Expansion and Growth of

Medieval Economy-1 UNIT 19 TAXATION

Structure
19.1 Introduction
19.2 Islamic Theory of Taxation
19.3 Land Tax
19.3.1 North India
19.3.2 Deccan
19.3.3 Malik Ambar’s Settlement and the Maratha Land Tax
19.3.4 South India
19.3.5 Relief Measures
19.3.6 Revenue Collection and the State Machinery

19.4 Abwab / Cesses

19.5 Taxes Other than Land Tax: Sair Jihat
19.6 Custom and Market Dues
19.7 Taxes on Professions and Manufacturers
19.8 Revenue Assignments
19.9 State and Taxation
19.10 Summary
19.11 Exercises

19.1 INTRODUCTION
The most crucial issue related to land tax during the medieval period concerns
‘ownership’. Who possessed the ownership rights – the state (emperor) or the ryot
(peasants)? The questions is ‘central’ to explain whether land revenue was a tax on
land or on a crop or a rent?

The problem pertaining to the issue begins from European travellers’ accounts
particularly Francois Bernier (1656-68) followed by British official writings who
argued that in India ownership rested with the ‘crown’. The problem largley arose
on account of ‘utter’ misunderstanding of the working of the jagir system. Bernier
equated Mughal jagirdars with lords of the western Europe. Since the jagirdars
were frequently transferred at the will of the emperor for them it was the ‘king’ and
not the jagirdar held the right of ownership. Aurangzeb’s farman to Muhammad
Hashim clearly addresses peasants as maliks. Abul Fazl in his Ain-i Akbari distinctly
brings out ‘land revenue as tax on the property of the peasants.’ It was a
‘remuneration’ in lieu of providing ‘protection and justice’ to his subjects. (Irfan
Habib, 1963). Even on the waste lands reclaimed by peasants their ownership right
was recognised. B.R. Grover in his well researched article on, ‘Nature of Land
Rights in Mughal India’ convincingly argued that during the medieval period ownership
right vested with riaya (peasants). They possessed the right to transfer, sale or
mortgage their lands. Irfan Habib (1999) in his Agrarian System of Mughal India
while recognising peasants’ ownership rights brought out the peculiarity of medieval
situations that, “In so far as the peasant recognized the zamindar’s right of choice
in giving land to him to till he was not, in such lands at least, the proprietor. In these
72 and other (raiyati) areas, his right of occupancy was counterbalanced by the
constraints legally set on his mobility. To that degree, he was a semi-serf, not a free Taxation
agent. And his right, such as it was, was seldom saleable. It is, therefore, not possible
to discern the emergence of any substantive peasant property in Mughal India. Rather
one could say that there was no exclusive right of property vesting in anyone; instead
the system contained a network of transferable rights and obligations, with different
claimants (the king or his assignee; the zamindar; and finally, the peasant) to
differently defined shares in the produce from the same land.’

Similar conditions prevailed in the Deccan as well. Mirasdars’ hereditary rights on

land were recognised. Peasants could sell or mortgage their land. Even at times the
king is mentioned purchasing land of the riaya. However, customary laws put lot of
restriction on buying and sale of watan land. Peasants could not sell their lands
without the consent of the villagers.

Nuniz referring to south India mentions that “all the land belongs to the king...and
they (peasants) had no land of their own for the kingdom belongs entirely to the
king.’ N. Venkata Ramanayya also agrees that in the Vijayanagar period king was
the owner of land with the exception of Kanarese country where he accepts the
presence of ‘individual ownership of land’ as an ‘exception.’ But Noboru Karashima
and Y. Subbrayalu emphasise the presence of individual ownership in brahmadeya
villages by members of the sabha. They are mentioned in the inscriptions possessing
kani rights (hereditary right of possession). However, they accepted that members
of ur (i.e. in non-brahmadeya villages) held land in common. Karashima points out
emergence of individual ownership in the lower Kaveri valley even in the non-
brahmadeya villages towards the end of the Chola period. This he attributes to
increasing wealth as a result of territorial expansion and rise in agricultural production
with the introduction of new irrigation techniques (tanks, dams, etc.). In this area
during our period kshatriyas (irasukulavar) acquired kani rights. The process got
accelerated during the late Chola period on account of disturbed political conditions.
It must have disturbed the local balance resulting in old (local) kani holders
abandoning cultivation that led to state interventions to preserve their traditional
rights. However, Burton Stein rejects the presence of such individual ownership. He
argues that, ‘Local politics and property relations were founded on corporate control
either of communal holders of specific privileges, usually Brahmans and temples, or
of corporate landed lineages. Private landed proprietorship did not exist in its modern
meaning...’ In such cases of communal ownership largely the land was held in common
by the community – Brahmans, Tamil Vellalars, Kannadiga, Vokkaligar, and Telegu
Reddis. Outsiders were not allowed to purchase the village land, though the
community members could sell their part within the village. Such lands could also
not be given as grant or even in dowry (stridhana) to an outsider. Burton Stein
maintains that the, ‘communal property and privilege was defended partly by the
fighting capabilities of martial peasantries.’

19.2 ISLAMIC THEORY OF TAXATION

Our period in north India largely coincides with the establishment of Turkish monarchy
in India. The new ruling class coming from different environment was culturally very
much different from their predecessors. They had their own system and set of rules
of governance. Therefore it would be pertinent to discuss in brief the legacy of the
Turkish monarchy. It will be of some interest to know that to what extent they
implemented the laws of their land. However, here we are concerned with the
theoretical position – the rules that were professed by the Muslim jurists. What they
did actually implement will form part of the subsequent Sections. 73
Expansion and Growth of The process of the formation of Islamic principles of taxation began as early as
Medieval Economy-1 Caliph Omar’s time (d. 644) and continued upto Abbasid period (AD 750-1258).
Predominant schools of Islamic thought are Hanafites (founder Abu Hanifa c. 699-
767) and Shafites (al-Shafi was the founder; AD 767-820). In India Muslim
monarchies largely followed Hanafite school of thought.

Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi (d.1097) mentions four different types of lands on
the basis of nature of possession : a) Those who had willingly accepted Islam were
to pay ushr and possessed full ownership rights. b) Land of the Muslim community
occupied by use of force. This was kharaj land. The cultivator was to pay ½ or
1/3 as rent and he also had to pay ushr. Irrespective of the fact whether someone
had taken part in occupying the land, the land belonged to the entire Muslim
community and its proceeds were accordingly be divided among all. c) Sulh land:
Where imam had entered into an alliance. The land was to be retained by the owners
on payment of half, a third or a quarter of the produce. This category of land belonged
to non-muslims (dhimmis), and d) Anfal lands abondoned without fighting, dead
lands, lands on mountain tops, plantations and the lands of previous kings. Important
point to note here is that Muslim jurists recognised ‘ownership’ rights.

Broadly the sources of revenue were divided into fay and zakat. Fay lands were
those ‘acquired by unconditional surrender. The Shafites maintain that it was ghanima
(booty) and should be divided among all combatants; while Hanafites argue that it
could be divided among the combatants or else imam may permit its inhabitants the
ownership rights an payment of kharaj. According to Hanafites the revenues of the
fay lands should be spent for the welfare of the Muslim community such as stipends
of soldiers, ulama and other officials, for the maintenance and protection of cities
and highways, building dams and dikes. However, Shafites angue that 1/5th of it
should be set apart.

Fay could broadly be divided into khums, jiziya and kharaj. Khums means one
fifth. State was entitled to one fifth of the war booty. Jiziya was levied on non-
Muslims (dhimmis) in lieu of protection and exemption from military service. The
jurists differentiate among those who submitted without fighting (sulhan) and others
who were defeated in the battle (anwatan). The former were treated leniently. Initially
Christians, Jews and Sabaeans and later Zorastrians were known as dhimmis (non-
Muslims). Shafites, however, maintain that jiziya may be imposed only on Jews,
Christians and fire worshippers; while for Malikis all unbelievers are dhimmis. Abu
Hanifa (c. 699-767) and Abu Yusuf (d. 1199) opine that jiziya could be paid by
those who worked. Thus, women, children, illiterates, lunatics, slaves, monks, old
men and persons without property were exempted from it. Foreigners who were
not permanent settlers in the region were also exempt. The tax was not imposed
uniformly on all classes. The rich paid 48 dirhams (= Rs. 3); middle class 24 (=Rs.
6, annas 4) and poor paid 12 dirhams (= Rs. 3, annas 2) annually. It was not
compulsory (wajib) for the imam to impose tax nonetheless it was lawful (jaiz). In
return the dhimmis were ensured protection to life and property and religious freedom,
etc. Thus those who paid the tax could not be enslaved and they were to be governed by
their own laws.

Kharaj was the land tax assessed either on the basis of the proportion of the produce
or as per the actual area cultivated. Measurement was done with the help of jarib
(rope). In fixing the kharaj quality of the soil, nature of the crops sown and methods
of irrigation employed were taken into account. The state’s share on the basis of
74 crops ranged from one half to one fifth. In case of natural calamities certain
concessions were made. Mode of extraction depended upon the nature of Taxation
assessment. It was made in kind and was claimed at the harvest time. In case of
cash it was extracted on annual basis.

Initially Muslims were exempted from its payment but later it was to be paid by both
uniformly. Muslim jurists also recommend provisions for advancing loans to the
cultivators. In case of the inability of the cultivator to pay state reserved the right to
let out the land to someone else but it was soon restored if the owner/holder showed
his willingness to pay the revenue.

Zakat (sadaqa) formed another source of income to the state. It was primarily a
religious tax. It was incumbent upon all Muslims to pay. It was levied on both movable
and immovable properties ranging from dwelling houses, clothes, slaves, drought
animals, food-stuffs, gold, silver, etc. Zakat was not to be imposed upon infants,
slaves, lunatics, debtors, insolvent and the non-Muslims. Tax imposed on immovable
property was known as ushr.

Tithe was another tax extracted only from the Muslims. It was levied on actual
produce of the soil and was distinct from kharaj. Minors, lunatics, and waqfs
(religious institutions) were not exempted from its payment. It could be extracted in
the from of grains, vegetables, etc. The rain fed crops and wild fruits were taxed at
the rate of one tenth of the produce while crops grown with the help of artificial
means of irrigation had to pay one half of the produce. Abu Hanifa insists that tithe
could be imposed only on the tithe lands. It suggests that both, kharaj and tithe can
not be levied together. However, Shafites differ and insist that both could be imposed
simultaneously.

19.3 LAND TAX

The major portion of peasants’ surplus was extracted through land tax during the medieval
period. It will be interesting to find that the pattern of imposition of land tax was more or
less uniform across regions. In this Section we will discuss the nature of land tax from
Sultanate to the Mughals. It assumed its classic form under Akbar and then onwards
continued to be extracted on the same pattern throughout the 17th century. The Deccan
and South India are dealt with separate Sub-sections. It will be interesting to see how
with Mughal penetration in the Deccan process of assimilation took place. Existing regional
systems adjusted to new forms nonetheless retained regional identities.

19.3.1 North India

Agricultural surplus constituted the bulk of the state’s income during the medieval period.
The new ruling class (Turks), coming from a different environment, with different cultural
background, possessed a different vision to look at issues. That is evident in every
sphere. It took them little time to penetrate into the rural areas. Initially, Turks settled
over lumpsum tribute from the subjugated overlords of the previous regimes, without
disturbing the age old norms at the grass root level. That too was at times not possible
for them to firmly insist, particularly in the ‘rebellious territories’ (mawasat). It took
almost hundred years to the new ruling class to interfere with the established rural set up.
It was Alauddin Khalji who tried to impose uniform taxation.

Alauddin imposed kharaj - o jiziya on all classes “without any exception”. The land
was measured and the yield per unit of the area assessed. By multiplying it by the area
under cultivation the demand was fixed at one half of the produce uniformly on all including 75
Expansion and Growth of the superior right holders khots, muqaddams (village headman), and chaudhuris
Medieval Economy-1 (headmen of group of 100 villages). Barani (1357) mentions that it was imposed uniformly
on khots to balahar (village menials). The demand was assessed in kind but payment
could be made in cash. Possibly the revenue collectors’ preference was for cash. However,
we do get references that in the khalisa territories in and around Doab Alauddin
encouraged the collection in kind. The assessment appears to have been done on individual
basis, but it is doubtful whether in practice it was the norm.

Ghiyasuddin Tughluq did attempt to please the intermediaries – khots and muqaddams
by exempting them from paying kharaj - o jiziya in lieu of their services in revenue
collection.

However, Muhammad Tughluq not only reverted back to Alauddin’s system of taxation
but also enhanced it substantially. Barani terms it in ‘order of one to ten and one to
twenty’. Yahya bin Ahmad Sirhindi informs us that they measured the fields and calculated
officially decreed yields (wafa-ha-i farmani) with officially decreed prices (nirkh-ha-i
farmani). On account of officially decreed yields i.e. standard yields ( and not actual
yields) and officially decreed prices (not the actually prevailing prices) tax must have
inflated heavily since the officially decreed yields and prices were probably much higher
than the actual prices in most of the localities. (Irfan Habib, Cambridge, 1982). However,
Firuz not only reversed Muhammad Tughluq’s ventures, but went a steps further. He
made concessions by abolishing cesses, limiting it to 4 per cent of the kharaj.

We do not have details on the pattern of land tax under the Saiyyids and the Lodis, but
we do hear that on account of sharp decline in prices Ibrahim Lodi asked his officers to
extract the revenue in ‘food grains’. It suggests that on account of scarcity of ‘coin
money’ (there was unprecedented shortage of silver world over), Ibrahim insisted on
collection in kind. But prior to Ibrahim Lodi probably the land tax continued to be
extracted in cash.

Land tax assumed its “classical” form under the Mughals. The foundation was laid by
Sher Shah Sur. Akbar largely expanded and refined the legacy he received from his
predecessor. It will be interesting to find that the land tax (mal; in Rajasthan it was
known as bhog) was actually not a tax on land instead it was a tax on crops.

In India the earliest form of extracting land revenue was ghalla-bakhshi or batai which
was based on actual harvest when the crops were still in the fields. Sher Shah assessed
the rai ‘(productivity per bigha; in Rajasthan it was known as rekh) by assessing the
productivity of three different categories of land – good, middling and bad. An average
of the three rai’ was assessed and the total demand was fixed by multiplying the per
bigha productivity by total area under cultivation and later the demand was commuted
as per prices prevalent at the court/camp. This system was commonly known as kankut
(kan=grain, kut=measurement). It greatly reduced the official expenses. However, it
led to excessive reliance on the part of the state upon local officials and since the prices
used were those prevalent at the court it were generally quite high than the prevalent
market prices. Thus, it fell heavy upon peasants and was not favorable to them. It also
involved delays since the procedure of commutation used to take long. Besides,
uncertainties prevailed for the state did not know how much would be an annual estimated
income in the current year. Abul Fazl informs us that instead of fixing rai ‘at each harvest
Akbar ordered a standard schedule (dasturs). To prepare a standard schedule an average
of last 10 years’ (1570-71 to 1579-80) rates (dahsala) were taken and an average of
the prevalent prices of the same 10 years’ were calculated. By commuting these average
76 prices with average yields a standard ‘final dasturs’ (cash revenue rates per bigha)
were worked out. Thus the revenue demand was assessed and cash revenue demand Taxation
per unit of the area for each crop was fixed. This was the zabt system operational under
Akbar. Now neither the cultivator nor the official had to bother, both knew in advance
what one had to actually pay or else what the state had to extract by simply multiplying
the cash rates per bigha with the total area sown. The only deviation being the nabud
i.e. the area that was left uncultivated for which remission in taxation was provided by
the state. The core area where zabt system was in operation under Akbar comprised
Delhi, Agra, Allahabad, Oudh and Lahore (from Indus to Ghaghra). It was known as
zabti provinces on account of the prevalence of zabti as dominant form of revenue
extraction. Later, under Shahjahan and Aurangzeb the system further stretched towards
Deccan. However, in due course even this annual assessment was done away with
(subject to some revisions time to time by official decrees) and previous year’s area
statistics were generally taken into consideration to determine the land revenue demand.
The practice was commonly called nasaq.

Here the important point to remember is that when we call a particular area ‘zabti’ it
means that ‘zabt’ was the ‘dominant’ form of assessment in the region. However, other
methods also co-existed. In Kashmir and Sind crop-sharing was the dominant form of
assessment. In Bengal the prevalent form was muqtai in which a fixed lumpsum amount
was to be paid. In Rajasthan both the crop rates, batai (also called batai jinsi) and
zabti, were prevalent but the area under batai jinsi was much larger than zabti. There
were also regional variations. In suba Multan, Thatta, and Siwistan three types of revenue
rates prevailed – dastur (official rates), kam dastur (concessional rates), and batai
(crop-sharing). In the eastern tracts, particularly in the hilly tracts, to encourage cultivation
large concessions were granted. The peasants were to pay only the nominal rent (khil)
in the first year and in the second year the demand was reduced even further (kum).
Here Akbar’s rates were not in operation.

You will find that differential rates of assessment existed under the Mughals and the
incidence of revenue demand varied from region to region depending on the fertility of
soil and also from harvest to harvest. Under Sher Shah 1/3 of the produce was a standard
claim. However, Akbar, under zabti demanded almost ½ of the produce as standard. In
certain fertile tracts of Gujarat the demand was as high as 2/3. However, in arid regions
it was much lower. The average revenue demand in western Rajasthan ranged between
40 and 42.5 per cent suggesting it was lower than the Mughal territories. (Bhadani,
1999). In the Marwar region land revenue demand varied as per the nature of crop and
season. Pargana Merta records show that here in the 17th century proportion fixed on
kharif crops was ½ while for rabi different rates for rain irrigated and irrigated lands
were in operation. It was 2/5th (pachdui) on the former and 1/3 of the produce on the
latter. In pargana Pokharan we get references to revenue demand imposed as per
baori (step-well) at the rate of 1/3 of the produce; while at places like pargana Sanchar,
western Rajasthan, assessment was made on the basis of ploughs/hals known as muqata.
Revenue demand also varied as per the caste of the peasant/cultivator. In pargana Jalor
(western Rajasthan) banias, ghanchi (oil pressers), sabugar, kunbhai, pinjar (cotton
carder) were paying at the rate of 1/3 of the produce while Rajputs 1/4th and Malis 1/
5th. Here land tax was even imposed an mehtar (headman of menials) at the rate of 1/6th
of the produce. (Bhadani,1999). Thus, superior right holders and higher castes were
assessed at much lower rate as compared to ordinary peasants. This was the main
reason behind the reluctance and insistence of the Mughal emperors not to convert
raiyat kashta (peasant holdings) into khwud kashta. S.P. Gupta’s findings for eastern
Rajasthan also shows that the raiyats were assessed at much higher a rate as compared
to the privileged strata.
77
Expansion and Growth of Land Revenue Demand in Crop-sharing in Dastur Circle Sarkar Alwar, Suba Akbarabad
Medieval Economy-1
Peasants Pargana Pargana Pargana
(revenue-payer) Jhak 1715 Mauzpur 1713 Antela Bhabhra
Palti (raiyat) 50% 40% 50%
Patel 40% 33% 40%
Mahajan 40% 33% 33%
Jot Rajput, etc. 33% - -
(i) Sheikhawat - - 25%
(ii) Others 33% 33% 33%
Pahi (pa’i) 40% - 33%
Kamin,Barber and Chamar - 33% 40%
Chaudhuri & Qanungo 25% - 25%
Tenant (basai ) and Baradari of Rajputs- - 33%
Brahman 33% - -
Sardar Kotri zamindars 25% - -
Purohit, Charan similar to Rajputs 33% - -
Qazi - 33% -
Source: S.P. Gupta, ‘The Magnitude of Land Revenue Demand in the Mughal
Administration during the Late 17th and Early 18th Century’, Proceedings
Indian History Congress, 1990, Calcutta, 51st Session, Table III (A), p.341.

Though assessment was made on individual basis (asamivar) the basic unit of collection
was the village. During the medieval period generally the collection was done at three
different levels: (a) where state was collecting revenue directly employing its own machinery
of officials. Such system was in operation in the khalisa territories under the Mughals.
(b) Revenue assignees were permitted to collect the revenue in lieu of their salaries
called iqta (under Delhi Sultans) and jagir or tuyul (under the Mughals). Here revenue
assignees were sending their own agents (gumashtas) for collecting revenues. (c) In the
third category largely come port towns and their hinterlands where altogether a separate
system was in operation.

State was very strict as far as the collection of revenue was concerned. Refusal to pay it
was deemed equivalent to rebellion. Imprisonment, massacre of adult male population,
and enslavement of women and children were common forms of punishment.

We do not have much information regarding the revenue administration under the
Delhi Sultans but an elaborate system of revenue collection prevailed under the Mughals.
There were different systems in operation for khalisa and jagir lands but unfortunately
we do not have much information on how the jagir lands were administered. The
information that we have largely pertains to khalisa territories. At pargana level there
were amils (or amalguzar, former shiqdar) and amin. In the 19th R.Y. (1574-75) year
when Akbar introduced karori experiment karori (amil) was made incharge of both
assessment and collection. It was Shahjahan who separated the assessment from
collection and appointed separate amins for each mahal and from his reign onwards
amins looked after assessment while the amils (karoris) performed the job of revenue
collection. In jagir lands probably amil combined all the functions of revenue assessor,
collector and treasurer. Separate amins were appointed to collect jiziya called amin- i
jiziya. At village level the chaudhuri occupied important place. Usually a zamindar
performing the duty of revenue collection was known as chaudhuri. In lieu of his services
78
he was entitled for nankar (5-10 per cent of the gross revenue collected). Qanungo was Taxation
another important semi-hereditary official who was appointed both at pargana and
village level. He was chiefly connected with revenue assessment and maintained the
revenue records.

19.3.2 Deccan
Prior to the Mughal occupation of the Deccan (1686-87) revenue demand as well as
collection was done in kind was the Deccan. Another prominent practice that prevailed
in the Deccan was ‘farming through an elaborate series of lease and sub-leases’ (Richards
1975). Even the post of governors (sar-samatu) could be held on farming terms i.e.
they were to pay a lumpsum amount annually in lieu of the post held. These governors
were mere ‘speculators’ for they immediately used to sub-let the land on high profit.
These sub-letees were known as havaldars. There did exist state appointed amils but
their prime concern was to ensure the state’s revenues. The only check, however, came
from the local dominant land-holding castes – Razus, Valamas, Kammas, and Kapus
(Reddis), and Brahmans in agrahara villages. They were not simple cultivators but
formed ‘warrior cultivating’ castes, ‘wielded immense political, economic and military
power in the countryside.’ (Richards, 1975). In Gujarat such Rajput warrior cultivators
were ejected after long drawn clashes but in the Golconda region they worked together
in full cooperation with the Telegu warriors. Qutb Shahi rulers appointed deshmukhs/
desais who maintained retainers and helped the havaldars and karkuns (accountant) in
revenue collection. In return they received 5 per cent of the revenues collected. In each
paragana deshpandes (counterpart of qanungoes) were appointed to maintain the
records who were generally Brahmins. Their remunerations were nearly the same as
those of the deshmukhs, but a little less. At village level there were muqaddams (village
headmen who belonged to dominant castes) and kulkarni (village accountant; who was
a Brahmin). This system helped ‘continued productivity of agriculture in Golconda despite
a seemingly ruinous tax system.’ (Richards, 1975).

The major reforms in the land revenue system in Deccan took place at the time of
Aurangzeb’s tenure as governor of Deccan in 1652. He entrusted Murshid Quli Khan,
diwan of Berar-Balaghat with the responsibility. Thus he made the beginning of the zabt
form of assessment in the Deccan. Murshid appointed trusted amins (assessors) and
surveyors to measure the land. He got detailed records made of the individual holding
(raqba) and distinguished the arable land from rocky and hilly soils, rivers, lakes, etc.
After the assessment was done he introduced crop sharing on the basis of three rates: a)
state charged ½ of the produce on crops depended on rainfall; state demand was fixed
1/3rd in food grains 1/9th to ¼th in case of cash crop; crops depend on well-irrigation;
and on lands irrigated by canals the demand varied considerably. At times it was much
lower than the lands irrigated by wells. The average rate of assessment amounted to ¼th
of the produce. Murshid assessed revenue rates on the same lines as were under the
zabt in the north. They were assessed per bigha on the basis of actual area sown,
prevailing market prices, and quality and quantity of crops produced. They were
commonly known as dhars in the Deccan. The village constituted the basic unit of
assessment. Murshid’s system with little modifications largely continued during the 18th
century.

After the Mughal occupation of Deccan in 1689-90 (30 R.Y. of Aurangzeb) Muhammad
Shafi, diwan of Hyderabad carried out a survey and fixed the revenue afresh (jama-i
kamil i.e. an estimated income). These figures were pargana and sarkar-wise for the
entire Mughal occupied Deccan and were compiled in early 18th century (c.1705-07)
in Deh-be Dehi. It continued to form the standard revenue in later periods as well under 79
Expansion and Growth of Nizam-ul Mulk (vizier of Muhammad Shah. Later founded independent state of
Medieval Economy-1 Hyderabad).

The general Mughal rule was to take ½ as state’s share. But it varied depending on
‘other’ factors – poor harvest, famine, etc. One document from Rajahmundry of 1741-
42 reveals that in 39 villages the range varied from 3.3 per cent to as high as 68 per cent
(in all but 7 villages the rate was more than 50 per cent).

All documents pertaining to land revenue assessment were to be signed by zamindars

confirming that they agreed/consented to pay the agreed amount in the presence of
deshmukh (revenue collector) and deshpande (accountant). Muhammad Shafi attempted
to establish contacts with the local officials of the region. In Telengana he recognised
their position and perquisites and conferred sanads (a document confirming emoluments,
grants, etc. under official seal) upon them on payment of their annual allowances. The
amount fixed was existing allowances multiplied 7½ times. In Hyderabad suba (province)
there was an average increase of 13 per cent; while in interior Telengana the increase
made was approximately 10 per cent. But there was a steep rise in the coastal Andhra
areas. The average enhancement was 20 per cent (12% for Machilipatnam, 24 for
Murtazanagar, 43 per cent for Rajmundry, 43 per cent for Mustafanagar). Though the
amount could be paid in instalments, it must have been detrimental to the peasantry.

Mughal officials on parallel lines were implanted in the Deccan as well – chaudhuri and
qanungo (deshmukh and deshpande). But we are not sure whether other local officials
on similar lines were also appointed there. Richards mentions that in the Telengana region
Mughals had to still depend largely ‘on the goodwill, loyalty and efficiency of the Reddi,
Valama and Kamma deshmukhs and to a lesser extent the Brahmin deshpandes.’
However, the situation in the 6 districts of the coastal Andhra was somewhat better and
linkages with the local deshmukhs were more ‘direct’. Amin and faujdars appointed at
the coastal districts could establish direct contacts with them.However, immediately after
the settlement Muhammad Shafi found it difficult to get information regarding annual
collections. Thus, a qanungo was appointed as provincial recorder to maintain the revenue
records in Hyderabad and Hyderabad Karnatik. (Please note that in the north qanungoes
were appointed at pargana and village level.) Here his position appears to be much
higher than his counterpart in the north. The first qanungo appointed was Babu Pandit.
He was officially designated as zamindar holding a mansab 200/70 (we do not hear
any qanungo ever holding a mansab). Later his mansab was enchanced to 300/100.
He was also exempted from branding the horses. It clearly suggests his distinct position
as compared to his counterpart in the north. We do not come across appointment of
such qanungoes prior to Aurangzeb. The first reference to it comes from 1670 when 3
brothers were appointed as provincial qanungoes but they were not allotted mansabs;
instead they received 0.5 per cent of the total revenues of the provinces. Soon Babu
Pandit bought the post of accountant (kulkarni) of sair collections from the capital and
Golconda fort. Here it is important to bear in mind that no such buying of posts from the
state was a norm in north India, though we do hear of the sale of zamindari rights. His
powers so increased that he was dismissed in 1702 but again got re-appointed in 1708.

19.3.3 Malik Ambar’s Settlment and the Maratha Land Tax

Malik Amber (1549-1626), the Prime Minister of the Nizam Shahi kingdom of
Ahmednagar revolutionised the land settlement in the Deccan to the extent that it formed
the basis of all land-reforms in the Deccan. Marathas also adopted the same system
with little modification.
80
Malik Amber ordered the land of his entire kingdom to be surveyed and measured. Taxation
Prior to that generally revenue farming was the norm. For measurement kathi (a measuring
stick; it was 5 cubit and 5 close fists; 400 square kathis constituted a bigha and 120
square bighas made a cavar). Marathas called it Sivasahi kathi. Malik Ambar classified
the land into four categories on the basis of quality of the soil and the nature of crops
sown. (Compare Mughal system of fixing the rai ‘on the basis of good, middling and
bad lands). During Shivaji’s period three assessments were done by Dadoji Kondadeo
(1636), Moro Trimal (1648-49) and Annaji Datto (1678) successively. Revenue officials
were to visit a tapa, a hilly, a marshy village, and a village with black soil and thus
prepared the estimates. Annaji Datto made a provision that pargana and village officials
and the villagers must agree upon the estimates of the produce. This practice of involving
villagers as you have seen was also continued in the Mughal Deccan. Waste lands,
common pastures, and land under trees were exempted from assessment. Measurement
once done was not followed annually; (initially Mughals emphasised annual assessment
but later nasaq became the norm) only in case of complaint or need, fresh measurement
was generally ordered. The demand was fixed both in cash and kind. In case of kind it
amounted to 2/5th of the produce; but when it was demanded in cash it was 1/3 of the
total produce. Differential rates were charged when a new area or cultivable waste lands
brought under cultivation. There is an interesting document dated 1561 pertaining to
town Shirwal, pargana Shirwal. The areas near a tank in the pargana were lying fallow
for long. To get it cultivated the following rates were charged (for 30 bighas of land i.e.
¼ cavar).
Differential Rates Applicable for Fallow Lands
Years Rates Pertaining to Shirwal Dadaji Kondadeo’s Rates
AD 1561 (c.AD 1636)
Cash Rates In Kind Cash Rates (per bigha)
1st Year No rates were No rates were 1/12 ruka
charged charged

2nd Year -do- -do- ¼ ruka

3rd Year (salsa) ½ taka 6 rukas Grain 2½ Maunds ½ ruka
for village land Grass 26 bushels
½ taka for town
4th Year (arba) ¼ taka for Grass 50 bushels ¾ ruka
land village

5th Year 3¼ takas 6 rukas Grain 3½ mounds 4 rukas or ¼ rupee

for village and Grass 75 bushels
town land
6th Year 2½ takas for 2 takas for town land 8 rukas or ½ rupee
village land ½ maund and 3¾ seers
Grain 1 khandi
Grass 100 bushels
Cotton ¼ khandi
Cotton 1 maund
7th Year - - One rupee

8th Year Malik Amber’s

assessment
1 ruka = 1/40th of a taka; 1 taka = ¼ rupee

Source: B.G. Tamaskar, The Life of Malik Amber, Delhi, 1978, p.260; A.R. Kulkarni,
Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji, Bombay 1969, pp.163-64 81
Expansion and Growth of The important aspect of the two documents is what Malik Amber had started was
Medieval Economy-1 probably not something totally novel; rather the practice was already in vogue in the
region. However, we do not know whether prior to Malik Amber the practice of
actual measurement was in operation or not. It appears that Malik Amber, by
introducing measurement, refined the existing system. Another interesting aspect
related to AD 1561 document is that separate cash rates were in operation for
town and village lands. We do not know how the cash rates were determined but
differential rates were charged on the basis of soil. From a record of village
Rahimatpur, pargana Var in Maharashtra rates were mentioned from the best lands
120 takas per cavar; middling 90 takas and on bad lands 60 takas per cavar.

Crops rates also differed not only from crop to crop but also in certain cases for the
same crops different rates were charged. In case of rice we find as many as 12 rates
applicable in Shivaji’s dominon:
Uwul - 12½ mans per bigha Bawnl 6¼ mans per bigha
Doon - 10 mans per bigha Khuree 6¼ mans per bigha
Kureyat 6¼ mans per bigha
seer 8 mans per bigha
Ruho 5 mans per bigha
Charon 6¼ mans per bigha
Toorwutor 5 mans per bigha
Ranpal 8 mans per bigha Katahnee ½-¼ mans per bigha
Kharwwut 7½ mans per bigha Manut 5 mans per bigha

Source: A.R. Kulkarni, Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji, Bombay, 1969,p.167

Produce from the garden lands was generally assessed in cash. Rice and garden
lands were charged under Shivaji at full rates only in the 4th year. When the land
enjoyed such concession and it was not cultivated the amount due from such a land
was deducted from the total demand of the village. It is interesting to find, as we
have seen in case of Rajasthan as well where different rates were applicable for well
and canal irrigated lands, in the Deccan and the Maratha territories also such differential
rates were applicable as the state charged ‘extra’ for the ‘services’.

Cash Rates on Well and Canal Irrigated Lands Under the Marathas

Crop Well Irrigated Canal

per bigha Irrigated
Sugarcane 2 hons 2 hons
Ginger 2 hons 3 hons
Turmeric 2 hons 3 hons
Vegetables 1-1½ hons 2 hons
Hons/ Huns = corruption of Honnu, a Kannad language word; a gold coin in
the south.

Like Rajasthan, under the Marathas as well certain lands were assessed on the
basis of ploughs possessed. Similarly, certain service providers of the village who
received lands (known as thikanati) were charged at much lower rate i.e. maund
per bigha. Pulses produced from inferior lands were charged by ‘appraisal’ called
nazar pahani under Malik Amber.

Shivaji also introduced batai settlement in the year 1676 in Paunmaval and
subsequently in Rohidkhore. Shivaji charged ½ of the produce on such batai lands
as state’s share. As a result there occurred sharp rise in the prices of foodgrains in
82 the region on account of the scarcity of grains in the market.
In the Maratha territory, the village patil was responsible for revenue collection and Taxation
kulkarni was the village accountant. Their counterparts at pargana were deshmukhs
and desais. Shivaji attempted to establish direct contact with the peasants for that
he appointed separate officers who were to visit each village.

19.3.4 South India

Land tax in south India was also, as was the case in the north, a tax on yields/crops
and not on land.

The village was divided into arable lands and pastures. The arable lands in turn
were further divided into wet lands (niraramba; nanjai/nancai) and dry lands
(kadaramba). The former were used for rice and sugarcane cultivation and garden
crops, while the latter depended entirely on rainfall.

For assessment, the nature of village and land tenures, regional location of the land,
crops grown, and soil patterns were taken into consideration. Even differentiation
was done on the basis of a particular crop grown on dry land or wet lands. And
account was taken of first whether a village was devadana (temple village);
brahmadeya (brahmana village); dalavay agrahara (village given in lieu of military
services) or else a karagrama (revenue village). Tax also varied depending on the
sowing capacity of a ‘unit’ of land i.e. in Telegu districts land required to sow a tum
(a cubic measure) of seeds was assessed at 8 varahas. Land tax was also assessed
as per number of ploughs.

Land was surveyed and measured. It appears that during Krishnadevaraya’s reign
two assessments old and new (applicable from AD 1513 onwards) were prevalent.
However, no standard measuring rod could be used. Even in one single village different
rods could be found in use. It definitely created problems in imposing any ‘uniform’
rate of assessment.
The incidence of revenue demand varied from 1/6th of the produce to 1/3 and in
certain cases ½. An important feature of tax imposition, as we have seen in North
India as well, was that the higher classes, temples and Brahmanas were assessed at
much lower rate than the ordinary cultivator. The Lord paid ¼; the cultivator ½;
sarkar (government) 1/6; the temples paid 1/30, and the Brahmans 1/20 of the
gross produce. Newly formed villages by forest clearings assessed at differential
rates. However, no uniformity was followed in such cases and it varied from region
to region.
Revenue demand on niramba (wet) lands was generally fixed in kind. Peasants
could pay both in cash as well as kind. However, revenue demand on kadaramba
(dry) and garden lands were generally imposed in cash.

For revenue collection different methods were adopted: 1) the state used to appoint
its own machinery to collect the revenue. 2) the state instead of dealing individually
used to deal with a group of people or specific bodies/assemblies (sabha, nadu)
who were responsible for collecting revenue from group of people of a village or
villages. In north India also chaudhuris used to collect the revenues from the peasants
of a village or a group of villages. However, we do not come across any reference
to such assemblies performing the duty of revenue collection in north India. These
assemblies generally used to guard the interests of the community.

At the helm of affairs was imperial revenue secretariat (atthavanam, athavana). It 83

Expansion and Growth of was sub-divided into small sub-sections headed by a superintendent for collecting
Medieval Economy-1 various taxes. Village revenue records (kavilas) were kept by karnam (the village
accountant). At tappa and district levels (sthala and sima) these accounts were
preserved by cavadis.

In the nadus, nattavar (district assembly) were responsible for the collection of
revenue. Nattavar maintained separate tax register and village accounts. However,
in later years gradually their power declined and they started disintegrating. They
were replaced by revenue collectors and revenue farmers.

19.3.5 Relief Measures

We have already discussed in Unit 16 how state’s concern was to ensure and optimise
its revenues. State’s insistence was not to leave the cultivable land fallow. State
used to make liberal grants in the form of taqavis (see Unit 16) to buy seeds, etc.
During harvest failures other concessions were also given to peasants. Under the
Mughals where crop sharing was in operation state extracted its share at much
lower rate, while in zabti system nabud (crop less) did not form part of assessment
though the maximum limit for such concession was 12½ per cent of the total area
sown.

The same was true for Deccan and south India. At the time of natural calamities
necessary remissions were provided by the state. Shivaji, in certain cases instructed
the revenue officials to remit past arrears to those who deserted the village but were
willing to return. Shivaji asked the revenue officials that in no case were peasants to
be disturbed or pressed at the time of ploughing and sowing. Sabhasad informs us
that peasants were provided with seeds, cattle and money for cultivation and the
money was to be recovered in easy instalments. The newly recovered lands were
assessed at concessional rates. At times, peasants were lured to settle in new areas
by offering exemption from house tax as well. Shivaji suggested that if peasant had
no money to pay arrears but wished to continue the cultivation may be exempted
from arrears. His implements or bullocks were not to be confiscated to recover the
arrears. Nuniz informs us that Krishnadevaraya distributed lands to people which
were irrigated by the waters of his new channel at Nagalapur (Hospet) and allowed
the lands to be irrigated free for 9 years. Krishnadevaraya also exempted the tenants
of newly colonised village Arasarkoyil from all taxes in the first year; however, from
the next year onwards they had to pay certain taxes. Villages that were left untilled
on account of inundation, etc. for certain periods/years and later again brought under
cultivation were also generally taxed at concessional rates after they were brought
under re-cultivation. Peasants were granted due reliefs during plunder, draught, etc.
Nagappa Nayaka, during Sri Ranga’s reign remitted taxes to merchants and weavers
on account of a plunder.

19.4 ABWAB/CESSES
Besides land tax peasant had to bear several impositions in the form of abwab
(cesses). These were ‘parallel’ imposts that peasants were required to pay largely
to meet the cost of revenue assessment, collection and maintenance of revenue
officials; certain taxes were occasion specific. The revenues so generated were
generally not credited to the state’s account instead these either went to the coffers
of the hereditary officials in lieu of their services or used to meet the cost of revenue
collection, or else utilized for specific purposes. The total imposts extracted varied
84 from region to region and the amount ranged between 10 and 25 per cent of the
total land revenue extracted. Alauddin Khalji with a stroke of pen abolished all the Taxation
cesses/abwab resulting in a lot of dissatisfaction among the rural intermediaries –
khots, muqqadams, chaudhuris. Ghiyasuddin Tughluq restored all such
concessions. However, once again Muhammad Tughluq reverted back to Alauddin’s
policy and limited the amount of such exactions not exceeding 4 per cent of the revenue.

In western Rajasthan tax levied on peasants to meet various expenses in the process
of collection of revenue was known as kharach bhog. It varied as per method of
revenue assessment and collection and also from pargana to pargana. For crop
sharing it was approximately 7 per cent of the land revenue; while for zabti it ranged
between 8.5 and 5.50 per cent of the revenue. It varied as per the caste and nature
of land holdings. During the 17th century in pargana Sojhat from rabi crop it was
imposed on karsas (peasants) at the rate of 20 per cent while pahis were to pay
12.5%. At pargana Pokharan it was 18.75 per cent on peasants while Mahajans
and Banias were paying 15.62 per cent. However the Brahmanas were generally
exempted from paying it. (Bhadani, 1999).

In western Rajasthan peasants had to bear the expenditure of kanwar (shahna in

eastern Rajasthan) and Hujdar. Their job was to keep a watch on the crop at the
time of the harvest and ensure fair division. The cess imposed was called chaukosi.

Bhogbhara was extracted to meet the expenses on the transportation of grains

collected as revenue. When grain stalks were still on the threshing floors each peasant
had to pay a separate tax known as tali (per threshing floor). Small charges in the
form of duties were also paid by the peasants like – bharoti (receipt), likhawani
(expenses for maintenance of accounts), patha ra (expenses for paper), dawat
puja (expenses for ink), etc.

Dues for the maintenance and for the services of the revenue officials were also to
be borne by the peasants. There were separate impositions for supplying woollen
clothes, etc. in winter. Such dues paid by peasants were known as dhumalo in
western Rajasthan. Peasants had to pay for incurring the expenditure for buying
blankets for horses. Milani was to be paid by the village at the time of the
appointment of an official. Kotwali was charged for the maintenance of the office of
kotwal in Maharashtra. Similarly, thanapatti was to be paid to meet out the expenses
of the thana in Maharashtra.

In Maharashtra vethbegari was a hak (privilege) of the hereditary officials. Both

skilled and unskilled labour had to provide their services for certain days free to the
hereditary officials. Pharmais was also similar to vethbegari in Maharashtra. Sign
of prevalence of forced labour is also visible during the Vijayanagara period. For
deepening lakes (eri kuli vetta), digging canals (arrukkalvetta and vaykkalvetta), for
constructing temple walls, and even for supplying wood people had to render their services
free. In Karnataka those were exempted from it had to pay a tax kottage in return.

Deshmukhs used to extract a licence free (mohatarfa) from merchants for allowing
them to set-up their shops in the weekly market in Maharashtra. Villages had to pay
for the visit of the officials on route. In Maharashtra it was known as ulphapatti.
Toranabheti was probably paid in Maharashtra for decoration during royal visits.

State Imposts on Hereditary Officials

Inampatti was to be paid by the revenue free holders to the state in Maharashtra.
Deshmukhs, deskulkarni, patil and kulkarni were to pay miraspatti ‘for making 85
Expansion and Growth of profits out of their offices’. We do not know the exact rate they had to pay but one
Medieval Economy-1 of the documents pertaining to Sirval pargana in Maharashtra shows that in 1674
the total amount collected under miraspatti from the pargana was 1000 hons (a
gold coin).

19.5 TAXES OTHER THAN LAND TAX: SAIR JIHAT

Prior to Alauddin Khalji’s reign we do not get much information on the pattern and
nature of exactions other than land tax. However, all taxes were not imposed uniformly
all over the periods. Rulers were not necessarily collecting all the taxes directly,
particularly in south India and Deccan; instead for some the right was auctioned to
tax-farmers.

House Tax

The first reference to its imposition during our period in north India comes from
Barani (1357). He informs us that Alauddin Khalji along with land tax imposed
ghari and charai. As is evident from its name ghari was a tax on houses. In western
Rajasthan a tax called jhumpis (hut–temporary settlements) was levied on pastoral
communities. The levy was 15 duganis (1/40th of a rupee) per jhumpi. It was a tax
on their settlements. In Maharashtra it was known as ghartaka. In the Vijayanagara
Empire people of different communities were charged at different rates as house tax
as per the constructed area as well as the social background of the occupants.

Stored house : 2 panams House of a Vaisya : 1 panam

House with inside verandah : 1 panam House Kottil of the Vettis : 1/8 panam
House of villager : 3 panams Each vasal : 1 panam
House of a Tantiriman : 1½ panams outhouse : 1 gadyana
House of a makkal : 1½ Timmayya Appayya community : ½ a ga per house
Varandahs with sloping roofs : ¾ panam Rajayya Lingayya Community : 1 ga per house.

Panam – a coin; 1/10 in of a pon (a gold coin); T.V Mahalingam, I (1969), p.57

Tax on Cattle

Alauddin Khalji imposed charai, a tax on milch cows. The tax appears to have
continued till Firuz Shah Tughluq’s reign. Afif (c. 1400) records that Firuz forbade
extraction of both – ghari and charai. Afif, commenting on repercussions of charai,
mentions that on account of such imposition peasants were left with no choice but to
keep one cow each. In Maharashtra cowherds paid ½ a seer of butter and the
owner of flock of sheep gave 1 sheep annually to the watandar. A separate goat tax
(adatere) was charged by the Vijayanagar rulers; shepherds had to pay
sadaikkadamai. Even wood cutters had paid kondagutta for cutting woods for
the market.

Taxes on Pastures

There were separate taxes on usage of pastures. In western Rajasthan it were known
as ghasmari, pancharai and karabghas. Ghasmari was a tax on live-stock feeding
on grass while pancharai was imposed on feeding the animals on leaves. It was
extracted from camel owners. Bhadani (1999) has calculated for western Rajasthan
that such levies on pastoral communities /pastures ranged between 3.34 and 7.34
86 per cent of the total taxation in the 17th century.
Irrigation Tax Taxation

Firuz attempted to establish vast network of canals in his dominion. He extracted

from the villages served by canals haqq-i shurb (water tax). It amounted to 1/10th
of the produce. In western Rajasthan mal was a sort of irrigation tax imposed on
Persian wheel. It amounted to less than 5 per cent of the total land revenue. The rate
of imposition was higher in the khalisa territories than in the pattas (areas assigned
in jagirs). In pargana Sojhat we hear arhat madli imposed on Persian wheel.

Chauth

Chauth has a long history. Koli Rajas of Ramnagar (Konkan) were collecting chauth
from the Portuguese much before Shivaji levied it. That is why the Portuguese used
to address the Koli Rajas as chauthia Raja. The first instance of Shivaji asking for
chauth occurs when Shivaji subdued (after the conquest of Ramnagar) Kolis and
demanded the same chauth from the Portuguese. They resented it and there followed
a tussel between them over the issue. Sometimes they delayed the payments and at
times avoided paying in full. Gradually, Marathas imposed the levy on regular basis
even from those Mughal territories over which they had claim/ indirect control. It was a
tax amounting to ¼ th of the revenue realized by the Maratha state. It is roughly estimated
that the income of Shivaji from chauth alone was approximately 90 lakh hons.

Sardeshmukhi

It was imposed by Shivaji in his own dominion (swaraj) on the basis of his claim as
hereditary sardeshmukh of the dominion. Thus, it was claimed by Shivaji as a matter
of right unlike chauth. It was 10 per cent of the total revenue realized. Sardeshmukhi
was fixed along with jamabandi. Sabhasad (Krishnaji Anant) has estimated the
income of Shivaji’s empire from sardeshmukhi alone to 1 crore hons.

Peshkush

All zamindars (in case of Deccan deshmukhs, deshpandes and munivars) and
the tributary chiefs were liable to pay peshkush as mark of submission. The revenues
collected went directly to the imperial treasury. In the Deccan we have seen that
officials had to pay a price for retaining their posts. In Hyderabad they had to shed
off 7½ years’ income to the treasury. In Orissa areas under the native princes who
surrendered paid a fixed annual peshkush known as garhjats. Though they
acknowledged Mughal suzerainty, they yet enjoyed complete freedom in their internal
affairs. In the Deccan trans-Godavari tract in Srikalulam was largely held by tributary
rajas who used to pay annual tribute.

Jiziya

The first reference to Jiziya imposed in India comes from as early as Mohammad
bin Qasim’s conquest of Sind (AD 712).

Prior to Firuz’s reign jiziya (poll-tax) formed part of kharaj (land tax) and was
commonly known as kharaj-o jiziya (for rationale see section 19.2). Firuz Shah
Tughluq introduced poll tax (jiziya) side by side kharaj. Thus from Firuz’s reign
onwards the two were assessed separately and not together. Irfan Habib (Cambridge,
1982) remarks that ‘it is interesting to consider whether jiziya here was simply
replacing ghari since Firuz abolished ghari (house tax). His argument is based on
the basis: a) women and minors were exempted from paying, and b) it was a tax not
on individuals but on (heads) of houses.
87
Expansion and Growth of Akbar abolished jiziya first in 1564 and finally in 1579. However, Aurangzeb
Medieval Economy-1 reimposed it in 1679. Here we are not touching upon the issues pertaining to
Aurangzeb’s motive behind re-imposition of jiziya. But as Irfan Habib puts it was
an extremely regressive tax and was hardest on the poor. According to him it formed
one month’s wage of an urban unskilled worker. The tax was imposed strictly as per
Islamic principles. From 1st class it was extracted at the rate of 48 dirhams; on
second 24 and on the third 12 dirhams.

After Mughal occupation of Golconda in 1687 Aurangzeb imposed jiziya in the Deccan.
It amounted to 4 per cent of the land revenue that jagirdars were to pay to the state and
in turn they were extracting it from the peasants. For Golconda alone Richards (1975)
has calculated the income from the tax approximately at 1 million rupees. While referring
to it as ‘a sharp economic bite’ Richards argues that it ‘represented a handsome increment
for Aurangzeb’s hard pressed treasury and a new burden for his new subjects in the
eastern Deccan’. It aroused a lot of resistance and finally in 1704 on account of Maratha
raids Aurangzeb stopped the collection of jiziya in the Deccan.

Salt-Tax

Nainsi records the state’s income for Pachpadra pits alone (western Rajasthan) at
10,000 duganis/Rs. 250. Bhadani (1999) has calculated that it contributed
approximately 35 per cent of the total sair collection of pargana Siwana. In 1671
Shivaji imposed salt tax 12 rukas per maund. In the Vijaynagara Empire uppinapale
was imposed on the manufacture of salt as per salt pan.

Taxes to Meet the Expenditure of the Army

In western Rajasthan to supply ration to the army rasad and khicharo dues were
imposed. Faujbal was to be paid for the maintenance of those soldiers who assisted
in revenue collection.

Marathas extracted ghasadana (lit. grass and grain) in the territories invaded by
them to provide provisions for the invading army. This was usually taken as a lumpsum
amount or imposed on a summary basis and realized in cash. Raiyat never paid
ghasdana willingly. When an envoy was sent a separate tax hejibpatti was charged in
Maharashtra to meet his expenses; similarly kapur paik was charged to meet the expenses
of the torch bearer. Besides, gadcavani was charged for housing the soldiers. Probably
the amount so extracted was used for erecting temporary structures for the soldiers.

Even in Maharashtra villagers had to pay in kind for the maintenance of the fort in
their environs. It was called karsai. To meet out the expenses of an expedition
people had to pay mohimpatti in Maharashtra.

In south India vartaria was paid by the ryots for the maintenance of the fort. Dalavili
and padai-kanikkai was paid for the maintenance of the army. Even for the repairs
and maintenance of the forts villages had to pay a separate tax in the Vijayanagara
period called ottai-magamai. Similarly, dannayakasvamya and dannayakarmagamai
were paid as the contribution to the military commanders. We get an evidence of a
separate tax for cannons from Nellorepet. For possessing bows, swords, or tridents
one had to pay a separate license fee.

Festival Dues and Community Taxes

On the occasion of festivals like holi, rakshabandhan, diwali, etc. separate dues were
charged. Nainsi mentions about such impositions in western Rajasthan. In Maharashtra
88
also separate taxes were realised on different festivals dasrapatti (on Dushehra); for the Taxation
maintenance of jangams (Lingayat priests) jangampatti and mejwanipatti for other
spiritual leaders was to be paid by the villagers. Shivaji remitted certain taxes like
idsubharati (paid by oil men for illumination on the occasion of id); bakrid;
Humayunpatti, uruspatti (offerings at the shrine), but-pharosi (on image seller) and
mulanasara (for paying maulana). Simhasthapatti was imposed once in 12 years on
the occasion of Nasik kumbh. Ganacari was to be paid by Lingayats of Sholapur.
Later, in 1647, khan-kusi was imposed on them. Maharajaprayojanas was a tax
extracted by Vijayanagar rulers on the occasion of great royal festivals. Saivas were to
pay ganacara-tere to their Lingayat priests – jangamas; while Vaishnavites paid to
their guru/jiyar jiyaratere for their maintenance. Idangai and valangai sects had to
pay separate communal obligations (inavari).

For the maintenance of village temple and village deity separate tax pidarivari was
imposed in south India by the Vijayanagara rulers. Even for celebrating festivals in the
temple people had to pay a seperate levy.

For the maintenance of the Brahmana ryots had to pay vipravinodi-pannu. During
the Vijayanagar rule an interesting tax was levied upon people to be paid to the
Dommaras tribe of acrobats known as Dommara-pannu/dombaria-pannu for their
performances and maintenance. Besides, people had to pay a separate entertainment
tax (angasalai vari). Even beggars were not left without payment. They were to
pay a fee called ganacaradera. Similarly, a licence fee was to be paid for organising
meetings.

Marriage Tax

People had to a pay separate tax on a marriage procession. It was ¼ rupee in Maharashtra
called varadtaka or lagnataka. Even a separate charge was to be paid (patdam) by
the peasants at the rate of ¼ rupee. In Vijayanagra period pendli-sunka or maduveya-
sunka was the tax realized at the time of marriage. Marriage tax charged by the
Vijayanagara rulers was 101 madas. Even people celebrating their marriage had to pay
separate taxes for marriage pandala (shed) for taking out married couples in the
processions in palanquins around village streets. It was considered a highly oppressive
tax and there were efforts by Timmarasa, prime minister of Vira Narasimha to abolish it.
However, the tax again revived by the amaranayakas during Achyuta Raya’s reign.
Sadasiva, however, reduced the amount from 101 ma to 16 ma per marriage. At local
level under the Vijayanagara rulers they appointed ‘caste elders’ to perform the duty of
dispensing justice pertaining to community related disputes. These ‘caste-elders’ were
to pay a fixed sum to the state; in return they used to extract customary dues from
people in the form of fines, etc. To perform their duty they used to appoint dasaris. T.V.
Mahalingam (1969) argues that judging from the nature of their imposition ‘it is not likely
that these taxes would have pressed heavily on the people’.

19.6 CUSTOM AND MARKET DUES

Market dues generally formed part of the khalisa income. To collect such taxes
separate machinery was in operation. There used to be separate accountants
(karkuns; kulkarni), daroghas (superintendent), amin ( assessor ) a mushrif
(auditor) and a treasurer (fotedar, tahvildar). Each market was treated as separate
fiscal unit (mahal). In the Deccan kulkarni was to keep an eye and supervise the
local officials (muqiman) posted at each mahal. He was also incharge of the chauki
(custom posts) of the city. 89
Expansion and Growth of In the Deccan and Maharashtra to regulate the market there used to be chief
Medieval Economy-1 merchants (seth, sete). In the Deccan they were to pay a price to attain the post.
Timna was asked to pay Rs. 10,000 towards his appointment. There were separate
headmen (chaudhurian) for each commodity market (e.g. grain, textiles, etc.).
However, none of the positions were hereditary or permanent. In the ghat areas
Ghatpande was appointed. His position was hereditary and he was incharge of the
maintenance and upkeep of the ghat. Patki was incharge of a chauki and assisted
by pansare who performed weighing. Both helped Ghatpande to collect octroi.
There were also guards called gujaras or metkaris. They helped caravans to pass
through and provided them protection. To guard ghats they charged 1 ruka per ox
as their fees; patkis chaged 2 rukas per ox carrying grains and salt, and for pulses
3 rukas per ox. Rates varied for other articles – for tobacco they charged 6 rukas
and for bundle of cloth 12 rukas. Modvi (peon) helped ghatpande in supervising
the collection of dues. In Maharashtra cungi and majura denote octroi imposition.

In south India the practice of collecting customs and transit dues directly by the
state was hardly the norm. Instead, it was generally farmed out to the highest bidders.
The rates for custom duties extracted differed from place to place in the same district/
city. That encouraged the merchants to follow that kattes (custom house) where
they had to pay less. Custom dues on goods coming to the town for sale was known
as sthalasunka/sthaladayam; while imports on transit goods i.e. goods passing
through the city/district was known as margadayam/carasunka; and mamuladayam
or peta sunkam was dues imposed on goods sold in the market. During Vijayanagara
period separate taxes were imposed on the shopkeepers who had their shops in
their houses (manaikkadaiyar). It was 3 panams.

In western Rajasthan it was known as kayali and tolvantai were levied on weighing
grain. It was probably a sales tax on grain brought to the market.

Customs and Transit Dues

Different commodities were charged at different rates. In the Marwar region for
transporting stones 1 taka was charged per cart. On transporting marbles also
separate tax was levied.

One of the records pertaining to Chaul Mamla, in Maharashtra we get the following
charges levied as custom dues:
Article Import Duty Export Duty
Rice and Nagli per sack (goni) 12 rukas 12 rukas
Jaggery per load 20 rukas 30 rukas
Spices per load 36 rukas 36 rukas
Sugarcane per load thousand 1½ laris 1½ laris
Ginger per head load 10 rukas 10 rukas
Tobacco per load ½ lari 12 rukas
Cloth Bundle (per piece) 8 rukas 6 rukas
Yarn per load 24 rukas 24 rukas
Blankets per piece 8 rukas 6 rukas
Horse 1 lari ¼ lari
Buffalo ½ lari ¼ lari
Bullock 18 rukas 18 rukas
Khudra (scrap) per head load 10 rukas 10 rukas
90 Source: A.R. Kulkarni, Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji, Bombay, p.114.
During Krishnadevaraya’s reign following were the custom dues/tolls levied: Taxation
Per bag
Millet, salt, mangoes, fruits, nuts ½ paikam
Gram, wheat, oil seeds, pulses, cotton, yarn 1 paikam
Vegetables (onion, turmeric, fenugreek, cumin, mustard, etc.) 1 damma
Coconut, jaggery, cleaned cotton, 2 dammas
Ghee, iron, steel, sugar, cotton thread, betel-leaves 4 dammas
Spices, copper, tin, lead 6 dammas
T.V. Mahalingam, I (1969), pp. 60-61.

19.7 TAXES ON PROFESSIONS AND

MANUFACTURERS
Separate taxes were levied on various professions and manufacturing units. In western
Rajasthan each weaver (salwi) was to pay one man of yarn (sut) annually; while cotton
carders were taxed as per carding bow. Each cotton carder (pinjar) was to pay 1 rupee
annually on their carding bow. In south India it was known as pinjani garu. In Maharashtra
tax on weavers was known as magataka. It was assessed 1/4 taka per loom. In
Maharashtra if a shepherd was also a wool-dealer then he had to pay 5 pounds of wool
per flock; in case of being a weaver he had to give 1 blanket per loom. In south India tax
imposed on weavers was known as maggadere/maggari. During Vijyanagara period
Saliya weavers were charged 9 peranams per loom annually.

In western Rajasthan leather cleaners (khatik) were paying 12 fadiyan (a coin) per
month; while cobbler (mochi) had to give one pair of shoes monthly. In Maharashtra it
was known as paiposi and the nature of tax was the same as it was in western Rajasthan.

In South India during the Vijayanagara period barbers had to pay 1 visa per day for their
profession. We also hear a separately tax paid by the washerman in South India. Both
the chief barber and chief washerman were charged.4 panams annually. During Sadasiva’s
reign barbers were exempted from paying all taxes levied on them

In western Rajasthan soap makers (sabugars) were to pay half a man of soap monthly.

Potters were also charged in case the goods were produced for the market. In
south India under the Vijyanagar rulers it has known as kumbaraterege/tirigaiayam.
The chief potter was charged 5 panams annually.

Refined oil producers and sellers in western Rajasthan had to pay a tax called ghiyan;
while oilpressers (ghanchi) were levied 1-¼ man annually on each press. In
Maharashtra it was known as telapatti and it was 1/½ seers of oil per oil mill per
year; while ganagari was paid by oil mongers (½ panam annually was taken from
oil mongers; while the chief oil mongers were to pay 20 panams annually). and
ganagutta was charged by the Vijayanagara rulers on oil mills.

Aleya sunka was charged by the Vijayanagara rulers on sugarcane mills. We also
hear kabbina, sunka imposed on sugar cane.

In western Rajasthan wine distillers (kalal) were paying 12 fadiyas per month.

Sarafpatti was levied upon the sarrafs (money changers) in Maharashtra. In south
India blacksmiths, carpenters, silversmiths and goldsmiths were to pay 5 panams
annually in the Vijayanagara period. 91
Expansion and Growth of Iron furnaces were also taxed in south India. It was called homalagutta and was
Medieval Economy-1 imposed proportionately to the quantity of iron produced.

In south India there appears to be clear distinction between the taxes imposed by
the state and local taxes. Taxes imposed by the state could not be remitted by the
local authority. Similarly, in the imposition of new taxes or remission of local taxes
state’s orders were advisory and not mandatory. Though Krishnadevaraya remitted
marriage tax but it continued to be levied during Achyuta Raya’s reign. Taxes imposed
on artisans were also part of local taxes and were not imposed uniformly in all
regions/localities. In Kanaganipalli inscription (Dharmavaram taluk, Anantapur district)
mention is made of remittance of several taxes on pancalamvaru (artisan castes)
on account of which earlier they immigrated to Kundripisime and Pakalasime from
the nearby areas suggest that in the nearby sime either no tax was levied on them or
the burden was comparatively less. Similarly, trustees and Alagiya Nayinar temple
at Tiruvamattu, south Arcot district farmed out some miscellaneous taxes to local
Kaikkolas (weavers); in return they promised to pay 6 panams per loom per annum.

19.8 REVENUE ASSIGNMENTS

Generally speaking during the medieval period we find three types of revenue assignments/
lands: khalisa (crown lands), jagir (secular land assignments), and inam.

Crown Land

Khalisa land’s revenues were received by the royal treasury. These lands were
governed directly by the state. The proportion of khalisa lands varied under the
Mughals. Under Akbar it constituted ¼th; while under Jahangir it reduced to 5 per
cent of the total revenues. Shahjahan increased it to 1/7th while under Aurangzeb it
formed 1/5th of the total revenues.

In the Deccan it were known as sarkarchi sheri, sherichen shet or khalisa jamin;
while in south India as bhandaravada/pandarvadai. Noboru Karashima argues
that there occurred a change in its meaning. During the 16th century it did not represent
the crown land; instead ‘simply taxable land as distinguished from non-taxable land
held under manya tenure’. The dannaik (governor) looked after the bhandaravada
villages.

Jagirs

Jagirs were revenue assignments given to the nobles in lieu of their services. Under
the Delhi Sultans such assignments were known as iqtas. Later under the Mughals
it came to be known as jagir/tuyul. The holders of iqtas were designated as iqtadar,
muqti/wali and those of jagirs and tuyul/jagirdar and tuyuldar. However, there
were certain differences between the two. Firstly, iqtadars combined fiscal and
administrative charges. But jagir assignments hardly coincided with administrative
assignments. Though iqtas were initially frequently transferable, by Firuz Tughluq’s
reign it became hereditary and permanent. Initially iqtadar had to send fawazil
(excess amount) to the state treasury but as a result of concessions granted by Firuz
it got permanently fixed and the practice of paying back excess amount practically
ceased. Firuz even started the practice of paying his troopers not in cash but in the
form of revenue assignments (wajh – small iqtas); thus he brought in hereditary and
permanent character. Largely the Mughal bureaucracy was paid in the form of jagirs
and its holder was designated as jagirdars. Unlike iqtas their administrative and
92
financial assignments were never coterminous. They were frequently transferred. Taxation
The average span of a jagirdar was usually not more than 3-4 years.

Jagirdari Crisis

During the closing years of Aurangzeb’s reign problems in the proper working of the
jagir assignments began to emerge. While the land available remained limited, the
number of jagirs allotted swelled. Abul Fazl Mamuri says that ‘the world became
jagir less (be-jagiri) and there was no paibaqi (lands yet to be assigned as jagir)
left.’ Mamuri attributes it directly to the influx of the Deccani nobility. In one of his
letters addressed to Azam Khan, Aurangzeb himself admitted that there was shortage
of pai baqi. Scarcity of jagirs to be assigned to the new recruits must have definitely
affected the smooth functioning. We do hear of insistence on having a patron
(murabbi) and an agent (wakil-i dil soz) to get the jagirs in their favours. Even
instances of paying bribes (sakht-i rishwat) became a common feature. The jagir
crisis definitely created ‘ripples, rivalries, and factionalism’ among the ruling elite.
However, we do not hear any instance or situation assuming the shape of an armed
struggle during Aurangzeb’s reign. (Habib,1963)

Mokasa, Jagir and Saranjams

In the Maratha territory mokasa, jagir and saranjams were often used inter-
changeably. However, jagirs were more permanent in nature than mokasa. They
were military tenures though theoretically temporary and were transferable and could
be confiscated. But in practice they assumed hereditary character. Officials were
largely paid in the form of mokasas or jagirs in lieu of their services. It is interesting
to find the presence of the practice of sub-letting of the mokasas a feature totally
absent in north India. Saranjams were divided into jat and fauj (parallel to Mughal
zat and sawar ranks). Jat denoted personal pay while fauj was given for the
maintenance of the troops. It is interesting to find that the revenues assigned to these
mokasadars only after deducting sardeshmukhi, chauth, and batai. Shivaji
discontinued granting mokasas or saranjams, and instead preferred to pay his
officials in cash. However, soon after Shivaji’s death his son Raja Ram revived the
practice of granting mokasas. There was the tendency on the part of mokasa holders
to convert their grant as inam or watan to make it hereditary. A.R. Kulkarni finds
the tendency to convert mokasas into hereditary tenures as ‘feudal’.

Amaram or Nayankara

In South India such service tenures in lieu of military service were known as amaram
and nayakankara. The major transformation from Cholas to Vijayanagara rulers
was the emergence of local military chiefs (nayaks) in large numbers. Noboru
Karashima calls it a ‘turning point’ in Vijayanagara rule. The term amara-nayankara
itself signifies an office (kara) possessed by a military chief (nayaka) in command
(amara) of a body of troops. They served as intermediaries between the raiyat
and the states. Fernao Nuniz mentions the presence of 200 nayaks in the early 16th
century and it is estimated that during the Vijayanagara period almost 75 per cent of
the land was held in amaram tenures. Cynthia Talbot argues that, ‘nayankara right
generally pertain to a sima, a territorial unit encompassing numerous villages, amara
often appears in relation to a single village.’ It was military service tenure held by
amaranayakas/nayaks at king’s pleasure in lieu of or on condition of military service
like the Mughal jagirdar, but they were much more powerful. Bunton Stein calls
them ‘territorial magnates in their own right’. Every year they had to send a specific
93
Expansion and Growth of amount of money as ‘tribute’. In case of lapse the amaranayaka was punished and
Medieval Economy-1 their amaragani was lapsed. It varies from 3.3 per cent to 50 per cent of the total
revenue collected. The tenure like Mughal jagirs were neither hereditary nor
permanent. They were not allowed to stay in their territories for long. These nayaks
used to administer their territories through their agents called karyakarta. However,
for durga-dannaik it was not mandatory to attend the court in person. They were
entitled to collect durga-danayi nivartana in return for the protection provided by
them to the inhabitants.

The nayaka system took actual shape in the Tamil region during late 15th century
and it reached its classic form under Krishnadevaraya. The territories held by these
nayakas were known as nayakkattanam in Kannada and nayankaram in Telegu.
These nayakas were generally of Telugu origin (largely Kannadigas). In the
Puddukottai region, however, arasus (local chiefs) were prominent and nayaka
system could hardly take roots. These arasus wielded fiscal powers and extracted
tax for watchmanship (padikaval). However, in the Andhra region Cynthia Talbot
traces the presence of nayankara under the Kakatiyas back to the 13th century,
though she agrees that their presence increased manyfold during late 15th and early
16th century in this region. Nayakas during the Vijayanagar period possessed a
certain territory as their nayakkattanam, a feature not to be seen during the 14-15th
centuries. Noboru Karashima argues that the change displayed more clearly the
characteristic of ‘feudal’ lords. During the late Vijayanagara period we do get
references to nayakas as lease-holders of temple land which they were getting
cultivated by cultivators. Their lease rights were hereditary and saleable suggesting
that nayaks emerged in the long run as actual owners or lords of the leased lands.

Inam

Inam lands were revenue free assignments made to the pious, needy and the scholars.
The names used might vary from region to region but the nature and pattern of
distribution was almost uniform throughout. In north India inam grants were known
as madad-i maash/suyurghal, aimma, etc. During Akbar’s period these ranged
between 2 and 5 per cent in different regions. Madad-i maash holders were
exempted from paying land revenue and other taxes.

The inam tenures in south India were known as manya. Inam lands granted to both
institutions as well as individuals. Primarily there were four such types of grants - 1)
inam lands held by Brahmans were known as brahmadeyas/agraharas; b) lands
given to the temples were known as devadana; c) mathapuraa were revenue free
lands held by traditional educational institutions or maths. Inam grants made to the
maths were actually given to the chief teacher for the upkeep of the math. However,
temple grants were held by a ‘trust’ who were temple ‘managers’. They maintained
the temple in the name of the deity to whom actually the grant was made. Contrary
to the madad-i maash grants of north India devadana, brahmadeya and mathpura
villages were governed by the grantees and the state did not interfere in their affairs.
There were also sarvanya grants where the grantee had no obligations.

Watan and inam were used as synonyms in Maharashtra with the difference that
these had no obligation attached to it. Watan tenures were largely held by village
officials – village headmen (patil/muqaddam), village accountant (kulkarni),
changula (assistant of patil), shete mahajan (village market officer), and the mahar
(village watchman), temples, priests, etc. These were hereditary and permanent so
94 long as they performed the duty but in practice it continued to be enjoyed by the
family in perpetuity so long as its members performing their duties. It was in fact Taxation
service tenure. Interestingly, inam lands were not completely tax free. They had to
pay 1/3rd or ¼th of the revenue collected to the state depending on the nature of the
inam tenure (if inam-nimai ½, if inam tizai 1/3rd if inam chauthai ¼th). Inams
were of two types diwan nisbat inam and gao nisbat inam. The former was granted
by the state through a sanad; while the latter were made by the village community.
It was known as dehangi-inam and was granted to village artisans and servants.

Revenue Farming (ijara)

The state or jagirdar could assign portions of lands on ijara (farming, contract) to
a mustajir (revenue farmer). The agreement bond (tamsak) between the two was
stamped by the qazi. Ijaradar was entitled to retain the difference of the actual
revenue collected and the amount agreed upon to pay. However, during the Mughal
period instances of granting khalisa lands on ijara are rare. The practice was always
resisted and hardly approved of by the state. In 1676 Aurangzeb forbade giving
lands on ijara in Gujarat. It was oppressive for the ijaradars’ attempts were to
extract as much money as possible from the peasants. Generally ijaradar was a
local person. In Rajasthan granting of ijara was a common practice and it became
more frquent during the 18th century.

With the weakening of the centre particularly after 1719 Mughal mansabdars
possessing jagirs near Rajput watan preferred to transfer their jagirs to the Rajput
rulers on ijara. Rajasthani records shows that jagirdas and ijaradars tried to bargain
while fixing the terms of patta. But largely the deal went in favour ijaradar. Even
during the 18th century from Rajasthan we get a few instances of ijara istamrari
(long term or permanent grant). After Sawai Jai Singh’s death (1743) granting of
khalisa lands in ijara became a ‘common’ feature. We also hear even grant of
tankhwah ijaras (granted to the officials in lieu of salary). It greatly attracted sahukars
and mahajans. They used to provide sureties on behalf of the ijaradars in Rajasthan.
At times they themselves opted for ijaras. The positive side of the practice was it
did bring deserted villages and abandoned lands under cultivation.

Ijara was a common feature in the Deccan and Maharashtra. It was not confined
only to farming out lands but was also quite widespread in assuming official posts.
In south India the state as well as nayaks used to let the lands to the contractors.
They were to pay in return gutta (rent).

19.9 STATE AND TAXATION

Barani (1357) commenting on Alauddin Khalji’s revenue policy mentions that the
tax was imposed ‘uniformly’ upon khots to balahar so that the ‘burden of the
strong should not fall upon the weak.’ But the very fact that the demand was imposed
on all set the cycle of exploitation. Those who possessed large holdings must be
under less pressure than those with small holdings. For a cultivator with small holdings,
parting with half the produce must be detrimental. Commenting on the nature of
revenue reforms of Alauddin Khalji Irfan Habib (Cambridge, 1982) remarks that
‘...the tax would have remained very heavy and regressive. A government levying
such a tax could therefore hardly have protected the ‘weak’, except in so far as it
tried to exclude or restrict further exploitation by the rural upper strata in order to
safeguard its own share.’ There appears to be a ‘dramatic’ increase in the burden of
taxation during Muhammad Tughluq’s reign. Muhammad Tughluq for assessment
took into account a ‘standard’ yield in place of ‘actuals’; similarly in place of actual 95
Expansion and Growth of prices he used the officially determined prices which were much higher than the
Medieval Economy-1 actuals. It must have definitely inflated the tax burden resulting in one of the most
serious agrarian rebellion of the Doab peasantry (c. AD 1326-30) led by the khots
and muqaddams. Its impact lasted long. When Ibn Battuta (d. 1377) visited the
territory in 1342 around Kol (modern Aligarh) he still found the territory in the
hands of ‘rural rebels’.

Thus it is beyond doubt that during the Sultanate period land tax was regressive and
quite harsh upon the peasants. For the Mughal period our data is comparatively rich
and we get finer details as for pattern of revenue extractions are concerned. Revenue
demand, as we have seen, ranged from 1/3rd to a 1/2 of the produce; state preferred
to extract the revenue in cash. In the zabti areas the revenue demand itself was
fixed in ‘cash’. Though jinsi or batai was also the norm ‘the incidence per unit of
area varied according to crop, and not according to the size of the tax payers holdings’
(Habib, Cambridge, 1982). Further, the incidence of demand also varied as per
caste and power and position held by the individuals. The superior right holders
zamindars, muqaddams, chaudhuris and so also higher caste people such as
Rajputs, Brahmans, Mahajans, Banias were assessed at much less rate than the
common raiyat. Peasants were to pay the highest amount. Those producing cash
crops in comparison to food crops felt the burden much less for cash crops fetched
high profits. But cultivation of cash crops was also generally beyond the capacity of
the common raiyats. It involved lot of expenditure in terms of more ploughing and
irrigation, etc. Thus, common raiyats were under pressure all through the medieval
period. Besides, the land tax raiyats were to pay many other taxes, dues, and
cesses. In such cases as well differential rates on the basis of caste and social
hierarchy prevailed. Imposition of jiziya was no less regressive upon small peasant.
Thus, during the medieval period raiyats were constantly under pressure and taxation
was highly regressive. In spite of abundance of land peasants were constantly under
debt to local Mahajan and Banias. The gap between the higher and lower strata
instead of bridging widened. Peasants’ conditions were miserable and they lived
their life almost below the subsistence level. Any calamity meant total ruin for them.
History of our period is full of references to frequent migrations of peasants at the
time of famines, etc. under distress. (for details see Unit 16) The exploitation was
such that Bernier (1656-68) mentions that:

These poor people, when incapable of discharging the demands of their rapacious
lords, are not only often deprived of the means of subsistence, but are bereft of
their children, who are carried away as slaves. Thus it happens that many of the
peasantry, driven to despair by so execrable a tyranny, abandon the country and
seek a more tolerable mode of existence, either in the towns, or camps; as bearers
of burdens, carriers of water, or servants to horsemen. Sometimes they fly to the
territories of a Raja, because they find less oppression, and are allowed a greater
degree of comfort.

Irfan Habib argues that “in the seventeenth century the belief had become deep
rooted that the system of jagir transfers led inexorably to a reckless exploitation of
the peasantry. It was a result which the imperial administration might check for
sometime but could not ultimately prevent.’

Agrarian Crisis

The presence of inherent contradiction in the working of the jagir system further
aggravated the exploitation of the peasants. Jagirs were frequently transferred so
that the jagirdars could not develop local roots. But it also led them to exploit the
96
peasants as much as they could for they had no long term interests there. They Taxation
showed no ‘compassions’. Bernier mentions that:

The Timariots [jagirdars], Governors and Revenue-contractors on their part

reason in this manner: “Why should the neglected state of this land create
uneasiness in our minds? and why should we expend our money and time to
render it fruitful? We may be deprived of it in a single moment, and our exertions
would benefit neither ourselves nor our children. Let us draw from the soil all the
money we can though the peasant should starve or abscond and we should
leave it, when commanded to quit, a dreary wilderness.

For Maharashtra A.R. Kulkarni concludes that though ‘burden of taxation fell heavily
on the poor ‘we rarely come across people revolting or grumbling against these
taxes.’ However, in Maharashtra as well we do get references to people protesting
against illegal exactions. Inamdar from pargana Poona challenged the levy of
miraspatti.

The picture appears to be no different in the Deccan and South India. Nuniz laments
that the peasants were allowed to retain only 1/10th of the produce and remaining
was either taken by the state or the amaranayakas. Even if we do not take his
statement at face value it does suggest the distress on the medieval peasant. Peasants
of Sri Musnam village were said to have migrated from their village on account of
excessive taxation and returned only when in 1513 Krishnadevaraya’s officer Sinnapa
Nayaka fixed favourable rates for them. In one of the Kaifiyat of Kavutalam (Adoni
taluk, Bellary district) ryot deserted the village on account of oppression of the
state officials.

Owing to the absence of orderly government the ryots of the Kavutala sime.
having deserted their native villages, migrated in a body to the Manaveya sime
on the other side of the Tungabhadra. While Acyuta was ruling at Vijayanagara,
his brother-in-law Salakaraju Cikka Tirumala Maharaja, having visited Adavani,
gave a fresh kaul to all the gaudas of Kavutala, and made concessions to them
for reclaiming cultivable land from the jungle which had grown up during the
period of desertion. Although these concessions were published by means of a
sasana, the gaudas and kulkarnis alone returned, but not the cultivators who
had lost all their faith in the government. Therefore, Tirumala Maharaja had to
open negotiations afresh. The ryots gathered near Hanuman’s shrine at Kavutala,
where they came to an agreement with the government. They then returned to
their old homes. The terms of the agreement were recorded on a stone slab which
was set up at the place of meeting.

N. Venkata Ramanayya, Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of Vijayanagara,

Delhi, 1935, p.244.

At times peasants were forced to sell their lands to meet the revenue demand. The
heavy burden of taxation pressed the cultivators as well as artisans to an open rebellion
in AD 1429 against the landlords and intruding Vijayanagara commanders. The state
was forced to grant temporary reliefs:

1) We, the people belonging to Valangai 98 and Idangai 98 of Valudilampattu-

uchavadi, assembled in this temple in full strength and let the following be
engraved on the wall of said temple.

2) In this mandalam (Valudilampattu), even if the uchavadi-pradhani (the

local Vijayanagar governorVanniyar (military people) and jivitakkarar
(holders of official tenure) coerce us, or the Brahmana and Vellala kaniyalar
(holders of kani rights) try to oppress us in collusion with the irajagarattar
(government officers), we shall never submit to such oppression. 97
Expansion and Growth of 3) If there appears any single person among us who helps the intruders,
Medieval Economy-1 betrays us, violates the grant given by Chikkarasar, or destroys the (current)
measuring rod, we shall assemble as of today and enquire into it.

4) Among those who were born in this mandalam, no one should write
accounts (for the government), let others write the accounts or collude
with the government officers and jivitakkarars. If there appears one such
person, we shall degrade him in the caste hierarchy.

Summary of Four Inscriptions Pertaining to AD 1429 Uprising. Noboru

Karashima, 1992, p.142.

The absence of such ‘conflicts’ from the later half of the 15th century led Noboru
Karashima to conclude that after the decline of the Chola power there occurred
socio-economic changes resulting in open confrontations. Once the power got
consolidated under Vijayanagara rulers no such revolts occurred.

19.10 SUMMARY
Land tax formed the bulk of the state’s income. There existed regional variations
with regard to the methods of revenue assessment and collection. State’s efforts
were to maximise its revenue returns. Since land was in abundance it was in the
interest of the state to keep the peasants tied to the land. State used to take all
precautions to restrict peasants’ flight. In trying circumstances state’s efforts were
to extend all possible help. In general the taxation was harsh and repressive specially
for the small peasants across regions throughout the medieval period. State directly
extracted the revenues in the khalisa territories but large portion was granted to the
ruling elite in lieu of their salaries (jagir, moqasa, nayankara). For the effective
working of the empire it was essential to keep this class of revenue grantees in
complete check.

19.11 EXERCISES
1) Give a brief account of the nature of Islamic theory of taxation. To what extent
the Turks and the Mughals implemented the Islamic practices?
2) Critically examine the methods of assessment under the Mughals with special
reference to zabt.
3) Analyse the process of penetration of Mughal revenue system in the Deccan.
4) Discuss briefly Malik Amber’s settlement. To what extent Marathas borrowed
from him?
5) State briefly the pattern of land tax in south India. Compare it to that of Mughal
land tax.
6) Enumerate the taxes other than land tax.
7) List the taxes imposed upon various professions and industries.
8) Critically examine the nature of land tax during the medieval period. Assess
state’ attitude towards thew peasants.
9) What relief measures did the state undertake to handle the calamities?
10) Write a brief note on various types of land tenures during the medieval period.

98