11-26-2005, 02:36 PM
Collected writings volume 5. Essays on tradition, recovery and freedom.. page 26
on agriculture/land rights/nutrition etc..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There seem to have been various systems of land-rights in differ-ent parts or regions of India and also in the same region. But most of these systems seem to have assumed the supremacy of the village community over the land, its disposal, or the way it was worked. There were villages where the village community (perhaps the community of only those who cultivated land and those who held manyams and not necessarily of all the families in the village) seems to have been organised as a <i>samudayam</i>. While its members had specific shares in the land of the village, the land which any of them cultivated was changed from time to time. Such a change in the district of Thanjavur, where around 30% of the villages were classed as samudayam in 1805, was stated to be based on the assumption that a certain alteration occurs in the fertility of all land from time to time, which creates inequality amongst the members of the community; hence, occasional redistribution was considered necessary. Again in Thanjavur in 1805, the number of mirasdars (i.e. those having permanent rights in land) was put at 62,042, of which over 42,000 belonged to the sudras and castes below them. The number of cultivators of the group termed Pariah in the Baramahals (the present Salem district) was estimated at 32,474, out of a total population of around 6,00,000 just before 1800. The number of mirasdars actually listed by the Chengalpattu collector in the district in 1799 was put at 8,300. But the collector was of the view that the actual number of mirasdars there, was about ten times more i.e. around 80,000. In 1817 the number of mirasdars in 1080 villages of Tirunelveli district was estimated to be 37,494. It is unnecessary to add that throughout India, the rights of the actual cultivator were permanent and hereditary; and these began to be scrapped by the British from 1790 onwards: first, to enable them to realise a greatly enhanced land revenue; and sec-ond, because British ideas of ownership did not admit of any such cultivator rights, even in Britain.
With regard to agricultural production and the wages in agricul-ture, according to the journal Edinburgh Review (A.D.1803â1804), the wages of the Indian agricultural labourer in the Allahabad-Varanasi region around 1800 were in real terms substantially higher than the wages of his British counterpart. The jour-nal at that time wondered that if these wages were so high at this late period of great economic decline, how much higher such wages must have been when they were first established. According to a recent computation by an economist of the University of Madras, the wages of the agricultural labourer in Chengalpattu during the period 1780â1795 at 1975 prices would have been about Rs.7.50 per day, while in 1975 itself such wages were Rs.2.50 per day only. The productivity of wheat in the Allahabad-Varanasi region was more than double of that in England on similar land. Further, it may be mentioned that Bri-tain, like the rest of Europe, produced only one crop a year, while in India many lands produced more than one crop.
An idea of the Indian economy and consumption patterns is provided by some 1806 data from the district of Bellary. It is concerned with an estimation of the total consumption of the people of the district, and further indicates the detailed con-sumption pattern of the three categories of families in which the population was divided by the British authorities.
The three categories were: first, the more prosperous (total population: 2,59,568); second, the families of medium means (total population: 3,72,887); and third, the lowly (total population: 2,18,684). According to this estimate, the consumption of the first article in the schedule, food-grains, differed in quality and value between the families in the first category on the one hand, and those in the second and third categories on the other. But the quantity of food-grains estimated to have been consumed in all three was the same, i.e. half a seer of grain per person per day. The schedule included 23 other items including pulses, betel-nut, ghee, oil, tamarind, coconuts both fresh and dry, drugs and medicine, cloth, firewood and vegetables, and also betel-leaves (pans). As illustrative of the pattern of this consumption, the number of pans consumed per year in a family of six is given as 9,600 pans for the first category, 4,800 for those in the second category, and 3,600 pans for those in the third category. The consumption of ghee and oil was in the proportion of 3:1:1 ap-proximately and of pulses 8:4:3. The total per capita per annum consumption was estimated at Rs.17â3â4 for those, belonging to the first category Rs.9â2â4 for those belonging to the second category, and Rs.7â7â0 for those in the third category.
The pattern indicated in the above para is, of course, very broad. In reality a number of people may have had a much higher consumption than the average of the first category. An indication of the extent of such differential between the really high and the really low is provided by some 1799 data from the Karnataka area. After much enquiry about the incomes of the officers of the state in Tipooâs domain, the British came to the inference that the highest paid officer of Tipoo (the governor of the fort of Chitradurg) had a total salary of Rs.100 per month during Tipooâs reign. The wages of an ordinary labourer in this area at this period was about Rs.4 per month. The new differentials which were brought into being around this period by the British are indicat-ed by the salary of the British district collector (about Rs.l,500 per month) and a member of the British Governorâs Coun-cil receiving Rs.6,000âRs.8,000; while the wages of the labourer were constantly reduced during 1760 to 1850.
What the Indian labourer, craftsman, etc., received as wages around 1850 was in all probability no more than one-third or at the most one-half, of what he would have received till around 1760. The new dispari-ties, however, were not altogether limited to British salaries. Where state policy so dictated, similar decisions were taken with regard to the emoluments of Indians at high levels. An example is provided by the raising of the personal allowance of the Maharana of Udaipur. Till Udaipur came under British protection in 1818, the Maharana was supposed to have had an allowance of Rs.l,000 per month. Within a few months of British protection, while various other expenses of the kingdom were either abolished or reduced, the allowance of the Maharana was raised to Rs.l,000 per day.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
on agriculture/land rights/nutrition etc..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There seem to have been various systems of land-rights in differ-ent parts or regions of India and also in the same region. But most of these systems seem to have assumed the supremacy of the village community over the land, its disposal, or the way it was worked. There were villages where the village community (perhaps the community of only those who cultivated land and those who held manyams and not necessarily of all the families in the village) seems to have been organised as a <i>samudayam</i>. While its members had specific shares in the land of the village, the land which any of them cultivated was changed from time to time. Such a change in the district of Thanjavur, where around 30% of the villages were classed as samudayam in 1805, was stated to be based on the assumption that a certain alteration occurs in the fertility of all land from time to time, which creates inequality amongst the members of the community; hence, occasional redistribution was considered necessary. Again in Thanjavur in 1805, the number of mirasdars (i.e. those having permanent rights in land) was put at 62,042, of which over 42,000 belonged to the sudras and castes below them. The number of cultivators of the group termed Pariah in the Baramahals (the present Salem district) was estimated at 32,474, out of a total population of around 6,00,000 just before 1800. The number of mirasdars actually listed by the Chengalpattu collector in the district in 1799 was put at 8,300. But the collector was of the view that the actual number of mirasdars there, was about ten times more i.e. around 80,000. In 1817 the number of mirasdars in 1080 villages of Tirunelveli district was estimated to be 37,494. It is unnecessary to add that throughout India, the rights of the actual cultivator were permanent and hereditary; and these began to be scrapped by the British from 1790 onwards: first, to enable them to realise a greatly enhanced land revenue; and sec-ond, because British ideas of ownership did not admit of any such cultivator rights, even in Britain.
With regard to agricultural production and the wages in agricul-ture, according to the journal Edinburgh Review (A.D.1803â1804), the wages of the Indian agricultural labourer in the Allahabad-Varanasi region around 1800 were in real terms substantially higher than the wages of his British counterpart. The jour-nal at that time wondered that if these wages were so high at this late period of great economic decline, how much higher such wages must have been when they were first established. According to a recent computation by an economist of the University of Madras, the wages of the agricultural labourer in Chengalpattu during the period 1780â1795 at 1975 prices would have been about Rs.7.50 per day, while in 1975 itself such wages were Rs.2.50 per day only. The productivity of wheat in the Allahabad-Varanasi region was more than double of that in England on similar land. Further, it may be mentioned that Bri-tain, like the rest of Europe, produced only one crop a year, while in India many lands produced more than one crop.
An idea of the Indian economy and consumption patterns is provided by some 1806 data from the district of Bellary. It is concerned with an estimation of the total consumption of the people of the district, and further indicates the detailed con-sumption pattern of the three categories of families in which the population was divided by the British authorities.
The three categories were: first, the more prosperous (total population: 2,59,568); second, the families of medium means (total population: 3,72,887); and third, the lowly (total population: 2,18,684). According to this estimate, the consumption of the first article in the schedule, food-grains, differed in quality and value between the families in the first category on the one hand, and those in the second and third categories on the other. But the quantity of food-grains estimated to have been consumed in all three was the same, i.e. half a seer of grain per person per day. The schedule included 23 other items including pulses, betel-nut, ghee, oil, tamarind, coconuts both fresh and dry, drugs and medicine, cloth, firewood and vegetables, and also betel-leaves (pans). As illustrative of the pattern of this consumption, the number of pans consumed per year in a family of six is given as 9,600 pans for the first category, 4,800 for those in the second category, and 3,600 pans for those in the third category. The consumption of ghee and oil was in the proportion of 3:1:1 ap-proximately and of pulses 8:4:3. The total per capita per annum consumption was estimated at Rs.17â3â4 for those, belonging to the first category Rs.9â2â4 for those belonging to the second category, and Rs.7â7â0 for those in the third category.
The pattern indicated in the above para is, of course, very broad. In reality a number of people may have had a much higher consumption than the average of the first category. An indication of the extent of such differential between the really high and the really low is provided by some 1799 data from the Karnataka area. After much enquiry about the incomes of the officers of the state in Tipooâs domain, the British came to the inference that the highest paid officer of Tipoo (the governor of the fort of Chitradurg) had a total salary of Rs.100 per month during Tipooâs reign. The wages of an ordinary labourer in this area at this period was about Rs.4 per month. The new differentials which were brought into being around this period by the British are indicat-ed by the salary of the British district collector (about Rs.l,500 per month) and a member of the British Governorâs Coun-cil receiving Rs.6,000âRs.8,000; while the wages of the labourer were constantly reduced during 1760 to 1850.
What the Indian labourer, craftsman, etc., received as wages around 1850 was in all probability no more than one-third or at the most one-half, of what he would have received till around 1760. The new dispari-ties, however, were not altogether limited to British salaries. Where state policy so dictated, similar decisions were taken with regard to the emoluments of Indians at high levels. An example is provided by the raising of the personal allowance of the Maharana of Udaipur. Till Udaipur came under British protection in 1818, the Maharana was supposed to have had an allowance of Rs.l,000 per month. Within a few months of British protection, while various other expenses of the kingdom were either abolished or reduced, the allowance of the Maharana was raised to Rs.l,000 per day.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->