Agrarian Structure On The Eve Of The British Rule Part 2
Contents
- Introduction
- Aspects of Agricultural Production in North India
- Agricultural Production and Relations in South India
- The Medieval Deccan and Maharashtra
- Conclusion
Introduction
The nature of the Indian economy prior to the British conquest has been a subject of heated discussion among historians, as was mentioned in the previous post. The latter was curious as to whether the Indian economy possessed the components necessary for the later emergence of capitalism. The question has also been raised as to whether or not colonial intervention was required for capitalism to enter the Indian economy. We provide an overview of the agrarian structure on the eve of British Rule in this module based on such historiographical literature. The work of H Fukazawa. is closely mimicked in this post. In its depiction of the agrarian structure of Maharashtra and the Deccan, Fukazawa. In terms of Burton Stein's work, it achieves the same results for South India. The eminent historian of Mughal India, Irfan Habib, is also mentioned in every sentence referring to that era. The underlying presumption is that knowledge of the agrarian structure in Mughal India, South India, Maharashtra, and the Deccan implies a general knowledge of the Indian agrarian structure just before British rule.
Aspects of Agricultural Production in North India
Economic historians generally concur that the abundance of both food and non-food crops characterized Indian agriculture. The Indian peasants stood out from their counterparts in other parts of the world in terms of the sheer variety of crops they produced. The peasants in other places were limited to a small number of crops. For instance, the Ain-i Akbari provides revenue rates for 25 crops of the kharif (autumn) harvest that were grown in all or all but one of the revenue circles in the Agra province. The Ain-i Akbari also provides revenue rates for sixteen crops of the rabi (spring) harvest that were grown in all of the revenue circles in the Agra province with three others not being grown in all. Up to 41 different crops could be grown in each locality in a single year. In the Ain-i Akbar rates for other provinces, a similar variety of assessed crops is present. The Indian peasant not only grew a variety of crops, but he was also open to trying out new ones. Two important crops, tobacco and maize, were developed and spread during the seventeenth century. They were both newcomers to the country. Its cultivation had started on the western coast shortly after 1600, but by 1650, it had spread to nearly every region of the Mughal empire (Habib 1982).
Irfan Habib and other historians highlight the peasantry's mobility as a fascinating aspect of Mughal agriculture. Babur is quoted by Habib as saying, "In Hindustan, hamlets, villages, and even towns are depopulated and set up in a moment! If people from a large town who have lived there for years flee, they do so in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains in a day or day and a half. On the other hand, if they set their sights on a location to call home, they won't need to build dams or dig watercourses because all of their crops are grown through rain. A group gathers and instructs a tankor to dig a well; they are not required to erect walls or build houses because there are abundant trees and khas grass nearby, and a village or town can be seen directly ahead. " .
The prevalent system of agricultural production also possessed the quality of having plenty of land. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, most regions had access to large tracts of undeveloped land. It appears that peasants organized into communities regularly abandon old lands and settle new ones. Perhaps some peasants changed their farming practices on a personal level as well. Habib refers to a class of peasants known as pdikdsht or pdbikdsht who farmed land in settlements other than their own. Though it's possible that this wasn't a standard procedure. The average productivity of the land also barely changed over the course of the three centuries, from the 17th to the 19th. According to Habib, it's possible that 1595 had higher productivity per head (as opposed to per acre) than it did in the 1870s or 1900s. The average peasant holding in 1595 was more likely to be close to the optimum size than it was in 1900 because more land was available and cultivation methods remained the same.
Additionally, as was mentioned in the earlier module, the Indian peasantry was highly stratified economically, and there were significant differences in the size of holdings, produce obtained, and resources of the peasants even within the same villages. On the one hand, there were the large peasants, or headmen (muquddams), who plan khwudkdsht (cultivation under their own management). They use laborers as their servants, assigning them agricultural tasks such as plowing, sowing, reaping, and drawing water from wells. They pay them a fixed wage, whether in cash or grain, and allot to them the gross harvest. On the other end of the spectrum were the small peasants who worked in agriculture but wholly relied on borrowing for their food, seed, and livestock. Even if the absolute size of the agricultural product, or even the per capita product, in Mughal India was impressive, this does not necessarily imply that agricultural production was carried out at a smooth or even pace. On the other hand, there were two factors, one natural and the other human, which caused violent setbacks or serious interruptions to agricultural life.
The unpredictability, lack, or abundance of rain was the first factor in the climate. The Indian agricultural industry is infamously dependent on the monsoons. Every major famine, which was frequently accompanied by pestilence, had horrifying mortality rates because there were insufficient ways to transport grain in bulk. It is estimated that 3 million people perished during the Gujarati famine between 1630 and 1632. According to legend, 2 million people in the Deccan perished from starvation between the years 1702–3 and 1703–4. Even though these numbers are just educated guesses, they are still significant because they demonstrate how high mortality was at the time. The Gujarat famine of 1630–1632 permanently disrupted the local economy. The villages were completely empty, and the remaining peasants who had survived gave up cotton farming for food when they finally started to "fill but slowly" late in 1634. Even by 1647, Gujarat's agriculture had not fully recovered, as the province's revenues had not yet recovered to their pre-famine levels. The effects of the famine were still evident in 1638.
Impact of the agrarian exploitation system should be taken into account as the second factor. It has been argued that because the land revenue essentially covered the entire surplus produce raised by the peasant and because it was a retrogressive tax, falling disproportionately on the smaller peasantry, because it represented a fixed share of the produce or a fixed cash-rate on the crop per unit of area, it was unfairly burdensome. Additionally, the jdgir transfer system promoted unchecked peasant spoliation by the potentates. Peasants as a result of this widely abandoned their land. It would probably be reasonable to rule out any spectacular increase in the extent of cultivation during the Mughal period given the repeated setbacks to agricultural production caused by famines and the pressure that Mughal agrarian exploitation exerted on the peasantry. As in the Terai or eastern Bengal, there were areas that were reclaimed from waste or forest; however, such reclamation did not exclude the concurrent process of depopulation in other areas.
Agricultural Production and Relations in South India
The following were some of the most significant aspects of agricultural production in South India: (i) the tropical climate allowing agricultural operations throughout the year; (2) more evenly distributed rains than in Northern India (combination of South-Western and South-Eastern Monsoons), which to some extent made it really possible to vary dates of sowing and harvesting of some crops; (3) large quantity of unoccupied lands, absence of land-starvation, and, on the contrary, a short growing season. An entire village or a collection of villages would typically complete the construction of an irrigation system because it would require more labor than a single household could provide. The construction of reservoirs, canals, sluices, etc. was more frequently organized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by local officials and representatives of the central government. than before. Due to the belief that irrigation was a religiously significant endeavor, inscriptions describing the building of tanks, dams, and other structures can be found throughout the entire history of southern India. However, only 3 to 7% of the cultivated land in the majority of southern India at the beginning of the nineteenth century was irrigated. Only in Tanjore, where irrigation was particularly feasible, was this ratio closer to 50%. In the Middle Ages, managing the irrigation system was frequently unprofitable. Maybe as often as they were built, tanks and canals were neglected and abandoned. Paddy, the most significant food grain in southern India, was the primary crop grown on the wet lands. Even the marginal peasant, who made up every household, had to put in more work. In some cases, this extra labor was given by cooperative farming, but it was also occasionally done by castes of untouchables who were in economic hardship. There was a sizeable group of landless laborers who were required to work in other people's homes due to their social and economic dependence. According to historian Dharma Kumar, untouchable caste laborers made up between 10 and 15 percent of the Madras Presidency's population at the beginning of the nineteenth century and between 15 and 25 percent of the region's agricultural population. The untouchables were relatively less numerous in Rayalasima, Baramahal, and Mysore, but their labor was more valued in eastern Tamilnadu and Kerala.
The small-peasant household, which depended on the householder's own labor, was just one type of agricultural production unit. Furthermore, there were two additional types that were somewhat common, i. e. the type of large peasant household where the householder managed the work of laborers who were reliant on him and attached to the land while also participating in it to a lesser extent. The social structure of India reversed the effect of economic factors. A significant portion of the population from high castes believed physical labor to be degrading and some agricultural practices to be forbidden, and they actively sought to avoid taking part in the production processes, which in part contributed to the labor shortage.
In addition to millets like ragi, varagu, and cholam, rice was the primary food grain. a,,,,,,,,,,,,, the,,,,,, The most crucial commodity at the time was rice. In order to purchase Ragi and cholam for their own consumption, the lower classes of the population sold the rice they produced (apart from the portion taken in kind as a tax). Other goods included cotton, chilli, oil-producing crops (sesame, flax, and groundnut), pepper, which was primarily grown on the Malabar Coast. Village bazaars and fairs where the retail trade in rice, betel leaves, pulses, ragi, oil, pepper, milk, jaggery, and artisans' goods took place are mentioned in inscriptions from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and earlier. A system for producing commodities has not yet been established, despite the connections between the rural population and the market. Since the reproduction of the farming tools was taking place within the village on the basis of organic trade between the craftspeople (the blacksmith, the carpenter, etc.), agriculture remained largely natural. the cultivator, and. Thus, the extensive agricultural system that was developed and historically established in southern India was focused on labor-saving rather than land-saving. It guaranteed a clear and comparatively high level of agricultural productivity, but further growth on the basis of the same system was not possible. This system was bound to experience a sharp decline in productivity as it did later, with the increase in population and cultivation of the less productive lands. The system of traditional services provided by artisans who made agricultural implements, as well as the widespread use of dependent laborers who were uninterested in the outcomes of their labor, were the main barriers to an intensification of the production methods.
The Medieval Deccan and Maharashtra
The name of the village in the Medieval Western Deccan is gdnva (from Sanskrit grama), mauje (from Arabic mauza), or Persian deh. Although these terms were frequently used interchangeably, the formal name of the village was prefixed with mauje. Kasbe (from Arabic qasba) was the name of a larger village with a market (bdjdr, Persian bddr). The villages typically adopted a collective form of habitation. Pdndhari, which means "white" in Sanskrit, was the name of the "village-site" there. It was typically enclosed by earthen walls. There were farms known as kali (which means "black" in Hindi) outside the village site. According to legend, people first lived on unsuitable white soil before turning the black soil that is prevalent in the Deccan into their agricultural fields. Beyond them was the kuranorgdyerdn (literally, "waste land for cows") village common or grassland. "People's grassland" (lokdcdkuran) refers to grassland intended for general village use, and "government grassland" (sarkdrcdkuran) refers to grassland used by the government as fodder. Agricultural land (kali) was divided into 20 to 40 blocks, known as thai (from the Sanskrit word sthala, which means land), and each block had a name that was likely the surname of the original owner or colonizer. Each block was made up of fields that were variously referred to as set, set (from the Sanskrit ksetra=field), or jamin. In some cases, the term "fields" in Sanskrit was translated as "land.".
To put it another way, kali would be divided into the following categories: (1) ordinary owned land (mirasjamin), (2) gifted or exempted land (indmjamin), (3) state land, also known as "treasuryland" (khdlsdjamin), "demesne of the government," "demesne fields," "demesne," or "demesne," and (4) land of extinct families (gatkuljamin) or wasteland. On the other hand, villages would be made up of four groups of people: (1) hereditary village officers such as the headman (pdtilor mokadam), accountant (kulkarnt), and assistant headman (chaugula); (2) proprietary peasants known as thalkarior thalvdik in indigenous terms; (3) temporary peasants or tenants known as upari (literally, "strangers"); and (4) village servants and artisans known as baluteddrs (. Due to his literacy, the accountant typically belonged to a Brahman caste, unlike the headman who was typically of the Kunbi (peasant) caste (later to be assimilated into the Maratha caste). The government used to permit village officers to own some inam land as well as fairly sizable mirds of land. A portion of the produce from farmers and local craftspeople was also theirs to receive, along with other rights and privileges. They held a position known as watan, which was not only inheritable but also tradable with the approval of the village assembly and state authorities. Watan also came with accompanying inam land and privileges. On the other hand, mirasdar peasants, who were primarily Kunbls by caste, were long-term residents of the village and were responsible for paying the state's regular taxes and other cesses on their mirasland, over which they had a fairly complete ownership right. They could sell their own land as of the late sixteenth century, though it was not a common practice. Baluteddrs, who worked as village servants and artisans, included carpenters, blacksmiths, potters, shoemakers, rope makers, barbers, washer men, astrologers, temple and mosque keepers (who also butchered), members of the untouchable caste known as Mahars, who performed menial tasks like sweeping, watching, and so on. Despite the fact that their numbers varied depending on the size of the village, their makeup was largely uniform. They received remuneration at the two harvests of the year, usually in kind but occasionally in cash, and were expected to assist villagers whenever needed in the roles set by their castes. These remunerations are known as balute. In addition to these, they were entitled to certain perquisites on special occasions as well as certain shares of offerings made to village temples. A lot of them also received a small piece of land from the village, which they typically farmed themselves.
Baluteddrs, on the other hand, were split into permanent and transient villagers, much like the peasants. Permanent baluteddrs' right to serve and receive various compensations was recognized as their mirdsor watan; hence, mirdsddrbaluteddrs (or watanddrbaluteddrs). Their mirds could be passed down through generations. As long as the temporary baluteddrs worked in the village, they were obviously entitled to benefits; however, they were referred to as upartbaluteddrs and were not treated as mirdsddrs. The village as a whole, as opposed to individual peasant families (as in the "jajmdnisystem"), employed the baluteddrs. There were essentially three ways to compensate them, which corresponded to three different systems of giving the government its land revenue. The first method followed the batdt system; all the peasants brought their individual harvests to a predetermined location in the village and distributed customary portions of them to each category of baluteddrs. After inspecting the state of the harvest, the village headman obtained every peasant to pay a specific portion of his produce to each category of baluteddrs. This was the second method in the line of the system where each peasant paid a certain fixed amount of his produce to the state. The third method involved paying the revenue in cash and allocating a certain sum of money to each category of baluteddr. In any case, each category of baluteddr was thought to control one watan per village, and the compensation was set per watan. When a watan was shared by several families belonging to the same caste or occupation, it was decided to divide the lump sum payment, whether it came in cash or in kind, among themselves. In addition to deciding village matters like disputes over lands and rights, disposing of waste land, and other issues, the assembly attested the transfer of lands and rights in watan (or mirds). Even though each caste had its own assembly that included members who lived in the same area, it occasionally interfered in villager caste disputes. The village had a duty to the state to apprehend criminals, make good on stolen property, or track them as far as the next village.
Despite the village's structure being generally stable, there were significant economic differences among the peasants. This might have existed for a number of reasons, including the revenue system, state support for agriculture, the inheritance system, the availability of labor and capital on an individual basis, and both natural and man-made disasters. In addition to being divided into mirdsddrs and uparis, peasants were also separated into the relatively wealthy and the underprivileged. Apargana was the name of the first subdistrict, which was made up of ten to two hundred villages. Each subdistrict had one or more hereditary chiefs (desmukbor desai) and hereditary accountants (despdnde), with the former typically belonging to a peasant caste and the latter typically to a Brahman caste. In any case, the Deccan lacked a lot of the north Indian zamindari system. Additionally, there were other people who owned land and villages in inam besides the hereditary subdistrict officers. Kings and pesh was of the Marathas as well as previous Muslim kings of the Deccan used to give unused land as inam to notable state servants, famous temples, monasteries, and mosques, as well as the hereditary officers of sub-districts and villages. The more significant of them received villages in Inam. Inam was typically tax-free, though inampatti, a lighter tax, was occasionally imposed. In inam, the owners of villages and expansive lands tended to rule the locals in a feudal manner.
Sometimes the government provided financial aid to those who were willing to build and repair wells and dams. Uparis, not mirdsddrs, appear to have been the peasants who actively reacted to the state's encouragement of the cultivation of waste land. In the medieval Deccan states, a significant portion of revenue was roughly allocated to the rulers and nobility. The revenue from a particular region was typically temporarily assigned to high-class officials and nobles as well as middle-class officials in the Deccan Muslim kingdoms. These assignments were known as muqasti. With extensive administrative control over the assigned areas, the assignees, especially the big ones, were essentially in a position to collect as much as they could through their agents.
Conclusion
The Deccan village's general layout was remarkably similar to that of north India during this time period. Additionally, due to political and natural circumstances, the size of landholdings among the peasants varied greatly. Because of this, there was a notable economic divide among the peasants. The tax and rent associated with the various types of agricultural land appear to have been conceptually distinct in the medieval Deccan. In any case, various crops and soils were subject to assessments and levies that were typically made in cash. Fundamentally, the south and west of the nation lacked the zamindari rights that were so distinctive of Mughal and north India.
References and Further Readings
- Frykenberg, Robert Eric. 1969. Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Fukazawa, Hiroshi. 1964. ‘Lands and Peasants in the Eighteenth Century Maratha Kingdom’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 5 (1): 32-61.
- -----. 1968. ‘State and Caste System (Jati) in the Eighteenth Century Maratha Kingdom’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 9 (1): 32-44.
- Habib, Irfan. 1963. Agrarian System of Mughal India. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
- Habib, Irfan. 1969. “Potentialities of Capitalistic Development in the Economy of Mughal India”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 32-78.
- Hobsbawm, Eric. 1964. “Introduction” in Eric Hobsbawm (ed.). Karl Marx: Pre-capitalist Economic Formations. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
- Moosvi, Shireen. 2003. ‘Celebrating a Study of India’s Agrarian History’, Review of Agrarian Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 106-12.
Comments