History · Ch 8 — Peasants, Zamindars and the State — Agrarian Society and the Mughal Empire
Caste and the rural milieu
Caste and the rural milieu
The rural world of Mughal India was not a flat, uniform society of peasants. Deep inequalities rooted in caste and caste-like distinctions meant that the people who worked the land were a highly heterogeneous group — divided by birth, status, and access to resources.
At the very bottom of this hierarchy were the menials and agricultural labourers, called majur. Even though cultivable land was not scarce, certain caste groups were systematically assigned menial tasks. This pushed them into poverty and kept them there. The textbook notes that, while no census existed at the time, the available data suggests these groups formed a large section of the village population. They had the fewest resources and were trapped by their position in the caste hierarchy — much like the Dalits of modern India.
The term majur (labourer) is used in the sources to describe those who worked as menials or agricultural labourers, distinct from independent cultivators.
These caste-based distinctions were not limited to Hindu communities. They permeated into other communities as well. In Muslim communities, for example, menials like the halalkhoran (scavengers) were housed outside the village boundaries. In Bihar, the mallahzadas (literally, "sons of boatmen") were treated as comparable to slaves.
Do not assume caste hierarchy was rigid only for Hindus. The textbook explicitly shows that similar distinctions existed within Muslim communities, using terms like halalkhoran and mallahzadas.
The relationship between caste, poverty, and social status was direct and clear at the lower strata of society. However, such correlations were not so marked at intermediate levels. This is a crucial nuance: the hierarchy was not a simple ladder where every rung corresponded neatly to wealth.
Consider the evidence from a seventeenth-century manual from Marwar. It mentions Rajputs as peasants, sharing the same space with Jats — who were accorded a lower status in the caste hierarchy. This shows that even high-caste Rajputs could be cultivators alongside lower-caste Jats.
The link between caste and poverty was strongest at the bottom. At intermediate levels, caste status and economic role did not always align perfectly.
The textbook provides several examples of caste mobility and change:
- The Gauravas, who cultivated land around Vrindavan (in present-day Uttar Pradesh), sought Rajput status in the seventeenth century. …
The painting shows a Punjab village in the early 1800s, with the settlement enclosed by mud walls. Inside, women and men are engaged in everyday tasks — women are likely grinding grain, carrying water, or tending to children, while men work in the fields or repair tools. The architecture is simple: mud-walled houses with flat roofs, clustered together, reflecting the materials and building methods common in rural Punjab at the time.
What this image teaches is that the village was a self-contained world, where caste and occupation shaped daily life. The mud walls not only protected the settlement but also marked a boundary between the village and the surrounding fields. The variety of tasks shown — from domestic chores to agricultural labour — hints at the division of labour along caste lines. For instance, certain groups like the majur (agricultural labourers) or halalkhoran (scavengers) would have been assigned the most menial work, often living outside the village walls, as the textbook notes. …