Colonialism and the Countryside: Exploring Official Archives

The jotedars became powerful because they were rich peasants who had acquired vast areas of land, sometimes several thousand acres. They also controlled local trade and moneylending, so they had economic power over poorer cultivators. Much of their land was worked by sharecroppers who gave them half the produce. Since jotedars lived in the villages, unlike many zamindars who lived in towns, they had direct control over poor villagers. They could mobilise dependent ryots, resist zamindari attempts to raise revenue demand, and even buy estates when zamindaris were auctioned. All this made their power in rural Bengal stronger than that of the zamindars in many places.

Zamindars managed to retain control by using fictitious sales and other manipulations. For example, the Raja of Burdwan first transferred some property to his mother, because women’s property was not to be taken over. Then his agents manipulated auctions: they bought the estate, did not pay the purchase money, forced resale, and repeated this until the estate was bought back cheaply by the zamindar’s men. Zamindars also used lathyals to attack outsiders’ agents, and many ryots resisted outsiders because they felt loyal to their own zamindar as their proja or subject. Thus, even when estates were auctioned, zamindars often remained in effective control.

The Paharias responded to outsiders with suspicion, hostility, and resistance. They often became apprehensive and unwilling to talk to officials, and sometimes deserted their villages. They resisted intrusion into their forests and lands, and when colonial pressure increased, they withdrew deeper into the hills to protect themselves. They also continued to raid the plains when necessary, both for survival and to assert their power over settled communities. In short, they did not accept outsiders passively; they resisted them through withdrawal, raiding, and refusal to give up their way of life.

The Santhals rebelled because they found that the land they had cleared was slipping away from them. The colonial state imposed heavy taxes on their land, moneylenders (dikus) charged high rates of interest and took over land when debts were not repaid, and zamindars began asserting control over the Damin area. The Santhals had earlier been encouraged to settle and cultivate, but later they faced oppression from all sides. By the 1850s they felt they had to rebel against the zamindars, moneylenders, and colonial rule to create an ideal world for themselves.

The anger of the Deccan ryots came from indebtedness, harsh revenue demands, and the oppressive practices of moneylenders. Revenue was high and difficult to pay, especially when harvests failed and prices fell. To pay revenue, ryots had to borrow, but then debt kept mounting. Moneylenders charged high interest, refused loans when ryots needed them most, and used bonds, deeds, and false accounts to trap peasants further. They often did not give receipts, entered fictitious figures, and took peasants’ harvest and property. What enraged ryots was also the sense that moneylenders were violating customary norms of fairness, especially the idea that interest should not exceed the principal.

Many zamindaris were auctioned after the Permanent Settlement because zamindars regularly defaulted on revenue payments. The Company had fixed a high and invariable revenue demand, but the demand was often too heavy. Agricultural prices were low in the 1790s, so ryots found it hard to pay rent, making it difficult for zamindars to collect revenue. Revenue had to be paid punctually, and under the Sunset Law failure to pay by sunset of the due date made the estate liable to auction. The Permanent Settlement also restricted zamindars’ power to manage their estates, so their financial position weakened further. As unpaid balances accumulated, the Company auctioned estates to recover its revenue.