Mughal Administration

11. Which one among the following regarding the *Ahadis* of the Mughal per

Which one among the following regarding the *Ahadis* of the Mughal period is *not* true ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
They were individual troopers
They were placed under a separate Diwan and Bakhshi
They were ordinarily not placed under the Mansabdars
Their salary was at par with the Mansabdars
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2014
Download PDFAttempt Online
The statement that is *not* true regarding the Ahadis of the Mughal period is that their salary was at par with the Mansabdars. Ahadis were a special corps of soldiers, individually recruited by the Mughal emperor and directly loyal to him. They were considered elite troopers and were generally paid higher salaries than the ordinary soldiers in the contingents of the Mansabdars (nobles holding military ranks). While Ahadis were not Mansabdars themselves, their individual pay was often superior to that of soldiers under Mansabdari service and could even compare favourably to the allowances of lower-ranked Mansabdars, but not ‘at par’ with Mansabdars in general, whose ranks and salaries varied greatly. Statements A, B, and C accurately describe the Ahadis as individual troopers, placed under separate administration (Diwan and Bakhshi specific to Ahadis), and usually not attached to Mansabdar contingents.
Ahadis were elite, individually recruited Mughal soldiers directly serving the emperor. They were highly paid compared to regular cavalrymen under Mansabdars.
The Ahadis formed a significant part of the emperor’s personal retinue and household troops. They were often used for special assignments and as a counter-balance to the power of the Mansabdars. They had their own recruitment, administrative system, and officers (like an Ahadi Diwan and Bakhshi) distinct from the main Mansabdari system.

Subscribe on YouTube

12. Which one of the following statements is not true about Ijarah system

Which one of the following statements is not true about Ijarah system ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
It was a system of revenue farming.
It encouraged the role of middlemen.
Under this system, land revenue was fixed for the peasant.
The ijaradar paid a fixed amount to the State treasury.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-2 – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C) Under this system, land revenue was fixed for the peasant.
The ijarah system (revenue farming) involved leasing out the right to collect land revenue to the highest bidder (ijaradar) for a fixed amount. The ijaradar then collected revenue from the peasants. The amount collected by the ijaradar from the peasants was not fixed by the state; it was often maximized by the ijaradar, leading to exploitation.
The ijarah system was primarily a feature of the Mughal administration, especially in later periods, and continued into the British era. It encouraged revenue maximization at the expense of peasant welfare and agricultural development and strengthened the position of intermediaries.

Subscribe on YouTube

13. Which one among the following statements about the Mansabdari system i

Which one among the following statements about the Mansabdari system is correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
All army troopers were allotted mansabs.
Mansabs were usually assigned on the basis of ancestry.
Position and salary of mansabdars were indicated by a numerical designation called zat.
Mansabdars were never paid in cash.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-1 – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) Position and salary of mansabdars were indicated by a numerical designation called zat.
In the Mughal Mansabdari system, ‘Zat’ was a numerical value that determined the Mansabdar’s personal status, rank, and personal pay. It was distinct from ‘Sawar’, which indicated the number of cavalrymen the Mansabdar was required to maintain.
The Mansabdari system was a grading system used by the Mughals to fix rank, salary, and military responsibilities. Mansabs were not usually assigned solely based on ancestry, although it might have played a role; merit and loyalty were also considered, and the system incorporated people from various backgrounds. Not all army troopers were Mansabdars; the rank was assigned to nobles, officials, and military commanders. While Mansabdars were often paid through revenue assignments (jagirs), they were sometimes paid in cash (‘naqd’), particularly in the early phase or for specific appointments.

Subscribe on YouTube

14. What is the name of the award given to meritorious men in the Mughal C

What is the name of the award given to meritorious men in the Mughal Court in the form of a robe of honour that was once worn by the Emperor ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Sarapa
Patka
Padma murassa
Khilat
This question was previously asked in
UPSC NDA-1 – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The name of the award given to meritorious men in the Mughal Court in the form of a robe of honour that was once worn by the Emperor is Khilat.
Khilat (also spelled Qalat) was a term used in the Mughal court (and other Islamic courts) for a robe of honour or a set of garments bestowed by a superior ruler upon a subordinate or an honored visitor as a mark of favour, recognition, or appointment. The highest form of Khilat was often a garment or set of garments that had been previously worn by the Emperor himself, adding immense prestige to the recipient.
Sarapa literally means ‘head to foot’ and refers to a complete set of Khilat, which might include not just a robe but also a turban, belt, sword, or other items, covering the recipient from head to foot. While a Sarapa is a type of Khilat, Khilat is the general term for the robe of honour award itself. Patka is a type of sash or belt, not the main robe of honour. Padma murassa refers to a jewelled lotus ornament, not a robe.

Join Our Telegram Channel

15. With regard to nature of Mughal State, who among the following scholar

With regard to nature of Mughal State, who among the following scholars argued that “the peculiar feature of the State in Mughal India was that it served not merely as the protective arm of the exploiting classes, but was itself the principal instrument of exploitation”?

Subscribe on YouTube
Irfan Habib
Satish Chandra
Athar Ali
J. F. Richards
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The statement describes the Mughal State as not just a protector of exploiting classes but an instrument of exploitation itself. This perspective emphasizes the role of the state machinery, particularly the Jagirdari system, in appropriating surplus from the peasantry.
– This view is most strongly associated with the Marxist school of Indian history, and particularly with the work of historian Irfan Habib.
– Irfan Habib’s seminal work, “The Agrarian System of Mughal India,” details the system of land revenue and jagirs, arguing that the state’s structure led to intense exploitation of the peasantry and contributed to the decline of the empire.
Other scholars listed also contributed significantly to Mughal history. Satish Chandra wrote on parties and politics at the Mughal court and medieval Indian history. Athar Ali’s work focused on the Mughal nobility and administration. J. F. Richards studied the Mughal Empire, particularly focusing on political and administrative aspects. However, the specific characterization of the state as the principal instrument of exploitation is a hallmark of Irfan Habib’s analysis.

Join Our Telegram Channel

16. Statement I : The pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators c

Statement I :
The pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators cultivating lands on a contractual basis.

Join Our Telegram Channel

Statement II :
The pahi-kashta peasants worked under the temptation of favourable revenue or the compulsion of economic distress.

Subscribe on YouTube
Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I
Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I
Statement I is true but Statement II is false
Statement I is false but Statement II is true
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-2 – 2016
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both statements are individually true, and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.
– Pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators who tilled land outside their own village. This was often on a contractual basis.
– They were motivated to cultivate land in other villages either due to favorable terms (like lower revenue demand offered by the village or zamindar seeking cultivators) or due to compulsion stemming from economic distress, lack of sufficient land in their home village, or social pressure. Thus, the factors mentioned in Statement II explain why a peasant would become a pahi-kashta, cultivating land on a contractual basis in a different village.
In Mughal India, peasants were generally classified into Khud-kashta (resident cultivators with proprietary rights in their village) and Pahi-kashta (non-resident cultivators). The movement and status of Pahi-kashta peasants reflected economic conditions and land availability.

17. Which of the following terms were used in the Indo-Persian sources of

Which of the following terms were used in the Indo-Persian sources of the Mughal period to denote a peasant ?

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. Raiyat
  • 2. Asami
  • 3. Muzarian
  • 4. Majur

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3 only
1, 3 and 4 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2022
Download PDFAttempt Online
The terms Raiyat, Asami, and Muzarian were used in the Indo-Persian sources of the Mughal period to denote a peasant.
During the Mughal period, several terms were used to refer to peasants or cultivators in official documents and historical accounts. ‘Raiyat’ (or Ryot) was a very common term for a peasant cultivator or subject. ‘Asami’ was also frequently used for a tenant or cultivator, especially in revenue records. ‘Muzarian’ (plural of Muzari) referred to a tenant cultivator or peasant.
‘Majur’ typically refers to a labourer or daily wage worker, who might work on land but is generally distinguished from a ‘raiyat’ or ‘asami’ who held cultivation rights or responsibilities for specific plots. Therefore, ‘Raiyat’, ‘Asami’, and ‘Muzarian’ were the terms primarily used for peasants in the sense of cultivators holding land, while ‘Majur’ referred to a labourer.

Join Our Telegram Channel

18. Which of the following statements about ‘Mughal Mansab’ system are cor

Which of the following statements about ‘Mughal Mansab’ system are correct?

  • 1. ‘Zat’ rank was an indicator of a Mansabdar’s position in the imperial hierarchy and the salary of the Mansabdar.
  • 2. ‘Sawar’ rank indicated the number of horsemen the Mansabdar was required to maintain.
  • 3. In the seventeenth century, Mansabdars holding 1000 or above ‘Sawar’ rank were designated as nobles (Umara).

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Join Our Telegram Channel
1 and 2 only
1 and 3 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
All three statements about the Mughal Mansab system are correct.
The Mansabdari system was a military and administrative system introduced by Akbar.
1. ‘Zat’ was the personal rank, indicating the holder’s status in the hierarchy and determining the basic salary.
2. ‘Sawar’ was the cavalry rank, indicating the number of horsemen a Mansabdar was required to maintain and the associated grant for their upkeep.
3. High-ranking Mansabdars, especially those with 1000 Zat and/or Sawar rank and above (though the threshold varied slightly over time), were generally considered part of the ‘Umara’ or nobility.
The Mansab system was a complex graded system. A Mansabdar was a military unit within the imperial bureaucracy, responsible for military service and civil administration. The distinction between Zat and Sawar ranks was crucial, especially later in the system’s evolution, with concepts like ‘do aspa seh aspa’ also developing to differentiate the number of horses maintained per trooper. The ‘Umara’ constituted the elite of the Mughal administration and military.

Subscribe on YouTube

19. The idea of ‘Farr-i Izadi’, on which the Mughal kingship was based, wa

The idea of ‘Farr-i Izadi’, on which the Mughal kingship was based, was first developed by which one of the following Sufi saints?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Shihabuddin Suhrawardi
Nizamuddin Auliya
Ibn al-Arabi
Bayazid Bistami
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CDS-1 – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The idea of ‘Farr-i Izadi’, on which the Mughal kingship was based, was first developed by the Sufi saint Shihabuddin Suhrawardi.
‘Farr-i Izadi’ means ‘Divine Light’ or ‘Divine Effulgence’. This concept, signifying a divine effulgence that transmits sovereignty and legitimacy to the ruler, was articulated by the 12th-century Persian Sufi philosopher Shihabuddin Suhrawardi, the founder of the Illuminationist (Ishraqi) school. The Mughal emperors, particularly Akbar, incorporated this idea into their political ideology to assert their divine right to rule and project an image of a ruler possessing divine wisdom and authority, independent of orthodox religious clergy.
Akbar’s court historian, Abul Fazl, prominently used the concept of ‘Farr-i Izadi’ in his historical works, such as the Akbarnama and Ain-i Akbari, to legitimize Akbar’s universal kingship. He described the ruler as a recipient of this divine light, which bestowed upon him wisdom, justice, and the capacity for universal compassion, making him the ideal sovereign.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5