Q.What steps did the British take to quell the uprising?

The riots that erupted in the Bombay-Deccan in 1875 were not random outbursts of violence. They were the culmination of decades of agrarian distress, driven by the British revenue system, the crushing burden of debt, and the exploitative practices of moneylenders—often sahukars who were Marwaris or Gujaratis. The Deccan Ryots’ Commission, which later investigated the causes, noted that the immediate trigger was the sharp rise in land revenue assessments and the rigid enforcement of the Summary Settlement of 1867. The peasants, or ryots, were losing their lands to moneylenders at an alarming rate. When peaceful petitions failed, they turned to direct action.

The British response was swift and multi-pronged. First came the military and police crackdown. The government dispatched troops and extra police contingents to the affected districts—Poona, Ahmednagar, Sholapur, and Satara. The army was used to patrol villages, protect moneylenders’ property, and arrest anyone suspected of leading the attacks. Over a thousand people were arrested, and many were tried under the ordinary criminal law for rioting, arson, and assault. The message was clear: the state would not tolerate any challenge to the legal order, no matter how justified the grievance.

Second, the British employed legal and administrative measures to tighten control. The most significant was the passage of the Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act of 1879. This was a direct outcome of the riots and the subsequent commission’s report. The Act aimed to prevent the transfer of land from peasants to moneylenders by restricting the power of civil courts to enforce debt agreements. It also introduced the concept of “agriculturist” as a legal category, giving them some protection from summary eviction. However, this was a double-edged sword: while it offered some relief, it also legitimised the British state’s authority to define and regulate agrarian relations, thereby undermining traditional village-level dispute resolution.

Third, the British pursued a policy of social and political isolation of the rebels. They deliberately framed the riots as a law-and-order problem caused by a few “bad characters” rather than a widespread peasant uprising. By prosecuting only the ringleaders and letting off the majority with warnings, they hoped to break the solidarity of the village communities. More importantly, they worked to drive a wedge between the peasants and the emerging nationalist intelligentsia. The British administration portrayed the riots as a backward, violent reaction against progress—against the rule of law and the sanctity of contract. This narrative was meant to discredit any broader political movement that might sympathise with the peasants. …