30 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
the middle. It may well be, then, that the chroniclers’ 
silence in regard to agrarian changes is explained by the fact 
that there was nothing to record; that throughout the 
century the old agrarian system continued to function under 
the established Chiefs; and that their methods were followed 
in the areas where Moslems were in direct contact with 
peasants. The relations between Governor and Chief 
would probably be, in the main, matters for negotiation, 
while the relations between Chief and peasants would be 
outside the scope of the Revenue Ministry, which would be 
gradually accumulating experience in the management of 
the areas which were neither held by Chiefs nor assigned to 
individuals. It cannot be said that this view is established 
by an adequate mass of recorded facts, but it seems to me 
to be the most probable interpretation of the few facts 
which have been preserved. 
As regards the areas managed by Moslem officials, the 
only fact which emerges is that the position of the headmen 
was recognised. The passages given in Appendix C show 
that in the matter of perquisites headmen were on the same 
footing as Chiefs; and it is safe to infer that, in the one case 
as in the other, the perquisites were intended as remunera- 
tion for service to the King, or, in other words, that the 
villages which were not under Chiefs were managed through 
their headmen. There is nothing on record to show the 
extent of the headman’s authority: all that can be said is 
that his position was recognised by the Moslem adminis- 
tration. 
Before leaving this century, it may be well to ask what 
was the attitude of the sovereign towards the peasants under 
his rule. The question can be answered only .in the case of 
Ralban, whose power extended over nearly half the period. 
[n his advice to his son, whom he placed on the throne of 
Bengal, he insisted (Barni, 100), on the danger of making 
excessive demands on the peasants, even when they were 
justified by precedent, and on the need for firm but just 
administration. With regard to assessment, he advised a 
middle course: over-assessment would result in the im- 
poverishment of the countty, but under-assessment would 
render the peasants lazy and insubordinate; it was essential