HVK Archives: Home truths, colonial lies - Interview
Home truths, colonial lies - Interview - Down to Earth
Max Martin
()
30 June 1997
Title: Home truths, colonial lies - Interview
Author: Max Martin
Publication: Down to Earth
Date: June 30, 1997
A noted Gandhian historian, Dharampal, has enquired into various facets of
pre-British Indian society. He has authored several books, including Indian
Science and Technology in the 18th Century and The Beautiful Tree. In a
conversation with Max Martin in Delhi recently, he spoke on India's
achievements in agriculture and science, the efficacy of indigenous systems
of local governance and the deleterious effects of British rule
On agricultural productivity in India before the imposition of the British
system:
Sketches and descriptions of tools give us an idea of productivity in
agriculture and seed varieties in previous centuries. According to data
collected by the British, agriculture productivity was quite high around AD
1800. In the journal Edinburgh Review, the average produce per acre in
India is quoted as three times higher than Britain's.
Data from south India on paddy production in the 10th century - the Chola
period - and data from the 17th century about the Chengalpattu area
indicate that just 10 per cent of the cultivated land produced as much as
five to six tonnes per hectare. The authenticity of the data. obtained from
palm leaf inscriptions, is accepted by historians. It is not difficult to
account for the high yield. We had better hybrids, better seeds, and a
better climate than most countries in Europe.
On our knowledge of mathematics, and science and technology in the 18th
century:
Eighteenth century British records suggest that Indians knew algebra. Their
knowledge must have developed over a considerable period of time, possibly
centuries.
Steel and iron were being used in some of our buildings. In Kashmir and in
south India, steel was used in temple construction. Most of this was
indigenously produced. We had a good knowledge of metallurgy. Data
suggests that production of iron and steel was quit high. My estimate is
that our production potential was about 200,000 tonnes a year. But we
probably produced only about 20,000-50,000 tonnes per year. There were
about 10,000 furnaces for metal-working across the country, including ones
that could be transported by bullock cart to areas where iron ore was
available. These could only hive been made by professionals such as the
Agarias.
On living standards before British interference in the functioning of the
social economy:
Around 1805-06, Lord Monroe collected data on social classes in
Bellary-Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh). On the basis of this data, he devised
the income categories - upper middle and lower. However, I do not think
that there was any such thing as mass poverty.
The British reduced the wages of servants and workers in urban areas. In
the 18th century, wages were regulated throughout Bengal. Cases of
non-compliance with the regulation were dealt with strictly. Both workers
and employers could be punished: the workers for claiming more, and the
employers for paying more wages than permissible. These regulations
continued till about 1774.
The British went so far as to control social institutions. They took over
the management of temples. Although these were not closed down, their
expenditure was reduced by as much as Rs 3,000 in some cases. Similar
restrictions were imposed in all areas where Indian society was developed,
including medical institutions.
On tradition and the functioning of the caste system in the political economy:
There was equality among people in all communities. Although jati
vyavastha or the caste system was part of the social fabric, castes were
equal in political terms. There was little competition on an individual
level. Members of a community were equal. Ritually, some might have been
superior, but they were politically equal. Even if there were half a dozen
communities in a locality, each community would function in its own capacity.
On decision-making relating to matters of social concern:
Every caste had a say in matters of social concern. P Buchanan travelled
from Madras to Kanara, observing the way Indian society functioned. The
journey took over two years, and the findings were published in a number of
well-illustrated volumes. Buchanan points out that even the pariah or the
casteless had a say in matters that affected them as a group. Historians
say that Indians in the 17th century were very much given to seeking public
opinion. Other travel accounts of earlier periods also reveal that Indians
discussed social matters publicly.
On the status of untouchables, backward castes, and south:
In Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu in the 1820s, boys in schools were
categorised as brahman, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra and 'other castes'.
Still, more than 30 per cent of the boys in the schools run by the local
community were included in the 'other castes'. This means dalits had
access to schools. However, this was not the case in every district or
state - in Andhra Pradesh the figures were lower.
On gram swaraj and the undermining of institutions of local government as a
result of British rule:
Schools were run by local communities. Some 20-30 per cent of the land
under agriculture was set aside to fund infrastructural development and
institutions in localities. This would include the setting up of irrigation
tanks, schools and temples, and their maintenance. It would also include
policing. The accounts of a village called Uttar Meru in Chengalpattu
district are given in detail in some 10th century inscriptions. The
inscriptions also give us an account of the functioning of the village
assembly. It was probably a brahmanical assembly. Other assemblies might
not have been so formally organised.
On the political myth of the British contribution to national infrastructure:
After the British took over, few things were left in the control of the
people. Money set aside for repair and maintenance of irrigation works, as
well as the revenues collected by temples, were diverted by the British.
The militia was abolished. Accountants and revenue officers became
servants of the government. Of the 30 per cent land devoted to
infrastructural development, only three to four per cent was left at the
disposal of the local community.
Besides, no development work was taken up by the British. Subsequently,
tanks and canals fell into disrepair. The irrigation system in south India
was ruined between 1780 and 1840. Although the British realised this, they
ignored it and diverted the money to construction of roads, rest houses and
palatial bungalows.
Back
Top
|
