MCQ: Agrarian Structure In The Post Gupta Period - 2 - UPSC MCQ

In North India, particularly during the medieval period, land grants often included not only the rights to the land but also judicial powers. These grants empowered the recipients to administer justice, including the authority to punish thieves and other criminals. This was part of the larger system of governance where landowners were given administrative autonomy to manage their territories, as seen in regions under Gupta and post-Gupta rule​.
These grants were important in maintaining local law and order, especially in areas where central authority might not have been as strong.

The decline of royal authority from the 5th century onwards can largely be attributed to the widespread practice of land grants, particularly tax-free villages given to Brahmanas and officials. These grants often came with administrative and judicial rights, leading to a fragmentation of central authority. Over time, local power shifted into the hands of these beneficiaries, weakening the royal control over land and governance. The system of granting land to intermediaries reduced the direct influence of the king, as these grantees collected taxes and maintained law and order independently, contributing to the overall decline of centralized royal power.

Ostensibly, land grants were initially made on religious grounds. However, the underlying idea of donating land was: To extend the area of cultivation through private efforts.
By granting land, rulers encouraged private individuals to cultivate these lands, which in turn increased agricultural production. This practice helped in developing unused or underutilized lands, boosting the economy and ensuring a steady supply of food and resources.

During the early medieval period, it was common for officials and military personnel to receive land grants instead of cash salaries. This practice is well-documented through various means:

1. Decline in the financial viability of the state: The weakening of the central authority often led to the state being unable to pay in cash, leading to land grants as a form of compensation.
2. Hiuen-Tsang's account: The Chinese traveler Hiuen-Tsang (Xuanzang) specifically mentioned this practice in his observations during his travels in India, noting how officials were compensated with land grants rather than cash.
3. Land-grant inscriptions: Numerous land-grant inscriptions, carved in stone and metal, have been found from this period onwards, further testifying to the prevalence of this system.

Since all the options (A, B, and C) accurately testify to this practice, D is the correct answer.

The right of sub-infeudation granted to the recipients of land grants allowed them to create multiple layers of intermediaries, like vassals and sub-landlords. This led to a system where the produce from the land had to be shared among various levels of landholders. As a result, the peasants, who were responsible for the actual cultivation, saw a reduction in their share of the produce. They had to provide for the landholder, sub-holders, and other intermediaries, which significantly depressed their economic condition. This layered system created more pressure on peasants and reduced their security, contributing to the overall decline of their prosperity and status.

• Village councils in south India were indeed responsible for revenue collection (Statement A).
• They had control over village wastelands, including the right of sale (Statement B).
• They actively engaged in communal welfare, such as maintaining reservoirs, canals, and roads (Statement C).
• Contrary to Statement D, village councils did have judicial functions, addressing local disputes and legal matters.

In South India, during the Chola period and other medieval times, villages were classified based on their tenure. Among the different categories, villages with an inter-caste population paying taxes to the king in the form of land revenue were the most frequent. These villages were typically involved in agricultural activities, and the revenue collected from them supported the administration of the kingdom. These villages had a mixed population and were integrated into the broader economic system of the state, with taxes being paid in the form of land revenue.

While Brahmadeya and Devadana villages (categories C and D) also existed, where land was granted either to Brahmanas or temples, the majority of villages fell into the tax-paying category​.

In South India, crown lands were typically rented out to tenant-farmers. These farmers were responsible for cultivating the land and paying a portion of their produce or a fixed rent to the state or landlord. This system allowed tenant-farmers to manage agricultural activities on land that was owned by the crown, and it was a common practice during the medieval period. The arrangement helped the state generate revenue while ensuring that the land was actively farmed​.

Erapatti was a special category of land in South India, particularly during the Chola period. The revenue generated from Erapatti lands was specifically meant for feeding the poor or providing for the less fortunate in society. These lands were often set aside to support charitable activities, aligning with the values of social welfare prevalent during the time.

The transfer of royal rights over the production of salt and mining to the donees was significant because it represented more than just an economic privilege. It was, in essence, a transfer of sovereignty, as it gave the donees control over important state functions. These were not just revenue-generating industries but were crucial to the economic and administrative control of a region. By transferring these rights, the donees gained powers that were traditionally held by the state, such as the authority to collect taxes, regulate production, and control prices, thereby exercising quasi-sovereign powers​.

In South India, during certain historical periods, laborers who were provided food along with their work received one-fifth of the total produce as their share. This arrangement was part of a broader system where laborers were compensated in both kind (food) and a portion of the agricultural produce, depending on the specific agreements with landowners. This type of compensation ensured that laborers had enough sustenance while working the fields.

Bhaga was the basic tax during this period, especially in early medieval India. It was a form of agricultural tax where the king or the state collected a portion of the produce from the cultivators. This tax was typically a share of the produce, usually one-sixth or one-tenth, depending on the region and period. The Bhaga tax system was one of the key sources of revenue for the administration.

Other taxes like Bali, Hiranya, and Kara also existed, but Bhaga was the primary tax on agricultural production​.

Malla-kara and Turushka-danda were specific types of imposts or levies. Malla-kara was a tax imposed on wrestlers or men of strength (Mallas), while Turushka-danda referred to a levy imposed to deal with the threats from Turushkas or foreign marauders, often representing Turkic or Central Asian invaders. These levies were designed to raise funds for the state to tackle the danger posed by such groups and maintain defense against marauding tribes​.

During the early medieval period in South India, the land revenue typically ranged between one-sixth to one-tenth of the agricultural produce. This tax, often referred to as Bhaga, was collected by the state or the ruling authority as a share of the harvest. The exact proportion could vary based on the fertility of the land, the type of crop, and the economic conditions of the region​.

Tanjore (Thanjavur), located in Tamil Nadu, was renowned for its production of high-quality and aromatic rice varieties, making it famous for fragrant rice. The fertile lands of the Cauvery Delta around Thanjavur contributed to this reputation, as the region was known as the "Rice Bowl of Tamil Nadu" due to its abundant and high-quality rice cultivation​.

When royal troops and officials halted at a village, villagers were often required to perform several services, including:

1. Contributing provisions such as food and other necessary supplies.
2. Contributing money in some cases, to support the needs of the troops or officials.
3. Providing cattle for transport, especially for moving goods and assisting in transportation.

These obligations were part of the traditional duties imposed on villages during the medieval period to support the state and its officials while they traveled through the region​.

The terms Halavhaaka, Karsakaka, and Kinasa all refer to different categories of plough drivers or agricultural laborers. These terms were used in ancient Indian texts to describe those who were responsible for tilling the land, typically in the context of agrarian labor. Each term denoted plough drivers or those engaged in various aspects of agricultural work, such as managing the plough and preparing the fields for cultivation. Thus, all three terms are correct, and they collectively represent this category of laborers​.

The term agrarian has a broad meaning, and while it is often associated with agriculture, it also specifically refers to systems or policies related to property rights on land. In historical contexts, "agrarian" often refers to land tenure systems, land reform, and policies regarding the ownership and distribution of land. This includes who holds the right to cultivate or own land and the rights or restrictions imposed on those lands.

In essence, agrarian systems govern the use, distribution, and ownership of agricultural land, making property rights on land an integral part of its definition​

After the 5th and 6th centuries A.D., the practice of granting land to Brahmanas became widespread, particularly in developed areas. This practice significantly impacted the traditional Vaishya peasants, who had previously been key contributors to agriculture and the economy through their role as landholders and cultivators. As land was increasingly allocated to Brahmanas, the Vaishyas lost their prominence in the agricultural and economic system. This shift downgraded the importance of Vaishya peasants, reducing their influence in rural society, as Brahmanas took on more dominant roles in managing land and agriculture​.

This statement is incorrect because, while both palms were indeed cultivated, the emphasis during the period in South India was more on the commercial uses of these palms rather than merely for local consumption. Both palmyra and areca palms had economic importance beyond just local use, contributing to the production of products for wider trade, especially betel nut from areca palms. Therefore, this statement does not accurately reflect their role.