LECTURE II. be the amount of khiraj originally imposed, it could not, according to the strict model of Omar, be increased. If however it was not adjusted upon that model, it might be increased as was done in India; and in all cases it seems to have been lawful to reduce the rate, when from failure of crops the land was unable to bear the original rate.' The khiraj was also remitted when the land was over- Remission of khiraj. flowed by water, or when it was cut off from water, so that it could not be cultivated. Likewise, when the crop was destroyed by calamities, such as fire, excessive cold and the like. enforcing With regard to the mode of enforcing payment of the Mode of khiraj, there was also a distinction answering to the dif- payment. ference between the two classes of khiraj. The mookasumah khiraj was, at all events originally, paid in kind, like the Hindoo land-revenue. This mode was known in Hindoo times under the name buttai (or division)-a term which is still in use, and has outlived the term mookasumah, if that term was ever generally applied. In levying the khiraj by this method the State share was naturally taken before the crop was allowed to be removed.3 The main precaution required under this system was careful watching; and hence in Hindoo times the watchman of the crops was a necessary officer of the village. The wuzeefa khiraj being, on the other hand, a personal liability, the defaulter could be sued for it and imprisoned; while for the mookasumah the only remedy was the hold upon the crop. The cultivator could not LECTURE Procedure when cultivator made default. 50 DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF KHIRAJ. be deprived of his land for not paying the khiraj.' This is laid down generally, and it appears to be put upon the ground that such a course would be a violation of proprietary right: the law must therefore have recognised some proprietary right in the cultivator even in the mookasumah lands. This would be in accordance with the general principle that when the conquered inhabitants were allowed to retain their lands subject to khiraj, such lands remained their property. The course prescribed in case the cultivator made default in payment of the khiraj, or if he abandoned the land, or left it uncultivated, was that the Imam should endeavour to let the land to another cultivator, allowing him half, one-third, or one-fourth of the produce; and handing over the residue after payment of khiraj to the owner. If this could not be done, he should give it in mozaraut (or partnership), the cultivator and the State sharing the produce; and after deducting the khiraj from the State share, the surplus was to be paid to the owner. If this course was also impracticable, the Imam should let the land to any one who would cultivate it and simply pay the khiraj. In default of all these methods the land might be sold, and the khiraj paid out of the proceeds: but the surplus must still be paid to the owner; and even if he had absconded must be kept for him, in case he should return. In the persistent force both of the cultivator's right to the land and of his obligation to cultivate it and pay the tax, we find a strong resemblance to the position of the khoodkashts as they have come down to us from Hindoo times. How far this element in the observed phenomena is due to the influence of Mahomedan theory it is impossible to say: 'Baillie's Land Tax, xxiii, 14, 15. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 35, 36, 38. Baillie's Land Tax, xxiii. Land Tenure by a Civilian, 38. II. - as far as we can judge, these rights of the Hindoo khood- LECTURE kashts appear to have been analogous to, but not derived from, Mahomedan practice; and it is very probable that such analogies led the Mahomedans to disturb what they found existing so little as they seem to have done. There is only one more point in the Mahomedan theory Waste land. to be mentioned; and that is with respect to waste land. Waste land was considered the property of the State, that is of the community at large. It does not appear to have been considered the private property of the sovereign; or the property of the State in the same sense as the State share of the produce, which was at the absolute disposal of the State; but waste land seems to have been considered subject to the disposition of the sovereign for the benefit of the general body of the community. There is, however, nothing to show that anything but the privilege of bringing the waste land into cultivation was contemplated when the waste was disposed of. Whoever brought the waste into cultivation was considered as bringing it into life, as it is expressed in the Futwa Alumgiri. This could only be done, as I have said, with the Imam's permission; but when so authorised, the land brought into cultivation became the property of the cultivator.3 In later times the power to sanction the cultivation of waste land was assumed by the zemindars,-at first as representatives of the State in their capacity as officers of State, but in course of time as a proprietary right. This, as we shall see, was one of the many rights gradually acquired by the zemindars as personal rights by a kind of usurpation. 1 Land Tenure by a Civilian, 89. 2 Baillie's Land Tax, xl. 'Baillie's Land Tax, lvi. LECTURE Similarity between Mahomedan and Hindoo systems. The Mahome dans continued the Hindoo system. 52 SIMILARITY OF THE HINDOO AND MAHOMEDAN SYSTEMS. It will be seen, from the description I have given of the Mahomedan theory, that there are many points of resemblance between the Mahomedan theory and the Hindoo practice; most of these points of resemblance I have noticed already. The doctrine as to waste, a further point as to which the Hindoo and Mahomedan laws are almost identical, is to a certain extent the basis of both; but it is also the basis of most theories as to the land, and can hardly be claimed as a distinctive feature of these systems in particular. The result of the similarity we have observed might be expected to be a disposition on the part of the conquerors to allow the collection of the revenue to continue on the same principles as before, and this tendency would be very much strengthened by the gradual nature of the Mahomedan conquest: the new rulers would probably be glad to employ, as far as they could, the Hindoo agencies in the collection of revenue, as well as to continue the Hindoo principles; and their ignorance of the practical working details of the system would further confirm the tendency to such a course as I have suggested. And we find that this is very much what actually happened. In the same way that the English continued for a considerable time to employ the native agencies, and for like reasons, the Mahomedans also long kept to the old system. At first the conquerers put some of the Hindoo princes under tribute, without interfering in the internal government of their states: but probably the more completely subdued states were from the first ruled direct by the Mahomedans. Ultimately the greater part of the country came under their immediate rule, and the tributary princes 1 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 6. Baillie's Land Tax, xxvii. THE HINDOO SYSTEM SUBSTANTIALLY CONTINUED, 53 were either expelled or sank into the position of taxcollectors or zemindars.' But no material change appears to have been made in the revenue system. As I have suggested, this may have been partly from the similarity of the system they found existing to that which they would have been inclined to introduce. The revenue paid by the cultivators was similar to the khiraj they would have imposed: and the rights and obligations of the cultivators were similar to those indicated by their own law. But whatever may have been the cause, whether entirely from a feeling of weakness and inability to take the complex details of revenue collection into their own hands; or partly for this reason and partly from the similarity of the Hindoo system to their own; or for neither of these reasons; we do not find that any great change was immediately introduced by them. They did not divide the lands amongst themselves as conquerors: perhaps they were not strong enough to do so if they had desired; but they do not seem to have desired it. They did not impose the khiraj as a new impost, but merely collected the tax already imposed, making however early attempts to increase its amount. They did not displace the native revenue officers, although the action of their general system of government produced, in course of time, considerable changes in the status of those officers. LECTURE II. The khiraj does not seem to have been imposed formally, The khiraj not formally if at all, before the time of Ala-ood-deen, or perhaps of imposed. Akbar. And although the principle of Akbar's system was to abolish the division of the produce, and to substitute a fixed rate for the beegah, it is not clear that this was done 1 Baillie's Land Tax, xxvii. Baillie's Land Tax, xxvii, xxviii. |