robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)
>Dawnseeker2000 (date format audit, link maintenance) |
(robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Statue of Sarvai Papanna Goud.jpg|thumb]] | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2021}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2021}} | ||
'''Sardar Sarvai Papanna''' (also known as '''Papanna''' and '''Pap Rai''') (died 1710) was a highwayman and bandit of early-18th century India who rose from humble beginnings to become a folklore hero. His deeds have been described by historians [[Barbara D. Metcalf|Barbara]] and [[Thomas R. Metcalf|Thomas Metcalf]] as "Robin Hood-like",{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} while another historian, Richard Eaton, considers him to be a good example of a [[Social bandits|social bandit]].{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=155|ps=}}{{efn|''Social bandit'' is a concept devised by [[Eric Hobsbawm]], defined as "peasant outlaws whom the lord and state regard as criminals, but who remain within peasant society, and are considered by their people as heroes, as champions."{{sfnp|Hobsbawm|2010|p=13|ps=}}}} | '''Sardar Sarvai Papanna''' (also known as '''Papanna''' and '''Pap Rai''') (died 1710) was a highwayman and bandit of early-18th century India who rose from humble beginnings to become a folklore hero. His deeds have been described by historians [[Barbara D. Metcalf|Barbara]] and [[Thomas R. Metcalf|Thomas Metcalf]] as "Robin Hood-like",{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} while another historian, Richard Eaton, considers him to be a good example of a [[Social bandits|social bandit]].{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=155|ps=}}{{efn|''Social bandit'' is a concept devised by [[Eric Hobsbawm]], defined as "peasant outlaws whom the lord and state regard as criminals, but who remain within peasant society, and are considered by their people as heroes, as champions."{{sfnp|Hobsbawm|2010|p=13|ps=}}}} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
Papadu was born in the 17th century to a [[Telugu people|Telugu]] family of a [[caste]] whose occupation was that of [[Toddy tapper|toddy tapping]].{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} Which of the several Telugu toddy-tapping castes he may have belonged to is uncertain. Eaton believes that he was a [[Gamalla]] or Goundla,{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=160|ps=}} and other modern scholars such as the Metcalfs refer only to the occupation.{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}}{{efn|Richard Eaton has commented on how the label of "toddy tapper", with its negative connotations of low standing, poverty and such – remained with Papadu.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} Gijs Kruijtzer has agreed, saying that Papadu "... could never shake off the label of Toddy-tapper even though he was a quite successful entrepreneur in banditry and most of his direct relatives were not directly involved in palm wine production either."{{sfnp|Kruijtzer|2009|p=140|ps=}}}} Eaton has noted that numerous castes recite the Papadu folklore and that this infers his later actions and the support for them were not caste-based.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=170|ps=}} Eaton also notes that there are versions of the ballad still recited today that suggest his family may have attained positions in society outside those usually assigned to their caste: his father may have been headman of a village and his brother a minor commander in an army, whilst his sister married into considerable wealth.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} | Papadu was born in the 17th century to a [[Telugu people|Telugu]] family of a [[caste]] whose occupation was that of [[Toddy tapper|toddy tapping]].{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} Which of the several Telugu toddy-tapping castes he may have belonged to is uncertain. Eaton believes that he was a [[Gamalla]] or Goundla,{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=160|ps=}} and other modern scholars such as the Metcalfs refer only to the occupation.{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}}{{efn|Richard Eaton has commented on how the label of "toddy tapper", with its negative connotations of low standing, poverty and such – remained with Papadu.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} Gijs Kruijtzer has agreed, saying that Papadu "... could never shake off the label of Toddy-tapper even though he was a quite successful entrepreneur in banditry and most of his direct relatives were not directly involved in palm wine production either."{{sfnp|Kruijtzer|2009|p=140|ps=}}}} Eaton has noted that numerous castes recite the Papadu folklore and that this infers his later actions and the support for them were not caste-based.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=170|ps=}} Eaton also notes that there are versions of the ballad still recited today that suggest his family may have attained positions in society outside those usually assigned to their caste: his father may have been headman of a village and his brother a minor commander in an army, whilst his sister married into considerable wealth.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} | ||
Papadu's family lived in the [[Golkonda]] region and his birthplace may have been [[ | Papadu's family lived in the [[Golkonda]] region and his birthplace may have been [[Tatikonda]], a village around {{convert|40|km|mi|abbr=}} southwest of Warangal near ghanpur.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=160|ps=}} Until 1323 this region had been ruled by a Hindu maharajah and thereafter was under the control of Muslim sultans. The [[Bahmani Sultanate]] broke up into five smaller kingdoms in the sixteenth century and Golkonda came under the control of the [[Qutb Shahi]] dynasty. They inherited an area that was relatively easy to govern as, even prior to the sultanate, there was an accepted social structure, which included warrior-cultivator groups and chieftains as well as a shared use of the [[Telugu language]] and literature. Sultans such as [[Ibrahim Qutb Shah]] (r. 1550–1580) patronised Hindu society and customs, as well as investing in projects to improve irrigation, all of which cemented a relationship reasonably similar to that which might have existed had they been Hindu rulers themselves. The native people of Golkonda or, at least, those in positions of influence, were won over and this was particularly significant with regard to the ''[[Nayak (title)|Nayak]]a'' chieftains, whom Eaton describes as having "an ethic of courage and steadfast loyalty to their political overlords."{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=156}} | ||
The mutual respect that ensued enabled Golkonda to become an extremely wealthy region, as evidenced by the construction of [[Hyderabad]]. However, by the 1630s it was apparent that troubles lay ahead. [[Shah Jahan]], who was the Mughal emperor at [[Delhi]], began to exact [[tribute]] from the Qutb Shahi sultan and then sent his son, Aurangzeb, to represent him in Golkonda. Aurangzeb eventually succeeded in [[Siege of Golconda|conquering Hyderabad]] and gaining total control of the region in 1687, making it the last of the independent sultanates to be annexed to the Mughal Empire. Many changes followed this event, and they generally caused a reduction in the influence of those people who had once been notable within Golkonda.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=157–158|ps=}} Furthermore, the conquest had caused or coincided with crop failures, famine, [[cholera]] epidemics and other disasters, between 1686 and 1690,{{sfnp|Richards|Rao|1980|p=97|ps=}} while the post-conquest era saw Aurangzeb bleeding Golkonda of its wealth in order to finance projects elsewhere.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=159|ps=}} | The mutual respect that ensued enabled Golkonda to become an extremely wealthy region, as evidenced by the construction of [[Hyderabad]]. However, by the 1630s it was apparent that troubles lay ahead. [[Shah Jahan]], who was the Mughal emperor at [[Delhi]], began to exact [[tribute]] from the Qutb Shahi sultan and then sent his son, Aurangzeb, to represent him in Golkonda. Aurangzeb eventually succeeded in [[Siege of Golconda|conquering Hyderabad]] and gaining total control of the region in 1687, making it the last of the independent sultanates to be annexed to the Mughal Empire. Many changes followed this event, and they generally caused a reduction in the influence of those people who had once been notable within Golkonda.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=157–158|ps=}} Furthermore, the conquest had caused or coincided with crop failures, famine, [[cholera]] epidemics and other disasters, between 1686 and 1690,{{sfnp|Richards|Rao|1980|p=97|ps=}} while the post-conquest era saw Aurangzeb bleeding Golkonda of its wealth in order to finance projects elsewhere.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=159|ps=}} | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
Papadu had no desire to remain a lowly toddy-tapper and his refusal to work in the traditional occupation of his caste was one of his early acts of defiance.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=160|ps=}} It has been speculated that the contradiction between the position of his caste and the roles in society that his father, brother and sister may have attained could explain Papadu's refusal to accept the restrictive ritualised norms. That he later married a woman who was almost certainly not of a toddy-tapper caste, since she was the sister of a ''[[faujdar]]'' (military governor), is also a possible indicator of this.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} | Papadu had no desire to remain a lowly toddy-tapper and his refusal to work in the traditional occupation of his caste was one of his early acts of defiance.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=160|ps=}} It has been speculated that the contradiction between the position of his caste and the roles in society that his father, brother and sister may have attained could explain Papadu's refusal to accept the restrictive ritualised norms. That he later married a woman who was almost certainly not of a toddy-tapper caste, since she was the sister of a ''[[faujdar]]'' (military governor), is also a possible indicator of this.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=174|ps=}} | ||
In the 1690s he stole money and property from his wealthy widowed sister, assaulting her in the process. With these funds he built a hill-fort at | In the 1690s he stole money and property from his wealthy widowed sister, assaulting her in the process. With these funds he built a hill-fort at Tatikonda and drew a band of men around him who were willing to become highwaymen, and then proceeded to rob traders who used the nearby route between Hyderabad and Warangal, the erstwhile capital of Golkonda. The bandits did not stay at Tarikonda for long: the disruption and loss caused by their raids led to them being driven out by the local ''[[zamindars]]'' (hereditary chieftain-landlords) and ''faujdars''.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=162|ps=}} The opposition of the ''zamindars'' was to become a theme of his life, in part because of the destabilising threat that he posed to society and, more specifically, to their own vested interests in inherited lands and the power base implicit in their control of local militias.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=172|ps=}} | ||
Moving over a hundred miles away to [[Kaulas Fort|Kaulas]], Papadu spent a period in the employ of Venkat Rao, a ''zamindar'' of that area. It was not long before Rao found it necessary to imprison him, as Papadu's liking for banditry resurfaced, but within months Papadu and all of Rao's other prisoners were freed by the latter's wife, who thought that showing such compassion might cause the health of her sick son to be blessed. Papadu moved to Shahpur, not far from his old haunt at Tarikonda, where he established another hill-fort and again recruited people to pursue his banditry.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=162|ps=}} | Moving over a hundred miles away to [[Kaulas Fort|Kaulas]], Papadu spent a period in the employ of Venkat Rao, a ''zamindar'' of that area. It was not long before Rao found it necessary to imprison him, as Papadu's liking for banditry resurfaced, but within months Papadu and all of Rao's other prisoners were freed by the latter's wife, who thought that showing such compassion might cause the health of her sick son to be blessed. Papadu moved to Shahpur, not far from his old haunt at Tarikonda, where he established another hill-fort and again recruited people to pursue his banditry.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=162|ps=}} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
===Fall=== | ===Fall=== | ||
The beginning of the fall of Papadu can be dated to June 1709. Prisoners at Shahpur – including his brother-in-law, the ''faujdar'' – managed to overturn their captors and take possession of the fort while Papadu was besieging another fort elsewhere.{{efn|Papadu's wife assisted her brother and his fellow captives by smuggling [[file (tool)|files]] that they used to free themselves from their chains | The beginning of the fall of Papadu can be dated to June 1709. Prisoners at Shahpur – including his brother-in-law, the ''faujdar'' – managed to overturn their captors and take possession of the fort while Papadu was besieging another fort elsewhere.{{efn|Papadu's wife assisted her brother and his fellow captives by smuggling [[file (tool)|files]] that they used to free themselves from their chains{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=167|ps=}}}} Simultaneously, Dilawar Khan was advancing on him and, unaware of the situation at Shahpur, Papadu thought it prudent to defend his position by lifting his siege and retreating to his base.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=167|ps=}} When he reached Shahpur he found that the tables were turned on him: he was fired upon by his former captives, using his own cannon, and with the imminent arrival of Khan he was forced to take refuge in the very compound that he had constructed to imprison them. Finding his position there to be untenable, and facing the desertion of some of his own forces, he decamped to the fort at Tatikonda, leaving Khan to take control of the wealth within Shahpur in accordance with instructions of his superior, the governor of Hyderabad.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=168–169|ps=}} | ||
Yusuf Khan, the Hyderabad governor, sent a force of several thousand to besiege | Yusuf Khan, the Hyderabad governor, sent a force of several thousand to besiege Tatikonda and this became a prolonged affair, lasting until March 1710. At that point, Yusuf Khan determined to take personal charge, doubling the number of imperial forces to around 12,000 and being further aided by the provision of at least 30,000 soldiers – cavalry and infantry – supplied by local landowners.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=168–169|ps=}} This concentration of support from Hindu chieftains, together with the fact that they were the first to oppose him when he was originally based at Tatikonda and evidence that he attacked both Muslims and Hindus, demonstrate that Papadu's motivations and the popular support for them were not based on religious considerations. Claims that he was a "Hindu warrior" are further negated by analysis of the names of his followers noted in the ballads, which appear to demonstrate that those within his group included Muslims and non-Hindu tribal peoples in almost equal proportion to Hindus.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|p=171|ps=}} | ||
Despite the considerable forces set against him at | Despite the considerable forces set against him at Tatikonda, it was bribery that caused significant losses for Papadu: his men, by now weary, hungry and demoralised, were tempted to defect by offers of double pay made in May. The final straw was when Papadu ran out of gunpowder and was forced to flee in disguise. Although wounded, he was able to reach the village of Hasanabad before being betrayed by a toddy tapper and captured by the brother-in-law who had previously been his prisoner. He was executed a few days later.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=168–169|ps=}} The traditional accounts say that the method of execution was that of decapitation, and that thereafter his body was cut into pieces and his head sent to Delhi.{{sfnp|Eaton|2005|pp=168–169|ps=}}{{sfnp|Richards|Rao|1980|ps=}} | ||
Richards and Rao refer to Papadu's attempt as a "dual rebellion"{{sfnp|Richards|Rao|1998|p=514|ps=}} and that phrase has been used subsequently by the Metcalfs, among others.{{sfnp|Singh|2008|p=108|ps=}} They say that in leading such a rebellion "against both imperial and local chiefly authority, Papadu struck too boldly at the most basic ordering of society, and thus mobilized against him all those with a stake in the established hierarchies of caste and wealth."{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} | Richards and Rao refer to Papadu's attempt as a "dual rebellion"{{sfnp|Richards|Rao|1998|p=514|ps=}} and that phrase has been used subsequently by the Metcalfs, among others.{{sfnp|Singh|2008|p=108|ps=}} They say that in leading such a rebellion "against both imperial and local chiefly authority, Papadu struck too boldly at the most basic ordering of society, and thus mobilized against him all those with a stake in the established hierarchies of caste and wealth."{{sfnp|Metcalf|Metcalf|2002|pp=30-31|ps=}} | ||