Agricultural Statistics of Mughal India: A Reconsideration

Studies in History

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 121-146

  Khan, Shaukat Ullah ^a  

^a JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61049529111     PISSN: 02576430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/025764309701300105     Document Type: Article

References (140)

1. The A'in's statistics have been utilized by historians of Mughal India in a number of scholarly studies. Among the leading works may be mentioned, Edward Thomas, Revenue Resources of the Mughal Empire in India from 1593 to 1707, London, 1871
2. W.H. Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, London, 1918
3. The Agrarian System of Moslem India, Cambridge, 1929
4. Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India, (1556–1707), Bombay, 1963.
5. Shireen Moosvi, The Economy of the Mughal Empire, c. 1595, Delhi, 1987.
6. For varying interpretations of the Ain's arazi (area figures), see W.H. Moreland, ‘The agricultural statistics of Akbar's empire’, Journal of the UP Historical Society, Lucknow, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1919, pp. 16–17
7. India at the Death of Akbar, pp. 20–22
8. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 4, 7, 19
9. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39–44, 51, 59, 126. The variation in the scholarly interpretation is best exemplified in the difference between Habib's earlier (1963) and the present (1993) understanding of the Nasaq vis-à-vis arazi figures. Having come across a new piece of information, Habib not only feels inclined to reassess his earlier interpretation of the Nasaq but also suggests that ‘Ab'ul has really made a slip in his description of the system of tax-assessment prevalent in Gujarat’.
10. Man Habib, ‘Agriculture and agrarian conditions in south Gujarat, 1596’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (hereafter PIHC), 54th Session, Mysore 1993 mimeo. pp. 18–20
11. Agrarian System, p. 225 & n.
12. Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in North India: Awadh and the Punjab, 1707–1748, Delhi, 1986
13. Dilbagh Singh, The Peasant and the State: Eastern Rajasthan in the 18th Century, Delhi, 1990
14. S.P. Gupta, Agrarian System of Eastern Rajasthan, Delhi, 1986 focus on regional peculiarities, adding a new dimension to the existing understanding of the imperial system.
15. See, Shaukat Ullah Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Suba of Gujarat during the First Half of the 18th Century, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 1993.
16. MS No. 227, Apparao Bholanath collection, Museum, BJ Institute of Learning and Research, Ahmadabad. For the author's identity Khata, ff. 103 a, 159b–60a see Ali Muhammad Khan, Mir'at-i Ahmadi, Vol. 1, Gaekwad Oriental Series, Baroda, 1928, pp. 9–12.
17. Ali Muhammad Khan, Mir'at-i Ahmadi, Vol. 2, 1927, pp. 435–36, 612–13. For comments; Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Subah of Gujarat, pp. 12–15
18. ‘Diwanu Khatanu Pustak: An important Persian source on Mughal Gujarat’, Hamdard Islamicus, Karachi, forthcoming.
19. For other sources which were consulted for interpreting the two works, see Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 2–6, 18–20 & ns
20. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39–44 and ns.
21. Habib, The Agrarian System, pp. 3, 5–6
22. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39–44; for specific proportion, p. 44.
23. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, p. 56. By implication she assumes that the cultivable waste and the grazing lands etc. were included within the uncultivable waste.
24. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 3–4, 362–64: The bigha-i Oaftari (.40 acre) was two-thirds of the bigha-i Ilahi (.60 acre approximately), pp. 3, 362–63
25. For the estimates of area under cultivation Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 48, 51–58. 124
26. It has been further asserted that the ‘figures [of land area of Aurangzeb's reign] would be impossible if stated in terms of bigha-i Ilahi, while quite plausible if in those of the bigha-i Daftari’. Habib, Agrarian system, pp. 314n., 363n., 364. The madad-i-ma'ash grants are, however, assumed to have continued to be defined in terms of bigha-i-Ilahi, pp. 363–64
27. see also Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 56 and n. 25.
28. Khata, ff. 14a, 17b, 23a. According to the work, the Gaz-i Ilahi (30 tasv) exceeded the Gaz-i Sikandari (22.5 tasv) by 7.5 tasv.
29. However, the area held by the grantees is specified in bigha-i Gujarati (i.e. Sikandari), 14a. For the introduction of the bigha-i Ilahi
30. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 353 and n.
31. Khata, f. 23a, ff. 23a, 102a, ff. 100b, ff. 366–69b. This means that the proportionate relationship between the two bighas (60 × 100/70) was 100:85.7.
32. Here again the difference between the two bighas is put at 2.5 biswas per bigha. See also, Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 354–56.
33. The bigha-i-Daftari hardly finds reference in the work. However, the Gaz-i Shahjahani is mentioned in relation to the measurement of distance (kuroh) and Gaz-i karbasi which appears as a subhead under the Gazi-i khayyati, was the measure used by a tailor/cloth seller: Khata, 102a–b.
34. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 3, 5–6
35. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 44, 55–56
36. According to the available information Mughal Gujarat was surveyed first by Raja Todar Mal (1576) and partly re-surveyed by Shihabuddin Ahmad Khan, under Akbar (in the year 984 AH/984 Fasil/22nd RY, specifies the Khata, f. 23a, ff. 24a–b) and, then, sometime around the 25th RY of Aurangzeb. Though the Mirʼat reproduces area figures for the suba it attributes them to Raja Todar Malʼs survey with no reference to the area figures of the second survey.
37. (Mirʼai) Vol. 1, p. 25). The Khata specifies the revised area figures of Shihabuddin Ahmad Khan's survey, reproduces an imperial order (dated 15th Rabi I, 25th RY, Aurangzeb/25 March, 1682) which specifies a number of unsurveyed parganas, seeks clarification on the status of land survey of the suba and orders the diwan-i suba to bring the unsurveyed parts under measurement.
38. Khata, ff. 24a–b.
39. During the Mughal age, the boundaries of village were clearly demarcated. N.A. Siddiqi, Land Revenue Administration under the Mughals (1700–1750), Bombay, 1970, p. 8. This fact is very clearly reflected in the inter-village boundary disputes which the administration sought to settle with the assistance of the muqaddams and the desais of the respective villages and parganas to the satisfaction of the disputing villagers. I have discussed this in my thesis
40. Zamindars in the Mughal suba of Gujarat, pp. 253, 283.
41. A settlement constituted the basic unit of land survey. This is evident from the fact that the area is recorded village-wise (bʼqaid-i deh). Khata, ff. 174a–81b, f. 24a. The emperor Aurangzeb's order cited above, also demanded ‘raqba-i dehbandi’. In each sarkar, there were parganas in which land remained unsurveyed. Around the year 1682 three of the sarkars (Soreth, Godhra and Islamnagar, excluding sarkar Surat which lay outside the jurisdiction of diwan-i suba) and 44 out of 93 specified mahals in the rest of the sarkars are characterized as unsurveyed. 24a–25b, 319a–b, 326a, 330b, f. 359a.
42. Khata, ff. 174a–81b, 183a–201b, 203a–211a, 219a–20a, 223b–26b, 279a–97b, 304b–32a, 334b–37b, 360–63a. In a single settlement, areas under ghar and bhognadi could be as high as 1,000 and 2,500 bighas respectively. f. 204a. There were still other kinds of land which the document mentions under ‘habitations etc.’: tonchi, darmar, kocha, kondra, khatar, takola, kharra, amortola, mareth, choudar, Jorya, darb(y) ar, etc., the import of which is not clear. Significantly, grazing lands do not find mention under this category of land.
43. Cf. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 3, 5–6. Such a survey would not have been extended to cover uncultivable lands. It would have covered, at most, the cultivable portions only.
44. For further area figures, see Khata, ff. 415b–16a, 420a, 425b.
45. Muwazna'fi-sanawat Suba Gujarat, Pargana haveli Ahmadabad, in my personal collection (hereafter PC). The same area figures are reproduced in the Khata too (ff. 413a–27a).
46. See, for example, the documents for the villages of Rakhyal, Palri Kakrej, Balad, Dhamanwan Khorasan, Kochrab, etc, Aurangabad, R. Nos. 21, 27, 28, 32 read with Khata, ff. 414b, 416a, 417a, 419a, 423a, 424a.
47. For further references, Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Suba of Gujarat, pp. 149–50, 369–72, 394–95.
48. Khata, ff. 204a, 240a, 366b, f. 366b, ff. 23a, 26a–7b. The area figures of Nadiad (984 AH. Raja Todar Malʼs survey) are in bigha-i Sikandari, commuted for each settlement into bigha-i Ilahi.
49. The Mirʼat (Vol. 1, p. 25) records the entire area as bighas 1,23,60, 594–9 biswas (100), of which 83,47,498–3 (67.53 per cent) is specified as cultivable and the remaining 32.47 per cent was uncultivable.
50. After Shihabuddin Ahmad Khan's revision the figure of cultivable area (Pargana haveli Ahmadabad) was slashed by 80,992 bighas, thus bringing the figure down to 82,66,605–13 (Khata, ff. 23a, 26a). This revision meant a change in the proportion betweeen uncultivable and cultivable area to 32.7:67.3. A similar picture emerges from the area figures of (pargana) Nadiad, coming specifically from the survey undertaken during Akbar's reign:
51. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, p. 56; see also p. 41, 56.
52. Khata, ff. 23a; 26a–7a; A'in, II, pp. 493–97. Parganas of Azamabad, Shahjahanpur and Hyderabad (sarkar Ahmadabad) were carved out of the existing parganas during the post-Aʼin period. Since the Khata specifies the area (and the original pargana), the necessary adjustment has been made. Then the parganas of Jamusar and Lolyar (sarkar Broach) of the Khata and Kadi and Lorak (same sarkar) of the Aʼin are not common to both the works. These parganas of the two works have, for the sake of calculating area figures, been identified for each other. There were also other parganas, such as Dantiwara (sarkar Pattan), Timurbasna, Wala and Mohan, etc. (sarkar Champaner) which appear in the Khata and not in the Aʼinʼs statistical account. The parganas of Chandawar, Dahol, Dilwara and Arwara (sarkar Champaner) are listed only in the Aʼin. Since parganas which are furnished with area figures in the Khata are identifiable, the parganas which do not carry area figures pose no problem of consequence for the present study.
53. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39, 40, 44, 25.
54. Mirʼat. Vol. 1, p. 141
55. Khata, ff. 23a, 26a.
56. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire; p. 40 n. and Table 2.1.
57. The difference between the first two figures is not large. If we presume that the thousands were mistaken for tens, then the difference almost vanishes. The area figures for c. 1682–1725 are as under: On reducing the excess (80,992 bighas) of Todar Maiʼs over Shihabuddin Ahmad Khanʼs survey, the figure comes to 348,694 bighas and −7 (12) biswas: Khata, ff. 23a, 26a.
58. The Aʼinʼs area figures for pargana Nadiad (202,062) closely approximate the Khataʼs cultivable area figures (212,112–15 in Sikandari and 190,055–13 in Ilahi unit) as cited earlier. Aʼin, II, p. 494
59. Khata, ff. 365b–69a.
60. After working out the Akbari area, another survey was conducted. The area figures, then, rose (afzadaʼ hangam-i pai-maʼish) by 136,052 bighas, with an entire area, of 281,706 bighas and 5 biswas, of which 117,587 bighas and 19 biswas is marked under habitations, etc., and the remaining (164,168 bighas and 6 biswas/164,118–6 biswas) accounted for the cultivable area. (Khata, f. 163a). Here the question arises whether Todar Mal-Shihabuddin's measurement was invariably extended to cover the entire area in each of the (surveyed) parganas. See also the conclusions below.
61. It may also be seen that the Aʼin specifies jamaʼ against the arazi. The Khata too reflects both sets of figures. It reflects the jamaʼ invariably, against/under the cultivable area, as distinct from the entire area Khata f. 405b.
62. Cf. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 263–4
63. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, p. 56.
64. Cf. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 3.
65. See, for example, Khata, ff. 184b, 277a, 411a, 431a–19b.
66. Moosvi, ‘Economic changes in the seventeenth century: A quantitative approach’, PIHC, 1993.
67. The reference is made to ‘Aurangzeb's farman to Rasikdas’, Irfan Habib, ed., Medieval India, Vol. I, Delhi 1992, pp. 198–208.
68. The fact that the permanent land record had no direct bearing on the process of assessment of revenues, may be clearly seen in the case of (Kaparbanj, Piplod, Thamne, Prati, etc.) mahals, which are furnished with area statistics but followed the bhagbatai systems of assessment/collection of revenues with no reference to the area unit. Khata, ff. p. 82a–b, 202a–b, 212b, 299a, 302b, 333a, 349a
69. Cf. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 225–26, 314n, 367.
70. Cf. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 40–43 55–56, and n.
71. The information is available for a few villages of pargana Khambayat which carries hasil figures for 1127 fasli/1720–21 ad. Khata, ff. 240a–18b.
72. Moosvi relies upon a British official's report (1776) which she treats as ‘independent evidence’ reinforcing her ‘inference that in Gujarat about two-thirds of the total arazi was actually cultivated’. Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 56–57 and ns. The percentage of area under cultivation (1776) is calculated on the basis of the figures of ‘total measured area’ which can hardly be treated as reliable. Unfortunately we do not have the Mughal and the British figures for pargana Broach. However information is available for pargana Nadiad and it raises doubts about the authenticity of the figures inherited by the British. The British figures for Nadiad show that 53 per cent of the area was under cultivation but this constitutes only 29 per cent of the cultivable and 17.9 per cent of the entire area of the Mughal figures.
73. Khata, f. 365b
74. Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No. xxxix, New Series, Part I
75. Report on the Resources & C., Bombay, 1856, pp. 3–4.
76. The Khata (f. 25b) states that sarʼee bigha kʼ haftad dam qarar yafte. It then specifies in detail dam-wise area (calculated @ 70 dam per bigha), beginning from one dam (fi yek dam arazi = 5½ biswansi) and its multiples of 10, to 10 crore dams (112,842 bigha and 10 biswas). (Ibid). The assumed yield of the three kinds of land (awwal, doy em and soy em) is specified as Rs 5/-, Rs 3/- and Rs 2/8 annas. The average yield is specified as Rs 3/8 per bigha, of which the state claimed Rs 1/12 annas, 240a–48b, 249a–51a, 277a, 173a, 175a–82a, 279a, 289a.
77. Mirʼat, Vol. 1, p. 26.
78. Cf. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 55–56, and for sarkar Ahmadabad, Table 2.1, p. 55. Moosvi estimates the gross cropped area, in all the sarkars of Gujarat (except Soreth), to be 67.67 per cent and 67.53 per cent in sarkar Ahmadabad. pp. 54–61.
79. Aʼin, I p. 199
80. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, p. 131.
81. Khata, f. 18a.
82. The sarkar of Sural, the tenth sarkar, carried a jamaʼ of 56,461,370 dams during the post-Aurangzeb period. The jamaʼ for the province including sarkar Surat was 942,683,981 dams in 1708–24. Habib (Agrarian System, p. 406)
83. Siddiqi (Land Revenue Administration, p. 170) on the authority of Dastur-ul amal-i Alamgiri, attribute a jamaʼ of 899,288,069 dams to the years (circa) 1656 and 1658–59 (1558–59, a misprint) respectively. This figure is completely out of tune with the figures (as cited in the same works) for the preceding and succeeding years. Strangely enough, it is closer to the highest figure available for the post-Aurangzeb era.
84. Siddiqi (Land Revenue Administration p. 107) also opines that the jamaʼ, during the post-Aʼin period, reached its peak under Aurangzeb. As a matter of fact this happened in the post-Aurangzeb period.
85. Khata, ff. 14b, 18a, 25b.
86. Moosvi, ‘Economic changes’ p. 413.
87. For a detailed view of price rise See Tapan Raychaudhari and Irfan Habib, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 1, Cambridge, 1982, p. 376
88. Alam, The Crisis of Empire, pp. 26–27, 31–33, 42, 47–48.
89. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 328.
90. Cf. Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 2–6, 10, 18–20
91. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39–44, 56
92. Cf. Moreland, ‘Agricultural statistics’, pp. 16–17
93. John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire, Cambridge, 1994 (reprint), pp. 187–89.
94. The Mughals also granted uncultivable land. One such grant is noticed in M.S. Commissariat, Studies in the History of Gujarat, Ahmadabad, 1987 (reprint), plate and pp. 72–75.
95. Khata, ff. 22b–25a, 27b.
96. Thus: Aʼin, II, p. 494
97. Khata. ff. 218a, 240a, 308b, as also f. 277a.
98. It may be clarified here that the Khata, with a few exceptions, records area of every village constituting the pargana(s).
99. Khata, ff. 22b–25a, 26a, 27b, 222b, 331a, 411a read with
100. Aʼin, II, pp. 493–98.
101. Khata, f. 26b
102. read with Aʼin, II, p. 496.
103. Khata, ff. 23b, 25a, 319a, 326a, 330b
104. cf. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, p. 51. Moosvi has not consulted the evidence furnishing information below the pargana level.
105. Aʼin, II, pp. 493–98
106. compare Khata, ff. 22b–25a, 319a, 326b, 330b.
107. Moosvi, Economy of the Mughal Empire, pp. 39–44, 56.
108. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 326.
109. Moosvi, ‘Economic changes’, pp. 414–15.
110. Khata, ff. 182a–b, 202a–b, 212b, 299a, 302b, 333a, 349a
111. Corpus Inscriptionum Bhavnagri (Antiquarian Department Bhavnagar State), N. Delhi (Reprint), 1971, pp. 47–48
112. Khan ‘Land revenue system in Mughal Gujarat’.
113. Moosvi, Economy of Mughal Empire, pp. 55–56
114. Habib, Agrarian Systems, p. 326. Moosvi has also noted some contraction during 1595–1665. But she has also observed that it
115. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 326.
116. Moosvi, ‘Economic changes’, pp. 414–15.
117. Khata, ff. 182a–b, 202a–b, 212b, 299a, 302b, 333a, 349a
118. Corpus Inscriptionum Bhavnagri (Antiquarian Department Bhavnagar State), N. Delhi (Reprint), 1971, pp. 47–48
119. Khan ‘Land revenue system in Mughal Gujarat’.
120. Moosvi, Economy of Mughal Empire, pp. 55–56
121. Habib, Agrarian Systems, p. 326. Moosvi has also noted some contraction during 1595–1665. But she has also observed that it was caused by devastating famines. ‘Economic changes’, p. 408. It has no bearing on her earlier finding.
122. Moosvi, ‘Aurangzeb's farman to Rasikdas’, pp. 200–201 in particular.
123. Mirʼat, Vol. 1, pp. 326–27
124. Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Suba of Gujarat, p. 264.
125. Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Suba of Gujarat, pp. 250–04, 315–16.
126. For some other regions, Alam, The Crisis of Empire, pp. 139–45
127. Richards, The Mughal Empire, pp. 292–94.
128. Moosvi, ‘Economic changes’.
129. Hardly any information regarding cultivation reached the provincial office. Khata. f. 17b
130. see also Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal Suba of Gujarat, pp. 330–31 and n.
131. Thus Rs 6,000,000 as against the expected amount of Rs 10,000,000 of the pre-1707 period could be collected around the year 1723. During the last phase of Mughal rule, it fell to Rs 300,000 only. Khata, ff. 14a, 16b.
132. During 1687–1709 the hasil ranged between Rs 83,49,103 and 8,962,830. Habib, Agrarian System, p. 408.
133. For jagirdar's extinction see Khata, ff. 15b–16a
134. Mirʼat, Vol. 1, pp. 8, 25–26; Vol. 2, pp. 40, 45–47, 64, 78, 271–72
135. for the sharp decline in the state receipts, Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal suba of Gujarat, pp. 33–34.
136. For a detailed view of the decline of state control see Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal suba of Gujarat, pp. 138–39, 141–12, 164–65, 170–76, 177–242, 293, 296–303, 329–38, 401–71 in particular, and Conclusion.
137. Harbans Mukhia, Perspectives on Medieval History, Delhi, 1993, pp. 183–88
138. Alam, The Crisis of Empire, pp. 104, 304
139. Khan, Zamindars in the Mughal suba of Gujarat, pp. 556–75.
140. I would like to thank K.K. Trivedi for allowing me to read his paper ‘A note on the measured area figures in the A'in’, presented at the seminar on ‘Diplomacy and Administration in the Indo-Muslim Context: Documents in Indian Languages and in Persian’, India International Centre, Delhi, 26–27 July 1995. Since I read this note after my essay went to press, I was unable to engage with the substance of his arguments. Though our views differ on a few points, our conclusions regarding the nature of the Ainʼs area figures are similar.