Those of you who have studied land revenue systems know that during the Mughal, Pathan, Buddhist and pre-Buddhist Ages in India, land revenue was paid to the king in the form of gold bullion. Ten or twenty villages used to combine together to form a revenue village (mouza), and one person from among the villagers was authorized to collect revenue. These tax collectors were not paid by the government, but were given land to cultivate in order to earn their livelihood. They acted as intermediaries between the people and the king in the agricultural sector and gradually became powerful landlords. Such intermediaries have been in existence since ancient times, and included zamindars, pattanidars, darpattanidars, sepattanidars, jotdars, vargadars and adhikaris. However, PROUT does not support these kinds of intermediaries.

In olden times there used to be a few powerful kings, and under each of these kings there were many smaller kings. Both types of kings used to maintain armies and militia, although intermediaries were not authorized to maintain a militia. Today the Assam Rifles and the Rajput Regiment are part of the military, hence they are not a militia force. Militia means váhini or one’s own military force; that is, it is not dependent on others. To command a militia one should have zeal and authority. One who has these qualities is called “militant”. If the smaller kings accepted the powerful kings in every respect – including tax payments – we say that they accepted the supremacy of the dominant kings. However, there is a difference between the terms “suzerainty” and “supremacy”. “Suzerainty” applies when the smaller kings accepted the authority of the powerful kings but did not pay them taxes. Today Australia accepts the suzerainty of the English monarchy, but it does not accept English supremacy because it does not pay taxes to the British government.

In those days there were three means of trade – poor people used to barter among themselves; people with some money would purchase commodities with silver coins; and rich people would buy commodities with gold coins. Tax collectors would collect taxes in any of these three forms but they had to pay the king in gold bullion.

Although this tax system had been in vogue for a long time, it was only in the reign of Akbar that it was given some concrete shape. Akbar decreed that the land given to tax collectors should be for a period of five to ten years. The rules and regulations concerning land were known as the “Patta Kabuliyat” system. This system was made effective by Akbar’s prime minister, Todarmal. The land tax system was also known as the zamindary or landlord system.

Later Lord Cornwallis decided that land should be given to tax collectors permanently. He stipulated that the ownership of this land and the position of a tax collector should be hereditary. This system was adopted to discourage tax collectors from collecting taxes then leaving an area.

Akbar also introduced another type of tax collection system called the jágirdari system. In both the zamindary and jágirdari tax collection systems, taxes were paid to the king. The difference between these systems was that in the zamindary system if the zamindar failed to pay the required tax he was sent to jail, and he was only released when the tax was paid. In the jágirdari system, if the tax collector failed to pay the required tax his land was confiscated. Throughout India either the zamindary or jágirdari system was in vogue, although during the British period the zamindars were the principal revenue collectors.

Zamindars were only tax collectors and did not have any political power. A fixed amount of whatever taxes they collected went to the government treasury, hence zamindars enjoyed life as social parasites. This system did not involve any government expenditure – it was a simple fiscal system to collect money for the government.

During the British period two officers used to be appointed by the government to the department of agriculture to look after land taxes and agriculture. One was a civilian who supervised official tax duties. He was a secretary and his office was known as the secretariat. The other was a technical person proficient in agriculture. He was a director and his office was known as the directorate. The secretary was a member of the Indian Civil Service.

Within the revenue department there was a revenue board chaired by a member of the Indian Civil Service. This post was so important that if the viceroy was sick the chairman of the revenue board would officiate on his behalf. This shows the significance of the revenue department at that time. Today the revenue department is a burden to the government and its expenditure is more than its income.

In Czarist Russia there was also a land tax system, and the position of the tax collectors was hereditary as in India. The system in Russia was a feudal system as tax collectors also had political power. In India there was no feudal system because zamindars did not have any political power. If zamindars committed any crime they would be tried in a court of law like any ordinary person. As zamindars were not feudal chiefs and did not have political power they could not snatch the land of others.

England also had a feudal system in which dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons were the feudal chiefs. They had some political power and were represented in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Commons were elected from among the common people. Later a system was introduced in which the House of Lords could reject legislation from the House of Commons, but if the House of Commons sent the same bill to the House of Lords a second time, then the House of Lords had to pass it and the king or queen had to sign it. This is an example of how the feudal system functioned. In England it was a rule that only the eldest son of a lord would be appointed to the House of Lords, provided he did not marry a divorcee, but in France all the sons of an aristocrat became lords. As there were numerous lords they lost their importance.

The zamindary system had some benefits. Good zamindars used to look after poor people, and if they could not pay their taxes the zamindars would pay them. Many zamindars had their own forest land, known as private forests, while government forests were known as reserve forests. Private forests were usually well looked after by the zamindars, thus ecological balance was maintained. There were few floods and landslides, little soil erosion and the land retained its fertility. Rivers rarely dried up in the summer. After the zamindary system was abolished many private forests were cut down, destroying the ecological balance.

However, the zamindary system also had some drawbacks. Peasants had no rights to the land – they were simply tillers. Zamindars used to keep enormous areas of land as personal property. Also, there was a huge margin between the amount of revenue collected by the zamindars and that paid to the government.

Due to constant criticism the zamindary system was abolished. If something is repeated over and over again people start to think that it contains some truth, and eventually their minds will be influenced. This happened with the zamindary system. After the zamindary system was abolished the government had to pay wages to tax collectors and maintain a tax collection system, and the expenditure for this came from the revenue department. The abolition of the zamindary system did not increase the revenue of the government. If the government had restricted the capital of the capitalists and put a ceiling on bank balances and the hoarding of gold bullion instead, it would have ensured the welfare of society. Also, it should have curtailed some powers of the zamindars and safeguarded the interests of the peasants. Rather than do this the common people were taught through constant booming that the land belongs to those who plough the soil. If we follow the same logic it can be said that the head belongs to those who shave the face!