The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c3: Chapter I
The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c3
- Language
- English
Chapter I
c3.1
Few soldiers were entertained directly by the emperor himself; and for the most part the men entered first the service of some chief or leader. These chiefs were ranked according to the number of men that they had raised or were expected to raise. In this way originated the system of *manṣab*, first introduced by Akbar (*Āīn*, i, 237). This mode of recruiting the army through the officers, renders it necessary to begin by a statement of the manner in which the officers themselves were appointed and graded.
c3.2
*Manṣab* was not a term confined solely to the military service; every man in State employ above the position of a common soldier or messenger, whatever the nature of his duties, civil or military, obtained a *manṣab*. In fact, there were for all grades, except the very lowest, only two modes of obtaining support from State funds: a man must either enter its active service, as the holder of a *manṣab*, or he must petition for a *madad-i-muʿāsh* (literally, “help to live”), on the ground of being a student of the holy books, an attendant on a mosque (*mutawallī* or *khādim*), a man of learning and religious life (*darvesh*), a local judge (*qāẓī*), or an expounder of the Mahomedan law (*muftī*).
c3.3
The word *manṣab* is literally (*Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, p. 233) “the place where anything is put or erected” (*naṣb kardan*, to place, fix, appoint); and then, as a secondary meaning, the state or condition of holding a place, dignity, or office. It seems to have been in use in Central Asia before the Moghuls descended into Hindūstān; and Ross translates it by the vaguer term “privileges”. — *Tārīkh-i-Rashīdī*, 103. This word *manṣab* I represent by the word rank, as its object was to settle precedence and fix gradation of pay; it did not necessarily imply the exercise of any particular office, and meant nothing beyond the fact that the holder was in the employment of the State, and bound in return to yield certain services when called upon.
c3.4
The highest *manṣab* that could be held by a subject, not of the royal house, was that of commander of 7000 men, though in the later and more degenerate times we find a few instances of promotion to 8000 or even 9000. The *manṣab* of a prince ranged from 7000 up to 50,000, and even higher (*Mirāt-ul-Iṣṭilāḥ*, fol. 35). In the *Āīn-i-Akbarī* (Blochmann, 248, 249) sixty-six grades are stated, beginning at commanders of 10,000, and ending at those set over ten men. Even at that earlier period there seem to have been only thirty-three of these grades in actual existence (Blochmann, 238). All the later authorities agree in holding that the lowest officer’s *manṣab* was that of twenty men; and these writers record, I find, no more than twenty-seven grades, beginning with that of 7000 and ending with that of twenty. In the earlier days of the dynasty, rank was granted with a niggard hand. In Akbar’s time the highest rank was for long that of 5000, and it was only towards the end of his reign that a few men were promoted to 7000, while many officers exercised important commands although holding a comparatively low *manṣab*. The great accession of territory in the Dakhin and the incessant wars connected with these acquisitions may account in part for the increase in the number and amount of *manṣabs* granted by Shāhjahān and ʿĀlamgīr. But the relative value of rank was thereby much depreciated; and the author of the *Maʾāsir-ul-Umarā* (i, 8), while considering Akbar’s officers of 500 rank of sufficient importance to deserve separate biographies, contents himself in the later reigns with going no lower than those of 7000 or 5000, men below those ranks being too numerous and too insignificant to call for detailed mention.
c3.5
The steps of promotion altered as the officer rose in grade. The usual gradation was as follows (*Mirāt*, B.M. 1813, fol. 35; *Dastūr-ul-ʿAml*, B.M. 1641, fol. 44b): —
c3.6
| From | 20 to | 100 each rise was by | 20 |
| ,, | 100 to | 400 | ,, | ,, | 50 |
| ,, | 400 to | 1000 | ,, | ,, | 100 |
| ,, | 1000 to | 4000 | ,, | ,, | 500 |
| ,, | 4000 to | 7000 | ,, | ,, | 1000 |
c3.7
There is a slight discrepancy between this table and the facts as we find them in practice. It ought to be amended thus: —
c3.8
| From | 20 to | 60 a man rose by | 10 | each time | | |
| ,, | 60 to | 100 | ,, | ,, | ,, | 20 | ,, |
c3.9
Otherwise we should exclude the rank of 50, which was common enough. Again, we find in many tables no ranks of 250 or 350, although both of these are required to accord with the above scheme of promotion.
c3.10
We also find mention in the historians of ranks which do not appear in the above scheme of grades. For instance, in Dānishmand Khān’s *Bahādur Shāhnāmah* (fol. 41b, 56a) we find men appointed to 1200 and 2900, grades which do not fit in with the scheme given above, nor do these grades appear in the pay-table, copied from the official manuals, which we give a little further on.
c3.11
As an additional distinction, it was the custom to tack on to a *manṣab* a number of extra horsemen. To distinguish between the two kinds of rank, the original *manṣab*, which governed the personal allowances, was known as the *zāt* rank (*zāt* = body, person, self), and the additional men were designated by the word *suwār* (= horseman). Thus a man would be styled “2500 *zāt*, 1000 *suwār*.” It is said (*Mirāt*, fol. 35) that men below 500 never had *suwār* added to their rank; but this is not borne out by what we find in actual practice. For instance, Mirzā Muḥammad (*Tazkirah*, I.O.L. N°. 50, fol. 96a) was in Rabīʿ II, 1119 H., made 400, 50 horse, and his younger brother 300, 30 horse. There are also instances in Dānishmand Khān of 150, 50 horse; 300, 10 horse; 300, 20 horse; 300, 80 horse; 400, 40 horse; and so on. In fact, unless this had been the case, it would be impossible to divide the ranks below 500 into first, second, and third grade, as was actually done. This division into grades we now proceed to describe.
c3.12
On the distribution of rank into *zāt* and *suwār* was founded a classification into first, second, and third class *manṣabs*, by which the scale of *zāt* pay was reduced proportionately. From this classification were exempted officers above 5000 *zāt*; these were all of one class. From 5000 downwards, an officer was First Class, if his rank in *zāt* and *suwār* were equal; Second Class, if his *suwār* was half his *zāt* rank; Third Class, if the *suwār* were less than half the *zāt*, or there were no *suwār* at all (*Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, 222). I think that here Blochmann (*Āīn*, i, 238, lines 5 and foll.) obscures the subject by using “contingent” as the equivalent of *suwār*, instead of leaving the untranslated original word to express a technical meaning.
c3.13
Pay was reckoned in a money of account called a *dām*, of which forty went to the rupee. There were also coins called *dām*; but the *dāms* of account, bearing a fixed ratio to the rupee, must be distinguished as a different thing from the coin, though called by the same name. Here Dr. Horn, 16, is of opinion that the reckoning was made in such a small unit as the 1/40 of a rupee, less to make a grand show with big figures than because the value of the rupee varied. On this head I am of exactly the opposite opinion, for I think that the principal, if not the only object, was to swell the totals and make the pay sound bigger than it really was. That spirit runs through everything done in the East, at any rate in the Indian portion of it, as could easily be shown were it worth while to labour the point further. As for the second reason, I have considered it as well as I am able, not being a currency expert; and it seems to me that with a fixed ratio between the two coins, it was a matter of indifference to the receiver of pay whether the amount was stated in the one or in the other unit of value. The two units being tied together by the fixed ratio, and the disbursements being in fact made (as we know) in rupees, the payee suffered, or did not suffer, equally by either mode of calculation.
c3.14
In the following table, which shows all the manṣabs with their pay according to class, I have reduced the dām to rupees, as being simpler and more readily intelligible. In the present day, this reckoning by dāms has quite disappeared. When reading this table of pay, which shows the sanctioned allowances for a year of twelve months, it must be remembered that few of the officers received the whole twelve-months' pay, the number of month's pay sanctioned per annum ranging from four to twelve. Officers were also supposed te keep up an establishment of elephants and draught cattle. Apparently they were also liable to pay a fixed quota of their own allowances towards the expenses of the Emperor's elephants and cattle, an item known as khūrāk-i-dawābb, feed of four-footed animals. There were other petty deductions.
c3.15
TABLE OF *MANṢAB-I-ZĀT* WITH YEARLY PAY IN RUPEES. —
c3.16
| | RANK | YEARLY PAY IN RUPEES. | | |
| | (*Manṣab-i-zāt*). | First Class. | Second Class. | Third Class. |
| 1 | 7000 | 350,000 | — | — |
| 2 | 6000 | 300,000 | — | — |
| 3 | 5000 | 250,000 | 242,500 | 235,000 |
| 4 | 4500 | 225,000 | 217,500 | 210,000 |
| 5 | 4000 | 200,000 | 192,500 | 185,000 |
| 6 | 3500 | 175,000 | 167,500 | 160,000 |
| 7 | 3000 | 150,000 | 142,500 | 135,000 |
| 8 | 2500 | 125,000 | 117,500 | 110,000 |
| 9 | 2000 | 100,000 | 92,500 | 85,000 |
| 10 | 1500 | 75,000 | 67,500 | 60,000 |
| 11 | 1000 | 50,000 | 47,500 | 45,000 |
| 12 | 900 | 37,500 | 36,250 | 35,000 |
| 13 | 800 | 31,250 | 30,000 | 28,750 |
| 14 | 700 | 27,500 | 26,250 | 25,000 |
| 15 | 600 | 23,750 | 22,500 | 21,250 |
| 16 | 500 | 20,000 | 18,750 | 17,500 |
| 17 | 400 | 12,500 | 12,000 | 11,500 |
| 18 | 300 | 10,000 | 9500 | 9000 |
| 19 | 200 | 7500 | 7000 | 6500 |
| 20 | 150 | 6250 | 5750 | 5250 |
| 21 | 100 | 5000 | 4500 | 4000 |
| 22 | 80 | 3500 | 3250 | 3000 |
| 23 | 60 | 2500 | 2375 | 2150 |
| 24 | 50 | 2125 | 2000 | 1875 |
| 25 | 40 | 1750 | 1625 | 1500 |
| 26 | 30 | 1375 | 1250 | 1125 |
| 27 | 20 | 1000 | 875 | 750 |
c3.17
(*Dastūr-ul-ʿAml*, B.M. N°. 1641, fol. 44b, id. BM. N°. 1690, fol. 173b, *Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, p. 234.) The rates of pay in Akbar’s reign, as given in the last column of Blochmann’s table (*Āīn*, i, 248), were much higher than the above, which refers to ʿĀlamgīr’s time and later. It will be noticed that the difference of pay between first, second, and third class is as follows: —
c3.18
From 20 to 60 5,000 *Dām*, or Rs. 125 yearly. For 80 10,000 ,, ,, 250 ,, From 100 to 400 20,000 ,, ,, 500 ,, For 1000 100,000 ,, ,, 2500 ,, From 1500 to 5000 300,000 ,, ,, 7500 ,, (B.M. 6599, fol. 144b).
c3.19
In addition to the simple division by *manṣab* alone, there was also a grouping of officers into three classes. From 20 to 400 they were merely “officers with rank” (*manṣabdār*); from 500 to 2500 they were Nobles—Blochmann, i, 535 (*Amīr*, pl. *Umarā*, origin of our form “Omrah”); from 3000 to 7000 they were Great Nobles (*Amīr-i-Aʿẓam*, pl. *ʿUzzām*, *Umarā-i-kibār* (Blochmann, i, 529, note), or Pillars (*ʿUmdah*). All *manṣabdārs* were kept on one or other of two lists: (1) *Ḥāẓir-i-rikāb*, present at Court; (2) *Taʿīnāt*, on duty elsewhere.
c3.20
*Suwār Rank.* — The grant of *suwār* in addition to *zāt* rank was an honour. Dr. Paul Horn, 15, supposes, however, that these horsemen were paid out of the *zāt* allowances. In that case a man who had no *suwār* would be better paid than another who was honoured with the addition of *suwār* to his *zāt* rank. Naturally Dr. Horn, 16, holds that this “eigentlich nicht recht glaublich ist.” He is quite right in his conjecture. The explanation is, that the table of pay in Blochmann, i, 248, and that given above, are exclusively for the *zāt* rank, from which money the officer had to maintain his transport, his household, and some horsemen. For the *suwār* rank there was a separate table, pay for these horsemen being disbursed under the name of the *Tābīnān*. As Orme says (“Hist. Frag.,” 418), the officer raising the troops was responsible for the behaviour of his men; he therefore brought men of his own family or such as he could depend on. Another rule was, according to the *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, ii, 118, that the *Tābīnān*, if horsemen, must be one third Mughals, one third Afghāns, and one third Rājputs; if infantry, two thirds archers, and one-third matchlockmen.
c3.21
*Tābīnān.* — Blochmann, i, 232, note 1, who, apparently, translates this word as well as *suwār* by “contingent,” derives it from the Arabic *tābin*, one who follows.¹ books (B.M. 1641, fol. 46b, B.M. 6599, 144b and 148b) give a long table setting forth their pay in dāms, beginning with that for five horsemen and ending with that for 40,000, but as the basis for calculation remains the same throughout, it is sufficient here to work out the pay for one horseman. For five horsemen, then 40,000 dāms a year were allowed. That would be 8000 dāms for one man; and this sum in dāms yields Rs. 200 a year (at the fixed rate of 40 dāms to the rupee), or Rs. 16 10a. 8p. per man per mensem. Bernier, 217, states the rate as somewhat higher — “he that keeps one horse shall not receive less than 25 rupees a month.” For this sum, of course, the man provided his own horse and armour, and paid for his own and his horse’s keep. One Dastūr-ul-ʿAml, B.M. 6599, fol. 144b, tells us that the number of horses to men among the troopers (tābīnān-i-barādari) was according to the rule of dah-bist (lit. “ten-twenty”), meaning apparently that the total number of horses was double that of the number of men. The scale was as follows: --
c3.22
¹ Steingass, 272, تابعين, A, following in the steps of another; but Pavet de Courteille, Dict. Turc. Oriental, 194, claims it as a Chaghataē word, with the meanings of “a troop of 50 men, the body-guard, the pages.”
c3.23
| 3 | three-horsed | men = 9 horses |
| 4 | two-horsed | men = 8 horses |
| 3 | one-horsed | men = 3 horses |
| 10 | men | 20 horses |
c3.24
That is, with 1000 men there would be 2000 horses. The pay of the men with the extra horses was higher, but not in proportion. Thus, a one-horsed man received 8000 D. or Rs. 200 a year (Rs. 16 10a. 8p. per mensem), while the two- or three-horsed man got 11,000 D. or Rs. 275 a year (Rs. 22 14a. 8p. per mensem). In some places we find other rates of pay recorded. For instance, Bahādur Shāh enlisted Aḥadīs, men a little superior to common soldiers, at Rs. 40 a month (Dānishmand Khān, second Ṣafar of the second year, i. e. 1120 H. = 22nd April 1708). A century later, as Fitzclarence tells us, “Journal,” 73, 142, the rate was Rs. 40 a month in the Dakhin, and R. 22 in Hindūstān. Service in the cavalry was socially an honourable profession; thus a common trooper was looked on as being, to some extent, a gentleman, and such men, even when illiterate, often rose to the highest positions.
c3.25
The pay of the *Tābīnān* was drawn by the *manṣabdār*, who was entitled to retain 5 per cent. of their pay for himself (*Āīn*, i, 265). Pay was not always allowed for a whole year; often only for six, five, or four months. This fact renders it impossible to calculate the actual expenditure, for, although we generally can find out whether a *manṣabdār* was first, second, or third class, we rarely know for what number of months in the year his pay was sanctioned.
c3.26
*Chelās*. — As a counterpoise to the mercenaries in their employ, over whom they had a very loose hold, commanders were in the habit of getting together, as the kernel of their force, a body of personal dependents or slaves, who had no one to look to except their master. Such troops were known by the Hindī name of *chelā* (a slave). They were fed, clothed, and lodged by their employer, had mostly been brought up and trained by him, and had no other home than his camp. They were recruited chiefly from children taken in war or bought from their parents during times of famine. The great majority were of Hindu origin, but all were made Mahomedans when received into the body of *chelās*. These *chelās* were the only troops on which a man could place entire reliance as being ready to follow his fortunes in both foul and fair weather. Muḥammad Khān Bangash’s system of *chelās* is described by me in J.A.S. Bengal, part i, 1878, p. 340.