Colonialism and the Countryside
NCERT Class 12 History • Theme 9 • Exercises
Short Answer Questions (100-150 words)
1. Why was the jotedar a powerful figure in many areas of rural Bengal?
The Jotedars (rich peasants) became powerful figures in rural Bengal by the late 18th century, often wielding more influence than the Zamindars. Their power stemmed from several sources:
1. Land and Capital: They acquired vast areas of land and controlled local trade and moneylending, exercising immense power over the poor cultivators.
2. Local Presence: Unlike the Zamindars who often lived in urban centres (absentee landlords), Jotedars lived in the villages. This allowed them direct control over the peasantry.
3. Resistance to Zamindars: They fiercely resisted the efforts of Zamindars to increase the jama (revenue assessment) of the village, prevented officials from collecting duties, and mobilized the ryots against the Zamindar.
4. Auction Power: When Zamindari estates were auctioned due to failure of revenue payment, Jotedars were often among the purchasers.
1. Land and Capital: They acquired vast areas of land and controlled local trade and moneylending, exercising immense power over the poor cultivators.
2. Local Presence: Unlike the Zamindars who often lived in urban centres (absentee landlords), Jotedars lived in the villages. This allowed them direct control over the peasantry.
3. Resistance to Zamindars: They fiercely resisted the efforts of Zamindars to increase the jama (revenue assessment) of the village, prevented officials from collecting duties, and mobilized the ryots against the Zamindar.
4. Auction Power: When Zamindari estates were auctioned due to failure of revenue payment, Jotedars were often among the purchasers.
2. How did zamindars manage to retain control over their zamindaris?
Despite the rigorous “Sunset Law” and high revenue demands, Zamindars devised ingenious strategies to survive auctions:
1. Fictitious Sales (Benami): Zamindars transferred parts of their estate to women (like the Raja of Burdwan transferring to his mother), as the Company did not seize property of women.
2. Manipulation of Auctions: Their agents would bid high prices at auctions but refuse to pay, forcing a re-auction. This process was repeated until the estate was sold at a low price back to the Zamindar’s agents.
3. Intimidation: If an outsider bought the estate, they were often physically prevented from taking possession by the Zamindar’s musclemen (lathyals).
4. Loyalty of Ryots: Sometimes, the ryots themselves resisted new purchasers, feeling a sense of loyalty to the traditional Zamindar and viewing outsiders as intruders.
1. Fictitious Sales (Benami): Zamindars transferred parts of their estate to women (like the Raja of Burdwan transferring to his mother), as the Company did not seize property of women.
2. Manipulation of Auctions: Their agents would bid high prices at auctions but refuse to pay, forcing a re-auction. This process was repeated until the estate was sold at a low price back to the Zamindar’s agents.
3. Intimidation: If an outsider bought the estate, they were often physically prevented from taking possession by the Zamindar’s musclemen (lathyals).
4. Loyalty of Ryots: Sometimes, the ryots themselves resisted new purchasers, feeling a sense of loyalty to the traditional Zamindar and viewing outsiders as intruders.
3. How did the Paharias respond to the coming of outsiders?
The Paharias, hill folk of the Rajmahal hills, practiced shifting cultivation and lived on forest produce. They viewed the encroachment of settled agriculture (sponsored by the British) with deep suspicion and hostility.
Response:
Response:
- Raids: They frequently raided settled plains during scarcity or to assert power over settled communities.
- Retreat: As the British encouraged forest clearance and declared them “criminal tribes,” the Paharias withdrew deeper into the hills, insulating themselves from hostile forces.
- Resistance: They fiercely resisted British officials. While some chiefs accepted allowances to maintain peace, many others refused, continuing their defiance against the “hoe” (symbol of settled agriculture) invading their territory.
4. Why did the Santhals rebel against British rule?
The Santhals had been invited by the British to settle in the Damin-i-Koh to clear forests. However, they rebelled in 1855-56 due to:
1. Loss of Land: They found that the land they had brought under cultivation was slipping away into the hands of dikus (outsiders/moneylenders).
2. Exploitation: Moneylenders charged exorbitant interest rates, leading to debt bondage.
3. State Oppression: The state levied heavy taxes on their land, and the police supported the oppressive landlords and moneylenders.
4. Desire for Autonomy: By the 1850s, they felt the time had come to rebel against the Zamindars, moneylenders, and the British Raj to create their own ideal world (Santhal Raj).
1. Loss of Land: They found that the land they had brought under cultivation was slipping away into the hands of dikus (outsiders/moneylenders).
2. Exploitation: Moneylenders charged exorbitant interest rates, leading to debt bondage.
3. State Oppression: The state levied heavy taxes on their land, and the police supported the oppressive landlords and moneylenders.
4. Desire for Autonomy: By the 1850s, they felt the time had come to rebel against the Zamindars, moneylenders, and the British Raj to create their own ideal world (Santhal Raj).
5. What explains the anger of the Deccan ryots against the moneylenders?
The anger of the Deccan ryots, culminating in the riots of 1875, was driven by a breakdown of customary norms and acute indebtedness.
Reasons:
Reasons:
- Refusal of Credit: After the American Civil War boom ended and cotton prices crashed, moneylenders refused to extend new loans, which were essential for the ryots’ survival.
- Violation of Custom: Ryots believed in a customary norm that interest should not exceed the principal. Moneylenders violated this, charging usurious rates and manipulating bonds (e.g., a Rs 100 loan becoming Rs 2000 in claims).
- Fraud: Moneylenders forced ryots to sign blank bonds, entered fictitious figures, and refused to give receipts, which the peasants saw as “deceitful.”
Long Answer Questions (250-300 words)
6. Why were many zamindaris auctioned after the Permanent Settlement?
The Permanent Settlement of 1793 fixed the land revenue demand in perpetuity. However, in the initial decades, up to 75% of Zamindaris changed hands. This crisis occurred for several reasons:
1. Excessive Revenue Demand: The initial demand was fixed very high. The Company argued that since the demand would never increase, they needed to secure a high initial surplus. This burden was often too heavy for Zamindars to bear, especially when agricultural prices were depressed.
2. The Sunset Law: The revenue collection was inflexible. If payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the estate was liable to be auctioned. There was no leniency for bad harvests.
3. Limits on Zamindar’s Power: While the state demanded revenue, it simultaneously curbed the Zamindar’s authority to collect rent. Their troops were disbanded, and cutcheries brought under Company supervision. This made it difficult for them to coerce ryots into paying.
4. Resistance from Jotedars and Ryots: Rich peasants (Jotedars) and village headmen (Mandals) were often happy to see the Zamindar in trouble. They deliberately delayed payments, knowing the Zamindar could not easily prosecute them due to a slow judicial system.
Consequently, squeezed between a rigid state demand and a rebellious peasantry, many Zamindars defaulted and faced auction.
1. Excessive Revenue Demand: The initial demand was fixed very high. The Company argued that since the demand would never increase, they needed to secure a high initial surplus. This burden was often too heavy for Zamindars to bear, especially when agricultural prices were depressed.
2. The Sunset Law: The revenue collection was inflexible. If payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the estate was liable to be auctioned. There was no leniency for bad harvests.
3. Limits on Zamindar’s Power: While the state demanded revenue, it simultaneously curbed the Zamindar’s authority to collect rent. Their troops were disbanded, and cutcheries brought under Company supervision. This made it difficult for them to coerce ryots into paying.
4. Resistance from Jotedars and Ryots: Rich peasants (Jotedars) and village headmen (Mandals) were often happy to see the Zamindar in trouble. They deliberately delayed payments, knowing the Zamindar could not easily prosecute them due to a slow judicial system.
Consequently, squeezed between a rigid state demand and a rebellious peasantry, many Zamindars defaulted and faced auction.
7. In what way was the livelihood of the Paharias different from that of the Santhals?
The conflict between the Paharias and Santhals represents the battle between the hoe and the plough—two fundamentally different modes of livelihood.
The Paharias (The Hoe):
The Paharias (The Hoe):
- Shifting Cultivation: They practiced jhum cultivation using the hoe. They cleared patches of forest by burning, grew millets and pulses for a few years, and then moved on to allow the land to recover.
- Forest Dependence: Their lives were intimately connected to the forest. They gathered mahua for food, silk cocoons and resin for sale, and wood for charcoal.
- Relationship with Land: They did not settle permanently. They resisted the intrusion of outsiders and saw the forest as their exclusive domain.
- Settled Agriculture: The Santhals were ideal settlers. They cleared forests vigorously and ploughed the land with vigour to grow rice and cotton.
- Commercial Crops: Unlike the subsistence-based Paharias, Santhals grew commercial crops for the market and paid revenue to the state.
- Expansion: They expanded the frontier of settled agriculture, pushing the Paharias deeper into the rocky, barren hills.
8. How did the American Civil War affect the lives of ryots in India?
The American Civil War (1861-1865) dramatically altered the economic landscape for the Deccan ryots, creating a cycle of boom and bust.
The Boom (1861-1864): Before the war, Britain imported most of its cotton from America. When war broke out, American supplies were cut off. Britain turned to India.
The Boom (1861-1864): Before the war, Britain imported most of its cotton from America. When war broke out, American supplies were cut off. Britain turned to India.
- Easy Credit: Cotton merchants and moneylenders gave easy advances to ryots to secure produce.
- Production Expansion: Ryots were given Rs 100 per acre as advance. Cotton acreage doubled.
- Prosperity: For a few years, ryots had access to credit and higher prices, leading to a temporary period of prosperity.
- Price Crash: Indian cotton exports declined, and prices fell.
- Credit Crunch: Moneylenders, seeing no profit, stopped giving loans and demanded repayment of old debts.
- Revenue Hike: Coinciding with this crash, the government increased land revenue by 50-100%.
9. What are the problems of using official sources in writing about the history of peasants?
Official sources, such as the Fifth Report, revenue records, and the Deccan Riots Commission Report, are invaluable but contain inherent biases that historians must navigate.
1. Colonial Perspective: These documents were written by colonial officials who viewed events through the lens of administration and control. For instance, they often dismissed peasant rebellions as “law and order” problems rather than legitimate grievances against exploitation.
2. Bias of Purpose: The Deccan Riots Commission was set up specifically to check if government revenue demand was the cause of the riots. The commission, wanting to absolve the government, deliberately shifted the blame onto the moneylenders, ignoring the crushing burden of state taxes.
3. Lack of Peasant Voice: Official records rarely record the voice of the peasant directly. Even when they do (as in recorded testimonies), the peasants were speaking to authority figures, likely influencing what they felt safe to say.
Conclusion: To reconstruct a balanced history, historians must read these sources “against the grain,” comparing them with other evidence like newspapers, oral traditions, and the internal contradictions within the official reports themselves.
1. Colonial Perspective: These documents were written by colonial officials who viewed events through the lens of administration and control. For instance, they often dismissed peasant rebellions as “law and order” problems rather than legitimate grievances against exploitation.
2. Bias of Purpose: The Deccan Riots Commission was set up specifically to check if government revenue demand was the cause of the riots. The commission, wanting to absolve the government, deliberately shifted the blame onto the moneylenders, ignoring the crushing burden of state taxes.
3. Lack of Peasant Voice: Official records rarely record the voice of the peasant directly. Even when they do (as in recorded testimonies), the peasants were speaking to authority figures, likely influencing what they felt safe to say.
Conclusion: To reconstruct a balanced history, historians must read these sources “against the grain,” comparing them with other evidence like newspapers, oral traditions, and the internal contradictions within the official reports themselves.