CHAPTER IV.

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE LAND-TENURES OF

BRITISH INDIA.

SECTION I-THE LINES OF STUDY.

§ 1. Object of the Chapter.

THE heading of this chapter is perhaps a somewhat startling one. I may therefore express a hope that it will not be misunderstood or taken as indicating an attempt to propound a general theory of origin for all the varieties of land-tenure that are to be found in India. It may well be doubted whether any such theory is, at present at any rate, possible; certainly I have no pretensions to be competent to suggest one. And, even if such a theory were possible, it might be further questionable whether it would be of use to the student of practical land-administration.

At the same time there may be great advantage to be derived from bringing together in one chapter various leading facts about Indian land-tenures. It would be strange if the comparative method, which has been found fruitful in other branches of study bearing on the language and progress of mankind, should be infructuous here. I am not aware of any treatise in which facts regarding various provincial and local forms of land-holding in India have been brought together for the purpose of comparative treatment. The attempt made in this chapter will not then be going over old ground.

§ 2. Value of the Comparative Method.

A comparative study of land-tenures will bring out one thing: there are certain common factors which have, at least within wide geographical or ethnical limits, always been at work in the production of the tenures we actually see around us in the several provinces. Had these been always observed, we should have been spared some strange mistakes. I may instance the case of that curious district on the west coast of India known as Malabár. From the tenure point of view Malabár presents in its limited area quite a number of instructive and, in one sense, unique facts. It is like one of those little glens sometimes found by botanists, in which a group of plant-treasures-not to be found over many square miles outside-all at once reward his search. Malabár was long a source of puzzled remarks from reporters on land affairs. It was supposed, for instance, that here 'private property' in land had existed, while it could not be found anywhere else. It was also asserted that here, exceptionally, no landrevenue had been levied on the 'proprietor' bofore the Mysore conquest. Both remarks, though often repeated, are quite without foundation. A study of the early Dravidian-Hindu organization, and a comparison of the history of the military chiefs of the country with that observable in Oudh and other parts, would have enabled a more correct interpretation to be put on the facts. The strong proprietary holdings of Malabár in all probability grew up in exactly the same way as similar rights did in Northern India. And as to land-revenue, wherever chiefs of a conquering or military caste are known to have held estates on a sort of feudal system, they will be found never to have paid land-revenue to the Rájá or over-lord. But when in the ups and downs of fortune the rule was lost, and the chiefs' estates became dismembered, and the descendants (as often happens in such cases) managed to regain the land in a new capacity, it was not to be supposed that they could escape the natural responsibilities of the changed position;

in other words, it was not in the nature of things to be supposed-in Malabár any more than elsewhere-that the next ruling power should abstain from levying a landrevenue on such lands. However, this is all by way of anticipation: I must not go into details; what has been said is only with a view to illustrate the uses of comparison in the study of land-tenures. It cannot be a matter of chance, nor a case in which we must abstain from drawing inferences, that a claim to strong 'birth-right' tenures is, all over India, found to arise among the descendants of military chieftains who had been colonizers or conquerors and who have undergone the usual changes. And if so, the origin of Malabár claims, and their relative value, is explained.

Whatever may be thought, however, of the benefits to be derived from a comparison of local tenures, it can hardly be doubted that by a preliminary study of this kind, we can gain a certain familiarity with common forms and with terms of constant occurrence in revenue literature, which will greatly simplify our after study, and will enable the separate provincial chapters in the sequel to be written without the necessity for explaining over and over again terms and facts which must recur in each.

And, fortunately, there are certain features in the circumstances of our Indian provinces which indicate the lines on which a general study may be pursued.

§3. Land grouped in 'Villages.'

We can hardly help beginning with the general fact that all the races of India whose history we are to any extent acquainted with, have, when they passed the nomadic or pastoral stage, and took to settled agriculture, formed certain groups of land-holdings, more or less connected together, and which we call 'VILLAGES.' At least that is true for all the districts in the plain country where there are no exceptional features.

I have already explained, in an introductory chapter, that

the term 'village,' as we use it, means a group of landholdings, with (usually) a central aggregate of residences, the inhabitants of which have certain relations, and some kind of union or bond of common government'. In the course of time modifications arise in the ownership and constitution of village societies; but once given a local name, the village' remains a feature on the district map in spite of all. Family partitions, for instance, and transfers, may cause one village to be divided between several estates, or may unite twenty villages under one owner, but as a local feature the village' always remains.

The village, its various forms and the modifications it undergoes, will then form a natural starting-point for our study of tenures.

84. Effects of Land-Revenue Administration and Revenue-farming.

Then again, the greater Oriental governments which preceded ours, have always, in one form or another, derived the bulk of their State-revenues and Royal property from the land. In one system known to us, 'Royal lands' were allotted in the principal villages, and this fact may have suggested to the Mughals their plan of allotting special farms and villages to furnish the privy purse, and has had other survivals. But, speaking generally, the universal plan of taking revenue was by taking a share of the actual grain heap on the threshing-floor from each holding. Afterwards this was commuted for a money payment levied on each estate or each field as the case

In revenue language, I may repeat, the village is the 'mauza or 'dih' (P.). In the Hindi dialects it is variously gáǹw, grámam, gráon, gaum, or some similar form. In Elphinstone's History of India and many other works, the 'village' is called a 'township.' I am not aware of any advantage possessed by this term, except that it is equivalent to the Saxon 'vill' VOL. I.

H

which had features in common with some forms of Indian village. The village' group varies in size. In the Panjab it averages 900 acres, in the Central Provinces 1300 acres, in the North-West Provinces, where population is denser, and land highly cultivated and much subdivided, it is 600 acres (Stack's Memorandum on Temporary Settlements, 1880, p. 8).

might be. The nature and consequence of this system as it affects our modern land-revenue, will be dealt with in detail in the next chapter. Here I only state the fact. To collect this revenue, the ruler appointed or recognized not only a headman and accountant in each village, but also a hierarchy of graded officials in districts and minor divisions of territory formed for administrative purposes. These officers were often remunerated by holdings of land, and a class of land-tenures will be found in some parts of India owing its origin to these hereditary official holdings. Not only so, but during the decline which Oriental governments have usually undergone, the Revenue officials have been commonly found to merge in, or be superseded by, revenue-farmers-persons who contracted for a certain sum of revenue to be paid into the Treasury from a given arca, as representing the State dues exigible from the landholdings within that area. Such revenue-farmers, or officials, whatever their origin, have always tended to absorb the interests of the land-holders and to become in time the virtual landlords over them.

Nor is it only that landlord tenures arise in this way. No sooner does the superior right take shape than we find many curious new tenures created by the landlord or arising out of his attempts to conciliate or provide for certain eminent claims in the grade below him.

§ 5. Effects of Assignment or Remission of Land-Revenue.

Yet another class of tenures arises in connection with the State Revenue-administration; and that is when the ruler either excuses an existing land-holder from paying his revenue, either wholly or in part; or 'alienates' or assigns the revenue of a certain estate or tract of country in favour of some chief, or other person of importance, or to provide funds for some special objects, or to serve as a recompense for services to be rendered.

See Maine, Early History of Institutions, p. 150.