Mughal Land Revenue System

• Alienation from the peasant of his surplus produce in form of land revenue was the central feature of agrarian system under Mughals.
• British administrator regards land revenue as rent of the soil because they had a notion that the king was the owner of the land. selfstudyhistory.com
  • The subsequent study of Mughal India have shown that it was a tax on the crop and was thus different from the land revenue as conceived by the British.
  • Abul Fazl in his Ain-i Akbari justifies the imposition of taxes by the state saying that these are the remuneration of sovereignty, paid in return for protection and justice.
• The Persian term for land revenue during the Mughal rule was mal and mal wajib. Kharaj was not in regular use.
• The process of land revenue collection has two stages:
  • Assessment (tashkhis/jama):
    • Assessment was made to fix the state demand.
  • Actual collection (hasil).
    • On the basis of assessment demand, actual collection was done separately for kbarif and rabi crpps.

Methods of land revenue assessment

• Under the Mughals, assessment was separately made for kharif and rabi crops.
• After the assessment was over a written document called patta, qaul or qaulqarar was issued in which the amount or the rate of the revenue demand was mentioned.
• The assessee was in return supposed to give qabuliyat i.e. the acceptance of the obligation imposed upon him, stating when and how he would make the payments.
• Few commonly used methods:
  • Ghalla Bakhshi (Crop-sharing):
    • In some areas it was called bhaoii and batai.
    • The Ain-i Akbari notes three types of crop-sharing:
      • Division of crop at the threshing floor after the grain was obtained.
        • This was done in the presence of both the parties in accordance with agreement.
      • Khet batai:
        • The share was decided when the crop was still standing in the fields, and a division of the field was marked.
      • Lang batai:
        • The crop was cut and stacked in heaps without separating grain and a division of crop in this form was made.
    • In Malikzada’s Nigamama-i Munshi (late 17th century) crop sharing has been mentioned as the best method of revenue assessment and collection.
      • Under this method, the peasants and the state shtred the risks of the seasons equally.
    • But as Abul Fazl says it was expensive from the viewpoint of the state since the latter had to employ a large number of watchmen, else there were chances of misappropriation before harvesting.
    • When Aurangzeb introduced it in the Deccan, the cost of revenue collection doubled simply from the necessity of organising a watch on the crops.
  • Kankut / Danabandi:
    • The word kankut is derived from the words kan and kut.
      • Kan denotes grain while kut means to estimate or appraisal.
      • Similarly, dana means grain while bandi is fixing or determining anything.
    • It was a system where the grain yield (or productivity) was estimated.
    • In kankut, at first, the field was measured either by means of a rope or by pacing.
    • After this, the per bigha productivity from good, middling and bad land was estimated and the revenue demand was fixed accordingly.
  • Zabti:
    • In Mughal India, it was the most important method of assessment.
    • The origin of this practice is traced to Sher Shah.
    • During Akbar’s reign, the system was revised a number of times before it took the final shape.
    • Sher Shah had established a rai or per bigha yield for land which were under continuous cultivation (polaj), or those land which very rarely allowed to lie fallow (parauti).
      • The rai was based on three rates, representing good, middling and low yields and one third of the sum of these was appropriated as land revenue.
      • Akbar adopted Sher Shah’s rai.
    • Akbar introduced his so-called karori experiment and appointed karoris all over North India in 1574-75.
      • The entire jagir was converted into khalisa.
      • Under karori experiment, measurement of all provinces took place.
        • Bamboo rods with iron rings called tanab were used instead of hempen ropes.
        • On the basis of productivity and prices prevailing in different regions they were divided for revenue purposes into dastur circles.
        • The rates of assessment in cash for each crop in every dastur was decided, and the demand was fixed accordingly.
    • On the basis of the information provided by the karoris regarding the actual produce, local prices, productivity, etc. in 1580, Akbar instituted a new system Ain dahsala, where the average produce of different crops as well as the average prices prevailing over the last ten years were calculated.
    • One-third of the average produce was the state’s minimum share.
    • Main features of the zabti system:
      • measurement of land was essential;
      • fixed cash revenue rates known as dastur ul amal or dastur for each crop.
      • all the collection was made in cash.
    • Merits of Zabti system:
      • measurement could always be rechecked;
      • due to fixed dasturs, local officials could not use their discretion; and
      • with fixing the permanent dastur, the uncertainties and fluctuation in levying the land revenue demand were greatly reduced.
    • Demerits of Zabti system:
      • It could not be applied if the quality of the soil was not uniform;
      • If the yield was uncertain, this method was disadvantageous  to peasants because risk were borne by them  alone.
        • Abul Fazl says, “If the peasant does not have the strength to bear zabt, the practice of taking a third of the crop as revenue is followed.“
      • This was an expensive method as a cess of one dam per bigha known as zabitana  was given to meet the costs towards the maintenance of the measuring party;
      • Much fraud could be practised in recording the measurement.
    • Zabti system was adopted only in the core region of the Empire.
      • The main provinces covered under zabtl were Delhi, Allahabad, Awadh, Agra, Lahore and Multan.
      • Even in these zabti provinces, other methods of  assessment were also practiced, depending on the circumstances of the area.
  • Nasaq:
    • It was not an independent method of assessment; it was subordinate to other methods.
    • It was a method or procedure which could be adopted whatever be the basic method of revenue assessment and collection that was in force.
    • In North India it was nasaqi zabti, while in Kashmir it was nasaqi ghalla bakhshi.
    • When it was applied under zabti the annual measurement was dispensed with and previous figures were taken into account with certain variations.
    • Since zabti system involved annual measurement, the administration and revenue payers both wanted to replace it.
      • Zabtl-i-harsala or annual measurement was, therefore, set aside with some modifications.
  • Revenue farming (Ijara):
    • Ijara system or revenue farming was another feature of the revenue system of this time.
    • Though, as a rule Mughals disapproved of this practice, in actual fact certain villages were sometimes farmed out.
    • Generally, these village, when peasant did not have resources available for undertaking cultivation or where owing to some calamity cultivation could not be done, were farmed out on Ijara.
    • The revenue officials or their relatives were not supposed to take land on Ijara.
    • It was expected that revenue farmers would not extract more than the stipulated land revenue from the peasants. But this was hardly the case in actual practice.
    • The practice of Ijara could not have been very common in the zabti provinces, Gujarat and the Mughal Dakhin. In the khalisa lands also this practice was very rare.
    • However, in the jagir lands it became a common feature. Revenue assignees (jagirdars) farmed out their assignments in lieu of a lump sum payment, generally to the highest bidders.
    • Sometimes, Jagirdars sub-assigned part of their Jagirs to his subordinates/troopers.
    • During the 18th century Ijara system became a common form of revenue assessment and collection.

Magnitude of land revenue demand:

• Abul Fazl says that no moral limits could be set for the demand of the ruler from his subjects; “the subject ought to be thankful even if he were made to part with all his possessions by the protector of his life and honour.”
  • He adds that “just sovereigns” do not exact more than what is required for their which, of course, they would themselves determine.
• Aurangzeb explicitly said that the land revenue should be appropriated according to shariat, i.e., not more than one half of the total produce.
• European traveller Pelsaert, who visited India in the early 17th century, declared that “so much is wrung from the peasants that even dry bred is scarcely left to fill their stomachs.”
• Irfan Habib comments: “Revenue demand accompanied by other taxes and regular and irregular exactions of officials was a heavy burden on peasantry”.
• Sher Shah formed three crop rates on the basis of the productivity of the soil, and demand was fixed at 1/3 of the average of there three rates for each crop.
• Abul Fazl comments that under Akbar, Sher Shah’s 1/3 of revenue demand formed the lowest rate of assessments.
• Recent studies show that revenue demand under the Mughals ranged between 1/3 to 1/2 of the produce, and sometimes even 3/4 in some areas. The revenue demand varied from suba to suba.
  • Kashmir:
    • The demand in theory was one-third while in practice it was two-thirds of the total produce.
    • Akbar ordered that only one-half should be demanded.
  • Thatta:
    • In the province of Thatta (Sind), the land revenue was taken at the rate of one-third.
  • Ajmer:
    • For Ajmer suba, we find different rates of revenue demand.
    • In fertile regions of eastern Rajasthan ranged from one-third to one-half of the produce.
    • Irfan Habib on the basis of the Ain-i-Akbari  that in the desert regions, proportion amounted to one-seventh of the crop.
  • Central India:
    • In Central India, rates varied from one-half, one-third to two-fifth.
  • Deccan:
    • In Deccan, one-half was appropriated from the ordinary lands while one-third was taken from those irrigated by wells and one-fourth was taken from high grade crops.
  • Aurangzeb’s farman to Rasik Das Karori stipulates that when the authorities took recourse to crop-sharing, usually in the case of distressed peasantry, the proportions levied should be one-half, or one-third or two-fifths.
  • Rates under Aurangzeb were higher than that of Akbar.
    • Perhaps it was due to the fact that there was a general rise in agricultural prices and, thus, there was no real change in the pitch of demand.
  • In the case of Rajasthan it is reported that revenue rates varied according to the class or caste of the revenue payers.
    • Satish Chandra and Dilbagh Singh have shown that Brahmins and Banias paid revenue on concessional rates in a certain pargana of Eastern Rajasthan.
  • It may be safely assumed that in general the rate of revenue demand was from 1/2 to 1/3 of the produce.
  • Since, the revenue was imposed per unit of area ‘uniformly’ irrespective of the nature of the holding, it was regressive in nature—those who possessed large holdings felt the burden less than those who possessed small holdings.

Mode of Payment:

• In the Mughal period, the peasant under zabti system had to pay revenue in cash.
• No provision is on record for allowing a commutation of cash into kind in any circumstances.
• However, under crop-sharing and kankut, commutation into cash was permitted at market prices.
• Cash nexus was firmly established in almost every part of the Empire.

Collection of Land Revenue:

• Under ghalla bakhshi, the state’s share was seized directly from the field. In other systems, the state collected its share at the time of harvest.
  • Abul Fazl maintains that “Collection should begin for rabi from holi and for Kharif from Dashehra.
• In the kharif season, the harvesting of different crops was done at different times and the revenue was accordingly to be collected in three stages depending on the type of crops.
  • Thus, under Kharif the revenue could only be collected in instalments.
• The authorities tried to collect revenue before the harvest was cut and removed from the fields.
  • By the end of the 17th century, the authorities in desperation started preventing the peasants from reaping their fields until they had paid their revenue.
  • Irfan Habib comments: “It shows how oppressive it was to demand the revenue from the peasant before the harvest, when he would have absolutely nothing left. The practice was at the same time the work of a well developed money economy, for it would have been impossible to attempt it unless the officials expected that the peasants would pay up by pledging their crops before hand to grain merchants or moneylenders“.
• Usually, the revenue was deposited in the treasury through the ‘amil‘ or revenue collector.
• Akbar encouraged the peasants to pay directly.
  • Todar Mal recommended that the peasants of trusted villages, within the time limit, could deposit their revenue in the treasury themselves and could obtain receipt.
  • The village accountant, patwari, made endorsement in his register to establish the amount paid.
• Irfan Habib considers these regulations as precautionary measures on the part of administration to avoid fraud and embezzlement.

Relief measures:

• Abbas Khan in the Tarlkh-i Sher Shahi writes, “Sher Shah declared that concessions could be permitted at assessment time, but never at that of collection“.
• Aurangzeb in his farman to Muhammad Hashim karori, instructed that no remissions were to be allowed once the crop had been cut.
• Whatever be the method of revenue assessment, there was some provision for relief in the case of bad harvests.
  • In ghalla bakhsi and kankut, state’s share would rise and fall depending upon the current harvest.
  • In zabti, relief was given by excluding the area designated nabud from assessment.
• In practice, it was not possible to collect the entire amount, and there was always a balance which was to be collected next year.
  • It also seems to have been a common practice to demand the arrears, owed by peasants who had fled or died, from their neighbours.
  • Aurangzeb issued a hasb ul hukm in A.D. 1674-75 to check this practice in khalisa and jagir lands, arguing that no peasant could be held responsible for arrears contracted by others.
• Taqavi (strength giving) loans were granted to enable the peasants to buy seeds and cattle.
  • Abul Fazl writes, “the amalguzar should assist the empty handed peasants by advancing them loans”.
  • Todar Mal had suggested that taqavi should be given to cultivators who were in distressed circumstances and did not have seeds or cattle.
  • These loans were interest-free, normally to be repaid at the time of harvest.
  • These were advanced through the chaudhris and muqaddams.
  • Abul Fazl says that the loans should be recovered slowly.
• New wells were dug up and old ones were repaired for extension and improvement of cultivation.

Land revenue administration:

• We get ample information about the revenue machinery for khalish lands. But our information for Jagir administration is quite scanty.
• Since Jagirdars were transferred after every two or three years, they had no knowledge of revenue paying capacity of the people and local customs. So we find three types of officials:
  • officials and agents of jagirdars;
  • permanent local officials many of whom were hereditary.
    • They were generally not affected by the frequent transfers of the Jagirdar,
  • imperial officials to help and control the Jagirdars.
• At the rural level, there were many revenue officials:
  • Karori (or amil):
    • In 1574-75, the office of karori was created.
    • Describing his duties, Abul Fazl says that he was incharge of both assessment and collection of the revenue.
    • An important change took place during Shah Jahan’s reign.
      • Now amins were appointed in every mahal and they were given the work of assessment.
      • After this change, karori (or amil) remained concerned chiefly with collection of revenue which amin had assessed.
    • The karori was appointed by the diwan of the province.
    • He was expected to look after the interests of the peasantry.
    • The accounts of the actual collection of the karori and their agents were audited with the help of the village patwari’s papers.
  • Amin:
    • It was next important revenue official.
    • This was created during Shah Jahan’s reign.
    • His main function was to assess the revenue.
    • He, too, was appointed by the diwan.
    • He was responsible jointly with the karori and faujdar for the safe transit of the collected revenue.
    • The faujdar of the province kept a vigilant eye on the activities of Amin and karori. He also used to recommend their promotion.
  • Qanungo:
    • He was the local revenue official of the pargana, and generally belonged to one of the accountant castes.
    • It was a hereditary post, but an imperial order was essential for the nomination of each new person.
    • Nigarnama-i Munshi holds qanungo responsible for malpractices because “they have no fear of being transferred or deposed.”
      • But a qanungo could be removed by an imperial order if he indulged in malpractices, or on account of negligence of duty.
    • He was supposed to maintain records concerning
      • revenue receipts,
      • area statistics,
      • local revenue rates and
      • practice and customs of the pargana.
    • The Jagjrdar’s agents were generally unfamiliar with the locality; they usually depended heavily on the information supplied to them by the qaoungos.
    • The qanungo was paid 1% of the total revenue as remuneration, but Akbar started paying them salary.
  • Chaudhari:
    • He was also an important revenue official like the qanungo. In most cases he was the leading zamindar of the locality.
    • He was mainly concerned with the collection.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • Shiqqdar:
    • Under Sher Shah, he was the incharge of revenue collection and maintained law and order.
    • In Akbar’s later period, he seems to be a subordinate official under the karori.
    • Abul Fazl mentions that in case of an emergency, the shiqqdar could give the necessary sanction for disbursement which was to be duly reported to the court.
    • He was also responsible for thefts that occurred in his jurisdiction.
  • Muqaddam and Patwari:
    • The muqaddam and Patwari were village level officials.
    • The muqaddam was the village headman.
      • In lieu of his services, he was allowed 2.5 percent of the total revenue collected by him.
    • The patwari was to maintain records of the village land, the holdings of the individual cultivators, variety of crops grown and details about fallow land.
      • The names of the cultivators were entered in his bahi (ledger).
      • On the basis of information contained in these bahis, the bitikchi used to prepare necessary papers and records according’to which assessment and collection was carried out.
  • In each pargaana, there were two other officials-
    • fotadar or khazandar (the treasurer),
    • karkun or bitikchi (the accountant).
  • Under Sher Shah, there were two karkuns, one for keeping the records in Hindi and the other in Persian. But in A.D. 1583-84 Persian was made the sole language for accounts.
  • 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.
  • There were waqai navis, sawanih nigar (news writers), etc., whose duty was to report the cases of irregularities and oppression to the centre. selfstudyhistory.com