THE MANSAB SYSTEM 1595-1637

Author(s): Irfan Habib

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1967, Vol. 29, PART I (1967), pp.
221-242
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44155500

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 221

THE MANSAB SYSTEM

1595-1637

Irfan Habib (Aligarh)

In many ways Moreland's article, 'Rank (mansab) in the Mogul

State Service', published a little over thirty years ago,1 marks the
starting point for all recent studies of the mansab system inasmuch as
it contained for the first time an almost definitive interpretation of
certain essential features of the institution. Thus his explanations of the
significance of zat and sawar ranks, of the principles on which payments
on them were calculated and made, and of the nature of the obligation
(especially, the size and composition of military contingent to be main-
tained) entailed by sawar rank, have been amply confirmed and corro-
borated by further research. Moreland's analysis was particularly well
grounded in respect of various aspects of the mansab system as it fune-
tioned daring the reign of Shahjahan, for here he was able to utilise a
series of imperial farmans , concerned with the satisfaction of pay-claims
of mansabdars, that had been preserved at Jaipur.
From his information for Shahjahan's time, and from such evidence
from the historical literature of the earlier period as he had access to,
Moreland also sought to work out the leading lines of the evolution
(or rather, as he supposed, of the cycles of organisation, deterioration,
and reorganisation) of the mansab system during the period before the
reign of Shahjahan, and to determine, in that light, the measure of
change that Shahjahan introduced into the system. In this attempt he
was handicapped by lack of documentary evidence for the earlier period,
which he frankly admitted, and he had to proceed largely on the basis
of inferences from a few scattered passages.3

On such inferences, however, he framed a short and simple formula

for interpreting the entire history of military ranks in the Mughal and
even Central Asian regimes. His belief was that, initially in every re-
gime, each rank represented the number of cavalry a commander
actnally maintained, but that, in the second stage, as administrative
decay set in, the number of ranks lost their close relation to the actual
number of followers the rank-holder had in service; and, that subse-
quently, when someone attempted a reorganisation in order to re-esta-
blish military and administrative efficiency, compromises had to be made
even though the object again was to link up the numbers of ranks with
the real number of men.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

Coming to the Mughal Empire in Iad

two categories of mansabs , zat and sawar
sented such a compromise brought about
terms the older ranks being now nomina
became mere indicators of personal stat
new, sawar rank stood for the actual n
But under Jahangir, this system too un
old, and now the sawar ranks tended to
successor, Shahjahan, aiming at a strict
competent army, could not now hope to
compelled to tread further on the path
ranks as they were, but scaled down th
reducing sharply the pay against the z
though in lesser proportion, the pay ag
lie had reduced the pay due on ranks, and
tions inhibiting too strict or excessive an
obligations exactly according to the num
the obligation, demanding that, under dif
manders were to maintain one-third, o
numbers of their sawar ranks.

Moreland's interpretation is certain

simple and plausible reasoning. But it m
gely speculative. Indeed, both his assum
Mughal and the Mongol and Timurid m
suggestion that the zat rank was pre-A
innovation of Akbar, have been subjecte
what one may regard as the still more im
pened after Akbar, Moreland's word h
although here too he is by no means on
amount of actual evidence that he is ab
even as to elementary facts of the man
and it is by no means easy to follow him
institutions found under Shahjahan did
innovations introduced by him. Nor is
tion, though not held by him alone, that
period to which a fall from the heights,
under Akbar, would be assigned. He even
on any one who should assert that (any
survived in its integrity" under Jahan
readers that no evidence on this score w
more he seems to regard such adminis

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 223

Jahangir as the sole factor to be

of reform and reorganisation o
the author.
In this article we propose to e
the period, with a view to checkin
to considering certain alternativ
him. The article, therefore, con
first an attempt is made to establ
of change in the system of man
years of Akbar and the reign of J
was new in the system as it was f
second part, we shall seek to defin
occurred and explore their relat
and administrative developments
To begin with, we shall consid
against mansabs , both zat and saw
the contingent to the number of s
tion of the cmonth scale', which i
For the pay sanctioned for zat
hand, the pay schedule given in
Abul FazPs own words,6 to abou
scales which he worked out from
latter largely conformed to the sc
substantially lower than those of t
sed that a substantial reduction
within the intervening period,
taken place upon orders issued
accession in 1628, he produced no
rather general statements in the
not also possible for us to establis
rred, we can perhaps narrow the p
A manuscript of Mu'tamad Khan
in the British Museum, contains at the end of its account of Akbar's
reign, additional matter which is lost in other MSS and so omitted in
its printed editions. This consists of a report on the revenues of the
Empire as it was submitted to Jahangir on a certain datę immediately
after his accession in 1605; and tacked on to it is a schedule of pay
due on various mansabs .8 Since Mutamad Khan had completed this
volume only 15 years after Akbar's death,9 the schedule is probably
accurate in representing the scale of pay as it was in force in 1605.
A comparison with the Ain9 s .schedule shows that some small changes

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

had already been made with the effect

due on certain mansabs .
Both the schedules state the salaries in Rupees per month; but
unlike the schedule in the Ain, the schedule reproduced by Mutamad
Khan only reproduces the salary for the zat rank holders of class I
(i. e. whose sawar rank was equal to their zat rank).10 Overlooking
Mansabs which were not held in actual fact, but whose inclusion in
both schedules was a mere matter of form, and also excluding the
mansabs from 1,250 to 600, the figures for which in the Ain are corrupt,11
we tabulate below the pay due on various zat mansabs as given in
Mutamad Khan's schedule, and converted into percentages of the corres-
ponding figures in the Ain .
10,000 100 500 100
7,000 89 400 75
5,000 100 350 93
4,500 99 300 86
4,000 100 250 87
3,500 100 200 92
3,000 100 150 91
2,500 100 100 86
2,000 100 60 100
1,500 100 50 100
10 100

It is apparent from th
been made in the schedule
zat meant substantial re
Jahangir were on the who
For the period after 160
we come to the reign of
that until 1618, at any r
largely in force.
In 1616 Sir Thomas Ro
noble of the rank of 5,00
received for maintaining
rup. a day".12 In other wo
prescribed under the sche
A still more reliable source of information for us consists of cer-
tain farmans. especially two, one of 1615 and the other of 1618, which
are in nature very similar to those of the time of Shahjahan that More-
land had studied. Their original texts are not available to us; but they
were rendered into Hindi, with considerable care, by Shýamaldas in his

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 225

great history of Mewar, the Vir

Rupees per month are stated he
those in the schedule of 1605 (b
1615/1618 1606
5,000 I Class 30,000 30,000
500 II Class 2,440 2,500
400 II Class 1,440 1,500
60 III Class 275 300

Since the salaries in the

Class I, the slightly lower
and III are obviously on t
It would be a reasonable
tion in the salaries of zat r
so, from 1618 to 1630. But
ble for it, or whether th
but of a pair or a series of
can only be a matter of co
We may now pass on to c
ranks. This is much mor
system on which payment
of Akbar and also for som
been the same as under Sh
assumption and wrote as if
was made at a standard r
that this rate was modifi
sion. But he has obviousl
of evidence.

We may doubt that a sta

only that had such been t
duced it, in the same ma
rate was actually in force.1
of payment under Akba
Bayat, an official of the Em
1591 (AH. 999) to serve as
work. Bayazid tells us th
him for 100 'men' (nafar)
(dagh = brand, muster), th
balance due to him still re
allowance due to him upon
dagh'i-sad nafar-i-baraward

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 INDIAN HISTORY CO N GRE SS

From this it appears that when once a sawar rank w

ment was sanctioned at a rate for sawar s who were sti
thus designated barawardi , from bar awards meaning es
When the men and horses were actually brought to m
( dagh ), the payments to be made were calculated afres
our mind a completely new interpretation must be give
in the Ain, where it is stated that "the Emperor assi
for cavalry (bahr-i-sawa,ri) to a number of empty hand
persons; and for that number he assigns iqta( = jag
pre-requisite of dagh . Turanis and Irānis are allowe
month); Indians Rupees 20; and revenue collectors of
15. This type is called barawardi ." 17

In interpreting this passage Moreland appears to hav

the commanders with the men. The "empty handed
handed only because they did not produce the cavalry b
pay, were commanders, not troopers. So too were th
Indians and the revenue-collectors (surely, the last i
not have been mere troopers). For their future cont
moment only on books, and so barawardi, not one bu
(presumably per unit of the sawar rank granted) were
in the case of Turani and Irani /wffrtstfô-holders, the e
dams (25x12x40), and in that of Indians, 9,600 dams per

In the second stage, payments were adjusted in ac

the actual number and types of men and horses present
mander for muster and brand. The entire passage un
{<Ain of Other 'Horsemen '( Sawar an)," 18 is obviously
calculations of pay at this stage. The commander ( a
number and kinds of horses to be presented; and the
them. Subsequently, descriptive rolls are prepared. Cam
are counted as yak-aspas (one horse troopers), the r
them being sometimes a half and sometimes two-fifths
trooper. The rates for each 'ak-aspa varied according
horses, ranging from 25 to 12 Rupees (per month). B
collectors of the Khalisa were to receive only Rs. 15 (i.e
rate allowed to them for barawardi). The rates allow
and sih aspas (i.e. 2-and 3-horsed troopers), are not sp
stated that a dah-bashi , holder of the rank of 10, must
3 sih-aspas, 4 do-aspas and 3 yak-aspas. Thus the tota
sawar rank, if this composition was actually maintained
could have been much higher than the rates sanctioned f

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 227

which even here approximate

barawardi .
It is thus obvious that complex calculations were involved in the
second stage; and a commander would be entitled to claim a much
higher rate of payment than the barawardi rate, if he presented his con-
tingent in accordance with the full official requirements.
Having thus established the position as it seems to have stood at
the time the writing and editing of the Aiii-i-Akbari were completed, we
may now take stock of later developments.
The first known measure introducing some kind of change was
taken in practically the same year, viz Akbar's 40th regnal year."During
this time the monthly rates of barawardi 19 were established on a different
basis. On the 11th Mihr it was decreed that Mughals, Afghans and
Indians would be allowed 1,000 dams on sihaspa , 800 on do-aspa and
600 dams on yak-aspa. Rajputs would be allowed 800 on the first (i.e.
sih-aspa ) and 600 on the second.''20
From the figures in this passage, Moreland draws an average of
9,600 dams per sawar rank, by calculating on a ratio of 3:4:3 in the
numbers of units of the three categories in accordance with the official
formula for the composition of a contingent.2 1
Moreland's suggestion is ingenious and at first sight convincing,
for there is some evidence from Jahangir's reign indicating precisely a
rate of 9,600 dams per unit of sawar rank.
But our misgivings are aroused by the very fact that if the official
intention was to sanction a uniform scale of 9,600 dams the mode adop-
ted for expressing this was surely very devious. It is certainly more
likely that the intention was no more than to provide the rates that
would be payable if the Emperor chose to allow a commander ņre-dagh
pay for do-aspas or sih-aspas as well. If so, the barawardi rate was in
fact reduced from Rs. 25 and 20 to only Rs. 15. But there is the possibi-
lity that dams in the passage are wrongly put here for tankas or double-
dams.

At the end of the schedule said to have been in force at the death
of Akbar in 1605, we find rates given for these three classes, but in
tankas : Sih-aspa , 1,000 tankas per month; do-aspa , 800 tankas ; and yak-
aspa , 400 t&nkas.22 The rates for the first two categories are exactly the
same as in the Akbarnama ; the rate for yak-aspa is different, and if the
dams in the earlier passage are mistakes for tankas , it is substantially
lower. 400 tankas per month are the exact equivalent of 9,600 dams
per year.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

The change to the system as found in th

which the payment for sawar rank was unifo
in one stage- the mansabdar being obliged to
gent of fixed number and composition, but en
ncement of pay- seems to have been the pr
years of Jahangir's administration. It was,
byproduct of this process that barawardi be
for sawar rank, being now distinguished fr
rank, to which the words do-aspa and sih-ospa
First, we begin to hear of a standard rate p
for which, as we have seen, there was no pr
which, to begin with, was identical with the b
in force at the time of his death. The first statement of such a rate comes
from Hawkins (1608-12) who declares that the commanders "are allowed
twentie rupias of everie horse by the moneth, and two rupias by the
moneth for everie horse, same for the maintenance of their table."23
Hawkins is obviously referring separately to the pay of sawar and z at
ranks, and his words imply a uniform rate of the equivalent of 9,600
dams per annum. Since his statement with regard to the pay for zat
rank is patently inaccurate, his word in respect of sawar pay would bave
remained of little account, but for its confirmation by the text of the
farman issued by Jahangir setting forth the pay-claims and assignments
of Kun war Karan, who was appointed to a M ansah of 5000 zat 5,000
sawar . His total pay claim was fixed at 52,00,000 dams per month of
which the amount of Rs. 30,000 = 12,00,000 dams is stated to be due on
his zat rank.24 The balance, being the pay for sawar rank, thus amounted
to 40,00,000 dams per month, and was manifestly calculated at the rate
of 9,600 dams per annum.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to make much out of the
figures for pay-claims under sawar ranks given in the texts of the other
documents of Jahangir 's reign in the Vir Vinod. Apart from the intrinsic
difficulties involved in interpreting documents of this nature, it has to
be remembered that we have them only in translation, and errors in
their decipherment and rendering, as well as misprints, cannot be exclu-
ded. However, two references, one in Sir Thomas Roe and the other in
Jahangir's own memoirs, suggest that while the principle of a uniform
rate for the sawar rank had now come to stay, the rate itself had been
reduced.

In 1616, Roe reports a Mughal noble as telling him that "the pay
of everie one ('horse' of his rank) was 200 rupias by years;"25 i.e. 8,000
dams per year - unless 200 is a misprint for 220 which would make it

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 229

8,800. In 1620, Jahangir writes

of money, amount to 7,46,70,0
lations (zabita-i-hal) make it a
course, a rate of 8,800 dams per
This evidence is significant, i
of 8,800 dams which Moreland
evidence of his documents, w
been actually promulgated by
very possibly in 1615 or 1616.a
to the phrase, zabita-i~hal, used
Aother point to consider is
sawar rank, and the pay sanctio
We may begin by presenting
the other to 1613.

1. "His Majesty (Akbar) promoted Mirza Shahrukh. The pay for

5,000 zat and half of (his) sawar was assigned to him, barawardi ."28
2. "I (Jahangir) ordered that 2,000 sawar barawardi of Abdullah
Khan should be paid for as sih-aspa-o-doaspď'2°
In the first passage barawardi still clearly means 'without requiring
dagh before-hand'; in the second, it represents as clearly, ordinary sawar
rank, whereas sih-aspa-o-do-aspa represents a special, better paid
category of that rank.
The appearance of the new terminology, and of the new special
rank could alike be treated as natural outgrowths of the system of
payments for barawardi } sanctioned in the 40th year of Akbar, and in
force, with some modification, at his death. It may be recalled that our
suggestion was that the rate of yak-aspa was then the usual barawardi
rate; and apparently it was in special cases alone that the rates set
separately for do-aspa and sih-aspa might be sanctioned. These special
cases, in course of time, and after some administrative systématisation,
would have formed the nucleus of the new special rank under the very
natural designation of do-aspa , sih-aspa .
The principles on which the pay for do-aspa, sih-aspa rank was
calculated are suggested by the rates given in pay schedules of Shah-
jahan's reign. Here on the right-hand column under heading lTabinarC
(contingent), coming after the zat pay-scales, we have the rate for
barawardi , the standard rate on ordinary sawar rank (now 8,000 dams).
On the left-hand side is given the pay for sih-aspa-odo-aspa-o -yak-aspa,
the full title, as Moreland has noted, of the special rank.90 Three rates
are given under it, sih-aspa , 24,000; do-aspa , 16,000; and yak-aspa 8,000.
These are respectively multiplied by 3; 4; and 3. 3 1 If these results were

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
230 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

totalled up, and divided by 10 (the number

be 16,000 per unit - which we know was
rank was paid for under Shahjahan.32
Now there seems no reason why the s
mode of stating a simple rate, unless it was
had existed in earlier days. Thus when appli
schedule of 1605, calculation on these lin
equivalent of 14,800 dams , signifying a rat
of the ordinary rank (9600 dams). As we ha
underwent some alteration in 1616; but the
did not still amount to double the ordina
in 1617 Jahangir cancelled 1,000 sawar d
Abdullah Khan and decreed that this wa
yak-aspa the difference amount to 70,00,00
each unit of special rank had, therefore, in
of 7,000 dams above the rate of the ordin
was 8,800 dams. We may infer then that at
during the later years of Shahjahan or th
there was an actual enhancement in the rat
sih-aspa rank.
Of crucial significance in Moreland's int
of the mansab system is his view that th
down of obligation against the sawar ran
passage in the Ain already referred to,3
Akbar required a commander of 10 sawar r
20 horses, and the other commanders to do
the number of men in a contingent had alw
rank of the coil mander and the horses t
compares this to the position revealed by S
while describing the events of 1646. Und
force, a mansab holder serving in the prov
men equal to only a third of his sawar r
province within Hindustan, he was to ke
serving in the Balkh and Badakhshan exped
required to maintain only a fifth. The num
larger in the standard contingents.35 On t
Moreland not only inferred a scaling down
in relation to the sawar rank, but also ex
fixation of not only the last but also the oth
by Lahori, were the work of Shahjahan, wh
nominal obligation to replace it by a reduc

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 2ai

The question, however, is whether

all. Moreland assumed that the contin
the Ain-i-Akbari passage, was to be m
ved the uniform rate of 9,600 dams
say, the barawardi rate. This, as we h
the case. The barawardi rate was san
muster; and the payments, when t
and presented, were, on the basis
several regulations, and must have
size of contingents as defined by Lah
those who received what really cor
than, the usual barawardi rate under
In other words, when a mansabdar
tioned on the barawardi rate it was
tain his contingent at its full strengt
3-horse, 2-horse and 1 -horse trooper
contingent of full strength was, ther
fact. A 'petition' of Abul Fazl, wr
suggests that the actual expectations
smaller.

Abul Fazl complains that there were mansabdars who enjoyed jagirs
sufficing for the pay of 1,000 (rank), but did not have with them even
a few men; and yet at the same time there were sadis (holders of 100),
who had 50 good horsemen ready for service and were yet without
jagirs.3* Thus Abul Fazl appears to regard it as a sufficient reason for
immediate sanction of pay and an assignment to provide for it (at the
barawardi rate presumably) , once a mansabdar had engaged a number
of men equal to just half the number of his rank. He is, of course, presu-
mably speaking in general terms, and detailed regulations might be
assumed to have existed which would have laid down the minimum
required size of the contingent to be maintained on receipt of mansab.
Such regulations would have continued in force once the barawardi
rate became iihe standard permanent rate for pay against sawar rank.
Since this transformation occurred, on our showing, during the early years
of Jahangir's reign, his administration would not have had any reason
to demand even on paper the maintenance, upon ordinary rates of pay,
of what was the ideal, highest paid contingent under Akbar.
That, therefore, something very closely similar to the rule under
which the number of men was to be a third of the rank ( the so-called
'Rule of one-third ) actually prevailed under Jahangir, is indicated by
Roe's report on what a Mughal noble told him about his own pay and

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 232 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

obligations (1616). The noble's pay was *6,00

he received Rs. 200 (=8,000 dams) on each
1500 and was allowed the surpluse as dead
not that what the noble did was discred
that he did what in fact was "allowed"
same time ( 1616-19 ), says too that "H
thousand is bound to have two thousand at command and so in like
proportion others."38 The proportion stated-two fifths-is different from
that by Roe, but the principle described is the same.
In view of these two accounts alone, it would be difficult to accept
Moreland's guess that the scaling down of the obligation of mansabdars ,
that is to say, the promulgation of the Rules of 'one-third' and 'one-
fourth', was the work of Shahjahan : with proportions only slightly
different (if, at all, for Roe and Terry cannot be relied upon too greatly
on matters of precision), similar rules were already in force in the
second decade of Jahangir's reign.
It only remains for us to point out that Moreland's guess has no
sanction at all from Lahori's words. Lahori introduces his summary
description of the Rules of One-third and One fourth by stating that
these were "regulations of this exalted Government (in daulat-i-wala)."
Moreland suggests the rendering of 'reign' for daulat; 3 8 but this would
certainly be contrary to the usage of Lahori and other writers of the
period, who have not otherwise used this phrase, when elsewhere they
happen to speak of the reign. 'This reign,' in any case, though proper in
English would not have been so in Persian court usage, particularly
when the reference was to the reigning sovereign himself. Moreover, if
Shahjahan was himself the author of these Rules, it would have been
natural for Lahori to have been more explicit over the matter, just as
he is over Shahjahan' promulgation of the Rule of One-fifth.'
On the size of contingents maintained against the do-aspa , sih-
aspa rank, there is no material at all, from the time of Jahangir. We
may infer, from the prevailng rule under Shahjahan, that it was
double the size under ordinary rank;89 but this would be guess work,
and no more.

We may mark, then, that the change in the system of main-

tenance of contingents effected between the times of Akbar and
Shahjahan was towards scaling down of obligation not in terms of
the pay sanctioned, but in relation to the sawar rank, on which itself
much lower pay was in fact sanctioned, since the additional payments
upon dagh ( muster ) were dispensed with. Unfortunately on the
limited evidenoe that we have, it is not clear how far the obligation

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 233

was reduced on average upon ea

that this particular measure o
before the middle of Jahangir's r
Lastly, the month-scales. On th
since Moreland, from which we m
very great lengths.
Moreland had noticed the month-scale in connexion with Lahori's
detailed specifications of the size of contigent under the Rule of a Fifth.
He found that the lower the months, the lower was the obligation.40
He, however, did not attempt to give any reasons why the 'allowance
by the months was lower for some than for others. It has now been
shown that the month-scale was really a device for expressing in a small
number of set ratios (with '12' representing the complete equation), the
relation between the jama '( nominal standard assessment ) of a jagir ,
which in all cases had to equal the pay-claim of the mansabdar .41 and
the hasil ( the actual revenue collected ), which formed the income of
the mansabdar . In other words, it expressed the ratio of actual income
to sanctioned pay.42
It can be seen that if the jama* was artificially inflated, larger
amounts of pay-claims could be met out of it; but since the actual in-
come would remain the same, the assignees would have to be placed on
a lower month-scale than before and their obligations scaled down in
accordance with the schedules. It can be seen further that great salary-
reductions, in individual cases, as well as generally, could in fact be
concealed through this device, by merely increasing the jama while
leaving the pay schedules untouched.
It is then a matter of some importance to establish when the
device of month-scales began to be employed, for presumably there
would be reason for such systématisation only when deviations of the
actual income from the nominal became very marked or frequent. Uptill
now the only reference to the use of such a practice before the time
of Shahjahan has been recorded for the year 1605-6, in history of Sind,
but in respect only of arrangements made between a commander and
his own subordinate officials.43 As a device employed by the imperial
administration it begins to be referred to only during the reign of
Shahjahan. The earliest reference to it I have been able to trace be-
longs to 1639.44 Given the evidence as it is, the use of the month-scales
seem to be the work of Shahjahan's administration.
We may now sum up our own conclusions with regard to the for-
mal developments in the mansab system during the period we have been
considering.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
234 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

(1) The substantial reductions in the

occurred some time between 1618 and 1630
rity for the supposition that they were pro
(2) The pay for sawar rank, being calc
1595, on a complex system, cannot be prop
of pay in force later.
The permanent standard rate of pay on
in all likelihood, during the early years of
9,600 dams per annum to 8,800 took plac
sion, but in 1615 or 1616. Only the reducti
was promulgated by Shahjahan.
The additional rate allowed for do-aspa s
ably lower under Jahangir than under Shah
(3) No scaling down of the size of the
be proved, in terms of the pay sanction
been a scaling-down, in practice, in relat
occurred not during the early years of S
of Jahangir.
(4) The month-scales, designed to adju
required to the difference between the
the commanders began to be employed du
Our understanding of the changes in
organisation is thus in certain importan
Moreland's : that there were changes is a
owe considerable debt to More land in that
possibility of such changes at all. Our differ
the kind of changes that took place, and wh
It now remains to consider the context in
went modifications. On this, as we have
much to say. In what follows attention is d
ing developments in the political, administ
of the Mughal Empire, which should have i
the functioning of the mansab system.
The first is, the question of numbers of m
properly, the total number of zat and sawa
a matter of common knowledge, that the
creased phenomenally between the time of
of mansab holders, down to 200 zat> 45 and
for which we have a list from Lahori.40
detailed study of the period, 1595-1637,
greater precision when the bulk of the inc

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 235

red. The only intervening source

often as copied by De Laet.48 Th
is, however, little doubt that it i
holders of above 5000 although t
Khusrau) who held such ranks at
also shows impossibly high figur
to which very few appointments
It is, therefore, necessary to f
the number of ranks, zat and sa
year under Jahangir. The on
all the rmnsabs recorded by J
the names of those who died
the mansab last mentioned for
to list all such mansabs on the assumption that these were still
held by that official at the end of that year.50 Not because of any pre-
conceived notions, but because of the possibility of securing the great-
est completeness and accuracy, the end of the 15th year (1621) has been
chosen by us for this purpose. That the list so prepared is accurate, is
suggested by the fact that the overwhelming number of persons whose
mansabs are recorded iutheTuzuk during the succeeding three and a half
years already appear on this list. Two points have to be borne in mind
in interpreting the result, however : Jahangir does not refer to mansabs
lower than 1,000 zot except when the persons are well-connected, or for
some special reasons; and only five mansabs are recorded that are below
500, so that the lower mansabs do not figure at all. In other words, the
list is more or less complete only in respect of ranks of 1 ,000 zat and
above. Secondly, the do-aspa sih-aspa sawar ranks have been counted as
double sawar ranks.
For purposes of comparison, Lahori's own list has to be modified a
littles all mansabs of those who were dead or not in service at the end
of the 10th year have to be omitted. But since Lahori has himself
indicated all such cases, such modification does not offer any difficulty.
The Ain' s list is not susceptible of such easy management. Oa
the face of it, it is the most complete giving the names of all persons
holding ranks down to 200 zat , and giving figures for all lower ranks.
But, as Abul Fazl himself acknowledges, he had included in his lists of
holders of ranks of 500 and above persons who were dead at the time
without marking such names in any way whatsoever. Moreover, while he
says that this list was compiled in the 40th year, this is extremely doubt-
ful. The author of the Tabaqat closing his work two years earlier (1593)
. refers to this list; and already the list was a little out of date, because

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
236 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

for many persons he notes higher mansabs tha

On the other hand, Abul Fazl does not seem to
was, but made some changes here and there,
of such new mansafr-holders as Muzaffar Hus
possible for us has, therefore, been the A in' s
of all those who were dead by 1593, 53 and co
have also substituted the mansabs noted in
Tabaqat mansabs are higher; and in three c
persons stated in the Tabaqat to be alive and a
they do not figure on the Ain's list.
Another list again has been made of mansa
based partly on the Ain' s list, partly on the
and the Iqbalnama, for the period 1595-1605,
The information is more or less reliable down
Statistics based on these lists are tabulated below. They are not
carried to ranks below 500.
Table
TOTAL OF MANSABS HELD

Zat Ain/Tabaqat 1605 1621 Lahori 1637

Banks Zat Zat Zat Sawar Zat Sawar
30,000 .. .. 30,000 20,000
20,000 . . . . 20,000 10,000
15,000 15,000 9,000
12,000 24,000 14,000
10,000 10,000 20,000 ....
10.000 & 10,000 20,000 50,000 30,000 39,000 23,000
above

9,000 . . . . . . . . 9,000 18,000

8,000 8,000
7,000 7,000 21,000 21,000 14,000
6,000 . . . . 6,000 6,000 24,000 28,000
5,000 45,000 40,000 80,000 62,500 70,000 75,000
5,000 & 70,000 81,000 157,000 122,500 142,000 144,000
above

4,500 4,500 7! r " !"! ~

4,000 16,000 28,000 32,000 18,000 72,000 56,950
3,500 7,000 3,500
3,000 15,000 18,000 36,000 23,050 78,000 50,000
2,500 7,500 2,500 17,500 8,900 30,000 23.500
2,000 12,000 34,000 70,000 39,100 78,000 48,050
2,000 & 132,000 167,000 312,500 211,550 400,000 323,000
above

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL, INDIA 237

Zat Ain/Tabaqat 1605 1621 Lahor i 1637

Ranks Zat Zat Zat Sawar Zat Sawar

1,800 .. .. 3,6000 350

1,700 .. .. 3,400 1,500
1,500 12,000 12,000 34,500
1,250
1,200 .. .. 1,200 450
1,000 19,000 29,000 48,000 23,620 46,000 26,200
1,000 & 16;*, 000 208,000 408,200 254,270 492,000 377,650
above

900 12,600 .. 4,500 1,050 12,600 8,300

800 1,600 .. 8,000 4,260 29,600 14,650
700 9,800 . . 9,100 4,250 25,200 10,480
6,00 2,400 .. 9,000 3,830 18,000 8,830
550 . . . . 550 130
500 1,500 . . 14,000 4,820 54,500 21,935
500 & 190,900 .. 448,350 272,610 633,000 441,845
ab°ve - -
A glance at th
tistics for 1,00
1621 can be as
mansabs occure
mansabs held i
years they alm
some seventeen
Comparisons o
1605 totals for
Tqbalnama-i-Jah
average these co
zat ranks, and p
to justify close
sawar ranks acc
increase by 162
accompanying
half over the
understated).
Now, the fact
sabs lavishly m
the table we ha

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
238 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS

cisión the real scale on which the mąnsab

imperial policy. The grant of a mansab , how
the sawar man s ab s accounting for a far la
bill than the zat .65 The need to keep the
within the limits of resources, or to keep it
jama ' must have suggested economies. To th
be due the policy of abolishing the system
sawar ranks as it existed under Akbar, and e
reduced military obligation against reduced
tion of the rate on sawar rank, from 9,6000
1617 could be ascribed to similar pressure
large reduction of zat salaries, which took p
and 1630

Another way of reducing such pressure would have been to increase

the jama ' arbitrarily, so as to provide for pay on paper, and then make
adjustments ( if, at all ) in the size of contingents. If this actually
happened, the jama'dami of the Empire should show a large increase.
The totals of the jama'dami for the entire Empire, excluding the Deccan,
such as are available for the period 1595 to 1647 are given below, being
adjusted to the Ain' s total as base, = 100. 56

1595-96 100 1628-36 123

1605 110 1633-38 142
pre- 1627 119 1646-47 142

This increase shows that at least a fifth of

bill ( and, perhaps, more than that, if the kh
as we know it was57 ) could be absorbed by
dami, by 1627 and almost fourth more, ag
crease in the jama1 dami was purely on paper
in cultivation or prrces, the difference betwe
monetary income must have widened enormo
But it is to be doubted whether the incre
tly unjustified. For extension of cultivation,
and for prices too, Moreland in his article re
earlier that "no general rise had occurred in
reigns" (of Jahangir and Shahjahan).»« Bu
mistaken .59 The changes in the general pr
ted with precision, but the following table,
copper adjusted to 1595-96 (Ain) again as ba
indicate the scale of its ascent during the per

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 239

Gold Copper
1595-96 100 100
1609 111 100
1614 119 95 to 105
1621 111
1626 156 133
1628 .. 161
1633 138 161
1636 . . 149
1637 .. 133
1638 .. 138
1640 144
1641-42 156
1644-45 156

These statistics suggest in

Jahangir the increase in the
It was only a little before
by 1646 it had exceeded the
income of the assignees had
in fact, in relative terms,
should have risen, on an ave
to have remained stable), r
sanctioned pay, during the e
actual income should have se
Shahjahan's reign, which is p
were employed to adjust ob
nominal income.
But if the prices had increased, the same monetary income (and we
must remember that the rates of pay for th esawar ranks were actually re-
duced) would not suffice for maintaining the same size of contingent
(at any rate, with the same margin of profit); nor would the same zat -
salaries, and still less the reduced salaries, provide the same real income
to the potentates. This has to be borne in mind when considering the
effects of the phenomenal increase in mansabs . While on the one hand
the pay on the zat ranks remained the same or had been reduced, on
the other, those who previously would have held a substantially lower
rank, now enjoyed a far higher one, so that in fact, the pay drawn by
a mansabdar on average would be substantially higher. And, since the
income from zat and sawar ranks went together, any gain in income from
enjoying a higher zat rank may be expected to have offset any greater
expenses involved in maintaining contingents against the sawar rank.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
240 INDIAN HISTORY CON0KBSS

1. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London 1936

2. JRAS. 1936, pp. 661-62,
3. Cf. M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility Under Au
'A Not© on the Date of the Institution of Mansab u
Hist. Cong., 24th Session, Calcutta, 1963, pp. 165-5
4. JRAS , 1936, pp. 652-53.
5. Ain-i- Akbari, ed. Blochmann, Bib. Ind., I, pp. 178
6. Akbarnama , Bib. Ind., III, 671.
7. English Factories in India , ed. W. Foster, 1624.29 , p. 271; 1630-33 , p. 33.
8. Br. Mus. MS. Or. 1834, ff. 231b-233a.
9. See his own statement, Iqbalnama-i-Jahangiri Nawal Kishore ed, II, p. 479.
10. The schedule does not exactly say so, but gives only one figure for each
mansab , and this obviously corresponds to the Ain's fiigure for class I for
that mansab . The system of classifying each Zat Mansab according to
whether the sawar was (a) equal (to zat ; or (b) not less than half, or (c) lees
than half, and of fixing the pay separately for each class, also prevailed
when later schedules (eg. Selected Locuments of Shah Jahan's Reign, Hydera-
bad, 1950, pp. 79-84) were drawn up. The differences in total amounts were
in relative terms, trifling.
11. In mx>st MSS and the printed editions of the Am the mansab ot 1,^50 is
omitted, while two figures are provided under 600. Br. Mus. MS. Add.
6552,. f78b. however, provides for 1,250 and places under it the figures, given
in other MS. under the next lower mansab , and it does so down to 600, for
which it has only one figure. This engenders the suspicion, encouraged
further by a comparison wi.h Mu'tamad Khan's schedule, that between
1200 and 600, the printed text has shown under each mansab what should
have belonged to the next higher mansab .

12. The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe , ed. W. Foster, pp. 210-11.
13. The pay for 5,000 is given in the f arman of 1615, and of the remaining man-
sabs in that of 1618 (Vir Vinod , II, pp, 241, 259, £01-2). The Hindi text of
ten reads dam where it should obviously read 'rupee.*
14. JRAS , 1936, pp. 658-59.
15. See, for example, Selected Documents of Shahjahan's Reign , p. 84.
16. Tazkira-i Humayun-o -Akbar, ed. M. Hidayat Hosain, Bib, Ind. 1941, p. S73.
17. Ain-i Akbari , I, 176.
18. Ain-i Akbari , I, 187-8.
19. Barawardi-i-mahwara, in MS. Br. Mus. Add. 21,207. The printed text drops
the letter 'i' and reads óarawarďí-i-mahwara.
20. Akbarnama , III, 671-72; Add. 26,207 f. 204a-b.
21. JRAS , 1936, p. 668. It may be noted in passing that Moreland ignores the
lower rates sanctioned for Rajputs, on accout of Sih~aspa and do-aspa.
22. Br. Mus. Or. 1834, f. 233a.
23. Early Travels ed. Foster, 114.
24. Vir Vinod, II, 241.
25. The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe , 210.
26. Tuzuk , 299.
27. Moreland, who notices Hawkins* account seems to have overlooked Roe's
statements.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MEDIEVAL INDIA 241

28. Akbarnama , III, 717.

29. I follow here the Hyderabad (Central Reco
the earliest known, being transcribed at th
Khan in the 22nd year of Jahangir's reign. S
corrupt, reading 12,000 for 2,000, biradari f
zabita before the words sih-aspa etc. Morela
thereby believing that the first reference t
occurs only in 1015 ( TuzuJc , 147).
30. JRAS , 1936, p. 664. I have not found this
Hyderabad MS., in a passage corresponding
reads asp do aspa o sili aspa.
31. Selected Documents from S hahjahari s Re
method of calculation of the average rate fro
nama passage (under the 40th year), as sugg
similar to this. But if his method wag acce
valid for the precursor of the special rank,
himself had believed.

32. Lahori, Badshahnama, Bib. Ind., I, p. 113, See also Moreland, JRAS, 1936,
pp. 646-662.
33. Ain-i-Akbarit I, 188, Cf. JRAS , 1936, p. 658.
34. Lahori, Badashahnama , II, 506-7. Cf. JRAS 1936, pp. 654-5,659.
35. Ruqa'at-i Abul Fazl , litho. ed, P. 45. This is different from the standard collec-
tion of Abul Fazl's letters, in three volumes, and contains much interpolated
matter.

36. The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe , P. 210.

37. Early Travels , ed. W. Foster, P. 327.
38. JiřiáS, 1936, P. 655.
39. Lahori, II, 506-7; JRAS , 1Ü36, P. 655
40. JRAS 1936, pp. 659-60- Cf. N. A. Siddiqi. 'Implication of the Month Scales in
the Mansabdari System/ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 24th
Session, Calcutta, 1963, pp. 157-162.
41. I am ignoring here the cases where the whole or part of the claim was met in
cash.

42. See my Agrarian System of Mughal India , pp. 264-65 & n.; and M. Athar Ali.
The Mughal Mobility under Aurangzeb , pp. 46-49 & passim .
43. Ta'rikh-i Tahiri. Or. 1685, ff. 118a-119b.
44. Selected Documents of Shah Jahan's Reign , 77. The first in Lahori is appa-
rently in Vol. II, p. 205.
45. Ain-i-Akbari, I, 222-23.
46. Badshahnama , I, ii, pp. 292-328.
47. A Contemporary Dutch Chronicle of Mughal India, tr. Brij Narain and Sri Ram
Sharma, Calcutta, 1957, pp. 34- 3 ").
48. De Laet, Tr, J. S. Hoyland and S. N. Banerjee, The Empire of the Great Mogol
Bombay, 1928, pp. 113-14.
49. Aziz Koka ( Akbarnama , III, 483 ^ ; Man Singh (Iqbalnama-i-Jahangirit II, 510)
Mirza Shahrukh (ibid., I, 508.)
50. Rai Karan's mansab of 5, C00 zat , 5,000 sawar is by some oversight not recorded
by Jahangir. But it is included in our list on the authority of the f arman
reproduced in the VirVinod.

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 INDIAN H ÍSTORY CONGRESS

51. I regret that at the moment I cannot cite De

the earliest and probably the most authentic MS
Library, Subhanullah 954/3, written in 1595. The
the introductory remarks, appears on ff. 254 b-25
52. No. 8 on the A in' s list : He was in fact given
the 40th year (Akbarnama ) III, 671.
53. In this the Tabaqaťs list, where the fact that a
dead, is noted in a number of cases proved to
much use was made of biographical informatio
his tr. of the Ain , Vol I.
54. Tuzuk , p. 4
55. Cf. A. J. Qaisar, 'Distribution of the Revenue Resources of the Mughal
Empire among the Nobility; Proc. Ind . Hist. Cong., 27th Session. Aligarh,
1967, p. 242.
56. Abstracted from a table in my Agrarian System of Mughal India , 328.
57. See Qazwini, Badshahnama , Br. Mus. Add. 20734 pp. 444-45.
58. JRAS, 1936, p. 661.
59. See my Agrarian System of Mughal India, pp. 81-89, 392-94.
60. Abstracted from ibid. p. 327.

REFORMS IN LAND REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF DECCAN

DURING MUSLIM PERIOD

L. Deshpande (Nagpur)

In this short article I have tried to deal with the reforms m

in land revenue administration by three eminent reformers viz :
mud Gawan, 2. Malik Ambar and 3. Murshid Quii Khan.
I have in the end concluded, after due criticism by me,
Murshid Quii Khan was by far the best reformer amongst the thr

LAND AND BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN MEDIEVAL ANDHRADESA

K. Madhusudan Redd/ (Hyderabad)

Epigraphical records of the medieval period from different parts

Andbradesa furnish interesting information concerning the procedur
then in vogue for the settlement of land and boundary disputes. Wh
in essentials these procedures were in conformity with those laid dow
by the ancient law givers, there were two interesting items in th
procedures which particularly deserve notice. One of them was the sele
tion of individual 'to walk* the boundary. The other was remuneratio
to the arbitrators and the person who 'walked the boundary.'

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.209 on Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:17:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms