Mughal Administration c9.s1: § 1. Chronic antagonism of the Indian peasant to the revenue collector.
Mughal Administration c9.s1
- Language
- English
§ 1. Chronic antagonism of the Indian peasant to the revenue collector.
c9.s1.1
A careful student of Indian history is very much struck by the chronic antagonism between the rent-payer and the rent-receiver from very ancient times. European travellers in India have noticed how the ryot was averse to paying even his legitimate rent and that force had to be employed to get from him the dues of the State [*Storia do Mogor*, ii. 450.] On the other hand, in Sanskrit literature as well as Persian Court-annals we read how the "king's men"—*i.e.* revenue officials and underlings,—preyed on the peasantry, and in both ages the sovereign was called upon to save the ryots from such blood-suckers.
c9.s1.2
The Indian peasant's habitual reluctance to pay revenue was partly due to the fact that he derived little benefit from the Government in return for the revenue paid; but it was mainly because of the uncertainty of that Government. I have explained already how the State in Mughal India performed no socialistic duties, but simply undertook to defend the country from invaders and rebels. Even this work of national defence was badly done at times, while the policing of the villages against thieves and robbers was done by a village agency which was not remunerated out of the State revenue, but from the villagers' own contribution. Thus, the ryot received nothing visible in return for which Government might fairly demand from him a share of the fruits of his labour.
c9.s1.3
Secondly, changes of dynasty were so frequent, wars of succession within the same dynasty so much the rule rather than the exception, and the invasion of neighbouring countries (in Sanskrit *digvijay*, in Persian *mulk-giri*,) was so universally regarded as a duty by Hindu Rajahs and Muslim Sultans alike, that the peasant in India seldom knew for certain to whom to pay the revenue, even when he was willing to pay it. He naturally wanted to avoid having to pay the same money twice over. It was (he felt) wiser to wait for some months or years, even at the risk of some beating in the meantime, and see which side became firmly planted on the throne and then pay the revenue to it. But the arrears of revenue which thus accumulated could never be paid in full after such long delays, because much of the peasant's stock was eaten up by him and much of it plundered during the unsettled state of the country.
c9.s1.4
Many centuries of political insecurity and revolution have left in the mind of the Indian peasant even of the 20th century, a subconscious but ingrained belief that wars of succession are quite in the nature of things and that whenever the Government is engaged in a war anywhere, a wise peasant ought to think twice before paying the revenue due.
c9.s1.5
During the late war with Germany, several khas-mahal ryots in Chittagong hesitated to pay their land-tax and told the Deputy Collector, "If the *Kohisur* (i.e., Kaiser) comes will he not ask for our revenue over again? Save us, Sir, from the double payment."
c9.s1.6
I was in a North Bengal village at the time of the death of King Edward VII. The first question which the local ryots asked me on hearing of His present Majesty's succession was, "Are not his kinsmen disputing his accession to the throne?" We can easily imagine the long ages of disorder and oppression that lie behind this traditional belief among our villagers.