Two Years Before 1857, Thirty Thousand Santhals Declared the Company's Rule Over
Hul Diwas marks a rebellion that failed militarily and won legislatively — the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act still bars transfer of Adivasi land
What happened
Tribal uprisings are usually taught as a list of names and dates before the 'real' nationalist movement begins. The Santhal Hul resists that framing and rewards a different reading: a rebellion defeated on the battlefield that nonetheless produced a statute still restraining land transfer in Jharkhand a hundred and fifty years later. Learn it as the origin of India's protective tenancy law, and the pattern — dispossession, revolt, legislative protection — that recurs through the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and into the Fifth Schedule.
From Rebellion to Statute
The Santhal Hul and Its Legacy
Source: Ministry of Tribal Affairs; Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1876
The Santhal Hul — hul meaning revolution, uprising or liberation in Santhali — began on 30 June 1855 at Bhognadih village, in present-day Sahibganj district, Jharkhand, and was suppressed by 3 January 1856.
●It is commemorated as Hul Diwas on 30 June across Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Assam.
●Leadership rested with the brothers Sidho Murmu and Kanhu Murmu, supported by siblings including the sisters Phulo and Jhano Murmu.
●The Santhals had been settled by the Company in the Damin-i-Koh tract of the Rajmahal hills to clear forest and cultivate, and the grievances that followed were material: transfer of land to outsiders (dikus), crushing indebtedness to moneylenders, extortionate revenue and police demands, and loss of self-governance.
●The rebellion was crushed with very heavy Santhal casualties.
●Its administrative consequences were durable — the creation of Santhal Parganas as a separately administered district, and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1876, which prohibited transfer of Adivasi land to non-Adivasis.
●The same logic later produced the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 after Birsa Munda's Ulgulan, and is carried forward in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and the PESA Act, 1996.
The Hul lost militarily and won legislatively — the statute it produced still governs who may buy land in Santhal Parganas.
◎ In Simple Words
In 1855, the Santhal people of what is now Jharkhand rose against British rule. They had been losing their land to outsiders, were trapped in debt to moneylenders and were taxed heavily. On 30 June, thousands gathered at a village called Bhognadih and declared they would no longer obey the British. Two brothers, Sidho and Kanhu Murmu, led them, with their sisters Phulo and Jhano also fighting. The British crushed the rebellion by January 1856. But afterwards they passed a law that stopped tribal land from being sold to non-tribals — a law that still exists.
Factual Pointers
Practice · 2 questions
With reference to the Santhal Hul of 1855, consider the following statements:
1. It began at Bhognadih in present-day Jharkhand and was led by Sidho and Kanhu Murmu.
2. It occurred after the revolt of 1857.
3. It was followed by legislation prohibiting the transfer of Adivasi land to non-Adivasis.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
The 'Damin-i-Koh', associated with the background to the Santhal rebellion, refers to:
Mains Practice Questions
"The Santhal Hul was defeated militarily and won legislatively." Examine this proposition and its significance for the evolution of protective tenancy law in India. (250 words, GS1)
Tribal uprisings of the nineteenth century were responses to dispossession by legal and commercial means rather than to cultural intrusion alone. Critically examine. (250 words, GS1)
Trace the line from the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1876 to the Fifth Schedule and PESA, 1996. (150 words, GS1)
Frequently Asked
· People also askWhat is Hul Diwas and what does it commemorate?
Hul Diwas is observed on 30 June each year to commemorate the Santhal Hul of 1855 — 'hul' meaning revolution or uprising in Santhali. It is marked across Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Assam.
Prelims · GS1The rebellion began on 30 June 1855 at Bhognadih village in present-day Sahibganj district, Jharkhand, when Santhals declared an end to Company authority in their territory, and was suppressed by 3 January 1856.
SOURCE Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Who led the Santhal rebellion?
The brothers Sidho Murmu and Kanhu Murmu, supported by their siblings including the sisters Phulo and Jhano Murmu. Their participation reflects a combatant role for women that contemporaneous non-tribal society largely did not permit.
Prelims · GS1That fact also complicates the colonial framing of Santhal society as primitive, since the metric usually invoked for such judgements — the position of women — points the other way.
SOURCE Ministry of Tribal Affairs
What caused the rebellion?
Material dispossession: alienation of land to outsiders, crushing indebtedness to moneylenders, exploitation by zamindars, extortionate revenue and police demands, and erosion of Santhal self-governance — all following the Company's own settlement of Santhals in the Damin-i-Koh tract of the Rajmahal hills.
GS1 · Modern HistoryThe mechanism was credit rather than conquest: borrowing against future harvests at compounding rates led to foreclosure, a process entirely lawful under Company regulation and therefore invisible as violence.
SOURCE Standard histories of colonial India
What law resulted from the rebellion?
The Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1876, which prohibited transfer of Adivasi land to non-Adivasis, alongside the constitution of Santhal Parganas as a separately administered district. The Act remains in force and is periodically contested.
GS1 · GS2The colonial state concluded that ordinary land law was itself generating unrest in tribal tracts, and removed tribal land from the market rather than regulating the credit that was taking it — the origin of India's protective tenancy tradition.
SOURCE Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1876
How does the Hul relate to the revolt of 1857?
It preceded 1857 by two years. The Hul was organised, formally declared Company jurisdiction ended, mobilised tens of thousands and took six months to suppress — making it an instance of large-scale anti-colonial resistance rather than merely a precursor to one.
GS1 · Modern HistoryIts social base lay entirely outside the sepoy army and the displaced princely order that drove 1857, which is why including it changes the conventional periodisation of resistance to British rule.
SOURCE Standard histories of colonial India
Does the Hul have contemporary legal relevance?
Yes. The principle it produced — statutory restriction on transfer of tribal land — runs directly into the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, and PESA, 1996, which gives Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas authority over land alienation and minor minerals.
GS2 · PolityThe recurring argument against such restrictions — that they suppress land markets and impede development — is the same one the Company would have made, and the counter-argument is the historical record of what happened when no restriction existed.
SOURCE Fifth Schedule; PESA, 1996