Hasil

Topic: Mughal Agrarian Society and Economy · NCERT: Class 12, Ch 4 "Peasants, Zamindars and the State"

Meaning

Hasil was the amount of land revenue the Mughal state actually collected from the peasants. It is different from the jama, which was the amount assessed (fixed on paper). The two figures often did not match, because local conditions limited how much of its claim the state could really take. The gap between jama and hasil shows how strong Mughal power was on the ground, not only on paper.

Explanation

Background: why the state cared about what it collected

• Land revenue was the economic mainstay of the Mughal Empire. The state paid for its army, nobles and court mostly from what it took from farming.
• The system was run from the daftar (office) of the diwan (the finance minister).
• Because so much money passed through them, revenue officials became decisive agents in agrarian relations. They shaped how peasants, zamindars and the state dealt with each other.
• So the state needed two numbers:
• what it should get (jama)
• what it did get (hasil)

How hasil fitted into the two-step procedure

• Step 1: gather information. Officials collected details of the land and of what it produced.
• Step 2: assess, then collect.
• Assessment produced the jama, the revenue fixed on paper.

• Collection produced the hasil, the revenue that really came in.

• The officials who worked on the collection side:

• amil-guzar: the revenue collector. Akbar's decree told him to prefer cash but to let the peasant pay in kind (in grain) if the peasant chose.
• amin: made sure imperial rules were actually followed in the provinces.

Why hasil was often lower than jama

• The state set a high claim on paper.
• The royal dues were fixed at one-third of the medium (average) produce.
• Land was sorted into classes (polaj, parauti, chachar, banjar) and measured province by province.

• Aurangzeb's order of 1665 asked for cultivation records village by village and peasant-wise (asamiwar).

• Local conditions cut into this claim.

• Different areas used different ways of assessing revenue. zabt (a fixed cash rate per unit of land) needed careful measurement. It worked in north India but was not workable in provinces such as Gujarat and Bengal [3].
• Elsewhere, crop-sharing methods such as kankut (estimating the grain yield) and batai (dividing the harvest in front of everyone) were used. With these, the amount depended on the actual crop.
• Forests were left unmeasured, so part of the countryside stayed outside the state's survey.
• Recurrent famines reduced what peasants could pay.

• Local intermediaries, such as zamindars, stood between the state and the peasant.

• Result: the state maximised its claim on paper, but local conditions limited what it could actually realise. The hasil was the figure that showed this limit.

What the gap tells us

• A small gap meant the state was firmly in control of that area.
• A large gap meant the state had to bargain with local conditions and local power-holders.
• So historians read jama and hasil together as a measure of the state's reach, not just its demand.

Time, place and evidence

• Period: Mughal Empire, 16th–17th centuries, especially under Akbar and later Aurangzeb.
• Region: across Akbar's twelve subahs (provinces). The cash-based zabt system was strongest in north India, and weak in Gujarat and Bengal [3].
• Key people:
• Akbar: issued the decree to the amil-guzar to prefer cash collection.
• Todar Mal: finance minister. He surveyed crop yields, prices and area cultivated over ten years, which formed the basis of zabt [3].

• Aurangzeb: ordered village-wise, peasant-wise (asamiwar) records in 1665, balancing kifayat (sound state finance) with the welfare of the peasant.

• Evidence:

• The Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl is the third volume of the Akbarnama. It records the methods of land survey and the duties of Todar Mal [2][4]. It also gives the totals of measured land for each province.
• Revenue records of the diwan's daftar and imperial orders such as Aurangzeb's 1665 order.

Don't confuse with

• Jama: revenue assessed (fixed on paper). Hasil is revenue actually collected. Exam questions often swap the two.
• Zabt: a method of assessment (a fixed cash rate based on Todar Mal's ten-year survey) [3]. Hasil is not a method. It is the result of collection.
• Kifayat: the state's goal of good finance in Aurangzeb's 1665 order. It is a principle, not an amount of revenue.
• Jagir: an assignment of revenue given to a mansabdar in place of a salary. The hasil from a jagir went to the jagirdar, but a jagir is a revenue assignment, not the amount collected.

Prelims Hooks

• jama = revenue assessed; hasil = revenue collected. Do not swap them.
• amil-guzar = revenue collector, told by Akbar to prefer cash but allow payment in kind.
• amin = officer who made sure imperial rules were carried out in the provinces.
• Royal dues under Akbar = one-third of the medium produce.
• zabt was based on Todar Mal's ten-year survey of yields, prices and area, and was not workable in Gujarat and Bengal [3].
• Aurangzeb's 1665 order = cultivation records village by village, peasant-wise (asamiwar).

Mains Points

• The jama–hasil gap is the main evidence on the limits of Mughal state power.
• On paper, the state made a large claim: one-third of medium produce, province-wise measurement, asamiwar records (1665).
• In practice, it collected only what local conditions, local intermediaries and the harvest allowed.

• Use this to argue that Mughal centralisation was strong on paper but negotiated on the ground.

• Administrative capacity shaped what the state could collect.

• Where land could be measured and accounts kept (north India), zabt worked and collection was closer to assessment.
• Where it could not (Gujarat, Bengal), the state fell back on crop-sharing methods [3], and the gap between claim and collection grew.

• The empire was uniform in its rules but uneven in practice.

• The pressure to collect fell on the peasant.

• Akbar's push for cash payment made peasants sell grain in the market to pay revenue, which linked villages to markets.
• Rates that went from one-fifth up to one-half of produce under some earlier sultans, along with recurrent famines, show that the burden of collection, from iqta to jagir, always fell hardest on the peasantry.

Related concepts

• Mughal land revenue system
• Jama
• Amalguzar
• Kankut
• Batai
• Khet-batai
• Lang batai
• Classification of lands under Akbar
• Polaj
• Parauti

Read more

• The land revenue system