Jagir

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In India during the Mughal and colonial times, a jagir was a kind of enfeoffment of land in the form of a domain (English estate ). In return, the vassal ( jagirdar ) had to provide certain consideration, either in the form of tax payments or military successes. The type and scope of the services and obligations of the Jagirdari differed individually and regionally. The inhabitants of feudal areas in the 19th century were generally poorer and more backward than other peasants in India. All jagirs and their privileges were abolished soon after India gained independence .

etymology

The term comes from the Persian jāgīr, with the roots jā- "place" and gīr from giriftan "to take possession." As alternative transcriptions also jaghir or jageer occurs. The word as such has been found since the time of Akbar (r. 1556–1605). Previously, enfeoffments for military successes were called yetul or iqtā ' , the latter an Arabic synonym.

development

The system of enfeoffment with Jagir had its origins in the Central Asian homeland of the Muslim conquerors, who modified it after taking possession of northern India. In theory, all land belonged to the ruler who forgave it. The right to levy taxes for crown land ( khāliṣa ) lay with the Diwan , hence also called Diwani land . The rank of a noble was determined by the number of mountaineers he had to provide. The Mughal did not normally pay his followers and military leaders in cash, but rather loaned them a piece of land, from whose tax revenue they financed their maintenance, their pension or the services to be provided. The first evidence for this regulation can be found in the early days of the Delhi Sultanate under Shams ud-Din Iltutmish (r. 1211–1236). It became common practice under his successor, Sultan Rukn ud din Firuz . The ruler could extend, change or revoke the lending at any time.

The governors of the Mughals were usually transferred to a different Jagir every 3–4 years. The governors could not build a local power base with it. Only later did the jagirs develop into hereditary fiefdoms, the exact provisions of which were renewed when they passed through letters ( sanad ). They differ from the Zamindari in that they were originally used as pure tax tenants. In both cases, in the course of time, more and more lordly powers were assumed, which often degenerated into arbitrariness and tax exploitation of the agricultural population. The Jagirdari administration did not intervene in the relationship between the farmer and owner of the land, it stood between the individual owner and the state, especially the tax authorities.

The details are too different from one region to another to cover them generally. Therefore only a few examples below:

British India

Even Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive , was rewarded with £ 30,000 as the Jagirdar of the Nawab Mir Jafir, who was appointed by him. Under Regulation XIX and XXVII of 1793 for Bengal, the British only recognized Jagidaris as hereditary if they could prove this by means of appropriate documents. All other titles, if they were awarded until 1765, were only valid for the life of the holder.

In the part of India under direct British administration, with its more or less long settlement of tax payments ( settlement ) from the 19th century, the position of the remaining Jagirdari approached that of the Zamindari. For the British, the landlords were an important instrument of indirect management at the local level. The smallest "princely" manors, such as were numerous in the Kathiawar Agency , were ultimately controlled by the British colonial official ( agent ), but they often retained - precisely graduated - powers as court lords corresponding to the size or importance of the fief. The ruler of Chhatarpur (Bundelkhand) was originally a jagir who did not rise to raja until 1806 when he signed a protectorate treaty .

Hyderabad

Another type of further development took place in the princely state of Hyderabad in the Deccan . After the viceroy Asaf Jah I , who had no royal blood, rose to de facto king ( nizam ) of the Deccan, he adopted many of the customs of the Mughal court. After the Sepoy uprising and the banishment of the last Mughal in 1858, the country was considered the refuge of the culture of the Persian, now mostly Urdu-speaking , conqueror class. By the middle of the 19th century, 37% of the villages (6553 on 66000 km²) were given as fiefs. The income obtained does not appear in the state budget, but enriched the respective families, especially since the obligations to military success were decreasing. The rights over jagirs granted under earlier dynasties ( samantha ) were retained. Honorary titles were associated with the awards: 1)  Jah for members of the ruling family, 2)  ul-Mulk , 3)  ud-Daula, 4)  young.

The largest jagir was the ruler himself, he controlled about 10% of the land. This area, essentially the capital and the surrounding district, was known as sarf-i-khass ("private spending ") and was economically the most significant. Its income from this was around HRK 10 million in 1911 . By 1947, the 17 most important jagirs had complete financial and judicial sovereignty. The Paigah family, which was divided into three tribes, received their lands in return for military service obligations. A substantial part of the state army and the ruler's Muslim bodyguards (1967, still 3000 men at the death of Asaf Jah VII ) were recruited from these areas. The Salar Jung line was the second largest landlord in the country. Just like the branch of Viqar ul-Umara , they were connected to the ruling house. It was completely exempt from tax payments and had its own financial administration, school system, etc. Of the 14 Samanthas that were inherited, the five largest were not taxable. The four “noblest families” ( Umra-e-Uzzam ) were also exempt from tax , except for the Salar Jung line, which included z. B. still the offspring (like Kishen Pershad ) of Chandu Lal , an immensely corrupt, the Nizam Asaf Jah III. ministers imposed by the British. Most of the other jagirs only covered a small area, often with a certain amount of power. For example, the entrepreneur who held the first state-wide postal monopoly in the 1840s was given a jagir to cover costs. What they all have in common is that the farmers on irrigated land had to pay 7–10 times the tax rate (in kind 20–30 maund per acre ) of what is customary on state land.

Rajput and other states

In the Rajput states, because of the troops they commanded, the Jagir were often a political power of their own, and they were able to secure a say at court. This was particularly true of Alwar and Jaipur . In many cases they were able to act independently of the Rajas, such as B. in Sirohi or in Bastar , where they pulled the strings in the background in some of the uprisings of the 19th century. Numerous members of the Marwari caste, who held the function of bankers for the princes in Rajasthan , were able to win jagirs and thereby enrich themselves even further.

In the Baroda area , few jagirdars had survived the wars of the early 19th century, so that the Gaekwar could rule unrestrictedly. Many progressive divans succeeded in restricting the political power of the Jagirdari as military leaders by placing the troops under British command as a subsidiary force .

Repeal

The INC condemned the feudal structures of land ownership for the first time at its party congress in 1936, and in the years that followed it became more and more radicalized and expropriations without compensation were demanded. However, commissions in 1945 and 1948 recommended replacing the rights against compensation. At a time when big landowners were afraid of expropriation, the Bhoodan movement of free land redistribution initiated by Vinoba Bhave was successful.

Laws

From 1950 to 1970, all states passed executive laws that stipulated upper limits for (non-self-cultivated) land ownership. The implementation of the measures was often delayed or circumvented, so that even today the former large landowning families often form the rich upper class. Such mala fide transmissions before December 31, 1969 were legitimized by federal law under Indira Gandhi .

  • Jagir Abolition Regulation 1949 and Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950. (Under the impression of the CPI (M) uprising in Telangana : farmers who had cultivated a piece of land for six years received it as inheritable property.)
  • Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950. (All middlemen's rights passed to the government on July 1, 1952.)
  • Rajastan Land Reform and the Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952. (In force in 1954. A total of Rs 6 billion in severance payments were paid, about a third of the landlords were able to keep their property through manipulation.)
  • West Bengal Land Reform Act. In: Kraft 1955.

literature

Some important works on the Jagir in the Mughal Empire (1526 - approx. 1720):

  • Muzaffar Alam: The Mughal state, 1526-1750 . Oxford University Press, Delhi et al. 1998.
  • Muzaffar Alam: The Crisis of Empire in Mughal India, Awadh & the Punjab, 1707-48. 4th edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi 2001
  • Muhammad Athar Ali: Mughal India, Studies in polity, ideas, society, and culture. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, New Delhi et al. 2007.
  • Muhammad Athar Ali: The Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb. Oxford University Press, New Delhi 2001.
  • Satish Chandra: Essays on Medieval Indian History . Oxford University Press, New Delhi 2003.
  • Irfan Habib: The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707. 2nd Edition. Oxford Univ. Press, New Delhi et al. 1999.
  • John F. Richards: The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press . Cambridge 1993.
  • John F. Richards: Power, Administration and Finance in Mughal India . Ashgate, London 1993.

The literature published in India on land reform, one of the most important social problems after 1947, is extensive. In selection:

  • Gwalior (State), Jagir Commission: Enclosures & appendices to the Jagir Commission report of 1936 . AD Press, Gwalior 1936.
  • Edward Haynes Haynes: The British Alteration of the Political System of Alwar State: Lineage Patrimonialism, Indirect Rule, and the Rajput Jagir System in an Indian "Princely" State, 1775-1920 . (= Studies in History. New series 5). 1989, pp. 27-71.
  • Hyderabad, India (State). Office of the Jagir Administrator; Andhra Pradesh (India): Jagir administration . Hyderabad 1968, 2 volumes ("Vol. 2 contains Rules and regulations with important notifications & circulars from 15th August, 1949 to 31st August, 1952")
  • The laws and principles of succession to jagir lands in Marwar . [Jodhpur ?: sn, 195-]
  • AK Khusro: Economic and Social Effects of the Jagirdari Abolition in Hyderabad . Hyderabad 1958.
  • Grigory Kotovsky: Agrarian Reforms in India . Delhi 1962.
  • Report of the Rajasthan-Madhya Bharat Jagir Inquiry Committee . Govt. of India Press, New Delhi 1950.
  • Mahesh Chandra Regmi: Land Tenure and Taxation in Nepal. Vol. III: The jagir, rakam and kipat tenure systems . Berkeley 1965.

Individual evidence

  1. Contemporary "Colonel Clive's Jackass". In fact, Clive received the Jagir that the East Indian company had previously held, which makes the allegations of personal enrichment and his resulting suicide in 1774 understandable. JT Wheeler: India and the frontier states of Afghanistan, Nipal and Burma. Vol I, New York 1901, pp. 324-326.
  2. Bruce Lenman, Philip Lawson: Robert Clive, the 'Black Jagir', and British Politics. In: The Historical Journal. Vol. 26, No. 4, Cambridge University Press, December 1983, pp. 801-829.
  3. ^ Vasant K. Bawa: The Last Nizam: the Life and Times of Mir Osman Ali Khan . New Delhi 1991, pp. 12-16.
  4. Literally: "Stall". Descendants of the troop leaders who came from Malwa with Asaf Jah I. Bawa (1992), p. 14.
  5. The jagirs he sold in large numbers were later only recognized if further evidence of legal lending was provided. Bawa (1992), p. 15.
  6. together 3122 villages on 30,080 km². Bawa (1992), p. 14.
  7. MA Nayeem: Philatelistic History of Hyderabad; Hyderabad 1970.
  8. Denis Vidal: Violence and Truth: A Rajasthani Kingdom Confronts Colonial Authority . Delhi 1997, pp. 56-57.
  9. Bipan Chandra et al .: India Since Independence . Delhi rev. 2008, ISBN 978-0-14-310409-4 , chap. 29–31: Land reform ...
  10. Details: Dilip Hiro: Inside India Today . London 1976, ISBN 0-7100-8932-5 , chap. 8th