AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
During the 13th and 14th centuries, the land-man ration was very favourable. Although the statistical data pertaining to this period is very limited but the accounts of the contemporaries of this period suggest that inhabited area in the 13th-14th centuries was much smaller than at the close of the 16th century, when land in the tract was almost fully under cultivation.
Large tracts even in such fertile regions as the Ganga-Yamuna Doab were covered by forests and grasslands. The sufi Nizamuddin Auliya in the 13th century found wayfarers travelling between Delhi and Badaun harassed by tigers. In the 14th century, the forest in the region, according to Barani, was thick enough to provide refuge to vast number of peasants against the Sultan’s armies. Thus, during the Delhi Sultanate, there was an abundance of cultivable land that was yet to be brought under the plough.
The control over bits of land was, therefore, not as important as on persons cultivating them. A favourable ratio of land to man naturally implies agriculture to extensive. In simple terms, extensive agriculture is that where the increase in production is attempted by bringing more area under crop. Owing to abundance of cultivable land in the Delhi Sultanate, agriculture was extensive in nature. The large area of cultivable waste and fallows naturally provided good pasturage facility for cattle. The author of the Masalik Il Absar
records that in India cattle were innumerable and their prices were low. Afif reports that no village in Doab was without a cattle-pen which were called kharaks. Bullocks were so plentiful that the pack-animals and not the bullock-carts were the means of carrying grains and other goods.
One of the most remarkable features of the agriculture of the time was the large number of crops grown by the peasants of the Delhi Sultanate. This has perhaps no parallel in other parts of the world except perhaps in South China. Ibn Battuta was struck by the multiplicity of crops grown and described in sufficient detail the various crops grown in the two cropping seasons. He also suggests that in the region around Delhi double cropping was also practiced, that is, on the same soil both the kharif and the rabi crops were raised. While, this may have been the case on a small portion of the land, the important fact was that the same peasant sowed different crops for two harvests in the year. Thakkur Pheru, the mint-master at Delhi under Alauddin Khalji, writing in c. 1290 lists some twenty-five crops grown under two harvests and gives also their yields. While the yields cannot be comprehended owing to the uncertainty of the units used, one gets a fairly good idea of the crops raised. Among food crops, he mentions, wheat, barley, paddy, millets juar, moth etc. arid pulses (mash, mung lentils, etc,). For cash crops, sugarcane, cotton, oil-seeds, sesamurn, linseed, etc. are referred to.
One may perhaps legitimately assume that improved facilities of irrigation would have helped extend the area under rabi (winter) crops suck as Wheat, sugarcane etc. With the ‘Islamic raiders’ making of wine from sugarcane became widespread and a new rural industry emerged, at least around Delhi and in the Doab by the 14th century as is evident from Barani’s account. Thakkur Pheru surprisingly omits the dye-crop (indigo) though its production is testified to by the fact that indigo was already an important item of export to Persia. It is recorded that the I1 Khanids tried to encourage indigo plantation in Persia to avoid dependence upon India for its supply. The probable use of lime-mortar in the indigo-vats by providing an improved surface should have helped the manufacture of dye.
Although it is quite difficult to measure the production in terms of modern weights and measures but it has been estimated that the production of gram and cotton remained stable till the end of the 19th century and that of Jaur and barley were much higher under the Sultans of Delhi than during the colonial period. As far as prices are concerned the crop, which needed artificial irrigation like wheat, sugarcane, were more highly valued than the crops that could largely do without it. Thus, the kharif crops, which were grown on mainly on rain and inundation, fetched very low prices. The hardier rabi crops, barley and gram, also were rated lower in respect of wheat and sugarcane. The land abundance of this period encouraged a more extensive system of agriculture, and so ensured a larger production of rain-grown crops, with a consequential relative restriction of crops needing higher inputs, especially in the form of artificial irrigation.
The large area of waste land, including fallow, and forest, mean that there was little shortage of pasturage for cattle. Speaking of the two villages at the place where Firuz Shah established his city of Hisar, Atif mentions that one of them had 50 cattle pens, and the other 40 and no village was without a cattle-pen during this period. The large numbe of cattle might explain the fact that why the backs of the bullocks, and not bullock-carts, were the principal means for transporting grain in the villages. Moreover, the trade in dairy products such ghi or butter was highly profitable, thereby, making cattle rearing even more important.
From Ibn Battuta’s account, we get information on fruit growing in the Delhi Sultanate. It appears that technique of ‘grafting’ was not known by peasants. Earlier grapes were grown only in the few places besides Delhi but Muhammad Tughluq’s urging to peasants to improve cropping by shifting from wheat to sugarcane to grapes and dates and Feroz Tughluq’s laying down of 1200 orchards in the vicinity of Delhi to grow seven varieties of grapes seems to have made them so abundant that, according to Afif, the prices of grapes fell to a rate of five times that of wheat.
During the 14th century, under MBT and Firuz Tughluq, there was a marked development of gardens. Firuz Tughluq is said to have built 1200 gardens in the neighbourhood and suburbs of Delhi, 80 on the Salora embankment, and 44 in Chitror. These gardens led to the improvement of fruits, especially in grapes. Thus, we are told that grape-wine used to come to Delhi from Meerut and Aligarh. Dholpur, Gwalior and Jodhpur were the other places which witnessed a marked improvement in fruit cultivation and gardening. Special attention was paid to the improvement of pomogrenates at Jodhpur. In fact, Sikander Lodi had declared that Persia could not produce pomogrenates which were better than the Jodhpur variety in flavor. However, fruits produced in these orchards were meant mainly for the towns, and for the tables of the wealthy. They, may, however, have produced some employment, and added to the avenues of the trade.
However, the Indian peasants did not practise sericulture (rearing of silk-worm) at that time and no true silk was produced. Only wild and semi-wild silks,namely, tasar, eri and mugu were known. Whatever silk was used during the earlier periods of the Delhi Sultanate was obtained from Khotan or China. It was Ma Huan, the Chinese navigator in 1432, who makes the first reference to sericulture in Bengal; “Mulberry trees, wild mulberry tree, silk worms and cocoons, all these they have”.
Agriculture was generally dependent upon natural irrigation, that is, rains and floods. Since cultivation was largely based on natural irrigation, the tendency was to grow mostly single, rain-watered kharif (autumn) crop and coarse grains more.
Wells were probably the most major source of artificial irrigation in most areas. Muhammad Tughluq advanced loans to peasants for digging wells in order to extend cultivation. Masonry wells as well as brickless wells are described in the contemporary accounts of this period. In some localities water blocked up by throwing dams upon streams provided another source of irrigation. Some of these were built by the local people and some by the government.
Canal irrigation is described in the sources from the 14th century. The inspiration for the excavation of canals may have come from central Asia. /Ghiyasuddin Tughluq (1320-25) is reported to be the fist Sultan to dig canals for promoting agriculture. But it was under Feroz Tughluq (1351-88), that the biggest network of canals was created in India till the 19th century. Feroz Tughluq cut two canals from the river Yamuna carrying them to Hissar- Rajab-wah and the Ulugh-khani; one from the Kali river in the Doab joining the Yamuna near Delhi; one each from the Sutlej (Firuz-shahi) and the Ghaggar. Canal irrigation helped greatly in the extension of cultivation in the eastern Punjab. Now there was an emphasis on the cultivation of cash crops like sugarcane, cotton etc. that required more water than other crops. Afif says that a long stretch of land of about 80 krohs (200 miles) vast irrigated by the canal Rajabwah and Ulughkhani. According to Afif, as a result of abundance water available, peasants in the eastern Punjab raised two harvests (kharif and rabi) where only one was possible earlier. This led to new agticultural settlements along the banks of the canals. In the areas irrigated by the canals 52 such colonies sprang up. Afif comments enthusiastically, “neither one village remained desolate nor one cubit of land uncultivated.”
Besides these larger canals there were a number of smaller canals as well. Some in the Multan region are said to have been dug and maintained by the local population. Firuz Tughluq’s dredging the big rivers, recognized to be a charge on the state treasury, the excavation and maintenance of ‘public canals’ was the responsibility of the local people and landholders. In respect of another canal, he charges village headmen and peasants to excavate it upon pain of death and exile.
Broadly, there were five devices or techniques to raise water from wells: i) The most simple technique was to draw water with rope and bucket by using hands without any mechanical aid. Obviously, then, the bucket was small in size and, thus, this operation would not have adequately served to water large fields.
But we cannot deny the use of rope-bucket technique for irrigating small fields for crops, most probably vegetables that did not require much water. ii) The second method was the employment of pulleys
(charkhi) combined to the rope-bucket contraption which was, once again, activated manually.
Undoubtedly, the pulleys needed lesser amount of human energy and, therefore, comparatively larger bags or buckets could have been attached to the rope. It was also used for domestic purpose, especially by women.
iii) An improved method of the rope-bucket-pulley contraption was the employment of a pair of oxen to replace human-power. At this stage, it had become a specialized device for drawing water intended specifically for irrigation. In some areas of North India it is still in operation known as charasa.
The latter is a huge bag that gives an idea of the immense quantity of water raised from the well in
one single haul-up. Moreover, the bullock track was like a ramp or sloping path- the length of the path corresponding to the depth of the well. The water of the well (mounted with this device) could not have been used for drinking, cleansing utensils or for washing cloths. Of all the five methods, charasa was not a multi-purpose one, it was solely devised for irrigation- a fact which has not been realized till now.
- iv) The fourth technique was what is considered to be semi-mechanical as it worked on the First Class lever .principle. A long rope is lashed to the fork of an upright beam or trunk of a tree (especially meant for this purpose) to put it in a swinging position. The bucket is fastened to a rope whose other end is tied to the one of-the the swinging pole hovering over the well. The pole’s other end carries a ‘counterweight’, a little heavier than the bucket when filled with water. Thus, the fulcrum forms at the centre of the pole, with weight and ‘counterweight’ (Effort) at its two ends. This contraption requires only a little effort on the part of the person operating it. The device is known as shaduf in Egypt. It is called tula * (balance) in Sanskrit, but in Bihar and Bengal it’s known as dhenkli or
- v) The fifth water-lifting method is called saqiya or ‘Persian Wheel’. None of the four mechanisms described above required wheels as their basic component. This water-wheel could well claim to be called a water machine because of the employment of the pin-drum gearing system, which made it possible for it to be worked with animal power.
Much controversy has cropped up about the origins of saqiya: did it exist in India prior to the advent of the Muslims, or was it a foreign importation through the agency of the Turks? In India, Its earliest form was one wheel with pitchers or pots of clay attached around the rim of the wheel. It was called araghatta or arahatta in Sanskrit.
Known as Noria in English it was worked by human power only. Its form itself forced it to be set up over shallow water or open surfaces-stream, reservoir even rivers where water would level up to its banks. Thus, its use over wells was absolutely out of question.
The second stage was to exploit it over wells. This was done by releasing the earthen pots fitted around the rim of the wheel and, in its place, a chain or garland of pots was provided which was long enough to reach the water level of the well. The mala or chain was made of double ropes without open ends between which the pots were secured with timber strips. It is important to note that there is no separate term for this contrivance in Arabic or Persian. In Sanskrit, however, it was called ghatiyantra (pot-machine), although the words araghatta and arahatta continued to be used for both the types of noria. This, too, was operated by human-power.
At the third and final stage, we find three developments to have taken place: a) addition of two more wheels; b) gear mechanism; and c) the use of animal power. The lantern-wheel provided with vertical pegs at regular intervals, was set up on an upright axle to be moved by animal power round and round horizontally. The pin-wheel was arranged vertically with a shaft or axle connected to the third wheel over the well that carried the pot-garland. This was, then, the gear system in order to exploit animal power. Essentially, the point was to convert the original horizontal motion of the lantern-wheel into a vertical one for the wheel set up over the well.
The confusion of some modern scholars in this controversy is to identify the two first stages of noria with saqiya. But now you know that the latter was radically different not only in its conception but also in its components. A semantic blunder was committed when the same terms-araghatta and arahatta (modern r-)-were used for the saqiya when the Muslims brought it in early medieval period. In fact, there is no evidence of water wheels being operated by animals in Ancient India. The five devices to raise water from wells described above can be put into two broad categories: a) Intermittent or Discontinuous water-supply device, ‘and b) Continuous supply system.
The first four belong to the former and the fifth to the latter category. Again, depending the nature of the operative source, that is, human power and animal power, the. first and the fourth fall in the human power category and the others were driven by animal power. Since the water had to be lifted from wells, all the devices except the fifth, shared two things amongst them: rope and buckethags, the latter varying in size commensurate to the ‘power’ used.
There were many implements like shovel, pick-axe and scraper (khurpi), etc. that were used not only in agricultural processes but in gardening, too.
The use of hoe or hoeing was replaced by plough centuries back. An illustration in the Miftah-ul Fuzala, a Persian lexicon compiled in about A.D. 1460 in Malwa clearly shows the plough with an ironshare drawn by two yoked oxen. Unlike Europe, India could not develop horse-drawn wheeled-plough for the reason that our plough was light in weight suited for the soft soil. This metallic piece immensely klped in the tillage of comparatively harder soil.
For sowing, the method of broadcasting was known. The practice was to scatter seeds manually by taking them out from a cloth-bag slung over shoulders. The time-scale of seed-drill in India is controversial some would trace it back to the Vedic Age. At any rate, the only positive evidence for its use along the western coast of India comes from one Portuguese – Barbosa (c. 1510) – in connection with the wet-cultivation of rice.
Harvesting was performed with a sickle, and threshing by using oxen who walked round and round over he ears put on the threshing floor. “Wind power” was exploited in winnowing in order to separate the chaff from the grain.