The Fight of the Displaced in the Western Ghats

By Bharat Patankar

                The western ghats have two slopes and two foothills, western and eastern.  On one side is the Kokan and on the other side is western-southern Maharashtra.  Both are high rainfall regions, of 3000-5000mm of rainfall.  The westward flowing rivers after a small journey come to the Arabian ocean.  The eastern flowing rivers go to the east, then from the north come to the Bay of Bengal and meet the ocean.  In the Kokan the irrigation department was not aware of the fact that water should be stored by building dams and irrigating with the help of this water.  There was also no pressure from the people and leaders of this region to do that.   But, in contrast, in western and southern Maharashtra, we can see movements after independence and especially in a big way after the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, that put pressure for building dams, storing waters and giving water for irrigation.  The consciousness of doing irrigated agriculture seems to have come from the time of Mahatma Phule’s Satyashodhak movement.  Even in the time of British colonialism some important dams appear to have been built.   It should be remembered that many dams completed after independence were planned in the British period.  Today dams that are being built were also established in a primary form in that period.  The British power began from 1910 to survey for making proposals to take water by building dams in the high rainfall regions of the ridges and eastern foothills of the Sahyadris, and taking the water to the east to the rainshadow drought-prone regions.  The fact that even though the power that enslaved the country did this work, the independent government has still not completed  it even today is a sad and infuriating thing.

The problem of the displaced got created first because the British started building these big dams in the eastern ridges and foothills of the western Ghats.  The first great battle to solve the problems of the displaced was the “Mulshi satyagraha” which arose under the leadership of Senapati Bapat.   The beginning of the fight of the displaced in Maharashtra was in this movement.  Senapati Bapat also gave the struggle the idea of the overall independence struggle and its development.

For that matter, building dams, storing water and by some method or another taking a good crop on the basis of this water has gone on in the Indian subcontinent and south Asia since the time of the Indus civilization.  In Maharashtra also for some thousand years it seems there was a system of building dams and bringing water into irrigation.  But these dams were small and were not such as to create problems of displacement.  The small small dams known as “diversion bandharas” are built even today on both sides of the western ghats by farmers themselves.  Every year their canals are repaired and crops are taken for two seasons and sometimes for twelve months.   For many generations this process has gone on.  Mahatma Phule had suggested a system of irrigation facilities all along the rivers and streams doing water conservation work from their origin to the end.   He had put forward the viewpoint of balancing this with the overall development of irrigated land and forests.   But the British government and their irrigation experts did not understand this concept.   From their viewpoint they argued for large, huge dams.  It was due to this that the problem of the displaced in the western ghats and the basic situation of more displacement began to be created.

All the governments in Maharashtra and the country after independence implemented the British irrigation policy.   Today the World Bank is implementing it.  “In order that the banks of England should get huge interest the British government has built dams here,” was said by Jotiba in “Shetkaryaca Asud.”  This government builds dams not only for the World Bank but to fill others’ pockets, builds canals – to whose pockets it goes is known by everyone.

Though all this is true, it is a reality that without irrigation assured agricultural and drought eradication is not possible.  But for this huge dams don’t have to be built.  But building large and medium dams is necessary.  In other words, the practice should be done of irrigation development and building dams on the basis of developmental rehabilitation and the principle of “first rehabilitation, then the dam.”   There is no alternative to that today.  Due to building dams thousands of dam evictees are displaced and their life is uprooted like trees.   Only if their developmental rehabilitation is done in the command area according to the principle of “first rehabilitation, then the dam” can they be part of the developmental process.  On the other hand, if agriculture doesn’t get twelve months water, the way of life of families doing only one crop and having one person per family going to Mumbai, Pune, Ahmednagar or Surat to lift weights and do other heavy labor which has tone on during the last one to two hundred years will continue.

Under the leadership of Comrade Datta Deshumkh the “Maharashtra State Dam and Project-Affected Farmers’ Conference” caught the thread of this reality and from the early 1970s took the aim of struggling for a developmental rehabilitation.  It began a movement to change the policy that the British colonial power had taken of giving the displaced fallow or grazing land and relegating them to a destitute life.  They made a demand to put a “ceiling” on the land in the command areas which got water from the dam and take land from the benefited 2-3% of landowners to give irrigated land to the dam evictees.  Once the irrigation system is established the land’s production increases 8-10 times.  In a sense the land itself is increased.  It gets assured production.  Because of this it is justice for all if a share of the land is given to those who see generations of their villages and land submerged: this was the policy that Comrade Datta Deshmukh put forward.  On this an organized movement began to emerge.  The movement in Maharashtra first brought the slogan of “First rehabilitation, then the dam” to the agenda.  This movement of the displaced began and grew primarily in the Krishna and Godavari river valleys.

After the 1972 drought some new dams began to be built in Maharashtra.  On the background of this drought a huge movement began for eradication and relief of drought.   Keeping the remedies of conserving and storing water and increasing irrigation, the movement demanded employment  guarantee schemes.   Workers and employees agreed to a clause in the law financing the scheme by donations from their own pay.  The first employment guarantee scheme in Maharashtra and the government began from this movement.  This movement was also mainly led by Comrade Datta Deshmukh.  He was the leader of the movement of those farmers who were made into dam evictees by the new dams built after 1972.  Along with him Dr. Baba Adhav was in this movement.  The growing movement of dam evictees began.  It was for drought eradication and ending the poverty stricken life dependent on one crop, and stopping the exploitative life of the lakhs of uprooted people who were forced to migrate.   Dams must be built.   But they shouldn’t be in a mistaken form or of unnecessary size.  With this consciousness the movement of dam-affected farmers began.  A foundation for the united movement of drought-affected and dam-affected was laid.  “”First rehabilitation and then the dam” had been taken from the beginning by the dam evictees’ movement.  In Maharashtra and the country the first rehabilitation law was created due to this movement.  There is still to be a law for the entire country.

But the principle of “first rehabilitation then the dam” was not made a part of this law.  From 1997-98 our growing movement in Satara district forced the then Commissioner Shri Arun Bhatiya to implement it.  On one hand rehabilitation and on the other the building of the dam were forced to be taken up hand in hand.  For this the dam evictees stopped work on dams for months together, taking the risk of police action.  Due to this today  work of the dams and work of rehabilitation is getting comp;leted almost simultaneously.   The united movement of drought-affected and dam-affected also forced the completion of the work on canals.  The campaign from all this struggle reached to Sangli, Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Sindhudurg and Raigad districts.  It reached up to the districts of Latur and Aurangabad in Marathawada which had no iknowledge of rehabilitation law.  On this background, in 2004 a study committee was created.  Dr. Baba Adhav and myself were part of that.  Unfortunately Dr. Baba Adhav could only come to one meeting.  In 2004 the “Maharashtra Rajya Purnavasan Pradhikaran” (Maharashtra state Rehabilitation Authority) was established.   A bunch of government rules were published as part of this.  The guidelines for rehabilitation, the opportunity to give alternatives to the dam or project before this, clauses for the least possible displacement, an assessment of the rules, clauses for meetings and above all, the principle of “first rehabilitation, then the dam/project” all came in these government rules.  What we had done in practice came into law.  Now we had to struggle for the implementation of the law.  Before this the government had been forced to agree to the alternative to the Uchangi dam for less displacement and less submergence.  In all this storm of struggle Krantivir Naganath Naikaudi stood up strongly with us.

In the middle period due to the pressure of the movement, this law of 1976 was amended and a new law was passed in 1984.  With amendments in this, the rehabilitation law of 1999 was passed.  As a result of the fierce struggle, it was decided by a special government rule that until land and water for land was made available people would get Rs 600 per month water allowance.  After that, when the government retracted on its words, Rs 400 per month maintenance allowance for one year after displacement was included in the 1999 law if land was not given.  Also, the government is supposed to give at 12% interest on the money which was deposited by the dam evictees from 65% of their own land compensation.  The dam evictees got lakhs of rupees in benefit in many places.   This wave reached other parts of Maharashtra but the western Ghats mainly raised the storm.

Along with these dams, Shramik Mukti Dal propagated an alternative for by the dam in the Narmada river of the Sahyadris that would reduce displacement by 75%.   This would put forward in sscientific detail by K.R. Datye and Suhas Paranjpye.   This alternative was also nearly accepted.  However, since it was not accepted by the Narmada Bachao Andolan it became impossible to achieve it.  Thousands of families could have been saved from submergence.  But unfortunately due to the stubborn policy the people were hugely damaged.  There is no point in writing more on this now.  But the dam evictees should learn from such experiences.

Along with the dams of the western ghats battles of those displaced by other projects have gone on.  These struggles also became stormy.   These struggles have created history also.  The most important of these is that against the coal based thermal power plants proposed by Tata and Reliance companies.  This struggle took place by giving an alternative of creating electricity from renewable energy.  Thousands of women and men gave a prolonged fight.  The people won this fight.  They took it to victory.  This struggle has shown the way to the people of the country.

In protected forests, in the context of the “Sahyadri Tiger project ” there has also been a prolonged struggle of those about to be displaced.  It took the new direction of giving an alternative of a “people’s forest.”  It forced the state to give a new decision and started the process of forming Environmental Development Committees.   People are now going ahead on the road of taking forest development in their own hands and managing it.

Even then it has not been possible in regard to projects such as bauxite mining and the Jaitapur atomic energy project for people to go beyond simply negative protest movements.  A strong movement giving an alternative with broad backing that goes beyond  entanglement in the multiplicity of organizations,  viewpoints and interests has not been possible as yet.   The process of buying up land cheaply in the western ghats, and doing contract farming as part of capitalist industry and “green cities” has begun to emerge.  The sons and daughters of the soil are being expelled.  People with a very old history of a struggle tradition will not stop without themselves giving a firm alternative and a successful struggle.  They will not stop without raising a new fight for a clean, beautiful, prosperous, exploitation-free life.

The 1972-3 Drought in Maharashtra

(as we face drought again, here is an article by Bharat Patankar remembering the last great drought in the region)

The 1972-73 Maharashtra-wide Drought

Some years had passed since the completion of the Koyna dam which was the basis for the all-round development of Maharashtra.   Electricity had begun to be produced from the water stored in the dam.   The campaign to bring electricity to the villages had begun.  An increase in industrial development also began to be felt; however the situation of agriculture in the Koyna-Krishna bank area was not felt as if “mother Krishna is flowing nicely” as in the cinema.   The situation was that that ‘mother Krishna is flowing nicely, unaware of happiness or sorrow on her banks.”   “Limitless water flows without a break; nobody diverts it for irrigating the land; how can this Ganges become fruitful to the lazy people?”  Such was the situation.  It was not only true for the Krishna.  It was also the case for the Godavari and Tapi.  Agriculture was still dependent on wells and rainfall for irrigation.  Aside from Mulshi, Rajewadi, Bhatghar and other dams of the British period and a few dams after independence, all of Maharashtra was like this.

The 1972-3 drought was general.  That is what was not simply in the traditionally drought-prone talukas.   It was not only in the rainshadow areas.  It was not only in the talukas with 300-500mm of average rainfall.  It spread to all the talukas of Maharashtra.  It was in the traditionally heavy rainfall talukas, and in the assured rainfall talukas.   In that period even big landholders came with their families onto the roads in 1972-3.   Only  those in occupations not dependent on agriculture were saved from this.   Tractors were not in existence then.  Farmers came onto the roads with their bullocks and implements.

This was a drought that fell because no crops came into harvest and no grain for food was produced.  One special feature was that  there was no great problem of a shortage of drinking water.  In one way or another water for drinking and household use was available.  Maharashtra’s Water…. Minister Laxman Dhoble compared this year’s drought to that of 1972-3, saying that the shortage of drinking water was greater then; but the reality was different.  At that time the machinery was not available for people to sink deep deep wells and borewells to finish off the ground water, and because of this the store of water underground was available with some labor.   Since it is not possible to live only by drinking water, this drought was primarily that of not producing other grain.

At that time the concept of fodder camps for domestic animals had not emerged.   Since grain was not produced, fodder was also not produced.  Only if there was some remaining old fodder could the animals survive.  A big movement was held of brining animals from the traditionally drought-prone talukas to the high rainfall areas of the Sahyadris.   Today the memory of those times is there in both places.  Under the name of “tagai,” there was a custom from  British times of giving fodder for animals and putting the price of the loan for this on their land records and recovering this with interest afterwards.  In 1975 we organized a huge struggle of drought affected people in Sangli district refusing this system of “tagai” and forced the government to begin free fodder camps.  Along with this the cooperative sugar factories were also forced to open such camps.   Those who have been given assured water for irrigation have, not as a favor but as a responsibility, the duty of caring for animals; this was the principle.   Today after 26 years the Maharashtra government has taken up even a worse policy than the British government and is taking 10% (for people below poverty line) to 25% of fodder price prior to the delivery.  It’s as if they want to finish off domestic animals.  They have refused to understand the calamity of drought.

The 1972-73-74 drought proved to be one that gave birth to the powerful and Maharashtra-wide movement of toilers.  The urban workers and employees also gave all their support to the movement.  At that time in Islampur (district Sangli) and Vairag (dist. Solapur) there was firing on the movement which testifies to the cruel heedlessness of the government.  Still themovement of the drought-affected didn’t stop but kept growing.  The times were tumultuous.   It was a time when highly educated youth also ignored their great future and came into the movement.  This was the drought of those times.  A strong unity of urban and rural workers took shape from that time.

Because of the overall situation of severe drought and the process of the young generation hurling themselves into the movement, a special strength came to the movement.  “Drought is not from nature but is man-made and those people responsible for creating the drought are in the ruling class” was first put forward at that time.  It is not sufficient to relieve drought, but rather we must search for the means to eradicate drought and put into position a program for permanently ending it.  This scientific outlook was taken by the fighting movement in Maharashtra.   From this the Dushkal Nivaran Nirmulan Mandal was established.  The movement should be done with a policy based on economics, agricultural science, irrigation science and a scientific viewpoint towards the water-land relationship; this was the new stage of the movement from that time.  Men such as Comrade Datta Deshmukh, V.M. Dandekar, V.R. Deuskar and others began to work in that Mandal.  The first scientific discussion of water distribution began for the first time in the country due to the 1972-3 drought and the conscious fighting movement organized by the people.   It spread to the “water policy” and “irrigation policy.”

Due to the drought and the movement arising from it the first “employment guarantee scheme” began in the country.   Maharashtra became to first state to implement such a scheme.  The government of the time didn’t have the capacity to implement such a scheme; rather it was the movement of urban and rural workers which did.  If 50 people demanded work, they should be given it or else given unemployment compensation; this was provision of the law.  Of all the work began, 75% should be “productive” work or work that served to dam and store water.   Such provisions that were directed at eradicating drought were also in the law.  Due to this the majority of tanks,  nalas, bands and small dams etc. were constructed during that drought and after in the drought of 1983-84,  The memory of the water policy put forward by Mahatma Phule  came to the various departments of the government due to this drought.  Only today, some governments of changed the Maharashtra employment guarantee scheme.  This “employment guarantee”, (the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee) got started caught in the factionalism of the gram panchayats,  and under their control.  Not enough work was created under this scheme to allow people to live!  This proved to be a scheme for starving the drought-affected.  On the other hand the 1972-73 drought,  and the movement during that period triggered another movement which was for building new dams for creating facilities for assured irrigation.   From that the dam-affected problems began in a large way.   Their movement began and that movement gave birth to the first rehabilitation law in India and in Maharashtra.  This was a precursor of the united and unique movement of the drought affected and dam affected in the country.

The historicity of caste

The caste system is often taken to be very ancient, even timeless.  “Hinduism” is sometimes said to be 5000 years old, so people will think the caste system dates equally back.  But this is simply not true.  Neither the caste system nor Hinduism is that old.   Caste is actually relatively recent historically.  (And “Hinduism” was constructed during the colonial period).

About 500 BCE Brahmanism (which possibly dated back before that to the late Vedic period) got engaged in a contention with the shramana tradition (Buddhism, Jainism, lokayata materialism etc).    Buddhism was an alternative to Brahmanism.   The shramana tradition itself (which defended the gana-sanghas and contested the varna of Brahmanism) may date back to the Indus civilization; there is some evidence for this; thus it would be older than the Brahmanic tradition.   Between the downfall of the Indus civilization and the emergence of patriarchal gana-sanghas (internal democracy among the elite and exploitation of dasas) came either tribal societies or matrilineal gana sanghas which had surplus production but not exploitation.    (It should be investigated whether there was also a Brahman-Kshatra division of society, which got reflected in the philosophy as purush-prakriti).   After the time of the patriarchal gana-sanghas and the contestation of the shramana and brahmanic traditions came the flowering of Brahmanism.   The first “manifesto” of the caste system, the Manumsriti, dates to about the 2^nd century BCE.    The Arthashastra and others are somewhat similar.   We have to differentiate between this Brahmanic caste ideology (which emerges with Manu) and the caste system, which rose to dominance only centuries later.

For a  long period when Buddhism was hegemonic (until about 500 CE or the 5-6^th centuries) there was no caste system dominant.  The state controlled agricultural production, mining etc.; there were guilds (shrenis) whose production was channeled by the state, dasa-kammakara slaves and workers, gahapatis and merchants and so on.  People from tribal societies were established on state land as “kutumbin” farmers with a major share of the produce going to the state.   This was an independent and dominant mode of production.   Shrenis and gahapatis were part of the state apparatus, while the exploited sections included the kutumbin farmers and dasakammakaras.

But this began to change.  As the stable agriculture grew in a wider area it became impossible for urban-based shrenis to provide implements because of distance and economic viability; thus groups of artisans from among the kutumbin farmers and defeated tribal clans began to be established in the villages.  This became the basis for the growth of the jajmani system.

We speak of varna; but what was the “varna system”? We need to discuss as to what extent it practically existed as a system and to what extent it was only an ideology. Despite the fact that except in Vedas and some literary texts the mention of varna is not found elsewhere, we cannot wholly rule out the possibility of existence of three varna-like groups. What was the period of the “Varna system” or of varna as a social reality, (social reality that linked caste, work, exploitation surplus and hierarchy) if it was one?   There may be no concrete proof for the varna system; but if the varna system was not there then why did the ideology emerge?

From 6^th-12^th centuries we can see the consolidation of the jajamani system.   The jajmani system began its formation about the 6^th century and was consolidated slowly after this.   Gradually caste and Brahmanism, which was evolving from an earlier period, were asserting themselves, in spite of the dominance of Buddhism and within the framework of guilds etc.  Gradually they triumphed, partly because of the consolidation of new relations in society but also due to violence of the state.

The bhakti movement (12^th to 17^th centuries) represented a ch allenge to caste; so did Sufism which influenced it.   Islam had a dual position; at the top the Sultans etc were willing to enforce brahmanic authority, but Sufi-carried Islamic traditions of equalitarianism.  In any case, the bhakti challenge was deflected and absorbed by the 18^th century.

Colonialism brought a new challenge to caste, though Brahmans could take the greatest advantage of British education, communications and employement, still a new historical outlook and new ideas emerged with Phule, Iyothee Thass and others.

Independence, modernization and caste: new themes came with the growth of capitalist industrialization, the erosion and weakening of jajmani occupations.  Modern changes in Brahmanism are very important.

Ambedkar confronts Gandhi

The confrontation between Ambedkar and Gandhi was a historic one.  It had its beginnings in the Round Table Conference of 1930-32,  Ambedkar had gone earliest, as the prime representative of Dalits, or Untouchables.  But when Gandhi finally decided to attend the second conference, he argued fervently that he represented the Untouchables, because they were an integral part of the Hindu fold – which he represented.    To Ambedkar, Untouchables were not a part of Hindus but “a part apart” (a phrase he had once applied to himself), a uniquely oppressed people.   They could accept, even welcome,the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by Congress (ie by caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards.”

                Ambedkar himself had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient.  But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues at the conference revolved around separate electorates.   Gandhi was reconciled to giving these to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity as a separate community.  Not so for Dalits.  When the Ramsay MacDonald Award was announced giving separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast to death.  And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar.

                For Ambedkar, the problem was simple.  If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms directed against Dalits and a massacre.   Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalized this with reserved seats for Dalits – more than they would have had otherwise, but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.

Ambedkar wrote, many years later, in What Congress and Gandhi have Done to the Untouchables, “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The Fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards [which had been awarded to them].”    He felt that the whole system of reserved seats, then, was useless.    For years afterwards the problem of political representation remained chronic.  Ambedkar continued to ask for separate electorates, but futilely.  By the end of his life, at the time of writing his “Thoughts on Linguistic States” in 1953, he gave these up also and looked to something like proportional representation.  But the Poona Pact remained a symbol of bitter defeat, and Gandhi from that time on was looked on as one of the strongest enemies of the Untouchables by Ambedkar and his followers.

Following the fast and the compromise made by Ambedkar, Gandhi formed what he came to call the Harijan Sevak Sangh.  Here again crucial differences arose.    Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organization which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits – entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties — and he wanted it under control of the Dalits themselves.   Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organization, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables.   This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism  — but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed;  upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the dalits.  This included programmes of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth.   For Ambedkar, all of this was worse than useless.   He condemned the Harijan Sevak Sangh in strong language: “The work of the Sangh is of the most inconsequential kind. It does not catch anyone’s imagination. It neglects most urgent purposes for which the Untouchables need help and assistance. The Sangh rigorously excludes the Untouchables from its management. The Untouchables are no more than beggars,  mere recipients of charity.”  The result, he concluded, is that the Untouchables see the Sangh “as a foreign body set up by the Hindus with some ulterior motive.”   He concluded by saying that “the whole object of the Sangh is to create a slave mentality among the Untouchables towards their Hindu masters.”  This, to Ambedkar, was the major thrust of paternalism.

This debate about the Harijan Sevak Sangh had as its background a fundamental difference in the very goals of Ambedkar and Gandhi.   Ambedkar stood for the annihilation of caste.   He saw untouchability as a fundamental result of caste, and believed that there could be no alleviation, no uplift, no relief from untouchability without the abolition of caste.  Gandhi here was not simply a devoted Hindu, but also a fervent believer in his idealized version of “varnashrama dharma.”  He felt that what he considered to be the benign aspects of caste – its encouragement of a certain kind of solidarity — could be maintained while removing hierarchy and the extreme evil of untouchability.  This was in fact the essence of his reformism.

Thus, an increasingly bitter conflict grew between Ambedkar and Gandhi with the fast, the Poona Pact and the formation of the Harijan Sevak Sangh.

This was followed by a conflict over religion.   Ambedkar had by now become thoroughly disillusioned with Hinduism.  He argued for conversion, and in 1936 made the historic announcement at Yeola that “I was born a Hindu and have suffered the consequences of untouchability.  I will not die a Hindu.”  Two days later Gandhi held a press conference, calling Ambedkar’s decision “unbelievable….Religion is not like a house or cloak which can be changed at will.”    On 22 August 1936 he wrote in the Harjan, which he had named his newspaper, that “One may hope we have seen the last of any bargaining between Dr. Ambedkar and savarnas for the transfer to another form of several million dumb Harijans as if they were chattel,”   This way of speaking became typical of him; he could not envisage the anger and grief of the millions of dalits who followed Ambedkar on this issue. 

Behind this were different views of humanity.  Gandhi did not see untouchables as individuals born into a particular community; rather as somewhat unthinking members of an existing Hindu community; Hinduism he saw as their “natural” religion; their task was to reform it; they should not leave it.  Ambedkar in contrast put the individual and his/her development at the center of his vision, and believed this development was impossible without a new, true religion.  The confrontation was inevitable.

The confrontation between Gandhi and Ambedkar did not stop with these issues and events.  The final difference between the two was over India’s path of development itself.   Gandhi believed, and argued for, a village-centered model of development, one which would forsake any hard path of industrialism but seek to achieve what he called “Ram raj”, an idealized harmonized traditional village community.   Ambedkar, in contrast, wanted economic development and with it industrialization as the basic prerequisite for the abolition of poverty.  He insisted always that it should be worker-friendly, not capitalistic, at times arguing for “state socialism”, (though he later would accept some forms of private ownership of industry) and he remained to the end of his life basically a democratic socialist.   To him, villages were far from being an ideal; rather they were “cesspools,” a cauldron of backwardness, tradition and bondage.   Untouchables had to escape from villages, and India also had to reject her village past.

In sum, there were important and irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar.  Two great personages of Indian history were posed against one another, giving alternative models of humanity and society.  The debate goes on!

 

 

Review: A Rogue And Peasant Slave- (Hindustan Times)

By Gail Omvedt
August 04, 2012
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Entertainment/Review-A-Rogue-And-Peasant-Slave/Article1-907868.aspx

A Rogue And Peasant Slave
Shashank Kela
Navayana
Rs. 595 pp 392

The British had regarded them as rogues, and turned them into peasant slaves, resulting in centuries of resistance. This broad theme underlies Shashank Kela’s study of Adivasi resistance — from colonialism

through independence — over two centuries.

More or less independent to begin with, Adivasis became increasingly subordinated to the British. Yet they engaged in continuous resistance, from the famous rebellion of Bheema Naik in the 1850s through the Jharkhand movement to participation in Maoist insurgency and involvement in mass movements in the latter part of the 20th century. A Rogue and Peasant Slave focuses on the Bhil Adivasi areas of Madhya Pradesh (in particular the Nimar area), though it expands to include developments in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in the 20th century.

Adivasi societies were largely autonomous (though often subordinated to larger states); located primarily but not entirely in hilly areas; economically dependant on shifting cultivation and hunting-gathering, and involved in occasional raids. With colonialism, this began to change. The British viewed them as marauders and bandits, and threw their weight behind local elites. Adivasi fighters found the regularly paid and garrisoned British-led soldiers difficult to deal with and were usually subdued.   Gradually taxes began to be levied: plough taxes as well as those on every conceivable kind of forest produce.   These had to be paid in cash, and Adivasi peasants soon fell into the clutches of moneylenders. They began losing control over land. Forced labour or corvee continued to be levied against Adivasi communities. A subordinate, land-poor peasantry emerged, subjected to a centralised State authority which replaced the fragmented feudal-like regimes.

These developments were marked by resistance. In the early stages, British control was fought by dissident chieftains or naiks such as Bheema Naik, Khajia Naik and many others. These struggles survived in the oral tradition, which frequently emphasised the fight as being against moneylenders and  merchants who were becoming the enemy by the latter half of the 19th century. Sporadic revolts continued to occur even after domination was established. A major struggle took place in the Alirajpur area of Madhya Pradesh  in 1883, marked also by raiding and brigandage. The Adivasis fought as they could. Continuing raids and the constant tendency of the British to see Bhil Adivasis simply as bandits led them to be classified as “criminal tribes”.

Some cultural and religious reform movements came about, including neo-Hindu movements that gave up or reinterpreted older customs with bhagats and devis. Thus Adivasis in the Vindhyas “became largely indistinguishable from Hindus though bride price, widow remarriage and a degree of premarital sexual freedom persisted”, Kela writes. By the late 1940s, Bhil society in parts of Jhabua was divided into “impure” and “pure” communities, the latter having given up meat. Folklore developed depicting caste differences: a Badwani story had God permitting representatives of different castes to choose objects: the Rajput chose the horse, the Bhilala the axe and the Nahal (a hunting group) the fishtrap.

By the mid-20 century, a small middle-class was emerging in some areas.   This provided the basis for more “modern” movements such as the Adivasi Sabha, which held its first conference in 1939 and later evolved into the Jharkhand Party, voicing the demand for a separate state. (Jharkhand, though, was changing, with out-migration of Adivasis to tea plantations and in-migration of non-Adivasis to capture the more lucrative jobs in mines and industry).   The Jharkhand Party leader Jaipal Singh, a colourful figure, had studied at Oxford and captained the Indian hockey team in the 1928 Olympics. The later Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, with leaders like Shibu Soren, was a more radical mass movement with policies of aligning with mine workers led by the independent Marxist AK Roy.

After this, Adivasis became involved with Maoist movements, providing a core of followers in tribal areas. As new social movements emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, Adivasis assumed a central role in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha.   Spontaneous movements against the Koel-Karo dam, or against a field firing range at Netarhat in Jharkhand, became visible. These spontaneous movements primarily emerged as struggles against immediate threats such as displacement. Contemporary rapacious capitalism, with its increased pressures on lands and livelihoods, has continued to produce resistance.

Thus, the two centuries since the emergence of colonialism have seen a history of subordination and rebellion. A Rogue and Peasant Slave documents this resistance and its underlying causes, providing an inspiring basis for further action. However, it also shows the fragmentation, the dispersal and occasional lack of leadership — Jharkhand Party leaders collaborated in the end with the Congress, the Maoists ignored Adivasi needs and attitudes, the middle-class leaders of mass movements often lacked staying power and when they left the movements faded away. Will a new generation of movements find such leadership? Only time will tell.
Gail Omvedt is a sociologist and human rights activist