PROPERTY IN INDIA
Boundary stones. Government Survey Department. The village
map. How the stones are placed; how to use them. The Hindu
village clerk. Litigation in India. Lawyers' devices.
Conversation about money. Poverty great. Christians and
money. English fair-dealing not always apparent.
If you want to buy land in India, it is nearly always difficult to
find out who is the real owner. But in one important point the British
Government has made the transaction quite simple. When you are
travelling through India in the train, the impression left upon you is
that of a country which belongs to no one in particular, because there
is often so little trace of any boundary between field and field.
There are scarcely any hedges or walls, or when they exist they are so
irregular and come to an end so unexpectedly, that they only add to
the impression of vagueness of ownership. But the traveller, if he is
observant of detail, will have noticed stones sticking up here and
there, bearing some trace of having been shaped with a tool and
painted or whitewashed, and apparently placed in their position for a
definite object. Sometimes the stones stand alone, sometimes they are
grouped in twos or threes or more. The traveller, vaguely mindful that
the worship of stones is common amongst Hindus, concludes that these
have been put there for religious purposes.
But that is not so. These are only the boundary stones planted by the
Survey Department of the Government of India, perhaps one of the best
organised and most useful of Government departments. The whole of
India has been elaborately surveyed, and the maps are being
continually revised and corrected, and brought up to date. When making
the survey the boundary line of fields and other property was
patiently and carefully investigated, objections and claims listened
to, and an impartial decision arrived at. Each village has now its own
map taken from the Survey. Not only every field and garden is clearly
shown, but the position of all the boundary stones is marked, and they
are arranged on a system which makes a mistake as to the limit of any
property almost an impossibility: unless, indeed, any one "removeth
his neighbour's landmark"; an offence which is not unknown, but for
which the penalty is heavy.
The system is a simple one. A boundary stone is placed at the corner
of a field, or wherever there is an angle, and the boundary is always
drawn in a straight line from stone to stone. If four fields meet at a
certain point there may be as many as five stones, one in the centre
and one on each of the four boundary lines a few feet from the
centre. The number and position of each stone being marked on the map,
even villagers who cannot read or write are able to identify the
different groups of stones by the number in each group, and the
direction in which the additional stones are pointing.
For instance, you want to know the length and precise direction of one
side of a plot of land. Often there is no indication on the ground
itself of any boundary line at all, especially if it is uncultivated
land--neither ditch, or wall, or tree, or any other mark. But you
station yourself at the corner, and from thence look towards the
stone, a few feet off, on the boundary line you want to fix. Now and
then your line of vision is made doubly sure by a second stone two or
three feet farther on. Then, far away, but exactly in a line with the
stones which indicated your line of vision, you will catch sight of
another boundary stone, and you know that that is the extent of the
plot, or that at any rate there is an angle at that point. Whenever
there is any doubt through a stone getting overgrown with vegetation,
or displaced, the truth is easily got at by going to some other corner
and taking the line from there.
Each field is numbered, and in the books kept by the village clerk, or
accountant, the owner of each plot is recorded, and change of
ownership, or any other matter of importance affecting the property,
is supposed to be noted. The reason why, in spite of this, it is
often difficult to come at the real owner, is that most Indian
landowners are in difficulties through expenses incurred in the
marriage of their children, so that their property more often than not
is encumbered with mortgages. The average Hindu village clerk also is
not to be depended on, and as they are dealing with illiterate people,
they have many opportunities of falsifying village records. Also, the
inveterate habit of procrastination leads to vagueness in the record,
and transactions take place which are never noted. But there never can
be any real doubt as to where each bit of property begins and ends,
and that is a great boon.
Some of the educated lads of the Mission have got employment in the
Survey Department, and find it an interesting sphere. Its only
drawback for Christians is, that they are liable to be out in camp for
months at a time in regions where Christian privileges are not to be
had, or only at a great distance.
Disputes concerning the ownership of property lead to a good deal of
that constant litigation which is such a curse in India, but which
gives employment to innumerable lawyers of various grades. A young
Indian barrister, who was proposing to go to a certain town to
exercise his legal profession, explained to me why it was likely to be
a favourable locality. The people, he said, were for the most part
well-to-do, and that always meant a great deal of quarrelling
concerning money and land. But they were at the same time very
ignorant, and easily duped. He gave the following instance of the sort
of thing which takes place:--A man comes into the "pleader," or
lawyer's office, for a consultation. The pleader says: "Now, what sort
of law shall I give you? If I take it out of this book" (taking up a
black volume), "it will cost ten rupees. But if you want to have the
best law out of this book" (taking up a red volume), "it will cost
twenty rupees." The applicant probably agrees to take the twenty-rupee
law out of the red volume, naturally thinking that the best law is the
safest, even if it costs more.
It has been said that if you chance to hear two Indians talking
together, the word "money," or something relating to it, will almost
invariably be heard. In our crowded rural road, as villagers go to and
fro in pairs or groups, I have often tested the truth of this
proverbial saying. It is undoubtedly the case that perhaps in nine
cases out of ten they are discussing past or prospective earnings, or
some difficulty or quarrel connected with money matters. But this does
not necessarily indicate a love of money in the Western sense of the
expression. The majority of people in India are poor. The struggle
even for the small sum required for daily bread is often acute. The
conditions under which the majority of the poorer class of people have
to do their work has been already described. Hence the injustice which
they have received from their employers; hardships connected with
money earned but not paid, or only in part; the ups and downs of the
daily struggle for bread; these naturally form the burning questions
of the day, and they are the natural topics of conversation amongst
men and women. The very scarcity of money intensifies the temptation
to think too much of it when it has been acquired. It is not uncommon
to hear the critic of the Indian Christian say that he cares too much
for money. On the whole, it would probably be true to say that he does
not err more in this respect than the average Christian of the West.
But he happily retains a good deal of natural simplicity of character
and does not pretend to be different to what he really is, so that
when he is importunate for a rise of salary he does not think it
necessary to beat about the bush, or to appear to blush.
It is sometimes urged that though natives may dislike the often
brusque manner of some Englishmen, they are more than compensated by
getting in exchange English honesty and fair dealing. It is to be
feared that this boast has its limitations. In a country where it is
so difficult to find out what is the proper price of any article,
because the vendor almost habitually asks far more than he expects to
get, the new-comer naturally begins by paying too much. But after he
has become aware of this he is apt to go into the opposite extreme,
and he begins to pride himself on his cleverness in making bargains
with the natives, and he often ends by paying too little, both for
what he buys and for work done. There are even mission workers who
have got their influence discredited in this way. The strength of his
standing as a European makes it almost impossible for an ordinary
native to get redress, if he has been wronged in his dealings with an
Englishman. Servants often suffer a good deal from petty injustice.