4.2. The Village Community

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 time period, most people in India lived in villages, and their livelihoods depended heavily on agriculture. Peasants worked the land and produced food, while those with land (the elites) also played a significant role in farming. These two groups interacted in various ways, sometimes working together, but often competing for resources or involved in conflicts over land and profits. All these interactions formed the social structure of rural life.

Think of a village like a small ecosystem where different animal species must cooperate for survival. Some may work together, like bees and flowers, while others may compete for food sources, similar to predators and prey. Each relationship contributes to the overall balance of nature, just as the interactions between peasants and elites shaped village life.

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 state relied heavily on agriculture for its revenue, meaning the government took a significant interest in what happened in the villages. To ensure that taxes were collected effectively, state officials monitored agricultural activities, controlling aspects of farming and crop production. These officials were responsible for making sure enough crops were grown to meet tax demands, establishing a direct connection between local farming practices and the broader needs of the empire.

Consider a school district that requires all students to pass a standardized test in order to receive funding. The district sends inspectors to ensure that schools are providing the right curriculum and support needed for students. Similarly, the Mughal state monitored village agriculture to ensure that it could collect taxes and maintain its empire.

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. Further, they contributed their labour to the production of agro-based goods such as sugar and oil.

Villages served as the foundational element of agricultural life. Peasants undertook various tasks tied to the farming calendar, like plowing fields, planting seeds, and harvesting crops. Their work was crucial not just for food production but also for creating other agricultural products like sugar and oil. Each season brought different activities, all of which relied on the peasants' hard work and collaboration.

Imagine a large team working together to stage a musical performance. Each member has a distinct role – some set the stage, others manage the lights or take care of costumes, and some perform on stage. Their combined efforts at different stages lead to a successful show, just as the collaborative work of peasants throughout the year leads to a fruitful harvest.

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. We need to keep this varied topography in mind when discussing agrarian society.

The agricultural landscape of India was diverse, with various types of land affecting how farming could occur. Some regions were fertile and excellent for farming, while others were dry, rocky, or covered in forests, making them unsuitable for traditional agriculture. Recognizing this diversity is essential for understanding the full picture of rural society and the limitations faced by peasants in those different areas.

Consider a city with large parks and patches of concrete. Some areas are suitable for outdoor sports, while others can't support such activities due to hard surfaces. Similarly, not all areas in rural India could support traditional farming practices because of their unique characteristics. Each type of area required different approaches and strategies to utilize its resources effectively.

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 the information we have about peasant life comes not from the peasants themselves but from historical records created by the Mughal elites. These documents, like the Ain-i Akbari, provide insights into agricultural practices, taxes, and the government's perspective on rural life. Because peasants did not leave their own accounts, understanding their society relies on interpreting these external records.

Think of how we learn about the experiences of a group of people today through media reports or documentaries, rather than through their personal diaries. Just as that media shapes our understanding, historical records from the Mughal courts shape our view of peasant life and agrarian society in the past.

--