In 1878, the British Parliament received a crucial document known as the “Deccan Riots Report,”. What was this report all about? What does the name Deccan Riots suggest? How did the Deccan Riots report of 1878 served as an important and valuable historical source that discussed the causes of the agrarian outbreak in the Deccan region of British India which was investigated by the Deccan Commission. The peasantry or ryots revolted against the moneylenders burned their account books, Khatas and debt bonds and, in some cases, set fire to the houses of Sahukars (moneylenders and traders). But the question is why? Why did the ryots (peasants) resort to such violence when they were generally passive and law-abiding. The Deccan riots of 1875 is indicative of a great discontent among the ryots.
Understanding the Deccan Riots: The term “Deccan Riots” denotes the violent upheaval by peasants (ryots) against moneylenders (Sahukars) in the Bombay Deccan region. The violence was unusual because the ryots, typically seen as passive and law-abiding, resorted to extreme actions such as burning financial documents, destroying properties, and attacking the homes of moneylenders. This dramatic shift in behavior signaled profound socio-economic discontent.
The Main Culprit – Ryotwari Settlement
Before addressing the ryot’s discontent with moneylenders, it is imperative for us to know the real reason for this discontent. The primary catalyst for the riots was the severe financial crisis affecting agriculturalists in 19th-century British India.
The British administration had introduced the new Ryotwari system for land revenue in 1820s, which set taxes directly with farmers based on soil quality. The lands were to be resurveyed every 30 years and accordingly the taxes are revised. The first revenue settlements in the 1820s were excessively high, forcing many peasants to abandon their villages. The situation was worsened by adverse weather conditions, frequent famines, and a significant decline in agricultural prices during the 1830s. Peasants, struggling to cope with these harsh conditions, turned to moneylenders for financial assistance.
Oh, the Benevolent British!!!
The British recognized that the previous revenue assessments were too harsh, as they were often based on unrealistic expectations of agricultural productivity. This realization led to a re-evaluation of the system to make the revenue demands more sustainable and hence they moderated their revenue demand. After 1845, this act had briefly recovered the agricultural prices and cultivators were extending their acreage.
Upon plainly reading the above fact, one may praise the empathetic nature of the colonial ruler, whereas closer inspection would rather say a different story. The primary focus of British policy was the economic exploitation of India for the benefit of the Empire. The British colonial administration lowered revenue demands primarily to ensure a steady income and prevent non-payment. Excessive revenue demands and the resulting peasant distress had the potential to cause unrest and rebellion, which were costly and difficult to manage. Thus, the act must be seen more as pragmatism than benevolence.
During the 1860s, the American Civil War caused a surge in cotton prices, prompting many Indian farmers to borrow heavily to expand cotton production. However, when the war ended in 1865, cotton prices collapsed, leading to widespread debt and financial distress. The shift from food crops to cotton also caused food shortages, forcing ryots to rely on moneylenders once again.
Violation of Traditional Norms
A significant factor in the unrest was the disregard by moneylenders for traditional norms that had previously governed their practices. Traditionally, interest rates were capped at the principal amount to ensure fairness. However, during the colonial period, these norms were ignored. Ryots were burdened with exorbitant interest rates often three times the principal amount leading to severe indebtedness. Investigations revealed that moneylenders charged interest rates exceeding Rs 2,000 on loans of Rs 100, leading to widespread discontent among the peasants.
Was it an Agrarian Uprising
The escalating tensions between moneylenders and peasants led to a social boycott organized by the ryots in Supa village in 1874. The boycott involved refusing to purchase goods from moneylender’s shops and abstaining from agricultural work. This movement quickly spread to other villages and evolved into agrarian riots. By May 12th 1875, riots had erupted in the Bombay Deccan region in Poona and Ahmednagar, with peasant mobs attacking moneylender properties and destroying financial documents. The riots, although confined to 33 locations, indicated significant unrest. The focused attacks on moneylender properties and financial records suggest that the riots were a targeted response to specific grievances rather than a general uprising. In fact in many places, the anger was more towards the immigrant moneylenders rather than the native moneylenders. According to Neil Charlesworth (“The Myth of the Deccan Riots of 1857”) the immigrant Marwari and Gujarati sahukars were almost exclusively the victims of the riots and not the native Brahmin and other caste Sahukars.
Impact and Aftermath
The memory of the 1857 revolt still haunting the British administrators, the British government swiftly set up a commission to investigate the causes of the riot. The commission collected testimonies from peasants, moneylenders, and witnesses, compiled statistical data on revenue rates, prices, and interest rates, and reviewed reports from district collectors. The report attributed the unrest primarily to the exploitative practices of moneylenders, rather than solely to the British revenue policies. The findings revealed that a significant portion of peasants were heavily indebted, with debts averaging around eighteen times the land’s assessed value. Moneylenders had acquired large portions of land through mortgages, further entrenching their control. The report’s recommendations led to the introduction of the Deccan Agriculturist’s Relief Act of 1879. This legislation mandated the registration of financial documents, improved oversight of transactions, and provided greater protection for peasants against exploitative practices.
The Deccan Riots Report of 1878 is a valuable historical document that sheds light on the socio-economic conditions of the agrarian community of the Deccan region. The report played a crucial role in addressing agrarian distress and remains a significant reference for understanding the complexities of colonial India. The riots and subsequent reforms highlight how economic pressures and exploitative practices can lead to dramatic forms of protest. This historical episode underscores the importance of examining both the economic and social dimensions of colonial rule in shaping the experiences of India’s rural population.
