Man In India, 92 (1) : 13-35 © Serials Publications

Address for communication: Mahesh Sharma, Professor of History, Panjab University, Chandigarh,India-160 014, E-mail: replymahesh@gmail.com

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS:THE GADDI SHEPHERDS OF HIMACHAL HIMALAYAS(NORTH INDIA)

Mahesh Sharma

This paper documents the transformations taking place in the process of mobility, both in termsof structure and attitudes, deliberating upon the linkages between the seasonally mobile shepherdson the one hand and the sedentary peasants on the other over a time frame of a century. We arguethat the shepherds bring into economic equation the resources that are beyond the revenue demandand marketing strategies that are beyond fixed markets and bazaars. We therefore considershepherding not only as a constituent of the larger economic and social system but also as acompeting economy in it-self. As a result, an attempt has been made to understand the process ofinteraction within different ecological zones and how the state, particularly colonial rule, intervenedto control the pastorals in their attempt to ‘Hinduize’ by ritualizing and locating them in a castehierarchy. In the process the dynamics of herding—alpine-temperate migratory cycle; the rightsand obligations in relation to herding practice; the evolution of herding tax structure; and thesocio-economic basis of herding—has been analyzed.

Keywords: Transhumance; seasonal-migration; conflict; management; marketing.

Introduction

While understanding the diversity of Indian society, historians have generallyignored or minimized the role of transhumant1 pastoral communities in the socio-economic processes. They have considered the raising of livestock only as anintegral part of mixed agricultural practice, an extension of agrarian structure inwhich such communities, whose demographic size was generally small, wereconveniently merged with the peasants of the region. The assumption for such amarginalization is that the stock farming was only a “one time marginal activity”requiring little expertise or specialization for the “stock takes care of itself” requiringonly a “seasonal stabling and open air.” Therefore transhumance, a constant questfor pasture across the altitudinal zones, was relegated to “exception rather than therule,” which was the basic characteristic of any shepherding community (Braudel1986: 294-315).

Even while making a passing reference to the herding communities—like theBhattis, Gujjars, Mewatis or Pindaris—they are projected as plunderers who “ranbaggage trains for the great armies.”2 They are characterized as mercenaries livingon loot rather than herding, who never the less, “benefited the agricultural stabilityof their homelands by injecting cash and cattle into them.” While these communitieswere negatively stereotyped by the colonial administration—Gujjars as “cattle

14 MAN IN INDIA

thieves” or Mewatis as “robber-bands”—they were comprehended largely as settledagriculturists with predominantly pastoral economy. Alternatively, they areprojected as the enemies of the “settled agriculture and settled government”, whocontributed to the local economy by providing “animals, milk, clarified butter andforest produce” (Bayly 1983: 29-30, 91, 204). Colonialism severely affected such‘nomads’, who were reckoned as potentially subversive and therefore needed to bedisciplined by restricting their mobility by bringing them gradually into the fold ofsettled peasants. In the process they were relegated to the fringe of the social order(Markovits et al. 2003:8; Sauli 2003: 215-39). While the stereotypes were perpetuatedby the historians, they paid scant attention to the inner-structures of the transhumantpastorals and their linkages with the local economy, as well as the complex processof social change involving them and the society they interacted with.

More topical studies—particularly by Anthropologists and Geographers likeSidhy (1993: 145-69) on Hunza transhumant; Wangmo (1990: 141-58) on Brokpasyak raisers in Sikkim; and Parks (1987: 637-60) on the pastorals of Hindukushregion—have attempted to understand the inner structures of the “mobile herders”and their interaction with the settled agriculturists. Kavoor (1999) affirms“synergism” between pastoralists and agriculturists in western Rajasthan, even asthe herders face “volatile situations” and are always under serious constraints andthreat. Agrawal (1999) contends that “migration is related to the politicalmarginalization of the Raikas (the camel-herders) that may be tackled by the“institutions based in community.” Such institutions, as “caste councils”, havebeen highlighted by Hayden (1999). He emphasizes the role of such in-builtinstitutions of services as nomadic existence prevents people from taking legalrecourse. Both Agrawal and Kavoor argue that the pastoralists are at a disadvantagein their market relation with the cultivators, wool merchants and others that theyare engaged with in the market transactions.

While these studies are located in the present time frame-work, Scholz (1974)locates the change among three territorial ‘tribal’ herding communities—the Bruhi,Baloch and Pathan—in Baluchistan between 1872 and 1972. He defines the ‘tribal’territoriality as the “pattern of spatial utilization” and the ‘tribal identity’ as the“pattern of mobility”. He argues that the colonial regime “pacified” the “country”and in the newly formed society the peasantry was placed above the ‘tribe’ initiatinga complex process of differentiation. The tribal society, however, becomes a ‘classsociety’ based on occupational categories. Though Scholz shares with Bayly theconcerns of colonial regime that took initiative in curbing the mobile tendencies,he does not recognize the complex segmentation and hierarchy against the backdropof Islamic injunction of social equality. What perhaps he means is that there is noconsequent hierarchical social segmentation, but a class differentiation based oneconomy. The implications of such a transition on the local economy or societyare, however, not considered.

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 15

Most of these studies document the interface between the herding communitiesthat are on the margins of the dominant agriculturist communities, as in westernIndia. In contrast, this paper deals exclusively with the Gaddi shepherds, a pastoralcommunity of the western Himalayas. Their sedentary base is in Brahmaur, a Raviriver valley in the erstwhile Chamba state—now a district of north Indian provinceof Himachal Pradesh—between 76°22’ and 76°53’ east longitude and 32°11’ and32°41’ north latitude. The period of analysis is essentially between 1850 and 1950.The Gaddi community has, however, received considerable scholarly attention,unlike other pastoral communities of India. Bhasin (1987) compared two Gaddisettlements, in the plains and the higher hills; Village Survey Reports (Brahmaurno 4; Chatrari no. 5; Devi Kothi no. 10), the Glossary prepared by Rose (1882) aswell as Shashi (1977) and Newell (1961) provided primary data on their economyand social structure, and Noble (1987) detailed a migratory account of theseshepherds. Recently, Saberwal (1999) has deliberated on the rhetoric of conservationvis-à-vis polices of the forest bureaucrats, the officials blaming the shepherds forenvironmental degradation due to the “misuse of land resources.” He emphasizesthat the local understandings of how ecosystems function need to be given fargreater recognition and advocates the incorporation of local knowledge into themanagement of resources. In contrast Chetan Singh (1998) considers pastorals asan integral part of the economic system of the state as taxpayers whose activitiesallowed the colonial regime to obtain revenue from its large natural wealth.

This paper tries to map the transformations shaped by the process of mobility—in structure and attitudes. Like Agrawal and Kavoor the present study scans thelinkages between the seasonally mobile shepherds on the one hand and the sedentarypeasants on the other, but over a time frame of a century. It emphasizes the impactof economic interaction in terms of social change. The paper, thus, brings into asharp focus the complex interplay, at various levels, among the forces of state, theagriculturists, and the pastorals by considering the shepherding economy in itselfand as a constituent of the larger economic and social system. We shall argue thatthe shepherds bring into economic equation the resources that were beyond therevenue demand and marketing strategies that are beyond fixed markets andbazaars.3 We shall attempt to understand the process of interaction within differentecological zones and how the state, particularly colonial rule, intervened to controlthe pastorals in their attempt to ‘Hinduize’ by ritualizing and locating them in acaste hierarchy. In the process the dynamics of herding—alpine-temperate migratorycycle; the rights and obligations in relation to herding practice; the evolution ofherding tax structure; and the socio-economic basis of herding—has been analyzed.

The Shepherds

The Gaddi shepherds were distinct by their attire of the chola and dora. The malechola was a knee length coarse woolen frock coat that was firmly tied on the waist

16 MAN IN INDIA

by 18-meter long woolen rope called dora. The coat was loose above the waistband,dora, making it a receptacle to store things while on march. When moving with aflock, a shepherd may have couple of “lambs stowed in his bosom, along with hisdaily food and other miscellaneous articles.” They also wore a peculiar cap, “witha flap round the margin, and a peak like projection in the center.” The flap wasnormally tied but “let down over the ears and neck” in winters or “in the time ofmourning.” The women garment was similar to men, of coarse wool called cholu,hanging straight from neck to ankles and tied on the waist by a dora. In summers,the same was replaced by a cotton ghundu, which was later replaced by a moreornamental and market made long full skirt called luanchari, again tied on thewaist by a dora. Women also sported silver jewelry, with turquoise stones in hugependants. Interestingly men left their legs uncovered, even in extreme winters withsnow around. They, however, wore shoes made of goatskin and insulated withgoat hair called mocharu (CDG: 186; O’Brien 1900).

The Gaddis had a sedentary base in Brahmaur (vernacular of Brahmapura,also known as Gadheran, the land of the Gaddis), a territory lying between thesouthern face of Pir Panjal range and the northern face of Dhauladhar range, livingbetween 3,500 and 7,000 feet (Barnes 1852: 42). Even though their original homewas Gadheran, some of the Gaddis, by 1850, resided in the southern slopes ofDhauladhar, from Bhoh in taluqa Rilhu to Bir in taluqa Banaghal: both falling inthe district of Kangra. The majority of the Kangra living Gaddis, however, alsohad a share in land and house in the Chamba territory (KSR: 38). Thus, most ofthem were the subjects of both the states. In pre-colonial times these Gaddis paidfine to the ruler of Chamba also, whenever they were fined by the Kangra state.They paid tax to both the states as well. This arrangement changed drasticallyduring colonial times as Barnes, in 1852, observed: “I am afraid our institutionshave taught them greater independence, and the infraction of this custom is nowmore frequent then the observances.” Pasturage was hence fixed at the rate ofRs.2/100 heads of sheep and goats by the colonial administration in Kangra andsimilarly, “a Rupee for a like number is paid for a similar privilege in Chamba”(Barnes: 42).

In the Chamba state the Gaddis were the biggest ethnic community. Of thetotal estimated population of 24,684 of the Chamba state in 1881, the Gaddisaccounted for 11,161 or 45.2% of the total population. However, the enumeratorswere seemingly not quite clear about the term Gaddi as three Muslim Gaddis werereturned in the same Census from Jind in Haryana; along with 16 Muslim Gaddisfrom the principality of Bilaspur.4 In 1857, it was estimated that there were 1,440Gaddi families belonging to 13 different clans in Brahmaur (KDG: 153). By 1911there were 8,732 Gaddis in Chamba and 15,535 in 1921.5 The 1931 populationfigures again show a decline: the total Gaddi population being 14,847; which furtherdeclined to 14,105 in 1961 (Newell 1961: 14; Census 1961: 94). The 1961 Census

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 17

(14) also recorded around 3,755 Gaddi houses and 4,525 Gaddi households inBrahmaur.6 The post thirties population decline is understandable as the areadesignated as Brahmaur was redefined and territorially decreased. According tothe 1931 Census, Brahmaur was stretched within the area of 20.06 sq. miles; whichwas decreased to 17.37 sq. miles (the total area in 1953 being 10,923 acres) in therevenue-settlement of 1953.7

Agriculture and Sheep Farming

It was difficult for the state to sustain such a sizeable transhumant pastoral populationliving in an area covered by snow for more than six months. Therefore, as a survivalstrategy, many settled Gaddis cultivated the winter crop, or wheat, in Kangra and“returning with their flocks, grow the summer, or rain, crop in Burmor” (Barnes:42). In Brahmaur, however, there was an acute scarcity of terraced-cultivable landalso. It was, therefore, so “minutely divided” that the owners were obliged to“cultivate it jointly”. The crop was, nevertheless, harvested separately by eachland-owning family (KSR: 60). Things changed with the introduction of potatoesby the colonial administration. Lyall considered this as a sort of agriculturalrevolution in Brahmaur (KSR: 58):

The fields around the Gaddi peasant’s houses which formerly produced at the best onlymaize, wheat, or barley, barely sufficient to feed the families which owned them—nowproduce a very lucrative harvest (potatoes). The Gaddis explain this by saying “the potatohas become our sugarcane.”

Potatoes along with another commercial crop, tea, were cultivated mostly on theslopes of Dhauladhar range and provided “valuable staples” (KSR: 4).8 It alsoprovided them, if there was a surplus productivity, a commercial enterprise atthe ‘ready’ market at Banikhet, Dalhousie, and Bakloh in Chamba, or Dharamsalain Kangra, that developed around the British cantonments.9 Grains were alsoproduced on the steep hill slopes by dry terrace cultivation. The kharif (summer)crop was sown from April to June and harvested from August to early October.The rabi (winter) crop was sown in October and harvested in May and June,lying under the snow cover for most of the winter. The main kharif crop wasmaize, wheat, and coarse cereals. The chief rabi crop was wheat, barley, and oilseeds (Bhasin: 141).

Agriculture barely provided subsistence,10 but combined well with sheep-goatherding, the mainstay of the Gaddis (Newell 1961: 28). The Gaddis, thus, practiceda mixed farming; as was done by all farmers in the hills, except that the dependenceof the Gaddis on sheep/goat was primary. Lyall, for instance, distinguished thehill-agriculturists and the Gaddis as (KSR: 38):

The only shepherd in Kangra proper (excepting a few Kanets who keep in Banghal) are tobe found among the Gaddis. The other landholders keep no flocks, though nearly everyman has a goat or two, and some own a few sheep.

18 MAN IN INDIA

Economically, the conditions of ‘sheep-farming’ suited the Gaddis. Snow andfrost in the high ranges, and heavy rain and heat in the lower hills made it impossibleto carry on extensive sheep farming in Kangra and Lahul-Spiti, where people liveda sedentary life though they did own few sheep and goats. Transhumance andseasonal migration, in the quest for pastures, was the only way to carry on thisprofession which became the way of Gaddi life. Not all the Gaddis, however,owned sheep/goats, particularly those living in Kangra. However, some prosperousGaddi families owned a large flock consisting of 1000 sheep/goats; though themajority owned a relatively smaller flock of 300 to 400 heads. The flock of 300-400 heads was known as dhan while that consisting of 800-1200 heads was calledkandah (KSR: 38).

MAP 1: Himachal Hill States (After Singh: 1998)

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 19

Three or four men and “several dogs” accompanied the flock all the year round.Occasionally, the puhals (hired shepherds) were employed to look after the flock,but commonly all men with the flock were part-proprietors. In a situation where aGaddi had a very small flock (say 100 heads) he did “not go himself, but get afriend or kinsman who is grazing to take them with his own” (KSR: 37-9, 41-2). Insuch a case he provided a puhal (a shepherd) for every 100 heads of sheep/goats;or paid a certain fixed amount (Rs.15/100 heads in 1963) to the mahlundi orproprietor (Shashi: 115; CDG: 346). He also contributed to the common expensethat included the rent of pasturelands, cost of rock salt (for animals) as well as thecost of food brought for shepherds. This was later divided according to the numberof heads in the flock and each shepherd had to pay his share though the headsowned by the proprietor could be under counted to the extent of five per cent(KSR: 42). Besides, while the proprietor took no responsibility for the lost sheep,the stray or unclaimed sheep were perquisite of the proprietor. Even though in thissystem the proprietor profited at the expense of other Gaddis, the others couldgainfully utilize this time in different occupations, for instance as labor in Kangra(CSG: 203). In fact this system worked out better; more so as the Gaddis with astrong sense of business acumen would not undertake any proposition which wasnot profitable. This distinct trait is reflected in an oft spoken couplet, a reflectionof attitudes of people, about the Gaddis (Rose: 260).11

Gaddi mitr bholaDenda topa ta mangada chola.

(The Gaddi is a simple friend,He offers his cap and asks a coat in exchange).

Transhumance: The Cycle of Migration

The relation of the Gaddis with the rest of the hill states goes back, perhaps to theinception of the agro-pastoral activities in the area, the movement being determinedby pastures and the seasonal cycle. In 1874 Lyall observed a particular phase ofthe movement as (KSR: 38):

At the end of November or early in December, they (the Gaddis) arrive in their winterquarters in the low hills, where they remain something less than four months. By the first ofApril they have moved up into the villages on the southern slopes of the snowy Range orouter Himalayas, and here they stay two months or more, gradually moving higher andhigher till about the first of June or little later, when they cross the range and make for theirsummer, or rainy season grounds in Chamba, Bara Banghal or Lahul.

The Punjab Census, 1881, emphasizes this in terms of immigration and emigration.In 1881, of the total reported population of 7,30,845 in Kangra, there were 36,334immigrants, of which a significant number must have been the Gaddis, eithershepherds, or the Gaddi women who migrated to stay and work in Kangra inassociation with a particular family (Panjab Census Report 1881: 83). The Kangra

20 MAN IN INDIA

District Gazetteer, 1924 (p. 125), specially assessed around 5000-6000 Gaddiimmigrants to Kangra every year. Herding in winters was not restricted to Kangraonly, even though it accounted for the majority of Gaddi shepherds. Some of theGaddis drove their flocks to the hills of Hoshiarpur, while others moved to analtogether different ecological zone, such as Mandi, Suket and Bilaspur (KSR:38).12

During summers, the Gaddis of Kangra and Chamba along with the Kolishepherds of Kulu utilized the alpine pastures of Lahul. Most of the alpine zonewas uninhabited. For instance, the country between Chandra and Bhaga rivers(about 75 miles) was considered “a waste”, only visited by the shepherds fromKulu and Gaddis from Kangra. In 1874, Lyall, observed the Gaddi itinerary to thealpine pastures as (KSR: 113):

The snow begins to disappear in these (Lahul) places about the beginning of June; theshepherds do not ordinarily enter Lahul before the end of that month, and they leave itagain early in September, by which time the frost is beginning to be biting and the rainyseason in the outer Himalayan country has come to an end. In the fine day climate in Lahulthe sheep escape the foot-rot and other diseases, which constantly attack flocks kept duringthe rains in the summer slopes of the outer Himalayas. (emphasis added) The sheep arrivewretchedly thin, but by the time they are ready to leave are in splendid condition.

During their seasonal migration to Lahul, which attracted shepherds from manyother areas also, the Gaddis transacted and sold their sheep to traders from as far asTibet and Kumaon. These sheep acted also as ‘mules’ to carry load in the difficultterrain as well as for consumption when they outlived their utility (KSR: 113):

The Gaddi sheep are reported strong and hardy above those of any other shepherds. People,as far away as the Bhotia traders of Kumaon, buy a great many every year at high prices abeast of burden for the trade over the great snowy range between Kumaon and Tibet.(emphasis added)

The people of Spiti, however, strongly opposed the entry of Gaddis in that valley,though many of them were allowed in the upper end of the valley. The caste andregional interest—as is clear from an example of a solitary sheep run in Spitiregion—controlled the grazing or shepherding activity. This particular pasture waslocated on the Kanzum pass, known as Maran or Srittika, and was held by thepeople of Jagatsukh, in Kulu, who allowed the Gaddi shepherds to graze theirgoats in opposition to the sentiments and rights of the local people of Spiti(KSR:118). This also was a tacit agreement as the Gaddis in turn penned theirsheep in Jagatsukh providing valuable manure for which the local peasantrycompeted (as we shall discuss this subsequently). The Gaddis, as othernomads, particular herders, always profited from such conflicts and opportunities,also reflected in a local proverb about them—which interestingly also stereotypessuch communities as cunning and deceitful, which cannot be trusted(KDG: LXXIX):

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 21

Gaddi, Gujjar, Labana bulai to Kabhi nahin janaAgar Jana to apana dou bachana(Do not go when the Gaddi the Gujjar (buffalo-herder) or the Labana (mule herder) callsyou, if you go be on the alert).

The immediate outcome of the transhumance cycle is reflected in the economy ofwool. Corresponding to their migration cycle was associated the cycle of shearingor clipping of wool. Shearing was carried out in February in Kangra, in June inChamba, and in October in Lahul or Chamba after returning from the alpine pasturesof Lahul or Pangi. In 1924, it was estimated that on an average a flock of 100sheep yielded 8-10 seers in February (1 seer = 933 gms.); 10-12 seers in June; and24-30 seers in October. Thus, 45-52 seers of wool were recovered from 100 sheepper annum, which is approximately 40-49 kilograms. Again, in 1929, it wasestimated that a sheep yielded from 8-10 chhittaks (1 chhittaks = 60 gms.) to 12-16chhittaks annually when the grazing was better, approximately about 480-600 gmsto 720-960 gms annually (KDG: 278). A recent survey reveals an improvement inthe yield as to 150: 350: 500 gms/sheep from February: June: October clippings.The Sippis (low caste shepherds) usually clipped the sheep and were paid in kind;the wages customarily fixed at about 2 kg wool/100 sheep (Bhasin: 161, 163;Newell 1957: 24-5). We may speculate that as per the 1956 statistics for Brahmaur,about 80,000 kilograms of wool is generated in a year by these mobile shepherds.The total estimates (based on the 1956 statistics) would far exceed this figure,about 278,000 kilograms for the entire Chamba state.

Seasonal migration of the Gaddis from the alpine pasture (Lahul and Pangi) toBrahmaur and to the temperate pasture (Kangra and the lower hills) was notarbitrary, but a well worked out routine in a time framework. In spring, the Sivaratrifestival marked the upward movement; and in autumn, the downward movementbegan with the harvest festival of Sair (KDG: 268). This is woven into their beliefsystem as well, where they have worked out the migration of god Siva into thewinter and summer abodes corresponding to these festive dates.13 The spatial andtemporal itinerary of herding was pregnant with economic dimension as well. Forinstance, in Nurpur and Tiloknath they could sell wool to the Kashmiri shawlmanufacturers, as also in Kulu, Mandi and Rampur (Barnes: 43). Moreover, theGaddi migration was also synchronized and associated with the network of fairsand festivals: which offered them brisk trade—both in wool and meat along withthe forest products comprising of much valued honey, dhupa (incense) andnumerous varieties of herbs. In Kangra, as well as other hill States, the festival ofSair heralded the harvest season of fair and festivities. For instance, the Gaddisdisposed of the older members of the flock as well as sold wool and blankets(pattu) in the cattle fair at Lidbar, near Nagrota. Similarly, in the cattle fair ofNarti, they sold woolen blankets and hides in addition to wool and goats (KDG:225-7). Likewise, in Lahul the attraction to the Gaddis was the annual fair of

22 MAN IN INDIA

Ladareha, held in the month of July, which was a meeting place for the traders ofTibet, Ladakh, Lahul, Bushahr, and Spiti. However, the most profitable from theperspective of the Gaddis was the festival of Namkhar, where their goods alongwith sheep and goats were rather valued high and fetched competitive price.14

Similarly, the Gaddis, who did not own flocks, on migrating to the lower hillsimmediately started earning their livelihood by thrashing paddy or worked asporters, carrying the harvest of local farmers/landowners to whom they got attachedand lived with (CSG: 203).

Pastures: Regulation and Control

The Gaddi pasturage was unambiguously distributed as well as clearly categorizedand regulated to enable better management. The winter pastures, called bans, weredivided amongst shepherds, who claimed a warisi or inheritance, except in Nurpur.In Nurpur, the pastures were free and open as the Gaddis observed that the ownershipof the pasture was vested in the ownership of the flock (KSR: 38).15 The warisi-inheritance in pastures was attributed to the original grant-patta from the Raja orthe state and was in the colonial times reduced to “like a moqadmi” or management,instead of an exclusive grazing right. The owner of the grant-patta, as well as theflock, was known as mahlundi or malik-kandah. Other shepherds who grazed inthe same pasture were the assamain or clients of the proprietor. The proprietor wasanswerable to the state while the clients were answerable to the proprietor. Forinstance, Lyall observed that the proprietor helped the banwaziri (the forestdepartment) with the ginkari (counting) and rent—a duty for which he was paidthe entire mailaina, which is the money paid by the land holders for the sheepdroppings (used as manure), which was substantial (KSR: 38).

The spring or autumn pasture was termed as dhar, as well as goth. Each dharhad its local name and approximate boundary. The dhars were further divided intotwo categories. The rocky terrain above the forest line was known as nigahr orkowin (lit. naked), while the low lying area in the forest was known as kundli orgahr. The two were not used simultaneously. For instance, when the flocks returnedto Chamba in early September they (KSR: 38),

spend about ten days in the kowin: thence they descend into the kundli, and stay there somefive or six weeks: when the crop are cut and cleared off the fields below, they leave thewastes, and descend first to the upper hamlets, and then to those in the valley: they stay amonth or more in those parts, finding pasturage among the stubble or in the hedge-rows,and penned every night on some field for the sake of the manure. Much the same course isfollowed in the return journey in the spring.

In Lahul, the grazing grounds or sheep-runs of “foreign shepherds” were calleddhars or bans or nigahrs. A dhar or ban was, often, subdivided into several vands(shares): each vand containing enough ground to graze a full flock or kandah ofsheep/goats. Each dhar had its fixed boundary and a waris with the original right

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 23

to grant vested in the Raja of Kulu and later the Thakur (chief) of Lahul (KSR:113).

In Brahmaur, the pastures near the village or settlement were known as juh,munchar, and gorchar. The pasture at some distance from the village was knownas trakar; while the high mountain pastures, accessible only in summers, werecalled dhar, ghar and nigahr. Further, dhars were only the pastures between theRavi and Beas rivers; while those lying beyond Ravi—as in Lahul and Pangi—were known as gahr and nigahr. The high fields and farmsteads above the villageand near the trakar pastures, to which the flock was taken in summer was knownas kat and katohar in Brahmaur, adwari and dughari in Chamba and puhali inPangi valley. The village pastures were also used for the animals kept at home fordomestic use all the year round, known as ghareri. For them a separate tax calledtrini-ghareri, at a lesser rate than the usual grazing due, was levied by the state(CSG: 277-8).

The Gaddi shepherds and the Gujjar herdsmen held their interests in the dharsdirectly of the state as the landholders held their fields. But in the cis-Ravi country,as in Chamba, the flock in a dhar commonly belonged to several families, and notto the proprietor alone. The proprietor, however, contributed five per cent less tothe accounts of common expenses in the dhar (KSR: 42, 43). Though the right topasture was granted by the state, this was not uniform everywhere in Chamba. Forexample, the inhabitants of Kugti, which is surrounded by large tracts of wasteland, had a sort of corporate right in the surrounding dhars, held on lease from theRaja—with the latter enjoying no grazing control over them. The people of Kugtienjoyed the discretion to admit shepherds as they wished, which could not bepetitioned in the court of Raja. However, the land belonged to the Raja and theright of the people of Kugti was limited only in grazing and pasturage. Thus, whilethe Raja could not alter the grazing rights he could, nevertheless, grant “the rightof netting or snaring musk deer in the same tract” to the people of Bangahal orother outsiders (KDG 1916: 89). Thus, in the pre-colonial times though the statehad a “right of approvement” (that it could empower any person to hold any plotof ‘waste’), but its hold over the “lesser waste was in practice limited” (Barnes:24). Moreover, the state could always control the shepherds by the way of auctionof trini (grazing tax) in the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir territories (CDG:345). The Chamba state apparently enjoyed this right for a long time period, eventhough there is no known record to suggest the modus operandi of the system, orthe agreement arrived at, to this affect, by different states.

The state carefully regulated the pastures. For instance, for the effective forestcontrol the colonial administration restricted the time period for which the Gaddiscould stop in Kulu valley during their migrations to and from Lahul. This waseven against the wishes of Kulu agriculturists who depended upon their sheep/goat droppings for the fertility of maize and rice-fields (KDG 1916-17: 89). The

24 MAN IN INDIA

control of the state may be inferred also from the Right and Authority cases appendedbelow (Working Plan 1954-55; Bhasin: 114):

TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF THE CASES OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY

Name and no. of Area (in acres) Statement of Rights Authority underthe forest which granted

RAJOUR 377 Brahmaur and Kothiar Sanctioned in H.H.149 (13 acres in this was villages (grazing right the Raja of Chamba,

owned by the Gaddis for 4000 sheep and letter dated 22-06-1895.of Magzi and Mocha goats for 15 days inclan Jeth month and 11

days in Asuj)Malkota village (Rightof way through southernwest.)

MORU Sachuin and Chaled Statement of 1891.150 365 villages (grazing and Sanctioned in H.H. the

firewood.) Grima Raja of Chamba, lettervillage (grazing right dated 22-06-1895.of way to waterspring in the forest)Kalrota village (Grazingfor 25 kine) Pansai village(Grazing for 120 kine, andin Jeth and Asuj 200 sheep;firewood and torch wood).

Source: Working Plan for Upper Ravi Forest 1954-55 to 1968-69; Bhasin: 114).

How effective the state control was can only be speculated since pasturagewas limited and could be exploited gainfully only by the limited number of flocks.It is possible that various rights assigned to specific villages were alternated everyyear or after a fixed time. Thus, while the shepherds of Sachuin and Chaled villagesgrazed and collected firewood in the forest no. 150 (see table 1), the shepherds ofvillage Grima could only pass through it. But it is possible that in the succeedingyear the shepherds of Grima enjoyed the grazing and fuel-wood rights while thepeople of Sachuin and Chaled villages could only pass through it.

Apart from distributing the rights, another way of asserting control over theforest was by prohibiting grazing or declaring them as rakh or reserved forest. Forinstance, in the pre-colonial days (KSR: 24):

…certain blocks of forest within mauzas were reserved (rakh) or shooting preserves by thestate; no grazing of cattle or trespass for cutting of grass or branches was allowed in them.. . .In most principalities the Raja used to impose a thak or prohibition of grazing, on allforests for the three months of the rains.

Even during the colonial rule this custom was popular. Thus in some parts of theMandi state, people were not allowed to cut grass and small twigs for fuel unless

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 25

they paid some fee, as grains, to the contractor, who leased the grass andsmall wood from the Raja, ever after the thak (prohibition of grazing) was over(KSR: 24).

During the colonial administration the policy of rakh-grazing-prohibitionreached its logical culmination with the closure of certain forests for a fixed timeperiod, not always in agreement with the local people. Hence, in the Dehra tehsil(revenue circle) the forest-settlement of 1874-75 was commenced by Duff withthe objective of “obtaining for government certain areas free of all rights of user,”while negotiating some “concessions to be granted to the people.” While 52 forestscomprising of 8,777 acres were declared as reserved forests, Duff was forced toaccept certain local demands. One, he promised not to close any “waste” or theforest land henceforth; two, local people were assigned a share of revenue collectedfrom the Gaddis (which must have been sizeable); and three, the assignment to thepeople the general revenue from the sale of trees. Similarly, 68 blocks of forestwith the total area of 71,612 acres were demarcated and closed in Nurpur. In 1887settlement of Baijnath, 36 forests spread over 26,413 acres of land were demarcatedand closed (KDG: 296-8). Faced with rapid closure and prohibition on grazing,the colonial administration manipulated and controlled the movement of suchnomadic professionals whom they eyed suspiciously. Apparently, the Gaddishepherds were forced to look for alternative routes and pastures. Significantly,this policy was continued in the post Independence era as well (Working Plan;Bhasin: 113).

Shepherds and Agriculturists: Inter-linkages

The warisi or inheritance right to pastures held by the Gaddis also became a statusof profit particularly where there was a grazing tax contract in lump-sum, and notbased on the head-count. The waris-right-holder could reduce the incidence of taxdue from him by exacting a fee from other shepherds who grazed over hispastureland or warisi. In 1874 the income from this arrangement ranged between 4annas/100 heads to 8 annas/100 heads in Datripur, whereas the waris himself paida Rupee per 100 heads to the state. Also, the Gaddis, who had a warisi-right butdiscontinued the use of pasture, transferred the right by gift or sale to other Gaddis.The benefited Gaddi always, on his return journey, manured the fields of the originalowner “with whose permission his occupation commenced” (KSR: 113, 118). Eventhough ‘rights’ could be enjoyed in proxy, it was a fixed right in perpetuation thatcould not be reversed by the state. However, the warisi was an ambiguous term,applied for instance to two different rights. In herding concerns it was a title topasture as well as a title only to a right to manure. For example, it was reported that(KDG: 274):

…certain families of shepherds in Dharamsala belt claim certain dhars as their own, meaningthereby that they have an exclusive right to graze their flocks in them in the autumn. Other

26 MAN IN INDIA

families, not shepherds, also claim certain dhars as their own, only meaning however, thatany flock which occupies them is bound to spend some days and nights in manuring theirrice fields. All the flocks, when they descend into the valley in the autumn, spend sometime in sitting in the fields, but except in these cases, the shepherd is free to agree to sit onany man’s land he pleased.

The warisi-right-inheritance involved certain rights as well as obligations dependingupon the interaction and economic angle between the Gaddis and the agriculturistcommunity. Thus, in Bangahal where the Gaddis owned some dhars, and all 57dhars there had a warisi-inheritance, a tax called patta-chugai (lit. grazing tax)was collected from the Gaddis at the rate of Rs 1-4-0/100 as against Rs 6-4-0/100from the Kanets (agriculturists) of Bangahal (KSR: 42, 43). This system is significantas the lower rate of tax for the Gaddis meant that more Gaddi puhals (shepherds)would graze in Bangahal territory which dissuaded local shepherds by high taxrate. This was due to sheep manure, for which the agriculturists competed. Suchwas the benefit of this manure that in the pre-colonial days it is reported that (KSR:42):

The Banaghal Kanets (agriculturist caste) compete among themselves to get the Mandishepherds to go to their dhars, and in return the latter, on the way between Mandi anddhars, stop and manure the lands of the hamlet with which they have agreed for the grazing.This is the only fee taken by the owners of the dhar, and they put such a high value on thismanure that they not only feed the shepherds gratis while they stop at the hamlet, but do soalso while they are on the dhar, sending up extra supplies when the first are exhausted——a journey of from one to three days for a laden man.

The manure of sheep seems to have formed a sort of reciprocal exchange relationshipbetween the Gaddis and the agriculturists because of its high fertility value. Barnesobserved that the cultivators of Kangra valley also contested with each other forthe right of having the sheep folded upon their land. In return, the cultivators paidtwo or three Rupees for the advantage gained and the Gaddis, just while changingground and before the harvest was sown, reaped a little fortune without muchexertion or cost. Thus, the Gaddi not only grazed the flock free of charge, but alsoearned from its droppings, which were otherwise a waste to the Gaddi shepherds(Barnes: 30).

Taxation and Local Dues

Not only were the advantage of sheep droppings competed for, but also the grazingtax contributed to the villagers became a sizeable contribution to the total tax. Thevillagers thus could save the amount as collected from the Gaddi shepherds. Forinstance, the inhabitants of Bara Banaghal after being assessed with the land tax ofRs. 120 by the first revenue-settlement arranged with the lambardar and patwari(revenue collector and assessor) of Kothi Kodk that patta chugai (grazing tax),which amounted to Rs. 50, should be maintained and collected directly from theowners of the dhars, leaving only Rs. 70 to be demanded from themselves on

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 27

account of land revenue. In the pre-colonial rule every petty-official or influentialland-holder allegedly exacted something as the flock passed his land. In the statesof Mandi and Suket, or other native states, the pasturage was leased out annuallyat a lump-sum to a contractor, whose charges were exorbitant along with certainother demands (KSR: 38, 43). Shepherding, thus, not only involved the Gaddi wayof life but also influenced the entire hill society and the state at length.

The autumn and spring grazing was paid to the local government as lungu-karu, or the crossing tax, collected by the village official called dinker. Dinker wasalways a Gaddi and was entitled to certain perquisites from the shepherds. Thehead under which this tax was collected, however, varied. In palam (the rice belt)this was the perquisite of banwaziri (forest department); but in Santa or Rilhu itseems to have been collected along with the land rent by the village kardar(headman). Until the crossing tax or lungu-karu was abolished in 1853, the Gaddisclaimed a right to occupy the same ground every year. After abolition, the right tooccupancy was reserved to the flock that first arrived, a subtle intervention bywhich the colonial administration altered the herding movements (KSR: 41).

The Gaddi shepherds also paid annually a sheep, or more, to the Thakur (head)of the kothi (revenue circle) or to the Negi or Wazir of Lahul as a tax called rigatal.Most of them also made personal offerings, perhaps a goodwill gesture. They gavea sheep, or two, of bhaggati (for sacrifice) to the village next below their run. Suchsheep were sacrificed and eaten in a village feast, also attended by the Gaddis.Later, this gesture metamorphosed into right of the village, which could be legallyenforced. The flock entering Lahul by the Kugti pass, which descends into Jobrang-kothi, paid a cess called batokaru (passage tax) to the men of the kothi. Similarly,they paid a toll for crossing swing bridges to the villagers concerned under a cesscalled alokaru (KSR: 113).

Interestingly, the pre-colonial banwaziri or the forest-department categorizedthe Gaddis as artisans. Thereby, pasturage became a taxable commodity, fixed atRs. 2/100 heads of goats/sheep. In addition a woolen choga (coat) and a he-goatwere also extracted from the Gaddis. The above tax becomes interesting as it iscomparable to the shopkeeper who paid Rs. 1-0-0-to 0-2-0 per shop; or a dyer,carpenter or ironsmith: Rs. 1-0-0 per house; or a dumna (basket maker) who paidRs.0-3-0 per house. What is interesting is that the pre-colonial state clubbed thevarious service providers and herders in the same category. However, this tax wasabolished finally in 1847 (KSR: 33).

In the pre-colonial times the tax paid by the Gaddis not only had an economicangle but played a certain political role as well. For instance, the Gaddi shepherdsgrazing the uninhabited land between the Chandra and Spiti rivers (the land disputedboth by Lahul and Spiti States), always paid their dues to the Wazir of Lahul, andnot Spiti. This fact acquired significance in reclaiming the land to Lahul and infixing the boundary between the two states (KSR: 101).

28 MAN IN INDIA

For all the pastures, the grazing due was called trini, which was auctioned,from which no class was exempted. However, the professional shepherds (theGaddis, the Kolis of Kulu) and herdsmen (the Gujjars) were taxed at a higher ratethan the peasants were. The colonial administration, while abolishing the local andsundry taxes, claimed the Gaddi grazing tax. Barnes, in 1852, fixed this at the rateof Rs. 2-0-0/100 heads in the British held territories, and Rs. 1-0-0/100 heads inthe Chamba state. However, the taxation was not uniform, as Rs. 1-0-0 was chargedin Hoshiarpur district but Rs. 2.95 in Kangra district (KSR: 41). Since 1863-64, inChamba, the system of auctioning the trini at the rate of two chakles (local currency)per goat/sheep was adopted. Along with its own pasture, the trini tax of Laduan,Poarha, Kalakh, Mua, Dehra, Pirhain, Lakhanpur, Behur, etc., falling in Britishand Jammu territories, were also auctioned. It seems that earlier the Chamba stateenjoyed rights to such pastures as a way to control the shepherds. With the realizationof competitive market of pasturage, however, it reaped a nice little profit from thecontractors. The contractors were entitled to demand Rs. 2-8-0/100 heads, whichwas waived off for mailana or manure rights of 60 days penning. The contractorsfurther negotiated mailana rights with landowners, to whom they sold at exorbitantprices (CSG: 278). This was perhaps profitable both to the state and the Gaddiswho earlier paid exorbitant cess in kind, at the rate of 2.5 seer wool (1 seer = 933gms); 2.5 seer rice; and two small goats per puhal (herdsman) or flock. Thecontractor also got the mailani or the manure money taken before the ginkari orcounting, after which it went to the individual shepherd. In Nurpur this must havebeen a brisk and profitable business for the contractor as Lyall observed that “. . .the contractor agrees with the shepherd of particular bans to take one and a half ortwo Rupees per hundred head in full of the claims, and not to ask for any accountof the mailani” (KSR: 40, 43).

With the rise in the value of sheep, the grazing tax was not only proportionatelyincreased by the state, but also at a different rate for the goat and sheep. Thedistinction is sustainable as the goats both graze and browse and, therefore, aremore harmful to the flora and forests than the grazing sheep. In 1915, the tax wasincreased to Rs. 6-4-0/100 goats and Rs.4-11-0/100 sheep. By 1924, the grazingtax was again increased by one anna per 100 goats and nine paisa per 100 sheep(KDG: 177, 305). Similarly by 1910, the Gujjar herdsmen, for the sake ofcomparison, paid 1-8-0 for a milch-buffalo and 12 annas for a calf (CSG: 278).

Apart from the grazing tax, the Gaddis settled in the pre-colonial Brahmaur,paid a cultural tax, called bachh dasrit (tax for the local custom). It was paid byevery person who had land in Brahmaur, whether a resident or a non-resident. Butwhen the formal revenue rates were fixed in 1881, the bachh dasrit cess wastransferred from the names of those who could not prove their possession inBrahmaur. The customary privileges were also abolished and the uniform coloniallaw hence governed the Gaddis (CDG: 342).

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 29

The entire system of taxation, regulation of pastures and competition formanure, emphasize the inter-linkages among the shepherds, the state, and theagriculturists. To the state it meant sizeable revenue out of ‘waste’. For instance,before the revenue-settlement made by Barnes, Rs. 500 on account of grazingdues was exacted from the owners of sheep who resorted to Lahul in the rainyseason. The figure seems stupendous (about 23%), when we correlate it toRs. 2200 as the annual Jama (budget) fixed for the entire Lahul territory after therevised revenue-settlement. The colonial administration, therefore, while recognizingthe importance of the Gaddis gave them exclusive grazing rights; though beingcautious to assert that it did not amount to the “ownership of the soil” and recognizingthem as the “tenants of the state.” Lyall recommended that the Deputy Commissionerin his executive capacity should look after the interest of these shepherds if therewere disputes with the village communities (KSR: 143). Perhaps, he was apprehensiveof the probable conflict arising due to the mounting Gaddi pressure on limitedpasturage vis-à-vis the demand of the local peasants for grazing the household cattle,as well as the competition among them for the Gaddi sheep droppings.

The Market of Goat/Sheep Farming

To the Gaddis herding was a profitable business even though they had to suffersome serious loss. For instance, there was always the danger of wild animals, asrecounted by Lyall in 1870s that (KSR: 42):

In hurried marches over the passes on the Snowy Range it often happened that one or twosheep or goats are left behind . . . Leopards will follow a flock for days watching in theircowardly fashion for a safe chance of pouncing on a straggler. Bears, if they do becomecarnivorous, are bolder and will sometimes charge into a flock by day and night in face ofdogs and shepherds . . . the flock might be seized with a panic or stampede in crossing aglacier, and rush head long into an open crevice. I have heard of 700 sheep being lost atonce in this way or a goat might set a rock moving on a precipitous hill side; I have seenseveral sheep killed thus in an instant.

In the pre-colonial times the natural calamity was augmented further by the ever-persisting royal demand, whereby the Gaddis had to sell the required number ofsheep/goats forcibly. This was a dead loss as the sale was made at the ruler’s price(hakim ninkh), and not the market price (KSR: 39). However, this situation wasreversed by the colonial administration with a fair amount of success.

The property of the Gaddis was vested in their ‘mobile’ animals; and theireconomy depended on their value. The sheep was kept mainly for their wool andonly few were sold to the butchers. Their hides were practically useless. Therefore,the flock was composed of goats also: kept for their milk as well as “for suckinglambs” (CDG: 247). The goats were used as pack animals, their finer hair wereused for making coarse blankets and other hair for lining snowshoes, and theywere finally sold to the butchers from as far as Amritsar (KDG: 278). A fine he-

30 MAN IN INDIA

goat sometimes weighed around 40 kg while a she-goat around 20 kg. The disposalof older sheep and goats, coupled with vigorous breeding, kept the age of the flockyoung and, therefore, effective. The dead goats were also clipped and ropes (dora)as well as snowshoes (mocharu) were made of their hair; while bags (garada)were made out of their hides (KDG: 285; Village survey Brahmaur: 49, 50).

The most effective transaction, however, was in the live animal. Before theonset of the First World War, the demand for goat increased immensely (known asMOH or mutton-on-hooves), resulting in the rise of value of he-goat to Rs. 9-0-0;and of she-goat to Rs. 3-8-0. The value of sheep stabilized at Rs. 4-0-0. It isinteresting to observe that in the war period the population of goats declined from91,106 in 1913 to 71,495 in 1918. The corresponding decline of sheep in Kulu inthis period was 148,437 in 1913 to 124,936 in 1918 (Saberwal: 173). The trendcontinued in the inter-wars period as well. In this period the overall goat/sheeppopulation declined from 2,149,183 in 1929 to 1,319,023 in 1939, a shortfall ofabout 830,160. The Gaddi’ flock perhaps bore the larger burden in these figures,contributing their mite to the allied war effort in Europe, while earning fast moneyin this period of boom. This was however, a short lived phenomenon of boomcreated by war as ten years later the prices reflect immense depreciation in thevalue of goats, though an appreciable rise in the value of sheep. The monetaryvalue acquires a greater significance if compared to the wage rates of the unskilledlabor in Kangra—which ranged from three to four annas in 1909; four annas in1919, and four and a half to eight annas by 1922. In terms of purchasing power ofa Rupee, a Gaddi could buy 82.4 Kg of rice; or 99.5 Kg of maize; or 74.6 kg ofwheat; by selling one sheep in 1914, even though there was a general rise of 13.6%in the price index in this period. The table below compares the price index between1914 and 1924 and the respective appreciation/depreciation in the value of sheepand goats in relation to the incidence of taxation during this period.16

TABLE 2: PRICE OF GOAT/SHEEP IN RELATION TO GENERAL PRICEINDEX AND INCIDENCE OF TAXATION

1914 Tax 1924 Tax 1914 1924 1910Price Price Price Price Price

(Rs/hd) (Rs/ (Rs/hd) (Rs/ (Rs/ (Rs/ (seer/100hd) 100hd) maund)* maund) Re)*

He-Goat 9-0-0 6-4-0 6-4-0 6-5-0 Rice 1-13-0 2-11-0 6 seersShe-Goat 3-8-0 6-4-0 6-0-0 6-5-0 Maize 1-8-0 2-8-0 15 seersSheep 4-0-0 4-11-0 7-0-0 4-11-9 Wheat 2-0-0 4-11-0 11 seers

Barley 1-2-0 2-11-0 18 seersGram 1-10-0 — —Linseed 2-12-0 6-13-0 —

* 1 maund= 37.34 kilograms; 1 seer= 933 gms.Source: Kangra District Gazetteer, 1924-5, Govt. Printing Press, Lahore, 1926, vol. VII, Part A, pp.

278, 285-87; Chamba District Gazetteer, 1904, Govt. Printing Press, Lahore, 1910, p. 278.

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 31

Conclusion

This paper emphasizes the specialized and systematic nature of shepherdingactivities impacting the society and economy. The dynamics of hill physiognomyis pointed, resulting in a totally different colonial response to the shepherds in thehill society than that in the Indo-Gangetic plains. The Gaddis are, therefore, neither‘peasantized’ (though compared to the peasants for revenue purposes), nor classifiedas “cattle thieves”, nor is shepherding viewed as “potentially subversive” as wasthe case with other itinerant communities (Markovits et el 2003:8; Sauli 2003:215-39). On the contrary, the state realizes significant revenue (almost one third ofthe total budget in Lahul); the society negotiates their revenue proceeds in relationto the dues recovered from the shepherds; the peasants compete to gain their sheepdroppings—a valuable manure at the end of harvest season; they supply the “meat-products” to the colonial military hill-stations as well as to the hill agrarian society;and a significant amount of forested produce and wool is released into the localeconomy through the network of fairs-mela. In fact, the relation between taxationand price-rise is directly proportional, for every rise the Gaddis pay more.

Significantly, the conceptual and methodological tools need to becontextualized. Unlike the anthropologists studying the shepherds in the dominantagrarian community, where the conflict between the settled and mobile is playedupon, where fixed-market is the place where the pastoralists lose out, the Gaddisprovide a different spectrum. Charting their interaction over a period of hundredyears, the conflict is rather inverted; the interests of peasants or settled communities(as in Spiti or Banaghal) occasionally collide to benefit the shepherds. The economictransaction transcends the fixed markets and bazaars, the network of fair-melatakes over where wool and woolen products are sold, goatskins and goat-hair arevalued, and goats/sheep are sold. Interestingly, the fair-mela only provides a largertransacting avenue. The process of transaction is everyday and everyplace, as itwere, negotiating the forest products like honey or incense, or ram and goat, orblanket or goatskin bags or shoes, with a peasant or a landowner. Largely theseexchanges were loaded heavily in favor of the pastoralists. Thus, the notion ofmarket facilitating trade, where simple shepherds lose out, needs a re-consideration.In the wider economy also the role of shepherds needs a re-assessment. The Gaddis,as a singular community, alone released around 800,000 kilograms of wool intothe market annually (a conservative amount based on 1956 figures) or about 75,000sheep/goats (about 2,250,000 kilograms of lamb-meat) during the First World War.

The economic dimension is not realized in terms of market and marketabilityalone. In fact, the herding economy is enmeshed into the everyday structure. Thecommunity was a-cephalous, herding being an individual family concern. Pasturesthat were “owned” became “managed” during the colonial regime, indicating asubtle shift in right and control exercised by the state. The itinerary and routeswere systematic, changed only when the forest-regime prohibited grazing or closed

32 MAN IN INDIA

forests. It was a system of perpetual transaction involving mutually defined rights:where the settlements sustained, the occupational-septs traded and supplied thenecessities for the flock and humans, while the shepherds remained in perpetualmotion. However, the indirect control exercised by the colonial rule in Kangra—like settling the Gaddi womenfolk/household seasonally (a section of populationhad a permanent settlement though occupied only in summers), or by occasionalforest closure— underpinned the dependence of the Gaddis over the settled agrariansociety, a sustained interaction that led to a hierarchical stratification within thecommunity. The Gaddis thus, as a survival strategy, sanskritized their social-organization, appropriated the dominant caste identities (individually, not as acommunity) tailored to facilitate social correspondence with the larger society andto further their economic gains. Yet the community did not settle (was notpeasantized) or lose its identity and professional character, unlike the pastoralistsof Baluchistan, even though it was co-opted into the larger structure of the ‘Hindu’caste society. Thus, in order to facilitate interactive and trade situation, the pastoralsappropriated the caste super-structure but remained external to its social dynamics.This has an important bearing on the mechanism of the castes, the way they werecreated and fixed by the colonial ethnography in its attempt to “reform” and“civilize” the frontiers, like the Gaddi shepherds. The change, however, bring intosharp focus the complex interplay, at various levels, among the forces of state, theagriculturists and the pastoralists; the inter-messing of different ideologies, theeconomic system and society, as it were.

Transhumance pastoralism is a dynamic system that transforms in response to‘change’; that impacts and is influenced by the larger ‘change’ taking place in thesociety and economy. It is, thus, not only a system of seasonal altitudinal movement,production and adaptation devoted to generating a livelihood from a large flock ofsheep/goats, but also an interactive and social system, which while generatingdemand and maneuvering space for the shepherds, regulates the wider economy indifferent ecological zones of production. As has been observed that things, peopleand ideas often transform in the process of mobility, so does our notion of themobile, the sedentary and the forces controlling them—the state.

Notes

1. Transhumance refers to the seasonal migration across the altitudinal zones and therefore ofdiffering settlements. In this case, the migration pattern would be from the temperate pasturesto alpine pastures, the altitudes ranging from 300 ft to 12000 ft above the sea level, duringthe winters and summer season respectively. This is in contrast to other migrations by theherders within the same ecological altitudinal zone, as in the case of Raikas, Mewatis orRibaris for instances.

2. For a general view of ‘tribal’, particularly herding communities of Panjab as well, thatformed an “economically palpable and militarily influential element within the geographicboundaries of “the Mughal empire” (Singh 1988: 421-48).

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 33

3. This is similar to the strategies of the peddlers hawking their products in Panjab, includinghills, creating a market where nonexistent, under-pinning the complex process by whichconsumption pattern were influenced and demand created, Bhattacharya, 2003,“Predicaments of Mobility: Peddlers and Itinerants in Nineteenth-century Northwest India”,in Markovits: 163-214.

4. According to Punjab Census Report, 1881: 22, there were 5,485 male and 5,675 femaleGaddis. 74 male and 19 female Gadaria, the Muslim pastorals, were also reported from thelower hill states, mostly from Nahan.

5. KDG: 176; Census of India, 196: 137, quotes the figure of 10,411 Gaddis in 1921 whichseems to be a probable estimation in relation to the above figures: also, Newell 1961:14;CSG, 1904, informs that there were 11,507 Gaddis in 1901.

6. Household is described as a group of persons who commonly live together and wouldtake meals together from a common kitchen unless the exigencies of work prevented anyof them from doing so; Newell, 1961:14; Census of India, 1961, H.P. vol. XXI, Part I A,inform that there were 5,946 Households. The population in 1981 was 29,944 Gaddiswith 16,012 males and 13,932 females. Census of India, 1981, Series 7, H. P., Part IIA:41.

7. Newell, Report on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:14; Bhasin: 42, splits the acreagein Brahmaur, far acceding the above estimates: 18,191 hectares under forests with 8,395acres forming the reserve forest and 9,067 acres as protected forest; 27,500 acres of land aspasture land.

8. KSR: 4. The colonial administration encouraged the extension of agriculture to sustain thegrowing military hill stations. They introduced potatoes, tea and sericulture on the slopes ofDhauladhar. However, the need to link these hill-stations with the mainland Panjab and theextension of rail-network diverted the attention to the forests, particularly Sal forests, whichwere exploited to meet the supply of railway sleepers and charcoal. The linkages were tochange the contour of the hill society and economy, in as much the hill landscape. See,Kennedy: 94.

9. The market was necessary for the development of agriculture in the Chamba State as astrategy against both plenty and famine. Chamba District Gazetteer, 1904: 222-3; ChambaDistrict Gazetteer, 1961: 228. In Pangi the potatoes were introduced in 1878.

10. Rose, 1883, Vol. II: 260, notes that the Gaddis are the most prosperous agricultural class inthe state (?).

11. How the attitudes change is reflected in a twist to this couplet that depicts Gaddis as polluted,unclean and simpleton: Gaddi mitr bhol­a/ Haggi bharya chola// Gaddan lagi dhona/Gaddilaga rona. (The Gaddi is a simple friend, he has soiled his coat// while his wife startedwashing it/the Gaddi started crying).

12. Such transhumant itinerary was common to most pastoral communities. For instance, theBangulzahi shepherds (the second largest population group among the Brahui of westernBaluchistan) follow a similar itinerary though their migratory routes are not fixed like theGaddis, varying according to the condition of pastures (Scholz: 288-89).

13. According to this myth, lord Siva also migrates to the upper climes of Brahmaur in summersand to plain areas in winters. See, A village survey of Brahmaur, Census of India, 1961,Vol. XX, Part VI, No. 5, Govt. of India Press, Delhi, 1964, pp. 65-67: A village Survey ofDevi Kothi, No. 4; and A Village Survey of Chitrari XXI, VI, No. 10, 1964.

34 MAN IN INDIA

14. Gazetteer of Lahul and Spiti: 91-3. The Namkhar fair is described as “the festival of horseriding, and hitting of targets of a sun, a lamb and a shoulder bone” (ibid: 93).

15. The Gaddis informed Lyall that “jiska dhan, uska ban”, or the right to usage vested in theownership of flock, KSR: 38 foot note.

16. The general rise of 13.6% in the price index is to be kept in mind, KDG: 278, 285-87.

Bibliography

Arawal, Arun (1999). Greener Pastures: Politics, Markets and Community among a MigrantPastoral People. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Barnes, G. C. (1889). Report of the Land Revenue Settlement of the Kangra District. Lahore:Government Press. (signed 1852).

Bayly, C. A. (1983). Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of BritishExpansion, 1770-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bhasin, Veena (1987). Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh: Himalayan Ecology, Transhumance, andSocial Organisation. Delhi: Rajkamal.

Braudel, Fernand (1986). The Identity of France, Vol. II, People and Production. London: Fontana.(reprint 1990).

Census of India. (1961). H. P. Vol. XX, Part I A.

Chamba State Gazetteer, (1904). 1910. Lahore: Govt. Printing Press.

Chamba District Gazetteer, (CDG) (1961). 1962. Simla: Govt. Printing Press.

Hayden, Robert M. (1999). Disputes and Arguments amongst Nomads: A Caste Council inIndia. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kangra District Gazetteer (1916-17). Part II, Kulu. Lahore: Govt. Printing Press.

Kangra District Gazetteer, (KDG) 1924-5. VII, Part A. 1926. Lahore: Govt. Printing Press.

Kavoor, P. S. (1999). Pastoralism in Expansion: The Tranhuming Herders of Rajasthan. Delhi:Oxford University Press.

Kayastha, S. L. (1964). The Himalayan Beas Basin: A Study in Habitat, Economy and Society.Benaras: Benaras Hindu University, 1964.

Kennedy, Dane (1996). The Magic Mountains: Hill Stations and the British Raj. Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Lyall, J. B. (1891). Report of the Land Revenue Settlement of the Kangra District (KSR). Lahore:Government Press. (signed 1872).

Markovits, Claude, J. Pouchepadass and S. Subrahmanyam (eds.). (2003). Society andCirculation: Mobile People and Itinerant Cultures in South Asia 1750-1950. Delhi:Permanent Black.

Bhattacharya, Neeladri (2003). “Predicaments of Mobility: Peddlers and Itinerants in Nineteenth-century Northwest India”, in Markovits: 163-214.

Newell, J. H. (1957). “Gaddi House in Ghosan Village, Chamba State, North India”, Man: 20:24-5.

Newell, J. H. (1961). Report on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Census of India, 1961,Vol. XX, Part V-B (1967).

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS: 35

Noble, Christina (1987). Over the High Passes: A Year in the Himalayas with the MigratoryGaddi Shepherds. London: Collins.

O’Brien, E. and M. Morris (1900). The Kangra Gaddis. Lahore: Panjab Ethnography No. 2.

Punjab Census Report (1881). 1883. Part II, Part VIII A. Calcutta: Govt. Press.

Rose, H. A. (1883). A Glossary of the Tribes and Caste of the Panjab and North West FrontierProvinces. Patiala: Panjab Languages. (reprint 1970).

Saberwal, Vasant K. (1999). Pastoral Politics: Shepherds, Bureaucrats, and Conservation inthe Western Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Sauli, Arnaud. “‘Circulation and Authority: Police, Public Space and Territorial Control in Punjab,1861-1920", in Markovits 2003: 215-39.

Scholz, Fred (1974). Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan 1872-1972.(tr. Hugh van Shyhawk). Goettingen: Erich Goltze KG; 2002, Karachi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Shashi, S. S. (1977). The Gaddi Tribe of Himachal Pradesh. Delhi: Sterling.

Singh, Chetan (1988). “Conformity and Conflict: Tribes and the Agrarian System of MughalIndia” , Indian Economic and Social History Review, XXIII (3). reprinted in MuzaffarAlam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed.) 1998. The Mughal State 1526-1750. pp. 421-48.Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Singh, Chetan (1998). Natural Premises: Ecology and Peasant Life in the Western Himalaya1850-1950. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Singh, K. S. (ed.) (1972). The Tribal Situation in India. Simla:Indian Institute of AdvancedStudy.

Village Survey Devi Kothi. Census of India (1961). XX, Part VI, No. 4.

Village Survey Brahmaur. Census of India (1961). XX, Part VI, No. 5.

Village Survey of Chhatrari. Census of India (1961). XX, Part VI, No. 6.

Working Plan for Upper Ravi Forest 1954-55 to 1968-69. Mimeograph.