Forest and Common

UNIT 13 TRIBAL SOCIETIES AND COLONIAL

ECONOMY*
Structure
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Defining the Pre-Colonial Tribal Economy
13.3 Nature and Patterns of Colonial Domination in Tribal India
13.4 Tribal Economies in State Owned Agricultural and Forest Lands
13.5 The Colonial Impact and Tribal Response
13.5.1 From Producers to Labourers
13.5.2 Modes of Protest and Identity Formation
13.6 Summary
13.7 Exercises
13.8 Suggested Readings

13.1 INTRODUCTION
Marshall Sahlins, the famous American anthropologist, once called the tribal society, which
he said was characterised by hunting and gathering, as “the original affluent society” or
the “society of plenty”. By this he meant that the people practising this form of subsistence
could live a prosperous lifestyle from the bounty of nature and accumulate wealth in the
form of gifts, grains and livestock to build and expand their economies and societies. This
image has also been replicated in Indian historiography, which has often used the trope of
happy, prosperous, stable and harmonious tribal society in pre-colonial India in its work. In
this broad historiographical context, the study of the encounter of the tribal society with
the colonial economy is ridden with examples of devastation and destitution of tribal people
with the advent of the British. Generally speaking, there has also been a tendency to
regard colonialism as both, an economic and ecological watershed in the history of tribal
economies. While this is true at a very general level, historians differ on the nature of the
colonial impact.
In this Unit we will discuss the nature and different dimensions of the colonial impact on the
tribal economy. Though the term ‘tribal’ is a highly contested one, in this Unit it is used to refer
to people who were dependent, for a large measure, on the forest economy, for their subsistence
from the early 19th century onwards. This means that even if they possessed land and were
engaged in cultivation, a large part of their seasonal income was from forests either in terms of
the sale of non-timber forest produce, or labour for the forest department. Many of these tribal
people lived inside or on the fringes of the forest and their dependence on forests is also a
result of a long term historical process which we will consider in this Unit.

13.2 DEFINING THE PRE-COLONIAL TRIBAL

ECONOMY
It has often been assumed that tribal people and their societies lived in insulated and
secluded enclaves before the advent of the British in India. This means that their economies
and culture was relatively untouched by outside markets and therefore were relatively
closed, egalitarian and prosperous communities. These economies were free of exploitation
because they had no private property and need rather than the profit motive necessitated
their relationships of exchange. In one sense the tribal economy was characterised as
being quite the opposite of peasant agriculture under the colonial rule where the peasants
held individual titles to land, depended mostly on settled cultivation for their livelihoods and
also sold a good part of their produce in the commercial market. But the historical evidence
from many of the areas show that such a notion of the tribal economy in the anthropological
writings of the 1930s was steeped in ecological romanticism.
*Prof. Archna Prasad, Center for Informal Sector and Labour, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
218 New Delhi
In pre-colonial central and northern India one of the main factors that had an impact on both Tribal Societies and
identity and subsistence was the military conflict between ruling elite in both the Maratha Colonial Economy
and Mughal periods. The chieftain societies of different tribes like the Gonds or the Khakkars
or Jats also participated in these conflicts. At the same time the tribals who were peasants
and or gatherers in the forests were forced to support their own chieftains and therefore
formed bands in forests and formed an important part of the chieftains mercenary army. In
this context it is important to remember that the term “tribes” has been used very loosely for
communities which existed in a “pre-class society”. The definition of tribes as “a pre-class
society” was implied in the work of D.D. Kosambi An Introduction to the Study of Indian
History who stated that band and hunting gathering societies were characterised by relations
that were determined by birth and marriage and not necessarily economic activity. However
Kosambi was also quick to point out that these relations were open-ended and changed
according the situation. In keeping with this definition many communities that were later
described as peasants by Britishers were termed tribes by the accounts of the medieval
period. Chetan Singh’s early article (1988) on the role of tribal chieftains in Mughal
administration clearly identified warrior and ruling classes of indigenous kingdoms as superior
tribal linkages. Amongst these were the Jats, the Khakhars, Baluchis and Afghans. In this
vein, the chief feature of their society was not only their blood and kinship line of descent but
also their pastoral and non-sedentary occupational characteristics. In a later article (1995)
Singh is however more categorical about the mention of hunters and gatherers as “primitive”
people. For example he writes of their references in Abul Fazl’s Akbarnama where tribal
people were described as ‘men who go naked living in the wilds, and subsist by their bows
and arrows and the game they kill’. He also argues that the medieval texts show that in the
case of tribals like the Gonds ‘that people of India despise them and regard them outside the
pale of their realm and religion’. Such an identification of tribals as outside the realm of the
sedentary cultivation was contingent upon the development of a system of land administration
which was an important characteristic of the Mughal 16th and 17th centuries and British
regimes of the 19th century. Before that the British perceptions of tribes were conditioned
by their own contingencies. For example the Anglo-Maratha conflicts of the 18th century led
to descriptions of the Gond chieftains as the ‘lords of the rugged hills’ and their subjects as
people who were prone to anarchic behaviour and ‘habitual depredations’. Some of these
depredations were described as ‘ravages of lawless tribes’ who assisted the errant and
‘chaotic’ rulers. We see similar perceptions of the tribes on the northeast frontiers of the
British Rule. Writing about the eastern Naga tribes in the early 19th century Captain Michelle
(1826) said that the Nagas carried on the most profitable trade in slaves and suppressed all
ryots in their neighbourhood. The greed of gain caused endless feuds between villages and
tribes. Similarly K.S Singh’s account of the Jharkhand tribes also shows the wide ranging
changes within the tribal society and economy in the pre-colonial period. There was a spate
of migrations and cultural influences in the early medieval period and this resulted in several
conflicts between the tribal and non-tribal people in the region. Similar trends were also
noticed in Orissa where the migrations by caste Hindu communities led to an increase in
their conflict with tribal people. However, in both these areas it is also mentioned in studies
of pre-colonial tribal polities that the tribals enjoyed a special place within the larger structure
of governance.
On the economic front, tribal polities were, open-ended in that they had relationships with
the larger political economy. Perhaps the most striking example of this is from Jharkhand
where zamindars tied up with traders from Bengal for sale of lac and silk cocoons, one of
the main forest produces of the time. There were state-owned forests which were the
property of the zamindars and where the tribals gave free labour in return for their rights
to forests. K.S. Singh’s account of the Chhotanagpur Raj shows that the role of the tribal
zamindars and rajas in ordering and structuring the economy was an important one.
Even while the tribal aristocracy gave the local residents the rights to use the forest for
their needs, the commercial appropriation of forestlands continued and strengthened the
hold of the traders over non-timber forest produce.
In this context the examples that I give below show how land grants and rights and the
nature of forest cover influenced forest rights and use patterns in the late pre-colonial and 219
Forest and Common early colonial period. In zamindari and jagirdari tracts sub-feudation formed the basis of
relative autonomy of control over forest and land resources by local institutions like tribal
panchayats or headmen. However there were emerging relations of dependence between
the local traders and tribal gatherers of forest produce. The value chains that emerged out
of Hunter’s descriptions (Statistical Account of Bengal, volume xvi-xvii of Forest for
Singhbhum, Manbhum and Hazaribagh districts) show that these were of three kinds.
First, there was the use of the non-timber forest produce for household purposes. The
jungles of the Chhotanagpur plateau were dominated by the sal, asan, palas, mhowa
and amla trees, of which sal was the most prominent specie. The main produce in
mid-19th century was recorded as lac, silk, bee wax, dhaura or sal resin, leaves and
roots. Of these flowers, leaves and roots were also used to supplement the diet of marginal
and small cultivators. They also proved to be the sole food that people had in times of
famine. Apart from this mhowa was used for making toddy and for ritualistic purposes.
Both commercially and culturally important trees and produce were often owned by the
zamindar and the most prominent amongst these was the mhowa tree. Mhowa flowers
were used by tribal people to make their liquor and also in marriage and other ceremonies.
The zamindar collected rent for collection of mhowa seeds and flowers from these trees
even if they stood on the lands of the tribal farmers. In Hazaribagh 2 or 3 small mhowa
trees came for a rupee where as in Manbhum one large tree cost the same amount of
rent. The nature of rent in Manbhum depended on the kind of trees and ranged from 4
annas to 2 or 3 rupees per tree. The saved crop could also vary much in price and
fetched from 2 to 8 maunds of mhowa per rupee, but the exchange with the mahajans
was mostly in kind. They usually gave 3-4 ser of rice and some salt for one maund of
mhowa. The mahajani system was also dominant in the trading of lac and silk cocoons,
and the profits in this trading were quite high even though the propagation of their cocoons
required a high degree of knowledge and competence. The tussar silk cocoon of
Hazaribagh, Manbhum and Lohardaga was reared on the asan tree and its eggs were
collected from the jungle and hatched either in the growers house or in specially erected
huts in the jungle. The system of taxes on the silk propagators differed from region to
region. In Manbhum every silk cocoon rearer paid Rs. 2 or 3 to the landlord. It is estimated
that the landlord collected 300 pounds a year from such rent and the annual estimated
produce was about 750 maunds from 1000 acres of land. In Lohardaga, the silk growers
paid three types of taxes. In Hazaribagh on the other hand the silk growers paid 6-8
annas to the zamindar and the area on which silk was reared was not more than 30
square miles with not more than 5 to 6 asan trees in an acre. This system of rent ensured
that the tribals became dependent of traders for advance payments so that they could pay
their rents. In Hazaribagh the middlemen supported the silk growers who were mostly
Santhals, Kurmis or Goalas while they were watching the cocoons in the forest.
Consequently the growers were obliged to sell their cocoons to these middlemen at
abysmally low rates. The value addition to the cocoons was mostly at the level of small
towns and urban cities. There was hardly any export of silk cloth from the region and
most of the weavers sold their cloth in urban areas or in local haats (periodic markets)
through the mahajans. (Roy, 1999)
As in the case of forests, the domination of tribal aristocracy over the peasants continued
even in the case of agriculture. For example in the Ahom kingdoms of Assam the Raja
considered plough cultivation as the path to progress and facilitated the immigration of
Tai-Ahoms who used the plough as opposed to the jhum cultivation (shifting cultivation;
an age old traditional practice based on ‘slash and burn’ method of cultivation) of the
Chutiya and Kachari tribes. But the structure of taxation was different, instead of monetary
taxes the tribals gave slave labour to their rulers. Much of this labour was used to cultivate
‘good land’ and kheda operation (literally pens or stockades; an enclosure constructed to
capture wild elephants for domestication) for elephant capture. These tribals did not plough
their lands, instead they had developed an indigenous bunding technology, and used hoe to
cultivate local coarse rice. But the system of land management and cultivation was such
that it required the maintenance of community assets. (Guha, 1987) But not all tribals
practised jhum and some like the Jaintia practised a combination of jhum and plough
220 cultivation depending on whether they lived on marginal areas or not. Though there are
many examples of such land revenue extraction from Northeast India, the forms of tribal Tribal Societies and
landholdings varied from one region to the other. An example of this can be seen in the Colonial Economy
constitution of agricultural co-operatives and guilds in Cachar where tribals and non-
tribals co-operated with each other in production processes and the land was under the
control of these guilds. The rest of the land, not under these guilds belonged to the king
and the state and was given out as land grants to the tribal and non-tribal aristocracy.
(Bhattacharjee, 1987)
In the eastern region of Orissa the situation was slightly different where the ex-tribal
Chieftains and Rajas of areas like Bonai and Keonjhar had brought caste Hindu cultivators
to settle on better lands. The immigrants were taxed more heavily than the tribal people
because tribals were considered the original inhabitants of the region. (Mahapatra, 1987)
The situation was similar in the territories of the Bhonsale Raja in Nagpur State where the
Gonds were not tenants or people with land grants like the Brahmins and other castes.
They were people who cultivated land at the pleasure of their chieftain as is reflected in
the piece of iron given to him every year. Access to land and forest was thus, a result of
a privilege granted in return for assistance whenever the ruler required it. Serving in the
Gond Rajah’s army or providing labour as farm or domestic servants were forms of this
assistance. (Prasad, 1999) In the neighbouring areas of the Kondmals, the Konds lived in
the highlands while the Oriyas lived in the plains. But the Oriya Rajas left the Konds to
their own devices and Kond institutions and resource use patterns co-existed with Oriya
ones. (Bailey, 1960)
What is clear from the examples that I have related above is the fact that the tribal
economy was not closed nor was it isolated from the rest of the pre-colonial political
economy in almost all regions of the country. The idea that it was prosperous and egalitarian
is also not true, rather the tribal economies of the pre-colonial era were deeply differentiated
and depended on the expropriation of the labour of poor tribals for their labour. This
differentiation was a result of waves of immigration and consolidation of fiefdoms from
the late ancient and early medieval period onwards. The agro-pastoral systems that emerged
were subjected to wide-ranging changes where tribal people were continuously marginalised
into lands with low productivity. The impact of this process was however conditioned by
a certain amount of autonomy for local institutions as well as a mobility between different
eco-zones. These two crucial factors allowed the tribal people survive the turmoil of the
late pre-colonial period. This autonomy and mobility was constrained in the colonial period.

13.3 NATURE AND PATTERNS OF COLONIAL

DOMINATION IN TRIBAL INDIA
Given the vast expanse of the Indian subcontinent, the penetration and impact of colonialism
variegated in nature. The first area to face British annexation was undivided Bengal and
this was followed by Madras, Punjab, Assam and the Central Provinces. Different land
tenures were introduced in these areas, and these tenure systems also had a differential
impact on rights to forests and other common lands. For most part the British government
declared most common resources and lands to be under the exclusive ownership of the
state especially with the coming of the Indian Forest Act 1865. Similarly the late 19th
century saw the enactment of the Private Forests Acts and Rules in several states where
forests lay in zamindari estates. In these the nature of forest rights granted to tribal
people was different and its implication for the integration of tribal economies into the
colonial system was different from one where the government had direct control over
land and natural resources. These differences led to diverse types of impacts on and
protests from tribal people. They also had a variegated impact on the identity politics of
the regions. In this Section we consider some of the processes and impacts from different
regions of the country.
Permanent Settlement and the Tribal Economy
Many of the tribals of Eastern and Central India resided in the princely and zamindari
estates in the period preceding the annexation of these areas by the British. The first 221
Forest and Common permanent settlement of zaminidaris in tribal areas was done in 1793 after the annexation
of Bengal. Of the permanent settlement areas, Midnapur, Santhal Parganas and
Chhotanagpur plateau had the largest tribal populations. Apart from this there were the
areas of Orissa where a bulk of the zamindaris and princely states were settled after
annexation in 1803. Most of these zamindaris were under forests that were slated for
land reclamation in the early 19th century after the establishment of the Company Raj.
(Sivaramakrishnan, 1999) Ranchi, Manbhum and Singhbhum experiencing vigorous
expansion in the zamindari areas where as Hazaribagh and Palamu had reached a
stagnation point. It is significant to note that the only British territories lay in the districts
of Hazaribagh and Palamu and most of the forest and mineral wealth of these regions
was in private hands. (Mohapatra, 1990) Two types of trends could be noted within the
zamindari systems of these areas. On the one hand there were the landlord villages
where the zamindar enjoyed all rights over wastelands and jungles, and on the other hand
there were the khutkutti villages, or villages where agricultural lands were held jointly by
the founders of the villages. These founders paid nominal tributes to the zamindars and
they also enjoyed exclusive rights over jungles and wastelands. There was also another
system of rights over jungles called Korkar where ordinary rent paying tenants also had
some customary usufruct rights in forests and the exclusive rights to reclaim wastelands.
Thus the forests, on which a major portion of the tribal subsistence was dependent by the
early 19th century, were in private hands with 79% of the village commons being under
private control in undivided Bengal. Similar trends were also found in other areas of
Permanent Settlements like Orissa. Here 66,000 square miles was permanently settled
and 5000 square miles was directly under British control. Here tribals were largely
concentrated in the States of Jeypore, Bonai, and Keonjhar. Some of the only major tribal
areas under British control were the Kondmals and Sambalpur after the 1830s. But unlike
Jharkhand most of these areas were under a single Oriya or tribal Raja who did not follow
a system of sub-feudation. Rather they gave land grants to a number of Kshatriya and
Brahmin people and the tribals were mostly landless labourers in these princely states.
With the coming of the British these states were reduced to status of zamindaris that
owed a tribute or had to pay rent to the British. The settlement procedures were prescribed
by the Britishers and created a land market in the tribal zamindaris. There was thus the
emergence of a rich peasant class of Bengalis who exploited the tribal people for labour.
(Pati, 1993) Similar patterns were also found in the tribal zamindaris and princely states
of Bastar, Central Provinces and Western India. (Sundar, 1997, Guha, 1999)
Land settlements were only one mode of resource control in tribal zamindaris, the second
was management of forests and non-arable land. Tribal zamindaris were mostly situated
on foothills or highlands of thickly forested areas. While it is true that a large portion of
this area was demarcated for cultivation before the mid-19th century, most of the jungles
were privately controlled in most of these regions. This meant that even while the British
government prescribed the rules by which forests were to be worked, the primary benefit
from these forests accrued to the zamindars. In some cases the value of these forests
was quite high and the produce such as honey, silk, lac, and timber had the potential of
yielding good revenue. The exploitation and trade in forest resources increased rapidly
especially after the coming of the Railways. In Chhotanagpur for example Hunter records
that trade of sal timber was controlled by the local mahajans who sold them to the forest
department for a large profit. Officials often noted that the Government derived virtually
no benefit from the forest sector, the major portion of which was appropriated by the
mahajan who only paid a small royalty to the zamindar for the use of his land.
But it was in the case of non-timber forest produce that the tribals were most exploited. In
Manbhum middlemen paid Santhals, Bhumijs, Kharias, Paharias and other ‘weaker’ caste
people advances to rear cocoons. These cocoons were sold at the price of 213 cocoons to
a rupee and were then exported to Bengal. In 1871 the silk exports were estimated at
10,000 pounds. In Lohardaga district the cocoons were sold to the traders for Rs. 5 to 7
per maund and exported to Mirzapur, Benaras, and Patna. In Hazaribagh the middlemen
support the silk growers who are mostly Santhals, Kurmis or Goalas while they were
222 watching the cocoons in the forest. Consequently the growers were obliged to sell their
cocoons to these middlemen at the rate of Rs. 5 or 6 for 1680 cocoons. The banias in turn Tribal Societies and
sold these cocoons to the mahajans for Rs 5 for 1330 cocoons. Then these cocoons were Colonial Economy
exported to Burdwan or Gaya at the price of Rs. 15 per 1000, if the cocoons were sold to
the Tanti banias then the rate was Rs. 5 for 80 cocoons. The Tanti banias are basically
weavers who take out the thread from the cocoons and weave them into small pieces of
silk that they sold to the mahajans at Rs. 8 and 8 annas. The value addition to the
cocoons was mostly at the level of small towns and urban cities. There was hardly any
export of silk cloth from the region and most of the weavers sold their cloth in urban areas
or in local haats through the mahajans. (Roy, 1999) In the case of lac the system was a
little different as the lac was not only collected from Jharkhand but also brought from the
Central Provinces to Ranchi (till the late 19th century) by the mahajans. It was then
processed in the Ranchi Lac Factory before stick lac was exported out of the region. But
whatever the variations in the system of exchange and value chains, the mahajani system
occupied a central position in the tribal areas of colonial Bihar and Orissa. Further it was
not only confined to the non-timber forest produce trade, but was also evident in agriculture
and other spheres of life. The sharp contradictions and differentiation between the local
tribals and outsiders underlined the class contradictions in the permanent settlement regions.
(Mohapatra, 1990; Singh, 1985) This conflict took the form of various uprisings that have
also been well documented in the past by several scholars. (Singh , 1985, Devalle, 1992)
Apart from the growing impoverishment of tribal people there was one other feature of
the colonial zamindari economy vis-à-vis its relationship with the Empire. The British
often used the forests as a site of exercising their power and control. In forestry too,
attempts were made to acquire private forests and enact a Private Forest Bill but these
attempts failed quite badly. At best the zamindari forests could be administered under
Section 38 of the Indian Forest Act. (Sinha, 1979) In Central Provinces too, Rules were
framed for controlling private forests and Forest mahals were constituted for doing this.
All private forests were to ban shifting cultivation and carry out felling in accordance with
the Indian Forest Act. In Bengal too, the 1890s saw the direct control of the forest tracts
in the permanent settlement areas where the British forest department started working
the forests instead of giving them on contract. The process of reservation to be followed
was the same as that of government forest tracts and shifting cultivation was to be banned.
By the turn of the century, the British Forest Department had also imposed its writ over
princely states like Bastar. (Sivaramakrishnan, 1999; Sundar,1997) These measures cut
off the only source of subsistence for the poor tribal people, many of whom had migrated
from government forests into the zamindari areas because the zamindars allowed them
to do shifting cultivation. Thus by the 20th century the difference between Government
owned lands and the permanent settlement areas declined considerably and the impact of
this on tribal life and subsistence was disastrous.

13.4 TRIBAL ECONOMIES IN STATE OWNED

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST LANDS
Perhaps there is no better example than the Central Provinces for describing the sorts of
changes that affected the tribal areas on agricultural and forest lands that were directly
controlled by the British Government. The annexation of the State of Nagpur in 1854 saw
direct intervention in the agrarian system by the colonial regime. This meant that the
principals behind both settlements and forest rights were guided by concerns of revenue
maximisation and administrative convenience. The debate on the settlement question in
the 1830s reviewed the permanent settlement experience of Bengal and Orissa and decided
that Munro’s ryotwari settlements were more appropriate. The thirty-year settlement
was thus seen as a good substitute for Permanent Settlement. It would induce a feeling of
security amongst proprietors without giving them a permanent control over their holdings.
Thus individual land rights were given to cultivators whose revenue was assessed every
3 years so that the government would be able to get the maximum revenue for itself. The
rights of local households over grazing and forests lands were also defined by the land
settlements that initially based themselves on Maratha land records. This naturally meant
223
that most tribal people with the exception of Gonds hardly got any land or forest rights
Forest and Common since their rights were never recorded in the late pre-colonial times. Coupled with this, the
state declared itself the owner of all forests under the Indian Forest Act 1865 and made a
stringent classification of forest lands under the Indian Forest Act 1878.
In this context there were broadly three processes of colonial expansion that impacted on
the tribal people. The first was the process of reclamation of lands for cultivation that led
to severe land alienation amongst the tribal people of the Central Provinces and Kondmals
of Orissa. However patterns differed in both these areas. In the Central Provinces tribal
people were pushed into more and more marginal lands. This had a direct impact on the
status of the aboriginal tenants in the districts like Chanda, Mandla and Bhandara where
80% of the Gond tenants were classed as peasants with some form of debt or the other.
One third were categorised as very poor where as only 20 per cent of the Gond peasants
were free from debts. The Baigas had no land at all and faced indebtedness and hunger.
The settlements of the 1920s had shown that the average size of tribal holdings was
declining more and more. This made the tribals more and more dependent on labour, as
they could not pursue any other occupations because they were ‘educationally and politically
backward’. (Grigson, 1944) By the first quarter of the 20th century the government was
forced to enact the Central Provinces Tenancy Act to prevent the alienation of tribal
lands. In the Kondmals the situation was different as shortages in land led to migration of
Konds in order to search for labour to meet their daily needs. Many of them went of to
work in mines, tea gardens and other places. (Bailey, 1960)
The second major factor influencing the patterns of tribal livelihood was the complete ban
on shifting cultivation in government forests. It is well known that the poorest tribal people
depended on different forms of shifting cultivation for a large part of their nutritional
needs. But with the government take over of forests and the ban over this form of cultivation
the tribals were once again forced to depend on labour for their livelihood. In some areas
like the Central Provinces, they migrated to zamindari areas where they were allowed to
practise this cultivation form till the late 19th century. (Prasad, 1998) However it is important
to remember that this ban was dictated by the strategic needs of the colonial Empire.
Thus in Assam the shifting cultivators in the border areas were not disturbed. However in
the inland area there were tribals who provided important labour opportunities to the
forest department, the taungya system was introduced where tribals were allowed to
practise jhum in a limited way. But this modified the jhum cycle irreparably and led to the
further pauperisation of tribal people. (Malik, 2002) At a different level the labour shortages
due to migration also led to the colonists giving some limited rights for shifting cultivation
in Central India. (Prasad, 1998)
The third major process affecting tribal economies was the penetration of industrial capitalism
in forested areas. Here the focus was not only on felling of timber but more importantly
on the non-timber forest produce which formed an important supplemantry part of tribal
income. The rise in the world demand for minor forest produce led to the influx of European
capital into forested areas and changed the very nature of production relations. The case
studies of lac and tan show that the supply of raw materials to the artisans got curtailed
because tribals started selling forest produce to the foreign firms. This was especially the
case in the case of lac and dyes in Central India. The collection of lac sticks and flowers
for dyeing was an important seasonal occupation where tribals had established links with
artisans. The interference of the managing agencies in these sectors not only weakened
this link but also facilitated the incorporation of local production processes in a colonial
division of labour. Scientific experiments were carried out to either test the social and
technical validity of local knowledge and techniques (as in the case of iron) or to justify
the colonial domination of markets (as in the case of dyes). This was accompanied by the
lack of initiative to invest in the upgradation of local techniques. The incorporation of local
methods of extraction of minor forest produce was conditioned by the logic of colonial
industrial capitalism. Tribal and artisan communities were now providing cheap labour
and raw materials to the European industry. (Prasad, 2002) The process of channelling
this labour was systematised through the creation of forest villages in the late 19th century.
These developments laid the basis for the underdevelopment of the productive forces in
224 the tribal economies.
 Tribal Societies and
13.5 THE COLONIAL IMPACT AND TRIBAL Colonial Economy
RESPONSE
By the 1940s it was sufficiently clear that tribals in most parts of the country had lost their
access and control over all productive resources (land and forests) and village-based
infrastructure that could support their survival. The growing landlessness of tribal people
coupled with their lack of access to forest resources led to the complete breakdown of
the tribal production system and the incorporation of the tribal economy into the larger
colonial and capitalist economy. This incorporation was mainly in terms of different forms
of labour that naturally incorporated the local knowledge and techniques in harnessing
both land and forest resources. The second major impact of the colonial interventions was
on identity formation and the nature of tribal polity. In this Section we consider both these
processes.

13.5.1 From Producers to Labourers

The changing forms of labour employment and the swelling of the tribal labour force was
something that was common to both permanent settlement and government owned areas.
However the forms of labour varied from region to region. In the zamindari areas of
Chhotanagpur, Santhal Parganas, Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Orissa migration became a
way of life. The loss of land coupled with the lack of income or exploitation induced
migration to mining areas as well as tea gardens in Assam. In upper Assam, labour was
procured through an indentured system for the tea gardens whereby labour was recruited
from Chotanagpur, Santhal Parganas, Bihar and eastern United Provinces often by
deceptive and coercive methods involving contractors. Where available without the system,
it was later drawn into the higher-paying petroleum and coal operations. (Bela Malik,
2002; Mohapatra, 1985)
In other areas where such migration did not exist, tribals worked in the forest department
and on the fields of caste-Hindu peasants. However the seasonal nature of on farm
labour ensured that most of the tribals were forced to work primarily for the forest
department in order to earn their livelihood. For example in the Central Provinces the
formation of forest villages in the late 19th century were aimed at providing a continuous
flow of labour to the forest department. The first forest village regulations were issued in
1890. Under these laws forest villages could be established within the limits of any
‘reserved’ forest with the prior consent of the Conservator. The District Commissioner
and the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O) would decide their location. Forest villages
were to be designed solely for the permanent supply of labour and were not to be made
with the intention of extension of cultivation. Lastly forest villages were to be made up of
those communities that were ‘habituated to the extraction of forest produce’. In areas
where there were managing agencies for the extraction of non-timber forest produce the
tribals were employed as labourers to produce lac and silk by cheap and efficient methods.
In most cases local techniques for such propagation were integrated into these colonial
systems of extraction. (Prasad, 1998)
Similar processes were also seen in Assam where the taungya system was in force.
Under this system, the tribals were forced to plant seedlings of teak on forest lands where
jhum was done previously. The tribals would be allowed to sow their jhum crops between
the rows of trees in order to meet their food needs. Tribals were employed in other labour
operations. Reserves and experimental plantations needed extensive labour for clearing,
sawing, transportation, weeding, fire protection and regeneration. This was partly supplied
by seasonal immigration of the tribals (Nagas, Miris, Khamptis, Garos, and others) who
came down in winter between the months of December and March, a relatively slack
period for jhum or shifting cultivation. In Assam, sawyers came from either the Surma
valley or from Nepal in the dry season. The supply of the latter was stalled during the
second world war with an increase in military recruitment of ‘Gorkhas’ and a diversion of
sawyers to other parts of the country. Much of this work would be begar or forced
labour. (Malik, 2002) 225
Forest and Common The conditions of work of tribal people, especially on forestlands were inhuman. In an
enquiry into the condition of forest labourers in Central Provinces Wylie, the Governor of
Bombay, questioned the scale of wages paid to labour for felling and carting and demanded
an early report on the subject. He also spoke of the problem of piece-work when he said
that tribals were made to labour on roads till they were physically in a most unsatisfactory
shape. Thus he concluded that the conditions under which they worked affected their
health adversely. Lastly, the Baigas were exploited by the forest department, as the
department extracted ‘illegal and forced labour’ during harvest and sowing time. The
forest department made the labourers work more than 8 hours a day without paying them
extra money. According to Wylie this was equivalent to the practice of begar. The
department forcefully extracted supplies for visiting forest officials in the forest reserves.
(Prasad, 2002) The situation in Assam was similar where Garos were forced to perform
begar in road building and live in forest villages. (Malik, 2002) Thus we find that almost
throughout the country tribals were converted from producers to providers of cheap labour
and raw materials as a result of colonial interventions.

13.5.2 Modes of Protest and Identity Formation

It is not as if the tribal people of the country were mute spectators to colonial interventions.
The earliest tribal revolts can be traced to mid-19th century with the Kol rebellion. Thereafter
the zamindari areas of Chhotanagpur faced several other rebellions prominent amongst
which was Birsa Munda’s rebellion against the dikus or outsiders in the region. In response
to this movement the British were forced to enact the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in 1885.
(Singh, 1985) Several princely states also saw tribal movements in response to adverse
changes in land and forest management. Prominent amongst these was the Maria rebellion
in Bastar in 1876 and 1910 which was meant to be against police repression and forest laws.
Here too, the slogan was ‘Bastar for Bastaris’ against outsiders. (Sundar, 1997) In all these
cases there was a perception that the Rajas had begun to deprive the tribal people of their
customary rights especially after the advent of the British. It is because of this that tribal
elites led the revolts against the Rajas.
These revolts had a tenuous relationship with the Congress nationalists and often flouted the
norms and values espoused by the dominant tribal elite. One such revolt was the Forest
Satyagraha of the 1930s in the Central Provinces where the Gonds flouted the forest laws
in more than a symbolic way. They also turned violent and so the Congress leadership was
forced to disown the movement. (Baker, 1984) Another movement with tenuous relationship
with Congress Nationalism was the Tana Bhagat Movement of the Oraons in the 1930s that
played an important part in altering the tribal identity in the Chhotanagpur region. The
movement not only impacted upon the process of identity formation of the Oraons but also
led to a process of larger differentiation amongst tribals in the Chhotanagpur agrarian society.
(Dasgupta, 1999) Such assertion of tribal identity, religion and symbolism sometimes led to
movements for separate states from the late 1930s onwards. Tribal leaderships argued that
they would not ensure the balanced development of their area if tribal areas were not given
the status of separate tribal states. Prominent amongst these movements was the one led by
the Adibasi Sabha for a separate Santhal State as well as the movements for independence
in Nagaland and some other parts of the Northeast.
Whereas these organised tribal movements reflected processes of underdevelopment
and unequal exchange, regions with no organised tribal movements also faced another
form of resistance. For example the Baiga of the Central Provinces started migrating
from state owned areas to zamindari areas once their shifting cultivation was banned.
They thus forced the government to form the Baiga Chak in which the government
conceded to them some livelihood rights. However this was only possible because the
Baigas presented themselves as shifting cultivators with ancient rights and customs that
did not allow them to plough land. In reality such a representation was in fact just a way
of negotiating with the British Government. (Prasad, 1998) The Garos refused to put in
the requisite number of days, usually as a part of the settlement, in lieu of ‘privileges and
concessions’ in the forests, after being issued a permit. In 1899, some raiyats of Goalpara
226 refused to render labour in protest against forced labour. (Malik, 2002) Such forms of
every-day protests led to the crystallisation and assertion of tribal identities in a plurality of Tribal Societies and
ways. But whether organised, or unorganised, the tribal movements and forms of protest Colonial Economy
had one thing in common: they reflected the growing unequal exchange between the tribal
economies and the wider regional and national political economy, and the consequent
underdevelopments of these regions. It is this factor that made colonial interventions ‘a
watershed’ in the life and development of tribal people.

13.6 SUMMARY
Studies on pre-colonial tribal societies often romanticize the past. These societies are
referred to as relatively ‘closed and isolated’ but egalitarian. This Unit shows the problems
with such ideas. It shows that tribal societies were not closed and isolated structures.
They were part of a wider economic and political network. Colonial interventions created
a drastic imbalance within the existing tribal structures. Permanent settlement led to the
penetration of rich Bengali peasants into the tribal areas who exploited the tribals to their
advantage. The mahajani system produced further contradictions. The Indian Forest
Act of 1865, restricted tribal access to forests. All this led to clashes, conflicts and even
armed uprisings – Kol, Birsa Munda, Maria, etc. The growing demands of forest produce
across borders encouraged foreign capital to make inroads into tribal areas. Over the long
term, these changes altered the existing production relations and resulted in loss of tribal
control over productive resources to a large extent.

13.7 EXERCISES
1) What was the nature and pattern of tribal economy in the pre-colonial period?
2) Pre-colonial economy was ‘closed and isolated’. Comment
3) Analyze the impact of colonial interventions on tribal economy.
4) Examine the nature of tribal protests and conflicts during the colonial period.
5) What was the implication of the transformation of the tribals from producers to
labourers?

13.8 SUGGESTED READINGS

Bailey, F.G. (1960), Tribe, Caste and Nation, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Baker, David (1984), ‘A Serious time-forest Satyagraha in Madhya Pradesh, 1930’, Indian
Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 21 No. 1.
Bhattacharjee, J.B. (1987), ‘Dimasa State Formation in Cachar’, in Surajit Sinha eds.,
Tribal Polities and State Systems in Eastern and North Eastern India, Calcutta: K.P
Bagchi and Company.
Capt. Michell (1826), North East Frontier of India, Calcutta.
Dasgupta, Sangeeta (1999), ‘Reordering a World: The Tana Bhagat Movement’, Studies
in History, Vol.15, Number 1.
Grigson, W.V. (1944), Aboriginal Problem in the Central Provinces and Berar, London.
Guha, Amalendu, (1987), ‘The Ahom Political System, State formation in Medieval Assam’,
in Surajit Sinha eds., Tribal Polities and State Systems in Eastern and North Eastern
India, Culcutta : K.P Bagchi and Company.
Guha, Sumit (1999), Environment and Ethnicity in India 1200-1991,Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mahapatra, L.K. (1987), ‘Ex-Princely States of Orissa: Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, and Bonai’,
in Surajit Sinha (eds.), Tribal Polities and State Systems in Eastern and North Eastern
India, Calcutta: K.P Bagchi and Company, pp.1-59.
Malik, Bela, 2002 ‘State Forestry’s Labour Regime in North East India c.1860-1970’, 227
Forest and Common presented in International Seminar on Environmental History, JNU: 4-6 December
2002, New Delhi and also in Conservation and Society.
Mohapatra, P.P. (1990), ‘Class Conflict and Agrarian Regimes in Chhotanagpur’, Occasional
Paper, Number XV, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
Mohapatra, Prabhu Prasad (1985), ‘Coolies and Colliers’, Studies in History, Vol.5, No. 3.
Pati, Biswamoy (1993), Resisting Domination; Peasants, Tribals and the National
Movement in Orissa 1920-1950, Delhi : Manohar.
Prasad, Archana (1998), ‘The Baiga: Survival Strategies and Local Economy in Colonial
Central Provinces’, Studies, in History, Vol.14, No.2.
Prasad, Archana (2002), ‘Scientific Forestry and Industrial Capitalism’ in Social Science
Probings, Volume 1 Number 1, December.
Prasad, Archana (1999), ‘Military Conflicts and Forests in Central Provinces, India: Gonda
and the Gondwana Region in Pre-Colounial History’, in Environment and History, Volume, 5,
Number 3.
Roy, Tirthankar (1999), Traditional Industry in the Economy of Colonial India, London:
Cambridge University Press.
Singh, Chetan (1988), ‘Conflict and Conformity, Tribes and the Agrarian Regimes in Mughal
India’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 25.
Singh, Chetan (1995), ‘Forests, Pastoralists and Agrarian Society’, in David Arnold and
Ramchandra Guha ed., Nature, Culture, Imperialism, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Singh, K.S. (1985), Birsa Munda and His Movement, Delhi : Manohar.
Sinha, B.B. (1979), Socio-Economic Life in Chotanagpur, 1858-1935, Delhi : B.R
Publications Corporations.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1999), Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change
in Colonial Eastern India, Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Sundar, Nandini (1997), Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of
Bastar 1854-1996, Delhi : Oxford University Press.

228