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.
- (a)1 and 2 only
- (b)1 and 3 only
- (c)2 and 3 only
- (d)1, 2 and 3
Correct — A, 1 and 2 only. Statements 1 and 2 are the standard description of the dual rank. The zat fixed a mansabdar's place in the imperial hierarchy and, through the sanctioned pay schedules, his personal salary; the sawar fixed the cavalry contingent he had to maintain and the money he received for maintaining it. Statement 3 fails on a single word. The threshold for being counted among the nobility, the umara, ran on the ZAT rank, not the sawar — 500 zat under Akbar, and 1,000 zat by the seventeenth century. Precedence among nobles followed the same rule, so that a man rated 4,000 zat and 2,000 sawar outranked one rated 3,000 and 3,000. Swap zat for sawar, as statement 3 does, and the claim is no longer true.
- (b)1 and 3 only — Keeps the false statement and drops a true one. Statement 2 on the sawar rank is accurate, and statement 3 attaches the umara threshold to the wrong half of the mansab.
- (c)2 and 3 only — Discards statement 1, which is correct — the zat did indicate both hierarchical position and personal salary — while keeping the statement that misplaces the noble threshold.
- (d)1, 2 and 3 — The tempting all-of-them answer, and it fails only on the third statement. The rank that made a man a noble was zat 1,000 in the seventeenth century; sawar measured his troopers, not his standing.
Akbar's mansab system gave every officer of the empire a numerical rank in two parts, written as a pair such as 5,000 zat and 4,000 sawar. The first number set personal status and pay; the second set the size of the cavalry contingent to be produced at inspection, along with the allowance for keeping it. Ranks were not hereditary and could be raised or cut at the emperor's pleasure, which kept the nobility dependent on the throne.
Statement-set questions on the mansab system almost always turn on the zat-sawar distinction, so the useful habit is to ask of every claim which of the two numbers it belongs to. Here the first two statements assign the right function to the right number and the third does not. It helps to remember the reason the threshold ran on zat: pay and precedence were personal, and the sawar figure could be revised for military reasons without altering a man's standing at court. Related institutions worth carrying: the dagh system of branding horses, brought in to stop mansabdars from hiring animals for inspection day, and the jagir assignments out of which many were paid.
- The zat rank indicated a mansabdar's personal standing in the hierarchy and, through the pay schedules, his personal salary.
- The sawar rank indicated the cavalry contingent he had to maintain and the payment he received for maintaining it.
- The threshold for being counted among the nobility, the umara, was 500 zat under Akbar and 1,000 zat by the seventeenth century.
- Precedence among nobles ran on the zat figure, so 4,000 zat and 2,000 sawar outranked 3,000 and 3,000.
- All nobles held mansabs, but not all mansabdars were nobles.
- Attaching the umara threshold to the sawar rank; it ran on zat.
- Assuming zat equals the number of soldiers a mansabdar commanded; that is the sawar figure.
As a statement-set on the two ranks, or as a single-statement item on what zat or sawar indicated.
In medieval India, Mansabdari system was introduced mainly for
- (a) making recruitment to the army
- (b) facilitating revenue collection
- (c) ensuring religious harmony
- (d) effecting clean administration
Answer(a) making recruitment to the army
The purpose behind the two numbers. Because the system existed to raise and pay cavalry, the sawar figure records troopers while the zat figure records the man himself — which is the distinction the third statement of the CDS item gets wrong.
Which one among the following statements about the Mansabdari system is correct ?
- (a) All army troopers were allotted mansabs.
- (b) Mansabs were usually assigned on the basis of ancestry.
- (c) Position and salary of mansabdars were indicated by a numerical designation called zat.
- (d) Mansabdars were never paid in cash.
Answer(c) Position and salary of mansabdars were indicated by a numerical designation called zat.
The keyed statement there is the CDS item's statement 1, word for word in substance: zat indicated position and salary. Two examiners, two papers, the same definition — which is why the third statement's move to the sawar rank is so clearly the planted error.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In the Mughal mansab system, the number of horsemen a mansabdar was required to maintain was indicated by
- (a)the zat rank
- (b)the sawar rank
- (c)the jagir assigned to him
- (d)the dagh register
Answer(b) the sawar rank — the zat rank fixed his personal standing and salary instead.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The practice of branding horses, introduced to check the quality of the contingents mansabdars produced at inspection, was known as
- (a)chehra
- (b)dagh
- (c)paibaqi
- (d)khalisa
Answer(b) dagh — the companion practice of chehra recorded a descriptive roll of each trooper.