4.1.2. Peasants and their lands

The term which Indo-Persian sources of the Mughal period most frequently used to denote a peasant was raiyat (plural, riaya) or muzarian. In addition, we also encounter the terms kisan or asami. Sources of the seventeenth century refer to two kinds of peasants – khud-kashta and pahi-kashta.

In the Mughal era, peasants were primarily referred to using terms from Indo-Persian sources such as 'raiyat' (singular) and 'riaya' (plural). The terms 'kisan' and 'asami' were also used. There were two main types of peasants: 'khud-kashta', who were residents of the village where they cultivated the land, and 'pahi-kashta', non-resident cultivators who farmed land in other villages on a contractual basis.

Think of it like a local farmer (khud-kashta) who owns and works on his family's farm compared to a hired worker (pahi-kashta) who goes to another village to earn a living by farming someone else's land. This reflects how different relationships with land can be managed in a community.

Seldom did the average peasant of north India possess more than a pair of bullocks and two ploughs; most possessed even less. 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.

Most peasants in north India owned very little; usually just a pair of bullocks and two ploughs for farming. Land ownership among peasants followed the practice of individual ownership, which meant each farmer could buy and sell land just like any other type of property owner. This system allowed for a market in land where peasants could trade or pass on their holdings.

Imagine a farmer today who owns a small piece of land where they grow vegetables. This farmer can sell their land if they decide to move or if they find someone willing to buy it. The ability to trade land reflects the economic independence peasants had in that period.

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.

The landscape of rural India included various types of land. While many areas were suitable for farming, there were also dry, hilly regions that could not be farmed as easily. Recognizing this diversity is important to understand rural society and agricultural practices as not every region produced crops in the same way due to different environmental conditions.

Consider a farmer in a fertile plain planting rice where water is abundant, versus a farmer in a hilly region trying to grow fruit trees. Each farmer’s success relies significantly on their respective environments, just like how not every community can support the same types of agriculture.

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.

Historians largely rely on chronicles and documents from the Mughal court to understand peasant life. Since peasants did not write about their own experiences, the evidence comes mostly from the accounts of the Mughal historians who described social structures, taxation, and agricultural practices from their perspective.

It's like how we learn about historical events from textbooks written by scholars rather than directly from people's diaries. Those scholars interpret and present facts, but they may not fully reflect the personal experiences and daily struggles of ordinary individuals.

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.

The Mughal state significantly influenced rural life as it collected taxes largely based on agricultural output. Their revenue agents sought to control and regulate agricultural production to ensure a steady flow of income for the empire. The interference of the state links rural society to broader economic and political structures.

Imagine a modern government that collects taxes from farmers based on what they grow. Just like today, where agricultural productivity affects how much farmers need to pay, back in the Mughal era, the state's understanding and management of agriculture were necessary for their economic stability.

Since many crops were grown for sale, trade, money and markets entered the villages and linked the agricultural areas with the towns.

As agriculture expanded, many farmers began cultivating crops not just for their own needs but also for sale in markets. This shift led to the introduction of trade, money, and market exchanges into the rural economy, connecting villages with urban centers and creating a network of economic activity.

Think of how farmers today grow cash crops like coffee or cotton, which they sell at local markets or export. This has a profound impact on their communities, creating jobs, investments, and enhancing the local economy, which was similarly true in the Mughal period.

--