📋 PASTORALISTS IN THE MODERN WORLD
Question Paper & Answer Key
Class: X | Subject: History | Total Marks: 80 | Time: 3 Hours
📊 Marks Distribution
Source: "The extent of the area available for grazing has gone down tremendously with the extension of area under cultivation because of increasing population, extension of irrigation facilities, acquiring the pastures for Government purposes, for example, defence, industries and agricultural experimental farms. [Now] breeders find it difficult to raise large herds. Thus their earnings have gone down. The quality of their livestock has deteriorated, dietary standards have fallen and indebtedness has increased."
— The Report of the Royal Commission of Agriculture in India, 1928
Source: "Their families live in small villages near the skirt of the woods, where they cultivate a little ground, and keep some of their cattle, selling in the towns the produce of the dairy. Their families are very numerous, seven to eight young men in each being common. Two or three of these attend the flocks in the woods, while the remainder cultivate their fields, and supply the towns with firewood, and with straw for thatch."
— Francis Hamilton Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar (London, 1807)
Answer: Nomadic pastoralists are people who do not live in one fixed place but move from one area to another to earn their living, primarily through the herding of livestock such as goats, sheep, cattle, camels, and buffaloes.
Answer: Bugyals are vast natural meadows/pastures located on high mountains, typically above 12,000 feet. They are covered with snow during winter and become lush with grasses, roots, and herbs after April when the snow melts.
Example Location: Bugyals of eastern Garhwal in the Himalayas (or Lahul and Spiti region).
Answer: The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871
Answer:
- Winter (December-March): The Gujjar Bakarwals live with their herds in the low hills of the Siwalik range where dry scrub forests provide pasture for their goats and sheep.
- Spring (April): By the end of April, they begin their northern march. Several households come together forming a group called "kafila" and cross the Pir Panjal passes.
- Summer (May-September): They enter the Kashmir valley where the snow has melted, and the mountainsides are lush green with a variety of nutritious grasses and forage.
- Autumn (September-October): By the end of September, they begin their downward journey back to the low hills for winter.
✓ 1 mark for mentioning kafila and crossing of passes
Answer:
| For Dhangars (Pastoralists) | For Konkani Peasants |
|---|---|
| Sheep graze on harvested fields and feed on stubble | Sheep manure the fields, making them fertile for next crop |
| Receive rice supplies to take back to the plateau where grain was scarce | Get their fields naturally fertilized after kharif harvest |
✓ 1 mark for benefits to peasants
Answer:
- Grazing Lands Seized: Colonial officials considered all uncultivated land as "waste land" that produced neither revenue nor agricultural produce. From mid-1800s, Waste Land Rules were enacted to take over these lands.
- Land Distribution: Taken-over lands were given to select individuals for cultivation, with concessions and incentives for settlement.
- Loss of Pastures: In reality, most of these "waste lands" were actually regular grazing tracts used by pastoralists. Their conversion to cultivated fields meant inevitable decline of pastures.
- Economic Crisis: As available pastureland shrunk, pastoralists struggled to feed their large herds, leading to economic hardship.
✓ 1 mark for explaining impact (loss of grazing lands)
Answer:
1. Classification of Forests:
- "Reserved" Forests: Commercially valuable forests (like deodar and sal) were declared "Reserved," and no pastoralist was allowed access to these forests.
- "Protected" Forests: Other forests were classified as "Protected" where some customary grazing rights were granted, but movements were severely restricted.
2. Permit System: Pastoralists needed a permit for entry into protected forests. The permit specified exact timing of entry and departure, and limited the number of days they could spend in the forest. If they overstayed, they faced fines.
3. Colonial Justification: Officials believed that grazing destroyed saplings and young shoots, preventing new tree growth. However, this was based on flawed understanding of pastoral systems.
4. Real Impact: Pastoralists could no longer remain in areas even when forage was available because Forest Department permits ruled their lives. They had to move regardless of whether conditions allowed it.
✓ 1 mark for permit system/restrictions
✓ 1 mark for impact on pastoralists
Answer:
Traditional Nomadic Solution: Traditionally, when droughts struck one region, pastoralists could move their herds to areas with available pastures. This nomadic movement was their primary survival strategy during difficult times.
Colonial Restrictions: However, new territorial boundaries and restrictions prevented this movement. Pastoralists were confined to reserves and couldn't move herds to areas with better grazing conditions.
Devastating Consequences:
- Mass Animal Deaths: In mountainous regions, livestock starved. Among the Maasai, over 50% of cattle died during the severe droughts of 1933-1934.
- Economic Collapse: Since pastoral animals were their primary wealth, massive losses meant financial ruin for entire families.
- Social Breakdown: Pastoralists who lost herds became dependent laborers in towns, creating inequality and disrupting traditional social structures.
- Ecological Damage: Intensified continuous grazing in confined areas led to further degradation of pastures, making recovery impossible.
✓ 1 mark for colonial restrictions
✓ 1 mark for consequences (mass deaths, economic loss, etc.)
Answer:
Reasons for British Suspicion:
- Preference for Settled Populations: British officials distrusted mobile people. They wanted to rule over a settled, fixed population living in villages with fixed rights to particular fields. Such populations were easy to identify, locate, and control.
- Stereotyping: The colonial government distrusted mobile craftsmen, traders who hawked goods in villages, and pastoralists who changed residence seasonally. They labeled those who were settled as "peaceable and law abiding" while nomadic people were considered "criminal."
- Administrative Control: Nomadic populations couldn't be easily taxed, monitored, or controlled through the administrative system the British had established for settled populations.
The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871:
- Legislation: Based on these biases, the British passed the Criminal Tribes Act in 1871.
- Classification: Many communities of pastoralists, craftspeople, and traders were classified as "Criminal Tribes" and stated to be "criminal by nature and birth."
- Severe Restrictions: These communities were forced to live only in notified village settlements and couldn't move without permits. Village police kept continuous surveillance over them.
- Social Impact: The Act essentially criminalized an entire way of life, creating shame and legal disability for pastoralists.
✓ 1 mark for passage of Criminal Tribes Act
✓ 1 mark for consequences/restrictions
Answer:
1. Waste Land Rules (Mid-1800s onwards)
- Policy: Colonial officials considered uncultivated land as "waste" producing no revenue. They enacted Waste Land Rules to take over these lands and give them to select individuals for cultivation.
- Impact: These "waste lands" were actually regular grazing tracts. Their conversion to cultivated fields meant direct loss of pastures. Pastoralists had fewer areas to graze their herds. As pastureland shrunk, herds became underfed and diseased.
2. Forest Acts (Mid-1800s onwards)
- Policy: Commercially valuable forests were declared "Reserved" (no access) and others "Protected" (restricted access with permits, time limits, and fines for overstaying).
- Impact: Pastoralists lost access to valuable forest grazing grounds. Permit systems destroyed their traditional flexibility to stay in areas as long as forage was available. Movement became dictated by bureaucratic schedules rather than ecological needs. They faced constant harassment and fines.
3. Criminal Tribes Act (1871)
- Policy: Many pastoral communities were classified as "Criminal Tribes" and forced to live in notified villages with permits required for movement.
- Impact: Pastoralists were criminalized for their way of life. Continuous police surveillance created a climate of fear. Movement became dangerous and legally risky. The Act destroyed the dignity and freedom of entire communities, creating social shame and legal disability.
4. Grazing Tax (Mid-1800s to early 1900s)
- Policy: Tax was imposed on every animal grazed on pastures. Initially collected through contractors, then directly by government. Each animal was tracked through passes, with amounts entered meticulously.
- Impact: Taxes increased rapidly, becoming a severe economic burden. For already-struggling pastoralists with smaller herds due to land loss, taxation became unsustainable. It increased indebtedness and forced many to sell animals, further reducing herd sizes. This created a vicious cycle of economic decline.
Combined Effect: These four policies together created a comprehensive assault on pastoral livelihoods. Reduced lands + restricted movement + criminalization + heavy taxation = systematic destruction of the pastoral way of life.
| Policy | Target | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Waste Land Rules | Grazing lands | Loss of pastures |
| Forest Acts | Forest access | Loss of flexibility, bureaucratic control |
| Criminal Tribes Act | Freedom of movement | Criminalization, surveillance, loss of dignity |
| Grazing Tax | Economic resources | Increased poverty, indebtedness |
✓ 1 mark for comprehensive analysis of combined impact
Answer:
HIMALAYAN PASTORALISTS (Mountains)
- Pattern: Annual cycle between winter grazing grounds (low Siwalik hills) and summer grounds (high bugyals above 12,000 feet)
- Determining Factor: Temperature and snowfall. Cold winters force migration to warmer low hills; spring snowmelt opens mountain passes and lush high meadows.
- Examples: Gujjar Bakarwals (Jammu-Kashmir), Gaddi Shepherds (Himachal Pradesh), Gujjar cattle herders (Garhwal-Kumaon)
- Timing: Regular and predictable based on seasonal temperature patterns
PLATEAU, DESERT, AND PLAINS PASTORALISTS
- Pattern: Movement between monsoon grazing grounds (during rainy season) and post-monsoon grazing (during dry season)
- Determining Factor: Rainfall patterns and vegetation availability. Monsoon brings grass to semi-arid plateaus; dry season forces movement to wetter coastal areas or different regions.
- Examples:
- → Dhangars: Monsoon on central plateau → October onwards to Konkan coast
- → Raikas: Monsoon in home villages → October onwards search for water and pasture
- Timing: Less predictable, dependent on uncertain rainfall patterns
DETERMINING FACTORS (Common to All):
| Factor | Mountains | Deserts/Plateaus |
|---|---|---|
| Climate | Temperature extremes | Rainfall uncertainty |
| Vegetation | Snow creates clear winter/summer divide | Monsoon/dry season creates variable patterns |
| Water Availability | Snowmelt provides water in mountains | Must search for water sources |
| Animal Tolerance | Different animals suit different altitudes | Desert animals (camels) need specific food types |
| Movement Timing | Predictable, regular cycles | Variable, dependent on rainfall |
KEY INSIGHT: All pastoral movements follow the principle of finding optimal pasture and water. Mountain pastoralists rely on temperature-driven seasonal cycles, while desert/plateau pastoralists rely on rainfall-driven cycles. Both systems demonstrate sophisticated ecological knowledge and adaptation to environmental constraints.
✓ 1 mark for plateau/desert pattern explanation
✓ 1 mark for comparison between the two
✓ 2 marks for discussing determining factors (climate, vegetation, water, etc.)
Answer:
(a) What does the source indicate about loss of grazing lands?
- The source indicates that grazing areas have declined tremendously due to multiple factors: increasing population, expanded irrigation, and government acquisition of pastures for defense, industries, and agricultural experimental farms.
- It shows that land loss was systematic, continuous, and driven by state policy rather than natural causes.
(b) How did reduced grazing areas affect livestock quality and economics?
- Livestock Quality: Quality deteriorated because animals were underfed due to insufficient pasture. Malnourished animals couldn't be raised to good quality standards.
- Economic Impact: Earnings declined dramatically. Unable to raise large herds meant less income. Dietary standards fell, indicating poverty increased. Indebtedness increased as pastoralists had to borrow money to survive.
- The source reveals a downward spiral: less land → fewer animals → lower income → debt.
(c) Name three government purposes for land acquisition:
- Defence
- Industries
- Agricultural experimental farms
(d) Consequences of inability to raise large herds:
- Earnings went down significantly
- Led to poverty and food insecurity (dietary standards fell)
- Forced pastoralists into debt (indebtedness increased)
- Made them economically vulnerable to any crisis
✓ 1 mark for (b)
✓ 1 mark for (c)
✓ 1 mark for (d)
Answer:
(a) What was the location of pastoral families?
- Pastoral families lived in small villages near the skirt (edges) of the woods/forests.
- They were settled semi-permanently rather than purely nomadic, using forest resources and cultivating adjacent land.
(b) How did pastoral families diversify their economic activities?
- Primary Activity: Kept cattle and engaged in dairy production
- Trade: Sold dairy produce (milk, butter products) in towns
- Cultivation: Cultivated small patches of land for crops
- Secondary Products: Supplied towns with firewood and straw for thatching
- The source shows pastoral communities were not solely dependent on herding but had diversified income sources.
(c) What role did division of labor play in pastoral households?
- Family Structure: Families were large, with seven to eight young men common in each household.
- Work Division: Two or three young men attended the flocks in forests, while the remainder cultivated fields and managed other activities.
- Specialization: This allowed both pastoral and agricultural activities to be maintained simultaneously, maximizing resource use.
- Gender Roles: (Implied) While men managed herds and fields, the text suggests women may have managed dairy product sales (not explicitly stated but typical of the era).
- Division of labor was essential for managing multiple economic activities successfully.
(d) Name any products sold by pastoral families in towns:
- Dairy produce (milk products)
- Firewood
- Straw for thatch
✓ 1 mark for (b) - economic diversification
✓ 1 mark for (c) - division of labor explanation
✓ 1 mark for (d) - products named
Thesis Statement: Colonial rule fundamentally transformed pastoral societies through land appropriation, movement restrictions, and economic taxation, forcing pastoralists to radically adapt their traditional ways of life.
EXAMPLE 1: THE RAIKAS OF RAJASTHAN
Traditional System (Pre-Colonial):
- Raikas combined cultivation with pastoral nomadism in Rajasthan's desert regions
- During monsoon: lived in home villages with available pasture
- October onwards: migrated extensively in search of water and pasture
- System was sustainable and profitable for centuries
Colonial Challenges:
- Land Loss: Waste Land Rules converted grazing tracts to cultivated fields
- Movement Restrictions: New territorial boundaries prevented traditional migratory routes
- Taxation: Grazing taxes on every camel made herding economically difficult
- Result: Herd sizes reduced, income declined, indebtedness increased
Adaptive Strategies:
- Reduced number of animals in herds
- After 1947, migrated to Haryana for new grazing grounds when Pakistan partition blocked traditional routes
- Shifted to using buses/trucks for milk transport instead of traditional long journeys
- Combined pastoral activity with cultivation and trade
- Some wealthy Raikas bought land and settled down
EXAMPLE 2: THE GUJJAR BAKARWALS OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Traditional System (Pre-Colonial):
- Perfect cyclical adaptation to Himalayan seasons
- Winter in low Siwalik hills (dry forests)
- Summer in Kashmir valley (lush meadows)
- Travel in kafilas (family groups) for safety and shared resources
- System allowed pasture recovery and sustained large herds
Colonial Challenges:
- Forest Restrictions: Forest Acts closed some of their traditional routes. Permits limited their stay duration regardless of pasture availability.
- Land Seizure: Waste Land Rules took over grazing lands for cultivation
- Criminal Classification: Though less directly affected than desert pastoralists, they faced pressure to settle
- Economic Strain: Reduced areas meant they couldn't maintain large herds
Adaptive Strategies:
- Maintained their seasonal cycle despite restrictions
- Reduced herd sizes to match available pasture
- Some began producing ghee in temporary settlements (mandaps) and transporting via modern vehicles
- Gradually shifted from pure pastoralism to mixed economy including dairy business
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:
| Aspect | Raikas | Gujjar Bakarwals |
|---|---|---|
| Key Challenge | Land seizure, territorial restriction | Forest permits, movement limitation |
| Environment | Desert/extremely harsh | Mountains/seasonal extremes |
| Adaptation | Geographic relocation (to Haryana) | Technology integration (trucks/buses) |
| Impact | High - loss of traditional routes after 1947 | Moderate - maintained core seasonal cycle |
CONCLUSION: Colonial rule's systematic policies—land appropriation, movement restrictions, taxation, and criminalization—fundamentally altered pastoral societies. Yet pastoralists demonstrated remarkable resilience through creative adaptation: reducing herds, finding new routes, incorporating modern technology, and diversifying activities. This transformation was forced but not final; pastoral communities continue to survive and adapt in the modern world, though their traditional systems were irreversibly disrupted.
KEY INSIGHT: The statement is valid but requires nuance. Colonial rule "transformed" rather than "destroyed" pastoral life. Transformation was traumatic and involuntary, but pastoralists' adaptability kept communities alive even under extreme pressure.
✓ 2 marks for first community example (challenges + adaptation)
✓ 2 marks for second community example (challenges + adaptation)
✓ 2 marks for comparative analysis
✓ 1 mark for conclusion with balanced analysis
Thesis Statement: The Maasai of Africa experienced colonial restrictions similar to Indian pastoralists but with more catastrophic consequences, particularly during droughts, revealing the universal vulnerability of pastoral systems to colonial policies.
PART A: MAASAI PASTORAL SYSTEM
Traditional System (Pre-Colonial):
- Maasai were cattle herders of East Africa, dependent on milk and meat for subsistence
- Maasailand stretched from North Kenya to Northern Tanzania – vast territories allowing extensive mobility
- Nomadism was their primary survival strategy against droughts and environmental variability
- Semi-arid to arid environment required sophisticated knowledge of water and pasture locations
- Society was organized into age-based groups: Elders (ruling group) and Warriors (younger, responsible for raiding and protection)
COLONIAL RESTRICTIONS:
1. Land Loss:
- 1885: International boundary between British Kenya and German Tanganyika cut Maasailand in half
- Best grazing lands taken for white settlement and agricultural expansion
- Game reserves created on traditional grazing grounds: Serengeti (14,760 sq km of Maasai land), Maasai Mara, Samburu National Park
- Total Loss: 60% of pre-colonial lands
- Confined to small arid zones with uncertain rainfall and poor pastures
2. Movement Restrictions:
- Territorial boundaries prevented crossing between Kenya and Tanzania
- Confined to reserves with restricted movement permissions
- Couldn't access better grazing areas when local pastures were exhausted
- Bureaucratic permits required for movement, similar to Indian Forest Acts
3. Social Restructuring:
- British appointed chiefs to administer sub-groups, undermining traditional authority of Elders and Warriors
- Restrictions on raiding and warfare diminished warrior class status
- Created new inequality: appointed chiefs became wealthy through colonial income, while poor pastoralists depended only on livestock
CONSEQUENCES DURING DROUGHTS:
The 1933-1934 Drought Crisis:
- Pre-Colonial Response: Maasai would traditionally migrate to regions with available pastures, avoiding mass losses
- Colonial Confinement: Restricted to reserves, couldn't access better grazing areas
- Catastrophic Result: Over 50% of Maasai cattle died in just two years
- Economic Collapse: Since cattle = wealth in pastoral societies, families lost everything
- Social Breakdown: Poor pastoralists who lost herds became dependent wage laborers in towns, creating new class divisions
- Persistent Degradation: Continuous intensive grazing in confined areas further deteriorated pastures, preventing recovery
PART B: COMPARISON WITH INDIAN PASTORALISTS
| Aspect | Maasai (Africa) | Indian Pastoralists |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Challenge | International boundary; game reserve creation | Waste Land Rules; Forest Acts; Criminal Tribes Act |
| Land Loss | 60% of pre-colonial lands lost | Significant but variable by region; cumulative effect severe |
| Mechanism of Control | Territorial boundaries as primary tool | Multiple overlapping policies: land, forest, criminal, tax |
| Social Impact | Age-group structure disrupted; new class divisions | Entire way of life criminalized; caste-like stigma created |
| Drought Impact | Catastrophic: 50%+ livestock mortality common | Severe but varied; some communities better adapted to alternatives |
| Diversification Opportunity | Limited in game reserve zones | Greater opportunity for cultivation/trade alternatives |
| Recovery Options | Game reserves blocked recovery; dependent on foreign markets | Some found new routes (e.g., Raikas to Haryana post-1947) |
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MAASAI AND INDIAN PASTORALISTS:
- Pattern of Restrictions: Both faced systematic colonial policies restricting movement (territorial/permit systems)
- Land Appropriation: Both lost substantial grazing lands to colonial projects (cultivation, reserves, state purposes)
- Taxation: Both faced heavy financial burdens (grazing taxes, fees)
- Drought Vulnerability: Both experienced catastrophic livestock losses when restricted during droughts
- Social Disruption: Both saw traditional authority structures weakened and new inequalities created
- Survival Through Adaptation: Both communities survived through reducing herds, finding alternatives, and creative adaptation
KEY DIFFERENCES:
- Scale of Catastrophe: Maasai drought impact (50%+ livestock mortality) was more devastating than most Indian pastoralist experiences
- Policy Approach: British India used multiple overlapping policies; East Africa relied more on territorial/game reserve restrictions
- Environmental Challenge: Maasai's semi-arid environment meant less opportunity for economic diversification (cultivation was difficult); Indian pastoralists had more alternatives
- Post-Colonial Recovery: India allowed some internal migration (e.g., Raikas to Haryana) post-1947; African pastoralists faced more rigid international borders
CONCLUSION: The Maasai experience demonstrates that colonial policies created universal vulnerabilities in pastoral systems regardless of geography. While specifics differed (territorial boundaries vs. forest permits, 60% land loss vs. regional variations), the mechanism and effect were identical: restrict movement → pastoral system fails during stress → community impoverishment. The Maasai case was perhaps more tragic because the drought consequences were more visible and catastrophic (50% livestock mortality), but Indian pastoralists suffered similarly cumulative impacts. Both cases reveal that pastoral nomadism couldn't survive under colonial restrictions—it required the freedom to move based on environmental conditions rather than bureaucratic schedules. The comparison shows colonialism's universal hostility to mobile populations and validates the conclusion that restricting nomadic pastoralists was ecologically and economically destructive.
✓ 1 mark for colonial restrictions on Maasai
✓ 1.5 marks for drought consequence analysis
✓ 1 mark for Indian pastoralist overview
✓ 1.5 marks for comparison/similarities
✓ 1 mark for differences
✓ 1 mark for analytical conclusion
