Hill States under the Colonial power: Political and Administrative History. Grants, Sanads and territorial aggression.

<–2/”>a >British Rule in the Hill State

The British rule commenced in the state after Anglo-Gorkha war. The Gorkha’s were out powered by the British and they established their supremacy in the state after the Anglo-Gorkha war along the provinces of Satluj. Thus British started annexing the area one by one and emerged as dominant powers in the hill state. The early 19th century witnessed the annexing of Shimla by British. However, Himachal Pradesh became a centrally administered territory after India’s Independence in the year 1948 by integration of 31 hill provinces.

The first war of Indian Independence popularly called as the Revolt of 1857 was the result of political unrest and grievance against British rule which involved social, religious and economical reasons. However, the freedom movement was not very active in hilly region unlike other parts of the country. They displayed their inactiveness when the first war of independence broke out, similar was the Attitude of their rulers. However, Bushahr was the only ruler who was an exception and was hostile to British administration. It is believed that some people even offered helping hand for the British during the revolt period. Some of the rulers who helped the British included rulers from Bilaspur, Chamba, Dhami and Bhagal.

The hilly region of Himachal was annexed to British territory after a declaration was made by the queen in year 1858. However, the British rule did not hamper the progress of the state, some of the districts like Mandi, Bilaspur and Chamba made excellent progress during British rule. The British rule got excellent support from the Hill districts during the First World War. The people of the state remained loyal and extended all possible help to British administration both in the form of men and goods. Some of the places like Bilaspur, Chamba, Nurpur, Mandi, Kangra, Siba and Suket were of great aid to the British rule.

Begar was the labour which all subjects had to provide the state for fixed periods during the year. It was unfree because there was no choice about wanting to give labour or not. Since agriculture was backward and most areas were not monetised, only a small part of the surplus could be appropriated through cash or kind. It was for this reason that direct labour Services were the predominant form of surplus appropriation by the Hill States. There were basically two types of begar taken by the State; one, the regular labour extracted throughout the year and two, the contributions in labour and kind made during special occasions like birth, death and marriage in the Chief’s family. These types of labour had to be provided by all peasant proprietors and other agriculturalists, exceptions being made for members of the royal family, certain Bramhin and Rajput families and most of the villagedevtas and divinities. This labour service was taken by the State through its officers and the members of the royal family.

Labour which had to be performed regularly was called Athwara Begar and included

i) Porterage, including the carrying of revenue in kind to the chief’s household.

ii) Manning the Chaukis(watchposts) along the village roads and providing village watchmen.

iii) `Postal’ service within the state and carrying official Communication to other states and the British town of Simla.

iv) Road construction and maintenance.

v) Providing labour, food and personal attendance to British officials on Shikar. This also included participating in the `chase’ and drum beating.

vi) Service in the royal household and kitchen, including provisioning grass, fuel wood, etc.

vii) Service to the village deity which included almost everything that was provided to the royal family.

The other form of begar was called Hela begar, and was part labour and part cash/kind contribution. This was a levy uniformly applied to state subjects and at times included those Bramhins and Rajputs normally exempted from begar.

Begar was recognised by the British authorities right from 1815, and all the Sanadsgranted to these Hill States recorded in detail the types, quantities and other requirements of the labour to be provided by the hill people to the British authority. British records of this period have no mention of the term Beth, or other forms of unfree labour, in the Western Himalayas.

Beth was a system of forced labour where the lowest castes like the Kolis, Doms, Chamars, etc., provided agricultural labour and other menial and `polluting’ services to the chiefs, the leading families and the village divinity. They also provided agricultural labour to the Kanet peasant proprietors ( “cultivating, inferior Rajputs” ), though only seasonally. Customarily debarred from land titles, they were dependent on their patron castes (clans?) and families for survival. They were not from the same ethnic stock and had different mythic-historic origins than the dominant groups in the villages. Their inferior position was reinforced through the various rituals and ceremonies that embodied the power structure of the village. Situated outside the Bhaichara of the Bramhins, Rajputs and Kanets, the Bethus(those who give Beth) were outside the DECISION MAKING bodies of the villagers.

Reference to beth is rare in British records and it was more often than not collapsed as a form of begar, or as another form of tenancy. There is not much reference to the social class, political and economic status and/or function in the village Society of the bethus. This, it seems, was primarily because beth and British interest hardly ever came into contact with each other. It was only in the last decades of the 19th century that the British first came to know about beth but were able to distinguish it from begar, in their policies, only in the last few years of their rule.

Literally speaking, reet means a custom. To some, it was a form of marriage, but to others it was the payment usually made on the occasion (of marriage). Macnab writes in 1888-89 that reet was a temporary marriage without any formal ceremony, and was dissolved by the woman taking a new husband, who paid the first husband the Money originally paid to the girls parents, ordinarily Rs 70. Thakur Surat Singh (1924) defined reet as a form of marriage without ceremony, contracted by paying a price, which varied according to beauty, generally from Rs 100 to Rs 2,000, with a woman already legally married. There was no limit to such marriages, and could be as easily dissolved as they were freely undertaken. A letter written to the Superintendent hill states, Shimla, in 1925 noted that reet invariably takes place when a woman had actually run away from the husband’s home. The man with whom the woman went to live paid for her to the husband and if he was not alive, to the heirs. Colonel Wace (1925), however, was of the opinion that reet was not a form of marriage at all, but merely the payment usually made on marriage. The marriage tie being loose at best, if the woman goes off with another man, the new husband was required to reimburse (the amount to) the former husband. Both these accounts of native elites (given by the Secretary of HVPS and chiefs of the native states) and the colonial understanding of reet do not give a sufficiently clear picture of this custom. Even Dunnet (1926) did not find it easy to explain exactly what reet is. The word itself means a custom.

Reet was practised with a dissimilar logic in different hill regions. Nevertheless, it had an important element of marriage, whatever the way in which it was practiced marriage, remarriage or divorce and defined the nature of conjugal relations. These conjugal relations were fundamentally different from the Brahmanic principles of ritual purity and chastity. In Kullu, cohabitation was considered equal to marriage, and the son of a woman who had been received into a house and treated as a wife succeeded equally with the legitimate children.56 Marriages in Sirmur differed fundamentally from the Brahmanic theory of marriage as a sacrament. It regarded marriage as a civil contract terminated by the mutual Consent of both the parties, and the Hindu idea that the wife is one-half of her husband’s body was hardly existent. It was precisely due to these reasons that Surat Singh viewed these customs critically and regarded the Women of Shimla hills as lewd and prone to temptation.

Reet also had an important element of divorce, which apparently shook the Hindu sentiment. If a woman in Sirmur disliked her husband, she returned home, arranged a marriage with someone else, paid reet to her first husband, and went to live with the new one. Her first husband could not refuse to accept the reet, though he may haggle over the amount. Women could thus change their husbands when and as often as they choose and this Liberty was not considered as evil. The existence of such notions of sexuality led to the emergence of many debates relating to their legality. Although reet had customary validity in most of the native hill states, in many cases it was questioned in a court of law on the pretext of morality. It was also argued that there is no provision in the Hindu scriptures enjoining so much liberty to a woman.,

The hill states of India were a diverse group of polities, with a wide range of political systems. Some of the hill states were monarchies, while others were republics. The political systems of the hill states were largely based on traditional customs and practices.

The British first came into contact with the hill states in the early 18th century. At that time, the hill states were largely independent of British rule. However, the British began to exert increasing control over the hill states in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This control was largely due to the British desire to secure their trade routes to China.

The British established a number of political and Administrative Reforms in the hill states. These reforms included the introduction of a system of direct rule, the establishment of a system of courts, and the introduction of a system of Education. The British also introduced a number of Economic Reforms in the hill states. These reforms included the introduction of a system of Taxation, the establishment of a system of trade, and the introduction of a system of agriculture.

The British rule had a significant impact on the hill states. The British introduced a number of changes to the political, administrative, and Economic Systems of the hill states. These changes had a profound impact on the lives of the people of the hill states.

The British granted a number of sanads to the hill states. These sanads were documents that recognized the Sovereignty of the hill states. The British also granted a number of grants to the hill states. These grants were financial assistance that was given to the hill states. The British also carried out a number of territorial aggressions against the hill states. These territorial aggressions were military campaigns that were carried out by the British to gain control of the hill states.

The British grants and sanads, as well as the British territorial aggressions, had a significant impact on the hill states. The British grants and sanads helped to secure the British control over the hill states. The British territorial aggressions helped to expand the British territory in the hill states. The British grants and sanads, as well as the British territorial aggressions, had a profound impact on the lives of the people of the hill states.

The British rule in the hill states came to an end in 1947, with the independence of India. The hill states were then merged with the Indian Union. The merger of the hill states with the Indian Union was a complex process, which was marked by a number of challenges. However, the merger was ultimately successful, and the hill states are now an integral part of the Indian Union.

The legacy of British rule in the hill states is a complex one. On the one hand, the British introduced a number of positive changes to the hill states, such as the introduction of a system of education and a system of healthcare. On the other hand, the British also exploited the hill states for their own economic and political interests. The legacy of British rule in the hill states is still being debated today.

The hill states of India are a diverse and fascinating region. The history of the hill states is a long and complex one, which has been shaped by a number of factors, including the British colonial rule. The hill states are now an integral part of the Indian Union, and they continue to play an important role in the Indian economy and society.

Here are some frequently asked questions and short answers about the Hill States under the Colonial power: Political and Administrative History. Grants, Sanads and territorial aggression:

What were the Hill States?
The Hill States were a group of independent kingdoms and principalities located in the mountainous regions of India. They were ruled by hereditary chiefs or rajas, and their political and administrative systems were based on traditional Hindu and Buddhist practices.
When did the British come to the Hill States?
The British first came into contact with the Hill States in the early 18th century, when they began to expand their empire into the Indian subcontinent. The British were initially interested in the Hill States because of their strategic location and their potential for trade.
How did the British rule the Hill States?
The British initially ruled the Hill States through a system of indirect rule, in which they allowed the local rulers to retain their power and authority. However, as the British Empire expanded, they began to exert more control over the Hill States. This led to a number of rebellions and uprisings, which the British eventually suppressed.
What were the effects of British rule on the Hill States?
British rule had a profound impact on the Hill States. The British introduced a number of reforms, including the introduction of Western education and the establishment of a system of courts and law. However, British rule also led to the decline of traditional Hill State culture and society.
What happened to the Hill States after independence?
After India gained independence in 1947, the Hill States were merged into the Indian Union. This led to a number of problems, including the loss of traditional Hill State autonomy and the displacement of many Hill State people.
What is the current status of the Hill States?
The Hill States are now part of the Indian Union, but they retain a certain degree of autonomy. They have their own governments and legislatures, and they are allowed to follow their own customs and traditions.
What are some of the challenges facing the Hill States today?
The Hill States face a number of challenges today, including POVERTY, illiteracy, and Environmental Degradation. They are also struggling to maintain their unique culture and identity in the face of Globalization/”>Globalization-3/”>Globalization.
What are some of the opportunities facing the Hill States today?
The Hill States also have a number of opportunities, including the potential for tourism and development. They are also well-positioned to take advantage of the Growth of the Indian economy.
What is the future of the Hill States?
The future of the Hill States is uncertain. They are facing a number of challenges, but they also have a number of opportunities. It is important to support the Hill States in their efforts to develop and prosper.
What can you do to help the Hill States?
There are a number of things you can do to help the Hill States. You can donate to organizations that are working to improve the lives of people in the Hill States. You can also volunteer your time or skills to help these organizations. You can also educate yourself about the Hill States and their culture and history.

Question 1

Which of the following is not a hill state in India?

(A) Manipur
(B) Nagaland
(C) Sikkim
(D) Uttarakhand

Answer

(D) Uttarakhand is not a hill state in India. It is a hilly state, but it is not a hill state.

Question 2

Which of the following is not a characteristic of hill states in India?

(A) They are located in the Himalayas.
(B) They are sparsely populated.
(C) They have a diverse Population.
(D) They are all part of the Indian Union.

Answer

(D) Not all hill states in India are part of the Indian Union. Sikkim is an independent country.

Question 3

Which of the following is not a reason for the British colonization of hill states in India?

(A) The British wanted to control the trade routes through the Himalayas.
(B) The British wanted to exploit the natural Resources of the hill states.
(C) The British wanted to protect the hill states from foreign invaders.
(D) The British wanted to spread Christianity in the hill states.

Answer

(D) The British did not want to spread Christianity in the hill states. They were interested in the economic and strategic value of the hill states.

Question 4

Which of the following is not a way in which the British controlled hill states in India?

(A) They appointed British officials to administer the hill states.
(B) They signed treaties with the rulers of the hill states.
(C) They used military force to subdue the hill states.
(D) They allowed the rulers of the hill states to continue to rule their states, but under British supervision.

Answer

(A) The British did not appoint British officials to administer the hill states. They allowed the rulers of the hill states to continue to rule their states, but under British supervision.

Question 5

Which of the following is not a result of British colonization of hill states in India?

(A) The hill states were integrated into the Indian Union.
(B) The hill states lost their independence.
(C) The hill states were exposed to Western culture.
(D) The hill states were exploited economically.

Answer

(A) The hill states were not integrated into the Indian Union until after independence.

Question 6

Which of the following is not a characteristic of hill states in India after independence?

(A) They are all part of the Indian Union.
(B) They have a high degree of autonomy.
(C) They are all governed by the same laws.
(D) They all have their own unique cultures.

Answer

Question 7

Which of the following is not a challenge facing hill states in India today?

(A) Poverty
(B) Lack of development
(C) Insurgency
(D) Environmental degradation

Answer

(D) Environmental degradation is not a challenge facing hill states in India today. In fact, many hill states are working to protect their Environment.

Question 8

Which of the following is not a way in which the Indian government is trying to help hill states?

(A) Providing financial assistance.
(B) Providing technical assistance.
(C) Providing military assistance.
(D) Providing political assistance.

Answer