Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

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
I.

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.

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 personsResemblance 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

from the

Hindoo to the the changes introduced during that period.

Mahomedan

period not a sudden one.

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 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

our era.

[blocks in formation]

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.

dan invaders

The invaders of India were Mahomedans of the Hanifite The Mahomesect, 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

II.

The Hindoo Bystem hereditary.

Struggle between the two systems.

42

THE HINDOO AND MAHOMEDAN SYSTEMS.

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

1 Cobden Club Essay, 152.

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

[blocks in formation]

That theory is somewhat complicated; but I shall dwell, as far as possible, only upon that part of it which is more directly applicable to India.

LECTURE

II.

When the inhabitants of a country conquered by the The Khiraj. Mahomedans were left in the enjoyment of their own land,

a tax called the khiraj was to be imposed upon them. There was another form of the land-tax for Mussulmans: The Ooshr. this was called the ooshr, and could only be imposed upon believers. The ooshr was of course a lighter tax, being only imposed on land actually productive and in respect of the actual produce; while the khiraj was imposed on all land capable of production, whether actually made productive or not.1

Irak.

The Sowad of Irak appears to have been the typical The Sowad of khiraj land. The khiraj was there imposed by Omar. But a tax of the same kind as the khiraj had been before levied there under the Persian rulers of the country: this was based upon a division of the produce between the sovereign and the cultivator. Cobad, one of the Persian sovereigns of the Sowad, considering this method an oppressive one, contemplated a measurement of all the arable land of his empire, but died before he could carry out his intention. The scheme, upon which he appears to have begun to act, was however carried to completion by his son Noorshevan,3 who imposed a fixed rate in grain or grain and money as the khiraj: this was apparently equivalent to one-third of the produce, and was assessed on the jureeb or beegah.5

1 Baillie's Land Tax. Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 349, 350. Baillie's Land Tax, xiv.

' Baillie's Land Tax, xvii. • Baillie's Land Tax, xvii. * Baillie's Land Tax, xxix.

Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 347.
Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 347, 348.
Ayeen Akbery, Vol. I, 350.

« ПредишнаНапред »