“Colonialism and the Countryside: Exploring Official Archives” investigates the impact of British colonialism on rural India using official records. It examines the introduction of new land revenue systems like the Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari, analyzing their aims and effects on landlords, peasants, and villages.
A key focus is the British administration’s official archives (revenue reports, surveys, judicial records), with a critical look at their biases and omissions, particularly regarding the rural population’s perspective. Case studies illustrate colonial policy impacts: the transformation of Bengal zamindars, peasant distress and resistance in the Bombay Deccan (Deccan Riots of 1875), and the effects of cash crop cultivation like cotton.
The chapter stresses the need for critical analysis of official records, supplemented by oral histories and non-official accounts, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of rural life under colonialism. It highlights how colonial policies fundamentally reshaped rural society, economy, and power dynamics.
Exercise
1. Why was the jotedar a powerful figure in many areas of rural Bengal?
Ans:
Jotedars were powerful in rural Bengal due to their large landholdings, granting them significant economic influence.Their direct social presence in villages allowed them to build relationships and wield considerable local influence, sometimes acting as intermediaries. Jotedars frequently mobilized peasants to resist zamindar revenue demands, undermining zamindar authority. Their economic leverage enabled them to buy auctioned zamindari estates, further increasing their land and power. Essentially, their economic strength from land and local control, combined with social presence and peasant mobilization, made jotedars a dominant force often exceeding the influence of distant zamindars.
2. How did zamindars manage to retain control over their zamindaris?
Ans:
Despite the Permanent Settlement’s goal of fixed revenue and potential dispossession, many zamindars in Bengal successfully maintained control over their estates through several tactics. They frequently engaged in fictitious sales, using their agents to bid high at auctions and then default, leading to repeated auctions and the eventual repurchase of the estate at a reduced cost. Another strategy involved transferring land to female relatives, as early Company regulations restricted the takeover of women’s property. Zamindars also employed muscle power via their armed retainers to prevent new owners from taking possession. Additionally, they fostered support from the ryots, who sometimes resisted the entry of outsiders, indirectly aiding the old zamindars in retaining their influence.
3. How did the Paharias respond to the coming of outsiders?
Ans:
The Paharias of the Rajmahal hills met the arrival of outsiders, particularly the British and settled agriculturalists like the Santhals, with suspicion and resistance. Initially, they sought to avoid contact, maintaining their traditional lifestyle centered on shifting cultivation, forest resources, and occasional raids on the plains for sustenance and to assert their authority.
As pressure from outsiders intensified, especially due to British policies promoting settled agriculture and forest clearing, the Paharias actively opposed this intrusion. They perceived the newcomers as a threat to their ancestral lands, resources, and independence. Their resistance sometimes manifested as raids on settled villages, a practice historically used to demonstrate dominance and negotiate political relationships.
The British initially pursued a policy of extermination against the Paharias, leading to significant conflict. However, this strategy had limited success, as many Paharias viewed these allowances as a form of subjugation and refused to accept them.
Faced with increasing pressure, the Paharias retreated further into the hills, attempting to isolate themselves from the changes and preserve their autonomy. Their response was a combination of avoidance, resistance, and strategic withdrawal, driven by a desire to protect their traditional way of life and their ancestral territories from the encroachment of outsiders.
4. Why did the Santhals rebel against British rule?
Ans:
The Santhal rebellion against British rule in the Rajmahal Hills stemmed from a combination of severe social, economic, and political grievances faced by this agrarian tribal community. the Santhals into deep debt. They were often forced into bonded labor and lost their traditional rights to their land.
The encroachment of the British administration, along with local zamindars and moneylenders, on their land and forests further disrupted the Santhals’ traditional way of life and threatened their autonomy. Their repeated appeals against these injustices were largely ignored.
Facing this relentless exploitation and the disintegration of their traditional social and economic structures, the Santhals, under the leadership of Sidhu and Kanhu Murmu, decided to revolt against the oppressive foreign rule to establish their own self-governance. This rebellion, known as the Santhal Hul, erupted in 1855, marked by a large-scale mobilization of the Santhal community against the symbols of their oppression, including zamindars, moneylenders, and British officials.
5. What explains the anger of the Deccan ryots against the moneylenders?
Ans:
The anger of the Deccan peasants towards moneylenders arose from exploitative practices compounded by harsh economic conditions under British rule. High land revenue demands forced peasants to borrow, especially after poor harvests. Moneylenders (sahukars/mahajans) exploited this vulnerability with exorbitant interest rates and manipulated accounts, trapping peasants in inescapable debt cycles. They frequently seized land and livestock for non-payment, stripping livelihoods and causing destitution.
Moneylenders were seen as outsiders profiting from peasant suffering, often perceived as allied with the colonial administration and a legal system favoring creditors. The decline of traditional community support increased reliance on these unscrupulous lenders, intensifying resentment. The post-American Civil War cotton price crash worsened the situation, leaving peasants with unpayable debts and fueling the Deccan Riots of 1875.
6. Why were many zamindaris auctioned after the Permanent Settlement?
Ans:
Many zamindaris were auctioned after the 1793 Permanent Settlement mainly because the fixed revenue demands imposed by the British East India Company were often excessively high, particularly during periods of low crop prices or poor harvests.
The Permanent Settlement mandated a perpetual fixed revenue payment to the Company, irrespective of the zamindars’ actual earnings from their land. This inflexible system failed to consider variations in agricultural output or market values. The initial revenue demands were frequently set at an unrealistically high level to meet the Company’s need for consistent and substantial income.
Consequently, numerous zamindars accumulated significant unpaid revenue. According to the Settlement’s regulations, specifically the “sunset law” (payment due before sunset on a set date), failure to remit the required amount resulted in their zamindaris being auctioned to recover the outstanding dues. As a result, a substantial amount of zamindari land ownership changed as the original holders defaulted on their payments.
