CHAPTER V ZAMINDARS AND CHIEFTAINS -...
Transcript of CHAPTER V ZAMINDARS AND CHIEFTAINS -...
CHAPTER V
ZAMINDARS AND CHIEFTAINS
Zamindars held a very crucial position in the revenue
system of the Mughal empire. They have, therefore, attracted an
immense attention of scholars of economic and administrative
history of the period.
Moreland was the first scholar to examine the
zamindari system in some detail. He equates a zamindar with
a 'vasal chief and hance, in his opinion, he could not exist
in territories under direct political control of the Mughal
state ; however, he points out that Bengal was an exception to 2
this practice, P. Saran followed Moreland and declared that
zamindars could not have been found in all parts of the enpire 3
and that they were just 'vasal chiefs' . But this opinion was
contested by irfan Habib who, on the basis of the Ain-i Akbarl,
put the issue in the right perspective by pointing out that
— - 4 the zamindars were to be foxind in every part of the empire.
1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India, pp. 122,279.
2. Ibid., pp. 191-94.
3. p. Saran, provincial Government of the Mughals, p.lll.
4. Irfan Habib, "Zamindars in the Ain', PIHC, 21st session, Trivendrum, 1958, pp. 320-23. The author discovered that in the printed text of the A'ln, Blochmann had changed the headings of the statistical Account. The column of zamindar caste was replaced by caste only in every pargana. Ihe restoration of the original column made it clear that the zamindars were to be foxind in every part of the empire. Also see Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 13 6-37 n.
140
He studied in detail thfe rights, composition, strength and
many other aspects of the zamindars and distinguished them 1
from the autonomous chiefs.
Nurul Hasan accepted the universality of the
zamindars and discussed at length the origins of zamindari
rights and the relationship of this class with the Mughal 2 — ^
government. He divided the zamindars into three categories:
a) primary zamindars; b)secondary zamindars and c) autonomous
chiefs.
The zamindars and chieftains alike have been
addressed as zamindars in the official manuals and chronicles
of Mughal India, though they held different positions in
their respective territories and bore separate relationship
with the Mughal government. Nevertheless, a few features were
common among them: both belonged to the landed aristocracy;
secondly, both had their hereditary status; independent of
the Mughal authority in the initial stages atleast. Hence they
need separate treatment.
1. Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 137-89.
2. Nurul Hasan, "The Position of the zamindars in the Mughal Empire', lESHR, VQI, J^ no.4, Delhi, 1964, pp. 107-19.
3. But he is concious that autonomous chiefs held a different position and were called zamindars by the Mughal chronicles. Ibid. A separate study of autonomous chiefs has been made by Ahsan Razet Khan, Chieftains in the Mughal Empire during the reign of Akbar, Simla, 1977.
14i
We have put together in this chapter evidences
available in the contemporary records with respect to the
zamindars in the suba of Bihar, Our en^hasis is on the
origin, rights, composition, strength and functions of the
zamindars. Chieftains have been discussed separately in the
the 2nd section of the chapter.
The term zamindar literally means 'holder of land'
and was used in India from the 14th century onwards. In
Bihar, Malik was the word often used as a synonym for the
- - 2 zamindar as everywhere else in India,
The zamindars enjoyed varying rights in the Mughal
Empire. Our 16th & 17th century sources throw very little
light on the subject as far as Bihar is concerned. However,
after taking over the dfwanf of Bengal, Bihar and orissa in
1765, the English East India company made attempts to
1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System, op.cit., p.18.
2, Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 139-40; Buchmann makes a distinction and says that the petty zamindars are called "maleks" (see Bihar & patna, II, pp. 5 64, 580). But Grierson finds the inferior proprietors (petty zamindars) as khurdiya malik in Gaya, while in Patna they were known as jujui hissedar (Bihar Pesant Life, p,322)• Among the aboriginal races, they were called kshetrapal or satrap (see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.72) .
142
wholly xinder stand the structure, terminology and mechanism
of the revenue system, A large number of questions were put
to the natives officials and their answers taken. Much of
these equiries are available to us which help us in under
standing the revenue system in the suba during the Mughal
period.
Regarding zamindari, the main questions before the
English officials were: a) the nature of the zamindari rights;
and b) the relationships that existed between the zamlndir
and the state on the one hand, and the zamindars and peasantry
on the other.
The Board of Revenue in Bengal in 1786 had
declared zamindari to be "a conditional office, annually 2
renevable, and revocable on defalcation, James Grant came
to the conclusion that the zamindars were proprietors of the
land, but he also maintained that "sovereign ruler through-
out Hindoostan, is the sole virtual proprietor of the soil".
This is rather a confusing picture. Another energetic
official, John Shore, was of the opinion that the zamindars
were not the proprietors of the soil and the property in
land was exclusively vested in the crown, and that the
1, Kaghazat-i mutafarriga, BM, Add, 6586, ff, lo3b -129b,
2, Firmingar, Fifth Report, ii, p. 737,
3, Ibid,
14 0
zamindars were on ly managing the l ands on beha l f of t h e
k i n g . The l e t t e r t o John Shore by the C o l l e c t o r of Bhagal -
p u r (1787) c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e zamindars were no t
p r o p r i e t o r s b u t p o s s e s s o r s of land and had permanent i n t e r e s t
i n t h e development and improvement of land fo r the sake of 2
en joy ing the s u r p l u s . In a 18th c e n t u r y c o l l e c t i o n of p a p e r s ,
t h e zamindar has been desc r ibed a s a person who was the
owner Of the land ( S a h i b - i zamih) who p a i d revenue (Isbara 1) - 3 — - -
t o the s u l t a n o r r u l e r (hakim) . The zamindari was t h e
i n h a b i t e d a r e a s from where t h e revenue was p a i d t o the s t a t e
w i t h o u t any h e s i t a t i o n s , and the c u l t i v a t o r s ( r i ^ y a ) was to
be saved a g a i n s t t he h igh-handedness of the i m p e r i a l and h i s
own s e r v a n t s . The zamindari r i g h t s cou ld be of t h r e e k i n d s : 4
Purchased , r e c e i v e d as g i f t and i n h e r i t e d . When we p u t
t o g e t h e r the f a c t s r egard ing t h e zamindar i r i g h t s i n t h e
Mughal empire , c o l l e c t e d for example , by I r f an Habib, and
t h e informat ion g a t h e r e d by the Engl i sh conpany in the second
h a l f of the 18th c e n t u r y , t he p i c t u r e t h a t emerges i s t h a t
t h e zamindars were no t the p r o p r i e t o r s of the s o i l b u t on ly
C o l l e c t o r s of the revenue on beha l f of the Mughal s t a t e . 1 . I b i d . , p p . 737-41 , 746-47; Also see B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t a r y
p a p e r s . I I I , p . 4 5 2 .
2 . Bhaaalpur Records , Vol . 6, l e t t e r da ted 9 th S e p t . 1787; A g l o s s o r y of t h e revenue termed p repa red a t t h e o r d e r s of t h e commissioner of revenue in Bhagalpur in 1838 g i v e s the_meaning of zamindar a s t h e p r o p r i e t o r of land and zamindar i a l a r g e landed p r o p e r t y . I b i d . , Vol . 36, da t ed 28th June , 1839. Glossairy B r i t s h Pa r l i amen ta ry Papers I I I , p p . 4 9 - 5 0 .
3 . KJghazat , Add. 6586, f. l o l 3 b ( 1 1 3 6 ) . 4 . TETdZ 5 . Agra r ian System, p p . 1 3 6 - 4 1 ,
144
Moreover, the zamlndars staked a claim in the produce of
the soil since long. The zamindar, therefore, may or may not
be the proprietor, but he certainly claimed certain superior
rights in the property called his zamindari. As Irfan Habib
puts it, "zamindari was a right which belonged to a rural 2
class other than, and standing above the peasantry",
Zamindars were not to be found in the entire covmtry
side. In every pargana, there were some raiyatj" or peasant-
- — - 3 held villages which did not admit of any zamindari right.
The relationship of a zamindar with the state and the
raiyat were unique. The state in normal circumstances would not
dispossess him from his zamindari. The zamindar, inspite
of his superior rights in the produce, was not competent to
eject a peasant from his land unless the latter failed to pay
the stipulated revenue. Nor the peasant was tied to the
zamindars; he was free to move from one place to another.
Large tracts of virgin land always kept the zamindars under
the fear of the flight of peasantry if the latter were haraSed,
1, For a detailed definition of zamindars, see British Parliamentary Papers, III, Glossary, pp, 49-50,
2, Agrarian System, p,141,
3, Ibid,, pp, 141-43,
4 , I b i d , , pp, 154-55, The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the zamlnda^r and s t a t e would be discussed in d e t a i l a t the end of t h i s chap te r .
14a
Besides, arbitrary fixation of rents by zamindars was not
possible - both revenue and abwab being fixed by the imperial
authority.
Thus, the status of the zamindar was neither that
of a proprietor of the soil nor a vassal of the state; perhaps
it was a compound of both. He was an intermediary, pushing
superior rights over the peasantry.
The main share of the zamindar was in the form of
malikana and Nanlcir.
Early English administration, while investigating
into the right of malikana found that it was an established
right of the zamindars of Bihar, They were to receive it from <~ ^ - II
the amris, l aq i rdars and "alturogha holders . Whenever they 2
were dispossessed from the management of t h e i r land. Buchanan
in 1811-12 gives a de ta i l ed account: "in the Mogul government
the maliks were c e r t a i n l y not o f f i ce r s of government, as the
zamindars undoubtedly were; nor had they in general anJ^y
1 . B r i t i s h Parliamentary Papers. I l l , p .479.
2 . Minutes of Mr. Shore, l8 th Sept . 1789, B r i t i sh Parl iamentary Papers , I I I , p . 4 3 1 , in f ac t . Shore considered i t a main po in t of difference between the zamindars of Bihar and those of Bengal, In the case of the l a t t e r , the re was no such thing except "moshaira" which had some a f f i n i t y with the malikana of the former ( Ibid . ) .
I f n
management of their lands. An officer of government granted
leases, collected the rent, and gave the maleks one tenth
of the neat proceeds. The malek appointed an accomptant
(screshtahdar) to see that he received his due, and usually
received a trifling annual present from the tenants of each
village, as an acknowledgement of superiority in the feudal
sense . In some places, it is alleged, that the Maleks
managed their own estates, and accounted to the Amel or
collector for the whole proceeds, deducting one tenth of the
neat profit for their support".
The above passage establishes the difference
between the nalik and zamindar in Bihar. The zamindars were
considered as officers of the government, meaning thereby
that they collected the revenue from the peasants, while the
maliks got their malikana from the amils or other government
servants. They generally did not have any part in the
collection, ^ e passage does not make clear what was the
term used to denote the share of the zamindar who managed
their zamindaris, though Buchanan observes that sometimes the
maliks also collected the land revenue and deducted the same
share as malikana. We know from our 17th century sources that
the zamindars, who were managing their territories and
1. Bihar & Patna, II, pp. 564-65.
147
c o l l e c t i n g revenue from peasants , were ertLtled to rusuro-i - - - - - ^ 1
zamindari and d a s t u r a t - i 2amfndarl« The question i s* was
t h i s rusum-1 zamindari in some way d i f fe ren t in nature from
the maliXana ? The answer comes from a se t of ques t ionnai re
which was c i r c u l a t e d among revenue o f f i c i a l s regarding the
revenue s t ruc tu re in Bihar and Bengal. To the question about
the nature of the malikana. The answer was t h a t in Bihar
the malikana was synonymous with rusum-i zamindari. If the
zamindar himself managed the a f f a i r s of zamindari^, he could
deduct i t on h i s own. If the land was vinder the management
of s t a t e , then, the s t a t e gave i t to the zamindar. In case
the t e r r i t o r y was under a j ag i rda r , he was to pay the — — 2 zamindar's share .
From the above discussion, i t i s c l ea r t h a t the
zamindar had a de f i n i t e share in the produce of the s o i l
1 . J a h a n g i r ' s farman to one Hiranand zamindar in Hunger s t a t e s t h a t the l a t t e r w i l l be e n t i t l e d to usual allowances ( t r . by M.L. Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, XVIII, 1941, pp.188-96) . In the same way,__the usual allowances are re fe r red to in Aurangzeb's farman to Mahinath (of Tirhut) bestowing on him the zamrndari of p'argana Sharanpur( sarkar Munger) and a few parqanas in Bengal. I have consul ted the t r a n s l a t e d copy (duly ver i f ied) kept in Darbhanga Raj Archives. Dr. Q.Ahmad consul ted the document and has a l so t r ans la ted i t see Q. Ahmad, "Darbhanga Raj", IHRC, VQI . 36, pp.961-96.
2 . Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f. 150a.
148
which generally was equated with the ma.likana« Though the
terra was often used to indicate that the zamlndar was enjoying
it when he was not administering his zamindari.
As regards the rate of the nalikana/ Shore's minutes
of I8th Sept. 1789 reveals that it was l0% "as the ancient
allowance agreeable to the constitution of the country
government". In reply to some queries around the same
period, the malikana was stated to be lo Rs. in lOO (10%) — • — 2
and lo bighas in iQO bighas. Buchanan's statement makes
it clear that the rate of the nalikina as l0% was as old-3
established practice.
In addition to this, the zamindars working on
behalf of the state, used to get nankar grants in the form
of land or cash. Nankar was offered by the state in lieu of
1. This rate was also fixed in 1771 by the provincial council at Patna with the sanction of the council at Calcutta, British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.451, In the same report. Shore says that this was like "moshaira" a charge of zamindars in Bengal, the rate for which is also given as l0%. Ibid,, p,202,
2. Kaqhazat, Add, 6586, f. I0l7 (117) .
3> For the same rate of malikana in Bihar, see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.29. For the prevalence of malikana in Bihar much before the taking of administration by the English East India Company, see Hunter, op. cit., vol. XI, pp.187-88,
149
service and it was, therefore, admissible only to those
zamindars who worked for the state. We come across a large
number of documents granting nankar in cash or kind to
different zamindars in all parts of the suba. We have no
information as to what was the actual amount sanctioned for
nankar, A glossary of the revenue terms prepared in the l8th
century gives its rate as 5%,
Besides these the zamindars were also given many
grants in the form of in' m (gift) or revenue free grants for
loyalty and good services,''
The zamindars, if influential (and loyal to the
state) could also enjoy the office of chaudhuri which was 4
exclusively held by the zamindars. This substantially increased
their status and earnings.
1. Bihar State Archives, Patna, has a number of natikar grants in the name of one jhatoo chaudhary, and many others. (Bastano, 329 of Saran), The Darbhanga Raj Archive (Bihar State) also has a number of such documents all of which are uncatalogued (some are in Persian and some in English translation). Besides these, a number of such documents preserved in the Bihar Archives and the different collectorates of Bihar have been given in K.K. Datta, Some ^irmans, Sanads and Parwanas, pp.jf., i-ih'-'ib-
2. See 'Glossary', British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,33,
3. Basta no.968 (Shahabad) 329 of Saran Bihar State Archives, Patna and many more uncatalogued. Also see Dutta, op.cit., pp. 3, 40, 41,
j . For Jahangir's farman appointing chaudhuris in a few parganas of Munger, see M.L. Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, xvili, pp.l88-9D,
contd..-
150
In addi t ion to tiiis main claim in the land revenue,
our sources a lso r e fe r to a number of p e r q u i s i t e s (^asumat)
charged by the zaml^ndars from the persons res id ing in h i s
zamindari . Most of these p e r q u i s i t e s were by and large non-
agrar ian in the sense t h a t these had nothing to do with the
a g r i c u l t u r a l produce per se, although the zaminda^rs co l l ec t ed
these p e r q u i s i t e s because of h i s pecu l i a r pos i t ion in the
agrar ian h ie ra rchy . Thus, a t the most, the zamindars
p e r q u i s i t e s were semi-agrarian, and t h a t too, in a very
r e s t r i c t e d sense,
A comnon p rac t i c e in the Mughal enpire was t h a t the
peasants often rendered physical serv ices to the zamindars
on ce r t a in occass ions , free of charge general ly c a l l e d
begar . The l7 th century madad-i maash documents often
mention t h a t g ran t hold were exempted from begar. Except
t h i s , there i s no other reference as to the nature of begar
in Bihar. In the l9 th century, however, i t was widely 2 -
preva len t in Bihar . Begar in Mughal India does not seem to f . n . contd. from prev , page
For Akbar and Aurangzeb's farman to Gopal Thakur and h i s family, see Q, Ahmad, 'Darbhanga R a j ' , o p . c i t , , IHRC , vo l . 36, pp . 94-96. For d e t a i l s about the chau5hurl , see the chapter on Land Revenue (supra) .
1 , Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 . 2 . Buchanan not iced t h a t in the d i s t r i c t s of Patna and
Gaya Weavers performed_this begar in the fdrm of carrying the luggage of the zamindar's guests (see Bihar & Patna^ I I , p .654) , For the begSr performed by weavers in ahahabad, see Martin, Eastern India , i , p .549 .
151
have been practised on the zamlndar's field, but in the
l9th century Bihar this 'free service* was availed of for
ploughing zamindar* s fields and was known as hari or harihar.
The zamindar charged a cess on marriages performed 2 _ -
in t h e i r a r e a s . I t was ca l led biyadanl in North Bihar and was r ea l i sed from every body except the members of the upper
3 c a s t e .
Again, a tax was taken when a homsewas b u i l t or 4
sold . For Bihar, the e a r l i e s t reference i s for 1811-12 when
i t amounted to l / 8 t h of the p r i ce of the house eo ld .
1 . Grierson, Bihar Peasant Life, p .318 .
2 . i r fan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 .
3 . Grierson, p .317 . The r a t e given by Grierson ( l a t e 19th century) for Tirhut i s one rupee and four annas for a g i r l ' s and ten annas for a boy ' s marriage. The accounts of the English Company's 2amTnda"rl a t Deh Calcut ta and other p laces (1710-11) show such charges for marriages and divorces , too (see Wilson, The Early Annals of the English in Bengal, I I , p t . I , pp.11-12) .
4 . Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 .
5 . Buchanan, Bihar and Patna, I I , p .599 . The English Company's zamindarl also~show income from the r e n t and sale of the houses, Wilson, I I , p t . I , pp.11-12.
152
In add i t ion , the zamindars a l so charged cesses on
f ishing and grazing, and took ren t for the palm t r e e s and
orchards , too . Grierson, while discussing the d e t a i l s of
t axes , says t h a t the co l l ec t ions were made in old s icca 2 rupees of Akbar which may suggest t h a t these were customary
charges since the Mughal t imes.
Apart from these p e r q u i s i t e s the zamindars drew
a subs t an t i a l income from taxes iir^osed on d i f f e r en t c r a f t s
f lour ishing in t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s ^ and a lso on merchandise
passing through t h e i r a r e a s . Taxes were a l so r ea l i zed from
the bazars , ha ts and gunges s i t ua t ed in t h e i r zamindarl .
Though we do not possess any information about i t during the
l7 th century, ea r ly Br i t i sh surveys show i t to be a long
standing p rac t i ce in t h i s region. In order to f ind out the
o r ig in of t h i s p r a c t i c e , i t s l e g a l i t y and the p o s s i b i l i t y
of abolishing zamindar's r i gh t , one quest ionnaire with six
quer ies was 5ent in 1789 A.D. by the Revenue Board to a l l 4
the Col lectors of Bihar. We quote below a t length what the
1 . Br i t i sh Parliamentary Papers, I I I , p .460.
2, Grierson, pp . 317-18.
3, See British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.238. In 1790, an official of the company was appointed to revise and establish such tolls as may be considered lawful (Ibid., pp.238, 459-60) .
4. Bhaqalpur Records, vol. 9, ff. 108-18; Muzaffarpur (ol lee to rate Records, vol. 187, Also see British Parliamentary Papers" III, p.470.
153
Col lec tor of Bhagalpvur wrote in t h i s r e spec t .
"When the na t ive pr inces granted zamindaris they
granted not mere o f f i c i a l t r u s t but land and
upon the evidence of two of the most anc ient docu
ments perhaps exis t ing i t appears t h a t a g ran t of
land conveyed a property in a l l i t s r en t s and t o l l s ,
which t o l l s could be nothing e l s e than Bauzar and
Gunge c o l l e c t i o n s on descending from anc ien t
records to modern customs the zamindar's claims
on the Gunges, Bazars and Hauts w i l l appear to be
no less firmly es tabl i shed for i t w i l l be found t h a t
species of co l l ec t ions in denominated Sayr Mahl have
from time immemorial made a p a r t of the zamindaryM
jumma and t h a t no zamindar considered h i s Khood
Bandobust complete wherein i t was not included " .
Other Br i t i sh c o l l e c t o r s a lso pointed out t h a t the
zamindars would c e r t a i n l y object to i t s being abol ished. I t
was argued t h a t t h e i r r i g h t s over gunges and bazars were a t
par with t h e i r r i g h t s in the produce of the land and, the re fore ,
dispossession from the one was as important an infrigement 2
of their rights as from the other. The reaction of the
1. Bhagalpur Records, vol. 9, pp. 108-118.
2. Muzaffarpur Cpliectorate Records, vol. 187; British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.470.
154
zamlndars was that (the) "government if it pleased, might
take from him his whole zamindary".
Buchanan in 1811-12 found that at all the old estab
lished markets, the zamindars collected Tola or a small share
of every thing sold in spite of its abolition by the govern-2
ment. These were paid by the people without any objection
Buchanan suggested that the tax to which people have been
long habituated may be revived, before the memory of old 3
times was obliterated, Grierson, as late as the close of the
l9th century, found a tax levied by the landlords on grain - - 4
seller's weight called kauli, bayan or kiraya. In the southeast of Bihar, a tax called tahbajari (tehbazari) was levied
5 on shopkeepers. It seems that since long the excise
(Ali <ari, a tax on distillers) was under the charge of the
zamindars and was a good source of income to them. Miners
1. Ibid,, p,459. The account of early (1710-11) English zamlndarl in Calcutta also show the income from the markets (see Wilson, II, pt. I, pp.11-12) .
2, Bihar and patna, II, pp. 699-700. For Bhagalpur see Martin, Eastern India,'~vol. II, p,28l,
3. Bihar and Patna, II, p.700.
4, Grierson, p.318.
5. Ibid.
6, Binayak Prasad, Tawarlkh-i U1janiya, I I , p.157, where the author says t h a t from the year Fas l i 1198 )1790) t h i s charge was taken from the zamindars by the government. Also see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p . 2 9 .
2
155
excavating mica in the t e r r i t o r i e s of the 2aininda"rs were
charge'd a t the r a t e of 2 rupees per person per yea r . In
the same manner, persons involved in the ref ining of s a l t
pe t r e were charged six to seven rupees per furnace per yea r .
Our seventeenth century soxirces do not mention t h i s tax but
a cue could be taken from r o c k - s a l t mining in suba Lahor
where a nominal tax was taken by the Mughal s t a t e from the
miners as t e s t i f i e d to by Abul Fazl and Sujan Rai ,
The p rac t i ce of charging rahdar i (road t o l l s ) on the
merchandise passing through the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the zamindar
was widespread in Bihar , Alexander Hamilton mentions the
presence of ' c h i e f s ' on the banks of the Ganges between Patna
and Qasim Bazar, who demanded tax on a l l merchandise passing 4 through t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s .
Tolls and du t ies rea l ized by the zamindars from the
mercanti le boats passing the chaukls s ta t ioned by the bank
of r i v e r s were l a t e r d i rec ted to be abolished by the English
1 , Buchanan, Bihar and Patna, I I , p .460 .
2 , I b i d , , p ,667.
3, Ain, p.539; Sujan Rai, pp.75-77,
4 . Roo A ^ H;a m-i 1 1-nn Tr-a tra 1 e T A l l See A, Hamilton, Travels, p, 411 Between Patna and Hunger, Manrique had to pass through eighteen toll posts, making a payment at each, though the amount paid was very small; in some cases as much as two paisa only (Manrique, II, p.138) ,
156
— _ - 1 •East India Conpany after it took over the diwani in Bihar,
It is not possible, however, to compare the magni
tude of income derived by the zamindars as a 'superior' share
in the agricultural produce with that obtained from non-
agrarian avenues, including perquisites. But it does seem that
non-agrarian income contributed substantially to the
zamindar's income.
In return of all the privileges and superior rights,
the zamindars were supposed to perform certain duties. Their
main function naturally was the collection and deposition of
the land revenue into the royal treasury. Besides this, the
zamindars were expected to maintain law and order in their
jurisdictions. They also helped the state officials in curbing
the refractory and rebellions elements. The troops maintained
by the zamindars were to be placed at the disposal of the
state officials whenever the need arose. In return for
rahdari, they provided security to the goods and the merchants
passing through their territory. The roads and bridges were
1, British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,49» Again, the zamindars were later prohibited by the English company from collecting inland rahdari passing through their territories which were not meant to be disposed off there (Ibid.). However, duties at inland chaukls, hats and gunges were allowed to continue in the hands of the zamindgrs as formerly (Ibid, Also see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p,29) • In spite of the orders of the company, the zamindars continued charging inland rahdari (British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.49) . Grierson in late l9th century found it being levied (Grierson, p. 318) .
157
a l s o repa i red from t h e i r charge.
We have very l i t t l e information how the zamindar
c o l l e c t e d the revenue or how h i s establ ishment was organised.
Most of the information on t h i s subjec t comes from the 18th
century but in most cases the ind ica t ions are t h a t i t was a
long standing p r a c t i c e . These may be summarised as follows:
In the f i r s t p lace , the qanungos were supposed to
keep an accoxint of the annual produce of each zamindari to
regu la te the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the jama in d i f fe ren t proport ions
to the s t a t e , zamindar, and the subordinate o f f i c i a l s engaged 2 '-in the revenue c o l l e c t i o n . AmiIs used to take qubul iyat
from the zamindars for depositing the revenue, and if the
zamlndars fa i l ed in t h i s , they were taken to task and even •^ ^ 3
t h e i r zamindars could be taken away.
The establ ishment of the holders of subs tan t i a l
zamindari was somewhat e l abo ra t e . They used to have one-diwan
or t a h s i l d a r as t h e i r stewards, with 'Motsuddis" or 'peshkars*
1. Firminger, Fjfth Report, II, p.745.
2. Bhagalpur Records, vol, 9, p,114. Also see Fifth Report, II, p.747.
3. 'Petition of the Aumils of Bihar to the Board of Revenue c. 1786' (Hand, Administration of Bihar, p,30).
158
( c l e r k s ) , cash keepers (Fotadars ) , record keepers and,guards
( 'Pegudehs) under an o f f i ce r c a l l e d lama^dar. The o f f i c i a l
working place was ca l l ed "kachahri" where the dues were 2
c o l l e c t e d . The small zamindars kept one c le rk with one or
more watchman ( 'chawkidar ') for a s s i s t ance in c o l l e c t i n g the 3 - -
revenue. The zamindars of both the ca tegor ies were well , 4 armed.
When the zamindars did not collect revenue themselves,
they got a share of l0% on the total collection. For this
they kept a vigilant eye on the qanungos and 'amiIs as their
malikana depended on the accuracy of the papers of the 'amils
— - 5 ^ and qanungos. They took their share through the amils and
-~ "" fi
the holders of jagirs and altamgha grants,
Zamindari apparently had all the features of private
property: it was salable could be gifted away and inheritable,
7 — _ — too , The purchase and sale of zamindari was systamatised by 1. Buchanan, Bihar & Patna, II, p,565. For such office bearers
in the zamlndg ris of the English Company in Calcutta, see Wilson, Aunals, II, pt, I, pp. 11-12,
2. Buchanan, Bihar & Patna, p,565,
3. Ibid., pp. 565-66,
4. Ibid,, p.566.
5. Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.29,
6. British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.451. Also see Hand, op,cit., p.29.
7. irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p. 154. Also see Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f. lol3 b (ll3 b).
159
the Mughal s t a t e by making i t compulsory to r e g i s t e r such
d e a l s . We ge t innumerable zamindari sale-deeds in surviving
r eco rds . I t seems t h a t the s a l e -p r i ce of a zaminda'ri was
seldom more than double or barely exceeded the land-revenue
demand for one y e a r .
Hereditary succession to the zamindari was a ru le
in Mughal Ind ia , The need of a sanad rose only in the case
of dispute between l ega l h£*rs . When a zamindari was bestowed
by a royal farman, i t was mentioned t h a t i t i s to be inher i t ed 2
generat ion a f te r genera t ion . The shares of successors were
always given as the whole v i l l a g e , or in f r ac t i ona l p a r t s of
1 , Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p p . 151-53. I r fan Habib po in t s out t h a t the p r i ces were su rp r i s ing ly low compared to the ra t e p r i c e and land revenue for one year and suggests t ha t i t should have been the c a p i t a l i s e d value of the anual income expected from possession of the r i g h t purchased; but what he has probably overlooked i s t h a t the zamindar share was only aroiond l0% of the t o t a l land revenue and, thus , the p r i c e s were in fac t c a p i t a l i sed value of the expected income.
2 , J ehang i r ' s farraan of 1613 A.D. t r . M.L, Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, XVIII, 1941, pp , 188-96; Mahinath Thakur, the_ qanunqo and chaudhurT of ^ i rhu t , was given zamindari r i g h t in a few parganas of bengal a l so in r e tu rn for h i s good se rv ices (Farnian of Darbhanga Archives uncata-logued) s im i l a r l y , the zaniirndari of Garhi ( l e f t by Daryao Singh) was given to Ranbhim in re turn for h i s help in Man Singh 's Bengal expedi t ion; but one of h i s descendants,_udho, in the reign of Shahjahan, was recognised as zamindar on the condit ion of embracing Islam, and he was even elevated to the pos i t ion o f . r a j a ( ch i e f t a i n ) , (see K.K, Basu, 'His tory of Te l iagarh i and Madhuban', IHRC, vol . 35, i960, pp ,51-55) ,
169
of a village as the case may be but never in bighas.
Buchanan found in Patna that the minute sub-division
of property had reduced a large number of the zamindars to the
condition of mere peasants, and in many cases the former 2
were compelled to cultivate their lands themselves,
in Bihar, at the time of the early English settlement,
the British officers, because of the hereditary nature of
zamindari, were misled into considering the zamindars as the
real proprietors of land and, hence, they put much emphasis 3
on its hereditary character. The details of the procedure
adopted for inheritance have been given at the end of the
chapter (Appendix A),
Our seventeenth century soxirces are not adequate enough
to provide answers to a few questions concerning zamindari.
For example: a) What happened in the case of issue-less or
unclaimed zamindaris ? ; b) What was done with the abandoned
zamindaris; and c) When waste land was brought under cultiva
tion, who got the zamindari ?
1, Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p.156,
2, Bihar and Patna, II, p,563.
3, Fifth Report. II, pp, 74 3-45; British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.204.
I f* * V)i
However^ the English company's survey reports give
us some clues. These may be summarised as below:
In all the above cases, the royal authority had powers
of decision. In the first (£ase, after the death of a
zamindar with no issue, the zamindari was kept in the charge
of the muqaddams pending decision. In the second case, the
Mughal emperor could give the abandoned zamindari to any of 2
the persons applying for it, in the third case; when a
waste land was brought under cultivation, the emperor could
- - — 3 give it in zamindari to the person instrumental in this act.
The rise of some zamindaris may be traced initially to the
holder of a government office and, in many cases, to that of
the qahungos. The most illuminating example of such a zamindari
is that of the Darbhanga Raj farr.ily. The family started as
1, Cf. British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,238. When Ghanshyam, the zamindar of Sultanpur Kajtloo (Hunger) , died in 1712 without issue the zamindari was put under the charge of muqaddam,
2, When Bheek Roy could not defend the tarf of Indrik (Munger) from the people of Bunickpore (?) , he o.bi•,:l t.ie.i U, later, 'Lachmun', a brahmin, applied for it which was granted to him in 1061 fasli (1653) by Aurangzeb (there is some error in the date), At the time of writing the document, the 4th descendant of Luchman, Manohar Singh was the zamindar (British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.240) .
3, The tarf of Ibrahimpur established in waste land was given to one Bendodo Chowdhri of Munger, whese grandson Hari Kishan was in possession in 1790, Ibid, p.24 0.
162
qanungoB and chaudhuris during Akbar's period, emerging as
powerful zamindars by the time of Aurangzeb, and ultimately
by 1720 became 'chieftain'. Buchanan found that the ancestors
of the most distinguished zamindar of Baikanthpur could be
traced to one "Bhav Singha" who started his career as a
- - 2 qanungo.
It has not been possible to estimate the exact number
of the zamindars in the suba of Bihar, However, some idea may
be formed on the basis of the later records. The Collector
of Saran informed the Board of Revenue in 1788 that in 12 out
of 17 parganas, there were 353 zamindars. The number in
the districts of Bihar and Shahabad was considered much 4 — -
greater. By one estimate, the number of the zamindars in 5
Munger was 3180. The main problem in making permanent
settlement in Tirhut was started to be the large number of
"estates" in the district.
1. Q. Ahmad, 'Darbhanga Raj', IHRC, vol. 35, 1961, pp.94-96.
2. Bihar & Patna, II, p.577.
3 . B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t a r y Papers , I I I , p . 4 5 3 .
4 . I b i d . , p . 4 5 7 .
5 . Hunter , v o l . XV, p p . 115-16.
6. H.R. Ghoshal, 'The Problem of Effecting Permanent Settlement in Tirhut", IHRC, vol. 35, i960, pt. II, p.9l.
163
Caste Coirposition of the Zamindars
The cortposition of the zamlndar class was a
heterogenous one. They were represented by the people from
all the 'castes'. The Ain provides information regarding
the dominant zamindar caste in every pargana, but it is
unfortunate that the Ain's information in this respect
are incomplete in the case of Bihar, Of the seven sarkars
of the suba/ the zamindar caste for only the sarkar of Bihar
is given. Here, too, out of a total of 45 parganas, the 2
information is provided for 27 parganas only. The study of
the zamindar caste in the sarkjr of Bihar shows that the
Brahmins were the predominant caste represented in eleven
parganas followed by the Rajputs in five, the Kayastha in
four, the Afghans and Shaikhzadas in three each, and the
Cherus in two parganas.
The main strength of the zamindar was based on the
armed retainers recruited by him. The 'Ain gives the number
of cavalry (sawar) and infantry (piyadah) for each pargana,
1. Abul Fazl uses the term 'qaum' which is more comprehensive in its connotation than the term 'caste'. Strictly speaking the Afghans, Shaikhzadas and Cherus, etc. Can not be put into the category of "caste". It is only for convenience that we have used the term 'caste'.
2. Ain, pp. 418-19.
3. Ibid.
164
I n t h e c a s e of t h e s\iba of B i h a r , i t p r o v i d e s p a r q a n a - w i s e
f i g u r e s f o r t h e s a r k a r o f B i h a r o n l y and , f o r t h e r e s t , t h e
Ain g i v e s s a r k a r - w i s e f i g u r e s . The f a c t t h a t t h e " c o l u m n s "
of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y i n t h e Ain a r e g i v e n i m m e d i a t e l y
a f t e r t h e c a s t e o f z a m i n d a r s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y w e r e armed
r e t a i n e r s of t h e z a m i n d a r s . Wherever t h e p a r g a n a - w i s e
z a m i n d a r c a s t e i s m e n t i o n e d , t h e number of armed r e t a i n e r s
a r e a l s o g i v e n p a r g a n a - w i s e , and whenever t h e ' c a s t e * i s
s t a t e d f o r t h e whole s a r k a r , t h e number of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y
i s a l s o g i v e n f o r t h e whole of t h e s a r k a r . The t o t a l number
2 of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y i n t h e suba of B i h a r wcus a s f o l l o w s ,
S a r k a r Saw?r P i y a d a h ( C a v a l r y ) ( I n f a n t r y )
B i h a r 2115 67 ,350
Hunger 2150 5 0 , 0 0 0
Champaran 700 30 ,000
H a j i p u r 200 1 0 , 0 0 0
S a r a n lOOO 5 0 , 0 0 0
T i r h u t 700 8 0 , 0 0 0
R o h t a s 4550 1 , 6 2 , 0 0 0
T o t a l 11 ,415 4 , 4 9 , 3 5 0
N o t e : l o o b o a t s w e r e m a i n t a i n e d by t h e z a m i n d a r s .
4 , 4 9 , 3 5 0 i n f a n t r y w i t h t h e s u p p o r t of 1 1 , 4 1 5
c a v a l r y and lOO b o a t s w i l l make a s t r o n g f o r c e . The t o t a l
1 , I r f a n Habib, Agra r ian System, p p , 163-64.
2 , A in , p p . 4 1 7 - 2 3 .
18-j
number of cavalry and infantry kept by the zamindars in
a l l the subas of the Mughal empire was about 42,77,057
in fan t ry and 3,84,558 cava l ry . Thus the zamindars of Bihar
maintained r e t a i n e r s amounting to l0.05% infantry and 2,96%
of cavalry of the t o t a l given for the empire, S^ch a large
regular force would requi re huge sums for i t s maintenance
and upkeep. I t seems, therefore , t h a t the cavalry would have
been a regular force , while the in fan t ry may have included
persons whose se rv ices were avai led of a t the time of need;
the l a t t e r na tu ra l ly would have been drawn from the peasant ry .
Such troops genera l ly belonged to the clan of the zamindars,
thus strengthening the t i e s between them and the peasantary*
Farid (Shershah) in h i s operations aga ins t the zamindars in
h i s f a t h e r ' s j a g i r in Bihar i s s t a t ed to have k i l l e d a l l the 2
men he found and s e t t l e d new peasan t s . The assumption behind
t h i s inc ident , as suggested by i r fan Habib, was t h a t the old
peasants were e i t h e r the r e t a i n e r s of the zamindars or a t l e a s t 3
had served them in b a t t l e .
The above tab le shows t h a t the sarkar of Rohtas
commanded the l a r g e s t number of t roops although i t had a
smaller area compared to some sa rkars of Bihar. I t had an
1 . I r fan Habib, Agrarian System, pp . 163-64.
2 . Abbas lOian, Tuhfa-i Akbar Shahi (Cf, i r fan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 166-67).
3 . I b i d .
15G
area of 6,446 square miles, smaller as compared to the sarkars
of Bihar, Hunger and Tirhut, The large number of troops in
Rohtas may have been due to three reasons: first, it had a
large revenue return, next only to the sarkar of Bihar.
Secondly, it had the largest chieftancy in Bihar, i.e. the
Ujjaniyas; and thirdly, its geographical situation, surrounded
as it was with dense forests, would have required large number
of troops. The difficulties in administering the sarkar of
Rohtas could have prompted the administration to divide it
into two distinct sarkars laterii on Rohtas and Shahabad.
These troops performed many functions. They protected the
zamindar's possessions, helped in collecting revenue from
the'zortalab' (rebellions) peasantry and in the maintenance
— _ i, of general law and order in the zamindars. Our sources
J-
possess inumerable evidences on the supply of troops by the
zamindars at the time of Imperial expeditions against rebe
llious territories as well as for new conquests.
Another symbol of the zamindar's strength was the
large number of big and small fortresses dotted through out
the suba. Abul Fazl refers to only big fortresses such as
Gidhaur, Ratanpur, and others. Many of these were at places
where the Imperial control was substantial, like Patna, Hunger,
1. See Chapter one on Geography (supra) .
157
etc. Early British surveyors found small 'fortresses* in
large numbers in the country side. In Gaya,Buchanan found
petty ruined forts belonging to the zamindars whose number
was too great to be calculated,^ Similarly, he found ruined
forts 8 in Dariapur, 86 in Helsa (29 were still inhabited), 3
loo in Jahanabad and in large numbers at Daudnagar and Vikram.
The Construction and maintenance of the forts was a right
provided and protected by the Mughal government so long as
— - 4 the zamindars remained loyal. In the case of rebellious
zamindars, these fortresses were attacked sn d destroyed.
Zamindars and Mughal Administration
The zamindars, as shown earlier, had a proprietory
rights over the produce of the land and this right was here
ditary. At the same time, these rights existed even before _ CKe ?-a7n)Tv.dar5
the establishment of the Mughal empire and, therefore,. di3 A
not draw their authority from the Mughal state like the
jagirdars. Considering this position of the zamindars, the
question is as to what was the relationship between the zamindar
and the Mughal state, and whether the zamindars could be called
government servants ?
1 . Ain, p p . 418-23 ,
2 , Buchanan, Bihar & Pa tna , I , p , l 6 2 ,
3 . I b i d , , p p , 183, 233, 250,256, 2 6 1 .
4 , I r f a n Habib, Agra r i an System, p p , 164-65 .
183
On the bas i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the zamindar
and the Mughal adminis t ra t ive irachinery, t h i s c l a s s may be
divided in to three ca t ego r i e s . F i r s t , the zamindars who were
by passed in the process of land-revenue co l l ec t ion and were
e n t i t l e d to mal ikina. The second category was of those
zamindars who co l l ec t ed land revenue on behalf of the s t a t e
and, a f t e r deducting t h e i r own share , forwarded the r e s t to the
royal exchequer. And f i n a l l y , those , who, besides co l l ec t i ng
land revenue in t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s , possessed the chaudhurai
( r igh t s ) . This r i g h t made the zamindar responsible for the
c o l l e c t i o n of revenue from the a reas of other zamindars a l s o .
The f i r s t category can by no c r i t e r i a be considered
as se rv ice , while second category of the zamindars, though
not appointed by the s t a t e (except when the zamindars were
appointed by royal orders in spec i f i c cases ) , may be conside
red as Imperial se rvants since they were supposed to c o l l e c t
land revenue s t r i c t l y , according to relies and regu la t ions
framed by the s t a t e , with the help of s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . They
a l so received naT>kar from the s t a t e in l ieu of s e rv ice . But
the Mughal State did not have the au tho r i t y to remove him
unless he was declared a defau l te r or r e b e l l i o u s . As regards
the t h i r d category, where the chaudhra'*! wcc© coupled with
zamindari, the s t a t e was the appointing author i ty and, hence,
i t Could remove him a t p l ea su re . But, here , too, only the
chaudhrax could have been taken away, When the chaudhuri
f a i l ed to perform h i s d u t i e s . The chaudhuri, therefore , was
169
a purely government off ice carrying with i t the f ixed
p e r q u i s i t e s . As far as the coupling of the zaminda'ri and
chaudhra'i i s concerned, i t does not necessar i ly imply t h a t
zamindari was a government s e rv i ce . Such coupling i s
genera l ly fotind in cases where the zamindari r i g h t s were
granted by the Emperor. Moreover, such appointments were
given to the most loyal or dependable persons; hence, the
chaudhra'i may be considered as a spec ia l favour. Thus, the
chaudhuri for a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes was a government
servant , and not so a l l the zamindars. The l a t t e r had only
a s o r t of con t r ac t with the Imperial au thor i ty , and they
did not general ly draw the i r au thor i ty from the sovereign.
As discussed e a r l i e r , the s t a t e had every r i g h t to
appoint a zamindar in case of an unclaimed zamindari, or
in place of r ebe l l i ous zamindar. I t could even replace a
zamindar who f a i l ed to c o l l e c t the revenue. Again, the
s t a t e was the sole au thor i ty to appoint a zamindar in newly
conquered t e r r i t o r i e s . But the s t a t e used such powers with
cau t ion . As eighteenth century enquiry in zamindar's r i g h t s
informs tha t in case of minor rebe l l ion the zamindar was
1, Irfan Habib expresses t h i s opinion on the ba s i s of the use of the term isbidmat (s_ervice) in the royal appointment orders of the zamindars. But i t i s only in the cases of the zamindars appointed by the Emperor. This, too, is_from the documents where the zamindari and chaudhra'i have been granted in the same order (see Agrarian System, p . 173) .
170
s t a t e was the sole au tho r i t y to appoint a zamindar in newly
conquered t e r r i t o r i e s . But the s t a t e used such powers with
c a u t i o n . An eighteenth century enquiry in zamindar's r i g h t s
informs tha t in case of minor r ebe l l i on the zamindar was
given pe t ty punishments as a warning; bu t i f h i s de fau l t
continued, the adminis t ra t ion of zamindari was taken from
him, and one of h i s successors was se l ec t ed to replace him.
I t appears, however, t h a t such appoint ing p r iv i l ege was used
in r a re cases only . Ordinar i ly ,such in te r ference was
avaided in con t ra s t to what happened to j a g i r d a r s . Never
t h e l e s s , the might of the Mughal Sta te hung l i ke the Damocle's
sword in the form of i t s t h r ea t of dispossession if a
zamindar rebel led or de l i be ra t e ly p roc ras t ina ted or f a i l ed
to perform h i s d u t i e s .
The s t a t e a l so reserved i t s power to intervene
and decide disputes concerning the zamindari r i gh t s among
numerous c la imain t s , perhaps t h i s power sometimes might
have been u t i l i s e d to el iminate r e f rac to ry elements. In one
case of such d isputes between two zamindars, Anand and Kanak,
in pargana Bal of sarkar Saran, the claim of Kanak was
r e j ec t ed and tha t of Anand was upheld as the leg i t imate
zamindar by Aurangzeb. The amil of the sa id pargana was
, Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f, 10l5 a (115 a) .
17
d i r ec t ed to take ac t ion and put a stop to Kanak's
in te re fe rence in order to secure the jamindari to Anand,
Again in 1702, the faujdar of sarkar Saran was ordered to 2
help Anand. A s imi lar order was issued in 1703 to o ther o f f i c i a l s to p r o t e c t the r i g h t s of one Maha Singh v i s - a - v i s
3 Prem Narain, The emperor's repeated d i rec t ions in t h i s
case for three years show tha t i t was not an easy task to
d isp lace any contending p a r t y . This d i f f i c u l t y might have
been due to the loca l l i nks and cas te -base of the claimants
concerned.
Yet in another dispute in 1724, orders were issued
to t r ans fe r the zamindari of the v i l l age Tappa Khurd in
pargana Cherand of sarkar Saran, from Lai Khan to Baqar 4
Khan. The s t a t e considered the former 's claim i l l e g a l .
The incidence of r ebe l l ions by the zaminda^rs aga ins t
the Mughal adminis t ra t ion was very high as t e s t i f i e d to by
the contemporary accounts and docxments. I t seems t h a t such
occurrences in Bihar were comparatively frequent, because
of i t s geographical s i t ua t i on and dis tance from the c a p i t a l .
1 , See the parwana in Bihar State Archives, patna, Basta no . 329, For an abridged t r a n s l a t i o n in English, see K.K. Datta, Firmans, p . 3 8 .
2 , parwana in Bihar Sta te Archives, Basta no.329. Also Datta, o p . c i t . , pp . 38-39.
3 , Parwana in Bihar Sta te Archives, Basta no.329, Also Datta, p . 39,
4 , Datta , p , 4 5 .
172
Why there-were frequent r ebe l l ions by the zamindars ?
The f a i l u r e , whether de l ibe ra t e or otherwise, to
c o l l e c t or remit the s t a t e ' s share often pushed the
zamindars to the r e b e l l i o u s pa th . This was one common
p rac t i c e to evade the imminent punishment. Their c a s t e
Concentration with the armed r e t a i n e r s of the same c a s t e
gave them strength and generated arrogance to defy the
Imperial a u t h o r i t y . Whenever there was any p o l i t i c a l
i n s t a b i l i t y , such as the rebe l l ion of pr inces or j a g i r d a r s ,
some zamindars took advantage of the s i t ua t ion by helping
the r ebe l s , and thus opposing the s t a t e . During the War of of
Succession between the sons Shahjahan,each side t r i e d to A
1. At the time of the rebe l l ion (1579-81) of j a g i r d a r s in Bihar, many zamindars a lso joined them (Akbarnama, I I I , pp . 284-87, 305-09, 3l9-337)_. At the time of the rebe l l ion of Chin Qul i j , the jag i rdars of Jaxinpur in 1615, the zamindars of Tirhut helped him in severa l ways (Tuzuk, p . 14 8 Eng. t r . Rogers, v o l . I , p.302 n.) The zamlndSr of Darbhanga helped the faujdar to crush the rebe l l ion of the zamindar of Morung (Nepal) for which the former was su i tab ly rewarded and the l a t t e r a l so received many favours (Farman, in Darbhanga Archives a l so see Q. Ahmad, 'Dharbhanga R a j ' , IHRC, vo l . 36, 19 61, pp . 94-9 6.
173
muster the support of the zaminda"rs to strengthen t h e i r
p o s i t i o n s . After the death of Aurangzeb, the a s p i r a t i o n s of
zamindars rose high and i t was reported by the English fac to r s
in 1712 t h a t the zantindars even plundered "Kings (Farukhyiyar)
own boats .
The fac t t h a t the fo r t r e s ses of many zamindars were
in the midst of dense fo res t s & h i l l y t r a c t s of ^outh Bihar,
Hunger and Rohtas, may be one of the f ac to r s t h a t tempted
the zamindars there to take the path of r e b e l l i o n , ^uch
geographical s i t ua t i on was disadvantageous to the imperia l
forces who were not famil iar with the reg ion .
Thus, the Mughal adminis t ra t ion knew i t f u l l y well
t h a t t h e i r r e l a t i onsh ip with the zamindars was of mutual
i n t e r e s t and tha t i t was not poss ib le for one to e l imina te
the o t h e r .
Shuja issued an order to the zamindars of Bihar to he lp him and oppose the forces to Dara and gave assurances 6f good rewards. Similar ly, Dara a l so issued nishans to the Chieftains and zamindars seeking t h e i r ^e lp and promised to bestow special favours (see B.P. Ambashthya, 'Some Farmans, Sanads Nishans & G' JBRS, vo l , 43 , p t , I I I & IV, 1957, pp , 215-239) .
2 . Wilson, Annals, I I , p t , I , pp .80-81 ,
174
CHIEFTAINS
So far we have discussed the zamlndars as a land
owning class claiming superior rights in land, but working
as a part of the Mughal administration for the collection
of land-revenue. There was yet another category of
superior right holders, existing throughout the Mughal
Empire, who were called rais, ranas, rawats or rajas, etc.
They enjoyed administrative, political and economic freedom
to some measure in their respective territories and may,
therefore, be termed as autonomous or semi-autonomous
chiefs.
The Mughal chroniclers refer^ to the chieftains as
zamlndar. The use of the same term for this class and
ordinary zamlndars causes some confusion. However, the
difference between the two-the chiefs and zamlndars-lay
most clearly in their relationship with the imperial power
which allowed autonomy to the chief, a right which ordinary
zamlndars obviously did not possess,
Moreland was the first to draw our attention to the
importance of chieftains, in Mughal India. Following
1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India, op.cit, pp. 117-23.
175
him, P. Saran also devoted some space to the chiefs in
his work. Irfan Habib, while discussing the position of the
zamindars, gives a detailed account relating to the rights
and obligations of the chieftains, distinguishing them from
^ - 2 ordinary zammdars , In a succinct and path-breaking a r t i c l e Nurul Hasan has emphasized the ro l e of the ch ie f t a ins in the
3 s t r u c t u r e of Mughal Empire. He has c l a s s i f i e d zamrndaTs
in to three ca t ego r i e s : (a) the autonomous ch i e f t a in s ; (b)
the intermediate zamTndgrs; and (c) the primary zamrndars.
A.R. Khan's work i s the f i r s t de t a i l ed study about the pos i t ion
and ro le of ch iefs in a l l regions of the Mughal Empire during 4
the reign of Akbar, He has i den t i f i ed the p r i n c i p a l i t i e s
of various ch ie f s , and discussed a t length the manner of t h e i r
subjugation and the nature of t h e i r r e l a t ionsh ip with the
Mughal S t a t e ,
Like a l l the subas of Mughal India , Bihar too had a
number of c h i e f t a i n c i e s , some having a group of parganas and
o the rs j u s t a por t ion of i t ,
1 . p . Saran, Provinc ia l Government of the Muqhals. s^p.110-54.
2 . Irfan Habib, Agrarian System,pp. 182-89.
3 . S. Nurul Hasan, 'The Posi t ion of the Zamrndars in the Mughal Empire', lESHR. vo l . I , Nov. 4, pp. 107-119.
4 . A.R. Khan, Chief ta ins in the Mughal Empire during the Reign of Akbar, Simla, 1977.
17G
We will first identify, as far as possible, the
principalities of various chiefs and, then, trace the
process of their subjugation.
The ujjaniya Raj was the biggest chieftancy in
Bihar, situated mainly in the sarkar of Rohtas, during the
reign of Akbar; later on, when the sarkar was divided into
two (Rohtas and Shahabad), they held their major share in
the sarkar of Shahabad. During the reign of Jahangir, the
Ujjaniyas controlled parts of the ^arqanas of Arrah, Bihiya,
Danwar, Pero, Punwar, Nanar, Dambara, Barahgaon and Bhojpur
in the sarkar of Shahabad, parts of the parganas of Sahasram
and Chainpur in Rohtas, and of Kopa and Manjhi in sarkar
Saran. Besides these, they also held Gadh and Mahmoodabad.
According to the family records, the r"a-j was established in 2
A.D. 1320, when their ancestors came from Ujjain m Malwa.
They attained importance during the sixteenth century under
1. Binayak Prasad, Tawarikh-i Uljaniya/ II, pp. 35, 54, 55 of these, except Chainpur, all are given as parganas of Rohtas in the A'in, p.22-23. I have not been able to identify Kopa in Saran, as also Gadh & Mehmoodabad, The account of Binayak Prasad was written in the 19th century and the area controlled by the Ujjaniyas as given by him seems highly exaggerated.
2. Binayak Prasad, Tawarikh-i Ujjaniya, op.cit., I, p.55.
177
the patronage of Hasan Khan Sur and h i s son^ Far id . Their 2
strongholds were the f o r t s of Shergarh and Jagdispur .
the Ujjaniya r a j a Gajpati i s said to have a s s i s t e d
the Mughals in t h e i r Bengal expedit ion in 1572-73, So i t
seems t h a t by tha t time he had a l ready stibmitted to the
Mughal power.
Another important chieftancy was t h a t of the Cheros. 4
They are said to be of Dravidian o r i g i n . They held large
t r a c t s in the south of Bihar but were replaced a t many p laces
by Ujjaniyas with whome they seems to have been engaged in
frequent f ights in the l6 th and e a r l y 17th c e n t v r i e s .
^ e A'In records the cheros as the zamlndars in the parganas
of Chai Champa and Pudag (Pundrag) s i t ua t ed in the south
1 . B.P. Anribashthya, 'Tradit ion and Geneology of Ujjaniyas in Biharj PLHC, XXIII, 1963, p .127 .
2 . A.R. Khan, Chieftains & C,, o p . c i t . , pp . 168-69.
3 . Abul Fazl, Akbarnama, HI, p .22 ,
4 . S, Hasan Askari, 'Bihar in the time of Aurangzeb', JBRS vo l . 31 ,op>ci t . , p ,257 .
5 . Tawarlkh-i Uijaniya, I I , pp . 32-33 .
178
of t h e suba < s a r k a r of Bihar) . i n the Mughal sources they
a r e g e n e r a l l y r e f e r e d to a s the zatnrndar of Palamau. The
pargana of Palamau h a s no t been r ecorded in the Ain^ b u t
i t i s i nc luded as a pargana of g a r k a r Bihar in t h e l i s t s
p r e p a r e d in t h e l 8 t h c e n t u r y . I t seems t h a t the whole of t h i s
sou thern region was under the i n f l u e n c e of the Cheros . We
h e a r of t h e i r powerful c h i e f , Maharat Chero, during Sher 2
Shah ' s r e i g n . During Akbar ' s r e i g n (1590-91) , Man Singh
p lunde red the t e r r i t o r y of the Chero King Anant Chero, b u t
could n o t subdue him. In the 15th r e g n a l year of Shahjehan,
t h e r a j a of Palamau was a t t a c k e d by S h a i s t a Khan, the then 4
governor of Bihar , and the forrt^r was forced to s u b m i t .
In the 17th r e g n a l yea r of the same emperor, due to h i s
r e b e l l i o u s a t t i t u d e , a n o t h e r e x p e d i t i o n was s en t a g a i n s t
him by I t i q a d Khan t h e then governor of Bihar wi th s i m i l a r
r e s u l t . But, he p r o b a b l y r e b e l l e d a g a i n , and in the 4 th
r e g n a l year of Aurangzeb, the governor Daud Khan, a f t e r a
s u c c e s s f u l e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t him, secured h i s submiss ion .
1 . ^ I n , p , 4 l 8 .
2 . See Abbas Nnan, Tuhfa - i Akbar s h a h i , Eng, t r , by E l l i o t & Dowson, v o l . IV, p p . 3 68-69, 371 , 373-74. Also see A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 7 0 .
3 . Akbarnama, I I I , p . 576; M a a s i r - a l umar'a, I I , p . 1 6 2 ,
4 . Lahor i , Badshahnama, I I , p p . 248-50; Maas i r - a l Umara, I I , p p . 693-94.
5 . Badshahnama, I I , p p . 3 6 0 - 6 1 ; M a a s i r - a l Umara, i , p . l 8 l ; I I , p . 372.
6 . Mc(asir-tAlamgIrI, p p . 37-38; 'AlamgIrnima, pp.^48-6o (w S&«-,
179
Another notable chief tancy in Bihar was t h a t of the
Gidhaur. This i s mentioned in the A'ln as a mahal of sarkar
Bihar having strong f o r t . The cas t e of the zamlhdar's
entered as Rajput. I t s ch ie f ta in he ld , bes ides Gidhaur,
MaIda as we l l , Gidhaur was brought under the Mughal
suzera in ty af te r the 19th regnal year of ^kbar . I t s ra ja
i s recorded to have helped the Mughal forces in the Bengal
exped i t ion . After some time he r ebe l l ed but wasprought
again under imperial c o n t r o l .
Raja Sangram, described by Abul Fazl as the zamindar
of Kharagpur, was an important c h i e f t a i n of Bihar, His
chieftancy was s i tua ted in the sarkar of Munger, Sangram
submitted to the Mughals in 1574-75, and remained loyal
t he r ea f t e r t i l l he rebe l led in the e a r l y years of Jehangir 4
and was k i l l e d by the imperial f o r c e s . But h i s successors
remained loyal and served under the Mughals. The exact area
under t h e i r domination i s not mentioned in our sources from
Akbar's re ign, but from a farmian of Jahangir i t appears t h a t
t h e i r chieftancy included the pargana of Haveli Kharakpur,
1 . Xin, p .418 .
2. Akbarnama, i l l , pp,321, 461-62, 576-77.
3 . Akbarnama, I I I , p , l 0 7 .
4 . Tuzuk, p .39; Iqbalnama-i J a h a h g l r l , p . 2 1 ,
180
parganas of Sakhrabad, Parbatpore, Chandori, Kathuria,
Chandure, passai Sa th io r i , Godda, Damre, Sankhwara, Hazar Tuki, 1
Hamduo and Amlu Muliya e t c ,
The region of Kokra was a l so under untonomous c h i e f s .
The f i r s t chief of the family during the reign of Akbar was
Madho Singh, The t e r r i t o r y was a l so known as Jharkhand; i t
i s in the Chotanagpur region, s i t u a t e d around the southern
h i l l s , Madho Singh svibmitted in the 3oth regnal year of A]ODar
a f t e r h i s defeat a t the hands of Shahba-T. Khan Kambu when he ^ - ^ 2
promised to pay malguzari , ^
3 The chieftancy of Seor lay in the sarlcar of Bihar .
I t s ch ie fs submitted to the Mughals in 1577-78, when he 4
agreed to send 30/000 rupees and 20 e l e p h a n t s .
Another chief tancy, not mentioned in the sources of
Akbar's period, but recorded in l a t e r accounts as being under
1 . Cf, Hunter, v o l . 15, pp . 178^61; R.K. Chaudhary, 'History of Tappa Cha^duaryMBhagalpur) ' , JBRS. vo l . XLII, p t . l i i & IV, 1956, p .335 .
2 . Akbarnama, m , p .479 . Ma'asir-al Umara, I I , pp .590-601.
3 . ^an_, p .418 .
4. Arif Qandhari, Tartkh-i AkbarI, ed. I.A. Arshi & C,, Rampur, 1962, p.226.
181
a ruler Bir Hamir was that of Panchet. This chieftancy 2
was in the suba of Bihar, adjacent to the suba of Bengal.
Its chief. Raja Bir Narain held a mansab in the reign of 3
Shahj ahan.
Ratanpur is entered in the A'fn as a mahal of Rohtas 4
with a strong fort. This territory was invaded by
Abdullah Khan Ferozjung in the 8th regnal year of Shahjahan,
forcing the chief Lachmi to pay a huge sum and elephants.
Kalyanpur, in the north of Bihar, was another
chieftancy ruled by Kalyan Mai, who was given the title
of raja by Akbar, This chieftancy, (later called the
Hathwa Raj) in addition to Kalyanpur,also included the 7
mahals of Sipah and Husapur . Itsrulers were also known as
1. Cf, A.R. Khan, Chieftains, p. 173.
2. A.R. Khan is of the opinion that it was neither included in the suba of Bihar nor of Bengal (Chieftains, p.173) . Irfan Habib also shows it outside Bihar (Atlas, sheet lOA, 12A) But the Badshahnama clearly states that it was in the suba of Bihar (vol. I, pt. II, p.317) .
3. Ibid.
4 . A'ln, pp. 422-23.
5 . Badshahnama. v o l . I , p t . i i , p . 8 4 ; M a a s i r - a l Umar"a, I I , p p . 785-86 .
6 . O'Malley, Saran, p p . 23-24, 1 4 2 - 4 6 .
7 . I b i d .
182
r a i a s of Husepur, because the c o u r t of the r a j a was h e l d
a t t h a t p l a c e . The r a j a i t a p p e a r s , had accepted Mughal 2
s o v e r e i g n t y by 1582-83 .
The c h i e f of Champaran, Udai Karan, i s mentioned 3
by Abul Faz l , though he does not g i v e the name of t h e e x a c t
p l a c e o r S e a t of the s a i d c h i e f . I t seems t h a t Udaikaran was 4
t h e l ead ing ch i e f of Champaran, He submit ted t o the 5
Mughals in 1575-76. There i s no a c c o u n t of t h i s f ami ly in
t h e l a t e r a c c o u n t s . The most powerful c h i e f t a n c y of t h i s
r e g i o n in the subsequent p e r i o d was t h a t of the B e t t i a h Ra j ,
which spanned the parganas of Majhuwa and Simraun, Perhaps
i t s r u l i n g family was a branch of the family of Udai Karan
which came i n t o prominence dur ing t h e r e i g n of Shahjahan when
i t s c h i e f , Gaj Singh, was given the t i t l e of r a j a .
1 , I b i d , p p . 142-46 Also see L.N. Ghose, The Modern H i s t o r y of the Indian Chiefs^ Rajas and Zamindars & ^ . p t . i i , C a l c u t t a , Gaiecrtrta, 1881, p . 4 2 3 .
2 , A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 6 8 .
3 , Akbarnama, I I I , p , 1 3 6 ,
4 , A.R. Khan, p p . 167-68 .
5 , Akbarnama, I I I , p p . 136-37 ,
6, O 'Mal ley , Champaran, p , 135; Hunte r , X I I I , p . 2 5 2 ,
183
In addition to these main chieftancies which find
mention in the contemporary records, there were many others
that are referred to in the later accounts. The rulers of
many of these attained the status of raja during the Mughal
period, while others existed even before the Mughals but are
not mentioned in the contemporary records, I have, however,
traced the origin of such chiefs on the basis of some extent
records preserved in the later accounts, I will discuss here
some of the inportant ones,
ColgonQ(the mahal of Kahalgaon), in the sarkar of
Monghyr , arose as an autonomous chieftancy in the 15th 2
century. The chieftancy of Chai in the pargana Chai of 3
Monghyr also came intc existence in the 16th century. It 4
was established by a branch of the chiefs of Kharagpur,
Alamnagar (in Bhagalpxir) was its principal seat. Another
chieftancy in Monghyr was in Tappa Chanduary of Bhagalpur.
The geneology of the family has been traced from the time
of Akbar, Chatur, the founder of the Raj, purchased it from
1 , Ain, p p , 419-20 .
2 , Hunter , v o l . XIV, pp,245-46,
3 , ^ i h , p p . 419-20 ,
4 , Hunter , XIV, p p . 24 2-4 3 ,
5 , I b i d . , p p , 91-92 ,
184
Jujhar Rai who was e i t h e r a co-sharet* in the Kharagpur
Raj or perhaps was the chief of the Khatauris who were
dominant in t ha t reg ion .
The chieftancy of Garhi, s i t u a t e d on the border of
the subas of Bihar and Bengal, was conferred by Raja Man
Singh in 1600 A.D. on Ran Bhim in r e tu rn for h i s help in
the Bengal expedi t ion, Udho Singh, the th i rd in descent ,
was made to appear before Shahjahan in 164 2 when the t e r r i t o r y
was bestowed on him by the emperor. He was a lso given the 3
t i t l e of ra ja on the condition of h i s embracing Islam,
The Deoraj family of Gaya was an old es tab l i shed ru l ing
family of the Sisodia Rajputs who founded the chief tancy 4
during the Mughal r u l e .
The Bhagwanpur Raj was e s t ab l i shed by Maharaj Lachmiraal
in the 16th century in mauza Bhagwanpur, A Rajput by
descent , he caroe to Bihar from Sakr i , near Delhi, and held
possession of Chaynpur and Chausa,
1 . Chaudhary, 'Chauduari ' , JBRS, vo l i XLII, 1956, pp . 335-3 6.
2 . K.K. Basu, "Tel iagarhi" , IHRC, 35, p t . I I , i960, pp .51-55 .
3 . I b id .
4. Ghose, Indian Chiefs, p. 426.
5. Ghose, Indian chiefs, p. 4 37.
18a
The Ramnagar ch i e f t a in s t r ace t h e i r descent to Ratan
Singh of Chi t to r . They es tab l i shed themselves in Rapiagar,
30 miles to the north-west of Bet t iah in Chanparan, The
ch i e f s were given the t i t l e of ra"Ta by Aurangzeb in 1676,
The or igin and r i s e of another chieftancy genera l ly
known as the Darbhanga Raj i s very i n t e r e s t i n g . One Mahesh
Thakur was given the r i g h t s of Chaudhrai and ga"hungdi
of Tirhut in Akbar's reign and the family received add i t i ona l
favours and extension in t h e i r super ior r i g h t s from the
subsequent Mughal Emperors. I t a t t a i n e d the pos i t ion of
almost a semi-autonomous chieftancy by the time of Aurangzeb, 2 and u l t imate ly Ragu Singh in 1720 got the t i t l e of r g j ^ .
A general survey of the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n
of ch ief tanc ies in Bihar shows t h a t most of them were
located in the per iphera l regions , amidst fo res t s and in 3
the h i l l y t r a c t s of south Bihar. As shownelsewhere, the h i l l y
t r a c t s of Hunger had the l a rges t number of such p r i n c i p a l i t i e s .
The chief tancies in the north were a l so s i t ua t ed , by and
1 , O'Malley, Champaran, p . 159; Hunter, v o l . XIII , p .252,
2, Jha, History of Darbhanga, (Typed copy in Darbhanga Archives, p,6) ; Q, Ahmad, "Darbhanga Raj" , IHRC, v ,36 , p t , I I , pp, 89-98; Hunter, v o l . X I I I , p . 2 l 0 .
3 , Beams i s of the opinion t h a t the whole country s outh of p l a ines in the sarkars of Bihar & Rohtas was ruled by Chief tains {Beams, 'Geography of Suba Bihar", JASB, v o l . LIV, 1885, pp . 168, l8 l ) .
186
large, in those regions of Saran and Champaran where forest
abounded. The remarks of Manucci and Pelsaert that in Hindustan
the tracts ruled by the raj as and 'princely' zamihdars are
usually to be found only behind moxintains and forests, seems
in Complete agreement with the geographical distribution of
chieftancies in Bihar noted by us.
The relations between the chiefs and the Mughal State
were not invariably cordial. Though Akbar, in general,
adopted the policy of wooing the independent or autonomous
chiefs, the chiefs of Bihar seem to have been generally
left out. No chieftain in Bihar was given any mansab or
rank during the reign of Akbar, The reason appears to have
been that most of the powerful chiefs were not fully brought
under control. For example, the Ujjaniyas, the masters
of the most extensive territories, could be fully subjugated
only in the 44thTf«gnal year (1599-1600) . A
After Akbar, many of the Bihar c h i e f t a i n s were
absorbed in the Mughal r u l i n g c l a s s and were given s u i t a b l e
r a n k s . During the r e i g n of Shahjahan, as many a s f i v e c h i e f t a i n s
1 . Manucci, S t o r i a Do Mogor, i i , p . 4 4 4 ; p e l s a e r t , J a h a n g i r ' s I n d i a , e d . & t r , from Dutch by W.H. Moreland and P . Gey l , r e p r i n t , De lh i , 1972, p p . 5 8 - 5 9 .
2 . A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 7 3 .
3 . A_^. I l l , p . 750 .
187
held mansabs.
The procedure of bestowing mansab or rank has been
described in the Badghahnana in the case of Pratab Cheru,
the Raja of Palamau. I t iqad Khan, the governor of Bihar,
(1644-48) was asked to march aga ins t t h i s r ebe l l i ons
ch ie f . The Raja agreed to pay one lakh of rupees as
peshkash. His chief tancy, valued a t one kror dams, was given
back to him; svibsequently, he was taken in the imperial
service and given a rnansab of lOOO za t and lOOO sawar. Thus,
the chief was asked to r e t a in h i s t e r r i t o r y but , l e g a l l y ,
now he held i t i s assignment from the superor and not as an
independent r u l e r . This sor t of assignment was considered
a special type of laqTr, non- t ransfer rable and he red i t a ry , — r 3
known in official terminology as watan jagir. Probably the
same procedure was followed in the case of other chiefs in
Bihar holding a mansab.
Raja Narain Mai Ujjaniya, also known as Pratap Ujjaniya,
was given amansab of lOOO zat and lOOO sawar during the
reign of Jahangir. Pratap rose to the rank of 1500 zat
1, Badshahnama, II, pp. 3 60-61.
2, Ibid; also see Moreland, Agrarian System, p. 267.
3, irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p.184.
4, Tawarlkh-i Uilaniya, II, p.34. it says that the Raja reached the rank of 7000 which is baseless.
188
and lOOO sawar d u r i n g t h e f i r s t r e g n a l yea r of Shahjahan 2
and he r e t a i n e d i t t i l l h i s death in 1637. His s u c c e s s o r ,
Gokul U j j an iya , a l s o he ld a mansab of lOOO z a t and lOOO _ 3
sawar in 1656,
Raja Roz Afzun of Kharakpur was given a mansab of
1500 z a t and 700 sawar dur ing the r e i g n of J a h a n g i r . His
rank was enhanced t o 2000 z a t and lOOO sawar dur ing
Shah jahan ' s t i m e . This was the h i g h e s t mansab g iven t o any
c ^ i e f in B i h a r . His son. Raja Bahroz, was given a rank of
700 z a t and 500 sawar» and then 700 z ^ t and 550 sawir du r ing
Shahjahan ' s r e i g n . Which rose to 700 z a t and 700 sawar 7
under Aurangzeb. s i r Nara in , the Raja of Panchet ( p a c h e t ) ,
1 . B^dsHahnama, I , p t , I , p . 2 2 1 ,
2 . I b i d , , I , p t . I I , p . 3 0 5 ; 'Amal-i Sa l eh , I I I , p . 4 6 2 .
3 . B .P . Arribashthya, 'Some L e t t e r s from J a i p u r Records ( H i n d i ) ' , IHRC. v o l . 35 , i 960 , p p . 29 -30 .
4 . Mai s i r - a 1 Umar'a, I I , p . 2 1 8 .
5 . Badsh'ahnama, I , p t . I I , p . 3 0 3 ; 'Amal-i Sa leh , I I I , p .459
6 . Badshahn"ama, I , p t . I I , p . 316 ; I b i d . , I I , p . 7 4 2 .
7 . Amal-i Sa leh , I I I , p . 4 7 5 .
189
was given mansab of 700 zat and 300 sawar during the reign
of Shahjahan, He died in the 6th regnal year.
In Bihar, the mansab holders were generally the heads
of the ruling families with exception of Kharakpur chief.
Raja Rez Afzun, whose son, Bahruz, also received a mansab
during the reign of Shahjahan,
The relation between the chiefs and Mughal adminis
tration were not by any means of a single kind. Some, as
we have shown above, were absorbed in the Mughal administration
and were given man sab. The Ujjaniya rajas and those of
Kharakpur, Palamau and Panchet may be put in this category.
There were other chiefs who were not given any mansab, even
though they rendered military service in and around their
territories. These were the rajas of Gidhaur, Champaran
Kalyanpur, etc. The rest of the chieftains were supposed to
pay peshkash only.
The peculiarity of the Bihar chiefs is that they were
generally asked to serve and help the Mughal authorities
in and aro\ind Bihar. The only exception was the Raja of
Kharakpur, Roz Afzun and his son Bahruz, who were deputed
1. Badshahnama, I, pt. II, p.313,
190
to expedit ions to d i s t a n t places l ike Kabul and Qandahar,
As regards matrimonial a l l i a n c e s between the c h i e f t a i n s
of Bihar and tlie Mughals, only one case i s recorded: the
daughter of Dalpat, the Ujjaniya chiefs was given in 2
marriage to Prince Daniyal.
The ch ie f s , who submitted to the Mughals, were allowed
much l a t i t ude in the i n t e rna l adminis t ra t ion of t h e i r
t e r r i t o r y , such as the co l lec t ion of land revenue. They
were free to impose taxes on the merchandise passing through
t h e i r a rea . However, one case of imperial in te r ference from
Bihar comes to l i g h t : Shahjahan forbade a c e r t a i n Raja of
Bihar from charging heavi ly from the merchants passing " 3
through h i s t e r r i t o r i e s ^ because the charges were exo rb i t an t 4
and, hence,complaint to t h i s e f fec t weu^ef'made to the Emperor.
The ch i e f s , l ike the Mughal government, used to g ran t
land for r e l ig ious and other purposes. One such g ran t for
Vishnupreet (worship of God Vishnu) dated 1109 A.H.( 5
was made by a Ujjaniya Raja, Likewise, they often gave
1 . Ma'asir-al- Umara, i i , pp . 2l8-l9
2. Akbarnama, I I I , p .826 .
3 . Farman no. 69, Bihar State Archives, Patna, The t r a n s l a t i o n of the farman i s given in K.K, Datta , Some Fjrmans, Sanads and Parwanas, p . l o .
4 . K.K. Datta, Some Firmans, p .10 .
5 . Tawarlkh-i UHaniva. I I , p .108.
1 9 1
j i g f r s to t he i r subordinate s taff and o f f i ce r s in l i e u of
t h e i r pay.
The payment of peshkash and t r i b u t e was a mark of
submission. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the exact amount
of peshkash paid by the c h i e f s . Equally d i f f i c u l t i t i s to
a sce r t a in the p e r i o d i c i t y of such payments, i . e , whether i t 2
was yearly or h a l f - y e a r l y . The Revenue s t a t i s t i c s of every
pargana, including the c h i e f ' s t e r r i t o r i e s , i s given in the
A!In and other contemporary adminis t ra t ive manuals. The
revenue figures of the c h i e f ' s t e r r i t o r i e s might have been
used by the i irperial a u t h o r i t i e s to f ix the amount of peshkash
in proportion to jama'.
Peshkash was genera l ly presented a t the time of
submission or whenever the Emperor, p r inces or t h e i r represen
t a t i v e s (high mansabdars, e t c . ) passed through t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s ,
I t was paid e i t h e r in cash or kind. When in kind, i t cons i s ted
of valuable commodities or the r a r i t i e s of the reg ion . In
Bihar, besides cash, elephants were the main items to be
presented as peshkash. In the 35th regnal year of Akbar, the
Rajas of Kharakpur and Gidhaur are sa id to have offered
e l ephan t s , Dalpat Ujjaniya, in h i s peshkash, included
1 , I b i d . , pp . 54-55; Also see Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p . 186,
2, For a discussion about t r i bu t e see A.R. Khan, Ch ie f t a ins , p p . 210-12.
3 , Akbarnama, I I I , p .576 .
192
e lephants for Prince Daniyal. The Raja of Seor 2
presented 20 elephants along with 30,000 rupees . The
region of Kokhra being r i ch in diamonds, i t s Raja in 3
va r i ab ly included diamonds in h i s peshkash. At one
p l a c e , the t r i b u t e paid by the Kokhra chief i s c a l l ed - . 4 as malquzari .
The Mughals a l so reserved to themselves the r i g h t
of recogni t ion given to the successor of a deceased
Raja. When acted upon, t h i s transformed the r i gh t of
paramountcy dependent on the goodwill of the Emperor 5
r a the r than on h i s inherent r i g h t . But t h i s r i g h t as far
as Bihar i s concerned was scarcely applied and t h a t , too
in ex t ra -ord inary c i rcumstances . For example, when
Sangram, the raja of Kharakpur, r ebe l l ed and was k i l l e d
in 1606, h i s successor was not named for some t ime.
Ul t imately , the chief tancy was res to red to h i s son,
Roz Afzun, on condi t ion of h i s embracing Islam. S imi la r ly ,
the family records of the ch ie f s of Garhi show t h a t Raja
1 . I b i d . , p .750 .
2. Arif Qandhari, p,226.
3. Tuzuk, pp. 154-55.
4. Akbarnima, III, p.479.
5. Nurul Hasan, "The Zamindars & C", op.cit., pp.107-119.
6. Maaslr-a 1 Umara, II, pp.218-19; Also see Hunter, X.V, pp. 178-81. Hunter's account is based on family records.
193
Udho Singh, t h i rd i n descent , had to appear a t the
cour t of Shah jahan and was recognised as the lega l
successor only on the condit ion of h i s conversion to 1
Islam.
In sp i te of the at tempts of the Mughals to b r ing
the chiefs into the s t ruc tu re of the Mughal p o l i t y and
to lay down p r i n c i p l e s for regula t ing r e l a t i o n s between
the two, our contemporary sources are r ep l e t e with
accounts of confrontat ions between the Mughal s t a t e and
the c h i e f s . As we have already not iced, most of the Bihar
ch ie f t a ins accepted the Mughal suzerainty a f te r 157 2
A.D.; yet, almost a l l of them revol ted a t one time or
the other against the imperial a u t h o r i t y .
Raja Sangram of Kharakpur, though he sxibmitted 2
in 1574-75 , took to the path of r ebe l l i on in the 3oth
and 35th regnal years of Akbar, whereupon Shahbaz Khan 3
and Man Singh were sent to subdue him. In the f i r s t
year of J ehang i r ' s r e ign , he again revol ted and was k i l l e d . 4
1. K.K. Basu, "Telliagarhi &, C", op.cit., pp.51-55.
2. Akbarnama, III, p.4l8.
3 . I b i d . , pp.460-51, 576; Ma'asir-al Umara, pp.218-19.
4 . Igbal Nama-i J a h a n g l r l , p . 2 1 ; Tuguk, p . 3 9 .
194
op
Puran Mai, t he Raja Gidhaur , who submit ted in t h e
l 9 t h r e g n a l year of Akbar, was a l s o not c o n s i s t e n t in h i s
a l l e g i a n c e to the Mughals , He he lped t h e r e b e l s in 1580-81 ,
b u t in 1585-86 he se rved under Shahbaz Khan, the Mughal
Commander. He aga in snapped h i s a l l e g i a n c e in 1590-91 ,
b u t was forced t o come t o terms wi th Raja Man S ingh .
The Raja of Kokhra came under the Mughal dominat ion 4 i n t h e 3oth r e g n a l year of Akbar, b u t f r equen t e x p e d i t i o n s
5 had t o be s en t to c o n t r o l h i s way wordness . S i m i l a r l y ,
t he Raja of Palamau accep ted Mughal o v e r l o r d sh ip a f t e r
r e p e a t e d a t t a c k s i n the 17th r e g n a l year of Shahjahan.
He was even given a man sab , b u t became r e c a l c i t r a n t l a t e r 7
and could be suppressed only a f t e r a f i e r c e f i g h t in 1562.
1 . Akbarnima, I I I , p . 3 2 1 .
2 . I b i d . , p p . 4 61 -62 .
3 . I b i d . , p p . 576-77 .
4 . Akbarnama, I I I , p . 4 7 9 .
5 . Tuzuk, p p . 1 5 4 - 5 5 .
6. Badsh'ahnama, I I , p p . 260 -61 .
7 . M a a s i r - i 'Alamgir l , p p . 37-38; ^Alamglr nama, pp .648-60
195
The Ujjaniya Raja,had sxibmitted by the 17th regnal
year of-Akbar, but he-revol ted in the 21st regnal yea r .
Again, in the 25th regnal year, he broke h i s bond of
loya l ty and was u l t ima te ly reconciled by the 44th regnal 2
year. Another ujjaniya chief, Pratap, who held a mansab of 1500 zat and lOOO sawar in the first year of Shahjahan's
3 reign revolted after a few years and could be subdued
4 only in the loth year.
What possibly could have been the causes of frequent
rebellious conduct of the chieftains ? One reason perhaps
was that the chiefs thought^ that their subjugation to the
Mughals deprived them of a part of their economic
resources, i.e. they had to pay peshkah and supply troops,
etc. The contemporary accounts do not provide the details
of the causes of dissatisfaction of the chieftains. They
e / t h a t gene ra l ly !no te / tha t ^"^^^ " ^ such chief was acting in a
rebe l l ious way and defying the imperial a u t h o r i t y , on one
occassion i t i s said t h a t when the Raja of Palamau delayed
the payment of t r i b u t e and rebe l led an expedition was
1 . AkbFirnama. I l l , pp 168-70, 185-89; Badauni, I I , pp.237-38; Tabaqat, I I , pp.324-25.
2 . Akbarn"ama, I I I , p .750 .
3 . Badshahnama, I , p t . I , p . 2 2 1 .
4 . Ib id , I , p t . I I , pp.271-74, 305.
19G
sent against him. Confrontation also took place if the
Mughal officers and the chiefs were not on coordial terms,
as was the case between Shahbaz lOian and Sangram the,
2 Raja of Kharakpur. Whenever the chiefs got an opportunity
to defy the imperial authority, they came out in the open
for confrontation.
Geographical location of the chiefs territories,
situated as they were amidst dense forests and hilly
tracts, not easily accessible to the Mughal forces, might
also have encouraged them to revolt. For example, Gajpati,
the Ujjaniya Raja, who revolted in 1576-77, took shelter
in the fort of Jagdispur. Where the "Mughal soldiers took 3
two months in cutting down the trees around the dwelling".
The reason for the rebellious attitude of Madho Singh, the
raja of Kokhra, too, has been ascribed by Abul Fazl to
the "hilly tracts which were difficult to cross". About
1, Ma!asir-al Umara, II, pp,34-35,
2, Akbarnama, III, pp« 461-62.
3. Akbarnama, III, pp. 186-89,
4. Ibid., p.479.
197
Kokhra, Jahangir w r i t e s : "Although the governers of the
suba frequently sent armies aga ins t him and went the re
themselves, in consequence of the d i f f i c u l t roads and
thickness of the f o r e s t they contended themselves with
taking too or three diamonds and l e f t him in h i s former 1 Q
condition". Similarly, the difficulty in subduing palamau 2
was ascribed to its location in dense forests. Besdies
the geographical peculiarities, most of these chiefs had 3
strong forts, generally on hill tops. Arif Qandhari
writes: "There are nearly two or three hundred zamrndar
chiefs. Their supression is very difficult as they possess
strong forts. If they are able to hold on to each one of
the forts, say, for six months or one year, they can be
contented about their safety for the next two or three 4
hundred years". It took the royal army months to conquer
the forts of Jagdispur and Shergarh, the strongholds of the
5 ~ Ujjaniyas. The statistical accounts of the AjTn shows existence of strong forts in the domains of the chieftains.
1. Tuzuk, pp. 154-55.
2. 'Alamglrnama, pp . 648-60.
3 . Ib id , pp . 648-60.
4 . Tar ikh- i Akbari, p . 47 .
5 . Akbarnama, I I I , pp . 186-89.
6. For example, the f o r t s of Seor, Gidhaur and Ratanpur a?:e mentioned in the s t a t i s t i c a l t ab le s of Bihar, A'm, t i , pp. 418-23.
198
On occassions when rebellious nobles or princes
revolted or in the struggle for succession to the Mughal
throne the chiefs often chose to join the hands of
refractory elements. In the 25th regnal year of Akbar,
when the officers of Bengal and Bihar defied the Mughal
state, the chieftains of Ujjaniya and Gidhaur threw their
weight with the rebels. During the war of succession
among the sons of Shahjahan, every one of them tried to
muster the support of the chiefs, princes Shuja and
Dara both appealed to Raj Dal Singh of Gidhaur to help
2 them with h i s armed r e t a i n e r s . Dara even went to t h e ex ten t of persuading him to capture Kharakpur as Raja
3 Bahroz had declined to help him, Dara ra ised the mansab
of Gokul Ujjaniya to lOOO zat and 800 sa/ar for h i s 4
help in the war aga ins t h i s b r o t h e r s .
There are many references to ch ie f s trying to throw
off the imperial con t ro l whenever there was a p o l i t i c a l
change a t the h ighes t l e v e l . For example, the accession
of Jahangir and the rebe l l ion of Prince Khusrau encouraged
1, Akbarnama, I I I , pp,321-25, 331,
2. B.P. Ambashthya, 'Firms & C', JBRS, 43, op.cit,pp.224-26.
3. Ibid.
4, B.P. Ambashthya,'Some Letters from Jaipur Records & C', IHRC, vol. 35, pt. II, i960, pp.23-30.
199
the Kharakpur chief, Sangram, to makejan attempt to 1
recover his independence.
The most striking feature emerging from these conflicts
is that inspite of repeated attempts of rebellions, none of
the chieftains was ever punished or dispossessed on a
permanent basis. Not even the chief of Palamau, who in
a span of 30 years, revolted four times, and the Mughal
authorities had to take great pains in subjugating him.
Generally, all the conflicts between the Mugh_als and
chieftains ended in compromise and, therefore, not a
single chief in Bihar was ever replaced by the Mughal state.
In rare cases, however, when a change was made, it was only
from among the heirs of the rebellious chiefs. In fact,
the Mughal state was not inclined to complicate matters
after the ruling family had accepted its overlordship.
Even when they rebelled, the chieftancy was restored to
the old family. The Mughal state had no option because
such territories were not easily accessible situated as 2
they were amidst forests and hilly region. Badauni writes
about Raja Gajapati whose strength & army was such "that
1. Tuzuk, p.39. Igbalnama, p.21; also see the description of Hunter based on family records (Hunter, vol.XV, pp. 178-81).
2. Badauni, Muntakhabt-ut Tawarikh, II, pp. 179-80.
200
for the space of two years he had kept -fehre Khan Zaman
u s e l e s s l y employed in jungle-cut t ing and f ight ing and
even yet t h a t jungle i s not c l ea r as i t ought to b e " .
In add i t ion , the ch ie f s drew t h e i r main support from
t h e i r cas te and clansmen, and were genera l ly a considerably
formidable force in t h e i r own a rea . I t was, there fore ,
not poss ib le for any out s iders to con t ro l the people of
the t e r r i t o r y . These strong cas te and clan a f f i l i a t i o n s
of the ch ie fs forbade the Mughal a u t h o r i t i e s from dislodging
them. Dalpat u j j an iya , Pratap Ujjaniya and Roz Afzun,
a f t e r years of confinement a t the imperial cour t , had
f i n a l l y to be r e i n s t a t e d because t h e i r removal would have
generated local d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .
The c h i e f t a i n s , i t seems, fu l ly r e a l i z e d t h i s
p l i g h t of the Mughals and, therefore , they never mised
on Opportunity to stand up in arms aga ins t them to regain
t h e i r e a r l i e r autonomy.
APPENDIX ~A
As h a s a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d , z a m r n d a r i was h e r e d i t a r y ,
b u t o u r l 7 t h c e n t u r y s o u r c e s do n o t t h r o w - s u f f i c i e n t l i g h t
on t h e manner t h e d i f f e r e n t s h a r e s w e r e i n h e r i t e d . The
• '^nglish E a s t I n d i a Company o f f i c i a l s t r i e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e
t h e a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e h e l p of documents a v a i l a b l e
from t h e Mughal p e r i o d . They c o u l d even r e c o n s t r u c t t h e
d i v i s i o n of c e r t a i n z a m l n d a r l s among t h e h e i r s . The p i c t u r e
t h a t emerges i s t h a t b o t h t h e male a n d female h e i r s were
e n t i t l e d t o s u c c e s s i o n . One r e p o r t p r e p a r e d i n B h a g a l p u r
(1787) f o r t h e u s e of t h e Revenue Board l a i d down t h e
p r o c e d u r e of s u c c e s s i o n t o a z a m r n d a r i a s f o l l o w s :
" I f a zaminda r d i e s w i t h o u t i s s u e s , b u t
l e a v e s widow and e f f e c t s i f t h e y were A
a c q u i r e d by h i m s e l f o r a t t a i n e d t o him i n
a d i v i s i o n of f a m i l y p r o p e r t y , do n o t
d i v e r s e t o t h e b r o t h e r b u t i n such c a s e
become t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e d e c e a s e d were
o r i g i n a l l y a c q u i r e d by h i s f a t h e r o r g r a n d
f a t h e r t h e y t h e n became t h e p r o p e r t y of
t h e b r o t h e r s ^ . But i n c a s e of t h e b r o t h e r s
m i n o r i t y o r d i s g u s t f o r b u s i n e s s , and
1 . B h a g a l p u r R e c o r d s , v o l , 6, " L e t t e r d a t e d 3 r d Dec, 1787 b y R. A d a i r , t J o l l e c t o r of B h a g a l p u r t o C .G. Mayer of t h e Revenue D e p a r t m e n t .
202
management of the zamindary the widow
shall appoint a relation of the family
who is eligible to the trust to take
charge of the zamindari or appoint such
a person Naib or by or with the advice
of such a relative any other person may
be so appointed or should not such a
relation be found then by the advice of
the Rajahs of the country, whatever is
thought proper may be done and the brother
and nephew of the deceased will receive a
maintainanee".
A very interesting document from the l8th century
throws much light on the point of succession. It is an account
prepared by the revenue officers concerning the zamrndarl
of Haveli Munger ^Sorkar Munger). Haveli Hunger was divided
into 11 zamindari, out of these 5 and 4 were in the posse
ssion of the descendants of two zamihdars Heera Ram
(946 A.H.) and Ram Roy (916 A.H.) respectively. The tables
attached here show the manner in which the two zamindaris
were divided into smaller tarfs.^
1, British Parliamentary Papers^ III, pp.238-40,
2. Ibid., p.239.
•p (d
• H -X
> i 0
u - ( U X to
<
>i 0
> i C!
— fO —
s
- 0 c 3
X u
"e fd
^ en c
CO
— -p -•H •'-1
<
<u C — -0
o
e (0 j-i Q e
i
-.—.
en G
•H W
-0
(0 X!
«•
4-4 M 3 H
5 in
i-i 0)
td •:)
IH o
u a
EH
CO
to -
s
0)
O ft
x: c
•rH CO
u (d S — (d M (d fo
- M M (d
4-1
3 H
O
(d
- i n
•P EH • ' I ' • ^
CO
EH
ON fO
I CO ro in
\0
(d
o M 0)
X
(d
r e rH fd D 3 X ! — - P — 1 U S > S (d o o u B 0
0 u c p -
4::
u
0) d) u
- 73-X Q
(d -0 C 0
_ 0 — x: u
0 0
TJ c -0 CQ
(d •a M-l
3 H
td H (d
G d CQ
- m IH
- ' d (d U EH n N«<'
r -r -
1 VO r-vo •<-H
6 — 0 X 0) 0 — 0) 03 x: 0 CQ «H
0 r> rH
1 0 0 r>-
>1r4 i H - -(d
- ^ CM C r H 3 T - I
Q: rH
CM X vD D^ 1 G r H
•H vO to r-
rH > 1 - ' U 0) i n CO r -Q) rH ^ r H
x: D^ G •H CO
<U
-o 0 CQ
0 '>, '^
B td M td a, <
u Id
T i MH
u 3
H -XJ G
CN
e (d
(I)
CQ
0) M 0 - f t • 0 > i Q) X iS
EH
* ^ -
^• 0 ^ 1
n cr\ 0 0 in 0\ —'
s >1 0 — u 0 0 to 0) N;
**—N
c-0 1
VD 0 VO rH » — ' i n rH 0 J-I
^ G
- 3 -JC
u (d t< td
EH
>* i n
1 en i n VD rH - — •
n VO 0 rH
(d Q:
0) -p G P C <
y - ^ t
• « *
r-1
n r-VO rH ^ i n CD 0 rH
% CO — B
•H
+) Id
x: Id S
•^ CTi 0
1 00 0 r~ rH — 0 C>1 rH rH
% x: Di G
- * . . -H CO
G S (d P
x: en — G — •H CO
£ fd
•<-~> 0 2
^"•^ 0 VO
x: 1 cno\ C in •H r-CO rH
^ — ,i< —
3 c^
U - 1
x: ty G
•H CO
>1 Id
Xi 42 M •H 3
(U 3 (0 to
•H
0 2
->H fd
V 4-J SH 3
EH
-+J CO H
(U -o > ,- tU OJ
4 : u 0 0 E : ft
44 0
4-1 u 3
H "*.-'
CO <
^ • N
T-\
r-i 1
o r-{ i n i H
>—• VD rH C^
1
> t 0 a e ro aJ
Q:
•- i n OJ
1 •<* <N i n T-\
^ <H
n CTi
1
> 1 0 on X
— cn c
•H CO
r-1
n r-i n <H
>—
T H
(X) o> 1
> 1 0 OJ
6 rd
— t i — (U
T) O
^ - N
Ov r-{
1 CO r H VD <H
>—»
CO CM
O rH
1
(0 0)
- -d 0 0 CQ
** CO •
1 r-^ vO T-l
"^ r~ in o i H
Tf C -3 c <
^ • ^
Ov i n
1 CO in «JD rH v . ^
o\ vO O T H
% > 1 JC
(0 CO
. — e ro 05
__ H 0) > o— x: m
(0
u — 13
X
> 1
M fO
s - 0 ) — x: u
+> H rt)
rt)
e -M 2
M 3 x: M 3 z
r-i •H
0 ^
cn
CO
0) •P -P fO pq
E
e 0)
•"-1
to
p CO
-0 G lO H 0 0 X
u fd
4-1 1-1
0) IH E Q) 3 X) 0 (0
(d ^ (U H (0 U - CQ 0 x: 0, +> IM ^ u
3 EH • — ^
«—»
0 a - Ul
SH (0
>H
3 &H
0) 73 to C ft) DQ
-0 3 U H n
VD
I in
in in o
C fd
- H . u u fd c u
X -0)
0)
m
CTi O
00 o r>-T H
^
o CNJ rH rH
E 1 10 4:: > , - p -xi fd (0 0) C V 3 CD
0) P CO
— (0 •H
0 2
e 0) (d
x: n -P '0 fd
G X •^ Q
2 -P -G (U i p CO 0
— Q) U (0
a-o G •P (d
<x:
-u fd -0 IW
u 0 EH --d G H H
M P 0 ^ ' -G 0 Id 0 P H rH +J 0 (d CO o
MH M P H -'
E
• (U 0*
E (0 G +J C
-H G (U i4
CO 00
1 r-
cr» CO cn VO O r H rH
% •-{
— 3 E o c -o • H
2
-'
..^
rH • *
rH rH
1
x: Di G
•H CO
LI 3 x: fd ft
ON CN
1 00 CN]
r-^-i
'—
x: Di G
•H CO
r-H 0) r-{ i H fd Q
,-, • u +J
- 0) u fd TJ 4H
u 3
E
> i <U T3
x: 0 s
- — -P 4-1 M U H 3
EH
>—'
2iJ4