ABSTRACT
The chapter establishes a comprehensive argument of the results of investigations of the Santal rebellion (1855–1856) forwarded in the former chapters. The main findings regard the recommendation to consider and respect Ādivāsī culture while pursuing ‘development’; a necessary first step is to listen to their grievances and interests as they express them. Such an approach will yield greater economic and social benefits than G.S. Ghurye’s ‘hasty assimilation’ policy, and its possibility would be invisible to those who are blinded by Ranajit Guha’s class-based argument, which mis-identifies tribal rebellions as class-based peasant rebellions. This argument of 21st century policy relevance is developed via a new interpretation of the Santal rebellion as a planned uprising and not a demonstration run astray, as has been argued by colonial historians. The Santal perspective has been opened through a performative analysis of the sources inspired by the methodology of Clemens Six. This leads to a new understanding of the acts of leaders of the rebellion, their religious reform and to the response from the participants in as well as the opponents to the rebellion. Other arguments put this in relation to the discussions around the concept of salvation religions and evolution of religion at large.
