History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83.s4: § 5. The Mughal rules of taxation of merchandise.
History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83.s4
- Language
- English
§ 5. The Mughal rules of taxation of merchandise.
v5.c83.s4.1
Now, for the fiscal relations of the Mughal Government with the English traders. In 1664, the gallantry displayed by the English (and Dutch) merchants of Surat in defending their factories against Shivaji and thereby saving the houses of some of their Indian neighbours, was rewarded by the Emperor who ordered a reduction of half a per cent on the normal import duty on the goods of these two nations for an undefined period in future, i.e., they had to pay 2 p.c. instead of 2½ p.c. customs. This concession* was withdrawn in 1679.
v5.c83.s4.2
∗ Granted by a *hasb-ul-hukm* dated 14th March 1664, the
v5.c83.s4.3
In 1665, a very reasonable order was passed that the goods of "the Feringis and the Dutch" in Ahmadabad city were not to be taxed as they had already paid the duty at Surat. [Mirat, 279.]
v5.c83.s4.4
A *farman* of Aurangzib, dated 26th June 1667, informs the officials at Surat that in future the English traders there should pay only 2 p.c. *ad valorem* duty on all goods imported by them to that harbour, and that the governors, captains of guards, lieutenants of countries (i.e., *faujdars*), guards of passes and highways (*rahdars*)...should not stop on the way the merchandise which the English purchased in Bengal Agra and other provinces and transported by way of Burhanpur and Ahmadabad for sale in the port of Surat, on the pretence of taking *rahdari* or other duties and *abwabs* abolished by the Emperor. This concession was granted at the prayer of the English merchants, backed by a letter from Ghiyas-ud-din Khan, the governor of Surat, to the wazir Jafar Khan, recommending the English as deserving of imperial favours. [Forrest, Select. Bombay, Home Series, i. 213.]
v5.c83.s4.5
In the second Maratha sack of Surat, 1670, the three European nations, English, Dutch, and French, were suspected of having come to a secret understanding with the raiders, instead of resisting them,
v5.c83.s4.6
language of which shows that the popular belief that the reduction was by one per cent is wrong. Its withdrawal was in Nov. 1679. Foster's Eng. Factories, xi. 314-315.
v5.c83.s4.7
Hence no privileges were given to them this time. In 1679 the *jaziya* or poll-tax was revived, and the Christians were asked to pay it in the form of an addition of one per cent to the custom duty, at the same time that the reduction of ½ p.c. made in 1664 was withdrawn,—i.e., they were subjected to a 3½ p. c. import duty.
v5.c83.s4.8
§ 6. *The Mughal Government's position explained.*
v5.c83.s4.9
Next, the claims of the English in Bengal (*a*) to escape the duty on the actual value of their imports by a fixed annual payment of Rs. 3,000 (as conceded by Shuja in 1656) and (*b*) to trade absolutely free in all other parts of India on payment of customs at Surat (in virtue of Aurangzib's *farman* of 1680), are both false and indefensible on any reasoning.
v5.c83.s4.10
Shuja was merely a provincial governor. He could, as he pleased, let off some favoured body of merchants on easy terms during his own viceroyalty, but his grant (*nishan*) could not bind his successors in office, unless it was confirmed by the Emperor and turned into an imperial charter (*farman.*) According to the practice of the Mughal times, every charter (even when issued by a king or Emperor) had to be renewed by his successor on the throne, otherwise it would lose its validity,—though the renewal, in most cases, followed as a matter of course, on the payment of the customary presents of congratulation at the accession of the new monarch.* A fixed sum of Rs. 3,000 a year might have satisfied Shuja; it was his personal lookout to take the legal amount of duty or less; and English trade in Bengal was of too small a volume in his days. There was no reason why later governors of Bengal should be content with such a small sum and not levy the legal rate of 2½ p.c. on the goods, especially when the volume of English imports into Bengal had multiplied several times since Shuja's days.
v5.c83.s4.11
The English interpretation of Aurangzib's *farman* of 1680 was equally wrong. Payment of duty on the goods landed at Surat could, by no exercise of ingenuity, exempt from duty a different cargo that had come from Home or China not through Surat but directly to Bengal, and which, therefore, could not have paid any duty at Surat. The English traders in Bengal had no reason to claim exemption from a law of the land, which merchants of all other nations had to obey. If at a later date (in Ibrahim Khan's viceroyalty, 1691) Aurangzib's representative in Bengal was content to accept a fixed annual payment of Rs. 3,000 from the English, instead of 2½ p. c. on the actual value of their imports, it was the result of a definite contract to that effect authorised by the Emperor.
v5.c83.s4.12
∗ The old Marathi grants for village headmanship of which thousands have been printed, prove that it was the custom in those days to question the validity of an old grant unless it was renewed by the new king or governor. At every change of authorities, the right of the grantee had to be established and a new order for respecting it had to be taken from the new governor.
v5.c83.s4.13
There was another element, too, in this dispute. Judging from the fraudulent use of the right of issuing passes ("sale of *dastak*") to cover other people's goods under the English flag, which was notoriously practised by the E. I. Co.'s servants in Bengal in the 18th century, we shall be justified in supposing that, with the relaxation of the Mughal administration in Bengal during Aurangzib's absence in the Deccan (1680-1707), the English factors tried to evade the payment of the lawful duty. Hence their frequent collisions with the local revenue officers, who tried to prevent this fraud on the Exchequer.
v5.c83.s4.14
§ 7. Exaction of illegal perquisites was universal though condemned by Emperor.
v5.c83.s4.15
As for the second and third grievances of the English, we must remark that the exactions here complained of had been declared illegal by Aurangzib and were practised only in disregard of his orders. *Rahdari* had been abolished in the second year of his reign, while "benevolences" and forced presents were condemned in the general order abolishing *abwabs* issued on 29th April 1673.* The "forcing of goods" by his grandson Azim-ushshan for his private trade called forth Aurangzib's sternest censures, when it was brought to his ears (about 1703). He sarcastically called the practice *sauda-i-kham* or 'very crude plan' instead of *sauda-i-khas* or 'the prince's own business' which title Azim had given it, and he ended his letter by calling the prince a fool and a tyrant for practising such "plunder of the people." [Riyaz-us-salatin, Eng. tr. 246; I.O.L. MS. 3021 folio 53a.]
v5.c83.s4.16
∗ *History of Aurangzib*, iii. ch. 28, *Mughal Adm.* ch. 5.
v5.c83.s4.17
But the traders thus wronged by the local officers could have redress on those rare occasions only when their cries reached the ears of the old Emperor in the far-off Deccan, and the redress was merely an order on paper. As even the Indian historians of the age admit and as is illustrated by many instances cited in the Court bulletins and Aurangzib's letters,—in many places the local officers levied the forbidden cesses and presents, whenever they felt themselves sufficiently distant from the Emperor or backed by influential ministers at his Court, or if their victims had not sufficient influence and courage to convey their complaints to the Emperor's ears.
v5.c83.s4.18
Purity of administration was impossible in a society devoid of public spirit and accustomed to submit helplessly to every man in power in public life as well as private. The Emperor could not look at everything; he could not be present everywhere; he had to act through agents, and these did not share his integrity and regard for his subjects. The quality of the administration is determined by the character of the official class and the intelligence, spirit, and power of union of the governed.*