History of India V

(c. 1500-1600)

History Hons.
Semester IV

Agrarian and Revenue Relations: Zamindar and Peasants

 Table of Content

Introduction
Revenue Assignees and Grantes
The Zamindars
Zamindari Rights
Military Strength of Zamindars
Chaudharis
Other Intermediaries
Peasantry
Land Rights of Peasantry
Stratification of Peasantry
Village Community
Relations between Agrarian and Peasantry

Agrarian and Revenue Relations: Zamindar and Peasants

Introduction
The basic unit of agricultural society was the village, inhabited by peasants who performed the manifold
seasonal tasks that made up agricultural production throughout the year – tilling the soil, sowing seeds,
harvesting the crop when it was ripe. Further, they contributed their labour to the production of agrobased
goods such as sugar and oil. But rural India was not characterised by settled peasant production alone. Several
kinds of areas such as large tracts of dry land or hilly regions were not cultivable in the same way as the more fertile
expanses of land. In addition, forest areas made up a substantial proportion of territory.

The term which Indo-Persian sources of the Mughal period most frequently used to denote a peasant was
raiyat (plural, riaya) or muzarian. In addition, we also encounter the terms kisan or asami. Sources of the
seventeenth century refer to two kinds of peasants – khud-kashta and pahi-kashta. The known fact is that
The abundance of land, available labour and the mobility of peasants were three factors that accounted for
the constant expansion of agriculture. Since the primary purpose of agriculture is to feed people, basic
staples such as rice, wheat or millets were the most frequently cultivated crops. Areas which received 40
inches or more of rainfall a year were generally rice-producing zones, followed by wheat and millets,
corresponding to a descending scale of precipitation. and Monsoon remain the backbone of Indian
Agriculture today as well. Though agriculture was labour intensive, peasants did use technologies that often
harnessed cattle energy. One example was the wooden plough, which was light and easily assembled with
an iron tip or coulter. It therefore did not make deep furrows, which preserved the moisture better during
the intensely hot months. A drill, pulled by a pair of giant oxen, was used to plant seeds, but broadcasting
of seed was the most prevalent method. Hoeing and weeding were done simultaneously using a narrow
iron blade with a small wooden handle. However, the focus on the cultivation of basic staples did not mean
that agriculture in medieval India was only for subsistence. We often come across the term jins-i kamil
(literally, perfect crops) in our sources. The Mughal state also encouraged peasants to cultivate such crops
as they brought in more revenue. Crops such as cotton and sugarcane were jins-i kamil par excellence.
Cotton was grown over a great swathe of territory spread over central India and the Deccan plateau,
whereas Bengal was famous for its sugar. Such cash crops would also include various sorts of oilseeds (for
example, mustard) and lentils. This shows how subsistence and commercial production were closely
intertwined in an average peasant’s holding.

Revenue Assignees and Grantes:

The state adopted two ways to realise the land revenue from the peasants. First, the Jagirdar were assigned
certain areas with rights to collect revenue and utilise the same for their salary and to meet their military
obligations. Secondly, it collected revenue through Imperial revenue officers from the Khalisa.

The Jagirdar had no permanent rights over the areas so assigned due to frequent transfers. His claims were
confined to the authorized land revenue and other taxes.

While the Jagirdars were given revenue assignments in lieu of cash salary, there was another category of
people which was given revenue grants for their subsistence. This was the class of religious men who were
patronised by the state. These grants were known as Suyurghal or Madad-i Maash (aid for subsistence). A
separate department under the charge of the sadr us sudur looked after these grants. If the aid was given
in cash, it was known as wazifa. There were certain categories of people who were qualified to receive
madad-i maaah. These grants did not invest the grantee with any right over land but were entitled to the
prescribed revenue from its produce. Akbar put the ceiling of such grants of land to 100 bighas per person.
The policy of Akbar was to grant half cultivable and half waste land to improve agriculture. The grant was
for the lifetime of the grantee and the heirs could apply for a renewal. Generally only a part of the grant
was allowed to heirs. Jahangir confirmed all the grants made by Akbar while Shah Jahan began to examine
all grants given during the previous reigns. He allowed 30 bighas to be inherited, Aurangzeb reduced it to
20 bighas. In the 30th year of his reign, he allowed the grant to be entirely hereditary, by calling such grants
as loan ('Ariyat') and not property. In the latter part of his reign as well as after his death, the grantees
started enjoying the right to sell or transfer the land, which, then, acquired the characteristics of a
zamindari.
Another type of grant (waqf) was given to institutions, etc. Revenues of certain lands - were permanently
assigned for the maintenance of religious tombs, shrines, madrasas, etc. Such grants could be given by the
Jagirdar also, and lasted till the term of the Jagirdar in that area. The Madad-i-Maash grants were intended
to create pockets of influence and to develop waste lands. Generally, these were given to Shaikhs and
Sayyids and other men of learning. In emergency they joined the government forces to curb local
disturbances. The total revenue alienated-in such grants was not large. There was a tendency on the part
of the grantees to acquire zamindari rights in their area and elsewhere. Thus, some of them transformed
themselves into small zamindars. By the first half of the 18th century, these grants were treated as
zamindari land in all transactions.

The Zamindars:
The Zamindars were present in practically every part of the Mughal Empire and held the most significant
position in the agrarian structure of Mughal India. The word zamindar is derived from two Persian
wordszamin (land) and dar (holder). During the pre-Mughal period, the word zamindar has been used in
the sense of the chief of a territory. The fact that a chief had acknowledged the supremacy of a superior
sovereign power made no difference to his position within his own domain, so long as he was allowed to
retain it. From Akbar's time onwards, this term was officially used for any person with any hereditary claim
to a direct share in the peasant's produce. The early local terms such as khot and muqaddam in the
Doab, Satarahi and Blswi in Awadh, Bhoml in Rajasthan and Banth or Vanth in Gujarat were replaced by the
term zamindar. However, many of these terms continued to be used interchangeably with zamindars in
contemporary accounts. The areas without zamindars were termed Raiyati (peasant held).

Nurul Haran divides the zamindars into three categories:

 Primary zamindars who had some proprietary rights over the land
 Secondary zamindars who held the intermediary rights and helped the state in collecting land
revenue
 Autonomous chiefs-had autonomous rights in their territories and paid a fixed amount to the
Mughal State

Zamindari Rights:
Zamindar did not signify a proprietary right in land. It was a claim on the produce of the soil, co-existing in
a subordinate capacity, with the land revenue demand of the state. Yet, like any article of private property,
it could, and was, freely bought and sold. It was also inheritable and divisible, that is, the heirs of a zamindar
could divide the fiscal claims and perquisites of their inherited zamindar, in accordance with the law of the
land. The zamindar acquired his rights by virtue of the historical tradition of control he and his kinsmen
exercised over the inhabitants of particular villages. At some time, the zamindar had settled villages and
distributed its land among the peasantry. In eastern Rajasthan, Wasidar (a category of peasants) were
settled by the Bhomia (zamindar as known there) in the village to undertake sometimes the cultivation of
his personal lands. The zamindari rights, therefore, were not created by the ruling classes, but preceded
them. The king, however, could create zamindari in villages where none existed. He could also dislodge a
zamindar, but this was a right he exercised only in case of sedition or non-payment of revenue.

The medieval rulers recognised the rights of the zamindars, but were equally insistent on treating them as
agents of the government for revenue collection. When the zamindari took this form, that is, it came to
assist the government in the collection of revenue, for the service (khidmat) so rendered, the zamindar was
entitled to a percentage of the total revenue collected. This percentage in official documents is stated to
be 10% and is described as Nankar ("allowance"). When the administration decided to collect the revenue
through its own agents, by-passing the zamindar, the latter was entitled to a share in the collection of
revenues called malikana. (proprietary right), and like nankar, was fixed at 10% of the total revenue
collected.

Military Strength of Zamindars:

The zamindars employed their footmen and cavalry. These troops helped them in the realisation of land
revenue and subjugation of peasantry. Almost all zamindars had their own small or big qilachas / garhi or
forts. According to the Ain-i Akbari, the troops of the zamindars in the whole Mughal Empire exceeded forty
four lakhs. In Bengal they possessed thousands of boats.

Chaudhuris :
As mentioned earlier, the zamindar played a prominent role in the collection of land revenue. Some of these
zamindars were designated as chaudhuri for the purpose of collection of revenue. One of the prominent
zamindars of a pargana was appointed chaudhuri, generally one in each pargana. The chaudhuri was
suppose to collect the revenue from other zamindars of the pargana. Apart from their customary nankar,
these chaudhuris were entitled to another share in the land revenue collected by them. This was termed
chaudhurai which amounted to two and a half per cent of the revenue collected. Unlike the zamindar, the
chaudhuri was appointed by the state and could be removed for improper functioning.

Other Intermediaries:
Each village had a number of hereditary officials. The most important of them was the village headman
(muqaddam in Northern India and patel in the Deccan). He was the person responsible for the collection of
land revenue and maintenance of law and order in the villages. For the services so rendered, he was granted
a part of the village land revenue-free, though, in some cases, he was also remunerated in cash at a
percentage of total land revenue realised. In addition, he was also entitled to receive some amount of
produce from peasants. In the task of the collection of land revenue the muqaddam was assisted by the
village accountant (patwari in Northern India and kulkarni in the Deccan). The patwari's task was to maintain
a record (bahi) of the revenue collected from the individual peasants and its payment to the state
authorities. His records, therefore, were of immense help to the administration in assessing the revenue-
paying capacity of the peasants and in fixing the total land revenue claim on the village. Like the muqaddam
he was also remunerated by the grant of revenue.-free land or by a fixed commission in the total revenue
collected. However, being an employee of the village organisation, his allowance was much smaller than
that of the village headman. The office and the accompanying privileges of both the muqaddam and patwari
were hereditary.

Peasantry:
The main agrarian class, directly involved with the agricultural production, was the peasantry. Though the
class had a number of strata within it, for the convenience of study we are including all of them under one
nomenclature. The peasants constituted the primary class in rural society and the revenue collected from
them sustained the whole state apparatus. We have read earlier that the peasant had to pay a large part
of their produce as 'Land revenue. It appears that the bulk of the peasantry lived on the subsistence level
of existence.

Land Rights of Peasantry:

There has been a long debate among historians regarding the rights of the peasantry over land, Peasant's
claim to land was not disregarded by the state, yet he was never allowed the right to free alienation. It
appears that peasants had all the rights over land as long as he cultivated it. The zamindar or state had no
right to evict the peasant as long as he cultivated the land and paid the revenue. It seems that proprietary
rights in land were not quite developed during the Mughal period. However, the most important aspect of
the period is the varying claims over the produce of the land. In contemporary accounts we come across a
number of references to the fight of the peasantry from villages because of oppression or other problems.
A number of instances are available about peasants settling individually or in groups in various regions. The
mobility of the peasant was an established practice in Mughal India. This mobility was more pronounced in
cases of their oppression in one region or natural calamities like floods and famines.

Stratification of Peasantry:
The peasantry was not a homogenous class. The stratification was due to inequalities in wealth and social
status. Peasants with large resources cultivated bigger plots of land, and even employed labourers on his
fields. They could acquire head-ship of a village muqaddam or patel) and enjoy a superior share in the
produce of other peasants. The divisions were so well-established that they are differently designated even
in official accounts and records. Rich peasants an referred to as khudkasht (self-cultivated) in Northern
India, gharuhalas in Rajasthan and mirasdars in Maharashtra. The poor peasants are referred to as reza
ria'ya (small peasant) in Northern India, paltis in Rajasthan and kunbis in Maharashtra.
ne major reason for this can be found in the wide prevalence of cash-nexus. Since land revenue in the larger
part of India had to be paid in cash, peasants and cultivators were forced to carry their produce to the
markets or sell it to merchants or moneylenders on the eve of harvest. In such a situation, those peasants
who could cultivate cash crops would be placed. in a better position, because of the higher prices they
fetched in the market than those who, owing to their scarce resources, could only cultivate food crops for
which the prices were comparatively low. Not all peasants could shift to cash crop cultivation since it
involved much expenses (good seeds, better fertilize, irrigation or facilities, and also more productive soil).
The requirement of the payment of land revenue in cash would thus cause a widening gulf between the
relatively better-off peasants whose resources allowed them to shift to cash crop cultivation and the poor
peasants who found even the cultivation of food crops an arduous and expensive business. The regressive
nature of land revenue demand was another major factor that caused and intensified divisions within the
peasantry. The incidence of land revenue demand being uniform for both the rich and the poor peasants,
in actual fact it fell more heavily on the latter than on the former. The village organisation, or what has
often loosely been described as the "village community", further perpetuated these divisions by levying
lower revenue rates on the khudkasht peasants, and calling upon the rent ri'aya to meet the deficit thus
arising in the total revenue claim.

Village Community:
Generally the peasants of a village had a majority of the same caste. Such villages were established
historically by one clan or family. Apart from the peasants of the dominant caste of a village, there were
menial workers who came from lower castes. From the contemporary accounts it appears that in many
activities these villages functioned as a community. It should not be taken to mean that there were any
communal land holdings. The fields were definitely held by individual peasants. The revenue officials found
it convenient to treat village as a unit for revenue assessment and collection. The description of the patwari
as a village official supports this. It is reported that the patwari was supposed to keep the account of
individual peasants production and revenue liability. The payment to state was made by the village as a
unit. The revenue from the individual peasants was put in a pool whose incharge was the patwari. From
this pool, land revenue, fees and perquisites of certain officials and sundry common expenses of the village
were paid. Even the loan taken from the moneylenders was paid back out of the village pool. The dominant
group of people in a village constituted the village panchayat. The latter used to decide village affairs
regarding dispute over land rights, disposal of waste land, etc. It was also responsible to the state for
arresting criminals, 1 compensating for the value of goods stolen or tracing them. These panchayats were
not above the state. The latter allowed it to discharge its traditional role in the I village society only if its
activities were not hampering the basic interests of the state.

Some social groups in the ,village were not directly involved in the agrarian production, but they played
some role' in the agrarian activities. The mahajans acted as middlemen between the state and peasants
and had considerable control over the rural society and economy. They would advance loans to individual
peasants and village. collectively for buying seeds and equipments or pay revenue or for social needs. The
village had artisans attached to it to provide their services and were paid at the harvest. The system was
very well organised in Deccan and Maharashtra. These were called balutedars. The system of village
community, panchayats or balutedars was not uniformly applicable to all the villages of the Mughal Empire.
There were different types of structures in different regions. Most villages had some sort of community
structure, though varying in degrees of control on their members.

Relations between Agrarian Classes:

Both the zamindar and the jagirdars fed upon the surplus produce of the peasant, and therefore, insofar as
the exploitation of the peasantry was concerned, both acted as each other's collaborators. Yet, the
zamindar, being permanently based would not allow exploitation that went beyond the alienation of
surplus produce, for that would lead to exodus of the peasantry and desertion of agricultural operations
which would in turn affect his own fiscal claims during the following year. The jagirdars, attitude is best
reflected in Bernier's account who visited India in the mid-17th century. He writes that, because of the
frequent transfers of jagirs the jagirdars governors and revenue contractors were not bothered about the
deplorable state of peasantry. They therefore were interested in exploiting the peasantry to the maximum
even at the cost of their desertion and fields lying unattended. .

Jawahar Mal Bekas, an 18th century writer observes that the hakim (Jagirdar) of a day can in a moment
remove a zamindar of five hundred years, and put in his stead a man who has been without a place for a
life-time. Irfan Habib further elaborates his powers and writes that "as for peasants, the jagirdars claimed
powers to detain them on the land, like serfs, and bring them back, if they ran away." In the second half of
the 17th century due to the uncertainty of holding a jagir for a stipulated period, the jagirdar oppressed
peasants.-They had no regard for their welfare. According to Irfan Habib, "While undoubtedly the Mughal
administration sought to take measures to regulate and moderate the jagirdars' exactions, it is not certain
that these could reduce the pressure for short-term maximization of revenue by individual jagirdars. Such
pressure not only inhibited extension of cultivation, but also involved the Mughal ruling class in a deepening
conflict with the two major agrarian classes, the zamindars and the peasantry". The divisions within the
peasantry, as also the deep contractions that existed between the peasants and agricultural workers, acted
as severe constraints and weakened the capabilities of this class. Disjointed and truncated, this class was
quite incapable of confronting the medieval despotic states. It did, however, revolt for two reasons: one,
when the revenue demand appropriated more than the surplus produce of the peasants, thereby
threatening their very subsistence. Peasant revolts in these circumstances never went beyond asking for a
reduction in revenue demand. Peasants also revolted as followers of a zamindar who was leading a revolt
against the state or jagirdar (mostly on the question of his claim to the produce of the soil), either in the
hope that the end of revolt would lead to better conditions of living for them or simply as rendering a
service to their overlord. Peasant revolts of this nature were actually zamindari revolts: the zamindars led
them and the peasants served the purposes of the zamindars alone.
Bibliography:
IGNOU Notes
Irfan Habib, Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1526 1707
Meena Bhargava, Understanding Mughal India