GENERAL HISTORY OF THE QUESTION OF INDIAN VILLAGE ORIGINS
CHAPTER -1
- The book aims to explain the nature and origin of Indian communities in a simple, non-technical manner.
- Many people have heard vague ideas that Indian villages represented ancient “communal” land holdings, but doubts about this theory exist.
- The goal is to provide an overview without requiring extensive or detailed study.
- Indian communities are living entities, unlike the dead “Teutonic mark,” and are important for comparative history and economic science.
- Often, Indian villages are discussed as theoretical constructs rather than real institutions with historical and geographic contexts.
- Around 1870 in England, a general theory about the origin and nature of Indian villages emerged.
- This theory posited that all Indian villages were originally formed in a single, typical form, believed to be of “Aryan” origin.
- According to the theory, the village community represented a group of people or households who owned and cultivated land “in common.”
- This was thought to be an important example of “ownership in common,” believed to predate the development of individual property.
- Sir H. S. Maine’s works, including “Village Communities of the East and West” and “The Early History of Institutions,” are well-known expositions of this theory.
- Maine’s view was that villages were joint-bodies or self-managing communities, based on the evidence available to him.
- Maine did not aim to provide a detailed account of the villages’ origins or history, but rather presented the concept in a general and accessible manner.
- The generality and clarity of Maine’s view contributed to its widespread readership and memory.
- About ten years after Sir H. S. Maine’s works, the author prepared an account of the Land Systems and Land-Revenue Administration of British India.
- This account was first published in Calcutta and later revised and published at Oxford.
- At that time, the village theory, supported by Maine’s authority and style, dominated the field.
- M. Fustel de Coulanges and others had raised doubts about primitive communal ownership, but their arguments did not directly address Indian phenomena.
- Meanwhile, new evidence on Indian villages had been accumulating, providing a much wider and superior field of inquiry than before 1870.
- Describing land tenures in British India required an account of village tenures, leading to a new perspective on the subject.
- Even a limited description of the Land Revenue System suggested a different view of village communities.
- It became necessary to collect and present the new evidence in a separate, detailed book, which is difficult to read due to its complexity and detailed nature.
- The author finds that their meaning is often misunderstood and aims to offer a brief general re-statement of the case and justifiable conclusions.
- It is important to explain why many facts were unknown to Maine and how the information available to him was incomplete and sometimes misleading.
- The book will address the nature of the improved evidence now available and explain the two forms of villages and their varieties.
- The discussion will include a critique of the previously accepted theory, demonstrating its failure to satisfy the conditions of either kind of village.
- The final section will include general remarks on village ownership and economic aspects of village life.