velu Tampi was soon raised to the Dewanship for having successfully led a revolt against the palace clique of Dewan Jayanathan Namboori. This first popular march led by Velu Tempi against the bureaucratic misrule of the Dewan ended in his triumph.

His far-reaching reforms still remain as a memento to his mettle as an administrator. Despite his best efforts Velu Tampi failed to pay in time the subsidy fixed by the Treaty of 1805 to the British Government. Col. Colin Macaulay, the British Resident in Travancore and Cochin was determined to make the British power manifest in these native states.

The English East India Company entered into treaties with Travancore and Chochin even before the close of the 18th century. By a treaty concluded in 1791, with the English, Cochin undertook to become a vassal of the English and to pay an annual tribute. The Company agreed to help the Raja in recovering the territories captured from Cochin by Tipu, but he was to exercise control over them under the supreme direction of the Company.

In 1800 Cochin was placed under the control of the Madras (now Chennai) Government after the collapse of Seringapatam. Cochin State thus came under the political control of the English. English Company also signed a treaty with Travancore in 1795 by which the Raja accepted British supremacy and the Company promised to help the state in the event of external aggression.

When a military mutiny broke out in 1804, the English help was sought by the Raja to quell it. This gave way for another treaty of alliance and friendship in 1805 by which Travancore became a subsidiary ally of the English and her protection was assured. For this Travancore had to pay a subsidy of 8 lakh rupees per annum. Further the company got powers to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. It must be said that the treaty was actually forced upon Travancore by the Resident Macaulay after getting the green signal from the arch-imperialist Governor General, Lord Wellesley.

When the treaty was signed, the English forces were at the reach of Travancore Lines for enforcement. Thus for a time a collision between Travancore and the English was averted by Velu Tampi Delava by agreeing to sign the prosed treaty. This dictated treaty gave more and more chances for the Resident to interfere in the internal affairs of Travancore. The exorbitant subsidy fell in arrears and the continued insistence of the Resident on the immediate payment of it constituted a persisting threat to the stability of the state which, as a logical consequence precipitated war.

Some scholars maintain that war was waged when the intimacy between the Dewan and the Resident broke down. Yet others hold that the dewan fought primarily because of his anti-Christian prejudice. True these factors, though not primary, were present as contributory to the solid anti-British feeling to make it sufficiently strong so as to lead him to the battle-field. Actually, Velu Tampi had started his preparations for a collision with the British the very day he signed the treaty (in 1805).

Velu Tampi found a friend and ally, in his fight against the British, in the person of Paliat Achan, the Dewan of Cochin also was smarting under the humiliation caused by the subsidiary treaty and the overbearing attitude of and ill-advised interference in administration by the British Resident, Col. Macaulay. Cochin’s grievances were mainly of long standing nature. Her territorial claims were aside by the Joint Commissioners in 1793.

The British agents always kept a careful watch over the policies of that government. Velu Tampi and Paliat Achan drew up a common plan of action against the English authorities. They enlisted men for active service and gave them continuous training in military maneuver. According to Thornton they had also established contacts with the Americans. Col. Daly’s evidence was that Velu Tampi was expecting assistance from the French, the Marathas and the Russians. Alleppey port was making preparations to Russian and French soldiers. He had also contacted the Mappilas of Malabar and Polygars I of Madras (now Chennai) for active assistance. The revolt began with an attempt on the life of the Resident Col. Macaulay at Cochin in December 1808.

But he escaped in a British boat. The adherents of Velu Tampi and Paliat Achan broke open the jails at Cochin and set all prisoners free. Later another unfortunate event occurred at Purakkad near Alleppey. A party of 33 Englishmen who passed through the area led by Dr. Hume were murdered in cold-blood by the natives said to be under the orders of the Dewan Travancore. The Commander of the Carnatic Brigade, Col. Daly testifies to the fact that Velu Tampi had been at Alleppey in the previous night. The events at Cochin and Purakkad signalled for the outbreak of war.

From Alleppey Velu Tampi went to Quilon and from Kundara, a nearby place, he issued the famous proclamation dated 11th January 1809, exhorting his countrymen to muster strong tinder his banner and make a heroic attempt to overthrow the domination of the British and to redeem the freedom of the state and honour Lord Padmanabha. Thousands flocked to his camp so that the army soon became 30,000 strong. But they failed to take Quilon and so Velu Tampi sent a part of his army to assist Paliat Achan who had laid siege to Cochin.

The English contingent in Cochin was under Major Hewitt and after a hard fight; he was able to repulse them. The arrival of reinforcement from Malabar at this time under Col. Cuppage took the nerves out of Paliat Achan and he surrendered (17th February 1809). Col. Cuppage was thus able to march on to Travancore from the north without opposition. Travancore was at the same time attacked by strong British armies from Trichinopoly reinforced by contingents from Ceylon under Col. St. Leger.

He entered Travancore through Aramboly and fought his way towards Trivandrum, taking on his way Kottar, Nagercoil, Udayagiri and Padmanabhapuram. A proclamation was issued by the Government of Madras (now Chennai) calling upon Travancoreans to co-operate in putting down the insurrection in the state and promising perfect safety to the person and property of all civilians and all religious institutions in particular.

Col. St. Leger encamped at Karamana and Col. Chemers marched from Quilon and encamped 12 miles north of the capital. The grim battle fought at Quilon inflicted heavy casualities on the native. Still Velu Tampi fought gallantly. The arrival of reinforcements forced the Maharaja to sue for peace. This was done on the specific request of Velu Tampi to save the country and the Raja. He also advised the Raja to declare him a traitor to please the Company and to check further atrocities. The Maharaja appointed a new Dewan, Ummini Tamby.

The new Dewan at the instance of Col. Macaulay ordered for a statewide search for the apprehension of Velu Tampi and offered a reward of 50,000 rupees for his head. After his visit to the Maharaja Velu Tampi proceeded further north and at Mannadi near Quilon inside a Bhagavati temple, he fell fighting (according to the evidence of his brother) against a search party that apprehended him. His dead body was taken to the capital and exposed on a public gibbet. His brother was hanged and his house was razed.

Thus Velu Tampi died a martyr for the cause of his country. The exposure of his dead body was condemned even by the Governor-General of India who in his note to Madras (now Chennai) observed, “The ends of justice and the purpose of public security were attained in the death of the Dewan.

The prosecution of the dictates of vindictive policy when the object of it had ceased to exist by exposing to public insult on a gibbet the dead body of the Dewan is a proceeding so adverse to the common feelings and to the principles of a civilised government that the Governor-General-in-Council must deeply regret the adoption of that measure.”

The reverses at Cochin forced Paliat Achan to sue for peace provided his person, family and property were saved. On the assurance of protection offered by Col. Macaulay, Paliat Achan defected from the anti-British alliance on the 27th of February 1809. This was a terrible shock to Velu Tampi. The ill-equipped forces of Velu Tampi with bows and arrows were a poor match for the well-equipped British forces. His indomitable courage and matchless spirit of patriotism still enthuse the people of Travancore.

Some scholars had put the whole blame on Velu Tampi for having concluded the treaty in 1805 with the English. The political, military and financial conditions necessitated the conclusion of the treaty at that time; otherwise this princely state might have been annexed to the British Empire in India. Some impute personal and religious prejudices to the Dewan’s actions. As one historian put it, “True that he revolted in 1809, but it was because he allowed his personal prejudices, not any enlightened interest, to dictate his official attitude to the company. A traitor to the national cause, he rendered meritorious service to the company.”

This in short, is a travesty of historical truth; even the Governor-General seems to have understood the mind of the rebel when he wrote thus: “The cause of the Raja and that of the Dewan cannot be separated. The spirit of hostility on the part of Travancore appears to have been deeply rooted and to have originated not in the pecuniary burden of the subsidy nor in personal enmity towards the Resident, but in a systematic design to shake off its connection formally courted by itself with the British government- -the demand for arrears of subsidy perhaps only precipitated in the execution of a premeditated plan of extensive treachery and hostile combination.

VELLORE MUTINY (1806):

Mutiny of troops was not a rare occurrence in the history of the British in India. In 1806 the sepoys at Vellore in the carnatic revolted. They were very much dissatisfied with the service conditions under the British. The scope of the Indian sepoys for promotion and place of distinction was limited; they could not rise above the rank of Subedar. Even for petty faults Indian officers were very often demoted and degraded.

Their remuneration was also meager; the ordinary sipahis under the Nizam and Maratha chiefs were, alleged, better paid than the Subedars and Jamadars under the Company. However, their discontent came to the surface only when the Company tried to introduce a new head-dress for the sepoys in infantry and artillery.

In order to make the sepoys appear smart, a new form of turban, resembling a European hat was introduced and ear-rings and caste marks on the forehead were prohibited. They were further obliged to shave the chin and trim the moustache in a particular way. But the sepoys refused to accept the new turban and openly stood against the order even though they were threatened with imprisonment. Consequently some were arrested. “

On 7th May 1806 when the sepoys were asked to put on the new turban during their morning parade, they disobeyed the command by putting handkerchiefs on their bare head and abusively calling the English officers “dogs”.

Col. Fancourt, the Officer Commanding at Vellore reported the matter to Sir John Cradock, the Commander-in-chief, portraying the opposition to the new turban only as a “lively prejudice” of the long after this incident at Vellore there started at Wallajabad in North Arcot a similar agitation among the sepoys stationed there.

In this case the initiative came from the public; they taunted those sepoys who wore the European fashioned “Topis” (hats). Consequently, the sepoys threw away the new turban and ridiculed those who continued to wear them. The Wallajabad unrest compelled Cradock to suspect the prevalence of some “universal objection” among the sepoys on the turban issue. James Bruton, the Military Auditor General, confirmed that the new turban was a cause of resentment among all sepoys.

Cradock sought the guidance of his government in dealing with the situation. But the Madras Council considered the agitation a matter of army discipline. Meanwhile there seemed a lull in the agitation and opposition; the government naturally took an indifferent attitude and refused to go deep into the origin and reasons of the turban episode. However they made it clear that the government had no intention of interfering with the religious faith and freedom of the sepoys. But, the discontent of the sepoys had not subsided.

This opportunity was fully exploited by the sons of Tipu Sultan, who were living at Vellore in captivity ever since the Treaty of Seringapatam in 1799. They tried to attribute a political objective to the revolt of the sepoys. They made clandestine contacts with the sepoys and channelled the latter’s discontent against the English to violent resistance with the definite object of their expulsion from South India.

This would have resulted in the restoration of the rule of Tipu’s family once again in Mysore. The sepoys were told that Muizuddin, the fourth son of Tipu would lead the rebellion with support and reinforcement from different parts of South India.

It was decided secretly that they should launch their rebellion with violence and 10th July 1806 was fixed for its formal beginning. By night the sepoys plunged into action; they killed the English sentinels in the main gateway and took possession of the magazine. This was followed by a wanton massacre of the European troops and officers though women and children were spared.

Instead on concentrating on the target, the maiden victory of the sepoys was followed by an avaricious search and scramble for booty and treasure. The unprotected possessions of the English were plundered and there was confusion every­where. It not only overshadowed their higher political ambition but added stigma to their fight for freedom also.

Soon help came from Arcot under Col. Gillespie. He lost no time to take the control of the fort at Vellore. The rebellion of the unorganised sepoys was easily quelled and hundreds were put to death. According to one account “eight hundred bodies were carried out of the fort, besides those who were killed outside.” The casualties on the side of the Company, according to Gillespie, were 14 European soldiers besides 76 Europeans seri­ously injured during the mutiny.

The government instituted an Enquiry Commission and they confirmed the turban issue as the root cause. The other factor, according to the Commission, was the role of Mysore princes. Hence they were deported to Calcutta. Bentinck, the Governor of Madras (now Chennai) and Cradock, the Commander-in-Chief were recalled in 1807.

The English became convinced that the new dress regulation was unacceptable to both the Hindus and Muslims. While the prohibition of the whiskers was against the Muslim custom, the prohibition of the caste marks and ear-rings was opposed to the Hindu practices. Hence the regulations in question were abolished.

However, the Englishmen at the helm of affairs were convinced that there were number factors which ultimately led to the open mutiny of the sepoys. Along with the dress regulation may be added the Christian Missionary activities, the sweeping changes in the civil administration, the material sufferings of the sepoys and the political plot of the family of Tipu.

In 1808-09 there was a mutiny among the officers of the Madras (Chennai) army occasioned immediately by the stoppage of certain perquisites on tent contracts enforced by Sir George Barlow in compliance with peremptory orders of the Directors. This mutiny discredited Barlow who was then Governor of Madras (now Chennai).

Started at Masulipatam it spread to various other stations, and was suppressed soon. Unlike John Shore and like Robert Clive, in similar circumstances, Barlow showed firmness in dealing with the revolt. Lord Minto, the Governor-General came to Madras (now Chennai) in September and completed the suppression of the Mutiny.