The Mughal Empire, stretching across the Indian subcontinent for over two centuries, was fundamentally an agrarian state. Its immense wealth, administrative machinery, and formidable military prowess were underpinned by a meticulously structured and highly centralized land revenue system. This system, which evolved significantly under various emperors, particularly under Akbar, represented one of the most sophisticated and efficient fiscal mechanisms of its time, designed to extract the maximum possible surplus from agricultural production while theoretically ensuring the welfare of the peasantry and stability of the rural economy.

At its core, the Mughal land revenue system was not merely a mechanism for taxation; it was the lifeblood of the empire, dictating the relationship between the state and its subjects, influencing agrarian practices, and shaping the socio-economic landscape. The theoretical basis of the system rested on the state’s ultimate claim to the ownership of all land, and thus, its right to a share of the produce. However, this did not negate the hereditary rights of the actual cultivators to till the land, provided they paid their due share. The efficiency and long-term sustainability of the empire depended heavily on its ability to accurately assess, fairly collect, and effectively manage this principal source of income, leading to continuous reforms and the establishment of a vast administrative apparatus dedicated solely to revenue collection.

Evolution and Core Principles

The Mughal land revenue system did not emerge in a vacuum; it drew heavily from pre-existing practices, particularly those refined during the Delhi Sultanate and, more significantly, by Sher Shah Suri. Sher Shah's reforms included the standardization of weights and measures, classification of land based on fertility, and a fixed demand of one-third of the average produce. [Akbar](/posts/akbar-was-secular-ruler-justify-our/), recognizing the importance of a stable revenue base for his expanding empire, adopted and significantly refined these principles, integrating them into a more comprehensive and centralized structure.

The fundamental principle was the state’s entitlement to a share of the agricultural produce. This share was not a fixed land tax but varied depending on the productivity of the land, the type of crop, and regional variations. The system aimed to shift from a purely produce-based collection to a cash-based one, which facilitated centralized accounting, monetized the rural economy, and reduced the logistical complexities of transporting and storing vast quantities of grain. However, the conversion to cash often involved complex calculations based on prevailing market prices.

Key Revenue Assessment Systems

The Mughal land revenue system primarily employed three main methods of assessment and collection, though variations and local adaptations were common. These were Zabti, Ghalla Bakhshi, and Nasaq.

Zabti System (Dahsala System)

The Zabti system, also known as the Dahsala (ten-year) system, was the most advanced and widely implemented method, especially prevalent in the core regions of the empire, such as the Gangetic plains, parts of Punjab, and Malwa. Introduced and perfected under Akbar's finance minister, Raja Todar Mal, it aimed for precision, predictability, and fairness.

The process began with measurement of land. Land was meticulously measured using a standardized unit called the bigha, based on the Ilahi Gaz (Akbar’s yard). Chains and ropes were used, and the measured area was recorded. This standardization reduced ambiguity and prevented fraudulent practices.

Following measurement, classification of land fertility was crucial. Land was categorized into four types based on its continuous cultivation and fertility:

  1. Polaj: Land continuously cultivated and never left fallow. This was considered the most fertile.
  2. Parauti: Land occasionally left fallow for a short period (1-2 years) to recover fertility.
  3. Chachar: Land left fallow for 3-4 years to recover fertility.
  4. Banjar: Uncultivated wasteland, left fallow for five or more years. Only the first three categories were typically assessed under Zabti, with Banjar land often given concessions to encourage cultivation.

The next step involved ascertaining the average produce. For each crop and each type of land within a specific region (dastur circle), the average produce per bigha was calculated. This was based on the average yields of the last ten years (hence, dahsala). For instance, if wheat grown on polaj land in a particular dastur circle yielded, on average, a certain quantity over the past decade, that quantity would be the basis for assessment.

Finally, the average produce was converted into a cash demand. To do this, the average of the prices of various crops over the preceding ten years in that specific dastur circle was also calculated. The state’s share, typically one-third of the average produce (though it could vary), was then commuted into cash using this average price. This cash demand was fixed for a ten-year period, providing stability for both the state and the peasants, as they knew their exact obligations in advance.

The dastur-ul-amal or dastur (schedules of assessment rates) were prepared for each region, listing the average produce and average prices for different crops and land types. This standardized system aimed to minimize arbitrary demands and provide a clear framework for collection. Its advantages included precision, stability of revenue income for the state, reduction of corruption due to fixed rates, and a degree of predictability for the cultivators. However, it required extensive surveying, a large administrative staff, and was not easily applicable to regions with diverse cropping patterns or fluctuating yields, or to areas where land measurement was difficult.

Ghalla Bakhshi (Batai) System

The Ghalla Bakhshi system, or crop-sharing, was an older method that remained prevalent in some parts of the empire, particularly in less fertile or remote areas, or where detailed measurement was impractical. It involved the actual division of the harvested crop between the state and the cultivator.

There were several variations of Ghalla Bakhshi:

  1. Batai or Bhagaoli: The most common form, where the harvested crop was divided at the threshing floor. This could be done by counting heaps, dividing the grain after it was threshed, or dividing the field itself after the crop ripened.
  2. Kankut or Kun Koot: An estimation method where the standing crop was estimated by observation and measurement of the cultivated area, and then a share of this estimated produce was claimed by the state. This was less precise than Zabti but more practical than physical division of every harvest.
  3. Lank Batai: Division of the grain heaps after the corn had been separated from the chaff.

The state’s share under Ghalla Bakhshi typically ranged from one-third to one-half of the produce, though it could be as low as one-fourth. The advantages of this system included its simplicity, adaptability to fluctuating yields, and minimal administrative overhead in terms of detailed surveys. It also offered a degree of natural justice, as peasants paid only when there was a harvest. However, it suffered from several drawbacks: uncertainty for the state regarding revenue income, increased scope for corruption during assessment and division, and the need for constant supervision by state officials at the time of harvest.

Nasaq System

The Nasaq system was a less precise method, essentially a rough assessment based on previous records, aggregate payments, or a lump sum settlement. It was often applied to areas where Zabti or Ghalla Bakhshi was difficult to implement or where the land had been surveyed and assessed in the past. It could be a form of group assessment (e.g., for a whole village or *pargana*) where the total revenue demand was fixed, and the village community or headmen then distributed the burden among individual cultivators. Nasaq might have been based on the average revenue paid in previous years, an estimation without detailed measurement or crop inspection. It was administratively simpler but lacked the precision and equity of Zabti.

Administrative Machinery for Revenue Collection

The Mughal land revenue system was supported by a vast and elaborate administrative machinery, both at the central and provincial levels. This hierarchy ensured the systematic collection, accounting, and disbursement of revenue.

Central Administration

At the apex of the revenue administration was the **Diwan-i-Kul** (Chief Diwan), who was the Emperor's principal finance minister. He oversaw the entire financial apparatus of the empire, including land revenue, expenditure, and imperial treasury. He was responsible for formulating revenue policies, maintaining records, and supervising provincial Diwans. The central Diwan's office housed various departments for auditing, account keeping, and record management, ensuring strict financial control.

Provincial (Subah) Administration

Each province (*subah*) had its own **Provincial Diwan**, appointed by the Emperor and directly accountable to the Diwan-i-Kul. The Provincial Diwan was independent of the *Subahdar* (governor) in financial matters, a deliberate separation of powers to prevent accumulation of excessive authority and to ensure checks and balances. The Provincial Diwan was responsible for supervising revenue collection, maintaining provincial accounts, and sending regular reports and remittances to the central treasury.

District and Pargana Level

Below the provincial level, the administration was further segmented into districts (*sarkar*) and sub-districts (*parganas*). * **Amalguzar (or Karori):** This officer was the main revenue collector at the *pargana* level. His duties included supervising the measurement of land, assessing the revenue, collecting it, promoting cultivation, maintaining law and order in his jurisdiction, and preventing oppression of the peasantry. He was assisted by a large staff of surveyors, accountants, and peons. * **Qanungo:** A hereditary official who maintained land records, revenue regulations (*dastur-ul-amal*), and assessed area and produce figures. He was a repository of local knowledge regarding land and customs and was crucial for the accurate implementation of the Zabti system. He provided information to the *Amalguzar* and also served as a witness for land transactions. * **Patwari:** The village accountant, usually a local Brahmin or Bania, who kept detailed records of individual peasant holdings, crops sown, and revenue collected at the village level. He was the most basic link in the chain of revenue administration, collecting data from the peasants and providing it to the *Qanungo* and *Amalguzar*. * **Chaudhry:** The village headman, who was a link between the state officials and the peasants. He often assisted in revenue collection and was responsible for maintaining order and discipline in the village. He received a commission for his services.

The Jagirdari System and Its Working

Integral to the Mughal land revenue system was the **Jagirdari system**. This was a system of assigning revenue rights (not land ownership) to Mughal military and civil officials (*mansabdars*) in lieu of cash salaries. Instead of receiving a fixed amount of money from the imperial treasury, a *jagirdar* was assigned a specific piece of land from which he could collect revenue equivalent to his entitled salary.
  • Types of Jagirs:
    • Tankhwa Jagir: The most common type, assigned in lieu of salary.
    • Mashrut Jagir: Conditional jagirs, granted on the fulfillment of certain conditions or performance of specific duties.
    • Inam Jagir: Granted as a reward or benevolence, without any attached service obligations.
    • Watan Jagir: Hereditary jagirs, typically given to local chieftains (Rajas, Zamindars) who were absorbed into the Mughal mansabdari system. These were non-transferable.
  • Working of Jagirdari: A jagirdar did not own the land or have administrative control over it (which remained with the Amalguzar and other imperial officials). He merely had the right to collect the assessed land revenue from his assigned area. He would send his own agents (gumashtas or amils) to the villages within his jagir to collect the revenue directly from the peasants, often based on the rates established by the imperial dastur-ul-amal.
  • Transferability: Tankhwa jagirs were frequently transferred from one jagirdar to another, often every 3-4 years. This policy was intended to prevent the jagirdars from developing vested interests in their jagirs and becoming too powerful. However, it often led to exploitation, as jagirdars had little incentive to invest in the long-term prosperity of the land or the peasants, seeking to extract maximum revenue during their tenure.
  • Challenges and Crisis: While initially efficient, the jagirdari system faced significant challenges, particularly in the later Mughal period. The increasing number of mansabdars led to a shortage of available jagirs (paibaqi land, land available for assignment). This “jagirdari crisis” resulted in delayed assignments, jagirdars being assigned unproductive lands, and a general decline in the efficiency and fairness of revenue collection. It also contributed to peasant distress and a weakening of central authority.

Revenue Demand and Collection Practices

The standard rate of land revenue demand under Akbar was generally one-third of the average produce. However, this varied regionally and could be higher for specific high-value crops. Under Aurangzeb, the demand was increased to one-half of the produce in certain regions, particularly in the Deccan, leading to increased pressure on the peasantry.

Revenue was collected primarily in cash (naqdi), especially in the Zabti areas, which promoted the monetization of the rural economy. However, payment in kind (jinsi) was also allowed in specific circumstances or regions, especially for perishable goods or in areas where cash was scarce. Collection was typically done after the harvest, twice a year, corresponding to the two main agricultural seasons: kharif (autumn harvest) and rabi (spring harvest).

Detailed records were maintained at every level, from the village Patwari to the Central Diwan. These records included information on cultivated area, crop types, yield estimates, assessed revenue, and actual collections. This elaborate system aimed to ensure accountability and minimize embezzlement. In times of natural calamities like drought or floods, the state sometimes provided relief through taqavi (agricultural loans) or remission of revenue, though the effectiveness of these measures varied.

Impact and Legacy

The Mughal land revenue system was a monumental administrative achievement. It provided the financial bedrock for one of the world's largest and most powerful empires for over two centuries. Its key strengths included: * **Standardization and Centralization:** The Zabti system, with its detailed surveys and fixed rates, brought a degree of uniformity and predictability previously unseen on such a large scale. * **Detailed Record-Keeping:** The elaborate system of records, from the Patwari to the Diwan, allowed for systematic administration and accountability. * **Monetization of the Economy:** The emphasis on cash payments spurred commercial activity and integrated the rural economy more deeply into the broader imperial market. * **Stimulus to Agriculture:** While demanding, the system theoretically incentivized cultivation by ensuring a direct relationship between productivity and revenue demand, and the state also offered loans and relief in times of distress.

Despite its sophistication, the system was not without its drawbacks. The high revenue demand, coupled with the exploitative practices of many jagirdars (especially in the later period due to frequent transfers and the jagirdari crisis), often led to immense pressure on the peasantry. Peasants, who were the ultimate source of imperial wealth, often faced subsistence living, indebtedness, and occasional revolts. The burden of collection costs, along with the official demand, could be crippling. As central authority weakened in the 18th century, the system became more prone to local corruption and arbitrary demands by regional potentates, contributing to the agrarian distress that characterized the decline of the Mughal Empire.

The legacy of the Mughal land revenue system endured far beyond the empire’s political decline. Its administrative divisions (parganas, sarkars), its terminology (patwari, qanungo, zaminadar), and its underlying principles of land assessment and collection heavily influenced subsequent revenue systems, including those introduced by the Marathas, the Sikhs, and most notably, the British Raj. The British, seeking to maximize their own revenue, adopted many of its features, adapting them into systems like the Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari, demonstrating the profound and lasting impact of the Mughal fiscal genius on Indian economic and administrative history.