LAND REVENUE SYSTEM OF THE MUGHALS

The land revenue system in the early medieval and medieval periods was
the financial bulwark of any state given the agrarian nature of the
economies due to which the state demand on agricultural produce formed
the most regular and reliable form of income. Thus, the main aim of any
medieval state was to work out a system which would ensure the
maximisation of revenue without permitting internecine warfare in the
countryside. It is for this reason that almost all rulers during this period,
especially the Mughals paid great attention to agrarian matters. The Land
revenue system of the Mughals is supposed to be the best organised branch
of the Mughal state according to I. H. Qureshi.

The land revenue system that developed during the reign of Akbar and
continued more or less unchanged for the subsequent centuries. Thus,
according to Satish Chandra the land revenue system or the dahsala
system that emerged during the 24th regnal year of Akbar was the most
logical evolution of the zabt or measurement system of Sher Shah that had
prevailed till the early years of Akbar’s reign. Thus, before we analyse the
measures taken up and changes initiated by Akbar it would be important to
understand the system that Akbar inherited in his early years.

The System of measurement or zabt adopted by Sher Shah continued to

operate in Hindustan i.e. from Lahore to Allahabad till the early years of
Akbar’s reign. The chief characteristic feature of this system was the
measurement of land and the fixing of rai or schedule of crop rates. The
cultivable land was divided into three categories of good, middling and bad.
The standard yield per unit of area of all three categories was added up and
an average struck by dividing it by three and finally 1/3 rd of this average-
stated in grains- was fixed as the state demand. Although, the state demand
was stated in grains was commuted into cash according to a price list
known as dasturs. This price list was accepted and continued by Akbar as
well. However, it soon gave rise to a number of practical problems. For
instance, the prices that were listed were the ones prevailing in the royal
camps; in areas outside the royal camps and the countryside much lower
prices were prevailing. Thus, the peasants usually had to pay much more.
Irfan Habib has argued that despite the practice where in Akbar wanted the
prices from every region of his kingdom to be reported for approval
annually there was very little variation in the dasturs from year to year.
Thus, he concludes that a single price schedule was applied each year to all
regions of the kingdom, which in turn created many internal problems. Q.
Ahmed believes that this practice of created unnecessary delays and
administrative problems. Moreover, the jama- the amount assessed- was
highly inflated as it was not based on revised or proper information. Thus,
Habib states that wide discrepancies must have existed between the actual
revenue-paying capacity of the peasants of an area and the jama of an area.

It was keeping these problems in mind that certain measures were taken by
the Mughal administration. It had become imperative to take local
variations into consideration while fixing land revenue. Thus, information
was collected about the productivity, area under cultivation and land
revenue figures of each locality and a new estimate of the revenue for the
empire was made in the 11th regnal year. It was on the basis of this
information that instead of a single price-list for the whole empire, local
crop rates had been worked out and henceforth price schedules were
drawn up afresh every year, separately for each locality. However, problems
still existed with this approach as the Empire had expanded by this time
greatly and long delays used to occur in the communication of the local
rates to the imperial court and the sanctioning of the approved rates
thereafter. This naturally resulted either in the over or under taxing of the
peasantry, both of which created problems. Moreover, the local zamindars
were the ones that provided all the information and hence were reluctant
to reveal the actual state of affairs due to which neither the crop rates nor
the jama could be correctly assessed.

The remedy that was adopted to overcome this problem was the
preparation in the 24th regnal year (1579-80) of the Jama-i-Dahsala- the
assessment of 10 years. Moreland believed that the jama was instituted
simply by averaging the total revenue demand actually levied upon the
peasants in the preceding ten years. However, this has been countered by
Irfan Habib who argues that if one reads Ain-i-Akbari properly they would
be able to understand the essence of this new system better i.e. after having
ascertained the state of cultivation and local prices of every pargana in the
last ten years, 1/10th of that was fixed as the annual revenue. He goes on to
argue that it would have been highly futile to obtain information about the
produce and prices if the objective had been merely to discover the actual
receipts of the previous decade. Habib has summed up the system by saying
that a new crop rate, averaged from the actual rates for the harvest of the
previous ten years was first worked out for each locality. The average of the
cash rates of the previous ten years based upon this, and the known prices
produced the final or permanent dastur. Finally, the multiplication of the
average area figures with these dasturs could produce the figures for the
Jama-i Dah Sala.

Before the Dah Sala system came into being two preliminary measures
were taken between 1574 and 1576. Firstly, officials called Karori were
placed in charge of lands which could yield two and a half lakh rupees. The
Karoris assisted by a treasurer, a surveyor and other technical staff was to
measure the land of a village and assess the area under cultivation. The
primary purpose of the karori experiment was to carry out the
measurement of the cultivated area because it was in the same year that a
new jarib or rod made of bamboo was introduced. In 1576, Akbar brought
some of the assigned territories under the Khalisa land. The purpose of this
step was to gain first-hand information about agricultural conditions rather
than a desire to do away with the Jagirdari system. These two steps helped
the Mughal state gain sufficient experience in agrarian matters to
undertake the initiation of such a system.

The Dahsala system based on zabt or measurement was introduced in the

region extending from Lahore to Allahabad as also to Gujarat, Malwa and
parts of Bihar and Multan. The zabt had a number of benefits from the
administrative point of view. Measurement could always be rechecked, and
the fixed dasturs deprived the local officials of much of the discretion that
they could have otherwise abused. Moreover, these fixed dasturs eliminated
to a large extent the uncertainties and fluctuations in levying the annual
demand. However, this system was slightly expensive, could not be easily
applied in areas where the soil was not homogenous in quality and it left
scope for misuse at times of measurement by the officials. It is for this
reason that other methods of assessment also continued to exist
simultaneously with the zabt system. Satish Chandra has stated that once
this system came into being the amalguzars were instructed to accept any
system of assessment that the peasants preferred. Apart from zabt, the
other systems that prevailed during this period were Kankut and Batai or
crop sharing. Crop sharing was of three types. The first was bhaoli, where
the crops were reaped and stacked and divided by agreement in the
presence of the parties. The second type was khet batai where the fields
were divided after they were sown. The third type was lang batai where
after cutting the grain it was formed in heaps and divided. This method was
generally preferred by the peasants because it shifted some of the risk or
burden of the failure of crops upon the shoulders of the authorities. It was
best suited for those villages or peasants that were suffering from
exceptional distress. It also enabled the authorities to check the productive
capacity of a village where the standing assessment gave cause for worry.
However, this method required a high number of intelligent inspectors in
order to prevent any form of deception and hence was a very expensive
method.

Kankut or appraisement consisted of two stages. In the first the land was
measured either by means of a rope or by pacing. After this the crop rate
was determined and applied to the whole area under the crop. If the
assessor found it difficult to fix the crop rate on the basis of observation
alone, he was required to make three sample cuttings, from good, middling
and bad lands, and on the basis of these make his estimate. According to
Abu’l Fazl the assessment was first made in kind and then it was commuted
into cash. This was a far more efficient and less expensive system as
compared to crop-sharing. However, in empowering the assessor himself to
determine crop rates the system gave enough leeway for misuse and abuse
of power. Another system that prevailed in Kashmir was one in which the
produce was computed on the basis of ass loads and then divided.

Another system of assessment as mentioned by the contemporaries was

nasaq. There is considerable controversy around its nature among modern
historians. Moreland called it group assessment, while Irfan Habib
considers it to be an estimation on the basis of previous assessment. This
implied that peasants were given an estimation on the basis of previous
assessment and if they refused to accept it a new assessment could be
made. In this way annual assessment or appraisement could be avoided.

B.R.Grover in his article “Classification of Agrarian Land Under Akbar” talks

about how the land was categorised into different types for the purposes of
determining the state demand. Apart from productivity even the continuity
of cultivation was taken into account. For instance, lands that were
constantly under cultivation were called ‘polaj’ paid full rates along with
the fallow ones or parauti when they were brought under cultivation.
Chachar was the land which had been fallow for 3-4 years and paid a
progressive rate, the full rate being charged only in the third year. Banjar
was the cultivable waste land that paid full rent in the 5th year. In case of the
last two categories of land the purpose of having progressive rent was to
encourage its cultivation so that the peasant would be in a position to pay
the rent in the final year.

Akbar also initiated reform in the unit and instrument of measurement that
had caused problems in the previous regimes. Up to the 31 st regnal year, the
Sikandari gaz consisting of 41 digits was used to measure land. However,
cloth was measured using some other measurement. Thus, in his 31 st regnal
year Akbar in order to stop the inconvenience caused by the existence of
these various measures adopted the ilahi gaz of 41 digits to be used for all
purposes. The instrument of measurement initially was jarib or a twisted
rope that used to shrink or expand according to the dryness or amoisture of
the atmosphere. Thus, in his 19th regnal year a new jarib made of bamboo
and joined by iron rings was introduced. This was not subject to
atmospheric conditions and hence did hamper the process of the
measurement or assessment of land.

The second stage in the revenue administration of the Mughals was the
actual collection of the revenue once the assessment had been made. Except
under crop-sharing, the collection of revenue and its assessments were
entirely distinct operations. In other systems, assessment could take place
between the time of sowing and harvesting, but collection, usually took
place at the time of harvest. Once the assessment had been made, the state
issued a written document called patta setting out the amount or rate of the
revenue demand. At the same time, the assessee gave, in acknowledgement
his acceptance of the obligation imposed upon him, stating when and how
he would pay the tax. During the kharif season different crops were
harvested at different times and therefore the revenue had to be
accordingly collected in three different stages. In case of rabi crops, the
harvest had to be collected within a short period of time. The authorities
were anxious to get the crops collected as quickly as possible before they
could be removed from the field. Irfan Habib says that it was because of this
anxiety that the practice of preventing peasants from reaping their crops
before they paid the revenue was started. However, he also acknowledges
the fact that this practice gained strength only in the 17 th century and was
most stringently practiced during the reign of Aurangzeb. Non-payment of
revenue amounted to rebellion and was met with eviction, imprisonment
and torture of the headman. The peasants, whether they paid directly or
indirectly through the revenue collector, were entitled to obtain proper
receipts for their payments. The treasurer was also required to get the
patwari’s endorsement in his register to establish the amount of payment.
These precautions were largely in the nature of the Empire’s desire to
protect itself from fraud and embezzlement.

Akbar had fixed a third of the produce as the state demand but from the
beginning this amount was not uniform throughout the Empire. In actuality,
the rate varied from 1/8th to half of the produce but 1/3rd was the rate that
prevailed in majority of the khalisa land. The demand was fixed according
to the Islamic law that believed that the state should leave atleast half of the
average produce with the peasant in order to ensure his and his family’s
subsistence in the time of a crisis. Fruit gardens were treated in a special
manner. A flat rate of 2 ¾ rupees per bigha was charged, even if the trees
didn’t bear fruits. Exception was made if the orchard was planted with
grapes and almonds, in which case the demand was realised only when the
plants bore fruit.

As far as the medium of payment is concerned, the peasants had the option
of paying either in cash or kind. The practice of paying one seasonal crop in
kind and the other in cash was widely prevalent. However, whenever the
revenue was realised in kind it was inevitably sold and converted into cash.
Apart from isolated territories like Kashmir and Orissa, or the desolate
portions of Rajasthan, the cash nexus was firmly established in almost
every part of the Empire. Its prevalence implied that the peasant was
compelled to sell a very large portion of his produce in order to meet the
revenue demand. However, Akbar continued the practice of collecting 10
sers of grains from each bigha of cultivated land in order to maintain a
reserve stock of grains to meet any food crisis.

Moreland had raised the question whether the state demand was realised
in terms of dams (copper coins) or rupees. Irfan Habib has argued that all
the revenue was assessed and realised in terms of rupees. He states that
since the silver price of copper rose considerably during this period, the
imposition of the revenue in terms of dams would have increased the
burden on the peasantry. Thus, it was in their interests that all the revenue
was collected in rupees and fractions in annas.

There is a debate regarding whether the state dealt with the individual
cultivator or with the village as a whole. The ideal before the Mughal state
was to deal with each peasant separately. The revenue collector was
instructed not to make assessments with the big men of the village since it
gives strength to the dominant men of oppressive bent. The Ain also
requires the accountant to take down the name of each peasant, crop sown
by him and the jama assessed upon it and then put down the total of the
individual assessments as the revenue of the entire village. However, in
practice this was very difficult to achieve due to the shire number of
peasants. Thus, there were manuals that highlighted the general practice of
making collective assessments for the entire villages without even
mentioning the need to assess individual holdings. Moreover, the structure
of the rural society was such that in most zamindari held lands, the
zamindar was the intermediary between the state and the peasant. Thus,
the collector would generally assess the whole village and expect the
zamindar to pay the revenue without bothering to distribute the
assessment among individual peasants. Satish Chandra has argued that
while the assessment may be done for individual land holdings, the
responsibility for collection rested with the zamindar and they thus had
enough leeway to manipulate assessment or conceal their own holdings.

The sole claimant to the land revenue was theoretically the emperor but in
actuality and through a system of temporary alienations by way of
assignments the emperor gave up his right to the revenue. The assigned
lands were of two types- (1) service assignments and (2) charitable or non-
conditional grants. The service assignments were more popularly known as
jagirs and their administrators as jagirdars, who were usually mansabdars.
They received their emoluments either in cash from the treasury or were
assigned a territory called jagir and the revenue collected from this
territory formed their salary. W.H.Moreland has stated that the revenue of
these lands was assigned to the holders, but they had no other
administrative functions. Irfan Habib elucidates that since a jagir was
usually assigned in lieu of pay, it was necessary to determine in each case,
an area that would yield in net revenue, an amount equivalent to the
sanctioned pay. A standing assessment (jama) was prepared for each unit of
territory which was approximated as closely as possible with the hasil.

Q. Ahmed has argued that although the jagirdar was entitled to access and
collect the revenue of his jagir the former right was much curbed because of
the imperial regulations that were imposed on them. In the early years of
Akbar’s reign it was declared that the jagirdars should collect revenue
according to the crop rates sanctioned by the court. If any excess amount
was collected it was to be withdrawn and the jagirdar could be punished for
the same. However, the imperial control was not always effective over these
jagirdars as they were always a little anxious to collect more than the
minimum amount and more often than not succeeded in doing so.

A number of charitable grants were also made during this period which
came to be known as milk, imlak and suyurghal. However, the most
common term used for all these categories of grants was madad-i-ma’ash or
“aid for subsistence”. These grants were essentially of a charitable nature
and according to the Ain granted to four categories of people: (i) enquirers
of real knowledge, who have withdrawn from all worldly occupations; (ii)
those, who practice self-denial; (iii) the weak and poor and (iv)honourable
men of gentle nature. However, the grants were not restricted only to these
categories of people. Even Hindu divines and women were recipients of
such grants. Most of these grants were unconditional grants with the
recipient not being called upon to perform any function or duty but were
expected to pray for the prosperity of the emperor and the kingdom. It is
for this reason that Jahangir calls them the “army of prayers” that was as
important as the real army. Under these grants the revenue of a specified
area was assigned to the grantee, who was exempted from the payment of a
large number of abwabs or customary dues. If the land granted was a
banjar land then the grantee could develop it and utilise its produce
without paying any revenue to the government. Apart from the emperor,
even princes, subedars and jagirdars could make these grants; the jagirdars
could make these grants only from within their own territory. Some of these
grants were hereditary in nature but the new incumbent had to get the
prior approval of the king. Thus, its clear that the king’s authority over
these grants was paramount. Irfan Habib believes that during the early
years of the Mughal Empire these grants were a highly insignificant part but
by the 18th century they had increased exponentially.

Before we conclude it is important to analyse the effects that this land

revenue system had on the peasantry. The Mughal government has been
described as a benevolent despotism. They recognised the importance of
working for the welfare of the peasantry to ensure that high levels of
cultivation were maintained. The agriculture during this period depended
more on natural forces and was thus subject to ‘bad years’ on account of
natural calamities. Thus, providing relief measures to the peasants was
believed to be a very important welfare measure, which aimed at providing
immediate relief as well working towards the extension of cultivation.
Remission of revenues and grants of cash assistance (taqavi) for purchase
of seeds and implements were also popular during this period. The system
of crop-sharing was encouraged to reduce the burden and risk on the
peasantry and in case of the zabt system a reduction was made in destroyed
areas. Also, the state took efforts to protect the peasants from excessive
exaction of revenue. The peasants entered into an agreement with the state
through the patta and the qabuliyat, which ensured that the peasant was
aware of the amount that was due from him.

Despite these measures, a number of European travellers have spoken

about the impoverishment of the peasantry during this period. As the aim
of the Mughal state was to maximise revenue and land revenue was their
chief source of income the peasantry had to suffer under the burden of a
heavy land revenue demand. The state demand varied from 1/3rd to ½ o the
produce and according to some scholars their entire surplus was
transferred to the state. According to Geleynssen “their share is usually
consumed before it is gathered” and Pelsaert stated that after the state had
taken their share from the peasants they didn’t even have dry bread to
subsistence upon. While, all these statements are highly exaggerated it
cannot be denied that the state demand from the peasantry was extremely
high that had a crushing effect on the peasantry. Moreover, since the
Mughal system assessed per unit of area according to crop and not
according to the cultivators land holdings it has been called a ‘regressive
tax’. Also, the collection of revenue in cash further worsened the situation
for the peasants especially the ones cultivating food grains as they found it
difficult to find a market for their product. Apart from the high assessment
the strict and harsh manner in which the revenue was collected by the
oppressive officials further increased the plight of the peasantry. In many
cases, the officials used to collect more than what was due from the
peasantry for their personal use. The fiscal burden borne by the peasantry
did not end at the land revenue demand alone. Apart from the land tax or
mal a number of other taxes and cesses- legal and illegal- were imposed on
the peasants as well. For instance, ‘Jihat’ that was meant to compensate the
officials assessing and collecting the revenue; the other taxes levied on the
villages were grouped under sa’ir-jihat that comprised taxes on various
trades, markets and transit dues, fees of officials and apart from this a cess
was also levied on cattle, trees etc The illegal cesses included the demands
made by the zamindars, jagirdars and other officials that collectively came
to be known as abwab. All these amounted to 25% of the land revenue
thereby increasing the burden on the peasantry further.

It is important to assess the role of the zamindars as well in the context of

their share of control over the land. They often claimed to derive their right
from settling a village and distributing its land among the peasantry.
Conversely, they were often credited with the right to evict peasants at will.
Irfan Habib talks about the how the zamindari rights were in themselves
articles of property and could be easily sold and bought. The saleability of
these rights also enabled persons, who had accumulated wealth to
transform themselves into zamindars. This helped them to get exemption
from the payment of land tax. However, Habib also argues that while the
zamindari rights could be sold and bought easily, this right of alienation did
not extend to land. Thus, the peasant could not easily alienate his land
freely. Cultivation as a right was vested hereditarily upon the peasant and it
had become an obligation. Thus, the land did not belong to the peasants
showing that private property rights had not come about into existence at
this point of time. Thus, the peasants could be easily evicted from land for
non-payment of revenue.

Closely linked to the land revenue system of the Mughals was their effort to
promote the expansion of agriculture. This had a triple purpose: (1) to
ensure the maximisation of land revenue and as the Mughals were large
exporters of food grains it was the source of indirect revenue as well; (2) to
feed the ever increasing Mughal population and (2) to promote the
conditions of the peasants. Various devices aimed at the achievement of
these objectives were incorporated into the land revenue administration.
Thus, encouragement was given to bring fallow or wasteland under
cultivation by initiating the progressive tax rates for these categories of
land. Moreover, it was a royal directive that no cultivated land should be
allowed to become barren or a wasteland. Agricultural loans were given to
farmers for seeds, implements etc and for the construction of wells as well.
In fact the state itself undertook the digging and construction of wells,
canals and other sources of irrigation in order to offset the negative effect
that climatic conditions had on agriculture. Apart from this revenue
remissions were also believed to be incentives for agrarian development.

Thus, to conclude one can see that the Mughals had been able to adapt and
modify the earlier existing agrarian traditions to evolve a highly elaborate
and well organised land revenue department. Productivity of land, crops
sown and local prices were taken into consideration in order to determine
the land revenue demand, which was a marked improvement from the
erstwhile uniform system that had prevailed before. Although, the state
wanted to act as benefactor to the peasantry its sheer desire to maximise
land revenue and consequently the high land revenue demand crippled the
peasantry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Irfan Habib- The Agrarian System of Mughal India

 Muzzafar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed)- The Mughal State

(1526-1750)

 I.H.Qureshi- The Administration of the Mughal Empire

 Quyamuddin Ahmad- Aspects of Land Revenue Administration in the

Mughal Period

 Satish Chandra- Medieval India, Volume II