14 SOCIAL SCIENTIST they would neither attack nor defend but silently suffer.4 More recently, other scholars, ostensibly taking the cue from Sisirkumar Ghosh, have wheedled themselves into believing that the indigo rebellion was nothing but passive. Jogesh Chandra Bagal calls it a revolution., but ''non-violent5: one reason why the indigo peasants succeeded while the sepoys failed was the former's renunciation of violence.5 Ramesh Chandra Majumdar in a recent history of Bengal describes the indigo revolt as the forerunner of the non-violent passive resistance later adopted by Gandhi.6 The Storm Breaks These statements by some of the best known authorities on the subject have to be examined in the light of what really happened. The stages of the revolt seem to confirm the firm recalcitrance of the indigo peasants with ^non-violence at any cost9 as their means of resistance. It is said to have started in February-March 1859, when thousands refused to grow indigo any more. The planters put the blame squarely onAshley Eden, the Barasat magistrate, whose notice, they alleged, encouraged the peasants and goaded them to revolt. Undoubtedly, Eden's notice had an impact on the peasants but could not have been the sole cause of an event of such magnitude. The storm had been gathering long before Eden's notice appeared on the horizon. The earliest sparks were seen at Chaugacha and Kathgara in Jessore7, Kalaroa in Barasat8, and Aurang-abad in Murshidabad9. The vernacular note of Ashley Eden declared that the ryots were free to decide whether they would grow indigo or not, and it was out of question to force them. The ryots, predictably, decided against: they would have nothing more to do with indigo. It was clearly a programme of non-cooperation with the planters. The surprising fact is that the ryots who used to absorb the shocks during the previous few decades now stood firm in defiance of the planters as revealed in their evidence before the Indigo Commission.10 Each stated his own reason for doing away with indigo. Nafar Das of Lokenathpur said he had been deprived of any profit by ^coercion and fraudulent commutation" of his produce.11 Haji Molla of Nischindipur was against entering into another contract even on fresh terms. His abhorrence of anything connected with indigo came out in the statement that he would "'rather beg than sow indigo".12 Many ryots similarly declared themselves against sowing indigo for planters even if they were assured of better terms. From these evidences it is not difficult to sense an attitude of non-cooperation and passive resistance. The ryots' resistance did not stop at turning away from indigo cultivation. They often resorted to the good old expedient of social ostracism of Indian servants in European-owned plantations. In 1860, planters were reported complaining of staff shortages.18 They withdrew certain essential services from the planters' Indian employees: the barbers refused service; the villagers boycotted them, often cutting off supplies of