SOCIAL ACTION, VOLUME 33, JULY - SEPTEMBER 1983. PG.NO.308-320

NON-TRIBAL COLONISATION AND TRIBAL DEPRIVATION IN ANDHRA

- M. S .A. RAO

Tribal communities all over India have been subjected to various forms of deprivation such as alienation from land and other forest resources since British rule. The problem, however did not cease with India gaining independence. On the contrary, it has only increased in magnitude and complexity. An attempt is made in this paper to analyse the process of deprivation as a result of non-tribal peasant farmer migration and colonisation, and the inroads made by the British and Indian Administration in the forest economy of the tribals. The paper then tries to analyse the consequences or responses of the tribals by way of revolts and movements characterised by different types of conflicts in the end it assesses the various legislative measures and programmes of the government to remedy the situation, and offers suggestions to deal with the problem of deprivation.

The empirical context in which the problem is examined, is the Polavaram taluk of West Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh. According to the 1971 Census the tribal population formed 3.83 per cent of the total population of the state. There are three tracts where the tribals are concentrated. The tract from Warangal , Khammam, West and East Godavari, Vishakhapatnam and Srikakulam has such tribes as the Koya, Konda Reddis, Naikpods, Muka Doras, Konda Doras , Mali , Savaras, Jatapus and Godabas. The Adilabad tract is inhabited by the Gonds, Andhs, and Kolams. The third tract is formed by pockets of the Mahaboobnagar, Kurnool and Prakasham district consisting mainly of the Chenchus.

Ecologically the West Godavari district is divided into lowland delta area and upland dry area. In 1960 the upland area in which the Polavaram taluk lies was found suitable for the cultivation of light oil flue-cured Virginia tobacco which has a large expanding export market. The taluk consists of 135 villages of which 102 are located in the agency area, and 33 are situated in the plains. The agency is a Scheduled Tribal area governed by special laws relating to land, education, employment and other aspects. For instance, the Agent, equivalent to a Collector is in-charge of colleting revenue and administering both civil and criminal laws.

Koyas are the dominant tribe in the Polavaram Agency. In 1971, they formed 55.1 per cent of the Agency population. Out of 44.9 percent of the non-tribal population, Scheduled Castes constituted 32.0 per cent and other non-tribal cultivating and other castes 12.9 per cent. The Christian missionaries were unable to convert the Koyas, but succeed in converting about fifty per cent of the Scheduled Castes. The major non-tribal cultivating and landowning castes are the Kapu, Kamma, Raju, Komati , Distiller (Setty Balija) and Gollas or Yadavas (cowherds and goatherds).

Let me explain the sense in which I am using the terms colonisation, peasant and deprivation. I use colonisation to refer to a process of migration of a group of peasant cultivators and their settlement in a new area. Migration may be voluntary or sponsored and the area of destination may be an established settlement or an uninhabited frontier region with virgin soil. While B.H.Farmer¹ uses agricultural colonisation to mean specifically the establishment of people on waste land by government organisations, I use it to include voluntary migration and settlement, because agricultural colonisation does take place outside the planned or directed state programmes. Peasants migrate voluntarily and settle either in villages which have been already established or in new frontiers. My study belongs to the category of agricultural colonisation of the frontier area inhabited by the tribes by the migrant non-tribal peasants from the plains. It is also a situation of terrestrial colonisation as different from hydraulic colonisation where peasants have migrated voluntarily to exploit flow irrigation under large scale river valley projects.

I include in the category of non-tribal peasants owner and tenant cultivators and also non-cultivating owners of land, and exclude landless agricultural labourers and service groups. There is a potential conflict between the land owners and tenants especially under the Zamindari system of agrarian relations. Such conflict did occur in the Agency tract during the early period of British rule. However, this overlapped with non-tribal zamindars and tribal tenants. Another line of cleavage in agrarian relations is between the two categories based on ownership and cultivation rights on the one hand, and landless labourers on the other. This conflict has not occurred in this area. The main conflict, however is between the non-tribal peasants (cultivating and non-cultivating landowners and landowning and non-landowning tenant cultivators) on the one hand, and tribals as a whole on the other, without any internal distinctions of owner cultivators and agricultural labourers.

Relative deprivation is used in the social and group context and not in the context of the individual. It is possible to identify objective indices in the structural conditions of existence and in the awareness of these conditions of deprivation empirical investigation. In the context of a tribal area it is possible to note the nature of tribal land relations, mode of production and control over natural resources before the migration and settlement (or colonisation) of the non-tribals, and assess the difference between that position and the position as it obtains today in terms of land alienation and loss of control over other productive resources. One can also assess the difference in the size of benefits of new economic developments that are shared by the tribals and non-tribals. Thirdly, it is also possible to trace the process of the emergency of bonded, contract and wage labour and their magnitudes among the tribals. Fourthly, one can investigate the nature of relations of opposition and conflict between the tribals and non-tribal peasants, as a result of colonisation of and expropriation by the non-tribals and the administration. We shall consider these indices of relative deprivation, over a period of two hundred years, in the context of peasant colonisation and extension of the administrative frontier. Three phases of historical developments may be identified; Tribal Zamindari Phase (1765-1828); the Non-tribal colonization phase-I (1828-1947) and Non- tribal colonization phase-II (1948- .)

The tribal zamindari phase (1764-1828)

At the time of the British occupation of the Northern Circars, the zamindars were attempting to free themselves from the central control exercised from Delhi . Emperor Aurangzebs death had resulted in a general weakening of the central power and greater autonomy obtained at the local level. The East India Company looked upon the zamindars as tributary chieftains and the hereditary proprietors of the estates of which they were in possession, whereas under the Mohammedan rule, they were really removable at pleasure (Godavari District Gazetter 1878:245).

Around 1780, there were 17 ancient zamindaris and 26 proprietory estates in the District of Godavari. The Polavaram taluk at that time had two most ancient zamindaris - Polavaram and Gurala. The zamindars of the two estates belonged to one lineage of Hill Reddis (a tribe) claiming legitimacy from the Gajapati kings of Orissa. Another member of the same lineage was a zamindar of Kottapalli on the sessions of this lineage were still larger, but it lost other zamindaris in thier dispute with the Muslim rulers.

Intra-lineage rivalry over the question of succession to the estate was of common occurence. But this was complicated by the intervention of the Company. The Company was guided by the principle of who was the most efficient person in paying there venue promptly, and was not concerned with the question of who was the legetimate heir. In this process the Company made arrangements sometimes combining and at other times dividing the estates that were expedient for collection of revenue. The interference was resented by the tribal zamindars. Thus in 1770 when Mangapati Devu was put in charge of Gutala estate, his step-mother who was the legal guardian of her minor heir to the Gutala estate resented it and rebelled against the Administration. The Company sent two military reinforcements to quell the rebellion. The step-mother was made to surrender and the collector, B.Branfil. of Masulipatnam passed return orders appointing Reddy Mangapathy Devu as the zamindar of Gutala². This was the first tribal rebellion in the area, directed towards the Company administration for its intereference in the legal rights of inheritance an aspect of the extension of the administrative frontier.

Another cause of resentment of the tribal chiefs or zamindars was the increase in the revenue demanded by the Administration each year. Some of the British officers who visited the zamindari area saw the rich alluvial land on the banks of Godavari and were convinced that the zamindars were collecting more revenue than what they gave to the Company. They also noticed the royal style of the zamindars which meant for them lavish and wasteful expenditure. When more revenue was demanded, the zamindars were reluctant to pay and many of them became defaulters as the estate revenue fell into arrears. The last resort for the Administration was to use military force, confining the zamindars in their forts and forcing them to pay the arrears. Under such humiliating circumstances, the tribal zamindars revolted against the Administration. The usual pattern of revolt by the zamindars was to escape from the fort into the forests in the Nizam's territory, build up an army and attack police stations and engage in guerilla warfare in the forests, against the Company's military forces. In 1779 Mangapati Devu, the zamindar of the three estates (Polavaram, Gutala and Kothapalllli) who was considered to be a regular payer of revenue, fell into arrears and revolted against the Administration. He did not surrender while two of his other brothers did, and he could not be captured either. The Polavaram-Gutala-Kottapalli estate was confiscated and given to a cousin of Mangapati Devu on a permanent settlement in 1802. The three combined estates consisted of 128 villages and the peshkash was Rs.105,700. However, the estate again fell into arrears and came into the auction market. After some vicissitudes the Gutala estate was bought by a rich plainsmen in 1828. This ended the political supremacy and economic dominance of the tribal zamindars in Polavaram taluk. It also marked the beginning of a steady increase in the migration of the plainsmen into the tribal territory, exercising constrol over diverse productive resources which were hitherto in the hands of the Reddis and Koyas. It was the second step in the process of relative deprivation, the first one being the extension of the administrative frontier.

The non-tribal colonisation phase I (1828-1947)

Between 1828 and 1947, one may identify four major forces which altered the socio-economic conditions of the tribals in Polavaram. These were:(1) the change in the nature of the zamindari system with the permanent settlement and the consequent movement of the plainsmen; (2) further inroads that the Administration made through forest, abkari and civil and criminal laws; (3) another series of tribal revolts in response to the indiscriminate interference by the Administration; and (4) ryotwari settlement of villages with the failute of the permanent settlement.

All these forces encouraged in different ways the migration of the plainsmen into the tribal area. The first phase of migration of non-tribal peasants from the plains occurred around 1820 when a number of zamindaris either whole or in parts came into the auction market and the highest bidder got the rights of ownership. Thus the Gutala zamindari passed into the hands of a rich Vaisya of Manyam lineage in 1828. Raja Manyam Venkataratnam was originally a resident of Yanam on the coast which was under French occupation. He later moved to Kakinada before he finally settled in Rajahmundry . He encouraged the Kapus of Elur and Rajahmundry to migrte and settle in the villages of his zamandari. He gave them semi-forest land and asked them to clear it and bring it under cultivation. The Koyas who were there already had to move to the interior regions. The Kapu peasants talk along with them agricultural labourers and service castes and in this process the existing villages grew is size and new villages came into being. owever, the Koyas did notcome into violent conflict with the new migrants. They held the Adminisitration responsible for their condition of relative deprivation.

The Administration made further steady inroads into the control of the productive resources of the tribals by passing forest laws in 1882 and abkari laws in 1864. Large areas of forests were reserved making them inaccessible to the tribals in many ways. For instance, through forest laws the government raised the forest revenue from Godavari District from Rs.21,000 in 1874-82 to 2 lakhs in 1904-05³. The economy of the tribals which was mainly based on the forest, was upset. They had to pay a tax on padu lands (shifting cultivation). There were restrictions on tapping toddy from any palm tree, and on the migration of distiller castes who had bought the licence to tap, distill and sell liquor. The distillers easily had the tribals indebted to them, as the latter loved toddy and developed a taste for other types in lieu of their petty debts. This was similar to the practice of the merchants and money-lenders, who had acquired tribal land. The tribals only lost more and more of their land in this process to the non-tribals.

The response of the tribals to rack-renting of the neo-tribal zamindars was violent. Two major revolts erupted outside Polavaram but inside the Godavari Agency in 1879 and 1922. The Rampa rebellion of 1879 was the result od rack-renting and oppression of the Rampa zamindars, the general discontent of the tribals against the forest and abkari laws, and the civil and criminal laws which supported the merchants and zamindars who attatched cattle, produce and land in payment of their debts. The 1922, Alluri Seetharama Raju's rebellion was also against the Administration's laws which alienated the tribals from productive resources. In particular it was against the forced labour demanded by the British officers to construct a road in the tribal area. The Administration was able to quell the revolts only after getting military reinforcement.

The British did realise the severity of the tribal problem soon after the 1879 Rampa rebellion. TRhe revised rules of India Act XXIV of 1839 were made applicable and Godavari Agency in 1874 (Scheduled Area Act)⁴. The British also made certain concessions to the tribals in respect of forest and abkari laws, and established direct contacts with the muthadars and ryots. In 1917, the Agency Tract Interest and Land Transfer Act was introduced. Under this Act no tribal could sell his land to a non-tribal without permission. If he did, it was considered a case of alienation of landed property. It is interesting to note that the Administration placed the blame and responsibility on the illiterate tribals and not on the clever money-lenders, distillers and cultivators from the plains who attached the land of the tribals for petty sums and the court which always protected the legal rights of the owners of property. Further the tribals had no idea of private property and the implications of alienation.

With the failure of the Permanent Settlement Act of 1802-3, the old zamindaris were parcelled into small blocks and sold for arrears. In the absence of bidders, the government took possession of them and made a survey of land and settled them. Thus the first ryotwari settlement was done in 1809 and a resettlement was made in 1933. The government villages were called izara villages and the revenue was collected directly through the village munsif, who was assisted by the village accountant (karnam) and talaris (servants). Thus in the Polavaram taluk different types of tenure villages co-existed: there were the zamindari villages, inam villages and lands, agraharam villages (villages granted to Bramhins) and izara villages. Cultivators, merchants and others who had influence with the Administration could move into the Agency area and 'buy' land with permission from the Administration. Rich zamindars from the delta area bought large chunks of land in the semi-forest area, in order to graze their cattle. Thus the izra and zamindari villages received more migrants consisting of peasants and labourers from the plains.

The non-tribal colonisation phase II (1948-..)

With the attainment of independence the zamindaris were abolished by the Estates Abolition Act XXV of 1948. Following this in the 1950's, land in the Agency came into the market in thousands of acres. The non-tribals owning land in large quantity began to sell it in anticipation of the forthcoming land ceiling legislation. The beneficiaries were primarily were the Kammas, who migrated from the delta area of West Godavari district, and established colonies in different remote villages. The migrants also 'bought' land from the Koyas.

The stream of migration of the Kammas in the 1950's was of a different character from the earlier migration stream of other peasant castes before independence. While the latter was one of subsistence the former was of development. The Kamma migrants who moved from the delta area in the 1950's and the necessary capital and organisational and technical skills for development agriculture. They lost no time in exploiting the natural resources. The colonisers cleared the jungle, removed the boulders and brought land under the plough. They initially faced the horrors of malaria (jwara bhayam) but soon overcame these fears. They installed pumps, lifted water from the streams running below the field level and irrigated their lands. It had not occured to the Kapu and Raju peasants who were staying in the Agency Area for generations to use the water resources in this way. The Kamma colonies thus brought about significant agricultural development in the region.

The buyers knew that they had to spend a lot on reclaiming land for cultivation. But the land for that reason was very cheap about Rs.1,00,000 or less per acre. This was in contrast to the high price of land in the delta area, where the man-land ratio was very high. If the peasants could sell one acre in the delta area they, they could buy ten acres in the upland semi forest area where there were potentialities of improvement including irrigational facilities. They had long term economic benefits in view.⁵

As an illustration of Kamma colonisation in the 1950s we may describe the process in Kanakapalli, a village located in the heart of the tribal area in the Buttayagudam block of Polavaram taluk. The village is situated in between two streams. Although they make the village inaccessible for most of the time during the monsoon, they provide sources of lift irrigation. Kanakapalli is an izara (government) village panchayat consisting of six settlements having a population of 2,388 spread over 708 households. In terms of percentage of households, 73.4 per cent in tribal (Koya). Kammas form 4.8 per cent and the Harijans (Madigas and Malas) constitute 4.7 per cent. The rest of the households (17.1 per cent) are distributed over such castes as Rajus, Setti Balajigas, Idigas, Gollas, Kapus and other service castes.

The social composition of the village shows that it is still predominantly a tribal village. But this is misleading in terms of ownership and control of productive resources. It is seen that the Koyas own and cultivate only 17.4 per cent of the cultivable area of 2,910 acres, the rest being owned and cultivated by non-tribals. The Kamma migrants form the single largest group owning nearly 40 per cent of the total cultivable land.

The village was first settled in 1899 for revenue. The Koyas, the Koya Nayaks, owned most of the land at the time of settlement. In 1920, a rich zamindar from the delta area of West Godavari 'bought' about 1,000 acres of semi-forest land of Kanakapalli in order to graze his large herd of cattle. Every year a team of cowherds drove the herd over a distance of forty miles during July-November when every inch of land in the delta area was full with paddy. The herd came back after the harvest when dry fodder was available.

In the 1930s, four Raju migrants bought about a hundred acres from the delta zamindar. In 1949-50, thirteen households belonging to the Kamma caste from Chityala, a village in the irrigated area of West Godavari together bought 900 acres, as the delta zamindar's son wanted to dispose of his land before the ceiling legislation came into force. This was the beginning of Kammas who were cither agnatically or affinally related, joined them. Kanakapalli is divided into old and new settlements. The Kamma colony is in the new site. At present there are 34 households. The Kamma migrants brought along with them Madiga agricultural labourers who settled along with the tribals in the village.

The Kammas established the Kanaka Durga Service Cooperative Society in 1961 to obtain credit, fertilisers and other inputs. They have invested in oil pumps, tube wells and tractors, adopted improved seeds and applieid fertilisers and pesticides. Thus the Kammas brought about significant agricultural development in Kanakapalli. When, in the 1960s, the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company introduced a new variety of cigarette tobacco called the light soil fluecured Virginia , the Kammas of Kanakapalli were among the first to cultivate it and benefit from the new commercial economy.

Tobacco rush

Another phase of migration of the non-tribal farmers started when light soil flue-cured virginia tobacco was introduced in Polavaram taluk in 1960. As both land and water were found suitable the Kamma migrants who were already there were the first to take advantage of this opportunity. The FCV tobacco cultivation generated a further demand for land. But the 1959 legislation prevented the non-tribals from buying land from the tribals. Hence the former started leasing in land from the later. The tribals were not interested in cultivating barn tobacco as this season (December to April) overlapped with the toddy season. They preferred tapping and drinking toddy to growing tobacco. Secondly, they got cach income by leasing out their land. The lease rate varied from Rs.300 to Rs.600 per acre per season. The non-tribal farmers who leased in land made enormous profits (about Rs.4,500 per barn).

The tobacco rush resulted in both extension of commercialised agriculture by the farmers who had already migrated, and also a fresh wave of migration of non-tribal farmers either as transients (for the tobacc0 season) or as domiciles. However, for the tribals, it meant further loss of land and control over the exploitation of the vast benefits from commercialised agriculture. Although the non-tribal farmers were 'tenants' from the point of view of their tenurial position, they were the real exploiters in terms of production relations, reaping vast profits and the tribals, who were the land owners, were the exploited. 

Relative deprivation

As a result of the foregoing processes of non-tribal peasant colonisation, extension of administration frontiers during the British period and administrative lapses in the post-independence period upto the 1970s, the tribals have suffered from many kinds of relative deprivation. Land alienation is a major form of deprivation. Complete data for all 102 Agency villages regarding the extent of land under the possession of the non-tribals are not available. In any case the land leased in by the non-tribals cannot be known from land records, as the transactions are informal benami (in some other name). On the basis of my investigations in nineteen villages, it is estimated that nearly 40 per cent of the cultivable land is in the possession and control of non-tribals. However, the land owned and leased by the non-tribals is of the best quality.

According to enterprising Kamma farmers 'there are still about 2,000 acres of unreserved semi-forest land in the Agency which can be developed but the Agency laws are against the non-tribals and we are asked to surrender our land. The Special Deputy Collector says that the law is in favour of the tribals and in his decisions he goes strictly by the documents. If a non-tribal is unable to produce documentary evidence to the effect of having purchased or acquired the land before 1917 and is in continuous possession of it, the land automatically goes to the tribal. This is in accordance with the Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1970. The law is also against any kind of transfer-share (palu, lease (kaulu), mortgage (bhogya) or sale (kraya). Between July 1, 1977 (the date on which the Special Deputy Collector assumed office) and April 1, 1978, he had heard about 500 cases of litigation involving 2,400 acres and he had restored 1,261 acres to 126 tribals by evicting the non-tribals⁶ .

Administrative measure and programmes

The central and the state governments have taken a series of legislative and administrative steps to put an end to the deprivations of the tribals in respect of loss of land and clearance of debt, especially since 1970 when the whole country was rocked by the Naxalite movement during 1967-71. The violence broke out in Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh in 1969 and lasted for more than a year. Although the Polavaram Agency was not the scene of violence, Naxalites were organizing the Koyas.

The Agency Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1970 prohibits any kind of land transaction between the tribals and the non-tribals and also holds all earlier transfers after 1977 as null and void. The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Debt Relief Regulation Act of 1970 writes off the accumulated interest. Under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Ryotwari Settlement Regulation II of 1970 the last batch of the 29 ex-zamindari and other remote villages were surveyed and settled for the first time in 1975. The settlement officer in most cases has restored the land to the tribals. In 1977 a Special Deputy Collector was appointed to restore land to the tribals in accordance with the 1970 Act. This legislation along with the intensive tribal development programmes in regard to agriculture, horticulture, sericulture, animal husbandry, employment and education have, to some extent retrieved the Koyas from the position of relative deprivation.

A trend in this direction is seen in the Buttayagudam Development Block, where 34 Koyas have started growing FCC since 1975, There are in all 41 out of about 900 barns in the block, owned by the tribals. If this trend continues, the feeling of deprivation that they have been bypassed by the benefits of the new commercial economy will be reduced to a considerable extent.

With the possibilities of irrigation facilities and commercialization of agriculture, there is an increasing demand for labour. Tribals are only beginning to acquire new skills of paddy and tobacco harvesting. About one-third of the Koyas work as daily wage labourers and farm servants. Many Koyas like to work as farm servants rather than wage labourers as the former provides a sense of security and gives them the advantage of a cash loan from the farmers when they need it. As farm servants they are not required to learn the skills of harvesting and stringing tobacco leaves.

The immigration of the plainsmen--cultivators, labourers and all--has to some extent resulted in the outmigration of the tribals from the Agency. In 1971, 42.52 per cent of the total number of tribals living in West Godavari District were found residing outside the Agency area i.e., in the plains. A majority (85.18 per cent) of the tribals living in the plains resided in rural areas. They are employed as agricultural labourers, farm servants, domestic servants and as unskilled workers in various construction and repair works. The outmigration of the tribals from the Agency area is due to several factors. There is shrinkage of job opportunities for the tribals in the Agency area with increasing restrictions on using and selling forest resources. They are dispossessed of podu and other lands. Generally they lack skills to engage in paddy and tobacco harvesting operations. NON-TRIBAL COLONISATION AND TRIBAL DEPRIVATION migrant labourers who are highly skilled, regular and more reliable to the tribals. It should be noted here that out-migration of the tribals in itself is not undesirable as long as it is developmental in nature. But in this context they are forced out of their habitat as a result of the colonisation of the non-tribals.

Conclusion

From the standpoint of the indices of relative deprivation the Koyas have lost a major portion of the fertile land and their access to forest resources has been severely curtailed. Many of them have joined the ranks of farm servants and wage earners, and a lion's share of the benefits of the tobacco economy has gone to the non-tribals.

There are three major responses of the tribals to their condition of deprivation. First, they have registered their protest which resulted in a series of rebellions in British India and the Naxalite revolution in independent India . Second, the Koyas have become reconciled to their position of relative deprivation. Third, many of them have migrated out of the Agency area into the plains in search of work.

In order to arrest the process of deprivation of the tribals, the centre and the state governments have passed legislation off and on whenever there have been severe outbreaks of violence. There is also a series of programmes of integrated tribal development. The most important programme which would reduce the conflict between the tribals and the non-tribals is the restoration of land to the tribals. However, since 1978 the programme is beset with legal problems with a number of writ petitions by the non-tribals against eviction. The migrant farmers also have the backing of the state political machinery. In some cases the non-tribals adopt the strategies of claiming tribal origin and establishing affinal relations with the tribals. Under such conditions the programme of land restoration is likely to get stalled, which in turn will strengthen the Naxalite movement. The state at present has fallen into a state of complacency and is busy repressing the Naxalites as the Warangal incidents reveal, instead of attacking the root cause of deprivation.

In my assessment of the programmes of integrated tribal development, one of the lacunae is the training and skill component. Formal education in ashram schools does not equip the tribals to learn such skills as paddy cultivation, tobacco harvesting, stringing and curing operations, piggery and poultry keeping. In the absence of such skills and motivation, the programme of providing capital inputs will not be meaningful.

For instance, the pigs that are given a partial capital are only consumed. Similarly if their lands is restored of new crops, they will lease it out again to non-tribals or leave much of it uncultivated. The second basic requirement is to control the interference and exploitation of non-tribals. The third is the need to have efficient programme of carrying health facilities to remote villages in the forest area to fight malaria and infant mortality and to provide drinking water. In all these crucial aspects there is a need to organise the tribals in development actvities on positive lines instead of extreme Naxalite lines, to create an awareness among them to fight for their rights, and to exploit the land, water and forest resources including contracts to extract timber and bamboo, to the best of their advantage. With this they will have enough monetary resources which will enable them not to fall into the clutches of greedy money lenders.

* Professor M. S. A. Rao is Head of the Department of Sociology, Centre of Advanced Study in Sociology, Delhi School of Economics. This paper forms part of the author's study on migration. The field work for the project was carried out for eighteen months (1977-1979) during the three year period of a UGC National Fellowship. He is grateful to the University Grants Commission for the Award. An earlier version of this paper was presented in seminars at the Universities of Virginia, Duke, Chicago , London , Delhi , Mysore and the Nehru Museum Library. He is grateful to the participants of these seminars for their comments.

1.B.H.Farmer, Agricultural Colonisation in India since Independence (London : Oxford University Press, 1974)
2.odavari District Records, Vol. 384: pp 120-121; Vol.916: pp 214-219.
3.odavari District Gazeteer (1907), p. 101
4.adras Manual (1885), I. p. 69.
5.nterview, Elur, April 1, 1978.