The Medieval Indian Economy

This article aims to examine the principal features of the economy of medieval India under the Delhi Sultanate. Its objectives are to study the role of agriculture and irrigation in rural production; to identify important crafts and industries; to analyse the revenue policies of major Sultans; to explain the methods and institutions associated with land-revenue assessment and collection; and to evaluate the effects of taxation on cultivators, state finance, and the wider economy.

The article follows a historical and analytical method, drawing on standard studies of the Delhi Sultanate, medieval Indian economic history, and the political institutions of the period. Literary chronicles, administrative descriptions, and modern historical interpretations provide evidence for the discussion of taxation, agrarian relations, crafts, and markets. Medieval sources often reflect the perspective of court writers and may describe royal policies more clearly than the everyday experiences of ordinary cultivators. Therefore, policies are considered in their historical context, and differences between rulers and regions are recognised rather than assuming that one system operated uniformly throughout the Sultanate.

K. A. Nizami’s study provides a useful account of the political and administrative environment of the thirteenth century. Although its main focus is religion and politics rather than a detailed economic survey, it helps explain how the Sultanate’s governing elite, military obligations, and administrative structure shaped the collection and use of state resources. This work is relevant to the present article because revenue policy cannot be understood separately from the political needs of the Sultanate.

Irfan Habib’s work examines agrarian relations, land revenue, rural production, and the mechanisms through which the state appropriated agricultural surplus in the Mughal period. Its principal chronological focus is later than the Delhi Sultanate, so it should not be used as direct evidence for every Sultanate practice. However, its analytical approach is valuable for identifying questions about cultivators, intermediaries, revenue assessment, and the relationship between taxation and production. In this article, it is used comparatively to frame agrarian issues, not to claim that Mughal arrangements were identical to those of the Sultanate.

Satish Chandra’s account places the Delhi Sultanate’s political and administrative developments within the wider history of medieval India. It is helpful for understanding the policies of rulers such as Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq and for connecting their fiscal measures with military demands, centralisation, and political challenges. The work also supports a broader understanding of how administrative policies differed between rulers and why their effects depended on the circumstances of each reign.

Peter Jackson analyses the formation, institutions, and political-military development of the Delhi Sultanate. His study is particularly useful for situating the iqta system and the state’s revenue requirements within the demands of military organisation and territorial control. It provides a political framework for discussing why the Sultans sought reliable income and why the relationship between central authority and provincial or local powers remained important.

André Wink’s study examines the expansion of Indo-Islamic political and commercial networks in the earlier medieval period. Its wider regional perspective helps place the Delhi Sultanate within changing connections among political authority, trade, towns, and long-distance exchange. This perspective is useful for considering the Sultanate economy as more than a system of agricultural taxation: craft production, merchants, and commercial routes also contributed to economic life.

Agriculture was the principal occupation of the population during the Delhi Sultanate. Most people lived in villages and depended on cultivation, cattle-rearing, and related rural activities. The prosperity of the state depended heavily on agricultural output because land revenue supplied a major share of government income. Grain was essential not only for the survival of rural communities but also for feeding soldiers, supporting towns, and sustaining the royal household. Agricultural conditions varied according to rainfall, soil, access to water, and the security of the countryside.

Wheat, rice, barley, millets, pulses, and other crops were cultivated in different regions. Rice was especially important in areas with sufficient water, while wheat and barley were common in several northern regions. Sugarcane, cotton, and oilseeds also had economic importance because they supplied food, raw materials, and goods for exchange. Cropping patterns were influenced by local climate and market demand. Agricultural production was therefore diverse rather than identical across the territories ruled by the Sultans.

The village was a central unit of rural life. Cultivators worked the land, while village headmen and other local intermediaries helped organise village affairs and communicate with officials. The relationship between cultivators and the state was not always direct: local chiefs, revenue collectors, and holders of assignments could influence the amount and manner of revenue extraction. In areas where political authority was weak, local powers might resist the state or retain a substantial portion of the surplus.

Agricultural expansion depended on labour, livestock, tools, and access to water. Oxen were important for ploughing and transport. Wooden ploughs and iron tools were used according to local availability and farming needs. The extent of cultivated land could increase when forests were cleared, settlements expanded, or irrigation improved. However, warfare, excessive taxation, drought, and insecurity could damage crops and cause cultivators to abandon their fields.

Rainfall remained a major source of water for cultivation, but irrigation was important in areas where wells, tanks, canals, and other facilities could be maintained. Wells and water-lifting devices supported cultivation in parts of northern India. Irrigation reduced dependence on seasonal rainfall and could allow farmers to cultivate more reliably, although the cost of constructing and maintaining waterworks varied considerably.

Some rulers supported irrigation works and agricultural improvement, particularly when these measures could increase production and revenue. Firuz Shah Tughlaq is remembered for constructing canals and promoting public works, including projects intended to bring water to agricultural lands. Such initiatives could benefit cultivation in selected areas, but they did not remove the risks of drought or guarantee equal access to water. The success of irrigation depended on maintenance, local conditions, and cooperation between the state and rural communities.

Agriculture also supplied raw materials to urban industries. Cotton supported textile production, sugarcane supplied sugar-making, and crops such as indigo were used in dyeing. This connection between farms and workshops demonstrates that the rural economy was linked to craft production and trade. Agricultural surplus could feed non-agricultural groups, but heavy demands on that surplus could also place cultivators under considerable pressure.

Industry under the Delhi Sultanate consisted mainly of handicrafts and small-scale production, often organised in households or workshops. Weaving was one of the most important occupations. Cotton textiles were produced in several regions, while silk and other fabrics were also manufactured where materials and skills were available. Textiles served local consumers and could enter regional and long-distance trade. Spinning, dyeing, and weaving provided work for many skilled and semi-skilled labourers.

Metalworking was another important activity. Blacksmiths made agricultural implements, weapons, tools, and household objects. The needs of the army encouraged the production and repair of swords, armour, arrowheads, and other military equipment. Goldsmiths and silversmiths made ornaments and valuable objects for wealthy households. Woodworkers, carpenters, potters, leatherworkers, and stoneworkers supplied the needs of villages, towns, construction projects, and the court.

Papermaking, book production, and related occupations developed in connection with administration, education, and literary activity. Paper was useful for records, correspondence, and manuscripts. Construction also employed masons, stonecutters, carpenters, and other artisans. The building of forts, mosques, palaces, roads, bridges, and canals created demand for specialised labour and materials. Royal patronage could encourage certain crafts, though the scale of production differed across places and periods.

Urban centres brought artisans and consumers together. Some craftspeople worked independently, while others produced goods for merchants, wealthy patrons, or the state. It would be inaccurate to assume that every industry was organised through a single formal guild system. Production arrangements varied according to the craft, the town, access to raw materials, and the nature of demand. The growth of towns and courts nevertheless created important markets for manufactured goods.

Trade connected villages, towns, and regions under the Delhi Sultanate. Local markets allowed cultivators to sell surplus produce and purchase tools, salt, cloth, and other necessities. Larger towns supported specialised markets and attracted merchants, artisans, officials, soldiers, and religious institutions. Delhi became a major political and commercial centre, while other towns grew through administration, craft production, and regional exchange.

Roads and caravan routes supported overland trade, and river routes were useful where geography permitted. Merchants transported grain, textiles, horses, metals, spices, and other commodities. Horses were particularly important for the military and were obtained through trade networks extending beyond the immediate agricultural regions. Trade was affected by political stability, road security, taxation, and the availability of transport.

Coins and monetary transactions became important in state finance and market exchange, although barter and payments in kind continued in rural settings. The Sultanate issued gold, silver, and copper coins at different times, with the silver tanka and copper jital associated with important phases of its monetary system. The use of money helped the state pay soldiers and officials and made it possible to collect revenue in cash where market conditions allowed. Yet monetisation was uneven, and the everyday economy of many villages remained closely tied to grain and local exchange.

Revenue policy was central to the functioning of the Sultanate because the state needed resources to maintain the army, pay officials, build public works, and sustain the royal establishment. Land revenue was the most significant source of income, supplemented by other taxes, tribute, customs duties, and payments associated with particular political or social groups. The extent of the state’s control over revenue differed from region to region. In directly administered areas, officials attempted to assess and collect dues; in other regions, local chiefs or assigned revenue holders mediated the process.

The iqta system was an important feature of the Sultanate administration. An iqta was an assignment of revenue from a specified territory to an official or military commander, often called a muqti or iqtadar, in return for administrative and military responsibilities. It was generally not equivalent to unrestricted private ownership of the land. The holder was expected to maintain order, meet assigned obligations, and remit the appropriate surplus to the central authority. Sultans attempted to supervise these assignments so that officials would not turn them into independent hereditary powers.

Revenue policy was shaped by political and military circumstances. A ruler seeking to expand the army or confront rebellions required reliable income. At the same time, excessive demands could weaken cultivation, encourage flight, and provoke resistance. The practical outcome depended on the rate of assessment, the quality of records, the conduct of collectors, crop conditions, and the bargaining power of local groups. For this reason, the revenue system should be understood as a changing set of practices rather than a perfectly uniform administrative structure.

Alauddin Khalji (1296–1316) introduced important measures to strengthen the central state and secure resources for his military system. In parts of the directly controlled territory, he sought to bring revenue collection under closer supervision and reduce the influence of local intermediaries. His administration attempted to measure cultivated land and assess agricultural dues more systematically. In the Doab, the land-revenue demand is commonly described in historical accounts as reaching about half of the produce, though actual practice could vary.

Alauddin’s market regulations were closely connected with his military objectives. By controlling prices for essential goods, he aimed to maintain a large army without proportionately increasing soldiers’ cash salaries. Market supervision covered grain and other commodities, while officials were appointed to monitor prices, supplies, and commercial conduct. These regulations required extensive state oversight and were linked to the particular circumstances of his reign. They should not be treated as a permanent policy followed by all Delhi Sultans.

The measures strengthened the state’s capacity to mobilise resources, but they also imposed substantial demands on rural producers and traders. Their implementation relied on officials, surveillance, and enforcement. The experience of cultivators could differ according to locality, harvest conditions, and the behaviour of revenue agents.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325–1351) pursued ambitious administrative and fiscal policies. His attempts to increase revenue in the fertile Doab are often associated with a period of hardship, especially when higher demands coincided with unfavourable agricultural conditions. Historical accounts describe resistance and the abandonment of cultivation in some areas. The episode illustrates the dangers of imposing heavy assessments without adequate attention to crop failure, rural capacity, and the conditions required for recovery.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq also considered measures intended to expand cultivation and improve agricultural productivity. The establishment of a department associated with agriculture, commonly referred to as Diwan-i-Kohi, reflected an effort to support cultivation through state intervention. The programme faced practical difficulties, including administration, implementation, and the challenges of supervising agricultural work over large areas. Its mixed results show the limitations of ambitious policy when resources and local conditions are not adequately managed.

Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1351–1388) is associated with irrigation works, canals, gardens, and other public projects. His reign also saw attention to taxation and administration, although policies and tax practices should be assessed in the context of contemporary political and religious ideas. Irrigation projects could assist cultivation and increase the area under production, while the durability of benefits depended on maintenance and local access. The contrast between rulers shows that the Sultanate’s economic policy combined extraction of revenue with occasional efforts to improve productive capacity.

Land revenue was a demand imposed on agricultural production and formed the fiscal foundation of the Sultanate. The method of assessment was not identical throughout the empire. Depending on the area and period, revenue could be calculated with reference to the crop or estimated produce, the area cultivated, customary dues, or local arrangements. Payment might be made in kind or cash. Where markets and monetary circulation were stronger, cash payment was more practical; elsewhere, grain or other forms of produce could remain important.

Measurement of land could help officials estimate the scale of cultivation and calculate dues, but accurate assessment required reliable measuring practices and records. Crop yields varied from year to year, and officials could not always know the actual harvest. A fixed or inflexible demand could be especially burdensome after drought, flood, or war. In principle, effective revenue administration required a balance between state income and the continuation of agricultural production.

The collection process involved several layers of authority. Central officials supervised provinces and districts, while local intermediaries and village leaders often played a practical role in identifying cultivators, fields, and expected payments. The iqta holder had responsibilities relating to administration and military support, but the central state sought to prevent excessive independence and ensure that revenue obligations were met. The distance between the ruler’s policy and village practice meant that the conduct of individual collectors could strongly influence rural life.

Land revenue must also be distinguished from modern land ownership or a single standard land tax. Medieval rights over land were layered and could involve cultivators, village communities, local chiefs, revenue assignees, and the state. The Sultan’s claim to a share of agricultural surplus did not automatically mean that the state directly owned every field. Understanding this distinction is essential to avoid projecting modern legal categories onto medieval rural relations.

The cultivator was the foundation of the agrarian economy but often had limited protection against excessive demands. After paying revenue and meeting the needs of the household, a cultivator required enough seed, livestock, and resources to continue production. When the state or intermediaries demanded too large a share, the ability to invest in future cultivation could decline. Heavy taxation could contribute to debt, migration, concealment of output, or abandonment of fields.

At the same time, revenue collection was not always equally severe, and conditions differed across regions and rulers. A stable administration could protect routes, maintain irrigation, support markets, and encourage the expansion of cultivation. Revenue from agriculture helped sustain urban populations, craft workers, and the army. The main historical issue was therefore not simply the existence of tax, but the level and manner of extraction and whether the state maintained conditions that allowed rural production to continue.

Village society contained different groups with unequal access to land, authority, and resources. Headmen and local elites could mediate between cultivators and state officials, sometimes protecting village interests and sometimes benefiting from their position. The economic history of the Sultanate must therefore include both the state’s fiscal needs and the social relationships through which agricultural surplus was produced and collected.

The economy of medieval India under the Delhi Sultanate rested primarily on agriculture, but it was supported by a broad network of crafts, industries, towns, markets, and trade routes. Farming supplied food and raw materials, while land revenue financed the army and administration. Irrigation works and agricultural expansion could increase production, and urban demand encouraged textiles, metalworking, construction, paper-making, and other crafts. The iqta system linked territorial revenue to administrative and military responsibilities, while the policies of rulers such as Alauddin Khalji, Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and Firuz Shah Tughlaq reveal different approaches to taxation, market control, and agricultural improvement.

Land revenue was essential to state power, yet its effects depended on how it was assessed and collected. Excessive demands, poor harvests, and coercive officials could harm cultivators and weaken production; stable administration and useful public works could support the rural economy. The Sultanate’s economic history was therefore shaped by a continuing tension between the state’s need for revenue and the need to preserve the productive capacity of villages. Studying agriculture, industry, revenue policy, and land revenue together provides a fuller understanding of how medieval Indian society supported political authority and economic exchange.

• Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals, Part I. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.
• Habib, Irfan. The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556–1707. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Used comparatively for methods of analysing agrarian relations; its main period is later than the Delhi Sultanate.
• Jackson, Peter. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Nizami, K. A. Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century. Aligarh: Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University.
• Wink, André. Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 2: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest, 11th–13th Centuries. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

The study aims to examine the agrarian foundation of the Sultanate and Mughal economies; trace revenue administration from iqta to zabt and dahsala; understand the position of peasants, zamindars, jagirdars and the state; analyse handicrafts, manufacturing, merchant networks and karkhanas; identify major exports, imports, ports and routes; explain the growth of manufacturing and commercial cities; examine interaction between Indo-Islamic institutions and earlier Indian practices; and compare continuity and change, especially the role of monetisation, urbanisation and Indian Ocean commerce.

The paper is based on the supplied studies of medieval economy, agrarian structure, revenue administration, manufacturing and trade. Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari is the principal primary source identified for revenue rates, crop schedules, prices, administrative divisions and the organisation of Akbar’s empire. Sultanate chronicles and European traveller and company accounts provide supplementary evidence on markets, manufacturing and overseas trade. Secondary works by Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra, W. H. Moreland, A. L. Srivastava, N. Jayapalan and Gavin R. G. Hambly are also used. A historical-analytical approach compares institutional development and interpretations of surplus extraction, monetisation, urbanisation and trade, while retaining regional differences.

N. Jayapalan provides a broad survey of agrarian systems, industries and trade. A. L. Srivastava is important for Akbar’s administrative and revenue reforms. Irfan Habib offers a structural interpretation of Mughal agrarian relations and surplus extraction, while Satish Chandra provides a chronological framework for the Sultanate and Mughal transition. W. H. Moreland represents an earlier interpretation of Mughal revenue and sovereign rent. Hambly helps explain the relationship between a predominantly rural population and the economic importance of towns. These works allow the study to combine reconstruction with analysis of revenue, markets, urbanisation and long-distance commerce.

Agriculture was the principal foundation of both the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal economies. Most people depended directly or indirectly on cultivation, while the state relied heavily on land revenue. Villages supplied food to towns, raw materials to artisans and purchasing power to markets. Agricultural surplus sustained armies, officials, nobles and urban consumers, so political stability depended upon maintaining a workable relationship between revenue demand and production. Crop patterns varied: wheat and barley were important in northern regions, rice in eastern and wetter areas, and jowar and bajra in drier tracts. Cotton, indigo, sugarcane and oilseeds were important commercial crops; tobacco and maize spread from the sixteenth century through post-Columbian exchanges.

Cultivation depended mainly on labour-intensive techniques, wooden ploughs, animal power, wells, tanks and canals. Irrigation was usually local and small-scale, although Shah Jahan’s canal extension in the Punjab provides an example of state-supported irrigation. Peasants were internally differentiated, including raiyat, khud-kashta and pahi-kashta. Zamindars possessed customary or hereditary claims and local authority. Agricultural production became increasingly connected with markets as grain, cotton, indigo and sugar moved through wider networks. However, high revenue demands, crop failures, war and local conflict could place cultivators under pressure. The Mughal economy therefore rested on a delicate balance between state extraction and rural productive capacity.

Revenue administration was the principal means by which the state claimed agrarian surplus. Under the Delhi Sultanate, iqta assigned revenue-collecting rights over specified territories to officials or military commanders in return for administrative and military obligations. The muqti or iqtadar maintained troops and performed duties for the Sultan. In principle, the iqta was transferable and resumable rather than a hereditary private estate. Khalisa lands sent revenue directly to the central treasury, while kharaj was associated with agricultural taxation. Alauddin Khalji’s measures attempted stronger control over agrarian surplus through measurement and direct assessment in important areas.

Under Akbar, the Mughal fiscal system became more elaborate. Zabt was important in regions where systematic measurement was possible: land was measured, cultivated areas classified and rates fixed with reference to crop yields and prices. The dahsala system, introduced in 1580, used ten-year averages of yields and prices and converted assessment into cash rates for suitable regions and crops. It was not uniformly applied; in Bengal, parts of Gujarat and much of the Deccan, ghalla bakhshi and negotiated methods continued. Qanungos and patwaris maintained records, while patta and qabuliyaat formed important documentary elements. Khalisa and jagir lands connected revenue with the treasury and mansabdari obligations. Revenue financed armies and administration, but heavy assessment could reduce cultivators’ margins. Habib and Moreland’s differing interpretations show why revenue administration remains central to historiographical debate.

Medieval Indian industry consisted mainly of handicrafts and specialised manufacturing rather than modern factories. Production took place in villages, towns, merchant workshops and royal karkhanas. Artisans produced cotton and silk textiles, carpets, metal goods, weapons, paper, leather, pottery, jewellery, ships, building materials, sugar and indigo. Bengal was famous for fine cottons and muslins; Gujarat for cotton textiles and printed cloth; the Coromandel coast for painted and dyed textiles; and Kashmir for woollen products. Silk weaving, saltpetre refining, shipbuilding and metalworking also contributed to the manufacturing economy.

Karkhanas produced, stored or procured goods for the court, army and aristocratic households and employed skilled artisans under supervision. Their importance should not be exaggerated because most production remained in independent or semi-independent households and small workshops. Merchants sometimes advanced money or raw materials against future delivery, linking dispersed producers to large markets without centralised factories. Contacts with Central and West Asia influenced textiles, carpets, architectural crafts and luxury production. Medieval manufacturing therefore combined inherited techniques, skilled labour, merchant organisation, state demand and technological exchange.

Mughal India was closely connected with Indian Ocean and overland commercial systems. Gujarat, the Coromandel coast and Bengal were important maritime regions. Surat became a major western port, Masulipatnam connected southern India with Asian markets, and Bengal’s riverine and maritime networks linked production with the Bay of Bengal. Exports included cotton textiles, Bengal muslins, printed and painted cloth, indigo, sugar, saltpetre, silk and spices. Imports included horses, bullion, raw silk, metals and luxury goods. Horses from Central Asia, Persia and Arabia were important for the military system. Gold and silver entered India in exchange for textiles and other goods, supporting monetisation and cash transactions. Portuguese, Dutch, English and French companies increasingly joined commercial networks that already included Indian, Arab, Armenian and other Asian merchants. European participation expanded existing Indian Ocean commerce rather than creating it from the beginning.

The expansion of manufacturing and commerce encouraged urban growth. “Industrial city” must be used carefully because medieval cities were not modern factory centres; they concentrated craft production, processing, storage, markets, finance, administration and elite consumption. Delhi remained an important political and commercial centre, while Agra became a major Mughal capital and manufacturing centre. Fatehpur Sikri developed under Akbar, Lahore linked north-western routes with the imperial economy, Ahmedabad became important for textiles and commerce, and Surat combined manufacturing with maritime trade. Masulipatnam was a major Coromandel textile and overseas centre; Dhaka was famous for fine textiles and muslins; Patna was associated with saltpetre and opium trade. Qasbas, ganjs, mandis and sarais connected rural production with urban markets. State expenditure, armies, courts and noble households created demand for food, textiles, weapons, jewellery and construction materials.

The economic impact of Islamic political rule should be understood as adaptation and synthesis rather than complete rupture or complete continuity. The Sultanate and Mughal institutions combined Islamic fiscal ideas and Central and West Asian practices with established Indian agrarian, commercial and artisanal institutions. The Sultanate introduced and adapted iqta and fiscal terminology such as kharaj. Under the Mughals, jagir became important within the mansabdari structure; jagirdars generally received revenue rights for specified periods and obligations rather than absolute land ownership. Terms such as jizya, zakat and khams existed, but their application varied over time and by region. Local intermediaries and zamindars continued to play important roles. Persian became an important administrative and literary language, while movements of artisans and merchants encouraged exchange in textiles, carpets, architecture and luxury manufacture. The major development was the expansion of a larger political-commercial network linking revenue, towns, roads, ports, money and long-distance trade.

Agriculture remained central, but agrarian organisation changed between the Sultanate and Mughal periods. The Sultanate used iqta and khalisa to control agricultural surplus, while local chiefs and rural elites retained influence. Alauddin Khalji’s reforms sought to increase the state’s share and reduce intermediary autonomy in important areas. The Mughals incorporated earlier practices into a wider imperial structure. Khalisa and jagir became significant categories, while the mansabdari-jagirdari system connected the military-bureaucratic elite with revenue assignments. Zamindars retained customary or hereditary claims and local authority. The structure was therefore multi-layered: peasants cultivated, zamindars exercised local power, jagirdars received revenue assignments and the state claimed a substantial share of surplus.

Mughal taxation became more standardised in the core through measurement, crop classification, productivity data and price information. Cash assessment strengthened the link between cultivation and markets. Commercial crops could provide opportunities when prices were favourable, but cash revenue also exposed cultivators to market fluctuations. Crop-sharing continued where suitable. Expansion of cultivation, migration, market-town growth and new crops altered rural life, while excessive pressure could contribute to peasant flight, resistance and conflict. Regional variation is therefore essential: the Mughal system cannot be described as uniformly moderate or uniformly oppressive.

Merchants used caravans, river boats and coastal shipping. Sarrafs provided money-changing and credit services, while hundis enabled transfer of value over long distances. Multanis, Marwaris, Bohras, Jains, Chettiars, Armenians and other groups participated in different regions. Commerce depended upon credit, kinship, professional networks, locality and political protection. Trade strengthened links between production and consumption and encouraged urban growth and monetisation, but it did not remove the fundamentally agrarian character of medieval Indian society.

The Sultanate and Mughal economy is best understood as an interconnected system. Agricultural production created surplus; the state appropriated part as revenue; expenditure on armies, administration and courts created urban demand; artisans supplied manufactured goods; and merchants connected manufacturing centres with rural and distant markets. Delhi, Agra, Lahore and Fatehpur Sikri became major centres of consumption, while Ahmedabad, Surat, Masulipatnam, Dhaka and Patna developed around manufacturing and trade. Qasbas and market towns connected these centres with agricultural hinterlands. Roads, rivers, sarais, caravan networks and maritime routes supported circulation. Monetisation strengthened these connections through gold, silver and copper coinage, while silver inflows from overseas trade increased cash circulation. The economy thus became increasingly commercially integrated even though most people continued to depend on agriculture.

The study of medieval Indian economy has shown me that the Sultanate and Mughal economies cannot be understood as separate sectors of agriculture, industry and trade. They formed an interconnected structure in which agrarian production supported state revenue, state expenditure stimulated urban demand, artisans supplied manufactured goods, merchants connected markets and ports, and overseas commerce brought Indian products into the wider Indian Ocean economy. Agriculture remained the foundation, but cultivation became increasingly connected with markets and commercial crops. The development from the Sultanate’s iqta arrangements to Akbar’s zabt and dahsala system shows greater administrative organisation, while the continued role of zamindars and regional methods demonstrates that Mughal administration was not completely uniform.

Medieval India also possessed extensive and specialised manufacturing without modern factories. Cotton textiles, muslins, silk, carpets, indigo, saltpetre, metalwork and shipbuilding depended on skilled household labour, workshops, merchant networks and royal karkhanas. Agra, Ahmedabad, Surat, Masulipatnam and Dhaka demonstrate how administration, manufacturing and commerce reinforced one another. Finally, Islamic political rule should not be presented simply as destruction of earlier institutions or their complete replacement. The evidence shows continuity alongside change: new administrative institutions interacted with existing practices, while wider political integration and monetisation increased the scale of exchange. The medieval Indian economy was therefore predominantly agrarian but increasingly monetised, urbanised and commercially integrated. The central lesson is that economic change occurred through interaction among agricultural surplus, fiscal institutions, craft production, urban growth and long-distance trade.

The relationship between the rural and urban economies also reveals the importance of circulation. Agricultural products did not remain within villages; they moved through qasbas, mandis and larger towns before reaching specialised markets and ports. Likewise, manufactured goods depended upon rural raw materials, merchant finance and urban consumption. State revenue was therefore not only an instrument of extraction but also a means through which resources were transferred to military, administrative and courtly centres. At the same time, the expansion of commercial activity did not benefit every social group equally. Peasants, artisans and merchants operated under different conditions, and regional variations shaped their opportunities. This interconnected character explains why changes in taxation, crop production, manufacturing, transport and overseas trade affected one another. It also shows why the medieval economy should be studied as a system rather than as a collection of isolated institutions.

• Abul Fazl. Ain-i-Akbari. Translated by H. Blochmann and H. S. Jarrett.
• Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals, Part II: Mughal Empire (1526– 1748). New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 2005.
• Habib, Irfan. The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556– 1707. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1963.
• Habib, Irfan. Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception. New Delhi: Tulika Books, 1995.
• Hambly, Gavin R. G. “Mughal India.” In The Cambridge Economic History of India.
• Jayapalan, N. Economic History of India: Ancient to Present Day. 2nd rev. and enl. ed. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2008.
• Moreland, W. H. The Agrarian System of Moslem India. Cambridge: W. Heffer&Sons, 1929.
• Srivastava, Ashirbadi Lal. Akbar the Great, Vol. II: Political and Administrative History. Agra: Shiva Lal Agarwala&Co., 1962.
• IGNOU. State and Economy: Mughal Land Revenue System, Unit 16.
• IGNOU. State and Economy: Unit 19, State and Economy; Rise of Urban Economy: Trade and Commerce, Unit 21; Technology and Crafts, Unit 22.
• NCERT. Peasants, Zamindars and the State.
• Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. I.

• To study the broad structure of the economy of medieval India with special reference to the Marathas.
• To examine the agrarian economy and the system of land assessment developed under Maratha rule.
• To analyse the growth of industry and craft production in Maratha territories.
• To study the pattern of internal and overseas trade and commerce under the Marathas.
• To understand the role of charitable and religious endowments in the Maratha economy.
• To examine the revenue administration of the Marathas, including the institutions of chauth and sardeshmukhi.

This study follows a descriptive and analytical method based on secondary historical literature and select contemporary sources. Primary material includes the Marathi bakhars, notably the Sabhasad Bakhar, which offers a near-contemporary account of Shivaji’s administration, along with Persian revenue records that reflect the continuities between the Ahmadnagar Sultanate’s administrative practices and those later adopted by the Marathas. Modern scholarly works, including those of G.S. Sardesai, Surendra Nath Sen, Satish Chandra and Stewart Gordon, have been consulted to interpret and contextualise this material. The method used is one of qualitative textual analysis, comparing the administrative prescriptions found in the sources with the interpretations offered by later historians in order to arrive at a coherent account of the Maratha economy.

G. S. Sardesai’s New History of the Marathas provides a comprehensive account of the Maratha period, including its administrative and economic institutions. The work is useful for understanding agriculture, revenue administration, trade and commerce under the Marathas. It also helps explain the development of the Maratha state and the economic measures adopted to support its political and military structure. Surendra Nath Sen’s Administrative System of the Marathas focuses particularly on the administrative structure of the Maratha state. The work provides valuable information on revenue administration, taxation and the organisation of the state. It is especially useful for understanding how revenue collection and administrative institutions contributed to the functioning of the Maratha economy. Stewart Gordon’s The Marathas 1600–1818 provides a modern interpretation of Maratha history and examines the political, administrative and economic developments of the period. The work highlights the influence of earlier Deccan political traditions, including the administrative practices of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate, on the Maratha system. It is useful for understanding the development of agriculture, revenue systems, trade and state formation in the Maratha Deccan.

Agriculture constituted the backbone of the Maratha economy, as it did for most pre-modern Indian states. Land in Maratha territories was broadly classified into jirayat, or dry, rain-fed land, and bagayat, or irrigated land capable of yielding higher and more valuable produce. Building upon the earlier survey methods associated with Malik Ambar in Ahmadnagar, Shivaji, with the assistance of his revenue officer Annaji Datto, undertook a systematic measurement and classification of land according to soil quality and average yield, and fixed the state’s demand accordingly, generally seeking to assess the land directly through what has been described as a ryotwari-type settlement that dealt with the individual cultivator rather than through powerful hereditary intermediaries. The state extended tagavi, or agricultural loans, to cultivators for seed, bullocks and the digging of wells, and offered remissions of revenue during years of drought or famine in order to prevent the depopulation of villages. The principal crops grown across the Maratha Deccan included jowar and bajra as staple food grains, along with cotton, sugarcane, oilseeds and a variety of pulses, cultivated according to the seasonal rhythms of the region’s largely rain-dependent agriculture.

Craft production flourished in several centres within Maratha territory and formed an important secondary sector of the economy. The textile industry was particularly notable, with towns such as Paithan and Yeola in the Deccan renowned for fine cotton and silk weaving, including the famous Paithani sarees woven with gold thread borders, while Burhanpur in the north remained an important centre of cloth manufacture. Metal craft was also well developed, with the Bidriware of the Bidar region, and brass and copper utensil-making in centres such as Kolhapur, forming significant local industries. The needs of near-continuous warfare further stimulated the production of armaments, gunpowder and military equipment, while the rise of the Maratha navy under commanders such as Kanhoji Angre encouraged shipbuilding along the Konkan coast. Artisans engaged in these industries were commonly organised, as elsewhere in India, into hereditary caste-based occupational groups, and their produce fed both local consumption and long-distance trade.

Trade and commerce under the Marathas operated at both the internal and the overseas level. Internally, roads connected the towns of the Deccan plateau with the ports of the Konkan coast, facilitating the movement of agricultural produce and craft goods, on which the state levied transit duties known as jakat at various points along the route. Overseas trade was conducted chiefly through Konkan ports such as Kalyan, Chaul, Rajapur and Vengurla, which handled the export of cotton textiles and other goods and the import of items such as horses and bullion, in exchange and competition with European trading companies, including the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English, who maintained factories along the western coast. The Maratha navy, besides its military role, played an important part in protecting coastal shipping and in collecting chauth from vessels passing through waters under Maratha influence, reflecting the close connection between naval power and commercial revenue in this period.

Religious and charitable patronage formed a distinctive and prominent feature of the Maratha economy, reflecting both genuine piety and the state’s self-image as a protector of Hindu institutions following the decline of Mughal authority in the Deccan. Grants of revenue-free or revenue-reduced land, known as inam, along with grants specifically termed devasthan inam, were made to temples, mathas and Brahmin scholars, exempting the recipients from the ordinary land tax in return for the performance of religious or educational functions. The Peshwas at Pune were especially known for their patronage in this respect, maintaining an annual dakshina fund through which large sums were distributed to Brahmins gathered at Pune, and supporting the construction and maintenance of temples, dharmashalas, wells and water tanks as charitable public works. Such expenditure, while a drain on state revenue, served important social and political functions by consolidating the loyalty of religious and learned communities to the Maratha state.

The revenue administration of the Marathas rested on both the ordinary assessment of land within core Maratha territory (swarajya) and the extraction of tribute from neighbouring, often Mughal-administered, territories through the twin instruments of chauth and sardeshmukhi. Chauth was a levy amounting to roughly one-quarter of the standard land revenue, exacted from territories outside direct Maratha control in return for protection from further raids, while sardeshmukhi was an additional levy of about one-tenth, claimed by the Maratha ruler in his capacity as the hereditary sardeshmukh, or chief headman, of the Deccan. Within their own territories, the Marathas relied on officials known as kamavisdars, who functioned as revenue collectors and local administrators for assigned districts, operating alongside the older village-level hierarchy of hereditary officials, including the deshmukh and deshpande at the district level and the patel and kulkarni at the village level, whose watan rights and record-keeping functions the Marathas largely retained and incorporated into their own system. While Shivaji had shown a preference for paying his officers in cash rather than through land assignments (jagirs), so as to avoid the fragmentation of central authority, later Peshwa administration saw a partial return to the practice of granting saranjam, or revenue assignments, to military commanders, a development that some historians associate with the gradual decentralisation of Maratha power in the eighteenth century.

The economy of medieval India under the Marathas illustrates the capacity of a regional power, emerging from the administrative traditions of the Deccan Sultanates, to construct a fiscal and economic system capable of sustaining sustained military expansion across much of the Indian subcontinent. A carefully assessed agrarian base, supplemented by flourishing textile and craft industries, an active network of internal and maritime trade, a strong tradition of religious and charitable patronage, and an innovative revenue system combining direct assessment with the extraction of tribute through chauth and sardeshmukhi, together allowed the Marathas to convert the resources of the Deccan and beyond into sustained political and military power. Although the later decentralisation of authority among the various Maratha chiefs eventually contributed to the weakening of central control, the underlying economic institutions developed during this period left a lasting imprint on the administrative and revenue practices of the regions they governed.

• Sardesai, G.S. (1946). New History of the Marathas (3 vols). Bombay: Phoenix Publications.
• Sen, Surendra Nath. (1925). Administrative System of the Marathas. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
• Gordon, Stewart. (1993). The Marathas 1600–1818 (The New Cambridge History of India). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chandra, Satish. (2005). Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.
• Grant Duff, James. (1826). A History of the Mahrattas. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green.
• Sabhasad, Krishnaji Anant. Sabhasad Bakhar (translated and edited in various modern scholarly editions).
• Perlin, Frank. (1985). “State Formation Reconsidered.” Modern Asian Studies, 19(3).
• Kulkarni, A.R. (1996). Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji. Pune: Deshmukh and Company.