Subjugated Nomads: The Lambadas under the Rule of the Nizams by Bhangya Bhukya

Author:Bhangya Bhukya [Bhukya, Bhangya]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Orient BlackSwan Private Ltd.
Published: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Source:Nizam Revenue Administration Report 1324F (1914–15), 28.

The concentration of land in the hands of the non-cultivating class increased considerably from the early twentieth century onwards. As shown in Table 7, the number of rent receivers increased from 39,581 to 731,804, a 1,748.8 per cent increase, between 1901 and 1911. This number further increased to 761,614 by 1921.61 Although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause for this massive increase in rent receivers, the Revenue Administration Report of 1914–15 observed that:

The extraordinary increase in the number of rent-receivers, if at all accurate, means that the land is going out of the hands of the cultivators into those of rent receivers. The two great lessons which these statistics convey are, first that the pressure on land is increasing from various causes, and secondly that the ownership and the profits thereof are being increasingly appropriated by mere rent-receivers.62

It is probable that the severe famines of the last decades of the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth century played an important role in bringing about this increase, as destitute peasants sold their holdings to wealthy rent-receivers. Many also died or migrated during famines, and lost control over their land as a result. Even in better times, the subaltern's vulnerability was exploited ruthlessly by the dominant peasants and unscrupulous moneylenders, often resulting in the former losing his land to the latter.

The above figures also show that the number of farm servants and labourers increased from 1,023,643 to 2,788,212, i.e. by 172.3 per cent. There was also a relatively small increase of 17 per cent in the number of ordinary cultivators. This might have in part reflected the fact that some relatively prosperous service castes were eager to acquire land for status purposes, as they believed that it would enable them to claim a higher caste position in the census. The Census Report of 1921 noted that 'the Kalal, who perhaps finds liquor-selling not so dignified to one who claims to be a Kshatriya, has taken to agriculture, to a much greater extent than to liquor- selling.'63

As seen in Table 7, there was also a decrease in the number of agents and managers. This was mainly because the big estate owners let out their land for cultivation. The category of growers of garden produce including fruit, flower, vegetable, betel, and vine growers declined; probably there was insufficient data as these crops were grown as subsidiary crops. And it was difficult to separate growers of gardens from ordinary peasants.64 In fact, the garden crops were, it was reported, yielding better returns to the peasants than the ordinary crops.65

THE COMMODIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE

The colonial land tax system was designed to stimulate the extension of commercial agriculture and the commodification of agricultural production. Although ostensibly designed to create wealth in the Indian countryside that would benefit all, in practice this process led to a concentration of rural capital in the hands of landlords, moneylenders and dominant peasants and the impoverishment of the subordinate strata. Above all,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.