DDK HistoryF.p65 - CSIR

382 DEVELOPMENT OF FEUDAL TENURE [10.5
mechanism of the inevitable, rapid transformation is shown by
characteristic examples:
“ When the (Utraula) state was reduced to subjection by the Mohammedan power, the
raja was made to pay tribute, and was left with certain villages of his own, while the Lucknow
Government took the raja’s share of revenue from all the rest; but though the raja lost the
revenue of the villages, he still retained a certain lordship over them, and then it was that he
began to RAISE MONEY BY SELLING OR GRANTING (for a consideration) THE COMPLETE
ZAMlNDARl RIGHTS IN ONE OR MORE VILLAGES : this gave not only the internal
management and headship, but also the right to all the waste and other ‘ manorial’ rights in
this area. The title thus created was known as ‘ birt zaimiujari’, and became prevalent... In
this state also there were many villages assigned in jaglr to the Mohammedan soldiers who
had helped the Afghan invader to conquer and possess himself of the Raj. These
‘jagirdars ‘ paid no revenue, and only a small yearly tribute besides the obligation to render
military aid. Naturally enough, the families of such grantees became joint owners of the
villages, the original landholders being their tenants...In Bengal, for example, the Mughal
Subahdar never set himself to work to eradicate village irstitu-(ions, or to introduce a new
system. Akbar’s settlement was in every respect calculated to keep things as they were, and
simply to secure the State its punctual realisation of its share in the produce — a share which
was payable to the Hindu ruler as much as to them ; but when the State began to appoint
revenue agents to collect the revenue, then it was that the original village system, being in
natural decay, gave way, and enabled the revenue agents, by mere force of circumstances,
to grow into the position of proprietor’ of the whole... The zamlndar had, as in Bengal,
become proprietor in the usual way. He had to make good a heavy assessment to the State,
and he consequently had to employ village farmers under him, whose first care was to get in
the revenue ; consequently he located cultivators for waste land as he pleased, and if he found
that the original occupant of cultivated land did not manage properly, or did not pay, he
unceremoniously thrust him out. No wonder then that the original land-tenures were
obliterated, and the zamindar became landlord... (Quoting A. Lyall, Imp. Gazetteer for
Berar, p. 96): Metairies are going out of fashion. As the country gets richer the prosperous
cultivator will not agree to pay a rent of half the produce, and demands admission to
partnership. Money rents are also coming into usage slowly... The land now occasionally
falls into the hands of classes who do not cultivate, and who are thus obliged to let to
others. The money-lenders can now seri up a cultivator living on his field, and give a lease
for it; formerly they could hardly have found a tenant.” (B-P., Manual, pp. 56, 652-3, 635).
This shows how feudal and bourgeois tenures of land were created.
The force used was of arms too, in the final analysis, not ‘mere’ force of
circumstances.