| Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | |||||||||||||||
Chapter 4 Tribals, Dikus And The Vision Of A Golden Age
In the year 1895, a figure named **Birsa Munda** emerged among the tribal communities residing in the Chottanagpur region, located in present-day Jharkhand. Stories circulated that he possessed **supernatural abilities**, claiming he could heal illnesses and increase the amount of grain. Birsa himself proclaimed that a divine power had appointed him to rescue his people from hardship and free them from the dominance of **dikus**, a term they used to refer to outsiders.
Birsa was a member of the **Munda tribe**, a significant tribal group in Chottanagpur. However, people from other local tribes, such as the **Santhals and Oraons**, also became his followers. These diverse tribal groups shared a common dissatisfaction with the changes and problems they were experiencing under British rule. They felt that their traditional ways of life were disappearing, their ability to earn a living was under threat, and their spiritual beliefs were in peril.
This chapter aims to address key questions surrounding this period: What specific issues did Birsa seek to resolve? Who were these outsiders, the 'dikus,' and how did they exert control over the local people? What was the impact of British policies on the tribal communities, and how were their lives transformed?
As discussed in previous studies, tribal societies had **cultural practices and religious ceremonies that differed significantly from the Brahmanical traditions**. These communities were also distinct from caste-based societies in that they generally **lacked the rigid social hierarchies**. Members of the same tribe typically considered themselves bound by **common kinship ties**. Nevertheless, it's important to note that even within tribes, there could exist variations in social status and economic standing.
Fig. 1 shows women belonging to the Dongria Kandha tribe in Orissa traversing a river on their way to a market. This image provides a glimpse into the daily life and movement of some tribal people, illustrating their connection to the natural environment and their participation in local trade networks, both of which were affected by colonial policies.
How Did Tribal Groups Live?
During the 19th century, tribal populations in different parts of India engaged in a variety of subsistence activities.
Some Were Jhum Cultivators
Some tribal communities practiced a form of agriculture known as **jhum cultivation**, or **shifting cultivation**. This was typically carried out on small plots of land cleared within forest areas.
The process of jhum cultivation involved several steps:
- Cultivators would cut down the branches and tops of trees to ensure sunlight could reach the ground.
- They would then burn the remaining vegetation on the land to clear it for planting.
- The ash produced from the burning, which contains potassium, helped to **fertilise the soil**.
- Tools like an axe were used for cutting trees, and a hoe was used to scratch or loosen the soil, rather than using a plough.
- Seeds were planted by **broadcasting**, meaning they were scattered by hand over the prepared field.
- After harvesting the crops, the cultivators would move to a new location.
- The previously cultivated field was left **fallow**, or uncultivated, for several years to allow the soil to recover its fertility naturally.
Shifting cultivators were primarily found in the **hilly and forested regions of north-east and central India**. Their traditional lifestyle depended heavily on their freedom to move within forest areas and access land for cultivation. Any restriction on this movement directly impacted their ability to practice jhum cultivation.
Some Were Hunters And Gatherers
In many areas, tribal groups sustained themselves by **hunting animals and collecting products from the forest**. For these communities, the forest was considered essential for their survival.
An example is the **Khonds** community living in the forests of Orissa. They often organised collective hunts, sharing the meat among group members. Their diet included fruits and roots gathered from the forest, and they cooked food using oil extracted from the seeds of trees like **sal** and **mahua**. They also used numerous forest plants for **medicinal purposes** and traded forest produce in local markets.
Forest products were also important for other communities. For instance, local weavers and leather workers would obtain **kusum and palash flowers** from the Khonds, which were used as natural dyes for colouring textiles and leather.
Fig. 2 shows women from the Dongria Kandha tribe in Orissa carrying pandanus leaves harvested from the forest. Collecting such resources was a fundamental aspect of tribal livelihoods, providing materials for various uses, including making plates as mentioned in the original text, and often playing a role in local exchange or trade.
To acquire goods they did not produce, such as rice and grains, tribal people either **exchanged** their valuable forest produce or **purchased** them using their limited earnings. Some found temporary work performing **odd jobs** in nearby villages, like carrying loads or assisting in road construction, while others worked as labourers on the fields of settled peasants.
As forest resources became scarce, tribal people were increasingly forced to **travel long distances in search of work as labourers**. However, some groups, like the **Baigas** of central India, resisted this. They viewed themselves as people intrinsically linked to the forest, meant to subsist solely on its bounty, and considered manual labour for outsiders as beneath their dignity.
The necessity of participating in markets for buying and selling led many tribal communities to become reliant on **traders and moneylenders**. Traders would sell goods at high prices, and moneylenders would provide loans (often with very high interest rates) to meet immediate cash needs. This dependence frequently trapped tribals in a cycle of **debt and poverty**. As a result, they increasingly viewed the **moneylender and trader as exploitative outsiders**, the primary source of their hardship, labelling them as **dikus**.
Some Herded Animals
A significant number of tribal groups practiced **pastoralism**, focusing on herding and raising animals like cattle or sheep. These communities were nomadic, moving with their herds according to the seasons in search of pasture when grazing lands in one area were depleted.
Examples of these pastoral tribal communities include:
- The **Van Gujjars** who lived in the Punjab hills, primarily cattle herders.
- The **Labadis** from Andhra Pradesh, also cattle herders.
- The **Gaddis** of Kulu, known as shepherds.
- The **Bakarwals** of Kashmir, who reared goats.
Fig. 3 is a map illustrating the approximate locations of some prominent tribal groups within India. This geographical overview helps to understand the regional distribution of communities with diverse lifestyles, including those practicing shifting cultivation, hunting-gathering, and pastoralism.
Some Took To Settled Cultivation
Even before the 19th century, some tribal communities began to adopt a more **settled lifestyle**. Instead of moving periodically, they started **cultivating the same fields year after year** in a fixed location. This transition often involved the use of the **plough**.
Over time, these groups often acquired **rights over the land** they cultivated. In certain cases, such as among the **Mundas of Chottanagpur**, the land was considered to belong collectively to the entire **clan**. Members of the clan were seen as descendants of the initial settlers who had cleared the land, granting them joint rights. Within these clans, some individuals might accumulate more power, becoming chiefs while others remained followers. These more powerful individuals sometimes chose to rent out their land to others rather than cultivating it themselves.
British officials held biased views about different tribal lifestyles. They considered settled tribal groups like the Gonds and Santhals to be more "**civilised**" compared to hunter-gatherers or shifting cultivators. Forest dwellers were often labelled as "**wild and savage**," reinforcing the colonial belief that they needed to be settled down and "civilised" according to European norms.
Fig. 5 depicts the construction of a log house in a village inhabited by the Nyishi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. This image illustrates a form of permanent dwelling and communal activity, where the entire village participates in the building process. This kind of settled habitation contrasts with the mobile lifestyle of shifting cultivators and reflects a different mode of interaction with the environment.
How Did Colonial Rule Affect Tribal Lives?
The imposition of colonial rule by the British profoundly impacted the lives and traditional practices of tribal groups in India.
What Happened To Tribal Chiefs?
Before British intervention, tribal chiefs were often powerful figures within their communities. They possessed a degree of **economic authority** and held the right to **administer and control their territories**. Some chiefs even maintained their own police forces and made decisions regarding local land use and forest management.
Under British rule, the roles and authority of tribal chiefs were significantly altered:
- While they were permitted to keep their **land titles** over their cluster of villages and collect rent, they lost much of their **administrative power**.
- They were compelled to adhere to the **laws enacted by British officials** in India.
- They were required to pay **tribute** to the British authorities.
- They were tasked with disciplining their own tribal groups on behalf of the British.
These changes diminished the traditional authority and respect that the chiefs once commanded among their people, hindering their ability to perform their customary social and political roles.
What Happened To The Shifting Cultivators?
The British administration found tribal groups who moved frequently and lacked fixed homes to be difficult to manage. They preferred tribal people to **settle down and adopt peasant cultivation**, as settled populations were **easier to control and administer**.
The British also aimed to establish a **regular and stable source of revenue**. To achieve this, they implemented **land settlement programs**. These involved:
- Measuring the land precisely.
- Defining and recording the rights of individual cultivators to specific plots of land.
- Fixing a specific amount of revenue that each individual or plot had to pay to the state.
Under these settlements, some individuals were designated as landlords, while others were classified as tenants who paid rent to the landowners, who in turn paid revenue to the government.
However, the British attempt to impose settled plough cultivation on jhum cultivators was largely **unsuccessful**. Plough cultivation is challenging in areas characteristic of shifting cultivation, which often have limited water resources and dry soil. When forced into settled farming, jhum cultivators frequently experienced **poor harvests**, leading to hardship.
In regions like north-east India, jhum cultivators strongly resisted efforts to make them settle. They insisted on continuing their traditional practice. Faced with widespread protests, the British eventually had to concede and allowed them to carry out shifting cultivation in certain designated areas within the forests.
Fig. 6 shows Bhil women engaged in cultivation within a forest in Gujarat. This image serves as evidence that shifting cultivation practices continued in some forest regions despite the British administration's general policy to discourage or prohibit them. The visible clearing of trees and patches for cultivation are characteristic features of this method.
Fig. 7 depicts tribal workers labouring in a rice field in Andhra Pradesh. This image portrays a scene of settled agriculture (likely wet rice cultivation), offering a contrast to the shifting cultivation methods. It might also suggest that economic pressures led tribal individuals to seek wage labour in settled agricultural areas.
Forest Laws And Their Impact
Given the intimate connection between tribal life and the forests, the changes brought about by colonial forest laws had a considerable impact.
The British took **absolute control over all forests**, declaring them the property of the state. Certain forests, particularly those that contained valuable timber needed for building ships and constructing railway lines (**sleepers**), were designated as **Reserved Forests**. In these Reserved Forests, tribal people were **prohibited from freely entering, moving, practicing jhum cultivation, collecting fruits and other produce, or hunting animals**.
These restrictions directly jeopardised the survival of jhum cultivators and other communities whose livelihoods depended on forest resources. Many were compelled to **relocate to other areas** in search of employment and sustenance.
However, the restriction on tribal access to forests created a problem for the British themselves – a shortage of the **labour** required by the Forest Department for tasks such as cutting trees for railway sleepers and transporting logs. To address this, colonial officials devised a plan:
- They would allocate small areas of land within the forests to jhum cultivators, permitting them to continue some cultivation.
- In return, the tribal people living in these villages were required to **provide labour** to the Forest Department and assist in protecting the forests.
To ensure a consistent supply of cheap labour, the Forest Department established specific settlements known as **forest villages** in many areas.
Source 2 presents fragments of a song collected by anthropologist Verrier Elwin in the 1930s among the Baiga tribe. The song poignantly expresses the hardship and suffering ("blood trickles from my shoulders") experienced by the Baigas under British rule, particularly due to forced labour (begar) and the burden of taxes. It highlights the presence of various authority figures demanding payments (landlord, Kotwar, Patwari, government) and the desperate measures, like selling essential livestock, they had to take to pay these taxes, leaving them struggling for survival ("How are we to get our food?"). The song serves as a powerful testament to the economic exploitation and disruption of traditional life caused by colonial policies.
Many tribal groups did not passively accept these colonial forest laws. They actively **resisted** them, often **disobeying** the new regulations, continuing practices that had been declared illegal, and in some cases, launching **open rebellions**. Examples of such resistance include the revolt led by **Songram Sangma in Assam in 1906** and the **forest satyagraha movements** that occurred in the **Central Provinces during the 1930s**.
Fig. 8 shows women from the Godara community engaged in weaving. Traditional crafts like weaving were often integral to tribal economies and cultural practices. Changes in access to raw materials (from forests) or increased economic pressures from colonial rule could impact these activities, contributing to the disruption of tribal life.
The Problem With Trade
The increasing penetration of forest areas by **traders and moneylenders** during the 19th century introduced new forms of exploitation for tribal communities. These outsiders arrived seeking to purchase forest products, offering cash advances (loans), and recruiting tribal people for wage labour. Initially, tribal groups sometimes struggled to fully understand the negative consequences of these interactions.
The experience of **silk growers** provides a clear illustration of this problem. In the 18th century, there was a high demand for Indian silk in European markets. The fine quality of the silk was greatly valued, leading to a rapid increase in exports from India. The East India Company actively encouraged silk production to meet this growing demand.
In areas like **Hazaribagh** (in present-day Jharkhand), where the **Santhals** traditionally reared silk cocoons, traders sent agents who provided loans to the tribal people and collected the harvested cocoons. However, the Santhal growers were paid a very low price for their cocoons, typically around $\textsf{₹}$3 to $\textsf{₹}$4 for a thousand. These cocoons were then transported to markets like Burdwan or Gaya and sold by the traders at a price that was approximately **five times higher**.
The individuals who acted as intermediaries (**middlemen**) between the exporters and the silk growers made significant profits, while the actual growers earned very little for their hard work. This exploitative trade system led many tribal groups to identify the **market forces and the traders as their primary enemies**, further solidifying their resentment towards outsiders.
Fig. 9 depicts a Hajang woman weaving a mat while carrying her baby. This image highlights the reality for many women in tribal and rural communities, where domestic responsibilities like childcare are often integrated with income-generating activities or essential tasks for sustenance, demonstrating resilience but also the demanding nature of their lives.
The Search For Work
The conditions faced by tribal people who were compelled to leave their homes to find employment elsewhere were particularly harsh. From the late 19th century, the expansion of **tea plantations** and the growth of the **mining industry** created a large demand for cheap labour.
Tribal individuals were recruited in significant numbers to work on the tea plantations in Assam and in the coal mines located in Jharkhand. This recruitment was often managed by **contractors** who paid them extremely low wages. Furthermore, these contractors frequently used deceptive practices and prevented the tribal workers from returning to their villages, effectively holding them in harsh working conditions far from home.
Fig. 10 shows a group of coal miners in Bihar in 1948. The text accompanying the image highlights that by the 1920s, tribal people constituted a substantial portion (around 50%) of the workforce in major coal mines like Jharia and Raniganj. The work deep underground was not only physically demanding and dangerous but also had high fatality rates, underscoring the severe risks faced by tribal labourers in the mining sector under colonial and post-colonial conditions.
A Closer Look
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, tribal communities across different parts of India responded to the challenges of colonial rule with numerous acts of **resistance and rebellion**. These movements were sparked by resentment over new laws, restrictions on their traditional practices, the imposition of taxes, and the pervasive exploitation by outsiders like traders and moneylenders.
Some notable tribal uprisings during this period include:
- The **Kols' rebellion** which took place in 1831–32.
- The major revolt by the **Santhals** in 1855.
- The **Bastar Rebellion** that erupted in central India in 1910.
- The **Warli Revolt** that occurred in Maharashtra in 1940.
The movement led by **Birsa Munda** stands out as a significant example of this widespread pattern of tribal resistance.
Birsa Munda
**Birsa Munda** was born into a poor Munda family around the mid-1870s. He grew up in the vicinity of the Bohonda forests, engaged in activities like herding sheep, playing the flute, and participating in local dances.
Economic hardship forced his family to move frequently in search of work. During his adolescence, Birsa heard oral histories of previous Munda uprisings and listened to the speeches of community leaders (**sirdars**) who called for resistance. These leaders evoked the memory of a **"golden age"** when the Mundas were free from the oppression of **dikus** and spoke of a future where their community's traditional rights would be restored. They saw themselves as descendants of the original inhabitants, fighting a "mulk ki larai" (battle for the kingdom/land), reminding people of the need to reclaim their ancestral territory.
Birsa received some education at a local missionary school, where he encountered missionary teachings. He heard the message that Mundas could potentially achieve salvation ("Kingdom of Heaven") and regain their lost rights if they converted to Christianity and abandoned their traditional practices, which were deemed "bad." Later, he also spent time with a prominent Vaishnav preacher, adopting some Vaishnav beliefs, including the importance of purity and piety, and began wearing the sacred thread.
Birsa's ideas and the movement he led were shaped by these diverse influences and his direct experience of the problems faced by his people. His initial efforts included advocating for **social reform** within tribal society. He urged the Mundas to stop drinking alcohol, keep their villages clean, and abandon beliefs in witchcraft and sorcery.
However, Birsa's movement also took a strong stance **against the outsiders** – the missionaries, landlords, and the colonial government. He saw these external forces as being responsible for the ruin of the Munda way of life.
In 1895, Birsa urged his followers to strive for the recovery of their "glorious past," envisioning a **"golden age"** or **"satyug"** characterized by virtuous living. In this ideal past, the Mundas cultivated their land responsibly, building embankments, utilising natural springs, planting trees and orchards, and earning their living through farming. They lived harmoniously, treating each other with honesty and not engaging in violence against fellow community members. Birsa's message also included a call for people to return to working their own land, settling down, and cultivating their fields.
The British officials were most concerned by the **political agenda** of the Birsa movement, which explicitly aimed to drive out missionaries, moneylenders, landlords, and the government, and establish an independent **Munda Raj** with Birsa as its leader. The movement identified these external forces as the root cause of the misery inflicted upon the Mundas. The British **land policies** had dismantled their traditional land system, **moneylenders and landlords** were seizing their ancestral lands, and **missionaries** were actively criticizing and undermining their traditional culture and religion.
As the movement gained momentum and became more assertive, the British authorities decided to intervene. They arrested Birsa in 1895, convicted him on charges of rioting, and sentenced him to two years in prison.
After his release in 1897, Birsa began travelling through the villages once again to mobilise support. He used traditional symbols and language familiar to the people, calling on them to destroy "Ravana" (a symbolic term representing the dikus and Europeans) and establish a kingdom under his leadership. Birsa's followers began attacking the physical symbols of outsider power, targeting police stations and churches, and raiding the property of moneylenders and zamindars. They raised a **white flag** as a symbol of the intended Munda Raj led by Birsa.
The movement eventually subsided after Birsa died from cholera in 1900. Nevertheless, the Birsa movement holds significant historical importance for two main reasons:
- It successfully pressured the colonial government to implement **laws that made it more difficult for outsiders (dikus) to easily seize tribal land**. This was a direct result of the widespread unrest caused by the movement.
- It powerfully demonstrated, once again, the inherent capacity of the tribal people to **actively protest against injustice** and express their deep-seated anger towards colonial rule and its agents. They did this not by simply imitating other movements, but by creating their own distinctive methods of struggle, incorporating their unique rituals and symbols.
This image displays a postal stamp that was issued to commemorate Birsa Munda. The issuing of such a stamp highlights his recognition as an important historical figure and a leader of resistance against colonial oppression and the exploitation of tribal communities.