Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

THE SECOND CLASS OF CULTIVATORS.

19

pean village communities. The right of this class of cultivators was so strong that even if they abandoned their holdings or lost them by not keeping up the cultivation or by failing to pay the revenue, they or their descendants could at any distance of time reclaim them on paying a sufficient compensation to the holder.1 They enjoyed also, probably in common with the other permanent cultivators, the use of the productions of the waste for the construction and repair of their houses and implements of husbandry, and had the right of pasturing their cattle upon the unoccupied lands of the village. These rights were similar to the rights of common in England. From the description I have given of the position of this class of ryots I think it clearly appears that they had proprietary rights of a very complete kind; but they do not seem to have been of that unlimited kind which we understand by a fee-simple.

LECTURE
I.

class of

The next class of ryots very nearly approach the position The second of the khoodkashts and are sometimes ranked with them. cultivators. There are however some differences which mark the distinction between the original settlers and those afterwards admitted to form part of the permanent village community.

The cultivators of this class are generally included in the class called pyekasht (cultivating in another village than their own), but sometimes the term pyekasht is restricted to those strictly so, the mere sojourners in the village, or those who living in another village cultivate land in the village with respect to which they are reckoned pyekashts. This second class of cultivators was also called chupper

1 Land Tenure by a Civilian, 82. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 87, 496; compare the nair mul guenies of Malabar and Canara, Fifth Report, Vol. II, 77, 78, 456, 467, 468, 472, 473, 481.

• Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 17.

I.

Their rights in the land.

tion sufficient.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE bund or judeed, names specially applied to immigrants who have permanently settled in the village to which they have emigrated.1 The passage from Sir George Campbell's essay referred to above seems to apply more especially to these cultivators; their right to a permanent interest in the soil, which nearly approaches that of the khoodkashts, depends upon their having settled as permanent inhabitants in the village, building and clearing and establishing themselves as members of the village community ready to undertake a share in the responsibilities attaching to that What occupa position. It does not depend on the length of time they have occupied, except that the disposition to become permanent settlers could hardly be satisfactorily proved without some length of possession. Accordingly those who had settled in the village for more than one generation were generally considered to have sufficiently shown their intention, and such settlers became recognised as chupperbund cultivators. They appear to have come in originally to cultivate land abandoned by the khoodkashts, to whom they paid russooms or fees, and to whom they were bound to surrender their holdings when required; but they were entitled to a proper compensation for the loss of them.5 They were called pyacarries and ool paracoodies in the Northern Circars and the South of India generally.6

3

Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 17.

4

2 Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 165. Directions for Revenue Officers, 65.

3 Robinson's Land Revenue, 15, 41. Great Rent Case, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 300.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 41, 42, 87, 301, 308, 490 to 493. Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 161, 162. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 81, 82.

5 Land Tenure by a Civilian, 82. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 87, 456, 496.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 41, 42, 87, 308, 491 to 493.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE
I.

Less complete

khoodkashts.

Uninterrupted occupation and succession gave them a prescriptive right to occupy, but there is no instance of sale of their holdings; they were in fact conditional occupants rights than and had not so complete a right as the khoodkashts.1 They could be dispossessed for default in payment of the assessment or for not keeping up the full extent of cultivation; but they could not reclaim their holdings as the khoodkashts could. They had no share in the management of the village or in the privileges of the khoodkashts.3 The right of the pyacarries of the Northern Circars is said to be a sort of life estate; but the right of this class appears to have grown to be an hereditary although inalienable right to occupy, paying the fixed assessment.5 That assessment Assessment was slightly lower in former times than that of the upon them. khoodkashts, but higher than that of the mere pyekashts. They received 45 per cent. of the crop as their share, instead of 50 per cent. which was the proportion the ordinary pyekashts received. Out of their share they had to pay fees to the khoodkashts.6

It is clear that this class of cultivators had a less complete proprietary right than the first class, but still

' Directions for Revenue Officers, 63. Evidence of Col. Briggs before the Select Committee of the House of Lords (1830), 4078, and of Lieut. Col. Barnewall before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 1744.

Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 162. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 301. Directions for Revenue Officers, 62, 63, 65.

3

Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 161, 162. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 81, 82.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 41, 42, 87, 308, 491 to 493.

5 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 301. Directions for Revenue Officers, 63. Evidence of Col. Briggs and Lieut. Col. Barnewall before cited.

• Fifth Report, Vol. II, 301.

I.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE they had a permanent hereditary proprietary right. This however was inalienable, and was otherwise subject to limitations and burdens from which the khoodkashts were exempt, and did not so completely incorporate them with the khoodkashts as to entitle them to the same position in the village.

The mere pyekashis.

The third class is that of the strict pyekashts who came from another village, usually a neighbouring one, to cultivate the lands of the village which the khoodkashts were unable to cultivate.1 They were called pyacarries, common paracoodies, and oopurees in different parts of India.2 They were mere tenants-at-will or more usually from year to year, but sometimes for fixed periods. They had to be attracted by favourable terms, since the competition formerly was for cultivators, and hence they got half Precarious na- the produce. They paid fees to the khoodkashts. They

Rates paid by them.

ture of their

rights.

were mere sojourners in the village or cultivated while living in neighbouring villages. This class of cultivators, although they had no proprietary right, could not be ousted

1 Evidence of Col. Briggs and Lieut.-Col. Barnewall before cited. Directions for Revenue Officers, 63. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 308. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 16. Robinson's Land Tenures, 15. 2 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 87. Steele's Deccan Castes, 207.

Land Tenure by a Civilian, 81. Colebrooke's Husbandry and Commerce in Bengal (Calcutta, 1804), 64. Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 157. Orissa, Vol. II, 206, 245. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 164; Vol. II, 8, 41, 308, 490, 494. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 64. Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 353. Whinfield's Landlord and Tenant, 16. Robinson's Land Tenures, 15. Thomason's Selections, 478. Directions for Revenue Officers, 61, 62, 64, 65. Evidence of Mr. H. Mackenzie before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 2572.

Fifth Report, Vol. II, 41, 42, 87, 308, 491 to 493. Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 165. Directions for Revenue Officers, 65.

[blocks in formation]

between sowing and harvest. They had of course no voice in the government of the village community, and altogether their interest was of an uncertain and precarious description. Such rights were left to be settled by contract, and were hardly allowed to come under the higher protection of custom, which regulated all the more important and permanent interests.

LECTURE
I.

constitution.

I pass now to the official constitution of the village The village corporation, so far as it is necessary to dwell upon it. I have already mentioned that the village was a corporation managing its own internal affairs. It was ruled by a Council of Elders, originally called a punchayet from the number of its members, and was presided over and represented in its fiscal and many of its other relations by its headman. With the village Council we have little concern; but the headman will require some fuller notice. Before however describing the position of the headman, I will give such further details as to the village officers and constitution as seem requisite.

officers.

The village was supplied with certain hereditary officers, The village whose number varied, but in the typical villages there appear to have been twelve (called ayagandras, in some parts of the Madras Presidency and barah bullooteh in the Deccan).

The headman was one of the twelve. The

'Land Tenure by a Civilian, 82.

2 Evidence of Col. Briggs and Lieut.-Col. Barnewall above cited. Compare the labourers of the Pullee caste in the Brahmin villages in the south of India (Fifth Report, Vol. II, 302), and the ryots of Dindigul (Fifth Report, Vol. II, 494).

In some villages more and in some fewer than those mentioned. Fifth Report Vol. II, 577. Evidence of Col. Sykes before the House of Commons' Select Committee (1832), 2173.

« ПредишнаНапред »