CHAPTER V

ZAMINDARS AND CHIEFTAINS

Zamindars held a very crucial position in the revenue

system of the Mughal empire. They have, therefore, attracted an

immense attention of scholars of economic and administrative

history of the period.

Moreland was the first scholar to examine the

zamindari system in some detail. He equates a zamindar with

a 'vasal chief and hance, in his opinion, he could not exist

in territories under direct political control of the Mughal

state ; however, he points out that Bengal was an exception to 2

this practice, P. Saran followed Moreland and declared that

zamindars could not have been found in all parts of the enpire 3

and that they were just 'vasal chiefs' . But this opinion was

contested by irfan Habib who, on the basis of the Ain-i Akbarl,

put the issue in the right perspective by pointing out that

— - 4 the zamindars were to be foxind in every part of the empire.

1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India, pp. 122,279.

2. Ibid., pp. 191-94.

3. p. Saran, provincial Government of the Mughals, p.lll.

4. Irfan Habib, "Zamindars in the Ain', PIHC, 21st session, Trivendrum, 1958, pp. 320-23. The author discovered that in the printed text of the A'ln, Blochmann had changed the headings of the statistical Account. The column of zamindar caste was replaced by caste only in every pargana. Ihe restoration of the original column made it clear that the zamindars were to be foxind in every part of the empire. Also see Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 13 6-37 n.

140

He studied in detail thfe rights, composition, strength and

many other aspects of the zamindars and distinguished them 1

from the autonomous chiefs.

Nurul Hasan accepted the universality of the

zamindars and discussed at length the origins of zamindari

rights and the relationship of this class with the Mughal 2 — ^

government. He divided the zamindars into three categories:

a) primary zamindars; b)secondary zamindars and c) autonomous

chiefs.

The zamindars and chieftains alike have been

addressed as zamindars in the official manuals and chronicles

of Mughal India, though they held different positions in

their respective territories and bore separate relationship

with the Mughal government. Nevertheless, a few features were

common among them: both belonged to the landed aristocracy;

secondly, both had their hereditary status; independent of

the Mughal authority in the initial stages atleast. Hence they

need separate treatment.

1. Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 137-89.

2. Nurul Hasan, "The Position of the zamindars in the Mughal Empire', lESHR, VQI, J^ no.4, Delhi, 1964, pp. 107-19.

3. But he is concious that autonomous chiefs held a different position and were called zamindars by the Mughal chronicles. Ibid. A separate study of autonomous chiefs has been made by Ahsan Razet Khan, Chieftains in the Mughal Empire during the reign of Akbar, Simla, 1977.

14i

We have put together in this chapter evidences

available in the contemporary records with respect to the

zamindars in the suba of Bihar, Our en^hasis is on the

origin, rights, composition, strength and functions of the

zamindars. Chieftains have been discussed separately in the

the 2nd section of the chapter.

The term zamindar literally means 'holder of land'

and was used in India from the 14th century onwards. In

Bihar, Malik was the word often used as a synonym for the

- - 2 zamindar as everywhere else in India,

The zamindars enjoyed varying rights in the Mughal

Empire. Our 16th & 17th century sources throw very little

light on the subject as far as Bihar is concerned. However,

after taking over the dfwanf of Bengal, Bihar and orissa in

1765, the English East India company made attempts to

1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System, op.cit., p.18.

2, Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 139-40; Buchmann makes a distinction and says that the petty zamindars are called "maleks" (see Bihar & patna, II, pp. 5 64, 580). But Grierson finds the inferior proprietors (petty zamindars) as khurdiya malik in Gaya, while in Patna they were known as jujui hissedar (Bihar Pesant Life, p,322)• Among the aboriginal races, they were called kshetrapal or satrap (see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.72) .

142

wholly xinder stand the structure, terminology and mechanism

of the revenue system, A large number of questions were put

to the natives officials and their answers taken. Much of

these equiries are available to us which help us in under­

standing the revenue system in the suba during the Mughal

period.

Regarding zamindari, the main questions before the

English officials were: a) the nature of the zamindari rights;

and b) the relationships that existed between the zamlndir

and the state on the one hand, and the zamindars and peasantry

on the other.

The Board of Revenue in Bengal in 1786 had

declared zamindari to be "a conditional office, annually 2

renevable, and revocable on defalcation, James Grant came

to the conclusion that the zamindars were proprietors of the

land, but he also maintained that "sovereign ruler through-

out Hindoostan, is the sole virtual proprietor of the soil".

This is rather a confusing picture. Another energetic

official, John Shore, was of the opinion that the zamindars

were not the proprietors of the soil and the property in

land was exclusively vested in the crown, and that the

1, Kaghazat-i mutafarriga, BM, Add, 6586, ff, lo3b -129b,

2, Firmingar, Fifth Report, ii, p. 737,

3, Ibid,

14 0

zamindars were on ly managing the l ands on beha l f of t h e

k i n g . The l e t t e r t o John Shore by the C o l l e c t o r of Bhagal -

p u r (1787) c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e zamindars were no t

p r o p r i e t o r s b u t p o s s e s s o r s of land and had permanent i n t e r e s t

i n t h e development and improvement of land fo r the sake of 2

en joy ing the s u r p l u s . In a 18th c e n t u r y c o l l e c t i o n of p a p e r s ,

t h e zamindar has been desc r ibed a s a person who was the

owner Of the land ( S a h i b - i zamih) who p a i d revenue (Isbara 1) - 3 — - -

t o the s u l t a n o r r u l e r (hakim) . The zamindari was t h e

i n h a b i t e d a r e a s from where t h e revenue was p a i d t o the s t a t e

w i t h o u t any h e s i t a t i o n s , and the c u l t i v a t o r s ( r i ^ y a ) was to

be saved a g a i n s t t he h igh-handedness of the i m p e r i a l and h i s

own s e r v a n t s . The zamindari r i g h t s cou ld be of t h r e e k i n d s : 4

Purchased , r e c e i v e d as g i f t and i n h e r i t e d . When we p u t

t o g e t h e r the f a c t s r egard ing t h e zamindar i r i g h t s i n t h e

Mughal empire , c o l l e c t e d for example , by I r f an Habib, and

t h e informat ion g a t h e r e d by the Engl i sh conpany in the second

h a l f of the 18th c e n t u r y , t he p i c t u r e t h a t emerges i s t h a t

t h e zamindars were no t the p r o p r i e t o r s of the s o i l b u t on ly

C o l l e c t o r s of the revenue on beha l f of the Mughal s t a t e . 1 . I b i d . , p p . 737-41 , 746-47; Also see B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t a r y

p a p e r s . I I I , p . 4 5 2 .

2 . Bhaaalpur Records , Vol . 6, l e t t e r da ted 9 th S e p t . 1787; A g l o s s o r y of t h e revenue termed p repa red a t t h e o r d e r s of t h e commissioner of revenue in Bhagalpur in 1838 g i v e s the_meaning of zamindar a s t h e p r o p r i e t o r of land and zamindar i a l a r g e landed p r o p e r t y . I b i d . , Vol . 36, da t ed 28th June , 1839. Glossairy B r i t s h Pa r l i amen ta ry Papers I I I , p p . 4 9 - 5 0 .

3 . KJghazat , Add. 6586, f. l o l 3 b ( 1 1 3 6 ) . 4 . TETdZ 5 . Agra r ian System, p p . 1 3 6 - 4 1 ,

144

Moreover, the zamlndars staked a claim in the produce of

the soil since long. The zamindar, therefore, may or may not

be the proprietor, but he certainly claimed certain superior

rights in the property called his zamindari. As Irfan Habib

puts it, "zamindari was a right which belonged to a rural 2

class other than, and standing above the peasantry",

Zamindars were not to be found in the entire covmtry

side. In every pargana, there were some raiyatj" or peasant-

- — - 3 held villages which did not admit of any zamindari right.

The relationship of a zamindar with the state and the

raiyat were unique. The state in normal circumstances would not

dispossess him from his zamindari. The zamindar, inspite

of his superior rights in the produce, was not competent to

eject a peasant from his land unless the latter failed to pay

the stipulated revenue. Nor the peasant was tied to the

zamindars; he was free to move from one place to another.

Large tracts of virgin land always kept the zamindars under

the fear of the flight of peasantry if the latter were haraSed,

1, For a detailed definition of zamindars, see British Parliamentary Papers, III, Glossary, pp, 49-50,

2, Agrarian System, p,141,

3, Ibid,, pp, 141-43,

4 , I b i d , , pp, 154-55, The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the zamlnda^r and s t a t e would be discussed in d e t a i l a t the end of t h i s chap te r .

14a

Besides, arbitrary fixation of rents by zamindars was not

possible - both revenue and abwab being fixed by the imperial

authority.

Thus, the status of the zamindar was neither that

of a proprietor of the soil nor a vassal of the state; perhaps

it was a compound of both. He was an intermediary, pushing

superior rights over the peasantry.

The main share of the zamindar was in the form of

malikana and Nanlcir.

Early English administration, while investigating

into the right of malikana found that it was an established

right of the zamindars of Bihar, They were to receive it from <~ ^ - II

the amris, l aq i rdars and "alturogha holders . Whenever they 2

were dispossessed from the management of t h e i r land. Buchanan

in 1811-12 gives a de ta i l ed account: "in the Mogul government

the maliks were c e r t a i n l y not o f f i ce r s of government, as the

zamindars undoubtedly were; nor had they in general anJ^y

1 . B r i t i s h Parliamentary Papers. I l l , p .479.

2 . Minutes of Mr. Shore, l8 th Sept . 1789, B r i t i sh Parl iamentary Papers , I I I , p . 4 3 1 , in f ac t . Shore considered i t a main po in t of difference between the zamindars of Bihar and those of Bengal, In the case of the l a t t e r , the re was no such thing except "moshaira" which had some a f f i n i t y with the malikana of the former ( Ibid . ) .

I f n

management of their lands. An officer of government granted

leases, collected the rent, and gave the maleks one tenth

of the neat proceeds. The malek appointed an accomptant

(screshtahdar) to see that he received his due, and usually

received a trifling annual present from the tenants of each

village, as an acknowledgement of superiority in the feudal

sense . In some places, it is alleged, that the Maleks

managed their own estates, and accounted to the Amel or

collector for the whole proceeds, deducting one tenth of the

neat profit for their support".

The above passage establishes the difference

between the nalik and zamindar in Bihar. The zamindars were

considered as officers of the government, meaning thereby

that they collected the revenue from the peasants, while the

maliks got their malikana from the amils or other government

servants. They generally did not have any part in the

collection, ^ e passage does not make clear what was the

term used to denote the share of the zamindar who managed

their zamindaris, though Buchanan observes that sometimes the

maliks also collected the land revenue and deducted the same

share as malikana. We know from our 17th century sources that

the zamindars, who were managing their territories and

1. Bihar & Patna, II, pp. 564-65.

147

c o l l e c t i n g revenue from peasants , were ertLtled to rusuro-i - - - - - ^ 1

zamindari and d a s t u r a t - i 2amfndarl« The question i s* was

t h i s rusum-1 zamindari in some way d i f fe ren t in nature from

the maliXana ? The answer comes from a se t of ques t ionnai re

which was c i r c u l a t e d among revenue o f f i c i a l s regarding the

revenue s t ruc tu re in Bihar and Bengal. To the question about

the nature of the malikana. The answer was t h a t in Bihar

the malikana was synonymous with rusum-i zamindari. If the

zamindar himself managed the a f f a i r s of zamindari^, he could

deduct i t on h i s own. If the land was vinder the management

of s t a t e , then, the s t a t e gave i t to the zamindar. In case

the t e r r i t o r y was under a j ag i rda r , he was to pay the — — 2 zamindar's share .

From the above discussion, i t i s c l ea r t h a t the

zamindar had a de f i n i t e share in the produce of the s o i l

1 . J a h a n g i r ' s farman to one Hiranand zamindar in Hunger s t a t e s t h a t the l a t t e r w i l l be e n t i t l e d to usual allowances ( t r . by M.L. Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, XVIII, 1941, pp.188-96) . In the same way,__the usual allowances are re fe r red to in Aurangzeb's farman to Mahinath (of Tirhut) bestowing on him the zamrndari of p'argana Sharanpur( sarkar Munger) and a few parqanas in Bengal. I have consul ted the t r a n s l a t e d copy (duly ver i f ied) kept in Darbhanga Raj Archives. Dr. Q.Ahmad consul ted the document and has a l so t r ans la ted i t see Q. Ahmad, "Darbhanga Raj", IHRC, VQI . 36, pp.961-96.

2 . Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f. 150a.

148

which generally was equated with the ma.likana« Though the

terra was often used to indicate that the zamlndar was enjoying

it when he was not administering his zamindari.

As regards the rate of the nalikana/ Shore's minutes

of I8th Sept. 1789 reveals that it was l0% "as the ancient

allowance agreeable to the constitution of the country

government". In reply to some queries around the same

period, the malikana was stated to be lo Rs. in lOO (10%) — • — 2

and lo bighas in iQO bighas. Buchanan's statement makes

it clear that the rate of the nalikina as l0% was as old-3

established practice.

In addition to this, the zamindars working on

behalf of the state, used to get nankar grants in the form

of land or cash. Nankar was offered by the state in lieu of

1. This rate was also fixed in 1771 by the provincial council at Patna with the sanction of the council at Calcutta, British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.451, In the same report. Shore says that this was like "moshaira" a charge of zamindars in Bengal, the rate for which is also given as l0%. Ibid,, p,202,

2. Kaqhazat, Add, 6586, f. I0l7 (117) .

3> For the same rate of malikana in Bihar, see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.29. For the prevalence of malikana in Bihar much before the taking of administra­tion by the English East India Company, see Hunter, op. cit., vol. XI, pp.187-88,

149

service and it was, therefore, admissible only to those

zamindars who worked for the state. We come across a large

number of documents granting nankar in cash or kind to

different zamindars in all parts of the suba. We have no

information as to what was the actual amount sanctioned for

nankar, A glossary of the revenue terms prepared in the l8th

century gives its rate as 5%,

Besides these the zamindars were also given many

grants in the form of in' m (gift) or revenue free grants for

loyalty and good services,''

The zamindars, if influential (and loyal to the

state) could also enjoy the office of chaudhuri which was 4

exclusively held by the zamindars. This substantially increased

their status and earnings.

1. Bihar State Archives, Patna, has a number of natikar grants in the name of one jhatoo chaudhary, and many others. (Bastano, 329 of Saran), The Darbhanga Raj Archive (Bihar State) also has a number of such documents all of which are uncatalogued (some are in Persian and some in English translation). Besides these, a number of such documents preserved in the Bihar Archives and the different collectorates of Bihar have been given in K.K. Datta, Some ^irmans, Sanads and Parwanas, pp.jf., i-ih'-'ib-

2. See 'Glossary', British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,33,

3. Basta no.968 (Shahabad) 329 of Saran Bihar State Archives, Patna and many more uncatalogued. Also see Dutta, op.cit., pp. 3, 40, 41,

j . For Jahangir's farman appointing chaudhuris in a few parganas of Munger, see M.L. Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, xvili, pp.l88-9D,

contd..-

150

In addi t ion to tiiis main claim in the land revenue,

our sources a lso r e fe r to a number of p e r q u i s i t e s (^asumat)

charged by the zaml^ndars from the persons res id ing in h i s

zamindari . Most of these p e r q u i s i t e s were by and large non-

agrar ian in the sense t h a t these had nothing to do with the

a g r i c u l t u r a l produce per se, although the zaminda^rs co l l ec t ed

these p e r q u i s i t e s because of h i s pecu l i a r pos i t ion in the

agrar ian h ie ra rchy . Thus, a t the most, the zamindars

p e r q u i s i t e s were semi-agrarian, and t h a t too, in a very

r e s t r i c t e d sense,

A comnon p rac t i c e in the Mughal enpire was t h a t the

peasants often rendered physical serv ices to the zamindars

on ce r t a in occass ions , free of charge general ly c a l l e d

begar . The l7 th century madad-i maash documents often

mention t h a t g ran t hold were exempted from begar. Except

t h i s , there i s no other reference as to the nature of begar

in Bihar. In the l9 th century, however, i t was widely 2 -

preva len t in Bihar . Begar in Mughal India does not seem to f . n . contd. from prev , page

For Akbar and Aurangzeb's farman to Gopal Thakur and h i s family, see Q, Ahmad, 'Darbhanga R a j ' , o p . c i t , , IHRC , vo l . 36, pp . 94-96. For d e t a i l s about the chau5hurl , see the chapter on Land Revenue (supra) .

1 , Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 . 2 . Buchanan not iced t h a t in the d i s t r i c t s of Patna and

Gaya Weavers performed_this begar in the fdrm of carrying the luggage of the zamindar's guests (see Bihar & Patna^ I I , p .654) , For the begSr performed by weavers in ahahabad, see Martin, Eastern India , i , p .549 .

151

have been practised on the zamlndar's field, but in the

l9th century Bihar this 'free service* was availed of for

ploughing zamindar* s fields and was known as hari or harihar.

The zamindar charged a cess on marriages performed 2 _ -

in t h e i r a r e a s . I t was ca l led biyadanl in North Bihar and was r ea l i sed from every body except the members of the upper

3 c a s t e .

Again, a tax was taken when a homsewas b u i l t or 4

sold . For Bihar, the e a r l i e s t reference i s for 1811-12 when

i t amounted to l / 8 t h of the p r i ce of the house eo ld .

1 . Grierson, Bihar Peasant Life, p .318 .

2 . i r fan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 .

3 . Grierson, p .317 . The r a t e given by Grierson ( l a t e 19th century) for Tirhut i s one rupee and four annas for a g i r l ' s and ten annas for a boy ' s marriage. The accounts of the English Company's 2amTnda"rl a t Deh Calcut ta and other p laces (1710-11) show such charges for marriages and divorces , too (see Wilson, The Early Annals of the English in Bengal, I I , p t . I , pp.11-12) .

4 . Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p .150 .

5 . Buchanan, Bihar and Patna, I I , p .599 . The English Company's zamindarl also~show income from the r e n t and sale of the houses, Wilson, I I , p t . I , pp.11-12.

152

In add i t ion , the zamindars a l so charged cesses on

f ishing and grazing, and took ren t for the palm t r e e s and

orchards , too . Grierson, while discussing the d e t a i l s of

t axes , says t h a t the co l l ec t ions were made in old s icca 2 rupees of Akbar which may suggest t h a t these were customary

charges since the Mughal t imes.

Apart from these p e r q u i s i t e s the zamindars drew

a subs t an t i a l income from taxes iir^osed on d i f f e r en t c r a f t s

f lour ishing in t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s ^ and a lso on merchandise

passing through t h e i r a r e a s . Taxes were a l so r ea l i zed from

the bazars , ha ts and gunges s i t ua t ed in t h e i r zamindarl .

Though we do not possess any information about i t during the

l7 th century, ea r ly Br i t i sh surveys show i t to be a long

standing p rac t i ce in t h i s region. In order to f ind out the

o r ig in of t h i s p r a c t i c e , i t s l e g a l i t y and the p o s s i b i l i t y

of abolishing zamindar's r i gh t , one quest ionnaire with six

quer ies was 5ent in 1789 A.D. by the Revenue Board to a l l 4

the Col lectors of Bihar. We quote below a t length what the

1 . Br i t i sh Parliamentary Papers, I I I , p .460.

2, Grierson, pp . 317-18.

3, See British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.238. In 1790, an official of the company was appointed to revise and establish such tolls as may be considered lawful (Ibid., pp.238, 459-60) .

4. Bhaqalpur Records, vol. 9, ff. 108-18; Muzaffarpur (ol lee to rate Records, vol. 187, Also see British Parlia­mentary Papers" III, p.470.

153

Col lec tor of Bhagalpvur wrote in t h i s r e spec t .

"When the na t ive pr inces granted zamindaris they

granted not mere o f f i c i a l t r u s t but land and

upon the evidence of two of the most anc ient docu­

ments perhaps exis t ing i t appears t h a t a g ran t of

land conveyed a property in a l l i t s r en t s and t o l l s ,

which t o l l s could be nothing e l s e than Bauzar and

Gunge c o l l e c t i o n s on descending from anc ien t

records to modern customs the zamindar's claims

on the Gunges, Bazars and Hauts w i l l appear to be

no less firmly es tabl i shed for i t w i l l be found t h a t

species of co l l ec t ions in denominated Sayr Mahl have

from time immemorial made a p a r t of the zamindaryM

jumma and t h a t no zamindar considered h i s Khood

Bandobust complete wherein i t was not included " .

Other Br i t i sh c o l l e c t o r s a lso pointed out t h a t the

zamindars would c e r t a i n l y object to i t s being abol ished. I t

was argued t h a t t h e i r r i g h t s over gunges and bazars were a t

par with t h e i r r i g h t s in the produce of the land and, the re fore ,

dispossession from the one was as important an infrigement 2

of their rights as from the other. The reaction of the

1. Bhagalpur Records, vol. 9, pp. 108-118.

2. Muzaffarpur Cpliectorate Records, vol. 187; British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.470.

154

zamlndars was that (the) "government if it pleased, might

take from him his whole zamindary".

Buchanan in 1811-12 found that at all the old estab­

lished markets, the zamindars collected Tola or a small share

of every thing sold in spite of its abolition by the govern-2

ment. These were paid by the people without any objection

Buchanan suggested that the tax to which people have been

long habituated may be revived, before the memory of old 3

times was obliterated, Grierson, as late as the close of the

l9th century, found a tax levied by the landlords on grain - - 4

seller's weight called kauli, bayan or kiraya. In the south­east of Bihar, a tax called tahbajari (tehbazari) was levied

5 on shopkeepers. It seems that since long the excise

(Ali <ari, a tax on distillers) was under the charge of the

zamindars and was a good source of income to them. Miners

1. Ibid,, p,459. The account of early (1710-11) English zamlndarl in Calcutta also show the income from the markets (see Wilson, II, pt. I, pp.11-12) .

2, Bihar and patna, II, pp. 699-700. For Bhagalpur see Martin, Eastern India,'~vol. II, p,28l,

3. Bihar and Patna, II, p.700.

4, Grierson, p.318.

5. Ibid.

6, Binayak Prasad, Tawarlkh-i U1janiya, I I , p.157, where the author says t h a t from the year Fas l i 1198 )1790) t h i s charge was taken from the zamindars by the government. Also see Hand, Administration of Bihar, p . 2 9 .

2

155

excavating mica in the t e r r i t o r i e s of the 2aininda"rs were

charge'd a t the r a t e of 2 rupees per person per yea r . In

the same manner, persons involved in the ref ining of s a l t ­

pe t r e were charged six to seven rupees per furnace per yea r .

Our seventeenth century soxirces do not mention t h i s tax but

a cue could be taken from r o c k - s a l t mining in suba Lahor

where a nominal tax was taken by the Mughal s t a t e from the

miners as t e s t i f i e d to by Abul Fazl and Sujan Rai ,

The p rac t i ce of charging rahdar i (road t o l l s ) on the

merchandise passing through the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the zamindar

was widespread in Bihar , Alexander Hamilton mentions the

presence of ' c h i e f s ' on the banks of the Ganges between Patna

and Qasim Bazar, who demanded tax on a l l merchandise passing 4 through t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s .

Tolls and du t ies rea l ized by the zamindars from the

mercanti le boats passing the chaukls s ta t ioned by the bank

of r i v e r s were l a t e r d i rec ted to be abolished by the English

1 , Buchanan, Bihar and Patna, I I , p .460 .

2 , I b i d , , p ,667.

3, Ain, p.539; Sujan Rai, pp.75-77,

4 . Roo A ^ H;a m-i 1 1-nn Tr-a tra 1 e T A l l See A, Hamilton, Travels, p, 411 Between Patna and Hunger, Manrique had to pass through eighteen toll posts, making a payment at each, though the amount paid was very small; in some cases as much as two paisa only (Manrique, II, p.138) ,

156

— _ - 1 •East India Conpany after it took over the diwani in Bihar,

It is not possible, however, to compare the magni­

tude of income derived by the zamindars as a 'superior' share

in the agricultural produce with that obtained from non-

agrarian avenues, including perquisites. But it does seem that

non-agrarian income contributed substantially to the

zamindar's income.

In return of all the privileges and superior rights,

the zamindars were supposed to perform certain duties. Their

main function naturally was the collection and deposition of

the land revenue into the royal treasury. Besides this, the

zamindars were expected to maintain law and order in their

jurisdictions. They also helped the state officials in curbing

the refractory and rebellions elements. The troops maintained

by the zamindars were to be placed at the disposal of the

state officials whenever the need arose. In return for

rahdari, they provided security to the goods and the merchants

passing through their territory. The roads and bridges were

1, British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,49» Again, the zamindars were later prohibited by the English company from collecting inland rahdari passing through their territories which were not meant to be disposed off there (Ibid.). However, duties at inland chaukls, hats and gunges were allowed to continue in the hands of the zamindgrs as formerly (Ibid, Also see Hand, Administra­tion of Bihar, p,29) • In spite of the orders of the company, the zamindars continued charging inland rahdari (British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.49) . Grierson in late l9th century found it being levied (Grierson, p. 318) .

157

a l s o repa i red from t h e i r charge.

We have very l i t t l e information how the zamindar

c o l l e c t e d the revenue or how h i s establ ishment was organised.

Most of the information on t h i s subjec t comes from the 18th

century but in most cases the ind ica t ions are t h a t i t was a

long standing p r a c t i c e . These may be summarised as follows:

In the f i r s t p lace , the qanungos were supposed to

keep an accoxint of the annual produce of each zamindari to

regu la te the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the jama in d i f fe ren t proport ions

to the s t a t e , zamindar, and the subordinate o f f i c i a l s engaged 2 '-in the revenue c o l l e c t i o n . AmiIs used to take qubul iyat

from the zamindars for depositing the revenue, and if the

zamlndars fa i l ed in t h i s , they were taken to task and even •^ ^ 3

t h e i r zamindars could be taken away.

The establ ishment of the holders of subs tan t i a l

zamindari was somewhat e l abo ra t e . They used to have one-diwan

or t a h s i l d a r as t h e i r stewards, with 'Motsuddis" or 'peshkars*

1. Firminger, Fjfth Report, II, p.745.

2. Bhagalpur Records, vol, 9, p,114. Also see Fifth Report, II, p.747.

3. 'Petition of the Aumils of Bihar to the Board of Revenue c. 1786' (Hand, Administration of Bihar, p,30).

158

( c l e r k s ) , cash keepers (Fotadars ) , record keepers and,guards

( 'Pegudehs) under an o f f i ce r c a l l e d lama^dar. The o f f i c i a l

working place was ca l l ed "kachahri" where the dues were 2

c o l l e c t e d . The small zamindars kept one c le rk with one or

more watchman ( 'chawkidar ') for a s s i s t ance in c o l l e c t i n g the 3 - -

revenue. The zamindars of both the ca tegor ies were well , 4 armed.

When the zamindars did not collect revenue themselves,

they got a share of l0% on the total collection. For this

they kept a vigilant eye on the qanungos and 'amiIs as their

malikana depended on the accuracy of the papers of the 'amils

— - 5 ^ and qanungos. They took their share through the amils and

-~ "" fi

the holders of jagirs and altamgha grants,

Zamindari apparently had all the features of private

property: it was salable could be gifted away and inheritable,

7 — _ — too , The purchase and sale of zamindari was systamatised by 1. Buchanan, Bihar & Patna, II, p,565. For such office bearers

in the zamlndg ris of the English Company in Calcutta, see Wilson, Aunals, II, pt, I, pp. 11-12,

2. Buchanan, Bihar & Patna, p,565,

3. Ibid., pp. 565-66,

4. Ibid,, p.566.

5. Hand, Administration of Bihar, p.29,

6. British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.451. Also see Hand, op,cit., p.29.

7. irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p. 154. Also see Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f. lol3 b (ll3 b).

159

the Mughal s t a t e by making i t compulsory to r e g i s t e r such

d e a l s . We ge t innumerable zamindari sale-deeds in surviving

r eco rds . I t seems t h a t the s a l e -p r i ce of a zaminda'ri was

seldom more than double or barely exceeded the land-revenue

demand for one y e a r .

Hereditary succession to the zamindari was a ru le

in Mughal Ind ia , The need of a sanad rose only in the case

of dispute between l ega l h£*rs . When a zamindari was bestowed

by a royal farman, i t was mentioned t h a t i t i s to be inher i t ed 2

generat ion a f te r genera t ion . The shares of successors were

always given as the whole v i l l a g e , or in f r ac t i ona l p a r t s of

1 , Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p p . 151-53. I r fan Habib po in t s out t h a t the p r i ces were su rp r i s ing ly low compared to the ra t e p r i c e and land revenue for one year and suggests t ha t i t should have been the c a p i t a l i s e d value of the anual income expected from possession of the r i g h t purchased; but what he has probably overlooked i s t h a t the zamindar share was only aroiond l0% of the t o t a l land revenue and, thus , the p r i c e s were in fac t c a p i t a ­l i sed value of the expected income.

2 , J ehang i r ' s farraan of 1613 A.D. t r . M.L, Roy Chaudhuri, IHRC, XVIII, 1941, pp , 188-96; Mahinath Thakur, the_ qanunqo and chaudhurT of ^ i rhu t , was given zamindari r i g h t in a few parganas of bengal a l so in r e tu rn for h i s good se rv ices (Farnian of Darbhanga Archives uncata-logued) s im i l a r l y , the zaniirndari of Garhi ( l e f t by Daryao Singh) was given to Ranbhim in re turn for h i s help in Man Singh 's Bengal expedi t ion; but one of h i s descendants,_udho, in the reign of Shahjahan, was recog­nised as zamindar on the condit ion of embracing Islam, and he was even elevated to the pos i t ion o f . r a j a ( ch i e f t a i n ) , (see K.K, Basu, 'His tory of Te l iagarh i and Madhuban', IHRC, vol . 35, i960, pp ,51-55) ,

169

of a village as the case may be but never in bighas.

Buchanan found in Patna that the minute sub-division

of property had reduced a large number of the zamindars to the

condition of mere peasants, and in many cases the former 2

were compelled to cultivate their lands themselves,

in Bihar, at the time of the early English settlement,

the British officers, because of the hereditary nature of

zamindari, were misled into considering the zamindars as the

real proprietors of land and, hence, they put much emphasis 3

on its hereditary character. The details of the procedure

adopted for inheritance have been given at the end of the

chapter (Appendix A),

Our seventeenth century soxirces are not adequate enough

to provide answers to a few questions concerning zamindari.

For example: a) What happened in the case of issue-less or

unclaimed zamindaris ? ; b) What was done with the abandoned

zamindaris; and c) When waste land was brought under cultiva­

tion, who got the zamindari ?

1, Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p.156,

2, Bihar and Patna, II, p,563.

3, Fifth Report. II, pp, 74 3-45; British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.204.

I f* * V)i

However^ the English company's survey reports give

us some clues. These may be summarised as below:

In all the above cases, the royal authority had powers

of decision. In the first (£ase, after the death of a

zamindar with no issue, the zamindari was kept in the charge

of the muqaddams pending decision. In the second case, the

Mughal emperor could give the abandoned zamindari to any of 2

the persons applying for it, in the third case; when a

waste land was brought under cultivation, the emperor could

- - — 3 give it in zamindari to the person instrumental in this act.

The rise of some zamindaris may be traced initially to the

holder of a government office and, in many cases, to that of

the qahungos. The most illuminating example of such a zamindari

is that of the Darbhanga Raj farr.ily. The family started as

1, Cf. British Parliamentary Papers, III, p,238. When Ghanshyam, the zamindar of Sultanpur Kajtloo (Hunger) , died in 1712 without issue the zamindari was put under the charge of muqaddam,

2, When Bheek Roy could not defend the tarf of Indrik (Munger) from the people of Bunickpore (?) , he o.bi•,:l t.ie.i U, later, 'Lachmun', a brahmin, applied for it which was granted to him in 1061 fasli (1653) by Aurangzeb (there is some error in the date), At the time of writing the document, the 4th descendant of Luchman, Manohar Singh was the zamindar (British Parliamentary Papers, III, p.240) .

3, The tarf of Ibrahimpur established in waste land was given to one Bendodo Chowdhri of Munger, whese grandson Hari Kishan was in possession in 1790, Ibid, p.24 0.

162

qanungoB and chaudhuris during Akbar's period, emerging as

powerful zamindars by the time of Aurangzeb, and ultimately

by 1720 became 'chieftain'. Buchanan found that the ancestors

of the most distinguished zamindar of Baikanthpur could be

traced to one "Bhav Singha" who started his career as a

- - 2 qanungo.

It has not been possible to estimate the exact number

of the zamindars in the suba of Bihar, However, some idea may

be formed on the basis of the later records. The Collector

of Saran informed the Board of Revenue in 1788 that in 12 out

of 17 parganas, there were 353 zamindars. The number in

the districts of Bihar and Shahabad was considered much 4 — -

greater. By one estimate, the number of the zamindars in 5

Munger was 3180. The main problem in making permanent

settlement in Tirhut was started to be the large number of

"estates" in the district.

1. Q. Ahmad, 'Darbhanga Raj', IHRC, vol. 35, 1961, pp.94-96.

2. Bihar & Patna, II, p.577.

3 . B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t a r y Papers , I I I , p . 4 5 3 .

4 . I b i d . , p . 4 5 7 .

5 . Hunter , v o l . XV, p p . 115-16.

6. H.R. Ghoshal, 'The Problem of Effecting Permanent Settle­ment in Tirhut", IHRC, vol. 35, i960, pt. II, p.9l.

163

Caste Coirposition of the Zamindars

The cortposition of the zamlndar class was a

heterogenous one. They were represented by the people from

all the 'castes'. The Ain provides information regarding

the dominant zamindar caste in every pargana, but it is

unfortunate that the Ain's information in this respect

are incomplete in the case of Bihar, Of the seven sarkars

of the suba/ the zamindar caste for only the sarkar of Bihar

is given. Here, too, out of a total of 45 parganas, the 2

information is provided for 27 parganas only. The study of

the zamindar caste in the sarkjr of Bihar shows that the

Brahmins were the predominant caste represented in eleven

parganas followed by the Rajputs in five, the Kayastha in

four, the Afghans and Shaikhzadas in three each, and the

Cherus in two parganas.

The main strength of the zamindar was based on the

armed retainers recruited by him. The 'Ain gives the number

of cavalry (sawar) and infantry (piyadah) for each pargana,

1. Abul Fazl uses the term 'qaum' which is more comprehensive in its connotation than the term 'caste'. Strictly speaking the Afghans, Shaikhzadas and Cherus, etc. Can not be put into the category of "caste". It is only for convenience that we have used the term 'caste'.

2. Ain, pp. 418-19.

3. Ibid.

164

I n t h e c a s e of t h e s\iba of B i h a r , i t p r o v i d e s p a r q a n a - w i s e

f i g u r e s f o r t h e s a r k a r o f B i h a r o n l y and , f o r t h e r e s t , t h e

Ain g i v e s s a r k a r - w i s e f i g u r e s . The f a c t t h a t t h e " c o l u m n s "

of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y i n t h e Ain a r e g i v e n i m m e d i a t e l y

a f t e r t h e c a s t e o f z a m i n d a r s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y w e r e armed

r e t a i n e r s of t h e z a m i n d a r s . Wherever t h e p a r g a n a - w i s e

z a m i n d a r c a s t e i s m e n t i o n e d , t h e number of armed r e t a i n e r s

a r e a l s o g i v e n p a r g a n a - w i s e , and whenever t h e ' c a s t e * i s

s t a t e d f o r t h e whole s a r k a r , t h e number of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y

i s a l s o g i v e n f o r t h e whole of t h e s a r k a r . The t o t a l number

2 of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y i n t h e suba of B i h a r wcus a s f o l l o w s ,

S a r k a r Saw?r P i y a d a h ( C a v a l r y ) ( I n f a n t r y )

B i h a r 2115 67 ,350

Hunger 2150 5 0 , 0 0 0

Champaran 700 30 ,000

H a j i p u r 200 1 0 , 0 0 0

S a r a n lOOO 5 0 , 0 0 0

T i r h u t 700 8 0 , 0 0 0

R o h t a s 4550 1 , 6 2 , 0 0 0

T o t a l 11 ,415 4 , 4 9 , 3 5 0

N o t e : l o o b o a t s w e r e m a i n t a i n e d by t h e z a m i n d a r s .

4 , 4 9 , 3 5 0 i n f a n t r y w i t h t h e s u p p o r t of 1 1 , 4 1 5

c a v a l r y and lOO b o a t s w i l l make a s t r o n g f o r c e . The t o t a l

1 , I r f a n Habib, Agra r ian System, p p , 163-64.

2 , A in , p p . 4 1 7 - 2 3 .

18-j

number of cavalry and infantry kept by the zamindars in

a l l the subas of the Mughal empire was about 42,77,057

in fan t ry and 3,84,558 cava l ry . Thus the zamindars of Bihar

maintained r e t a i n e r s amounting to l0.05% infantry and 2,96%

of cavalry of the t o t a l given for the empire, S^ch a large

regular force would requi re huge sums for i t s maintenance

and upkeep. I t seems, therefore , t h a t the cavalry would have

been a regular force , while the in fan t ry may have included

persons whose se rv ices were avai led of a t the time of need;

the l a t t e r na tu ra l ly would have been drawn from the peasant ry .

Such troops genera l ly belonged to the clan of the zamindars,

thus strengthening the t i e s between them and the peasantary*

Farid (Shershah) in h i s operations aga ins t the zamindars in

h i s f a t h e r ' s j a g i r in Bihar i s s t a t ed to have k i l l e d a l l the 2

men he found and s e t t l e d new peasan t s . The assumption behind

t h i s inc ident , as suggested by i r fan Habib, was t h a t the old

peasants were e i t h e r the r e t a i n e r s of the zamindars or a t l e a s t 3

had served them in b a t t l e .

The above tab le shows t h a t the sarkar of Rohtas

commanded the l a r g e s t number of t roops although i t had a

smaller area compared to some sa rkars of Bihar. I t had an

1 . I r fan Habib, Agrarian System, pp . 163-64.

2 . Abbas lOian, Tuhfa-i Akbar Shahi (Cf, i r fan Habib, Agrarian System, pp. 166-67).

3 . I b i d .

15G

area of 6,446 square miles, smaller as compared to the sarkars

of Bihar, Hunger and Tirhut, The large number of troops in

Rohtas may have been due to three reasons: first, it had a

large revenue return, next only to the sarkar of Bihar.

Secondly, it had the largest chieftancy in Bihar, i.e. the

Ujjaniyas; and thirdly, its geographical situation, surrounded

as it was with dense forests, would have required large number

of troops. The difficulties in administering the sarkar of

Rohtas could have prompted the administration to divide it

into two distinct sarkars laterii on Rohtas and Shahabad.

These troops performed many functions. They protected the

zamindar's possessions, helped in collecting revenue from

the'zortalab' (rebellions) peasantry and in the maintenance

— _ i, of general law and order in the zamindars. Our sources

J-

possess inumerable evidences on the supply of troops by the

zamindars at the time of Imperial expeditions against rebe­

llious territories as well as for new conquests.

Another symbol of the zamindar's strength was the

large number of big and small fortresses dotted through out

the suba. Abul Fazl refers to only big fortresses such as

Gidhaur, Ratanpur, and others. Many of these were at places

where the Imperial control was substantial, like Patna, Hunger,

1. See Chapter one on Geography (supra) .

157

etc. Early British surveyors found small 'fortresses* in

large numbers in the country side. In Gaya,Buchanan found

petty ruined forts belonging to the zamindars whose number

was too great to be calculated,^ Similarly, he found ruined

forts 8 in Dariapur, 86 in Helsa (29 were still inhabited), 3

loo in Jahanabad and in large numbers at Daudnagar and Vikram.

The Construction and maintenance of the forts was a right

provided and protected by the Mughal government so long as

— - 4 the zamindars remained loyal. In the case of rebellious

zamindars, these fortresses were attacked sn d destroyed.

Zamindars and Mughal Administration

The zamindars, as shown earlier, had a proprietory

rights over the produce of the land and this right was here­

ditary. At the same time, these rights existed even before _ CKe ?-a7n)Tv.dar5

the establishment of the Mughal empire and, therefore,. di3 A

not draw their authority from the Mughal state like the

jagirdars. Considering this position of the zamindars, the

question is as to what was the relationship between the zamindar

and the Mughal state, and whether the zamindars could be called

government servants ?

1 . Ain, p p . 418-23 ,

2 , Buchanan, Bihar & Pa tna , I , p , l 6 2 ,

3 . I b i d , , p p , 183, 233, 250,256, 2 6 1 .

4 , I r f a n Habib, Agra r i an System, p p , 164-65 .

183

On the bas i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the zamindar

and the Mughal adminis t ra t ive irachinery, t h i s c l a s s may be

divided in to three ca t ego r i e s . F i r s t , the zamindars who were

by passed in the process of land-revenue co l l ec t ion and were

e n t i t l e d to mal ikina. The second category was of those

zamindars who co l l ec t ed land revenue on behalf of the s t a t e

and, a f t e r deducting t h e i r own share , forwarded the r e s t to the

royal exchequer. And f i n a l l y , those , who, besides co l l ec t i ng

land revenue in t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s , possessed the chaudhurai

( r igh t s ) . This r i g h t made the zamindar responsible for the

c o l l e c t i o n of revenue from the a reas of other zamindars a l s o .

The f i r s t category can by no c r i t e r i a be considered

as se rv ice , while second category of the zamindars, though

not appointed by the s t a t e (except when the zamindars were

appointed by royal orders in spec i f i c cases ) , may be conside­

red as Imperial se rvants since they were supposed to c o l l e c t

land revenue s t r i c t l y , according to relies and regu la t ions

framed by the s t a t e , with the help of s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . They

a l so received naT>kar from the s t a t e in l ieu of s e rv ice . But

the Mughal State did not have the au tho r i t y to remove him

unless he was declared a defau l te r or r e b e l l i o u s . As regards

the t h i r d category, where the chaudhra'*! wcc© coupled with

zamindari, the s t a t e was the appointing author i ty and, hence,

i t Could remove him a t p l ea su re . But, here , too, only the

chaudhrax could have been taken away, When the chaudhuri

f a i l ed to perform h i s d u t i e s . The chaudhuri, therefore , was

169

a purely government off ice carrying with i t the f ixed

p e r q u i s i t e s . As far as the coupling of the zaminda'ri and

chaudhra'i i s concerned, i t does not necessar i ly imply t h a t

zamindari was a government s e rv i ce . Such coupling i s

genera l ly fotind in cases where the zamindari r i g h t s were

granted by the Emperor. Moreover, such appointments were

given to the most loyal or dependable persons; hence, the

chaudhra'i may be considered as a spec ia l favour. Thus, the

chaudhuri for a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes was a government

servant , and not so a l l the zamindars. The l a t t e r had only

a s o r t of con t r ac t with the Imperial au thor i ty , and they

did not general ly draw the i r au thor i ty from the sovereign.

As discussed e a r l i e r , the s t a t e had every r i g h t to

appoint a zamindar in case of an unclaimed zamindari, or

in place of r ebe l l i ous zamindar. I t could even replace a

zamindar who f a i l ed to c o l l e c t the revenue. Again, the

s t a t e was the sole au thor i ty to appoint a zamindar in newly

conquered t e r r i t o r i e s . But the s t a t e used such powers with

cau t ion . As eighteenth century enquiry in zamindar's r i g h t s

informs tha t in case of minor rebe l l ion the zamindar was

1, Irfan Habib expresses t h i s opinion on the ba s i s of the use of the term isbidmat (s_ervice) in the royal appointment orders of the zamindars. But i t i s only in the cases of the zamindars appointed by the Emperor. This, too, is_from the documents where the zamindari and chaudhra'i have been granted in the same order (see Agrarian System, p . 173) .

170

s t a t e was the sole au tho r i t y to appoint a zamindar in newly

conquered t e r r i t o r i e s . But the s t a t e used such powers with

c a u t i o n . An eighteenth century enquiry in zamindar's r i g h t s

informs tha t in case of minor r ebe l l i on the zamindar was

given pe t ty punishments as a warning; bu t i f h i s de fau l t

continued, the adminis t ra t ion of zamindari was taken from

him, and one of h i s successors was se l ec t ed to replace him.

I t appears, however, t h a t such appoint ing p r iv i l ege was used

in r a re cases only . Ordinar i ly ,such in te r ference was

avaided in con t ra s t to what happened to j a g i r d a r s . Never­

t h e l e s s , the might of the Mughal Sta te hung l i ke the Damocle's

sword in the form of i t s t h r ea t of dispossession if a

zamindar rebel led or de l i be ra t e ly p roc ras t ina ted or f a i l ed

to perform h i s d u t i e s .

The s t a t e a l so reserved i t s power to intervene

and decide disputes concerning the zamindari r i gh t s among

numerous c la imain t s , perhaps t h i s power sometimes might

have been u t i l i s e d to el iminate r e f rac to ry elements. In one

case of such d isputes between two zamindars, Anand and Kanak,

in pargana Bal of sarkar Saran, the claim of Kanak was

r e j ec t ed and tha t of Anand was upheld as the leg i t imate

zamindar by Aurangzeb. The amil of the sa id pargana was

, Kaghazat, Add. 6586, f, 10l5 a (115 a) .

17

d i r ec t ed to take ac t ion and put a stop to Kanak's

in te re fe rence in order to secure the jamindari to Anand,

Again in 1702, the faujdar of sarkar Saran was ordered to 2

help Anand. A s imi lar order was issued in 1703 to o ther o f f i c i a l s to p r o t e c t the r i g h t s of one Maha Singh v i s - a - v i s

3 Prem Narain, The emperor's repeated d i rec t ions in t h i s

case for three years show tha t i t was not an easy task to

d isp lace any contending p a r t y . This d i f f i c u l t y might have

been due to the loca l l i nks and cas te -base of the claimants

concerned.

Yet in another dispute in 1724, orders were issued

to t r ans fe r the zamindari of the v i l l age Tappa Khurd in

pargana Cherand of sarkar Saran, from Lai Khan to Baqar 4

Khan. The s t a t e considered the former 's claim i l l e g a l .

The incidence of r ebe l l ions by the zaminda^rs aga ins t

the Mughal adminis t ra t ion was very high as t e s t i f i e d to by

the contemporary accounts and docxments. I t seems t h a t such

occurrences in Bihar were comparatively frequent, because

of i t s geographical s i t ua t i on and dis tance from the c a p i t a l .

1 , See the parwana in Bihar State Archives, patna, Basta no . 329, For an abridged t r a n s l a t i o n in English, see K.K. Datta, Firmans, p . 3 8 .

2 , parwana in Bihar Sta te Archives, Basta no.329. Also Datta, o p . c i t . , pp . 38-39.

3 , Parwana in Bihar Sta te Archives, Basta no.329, Also Datta, p . 39,

4 , Datta , p , 4 5 .

172

Why there-were frequent r ebe l l ions by the zamindars ?

The f a i l u r e , whether de l ibe ra t e or otherwise, to

c o l l e c t or remit the s t a t e ' s share often pushed the

zamindars to the r e b e l l i o u s pa th . This was one common

p rac t i c e to evade the imminent punishment. Their c a s t e

Concentration with the armed r e t a i n e r s of the same c a s t e

gave them strength and generated arrogance to defy the

Imperial a u t h o r i t y . Whenever there was any p o l i t i c a l

i n s t a b i l i t y , such as the rebe l l ion of pr inces or j a g i r d a r s ,

some zamindars took advantage of the s i t ua t ion by helping

the r ebe l s , and thus opposing the s t a t e . During the War of of

Succession between the sons Shahjahan,each side t r i e d to A

1. At the time of the rebe l l ion (1579-81) of j a g i r d a r s in Bihar, many zamindars a lso joined them (Akbarnama, I I I , pp . 284-87, 305-09, 3l9-337)_. At the time of the rebe l l ion of Chin Qul i j , the jag i rdars of Jaxinpur in 1615, the zamindars of Tirhut helped him in severa l ways (Tuzuk, p . 14 8 Eng. t r . Rogers, v o l . I , p.302 n.) The zamlndSr of Darbhanga helped the faujdar to crush the rebe l l ion of the zamindar of Morung (Nepal) for which the former was su i tab ly rewarded and the l a t t e r a l so received many favours (Farman, in Darbhanga Archives a l so see Q. Ahmad, 'Dharbhanga R a j ' , IHRC, vo l . 36, 19 61, pp . 94-9 6.

173

muster the support of the zaminda"rs to strengthen t h e i r

p o s i t i o n s . After the death of Aurangzeb, the a s p i r a t i o n s of

zamindars rose high and i t was reported by the English fac to r s

in 1712 t h a t the zantindars even plundered "Kings (Farukhyiyar)

own boats .

The fac t t h a t the fo r t r e s ses of many zamindars were

in the midst of dense fo res t s & h i l l y t r a c t s of ^outh Bihar,

Hunger and Rohtas, may be one of the f ac to r s t h a t tempted

the zamindars there to take the path of r e b e l l i o n , ^uch

geographical s i t ua t i on was disadvantageous to the imperia l

forces who were not famil iar with the reg ion .

Thus, the Mughal adminis t ra t ion knew i t f u l l y well

t h a t t h e i r r e l a t i onsh ip with the zamindars was of mutual

i n t e r e s t and tha t i t was not poss ib le for one to e l imina te

the o t h e r .

Shuja issued an order to the zamindars of Bihar to he lp him and oppose the forces to Dara and gave assurances 6f good rewards. Similar ly, Dara a l so issued nishans to the Chieftains and zamindars seeking t h e i r ^e lp and promised to bestow special favours (see B.P. Ambashthya, 'Some Farmans, Sanads Nishans & G' JBRS, vo l , 43 , p t , I I I & IV, 1957, pp , 215-239) .

2 . Wilson, Annals, I I , p t , I , pp .80-81 ,

174

CHIEFTAINS

So far we have discussed the zamlndars as a land­

owning class claiming superior rights in land, but working

as a part of the Mughal administration for the collection

of land-revenue. There was yet another category of

superior right holders, existing throughout the Mughal

Empire, who were called rais, ranas, rawats or rajas, etc.

They enjoyed administrative, political and economic freedom

to some measure in their respective territories and may,

therefore, be termed as autonomous or semi-autonomous

chiefs.

The Mughal chroniclers refer^ to the chieftains as

zamlndar. The use of the same term for this class and

ordinary zamlndars causes some confusion. However, the

difference between the two-the chiefs and zamlndars-lay

most clearly in their relationship with the imperial power

which allowed autonomy to the chief, a right which ordinary

zamlndars obviously did not possess,

Moreland was the first to draw our attention to the

importance of chieftains, in Mughal India. Following

1. W.H. Moreland, Agrarian System of Moslem India, op.cit, pp. 117-23.

175

him, P. Saran also devoted some space to the chiefs in

his work. Irfan Habib, while discussing the position of the

zamindars, gives a detailed account relating to the rights

and obligations of the chieftains, distinguishing them from

^ - 2 ordinary zammdars , In a succinct and path-breaking a r t i c l e Nurul Hasan has emphasized the ro l e of the ch ie f t a ins in the

3 s t r u c t u r e of Mughal Empire. He has c l a s s i f i e d zamrndaTs

in to three ca t ego r i e s : (a) the autonomous ch i e f t a in s ; (b)

the intermediate zamTndgrs; and (c) the primary zamrndars.

A.R. Khan's work i s the f i r s t de t a i l ed study about the pos i t ion

and ro le of ch iefs in a l l regions of the Mughal Empire during 4

the reign of Akbar, He has i den t i f i ed the p r i n c i p a l i t i e s

of various ch ie f s , and discussed a t length the manner of t h e i r

subjugation and the nature of t h e i r r e l a t ionsh ip with the

Mughal S t a t e ,

Like a l l the subas of Mughal India , Bihar too had a

number of c h i e f t a i n c i e s , some having a group of parganas and

o the rs j u s t a por t ion of i t ,

1 . p . Saran, Provinc ia l Government of the Muqhals. s^p.110-54.

2 . Irfan Habib, Agrarian System,pp. 182-89.

3 . S. Nurul Hasan, 'The Posi t ion of the Zamrndars in the Mughal Empire', lESHR. vo l . I , Nov. 4, pp. 107-119.

4 . A.R. Khan, Chief ta ins in the Mughal Empire during the Reign of Akbar, Simla, 1977.

17G

We will first identify, as far as possible, the

principalities of various chiefs and, then, trace the

process of their subjugation.

The ujjaniya Raj was the biggest chieftancy in

Bihar, situated mainly in the sarkar of Rohtas, during the

reign of Akbar; later on, when the sarkar was divided into

two (Rohtas and Shahabad), they held their major share in

the sarkar of Shahabad. During the reign of Jahangir, the

Ujjaniyas controlled parts of the ^arqanas of Arrah, Bihiya,

Danwar, Pero, Punwar, Nanar, Dambara, Barahgaon and Bhojpur

in the sarkar of Shahabad, parts of the parganas of Sahasram

and Chainpur in Rohtas, and of Kopa and Manjhi in sarkar

Saran. Besides these, they also held Gadh and Mahmoodabad.

According to the family records, the r"a-j was established in 2

A.D. 1320, when their ancestors came from Ujjain m Malwa.

They attained importance during the sixteenth century under

1. Binayak Prasad, Tawarikh-i Uljaniya/ II, pp. 35, 54, 55 of these, except Chainpur, all are given as parganas of Rohtas in the A'in, p.22-23. I have not been able to identify Kopa in Saran, as also Gadh & Mehmoodabad, The account of Binayak Prasad was written in the 19th century and the area controlled by the Ujjaniyas as given by him seems highly exaggerated.

2. Binayak Prasad, Tawarikh-i Ujjaniya, op.cit., I, p.55.

177

the patronage of Hasan Khan Sur and h i s son^ Far id . Their 2

strongholds were the f o r t s of Shergarh and Jagdispur .

the Ujjaniya r a j a Gajpati i s said to have a s s i s t e d

the Mughals in t h e i r Bengal expedit ion in 1572-73, So i t

seems t h a t by tha t time he had a l ready stibmitted to the

Mughal power.

Another important chieftancy was t h a t of the Cheros. 4

They are said to be of Dravidian o r i g i n . They held large

t r a c t s in the south of Bihar but were replaced a t many p laces

by Ujjaniyas with whome they seems to have been engaged in

frequent f ights in the l6 th and e a r l y 17th c e n t v r i e s .

^ e A'In records the cheros as the zamlndars in the parganas

of Chai Champa and Pudag (Pundrag) s i t ua t ed in the south

1 . B.P. Anribashthya, 'Tradit ion and Geneology of Ujjaniyas in Biharj PLHC, XXIII, 1963, p .127 .

2 . A.R. Khan, Chieftains & C,, o p . c i t . , pp . 168-69.

3 . Abul Fazl, Akbarnama, HI, p .22 ,

4 . S, Hasan Askari, 'Bihar in the time of Aurangzeb', JBRS vo l . 31 ,op>ci t . , p ,257 .

5 . Tawarlkh-i Uijaniya, I I , pp . 32-33 .

178

of t h e suba < s a r k a r of Bihar) . i n the Mughal sources they

a r e g e n e r a l l y r e f e r e d to a s the zatnrndar of Palamau. The

pargana of Palamau h a s no t been r ecorded in the Ain^ b u t

i t i s i nc luded as a pargana of g a r k a r Bihar in t h e l i s t s

p r e p a r e d in t h e l 8 t h c e n t u r y . I t seems t h a t the whole of t h i s

sou thern region was under the i n f l u e n c e of the Cheros . We

h e a r of t h e i r powerful c h i e f , Maharat Chero, during Sher 2

Shah ' s r e i g n . During Akbar ' s r e i g n (1590-91) , Man Singh

p lunde red the t e r r i t o r y of the Chero King Anant Chero, b u t

could n o t subdue him. In the 15th r e g n a l year of Shahjehan,

t h e r a j a of Palamau was a t t a c k e d by S h a i s t a Khan, the then 4

governor of Bihar , and the forrt^r was forced to s u b m i t .

In the 17th r e g n a l yea r of the same emperor, due to h i s

r e b e l l i o u s a t t i t u d e , a n o t h e r e x p e d i t i o n was s en t a g a i n s t

him by I t i q a d Khan t h e then governor of Bihar wi th s i m i l a r

r e s u l t . But, he p r o b a b l y r e b e l l e d a g a i n , and in the 4 th

r e g n a l year of Aurangzeb, the governor Daud Khan, a f t e r a

s u c c e s s f u l e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t him, secured h i s submiss ion .

1 . ^ I n , p , 4 l 8 .

2 . See Abbas Nnan, Tuhfa - i Akbar s h a h i , Eng, t r , by E l l i o t & Dowson, v o l . IV, p p . 3 68-69, 371 , 373-74. Also see A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 7 0 .

3 . Akbarnama, I I I , p . 576; M a a s i r - a l umar'a, I I , p . 1 6 2 ,

4 . Lahor i , Badshahnama, I I , p p . 248-50; Maas i r - a l Umara, I I , p p . 693-94.

5 . Badshahnama, I I , p p . 3 6 0 - 6 1 ; M a a s i r - a l Umara, i , p . l 8 l ; I I , p . 372.

6 . Mc(asir-tAlamgIrI, p p . 37-38; 'AlamgIrnima, pp.^48-6o (w S&«-,

179

Another notable chief tancy in Bihar was t h a t of the

Gidhaur. This i s mentioned in the A'ln as a mahal of sarkar

Bihar having strong f o r t . The cas t e of the zamlhdar's

entered as Rajput. I t s ch ie f ta in he ld , bes ides Gidhaur,

MaIda as we l l , Gidhaur was brought under the Mughal

suzera in ty af te r the 19th regnal year of ^kbar . I t s ra ja

i s recorded to have helped the Mughal forces in the Bengal

exped i t ion . After some time he r ebe l l ed but wasprought

again under imperial c o n t r o l .

Raja Sangram, described by Abul Fazl as the zamindar

of Kharagpur, was an important c h i e f t a i n of Bihar, His

chieftancy was s i tua ted in the sarkar of Munger, Sangram

submitted to the Mughals in 1574-75, and remained loyal

t he r ea f t e r t i l l he rebe l led in the e a r l y years of Jehangir 4

and was k i l l e d by the imperial f o r c e s . But h i s successors

remained loyal and served under the Mughals. The exact area

under t h e i r domination i s not mentioned in our sources from

Akbar's re ign, but from a farmian of Jahangir i t appears t h a t

t h e i r chieftancy included the pargana of Haveli Kharakpur,

1 . Xin, p .418 .

2. Akbarnama, i l l , pp,321, 461-62, 576-77.

3 . Akbarnama, I I I , p , l 0 7 .

4 . Tuzuk, p .39; Iqbalnama-i J a h a h g l r l , p . 2 1 ,

180

parganas of Sakhrabad, Parbatpore, Chandori, Kathuria,

Chandure, passai Sa th io r i , Godda, Damre, Sankhwara, Hazar Tuki, 1

Hamduo and Amlu Muliya e t c ,

The region of Kokra was a l so under untonomous c h i e f s .

The f i r s t chief of the family during the reign of Akbar was

Madho Singh, The t e r r i t o r y was a l so known as Jharkhand; i t

i s in the Chotanagpur region, s i t u a t e d around the southern

h i l l s , Madho Singh svibmitted in the 3oth regnal year of A]ODar

a f t e r h i s defeat a t the hands of Shahba-T. Khan Kambu when he ^ - ^ 2

promised to pay malguzari , ^

3 The chieftancy of Seor lay in the sarlcar of Bihar .

I t s ch ie fs submitted to the Mughals in 1577-78, when he 4

agreed to send 30/000 rupees and 20 e l e p h a n t s .

Another chief tancy, not mentioned in the sources of

Akbar's period, but recorded in l a t e r accounts as being under

1 . Cf, Hunter, v o l . 15, pp . 178^61; R.K. Chaudhary, 'History of Tappa Cha^duaryMBhagalpur) ' , JBRS. vo l . XLII, p t . l i i & IV, 1956, p .335 .

2 . Akbarnama, m , p .479 . Ma'asir-al Umara, I I , pp .590-601.

3 . ^an_, p .418 .

4. Arif Qandhari, Tartkh-i AkbarI, ed. I.A. Arshi & C,, Rampur, 1962, p.226.

181

a ruler Bir Hamir was that of Panchet. This chieftancy 2

was in the suba of Bihar, adjacent to the suba of Bengal.

Its chief. Raja Bir Narain held a mansab in the reign of 3

Shahj ahan.

Ratanpur is entered in the A'fn as a mahal of Rohtas 4

with a strong fort. This territory was invaded by

Abdullah Khan Ferozjung in the 8th regnal year of Shahjahan,

forcing the chief Lachmi to pay a huge sum and elephants.

Kalyanpur, in the north of Bihar, was another

chieftancy ruled by Kalyan Mai, who was given the title

of raja by Akbar, This chieftancy, (later called the

Hathwa Raj) in addition to Kalyanpur,also included the 7

mahals of Sipah and Husapur . Itsrulers were also known as

1. Cf, A.R. Khan, Chieftains, p. 173.

2. A.R. Khan is of the opinion that it was neither included in the suba of Bihar nor of Bengal (Chieftains, p.173) . Irfan Habib also shows it outside Bihar (Atlas, sheet lOA, 12A) But the Badshahnama clearly states that it was in the suba of Bihar (vol. I, pt. II, p.317) .

3. Ibid.

4 . A'ln, pp. 422-23.

5 . Badshahnama. v o l . I , p t . i i , p . 8 4 ; M a a s i r - a l Umar"a, I I , p p . 785-86 .

6 . O'Malley, Saran, p p . 23-24, 1 4 2 - 4 6 .

7 . I b i d .

182

r a i a s of Husepur, because the c o u r t of the r a j a was h e l d

a t t h a t p l a c e . The r a j a i t a p p e a r s , had accepted Mughal 2

s o v e r e i g n t y by 1582-83 .

The c h i e f of Champaran, Udai Karan, i s mentioned 3

by Abul Faz l , though he does not g i v e the name of t h e e x a c t

p l a c e o r S e a t of the s a i d c h i e f . I t seems t h a t Udaikaran was 4

t h e l ead ing ch i e f of Champaran, He submit ted t o the 5

Mughals in 1575-76. There i s no a c c o u n t of t h i s f ami ly in

t h e l a t e r a c c o u n t s . The most powerful c h i e f t a n c y of t h i s

r e g i o n in the subsequent p e r i o d was t h a t of the B e t t i a h Ra j ,

which spanned the parganas of Majhuwa and Simraun, Perhaps

i t s r u l i n g family was a branch of the family of Udai Karan

which came i n t o prominence dur ing t h e r e i g n of Shahjahan when

i t s c h i e f , Gaj Singh, was given the t i t l e of r a j a .

1 , I b i d , p p . 142-46 Also see L.N. Ghose, The Modern H i s t o r y of the Indian Chiefs^ Rajas and Zamindars & ^ . p t . i i , C a l c u t t a , Gaiecrtrta, 1881, p . 4 2 3 .

2 , A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 6 8 .

3 , Akbarnama, I I I , p , 1 3 6 ,

4 , A.R. Khan, p p . 167-68 .

5 , Akbarnama, I I I , p p . 136-37 ,

6, O 'Mal ley , Champaran, p , 135; Hunte r , X I I I , p . 2 5 2 ,

183

In addition to these main chieftancies which find

mention in the contemporary records, there were many others

that are referred to in the later accounts. The rulers of

many of these attained the status of raja during the Mughal

period, while others existed even before the Mughals but are

not mentioned in the contemporary records, I have, however,

traced the origin of such chiefs on the basis of some extent

records preserved in the later accounts, I will discuss here

some of the inportant ones,

ColgonQ(the mahal of Kahalgaon), in the sarkar of

Monghyr , arose as an autonomous chieftancy in the 15th 2

century. The chieftancy of Chai in the pargana Chai of 3

Monghyr also came intc existence in the 16th century. It 4

was established by a branch of the chiefs of Kharagpur,

Alamnagar (in Bhagalpxir) was its principal seat. Another

chieftancy in Monghyr was in Tappa Chanduary of Bhagalpur.

The geneology of the family has been traced from the time

of Akbar, Chatur, the founder of the Raj, purchased it from

1 , Ain, p p , 419-20 .

2 , Hunter , v o l . XIV, pp,245-46,

3 , ^ i h , p p . 419-20 ,

4 , Hunter , XIV, p p . 24 2-4 3 ,

5 , I b i d . , p p , 91-92 ,

184

Jujhar Rai who was e i t h e r a co-sharet* in the Kharagpur

Raj or perhaps was the chief of the Khatauris who were

dominant in t ha t reg ion .

The chieftancy of Garhi, s i t u a t e d on the border of

the subas of Bihar and Bengal, was conferred by Raja Man

Singh in 1600 A.D. on Ran Bhim in r e tu rn for h i s help in

the Bengal expedi t ion, Udho Singh, the th i rd in descent ,

was made to appear before Shahjahan in 164 2 when the t e r r i t o r y

was bestowed on him by the emperor. He was a lso given the 3

t i t l e of ra ja on the condition of h i s embracing Islam,

The Deoraj family of Gaya was an old es tab l i shed ru l ing

family of the Sisodia Rajputs who founded the chief tancy 4

during the Mughal r u l e .

The Bhagwanpur Raj was e s t ab l i shed by Maharaj Lachmiraal

in the 16th century in mauza Bhagwanpur, A Rajput by

descent , he caroe to Bihar from Sakr i , near Delhi, and held

possession of Chaynpur and Chausa,

1 . Chaudhary, 'Chauduari ' , JBRS, vo l i XLII, 1956, pp . 335-3 6.

2 . K.K. Basu, "Tel iagarhi" , IHRC, 35, p t . I I , i960, pp .51-55 .

3 . I b id .

4. Ghose, Indian Chiefs, p. 426.

5. Ghose, Indian chiefs, p. 4 37.

18a

The Ramnagar ch i e f t a in s t r ace t h e i r descent to Ratan

Singh of Chi t to r . They es tab l i shed themselves in Rapiagar,

30 miles to the north-west of Bet t iah in Chanparan, The

ch i e f s were given the t i t l e of ra"Ta by Aurangzeb in 1676,

The or igin and r i s e of another chieftancy genera l ly

known as the Darbhanga Raj i s very i n t e r e s t i n g . One Mahesh

Thakur was given the r i g h t s of Chaudhrai and ga"hungdi

of Tirhut in Akbar's reign and the family received add i t i ona l

favours and extension in t h e i r super ior r i g h t s from the

subsequent Mughal Emperors. I t a t t a i n e d the pos i t ion of

almost a semi-autonomous chieftancy by the time of Aurangzeb, 2 and u l t imate ly Ragu Singh in 1720 got the t i t l e of r g j ^ .

A general survey of the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n

of ch ief tanc ies in Bihar shows t h a t most of them were

located in the per iphera l regions , amidst fo res t s and in 3

the h i l l y t r a c t s of south Bihar. As shownelsewhere, the h i l l y

t r a c t s of Hunger had the l a rges t number of such p r i n c i p a l i t i e s .

The chief tancies in the north were a l so s i t ua t ed , by and

1 , O'Malley, Champaran, p . 159; Hunter, v o l . XIII , p .252,

2, Jha, History of Darbhanga, (Typed copy in Darbhanga Archives, p,6) ; Q, Ahmad, "Darbhanga Raj" , IHRC, v ,36 , p t , I I , pp, 89-98; Hunter, v o l . X I I I , p . 2 l 0 .

3 , Beams i s of the opinion t h a t the whole country s outh of p l a ines in the sarkars of Bihar & Rohtas was ruled by Chief tains {Beams, 'Geography of Suba Bihar", JASB, v o l . LIV, 1885, pp . 168, l8 l ) .

186

large, in those regions of Saran and Champaran where forest

abounded. The remarks of Manucci and Pelsaert that in Hindustan

the tracts ruled by the raj as and 'princely' zamihdars are

usually to be found only behind moxintains and forests, seems

in Complete agreement with the geographical distribution of

chieftancies in Bihar noted by us.

The relations between the chiefs and the Mughal State

were not invariably cordial. Though Akbar, in general,

adopted the policy of wooing the independent or autonomous

chiefs, the chiefs of Bihar seem to have been generally

left out. No chieftain in Bihar was given any mansab or

rank during the reign of Akbar, The reason appears to have

been that most of the powerful chiefs were not fully brought

under control. For example, the Ujjaniyas, the masters

of the most extensive territories, could be fully subjugated

only in the 44thTf«gnal year (1599-1600) . A

After Akbar, many of the Bihar c h i e f t a i n s were

absorbed in the Mughal r u l i n g c l a s s and were given s u i t a b l e

r a n k s . During the r e i g n of Shahjahan, as many a s f i v e c h i e f t a i n s

1 . Manucci, S t o r i a Do Mogor, i i , p . 4 4 4 ; p e l s a e r t , J a h a n g i r ' s I n d i a , e d . & t r , from Dutch by W.H. Moreland and P . Gey l , r e p r i n t , De lh i , 1972, p p . 5 8 - 5 9 .

2 . A.R. Khan, C h i e f t a i n s , p . 1 7 3 .

3 . A_^. I l l , p . 750 .

187

held mansabs.

The procedure of bestowing mansab or rank has been

described in the Badghahnana in the case of Pratab Cheru,

the Raja of Palamau. I t iqad Khan, the governor of Bihar,

(1644-48) was asked to march aga ins t t h i s r ebe l l i ons

ch ie f . The Raja agreed to pay one lakh of rupees as

peshkash. His chief tancy, valued a t one kror dams, was given

back to him; svibsequently, he was taken in the imperial

service and given a rnansab of lOOO za t and lOOO sawar. Thus,

the chief was asked to r e t a in h i s t e r r i t o r y but , l e g a l l y ,

now he held i t i s assignment from the superor and not as an

independent r u l e r . This sor t of assignment was considered

a special type of laqTr, non- t ransfer rable and he red i t a ry , — r 3

known in official terminology as watan jagir. Probably the

same procedure was followed in the case of other chiefs in

Bihar holding a mansab.

Raja Narain Mai Ujjaniya, also known as Pratap Ujjaniya,

was given amansab of lOOO zat and lOOO sawar during the

reign of Jahangir. Pratap rose to the rank of 1500 zat

1, Badshahnama, II, pp. 3 60-61.

2, Ibid; also see Moreland, Agrarian System, p. 267.

3, irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p.184.

4, Tawarlkh-i Uilaniya, II, p.34. it says that the Raja reached the rank of 7000 which is baseless.

188

and lOOO sawar d u r i n g t h e f i r s t r e g n a l yea r of Shahjahan 2

and he r e t a i n e d i t t i l l h i s death in 1637. His s u c c e s s o r ,

Gokul U j j an iya , a l s o he ld a mansab of lOOO z a t and lOOO _ 3

sawar in 1656,

Raja Roz Afzun of Kharakpur was given a mansab of

1500 z a t and 700 sawar dur ing the r e i g n of J a h a n g i r . His

rank was enhanced t o 2000 z a t and lOOO sawar dur ing

Shah jahan ' s t i m e . This was the h i g h e s t mansab g iven t o any

c ^ i e f in B i h a r . His son. Raja Bahroz, was given a rank of

700 z a t and 500 sawar» and then 700 z ^ t and 550 sawir du r ing

Shahjahan ' s r e i g n . Which rose to 700 z a t and 700 sawar 7

under Aurangzeb. s i r Nara in , the Raja of Panchet ( p a c h e t ) ,

1 . B^dsHahnama, I , p t , I , p . 2 2 1 ,

2 . I b i d , , I , p t . I I , p . 3 0 5 ; 'Amal-i Sa l eh , I I I , p . 4 6 2 .

3 . B .P . Arribashthya, 'Some L e t t e r s from J a i p u r Records ( H i n d i ) ' , IHRC. v o l . 35 , i 960 , p p . 29 -30 .

4 . Mai s i r - a 1 Umar'a, I I , p . 2 1 8 .

5 . Badsh'ahnama, I , p t . I I , p . 3 0 3 ; 'Amal-i Sa leh , I I I , p .459

6 . Badshahn"ama, I , p t . I I , p . 316 ; I b i d . , I I , p . 7 4 2 .

7 . Amal-i Sa leh , I I I , p . 4 7 5 .

189

was given mansab of 700 zat and 300 sawar during the reign

of Shahjahan, He died in the 6th regnal year.

In Bihar, the mansab holders were generally the heads

of the ruling families with exception of Kharakpur chief.

Raja Rez Afzun, whose son, Bahruz, also received a mansab

during the reign of Shahjahan,

The relation between the chiefs and Mughal adminis­

tration were not by any means of a single kind. Some, as

we have shown above, were absorbed in the Mughal administration

and were given man sab. The Ujjaniya rajas and those of

Kharakpur, Palamau and Panchet may be put in this category.

There were other chiefs who were not given any mansab, even

though they rendered military service in and around their

territories. These were the rajas of Gidhaur, Champaran

Kalyanpur, etc. The rest of the chieftains were supposed to

pay peshkash only.

The peculiarity of the Bihar chiefs is that they were

generally asked to serve and help the Mughal authorities

in and aro\ind Bihar. The only exception was the Raja of

Kharakpur, Roz Afzun and his son Bahruz, who were deputed

1. Badshahnama, I, pt. II, p.313,

190

to expedit ions to d i s t a n t places l ike Kabul and Qandahar,

As regards matrimonial a l l i a n c e s between the c h i e f t a i n s

of Bihar and tlie Mughals, only one case i s recorded: the

daughter of Dalpat, the Ujjaniya chiefs was given in 2

marriage to Prince Daniyal.

The ch ie f s , who submitted to the Mughals, were allowed

much l a t i t ude in the i n t e rna l adminis t ra t ion of t h e i r

t e r r i t o r y , such as the co l lec t ion of land revenue. They

were free to impose taxes on the merchandise passing through

t h e i r a rea . However, one case of imperial in te r ference from

Bihar comes to l i g h t : Shahjahan forbade a c e r t a i n Raja of

Bihar from charging heavi ly from the merchants passing " 3

through h i s t e r r i t o r i e s ^ because the charges were exo rb i t an t 4

and, hence,complaint to t h i s e f fec t weu^ef'made to the Emperor.

The ch i e f s , l ike the Mughal government, used to g ran t

land for r e l ig ious and other purposes. One such g ran t for

Vishnupreet (worship of God Vishnu) dated 1109 A.H.( 5

was made by a Ujjaniya Raja, Likewise, they often gave

1 . Ma'asir-al- Umara, i i , pp . 2l8-l9

2. Akbarnama, I I I , p .826 .

3 . Farman no. 69, Bihar State Archives, Patna, The t r a n s l a t i o n of the farman i s given in K.K, Datta , Some Fjrmans, Sanads and Parwanas, p . l o .

4 . K.K. Datta, Some Firmans, p .10 .

5 . Tawarlkh-i UHaniva. I I , p .108.

1 9 1

j i g f r s to t he i r subordinate s taff and o f f i ce r s in l i e u of

t h e i r pay.

The payment of peshkash and t r i b u t e was a mark of

submission. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the exact amount

of peshkash paid by the c h i e f s . Equally d i f f i c u l t i t i s to

a sce r t a in the p e r i o d i c i t y of such payments, i . e , whether i t 2

was yearly or h a l f - y e a r l y . The Revenue s t a t i s t i c s of every

pargana, including the c h i e f ' s t e r r i t o r i e s , i s given in the

A!In and other contemporary adminis t ra t ive manuals. The

revenue figures of the c h i e f ' s t e r r i t o r i e s might have been

used by the i irperial a u t h o r i t i e s to f ix the amount of peshkash

in proportion to jama'.

Peshkash was genera l ly presented a t the time of

submission or whenever the Emperor, p r inces or t h e i r represen­

t a t i v e s (high mansabdars, e t c . ) passed through t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s ,

I t was paid e i t h e r in cash or kind. When in kind, i t cons i s ted

of valuable commodities or the r a r i t i e s of the reg ion . In

Bihar, besides cash, elephants were the main items to be

presented as peshkash. In the 35th regnal year of Akbar, the

Rajas of Kharakpur and Gidhaur are sa id to have offered

e l ephan t s , Dalpat Ujjaniya, in h i s peshkash, included

1 , I b i d . , pp . 54-55; Also see Irfan Habib, Agrarian System, p . 186,

2, For a discussion about t r i bu t e see A.R. Khan, Ch ie f t a ins , p p . 210-12.

3 , Akbarnama, I I I , p .576 .

192

e lephants for Prince Daniyal. The Raja of Seor 2

presented 20 elephants along with 30,000 rupees . The

region of Kokhra being r i ch in diamonds, i t s Raja in 3

va r i ab ly included diamonds in h i s peshkash. At one

p l a c e , the t r i b u t e paid by the Kokhra chief i s c a l l ed - . 4 as malquzari .

The Mughals a l so reserved to themselves the r i g h t

of recogni t ion given to the successor of a deceased

Raja. When acted upon, t h i s transformed the r i gh t of

paramountcy dependent on the goodwill of the Emperor 5

r a the r than on h i s inherent r i g h t . But t h i s r i g h t as far

as Bihar i s concerned was scarcely applied and t h a t , too

in ex t ra -ord inary c i rcumstances . For example, when

Sangram, the raja of Kharakpur, r ebe l l ed and was k i l l e d

in 1606, h i s successor was not named for some t ime.

Ul t imately , the chief tancy was res to red to h i s son,

Roz Afzun, on condi t ion of h i s embracing Islam. S imi la r ly ,

the family records of the ch ie f s of Garhi show t h a t Raja

1 . I b i d . , p .750 .

2. Arif Qandhari, p,226.

3. Tuzuk, pp. 154-55.

4. Akbarnima, III, p.479.

5. Nurul Hasan, "The Zamindars & C", op.cit., pp.107-119.

6. Maaslr-a 1 Umara, II, pp.218-19; Also see Hunter, X.V, pp. 178-81. Hunter's account is based on family records.

193

Udho Singh, t h i rd i n descent , had to appear a t the

cour t of Shah jahan and was recognised as the lega l

successor only on the condit ion of h i s conversion to 1

Islam.

In sp i te of the at tempts of the Mughals to b r ing

the chiefs into the s t ruc tu re of the Mughal p o l i t y and

to lay down p r i n c i p l e s for regula t ing r e l a t i o n s between

the two, our contemporary sources are r ep l e t e with

accounts of confrontat ions between the Mughal s t a t e and

the c h i e f s . As we have already not iced, most of the Bihar

ch ie f t a ins accepted the Mughal suzerainty a f te r 157 2

A.D.; yet, almost a l l of them revol ted a t one time or

the other against the imperial a u t h o r i t y .

Raja Sangram of Kharakpur, though he sxibmitted 2

in 1574-75 , took to the path of r ebe l l i on in the 3oth

and 35th regnal years of Akbar, whereupon Shahbaz Khan 3

and Man Singh were sent to subdue him. In the f i r s t

year of J ehang i r ' s r e ign , he again revol ted and was k i l l e d . 4

1. K.K. Basu, "Telliagarhi &, C", op.cit., pp.51-55.

2. Akbarnama, III, p.4l8.

3 . I b i d . , pp.460-51, 576; Ma'asir-al Umara, pp.218-19.

4 . Igbal Nama-i J a h a n g l r l , p . 2 1 ; Tuguk, p . 3 9 .

194

op

Puran Mai, t he Raja Gidhaur , who submit ted in t h e

l 9 t h r e g n a l year of Akbar, was a l s o not c o n s i s t e n t in h i s

a l l e g i a n c e to the Mughals , He he lped t h e r e b e l s in 1580-81 ,

b u t in 1585-86 he se rved under Shahbaz Khan, the Mughal

Commander. He aga in snapped h i s a l l e g i a n c e in 1590-91 ,

b u t was forced t o come t o terms wi th Raja Man S ingh .

The Raja of Kokhra came under the Mughal dominat ion 4 i n t h e 3oth r e g n a l year of Akbar, b u t f r equen t e x p e d i t i o n s

5 had t o be s en t to c o n t r o l h i s way wordness . S i m i l a r l y ,

t he Raja of Palamau accep ted Mughal o v e r l o r d sh ip a f t e r

r e p e a t e d a t t a c k s i n the 17th r e g n a l year of Shahjahan.

He was even given a man sab , b u t became r e c a l c i t r a n t l a t e r 7

and could be suppressed only a f t e r a f i e r c e f i g h t in 1562.

1 . Akbarnima, I I I , p . 3 2 1 .

2 . I b i d . , p p . 4 61 -62 .

3 . I b i d . , p p . 576-77 .

4 . Akbarnama, I I I , p . 4 7 9 .

5 . Tuzuk, p p . 1 5 4 - 5 5 .

6. Badsh'ahnama, I I , p p . 260 -61 .

7 . M a a s i r - i 'Alamgir l , p p . 37-38; ^Alamglr nama, pp .648-60

195

The Ujjaniya Raja,had sxibmitted by the 17th regnal

year of-Akbar, but he-revol ted in the 21st regnal yea r .

Again, in the 25th regnal year, he broke h i s bond of

loya l ty and was u l t ima te ly reconciled by the 44th regnal 2

year. Another ujjaniya chief, Pratap, who held a mansab of 1500 zat and lOOO sawar in the first year of Shahjahan's

3 reign revolted after a few years and could be subdued

4 only in the loth year.

What possibly could have been the causes of frequent

rebellious conduct of the chieftains ? One reason perhaps

was that the chiefs thought^ that their subjugation to the

Mughals deprived them of a part of their economic

resources, i.e. they had to pay peshkah and supply troops,

etc. The contemporary accounts do not provide the details

of the causes of dissatisfaction of the chieftains. They

e / t h a t gene ra l ly !no te / tha t ^"^^^ " ^ such chief was acting in a

rebe l l ious way and defying the imperial a u t h o r i t y , on one

occassion i t i s said t h a t when the Raja of Palamau delayed

the payment of t r i b u t e and rebe l led an expedition was

1 . AkbFirnama. I l l , pp 168-70, 185-89; Badauni, I I , pp.237-38; Tabaqat, I I , pp.324-25.

2 . Akbarn"ama, I I I , p .750 .

3 . Badshahnama, I , p t . I , p . 2 2 1 .

4 . Ib id , I , p t . I I , pp.271-74, 305.

19G

sent against him. Confrontation also took place if the

Mughal officers and the chiefs were not on coordial terms,

as was the case between Shahbaz lOian and Sangram the,

2 Raja of Kharakpur. Whenever the chiefs got an opportunity

to defy the imperial authority, they came out in the open

for confrontation.

Geographical location of the chiefs territories,

situated as they were amidst dense forests and hilly

tracts, not easily accessible to the Mughal forces, might

also have encouraged them to revolt. For example, Gajpati,

the Ujjaniya Raja, who revolted in 1576-77, took shelter

in the fort of Jagdispur. Where the "Mughal soldiers took 3

two months in cutting down the trees around the dwelling".

The reason for the rebellious attitude of Madho Singh, the

raja of Kokhra, too, has been ascribed by Abul Fazl to

the "hilly tracts which were difficult to cross". About

1, Ma!asir-al Umara, II, pp,34-35,

2, Akbarnama, III, pp« 461-62.

3. Akbarnama, III, pp. 186-89,

4. Ibid., p.479.

197

Kokhra, Jahangir w r i t e s : "Although the governers of the

suba frequently sent armies aga ins t him and went the re

themselves, in consequence of the d i f f i c u l t roads and

thickness of the f o r e s t they contended themselves with

taking too or three diamonds and l e f t him in h i s former 1 Q

condition". Similarly, the difficulty in subduing palamau 2

was ascribed to its location in dense forests. Besdies

the geographical peculiarities, most of these chiefs had 3

strong forts, generally on hill tops. Arif Qandhari

writes: "There are nearly two or three hundred zamrndar

chiefs. Their supression is very difficult as they possess

strong forts. If they are able to hold on to each one of

the forts, say, for six months or one year, they can be

contented about their safety for the next two or three 4

hundred years". It took the royal army months to conquer

the forts of Jagdispur and Shergarh, the strongholds of the

5 ~ Ujjaniyas. The statistical accounts of the AjTn shows existence of strong forts in the domains of the chieftains.

1. Tuzuk, pp. 154-55.

2. 'Alamglrnama, pp . 648-60.

3 . Ib id , pp . 648-60.

4 . Tar ikh- i Akbari, p . 47 .

5 . Akbarnama, I I I , pp . 186-89.

6. For example, the f o r t s of Seor, Gidhaur and Ratanpur a?:e mentioned in the s t a t i s t i c a l t ab le s of Bihar, A'm, t i , pp. 418-23.

198

On occassions when rebellious nobles or princes

revolted or in the struggle for succession to the Mughal

throne the chiefs often chose to join the hands of

refractory elements. In the 25th regnal year of Akbar,

when the officers of Bengal and Bihar defied the Mughal

state, the chieftains of Ujjaniya and Gidhaur threw their

weight with the rebels. During the war of succession

among the sons of Shahjahan, every one of them tried to

muster the support of the chiefs, princes Shuja and

Dara both appealed to Raj Dal Singh of Gidhaur to help

2 them with h i s armed r e t a i n e r s . Dara even went to t h e ex ten t of persuading him to capture Kharakpur as Raja

3 Bahroz had declined to help him, Dara ra ised the mansab

of Gokul Ujjaniya to lOOO zat and 800 sa/ar for h i s 4

help in the war aga ins t h i s b r o t h e r s .

There are many references to ch ie f s trying to throw

off the imperial con t ro l whenever there was a p o l i t i c a l

change a t the h ighes t l e v e l . For example, the accession

of Jahangir and the rebe l l ion of Prince Khusrau encouraged

1, Akbarnama, I I I , pp,321-25, 331,

2. B.P. Ambashthya, 'Firms & C', JBRS, 43, op.cit,pp.224-26.

3. Ibid.

4, B.P. Ambashthya,'Some Letters from Jaipur Records & C', IHRC, vol. 35, pt. II, i960, pp.23-30.

199

the Kharakpur chief, Sangram, to makejan attempt to 1

recover his independence.

The most striking feature emerging from these conflicts

is that inspite of repeated attempts of rebellions, none of

the chieftains was ever punished or dispossessed on a

permanent basis. Not even the chief of Palamau, who in

a span of 30 years, revolted four times, and the Mughal

authorities had to take great pains in subjugating him.

Generally, all the conflicts between the Mugh_als and

chieftains ended in compromise and, therefore, not a

single chief in Bihar was ever replaced by the Mughal state.

In rare cases, however, when a change was made, it was only

from among the heirs of the rebellious chiefs. In fact,

the Mughal state was not inclined to complicate matters

after the ruling family had accepted its overlordship.

Even when they rebelled, the chieftancy was restored to

the old family. The Mughal state had no option because

such territories were not easily accessible situated as 2

they were amidst forests and hilly region. Badauni writes

about Raja Gajapati whose strength & army was such "that

1. Tuzuk, p.39. Igbalnama, p.21; also see the description of Hunter based on family records (Hunter, vol.XV, pp. 178-81).

2. Badauni, Muntakhabt-ut Tawarikh, II, pp. 179-80.

200

for the space of two years he had kept -fehre Khan Zaman

u s e l e s s l y employed in jungle-cut t ing and f ight ing and

even yet t h a t jungle i s not c l ea r as i t ought to b e " .

In add i t ion , the ch ie f s drew t h e i r main support from

t h e i r cas te and clansmen, and were genera l ly a considerably

formidable force in t h e i r own a rea . I t was, there fore ,

not poss ib le for any out s iders to con t ro l the people of

the t e r r i t o r y . These strong cas te and clan a f f i l i a t i o n s

of the ch ie fs forbade the Mughal a u t h o r i t i e s from dislodging

them. Dalpat u j j an iya , Pratap Ujjaniya and Roz Afzun,

a f t e r years of confinement a t the imperial cour t , had

f i n a l l y to be r e i n s t a t e d because t h e i r removal would have

generated local d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .

The c h i e f t a i n s , i t seems, fu l ly r e a l i z e d t h i s

p l i g h t of the Mughals and, therefore , they never mised

on Opportunity to stand up in arms aga ins t them to regain

t h e i r e a r l i e r autonomy.

APPENDIX ~A

As h a s a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d , z a m r n d a r i was h e r e d i t a r y ,

b u t o u r l 7 t h c e n t u r y s o u r c e s do n o t t h r o w - s u f f i c i e n t l i g h t

on t h e manner t h e d i f f e r e n t s h a r e s w e r e i n h e r i t e d . The

• '^nglish E a s t I n d i a Company o f f i c i a l s t r i e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e

t h e a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e h e l p of documents a v a i l a b l e

from t h e Mughal p e r i o d . They c o u l d even r e c o n s t r u c t t h e

d i v i s i o n of c e r t a i n z a m l n d a r l s among t h e h e i r s . The p i c t u r e

t h a t emerges i s t h a t b o t h t h e male a n d female h e i r s were

e n t i t l e d t o s u c c e s s i o n . One r e p o r t p r e p a r e d i n B h a g a l p u r

(1787) f o r t h e u s e of t h e Revenue Board l a i d down t h e

p r o c e d u r e of s u c c e s s i o n t o a z a m r n d a r i a s f o l l o w s :

" I f a zaminda r d i e s w i t h o u t i s s u e s , b u t

l e a v e s widow and e f f e c t s i f t h e y were A

a c q u i r e d by h i m s e l f o r a t t a i n e d t o him i n

a d i v i s i o n of f a m i l y p r o p e r t y , do n o t

d i v e r s e t o t h e b r o t h e r b u t i n such c a s e

become t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e d e c e a s e d were

o r i g i n a l l y a c q u i r e d by h i s f a t h e r o r g r a n d

f a t h e r t h e y t h e n became t h e p r o p e r t y of

t h e b r o t h e r s ^ . But i n c a s e of t h e b r o t h e r s

m i n o r i t y o r d i s g u s t f o r b u s i n e s s , and

1 . B h a g a l p u r R e c o r d s , v o l , 6, " L e t t e r d a t e d 3 r d Dec, 1787 b y R. A d a i r , t J o l l e c t o r of B h a g a l p u r t o C .G. Mayer of t h e Revenue D e p a r t m e n t .

202

management of the zamindary the widow

shall appoint a relation of the family

who is eligible to the trust to take

charge of the zamindari or appoint such

a person Naib or by or with the advice

of such a relative any other person may

be so appointed or should not such a

relation be found then by the advice of

the Rajahs of the country, whatever is

thought proper may be done and the brother

and nephew of the deceased will receive a

maintainanee".

A very interesting document from the l8th century

throws much light on the point of succession. It is an account

prepared by the revenue officers concerning the zamrndarl

of Haveli Munger ^Sorkar Munger). Haveli Hunger was divided

into 11 zamindari, out of these 5 and 4 were in the posse­

ssion of the descendants of two zamihdars Heera Ram

(946 A.H.) and Ram Roy (916 A.H.) respectively. The tables

attached here show the manner in which the two zamindaris

were divided into smaller tarfs.^

1, British Parliamentary Papers^ III, pp.238-40,

2. Ibid., p.239.

•p (d

• H -X

> i 0

u - ( U X to

<

>i 0

> i C!

— fO —

s

- 0 c 3

X u

"e fd

^ en c

CO

— -p -•H •'-1

<

<u C — -0

o

e (0 j-i Q e

i

-.—.

en G

•H W

-0

(0 X!

«•

4-4 M 3 H

5 in

i-i 0)

td •:)

IH o

u a

EH

CO

to -

s

0)

O ft

x: c

•rH CO

u (d S — (d M (d fo

- M M (d

4-1

3 H

O

(d

- i n

•P EH • ' I ' • ^

CO

EH

ON fO

I CO ro in

\0

(d

o M 0)

X

(d

r e rH fd D 3 X ! — - P — 1 U S > S (d o o u B 0

0 u c p -

4::

u

0) d) u

- 73-X Q

(d -0 C 0

_ 0 — x: u

0 0

TJ c -0 CQ

(d •a M-l

3 H

td H (d

G d CQ

- m IH

- ' d (d U EH n N«<'

r -r -

1 VO r-vo •<-H

6 — 0 X 0) 0 — 0) 03 x: 0 CQ «H

0 r> rH

1 0 0 r>-

>1r4 i H - -(d

- ^ CM C r H 3 T - I

Q: rH

CM X vD D^ 1 G r H

•H vO to r-

rH > 1 - ' U 0) i n CO r -Q) rH ^ r H

x: D^ G •H CO

<U

-o 0 CQ

0 '>, '^

B td M td a, <

u Id

T i MH

u 3

H -XJ G

CN

e (d

(I)

CQ

0) M 0 - f t • 0 > i Q) X iS

EH

* ^ -

^• 0 ^ 1

n cr\ 0 0 in 0\ —'

s >1 0 — u 0 0 to 0) N;

**—N

c-0 1

VD 0 VO rH » — ' i n rH 0 J-I

^ G

- 3 -JC

u (d t< td

EH

>* i n

1 en i n VD rH - — •

n VO 0 rH

(d Q:

0) -p G P C <

y - ^ t

• « *

r-1

n r-VO rH ^ i n CD 0 rH

% CO — B

•H

+) Id

x: Id S

•^ CTi 0

1 00 0 r~ rH — 0 C>1 rH rH

% x: Di G

- * . . -H CO

G S (d P

x: en — G — •H CO

£ fd

•<-~> 0 2

^"•^ 0 VO

x: 1 cno\ C in •H r-CO rH

^ — ,i< —

3 c^

U - 1

x: ty G

•H CO

>1 Id

Xi 42 M •H 3

(U 3 (0 to

•H

0 2

->H fd

V 4-J SH 3

EH

-+J CO H

(U -o > ,- tU OJ

4 : u 0 0 E : ft

44 0

4-1 u 3

H "*.-'

CO <

^ • N

T-\

r-i 1

o r-{ i n i H

>—• VD rH C^

1

> t 0 a e ro aJ

Q:

•- i n OJ

1 •<* <N i n T-\

^ <H

n CTi

1

> 1 0 on X

— cn c

•H CO

r-1

n r-i n <H

>—

T H

(X) o> 1

> 1 0 OJ

6 rd

— t i — (U

T) O

^ - N

Ov r-{

1 CO r H VD <H

>—»

CO CM

O rH

1

(0 0)

- -d 0 0 CQ

** CO •

1 r-^ vO T-l

"^ r~ in o i H

Tf C -3 c <

^ • ^

Ov i n

1 CO in «JD rH v . ^

o\ vO O T H

% > 1 JC

(0 CO

. — e ro 05

__ H 0) > o— x: m

(0

u — 13

X

> 1

M fO

s - 0 ) — x: u

+> H rt)

rt)

e -M 2

M 3 x: M 3 z

r-i •H

0 ^

cn

CO

0) •P -P fO pq

E

e 0)

•"-1

to

p CO

-0 G lO H 0 0 X

u fd

4-1 1-1

0) IH E Q) 3 X) 0 (0

(d ^ (U H (0 U - CQ 0 x: 0, +> IM ^ u

3 EH • — ^

«—»

0 a - Ul

SH (0

>H

3 &H

0) 73 to C ft) DQ

-0 3 U H n

VD

I in

in in o

C fd

- H . u u fd c u

X -0)

0)

m

CTi O

00 o r>-T H

^

o CNJ rH rH

E 1 10 4:: > , - p -xi fd (0 0) C V 3 CD

0) P CO

— (0 •H

0 2

e 0) (d

x: n -P '0 fd

G X •^ Q

2 -P -G (U i p CO 0

— Q) U (0

a-o G •P (d

<x:

-u fd -0 IW

u 0 EH --d G H H

M P 0 ^ ' -G 0 Id 0 P H rH +J 0 (d CO o

MH M P H -'

E

• (U 0*

E (0 G +J C

-H G (U i4

CO 00

1 r-

cr» CO cn VO O r H rH

% •-{

— 3 E o c -o • H

2

-'

..^

rH • *

rH rH

1

x: Di G

•H CO

LI 3 x: fd ft

ON CN

1 00 CN]

r-^-i

'—

x: Di G

•H CO

r-H 0) r-{ i H fd Q

,-, • u +J

- 0) u fd TJ 4H

u 3

E

> i <U T3

x: 0 s

- — -P 4-1 M U H 3

EH

>—'

2iJ4