Abstract
Popular perception views the colonial regime as totally unconcerned about the notions of propriety and sentiments associated with the native population. Such a view does not bar us from studying colonial governance and the public works that it undertook under normal governance. The case study of fishing prohibitions imposed on the lakes of Ajmer–Pushkar highlights not only the regard that the colonial government had towards the religious sentiments of the masses but also the influence of modern Western ideas of environment conservation. Parallel to this runs the narrative of communal tension that erupts due to the prioritisation of religious sentiments of the majority community by the British State. The poor, whose sustenance is dependent on fishing, find ways to breach the colonial prohibitions, thereby challenging the regime’s authority. Similarly, the representatives of the vegetarian merchant class use their influence to compel the British administrators to take the steps they favoured. No consensus or conclusion is reached due to the complex nature of the whole affair, but the reading of the correspondence that emergence to and from the Chief Commissioner’s Office of Ajmer–Merwara on the subject may give us an insight into the various factors that influenced the functioning of the colonial administration and the diverse kinds of reaction that these elicited from the native population.
The three water bodies of Ajmer that still constitute a dominating part of its landscape are the Pushkar Lake, Ana Sagar and Foy Sagar. Situated in the lap of the Aravallis, the three lakes collect water from the hills surrounding the city. While the origins of the Pushkar Lake may lie in the creation of a natural depression, the other two are definitely man-made, and they stand testimony to the efforts of administrators, separated by centuries, to meet the water needs of the urban settlement, keeping in view the unpredictable rainfall in the region. Pushkar, whether natural or artificial, has been assigned a divine status in ancient Sanskrit texts like the Vamana Purāna, Rāmāyana and Mahabhārata. The divine status attains historical validity through the second century inscription found near Nasik describing the donation of three thousand cows at Pushkar by Ushavadata, the Śaka chief. The Pratiharas saved it from the Huns, and the Chauhan patronage and temple construction on its banks ratified its status as a sacred lake. 1 It seems that the place had religious significance for Buddhists, as well as for the Jain community. Ana Sagar was constructed by Arnoraj Chauhan in the twelfth century as an embanked reservoir to supply water to the residents of his capital. The lake, covering a circumference of roughly 8 miles, had temples, sacred ghats and Jain gardens concentrated on the southern periphery of the lake, leaving the wider area for drinking, bathing, washing, fishing and so on. The Mughal rulers added the marble pavilions over the masonry embankment, and the lake continued to serve the city of Ajmer that became the imperial capital for a few years. Three miles to the south-west of Ana Sagar is Foy Sagar, the legacy of the colonial administration’s attempt to create a source of supply for municipal water. The reservoir was constructed from Municipal funds in 1892 by building a dam across the river Bandi. Having a capacity of 150 million cubic feet, it served as a source of drinking water for Ajmer city, civil station and the railways. 2 Bisal Sagar, constructed by Bisal Deo Chauhan in the eleventh century, which had already run dry during Mughal times 3 and was now further being located near the railway colony, did not contain enough water throughout the year to be used for fishing, 4 and it has not been included in the present study.
The content of the article revolves around the fishing prohibitions imposed by the colonial regime on the lakes of Pushkar, Ana Sagar and Foy Sagar. The purpose is to analyse the reasons that compelled the British to formulate these restrictions and how the lives of the marginalised whose sustenance depended on fishing were deeply affected by the implantation of such laws. Interspersed throughout the article are instances wherein the poor devised ways of subverting the colonial authority and many a times found sympathisers among the native policemen who used their position to protect the offenders. Parallel to this narrative would be the attitude of the native mercantile community who would use their influence to pressurise the colonial government to impose their vegetarian culture and food choices on the poor masses.
Out of the three lakes, Pushkar was the first to come under the gamut of legal restrictions regarding fishing, hunting and the killing of any animal within its sanctioned periphery. Even before the British, the local Brahmins and the Jain mercantile community had zealously maintained this prohibition, although no formal orders regarding it had been passed by the previous governments. That the British were the first formally to do so is evident from the official correspondence between the Commissioner’s office and Nasirabad Cantonment in the year 1895 containing a reference to a letter of 30 March 1869 detailing the prohibitions of shooting and fishing in the Pushkar lake. The issue got raked up as some of the Muslim inhabitants wanted to sacrifice animals for religious purposes. 5 Before this incident, the British administration had to deal with reports of some English officers shooting crocodiles in the lake, resulting in a major uproar by the local priests who had to be pacified with much effort. 6 To avoid such occurrences, orders were again passed on 13 March 1895 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner prohibiting the ‘shooting, fishing and killing of animals in any way within the limits of Pushkar’. The original orders contained no mention of a butcher’s shop, but the boundaries of Pushkar were officially fixed in such a way that the village of Ganhera, which had the only butcher’s shop in the vicinity, was placed outside the limits marked for Pushkar and the clause regarding the same was added later on (3 July 1896) in the official orders. The correspondence clearly shows that the step was taken to appease and satisfy the sentiments of the elite natives although a small relief was given to the non-vegetarian section also. However, the poor who could otherwise not afford to buy fish continued to breach the laws, as is evident from a letter dated 23 April 1906 sent by the President of the Pushkar Shamalat Committee to the Commissioner’s office and demanding the inscribing of the prohibition orders on the boundary stones of the town as well as the annual publishing of the orders in the native language as the people were still breaking the law. 7 By 1913, the situation had escalated to such an extent that cases were being filed in court by the Brahmins of Pushkar against people for fishing at the ghats in the night. The Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in his judgement dated 5 May 1913 in cases nos. 30 and 31, charged the accused under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code stating that ‘the appellants did not go to fish in the lake for their pleasure or amusement, but in order to make money by catching the large and well-fed fish with which the lake abounds’. 8 The European judge in his statement missed the irony of the situation when he accused the men of doing it for their survival instead of for pleasure because during the investigation it came out that the men were fishermen by profession and did not even have enough money to pay the fine.
Ana Sagar had been the major source of water for Ajmer during the pre-colonial era. Fishing near the marble pavilions and the masonry embankment was discouraged by the Mughal authorities also as these structures were looked at as symbols of prestige by the State, but the rest of the water spread was free for public use. The tradition continued during the colonial period along with the three and a half months’ customary prohibition of fishing during the breeding season (1 June–15 September). In 1884, the British started the piped supply of Ana Sagar water to the city. This development made them pay more attention towards the cleanliness of the water in the lake. In 1887, the authorities prohibited the ‘washing of any soiled or dirty clothes’ on the banks. In fact, the washermen continued to use the Ana Sagar water despite getting challans by the authorities, registering their protest towards the preferential attitude of the British for the customs of the high castes who were allowed to wash and bathe on the ghats while the washermen were being stopped from practicing their livelihood. 9 The colonial administration did not pay heed to their pleas and on 2 March 1909 the District Magistrate passed the orders prohibiting fishing at the masonry embankment. It is interesting to note that the Commissioner of Ajmer–Merwara, Col. W.C.R. Stratton was personally invited to attend the Jain Conference in March, and in the same year, on 9 August 1909, a letter came from Rai Seth Chand Mal, an influential Jain banker of Ajmer, complaining against the practice of ‘fishing, rubbing and cutting to pieces’ being carried out at some of the bathing ghats, which ‘wounds the religious susceptibilities of the Hindus’. The Commissioner’s office was quick to endorse it, but other officers closed the matter by citing the March orders in which fishing was prohibited only on the ‘masonry bund on which marble pavilion stands’ and ‘the public has always had the right of fishing elsewhere in Ana Sagar’. 10 When nothing was done by the administration, there were complaints against Chand Mal for hiring men to stop people from fishing at Ana Sagar. Chand Mal retorted that his men were merely putting back the fish from the lake’s nullahs into the main lake. Here it needs to be mentioned that these nullahs were the main source where the fishermen looked for fish. In October 1909, the same Seth reiterated his demands and the administration this time appeared to reconcile and, after taking due advice from the Tehsildar office, extended the fishing prohibitions to the ghats. The District Magistrate’s office prepared the orders that were ratified by the Chief Commissioner’s Notification No. 631-C/1094 dated 11 August 1910, prohibiting fishing in the Pushkar and Ana Sagar Lake under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The official correspondence clearly points out that the authorities made the decision because ‘there is reason to apprehend the occurrence of riots and affrays with danger to human life and safety’. In spite of the orders, the complaints from the Seth continued, demanding a strict implementation of the prohibition and ‘exemplary punishment’ for the offenders, proving that although the administration had bent to the demand of the elites, the majority of the native policemen were not firm in executing the prohibitions. In the early months of 1912, some of the leading members of the mercantile community like Kunwar Magan Mal (s/o of Chand Mal) and Kunwar Chhagan Mal offered to transfer the Ana Sagar fish to Pushkar to save it from the approaching summer when the Ana Sagar was expected to get practically dry. The businessmen who were leading members of their community sought not only the administration’s permission but also police protection as they were sure that the ‘ordinary fishermen’ would object. As the Seths offered to do it at their own expense, the administration readily agreed and the work began. The official files reveal some interesting episodes during the rescue drive. Some of the poor Muslim and Hindu fishermen hired by the Seth tried to steal away fish in gunny bags to be sold in the market. When the offenders were caught, their master asked the police to fine them harshly but the Indian Sub-Inspectors released them and instead scolded the Seth’s men for cultural policing. 11 Such inaction by the native policemen speaks volumes about their sympathetic attitude towards the marginalised section of their countrymen, which, sadly, was lacking among the native elites. The same year, a letter dated 20 May 1912, seeking permission to rescue the Foy Sagar fish under police protection, was also received by the British administration. As Foy Sagar was the result of colonial initiative and did not have any religious significance, the administration firmly decided not to interfere in the matter. In fact, complaints of police inaction and requests for permission to publicise the fishing prohibitions through the beating of drums and engraving on marble stones as well as the hiring of watchmen with government livery to be posted at Pushkar, Ana Sagar and Foy Sagar kept pouring in the years 1925 and 1927, all from the grandson of Seth Chand Mal. These letters totally overlooked the clause of partial prohibition for Ana Sagar and a complete absence of the same for Foy Sagar, giving the impression to the official recipients, who were often newly transferred, that there was a complete prohibition on both lakes. 12 Nevertheless, the authorities were vigilant and reiterated the old 11 August 1910 prohibitions regarding Pushkar and Ana Sagar and clearly declaring Foy Sagar to be the property of the Ajmer Municipality and free from any prohibition. Records show that similar letters objecting to the practice of fishing in the lake and its nullahs were sent by the Marwari and Jain businessmen and shopkeepers of Naya Bazar and Kala Bagh in 1927 and 1933, respectively, highlighting the persistent attempts by the moneyed class to regulate the water body in accordance with their own beliefs.
Another facet of the fishing prohibitions at Ana Sagar was the special permission for fishing granted to Europeans for recreational purposes even during the breeding season, whereas the native fishermen were penalised for doing so. 13 However, reference of a case registered by the police against shooting ducks at Ana Sagar in the year 1936 compelled the commissioner office to clarify that shooting is not prohibited at the lake. 14 This game was popular among the Europeans and Muslims elites who had to be kept free of the purview of prohibitions meant for the masses.
As stated earlier, Foy Sagar represented the colonial notions of health, hygiene and sanitation. In order to maintain the purity of the water that was being supplied to the railway establishments and civil station in Ajmer, the village of Kazipura located in the catchment area of the lake was shifted to the nearby hills after giving monetary compensation to the residents. Interestingly, the Commissioner, Chief Commissioner and municipal committee had all ratified the proposal dated 8 September 1892. The people of the Kazipura registered their protest, but their petition of 20 February 1893 was rejected by the Chief Commissioner’s office.
15
Although Foy Sagar did not have any shooting and fishing restrictions like Ana Sagar and Pushkar, some reported cases of accidental or purposeful shooting of ducks, fish and crocodiles, which were then left there to decompose and pollute the water source, presented major concerns for the waterworks sub-committee of the Ajmer Municipality. Through letter No. W/973 dated 13 May 1932 the Chairman sought permission from the Commissioner’s Office to prohibit shooting in Foy Sagar Lake; and on receiving their affirmative response dated 6 June 1932, they immediately prohibited both fishing and hunting in the lake.
16
Within a year, appeals started piling up from the white civilians, officers of the Nasirabad cantonment and influential Muslims of Ajmer asking special permits to fish at Foy Sagar. When the Commissioner’s office appeared pressurised to do so, the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, forwarded a copy of its General Committee’s resolution No. 16 dated 22 February 1934, approving the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation to prohibit fishing in Foy Sagar. In fact, the municipal committee in its resolution had prohibited any human habitation near it to avoid draining of sewerage into it, and declared that ‘all people, except those specially authorised should be excluded from the area’.
17
Nevertheless, the Commissioner’s office continued to receive petitions requesting special permission to fish at Foy Sagar. Some of the petitioners included Har Dayal Singh, the Prince of Sikar, who was studying at Mayo College; and Sahibzada Sadiq Ali Khan of Tonk. The administration did not relent because it did not want to compromise in any way the cleanliness of water that was being supplied to the Civil Station and railways. Gradually the language of the letters started turning legal and firm, citing arguments in favour of fishing and generally protesting against the attempts of the State to regulate and curb the legitimate rights of the local people over the natural resources of the locality. Worth mentioning here is a letter dated 25 January 1937, sent by the Secretary of Jamiat-Tablig-ul-Islam, protesting against the prohibition of fishing in Ana Sagar and Foy Sagar. The letter contained the following resolution passed by the society’s members:
18
The Residents of Ajmer who have assembled here to protest against the recent activities of the Municipal Committee Ajmer regarding the prohibition of fishing in Ana Sagar and Foy Sagar and to enact bye-laws to forfeit the right of fishing in these lakes, strongly cite the notification no. 631-c-1094 of 11th August 1910 and see no necessity of any new bye-laws or amendments. If the Municipal Committee without regarding the sentiments and desires of the majority of the population takes any unforesighted action, it will be wholly responsible for any results and consequences therefrom. Copies of the ‘resolution passed by the Citizens of Ajmer’ to be published in the local and Mufassil Press.
A similar letter, albeit not as strongly worded, came from the Anglo-Indians employed in Ajmer Loco Workshop, in which they had cited the opinion of senior medical officers and arguments in favour of rod-and-line technique for fishing in Foy Sagar. 19 This too had no effect.
A closer study of the fishing prohibitions imposed on the three water bodies in the region during colonial times helps us develop an insight into the perspective of the three stakeholders trying to claim their rights to the water resources. The first claimant was the colonial state that, despite being European in composition, was trying to continue the same administrative trends and traditions of its Indian predecessors, at least with regard to lakes that have had religious significance. In the case of Pushkar, the administration readily legalised the prohibition on fishing in 1869 and reiterated it in 1895. The waters of Buddha Pushkar were supplied to Ajmer Railways till the construction of Foy Sagar in 1892, and even later on, whenever the Foy Sagar level went down, it was replenished from Buddha Pushkar via a special pipeline. This perhaps explains the promptness with which the colonial administration agreed to the legalisation of prohibition in Pushkar, while Ana Sagar elicited a different response from the British. They had already sent away the washermen to prevent dirt from soiled clothes from entering the lake, as its water was being used for drinking. Fishing did not pollute the water, but the poor, shabbily attired fishermen could not have been allowed to sit and loiter around ‘Baradari’, the pride and glory of Ajmer as well as the venue for the first meeting of British sponsored organisations like ‘Walter Krit Rajput Hitkarini Sabha’. In 1909, the British banned fishing on the pillared masonry embankment, but the rest of the banks including the ghats, were left free for the natives to use the lake as per their wants. The legalisation of fishing by the British encouraged the native elites, whose gardens and ghats flanked the southern boundary of Ana Sagar, to also indulge in it, and the same year, letters by the most influential and rich bankers of Ajmer started floating in, requesting prohibition of fishing on the lake. The administration could not afford to ignore their plea and, after a brief introspection, extended the restriction to the ghats as well. The non-vegetarian Jain merchants persistently demanded the inclusion of the whole lake within the gamut of the 1910 prohibition, but the state did not relent because it had to keep the rest of the lake open for the Europeans and Anglo-Indians, and some of the white officers did even acknowledge the ‘right’ of the people to fist on the Ana Sagar water as is proven from the official correspondence. Foy Sagar on the other hand was a different subject altogether. It represented the modern Western notion of hygienic drinking water meant for colonial institutions like railways. The British were not ready to compromise and give leverage to any community on it, be it the influential members of the Hindu and Muslim communities or the Europeans. Once it was decided to prohibit shooting and hunting in its waters, the colonial officers did not bend the rules for anyone. In fact, as is evident from the Ajmer Series Records, the digging of Foy Sagar had required the uprooting of life of the people of the hamlet of Kazipura who had been inhumanly removed from the land of their ancestors to maintain the cleanliness of the water.
The second claimant to the water bodies was the high-class elite of the majority community who due to their wealth had enough clout to influence and pressurise the colonial government. In the case of Pushkar, although the objection was primarily raised by the priestly class, it was the mercantile community whose support added weight to the demand. With regard to Ana Sagar, there is no priestly class raising objections, but the powerful bankers of Ajmer took the lead by claiming to represent the desire of the high caste Hindus and Jains. The sustenance of the marginalised communities was not their concern. They hired fishermen to save fish not catch fish, imposing their own food choice on others. They so understood the spirit of mercantilism of the colonial government and were quick to offer money to develop the eight-mile water body as per their notion of development.
The last party, or rather the victims in this affair, were the fishermen whose natural right to utilise the lakes for their sustenance was gradually withdrawn and made punishable by law. Pushkar had always been off limits for them, but Ana Sagar was their lifeline. The location of the lake saved time and cost of transportation to the city market. The spread area of the lake was sufficient for the number engaged in this profession, but the gradually extending restrictions and involvement of the moneyed class and physical skirmishes with their watchmen hit them hard. Nevertheless, they continued to resist, finding loopholes in the restriction, 20 shifting places, resorting to thieving, bearing police beatings—and many a time finding sympathisers among the local officers.