Chapter 5 Pastoralists In The Modern World

This chapter explores the lives of nomadic pastoralists – people who move from place to place with their herds to earn a living. In many parts of India and Africa, these communities are seen migrating with animals like goats, sheep, camels, and cattle.

Historically, pastoralists have often been overlooked in traditional accounts of history and economics, which tend to focus more on agriculture and industry. However, their way of life has been significant in societies like India and Africa.

The chapter examines how pastoralism has functioned in these regions, particularly focusing on the dramatic impact of colonial rule on their lives and how they have adapted to the pressures of the modern world.

---

Pastoral Nomads And Their Movements

Across India, numerous pastoral communities followed a pattern of seasonal movement, migrating between different grazing grounds based on climate and pasture availability.

---

In The Mountains

Many pastoral groups in the Himalayan mountains, such as the Gujjar Bakarwals of Jammu and Kashmir, the Gaddi shepherds of Himachal Pradesh, and the Gujjars of Garhwal and Kumaon (initially from Jammu), as well as the Bhotiyas, Sherpas, and Kinnauris, followed cyclical patterns of movement.

• Many Gujjar Bakarwals migrated to the region in the 19th century seeking pastures and established annual migration routes.
• In winter, when high mountain peaks were covered in snow, they descended with their herds to the low hills of the Siwalik range, finding pasture in the dry scrub forests.
• As summer approached (by the end of April), they began their upward journey towards the summer grazing grounds. The Gujjar Bakarwals crossed passes like Pir Panjal into the Kashmir valley. The Gaddis moved north to regions like Lahul and Spiti.
• The melting snow in summer revealed lush green mountainsides and vast natural high-altitude pastures known as bugyals in Garhwal and Kumaon (above 12,000 feet), covered in rich, nutritious grasses and herbs. The Gujjar cattle herders in Garhwal and Kumaon moved from the dry forests of the bhabar (below foothills) in winter to the bugyals in summer.
• By late September, with the approach of winter, they began their downward journey back to the lower hills. The Gaddis would pause in villages like Lahul and Spiti to harvest their summer crops and sow winter ones before descending.

This seasonal movement was crucial for adapting to climatic changes and utilising available pastures efficiently. It ensured that herds could move to new areas when pastures in one place were depleted or unsuitable, and also allowed used pastures time to recover, preventing overuse.

---

On The Plateaus, Plains And Deserts

Pastoral communities were also found in other geographical regions of India, adapting their movements to different environmental conditions.

• Dhangars (Maharashtra): This significant community, numbering nearly half a million in the early 20th century, included shepherds, blanket weavers, and buffalo herders.
  • During the monsoon, shepherds stayed on the central plateau, a semi-arid region with low rainfall and thorny scrub, which became a vast grazing area. Only dry crops like bajra could be grown here.
  • By October, after harvesting bajra, they migrated west towards the Konkan region (coastal Maharashtra), a fertile area with high rainfall.
  • Konkani peasants welcomed the Dhangar flocks after the kharif (autumn) harvest because the sheep manured their fields and grazed on stubble, preparing the land for the rabi (spring) harvest. The peasants provided rice in return.
  • With the onset of the monsoon, the Dhangars and their flocks returned to the dry plateau, as sheep are sensitive to wet conditions. Buffalo herders, however, stayed closer to the coast where swampy conditions suited buffaloes.

• Gollas, Kurumas, and Kurubas (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh): These communities inhabited the dry central plateau. Gollas herded cattle, while Kurumas and Kurubas reared sheep and goats and wove blankets. They often lived near woods, cultivated small land patches, engaged in petty trades, and managed their herds.
  • Their seasonal movements were dictated by the alternation of the monsoon and dry seasons.
  • They moved to coastal areas during the dry season and returned to the plateau with the onset of the monsoon, as other herds (except buffaloes) could not tolerate the wet coastal conditions.

• Banjaras: A well-known group of graziers found across Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. They moved over long distances in search of pastures, trading plough cattle and other goods with villagers in exchange for grain and fodder.

• Raikas (Rajasthan): Living in the desert region with meagre and uncertain rainfall, the Raikas combined cultivation with pastoralism.
  • During the monsoons, when pasture was available in their home villages (like Barmer, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Bikaner), they stayed there.
  • By October, as local grazing grounds dried up, they migrated in search of other pastures and water sources.
  • They returned to their home villages during the next monsoon.
  One group, the Maru (desert) Raikas, specialised in herding camels, which are well-suited to the desert environment, while others reared sheep and goats.

The survival of these pastoral groups depended on carefully managing their resources and movements. They needed to know when and where to move to find pasture and water, plan their migration routes, establish relationships with settled farmers (benefiting both through grazing on harvested fields and manuring), and combine herding with other activities like cultivation, trade, and crafts.

---

Colonial Rule And Pastoral Life

Under colonial rule, the traditional lives of pastoralists in India underwent significant changes. Several government policies and laws severely impacted their practices.

The key changes included:

• Shrinking Grazing Lands: Land traditionally used for grazing was taken over.
• Regulated Movements: Pastoralists' freedom to move was restricted.
• Increased Revenue Demands: The amount of tax they had to pay increased.
• Decline in Animal Stock: Their herds suffered and diminished.
• Adversely Affected Trades/Crafts: Their other economic activities were negatively impacted.

These impacts stemmed from several colonial policies:

• Waste Land Rules: The colonial state viewed uncultivated land as 'waste' because it did not generate revenue or agricultural produce required by England. To increase revenue and produce commercial crops, Waste Land Rules were enacted from the mid-19th century. These rules took over uncultivated lands (often traditional grazing areas) and granted them to select individuals for cultivation. This directly led to a decline in available pastures, creating problems for pastoralists.
• Forest Acts: Various Forest Acts were implemented from the mid-19th century.
  • Forests with commercially valuable timber (like deodar or sal) were declared 'Reserved Forests', where pastoralists were denied all access.
  • Other forests were classified as 'Protected Forests', allowing some traditional grazing rights but with severe restrictions on movement.
  Colonial officials believed grazing damaged young tree saplings and prevented forest regeneration. The Forest Acts thus limited access to valuable forage and regulated movement through permits, specifying entry/departure times and duration of stay. Pastoralists were liable to fines if they overstayed, even if pasture was available.
• Criminal Tribes Act (1871): Colonial officials were suspicious of mobile groups like nomadic pastoralists, craftsmen, and traders, finding them difficult to control compared to settled populations. They viewed nomadic people as inherently 'criminal by nature and birth'. This Act classified many such communities as 'Criminal Tribes', forcing them to live in designated village settlements under constant police surveillance and prohibiting movement without a permit.
• Grazing Tax: To increase revenue, the colonial government imposed taxes on various things, including animals. Pastoralists had to pay a tax for every animal they grazed. This grazing tax was introduced in most pastoral areas in the mid-19th century. Tax rates increased rapidly, and collection methods became more efficient. Initially, collection rights were auctioned to contractors who maximised collection for profit. By the 1880s, the government collected taxes directly, issuing passes to pastoralists that recorded the number of animals and tax paid, which had to be shown to enter grazing areas.

---

How Did These Changes Affect The Lives Of Pastoralists?

These colonial policies resulted in a severe shortage of pastures. As grazing lands were converted to cultivation and forests were reserved or restricted, the area available for animals to graze significantly decreased.

With reduced pastureland, the existing animal stock had to graze more intensively on smaller areas. Traditionally, nomadic movement allowed pastures time to recover. Restrictions on movement prevented this natural regeneration, leading to continuous overuse and deterioration of pasture quality. This, in turn, caused a further shortage of forage and the decline in health and condition of animal stock. Underfed cattle died in large numbers, especially during periods of scarcity and famine.

---

How Did The Pastoralists Cope With These Changes?

Pastoral communities responded to these challenges in various ways, demonstrating resilience and adaptability.

• Some pastoralists reduced the size of their herds, acknowledging the insufficient pasture for large numbers.
• Others sought out and discovered new pastures when access to traditional grazing grounds was blocked or difficult. For instance, after the Partition of India in 1947, the Raikas, who could no longer graze their camels along the Indus River banks in Sindh (now Pakistan), began migrating to Haryana. Here, sheep could graze on agricultural fields after the harvest, providing needed manure to the farmers.

• Over time, some wealthier pastoralists were able to buy land and settle down, abandoning their nomadic lifestyle. Some became settled peasants or engaged in extensive trading activities.
• Conversely, many poor pastoralists struggled, often borrowing money from moneylenders to survive. They sometimes lost their cattle and sheep due to inability to repay loans or provide for them, and were forced to become labourers, working on fields or in small towns (as charcoal burners, construction workers, etc.).

Despite these challenges, pastoralists in many regions have not only survived but sometimes even seen their numbers grow. They adapted by changing their migration routes, reducing herd sizes, diversifying their income by combining pastoralism with other jobs, and pushing for rights to access new areas or influence forest/water management.

Pastoralists are not simply remnants of the past. Many environmentalists and economists recognise pastoral nomadism as an ecologically suitable and viable way of life for numerous hilly and dry regions of the world.

Pastoralism In Africa

Over half of the world's pastoral population resides in Africa, with more than 22 million people still depending on pastoralism for their livelihood. Communities like the Bedouins, Berbers, Maasai, Somali, Boran, and Turkana inhabit semi-arid grasslands and deserts where rain-fed agriculture is challenging.

They raise various animals (cattle, camels, goats, sheep, donkeys) and sell animal products (milk, meat, skin, wool). Some supplement their income through trade, transport, combining pastoralism with agriculture, or taking up casual jobs. Like their counterparts in India, African pastoralists' lives were dramatically altered by colonialism and subsequent modern changes.

We will examine these changes through the experiences of the Maasai, a prominent cattle-herding community primarily living in southern Kenya (300,000) and northern Tanzania (150,000).

---

Where Have The Grazing Lands Gone?

A major problem for the Maasai has been the significant loss of their traditional grazing lands. Before colonialism, Maasailand spanned a vast area from northern Kenya to the steppes of northern Tanzania.

In the late 19th century, European powers partitioned Africa. In 1885, Maasailand was divided by the international border between British Kenya and German Tanganyika (which became British Tanganyika after WWI and later part of Tanzania). Gradually, the most fertile and best grazing lands were taken over by European white settlers, pushing the Maasai into smaller, arid zones with unreliable rainfall and poor pastures.

The Maasai lost approximately 60% of their pre-colonial land.

Furthermore, from the late 19th century, the British colonial government in East Africa encouraged local agricultural communities to expand cultivation. This led to more pasturelands being converted into cultivated fields. In pre-colonial times, the Maasai had held economic and political dominance over their agricultural neighbours, but this situation was reversed under colonial rule.

Large areas of Maasai grazing land were also designated as game reserves and national parks, such as the Maasai Mara and Samburu National Parks in Kenya and the Serengeti Park in Tanzania. Pastoralists were prohibited from entering these areas to hunt or graze their herds, even though these reserves often covered traditional Maasai grazing grounds. The Serengeti National Park, for example, encompassed over 14,760 sq km of Maasai land.

This loss of prime grazing land and essential water resources put immense pressure on the limited areas where the Maasai were confined. Continuous grazing in these smaller areas led to the deterioration of pasture quality, persistent fodder shortages, and difficulties in feeding their cattle.

---

The Borders Are Closed

In the 19th century, African pastoralists could migrate freely over large distances in search of pasture, moving to new areas as needed. However, from the late 19th century, colonial governments began imposing restrictions on their mobility.

The Maasai and other pastoral groups were forced to live within the defined boundaries of special reserves. Movement outside these reserves with their livestock required special permits, which were often difficult to obtain and involved harassment. Disobeying these rules resulted in severe punishment.

Pastoralists were also barred from entering markets in areas designated for white populations and, in many regions, were forbidden from engaging in trade. White settlers and colonists often viewed pastoralists as 'dangerous' and 'savage', seeking to minimise contact with them. However, complete separation was impossible as white colonists needed Black labour for tasks like mining and construction.

These new territorial boundaries and movement restrictions dramatically altered the lives of pastoralists, negatively impacting both their herding and trading activities. While trading didn't cease entirely, it became subject to numerous restrictions.

---

When Pastures Dry

Drought poses a constant threat to pastoralists. When rains fail and pastures dry up, livestock face starvation unless they can be moved to areas where forage is available. Traditional nomadism served as a crucial survival strategy, allowing them to navigate bad times and avoid crises by constantly moving.

However, under colonial rule, the Maasai were confined to fixed reserves and prevented from migrating in search of pasture during droughts. They were cut off from their best grazing lands and restricted to semi-arid zones prone to frequent droughts. This restriction meant that during drought years, they could not move their cattle to find food, leading to massive deaths from starvation and disease.

For example, an enquiry in 1930 recorded that the Maasai in Kenya owned large numbers of cattle, sheep, and donkeys (720,000 cattle, 820,000 sheep, 171,000 donkeys). Yet, during just two severe drought years (1933 and 1934), over half their cattle population died.

The shrinking area of grazing lands intensified the impact of droughts, leading to a steady decline in the animal stock of pastoralists over time.

---

Not All Were Equally Affected

Similar to India, the impact of colonial changes on pastoralists in Maasailand was not uniform. In pre-colonial times, Maasai society was structured into two main social categories based on age:

• Elders: Formed the ruling group, making community decisions and settling disputes in councils.
• Warriors: Composed of younger men responsible for protecting the community, organising cattle raids, and participating in warfare. Cattle raids were important for acquiring wealth and asserting the power of different groups. Young men gained recognition as warriors by proving their bravery through raiding and warfare, although they remained under the authority of the elders.

The British administration introduced measures to manage the Maasai that had significant consequences. They appointed chiefs for different Maasai sub-groups, making them responsible for tribal affairs and granting them influence. The British also restricted traditional raiding and warfare practices.

These changes weakened the traditional authority of both the elders and the warriors. The chiefs appointed by the colonial government often accumulated wealth through regular incomes, allowing them to buy animals, goods, and land. They could lend money to poorer neighbours who needed funds for taxes or other expenses. Many chiefs began living in towns and engaging in trade. Their families often remained in villages to manage the livestock.

These wealthy chiefs were better positioned to survive crises like war and drought due to their diverse income sources (pastoral and non-pastoral) and ability to purchase animals when their herds were depleted.

In contrast, the life of poor pastoralists who relied solely on their livestock became precarious. They lacked the resources to cope with bad times. During periods of war or famine, they often lost most, if not all, of their animals. This forced them to seek work in towns, becoming labourers (charcoal burners, construction workers, etc.) or doing odd jobs to survive.

Ultimately, the social changes in Maasai society involved two main shifts:

1. The traditional, age-based distinction between elders and warriors was disrupted, although not completely eliminated.
2. A new social divide emerged based on wealth, creating distinct groups of wealthy and poor pastoralists.

---

Conclusion: Adaptation in the Modern World

In conclusion, pastoral communities worldwide have been profoundly affected by the changes of the modern era, particularly colonial policies. New laws and political borders have restricted their movements, leading to shrinking and deteriorating pastures and increased vulnerability during droughts, resulting in significant livestock losses.

However, pastoralists have also shown remarkable ability to adapt. They have modified their annual migration routes, adjusted the size of their herds, advocated for rights to access new areas, exerted political pressure for support (relief, subsidies), and sought involvement in the management of forest and water resources.

Far from being outdated, pastoralists are resilient communities who have found ways to persist in the modern world. Ecologists and economists increasingly recognise that their nomadic lifestyle is ecologically well-suited to many challenging environments like hilly and dry regions.