¹ A large volume of work has been done by these scholars, all of which need not be mentioned here. Their major works, however, can be referred to. Habib, Irfan, The Agrarian System of Mughal India (Bombay, 1963);Google ScholarAn Atlas of the Mughal Empire (Delhi, 1982);Google ScholarHasan, S. Nurul, Some Thoughts on Agrarian Relations in Mughal India (Delhi, 1973);Google ScholarAli, M. Athar, The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb (Bombay, 1966);Google ScholarThe Apparatus of the Empire (Bombay, 1985);Google ScholarSiddiqi, N. A., Land Revenue Administration under the Mughals, 1700–1750 (Bombay, 1970).Google Scholar

² Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume I. Tapan, Raychaudhuri and Irfan, Habib (eds) (Cambridge, 1982).Google Scholar

³ Richards, J. F., Mughal Administration in Golconda (Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴ Bayly, C. A., Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars, North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870 (Cambridge, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. pp. 7–8.

⁶ Ibid. p. 12.

⁷ Stein, Burton, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1980);Google Scholar‘Politics, Peasants and the Deconstruction of Feudalism in Medieval India’, in Byres, T. J. and Harbans, Mukhia (eds), Feudalism and Non-European Societies (London, 1985), pp. 54–86.Google Scholar‘State Formation and Economy Reconsidered’, Modern Asian Studies, 19, 3 (1985), pp. 387–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPerlin, Frank, ‘Concepts of Order and Comparision, with a Diversion on Counter Ideologies and Corporate Institutions in Late Pre-Colonial India’, in Feudalism and Non-European Societies, pp. 87–167.–Google Scholar‘State Formation Reconsidered’, Modern Asian Studies, 19, 3 (1985), pp. 415–80.Google Scholar

⁸ For some of the arguments pertaining to this debate see Stein, Burton, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India;Google ScholarChampaklakshmi, R., ‘Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India: A Review Article’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. XVIII, nos 3 and 4, pp. 411–26.Google ScholarJha, D. N., ‘Relevance of “Peasant State and Society” to Pallava–Cola Times’, Indian Historical Review, vol. VII, nos 1 and 2, pp. 74–94.Google Scholar

⁹ Stein, Burton, ‘State Formation and Economy Reconsidered’, p. 388.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Perlin, Frank, ‘State Formation Reconsidered’. Amidst this critque of the state of historiography, Perlin argues that context has been sacrificed to ‘a dubious focus on inner workings, logics and principle’, and that, ‘a particular document tends therefore to be read as a representation of a greater system at work rather than as marks of time-and-place sited events which initially need to be set within local historical and structural contexts before being used for comparision and explanation’, p. 420.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 428–9.

¹² Alam, Muzaffar, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India, Awadh and the Punjab 1707–1748 (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1986).Google Scholar

¹³ This work emphasizes the socio-political changes that were taking place within the Mughal imperial system and which combined with other factors to constitute the ‘processes of regional restructuring’. Among these changes by way of example were the emergence of the ‘jagir-i-mahal-i watan’ and the ‘long-term jagir holdings’. It is pointed out that ‘the madad-i ma'ash holders made a bid to turn their grants into zamindaris, without forfeiting their existing privileges and perquisites. The jagirdar, too, aspired to a permanent holding so that he could build his own base in the region’. Quite rightly Alam points out that ‘these developments violated the classical Mughal concept of imperial authority, as seen in the seventeenth century, undermined the prospects of its survival and reinforced the course of provincial autonomy’. Ibid. pp. 13–15. Chapters I and II deal at length with these questions.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 5.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 6.

¹⁶ The areas taken up for examination are those which constituted the British province of Panjab. These, therefore, included the entire Mughal suba of Lahore, and parts of suba Multan and suba Delhi.

¹⁷ In his massive work on the administrative machinery of the Ali, MughalsM. Athar, The Apparatus of Empire, Award of Ranks, Offices and Titles to the Mughal Nobility (1574–1658) (Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1985), once again reasserts the centralized nature of the Mughal state. According to him the ‘mansab system represented one facet of the extreme degree of systematization and centralization reached in the Mughal empire. It was similarly reflected in the uniformity enforced in the post and functions thereto in all parts of the empire’, p. xxi.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The matter has been quite thoroughly dealt with in Saran, P., The Provincial Government of the Mughals, 1526–1658 (Allahabad, 1941);Google ScholarAli, M. Athar, The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb (Bombay, 1966);Google Scholar some other works of relevance are Aziz, Abdul, The Mansabdari System and the Mughal Army (Lahore, 1945);Google ScholarSarkar, Jadunath, Mughal Administration (Calcutta, 1952).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Fazl, Abul, Akbarnama (Beveridge, H. (tr.), Reprint, New Delhi, 1979), 3 vols. See vol. II, pp. 486–7. Hereafter referred to as Akbarnama.Google Scholar

²⁰ Mukhia, Harbans, Historians and Historiography During the Reign of Akbar (Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1976), pp. 72–84.Google Scholar

²¹ The details on this regard can be found in Ali, M. Athar, The Apparatus of Empire, pp. xxxii–xl (Tables 4, 5, and 6).Google Scholar

²² Though there is no direct reference to the exact length of his tenure as subadar, the available information seems to point in this direction. Kamboh, Muhammad Salih, Amal-i-Salih or Shahjahan Namah of Muhammad Salih Kamboh, Ghulam, Yazdani (ed.) (Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1912–1946), 3 vols.Google ScholarHereafter referred to as Amal-i-Salih. See vol. II, pp. 11, 309. See also Khan, Shah Nawaz, The Ma'athir-ul-Umara, Being Biographies of the Muhammadan and Hindu Officers of the Timurid Sovereigns of India from 1500 to about 1780 A.D.Google ScholarBeveridge, H. (tr.). Revised, annotated and completed by Baini Prasad, vol. I, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1911–1941, vol. II, Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1952. Hereafter referred to as Ma'athir-ul-Umara. See vol. II, p. 982.Google Scholar

²³ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 4, 10.

²⁴ Ghazi Beg Tarkhan was the subadar of Multan during the early years of Jahangir's reign. Jahangir, Nuruddin Muhammad, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Rogers, Alexander (tr.), Beveridge, H. (ed.) (Delhi, 1968).Google ScholarHereafter referred to as Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. See vol. I. p. 71. Kakar, Dilawar Khan held the subadari of Lahore around the year 1605.Google Scholar See Husaini, Khwaja Kamgar, Ma'asir-i-Jahangiri, Alavi, Azra (ed.), Bombay, 1978. p. 70.Google Scholar Hereafter referred to as Ma'asir-i-Jahangiri. See also Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I., p. 488, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, vol. I, pp., 49, 77. Khwaja Main was subadar of Lahore in 1655–56, see Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, p. 232.

²⁵ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 308, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, pp. 365–6.

²⁶ For Turani, Qulij Khan, Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 4, 10, 341, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 543.Google Scholar For Said Bahadur, Khan, Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 362, 502,Google ScholarEnglish Factories in India, W., Foster (ed.), London (New Series). See vol., 1646–50, p. 118,Google ScholarMa'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 678. For Khan, Lashkar, Kazim, Muhammad, Alamgirnama, Mawlawis Khadim Husain and Abd-al-Hai, Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1868), see vol. I, p. 485 (hereafter referred to as Alamgirnama);Google ScholarKhan, Saqi Musta'id, Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, Jadunath Sarkar (tr.) (Calcutta, 1947), pp. 47, 65, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, pp. 578, 835.Google Scholar

²⁷ For Azam, Muhammad, Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, pp. 116, 204. For Muhammad Mu'azzam, Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, p. 295, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 293.Google Scholar

²⁸ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 342, 362, 377, 397, 502.

²⁹ Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, p. 173, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 244. See also Ali, M. Athar, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, p. 227.Google Scholar

³⁰ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 4, 10, 431, 397, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 543.

³¹ Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, pp. 65, 239.

³² Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, pp. 215, 266–67, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 1079.

³³ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 304.

³⁴ Ibid., vol. II, pp. 316, 339.

³⁵ Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, vol. II, pp. 87, 191.

³⁶ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 304, vol. III, p. 203.

³⁷ Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 484.

³⁸ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 316, 339, vol. III, p. 124, Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 304.

³⁹ Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. 1, p. 225.

⁴⁰ Sheikh Moosvi Gilani is the only instance we have of a person functioning as both diwan and bakhshi in Panjab. The normal appointment as bakhshi of a suba entailed an additional charge as waqai nawis.

⁴¹ Siddiqi, N. A., Land Revenue Administration Under the Mughals (Bombay, 1970), p. 76 Siddiqi, perhaps, comes nearest to the real situation. He argues that the faujdari was a separate unit under the faujdar and quite distinct from other divisions. The faujdari according to him could compromise a pargana, a number of parganas and at times even a sarkar.Google ScholarDay, U. N., Mughal Government (New Delhi, 1970), p. 80, regards the faujdar as the executive head of the sarkar. On the other hand,Google ScholarSaran, P., The Provincial Government of the Mughals 1526–1658 (Allahabad, 1941), p. 89, makes a division and argues that there were two classes of post to which faujdars had been appointed as far back as the reign of Sher Shah. ‘First as regular heads of districts or sarkars and secondly on special duty, either in cases of emergency or for purposes of military defence to forts and frontier outposts’.Google Scholar

⁴² Fazl, Abul, Ain-i-Akbari, Jarrett, H. S. (tr.), Jadunath, Sarkar (ed.), reprint (New Delhi, 1978), vol. II, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

⁴³ Kangra was also known and referred to by such names as Kohistan-i-Shumali Panjab and Kohistan-i-Kangra. The faujdar of Kangra hence is also mentioned as faujdar-i-Koh Daman or faujdar-i-Daman-i-Koh Kangra. Such references are scattered all over contemporary and later works, for example Ma'asir-i-Jahangiri, vol. II, pp. 6, 209, 378, 425, 458; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, pp. 81, 365, 575, 778; Alamgirnama, vol. I, p. 217.

⁴⁴ Khan, Khanazad, the faujdar appointed in 1640–41 was the son of Said Khan the subadar of Lahore in 1640–43 (with a break in between as subadar of Multan). Khanjar Khan, the faujdar in 1644–45 was a nephew of Qulij Khan, the subadar of Lahore in 1643–46. Mir Khan the faujdar appointed after the 1658 war of succession was the son of Khalilullah Khan, the subadar of Lahore at this time. See Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 343, 425; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 677; Alamgirnama, vol. I, pp. 217, 908, 917.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Both Khanazad Khan and Said Khan, the faujdar and subadar respectively, were removed from their offices in 1642–43. The same seems to have been the case with Khanjar Khan and Qulij Khan in 1645–46. See Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 318, 377, 397, 425, 470.

⁴⁶ Ibid., vol. II, p. 425.

⁴⁷ Ibid., vol. II, p. 343. See also Alamgirnama, vol. I, pp. 217, 908, 917; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 677.

⁴⁸ This is the instance of Iraj Khan who as faujdar in 1649–50 held this dual charge of Kangra and Jammu at a time when the suba of Lahore was held by Dara Shikoh. See Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 685.

⁴⁹ Alamgirnama, vol. I, p. 917. It is possible that Najabat Khan who was the faujdar in 1642–43 held a higher mansab on account of the fact that he had, in 1638–39, already attained the rank of 4000/4000 as subadar of Multan. We do not, however, have any definite information to suggest that he was appointed as the faujdar of Kangra with the same mansab.

⁵⁰ This information is tabulated in my unpublished Ph.D. thesis, ‘Socio-Economic Conditions in Panjab During the 17th Century’, approved by the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Between 1612 and 1671 we have so far learnt of twenty-two faujdars being appointed to Kangra.Google Scholar

⁵¹ From available source material we know of only two cases of faujdars of Jammu with higher mansabs. They were Qawam-ud-din Khan the subadar of Lahore from 1678–79 to 1680–81, who was also given the additional charge of the faujdari of Jammu and Mukarram Khan, subadar Lahore in 1695, who was also faujdar Jammu for some time. See Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, pp. 103, 235. Akhbarat (Sitamau Transcripts), 38th Regnal Year, Aurangzeb, dated 23rd Shawwal. Here again the mansabdars in question were not really faujdars of Jammu alone, but also held other important charges at the suba headquarters.

⁵² For a more elaborate explanation refer Ali, M. Athar, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, pp. 41–2. When the mansabdar was no longer in charge of a post requiring a mashrut mansab, he was to be reverted to the original mansab he had held prior to his appointment to the post.Google Scholar

⁵³ Akhbarat, (Sitamau Transcripts) 38th Regnal Year, Aurangzeb, dated 23rd Shawwal, corresponding to 27 May 1695, p. 467.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 51st Regnal Year, Aurangzeb, Sha'aban, p. 175. Munim Khan being the diwan of Prince Muhammad Mu'azzam held a mashrut rank of 100 sawar on that account. That much of his conditional rank was because of the faujdari of Jammu becomes clear from the statement in this document that in Jan. 1707, ‘500/100 out of his conditional mansab for the faujdari of Jammu were made unconditional’. We see that the entire increase in his zat was derived from his holding the office of faujdar.

⁵⁵ Quite possibly, many of the forts of the other faujdaris had regularly appointed qiladars. The qiladar of Kangra fort is referred to due to the prominence of the fort, and the importance that had been attached to its capture during the reign of Jahangir. Another place where reference is made to the appointment of a qiladar is Attock, which was a kind of frontier post for the Mughals and a strict vigilance was kept on people crossing the river at this place. Dawar Dad is known to have been both faujdar and qiladar of Attock immediately after the 1658 war of succession, and in 1685 when Bakhshi Abul Fatah Khan was the faujdar of Attock, we are told that the qiladari was held by someone else. A Descriptive List of Vakil Reports addressed to the Rulers of Jaipur, vol. I (Persian) (Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner, 1967), p. 15. Serial no. 81.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Aqa, Yusuf, qiladar of Lahore in 1650–51 was a mansabdar of 1000/400, Amanullah Khan qiladar in 1658–59 held 1000/200, and Amanat Khan the qiladar of Lahore sometime between 1675–76 and 1678 held 1000/200 till 1678. On the other hand the qiladars of Kangra held mansabs as follows: Alf Khan Qiyamkhani 1620–21 1500/1000 Safi Khan 1656–57 2000/1000 Raja Mandhata 1670–71 1000/1000 See Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, pp. 138, 248. Alamgirnama, vol. I, pp. 197, 296; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 225 and vol. III, p. 668; Ma'asir-i-Jahangiri, p. 318. Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, vol. II, p. 283.Google ScholarGrewal, J. S., ‘Some Persian Documents From Nurpur’, in Miscellaneous Articles (Amritsar, 1974). pp. 34–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 6, 308, 318; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, pp. 81, 365–6.

⁵⁸ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 316, 339, 428. Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 304.

⁵⁹ Ma'asir-i-Jahangiri, pp. 197, 246. Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 575.

⁶⁰ Though the faujdari was called Lakhi Jangal it appears that the headquarters of the faujdari were located in Dipalpur. For the Mapping of this area refer Habib, Irfan, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire (Delhi, 1982). Plate 4A. Therefore, those mansabdars mentioned as faujdars of Dipalpur were also, probably, faujdars of Lakhi Jangal and vice-versa.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Bhandari, Sujan Rai, Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, Zafar, M. Hasan (ed.) (Delhi, 1918) p. 63. The tribes mentioned are the Dogars, Wattus and Gujars.Google Scholar See also Asrar-i-Samadi, M., Shujauddin (ed.), Research Society of Pakistan (Lahore, 1965) p. 9. Reference here is made to the Bhattis, Kharals and Dogars.Google Scholar

⁶² This rank was attained by him in 1637–38 and in the normal course he was likely to have held the same rank in 1644–45 or even been promoted to a higher one. Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 411. Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 105.

⁶³ Ruka'at-i-Alamgiri, Bilimoria, Jamshid H. (tr.), reprint (Delhi, 1972), p. 75.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 296; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 826.

⁶⁵ See Habib, Irfan, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Plate 4 A.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Some faujdaris mentioned only in passing are those of Mung, Rasulpur and the area between Jandala and Lahore. See Akbarnama, vol. III, p. 921. Mention is made here of the appointment of faujdaris to these areas in order to control the zamindars. We learn about the existence of the faujdaris of Bhera and Khushab, Nurmahal and Sultanpur from other contemporary sources. There must have been numerous other faujdaris in Panjab that came into existence or were abolished during the course of the 17th century.

⁶⁷ Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, p. 220.

⁶⁸ Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 160; Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, p. 203.

⁶⁹ Bhakkari, Farid, Dhakhirat-al-Khawanin, Moinul, Haq Syed (ed.), Pakistan Historical Society, 3 vols, vol. I, 1961, vol. II, 1970, vol. III, 1974. See vol. II, p. 200;Google ScholarMa'athir-ul-Umara, vol. I, p. 315. Sialkot and Gujrat are located on opposite banks of the river Chenab and speaking strictly in terms of sarkar jurisdiction, were parts of different sarkars.

⁷⁰ Alamgirnama, vol. II, p. 216. This appears to be a very large area and included both Sialkot and Eminabad, which are also mentioned in some cases as being separate faujdaris. In this case, however, they seem to have been combined in order to constitute one single faujdari. The jurisdiction of this faujdari apparently coincided with the entire sarkar.

⁷¹ Ibid., vol. III, p. 203. The association of the diwan with a faujdari in this region may also, perhaps, be seen in the light of the fact that this faujdari area's revenue was probably allocated to the maintanance of the Kabul soldiery. This was the case at least in the early years of Bahadur Shah's reign. See Akhbarat, (Sitamau Transcripts), Bahadur Shah, 5th Regnal Year, vol. II, pp. 399, 439–40, 459.

⁷² This has been tabulated in my Ph.D. thesis, ‘Socio-Economic Conditions in Panjab During the 17th Century’. In brief may be mentioned here the mansab holding of some of the faujdaris of Sirhind. Dianat Khan (1631–32) 1000/400, Shaikh Abdul Karim (during the war of succession) 2000/1000, Abdul Nabi Khan 1500/1500, Baqir Khan (1661) 1000/1000, Abdul Aziz (1664–65) 1500/700.Google Scholar

⁷³ There are also some other terms used for the mansabdar in charge of Sirhind. Abdul Karim is mentioned as being the thanedar and mutassaddi of Sirhind and at a later date Abdul Nabi is referred to as the nazim. Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, p. 525; Alamgirnama, vol. I, p. 443. We also have the instance of Yusuf Chelah being appointed to the faujdari and amini first of Eminabad and later of Sialkot. See Amal-i-Salih, vol. III, p. 220. This may have been the designation of some other faujdars as well, but it is only with regard to Sirhind that it is most frequently and explicitly mentioned in our sources.

⁷⁴ See Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, pp. 330, 342, 378, 459; vol. III, p. 7; Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, p. 525; Ma'athir-ul-Umara, vol. II, p. 958.

⁷⁵ Amal-i-Salih, vol. II, p. 345.

⁷⁶ In 1642–43 when Todar Mal was in charge of the faujdari of both Sirhind and Lakhi Jangal, his mansab stood at 1000/1000 (2–3h) and in 1646–47 was further increased by 300 sawar (2–3h). In 1647–48 his mansab stood at 2000/2000. Though this larger sawar rank may have enabled him to meet to some extent his requirement of military support, he could not possibly have covered effectively the entire area on his own.

⁷⁷ The difference in the nature of control can be compared with instances of faujdars who had effective military control over their territories. The military significance of Lakhi Jangal has already been pointed out, as also the importance of some of its faujdars. Some of them while holding Lakhi Jangal as a single charge had fairly large mansabs. Asad Khan (1628–29 to 1630–31) had 2500/2500, Sazawar Khan (1632–33 to 1634–35) had 2500/2000, Dindar Khan (1664–65) had 2500/2000, Prince Muhammad Mu'izz-ud-din had 10,000 zat. On the other hand Todar Mal who was given charge of a larger area, had in 1647–48 a mansab of only 2000/2000. Tabulated in my Ph.D. thesis, ‘Socio-Economic Conditions in Panjab During the 17th Century’.Google Scholar