ABSTRACT
David Hardiman, in his graphic historical accounts of the complex relationship of domination and subordination among the peasants, the moneylenders and the colonial administration in western India, has portrayed debt as the cruellest feature of peasant life in colonial India (Hardiman 1996). He has also explained the cycle of debt that entrapped the poor tribals in south Gujarat who had to resort to seasonal borrowings in times of abnormal distress (like famines), to celebrate marriages and perform death rites, to purchase farm implements and livestock and to meet routine household needs. Much of such borrowings were for the long term and the terms of lending harsh, especially, in the case of longterm loans and loans that were extended in crisis situations. The poor debtors were made to adjust all their surplus produce against their debt. Thus, the moneylenders (or the sahukars) wielded enormous control over agricultural and artisanal production as also produce from the forests. Even in the local markets, the wares of petty producers could fetch only a small fraction of the actual value, as these were also controlled by the trading and moneylending class.
