NCERT Solutions for Class 12 History Themes in Indian History III Chapter 1: Colonialism and the Countryside: Exploring Official Archives

Chapter at a glance

Exercises – Answer in 100–150 words

Answer

Jotedars were a group of rich peasants who emerged in the villages of Bengal in the late 18th century (Francis Buchanan’s survey of Dinajpur in north Bengal gives a vivid description).

Why they were powerful: 1. Control over vast lands – by the early 19th century, jotedars had acquired vast areas of land, sometimes as much as several thousand acres. 2. Control over trade and moneylending – they controlled local trade as well as moneylending, exercising immense power over poorer cultivators of the region. 3. Sharecroppers – a large part of their land was cultivated through sharecroppers (adhiyars or bargadars) who brought their own ploughs, laboured in the field, and handed over half the produce to the jotedars after the harvest. 4. Power in villages – within the village, the power of jotedars was more effective than that of zamindars. Unlike zamindars, who often lived in urban areas, jotedars were located in the villages and exercised direct control over a considerable section of poor villagers. 5. Resisting zamindars – they fiercely resisted efforts by zamindars to increase the jama (revenue) of the village, prevented zamindari officials from executing their duties, mobilised ryots who were dependent on them, and deliberately delayed payments of revenue to the zamindar. 6. Buying zamindaris – when the zamindari estates were auctioned for failure to pay revenue, jotedars were often among the purchasers.

They were known by different names — haoladars, gantidars or mandals in other parts of Bengal.

Jotedars were rich peasants who held thousands of acres, controlled local trade and moneylending, had land cultivated by sharecroppers (adhiyars/bargadars), lived in the villages and exercised direct power over poor villagers, resisted zamindars’ efforts to raise revenue, delayed payments, and often bought auctioned zamindaris — making them more powerful locally than the zamindars.

Answer

Zamindars faced the threat of auction under the Permanent Settlement, but many devised strategies to survive:

1. Fictitious sale (benami transactions) – zamindars transferred part of their zamindari to female relatives (since the Company had decided not to take over the property of women). E.g. the Raja of Burdwan transferred some of his zamindari to his mother.
2. Manipulating auctions – at the auction, the zamindar’s own agents bought the property, outbidding other purchasers. Later they refused to pay up, so the estate had to be resold. This process was repeated endlessly, exhausting the state and other bidders; eventually the estate was sold at a low price back to the zamindar. E.g. in 1793–1801, four big zamindaris of Bengal, including Burdwan, made benami purchases that collectively amounted to Rs 30 lakh; of the total sales at the auctions, over 15% were fictitious.
3. Refusing to accept outsiders – when outsiders bought estates at auctions, they could not always take possession; the old zamindar’s lathyals (strongmen with lathis) would beat up the new purchaser’s men, and ryots often did not allow outsiders, as they felt bound to the old zamindar through a sense of loyalty — he was their annadata (provider) and they took pride in him.
4. Dividing the zamindari – by the 1790s, falling prices; by the early 19th century, prices recovered and zamindars consolidated power.
5. Rules regarding revenue payments were made more flexible later, and the zamindars’ power over villages was consolidated; the Depression of the 1930s weakened them, and jotedars gained control.

Zamindars retained control through fictitious (benami) sales — e.g. the Raja of Burdwan transferred land to his mother; by having their own agents outbid others at auctions and then default, forcing repeated resales until they bought the estate back cheaply; by using lathyals to keep out outside purchasers; and through the loyalty of ryots who saw them as their annadata.

Answer

The Paharias lived around the Rajmahal hills (Bihar–Jharkhand region). They were hunters and shifting cultivators who lived off forest produce — mahua flowers, silk cocoons, resin, charcoal; they cleared patches of forest by cutting bushes and burning undergrowth, cultivating pulses and millets with the hoe; they regarded the whole region as their land.

Response to outsiders: 1. Raids on the plains – the Paharias regularly raided the plains inhabited by settled agriculturists, especially in times of scarcity or famine, to assert their power over settled communities, and to negotiate political relations with outsiders. They raided granaries and seized cattle. 2. Collecting tribute – zamindars on the plains often had to purchase peace by paying a regular tribute to the hill chiefs. Traders gave a small amount to the hill folk for permission to use the passes controlled by them. 3. Resistance to the British – in the 1770s, the British embarked on a brutal policy of extermination, hunting the Paharias down and killing them. By the 1780s, Augustus Cleveland, the Collector of Bhagalpur, proposed a policy of pacification: Paharia chiefs were given an annual allowance and made responsible for the proper conduct of their men. Many chiefs refused the allowances; those who accepted lost authority within the community and were seen as stipendiaries of the colonial government. 4. Withdrawal – as the British pushed the frontier of settled agriculture and the Santhals were settled in the region, the Paharias retreated deep into the hills — into the barren, drier and rocky interior. Their shifting cultivation and hunting were affected; they became impoverished.

The Paharias raided the plains’ settled agriculturists, especially in times of scarcity, and extracted tribute from zamindars and traders for peace and passage. They resisted the British, who first tried extermination (1770s) and then pacification through allowances to chiefs (Cleveland, 1780s), which many refused. As settled agriculture and the Santhals advanced, they withdrew deeper into the barren hills and became impoverished.

Answer

The Santhals came to the Rajmahal hills around the 1780s–1800s; the British invited them to settle in the area, clear the forests and cultivate land, since they were good settled cultivators. In 1832, a large area was demarcated as Damin-i-Koh and declared to be the land of the Santhals; they were to live within it, practise plough agriculture and become settled peasants.

Why they rebelled (the Santhal rebellion of 1855–56): 1. Heavy revenue demand – having brought land under cultivation, the Santhals found that the land they had brought under cultivation was slipping away from them. The state was levying heavy taxes on the land that the Santhals had cleared. 2. Moneylenders (dikus) – moneylenders were charging them high rates of interest and taking over the land when debts remained unpaid. 3. Zamindars – zamindars were asserting control over the Damin area. 4. Loss of land – as a result, the Santhals lost their land and became bonded labourers; they felt the colonial state, moneylenders and zamindars were exploiting them. 5. Desire for autonomy – by the 1850s, the Santhals felt that the time had come to rebel against zamindars, moneylenders and the colonial state, in order to create an ideal world for themselves where they would rule.

The rebellion was led by Sidhu and Kanhu; after it was suppressed, the Santhal Pargana was created, carving out 5,500 square miles from Bhagalpur and Birbhum districts, and special laws were enacted to protect the Santhals.

The Santhals, settled by the British in the Damin-i-Koh (1832), found the land they had cleared slipping away: the state imposed heavy revenue, moneylenders (dikus) charged high interest and seized land, and zamindars asserted control over the Damin. In 1855–56, led by Sidhu and Kanhu, they rebelled against zamindars, moneylenders and the colonial state to create a world they would rule; the Santhal Pargana was then created with protective laws.

Answer

1. High revenue demand – under the ryotwari settlement in the Bombay Deccan (1820s), revenue was fixed very high; when harvests failed or prices fell, ryots could not pay and had to borrow from moneylenders (sahukars).
2. Cotton boom and collapse – during the American Civil War (1861–65), cotton prices boomed, and moneylenders readily gave credit to ryots to grow cotton. But when the war ended and cotton supplies from America resumed, demand for Indian cotton fell, prices collapsed, and moneylenders refused to give further credit (they had no confidence of recovering loans) — though ryots desperately needed loans for revenue and subsistence. Ryots felt this was a betrayal; customary norms of reciprocity were violated.
3. Extortionate interest – customarily, interest could not exceed the principal; under colonial rule this norm broke down. In one case, a moneylender charged over Rs 2,000 as interest on a loan of Rs 100.
4. Manipulation of laws – the British passed a Limitation Law (1859), which stated that loan bonds would be valid for only three years. Moneylenders turned it around, forcing the ryot to sign a new bond every three years, with the unpaid balance (original loan plus accumulated interest) entered as the new principal.
5. Cheating – moneylenders refused to give receipts when loans were repaid, entered fictitious figures in bonds, acquired peasants’ harvest at low prices, and ultimately took over the peasants’ property; ryots were forced to sign deeds of hire — e.g. a peasant had to sell his bullocks and carts to the moneylender and then hire them back.
6. Loss of land – peasants lost land, animals and carts to moneylenders.

This anger led to the Deccan riots of 1875 (starting at Supa in Poona district), in which ryots attacked moneylenders’ houses and shops, burnt their account books and debt bonds (khatas).

Deccan ryots, burdened by high ryotwari revenue, depended on moneylenders. After the cotton boom collapsed in 1865, moneylenders refused further credit, violating customary reciprocity; they charged extortionate interest (Rs 2,000 on Rs 100), forced new bonds every three years to evade the 1859 Limitation Law, refused receipts, forged accounts and seized land, carts and bullocks through deeds of hire — leading to the 1875 riots in which ryots burnt account books and bonds.

Exercises – Short essay (about 250–300 words)

Answer

Under the Permanent Settlement (1793), introduced by Lord Cornwallis, the East India Company fixed the revenue that each zamindar had to pay permanently; the zamindars were not landowners in the usual sense but revenue collectors of the state. The “sunset law” said that if payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the zamindari was liable to be auctioned. Within a few years, many zamindaris were auctioned — in Burdwan in 1797, estates including those of the Raja of Burdwan were put up for sale.

Reasons for the failure to pay revenue: 1. High initial demand – the initial revenue demands were very high, because the Company felt that if the demand was fixed for all time, it would never be able to claim a share of increased income from land when prices rose and cultivation expanded. To minimise this anticipated loss, it pegged the revenue demand high. 2. Falling agricultural prices – the high demand was imposed in the 1790s, a time when the prices of agricultural produce were depressed, making it difficult for ryots to pay their dues to the zamindar. 3. Inflexible revenue – the revenue was invariable, regardless of the harvest. The sunset law meant payment had to be made punctually, regardless of the harvest. 4. Curtailed powers of zamindars – the Permanent Settlement limited the power of the zamindar to collect rent from the ryots and manage his zamindari. The Company regarded zamindars as important but wanted to control and regulate them, subdue their authority and restrict their autonomy. Zamindars’ troops were disbanded, customs duties abolished, and their “cutcheries” (courts) were brought under the supervision of a Collector appointed by the Company. They lost the power to organise local justice and the local police. 5. Defaults by ryots – at the time of rent collection, an officer of the zamindar (amla) came around to the village. But rent collection was a perennial problem. Sometimes bad harvests and low prices made payment of dues difficult; at other times ryots deliberately delayed payment. Rich ryots and village headmen — jotedars and mandals — were only too happy to see the zamindar in trouble. 6. Legal difficulties – the zamindar could prosecute defaulters, but the judicial process was long drawn.

Thus, many zamindars defaulted and their estates were auctioned. (Many also manipulated auctions through benami purchases.)

Zamindaris were auctioned because the revenue fixed under the Permanent Settlement was very high and inflexible, imposed when agricultural prices were depressed in the 1790s; the sunset law demanded punctual payment regardless of harvests; zamindars’ powers were curtailed (troops disbanded, courts under the Collector, no police powers); ryots defaulted or deliberately delayed payment, encouraged by jotedars; and legal processes against defaulters were slow.

Answer

Thus, the Paharias represented a forest-based economy of hunting, gathering and shifting cultivation, while the Santhals represented settled plough agriculture. The clash between them was a clash between two modes of life.

The Paharias lived in the Rajmahal hills by hunting, collecting forest produce (mahua, silk cocoons, resin, charcoal) and shifting cultivation with the hoe (pulses, millets), and raided the plains; the Santhals were settled cultivators who cleared forests and practised plough agriculture in the Damin-i-Koh, growing rice, cotton and tobacco, and were encouraged by the British, pushing the Paharias into the interior hills.

Answer

1. Britain’s dependence on American cotton – before the 1860s, three-fourths of raw cotton imports into Britain came from America. British cotton manufacturers had long been worried about this dependence and looked for alternative sources.
2. Outbreak of the American Civil War (1861) – when the war broke out, a wave of panic spread through cotton circles in Britain; raw cotton imports from America fell to less than 3% of the normal. Britain turned to India for cotton. The Cotton Supply Association (1857) and the Manchester Cotton Company (1859) had already been formed to encourage cotton production in the colonies.
3. Cotton boom in the Bombay Deccan – merchants in Bombay were keen to secure cotton for export; they gave advances to urban sahukars, who in turn extended credit to rural moneylenders, who lent to ryots. Credit flowed freely; ryots in the Deccan got almost unlimited credit and extended cotton cultivation. Prices rose. By 1862, over 90% of cotton imports into Britain came from India.
4. Some benefits – a few rich peasants did gain; but for the vast majority, the boom meant greater debt, as they borrowed heavily to expand cultivation.
5. Collapse after the war (1865) – when the Civil War ended, cotton production in America revived and Indian cotton exports declined. Export merchants were no longer keen on extending credit, and moneylenders refused loans; demand and prices of Indian cotton fell.
6. Distress – the ryots, deep in debt, were left without credit; at the same time, the government increased revenue demand (in the 1870s, settlement raised revenue by 50–100%). The ryots felt betrayed by moneylenders who refused credit, and lost land, carts and cattle.
7. Deccan riots (1875) – the anger exploded into the Deccan riots against moneylenders.

When the American Civil War (1861–65) cut off American cotton, Britain turned to India: Bombay merchants and sahukars poured credit into the Deccan, ryots expanded cotton cultivation and borrowed heavily, and by 1862 over 90% of Britain’s cotton imports came from India. When the war ended, demand and prices fell, credit dried up, revenue demands rose, and indebted ryots lost land and cattle — leading to the Deccan riots of 1875.

Answer

Official sources used in the chapter include the Fifth Report (1813), Francis Buchanan’s reports, revenue records, Deccan Riots Commission Report (1878), and police records.

Problems: 1. Official perspective and concerns – official sources reflect the concerns and interpretations of the colonial government. They were written by officials with specific purposes — to increase revenue, control territory, and justify colonial rule. 2. Reluctance to admit government’s fault – e.g. the Deccan Riots Commission was specifically asked to judge whether the level of government revenue demand was the cause of the revolt; after presenting all the evidence, it reported that the government demand was not the cause of peasant anger — it was the moneylenders who were to blame. This shows a persistent reluctance on the part of the colonial government to admit that popular discontent was ever on account of government action. 3. Biased descriptions – e.g. the Fifth Report exaggerated the decline of traditional zamindari power and the scale of zamindars losing land; it was part of a debate in Britain over the East India Company’s monopoly and misrule. Buchanan’s descriptions reflected the Company’s interests in resources and “improvement”, and saw forest people’s ways as backward. 4. Peasants’ voices are absent or filtered – peasants rarely wrote their own accounts; their views appear only through petitions, statements recorded by officials, or reported speech, which may be selective, translated or distorted. 5. Statistical data may be incomplete or collected for revenue purposes. 6. Colonial stereotypes – officials often viewed peasants and tribal people through stereotypes (e.g. “lazy”, “savage”, “primitive”).

How historians use them: official reports are invaluable sources, but they must be read with care and juxtaposed with evidence from newspapers, unofficial accounts, legal records and, where possible, oral sources.

Official sources (Fifth Report, Buchanan’s reports, revenue records, the Deccan Riots Commission report) reflect colonial concerns and interpretations, avoid blaming government action (the Commission blamed moneylenders, not revenue demand), may exaggerate or stereotype (Fifth Report, Buchanan), and present peasants’ voices only indirectly. They are valuable but must be read critically and compared with newspapers, unofficial accounts, legal records and oral sources.

Exercises – Map work and Projects

Answer

Areas described in the chapter (to be marked): - Bengal – Burdwan (zamindari auctions), Dinajpur (north Bengal — jotedars), Bhagalpur, Birbhum. - Rajmahal hills – Paharias; Damin-i-Koh/Santhal Pargana (Jharkhand). - Bombay Deccan – Poona (Supa, where the riots began in 1875), Ahmednagar, Satara, Sholapur districts (Maharashtra).

Permanent Settlement (zamindari system) – other areas: - Bengal, Bihar and Odisha (Bengal Presidency), Banaras division of Uttar Pradesh, parts of northern Madras Presidency (northern Andhra districts).

Ryotwari system – areas: - Madras Presidency (introduced by Thomas Munro, from 1820) – Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra, Kerala (Malabar), Karnataka; - Bombay Presidency – Maharashtra, Gujarat (Bombay Deccan from 1818–1820s); - Later also in Assam, Coorg and parts of Berar.

Mahalwari system (village-based) – North-Western Provinces (Uttar Pradesh), Punjab, Central Provinces — may also be shown for comparison.

Mark Burdwan and Dinajpur (Bengal), the Rajmahal hills and Damin-i-Koh/Santhal Pargana, and Poona and Ahmednagar in the Bombay Deccan. The Permanent Settlement also covered Bihar, Odisha, the Banaras region and northern Madras districts; the ryotwari system covered the Madras Presidency (Munro) and the Bombay Presidency (Maharashtra, Gujarat), and later Assam and Coorg; the mahalwari system prevailed in the North-Western Provinces and Punjab.

Answer

About Francis Buchanan: a physician who came to India and served in the Bengal Medical Service (1794–1815). He was employed by the Bengal government to undertake detailed surveys of the areas under the jurisdiction of the East India Company (e.g. Dinajpur, Rangpur, Purnea, Bhagalpur, Gorakhpur, Patna, Shahabad). He later became the superintendent of the Calcutta botanical garden.

Information on rural society (e.g. from the Bhagalpur/Dinajpur reports): 1. Jotedars – their control over land, trade, moneylending; sharecroppers (adhiyars). 2. Landscape and resources – soil, rocks, minerals, forests, rivers; Buchanan was looking for commercially valuable resources (stones, minerals, iron ore, mica, saltpetre) and opportunities for “improvement”. 3. Paharias and Santhals – Buchanan described the Paharias as hunters and shifting cultivators and the Santhals as industrious settlers clearing forests; he noted the Paharias’ suspicion of the British. 4. Agriculture – crops grown, methods of cultivation, prices, agricultural practices; he suggested the cultivation of more valuable crops. 5. Village life – houses, food, clothing, customs and religious practices, castes and occupations, artisans, markets.

How historians can use such texts: 1. They give detailed, first-hand descriptions of rural society, economy and landscape in the early 19th century — population, crops, prices, occupations, castes, and the condition of different groups. 2. But they must be read with an awareness of Buchanan’s perspective – he was an employee of the Company; he saw the landscape in terms of its revenue and commercial potential, and was critical of the forest dwellers’ ways of life, which he considered backward; he looked at the land through the eyes of “improvement” and progress. 3. Historians compare them with other sources (local records, oral traditions) and read “against the grain” to recover peasants’ and tribals’ experiences.

Buchanan’s reports (e.g. Dinajpur, Bhagalpur) describe jotedars and sharecroppers, landscapes and commercially valuable resources, Paharias and Santhals, crops and prices, and village life, castes and markets. Historians use them as detailed first-hand descriptions of early 19th-century rural society, but read them critically because Buchanan wrote as a Company employee interested in revenue, resources and “improvement” and viewed forest people as backward.

Answer

(Sample report — students should record their own interviews.)

Village: a village in western Uttar Pradesh. Interviewee: Mr Ramesh Singh, aged 80, farmer.

1. What they produce now: sugarcane (main cash crop, sold to the sugar mill), wheat, paddy, mustard, vegetables; buffaloes for milk.
2. How they earn: sale of sugarcane and wheat at government procurement prices (MSP); sale of milk to dairy cooperatives; some income from a son’s job.
3. What their parents did: his father was a tenant cultivator under a zamindar before zamindari abolition (1950s); grew wheat, barley, gram and some sugarcane using bullocks and wooden ploughs; paid rent to the zamindar; borrowed from the village moneylender at high interest; family members worked as labourers in lean seasons.
4. What their sons and daughters do now: elder son farms with a tractor; younger son works in a factory in Ghaziabad; one daughter is a schoolteacher, another married and lives in town; grandchildren study in English-medium schools.
5. Changes over 75 years:
   • Land ownership – after zamindari abolition, the family became owners of the land they cultivated.
   • Technology – Green Revolution (late 1960s): HYV seeds, chemical fertilisers, tube-wells, tractors, threshers.
   • Credit – loans from banks and cooperatives (Kisan Credit Card) instead of only moneylenders, though informal loans continue.
   • Education, electricity, roads, mobile phones; more children in school, especially girls.
   • Non-farm employment and migration to towns; landholdings divided and smaller.
   • Problems – rising costs, falling water table, delayed payments by sugar mills, debt.
6. Continuities – dependence on agriculture, family labour, importance of land and caste ties.

Sample: an 80-year-old farmer now grows sugarcane, wheat, paddy and keeps buffaloes; his father was a tenant under a zamindar using bullocks and borrowing from moneylenders; his children work as a tractor farmer, factory worker and teacher. Over 75 years, zamindari abolition made them owners, the Green Revolution brought machines and HYV seeds, bank credit, education and non-farm jobs spread, while rising costs, falling water tables and debt remain problems.

Topic checklist

• ☒ Permanent Settlement, zamindars and jotedars (Q 1, 2, 6)
• ☒ Paharias and Santhals (Q 3, 4, 7)
• ☒ Deccan ryots, cotton boom and moneylenders (Q 5, 8)
• ☒ Official sources and Buchanan (Q 9, 11)
• ☒ Map work and village study (Q 10, 12)

Total questions answered: 12 of 12