Question

When debts mounted, the peasant was unable to pay back the loan to the moneylender. He had no option but to give over all his possessions – land, carts, and animals – to the moneylender. But without animals he could not continue to cultivate. So he took land on rent and animals on hire. He now had to pay for the animals which had originally belonged to him. He had to sign a deed of hire stating very clearly that these animals and carts did not belong to him. In cases of conflict, these deeds could be enforced through the court. The following is the text of a deed that a peasant signed in November 1873, from the records of the Deccan Riots Commission: I have sold to you, on account of the debt due to you, my two carriages having iron axles, with their appurtenances and four bullocks … I have taken from you on hire under (this) deed the very same two carriages and four bullocks. I shall pay every month the hire thereof at Rupees four a month, and obtain a receipt in your own handwriting. In the absence of a receipt, I shall not contend that the hire had been paid.

List all the commitments that the peasant is making in this deed. What does such a deed of hire tell us about the relationship between the peasant and the moneylender? How would it change the relationship between the peasant and the bullocks he previously owned?

Answer 1

1. The peasant had already sold his two carts and four bullocks to the moneylender because he could not repay his debt.
2. He then took the same carts and bullocks back on hire from the moneylender.
3. He agreed to pay Rs 4 per month as hire charges.
4. He promised to obtain a receipt in the moneylender’s own handwriting whenever he paid the hire.
5. He also agreed that without a receipt, he would not claim that the payment had been made.
6. The deed shows that the peasant had become heavily dependent on the moneylender.
7. Although the peasant had earlier owned the carts and bullocks, debt forced him to sell them and then pay to use them again.
8. This made the moneylender more powerful and placed the peasant in a weak and dependent position.
9. If the peasant had still owned the bullocks himself, he would not have had to pay hire charges and would have had greater control over his farming.

Thus, debt changed the relationship from one in which the peasant owned his farming resources to one in which he depended on the moneylender even for the animals and carts needed for cultivation.