CHAPTER VII

PEASANT MOVEMENT AT KAKDWIP: A MICR 0 VIErfl FRQYI. THREE VILLAGES

1 About 20 out of the 70 villages of Kakdwip were in-

volved in the tebhaga movement. It started in a northern

village but reached its highest intensity in the south, from

Namkhana to the Bay of Bengal. Koaberia, Ramanagar, Gobinda­

rampur, Budhakhali, Fatikpur in the north and Namkhana,

Dwariknagar, Dakshin Chandanpiri, Dakshin Chandranagar,

Radhanagar, Dakshin Durgapur, Sibpur, sibrampur, Maharaj­

gunge and Haripur-Loyalgunge 2 in the south deserve special

attention. Budhakhali was where the movement originated.

Haripur-Loyalgunge became the first liberated village, ~

~irst chashi-mazdo2r raj, as the CPI3 called it. At Dakshin

Chandanpiri, police firing took the highest toll.

In order to nave a sharper focus on the peasant movement

at Kakdwip. we would have to single out the villages of

Budhakhali, Haripur-Loyalgunge and Dakshin Chandanpiri for

the reasons already mentioned above. This procedure offers

to us a micro-view - a perspective so far absent in studies

on peasant movemente.

Budhak.hali is five miles south of Kakdwip thana head­

quarters. It has three natural divisions, Uttar Budhakhali,

Madhya Budhakhali and Dakshin Budhakhali, separated from

each other by some water courses. Budhakhali mauza had a

179

population of 1, 216, the total number of families being

24 9, 4 according to the census of 1951. It ~o~ould have been

even less during the tebhaga movement. Most. of these

settlers came from Midnapore district, and the rest from

the upper part of Diamond Harbour subdivision of 24 Parganas.

The peasants speak a Midnapore dialect.

Cas tewise, the Mahisyas predominated (6 0%), with Nama­

sudras (24%) following. A few Goalas (8%), Tantis and

Vaisnavas were also there (total 8%), but definitely no high

caste families as shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: caste Brea~-up of~_respo9dents in Budhakhali

No. Caste "No:O£-

Percentage Families --1. Mahisya 30 60% 2. Namsudra 12 24% 3. Goal a (Milkman) 4 8% 4. Tanti (weaver) 3 6% s. Vaisnava 1 2%

Total so 100%

In the tebhaga movement, the Mahisyas provided the

leadership. Jatin Maity, Jagannath Maity and Gunadhar

Maity - the three Budhakhali leaders were Mahisyas of Midna­

pore origin, and a large section of the activists also were

Mahisyas. Regardless of caste, however, all inhabitants of

Budhakhali and other Kakdwip villages were peasants, even

•

180

the. g_galas (milkmen) and Tantis (weavers), with agriculture

as their exclusive occupation. But the rigidity of the caste

system was so strong that a MahisY:~ wQnan and a Namasudra

woman did not work together on the same dhallJU 5 (a husking

paddle).

Again, though they were all peasants, their economic

interests were not identical, and sometimes conflicted with

each other. There were landless sharecroppers or pure share­

croppers, ryot sharecroppers or mixed sharecroppers, landless

agricultural labourers and ryots. A survey of 50 peasants

made us showed that as many as 41 or about 82 per cent were

sharecroppers, and out of the 41, 21 were (42%) landless

sharecroppers and the rest ryot i.e. 20 (40%), ryot share­

croppers who had their own cultivable land as in Table 7.2.

Table 7. 2: ~ant Class categories of Budhakhali

----~s~l~.----~P-e_a_s_a_n_t~c~l~a--s-s----------~N~umb~-e-r--~P~e--r._c_e_n~t-a_g_e __ No.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Landless sharecropper Ryot sharecropper Ryot Landless agricultural labourers

Total

21 20

6 3

so

42% 40% 12"~ 6%

100%

Their main problems were to establish occupancy right on the

sharecropping land and to reduce the rent on it. But raising

these demands would have been unthinkable for the peasants

181

who had been repressed for countries. As their immediate

problem was the crippling indebtedness on account of the

prevailing vicious usury, the movement started at first onlv

against it.

Agricultural labourers were only in insignificant part

of Budhakhali population, a mere six per cent (i.e. 3) in

our survey. They wanted land, regular work and increased

wages, but being in a minority their interest carried little

weight in the movement.

Ryot were only 12 per cent (i.e. 6) of our survey. In

Uttar Budhakhali there were four big ryot families handed by

Madhab Ghorui, Chandi Maity, Sasi Jana and Adhar Das. 6 They

gave their surplus food grains to the poor sharecroppers as

advance at a high rate of interest; some of them had distri­

bution some of their land among the sharecroppers for produce

rent. Naturally, they opposed the tebhaga movement. This

was in spite of their strains with a tyrannical~~ and

.manag~r to whc:rn they had to surrender some part of their own

harvest on demand. Another factor which embittered their

relations was the chakdars' neglect in maintaining the embank--ments in a sound condition. It appears that in 1943-44, the

50 peasants interviewed in the village depended on 1,047

bighas of land. Of these, 709 bighas were Khas land concen­

trated in the hands of the lotdar and chakdar. Thus, 58 per

cent of the land belonged to two landlords, the lotdar

182

(Mahindra Mandal) and the chaK.dar (Bata.Krishna Sahu).

S 0CIO-ECONQ1IC EX-PLANATIONS:

Budhaxhali mauza was the second portion of Lot No.110.

Mahindra Mandal was its J.otdar, owning 1,711.57 acres. He

had one chaKdar, eatakrishna Sahu, under him, with about 500

bighas in his care. 7 Mahindra Mandal was an absentee land­

lord like other J2tdar~. He had two cutcheries (feudal

lord's court and office), one each at Uttar BudhaKhali and

Dakshin Budhakhali. Bijoy Banerjee was the manager for the

Uttar Budhakhali cutchery while Jogen Majumdar was the naib

of Dakshin Budhakhali. 8 The chakg~, who had another chak

elsewhere in the Sundarbans, did not live at BudhaKhali,

although he maintained a cutchery. He visited the village

usually during the sowing and harvesting seasons. Eighty

nine per cent of the village population were sharecroppers

under the chaJ<dar, mana_ge_E or .!l!!J2. So, at Budhak hali, there

was two main classes : a small nwnber of £!.1_~, manager,

~ and their subordinates, such as muhasi (clerk), darwan

(guard), paik (armed retainer), etc.

Bejoy Banerjee, the manager, was the virtual dictator of

his sharecroppers. He was the head of the panchayat and

presided over even the most trivial disputes which were tried

at his cutchery. The peasants were dragged away from their

dwellings to the cutchery, beaten with shoes, confined and

subjected to physical torture. The peasants lived in virtual

9 terror of the cutchery.

183

If a peasant forgot to bow down to the mana~e£ or the

chakda£, he was beaten with shoes. Chakdar Batakrishna's

peasants had to lick the mud on his legs as a mark of reve­

rence. For a minor infraction like digging the earth during

the tabooed period of ambubachi (second fortnight of JUne) 10

a peasant was fined ~.100. Batakrishna•s peasants had to

carry his luggage for some eight kilometres to his cutchery

whenever he visited the village. They were required to do

all domestic and outdoor work for him for free. Every family

was forced to send a male member to repair the embankment

when called upon to do so. Even the slightest sign of dis­

loyalty led to a peasant•s eviction, torture, demolition of

dwelling and the like. 11

Even the women's bodies were not safe from these pre­

dators. The manager was reported to have forced his will

upon the women of 12 to 13 peasant families adjacent to his

cutchery. 12 Many peasant women of Budhakhali reported that

the ~Eager or ~ could nave any woman he liked by force

and a good-loOking one could hardly be saved if she even 13 came in his sight. The unyielding ones were brought to

the cutchery. The masters• lackeys also followed their evil

ways. some peasants tried to protect some female members of

their family by sending them to a distant village (where

there is no such type of exploitation), but some others, in

184

fear or out of greed, would bring their daughters to the 14 cutchery at night to gratify the manager. Two peasant

women committed suicide to save their honour. Yet no peasant

dared even to discuss the subject of sexual or economic

exploitation publicly lest the m_anager or .D.!!!? hear abcut it.

The floOd of 1942 damaged the entire crop of Budhakhali.

The sharecroppers had no means by which to pay back ~­

J?ID {loan) taken to raise the crop, and the burden of this

usurious debt began to ri~e menacingly. The next year. 1943.

was the year of the Great Bengal Famine. In Budhakhali, the

desperate peasants struggled to raise crops on the ravaged

land after disposing of their measly belongings. But then

the crop was garnered it was taken away by the landlord's

agents to clear up their liabilities. Even so, most of the

sharecroppers still remained indebted.

THE MOVEMENT TAKES SHAPE:

Jatin Maity, a young man with some political background

had come to Budhakhali fran Midnapore. The Quite India Move-

ment had commenced, and he was evading the British police.

Jatin Maity had been associated with the Anusilan samiti, a

nationalist revolutionary organization formed to oust the

British. Some of his friends had been in the cellular Jail

of the Andamans, who after their release returned to Midna­

pore and talked of Marxism to Jatin Maity and got him interes­

ted in it. 15

185

After the flood of 1942, some CPI workers in the people's

Cyclone Relief Committee came to Diamond Harbour. They had

heard about Jatin Maity and sought him out in order to recruit

him to the CPI. Later, Kangsari Halder, son of a jotedar of 16 Diamond Harbour, visited him again. FOllowing this, a relief

centre at Budhakhali with Jatin Maity as its supervisor was

opened. It was through the flood relief work that Kangsari

Halder, Yatin Roy, Rashbehari Ghosh, Abdur Razzak Khan,Malik

Hazra and other communists came in contact with the Budhakhali

peasants. 17 Jatin Maity, with the help of outside CPI leaders

sought to form a Kisan samiti at Budhakhali in 1942 but could 18 not do so.

Jatin Maity started organizing the Budhakhali peasants

secretary before the cultivation session of 1944-45 so that

their debt arrears might be written off. In 1943, he con­

tacted satish sahu, and the ne~t year they were joined by

Nilkantha samanta, Gunadhar Maity, Bibhuti Das and Nagen

Baril< of Uttar Budhakhali. They began to hold secret bai­

thaks {informal group meetings) at night to discuss strate­

gy.19 The baithaks continued for about six monthsr there­

after they formed the Budhakhali Krishak Samiti in 1944.

Later, they were joined by Kumed Sahu and Dharani Maity,

two militant peasants of the village, 1945 Kumed became the 20

Kisan Samiti's secretary.

At Jatin Maity's initiative the Samiti members filed

a petition secretly to the District Magistrate (D1) for

remission of their debt arrears to Bejoy Banerjee (manager),

for abolition of illegal abwabs and for forbidding any delay

in taking away the share of their produce just after the 21 harvest. The D1, after a secret inquiry, warned the

landlord against usury. The enraged manager ordered the

eviction of those sharecroppers who had taken part in rep­

resenting to the D1. By now the peasants had come to know

of these amazing developments, and the manager's order for

eviction sparked off collective resistance or satyagraha in

Budhakhali. 22 Jatin Maity adopted the policy that the

evicted sharecroppers • land should not be taken over by

186

any other peasant. The manager tried to distribute the dis­

puted lands among some~ .peasants of another village and to do

it he took police help and got 144 cr. P.c. promulgated in

and around the land. 23 All the same1 the existing sharecrop­

pers whom the manager sought to evict went on cultivating

the land. A deputation led by Jatin Maity1 Jagannath Maity

and others then waited on the Sub-Divisional Officer and

submitted a petition to him. As a result1 the SDO of Diamond

Harbour along with the officer in-charge (OC) of Kakdwip came

and settled that (1) the sharecroppers would not be evicted1

(2) they would not have to wait indefinitely for the mana-

ger•s consent but would have their share of the produce soon

after harvesting and that (3) miscellaneous exactions were

illegal. 24

In itself1 this victory was a minor one. But to the

peasants 1 for whom the manager's word had been law1 it was

a revelation to know that he had to sUbmit to a higher au tho­

rity. The realization that the manager could not evict tr~

sharecroppers led to great enthusiasm and fostered unity

among the Budhakhali peasants.

The chaKdar Batakrishna had given bar! to some share­

croppers after the flood. Customarily they would have had

to give back per year lis maund for each maund of .EID- taken

as advance. But now Batakrishna wanted the repayment in

kind1 calculated in money terms. At the time the loan was

187

made paddy prices ruled high, but after the harvest the

prices came down. If the quantity to be returned after the

harvest was calculated in terms of the money value of the

grain (plus interest) at the time the loan was made, a

peasant would have to pay back some five maunds of paddy

for one maund taken as advance. 25

Some Of the peasants, finding the loan given by Bata­

krishna after the flood to be pitifully inadequate, stole

26 paddy from his barn. This enraged the chakdar against the

sharecrOppers.

Jatin Maity and Bunker of Friends' Ambulance Unit mean­

while advised the peasants to approach the chaKdar with a

prayer for partial remission of their debts. 27 Accordingly,

they assembled at Batakrishna •s cutchery, went on their knees,

and prayed to him for remission. But the chakdar, besides

abusing them, imposed a fine of Rs.lO per head for the stealth

paddy. In their abjectness, a few mondals (village headmen)

then caught hold of his legs while others kept themselves in

touch with tr~ (as everyone of them could not catch hold of

two legs at the same time). The chakdar pushed them away

and said, "pa pasan, a pasan galbar nay" (these are feet of

stone, not to be melted with tears). 28 The chakdar•s

unbending attitude embittered the peasants. They said they

would see whether or not the stone melted. The other peasants

too were rushed and they began to boycott Batakrishna.

188

The District Committee of the Kisan Samiti of the CPI

then decided to hold the Sundarban Krishak sammelan (peasant

conference) at the Ukil Babu 's hat of Budhakhali. A syste-

matic propaganda was carried on by the organizers of the

sammelan to ensure its success. Village hats (weekly marKets)

became_ the main places of propaganda. Squads toured the

villages and collected subscription for the sammelan. The

prOpaganda even reached some remote southern villages. The

Sundarban Kisan Sammelan was first held on 6th June. 1946

with Abdur Razzak Khan, the then president of the 24 Parganas

District Committee of the Kisan Samiti presiding. 29

HARIPUR-L~ALGUNGE:

Hari Sadhan Nandi was the manager and Loyal the addi­

tional manager of Maharaja Mahindra Chandra Nandi's Frase­

gunge estate, 30 and the village derived its name from them,.

The CPI described the village as "Lalgungen (red village)

when it established Communist rule there.

Lying some 35 kilometres south of Kakdwip police stat! on. 31 Haripur-Loyalgunge covers an area of 3,484,04 acres and is

about five kilometres long north-south. It is close to the

Bay of Bengal on the south~ on the other three sides it is

enclosed by the rivers Saptamukhi (east), Patibunia (west)

and sundarika Deyanea (north). It was inhabited by nearly

250 families during the movement. It was not a village in

its accepted ~ense, being dotted with a few mud huts of peasants

189

at considerable distances from each other.

Of the 50 peasants surveyed at the village, as many as

27 families {54 per cent) hailed from Midnapore, 15 peasants

{30 per cent) from Howrah and about seven (14 per cent) from

the upper part of Diamond Harbour subdivision and one from

Barisal (now in Bangladesh). The Midnapore peasants were in

an overwhelmingmajority. Almost all local leaders also were

32 originally Midnapore peasants.

As shown in Table 7.3: castewise, 76 per cent were Mahisyas,

16 per cent Pundakshatriyas and the Jeles {fishermen) only

8 per cent. There were no high caste households.

--- ----.....--No. Caste No. Of Percentage

---····- ·- . .f!fnilies ---1. Mahisya 38 76% 2. Pundakshtriya 8 16% 3. Jele {Fishermen) 4 8%

Total 50 1 000"

-------------------- -------Until the movement started, caste system was so rigidly

Observed that even in production, peasants of different

caste and a Bagdi did not work together on the same harrow. 33

As in other villages, all J2..00J!-P!E'~ {religious festivals

and rituals) were performed exclusively within one's own

caste group. Any deviation from or violation of caste prac­

tices was treated by their chakdars as sacrilegous and for

190

that matter treated with a heavy hand. For example, in 1932,.

Anantaram, a peasant of south Haripur was boycotted,. and his

boat looted because he sought to hold community worship of 34

the goddess Bisalakshi. The ~59ars who were the pancha-

yats (village judges) tried to perpetuate the rigidity of

the caste system. Caste-quarrels and caste-conflicts were

frequent,. the result was disunity among the peasantry. This

helped the manager,. ~ etc. to carry on their tyranny. In

fact, the peasants of Haripur-Loyalgunge like their counter-

parts elsewhere in the area, lacked the minimum sense of

unity which is necessary for any collective action or move-

ment.

Haripur Mauza formed a part of the Frasergunge estate

of Maharaja MOhindra Chandra Nandi of Cossimbazar, an

absentee landlord. The Maharaja had no interest in agricul-

tural improvement or in large-scale farming. His manager

had settled a part of the estate with a few big ryots, and

the greater part of it with ten E.b~:ls.9~.!! for cash rent.

Most _s_llakdag were from Midnapore and lived here permanently.

But some had landed property elsewhere and did not reside

here. That the Maharaja had no sharecroppers cultivating

his khas land indicates that he preferred cash rent to

produce rent. But all chakdar~ had their lands cultivated

by sharecroppers. Pure sharecroppers and miyed sharecroppers

together constituted 66 per cent of the families, the landless

191

category being the majority. The ryots, though few in

number, were sometimes quite big. The landless sharecrop­

pers and landless agricultural labourers, taken together,

formed (40% + 14%) 54 per cent of the population. The

Table 7.4 gives the data.

Table 7.4: ~_!,D.!_.f..!.!§s cat;!gori§.§ of HCl£1-J?.Y-.E .• §,Dd Loya+ gunge

sr:Peasant Classes _________ _ Numbe~---percen­

t!lge_ E~----·--------------1. Landless sharecroppers 20 40% 2. Ryot sharecroppers 13 26% 3. Ryot 10 2~A 4. Landlessaagricultural labourers 7 14%

Total 50 100%

---------------- --------According to the survey data, the 50 peasants inter­

vie·.ved in the village were dependent on S66 bighas of land,

of which the khas land was 480 bighas. Thus, 50 per cent

of the land was concentrated in the hands of a few chakdars.

Among the ryots, six were big ones and their holdings varied

in size fran 50 to 125 bighas. Their ryoti lands amounted

to 307 bighas or about 29 per cent of the total land. In

other words, 87 per cent of the land (58% khas land of

chakdars and 29% land of big ryots) was concentrated in

the hands of a few chakdars and big ryots. The average

size of land cultivated by the sharecrOppers was 31 bighas

for landless sharecroppers and 20 bighas far the ryots. The

192

Haripur-Loyalgun§e sharecroppers had more lands to cultivate

than those of Budhak hali because of the remoteness of the

village.

A few examples will illustrate the amount of exploitation

and Oppression in Haripur-Loyalgunge. sachindra Ghosh and

Naren Das, the employees of a landlord, employed a large

number of lathials to demolish the modest mud huts of 25

peasants and looted everything they had. 35 Adhar Das, a

chakdar, was infuriated at the audacity of Mahendra Adi, a

sharecropper for having stolen fish from his ''protected

khal": 36 and would not have hesitated to murder hL~ Mahendra

therefore fled at night leaving his hearth and home for

37 good. Like the peasants of Latin America under the

38 hacienda system, the sharecroppers of the village had to

give unpaid service to the owner of the land for a couple

of days every month. A sharecropper who left the village

for good could not take away bamboos, thatched roof etc.

of his hut because his hut was built on a site belonging

to his landlord. 39 It was a life of total servitude. If

anybody ever raised his voice, he was thrashed with shoes,

tortured, and served with a quit notice. Sometimes peasants

would flee the village at night out of fear. 40

Many chakdars and their employees in the village were

notorious womanizers. More often than no~ their sharecrop-

pers were made to barter away their wives in exchange of

land and~· some of them would not give any ~.!'J. unless

.--The landlords would declare all khals, creeks etc. as their k has or "protected" property, though they did not need to pay any revenue to the Government for them.

193

the peasant sent his wife to the cutchery in the evening. 41

Even the Santhal women of the village were not spared. One

.S.!:.§kda! had a number of mud-cabins adjacent to his cutchery

for use of the concubines of his employees. 42 Gajen Mali,

the most important figure of the Kakdwip movement, said:

"I saw the same sight for three successive days. One after

another peasants • wives went to the cu tchery with bowls full

of milk. 11Where are you going" I asked them. They kept

mtim. Mothers-in-law said 11 that they would not get any land

unless they allowed their daughters-in-law to sleep with t~~

landlord. n43

THE SP:ARIK OF THE MOVEMENT:

Ga j en Mali had been a jute mi 11 worker. On pranise of

~and, he came to Loyalgunge from his home in Midnapore in

1930. 44 He had been told that he would get as much land as

he would clear 2~-~2~~ jungle for cultivation. With his

three brothers Gajen Mali got 150 bighas of 2~~ jungle

with the assurance of getting ownership right after making

full payment for the land by annual instalments. He was

given the title of amaln~ to 50 bighas (out of 150) after

he had made payment for it, as arranged between him and his

landlord. By 1944, he had paid his entire dues TOr the

remaining 100 bighas, but the landlord, Dwarik Samanta,

refused to give any receipt against the payment. As a

result, Gajen•s total harvest of 1944 lay stacked at the

1~

landlord's barn. Gajen became so much aggrieved that he

did not come to take the crop of the SO bighas he owned.

The landlord neither gave the receipt not distributed tP~

share. In the month of June-July, 1945 xbe.atacked paddy

began to rot. Gajen contacted some local people to have

his dispute settled, but to no avail. He tP~n decided to

seek legal redress. On his way to Diamond Harbour court

he met Jatin Maity at Budhakhali who dissuaded him from

taking to local courser he instead urged Gajen to set him­

self to the task of organizing the village peasants to get

rid of the landlord's oppression and promised that some

Budhakhali leaders would fight his cause. 45

Gajen heeded Jatin Maity's advice. He returned to his

village and began to hold secret baithaks at night with some

of his co-villagers. Gajen urged the peasants to unite and

assured them that in their fight against the landlords they

would get help from outside. Shortly after, Jatin and

Jagannath of Budhakhali turned up at Loyalgunge and requested

Dwarik Samanta to give a receipt against the payment Gajen

Mali had made for his land. Dwarik told them that Gajen

still owed him a lot of money and there was no question of

giving any receipt. some local peasants also requested him

to distribute the share of the produce but he remained

adament. Failing in their mission, Jatin and Jagannath 46 went away. Gajen carried on his mobilization effort.

195

In the month of September-October, a fair is held in

Haripur near the Bishalakshi temple. At this time Jagan­

nath came again. Jagannath, Gajen, Bistu Shit (an employee

of Aditya Samanta, a chakdar) tried to hold a public meeting

at the f4ir but they were forced to withdraw by some land­

lord's agents, unyielding, the organisers held the meetinq

at Taukpukur ground, a short distance from the fair. A

curious crowd of about 500 peasants from the fair attended

the meeting, 47 Gajen, Jagannath and Bislu gave their

audience a vivid account of the landlords' cruelty, oppression

and sexual violence. They told the gathering that their

condition would be changed only through their united struggle

under the banner of the Kisan Samiti, to which they should

contribute one anna to become its members.

The peasants were greatly roused by Jagannath's fiery

speech against their oppressors. The meeting was over with

the formation of a committee of Haripur Krishak Samiti con­

sisting of 13 members with Gajen as its president. Quite a

large number of peasants (about 500) became members of the

Kisan Samiti. It was decided that the peasants' charter of 48 demands would be placed in the next meeting.

The leaders held several gharoa bai thaks among them­

selves as also with the villagers to draw up the charter.

It was also decided to send a deputation to the landlord's 49 manager. The demands as drawn up were:

196

(1) •t~e want the rate of interest to be reduced from 20 seers to 10 seers per maund.

(2) ~e want the chakdars not to evict us from land.

(3) we want the landlord to stop the practice of exacting khamar-chilani and darwani.

(4) we are no longer prepared to do any unpaid service.

(5) we consider it a shameful matter to send our women to the cutchery under cQnpulsion.

The deputation waited on the manager, sachindra Kumar

Ghosh, on an appointed day. The manager became furious at

this audacity and wanted to know who their ring leader was.

The deputation then returned from the cutchery.

Two days later, a police party came and was housed in

Ghosh's cutchery. Early the next day, the police raided the

huts of the members of the deputation and arrested them.

As instructed by the Kisan Sami ti, the peasants began

to blow conch-shells as soon as they saw the police party.

The other peasants came running, surrounded the police office

and demanded to know why these people were being arrested.

The police officer told them that the manager had lodged a

complaint with the police station of a dacoity at the cutchery

by the peasants. The cQnplaint said that they had taken away

~.243. 50 According to a local leader, 51 sachinara Ghosh had

two motives behind this: (1) to nip the peasant movement in

the bud and (2) to misappropriate the landlord's money falsely

implicating the peasants. The assembled peasants demanded the

1~

release of the arrested men on local bail which the police

refused. The three arrested peasants were sent for trial.

sut the charge of dacoity failed, and they were all acquit­

ted. 52 This was indeed a victory for the Haripur-Loyalgunge

peasants, and it prepared the ground for the local~aders

to spread the organization.

During the harvesting season of 1944-45 the sharecrop­

pers of Dwarik Samanta, Ananda Das and Gopi Giri were united

under the leadership of Jagannath, Gajen, Kshirode sera and

some other local leaders. The peasants decided to stack the

entire produce at the panchayat khamar {collective yard of

the sharecroppers) instead of the chakdars• and also to pay

interest on advance at the rate of 10 seers of paddy per maund

instead of 20 seers. This demand when placed before the

chakdars was rejected, and the stacked paddy at the panchayat

khamar lay undistributed. 53

The chakdars again took police help and instituted cases

of paddy looting against their sharecroppers. The peasants

had to incur expenses on litigation and to do that tney began

to dispose of all the stacked paddy including the landlord's

54 share. According to a local peasant, they did not loot the

paddy at first: they sold it when compelled to meet the legal

expenses.

A few chakdars had meanwhile softened their attitude

t~·ards their peasants. Dwarik samanta asked his share­

croppers to pay 15 seers of paddy instead of 20 seers per

198

maund as interest, but his peasants held firm to the 10

seers demand. some landl~ds settled the issue with their

peasants amicably. Where no such compromise could be arci-

55 ved at paddy looting cases went on.

During this time local leaders held E_ill~ regularly

at night. To stimulate the peasants tte CPI leaders such

as Kangsari Halder, ManiK Hazra, Abdul Halim, Nityananda

Choudhuri, Gita Mukherjee and others came and addressed

public meetings in the area. As a result, the sharecroppers

in their hundreds began to be supporters of the CPI and the

cPI's influence in the area kept increasing. 56

On 25 December, 1945 Gandhiji paid a visit to Diamond

Harbour and 50,000 people from different parts of the area

including Kakdwip gathered there to listen to him. 57 Accor­

ding to a local .£tl~E.2!, the views that Gandhij i expressed

on the agrarian question went in favour of the sharecroppers

and this also gave an impetus to the sharecroppers• agita-

tion at Haripur-J.oyalgunge. Gandhij 1 said about tebhaga

that "Bhumi Gopal Ki 11 Who is Gopal? Gopal is God and who

is God? God is the peasant. And so the land is of the

58 peasant. n

When the CPI's influence on the peasantry was growing

rapidly, Sachindra Kumar Ghosh realized the potential risK

of it. He invited Charu Chandra Bhandari, a prominent

Congress leader, to came and address peasant meetings so

199

as to wean the sharecroppers away from the CPI's influence.

But due to his ill health, a handari could not oblige him. 59

At the same time peasant unrest brok.e out at Raj nagar

mauza of Kakdwip. Like Sachindra Ghosh, Atulananda Sasmal,

a lotdar and practising lawyer of Diamond Harbour court,

also beca~e apprehensive and thought of forming a counter­

organization to neutralize the impact of peasant organization.

To ensure the life and property of the landlord class, he

formed the Sundarban Ryot Association of which he became

the secretary, and almost all landlords and their employees 60 of the area, members. On behalf of the association, he

made an appeal to the Government to make necessary arrange-

ments for the protection of their life and property. The

Government responded by sending police parties to their

cutcheries to safeguard the interest of the landlords. 61

DAKSHIN CHANDANPIRI:

The island of Chandanpiri is very close to Haripur­

Loyalgunge. situated in the extreme south-eastern part of

Kakdwip. Chandanpiri island was the last habitable place

in the area. The present Uttar Chandanpiri was almost an

unreclaimed tract of jungle then. Dakshin Chandanpiri

had an area of 1548.17 acres and (out of 3,068 acres of

land of the island) inhabited about 230 peasant families. 62

Most of them hailed from Midnapore, and a small part from

200

Howrah district and from the upper part of the Diamond

Harbour subdivision. The local leadership of the movement

also came from the Midnapore peasants who predominated in

the Chandanpiri Kisan Samiti. The predominant caste (4~~)

was the Mahisya out of 50 peasants interviewed. The Tantis

(12%), sutradhara (8%), Pundrakshatriyas (8%), Namansudras

(6%), Jeles (4%), Dhobi (2%), etc. formed a small secticn

of the population. There were also some tribal and Muslim

peasants, as shown in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5: caste &-~~Jigious Break-up in Dakshin Chandanpiri

sr. Caste Number Percentage No.

1. Mahisya 24 48 2. Tamti {weaver) 6 12 3. Sutradhar (Carpenter) 4 8 4. Pumdra Kshtriya 4 8 s. Namsudra 3 6 6. Karam Kayastha 2 4 7. Jele (Fishermen) 2 4 e. Dhobi (Washermen) 1 2 9. Begdi 2 4

10. Muslim 2 4

Total so 100 ------The village had maintained the same rigidity of caste

system as was prevalent elsewhere in the area. To give an

example, the Namasuc:'l.£M were not allowed to enter into the

compound of a ~~Y.!l house: nor did a Mahisy;a and a

~~asudra use tr~ same basket for digging. 63 Instances can

be multiplied but it is unnecessary to make further

201

elaboration. The rigidity of caste system made different

caste groups separate from each other and this accounted

for their disunity. Taking advantage Of their disunity the

landlords would carry on their Oppression as they linked.

As in Budhakhali and Haripur, the landlords of Dakshin

Chandanpiri recruited from each caste group a few henchnen

who became their informers. They formed a group and the

role they played in the village helped the chakda£~ and

~E~' employees to carry on their tyrannical rule. The

peasants had not the minimum sense of unity rPquired for

any type of collective action against the landlord class.

Jo;Jendra Nath sen and Mahendra Nath Das were the two

j.£!d_.!!.§ of Chandanpiri. They had under them three chakdars,

namely, sasanta Manda!, Manindra Dinda and Kshitish Paul.

Bhusan Samanta, a chakdar of Namkhana Mauza also had some

lands here. Both the lotdars and chakdars were ~idnapore

peeple. The Sens (J.N. sen and his sons) were absentee

landlords who managed the estate through their employees

wno would make ~_g-Ej.].j of the greater part of the lot

annually besides having settled some big ryots with ~lnama

64 rights. Das, the other lotc?!!!• who had his lot distributed

among the chakdars kept no land for sharecrepping.65

Chandanpiri had four cutcheries the sens• was the biggest,

with five employees. The chakdars had three others in which 66 they resided permanently.

202

Like their counterparts at Budhakhali and Haripur,

sharecroppers formed the largest class at Dakshin Chandan-

piri; out of tr~ total families surveyed, the landless

sharecroppers (50%) and ryot sharecroppers (34%), taken

together, constituted 84 per cent in the village. The

sharecroppers formed the bulk of the peasantry because

lotdars and chakdars preferred produce rent to cash rent

as stated in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6: .f.!J!§anj:_flas_§ categorj,.es of Dakshin Chapdanpiri

sr. No.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Peasant:classes Number

Landless sharecrOppers 25 Ryot sharecroppers 17 Ryot 2 Landless agricultural labourers 6

Total 50

percentage

50 34

4

12

100

-------------------·------------·------·-----------·-----------·-------A clear picture of concentration of land-in Chandan­

piri can b~ had jrom our survey data. 50 peasant families

surveyed, and these peasant families were dependent on

1,340 bighas of land, 1,117 bighas or 81% of land was khas

land. This indicates that eighty one per cent land of the

village was concentrated in the hands of three chakdars --and one 1 otdar.

There was little difference between the landlords of

Budhakhali, Haripur-Loyalgunge and Dakshin Chandanpiri with

regard to their oppression and coercion of the peasants.

203

As in Audhakhali and Haripur the lotdar•s employees and ---the chakdars of Dakshin Chandanpiri were the virtual rulers

and judges and they would torture their peasants on any

pretext. The peasants living in an atmosphere of constant

fear could hardly raise tneir voice. They were bound to

67 serve the landlords without any 7uestion. The accounts

regarding all transactions with the sharecroppers were

maintained by the ~kdars • and lotdag' employees. Nobody

could raise any question regarding the veracity of the

account. When a peasant of Basantd Mandal asked to see

68 his account. he was asked to quit his estate. In some

cases the sharecroppers were even required to seek prioc

permission of their landlord to go to their relative's 69 house.

The sharecroppers had to send their wives to the

cutchery for the se~ual pleasure of their landlords' emplo-

yees. sen's, Paul's and Dinda's employees had peasant

women brought forcibly to the cutchery at night. 70 Gajen

Mandel, Aasanta•s nephew, was a notorious womanizer who

would lure the poor with a rupee or a shari of the cheapest

brand. 71 The cutchery•s employee would force some peasant

women or their kept women to go with them to their home

district, Midnapore. 72 No peasant could protestt if they

did, they were soon silenced.

204

THE MOVEMENT TAKES OFF:

The formation of the Kisan Sam! ti and the beginning

of the peasant movement at nearby Haripur-Loyalgunge made

a great impact on the peasants of Dakshin Chandanpiri.

Gajen Mali, president of Haripur-Loyalqunge Krishak Samiti,

along with Jatin Maity and Jagannath Maity of Budhakhali

and Makhen Ghorui of Sibrampur would cQne and hold a serie-s

of secret bai thaks at night at Dakshin Chandanpiri towards

the end of 1944. Gajen Mali, an honest and upright man,

exerted much influence, though he was not a good speaker.

Jagannath Maity was a good speaker, who knew how to agitate

and rouse the people. 73

With the help of local peasants Jagannath Maity, Gajen

Mali and others made sQne efforts secretly. to form a

peasant organization at Dakshin Chandanpiri. Such efforts

continued in secret till 1944, to avoid possible attacks

from the landlords. During this time Kangsari Halder,

Manik Hazra, Rashbehari Ghosh and others joined them.

still the peasants were afraid to meet publicly.

In order to remove the fear, the outside leaders

decided to hold public meetings at places close to

Dakshin Chandanpiri so as to enable its peasants to attend

them. Such public meetings were organized at Purana Bazar

205

of Haripur and Agasthir Ba?.ar of Dakshin Chandranagar

where there was a large number of poor sharecroppers

under many chakdars. These meetings awakened the Chandan­

piri peasants who attended them in. large numbers. As a

result, the Dakshin Chandanpiri peasants became enthusias­

tic about the Kisan Samiti. 74

The first public meeting, held at Kshitish Paler

Bazar of Dakshin Chandanpiri, was organized by the commu­

nists in the first part of 1945 following the formation

of the Kisan Samiti at Dakshin Chandanpiri; Hrishikesh

Maity, a school educated peasant, became the president.

It may be noted here that the Kisan Samiti at Budhakhali,

Haripur and Dakshin Chandanpiri were formed according to

the principle laid down in section 2 of Article XVI of

the COnstitution of the All-India Kisan Sabha. 75

The formation of the Kisan Samiti of the CPI at

Dakshin Chandanpiri caused the landlords anxiety but they

did not attack the Kisan Samiti organizers with the help

of the police. The experience of Haripur-Loyalgunge

probably made the Chandanpiri landlords realize that

they would not be able to curb the peasant organization

and their growing unity with police help. so they adopted

the tactic of weaning away the leaders of the samiti with

various inducements. The sens succeeded in buying up

Hrishikesh, the samiti's first president, by giving him

206

76 a job at the cutchery and some bighas of land. Hrishi-

kesh's uncle Raichand Maity, then became the samiti's

second president, but he too fell prey to the sen's allure­

ments and he left the Samit1. 77 Inspired by the initial

success, the landlords made similar offers to other members

of the committee but none of them responded.

In this chapter we \'1itness the mcmentum and mobilization

of the movement. The inner dynamics and the intricacies are

laid bare. But is this movement aimed at changes ··~ithin the

system? Parthanath Mukherjee states, " ••• any collective

mobilization for action directed explicitly towards an

alteration as transformation of the structure of a system,

or against an explicit threat to an alteration as transfor­

mation of a system can be properly understood as a social

movement: collective mobilization aimed at changes within

78 a system are quasi-movement. Thus for Mukherjee, the

teb hag a movement is a _ggasi-!!J.£.~.!.!1.!•

207

References and Notes: -----.-. - • • • -=-

1. see Jurisdiction list of police station, Kakdwip, in survel and settlement ReEort, 24 Parganas. Sane of tfie- v 11agesment1oned in the list were these places of unreclaimed jungle during the movement.

?. The eastern part of the present Haripur villages was formerly kno·.m ari Loyalgunge.

3. Chabbish Parc.,.ana Jela COmMittee, Communist Party, §~.!Halar Sisu_1!1.!.P9aga La!gv..!.l~, p. 55.

4. Budhakhali Anchal Panchayat Office.

5. Jatin Maity - statement.

6. Pyari Mohan Ghorui, rich ryot: Budhakhali interview.

a. Interview and Jatin Maity at Kakdwip.

9. Gagan aarik interviewed at Narnkhana.

10. Jagannath Maity, Sharecroppers, Budhakhali, Statement.

11. Smt. Kanan Bala, Budhakhali, statement.

12. Interview Lakshmipriya (peasant woman) Smt. Nitya Bala Jane.

13. Kanan Bala Das, statement, Budhakhali.

14. Kangsari Haldar, serakol, statement.

15. Jatin Maity's interview, Budhakhali.

16. .!£!9.

17. Interview ofRashbehari Ghosh, Communist leader of the Kakdwip Movement at Calcutta.

18. satish saha, 'jlll2.9,chasi •, statement, Budhakhali.

19. ]ill.

20. Interview - Bejoy Mandal, Budhakhali.

21. Manik Hazara, CPI leader, statement.

208

22. Jatin Maity - oral version, Budhakhali.

24. Gagan sarik - statement, Budhakhali.

25. This kind of usury was not peculiar to Budhakhali alone. While investigating the causes of sharecroppers·• agi­tation in some villages of Dimla police station, w.s. Prices, SP of Rangpur saw the same system of usury there. After expressing his sympathy with the adhiars he des­cribed it as follows:

26. Jill.

He (the jotedar) lends the paddy in May when the price of paddy is high and is repaid after the harvest when generally the price is low. The 50% calculation is made on a money basis but is paid in kind. For ins­tance, a jotedar lends one maund of paddy in May when the price "~· 2 a mund. At 50% intt=orest he expects ~.3 back about July. By July the price of paddy has dropped to say Re. 1 and the adhiar must return 3 maunds of paddy to cover ~. 3. He therefore has to pay two Maunds of paddy as interest on one maund far a period of 3 to 4 months or say 600% per annum. (Extract from Mr. w.s. Price, Superintendent of Police, Rangpur to Mr. A.D. G~don, CIE, IP Inspector General of Police.)

27 • Dhananj ay Das - s ta temen t.

28. Group of peasants (sharecroppers) of Budhakhali inter­viewed.

29. Swadhinata 6-6-1946, p.3 and 17-6-46.

3 o. Jatin Mai ty (interview) at Budhak hali.

31. §_!!!_vey ang_.§,!.!,tlement RE?J20f_!, 24 Parganas, p.309.

3 2. statement by Abani Lahiri, Joint secretary BPKS inter­view at Delhi.

33. sahadeb Karan, sharecropper, south Haripur, written statement.

34. Anantaram Kuiti, Local leader, Haripur, a personal letter from prison, date 21-5-1952.

35. Jagannath Maity - interview, 9udhakhali.

209

36. see note in page no.l92.

37. Jagannath Maity, local leader - statement.

38. Gercit Huizer, ~· cit., pp.S-6.

3 9. Bij oy Jana - sharecrOpper, statement.

40. Manmath Ghouri, statement, Haripur.

41. .!E.!9· 42. Hare Krishna sera, statement, Haripur.

43. Quoted in Kalantar (Bengali organ of the CPI) Special Issue, 1966, p. 46.

44. Gunadhar Mali - sharecropper - statement, Haripur.

45. Jatin Maity - Interview.

47. Khirad sera - statement.

48. Jatin Maity - Interview along with Khirod Bera - Bijoy Mandal.

4 9. .Th.!E·

so. J!?M·

51. 1!?.!2· 52. Ibid. and Krishna Kanta sarkar, 'Kakdwip Teb haga Move­

"ilieri't ", E.E • ..£!j:. , p. 4 76 •

53. Jatin Maity & Kangsari Haldar, Interview.

54. 1.21-E· 55. Ibid. ---56. Sacnindra Sankar Ghosh, statement.

57. !gtri ta Bazar PaJ:t..!Js.!.

58. Gandhij i said at Kafilatali village (Moakhali) that Tebhaga demand should be granted as a time is coming when stabS should be the owner of all land. Moreover, even of the Hindu j otedar suffer for this bill in

59.

6 o.

61.

6 2.

6 3.

64.

65.

66.

67.

6 e.

6 9.

70.

71.

7 2.

73.

210

Moakhali. It should be upheld far justice and no com­munal consideration should be a stumbling block. But he also made it clear in no case violence should be used neither the land or produce should be taken away forcibly. (See Anand B~_E2~lka, 12-2-1947, p.S.) Again Gandhiji said at west Keroa village (Noakhali) that the Tebhaga law should be passed and after remain­ing above communal consideration government shoulci see that justice was done to peasants. But here also he gave supreme importance to non-violence and requested the jotedar to grant two-third share as all land be longs to God" - Here pr ob ab 1 y he was Obsessed with concept of non-violence and made a vague state~ent on the ownership of land i.e. both to God and state. (see Anand Bazar P~tri~, 15-2-1947, p.l.)

see note no. 53.

l.E.!§.

l.E.!E· survey and settlement Report - Dakshina Chandanpiri.

Panchanan Sasmal, Mahadeb Jane and Sagar Maity, share­croppers, interview in 1978.

Employee of Naib Chandanpiri.

Chakdar - s ta temen t.

l!?.!E· Sharecropper - statement - Dakshina Chandanpiri.

Jatin Maity, ~· ~· and sharecroppers (Chandanpiri) interview.

1.!?.!.9·

~­Ibid. --Sagar Maity, sharecropper - Dakshin Chandanpiri -statement.

~-

211

74. The Const_!tutiO.!L&All-India Kisan Sabha, 1945, p.19.

75. Hrishikesh Maity - statement, .El?· cit.

76. Rakhal Jana - statement, Dakshin Chandanpiri.

77. Bhupati Mandal, Rakhal Jana & Sagar Mai ty - statement, Dal<shin Chandanpiri.

78. Parthanath Mukherjee, "Social Movement and Social Change', Towards a Conceptual Clarification and Theo­retical Frame,o~or'k .. , ~iologJ.£.21 Bulle tiD:& vol. 26, No.1, March 1977, pp.44-45.