JAJMANI SYSTEM
Sir Charles Metcalfe, William H. Wiser, Sir Henry Main and David G. Mandelbaum have given a beautiful account about the Jajmani system. On account of the thinkers, it has the most features of Indian rural society. It was learned that the Jajmani system has been like the blood carrying veins in the human body. The presence of this system makes villages life more orderly and regular. In the village different types of services are provided by different types of people of the village.
On account of Jajmani system Oscar Lewis says, “Under this system each caste groups within a village is expected to give certain standardized services to the families of other castes.”
The person receiving the services from a particular functionary is called Jajmani and the men rendering the services is called Kameen of the Jajman. The two terms Jajmani and Kameen are very much popular in the villages of North India. Though the system of Jajmani is universally present in all the rural communities in India, but the terms used for the patron (Jajman) and Kameen (auxiliary) are different. For example, all the wood work requirement is met by the carpenter, iron work is supplied by the blacksmith and in the like-manner barber dresses the hair of the villagers, and tailor stitches their garments. Village grocers (Banias) make available all the requirements of daily use and the Brahmins help in carrying out the religious rites and ceremonies.
W. H. Wiser drew the attention of others to this system by establishing it as a custom and tradition. But Wiser was not aware of the universality of Jajmani system, neither he knew that it dominated the Indian rural life. But later on, the study carried out by Oscar Lewis came out with more logical analysis of this system. The sociological studies conducted of the rural communities of Easter U.P., Cochin, Malabar, Mysore district, Tanjore, Hyderabad, Gujarat and Punjab, revealed that Jajmani system prevails in all the parts of the rural Indian barring a few exceptions.
Though barter transactions have been an integral part of the Indian rural life, “yet the tradition Jajmani relations are more conspicuous in the village life because they entail ritual matters and social support as well as economic exchanges. The whole of a local social order, the people and their paramount values are involved in such Jajmani links.
Etymological point of view reveals that the term Jajmani has been derived from the Sanskrit word Yajman, used for a person performing a Yajman and Yajman cannot be performed unless a Brahmin is engaged to undertake the guidance of the rituals.
STUDY OF JAJMANI SYSTEM
Jajmani system was studied by many sociologists in the different regions of the country. Following is the list of some of the important studies:
All these studies revealed that Jajmani system is an integral part of the Indian rural life.
ADVANTAGES OF JAJMANI SYSTEM:
Security of Occupation:
Security of occupation is guaranteed in case of Jajmani system. Since this system is hereditary, the kamin is assured of his occupation. He knows that if he breaks his family occupation he shall not be able to earn his livelihood.
Economic Security:
It provides economic security to kamins as the Jajman looks after all of their needs. The kamins are assured of their economic security. In every monetary crisis the jajman helps the kamins. They extend all possible help to the kamins. So there is economic security in the Jajmani system.
Close and Intimate Relationship:
There is a close and intimate relationship between the jajman and kamin. This relationship is not purely economical but is sentimental and internal. A spirit of fellow feeling and brotherhood develops under this system. Both jajman and kamin know full well each other’s limitations as well as plus points.
So, they try to adjust to each other. Jajmani system is hereditary and permanent, that is why both jajman and kamin sympathies with each other. This system creates an atmosphere conducive to peaceful living and cooperation.
Peaceful Living:
The cut-throat competition for work or employment is almost absent in Jajmani system. No jajman goes without service nor any kamin goes without food. So this system creates an atmosphere of peaceful living by creating the spirit of fellow-feeling and co-operation.
DISADVANTAGES OF JAJMANI SYSTEM:
Source of Exploitation:
Jajmani system is exploitative. The agricultural castes, which are invariably upper castes, seek the services of the occupational castes, which Eire generally lower castes. The exploitation of lower castes continues under the garb of paternal ties.
Like the caste system, this system has become a source of suppression, exploitation and discrimination. Oscar Lewis has pointed out in his study of Jajmani system in Rampur village, whereas in the past it was based on personal relationship, it has now become an instrument of exploitation of kamins by Jajmans.
Feeling of Superiority and Inferiority:
In this system, the kamins are considered low whereas the Jajmans are placed high. This has resulted in social inequality and feeling of superiority and inferiority in the minds of both Jajman and kamin. Because this system is based on heredity, the kamin cannot take other Job or occupation and the advantage of latest scientific developments to improve his economic condition.
This system has resulted in lowering the economic standard of the kamins. They are treated as inferior. They are sometimes exploited and abused by the JaJmans. They become helpless before the money power of their Jajmans. This is a system that is based on the sense of high and low.
Impediment to Occupational and Social Mobility:
Jajmani system has stood on the way of occupational mobility and resulted in lowering economic standard of the kamins. This system is hereditary, so there is no possibility of changing the occupation. In this way the system has checked social mobility. The conditions of the kamins remain miserable because of their economic weaknesses.
Supported by Caste System:
Caste system is the basis of Jajmani system. So this system suffers from all the evils of caste system. Dr. Majumdar found in his study that the conditions of kamins are miserable and the upper castes subject them to great harassment and trouble.
They are ill-treated by the Jajmans. This system leads to widespread discrimination. There is exploitation and coercion. Dumont has pointed out that this system has to satisfy all those who enter into Jajmani relationships.
Effect of Transport and Communication:
Due to rapid expansion of transport and communication, the system is in a decline. Because it has made easy for the kamins to seek job or other occupation outside their village. Now the kamins are no longer compelled to do the Job of Jajmans.
Impact of Social Reform Movement:
Due to the impact of social reform movements, the suppressed castes get benefits. They try to rise up the social ladder. Various religious reform movements, like Arya Samaj, have produced one of the greatest setbacks to the Jajmani system.
CHANGES
Since the Jajmani system has its inter-connection with caste system, religious system, system of landownership and the political sturcture in the rural society, consideration of any transformation in these arrangement will have correspondin effort on the Jajmani system too and vice versa. The caste system, is on its way of disintegration, the religious system is weakening due to secularization, system of land-ownship has undergone the process of transformation due to land reforms and the modern polity has shattered the old pattern. Therefore, the Jajmani system has been affected. A number of causes may be attributed to it. Reduction in the powers of the elders in the village council. Industrialization and its impact of service rendered by the purjans or kamins, laxity in the rigidity of caste system, spread of education, impact of western education, rural to urban exodus in search of jobs and material amenities, abolitions of the zagirdari system, introduction and implementation of land reforms, better job perspex in urban centres, availability of modern transport causing better market transaction etc. are among the causative factors on account of which the Jajmani system is on the decline and in many a case it has become completely extinct in many villages. The partice of goods for service is gradually losing ground and now-a-days some artisans prefer to get money for their goods. The dominant castes take recourse to politics and hardly seek assistance from the kamins for their support. The landowning caste depend upon market for purchasing qualitative things through cash transaction. In their study in five villages. I. Karve and Y. Damle found that 202 out of 326 respondents were in favour of Jajmani system because of economic benefits whereas the Kamins favaoured the system due to the availability of ritual service the Jajmans preferred support by the landowners at the time of factional struggle. Protection given by the patron in exigencies also impressed the kamins. Another study by Bose and Jodha in Barmer district in Rajasthan revealed that 111 out of 120 were also in favour of prevalence of Jajmani system due to similar reasons.
Notwithstanding such opinion surveys depicting villages’ favourable opinion towards Jajmani system, it can be well maintained that the traditional Jajmani relation have been weakened in recent years. The capability of a caste specially to support the members of a ‘jati’ varies with the demand for the products of the craft or the service in question. E. A. H. Blunt, in his analysis of caste system in the northern State of Uttar Pradesh, used the statistics from the 1911 census of India and showed that between 60 and 74 percent of confectioners, grain purchasers, and washermen, 76 percent or more of sweepers and goldsmiths; and 50 to 59 percent of carpenters, weavers, oil-pressers, barbers and potters were working at the speciality of their caste. Thus, he noted the variability among castes in the proportion of members who actually took to their ancestral occupations. In contrast, under 10 percent of leather workers and wine dealers worked at their professions and under 20 percent of Brahmins worked as priests. Blunt was of the opinion that decline in the number of members of a particular caste following their caste occupation was due to a decline in the demand for handicrafts and traditional services. They preferred to work in agriculture, labouring or acting as domestic servants. There was no restriction in following agricultural occupation because it has always been permitted as an alternative occupation for all, but some castes take to agriculture as their ancestoral or traditional occupation. Such castes are generally know as the cultivators.
Changes have also been marked in craftsmanship and the original work done by members of specilised castes. In his study of Khalapur, Joseph Schwartzberg, has shown that traditionally the chamar’s occupation was leather tanning, the Teli’s ancestral occupation was oil-pressing, the barber’s wife and grain parchers were engaged in hand-grinding. But on the basis of data obtained from 1951 census of India, Schwartzberg, revealed that a sharp decline was marked in respect of those employed in vegetable oil pressing and refining. It showed a sharp decline from 483,000 persons in 1901 to 250,000 persons in 1951. In the like manner, the employment of “hand pounding of rice, flour grinding, manual dehusking and milling of cereals and pulses” showed a decline from 1,245,000 in 1901 to 526,000 in 1951. The number of “leather workers, workers in industries making leather products and footwear workers also came down from 1,143,000 in 1901 to 760,000 in 1951.
Dumont has also stated that the Jajmani system has been restricted to a considerable extent in modern times, due to a shift from a religious to personal approach. Even some specialists have been completely extinct in the system.
Several reasons may be attributed to the decline of Jajmani system in rural India. In Khalarpur it has been effected by the sugar mills. Prior to the establishment of sugar mills, the local Rajput landlords pressed much sugarcane themselves, and the servants got many homes produced unrefined sugar; and also sweepers got much waste scum for their pigs. But with the establishment of sugar mills, the Rajputs development interest in planting sugarcane in a greater proportion of land and crops in a smaller proportion which adversely affected the servants, in a couple of ways. First, the servants got less home-produced unrefined sugar and the sweeper got less waste for their pigs. Secondly, small amount of economy or non-monetary economy, the food produced was consumed and not sold. So the surplus amount of foodgrain collected by the farmers was distributed among the dependent landless people. Thus, in a Khalarpur, due to the introduction of sugarcane as one of important cash crops, the Jajman-kamin relationship underwent the process of change. The Jajmans changed from being generous to becoming greedy.
The Jajmani system was also undermined due to some other reasons. For instance, the service rendered by the water carriers became unnecessary due to the installation of handpumps within the courtyards of high caste womens’ quarters. The factory-made metal dishes and utensils replaced the potter’s clay products and this hampered the potter’s trade in the village. The crafts of shoemakers, barbers and weavers were undermined in the village due to the availability of items like shoes, the textiles in the nearby market towns. In shaving set the opinion of some anthropologists the village communities are gradually losing the ground in respect of self-sufficiency, as various tradesman, artisan and servant castes migrating to towns.
In some places, the Jajmans no longer give weightage to occupational monopolies and inherited clienteless. Now the patrons are ready to take to such occupations which were done by servants before, as for example in Rampur village the Jajmans began to shave themselves and engaged in carpentry. In many a case they ignored the authority of headman or elders or caste council in setting different matters.
The breakdown of Jajman-kamin relationship resulted in the engagement of the kamins in various occupations, other than their traditional ones. Joseph Holder has made one of the few studies regarding the later occupation of kamin, after their release from the Jajmani network and the past security of the Jajmani system. It was found in Rajapur in U.P. that out of 186 men in Jati’s previously employed in a larger number in Jajmani relationship, only 7 worked for full time for their Jajmans. Six of them were carpenters and only one was barber. These who were working as part-time Jajmani servants engaged themselves in cultivation in the remaining time. Elder’s account shows that 12 barbers’, 2 cotton carders’ and 2 oilpressers’ who worked as Jajmani servants part-time, 74 kamins now worked full-time for farmers, 47 worked at the new sugar mill nearby, 6 worked for the railroad etc. it is presumed that the shift to other types of work was due to unusual conditions in providing the kamins and artisans with land and agricultural work in Rajapur.
In many Indian villages where such alternatives assignments are not available so readily for so many people due to migration of the servicing caste towards urban centres, shifts from the Jajmani network may occur in respect of occupation.
Nowadays, Indian Society is witnessing a gradual change in the Jajmani system. Rigidity in caste system strengthened the base of Jajmani network. But when the breakdown of caste system occurred and was marked by groupism and class struggle, the Jajmani network slowly disappeared from the Indian scenario. Due to man’s diminishing faith in religion and laxity in the performance of rites and ritual, Jajmani system is gradually disintegrating. Moreover, owing to the decline of Brahmnical supremacy, the Jajmani relation has suffered a serious setback. Modern means of transport and communication has enabled people to go to the market easily and sell their products in market places. Professions are no longer based on hereditary principle. People are no more bound to take to their ancestral occupation.
Intergenerational educational mobility has enabled them to enter a variety of occupations according to their ability. That is why people of different castes are engaged in different professions and a major change has occurred in the occupational structures. Not much of the village economy is now carried on through Jajmani arrangements. Money is replacing the traditional method of payment of newly produced foodgrains to various kamins. Agriculture is no more the monopoly of any particular caste. The agricultural occupation is open to all the castes. Even some kamins have accepted it as an additional occupation. Various reform movements have also affected the Jajmani system. In a nutshell, it may be stated that all the factors, responsible for the breakdown of caste system, may be attributed to the decline and disintegration of the Jajmani system in rural India. Since the caste system is in the melting pot now, the Jajmani system is also in the process of rapid transformation. Therefore, Biedleman has doubted the survival of the Jajmani system in the years to come.
TENANCY SYSTEMS OF LAND
At the time of independence, there existed many types of proprietary land tenures in the country.
Ryotwari:
It was started in Madras since 1772 and was later extended to other states. Under this system, the responsibility of paying land revenue to the Government was of the cultivator himself and there was no intermediary between him and the state. The Ryot had full right regarding sale, transfer and leasing of land and could not be evicted from the land as long as he pays the land revenue. But the settlement of land revenue under Ryotwari system was done on temporary basis and was periodic after 20, 30 or 40 years. It was extended to Bombay Presidency.
Mahalwari:
This system was initiated by William Bentinck in Agra and Oudh and was later extended to Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. Under this system, the village communities held the village lands commonly and it was joint responsibility of these communities to make payments of the land revenue. The land ownership is held as joint ownership with the village body. The land can be cultivated by tenants who can pay cash / kind / share.
Jamindari:
Lord Cornwallis gave birth to Zamindari system in India. He introduced this system for the first time in 1793 in West Bengal and was later adopted in other states as well. Under this system, the land was held by a person who was responsible for the payment of land revenue. They could obtain the land mostly free of charge from the government during the British rule and it is called estate. Landlords never cultivated the land they owned and rented them out to the cultivators. The amount of land revenue may either be fixed once one for all when it was called permanent settlement or settlement with regard to land revenue may only be temporary and may, therefore, be revised after every 30-40 years, as the practice may be. The Zamindari system is known as absentee landlordism. Under this system the whole village was under one landlord. The persons interested can work in the Jamindar's land as tenant / labourer based on the agreement with the jamindar. The jamindari system was known to be more exploitive, as the jaminder used to fix / hike the prices of land according to his desire.
Jagirdari:
It is similar to Jamindari system. The jagirdar is powered to control the unproductive masses of village by engaging them in agricultural activities. Because land is controlled by state in India and the relationship between production and land tenure varies from state to state, the national policy recommendations resulted in differing tenancy reform laws in each state.
Tenancy is completely banned in some states but completely free in others. Punjab and Haryana have not forbidden tenancy whereas Karnataka has a near complete ban on tenancy. Some states have discussed ownership rights on tenant cultivators except for sharecroppers, whereas West Bengal chose to provide owner-like rights only to the sharecroppers. Tenancy reforms may have indirect effects in the form of reduced tenancy shares if poorly implemented. Most tenancy reform laws also contained provisions concerning the ability of tenants to surrender the land back to the landlord voluntarily. These provisions were used by landlords to wane the impact of the laws. In most states, the surrender of land falls under the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.
JAJMANI SYSTEM MODEL OF COOPERATION OR EXPLOITATION
The term jajmani was originally used in the anthropological literature by William Wiser in his work, The Hindu Jajmani System. As Wiser understood it, ideally this relationship was not a one-way tie between those who served and those who were served. Jajmani ties created a community where all castes ‘existed’ to serve each other. Caste restricted people from employment outside their traditional occupations thus forcing villagers to recruit people of other castes than their own to do many jobs. In return for these services the castes supplied their own services to other castes. Wiser summarized his concept in the statement, ‘Each in turn is master. Each in turn is servant’.
When Beidelman first examines the influence of caste on the respective roles of jajman and kamin, he argues that jajman-kamin relations shape more than mere work relations. Rather they emphasise ceremonial and social values, which complement each other and constitute a complex matrix through which economic connections are established. On understanding what and how Beidelman determined the role of jajman, he singles out numerical or political superiority and land tenure as the two factors which make a jajman effective.
He shows how control over land enables him to coerce the kamin and to obtain for himself services and payments far beyond those required of the kamin. Hence Jajmani system is an exploitative system although it does provide social security. The role of kamin lies in providing necessary services secular and ritual for the jajman which the jajman cannot obtain elsewhere and which he cannot supply himself due to lack of skill or of sufficient numbers or due to caste restrictions. The solidarity of the kamin is also maintained by caste panchayat (trade union) and kinship. But kinship also disrupts kamin solidarity. Similarly, factionalism of the upper castes affects the kamins as economic dependence cuts across caste ties.
On the other hand Wiser, one of his interpretations of the jajmani system as ‘exploitation’, is based on the representative of an ‘economic determinist’ position. The jajmani system made it the kamin’s obligation to supply his service rather than the landowner’s responsibility to hire the kamin. The kamin either had to provide the service himself, or to ensure that someone else provided it.
When the kamin died it became his family’s responsibility to ensure the continuity of the service, either by one of the family members or by an outsider (usually a relative or an affine). In return for these restrictions, the kamins gained certain benefits - the most important of which ensured security in a society where access to food and the other needs of life was uncertain. The obverse of having to supply services to the jajmans was that the kamin was guaranteed the need for his services. Moreover, he could rely on help from his jajmans in cases of trouble. Lewis pointed out that this had the effect of locking the kamin more tightly into the jajman’s hold.
According to Lewis, the abolition of zamindari tenure removed one of the landowners' main instruments of control over kamins, 'village concessions’. Lewis agreed with Wiser’s view that concessions were more important for the kamin's welfare than the jajman's direct payments for they included rent-free land, house sites, grazing land, firewood etc. While these were normally considered part of the kamin's rights, any challenge to the jajman's position could lead to their loss.
The key point to note of Wiser’s model of the jajmani system is that there was no place for bargaining. Unlike the situation in a capitalist society where individuals seek private financial gain, jajmani binds the economic and the social together. An individual cannot exploit others for his individual gain except at the risk of a grave social backlash. Wiser gave the example of a farmer who attempted to break his jajmani obligations by selling his crop, but who was forced to back down when his kamins distributed his crop ’for’ him according to the traditional practice.
The jajmani system challenged economic determinist arguments which held that the social and political institutions of a society reflect its economy by offering an example of an economy which apparently reflected its social organisation. The argument centred on the nature of the jajmani tie. According to the economic determinists the relationship between the two castes involved in a jajmani tie was dependent upon each caste's access to resources. Their view implied that the relationship between the two castes would be an exploitative one - of the economically dependent caste by the caste which controlled the resources
Dumont would nevertheless, have disagreed with Lewis’ assertion that the jajmani system implied exploitation, which he insisted could only occur in a modern market economy. Evidently, he regarded exploitation as being the manipulation of the market (presumably by those who controlled the means of production including land) to obtain services at rates regarded as being unfair by society as a whole. This was not the case in India as Dumont claimed, rates were fixed, according to rates representing the ideological value of the services performed.
According to the economic determinists the relationship between the two castes involved in a jajmani tie was dependent upon each caste's access to resources. Their view implied that the relationship between the two castes would be an exploitative one, of the economically dependent caste by the caste which controlled the resources. However, whereas Wiser emphasised how well the traditional social system was adjusted to the poverty and insecurity of agrarian India, Lewis argued that poverty and insecurity were used to coerce and exploit the weak. For Marx, this meant that the village community did not have the exploitative relations of capitalism, as in such a rigid guild system there was no role for capital. It was at this point that exploitation could truly be said to have occurred when the worker was separated from his product.
Thus, jajmani system is cooperation or exploitative are not much of its significance when this system is seen in the light of the general principles of Indian social structure which impinge upon it.
__________________________________________________________________________
Jayapalan, N. (2001). Indian society and social institutions. Atlantic Publishers & Distri. Pp. 294-302
Beidelman, T. O. (1959). A Comparative Analysis of the Jajmani System, Monograph of the Association for Asian Studies, VIII, JJ Augustin. Locust Valley. New York, 9, 55.
From Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959, pp. 241-248. ~ Link
UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT AND WAR: VOL. 3: CONFLICT IN PERSPECTIVE, Chapter 5, Marxism, Class Conflict, And The Conflict Helix* By R.J. Rummel ~ Link
Jajmany System ~ Link
The Jajmanl System- An Investigation-Caldwell ~ Link
IGNOU - Block 2 Interrogating Indian Society-I (62-63) ~ Link
Post a Comment