Salar Jung I and the Zillabandi Reforms: Administrative Transformation of Hyderabad State in the Nineteenth Century
Introduction:
Figure 1: Sir Mir Turab Ali Khan (Salar Jung I), undated photograph. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Mir Turab Ali Khan, popularly known as
Salar Jung I, emerged as one of the most influential administrators of
nineteenth-century Hyderabad, undertaking reforms that fundamentally
transformed the governance and financial structure of the State. Serving during
a period marked by administrative fragmentation and fiscal instability, he
introduced measures that reshaped revenue administration, strengthened state
authority, and laid the foundations of a more centralized and accountable
system of governance.
In an era when large parts of British India
operated under the Zamindari system—where revenue collection was entrusted to
intermediary landlords—Hyderabad faced its own challenges of fragmented
governance, irregular revenue practices, and agrarian insecurity. Recognizing
the limitations of such intermediary-based administration, Salar Jung I
consciously rejected the adoption of the Zamindari model. Instead, in October
1867, he introduced the Zillabandi system, a comprehensive administrative
reform that reorganized the dominions into structured divisions and districts
under direct state supervision.
The introduction of Zillabandi marked a
turning point in the governance of the Deccan. By establishing accountable
district administration, reorganizing revenue management, and reducing the
scope for local exploitation, the reform sought not only to strengthen the
fiscal stability of the State but also to safeguard the interests of the
cultivating ryots, particularly in the Telangana regions. This article examines
how Salar Jung I’s administrative vision created a more regulated and
welfare-oriented system of governance, offering an alternative to the
prevailing Zamindari framework of British India. In doing so, it laid the
foundations of modern Administration in Hyderabad state.
Salar Jung I’s administrative outlook was
shaped in part by his grounding in Persian bureaucratic traditions together
with a working knowledge of English acquired through close interaction with the
British Residency at Hyderabad. This exposure enabled him to observe
contemporary systems of governance while adapting reform measures suited to the
political and agrarian conditions of the Hyderabad State.
Administrative Conditions in Hyderabad
State before the Zillabandi Reforms
Prior to the administrative reforms of 1867, the governance structure of
the Hyderabad State reflected a complex mixture of older feudal practices and
loosely supervised revenue arrangements. Large portions of the dominions were
controlled through jagirs, paiga holdings, and various service tenures granted
in return for military or administrative obligations. While such arrangements
had evolved historically, they often resulted in fragmented authority and
inconsistent governance across regions.
In many districts, particularly in the Telangana areas, revenue
administration operated through intermediary officials such as local deshmukhs,
patels, patwaris, and sarbastadars, who exercised considerable influence over
village records and assessment practices. The absence of uniform supervision
enabled arbitrary revenue demands, manipulation of land records, and irregular
realization of state income. For the cultivating ryots, this meant uncertainty
regarding assessment, dependence upon local officials, and limited avenues for
redress against excess collection or malpractice.
Agrarian administration was further complicated by the prevalence of the
payment-in-kind or batai system, under which a portion of agricultural
produce was taken as revenue. The estimation of standing crops and division of
produce required constant intervention by petty officials, creating
opportunities for corruption and disputes between cultivators and revenue
authorities. Moreover, fluctuating rainfall patterns in Telangana made fixed
assessment difficult, often exposing cultivators to hardship during years of
drought or crop failure.
By the mid-nineteenth century, these administrative weaknesses not only
affected the welfare of the rural population but also undermined the financial
stability of the State itself. It became increasingly evident that Hyderabad
required a more centralized and accountable system capable of regulating
revenue administration, standardizing records, and establishing direct
governmental responsibility over its districts. The circumstances thus created
the conditions in which comprehensive reform became both necessary and
inevitable.
Agrarian and Territorial Structure of Hyderabad State before Reform
Prior to the introduction of the Zillabandi system, the territorial and
agrarian organization of the Hyderabad State reflected older patterns inherited
from earlier Indo-Islamic administrative traditions. The dominions were broadly
divided into two major agricultural zones—commonly described as the dry
and wet cultivation districts. The dry or wheat-producing tracts
extended across approximately 39,928 square miles with a population exceeding
five million, while the wet or rice-producing regions covered nearly 42,775
square miles supporting more than 4.4 million inhabitants. Together, these
regions constituted a vast agrarian territory of about 82,698 square miles,
highlighting both the scale and diversity of agricultural administration within
the State.
Administratively, land was classified into two principal territorial
categories: Jagir and Khalisa lands. Khalisa territories were
those directly yielding revenue to the Government through land revenue
assessments, quit-rents (makta and sarbasta), or tribute payments
such as peishkash. In contrast, Jagir lands represented assignments of
revenue granted to nobles, military commanders, officials, or dependents of the
State in lieu of salary, service obligations, or financial advances.
The Jagir system, common under earlier Mughal and Deccan polities,
effectively transferred not only revenue rights but also administrative
authority over assigned territories to the grantee. Jagirdars were empowered to
collect revenue, maintain order, and manage local governance, often with
limited supervision from the central administration. These assignments could be
temporary, life-tenures, or hereditary grants, and in many instances reverted
to the State upon the extinction of heirs or failure of service obligations.
Over time, several forms of Jagirs evolved, including hereditary Al-Tumgha
grants, personal or Zat jagirs, Paigah estates maintained for
military establishments, and Tankhahi assignments created in periods of
fiscal distress when territories were pledged in lieu of unpaid salaries or
state debts. While such arrangements served earlier political and military
needs, they fragmented administrative authority and reduced uniform governmental
control over large portions of the dominions.
As increasing areas remained outside direct state management, disparities
arose in revenue realization, record maintenance, and protection of
cultivators. The coexistence of directly administered Khalisa lands alongside
semi-autonomous Jagir territories created administrative inconsistency across
Hyderabad State. These structural conditions formed an important backdrop
against which Salar Jung I later pursued centralized reform through the
Zillabandi system, seeking to restore fiscal order and administrative
coherence.
These administrative and territorial complexities revealed the
limitations of earlier governance structures and underscored the necessity for
a more centralized and accountable system, a task that Salar Jung I undertook
through the introduction of the Zillabandi reforms.
Rejection of the Zamindari Model and the Search for Administrative Reform
During the nineteenth century, the expansion of British rule across the
Indian subcontinent popularized the Zamindari system as a principal method of
revenue administration. Under this arrangement, revenue collection was
entrusted to intermediary landlords who assumed responsibility for payments to
the state while exercising extensive control over cultivators. Though
administratively convenient, the system frequently distanced governmental
authority from rural society and enabled the concentration of power in the
hands of local elites.
In the course of reorganizing the Hyderabad State administration, Salar
Jung I examined the possibility of introducing a similar Zamindari framework
within the dominions. However, after careful consideration, the proposal was
ultimately abandoned. Contemporary administrative records indicate that such a
system was regarded as unlikely to produce efficient governance or stable
revenue realization within the diverse agrarian conditions of Hyderabad,
particularly in the Telangana regions where cultivation patterns were highly
dependent upon seasonal rainfall.
Salar Jung recognized that entrusting revenue authority to intermediaries
would perpetuate many of the very problems already affecting the
State—irregular assessment, weakened administrative supervision, and the
continued vulnerability of ryots to local exploitation. Rather than delegating
authority outward, he envisioned strengthening the State’s direct relationship
with its districts and cultivators through an organized bureaucratic structure
staffed by salaried officials accountable to the central administration.
This deliberate rejection of the Zamindari model marked a significant
divergence from prevailing colonial administrative practice. It reflected an
emerging administrative philosophy in Hyderabad State that prioritized
regulated governance, systematic record-keeping, and direct governmental
oversight. The search for such an alternative ultimately culminated in the
introduction of the Zillabandi system in October 1867, one of the most
far-reaching reforms undertaken during Salar Jung I’s tenure.
Introduction of the Zillabandi System: Administrative Reorganization of
1867
Figure 2: Hyderabad State, 1909. Map by John George Bartholomew, from the Imperial Gazetteer of India. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
In October 1867, Salar Jung I implemented a comprehensive administrative
reform that came to be known as the Zillabandi system, fundamentally
restructuring the governance of the Hyderabad State. The reform replaced
dispersed and irregular administrative arrangements with a clearly defined
territorial framework designed to ensure efficiency, accountability, and direct
state supervision.
Under the Zillabandi arrangement, the dominions of Hyderabad were
systematically divided into five administrative divisions comprising seventeen
districts. A significant portion of territory continued under special tenures
such as Sarf-i-Khas (Crown lands), personal jagirs, Paiga estates
granted in lieu of military service, and other service holdings. However, the
remaining and substantial area, designated as Dewani Azla, was brought
under direct government administration, marking an important expansion of centralized
authority.
To administer this new structure, a hierarchical system of salaried
officials was introduced. Each division was placed under a Sadr Talukdar,
functioning as a Revenue Commissioner responsible for supervision and
coordination. District administration was entrusted to Talukdars,
assisted by subordinate officers and supported at the local level by Tehsildars,
who oversaw revenue realization, record maintenance, and communication between
villages and the state administration. Unlike earlier intermediary arrangements,
these officials operated as accountable representatives of the government
rather than independent revenue contractors.
The reform extended beyond revenue administration. Simultaneously,
several key departments—including the judiciary, police, public works, medical
services, municipal administration, and education—were reorganized to function
within the newly established district framework. This integration ensured that
governance was no longer confined merely to taxation but encompassed law,
infrastructure, public welfare, and institutional regulation.
The introduction of Zillabandi thus represented the creation of a
coordinated bureaucratic system across Hyderabad State. Contemporary
administrative accounts observed that, despite later improvements and
modifications, the essential framework introduced in 1867 continued to remain
the basis of governance for decades thereafter. Through this reform, Salar Jung
I effectively transformed Hyderabad from a loosely administered feudal domain
into a territorially organized and centrally supervised state.
Implementation in Telangana and the Abolition of the Payment-in-Kind
System
While the Zillabandi system established a new administrative framework
across Hyderabad State, its implementation was neither immediate nor uniform.
Contemporary records indicate that the greatest difficulties were encountered
in the Telangana regions, where older agrarian practices and revenue traditions
differed significantly from those of other parts of the dominions.
Prior to the reforms, revenue in many Telangana districts was collected
through the batai or payment-in-kind system, under which the State
claimed a fixed share of agricultural produce rather than monetary assessment.
This method required officials to estimate standing crops, supervise
harvesting, and physically divide produce between the cultivator and the State.
Such procedures inevitably increased official interference in rural life and
created wide opportunities for malpractice by local functionaries including
patels and patwaris, who often controlled village records and assessments.
Salar Jung I regarded this system as fundamentally detrimental both to
efficient administration and to agricultural progress. When rent was taken in
kind, cultivators possessed little incentive to improve productivity, as
increased output merely resulted in a larger share being appropriated as
revenue. Moreover, disputes frequently arose from inaccurate crop estimation,
manipulation of measurements, and delays in permitting harvest removal until
the government’s share was secured. The system also imposed logistical burdens
upon the State, which bore risks associated with storage, transport, and
fluctuating grain prices.
The Zillabandi reforms therefore introduced the gradual abolition of
payment-in-kind in Telangana districts and replaced it with assessed money
revenue (jama). This transition significantly altered the relationship
between the State and the cultivator. Revenue officials were required to
examine available historical records, verify land areas, and establish
village-wise assessments through systematic inquiry conducted by Talukdars and
Tehsildars in consultation with local authorities.
Equally significant was the introduction of written documentation for
cultivators. Each ryot was provided with a record specifying the extent of land
held and the revenue payable, along with official acknowledgement upon payment.
Annual tours by district officers enabled cultivators to present grievances
directly, and where assessments were found excessive, reductions were ordered.
Instances of fraud or extortion by village officials were subject to
disciplinary action, thereby reducing long-standing abuses associated with
intermediary control.
Recognizing the climatic variability of Telangana agriculture, the
administration avoided rigid permanent assessment. Seasonal inspections were
conducted to determine areas left uncultivated due to drought or calamity, and
remissions were granted when justified. At the same time, favourable harvests
did not automatically lead to increased taxation, allowing cultivators to
retain the benefits of improved production. The confidence generated by these
measures encouraged the expansion of cultivation into previously uncultivated
lands, contributing to both agricultural growth and increased state revenue.
Through these measures, the Zillabandi system extended beyond
administrative restructuring to reshape agrarian governance itself,
establishing a more regulated and predictable environment for cultivation in
the Telangana regions.
Long-Term Impact and Administrative Legacy of the Zillabandi System
The introduction of the Zillabandi system marked a decisive transition in
the administrative evolution of the Hyderabad State, the effects of which
extended far beyond immediate revenue reform. By replacing intermediary-based
governance with territorially organized district administration, Salar Jung I
established a durable framework that strengthened both governmental authority
and public confidence in state institutions.
One of the most significant outcomes of the reform was the stabilization
of revenue administration. With clearly defined districts, standardized
records, and salaried officials accountable to the central government, the
State achieved greater consistency in assessment and realization of revenue.
Equally important was the emergence of a direct administrative relationship
between the government and the cultivating population, reducing dependence upon
hereditary intermediaries who had previously exercised disproportionate local
influence.
For the ryots of Telangana, the reforms fostered a sense of security
previously absent under earlier arrangements. The maintenance of land records,
regulated assessments, and provision for remission during adverse seasons
encouraged agricultural continuity and expansion. Contemporary administrative
observations noted that cultivators increasingly brought waste and outlying
lands under cultivation, confident that improvements in productivity would not
automatically result in arbitrary enhancement of taxation. In this manner,
agricultural growth and state revenue advanced simultaneously rather than in
opposition to one another.
Institutionally, the Zillabandi framework also enabled the functioning of
specialized departments such as judiciary, police, public works, education, and
municipal administration within an integrated territorial system. Many
subsequent administrative developments in Hyderabad State were introduced as
improvements upon this foundation rather than replacements for it. Indeed, the
district-based administrative structure established during Salar Jung I’s
tenure continued to influence governance practices in the Deccan well into the
twentieth century.
Contemporary administrative accounts such as those of Bilgrami (1883) and
Chiragh Ali (1884) describe the Zillabandi reforms as forming the enduring
basis of Hyderabad State administration, highlighting the institutional
permanence achieved through Salar Jung I’s reforms.
The legacy of these reforms extended beyond immediate administrative
restructuring. By ensuring fiscal stability, standardized governance, and
accountable district administration, the Zillabandi system created enduring
institutional foundations within the Hyderabad State. These reforms
strengthened governmental authority while fostering confidence among
cultivators and officials alike, enabling the State to maintain administrative
continuity and financial resilience well into the later nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
Conclusion: Administrative Reform and the Transformation of Hyderabad
State
The administrative reforms undertaken during the tenure of Salar Jung I
represent one of the most significant phases in the political and economic
consolidation of the Hyderabad State during the nineteenth century. At a time
when the dominions faced financial instability, administrative fragmentation,
and declining revenue efficiency, his reform programme introduced structural
changes that gradually transformed a debt-ridden polity into one of the most
stable and prosperous princely states functioning under British paramountcy.
Among these measures, the introduction of the Zillabandi system stands
out as the principal instrument of transformation. By reorganizing the State
into clearly defined administrative divisions and districts under salaried and
accountable officials, revenue realization was regularized and governmental
authority strengthened. The reform reduced dependence on intermediaries,
curtailed opportunities for local malpractice, and established systematic
record-keeping that enhanced fiscal discipline within the administration.
Equally important was the impact upon the cultivating ryots. The
transition from payment-in-kind to assessed monetary revenue, the provision of
documented land records, and the institutionalization of grievance redress
created a more predictable and secure agrarian environment. These measures
fostered confidence among cultivators, encouraged expansion of cultivation, and
aligned agricultural growth with the financial interests of the State itself.
Through the Zillabandi reforms, Salar Jung I demonstrated an
administrative vision that balanced state consolidation with rural welfare. The
resulting stability enabled Hyderabad to emerge as a financially sound and
efficiently governed vassal state within the broader framework of British
India. The enduring administrative foundations laid during this period reshaped
governance in the Deccan and continued to influence regional administration
long after his tenure.
Sources
Bilgrami, Syed Husain. *A Memoir of Sir Salar Jung, G.C.S.I.* Hyderabad: Government Central Press, 1883.
Ali, Moulavi Chiragh. *Hyderabad (Deccan) under Sir Salar Jung: An Account of the Civil, Military and Public Works Departments under the Administration of His Excellency Sir Salar Jung Bahadur.* Bombay: Education Society’s Press, 1884.
Richards, John F. *The Hyderabad State under the Nizams, 1724–1948.* Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Leonard, Karen. *Hyderabad and the Deccan: Political and Social Conditions under the Nizams.* New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1978.
*Imperial Gazetteer of India.* Vol. XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. (Map of Hyderabad State by John George Bartholomew). Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Internet Archive. Digital editions of nineteenth-century administrative records relating to Hyderabad State. https://archive.org
Image Credits
Figure 1:
Sir Mir Turab Ali Khan (Salar Jung I), undated photograph. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2:
Hyderabad State, 1909. Map by John George Bartholomew, from the *Imperial Gazetteer of India*. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on historical records, published administrative accounts,
and publicly available archival sources relating to the administration of
Hyderabad State during the nineteenth century. The interpretations presented
are intended solely for educational and informational purposes. While every
effort has been made to ensure historical accuracy, variations in scholarly
interpretation may exist. Historical images reproduced in this article are
sourced from public domain repositories and remain credited to their
respective owners.
Comments
Post a Comment