4.1. Peasants and Agricultural Production

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries about 85 per cent of the population of India lived in its villages. Both peasants and landed elites were involved in agricultural production and claimed rights to a share of the produce. This created relationships of cooperation, competition and conflict among them. The sum of these agrarian relationships made up rural society.

In this period, the majority of India's population lived in villages. Agricultural life was central to their existence, involving both peasants who worked the land and elites, like zamindars, who had rights to some of the produce. This resulted in a mix of cooperative efforts and competition among these groups, impacting the social dynamics within rural communities. Thus, the relationships formed shaped what we consider the rural society of that time.

Imagine a modern-day community garden where locals grow vegetables. Some families provide the seeds, while others help by watering and maintaining the plants. Here, cooperation occurs as they share the produce, but disputes might arise over how much each person should contribute or take home, reflecting a balance of cooperation and competition similar to the historical relationships of peasants and zamindars.

At the same time agencies from outside also entered into the rural world. Most important among these was the Mughal state, which derived the bulk of its income from agricultural production. Agents of the state – revenue assessors, collectors, record keepers – sought to control rural society so as to ensure that cultivation took place and the state got its regular share of taxes from the produce.

The Mughal Empire was heavily reliant on agricultural production for its revenue. Therefore, the state implemented systems to oversee agricultural practices, with officials tasked with ensuring crops were cultivated and taxes collected. This bureaucratic oversight illustrated the state's deep involvement in rural life, as it employed various agents to manage these functions and maintain income from agricultural sources.

Consider how modern governments might regulate agricultural practices through laws that ensure crops are planted on time and that farmers pay taxes on their yields. Just as today’s agricultural inspectors might monitor farming practices for compliance with government regulations, Mughal officials monitored farmers to ensure profitability for the state.

The basic unit of agricultural society was the village, inhabited by peasants who performed the manifold seasonal tasks that made up agricultural production throughout the year – tilling the soil, sowing seeds, harvesting the crop when it was ripe.

Villages were the core of agricultural activities, consisting of peasants engaged in tasks year-round. These included preparing the land, planting seeds, tending to crops, and harvesting them. This cycle of tasks shows the agricultural seasonality and demands of farming, which dictated the rhythm of life in rural communities, where everyone had specific roles that contributed to overall production.

Think about how a family might plant a vegetable garden. Each member may have specific responsibilities: one might prepare the soil while another plants the seeds, and yet another might tend to the plants. This teamwork mirrors the organized effort seen in historical villages, where each peasant contributed to meet the agricultural needs of their community.

But rural India was not characterised by settled peasant production alone. Several kinds of areas such as large tracts of dry land or hilly regions were not cultivable in the same way as the more fertile expanses of land. In addition, forest areas made up a substantial proportion of territory.

Rural India included a variety of landscapes, many of which were not suitable for conventional farming. Some areas, like dry or hilly terrains, presented challenges for agriculture compared to fertile plains. Additionally, significant portions of land were forested, impacting the agrarian landscape and how communities interacted with their environment in terms of production and resource utilization.

Imagine trying to cultivate crops in a rocky backyard versus a fertile field. The rocky area may yield little to no crops, while the open field flourishes. Similarly, the diversity of land types in India meant that not all areas could support traditional agriculture, influencing the production strategies of rural communities.

Our understanding of the workings of rural society does not come from those who worked the land, as peasants did not write about themselves. Our major source for the agrarian history of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries are chronicles and documents from the Mughal court. One of the most important chronicles was the Ain-i Akbari authored by Akbar’s court historian Abu’l Fazl.

Most of what we know about rural life and agricultural practices during the Mughal period comes from official documents like the Ain-i Akbari, written by a historian at the Mughal court. Since peasants themselves did not document their experiences, historians use these chronicles to gather insights about agrarian relationships, governance, and the rural economy. This reliance on top-down sources shapes our understanding of that period.

Think of a school where students don't fill out yearbooks. Instead, teachers and administrators write the history of the school year. Readers only get insight into student experiences through the observations of those in authority. Similarly, the Ain-i Akbari provides a perspective on peasant life, but filtered through the lens of Mughal officials, influencing how historians interpret that era.

Sources of the seventeenth century refer to two kinds of peasants – khud-kashta and pahi-kashta. The former were residents of the village in which they held their lands. The latter were non-resident cultivators who belonged to some other village, but cultivated lands elsewhere on a contractual basis.

The agrarian society featured different classes of peasants: 'khud-kashta' peasants owned land in their village, while 'pahi-kashta' peasants cultivated land in other villages, typically through contracts. This distinction highlights the varied dynamics of land ownership and labor, where mobility and migration were also components of agricultural practices during this period.

Think of neighborhood gardeners who grow food in their own backyards (khud-kashta) versus those who rent plots in different neighborhoods to grow vegetables (pahi-kashta). This reflects the diversity in farming practices and land usage seen in medieval agrarian societies, where local ties and broader agricultural engagements coexisted.

Cultivation was based on the principle of individual ownership. Peasant lands were bought and sold in the same way as the lands of other property owners.

Ownership of land was typically individual, meaning peasants had the right to buy and sell their holdings, akin to other property owners. This personal stake in land fostered a sense of investment in crop production since the fruits of their labor directly affected their ownership rights and livelihoods.

Consider a homeowner who can renovate or sell their house as needed. This sense of ownership motivates them to maintain the property and improve its value. In a similar manner, self-owned agricultural land encourages peasants to invest effort and resources into cultivation, as their profitability and future depend on it.

Though agriculture was labour intensive, peasants did use technologies that often harnessed cattle energy. One example was the wooden plough, which was light and easily assembled with an iron tip or coulter.

While farming required significant manual labor, farmers utilized technologies like wooden ploughs to improve efficiency. These ploughs were lightweight and constructed to be easily retrievable with better designs, allowing for better soil preparation while minimizing the strain on farmers and their cattle. This incorporation of technology reflects the adaptations made by peasants to suit their agricultural needs.

Think of a modern farmer using a tractor versus laboring with just a hoe to till the soil. The tractor makes the job faster and easier, showing how technology can improve agricultural productivity. Wooden ploughs served a similar purpose in the past, helping peasants to plant and grow crops more effectively.

--