1

ABHINAVA GOSWAMI
Hans Raj College
University of Delhi
5736
Tutorial III
20/03/2010

The Land Revenue System under the Delhi Sultanate

Mohammad Habib stated that the establishment of Turkish rule in north India led
to far-reaching changes in the society and economic life. According to him, the new
Turkish regime and the consequent dynasties released social forces which created
an economic organization considerably superior to the one that had existed before,
which lead to the expansion of towns and to important alterations in agrarian
relationships. He termed these changes as an “Urban Revolution” and as a “Rural
Revolution”.

However, many scholars have actually contested the claim of Mohammed Habib
that the Turkish invasions brought about revolutionary changes in the land
revenue systems. Most believe that there were no fundamental changes in the
existing pre-Muslim revenue practices and the Hindu principles of agrarian
administration either with regard to the incidence of state demand (except
Alauddin’s reign) or methods of assessment.

Before the Turkish invasion of India, the Muslim jurists had developed a well
calculated theory of agrarian administration, which was in line with the Byzantine
and Persian practices. For the fiscal organization of the state, the early Mamluk
rulers of the Delhi Sultanate were obliged to adopt the Turkish ideas of
administration, within the limitations imposed by the socio-economic and political
structure of pre-Muslim India. Thus, it is clear that the Muslim theoretical concept
of agrarian administration could not be entirely enforced in India. Thus, the older
systems were not completely or immediately eliminated, but continued to function
though with the superimposition of the demands of the new ruling class.

There were many parallels and similarities between the Islamic and the Hindu
theories of agrarian administration in respect of state claim over the revenues, the
measurement process and certain modes of assessment of land revenue. With
respect to state demand, both the Muslim and the Hindu theories accepted the
differential scale of assessment governed by the nature of the soil, means of
irrigation and labour necessary for cultivation. Whatever be the theoretical
concept, the Hindu states on the basis of the above mentioned principles had
claimed between 1/6th and 1/3rd of the gross production, while, the Islamic theory
demanded between 1/5th and ½ of the produce. However, there is very little
evidence to suggest what the normal state share was during the Sultanate period
as it kept changing according to the needs and wants of the Sultan and his empire.

1
 1

Moreover, the two Turkish methods of assessment were known to the Hindu states
as well, though their terminology differed in the respective areas. One method
involved the sharing method assessable only on cultivated crops (applied by
Ghiyasuddin Tughluq) and the second was based on the measurement of land and
would involve the assessment on all cultivable lands on record whether the peasant
cultivated them or not. Thus, it can be stressed that for the assessment for land
revenue, the Muslim revenue officers and assignees in the Sultanate followed the
practices and principles of the pre-Muslim period. However, Alauddin was the first
Muslim ruler who laid emphasis on the system of measurement.

There were some aspects of land administration in which the Muslim and Hindu
theory differed. One such aspect was the role of intermediaries between the state
and cultivators, which found no place in the Islamic theory but had to be conceded
in India in the context of the socio-economic and political situation in the country.
Following the conquests of more and more places, the erstwhile rulers of those
territories either fled away or were exterminated or after submission were allowed
to retain their territories on the condition of regular payment of revenue to the
Sultans. The already existing landed intermediaries in the territories of the
suppressed chiefs such as petty chiefs (khuts), chaudhries and muqadamms were
also permitted status quo on similar conditions. Thus, the concept of agrarian
administration and the collection of state revenues of the centrally administered
provinces rested on the local agency of the suppressed Hindu rajas and other
intermediaries. Most of the suppressed rulers were still active in their own
territories and wanted to continue to have a share of the revenue and be exempt
from the payment of extra taxes; they often also rose up in rebellion for which they
had the support of the local people. Thus, forced by the political situation in the
13th century and its own administrative expediency the Sultanate was constrained
to confine its role to only as a collector of revenue through its officials. Both the
khalisa revenue collectors and the iqtadars had to collect the revenue from these
intermediaries. The early Sultans could not completely oust these chieftains and
used the existing fiscal system as its own authority was tenuous. It was only with
the adoption of Alauddin Khalji’s policy of imperialism that a conscious effort was
made towards completely submerging the Hindu chiefs and reducing the powers of
the other intermediaries as well, though this policy was short-lived.

The main division of lands under the Muslim state was on the basis of the
utilization of the revenues which were either reserved for the state exchequer
(khalisa) or assigned to the administrative and military officials (iqtas). The Khalisa
was the reserved land from where the king’s own officials collected the revenue
which was meant to meet the king’s most immediate expenses.

The Iqta was a territorial assignment and its holder called the muqti or the wali. It
implied that the right to collect revenue from a certain defined territory including
towns, villages and corresponding cities were bequeathed to an official. The Iqta
was a revenue assignment held at the pleasure of the Sultan. The Iqta, however,

1
 1

also implied that, in return certain obligations on the part of the muqti to the
sultan. The major ones were to maintain troops and furnish them at call to the
Sultan. The revenues he thus appropriated from the iqta were meant to provide
him with resources wherewith to fulfill his obligations. The muqti was naturally
expected to look after the land or region under his control as well as his livelihood
depended on that. He was expected to oversee the labour of the peasant, provide
security to the region and to discharge the requirements of charity and good
works, which included the administration of justice without distinction between
those of good birth and the common people. The muqti, thus, acted as a tax
collector, administrator and army paymaster all rolled into one.

The early Turkish rulers depended on the Hindu chiefs---Rais, Rawats etc to pay
the land revenue, leaving it to them to collect it from the peasants according to the
existing practices. However, there is no concrete evidence to highlight the actual
amount collected as land revenue. In fact very little information is available about
the agrarian policies of the rulers prior to Alauddin Khalji. Zia-ud-din Barani also
does not mention any major changes in the agrarian structure during the reign of
Balban. However, the general approach of the Turkish ruling class is indicated by
Barani, who claimed that it was devised in such a way that it did not interfere with
the existing village set up. According to him, Balban had advised his sons that the
revenue should be such that it does not lead to the impoverishment of the peasants
and neither does it leave them with so much wealth that they become rebellious.
The ‘Middle Course’ advocated by Balban found much support from later sultans
especially Ghiyasuddin Tughluq.

However, the iqta system, which had replaced the samanta system of the Rajputs
was introduced following the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. A new tradition
had started during this period which was the payment of salaries in the grant of
iqtas in lieu of cash. The practice continued even during the reign of Balban.
However, Balban, unlike his predecessors attempted to increase the Khalisa land
as he was in need of additional revenue and tried to exert greater control over the
muqtis. Moreover, he was the first Sultan who made a systematic effort to calculate
the actual revenue generated from the iqtas.

It was from the reign of Alauddin Khalji that some radical changes in the nature of
the land revenue system were introduced. The classic account of his system is
given by Barani. The essence of Khalji’s reforms was to bring the villages in closer
association with the government in area extending from Dipalpur and Lahore to
Kara near modern Allahabad. In this region, the villages were to be brought under
Khalisa; lands assigned in charitable grants were also confiscated and brought
under the khalisa. The Sultan decreed that three taxes were to be levied on the
peasantry viz. the Kharaj or the land-tax; a grazing tax (charai) on cattle and ghari
on houses or huts. As far as Khiraj was concerned, the land under cultivation was
measured; the yield was estimated per unit area; and then by multiplying the area
by the yield the total produce was to be worked out. Half of the produce thus

1
 1

determined was to be exacted uniformly from every peasant without exception. No

other ruler had levied such high taxes before nor had they undertaken a policy of
levying the taxes separately on the holding of each individual cultivator.

Once fixed in kind, the tax could be taken in cash. Barani says that the sultan
ordered the revenue collectors to demand the tax with such rigour that the
peasants were forced to sell their produce immediately. He tried to ensure that the
cultivators sold their grains to the banjaras while the crops were still standing in
the field, i.e., without transporting them to their stores so as to be sold later when
more favourable prices might prevail. This implies that the tax collectors
demanded payment in cash; otherwise the peasant would not be forced to sell.
Although, there are some contradictory passages in Barani’s account whether the
Sultan demanded revenue in cash or kind, it can be reconciled that the revenue
was ordinarily collected in cash but in some of the khalisa areas the Sultan
encouraged the collection in kind so as to obtain corn for his granaries to serve as
reserve stocks against scarcities.

The purpose of this system was to prevent ‘the burden of the strong falling upon
the weak’ and resulted in massive intervention by the Sultan in village affairs.
There were a large number of intermediaries, who formed the rural aristocracy.
They were usually exempted from the payment of such taxes and enjoyed several
other privileges. Moreover, in a system where the village was assessed as a whole,
they often passed on the burden of their share of the land revenue on to the
shoulders of the weak. Alauddin took stringent measures against this section of
society forcing them to pay the grazing and housing taxes like the others and as a
result of the system of measurement of area under cultivation to determine the
land revenue he prevented them from passing on the burden to someone else.
Although, he was unable to offset the trend of land redistribution in the rural areas
he was able to infuse a fear of punishment among the rural elite, which made them
more obedient and ensured regular payment of land revenue. A contemporary
source states “their obedience reached such a pitch that a footman from the town
revenue office would tie the necks of twenty zamindars, muqaddams and
chaudharis together and kick and thrash them for the realization of tribute”.

However, a land revenue system based on taking the privileges of an elitist and
corrupt group of people was never expected to succeed. Thus, it failed to survive
beyond the death of Alauddin. The restoration of the privileges of the khuts and
muqaddams implies that the state no longer tried to assess the land revenue on the
basis of the holdings, i.e. area cultivated by each individual, but assessed it as a
lump sum, leaving the assessment of individuals to the intermediaries. Though, it
should be pointed out that this reversal to the lump sum assessment gained
currency only during the reign of Firuz Tughluq. Moreover, even though this move
was meant to reduce the suffering of the peasants the heavy land revenue demand
from the peasants crippled them. However, several features of his system
continued to survive into the subsequent centuries as well. From now on, Land tax

1
 1

became the principal form in which the peasant’s surplus was expropriated by the
ruling class.

While reforming the agrarian system, Alauddin tried to ensure the efficient and
honest working of the machinery of revenue administration. This was done by
appointing a large number of accountants, collectors and agents in a very short
span of time. The accountants of all these officials were audited strictly by the
wazir and even if one jital was out of place they were to be punished severely.

He also tried to limit the role of the iqtas in the Sultanate revenue system. The
areas included in the Khalisa land were increased and the practice of paying the
soldiers in the form of iqta grants was abolished. Moreover, his reign saw an
unprecedented increase in the intervention of the state in the iqta system with the
introduction of the system of measurement and assessment of land, the bulk of
which was under the muqtis.

Ghiyasuddin Tughluq tried to modify the Khalji system by giving certain

concessions to these intermediaries. He forbid them from levying any cess in
addition to the kharaj on the peasantry but they themselves were exempted from
paying tax on their cultivation and cattle. These concessions were meant to pay
them in exchange for collecting the tax from the peasantry. He also sought to give
relief to the peasantry as a whole by remitting additional cesses that used to be
levied on all sown lands both such as yielded crops and as failed to do so. He was
also the first Muslim ruler to provide irrigation facilities by through canals on a
small-scale.

Moreover, he removed the system of measurement by sharing in the khalisa areas.

This sharing method was based on actual turn over of the crops and ordered that
full margin of the immature crops and natural calamities should be afforded to the
peasants. This was considered a step towards providing relief to the cultivators as
under the system of measurement the risk of cultivation of crops had to be largely
borne by the cultivator, under sharing both the profit or loss were shared by the
cultivator and the state.

Muhammad bin-Tughluq imposed a uniform system of taxation over all the

dominions under his control. Secondly, his reign saw a substantial increase in the
scale of agrarian taxation. The contemporary historians suggest different ways in
which the increase was brought upon. According to Barani new additional imposts
were levied on the peasantry, while, Yahya argued that the three existing taxes
were more rigorously assessed and collected. In fact Yahya went on to claim that
there was a significant change in the way the land revenue was assessed during
this period. Instead of taking the actual yield into consideration, a standard yield
was applied to the area measured, in order to obtain the total assessment in kind.
Moreover, while commuting this into cash it was an officially ‘assumed’ price which
was used and not the actual prices. Since the officially decreed yields and prices

1
 1

were much higher than the actual ones it resulted in a substantial inflation in the
tax rate.

This measure was highly resented by the peasants---rich and poor alike. The
already poor ones were further impoverished, while, the richer peasants had the
means and resources to rise up in rebellion. According to Barani, whole regions
were devastated and cultivation was totally abandoned. Some peasants set their
grains on fire and burnt them, and drove away cattle from their homes. This
rebellion was put down with a heavy hand with the officials being given orders to
kill the rebels and lay waste and plunder their lands and villages. As a result of this
rebellion there was serious contraction of cultivation in the Doab, the peasantry
was ruined, there was a reduction in the numbers of grain carriers, and failure of
the grain to reach the capital. Such a situation resulted in the outbreak of famine,
which completely engulfed Delhi and its surrounding areas.

Barani argued that this incident lead to the emergence of a new relationship in
medieval economy, a relationship between land revenue and agricultural
production. An increase in taxation had adversely affected agriculture, which
resulted in a fall in output, which in turn lead to a fall in the land revenue. Thus, in
order to overcome this paradox MBT became the first ruler to undertake a
systematic policy of promoting agriculture.

He became the first ruler in history to extend loans to peasants known as sondhar
to enable them to extend cultivation and dig wells. Subsequently, MBT took up a
number of other measures to ensure the improvement of agriculture. A ministry
was established for extending cultivation and officers were appointed to take
charge of territorial divisions on the condition that not even one span of land would
remain uncultivated and that whatever was being produced would be changed;
thus wheat would be sown instead of barley; and sugarcane instead of wheat and
grape and date would be planted instead of sugarcane. However, even though the
undertaking was an noble step it completely failed as a result of the greedy and
incompetent people who came forward and pledged to bring wastelands under
cultivation in return for lavish gifts and money. According to Barani, within a
period of two years 2 lakh tankas was given as sondhar but not even one
hundredth of the wastelands were brought under cultivation.

Despite the failure of such a move, the project embodied principles which became
normal features of any policy under taken by the subsequent administrations. From
the time of MBT onwards, agricultural improvement was conceived of in two
forms: (a) the extension of area under cultivation and (b) the extension of crops of
high value at the expense of crops of lower value. Either kind of improvement was
bound to lead to an increase in land revenue. The main device for promoting
agriculture came to be the grant of advance made out of the government’s own
funds. Thus, a part of the revenue realization of one year was set apart for
securing future increase in revenue through short-term credit to peasants.

1
 1

MBT also separated the functions of collection of taxes and the maintenance of
troops. While an area was demarcated for the muqti, which was meant to provide
him with his income the responsibility of paying the troops was no longer his
burden.

Firuz Tughluq abandoned the project of his predecessor and wrote off all the loans
extended by the sultanate during the reign of MBT. Instead, he sought to give fiscal
concessions; abolished agrarian cesses and forbade the levy of the house and
cattle taxes. However, these taxes were replaced by new taxes. Earlier, the land tax
was indifferently at times called jiziya and no separate tax in the name of jiziya was
levied in addition to the land tax. However, from his reign onwards the jiziya was
levied as a distinct tax on the non-muslim peasantry. Finally, he also took a water-
tax from villages served by canals, which amounted to 1/10 th of the produce.
However, the area where this was imposed was mainly confined to Haryana.

During his reign the revenue assignments to the military commanders and troops
assumed great significance. He not only increased the portion of the iqta meant for
their personal income but also fixed the revenue to be paid by them. The Khalisa
land was greatly reduced under his reign and the principle of inheritance in case of
land revenue assignments had become extremely popular.

The information about the land revenue system subsequent to the reign of Firuz
Tughluq is highly hazy and scarce. It is very likely that the land tax continued to be
taken from the peasants in full, although, the nature of the claimants was now
different. It was no longer the Sultan but local provincial or hereditary leaders who
were collecting them now.

A contemporary record from the reign of Ibrahim Lodi gives us some information
about the land revenue system which existed under the Lodis. The Sultan had
decreed that the nobles and commanders should collect in tax only foodgrains and
whatever grew on the lands and not force the peasants to pay cash. This could
have possible been a gesture of welfare on part of the Sultan towards the peasants
as there was a worldwide shortage of silver during this period leading to a
continuous fall in prices. Thus, the peasants must have found it extremely difficult
to sell enough to be able to pay the revenue in cash.

However, it was during the reign of the Lodis that iqta assignments were made on
a fairly large-scale even on tribal and clannish basis. These assignees had more or
less become defacto rulers of their territories and even aspired for the throne of
Delhi.

Besides the Iqta, there was another form of alienation of the king’s revenue, which
was termed as ‘grants’ by Moreland. These grants were assignments of revenues
of relatively small areas, given to persons for life. These were often hereditary but
were subject to resumption at the behest of the Sultan. These were known
generally as milk, idarat and some of them as inam. These were given to scholars,

1
 1

theologians, petty courtiers and retired officials and thus chiefly maintained the
Muslim educated class. Some of the grants were in the nature of endowment for
Muslim religious shrines. The nobles made grants out of their iqtas. Much of the
area covered under grants was in wastelands, which the grantees were expected to
bring under cultivation.

It was during the reign of the Khaljis and the Tughluqs that most of the grants
were cancelled and that land was made part of the Khalisa land. It was left to Firuz
Shah to restore the grants to all those who could bring legal proof that they had
held grants during the previous regimes. Ain-ul Malik claims that the grants held
by people during this period were 10 times the grants held during the reign of
Alauddin Khalji. In fact, he ended up alienating about 6% of the state income
through these grants. However, the economic significance of these grants was not
to high, they had a much higher ideological significance as most of the Muslim
theologian class seemed to have had held grants during this period.

To conclude one can see that the Sultanate rulers did not evolve a completely new
land revenue administration. The agrarian policies followed by the various Sultans,
with a few exceptions, were based on the combination and modification of the
preexisting principles and policies. A major reason for this was that the Turkish
rule was alien to India and hence they could not impose their own ideas upon the
indigenous people. The land revenue assessment differed under different rulers
and dynasties but on the whole the land revenue under the Sultanate, especially
during the 14th century, remained heavy, hovering in the capital and its
neighbourhood to be around half of the total produce.

Various efforts were made by the rulers to ensure a regular supply of high revenue,
which besides a high revenue demand, also included strict and stringent methods
of collection, increase in the area under khalisa, systematic promotion of
agriculture and curbing of the landed intermediaries. However, this seems to be
characteristic only of the 13th and 14th century Sultanate rulers in particular
Alauddin and MBT. From the closing years of the 14 th century down to its
submergence in the Mughal Empire, the Sultanate is characterized only by more or
less sterile agrarian policies. Thus, the Khalisa land shrunk resulting in a fall in
revenue and the number of intermediaries between the state and the cultivator had
increased causing a fragmentation in the state, which spelt the ultimate deathblow
to the Delhi Sultanate.