Modern Indian History Notes 02

Khalisa and Jagir Lands

The land under the Mughal Empire was broadly divided into two categories for revenue and administrative purposes: Khalisa and Jagir.

• Khalisa Land: This was the ‘crown’ or ‘royal’ land, the revenue from which was collected directly for the imperial treasury. This revenue was used to pay for the expenses of the imperial household, the emperor’s personal troops (Ahadis), and other court and administrative overheads. The proportion of Khalisa land varied under different emperors. According to historian Irfan Habib in “The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707,” Akbar significantly expanded the Khalisa lands to assert central authority, while under Jahangir, a larger portion was given out as Jagirs, a trend that continued and contributed to the fiscal stress of the empire in its later phase.
• Jagir Land: These were lands assigned to nobles (Mansabdars) in lieu of a cash salary. The right to collect revenue from a Jagir was known as jagirdari. The revenue assigned was supposed to be equal to the Mansabdar’s salary claim (talab).
  • Tankha Jagirs: These were the most common type of jagirs and were transferable. A Mansabdar would be assigned a jagir in one region for a few years and then transferred to another to prevent them from developing local roots and challenging imperial authority.
  • Vatan Jagirs: These were hereditary jagirs assigned to local chieftains and zamindars who were incorporated into the Mughal nobility. Their ancestral lands were designated as their Vatan Jagir, from which they paid a fixed tribute (peshkash) to the emperor. Unlike Tankha Jagirs, these were non-transferable and hereditary.

The Land Revenue System of the Mughals

The Mughal agrarian system was a complex hierarchy of rights and obligations involving the state, intermediaries, and the cultivators.

• Zamindars: The term ‘Zamindar’ had a wide connotation. They were intermediaries with varying degrees of rights. Historian Nurul Hasan categorized them into three types: autonomous chieftains, intermediary zamindars, and primary zamindars.

  • Their primary function was to collect land revenue from the peasants on behalf of the state or the Jagirdar. For this service, they received a share of the revenue, typically around 10% (nankar).
  • Zamindars also had police and judicial duties within their jurisdictions (zamindari).
  • A crucial point is that the Zamindar was not the owner of the land in the modern sense. They held a hereditary right (vatan) to collect revenue. They owned certain lands personally, called their milkiyat or khudkasht lands, from which they paid revenue to the state just like any other cultivator.
  • Nankar Lands: These were plots of land assigned to Zamindars that were revenue-free. This was a part of their remuneration for collecting revenue and maintaining law and order.
  • Abwab: Zamindars often levied additional cesses or illegal exactions over and above the stipulated land revenue. These were known as abwabs and were a significant burden on the peasantry.
  • Patta System: To formalize the revenue arrangement and protect the peasant (ryot) from over-extraction, the state issued a Patta (a document stating the area cultivated, crops grown, and the revenue demand). The ryot, in turn, signed a Qabuliyat (deed of agreement), accepting the terms. This system, refined by Akbar based on Sher Shah Suri’s earlier reforms, aimed to create a direct relationship between the state and the peasant, though its implementation was often mediated by the Zamindar.

• Types of Peasants (Ryots):

  • Khudkasht: These were resident cultivators who owned their own ploughs and bullocks and cultivated land in the village where they resided. They had customary and hereditary occupancy rights and could not be evicted as long as they paid the land revenue. They were the privileged class among the peasantry.
  • Pahikasht: These were non-resident cultivators who tilled land in a village other than their own, either because they were landless or had insufficient land in their home village. As per Satish Chandra in “Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals”, they were often tenants-at-will and had weaker rights than the Khudkasht peasants. Their status was precarious, making them more mobile and susceptible to exploitation.

Ijaradari System

The Ijaradari or revenue farming system was a departure from the traditional Mughal land revenue administration.

• Concept: Under this system, the right to collect revenue from a particular territory (ijara) was sold to the highest bidder at a public auction. The winning bidder, the Ijaradar, paid a fixed, pre-agreed amount to the state or the Jagirdar and was then free to collect as much as they could from the territory.
• Historical Context: The system was officially introduced by Jahandar Shah (1712-13) and became widespread during the 18th century as the central authority weakened. Even Khalisa lands were given out on Ijara under Farrukhsiyar (1713-19).
• Causes and Consequences: It was a response to the administrative and financial crisis of the late Mughal period. The state and Jagirdars, unable to efficiently collect revenue themselves, resorted to this method to ensure a guaranteed income. However, the system had disastrous consequences.
  • The Ijaradars were often merchants, bankers, or urban moneylenders with no long-term interest in the welfare of the land or the peasantry. Their sole motive was profit maximization.
  • This led to rampant exploitation, rack-renting, and the impoverishment of the peasants, destabilizing the agrarian economy.
  • Under the British, this system was institutionalized as the ‘Farming System’ by Warren Hastings in Bengal in 1772, with similar ruinous effects.

The Decline of Mughals

The disintegration of the Mughal Empire was a complex process resulting from multiple interconnected factors.

• Role of Aurangzeb (1658-1707):
  • Continuous Warfare and the ‘Deccan Ulcer’: Aurangzeb’s reign was marked by incessant warfare, particularly his nearly 27-year-long campaign in the Deccan.
    • He annexed the Shia kingdoms of Bijapur (1886) and Golconda (1887), extending the empire to its territorial zenith.
    • However, his prolonged and costly war against the Marathas proved to be a strategic failure. As historian Jadunath Sarkar famously termed it, the Deccan campaign became a “Deccan Ulcer” that drained the imperial treasury, military, and manpower.
    • The constant warfare disrupted trade and agriculture, and the absence of the emperor from the north for a long period weakened the administration there.
  • Religious Policy: Aurangzeb’s orthodox religious policies alienated significant sections of the non-Muslim population.
    • He re-imposed the Jizya, a poll tax on non-Muslims, in 1679, which was seen as a discriminatory measure.
    • The destruction of prominent temples, such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Keshav Rai temple in Mathura, caused widespread resentment.
    • The execution of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, in 1675 for refusing to convert to Islam, and the brutal execution of the Maratha ruler Sambhaji in 1689, transformed the Sikhs and Marathas into irreconcilable foes of the Mughal Empire. These acts fueled regional resistance and rebellions.
• Institutional Failure: The Mansabdari and Jagirdari Crisis
  • The Mughal administrative structure was built on the Mansabdari system, where nobles (Mansabdars) provided military service in exchange for salary, usually paid through Jagirs.
  • The system relied on a delicate balance: the loyalty of the Mansabdar was conditional upon the Emperor’s ability to provide them with a suitable Jagir.
  • As argued by historians like Satish Chandra (“Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-1740”) and Athar Ali, Aurangzeb’s Deccan conquests, while expanding the empire, also led to an influx of Deccani nobles into the Mansabdari system. This created a severe shortage of available Jagirs (paibaqi) to be assigned.
  • This led to the Jagirdari Crisis: a gap between the number of claimants for jagirs and the actual land available. Mansabdars had to wait for long periods to get a Jagir, and the ones they got were often less productive than their official valuation (jama).
  • This crisis eroded the personal loyalty that bound the nobles to the Emperor. The post-Aurangzeb weak rulers were unable to manage the powerful factions of nobles (like the Turanis and Iranis) who fought amongst themselves for control over the best jagirs, further weakening the central authority and paving the way for the emergence of autonomous successor states.

---

Prelims Pointers

• Khalisa Land: Crown land whose revenue went directly to the imperial treasury.
• Jagir Land: Land assigned to nobles (Mansabdars) in lieu of salary.
• Tankha Jagir: A transferable jagir.
• Vatan Jagir: A hereditary, non-transferable jagir, usually held by local chieftains.
• Zamindar: An intermediary responsible for revenue collection; not the owner of the land.
• Milkiyat: Personal lands owned by a Zamindar.
• Nankar: Revenue-free lands given to Zamindars as remuneration.
• Abwab: Additional illegal cesses levied by Zamindars on peasants.
• Patta: A document given to the peasant specifying the revenue demand.
• Qabuliyat: An agreement signed by the peasant accepting the revenue demand.
• Khudkasht: Resident cultivators with hereditary occupancy rights.
• Pahikasht: Non-resident, migratory cultivators with weaker rights.
• Ijaradari System: A system of revenue farming where the right to collect revenue was auctioned to the highest bidder (Ijaradar).
• The Ijaradari system was officially introduced by Mughal emperor Jahandar Shah (1712-13).
• Farrukhsiyar extended the Ijaradari system even to Khalisa lands.
• The British introduced a similar ‘Farming System’ in Bengal in 1772 under Warren Hastings.
• Aurangzeb annexed the kingdom of Bijapur in 1686.
• Aurangzeb annexed the kingdom of Golconda in 1687.
• Aurangzeb re-imposed the Jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679.
• The ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was executed in 1675 on the orders of Aurangzeb.
• The Maratha ruler Sambhaji was executed in 1689 on the orders of Aurangzeb.

---

Mains Insights

Historiographical Debates on the Decline of the Mughal Empire

1. The ‘Personal-Centric’ View:

   • Early historians like Jadunath Sarkar (“History of Aurangzib”) attributed the decline primarily to the personal character and flawed policies of Aurangzeb. His religious bigotry alienated the Rajputs, Sikhs, and Marathas, while his suspicious nature and Deccan obsession fatally weakened the empire. This view sees the decline as a direct consequence of the ruler’s failures.

2. The ‘Institutional Crisis’ View:

   • Revisionist historians shifted the focus from the individual to structural and institutional flaws.
   • Satish Chandra (“Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-1740”) and Athar Ali proposed the Jagirdari Crisis thesis. They argued that the system collapsed under its own weight due to a shortage of viable jagirs, leading to factionalism among the nobility and a breakdown of the patron-client relationship between the emperor and his mansabdars.
   • Irfan Habib (“The Agrarian System of Mughal India”) advanced the Agrarian Crisis thesis. He argued that the high rate of Mughal revenue demand and the exploitation by Jagirdars impoverished the peasantry. This led to peasant resistance and rebellions, which undermined the economic foundation of the empire. The Ijaradari system was a symptom and accelerator of this crisis.

3. The ‘Region-Centric’ View:

   • More recent scholarship by historians like Muzaffar Alam (“The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India”) offers a different perspective. They challenge the narrative of ‘decline’ and ‘decay’.
   • They argue that the 18th century was not a period of collapse but of political re-configuration. Power shifted from the imperial center to the regions.
   • The rise of successor states like Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad was not a sign of chaos but of the emergence of new, dynamic regional polities led by former Mughal governors who successfully managed local economic and social groups (like zamindars, merchants, and bankers). In this view, the decline of the center enabled the rise of the regions.

Cause and Effect Analysis

• Cause: Aurangzeb’s prolonged Deccan Wars.
  • Effect 1 (Economic): Drained the imperial treasury and disrupted the economy.
  • Effect 2 (Institutional): Exacerbated the Jagirdari Crisis by increasing the number of nobles without a corresponding increase in productive jagirs.
  • Effect 3 (Political): Allowed regional powers like the Marathas to gain strength and legitimacy by resisting Mughal authority.
• Cause: Introduction of the Ijaradari System.
  • Effect 1 (Social): Led to severe exploitation of the peasantry by revenue farmers who had no long-term interest in agriculture.
  • Effect 2 (Economic): Destabilized agrarian production and contributed to rural depopulation in certain areas.
  • Effect 3 (Political): Weakened the traditional authority of Zamindars and the state, replacing it with the power of a new class of financiers and merchants.

---