Memoir on Thar and

absence of any acknowledged right to the land for other purposes than cultivation—in the
absence, in fact, of any fixed landed tenure—it would be impossible to allow cultivators
to claim any thing beyond the quantity of land actually in their possession, and actually
under agriculture; otherwise they would continually leave some of the old fields
uncultivated, to bring fresh land under the plough, with the view of appropriating as
much as possible, whether they could cultivate it all or not. While therefore there is no
chance of a man’s field being taken from him, so long as he continues to cultivate it, the
bare possibility of losing land from any temporary inability to cultivate it—land that has
probably been several generations in his family,—is distressing to a Rajpoot, whose
greatest delight and prize is a bit of land, large or small as the case may be, that he may
look on as his own, and that he may cultivate with a feeling of satisfaction and
confidence that it cannot be taken from him.
“In many parts of the Desert, there arc tribes living in different hamlets in the same
neighbourhood, cultivating land that they and their forefathers have possessed from time
immemorial. In the reign of the Ameers, they appear to have excluded interlopers from
cultivating in their lands; now, however, they can only expect to retain possession of
what they actually cultivate, and that as tenants at will as it were; for without any fixed
tenure, whatever light we look on them in, and whatever intention we may have of
leaving possessors of land undisturbed, they can only consider themselves as tenants at
will; that is, they have no guarantee for undisturbed possession, the absence of which,
and their inability to comprehend the principles of our revenue arrangements, generate a
feeling of insecurity in the tenure by which they hold the land. A circumstance connected
with one of these Rajpoot tribes may serve to elucidate the pertinacity with which they
cling to the soil cultivated by their ancestors. About A.D. 1819-20, consequent on the
oppression of the Ameer’s officers, the Soda chiefs of Deepla and a number of Rajpoot
families of the Dohot tribe, residing in the same district, sought refuge in Kutch; the Soda
chiefs were subsequently recalled (with one or two exceptions; by the Ameers; the
Dohots, however, remained in Kutch till 1847 (cultivating land that had been given to
them in tenure of service * by His Highness the Rao), when about 20 families returned to
the Desert, to cultivate the land formerly in their possession. The remainder are still in
Kutch, and though cultivating free of all taxes, would, I am informed by some of the
chief men amongst them, gladly return to the Desert, to cultivate and reside in the
neighbourhood where their tribe has been established for many generations, but for the
instability of the landed tenure. The payment of the Government share of the produce
would be thought nothing of, if the tenure were a permanent one. A Rajpoot’s estimate of
the value of land, in fact, corresponds in a great measure to the permanency or otherwise
of the tenure by which it is held; nor is he by any means behind agriculturists of more
civilized nations in valuing the inestimable advantages of a permanent tenure.
“The system of assessment in force in the Thurr and Parkur is thus: the Kardars,
accompanied by one or more of the Zemindars of their respective districts, commence the
* Palic Praja, or tenure of service, signifies that the occupant cultivates the land free, but is liable to be called on for
service when the landed proprietor requires it. He occupies the land during the pleasure only of the landed proprietor,
and has therefore no saleable or permanent right in the soil.
<strong>Memoir</strong> on the Thurr and Parkur Districts of Sind. Copyright © www.panhwar.com
36