'Reports of administration for 1918 of divisions and districts of the occupied territories in Mesopotamia. Volume I' [‎75r] (154/470)

by the British occupation. I consider that, in 1919, demands should issue in the
name of Sarkals only. Joint responsibility is never expedient and, moreover, to
issue demands on Mallaks would perpetuate an undesirable precedent and possibly
hamper the future revenue policy. To collect from Sarkals commits the Government
to nothing.
(3) Rights in Land. -Undoubtedly one of the most pressing revenue problems
in the district is the distribution of the different shares of the crop. The so-called
legitimate demand which leaves only 40 per cent, of the gross yield to the fallah Arabic for ‘peasant’. It was used by British officials to refer to agricultural workers or to members of a social class employed primarily in agricultural labour. ,
plus a small rebate to the Sarkal, is obviously inequitable. In order to secure as
much grain as possible for the Army, the full demand of 60 per cent, was this year
made on Miri Muqata^alis, but a cash rebate was granted which reduced the demand
to an amount varying from 36 per cent, to 50 per cent. Even if in 1919 revenue is
to be collected in cash, it will not be possible to fix it permanently till prices settle,
nor can the shares be finally determined, even on State lands, until a thorough
enquiry has produced more information as to agricultural conditions than is now
available; but some general arrangement must be made for next harvest. There
are no complaints about Mudawwarah proportion of 36 per cent., and, pending a
settlement, I consider it advisable to assess State lands at that rate.
On tapu lands the question is more difficult. The specimen lease quoted in last
year’s report of the Revenue Board was provided by Mr. Daniel, and the terms are
those usually granted in this district by other Mallaks as well as by the Manahim
family. Its conditions are obviously extortionate; but in Turkish times, as might
be expected, they were not enforced. The Mallak bound his Sarkal by every
possible means, hoping that at the harvest he might realise at least some of his
demands. The Sarkal cheerfully signed any lease, whatever the terms, being firmly
resolved to pay not an ounce more than he could help and knowing.that it was not
likely that any great compulsion would be employed by the Government. The
lease, in fact, meant practically nothing; what counted was the strength of each
party when the crops were cut. The means employed by the Mallak to realise an
income from his lands were manifold. In rare cases he collected in person; more
often he employed a local manias wakil Elected representative or attorney, acting in legal matters such as contracting marriage, inheritance, or business; a high-ranking legal official; could also refer to a custodian or administrator. , purchased official support, gave the local
Shaikh an interest in his share, or farmed his rights for anything he could get.
What is abundantly clear is that, with very few exceptions, he never gathered his
full due whether according to the 40 per cent, share rule or according to the lease.
It is essential that a decision should be given as to what proportion the Mallak
is to recover. In Turkish times the severity of the terms was neutralised by the
impossibility of enforcement. In 1918 Mallaks and Sarkals were, to some extent,
compelled to compromise. But though, in the absence of instructions from the
Revenue Board, the adoption of any other course would have been difficult, the
results were unfortunate. Practically no petitions for assistance in recovering the
Mallak’s share were presented, and I fear that this can only mean that the Mallak
collected his grain by the illegitimate help of subordinate officials from cultivators
who, were they not cowed by fear of British Government, would have resented such
action by cutting the throats of Mallak and Mamur alike. It would be possible to
decide such cases in each district as they arose, but differences of practice between
districts are undesirable, and I consider that a general policy for the whole country
is most necessary. It would not be advisable to lay down any hard-and-fast rule
prescribing the Mallaki share, because circumstances vary so much in each case;
but I would very strongly urge the immediate initiation of enquiries with a view to
the enunciation of certain general principles in order both to harmonise the action
of individual A.P.O.s and to prevent the constitution of undesirable precedents.
Political Officers will be confronted with this problem in the near future, and at
present they are not equipped to deal with it. It is not possible adequately to
treat the question in a report of this nature, but I have discussed it fully in a
confidential memorandum to the P.O., Hillah, dated 22nd October 1918.
Closely allied to the problem of Mallak’s shares is the question of ‘uqr. The
position is much the same in both cases. On the one hand, there is a more or less
legal right, and on the other the actual practice of many years’ standing. During
the past year several claims to ‘uqr have been made before me. It would have been
unw r orthy to ignore them, and it was in fact impossible to do so, because the Revenue
Board had recognised the right by directing that ‘uqr deeds were to be registered
and that ‘uqr was payable on the crop after deduction of revenue. All these cases
were decided on the principle of possession, f.e., the ‘uqr holder was allowed what
he had enjoyed in Turkish times, plus a percentage on account of the general rise