Mughal Administration c13.s3: § 3. Emperors' ordinances about escheat of nobles' property.
Mughal Administration c13.s3
- Language
- English
§ 3. Emperors' ordinances about escheat of nobles' property.
c13.s3.1
Thus, we find that it was the invariable practice of the Mughal Government to confiscate to the State, at least temporarily, the property of every one of its servants immediately after his death. Though it was in effect an act of spoliation, the theory was not so shamelessly immoral. The Emperors never claimed to be heirs of any dead subject's property unless he died without leaving personal issue or legal heirs. [And even then, in theory the property belonged to the Muslim community and not to the sovereign himself.] They only wanted to ensure the payment of their dues from the dead man, who had been their servant and taken advances and loans from them.
c13.s3.2
Among the twelve ordinances issued by Jahangir on his accession in 1605 was one to the following effect: "When any infidel or Musalman died in any part of my dominions, his property and effects were to be allowed to descend by inheritance, without interference from any one. When there was no heir, then officers were to be appointed to take charge of the property, and to expend it according to the law of Islam, in building mosques and sarais, in repairing broken bridges, and in digging tanks and wells.” (Tuzuk, 4.) But it is not clear from this whether he gave up the system of confiscating the property of deceased servants of the State, especially if they had running accounts with the Treasury. Aurangzib’s *farman* on the subject, dated 24th July 1666, is more explicit. He instructs the provincial *diwans* thus: “Whenever a servant of the State dies leaving no heir and owing nothing to the Treasury on account of advances (*mutaliba*) made to him, deposit his property with the store-keepers of the *Bait-ul-mal*. If he owes anything to the State, then take only the amount due and place the rest of his property in the *Bait-ul-mal*. If he has left any heir, attach his property three days after his death. If the property exceeds the amount of his debt to the State, take that amount only and deliver the balance to his heir after the latter has legally established his right. If the dead man owed nothing to the State, give his whole property to his heir, after legal proof.” (*Mirat-i-Ahmadi*, i. 266.)
c13.s3.3
This is a very upright and reasonable rule. Manucci, however, asserts that it was never really followed by Aurangzib. He says of this Emperor:
c13.s3.4
“He seizes everything left by his generals, officers, and other officials at their death, in spite of
c13.s3.5
his having declared that he makes no claim on the goods of defunct persons. Nevertheless, under the pretext that they are his officers and are in debt to the Crown, he lays hold of everything. If they leave widows, he gives them a trifle every year and some land to furnish a subsistence." (*Storia*, ii. 417.)
c13.s3.6
A careful examination of the records of Aurangzib's reign shows that Manucci's charge is not true. No doubt there was heart-breaking delay in adjusting and auditing the running account of every dead nobleman with the State, and during this prolonged interval his property was kept under lock and seal in the *Bait-ul-mal*, but not intentionally for ever nor out of an unjust love of spoliation. Thus, we read that when Shaikh Muhiuddin, the *Sadar* of Gujrat and *amin* of *jaziya*, died, his property was not confiscated because his son Akramuddin stood security for his father's dues to the Public Treasury. (*Mirat-i-Ahmadi*, 319.)
c13.s3.7
That Aurangzib's ordinance of 1666 was not a false pretence, can be inferred from the fact that in the latter days of the empire, it is stated among the duties of the *buyutat* that he was the officer for attaching and making a list of the property of deceased persons in order to secure payment of the dues of the State as well as to safeguard the property for the heirs of the deceased.
c13.s3.8
Again, the *Zawabit* gives a list of the properties actually under escheat in the year 1691; and here we find only the properties of noblemen who had died within the preceding eight years and not earlier (69a-71b.) This may be easily explained by the supposition that the accounts of these nobles had not yet been completely made up, and the escheat was therefore provisional or *pendente lite*.