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
