<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>The agrarian system of Moslem India</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>William Harrison</forname>
            <surname>Moreland</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1804119261</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>THE 13tH AND l4tH CENTURIES 37 
was, it must be remembered, strong just where modern 
systems are weak, for he could rely on an elaborate organi- 
sation of spies, and there was no sentimental objection in 
the way of effective punishment. 
The question of practicability is, however, mainly a 
matter of extent. No attempt was made to keep down 
prices throughout the kingdom; effort was limited to Delhi, 
where the standing army was concentrated; and the regula- 
tions extended only to a region sufficiently large to ensure 
the isolation of the Delhi market. Isolation was favoured 
by the circumstances of the time. To the North lay the 
submontane forests, to the South the disturbed and un- 
productive country of Mewat. The city depended for its 
ordinary supplies on the River-Country to the East, and 
on the productive parts of the Punjab to the West; the 
cost of transport was necessarily high in the case of bulky 
produce; the industry was specialised in the hands of the 
professional merchants?; and, given effective control of 
these, the isolation of the market could be completely 
effected. 
The point which specially concerns us in these regulations 
is the supply of agricultural produce. The whole revenue 
due from the River Country, and half the revenue due from 
Delhi, was ordered to be paid in kind, and the grain so 
collected was brought to the city, and stored for issue as 
required; while peasants and country traders were com- 
pelled to sell their surplus at fixed prices to the controlled 
merchants, with heavy penalties for holding up stocks. I 
think 1t is quite clear that this rule involved a change in 
practice, or, in other words, that, in this part of the country, 
collections had been ordinarily made in cash, and not in 
produce. during the thirteenth century. Taking all the 
L There are definite indications that the system was perfected by 
degrees. At the outset (p. 304), the King wished to avoid severe punish- 
ments, but the shopkeepers would not abandon their practice of giving 
short weight (p. 318), until at last a rule was made that, on detection, the 
deficiency should be cut from the seller's person; and (p. 319) the fear of 
this punishment proved sufficient to put a stop to fraud. 
® Barni calls the professional merchants karavaniyan: they may safely 
be identified with the banjaras of later times. The merchants were com- 
pelled to deposit their wives and children as security for their conduct, 
and these pledges were settled near Delhi under the control of an overseer 
p. 306)</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
