The Baigas and the British in Colonial India: Resilience of Wilderness and the Critique of Colonialism: 1860-1940

Introduction

This chapter explores the relationship between the Baiga adivasis and the British colonial state in India from 1860 to 1940. It analyzes how the Baiga people integrated their environmental consciousness into a political critique of British administrative policies in the Satpura and Maikal hills of the Central Provinces. The chapter illustrates the history of Indian adivasis' non-compliance against British rule, highlighting the ecological twist and passive resistance in the Baiga peoples' articulation of political criticism. This study focuses on the British colonial period and assesses works from this era from a historical perspective.

The study's chronologies span from the 1860s to the 1930s, focusing on the Satpura Hills in the Central Provinces and the Baiga people in their collective consciousness. It bridges the link between understanding colonialism and environmental history, incorporating anthropomorphic tenets of human-animal relations from an adivasi history perspective.

The term "colonial" refers to the British administrative engagement in the cultural geography of the Satpura hills. The research questions address the historical circumstances under which an eco-cultural thinking emerged among the adivasi/tribal people in the Central Provinces during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the impact of British policies on the Baigas, and how colonial agency failed to grasp the inner sentiments of the adivasi people in the forest. It also examines the extent to which colonial development works negated the peaceful existence of the Baigas and how they expressed their suffering under British rule.

Baigas' Struggles and Resistance

The study examines the Baigas' struggles amid British colonial rule, revealing a tale of ecological awareness among the adivasis of colonial central India. The Baigas' strategy against the British involved avoiding confrontation through nonviolent means, choosing buffer zones between British-controlled territories and Indian zamindari forestlands. Their resistance included peaceful protests, petitioning the government, and escaping from British-ruled territories.

The Baigas' troubles began in the 1860s with the advent of colonial rule and continued until the early 20th century. Their disapproval of colonist policies at an environmental and cultural level differed from other tribal resistance movements, which were often political and violent.

Theoretical Framework

Before examining the Baigas' ecological satires, the chapter references James C. Scott's book "Domination and the Arts of Resistance- Hidden Transcripts" (1992), which discusses the history of affrays between the powerless and powerful, where weaker groups disobey norms and dominant groups assert their mastery.

Scott refers to subjugated groups who formulate a secret discourse representing a critique of power spoken behind the backs of the dominant. Scott's study discusses the relationship between the powerful and powerless, termed as the public and hidden transcripts. His other book, "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia," illuminates an anthropological and historical study of the Zomia highlands of Southeast Asia, where diverse populations have persistently resisted the domination of surrounding nation-states.

Scott's work explores why these people deliberately want to remain “stateless,” suggesting that their cultural geographies, societal organization, and livelihood practices imbued them with a sense of freedom, precluding states from maintaining political control. Tribes do not necessarily live outside history but create their own history reflecting centuries of state avoidance.

The chapter aims to show how the British colonial state tried to govern one of the wild adivasi people of India, and how the Baiga people resisted by remaining “stateless” or practicing “state avoidance.” The study explores the hidden transcripts of the art of resistance (ecological resilience and state avoidance) among the Baiga people in the sphere of colonial India’s cultural and political ecology.

The Baiga people articulated an indigenous ecological spatiality in the Satpura hills concerning their age-old cherished freedoms, which the British colonial administration curtailed from the 1860s onward.

Scholarship and Methodology

The scholarship to date has not adequately addressed the role of periphery and environment in shaping noteworthy resistance movements against the British colonial agency. Ajay Skaria’s book, "Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers, and Wildness in Western India" (1999), examines the construction of wilderness in Dangs, arguing for a study free from Eurocentrism.

Skaria deploys the methodological framework of storytelling to construct the histories of adivasi communities, drawing from ‘true stories’ (khari goth) to identify the epistemological field of the colonial period. The chapter collates anthropological writings (oral testimonies) of Verrier Elwin and Shamrao Hivale on the Baigas, colonial reportage, official documents, and Philip McEldowney’s unpublished work, examining the historical dimension of the Baigas’ elegiac thinking on the political and cultural ecology of the Orient. Hivale played a key role in eliciting Baiga songs, poetry, and mythological stories, which were recorded and interpreted in works like "Folk Songs of the Maikal Hills" (1944).

Central Provinces and the Baigas

The Central Provinces (CP) was a principal administrative division established in 1861, comprising British conquests from the Mughals and Marathas in central India. It included present-day Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra states, with the Baigas principally inhabiting the CP’s Satpura hills and eastern forest territories.

Unlike other tribes in colonial India, the Baigas’ contact with the British happened later, from the mid-19th century onward. The Baigas’ experience as “subjects” and their acceptance of the British as “rulers” is noteworthy, outlining their struggle as an alternative reading of history. The Baigas’ struggles and responses to British colonist policies differed from the 1857 Indian rebels and other tribal societies, characterized by everyday forms of resistance and negotiation against colonial interventionist policies.

Verrier Elwin and Archana Prasad's Contributions

Verrier Elwin’s ethno-anthropological writings on indigenous tribes, particularly the Baigas, are widely assessed, while Archana Prasad’s article “Reinterpreting Tribal Survival: The Baigas of the Central Provinces 1730-1900” examines the Baiga and Gond tribal groups' changing relationship with the broader political economy in pre-colonial and colonial India. During British rule, tribal marginalization occurred due to scientific forestry and colonial monopolistic policies over forest woodlands.

Prasad’s study considers the tribal political economy from an economic history point of view, lacking scrutiny of tribal peoples’ voices, their understanding of the animal kingdom, and their responses to colonization in the sphere of Indian ecology and periphery. Scholarship to date has overlooked what motivated the Baigas to resist the tide of colonialism.

Early Colonial Accounts of the Baigas

The Baiga people migrated to the central Indian highlands centuries ago. Captain Thomson’s Seoni settlement report of 1867 described them as the wildest among the indigenous tribes, living in inaccessible hills and remote forests. Colonel Ward, in his Mandla district settlement report of 1870, mentioned that the Baigas were living in a wild state in the interior parts of the jungle, being independent and well-behaved.

These early accounts emphasize that before British rule, the Baigas lived in better huts and more orderly villages in the CP forests, with the freedom to roam in the wilderness. Colonel Bloomfield, the Deputy Commissioner of Balaghat and Bilaspur division from 1868 to 1885, developed an empathetic understanding of the Baigas and later wrote his "Notes on the Baigas," published in 1885.

Elwin elucidated the typical life of a Baiga, emphasizing their shifting cultivation (bewar) as fundamental to sustaining their livelihoods. The Baigas' psychological attachment to hill-cultivation divided them against colonial rule.

Baiga Livelihoods

The Baigas earned little through money, acquiring resources through: cutting dhya, village pujariship, bamboo matting and baskets, collecting and selling honey and jungle produce, labor, jungle fruits and roots, and killing wild animals and fish. This shows how the Baiga society operated sustainably through various livelihood resources before the mid-19th century.

The British sought to persuade the Baigas to become settled agriculturalists from the 1860s, creating friction. The Baigas received systematic exploitative treatment due to their innocence and limited contact with mainstream civilization. They would visit bazaars to buy salt, clothing, ornaments, and blankets, but their lives changed with the British arrival. From the mid-19th century, heavy taxes were imposed, which did not go unopposed.

Shifting Cultivation and Hunting

Captain James Forsyth reported on the Baigas’ way of life, noting their dhya-clearing and pursuit of game. Shifting cultivation and hunting were the chief occupations, likely their means of livelihood in the pre-colonial period. The Baigas were skilled with bows and arrows, striking down animals and birds, and used poisoned arrows. They laid snares for small deer, birds, and occasionally killed tigers and panthers.

When hunting was not successful, axe-cultivation (bewar) on hill slopes was the alternative, cultivating sweet potato, maize, and brinjals. Their diet consisted of fish, rice, daal, buttermilk, curd, and mango chutney. They valued the mahua tree, never cutting it in their bewar. Baiga folk songs refer to various fish that were part of their food consumption.

The local environment supplied natural and food resources for centuries without hindrance, underscoring self-reliant adivasi economies before British colonization, as pre-colonial Indian rulers maintained a policy of minimum interference. Game legislation since the 1870s and restrictions on bewar altered their traditional character, with the British pressuring them into becoming cultivators.

The Baigas’ ancient skill in hunting declined by the early 20th century, with the golden days gone. However, they continued to hunt when possible. In the Mandla district, game laws prohibited carrying bows and arrows, resulting in fines or imprisonment. Regulations enforced by the colonial government provided insight into the struggle between the British and local communities over hunting and accessing forest resources.

While forest legislation curtailed traditional means of living, A.W. McMillan observed in 1904 that the Baigas continued to live on forest produce. Elwin noted that while traditional skills were largely wiped out, interest in hunting persisted. These occurrences show that colonial laws did not entirely prevent the Baigas from hunting, demonstrating their successful defiance of the British colonial state.

Culture and Identity

Adam Kuper referred to Boutros-Ghali’s argument that the indigenous peoples’ movement is concerned with culture and identity, with a strong ecological thread where hunters are supposed to be in tune with nature. Kuper disagrees with the view that indigenous people live in greater harmony with the environment. What Kuper misses is the distinctive characteristic of adivasi societies like the Baigas, who challenged governments to convert them into modernity.

The history of resistance continued through proverbs and eco-political satires. For example, "All eat the stolen food; but one gets indigestion," reflects the tribals humorously blaming themselves for living in the forest. Another critique was that if a Baiga misses his prey, the animal would kill him, but if he hit the animal, the government would arrest him. These proverbs suggest that it would be safer to leave bows and arrows at home.

Impact of British Rule

The Baiga community suffered due to the imposition of forest and game laws. During the early 20th century, some Baigas had scant knowledge beyond their forest homes. Some thought Mandla and Balaghat were the centers of government, never hearing of other Indian states or cities.

Despite this, the Baigas held strong anti-colonial views, expressing their subtle political dissent, and supported the cause of the Indian national movement under Gandhi. The allusion to forest fires was interesting because the British forest officers were concerned about fires set for shifting cultivation. The Baigas were aware of the ongoing resistance movement, even without direct participation. Conversely, they were critical of the Indian National Congress for not addressing tribal issues.

The Baigas respected Gandhi but criticized his support for liquor prohibition. Their thinking explains a critical political philosophy on dual lines. David Baker’s article on “Forest Satyagrahis” (1984) examined the role of tribal communities during Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience Movement in the 1930s, illustrating that many tribals acted independently of Gandhi or the Indian National Congress.

Prohibition of Bewar

The foremost issue was the prohibition of bewar. The British administrators failed to understand that bewar was different from plough cultivation. The attempt to convert the Baigas into settled agriculturalists was a failure. Their tribal belief system emphasized their role as the “guardians of the forest and the soil.”

The Baigas disapproved of plough cultivation, as it necessitated breaking up the soil. Their bewar method permitted forest re-growth, preventing denudation and erosion. The colonial administration failed to appreciate the Baigas’ conservation thinking, which provided a basis for overcoming the natural world. The community could survive by looking after the forest and maintaining reverence to Dhartia Mata.

The occurrence of anti-colonial voices was enshrined in the political and cultural ecology of their everyday life. The British used intimidation and persuasion to purge traditional means of living, alleging that adivasi modes of living perpetuated hazard to sal forest growth. The British colonial agenda advanced the commercialization of forests and revenue generation through scientific forestry. The colonial administrators admired the Baigas' hunting skills but disapproved of bewar.

Colonial Policies and Exploitation

Between 1861 and 1921, the relationship between the British and the Baigas became a struggle, with the British trying to change the Baigas from forest cultivators to settled farmers, and the Baigas trying to retain their culture. The British believed the Baiga region had rich natural resources and potential for revenue generation. In 1862, Chief Commissioner Richard Temple wanted to acquire control over these territories immediately and start constructing roads into the woodland interiors.

Temple solicited the help of tribals to gain access to native knowledge systems for the appropriation of natural resources. In 1863, W.B. Thomson collected information on geography, population, and economic potential from Bichia and Raigarh regions. In response, Settlement Commissioner John Morris expressed that the government should not allow shifting cultivation or hunting rights.

The British administrators felt that tribals did not know how to exploit forest wealth for commercial gain. Thomson declared large areas of forestlands as “reserved forests” and ordered the Baigas and Gonds to be moved out of the “designated forest areas” and settle them in “small agricultural village clusters.” The policies demonstrate the advancement of various colonial agendas to augment revenue, rather than genuine concern for tribal welfare.

Inconsistent Attitudes and Treatment

The British attitudes toward the Baigas were inconsistent. Colonial administrators felt that the Baigas should give up their forest life and become settled farmers. In the 1860s, the colonial government rejected the Baigas’ claim of ownership, stating they had no proprietary or tenant rights. Chief Commissioner Temple acknowledged that the complete stoppage of bewar would cause despair and distress. He also wanted to keep the Baigas in the forest to prevent wild beasts from becoming masters.

Criticism of Colonial Policies

Among the critics of the colonial government’s policies was Captain James Forsyth, who questioned the usefulness of British laws and the sale and leasing of the forest areas. He questioned the ineffective system of civil justice administration. The subsequent controversy was the consensus among the colonial administrators who alleged that the tribes were responsible for the destruction of forests. A. Bloomfield made a plea for more assistance to prevent damage to the forests.

Bloomfield found it repulsive that the government destroyed Baigas’ crops. He warned that such policies could lead to bloodshed and destabilize British suzerainty. While some Baiga families ran away due to fear, many continued to protest the ban on bewar. Commissioner Neil worried that continuing prohibition would become counterproductive. Among the Baiga sub-groups, the Barotrias refused the government’s offering of bullocks, fearing political control.

These occurrences demonstrate the peaceful nature of the Baiga societies. The Baigas’ passive resistance can also revise the narrative of the Gandhian nationalist movement. This was not a pan-Indian nationalist movement, but it fascinated the author how the Baigas operated their eco-political seriatim of non-violent struggle much before Gandhi’s Satyagraha. The British wanted to keep the Baigas and other tribes in the forest to fulfill the labor supply needs for colonial project works.

Struggles and Hardships

Despite the colonial government’s initiative, seventy-one families continued cultivating bewar, demonstrating the sentiment attached to the practice of bewar. A lack of employment in the forest made sustaining livelihoods difficult, leading to indebtedness and destitution. The population of bewar cultivators declined. The Baigas protested in the form of “voting with their feet” and non-payment of taxes. This was a loss of cultural vivacity in the lives of the Baigas as a direct consequence of colonist policies.

In the early 1890s, the Baigas voiced their suffering, stating they had no food, bullocks, or money. A local forest range officer submitted a report stating the poor Baigas were living from hand to mouth, and their lives were at the mercy of authorities. A petition submitted by the Dholi Baigas demanded the overturning of the banning of bewar. Commissioner Bampfylde Fuller traveled among the Baigas and showed interest in their problems.

Ecological Voices and Oral Tradition

The Baigas’ anti-colonial sentiment remained strong, as they were reportedly withdrawing spells to keep tigers in check. Such recurring instances highlight the failure of the colonial government in redressing adivasi grievances. Baiga songs and opinions enshrined in their oral tradition offer a different kind of environmental and political nuances. The karma songs deal with social and political grievances that occurred in the Maikal hills, resenting the loss of freedom, unfair taxation, and oppression.

The discussion reveals occurrences of famines in the CP region, which created destitution. The old men and women recounted stories of children dying. Despite relief works, these tribes maintained “state avoidance.” The adivasis’ acquaintance with the forest meant they were independent of outside help. The Baigas’ language and political subtext of resistance continued until the early 20th century. Elwin documented the Baigas' demonstrable opposition to the prohibition of bewar, such as their songs.

Baigas' Worldview and Attitudes

More than anything, the British preoccupied the Baigas’ worldview. Their attitude encompassed admiration of individual officers but contempt for the colonial government. The Baigas said the English were their brothers, but this did not change how the colonial government treated them. One experience was with infrastructural development works. Baigas’ bewilderment toward British engineering was enshrined in songs. One of the songs on the train renders the paradigm of the Baigas’ amusement toward Britons and their technology. The introduction of the railway system shows Britons transiting through the countryside on trains.

Elwin and Hivale’s collation of oral testimonies offers a critical rationale on how adivasis observed colonialism and its forms of expansion. The Baiga songs illuminate how technology contributed to the development of the colony. While historians wrote about technologies spreading across the colonial world, the Baigas' rejection of new technologies constituted anti-colonial sentiment and ecological romanticism. The songs demonstrate the tribal people’s perspective on new technologies.

Ravi Ahuja frames railway technology as “engineering imperialism,” transforming the everyday experiences of millions. The Baiga adivasi remained a mutant spectator and observer. The Baigas’ understanding of colonial technologies and the introduction of railways shows the regional specificity of the colonial state’s intervention in Indian ecology. Even as the Baigas’ lives and wildlife in the highlands were affected, the anecdotes emphasize awe towards colonial engineering.

Criticism of the British

Another song demonstrates a simple criticism on the British and their underlying power in the forest. The song elucidates how the British reigned in the CP forests, killing wild animals for sport and clearing the forest. The Baigas' thinking situated the tiger as susceptible to high-velocity rifles. This explains the forest people were aware of the changes introduced by the colonial agency, affecting human populations, flora, and fauna alike.

Another village propelled the Baigas to express their astonishment at colonial innovation. The British built bungalows all over the forest and used telegraphic wires to bind the world together. The political economy of this explains the British effort to connect the periphery for the functioning of colonial rule. Deep Kanta Lahiri Choudhury argues that telegraphy illustrated the power and modernity of the empire.

Prohibition of bewar became an antagonizing matter. Tribal people invented a prodigy that had no historical basis but stood true in principle. Keru narrated an anecdote where the English Raja came into the forest, and the Baiga Raja presented all animal against him, but they all lost. Baiga’s eco-political anecdote implies the British conquered territories through careful planning of forest laws and arms legislation.

The Baiga metaphor suggests the British returned and annexed the forest hills, and wild animals lost to the colonizers. The Baigas' allegorical thinking placed wild animals as subjects and friends of the tribals. This did not have a place in British colonist discourse. The Baigas’ friction and criticism demonstrate the tales of ecological wisdom, stemming from historical experience. One example was the loss of income from bamboo work because of campaigning by the Basor community. Corrupt officials would catch the Baiga and take away the fruits of their labor.

Honey Collection and Labour

Another aspect of mistreatment was the issue of honey collection. Baigas would recite prayers to Mother Nature, but the collected honey went into the pockets of colonial usurpers. The Baigas felt apprehensive of selling honey. Colonial laws were ineffective in delivering impartial treatment. Another imprecision was in 1890, the colonial government gave the Baigas harra contracts but they went unenforced.

From the 1860s to 1940s, the Forest Department asked every family to provide a worker. Despite such opportunities, many Baigas showed no interest. The Baigas generally disliked regular employment. Their worldview revolved around the time spent in gathering forest produce, and bewar. This resilience of wilderness is central to understanding the limitations of the colonial agency.

Conclusion

The chapter has examined how the Baigas coordinated their environmental consciousness into a political critique of British colonist policies. Unlike the violent uprisings of the Santhals and Gond tribals, the Baigas created a coherent historical narrative through folk songs and tales, underlining the flipside of colonial rule. The Baigas achieved this eco-political thinking by breaking forest and game laws. The British imperial policy of development restricted adivasi freedoms, and the British method of laissez-faire led to the destruction of local economies and tribal cultures.

Our research has demonstrated that the unlettered Baigas had their own voices in challenging the legitimacy of colonialism. The resilience of wilderness underpinned the Baigas' ecological and anti-colonial movement throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Baigas' expressions of resistance represent a unique case in colonial environmental history. Their oral songs and tales acknowledged animal spatiality and elucidated their suffering under British rule.