CRISIS IN COLONIAL AGRICULTURE: SOIL EROSION IN TANGANYIKA DURINGTHE INTERWAR PERIOD BONAVENTURE SWAI* Initially a 'blessed word', the term development has given way to pessimism. If those who introduced the designation expected to solve the problem of poverty with the stroke of a pen,. this ha,s not occurred. Intellectualizing upon Third World ills still goes on.1 Thus has been posed the question: 'Development for what?' Thus, too, the ideology of 'small is beautiful' has gai.ned c:u~rency. 2 Radicals have counteracted the notion of development to show its ideological overtones. Those enamoured with the scientific method have attempted to reveal its historical and social content, and sought to offer an alternative with which to comprehend the historical process. 3 Yet the notion of development is not a post~olonial invention. Rather it is an inheritance from tlLe colonial past. 4 Within the British Colonial Empire, the 'development fever' became a dominant theme of imperial ideology in the aftermath of the First World. War •. There was a need, it was declared to bring 'the social and political life of colonial territories .•• into a healthy relation with the more advanced countries', and that this 'is a task which demands careful and deliberate planning'. Such' colonial management' or 'social engineering', it has been asserted, was!overnmental action 'designed to secure, maintain, or restore the good life'. To ensure that this ambition was fulfilled, two Acts of the British Parliament (the Colonial Development Act, 1929, and the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940), were passed to create a fund which would enable the Imperial Government to advance loans and grants to the colonies in areas considered complementary to the British economy. The Development and Welfare Act was 'designed to expand greatly the scope of the .Act of 1929', and had a fund of £5 million as compared with £1 million for the. previous Acts, in addition to a sum of £500,000, which was raised to £1 million in 1945, for agricul~ral research in the colonies. 7 'Planning', the leadiilg English historian A.I. P. Taylor has said, 'was the key word of the thirties: planned economy, plan for peace, planned families, plan for holidays' .8 Ana this was not restricted to the colonial empire alone. On the contrary, it involved to an even greater degree, perhaps, the metropolitan economy. Under the whip of monopoly capitalism, it has now come to be realized, the state was becoming more and q more interventionist. - >: 'to great communal tasks in road making, tsetse fly clearing, etc, which few other tribes could De prevailed upon to tackle'. 90 Not all districts in Central Province were as successful in this venture like Singida, but the colonial administration tried its best to ensure that some of the new methods of farming and the new variety of seeds were adopted. Prejudice against Pastoralism, it has been said, also had something to do with the manner in which modern agriculture was introduced in 39 Central Province. 91 Jndeed many imperial pronouncements emphasized crop hus bandry rather than pastoralism. Thus Lord 01 ivier sn id: 'Agriculture is the paramount ,industry of our tropic21 and sub-tropical colonies. Englishmen are now attempting in Africa what they undertook in the 17th century in the West Indies, namely as planters and farmers, to establish communities maintaining a European civilization upon the basis of Negro labour'. But while it was so with the West Indies, Lord Olivier cautioned: 'European agriculture is a highly developed art. greatly superior in its total efficiency to that of African negroid communities. It is superior in its primary dealing with the soil, in regard to access, fencing, drainage and tillage, for which it is better equipped with tools nncl machinery'. African agriculture in Tanganyika, however, was 'higgledy_ piggledy' and thus had to be controlled firmly by the colonial ildminislriltion if it were to,be modernized. 92 But if African agriculture twd 10 be improved, it was sedentary farming which was favoured. If mixed farming could be practised, so much the better. In this regard, therefore, pastorilll sm practised in its apparent wanton manner was out of the question. Thus in his An Agricultural Testament published in the interwar years, S. 'Howard asserted: 'Mixed Agriculture is the rule, plants are always found with animals' .93 Moreover: Mother Earth never attempts to farm without livestock: she always raises mixed crops; great pains are takC'n to preserve the soil and to prevent erosion: the mixed vegetable and animal wastes are converted into humus; there is no waste; the process of growth and the process of decay balance one another; ample provision is made to maintain large reserves of fertility; the greatest care is taken to store rainfall; both plants and animal s are left to protect themselves against diseaseJ9L) Such was the agricultural ideology on the ascendance in the interwar years. In such a situation, pastoralism per se was discouraged where possible. Soil fertility and, by implication, soil conservation W0re C'ncournged a great deal in the interwar period to ensure increased produdion without which, it was believed, the economic effects of the Creat DC'pn's",ion could not be solved. For this reason, mixed farming ratlwr thim p,lstor,llism was emphasized with a view to making peasants use [Iuimal mitnUr'C'in lnl'ir fields. Such a policy was also encouraged in thC' Cer\trnl Province, especially'with regard to the cultivation of groundnuts. sim sim, ,md sun- flower. 40 The position of agriculture in the Central Province was compounded by a number of natural <;alamities. The frequency of famines was one such calamity. Usually attributed to the recurrence of dt-ought, this caiamity was augmented by" such occurrences as the locust ,invasion of 1928-1933 which consumed food crops and pasture, and thus intensifYing the sufferin~ of man and beast to a degree hitherto unparalleled in the history of Central Province. 95 Famines forced the ,coloni.al state to ,goad th~ p~op1e to adopt sedentary agriculture more than ever before. In a sOcial formation in which those who labour had to take charge of their own reproduction and recon- stitution, on top 'of producing enough sur,plus labour, but where, all the same, such conditions did not permit, the colonial state adopted whatever polic;ies considered necessary to ensur~ that this happened. The colonial state, it has been said, laid .the conditions necessary for the super- exploitation of colonial labou!'. In this regard, Central Province was no excep t'Ion. 96 Added to this was the tsetse 'menace, which following the adverse effects of the First World War in Central Province recrudesced to a degree hitherto unknown. 97 Thus it was calculated that a quarter of Central Province's 37, 000 square miles was infested with the dreaded 98 tsetse in 1936. In Singida it was reported that the tsetse 'which press in all sides' was forcing the inhabitants of the district to take to the hills. 1fe:rethe dreaded fly occ~pied half :::~:":he district. Kondoa was not safe either. And in areas occupied by the tsetse, neither people nor stock were safe. 99 In view of these calamities: famine, locusts, droug'ht and the tsetse, the peasants of Central Province were urged to grow 'muhogo and sweet potatoes in every damp mbuga' .100 In 1931 the Provincial Commissioner reported to the Chie.f.Secretary: The year has been a perplexing one to. the Native, Authorities in every way. In so many cases OUr adyice and instructions have verged on the contradictory. They must accept lower prices for their prod1J.ce because local prices depend on World prices which are low. They must conserve food. They must plant muliogo, sweet potatoes' and oth~r root crops to defeat locusts. The:y must grow for export. They must sell some of their cattle to raise tax and reduce the great surplus of stock They must not permit movement of cattle because of rinderpest. They must cultivate as before. They must not destroy forest growth or cause soil erosion. (101) Such were the contradictions in policy brought about by the naturaL calamities coupled with the nature of the social formation which was but a backward capitalist economy. 102 41 The place of Central Provmce as an appendage of the capitalist ec.onomy,in this particular case under the command of the British, entailed that it has to produce for export. Yet the frequency of famines entailed that more attention, that was warranted in relatively fertile areas like Kilimanja-ro, had to be paid to the subsistence sector. But the tsetse menace was making more and more areas uninhabitable for both man and beast. The reduction of arable land led to overcrowding. The cultivation of land which was extremely poor for the purpose of farming caused erosion. The former acted as a catalyst to the latter. Thus by 1938the Provincial Commissioner reportedto the Chief Secretary: 'There is scarcely an area in the whole of the province which is free from the menace of soil erosion in one or another of its forms, and while the positioJ;l.is partly due to disafforestation and wasteful methods of agriculture, its main cause is overgrazing'. Erosion was very noticeable n~ar water- holes. The endeavour to supply more of these, however, did not solve the .. 103 crlSlS •. Howthe Provincial Commissioner concluded that overgrazing was the major cause is in question. What is clear is that cattle and agriculturists were competing for land. Why cattle were blamed can only be exptained by the so-called prejudice against pastoralists. It is also a pointer to the manner in which the provincial administration wanted to solve the problem, that is mainly by destocking. More desperate reports followed. 'Soil-erosion', the Provincial Commissioner reported in 1942, 'threatens the land and thus constitutes a menace to human and animal health and to agriculture, animal husbandry and communicatIons - a menace that brings in its train the danger of recurring or increased famin~' .104 Thus in 1943 there was a continued drive to grow more crops, and shirkers were brought to book. IDS Erosion, it seemed, was also contributing to the frequent famines besetting Central Province. 106 'The aridity of the Dodoma Karoo' , it was noted, 'has led to famine after famine, some local, some general, for which it has only been possible to find palliatives in the form of pressing for increased acreage of food crops, especially sweet potatoes, and of intaning tribal food reserves. In the Singida and Kondoa districts, where the climate is kindlier in a slight degree, the tsetse has engulfed great areas in recent years,. and forced the population back upon itself, only to be beset by erosion of the soil, insidious as in Singida or wholesale as l1l Kondoa! Here the population looked weak, and 'anyone who spends over two y.... ars in Ugogo should be regarded as expendable'. 'Both man and his environm('nt must be reclaimed' •107 42 Reclamation work which was geared to land conservation had been started in the 1920s. By 1931, 'tribesmen, who have never made a "tuta" before' had 'learnt to carry out that nearly perfect but most laborious lUL~ of green ma1J.uring. And thi's is valuable advance as in the near future we (the colonial government) shall have to insist on contour 'tuta' culture on all fan slopes'. The contour culture on fan slopes was 'intended to link up the preservation of all timber on the steep hillsides with the steady provision of water supplies on the plains', and that if this was completed successfully the provincial administration would 'have done more than is possible in the most tribal areas to conserve moisture, prevent soil erosion, and preserve the inherent fertility of the soH,.108 Nevertheless, the problem with the plains where water was provided and so induce people to migrate to such areas was the menace of the tsetse. Even so, in many areas of Central Province, people were encouraged to stop cultivating on the hills which were being denuded of their trees, and so 'make their homes on the fan slopes and out on the plains whenever water is available'. 109 But it! was also becoming clear that many of the slopes were becoming congested, particularly in Kongwa and Mpwapwa. The alternative lay in reclaiming land infested with tsetse flies. This was done by clearing bush, a procedure which in the long run also led to erosion. The Central Province appeared to have been caught up in a vicious cycle.l1O Aside from the '~ system', the people of Central Province were also encouraged to sell their cattle. For those who were prepared to sell their stock, though, none could be sold duri.ng the Great Depression for W.llltof markets. The people were, therefore, told to grow more cr.ops 'to meet their tax obligations to the government' .111 By the late 1930s, however, outright force was being used to ma]~ethe people of Central Province part with their cattle through the marketing system. Special auctions were introduced by the government in selected areas to ensure that the cattle population in Central Province was reduc6!d. Never- theless, erosion was still rampant and, indeed, on the increase. Govern- ment anti-soil erosion policies appeared fruitless. Northern Province; The main problem facing Kilimanjaro nowadays is that of overpopulation. A similar problem is evident in some parts of Mbulu and Arusha, especially Meruland. Nor is the problem restricted to these areas alone. Similar issue~ are evident in Upare and Usambara which formerly constituted a significant part of Tanga Province. Yet the problem is not a recent one. This is particularly so for Kilimanjaro where a number of reports were written 43 during the colonial era on the issue of overcrowding on the mountain. Such were the Gillman Report, the Teale-Gillman Report, the Arusha-Moshi Lands Commission, the Wilson Report and the Elliot and Swyhnerton Report. 112 The menace of soil erosion in Northern Province, and for that matter other areas of Tanganyika Territory like Ukiriguru was associated to a large degree with the issue of overcrowding. This section is restricted to erosion in Kilimanjaro during the interwar years where the menace was tackled fairly early. 113 While erosion in Kilimanjaro was due to overcrowding, the causes oi this phenomenon should be located. One of these was the alienation of land to the settler community. Thus while the population density of Kibosho, Marangu and Uru in the 194-Os was 756, 54-7 and 4-95 people to the square mile respectively, the percentage of land which had been alienated in these areas was 36, 20 and 23. Unlike what is peddled around in the name of conventional wisdom, therefore, overcrowding was due to neither the benefits of 'colonial medicine1 nor the capacity of Africans to breed excessively. Added to overcrowding was the rise of a class of rich peasants which drove the poor from their lands and absorbed the common land and so causing landlessness. The effects of this were shown in the increasing amount of litigation in 'native courts' on the question of land in Kilimanjaro. Intensive cultivation both for commercial crops and food soon brought about the menace of erosion. Thus the Department of Agriculture observed in the 1930s that soil erosion in Kilimanjaro was on the increase due to uncontrolled cultivation of the land and deforestation. 'The native1, it was emphasized, 'must be made to realize the danger; the Wachagga are especially jealous of their lands, they should be equally jealous of their soil-fertility of those lands which will be lost to them by erosion as surely as they could be by alienation, unless they adopt a system of intensive gardening, which on the steeper slopes of Kilimanjaro should be carried out by terraces'. Rules framed under section fifteen of the Native Authorities Ordinance for the conservation of water and prevention of soil erosion were initially introduced. These were reinforced by new orders which came into force in 1932. The latter were in turn consolidated by the rules of 1934 which prohibited the planting of crops and trees within 'an area measuring 50 paces from the banks of any river or spring except with the sanction of a chief. Coffee grown in such areas before 27 August 1931 had to be interplanted with bananas. However, coffee grown after that date had to be uprooted. The orders also had it that a plot of land owned adjacent to. a river 'before 1.3.35' had to be separated from the river by 'a line of 44 b('~cons SO paces from 111eriver or spring. The beacons must be constructed of stone or other material accepted by an Administrative Officer or Agricultural Officer or Native Authority and each beacon must be visible to a person standing at the adjoining one'. Contravention of this order carried a fine of fifty shillings or one month imprisonment or both. Crops plonted on river valleys without the sanction of a recognized authority had to be uprooted, 'and the person ordered to plant "Mfumi" or "tembo" or other approved trees in th0 area so uprooted'. This action, it was claimed was carried out with the intent to ('nsure 'conservation of water ond t' preVE'nIon a f SOl'1 erOSIon " 11S The tendency to cultivate on river Volleys was caused by overcrowding. The fact that the soil conservation measures were tied to the planting of coffee, as crop which was becoming very popular in Kilimanjaro ensured that the orders would be observed to the latter, particularly by the rich peasantry. Soon, therefore, erosion was controlled in the highlands. This was so because 'the continuous orchards of bananas and coffee bounded by compact hedges and protected by shade tree.s and shelter belt, all tend to break the force of the rain, to slow down run-off, to reduce desiccation and to give certain measure of protection to the soil through leaf fall. Further protection is afforded by manure and interplanted crops'. Such was the result of colonial policy in 1930s Kilimanjaro. 116 While such success was being scored in the highlands of Kilimanjaro, however, the story about the low lands of the district read differently. Also called open lands, the climate in this areas was harsh and soils poor. But notwHhstanding the menace of the tsetse, overcrowding had forced many inhabitants of Kilimanjaro, the Wachagga, to migrate from the high- lands to these area.;. 117 If ere, though, lack of water forced the newcomers to ndopt intensive '11ethods of irrigation which, albeit known and practised on the highlands, were rather wasteful on the lowlands. This coupled with the adoption of intensive methods of cultivation practised on the highlands brought about the mel18.ceof erOSlon. , 118 Maize, and especially onions and eleusin were cultivated on the 11<) ,~ lowlands .. The greatest danger to the soil on the lowlands was from the 'irrigation of the finger '11i11et(planted after the main rains) and from irrigation of bananas and coffee' normally grown in very small acounts, 'at drv periods of the year' 'Many flood their gardens with strong and - " 120 destructive flows of water', and thus intensifying the menace of erOSion. The' wanton use of destructive methods of irrigation apart, in many areas 45 of the lowlands, 'the bush is cut back but, despite extensive propaganda, it is seldom stumped to permit tractor ploughing so that regeneration is rapid. After the first year or two sheet erosion in the blocks of cultivation, with its attendant gullies, becomes apparent'. 121 The alternative to this destruction of the soil was tcr discourage the cultivation of finger millet in the lowlands and give the area to the 'vihamba system1. This, h.owever was bound to be a slow process. Moreover, to encourage this system was not necessarily to ensure that neither onions nor finger millet would be grown 122 anymore. Such then was the state of soil erosion in K ilimanj aro. Anti-erosion policies were more successful on the highlands. Here, 'Native Authority rules which closed the deep rivers, the smaller streams and gullies and the steep slopes to cultivation, and prescribed soil conservation measures1 were promulgated at an early date and were consolidated in 1940'.*2? Gangs of trained levellers lay out level contours across all annual cultivations.. .according to the season and supervised the construction of contour banks, with earth, trash, and stone1. Population pressure, it is claimed, had forced the colonial government to embark upon the anti-erosion 1"}'A campaign at such an early period. 3. Conclusion; This essay has attempted to show the antinomy of 'man and n a t u r e ' , and more specifically the menace of soil erosion in colonial Tanganyika. 'Man has always consumed certain natural resources which he needs. But only in recent times has it become clear that the consumption of a particular r e s o u r c e prompts a complex reaction in nature 1 . 125 Now the reality has dawned that the object of labour, nature, i s limited, and that if the delicate balance between man and the environment i s disturbed the results can be disastrous. Thus in 'such circumstances people inevitably become aware that a crudely utilitarian, profit-seeking, capitalist attitude to nature directly concerns the position of the mass of the people and affects their life, health, welfare and daily life, and also the physical and mental growth'.126 Yet the capitalist propaganda machine has tended to explain away 127 ecological c r i s e s as if they were above the society in which they occur. Such is a good display of abstracted empiricism which tends to mis specify the i s s u e . In the case of erosion in Tanganyika, for example, it was blamed on '.native farming system' which could not cope with overpopulation and so 1 !?fi ' forth. This explanation has been perpetuated, albeit in a refurbished 46 form, and notwithstanding the changes which have occurred in the political facade. But as was indicated in the introduction, the interaction between society and nature constitutes an aspect of social practice. The 'world of nature' therefore becomes a stumping ground for not only natural scientists, but also philosophers and social scientists. 130 The environmental crisis rampant in the capitalist world economy, therefore, becomes amenable to analysis if it is remembered that the lodestar of this system is pragmatism, a philosophy which does not essentially contain a'systematic view towards nature save that of utilitarian,ism. Pragmatism is 'the philosophy of success, the philosophy of action. It is precisely to sUccess and action that prag- matism subordinates everything - truth, religion, matter and nature' .131 If this is the sort of phllOSOPhYwhich guided capitalist enterprise in the metropolis, it has been argued, it was worse in colonial social formations. Thus it has been said of colonial exploitation that it was rapacious 'rather than reproductive, bent on quick returns rather than long-term exchange. It was destructive of the soil and resources, yet failing to provide for alternative forms of livelihood' •132 Colonial relations were, therefore, not just exploitative but super-exploitative. Such has also been termed parasitism or plunder. 133 Within this context have been"discussed such other notion~ as dev~lopment of underdevelop- ment, primitive accumulation, and lately the idea of subsumption of labour under capital. 134 Yet what is most wanting in the attempt t('. apply these notions in the study of African history is periodization if reification is to be avoided.135 Originally, primitive accumulation of capital was a process of becoming, and so too was formal subsumption of labour under capital. 136 However, for colonial and postcolonial social formations, these processes have been taking place mainly under conditions which' already presuppose .•• the exis- tence of the capitalist mode of production' .137 This is an important observatiO!l if the continued perseverence of formal subsumption of labour under capital, the condition whereby capital subsumes the labour processes as it finds it, in given social formations is to be understood. This is so because while the phenomenon of formal subsiunption of labour is insignif- icant :in: those capitalist countries which are already industrialized, 'it is nonetheless of considerable importance in the colonial and semi-colonial countries of the so-called developing world' .138 In African history, formal subsumption of capital under labour is thought to have began in the mercantalist era. 139 The dominant character- istic of this period, giyen the nature of merchant capital, was trade and 47 plunder. Commerce was also the leitmotif of free trade imperialism. Raw materials for the industrial world.was not yet a dominant issue. By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, the price of raw materials began to r i s e drastically. The inefficient methods .-of their production in the Americas, and the American Civil War have been cited as being some of 1 A? the c a u s e s . The discovery of gold in California and Australia caused a 1 boom that helped inflate the prices of most goods', including raw materials. This, coupled with the emergence of America and Germany as important industrial powers forced Britain and France to look for ways of lowering the cost of production of their industrial produce. Initially mechanization had solved the riddle. But by this time there was a need to look for a cheaper source of raw materials as well. 'The hunt for raw m a t e r i a l s ' , Mandel says, 'went hand in hand, so to speak, with imperialist capital export and was to some extent a causal determinant of it. In this way, the growth of a relative excess of capital in the metro- politan countries and the search for higher rates of profit and cheaper raw materials form an integrated complex'. There was thus a 'massive penetration of capital into the production of raw materials' to force down the price of raw materials. 14.S Such is what happened with the establishment of the plantation system and mining industry, both of which were geared to the export of 'migrant' labour. Such a trend had already been shown by the Dutch in Indonesia. Alternatively, peasant labour was coerced into the production of raw materials. T h i s , the British had demonstrated with regard to India in late eighteenth century, albeit initially on a small scale, was a cheaper method than the u,se of slave labour. While it supplied useful cannon to the abolitionists who were against slavery in the West Indies, it was also to be the dominant trend of raw materials production in many parts of Asia 1 Z.7 and Africa. This was particularly noticeable in India following the Great Rebellion of 1857, and in Africa subsequent to the partitioning of 1 /Pi the continent. Such then was the alleged imperialist endeavour 'to stimulate the lagging productivity of traditional agriculture into realizing a greater and greater share of its potential wealth, within the shortest space of time and in areas where the investment necessary to achieve this aim might be assumed of a generous as well as rapid return'. Prices of raw materials began to fall in the latter part of the nineteenth century, but an upward trend, again surfaced in the 1920s due to 'the stagnation of labour productivity in the dependent countries and simultaneously a rapid increase in the labour productivity of the industrialized countries'. 48 This trend was interrupted by the Great Depression of 1929-32, but the international arma.ments boom and the Korean War in 1950 hel ped to sustain the upward trend. This phenomenon called far a quest of cheap source of raw materials, as in the mid-nineteenth century, and this was shown in the. production of such things as synthetic raw materials from 151 petroleum by-products and so on . The quest for a cheap source of raw materials •supplied the justification for the continued maintenance of formal subsumption of labour under capital in colonial social formations. Such efforts were shown by the policy of the colonial state to exhort peasants to produce more for not only the export market, but also their reproduction and reconstitution. This phenomenon was made possible by the sustenance of precapitalist social relations of production within which the reproduction and reconstitution of peasant labour was supposed to take place. Such relations have been posed as the real impediment to 'development', but as is the case with other imperialist statements, it is necessary to turn it upside down and the right way up if its social contents is to be fathomed~52 It has been said that the character of a social formation is determined hy the manner in which surplus labour is pumped out of the producer. Such arc also the social relations which determine the nature of technology extant in a given social formation. Under formal eontrol of labour by capital, as has already been indicnted, the labour process is inherited from a previous mode of production. Capital insists on extending the working day and thus extracting absolute surplus value rather than on improving the labour process so as to bring down the cost of production. The technology employed in this instance is an inheritance from the past, and thus back- ward. Under such circumstances, crises abound, .environmental and other- . 153 WJse. Such points are important in the endeavour to explain ecologtcal crises in colonial social formations. The quest for cheap sources of raw materials by industrial nations since the middle of the previous century entailed not only t.he commercialization of even marginal lands as was the case with the arid lands of Tanganyika but also the production of such commodities under extremely backward conditions of formal subsumption of labour under capital. Whenever there was an economic slump, colonial social formations Wl're forced to commercialize new areas of their economic activitIes, and so bring down the prices of their products more than ever before. In that W{lY, too, they helped lower the cost of production in the industrial nations 49 and provided markets for their finished products. 1541ndeed it was also during periods of crisis that ecological crises caught the attention of colonial proconsuls, and thus made colonial administration start worrying about soil conservation. Such, however, were the immediatt! causes which, although important in themselves, are also indicative of the funda- mental caUses of the crises. Crises are important baci'1Usethey help illuminate the main contradictions dominant in a given social formation~55 In colonial social formations they help.reveal the nature of capital and its relation to labour. Such is the usefulness of studying, inter alia, ecological crisis. FOOTNOTES: 1. D.•A. Lowz Lion Rampant, London 1974, ch. 2. Bonaventure Swai, 'East India Company and the Moplah merchants of T ellicherry', Social Scientist, 8, 1979. V. Pavlov, Asian Dilemma, Moscow 1975 W. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, I,ondon 1975. 2. M. Bookchin, 'Ecology and revolutionary thought', AntiPOde X - Xi, 1979. See also G. Dunbar, 'Elieee Reclus: geograp er h and anarchist', P. Kropotkin, 'What geography ought to be' , and M.M. 'Breitbart, 'Anarchism and environment', ibid. The following studies too, will be of some use: C. Ake, 'Exploratory notes on the political economy of Africa', Journal of Mode.rn African Studies, Xlv, 1976. J. Schumacher, Splall is Beautiful, London 1974. D. H. Meadows, et al. The Limits to Growth, London 1972. 3. H. Bernstein, 'Underdevelopment and the law of value: a critique of Kay', Review of African Political Econo1U!96, 1976. B. Davey, Economic Development of India, Nottingham 75. A. 'Agh, 'tabyrith in the mode of production controversy',. Southern African Universities Social Sci€nce Conference, 1979. D.Bryceson,. 'Primitiv'e accumulation and imperialism in relation to the reproduction of Third World p.easantries', Utafiti, forth- coming. E. Mandel, Late Capitalism, London 1976, ch. 2. 4. Low, Lion Rampant. N. P. P. S himwella, 'Development planning in colonial '1 anzania: a study in historical perspective', Dar es Salaam 1974mimeo .. I.M. Lee, Colonial Governmel)t and Good Government, Oxford 1967. E.A. Brett, Calonialism and Under_ develolment in East Africa, London 1973. D: Meredith, 'rhe BrItis. government and colonial economic policy] 91q<~9', Economic History Review, XXVUl, 1973. S. Amin, C. Atta-Mills, A. Bujra, G. Hamid and T. Mkandawire, 'Social SClenee ,IllO th.' development crisis in Africa: problems and prospects', A:ri~Q Development, III, 1978. 50 5. M. Perham, Colonial Se.s,uence 1930-1949, Londou 1967, pp. 226-7, 232. Quoted y Low Lions Rampant, p. 71. See also R • P. Dutt, India Today, Calcutta 1970. 6. Low, Lion Rampant, p. 40. 7. The Colonial Empire 1939-47, London 1947, p. U. 8. A.I. P. Taylor, En~lish History 1914-1945, Oxford 19.65, p. 299. 9. V.1. Lenin, Marxism on the State, Mo~cow 1978, pp. 100-27. 10. 'Developing Negro Agriculture: Lord Olivier's panacea', Tanzania National Archives (TNA) 13044, p.l. 11. I.H. Plumb, 'The historians' dilemma\ I.H. Plumb, ed. Crisis in. the Humanities, Harmondsworth 1964, p. 25. 12. X. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1. p. SOO. Quoted by 1. Laptev, The World of Man in the ~orld of Nature, Moscow 1979, p~ 12. See also M.G. Chepikov, The lntegration of Science, Moscow 1978 especially ch. 2. 13 E.• Ma:rx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 276. Q\toted by Laptev, The Wor1a of Man in the World of Nature, p. 23. 14. Ibid. p. 34. 15. C. W. Hobley, 'Preservation of wild life in the empire', Journal of Royal African Society, 34, 1935. See also his 'National sanctuaries: the key of the wild life position', ibid. 32, 1933. 16. Laptev, The World of Man in the World of Nature, p. 105. 17. C. Meillanssoux, 'Development or exploitation: is the Sahel famine good business', Review of Africa Political Econom I, 1974. See also N •N. Luan a, e p et ora 0 agrar1an pro- grammes during the 1930s depression: Kingolwira, Ukiriguru, and Uzinza settlement schemes in colonial Tanganyika, Dar es Salaam 1979 mimeo. 18. Laptev, The-World of Man in the World of Nature. 19. Meillassoux, 'Development or exploitation: is the Sahel famine good business?' 20. J. Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika, Cambridge 1979, pp •• 348-49. 21. LU(;l.nda,'The plethora of agrarian programmes during the 19305 depression: Kingolwira, Ukiriguru, aud, Uzinza settlement schemes in. colonial Tanganyika. 22. K. Marx, Capital, Vol I, p. 300. Quoted by Chepikov, The Integration of Science, p. 67. 51 23. M. Watts and-11-.. Shenton, •Capitalism and hunger i n N o r t h e r n Nigeria*, Z a r i a 1978 p i m e o . .' ';. 24. K. M a r x , Capital, Vol.111, p . 357. Quoted by J, Depelchin and S . J . Lemelle, 'Some aspects of capital accumulation in Tanganyika 1920-1940', DaT es Salaam 1979mimeo. 25. B.A. Ogot, 'African ecology in historical p e r s p e c t i v e : problems and -prdspects' f The Pan-Africanist, 8, 1979". 26., Ibid. J. Merryman, 'Ecological s t r e s s and adaptive r e s p o n s e : a study of drought induced nomad settlement in Northern Kenya', The Pan-Africanist, ibid. L . B e r r y , e t . a l . 'Human adjustment to agricultural drought in Tanzania: pilot investigation', University of P a r es Salaam BRALUP p a p e r , 1972. 27. 'Mwaliniu warns against false optimism on o i l ' , Daily News, P a r es ; Salaam, 27 October, 1979. . 28. ^Minutes of the first meeting of, the standing committee1 on soil e r o s i o n ' , 15 June 1931, TNA 7 7 / 2 / 3 3 / 2 . Cited by lliffe', A Modern History of Tanganyika, p . 348. 29. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, p . 7. 30. P u t t , India Today, p . . 79. . , :. • . • ;-X 31. Lord Hailey, An African S u r v e y , London 1957. 32. E . P . Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa', Journal of the Royal African Society, XXXVII, 1938 p . 39. W . E . C . reviewing Erosion and Soil Conservation by'J.V. Jacks and R . O . Whyte, Joint publication of the Imperial. Bureau of Soil S c i e n c e . . .and. the Imperial Bureau of P a s t u r e s and Forage C r o p s ' , East African Agricultural Journal, 9, 19,43-1944.. ""' 33. H . E . H . 'SpU.erosion in many l a n d s ' , a review of A. Grasovsky, 'A world tour for the study of soil erosion control methods', Imperial F o r e s t r y Institute Paper No. 14, Oxford 1938, ibid. 34. .Ibid. 35. C . C . Watson, 'Erosion and Africa', United Empire, XXX, 1939,>. 702. ..„, .... ; ,;, . .. 36. J. Dorstfi,Ava.nt.que nature meure, p. 148. Quoted by Laptev, The World of Man in the World of Nature, p. 101. ' 37. Ibid, p.,91, . 38. G.V. Jacks, 'Prospects for soil conservation', East African Agricultural Journal, 8, 1942-43. 39. Ibid. pp. 71-72. : 40. Watson, 'Erosion and Africa', p. 701. 41. Ibid. pp. 701-702. 52 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. p. 702. 45. Ibid. 46. R.M.D. reviewing E.P. Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa, erosion and drought', supplement to the journal of the Royal African Society, 1938, East African Agricultural Journal, 4, 1938-39. 47. B. Bourdillon, 'Native production in the African colonies and protectorates', United Empire, 28, 1937, p. 147. 48. Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa', p. 79. See also his 'Africa and its intermittent rainfall: the role of the Savannah Forest', ibid. 49. C.C, Watson, 'Erosion in the Empire', East African Agricultural Journal, I, 1935-36, p. 305. 50. V. I. L en in, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Moscow 1974. 51. For Lhe economic image which the British ruling class had about the colonial empire see Brett, Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa. Some reading of Taylor, English History 1914-1945, for the background political and social events to the kind of attitude which British politicians held towards the colonial empire. 52. Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa', p. 3. See also supplement to the Royal Africa Society Journal, XXXVII, 1938. 53. Ibid. 54. R.M.D. 'Land usage and soil erosion in Africa', East African Agricultural Journal, 10, 1944-45, p. 79. 55. Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa'. 56. R.M.D. 'Land usage and soil erosion', p. 79. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59* T.D. Thomson, 'Soil conservation: some implications' , Journal of African Administration, V, 1953. 60. Journal of Royal African Society supplement, XXXVTI, 1938. 61. Ibid. p. 7. 62. Ibid. •63.. Ibid. pm 10- 53 64. Stebbing, 'The man-made desert in Africa1, p. 40. 65. Ibid. 66. "R.M.D., 'Land usage and soil erosion in Africa1, p. 79. 67. L. Cliffe, 'Nationalism and the reaction to agricultural improvement in, Tanganyika during the enforced colonial period, Makerere I9o4mimeo. 68. A.B. Lyalla, 'Land Law and Policy in Tanganyika 1919-1932', LLM University of Par es Salaam 1973. 69. See inter alia B. Rusibamayila, '$oil erosibn in Central Province1, Dar es Salaam 1979 mimeo. Much of this will be covered in my forthcoming work on the Mlalo Rehabilitation Scheme utilizing Tanzania National Archives (TNA) Volumes 269/5, 269/58, 269/6, 269/7,269/12,269/13,172/5. 70. 'Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika, pp.. 342-43. 71. Ibid. p. 349. 72. Ibid. p. 348. 73. F . Stockdale, 'Soil erosion in the colonial empire', ^Empire Journal oT Experimental Agriculture, V, 1937. P.S . Baweja and 5.V.K. Sarma, 'The sediment problem in Tanzania1, Uhandisi, 4, 1978. 74. Lord Hailey, An African Survey. 75. Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika, p. 349. 76. 'Native Agricultural** 18 August 1931, TNA 13044. See also Chief Secretary to all Provincial Commissioners, 14 October 1931, ibid. 77. Iline, A Modern History of Tanganyika. 78. C. Gillman, 'A geographer's restrospect and note on the Mpwapwa land-use experiments and achievements', "East Africa Agricultural Journal, 8, 1942-43. S. Napier, 'A practical policy for tsets'e reclamation and field experiment', ibid. 9, I943 i 44. E. Harrison, 'Measures against soil erosion in Tanganyika territory', ibid. I, 1935-36* Anon, 'Preliminary notes on the soil erosion demonstration at the coffee research station, Lyamungu, Moshi1, ibid. S.M. Gilbert, 'The history of a herd at the .coffee research station, Lyamungu, Moshi 1935-45', ibid. ;L0, 1944-45. R.R. Staples, 'Combating soil erosion in the Central Province1, ibid. 8, 1942-43. 79. department of Agriculture ; Technical and Specialist Officers' Reports for the year 1951 > Par es Salaam 19b3. " ~ 80. Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika, pp. 348-49. 81. R.R. Staples, 'Bush control and deferred grazing as measures to improve pasture', East African Agricultural Journal, 10, 1944-45., 54 82. P. Rigby, Cattle and Kins'\1ip among the GO$O, Ithaca 1969. M. B. Kwesi Darkoh, ~~an and DE'sertificahon in T~ical Africa, Dar es Salaam 1979. United Republic of Tanzania,1'fie Ihreat of Desertification in Central !'anzania, Dar es Salaam 1~77. C. Lefe- bure, 'Introquction: the specificity of nomadic pastoral societies':. L. Lefebure, ed. Pastoral Production and Society, C'ambridge 19/9. 83. G. Dahl andA. Hjort, Having Herds, Stockholm 1976. G. Dahl, 'Ecology and equality: the Boran case' Lefebure ed. Pastoral Production and Society. L. E. Y. Mbogoni, 'Labour migration and ramine', BA 'Oniversity ofDar es Sala'am 1977. J. Seruhere, 'Underdevelopment in Chipanga, Dodoma', BA University of Dar es Salaam 1976. 84. P. Rigby, 'Pastoralist production and socialist transformation in Tanzania', Dar es Salaam 1978 mimeo. Dahl and Hjort, Havin~ Herds. 85. Wolfe to Chief Secretary, 12 July, 1927, TNA 10846. 86. Ibid. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid. 89. Centra.l Province Report to Chief Secretary, May and Jun~ 1930, TNA 10846. 90. PC, Dodoma, l'0 Chief Secretary, 29 5 eptem bel' 1927, Ibid. 91. P. Rigby, 'Pastoralism and prejudice: ideology and rural development in East Afri,:a', E ..4... Brett and D,.G. R. Belshaw, eds, Public Pc>li::::y r es Salaam BRALUP paper 1973, and 'Towards a formulation of Boserup's theory of agricultural change', Dar es Salaam 1976 mimeo. J.R. Mlahagwa, 'The Uluguru land usage scheme: crisis in colonial production', Dar es Salaam 1977 mimeo. 114. Department of Agriculture Annual Report 1931, Dar es Salaam 1932, p . 42. ' 115. 'Northern Province Annual Report 1934', TNA I l 6 8 l . 116. Swynnerton, 'Some problems of the Chagga on Kilimanjaro' , p. 126. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid. 56 119. l.C. Curry, 'Eleusin cultivation by the Wachagga',, East African Agricultural Journal, IV, 1939. R.J.M. Swynnertoh" 'Onion cultivate by the Wachagga on Kilimanjaro', East African Agricultural Journal, 12, 1977. 120. Swynnerton, 'Some problems of the Chagga on Kilimanjaro, p. 126. 121. Ibid. pp. 126-127, 122. Ibid. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. See also R.R. Baldwin, 'Native Authority afforestation on Kilimanjaro', Tanganyika Notes and Records, 21/1946. ARPCNA 1935, Dar es Salaam 1936, p. 37. 125. Laptev, The World of Man in the World of Nature, p. 27. 126. Ibid. p. 31. 127. Ibid. p. 34. 128. lliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika. 129. Mruma, 'Rejuvinating soil to boost agriculture'. 130. Laptev, The World of Man in the World of.Nature, p. 117. 131. Ibid. p. 118. See also H.K . Wells, Pragmatism, New York 1957. G. Novack, Empiricism, New York 1971 and Marxism versus Pragmatism, New York 1975. 132; A.M.M. Hoogvelt and A.M. Tinker, 'The role of colonial and postcolonial states in imperialism: a case-study of the Sierra Leone Development Company', Journal of Modern African Studies, 1.6, 1978, p. 73. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 133. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Moscow 1974-. B. Davey, Economic Development of India. 134. Bryceson, 'Primitive accumulation and imperialism in relation to the reproduction of Third World peasantries'. Bernstein, 'Under- development and the law of value:'a critique of Kay'. N.N. Luanda, 'The plethora of agrarian programmes during the 1930s depression: Kingolwira, Ukiriguru and Uzinza Settlement schemes in colonial Tanganyika, Dar es Salaam 1979 mimeo. 135. Bonaventure Swai, 'Native labour under colonialism', Tanzania Zamani, 21, 1979. M. von Freyhold, 'On colonial modes of production', Dar es Salaam 1977 mimeo. J. Depelchin, 'The beggar problem in Dar es Salaam', Dar es Salaam 1978 mimeo. D.V. Williams, 'The interaction of legal superstructure and economic basis in the process of colonization', Southern African Social Science Conference 1979. 'Agh, 'Labyrinth in the mode of production controversy'. 136. Mandel, Late Capitalism, p. 4-5. 57 137. Ibid. p. 46. 138. Ibid. See also K. Marx, Cat>ital, Vol I , Harmondsworth 1976, pp. 1019-38. K. Marx, Grundrl.sse, Harmondsworth 1973. J. Banaji, 'Modes of production in a materialist conception of history', Dar es Salaam 1975 mimeo. 139. 'Agh, 'Labyrith of the mode of production controversy'. 140. K. Marx, Capital, Vol 111, Moscow 1974, pp. 323-38. Bonaventure. Swai, 'The East lndia Company and Moplah merchants of Tellicherry 1794-1800', Social Scientist, 8, 1979. Trade and Politics in Eighteenth Century Malabar, Trivandrum: Social Scientist Press, forthcoming. 141. R. Robinson and J. Gallagher, Africa ane! the Victori.ans, New York 1962. 142. E. D. Genovese, The PoHhcd Economy of Slavery, New York 1965; The World the Slave Ma!>ters Made, 1\!ew York 1971. 143. A. Briggs, Victorian People, New York 1963, p. 22. 1.;.1•• Mandel, Late Capitalism, p. 57-58. 145. Ibid. p. 61. 146. S. H, Alatas, The Myth of the~.£Jative, London 1975. 147. C. L.R. James, The Black Iacobins, New York 1967. 148. 149. Whitcome, Awarian Conditions in Northern India, p. x. 150. Ma."ldel, Late Capitalism, pp. 61.62. 151. Ibid. p. 62. 152. Swai, 'Synthesizing the modern history of Tanganyika'. 153. R. Samuel, ed. Village Life and Labour, London 1975. 154. G.K. Lieten, 'Crisis in capitalism', Social Scientist, 8,1979. 155. M. Watts and R. Shenton, 'Capitalism and hunger in Northern Nigeria', Zaria 1978 mimeo. E. Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, London 1971. M. Dobb, Political Economy and Capitalism.z London 1968. 58