I.

LECTURE able difference of opinion. Sir George Campbell says the king took from one-tenth to one-eighth of the gross produce.1 Mr. Shore and other authorities say one-sixth others again say something less than one-fourth of the gross produce:3 and Sir Thomas Munro puts it as high as from two-fifths to three-fifths. Again it is said the cultivator got half the paddy produce, or grain in the husk, and two-thirds of the dry grain crop watered by artificial means; this was after all deductions for village officers were made, the net crop. The assessment remained almost fixed; in Canara it is said to have remained fixed for two centuries and a half, and not to have increased more than ten per cent. during another half century. And in Bijanuggur, the Rajah Hurryhur Roy, between 1334 and 1347, made a new assessment of Canara professedly on the principles of the shasters. This scheme assumed the produce to be twelve times the seed, and therefore that 24 katties of seed produced 30 katties of paddy, which was thus divided: to the State, 71⁄2 katties or one-fourth; to the cultivator, 15 katties or half; and to the zemindar, 7 katties or one-fourth. The State share was again sub-divided so as to leave the State 5 katties or one-sixth, the dewustan or religious endowments 1 kattie, and the Brahmins or Bremhaday 14 katties. The cultivator, according to this scheme, got half and the State only one-sixth; and another account says that up to the middle of the fourteenth century,

' Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 155. See Orissa, Vol. I, 32 to 35. 2 Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 230. Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 347, 348. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 74, note (a). Hiouen Thsang

in Elphinstone's History of India, 5th Edition, p. 298.

3 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 79, 83, 456.

Robinson's Land Revenue, 17. Orissa, Vol. II, 166. 5 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 8.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 79, 83, 456.

that is apparently up to the period of these changes, land in Canara was assessed at as much paddy as was equal to the quantity of seed sown, which would, according to the above theory as to the yield, make the State share only one-twelfth of the gross produce. This was paid in money or kind at the option of the State.

The king also, as we have

seen, had the services of a certain number of servile labourers or received an equivalent allowance. Out of the king's share the revenue establishments had to be paid.

LECTURE

We have now seen what were the main features of the Proprietary rights. Hindoo land system. We find substantially two parties primarily interested in the land as far as its produce is concerned. These are the king and the cultivator, and there are no independent intermediate interests, although we find also a number of officers interested in the crop, whether on the part of the village or of the king. On the part of the king were the officers of revenue, and the civil and military establishments, which were frequently provided for by assignments of revenue. But we see nothing approaching a proprietor in the English sense, and very little of the relation of landlord and tenant. This however is a point I shall discuss again hereafter.

LECTURE II.

from the

Hindoo to the

Mahomedan

period not a sudden one.

THE MAHOMEDAN PERIOD.

The transition from the Hindoo to the Mahomedan period not a sudden one-The
Mahomedan invaders of India-Their system non-hereditary-The Hindoo
system hereditary-Struggle between the two systems-The Mahomedan
system a centralised one-The Mahomedan land theory-The Khiraj-The
Ooshr-The Sowad of Irak-Proprietary rights according to Mahomedan
law-The two kinds of khiraj-Implied ownership in different persons-
Resemblance of wuzeefa khiraj to the tax paid by the khoodkashts-Extent of
proprietary right-Power of alienation-Amount of khiraj-Remission of khiraj
-Mode of enforcing payment-Procedure when cultivator made default-Waste
land-Similarity between Mahomedan and Hindoo systems-The Mahomedans
continued the Hindoo system-The khiraj not formerly imposed-Attempted
changes-Proprietary rights not disturbed-Proprietary rights gradually
affected by the Mahomedan system-The revenue machinery-The headman-
The origin of the zemindar-The village community-Summary-The Crory
-Influence of Mahomedan and English ideas-The zemindar-Descent of
a zemindary and talook-Jageerdars-Ala-ood-deen's attempt to curb the
zemindars.

The transition WE come now to consider the Mahomedan period, and
the changes introduced during that period. And here
we must remember that there is no clear line of division
between the Hindoo and Mahomedan times:-the two
periods overlap each other. The first incursions of the
Arabs, indeed, seem to have left no trace; but the great
tide of invasion, which ultimately swept over the greater
part of India, began as early as the eleventh century of
our era. However the conquest of the whole country was
never completed, although for short periods there may
have been practically no other ruling power in India.
There is therefore no precise period at which we can say
that the Mahomedans had conquered the country, and
had to consider what laws they would impose, and what

Probably

system of government they would introduce.
each conquest, as it was made, was felt to be precarious,
as indeed it was proved in many cases to be; and the
conquerors would be glad to govern through the established
agencies, and to be content with a tribute, or with
collecting the revenue as it had theretofore been collected.
The Mahomedan law indeed speaks of the conquering
Imam's option to leave the conquered inhabitants in
possession of their lands, or to eject them: but this
was an option which could only be exercised upon a much
more sweeping success than that of the Mussulman invaders
of India; a success such as those invaders had perhaps
been accustomed to attain in their conflicts with the
uncivilised races of the desert, but which they could not
hope for in India.

LECTURE
II.

The invaders of India were Mahomedans of the Hanifite The Mahome

dan invaders

sect, and the law peculiar to them is chiefly to be found of India. in the Futwa Alumgiri, which purport to be decisions of Alumgir or Arungzebe. And in this work, together with the Hedayah and other treatises, we find some light thrown, not indeed upon the Indian land system, but upon the principles which the Mahomedans applied in their land system for conquered countries, when the conquest was sufficiently complete to enable them to do so. In other cases they were content with a tribute. It would be beyond our present scope to dwell upon the general characteristics of the Mahomedan invaders, and their general system of government; but one important point must be noticed. It appears to be pretty certain that the Mahome- Their system dan system of government was throughout a non-hereditary ary. system; while the Hindoo system was essentially hereditary. Sir George Campbell says:-"The Mahomedan system is quite

non-heredit

f

LECTURE non-hereditary,-I may say anti-hereditary.""

II.

The Hindoo system hereditary.

Struggle

between the two systems.

On the other hand, the Hindoo system was a distinct contrast in this respect in all its grades, from the hereditary rajah to the hereditary village dancing girl. And so we find that while the Hindoo officers succeeded to their office simply by descent, or by the mixture of descent and election which, as we have seen, sometimes prevailed, yet this established hereditary right was not sufficient in Mahomedan times without some recognition by the State. One result of this difference between the two systems appears to have been that a long struggle between the opposing principles took place; the Hindoos clinging to the hereditary principle, and the Mahomedans seeking to cut it down as much as possible; and where it proved too strong for them, insisting at least upon the formal recognition of the principle of choice; for instance by requiring the acceptance of a sunnud and the payment of fees on succession in many cases. A system of government which was opposed to hereditary offices would The Mahome- naturally tend to become, if it was not originally, a highly centralised centralised government; in this again presenting a marked contrast to the Hindoo system with its village communities. In this respect also there seems to have been a struggle between the two opposite principles; and the village communities ceased to develop and tended to decay under Mahomedan rule. We shall, as we proceed, see traces of the struggles above referred to; especially in the proceed

dan system a

one.

The Mahome-ings of Jaffier Khan. But before noticing the course

dan land

theory.

actually pursued by the Mahomedans with regard to the land, it will be useful to see what their theory was.

Cobden Club Essay, 152.

Patton's Asiatic Monarchies, 81. Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 169, 226.