56 SOCIAL SCIENTIST some customary obligation of protecting their ryots. Irfan Habib describes the economic consideration behind such an obligation: ^The peasants found 'less oppression and were allowed a greater degree of comfort in the territories of a Raja.' This is clearly recognised even by the official historian of Aurangzeb, who says that 'the Zamindars of the country of Hindustan, for consideration ofpoUcy for winning the hearts of, and conciliating the peasants in order that they may not cease to obey or pay revenue to them, conduct themselves gently'.9911 Besides the economic consideration, perhaps, the religious practices also contributed to the tics between ^amindars and ryots. Great religious merit was attached, both by Hindus as well as Muslims, to the gift of revenue-free land to brahmans and religious institutions. Anybody making such gifts was held in high esteem and therefore he commanded moral authority in society. The power of value attached to this practice can be realized by the fact that a minhai register of 1795 recorded the prevalence of 18 kinds of revenue free grants among Hindus and 20 kinds among Muslims.12 Rajajugal Kishore Singh of Bettiah, who had rebelled against British power as stated earlier, also had made a gift of two villages to Pandit Vishvanath Mishra, a scholar of repute, in 1768.13 It is significant to note that this raja of Bettiah made this gift in a period in which he himself was very much disturbed. Yet, in spite of all the stresses and strains to which he had been subjected he did not let himself miss the chance of earning great religious merit and the consequent accretion of moral strength. Thus, economic considerations and religious values both had strengthened the ties between the middle and the bottom layer of society in Bihar. The British authority exploited the integration of these two groups in their own interest by promulgating Permanent Settlement and thus prepared ground for the germination of the seeds of contradiction between them. In Permanent Settlement the interest of ryots was ignored and ^amindars were given a free hand to extract as much as they wanted. With this, the practice of revenue free grant of land also declined as the British policy did not encourage it.14 Consequently, the age old moral and economic obligations binding ^amindars and ryots together loosened in course of time. The former gradually lost the social base and eventually depended for existence on the colonial power. During the pro-British days whenever peasants revolted, the revolts were generally in collaboration with the ^amindars against the central authority.15 Permanent Settlement, however, gave rise to the process of increasing contradiction bctwceu tlic two