20 Tribal policy and governance in British India

Prof.Pranshu Prakash

Content of This Unit

• Background
• Three phases of the tribal interface with the colonial state
• Colonial discourse about the tribal way of life and progress
• Forest laws and forest ‘crimes’
• Resistance
• Conclusion

Background

Wanton exploitation and destruction of forest resources has a history that may be traced back to the colonial period. As the colonial power established itself as the supreme territorial power in the subcontinent by mid nineteenth century, it proceeded, in the wake of industrial revolution back home, to establish firm control over the valuable resources that produced raw material for its fast expanding industries. It is within this framework that the genesis of the colonial forest policy and governance of the tribal communities must be placed.

One obvious impediment to the ‘efficient’ exploitation of the rich forest resources of the subcontinent were the tribal communities which lived within them and drew sustenance through the use of its resources, and it was inevitable that sooner or later the colonial state would enter into conflicts with them over the control of these resources. It was equally inevitable that given the significance that the colonial state attached to its modern bureaucratic virtues of efficiency, regularity and uniformity, in due course of time it would move ahead from the initial practice of sporadic conflicts with the indigenous communities to wrest their resources towards devising a well defined policy.

Three phases of the tribal interface with the colonial state

David Arnold, in the context of his study of the ‘rebellious hill men’ of the Eastern Ghats identifies three distinct, though overlapping phases of the colonial interface with the forest dwelling communities. The first phase, primarily in the pre mid nineteenth century was marked by conflicts between the colonial state and the local elites for suzerainty over these areas. During this period the contest was not so much over resources as it was over the control of sovereignty. In the second phase starting approximately in the mid nineteenth century, the colonial state began attempts to enter the forest economy and introduce institutions of governance like the like court, police state, rule of law etc. This was accompanied by the building of roads to facilitate the entry of contractors, traders and moneylenders in order to facilitate the exploitation of forest resources. Such attempts, exposed for the first time, the seemingly autonomous world of the forest dwellers to the modern market forces that now threatened to compete and destroy their traditional modes of subsistence. The second phase was therefore marked by a relatively more intense acrimony and conflict over the control of forests and in this phase the rank and file of the indigenous community too joined hands with their traditional elite to resist the penetration of the colonial state into their traditional homelands. The third phase was marked by an intensification of these existing conflicts but a new element was added to it- now these conflicts began to draw the attention of an evolving nationalist leadership that began attempts to harness these struggles to the cause of a nationwide anti-colonial struggle and link it with the struggles of other sections of the sub continental society oppressed and exploited by the colonial state. Arnold argues that such attempts on part of the new nationalist leadership overall remained unsuccessful that the ingenuousness resistance remained essentially local and territorial (Arnold, David, ‘rebellious hillmen: the gudem-rampa risings, 1839-1924. In subaltern studies: writings on south Asian history and society, vol. 1, ed. Ranajit Guha. Delhi: Oxford University press.)

Colonial discourse about the tribal way of life and progress

However if we shift our focus away from the localities and assume the perspective of the colonial state, it becomes evident that in the face of a rising liberal opposition both within the subcontinent and back home, it was no longer possible for the colonial state to base its control of the forests and dispossession of the indigenous population upon the ruthless force alone. Simultaneously, it also felt the need to device an episteme to justify the divestment of the indigenous control upon forests.

Most significant in this regard was the deployment of the discourse of progress. Forest management and forestry were constituted as technical subjects beyond the realm of politics. Having proclaimed its stated goal as the improvement of the colonies, the colonial bureaucracy averred that the regulation of forests was a constituent of this eventual objective and that it would not brook politicking or debates regarding this matter. Progress in this regard could be achieved only through the application of the latest developments in botany and other related sciences and technologies and hence this subject must lie outside the purvey of public representatives or career politicians whose understanding regarding these matter could at best be rudimentary. The colonial government at all times maintained that it was merely holding these various resources in custody, to be passed on to the natives when they achieve the same civilizational state as the colonizers. But till then they would have to be educated; and this civilizational task was being born by the white man and the colonial state was the instruments through which this ‘white man’s burden’ was being borne. In the hierarchy of civilizations, according to the British, tribals were placed at the bottom, i.e. ranked as ‘savages’ whereas they themselves were at the apex of this order. Consequently it was argued that the forest dwellers, as learners, still in the process of being civilized needed not freedom but good laws and so the colonial state was to play the role of not an arbiter of freedom but that of a benevolent despot and the colonial bureaucracy ought to assume a paternalistic attitude towards the ‘savages’. The state thus strove to bring an ever widening range of tribals’ life activities within the ambit of its control. Merely holding their resources ‘in custody’ was not enough, but it was also required of the state to disseminate a ‘reforming zeal’ among them and the curb their baser instincts through educating them and by inducing them to adopt a way of life after the ideal that the British visualized for a loyal and hardworking peasantry. Tribals’ mode of subsistence, customs and habits were often found be scandalous and debauch. Some were even found to harbor criminal proclivities. The colonial state felt it to be its duty to reform them, through persuasion and even the use of force if need be. In this paternalistic relationship no rights were conceded to the tribals, consequently the colonial policy had no conception of individuals’ or communities’ rights over forests. The state’s rights over the forests were paramount and complete.

Forest laws and forest ‘crimes’

Attempting to hide its profiteering face behind this ideological smokescreen, the colonial government set about tying down the tribal communities with regulations that threatened to deprive them of their traditional means of livelihood. British interest in the vast forest resources of the subcontinent was aroused in the beginning due their requirement for cheap timber for the Royal Navy in the early nineteenth century. Whereas mid nineteenth century onward they needed timber in huge quantities to manufacture sleepers for their rapidly expanding railways network. Consequently a forest department was set up in 1864 and Forest Acts were passed in 1864 and 1878. These steps aimed at conserving forests for the British commercial use. As per these laws, all forests in the subcontinent were divided into three categories- reserved, protected and unclassified. The state had complete monopoly upon reserved forests as all sorts of access was prohibited for the tribal population. Though they were allowed limited access to protected forests, the use of its products was supposed to be strictly for personal use. Tribals weren’t allowed to make use of any products whatsoever for the commercial purpose. And here too, gradually over the course of time charges and taxes were imposed upon what was earlier allowed free of cost. What was playing out here was on the same pattern that has repeated itself all over the world at different times- a natural resource that had remained the common property of entire communities since time immemorial was overnight being declared the property of the state, to be reserved for the interests of a narrow circle of profiteers whose interests seem identical with the interests of the ruling elite which otherwise claims to represent the interests of all its subjects. This redefinition of property rights and the consequent dispossession of the tribal population continued unabated through the nineteenth century with almost 20 percent of India’s land area passing under government control by 1900. (Guha, Ramchandra. 1991. ‘The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press). As a result of such policies tribal communities which relied upon hunting-gathering for subsistence or practiced slash and burn cultivation came into direct conflict with the state, giving rise to innumerable conflicts throughout the forest tracts of the subcontinent. Shifting agriculture in particular came into a direct conflict with the existing colonial notions about what constituted a just and efficient use of the land and forest resources. Within the psyche of the colonial policy makers it was unjust for so small a community to be the masters of such vast resources. Particularly so because their methods of putting them to use were so wasteful. British believed that because they knew how best to utilize the bounties provided by nature, had every right to take it away from those who had such scant regard for it. This was also so because the needs of the colonial economy were raising so fast and it did not make sense to them that a people with such ‘wasteful’ habits and such minimal needs must be allowed to retain the ownership of such vast resources as they possessed. So the colonial state felt no moral compunctions whatsoever in taking them over from the ‘slothful’ and ‘careless’ forest dwellers and holding it in their custody till they could be reformed and taught the healthy habits and enterprising spirit of what was the British ideal of a hardworking peasant. The practice of slash and burn cultivation was also abhorrent to the colonial forest planners because it was bound to run into conflict with and jeopardize the elaborate program of commercial forestry that they had initiated, in accordance with the prevalent scientific wisdom of the time.

Resistance

These policies led to widespread miseries among the tribal communities in various parts of the subcontinent, Chenchus in the princely state of Hyderabad, their traditional subsistence pattern disrupted were pushed to the brink of extinction. Many of them took to brigandage. In case of many other forest dwelling communities, colonial state’s diktats were met with defiance and in many of these instances government agencies found law enforcement next to impossible. Despite the imperial ban on hunting, Reddis in the Hyderabad province, Baigas of central provinces and Bison Maria’s in Baster continued to flout the laws openly. The state agencies proved equally unsuccessful in enforcing the ban upon shifting culture and as a result, most of their long term plans to practice commercial forestry based on scientific management kept running into trouble. Baigas though most of the times avoiding open confrontation with the state, continued their old practices by migrating every time they were discovered to be flouting the laws. They in fact continued their old practice of shifting agriculture deep inside the forest reserves and this migratory habit also made it next to impossible for the state agencies to either tax them or use them as free labor as had been originally intended. There was trouble in the Ganjam Agency as well where the Soaratribals rose into open defiance of the state attempts to ‘regulate’ the forests and stubbornly kept flouting the laws by insisting on practicing shifting cultivation upon protected forests. Colonial attempts at ‘regulating’ the forest reserves was also accompanied with attempts at introducing and enforcing modern governmental institutions like private property, ‘rule of law’, laws courts and police etc. Attracted by the prospects of rich profits, apart from the state agencies, a number of outsiders like merchants, contractors and moneylenders began penetrating these forest tracts. The state, both consciously and obliquely encouraged this trend by insisting that the government laws and institutions be upheld vis-a-vis tradition and customs. Often working in cahoots with the colonial officials, police etc, and these outsiders began to weave a stranglehold around the tribals. Their ignorance of the nitty-gritties of the intricate colonial legal institutions gave opportunity to many of these upstarts from the outside to make significant profits at the expense of the tribals. A lot of customary tribal property began to end up in their hands, the legality of which was guaranteed and protected by the colonial state. However as per the customary laws of the tribal communities such acts were nothing less than a fraud and they had no legitimacy or moral sanction. Such tensions led to frequent clashes in which both the outsiders and the state agencies were attacked because in the perception of the tribals there was no distinction between the two. Munda ‘Ulgulan’ of 1899-1900 and the periodic ‘fituris’ of the Gudem and Rampa hills in the late nineteenth century and 1920s were uprisings of this nature. Likewise Marias and Murias of Bastar rose up in open revolt in 1910 against the British regulations and they could be suppressed upon when the army was deployed.

The word ‘tribal’ defies a clear cut definition, it certainly does not denote only those communities that lived deep within the forests and practiced hunting-gathering or shifting agriculture. There were also a number of communities that lived on the fringes of the forests and subsisted partly through settled agriculture and partly by harnessing forest resources. Many of these semi tribal and semi peasant communities too were affected by British forest regulations and were often seen to be at loggerheads with the British law enforcement apparatus. And there were some of the rest which mainly depended upon animal husbandry and itinerant trade in forest products for subsistence. Many of these communities had a seasonal migration pattern. Such communities came into clash with the British government forest regulations over grazing rights for their cattle. Their pasture lands often overlapped with the areas the British had designated as protected forest reserves. These communities also ventured within these areas to gather forest products which were traded with the peasant communities during the course of their annual migrations. Such communities were looked upon with suspicion by the colonial authorities as frequent and likely perpetrators of ‘forest crimes.’ Many of these were also declared ‘criminal tribes’ and designated for attempts at reforming them through state measures. As we have seen above such itinerants incurred also incurred official hostility because their migratory habits made it difficult for them to be taxed. British government often tried to inculcate their ideal of a settled, hardworking and law-abiding peasantry among them, through coercive methods to ‘reform’ them. Protest broke out in 1886 and 1904 in the princely state of Tehri Garhwal when the king tried to enforce strict forest laws; despite the king’s granting some concessions, protests refused to die down and in 1906 he had to seek the British help. There was trouble in the Himalayan tract of Kumaun as well. Apart from dissatisfaction against the forest laws, one issue over which trouble brewed up was the system of utar, ‘forced labour’ enforced upon the tribals. In fact forced labor led to tribal uprisings in many parts of the subcontinent as the British often tried to employ them for free public works like construction of railways. Consistent with their policies elsewhere, in central India too the colonial government tried to disrupt the traditional subsistence pattern of Bhils. Wherever possible, attempts were made to transform them into wage earners or settle them down like agriculturalists. British employed a wide variety of tactics to placate the recalcitrant tribal communities. With their traditional sources of livelihood shrinking, many of them took to banditry and began to raid the settled peasant communities living in their vicinity. These raids caused a loss of revenue to the British so wherever possible they tried to suppress them through the use of force and when it did not seem feasible, the even attempted the pacification of these communities by paying them an annual subsidy under the promise that they stop their depredations upon agriculturalists and government property. To cite an example, the British agreed to pay an annual sum to the Bhils of central India and in return asked them to end their annual forays upon the agricultural settlements of Khandesh to collect taxes; Bhils considered these taxes rightfully theirs as the original sovereigns of these lands but the British in exchange for the subsidy assume the sovereignty of these tracts from them. Though Bhils did not rebel openly, they continued to rue the loss of what they felt was rightfully their sovereign right and their disaffection manifested in periodic covert and low intensity protests (Skaria, Ajay. 1999. Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers and Wildness in Western India. Delhi: Oxford University Press). Researchers in this field have tended to primarily fix their attention upon larger scale uprisings and jacqueries against the colonial state but no less disturbing for the government’s long term plans were the quotidian struggles of the dispossessed tribes like deliberate law breaking, incendiarism, tax evasion and sporadic assault upon the symbols of state sovereignty and lower level officials. To be precise, the absence of open rebellion did not necessarily reflect acceptance of the new dispensation by the tribals.

Conclusion

Imperialist occupation of the subcontinent had been undertaken with the objective of securing its resources as raw material for the industries in the metropolis and to secure outlets for investment. Forest resources of the subcontinent were a rich source of cheap raw material and the colonial government was anxious since the very beginning to exploit them to the fullest extent possible. However one big impediment in the realization of this objective was the tribal population of the subcontinent which was dependent upon the forests in varying degrees for its livelihood. So it was with the objective of establishing its full control upon these resources and restricting the tribals’ access to them that the British began devising an elaborate tribal policy. Unsurprisingly this caused massive disruption for the tribal population and there were frequent clashes between them and the colonial government. In its bid to transform the tribals into law abiding and taxpaying subject the colonial government made free use of its armed might but at the same time it also utilized the discourse of ‘civilizing mission’ and the white man’s burden to justify and legitimize its ends. Many of the conflicts that arose between the colonial government and the tribal population have persisted in the post independence period.

References

• Arnold,  David,  ‘Rebellious  Hillmen:  The  Gudem-Rampa  Risings,  1839-1924.  In  Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society, vol. 1, ed. Ranajit Guha. Delhi: Oxford University Press
• Skaria, Ajay. 1999. Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers and Wildness in Western India. Delhi: Oxford University Press
• Guha, Ramchandra. 1991. ‘The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press