Peasants, Zamindars and the State: Agrarian Society and the Mughal Empire

The *Ain-i Akbari* is a very important source, but it has several limitations for reconstructing agrarian history:

- It is a court-sponsored text, so it presents a view from the top, not from peasants themselves.
- Its central purpose was to show Akbar’s empire as orderly and harmonious, so it may downplay conflict and resistance.
- The quantitative data are not uniform for all regions; for example, some *subas* have detailed caste information for zamindars, but Bengal and Orissa do not.
- Some figures contain minor arithmetic or transcription errors.
- Important data like prices and wages are not equally available for all regions, and some of what is given is mainly from areas around Agra.

Historians deal with these problems by cross-checking the *Ain* with other sources such as revenue records from Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, and East India Company records from eastern India. They also compare it with regional sources to find instances of conflict and to understand peasants’ ideas of fairness. In this way, the *Ain* is used carefully, along with other evidence, rather than by itself.

Agricultural production in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was not purely subsistence-based; it combined subsistence and commercial agriculture.

On the one hand, peasants cultivated basic food crops such as rice, wheat and millets, which fed the population. Most regions produced at least two crops a year because of the kharif and rabi seasons.

On the other hand, many crops were grown for the market. The text mentions jins-i kamil or “perfect crops,” which were encouraged by the Mughal state because they brought in more revenue. Examples are cotton and sugarcane, as well as oilseeds and pulses. New crops such as maize, tomatoes, potatoes, chillies, pineapple and papaya also appeared.

So agriculture was partly subsistence-oriented, but a large part of production was tied to trade, cash income and state revenue. Hence it is only partly correct to call it subsistence agriculture.

Women played a crucial role in agricultural production. They worked alongside men in the fields: while men tilled and ploughed, women sowed, weeded, threshed and winnowed the harvest.

Women were also important in artisan and household production. They spun yarn, sifted and kneaded clay for pottery, and did embroidery. In commercialised production, women often worked even more intensively, not only in fields but also in the houses of employers or in markets.

The chapter also shows that women were valued as reproductive labour in a society dependent on labour, though this led to strict control over them. High mortality among women and the need for labour gave women social importance, and in some peasant and artisan communities bride-price and widow remarriage were common.

Among landed groups, women could also inherit and sell property, and some even held zamindaris. So women were not confined to domestic work; they were active economic participants in agrarian society.

Monetary transactions were very significant in this period because cash entered rural life deeply.

- Revenue in the Mughal heartland was often assessed and collected in cash.
- Traders linked villages with towns, so agriculture was tied to markets.
- Artisans and commercial producers were often paid in cash; for example, weavers producing for export markets received advances or wages in money.
- The chapter notes that even in villages there were shroffs or money-changers, who acted like bankers and handled remittances and exchange.
- The circulation of silver rupya increased because silver bullion flowed into India through overseas trade.

Thus money was not limited to towns; it became part of village and agrarian life, helping trade, taxation and the expansion of the economy.

The chapter gives strong evidence that land revenue was the mainstay of Mughal finance.

- It says directly that revenue from land was the economic mainstay of the Mughal Empire.
- The state created a whole administrative apparatus for this purpose, including the *diwan*, *amil-guzar*, *amins*, record keepers and assessors.
- The state first tried to measure cultivated and cultivable land, and then fixed revenue through assessment and collection.
- The *Ain* lists land categories such as polaj, parauti, chachar and banjar, showing how carefully land was classified for taxation.
- Revenue was usually fixed at about one-third of the average produce for good lands.
- The state tried to realise revenue in cash, though payment in kind was also permitted.
- Aurangzeb’s order shows that officials were to survey villages peasant-wise and assess *jama* with attention to government interests and peasant welfare.

All this shows that the Mughal state paid close attention to land revenue because it was the chief source of income.

Caste was a major factor shaping social and economic relations in agrarian society, though its effect varied across levels.

At the lower strata, caste was closely linked with poverty and status. Some groups were assigned menial tasks and remained poor; menials and agricultural labourers formed a large part of the village population. In Muslim communities too, certain groups lived outside village boundaries and were treated as inferior.

At intermediate levels, caste boundaries were more flexible. Some groups such as Rajputs, Jats, Ahirs, Gujars, Malis, Sadgops and Kaivartas could rise in status because of land control, cattle rearing, horticulture or pastoral activities. Some groups sought higher status by claiming Rajput identity.

Caste also shaped village institutions. The panchayat tried to uphold caste boundaries, and jati panchayats regulated marriages, ritual precedence and civil disputes. Thus caste influenced not only social rank but also access to land, labour, justice and community life.

However, caste was not fixed in every case; economic success and changing occupations could alter status. So caste was a very important factor, but it operated along with wealth, landholding and power.