Introduction
The Mughal Empire (1526–1707) developed one of the most elaborate and systematic land revenue systems in pre-modern India. The assessment and collection of land revenue formed the backbone of the imperial economy and administration. Under rulers like Akbar, revenue methods were institutionalized, standardized, and rationalized to ensure a steady inflow of income. This post critically examines the methods used by the Mughals, particularly during Akbar’s reign, while also considering the strengths and limitations of the system.
Land Revenue as the Main Fiscal Source
Land revenue accounted for a major portion of the Mughal state income, with estimates ranging between 70%–80% of total revenues. The empire’s expansion was accompanied by efforts to integrate local agrarian economies into a centralized fiscal system. Thus, land assessment and revenue collection were vital tools for both economic control and administrative consolidation.
Akbar’s Revenue Reforms – The Zabti System
The most well-known and influential revenue system under the Mughals was introduced by Akbar and refined by his finance minister Raja Todar Mal. Known as the zabti or bandobast system, it involved a comprehensive land survey and classification:
- Land was measured using standardized units (bighas).
- It was classified into categories based on fertility: Polaj (cultivated annually), Parauti (fallow), Chachar (temporarily fallow), and Banjar (wasteland).
- The average yield and prices over ten years were calculated, and one-third of the produce’s value was fixed as revenue (cash or kind).
This system was implemented mainly in core provinces like the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, Punjab, and parts of Gujarat and Malwa.
Other Methods of Assessment
In regions where zabti was difficult to implement due to terrain, socio-political conditions, or lack of standardization, alternative systems were used:
- Kankut: Revenue was estimated based on crop inspection and negotiation between cultivators and officials.
- Nasaq: A rough estimate based on previous collections and averages, often involving mutual agreement.
- Batai: Share of the actual crop was taken, either at the threshing floor or in the field; this method was common in Bengal and parts of the Deccan.
These systems were more flexible but also more prone to corruption, manipulation, and conflict between officials and cultivators.
Role of the Revenue Bureaucracy
The Mughal revenue system relied on a vast and hierarchical administrative structure. The diwan supervised revenue collection, while amil, qanungo, patwari, and muqaddam formed the local level machinery. Record keeping was meticulous, and revenue records (dastur-ul-amal) were maintained to minimize disputes.
Revenue farming (ijara) was also practiced during certain reigns and in some regions, where contractors paid a fixed amount to the state and collected revenue from peasants. This system was criticized for its exploitative nature.
Strengths of the Mughal Revenue System
- It ensured regular income to the empire and helped fund military and administrative expenses.
- The system was based on detailed surveys and offered a relatively standardized framework.
- Incentives were provided for cultivation and reclamation of land.
Limitations and Criticisms
- The system often imposed heavy burdens on peasants, especially during times of drought or crop failure.
- Corruption and abuse by local officials and intermediaries were common.
- The rigidity of the zabti system sometimes led to alienation of peasants and migration.
- Fluctuating market prices and local conditions were not always adequately accounted for.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Mughal methods of land revenue assessment were innovative and systematic, especially under Akbar. They reflect a strong central administration and an attempt to rationalize agrarian surplus extraction. However, their success depended on local conditions, administrative efficiency, and peasant cooperation. While the system contributed to the empire’s stability, it also faced practical limitations that occasionally led to peasant unrest and decline in productivity.