Mansabdari System

THE EVOLUTION OF THE MANSAB SYSTEM UNDER AKBAR UNTIL 1596-7

 The organization of the nobility of the Indian Mughal Empire in numerical grades (mansabs) is now generally recognized as one of the basic elements of its administrative and military structure. By combining the information in bul!"azl#s bul!"azl#s in!i $bari with a number of %& th century te'ts and documents it has been possible to construct a picture of the wor$ing of the mansab system. The basic features were rst delineated by Moreland and bdul ziz but their views have been greatly revised by M. thar li Irfan *abib and +hireen Moosvey. Moosvey. It is now accepted as beyond argument that by $bar#s death (%,-) mansab was e'plained in two numerical representations/ the rst zat determined the holder#s personal pay and status in the hierarchy0 the second (sawar) indicated the number of horsemen to be maintained by the holder and set the amount sanctioned to cover their pay. pay. In each case the ran$!number was converted into monetary claims and military obligation by means of the schedules (dastur al! #amals) in force at the time. The system gave the Mughal nobility and military machine a high degree of uniformity and regularity in its functioning which contributed to the stability and strength of the Empire.  The 1uestion of how the mansab evolved before it reached reached what may by %,- be called its classic form has elicited diverse answers. Both Moreland and bdul ziz held that a single numerical ran$ e'isted before $bar the number directly indicating the size of the cavalry contingent that the ran$! holder was e'pected to maintain .Moreland further supposed that as this number became more and more a sham in terms of cavalry actually mustered $bar introduced the second (sawar) ran$ in his %%th regnal year. year. *ereafter the new and usually smaller numerical ran$ indicated the size of the cavalry contingent to be maintained while the rst became what in

course of time came to be called the zat ran$ indicating personal pay and status only onl y. . 2.3aisar in his paper argued that the two ran$s (zat and sawar) came into e'istence simultaneously in the %4th regnal year. year. Irfan *abib accept 3aisar#s nding and continues to assume that the in!i $bari in assigning to mansab 5holders a single ran$ in a list belonging to a period as late as the 6-th regnal year has simply given the zat ran$s and omitted to supply the sawar ran$s. +hireen Moosvi concurs with 3aisar that no numerical ran$s e'isted before $bar or until his %4th regnal year when according to bul!"azl bul!"azl $bar instituted the new system of ran$s but disagrees with division di vision of 7at and sawar in this year. year. lthough there is no reference to numerical ran$s during *umyun#s reign he did attempt some sort of classication of nobles and in his time salaries were 'ed according to that gradation. 8hwandamir tells us that *umayun created twelve gradations designated as 9arrows9 (tirs). This system of gradation covered everyone starting from the Emperor himself down to the door!$eepers door!$eepers and camel!drivers camel!dri vers and included the divines the sayyids and scholars as well. Thus it is clear that military contingents could not have been the basis or even one of the criteria of such a gradation. In the rst decade of $bar#s reign evidence of any lin$ between the size of contingent maintained by a noble and the salary paid to him (usually in the form of :agir assignment) is hard to nd. +hamsuddin Muhammad t$a t$a 8han#s petition to the Emperor made in the ,th year ma$es it obvious that salaries were 'ed by the Emperor for individuals in 1uite an arbitrary fashion. In complaining of the unfair 'ing of salaries the petitioner advanced loyalty and services rendered as the acceptable criteria for this purpose. There are a number of other references in the $barnama and the Taba1at!i Taba1at!i $bari indicating that up to the %4th regnal year the salaries were specied without dening at least e'plicitly associated military obligations.

 The measures adopted by $bar in the %%th %%th year (ta$en by Moreland to signify the institution of numerical ran$s) are then the earliest where an attempt to impose the obligation of maintaining a certain number of troopers is made. *owever what bul!"azl bul!"azl says regarding it is not only vague about the size of the retinue to be maintained but the system it envisages shows a fundamental di;erence from the mansab system proper. proper. *ere the system of territorial assignment assign ment (:agir) is ta$en for granted and the number of troopers is 'ed in conformity with it instead of awarding a ran$ rst dening the number of troopers on its basis and then assigning the :agir as was the case under the evolved mansab system. This is made particularly clear by Mu#tamad 8han#s e'position of the same measure (of the %%th regnal year). *e says that 9the number of horsemen to be maintained by the nobles was 'ed in accordance with the :agirs (held by them). It also does not seem possible to determine the precise basis on which the troopers were categorized in the %%th year. year. *owever in later years the rates varied according to the race of the noble or the number of horses per trooper. trooper. ne piece of evidence which seemingly contradicts all of this and appears to pro:ect the e'istence of the numerical ran$s (mansabs) right bac$ to the begin ning of $bar#s reign is o;ered by the list of nobles given in i n the in!i!$bari. bul!"azl bul!"azl assigns numerical ran$s also to those nobles who died long before the %4th regnal year or even the %%th year (e.g. Bairam8han Tardi Tardi Beg and a number of others). 3aisar has suggested that bul!"azl bul!"azl has assigned assi gned posthumous ran$s to

those who died before the %4th year in order to place them in the same list as the other nobles in hierarchical order. order. *e bases this contention on the list of $bar#s nobles in the Taba1at!i $bari which does not give numerical ran$s to any noble otherwise $nown to have died before the %4th or %?th regnal year.  ccording to Moosvi 3aisar#s e'planation of the ran$s assigned to the earlier nobles in the in!i $bari as 9ctitious9 ran$s seems reasonable since bul!"azl#s bul!"azl#s tas$ was to compile compil e a comprehensive list of all the grandees of the Empire whether dead or alive until the 6-th year0 he was faced with the problem of assigning proper places to those who had died before the mansabs were introduced. *e had no option but to ran$s the earlier nobles broadly corresponding to what he deemed to have been their status at the end of their careers. @izamuddin in his Taba1at!i Taba1at!i $bari has not assigned mansabs to any noble who is $nown to have died before the %4th year. year. +uch earlier nobles as are listed under di;erent mansabs by bul!"azl bul!"azl here appear without any mansab whatsoever. whatsoever. This is another proof that no numerical ran$s e'isted before the %4th regnal year. Moreover bul!"azl writes that in the %4 regnal year the dagh was introduced and the ran$s (martib) of the Imperial oAcials were 'ed. These innovations were actually put into e;ect during the ne't year. year. It is under und er the accounts of the latter year that we have the rst instance of the use of the word mansab in the sense of ran$ and not (as hitherto) a post or oAce. It emerges from the writings of Mutamad 8han that Mansabs from (%-) to (---) were established and the salary for each was 'ed according to their mansabs while the rates for their troopers were sanctioned separately. Moreover the mansabdars were to maintain a separate stable of animals (elephants and horses) on their own according to their mansabs.

 signicant point made by +hireen Moosvey is that both bul! "azl and Mu#tamad 8han categorically categori cally state that the ran$s were 'ed 9in proportion to (their) delity and organisation of a unit9 and 9capacity for leadership and resolution in command of a unit9. In other words both suggest that the ran$ was related to the size of the contingent maintained by the mansabdars. t the same time they ma$e no suggestion that there were twofold (zat and sawar) ran$s0 and thus they provide no support at all for Moreland#s assumption that twofold ran$s already e'isted or for 3aisar#s suggestion that the measure of the %4th and %?th year itself directly created twofold ran$s. Badayuni too e'plicitly relates the mansab as a single numerical ran$ to the number of horsemen (sawar) to be maintained. The mansab as a single ran$ is further supported by the Taba1at in di;erent way of e'pressing mansabs in terms of numbers of troopers. bul!"azl bul!"azl instead of simply saying that the highest mansab allowed to nobles was --- goes out of his way to spea$ of 9--- troopers9 instead so as to emphasize the inter!conne'ion between the single mansab and the size of contingents. Moreover in his remar$s at the end of his list of $bar#s nobles @izamuddin ma$es it clear that the mansabs he records are also military ran$s when he writes that the Imperial servants who maintained only -- retainers (nau$ar) were not counted among the umara. Thus one can safely conclude that the mansabs given in the in are not zat ran$s but single ran$s that represented the number of troopers to be mustered and at the same time determined personal pay. bul!"azl therefore didnt record the sawar ran$s since as yet they simply did not e'ist. It may be noted that bul!"azl bul!"azl assigns his hi s list of nobles n obles to the 6-th regnal yearwho were assigned mansabs (single only) according to the $bar!nama $bar!nama in that very year. year. It is clear then that at least until %?, only a single ran$ was in vogue.  crucial piece of evidence from Bayazid Biyat settles the issue beyond dispute. It also o;ers an insight into the early wor$ing

of the mansab system. Bayazid accounts for the two hundred sawars or horsemen that he maintained on being appointed do! sadl (C--) proving beyond any reasonable doubt that there was at that time a single ran$ precisely determining the number of horsemen to be maintained.  *e also ma$es it clear that the 'ing of pay for the troopers was carried out in two stages. t the time of the award of a mansab a certain rate per trooper was paid. n advance payment for (the whole or part of ) the mansab was made at a rate called barawardi and this payment was meant to cover only a part of the actual costs the balance of the full payment was made or at any rate became due after the contingent of the mansabdar was actually presented for inspection and brand (dagh). This rate was enhanced after the men and horse represented for inspection and dagh the di;erence being styled tafawat!i dagh. ) nother characteristic of the system apparent from the wor$s of Badyuni and the I1balnama was the obligation of the mansabdars to maintain animals such as horses elephants and camels in addition to the cavalry mounts. These animals were also to be presented for the dagh. The generally!accepted view rst propounded by bdul ziz is that these animals belonged to the state and were assigned to mansabdars for maintenance out of their personal salaries. +hireen Moosvi contests this on the basis of a fresh e'amination of the evidence in the in!i $bari. ccording to her bul!"azl bul!"azl in the in!i i n!i $bari at the end of the chapter giving the schedules of rates writes that elephants and carts were allowed only to mansabdars0 furthermore that camels and o'en as well as 9select horsemen9 were allowed to them. Thus implying that $eeping the animals was an advantage and not a burden0 and that the rates applied to the animals $ept by mansabdars as well as by the ahadis (gentleman troopers ).*e also writes of specic enhancements in the rates that these were sanctioned to provide relief to the

troops. @aturally if the rates had been simply for the costs to the mansabdar and ahadis of maintenance of the re1uired animals and carts reduction not enhancement would have been needed to provide relief for them.  The nal stage of the evolution of the mansab system was mar$ed by an innovation that came in the 6-th regnal year. bul!"azl bul!"azl says that in this year the mansabdars were grouped into three categories. Those who maintained sawars e1ual to their mansab !number ! number were placed in the rst category. category. The second category comprised those who maintained horsemen e1ual in number nu mber to one!half thereof or more. "inallythose with horsemen smaller in number than one!half of their mansab were put in the third category. category. The description d escription of this measure read together with the passages from Badauni and Bayazid implies that while the mansabdars had been e'pected to maintain horsemen e1ual in number to their mansab this e'pectation in many cases was not fullled. It may plausibly be con:ectured that under the procedure in force until the 6-th year the mansabdar was rst assigned his personal pay and the salary for a number of troopers e1ual to his mansab !number 'ed on the basis of a provisional or partial rate termed barawardi. *e was e'pected subse1uently subse 1uently to present his troops and horses at the muster and brand brand  after which he was to be paid the balance due to him at the full daghi rate (tafawat!i!dagh). The in adds that it was laid down that when a promotion in mansab (the single one presumably) was given the increased pay for his new personal status (zat) was allowed on the enhanced ran$ but the amount for the additional troopers was paid only after the dagh. The procedure implies that if a mansabdar was unable to produce the re1uired number of troopers at the dagh and his contingent fell short of the number of his mansab even the barawardi payment might involve a great loss for the administration. s suggested by Bada#uni#s statement fullment of the obligation to furnish a contingent of a certain size according to

mansab was a pre!re1uisite for all promotions. Dpon bringing C- horsemen to the brand a mansabdar could be promoted up to the ran$ of sadl (%--)0 and only upon presenting the full complement of a hundred horsemen was one 1ualied to get further promotions. The situation then that obtained was that a sizeable number of mansabdars received the barawardi rate but did not maintain the full number of horsemen. ccording to Moosveythe administration ac$nowledged the force of reality and modied the system s ystem accordingly. accordingly. It was now in the 6-th regnal year (and not as thought by Moreland in the %%th or %4th regnal year) that the number of sawars actually e'pected began to be distinct from the mansab number. number. The single mansab that was in force now became valid for the payment of salary for the person (zat) of the mansabdar only i.e. in respect of his personal status while a new sawar!number was also assigned against which the barawardi rates were paid. The origin of the description zat for the rst ran$ and of barawardi for the second or sawar ran$ lies here. The terms were clearly in the nal stage of evolution (but not yet established completely) when the main te't of the in was drafted in or about the 6- regnal year. year.  The clearly!made distinction came soon afterwards afterwards possibly during the 6%st year itself when the $barnama o;ers the rst instance anywhere of the grant of a twofold ran$. The formula for stating the mansab henceforth changed and the mansab clearly became dual in nature e'pressed by two numbers specifying zat and sawar (barawardi) separately. bul "azl records under the 6%st year that 9the ran$ of Mira +hahru$h has been enhanced and pay!assignment made to him for pan:hazari (---) zat with half the sawars thereof as barwardi. It is also the rst instance of the use of the term zat in the technical sense of the personal or rst ran$. *owever according to +hireen Moosvi as generally though It was not ineAciency or maladministration that necessitated the introduction of a second (sawar) ran$. >n the contrary $bar#s

administration apparently remained e'ceptionally zealous and e'acting in this respect. The e'isting mansabs were left unchanged but the measure adopted did imply a demotion (through lower sawar ran$s) for those who did not maintain their contingents in full0 and there was a reduction too in their zat or personal salaries to accord with the number of sawars they actually succeeded in maintaining. It could therefore not be termed a compromise as suggested by Moreland.  The di;erent stages in the evolution of the mansab system under $bar can be summarized as (i) Dntil the rst decade of $bar#s reign as during the previous Mughal reigns no standing military obligations in terms of size of contingents were 'ed. +alaries were sanctioned for individuals in a more or less arbitrary fashion. (ii) $bar in his %%th regnal year attempted to ' military obligations0 nobles were as$ed as$ed to maintain cavalry troopers in accordance with the revenues of their :agirs and on the basis of certain rates sanctioned for troopers. (iii) In the %4th regnal year the numerical ran$ (mansab) was instituted. The nobles were assigned a single number that determined both their pay and the number of animals (elephants horses beasts of burden and carts) that they were re1uired to maintain on their personal establishment ($hasa). More important they were also re1uired to maintain horsemen (sawars) e1ual in number to that of their mansab. But in actual fact while drawing provisional rates (barawardi) for this number few nobles succeeded in bringing their contingents to the muster and brand at the full strength necessary for drawing the latter#s pay at the full or daghi rates. (iv)In the 6-th year the mansabdars were grouped into three categories on the basis of the number of sawars maintained in proportion to the mansab. The number of sawars therefore began to be deemed distinct from the mansab number. number.

(v) In the 6%st year the mansab became dual in nature. *ence forth the mansab was e'pressed by a pair of numbers. The rst designated zat determined the personal pay and the number of $hasa (personal) animals to be maintained according to a given schedule. The second the sawar indicated the number of horsemen the mansabdar was re1uired to maintain to which alone did the provisional or barawardi b arawardi rates now apply. apply.  This is the point where all the familiar features of the the Mughal mansab system can at last be discerned. There were changes made in it subse1uently tending in some respects to simplify it in others to ma$e it more comple'but the basic principle of the two separate ran$s dening distinct claims and obligations came to stay.