138 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
half the actual produce was to be left to the peasants, and 
it draws a distinction (H. 10) between calamities occurring 
before, and after, the crops were cut; allowance was to be 
made for the former, but not for the latter, a rule which sur- 
vivedinthe administrative tradition of the nineteenth century. 
The administration was required to see that exactions 
from peasants were limited to the lawful demands, and 
three classes of prohibited exactions are specified (R. 10). 
The first consists of those cesses which had been forbidden 
by the Emperor, who followed in this matter the general 
line taken by Firtiz and by Akbar. The second is “charges 
in excess of the revenue,” which may be interpreted as 
customary levies made by officials. The third is described 
by the word baliya, which in ordinary use may mean either 
“misfortune” or “oppression”; here it probably denotes 
some particular form of oppression which was common at 
the time, but I have found no illustrative passages to assist 
in its interpretation. So much is clear, that various forms 
of exaction prevailed, and that they were definitely pro- 
hibited; how far the prohibition was effective remains a 
matter for conjecture. 
The orders which have been summarised above applied 
primarily only to the Reserved areas, a small fraction of the 
Empire, but their provisions were intended, at the least, 
to set a standard of procedure in Assignments, for the 
officials employed by assignees were to be urged to act in 
accordance with them. Here again it is a matter for con- 
jecture how far these orders took effect. Aurangzeb’s local 
administration was not characterised by efficiency, so that 
assignees probably enjoyed more freedom than in Akbar’s 
days; but a curious provision suggests that the provincial 
Diwan was in fact in a position to influence the local staff 
employed by assignees. He was required (R. 12) to report 
on the loyalty and efficiency of the assessors and collectors 
employed in Assignments, and a promise was given that 
punishment should follow on an unfavourable report. It 
is not easy to understand how the Revenue Ministry could 
ensure the punishment of subordinates employed by an 
assignee, but the promise is there, and we must infer that, 
in some wav or other, it could be made effective.