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

Serials Publications

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 terms of structure and attitudes, deliberating upon the linkages between the seasonally mobile shepherds on the one hand and the sedentary peasants on the other over a time frame of a century. We argue that the shepherds bring into economic equation the resources that are beyond the revenue demand and marketing strategies that are beyond fixed markets and bazaars. We therefore consider shepherding not only as a constituent of the larger economic and social system but also as a competing economy in it-self. As a result, an attempt has been made to understand the process of interaction within different ecological zones and how the state, particularly colonial rule, intervened to control the pastorals in their attempt to Hinduize by ritualizing and locating them in a caste hierarchy. In the process the dynamics of herdingalpine-temperate migratory cycle; the rights and obligations in relation to herding practice; the evolution of herding tax structure; and the socio-economic basis of herdinghas been analyzed. Keywords: Transhumance; seasonal-migration; conflict; management; marketing.

Introduction While understanding the diversity of Indian society, historians have generally ignored or minimized the role of transhumant1 pastoral communities in the socioeconomic processes. They have considered the raising of livestock only as an integral part of mixed agricultural practice, an extension of agrarian structure in which such communities, whose demographic size was generally small, were conveniently merged with the peasants of the region. The assumption for such a marginalization is that the stock farming was only a one time marginal activity requiring little expertise or specialization for the stock takes care of itself requiring only a seasonal stabling and open air. Therefore transhumance, a constant quest for pasture across the altitudinal zones, was relegated to exception rather than the rule, which was the basic characteristic of any shepherding community (Braudel 1986: 294-315). Even while making a passing reference to the herding communitieslike the Bhattis, Gujjars, Mewatis or Pindaristhey are projected as plunderers who ran baggage trains for the great armies. 2 They are characterized as mercenaries living on loot rather than herding, who never the less, benefited the agricultural stability of their homelands by injecting cash and cattle into them. While these communities were negatively stereotyped by the colonial administrationGujjars as cattle
Address for communication: Mahesh Sharma, Professor of History, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India-160 014, E-mail: replymahesh@gmail.com

14

MAN IN INDIA

thieves or Mewatis as robber-bandsthey were comprehended largely as settled agriculturists with predominantly pastoral economy. Alternatively, they are projected as the enemies of the settled agriculture and settled government, who contributed to the local economy by providing animals, milk, clarified butter and forest produce (Bayly 1983: 29-30, 91, 204). Colonialism severely affected such nomads, who were reckoned as potentially subversive and therefore needed to be disciplined by restricting their mobility by bringing them gradually into the fold of settled 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 perpetuated by the historians, they paid scant attention to the inner-structures of the transhumant pastorals and their linkages with the local economy, as well as the complex process of social change involving them and the society they interacted with. More topical studiesparticularly by Anthropologists and Geographers like Sidhy (1993: 145-69) on Hunza transhumant; Wangmo (1990: 141-58) on Brokpas yak raisers in Sikkim; and Parks (1987: 637-60) on the pastorals of Hindukush regionhave 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 as the herders face volatile situations and are always under serious constraints and threat. Agrawal (1999) contends that migration is related to the political marginalization of the Raikas (the camel-herders) that may be tackled by the institutions based in community. Such institutions, as caste councils, have been highlighted by Hayden (1999). He emphasizes the role of such in-built institutions of services as nomadic existence prevents people from taking legal recourse. Both Agrawal and Kavoor argue that the pastoralists are at a disadvantage in their market relation with the cultivators, wool merchants and others that they are 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 communitiesthe Bruhi, Baloch and Pathanin 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 initiating a complex process of differentiation. The tribal society, however, becomes a class society based on occupational categories. Though Scholz shares with Bayly the concerns of colonial regime that took initiative in curbing the mobile tendencies, he does not recognize the complex segmentation and hierarchy against the backdrop of Islamic injunction of social equality. What perhaps he means is that there is no consequent hierarchical social segmentation, but a class differentiation based on economy. The implications of such a transition on the local economy or society are, however, not considered.

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS:

15

Most of these studies document the interface between the herding communities that are on the margins of the dominant agriculturist communities, as in western India. In contrast, this paper deals exclusively with the Gaddi shepherds, a pastoral community of the western Himalayas. Their sedentary base is in Brahmaur, a Ravi river valley in the erstwhile Chamba statenow a district of north Indian province of Himachal Pradeshbetween 7622 and 7653 east longitude and 3211 and 3241 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 Gaddi settlements, in the plains and the higher hills; Village Survey Reports (Brahmaur no 4; Chatrari no. 5; Devi Kothi no. 10), the Glossary prepared by Rose (1882) as well as Shashi (1977) and Newell (1961) provided primary data on their economy and social structure, and Noble (1987) detailed a migratory account of these shepherds. Recently, Saberwal (1999) has deliberated on the rhetoric of conservation vis--vis polices of the forest bureaucrats, the officials blaming the shepherds for environmental degradation due to the misuse of land resources. He emphasizes that the local understandings of how ecosystems function need to be given far greater recognition and advocates the incorporation of local knowledge into the management of resources. In contrast Chetan Singh (1998) considers pastorals as an integral part of the economic system of the state as taxpayers whose activities allowed 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 the linkages between the seasonally mobile shepherds on the one hand and the sedentary peasants on the other, but over a time frame of a century. It emphasizes the impact of economic interaction in terms of social change. The paper, thus, brings into a sharp focus the complex interplay, at various levels, among the forces of state, the agriculturists, and the pastorals by considering the shepherding economy in itself and as a constituent of the larger economic and social system. We shall argue that the shepherds bring into economic equation the resources that were beyond the revenue demand and marketing strategies that are beyond fixed markets and bazaars.3 We shall attempt to understand the process of interaction within different ecological zones and how the state, particularly colonial rule, intervened to control the pastorals in their attempt to Hinduize by ritualizing and locating them in a caste hierarchy. In the process the dynamics of herdingalpine-temperate migratory cycle; the rights and obligations in relation to herding practice; the evolution of herding tax structure; and the socio-economic basis of herdinghas been analyzed. The Shepherds The Gaddi shepherds were distinct by their attire of the chola and dora. The male chola 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 a flock, a shepherd may have couple of lambs stowed in his bosom, along with his daily food and other miscellaneous articles. They also wore a peculiar cap, with a flap round the margin, and a peak like projection in the center. The flap was normally tied but let down over the ears and neck in winters or in the time of mourning. 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 more ornamental and market made long full skirt called luanchari, again tied on the waist by a dora. Women also sported silver jewelry, with turquoise stones in huge pendants. Interestingly men left their legs uncovered, even in extreme winters with snow around. They, however, wore shoes made of goatskin and insulated with goat hair called mocharu (CDG: 186; OBrien 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 the southern face of Pir Panjal range and the northern face of Dhauladhar range, living between 3,500 and 7,000 feet (Barnes 1852: 42). Even though their original home was Gadheran, some of the Gaddis, by 1850, resided in the southern slopes of Dhauladhar, from Bhoh in taluqa Rilhu to Bir in taluqa Banaghal: both falling in the district of Kangra. The majority of the Kangra living Gaddis, however, also had a share in land and house in the Chamba territory (KSR: 38). Thus, most of them were the subjects of both the states. In pre-colonial times these Gaddis paid fine 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 drastically during colonial times as Barnes, in 1852, observed: I am afraid our institutions have taught them greater independence, and the infraction of this custom is now more frequent then the observances. Pasturage was hence fixed at the rate of Rs.2/100 heads of sheep and goats by the colonial administration in Kangra and similarly, 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 the total estimated population of 24,684 of the Chamba state in 1881, the Gaddis accounted for 11,161 or 45.2% of the total population. However, the enumerators were seemingly not quite clear about the term Gaddi as three Muslim Gaddis were returned in the same Census from Jind in Haryana; along with 16 Muslim Gaddis from the principality of Bilaspur.4 In 1857, it was estimated that there were 1,440 Gaddi families belonging to 13 different clans in Brahmaur (KDG: 153). By 1911 there were 8,732 Gaddis in Chamba and 15,535 in 1921.5 The 1931 population figures again show a decline: the total Gaddi population being 14,847; which further declined 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 in Brahmaur.6 The post thirties population decline is understandable as the area designated as Brahmaur was redefined and territorially decreased. According to the 1931 Census, Brahmaur was stretched within the area of 20.06 sq. miles; which was decreased to 17.37 sq. miles (the total area in 1953 being 10,923 acres) in the revenue-settlement of 1953.7 Agriculture and Sheep Farming It was difficult for the state to sustain such a sizeable transhumant pastoral population living in an area covered by snow for more than six months. Therefore, as a survival strategy, 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 land also. It was, therefore, so minutely divided that the owners were obliged to cultivate it jointly. The crop was, nevertheless, harvested separately by each land-owning family (KSR: 60). Things changed with the introduction of potatoes by the colonial administration. Lyall considered this as a sort of agricultural revolution in Brahmaur (KSR: 58):
The fields around the Gaddi peasants houses which formerly produced at the best only maize, wheat, or barley, barely sufficient to feed the families which owned themnow produce a very lucrative harvest (potatoes). The Gaddis explain this by saying the potato has become our sugarcane.

Potatoes along with another commercial crop, tea, were cultivated mostly on the slopes of Dhauladhar range and provided valuable staples (KSR: 4).8 It also provided them, if there was a surplus productivity, a commercial enterprise at the ready market at Banikhet, Dalhousie, and Bakloh in Chamba, or Dharamsala in Kangra, that developed around the British cantonments.9 Grains were also produced 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 was maize, wheat, and coarse cereals. The chief rabi crop was wheat, barley, and oil seeds (Bhasin: 141). Agriculture barely provided subsistence,10 but combined well with sheep-goat herding, the mainstay of the Gaddis (Newell 1961: 28). The Gaddis, thus, practiced a mixed farming; as was done by all farmers in the hills, except that the dependence of the Gaddis on sheep/goat was primary. Lyall, for instance, distinguished the hill-agriculturists and the Gaddis as (KSR: 38):
The only shepherd in Kangra proper (excepting a few Kanets who keep in Banghal) are to be found among the Gaddis. The other landholders keep no flocks, though nearly every man 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 and frost in the high ranges, and heavy rain and heat in the lower hills made it impossible to carry on extensive sheep farming in Kangra and Lahul-Spiti, where people lived a sedentary life though they did own few sheep and goats. Transhumance and seasonal migration, in the quest for pastures, was the only way to carry on this profession which became the way of Gaddi life. Not all the Gaddis, however, owned sheep/goats, particularly those living in Kangra. However, some prosperous Gaddi families owned a large flock consisting of 1000 sheep/goats; though the majority owned a relatively smaller flock of 300 to 400 heads. The flock of 300400 heads was known as dhan while that consisting of 800-1200 heads was called kandah (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 a Gaddi had a very small flock (say 100 heads) he did not go himself, but get a friend or kinsman who is grazing to take them with his own (KSR: 37-9, 41-2). In such 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 or proprietor (Shashi: 115; CDG: 346). He also contributed to the common expense that included the rent of pasturelands, cost of rock salt (for animals) as well as the cost of food brought for shepherds. This was later divided according to the number of heads in the flock and each shepherd had to pay his share though the heads owned 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 this system the proprietor profited at the expense of other Gaddis, the others could gainfully 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 a strong sense of business acumen would not undertake any proposition which was not profitable. This distinct trait is reflected in an oft spoken couplet, a reflection of attitudes of people, about the Gaddis (Rose: 260).11
Gaddi mitr bhola Denda 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 the inception of the agro-pastoral activities in the area, the movement being determined by pastures and the seasonal cycle. In 1874 Lyall observed a particular phase of the movement as (KSR: 38):
At the end of November or early in December, they (the Gaddis) arrive in their winter quarters in the low hills, where they remain something less than four months. By the first of April they have moved up into the villages on the southern slopes of the snowy Range or outer Himalayas, and here they stay two months or more, gradually moving higher and higher till about the first of June or little later, when they cross the range and make for their summer, 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 36,334 immigrants, of which a significant number must have been the Gaddis, either shepherds, or the Gaddi women who migrated to stay and work in Kangra in association 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 Gaddi immigrants to Kangra every year. Herding in winters was not restricted to Kangra only, even though it accounted for the majority of Gaddi shepherds. Some of the Gaddis drove their flocks to the hills of Hoshiarpur, while others moved to an altogether different ecological zone, such as Mandi, Suket and Bilaspur (KSR: 38).12 During summers, the Gaddis of Kangra and Chamba along with the Koli shepherds of Kulu utilized the alpine pastures of Lahul. Most of the alpine zone was uninhabited. For instance, the country between Chandra and Bhaga rivers (about 75 miles) was considered a waste, only visited by the shepherds from Kulu and Gaddis from Kangra. In 1874, Lyall, observed the Gaddi itinerary to the alpine pastures as (KSR: 113):
The snow begins to disappear in these (Lahul) places about the beginning of June; the shepherds do not ordinarily enter Lahul before the end of that month, and they leave it again early in September, by which time the frost is beginning to be biting and the rainy season in the outer Himalayan country has come to an end. In the fine day climate in Lahul the sheep escape the foot-rot and other diseases, which constantly attack flocks kept during the rains in the summer slopes of the outer Himalayas. (emphasis added) The sheep arrive wretchedly thin, but by the time they are ready to leave are in splendid condition.

During their seasonal migration to Lahul, which attracted shepherds from many other areas also, the Gaddis transacted and sold their sheep to traders from as far as Tibet and Kumaon. These sheep acted also as mules to carry load in the difficult terrain 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 a beast 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 and regional interestas is clear from an example of a solitary sheep run in Spiti regioncontrolled the grazing or shepherding activity. This particular pasture was located on the Kanzum pass, known as Maran or Srittika, and was held by the people of Jagatsukh, in Kulu, who allowed the Gaddi shepherds to graze their goats 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 their sheep in Jagatsukh providing valuable manure for which the local peasantry competed (as we shall discuss this subsequently). The Gaddis, as other nomads, particular herders, always profited from such conflicts and opportunities, also reflected in a local proverb about themwhich interestingly also stereotypes such communities as cunning and deceitful, which cannot be trusted (KDG: LXXIX):

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS:

21

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

The immediate outcome of the transhumance cycle is reflected in the economy of wool. Corresponding to their migration cycle was associated the cycle of shearing or clipping of wool. Shearing was carried out in February in Kangra, in June in Chamba, and in October in Lahul or Chamba after returning from the alpine pastures of Lahul or Pangi. In 1924, it was estimated that on an average a flock of 100 sheep yielded 8-10 seers in February (1 seer = 933 gms.); 10-12 seers in June; and 24-30 seers in October. Thus, 45-52 seers of wool were recovered from 100 sheep per annum, which is approximately 40-49 kilograms. Again, in 1929, it was estimated that a sheep yielded from 8-10 chhittaks (1 chhittaks = 60 gms.) to 12-16 chhittaks annually when the grazing was better, approximately about 480-600 gms to 720-960 gms annually (KDG: 278). A recent survey reveals an improvement in the 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) to Brahmaur and to the temperate pasture (Kangra and the lower hills) was not arbitrary, but a well worked out routine in a time framework. In spring, the Sivaratri festival marked the upward movement; and in autumn, the downward movement began with the harvest festival of Sair (KDG: 268). This is woven into their belief system as well, where they have worked out the migration of god Siva into the winter and summer abodes corresponding to these festive dates. 13 The spatial and temporal itinerary of herding was pregnant with economic dimension as well. For instance, in Nurpur and Tiloknath they could sell wool to the Kashmiri shawl manufacturers, as also in Kulu, Mandi and Rampur (Barnes: 43). Moreover, the Gaddi migration was also synchronized and associated with the network of fairs and festivals: which offered them brisk tradeboth in wool and meat along with the forest products comprising of much valued honey, dhupa (incense) and numerous varieties of herbs. In Kangra, as well as other hill States, the festival of Sair heralded the harvest season of fair and festivities. For instance, the Gaddis disposed 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 of Narti, 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 of Tibet, Ladakh, Lahul, Bushahr, and Spiti. However, the most profitable from the perspective of the Gaddis was the festival of Namkhar, where their goods along with 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 hills immediately started earning their livelihood by thrashing paddy or worked as porters, carrying the harvest of local farmers/landowners to whom they got attached and lived with (CSG: 203). Pastures: Regulation and Control The Gaddi pasturage was unambiguously distributed as well as clearly categorized and regulated to enable better management. The winter pastures, called bans, were divided 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 ownership of the pasture was vested in the ownership of the flock (KSR: 38).15 The warisiinheritance in pastures was attributed to the original grant-patta from the Raja or the 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 the flock, was known as mahlundi or malik-kandah. Other shepherds who grazed in the same pasture were the assamain or clients of the proprietor. The proprietor was answerable to the state while the clients were answerable to the proprietor. For instance, Lyall observed that the proprietor helped the banwaziri (the forest department) with the ginkari (counting) and renta duty for which he was paid the entire mailaina, which is the money paid by the land holders for the sheep droppings (used as manure), which was substantial (KSR: 38). The spring or autumn pasture was termed as dhar, as well as goth. Each dhar had its local name and approximate boundary. The dhars were further divided into two categories. The rocky terrain above the forest line was known as nigahr or kowin (lit. naked), while the low lying area in the forest was known as kundli or gahr. The two were not used simultaneously. For instance, when the flocks returned to Chamba in early September they (KSR: 38),
spend about ten days in the kowin: thence they descend into the kundli, and stay there some five or six weeks: when the crop are cut and cleared off the fields below, they leave the wastes, and descend first to the upper hamlets, and then to those in the valley: they stay a month 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 is followed in the return journey in the spring.

In Lahul, the grazing grounds or sheep-runs of foreign shepherds were called dhars 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 of sheep/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 known as trakar; while the high mountain pastures, accessible only in summers, were called dhar, ghar and nigahr. Further, dhars were only the pastures between the Ravi and Beas rivers; while those lying beyond Ravias in Lahul and Pangi were known as gahr and nigahr. The high fields and farmsteads above the village and near the trakar pastures, to which the flock was taken in summer was known as kat and katohar in Brahmaur, adwari and dughari in Chamba and puhali in Pangi valley. The village pastures were also used for the animals kept at home for domestic use all the year round, known as ghareri. For them a separate tax called trini-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 dhars directly 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 not to the proprietor alone. The proprietor, however, contributed five per cent less to the accounts of common expenses in the dhar (KSR: 42, 43). Though the right to pasture was granted by the state, this was not uniform everywhere in Chamba. For example, the inhabitants of Kugti, which is surrounded by large tracts of waste land, had a sort of corporate right in the surrounding dhars, held on lease from the Rajawith the latter enjoying no grazing control over them. The people of Kugti enjoyed the discretion to admit shepherds as they wished, which could not be petitioned in the court of Raja. However, the land belonged to the Raja and the right of the people of Kugti was limited only in grazing and pasturage. Thus, while the Raja could not alter the grazing rights he could, nevertheless, grant the right of netting or snaring musk deer in the same tract to the people of Bangahal or other outsiders (KDG 1916: 89). Thus, in the pre-colonial times though the state had a right of approvement (that it could empower any person to hold any plot of 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 auction of 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, even though there is no known record to suggest the modus operandi of the system, or the agreement arrived at, to this affect, by different states. The state carefully regulated the pastures. For instance, for the effective forest control the colonial administration restricted the time period for which the Gaddis could stop in Kulu valley during their migrations to and from Lahul. This was even 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 appended below (Working Plan 1954-55; Bhasin: 114):
TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF THE CASES OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY Name and no. of Area (in acres) the forest RAJOUR 149 377 (13 acres in this was owned by the Gaddis of Magzi and Mocha clan Statement of Rights Brahmaur and Kothiar villages (grazing right for 4000 sheep and goats for 15 days in Jeth month and 11 days in Asuj) Malkota village (Right of way through southern west.) Sachuin and Chaled villages (grazing and firewood.) Grima village (grazing right of way to water spring in the forest) Kalrota village (Grazing for 25 kine) Pansai village (Grazing for 120 kine, and in Jeth and Asuj 200 sheep; firewood and torch wood). Authority under which granted Sanctioned in H.H. the Raja of Chamba, letter dated 22-06-1895.

MORU 150

365

Statement of 1891. Sanctioned in H.H. the Raja of Chamba, letter dated 22-06-1895.

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 pasturage was 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 every year or after a fixed time. Thus, while the shepherds of Sachuin and Chaled villages grazed and collected firewood in the forest no. 150 (see table 1), the shepherds of village Grima could only pass through it. But it is possible that in the succeeding year the shepherds of Grima enjoyed the grazing and fuel-wood rights while the people of Sachuin and Chaled villages could only pass through it. Apart from distributing the rights, another way of asserting control over the forest was by prohibiting grazing or declaring them as rakh or reserved forest. For instance, in the pre-colonial days (KSR: 24):
certain blocks of forest within mauzas were reserved (rakh) or shooting preserves by the state; 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 all forests for the three months of the rains.

Even during the colonial rule this custom was popular. Thus in some parts of the Mandi 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 and small wood from the Raja, ever after the thak (prohibition of grazing) was over (KSR: 24). During the colonial administration the policy of rakh-grazing-prohibition reached its logical culmination with the closure of certain forests for a fixed time period, 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 with the 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 forests comprising of 8,777 acres were declared as reserved forests, Duff was forced to accept certain local demands. One, he promised not to close any waste or the forest land henceforth; two, local people were assigned a share of revenue collected from the Gaddis (which must have been sizeable); and three, the assignment to the people the general revenue from the sale of trees. Similarly, 68 blocks of forest with the total area of 71,612 acres were demarcated and closed in Nurpur. In 1887 settlement of Baijnath, 36 forests spread over 26,413 acres of land were demarcated and closed (KDG: 296-8). Faced with rapid closure and prohibition on grazing, the colonial administration manipulated and controlled the movement of such nomadic professionals whom they eyed suspiciously. Apparently, the Gaddi shepherds 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 status of profit particularly where there was a grazing tax contract in lump-sum, and not based on the head-count. The waris-right-holder could reduce the incidence of tax due from him by exacting a fee from other shepherds who grazed over his pastureland or warisi. In 1874 the income from this arrangement ranged between 4 annas/100 heads to 8 annas/100 heads in Datripur, whereas the waris himself paid a Rupee per 100 heads to the state. Also, the Gaddis, who had a warisi-right but discontinued 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 original owner with whose permission his occupation commenced (KSR: 113, 118). Even though rights could be enjoyed in proxy, it was a fixed right in perpetuation that could 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 to pasture 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, meaning thereby 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, that any flock which occupies them is bound to spend some days and nights in manuring their rice fields. All the flocks, when they descend into the valley in the autumn, spend some time in sitting in the fields, but except in these cases, the shepherd is free to agree to sit on any mans land he pleased.

The warisi-right-inheritance involved certain rights as well as obligations depending upon the interaction and economic angle between the Gaddis and the agriculturist community. Thus, in Bangahal where the Gaddis owned some dhars, and all 57 dhars 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 6-4-0/100 from the Kanets (agriculturists) of Bangahal (KSR: 42, 43). This system is significant as 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 tax rate. This was due to sheep manure, for which the agriculturists competed. Such was 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 Mandi shepherds to go to their dhars, and in return the latter, on the way between Mandi and dhars, 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 this manure that they not only feed the shepherds gratis while they stop at the hamlet, but do so also 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 relationship between the Gaddis and the agriculturists because of its high fertility value. Barnes observed that the cultivators of Kangra valley also contested with each other for the right of having the sheep folded upon their land. In return, the cultivators paid two or three Rupees for the advantage gained and the Gaddis, just while changing ground and before the harvest was sown, reaped a little fortune without much exertion or cost. Thus, the Gaddi not only grazed the flock free of charge, but also earned 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 grazing tax contributed to the villagers became a sizeable contribution to the total tax. The villagers thus could save the amount as collected from the Gaddi shepherds. For instance, the inhabitants of Bara Banaghal after being assessed with the land tax of Rs. 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 the owners 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 influential land-holder allegedly exacted something as the flock passed his land. In the states of Mandi and Suket, or other native states, the pasturage was leased out annually at a lump-sum to a contractor, whose charges were exorbitant along with certain other demands (KSR: 38, 43). Shepherding, thus, not only involved the Gaddi way of 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 lungukaru, or the crossing tax, collected by the village official called dinker. Dinker was always a Gaddi and was entitled to certain perquisites from the shepherds. The head 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 it seems 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 Gaddis claimed a right to occupy the same ground every year. After abolition, the right to occupancy was reserved to the flock that first arrived, a subtle intervention by which 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 gave a sheep, or two, of bhaggati (for sacrifice) to the village next below their run. Such sheep 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 legally enforced. The flock entering Lahul by the Kugti pass, which descends into Jobrangkothi, 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 cess called alokaru (KSR: 113). Interestingly, the pre-colonial banwaziri or the forest-department categorized the Gaddis as artisans. Thereby, pasturage became a taxable commodity, fixed at Rs. 2/100 heads of goats/sheep. In addition a woolen choga (coat) and a he-goat were also extracted from the Gaddis. The above tax becomes interesting as it is comparable 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 paid Rs.0-3-0 per house. What is interesting is that the pre-colonial state clubbed the various service providers and herders in the same category. However, this tax was abolished finally in 1847 (KSR: 33). In the pre-colonial times the tax paid by the Gaddis not only had an economic angle but played a certain political role as well. For instance, the Gaddi shepherds grazing the uninhabited land between the Chandra and Spiti rivers (the land disputed both by Lahul and Spiti States), always paid their dues to the Wazir of Lahul, and not Spiti. This fact acquired significance in reclaiming the land to Lahul and in fixing 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 (the Gaddis, the Kolis of Kulu) and herdsmen (the Gujjars) were taxed at a higher rate than the peasants were. The colonial administration, while abolishing the local and sundry taxes, claimed the Gaddi grazing tax. Barnes, in 1852, fixed this at the rate of Rs. 2-0-0/100 heads in the British held territories, and Rs. 1-0-0/100 heads in the Chamba state. However, the taxation was not uniform, as Rs. 1-0-0 was charged in Hoshiarpur district but Rs. 2.95 in Kangra district (KSR: 41). Since 1863-64, in Chamba, 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 British and Jammu territories, were also auctioned. It seems that earlier the Chamba state enjoyed rights to such pastures as a way to control the shepherds. With the realization of competitive market of pasturage, however, it reaped a nice little profit from the contractors. The contractors were entitled to demand Rs. 2-8-0/100 heads, which was waived off for mailana or manure rights of 60 days penning. The contractors further negotiated mailana rights with landowners, to whom they sold at exorbitant prices (CSG: 278). This was perhaps profitable both to the state and the Gaddis who earlier paid exorbitant cess in kind, at the rate of 2.5 seer wool (1 seer = 933 gms); 2.5 seer rice; and two small goats per puhal (herdsman) or flock. The contractor also got the mailani or the manure money taken before the ginkari or counting, after which it went to the individual shepherd. In Nurpur this must have been 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 or two Rupees per hundred head in full of the claims, and not to ask for any account of the mailani (KSR: 40, 43). With the rise in the value of sheep, the grazing tax was not only proportionately increased by the state, but also at a different rate for the goat and sheep. The distinction is sustainable as the goats both graze and browse and, therefore, are more harmful to the flora and forests than the grazing sheep. In 1915, the tax was increased to Rs. 6-4-0/100 goats and Rs.4-11-0/100 sheep. By 1924, the grazing tax 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 of comparison, 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 by every person who had land in Brahmaur, whether a resident or a non-resident. But when the formal revenue rates were fixed in 1881, the bachh dasrit cess was transferred from the names of those who could not prove their possession in Brahmaur. The customary privileges were also abolished and the uniform colonial law hence governed the Gaddis (CDG: 342).

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS:

29

The entire system of taxation, regulation of pastures and competition for manure, emphasize the inter-linkages among the shepherds, the state, and the agriculturists. To the state it meant sizeable revenue out of waste. For instance, before the revenue-settlement made by Barnes, Rs. 500 on account of grazing dues was exacted from the owners of sheep who resorted to Lahul in the rainy season. The figure seems stupendous (about 23%), when we correlate it to Rs. 2200 as the annual Jama (budget) fixed for the entire Lahul territory after the revised revenue-settlement. The colonial administration, therefore, while recognizing the importance of the Gaddis gave them exclusive grazing rights; though being cautious to assert that it did not amount to the ownership of the soil and recognizing them as the tenants of the state. Lyall recommended that the Deputy Commissioner in his executive capacity should look after the interest of these shepherds if there were disputes with the village communities (KSR: 143). Perhaps, he was apprehensive of the probable conflict arising due to the mounting Gaddi pressure on limited pasturage vis--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 suffer some serious loss. For instance, there was always the danger of wild animals, as recounted by Lyall in 1870s that (KSR: 42):
In hurried marches over the passes on the Snowy Range it often happened that one or two sheep or goats are left behind . . . Leopards will follow a flock for days watching in their cowardly fashion for a safe chance of pouncing on a straggler. Bears, if they do become carnivorous, are bolder and will sometimes charge into a flock by day and night in face of dogs and shepherds . . . the flock might be seized with a panic or stampede in crossing a glacier, and rush head long into an open crevice. I have heard of 700 sheep being lost at once in this way or a goat might set a rock moving on a precipitous hill side; I have seen several sheep killed thus in an instant.

In the pre-colonial times the natural calamity was augmented further by the everpersisting royal demand, whereby the Gaddis had to sell the required number of sheep/goats forcibly. This was a dead loss as the sale was made at the rulers price (hakim ninkh), and not the market price (KSR: 39). However, this situation was reversed by the colonial administration with a fair amount of success. The property of the Gaddis was vested in their mobile animals; and their economy depended on their value. The sheep was kept mainly for their wool and only 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 sucking lambs (CDG: 247). The goats were used as pack animals, their finer hair were used for making coarse blankets and other hair for lining snowshoes, and they were 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 disposal of older sheep and goats, coupled with vigorous breeding, kept the age of the flock young 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 the onset of the First World War, the demand for goat increased immensely (known as MOH 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 is interesting to observe that in the war period the population of goats declined from 91,106 in 1913 to 71,495 in 1918. The corresponding decline of sheep in Kulu in this period was 148,437 in 1913 to 124,936 in 1918 (Saberwal: 173). The trend continued in the inter-wars period as well. In this period the overall goat/sheep population declined from 2,149,183 in 1929 to 1,319,023 in 1939, a shortfall of about 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 money in this period of boom. This was however, a short lived phenomenon of boom created by war as ten years later the prices reflect immense depreciation in the value of goats, though an appreciable rise in the value of sheep. The monetary value acquires a greater significance if compared to the wage rates of the unskilled labor in Kangrawhich ranged from three to four annas in 1909; four annas in 1919, and four and a half to eight annas by 1922. In terms of purchasing power of a Rupee, a Gaddi could buy 82.4 Kg of rice; or 99.5 Kg of maize; or 74.6 kg of wheat; 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 between 1914 and 1924 and the respective appreciation/depreciation in the value of sheep and goats in relation to the incidence of taxation during this period.16
TABLE 2: PRICE OF GOAT/SHEEP IN RELATION TO GENERAL PRICE INDEX AND INCIDENCE OF TAXATION 1914 Price (Rs/hd) He-Goat She-Goat Sheep 9-0-0 3-8-0 4-0-0 Tax (Rs/ 100hd) 6-4-0 6-4-0 4-11-0 1924 Price (Rs/hd) 6-4-0 6-0-0 7-0-0 Tax (Rs/ 100hd) 6-5-0 6-5-0 4-11-9 Rice Maize Wheat Barley Gram Linseed 1914 Price (Rs/ maund)* 1-13-0 1-8-0 2-0-0 1-2-0 1-10-0 2-12-0 1924 Price (Rs/ maund) 2-11-0 2-8-0 4-11-0 2-11-0 6-13-0 1910 Price (seer/ Re)* 6 seers 15 seers 11 seers 18 seers

* 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 shepherding activities impacting the society and economy. The dynamics of hill physiognomy is pointed, resulting in a totally different colonial response to the shepherds in the hill society than that in the Indo-Gangetic plains. The Gaddis are, therefore, neither peasantized (though compared to the peasants for revenue purposes), nor classified as cattle thieves, nor is shepherding viewed as potentially subversive as was the 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 of the total budget in Lahul); the society negotiates their revenue proceeds in relation to the dues recovered from the shepherds; the peasants compete to gain their sheep droppingsa valuable manure at the end of harvest season; they supply the meatproducts 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 local economy through the network of fairs-mela. In fact, the relation between taxation and price-rise is directly proportional, for every rise the Gaddis pay more. Significantly, the conceptual and methodological tools need to be contextualized. Unlike the anthropologists studying the shepherds in the dominant agrarian community, where the conflict between the settled and mobile is played upon, where fixed-market is the place where the pastoralists lose out, the Gaddis provide a different spectrum. Charting their interaction over a period of hundred years, the conflict is rather inverted; the interests of peasants or settled communities (as in Spiti or Banaghal) occasionally collide to benefit the shepherds. The economic transaction transcends the fixed markets and bazaars, the network of fair-mela takes over where wool and woolen products are sold, goatskins and goat-hair are valued, and goats/sheep are sold. Interestingly, the fair-mela only provides a larger transacting avenue. The process of transaction is everyday and everyplace, as it were, negotiating the forest products like honey or incense, or ram and goat, or blanket or goatskin bags or shoes, with a peasant or a landowner. Largely these exchanges were loaded heavily in favor of the pastoralists. Thus, the notion of market 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 into the market annually (a conservative amount based on 1956 figures) or about 75,000 sheep/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 marketability alone. In fact, the herding economy is enmeshed into the everyday structure. The community was a-cephalous, herding being an individual family concern. Pastures that were owned became managed during the colonial regime, indicating a subtle shift in right and control exercised by the state. The itinerary and routes were 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 the necessities for the flock and humans, while the shepherds remained in perpetual motion. However, the indirect control exercised by the colonial rule in Kangra like settling the Gaddi womenfolk/household seasonally (a section of population had a permanent settlement though occupied only in summers), or by occasional forest closure underpinned the dependence of the Gaddis over the settled agrarian society, a sustained interaction that led to a hierarchical stratification within the community. The Gaddis thus, as a survival strategy, sanskritized their socialorganization, appropriated the dominant caste identities (individually, not as a community) tailored to facilitate social correspondence with the larger society and to further their economic gains. Yet the community did not settle (was not peasantized) or lose its identity and professional character, unlike the pastoralists of 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 pastorals appropriated 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 were created and fixed by the colonial ethnography in its attempt to reform and civilize the frontiers, like the Gaddi shepherds. The change, however, bring into sharp focus the complex interplay, at various levels, among the forces of state, the agriculturists and the pastoralists; the inter-messing of different ideologies, the economic 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 the society 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 of sheep/goats, but also an interactive and social system, which while generating demand and maneuvering space for the shepherds, regulates the wider economy in different ecological zones of production. As has been observed that things, people and ideas often transform in the process of mobility, so does our notion of the mobile, the sedentary and the forces controlling themthe state. Notes
1. Transhumance refers to the seasonal migration across the altitudinal zones and therefore of differing settlements. In this case, the migration pattern would be from the temperate pastures to alpine pastures, the altitudes ranging from 300 ft to 12000 ft above the sea level, during the winters and summer season respectively. This is in contrast to other migrations by the herders within the same ecological altitudinal zone, as in the case of Raikas, Mewatis or Ribaris for instances. For a general view of tribal, particularly herding communities of Panjab as well, that formed an economically palpable and militarily influential element within the geographic boundaries of the Mughal empire (Singh 1988: 421-48).

2.

STATE, PASTURES AND RICE-FIELDS:

3.

33

This is similar to the strategies of the peddlers hawking their products in Panjab, including hills, creating a market where nonexistent, under-pinning the complex process by which consumption pattern were influenced and demand created, Bhattacharya, 2003, Predicaments of Mobility: Peddlers and Itinerants in Nineteenth-century Northwest India, in Markovits: 163-214. According to Punjab Census Report, 1881: 22, there were 5,485 male and 5,675 female Gaddis. 74 male and 19 female Gadaria, the Muslim pastorals, were also reported from the lower hill states, mostly from Nahan. KDG: 176; Census of India, 196: 137, quotes the figure of 10,411 Gaddis in 1921 which seems 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. Household is described as a group of persons who commonly live together and would take meals together from a common kitchen unless the exigencies of work prevented any of 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 Gaddis with 16,012 males and 13,932 females. Census of India, 1981, Series 7, H. P., Part IIA: 41. Newell, Report on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:14; Bhasin: 42, splits the acreage in Brahmaur, far acceding the above estimates: 18,191 hectares under forests with 8,395 acres forming the reserve forest and 9,067 acres as protected forest; 27,500 acres of land as pasture land. KSR: 4. The colonial administration encouraged the extension of agriculture to sustain the growing military hill stations. They introduced potatoes, tea and sericulture on the slopes of Dhauladhar. However, the need to link these hill-stations with the mainland Panjab and the extension of rail-network diverted the attention to the forests, particularly Sal forests, which were exploited to meet the supply of railway sleepers and charcoal. The linkages were to change the contour of the hill society and economy, in as much the hill landscape. See, Kennedy: 94. The market was necessary for the development of agriculture in the Chamba State as a strategy against both plenty and famine. Chamba District Gazetteer, 1904: 222-3; Chamba District Gazetteer, 1961: 228. In Pangi the potatoes were introduced in 1878.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Rose, 1883, Vol. II: 260, notes that the Gaddis are the most prosperous agricultural class in the 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/Gaddi laga rona. (The Gaddi is a simple friend, he has soiled his coat// while his wife started washing it/the Gaddi started crying). 12. Such transhumant itinerary was common to most pastoral communities. For instance, the Bangulzahi shepherds (the second largest population group among the Brahui of western Baluchistan) follow a similar itinerary though their migratory routes are not fixed like the Gaddis, 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 summers and 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 of Devi 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 horse riding, 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 the ownership 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 Migrant Pastoral 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 British Expansion, 1770-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhasin, Veena (1987). Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh: Himalayan Ecology, Transhumance, and Social 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 in India. 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: Oxford University 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 and Circulation: Mobile People and Itinerant Cultures in South Asia 1750-1950. Delhi: Permanent Black. Bhattacharya, Neeladri (2003). Predicaments of Mobility: Peddlers and Itinerants in Nineteenthcentury 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 Migratory Gaddi Shepherds. London: Collins. OBrien, 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 Frontier Provinces. Patiala: Panjab Languages. (reprint 1970). Saberwal, Vasant K. (1999). Pastoral Politics: Shepherds, Bureaucrats, and Conservation in the 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 University Press. Shashi, S. S. (1977). The Gaddi Tribe of Himachal Pradesh. Delhi: Sterling. Singh, Chetan (1988). Conformity and Conflict: Tribes and the Agrarian System of Mughal India , Indian Economic and Social History Review, XXIII (3). reprinted in Muzaffar Alam 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 Himalaya 1850-1950. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Singh, K. S. (ed.) (1972). The Tribal Situation in India. Simla:Indian Institute of Advanced Study. 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.