Rebels, refugees or subjects? The Sawantwadi Exiles

Blog series Untold lives

Author Francesca Forte, Content Specialist, Archivist, Qatar Project

By the mid-19th century, the western coast of India was a patchwork of overlapping colonial territories, with British India and Portuguese Goa existing alongside one another in a relationship that was largely cooperative. Boundary disputes were not unusual and were generally resolved amicably through collaboration between officials involved in surveying and mapping proposed frontiers. Beneath this outwardly diplomatic relationship, however, lay two very different systems of colonial authority. The British East India Company had emerged as the dominant political power in the region, while Portuguese Goa remained a separate and long-established colonial possession, governed by its own laws, traditions, and administration.

Whilst Britain and Portugal had cooperated closely in the past, including Britain’s temporary role as protector of Goa during the Napoleonic Wars, by the 1840s Goa remained beyond the East India Company’s direct control. This created an alternative political space along India’s western coast, where those fleeing unrest or rebellion in neighbouring territories could sometimes seek refuge. It was within this interconnected yet separately governed colonial landscape that the correspondence of August 1848 unfolded. Recorded in the Government of Bombay Proceedings for 20 September 1848 (IOR/P/392/59) within the India Office Records, these documents offer a detailed insight into negotiations between British and Portuguese officials over the fate of the Sawantwadi rebels who had sought protection in Goa.

The Sawantwadi Uprising (1844–45) was a brief but significant revolt in the Sawantwadi State, as members of the ruling families resisted increasing British influence over taxation, administration, and political authority. The uprising was quickly suppressed, leading to arrests, exile, and tighter British control over the region. Following their defeat, many rebels fled south across the border into Portuguese Goa, placing themselves beyond the immediate reach of British authorities.

Exile, however, soon lost its appeal. Separated from their families and uncertain about their future, many former rebels petitioned the Bombay Government in 1847 to return home. The correspondence that followed in 1848 between British and Portuguese officials reveals contrasting perspectives on rebellion, clemency, and the responsibilities of colonial rule.

For British authorities, those who had fled remained ‘insurgents’, and their return raised concerns about security and the authority of the Government. Officials debated which individuals could safely be pardoned, who still posed a threat, and what assurances would be needed to prevent further unrest.

The Portuguese administration approached the matter differently. In his correspondence with British officials, José Ferreira Pestana, the Governor of Goa, consistently referred to those under his protection not as rebels or prisoners, but as ‘refugees’. This distinction was more than a question of terminology: it reflected his belief that these men had been driven to desperate circumstances, rather than permanently defined by their involvement in rebellion. Pestana repeatedly appealed for British clemency, arguing that a ‘great and powerful nation full of philanthropy’ had little to fear from ‘a few unhappy Indians’.

While Major George Le Grand Jacob, the British Political Agent in Sawantwadi, acknowledged that clemency could be a mark of strong government, he maintained that ‘the welfare of one's country is the first duty’. He argued that considerations of morality and political responsibility were necessary to prevent governments from ‘letting loose dangerous men on society’, highlighting the perceived risks of allowing former rebels to return without restrictions. The exchange reveals a fundamental difference in colonial priorities: the British East India Company viewed the issue primarily through concerns of security and deterrence, while Portuguese officials increasingly framed it as an opportunity to restore relations and reintegrate those who had been defeated.

Seeking common ground, Pestana argued that authorities should balance ‘the important exigencies of society with the unhappy circumstances of the guilty’. He rejected the idea that the refugees represented the ‘dangerous leaven, that could raise the whole lump’, a Biblical challenge, against the belief that a small group of defeated rebels posed a lasting threat to public order. Carefully wording his appeals, Pestana stressed that his ‘recommendations and prayers regarding the Sawent Waree refugees’ came only from a desire to see their pardon granted ‘as far as an humane heart can desire’, a deeply personal plea on behalf of people he scarcely knew.

Ultimately, many of those who had sought refuge in Goa were pardoned by the British Government, although leading figures connected to the uprising remained in exile.

Further reading

IOR/P/392/59, ff 88-107, f 194, f 234 and ff 403-445

IOR/F/4/2073/95549

IOR/L/PS/5/446, ff 382-435

IOR/L/PS/5/447, ff 214-221