India has been so completely subject to the Mohammedans, who twice united all its provinces in a single empire, that theMussulman principle of the state's proprietorship was universally recognised there. In virtue of this right the sovereigndeducted a certain portion of the produce. This has been held to be a mere tax; but when the tax rises so high as to absorbnearly the whole produce and to leave the cultivators the bare means of subsistence, it is obviously an actual rent that is paid;and if it is the State that receives such a tax, it may be considered as the true proprietor. Before the arrival of the English thisrent consisted of a part of the produce, varying between one half and one quarter, and was gathered by collectors, whoretained a certain proportion as salary, or else by farmers general who paid the Government a fixed sum. The soil was rarelysold, because the rent, which alone could make it of value, was taken by the State.
The idea of an absolute ownership of the soil, giving the right of disposing of it at will, was never entertained. "We are tooapt to forget," says Sir G. Campbell, "that property in laud as a transferable mercantile commodity absolutely owned andpassing from hand like any chattel, is not an ancient institution but a modern development, reached only in a few veryadvanced countries. In the greater part of the world the right of cultivating particular portions of the earth is rather aprivilege than a property; a privilege first of a. whole people, then of a particular tribe or a particular village community, andfinally of particular individuals of the community. In this last stage the land is partitioned off to these individuals as a matterof mutual convenience, but not in unconditional property; it long remains subject to certain conditions and to reversionaryinterests of the community, which prevent its uncontrolled alienation, and attach to it certain common rights and commonburdens." (2)
In five great divisions of their vast empire, with a population of two hundred and ninety millions, the English haveintroduced five different systems for the organization of landed property. There is therefore a wide field for the study ofsocial forms.
1. In the Punjab, the State has respected the rights of the small cultivators, whom it considers as proprietors; and it hastreated for the revenue or rent with village communities as collective corporations.
2. In Bengal, it has attributed the proprietorship to Zemindars, imposing certain guarantees in favour of the occupiers.
3. In Oudh, it regarded the Taluqdárs as proprietors, without sufficient reservation in the interest of the occupiers.
4. In the North-west and Central Provinces there are properties of medium extent, the peasants, or ryots , having fixity oftenure at a fair rent.
5. In Madras and Bombay there are no persons intermediate between the cultivators, or ryots , and the State. The ryots havefixity of tenure, at a rent fixed for the term of each settlement. (3)We will examine the several systems more closely.
1. In the Punjab, the villagers have preserved a strong constitution, almost entire independence and a perfectly republicancommunal autonomy. Collective ownership of the soil with periodic partition has disappeared; but there remains extensivecommon pasturage; and nearly all the families have some land which returns to the community on their ceasing to cultivateit. The community also exercises a right of control over its members in all that concerns the cultivation of their lands.
The village consists of an association of free men, descended, according to tradition, from a common ancestor; it is thereforestrictly speaking a clan. Each inhabitant has a share of the soil expressed in "ploughs." A "plough" is no fixed quantity, butsimply a portion: one or two hundredth parts of the territory. Although all are proprietors there is not perfect equality; somehave several "ploughs," others only half a "plough"; these shares are evidently derived from the lots formerly assigned in thedays of periodic allotment. The community is governed by a council of elders, who retain power so long as they preserve theconfidence of their fellow-villagers. This constitution, which is essentially democratic, still bears the stamp of itsIndo-Germanic origin. It has entirely escaped the influence of the Brahminic system of caste as also that of the feudalsystem. It is precisely similar to the Swiss commune, which has likewise preserved the liberty and equality of the ancientGermanic communities. The State never interferes in the internal organization of the village. "The settlement is made withthe communities, each village undertaking the payment, through its representative council of elders, of the revenue assessedupon it, which again is distributed upon the individual members, in proportion to the land held and cultivated by them." (4) The land cannot be seized and sold in satisfaction of debts; and, in case of alienation, the village has a droit de retrait , orright of pre-emption.
This system, put into execution by Lord Lawrence, has produced excellent results. The Government easily collects the rentdue to it; small properties have been maintained; and primitive liberty and equality respected. It is allowed on all sides thatthe Punjab is alike the most prosperous province of India and the one most devoted to the English, to whom it gave the mostactive assistance in the time of the Mutiny.
