By: SYED ALI NADEEM REZAVI
In
the past few decades a number of interpretations have been offered as to the
nature of the Mughal Empire. These interpretations have been based principally
on the mansabdari system which was introduced during the reign of Akbar. For a
proper understanding they can be divided into two distinct groups. The first
group of interpretations, propounded by historians like M. Athar Ali and John
F. Richards, is based on a detailed study of the administrative system of the
Mughals as gleaned from the contemporary sources. According to Athar Ali,
Akbar's attempt to make the entire administrative structure of one subā into
the exact replica of the other, 'with a chain of officers at various levels
ultimately controlled by the ministers at the centre, gave identity to Mughal
administrative institutions, irrespective of the regions where they
functioned'.2 Further, according to him the mansab system was 'a unique and
unrivalled device for specialists'.3 This system, however, according to
Richards, fell short of a centrally recruited and paid, bureaucratic, standing
army'.4
The
second group of interpretations of the Mughal Empire is more esoteric in nature
and bases itself on the assumption of a distinct inferiority of the 'Asian' as
compared to the 'European'. This group is represented amongst others, by
scholars like Stephen Blake and Christopher A. Bayly.5
The
agenda was set by Stephen Blake when he criticized M. Athar Ali and his
predecessors (like P. Saran, A.L. Srivastava, Ibn Hasan) for having
misunderstood the Mughal government as a kind of undeveloped forerunner of the
rational, highly systematized military, administrative, and legal framework of
British Imperial India'. Blake disapproves of the fact that Athar Ali puts
forward the notion that the Mughal Empire was an ancestor to the 'British Raj',
which instead of being a colonial period, was 'late Imperial India'. Blake
further comments that the views of the above-mentioned scholars (especially of
Athar Ali) were 'a set of unexamined assumptions' which were 'non-compensated
by assigned "prebends or benefices" and served at the pleasure of the
ruler and often performed tasks unrelated to their appointments'. This system
of assigning 'benefices or prebends' (the mansab and the jägir), led to a loosening
of the emperor's control over his officials. To retain his personal grip, the
ruler undertook frequent travels to different parts of his empire. These
face-to-face encounters renewed the personal bond between the master and the
subject. The power of the officials was also sought to be kept under check
through frequent transfers, a strong intelligence network and deliberate
overlapping of powers and responsibilities between provincial and district
offices 8. Blake goes on to cite Abul Fazl's A'in-i Akbari as the major proof
for his Weberian thesis. We know that Abul Fazl divides his description of
Akbar's empire under three heads, viz. the manzil abadi (imperial
administration), sipah abadi (army administration) and mulk ābādī (empire) and
then sets out to deal with their respective regulations (A'in). Like Blochmann,
10 Blake translates manzil as 'household' and holds this division by Abul Fazl
as evidence for the Mughal Empire being a patrimonial-bureaucratic empire.
Interestingly, Blake counts the various kärkhānās (like the stables of
elephant, horse, cow, camel and mules), matbakh (the kitchen establishment),
khushbu khānās (the perfumery) and the (imärats) (building establishment)
mentioned in the first section (manzil abadi) of the A'in-i Akbari as 'purely
domestic'. Their mention along with the mint, the arsenal, the treasury, etc.,
convinces him of the mixing of household and state'. Second, he found it
significant that Book Two of Ain-i Akbari, which deals with the army
organization, contains regulations dealing with charitable contributions,
feasts, 'fancy bazars', marriage and education. In this scheme Blake found an
attempt of the emperor to influence, order and shape the lives of his
subordinates, which according to him was typical of a patrimonial- bureaucratic
ruler.12
While
analysing the third section of the A'in-i Akbari, which deals with mulk abadi
(the empire), Blake finds the Mughal policy of dividing the realm into khalisa
and jāgirs 'the household lands and the assignable lands' as a means to control
a large part of the state revenues personally, typical of a
patrimonial-bureaucratic ruler. He concludes from his interpretation of the
third section of the Aïn that the Mughal method of governance had no clear-cut
lines of authority, no separate departments at successive levels of
administration and no tables of organization. On the contrary, there were
groups of men in the Imperial household, who, on behalf of the emperor, oversaw
the provincial and sub-provincial officials. 13 Thus the Mughal Empire, Blake
concluded, was not a prototype of the 'British Indian Empire' but was simply an
example of the patrimonial-bureaucratic empire. One finds a weak echo of this
thesis in even J.F. Richards, who briefly and hesitatingly states this concept
in the context of the grandees of the empire.14
On
the other hand, Christopher Bayly goes a step further than Blake and indirectly
denies the very concept of the Empire in the context of the Mughals. According
to him:
Outwardly, Mughal rule was a huge system of house-hold government reinforced by an overwhelming but unwieldy military power. One can easily over-estimate its control, especially in the outlying areas. But the empire was more than a mere umbrella raised over virtually autonomous local groups. It was more like a grid of imperial towns, roads and markets which pressed heavily on society and modified it, though only at certain points. The system depended on the ability of the Mughal state to appropriate in cash as much as 40 per cent of the value of the total agricultural product. 15
The
question of the core and the periphery was further stressed by Chetan Singh,
according to whom it was not correct to argue that due to the frequent
transfers, the Mughal bureaucracy was unable to develop regional moorings.16 On
the contrary he held that the officials (governors) who were appointed in the
peripheral areas (Punjab) in fact 'belonged to areas lying within it'.17 In
other words, the periphery was developing into regional entities at the expense
of the centre under the Mughals.
If
we sum up the above-mentioned theories, what emerges is that the Mughal Empire
was a state where (a) there was an official class. which was somewhat
bureaucratic in nature; (b) this bureaucracy was totally 'subordinate' in
nature and closer to a patrimonial ideal; (c) the writ of this
'patrimonial-bureaucratic' empire ran only in major towns and on highways; and
(d) due to these limitations, the core was shrinking in the face of the
regional pressures.
As
has been noted earlier, all these assertions are based on a study and analysis
of the Mughal ruling elite, the mansabdārs. The views of Christopher Bayly,
Andre Wink, Muzaffar Alam and Chetan Singh, have been exhaustively dealt with
by M. Athar Ali and Irfan Habib in the light of the empirical data and need no
further comment.18 Here an attempt is being made not only to analyse what
constituted. the Mughal 'bureaucracy', but also to place it in a proper
perspective vis-à-vis the Mughal state.
There
is no denying the fact that the Mughal Empire was an absolutist state which was
presided over by a despotic ruler who held his sway over a ruling elite which
was organized on the basis of the innovative institution of the mansabdari
system. It was this system. which generated the centripetal tendencies in
linking the remote areas with the heart of the empire, the king. For the sake
of administration, the entire land of the empire was divided into two
administrative categories, the khalisa and the jāgirs. The khalisa sharifa was
the land which was kept aside for the imperial use and establishment.19 The
size of this imperial khalisa, according to Irfan Habib, was not constant.
During the later years of Akbar's reign, the khalisa accounted for a quarter of
the total jama' (assessed revenue) in at least three provinces.20 It shrank to
only one-twentieth of the jama' of the whole empire. under Jahangir, but slowly
rose to one-seventh during the reign of Shahjahan,11 and ultimately to
one-fifth of the total jama' in the 10th R.Y. of Aurangzeb.22 The revenues from
the khalisa were not meant only for the 'personal' use of the emperor and his
household. The 'personal' in Mughal jargon was connoted by the term khasa
(khāsa sharifa in the case of the emperor). The income from the khalisa was
collected by the officials for the Imperial treasury (khizana-i ‘āmira) and was
spent to maintain the 'imperial establishment' which comprised a large number
of officers, bureaucrats, troopers and artillery-men, apart from a number of
retainers and servants, which in no way can be termed as belonging to the
'household'. The large number of kärkhānās (workshops), including the stables
for various kinds of animals, were also maintained out of this income. The
first section of the A'in-i Akbari, which Abul Fazl labels as regulations.
(ain) for manzil abadi, deals with the institutions and heads concerned with
such establishments. Except for the matbakh, which might be termed as khāsa,
the other departments mentioned in this section are purely related to the state
and have nothing to do with 'purely domestic matters', as alleged by Blake.
Horses were the mainstay for any pre- modern and pre-industrial army and
society. Transportation of army equipment and material in a pre-modern society
depended solely on the strength of the bullocks, carts and mules. Their
availability and maintenance would ensure the health of the state more than
that of an individual. Their inclusion in the Imperial establishment, whether
Western or Asiatic, along with the mint, the state arsenal and the treasury was
thus not symbolic of a ‘patrimonial' nature of the empire. Blake also finds
proof of a patrimonial nature in this section when Abul Fazl lauds Akbar as an
insan-i kamil (Perfect Man) and his defining the relationship between the
emperor and his subject in the Ā’în-i Rāhnamūni (The Regulations on
Guidance).23 Badāūnī, the bete noir of Abul Fazl suspected that this idea of
insan-i kamil was derived from the tradition of Ibn 'Arabi.24 It has also been
suggested that another possible source of this doctrine was Mahmud Päsikhwānī,
the early fifteenth-century originator of the Wahidiya or Nuqtawiya 25 who
believed that the great spiritual souls are born at particular periods. 26 This
would then suggest that the thesis of the 'Perfect Man' who is born once in a
while is more suggestive for the person of Akbar, rather than as a theory of
state developed for the Mughal Emperors. Interestingly this status was neither
claimed nor attributed to any of the other Great Mughals. It, however, cannot
be denied. that the Mughal state was an absolute monarchy where the emperor
tried to shape the lives of his subjects. The Mughal emperor tried to regulate
not only the marriages of his nobility but also their educational curriculum.
As rightly pointed out by Blake, Akbar tried to include rational sciences like
arithmetic, agriculture, household management, rules of governance, medicine,
etc., in the educational curriculum.27 Along with it there was a stress on
reason (aq) which was to be given precedence over traditionalism (taqlid).28
This stress on rationalism and reason was something which was unique. Irfan
Habib points out sect, that among the two important functions which Abul Fazl
assigns to a just ruler (kar giya) one is that such a sovereign shall not seek
popular acclaim through opposing reason (aq)'.29 If there was an attempt in the
Ä’în-i Rähnamuni to define the relationship between the ruler and the subjects,
the Ain-i Rawai-i Rozi (Regulations for the Provision of Livelihood) justified
the necessity of political authority in the light of the theory of social
contract.30
Recent
researches have shown that there indeed was a bureaucracy in the Mughal Empire
which was far better organized and systematic than Blake could imagine. Members
of this class were neither solely at the 'mercy' of their employer nor were
they remunerated only through the assignment of 'prebends and benefices'. Even
those belonging to the Mughal elite, the mansabdars, who, according to Bayly
had 'some features of the classic bureaucracy'31 and enjoyed prebends and
benefices' depended on the service of the members of this class. By the early
seventeenth century a skilled and efficient professional corps of 'lower and
middle-status officials' had emerged as a viable group under the Mughals.32 A
large number of these officers were khanazāds (lit. 'house-born', or those
whose ancestors had also served the empire), although fresh recruitments to
this category also took place. This latter group was drawn from kayasthas,
khatris, petty merchants and groups of 'Indian Muslims'. It was this group
which 'possessed and refined demanding skills in book-keeping, auditing,
minting, correspondence, procurement and supply, record-keeping, information
retrieval, and office, stores, and industrial manage- ment'.33
Studies
on Mughal administrative system have shown that the administrative system at the
centre was duplicated and replicated at the suba and pargana levels. At the
central level the administrative posts were held exclusively by the ruling
elite, the mansabdārs, while those at the provincial level were shared between
the elite mansabdars and the petty officers who could be generally assigned
mansabs of not more than 500 zat.34 Mulla Muhammad Tahir l'timad khan was
appointed in 1688 by Aurangzeb as mutasaddi (port administrator) of Surat in
addition to his office of diwän (provincial revenue officer) of suba
Ahmadabad.35 At that time he was holding a mansab of 200 zat.36 In 1689 he
became the diwan and faujdar of the port of Surat.37
Another
case which can be cited is that of Muhammad Muhsin I'timād Ali Khan who in the
37 RY of Aurangzeb (1693) was appointed to the post of mutasaddi of the port of
Surat after the transfer of Mir Muhammad Sadiq.38 In 1695 he replaced his
father as the diwan of subā Ahmadabad.39 We are not informed about his rank at
the time when he held these offices. It was only in 1704 that, he says, his
rank was enhanced to 700/20040 and at that juncture he held the joint charge of
the office of mutasaddi of both Surat and Cambay11 The same year his mansab was
raised to 800/240 and he was appointed as the diwan-i lashkar (revenue officer
of the army) of Ghaziuddin Khan Firuz Jung, the subädär of Gujarat. 42 Mughal
sources are full of such references and many more examples from the reign of
Akbar through Aurangzeb and later Mughals can be cited.43 It would not be out
of place to point out that such grant of mansabs to the bureaucrats holding
provincial offices was not only a 'benefice' from above. The latter could
refuse the rank assigned to him if he thought it to be below his status.
Moreover, even in posting and service, the bureaucrat was not abjectly
subservient to his employers. In 1567 when after certain misunderstandings
developed between Bayazid Bayat and his employer, Mu'min Khan and the latter
unduly reprimanded him, Bayazid refused to reciprocate the conciliatory
gestures of Mu'min Khan. If we believe Bayazid, he refused to join service at
Banaras unless it was declared khalisa and he be appointed as shiqdar.44 Mu'nim
Khan relented and only then Bayazid partly agreed to join his duties. Still,
Bayazid due to 'certain unfortunate incidents' did not assume the charge. He
was then offered the revenue collection duties of Ghazipur, Zamāniyā, Sasarām
and Chunar, but he again refused and chose to pass a few years in durweshi (unemployment).45
In 1570-1 Mu'nim Khan forced him to join. service, but soon, showing
resentment, he refused the additional charge of sarkar Chunar.46 Later he
resigned once again only to be placated in 1568, when he joined duties once
more. In 1571, he had even contemplated going for pilgrimage, an idea which he
abandoned at Mu'nim Khan's persuasion.47 When sometime before 1592, Shaikh
Farid Bhakkari, an Indian Muslim,48 was appointed as wakil (agent/
representative) of Abul Fath Dakhani,49 and was awarded a mansab of 65 sawārs,
Farid felt unhappy and declined the offer.50 He belonged to a respected and
well connected family. His father, Shaikh Ma'ruf, had been the sadr (the
theological officer-in-charge of religious affairs) of sarkar Bhakkar (Sind).51
His uncle, Miyan Ishaq Faruqi was the diwan and wakil of Khwaja Nizamuddin
Harvi, the author of Tabaqat-i Akbari, when the latter was posted at Gujarat,52
while his first wife was the daughter of Shahbaz Khan Kanboh, an Akbarī noble.53
It
appears that generally all the members of the Mughal bureaucracy, who were
appointed at the provincial level were enjoying mansabs ranging from 100 to 700
zat, in lieu of services they rendered to the state. It was only in the case of
a very few that the magic number of 1,000 and above as zāt rank could be
reached. In 1691, Mulla Tahir I'timad Khan, the diwan of subā Ahmadabad and
mutasaddi and diwan of the port of Surat held the rank of 1,000/900.54 At the
time of his death in 169555 his zat rank had risen to 2,000.56 His son I’timād
Ali Khān, while serving as the faujdar of Baroda, Bakhera and Sonkher, a post
which he confesses he attained through the recommendations of Prince Jahandar
Shah in 1708,57 was enjoying the mansab of 1,000/800,58 the highest he could
attain in his chequered career.
The
bureaucrats at the provincial level could hold mansabs when they were serving
under the nobles in various capacities. They were also free to change their
'masters'. From 1592 down to 1607, Shaikh Farid Bhakkari was serving the
Imperial administration. Soon after his refusal of the low mansab awarded to
him by Akbar, he was appointed as the naib (deputy) of Abul Fath Dakkhani.59
Within a few months he left this post and joined as the diwan of subā Bir in the
Deccan.60 In 1605 we find him as the diwan of suba Gujarat, when Shaikh Farid
Murtuza Khan Bukhari was the subädär.61 In 1606-7, he served as faujdär of
Lucknow.62 In 1608-9, Shaikh Farīd, however, joined the service of Khan-i
Dauran Khwaja Sabir Nasiri Khan, the subädär of the Deccan, who patronized him
in such a way that 'this servant was protected from transfers and paucity of
jāgīrs and mansabs'.63 On the very first day of joining the service of Khan-i
Dauran, he was posted as the amin (revenue collector) of 32 parganas in
Bijagarh. The same year he was transferred on the same post to the mahāls of
suba Berar.64 He served in this capacity till Muhammad Husain Gilāni, the diwan
of Berar, confirmed Sundardas Gujarāti to this post.65 In 1610, Shaikh Farid
left the service of Khan-i Dauran to join the army of Khan-i Jahan Lodi.66 In
1614, he once again. joined the imperial service, and Jahangir appointed him as
the diwan of the jāgir of Nurjahan Begum,67 a post which he retained for 14
years. In 1628, we find him again in the service of Khan-i Jahan Lodi as his
bakhshi-i kul (Paymaster and Incharge of Attendance).68 When in 1630, Khān
Jahān was killed after his rebellion, Shaikh Farīd first joined under Asaf Khan69
and then shifted to the service of Mahabat Khan who, Shaikh Farid says, awarded
him the initial mansab of 100/30 which within a short period of three years
rose to 300/100.70 Under Mahabat Khan, he served on the posts of diwan,
bakhshi, amin and waqi'a nawis (news reporter) of sarkar Bir in the Deccan.71
He continued to hold these posts until 1642, when he joined the service. of
Sarandaz Khan Qalmaq, the jagirdar of Dalmau. He was appointed to the office of
wakil-i mutlaq al-in'an (agent with absolute authority) of this noble.72 Under
Sarandaz Khan, Shaikh Farid did not enjoy a mansab. He says that he was
extended a salary of Rs.1,000 per month with no deductions, in addition to Rs.
2 per day for food. But soon after, in 1642-3 we hear that he again enjoyed a
mansab of 100/30.73 The rank probably ceased sometime in 1641-2, and he started
receiving a cash salary on a monthly basis. But again within a year, he came to
hold his initial rank of 100/30 which he continued to hold till at least
1649-50. In January 1649 he mentions his last position as 'the amin and waqi'a
nawis of a dozen fortresses in the Deccan'. He was serving on the same posts
when he completed his book in 1651.74
Shaikh
Farid's is not a case in isolation. In almost all cases we see that the Mughal
bureaucrat was not bound to one master but kept on shifting jobs from the
service of one noble to another. Bayazid Bayat, a petty bureaucrat from the
reigns of Humayun and Akbar, initially joined service in 1543-4 on some petty
position when Humayun was still wandering as a fugitive in Iran.75 From then on
he served below three nobles before joining the Imperial service. He served
Husain Quli Sultan, muhrdär (seal-keeper), for four years as his munshi
(secretary).76 On his death he joined the service of Khwaja Jalaluddin Mahmud
at Kishm and was appointed as the mir-i saman."7 As he was not satisfied,
being 'not on good terms with the Khwaja's 77 brother', he left the job78 and
willingly joined service under Mun'im Khan, with whom he remained for a period
of twenty-one years, until the Khan's death.79 Under Mun'im Khan, Bayazid was
initially assigned military duties.80 He was assigned the charge of the
topkhānā as well as the responsibilities of distribution of rations to the
soldiers at a time when Kabul was besieged by Mirza Sulaiman in 1556.81
Subsequently he was given the task of tahsil (revenue collection) of the tomans
of Alingar and Qabila Hazar Meshi' at Jalalabad.82 Throughout his tenure in the
service of Mun'im Khän, Bāyazid performed military duties along with the job of
revenue collection. In 1560, we find him assigned the task to accompany Bairam
Khan up to a distance when the latter was granted permission to proceed for
haj.83
The
very next year we find him with a diplomatic mission to reason out with Bahadur
Khan Shaibani whose jagir of Etawa had been resumed and thus in a state of
'be-jagiri' had gone to his brother at Jaunpur.84 In 1562-3 military duty was
again assigned to Bayazid when Mun'im Khan ordered him to muster an army and
join the latter in pursuit of a certain Rājā Matsu.85 It was in 1562 that
Bayazid was appointed to collect taxes as shiqdar of Hisar Firuza, which he
claimed was 'once in his jagir'.86 The next year we find him again busy in military
duties having been given the charge of defending the fort of Hisar Firuza
against the attack of the rebel Shah Abul Ma'ali.87 By the middle of 1567
Bayazid was back on his job of revenue collection. He was now appointed to
collect the revenues from the sarkar of Banaras. 88 Very soon Banaras was
declared as khalisa and Bayazid was confirmed as its shiqdar.89 After four
years of self- imposed retirement, we find him enjoying the office of mir-i mal
and posted in the Imperial court as the Khan-i Khanan's wakil (agent).90 For
the last twenty-three years of his active service, Bayazid joined the Imperial
service and was not attached to any of the nobles. Thus in 1576-7, through
Imperial orders, he was appointed at Dipalpur, a pargană in sarkar Ujjain. All
duties relating to jarib, jama'bandi, nasq, etc., were in his charge." A
few months later he was appointed as the amin of sarkar Sarangpur, which at
that point of time was a khalisa territory."2 His next appointment was
that of daroghā-i khizāna at Fatehpur Sikri, a post which he attained and
ultimately relinquished in 1578 as he decided to proceed for haj.93 He returned
from Mecca 100 to Surat in 1582.94 After a wait of two years he was summoned to
Fatehpur Sikri by Akbar and was appointed as the revenue-officer of two
parganas, one in Fatehpur Sikri95 and pargana Sanam. He was also granted an
area yielding 29 lakh dams.96 In 1585 he was made. darogha (superintendent) of
känät-i mamalik-i mahrusa (Imperial mines) and dār-uz zarb (Imperial Mint) at
Fatehpur Sikri.”7 The same year he was also appointed as darogha-i
daftarkhänä-i 'äli (superintendent of the Imperial Secretariat). Till this time
he had not been granted any mansab. For five years he worked on these posts.98
It was only in 1585, almost at the end of his career, he was awarded a mansab
of 100 zat.99 Two years later in 1585-6, his mansab was enhanced to 200 zāt. In
1587 when his appointment ceased as the darogha-i daftar khānā, Bayazid was
appointed to the posts of bakawal begi (Incharge of the Kitchen) and ishik
agha-i darbār-i haram (Imperial usher). 101 But soon he suffered from paralysis
of the left hand and as a result had to resign his ‘manāsib (ranks), jāgīr and
māhiyāna (monthly pay)' along with the assignment of pargana Sanam which was
also transferred.102 In 1590 he was again reinstated on the post of ishik agha
and ultimately in 1591, he was appointed to the offices of the dārogha and amin
of the Imperial Treasury.103 At the end of his career we find his mansab was
finally raised to 300 zat.104 It is interesting to note that a 'monthly salary'
is being mentioned even at a time when he was holding a mansab of 200 zat. In
fact, along with the reporting of conferment and enhancement of mansab he is
found lamenting that for 'five years' he worked on the posts of Superintendant
of Imperial mines, Imperial mint and the Secretariate and yet he had not been
paid his full salary. 105
Similar
is the case of Bhimsen. Before joining Rao Dalpat Bundela as his secretary,
Bhimsen had served below five nobles.106 Sometime around the 11th RY of
Aurangzeb, when he was appointed as the mushrif (accountant) of dagh wa tashiha
(branding verification) in the Deccan,107 he says that a mansab was also
conferred upon him. 108 Then in 1687-8, after a period of joblessness, he was
again assigned a mansab.109 On both the occasions he fails to mention the
specific rank which he enjoyed. Once he joined the service of Rao Dalpat
Bundela, he was assigned a jāgir and a fixed salary of Rs. 12,000 per annum. 110
Another
bureaucrat serving at the provincial level administration and enjoying a mansab
was Mehta Isardas Chuni, the author of Futūhat-i Alamgiri. During the first
stage of youth, he joined the service of the Qazi-ul Quzzät Shaikh-ul Islam,
and remained attached to him till the age of 30, when the Shaikh went for
pilgrimage at Mecca. 112 Now Isardas took up service with Shuja'at Khan, the
nāzim (administrator) of Ahmadabad, who appointed him as the amin and shiqdar
of the mahals of pargana Jodhpur.113 In 1698, he was called upon to resort to
diplomacy and became a mediator between Aurangzeb and Durgadas, the Rajput
chieftain. 114 On the successful completion of the mission, the emperor granted
him a mansab of 200 zat,115 which was soon enhanced to 250/10. He was also
granted a jāgir at Merta and was stationed at Ahmadabad.116 His account ends in
this very year and no further information about him is available.
From
the aforementioned examples it becomes apparent that this bureaucratic class
specialized in administration and management, especially in fiscal matters.
Their prowess in financial management sometimes brought them at loggerheads
with the elites. Thus when in 1575, Mun'im Khan died, the tabwildars
(officers-in-charge) in his service misappropriated some of the wealth of the
deceased noble.117 On detecting the fraud, Bayazid Bayat, who at that time was
the mir-i mal and wakil of Mun'im Khan immediately had the kārkhānās
(establishments) of the late Khan sealed and all the tahwildars detained.118
Bayazid's action was so severe that, he says, not even a minor sum was allowed
to be taken by even the family members, out of the late Khan's treasury. The
bureaucratic severity can be gauged from the fact that the funeral expenses
were met out of the loan of Rs. 6,000 extended to the family.119
It
also appears that the non-military role of these technical administrators was
predominant. It was indeed seldom that they were asked to perform military
duties. However, as in the case of Bayazid and Isardas, they could be asked to
take up diplomatic assignments. Bayazid did perform military duties, but then,
his situation was different. He was serving at a time when the empire was
taking shape. Once the empire had been settled and once he was no more attached
to Mun'im Khan, he transformed into a typical civil servant. Richards rightly
points out that, by and large, the domain of the professional- technical
officers was that of the structural array of subordinate formal offices.120
Such officers were needed not only in the Imperial and provincial
administration, but also in the sub-provincial level and the nobles'
establishments. It appears that bureaucrats serving individual nobles or in
lesser positions ordinarily did not receive mansabs, still it was the most
lucrative and rewarding source of employment.
One
such petty Mughal bureaucrat during the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb was
Balkrishan Brahman. 121 It seems that accountancy (siyaq) was his family
profession and quite a number of his family members were engaged in Persian
learning and accountancy, and earned their livelihood by this means. 122 He
managed to get his initial employment through the recommendations of Shaikh
Jalal Hisāri. 123 Subsequently, after a short break in service, he took up a
job as some sort of a revenue official under a noble at Bareilly. The job
perhaps paid handsomely as he could manage to send a hundi worth Rs. 100 from
Bareilly to Shahjahanabad.124 In spite of this he complains in a letter the
non-availability of good and permanent jobs and cautions the women of his
family against extravagant expenditure. 125 The language which he uses against
the women in this letter reflects his contempt for women, representing perhaps
the general attitude of his time.
Balkrishan's
fears regarding impermanency of jobs seem to have been real. In a hasb ul hukm
of Mir Aziz, the darogha of dar ul 'adalat-i "aliya (the judicial court),
written subsequently, Balkrishan is mentioned as the qanungo of pargană Punia.
126 But again he seems to be on the move, for, in a letter from him to a noble,
he mentions his employment in or near Kaithal as a revenue official. 127 Soon
he appears to be again jobless, and after wandering around for three months, we
find him. employed with a certain Khidmat Guzar Khan at Sirhind. 128 In this
position he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 50. He still does not appear to
be satisfied.129 In yet another letter, he mentions ruefully his childhood
fantasy of becoming a munshi.130
The
next appointment which he got was that of faujdār and amīn of chakla Hisar,
pargană Bhatnir and Bhatinda.131 His son, Rudra Das was appointed along with
him as his näib (deputy) at pargana Bhatinda. We do not hear more from him
about his subsequent career. It is however clear that Balkrishan never achieved
his long cherished desire of becoming a munshi, though his son Uday Ram
succeeded in achieving that position at some noble's court. 132
It
is interesting to note that though he complains against the non- availability
of good and permanent jobs, we still find him manipulating to get jobs for his
relatives. Thus he writes that Daya Ram was appointed to the post of a muharrir
(clerk) on a payment of Rs. 10 per month on his recommendation.133 At another
place he invites his brothers to come over while he was at Bareilly, so that he
might find some jobs for them, though, he cautions that 'conditions of
employment depend upon time'. 134 In yet another letter he confesses that he
was instrumental in preparing a description roll of his relatives Balram and
Jauhar Mal, who were employed on a salary of Rs. 2 per month including food.
135 At another place he is even found recommending a tabib (physician) to some
noble for employ- ment. 136
Balkrishan's
letters reveal the typical mental set-up and nature of the Mughal petty
bureaucrats. The mere fact that he kept on writing letters to people who were
well-placed in administrative position and hierarchy, in spite of not getting a
reply in return, reflects not only his literary urge or social courtesy, but a
strong material motivation to extract favour from their good offices.
It
is important to note that these sub-provincial petty bureaucrats were not
awarded mansabs but were recruited on a monthly cash. salary. Unfortunately,
information regarding their salary is available only from the reign of Shahjahan
onwards. Thus the khazanchi-i chaklā (the treasurer of the chakla) was drawing
a salary ranging from Rs. 30 to Rs. 41/10 ännäs per month,137 the madadgärän-i
waqi'a nawis (the assistants of the News Reporters) were getting Rs. 40/8 ännäs
per month.138 The mushrif-i khizāna was being paid a salary ranging from Rs. 25
to Rs. 50 per month. 139 The madadgaran-i amin (the assistant of the assessor)
was drawing a salary of Rs. 50.140 The amin on the other hand, drew Rs. 120 per
month (Rs. 1440 per annum).141 The mushrif and tahwildar of shura-i khām
(saltpetre) drew Rs. 30 per month. 142
We
find that by the reign of Aurangzeb, there was a twofold increase in the
salaries. The salary of the treasurer (potdar) was raised to Rs. 18 per
month,143 and that of mushrif-i khizāna to Rs. 130 per month (or Rs. 1,560 per
annum).144 During the first few years of the reign of Aurangzeb, the mushrif
and tahwildars of the forts in the Deccan were drawing a monthly pay ranging between
Rs. 25 and Rs. 50 per month.145 The mushrif of khizäna-i dădni dast ba dast
(Treasury's pay advances) was drawing a salary of Rs. 30 per month.146 While
the mushrif of the gardens was getting Rs. 15 per month only, the mushrif of
the topkhāna was drawing Rs. 45 to Rs. 80 per month.148 The salary of the
mushrif of the chauki of the mansabdārs was Rs. 65 per month149 and that of the
Royal Tomb at Aurangabad was Rs. 83 per month.150 The pay of the darogha of the
gardens, on the other hand, was Rs. 120 per month.151 However, the lowest paid
petty officer appears to have been naqib who was given Rs. 6 per month.
only.152 Satya Prakash Gupta, on the basis of the Rajasthan documents, has
drawn up a table (Table 12.1) of the wages of the amils, amīns and potadars
starting from the reign of Aurangzeb down to 1748, which records the
fluctuations in the monthly salary of these officials, 153
These
salaries were further supplemented by the income from fraudulent practices and
cheating the state and the nobles. Surat Singh, a petty Mughal bureaucrat
during the reign of Shahajahan, mentions such incidents. He writes that the
qanungos along with the patwaris would sometimes fake the village records. 154
He also mentions the fraudulent practices of a mushrif in the sarkar of Saf
Shikan Khan. 155 Iqtidar Alam Khan in one of his papers cites a large number of
such fraudulent practices and cheating by the members of the Mughal
bureaucracy.156 He rightly suggests that the fact that the incidence of jama'
being not even half the average dastur-rates was due to 'large scale
defalcation of revenues by the officials mainly through their clever
manipulation of records'.157 It appears that the Mughal bureaucrats, even those
at the lowest rung, from the reign of Shahjahan, in spite of all their verbal
protestations, were spending a luxurious life. Surat Singh himself bought a
house in a prosperous neighbourhood of Lahore for a princely sum of Rs. 700.158
He further cites several examples of affluence in his Tazkira. Thus Khwaja Hari
Chand, a pargană level official had so much wealth that he freely distributed
money and cows among the brahmins. He reportedly also ate with them every
morning and offered meal to the members of all 159 the thirty-six castes.
Another petty bureaucrat, Muhammad Shafi buyutāt, built a mosque in Muhalla
Tilla at Lahore with his money sometime before 1644.160 Ganga Ram, the brother
of Surat Singh and amil of Jahangirpur, who only a few years back was in a dire
economic condition, now all of a sudden grew fabulously rich. 161
It
appears that the financial administration was managed and controlled by this
group of proficient officers and clerks. By the sixteenth century this class of
bureaucrats became indispensable to the state. Although not formally trained in
the job of administration in the modern sense, they were trained by their
family in official Persian terminology, accounting, and reporting methods.
Bayazid was
Masters
of Statecraft and Administration 164 a man of letters and was the author of a
Turkish and a Persian diwän. 162 Mir Abdul Qasim Namakin taught Shaikh Farid
the art of nazm wa khat (verse and penmanship).163 Surat Singh too was
attracted to Persian poetry and emerged as a poet and emerged as a poet of some
renown. As per the tradition of his family, Balkrishan was sent to study in the
maktab of Abdul Majid, a scholar of some repute, who had no equal as a teacher
in the city of Hisar. It was under his tutelage that Balkrishan gained knowledge
of Persian and would daily copy from various books the words and draft of great
munshis and dabīrs.165 It is evident that he strove hard to learn the art of
insha and received guidance from a capable teacher. He was perhaps much
fascinated by the knowledge and position of the munshis. His competence in
insha was such that the elders praised, while the children of the madrasa and
streets styled him munshi, 166
However,
his education at the maktab was soon discontinued as his brothers had him
recalled and made him join the office of one of the 'amils and hakims
(official) of the city and forced him to learn arithmetic and siyaq
(accountancy), 167
After
some time he left the 'amil's office and decided to become the pupil (shagird)
of Shaikh Jalal Hisārī. The brothers opposed the idea by reasoning that there
was much more profit in accountancy 168." Balkrishan in spite of this
attached himself with the Shaikh and remained his student for nine years. 169
To learn military skills, Bhimsen had to go to Mir Abdul Ma'bud, the dāroghā-i
topkhānā when he was between seven and fourteen years of age. 170 In other
words, education in the madrasas was not enough and the official training could
only be completed by getting enrolled under the tutorship of the various
experts in different fields. It was only after this training, could they aspire
to be enrolled in the Mughal bureaucratic service.
It
is important to note that none of the Mughal bureaucrats had a zamindāri or
landed origin, neither did they invest their wealth in it. A perusal of the
sources, on the other hand, hints at their being regarded as the potential
enemies of the ruling classes. Kabir in one of his verses, in fact compares
"amils' attitude in settling the accounts with God's taking account of
deeds after death. 171 Surat Singh mentions the harsh treatment meted out to
petty bureaucrats by the state. 172
Another
point to be noted is that till the reign of Shahjahan, we have no reference to
a bureaucrat either having a mercantile origin or indulging in commercial
activities. We know that Bayazid had been deputed on the route of Hisar to buy
horses for the Mughal army, yet there is no reference to his engaging in trade.
At the time of his going to Mecca in 1578 he had one lakh rupees in cash with
him, 173 but he does not appear to have invested the sum in trade. Similarly no
mention is found of any of the early Mughal bureaucrats forming matrimonial
alliance with the mercantile classes. Nor do they refer to any of their sons or
daughters married off to the merchants.
The
first reference to a bureaucrat having a mercantile background is from the
reign of Shahjahan: Surat Singh says he belonged to the Kamboj sept of the town
of Natesar near Lahore. The Kamboj of Natesar, he further says, were merchants
(tujjār) and indulged in trade and commerce.174
It
appears that by the first half of the eighteenth century, a large- scale
infiltration started in the rank and file of the lower Mughal bureaucracy. In a
petition filed by Gokul Ram Brahman to Maharaja Bishan Singh, the petitioner
writes:
The
petitioner possessed chaudhari of pargana Chatsu since the time of Maharaja
Bharmal. Now his livelihood has been assigned to Jag Ram, a bania. But he
(Brahman) is prepared to pay one and a half time more than him in case this
right is restored to him."
From this passage it becomes apparent that Gokul Ram is hinting towards the ijārā system which was being resorted to during this period. 176 The rise of mercantile element in Mughal bureaucracy can be traced to this sale of ijāras. Yet, even apart from it, the mercantile presence kept on increasing. Under the later Mughals, at Amber, the post of potdar (treasurer) at the pargană level came to be generally held by a mahajan.177 Between 1713 and 1750 more than 50 per cent of the 'amils and amins in the parganäs of Amber were the merchants (säh, mahajan).178 These sahs and mahajans, as amin and amil, demanded revenues from the peasants, who due to uncertainty of production and the heavy demand, were forced to take loans from the moneylenders (mahajans). Thus this group kept on enlarging their income and wealth at the expense of both the state and the peasantry.
This
probably was not a phenomenon confined only to Rajasthan. A group which was
subservient to the Mughal ruling elite during the reign of Akbar, was by the
time of Aurangzeb, emerging as a class vaguely conscious of its existence and
interests. The helping hand extended by Balkrishan Brahman and Ganga Ram and
Shaikh Kamal to their fellow bureaucrats, if seen in this light, appear as a
logical step in this direction.
It
is obvious from the above examples that there was spatial and professional
mobility in this group of officials. They could also exercise their choice of
patron. This again would suggest class cohesion.
To
conclude, we can say that there was a class of officials, apart from the
mansabdars, who closely resemble the modern concept of bureaucracy, which was
not exactly 'subordinate' in nature and was far removed from a patrimonial
ideal of Weber and Blake. They were a trained, salaried, non-combative administrative
class which was extremely loyal to the Mughal 'constitution' and helped in
extending its authority beyond the narrow confines of major cities and
highways. If ever there was a 'grid', it was dismantled by the large number of
pargana and chakla based bureaucrats, who helped the Mughal system and culture
to reach the very grassroot level. The Mughals created a bureaucratic system
and a 'class' which survived even after the Empire was no more. It was the
members of this class, who transformed medieval India into Modern, despite the
later colonial onslaught.
NOTES
1.
M. Athar Ali, Presidential Address, Medieval India Section, Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress (PIHC), Muzaffarpur Session, 1972, and its slightly
revised version, 'Towards an Interpretation of the Mughal Empire', Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society, 1978, no. 1, pp. 38-49; J.F. Richards, The Mughal
Empire, The New Cambridge History of India Series, 1993. See also Richards,
Mughal Administration in Golcunda, Oxford, 1975.
2.
Athar Ali, 'Towards an Interpretation of the Mughal Empire', op. cit., p.
40.
3.
Ibid., p. 24.
4.
Richards, op.cit.; see also Athar Ali, op. cit., p. 25.
5.
Stephen Blake, "The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire of the Mughals', Journal
of Asian Studies, vol. XXXIX, no. 1, November 1979, pp. 77-94; idem, The
Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739, Cambridge, Shahjahanabad: Cabmbridge
University Press, 1996, pp. 17-25; C.A. Bayly, Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars:
North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770-1870, Cambridge,
1983.
6.
Blake, 'The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire', op. cit., p. 77.
7. Ibid., pp. 79-80, 91-2.
8.
Ibid., pp. 79-80. 7.
9.
Abul Fazl, A'in-i Akbari, ed. H. Blochmann, Calcutta, 1872, vol. I, P.
10.
Abul Fazl, A'in-i Akbari, tr. by H. Blochmann and H.S. Jarrett, annotated
by
Jadunath Sarkar, New Delhi, 1965, vol. I, P. 9.
11.
Blake, "The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire', op. cit., p. 83.
12.
Ibid., P. 85.
13.
Ibid., pp. 89-90.
14.
Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 59.
15.
Bayly, op. cit., p. 10; for a rebuttal of the views of Bayly and those of
Muzaffar Alam (The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India:Awadh and the Punjab,
1707-48, Delhi, 1986) and Andre Wink (Land and Sovereignty in India: Agrarian
Society and Politics under the Eighteenth Century Maratha Svarajya, Cambridge,
1986); see M. Athar Ali, 'The Mughal Polity:A Critique of
"Revisionist" Approaches', PIHS, Gorakhpur, 1991-2, vol. II, pp.
303-12; Irfan Habib, 'The Eighteenth Century in Indian Economic History,' paper
presented at seminar on the 'Eighteenth Century as a Category in Asian
History', The Netherlands, 1993 (mimeographed).
16.
Chetan Singh, 'Centre and Periphery in the Mughal State: The Case of
Seventeenth
Century Punjab', Modern Asian Studies, XXII, no. 2, 1988, P. 304.
17.
Ibid., p. 305.
18.
M. Athar Ali, "The Mughal Polity', op. cit., pp. 303-12; idem., 'Recent
Theories of Eighteenth Century India', Indian Historical Review, vol. XIII,
nos. 1 & 2, pp. 102-8; Irfan Habib, "The Eighteenth Century in Indian
Economic History', op. cit. See also M. Athar Ali, 'The Mughal Polity', op.
cit., pp. 309-10; idem, 'Provincial Governors under Shahjahan: An Analysis',
Medieval India: A Miscellany, vol. III, Bombay, 1975; Irfan Habib, "The
Family of Nur Jahan during Jahangir's Reign: A Political Study', Medieval
India: A Miscellany, vol. I, Bombay, 1969.
19.
M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, Bombay: Asia Publishing
House, 1970 (1st pub.), p. 74; Irfan Habib, Agrarian Relations and Land
Revenue', in Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib (eds.), The Cambridge Economic
History of India (CEHI), vol. I, c. 1200-c.1750, Oxford University Press, 1982,
pp. 240-1. Masters of Statecraft and Administration
20.
CEHI, op. cit., P. 241.
21.
M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility, op. cit., P. 74.
22.
Ibid.
23.
Blake, "The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire', op. cit. pp. 82-3.
24.
Badauni, Muntakhab ut Tawarikh, ed. Ahmad Ali, Kabiruddin Ahmad and L.W.Nassau
Lee, Bibhioth-ca Indica, Calcutta, 1864-9, vol. II, pp. 258-9.
25. Cf. Irfan Habib, "Two Indian
Theorists of the State: Barani and Abul Fazl', presented at the Patiala session
of the Indian History Congress, 1998.
26.
Dabistan-i Mazahib, ed. Qazi Ibrahim, Bombay, AH 1292, p. 244. Cf. Irfan
Habib,
Two Indian Theorists of the State: Barani and Abul Fazl', op. cit.
27.
A'in-i Akbari, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 201-2.
28.
Ibid., II, p. 229.
29.
Ibid., I, P. 3.
30.
Ibid., I, 290.
31.
Bayly, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
32.
See for example, J.F. Richards, 'Norms of Comportment among Imperial Mughal
Officials', in Moral Conduct and Authority: The Place of Adab in South Asian
Islam, ed. Barbara Daly Metcalf, University of California Press, 1984, pp.
255-89. Subsequently reprinted in J.F. Richards, Power, Administration and
Finance in Mughal India, Hampshire: Aldershot, 1993, pp. 255-89.
33.
Ibid., p. 256; In this paper Richards analyses the life and views of Bhimsen
as
a representative of this petty bureaucratic class.
34.
See for example, M. Athar Ali, The Apparatus of Empire, Awards of Ranks,
Offices
and Titles to the Mughal Nobility (1574-1658), Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1985; S. Ali Nadeem Rezavi, 'Lower Bureaucracy of the Mughal Empire', M.Phil
dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University (AHU), 1986.
35.
Ali Ahmad Khān, Mirät-i Ahmadi, Baroda, 1928, vol. I, p. 318; Futūhät-i
Alamgiri, MS.BM., Add. 23884 (Rotograph in Department of History Library, AMU),
f 138 (b).
36.
Mirät-i Ahmadi, vol. I, p. 318.
37.
Saqi Musta'id Khan, Ma'asir-i Alamgiri, Karachi, 1962, p. 331.
38.
I'timad Ali Khan, Mīrät ul Haqäiq, MS. Bodelein Library, Oxford, Fraser
Collection no. 124 (microfilm in Department of History, AMU, Aligarh), f.74
(a).
39.
Mirät ul Haqäiq, op. cit., f.74 (a); Mirät-i Ahmadi, I, P. 333.
40.
Mirät ul Haqäiq, op. cit., ff.75 (a)-(b).
41.
Ibid., f.75 (a); Mirat-i Ahmadi, I, p. 382.
42.
Mirät ul Haqaiq, f.75 (b).
43.
See my M.Phil dissertation, op.cit.
44.
Bayazid Bayāt, Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, ed. Mohd. Hidayat Husain,
Calcutta,
pub. 1941, p. 303.
45.
Ibid., P. 312.
46. Ibid., P. 313.
47.
Ibid., p. 340.
48.
Shaikh Farid Bhakkari, Zakhira tul Khawānin, ed. S. Moinul Haq, Pakistan Historical
Society, Karachi, vol. I, p. 191; vol. II, P. 409.
49.
Ibid., vol. II, pp. 174, 284-5, 378.
50.
Ibid., vol. II, p. 285
51.
Ibid., vol. I, pp. 2, 170, 198.
52.
Ibid., vol. I, P. 201.
53.
Ibid., vol. I, p. 158.
54.
Futuhat-i Alamgiri, op. cit., f.164 (b).
55.
Mirät ul Haqaiq, op. cit. f.74 (a); In Mirat-i Ahmadi his date of death,
however,
is recorded as March, 1696 (Mirat-i Ahmadi, I, p. 331).
56.
Zawabit-i Alamgiri, MS.BM.Or.1641, f.163 (a); Khafi Khan, Muntakhab ul Lubab,
ed. K.D. Ahmad & Haig, Bib.Ind. Calcutta, 1860-74, vol. II, P. 380.
57.
Mirät ul Haqäiq, op. cit., ff.76 (a), 166 (a), 208 (a).
58.
Ibid., f. 76 (a).
59.
Zakhira tul Khawanin, op. cit., II, pp. 174, 284-5, 378.
60.
Ibid., vol. I, p. 173; vol. III, pp. 12, 132. Bir was not a suba, but only a sarkār
61.
Ibid. vol. I, p. 137.
62.
Ibid. vol. II, p. 352; see also Vol.I, p.238.
63.
Ibid. vol. III, P. 23.
64.
Ibid., vol. I. p. 158; vol. II, pp. 337-8; vol. III, p. 23.
65.
Ibid., vol. II, PP. 337-38.
66.
Ibid., vol. II, pp. 85, 166.
67.
Ibid., vol. I, p. 122. At another place he mentions that he became diwan of Nurjahan
in 1613. Ibid., vol. II, p. 392, see also vol. II, pp. 216, 300, .
68.
Ibid., vol. II, pp. 174, 264, & 307.
69.
Ibid., vol. II, P. 307.
70.
Ibid., vol. II, p. 169.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Ibid., vol. II, p. 306.
73.
Andhra Pradesh State Archives, doc.no.309, cf. M.Athar Ali, Apparatus of
Empire,
op. cit., p. 187, no. S 2977.
74.
Zakhira tul Khawanin, op. cit., vol. III, p. 100.
75.
Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit., pp. 2, 3, 32, 36 tec. For a detailed biography
of Bayazid Bayat, see my M.Phil dissertation, op.cit.
76.
Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit., p.
77.
Ibid., pp. 164-5; see also PP. 139-45.
78.
Ibid., P. 187.
79.
Ibid., P. 348.
80.
Ibid., pp. 196, 200.
81.
Ibid., p. 210.
82.
Ibid., P. 218.
83.
Ibid., p. 233. 84. Ibid., P. 244. 85. Ibid., P. 253. 86. Ibid., P. 277.
87.
Ibid., pp. 277-80.
88.
Ibid., p. 299.
89.
Ibid., p. 303. 90. Ibid., PP. 312-13.
91.
Ibid., P. 352.
92.
Ibid., p. 353
93.
Ibid.
94.
Ibid., pp. 357, 360.
95.
Ibid., P. 372
96.
Ibid., p. 363.
97.
Ibid.,
98.
Ibid.
99.
Ibid.
100.
Ibid.
101.
Ibid.
102.
Ibid.
103.
Ibid., P. 374
104.
A'in-i Akbari, op. cit., I, P. .
105.
Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit.,
106.
For Bhimsen, see J.F. Richards, 'Norms of Comportment among Imperial Mughal
Officers', op. cit.; see also my M.Phil dissertation, op.cit.
107.
Bhimsen, Nuskha-i Dilkusha, MS. BM., Or.23 (Rotograph in the Department of
History Library, AMU, Aligarh), f.39 (b).
108.
Ibid.
109.
Ibid., f.98 (a).
110.
Ibid., f.101 (a).
111.
J.S. Bird in History of Gujarat: Its Politics and Statistical History, 1980, p.
89 calls him 'Shridas', while Tasneem Ahmad tends to spell his name as
'Ishwardas', see 'Ishwardas: A Hindu Chronicler of Aurangzeb's Reign', Islamic
Culture, vol. XLIX, no. 4, October 1975, pp. 223-31. However, BM.MS, add.
23884, clearly spells the name as Isardas.
112.
Isardas Nagar, Futuhat-i Alamgiri, BM.MS., add.23884, ff.166 (b)-167 (a).
113.
Ibid., f.167 (a).
114.
Ibid., ff.167 (a)-(b).
115.
Ibid., f.167 (b).
116.
Ibid., f. 168 (b).
117.
Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit., p. 350.
118.
Ibid., p. 341.
119.
Ibid., p. 351.
120.
Richards, 'Norms of Comportment among Imperial Mughal Officers', op. cit., p.
269.
121.
For a biographical sketch of Balkrishan see S.Ali Nadeem Rezavi, 'Balkrishan
Brahman: A Petty Mughal Bureaucrat', presented at the Annamalai Nagar session
of the Indian History Congress, 1984.
122.
Letters written by Shaikh Jalal Hisäri and Balkrishan, BM.MS., add. 16859
(Rotograph in the Department of History Library, AMU, Aligarh), f. 97 (a).
123.
Ibid., f.99 (b).
124.
Ibid., f.60 (b). The total amount sent was Rs. 116 out of which Rs. 16 were contributed by Daya Ram and Balram, close
relatives of Balkrishan.
125.
Ibid., f.61 (a).
126.
Ibid., f.64 (a).
127.
Ibid., f.66 (b).
128.
Ibid. f.86 (a).
129.
Ibid., f.86 (b).
130.
Ibid., f.62 (b).
131.
Ibid.
132.
Ibid., f.94 (a).
133.
Ibid., ff.61 (a)-(b)
134.
Ibid., f.61 (a).
135.
Ibid., ff.61 (a)-(b).
136.
Ibid., ff.31 (a)-(b).
137.
Malikzada, Nigärnäma-i Munshi, Lucknow: Newal Kishore, 1882, p. 95. 138. Ibid.,
P. 94.
139.
Ibid., Yusuf Husain, Selected Documents of Shajahan's Reign, Hyderabad,
1950,
nos. 74 & 112.
140.
Nigärnäma-i Munshi, op. cit., PP. 94-5.
141.
Selected Documents of Shahjahan's Reign, op. cit., no. 83.
142.
Ibid., no. 211.
143.
Arhsatta Pargana Chatsu, VS 1721/ CE 1664, cf. S.P. Gupta, Agrarian System of
Eastern Rajasthan, Delhi, 1986, p. 178.
144.
M.A. Naeem, Mughal documents: Catalogue of Aurangzeb's Reign, Hyderabad, 1980,
vol. I, nos. 1060, 170; vol. II, no. 407. Masters of Statecraft and
Administration
145.
Ibid., vol. I, nos., 9, 1280; vol. II, nos. 42, 379, 414, 449, 617, 679; vol. III,
nos. 293, 530, 788.
146.
Ibid., vol. I, no. 491.
147.
Ibid., vol. I, no. 1569; vol. II, nos. 128 288.
148.
Ibid., vol. II, no.633 & 96; vol.I, no. 1391.
149.
Ibid., vol. II, no. 101.
150.
Ibid., vol. III, no.943.
151.
Ibid., vol. I, nos.1524, 1340; vol.II, no.86.
152.
Ibid. vol. II, no.390.
153.
S.P. Gupta, Agrarian System of Eastern Rajasthan, op. cit., p. 174.
154.
Surat Singh, Tazkira-i Pir Hassu Taili, MS., Department of History, AMU, Aligarh,
ff.112 (a)-(b).
155.
Ibid., ff.162 (a)-163 (b), 164 (a)-(b).
156.
Iqtidar Alam Khan, "The Middle Classes in the Mughal Empire', Presidential
Address to the Mediaeval India section of the Indian History Congress, Aligarh
session, 1975, pp.10-13.
157.
Ibid., p.13.
158.
Tazkiră-i Pir Hassu Taili, op. cit., f. 181 (b).
159.
Ibid., ff. 175 (a)-(b).
160.
Ibid., f. 181 (b).
161.
Ibid., f.122 (a).
162.
Tazkiră-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit., pp. 55, 235.
163.
Zakhirat ul Khawanin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 200, 286.
164.
Tazkira-i Pir Hassu Taili, op. cit., ff.120 (a) (b).
165.
Balkrishan Brahmin, op. cit., ff. 97 (a) (b).
166.
Ibid.
167.
Ibid.
168.
Ibid., ff. 97 (b)-98 (a).
169.
Ibid., f. 98 (b).
170.
Nuskha-i Dilkusha, op. cit., f. 38 (a).
171.
Cf. Irfan Habib, 'Evidence for Sixteenth Century Agrarian Conditions in Guru
Granth Sahib', IESHR, vol. I, no. 3, January-March 1964.
172.
Tazkira-i Humayun wa Akbar, op. cit., p. 353.
173.
Ibid., pp. 354-5.
174.
Tazkiră-i Pir Hassu Taili, op. cit., f. 181 (a).
175.
Iltimas, Reg. no. 124, Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner. Cf. S.P. Gupta, Agrarian
System of Eastern Rajasthan, op. cit., p. 175.
176.
For the ijärä system, see Dilbagh Singh, 'Ijarah System in Eastern Rajasthan,
1750-1800', Proceedings of the Rajasthan History Congress, no. vi, 1973, PP. 60.
177.
See S.P. Gupta, Agrarian System of Eastern Rajasthan, op. cit., p. 176. 178.
Ibid., Appendix II(a) & II(b), Chapter VIII.