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.
Correct — C. In Akbar's Mansabdari system every holder was given two numerical ranks: the zat and the sawar. The zat fixed the mansabdar's personal status in the imperial hierarchy and determined his salary, while the sawar fixed how many cavalrymen he had to maintain. So it is precisely the zat number that indicated a mansabdar's position and pay, making statement C correct.
- (a)All army troopers were allotted mansabs. — Mansabs were held by the officers and nobles of the state, not by every ordinary trooper; the rank-and-file cavalrymen served under a mansabdar rather than holding a mansab themselves.
- (b)Mansabs were usually assigned on the basis of ancestry. — Mansabs were granted by the emperor on the basis of service and merit and could be raised, lowered or revoked at his will; they were not hereditary or ancestry-based.
- (d)Mansabdars were never paid in cash. — Mansabdars could be paid in cash (naqdi) from the treasury or, more commonly, through the revenue of an assigned jagir — so 'never paid in cash' is false.
The Mansabdari system, systematised by Akbar, was the Mughal Empire's combined military and administrative ranking scheme. Every officer (mansabdar) held a numerical rank made of two figures — zat and sawar. Zat marked his personal rank and salary; sawar marked the contingent of horsemen he had to maintain. It organised, graded and paid the nobility and army under direct imperial control.
The distractors each attack a real feature of the system: it was not universal (only officers held mansabs), not hereditary (the emperor granted and adjusted ranks on merit), and not cash-only or cash-free (pay came as cash or, usually, a jagir). Only the zat statement is accurate.
- Zat determined a mansabdar's status in the hierarchy and his personal pay; sawar fixed the number of cavalry he maintained.
- Ranks ran from small numbers up to several thousand; princes held the highest mansabs.
- Mansabs were granted, promoted, demoted or cancelled by the emperor — they were not hereditary.
- Payment was made either in cash (naqdi) or, more often, by assigning a jagir whose revenue met the salary.
- Assuming mansabs were hereditary like European fiefs — they were held at the emperor's pleasure.
- Mixing up zat (status and salary) with sawar (number of horsemen).
Asked as a 'which statement is correct' item that rewards precise knowledge of zat, sawar, payment and eligibility.
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
Same institution — the Mansabdari system. UPSC tests its primary purpose (organising and recruiting the army), complementing this NDA item's focus on how the zat rank graded status and pay.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In the Mughal Mansabdari system, the number of cavalrymen a mansabdar had to maintain was indicated by his:
- (a)zat rank
- (b)sawar rank
- (c)jagir
- (d)khalisa
Answer(b) sawar rank — while zat fixed status and salary.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Mansabdari system was systematised by which Mughal emperor?
- (a)Babur
- (b)Akbar
- (c)Aurangzeb
- (d)Shah Jahan
Answer(b) Akbar.