NCERT Solutions Class 12 History

Chapter 9: Colonialism and the Countryside
Exploring Official Archives

Answer in 100 – 150 Words

Q1. Why was the
jotedar a powerful figure in many areas of rural Bengal?
Answer:
The jotedars were a class of rich peasants who acquired vast areas of land in
rural Bengal. Unlike zamindars, they directly controlled land and had
significant power over local tenants. Their economic strength came from
cultivating large amounts of land, employing numerous laborers, and producing
high agricultural yields. Moreover, jotedars often provided loans to smaller
peasants, making them financially dependent. This role of moneylender gave the
jotedars more influence. The British land revenue system further elevated the
jotedar’s position as they collected taxes from peasants on behalf of the state
.

Q2. How did
zamindars manage to retain control over their zamindaris?
Answer:
Despite the heavy tax burdens imposed by the Permanent Settlement, many
zamindars retained control over their zamindaris by employing various
strategies. One of the most common methods was through fictitious sales, where
zamindars transferred ownership of parts of their estates to relatives to evade
tax auctions. Additionally, zamindars manipulated auctions by having their own
men purchase back the properties, ensuring that their estates stayed within
their control. They also resisted British interventions by maintaining strong
local networks of power and influence, often negotiating or coercing the
peasantry to continue paying high rents .

Short Essay (250-300 Words)

Q6. Why were
many zamindaris auctioned after the Permanent Settlement?
Answer:
The Permanent Settlement of 1793, introduced by the British East India Company,
aimed to create a reliable source of revenue for the colonial state by fixing
the amount of revenue zamindars were required to pay annually. However, the
system often led to the auctioning of zamindaris. This happened because many
zamindars found it difficult to meet the high and fixed revenue demands,
particularly during times of agricultural distress, famine, or market
fluctuations. If the revenue was not paid, the British authorities would
auction the estates to recover their dues. Furthermore, while zamindars were
responsible for collecting taxes from peasants, they were not given any relief
during years of poor harvests, which exacerbated their financial difficulties.
As a result, many zamindars lost their lands to auction, often to wealthy land
speculators or their own relatives, through manipulated transactions aimed at
retaining control. This system created widespread discontent among both
zamindars and peasants, contributing to the destabilization of the rural
economy .

 

Answer in 100 – 150 Words

Q3. How did the
Paharias respond to the coming of outsiders?
Answer:
The Paharias, who lived in the Rajmahal hills, initially reacted with hostility
to the arrival of outsiders, particularly the British and the Santhals. They
saw these outsiders as a threat to their way of life, which revolved around
shifting cultivation and forest resources. The Paharias resisted by launching
raids on the plains, targeting settled agriculturalists and traders. This was
both a means of survival and a way of asserting power over those encroaching on
their land. However, with increased British intervention, including the
pacification campaigns led by Augustus Cleveland, some Paharia chiefs accepted
British allowances to maintain order, while others withdrew further into the
hills to escape the expanding settlements and agricultural frontiers.

Q4. Why did the
Santhals rebel against British rule?
Answer:
The Santhal rebellion of 1855-56 was fueled by several factors, including
oppressive taxation, exploitation by moneylenders (dikus), and the loss of land
to zamindars. The Santhals, who were originally encouraged to settle in the
Damin-i-Koh area by the British, found themselves increasingly burdened by high
taxes and debts. Moneylenders charged exorbitant interest rates, and many
Santhals lost their land due to unpaid debts. Additionally, the spread of
settled agriculture and the intrusion of outsiders threatened their traditional
way of life. In response, the Santhals rebelled, seeking to establish their own
rule free from British control and the exploitation of landlords and
moneylenders.

Q5. What
explains the anger of the Deccan ryots against the moneylenders?
Answer:
The Deccan ryots’ anger towards moneylenders stemmed from the oppressive
lending practices that plunged them into deep debt. Moneylenders charged
exorbitant interest rates, often far exceeding the principal amount. When the
ryots were unable to repay their loans, moneylenders seized their land, cattle,
and crops, further impoverishing the peasants. Additionally, moneylenders
manipulated the legal system, forging documents and refusing to give receipts
for payments made by the ryots, making it nearly impossible for the peasants to
settle their debts. The ryots viewed this exploitation as a violation of
customary norms and a direct threat to their survival, which led to the
outbreak of the Deccan Riots in 1875.

Short Essay (250-300 Words)

Q7. In what way
was the livelihood of the Paharias different from that of the Santhals?
Answer:
The Paharias and the Santhals had distinct livelihoods that reflected their
unique interactions with the environment. The Paharias lived in the Rajmahal
hills and were primarily shifting cultivators, hunters, and gatherers. They
practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, clearing small patches of forest to grow
crops like pulses and millets. Their economy was closely tied to the forest,
where they gathered mahua flowers for food, resin, and silk cocoons for trade.
Their way of life was mobile, as they moved from one patch of land to another
after cultivation depleted the soil’s fertility.

In contrast,
the Santhals, who settled in the Rajmahal foothills later, were more inclined
towards settled agriculture. They cleared forests permanently to create
farmland and grew crops like rice and cotton. The British encouraged this
transformation, hoping the Santhals would be more productive agriculturists
than the Paharias. While the Paharias resisted adopting plough agriculture and
maintained their mobile existence, the Santhals embraced settled farming, which
aligned with the colonial vision of development. The Santhals’ eventual
incorporation into the commercial economy, however, led to their exploitation
by moneylenders and the colonial state.

Q8. How did the
American Civil War affect the lives of ryots in India?
Answer:
The American Civil War (1861-65) had a profound impact on Indian ryots,
particularly those in the Deccan region, as it disrupted the supply of raw
cotton to Britain. With the American cotton supply cut off, British textile
manufacturers turned to India to meet their cotton needs. This led to a sharp
rise in the demand for Indian cotton, causing cotton prices to skyrocket.
Indian merchants, sahukars, and moneylenders began extending generous credit to
ryots to encourage cotton cultivation, leading to an increase in the cotton
acreage in India.

However, this
cotton boom was short-lived. Once the Civil War ended and American cotton
production resumed, Indian cotton prices plummeted. Ryots, who had taken large
loans during the boom years, suddenly found themselves unable to repay their
debts. As credit dried up and the British government increased revenue demands,
the economic situation for ryots worsened. The subsequent financial strain
contributed to the Deccan Riots of 1875, as ryots revolted against moneylenders
who they believed had exploited their vulnerability.

Q9. What are
the problems of using official sources in writing about the history of
peasants?
Answer:
Official sources, such as colonial reports, are invaluable for understanding
historical events, but they come with several limitations when writing about
the history of peasants. Firstly, these sources often reflect the perspectives
and biases of colonial officials, who were primarily concerned with maintaining
order and extracting revenue. As a result, the voices and experiences of peasants
are often marginalized or distorted. For example, official reports may downplay
or ignore the hardships faced by peasants under colonial rule, focusing instead
on the administrative success of revenue policies.

Additionally,
official records may emphasize the failures of peasants and portray them as
backward or resistant to progress, while overlooking the structural issues that
contributed to their poverty and unrest. These sources may also omit or
misrepresent acts of peasant resistance, framing them as mere lawlessness
rather than legitimate grievances against exploitative practices. Historians
must therefore read these documents critically, supplementing them with
alternative sources like oral histories, local accounts, and court records to
provide a more balanced and accurate account of peasant life under colonial
rule.

 

Answer in 100 – 150 Words

Q10. Why were
many zamindaris auctioned after the Permanent Settlement?
Answer:
After the Permanent Settlement of 1793, zamindaris were frequently auctioned
due to the high and fixed revenue demand imposed by the British East India
Company. The revenue amount was set permanently, meaning that zamindars had to
pay the same amount every year, regardless of the agricultural output or any
local economic challenges, such as poor harvests or famines. Many zamindars
found it difficult to meet these fixed demands, especially when agricultural
prices were low or when they were unable to collect rent from their tenants.
Failure to pay the required revenue led to the auctioning of zamindaris to
recover the arrears. Additionally, the colonial state enforced strict rules,
such as the “Sunset Law,” which mandated that payment had to be made
by sunset on a specified date, further increasing the pressure on zamindars.

Short Essay (250-300 Words)

Q11. How did
the British revenue policies impact the rural economy in Bengal?
Answer:
The British revenue policies, particularly the Permanent Settlement introduced
in Bengal in 1793, had far-reaching consequences on the rural economy. The
policy aimed to create a stable and predictable source of income for the
colonial government by fixing the amount of revenue to be paid by zamindars
permanently. However, this policy placed a significant burden on zamindars, who
were responsible for collecting rents from peasants and paying the government.

Initially, the
British expected that this would encourage zamindars to invest in land
improvements and agriculture, but it had the opposite effect. Many zamindars,
faced with high fixed revenue demands and unable to collect sufficient rent
from the peasants, fell into arrears and lost their estates through auctions.
In some cases, zamindars resorted to coercive methods to extract rent from
peasants, leading to widespread discontent. The rigid nature of the revenue
system also meant that during periods of economic distress, such as famines or
poor harvests, both zamindars and peasants suffered.

Moreover, the
focus on maximizing revenue extraction led to the neglect of investment in
agricultural development, further depressing the rural economy. The policy not
only impoverished zamindars but also placed the burden of revenue extraction on
the peasants, whose livelihoods became increasingly precarious. Over time, the
British revenue policies contributed to the destabilization of the rural
economy in Bengal, causing widespread economic and social unrest.