Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The organization of the nobility of the Indian Mughal Empire in numerical grades (manṣabs) is now generally recognized as one of the basic elements of its administrative and military structure. Equally general, perhaps, has been a recognition of the manṣab system's many complexities. However, by combining the information in Abu 'l-Faẓl's Ā'īn-i Akbarī with a number of 17th-century texts and documents, it has been possible to construct a tolerable picture of the working of the manṣab system during the 17th century. In many respects, the basic features were first delineated by Moreland and Abdul Aziz; but their views have been greatly refined, and often substantially revised, by M. Athar Ali and Irfan Habib. It is now accepted as beyond argument that by Akbar's death (1605), manṣab was explained in two numerical representations: the first, zāt, determined the holder's personal pay (ṭalab-i khāṣa) and status in the hierarchy; the second (sawār) indicated the number of horsemen to be maintained by the holder and set the amount sanctioned to cover their pay (ṭalab-i tābīnān). In each case, the rank-number was converted into monetary claims and military obligation by means of the schedules (dastūr al-'amals) in force at the time. 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 greatly to the stability and strength of the Empire.
1 Moreland, W. H., “Rank (manṣab) in the Mughal state service”, JRAS, 1936, 641–55;Google ScholarAziz, Abdul, mansabdari system of the Mughal army, London, 1945, 31–46.Google Scholar
2 Ali, M. Athar, The Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb, Bombay, 1966;Google ScholarHabib, Irfan, “The mansab system (1595–1637)”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 29th Session, 228–49.Google Scholar
3 Moreland, , 650;Google ScholarAziz, Abdul, 36.Google Scholar
4 Moreland, , 643.Google Scholar
5 Qaisar, A. J., “Note on the date of institution of mansab under Akbar”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress,24th Session, 1961,155–7.Google Scholar By an oversight, 1573–4 has been styled by him the 20th regnal year instead of the 18th.
6 Habib, Irfan, 243.Google Scholar
7 'l-Faẓl, Abu, Akbar-nāma, III,Google Scholaredited by Ali, Ahmad, RASB, Calcutta, 1871, 69.Google Scholar
8 ūnī, BadāMuntdkhab al-tawārīkh, II,Google Scholaredited by Ali, Ahmad & Lees, , Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1864–1869, 190;Google ScholarKhān, Mu'tamad, Iqbālnāma-i Jahāngīnī, II,Google Scholar pub. Kishore, Niwal, Lucknow, , 1870, 288.Google Scholar Badā'ūnī gives the measure in the course of his account of A.H. 982, which partly corresponded to the 19th regnal year. Mu'tamad Khān's passage belongs to his account of the 19th year.
9 Akbar-nāma, III, 170;Google Scholar
, II, edited by De, B., Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1913, 328.Google Scholar
10 
Qānūn-i Humāyūnī, edited by Husain, M. Hidayat, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1940, 41.Google Scholar
11 ibid., 47.
12 ibid., 43.
13 Akbar-nāma, III, 120–1.Google Scholar
14 ibid., II, 45, 229 and 270; 
Akbarī, II, 253 and 264.
15 Akbar-nāma, II, 270. My translation of this and other passages from Abu 'l-Faẓl is independent of that by Beveridge, where the precise technical sense is often missed.
16 cf. the rather brief remarks of Qaisar, , 156–7.Google Scholar It is difficult to agree with him, however, that the Akbar-nāma passage indicates the existence of-“three kinds of jāgīrs”.
17 Iqbālnāma, III, 213.Google Scholar
18 Akbar-nāma, III, 672;Google Scholar the pay schedule stated here allowed 12,000 dāms, 9,600 dāms, and 7,200 dāms, per year for sih-aspa (horseman with three horses), do-aspa (horseman with two horses) and yak-aspa (horseman with one horse) respectively. This was for troopers of Mughal (i.e. Tūrānī and Irānī), 
and Indian nobles. For Rājput nobles, the rates were 8,400 dāms for sih-aspas, 7,200 dāms for do-aspas. What rate the Rājput nobles drew for yakaspas is left obscure, cf. Habib, Irfan (n. 2 above), 233.Google Scholar
19 Akbar-nāma, II, 270.Google Scholar
20 Iqbālnāma, II, 213.Google Scholar
21 Ā 'īn-i Akbarī, edited by Blochmann, , Calcutta, 1867, 222–32.Google Scholar
22 Qaisar, (n. 5 above), 156.Google Scholar
23 
II, 425–56.
24 Ā 'īn, I, 222.Google Scholar
25 To cite a few names, with the manṣabs assigned in the Ā ‘īn-i Akbarī, appearing within brackets.
(Note: The 18th regnal year = A.H. 980–81)
While the Tabaqāt does not assign any fictitious manṣabs to those who died before the 18th regnal year, it lacks the completeness of the Ā 'īn-i Akbarī's list in that it fails to assign numerical ranks to some who appear on its list and died well after the 18th year. For example, Maqṣūd 'Alī (No. 136 in the Ā 'īn's list) received the manṣab of 1,000 in the 25th regnal year (Akbar-nāma, III, 304–5Google Scholar); but the 
does not credit him with any manṣab. There are others who were alive at the time the 
was completed; yet, though they are assigned manṣabs in the Ā 'īn, the 
refrains from recording any under their names. To cite a few examples, with the Ā 'īn's manṣabs within brackets:
Moreover, the 
list does not mention manṣabs below 1,000 (there is only one exception viz. Aḥmad 'Alī Beg's rank of 700).
These deficiencies in the 
information show that the Ā 'īn-i Akbarī's list remains indispensable. Such deficiencies, however, do not by any means weaken the significance of the 
list in exposing the fictitious nature of manṣabs assiged in the Ā 'īn to a whole group of persons.
26 Akbar-nāma, III, 69.Google Scholar
27 ibid., II, 117.
28 ibid., II, 117; Badā'ūni, II, p. 190;Google ScholarIqbalnama, II, 288.Google Scholar
29 Iqbālnāma, II, 288.Google Scholar
30 Akbar-nāma, III, 117,Google Scholar the phrase used here is ba-andāza-yi 'aqīdat u sar kardan-i jamī'at;Iqbālnāma, II, 288 has quwwat-i sardārī u hausla-yi jamī'atdārī.Google Scholar
31 It is generally held (Moreland, , 65;Google ScholarAziz, Abdul, 147–9)Google Scholar that the recipients of high ranks (under Akbar, 500, and under Shāhjahān, 1,000) were designated umarā', while the word manṣabdār was used for those holding ranks below 500 or 1000. However, Abu 'l-Faẓl (Akbar-nāma, III, 671,Google ScholarĀ'īn, I, 187, 188, 190Google Scholar) and Mu'tamad Khan (Iqbālnāma, II, 288Google Scholar) use the term manṣabdār for all rank-holders without any distinction. Only the word umarā', to judge from the 
456, was reserved (under Akbar) to those holding manṣabs exceeding 500.
32 Badāūnī, II, 190.Google Scholar
33 The printed text reads tābītān, an obvious misreading for tābīnān.
34 In the 17th-century chronicles, it is thus common to find the use of the formula panj hazārī chahār hazār to indicate 5000 zār/4000 sawār, and so on.
35 Akbar-nāma, III, 170, 184;Google Scholar
, II, 328, 340.Google Scholar
36 Akbar-nāma, III, 219.Google Scholar
37 Of Rāja Todar Mai and 
he says that they maintained chahār hazār sawār (4,000 horsemen); Majnūn Qaqshāl had 5,000 naukar; Muḥammad Ḥusain, 1,000 naukar; Aḥmad Beg Kābulī had 700 sawārs (
II, 433, 435, 441, and 443).Google Scholar
38 
II, 456.
39 Aziz, Abdul, manṣabdari system, 110;Google ScholarAli, Athar, Mughal Nobility, 8;Google Scholar Qaisar (n. 5, above), 156;Irfan Habib (n. 2 above), 212.
40 The A 'īn's list gives 
Husain's rank as 5,000 (No. 8 on the list); he was awarded this rank in the 40th year (Akbar-nāma, III, 671Google Scholar). cf. Habib, Irfan (n. 2 above) 245, n. 52.Google Scholar
41 The text reads dākhil; however, dākhilī would seem to be the correct reading.
42 Biyāt, Bāyazīd, 
Humāyūn u Akbar, edited by Husain, H., Calcutta, 1941, 373–4.Google Scholar See also Ruq'āt-i Ḥakīm Abū 'l-Fatḥ Gīlānī, edited by Husain, M. Bashir, Lahore, 1968, 15–16, 20–1 and 27,Google Scholar where the earliest directly contemporary references to manṣabs occur (February-March 1581). The Hindi word piira “full” is employed here for the sanctioning of the full pay against the manṣab, which is clearly single, and directly related to the military obligation.
43 Habib, Irfan (cf. n. 2 above), 233.Google Scholar
44 Ā'īn, I, 176.Google Scholar
45 ibid., I, 194. It is further stated (p. 175) that if a manṣabdar found it difficult to muster horsemen, he was given some “enrolled” (branded) troopers, in proportion to his rank as part of his contingent. These were paid directly from the Imperial treasury and were called dākhilī. The forty dākhilī troopers that Bayazid mentions were apparently troopers of this kind.
46 Ā'īn, I, 176.Google Scholar
47 Aziz, Abdul, manṣabdari system, 48–9.Google Scholar He was probably led to this view by the later Mughal practice of calling upon nobles to meet the costs of maintenance of imperial elephants and other animals (khurāk-i dawābb). (Athar Ali [n. 2 above], 51). This does not seem to have existed under Akbar. Even though imperial elephants were given to the princes and nobles to be looked after, Abu 'l-Fazl claims that the costs of maintenance (khwurash) were still met by the imperial exchequer (Ā 'īn, I, 135).Google Scholar
41 See Ā 'īn, I, 176–8, for both the statement regarding the 18th year and the schedules of rates.Google Scholar
49 ibid., I, 180–5.
50 ibid., I, 178.
51 These enhancements are set out in detail for each animal, etc., in the Ā'īn, I, 176–8.Google Scholar For the very first enhancement, on horses, Abu 'l-Faẓl explains that the rate was increased by 81 dāms, “for the welfare of the troops and to provide relief (to them)” (p. 176, 1.3 from bottom). Further on, speaking of an enhancement of rate on shērgīr elephants, he describes that as due to “imperial generosity” (p. 178,1. 3).
52 Akbar-nāma, III, 671;Google ScholarĀ 'īn, I, 179.Google Scholar
53 Ā'īn, I, 191.Google Scholar
54 In a passage in a letter ascribed to Abu '1-Faẓl, the complaint is made that “there are some manṣabdārs who have jāgīrs (for the rank) of hazārī (1,000) but do not have even a few men with them, while there are many who are ṣadis (100) and have 50 good horsemen (each) for service in the Deccan and ready for endeavour all the time; and yet the latter remain without jāgīrs”. (Ruq'āt-i Abū 'l-Faẓl, Kanpur, 1879, 45Google Scholar). It will be noticed that Abu 'l-Faẓl does not compare the actual contingent maintained with the second (sawār) rank, but with the single rank, always indicated, as we have seen, by the suffix yā (-ī). Abu 'l-Faẓl reached the Deccan early to the 44th regnal year (1599), and the letter was apparently sent to the Emperor shortly afterwards. Unfortunately, in this letter as well as in some other letters of this collection, there are departures from Abu '1-Faẓl's usual style, and apparent inaccuracies of fact, which, casting doubt on the genuineness of the documents, detract from their authority as a source.
55 cf. Habib, Irfan (n. 2 above), 234.Google Scholar
56 Akbar-nāma, III, 717, for Mīrzā Shāhrukh and for prince Dāniyāl (p. 271). In the latter case the formula employed for stating the paired manṣab is what henceforth became standardized, namely, haft hazāri zāt u sawār (“7,000 zāt and (7,000) sawār”).Google Scholar
57 Akbar-nāma, III, 717.Google Scholar
58 For these changes, notably, the conversion of bar-āwardī into the sole form of payment for sawār rank; the institution of do-aspa sih-aspa ranks; the modification of size of cavalry contingents according to geographical location; and the institution of the month scales, cf. Habib, Irfan (n. 2 above), 233–9.Google Scholar
