19
CHAPTER - 2
AGRARIAN SOCIETY IN TELANGANA
Agriculture was and is considered to be the main source of livelihood to the
bulk of the population. But the agricultural methods were primitive and imperfect.
Rotation of crops was practiced imperfectly without any principles.1 The agrarian
structure centre’s round a variety of issues concerning the organization of agricultural
production. This involves a complex range of interactions between man and nature,
and between men. The first of these aspects, namely issues related to choice of
techniques and inputs, productivity and its determinants and so on has been one of the
major pre occupations of economic studies of the agrarian structure in India. 2 There is
a section of people who can be termed as landed agricultural labourers. They are
peasants of small land holdings but insignificant to depend upon for their living.
Some of them are tenants, taken on rent they are called as peasants. Most of them
lived uncomfortably with indebtedness on family labour. All the members of the
family including women and children worked in fields, struggled hand to mouth,
engaging in all types of personal jobs, on their own effort. Landless agricultural
labourers -unskilled, socially outcaste, unspecified job holders, most of them are
bonded labours.3 The feudal practices of vetti, baghela and slave labour system and
their characteristics are peculiar in Telangana region.
20
Relationships in Hyderabad were much different. The samasthan rajas and the
Nizams were locked in a symbiotic dance: the samasthans at the head of the
dominantly Hindu population provided an important buttress to the Nizam’s royal
pavilion. And the Nizams, while more powerful, could not afford to affront the
samasthan holders; and thus adopted a tone of cordiality largely free of religious or
communal bigotry. Both found themselves allied with the British before and after
1857. The Nizam bestowed gifts and titles on the samasthan rajas, and after the
events of 1857, so too did the governor general of India, thus largely cementing their
loyalty. Moreover, post – 1857, the territorial chieftains of Awadh encountered
changes in their relationship to the court and the British, while the positions and
prerogatives of the samasthan rajas remained largely unchanged in their loyalties and
practices.
Europeans in India also made use of local and regional powers to help further
their own financial and imperial aims. It was the princes of India whom the Company
tapped to be their supports in specific regions. For instance, under Richard Wellesley,
governor general, the practice of establishing subsidiary alliances with local princes
was dramatically increased.
Under this system the prince in question (under
economic and / or military threat) agreed to a series of clauses that allowed him to
hold largely ceremonial power, while at the same time being brought neatly into a
growing imperial structure. The princes, including the Nizam’s agreed to surrender
the right of negotiation, exclude other European forces (especially the French), and
maintain a subsidiary force at their own expense. Frequently, to cover this expense,
21
the princes ceded valuable land to the Company; in Hyderabad this included the rich
agricultural lands of Berar. This process also occurred at Pune, Baroda, and Gwalior.
In addition, as an official of the company, the Resident was to be posted at the
prince’s capital to oversee the terms of such alliances. Thus much of South Asia’s
pre-colonial and colonial history was dominated by relationships between superior
and vassal powers, relationships that crises – crossed religious and ethnic lines, and
by the eighteenth century, came to include European powers. While Hyderabad and
its samasthans provide a case study of such relationships, scholarship has largely
failed to address these participants below the level of the Nizam.
As India’s largest princely state, Hyderabad has received on overall
surprisingly small amount of scholarly attention. Perhaps the lure of Kashmir’s
snowy peaks, or the sweetness of Awadh’s Urdu have made those states the recipients
of much princely state scholarship, to say nothing of works on Rajasthan and a few
states of the deep south. As William Dalrymple – having made his own contribution
to Hyderabad’s late – eighteenth- century history – has reminded us. “The history of
Hyderabad and the wider Deccan remains a major lacuna: for every book on the
Deccan sultanates, there are a hundred on the Mughals; for every book on Hyderabad
there is a shelf on Lucknow.”
Samasthanas:
Scholarship on the samasthans of Hyderabad has generally been cursory, as
their role in Hyderabad has been considered, “more nominal than real”. This work to
22
some extent, reorients the view of Hyderabad away from that of the Nizam’s and
British – the standard focus for much of the scholarship, and instead shift attention
outward to the countryside, and downward in the political structure to the level at
which the samasthan families operated.
Scholarly work on Hyderabad has
concentrated on the city itself, and the relationship between its Nizams and the British
Raj. The result of this narrow focus is that we know little about the samasthans, the
mufassal territories that they governed and their relations with each other as well as
powers at Hyderabad and beyond. This work decanters old foci, and shifts attention
to the samasthans role in negotiations over power with each other, with the Nizams,
with the British Raj, and with other ethnic communities in the state. An overview of
the scholarly topography on the samasthans, Hyderabad State, “little kings,” and
princely India helps to locate them within a broader intellectual context.
On the samasthans themselves oft cited by scholars is the brief introduction to
the largest samasthans by K. Krishnaswamy Mudiraj.
Mudiraj compiled his
voluminous Pictorial Hyderabad in the late 1920s and early 1930s, a time when many
of the samasthans enjoyed strong leadership. Thus his account of their administration
(as well as accounts of the Nizams ruling at the time), is generous in its portrayal of
the samasthan families. In addition, from the early decades of the twentieth century,
several Telugu works follow a similar pattern of flattery. For instance, specific to the
Jatprole samasthan, V. Sadasiva Sastrulu’s Sri Surabhivari Vamsa Charitramu,
published in 1913, is accordingly generous in its portrayal of then Raja Lakshma Rao.
It was written during the raja’s tenure, and as we shall see, Lakshma Rao was indeed
23
among that samathan’s most enlightened rulers, yet Sastrulu’s work is more flattery
than analysis. A year after his death in 1928, Ramasubba Rao published a generous
portrait of the raja’s life in Telugu, Sri Surabhi Venkatalaksmaraya Nijam Navajyant
Bahaddarvari Jivitamu. Both works provide valuable details of the samasthan and
some of its rulers, but both comprise a style of history writing and biography that
leans more toward flattery yet lacks contextualization let alone any critique.
More recent scholarship on the samasthans largely relies on the earlier works
(especially that of Mudiraj). These works are largely descriptive and flattering in
their thrust, but do not position the samasthans in any larger context. In 1948, while
the rest of India celebrated independence, and negotiations to bring Hyderabad into
the new union were being sorted out, a brief history of the Wanaparthi samasthan was
published in Telugu by Krishna Rachayata. Subsequently, three further works have
been published, all in Telugu, on the Wanaparthi samasthan. Celebrating the life of
one of that samasthan’s best-known rajas, Rameshwar Rao I, is a brief account of his
life, Sri Raja Prathama Rameshwara Rayalu.
This has been followed by two
histories of the samasthan that provide a more balanced account of its achievements
and pitfalls.
Subsequently, a major work in Telugu (which covers all of the
samasthans of modern Andhra Pradesh, including those in the Telangana region
formerly under the Nizam’s dominion as well as those in Andhra’s coastal districts) is
that of Acharya Tumati Donnapa.
Donnapa provides brief histories of each
samasthan, but his main focus is an examination of their literary contributions.
Further, the work in Urdu of Ramanraj Saksena, which is more general in scope,
24
again provides brief histories of some of the samasthans. This appears to be the only
work in Urdu concerning the samasthans as the few students and scholars who have
taken up the topic seem to come from a Telugu – speaking background. This is an
unfortunate linguistic divide, not reflected in the documents of the samasthans
themselves that are in Urdu, Telugu, and English.
Finally, in more detail (and
specific to Wanaparthi) but frustratingly shy with citations, is the work of Harriet
Ronken Lynton and Mohini Rajan. Ironically, the Gadwal samasthan, which was the
largest of them all, appears to have been least explored by scholars.
Widening our lens one degree from the samasthan territories to Hyderabad city
and State, we find what scholarship exists on the state.
Much of it concerns
Hyderabad’s relationship with the British Raj, but has little or nothing to say on the
samasthans. A sample of titles illustrates the orientation of these works: Sarojini
Regani’s Nizam-British Relations, 1724-1857, (1963); Nani Gopal Chaudhuri’s
British Relations with Hyderabad (1964), V.K.Bawa’s The Nizam between Mughals
and British: Hyderabad under Salar Jung I, (1986); and Bharati Ray’s Hyderabad
and British Paramountcy, 1858-1883, (1988). These works have stressed the position
of “interference” exerted in Hyderabad by the British, the Resident, or his staff. Since
the 1980s, scholarship on Hyderabad has largely shifted to monographs on themes
within the state’s history. Karen Leonard spearheaded this trend with her work on the
kyasthas (record keepers) of Hyderabad. Following in her footsteps, Margrit Pernau
has carefully recounted Hyderabad’s internal political and court culture. Yet, her
work like much of the scholarship on Hyderabad State remains fixated on Hyderabad
25
city. Another theme with Hyderabad scholarship has been Hyderabad’s denouement
in 1948. Lucien Benichou has examined the critical moments before Hyderabad’s
“integration” with the Indian union, and second, longtime historian of Hyderabad
Omar Khalidi has complied several compelling articles on “Hyderabad’s fall.” Much
older works from the colonial period have provided first-hand accounts of daily life in
the Nizam’s territory, but largely fail to go beyond the city gates in scope.
Between scholarship on specific princely states, such as Hyderabad, Awadh,
or Kashmir, and scholarship that examines the princely states as a whole or collective
body, there exists a step – child of both fields that concerns India’s many “little
kings.” In 1962, Bernard Cohn first used the term “little king.” Cohn identified four
levels of political hierarchy in eighteenth – century India:
imperial, secondary,
regional, and local. The little kings, he found, were located at the secondary and local
levels. They were identifiable as having “an acknowledged head, the Raja.” Further,
he found that little kings transferred power through patrimony. Cohn’s analysis fits
the political structure of the eighteenth century, but with the growth of the British
presence in India, and with the parallel decline of Mughal authority, many little kings
became directly engaged with the Company. Charting a different tack from Cohn’s
work, the examination here of the samasthan rajas revelas “little kings” who were
embedded within larger regimes, and thus remained sheltered from direct engagement
with the Company or British Raj.
26
Widening our lens still further to that of princely India a banner under which
many of the previously discussed works could fit – scholarship has shifted toward
themes of continuity. Continuity and change are interwoven themes amongst India’s
princes at both the highest levels (those princes directly engaged with British India),
and within the princely states at sublevels of power, such as that of the samasthans.
At the heart of their story is how princes maintained practices from earlier times,
while at the same time adapting and adopting to ever-changing political winds.
Thus, intellectual inquiries into Hyderabad and the Deccan have been less
voluminous than that of other regions of the subcontinent. The samasthans, while
being the oldest members of Hyderabad’s political milieu, have received only light
treatment, and that being mostly marked by hagiographic narratives. By exploring
their role as power holders, and their negotiations with each other and with their
superiors, a better understanding of Hyderabad’s larger multiethnic and diverse
political composition can be achieved.
While the fourteen estates named were all considered “samasthans”, within the
group were differences in their relationship to Hyderabad.
The first distinction
between the samasthans was whether they were “exempted” or not. An exempted
samasthan while nowhere specifically defined was generally free from dewani
jurisdiction (office, jurisdiction, and emoluments of the dewan). This gave these
estates wide-ranging power in areas such as the police and the judiciary.
The
exempted samasthans were Gadwal, Wanaparthi, Jatprole, Amarchinta, and Paloncha.
27
Second, while none of the samasthans was held rent-free (like the paigahs- examined
later), the specific category of rent payment varied between them. The amount of
peshkush seems to have remained fixed throughout much of the nineteenth and
twentieth century’s. With a degree of inflation over time, these amounts would have
“shrunk”. The Nizam’s – unable or unwilling to raise the peshkush-extracted greater
resources from the samasthan families by accepting and demanding ever-increasing
nazr that substantially added to the amount of funds flowing from the samasthan
families to their coffers. Three of the samasthans (Gadwal, Anagundi and Gurgunta)
specifically paid peshkush.
A second group was held by pan-maqta. Here, the land was given to the
holder in return for annual fixed cash rent. This payment was also called peshkush,
and to add to the confusion, for certain influential residents it was also called bilmaqta. Wanaparthi, Jatprole, Gopalpet, and Paloncha were held by pan-maqta, bilmaqta, or peshkush. As the samasthan families “held” their lands prior to the Asaf
Jah period, some were defined by additional terminology (pan-maqta, bil-maqta, etc)
to distinguish them in rank from the others. Finally, the much smaller samasthans of
Domakonda, Rajapet, Dubbak, Narayanpet, Papanapet, and Sirnapalli were subject to
dewani jurisdiction in addition to some form of payment.
Of the fourteen samasthans, three in particular warrant special attention:
Gadwal, Wanaparthi, and Jatprole. In that order, these three were the largest and
highest ranking kingdoms within Hyderabad State.
They commanded the most
28
respect and prestige within the Nizam’s court, and were looked upon by the greater
Hyderabad community as leaders in their own right. They were located on the state’s
southern border, in modern day Mahbubnagar and Raichur districts. In their early
years, this location provided them with critical access to geographical resources
including diamonds and rivers. Their location was at the “fracture zone” between the
Vijayanagar Empire and that of the Bahmani and Qutb Shahi empires.
By the
nineteenth century, their domains bordered that of the Madras Presidency and
territories of the British Raj. Their annual incomes all topped the one million rupee
mark, and together their domains covered 1800 square miles with a combined
population of over two million people that formed a contiguous block along the
Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers’ juncture. All three shared similar stories of origin
that trace their descendants to the courts of Warangal and Vijayanagar, Interestingly,
size did not always yield prestige or respect.
For instance, of the remaining
samasthans, Paloncha had a vast area of 3000 square miles, nearly three times the size
of the “little kingdom” Pudukkotai, and one – third larger than Ramnad.
Yet,
because of its dense forests and poor irrigation, Paloncha ranked fifth among the
samasthans.
After Samsthanas, the paigah estates formed the second private landholding
group within Hyderabad State. Unlike the samasthans, the paigah estates were of
more recent origins. Paigah is Persian meaning “foot” or “stable”. The term came to
be applied to those who supplied cavalry. The paigahs were also sometimes called
jamiat jagirs (a landholder who provided troops). The Qutb Shahs had granted their
29
lands, and their territories were generally noncontiguous and scattered over a large
area, making their control difficult. In Hyderabad, there were three major paigah
estates. All of them were held by descendants of the same family, founded by Mulla
Jalal ud Din in the time of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. These were the Asman Jah,
Kurshid Jah, and Vikar ul Umra families. Following Mughal practice at Hyderabad,
the Asaf Jahs had later continued grants to these men in return for military support.
For example, under Nizam Ali Khan, the paigahs provided the Nizam’s private
Household Troops, and if necessary could raise as many as 100,000 additional troops.
Their lands formed, “over 150 islands of paigah territory scattered about the state. In
total, they maintained twenty-four taluks. These covered 4,134 square miles with an
assessed revenue of 40 lakhs (a lakh is 100,00). The paigah holders, like other
private landholders, were exempt from dewani control and maintained their own
internal administrations, “Though the efficiency of these was often absurdly low”.
The third groups of private landholders were the ilaqadars and jagirdars. The
ilaqas were the premier group of jagirs. Ilaqa refers to a property or estate. These
landholdings, like the paigahs, were spread out over vast areas making their
administration difficult. Further, their scattered political geography invited abuses
between the ilaqadar and the ryot (cultivator, subject). The ilaqas included the
estates of Salar Jung, Kishen Pershad, Khan Khanan, and Fakhr ul Mulk. The largest
ilaqa in Hyderabad was that held by Salar Jung. He and his family had, at one time
under Salabut Jung, maintained 7,000 horses and 7,000 footmen for the Nizam’s use.
Salar Jung’s estate, like that of the paigah and other jagirs, was scattered throughout
30
the state. It covered over 1,486 square miles in six taluks and had annual revenue of
8.2 lakhs. Beneath the ilaqas in rank were the jagirs. A jagir was a grant of land
made for military support, or as a personal honour bestowed by the ruler upon a
subordinate. They could be held in one of three ways: for the life of the recipient, for
a predetermined amount of time, or permanently by being made hereditary. The last
type of holding was most common. By 1948 there were roughly 1500 jagirs in the
Nizam’s dominions. In theory, the Nizam owned all jagirs and he could reclaim them
at will. In practice, through giving nazars, families could keep their jagirs for
generations. Only when an heir was not available, when succession was in dispute, or
when some other misfortune occurred, did the Nizam have occasion to reclaim a
jagir.
The Doras owned more than 20% of the total areas possessing hundreds of
acres classed as landlords. It could be observed that the Agrarian structure in
Telangana was like a page from medieval feudal history.4 The Jagirdars, paigas, and
samsthanams exploited the peasants by collecting excess taxes and illegal exactions
from the peasantry.5 A few wealthy ryots maintained flocks of their own wet lands
and are manured with animal refuse, but more generally with the branches and tree
leaves.
The better soils are cropped regularly; the lower class soils are discarded.
Agricultural production is very much determined by factors like the size of
landholdings and pattern of land distribution, irrigation facilities, type of cultivation
31
and methods employed etc. The influence of these factors could of course, be seen
only when there was sufficient amount of rainfall and the land was not visited by any
epidemic or internal catastrophe, either political or economical.6 On account of the
increase in the value of land and also the lack of suitable and remunerative subsidiary
occupations, more and more number of people began to depend, as years rolled by on
land for their living. In contrast to this, big landlord Deshmukhs who owned entire
villages found it profitable to let their vast lands on lease and themselves take up non
– cultivating occupations. Like excise contracts, money lending, grain lending and
running of mills etc. both these developments, combined with the exercise of the
rights of inheritance, sale and transfer of land by Pattedars led to the holdings both
occupant and cultivating.7
The region being primarily agricultural, the economic relations is occupied by
its land system. Conditions of agricultural production are determined by the relation
that existed between the owners and cultivators. 8
Bondage was connected with
systems of land tenure and the point has sometimes been made the ‘serfs’ on
communally held lands.9
Before going into the tenural systems, I would like to give the detail process of
change in the agrarian economy of the Nizam’s dominions. Hyderabad state has been
a predominantly agrarian society right from the beginning of satavahana dynasty. 10
Hyderabad state was dependent only on agriculture. Under the Nizam’s rule, nearly
62% of the population was dependent on agriculture. Hyderabad state was feudal in
32
nature and in its origin. By nature it showed a structural state and by mode of
production its activities showed feudality.11
On the basis of agriculturisation the Nizam’s dominion was divided into two
regions, i.e., Telangana region and Marathwada region. The total Telangana region in
Hyderabad state is 42,445 sq.miles and the land brought under cultivation was nearly
80 percent. Most of the soil of Telangana region is a mixture of black soil and red
soil, the black soil also called “Deccan Trap” constitute calcium and iron compounds.
In these lands, cotton, wheat, groundnut, sesamum, rice etc. is grown. The soil has
higher capacity to hold the moisture. This soil is verily used to cultivate cash crops
like cotton, tobacco and sugar cane and grains like rice, wheat, bajra, jowar and oil
seeds. The major crops that are cultivated in Telangana region are food crops like
rice, jowar, bajra, oil seed crops like linseed, sesamum, mustard, groundnut and
castor, cash like tobacco, cotton and sugarcane. 12
Although the Telangana remained a typically feudal pocket owing to the
connection and continuity of the British, the impact of cropping pattern in Hyderabad
State had immensely changed the nature of the lands in Hyderabad state and also
increased the suitability for the dry crops of commercial nature. Landlords and rich
peasantry introduced several cash crops such as oil seeds, sugarcane, cotton etc. The
important reason for the introduction of cash crops seems to be the interest of the
feudal class to get richer and become more powerful at the expense of cheap labour
and newly acquired lands. When the cropping pattern changed, agrarian relations also
33
changed. The increasing tendency towards concentration of landlordship, and land
ownership in which the growth of tendency on share cropping patterns and increasing
shift from grain produce share to cash produce. 13
Cultivation in Telangana Region during 1927- 1931:
Food crops:
In Nizam’s Dominions the food crops were grown only for the states self
sufficiency. Market control over food crops, lack of irrigational facilities and poor
transport system were but a few reasons which hampered the trade.
Oil seed crops:
The Telangana region of utilized 6064616 acres of land for sowing oil seeds
and it was 52% of overall area allotted for only oil seeds crops in Hyderabad state.
The total land used for tilling was 11667040 acres which is 14% of total crop lands of
Hyderabad state.
Cash crops:
The cash crops are grown for trade and export. It increased the revenue of the
Nizam’s Dominion. The area occupied by cash crop agriculture in Nizam’s Dominion
34
during the Quinquennial years of 1927-31 was 16583807 acres, constituting nearly
20% of total crop area.14
Now let us look into the distribution of holdings:
DISTRIBUTION OF HOLDINGS
S.No.
Size of Holdings (Acres)
Number
Area percentage
1
1 acre & below
11.4
0.4
2
1.1 to 2.5
11.4
1.3
3
2.5 to 4.0
13.2
3.5
4
4.1 to 10
20.0
10.2
5
10.1 to 25
28.0
31.5
6
25.1 to 50
11.6
27.9
7
Over 50
4.4
25.2
Average size 14.1 acres.
All Holdings Estimate number 1.7 million.
AGRICULTURAL FAMILIES AND HOLDINGS15
Particulars
All
Land
Tenants
owners
Labourers
With land
Without land
Percentage of families
81.2
34.9
4.2
19.5
22.6
Average sizes of family
4.9
5.3
5.1
5.2
4.2
% of holdings held
92.0
55.5
6.7
29.8
-
% of area held
96.8
74.9
8.1
13.8
-
Average size of holding 17.0
19.0
16.9
6.5
acres
35
The above tables further indicate that 36% of the land owners were poor
peasants possessing only 3.5% of the total area and 56% of them were holdings only
15% of the land. The rest of 85% of the land was owned by only the 44% of the
people 25% of the total land was owned by only the 4% of the people having more
than 50 acres, an average. About 1/3rd of the land was owned by 28% of the people
possessing 10 to 25 acres. These can be called as middle peasants and 11% of the
people who owned about 28% of the land possessing 25 to 50 acres rich peasants, the
rest of the 4% of the people who ¼ of the total area possessing more than 50 Acres
could be classed as the ‘Doras’. 50% of these ‘Doras’ owned more than 20% of the
total area possessing hundreds of acres may be classed as the landlords.
Feudal State:
It could be observed that the agrarian structure in Hyderabad state was like a
page from medieval feudal history.16 Although the general pattern of land tenure in
state was Ryotwari. The number of big landlords owning large areas of lands was
tremendous. In 1948-9 it was reported that in the three districts of Nalgonda,
Mahboobnagar and Warangal, the number of Pattedars owning more than 500 Acres
was about 550, owning 60 to 70% of the total cultivable land.17 The Jagirdars,
Paigahs, and Samsthanams exploited the peasants by collecting excess taxes and
illegal exactions from the peasantry. The Nizam issued Firmana banning 82 kinds of
illegal exactions. The firmana was not enforced and landlords continued their illegal
exactions in collaboration with the Government officials. 18
36
The Deshmukhs and Deshpandes were traditional tax collectors for the
Government when the Government introduced direct collection by itself, the
Deshmukhs and Deshpandes were granted watan or mash (annuities) based on the
percentage of the past collection. The deshmukhs and deshpandes due to their access
to land records fraudulently grabbed thousands of acres of fertile cultivated lands and
made it their own property. The peasants cultivating those lands were unaware of this
grab and were thus reduced in such process to the position of tenants at will or
become landless labourers. It was felt that the landlords started their land grab or
forcible occupation of the peasants lands during the first survey settlement in 1870.
Subsequently during all the survey settlements they got the lands registered in
their names without the knowledge of the peasants who were cultivating them. Latter
when the peasants came to know about the loss of their lands they could not do
anything except to surrender themselves. The landlords further occupied the lands
when the peasants were unable to pay the taxes either due to failure of harvest or
unfair prices for their crops.19 Before I go into the details of the Sahukars lets go into
the details of land classification. For purpose of revenue administration the land was
broadly divided into:
1)
Government: Diwani or Khalsa under the direct management of the
government and revenue from them went to the Government exchequer
formed as much as 83% of the total number of villages in the suba.20
37
2)
Non – Government: Revenue had been wholly or partially assigned for
some special purpose. This has been categorized into:
Sarf-e-Khas: Which were the property of the Nizam and the
i)
Revenue from which went to his privy purse.
Jagir or Inam: Result of the state grants and the revenue from
ii)
which had been assigned wholly or partially in favour of
persons.21
TYPES OF LAND TENURES22
Sl.
Diwani or Khalsa lands
Other tenures of
No.
Ryotwari tenure cultivating
Khalsa Land
Non-Khalsa Lands
tenures
1
Pattadari
Pan-Maqta
Sarf-e-Khas
2
Pot- Pattadari
Pahud or sarbasta
Samsthan or Peshkash
3
Shikmidari
Ijara
Jagir
I.
II.
4
Asami Shikmi
Agrahara
Paigah/Jamait
Al-Tamgha
III.
Zat-Jagir
IV.
Tankha Jagir
V.
Mashrooti jagir
VI.
Madad-i-mash
Inam
38
The above land tenures given in the table were in the vogue both in Khalsa
and non-khalsa areas.
The lands in the Nizam’s Dominions were held under different type of tenures.
In the first place certain lands were managed by the Government directly, the
revenues from which went to the Government exchequer. All though more than 50%
of the total area of the territories belonged to this category only. Lands under this
category were known as the Diwani or Khalsa lands.
Secondly, certain lands were owned by the Nizam the revenue from which
went to the Privy Purse, such lands were called the Sarf-e-Khas lands. Third category
mention may be made of the lands which were granted by the state to individuals who
enjoyed the revenue from such lands wholly or partially. These lands belonged to the
category of jagirs and inams etc.23
Agricultural production is very much determined by factors like the size of
land holdings and the pattern of land distribution, irrigational facilities, type of
cultivation and methods employed, the type and the extent of the use of seeds,
manures and pesticides and also the extent and the manner in which agricultural credit
is made available and debt relief is organized. The influence of these factors could, of
course, be seen only when there was sufficient amount of rainfall and the land was not
visited by any epidemic or internal catastrophe, either political or economic. The
latter has a direct and an immediate bearing on the condition of crops.
39
Land Holdings:
On account of the increase in the value of land and also the lack of suitable
and remunerative subsidiary occupations, more and more number of people began to
depend, as years rolled by, on land for their living. In contrast to this, big landlord
Deshmukhs who owned entire villages found it profitable to let their vast lands on
lease24 and themselves take up.
Non-cultivating occupations like excise contracts money and grain lending and
running of mills etc. Both of these developments combined with the exercise of the
rights of inheritance, sale and transfer of land by pattedars led to the holdings, both
occupant and cultivating, becoming smaller in size from year to year. 25 For a peasant
and his family to lead a reasonable life of comfort in Telangana, Kesava lyengar after
detailed enquiry in 24 villages in1929-30 opined that 15 acres of dry land or 5 acres
of wetland should be the minimum or economic holding and the agrarian reforms
committee after detailed enquiry in 1949-50, came to the conclusion that 8 to 10 acres
of wet land and 50 acres of dry land would constitute an economic holding. 26
In continuation of the above table of land classification, now I give them in
detail regarding lands.
40
Land Rights:
Different types of land tenures were in vogue both in Khalsa and Non-Khalsa
areas. In Diwani villages Ryotwari tenure based on Bombay system was widely
prevalent. Under pattedari tenure, the owner or pattedar was himself the cultivator of
the land and as long as the assessment that was determined and fixed from time to
time was paid, no interference was made with his land rights.
In Pot-Pattedari, on the other hand, two or more cultivators worked together on
joint-stock principle and the rights of all the partners remained equal. The pattedar
could neither evict the pot-pattedar nor enhance the assessment payable by him.
Meagreness or insufficiency of agricultural inputs had generally induced the
cultivators to resort to this type of cultivating tenure. 27
Tenants:
The Ryotwari tenure never intended to recognize any middleman between the
Landholder and the state and the owner becoming an absentee. But, factors like old
age, sickness, lack of heirs, indebtedness, staying away from the place of land, large
holdings, and the owner adopting a non-agricultural profession, etc., had all resulted
in inducing many a land holder to lease his land. Further as land became a commodity
of value owing to the security it offered and the prestige and status it conferred on its
owner many non-cultivators began to acquire lands which they leased out to others
for cultivation.28
41
Shikmidars and Asami-Shikmidars were otherwise known as protected tenants
and tenants at will respectively. Whereas the former enjoyed the right of remaining on
the land as long as he fulfilled the terms of the agreement with the owner, the latter,
on the other hand, enjoyed a temporary or annual tenancy. An asami-shikmi could
become a shikmidar, if he had been a partner in the cultivation of the holdings from
the time it was cleared or had been in uninterrupted occupation for twelve consecutive
years.29 But rarely was the same tenant allowed to cultivate the same land for more
than two to five years.30
Pattedars very much resorted to changing their kowldars frequently so that the
latter might not claim a prescriptive right on the strength of long possession. 31 This
had also given them the benefit of claiming higher rents, as there was keen
competition among the landless tenants to take land on lease. As a matter of fact, the
percentage of landless to occupancy tenants had increased rather alarmingly from 24
to 71 in Warangal District between 1929-30 to 1949-50.32 It was with the same
intention to deprive the kowldars of occupancy rights over the lands which they
cultivated that the pattedars showed aversion to enter into written agreements with
them. That was the reason why leases were mostly oral. 33 And as many as 75 percent
of them remained tenancies at will that got terminated after one year. 34
The condition of kowldars in the other tenures of Jagir Maqta, Ijara, Agrahar
and inam was no better.35
It was even graver, the cultivators of long standing
extending to even a period of 90 years had come to be regarded as tenants-at- will
42
with no independent rights of sale, mortgage and transfer36 and were also evicted
freely as and when they refused to pay higher kowls.37
Talking about the Diwani Lands In practice the extent the Diwani land varied
from time to time as a result of deletions and additions to its territories. The extent of
Diwani land got reduced whenever jagirs were granted to individuals. Similarly
Inams were also granted out of the khalsa territories. On the other hand whenever
Jagirs or Inams lands were resumed by the Government after the stipulated period,
there was a corresponding increase in the extent of the Diwani territories. The records
reveal that between 1322 F (1913 A.D) and 1331 F (1922 A.D) over a period of a
decade the Diwani Villages increased from 16,285 to 16,496. It was stated that the
increase was mostly due to the resumption of the villages from expired Jagirs or
Inams. The extent of change in the territories was only marginal and throughout the
period between 55% to 65% of the total land belonged to the Government. The actual
extent of such variation was different at different times depending upon the economic
and political factors such as variation in the value of the land and the resumption of
jagirs and Inams. Consequently during the period there was an increase of about 4%
in Government lands which accounted for 56% out of the total land of the dominion.
Sometimes the rate of increase in Government land was very steep and
sometimes very low. For instance, Diwani lands which accounted for 28542166 acres
in 1322 F (1912-13 A.D) have gone upto 29702976 in 1331 F (1921-22 A.D) an
increase of 4.06% in a decade. However during the next decade the Figure had gone
43
upto 30904291 acres which was an increase of 10.77% surprisingly during the next
seven years viz., upto 1350 F (1940 – 41 A.D) the increase in the extent of Diwani
lands was only 1.51% on the whole there was always an increase in the Government
land since the beginning of the century.
All the land available either in Diwani or Jagir territories was not actually
occupied different reasons. Firstly in some areas the land was of poor quality that it
did not attract the ryots, especially during the pre and the early Salarjung period when
no attempts were made to improve the land by providing irrigation facilities etc. large
tracts of land were kept fallow continuously for years together. In Telangana area
where paddy was a common crop, water was essential input thousands of tanks
constructed long time back during the period of the Kakatiya dynasty became
unusable for want of proper maintenance and repairs. Naturally such lands did not
attract the ryots.
Secondly, areas which were far away from the market centres also did not
attract ryots who found it uneconomic to carry their produce over long distances for
disposal.
Thirdly, the oppressive policies perused by unscrupulous contractors and
guttedars were also responsible for the ryots to run away from their lands.
44
Extent of occupied and waste lands during 1894 A.D. to 1903 A.D. 38
S.
Particulars
No
of the
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
15291600
15313973
15259615
15497741
15801251
16160238
16428820
15947203
16266189
16635407
854100
906669
889397
903907
967336
1006780
1037791
1037791
1036089
104301
28664000
2924011
3052810
2897829
3090086
3171400
3204257
2933669
2933669
2728987
19009700
19144653
19201822
19201822
19858613
20340835
20639366
20008032
20235947
20407397
lands
1
Occupied
dry area
2
Occupied
wet area
3
Waste
culturable
area
4
Total
culturable
area
The above table shows that extent of cultivable land which remained a waste
during the period between 1894 A.D to 1903 A.D. It appears from the table that
about 15% of the culturable area was wasted.
Tenures:
1)
Ryotwari: More than half the land measuring in millions of acres was held
under this holding. The holders of land under this category possessed the land
not by way of any grant by the Government. They happened to be in
possession of the land since a very long time which was legalized by the
Government of the Nizam under the Hyderabad Revenue code which was
adopted in accordance with the provision of the Bombay Act v of 1879. 39
45
The Hyderabad Revenue code enunciated the theory that the state was the
owner of all the land and water and denies any private right there to unless
specifically granted by the state and that too only to the extent to which the right was
granted and no more.40 Claims to overlordship of land were advanced by the rulers of
India like the Mughals who preceded the British and the same tradition was reflected
in the Hyderabad Revenue Code. However in practice the claim to overlordship of
land by the state did not materially affect the position of the land holder. Thus the
Revenue code did not recognize the land holder as the proprietor of his field but
regarded him only as an occupancy holder. Still the provisions of the code were good
enough to secure to the occupant the full rights of a proprietor. Like any other
property the right of occupancy was permanent, heritable and transferable subject to
the condition that the revenue assessment was paid regularly to the state.41
The Bombay code recognized the defacto proprietary rights and conferred the
holding to the cultivator with the survey number which the ryot held directly from the
Government. The registered occupant of the land also known as the pattadar or a
khatadar might be an individual or a number of co-sharers. As long as the tax levied
by the Government was paid regularly by the pattadar, his right of occupancy was not
questioned by the Government. It was only in case of failure to meet the Government
dues that the pattadar was evicted and the lands reverted to the state. In such a case
the right of occupancy was sold by the Government in an open auction. The same
principles were also adopted in the Hyderabad Revenue Code.
46
The Revenue code prescribed the procedure for relinquishing of land by the
pattadars as well as to take up unoccupied land for cultivation after obtaining the
occupancy right. Whenever a pattadar wished to relinquish his land, he was required
to give notice before a specified date in the financial year. However, he was required
to pay the revenue due for that particular year before his relinquishment was
permitted. The pattadar of the ryotwari system was also permitted to sell or mortgage
his land. However, a two months notice was required to be given before the transfer
or the mortgage became effective. Before the expiry of two months any person or
persons such as partners or tenants could object to the transaction through a civil suit.
Changes in the revenue registers were made subject to the final decision of the court.
Under the ryotwari system the state recognized the land holder only as the rightful
occupant, and at least theoretically speaking middlemen were not recognized.
However, in most of the cases the actual tiller of the land was not the registered
occupant. Under agreement, oral or written, in some cases based on custom or
understanding persons other than the pattadars cultivated the lands and shared the
produce with the rightful owner.42
The pattadar and his tenant usually shared the produce; payment of
Government revenue and the expenses of cultivation equally. There was considerable
competition among the tenants in respect of fertile lands or gardens in the vicinity of
towns and cities. Such kind of completion no doubt resulted in the intensive
cultivation of land but the tenants were not benefited by it. On the other hand the land
came to be concentrated in the hands of the money lenders both professional as well
47
as agricultural on account of moderate rates of assessment. Consequently land became
a profitable investment for the well to do people. 43
The ryotwari tenure gave rise to different system of holdings which could be
classified under the following heads:
(i)
Pattadari: Where the land was cultivated by the legal occupant
personally or through hired labour.44
(ii)
Pot Pattadari: Where two or more cultivators jointly cultivated the
land as partners enjoying generally an equal share in the produce that
tenure was known as pot – pattadari. The Revenue code provided
security to the pot – pattadari in as much as the pattadar could neither
evict him from the land nor enhance the assessment payable by him.
(iii)
Shikmidari: Under the shikmidari system the pattadar made over the
land to any person/s on mutually agreed terms. Such cultivators were
known as the shikmidars. Who were described as protected tenants.
The shikmidars were permitted to make improvements to their land
holdings and from the additional yield from the development could not
be claimed by the pattedars in any manner unless the contract
specifically provided otherwise. The assessment on land could either be
paid by the Shikmidar directly to the Government or through the
48
pattadar, depending upon the agreement. Protection was also provided
to the shikmidar when the pattadar decided to transfer his rights by way
of pre-emption. Thus the shikmidar enjoyed the right to purchase the
land except in cases where the transfer of land took place to the legal
heirs of the pattadar.
(iv)
Asami Shikmidar: This type of land sub-holding was described as
tenancy at will, usually running from one cultivating season to another.
Here also, as in the case of shikmidari, the relationship between the
tenant and the pattadar was stipulated through a contract. However, in
case of the Asami Shikmidari either of the parties could terminate the
contract by giving a three months notice. Apart from the assessment on
land the asami shikmi paid the rent to the pattadar as agreed upon. The
Asamishikmi became a shikmidar if he became a partner in cultivation
right from the time the land was first cleared and cultivation
commenced. An Asamishikmi after the occupation of the land for
twelve consecutive years automatically became a protected tenant. 45
2)
Pan-Makta: This category of land tenure was in existence until the reforms
were introduced by salar Jung I. It was a contractual kowl or tenure under
which Government lands varying in size from small holdings to a whole
village or even a group of villages were given on fixed quit rent to a holder
without liability of any enhancement. 46 Pan-Mukta lands were given either in
49
perpetuity or for one life or number of lives. Salarjung not only discontinued
the practice of granting of lands as pan-mukta but the titles claimed under the
category were referred to the Inam commission for verification. Though new
allotment under this category was discontinued those that existed caused much
damage to the agrarian system.
3)
Makta: In Diwani lands there were sarbasta, watans, Ijaras and Agraharas,
besides pattedari and cultivating tenures. The holders of these Non-Ryotwari
tenures being invariably landlords or officials of considerable wealth and
power,47 the economic condition of the cultivators, tenants and other sections
of rural population had come to be immensely influenced by the way of their
functioning. The fact that tenurial rights over a number of villages was vested
in one person had led to vast concentration of landed power which in turn,
promoted them to indulge indifferent kinds of excesses causing misery to the
local population.48
4)
Kowldars or Banjardars: These Diwani tenures prevailed in the area and
were quite significant to note as they were concerned with land development.
In Warangal taluq itself there were as many as 820 kowldars. Kowli tenures
were granted either to convert dry lands into wet at the prevailing dry rates, or
to cultivate waste lands over grown with trees called banjar lands. The
duration of lease for the farmer was thirty years and for the latter from five to
forty years.
50
Banjardars were no other than those holders who took banjar land on kowl,
even high Government officials of the rank of chief secretary 49 and first Taluqdar50
vied for banjar tenures. This naturally became a contributory factor for the growth of
absentee landlordism which in turn, had a bareful effect on agricultural development
of the region. Even in the case of allotment of banjar lands to non-officials there were
cases of absentee landlordism.51
These tenure holders, on the expiry of the kowl period and the fulfillment of
lease conditions, were granted to these newly developed lands on patta and in the
case of banjar lands where new villages had sprung up, the Banjardars were also
conferred patelgi rights in those villages.52 The main condition to get these land and
watan rights in the case of banjar lands only to see that 40 huts or houses were laid in
the area allotted besides of course, bringing greater part of the lands under
cultivation.53
Warangal suba consists of Warangal district, karimnagar district, Adilabad
districts. Further, remission of land revenue permanently for 1/4 th area was also
granted in those cases where wet lands were developed and waste lands were
populated.54 But, this concession was withdrawn in respect of the latter category
where dry lands were developed since 1346 F (1937).55
5.
Tahud / Sarbasta / Watandari: This type of tenure was prevalent before
1866, when tax-farming was there. Under this system, wealthy and influential
51
persons from the districts were otherwise known as Deshpandes and
Deshmukhs. Like Pingali Venkatarama Reddy, Deshmukh of Waddepally in
Warangal taluq and Tungaturthi Narasimha Rao, resident of Hanumakonda but
absentee landlord at Medarmula in Mulugu taluq both of Warangal district56
served as tax- farmers or contractors. They remitted a fixed amount to the
treasury but extracted the last pie from the ryots and thus retained considerably
more for themselves than what they despatched to the Government treasury. 57
Table - 1
Taluq-wise picture of Diwani and Non-Diwani Village of Karimnagar district in 1941
Area wise number of villages
Sl.
Name of
Diwani
No
the Taluq
Sarf-
Jagirs
e-
Exempted Non-
Khas
Jagirs
Paigah
Samsthan
Muqta Agrahara
Total
Deserted
No. vill
vill in
exempted
Diwani
1
Karimnagar
134
20
-
15
-
-
6
5
180
2
2
Sultanabad
122
4
46
8
-
-
6
2
188
5
3
Jagityal
187
-
9
1
-
-
9
8
214
2
4
Metpalli
-
-
27
-
-
-
-
-
27
-
(Jagir taluq)
5
Manthani
149
-
-
5
-
-
31
-
185
82
6
Parkal
101
-
-
6
-
-
9
-
116
-
7
Huzurabad
121
-
-
6
-
-
2
2
131
-
8
Sircilla
150
-
1
4
-
-
13
2
170
6
Source: Compiled from Village Lists of Karimnagar District, Prepared by the
Department of Statistics and Census, Hyderabad, 1950.
52
Table - 2
ADILABAD DISTRICT
Sl.
Name of
Diwani
No
the Taluq
Sarf-
Jagirs
e-
Exempted Non-
Khas
Jagirs
Paigah
Samsthan
Muqta Agrahara
Total
Deserted
No. vill
vill in
exempted
Diwani
1
Adilabad
190
-
3
5
-
-
12
-
210
27
2
Chinnur
172
-
-
2
-
-
1
-
175
21
3
Luxettipet
138
-
-
4
-
-
8
1
151
13
4
Asifabad
259
-
-
9
-
-
18
-
286
-
5
Rajura
245
-
-
6
-
-
26
-
277
-
6
Kinwat
158
-
-
11
-
-
2
-
171
11
7
Sirpur
164
-
-
3
-
-
27
-
194
18
8
Utnur
176
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
180
45
9
Nirmal
184
-
1
5
-
-
2
-
192
22
10
Telgadap
-
-
-
2
65
-
-
-
67
14
219
-
-
4
-
-
9
-
232
68
(Paigah
taluq)
11
Boath
Source: Compiled from Village Lists of Adilabad district, prepared by the Department
of Statistics and Census, Hyderabad, 1950.
53
Table - 3
WARANGAL DISTRICT
Sl.
Name of
Diwani
No
the Taluq
Sarf-
Jagirs
e-
Exempted Non-
Khas
Jagirs
Paigah
Samsthan
Muqta Agrahara
Total
Deserted
No. vill
vill in
exempted
Diwani
1
Warangal
175
4
4
16
-
-
14
02
215
1
2
Pakhal
195
-
-
2
-
-
9
2
208
45
3
Mulug
193
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
195
52
4
Paloncha
56
-
-
40
-
116
03
12
227
18
5
yellandu
45
-
-
3
-
-
13
04
65
9
6
Khammam
144
-
-
4
-
-
-
08
156
3
7
Madhira
153
-
7
5
-
-
22
17
204
-
8
Mahbooba-
146
-
-
21
-
-
25
15
207
4
bad
Source:
Compiled from Village Lists of Warangal district, prepared by the
Department of Statistics and Census, Hyderabad, 1950.
Besides land revenue, the collection of other cesses such as excise, (abkari),
tax on professions (mohtarfa), garden produce (baghat), tax on trees (sardarkhti),
mango fruit (amrai) etc, which formed considerable sources of revenue to the state,
was also farmed out to Tahuddars.58
Deshmukhs and deshpandes further got
strengthened very much in their economic and power by the grants of revenue-free
lands known as seri and sawaram made by formar Nizam’s in remuneration for their
services and in consideration of their officials position. 59
54
6.
Watandari:
The watandari was one of the most ancient Diwani types of
tenures arising out of the service rendered by hereditary local revenue officers
such as the patels, the patwaris the deshmukhs, the deshpandes, the
surdeshmukhs and the surdeshpandes besides a large number of village
artisans and menials who served the village community. The watandari system
of tenure existed in south India ever since the days of the Dravidian kingdoms.
After the Salarjung reforms pattas were granted to the patels, and the patwaris
for the watandari land held by them and regular assessments were made for
such lands.
After coming into force of the revenue farming system in the Deccan, Pargana
officers like deshmukh and deshpandes managed to obtain their respective districts in
farm and emerged as very powerful local personnel.60 These patels and patwaris who
had entire villages or thousands of acres of land under their ownership, got it
cultivated mostly either by kowldars or by employing baghelas.61
7.
Ijaras: Just like kowl and Banjar tenures, Ijara tenure was also primarily
concerned with land development. This tenure was introduced in the Dominions in
1878 A.D., in order to get numerous deserted villages repopulated and bring under
cultivation. Large tracts of cultivable lands lying waste, which had arisen and rather
increased owing to the mal administration of Governments that were there previous to
Salar Jung-I.62
55
As a special inducement to attract people to take up the development of these
lands, the Ijara system was introduced, under which land was given on lease, assessed
at light rates subject to progressive increase till the full assessment was reached, the
period of concession varying from 5 to 30 and in some cases to 40 years. On the
expiry of the kowl period, the village was surveyed and settled and was given
permanently on Bil-maqta or a fixed annual quit rent equal to half the settlement
assessment, provided that the Ijaradar during the period of lease had brought 1/3rd of
the land allotted to him under cultivation and he was also given the rights of patelgi of
the village if there were 40 huts or house in it. 63
These Ijaras were there only in the Telangana part of the state, for the reason
that it only consisted or vast number of deserted, waste and forest lands. Again, in this
region, 89%of the Ijaras were granted in Warangal suba out of the total number of
356 Ijara villages in the state, as many as 317 were there in the Eastern division in the
order of Adilabad 172, Warangal 96 & Karimnagar 49. And these formed the highest
numbers respectively among the entire district in the state order. But the revenue from
these villages for 1320 F (1912) was estimated to be only Rs.22, 000/- , Rs. 20,000/and Rs. 9,292/- respectively for the Suba Districts.64 Whereas the area occupied by
leased and Bil-Maqta lands formed more than 50 percent of the total area of the
villages concerned, the assessment paid to the Government for both the categories
amounted to only 40% of the total assessment of those villages. 65 The concessions
thus enjoyed by Ijaradars in land allotment, revenue – payment and the grant of
56
watan rights were so liberal and extensive that they had more or less acted as if they
were the Jagirdars for all purposes.
The Ijaradars who were usually absentee landlords came to regard the actual
cultivators as only tenants – at will, even though they had been on the land since it
was first brought under cultivation and had, in fact, put in almost all the labour for
reclaiming the land or populating the villages for which the Ijaradars received rich
rewards from the Government.66
In the year 1878 A.D. the Government framed a code of rules governing the
rehabilitation. The rules divided the deserted villages into two categories viz.,
1.
Villages in which the extent of cultivated land was little as compared to
the uncultivated area and those villages in which there was no
cultivation at all.
2.
No assessment was made at first, while in villages under the first
category a very nominal assessment was made after three years only,
the assessment was fixed according to the extent of cultivation.
At first these rules were introduced in the districts of elgundal-212, Sirupur,
Tandur (sub-district)-917 deserted villages. Subsequently they were extended to the
districts of Indur-148 and Khammam-277 where the number of such villages.
Between the years 1263 F (1864 A.D.) and 1290 F (1881A.D) 799 villages were
reoccupied and by 1291 F (1882 A.D) the figure went upto 983 leaving only 421
57
deserted villages awaiting reoccupation significantly enough almost all the villages
which were deserted belonged to the ryotwari category.
According to the new rules the Ijara lease was usually granted for thirty years
during which period the lease was expected to populate the village and bring waste
land under cultivation. For the first three years after the grant no revenue was levied
on the land but from the fourth year onwards till the expiry of the lease charges were
made according to terms decided at the time of the lease. After the expiry of the
period of lease the village is surveyed and settled and permanently confirmed as
mukta on a fixed annual concession was made through the appointment of the
Ijaradar to the hereditary post of the patel of the village. However if the Ijaradar
failed to bring atleast 1/3rd of the cultivable land of the villages under cultivation he
was not entitled to any of the concessions cited above and the village is made Khalsa,
while recognizing the Ijaradar as an ordinary pattadar. In any case the rights
acquired by the Ijaradar were both heritable and transferable. 67
8.
Agraharas: Agrahara tenure like that of Muqtas was also based on the
arrangement that the assignee has to pay a fixed quit – rent permanently.68
These were granted for the support of Hindu or Muslim places of worship.
Most of these were made in favour of Brahmins who served as pujaris or
performers of worship. There are 81 agraharas in the Warangal suba, out of
which Warangal district contained as many as 61, whereas Adilabad district
had only one. This is mainly due to the fact that the former, being the centre of
58
the kingdom of medieval Hindu dynasties such as that of the Kakatiyas,
naturally abounded in temples, whereas the latter did not possess such a
background and hence places of worship.
Absentee landlordism had been there even in respect of Agrahariks.
Sankaracharya of Pushpagiri peetham was granted rights of Agraharik over
Dharmavaram Village in Sircilla taluq in Karimnagar district, who in turn, appointed
Mr.Sivakumara Pantulu, resident of Secunderabad, as his attorney or Muqta-e-am
who also stayed far away from the Agrahara, in turn fixed, Mr. Raja Reddy, resident
of Timmayaplli, a village in Medak district, again a place away from the agrahara
and of a different district and different suba, to look after land -tax collection and
other affairs of the village69 as no bandobast of the lands was done, the agent kept on
the scene levied high rates and those ryots who refused to pay were evicted. If talafmal was done by Diwani administration, no exemptions were given by him. The
Agraharik being independent in revenue administration, the cultivators could neither
represent their sufferings to Ryotwari official nor the agraharik bothered at all about
them, even when the ryots took all the trouble of going all the way to represent to him
in person.
Added to absenteeism, concentration of more than one Agrahara tenurial right
in one person was also there. Sankarachary was given these rights over four villages
in Sircilla Taluq of Karimnagar District and Jamal Baig over 3 villages in Huzurabad
Taluq also of the same district.70 The latter besides being the Agrahardar of these 3
59
villages, was also maqtedar of 7 villages in the same taluq in the unsurveyed village
of Polepalli in Khammam Taluq of Warangal District. The Agraharik was found
collecting high rate for a piece of land from the ryots and evicted those who do not
pay it.71
Just like Ijaradars, the agrahardars also indulged in illegal occupations of
lands of neighbouring villages and sometimes in the same village over and above the
extent that they were granted.72 Even when the lease- holder had confessed about the
excess occupation of land, no action was taken. The Agrahardars thus, though they
were supposed to carry on the noble task of religious worship, proved in practice, that
they were no less than the tenure holders such as Maqtedars, Ijaradars, watandars
and Banjardars in exploiting the peasantry for their self – aggrandizement.
The number of Diwani villages stood at 16,496 in 1331 F as against 16,285 in 1332 F.
S.No
Kind of villages
Number
1322F
1
Govt Ryotwari Villages
2
Variation
1331F
13,354
13,617
+263
Zamindari vill. paying ‘peshkash’
706
723
+17
3
Pan-makta
687
713
+26
4
Mukasa
160
283
+123
5
Umli
251
206
-45
6
Ijara
142
50
-92
7
Agrahara
136
126
-10
8
Deserted villages
849
778
-71
16,285
16,496
+211
Total Diwani lands
60
The state occupies an area of 82,698 sq. miles or 5,29,26,720 acres. The
following statement shows how this total area was distributed among government and
jagir lands in 1322 & 1331F
S.No Particulars
1322F
Area in
1331F
Percentage
acres
Area in
Percentage
acres
1
Govt. occupied
2,05,16,023
38.8
2,13,68,614
40.4
2
Assessed waste
22,05,993
4.2
21,03,550
4.0
3
Poramboke or
58,20,150
10.9
62,30,812
11.7
2,85,42,166
53.9
2,97,02,976
56.1
8,80,475
1.6
8,73,955
1.7
2,35,04,079
44.5
2,23,49,789
42.2
Total Jagirs
2,43,84,554
46.1
2,32,23,744
43.9
Grand Total
5,29,26,720
100.0
5,29,26,720
100.0
unassessed waste
Total Govt.
4
Inams and maktas in
Govt villages
5
Sarf-e-Khas, Paighas,
etc.
Area of culturable and unculturable lands of the total area of Government land
in 1331F 62,30,812 acres or 20.9% were poramboke mainly occupied by grasslands
and forests and having a comparatively small area which could be brought under, as
against 58,20,150 acres or 20.4% in 1322 F.
61
District
Govt. area in acres
Area assessed &
Poramboke
% of
available for
poramboke to
cultivation
Govt. area
1322 F
1331 F
1322 F
1331 F
1322 F
1331 F
Medak
11,24,209
114,41,938
8,01,216
8,43,478
3,22,993
2,98,460
28.7
26.1
Nizamabad
11,14,894
17,30,177
7,37,979
6,72,963
3,76,915
4,57,214
33.8
40.5
Mahbubnagar
19,26,416
17,27,196
13,51,664
15,00,389
5,74,752
2,26,807
29.8
13.1
Nalgonda
27,93,142
30,39,502
23,37,038
24,88,093
4,56,104
5,51,409
16.3
18.1
Warangal
24,44,234
26,92,017
16,99,020
17,95,985
7,45,214
8,96,032
30.4
33.3
Karimnagar
22,68,262
22,70,463
15,83,192
15,67,300
6,85,070
7,03,163
30.2
31.0
Adilabad
23,26,645
30,87,566
16,07,767
18,78,423
7,18,878 12,09,143
30.9
39.2
27.7
28.8
Total
1322 F 1331 F
1,39,97,802 1,50,88,859 1,01,17,876 1,07,46,631 38,79,926 43,42,228
Telangana
District
Area occupied
% on available
Dry
Wet
area
1322 F
1331 F
1322 F
1331 F
1322 F
1331 F
1322 F
1331 F
Medak
5,85,155
6,28,103
73.0
74.5
4,75,716
5,19,723
109,439
1,08,380
Nizamabad
5,19,900
5,40,284
70.4
80.3
4,26,321
4,43,330
93,579
96,954
Mahbubnagar
10,02,426
11,08,757
74.1
73.9
9,01,491
10,02,141
1,00,935
1,06,618
Nalgonda
19,86,512
20,31,596
85.0
81.6
18,08,192
18,44,911
1,78,330
1,86,685
Warangal
14,73,813
16,36,705
86.7
91.1
12,85,690
14,16,805
1,88,123
2,19,900
Karimnagar
13,88,437
14,49,659
87.0
92.4
11,61,908
12,20,760
22,529
2,28,899
Adilabad
10,79,060
13,63,823
67.1
72.6
10,49,790
13,29,266
29,270
34,557
Total
80,30,303
87,58,927
79.3
81.5
71,09,108
77,76,936
9,21,195
9,81,991
Telangana
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1331 F (1921 – 1922 A.D.), Govt. Central Press, Hyderabad, pp.49-51.
62
No. of Pattadars, Joint Pattadars & Shikmirdars
District
1322 F
1331 F
Medak
53,438
54,275
Nizamabad
53,735
52,413
Mahbubnagar
40,933
46,834
Nalgonda
1,07,415
94,133
Warangal
69,211
94,614
Karimnagar
88,333
93,044
Adilabad
90,447
91,123
Total Telangana
503512
5,26,454
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1331 F (1921 – 1922 A.D.), Govt. Central Press, Hyderabad, p.52.
The following statement shows the nature and value of Inam claims disposed in
1332F.
Classification of
Value confirmed
Value resumed
Inam claims
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
31,450
923
4,666
4,953
367
182
Inams
2,168
995
Seri lands
5,420
-
Cash Revenue
1,999
10,63
46,070
8,116
Jagirs
Maktas
Agraharas
Total
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1332 F (1922-23 A.D.), p.4.
63
The following statement shows the nature and value of Inam claims disposed in 1333
F (1923 – 24 A.D.).
Classification of
Value confirmed
Value resumed
Inam claims
O.S. (Rs.)
O.S. (Rs.)
Jagirs
29,776
363
8483
4099
-
-
Inams
4158
1044
Seri lands
4496
249
Cash Revenue
1500
116
48413
5871
Maktas
Agraharas
Total
The following statement shows the nature and value of Inam claims disposed in 1334
F (1924 – 25 A.D.)
Classification of
Value confirmed
Value resumed
Inam claims
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
33,329
24,982
Maktas
2175
2582
Agraharas
8281
-
Inams
6367
2278
888
129
Jagirs
Seri lands
64
The following statement shows the nature and value of Inam claims disposed in 1335
F (1925 – 26 A.D.).
Classification of
Value confirmed
Value resumed
Inam claims
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
Jagirs
269
962
Agraharas
433
217
Inams
1751
619
Seri lands
2653
507
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1333 F, 1334F, 1335 F, p.5.
Division
1334 F
Pattadars
Joint
1335 F
Shikmidars
Total
Pattadar
pattadars
Telangana
4,23011
81382
Joint
Shikmidars
Total
58410
570902
pattadars
59582
563975
428513
83979
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1335 F, p.2.
Year
Pattadars
Joint Pattadars
Shikmidars
Total
1336 F
4,33365
88709
62298
584372
1337 F
437517
66903
91807
596227
1338 F
434359
96284
7677
607414
1339 F
438759
97612
96999
633370
1340 F
436568
91871
108916
637355
1341 F
437594
95719
110306
643619
1342 F
429542
95159
111843
636544
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1336F, 1337F, 1338F, 1339F, 1340F, 1341F, pp. 2, 3, 4.
65
The Revenue from land is classified under the following Reads:
1.
Ryotwari land revenue
-
2,04,83,520
2.
Sarbasta
-
7,00,459
3.
Peshkash
-
1,49,465
4.
Fruit trees
-
3,26,544
5.
Grazing
-
1,18,992
6.
Miscellaneous
-
4, 11,693
TOTAL
-
2,21,90,673
Ryotwari Land Revenues: There are altogether five fasts or crops in ‘His Highness’
territory viz.,
1.
Khareef – Dry crops sown in June and July
2.
Abi – Early rice crop Sown in June and July
3.
Rabi – Dry crops sown in October and November
4.
Tabi – Late rice crops Sown in November and December
5.
Garden crops – Cultivated throughout the year
Total Ryotwari land revenue in 1303 F by remissions:
Medak
13,94,058
Indur
19,59,311
Elgandal
30,32,147
Sirpur Tandur
2,32,991
Warangal
22,19,233
Nalgonda
15,02,356
Mahbubnagar
13,90,543
Total Telangana
1,17,30,639
66
After Deducting remissions:
1302 F
1303 F
Medak
11,27,622
11,47,675
+20,053
Indur
17,11,162
17,08,113
-3049
Elgandal
20,34,227
23,96,168
+3,61,941
2,11,381
2,12,282
+901
Warangal
18,61,480
19,02,319
+40,839
Nalgonda
13,06,886
13,58,923
+52.037
Mahabubnagar
10,89,310
11,59,059
+69.749
1,99,70,299
2,04,83,520
+5,42,471
Sirpur tandur
TOTAL Telangana
Difference
The following statement showing the number of cultivators, and the total cultivated
area of Ryotwari lands.
S.No
District
No. of cultivators
Total cultivated area
in acres
1
Indur
54,321
4,50,400
2
Elgandal
80,957
6,87,200
3
Medak
31,823
1,99,000
4
Sirpur Tandur
39,027
3,30,100
5
Warangal
1,07,300
7,73,600
6
Nalgonda
55,277
8,07,800
7
Mahbubnagar
37,924
5,46,000
4,06,629
37,94,100
TOTAL
TELANGANA
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1303F, (1893-94 A.D.), pp. 28-34.
67
Sources of
1308 F
1309 F
1310 F
1311 F
1312 F
revenue
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Ryotwari land
2,02,39,666 1,42,17,253 2,03,24,892 1,96,15,355 1,88,11,726
revenue
Muktas
8,53,348
7,65,554
7,42,660
7,91,608
7,61,672
Peshkash
1,39,465
1,39,465
1,41,286
1,38,594
1,40,336
94,388
80,542
36,884
1,51,276
42,981
83,055
42,426
93,695
1,19,477
1,05,444
Miscellaneous
1,25,816
1,26,072
1,81,358
2,22,399
2,26,593
Jagir lands
4,47,207
3,52,121
4,35,609
4,05,208
4,37,684
36,269
25,025
26,688
30,397
31,927
2,46,969
1,93,709
2,18,449
3,32,056
3,48,933
Fruit of trees
on Govt. land
Grazing fees
under Govt.
attachments
Revenue fines
Heads not
brought under
jamabandi
Total gross assessment of ryotwari lands
Fasli year
Gross Assessment of ryotwari land
1307
Rs. 2,24,65,919
1308
Rs. 2,30,06,754
1309
Rs. 2,29,76,763
1310
Rs. 2,31,12,739
1311
Rs. 2,35,60,116
1312
Rs. 2,40,82,523
Source: Report on Administration of H.E.H the Nizam’s Dominions for the year,
1308-12 F (1898-1903 A.D.), pp. 25, 27.
68
Total Area of the State
(82,698 Sq. miles OR 52,962,720 acres)
Diwani
(21,583,514) acres
Arable
(23,318,503 Acres) (74.31 %) acres
Sarf-e-Khas, Paighas, Jagirs, etc.
(31,379,206 acres)
Actual area under cultivation
(21,763,838 Acres) (93.33%) of Total
cultivable area
Telangana
10,557,724 Acres.73
Each taluq of the Suba was divided into three or four circles called Halkas
over each of which was placed a Revenue inspector called Giradwar.74 He took a
prominent part in collection of land revenue, measurement and demarcation of land
and collection of Food grain levy from cultivators. A Halka consisted of number of
villages.
69
Administrative units of the suba for 1353 F (1944 A.D.)
S.No
District
Division
Details of Taluqs
No. of
No. of
name
(No. of villages in
taluqs
villages
3
608
2
367
3
452
2
336
2
412
3
486
3
628
4
1268
2
353
1
259
Brackets)
1
Warangal
Warangal
Warangal (206)
Pakhal (207)
Mulugu (195)
Khammam
Khammam (156)
Madhira (211)
Yellandu
Yellandu (65)
Mahboobabad (307)
Palvancha (180)
2
Karimnagar Karimnagar
Karimnagar (160)
Sultanabad (176)
Jagityal
Jagityal (241)
Siricilla (171)
Huzurabad
Huzurabad (132)
Parakal (116)
Manthani (239)
3
Adilabad
Adilabad
Adilabad(214)
Kinwat (175)
Boath (239)
Asifabad
Asifabad (286)
Sirpur (448)
Rajula (323)
Chinnur (211)
Nirmal
Nirmal (192)
Luxxethipet (161)
Utnoor
Utnoor (259)
70
Warangal
8 taluqs
1427 Villages
Karimnagar
7 taluqs
1234 Villages
Adilabad
10 taluqs
2508 Villages
Total
25 taluqs
5169 Villages75
Land revenue in the diwani (Government) areas of the Nizam’s Dominions
was collected through contractors called Taluqadars, Deshmukhs and deshpandes to
whom territories were framed. There were two systems known as the Taah-hud-dari
and the sarbasta. Under Taah- hud-dari, the right of collection of revenue was given
to men of influence and position living in Hyderabad city under the sarbasta it was
allotted to zamindars. At times, districts were framed out to more than one person
from each of whom a Nazar was collected. There was also a third system known as
the amani under which the Government dealt with the ryots directly. Land revenue
was collected in kind and crops were not allowed to be harvested till the revenue was
paid or a letter of credit from a banker produced. The ryots were also subject to much
hardship on account of the injurious effects of several other systems such as Takdema,
Battai and Gudem under which they were required to pay in advance a part of the
revenue on pain of losing their crops in the event of default.
The Credit for creating some order out of this chaos and confusion and laying
the foundation of a modern administration in all spheres of the Government goes to
Salarjung-I who became prime minister in 1853 A.D. farming systems were abolished
71
and taluqdars. Old types were gradually replaced by salaries offices assisted by the
requisite staff. A Revenue Board was set up in 1864 A.D. Medak district was
included in the northern division along with Indur (present Nizamabad district),
Adilabad, Elgandal (present Karimnagar District.) The obnoxious systems of
Takdema, Battai and Gudem were abolished and a system of annual jamabandi was
introduced. Remissions were allowed for uncultivated portions. A kistbandi was fixed
and an Inam commission was constituted in 1875-76 A.D. These reforms resulted in a
steady increase in the extent of occupied land and also revenue.
The results of the initial settlement of Sangareddy and Narayankhed taluqs
were announced in 1301 F (1891-92 A.D.), Andole 1307 F (1897-98 A.D.), Medak
1309 F (1899-1900 A.D.), Siddipet 1319 F (1909-10 A.D.). The assessment rates in
the villages of the taluqs of Zahirabad and Narsapur constituted after the abolition of
Jagirs vary according to the taluqs in which they were formerly situated. There were
in all 123 - Sarf-e-Khas, 195 - Paigah, 374 – Ex jagir villages in the district.
Soon after the merger of the Nizam’s state with the Indian union in 1948, the
Jagirs were abolished in 1950. The Board of Revenue which was intermittently being
abolished and re- established was finally re-constituted, The Court of wards
established in 1852 A.D. was merged with the Board.
72
Sl.No.
Revenue Division
Constituent Taluqs
1.
Sangareddy
Sangareddy, Zahirabad, Narayankhed
2.
Medak
Medak, Narsapur, Andole (Jogipet)
3.
Siddipet
Siddipet and Gajwel
Source: Andhra Pradesh District Gazetteers, Medak, Govt. of A.P., Govt. Central
Press, Hyderabad, A.P., 1976, pp. 101-6
The results of the initial settlement of Khammam and Yellandu – 1309 F
(1899-1900 A.D.), Madhira - 1310 F (1900-01 A.D.), Palvancha Khalsa - 1313 F
(1903-04 A.D.), Now Bhoorgampadu Taluq were announced. There were in all
9
-
Bill maqta
9
-
Ex-Jagir
22
-
Garla-Jagir
23
-
Agraharam Villages, Besides 162 villages in Palvancha
samsthanam.76
The results of the initial settlement of Suryapet, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda,
Miryalaguda-1313 F (1903-4 A.D.), Ramannapet & Bhongir – 1315 F (1905-6 A.D.),
Devarakonda -1320F (1910-11 A.D.) were announced. There were in all 164 villages
in the Salur and Raigiri Jagirs, Nampally, China Kaparthi & Cheekatimamidi Sarf-eKhas, Tirumalgiri & Narayanpur Samsthanam. 77
73
There were in all 204 Ex-Jagir, 54 Makta, 21 Sarf-e-Khas, 1 Ijara, 4
Agraharam Villages. Besides 15 villages in the samsthanams of Domakonda and
Siranpalle (Sirnapalli).78
The results of the initial settlement of the taluqs of Karimnagar, Jagityal,
Sircilla, 1315 F (1905-6 A.D.), Sultanabad (present Peddapalle, Huzurabad 1316 F
(1906-7 A.D.), Manthani 1318 F (1908-9 A.D.)79 were announced.
The result of the initial settlement of the taluqs of
Mudhol
-
1300 F (1890-91 A.D.)
Nirmal
-
1308 F (1898-99 A.D.)
Boath
-
1315 F (1905-06 A.D.)
Chinnur
-
1324 F (1914-15 A.D.)
Luxethipet
-
1326 F (1916-17 A.D.)
Adilabad
-
1332 F (1922-23 A.D.)
Khanapur
-
1333 F (1923-24 A.D.)
Utnur
-
1338 F (1928-29 A.D.)
Sirpur & Asifabad
-
1346 F (1936-37 A.D.), were announced here
were in all
81 ex-Jagir, 3 Maqta, 1 Pan Maqta, 1 Sarf-e-Khas, 56 Paigah villages.80
9.
The Dast Band System: Statistics relating to the award of remissions Inland
Revenue indicates that in most cases maximum remissions were given for
74
breach of tanks. The delay caused in repairing the tanks that were breached
had ‘become a serious question and is the cause of much loss of revenue’. The
revenue loss in 1031F (1892 A.D.) from eight tanks in Indur district alone was
more than one lakh of rupees. It was due to want of prompt action by the
public works department, that there was a considerable loss to the
Government. In 1894 A.D. (1303F) rules were framed by the Government for
the lease of tanks under old Dast Band system governing most of the tanks
which were constructed in olden days. The rules provided that leases for the
repair and maintenance of tanks could be granted to zamindars and others or
group of persons including the entire village community on any of the
following systems.
1.
By a dast band which may be given in the shape of inams land, at the
rate of 1/10th of land irrigated by the tank, or in cash at the rate of 1/10 th
of the revenue (exclusive of local funds) derived from the land under
the tank.
2.
3.
By a permanent reduction in the assessment of land held by the lessee.
By repayment of the amount expended, in a certain number of years by
deduction from the revenue of the land under the tank.
4.
By a combination of the dast band and the reduced rate system, i.e.,
reduced rates for a certain number of years and dast band for future
maintenance.
75
The Tahsildars were empowered to sanction applications for kuntas on the dast
band system while under the other systems, the other revenue authorities like the
talukdars and subedars were made the concerned authority, whereas the irrigated area
exceeded 500 acres the cases were dealt with by the Board of Revenue. 81
10.
Sarf-e-Khas: It was customary in India right from the ancient times for the
rulers or kings to keep their personal property distinct from the property of the
state, and meet all their personal and palace expenses from such properties
only. The practice was continued even by the Mughal emperors who meet all
their personal expenditure for themselves as well as their blood relations from
the income obtained for the Haveli or the palace lands. The Tavvul villages of
Delhi and Khas Mahals of Bengal provided the revenue to meet the palace
expenses of the emperor.
Surprisingly enough, the practice was not followed in the Deccan until the
advent of Nawab Nasir-ud-Dowlah. Until then it was the Diwani treasury which
provides all the money for the personal expenses of the Nizam. It was found that the
practice resulted in a lot of inconvenience for the ruler as the payments were not
punctually remitted to his account for one reason or the other.
The inefficient
management of public finance involving the Diwani lands were responsible to some
extent for the provision of untimely services in palaces. Hence during the reign of
Nasir-ud-Dowlah certain territories were detached from the Government lands and
taken over by the ruler under his personal management. These were known as the
76
Sarf-e-Khas lands. In course of time the extent of Sarf-e-Khas lands had grown with
the acquisition of new areas by the Nizams. The territories that were thus added
belonged to any of the following categories.
i)
They included the muktas lands which were purchased by the Nizam
with his own money.
ii)
Whenever the relatives of the Nizam or other members of the royal
family died without heirs, leaving behind maqtas and jagirs or other
personal lands, they were added to the Sarf-e-Khas territory.
iii)
In 1858 A.D when the British ceded Shorapur to the Nizam a few
taluqs of the area were added to the Sarf-e-Khas territory. “As mark of
high esteem in which His Highness was held by her majesty the
Queen”.
iv)
In 1860 A.D. certain taluqs in the Osmanabad and Bidar districts were
assigned to the Sarf-e-Khas in lieu of those situated in the assigned
districts re transferred by the British Government.
The Sarf-e-Khas territories were not continuous but were scattered over the
entire Nizam’s Dominions. Significantly all most all the Sarf-e-Khas areas, except,
those surrounding the capital, belonged to the Marathi and Kannada speaking
territories.
Consequently the administration of the lands could not be managed
directly by the Sarf-e-Khas department which functioned under the personal
supervision of the Nizam ignoring the small variations in the Sarf-e-Khas territories.
77
On an average, it consisted of eighteen taluqs measuring 8110 sq. miles in which
twelve and half lakhs of the Nizam’s subjects lived.
While under the mufawaza system the Diwani officials themselves
administered the Sarf-e-Khas territories, under the zer-nigrani method it was the Sarfe-Khas officials who managed the territories under the supervision of the Diwani
administration and only the seven taluq of Atraf-i-Balda surrounding the capital city
were directly administered by the Sarf-e-Khas department. However in both types of
territories it was the diwani system of administration that was in vogue. 82
These crown lands (Sarf-e-Khas) which covered an area of 1/10th of the
dominions and spread over eighteen taluqs, did not form any sizeable portion in
Warangal suba83 these included in Karimnagar - 20 villages, Sultanabad - 3,
Warangal taluq - 4, Adilabad -None.84 The area being very much hilly and forest
infested, it did not attract the Nizam to bring many villages under his personal
occupation. These villages, though belonged to the ruler, were kept under the
administration of Diwani officials, who of course, managed them on behalf of the
Sarf-e-Khas Department. Revenue from these villages, after deducting management
charges, was credited to Sarf-e-Khas treasury.85
The Diwani officials, though they were put in charge of the administration of
these Sarf-e-Khas villages, never used their independent discretion in deciding cases
78
relating to revenue matters for fear of incurring the displeasure of the Ruler and all
such matters were simply forwarded to be decided by Sarf-e-Khas chief secretary.86
Revenue demand from the Sarf-e-Khas villages of karimnagar district
amounted to Rs.2,89,482 and Warangal taluq amounted Rs.55,730 87 added to this the
taxes were collected in such a rigorous manner that even in the Depression years of
1933 and 1934, 100% collections were recorded. But on the other hand, the Sarf-eKhas administration was so stringy and regardless of the welfare of the agriculturists
in its spending that when due to scarcity of water, 1/4 th of remission of land revenue
was granted in all diwani lands for 1933 and when the same was recommended for
Sarf-e-Khas areas by the first talukdars of Karimnagar and Warangal. 88
11.
Samsthan or Peshkash: Samsthans were former Hindu states which after
losing their independence during medieval times to Muslim conquerors,
continued their existence in modern period by paying annual tribute to the
reigning Muslim sovereigns. In other words, they came to function as vassal
territories. The annual tribute that used to be paid since the Mughal times by
these samsthandars had come to be called peshkash or pan both terms being
used synonymously. Out of fourteen samsthans in the state Palvancha lying in
the eastern part of Warangal District was one. In area which consisted of 3,090
sq miles, it remained the biggest of them all. Like pan-maqtadars and
Agrahariks, the Raja of Palvancha was put in an advantageous position that he
79
enjoyed a huge revenue surplus over had above that was paid by means of
Peshkash.
The absenteeism of the Raja the long and frequent periods of takeover of the
samsthan administration by the Court of wards for the settlement of disputes that
arose over succession to the gadi, and the administrative apathy and indifference
exhibited by the samsthandars had contributed in a large measure for creating
administrative vacuum and anarchy which were fully exploited by the watandars, big
and immigrant merchants and forest officials in inflicting different types of excesses
on the local population, and especially the tribal farmers and labourers. 89
12.
Jagirs: Covering about forty percent of the total area, Jagirs occupied a
position of the pre-eminence in the Nizam’s Dominions. The origin of the
Jagirs which to begin with, was in the nature of military tenures may be traced
back to the practice of the Mughal emperors. Because of their peculiar position
as conquerors in a foreign country the Mughal emperors thought it convenient
to control the territories through military chiefs in whom they had confidence,
by appointing them to be incharge of large tracts of land. In fact even under
the earlier Hindu system chiefs were appointed to manage crucial territories
such as the frontiers and mountain tracts. In any case the Mughals adopted the
plan of granting military officers. The right to collect the revenue of a certain
area of the country who used the money so collected to maintain a body of
troops to be made available for the royal service whenever needed such grants
80
have come to be known as Jagirs. Thus for the purpose of these grants the
Mughal territories could be divided into two distinctive parts. The first,
consisting of land that was directly managed by the officers of the emperors,
and the rest being available for assignment as Jagirs.
There is an interesting background to the origin of the Jagirs in the Deccan.
The Famous historian Gribble described the origin of the Jagirs under the Nizam’s
thus: It appears Asaf Jah had brought with him from Malwa a number of trusted
followers, both Mohammedans and Hindus who were attached to his person and
fortunes. The granted Jagirs or estates on military tenure to the Mohammedan nobles
and employed them as his generals. His Hindu followers were employed principally
in the administrative work of the important departments of revenue and finance. Such
administrators were also granted Jagirs as remuneration for their services. All the
Jagirs whether granted for civil or military purpose came to be regarded as
hereditary.90
Gribble also mentions about the existence of large number of indigenous Rajas
and chiefs whose territories were scattered over the country. Most of them held
sanads or grants from former kings many of which had been confirmed by the Nizam
on payment of tributes. Starting from the grant of the first jagir in 1135 F (1726 A.D.)
by the first Asaf Jah almost up to the end of the last century, Jagirs were granted in
the Nizams territories, Records reveal that the last Jagir was awarded in 1299F (188990 A.D) during the reign of Mir Mahboob Ali Khan. No systematic method or
81
principle was followed by the Nizam in the grant of Jagirs. Consequently Jagir
villages were scattered all over the map of Hyderabad, resulting in several Jagirdas
having their villages located in half-a-dozen different regions separated in space by
other jagir or Diwani areas and sometimes lying at a distance of hundreds of miles
from one another. Such a system had caused insurmountable difficulties both for the
Jagir administrators as well as the ryots. To represent their grievances the Jagir ryots
had to travel incredibly long distances to the headquarters of the revenue staff.
Under Timur, Jagirs were awarded for a period of three years to begin with
and the country was inspected at the end of the period. If the territory was found in a
flourishing condition with a contended peasantry the Jagir was continued. Otherwise
the Jagirdar was punished by withholding from his subsistence of the three following
years.91 Thus, it appears that the grant of Jagirs was originally meant for definite
period, not extending in any Case beyond the lives of the grantees and was resumable.
In course of time ‘it was thought below the dignity of the ruler to resume’ benefits
once granted and so the grants became permanent and hereditary. 92
Another factor which perhaps influenced the award of hereditary jagirs was
the grant of Inams for religious purposes on a permanent basis. Thus the practice of
granting small holdings of land free of revenue for religious and charitable purposes
on hereditary and permanent basis was widely prevalent not only during the reign of
the Hindu but also under the Mohammedan rulers. With the grant of Jagirs on a
hereditary basis vested interests became so strong that sometimes the Jagirdars were
82
also not amenable to the control of the Nizam, especially during times of economic
difficulties.93
When Salar Jung-I assumed office, attempts were made to resume Jagirs
awarded by ministers based on money transactions and not bestowed under the order
of the Sovereign. Such grants were considered to be illegal and often the result of
corrupt transactions. In an attempt to resume jagirs, held by Sahukars obtained by
them through money transactions from the ministers, as a first step Ramaswamy’s
Jagir was marked for resumption. However he resisted the attempt on the basis that
the transaction involved an amount of Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs. The contract between Siraj-ulMule and Ramaswamy was executed in a very peculiar manner. “The lease was
handed up to Ramaswamy by the Resident through the inter-medium of the
Brigadier”.94
Strangely enough while the Resident desired the disposition of Jagirdars like
Sultan-Nawab-ul-Mulk. He did not express the same view in case of Mudaliar. This
attitude provoked a correspondent to make the following observation with
Englishmen in 1848. Some persons have managed to obtain Jagirs by taking
advantage of the weak financial base of the Government and the corrupt practices
prevalent at the level of the ministers. An interesting feature relating to Jagirs is that
the big jagirdars who considered themselves to be semi- independent rulers. Their
area granted small jagirs to their followers and even to some members of their
families, which were in the nature of sub-jagirs.95
83
The various types of Jagirs that existed in the Nizam’s Dominions may be
listed out under the following heads:
1.
Paigah: Otherwise known as Jagirat-i-Nigehdast-Jamait was a kind of
military Jagir originally assigned by Nawab Nizam Ali Khan Bahadur
to Abdul Khair Khan, Nawab Shams-ul-Umra, Amir-i-Kabir for the
maintenance of a body of horse. His majesty’s Household troops and
hence they were designated Paigah Jagir.
2.
Maqas: Next to the Paigah rank the maqas which were the jagirs
granted to important nobles by the Nizam. Out of nine maqas four
belonged to the premier nobles which were known as Umra-ee-Ozzam.
These belong to Nawab Salarjung, Nawab Khani Khanan, Nawab
Fakhr-ul-Mulk and Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad.
3.
Altumgah Jagir:
The Turkish word Altumgah comprising of the
words ‘Al’ and Tumgha both of which signified the royal signet. It was
permanent perpetual and hereditary grant and the right or interest
conveyed. It was not transferable by sale, gift, bequeath. Altumgah
jagirs were held in highest esteem and were considered special marks
of honour and favour for the grantees.
4.
Jat Jagirs: Were grants of large areas of land for the maintenance of
the grantees without any obligation whatsoever of any service in return.
Most of the Jat jagirs were personal in nature and were originally
84
intended for the life time of the recipients. The Nizam’s Government
felt that it was beneath its dignity to take back what it had donated and
hence in course of time jat jagirs became permanent.
5.
Mushrooti Jagirs: Were granted for the performance of some definite
service whether religious, civil or military, which were continued only
so long as the conditions of the grant were fulfilled.
6.
Tankha Jagirs: Were grants of revenue made over to meet the salaries
of the grantees for services rendered to the Government. In this regard
they resemble Paigah Jagir. But Tanka Jagirs were of a later origin and
most of them were not legitimate. They came into existence at a time
when the state was involved in pecuniary difficulties and the military
chiefs called Zamindars insisted on obtaining Government taluqs as
guarantee for the regular payment of their establishment and paying the
troops from the proceeds.
7.
Chauth Jagirs: During the early stages of their conquest the Marathas
levied the conquered territories 1/4 of the revenue derived from the
land revenue called chauth When such territories came under the
Nizam’s Government after the pindaris were vanquished the chauth
which the jagirdars paid to the Marathas was continued to be paid to the
Nizam as such jagirs were known as chauth paying jagirs.
85
8.
Mocassa Jagirs: Like chauth Mocassa was peculiar to the Marathas
revenue system. It was the name given to the portion of land revenue
devoted to some special purpose or maintenance of some chief and the
grantee was known as Mocassadar. Lands and villages which were
paying Mocassa to the Marathas came under the Nizam’s they were
styled as Mocassa Jagirs.
9.
Samsthans: While other jagirs had their villages scattered over entire
dominion the Samstanams existed as large and compact units. The
samsthans which were fourteen in number belonged to Hindu rajas who
were holding their lands since a long time before the first Nizam came
to the Deccan. They were recognized by the first Nizam on the
condition of an annual payment called peshkash out of the total
fourteen samsthans only five big samsthans viz., Gadwal, Wanaparthi,
Jatprole, Amarachinta and Palvancha were exempted from the Diwani
Jurisdiction.96
Now we pass on to the next chapter which deals with power and authority in
the country side. The power which is concentrated in the lands of the landlords, these
people rule the area as if they own. They treat the subjects with cruelty and exploit the
poor peasants by squeezing money in the form of taxes. Land was the most important
possession, the only recognized wealth.
86
REFERENCES
1
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., The Economic History of Hyderabad State, Gian
Publishing, New Delhi, 1987, p.163.
2
Sundari, T.K., Caste and the Agrarian Structure, Centre for Developmental Studies,
Salas, Memorial Found Series, Trivandrum, 1991, p.1.
3
Bhasker Rao, V., Agrarian and Industrial Relations in Hyderabad State, Kakatiya
University, Warangal, 1983, pp.5-6.
4
Dhanagare, D.N., Peasant Movements in India, 1920-1950, Oxford University
Press, Delhi, 1983, p.183.
5
Sundarayya, P., Op.Cit., p.16.
6
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., p.163.
7
Ibid., pp.163-4.
8
Vera Anstey, Economic Development of India, London, 1929, p.97.
9
Kumar, Dharma, Land and Caste in South India, Manohar, 1992, p.xxix.
10
Bobbili, A., Agrarian Relation to Telangana 1911-48, Unpublished Thesis,
Department of History, Kakatiya University, Warangal, 1986, p.108.
11
Satyanarayana, A., Commercialization, Money, Capital and Class Differentiation
Amongst the Peasantry in Andhra 1900-40, Centre for Developmental Studies,
Trivandrum, 1988, pp. 1-53.
12
Bobbili, A, Op.Cit.
13
Satyanarayana, A., Op.Cit.
87
14
Reddy, Laxma, R., Growth of Urbanization in Hyderabad State 1891-1950,
Unpublished Thesis, Osmania University, Department of History, Hyderabad, 1996,
pp. 66-71.
15
Murthy, Rama, B., Agricultural Labour, How they Work and Live, Ministry of
Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 1951, p. 114.
16
Dhanagare, D.N., Peasant Movements in India, 1920-50, Oxford University Press,
Delhi, 1983, p.183.
17
Sundarayya, P., Telangana People’s Struggle and Its Lessons, CPI (M) Calcutta,
1972, pp. 15-16.
18
Ibid.
19
Bhasker Rao, V., Agrarian and Industrial Relations in Hyderabad State,
Department of Public Administration, Kakatiya University, Warangal, p.30.
20
Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India, Bombay, 1928, p.37.
21
Administrative Reports of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions, Hyderabad Deccan,
1915, p.210.
22
W.S. File No. 103 of 1338 F (1929) & R.No. 3100 of 1339 F (1930).
23
Rao, Bhanumathi Ranga, S., Land Revenue Administration in the Nizam’s
Dominions (1853-1948), Osmania University, 1992, p.21.
24
W.S. File No. 24 of 1357 F (1948) & R.No. 1676 of 1357 F.
25
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Economic History of Hyderabad State, Warangal Suba
(1911-1950), Gian Publishing House, Delhi, 1987, pp. 163-4.
26
Ibid., p. 164.
27
Kesava Iyengar, S., Rural Economic Enquiries in Hyderabad State, 1949-51, pp.
79-80.
88
28
Khusro, A.M., Economic and Social Effects of Jagirdari Abolition and Land
Reforms in Hyderabad, Hyderabad, 1958, p.18.
29
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., pp. 87-89.
30
Report of the Tenancy Committee, Hyderabad, 1940, p.3.
31
Ibid., p.4.
32
Kesava Iyengar, S., Op.Cit., pp. 11 & 56.
33
Revenue Administration Report 1324 F (1914-15 A.D.), H.E.H. The Nizam’s
Government, p.112.
34
Kesava Iyengar, S., Economic Investigations & R.E.E., Op.Cit., p.21.
35
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., p. 90.
36
Meezan, 19-10-1945.
37
Meezan, 4-12-1945.
38
Ranga Rao, Bhanumathi, Op.Cit., pp. 22-26.
39
Report on the Land Revenue Reforms Committee of the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1958-59, Part-I, Vol. 1, p.21.
40
The Hyderabad Revenue Code (Act of 1318 F), Sec.24.
41
Ibid., Sec.58 and Settlement Rules, Sec.7.
42
Ranga Rao, Op.Cit., pp. 27-29.
43
Report by S.M. Bharucha, Agriculture Indebtedness in the Nizam’s Dominions,
Hyderabad, 1937, p.5.
44
Report of the Land Revenue Reforms Committee, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
1958-59, Part-I, Vol.1, p.55.
45
Report of the Tenancy Committee, H.E.H. The Nizam Government, Hyderabad,
1940, pp. 3 & 4.
89
46
Revenue Administrative Report 1324 F (1914-15 A.D.), H.H. The Nizam’s
Government, p.53.
47
Moulvi Cherag Ali, Hyderabad under Sir Salar Jung, Vol. 1, Bombay, 1884, p.24.
48
W.S. File No. 155 of (1325 F) 1916.
49
Nawab Ahmadullah Khan Saheb, Banjardar of Dornakal in Warangal District,
Meezan, 14-06-1944.
50
Syed Nayeemuddin, First Taluqdar of Warangal as Banjardar of Habibnagar in
Warangal Taluq. W.S. File No. 4 of 1339 F (1930) & R.No. 532 of 1344 F (1935).
51
W.S. File No. 174, 175 & 176 of 1325 F (1916) & R.Nos. 4107, 4104 & 4105 of
1325 F (1916).
52
W.S. File No. 23 of 1349 F (1940) & R No. 36 of 1355 F (1946).
53
W.S. File No. 4 of 1339 F (1930) & R.No. 532 of 1344 F (1935) & File No. 144 of
1334 F (1925) & R.No. 5329 of 1344 F.
54
W.S. File No. 3 of 1324 F (1915) & R.No. 729 of 1331 F (1922).
55
W.S. File No.1 of 1339 F (1930) & R.No. 200 of 1346 F (1937).
56
D.G.R. Telangana File No. 14 of 1334 F (1925) & R.No. 3909 of 1338 F (1929)
and W.S. File No. 88 of 1329 F (1920) and R.No. 795 of 1331 F (1922).
57
Mehdi Ali, Hyderabad Affairs, p.321.
58
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., pp. 94-98.
59
Revenue Administration Report 1324 F (1914 -1915 A.D.), H.H. the Nizam’s
Government, p. 59.
60
Ranga Rao, Op.Cit., p.36.
61
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., p.104.
90
62
Qureshi, A.I., The Economic Development of Hyderabad, Vol.1 Orient Longman,
Madras, 1941, p.109.
63
W.S. File No.2 of 1354 F (1945) & R.No. 2468 of 1357 F (1948).
64
W.S. File No. 111 of 1320 F (1911) & R.No. 3777 of 1321 F (1912).
65
Revenue Department File No. A3/9/1/1359 F (1950) & R.No. 110.
66
Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., pp. 106-7.
67
Ranga Rao, Op.Cit., pp. 38-40.
68
Administrative Report for 1308 to 1312 F (1899 to 1903 A.D.), Hyderabad, 1907,
p.13.
69
Golconda Patrika, Bi-weekly, 4-8-1938.
70
W.S. File No. 155 of 1325 F (1916).
71
W.S File No.22 of 1340 F (1931) & R. No. 2059 of 1341 F (1932).
72
W.S. File No. 22 of 1340 F (1931) & R.No. 2059 of 1341 F (1932); W.S File no.
133 of 1335 F (1926) & R.No. 6041 of 1338 F (1929).
73
Report - 1351F (1941-42 A.D.), p.3.
74
Revenue Administrative Report 1324F (1914-15 A.D), H.H. The Nizam’s
Government, p.25.
75
W.S File No. 38 of 1354F (1945) &R. No. 706 of 1354 F.
76
Andhra Pradesh District Gazetteers, Khammam, Govt. of A.P., Govt. Central Press,
Hyderabad, A.P., 1976, pp. 117-8.
77
Ibid., Nalgonda, p. 131.
78
Ibid., Nizambad, p.138.
79
Ibid., Karimnagar, p.161.
80
Ibid., Adilabad, p.125.
91
81
Ranga Rao, Op.Cit., pp.41-2.
82
Ibid., pp. 43-5.
83
Deccan Chronicle, 8-2 1949.
84
W.S. File No.1 of 1357F (1948) & R.No. 25 of 1357F.
85
Decennial Report on Administration of H.E.H. Nizam’s Dominions 1357 F, p.79.
86
W.S. File No.1 of 1344F (1935) & R.No. 22 of 1344F.
87
W.S. File No.1 of 1357 F, Op.Cit.
88
Reddy. Ramakrishna, V., Op.Cit., p. 110.
89
Ibid., pp. 113-4.
90
Gribble, J.D.B., The History of the Deccan, Vol. II, London, 1924, p.5.
91
Census of India, 1891, XXIII, Bombay, 1893, p.29.
92
Report on the Administration of the Revenue and allied Departments of His
Highness the Nizam’s Government during the year 1324F (1014-15 A.D.), p.60.
93
Englishman, 28 December, 1848, Hyderabad Affairs, Vol. V, 1883, p.92.
94
Ibid.
95
Venkatraman, M.A., Land Reforms in India, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania
University, 1957, p.15.
96
Jagir Administration, Government of Hyderabad, 1952, Vol.1, p.11.
***