32 , SOCIAL SCIENTIST unpaid tribal labour by officials...^.165 Even David Arnold misses this point and confines the^ analysis of the grievances to a few lines.166 We have clearly demonstrated in the earlier sections that what is really* 'striking' is not just the continuity of the grievances, but the new meaning which they acquired by the beginning of the 20th century ill the c6lonial context aird the consequent pushing into the background of the grievances against the native oppressors. It is not at all surprising that not a single shot was fired at the native police, plains merchants, landholders and so on. Neither were any plains (Indian) exploiters attacked in the course of the two-year war, nor were any grievances associated with the exploitation by the plains people brought into the rebellion directly or indirectly. The sole object of the rebellion was to drive the British, who threatened the tribals' very existence, out of the hills. The rebellion was not a simple response to a localised problem of the dominant groups in the hills; it was an organised reaction to a major dislocation at societal level under the British rule. In this» rebellion however, the leadership was inyariably provided from outside by radical elements (for the tribals were handicapped in passing from objective recognition of colonial Wrongs to organised political action as a means for setting'them right) but ^otbythe Congressmen with their "bourgeois nationalist ideology". Moreover, for obvious reasons, t;he emerging bourgeois political ideology in the plains was very much against any form of militant nationalism and hence the hostile reaction from the plains against the Manyam rebellion in the hills.167 k So it was not just an extension of a "fituri tradition" into a war by the manipulative opportunists and idealists from the plains for their own ends, as i& argued by David Arnold.168 The earlier "fituris" in this region were directed against the localised problems of dominant girpups like succession to muttas and so on, but not against a distant superior or oppressor, and, moreover, popular participation in them ,was conspicu" * ously absent. The Manyam rebellion of 1922^1924, by contract, had its roots in the anti-colonial consciousness of the people Which made it a war 165 Sumit Sarkar, 'Popular9 Movements..,, op cif, p 53; he also argues in a similar way in his aiticle, "Primitive Rebellion and Modern Nationalism: A Note on Forest Satyagraha ill the Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movementb", in K. N Panikkar (ed), National and Left Movement in India, Vikas, 1980, p 16. 166 David Arnold, op eit, p 134. 167 T^lkin^ about Congress* hostile reaction, Arnold argues that "a more basic reason for the hostility of the Andhra Congressmen was that they represented precisely those interests—the traders, money-lenders, contractors, immigrant cultivators and lawyers—whose hold on the hills the fituridars were fighting to overthrow", IMd, p 139» First of all, his assumption of the Congressmen's narrow social class base was-wrongs secondly, the rebels were not fighting to overthrow the plains 'interests' (this would be clear if one goes through this paper), for ;che whole ofejeetive of Raju was to drive the 'white' men out of the hills but not the plains people. 168 Ibid, p 141.