Chapter 6 Peasants and Farmers 2017

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 6 PEASANTS AND FARMERS QUESTIONS PAGE Page 120 Activity : The prices of food grain rose up sharply in 1790s and fell dramatically in 1815 because during these years, first the demand for food grains was from post-revolutionary France in which agriculture was in chaos. No one knew which land belonged to whom, and therefore, all agricultural activity came to a halt for a few seasons. Then all of Europe was embroiled in Napoleonic Wars that disrupted the regular agricultural activities. Many of the farmers were forced to join the army during these wars. Finally, England the war reached England against Napoleon and defeated by the British at Waterloo in The end of Napoleonic Wars meant revival of agriculture in Europe. As such, the demand fell in 1815 bringing down the prices of food grains dramatically. 2. Page 122 Activity : The main occupation women and children had at the time was to collect forest products from the commons land of the village, graze the cattle and milk them, and collect fire wood. After the enclosures of the commons, this resource was no longer free for the poor. As this essential activity came to an end the burden of finding an alternate source of fodder for the cows fell on women. They would have to go to greater distances to cut grass for the cows, as the cows could not be taken to longer distances. Therefore, the arrangement for their fodder needed to be made at home. Those who could not arrange the fodder would have had to dispose off their cows thereby ending their supply of milk for children as well as a source of income. A few families may have started to get fodder from long distances and sell to others. But as others were already poor people not much profit through such an activity would have been possible. Barter of fodder for cooked food could have been an alternative. 10x10 Learning TM Page 1

2 As such, the poor women in the village may have started cooperating and organizing themselves in special groups for such activities. Such cooperation was the only way out, yet the loss of free fruits and berries etc was permanent. Fire wood may have been replaced with burning of dry leaves or hay available after harvest. But in the cold winters this could not have been sufficient even for cooking. A few landlords may have been kind hearted to allow some firewood for their servants and farm workers. However, till the new system got established the tension between men and women in the family at the reduced resources would have prevailed, resulting in family quarrels. 3. Page 123 Activity 3.1 The peasant is trying to convey his deeply felt sense of injustice of the law of enclosures that had deprived hundreds of villagers of the commons land from where they supplemented their meagre incomes from agriculture. After this law, no peasant could hunt in the forests or the earlier commons land or collect firewood and forest produce. If he did so he would be punished as a criminal. So the peasant is saying that if a poor peasant steals a small animal from the enclosed farm land he pays with his life. But through the law the rich landlords had stolen the food and subsistence of hundreds of villagers and yet they do not even pay a fine. The government and the law therefore belong to the rich, while for the poor there is no redress even at the loss of livelihood. 3.2 John Middleton is arguing in favour of enclosures. He says that the enclosure make a specified area of land the private property of one person. This person can then invest in improving the land and taking other steps to increase the productivity from his land. This in turn gives him higher profits. Under the open field system land is not owned by anyone. Equal number of strips of land are allocated each season to all the peasants in a village. These are located in different places so that each has a share of rich fertile land and the less fertile. This is a equitable and a fair system. But no development of land can take place under such 10x10 Learning TM Page 2

3 a common system because no one is actually responsible for bringing improvements in the land. As such, productivity from land continues to be what it was earlier or even declines progressively. Therefore, he argues that enclosures is a better option for increasing agricultural productivity and thereby the profitability from land. 3.3 Arguments for and against open fields Arguments for open fields system with commons forest land Arguments for enclosures and against open fields system It was the traditional system of cultivation of land and all villagers got an equitable share of land to cultivate. 2. This made the system fair and just to all. All worked and spent time together as equals. This system was created at first by a decree of the King to his noblemen allocated certain parts of commons land to one nobleman as his private property. The nobleman in return avowed the loyalty of his family to the king. The system was later converted in to a law on enclosures under which any land area could be enclosed as private property by any person who paid the price to the state treasury. This was because all land was said to belong to the King 10x10 Learning TM Page 3

4 3 The open fields system nurtured a friendship based society and culture in which all villagers were equal. For the poor the commons land was essential for survival under his Divine Right. The law on enclosure in effect was a law to establish the institution of private property, as a means to replete the royal treasury and to buy loyalty for the king. It may be recalled that this was necessary because after the declaration of Independence by the American colonies, and the success of the French Revolution, the monarchy in England felt threatened 4 It facilitated all to have a fair share of the bounties of nature as everyone was free to graze their livestock in the commons land around the village and to share the forest products such as fire wood, fruits, berries. They could also hunt small animals for their food in these commons forest lands. 5 It encouraged and increased community life and cooperation between all villagers. The community served as a kind of security net in bad times as all shared and survived. Even when As the objective of enclosures was to consolidate loyalty for the Crown, the poor did not have any place in this new system. Their natural rights had to be sacrificed for progress and modernization. As King was the source of all power, no injustice was seen in the system by those who stood to profit and benefit from it. The enclosures permanently divided the rural society in to the rich landlords and the poor villagers. The poor could only work as landless workers on the 10x10 Learning TM Page 4

5 private fields of the landlord, and had no other means of sustaining them. All their rights to the commons forest lands were lost. This made the two sections totally against one another with no social communication. 6 It facilitated an equal distribution of household responsibilities between the men and women. While men cultivated the land, women and children, grazed the cattle in the commons forest land, collected fire wood, picked up forest fruits and berries. This itself was a fair distribution of work and responsibilities in contributing towards the running of the household. 7 The king had no knowledge about how the poor lived or survived. They did not contribute to the royal treasury in any form. As such the King did not take them into consideration at the time of issuing his decrees in Enclosures were necessary for increasing the production of food grains through modern agricultural equipments and land improvements. These improvements could not be carried out under the open fields system. Food production needed to be increased to feed the growing population of England. This could only be done through individual motivation in the private property system created by the enclosures. When higher profits were involved for the nobles and the rich merchants in cities, the moral questions of justice and unfair treatment of the poor were of no consequence. 10x10 Learning TM Page 5

6 favour of the nobles. 8 The new methods of cultivation could have been tried out in the open fields system also, if those who made the laws had cared for the poor. But the poor villagers were not represented in the British Parliament. Therefore, their needs and problems could not be voiced or heard by the rich. 9 Having lost their commons land and open fields system the dispossessed poor moved from place to place to work as landless farm hands. Till 1800 they were given food and shelter by their landlords. From 1800 onwards, this was discontinued and workers began to be employed for wages only during the harvest season Moreover, it was the poor in France who had overthrown the nobility during the French Revolution. For this reason also the nobility could not have any sympathy for them at the time of implementing the enclosure laws. Long term investments on land could be made only in enclosures. Crop rotation that was essential for restoring land fertility could also be planned only by individuals who had enclosed land in a consolidated form. After 1800 cultivation was undertaken through new equipments and agricultural machines. These also deprived the poor of the few months of employment that they were having from the sowing to the harvest season. The workers began to be employed temporarily only for harvest, because the landlords needed to save in order to increase their 10x10 Learning TM Page 6

7 profits. I sympathize with the arguments in favour of the open fields system. If the nobles had not been so anti-poor due to fear of the French Revolution, they could have tried to retain the commons and the open fields. Also the poor at the time had no voice in Parliament and were not organized to resist the enclosures. If they had even a few literate and knowledgeable peasants among them they could have fought for their rights on the commons forest lands and brought about increases in production through the open field system. However, this was not to be, and as always the rich and the more powerful had their way, creating the problem of the urban unemployed poor for another hundred years. QUESTIONS 1. Explain briefly what the open field system meant to rural people in eighteenth century England? Look at the system from the point of view of a) A rich farmer b) A labourer c) A peasant woman Answer. The open field system meant a dependable system for survival of the poor even when the harvests were bad. Under this system all cultivable land was divided in to workable strips. Before the season in a public gathering the strips were allocated equally to all families for cultivation. The share of one family included stripes in different parts to cover all the types of land available in the village. The work of cultivation was mostly done by men. Women and children tended and grazed the cows in the commons forest lands. They also collected fire wood and useful forest products such as apples and berries. Men could hunt for small animals in these common 10x10 Learning TM Page 7

8 forest lands to supplement their family s meal. Fish in the streams in the forests were also open to all the villagers. This was an equitable, fair and a just system that had continued since the times the villages had been settled. 1.1 Open Field From the view point of a rich farmer: a) A rich farmer, would view the open field system as wasteful. As the strips were allocated in different parts of the village, there was no consolidated land holding for cultivation. Time was wasted in moving from one part of the village to another for completion of an activity. When one farmer s land is consolidated in one place, it can be cultivated through modern agricultural machinery. If it belongs as private property to one person or family, they would be motivated to plan and undertake its long term development through irrigation facilities. The family could increase productivity of land through planned rotation of crops for enhancing the fertility of the soil. Due to the motivation of higher profits, the private land owner would try to minimize his costs and increase his output. In view of the commercial minded rich farmer, it is better to enclose land. 1.2 Open field from the point of view of a labourer: b) If the open field system is viewed from the point of view of a labourer he will see the open fields system as the ideal system for the poor, like himself. He will have a fair share of the strips of different soil fertility to cultivate. Whatever he harvests would be his to own and use. After the harvest he could collect the left over stalks from his strips and use them for fodder or fuel. From the commons forest lands his family could collect firewood and other forest products. His wife could graze their livestock there. He could fish in the commons forest stream for free and also hunt for small animals without having to pay anything to anyone. As such the open system provided for all sections of society in an environment of equality. The system 10x10 Learning TM Page 8

9 made even the poor an equal benefactor in the nature s bounties. 1.3 Open field from the point of view of a peasant woman The open field system from the point of view of a peasant woman was a blessing. Managing resources for her household was easy and handy. There was a fair distribution of work among family members. The sources of her work of fetching of water, collecting firewood and other forest products, were nearby and free. Therefore, under the system her and her husband s share of work were clearly divided and identified. He cultivated the open fields, young boys managed the work of grazing cows and goats, while the women folks of the village attended to water and firewood, plus other produce from the forests. 2. Explain briefly the factors that led to enclosures in England? Answer. The following factors had led to enclosures in England due to increasing trend towards making laws for private property : a) Rapid growth of population: From 7 million in 1750, the population rose 21 million in 1850 and 30 million in This led to rise in demand for food grains. b) Growth of industries: From 1770s Britain was industrializing due to inflow of massive wealth looted from Bengal after grant of Diwani of Bengal to East India Company. An increasing number of people began to live in industrial towns. c) The King of England gave written permissions to his courtiers to enclose almost all the open land as that was expected to increase revenues through better tax collection. d) Construction of railways across England absorbed most of the farmers made surplus due to enclosures. This was a new source of demand for food grain. 10x10 Learning TM Page 9

10 e) Wars with the French: After the French Revolution, England got embroiled in wars with Napoleon from 1800 to The British army needed to be supplied with food. In sum, the greed for private property aroused by the inflow of free wealth of the East India Company, the King s need to raise taxes, the rise in population, increasing movement of population from villages to small towns, growing industrialization, and wars in Europe were some of the major factors that led to enclosures in England. 3. Why were threshing machines opposed by the poor in England? Answer. The poor peasants used to be employed for harvesting activities and this was their major source of livelihood. The threshing machines were the first machines to be introduced in agriculture related work. It could perform the work of several men. As such it took away this source of employment of the poor. Therefore the machines were opposed by the poor. 4. Who was Captain Swing? What did the name symbolize or represent? Answer. Captain Swing was a nickname adopted by the poor for sending threatening letters to the landlords who used the threshing machines. The name symbolized the futile attempt of the poor peasants to bring back the source of their employment, to swing back or reverse the progressive use of machines in agricultural work. 5. What was the impact of Westward expansion of settlers in the USA? Answer. The Westward expansion of settlers in the USA first displaced local tribes or eliminated them altogether. Next they carved out the landscape in to different agricultural belts by slashing and burning the forests, cutting and exporting the timber, and clearing the land for cultivation. In early years the forested land was fertile and produced good harvests. However, it soon became impoverished making the white settlers to move further westwards. By 1860s they had reached the 10x10 Learning TM Page 10

11 wide plains of River Mississippi valley that became the major wheat producing area of America. This expansion was accompanied by the development of new technology for agriculture that made possible the cultivation of vast areas of land with few workers. The initial successes produced bumper harvests. But as stocks of wheat piled up and could not be sold prices fell and began the Great Economic Depression. Also severe dust storms began to blow across these lands as too much erosion of land had occurred due to the use of machines. 6. What were the advantages and disadvantages of the use of mechanical harvesting machines in the USA? Answer. The advantages were that very vast stretches of land could be brought under cultivation with the help of very few workers. The machines could not only plough the fields deeply and cut out the deep rooted grass and weeds, but could also sow the seeds efficiently and uniformly. The irrigations system was also mechanized and finally the harvesting machines could harvest the grain very efficiently with minimal losses. The disadvantages were that only the big farmers could afford these machines. As such the small farmers were completed uprooted from agriculture. As the machines were efficient the farmers recklessly uprooted all vegetation and upturned the soil to break the sod. When rains failed, without any vegetation to hold the mud, the soil got converted in to sand and took the form of Black Blizzard. On the coming of rains these turned in to monstrous waves of muddy water that rose to 7,000 to 8000 feet high and spread the mud everywhere. The wet mud choked the machines beyond repair and suffocated all livestock. Even the fish could not survive as the river waters were too loaded with mud. Therefore in a few years the bread basket was converted into a dust bowl due to the use of mechanical harvesting machines. 7. What lessons can we draw from the conversion of the country side in the USA from a bread basket to a dust bowl? 10x10 Learning TM Page 11

12 Answer. The first lesson is that the ecology of the region needs to be respected by man before he sets out to use his mechanical power to disturb an ecosystem and upset the environmental balance. Secondly, the land should not be overused or over exploited. Natural vegetation is as essential as the land cultivated by man. Therefore, he cannot go about recklessly destroying the prevailing natural vegetation in any regions. Finally, before man re-structures the landscape he should think through the consequences of his action in the future. The possible harm likely to result from the changes should be carefully considered against the possible gains to be made in the present. Otherwise nature has the destructive powers to convert any bread basket in to a dust bowl. 8. Write a paragraph on why the British insisted on farmers growing opium in India? Answer. The British developed a taste for Chinese tea, but had to pay for its trade in silver coins or in bullion. This was too expensive for the British treasury. Therefore, they searched for an alternative product that could be sold to China in exchange for tea. Opium was found to be such a product, because the Portuguese had introduced opium to the Chinese, in the sixteenth century. At the time it was known only for its medicinal properties and used in very small quantities. The Chinese were aware of the dangers of opium addiction, and the Emperor had forbidden its production or sale except of medicinal purposes. But the British began an illegal trade in opium under which it was unloaded on a number of small sea ports in south eastern China and carried inland through agents. By 1820s 10,000 crates were being smuggled in to China by the British. 15 years later it was 35,000 crates. An estimated 4 million Chinese had become opium addicts. All this illegal trade in opium was supplied from Bengal under the control of the British. Before 1767 only 500 chests of opium were being exported from India. By 1870 this was 50,000 chests. The production was based on forced harvesting of opium plant by Indian farmers. 10x10 Learning TM Page 12

13 9. Why were the Indian farmers reluctant to grow opium? Answer. The Indian farmers were reluctant to grow opium as the plant was very delicate and needed the most fertile soil to grow. This fertile land had to be rented by the farmers at high rents. But the price for the harvest was fixed by the British at very low price. Therefore cultivation of opium was not profitable to the Indian farmers. Yet, in Bengal and Bihar a large number of poor farmers were forced to cultivate the opium plant on the rich land that had to be rented at high prices. But as they could not get enough returns from the harvest they continued to become poorer and suffer in indebtedness. The British continued to pay low price for opium harvests, as they wanted to make the highest profits through the illegal trade with China. 10x10 Learning TM Page 13