Critically examine the methods of land revenue assessment under the Mughal
The Mughal Empire, which ruled a vast portion of the Indian subcontinent from the early 16th to the mid-18th century, developed an intricate system of land revenue assessment that was central to its administration and economy.
Get the full solved assignment PDF of MHI-105 of 2024-25 session now by clicking on above button.
The land revenue system under the Mughals was one of the most sophisticated in pre-modern India, and it played a crucial role in maintaining the empire’s wealth and stability. However, the system was not without its challenges and shortcomings. Here, we critically examine the methods of land revenue assessment under the Mughals, focusing on their evolution, implementation, and impact.
1. The Zabti System
The most significant method of land revenue assessment under the Mughals was the Zabti system, which was largely developed and refined during the reign of Akbar (1556-1605). The Zabti system, also known as the Ain-i-Dahsala, was based on the measurement of land and the calculation of average produce.
- Measurement and Classification:
Under the Zabti system, land was measured using standardized units like the bigha, and it was classified into different categories based on the quality of soil and the type of crops grown. Land was divided into polaj (continuously cultivated), parauti (fallow for a short period), chachar (fallow for a longer period), and banjar (waste or uncultivable land). - Average Produce:
The system involved calculating the average produce of the land over a ten-year period, which was then used to determine the tax. The state fixed the revenue demand based on a percentage of this average produce, typically between one-third to one-half of the gross produce. - Criticism:
While the Zabti system brought standardization and predictability to revenue assessment, it also had its drawbacks. The method relied heavily on accurate measurement and honest reporting of produce, which were difficult to ensure consistently. The system also placed a heavy burden on the peasants, as the state’s share could be as high as 50%, leading to instances of exploitation by revenue officials. The reliance on a fixed average could also be problematic during years of poor harvest, where the demand remained the same despite lower production, pushing peasants into debt or forcing them to abandon their lands.
2. The Batai or Ghalla-Bakhshi System
Another method of revenue assessment was the Batai or Ghalla-Bakhshi system, where the produce was shared between the state and the cultivator.
- Types of Batai:
The Batai system had several variations, such as Khet Batai (division of produce on the field), Lang Batai (division after the produce is gathered), and Bhaoli Batai (division based on heaps of produce). The produce was divided between the state and the peasant after the harvest, often in a proportion of one-third for the state and two-thirds for the cultivator. - Practicality and Challenges:
While the Batai system was more flexible and took into account the actual produce of the land, it was cumbersome and time-consuming. The system required the presence of officials during the harvest, which could lead to corruption and disputes. Moreover, in cases where the state share was collected in kind, the state faced challenges in storage, transportation, and sale of the produce.
3. The Kankut System
The Kankut system was a form of revenue assessment that combined both measurement and estimation. In this method, the area under cultivation was measured, and the produce was estimated either by actual harvest or by visual inspection. The revenue demand was then calculated based on this estimation.
- Flexibility:
The Kankut system was more flexible than the Zabti system, as it allowed for adjustments based on the actual or estimated yield. This method was particularly useful in regions where detailed measurement or ten-year averages were not feasible. - Limitations:
However, the Kankut system was prone to manipulation and inaccuracies, especially in cases where officials relied solely on visual estimation. This often led to disputes between the state and the cultivators, and the potential for exploitation remained high.
4. The Nasaq System
The Nasaq system was another method of revenue assessment, particularly used in regions like Bengal and parts of the Deccan. Under this system, revenue demand was fixed based on past assessments or negotiated settlements rather than detailed measurement or estimation.
- Efficiency:
The Nasaq system was efficient in areas where traditional practices were deeply entrenched, and it minimized administrative costs by avoiding the need for constant measurement and reassessment. It was particularly suitable for regions with stable and consistent agricultural output. - Drawbacks:
However, the Nasaq system could lead to over-assessment or under-assessment, as it was based on historical data or arbitrary settlements. It lacked the flexibility to adapt to changes in agricultural productivity or economic conditions, which could either burden the peasantry or lead to revenue shortfalls for the state.
5. Impact on Peasants and Agriculture
The Mughal land revenue system, while sophisticated and systematic, often placed a significant burden on the peasantry. The high revenue demands, coupled with the inflexibility of certain systems like Zabti, could lead to distress among cultivators, especially during periods of poor harvests or natural calamities. This sometimes resulted in the abandonment of lands, reduction in agricultural productivity, and even rebellions in some regions.
Conclusion
The methods of land revenue assessment under the Mughals were a critical component of their administrative and economic structure. Systems like Zabti, Batai, Kankut, and Nasaq were designed to maximize state revenue while attempting to maintain agricultural productivity and social stability. However, these systems also had inherent flaws, such as potential for corruption, rigidity in revenue demands, and the heavy burden on peasants. While they contributed to the empire’s wealth and stability, these methods also sowed the seeds of agrarian distress, which would later be exploited by both internal and external forces. The Mughal land revenue system, therefore, was both a testament to administrative innovation and a source of socio-economic challenges.