History · Ch 8 — Peasants, Zamindars and the State — Agrarian Society and the Mughal Empire
Panchayats and headmen
Panchayats and headmen
The village panchayat was not a democratic body in the modern sense. It was an assembly of elders — men who already held hereditary rights over property in the village. This meant that the poorest cultivators, especially landless labourers and menial-agricultural workers, were almost never part of it. In villages with multiple castes, the panchayat was a heterogeneous body, meaning it drew members from different caste groups, but it remained an oligarchy: power rested with a few.
The head of the panchayat was called the muqaddam or mandal. He was chosen through the consensus of village elders, and that choice had to be ratified by the zamindar. The headman held office only as long as he kept the confidence of the elders — if he lost it, they could dismiss him. His chief function was to supervise the preparation of village accounts, and for this he was assisted by the village accountant, the patwari.
Corrupt mandals
The mandals often misused their position. They were accused of defrauding village accounts in collusion with the patwari, and of under-assessing the revenue on their own lands so that the extra burden fell on smaller cultivators.
How the panchayat was funded and what it spent on
The panchayat raised its funds through individual contributions from villagers, pooled into a common fund. This money was used for:
- Entertaining revenue officials who visited the village.
- Community welfare during natural calamities like floods.
- Construction of bunds or digging canals — projects individual peasants could not afford.
Enforcing caste and social order
One of the panchayat’s most important functions was to uphold caste boundaries. In eastern India, all marriages were held in the presence of the mandal. The headman’s duty was to oversee the conduct of villagers, “chiefly to prevent any offence against their caste.” The panchayat had the authority to levy fines and, in serious cases, to expel a person from the community. Expulsion was a drastic step — it made the person an outcaste who lost the right to practise his profession. It was usually imposed for a limited period and was meant as a deterrent against violating caste norms.
Jati panchayats
In addition to the village panchayat, each caste or jati had its own jati panchayat. These wielded considerable power. In Rajasthan, jati panchayats arbitrated civil disputes between members of different castes. They mediated in contested claims on land, decided whether marriages followed caste norms, and determined ritual precedence in village functions. Except in matters of criminal justice, the state generally respected the decisions of jati panchayats.
Petitions and resistance
Archival records from western India — especially Rajasthan and Maharashtra — contain petitions presented to the panchayat. These were usually from the lowest rungs of rural society, complaining about extortionate taxation or the demand for unpaid labour (begar) imposed by superior castes or state officials. Often, a whole caste group or community petitioned collectively, protesting what they saw as morally illegitimate demands — especially excessive taxes that, during droughts or disasters, endangered their subsistence. …
Corrupt mandals. The mandals (village headmen) often misused their positions. They were principally accused of defrauding village accounts in connivance with the patwari (accountant), and of under-assessing the revenue they owed from their own lands in order to pass the additional burden on to the smaller cultivator. This reminds us that the village community, far from being an equal "little republic", was …
The painting shows a formal meeting taking place in what appears to be a village setting. On one side sit the village elders — older men, likely the muqaddam or mandal and other prominent members of the panchayat. They are dressed in simple, traditional Indian clothing, often with a shawl or wrap, and their posture is relaxed, seated on the ground or a low platform. On the other side sit the tax collectors — men who represent the Mughal state or the zamindar. The artist has distinguished them clearly: the tax collectors wear more elaborate, often Persian-influenced clothing (long coats, turbans), and they sit on a raised platform or chair, indicating higher status. Their posture is more formal and commanding.
The layout of the painting is straightforward: two groups face each other, with no other figures or background clutter. There are no labels, arrows, or panels — the distinction is made entirely through dress, seating arrangement, and body language. The elders appear to be listening or responding; the tax collectors appear to be presenting documents or making demands. …