James G-rant in his "Analysis of the Finances of Bengal"
shows that the total revenue from fifteen sarkars newly added by Shah Shvyacamounted to Rs. 14, 35, 593; and
IOC
Cl
(I
czafa or increase on a hustabud or new valution of ancient *
and actual revenue throughout the interior districts amounted
r M "r —
to R s . 9, 87, 162. " So the rid sarkars had a new valuation. The new settlement however shows a different statement of the annual revenue. The original ront roll of A k b a r ’s time
excluding jagir lands amounted to Rs. 63, 44, 260. Th±to xiicrea^ed during bhan Sjuuj^’s time to fts. pT , 6^,
015
- anc
increase of 24 lakhs on the Asl jama of Todar Mall. The reve nue of jagir lands amounting to Rs. 45 , 48, 892 remained
constant over a period of 76 years frcm the first settlement concluded by Todar Mall in l582 to that of Shah Shuj"a* in l65Q .
_ *> __
The total of the assessment put down in the Ain-i-Akbari was 42, 77, 26, 082 dams or
tts
. 1, Ob, 93, 152; the total of the improved rent roll of Shah Shuja was 52, 4o, 3b, 240 dams or Rs. I, 31, 15, 907./
Such was the condition of revenue of Bengal, when Mir Jumla, the first nazim of Bengal under Aurangzib,
107.
— f *1
arrived on the scene. The first dastur-al amal of
Aurangzibfs reign puts Bengal’s revenue at 52, 46, 36, 240 dams or Rs, 1, 31, 15, 907. It also puts the hasil or total revenue collected at Rs. 86, 19, 247.^ The
__ _ r
figure comes near to Shah Shuja’s new settlement of Khalsa revenue which amounted to Rs. 87, 67, 015* The
entire Khalsa revenue, as a rule, was to be sent to the central treasury. As the hasil figure was written in terms of rupees it appears that the Khalsa revenue was sent in rupees.
However, Mir Jumla was engaged in war with Assam in 1660 and he could not possible improve the rent roll.
Under Shaista Khan, who came after Mir Jumla,
Kuch Bihar in 1665, and Chittagong in 1666, were annexed
1. According tor Irfan Habib (p. 412) the date of this
dastur-al amal (Add 6598; is wrong. __r,It was written in the third regnal (year) of Aurangzib, which is
said to have corresponded to Pasli and for San-i julus, the year of the accession. Moreover, 1069 Pasli and 1065 A.H. do not correspond either with Aurangzib*s third regnal year or with each other.
It has to be supposed that the eras of 1069 and 1065 have been interchanged^and that the work was actually written in Aurangzib*s first regnal year 1069 A.H. and 1065 Pasli**.
to Bengal, but there is no record of jama* (assessment) or hasil (collection) statistics in the available Persian sources up to the year 1666. Only in Tavernierfs
accounts we find that Rs. 55,00,000 were sent to the A
central treasury in 1665. It shows that the amount which was sent to the centre in 1665 was much less than the amount which was assessed in 1658. But it seems that the preparations fow war which took place in 1665, to conquer Chittagong, perhaps curtailed the Khaisfo'
the c
revenue. In 1667 we find that jama of Bengal amounted to 52, 37, 39, 100 dams2 (Rs. 1, 30, 93, 477). The
but
figure shows no improvement of assessmentArather a little fall from the original rent roll. We have no definite reason for tkts fall, but it might be due to natural calamities.
After Shaista Khan, Pidai Khan and Muhammad Azam came to Bengal'^ subsequently Shaista Khan was again appointed to the government of Bengal. Then he was
replaced by Bahadur Khan, who was recalled by the emperor in July 1689. Ibrahim Khan came in August 1689*
1. Tavernier, Travels in India, vol. I, p. 114* 2. Miitat-al-alam, B.M.A.M. , no. 7657, fol. 2.
There is no revenue record from 1668 to 1690, but evidently there was no improvement in the assessed
c
revenues of Bengal, for we find the same jama figure in Zawabit-i-\Alamgiri which was written in 1691. It puts the whole of Bengal revenue at 52, 46, 36, 240 dams^ (Rs. 1, 31, 15, 907). But the figure of hasil or amount collected which is written by the side of the
e _
jama causes confusion. It puts hasil at Rs, 46,19,749. The figure shows a heavy fall from the previous years 1659 and 1665. There is another copy of the dastur-al
c 2
amal in the India Office library. According to J. N. Sarkar this dastur-al-amal whose number is 370 and Zawabit-i-Alamgiri "are copies of the same work, in spite of the difference in their titles and the fact that they were transcribed from different manuscripts. They give figures up to the thirty-third year of the
*5
Emperor's reign, i.e. 1690 A.D." but in fact the manuscript 370 also gives different figures for
i _
the jama and the hasil. According
1. Zawabit-i-^lamgiri, B.M.O.M. , ITo. 1641, fol. 6a. 2. Now it is called Commonwealth Relations Office. 3. J. N. Sarkar, Mughal Administration, p. 259*
to it the jama amounted to 52,64,36, 104 dams (Rs.1,31,60,902) and hasil amounted to R s . 3 ,86,19,247*1 Though its hasil
figure does not corroborate \Urt2h Zawabit-i-^Alamgiri, its
c the ___
jama figure comes nearer to those o f AZawabit - i -Alamgiri, but Mss.370's hasil figure of Rs.386,19,247 is almost
the — c
corroborated byAdastur -al-amal of 1659 and by Jagjivandss's Muntakhabu - 1 Tawarikh written in 1709 A.D. In the Muntakhabu
— 2
- t Twarikh we find that the jama amounted to Rs.86,19,247. It seems therefore that the figure of Rs.46,19,749 which was
the _ f-