Understanding the Balutedar System and the Incorrect Statement

The question asks us to identify the statement that is NOT correct regarding the Balutedars, a system prevalent in villages, particularly in the Maratha period in Maharashtra. This system involved service providers or artisans who were essential to the village community and received remuneration for their services.

Analyzing Each Statement About Balutedars

Let's carefully examine each given statement to determine its correctness within the context of the Balutedar system.

Statement 1: Balutedars were expected to serve villagers whenever required in their respective capacities.

This statement accurately describes a fundamental aspect of the Balutedar system. Balutedars, such as the carpenter, blacksmith, barber, washerman, etc., provided specific services (their 'capacities') to the villagers and were obligated to do so as needed. This was the core of their role in the village economy.

Statement 2: They were paid the remuneration always in kind.

This statement claims that payment was *always* made in kind (like grain or produce). While payment in kind was the primary and most common method of remuneration for Balutedars, historical accounts suggest that their compensation wasn't exclusively limited to kind. They often received a fixed share of the village produce (the 'baluta'), but they could also receive other forms of payment or perquisites, especially on specific occasions. The word "always" makes this statement too absolute and, therefore, likely incorrect.

Statement 3: The were entitled to certain shares of offerings dedicated to village temples and to some other perquisites on special occasions.

This statement is correct. Beyond their regular share of village produce, Balutedars were indeed often entitled to receive a portion of offerings made at village temples and other specific benefits or 'perquisites' during festivals, ceremonies, or important life events within the village. This was part of their traditional rights and income sources.

Statement 4: The right to serve and the right to receive various remunerations of permanent balutedars were recognised as their miras or watan.

This statement is also correct. For the permanent Balutedars, their rights to provide services and, importantly, their rights to receive the corresponding remuneration were considered hereditary rights. These rights were often referred to as 'miras' or 'watan', signifying a permanent, often inheritable claim or stake in the village system or resources in return for service. This hereditary nature was a key characteristic of the system.

Identifying the Incorrect Statement

Based on the analysis, statements 1, 3, and 4 correctly describe aspects of the Balutedar system. Statement 2, however, makes an absolute claim that remuneration was *always* in kind, which is not entirely accurate as other forms of compensation or perquisites were also part of their traditional rights.

Therefore, the statement that is NOT correct is that they were paid the remuneration always in kind.

Revision Table: Key Features of Balutedars

Additional Information on the Balutedar System and Remuneration

The Balutedar system was a traditional socio-economic arrangement in rural India, particularly prominent in the Deccan region. It represented a system of interdependence where various service castes and artisans (the Balutedars) provided essential services to the agricultural community (the Kunbis) in exchange for a customary share of the harvest or other forms of compensation. The number and types of Balutedars varied from village to village, but typically included twelve principal service providers, hence the term 'Bara Balutedar'.

While the 'baluta' (share of grain or produce) was the staple form of payment, the Balutedars' total compensation package often included:

• A fixed share of grain from each farmer's harvest.
• Rights to certain resources (e.g., specific trees, grazing land).
• Perquisites (rights to receive goods or services on special occasions like marriages, festivals, etc.).
• A share in temple offerings or communal income.

The hereditary nature of these service rights and associated remuneration, known as miras or watan, provided a degree of economic security and social standing to the Balutedar families, embedding them firmly within the village structure. The system, while based on traditional caste roles, facilitated the functioning of the self-sufficient village economy before significant socio-economic changes occurred during colonial rule.