• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TheOrigina nd Grow th ofVilla geCom m unities inIndia By Ba den HenryBa den-Pow ell, M.A., C.I.E. (1841–1901) 1899 Reproducedb y Sa niH. Pa nhw a r (2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter1 – Gen eralH istory ofthe Q uestion ofIndian V illag e O rigin s .. 1 Chapter2 – Explan ation ofTerm s .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 Chapter3 – The Ev iden ceReg ardin g V illag esB eforean dA fter1870 .. 16 Chapter4 – A Gen eralV iew ofthe A g ricultural RacesofIndia .. .. 20 Chapter5 – The Indian V illag e A sItIs .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Chapter6 – The Theory Reg ardin g Indian V illag esExam in ed .. .. 47 Chapter7 – Ideasof“P roperty” or“O w n ership” .. .. .. .. 60 Chapter8 – S ome P racticalA spectsofV illag e Institutions .. .. .. 66 A ppen dix I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 72 PREFACE Itcann otbe n ecessary tow ritea form al prefacetososm all a book.B utIm ay be allowed tom ak e useofthe spacefortwopurposes.First,Ihav e toexpressm y than k stoP rof.W . J.A shley,M .A .,ofH arvardUn iversity,an dlateFellow ofL in coln Colleg e,O xford,n ot only forthe sug g estion thata shortaccoun tofthe Indian v illag e shouldbe w ritten ,but forv aluable advicean dcriticism in the courseofw ritin g it. S econdly,Ihav e tosay a few w ordsaboutthe (notvery frequen t)Indian w ords(H in di, P ersian ,etc.)w hich occur.Ihav e av oidedthem w herev er Icould;butsometim es they are n eeded for the sak e of readers in India, or because there is n o satisfactory equivalen t;partly also because they show that the thin g in dicated is, or is n ot, in digen ous; that ithas been borrowed from the M oslem s, or is an older H in du in stitution.N ow,the only tolerable w ay in w hich such w ordscan be g iven in prin t,is by tran sliteratin g in toRoman character;an d people then say “w e don otk n ow how they shouldbe pronoun ced.” B ut for practical purposes, itis quite easy topronoun ce Indian w ords at least in telligibly.O n ly rem em ber thatthey are not English,an d in particular,thatthe letter “a” (withoutaccen t)w hich socomm only occursm ustn ev er be pronoun ced w iththe peculiarsoun d ofthe En g lish “flat,”“that,”“m an y,”etc.Itis un iform ly like the u in “bun ,”sothatthe H in disyllables m an i,e.g.,are readlike the En g lish w ord“m oney.” Eachv owel hasa shortorun accen teduse,alsoa broadoraccen ted,thus a – â (asin En g lish)“bun ” – “ba(r)n” i – î (asin En g lish)“pit”– “peat” u – û (asin En g lish)“pull” – “pool” (ê)isreg ardedas a diphthong ,an disalw aysw ith“ay” (têl = “tale”),ô isalw ayslong as in “post.” These soun dsarein v ariable.Ihav e n otm arkedthe v ariations in the consonan ts,except tow rite q w hen the A rabic(k)is in dicated.B utitw ill be w ell tostatethe th is never sibilan t(asin “this”or“thin ”)in Indian dialects,itisonly tw ithan aspirate;g isalw ays hard,never asin “g in ” (whichw ouldbe j). O xford,July,1899. B .H .B -P. Indian Village Communities Chapter 1 – General History of the Question of Indian Village Origins The object of this little book is to explain, in the compass of a few pages, and as untechnically as possible, the nature and origin of Indian village communities, with special reference to the commonly received theories about them. Many people have heard vaguely that the villages represent an ancient “communal” holding of land; others have heard that this theory has been much doubted. They would perhaps like to know more about the subject without having to make a prolonged or very detailed study. These Indian communities are living, and not, like the “Teutonic mark,” dead. The importance of observing and understanding them for the purposes of the comparative history of institutions, and for economic science in general, is admitted on all hands. But often as “the village” is alluded to in histories or other books on Indian subjects, it is dealt with chiefly as the creature of theory – a thing in the air, rather than an existing institution, which can be studied with reference to historic facts, times, and places, and to tribes and families of known race and location. And the year 1870 (or some nearly approaching period) may be taken as the birth-time (in England) of a general theory regarding the origin and nature of Indian villages. This theory obtained such wide currency that it soon seemed to be beyond the reach of question. All Indian villages were regarded as having been originally constituted in a single (typical) form; this form being, consequently, spoken of as archaic date and of “Aryan” parentage. So conceived, “the village community” was asserted to represent a group of persons or households who cultivated and owned their land “in common”; it was, in short, an important and widespread oriental survival of that “ownership in common” which was believed to have been universally antecedent to the development of individual property in later times. The best known exposition of this theory is to be found in the works of the late Sir H. S. Maine, especially in his “Village Communities of the East and West1,” and in several lectures, afterwards collected in a book entitled “The Early History of Institutions2.” Let us, however, not misunderstand the author’s position in these works. He treats the conception of “the village” as if it were based on a certainty. The evidence he possessed established so much, at least, that they were joint-bodies or close, self- managing communities. That was enough. He never proposed to go into detail, or give a complete account of their origin or history. The village is conceived in the abstract, and is introduced as a well-known phenomenon. It is the extreme generality of his 1 T hefirsteditionisdated1871.M yquotationsarefrom thethirdedition,andindicatedbytheletters“V.C.” 2 Dated1874– 5;indicatedas“E.H.I.” TheOriginandGrowthofVillageCommunities inIndia, Copyright© www.sanipanhwar.com 1 view, expressed, as it is, in lucid phrases, that caused it to be so easily and so widely read and remembered. About ten years after the publication of these works, it fell to my lot (under circumstances which need not be detailed) to prepare an account of the Land Systems and Land-Revenue Administration of British India. This was first published in Calcutta. And ten years later a new and more complete work on the same subject was prepared and published at Oxford3. At this time the village theory was in full possession of the field, and was supported by all the authority of Sir H. S. Maine’s name, as well as recommended by the charm of his style and the suggestiveness of his method. It is true that, as far as concerns the general prevalence of primitive communal ownership and the “Teutonic mark,” the works of M. Fustel de Coulanges and others had already raised serious doubts; but their argument hardly touched the Indian phenomena – at least directly. However that may be, all this time the materials for a detailed study of the Indian villages in all parts of the great empire had been rapidly accumulating. Evidence, far superior in character to anything that had before been obtained, was now in print; and it covered a much wider field of inquiry, including provinces about which little or no information was available before 1870. Administrative Systems in India, and the Land Revenue System more especially, cannot be dealt with without giving an account of the land tenures. And to describe the village tenures according to the facts as they appeared in the light of the fuller evidence, was to make something of a new departure. It was not, indeed, necessary, in describing the Land Revenue System, to discuss the origin of villages, or dispute theories; but even the limited account that was indispensable could not fail to suggest a widely different view of the subject. In order, therefore, to examine still further the facts in the light of later information, it was desirable to collect the available evidence in a separate book4. Of this I will say no more than that it cannot be easy reading, because so much detail is necessary, and because it is so very difficult to marshal the matter in such an order that it shall be intelligible to those who have not any long Indian experience. I find, in fact, that my meaning has often been misapprehended. It seems, therefore, desirable that an opportunity should be taken of offering (in as brief a compass as the nature of the subject will admit) a general re-statement of the case and of the general conclusions which appear to be justifiable. In doing this, it is necessary to indicate why it is that many facts of which evidence is now abundant were unknown to Sir H. S. Maine, and how it is that the information available to that distinguished exponent of historical jurisprudence seemed to him so conclusive, and was really so imperfect, and in some respects misleading5. 3 “ The Land Systems of British India,”3 vols.:ClarendonP ress,1892.Inthesequelthisisreferredtoas“L .S.B.I.” 4 “ The Indian Village Community,”1 vol.:L ongmans,1896.T hisisreferredtoshortlyinthesequelas“Ind.Vill. Com.” 5 S irH.S .M aineseveraltimesspeaksofthecompletenesswithw hichtheIndianvillagehadbeenobserved;and thoughhesuggeststheneedofre-examiningtheevidenceonsomepoints(“V.C.,”pp.12,13),hebetraysnosense thattheevidenceitself(ingeneral)w asdeficient,andthattheareacoveredby itw asbutsmallcomparedtothe TheOriginandGrowthofVillageCommunities inIndia, Copyright© www.sanipanhwar.com 2 And when this has been explained, it will be proper to indicate the nature of the later and improved evidence that has become available.

Load more

  157

Copy Link