The Emancipation of the Opium Cultivators in Benares
HRC Wright - International Review of Social History, 1959 - cambridge.org
HRC Wright
International Review of Social History, 1959•cambridge.orgWhen Warren Hastings established the English East India Company's opium monopoly in
Bihar in 1773, the contractors who undertook its management were expressly forbidden to
compel the ryots (tenant-cultivators) to grow poppy. Later, Warren Hastings allowed this
restriction to be quietly dropped from the contracts, and in the 1780's the ryots were
protected only by implication, in that the contractors were required to deliver to the Company
as much opium as could be procured “lawfully and reasonably”. Although no legal powers of …
Bihar in 1773, the contractors who undertook its management were expressly forbidden to
compel the ryots (tenant-cultivators) to grow poppy. Later, Warren Hastings allowed this
restriction to be quietly dropped from the contracts, and in the 1780's the ryots were
protected only by implication, in that the contractors were required to deliver to the Company
as much opium as could be procured “lawfully and reasonably”. Although no legal powers of …
When Warren Hastings established the English East India Company's opium monopoly in Bihar in 1773, the contractors who undertook its management were expressly forbidden to compel the ryots (tenant-cultivators) to grow poppy. Later, Warren Hastings allowed this restriction to be quietly dropped from the contracts, and in the 1780's the ryots were protected only by implication, in that the contractors were required to deliver to the Company as much opium as could be procured “lawfully and reasonably”. Although no legal powers of coercion were granted, it accorded well with native custom that the ryots should be compelled to keep up the cultivation where it had previously existed, and when Lord Cornwallis investigated the matter in 1788 he found it to be generally understood that such compulsion was in force. Cornwallis intended to bring to the Company's terriories the benefits of personal freedom under the rule of law, but he did not wish to disrupt the opium arrangements. He therefore laid down fixed scales of remuneration for the opium ryots which he hoped would be generous enough to make them willing to continue and extend the cultivation, but did not immediately proclaim their emancipation. The contracts of 1789 were ambiguous; they did not say whether the continuance of existing cultivation was to be comulsory, but only that its extension was to be left to the option of the ryots. In 1793, however, when the ryots had had time to experience the benefits of the fixed rates of pay and their deliveries were increasing satisfactorily, the cultivation was declared to be completely optional. This caused no difficulties in Bihar.