Mughal Administration

If we try to understand the greatness of the Mughal Empire, we must look beyond its grand monuments and military conquests. What truly held this vast empire together for over 200 years was its efficient administrative system — a framework that allowed a single emperor to rule over a subcontinent. But, like all human systems, it had its strengths, complexities, and eventual cracks. Let’s try to understand this.

Territorial Administration: From Suba to Grama

The Mughal Empire followed a pyramidical structure of governance, where administrative control was divided across several levels — from provinces down to villages. Here’s the hierarchy:

Administrative Unit	Head/Officials
Suba (Province)	Nizam or Subedar (Governor), Diwan (Finance)
Sarkar (District)	Fauzdar (Law and Order), Amal (Revenue)
Pargana (Block)	No fixed official mentioned here
Grama (Village)	Muqaddam (Village Head), Patwari (Record-keeper)

• During Akbar’s reign, there were 15 Subas.
• Under Aurangzeb, this number increased to 22 Subas.
• Each level had defined responsibilities — Subedar maintained law and order and military affairs, while Diwan managed revenue.

This structure ensured that the imperial authority reached even the smallest villages. But as we’ll see later, the decentralized nature also made it vulnerable to misuse.

Division of Land and Revenue Sources

The Mughals did not directly own all land. Instead, they divided it based on who received its revenue:

1. Khalisah: Land whose revenue went directly to the royal treasury. It was the Crown’s land.
2. Jagir: Land assigned to Mughal officials (Jagirdars) in place of salary. They collected revenue from it.
3. Inam: Land gifted to individuals, often religious scholars or loyal servants of the empire.

This system, particularly the Jagirdari, allowed the emperor to maintain a large standing army and bureaucracy without always paying them in cash.

Land Revenue and the Role of Zamindars

Main Source of Income

• The primary income of the Mughal state came from taxes on agricultural produce, which peasants cultivated.
• In most cases, these taxes were not collected directly by the state. Instead, they passed through intermediaries, referred to collectively as Zamindars.

Who were Zamindars?

• The Mughals used this single term for a wide spectrum of local elites — from village headmen to powerful chieftains.
• In some areas, zamindars were loyal collaborators of the state.
• In other areas, they acted like mini-kings, controlling vast regions and even maintaining armies.

When Mughal administrators or Jagirdars over-exploited the peasants, zamindars sometimes joined hands with peasants (especially if they shared caste identities) and led revolts. From the late 17th century, such zamindari-peasant alliances became serious threats to imperial control.

Zabt System: Scientific Revenue Assessment Under Akbar

One of the finest contributions to Indian administration was Akbar’s Zabt system — a systematic revenue collection method based on actual agricultural data.

Implemented by Todar Mal, Akbar’s brilliant revenue minister:

• A detailed 10-year survey (1570–1580) was conducted, noting crop yields, prices, and cultivated areas.
• Based on this, taxes were fixed in cash (rather than in kind).
• The empire was divided into revenue circles, each with fixed rates for different crops.

This system was scientific, efficient, and practical, and helped ensure regular income to the state. However, it was only used in areas where detailed surveys and records could be maintained — like the heartland of the empire. In places like Gujarat and Bengal, it was not feasible.

Mansabdari System: Organising Nobility and Military

Let’s now understand what is perhaps the backbone of Mughal administrative and military structure — the Mansabdari System, introduced by Akbar.

What is a Mansab?

The word Mansab means rank or position. The system assigned rank, salary, and military responsibilities to all officials — whether civil or military.

Structure:

• Ranks ranged from 10 to 5000 (later even 7000).
• Two types of ranks were assigned:
  • Zat: Denoted the officer’s personal status and determined salary.
  • Sawar: Denoted the number of cavalrymen the officer had to maintain.

For example, an officer with 2000 zat and 1000 sawar had to maintain 1000 cavalrymen and was paid accordingly.

Categories:

There were three types of Mansabdars based on their sawar duty:

1. First Category: Sawar = Zat (full responsibility)
2. Second Category: Sawar ≥ Half of Zat
3. Third Category: Sawar < Half of Zat

Titles:

• Mansabdars: Zat below 500
• Amirs: Zat between 500 and 2500
• Umda-i-Azam (High nobles): Zat of 2500 and above

But often, the term “Mansabdar” was used loosely for all categories.

Jagirdari Link

• Instead of paying in cash, the emperor often assigned a jagir (land revenue rights) to mansabdars.
• But this jagir system was not permanent. Jagirdars were transferred regularly to prevent corruption or local domination.

The Jagir Crisis and Peasant Suffering (Late Mughal Period)

During Akbar’s reign, jagirs were carefully matched to the salary due to a mansabdar. But under Aurangzeb, several things went wrong:

• The number of mansabdars increased rapidly, but jagirs did not increase proportionally.
• This created a shortage of jagirs, leading to delays in salary payments.
• Jagirdars, fearing transfers and financial loss, started exploiting the peasants ruthlessly to extract maximum revenue in a short time.
• The state failed to monitor or control this growing exploitation.

As a result:

• The peasants suffered immensely.
• Many zamindars and local leaders led revolts.
• The credibility and authority of the Mughal state declined sharply.

Conclusion: The Machinery That Both Built and Broke the Empire

The Mughal administrative system was a marvel of centralized planning and local delegation. It allowed a single emperor to command loyalty across the subcontinent. Systems like zabt, mansabdari, and jagir allocation worked brilliantly under visionary rulers like Akbar.

But over time, corruption, expansion of nobility, revenue pressures, and weak successors caused the entire machinery to fall apart — crushing the peasants, enriching the officials, and eventually collapsing the empire itself.