92

CHAPTER - 3
POWER AND AUTHORITY IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

India has a particularly intriguing agrarian history, several scholarly, though

mutually contradictory accounts of the evolution of land systems and social
arrangements on land in different parts of the country. Through various stages of
historical development are now available.

This chapter focuses on the evolution of the doras in the diwani or khalsa
(directly government ruled) areas. Theirs is a history of the evolution of new cultural
and political domination in Telangana, against which, the Telangana struggle was
fought. The village landlords belonging to a upper caste are called doras even today
in the Telangana villages. Mostly, the former deshmukhs or watandars (hereditary
local chiefs recognized / appointed by the rulers) were called the doras. In course of
time all upper caste landlords or their relatives were also called doras. Therefore, all
doras need not be former deshmukhs. Thought the peoples struggle in Telangana
was carried out against the jagirdars and the doras, the former without strong local
roots either surrendered or ran away. But the doras put up a strong fight against the
people. The structure of their domination and power was based on the enforcement of
physical coercion and obstruction of free market in land and labour. Therefore, they
became the prime target of the people.

93

The doras in Telangana present a unique case in the survival of the landlords
having their roots for over 300 hundred years in the pre-independence period,
undergoing transformation, and adapting to the changing circumstances and needs.
Even in the face of opposition from the people at the beginning of the twentieth
century, the doras attempted to consolidate their domination at social and cultural
levels, citing reasons like their upper caste position and domination in the past.

By performing regular morning puja (rituals), constructing and renovating

temples and participating in jataras (religious congregations) and religious ceremonies
they legitimized their domination. The coercive method adopted by the doras to
dominate was a key factor that led to the peoples revolt of the 1940s. Though the
doras were products of colonial needs and the requirements of the Nizams State, they
outlived both these regimes.

In Telangana, a part of the Deccan region, the office of deshmukh came into
existence during the medieval period, and survived for a long period as local chiefs
whose sphere of power often spread to a pargana. A pargana usually consisted of
twenty to sixty villages. The deshmukhs presided over the meetings of the chiefs in
the pargana known as gotsabha (regional council of local chiefs), which decided and
confirmed claims over inheritance, purchase and transfer of watans. Being locally
powerful, they were absorbed into the regional political and administrative structure
by the Qutb Shah kings as revenue collectors. This office got deeply entrenched into

94

the region with local support and structured in organized community life by the end
of the seventeenth century.

The deshmukhs by virtue of their control over the

pargana and deep local roots could not easily be displaced by the ruler. The first ruler
of Asafjah dynasty, Nizam-ul-Mulk realized this fact and depended upon them to
carry on the administration.

They took up other administrative responsibilities

(magisterial and judicial) and became the chiefs of the parganas. Gradually, the
office of the deshmukh tended to become a watan, i.e, hereditary lease. Despite
changes in the political authority at the top, the office of the deshmukh survived since
no ruler wished to risk disturbing the local administration.

However, with the onset of colonial control over Hyderabad, feudal

relationships, at the pargana and village level worsened transforming the deshmukhs
to yield to mercantile interests. The Nizams Dominions came under the British
influence after Hyderabad signed the treaty of Subsidiary Alliance in 1798.
Hyderabad came under the British paramountcy and the Resident at Hyderabad
virtually ran the government. The economic policies of Hyderabad were no different
from the colonial ones of the British. During the early years of colonial rule the
British, following policies oriented towards financing trade and war efforts, did not
essentially alter the existing agrarian social structure. Similarly in Hyderabad, the
deshmukhs were integrated into the new system of control and exploitation, as
revenue contractors. Some of them thus became talukdars and sarbastadars to serve
the new interests. The deshmukhs, in the new system, were only responsible for the
payment of revenue of the leased area for specific periods to the state hence they

95

abandoned the role they formerly played in the local communities. They were only
contractors or managers for the time being but not proprietors. However, some of
them did not agree to the new arrangement and the British had to fight in many places
to bring some of the locally powerful rebel deshmukhs under their control. Most of
them were respectable in their respective areas and had established themselves as
powerful chiefs. The Aswaraopet deshmukh, for example, occupied the ghurry
[gadi] a neat and strong stone structure of1000 yards and maintain [ed] at his own
expense a retinue of 100 sebundee peons besides a few horses. But by and large
they had been brought under the new regime either through battles or threats and were
co-opted as revenue collectors for the new regime. But the difficulty of introducing
the new system was chiefly experienced in Telangana where the payment in kind has
always been prevalent which helped them play the role of merchants by taking
revenue in kind and paying cash to the state; this role widened their activity and
enlarged their power. Thus they played the additional role of merchants and usurers
under colonial rule restricting the local bania, komati to shop-keeping.

Unscrupulous collection of land revenue by the tahudars / sarbastadars under

the new arrangement during the early nineteenth century widened the scope for usury.
The combination of mercantile and usurious interests impeded the production process
leading to a severe agrarian crisis in the mid-nineteenth century. Peasants deserted
land, as most nineteenth century sources indicate, leading to a drastic decline in
cultivated area. This crisis situation made the Resident at Hyderabad and the colonial
bureaucracy at Calcutta allow the able Salarjung I to succeed as prime minister

96

replacing the British stooge Raja Chandulal in 1853. The main task of Salarjung I
was to bring such deserted lands under cultivation apart from introducing other
policies to promote agrarian production and trade.

During the period of Salarjungs (1853-1883) reforms, the revenue collecting

power was transferred to the taluqdars (district collectors), who were appointed by the
government. The deshmukhs watans were abolished to bring the entire land under
diwani tenure. Thus, the deshmukhs lost the power to collect land revenue but,
remained to survive as big landlords Bawa, 1986). By 1881 the State was divided
into fifteen districts to be headed by taluqdars, and the districts were grouped into
four subas to be headed by subadars for administrative convenience. The main thrust
of the Salarjung reforms was to replace the deshmukhs from village to paragana
level with the paid officials.

As part of the reforms, the patta (ownership) right over land was introduced
after introduction of zillabandi (yearly district-wise confirmation of land ownership
rights) in 1865.

Therefore, these deshmukhs became khatadars or pattadars

(registered occupants of land) by entering into the revenue records as legal

landowners losing all other rights.

Though the loss of watans deprived them of their title of deshmukh and power
over paraganas, yet under the new reforms, they were converted into big landlords
with judicial and legal guarantee to their proprietary rights. These reforms helped

97

them to stabilize their position as permanent landlords unlike the earlier uncertain and
speculative sarbasta or tahud. They were also able to lease in government lands under
various tenures like makta (panmakta and bilmakta), ijara and banjara to bring not
only deserted lands but also forests under cultivation to increase agrarian production.
Thus locally powerful landlord families acquired new titles such as maktadars,
ijaradars and banjaradars, though all of them were not necessarily from the former
deshmukh families. These tenure-holders had to bring new land under cultivation and
guarantee the cultivation. For this purpose, again they got some more land on patta
right.

The pattern of land settlement during the 1880s was in favour of large
holdings, which naturally helped the emergence of big landholders.

It was not

unusual for influential village bosses to make their way into the survey records as
pattadars by bribing survey officials. Even the official survey favoured them because,
while surveying the land, all surrounding waste/uncultivated barren lands in between
the ridges with thorny shrubs and bushes were attached to the actually cultivated
terraced fields. Hence, even today, large holdings of about twenty to hundred acres
may be observed under a single survey number. Under such a survey, the cultivator
had to pay land revenue for the surrounding uncultivated land full of thorny shrubs
and granite rooks which required intensive human labour for clearing.

Small

cultivators who could not bring such barren lands under cultivation often surrendered
even cultivating lands to the government. The states concern was to maximize
revenue by forcing cultivators to expand the arable land, which ultimately favoured

98

the emergence of big landlords. Those cultivators, who were confident of carrying on
large-scale cultivation by clearing shrubs and constructing water tanks for irrigation
purposes supported by capital and the capacity to employ adequate labourers, took
overland under patta right. It was not possible for small peasants who, mainly relying
on family labour to bring such lands under cultivation. The settlement officials did
not take this fact into account; instead they preferred to promote the landlord
agriculture, in the state.

The sandy soil of Telangana containing gneiss ad granite required constant

watering and the use of fertilizer. The vagaries of monsoon too made the crop
uncertain. The cultivators usually did not risk working on such lands all the year
round without the guarantee of adequate returns. Further, the substantial reduction of
land revenue rates that was initially planned did not materialize as instant provision
was made for remissions of land revenue during periods of crop failure. Therefore,
the British Resident at Hyderabad, Kirkpatrick commented in 1890 on a settlement
report that it was only possible for big landholders to own land because landholders,
in order to meet the revenue demand, had to irrigate the land for cultivating crops like
sugarcane, cotton and rice.

Further, in a situation of regular collection of land

revenue, poor quality of soil and peasants dependence on market for money, peasant
agriculture became unviable. On the other hand, the landlord got the land directly
cultivated by vetti therefore large-scale share-cropping or tenancy cultivation did not
exist in Telangana. Thus historical and ecological reasons did not favour the growth
of small peasant holdings in Telangana.

99

The British colonial influence was another important exogenous factor that
contributed to the growth of the landlord economy in Telangana. The fixing of the
responsibility of regular payment of land revenue on the landholder (during the
Salarjung reforms) was conditioned by the demands of the British colonial
domination. The basic thrust of the Salarjung policy was to increase the volume of
Hyderabads external trade to expand the state revenues. The British administrators,
led by Director General of Revenue, A.J. Dunlop, in the 1890s planned to promote
commodity production within the state.

Therefore, certain important items like

castor seed [were] originally exempted from [excise] duty in pursuance of the
colonial interest to promote its production in the state. The autonomy given to
Salarjung I by the Resident in introducing the reforms was obviously motivated by
colonial interests to develop agrarian production in the late nineteenth century.

The two conditions outlined above the pattern of land settlement and the
state-induced production for the external market were important factors, which
guided the pattern of production in the state. The landlord economy which emerged
out of Salarjungs reforms, worked most suitably and efficiently using vast lands and
cheap labour, responding positively to the changing needs and circumstances. It was
during the heyday of the landlord dominated economy that Hyderabads agrarian
produce castor seed, sesame, cotton, tobacco, rice, wheat, jowar, bajra and pulses
entered the external market. Due to this change the states revenue on account of
external trade increased by about forty per cent between 1875-76 and 1889-90.

100

The landlords had the advantages of possessing enough liquid capital to meet
the farm requirements. The state granted them a regular annual rusum (remuneration
or a sort of pension) after abolition of revenue farming. Later by taking up excise
contacts and money-lending they acquired additional capital. This proved to be very
lucrative in a situation of hard currency scarcity in the villages after the state made
revenue payment in cash compulsory.

What is most important is the emergence of a social formation, based on

servile labour, under the landlords during this period.

Labour was abundantly

available in Telangana. The landlords forcibly transformed the large mass of rural
poor into servile labour, thus ensuring regular and constant supply of labourers. The
service castes of the village, holding inam had were forced to work free on landlords
land; though the inam grants were made to facilitate professional services like
shaving, making pots in villages rather than work for the landlords. Landlords thus
by attaching labourers to their domestic and agricultural work, converted them into
vetti (forced) labour. They also converted the untouchable and low-caste traditional
musicians, bards and genealogists into bhagelas (servile labourers attached to dora
family), when more labour was required to intensify agricultural production. In the
process, the growth of a free labour market was restricted. Seizing the economic
opportunities that colonialism threw up during (Salarjung-I reforms) the late 19th
century, the landlords with the help of servile labour, diverted their vast lands to the

101

cultivation of commercial crops like castor and groundnuts. However, it was also
easy to cultivate castor and groundnuts, as they do not require constant attention.

The imposition of colonial interests on backward agrarian social structure

brought about the conditions of agrarian relationships on the basis of forced labour.
Genesis of the servile labour such as vetti and bhagela was not a medieval trait as
many argued, but a product of landlord economy in response to the imposition of
market conditions on unprepared backward agrarian social structure.

The spectre of landlords as a powerful dominant group in the village,

controlling the entire rural society of Telangana was primarily determined by colonial
conditions (the subordination of Hyderabads economy to the British Indian interests)
and the Salarjung reforms. It was also the result of a systematic effort made with the
cooperation of other dominant rural groups. The other dominant group of the village,
below the landlords in the hierarchy, was that of village officials (patels and
patwaris). The patel could belong to any caste but the patwari was invariably a Neogi
Brahmin. They were police and revenue functionaries respectively. They lived in
comfortable bungalows in the style of the landlords served by numerous jeetagallu
(farm servants) and vettollu (vetti labourers). They were regarded as being essentially
mischievous and dishonest and known for promoting conspiracies in villages.

102

The landlords subdued the people with their authority whereas the patwaris
exercised control over them through various kinds of machinations. The landlords
and the village officers sometimes vied with each other to prove their superiority. But
despite these hiccups they often coalesced into one to prolong the system of
oppression and exploitation. They shared a conviction that the emerging awareness
of people would spell their doom and the unity of both the doras and village officials
was recognized by both as a way of retaining their strengths.

The third group in the hierarchy was the village landholders with considerable
size of patta land. They emerged as a distinct social group from amongst the kapus
who distanced themselves from the lower-caste sudras. However, they were different
from the landlords, these landholders lived mostly in bhavanti (a bungalow of rich in
villages) type pucca houses and had enough cattle, land and stocks of grain and
agricultural implements. In appearance and dress they looked like peasants, but they
lived with izzat (dignity) enjoying the status of asamis, pedda kapus, pedda rytus or
motubari rytus. Though they could read and write they were considered uneducated
in the sense that they were not aware of the intricacies of the government rules. They
were not conversant with Urdu and were unable to meet officers and get their work
done. Their sons and in some cases even their daughters were provided modern
education.

The younger generation of this group brought the nationalist and

communist (AMS) ideologies and politics into the rural areas.

But the older

generation of motubari rytus/kapus by and large liked to be in the company of doras

and village officers to get their official work done and continue their work peacefully.

103

In other words, these dominant landholding motubaries obliged and endorsed the
doras effort in enforcing caste-based labour exploitation.

If we look into the agrarian structure under Mughal rule, In Morelands

observation that during the muslim period Indian polity had only three constituents,
the ruling sovereign, the army that supported the throne and a peasantry that paid for
both.1 The revenue bureaucracy, an integral part of government, was superimposed
by the central authority of the Mughal emperors. And its composition was often
heterogeneous some local chiefs or rulers who acknowledged the supremacy of the
Mughal emperor who left undisturbed in their domain as long as they paid tribute,
collected revenue on the emperors behalf and also fulfilled the feudal military
obligations as they owed to the central power. Such chief or rulers were recognized as
zamindars or mansabdars and were given either land tax-free or a share in the
revenues they collected. The extent of these and other privileges were determined by
the zamindaris prestige and political importance at the court. In particular those
holding zamindari /Jagirdari lands had no long term interests in their territories, as
they were held at the pleasure of the emperor, and the instability of their position and
privilege often drove them to fleece the peasantry.2

Nevertheless, the land belonged to the peasant who enjoyed hereditary

occupancy rights. Land was seldom sold or purchased as a commodity and so long as

104

the peasant paid his rent or revenue he could not be evicted by anybody. Cultivation
of land was considered a socially vital function. There was zamindari oppression of
the peasantry but since the rights of the landed aristocracy were not absolute, it was
limited to extortion of revenue. Whenever signs of decay of the imperial power
became visible, ambitious zamindars and local chieftains rebelled against the emperor
and asserted their own political independence. 3

Nature of Agrarian Discontent:

Initially all agrarian classes were distressed by the governments high revenue
demands. Although the economic burden was greater for the lower strata of peasantry,
the peasants revolted against their oppressors the landlords under whom they held
land.4 The body of the royal army was the cultivating peasant who resisted the
zamindars, money lenders. Between 1840 and 1857, the transfer of land from
cultivators to non-cultivating classes of money-lenders, urban traders and so on had
increased considerably. Evictions, imposition of levies and illegal taxes by corrupt
revenue officials had steadily built up tension.

Another important factor that contributed to the growth of the alliance between
the landlords, money- lenders and the British was the revenue demands which were
steadily going up throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century. Cash was
needed to meet the demands. At times the market price of agricultural produce would
fall and further pressurize peasants into borrowing. Similarly, the wages of

105

agricultural labourers who constituted the lowest stratum did not rise proportionately
with the cost of living. This too contributed to growing indebtedness and strengthened
the position of the money-lenders and landlords in rural India.

There was a growing population of the cultivating classes in the latter half of
the nineteenth century. The zamindars had powers to create fresh tenures and this
sub-infeudation had multiplied a number of intermediary proprietors between the state
and the actual cultivator. The demand for cultivatable land increased. This naturally
benefitted landlords, land speculators and money-lenders. Rents increased arbitrarily
by landlords because no tenant could afford to give up land, and similarly, moneylenders could tighten their grip on the credit seeking peasantry.

In the Jagirdari areas, rising land values enabled the landed classes to resort to
somewhat different form of oppression. Most of them also supplied credit to their
tenantry; rent enhancement and rack- renting were of course more profitable devices
to exploit the needy peasant. In the decades following the 1857 mutiny, then the
landowning and money lending classes gradually rose to power in the rural area. It
had immediate and direct social consequences of the petty revenue officials, police
now safeguarded the interests of the usurers the money lending and rich landowning
classes. The new alliance also worked against the interests of small land owners, and
share croppers who constituted the poor peasants.

106

The money lenders tyranny prevailed throughout the latter half of nineteenth
century and its immediate victims were the small landholders, tenants and under
tenants, and share croppers, whose lands were passing to the money lenders and rich
land owners. The economic lot of the landless agricultural labourer was still worse on
account of poor wages and high cost of living. The disturbances, known as Deccan
riots of 1875, occurred in western Maharashtra, After the British introduced the
ryotwari system of land tenure, the old institution of caste and the village
communities had little role to play as landlords they

were made directly and

individually responsible to the state for payment of revenue. The vanis, a caste of
merchants and money-lenders, supplied credit in the Deccan villages. At the village
level the vanis, being the only source of credit gained considerable economic power.
As land value went up, the vanis intensified the usurpation of peasants lands through
civil suits. The vanis took no interest in actual cultivation owing to their social
values. The newly acquired lands were cultivated by the former proprietors, who now
worked as sub-tenants and the vanis left them only a bare subsistence.5

The tenants, share-croppers and poor landholders faced economic burdens,

millions of lands were mortgaged growing indebtedness among the poor cultivating
classes and consequent transfer of lands to money lenders had considerably
worsened agrarian relations and the resultant unrest threatened the political stability
of British rule.6 Agricultural production is very much determined by the factors like
the size of the landholdings and the pattern of land distribution, irrigation facilities etc
and also the extent and the manner in which agricultural credit is made available and

107

debt relief is organized. Small and fragmented holdings had their definite impact on
agricultural production and also the condition of their cultivating owners. The
holdings being uneconomical restricted the scope and capacity of the cultivator to
invest profitably on well construction. This compelled many such farmers owning
insufficient holdings to leave their fields. During the off -season and serve themselves
as agricultural labourers.7 In the fragmented plots much cultivable land was wasted
on hedges and paths. The worst of all the effects of these unprofitable holdings was
that they formed one of the basic causes of debt.

The inequality in land distribution had its adverse effect on agricultural

growth. On one hand, the holdings of small farmers were so meagre in size,
frequently characterized by fragmentation also that they did not possess sufficient
economic wherewithal to contribute their mite for the increase of agricultural
production.8 This was further affected by the various disabilities like the extraction of
vetti, collection of illegal cesses etc., inflicted on these small ryots by big landlords,
village officials and also revenue officials. On the other, excessive monopolization of
land led to absenteeism and diminishing returns in productivity. The big landlords got
their huge lands cultivated either by baghelas or by tenants. But high rents coupled
with insecurity of kowls incapacitated the latter from taking up cultivation on an
intensive and profitable level.

Though Taccavi was advanced for well sinking, only those ryots who
promised to grow food crops for first five years could get the benefits. After wells,

108

kuntas and tanks formed the largest source of irrigation. Though they were 50%
higher in number than larger tanks, get, due to vagaries of the monsoon, water
sufficient for wet cultivation could be collected only once in four or five years. But
the cultivations were charged wet rate even during the lean period, they were made to
go round patwaris and Girdavars for recommending talaf-mal on account of crop
failure.9 Intending and affording pattedars were allowed to construct tanks and they
were also held responsible for their repair and upkeep. Netris or neerudus were
appointed to look after the release of water to the fields pertaining to Government
tanks for which purpose they granted. Inam land also tax remission amounting to
Rs.36/- per year.10 A tank in Jafargadh, a Sarf-e-Khas village in Warangal district
that got breached in 1901 was not repaired even upto 1933.11

The taluqs of

Mahboobabad, Pakhal and Khammam in Warangal District and Sircilla, Karimnagar

and Jagityal in Karimnagar District ranked high in area irrigated and these were the
same which in the latter forties spearheaded the peasant struggle.

109

Area under Irrigation for 1345F (1936)

(Area irrigate by)

Sl.

Taluq

No

Total

By

area

By

Tanks

Wells

Canals Canals

shown

Govt.

Private

Other

Total

sources

(acres)
1

Warangal

333192

4019

955

12330

4581

155

16961

Khammam

313005

3910

349

29812

3243

1905

33957

Mahboobabad

343052

2617

601

32353

42359

Madhira

194427

1249

107

16337

16407

Pakhal

67362

950

500

27646

1438

38084

Palaoncha

127460

1071

300

2618

7618

Mulugu

91825

549

169

1564

564

Yellandu

86620

744

201

16514

16514

Paloncha(s)

989

2575

2575

10

Kanath

19841

239

709

731

966

97

109

1576784

16337

3946

140916

11792

2157

175148

Total
Dist.

Warangal

110

Sl.

Taluq

No.

Total
area
shown

By

By

Tanks

Wells

Canals Canals
Govt.

Other

Total

sources

Private

(acres)
1

Jagityal

266521

4426

20215

4635

1321

42987

Sultanabad

199909

1500

201398

1806

4369

17619

Karimnagar

331942

2044

1511

28550

4200

529

47723

Sircilla

217606

2355

550

25150

5120

910

47199

Huzurabad

178884

1500

16714

7277

1454

19891

Parkal

173173

18596

2117

1886

14599

Mahadeopur

138841

170

20664

325

11159

Metpalli(J)

40299

5894

900

432

5235

Peddapalli (J)

94403

350

2936

1576

4662

10

Vemulawada(J)

1862

811

15

126

11

Kamanpur

13812

1443

1493

Total

Karimnagar

1657452

11995

47

2458 161371 27968

10901 214693

Dist.

(J) = Jagir
Source: Hyderabad District Gazetteer Tables Volumes 1931 & 1936, Warangal,
pp.300-1; Karimnagar, p.380.

111

Ryots applied for Taccavi loans only when they were in extreme need and
failed to get credit through other sources for it involved lot of delay, effort and
expense to get through.12 Another significant point that emerged in this connection
was that the lists of loan distribution showed that real, needy and poor ryots were not
benefitted out of this, but instead, influential big landlords, patels, patwaris and
Deshmukhs received their gains that resulted.13 Very often, the latter even misused
them in the sense that taccavi wheat and paddy taken for the purpose of sowing were
used instead, for domestic purposes.14

The cultivating families who took to money lending as a subsidiary

occupation, led the others in the volume of credit supplied. The difference in the
volume of credit supplied by them and other categories of indigenous bankers, was
highest in the Warangal district, whereas 50.43% of the total debts in Warangal
district were due to cultivating families, the respective percentages for the categories
of professional money lenders and non-professional, non-cultivating money lenders
were only 19.37% and 21.89% marwadis, Reddy Telaga, and komatis, The fact that
credit supply in these areas was made by those persons who held vast landed estates
and also the watans of Deshmukh, patel, and patwari had added new dimensions to
the situation. They found it profitable to indulge in grain-cum- money lending as well
as rents receiving rather than cultivate the lands by themselves. The rates of interest
mostly ranged from 12% to 18% in cash and 25% to 125% in kind.15 Whether the
loan was given in cash or kind, the sahukars preferred always to get it back in kind

112

only for by this, they not only received the usual rate of interest but also had the
added advantage of receiving the grain at the rate of Rs.5/- per khandy.16

Money lending proved a profitable calling that whenever ryots joined as

members of co-operative societies, which was strongly resented by concerned village
patels and patwaris.

Vetti and Slave Labour:

The jagirdars were so powerful that they could grab the land by framed, which
reduced the actual cultivator to the status of a tenant at will or landless labour.
Moreover, the Jagirdars, Zamindars, Deshmukhs and Deshpandes exploited their
tenants and labourers through such pernicious practices as vetti or forced labour. It
has been generally suggested that feudal domination in Telangana was prominently
expressed by force (physical) and coercion.

The Doras were able to resort to various methods of surplus extraction and
extended their control over the countryside. The nature of Telangana feudalism and
feudal domination is merely listing of certain Jagirdars and Deshmukhs who held big
estates. Caste must be seen as a material reality and a solid foundation of socioeconomic production, for in Telangana, it shaped the evolution of agrarian relation
and perpetuated feudal landlord power and authority caste in rural Telangana not only

113

existed as a cultural and ideological phenomena but it had a concrete material

content.17

Dominance in Telangana countryside was manifested in terms of the control of

a substantial proportion of the landed property and other economic sources in the
villages by the upper castes, which usually meant that certain dominant castes like
Reddy, Velama etc., were a sizeable minority in a locality, the possession of the
village officer post which gave them control over both economic sources and the
lower castes; leadership in patron clients networks based on caste and kinship; as
well as the relatively higher social status in the caste hierarchy, tenancy and credit.

There were well-developed institutions of agricultural labour and serfdom

points to some very important facts about the agrarian structure. The terms slavery
and serfdom may be applied to it, so far as some agricultural labourers were bought
and sold, and others born into a state where they owed service to the masters of their
lands. One of the most striking and important peculiarities of the Indian forms of
servitude is their close connection with the caste system. Most types of servile status
were hereditary, and in general the serfs and slaves belonged to the confirmed the
economic and social disadvantages of the agricultural labourer, but also give him
some rights, some economic others of a social and ritual nature.18

Most important among the serfi rights was that of working on a particular
piece of land. If he was born into a family owned by a particular landholder, the

114

landholder had the obligation to employ him on the land and pay him the customary
wages. But two points are very relevant here: First , Although the serf may have had
some right to share in the produce of his land he had far fewer economic rights than
the Jagirdar or tenant, his share of the produce was very much smaller, and he had
moreover no right to sell the land. Secondly, the right to work on a particular plot of
land was not always granted. In certain parts of India the agricultural labours was in
some respects treated like a commodity of production. In early nineteenth century
there was a great variety of institutional forms, ranging from slavery to completely
free hired labour and these covered not only agricultural labourers but also domestic
servants and even artisans.19

The Baghela system, the balutha, the begar (involuntary labour), the vetti, the
slave labour and the bonded labour are different forms of serfdom the characteristic of
feudal society where the zamindars and jagirdars claimed a number of petty
perquisites from the peasantry and other depressed castes of the society. The
landlords assumed entitlement to exhort labour services from begar, vetti and other
forms of labour without any remuneration paid or treated it as a compulsory free
labour from certain depressed and landless castes of the society. Taking the perpetual
poverty as the advantage, the depressed castes and landless castes and communities
were advanced with petty amounts on usurious loans, they either became slave labour
or worked as a Baghela or Balutha or bonded labour. The problem of bonded labour
has become a serious issue in the Agrarian relation of Indian society and particularly

115

in the Hyderabad State. The landlords exploited the people of all classes and castes
under these systems.

In the process of social evolution the tradition paved a way for the pervasive
and cruel practices resulting in the dominance of some castes over the others. The
Reddy, the karnam and the Komati acquired dominance over the other castes
becoming three leeches of the village, viz., the deshmukh, the patwari and the money
lender.

The zamindari and jagirdari feudal estates the feudal system adopted

pervasive, vulgar, cruel, oppressive methods to exploit and dominate over the people,
particularly the low castes.

Caste system played a crucial role in India in its inexorable way to create a
fixed labour reserve force for agricultural production. Members of the low caste
families were assigned most menial and contemptible occupations, who could never
aspire to the status of peasants and landless labourer indicates certain degree of class
differentiation in the rural areas.20

Infact the status of many of them semi servile, involving a kind of bondage to
high caste peasants and landlords. Almost every craft, carpentry, pottery, smiths etc,
was the business of separate castes. It was observed, that even if the separation of
trades was originally spontaneously developed it was crystallized and finally made
permanent by law. The caste system played the same role In Hyderabad state also.
The field labour was recruited from almost all the communities except the Brahmins,

116

Komatis, Kshatriyas and Sutars. Domestic servants drew mainly from Bedars,
Hajjams, Lingayats, Telagas, Sunars, etc.21

Vetti in Telangana:

The Feudal exploitation of the peasantry was more intense in Telangana

districts of Hyderabad state under the powerful jagirdars and zamindars, the
deshmukhs, as they were called Dora the lord of the village. The Dora, a
combination of landlord, money lender and village officials traditionally enjoyed
several privileges and services of occupational castes in return for some meagre
payment. The Dora including the other village officials like the patwari, the Patel,
and the police patel exacted the services free owing to their power and position in the
village. This kind of exactions had been legitimized in vetti chakiri (forced labour or
free labour or bonded labour) to cultivate the Doras lands and performing other jobs
like domestic, agricultural or official as on obligation to the Dora. Vetti chakiri was a
symbol of the dominance of landlords in Telangana. Most of the agricultural
labourers who rendered this vetti were from the lower and untouchable castes of
madigas and malas.

The Vetti system is generally taken to be confined to tribal areas or some of

the most backward social communities in other areas. But in Telangana the vetti
system was all pervasive social phenomenonss affecting all castes of people in
varying degree. Each untouchable family was forced to send one man from the family

117

to do vetti. Their job was to work in the house of the Deshmukh, Patwari and Patel
mali-patel to carry reports to the police station, Tahasil office, watching the village
chavidi. They also work for the officers who visited the villages. They collected wood
from the forests for fuel and carried post and supplies. They were supposed to be paid
one anna for carrying post from 2 miles distance, which was not honoured in
practice.22

The vetti system was not restricted to the untouchables alone, other people like
Boyalu (Hunters), Bestalu (fisher men ) and chakali (washer men ) were forced to
carry on their shoulders men and women of the land lord families in pallakis or
Minas, specially made carriers over long distance from one village to another. The
servants were made to run fast before and behind the fast driven bullock carts
whenever the members of the landlord families travelled as path cleaners and escort. 23
It could be observed that the Agrarian structure in Hyderabad state was like a page
from medieval feudal history.24 Although the general pattern of land tenure in the
state was Ryotwari, the number of big landlords owning large area of lands was
tremendous.25

In 1949, it was reported that in the three districts of Nalgonda,

Mahboobnagar and Warangal, the number of pattadars owning more than 500 acres
was about 550, owning 60 to 70% of the total cultivable land.26

The Jagirdars, paigahs, and samsthanam exploited the peasants by collecting

excess taxes and illegal exactions from the peasantry. The Nizam issued a firmana
banning 82 kinds of illegal exactions in collaboration with the Government officials.

118

The Deshmukhs and Deshpandes were traditional tax collectors for the Government.
When the Government introduced direct collection by itself, the Deshmukhs and
Deshpandes were granted watan or mash based on the percentage of the past
collection. The Deshmukhs and Deshpandes due to their access to land records
fraudulently grabbed thousands of acres of fertile cultivated lands and made it their
own property. The peasants cultivating those lands were unaware of this grab, and
were thus reduced in such process to the position of tenants at-will or become landless
labourers. It was felt that the landlords started their grab or forcible occupation of the
peasants lands during the first survey settlement in 1870.

Subsequently during the survey settlements they got the lands registered in
their names without the knowledge of the peasants who came to know about the loss
of their lands they could do nothing except to surrender themselves. The landlords
further occupied the lands during the years of economic hardships in 1920-22 and
1930-33 when the peasants were unable to pay the taxes either due to failure of crops
or unfair prices for their crops. The rich peasant, the sahukars used to lend agricultural
products like grain, seeds, chillies etc., to the needy peasant at usurious rates of
interest and failure to repay the loans resulted in confiscation of their lands. The
peasants could not to anything as the Deshmukhs were not only rich landlords, Doras,
but were either village officers like the patwaris, patels and mali-patel, particularly
under the control of the Dora. Each Dora used to get five to ten villages under him as
watan.

119

It was not only the social, economic political, cultural and all pervasive
exploitation of the landlords and village officers with the collaboration of the
Government officers, but it was the land tenure system that developed and enforced
made the lives of the peasants miserable and ultimately forcing the small and the
middle peasants to give up cultivation and become either rent receivers or agricultural
labourers. Consequent to receiving of frequent complaints from the ryots of forcible
eviction of agricultural tenants, rack renting and unauthorized occupation of lands, the
Government appointed a committee in June, 1949, under the chairmanship of N.
Madhava Rao to investigate in to the problems of peasantry.27

State economy was predominantly rural (82%) and agrarian (60%) Agriculture
was the main-stay, but government did not bestow adequate attention for its
development. Increasing poverty and debt of peasant, land alienation due to distress
and fall in prices of agricultural products owing to world economic depression,
dominance of Jagirdari system and the existence of Begari and Baghela and tenancy
problems all show the deterioration of the agrarian conditions in the state.

The land tenures (60% Diwani 30% Jagirdari and 10% Sarf-e-Khas) in the
state show feudal predominance and exploitative treatment. The survey and
settlement varying from 25% to 50% of the produce was fixed with the Pattadars,
Pot-pattadars, Shikmidars and Asmi-shikmidars, the existing of tenancy cultivating
tenants-at-will etc., caused many problems to the ryots. The foregoing show that the
problems of the cultivators and their debt trap was increasing. The government was

120

not in a position to help the peasant from the worsening condition, therefore the
problems of ryots have been highlighted by organizations like Andhra Maha Sabha,
Andhra Jana Sangham etc. they tried to alleviate the position of the peasant from the
misery.

Under the caption Awakening among Ryots and the necessity of Ryots
Association, the Golkonda Patrika wrote about the plight of the ryots and their timid
nature, exploitation of Patels, Patwaris, Deshmukhs, Giradwars28 and appealed for
the establishment of ryots association. Consequently in 1929 a Ryots association was
established in Nalgonda and it suggested that a conference of the association was
essential to save the ryots from exploitation.29 These associations created command
among ryots at Sultanabad, Karimnagar, Jagityal in Karimnagar district in 1929. In
Bhongir taluq, 200 villagers of Tummalagudem, Nagaram, Valigonda represented to
Tusker, Secretary, land revenue department against the increase in land revenue
assessment when the village was transfered from jagir to khalsa.30

Telangana, a predominantly agricultural region, had undergone serious

economic convulsions in 1930; Along with the rest of India and the world. The Great
Depression of 1930 fall in agricultural prices, increasing poverty, indebtedness and
consequent land alienation not only affected the agrarian relations but also increased
the peasant distress in the region, because of the jagirdari system, and the state
became a strong base for feudal set up, with begari and baghela systems, and made

121

the position of farmers increasingly miserable in 1930s for agrarian purpose, the state
was divided into Diwani (Khalsa), Sarf-e-khas, Paigah and Jagir areas.

The last three were generally known as Jagirdari areas. In the diwani and jagir
areas of the state about 85% of the population lived on agriculture. Jagirs including
the sarf-e-khas comprised approximately 40% of the total area of the state and the rest
was Diwani area. Ryotwari system was prevalent in the Diwani area whereas
feudalism had taken roots in the Jagirdari areas. 5,29,26,720 acres of land under
cultivation 333,82,938 acres were under Diwani area and the remaining area was
shared between sarf-e-khas, paigahs, samsthanams, jagirs etc.31

Depression had seriously affected the market oriented rich peasant economy,
Salar Jung-I carried out survey and settlement operation in the 1870 in Diwani areas
and introduced ryotwari system of collecting 50% of the produce by abolishing
revenue farming. The cultivators called shikmidars were given pattas, who were free
to sub-lease the lands to the tenants-at-will called asami-shikmidars. This subinfeudation of lands coupled with heavy revenue demand had negative consequences
on the rural agrarian society. As for the Jagirdari system, it was oppressive and much
hated by the people. Under the Jagirs, concentration of the land varied: from 1.5 lac
acres under one jagirdar to thousands of acres divided among the 1167 jagirdars in
1922. The number of smaller jagirdars increased in the subsequent period. The
jagirdars controlled around 6500 villages and have become notorious in illegal
exactions from the peasantry. 82 varieties of such exactions were recorded. The

122

magnitude of the burden of illegal exactions could be judged from the fact that 110
jagirdars were collecting regularly about Rs. 10 Crore through various taxes from the
peasantry of which Rs. 5.5 Crore were appropriated only by about 19 Jagirdars, in
addition to the various taxes, baghela and begari.32

The Deshmukhs wielded lot of political and economic power being rent
collectors and owners of vast lands. The patels and patwaris supported the
Deshmukhs. A Deshmukh was called Dora, and being all powerful he extracted vetti
from all sections of the people under his control. Initially brahmins were owners of
substantial land but later on Reddy, kamma, velama peasant proprietors, rose to
prominance reducing the influence of Brahmins, vaisyas and shahukars (marwaris) as
traders and money lenders gradually penetrated into the rural society. 33

The Peasantry in Telangana, especially in Warangal, Nalgonda and later in

karimnagar and Adilabad rose against illegal and excessive exactions of the feudal
lords.34 Toddy tappers had to provide toddy special from exclusively reserved toddy
trees free of cost to the landlord families and supply those 5 big pots of toddy and
even more during festival days. The weavers had to supply the clothes to the
household servants of the landlord. The carpenters and black smiths were to supply
free of cost agricultural implements and repair them to landlords. The washerman
were forced to wash clothes, clean vessels in the houses of the landlords and village
officials. They carried personal mail from their village to other villages. They
arranged cots and beds, cooking materials for the officials who visited the village and

123

grinded turmeric garlic and pound chillies. The potters were to provide the needed
pots to the landlords and villages officers and cooked food for the officers who visited
the villages besides providing them the pots face of cost. The barbers had to do daily
service in the house of landlord and in the morning and night massage the body and
press the feet. The shepherds had to give their goats and sheep one each from their
herds on every auspicious occasion in the landlords house or on all village festival
days. The merchants on the demand of the police patel had to supply by turn, all the
commodities whenever the Government officers visited the village. They were subject
to torture and to various indignities if they failed to meet the demand.

The peasants were forced to give their carts, even in the odd times when they
have to travel their destination. They had to till the lands of the village officials and
landlords before they could take up their own fields and they would not get water to
their fields till the landlords fields watered. Agricultural labourers worked in their
fields without any compensation and only then they were permitted to work on wages
in other fields.35 The poor people who cannot provide anything specific were forced
to supply bowls and eggs to the landlords and village officials on tour. Under this
vetti System, as stated earlier, people of all castes irrespective of their social and
economic backgrounds were exploited in various degrees. The Brahmins had to
supply leaf plates to the landlords. 36

The worst barbarous of these feudal exactions and practices were that the
landlords kept girls of different communities as slaves and used them as concubines.

124

They were presented and forced to accompany the married daughters of the landlord
when they were going to establish their new homes and serve them. The landlords
along with the other village officials forced the young women folk of the village for
illegal relations and those refused were ill-treated whenever opportunity occurred.

The people of Telangana villages with this vetti system lived a life of utter
degradation and abject poverty and serfdom. 37 The system had its deep roots to crush
the human dignity by brute force and ruin the self-respect completely. Its sanction lied
in social custom and brute force.38 It is well beyond the bonded labour or debtbondage. All the castes particularly the agricultural labourers and artisans were forced
to supply free of charge or on some nominal payment whatever the products or
services they produced. Besides these, the landlord along with the village officials
acted as jury in all the village disputes and collected fine from the offenders.

The landlords also demand gifts from the villagers on all special occasions like
festivals, marriages etc, and contributions in cash or kind to the cost of ceremonial
functions in his family or village. Anything attractive and beautiful on demand should
be handover to the landlord. For his pleasure, they did not allow anybody to possess
good things like a pair of bullocks, a good house, a lush crop. It is almost looting and
plunders the watchward of the feudals in Telangana. The feudal exactions, the vetti
system and the feudal tenurial relations constituted the twin oppressions that crushed
the people of Telangana for more than seven to eight decades.

125

Kesava Iyengar, in his economic investigation in Telangana districts during

1929-30, found that there was no middle class, and the big land owners were infact
not only defacto employers but also sahukars and grocers. The entire economy of the
village was controlled by the landlords. His vetti (slave) madigas prepare ropes,
baskets and shoes for all his baghelas and cultivation needs. 39

Baghela System (Jeetas, Paleru):

Sarojini Regani observes that in the Telangana villages serfdom and semislavery known as baghela, or vetti (Begara) were the common features during 1930s.
The agricultural labourers were unable to pay the petty loans advanced by the
landlords became their serfs. The baghelas were maintained not only by every big
land holder in big number but also by the middle peasants who cultivated with one or
two Baghelas. Baghelas were mostly drawn from aboriginal tribes. It was observed
that the vetti and Beghela systems were perversion of the traditional Hindu Jajmani
system which was based on the principle of reciprocal exchange.

The origin of a Baghela was a landless labourer of the lower caste, often from
the untouchable caste, who was obliged to offer the labour as security for debts and
works till the debt was cleared. It was often reported that when a man married,
involving a considerable expense he became a Baghela. A part of the wages for his
work was deducted to repay the loan. But as the wages were so low and with a high
rate of interest (not less than 25%) the debt remained unpaid forever. When the

126

Baghela died the debt was inherited by his heir and the system continued for
generations of agricultural labourers rendering totally unpaid labour to landlords,
cultivating their large holdings for the most minimal amount in wages.

The main feature of the system:

1.

Payment of remuneration annually in kind. If paid monthly, calculation

at a

low rate in some cases food was given.

2.

Whole time service- any and all sorts of work.

3.

Change from one master to another was considered immoral

4.

Debt was due from Baghelas no interest was charged.

5.

Most of the debts were for the marriages of the Beghelas.

6.

Remuneration was less than the bear physical needs of low class labour
Bonus of two months remuneration Tobacco were given free.

7.

The master was looked upon as having the right to punish, starves or
confine the Baghela for any offence of omission or commission.

8.

No written agreement

9.

This system was in existence from a long time.

10.

If the Baghela dies, the debt due from him was wiped off. 40

S.M. Barucha reported that some of the Baghelas were hereditary servants and
the cultivator used to feed and clothe them and took service in lieu of interest on the
advances (Rs. 100-300) for their marriages. They were living in chronic penury and
indebtedness.

The landless agricultural labourers and the depressed castes were

127

driven into debts by their poverty and agreed to serve the man from whom he has
borrowed. The money is not repaid, nor is not intended to be repaid, but the borrower
remains a life-long slave of his creditors. Thus, the consequences of the Vetti, the
begar, the Baghela are the compulsion of stress to mortgage ones personal liberty. 41

Women and child labour occupied a high percentage in Hyderabad state

compared to other states in India. They were paid low wages for they were forced to
work due to the object poverty conditions. Child employment was prevalent in India
inspite of the prohibitive legislation in factories and residences of well-to-do families.
The slaves were asked to work for very low wages from 05:00 am to 10:00 pm
nobody seemed to have bothered about their health, wealth and other social and
psychological aspects. On the other hand they were ill-treated, harassed, looked
down and exploited their energies for all sorts of jobs.

This practice was in vogue in all parts for a long time, but its intensity was felt
more in the feudal Hyderabad state. The root cause of this unsocial practice was the
poverty of the parents who cloud not provides anything to them. Therefore, they were
forced to sell their children boys and girls at a very young age. This situation
perpetuated the existence and continuance of slave labour in the state. 42

128

Parwada System:

The extreme poverty on one side and wealth on the other encouraged this
system. Most of the jagirdars and money gentry who had homes in their jagirs
collected, small children from poor families who could not maintain them. These
children when grown up were used as domestic servants. The parents also completely
detached themselves from the children after they were handed over. In rare cases, the
parents kept contact with their children and visited them at intervals and the master
sometimes gave them some rewards and sends them away. The ultimate object of the
master was to utilize the children as domestic servants. In the city of Hyderabad, very
often cruelties as putting chilly powder in the eyes, torturing them with or without
instruments, beating harshly and depriving food for hours together and other types of
ill-treatment came to the notice of the Government. As most of the Jagirdars and
proprieted people lived in the city, they brought parwardas into the city. 43

The feudalism had taken a special shape which may be summed up in the
phrase the Jagirdari system. The Jagir was a free grant of one or more villages from
the rulers of the state to the grantee as a reward for some conspicuous service, either
military or otherwise. The grantee, called the jagirdar, had the right to collect land
revenue and generally retained the whole of it without passing it on to the state. But
the jagirdar was not the owner of the land. Like the state in non-jagir (Diwani) areas,
the jagirdar had the power to create ownership rights in his teats by conferring lands

129

on others. The owners either cultivated the land themselves or leased it out to tenants
for a rent. The jagirs, thus, were states within a state. 44

The Jagir to as a tenure common among the Mohammedan government in

which the public revenue of a given tract of land was made over to a servant of the
state, together with the powers requisite to enable him to collect and appropriate such
revenue, and to administer the general government of the territory so assigned. The
assignment was either conditional or otherwise; the assignment was either for a stated
term or more usually for the life time of the holder lapsing on his death to the state
although frequently renewed to his heirs on the payment of a Nazrana and
sometimes specified to be a hereditary assignment without which specification it was
held to be a life-tenure.45

It may be observed that the history of the state since the establishment of Asaf
Jahi dynasty had been one of constant warfare. In the absence of the settled
government, confusion and chaos reigned everywhere. Frequent revolts by petty rajas
and zamindars, which were always turbulent in the payment of Peshkush, were
common. Some nobles, on the other hand, enjoyed their estates with almost supreme
power. They had the power of life and death, exercising a kind of imperium in
imperio.46 The assessment and collection of revenue was entrusted to contractors
and lease-holders. People were harassed and high handedness of the Taluqdars were
routing. Before the collection of the goods and the harvest of the crops, the authorities
demanded revenue, and thus put the cultivators in the clutches of money -lenders

130

which involved them in paying compound interest. Thus they collected revenue by
unlawful means which worsened the condition of the people. The zamindars /
jagirdars were arrogant and the people were gradually ruined. Agriculture was in the
state of decline. Government servants were incharge of taluqs. The deshmukhs the
deshpandes were mainly interested in collecting money. They were busy making their
fortunes, indifferent to the welfare of the villages. As a result of such disorders and
lawlessness, there was a decrease in the collection of diwani revenue with adverse
effects upon the economic life of the people. 47

The entire administration of the Hyderabad state was conducted by two

unwidely and centralized offices known as daftar-i-mal and daftar-i-diwani. The
management of the two offices was in the hand of daftardars, whose duties were to
keep accounts of the state and a register of grants of jagirs. Dar-ul-insha, a third
office, attended to the correspondence of the minister. 48 The employees of the Nizam
were Muslims of sects, shias and Sunni, as well as Hindus particularly kayasthas,
Khatris, and Maratha Brahmins from western India and South India. It has become a
tradition with the Asaf Jahi rulers and the Peshkar or chief of the Secretariat,
daftardar of Daftar-i-Diwani and Daftar-i-mal were always Hindus. However, the
vast majority of the Jagirdars and army commanders were Muslims. 49 Jagirs in
Hyderabad were used to provide individuals with a permanent income and a territorial
base in the Deccan. The mansabs given without any uniformity were primarily a
military and ceremonial distinction like titles and other honours awarded by the

131

Nizam. Mansab rank alone was not a sufficient definition of noble status, since
hereditary possession of Jagirs became a major factor in defining noble status. 50

The most prominent Muslim noble family of paigah in Hyderabad state. They
ranked next to the Nizam and his family. Muslim nobles held Jagirs or estates on
military tenures.51 The means of production have been concentrated in the hands of
the Jagirdars who exploited and appropriated the surplus in the state. Some of the
prominent issues which figured between 1926-48 were.

1.

Request for revenue relief;

2.

Problems of ryot associations;

3.

Vetti (bonded labour) and the exploitation of the patels, and patwaris;

4.

Economic conditions of the state;

5.

Relief in revenue in jagir areas and associations; and

6.

Baghelas etc.

They were so severe that the condition of the ryots could be seen. We will
discuss all the above points in the coming chapter. Such was the oppression of the
Jagirdars and money-lenders who squeezed out the money like leech to the blood. The
ryots lived in utter penury. They brought amounts from the money- lender for large
rates of interest which they could not repay and ultimately the land was handed over
by the zamindar.

132

The agrarian social structure is closely corresponded to the structure of land

ownership, power and authority. The caste hierarchies continued to exits, though
British abolished, and often overlapped with the hierarchies of economy and power.
The socio- economic transformation during the colonial period (1802-1947) resulted
in the formation of new classes, formally separated from the traditional caste system.
Yet the categories of caste and class were, to a large extent, converged and continued
to be interlinked. Broadly speaking, the fusion and convergence of caste and class in
the colonial context contributed to the emergence of two distinct groups of people,
namely landlords (zamindars) and peasants / tenants. The first group, consisted of the
minority section of the society, though owned and controlled land and other resources
but did not participate in the process of production. The second group, though
heterogeneous in terms of caste was the majority section comprising mainly of the
tillers of land. In most of the cases and for a long time, the cultivators who tilled the
land and harvested its yield had no rights in the land.

The Jagirdars were basically parasitic rent receiving landholders who

exercised ownership right in land and other resources without undertaking supervision
and cultivation of land. In terms of caste, the jagirdars were Reddy, the Kapu, the
Velama etc. Generally speaking, landlordism was closely associated with the
permanent settlement. Big pattadars owned vast landed properties. The village
officers (Patel patwari) families held considerable acres of land and controlled other
economic resources in the countryside. Their wealth and richness enabled them to
exercise power and domination over the dependent peasantry. Since they occupied

133

village offices (patel, mansab) etc., and command respect and authority. Below the
landlords was found a large peasant community comprising owner-cultivators,
occupancy tenants and various types of under-tenants.

The artisan castes like Sali, Goundla, Mangala, Chakali, etc., did own some
land but it was too meagre to depend upon for livelihood. Since many of these castes
witnessed the destruction of their traditional occupations (de-industrialisation), they
swelled the ranks of the rural poor. Consequently, they constituted a large part of
agricultural labour, next only to untouchables. Many micro studies reveal that the
artisan castes gradually lost their landed Property in favour of other dominant castes
and thus became landless.52

The evolution of the land tenure system under

colonialism strengthened the position of jagirdars as well as big zamindars, landlords

in terms of their control over land. It may be pointed out that for decades the jagirdars
had been able to command and exercise immense power and authority in the
countryside mainly because of their grip over land. The jagirdari agrarian structure
enabled the landlord class as a whole to appropriate a larger share of agrarian surplus
by means of extraction of exorbitant rates. The landlords authority was, infact,
maintained on the basis of rock-renting. The jagirdars power was further reinforced
since they acquired enormous wealth and affluence based on rack renting and illegal
cesses.

134

Acquisition of wealth and control over resources enabled the landlords to

maintain their higher status. It also sustained their hold and hegemony over rural
society, economy and polity.

The seri lands were extended overtime by the

occupation of relinquished and evicted lands bought from the ryots. It has also been
stated that the private lands were enlarged by illegal occupations and encroachment of
communal lands.53 The jagirdars employed farm servants and wage labourers to
cultivate their personal lands. But in most of the estates, private lands were leased out
to middlemen and under tenants / tenants- at-will. The possession of the vast estates
and private lands helped the landlords exercise control over the tenants. Control over
land and acquisition of wealth and affluence helped the landlords to exercise power
and authority. The jagirdars and landlords exercised both economic and political
domination over the peasants.54 If we look into the classification of jagirs and their
nature:

1)

Paigahs: - Three in number

i)

Asman Jahi Paigah

ii)

Khurshid Jahi Paigah and

iii)

Vicar-ul-Umra Paigah.

The term paigah is of Persian origin and means foot or space or stable.

135

2)

The next kind of Jagirs comes, the Ilaqas or estates of the premier
nobles (Umra-e-Ozam) of the state. There are four such estates:

i)

The Estate of Nawab salar Jung Bahadur.

ii)

The Estate of Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Bahadur.

iii)

The Estate of Nawab khan Khanan Bahadur.

iv)

The Estate of Nawab Fakhr-ul-Mulk Bahadur.

The nobles, who held these jagirs, were very powerful nobles of high rank.

3)

The next category of the jagirs is the Samsthanams. All of them pay a
tribute called peshkash to the Ruler. According to the Daftar Diwanio-Mal which has the custody of all sanads and parwanas relating to the
crown grants the word peshkash means Nazar or present.

Under Gasti No.2 of 1312, Samsthan shall mean a group of Villages, granted
by the Government to Jagirdars and Samsthandars on payment of Peshkash. There
are 14 Samsthanams paying Peshkash.

They are (1) Gadwal (2) Wanaparti

(3)Jatprole (4) Amara Chinta (5) Palavancha (6) Domakonda (7) Gopalpet
(8)Anegondi (9) Rajapet (10) Dubbaka (11) Narayanpur (12) Papannapet
(13)Gurgunta and (14) Sirnapalli.

Exempted Jagirs: There are 17 in Numbers.

136

Jagir

Area in Sq. Miles

No. of Villages

Asman Jahi Paigah

1,634

401

2,89,920

Khurshid Jahi Paigah

1,555

396

3,15,024

Vicar-ul-Umra Paigah

1,163

397

2,50,664

Total - (A)

4,352

1,194

8,55,608

Estate of Salarjung

1126

359

2,21,382

Kishe

362

208

1,11,759

Estate of Nawab Khan

197

89

63,459

234

113

94,464

211

75

41,862

817

122

1,29,618

Estate of Wanaparti

605

150

1,00,356

Estate of Jatprole

357

86

59,968

Estate of Raja Dharam

162

186

82,428

Raj

272

119

39,372

Samsthan

161

69

55,856

272

60

47,798

3090

70

66,032

34

29,327

Estate

of

Sir

Population

Pershad
Khanan
Estate of Nawab Fakhar
ul Mulk
Estate of Nawab Mehdi
Jung Bahadur
Estate

of

Samsthan

Gadwal

Karan
Estate

of

Sham

Bahadur
Estate

of

Amarachinta
Estate of Jagir Kalyani
Estate

of

Samsthan

Palvancha
Estate of Surya Jung
Bahadur
Total - (B)

7,866

1,740

11,43,681

Grand Total (A+B)

12,218

2,934

19,99,28955

137

The Revenue Department maintains a Register in which the income of Jagirs

which pay the Jagirdars college cess, is endowed. According to this register, the
number of jagirs paying the jagirdars college cess, is as follows:

Aurangabad Suba

254

Medak Suba

244

Warangal Suba

124

Gulbarga Suba

218

84056

TOTAL

Volume of agricultural Indebtedness in the Dominions:

This was confined to Diwani (Government) and Mufawaza Diwani Villages

of Sarf-e-Khas Mubaraka, i.e., those entrusted to Diwani for administration, which
in all form nearly 2/3rd of the Dominions. It is true that many of them are indebted to
the village Bania or to the pathan moneylender. Day to day the debt of the Hyderabad
state increased like a viral disease- due to the interest to money lenders. This process
only propped up the position of Deshmukhs, Deshpandes in the agrarian hierarchy.
Very often the deshmukh or deshpande landlord a figure roughly half- way between
the bureaucratic official and the feudal seigneur himself became the newly appointed
village revenue officials or had atleast an access to land records. His influence thus
permitted him to grab lands by fraud. The very fertile land and better irrigated lands
came under the control of the watandars. Only those who paid land taxes on their

138

names had the right over the land. But the whole peasant community did not know
that the land which they cultivated should be on their name, and the tax was to be paid
on their names. At this juncture taking advantage of above revenue Policy the
Deshmukhs & Deshpandes and their henchmen who collected the land revenue prior
to 1866 A. D. Created number of false evidences of land revenue receipts on their
names and in collusion with the government officers exploited the illiterate people
and grabbed thousands of acres of lands of people of the Telangana. The feudal
system is strikingly apparent in the rural areas of the Telangana. This reveals that the
government or its machinery did not care to enlighten the peasants on the laws
governing the land and the land taxes. The government had no benevolent intention of
the welfare of the peasantry and even the title face saving relief measures undertaken
did not help. So ultimately the illiterate and ignorant peasantry was made landless.
During drought or Famines and economic depression peasantry was not in a position
to pay land revenue. In light of above, the government issued firman, stating that
farmers were exempted from paying taxes in drought or famine conditions. But such
subsidies given by the government did not reach them.

Ultimately the peasants

requested the village landlords to retain the lands on their name and pay the land
revenue to the government. In this case once again the feudal institution or machinery
including its henchmen, who in collusion with the government officers exploited the
situation of people and grabbed thousands of acres of land of people

in rural

Telangana.57 The above feudal forces who had come to know the value of bourgeois
rights over property still continued their hold on the land. They used their status and

139

influence in the government to grab thousands of acres and the produce of which they
enjoyed denying the ploughing right of peasantry and their due.

Under such a system peasants had to pay half to 2/3rd of their produce as land
revenue.58 Merchant capital operated by the indigenous and other money-lenders is
not regarded as public capital. This is purely private capital where the rate of interest
depends on the party who takes the loan. The private bankers were very popular
among the people, especially the poor folk. Even if they charged higher rate of
interest or discount, people were still attracted to them for the practices of these
bankers are nearer to the habits of the people in general, unlike those of the joint stock
banks.

The problem of credit became acute for all categories of peasants. The
merchants and landlords cum money lenders played an important role in agrarian
economy. Money lending as a business, has always existed in Hyderabad state.
Ancestral debt and constantly recurring small items of debt for food and other
necessities, social, religious, ceremonies, Seeds, bullocks and land revenue are the
principle causes of enhancing rural indebtedness. The need of agriculturist for loans is
therefore, imperative, and the money lender is the only person to satisfy it. In the rural
parts money lending and grain dealing are inseparably combined in one person.59

A report on Agricultural Indebtedness of Hyderabad Dominions which was

based on 57 Villages in Medak revenue division and 90 Villages in Warangal revenue

140

division. Taking three types of villages in each taluq of total Telangana region, which
reveals that, there were 328 agricultural money lenders and 363 non-agricultural
money lenders in Medak division. Whereas in Warangal revenue division there were
982 total agricultural and non-agricultural money lenders were 2397 in 147 selected
villages i.e., 4.40%.60

Medak Revenue Division:

Villages

57

Agricultural money lenders

328

Non-Agricultural money lenders

363

Warangal Revenue Division:

Villages

90

Agricultural Money lenders

982

Non-Agricultural money lenders

724

According to the 1931 census reports, the total money lenders in Telangana
were 6401. It is significant to note that the concentration of money lenders in
Telangana increased in 1941.61

Some of the practices which the private money lenders had been following
were very popular in Telangana which were as follows:

141

1.

1.

The Laonee System

2.

The Lagwad System

3.

Vishwas Kharedi or Conditional Sales.62

The Laonee System:

This system is locally known as Agar, Jatle or Mungad, Kharidi or

satta.63 Under this system, the sahukars advance cash to needy ryots just before the
cultivation season on the stipulation that the ryots would sell the produce to the
sahukars at harvest time at price previously fixed by the sahukars to their advantage.

2.

The Lagwad System:

Between the sowing and reaping of a crop, the ryot borrow money from the
sahukars for expenses of weeding and other agricultural operation. Repayment at
harvest is compulsory; otherwise compound interest is levied.64

3.

Vishwas Kharedi or Conditional Sales:

In most of the cases the cultivator was never in the position to repay the loan
fully. In the cases where the land was good for cultivation and the ryot tries to repay
the loan after borrowing from another sahukar. He generally finds that he does not

142

give back the land, and the ryots were helpless in the civil court in the face of the
registered sale deed.65

Number of Banks in Telangana by the end of 1945

S.No

City & District

Place of the Bank

No. of Banks

Functioning
1.

Hyderabad

Dominion Jagirdar

Capital
(Rs.)

20,99,978
-

Brahmakatyan
2.

Atraf-i-Balda

3.

Nizamabad

Nizamabad, Banswada

1,27,807

4.

Medak

Medak, Sangareddy,

4,66,474

Vikarabad
5.

Baghat

6.

Mahbubnagar

Mahbubnagar,

1,51,621

Nagarkurnool,
Wanaparthy
7.

Nalgonda

Bhongir, Suryapet

4,65,080

8.

Warangal

Warangal, Mahbubabad,

3,56,211

1,3 8,009

96,416

22

39,01,596

Khammam
9.

Karimnagar

Karimnagar, Jagityal,
Manthani

10.

Adilabad

Adilabad, Nirmal,
Chennur
TOTAL

Source: Statistical Year Book of H. E. H. The Nizams Dominions 1351-4 F,

pp.852-5.

143

It was observed that 113 debts were based on crop security out of
242 resident families in Mahboobnagar district i.e.,

47%

District Nizambad resident families

77%

District Warangal resident families

17%

The Non-Land mortgage debts that were borrowed in the districts were
as follows:

Mahboobnagar district 242 resident families borrowed Rs. 19,340/Nizamabad district 148 resident families borrowed

Rs.

14,460/-

Waranagal district 1190 resident families borrowed

Rs. 2,14,660/-

This shows that the right of patta on land had in fact led the peasant into debt
which in turn led him to lose his land. Thus indebtedness had been increasing since
1920 onwards. The increase was to such an extent that the difference in debt between
1920 and 1929 was nearly 720%.66 Non-productive debts were more than productive
debts.
Warangal

Rs. 2,14,660/-

Mahaboobnagar

Rs.

19,340/-

Nizamabad

Rs.

14,460/-

144

The numbers of peasant families indebted were

Warangal

1,176

Mahaboobnagar

113

Nizamabad

113 Districts respectively

The rate of interest on these debts varied from

Warangal

5% to 50%

Mahboobnagar

13.5% to 33%

Nizamabad

12.5% to 65%

The average debt per family stood at Rs./-

Warangal

Rs. 181.23

Mahboobnagar

Rs. 171.50

Nizamabad

Rs. 127.9667

Causes of Indebtedness:

1.

Small Holdings

2.

Recurring loss of cattle

145

3.

Insecurity of crop

4.

Marriage expenses and litigation

5.

The money lender system

6.

The Laoni system

7.

The Lagwad System

8.

The Vishwas Kharedi or Conditional sale.68

Now we pass on to the next chapter which deals with resistance to Dominance
where the dominated class had been resisted by oppressors.

146

REFERENCES
1

Moreland, W.H., Agrarian System of Modern India, Delhi, 1968, p. xi.

Dhanagare, D.N., Peasant Movements in India, 1920-1950, O.U.P., Delhi, 1991,

p.26.

Sarkar, J., History of Aurangzeb, The Closing Years, London, 1924, pp.1-19.

Dhanagare, D.N., Op. Cit., p.34.

Kumar, R., Western India in the Nineteenth Century, p.158.

Dhanagare, D.N., Op. Cit., p.42.

Report on Labour Census, 1935, H.E.H. The Nizams Government, Hyderabad,

1937, p.17.

Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op. Cit., pp.168-9.

Ibid., pp.170-4.

10

D.G.R. (T) File No.4 of 1337F (1928) & R.No. 3795 of 1338F (1929).

11

W.S. File No.4 of 1342F (1933) & R.No. 454 of 1343F (1934).

12

Golconda Patrika (Daily), 23-4-1950.

13

Golconda Patrika (Daily), 13-10-1949.

14

Golconda Patrika (Daily), 23-4-1950.

15

Bharucha, S.M., Rural Indebtedness, p.84.

16

Reddy, Ramakrishna, V., Op. Cit., p.229.

17

Satyanarayana, A., Society, Economy and Polity in Modern Andhra, Kanishka, New
Delhi, 2007, pp.9-11.

18

Kumar Dharma, Land and Caste in South India, Manohar, New Delhi, 1992, p.34.

19

Thurston, E., Ethnographical Notes on South India, Madras, 1906, p.456.

147

20

Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India, (1556-1707), Asia, London,
1963, p.122.

21

Bhaskar Rao, V., Agrarian and Industrial Relations in Hyderabad State,

Unpublished Thesis, Department of Public Administration, Kakatiya University
Warangal, 1983, pp.82-84.

22

Sundarayya, P., Telangana Peoples Struggles and Its Lessons, CPI(M), Calcutta,
1972, pp.12-3.

23

Raavi Narayana Reddy, Veera Telangana, Na Anubhavalu Gnapakalu (telugu),

Communist Party Publication, Vijayawada, 1976, p.5.

24

Dhanagare, D.N., Op. Cit., p.183.

25

Administrative Report of Government of Hyderabad, 1950-51.

26

Sundarayya, P., Op. Cit., pp.15-6.

27

Bhaskar Rao, V., Op. Cit., pp.29-31.

28

Golkonda Patrika 8-6-1929, p.8.

29

1338F, Golkonda Patrika, 5-6-1929.

30

Golkonda Patrika, 17-7-1929.

31

Agricultural Statistics, Estimates of Area and Yield of Principal Crop in Hyderabad

State, 1925-26 to 1934-35, H.E.H., The Nizams Government, pp.2-3.

32

Qureshi, A.J., Economic Development, p.68.

33

Akhil Gupta, Revolution in Telangana, 1946-51, Social Science Probings, Vol.

III, No. 1, Jan-Mar, 1986, pp.3-16.

34

Hamza Alavi, Peasants and Revolution, p.25.

35

Sundarayya, P., Op. Cit., p.14.

148

36

Raavi Narayana Reddy, Op. Cit., p.4.

37

Sundarayya, P., Op. Cit.

38

Balagopal, K., Economic and Political Weekly, April 30, 1983, p.712.

39

Kesava Iyengar, S., Economic Investigation in Hyderabad State, (1929-30), Vol. I,

Government in Hyderabad, 1931, pp. 152, 161.

40

Bhaskara Rao, V., Op. Cit., pp.92-4.

41

Ibid., pp.95-6.

42

Ibid., pp.98-100.

43

Ibid., pp.102-3.

44

Khusro, A.M., Op. Cit., p.4.

45

Alim Moulvi, Chirag, Hyderabad under Sir Salar Jung, Education Society Press,
Bombay, 1886, p.13.

46

Mudiraj, K.K., Pictorial Hyderabad, Vol. I, Hyderabad, 1929, pp.62-3.

47

Dilawar Ali Danish, Riyaz-e-Mukhtaria, Azam, Steam Press, Hyderabad, 1942,

pp.86-7.

48

Raj, Sheela, Medievalism to Modernism: Socio-Economic and Cultural History of

Hyderabad, 1869-1911, Sangam Books, New Delhi, 1987, p.14.

49

Bawa, V.K., Hyderabad in Transition under Salarjung-I, (1853-83), Tulance

University, Michigan, 1967, p.98.

50

Leonard Karen, The Hyderabad Political System and Its Participants, Journal of
Asian Studies, Vol. XXX, May, 1971, pp.569-600.

51

Ghulam Samdani Khan Gauhar, Tazuk-e-Mahboobia, Vol. II, Fakhr Nizamia Press,
Hyderabad, 1901, pp.1-6.

149

52

Slater, G., (Ed.), Some South Indian Villages, Madras, 1918.

53

Baker, C.J., The Politics of South India, 1920-37, Delhi, 1976, p.113.

54

Sharma, K.L., Caste and Class in India, pp.369-74.

55

Report of the Royal Commission on Jagir Administration and Reforms, H.E.H., The
Nizams Government 1356 F - 1947, pp.28-32.

56

Ibid., p.36.

57

Raavi Narayana Reddy, Heroic Telangana Reminiscences and Experiences, New

Delhi, 1973.

58

Reddy, Suravaram Pratapa,

Telangana Rytangaporatam, Praja Sahityam,

Hyderabad, 1988, pp. 29-30.

59

Census Reports of India, 1941, Vol. XXI, H.E.H., The Nizams Dominions,
Hyderabad-Dn, Part-I, Government Central Press, 1945, p.158.

60

Bharucha, S.M., Agricultural Indebtedness of the Nizams Dominions, Government

Central Press, Hyderabad-Dn, 1937, p.51.

61

Census Reports of India, 1931, Vol. XXIII, Op. Cit, pp.188-9.

62

Bharucha, S.M., Op. Cit., pp.27-8.

63

Ibid., p.88.

64

Ibid., p.28.

65

Ibid., p. 29.

66

Kesava Iyengar, S., Economic Investigations in Hyderabad State, 1929-30, Vol. I,

General Survey, pp. 17, 31, 32.

67

Ibid., pp. 29, 25, 53.

68

Bharucha, S.M., Op.Cit., pp.22-8.

***