This is perfectly true, but I lost my temper with someone earlier because he tried to couple this closely with the Great Indian Mutiny. There was no connection; Bengal itself, and Bengalis themselves were not particularly concerned. After these remnants of resistance from the old regime that you mentioned, the Sannyasi Rebellion (I had not heard it called the Fakir Sannyasi Rebellion before, but after Anubis used that term and quoted his source, it seemed better to check my own sources first), Titumir's rebellion, the anti-Indigo movement, the next wave started in the 1880s, with the case of Surendranath Bannerjee, whose case became the first instance of all-India demonstration by Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, all united, in far flung places far from Bengal. Then the pre-Gandhi phase followed, and after that, from 1922, the Gandhian phase, where Jinnah played a major role from the mid-30s onwards.
The point to note is that except for the Great Indian Mutiny, Bengal was in the thick of things all along. The Great Indian Mutiny is not something glorious; it was a combination of factors, ALL belonging to the old regime, the immediate provocation of the jointly-annoying cartridge scandal, the Thakurs of Oudh, the Princes who had been dispossessed, the most prominent being Rani Lakshmibai, and, of course, the sepoys. None of these were elements that had a future; they were each and every one of them elements who had a past only.
Let us accept that Biharis and UP bhaiyas were the main movers of the Mutiny and go on.
Jobbor, guru, jobbor.
Why did you leave out Sher-e-Bangal Fazlul Haque (one of my personal heroes) and Hassan Shaheed Suhrawardy?