152Position of the Madad-i Ma‘ash Holders

The strength of the regional elements in relation to the imperial centre is also illustrated in the defiance of imperial regulations by the madad-i ma‘ash holders, who had been the ideologues and traditional supporters of the Mughal state and had occupied some local offices. A notable factor of the disturbances in Awadh was the conflict between the madad-i ma‘ash grantees, also known as suyurghal holders and a’immadars, on the one hand and the zamindars and the Mughal officials on the other. This accrued possibly from the position and the privileges that the madad-i ma‘ash holders had lately acquired in the province. In principle, persons belonging to four categories were eligible for the grant of the madad-i ma‘ash: (i) scholars, who were ‘seekers after truth and renounced the world’, (ii) persons who ‘eschewed the urge for greater gain and chose a life of seclusion and self-abnegation’, (iii) the destitute and the poor ‘who were incapacitated to earn their livelihood’, and (iv) ‘persons of noble lineage, who ignorantly deemed it below their dignity to take to any employment’.62

(p.113) However, the institution of madad-i ma‘ash did not represent simply an act of charity. In Awadh where the madad-i ma‘ash holders consituted a considerably strong social force, there were large number of instances of appreciable alienation of the jama in suyurghal. In 9 out of 128 mahals the proportion of the revenue claimed by the grantees crossed the limit of ten per cent. An analysis of the siyurghal statistics in the Ain shows that considerable parts of the two blocks of high siyurghal figures of modern Uttar Pradesh were concentrated in the Mughal province of Awadh.63 A number of madad-i ma‘ash holdings in land extended over more than two to three hundred bighas while the influence and power of the grantees in certain cases entirely encompassed two or three parganas.64 Our records show that those who held large madad-i ma‘ash grants acquired enough wealth and power to purchase zamindaris. This is borne out by the acquisition of a number of villages in the parganas of Haveli Bahraich and Husampur in his zamindari and milkiyat by Mir Saiyid Muhammad Arif, an eminent revenue grantee of sarkar Bahraich.65 In another case, the qazi of Mallanwan is reported to have purchased a mango orchard from the chaudhuris of the pargana.66

(p.114) Large madad-i ma‘ash holdings were not uncommon in Mughal India.67 But, with the exception of some families who combined a number of posts in the imperial service with those which were normally renumerated in revenue-grants, the acquisition of zamindaris by madad-i ma‘ash holders seems to be a lateseventeenth century development. By the beginning of the eighteenth century the process seems to have been intensified. The family of the qazi of the pargana of Bilgram in the time of Muhammad Shah, can be said to illustrate the point. The family is known to have been involved in ‘this worldliness’ to such an extent that, to quote an eighteenth-century biographer, the ‘virtues that had long distinguished them vanished owing to the wealth they obtained in the time of Bahadur Shah’.68 The temptation to get money to purchase lands encouraged

Page 13 of 37

153The Zamindars, the Madad-i Ma‘ash Holders and Mughal Administration in Awadh

c. 1707–1722

and increased corruption and malpractice in the courts of the qazis.69 Some madad-i ma‘ash holders appear to have acquired quite a strong position in the land and monetary transactions in the locality and began to act as revenuefarmers and money-lenders as well. In 1677, one Mir Saiyid Ahmad of Bahraich held a number of villages on ijara, while in another instance, the zamindars of Gondai in pargana Husampur are reported to have pawned their village to one Saiyid Habibullah. In another case, Saiyid Muhammad Panah of Bilgram combined madad-i ma‘ash with muqaddami (headmanship) of village Ikhtiarpur in 1723.70

As the absence of any other means of income was invariably the sole justification for holding grants, with the acquisition of zamindaris and ijaras and a capacity to lend money to the zamindars, the revenue grantees should have theoretically forfeited their claim to retain madad-i ma‘ash land.71 In actual practice, however, they still maintained the grants. In (p.115) 1678 the qanungo of pargana Haveli Bahraich realized the qanungoi from Mir Saiyid Ahmad and some other grantees of the pargana. However, in response to their petition an order (dastak) from the diwan of the province soon arrived, directing the qanungo to return the collected amount of the ‘illegal cess’ to the grantees.72 A document dated 1108 fasli records tappa Mubarakpur in Bahraich as the ta‘alluqa of both the madad-i ma‘ash and the milkiyat-o-zamindari of Mir Saiyid Muhammad Arif.73

The strength of the revenue grantees is further illustrated from the gradual subordination to their narrow interests of the requirements of an efficient and stable administration. Cases relating to the appointments of the local qazi and the mutawalli (trustee of madad-i ma‘ash lands) may specially be noted in this connection. The local departments of the sadr and the mutawalli looked after the revenue grants and the problems of the grantees. These departments were under the direct control of the imperial centre. In the appointments, promotions and dismissals of even the pargana mutawallis an imperial order seems to have been essential. However, in Awadh, in our period the appointment and security of the job of the mutawalli of pargana seems to have depended more on the goodwill of the a’immadars.74 This development may be noted against the background of the prime responsibility of the mutawalli to keep a watchful check on the grants and the grantees.75

It would appear that by the beginning of the eighteenth century almost all the offices related to the departments of the sadr and qazi had become hereditary. The imperial orders conferring these offices usually followed the actual acquisition of the offices. The role of such orders (p.116) was thus reduced to the status of mere confirmatory directives. In 1718, after the death of the qazi of pargana Bilgram, his son, who was barely fifteen years old was proclaimed by ‘the people of the town of Bilgram’ as the successor of the deceased. As he was considered incapable of dealing with the responsibilities of office independently, they also appointed his deputy to assist him. It was two years later in 1721, that

Page 14 of 37

154The Zamindars, the Madad-i Ma‘ash Holders and Mughal Administration in Awadh

c. 1707–1722

the imperial order was issued in favour of the son of the deceased, appointing him the qazi of the pargana.76 The Abbasi Shaikhs of Kakori in sarkar Lucknow also acquired a hereditary claim to the office of the qazi of the pargana. Muhammad Hafiz Abbasi who was a contemporary of Burhan-ul-Mulk and Safdar Jang succeeded his father as the qazi of pargana Kakori. After his death, his son, Muhammad Wa‘iz who was in close contact with Safdar Jang is reported to have taken over the office.77

The practice of hereditary succession does not seem to have remained confined only to those parganas where the office of the qazi was held by relatively powerful families. This is illustrated by an incident of the seventeenth century which also reveals the circumstances in which the practice began to evolve. One Wali Muhammad, the qazi of pargana Husampur, who had been dimissed due to his reported clash with the local zamindars, refused to give up his claim to the land revenue which he had obtained against his office.78 Hereditary control over the office brought to them (obviously at the expense of the imperial government) rich dividends both in terms of land possessions and strong social ties.

The madad-i ma‘ash grantees in Awadh thus enjoyed an unusual position which assumes greater significance in the context of their relations with the political authorities since the beginning of Mughal rule.

The madad-i ma‘ash holders occupied a distinct place in medieval Indian society. The zawabit (state laws) and secular considerations regulated the policies and the functions of the state in medieval India, (p.117) but the sharia remained the point of reference in daily civil and penal matters and the ulama almost exclusively staffed the legal departments. The ulama could not be set aside as mere parasites. It was not easy for the medieval rulers to be perpetually in conflict with this class. When Akbar issued a mahzar in an attempt to contain their influence, he still needed the support of some members of this class to make it a legitimate proclamation. It was only later that he could fully free himself from the ulama. But the strength of this class is reflected in Jahangir’s rationalization of madad-i ma‘ash in terms of a return for the services (prayers) rendered by its holder.

However, the size of the madad-i ma‘ash grants or the revenues alienated for them was not very significant, ranging between 1.8 and 5.4 per cent of the total revenues. The holding of the grant was characterized as ariyat (held on loan from the state), and was required to be renewed and reconfirmed periodically.79 In Babur’s time, at least, the grantee was also required to pay one-tenth of the realization (ushr) from his madad-i ma‘ash to the state. According to the sharia the king could impose ushr on the lands in milkiyat (proprietary possession) of the Muslims. But the levying of ushr on madad-i ma‘ash in Babur’s time did not imply change from ariyat to milkiyat in the character of the grant. The madad-i ma‘ash holder resented the characterization of his holding as ariyat. Shaikh Abd-

Page 15 of 37

155The Zamindars, the Madad-i Ma‘ash Holders and Mughal Administration in Awadh

c. 1707–1722

ul-Quddus Gangohi, a contemporary of Babur, advocated the discontinuation of the ushr on the produce of, ‘at least, the self cultivated (khudkasht) lands’ of the grantees, but there is no evidence to suggest that he made a plea to convert the grant into milkiyat. However, in the late-sixteenth century, his disciple, Jalal-ud- Din Thanesari pleaded a case for all the land grants held by the Muslims to be treated as their milk. Thanesari did not object to the grantee’s being asked to pay ushr according to the sharia, provided the land held by him was converted from ariyat into milkiyat.80

(p.118) The plea was in sharp contravention of the principles governing the nature of the grant. The madad-i ma‘ash was a part of the revenues alienated by the emperor or a noble from his jagir for the maintenance of its grantee. It simply conferred on the recipient a right to collect the revenue and keep it, and like the emperor’s and the noble’s rights over the surplus produce of the peasants, it did not interfere with the latter’s occupancy and proprietary rights over land. The plea thus passed unnoticed. But the ulama as representatives of the madad-i ma‘ash holders grew in strength in the seventeenth century. It would perhaps be unfair to say that a section of them under the leadership of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, the noted Naqshbandi saint, influenced the course of state politics.81 However, it is significant that since Jahangir’s time some of them (mir adls and qazis) were exempted from prostrating/bowing before the emperor seated on the throne (sajda-i tazimi). It may also be noted that Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi had claimed a status spiritually on a par with the First Caliph of Islam. The Shaikh’s ‘preposterous’ claim had agitated the Sunni orthodoxy who brought it to the notice of Jahangir. The Shaikh’s imprisonment showed their strength and appeased the Muslim traditionalists who had resented the Shaikh’s claim in no uncertain terms.82 It may also be noted that the Mughal endeavour to reform the suyurghal administration in the seventeenth century was never carried out. Shahjahan is reported to have ordered an investigation into the affairs of the madad-i ma‘ash holders. But he could not carry it through and had to replace the order by a new one in (p.119) 1644 to the obvious benefit of the grantees.83 Aurangzeb’s concessions to the orthodox elements, the conditions attending the reimposition of jiziya in 167984 and the royal order of 1690 which made the madad-i ma‘ash completely hereditary,85 all showed the increasing pressure on the state by the ulama, representing the cause of the a’imma holders. The a’imma holders’ plea found a most arrogant expression in the view of Qazi Muhammad ‘Ala, an eighteenth-century jurist, who propounded the theoretical proposition for the earmarking of all land in India for the maintenance of the a’imma.86 This vulgar plea, probably a logical extension of Aurangzeb’s compromise with orthodoxy, was obviously impracticable.

The privileges of the madad-i ma‘ash holders in the late-seventeenth and the early-eighteenth centuries can be seen also in the perspective of the zamindar uprisings. The Mughals allowed the madad-i ma‘ash holders to strengthen their position and even overlooked the cases of violation of existing norms with a view

Page 16 of 37

156The Zamindars, the Madad-i Ma‘ash Holders and Mughal Administration in Awadh

c. 1707–1722

to arresting the growth and expansion of the rural disturbances.87 The grantees exploited it to full advantage. They increased their fortunes by purchasing zamindaris and accumulating enough wealth and influence for money-lending and ijara. At the same time they managed to retain their earlier facilities and revenue-free possessions. This obviously violated the established rule and did (p.120) not accord with their theoretical position. Hence, the local officials’ attempt to impose regular cesses on certain madad-i ma‘ash holdings in Bahraich. These efforts have a bearing on their resentment over the revenue grantees’ recently acquired position. It is interesting to note that the orders (parwanas) of the diwan of Awadh which reprimanded the qanungo and the jagirdar of Husampur for levying cesses from the grantees show no concern for the difficulties of the local officials. This suggests a basic difference between the approach of those who were actually involved in local problems and of those who ruled the country from a safe distance.