4.2.3. Village artisans

Another interesting aspect of the village was the elaborate relationship of exchange between different producers. Marathi documents and village surveys made in the early years of British rule have revealed the existence of substantial numbers of artisans, sometimes as high as 25 per cent of the total households in the villages.

Artisans played a significant role in village life, making up about 25% of households according to historical surveys. They were engaged in various crafts and trades, providing essential services to villagers. This shows that villages were not just centers for agriculture but also hubs of craft production.

Think of a modern-day village like a small town where shops and workshops exist side by side. Just like bakers, carpenters, and mechanics serve the needs of the community today, village artisans in historical India brought skills that complemented the agricultural work, ensuring a self-sufficient community.

At times, however, the distinction between artisans and peasants in village society was a fluid one, as many groups performed the tasks of both. Cultivators and their families would also participate in craft production – such as dyeing, textile printing, baking and firing of pottery, making and repairing agricultural implements.

In many instances, the roles of artisans and peasants overlapped. Families involved in agriculture also contributed to craft production during slower farming seasons. This dual contribution meant that every family had the potential to generate income through different means, making the village economy robust.

Imagine a farmer who grows vegetables but also makes pottery and repairs tools in the off-season. This is similar to how villagers historically balanced their roles, ensuring they had multiple sources of livelihood to support their families.

Village artisans – potters, blacksmiths, carpenters, barbers, even goldsmiths – provided specialised services in return for which they were compensated by villagers by a variety of means. The most common way of doing so was by giving them a share of the harvest, or an allotment of land, perhaps cultivable wastes, which was likely to be decided by the panchayat.

Artisans were compensated for their work through various means, most commonly receiving a portion of the agricultural harvest or land for their services. This system highlighted the mutual dependencies within the village community, where artisans and farmers relied on each other's work for sustenance.

Think of paying a mechanic with a few fresh vegetables from your garden instead of cash. This barter-like system was common, highlighting how community members supported each other by sharing resources directly rather than strictly using money.

Another variant of this was a system where artisans and individual peasant households entered into a mutually negotiated system of remuneration, most of the time goods for services. For example, eighteenth-century records tell us of zamindars in Bengal who remunerated blacksmiths, carpenters, even goldsmiths for their work by paying them 'a small daily allowance and diet money'. This later came to be described as the jajmani system.

The jajmani system facilitated the exchange of goods for services, creating a network of interconnected local economies. Artisans would provide their skills, and in return, they received food or goods necessary for their families. This mutual support strengthened village cohesion.

Imagine a local handyman who helps neighbors fix things around their homes and, in exchange, receives meals and other essentials. This modern practice is akin to the historical jajmani system, where everyone contributed their skills and resources to support one another.

Cash remuneration was not entirely unknown either. In the Mughal heartland too, revenue was assessed and collected in cash. Artisans producing for the export market (for example, weavers) received their advances or wages in cash, as did producers of commercial products like cotton, silk or indigo.

While many transactions occurred through barter, cash payments also existed, particularly for artisans involved in commercial production. This shift towards cash transactions indicates the changing economics of village life, tying local production more closely to broader market demands.

Consider how local businesses today might sell their products both at markets (barter) and online (cash). This evolution from barter to a cash system highlights how villages were becoming integrated into larger economic networks, just like businesses use cash today to engage with the broader economy.

Some British officials in the nineteenth century saw the village as a 'little republic' made up of fraternal partners sharing resources and labour in a collective. However, this was not a sign of rural egalitarianism. There was individual ownership of assets and deep inequities based on caste and gender distinctions.

Although villages operated on principles of collective sharing and cooperation, significant inequalities existed. Individual ownership conflicted with the idea of community, showcasing that while villagers worked together, not everyone had equal social status or access to resources.

Imagine a neighborhood where some families have larger houses and resources than others. They may work together for community events but don't have identical living conditions. This reflects the complexity of village life where community cooperation coexists with social hierarchies.

--