Introduction
The Gond Rajas were so-called ‘aboriginal kings’ who ruled a region in Central India called Chanda. This is now divided into the Chandrapur District of Maharastra and Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh. They largely maintained their sovereign power in the forest and hill tracts up until the mid-eighteenth century, keeping outside rulers, such as those of Golkonda, the Marathas and the Mughals, at bay. Even after they were conquered by the Marathas, and later by the British, they negotiated with the imperial paramount powers and continued to hold their positions until the end of colonial rule.Footnote 1 Under British colonial rule, however, the Rajas and their people were brought under close control. This was in part carried out by force and in part by a use of a colonial political rationality that was rooted in the canon of western state power.Footnote 2 As James C. Scott has argued, the encounter between modern expansionary states and self-governing hill peoples involved a process of internal colonisation, land enclosure, migration and marginalization. This was a feature of the development of modern state systems in many parts of the world.Footnote 3 Like any other modern state, the colonial state used a variety of methods to incorporate the areas beyond the reach of earlier state formations into the space of state-making. This process brought enormous change to the external and internal relations of the Rajas, the relation with the paramount power, with other adivasis (aboriginals), and with non-adivasis.
The British held that the forests and hills were purely lands of wild and troublesome people, and it would not only be difficult to administer these tracts but also uneconomic to the government, as the whole of the vast area was barren and uncultivable land. This led the British to keep these territories with traditional local Rajas, subject to payment of a tribute to the colonial state, adopting a paternalistic approach towards them. This policy not only brought financial and commercial benefits to the colonial state but also avoided resistance and raids both from the local chiefs and their people. The Rajas were also seen as a potential mediating agency between the colonial state and the hill people, through whom it was sought to normalize and civilize the hill land and its people.Footnote 4 In other words, the colonial state endeavoured to govern the ‘troublesome’ and ‘uneconomic territories’ through an alliance with the local traditional powers—a system of indirect rule. Although the British were dependent on the local Rajas to help build and maintain colonial rule in India, they soon reduced the Rajas to being their dependents. The power of the Rajas was effectively frozen, leaving them with what Nicholas B. Dirks has called ‘hollow crowns’, or Rajas with very limited power.Footnote 5 Their financial position also became increasingly precarious.Footnote 6
All of this led to revolt and resistance in the region. During the early twentieth century, the strategy of civilizing Gonds by settling them as agriculturists shifted to protectionism, with the reservation of tracts, places, and official positions for them. This was, in itself, controversial.Footnote 7 The wider process of settling these communities continued right into the twentieth century, and in some cases, was never fully carried out. In the process, however, the hill and forest societies became firmly divided from the societies of the plains.
Recent studies, such as Skaria (1999) and Sundar (1997), have explored many of these developments for western and central India. However, they have tended to focus on violent suppression, subordination and exploitation of adivasis, and on the importance of an adivasi articulation of primordial loyalties in revolt against the colonial state.Footnote 8 They say less about the process of inculcating a new culture and way of life amongst the adivasi Rajas and their people. This paper will focus more on this latter aspect, bringing out the way in which the colonial state-making process subordinated, marginalized, and sought to hegemonize the Gond Rajas. First, however, we need to say something about the history of this tract and its rulers.
Remembering Rajas, remembering sovereignty
The country which lies between the Narmada and the Godavari rivers, and which later constituted parts of the British Central Provinces, was ruled by four powerful Gond dynasties for 400 years from the middle of the fourteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century. The region was also popularly called ‘Gondwana’, as it was largely inhabited by Gond communities. In this land, four independent Gond kingdoms arose more or less simultaneously—in the north Garha, in the centre Deogarh and Kherla and in the south Chanda.Footnote 9 Discussion here is confined to the Chanda dynasty. The Gonds of Chanda divided themselves into four endogamous tribes: the Raj Gonds, the Maria or Madia Gonds, the Dhurve Gonds, and the Khatulwar Gonds. There were also other minor sub-tribes, such as the Koyas, the Gaitas, the Pardhans and the Kolams, who would not class themselves with either of the above tribes and were few in number. These sub-tribes all spoke dialects of the Gondi language.Footnote 10
The early history of the Gond Rajas of Chanda is not clear. However the oral legends and stories of the Gond community speak abundantly of their rule in the region. When the British started collecting histories of Gondwana, they were surprised by the stories of great achievement that were preserved in their stories and legends. Although British administrator-scholars used archival and archaeological evidence, the oral tradition of the Gonds was always crucial in their construction of the histories.
According to these legends, a Gond chief, Bhim Ballal Singh, organized the Gonds and established his rule in Sirpur in 870 AD.Footnote 11 The legend also names 19 Gond rulers.Footnote 12 The Rajas claimed to have ruled an extensive region, based first in Sirpur, then Ballarsha, and finally in Chanda. It was said that the northern boundary of their rule reached to the Wardha basin and the southern boundary to the northern bank of the Godavari River.Footnote 13 The last Gond Raja Nilkanth Shah was defeated and imprisoned by Raghoji Bhonsla of Nagpur in 1751and his principalities were incorporated into the Nagpur state.Footnote 14 In all, the 19 reigns covered a period of 881 years, an average of 46 years for each reign. It may be assumed that some names were omitted. In most cases the kingdom was represented as descending from father to son, and in some cases an adopted son. However the supposed date of the establishment of the dynasty does not match historical evidence. Babjee Ballal Shah, said to be ruler from 1442, was mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari as ruler of the Chanda. Mughal records and archaeological evidence indicate that Babji Ballal Shah would have been the contemporary to Akbar who ruled from 1572 to 1597. Working backwards from this, the reign of Khandkia Ballal Shah (founder of the present city of Chanda), would be 1437 to 1462. After examining all the available sources, it is now generally accepted that the Chanda dynasty must have been established by Bhim Ballal Shah in Sirpur in 1240.Footnote 15
The growing power of this dynasty has to be seen in the context of wider historical developments at that time. The great Rajput clans of central India were largely subjugated by the Delhi Sultans during the fourteenth century. When the Delhi Empire began to break up during the fifteenth century, new rulers, such as the Gond Rajas, were able to assert their power.Footnote 16 Gond legends speak a lot about the expansion of the dynasty from south to north. Particularly there are romantic stories on the change of capital from Sirpur to Ballarshah and then to Chanda.Footnote 17 Apart from these legends, the ruins of the magnificent forts of Sirpur, Manikgarh, Utnur, Nirmal, Rajura, Vairagarh, Partabgarh, Ballarsha and Chanda all illustrate the extent and power of the Gond rule in the region.Footnote 18
The legends also ascertain the sovereign rule of the Gond Rajas of Chanda. It is said that Surja Ballal Singh visited the Delhi ruler and fought for him in a war against the Rajput chief of Kaibur. Impressed by his achievements, it is said that the Delhi ruler granted him rights over a huge territory, and conferred on him the title of Sher Shah, after which he was called Sher Shah Ballal Shah. His successors used the title ‘Shah’ as a suffix to their names.Footnote 19 It is also claimed that the Chanda rulers never paid tribute to anyone.Footnote 20 This is also recorded in Ain-i-Akbari that the Babaji Ballal Shah paid no tribute to Delhi, and possessed an army of 10,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry.Footnote 21 Although the western and southern boundaries of the dynasty often changed and there was continuous conflict with the Bahmanis, Imad Shahis, Nizamshahis, Kuthubshahis and Moghuls, the Chanda rulers were largely independent till their fall at the hands of the Bhonslas of Nagpur.Footnote 22 A crested Griffin destroying an elephant carved upon a wall, gateway and tower of Chanda fort can also be seen as a symbol of their sovereign power over the region.Footnote 23
The region enjoyed considerable prosperity under the rule of the Gond Rajas. They rewarded their Gond tarvels (warriors) with large amounts of forest land, making them the subordinate rajas, or zamindars, of those tracts. They in turn encouraged farmers to settle on the land and bring it under cultivation. In this way, large areas were developed. These subordinate raja's territories were marked with boundaries and properly documented. They were encouraged to build water tanks to irrigate the lands. Richard Temple interestingly remarked that:
the number and size of these tanks is certainly remarkable. In some parts they even cluster thick round the feet of the hills. From the summit of the hill, called ‘perzagurh’ by the Gonds, and ‘the seven sisters’ by the Hindus, no less than thirty seven tanks were counted as distinctively visible.Footnote 24
In similar vein, Richard Jenkins also writes that:
from ancient records and traces of old towns, forts, villages and tanks to be met with in the jungles that this country was formerly much more populous than at the present day.Footnote 25
The subordinate Rajas constructed their own forts—generally on hill tops—and administered their respective territories almost autonomously. They were not only responsible for the civil administration of their estates but also had to send soldiers to the Chanda Rajas on demand. All the service castes (blacksmiths, pot-makers, leather-workers and so on) coexisted amongst the Gond community. Merchants from the plains areas visited the court of the tutelary Rajas regularly. Even during the Bhonsla's rule these Rajas enjoyed their power in a reduced manner.Footnote 26 The Bhonsla rulers conquered Chanda in 1749 and subordinated its ruler Nilkanth Shah to their power. When the latter tried to breach the agreement and allied with the former Gond Raja of Deogarh, he was deposed by the former in 1751. However the tutelary Gond Rajas continued to assert their power in their respective territories, including in the territories of Manikgarh and Sirpur, the ancient seat of the Ballal Shah dynasty, that passed into the hands of Nizam in 1803 under the treaty of Deogaon with Raghuji II.Footnote 27 The Anglo-Maratha wars of the late eighteenth and early nineteen centuries were advantageous to the Gond Rajas, to be discussed in the next section. The power of the Bhonslas was destroyed in the last Anglo-Maratha war, and Nagpur state (including Chanda) was brought under British control as a protectorate in 1818. Although the country was handed over to the Bhonslas in 1830, the British supervised its administration very closely, and then in 1853 they annexed the state.Footnote 28
As has been seen, the oral traditions tended to exaggerate the power of the Gond Rajas. They were supposed to have had huge armies, conquered and ruled vast tracts, and to have sat on great gaddis (thrones). The Gonds recalled these legends and stories time and again at their social gatherings—reinforcing their self-image of enjoying the freedom of the forests and the hills.Footnote 29 They deployed these accounts to both assert their rights over land and forest, and to make raids on neighbouring countries. In this sense adivasis’ construction of sovereignty differed to that of the rulers in the plains regions. Orality articulated the past in multiple ways, with each articulation relating to present aspirations.Footnote 30 In particular, the telling and retelling of these stories helped to legitimize their practice of carrying out raids on adjoining areas. Such raiding was indeed central to the negotiations of the Gonds with the British. We shall now move on to examine this history.
Rebellious Rajas
Although Nagpur State was a British protectorate until 1860, the Gond Rajas continued to carry out raids on the territories of both the British and the Nizam of Hyderabad. In this, they continued a long tradition. Jenkins says that:
. . .these zamindarees [Gond subordinate chiefs] have been always in a kind of feudal subjection, first to the Gond Rajahs, and since to the Marathas. The unproductiveness of the hills and forest, and the natural strength of the country preserved these chiefs from entire subjection to the Marathas, who, however, possessed themselves of the most accessible parts; and whose policy it generally was to support one of the most powerful of them to keep the rest in check, and to be responsible for the depredations they were always in the habit of committing on the neighbouring plains.Footnote 31
Such raiding grew out of the politics of the time. In this way, they collected a tax from neighbouring countries and thus imposed their authority over them.Footnote 32 For the Gond sovereignty such raiding was very important besides keeping control over natural resources and the social life of these communities. These raids continued while the British East India Company was expanding its power in the Maratha region during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The depredations of the Gonds was rampant in the region.Footnote 33 Indeed, the Bhonsla rulers themselves encouraged the Gond Rajas to assert their power in their respective territories by raiding the territories conquered by the British. In 1789, Venkojee Bhonsla (commonly called Nana Sahib) released Bhillal Shah who was being held captive in Nagpur, granting him a yearly pension of Rs. 600.Footnote 34 This was at a time when the Bhonslas were fighting against the British, and Bhillal Shah was released in order to harass them. The period from 1798 to 1817 saw a wave of raiding by the Gond Rajas and Chiefs on the Narmada territories that were under British control. These raids mainly targeted agricultural crops, and this had a marked impact on British land revenues.Footnote 35 Similar polities of raiding were also adopted by many nomadic groups of central India but they were suppressed brutally by the colonial state.Footnote 36
Appa Sahib, the last Raja of Nagpur State, deployed the Gonds in his final struggle with the British. He looked to Chanda city as a strategic place to carry on his resistance, as it was in a hilly region that was surrounded by dense forest. He ordered the Chanda killadar (keeper of the fort) to recruit Gonds and keep a large garrison there. He himself planned to escape from Nagpur and lead his resistance from Chanda, but he was captured and imprisoned by the British resident before he could do so. Despite this, some of his leading adherents rallied in Chanda—people such as Bhujang Rao, the zamindar of Ahiri, and his brother Kondu Bapu, the zamindar of Arpalli. They allied with the Gonds to defend the city. After defeating Peshwa Baji Rao's army at Pandarkaura west of Wardha, the British army marched on Chanda. A message was sent to the killadar to surrender the garrison, but the messenger was killed by the Gonds. Despite a heroic fight by the Gonds led by Bhujang Rao, Chanda fell to the British army on 2 May 1818.Footnote 37
Even after this defeat, the raids by the Gond Rajas and chiefs continued. It proved hard for the British to suppress the Gonds in this respect, as they sheltered in highly inaccessible areas, and carried on guerrilla warfare against British patrols. Frustrated by their lack of success, the British appointed a special commissioner to negotiate settlements with the Gonds.Footnote 38 Captain Crawford managed with considerable difficulty to persuade each Gond Raja and chief to execute a written bond that stated that they would agree not to protect thieves, to make good to travellers any loss they may sustain from robberies in their zamindaris, and to furnish men, ranging in number from three to 20 depending on the chief, when called upon to do so by the government. In return the British Government promised to respect their proprietary rights over their zamindaris. They agreed to pay a nominal takoli (tribute) to the British Government, as a mark of the British suzerainty, which was traditional practice in Gond politics.Footnote 39
The British thus endeavoured to bring the Gond Raja under their paramount power through treaties and agreements. In return, the British agreed to honour and respect the powers of the Gond Rajas. However these agreements did not last long. Many Gond Rajas breached their agreements and began raiding the British territories once again. The Land Revenue Settlement Report of Chanda recorded that:
plundering revived in spite of military parties posted thickly over the district, and as late as 1852, AD, a government treasure escort was attacked and robbed by Gonds on the Mool road, not sixteen miles from Chanda.Footnote 40
Such raiding was widespread not only in Chanda but also all over the Central Provinces. The situation was aggravated by the rising of the Bundelas in the Narmada region.Footnote 41
Although such raids were ongoing throughout the 1850s, the British viewed them as part of the ‘Mutiny’ only from March 1858 onwards. During this month, Babu Rao, a Gond Raja of Mollampalli in the Ahiri zamindari, commenced plundering in the Rajgarh pargana (an administrative division comprising several villages). Shortly he was joined by Venkat Rao, Gond zamindar of Arpalli and Ghot. These two leaders then openly declared that they were in revolt, and recruited a mixed force of Rohillas and Gonds.Footnote 42 On 29 April 1858 they attacked Chunchgondi in which two British telegraph employees called Gartland and Hall were killed. Chunchgondi was one of the largest villages in the Ahiri zamindari and about one mile from Ahiri town.Footnote 43 It was then rumoured that Lakshmi Bai, the zamindarin of Ahiri, had joined hand with Babu Rao and Venkat Rao. The two leaders became very popular in a short period, with stories of their prowess spreading amongst the Gonds. Other Gond zamindars joined the revolt, and many village patels (village heads) and mokhasis (Gond village chiefs) extended financial support to them. The support for their revolt came mainly from the smaller chiefs. Most of the larger zamindars remained aloof.Footnote 44
The activities of these two ringleaders were not only confined to Chanda district but also spread into the Wardha region of the Province and the northern territories of Hyderabad State. Many zamindars, Rohillas and Arabs in these regions responded positively to their appeal and openly supported their activities.Footnote 45Rohillas and Arabs were recruited in large number with payments and sent to Sirpore and Rajura taluks (an administrative division of a district) of Hyderabad State, as the Nizam was allied with the British. The celebrated Rohilla leader Toorab Baz Khan, who attacked the Hyderabad Residency, was paid Rs. 20per month and his 100 or so followers each Rs. 10 per month.Footnote 46 A force of about 1,000 Gonds and Rohillas under the leadership of Ramji Gond created havoc in the Adilabad district of Hyderabad State through to 1860.Footnote 47 The British put pressure on the Nizam's government to suppress this revolt.Footnote 48 They did this with considerable difficultly. Eventually the rebels were rounded up, but Ramji Gond managed to escape.Footnote 49 He was caught and hanged at Nirmal later in 1860.
In Chanda itself, the Deputy Commissioner, Captain Crichton, led a force of 1,700 against the rebels in 1858. Advancing into the hills, they were attacked by Gonds, who shot arrows, threw stones and blocked the roads by felling trees. Being unaccustomed to operating in such a jungle and mountainous area, the force failed to make any dent on their opponents, and had to retreat.Footnote 50 It was widely believed that after this Captain Crichton no longer dared set foot in the hill tracts of the district.Footnote 51 Back in Chanda, he announced a reward of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 for apprehending Venkat Rao and Babu Rao respectively. Later on Babu Rao's head was also priced at Rs. 1,000. Nothing, however, came of this.Footnote 52 Pressure was then brought to bear on the superior zamindars to help the British in their suppression of the revolt. They were warned that if they were seen to be complicit with the rebels in any way, they would be held to account. Most important in this respect was the zamindarin of Ahiri, Lakshmi Bai. Both Babu Rao and Venkat Rao held zamindari rights in some of the villages in her territory, and Venkat Rao was also related to her.Footnote 53 Under a threat of having her rights revoked, she agreed to help the British.Footnote 54 She visited Crichton and provided an agreement in writing that she would hand over Venkat Rao in a few days and Babu Rao in less than two months, or sooner, and would assist in every way in seizing any rebels that she apprehended in her zamindari. The disruption had caused severe food scarcities in her territory, and in return for her help Crichton agreed to supply cattle fodder, chenna (pulses) and wheat to her zamindari.Footnote 55
After returning to Ahiri, Lakshmi Bai caught and imprisoned Venkat Rao. She wrote to Crichton, stating that she would hand him over to the British on condition that he was not hanged, but imprisoned for life. His zamindaris (Arepally and Ghote) should be given to her and she would pay the Rs. 1,000 tribute that Venkat Rao had paid to her direct to the British Government. She also said that she had already spent Rs. 1,200 in trying to catch Babu Rao and that she needed a further Rs. 4,000 to complete this task. The British refused to compromise, demanding that she deliver Venkat Rao unconditionally or be taken into custody herself, with her estate being forfeited.Footnote 56
Despite this threat, Lakshmi Bai did not hand over Venkat Rao. It was believed by the government official that Lakshmi Bai had in fact formed a confederacy with Venkat Rao and Babu Rao to commit dacoity on British territories.Footnote 57 This rumour was strengthened further when Venkat Rao escaped from Lakshmi Bai's prison. Crichton believed that Lakshmi Bai herself set him free, while the Commissioner of Nagpur believed that Babu Rao had kidnapped Lakshmi Bai and forced her to do this.Footnote 58 Laksmi Bai herself informed Crichton that she was completely ignorant of the incident as she was busy with her daughter's marriage. By now the rains had set in, and the military could not carry out any operations in the hills. Taking advantage of this situation, Babu Rao along with his 200 remaining followers aggravated his attacks on military outposts.Footnote 59 Under threat of punishment, Lakshmi Bai and her relatives once again met Crichton and promised both orally and in writing that she would recapture Venkat Rao and Babu Rao and hand them over.Footnote 60
Soon after this, Babu Rao was rounded up by Lakshmi Bai's kamdars (servants) and handed over to Crichton. He was hanged at Chanda on 21 October 1858. Venkat Rao escaped to Bastar and continued his raids on the British territories till he also was captured by the Raja of Bastar in April 1860 and handed over to the British. He was sentenced to transportation. Lakshmi Bai was rewarded with 67 villages of the confiscated Ghot and Arpalli zamindari.Footnote 61 After this incident the region was by and large free from raids until Kumaram Bhim revolted against the Nizam in 1940.
The longstanding tradition of raiding that effectively came to an end in 1860 had played an important part in the politics of the Gond Rajas. It had helped the Rajas to unite the people under their leadership, as many common people took a direct part in the raids and the booty was distributed to all. Stories of triumphant raids created a climate in which people looked forward to the next one. Such stories also created an aura of power and masculinity around the Gonds and their rulers. Outside rulers were wary of taking them on, and left them largely in control of their hills and forests. The British were not however prepared to accept this state of affairs, as it was a challenge to their imperial sovereignty. For the British imperial sovereignty producing effects of the state power was crucial. In other words making the people feel that state power was central in the British imperial sovereignty. They believed that polities of raiding represented a continuing threat to law and order, and was an affront to their ‘civilising mission’. Instead, they sought to tame and ‘civilise’ the Gond rulers, making them an instrument of their governance. It is to this process that we shall now turn.
Taming the Rajas
From the beginning the Rajas and Zamindars were central to British power in India because they were not only the source of Maratha power but also had considerable control over the masses. The de-escalating of the Rajas/Zamindar was thus important to the British colonial rulers in order to cut the roots of Maratha power and to impose British suzerainty over the masses.Footnote 62 It was this understanding that led the colonial rulers to adopt a policy of taming the Gond Rajas. Ajay Skaria has pointed out how the British viewed the forest communities as essentially ‘wild’, treating them in a different way to the settled peoples of the plains.Footnote 63 The colonial state was concerned first and foremost with maintaining law and order in the hill tracts, and secondly to gradually wean the inhabitants away from their former occupations and turn them into settled peasants. The ‘civilising mission’ thus operated in different ways in the two regions. The way in which tribal rulers were treated had, however, certain parallels with the treatment of the princes of the plains regions.Footnote 64 After treaties and agreements had been made with these rulers, they were honoured with pensions, allowed to conduct darbars (public appearances of king/raja), provided with gifts, turbans, colonial titles and colonial army salutes, and were exposed to caste-Hindu society and English education. In this way the colonial state sought to tame and subordinate the adivasi Rajas and chiefs.
Nonetheless, as so-called ‘aboriginal rulers’, it was recognized that the ‘civilising’ of these chiefs would be a long and slow process. The Chanda District Gazetteer noted that:
. . .to secure comparative law and order it was necessary to use a light hand with natural chieftains of the aborigines, whose subjugation would have been of very little profit, while their enmity would have been a source of continual annoyance. Both Gonds and Marathas were, therefore, content to recognise the petty chiefs who were the ancestors of the present Zamindars, and by this policy of moderation to glean a certain amount of revenue in the shape of the Zamindar's tribute or takoli, leaving the management of the internal concerns of the zamindaris in their hands.Footnote 65
In a similar way Lucie Smith, officer of Land Revenue Settlement in 1869, stated that:
. . .it is true that much is done by the Zemindars which is gravely wrong but it must be remembered that until recently they were left wholly to themselves, and it is not strange that, so left, they failed to be all we wish; and now I trust a day of better thing has dawned. Six Zemindars, or the near relatives of Zemindars, are studying at the High School and an English officer, it is hoped, will soon be available for the special charge of the zemindari country. With firmness, patience, and kindness there is scarcely a limit to the degree in which the Zemindars, who have much of the old-world loyalty, may not be influenced for good; and I can hardly imagine a more interesting or a nobler work than to raise and improve these chiefs, and through them their people.Footnote 66
Thus the apparent target of the colonial state was to rule the Gond Rajas and chiefs with a light hand while gradually ‘civilising’ them through education.
The British were able to exert control over the Gond rulers through a policy of recognition of rights that was put into place in the 1860s, after the revolt of 1857–1858 had been suppressed. Already, separate agreements and treaties had been made with particular rulers and chiefs during the early nineteenth century. The process was continued with the granting of pension rights to certain rulers. In 1867, the British granted a political pension of Rs. 1,490 to the royal family of Chanda dynasty, and Yadav Shah was recognized as the successor of the last Gond king Nilkanth Shah.Footnote 67 Apart from the pension he was also allowed to receive customary dues from the Gonds whom they once ruled. Each Gond Family used to pay them an annual tribute of Rs. 1 and a contribution of Rs. 1–4 was made on the occasion of a marriage between Gonds.Footnote 68 In 1903, seeing that the family of the Raja was in reduced circumstances, the British increased their pension to Rs. 500 per month. All such pensions were given to an individual recognized by the Government, who would then distribute it amongst his recognized relatives.Footnote 69
There were always problems in recognizing the successor of the royal family for sanctioning the pension. The eldest son of the family or the person approved by their family was generally considered as the legal pensioner. The government prepared a genealogical chart of the Rajas from the times of Nilkanth Shah to avoid confusion.Footnote 70 The first person to receive a pension from the British was Yadav Shah. He was succeeded by Ram Shah who died in 1905 leaving no issue, then Deo Shah, the deceased's uncle, was recognized as the head of the family. Deo Shah died in 1906. He also left no issue. Govind Shah, brother of Ram Shah, had intemperate habits and waived his own claim in favour of his son Dinker Shah. Dinker Shah died in 1918 and his Son Yadav Shah was the last holder of the pension. His pension was continued after independence in 1947 by the Indian Government.Footnote 71
The tutelary Rajas (zamindars) who hitherto had symbolic rights in land were given proprietary rights to their estates in a settlement of 1869. In this way 20 zamindaris were created in the Chanda district, of which 17 were Gonds, two were Hindus and one was Muslim, all of whom were said to have been granted zamindari rights by Gond kings.Footnote 72 However, no paper evidence for these grants had survived, and they were handed out largely in consideration of their longstanding customary rights.Footnote 73
A different system was put in place for the Gond Rajas and chiefs of Adilabad district in Hyderabad State, an erstwhile territory of the Chanda dynasty. In this region, the former Maratha rulers had replaced many of the traditional Gond chiefs with non-adivasi Deshmukhs and Deshpandes (traditional revenue collectors at village level and also landlords). They acted as heads of groups of villages, usually 10 to 15 in number. The Gond chiefs were designated Mokhasis and were assigned the duty of maintaining peace in their respective areas. Although this position gave them a highly respected social status, they lost their hold over the land.Footnote 74 When from 1864 onwards the ryotwari system was implemented in Hyderabad state by its Prime Minister Salar Jung I (1853–1883), the Gond Rajas and chiefs all lost their jagirs (land grants) and watan (revenue collection) rights.Footnote 75 Only the Raja of Sirpur was honoured with a jagirdari right and the Raja of Utnur with a maqta (estate) right over five villages.Footnote 76 A small number of Mokhasis were honoured with village patelships, but most were converted into mere cultivators.Footnote 77 However they did not lose the Mokhasi titles and they played a crucial role in settling civil and criminal disputes within their community. It was recorded that there were 37 Mokhasis in the Adilabad district at the end of Nizam rule.Footnote 78
The Gond zamindaris of Chanda district differed from those of the zamindars of the plains regions. They spread mainly in the eastern and southern part or the Sirancha and Garchiroli tahsils of the district with an area of 4,900 square mile, which is about 50 per cent of the district.Footnote 79 The Ahiri zamindari was the largest among the 20 zamindaris of the district, spreading over an area of 2,600 square miles. The area of the other zamindaris varied between 17 and 370 square miles. At the beginning of the twentieth century the occupied area formed only 8 per cent of the total zamindari area and the remaining 92 per cent was mostly forest and hill.Footnote 80
According to the rules of the settlements of 1869, these zamindaris were indivisible and non-transferable and hereditary holdings, which would be transferred to the zamindar's eldest son or nearest male heir approved by the Chief Commissioner. The zamindari right was subject to loyalty to the British Government, the execution of good police administration, and the improvement of cultivation within the estate. If the zamindar failed to fulfil these conditions the British Government might intervene to either force the holder to remedy the situation or to depose him.Footnote 81 The Zamindars were, as proprietor of the land, allowed initially to enjoy the revenue from land, forest, excise, pandhri, ferries and pounds, but in time the latter four sources of income were reclaimed by the Government with due compensation being made to them. They were not permitted to levy transit duties, so as to ensure the free flow of goods between the zamindari and British territories. The forest was considered to be the property of the zamindars, but they were not allowed to sell wood without consulting the Deputy Commissioner. Zamindars subtitled land to Mokhasis, Maktadar (estate head) Patel, and the latter were given power to make agreements with tenants or actual cultivators.Footnote 82
The zamindars and their territories were thus subjected to close supervision and control by the colonial officials. As a rule, each zamindari was administered by a qualified manager who would be selected by the Deputy Commissioner of the district but officially appointed by the zamindar.Footnote 83 The manager had to send reports every six months on the overall conditions of the zamindari. The Deputy Commissioner would also visit the zamindari regularly and make suggestions on how to improve the administration of the estates.Footnote 84 In cases where a zamindar was disqualified from managing his estate, a Court of Wards system was established under the Central Province Court of Wards Act of 1899 to manage the estate. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Commissioner of the Division was able as Court of Ward to take over the administration of an estate if there was a female heir, if a zamindar was found to be mentally or physically unfit to rule, or had been convicted of a non-bailable offence.Footnote 85
We may examine the way that this system operated in the case of the Ahiri zamindari. This estate was brought under the management of the Court of Wards on 29 January 1902 owing to the maladministration of its zamindar, Bhujang Rao. Even after his death the Court of Ward continued to manage the zamindari, as his son Dharam Rao was a minor, born on 21 March 1907. The zamindari was handed over to him only on 20 March 1928, when he reached the age of 21.Footnote 86 During the many years of Court of Wards management, the zamindari witnessed many changes. As mentioned above, this was a huge estate having an area which greatly exceeds that of all the other zamindaris combined. In 1909, it possessed 451 villages in Sirancha tahsil on malguzari (a revenue tenure in which a village is a unit), zamindari, and ryotwari tenure, and 77 malguzari villages in Gadchiroli tahsil. According to tradition this zamindari was from the beginning held by a member of the Chanda ruling family. But its history is evident only from the time of Koksha, who held the zamindari from 1703 to 1769 and was related to the Gond King Ram Shah (1672–1735). Bhujang Rao assumed control of the zamindari in 1893. He was considered to be a most brilliant man but was addicted to alcohol, and he gradually mired the zamindari deep into debt. The colonial administration held that the forest contractor had taken advantage of his drunkenness to exploit the forest at a cheap rate. Arguing that the administration of the zamindari had sunk into a deplorable state, the Central Province Government brought the zamindari under the management of Court of Wards. Believing that this was a ruse to confiscate his zamindari in perpetuity, Bhujang Rao mobilized his followers and revolted violently against the government. The treasurers and officials were beaten up and warned not to enter the estate. The District Superintendent of Police marched into Ahiri and forced Bhujang Rao to come to Chanda. There, he was told by the Deputy Commissioner that the Government had no intention of taking over the zamindari perpetually, and that the Court of Wards would merely manage the estate until its financial and administrative problems were rectified.Footnote 87
During the management of Court of Wards, the Ahiri zamindari achieved considerable prosperity. After streamlining the administration, the manager mainly focused on the expansion of agriculture and scientific exploitation of the forest. Between 1906 and 1923, the total occupied area was increased to 42 per cent and the cropped area by 7 per cent. The colonial model of development was introduced in the zamindari during this time. The development of roads and communications attracted many caste-Hindu peasants from the plain areas, particularly the Telegu peasants from adjoining areas of Hyderabad State who developed extensive rice cultivation in the tract. The zamindari had a huge forest area covering about 2,607 square miles.Footnote 88 It was managed by a Deputy Ranger and brought in a good income to the treasury of the estate. During the financial year of 1926–1927, for example, the overall profit from the forest was Rs. 17,000.Footnote 89 When the Court of Wards took over the zamindari its accumulated debts amounted to over one lakh,Footnote 90 and at the time of handing it back in 1928 there was a surplus of Rs. 186,500 invested in government securities. Besides the management of the zamindari, the manager also supervised the education of Dharam Rao, the heir-apparent. In this way, the Court of Wards played a parental role in rearing the children of zamindars until they came of age and took over the zamindari.Footnote 91
Indeed, the education of the zamindars and their sons was a major concern of the colonial government. English education was held to provide one of the most important means through which these territories might be transformed.Footnote 92 To achieve this, the government of the central provinces established the Raj Kumar College in Raipur in 1882. All instruction was in English, though local languages were also taught. The zamindars were expected to send their sons to the college, exposing them to Western values, institutions, and political principles, as well as to ideas about modern forms of cultivation and forestry.Footnote 93 Eyre Chatterton, a Christian Missionary, noted of this institution that it had ensured that there was a ‘happy contrast between what we see of the younger chiefs, and what we hear of their ancestors, [and that it] justifies us in hoping for steady improvement in these small Gond States’.Footnote 94 Dharam Rao was sent to the college during his minority and, after graduating, he was trained as a Naib (deputy) Tahsildar in order to familiarize him with colonial forms of administration.Footnote 95
The educated zamindars were gradually brought into the colonial political system by offering them places on Local Boards, District Councils and in the Provincial Legislative Assembly.Footnote 96 In the 1939 election, 56 adivasi members were nominated and elected to the Local Boards of the Province, of whom two were from the Chanda District. Also 14 adivasi members were either elected or nominated to the District Councils of the Province. There was however only one adivasi member on the Chanda District Council.Footnote 97 In the 1937 Provincial Assembly elections one seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. However, Dharam Rao of Ahiri and another Gond Raja, that of Jubbulpore, were elected from the non-reserved constituencies Garchiroli-Sirancha and Dindori-Niwas respectively. Although under-represented in terms of the overall adivasi population, the fact that any were elected at all was a political breakthrough.Footnote 98 Dharam Rao's rise to a ministership in the Provincial Government exemplified this achievement and he became a role model for other Gond chiefs.Footnote 99
The colonial state also encouraged education amongst the adivasi community by offering them special scholarships. Mainly the petty chiefs and Gaitas and Bhumias (traditional Gond village heads) took advantage of this facility, enabling them to gain official posts. In 1901, there were 288 schools in the feudatory states and zamindaris of the Province, in which 13,404 pupils were studying.Footnote 100 The number steadily increased in subsequent years. By 1941 there were 69,164 literate adivasis in the partially excluded areas of the province.Footnote 101 Educated adivasis were in a favourable position to gain appointments as teachers and village patels. In the partially excluded areas the position of patel was largely held by adivasis, and indeed many Gaitas and Bhumias had been converted into appointed patelships in the 1897–1806 Land Revenue Settlements.Footnote 102 In 1941 there were 165 aboriginal teachers both trained and non-trained in the Province, of which 35 were from the Chanda district.Footnote 103
Alongside this process of Westernization through education, there was a parallel process of Hinduization and Rajputization in the hill tracts. Not only the Gond chiefs but also their people began to engage in caste-Hindu practices and often claimed Rajput, and thus kshatriya status within the varna hierarchy. The colonial state also encouraged such claims, for it held that caste society was more civilized than that of the adivasi society. The interaction between the two societies would make the latter more civilized and sober. It would then be easier for the colonial state to control them.Footnote 104
The Raj Gond families had largely internalized Rajput social and religious practices from pre-colonial times.Footnote 105 Many Gond Rajas also had matrimonial relations with the Rajput Rajas. The colonial policy of offering zamindari rights, village headships and patelships aggravated this process. On the other hand, the colonial agricultural policies combined with the development of communications filled the hill tracts with large numbers of caste Hindus. They were encouraged by the colonial state to bring waste and barren land into cultivation on nominal assessments. It was hoped that they would provide an example of better cultivation techniques for the hill peoples.Footnote 106 This process was particularly apparent in the Adilabad district.Footnote 107 From the start of the twentieth century, the Garchiroli and Sirancha tahsils witnessed a huge influx of peoples from the plains areas who not only taught modern agriculture to the adivasis, but also the Hindi, Marathi and Telugu languages, and caste-Hindu religious and social practices.Footnote 108 At the beginning of the twentieth century it was reported that the Gonds were increasingly adopting Brahmanical practices and worshipping Hindu Gonds, and that this allowed them to adopt not only a ‘civilised’ life but also modern forms of cultivation.Footnote 109 Following this, there was a debate on how the religion of the adivasis should be classified in the census reports. Verrier Elwin, who lived for many years amongst the Gonds, and was considered to be a champion of adivasi rights, argued that:
the religion of the Indian aboriginal outside Assam should be regarded as a religion of the Hindu family, with a special relation to the exciting, dangerous, catastrophic, Shivaite type, but as having a distinct existence of its own. For purposes of the Census, all aboriginals should be classed as Hindus by religion but separate returns of their numbers by race should be provided.Footnote 110
This was also asserted by Grigson, an officer on special duty to investigate the conditions of the aboriginal communities in the Province. In fact the percentage of those returned as animist was already decreasing. The percentage of Gonds returned as animists fell from 79 in 1891 to 77 in 1901.Footnote 111 In the partially excluded areas of Sirancha and Garchiroli tahsils, 70 per cent of the adivasis were recorded as animist in the 1931 census.Footnote 112 In subsequent censuses all adivasi communities were classified as Hindus. The end result was that the Gonds were placed above the Mahars (ex-untouchable caste) on the Hindu social ladder.Footnote 113 The educated Gonds saw this development as a threat to their culture and identity. They formed an association called Gond Maha Sabha and opposed the classification of adivasis as Hindus. This movement was a cultural movement in the beginning but soon turned into a political movement demanding the formation of a separate Gond Raj (Gond rule). This demand was used as a weapon to negotiate their position in the politics of post-colonial India.Footnote 114
Thus, although the ‘civilising mission’ amongst the Gonds succeeded to some extent, the project, in turn, gave rise to a new self-consciousness and spirit of self-assertion amongst them. This assertion could at times turn against British colonial rule, as we shall see in the next section.
Rajas besieged
British rule—in contrast to Maratha rule—had gradually reduced the Gond chiefs to being hardly more than proprietary peasants. Although they had been subordinate rulers under the Marathas, they had been considered ‘rajas’ with full power over their territories. As Jenkins stated:
. . .their submission to the authority of the Peshwas rests on extorted compliance, and the basis of treaties, as between independent rulers. In support of these pretensions they had frequent wars with the Peshwas.Footnote 115
After conquest, the British removed the title of ‘raja’ and converted them into ‘zamindars’.Footnote 116 Many found it hard to make ends meet, although the Ahiri zamindar was an exception:. they also lost the respect of the community as they became powerless to protect them from land-grabbing caste-Hindu peasants and unscrupulous money-lenders.Footnote 117
The British adopted an ambivalent attitude towards the Gond chiefs. On the one hand they sought paternalistically to protect them in their position, believing that this would bring greater stability to the forest and hill tracts. They encouraged them to display their power in certain celebrations, as at Dussehra or in the Tilak ceremony, which was to help with the appointment of a new zamindar. There was also a ceremony where the Gond zamindars anointed a new Bhonsla prince with a teeka (tilak) on his accession to the throne. The zamindars appeared at these ceremonies dressed in a British coat with an Indian royal turban on their head. These were lavish occasions attended by colonial officials, neighbouring zamindars and subordinate chiefs and their people.Footnote 118 A confidential report of the 1940s stated that ‘it is important not to diminish the Zamindar's personal authority and the respect in which his ryots (peasants) and the public generally apart from some disgruntled contractors and others at Chanda hold him’.Footnote 119
On the other hand, as Gonds, the chiefs were still judged by the British to be relatively low in the overall scale of civilization. Unlike in the ‘civilised’ tracts of British India, administration was deemed to be rudimentary, with an inefficient system of land revenue collection, a lack of any proper accounting, a failure to collect a range of taxes such as grazing fees, with corrupt kamdars, indiscriminate exploitation of the forest and wasteful expenditure by the chiefs on social and religious ceremonies, and on hunting.Footnote 120 The British always maintained the threat of taking over a zamindari if things became too bad in these respects.
Zamindars who reformed their ways along the lines advocated by the British could still find themselves in conflict with the paramount power. This was seen in the case of the British-educated zamindar of Ahiri, Dharam Rao. After he took over his estate in 1928, he demanded that he should be accorded a higher status than ‘zamindar’. Towards this end, he used an old forest sale agreement.Footnote 121 The British colonial state had a practice of grabbing forests from tribal chiefs on lease or sale to use for their own commercial purposes.Footnote 122 In this way the colonial state had purchased large tracts of forest from the Ahiri zamindari in 1873 and 1883, totalling in all 80,775 acres for which a combined sum of Rs. 160,000 was paid.Footnote 123 The second part was registered under the Registration Act, but the first part remained unregistered. Dharam Rao then argued with the colonial administration that the deal of the first part of the sale of the forest was illegal and that the forest should be formally acquired under the Land Acquisition Act with monetary compensation, or that he should be compensated in some other way. In a further enquiry it was found that he wanted to be recognized as a feudatory chief. However the colonial state dismissed his aspirations and forced him to make an agreement on the first part of the sale of the forest under the Land Acquisition Act without any compensation.Footnote 124
Dharam Rao also had serious problems with his manager, who was appointed by the colonial government. Such managers often had effective power in the estates. They were retired colonial administrators and in some cases reported to be corruptFootnote 125 The colonial administration informally held that ‘the manager should have the real power and should not be liable to be overruled by the Zamindar’.Footnote 126 Being a well-educated man, Dharam Rao well understood all this, and demanded strongly that he should be given the right to appoint his own manager. Seeking clarification on the appointment of the Manager, he wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Chanda:
. . .in one important respect, I find that the letter of Government is not quite explicit. Is the Manager to be appointed by me as Zamindar, or by Government? Is it proposed that the Manager should be selected by Government and should merely be formally appointed by me as Zamindar ? In this connection, I would only urge that if the appointment is to be made by me the selection of the manager must also both in law and in equity rest with me.Footnote 127
He went so far as to advertise the post in a local newspaper without informing the Deputy Commissioner. Alarmed by this, the Commissioner called for an investigation of the zamindari by the Deputy Commissioner, K. N. Subramanian. The resulting report sought to show the zamindar in the worst possible light. It accused him of consuming intemperate quantities of alcohol and keeping numerous wives and concubines.Footnote 128 Dharam Rao was then sent a letter from the colonial administration stating that the management of the estate should be taken over by an officer appointed by the Government and that he had to accept a Government nominee as manager.Footnote 129
Many zamindars suffered from severe indebtedness, having fallen into the clutches of usurers. Even the Raja of Chanda owed Rs. 4,000 to local money-lenders at the beginning of the twentieth century.Footnote 130 The colonial rulers claimed that the chiefs were reducing themselves to poverty because of their drunkenness and heavy expenditure on social and religious ceremonies.Footnote 131 The revenue and expenditure of many zamindars were almost equal which left them with no income on which to subsist.Footnote 132 It was, for example, recorded in the Chanda District Gazetteer of the Chandala zamindari that:
the family are Raj-Gond; the present representative is Najuk Rao, a man between 65 and 70 years of age. Assets were taken at Rs. 548 at the recent settlement; the takoli was fixed at Rs. 30 while Rs. 16–8-0 are also payable on account of cesses. The income of the estate is something quite insignificant, probably not more than Rs. 400 or Rs. 500, and is insufficient to meet the expenses of the Zamindar.Footnote 133
The zamindars were no longer able to offset their expenditure against the offerings that they had in the past received from their subjects. The 1869 settlement had stated that the offerings to zamindars at Dusserah should be purely voluntary and that no zamindar was to insist on it. As a result, the Gond peasantry stopped making such payments. As it was, their economic condition was very poor, so they were hardly in a position to do so any way.Footnote 134 This was exasperated by the influx of outside settlers, who, under the encouragement of the British Government, were from the late nineteenth century onwards granted pattas (paper deeds) free of charge for as much land as they could make arable. It was around this time that the administration of many of the old maqtas and jagir estates of Gond Rajas and the village headships of Bhumias, Gaitas, and Mokashis was resumed by the Government, and the Gonds who, until then, had lived and cultivated on the land of their feudal lords, were suddenly forced to fend for themselves and to secure land of their own.Footnote 135
Most of the rich and irrigated lands of the Chanda territories had already been grabbed by non-adivasis before the British took over the district. The adivasis were pushed deep into the forest, surviving through podu or shifting cultivation. All of the Khalsa or government villages—which were largely in the plains areas—were owned by non-adivasis. Of the 1,568 Khalsa villages, 523 (which paid rather more than one-third of the total land revenue of the Chanda district) were owned by Brahmins, who constituted 1.82 per cent of the total population. Kunbis, Kolis and Marathas possessed 296, 133, and 107 villages respectively.Footnote 136 The zamindari territories were, as mentioned above, largely covered by forests and hills with a very low agricultural yield. As the caste-Hindu peasants took over the better land, the Gonds were increasingly forced to survive from the forest. At the same time, the forests of the zamindars were being leased or purchased by the British and brought under the colonial forest administration.Footnote 137 Attempts by the Gonds to use forest resources led to ongoing clashes with forest officials.
Under such pressures, many Gond chiefs were reduced to being little more than village headmen, an example being the Gond Rajas of Utnur (in Adilabad). They were related to the Chanda Rajas and held zamindari rights over Utnur Sirpur and Inderveli parganas paying an annual revenue of Rs. 600. Their jurisdiction spread over almost the whole district, except Rajura and Sirpur taluks, which were under the direct control of the Chanda Rajas. Their estate was confiscated in 1862 by the Nizam Government when the ryotwari system was introduced to that region. Some years later the zamindari was granted five villages, namely Lakkaram, Gangapet, Koinur, Pamalwada and Janaram as Maqta for a period of 30 years. But the last raja, Jagpat Rao, held only the village of Lakkaram as Maqta and had watan rights in Jannaram.Footnote 138
An interview that the anthropologist C. von Fürer Haimendorf conducted with the Sirpur Raja, Atram Bhim Rao, also brings this out. Sirpur was the original seat of the Chanda Raja. Atram Bhim Rao's ancestors had held zamindari rights over the Sirpur taluka from the seventeenth century. The Marathas and the Nizam had recognized their zamindari rights, though in a reduced form.Footnote 139 The Raja told Haimendorf that:
my grandfather was still a rich man with a big house and hundreds of head of cattle; at the great feasts Gonds and Kolams from the whole Sirpur patti (track) assembled and he feasted two and three hundred men at a time. But I am so poor that I can only just provide a goat and some jawari; so only a few people from the nearest villages come to me.Footnote 140
Under the Government of India Act of 1935, the government was granted the power to demarcate certain tribal areas as ‘Partially Excluded Areas’. Acts passed by the elected Central or Provincial Legislative Assemblies would, it was ruled, not apply to the partially excluded areas unless the Provincial Governor made a specific exception. The Governor was empowered to make special regulations for the better administration of these areas. In the Central Provinces adivasis had since 1916 already enjoyed a different status under the Central Provinces Land Alienation Act of that year, which banned land transfers from adivasis to non-adivasis in the province.Footnote 141 The Indian National Congress initially opposed the concept of ‘Partially Excluded Areas’, debating the matter at its Faizapur session in 1936. It was alleged that this was another example of the way that the British sought to divide and rule the people of India. Once in power in 1937, however, the Congress ministries accepted the measure, and passed acts in their respective legislative assemblies endorsing the excluded areas.Footnote 142
In the Chanda District, which covered an area of 9,312 square miles with a population of 873,284, 4,013 square miles were designated partially excluded areas with, in the 1941 census, a population of 115,031. The excluded areas were all within the estates of the zamindars, with khalsa villages remaining outside them. Four zamindaris under the administration of Drug District were transferred to Chanda District as these zamindaris were said to share similarities historically. The khalsa villages of Garchiroli tahsil were transferred to Brahmapuri tahsil which was largely occupied by caste-Hindus and constituted rich khalsa villages.Footnote 143 Of the total population in the partially excluded area of 115,031, the adivasi numbered 70,821, with the remainder being caste-Hindus and other non-adivasis.Footnote 144 The total adivasi population of Chanda District was 170,126, so that the majority (nearly 100,000 in all) were outside the excluded area.Footnote 145 This new boundary was an artificial one that served to exoticize and stigmatize a minority of adivasis. They were judged to be ‘primitives’ who did not deserve self-rule. Although the British colonial rulers brought the Gond territories successfully under their rule they failed to establish an exclusive sovereignty over the forest and hill people, as many aspects of the Gond lives, particularly social and cultural, operated outside the reach of the British sovereignty.
The British colonial state thus sought to transform the hills and its Gond Rajas and chiefs through its various programmes, which were both coercive and reformative in their operation. Whilst ostensibly a project that sought to ‘civilise’ and thus empower the Gonds, in practice the dice was loaded against them. Though the chiefs were granted a certain degree of self-rule, their main sources of earning were taken from them. Attempts to levy tribute or raid plains villages, which was central to Gond sovereignty, were suppressed by force. Their forest resources were denied them in a series of highly disadvantageous treaties and enforced sales. With no adequate source of income, they soon became deeply indebted to usurers who were supported in their operations by colonial law.Footnote 146 Caste-Hindu peasants were encouraged to settle in their tracts, and they either purchased or muscled their way into controlling the best land. Those chiefs who tried to resist were, in the early years, captured, imprisoned, deposed and hanged, and after 1860 were threatened with deposition. Even those who were educated in English schools continued to be treated in a condescending and patronizing manner.
Although the intention was to make the Gonds into productive subjects of a modernizing state, the reality was that they ended up being marginalized and excluded from this process. This was exemplified by the Government of India Act of 1935, which created the partially excluded areas for adivasis. In this way, a boundary was created between the plains and the hill regions of India, with different standards applying to each. Although this particular measure was revoked after Indian independence in 1947, the divide continued in many other important respects. Even today, it continues to be a marked feature of the social and political life of India.
