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.