Colonialism and the Countryside: Exploring Official Archives — NCERT Solutions

Introduction:
Both the Paharias and the Santhals were tribal communities living in the Rajmahal hills region of eastern India. However, their livelihoods were fundamentally different, reflecting different relationships with the forest and the land.

The Paharias' livelihood:

The Paharias were the original inhabitants of the Rajmahal hills. Their life was intimately and exclusively connected to the forest:

• They were hunters, food gatherers, and shifting cultivators. They practised shifting (slash-and-burn) cultivation, clearing a patch of forest, cultivating it for a few years, and then moving on.
• They were also charcoal producers and silkworm rearers (tassar silk).
• They lived in hutments within tamarind groves and rested in the shade of mango trees.
• They considered the entire forest region as their land — the basis of their identity and survival.
• They resisted settled agriculture and refused to touch the plough. They would not cut forests for permanent cultivation.
• They supplemented their income by raiding the plains and by collecting tolls from traders passing through their hill passes.
• Their chiefs maintained group unity and led the tribe in battles.

The Santhals' livelihood:

The Santhals, who began arriving in the Rajmahal hills around 1800, had a very different relationship with the land:

• They were settled agriculturists who cleared forests to create permanent fields.
• They cultivated a variety of crops including rice, tobacco and mustard.
• They were skilled at land reclamation — zamindars hired them specifically to clear land and extend cultivation.
• Unlike the Paharias, they were willing to cut forests and use the plough.
• They also engaged in trade and commerce, which brought them into contact with moneylenders and traders.

Key Difference:
The fundamental difference was that the Paharias were forest-dependent, mobile, and resistant to settled agriculture, while the Santhals were settled cultivators who cleared forests to create permanent agricultural land. The Paharias saw the forest as their home and identity; the Santhals saw it as land to be transformed into productive fields.

Conclusion:
This difference in livelihood also explains why the British preferred the Santhals over the Paharias. Having failed to turn the Paharias into settled agriculturists, the British turned to the Santhals, who were willing to clear forests and pay revenue — exactly what the colonial government wanted.

Introduction:
The American Civil War (1861–65) had a profound and ultimately devastating impact on the lives of ryots (peasants) in the Bombay Deccan. It first brought a period of apparent prosperity, followed by a severe crisis.

The Cotton Boom (1861–65):

Before the Civil War, America was the main supplier of raw cotton to British textile mills in Lancashire. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, American cotton exports to Britain collapsed — from over 2,000,000 bales in 1861 to just 55,000 bales in 1862. Britain urgently turned to India to fill the gap.

• Soaring cotton prices: As demand for Indian cotton skyrocketed, cotton prices rose dramatically. Ryots in the Bombay Deccan, who grew cotton, suddenly found their produce fetching very high prices.
• Easy credit: Export merchants in Bombay gave advances to urban sahukars, who extended credit to rural moneylenders, who in turn lent to ryots. Credit flowed easily because everyone expected the boom to continue.
• Expansion of cultivation: Ryots expanded cotton cultivation, taking loans to buy seeds, equipment and to pay revenue. They hoped to repay debts from the high cotton prices.
• Illusion of prosperity: For a few years, ryots seemed to be doing well. Some were able to repay old debts.

The Aftermath (after 1865):

When the Civil War ended in 1865, American cotton production revived rapidly. Indian cotton exports to Britain declined sharply and cotton prices fell.

• Credit dried up: Export merchants and sahukars, seeing falling demand and prices, stopped extending credit to ryots and demanded repayment of outstanding loans.
• Increased revenue demand: Simultaneously, the British government revised its revenue settlement, increasing the demand by 50 to 100 per cent. Ryots had to pay more revenue at a time when their income from cotton had fallen sharply.
• Debt trap: Ryots who had borrowed heavily during the boom now found themselves unable to repay. Moneylenders refused new loans. Ryots lost their land, animals and equipment to moneylenders.
• Revolt: The combination of falling prices, rising revenue, mounting debt, and the refusal of moneylenders to extend credit led to the Deccan Riots of 1875, when ryots attacked moneylenders, burnt account books and destroyed debt bonds.

Conclusion:
The American Civil War thus first raised the hopes of Deccan ryots and then dashed them completely. It drew them into a global market economy over which they had no control, left them deeply indebted, and ultimately pushed them to revolt.

Introduction:
Official sources — government reports, commission enquiries, district records, revenue surveys — form the backbone of colonial history. However, historians must use them with great caution, especially when writing about the history of peasants and other subordinate groups.

Problems with official sources:

1. Reflect official concerns and biases:
Official reports are written by government servants to serve government purposes. They reflect the concerns, assumptions and prejudices of the colonial administration. For example, the Deccan Riots Commission was specifically asked to judge whether the government's revenue demand caused the revolt. Predictably, it concluded that the government was not to blame — it was the moneylenders who were responsible. This shows a persistent reluctance to admit that popular discontent was caused by government action.

2. Exaggeration and distortion:
The Fifth Report on Bengal, for instance, exaggerated the collapse of zamindari power and overestimated the scale of zamindari land loss. Recent research using zamindari archives and local records has shown that the Fifth Report's picture was distorted because it was written to criticise the Company's administration.

3. Silencing of subaltern voices:
Official sources record the perspective of officials, not of peasants. The voices, experiences and interpretations of peasants are largely absent. When peasants do appear, it is usually as objects of administration — as rebels to be suppressed, as revenue-payers in default, or as victims to be protected.

4. Specific agenda:
Every official report is written with a specific purpose — to justify a policy, to respond to a crisis, to present a particular argument to Parliament. This shapes what is included, what is left out, and how evidence is interpreted.

5. Language and terminology:
The language used in official reports often reveals the prejudices of the writers. Terms used to describe peasants or tribal communities can reflect colonial stereotypes rather than reality.

6. Limited perspective:
Officials who wrote reports often had limited knowledge of the communities they were writing about. They relied on interpreters, local informants, and their own assumptions, all of which could distort the picture.

How to overcome these problems:

Historians must:

• Read official sources critically, always asking who wrote them and why.
• Cross-check official sources with non-official sources — newspapers, petitions, oral traditions, zamindari records, legal documents.
• Look for the voices of peasants themselves in petitions, testimonies before commissions, and other documents.
• Be aware of what official sources deliberately omit or distort.

Conclusion:
Official sources are invaluable for reconstructing the history of colonial India, but they must always be read with care and juxtaposed with other forms of evidence. As the examples of the Fifth Report and the Deccan Riots Commission show, official sources can mislead as much as they illuminate.

Areas described in this chapter to be marked:

1. Bengal (including Dinajpur, Burdwan/Bardhaman) — area of the Permanent Settlement and jotedar-zamindar conflicts.
2. Rajmahal Hills (present-day Jharkhand) — area of the Paharias and Santhals; Damin-i-koh region.
3. Bhagalpur (Bihar) — area surveyed by Francis Buchanan.
4. Bombay Deccan — specifically Poona (Pune) district (village of Supa) and Ahmednagar district — area of the Deccan Riots of 1875.

Additional areas for Permanent Settlement:
The Permanent Settlement was introduced in 1793 in:

• Bengal, Bihar, Orissa (Odisha)
• Parts of northern Madras (Andhra region)

Areas under Ryotwari System:
The Ryotwari system (where revenue was settled directly with the ryot/peasant, without a zamindar intermediary) was prevalent in:

• Bombay Presidency (Maharashtra, Gujarat, parts of Karnataka)
• Madras Presidency (Tamil Nadu, most of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala)
• Assam

Note on map work: Students should obtain a blank outline map of the Indian subcontinent and:

• Mark Bengal, Bihar, Orissa with one colour/symbol for Permanent Settlement.
• Mark Bombay and Madras Presidencies with another colour/symbol for Ryotwari.
• Mark the Rajmahal Hills specifically for the Paharia/Santhal content.
• Mark Poona and Ahmednagar for the Deccan Riots.
• Add a legend/key explaining the symbols used.

Project Guidelines:

About Francis Buchanan:
Francis Buchanan (later Hamilton) was a Scottish physician and geographer who conducted extensive surveys of eastern India in the early 19th century on behalf of the East India Company. His surveys covered districts of Bengal, Bihar, and other parts of eastern India. His 'Journal of Francis Buchanan Kept During the Survey of the District of Bhagalpur' (1930) is one of the most important sources for the social and economic history of the region.

How to approach the project:

Step 1 — Select a report:
Choose one of Buchanan's district surveys (e.g., Bhagalpur, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Shahabad). These are available in major libraries and some are digitised online.

Step 2 — Collate information on rural society:
While reading, note down information on:

• Land and agriculture: Types of crops grown, methods of cultivation, quality of soil, extent of cultivated and uncultivated land.
• Social structure: Zamindars, jotedars, ryots, landless labourers — their relative positions and relationships.
• Tribal communities: Buchanan's observations on Paharias, Santhals, and other forest communities — their livelihoods, customs, and relationship with outsiders.
• Economy: Trade, markets, moneylending, prices.
• Colonial attitudes: Note how Buchanan describes 'development', 'improvement', and 'civilisation' — what do these terms reveal about his colonial perspective?

Step 3 — Analyse how historians use such texts:

• As primary sources: Buchanan's surveys provide detailed, first-hand observations of rural society at a specific moment in time. Historians use them to reconstruct the social and economic conditions of early colonial India.
• Cross-referencing: Historians cross-check Buchanan's observations with other sources — zamindari records, revenue reports, oral traditions — to verify and nuance his account.
• Reading against the grain: Since Buchanan was a colonial official with specific ideas about 'improvement' and 'development', historians read his texts critically, looking for what he reveals despite his biases. For example, his description of Paharia life, though condescending, provides valuable information about their livelihoods.
• Identifying silences: What does Buchanan not say? Whose voices are absent? This helps historians identify the limitations of official sources.

Step 4 — Write the report:
Organise your findings under thematic headings (land, social structure, tribal communities, colonial attitudes). Conclude with a section on how historians can and should use such texts — both for the information they contain and for what they reveal about colonial ways of seeing.

Conclusion:
Buchanan's surveys are invaluable historical sources, but like all official sources, they must be read critically. They tell us as much about the colonial mindset as they do about rural society in eastern India.

Project Guidelines (Oral History Project):

This is an oral history project. The following guidelines will help you conduct it effectively.

Step 1 — Preparation:

• Identify a rural community near your school or home.
• Prepare a list of questions to ask. Suggested questions:
• What crops do you grow today? What did your parents/grandparents grow?
• How do you earn your livelihood? Has this changed?
• Do you own the land you cultivate? Did your family always own it?
• What was the role of moneylenders in the past? Do you still borrow money? From whom?
• How has the village changed in the last 75 years (roads, electricity, schools, hospitals)?
• What do your children/grandchildren do? Have they moved to cities?
• What are the biggest problems facing farmers today?

Step 2 — Conducting interviews:

• Talk to at least 3–5 older people (ideally above 60 years of age).
• Take notes or, with permission, record the conversation.
• Be respectful and patient. Let people speak in their own words.
• Also visit the fields and observe what is being grown and how.

Step 3 — Analysing findings:
Look for patterns and changes across the interviews:

• Changes in crops: Have farmers shifted from food crops to cash crops? Why?
• Changes in land ownership: Has land been fragmented? Have some families lost land?
• Changes in credit: Are moneylenders still important, or have banks and cooperatives replaced them?
• Migration: Have young people moved to cities? What impact has this had?
• Technology: Has mechanisation changed farming? What are its effects?

Step 4 — Writing the report:
Structure your report as follows:

• Introduction: Describe the village/community and explain your methodology.
• Historical background: What was farming like 75 years ago (based on interviews)?
• Changes over time: Document the changes in crops, land ownership, credit, and livelihoods.
• Present situation: Describe the current state of farming and rural life.
• Conclusion: Reflect on what has changed and what has remained the same. Connect your findings to the themes discussed in this chapter (land, debt, colonial legacy).

Note on methodology:
Oral history is a valuable historical method that gives voice to people who do not appear in official records. However, oral accounts must be cross-checked with other sources (land records, census data, newspaper reports) since memory can be selective or inaccurate. Note any contradictions or gaps in the accounts you collect.