Page 119

Chapter VII – The Revenue

It may well be asked what resources the Emperor possessed to defray the cost of his splendid Court, to provide the immense sums required for the salaries of the nobles and mansabdars, and to maintain the vast standing army and multitudinous civil staff of the Empire. The revenue of the Mughal Emperors has recently been the subject of controversy, and I may be pardoned if I am therefore obliged to enter into somewhat minute details. A good many returns of the actual sums annually paid by each province to the imperial exchequer have been pre-served, both by Native and European contemporaries, and of the consistency and rough accuracy of these returns there can be no doubt whatever. The controversy which has been raised does not impugn their credibility, but merely relates to two points: first, the conversion of the Indian revenue into English money of the time; and secondly, the question whether these returns include the gross revenue from all sources, or merely the income from the land-tax.

Page 120

The former difficulty is easily disposed of. The average value of the rupee at the period, covered by the returns, from 1594 to 1707 was 2s. 3d. in English money of the time. The value of the rupee varied a little with the condition of the coin. If much worn it fell to perhaps 2s.; if quite new and of full weight it may have been worth as much as 2s. 6d.; but that 2s. 3d. was the ordinary rate of exchange is abundantly clear from numerous records43. Mr. H. G. Keene, the able historian of Hindustan, has fallen into the error of estimating the rupee as low as 1s. 3d., from a mistaken valuation of the French livre, which he would make equivalent to 10d. Apart from the fact that we have Bailly’s authority for estimating the livre of the period at 1s. 6d., it is inconceivable that English travellers should have exchanged their money at the rate of 2s. 3d. for the rupee, whilst French travellers of the same period should have obtained the rupee for 1s. 3d. We may be perfectly certain

Page 121

that when Dr. Fryer and the Rev. John Ovington changed their money in 1673 and 1689, they got as good value for it as Bernier in 1666, or Manucci in 1697. So great a discrepancy as is involved in Mr. Keene’s estimate of the French livre is clearly inadmissible.

The fiscal unit of the Native returns is the dam, and forty dams went to the rupee: of this there is no dispute. The European returns are given in rupees, which may be taken, as I have said, on the average at 2s. 3d., or in livres of about the value of 1s. 6d. Reducing dams to rupees, and rupees and livres to pounds, in accordance with these values, we obtain the following returns of the annual revenue for different years44, expressed in round figures:–

£
Akbar 1594 18,640,000 (Abu-l-Fazl)
1605 19,630,000 (De Laet)
Jahangir 1627 19,680,000 (Badshah-nama)
Shah-Jahan 1628 18,750,000 (Muh. Sharif)
1648 24,750,000 (Badshah-nama)
1655 30,080,000 (Official returns)
Aurangzib 1660 circ. 25,410,000 (Bernier)
1666 26,700,000 (Thevenot)
1667 circ. 30,850,000 (Bakhtawar)
later 40,100,000 (Official returns)
1697 43,550,000 (Manucci)
1707 33,950,000 (Ramusio)

The preceding figures show a reasonable and

Page 122

consistent progress in the prosperity of the Empire. The increase in .1655 is explained by the addition of the tribute from the Deccan kingdoms. The decrease in revenue about 1660 and in 1707 is satisfactorily explained by the civil war and ensuing famine which accompanied Aurangzib’s accession in. 1658, and the protracted campaigns and losses in the Deccan which preceded his death in 1707. The figures here given45 are in excess of those stated by the late distinguished numismatist, Mr. Edward Thomas, in proportion as the rupee is here valued at 28. 3d., instead of at his admittedly conventional estimate of 2s.

We may take it, therefore, that the revenue returns of the Mughal Emperors show a steady increase from about £19,000,000 towards the end of Akbar’s reign, to over £40,000,000 when Aurangzib was at the height of his power. The second disputed question here arises: Do these returns include every regular source. of income, or do they merely relate to the revenue from land? The answer must be unhesitating: they represent only the land revenue, including, how-ever, the tribute which took the place of the land-tax in those half-subdued States where the imperial collector did not penetrate. Bernier and Manucci distinctly state that the returns they quote relate only to the revenue from land, and, though the Native historians do not qualify their returns by any such

Page 123

statement, it is obvious that, writing for Natives only, they would pre-suppose that the system of the imperial accounts was familiar to their readers. It is evident that, since Bernier’s £25,410,000 about 1660 refers only to the land-revenue, the £24,750,000 mentioned in the Badshah-nama of Abd-al-Hamid Lahori in 1648 must be limited to the same class of revenue; and by the same reasoning the 240,000,000 of the official records (dastur-i-amal) of about the middle of Aurangzib’s reign cannot include a wider basis of revenue than Manucci’s £43,550,000 of 1697. The whole series of returns is consistent, and the fact that two of them are distinctly restricted to the land-tax limits the whole series to the same source of revenue.

The Mughal Emperors, therefore, drew from land alone a revenue rising from about 19 millions in 1600 to 43 millions in 1700. The Emperor was titular lord of the soil, but in practice he restricted his interest to levying a tax of about one-third the gross produce. Akbar established an admirable agricultural department, and laid down rules for periodical valuations of the land, and for the allowance to be made for impoverishment, bad seasons, and the like. These rules prevailed in the reign of Aurangzib, and though they may have been largely evaded by corrupt officials in remote districts, there is no doubt that the system was equitable in theory, and was strictly enforced wherever the Emperor’s influence and inspection reached. In the present day the revenue from the land is about

Page 124

24 millions; but the British government is contented with less than 1/10th of the gross produce, instead of 1/3rd. Were the Mughal third exacted, the present land tax of British India (which is of course a much larger area than Mughal India) would probably amount to 80 millions.

Some idea may be formed of the surplus of the land revenue over the expenses of administration, from a statement in the Mir-at-i Alam, ascribed to Bakhtawar Khan or Muhammad Baka. This history fixes the revenue at 9,24,17,16,082 dams (about £30,850,000), and adds ‘out of which the Khalisa, or sum paid to the Royal Treasury, is 1,72,79,81,251 dams, and the assignments of the jagirdars [or grantees of the lands], or the balance, is 7,51,77,34,731 dams.’ There is a slight error in the arithmetic, but the important deduction may be drawn that, after paying the cost of administration, including the high salaries of the mansabdars, to whom the estates were assigned as jagirs, about a sixth to a fifth of the total land revenue accrued as surplus to the imperial exchequer.

To arrive at any definite estimate of the gross revenue is impossible, owing to the fluctuating character of the taxation apart from the rent drawn from land. The Mughal Emperors were constantly remitting taxes, but it is not clear how far these remissions were temporary, or whether their place was taken by other imposts. A list of thirty-eight taxes remitted or reduced by Akbar is given in

Page 125

the Ain-i Akbari, some of which were certainly restored or increased by the time of Aurangzib’s accession. That Emperor himself began his reign by remitting nearly eighty taxes, to relieve the poverty produced by the civil war and the famine that followed it. These taxes are vaguely stated by Khali Khan to have brought in crores of rupees to the public treasury46.’ But it is added that the local officials paid little heed to the imperial edict of remission. Later in the reign, all import duties on the goods of Muhammadan traders were abolished; but this was modified in so far that the 5 p. c. duty on Hindu goods was reduced to 2½ p. c. on those of Muhammadans. It is evident that the numerous tolls, taxes, and cesses outside the land-tax were variable sources of revenue, and no returns of their totals seem to have been preserved. Again, one would expect a considerable rise in the revenue after the re-imposition of the jizya or poll-tax in or about 1675; for it is recorded that the city of Burhanpur alone paid 26,000 rupees on account of this tax, and the total for all Hindustan must have been enormous, if the tax was ever strictly enforced, which is doubtful. Of the sum derived from this and all other taxes, except the land-tax, the native historians give no definite account. Nor are we able to form any estimate of the amount received from the Emperor’s title to the effects of the mansabdars from confiscations, or from that perennial source of wealth, the constant and

Page 126

costly presents of money and jewels which it was the custom of every noble, every official, every suitor, and every traveller, to offer to the Great Mogul. Tavernier’s present to Aurangzib on one single occasion amounted in value to 12,119 livres, or over £900, and this was a trifle compared with the vast sums presented by the nobles to his Majesty on his birthday and other occasions.

But if detailed returns of these numerous sources of income are wanting, we have three separate statements by Europeans which may guide us to a rough estimate of the gross revenue. Their consistency adds to their probability; but they are only vague guesses at the best. The first is the statement by William Hawkins, who lived on intimate terms with Jahangir from 1609 to 1611, that the Emperor’s revenue was fifty crores of rupees (£56,000,000). It is true he damages his evidence by saying that this was the King’s yearly income of his crown land,’ which is manifestly absurd in the face of other returns already quoted: but if the 50,00,00,000 rupees be taken to mean the gross revenue from all sources, or more than double the revenue from land, it is not perhaps much exaggerated. The second statement is that of Catrou or his authority Manucci (the two are unfortunately inseparable), who, referring to 1697, says that the recorded revenue of 43½ millions is derived solely from the fruits of the earth, and that the ‘casuel’ or extraordinary and fluctuating revenue, égale, à peu près, ou surpasse même les immenses

Page 127

richesses qui l’Empereur percoit des seuls fonds de terre de son Domaine47.’ This ‘casuel’ consisted of the jizya, or poll-tax on Hindus, the transport customs and port dues, the tax on the ‘blanchissage de cette multitude infinie de toiles qu’on travaille aux Indes,’ the royalty on diamond mines, the royal right of inheritance of all official estates, and the tribute of various Rajas. Catrou is not able to give details of these receipts, save in one instance. He mentions that the port dues of Surat amounted to thirty lacs, and the tax on the mint-profits of the same city to eleven lacs of rupees. In other words Surat contributed something like half-a-million sterling in addition to the land tax. At this rate it is not difficult to believe that the ‘casuel’ revenue amounted to as large an income as that derived from the land. The third statement is that of Dr. Gemelli Careri, who visited Aurangzib in the Deccan in 1695, and ‘was told’ that the Emperor’s revenue ‘from only his hereditary countries’ was eighty crores of rupees (or ninety millions of pounds). Now we have already seen that in 1697 the land revenue amounted to 43½ millions. Careri’s estimate of the gross revenue is therefore equivalent to rather more than double the land tax, which accords very accurately with Catrou’s statement that the ‘casuel’ was as much as, or more than, the land revenue, and with Hawkins’ rough record of Jahangir’s income of fifty crores or more than double the land tax of his

Page 128

time. Careri’s qualification that this revenue of eighty crores was derived only from Aurangzib’s ‘hereditary countries’ does not in any way confuse the result, for it is unlikely that he drew much from the Deccan during the stormy period of conquest and devastation, and extremely improbable that he drew even as much as the ten crores which formed the tribute from Bijapur and Golkonda in Catrou’s total of 43½ millions of revenue. From the three statements48 of Hawkins, Catrou, and Careri, we may conclude that the gross revenue from all sources was equal to at least double the land revenue of the Great Mogul, and to obtain the total income we must double the sums given in the returns quoted above. In other words the gross revenue of the Mughal Empire may be taken at fully £36,000,000 in 1594, and gradually rose to £90,000,000 in 1695.

Page 129

‘Doubtless,’ remarks Catrou, such prodigious wealth is amazing; but it must be remembered that all these riches only enter the Mughal treasury to go out again, at least in part, every year, and flow again over the land. Half the empire subsists on the bounty of the Emperor or at least is in his keep. Besides the multitude of officers and soldiers who live by their pay, all the rural peasantry, who toil only for the sovereign, are supported at his cost, and almost all the artisans of the towns, who are made to work for the Mughal, are paid out of the royal exchequer.’

When it is remembered that one Mughal Amir, and that an honest one, is recorded to have saved ‘nearly 5000 crowns a month,’ or more than £13,000 a year, out of his allowance as ‘Amir of 5000,’ it will be readily understood how enormous were the outgoings of the treasury for the support of the life-peers alone. In spite of his immense revenue, the expenditure of a Mughal Emperor was so prodigious that he was able to save little. Notwithstanding all his hoardings, and his long reign of peace, Shah-Jahan ‘never amassed six crores of rupees,’ apart from jewels and ornaments, whilst Aurangzib left only thirteen lacs, or less than £150,000 in the treasury when he died, and was frequently hard pressed to find the money for the pay of his army.

Footnotes

43. The following are some of the chief estimates 1615, Sir Thomas Roe, 2s. 2d.; Terry, 2s. to 2s. 9d.; 1638, Mandelslo, ½ ecu; 1640-67, Tavernier, ½ ecu or 1½ livre or 30 sols, which the English translator of 1684 renders by 2s. 3d.; 1659-66, Bernier, 30 sols; 1666, Thevenot, 30 sols; 1673, Fryer, 2s. 3d.; 1689, Ovington, 2s. 3d.; 1697, Manucci, 30 sols. The ecu was 3 livres, and the livre contained 20 sols. The livre tournois of 1643–61 (i. e. the livre of account as known to Bernier, Tavernier, and Thevenot) was worth 1.95 francs, and that of 1684–1715 (i. e. that of Manucci) a trifle less (1.80), according to Bailly’s Hist. financière de la France, vol. ii. p. 298. The livre was thus equal to about 1s. 6d. This agrees with Sir Isaac Newton’s estimate of the ecu at 4s. 6d. in 1717. See also J. A. Blanchet, Nouveau Manuel de Numismatique (1890), vol. i. p. 26. The rupee, estimated at ½ ecu or 1½ livre or 30 sols by Mandelslo, Tavernier, Bernier, Thevenot, and Manucci, was therefore equal to 2s. 3d. English.

44. The authorities from which the returns are derived will be found fully described in the late Mr. Edward Thomas’s penetrating essay The Revenue Resources of the Mughal Empire in India (1871), with the exception of those for 1628, and circa 1667, which I have taken from the Majalis as-Salatin of Muhammad Sharif Hanafi, and from Bakhtawar Khan, respectively.

45. I have neglected certain variations in the returns caused by the subtraction of the tax-gatherer’s percentage, which amounted to 4 per cent. in Aurangzib’s time, but was higher under Akbar.

46. Muntakhab-al-lubab, in Elliot and Dowson, vol. vii. p. 247.

47. Catrou, Histoire générale de l’Empire du Mogol, (1715), p. 267.

48. I have not mentioned Thomas’s theory that the gross income of Akbar in 1593 was (at 2s. 3d. the rupee) £36,000,000, because it is based on the assumption that the 640,00,00,000 muradi tankas of Ahmad’s return for that year (which I have purposely omitted in the list given above) were equivalent to double dams. The terms dam and tanka are interchangeable, as is proved by the inscriptions on the coins themselves, and though there were undoubtedly double dams, as well as double tankas, there is really no valid ground for assuming in this single instance a different fiscal unit from that employed in all the other returns. Thomas’s doubling of the 640 crores 1593 is, moreover, rendered still more improbable by the fact that 662 crores form the total for 1594 – a perfectly possible increase. I therefore take Nizam-ad-din’s return to represent £18 000,000. Whilst disbelieving in the muradi tanka theory, however, as a ground for the higher estimate, I do not doubt that the gross revenue of Akbar 1593 may have been quite thirty-six millions.

This collection transcribed by Chris Gage
hosted by ibiblio Support Wikipedia