Critically analyze the writings of Abul Fazl and Abdul Qadir Badauni as a source for the study

of Akbar’s reign.
The Mughal period was pre-eminently an age of official histories or Nama. This type of history
was inspired and stimulated by the influence of Persian in a cosmopolitan court. The practice
of having the official history of the empire, written by the royal historiographer, was started
by Akbar and it continued till the reign of Aurangzeb who stopped it. The official histories
were based on an accumulated mass of contemporary records, official (waqai) records of
provinces and the akhbarat-i-darbar-i-mualla or court bulletins corrected under royal
direction.
Akbar’s reign (1556-1605) was prolific in historical literature. Three important chronicles were
written in this period- Abul Fazl’s Akbar Nama, Abdul Qadir Badauni’s Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh
and Nizam-ud-din Ahmad’s Tabaqat-i-Akbari. The works of Fazl and Badauni’s are much more
complex and interesting than Tabaqat-i-Akbari. Fazl and Badauni’s work mark a definite
advancement in medieval historiographical traditions. Although Abul Fazl’s work is seen as
the main source of information for Akbar’s period, Badauni’s Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh
together with Jesuit accounts strengthens Fazl’s work. Badauni’s work is unique and valuable
in terms that he wrote it in secret and without any patron/ official sponsorship.
Mullah Abdul Qadir Badauni was born in 1540 at Badauni. Badauni was introduced to Akbar
In 1573-74, and appointed him as court imam. But he grew to be a hostile critic of Akbar,
envious of Faizi and Fazl and dissatisfied with Akbar for his free thinking and eclectic religious
views, administrative reforms and for his patronage of non-Muslims. Badauni’s book provided
an index to the mind of the orthodoxy Sunni Muslims of Akbar’s reign. According to Prof. S.R.
Sharma, it is not very valuable except for the account of events in which Badauni himself took
part. Moreland describes his work as reminiscences of journalism rather than history. Topics
were selected less for their intrinsic importance than for their interest to the author, who
presented the facts colored by his personal feelings and prejudices in bitter epigrammatic
language, which has to be discounted. The author not only uses uncommon words, but
indulges in religious controversies, invectives, eulogiums dream, biographies and details of
personal and family history which interrupts the unity of the narrative, yet these digressions
are the most interesting portion of the work.
Badauni’s work is divided into three volumes. The first volume deals with the history of the
Muslims rulers up to Humayun. In the preface of “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh”, Badauni
acknowledges his sources and admits that he had occasionally added “something of his own”
to the work. The second volume of the Muntakhab deals with the reign of Akbar. It is annual
chronicle where events have been narrated under the head of the year of their occurrence.
Badauni’s originality in his work lies in the way in which he analyses the personalities involved
and takes into account the impact of Akbar’s policies upon people in general. The third volume
is in form of a Tazkira in which he gives biographies sketches of the Mashaikh and Ulema of
Akbar’s age, as well as the physicians and poets of Akbar’s court.
The basic form of Badauni’s history is similar to that of Abul Fazl’s work, although the
treatment of history is different. The significance of Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh as a source of
historical study is immense. Apart from the information on wars, rebellions, conquests etc.,
Badauni gives detailed information on the administrative organization of Akbar’s empire. He
also gives information on his policies, his religious experiments and even the architecture of
cities like Fatehpur Sikri. However, it should be noted that his account is somewhat biased as
it seeks to prove the failure of Akbar. For instance, the mansabdari system is seen by him as a
complete failure, in which lower groups like tradesmen, weavers, cotton cleaners and
carpenters, including Hindus without any distinguished abilities, received mansabs. Badauni
also mentions in his book that the Dagh system broke the neck of the soldiers, and it is in the
context of these measures that he sees the rebellions in Bengal and Bihar. Badauni also gives
a detailed account of kakori system. He writes that the officers were highly corrupt and selfish.
According to him many cultivators were ruined and the experiment ended in a disaster. He
corroborates such information by accounts of famines and earthquakes during Akbar’s reign.
According to Harbans Mukhia, Badauni’s hostility to Akbar’s reign is emotional and he makes
no attempt to rationalize it. Although he writes that Akbar had governed the empire well and
was liberal and kind, he says that the constant quarrels of the ulema puzzled Akbar and he
lost faith in Islam. Gradually, his belief was transformed as he came under the influence of
Buddhists, brahmans and Zoroastrians. Also, Badauni argues that Akbar believed that since
1000 years of Islam were almost complete, Akbar could now replace Islam. Being an orthodox
man, Badauni did not endorse many of Akbar’s liberal policies and was severely critical of
many of his actions. He noted a clear distinction between the principles of Din-i-Ilahi and
those in the Najat-ur-Rashid, which strengthened his belief that Akbar was a heretic who had
established a new religion. He further adds that Akbar replaced the Hijra era with Tarikh-i-
Ilahi or divine era. According to S.A.A. Rizvi, this kind of an outlook blinds Badauni from
understanding Akbar’s actions in an unbiased light, and he was unable to understand the
significance of such policies in their totality. Similarly, for Badauni, the promotion of rational
sciences, instead of being a practical measure, appears to be an undermining of traditional
sciences. H. Mukhia, Peter Hardy and Rizvi also portray him as a traditional theologian who
was opposed to the change, and hence opposed Akbar. Nizami believes that Badauni was “the
voice of orthodoxy against Akbar and Abul Fazal”
This blinkered understanding is a serious limitation of Badauni. It is due to such inherent
biases present in Badauni’s works that in order to effectively use them for historical purposes,
it is essential to compare and corroborate them with the work of Abul Fazl. K.A. Nizami has
argued that Abul Fazl’s proximity to Akbar provided the best insight into the ruler’s moods,
ambitions, ideals and aspirations. Abul Fazl’s work Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari are both part
of a large body of literature. The Akbar Nama is Fazl’s monumental work. He had originally
intended to write the same in 5 volumes, of which 4 were to constitute the narrative part and
fifth was to be the Ain-i-Akbari. Of these Fazl was able to write only 3 volumes, two of the
narrative part and the Ain. The first volume covers “The History of Mankind” from Adam to
the first seventeen years of Akbar’s reign. The second volume is the narrative to the close of
46th regnal year of Akbar. The third volume which is “Ain-i-Akbari” was written by the end of
42nd regnal year of Akbar’s reign with a small addition to the conquest of Berar which took
place in 43rd year of Akbar’s reign. Fazl followed a different style of writing. Unlike works that
start with the origin of Islam, he began from Adam and traced it down to the birth of Akbar
which is shown as a divine event and it was also intended to show that Akbar’s patron stood
at the “pinnacle of the progress” of humanity. History for Abul Fazl was “the events of the
world recorded in a chronological order”. The Akbar Nama apart from the Ain contains
extensive information on a variety of subjects within the limitation of narrative of political
events. Apart from battles, Fazl also added occasional notes on subjects such as topography
of an area or astrology etc. The Ain is different from the narrative part; it is some kind of
gazetteer of information. Ain-i-akbari is furthered divided into 3 sections/volumes, which
contains administrative rules of Akbar’s reign. Fazl gives a detailed account of ranks,
schedules, the mansabdari system, the army & armaments, tents, cavalry etc. Ain-i-akbari is
highly detailed account of Akbar’s administration inscribed by Fazl. He has discussed a wide
range of topics in this volume which ends with the significant codes of Akbar entitled, ‘Sayings
of Akbar’. Rizvi says, Fazl’s work can be appreciated under three rubrics: Collection and
compilation of data, new literary style and plan; and interpretation of historical facts. K.A.
Nizami asserts that Fazl may be regarded as a pioneer in collection and utilization of statistical
data for historical studies. Fazl wove society, religion and politics into a composite blend. He
also accolades Fazl for being the first Indo-Persian historian to attract the attention of
European scholars. Abul Fazl, while writing the Ain had collected information from well
informed and prudent persons. At some places, he also makes alterations in either the words
or the nuances of the evidence. For instance, a noticeable omission in the Akbar Nama is the
Mahzarnama. He does not emphasize on Mahzarnama because it ties Akbar to Islam which
goes against the image of Akbar as ‘Insaan-i-Kamil’. However, Badauni gives its full text as well
as an account of its preparation in the second and third volumes of the Muntakhab-ut-
Tawarikh. Abul Fazl’s account revolves around Akbar whom he thought that loyalty to Akbar
was equivalent to obeying God. Nizami shows that throughout Fazl’s work, a superstitious
atmosphere prevails. E.g., The account of Akbar’s birth has also been explained by stating that
Akbar’s mother was impregnated by a strange light and then Akbar was born. Fazl portrayed
his patron aa a semi-divine personality and an embodiment of ‘spiritual leadership’. Nizami
has rightly pointed out the prevalent contradiction in Abul Fazl’s work. ฀ On the one hand he
expects a secular approach from others, and on the other hand he himself justifies every
political measure of Akbar with the garb of religion. Yet another limitation of the work was
that Fazl had read out his draft to Akbar several times. Thus, the work took shape as per
Akbar’s wishes and isn’t critical about Akbar. The likes and dislikes of his patron determined
the way Fazl approached history. All the events and information provided by the author had
revolved around the persona of Akbar. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that it was a eulogy of sorts
and thus Jadunath Sarkar and Beveridge have called Abul Fazl a ‘shameless flatterer’
The main contribution of Fazl in writing Akbar Nama is the history of reign of Akbar. The very
style of Fazl’s writing, whereby in the description of each event he tried to build up a literary
climax which is suggestive of his exaggerations in Akbar’s favor. In most of the battles of Akbar
or his men against rebels or other opponents, Fazl tried to exaggerate the strength and
determination of the latter in order to inflate the significance and the glory of the Akbar’s, or
his man’s victory.
The picture of perfection painted by Abul Fazl for Akbar is an incomplete one and Badauni’s
work is extremely valuable as an alternate perspective in this regard. Being free from official
pressures, Badauni’s work serves to provide a critical, albeit a slightly prejudices account of
Akbar’s reign and his policies. Although it might not be appropriate to term Badauni’s work
as a corrective to Abul Fazl since he suffers from many limitations too. Thus, we see that
neither Abul Fazl nor Badauni can give us a whole picture of Akbar’s reign, since both were
motivated equally strong and contrasting emotions, which colored their narratives. Yet the
subjective element apart, both the historians supply the same data and thus complement
each other.

Briefly discuss the significance of Persian literary traditions as a source for the study of the
Mughals till the reign of Akbar? Tawarikh and insha writings, language of political power
and administration?
Persian has had a long history in the subcontinent and with time, according to Muzaffar Alam,
it has come to imbibe indigenous traits of the subcontinent, giving it a distinct Indo-Persian
style. However, with Akbar’s reign, there was a distinct increase in patronage and usage. K. A.
Nizami in his book, ‘On History and Historians of Medieval India’ argues that there was a
definite advance in historical literature and medieval historiography. It reflected diverse
viewpoints, like imperial, sectarian and feminine. It represented Persian language on various
shades and forms, both in poetry and verse. It inducted Muslim contribution to the cultural
life and historical legacy.
When Babur laid the foundation of the Mughal rule in India in 1526, Persian language was in
use for more than five hundred years by diverse sections of the Muslim elites including
administrators, literati, and piety minded in the northern, western, eastern and Deccan
regions of the Indian subcontinent. There are many aspects of the persian literary works.
Many works were written against the backdrop of the history of Islam to cultivate the
normative values of Islamic religion for example Shajarah-i-Ansab of Fakhr-i Mudabbir which
accounted for 139 genealogies after Adam down to the Ghurids. The purpose of genealogies
was to show kinship relationships and universal history of Islam in the design of a genealogical
tree. Another one in this category was Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani’s Tabaqat-i Nasiri where he tries
to establish Iranian ancestry for his ghurid patrons.
During the Mughals, there was an unprecedented interest to patronize Persian, and an
extraordinary achievement in poetry was accomplished. According to Alam, Persian came to
symbolize the triumph of Mughal rule in India. However, prior to the Mughals, Akbar in
particular, the use of Persian was not very popular- Babur wrote his memoirs in Persian and
Turkish poetry was quite common in Humayun’s court as well. However, Alam notes that
Persian had established a strong place with the elites of north India by this point. “However,
subsequently, there seems to have been a setback to the literature of the language here.
There is hardly a notable Persian writer to be found in the fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries”.
The patronage of Persian promoted Akbar’s interest of promoting social, cultural and
intellectual contact with Iran. The number of Persian writers came to India to flee the Shah’s
persecution. India came to be a “place of refuge and abode of peace” (dar-al-aman),
promising material comforts and honored positions. The policy of suhl-i kul (Universal Peace)
also added to this idea. The aim of Akbar according to Alam was to neutralize the awe the
Persian Shah exercised over the Mughal household. Also, Mughal India was also the kind of
place the Iranians felt they could flourish, and this drew both the Mughals and the Iranians
closer culturally and Persian attained its status.
All Mughal government papers from the imperial orders (farmans) to the bonds and
acceptance letters (muchalka, tamassuk, qabuliat) which a village intermediary (chaudhari)
wrote were prepared in Persian. The frontiers of Persian expanded further when Akbar
became the first among the Indo-Islamic kings of northern India formally to declare Persian
to be the language of administration at all levels. Soon, Iranians as mutasaddis and minor
functionaries could be seen everywhere in the government offices, even though they were
not in exclusive control of these offices. Akbar’s enlightened policy and introduction of
‘secular’ themes in the syllabi at middle levels ‘stimulated a wide application to Persian
studies. Hindus – Kayasthas and Khatris in particular – joined madrasas to acquire excellence
in Persian language and literature, which now promised good careers in imperial service.
Akbar himself composed couplets in Persian, gave patronage to only Persian poets and
instituted a formal position of malik-ush-shuara for Persian poets only; the latter award
continued until Shahjahan’s time. Jahangir also had his own style in Persian and wrote his
memoir in an elegant prose. Muzaffar Alam remarks that he was also a good critic of Persian
poetry and composed several verses and ghazals.
Tawarikh – it was a form of history writing tradition that written in large numbers by many
Mughal writers. During Akbar’s period historical literature was produced at an amazingly large
scale. Meena Bhargav pointed out tawarikh being literary Persian tradition was mainly
comprised of biographies of kings and a governing class with little reference to other sections
of society and for historians of this tradition dedications were necessary to enhance the value
of the writings. Akbar commissioned Tarikh-i Alfi to commemorate the Islamic millennium. It
covers the period from 632 down to Akbar’s reign. l. Muhammad Arif Qandhari’s Tarikh-i
Akbar Shahi is valuable to understand the administrative structure of the Mughals, land
revenue reforms of Todar Mal and sheds light on the condition of peasantry and their issues
under Akbar. The two major memoirs of the Mughal period were - Babur’s memoirs,
Baburnama and Gulbadan Begum’s Humanyun Nama/Ahwal-i Humayun Padshah. Historian
K.A Nizami give a detail account on Gulbadan begum’s Humanyun Nama. He pointed out that
it was a fascinating piece of historical composition and significance first lies in the command
of Mughal lady over Persian language and it is a superb way of describing situations in
ceremonies of Mughal court. This work comprises of dramatic account of extraordinary and
momentous moments and events from the reign of Babar to 22nd year of Akbar’s reign. Her
account of Babur is brief but gives a pretty good detailed account of Humayun’s reign. She
also incorporated Turkish term and also give vivid descriptions of Mughal customs and
ceremonies mainly the marital aspects. Furthermore the lime light of Gulbadan’s work would
be on details given on the Mughal haram. She writes about the test and temples of Mughal
ladies, the intellectual and physical attainments, the nature and interest in political matters
and the custom ceremonies in the haram itself.
Abul Fazl, a rationalist and liberal thinker who was the secretary of the empire and also a close
friend of Akbar wrote his famous book Akbarnama of which, initially, Ain-i Akbari, another
seminal work on the statistical account of Akbar’s empire, was its third volume. While
Akbarnama is full of battles and events; Ain is written in the form of a gazetteer. Though Abul
Fazl’s style of history writing lies within the framework of Persian historiography, Abul Fazl
attempted to include Arabic tradition also. His details of administrative regulations and
topography of the empire and the provinces enriches and widens the scope of history writing.
For him Akbar was the ‘ideal’ monarch leading both the spiritual and temporal realms and he
presented Akbar’s reigns as that of peace, prosperity, stability, good governance and a period
that of religious tolerance and freedom. However, in his zeal to show Akbar as a perfect man,
he overlooks many of the failures of Akbar’s reign like, there is no mention of failure of Akbar’s
experiment to convert the entire lands of the empire into Khalisa, nor does he mention that
in the 24th regnal year Akbar resumes the grant of jagirs.
Insha - Insha literally means ‘creation’. However, in the medieval period it denotes, specimen
documents and drafts, personal letters, state correspondences. They provide firsthand
information on the working of administration as well as prevailing socio-cultural conditions
and ideas during the medieval period. Insha writings were largely written in the context of
diwani. Insha literature was directly connected with chancellery practices of the Delhi Sultans
and later the Mughals. There were thus two types of inshas, one, written for epistolography
writings, thus they may not necessarily be real and are model documents meant to impart
necessary skills in the art of drafting. In other types documents/letters/ correspondences are
preserved. These second types of insha are of great historical significance. Insha collections
of the Mughal period are too numerous, beginning from Badai-ul Insha of Hakim Yusufi (1533)
to Nigarmana-i Munshi of Malikzada (1683). Among all insha collections Abul Fazl’s name
stands out – Mukatabat-i Allami (collected by his nephew Abdus Samad) and Ruqqat-i Abul
Fazl. Abul Fazl’s Mukatabat-i Allami and Ruqaat-i Abul Fazl are collections of Abul Fazl’s letters
written to Akbar, members of the royal household (Mughal princes, queens, other notables
of the harem), and the Mughal bureaucrats. These letters can be divided into three categories:
i) Letters and farmans and official dispatches sent on behalf of the king (Akbar) to the nobles
and foreign dignitaries, ii) Abul Fazl’s petitions and representations made to Akbar on issues
of state policy and letters written by his colleagues to Abul Fazl; iii) Letters of general and
miscellaneous nature. Abul Fazl’s letters are of immense importance to understand the
political, social and religious atmosphere of the period. It provides broader understanding of
Akbar’s religious outlook as well. It helps us understand Mughal relations with the Shah of
Persia, Turkey and the Uzbeks vis-à-vis the northwest frontier policy of Akbar. While
concluding, one may state that Persian became a particularly useful instrument for political
maneuverability in the 16th century. By the end of the 16th century and early 17th century,
Mughal rule saw an evolution of the language from a mere state-building tool to a social and
cultural signifier. Eventually, Persian became the major definer of Mughal identity. With the
popularization of Persian along the chain of administrative and political command also
continued its Islamic overtone. It is difficult to say if it was because of the intrinsic strength of
the language or just in consideration of its association with power and prestige that the
indigenous subordinate ruling groups and bureaucracy appropriated Persian.
Eventually, Persian became the major definer of Mughal identity. With the popularization of
Persian along the chain of administrative and political command also continued its Islamic
overtone. It is difficult to say if it was because of the intrinsic strength of the language or just
in consideration of its association with power and prestige that the indigenous subordinate
ruling groups and bureaucracy appropriated Persian.
Briefly analyse the recent historiographical debate related to nature of Mughal state.
COLONIALSIST HISTORIOGRAPHY Historians have given different interpretations for explaining
the nature of the Mughal state. Some of the imperialist theorists projected pre-British India
to be a static entity and argued that it is only with the coming of the British that India
witnessed dynamic buoyancy in the socio- economic and political spheres. They propounded
the theory of Oriental Despotism to characterize the pre–British Indian states wherein he saw
the Indian rulers functioning as despots besides rendering them an effeminate character.
MARX’S MODEL OF AMP (Asiatic mode of production) This theory was followed by Marx’s
model of Asiatic mode of production which propounded a highly state-deterministic theory
and argued that state in pre–British India was extremely exploitative and left no surplus with
its subjects. As result there was no scope for class formation leading to any class struggle in
India. He saw the village communities in India to be egalitarian in nature. However, this
proposition had its own flaws as Mughal society was an extremely differentiated society, with
great levels of urbanisation and huge development of trade and commerce. This theory too
characterised the Mughal state as a despotic state.
ALIGARH SCHOOL Starting in the early 1900s, waves of Indian nationalist historians began to
contest different elements within this colonial historiography. By far the most significant
challenge came from successive generations of often Marxist-oriented historians based at
Aligarh Muslim University like Irfan Habib, Athar Ali, Noman Ahmad Siddiqi, Iqtidar Alam
Khan, Shireen Moosvi. Between the 1940s and the 1980s, the “Aligarh School” developed a
powerful counterview of the Mughal Empire. Largely focusing their attention on Mughal
administrative institutions, these scholars asserted that the Mughal Empire was – not unlike
a modern state – a highly centralized, systematized, and stable entity. The force of this
argument was such that the strength of Mughal administrative institutions now became the
starting point for most discussions (and explanations) of imperial successes and failures.
Religion was largely discounted as a factor in the Mughal collapse. By the early 1960s, the
Aligarh view of the Mughal Empire was widely accepted within and outside India. From the
1970s onward, however, debates about the nature of empire in India took on new life thanks
to a fresh cluster of historians. They questioned the Aligarh School’s exalted view of imperial
institutions, arguing that the diffuse and fractured manner in which early modern societies
functioned resisted the possibility of strong centralized institutions, not only in India but also
in other parts of the early modern world.
PATRIMONIAL- BUREAUCRATIC STATE Stephen Blake analyses the Mughal state as a
patrimonial bureaucratic empire. This concept is borrowed from Weber and applied to the
Mughal state. This postulate is based on the premise that in small states, the ruler governed
as if it was his patrimony or household realm. With the expansion of territory and emergence
of large states a bureaucracy has to be recruited for effective governance. This was the basis
of patrimonial bureaucratic empire. However, the focus still remained on the state’s structure,
devoiding any role to human agency, models like these ignore processes of change integral to
Mughal structure. In late 1980’s Andre wink in his study stressed on understanding the
processes that went into state formation. He pointed out the significance of processes of
alliance making and alliance breaking in the formation of early modern states. Besides, gift
exchanges, matrimonial alliances, feast activities and other informal networks of negotiations,
conflicts began to be increasingly viewed as crucial activities to reproduce state. BUT the issue
with processual understanding was its de-privileging of state’s coercive apparatus or rather
its absolute faith in human agency. Such an understanding however appears to be flawed as
state and its institutions have great constraining abilities. What emerged by the late 1990s
however was a new perspective, one that considered the Mughal Empire less as a “medieval
road roller,” to quote Sanjay Subrahmanyam, and more as a spider’s web in which strands
were strong in some places and weak in others, shedding light on the need to account for
regional phenomena caught between the various strands. According to this interpretation,
the empire hung loosely over Indian society, exerting only a fleeting impact on local societies,
local landed elites (Zamindars), and everyday life. Against this backdrop, there has been a
renewed push to comprehend the sources of Mughal power beyond its administrative,
military, and fiscal institutions. Farhat Hasan’s State and Locality in Mughal India is of special
note. Even though expressing discontent with the fiscal or military prisms through which most
studies of the Mughal state are conducted, Hasan is determined to not “de-privilege” the
state. State and Locality offers four particularly valuable insights: (i) The Mughal state could
not simply command obedience, but had to “manufacture” it by implanting itself within local
political, social, and economic networks of power; (ii) besides collecting taxes, the Mughal
state also contributed and garnered support by offering security and playing a key role in
redistributing monetary and social resources among the most powerful elements in Indian
society; (iii) The Mughal state was continuously being moulded and constrained by the society
that it ostensibly governed; and (iv) The Mughal state was a dynamic and continuously
evolving entity quite unlike the static and stable creation that emerges from Mughal imperial
sources or most modern accounts of the empire.
Discuss the features and potentiality of the Mansabdari system under Akbar.
The Mansabdari System was a unique system devised by Akbar. The term ‘mansab’ means
rank and ‘dar’ means holder and implies the position of a man in the imperial hierarchy. Thus,
this system organised the Mughal nobility into numerical grades and fixed their position in
the official hierarchy. However, in due course of time it came to mean a function- an obligation
on part of the mansabdar to render some service to the empire in return for this rank, which
fixed his salary as well. This function was usually the maintenance of a number of armed
retainers that was also denoted by his rank. The Mansabdar could be given any administrative
or military function or kept in attendance at the court. Thus, mansabdari evolved over the
years as a single service that combined both civil and military responsibilities. 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 to the empire’s stability
and strength.
The mansab was split into two numerical representations: the first or the zat rank and the
second or sawar rank. There are many interpretations regarding the zat and the sawar rank.
Blochmann, who translated the Ain-i-Akbari suggested that zat was a nominal rank and sawar
was the actual number of contingents maintained by the mansabdars. Athar Ali states that
the zat placed the mansabdar in an appropriate position in the Mughal hierarchy, while, the
sawar highlighted the exact responsibility. However, the most popular view is put forward by
Abdul Aziz, who suggested that zat and sawar stood for what they actually mean and provided
a more comprehensive view. Zat means self or personal stature of the man in the imperial
hierarchy and thus his personal rank. It determined the holder's pay and status in the
hierarchy. According to Aziz, sawar means his military obligations and the contingent or
number of horsemen he was expected to maintain and set the amount sanctioned to cover
their pay. Thus, it can also be called the cavalry or military rank. Zat is the more important
rank and it can never be less than the sawar. Abu’l Fazl stated that the mansabdars were
grouped into three categories: Those who maintained sawars equal to their zat – personal
rank was equal to the 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 equal to or
more than one half of the zat. Finally, those with sawar less than one half of zat were put in
the third category. However, Athar Ali believes that this distinction between the higher and
lower mansabdar was only conventional as all owed their allegiance to the king.
J. Qaisar, in his article “Note on the date of the institution of Mansab Under Akbar” (1961),
doubts the existence of a rank prior to Akbar’s reign and believes that the dual ranks came
into existence only in the 18th regnal year (1573-74). This viewpoint was supported by Irfan
Habib, who believed that Abu’l Fazl in compiling the list of officials as late as the 40th regnal
year has given only the zat rank and omitted the sawar ranks altogether, which has led to
confusion regarding the origin of the concept of the dual rank.
Satish Chandra has stated that while the term mansabdar was a generic term it was popularly
used for those holding ranks upto 500. Those holding ranks between 500 to 2500 were called
amirs and those above 2500 were called amir-iumda. He further states that mansabs above
5,000 were usually meant for princes of blood.
Abu’lFazl in the 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.
Another important feature during the reign of Akbar was the conditional rank or mashrut. It
was added to the already existing zat and sawar ranks and was given in view of the services
required of a particular officer at a particular post. For instance, if a mansabdar was appointed
as faujdar of a particular area, and it was felt that for the satisfactory discharge of his duties
an additional 100 sawar rank was required by him, then the mansab of the faujdar was
conditionally increased so as to enable him to employ 100 sawars. However, these ranks were
cancelled as soon as the expedition or service came to an end. Athar Ali states that sometimes
a part or whole of the conditional mansab was made unconditional but that was considered
a promotion and usually given as a mark of favour.
There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the source that was used to maintain
the cost of maintaining the animals. The generally-accepted view, first propounded by Abdul
Aziz, is that these animals belonged to the state, and were assigned to mansabdars for
maintenance, out of their personal salaries i.e. out of their zat salary. However, this view point
has been contested by Shireen Moosvi. She believes that since keeping the animals was meant
to be an advantage and not a burden, the cost of maintenance could not have come out of
the personal salary. She believes that an additional payment was given to the mansabdars
after the branding or dagh that was then used for this purpose. In order to draw support for
her view points she refers to Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari, which states that the rules governing the dagh
system sanctioned average costs of maintenance depending upon the grades and quality of
animals being maintained.
Akbar’s policy of sul-i-kul was determined by political considerations. Discuss the evolution of
Akbar's religious policy during the last 25 years of his reign.

The religious ideas of Akbar evolved during the course of his reign. They were shaped by changes in
the political and administrative scenario, and changes in his own personality. Being the court
chronicler, Abul Fazl gives an uncritical and exaggerated account of Akbar and attempts to construct a
State ideology around Akbar. In sharp contrast, we have Muntakhab ul tawarikh by Abdul Qadir
Badauni. Badauni was also in Akbar’s court and his views represent the viewpoint of the marginalized
bureaucracy. He is overly critical of Akbar’s policies. Other sources that one relies on are Nizamuddin
Ahmad’s Tabaqat-i-akbari and the accounts of the Jesuit missionaries at Akbar’s court.

Akbar's religious policy is distinguished mainly on two aspects-his state policies and his own personal
ideas and beliefs. His policies tended to be liberal and his general treatment towards the Hindus healed
strife and bitterness and produced an environment of harmony and goodwill where there had been
racial and religious antagonism of a most distressing character. Some recent researchers on Akbar,
have tended to focus on the factors contributing to the rise of his policy of religious tolerance based
on the principle of Sulh-i kul, or 'absolute peace'. According to Iqtidar Alam Khan, ''Akbar's religious
policies are often linked to his transformation of the nobility into a composite ruling group including
within its ranks a fairly large number of Shias and Rajputs. There has been far less concentration on
the nature of Akbar's personal world outlook and of the ideological influences that went to shape it
and his religious policy in the last 25 years of his reign''. Athar Ali has recently re-examined this aspect
in his article 'Akbar and Islam', which in turn has given rise to several significant questions bearing on
the basic character and motivation of Akbar's 'religious policy'. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi's insistence that
Akbar's tolerant attitude towards the non-Muslims stemmed basically from his hostility to Islam
further underlines the significance of his personal beliefs for a proper assessment of Akbar's policy of
religious tolerance.

K.A. Nizami divides Akbar's reign in the context of his religious ideas into 3 phases – the first from
1556-74, the second from 1574- 80 and the third from 1580-1605. The 3 phases seem to be framed
keeping in mind the degree of accommodation and liberalism that can be found in Akbar’s policies. It
must be kept in mind, however, that almost all of Akbar’s policies seem to be determined by political
and not religious considerations.

The early phase (1556-1573)

Almost immediately after assuming charge of the government, Akbar demonstrated his broad-
mindedness when in 1563 he remitted pilgrim tax which amounted to crores on the Hindus at Mathura
and other sacred places. Earlier, he had forbidden the enslavement of the wives and children of
rebellious villagers. He also married Rajput princesses without converting them to Islam and even
allowed them to continue their own religion within the palace. In 1564, he abolished jizya (head or
poll tax that early Islamic rulers demanded from their non-Muslim subjects). Abu Fazl makes it clear
that this step was taken despite ''much chatter on the part of ignorant'', i.e., the Ulama. In some
modern works it has been emphasized that in order to emphasize Akbar's liberalism, Abu Fazl has
deliberately pushed back the abolition of jizyah to 1564, whereas Badauni places it in 1579. Akbar
came increasingly under the influence of pantheistic Sufi doctrines, roughly from 1571, and this caused
a momentum turn in his development of a worldview. By 1573, Akbar had come to regard Shaikh
Mu'inuddin Chishti as his spiritual preceptor. The explanation for Akbar's tolerant attitude towards
other religions is mostly seen in his liberal upbringing focusing on the fact that his teachers and parents
had no use for sectarian bigotry but it may be pointed out that supposition of some of the textbook
writers that Akbar's mother, Hamida Bano Begum, was a Shia has no basis.

The second phase (1573-1580)

This was a phase of intense discussions and introduction on the part of Akbar which led to religious
views, and deeply affected state politics in the 3rd and final phase (1581-1605). His successive victory
against the Uzbek nobles and his victories in Malwa, Rajasthan and Gujarat strengthened Akbar's belief
that he was the chosen instrument of God for unifying India under his command. In 1575, Akbar built
Ibadat Khana or the Hall of Prayers at Fatehpur Sikri. Built around the cell of a Sufi saint, Shaikh
Abdullah Niyazi. The opening of Ibadat Khana for religious debates was by no means a novelty. Like
Jews, Christians and Hindus, the Muslims too indulged in public arguments, both to satisfy intellectual
curiosity and to establish their faith over others. At first, the Ibadat Khana debates were open only to
Sufi Shaikhs, Ulema, learned man and a few of the emperors’ favorites companions and attendants
were admitted. However, after a mystical experience in 1558, Akbar opened the doors of debate to
Hindus, Jains, Christians and Zoroastrians. According to R.P. Tripath ''instead of bringing credit, the
Ibadat Khana provided growing discredit''. According to him, the debate created more confusion.

Akbar’s break from the orthodoxy is also symbolized with the propagation of the Mahazarnama in
1579. This document made it clear that Akbar’s position was higher than that of the mujtahid, the
interpreter of the holy laws. Many historians have provided different opinions on the meaning and its
consequence. Scholars like Vincen Smith perceives it as an infallibility decree, influenced by papcy,
stating that Akbar was influenced by the Jesuit propagators. I.A. Khan opines that Mahzar can only be
understood if we look at Akbar’s general attitude of promoting and befriending the Indian Muslims.
He wanted to show that he would not accpet any orthodox, sharia law which lacked aql or a logical
reason. S.R. Sharma argues that Mahzar was introduced to replace the sharia laws. Scholar Nurul
Hasan has discussed Mahzar at different levels- at international level, which can be seen in the fact
that Akbar never sided with any one Islamic sect and made the Mughal state all inclusive, unlike the
Ottomans who sided with the Sunnis or the Persians who favoured the Shia sect. At political level,
Mahzar made it possible for the king to deal with the ulama and , keep the nobility under his influence
and also placing himself above the sharia law interpretations. Thus, as S.A.A. Rizvi said, the real
significance of Mahzar, it seems, was that it was the first effective declaration of the principles of sulh-
i kul which Akbar had decided to implement firmly. Hence, we can see a final breakup between Akbar
and the ulama orthodoxy.

Madadd-i-Maash. According to Badauni, earlier such grants were held by Muslims but after 1575,
grants were made to ''the mean, the rebel and even to Hindus, ''after 1580, the number of non-muslim
grants increased and were granted to Hindus, Jains, Parsis. Even the Jesuits received a grant to build
churches. Akbar built two establishments outside Fatehpur Sikri to feed poor Hindus and Muslims. The
one for Hindus was called Dharampura, and that for the Muslims Khairpura. Later, when Jogis began
to flock, a third one, called Jogipura, was established. Thus, the end of the domination of the orthodox
ulama opened the doors of the doors of the state for a more equitable distribution of its patronage of
all sections irrespective of their faiths.

Third phase (1581-1605)

Din-i Ilahi: The final phase (1581-1605) of Akbar’s religious beliefs and state is defined by the
crystallization of Akbar’s ideological beliefs. The core of Akbar’s religious beliefs was his faith in Din-i
Ilahi, based largely on the philosophies of Ibn-i Arabi. Abu Fazl links Din-i ilahi with the concept of
Akbar being a spiritual guide of the people. He opines that the intention of Din-i Ilahi was to find a
common ground between the din or the religion and the duniya or the materialistic or non-spiritual
affairs. Nizami suggests that Akbar wanted to use religion for his political advantage. As the empire
expanded, it now included people of different faiths. Thus, Akbar thought it necessary to broaden the
base of the empire. To achieve this, he tried to establish a composite governing class which would not
be discrinimated on the grounds of religion. This can be clearly seen in the case of assimilating the
Rajputs into the nobility. The Kachhwahas were the first Rajput clan to join Akbar and also helped in
the war against the other Rajput clans as seen in the Chittor campaign. Also, we find that the historians
like Badayuni and others accused Akabar of completely abandoning Islam and created his own religion
of which he was the leader. However, one cannot see the Din-i Ilahi concept as being developed into
a new religion, as it had no formal rituals, beliefs or the holy books like the other religions. It can be
seen as Akbar’s personal faith, which he welcomed people to join in. Thus, the biases of contemporary
accounts, calling Akbar a heretic has no basis. This proves that he did not abandon Islam, and can be
seen, as Athar Ali suggests, the accusations were all from the bitter ulama, who were complaining
against the curbs put on their revenue grants and political ambitions and couldn’t digest the fact that
Akbar had moved away from their influence of an orthodox form of religion.

Sulh-i kul: Soon after Din-i Ilahi, Akbar introduced Sulh-i kul as the official policy of the empire. Sulh- i
kul was the product of the synthetic effect of the Bhakti and Sufism of the age. It was a liberal
philosophy, which translated as the universal peace. As Irfan Habib states that it meant to inform
everyone about the main spiritual truth. This can only be done by a sovereign who is a representative
of god( this link was also being advocated in his practice of din-i ilahi). Abu Fazl’s Ain-i Akbari, put
forward the theory of Rawa-i- Rozi or the social contract between the king and his subjects. It states
that like god, a king should not discriminate, in giving his rewards amongst his subjects , on the basis
of religion they follow. The sovereign, thus, had to follow the idea of a Insaan-i kamil or the perfect
man who adopts and favours the idea of tolerance. Therefore, we find that the king, even if he did not
agree with the ideas and prcatices of other religions, he should still uphold the theory of sulh-i kul and
treat everyone equally. Evidence of this practice comes from the fact that Akbar disliked and thought
poorly of his minter, Todar Mal as he was a devoted image worshiper and Akbar himself believed that
the god was besurat (limitless or formless). Regardless of this, Akbar gave large grants of land to
temples. Hence, the theory of Sulh-i kul propagated by Akbar denied the temporal practices of the Din
and wanted to replace it with the declaration of reason, rationale and also the rejection of superstition.
Sulh i-kul was an idea which was a result of Akbar’s experiences in while he quenched his thirst of
gaining spiritual knowledge over the years, by different media like being close with the ulamas,
instituting Ibadat Khana, Mahazarnama, the heavy influence of Sufi Chisti silsilas and many others.
Therefore, we find that though Akbar had a dominating spiritual side to him, which were clearly
reflected in his religious policies, one cannot deny the fact that not always all his policies were made
with only this contemplation. The policies were largely propelled politically, which by the last phase is
clearly expressed in the theory of Sulh-i kul, – the theory of absolute peace, where the subjects were
not allowed to quarrel with each other and were to follow their spiritual sovereign who’ll guide them
to the ultimate truth.

AKHLAQI LITERATURE - The majority of Akhlaqi literature are normative texts centred on ethics and
politics. It is based on human nature, family, domestic, and government issues. State officials have a
guidebook for everyday functioning in Akhlaqi writings like Akhlaq-i-Humayun. The foundations of
akhlaqi writings, or books focused on ethics and etiquette, were not new, as the Siyasatnama
demonstrates, but M. Alam attributes the origins of akhlaqi texts to Nasir al-Din al-Akhlaqi-i-Nasiri,
Tusi's which deals with ethics, home economics, and politics. The Mughals, particularly Babur and
Akbar, were profoundly affected by these books. The broad books begin with an examination of human
nature and the necessity of discipline. They are commonly intermingled with passages from the Quran.
It is the link between man (insan), his livelihood (amr-i-ma'ash), and the rest of the world (alam). They
are about man's perfection and reverence for divinity. Justice (adl) and collaboration are important to
them. It suggests that a monarch should not favour any one group over another, should be impartial,
and should not discriminate. Mutual love is the best and noblest method of achieving collaboration,
and justice should be the cornerstone of social organisation. The monarch is the image of God who
watches over the people in order for them to achieve perfection, which is known as'siyasat-i-fazila,' or
ideal administration. However, many writers have understood justice differently, but justice is basically
equated with societal order and is what balances opposing demands of multiple interest groups,
resulting in a secular ethic for justice. There would be perpetual conflict in society if justice did not
exist. As a result, it is critical for the king to be fair, as he is at the centre of the social structure and
may serve genuine public interest in light of aql (human reason). Abul Fazl read aloud Tusi's and Rumi's
works to Akbar on a regular basis, and the effect may be seen in the Ai'n-i-Akbari. In fact, Alam goes
on to illustrate how Abul Fazl used Nasirean passages in his letters to promote peace and harmony
among all aspects. Following the Persian tradition of Akhlaqi writings became important for providing
political support for Akbar's later ideas as well as maintaining relations with the Turko-Persian
traditions that the Mughals were proud of.

With reference to buildings at Fatehpur Sikri, analyse how architecture was used as a medium to
articulate authority.

Fatehpur Sikri is one such Mughal imperial city whose architecture is a reflection of the empire building
process of the medieval Mughal period under the patronage of the Mughal emperor, Akbar. Fatehpur
Sikri is not an uncharted realm. Work on it started from the colonial period onwards by both
archaeologists and historians starting with the work of E.W. Smith. But it was not free from problems
be in terms of nomenclature with one building given different names or understanding the purpose
of building. The study of history and archaeology and the various literary sources of Abul Fazl, Arif
Qandahari, Badauni, travellers William Finch, Joseph Tieffenthaler, Jesuits Anthony Monserrate, the
Mughal miniature paintings, all give rich details about the Mughal capital and one could understand
the actual meaning behind the imperial city of Fatehpur Sikri which was build from 1571 onwards and
remained the Mughal capital for fourteen years before its sudden abandonment of which many but
not concrete reasons are stated. Nadeem Rezavi gives us a detailed architectural study of this royal
city before it became a capital, its stature as a seat of Mughal domination and its condition after its
desertion by Akbar. The city founded with the intermingling of spirituality, imperial ideology and
political prowess. Thus, it was used as medium to articulate authority. Fatehpur city was chosen when
Akbar had already established himself as the powerful emperor. It was under him that full attention
was given to the politics, economic and military structure and led to an autocratic centralized empire
as studied by J.F. Richards. Akbar’s aim was to stabilize his rule and for this introduce revenue
collection system, hierarchy of administrative system with the help of nobility, carry out military
campaign to expand the empire and build new cities as capital to have his central authority
everywhere. His bureaucracy was based on the mansabdari system which formed the base of the
Mughal Empire. Patronage to architecture was an important source of legitimacy and sovereignty and
is one of the reasons why the Mughals were such avid builders. Large monumental structures were
raised during the reign of Akbar. These grand buildings were reflections of the grandeur of the Mughal
Empire. The city has a long history dating back to the Painted Grey ware through the Sunga and
Kushana dynasties and later on under the control of Sikarwar Rajputs. In the medieval period the battle
of Khanwa between Babur and Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar was fought near the new city in 1527.
Babur won the battle and constructed a garden named Bagh I Fath (the garden of victory) and the
name probably inspired Akbar to rename the area as Fathabad. After Akbar became the emperor, he
converted Sikri into a royal city when he conquered Chittor and Ranthambor and also in honour of the
Sheikh Salim Chisti and channelled empire’s resources towards building it. The religious institution,
the dargah of Sheikh and a mosque became the central point at the beginning of the foundation of
the city of Fatehpur Sikri. In urban planning regardless of the models, the central place was that of
palace and the place of worship. Later on, in the imperial complex the Jami Masjid was constructed
and to the south wall of the mosque was added the Buland Darwaza as the ‘victory arch’ to
commemorate the success of Akbar in the Gujarat campaign. According to Weberian model, the orient
did not have any city culture and lacked basic autonomy and self governance. This view is been
countered by Nadeem Rezavi who states that though Fatehpur Sikri has a strong centralizing base, but
has features similar to that of the European capital cities. It was a well planned city with Mughal
architects also aimed to provide public services, with proper roads, streets, hydraulic works for water
supply, sarais, and gardens. The contemporary sources as well as archaeological remains attest to the
fact that the city was a thriving commerce and craft centres and remained so even after the shift of
capital. Fatehpur Sikri was a walled city and can be termed as a sharlbalda or a big city. The principal
inspiration of the construction of Fatehpur Sikri was that of a Mughal encampment. The Persian
vocabulary is being used to describe the buildings that were used for the imperial camp setting. It was
put forward by Athar Abbas Rizvi and Satish Dewar that the city was not build on one go and
constructed over a period of time of 1571 to 1580. Like how Akbar organized his state system, his city
was also organized. The most important for any state was interconnectivity and this seat of power was
well interconnected having eight gates (darwazas) connected by roads which in turn divided the city
into eight zones. There was a hierarchical progression from public to the private areas. The central
area was for imperial use surrounded by princes’ quarters and that in turn encircled by nobility. The
city was a reflection of Akbar’s ideology of syncretism and assimilation with the architecture bearing
signs of Indian embellishments. Akbar tried to systematize the urban society starting with his imperial
palace structure. The major structures of the official city, located at the top of the ridge, like the
daulatkhana (the imperial palace), the khalwatkada-ikhas (the imperial chambers), the khwabgah (the
imperial resting quarters), the haramsara (the residence of the emperor’s wives), the ibadatkhana (the
house of worship) and the daftarkhana (secretariat), the royal stable. All these structures made the
political centre of the Mughal state building process. The diwan I am and diwan I khas, the building
typology in many cities are also present here. The importance of Ibadatkhana which Rezavi has
analysed in detail was a place which was an exemplar of the synthesis of various religions, traditions,
spiritual awakening etc. It can be taken as a reflection of what Akbar wanted the society to be. Here
the doctrine of Sulh I kul and tauhid I illahi was formulated by Akbar. The shabistan I iqbal which was
the haramsara housed the royal ladies. According to Ruby Lal during the time of Akbar, harem became
an institutionalized body and has its origin in the formation of royalty itself. The construction of the
imperial capital at Fatehpur Sikri led to the organization of space that incorporated various people and
structures within it. In this imperial quarters manifested the power of the monarchy. Here the royal
women became invisible residing in the segregated spaces. Economically, the imperial and the nobles
did control the vast majority of empire’s revenue and this help in the architectural development of the
city. There were also five markets in the city which took care to the requirements of the inhabitants.
Also was the presence of gardens played major role in the construction of Mughal identity. Though
not situated on the bank of the river, the city did have a lake which was an important source of water
and with this there were numerous hauzes (tanks), chahs (wells), baolis (stepped wells) to keep the
imperial capital well-watered. Outside the limits of the city was established the Shaitanpura (the
prostitutes’ quarters), Dharampura and Khairpura to feed the poor Hindus and Muslims and Jogipura
(quarters for Hindu mendicants). The ‘subalterns’ are not forgotten by Nadeem Rezavi. The towns and
cities were built to inhabit the subjects of the empire. Under the royal patrons worked the actual
builders of the empire, the skilled as well as unskilled labourers supervised by an official head working
in the karkhana I imarat. Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned in 1585 by Akbar and his movement towards
north western frontier and making of imperial capital at Lahore and then at Agra due to water crisis
leading to the decay of the city. It is challenged by Nadeem Rezavi. Here we can understand that
though the city’s base was constructed by the political patronage it was never the sole criteria for the
functioning of the city. The urban space was also based on commercial activities which cannot be
undermined. Stephen Dale talks about Mughal cities being sovereign city and lacking the character of
a capital city like Europe. But in the case of Fatehpur, it was a sovereign city but also a capital city which
was well equipped to survive after the change of capital. Hence, to conclude Fatehpur Sikri can be an
ideal example of the historical processes under the Mughals, and architecture was used as a medium
to articulate authority. It reflected the political ambition of a ruler who was a conqueror and extended
his control as far as he could reach and was an avid organizer who wanted to move away from the
peripatetic nature of the empire though its essence still remained. Fatehpur Sikri was part of Akbar’s
state building process. The medieval historiographical writing in recent times has examined how built
spaces reflected imperial ideology and political visualization. The city has deep meaning with the
formulations of various ideologies. It was based on Abul Fazl theory of the social contract in the Ain I
Akbari where the emperor as long as he fulfils the contract, enjoys absolute power. According to
Monica Juneja, the complex of Fatehpur Sikri was conceived of as a microcosm of the Mughal Empire.
It reunited within it spaces, different visuals and structural forms belonging to different regions under
the Mughal structure.

ZAMINDARS

Irfan Habib says the word zamindar comprises two words of Persian origin- zamin or land and dar or
degree of control not necessarily ownership. In the 14the century the word was used for a chief of a
territory/landed intermediary. In the Mughal period the term was used officially from Akbar’s period
for any person with any hereditary claim to a direct share in the peasantry’s produce. Thus by 17th
century it was used interchangeably with a number of terms for agrarian rights, such as muquaddami,
kohli, bhomi etc. It was also used interchangeably with the term maliki/malikiyat (Arabic term for
ownership), as these landed intermediaries had rights over a share of the produce. However this broad
term, referring to landed intermediaries was a blanket term used to refer to various types of
Zamindars, with differing rights and relations to the Mughal State. Moreland was the first scholar to
examine the zamindari system in some detail. He equates a zamindar with a 'vasal chief’ and hence,
in his opinion, he could not exist in territories under direct political control of the Mughal state ;
however, he points out that Bengal was an exception to this practice. P. Saran followed Moreland and
declared that zamindars could not have been found in all parts of the empire and that they were just
'vasal chiefs' . But this opinion was contested by Irfan Habib who, on the basis of the Ain-i Akbari, put
the issue in the right perspective by pointing out that the zamindars were to be find in every part of
the empire.

Nurul Hasan accepted the universality of the zamindars and discussed at length the origins of
zamindari rights and the relationship of this class with the Mughal 2 — ^ government. He divided the
zamindars into three categories: • Primary zamindars who held some exclusive rights over the land; •
Secondary zamindars, who possessed intermediate powers and assisted the government in collecting
land income; and • Autonomous chiefs—had autonomy over their lands and paid a certain sum to the
Mughal Empire.

Irfan Habib says that zamindari rights were derived from fiscal claims, which survived from pre-Mughal
period. He says they existed primarily in the form of certain levies which the zamindars imposed on
the peasants over and above the land revenue assessment, were hereditary and also included revenue
collection under the Mughal State. He says originally the claims of the zamindars were distinct from
land revenue, but over a with the assignment of revenue collection rights to the Zamindar this
distinction blurred. E.g., in Bengal the zamindar was answerable for revenue collection to the State in
his area, thus he seems to have collected revenue from the peasants for their lands as well as his own
lands, for which he was meant to pay and not the peasants. In other parts of India he was expected to
collect tax from primary assesses (cultivators) in return for an allowance (nakar) paid to him by State
as 1/10th or land revenue or in allotment of revenue free land. Irfan Habib delineated three types of
Zamindars, even though the term zamindar was a generic term used by the Mughal state, zamindars
were by no means a homogenous class. The three types were- Semi-Autonomous zamindars,
Intermediary zamindars and Primary or village level zamindars. He says these categories were not
exclusive and there was mobility amongst them. The semi-autonomous zamindars were hereditary
rulers of their territories, referred to as Rais, Ranas and Rawats. They commanded vast powers,
military and fiscal recourses thus being a constant threat to the Mughal State. From the Sultanate
period in fact there is evidence of Balban contending with rebelling chiefs and of Allaudin Khilji setting
up an administrative policy to also deal with them. Mughals were equally awareof their threat, yet
were forced to deal with them in order to deal with the peasantry. Autonomous zamindars ranged
from large powerful chiefs to small petty chiefs (e.g. Kachuwahas of Rajasthan). B.R. Grover says
ethnographically they belonged to a dominant ruling minority or a majority tribe or clan that over time
established regional socio-economic and political territorialism. Thus they could be tribal chiefs who
slowly became territorial chiefs e.g. Rathores of Marwar. Arif Khandari mentions they comprised 200-
300 Rajas possessing forts, with their collective recourses amounting to 4.4million according to Abul
Fazl. Thus these chiefs couldn’t be overlooked by the Mughal State and the State sometimes used
force against them. Akbar’s realizing the importance of controlling these semi autonomous chiefs he
divided into two categories - zamidran-i-zortalab(recalcitrant chiefs) and zamidran-i-rayati(loyal
chiefs).He evolved an administrative policy to control them by entering into alliances , offering them
a tankha jagirs and high mansab rank in his court and through granting them local autonomy over
them untransferable their Wattan jagir. In return these chiefs were meant to accept certain conditions.
Due to this policy three different levels of relationships emerged between the State and semi-
autonomous zamindars. Firstly, that of a Mansabdar- i.e. zamindars who were inducted into the
Mughal administration and given a tankha jagir in addition to their wattan jagirand in return had to
maintain military contingents and fulfil revenue collection duties(example:Marwar, Kachwahas).
Secondly, those who accepted Mughal sovereignty but were not given a Mansab they only paid tribute
(peshkash) and had a limited military obligation within their territory. They were only allowed to retain
their Wattan Jagir and assist Pargana officials in revenue collection functions. And finallyf those who
entered a limited alliance with the Mughal state, accepting Mughal suzerainty, yet not being given a
Mansab, and thus having no obligation towards the State. They also only retained their wattan jagir.
N.A. Sadiqui indentified a fourth category of chieftains- those who didn’t pay tribute or accept Mughal
suzerainty but accepted Mughal currency. The State exercised control over these semi-autonomous
chiefs, through measures- such as military power, Peshkash (financial tribute), which could be in cash
or kind ( the value of this varied and was paid while visiting the Mughal court or when the Emperor
toured throughchief’s territory). It was not a yearly payment and was only given by a wattan jagir
holder. These chiefs were also expected to pay personal homage to the king, at times they also had to
leave their heirs at the Mughal court as hostages. Alliances between the Mughals and vassal of larger
chieftains in a region to undermined the autonomy of bigger chiefs. The Mughals decided matters of
succession for chieftains, who were accepting a mansab and they compelled chiefs to accept imperial
rules regarding trade, peasantry etc. These measures reduced the risks posed by semi-autonomous
chiefs and garner military contingents and able administrators in the process.

Intermediary Zamindars- second category of zamindars. They didn’t proclaim proprietary rights, like
semi autonomous zamindars. Thus they only got a share in their produce called malikana. They
collected revenue from Primary Zamindars and passed it on to semi-autonomous zamindars and
maintained armed contingents to do so. They often commanded revenue of a large area. Their
malikana or share in the revenue usually 1/10th of the revenue collected was their hereditary right
and they often got larger shares when they collected revenue. They aspired to be semi autonomous
zamindars as they had forts and contingents and thus came into conflict with them state. Primary
zamindars were small khudkasht peasants or sometimes original colonizers of an area. Their rights
were historically created over time either by virtue of them being original colonizers or from long term
occupation of land. Their hereditary rights were called malikiyat, which implied a share in the revenue
but were not proprietary rights. In 17th -18th century references to sale and purchase of zamindari
rights emerged. B.R. Grover says, malikana varied from region to region, it could be collected in cash
or kind, and there was no uniform rate or term for it.E.g.in Awadh it was called razm-i-zamindari,
Bhumi in Rajasthan, Banth in Gujarat. In Gujarat Banth implied collection of 10 ser of crop from a bigah
and one copper coin, while in Awadh it was only 10 ser of rice per bigah.In some regions the malikana
which was collected as part of what was due to the State thus it ranged between 2.5 to 25% depending
on productivity. For example in Rajasthan it was 2.5 to 3% of the produce due to infertile soil, in north
India it was 10%, while in Gujarat and the Deccan it was 25%. Malikana thus depended on the
productivity of land and local custom. Apart from obtaining the malikana when zamindars performed
the crucial role of revenue collection they got additional share in the revenue called nankar. B.R.
Grover points out that there was another category of zamindars at the primary level which comprised
zamindars created by the State. As land was abundant in Mughal times sometimes the State gave
zamindari rights to important villagers who had the recourse to colonize new land, which the
government sold to them. This land was usually banjar (waste land) or forest land. This land was given
at low revenue assessment rates initially to these zamindars that usually comprised Muquaddams and
Chaudhuries of the village and not common peasants. Such zaminadars were also created by the State
to subdue recalcitrant peasantry for example in Banswara regions. Afghans were given zamindari
rights. These zamindars also further sublet their lands to tenants and the zamindar claimed his
malikana from his lands under the possession of tenants. Apart from revenue collection functions the
almost all zamindars had to maintain revenue records, law and order and expand the area under
cultivation. They were also providers of loans and of implements especially primary zamindars.
Because of these functions the zamindars could often exploit and coerce the peasantry, which often
took loans from them. Regarding the income of zamindars Irfan Habib says that they usually was lesser
than the land revenue, but it was lucrative and usually amounted to 10% or more of his initial
investment, while the amount he extracted from the peasants was probably 2/5th of land revenue,
most of which he used to maintain his establishment and troops. According to B.R. Grover zamindars
had the right to transfer, mortgage and sell their zamindari rights e.g. In Awadh the sale price of
zamindari rights in 5 villages amounted 2.3 times the land revenue. It is also said that the social
homogeneity of zamindari class was gradually eroded specially in the later Mughal period due to high
rates of sale and purchase. Regarding the strength of the zamindari class Irfan Habib says that caste
and military basis, personal ties with the peasantry and a deep knowledge of customary practices and
large fiscal recourses all made the zamindars a powerful class which the State could never ignore. The
Mughal State would have ideally preferred a direct relationship with the peasantry but despite their
attempts the zamindars couldn’t be diluted, thus they developed a workable relationship with this
powerful class as seen especially with the semi-autonomous zamindars. Yet Mughal records saw them
as a potential threat despite the relationship between zamindars and the State and few records
mention their significance. Within the zamindar class conflict existed at times due to clan rivalry, also
because zamindars tried to subjugate other zamindars to expand their territories. Regarding conflict
between the State and larger zamindars, this was usually over surplus appropriation. The crisis of the
jarigdari system intensified this conflict between state and zamindar because as the Mughal state
expanded there was a large gap between the jamma and the hasil. This led to the Jagirdars extracting
more revenue from the zamindars, who either held back revenue payment, or passed the pressure
onto the peasantry, to deal with this crisis. The main impact of these conflicts was the suffering of the
peasantry.