The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c11.s7: Artisans and Labourers
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c11.s7
- Language
- English
Artisans and Labourers
c11.s7.1
After a brief survey of the misery and exploitation of the peasants, backward classes and slaves, let us look at the condition of artisans and labourers. In the medieval period, as sometimes even now, the work and vocation of agriculturists approximated, bordered, converged and telescoped into many other subsidiary professions. A peasant, when he was free from his field, in terms of time and seasons, or was compelled to leave his village, generally worked as basket-maker, weaver or water-carrier in his village or in the town nearby temporarily or after migrating to it. With the passage of time some of these agriculturalists became efficient and skilled craftsmen while the majority remained engaged in unskilled jobs. In urban setting their life-style may have improved a little - only a little in the medieval age-but they all remained an exploited lot. There was hardly any contemporary foreign visitor to India who was not struck by the extremely miserable existence of the lower class people. Such a situation obtained in all parts of the country, north and south, east and west.
c11.s7.2
Athnasius Nikitin, who travelled in the Deccan between 1470 and 1474 says that the land is overstocked with people: but those in the country are very miserable¹⁴² Durate Barbosa (1600-1615) was horrified by the poverty existing on the Malabar coast and says that some of the lower classes in the region were so poor that they lived on roots and wild fruits and covered themselves with leaves. His near contemporary Varthema (1504-06) and the later visitor Linschoten wrote in a similar strain. Writing around the year 1624, Della Valle gives glimpses of life in Surat by pointing out that the people were numerous, wages were low, and slaves cost practically nothing to keep. Similar is the testimony of Pyrard.¹⁴³ The Portuguese writer Paes (wrote in 1520) and Nuniz (1536-37), confirm the assertion that the mass of the people were living in the greatest poverty and distress. In the seventeenth century John De Laet (1631) summarised the information he had collected from English, Dutch and Portuguese sources regarding the Mughal empire as a whole. The condition of the common people in these regions (south and west) is, says he, exceedingly miserable; wages are low; workmen get only one regular meal a day, the houses are wretched and practically unfurnished, and people have not got sufficient covering to keep warm in winter.¹⁴⁴
c11.s7.3
This about the south and west. About the east and north, Bengal and the region between Agra and Lahore, Joseph Salbank (1609-10) writing of the thickly populated country between Agra and Lahore observes that while the nobles are said to be very wealthy the plebian sort, is so poor that the greatest part of them go naked. In this regard, and for the urban scene in particular the testimony of Pelsaert (1620-27) and Bernier (1656-68) is of immense value. They lived and wrote mainly about Agra and Delhi respectively. Pelsaert laments the utter subjection and poverty of the common people-poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted or accurately described only as the home of stark want and the dwelling place of bitter woe.¹⁴⁵ He continues: There are three classes of people who are indeed nominally free, but whose status differs very little from voluntary slavery-workmen, peons or servants and shopkeepers. For the workmen there are two scourges, the first of which is low wages. Goldsmiths, painters (of cloth or chintz), embroiderers, carpet makers, cotton or silk weavers, black-smiths, copper-smiths, tailors, masons, builders, stone-cutters, a hundred crafts in all-any of these working from morning to night can earn only 5 or 6 *tackas* (*tankahs*), that is 4 or 5 strivers in wages. The second (scourge) is (the oppression of) the Governor, the nobles, the *Diwan*, the *Kotwal*, the *Bakshi*, and other royal officers. If any of these wants a workman, the man is not asked if he is willing to come, but is seized in the house or in the street, well beaten if he should dare to raise any objection, and in the evening paid half his wages, or nothing at all. From these facts the nature of their food can be easily inferred For their monotonous daily food they have nothing but a little *khichri* in the day time, they munch a little parched pulse or other grain, which they say suffices for their lean stomachs Their houses are built of mud with thatched roofs. Furniture there is little or none, except some earthenware pots to hold water and for cooking Their bedclothes are scanty, merely a sheet or perhaps two this is sufficient in the hot weather, but the bitter cold nights are miserable indeed, and they try to keep warm over little cowdung fires the smoke from these fires all over the city is so great that the eyes run, and the throat seems to be choked.¹⁴⁶ In 1648 the capital shifted from Agra to Delhi, but the story of exploitation remained the same. Bernier writes that grandees pay for a work of art considerably under its value, and according to their own caprice.¹⁴⁷ When an *Omrah* or *Mansabdar* requires the services of an artisan, he sends to the *bazar* for him, employing force, if necessary, to make the poor man work; and after the task is finished, the unfeeling lord pays, not according to the value- of the labour, but agreeably to his own standard of fair remuneration; the artisan having reason to congratulate himself if the *Korrah* has not been given in part payment.¹⁴⁸
c11.s7.4
The artisans and craftsmen in the permanent service of the monarch and the principal *Omarahs* were a little better off than the casual wage earners. They tended to preserve the arts for they were paid more and regularly. Akbar sanctioned the following daily wages for workers and artisans-2 *dams* (copper coins, 1/ 40 of *Rupia*) for ordinary labourers, 3 to 4 *dams* for superior labourers, 3 to 7 *dams* for carpenters and 5 to 7 *dams* for builders. According to Moreland carpenters and builders got, in Akbars days, equivalent to about one rupee per day on the average, and they were rather better off than the modern workmen of the United Provinces, if not Punjab in the early years of the twentieth century. But there are many buts. It is not certain if the workmen got full sanctioned rates. Then for the slightest mistake they were heavily fined. If a horse lost condition, the fines came down to the water carriers and sweepers employed in the stable. When an elephant died through neglect, the attendants (some of whom drew less than three rupees a month) had to pay the price of the animal.¹⁴⁹ During the process of investigation and imposition of punishment some money had to be paid to middlemen and Mughal officers. Naturally, such artisans and workers can never become rich, and he feels it no trifling matter if he have the means of satisfying the cravings of hunger and of covering his body with the coarsest raiment.¹⁵⁰
c11.s7.5
Peons or servants are exceedingly numerous in this country, writes Pelsaert, for every one-be he mounted soldier, merchant or kings officialkeeps as many as his position and circumstances permit. Outside the house, they serve for display, running continually before their masters horse; inside, they do the work of the house, each knowing his duty, like the *bailwan*, the *farrash*, the *masalchi*, the *mahawat* etc.¹⁵¹ Edward Terry (1616-19), Pelsaert and many others note that men stood in the market places to be hired and many of them were paid very low wages or even paid in kind, for most of the great lords reckon 40 days to the month, and pay from 3 to 4 rupees for that period: while wages are often left several months in arrears, and then paid in worn-out clothes or other things. Such fleecing was naturally responded to by cunning and very few of them serve their master honestly; they steal whatever they can; if they buy only a pice-worth of food, they will take their share or *dasturi* (commission).¹⁵²
c11.s7.6
Transporters and coolies were no better off. On land, elephants, camels, horse, bullocks and donkeys were the main means of conveyance of kings, nobles, landlords and big merchants. Agricultural products were transported from fields to the markets in the cities in bullock carts. Grain was also carried and sold by roving merchants (*banjaras*) on mules in places which were not easily accessible. Big merchants with their merchandise generally moved only in large convoys¹⁵³ using chariots, horses, bullock carts, mules, camels, and even buffaloes, depending on the terrain. The government officials with treasures also travelled in convoys and under proper escorts.¹⁵⁴
c11.s7.7
Transport between rural and urban areas, between cities and within the city was provided by coolies, horses, bullock carts and *dola* or *doli*. In the days of Firoz Tughlaq, hire for a bullock cart was 4 to 6 *jitals*, and 12 *jitals* for a horse. A *dola* which was carried by *kahars* cost half a *tankah*. The *dola* or palanquin was the common conveyance of ladies of high rank. But this sophisticated means of transport was also being brought into more and more use by the old and infirm and the ease loving elite. When Qutbuddin Mubarak Khalji (1316-20) felt miserable without the company of his favourite Khusrau Khan, he sent orders to the latter to return from the Deccan as quickly as possible (about C.E. 1320), and Khusrau Khan was taken in a palanquin post haste from Devagiri to Delhi. And Sikandar Lodis boast, if I order one of my slaves to be seated in a palanquin, the entire body of nobility would carry him on their shoulders at my bidding,¹⁵⁵ clearly indicates that besides ladies, the use of palanquin had also become a fashion with men of means. In the fifteenth century *Ekka* and *Tonga* had also come into vogue,¹⁵⁶ but for long journeys the horse was the common conveyance.¹⁵⁷ A footmans services could be requisitioned for 5 *tankahs* a month,¹⁵⁸ and a man could travel from Delhi to Agra spending only one *Bahloli*, which sufficed for him, his horse and his small escort / retinue during the journey.¹⁵⁹ A large number of people were engaged on this work, and they plied a brisk trade.¹⁶⁰ In the Mughal times comparatively better roads added some sort of sophistication to land travel.
c11.s7.8
Those employed by the Government on the work of transport and communication were not ill paid. Ibn Battutas description of the same pertains to governments communication system which facilitated smooth running of administration. According to Barani and Ibn Battua there were two types of news-carriers: the mounted runners (*Aulaq*) and the foot runners (*Dhava*). The administration of the Sultanate, Sur and Mughal governments was greatly facilitated by an efficient postal service which connected different parts of the empire.¹⁶¹ According to Pelsaert, postmen carrying their masters letters could cover 25 to 30 Kos a day, but that was also because they ate opium regularly.¹⁶²
c11.s7.9
To sum up, Professor Mohammad Habib in his review of G.N. Sharmas *Social Life in Medieval Rajasthan* (1500-1800) has this to say about artisans and workers and their wages in northern India of the Mughal times: The industries of Rajasthan were well-developed, (but) further progress was made impossible owing to the low social position assigned to the worker, forced labour or *begar* and administrative oppression of all types. The cultivator had to be satisfied with a meagre reward for the hard work of himself and his family. The inventories of thefts committed show that a well-to-do peasant had two dhotis and two turbans for himself, four saris costing about Rs. 2-4 for his wife and some ten utensils costing Rs. 25. The wages recorded tell the same sad tale. The account papers (1693-1791 A.D.) of the construction of the palaces of Jaipur and Kotah show that skilled labourers got annas 6 to 8 and a supervising architect Rs.1 / 2 per day. The wages of un-skilled labourers as mentioned in the Kotah records of 1689 A.D. vary from one anna to two annas. Payment was sometimes made in grain-14 *Chataks* daily for skilled workers and 2 to 4 *Chataks* for women workers. The Bikaner *Bahis* throw some light on wages-a *chaukidar* Rs.2 per month, grooms, sweepers and gardeners Rs.1 to Rs.3 per month. From the point of view of wages the prospects of government officials were not very encouraging. The pay of officers of position, according to the Bikaner *Bahi* (V.S.1764) varied from Rs.21 to Rs.28 per month. An accountants pay according to the Kotah records was Rs. 135 per year. An ordinary clerk could be engaged for Rs. 60 per year, while a senior clerks pay was about Rs. 235 a year. A *Kotwal* was generally paid Rs. 15 to 20 a month. Such low wages would only be possible with the low price of grain. According to Dr. Sharma 10 maunds of wheat could be purchased for Rs. 14 to 16; the same quantity of millet for Rs. 11 to 12 and of barley for Rs. 9 to 10.
c11.s7.10
The low scale of both grain prices and wages proves only one thing-the thorough exploitation of the peasants and the workers. But this was an Indian-and not a Rajasthani-misfortune. Tavernier, for example, could on his journey from Surat to Agra get 50 guards at Rs.4 per month each. aThe states and the governing classes tried to appropriate the whole surplus value of labour. Still the condition of the workers and peasants was probably better in Rajasthan than in, the Mughal empire.¹⁶³ The situation in the Mughal empire is summed up by W.H. Moreland like this: In several instances the lowest grades of servants were entitled to less than two rupees monthly (65 dams for a sweeper, 60 for a camel-driver, 70 for a wrestler, and so on), while the bulk of the menials and of the ordinary foot-soldiers began at less than three rupees. The minimum for subsistence at the court is probably marked by the lowest grade of slaves, who were allowed one *dam* daily, equivalent to three-quarters of a rupee monthly in the currency of the time artisans were, as a rule badly off, and they can scarcely have been able to pay high wages to their journeymen The facts available regarding the wages paid by travellers and merchants come almost entirely from the south and west of India. Terry insists on the excellence of the servants obtained for five shillings, or say two rupees a month, and he adds that they would send half this sum home; probably this statement relates to servants hired in Surat, but in any case it refers to this part of the country, as Terry went no farther north than Mandu. Valle, writing of Surat about ten years later put the rate at not more than three rupees, while De Laets informants gave him from three to four rupees, which could be supplemented in some cases by commission charged on purchases. A messenger between Surat and Masulipatam was in 1641 allowed seven or eight *mahmudies* (say something between three and four rupees) for the journey These instances appear to justify the conclusion that early in the seventeenth century foreigners could secure capable servants for somewhere about three rupees a month. What this represents in real wages is uncertain (But) The rates struck Europeans as extraordinarily low, and taken with those which prevailed in the northern capital they enable us to understand the great development of domestic employment which characterised the life of India at this period.¹⁶⁴ The important point to note is that servants, messengers and escorts were in great demand. Any journey seems to have been inconceivable without a certain number of them. William Hawkins, who was in India in Jahangirs reign, found that almost a man cannot stir out of doors throughout all his dominions without great forces, for they are all become rebels. Tavernier said that, in about 1660, to travel with honour in India, one hired 20 to 30 armed men, some with bows and arrows and others with muskets. They cost Rs.4 a month.¹⁶⁵ The profession must have been well organised and yet the wages were miserably low.
c11.s7.11
The economic position of artisans was no better. Bernier writing to Colbert, said: No artisan can be expected to give his mind to his calling in the midst of a people who are either wretchedly poor, or who, if rich, assume an appearance of poverty, and who regard not the beauty and excellence but the cheapness of an article; a people whose grandeess pay for a work of art considerably under its value and according to their own caprice For it should not be inferred that the workman is held in esteem, or arrives at a stage of independence. Nothing but sheer necessity or blows from a cudgel keeps him employed; he never can become rich, and he feels it no trifling matter if he have the means of satisfying the cravings of hunger and of covering his body with the coarsest garment. If money be gained it does not in any measure go into his pocket, but only serves to increase the wealth of the merchant. Berniers description is corroborated by what Thevenot was told about the same period of the state of the arts in Delhi.
c11.s7.12
The story of the exploitation of the poor, both rural and urban, is unending. And the guiding principle of this pernicious practice was to leave the people with bare subsistence. No foreign traveller fails to notice it with disapproval if not actual disgust. It would appear that the lords and the upper classes in Turco-Mughal India derived a cynical pleasure in oppressing the poor. The result was as expected. Artisans, workers and labourers became lazy. Scarcely any one made an effort to climb the ladder to better prospects,¹⁶⁶ so that for a job which one man would do in Holland, here passes through four mens hands before it is finished.¹⁶⁷ Such exploitation in the Mughal period provided droves of *khidmatgars* to British officers and men when they established and ran their Raj in this country.