150 yrs After SantalHul

History of Plunder & The Future of Jharkhand1

Conference

1-2 July 2005 XISS Auditorium Ranchi Jharkhand

Xavier Dias Editor Khan Kaneej& ADHIKAR

History of Plunder

The future of Jharkhand is not included in this paper

Background to SantalHul The Santals are the largest population of Adivasis (Indigenous Peoples) in the World. Their habitations originally spread along the lower Ganges River, the belts of the Damodhar and the Subarnarekha rivers and their tributaries. Even today it extends into Bangla Desh and Nepal . Before the arrival of the colonisers 2 we know that the Santals like all the other Adivasis were living in what should be considered one of the best governed Nations in the World. It was democratic in its true sense; egalitarian to the point that even the domesticated animals had rights, and was self -sufficient for their living needs i.e. it did not depend on any item from the outside world. They had established ademocracy from below known as the Majhihadom system of administration where the Majhi was the head person of a village the Majhi-Pargana of a group of Majhisand the Desum-Parganas as the head of all the Parganas that formed the Great Council of the Santal Nation (Desom). Unlike our present system as defined in the Indian Constitution which is democracy from above. There was no royal family or any other segregations i.e. caste system or colour bar or class differences within the community. Besides being democratic and egalitarian they were non-invasive (no territorial ambitions) and had no priestly class. These values are however not Santal specific but are prevalent among all the Adivasi communities of the Indian peninsular. Entry of Traders The British first come to India in search of trade. As trade prospered they in 1765 established the head quarters of their East India Company in Calcutta after the battle of Buxar in 1764.The trade increased in volumes and to meet this demand they had to expand to newer areas. Along s ide Bengal was Santal territory. Since they did not have sufficient manpower to enter these territories they encouraged Indians to settle here as their dalals (agents). Within a very short period they had penetrated and spread into most of the Santalterritories. They came as traders with the initial aim of supplying goods to the British for export to England.On seeing the Santals as simple people they started looting from them. The dalals from traders became looters. They established an efficient network that became the arms and wings of the British who depended on it as vital arteries supplying cheap material for export to England. It is through the dalals that the Santal Nation was brought under the control of the British Ran and its economy. It is important to understand the symbiotic relationship between the dalals and the British Raj which essentially was one looting for the other. Santal Economy Why did they consider the Santals as simple enough for them to loot ? This is a very important question that has not been given attention by historians or anthropologist so far. The Adivasis of the Indian Peninsula practice a different

Aryan or Brahmin, Mogul and then British.

economy. It is their unique economy that is the basis of a unique social and political system that they have. What is unique about their economy? In the Adivasi economy there is no surplusproduction. What does this mean? It means that a family, a village the society produces as much as they can consume or need and not more. To understand it better; there is no place for profit in their trading. This means that the motive of trade is exchange of the value of the goods and not for profit. In fact in the Adivasi value system profit is evil. In Santali it means hadayaw, in Ho-Mundari it is jumbuie. Their actual meaning is asking for more than you have. Anthropologist call such societies as primitive which is incorrect and derogative we must call such societies as non -profit trading societies. Invaders Economy In contrast to this the only aim of the invaders economy was profit where it is deified (Laxmi) and worshiped. Those who cannot understand the superiority of a non-profit trading society consider it simple or idiotic. But the few who do understand them, consider it a noble economic system. The inability of the civilised world to comprehend this is so poor that just the concept is called utopian;which means it is so ideal that it can never be achieved. For this reason when Karl Marx wrote his critique of capitalism he spoke of the post capitalist society as a Socialist society and is to this day criticised and attacked as utopian or impossible. The economy and way of life which had kept them as a happy and contended people for more than a thousand years started dwindling. It resulted in dispossession (land alienation) and a destruction of their self sufficient economy. Land alienation led to impoverishment and forced them to the doors of the money lenders, land grabbers and extortionist. Indebtedness became hereditary It was a dark period of pain, suffering and death. On the other hand for the invaders the same period was a shining one . The British became rulers of the World and the looters became respectable gentlemen. From the Adivasi point of view there was no difference between the two. They saw both as their predators. It is important to understand how transformation takes place. Traders become looters and then Rulers their accomplices become gentlemen and then in 1947 the Indian nation makes them freedom fighters. Looters become Rulers The British Raj left replicating of their class of rulers -the Indian Ruling class who emerge from this blood soaked history as a decent animal of respect. In Mumbai during this very time the street on which the Bombay Stock Market was built is named Dalal Street and holds the rising index of the stock market showing -India shining. The Santals may be simple people but not of the kind known as idiots. Their genius had development to a much higher level where sovereignty was not necessarily territorial and where the human spirit was above geographical boarders. This high thinking could not accept a rule by another people. By

the first quarter of the 19th century resistance, revolts and uprisings against the British and their dalals were spreading all over. The British could not control the situation. On 30th June 1855, a large number of Santals assembled in a field in Bhagnadihi village presently in the district of Pakur earlier known as SantalParagana affirmed their position as a free people and pledged war against the British rule. This war erupted with successful battles in different places at different times and is what we are remembering today. Most historians do not consider it a war but a revolt. If they accept it as a war then they will have to accept the fact that it was more revolutionary than the call of Quit India of the Congress Party (1942) and the fact that it was made eighty seven years before most of the Congress leaders were even born..SantalHul was executed with a heavy price; more than 25,000 Santals slaughtered. It should also be noted that a century before the SantalHul there were numerous revolts against the British by different Adivasi groups. History depends on when it was written and who the writes is. We are thus conditioned to remember this day as SiduKanu Day. It will be a grave injustice to our history if we accept this conditioning. Not on the orders of Sidu, not on the order of Kanu, this is my war that is why I am going into it 3. If a non-profit society is incomprehensible to the civilised world how do we explain to them the concept of knowledge and infor mation being democratic. In the Adivasi societies knowledge and information is not only a right but is egalitarian, it is spread equally within each and every member of the community. Such a society does not need leaders. It is led by a mass conscious collective will. Even in this technocratic world of electronic networks this fact will also be incomprehensible. Therefore the other fact that supports my argument on the leadership question is that the Majhihadam system was the only system of administrati on and governance that the Santals have and hence there could not have been any other parallel political organisation with distinct leaders. If this is correct then it was the Majhihadam system that executed the logistics of the war. The Majhihadam system is not a leader based system but a collective system and goes by consensus and not the rule of the leader netagiri. On the other hand it is the Ruling Class who needs us to have netas. When ever we have an agitation against the administration or Mini ng Company the first question the Babus asks the agitators is Who is your leader? Netas play an important role in civil societies as they negotiate on behalf of the public. Civil society thrives on representative arbitration. But the actual reason why the Ruling Class likes netas is that it gives them a handle to hold the dissenting group. A neta can be purchased or can play a double dalal. For the ruling class an organisation without a neta is like a hunter surrounded by a thousand lions.

Translation form a Santali song of that time

Historians who do the good job of producing netas, are like magician producing rabbits out of an empty hat. This interpretations are done for the benefit of the Ruling Class who need netas and then further interpret our history from the prism of the neta. Such interpretations are dangerous and should be corrected for they not only ignore the role and sacrifice of over 25000 martyredSantal but lowers the status of the Adivasis to simple people. Besides it denies us today a big source of inspiration to learn from hi story; be a part of that history, and continuity of history and accomplish the historical task of building a utopian society as makers of history. Thus interpreting the SantalHul as a revolt and not a war, glorifying leaders, is not in our interest and more so because it robs the SantalHulof its power and glory. There is another very important fact of this history that is not mentioned. And I would like to use it as a link between the History of Plunder and the Future of Jharkhand. An English officer later wrote about the war and said he regretted the fact that they were unaware of the fact that the Santals Force did not know about the white flag of surrender. Whether the Santals wanted to surrender is a question that history has to unravel but what this illustrates is a fact that our ancestors were and we are today a victim of Rules and Laws made by our Rulers. Rules of war were made by the British Army and the Santal Nation was not a party to these rules. We all know that the Ruling Class makes rules and laws not to apply justice but to continue their rule to expropriate from us. And was the system then in 1855 and continues today 2005 for 150 yrs.