Moral Economy and the Indigo Movement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPECIAL ARTICLE Moral Economy and the Indigo Movement Sanjay Ghildiyal During 1859-61, a large portion of colonial Bengal nlike the 150th anniversary of the 1857 uprising in 2007, became a site of contest between the indigo peasants that of the Indigo movement last year was greeted with conspicuous silence. During 1859-61, a large portion of and English planters, with the Bengali bhadralok and U colonial Bengal became a site of contest between the indigo peas- British officialdom as important stakeholders. On the ants and English planters, with the Bengali bhadralok and British face of it, the Indigo movement was against the officialdom as important stakeholders in the ensuing contest. It oppressive and unremunerative system of indigo was the first major uprising in the post-East India Company era. Jolted by the 1857 event, the British were keen to know the causes cultivation. It was perceived by the ryot as a threat to his of the disturbance and therefore set up a commission of enquiry security of subsistence, but there was much more to it under Act X of 1860.1 than that. It was an affront to the use of customary rights Although the historiographic interest in the Indigo movement held by the peasant and was a constriction or denial of has been considerable, it, nonetheless, is completely devoid of the moral economy aspect of action. The moral economy perspective choice where earlier there was complete freedom to has not even found space in the margins of the discourse on the choose the crop for cultivation. For an adequate Indigo movement. The political economy perspective covers understanding of the Indigo movement and perhaps for a lmost the entire historiographic spectrum of this movement.2 the historiography of the Indian peasant movements in The search begins and ends, with slight variations in emphasis, with the detection of the hard grievance – the oppressive planter general, both political and moral economy approaches and the unremunerativeness of indigo cultivation.3 This is true need to be taken into consideration. not only for the historiography of the Indigo movement but also for the historiography of Indian peasant struggles in general. An attempt has been made here to give the moral basis of the action of the indigo peasant. Before we attempt to elucidate the moral economy perspective, a brief account of the domination of the discourse by the political economy perspective would be in order. The pattern has been set by the Report of the Indigo Commission (RIC) and the subsequent historiography has been a pastiche of the RIC. The report has been the most, often almost solely, used piece of evidence for the construction of the history of the event. As the RIC is primarily an exercise in political economy so is the historiography of the move- ment. This can be ascertained from the following verdict on the root cause of the trouble: All the defects of the system, inherent and incidental, all the faults which justly are to be laid at the door of either planter or ryot, by their respective opponents, may be traced originally to one fact, the want of adequate remuneration (RIC: paragraph 70, emphasis added). Dominance of Political Economy The argumentative tone of the RIC and other colonial official dis- course has been reiterated in the historiography of the move- ment. Kling’s (1966) work, the first detailed historical construc- tion of the event, is in consonance with the RIC.4 The seeds of I am grateful to Shekhar Pathak and Madhu Joshi for their comments on contention, Kling contends, are located in the organisation of an initial draft of this paper. production – land, labour and capital and certain agronomical Sanjay Ghildiyal ([email protected]) is with the Department of and environmental factors (1966: 15-37). B B Chaudhuri, like History, Kumaon University, Nainital. Kling, explains the raison d’etre of the conflict in terms of the Economic & Political Weekly EPW february 20, 2010 vol xlv no 8 67 SPECIAL ARTICLE a ntagonism of the relations of the productions (1964: 159). For constriction or denial of choice. Whatever other restrictions were Palit enhancement of rent, rising prices and struggle over land- there on the peasant, s/he was free in the domain of crop selec- holdings were the main reasons for the Indigo movement (1975: tion. Even sharecroppers held the right to choose the crop for cul- 123-51). Various other historians contributed to the discourse tivation (Chaudhuri 1982: 163). RIC (paragraph 40) recognised though none have touched upon the moral economy rationale of this traditionally held right of the peasant: “Ordinarily he (i e, action (Bhattacharya 1977, 1978; Biswas 1970; Chattopadhyay zamindar) does not exercise, and ought not to exercise, any inter- 1973; Chattopadhyay 1975; Chaudhuri 1973; Chopra 1985; Choud- ference with the cultivation of the ryot, and provided he receives hury 2001; De 1963, 1984; Ghosh 1958; Guha 1974 (1993); Guha his due rents, it can matter little to him what kind of produce is 1983; Kaviraj 1984; Natarajan 1953; Palit 1975; Sah 1980; Sen grown on the land”. Planters, on the contrary, forced them to cul- 1997; and Sen 1979, 1982). tivate indigo. As Eden in his evidence before the Indigo Commis- The historiography of the Indigo movement, embedded in the sion observed: “I never heard of any zemindar (sic) insisting upon Weberian concept of rational action, has been devoid of the moral a ryot sowing a particular crop unless that zemindar (sic) was economy perspective of action.5 As Scott puts it: also an indigo planter” (RIC: e 3621). The peasant, to all intent A study of the moral economy of the peasants can tell us what makes and purposes, became an agricultural labourer, merely assisting them angry and what is likely, other things being equal, to generate an the planter in the process of cultivation, in relation to the part of explosive situation. But if anger born of exploitation were sufficient to spark a rebellion most of the third world (and not only the third world) land on which he grew indigo. This loss of status was irksome, as would be in flames. Whether peasants who perceive themselves to be it caused a deprivation relative to the past. It is with this sense of exploited actually rebel depends on a host of intervening factors (Scott deprivation that Deenbandhu Mitra’s Neel Darpan begins.6 Sadhu 1976: 4). Charan, a peasant, suggests Golak, a petty landlord, to leave the Scott (1976) opines that subsistence ethic and “safety first”, i e, village as the intrusion of indigo planter has ruined it (Act 1, Sc 1, peasants shy away from the market for the security of their sub- Rao and Rao Tr 1992: 185). The denial or constriction of choice sistence concerns and adequate and secure income come prior to with regard to crop selection was inextricably linked to the sub- risks of higher but unsafe income, are vital determinants of the sistence concerns of the peasantry. a ction. Behind every such popular direct action, Thompson (1968: Indigo cultivation was perceived by the ryot as a threat to his 73) avers, some legitimising notion of right is to be found. Green- security of subsistence. Sadhu Charan, laments “…we better hang gough (1983: 848), perhaps the first historian to apply Scott’s the- up our pots and pans” (Act I, Sc I, Rao and Rao Tr 1992: 187). sis with reference to the Indian peasantry, writes in relation to the These words reveal that the fear of starvation was looming large peasantry of Bengal: “Scott’s discussion of peasant subsistence is before the peasants. And, as Scott has argued, the primary incorrect at every step when Bengal is taken as a case in point: concern of most peasants is avoiding the risk of going hungry. abundance rather than scarcity is considered a natural state of af- “I shall have something to eat”, was the reason offered by the fairs; all are enjoined to extend cultivation and enhance their au- peasant Chander Ghosh of Nadia’s Changuri village (RIC 1860: thority rather then adapt themselves to minimal consumption and e3283) for his preference to stay in jail. Similarly, Astul Mandol, humiliating dependence…”. Mridula Mukherjee (1988: 2176-77) another peasant, of Nischindipur, said, “I have become a fakir” opines that though Indian peasants resisted in various ways when (RIC 1860: e3228). That the peasants were thinking in terms of their subsistence was threatened, the right to subsistence does not subsistence ethics can be seen in the following conversation seem to have been a part of the Indian peasant’s consciousness. It between Golak, the landlord, Nabinmadhab, his son, and the is interesting to note that Sugata Bose sees the resistance activity peasant Sadhu Charan: in terms of contest and compromise between the state-land-capital Golak: If all the sixty bighas are put under indigo, where shall we grow controlling sections versus the smallholding and labouring sec- other crops? We shall starve to death that’s all. tion. Subsistence ethics, though not elaborated upon, has been Nabinmadhab: I even said, ‘Saheb, you use our men, our ploughs, our recognised as an important factor: “The demands of smallholders cattle to raise your indigo, you don’t have to pay us for that; all we ask and labourers for subsistence, security and social conditions is that you give us our food all the year round…’ r eflective of their notion of human dignity sought to resist and re- Sadhu Charan: These days even those who work only for their food are structure relations governing access to land, work, consumption more fortunate than us (Act 1, Sc 1, Rao and Rao Tr 1992: 187).