236 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
nasaq.” This last phrase, indeed, is sufficient by itself to estab- 
lish the proposition that nasag denotes a particular method of 
assessment. 
In the official literature of the period then, nasag must be 
read as denoting a particular method of assessment other than 
Sharing or Measurement, with both of which it is specifically 
contrasted. Apart from Farming, the only other method dis- 
closed by the literature is that which I describe as Group- 
assessment, viz. assessment of a lump sum on the village (or 
occasionally the pargana) by agreement with the headmen as 
representing the peasants, the distribution of the assessment over 
the individual peasants beng left in the headmen’s hands. 
Nasaq is nowhere defined in the literature of Akbar’s reign, but 
the few facts on record regarding it allow us to identify it with 
Group-assessment, for which no other specific name has been 
found. Thus the reasons for Shihibuddin Ahmad’s change of 
method already referred to are indicated in the statements that 
the work of assessing the Reserved lands was heavy, while 
honest officials were scarce, and that the annual zabt involved 
very great expense and led to corrupt embezzlement: conse- 
quently, the object of the change of method was to simplify and 
cheapen procedure, and diminish opportunities for official cor- 
ruption; and these would be secured by Group-assessment. 
Again, nasag might clearly be made with the headmen, for 
Akbar’s rules for collectors laid down (Ain, i. 286) that in Reserved 
areas nasaq should not be made with the headmen, because of the 
risk of inefficiency and oppression. Thus nasaq might be made 
with the headmen, was simpler and cheaper than Measurement. 
and offered fewer opportunities for official corruption, but in- 
volved the risk of oppression if the headmen were strong, and of 
loss if they were weak. This description applies precisely to the 
method of Group-assessment as we meet it in Aurangzeb’s 
farman (which is discussed in Ch. V.), aud in the earliest English 
records (Ch. VI.): while there is nothing said about #asag which 
is in any way inconsistent with the identification. We have then 
either two methods of assessment, not distinguishable by any 
recorded fact, and certainly very much alike, or else we have one 
method, named but not described in the official records of Akbar’s 
reign, described but not named in Aurangzeb’s farman. It 
seems to me that the latter alternative may reasonably be 
accepted, at least until some evidence comes to light showing 
that a real difference existed.