Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LECTURE

V.

[blocks in formation]

the zemindars in reality managed to exact much more. Cossim Ali having discovered this practice endeavoured to transfer the benefit of it from the zemindars to himself, by levying the serf as an abwab. This was an anna and a half in the rupee upon the whole hustabood or gross revenue including the former abwabs. This charge was, as just mentioned, formerly allowed against the revenue; it came under the head of deh khurcha or village expenses." A similar abwab had been expressly prohibited by Akbar.3 Cossim Ali also increased the jumma by enhancing the assessment of insufficiently assessed lands, by assessing resumed jageers, and by enforcing the payment of towfeer, or excess of revenue over that assigned as jageer. These were called abwabs, but were as appears partly of a different nature; being not extra exactions, at least in some cases, but the resumption of revenue abstracted without authority. They were called (1), the keffyet hustabood, or increase of the assessment upon lands insufficiently assessed, and resumption of revenue assigned for the support of the military establishments, which had been reduced;* (2), keffyet foujdaran, a similar increase from the military frontier jurisdictions of the foujdars, who were in the habit of levying increased revenue for their own benefit; and (3), towfeer jageer-daran, the excess of the actual revenue received by the jageerdars above the amount assigned to them.6

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 216, 299.

• Ib., 216.

Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 386. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 294 to 296. 5 Ib., 301 to 307.

6 Ib., 307 to 309.

[ocr errors]

THE STATE SHARE OF THE PRODUCE.

185

LECTURE

V.

This general description of the abwabs will convey a sufficient idea of their nature without descending to details.1 These with the assul-jumma make up the total jumma. From the gross jumma, as we have seen, various deductions were made under the head of muzkoorat in order to arrive at the net jumma. And the amount assigned as jageer had also to be excluded in arriving at the net jumma. The full particulars of the jumma for each village and pergunnah were contained in a record called a tuckseem. This contained The tuckseem. complete details of the boundaries, rights to markets and gunges, the rights in the land, and all other matters connected with the revenue. The aggregate of these formed the toomar or rent-roll of the Soubah.3

It now remains to ascertain the proportion of produce Proportion of produce taken taken by the State as revenue in Mahomedan times. And as revenue. upon this point there is a good deal of difference of opinion; and the proportion seems to have varied in different parts of the country. I shall give the various opinions.

Sir George Campbell says the State, before British rule, took from one-fourth to half of the gross produce, onethird and two-fifths being the most common proportions.* The Fifth Report puts the State proportion at three-fifths in fully settled land, leaving the cultivator two-fifths. Out of the three-fifths taken by the State, the zemindar and

'See an abstract of the abwabs, Fifth Report, Vol. I, p. 309, et seq. See an instance of a local abwab in the dehdary of the Bhaugulpore district, Ib., 216.

[blocks in formation]

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 173, 181, 360, 361. Harington's Analysis,

Vol. III, 233.

[merged small][ocr errors]

LECTURE

V.

186

THE STATE SHARE OF THE PRODUCE.

village officers had to be paid; that is the deduction had to be made for muzkoorat, including nankar, and amounting theoretically to one-tenth. These deductions, as already pointed out, were to meet the whole cost of collection.' Mr. Shore gives two different opinions: his earlier opinion is that Government took one-third, but his later opinion puts the Government share at from one-half to three-fifths. Mr. Elphinstone says one-third is a moderate assessment, and that the full share is one-half. Mr. Grant says the proportion taken was one-fourth, which he considers moderate. It is said that in the havillies, that is the lands under direct Government management, the State share was two-fifths of the gross produce of paddy (or nunjah) lands, which was taken in kind; and out of this share payments were made to village servants, charitable and religious purposes and public works: that a lower rate was charged on dry grain (punjah) and taken in money, but varying with the produce; and that a fixed money rent was taken on lands yielding the best kind of produce and on garden lands, and this rate was lower than that for the punjah lands. In the Madras Presidency, except Malabar and Canara, the Government share is stated to have been from two-fifths to three-fifths of the gross produce of paddy land, this assessment being paid in kind after certain deductions made before the grain was threshed. The assessment for dry grain in the same districts was paid

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 19, 362, 367.

'Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 233 (note).
Fifth Report, Vol. I, 126, 599.

4 Elphinstone's History of India, 76.

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 274, 373.

6 Ib., Vol. II, 59

[blocks in formation]

V.

in cash at a fixed rate or varying with the produce.' In the LECTURE Northern Circars the ryot is stated to have retained only one-sixth, or at most one-fifth, under Mahomedan rule: but in Canara half, and in Malabar two-thirds. In Dindigul, after deducting 61 per cent. for the village officers, the gross produce was divided equally between the cultivator and the State.5

It is evident that no general statement as to the proportion taken by the State can be hazarded; the rate varying from the moderate assessments of Hindoo times to the extreme Mahomedan claim of from one-half to three-fifths. In Behar many villages were assessed at half or even nine-、 sixteenths of the gross produce, paid in kind on the buttai principle. On the whole, we come to the conclusion that the proportion taken by the Mahomedans was in later times very much greater than the original Hindoo rate, and that it everywhere tended to increase, and in some parts it increased until the cultivators were left with the barest possible subsistence, which the greed of rulers and zemindars was still eager to diminish. Under such circumstances the value of the ryot's holding was scarcely appreciable, and the only valuable right in the land was the right to receive the revenue; a right of which the zemindar, as the result of the struggle between himself and the State, retained the main benefit.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 571, 699.

2 Ib., 9.

3 Ib., 80.

'Ib., 83.

Ib., 699. See Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 324. "Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 73.

LECTURE VI.

THE PAYMENT OF REVENUE: ASSIGNMENTS OF
REVENUE.

Payment of

revenue.

Payment originally in kind.

Payment of revenue-Payment originally in kind-Mode of ascertaining share to be paid-Payment in kind fell into disuse-Remedies for non-payment— Application of the revenue-Jageers-Lakhiraj-Milk-Practice of assigning revenue very ancient-Growth of jageers-These grants usually of revenue and not of land-Zemindar's rights in jageer lands-Milk and muddud-mash grants-Altumghas-Jageers-Purposes for which jageers were granted-The jageer now hereditary and alienable-The conditional jageer-The unconditional jageer-Yetool-Powers and liabilities of the jageerdar-Dues to zemindars and the State-The Nizam's and Lord Clive's jageers-Tunkas-The sunnud-Seyurghal grants-Ayma grants-Malgoozary aymas-Enams and mauniums-Chakeran grants-Pykes-Services-Ghatwals-Power to resume grant-Alienations of revenue by zemindars-Allowances in the muzkooratDewusthan-Zemindars made very extensive alienations of revenue-Khewut -Rights in land-Express law-Custom -The Hindoo system one of joint property-Want of market for land and of marketable value-The soil itself not claimed by any one-The sovereign's claim to the soil-The zemindar's claim to the soil-The cultivator's claim to the soil.

WE have now to consider the mode in which the revenue was paid and the means of enforcing payment. This, with some description of the rights arising out of the distribution and application of the revenue, will conclude my account of the Mahomedan period.

We have seen that Akbar's attempt to substitute a money payment for a payment in kind was not universally successful; and it was particularly in Bengal that it obtained only a partial acceptance. The revenue long continued, and to the present time still continues in many parts, to be paid in kind by the cultivator. But when the zemindar was employed, it was his duty to convert the

« ПредишнаНапред »