History of India – V (c.

1500-1600)

Assignment
Jobial Alex
 Discuss the main features and potentiality of the Mansabdari system under Akbar.

Mansabdari was a unique system of numerical gradation and dual ranking devised by Akbar. The
term mansab, derived from the Arabic term nasab meaning to fix/erect/plan something, refers to
office/position/rank and dari means system. The organization of the nobility in numerical grades
(mansabs) was one of the basic elements of Mughal administrative and military structure which
constituted the “steel framework” of the empire. This all-encompassing system which was the
culmination of centuries of evolution that can be traced back to the days of Ghenghis Khan included
anyone who was in the state service and all of them were expected to render military service for the
state. Apart from determining the status of its holder (mansabdar), it also fixed his remuneration
which can be either in the form of cash (naqd) or revenue assignments (jagir). By Akbar's death
(1605), mansab was explained in two numerical representations: the first, zat, determined the
holder's personal pay (talab-i khasa) and status in the hierarchy; the second (sawar) indicated the
number of horsemen to be maintained by the holder and set the amount sanctioned to cover their
pay (talab-i tabinan). In each case, the rank-number was converted into monetary claims and
military obligation by means of the schedules (dastur al- 'amals) in force at the time. Sawar may be
less than or equal to zat but it can’t be greater than zat. The system undoubtedly gave to the Mughal
nobility and military machine a high degree of uniformity and regularity in its functioning, which is
likely to have contributed greatly to the stability and strength of the Empire. The chronicles; Akbar
namah of Abul Fazl, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh of Abd al-Qadir Badauni, Tabaqat-i Akbari of Nizam al-
Din Ahmad Bakshi, Tarikh-i Akbari of Hajji Muhammad Arif Qandahari and Tazkira-yi Humayun wa
Akbar of Bayazid Bayat are the principal sources of information for this period.

The date of institution of mansabdari, the ways in which it evolved over years under different rulers
belonging to different dynasties, the exact meaning of the terms zat and sawar etc. are bones of
contention among historians. W.H Moreland and Abdul Aziz trace the origin of mansabdari to the
tuman system, i.e., ‘decimal’ system of organisation of armies, of Ghenghis Khan. In the army of
Ghenghis Mongols from whom the Indian Mughals claimed their descent the smallest unit was that
of 10 horsemen, 10 officers of such units being under a ‘commander of 100’, 10 commanders of 100
being under a ‘commander of 1000’ and 10 commanders of 1000’ being under a commander of
10,000, points out H.H Howorth. The Delhi Sultans also followed a similar system of military
organisation with sawars, sar-i khails, sipah salars, amirs, maliks, khans and finally the Sultan in the
ascending order of hierarchy. However, as Athar Ali rightly points out, Akbar’s mansabdari was
different from tuman system in certain vital respects. In the mansab system all mansabdars owed
direct subordination to the king whether they commanded 10 sawars or 5000. All appointments,
promotions, demotions, dismissals etc. are done by the emperor. The distinction between the umara
and the rest was purely conventional and did not affect the system of military organisation.
Subordination was along administrative lines rather than mansabs. Secondly mansab was dual,
represented by zat and sawar.
Khwandamir opines that Humayun divided imperial servants into twelve gradations and salaries
were fixed accordingly. This system of gradation covered everyone, starting from the Emperor
himself down to the door-keepers and camel-drivers and included the divines, the Sayyids and
scholars as well.

However Andre Wink points out that while it is possible to trace the basic notion of decimal military
ranks to Ghenghis Khan, the actual vocabulary of the mansab system appears to have been
introduced by the Indo-Afghan ruler Ibrahim Lodi (r. 1517–1526), not Babur or Humayun.

Although the basic elements were retained, certain new features appeared in the system in the 17 th
century. Thus Jahangir introduced du-aspa sih-aspa rank and Shah Jahan new scales of pay, ‘month
ratios’, and new regulations prescribing the sizes of the contingents under various sawar ranks.

Moreland elucidates the evolution of mansab system in terms of five cyclical phases of organisation
and degeneration. The first phase carries us back to Ghenghis and Timur. The second phase carries
us from Timur to the early years of Akbar. The third phase began in Akbar's eleventh year, when he
superimposed trooper rank on the existing system. The fourth phase, in which the contingents
denoted by trooper rank fell below nominal strength, comes with the reign of Jahangir, and finally
the fifth phase was Shah Jahan's reorganization.

Both Moreland and Abdul Aziz held that a single numerical rank existed before Akbar, the number
directly indicating the size of the cavalry contingent that the rank-holder was expected to maintain.
Moreland further supposed that as this number became more and more a sham in terms of cavalry
actually mustered, Akbar introduced the second (sawar) rank in his 11th regnal year (1566-67).
Hereafter the new and usually smaller numerical rank indicated the size of the cavalry contingent to
be maintained, while the first became what in course of time came to be called the zat rank,
indicating personal pay and status only. A. J.Qaisar has cast doubt on the existence of numerical
ranks before Akbar, and argued that the two ranks (zat and sawar) came into existence
simultaneously in the 18th regnal year (1573-74). This view was supported by Irfan Habib. Shireen
Moosvi concurs with Qaiser that no numerical ranks existed before Akbar or until his 18 th regnal year
but at the same time argues that the dual system of ranking was instituted in the 40 th regnal
year(1595-96) and was supported by Douglas E. Streusand. However the generally accepted date for
the institution of mansabdari is 1573-74.

As a system of dual ranking, mansab was split into two numerical representations, viz. zat and sawar,
upon which varying interpretations have been attributed by historians. Blochmann, who translated
Ain-i Akbari into English, suggested that both zat and sawar dealt with military positions; while zat
was a nominal rank, sawar was the actual number of contingents that the mansabdars were
supposed to maintain. Paul Horn also seems to agree with Blochmann.

William Irvine in his Army of the Indian Moghuls (1903), states that the original mansab, which
governed the personal allowances, was known as the zat rank and the additional men were
designated by the word suwar. The grant of suwar rank in addition to zat rank was an honour and
the pay for these horsemen was disbursed under the name of tabinan. This viewpoint was supported
by Vincent Smith in his work Akbar the Great Mogul. Irvine rightly rejected Horn's view that under
Akbar personal rank denoted the actual strength, but thought that "the figures had possibly some
connection with the number of men ", a connection which, he suggested, had ceased to exist in the
reign of Shah Jahan.

Abdul Aziz in the Journal of Indian History for August, 1930 has put forth the most widely accepted
interpretation of zat and sawar. According to him, the official descriptions mean just what they say.
Zat is a Persian term meaning ‘self’, implying ones position in the imperial hierarchy, whereas sawar,
although it literally means cavalry, indicates ones contingent or military responsibilities. Hence the
personal rank was purely personal, and by itself involved the maintenance of no troopers, the
number of which was denoted, by the trooper rank; and an officer with "double rank" had to
maintain only one contingent, not two. Zat is more important and can never be less than sawar
which is dependent on the former. In a later number of the same Journal (August, 1935) C. S. K. Rao
Saheb arrived independently at the same conclusion regarding trooper rank, and proceeded to
argue that personal rank denoted the strength of a contingent of infantry which every officer had to
maintain out of his salary but the latter view was rejected by most of the historians.

Abu’l Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari has mentioned the existence of 66 grades of Mansabdars starting with
commanders of the rank of 10 and extending up to 5,000. However, this number could have been
just a notional, sacred number that was conveniently used by Fazl as it denoted the word Allah. I.H.
Qureshi states that if one examines the list of mansabdars prepared by Fazl then it would reveal the
existence of only thirty-three ranks in reality; the other thirty-three, according to him were just
theoretical and to satisfy the superstitious spirit of the time.

The final stage of the evolution of the mansab system, according to Moosvi, was marked by an
innovation that came in the 40th regnal year (1595-96). Abu’l Fazl stated that in this year the
mansabdars were grouped into three categories: Those who maintained sawars equal to their zat, in
other words whose personal rank was equal to their military obligation, were placed in the first
category. The second category comprised of those who maintained a greater zat than sawar but the
sawar was more than or equal to one half of the zat. Finally, those with sawar less than one half of
zat were put in the third category. A person can have only zat rank, although such a case is very rare,
but he can’t have sawar without zat.

Satish Chandra has pointed out that while the term mansabdar was a generic term it was popularly
used for those holding ranks upto 500. Those holding ranks between 500 and 2500 were called amirs
and those above 2500 were called amir-i-umda. He further states that mansabs above 5,000 were
usually meant for princes of blood.

Generally sawar can never be greater than zat, but under certain circumstances a ‘mashrut’ or
‘conditional’ rank can be attributed to a particular office for the successful discharge of his duties.
According to the author of Mirat-al Istilah unconditional sawar mansab was attached to zat rank
whereas conditional mansab was given in view of services required of a particular officer at a
particular post. Once the situation is normalized, say for instance, if the rebellion is quelled, or when
the mansabdar is transferred, the mashrut is either cancelled or his zat is increased as a mark of
favour.

The rule of Deh Bist or the ten-twenty system was adopted by Akbar with regard to the composition
of the mansabdar’s contingent. It was recognised that horses are vital to a contingent besides the
fact that every mansabdar had a different capacity for maintaining horses. Based on this, the
number of horses maintained would be double the number of soldiers in order to ensure the
mobility of the cavalry. Each man provided and maintained different number of horses depending on
their capacity. For every contingent of 10 soldiers, 20 horses would be maintained. Example of how
10 men would maintain 20 horses: 3 men X yak-aspa (maintained 1 horse each) = 3 horses; 4 men X
du-aspa (maintained 2 horses each) = 8 horses and 3 men X sih-aspa (maintained 3 horses each) = 9
horses. Du-aspa sih-aspa rank was introduced by Jahangir. However, the ten-twenty system was
completely abandoned later on.

The salary or the muqarar-i-talab of each mansabdar, whether received as naqd or jagir, was
dependent on his mansab which, as we have already noticed, was denoted by zat and sawar. In
some cases sawar came to be supplemented with an additional rank of the same genus, known as du
aspa sih aspa ranks. Each of these ranks entitled the holder to make claims (talab) for definite
amounts of pay, opines Moreland. The pay for zat rank (talab-i zat) which constituted the lion’s
share of his salary was meant for the maintenance of himself and his family, hence known as khasah,
whereas the pay for sawar and du aspa sih aspa ranks (talab –i tabinan) was meant to meet the
expenses for the maintenance of the contingent. The talab-i zat was stated separately for each ranks
and it did not rise proportionately as one proceeded to higher ranks while the talab-i tabinan was
invariably stated per unit of the sawar rank. The rates of pay for du aspa sih aspa was double that of
the ordinary ranks.

The mansabdars received their salaries either in the form of cash or naqd from the treasury or as a
revenue grant or jagir, which was the preferred form of receiving salaries. The mansabdars who
were paid in cash were called the naqdi mansabdars but there are very few references to them. The
jagirs given in the form of salaries were called tankhwa jagirs. According to mansab regulations, the
jama of the jagir had to be equal to the salary of the mansabdar. The tankhwa jagir was not
hereditary and was subject to transfer. However when Rajput chieftains were inducted into the
imperial service, their territory was designated as watan jagir wherein hereditary succession was
recognised. It is seen that all jagirdars were mansabdars but all mansabdars were not jagirdars. A
jagirdar was never posted in his own jagir but derived revenue from his jagir without having any
political, judicial or administrative power so as to prevent him from developing roots in his jagir.

Iqbalnama mentions that in order to check all invasions of military obligations by mansabdars Akbar
introduced dagh (branding) for the horses and chehra (descriptive rolls) for the men in 1573-74.
Abul Fazl states that a mansabdar was expected to bring for muster the number of men indicated by
his sawar and was penalised in case of any default. A man holding 100 sawar rank was required to
maintain either 100 men and 200 horses or 50 men and 100 horse, the latter seems more plausible
according to Athar Ali. All the horses presented for inspection by a particular noble were branded
with a specific pattern to distinguish these from that of other nobles through a seal or dagh. The
physical description of the troops or chehra was also recorded. The naqdi mansabdars were required
to obtain a renewal certificate (tashiha) twice a year from the branding officials whereas jagirdars
were supposed to present their horses for branding annually. However, till the 25 th regnal year of
Aurangzeb all the Mansabdars who held a rank higher than 5,000 were exempted from the dagh
system.

All appointments were to be made by the Mughal emperor through a long and elaborate process
that involved the Mir Bakshi and other officials until it came down to the emperor for his final
approval. The princes and leading nobles of the empire recommended persons for appointment to
the emperor, which were generally accepted. However, there were instances where the emperor
directly appointed the mansabdars which can be seen as an attempt to establish a bond of allegiance
between the two and was based on the belief that since the mansabdar was independently recruited
by the king he would owe loyalty to him. Every candidate for mansab had to provide a surety. The
appointments were made on the basis of merit rather than ethnic or personal background. However,
a survey of the mansabdars appointed during the reigns of the Mughal Emperors show that some
groups were more favoured than the others. The most favoured category called khanazads were the
sons and close kinsmen of persons who were already in service, points out Athar Ali.

The procedure for the grant of promotions, which was awarded on the occasion of festivities or
military expeditions for gallantry in military service and merit or at the other end of the scale, on
receipt of a handsome peshkash, was similar to that for the grant of the initial mansab. The
recommendation was made by the officials under whom the mansabdar happened to be serving.
Generally, the ranks of the mansabdars were increased simultaneously with their appointments to
higher posts.

Athar Ali has written about the practice, from the time of Akbar onwards, whereby the Emperor
took possession of the entire wealth of the nobles after their death which is known as escheat or
zabt. The state confiscated the nobles' property and realised the mutaliba i.e. the amount borrowed
by the deceased noble from the state and the rest of the property was distributed by the Emperor
among the heirs without any regard for the Islamic laws of inheritance. It was a mark of unusual
favour for a Mughal ruler to permit an officer’s heirs to inherit a major portion of his property,
suggests J. F. Richards. This has led F. W. Buckler to infer that the status of mansabdar resembled
military slavery.

In a nutshell, we find that the mansabdari system is the army, the peerage and the civil
administration all rolled into one. The system executed the assumptions of the military patronage
state to perfection, remarks Douglas E. Streusand. The mansab, although primarily a military rank,
really constituted the terms in which official hierarchy, and incidentally the social status, was
expressed, thereby undermining the ethnic and religious identities. Andre Wink believes that
mansabs were perhaps the most striking aspect of the systematization which occurred under Akbar,
in that they converted the rank, payment, and the military and other obligations of their holders into
exact numbers. Abdul Aziz states that the institution of army and the mansabdari system
interpenetrate each other so much so that the one is unintelligible without the other. Satish
Chandra describes mansabdari as the “steel framework” of the Mughal Empire which generated
institutional despotism. It was not a system dependent on the ruler but worked independent of him
as the institution itself restricted the political, military and fiscal obligations of the mansabdar. The
rank was a check on his power and he could not expand beyond his prescribed rank. Therefore it led
to the subordination of the mansabdar to the institution, state and the king. The Mughal Polity
developed so as to absorb the existing elite which is very evident from the institution of watan jagir.
A large proportion of the mansabdar families in Mughal times held similar positions before the
Mughal conquest also points out Streusand. Hence, Akbar’s mansabdari had succeeded in
transforming the nobility from autonomous and semi-autonomous chieftains into imperial officials
deriving their status from the pleasure of the emperor thereby leading to the emergence of a
composite nobility bound together by the doctrines of sulh-i kul and wahdat-ul wajud.
Bibliography

 Ali, Athar. The Mughal Nobility under Aurangazeb. Aligarh: Asia Publishing House, 1970.
 Streusand, D.E. The Formation of the Mughal Empire. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989.
 Aziz, Abdul. The Mughal Court and its Institutions.
 Wink, Andre. Makers of the Muslim World: Akbar. Oneworld Publications, 2009.
 Moreland, W.H. Rank (mansab) in the Mogul State Service, (The Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 4 Oct.), 1936.
 Moosvi, Shireen. The Evolution of the "Manṣab" System under Akbar until 1596-7 (The
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2), 1981.