MANYAM REBELLION 55 support as those aroused by Tamman Dora and Bhima Reddi at- the hight of the Rampa rebellion (1979-80)" (p. 137). howevci I am not denying the presence of sympathy in the popular mind towards the rebels, for they were engaged in a battle against a common enemy—the colonial rulers. But sympathy alone is different from initiative and actual populai involvement. In this respect Raju's rebellion of 1922-24 was a major departure, for he was able to integrate the popular grievances with anti-colonial ideology and thereby convert sympathy into popular (active) involvement in the rebellion. In conclusion I would like to raise a couple of points which are important. Arnold has argued that the "material grievances against which the hillmen were rebelling in 1922-24 were not new as Atlury suggests—many had helped trigger the massive explosion of 1879-80. And one cannot but wonder how far even ^itarama Raju's closest associates among the hillmen shared his broader political ambi-tions"(emphasis mine). I have not suggested that the hilLnen's material grievances were "new", but I have tried to show that how the old material grievances took a new social meaning in the context of the colonial exploitation and oppression. Grievances may be old and long standing but acquiring a sharp consciousness about them is a different matter. I have also tried to show how personal grievances and individual problems came to be universally, shared and this promoting a common consciousness. This is what I hinted at in my article, by comparing the earlier uprisings with Raju's rebellion. Unlike in the course of the earlier series of uprisings, Raju was able to fuse the individual grievances with anti-colonial ideology and thereby, created a new collective political consciousness among the hillmen. This is what made his rebellion a true people's rebellion. If I have ignoied "one of the major advances in Indian historiography in recent years" what Arnold has attempted is to push back Indian historiography to the British colonial historiographical tradition. That is what his argument and portrayal of the hillmen's 'collective mentalities' conditioned by "xenophobia and territoriality" smacks of. To the colonial historian they were wild, semi-nornadic, barbaric, ready to rebel on the slightist pretext, incapable of considering their genuine problems, or ol perceiving the changing material conditions and their implications. Arnold's is nothing but a very sophisticated version of imperial historiography. For in Arnold's brand of "subaltern" history, which falsifies history, peasantry were always seen incapable of perceiving the basic contradiction during the colonial period and therefore, were above the influence ot the spirit of "nationalism". The notion that if they rebelled, they rebelled only against the immediate local (internal) oppressor, does not seem to be pure romanticisanon of militancy. Ir conveniently ignores the broader forces of colonial domination which inevitably affected the tor-tunes of the hillmen. This is bringing colonial historiography which sought to justify and rationalise colonialism, through the backdoor, indeed with a radical veneer. Understandably, a historian who analyses the national movement and its infL <;nce on the peasant consciousness and politics, or vice versa, would be branded a Gandhian or an 'elite' nationalist historiographer. ATLURY MURALI Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaraharlal Nehru Undiversily, New Delhi.