The Empire and the Zamindars: Part II

Zamindars

• The zamindars formed a powerful class and 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 began to be used from the 14th century, and came in general use during the 17th century. selfstudyhistory.com
    • From Akbar’s time onwards, term ‘Zamindar‘ 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 biswi 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 zamindar in contemporary accounts.
      • The areas without zamindar were termed raiyati (peasant held).
  • The zamindars were found all over the country under different names such as deshmukh, patil, nayak, etc.
  • It was not easy for any central authority to ignore or alienate them.
  • The zamindars in the absence of central security emerged as protectors of the local people.
  • In their respective areas of control, the zamindars ruled over both revenue as well as judicial  administration. The common people had to depend on the mercy and benevolence of these zamindars.
• Zamindars acquired his rights and claimed a share in the agricultural produce and exercised control over the village by virtue of a historical tradition.
  • They were recognized by medieval rulers as they assisted the government in the task of collecting revenue from the peasants. For the service so rendered, they were entitled to a percentage of the total revenue collected.
  • As a social group, the zamindars were considerably fragmented on the lines of caste associations and social ties.
• During the pre-Mughal period, the word zamindar has been used in the sense of the chief of 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.
• The policy followed by Babur and Humayun towards the zamindars was the age-old tradition set by the Delhi Sultans.
  • Babur mentions that the rais and rajas, obedient as well as disobedient to the Muslim ruler.
  • The Baburnama shows that Babur assigned the charge of territories to the nobles, granting them the right to collect land revenue and carry on the government there on his behalf as was the prevalent system.
  • The zamindars continued in their respective areas, but in other conquered areas Babur ruled through hakims (governors).
• Akbar’s Rajput policy was a part of a broad policy of wooing the zamindars and martial classes which included the Rajputs and Afghans.
  • Majority of the zamindars were Hindus and specially Rajputs.
  • Though the zamindars or the chieftains had been in the state service ever since the time of Delhi Sultans, they attained great importance under Akbar who granted them mansabs and jagirs in various parts of the Empire. These jagir were in addition to their ancestral domains which were now treated as their watan jagir.
• 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:
    • They were chiefs or chieftains- the rajas, raos, ranas and rawatas- who had autonomous rights in their territories, governing them without any interference from the imperial administration.
    • Their obligation to the king did not go beyond paying him a fixed amount as tribute (peshkash).
      • While autonomous rajas paid a fixed sum in money and goods as peshkash, and were left free to assess and collect land revenue from the peasants in their area of control, the attempt of the state was to fix the land revenue directly with the peasants in the areas under central control.
      • Thus, there was a constant effort to convert autonomous chiefs into kharaj collecting zamindars on the part of the state, and for the zamindars to shake off all imperial control.
    • According to Irfan Habib, the difference between the zamindars and autonomous chiefs “lay most clearly in the relationship with the imperial power which allowed autonomy to the chiefs, but made ordinary zamindar mere propertied subjects of the Emperor”.

Zamindari Right:

• Zamindari 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.
  • The zamindari right saleable, and from the time of Akbar there are many examples of zamindari being sold in whole or part.
    • There was no restriction on caste or religion in the sales, though in Maharashtra we have documents of the village community or patil agreeing to the sale.
• It was also inheritable and divisible:
  • The heirs of a zamindar could divide the fiscal claims and perquisites of their inherited zamindari, in accordance with the law of the land.
• The zamindars generally had close connections on a caste, clan or tribal basis with the peasants settled in their zamindaris. They had considerable knowledge about land and its productivity.
  • The government wanted to utilize this knowledge to maximize their land revenue collections.
  • Simultaneously, it tried to squeeze the zamindars by establishing direct contact with the cultivators, especially the owner-cultivators, or the malik-i-zamin.
    • Since the zamindars were themselves an exploiting class, the state, to some extent, set limit on their extortions.
    • But where the zamindars joined with the cultivators to resist the capacity of the state, a position of confrontation was created.
• The zamindari right implied both financial income and social prestige.
• Fixed share of Zamindars:
  • The Mughals recognised the rights of the Zamindar, but were equally insistent on treating them as agents of the government for revenue collection.
  • When the Zamindar 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 share of the total revenue collected in cash and kind.
    • Mughal government attempted to fix the dues of the zamindars
  • 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 malikhana (proprietary right), and like nankar, was fixed at 10% of the total revenue collected.
    • Malikana could be paid either in cash, or by grant of revenue-free land called nankar.
    • In Gujarat, this claim of the zamindar was described as banth or vanth, but unlike malikana in Northern India, it was considerably higher. Like malikana, it was paid in the form of cash.
  • But the charges of the zamindars varied from area to area, being called
    • biswi (1/20), or
    • do-biswi (1/ 10), or
    • satarhi (1/17), or
    • chauthai (1/4).
  • In the Deccan, it was called chauth (“one fourth”), and stood at one-fourth of the revenues collected.
    • Sardeshmukhi, another fiscal claim of the zamindar in the Deccan, was equivalent to 10% of the revenues.
    • Under the Marathas, the cesses of chauth and sardeshmukhi came to be realised not through a legal claim based on actual zamindari right, but by the sheer use of force.
• Other perquisites extracted by Zamindars:
  • Besides their principal fiscal claim, the zamindars also exacted a number of petty perquisites from the peasantry. e.g:
    • (dastar shumari) (turban tax),
    • house tax (khana shumari),
    • impost on forest and water produce
    • cesses on marriage and birth,
    • taxes from weekly markets in their areas,
    • toll tax on merchandise passing through their territories.
  • In relation to their principal fiscal claim, such perquisites was not quite considerable.
• The actual income of a zamindar from his zamindari was generally sought to be concealed, and local officials were always asked to ascertain and control it.
  • It would have been difficult to prevent the zamindars from making illegal exactions from the peasants including forced labour (begar).
• Sometimes, zamindars were allowed to collect land revenue from a tract beyond their own zamindari.
  • This was generally called a talluqa.
  • For this area, the zamindar was only a tax-collector, and was paid remuneration by way of nankar or revenue-free land.
• Not all the villages were under the control of zamindars.
  • The revenue records of the period divided villages into
    • raiyati or non-zamindari and
    • talluqa i.e. zamindari.
  • In collecting the land-revenue from their talluqa, the zamindars had to follow the government rules.
  • Generally they could not expel a peasant from his land. In fact, in a situation where land was surplus, the zamindars had every reason for the cultivators to stay, and to cultivate as much land as possible.
  • The peasants were not serfs, and were free to stay or to leave according to their wish, but local officials were asked to use every effort, including where necessary force, to prevent them from leaving.
• Zamindars were not merely exploiters:
  • It would not be correct to look upon the zamindars merely as those who fought for control over land, and exploited the cultivators in the area they dominated.
  • Many of the zamindars had close caste and kinship ties with the land-owning cultivating castes in their zamindari.
  • These zamindars not only set social standard, but also provided capital and organisation for settling new villages, or extending and improving cultivation.
  • 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 (zamiadar as known there) in the village to undertake sometimes the cultivation of his personal lands.
      • The zamindar 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.

Military strength of zamindars:

• The zamindars formed the apex of rural life. Almost all zamindars had their own small or big qilachas/garhi or forts which was both a place of refuge and a status symbol.
• They had their own armed forces and employed their footmen and cavalry.
  • These troops helped them in the realisation of land revenue and subjugation of peasantry.
• According to the Ain-i Akbari, in Akbar’s reign zamindars had 3,84,558 sawars, 42,77,057 foot-soldiers, 1,863 elephants, and 4,260 cannons.
• In Bengal they possessed thousands of boats.
• But the zamindars were dispersed and could never field such large forces at any time or at one place.

Living standard of zamindars:

• Compared to the nobles, their income was limited.
• The smaller ones may have lived more or less like affluent peasants.
• The living standards of the larger zamindars might have approached those of petty rajas or nobles.
• Most of the zamindars apparently lived in the countryside and formed a kind of a loose, dispersed local gentry.

Chaudhuris

• Some of the 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 2.5% of the revenue collected.
  • From Dasur-ul Amal Alamgiri it appears that the allowance to the chaudhari was not very substantial. But it is possible that he held extensive revenue free (inam) lands.
• Other functoion:
  • He also stood surety for the lesser zamindar.
  • He distributed and stood surety for the repayment of the taqavi loans.
  • He was a countercheck on qanungo.
• Unlike the zamindar, the chaudhuri was appointed by the state and could be removed for improper functioning.

Fauzdar and Zamindar:

• Fauzdar kept vigil over the recalcitrant zamindars.
• The faujdar represented the military or police power of the imperial government. One of his main duties was to help the jagirdar or amil in collecting revenue from the zortalab (refractory) zamindar and peasants.

Relations between Agrarian Classes:

• Zamindar, Jagirdars and peasants:
  • 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.
  • Zamindar-peasant relation: 
    • 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.
    • This would in turn affect his own fiscal claims during the following year.
  • Jagirdars-peasant relation:
    • It 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 jagirdar, 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.
    • Irfan Habib 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.”
  • Zamindar-jagirdars relation:  
    • Jawahar Mal Bekas, an 18th century writer observes that the Jagirdar of the day can in a moment remove a old zamindar and put a new man.
    • Irfan Habib writes:
      • Such attitude of jagirdar 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.
• A tripolar relationship between the peasants, the zamindars and the mansabdar/jagirdar formed the base on which the Mughal Jagirdari system rested.
  • The ability of the mansabdar/jagirdar to collect land revenue from the zamindars and keep the raiyat engaged in agricultural production was the key to successful working of the jagir system.
  • The jagirdar could perform his functions properly if he could maintain his military might.
  • This of course was based on his ability to muster enough revenue and resources from his jagir in order to maintain the requisite contingent of troopers.
  • Any factor which could disturb this neat balancing of jagirdar-zamindar-peasant parameter would ultimately cause the decline of the Empire.
• The divisions within the peasantry and between the peasants and agricultural workers, acted as severe constraints and weakened the capabilities of this class. This disunity made this class incapable of confronting the medieval despotic states.
• However it revolted for two reasons:
  • 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.
• The zamindars as a class, were quite loyal to the state. But agrarian situation worsened, conflict between them and the state as also among themselves could not be checked. This often resulted in law and order problems and decimated the authority of the state particularly after the death of Aurangzeb and weakening of the imperial authority this equilibrium got disturbed.

Mansabdari/ Jagirdari and Zamindars:

• Apart from the khanzads, a number of mansabdars were recruited from the zamindars (chieftains).
  • Out of 575 mansabdars in 1707. there were 81 zamindars.
• Jagirs which were assigned to zamindars (chieftains) in their homelands, were called watan jagirs.
  • Under Jahangir some Muslim nobles ware given jagirs resembling to watan jagir called al-tamgha.
• When a zamindar or a tributary chief was made a mansabdar, he was given jagir tankha,, apart from his watan jagir, at another place if the salary of his rank was more than the income from his watan jagir.

Madad-i ma’ash and Zamindars:

• Madad-i-ma’ash holdings were scattered in the zamindaris. They were meant to establish pockets of influence for the Empire in the far flung regions of the countryside.
• The emperors were of the view that the madad-i ma’ash grantees would keep in check the power of the recalcitrant zamindars and thereby aid in balancing the social and political groups that constituted the base of the Empire.
• The Mughal decline in the early 18th century has to be seen in the inability of the state to maintain its policy of checks and balances between the zamindars, jagirdars, madad-i ma’ashholders (men of learning, who were given revenue free grants of land by the Mughal Emperors) and the local indigenous elements; like the shaikhzada in Awadh.

Menial workers and Zamindars:

• A significant portion of the rural population constituted a class called menial workers (below the class of peasants). They are described in the contemporary literature as chamars, balahars, thoris and dhanuks, etc.
• They were a cheap source of labour for the peasants and zamindars to work on their fields.
• It was, therefore, in the interest of both of them (i.e., the peasants and zamidars) to suppress and exploit them.
• The creation of a huge reserve of labour force for agricultural production reduced the cost of production, which enhanced the “surplus” produce of the peasant, and thus allowed a greater exploitation of land revenue by the ruling power.
• In the suppression of the menial workers, the state, the zamindars and the peasants were equal collaborators.

Other Intermediaries:

• Village headman:
  • The most important official (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.
• Village accountant:
  • 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.