4.2.4. The problem with trade

During the nineteenth century, tribal groups found that traders and money-lenders were coming into the forests more often, wanting to buy forest produce, offering cash loans, and asking them to work for wages. It took tribal groups some time to understand the consequences of what was happening.

In the 1800s, tribal societies started experiencing a new influx of traders and moneylenders into their communities. These outsiders wanted access to the resources available in the forests, like timber and wild produce, and they also offered loans to indigenous peoples. Initially, tribal groups may not have realized the long-term effects of these interactions, which was a shift from their traditional ways of trade and livelihood. Over time, they came to understand that these outsiders were altering their economic practices and introducing dependencies that would lead to exploitation.

Imagine a small community that relies on fishing for its livelihood. One day, a fisherman from another town arrives offering to buy their fish and lend them money to buy nets and boats. At first, it seems beneficial, but over time, the community becomes reliant on the outsider. They start borrowing larger amounts, and when it's time to pay back, they find themselves unable to do so, leading to a cycle of debt. This is similar to what many tribal groups faced with the traders and moneylenders.

Let us consider the case of the silk growers. In the eighteenth century, Indian silk was in demand in European markets. The fine quality of Indian silk was highly valued and exports from India increased rapidly. As the market expanded, East India Company officials tried to encourage silk production to meet the growing demand.

Silk production became a significant industry in India during the 1700s and 1800s due to high demand from Europe. Tribal groups, particularly the Santhals, participated in this trade by cultivating silkworms and producing cocoons. Traders would provide them with loans for operations and, in return, buy the cocoons at undervalued prices. While traders profited immensely from exporting these cocoons, the actual producers received very little compensation. This imbalance highlighted the exploitative dynamics of trade that tribal groups faced.

Think of a local artist who creates beautiful paintings. A gallery owner approaches them, offering to sell their artwork. However, the gallery takes a large cut from every sale, leaving the artist with a fraction of the sale price. Although the gallery profits greatly, the artist struggles to make a living from their creations. This reflects how tribal silk growers were paid inadequately while others gained wealth from their efforts.

The traders dealing in silk sent in their agents who gave loans to the tribal people and collected the cocoons. The growers were paid ₹3 to ₹4 for a thousand cocoons. These were then exported to Burdwan or Gaya where they were sold at five times the price.

Middlemen acted as intermediaries between the tribal silk growers and the markets where the silk was sold. They would lend money to the growers under certain conditions and would later buy the cocoons at a price that allowed them significant profit when reselling them. The transaction was clearly favorable for the middlemen but exploitative for the tribal growers, demonstrating the lack of equitable trade practices.

Consider a farmer who sells their harvest to a store owner who, in turn, sells the produce at a much higher price. The farmer may feel pressured to accept whatever price the store owner offers since they need immediate cash for their expenses, but the store owner profits significantly from the markup.

Understandably, many tribal groups saw the market and the traders as their main enemies.

Due to the experiences tribal groups endured with traders and moneylenders, they began to associate them with exploitation. As traders continued to take advantage of their economic vulnerabilities, resentment grew. Many tribal communities viewed these outsiders as representatives of a larger oppressive system that exploited their labor and resources without fair compensation or respect for their traditional livelihoods.

It's similar to a scenario in a school where a group of students feels mistreated by a teacher who gives unfair grades. Over time, the students may start to see that teacher as an adversary, more interested in their own accolades than fostering a supportive learning environment. This dynamic can lead to significant mistrust between the students and the teacher.

--