There are certain terms which must be made use of in this discussion, of which I had better at once interpolate an explanation; and this of itself will, perhaps, not be quite devoid of interest to anyone who cares to know about Indian economic conditions generally. One of them, the term Village, we have already more than once employed; and in speaking of village institutions it is hardly possible to avoid, allusion to tribes or clans and their customs, for into such groups the Indian people once always were – and still are, in many cases – divided. Then, too, we shall often have occasion to allude to the Revenue Settlement and the Settlement Report. These three subjects may be shortly explained, by way of introduction to what follows, and this plan will avoid subsequently interrupting the course of argument by explanations.
(1) First as to a village; the term does not refer merely to a street or group of buildings – as in England
of to-day; it includes both the cluster of houses and the surrounding lands cultivated. Such a group has always a local name and known limits. It is a fact that the level plains of India6 were originally brought under cultivation in groups of holdings, each group ultimately, but not always at first, having defined boundaries, and covering from a few hundred to two or three thousand acres. It depends on the density of the agricultural population whether these groups are actually contiguous and cover the whole district like the squares of a chess-board, or whether they are more dispersed – stretches of barren waste, or jungle land dividing one from the other.
So much for the village area. But in all cases alike, the body of persons residing on, owning, or cultivating the land thus separately circumscribed, must necessarily tend to form, in some sense, a “community” more or less self-contained. In the first place the inhabitants reside together, very often in one central group of houses or cottages, built on an elevation at some convenient point within the village area7. Such a village dwelling-site is often surrounded
by mud walls, having gateways which lead into narrow and tortuous lanes. Outside is an open space, on which all the village cattle assemble in the evening, and where the village weavers stretch the webs for the cloth they are going to weave for local use. There is often a common “tank,” or a pond, or a public well, for the general use; also the village temple, shrine, or mosque, as the case may be. Usually there is a small grove, or at least a spreading tree with a raised platform round it, which forms the common meeting place. Beside the dwellings of the principal landholders are also the cottages of dependents and subordinate tenants, as well as of the farm labourers, village servants, and artificers8.
The term “village servants” needs a word of elucidation. Every village is obliged to provide for itself the means of supplying the simple wants of life. The people could not go to a perhaps far
distant town to buy shoes or find a carpenter; and hence they attract to themselves, and provide for, a little group (varying in different parts) of resident artificers and servants – a potter, a blacksmith, a cobbler, carpenter, washerman, sweeper, cattle-keeper, men to keep watch and ward, a barber to shave them (who also practises a rude kind of surgery and carries messages connected with betrothals), and so on. These servants live permanently in the village, and become hereditary; they are not paid by the job9 but work for every village resident for a fixed annual (or harvest) allowance of grain, cash, and perquisites.. In some parts they have small holdings of rent-free land, which (like the duty itself) are hereditary10. So are the village officers, of whom I must next speak.
Provision has to be made for managing village affairs and local governance. And here it is that one of the fixed marks of distinction between two great classes of village, which will henceforth need to be distinguished, comes into view. In one class an important hereditary Headman (called patel and by
other names11) is an essential part of the constitution. He occupies a central building (in some places called the garhi, i.e., fort); he has privileges of dignity and precedence on ceremonial occasions, and frequently a valuable holding of land (watan) which is his in virtue of hereditary office12. Such an officer is often assisted by executive deputies. In former days, the villages relied greatly on the protection given by this official: his moral influence, and even his material power (for he often had a considerable following), helped to keep oppression at bay. Certain it is that some vestige of old clannish loyalty13 must
be invoked to explain the attachment of the people to the old patelgi family. If a ruler wished to restore cultivation in an abandoned village, he would hardly succeed without taking pains to trace out a genuine representative of the old patel’s family to head the returning party. If another headman had to be appointed, it was always understood that he would vacate the post directly a real descendant made his appearance.
But in another form of village, where the landowning body is composed of a dominant class, holding the whole jointly or in shares, no such headman is found14. Village affairs are, or formerly were, controlled by a council of elders or heads of the co-sharing householders – all being equal in rank – not official chiefs15. The co-sharing families are in
fact too jealous of their equal position to allow any one man to take the lead as the patel of a Central Indian or Dakhan village did. But in both forms of village an “accountant and registrar” (patwari, kulkarni, or karnam, etc., in the south) early became a necessity; because very probably hardly any other person could write or cast accounts. Such an official has, in the north, only a limited claim that his son should succeed him; and he may now (in some places) be transferred from one charge to another like an ordinary public officer16. But in the south the karnam is always hereditary, and is (or ought to be) reckoned as strictly belonging to his own village. There are also rural police or guardians
of the village and its lands and boundaries, sometimes “trackers” to follow stolen cattle, and messengers who act under orders of the headman or other governing authority, as the case may be17.
I have hitherto only incidentally said anything about the nature of the connection which the personnel of the “village” – at least, the cultivating or landowning class – has with the soil. To do that more expressly, I again am obliged to distinguish between the two classes of village already intimated. Before I do so, let me emphasise the fact that every village (whatever its difference as regards the interest in the soil) is a more or less isolated group with its own officers, menials, etc., so that there must arise certain common interests; and the group is sure to develop a certain sense of solidarity, quite apart from any question of communal or collective ownership. The grouping of holdings in a more or less compact village form was a necessity of (permanent) agricultural establishment, under the early conditions of Indian life, both physical and social. Their comparative isolation resulted from similar causes. Where the population is sparse, it may be that the residents of a village rarely leave its neighbourhood; their own “community” is almost the only society known to them; the world beyond is strange. Often the land-owning
class of one village is (at the present day) of a different tribe or caste to that of the next; and there may be no friendly feeling, if not a positive feud, between them. Everything tended to make each village self-contained, and to originate institutions that kept its caste, or family, or tribal connection (where such already existed) in remembrance. So far, and so far only, is there any unity of type which extends to all provinces alike.
But to return to the rights in the soil. Here we have two conditions marking two distinct classes or kinds of village. In one – which also is distinguished by the hereditary headman – there is no ownership of the whole village by a single proprietor, nor joint-ownership of it by a body of co-sharers, but the whole area is divided into a number of separate and independent holdings. Each separate holding may now have several sharers in it, because the families have long become “Hindus,” and follow the joint-family custom; but the holdings themselves are separate and always were so, as far as any evidence goes. Indeed, by comparison with certain ancient but still surviving local customs, we are able (at least with probability) to account for this form of village, on its own basis of separately allotted holdings, as perhaps the earliest organised (though not the earliest rudimentary) form of permanent agricultural village in India.
In the other class of village we find the whole area
claimed (in shares) by a dominant class, who, in some cases, cultivate their own holdings (e.g., the Jat villages of the Panjab), but frequently have a body of tenants under them. Such tenants may be either the remnants and representatives of an original cultivating body dominated (under a variety of circumstances) by the present co-sharers, or may be dependents and settlers located by them. This class of village exhibits several varieties; and the principle of sharing is different in each variety.
Most commonly the proprietors hold their shares of the cultivated land separately; either a partition has taken place, or else the village may be in such a form that the shares or lots were always separate, and were so arranged from the first foundation. In the latter case, “the co-proprietorship” refers to the village site, or to any waste area which is still joint property. Indeed, in many cases the “joint ownership” chiefly survives in the joint responsibility for the revenue, which the whole body accepts, and in some other customs maintaining union. But in one class of these villages it may be that the entire area is held undivided. More commonly the cultivated land is divided, and the waste left in common. Where the village is still held undivided, it may be not only formally unpartitioned, but actually managed as a joint estate. These cases, however, are exceptional. The causes of such a state of things
will be noticed hereafter, and I shall also explain in due course the different basis on which the shares of the members of the co-proprietary “brotherhood” are arranged in the different varieties of joint village. But I may take this opportunity of remarking that a not inconsiderable number of villages have become included in the class of joint or co-shared villages purely by reason of the application to them of the N.W. Provinces Revenue system (and its official forms and records).
One other point requires mention – regarding the waste land or grazing and woodland attached to (or adjacent to) a village. In villages in which there is no co-sharing body, the landholder’s right is to his occupied holding only; there is no area of waste (for grazing or for future division and cultivation) made over as the joint property of the landholders. When an area of grazing land is available in the vicinity, the settlement officer will mark it off for the use of the villagers, but (like other unoccupied land) it remains the property of the State; and where part of such land is also available gradually to be brought under the plough, any resident in the village can apply to the local officer for a plot or “number,” and get it on terms of engaging to pay the revenue assessed thereon. When we come (in the sequel) to inquire into the origin of this form of village, we shall consider the question whether, at an earlier time, a definite area of adjacent waste was ever considered
to belong to the group which constituted the village.
But in the second great class of villages, the body, family, or group constituting the “community” of proprietors has always been acknowledged to have a uniform right over the whole area included in the village, whether cultivated or not. If the “waste” is permanently left as grazing ground, the joint right to it as such is undoubted; if it is such as will eventually be partitioned and brought under the plough, the owners of the village will usually share it in the same proportion, and on the same rule of sharing as applies to the cultivated area. In a joint village, in fact, the revenue survey always includes an area of waste (where there is any available) as part of the property of the joint body, and it is theirs to do what they like with; they may retain it as grazing ground, or divide it, clear the wood, and bring it under cultivation as they think fit.
In order briefly to distinguish the class of village in which there is no joint ownership from that in which there is something of the kind, I must use the rather uncouth terms severalty village18 and
joint village. I should like to call the latter “manorial villages” – the village become subject to some kind of “overlordship19,” as it so often is; but the term would only accurately fit one class of cases, and, moreover, would sound too strange, at any rate in the present stage of the discussion.
It may be convenient to summarise the salient features of difference between the two kinds of village in a short table:–
I. Severalty (or Raiyatwari) village | II. Joint village |
1. Influential headman (often still possessing certain privileges) is part of the natural constitution. | 1. No headman originally, but a panchayat. In modern times an official headman, appointed to represent the community. |
2. Holdings entirely separate, and not shares of a unit estate. | 2. The holdings (sometimes joint) are shares of a unit estate. |
3. No joint liability for revenue: each holding separately assessed on its merits. | 3. Liability (joint and several) always, for the revenue assessed in a lump sum. |
4. No jointly owned area of waste or “common” land belongs to the village, or is available for partition. | 4. The village site, and usually an area of waste, owned in common, and is available for partition. |
The severalty village, with its hereditary headman, is the prevalent form over the whole of Bengal (excluding
Bihar), over Central India, and the West and South20; while there is reason to believe it was once
prevalent in such parts of Northern India as were earliest cultivated, until the conquering tribes and landlord families changed the constitution, and the joint form grew up. However that may be, it is a plain matter of fact that the joint village is confined, i.e., as the prevalent type, to the north of India – from the Indus as far east as Bihar, though it is (or was once) found locally, and under special circumstances, elsewhere. In this preliminary account of what is meant by “village,” and dealing only with matters of fact and observation, I will not include anything as to the causes of the difference between the tenure of Northern India and that of the peninsula.
(2) There is one other matter connected with Indian villages, and the Indian population generally, which gives rise sometimes to no little misapprehension. In Europe, at the present day, we live out of all contact with “tribes” or “clans “; we know of them only in history, or in distant countries, and they have become the subject of theories as to their origin and principle of association; and so we regard the mention of them with some suspicion21. But in Upper India (especially) we live every day in close proximity with people actually forming “tribes” or “clans,” which are either small and independent groups or (frequently) sections of a larger “tribe.” And even where the whole social constitution on tribal lines is not kept up, still we feel sure the people must have formed tribes and clans at no very remote period, for they still use a common designation, and record themselves at a census, or other occasion, as of such-and-such a “tribe,” although they may have forgotten much of the customary life which would have made the “tribe” a reality. But whether in
perfection or decay, the tribe or clan is quite a real thing in India; in some parts more so than others. We have also “codes” of custom, of which a notable feature is that they apply to tribes, not to places, and are often different in detail.
In modern life we soon forget any family connection beyond one or two generations. A “family” we recognise as consisting of the head of the household and his children, and possibly grandchildren; perhaps (collaterally) a certain number of brother’s or sister’s children, and even second cousins, are pretty closely connected. But in those parts of India in which there are recognised “clans,” and especially where the clan is known to be a section of a larger “tribe,” we find that the people invariably recognise consanguinity, and even though in some cases this may be partly fictitious, i.e., various elements have been associated only, still the people believe in their descent from a common ancestor. In other words, the feeling of kindred is diffused over a much wider circle than the unit “family.”
It is evident, from a variety of literary and traditional evidence, that the early Aryan and other races invading India formed “tribes” with a certain organisation; and we infer also from the existing forms of village and land customs and from the names used, and traditions preserved, that such (later) races as the Jats, Rajputs, and Gujars, were also settled under the rules of tribal life, some of which they still
observe. And lastly to those “tribes” of which we have the evidence before our eyes, we find two conditions which are established. (1) We find a single group – possessing lands in one place or in more than one – but not known to be a subdivision of any larger body. (2) We find a whole tribe, with its major and minor, and ultimate, subdivisions all complete.
In the first case, the existing group remembers only its descent from some one ancestor, and is not numerous enough to be called a “tribe.” In all probability one man (or two or three brothers) obtained a settlement in some region that was vacant, and the families multiplied into a “clan,” keeping up the memory of their common descent and acknowledging a certain solidarity. Among the Rajputs or other tribes which had adopted a monarchical constitution, it is common to find that the ancestor became the Raja and that the heads of the branch families held subordinate (territorial) titles (as Rawal, Thakur, etc.), and there was a regularly understood method of territorial rule in the Raja’s central dominion and those of the other chiefs lying round. The subjects of each were bound to allegiance to the chief, and the chief to the Raja. On sending round the message for assembly (gohar) every member of the clan able to bear arms would at once join the chief’s standard.
On the north-western frontier of the Panjab we can observe not only “clans” like those of the Rajputs or Jats, but a wider organisation. We find a whole
tribe, and its “clans” which are the larger sections; and there are again smaller sections. Here the constitution is not monarchical – the chiefs are not princes or Rajas. We observe this organisation both with reference to the land occupied, and also to the grouping of the people who have settled on the land and divided it among themselves. It is not always certain that such bodies are descended from one ancestor; but it is traditionally asserted and believed, and often the genealogical tree is preserved. It is indeed often the case that other tribes have been taken into association (hamsaya) as protected; and lands have been given them by the principal tribe; but they are not regarded as amalgamated, nor is the separate descent forgotten. Among the north-western frontier tribes, I may refer to one instance in the Yusafzai country, where there is the domain (ilaqa) of a single tribe; every member of it knows that he is descended from one ancestor, who, if he were alive, would be the revered patriarch of their whole body. Beyond that, and the fact that their land is all in one great territory, the tribe happens to be not so marked as the several primary divisions or clans. Of these there are three; and their territory is in three great contiguous blocks. Each such territory is made into large secondary sections called tappa. (The first contains two, the second two, and the third five.) Ordinarily these tappa territories correspond to a group of descendants whose designation ends with the syllable -zai (which
in the local language [Pashtu] means “son of”). The tappa is finally divided into a number of “companies” (or Khel). The Khel is a group usually much larger than a “village22.” In the course of time what with the convenience of the administration requiring it, and the growth of separate hamlets with their cultivation lying adjacent, “villages” are gradually formed, and separately demarcated.
On the other hand it may sometimes happen, though the appearance of a clan is less perfect, that we find a large extent of country containing several hundred square miles, now divided up into “village” groups, all composed of landowners whose families have a common designation and are reputed descendants of one ancestor; or of two or three families, not more23. In such cases it is often difficult to say whether the existing group originally came (in smaller number, but still as a group) and divided the land according to their requirements at the time, or whether two or three adventurers formed little settlements in the abundant waste, and in the course of a couple of centuries or more, multiplied into the existing large group.
As regards the personal connection, in a tribe or clan, it is kept up and acknowledged far beyond the
limits within which we are accustomed ourselves to remember it. It takes effect in rules of marriage, by which a man or a woman of one group cannot marry one of the same group, but must go to another. It also produces a willingness of the whole body to act, for defence or offence, in unison, and for convenient groups to undertake a joint-responsibility (for example) for a total sum of land tax on the entire area, so as to preserve the villages from an inquisition by a tax gatherer. It produces a willing obedience to the “custom” of the tribe regarding adoption, the non-alienation of land and other matters. Lastly, it produces a strong sense that every member of the “clan” (or whatever group circumstances have kept together) has his right to share in the land acquired by the adventure and settlement – perhaps by the conquest of the whole body. And if the tribal system is fully maintained, it is a feature that as the clan expands, the heads of the eldest branches or principal families, and (in turn) the heads of subordinate families, should be known by their appropriate titles, as chiefs of the clan, of the sub-clan, of the still smaller section, and so forth24. The authority of these chiefs may be greater or less, and may extend to certain concerns of life only; but where it survives there is a very distinct sentiment of loyalty, and
obedience is unquestioned. When, therefore, it is mentioned (for example) that in the “severalty” village of the Dakhan, the loyalty with which the headman’s family is still regarded is a relic of the clan spirit, I mean nothing more than that originally the village was formed by a small section of a then existing organised clan, that the “village head” was the hereditary leader of that particular section; that he was loyally obeyed owing to that spirit of allegiance which is well known to everyone who (for instance) has read about the Highland clans of Scotland.
It is possible (in itself) that a “clan,” etc., may be constituted on a matriarchal basis or a patriarchal. It may be that all descendants of a common mother form the essential group; but all the more advanced tribes that we know of in India in connection with organised village settlements (and often under monarchical rule) – such as the later Dravidian people of the centre and south, or the Jats, Rajputs, and frontier tribes in the north – are all clearly patriarchal: descent, chiefship, and inheritance all go with the fathers of the expanding family. Some further remarks on this subject will be made hereafter.
There is therefore no hidden assumption or doubtful theory involved in our allusion to the “tribe” or “clan” with reference to Indian peasant landholding; it means nothing more than we know, or at least have the strongest reason to infer, from all the facts of the case,
I will repeat that the degree of preservation in which “clans,” or aggregates of clans forming tribes, exist is various; and in parts of India such an organisation has been quite forgotten; perhaps what was once the name of a tribe has now become a caste name. But the existence of such tribal organisation has had a great deal to do both with village formation and with the constitution of the Hindu state.
I have indicated the fact (and without entering into details) that some tribes developed a system of King or Raja and subordinate chiefs in a sort of “feudal” service, out of the patriarch of the tribe and the chiefs of its sections. This often happened with the Rajputs; but some Rajputs (like the Bisen Clan of Oudh) did not adopt the system. In fact, whatever may be the reason, some Indian clans or tribes acknowledged the King and “barons” (who were the chiefs of elder and younger branches of the stock), others did not.
It will more conveniently appear at a later stage how tribal life and the allotment of lands to the members has produced certain forms of village community.
We have mentioned incidentally the assessment of the amount of land-revenue which is payable to the State by these villages. That assessment is
(in modern times) imposed by means of an operation called a “Land-Revenue Settlement.” What has such a Settlement to do with the constitution and form of villages, and what is the “Settlement Report”?
It is probably known to most readers that in India the State has, from very ancient times, relied for its chief source of revenue on the right or claim to receive a portion of the produce of all cultivated land. At first this share was levied (and still is so in some of the remoter native states) in kind; but in all the greater provinces, it had, for many generations before British rule, frequently been converted into a cash assessment calculated at a certain rate per “plough” (i.e., the area worked by one plough), or per local standard measure (bigha, etc.) according to value and advantage of the different kinds of soil. In some cases it was very oppressively levied, and swallowed up nearly the whole “rent” or profits of the holding, so that land-holding was an employment which was often a burden, and left the holder no more than a bare living. Under British rule, it early became a principal object to assess this demand equally, and at such moderate rates as would leave a substantial profit or surplus; at the same time determining who were the persons to be responsible for payment and entitled to take, or at least to participate in, the profits of the holding. The classification and valuation of land for the purposes of assessment, as well as the
inquiry into rights, which are the chief objects of a Revenue Settlement or Survey Settlement, have always been duties requiring skill and experience, and have always been entrusted to a class of selected officers known as “Settlement officers.” Their work in the field began with a detailed survey and a record, village by village, of every field and holding. Such a survey was not only necessary for valuation purposes, but equally so for making a record of rights and interests of all kinds in the soil25. Each provincial system varies in detail, inasmuch as the mode of assessment and the fixing of the revenue demand, whether on a whole estate on a whole village, or on an individual field, is different. And the system is adapted in each province to suit the prevalent land tenure. It follows that, directly or indirectly, the survey and the inquiry tend to make known the whole features of village constitution and history, especially if the officer in charge interests himself in the subject. I will only remark here that the variation between the joint-village, as I have described it in the northern provinces, and the severalty (or
raiyatwari) in others, has been the cause of the difference between two prominent forms of Revenue Administration.
When the whole process of a “Settlement” is over, and the term26 for which the assessment is to hold good (without increase) is fixed, the officer in charge draws up (in English) a report on his proceedings. Speaking now of the “reports” of the N.W. Provinces and some of the adjoining (and then included) south-eastern districts of the Panjab, it may be explained that at the first settlements, time pressed, administration was less elaborate, and it was of more importance to give only the salient features of the actual revenue arrangements made. But when, in these provinces, the first – rather tentative – settlements expired and a new series of district settlements began, the second (in some cases later than the second) series of reports (dated after 1870) were much fuller and more complete. Nor will any future revision of the assessment require the repetition of such detailed survey and other information. The past history of the district is given; its climate, soil, local features, and even its antiquities are described; the origin, history, and customs of the principal castes and tribes are recorded; and (what more especially concerns us) the details of village
history and the peculiarities of tenure-customs, and the nature and growth of the village proprietary bodies – when and how they were established – are examined in detail. All these matters have an obvious if more or less direct bearing on the condition of the people, on the question of their rights and interests, and on the proper classification and assessment of their holdings. Hence the “Settlement Reports,” when they belong to the later period of complete record are, though of course in varying degrees of excellence, veritable mines of information.
6. There are certain places not only in the hill districts but also in the plains, where (from physical and climatic causes chiefly) village groups are not found. See “Ind. Vill. Comm.,” p. 57 ff.
7. In some cases the tendency, especially of later times, is for several small hamlets to be formed, or for small groups of farms to be scattered about. It will be understood that my description is very general, and that the form of building, of mud, brick, bamboo, thatch, tiles, etc., etc., varies extremely. I have collected a number of notices of the subject in my “Ind. Vill. Comm.,” pp. 67 ff.
8. In South India, owing to caste arrangements, the village menials of low caste (or no caste at all) are kept together, just outside the villagers’ dwellings. This fact has been noticed by Maine (“V.C.,” p. 127) – one of the few places in which he mentions the villages of the south. But it is not, as he says, a matter of “certain villages,” it is the universal feature in the Madras districts. It should be remembered, moreover, that the low caste menials, etc., of a northern village are not a bit more part of the “village community” than these southern out-castes; the “community” really consists of the “colonists and invaders” – the landowners of the village. This subject will be mentioned further in the sequel.
9. The persons requiring work done supply their own materials, or else pay for them; there may be special customs in this respect.
10. The institution of hereditary land attached to village service is chiefly observed (where it has survived at all) in that class of village which is prevalent in the Dakhan and the south of India. The remark (“V.C.,” p. 126) that this form of payment is most common in the (joint) villages of the north (there referred to) is certainly not correct.
11. It is stated in some books that the patel, or headman, was first appointed by the ruler of the state. It is quite possible that in more recent times of Mughal and Maratha domination, the governor may have assumed to make and unmake such appointments, for his own purposes; but that does not alter the fact that the headman is really an integral part of the village constitution; he was, in fact, the leader, the head of the eldest or chief family of the original settlers. It was the accountant, not the headman, whose office was added on by the state – to look after the revenue.
12. See my “Ind. Vill. Com.,” pp. 14, 15. Such holdings are now only locally intact; but the institution itself can be very widely traced. As a privileged holding it was naturally one very likely to become surcharged, and lost, in days of harsh revenue administration, and disregard of rights. Sir H. Maine (“V.C.,” p. 123) speaks of the villages under headmen as cases that “frequently occur.” This is hardly an adequate expression of the fact that this form is one that uniformly prevails over provinces aggregating more than half a million square miles in extent.
13. I shall explain further on what is meant by these references to “tribe” or “clan.”
14. For official purposes connected with the Revenue, Police, etc., a headman (or one for each section of village) has been appointed, and the office has been allowed to become partly elective. This lambar day (as his half-English designation of “number-holder” indicates) is no part of the original constitution, but merely the agent or representative of the village in its dealings with the district authorities.
15. Sir H. S. Maine has implied rather than stated that the council is the original universal form, and that where the headman is found it is a later change; see, for example, “V.C.,” p. 123 and p. 154 (where he uses the phrase, “Even where the government has gassed to one hereditary officer,” etc.) There is no warrant for such a suggestion. If anything, it is the reverse; a village with a headman may become dominated by a joint-body, and the headman may disappear, or at least his distinctive position and authority may. Where the headman is found (all over peninsular India) he certainly has not superseded any other authority. It will be understood that the council or committee spoken of is the standing body – much more in evidence formerly than it is now – which manages the common affairs. A panchayat or committee of elders for settling disputes is assembled in every form and condition of village, whether in the north or south, and quite independently of what the village constitution is. It was, and still is, to some extent, the universal Indian mode of settling caste, social and land cases, and especially boundary disputes. But the body (consisting only of members of the proprietary families) which once governed the joint-village is a standing committee for reference in all affairs of common interest. It is not a mere occasional assembly of elders, called together when there is a dispute, but the continuing and ordinary governing body as opposed to a single “headman,” or the oligarchy of a few chiefs and officers.
16. As a matter of fact, in the N.W.P. and Panjab, in modern times, the patwari, besides being trained and taught to survey, is in charge not of a single village, but of a “circle,” which may include two or three villages.
17. For details as to village servants, and a certain classification of them according to rank, see “Ind. Vill. Comm.,” pp. 17, 18.
18. In my “Ind. Vill. Comm.” I called it “raiyatwari” village, that being the official term for the separate tenure. Here I want to avoid the use of technical terms as far as possible. I take the opportunity of noting that when a vernacular name is added in brackets, it is either because it will be useful to readers familiar with India or because the word itself (e.g., patel, patwari, etc.) occurs in English books.
19. By “overlordship” (here and elsewhere) I do not mean a defined political or “feudal” superiority; I use the word solely as a conveniently wide term for any kind of virtual superiority by which one man (or one class) is able to exact submission, or to take rent, from another.
20. As I noted that the severalty village is prevalent over an area of more than half a million square miles, I may add here that the “joint” form is characteristic in about 200,000 square miles. It is worth while adding that all over the country of the severalty villages there are a variety of local indigenous names for the headman (munda, mandal, patel, gauda, reddi, etc.). Throughout the N.W. Provinces, Panjab, etc., on the contrary, where the joint form (without a headman) has long prevailed, the local dialects have no current word for “headman,” the only term in use being either an Arabic word introduced by the Mughal Revenue Administration or the half-English word “lambar-dar” (= “holder of a number”) belonging to the British system.
21. For example, use is made of the term “tribe,” although the original may be only such a word as populus. There is no such mistake in India; there are distinct words for the tribe, the clan (or other subdivision), and the family. In the north the common term for a whole tribe is qaum (borrowed from the Arabic), while a division or clan is got; and there are other terms (given in “Ind. Vill, Comm.,” p. 194).
22. There is an account of this very perfect example of clan territories, and a diagram which makes the arrangement visible at one glance, in “Ind. Vill. Comm.,” pp. 247–9.
23. For example see the same work, p. 271.
24. Usually the chief is the eldest (competent) member of the eldest branch; but the chiefship may be transferred to some other member for any special reason.
25. The Bombay and Madras systems do not profess to inquire into rights; but under the raiyatwari tenure, there prevalent, the record of every holding and part holding of the ryot and his relatives forms as good a record of right and title as could be desired. There was also one Settlement made (1789–93) in Bengal in which there was no survey; but that was under peculiar circumstances; and the plan of dispensing with a survey was never adopted elsewhere as a general system.
26. Usually for thirty years; but the Government settles that on a variety of considerations; no term is fixed by law.
This collection transcribed by Chris Gage