Bethu system in Himachal :

Beth‘ – forced labour of unfree lower castes – in the Simla Hills under the impact of British rule.

Beth and its cousin category Begar were forms of unfree labour of the agricultural castes. While the latter was given by practically every State subject for community and administrative works, the former was only given by the lowest castes to the higher castes and it usually took the form of semi-serf agricultural labour. When the British gained physical control of the Cis-Sutlej hills in 1815, they gave Sanads to the petty States of the region confirming their formal independence under British Paramountcy. These States, eighteen in all, were given almost complete independence in their internal matters. Begar was the only exaction of the colonial state from most of them in the absence of any proper tribute

Beth was a system of forced labour where the lowest castes like the Kolis, Doms, Chamars, etc., provided agricultural labour and other menial and `polluting’ services to the chiefs, the leading families and the village divinity. They also provided agricultural labour to the Kanet peasant proprietors ( “cultivating, inferior Rajputs” ), though only seasonally. Customarily debarred from land titles, they were dependent on their patron castes (clans?) and families for survival. They were not from the same ethnic stock and had different mythic-historic origins than the dominant groups in the villages. Their inferior position was reinforced through the various rituals and ceremonies that embodied the power structure of the village. Situated outside the Bhaichara of the Bramhins, Rajputs and Kanets, the Bethus(those who give Beth) were outside the decision making bodies of the villagers.

Reference to beth is rare in British records and it was more often than not collapsed as a form of begar, or as another form of tenancy. There is not much reference to the social class, political and economic status and/or function in the village society of the bethus. This, it seems, was primarily because beth and British interest hardly ever came into contact with each other. It was only in the last decades of the 19th century that the British first came to know about beth but were able to distinguish it from begar, in their policies, only in the last few years of their rule.

Beth and the Bethus :

Bethus were basically the lower castes in the villages who, it is claimed in their origin myths, were the first inhabitants of the Western Himalayas. They were displaced and subordinated by the incoming tribe of the Khash, a part of the Aryans, who now constitute the overwhelming majority of the population of these hills. The Kanets, the Bhat Bramhins and some Rajputs claim their descent from this tribe. The tribes that the Khash subdued are collectively called the Nagas and the reference to theKaravaras in Smriti literature is also attributed to this same group. The Kolis who form the largest section of the Bethus and other low castes are supposed to have descended from them. Their social role, as given in the Smritis, was to carry conveyances, provide agricultural labour for the higher castes and do other menial work. Some Smritis also identify a caste/tribe in the Western Himalayas called theKol who live in the forests.

The Kolis/Bethus were generally agricultural labourers bonded to the chief’s land which was known as Bassa. While they were ritually tied to their lord and his land, they could not own any land. They mainly worked in the fields and were recorded in Settlement reports as “hardworking cultivators”. Other than agricultural labour, they also gave labour in their chief’s household on a daily basis. Physical transfers of Bethus and transfer of their ownership was also prevalent as in the case of land being donated by the ruler and when he gave them as part of the dowry of his daughter / sister.

The Kanet proprietary peasants also took Beth labour for agricultural work on their land and also for community and domestic purposes. But they usually did not have similar semi – proprietary control over the Bethu’s person. Their appropriation ofBeth labour was mainly through institutions similar to the Jajmani system, whereby certain Khash clans took specified, seasonal labour from local Koli groups. The latter were also responsible for doing all the menial work (and some ritually important work in the local religious ceremonies) for the village Bhaichara. Even during Begardistribution the Kolis got the more strenuous and polluting duties.

The Kolis have been put variously at 1/4, 1/5, 1/7 of the population in the different regions of the Simla Hill States by the Settlements and Gazetteers. The 1911 Census says that tenants ( this was the term used interchangeably with Koli, Bethu, agricultural labourer, and later, tenant-at-will in all British records) account for 17.1 % of the population of the Punjab Hills. The Simla District Gazetteer of 1888-9 says that about a fifth of the land was being cultivated by the Bethus. While this may not tell us much about their exact population in the region, it certainly shows their importance in the agricultural economy even in these areas of the Simla Hills which were directly under British administration and where the local chief’s had been dislodged. In the Simla district ( as distinct from the Simla Hill States which were formally under the local rulers ), if we look at the figures for Kotgarh and Kotkhai areas, which are fully rural, we find that the Kolis formed 23.5% of the population. In comparision the Kanets formed about 69% of the population.

Bethus’s Struggle :

On 4th October, 1941, the Political Agent of the Punjab Hill States sent an enquiry to all the states and estates in his jurisdiction about “Begar service” which included all forms of forced labour. 

On 24 August, 1943 the Resident of the Simla Hill States called a meeting of all the Durbars to frame a model policy to abolish Begar and Beth in these areas Beth was defined “as an obligation to render personal service in return for certain cultivating rights”. There were two types of Bethus which were classified, (i)Bethus employed by the state, and (ii)Bethus employed by the cultivating peasant proprietors. The first class of Bethus was “opposed to the public conscience as having an element of slaver. This was therefore, recommended for immediate abolition, except for “palki service”. All services had to be henceforth paid for at the scheduled rates. Those Bethus who had been cultivating the same plot of land for three generations and more were to be made occupancy tenants while others were to be made tenants-at-will on a cash rent. Since the Bethus were not liable to render service to the ruler anymore, they were to pay revenue at double the rate plus cesses and usual contributions.

It is obvious that Beth was not being abolished but was rather `reformed’ by turning it into cash payment, more suited for the new context of a monetised and market integrated society. 

The discontent of the Bethus came out forcefully a few years later during the movement launched by the Praja Mandal at the time of India’s independence for the amalgamation of the Hill States into the Indian Union, for the complete abolition of Begar and for representative government in the region.

The Suket State Satyagraha launched on 16 February, 1948 on the above demands saw a large Bethu participation in a movement which comprised almost all sections of the population though the leadership was still in the hands of the Kanet.

Conclusion :

To sum up, can make three broad generalisations about the effect on Beth of British policy and administration. One, the role of money became central to the social and economic processes of the hills. The assessment, collection and commutation of kind and labour rent in cash transformed the nature of the surplus extraction. This growing monetisation of the economy was not the result of internal dynamics but dependant on colonial intervention. Therefore, the forms of social, economic and political interaction did not change when their substance did. The manner of monetisation of hill economy did not lead to a “dissolving” of the social relations but rather ossified them. The implications of this on the political and cultural expression of the people and on the future development of the economy are areas on which much thought and effort have to be given.

Second, the efforts of the British to `reform’ and `abolish’ Beth led to a transformation in the manner of surplus extraction from labour rent to cash rent but the perpetuation of the system nevertheless. Not only is there evidence that points to the reluctance of the Bethus to accept cash commutation, the local states stood to gain from this change. This last point was very much in the knowledge of the local rulers and the British agents. While kind and labour rent was commuted to cash, there is no evidence to show that the Bethus were emancipated from the various disabilities they suffered from.

The third generalisation follows from the earlier two. It has been the accepted wisdom to look at the the reforms of Begar and Beth as one single process which enabled the final abolition of the systems of forced labour in the Western Himalayas. But one finds that rather than one there were two parallel processes at work. These have different causes, affect seperate social groups and have unrelated consequences on later events.

                  Beth reform was mainly due to the necessity of rationalising the tenancy structure and bringing it at par with the Punjab Tenancies Act. There is no evidence of an anti – Beth agitation, either on the part of the Praja Mandal, the local Indian National Congress, or by any organised group during the entire period of British rule.