In what way was the livelihood of the Paharias different from that of the Santhals?
The Paharias and the Santhals had distinctly different livelihoods, primarily distinguished by their modes of cultivation and relationship with the land.
The Paharias lived around the Rajmahal hills, subsisting on forest produce and practising shifting cultivation. They cleared patches of forest by cutting bushes and burning the undergrowth. Using hoes, they scratched the ground lightly, grew pulses and millets for consumption, and left the land fallow after a few years to recover fertility before moving to new areas. They also collected mahua for food, and silk cocoons, resin, and wood for sale.
In contrast, the Santhals gave up their earlier life of mobility and became settled peasants. They cleared forests, ploughed land, and cultivated commercial crops like rice and cotton for the market. They dealt with traders and moneylenders, representing the power of the plough.
The British demarcated Damin-i-Koh in 1832 for the Santhals to practise plough agriculture. While the Santhals flourished as settled cultivators, the Paharias were forced to withdraw deeper into the hills, confined to barren and rocky upper hills. This severely affected their livelihood, as shifting cultivation depended on mobility and access to fertile soils, which became inaccessible to them.
Explanation
This answer covers all key differences from the textbook context: (1) Paharias practised shifting cultivation with hoes while Santhals became settled plough agriculturists; (2) Paharias grew pulses and millets for consumption while Santhals grew commercial crops like rice and cotton for the market; (3) Paharias relied on forest produce while Santhals dealt with traders and moneylenders; (4) The establishment of Damin-i-Koh benefited Santhals but impoverished Paharias by restricting their mobility. The hoe versus plough symbolism effectively captures the fundamental difference between their livelihoods.