Deshmukh

Deshmukh was a historical title given to a person who was granted a territory of land, in Maharashtra, Telangana[3][4] and Chhattisgarh. The granted territory was usually referred to as the Dēśamukhi. The Deshmukh was in effect the ruler of the territory, as he was entitled to a portion of the collected taxes. It was also his duty to maintain the basic services in the territory, such as police and judicial duties. It was typically a hereditary system. The title of Deshmukh provided the titled family with revenues from the area and the responsibilities to keep the orders.[5][1]

The Deshmukh system was abolished after the independence of India in 1947, when the government confiscated most of the land of the Deshmukhs. Some families, however, maintain their status as real estate barons, most notably in Mumbai, with holdover properties that were not taken away.

It was similar in many respects to the Zamindar and Jagir systems in India, and can be considered as a feudal system. Typically taxes collected were to be distributed fairly, and occasionally Deshmukhs participated in Vedic rituals in which they redistributed all material possessions to the people. However, the title Deshmukh should not be associated to a particular religion or caste. Deshmukhis were granted by the Deccan sultanates, Mughal emperors, Nizams of Hyderabad and other Muslim rulers and by Maratha emperors (Chhatrapatis) to Deshastha Brahmins,[6][7] Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, Chitpavan Brahmins, Marathas, Lingayats, Reddys, Jains and Muslims.[8][9] [10]

• During the rule of Qutb-shahis of Golkonda majority of Deshmukhs and Sir-Deshmukhs were Deshastha Brahmins of Madhwa Section. But, later many of these Deshmukhs became Zamindars and Jagirdars during British rule.[11]
• In Andhra Pradesh, especially in the Guntur and Krishna districts, the title "Deshmukh" was used by Deshastha Brahmin Zamindars.[12][13]
• In North Karnataka many parganas were granted to Deshastha Brahmins and were made Deshmukhs by Sultanate of Bijapur.[14]
• In Telangana many Jagirdars of Deshastha Brahmin, Velama and Reddy families were given the title "Deshmukh" by the Nizam of Hyderabad.[15]

Inukonda Thirumali of Telangana describes the role of Deshmukhs:[16]

They were primarily revenue collectors; and when (magisterial and judicial) responsibilities were added to their function they became Deshmukhs, chiefs of the parganas. Gradually, each of these assignments tended to become a watan i.e., hereditary lease. Despite changes in the political authority at the top, this institution survived, since no ruler from above wished to risk disturbing local administration, headed by village officials. This institution was deeply entrenched in the region with local support and structured in organized 'community' life. The Deshmukh presided over meetings of the pargana community known as 'got sahba' [sic]^{['got sabha']} which decided and confirmed claims over inheritance, purchase, and transfer of waters. The Deshmukh by virtue of local sanction and consensus could not be easily displaced from above.

Barry Pavier describes Deshmukhs:[17]

These were, in the 1940s, the layer of the very large landowners in Telangana. They owned from 2,000-3,000 acres at the lower end to 160,000 acres (650 km²) at the upper scale. The reforms abandoned the previous practice, of auctioning off the revenue collection in the government-administered areas to farmers, in favour of direct revenue collection by the State. The 'revenue farmers' were given land in compensation. Most of them availed of the opportunity to seize as much of the best land as they could. They also received a pension. The Deshmukhs were thus given a dominant position in the rural economy which they proceeded resolutely to strengthen during the succeeding decades.

Writing in the nineteenth century, Major W. H. Skyes, the statistical reporter to the Government of Bombay, described the Deshmukh:[18]

The Desmukhs were, no doubt, originally appointed by Government, and they possessed all the above advantages, on the tenure of collecting and being responsible for the revenue, for superintending the cultivation and police of their districts, and carrying into effect all orders of Government. They were, in fact, to a district what a Patil is to a village; in short, were charged with its whole Government.