From the Pala Period to the Present Day

An Essay on the Socio-Historical Ascent of Agrarian and Intermediate Castes

Middle castes in Bengal—often termed “clean Shudras,” “Sat Shudras,” or intermediate agrarian/trading communities—include groups such as the Mahishyas (formerly Chasi/Haliya Kaibartas), Sadgops (Sadgope), Aguris (Ugra Kshatriyas), Tilis, and related Nabasakh communities. Positioned between the upper castes (Brahmin, Kayastha, Baidya) and lower Scheduled Castes/Dalits, they historically functioned as prosperous peasants (jotedars), landholders, cultivators, and traders. Their ascent reflects a dynamic interplay of rebellion, Sanskritization, land control, colonial enumeration, and modern socio-economic mobility.

Pala Period (8th–12th Centuries): Fluidity and Early Assertion

The Pala Empire (c. 750–1120/1170 CE), the last major Buddhist imperial power in Bengal, fostered a relatively more egalitarian religious environment under Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, which doctrinally downplayed rigid varna hierarchies. In practice, however, Palas granted land (agrahara) to Brahmins and navigated a Hindu-majority society, creating tensions with local agrarian and fishing communities.

The pivotal event was the Kaivarta (Varendra) Rebellion (c. 1075–1082 CE) against the weak and tyrannical Pala king Mahipala II. Led by Divya (Dibyak), a Kaivarta samanta (feudal chieftain) from a community traditionally linked to fishing, boating, and cultivation, the revolt succeeded temporarily. Divya, followed by Rudok and Bhima, ruled Varendra (northern Bengal) for about half a century. Rebels confiscated Brahminical land grants, reflecting grievances over heavy taxation, dynastic instability, and restrictions on traditional livelihoods (e.g., fishing under Buddhist non-violence ideals).

Historians view this as one of India’s earliest recorded peasant/feudal uprisings and an early assertion of power by what would become middle-caste agrarian groups. It severely weakened the Palas, creating political space for new powers. Some Kaivartas had already held administrative roles in Pala courts, showing pre-existing mobility.

Why Kaivarta Rebellion took place against Palas even though they were said to be Liberal on Casteism

Pala “liberalism” was real in some ways but insufficient against real-world issues like taxation, land disputes, and occupational restrictions—classic triggers for peasant/feudal uprisings, not mere ingratitude. The Palas (8th–12th centuries) were patrons of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, which doctrinally rejected rigid caste hierarchies and emphasized merit over birth. Buddhism historically offered better social mobility and respect to lower strata compared to Brahmanical orthodoxy.

However, in practice, the Palas operated in a Hindu-majority society. They made land grants (agrahara) to Brahmins to legitimize rule, supported Brahmanical institutions, and faced growing Brahmanical influence in rural administration. This created tensions with local feudal lords (samantas) and communities like the Kaivartas.

Kaivartas (ancestors of modern Kaibartas) were traditionally fishermen, boatmen, and cultivators. Buddhist non-violence ideals led to discouragement or restrictions on fishing/meat-eating, which hurt their livelihood and caused resentment.

Oppressive Rule of Mahipala II: He was seen as a weak, tyrannical ruler. He imprisoned his brothers (Surapala II and Ramapala), signaling dynastic instability. This alienated vassals and created opportunities for revolt.

Heavy Taxation and Land Issues: The Palas raised taxes to fund administration and military needs, burdening peasants and landholders. Kaivartas and other rural groups resented land grants to Brahmins and attempts at tighter central control over rural society. Rebels confiscated such grants.

Feudal and Samanta Discontent: Divya (Dibyak), a Kaivarta chieftain and Pala official, led a confederacy of subordinate rulers (samantas). It was partly a power struggle by rising local elites against declining central authority. Kaivartas sought upward mobility—from fishermen (Jalia) toward cultivator (Chasi) status and land control.

Religious-Cultural Tensions: While Buddhism was more egalitarian in theory, Pala patronage of Brahmins and restrictions on traditional Kaivarta occupations created friction. Some interpretations link the rebels to Tantric/Vajrayana Siddha movements with anti-Brahminical or egalitarian elements.

The rebellion succeeded temporarily: Divya killed Mahipala II, and Kaivartas ruled Varendra for about 50 years (under Divya, Rudoka, and Bhima) before Ramapala reconquered it. It significantly weakened the Palas and paved the way for the Sena rise.

Sena Period (11th–13th Centuries): Hindu Revival and Nabasakh Formation

The Sena dynasty (originating from Karnataka, claiming Brahma-Kshatriya status) supplanted the declining Palas. Under Vijayasena and especially Ballal Sena (r. c. 1160–1178), Bengal saw a strong revival of orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism. Ballal Sena is credited with introducing Kulinism (ranking families within Brahmin, Kayastha, and Baidya castes by ritual purity) and reorganizing the broader caste structure.

In this context, the Nabasakh (“nine branches”) framework emerged or was formalized. It grouped nine (later expanded to 13–14) “clean” or respectable Shudra/middle castes—precursors to Sadgops, Tilis, Aguris, Baruis, Kansaris, and certain Mahishya sections—from whom Brahmins could traditionally accept water or food. This distinguished them from “unclean” or lower Shudra groups and stabilized the hierarchy after Pala-era fluidity.

Sadgops (an offshoot of the broader Gopa/Goala pastoral community) began transitioning from cattle-herding to settled agriculture and local power during or just after this period, adding the prefix “Sad/Sat” (pure/good) to signify elevated status.

Relation Between Kaivarta Rebellion & Nabasakh

There is an indirect but significant historical relation between the Kaivarta Revolution (Varendra Rebellion) and the Sena dynasty’s caste reforms, including the consolidation or “upgradation” of the Nabasakh (nine clean/respectable Shudra branches) system. The Kaivarta Revolution (c. 1075–1082 CE) was a major peasant/feudal revolt in Varendra (northern Bengal) against Pala king Mahipala II.

Led by Divya (Dibyak), a Kaivarta chieftain (from a community traditionally linked to fishing, boating, and some cultivation — later splitting into groups like Jalia i.e. fishermen boatmen and Chasi i.e. peasant Kaibartas).

It resulted in the temporary independence of Varendra under Kaivarta rulers (Divya, Rudok, Bhima) and the death of Mahipala II. It was one of the earliest successful large-scale rebellions by lower/middle strata against royal authority in the region.

Impact: It severely weakened the Pala Empire (which had Buddhist leanings and relatively lax caste practices), creating political fragmentation and opportunities for new powers.

Sena Rise and Caste Reforms

The Sena dynasty (originating from Karnataka, Brahma-Kshatriya claims) rose as feudatories and eventually supplanted the weakened Palas, fully consolidating power under Vijayasena and especially Ballal Sena (c. 1159–1179 CE). Senas promoted a strong revival of orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism in response to the Buddhist-influenced Pala era and the disruptions caused by revolts like the Kaivarta one.

Ballal Sena is credited with formalizing key aspects of Bengal’s caste hierarchy:

Introducing Kulinism (ranking within upper castes).

Strengthening distinctions between “clean” (Jal-achal / Sat Shudra) and “unclean” groups. The Nabasakh framework — grouping nine (later more) respectable middle/Shudra castes (e.g., Tili, Sadgop, Aguri, Barui, etc.) who were granted higher ritual status (Brahmins could accept water/food from them) — fits into this reorganization.

The Connection

The Kaivarta revolt demonstrated the power of non-upper-caste groups (including cultivating/fishing communities) and exposed vulnerabilities in the Pala system. It contributed directly to the decline that allowed the Senas to emerge.

Once in power, the Senas responded by reinforcing a more rigid, orthodox caste structure. This included elevating certain “clean” Shudra/middle castes (Nabasakh) while maintaining distinctions that kept groups like (some) Kaivartas in a lower position. It was partly a stabilization effort after the turbulence of the revolt era.

In short: The Kaivarta Revolution helped create the conditions for Sena rule, and the Senas used their power to systematize and upgrade the status of select middle castes within the Nabasakh framework as part of their Brahmanical revival. This dynamic influenced Bengal’s caste landscape for centuries, including the later separations and Sanskritization(e.g., Kaibarta → Mahishya and Gop → Sadgop).

Medieval Period (13th–18th Centuries): Jotedar Kingdoms and Regional Power

After the Turkish conquest (1204 CE, Bakhtiyar Khilji), political fragmentation allowed local middle-caste groups to consolidate. In the Rarh region (western Bengal, between the Ajay and Damodar rivers—modern Birbhum, Bardhaman/Burdwan areas), the Gopbhum kingdom rose under Sadgop rulers. Centered at places like Amrargar (Amragarh) and Dhekur (near Gourangapur), Sadgop kings (e.g., associated with Ichhai Ghosh and later Mahindranath) acted as warrior-agriculturists and jotedars. They controlled lateritic forest lands, built forts, and patronized temples (such as Ichhai Ghosher Deul).

Gopbhum survived initial Khilji pressures but declined over centuries due to invasions and the rising power of larger zamindaris like Burdwan Raj (final fall around 1744). Sadgops spread as zamindars and cultivators into Midnapore and elsewhere.

Aguris (Ugra Kshatriyas), prosperous owner-cultivators claiming mixed Kshatriya-Shudra martial heritage, gained prominence in the same western districts, sometimes linked to Sadgop networks or migrations.

Meanwhile, sections of Kaibartas (especially Chasi/Haliya cultivators) reclaimed wastelands in southern Bengal (Midnapore, etc.) during Mughal times, becoming local zamindars and jotedars. Their identity remained fluid—sometimes labeled Mahishya, Halik, or Das in genealogies—but they formed a rising agrarian middle stratum distinct from Jelia (fishing) Kaibartas.

These groups exemplified Bengal’s “middle peasantry,” dominating rural land control and local power outside upper-caste urban/professional dominance.

Colonial Period (18th–1947): Sanskritization, Census, and Nationalist Role

British rule, the Permanent Settlement (1793), and colonial censuses accelerated change. Prosperous subgroups engaged in Sanskritization—claiming higher varna status via Puranic texts and petitions.

The most prominent was the Mahishya movement (late 19th–early 20th century). Chasi/Haliya Kaibartas formed the Jati Nirdharani Samiti (1897) and Mahishya Samaj to separate from Jelia Kaibartas and claim the ancient “Mahishya” identity (linked to agriculture in texts). Leaders like Bipin Bihari Sasmal and Birendranath Sasmal petitioned census authorities; recognition came in the 1901 and 1921 censuses. By 1931, Mahishyas were largely removed from Depressed Classes lists. Many joined the Bhadralok sphere through education and professions, with some participating in the Brahmo Samaj.

Sadgops and Aguris pursued parallel upward claims (Kshatriya/Yadav status). The Nabasakh group was formalized in ethnographies (e.g., H.H. Risley). Middle castes benefited economically as jotedars but faced land loss and competition; they also played key roles in the nationalist movement—Mahishyas were central to Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience in Midnapore and Tamluk.

Post-Independence to Today (1947–Present): Mobility, Reservations, and Political Influence

After 1947, the Left Front’s Operation Barga in 1978 empowered sharecroppers and smallholders from middle-caste as well as lower caste backgrounds. But jotedars were mainly from middle castes and they lost considerable influence. Education expansion and urbanization enabled diversification into government jobs, business, and professions.

Many middle castes received Other Backward Class (OBC) status (e.g., Sadgops as OBC-B; some Mahishya sections and Aguris in OBC lists), while the broader Mahishya community largely remained in the General category yet retained strong rural influence, especially in southern West Bengal (Midnapore, Howrah, Hooghly). They form one of Bengal’s largest Hindu castes.

Politically, these groups have been courted by Congress, CPI(M), and Trinamool Congress. Mahishyas, in particular, wield significant electoral weight as a “sons of the soil” agrarian bloc. Internal class divisions persist—large landowners vs. small farmers and laborers—but the overall trajectory shows sustained upward mobility from medieval jotedar roots.

Conclusion

From the Kaivarta revolt’s challenge to Pala authority, through Sena-era codification of Nabasakh respectability, medieval Gopbhum and jotedar consolidation, colonial Sanskritization (exemplified by the Mahishya movement), to post-independence land reforms and political assertion, Bengal’s middle castes have risen through a combination of resistance, adaptation, land control, and strategic identity claims. Unlike the more rigid hierarchies elsewhere in India, Bengal’s middle castes benefited from historical fluidity and regional power vacuums. Today, as prosperous peasants-turned-urban professionals, they remain central to the state’s agrarian economy, local governance, and electoral politics—embodying centuries of quiet but persistent social ascent.

This evolution underscores how caste in Bengal has been as much about economic agency and regional assertion as about ritual hierarchy.

Bibliography

Selected sources for the study of middle castes, Nabasakh formation, and socio-political mobility in Bengal from the Pala period to the present.

Primary / Ethnographic Sources (Colonial Period)

Risley, Herbert Hope. The Tribes and Castes of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1891–92 (2 vols.). Key reference on Nabasakh, Sadgops, Aguris, Tilis, and caste rankings in Bengal.

O’Malley, L.S.S. Bengal District Gazetteers: Midnapore. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot, 1911. Details on Mahishya/Chasi Kaibarta dominance in southern districts.

Medieval & Early History

Ray, Niharranjan. Bangalir Itihas (History of the Bengali People). Calcutta: D.M. Library, 1949 (reprinted editions available). Foundational work on social structure from Pala to Sena periods, including Kaivarta mobility.

Furui, Ryosuke. “Characteristics of the Kaivarta Rebellion Delineated from the Rāmacarita.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (various volumes). Detailed analysis of the Varendra/Kaivarta revolt.

Majumdar, R.C. (ed.). The History of Bengal, Vol. 1: Hindu Period. Dacca: University of Dacca, 1943. Covers Pala-Sena transition and caste dynamics.

Chakrabarti, Kunal. Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition. Oxford University Press, 2001. On Brahmanical revival under Senas and Nabasakh formation.

Caste Movements & Modern Period

Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872–1947. Oxford University Press, 2011 (2nd ed.). Contextualizes middle-caste assertions alongside similar movements.

Sanyal, Hitesranjan. Social Mobility in Bengal. Calcutta: Papyrus, 1981. Discusses jotedar rise among Mahishyas, Sadgops, and Aguris.

Jana, Atanu & Koley, Soumen. “Agriculturist Kaibartta (Mahishya) Community in Bengal: History, Identity, and Socioeconomic Dynamics.” International Journal of History, 2025.

Mondal, Krishna. “Emergence of Mahishya: A Forward Agrarian Caste of South Bengal.” Journal of Contemporary Research and Advancement in Multidisciplinary Studies, 2026.

General & Regional Studies

Binoy Ghosh. Ethnographic works on Rarh region and Gopbhum traditions (various publications).

Brihaddharma Purana and Brahmavaivarta Purana (medieval Sanskrit texts referenced for Nabasakh and varna claims).

Saha, K.B. (and related works) on the jotedari system and middle peasantry in Bengal.

Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions (for primary epigraphic evidence mentioning Kaivartas and land grants).

Notes on Sources

Many details on Gopbhum, Aguris, and Sadgops are drawn from local histories, community traditions, and Risley’s ethnographic surveys. Exact page numbers for older texts vary by edition. For primary copperplate and inscriptional evidence, refer to collections such as Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions. Academic libraries, JSTOR, and Google Scholar provide access to recent peer-reviewed articles on caste mobility in Bengal. This bibliography is selective and prioritizes foundational and accessible works.

Author: Saikat Bhattacharya