Statement I : The pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators c

Statement I :
The pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators cultivating lands on a contractual basis.

Statement II :
The pahi-kashta peasants worked under the temptation of favourable revenue or the compulsion of economic distress.

Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I
Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I
Statement I is true but Statement II is false
Statement I is false but Statement II is true
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2016
Both statements are individually true, and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.
– Pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators who tilled land outside their own village. This was often on a contractual basis.
– They were motivated to cultivate land in other villages either due to favorable terms (like lower revenue demand offered by the village or zamindar seeking cultivators) or due to compulsion stemming from economic distress, lack of sufficient land in their home village, or social pressure. Thus, the factors mentioned in Statement II explain why a peasant would become a pahi-kashta, cultivating land on a contractual basis in a different village.
In Mughal India, peasants were generally classified into Khud-kashta (resident cultivators with proprietary rights in their village) and Pahi-kashta (non-resident cultivators). The movement and status of Pahi-kashta peasants reflected economic conditions and land availability.
Exit mobile version