48 SOCIAL SCIENTIST relationship with the estate was a 'civil' one it was outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts.7 Consequently, the position of the mustajars was quite ambiguous. They enjoyed certain privileges and exploited their tenants, but they also had certain grievances in common with the cultivators below them, especially when it came to meeting increased tax demands of the estate. There was also the problem of insecurity so far as their position and privileges were concerned. Below the mustajars were the tillers, both settled agriculturists and shifting cultivators. The former had occupancy rights granted by the Madras Estates Land Act (1908^, but in practice they could be dispossessed by the mustajars. Sometimes the mustajars resorted to illegal exactions from the tenants. They peasants paid rents on the 'seed capacity' of the land, and in some areas they paid rents on the number of ploughs and hoes owned. In both cases the rent was paid in grain. Some people engaged inpodu (i.e., shifting cultivation) escaped the taxation system because of the inaccessibility of the forests and the nature of cultivation. Thus, they would burn a portion of the forests, fence this plot, till the soil and sow seeds, and return after a gap of some months to reap the harvest.8 However, when they did pay taxes the number of ploughs and hoes they owned formed the basis of the assessment. In some parts of Malkangiri the tenants paid cash rents.9 In some cases the occupancy tenants as well as the holders of the inam lands sub-let a portion of their holdings on the 'sharing system'.10 When this was done the occupancy rights belonged to the persons who sub-let their land, since there is no evidence to suggest that the people who tilled such land had such rights. The settled occupancy tillers (and in some cases those engaged in podu) paid taxes in grain to the mustajars. The agricultural labourers formed a class of people who were paid in grain (li kwchums of paddy per day). The non-agricultural labourers (coolies) worked for wages between 3 to 4 annas per day31 in the 1940s. Malkangiri also had goti and bethi labourers. The former bound themselves for a sum of money to serve for a period till the loan together with its interest was repaid. The latter were forced labourers*12 Contradictions between the Estate and the People Let us now turn towards the contradictions that existed between the estate and the people of Malkangiri. Some of the oppressive features of the estate included bethi, goti and gudem. According to official estimates there were three categories of bethi: (i) forced and free labour; (ii) forced and inadequately paid labour; (iii) forced but 'adequately' paid labour. The first category included the forced labourers recruited by government officials (i.e., lower order officials and police), estate officials and mustajars. However, the estate was the most organised exploiter. The second category included recruits from particular villages, who were expected to perform domestic work for the government and estate staff. These people were