Mughal Land Revenue System

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

The alienation of the peasant’s surplus produce in the form of land revenue was the central feature of the agrarian system under the Mughals. British administrators, working from the notion that the king was the owner of all land, regarded land revenue as rent of the soil. Subsequent studies of Mughal India, however, have shown that it was in fact a tax on the crop, fundamentally different from the concept of land revenue as understood by the British.

Abul Fazl, in the Ain-i-Akbari, justified the imposition of taxes by the state by describing them as the “remuneration of sovereignty,” paid by the subject in return for protection and justice. The Persian terms used for land revenue during Mughal rule were mal and mal wajib; the term kharaj was not in regular use. Understanding the Mughal land revenue system — its methods of assessment, the magnitude of demand, modes of payment and collection, and the machinery of administration that sustained it — is essential for UPSC History Optional aspirants, as it lies at the heart of the medieval Indian agrarian economy.

The process of land revenue collection under the Mughals involved two distinct stages:

Assessment (tashkhis/jama) — made to fix the state’s demand.
Actual collection (hasil) — carried out separately for the kharif and rabi crops, on the basis of the assessed demand.

Methods of Land Revenue Assessment

Under the Mughals, assessment was made separately for the kharif and rabi crops. Once assessment was complete, a written document called a patta, qaul, or qaul-qarar was issued, specifying the amount or rate of the revenue demand. In return, the assessee was required to furnish a qabuliyat — a written acceptance of the obligation imposed on him, stating when and how the payment would be made.

Several methods of assessment were commonly employed:

Ghalla Bakhshi (Crop-Sharing)

Also known in some areas as bhaoli and batai.
The Ain-i-Akbari records three types of crop-sharing:
- Division at the threshing floor: The crop was divided after the grain had been obtained, in the presence of both parties, in accordance with mutual agreement.
- Khet batai: The share was decided while the crop was still standing in the fields, with a physical division of the field marked out.
- Lang batai: The crop was cut and stacked in heaps without separating the grain, and the division was made in this unthreshed form.
Malikzada’s Nigarnama-i-Munshi (late 17th century) describes crop-sharing as the best method of revenue assessment and collection, since under this system the peasant and the state shared the risks of the season equally.
However, as Abul Fazl notes, it was an expensive method from the state’s point of view, since it required a large number of watchmen to prevent misappropriation before the harvest was gathered — when Aurangzeb introduced this system in the Deccan, the cost of revenue collection doubled simply on account of organising a watch over the crops.

Kankut / Danabandi

The term kankut is derived from kan (grain) and kut (to estimate or appraise); similarly, dana means grain and bandi means fixing or determining.
It was a system in which the grain yield or productivity of the land was estimated.
Process: The field was first measured, either by rope or by pacing. The per-bigha productivity of good, middling, and bad land was then estimated, and the revenue demand was fixed accordingly.

Zabti

The zabti system was the most important method of assessment in Mughal India. Its origin is traced to Sher Shah, though the system underwent several revisions during Akbar’s reign before assuming its final shape.

Sher Shah’s Rai System:
- Sher Shah established a rai, or per-bigha yield, for land under continuous cultivation (polaj) as well as land that was rarely allowed to lie fallow (parauti).
- This rai was based on three rates — representing good, middling, and low yields — and one-third of the sum of these three rates was appropriated as land revenue.
- Akbar adopted Sher Shah’s rai as the basis of his own system.
Akbar’s Karori Experiment (1574–75):
- Akbar introduced the karori experiment, appointing karoris across North India and converting the entire jagir into khalisa land.
- Under this experiment, the measurement of all provinces was carried out, using bamboo rods fitted with iron rings (tanab) in place of the earlier hempen ropes.
- On the basis of productivity and prevailing prices, regions were divided for revenue purposes into dastur circles, with cash assessment rates fixed for each crop in every dastur, and the demand determined accordingly.
Ain Dahsala (1580):
- On the basis of information supplied by the karoris regarding actual produce, local prices, and productivity, Akbar instituted the new Ain Dahsala system in 1580, under which the average produce of different crops and the average prices prevailing over the preceding ten years were calculated.
- One-third of the average produce formed the state’s minimum share.

Main Features of the Zabti System:

Measurement of land was essential.
Fixed cash revenue rates, known as dastur-ul-amal or dastur, were set for each crop.
All collection was made in cash.

Merits of the Zabti System:

Measurement could always be rechecked.
Fixed dasturs left local officials with little room for discretion.
The permanent dastur greatly reduced uncertainty and fluctuation in the levying of land revenue.

Demerits of the Zabti System:

It could not be applied where the quality of the soil was not uniform.
Where the yield was uncertain, the method proved disadvantageous to peasants, since the entire risk was borne by them alone — as Abul Fazl observes, “If the peasant does not have the strength to bear zabt, the practice of taking a third of the crop as revenue is followed.”
It was an expensive method, as a cess of one dam per bigha, known as zabitana, was levied to meet the cost of maintaining the measuring party.
Considerable fraud could be practised in recording the measurements.

The zabti system was adopted only in the core region of the Empire, covering the main provinces of Delhi, Allahabad, Awadh, Agra, Lahore, and Multan. Even within these zabti provinces, other methods of assessment continued to be practised depending on local circumstances.

Nasaq

Nasaq was not an independent method of assessment but a procedure subordinate to whichever basic method of revenue assessment and collection was in force.
In North India, it was applied as nasaqi zabti; in Kashmir, as nasaqi ghalla bakhshi.
When applied under zabti, the annual measurement was dispensed with, and previous figures were adopted with certain variations.
Since the zabti system required annual measurement — a process both the administration and the revenue payers wished to avoid — the practice of zabti-i-harsala (annual measurement) was set aside, with modifications, in favour of nasaq.

Revenue Farming (Ijara)

Ijara, or revenue farming, was another feature of the Mughal revenue system. Although the Mughals disapproved of the practice as a rule, certain villages were, in actual fact, sometimes farmed out.
Villages were typically farmed out on ijara when peasants lacked the resources to undertake cultivation, or where cultivation had been disrupted by some calamity.
- Revenue officials and their relatives were barred from taking land on ijara.
- Revenue farmers were expected not to extract more than the stipulated land revenue from the peasants — though in practice, this was rarely observed.
The practice of ijara was uncommon in the zabti provinces, in Gujarat, and in the Mughal Dakhin; it was also very rare on khalisa lands.
- It became a common feature, however, on jagir lands, where jagirdars farmed out their assignments in return for a lump-sum payment, generally to the highest bidder. Jagirdars sometimes sub-assigned part of their jagirs to their subordinates or troopers.
During the 18th century, ijara became a common form of revenue assessment and collection.

Magnitude of Land Revenue Demand

Abul Fazl held that no moral limits could be set on the ruler’s demand from his subjects: “the subject ought to be thankful even if he were made to part with all his possessions by the protector of his life and honour.” He added that “just sovereigns” would not exact more than what was required for their needs — which, of course, they themselves would determine.
Aurangzeb explicitly stated that land revenue should be appropriated according to the shariat, i.e., not more than one-half of the total produce.
The European traveller Pelsaert, who visited India in the early 17th century, observed that “so much is wrung from the peasants that even dry bread is scarcely left to fill their stomachs.”
Irfan Habib comments that the “revenue demand, accompanied by other taxes and the regular and irregular exactions of officials, was a heavy burden on the peasantry.”

Historical rates:

Sher Shah established three crop rates based on soil productivity and fixed the demand at one-third of the average of these three rates for each crop.
Abul Fazl notes that under Akbar, Sher Shah’s one-third revenue demand formed the lowest rate of assessment.
Recent studies indicate that the revenue demand under the Mughals ranged between one-third and one-half of the produce, and in some areas reached as high as three-fourths. The demand varied considerably from suba to suba:
- Kashmir: The demand in theory was one-third but, in practice, was actually two-thirds of the total produce; Akbar ordered that only one-half should be demanded.
- Thatta: In the province of Thatta (Sind), land revenue was taken at the rate of one-third.
- Ajmer: Rates varied across the suba — in the fertile regions of eastern Rajasthan, the demand ranged from one-third to one-half of the produce, while Irfan Habib, drawing on the Ain-i-Akbari, notes that in the desert regions the proportion amounted to only one-seventh of the crop.
- Central India: Rates varied from one-half to one-third to two-fifths.
- Deccan: One-half was appropriated from ordinary lands, one-third from land irrigated by wells, and one-fourth from high-grade crops.
Aurangzeb’s farman to Rasik Das Karori stipulated that where crop-sharing was resorted to — usually in cases of distressed peasantry — the proportion levied should be one-half, one-third, or two-fifths.
Revenue rates under Aurangzeb were generally higher than those under Akbar, though this may reflect a general rise in agricultural prices rather than any real change in the actual pitch of demand.
In Rajasthan, revenue rates are reported to have varied according to the class or caste of the revenue payer — Satish Chandra and Dilbagh Singh have shown that Brahmins and Banias paid revenue at concessional rates in a certain pargana of eastern Rajasthan.

It may safely be assumed that, in general, the rate of revenue demand ranged from one-half to one-third of the produce. Since revenue was imposed per unit of area uniformly, irrespective of the nature of the holding, the system was inherently regressive: those with large landholdings felt the burden less acutely than those with small holdings.

Mode of Payment

Under the zabti system, the peasant was required to pay revenue in cash, with no provision on record for the commutation of cash into kind under any circumstances.
Under crop-sharing and kankut, however, commutation into cash was permitted at prevailing market prices.
The cash nexus was thus firmly established across almost every part of the Empire.

Collection of Land Revenue

Under ghalla bakhshi, the state’s share was seized directly from the field; under other systems, the state collected its share at the time of harvest.
Abul Fazl notes that “collection should begin for rabi from Holi and for kharif from Dashehra.”
- In the kharif season, since different crops were harvested at different times, revenue collection also proceeded in three stages, depending on the type of crop — meaning that kharif revenue could only be collected in instalments.
The authorities generally tried to collect revenue before the harvest was cut and removed from the fields. By the end of the 17th century, in desperation, they had begun preventing peasants from reaping their fields until the revenue due had been paid.
- Irfan Habib comments: “It shows how oppressive it was to demand the revenue from the peasant before the harvest, when he would have absolutely nothing left. The practice was at the same time the work of a well-developed money economy, for it would have been impossible to attempt it unless the officials expected that the peasants would pay up by pledging their crops beforehand to grain merchants or moneylenders.”
Revenue was usually deposited in the treasury through the amil, or revenue collector, although Akbar encouraged peasants to pay directly.
- Todar Mal recommended that peasants of trusted villages be allowed to deposit their revenue in the treasury themselves, within the stipulated time limit, and obtain a receipt in return.
- The village accountant, or patwari, made an endorsement in his register to record the amount paid.
- Irfan Habib regards these regulations as precautionary measures adopted by the administration to guard against fraud and embezzlement.

Relief Measures

Abbas Khan, in the Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, records that “Sher Shah declared that concessions could be permitted at the time of assessment, but never at the time of collection.”
Aurangzeb, in his farman to Muhammad Hashim Karori, instructed that no remissions were to be allowed once the crop had been cut.
Nonetheless, whatever the method of assessment, some provision for relief existed in the event of a bad harvest:
- Under ghalla bakhshi and kankut, the state’s share would naturally rise and fall with the current harvest.
- Under zabti, relief was granted by excluding the area designated nabud from assessment altogether.
In practice, it was rarely possible to collect the entire assessed amount, and a balance was typically carried forward for collection in the following year.
- It also appears to have been a common practice to demand arrears — owed by peasants who had fled or died — from their neighbours. Aurangzeb issued a hasb-ul-hukm in A.D. 1674–75 to check this practice on khalisa and jagir lands, arguing that no peasant could be held responsible for arrears contracted by others.
Taqavi (“strength-giving”) loans were granted to enable peasants to purchase seeds and cattle.
- Abul Fazl writes that “the amalguzar should assist the empty-handed peasants by advancing them loans.”
- Todar Mal suggested that taqavi be given to cultivators in distressed circumstances who lacked seeds or cattle.
- These loans were interest-free, normally repaid at the time of harvest, and were advanced through the chaudhris and muqaddams. Abul Fazl advised that such loans should be recovered slowly.
New wells were dug and old ones repaired for the extension and improvement of cultivation.

Land Revenue Administration

Considerable information survives regarding the revenue machinery of khalisa lands, though the information available for jagir administration is comparatively scanty. Since jagirdars were transferred every two or three years, they typically lacked knowledge of the revenue-paying capacity of the people and local customs in their assignments. Consequently, three types of officials operated within the system:

Officials and agents of the jagirdars.
Permanent local officials — many hereditary — who were generally unaffected by the frequent transfer of jagirdars.
Imperial officials appointed to help and control the jagirdars.

At the rural level, several revenue officials operated:

Karori (or Amil)

The office of karori was created in 1574–75. Abul Fazl describes the karori as being in charge of both the assessment and collection of revenue.
An important change occurred during Shah Jahan’s reign, when amins were appointed in every mahal and entrusted with the work of assessment. After this change, the karori (or amil) remained concerned chiefly with the collection of revenue that had already been assessed by the amin.
The karori was appointed by the diwan of the province and was expected to look after the interests of the peasantry.
The accounts of the actual collection made by the karori and his agents were audited with the help of the village patwari’s papers.

Amin

The next most important revenue official, the office of amin was created during Shah Jahan’s reign, with the primary function of assessing revenue.
He too was appointed by the diwan, and was jointly responsible, along with the karori and faujdar, for the safe transit of collected revenue.
The faujdar of the province kept a vigilant eye on the activities of both the amin and the karori, and also recommended their promotion.

Qanungo

The qanungo was the local revenue official of the pargana, generally belonging to one of the accountant castes. The post was hereditary, though an imperial order was still required for the nomination of each new incumbent.
The Nigarnama-i-Munshi holds the qanungo responsible for malpractices, noting that “they have no fear of being transferred or deposed” — though a qanungo could, in fact, be removed by imperial order for malpractice or negligence of duty.
He was responsible for maintaining records concerning revenue receipts, area statistics, local revenue rates, and the practices and customs of the pargana.
- Since the jagirdar’s agents were usually unfamiliar with the locality, they depended heavily on information supplied by the qanungos.
The qanungo was originally paid 1% of the total revenue as remuneration, though Akbar later began paying them a fixed salary.

Chaudhari

Like the qanungo, the chaudhari was an important revenue official, generally the leading zamindar of the locality.
He was mainly concerned with collection, stood surety for lesser zamindars, and distributed and guaranteed the repayment of taqavi loans — effectively serving as a countercheck on the qanungo.
According to the Dastur-ul-Amal Alamgiri, the formal allowance granted to the chaudhari was not very substantial, though he may well have held extensive revenue-free (inam) lands.

Shiqqdar

Under Sher Shah, the shiqqdar was in charge of both revenue collection and the maintenance of law and order. By the later part of Akbar’s reign, he had become a subordinate official under the karori.
Abul Fazl notes that in an emergency, the shiqqdar could sanction necessary disbursements, which were then duly reported to the court. He was also held responsible for thefts occurring within his jurisdiction.

Muqaddam and Patwari

The muqaddam and patwari were village-level officials.
The muqaddam, the village headman, was allowed 2.5% of the total revenue collected by him as remuneration for his services.
The patwari maintained records of village land, the holdings of individual cultivators, the variety of crops grown, and details of fallow land. The names of cultivators were entered in his bahi (ledger), and on the basis of this information, the bitikchi prepared the necessary papers and records for assessment and collection.

Other Pargana Officials

In each pargana, two further officials were stationed:
- The fotadar or khazandar — the treasurer.
- The karkun or bitikchi — the accountant.
Under Sher Shah, there were two karkuns — one to maintain records in Hindi and the other in Persian — but in A.D. 1583–84, Persian was made the sole language of accounts.
The faujdar represented the military or police power of the imperial government, one of his main duties being to assist the jagirdar or amil in collecting revenue from zortalab (refractory) zamindars and peasants.
Waqai-navis and sawanih-nigar (news writers) were also stationed to report cases of irregularity and oppression directly to the Centre.