INTRODUCTION:

From second half of 19^th century, the native press emerged as an important domain which shaped the public opinion. It has also exercised significant influence on the public opinion and public policy as well. The native press published both in vernacular and English languages disseminated ideas on wide range of issues in British India and acted as an important agency that galvanise public opinion. From 1880 onwards, the native press in Madras Presidency actively engaged in reflecting upon forest policies and various positive and negative aspects related to it. This paper attempts to capture the role of the native press in influencing the public opinion on issues of forest policies and the impact it exercised on the policy process. The main objective of this paper is to document the native opinion represented by native new papers on the grievances generated by forest policies and possible remedies that are articulated.

FOREST HISTORIES OF INDIA: A BRIEF REVIEW:

Environmental history acquired prominence in the last three decades in India.¹ Particularly forest history of colonial India acquired prominence in the last three decades in India. The impact of forest policies and response of forest dependent communities received attention of historians.² It has also been proposed that British forest policies destroyed the traditional access of tribes and rural people to forests and negatively affected their livelihood.³ This process, it has been proposed by some studies that gradually resulted into emergence of anti-colonial consciousness which eventually fused into national movement.⁴

From the mid-1990s the focus of forest historians devoted to post-structural framework for analysis of forest policies. The overwhelming focus was devoted to the discourse of colonial bureaucracy consists of foresters, revenue official and other important policy makers.⁵ The fact however that is the role and engagement of the native press in reflecting upon forest policies did not receive adequate attention in the existing studies on history of colonial forest policies. This paper attempts to address this gap and proposes that native press in south India actively engaged with issues related to forest policies. The native press attempted to document the grievances aroused due to forest policies and evolved a systematic critique forest policy and emerged as forceful advocate for introduction of community centric forest management as a remedy to the grievances related to implementation of forest policies in South India.

A brief history of colonial forestry in Madras Presidency:

The Madras Presidency covers most parts of South India and an abode for rich forests. Valuable timber trees such as teak, red sanders, sandal wood, sal, etc. are found in forests of south India.⁶ Besides this, several other non-timber forests products which played an important role in agrarian economy of South India could be seen here. Having recognised the economic importance of forests, the British gradually penetrated into them. This process started in appointment of a conservator of forests in 1804, strengthened with establishment of forest department in 1856 and eventually consolidated their hold by promulgating the Madras.

Forest Act of 1882.⁷ This process of expansion of the state control over forests resulted in resistance by tribes and peasants as they lost their traditional access to forests. This paper confines to an analysis of the role of native press in representation of grievances of rural society experienced on account of implementation of forest policies.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

At the outset we must admit the fact that we did not see the original versions of the newspapers that were published, rather we dependent upon the government reports on the native newspapers report translated and preserved in the Madras Archives. These reports briefly document the important news items published by the native newspapers. These reports are even though short in nature but provide ample clues about the massage to be conveyed to the public by new papers. We have consulted newspapers such as Swadeshimitran, Andhra Patrika, Calanandi, Kerala Partika, the Hindu, and Desabhimanietc mostly written in South India languages of Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Kanada and translated into English. Attempt has been made to capture the massage these newspapers wanted to convey to public and authorities.

The Native Press and Forest Policies in Madras Presidency:

The Madras Forest of 1882 empowered the government of Madras to create a category of reserved forests as exclusive domains of the state control. Any kind of public access was not permitted except by a special permission of the state. By 1890 most of the forests in hills and plain areas were brought under the state.⁸ This process resulted in lot of confusion and troubles to rural population whose traditional access to neighbouring forests was restricted by new rules.⁹ Particularly the access of agrarian society consisting of peasants, rural artisans, land less labour for grazing, collection of firewood, wood, non-timber products, jungle food etc was brought under rigid restrictions. It was this context which created a strong public resentment on forest policies in Madras Presidency. The native press actively engaged with this process by the way of reporting some of the incidents on the severity of forest policies and articulated suggestions to mitigate the problem.

While reflecting upon the changes brought about by the forest act, the editor of the Swedeshimitran, a Tamil newspaper, reported that in pre-forest act period forests, wastelands and grazing grounds are freely available for rural population. In the post-forest act period the reporter argued that most of the forests brought under the control of government. It is this situation according to the editor that mainly responsible for conflict between the government and forest dependent communities. The following remedy was offered by the editor: ‘The wastelands adjoining villages should be planted with trees and given to villagers who should be made responsible for the cost of planting and maintaining trees on those lands, in return for their labour, the villagers should enjoy free of tax or on payment of an easy tax on the produce of these forests’.¹⁰

The interesting thing about native newspapers’ engagement with forest policy is that the anti-people nature of forest policy was constantly questioned. Any aspect of the policy that troubled peasantry was highlighted by the native press. The editor of Swedeshimitran proposed that the forest department, instead of focussing on the forest conservation for protection of climate and irrigation sources, concentrated on revenue generation. This task according the editor was achieved by imposing high tax on forest products in reserved forests.¹¹

Excessive taxation on the agricultural land revenue already became a big problem to the agrarian society in South India and this was further aggravated by restrictions and tax imposed on forest products by the government. A tax of 8 annas on buffalo, 4 annas on cow and bulls and 2 annas on sheep has been imposed annually.¹² It was this tax that became a contested issue between peasantry and forest department. The main reason for the severity of forest rule described by the Hindujanasamskharini, a Tamil daily in the following lines: ‘People in this country had never been accustomed to pay a tax on firewood, but they are now made to do so, that is precisely reason why many people hate the forest rules and the department’.¹³ Similar opinion was expressed by the editor of the Swadeshimitran, whoargued that: ‘For many generations people have been freely utilising the forest products for purpose of life, and to put sudden restriction upon the long continued practice by the adoption of stringent measures will but cause the people much distress. The officers of the Forest Department should therefore, be kept under proper control and not allowed in their zeal for carrying out the measures stringently that would ignore the time immemorial rights enjoyed by the people’.¹⁴ The native press projected the expansion of forest conservation as an infringement on colonial domination on the traditional livelihood patterns of agrarian society.

Gradually the discomfort in rural South India caused by forest policies emerged as pressing issues that attracted the attention of political parties. The political organisations took cognisance of forest grievances and articulated their opposition to the forest policies that were implemented in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. In 1885, a commission was appointed by the Congress Working Committee, in the Bombay Presidency, to conduct an enquiry on forest grievances. The Kerala Patirka informed that the Kerala Mahajanasabha agreed to cooperate with the Madras Mahajana Sabha with respect to conducting an enquiry on forest grievances. These organisations proposed a meeting in 1886, for discussing the grievances.¹⁵

Many a times, the native press attempted to find out the root cause for unpopularity of forest rules. It has often been reported that one of the main factors responsible for forest grievances was the corrupt practices indulged by some of the forest subordinate officials who demanded bribe from people for allowing them into the reserved forests. Regarding this problem, the Swadeshimitran reported that forest rangers, guards and watchers indulge in corruption by the way of demanding bribes from people for illegally allowing them to access the forest products in reserved forests. The newspaper demanded that the government should regulate the malpractices of the forest department’s staff and minimise the grievances caused by forest rules.¹⁶

The native press mainly focus on the corrupt practices of forest bureaucracy. On the corruption of the forest officials, the correspondent of the Swadeshimitran described that: ‘the hardship caused by the forest officers to the people is unspeakable. It would be better if government put the inhabitants of each village at the mouth of canon and reserve all the asked lands as reserve forests. The tears shed by the people due to severity forest of rules and the cruelty of the forest officers will not go in vain, they will turn out to be sharp swords to cut by the root of this government’.¹⁷ This type of statement indicates the severity of the grievances experienced by the people due to the implementation of stringent forest regulations on access to neighbouring forests.

In the due course of time, forest policies emerged as one of the important sources that were responsible for inspiration of anti-colonial consciousness in South India. By the 1890s, the forest department became so unpopular that the newspaper, the Calanandi reported that: “The expenditure of department should be reduced by removing the District Forest Officers and entrusting their duties to the Assistant Collectors and by making over changes of the duties of the forest subordinates to revenue officers wherever possible’.¹⁸ The popular perception of the cruelty of forest officials has therefore actively been disseminated by the native press. One main reason for this perhaps was that people perceived the forest guards and watchers as their immediate enemies and hated the entire forest department which restrict their access to forests resources critical for sustenance. The native newspapers thus, not only highlighted the forest crisis but also demanded the Madras Government to relax the severity of forest rules. However, the native press mainly represented the grievances of plain peasants and there were very few references to the grievances of tribes. Nevertheless, the native press acted as an effective mediating agency in representing forest grievances. They voiced the public opinion on forest grievances and forced the government to accommodate the interests of the plain peasants in its policy framework.

One of the important problems that made forest department unpopular is the issue of grazing. According to the editor of the Swadeshimitran, the main reason for the problems pertaining to the access to cattle grazing in the Madras Presidency was that most of the pasture lands, freely accessed earlier by the peasants were brought under the state reservation. He argued that while forest settlement was conducted, sufficient grazing lands were not allocated for peasants as source for grazing. The problem pertaining to access to grazing was aggravated by the corrupt practices indulged by the forest watchers, who demanded bribe from poor ryots.¹⁹ The Hindoojanabhoosham, a newspaper from Madras, argued that cattle which were an important source for agriculture, declined due to the restrictions and heavy fee that were imposed on grazing in reserved forests. It criticised the contract system introduced for managing grazing in reserved forests.²⁰ The Andhra Patrika, a Telugu daily, reported that impositions of the heavy grazing fee on goat and sheep resulted in problems for people in procuring manure.²¹ The burden of tax and the forest regulations imposed on people were the two important issues that were critiqued by the contemporary press in the Madras Presidency.

Gradually the problems of agrarian economy had begun to be linked with existence of forest policies. One of the important sources of agrarian economy is that of cattle. It has popularly been perceived that colonial forest policies resulted in decline in cattle quality and population. The Taraka, a daily from Bangalore, argued that enforcement of regulations on the peoples’ customary access to forests deprived the people of their short-term and long term needs in the Madras Presidency. It suggested the Madras Government to undertake a systematic census on the cattle in each village and allocate sufficient grazing grounds in the adjourning reserved forests.²² The native press thus was vocal in its criticism of the government forest reservation policy and articulated popular demand for creation of village forests that would allow people in accessing forest products.

Ideas on community centric forest management by the native press:

Apparently, the native press not only focused on critique of colonial forest policies, but also put forwarded constructive suggestions to address the problems surfaced on account of implementation of forest policies. It has been proposed that the responsibility of managing forests in settled agriculture region should be handed over to local bodies consisting of peasants. The editor of the Swadeshimitran felt that prior to the implementation of the Madras Forest Act of 1882, villagers had free access to wastelands and forest lands in their villages. He argued that the implementation of the act resulted in appropriation of most of the forests and wastelands under the category of reserved forests. He demanded for creation of village forests for each village to provide forest products for people²³.

Dashabhimani a Tamil daily newspaper demanded for an enquiry on waste and forest lands and creation of village forests for meetings the needs of agrarian society²⁴. In another issue, the editor of Dashabhimani proposed an interesting suggestion that each village should be allotted a separate forest tract for requirements of villagers and these forests shall be managed by local village communities²⁵. But this demand did not exercise any impact on the attitude of the Madras government towards forest policy. The dissent to forests policies acquired higher proportions in the context of raising nationalist consciousness on account of success of the Swadeshi movement. Escalation in crimes in and around forests could be seen in entire Madras Presidency. This situation compelled the Madras government to appoint a committee to inquire about problems caused by forest policies. This committee known as the Madras Forest Committee after extensive interaction with different stakeholders suggested a comprehensive scheme for handling problems. One of the important suggestions was that of creation of forest panchayats to be managed by local committees to meet their routine requirements from forests.

The Hindu newspaper appreciated the recommendations suggested by the Madras Forest Committee of 1912, on the creation of forest panchayat. It requested the Madras Government to implement the Committee’s recommendations by creating the forest panchayats.²⁶ The Madras Standard, a daily newspaper appreciated the Madras Forest Committee of 1912, for the suggestions it had made on the creation of forest panchayats. It greeted Kasav Pali and Ramachandra Rao, who were the members of the Madras Forest Committee of 1912 for their persuasion on the creation of the forest panchayats to address the grievances related to access to forests.²⁷ The Andhra, a weekly from Guntur district of Andhra region demanded the Madras Government to implement the recommendations suggested by the Committee to mitigate the hardship of villagers in accessing the forests in the Madras Presidency.²⁸

From 1918 onwards, the Madras government introduced the policy of forest panchayat. Under this policy, forests, wastelands, grasslands in the plain areas are being allocated to local bodies named as forest panchayts consisting of peasants. The Madras Presidency was in fact is a pioneer in introducing community centric forest management for the first time in South Asia. This experiment gradually extended to other parts of British Empire. I would not suggest that only because of the native press this experiment was introduced by the Madras Government. But certainly, the native press played an active role in galvanising public opinion in favour of forest panchayat policy. It has influenced the opinions of politicians, policy makers, intelligentsia etc that have actively pursued the government to introduce community forest experiments.

CONCLUSION:

The colonial forest policies present a complex process wherein exploitation of forest dependent communities at one level and accommodation of their demands at another level went parallel. Forest policy in South India represents a classic example of this nature. The process of accommodation of demands of peasantry into forest policy has actively been articulated by the native press as a one of the effective means to defuse the tension between the British rule and agrarian society. It has exercised a significant impact on the attitude of the Madras government which was in fact searching a way to strike a compromise with peasantry to defuse hostile relationship. The native press thus facilitated in lessening the severity of forest policies in colonial India by the way of acting as a mediating agency between the colonial authorities and Indian rural society.

REFERENCES:

1. Habib, Environmental History of India, Tulika, New Delhi, 2001: M. Rangarajan, K. Shivaramakrishnan, India’s Environmental History: a Reader, Permanent Black, New Delhi, 2011.

2. R.C. Tucker, a Forest History of India, Sage, New Delhi, 2011.

3. M. Gadgil, and R. Guha, This Fissure Land: An Ecological History of India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 1992.

4. A. Murali, ‘Civil Disobedience Movement in Andhra, 1920-1922: The Nature of Peasant Protest and the Methods of Congress Political Mobilization’, in Kapil Kumar (ed.) Congress and Class: Nationalism, Peasants and Workers, Manohar, New Delhi, 1987, pp. 152-216.

5. K. Shivaramakrishnan, Modern Forests: State Making and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999; V. Saberwal, Pastoral Politics: Sheppard, Bureaucrats and Conservation in the Western Himalaya, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999.

6. H. Morgan, Forestry in south India, Higginbotham, Madras, 1882.

7. C.D. MacLean, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, Vol. II, Asian Educational Service, Delhi, 1985.

8. V.M. Ravi Kumar, 'State, Forests and Communities: History of Community Forest Management in Colonial South India (Andhra) 1800-1947' Economic and Political Weekly, December, 1- 2012, pp, 53-60.

9. V.M. Ravi Kumar, ‘People’s Forestry in the Past and Present: An Analysis of Community Forest Management in South India’, Journal of Social and Economic Development, Jan-Jun, 2012, pp. 42-64.

10. The Swedeshimitran, (Tamil Daily), 26^th February 1887 translated version of the Native Newspapers Reports, Madras Presidency (hereafter as NNPR) 6^th June 1885, p.20. Collected from Tamil Nadu State Archives.

11. The Swadeshimitran, in 1887, NNPR, 26^th February 1887, p. 23.

12. Annual Administrative report of the Forests Department, Madras Presidency 1891, p. 28.

13. The Hindujanasamshkarini (Tamil Daily) NNPR, 26^th February 1887, p. 25.

14. The Swadeshimitran, in NNPR, 16^th April 1886, p.55.

15. The Kerala Patrika, in NNPR, September 7^th 1885.

16. The Swadeshimitran, in NNPR, 18^th February 1888, p. 43.

17. Ibid.

18. Calanandi, (Tamil Weekly) in NNPR, 11^th May 1889, p. 232.

19. The Swadesimitran, in NNPR, 9^th April 1887, p. 55.

20. Hindoojanabhoosham, (Tamil Daily) in NNPR, 7^th May 1887, p. 23.

21. Andhra Patrika, in NNPR, 6^th December 1886.

22. The Taraka, (Daily from Bangalore) in NNPR, 5^th June 1901, p. 228.

23. TheSwadeshimitra, in NNPR, 16^th April 1887, p. 55.

24. Deshabhimani, from Cuddapah District, September. 14^th May 1892, in NNPR, p. 220.

25. Dashabhimani, in NNPR, 6^th June 1885, p. 20.

26. TheHindu, in NNPR, February 26^th 1913.

27. The Madras Standard, in NNPR, March 14^th 1913, p. 7.

28. Andhra, Günter, in NNPR, March 14^th 1913, p. 7.

Received on 03.04.2019 Modified on 10.05.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(4): 1001-1005.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00164.5