The Pastoralist Gujars
and the Impact of Agro-social Transformation Through British Colonialism in the
19th Century Doab
(dt.: Das Hirtenvolk der Gujars im Spannungsfeld der agrosozialen
Transformation durch die britische Kolonialmacht im Doab des 19.Jahrhunderts)
Jürgen Krämer / Hagen 1993
zurück,
drucken und download mit Browser-Button !
1.
Introduction:
The British colonialism´s history alone is a very complex problem even in the
territorial and temporal enclosure here (Doab, 19th century),
moreover while being connected to the question of agro-social transformation.
The difficulties then multiply by taking into consideration a pastoral group.
Receivable informations on Gujars are not only seldom (if not mainly their
warlike contribution to the `mutiny´1 is considered) and widespread,
they are also inconsistent and refractory to simple ranging and judging (what is
valid for Indian society in general).
Both
bases in a euro-centric framed source material and investigation: So it is
clear, that an agro-exploiting orientated colonialism would not leave too much
statistics or balances regarding cattle-breeders´ activities. Likewise reduced,
conventional research notices the complex and heterogeneous social structure of
a because of its pastoral character anyhow marginally recognized culture,
what could be easily exemplified along the until now not cleared
question, whether the Gujars are a tribe or a caste. The Atlas Of Tribal
India:
The
Gonds, for example, are a `scheduled´ tribe in Madhya Pradesh, but a `scheduled´
caste in Uttar Pradesh. Such a discrimination is further accentuated in the case
of transhumant groups like the Gujjars in north-western India. A Gujjar Bakarwal
Kafila, for example when pasturing in Himachal Pradesh during the summer belongs
to the `scheduled´ category, the same group loses this status in its winter
pastures on the Jammu plains.2
Here
the next problem occurs: The necessity to require knowledges on pastoral
societies out of the Doab3 and, after serious examination, to transfer that onto
the Gujars - in order to win results on the whole. Despite all aggravations we
should have a try on that subject, dividing it into three parts, the periods
before, while and after the `mutiny´; beginning with a view on Gujar history
and presence at the time of the assumption of colonial power by the British,
i.e. the East India Company (EIC) in the Doab.
2.The
Gujars...
2.1.
- before the `mutiny´
2.1.1.
Gujar history and presence at that time in general
“The
early history of this tribe is obscure”, is said by Eric Stokes.”They
boasted a western or `Punjabi´ origin”.4 Also
The Gujars here are classified, besides Jats, Ahirs, Malis and Minas as a so-called middle caste with an agro-social rank also in the middle: “Petty producers who were more or less self-sufficient inasmuch as they did not hire out or hire in labour [...] They formed the single largest section of the peasantry”11, called gaveti-palti. Below there were wandering smallholders, selling a part of their labour and/or renting agricultural implements or animals, often used as substitute for ran-away peasants: the pahis. The deepest class consisted of low-casted, landless workers, satisfying the “labour needs of the entire landowning peasantry”12. To the latter belonged, as the gaveti-palti but above them, the “owners of large family holdings,[...] characterized by a moderate hire of labour, leasing out of livestock and equipment that yielded a relatively large income”13, who derived from the higher-casted Brahmans, Rajputs and Mahajans, the gharuhalas. Finally and above them all throned an elite of “large scale producers who depended entirely on hired labour”14: the khudkashta. They enjoyed the lowest revenues, the next-ranking group also was relatively softly taxed, the gaveti-palti however had the highest rate - and therefore contributed collectively as well as individually the far most to the state´s tax receipt. A conversion from the higher into one of the lower taxed landholdings was strictly forbidden. Nevertheless the barriers were not totally unpermeable: especially the pahis often descended from the deprived part of the middling ranks.
On
the other hand “namely the Jats, the Gujars, the Gojhas and the Minas”15
recruited Zamindars too. Whether petty producers, big owners or Zamindars -
altogether the Gujars won a remarkable weight as landowners, reflected in the
above characterization as “important land-controlling element”. As genuine
cattle-breeders they moreover show the specific differences to the farming
majority of the upper Doab´s country-people: a high need of pasture ground, a
culturally stipulated sort of nomadic freedom, a certain disdain concerning
agricultural labour, the latter however being done additionally in cases of
necessity. C.A.Baily, Stokes´ editor, characterizes the Gujars in a pregnancy
proper for a provisional résumé as “semi-nomadic caste of cattle-keepers,
pastoralists, and petty cultivators living in a wide swathe of country from
Rajasthan through the upper Doab.”16
2.1.2.
The course of colonization in general
The
British colonialism´s grip setting in in the Doab at the beginning of the 19th
century through the EIC now leads to very considerable
distortions in the hitherto economically balanced agro-social structure. A first
inventory by the EIC in 1807/8 concluded, that agriculture is basically stable
and its production could be even much increased. As early as 1803 she had
demanded investing support to plant cotton, thus already indicating the
direction: By means of revenue- and subsidy-politics agro-production should be
intensified, aiming at worldmarket profitable cash crops like cotton, indigo and
sugar-cane. Where this pole-changing of hitherto worldmarket independent local
subsistence-economies faced indigenous resistance, they were flanked by penal
and military prosecution. Indeed, tilled land has three decades later grown by
20 % on the whole: the cash crop area multiplied by two and a half, wheras the
food crop area mounted up by 12 % only. The real quota of the
Beyond that, the up to 70 % destruction of the indigenous dhak-wood within the
first 50 years of British rule (to gain arable land, also charcoal, and as a
means against resistant groups being active until far into the 1820s) led to
severe ecological postponements like an increase in temperature and rainfall
absence, groundwater decrease, erosion and salinisation. Finally the
displacement of the original landowners, tribes and clans (from which in the
early 1850s the very most were disappeared) by capitalized citizens, heirs to
their revenue-insolvent predecessors, meant no less than the traditonal social
obligations (infrastructure, wells, food in times of necessity, supply storage,
protection against enemies etc.) being removed too - with inevitably
catastrophic consequences in periods of drought. As for instance in 1837/38 the
ecological balance (Ganges and Jamna lost more than one third of their water, the
groundwater-level partially fell about 5 meters), agriculture and commerce
collapsed, there died over one million people and millions of others fled the
Doab. Thus it is easy to be seen, that the colonial grip -although not directly
turned against cattle-breeding Gujars, but aimed at the coercion of
export-orientated cash crop production- nevertheless must have had striking
effects on them too. How did those look like?
2.1.3.
Colonial transformation and its pressure towards pastoralism
First
of all its ecological consequences heavily effected the pastoralist basics:
grass and water. The comparison of two maps, shown in a study by Michael Mann17a,
proves the regions of dhak- or grass-jangal approximately halved between around
1800 and 1850. Although Mann refers to the Central Doab, the balance ought to be
transferable at least in its tendencies to the Upper Doab18. Mann
himself writes: ”The changes of vegetation have been in the Central Doab, but
also in large parts of northern India and the whole subcontinent under
[...]British rule[...]before the 1857/58-uprise, by far bigger than during the
subsequent period.”19 Where the grass did not disappear at all, its
quality worsened: It has “in former days grown so high, that it could be used
as roofing material. Now however, because of the lacking rain it is so short,
that hardly the animals could be feeded with.”20 Of course “the
clearing of dhak- and of grass-jangal regions to expand the cash crop economy”
was used directly too, thus “leading to a further progressing
salinisation...and so contributing to a form of desertification”21.
The scarcity of water
On the other hand the colonial tax-political means tending to transform a
self-sufficient subsistence economy into a cash crop economy, directly
influenced the Gujar´s situation by “taxing pasture-land as high as fertile
arable land[...] and by introducing a landed property along its european
judicial code, thus urging settledness”22. There are three
important aspects in here, worth while being deepened: an arising
european-modelled land-market, the preference of settledness, the antagonism
between settled farmers and nomadic cattle-breeders. According Manns hint “in
precolonial times[...] land property[...] has been secondary in importance as
long as there was plenty of land and land not forming a commercial object”23.
Or in Jacques Pouchepadass´ words: “There was plenty of arable land
available: it was labour, not land, that was scarce”24. “When the
British arrived”, he continues, “land transfers were of rare occurence, and
when they did take place they belonged rather to the political than to the
economic sphere[...].In a word, the land market did not exist”25.
Thomas R.Metcalf also describes the precolonial agrosystem as a “complex web
of customary rights, in which the states and each of the various individuals
connected with the
Undoubtable, the corresponding new fiscal rights, enforced by all means of legal
authority if need be, induced several complications and sociohierarchic
shiftings, although the widespread and irreversible establishment of a veritable
land market took some time: “In the course of the nineteenth century, a
regular land market did effectively take shape, though in a slow and uneven
fashion. [Not until] after the mutiny, as the volume of land transformations and
the trend of land prices conclusively show, a real open market for land began to
take shape“28,as Pouchepadass points out in his valuable study.
Nonetheless the preference of settled cash croppers inflicted the
cattle-breeding Gujars from the very beginning:
“A lot of little and middle
cattle-breeders could not bring up their revenue money and became victims of
`efficiency rationalization´, economy as a whole thus commercialized, because
after their terms of revenue payment run out, people had to sell or slaughter
parts of the herds“29
Even at the landholding´s level the Gujars belonged to the “chief
loosers” group, as Eric Stokes exemplified by balancing the “alienations of
land” in the district of Saharanpur: The Gujars were mentioned as such in 10
out of 15 parganas30. “These people, lately lords of the grazing
grounds and denizens of a mobile economy, found there local dominance challenged
by the settlement of regular peasant cultivators as the arable land fitfully
expanded[...] a classic example of the very general conflict between farmer and
herdsmen“31. It should be added, that the virtual titles of posession
in this jerky expanding arable land nearly inevitably went into the hands of
“tax farmers, petty revenue collectors, bankers, moneylenders, and traders
first at auctions of the rights of delinquent revenue payers and later through
moneylending activities”32. “70 % of the purchasers of land
[until 1850]”, Bernhard S.Cohn figured out with meticulosity, “were
urban[...] Over two third of the revenue came from estates whose purchasers
lived over ten miles away [60 % even resided farer than 20 miles]”33.
Moreover, Cohn notices a striking example of possible reactions “from
disposessed zamindars. In 1816[...] there were 15800 Rajputs in Jaunpur who had
lost their lands and who were under arms against the government and auction
purchasers”34.
2.1.4.
Effects and feedbacks
Such
massively concerted violent actions answering the beginning deprivations, are
not to be noticed concerning the Gujars before the `mutiny´. More easily “a
big number emigrated[...] The mountain regions often were the only possibility
to emigrate to. In this different environment however, the cattle could not
bring up the former output”, thus again aggravating the Gujars´ situation.
“In the villages left by Ahirs and Gujars, food supply deteriorated because
the milk products became scarce and expensive”35. Where the Gujars
did not migrate they had to face "that the balance between pastoralism and
agriculture had been decisively tilted against them[...] `The last to choose the
settled ground´ found themselves forced away from the old cattle raising and
cattle lifting life towards the boredom and degradation of the plough"36.
The like, a second measure, normally applied only very occasionally, grew
popular, explained by Elizabeth Whitcombe: “Gujars[...] derived their regular
livelihood from grazing and from the sale of thatching grass, and their food
supply from rabi grains[...] When conditions prevented cultivation, they could
resort to cattle thieving”37. So the Gujars increasingly fell back
upon their traditional, but criminal expedient of theft. Adding the warlike
tendency deriving from their quasi-Rajput status, completed the material to
deliver the colonial historians´ image of the Gujars as notorious
troublemakers, thieves, and lazy-bones which was contrasted with the positive
example of the “sturdy Jats” who diligently, skilfully, and loyally
practiced that “industrious
Finally a lot of deprived Gujars found “employment as watchmen and
policemen” in the towns (where some of them discovered “urban crime as a
secondary occupation”)40 - especially as such they were to become
the decisive agent to transport the at first very limited sepoy mutiny into the
rural hinterland.
2.2.
The Gujars during the `mutiny´
2.2.1.
The uprise´s background and development in general
The
mutiny itself, which ist to be examined in general before we focus the Gujars´
role in there, quite characteristically began in units consisting of “Rajput
and quasi-Rajput pastoralist tribes”, who in military service had recognized
“one outlet[...] in a world going awry”41 to “avoid being
degraded from cattle-breeders down to ploughing farmers”42.
“Apart from enlisting in the regular regiments of the EIC´s army, they also
filled the ranks of the local Haryana Light Infantry and 14th Irregular
Cavalry. It was the outbreak among these troops[...] that touched of
rebellion”43.
As already exemplified by the Jaunpur Rajputs, the colonialism-induced decline
of this hitherto leading class has been enormous. The like “the Bangar-Rajputs´
posessions were reduced steadily[...] after 1833, 1868 they had sunk to the
status of mere cultivators”44.
Same as the middle-ranked cattle-breeding Ahirs and Gujars, also “Rajputs[...]
often had no other possibility but to emigrate.”45 Likewise
characteristic, “the main region of the sepoys´ uprise” forming a roughly
equilateral triangle, includes with Awadh, Jhansi and Nagpur just those estates
who had been annected by the British in the 1850s46. Results for
instance: “In Awadh the immediately installed anti-talukdar-settlement had
disastrous effects to the social structure. The deprivation of not only the
local magnates set in within shortest time”47. Also a certain
feeling of collective humiliation by mere annexion must have had contributed to
heat up Rajput psychosphere.
The mutiny of a big part of the troops at once was joint by deprived or
threatened citizens, before particularly the Gujars carried the torch of
rebellion into the rural regions. The rebellion however “consisted according
to lacking organisation of a number of noncoordinated local uprises”48,
which “seriously menaced [British rule in India] for some months”49, that´s
true. Medium term however, the successive crush of all the different rebelling
crowds by British, loyal Indian or new recruited Sikh troops50 could not be much
more than a matter of time. Indeed fire of uprise was under control within one
year. Moreover it has to be stated, that the uprise was neither revolutionary
nor singular or -in spite of all its widespread contributors- common. Rather it
should be qualified as a planless spontaneous reaction towards the dramatical
political, economical, and social detoriations in northern India. “The various
discontents” of most different concerned groups as “princes and mercenaries,
landlords and farmers”51, traders, craftsmen, and herdsmen in a
certain situation bundled up to a rebellion, which not differed principally but
in its vehemence and dimension from “the lot of local uprises in the decades
before”52. Yet there remained not few Indians from
2.2.2.
Character and heterogeneity of Gujar participation
First
we are interested in those Gujars, urbanized as policemen, watchmen and/or petty
criminals: In Meeerut
urban riot was quickly suppressed [.../i.a. because the rebels marched
towards Delhi in the same night], but the shock waves of disturbance ran through
the countryside. The communicators were the Gujars. Their villages ringed the
city and cantonment, and they filled the ranks of the police[...] their blue
uniforms were observed amongst the ranks of the rioters53. Like their brethren
around Delhi[...] they formed the natural carriers of violence to the
countryside. Their action and that of other turbulent communities like the
Muslim Rangars54 unsettled the entire upper Doab[...] Gujar turbulence spilled
over on to the far banks of the Jumna and Ganges, into the Ambala district (of
the Punjab province), and into Bijnaur and Moradabad in Rohilkand. Indeed, it
was a striking feature of the upper Doab that rural disturbance at first
outpaced military mutiny55.
Obviously,
the hinterland Gujars, inspired by their urban kinship, were not less ready to
rebell as the Rajputs in the army - they on the contrary even surpassed them at
first. Of course it is not possible here to examine all details and facets of
Gujar contributions to the uprise. Nevertheless some qualifications and
completions should be made, following for instance C.A.Bayly´s hint, that Gujar “magnates and villages -especially those beginning to settle to secure
agriculture- held aloof from revolt while those Gujars who did plunder were as
much a menace to the lines of supply of the insurgents and the King of Delhi as
they were to British communications“56. Unfortunately, Bayly fosters
the impression that Gujar rebellion regularly turned out as wild plundering
immediately after “the police and the military had disintegrated”57,
whereas many examples on the contrary show, that their élan and their staff
throughout was effectively compatible with the insurgent troops´ plans. As
“many colonial officials” also Bayly imputes the “addiction to plunder”,
although avoiding the term “criminal tribe”. In writing that “the notion
that the Gujars were the prime force for revolt[...] had much more to do with
the desire of officialdom to preserve the reputation of the `sturdy´ Jat
peasant farmer”58 he associates plunder and criminality with revolt, even if
in the foreground defending the Gujars as not less loyal than the Jats (the
latter indeed also taking part in rebellion). The uprise´s rural component thus
transforms into “plunder” and “looting”.
Stokes
in this concern uses the term “autonomous peasant jacquerie in the
countryside” (on the one hand, on the other “the capture of key urban
centres by the mutineers“, both having to be connected by “political leadership
supplied from the magnate class”59 in order to gain victory), which
also sounds slightly negative but not as derogatory as Bayly´s plunder . Stokes
accordingly differentiates two phases: an “initial stage” of “violent
release of social tensions[...], necessarily heterogeneous and random”,
potentially turning against hated neighbours, money-lenders, grain-speculators,
or EIC-representatives, and a “second stage[...] from discrete disorder to
formed rebellion[...] overcoming such extreme particularism by wider political
alignments and alliances”60. Stokes´ states: “The initial
response of formerly dominant pastoral groups like the Gujars[...] was to sack
the neighbouring small towns, which offered loot as well as symbolizing the
world that had undone them[...] The Gujars [stormed] Sikandarabad and
Bulandshar“61. Exemplifying just the Bulandshar district, rebelling
Gujars are prooved having strongly participated in the uprise´s second phase
too, where they reinforced the rebel army of Nawab Walidad Khan of Malagargh:
“His army of 400 cavalry and 600 infantry was backed by `about 1000 insurgent
Gujars and Rajputs´”62. Moreover, the Sikandarabad and the
Bulandshar assault seem to have been coordinated between Walidad and Gujars
before.62a
Das sind erst ca. 50 % des Textes. Wer eine Kopie des Gesamten, incl. der Nachweise, Karten, Fußnoten, Literaturliste und Inhaltsübersicht erhalten möchte, schreibt eine eMail und überweist (bzw. schickt gerne auch per Post in Briefmarken) dazu den Unkostenbeitrag in Höhe von 15 € (oder 18 € für die deutschsprachige Version) auf IBAN DE64500105175430108222. Rückadresse nicht vergessen!