The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c4.s2: Rough Estimate

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c4.s2

Language: English

Rough Estimate

c4.s2.1

Khwājah Raḥmatullah, son of Khwājah Aḥmad, of Balkh. Whereas he was on duty in Province So-and-so, and according to order has reached the Blessed Stirrup (i. e. the Court) —

c4.s2.2

One thousand, Personal (zāt) 200 men, Horse (suwār) Pay in dāms 34 lakhs

c4.s2.3

c4.s2.5

Feed of Four-footed animals (Khurāk-i-dawābb) remitted.

c4.s2.6

It will be seen, on referring to a previous page, that as the man was 1000 zāt, but had only 200 suwār rank, he was a third class Hazārī. By the table this gives him 18 lakhs, and then 200 horsemen at 8000 dāms each comes to 16 lakhs, making the 34 lakhs which are sanctioned in the above.

c4.s2.8

The daul, or estimate, was made over to the diary-writer (wāqiʿah navīs), who, after he had entered it in the wāqiʿah (diary), prepared an extract called a memorandum (yād-dāsht) for submission to the office of the confirmation of orders (ʿarz-i-mukarrar, lit. second petition). The yād-dāsht repeated the facts much in the same form as the ḥaqīqat and the daul. On it the wazīr wrote: "Let this be compared with the diary (wāqiʿah) and then sent on to the confirmation office (ʿarz-i-mukarrar)." On the margin the diary-writer (wāqiʿah navīs) then reported: "This yād-dāsht accords with the wāqiʿah." Next the superintendent (dāroghah) of the confirmation office wrote: "On such-and-such a date of such-and-such a month of such-and-such a year this reached the confirmation office. The order given was — 'Approved.'" We need not follow here the further fate of the order after it left the Court and reached the governor of the province referred to.

c4.s2.9

Loans, Advances, and Gifts. — The technical name for a loan or advance of pay was musāʿadat (Steingass, 1225, A, helping, favour, assistance, aid), and the conditions as to interest and repayment are given in Book ii, Āīn 15, of the Āīn-i-Akbarī (Blochmann, i, 265). Historians frequently mention the advance of money under this name. In later times, especially from the reign of Muḥammad Shāh, no commander ever took the field without the grant of the most liberal cash advances to meet his expenses. Possibly these were never repaid, or were from the first intended as free gifts. When we meet with the phrase tankhwāh-i-ināʿm, I presume that there can be no doubt of the payment being a gift. Here the word tankhwāh seems to denote the order or cheque on the treasury, and the word ināʿm (gift, present), differentiates it from other tankhwāh, which were in the nature of payments to be repeated periodically. The recovery of loans and advances came under a head in the accounts called muṭālibah (Steingass, 1259, asking, claim, due). Another term of somewhat similar import, *bāz-yāft* (Steingass, 146, the resumption of anything, a deduction, stoppage), seems to have been confined to the recovery of items put under objection in the revenue accounts by the *mustaufīs*, or auditors. At one time the recovery of an advance was made from a man's pay in four instalments; but towards the end of ‘Ālamgīr’s reign, it was taken in eight instalments (B.M. N°. 1641, fol. 58*b*).

c4.s2.10

*Deductions.* — Of these I have found the following: *kasūr-i-do-dāmī* (fraction of the two dāms), *kharch-i-sikkah* (expenses of minting), *ayyām-i-hilālī* (days of the moon’s rise), *ḥiṣṣah-i-ijnās* (share in kind), *khūrāk-i-dawābb* (feed of four-footed animals).

c4.s2.11

*Kasūr-i-do-dāmī.* — *Kasūr* is, literally, fractions, deficiencies, faults. This item was a discount of five per cent., that is, of two dāms in every forty, and therefore styled “do-dāmī” (B.M. 1641, fol. 37*a*). The origin of this is to be found possibly in Akbar’s five per cent. deductions from the Aḥadī troopers on account of horses and other expenses (*Āīn*, i, 250, line 14). The rate of deduction is differently stated in fol. 58*b*, B.M. 1641, as four dāms in the 100, if the officer drew seven or eight months’ pay, and two dāms in the 100, if he drew less than that number of months.

c4.s2.12

*Kharch-i-sikkah* was also deducted: in ‘Ālamgīr’s reign the rates were Rs. 1 12a. 0p. per cent. on Shāhjahān’s coinage, and Rs. 1 8a. 0p. per cent. on the coin of the reigning emperor. Under the rules then in force, the Shāhjahānī coins, not being those of the reigning emperor, were uncurrent, and therefore subject to a discount. Why a deduction was made on the coins of the reigning emperor, is harder to explain. It was not till Farrukhsīyar’s reign, I believe, that the coinage was called in annually, from which time only coins of the current year were accepted, even by the government itself, at full face-value.

c4.s2.13

*Ayyām-i-hilālī.* — This was a deduction of one day’s pay in every month except Ramaẓān. *Manṣabdārs*, *Aḥadīs*, and *barqandāz* (matchlockmen) were all subject to it. But, towards the end of *ʿĀlamgīr*’s reign, it was remitted until the Narbada was crossed, that is, I presume, so long as a man served in the Dakhin (B.M. 1641, fol. 55*b*, 62*b*). The reason for making this deduction is difficult to fathom; and about the name itself there is some doubt. In the first of the two entries just quoted, I read the word as *talāfī* (Steingass, 321, obtaining, making amends, compensation, reparation); but this variant, instead of throwing light on the subject, leaves it as obscure as before.

c4.s2.14

*Ḥiṣṣah-i-ijnās*. — *Jins* (goods) is used in opposition to *naqd* (cash), and this item (*ḥiṣṣah* = share, *ijnās* = goods) seems to mean the part of a man’s pay delivered to him in kind. Apparently this item did not apply to the cavalry. In the case of the matchlockmen, artillerymen, and artificers, the deduction was 1/4 if the man were mounted, and 1/2 if he were not. This represented the value of the rations supplied to him. There is another entry of *rasad-i-jins* (supplies of food?), the exact nature of which I cannot determine (B.M. 1641, fol. 62*b*).

c4.s2.15

*Khūrāk-i-dawābb*. — This is, literally, *khūrāk*, feed, *dawābb*, four-footed animals. It was a deduction from a *manṣabdār*’s pay on account of a certain number of horses and elephants belonging to the emperor, with whose maintenance such officer was saddled. The germ of this exaction can, I think, be found in Akbar’s system of making over elephants to the charge of grandees (*Āīn*, i, 126). “He (Akbar) therefore put several *halkahs* (groups of baggage elephants) in charge of every grandee, and required them to look after them.” Akbar would seem to have paid the expenses; but in process of time, we can suppose, the charge was transferred to the officer’s shoulders entirely, and in the end he had to submit to the deduction without even the use of the animals being given to him. At any rate, the burden became a subject of great complaint. This is shown by a passage in Khāfī Khān, ii, 602.

c4.s2.16

"In the reign of ʿĀlamgīr the *manṣabdārs* for a long period were reduced to wanting their evening meal, owing to the lowness of the assignments (*pāebāqī*) granted by the emperor. His stinginess reminds one of the proverb 'one pomegranate for a hundred sick men,' *yak anār, sau bīmār*. After many efforts and exertions, some small assignment (*jāgīr*) on the land revenue would be obtained. The lands were probably uncultivated, and the total income of the *jāgīr* might not amount to a half or even a third of the money required for the expenses of the animals. If these were realized from the officer, whence could come the money to preserve his children and family from death by starvation? In spite of this, the Akhtah Begī (Master of the Horse) and other accursed clerks caused the cost of feeding the emperor's animals to be imposed on the *manṣabdārs*, and, imprisoning their agents at court, used force and oppression of all kinds to obtain the money.

c4.s2.17

"When the agents (*wakīls*) complained of this oppression to the emperor, the head of the elephant stables and the Akhtah Begī so impressed matters on the emperor's mind, that the complaints were not listened to, and all the men were reduced to such an extremity by this oppression, that the agents resigned their agency. In Bahādur Shāh's reign, the *Khān-i-Khānān* decided that when the *manṣabdārs* received a *jāgīr* for their support, the number of *dāms* required for the cost of feeding cattle should be deducted first from the total estimated income, and the balance should be assigned as the income. In this way, the obligation for meeting the cost of feeding the animals was entirely removed from the heads of the *manṣabdārs* and their agents. Indeed, to speak the truth, it was an order to absolve them from the cost of the cattle provender." Dowson (Elliot, vii, 403) could make nothing of this passage.

c4.s2.18

In the case of officers below a certain rank, the deduction of *khūrāk-i-dawābb* was not made. The rule says that where the pay (*tankhwāh*) did not come up to 15 lakhs of *dāms*, the deduction was not made; but apparently no lower rank than that of 400 *zāt*, 200 *suwār*, was liable. This rank would by the tables draw a pay of 20 lakhs of *dāms*. As to the rate of deduction, the records are so obscure that I am unable to come to any conclusions. Sometimes we are told that the calculation was made at so many *dāms* on each 100,000 *dāms* of pay; at others, that for each 100,000 *dāms* one riding and five baggage elephants were charged for. A distinction in rates was made between Mahomedans and Hindus, the former paying more; also between officers holding *jāgīrs* in Hindūstān and those holding them in the Dakhin and Aḥmadābād, the former paying slightly less than the latter.

c4.s2.19

*Fines.* — We come now to the subject of fines, which were of various sorts, such as *tafāwat-i-asp* (deficiency in horses), *tafāwat-i-silāḥ* (deficiency in equipment), *tafāwat-i-tābīnān* (deficiency in troopers), also called, it would seem, *kamī-i-barādari*, *tawaqquf* o *‘adam-i-taṣḥīḥah* (non-verification), *saqatī* (casualties), *bartarafī* (rejections).

c4.s2.20

*Tafāwat-i-asp.* — This is literally “difference of horses,” and refers to a classification of horses by their breed and size, which will be referred to more fully under the head of Branding and Verification. In each rank or *manṣab* a certain number of each class of horse had to be maintained, and if at Verification it was found that this regulation had not been complied with, the result was a fine. In the section on Branding I give the rates so far as recorded.

c4.s2.21

*Tafāwat-i-silāḥ.* — This “difference in armour” was a fine for not producing at inspection arms and armour according to the required scale. The amount of fine and so forth I have stated further on under the head of Equipment.

c4.s2.22

*Tafāwat-i-tābīnān* (difference of followers) or *kamī-i-barādarī* (deficiency in relations) was a fine imposed on an officer for non-production of the number of men stipulated for by the *suwār* rank. The following rates are stated in BM. 1641, fol. 37*a*, and I presume that the deductions apply to *manṣabdārs* as well as to *Aḥadīs*, and that they were made from the monthly pay for each man deficient, although the entry is so brief as to remain very obscure: —

c4.s2.23

| | NUNBER OF MONTHS FOR WHICH PAY WAS DRAWN. |
| | FOUR MONTHS. | FIVE MONTHS. | SIX MONTHS. | SEVEN MONTHS. | EIGHT MONTHS. |
| Amount of fine in Rupees. | R. A. P. 2 8 0 | R. A. P. 3 0 0 | R. A. P. 4 0 0 | R. A. P. 7 0 0 | R. A. P. 8 0 0 |

c4.s2.24

In another passage, fol. 41, the same authority explains the matter thus. In the twenty-first year of *‘Ālamgīr*, a report on this subject having been made, the emperor allowed a term of four turns of guard (*chaukī*) for a *manṣabdār* to produce men of his own class or family (*barādarī*), and for this period pay for the men was passed as if they had been present. But subsequently, on the first Rabī‘ of the twenty-third year, the delay was extended to two months, and for the time during which such men were not actually present, pay at half-rates was sanctioned.

c4.s2.25

*Aḥshām*. — In the case of the *Aḥshām*, or troops belonging to the infantry and artillery, we have a little more definite information under this head (B.M. 1641, fol. 64*a*). Officers of this class fell into three subdivisions, *hazārī* (of a thousand), *ṣadīwāl* (hundred-man), and *mirdahah* (lord of ten). The first class was always mounted (*suwār*) and the second sometimes; these mounted officers might be two-horse (*dūaspah*) or only one-horse *yakaspah*) men. Working on these distinctions, we get the following scheme of pay. *Dūaspah Suwār*: Where, inclusive of the officer’s own retainers (*khāṣah*), there were one hundred men present per 100 of rank, pay was drawn at *dūaspah* rates. But if the number were under fifty per 100 of rank, pay was passed to the *hazārī* as if he were a mounted *ṣadīwāl*; subject to restoration to *dūaspah* pay when his muster again conformed to the standard. *Yakaspah*: If, including *khāṣah* men, there were fifty men present per 100 of rank, full pay was given; if only thirty-one or under, then the *hazārī* was paid as a *ṣadīwāl piyādah* (unmounted), and certain other deductions were made. *Piyādah* (unmounted officer). — If a *ṣadīwāl* produced under thirty-one men out of his hundred, he received nothing but his rations. When the numbers rose above thirty, he was paid as a *mirdahah* till his full quota was mustered. In the case of a *mirdahah*, the production of two men entitled him to his pay. If one man only was paraded for inspection, a deduction from the pay was made, varying, on conditions which I have not mastered, from one to three annas per man.

c4.s2.26

*Tawaqquf-i-taṣḥīḥah* (Delay in Verification). — The rules for Branding and Verification will be found further on. If the periods fixed were allowed to elapse without the verification having been made, a man was reported for delay; and then a *manṣabdār* was cut the whole, and an *aḥadī* the half, of his pay (B.M. 1641, fol. 58*b*).

c4.s2.27

*Saqatī* and *Bartarafī*. — The first word is from *saqat shudan* ‘to die’ (applied to animals, Steingass, 687), and may be translated casualties. The other word means setting aside or rejecting, in other words to cast a horse as unfit. We find the groundwork of the *saqatī* system in the *Āīn-i-Akbarī*. Blochmann, i, 250. In later times there were the following rules for regulating pay in such cases. First it was seen whether the man was *dūaspah* (paid for two horses) or *yakaspah* (paid for one horse). In the first case, (1) if one horse died (*saqat shavvad*) or was cast (*bar taraf shud*), the man was paid at the *yakaspah* rate; (2) if both horses died or were turned out, the man obtained his personal pay for one month, and if after one month he had still no horse, his personal pay was also stopped. In the second case, that of a *yakaspah*, if there were no horse, personal pay was disbursed for one month; but after one month nothing was given (B.M. 1641, fol. 41*a*).

c4.s2.28

If an *aḥadī's* horse died while he was at headquarters, the clerk of the casualties, after having inspected the hide, wrote out his certificate (*saqat-nāmah*), and pay was disbursed according to it. If the man were on detached duty when his horse died, the brand (*dāgh*), and the tail were sent in to headquarters (B.M. 1641, fol. 29*b*).

c4.s2.29

*Other incidents of military service considered as affecting pay.* — Among these may be mentioned: (1) *Ghair-ḥāẓirī* (absence without leave); (2) *Bīmārī* (illness); (3) *Rukhṣat* (leave and furlough); (4) *Farārī* (desertion); (5) *Bartarafī* (discharge or resignation); (6) Pension; (7) *Fautī* (death).

c4.s2.30

(1) *Ghair-ḥāẓirī.* — If a man were absent from three consecutive turns of guard (*chaukī*), his pay was cut; but if he did not attend the fourth time, the penalty was dismissal, and all pay due was confiscated. Absence from night guard or at roll-call (*jaīzah*) involved the loss of a day's pay. If absent at the time of the emperor's public or private audience, or on a day of festival (*‘īd*), half a day's pay was taken (B.M. 1641, fol. 39*a*, 62*b*).

c4.s2.31

(2) *Bīmārī.* — Absence on the ground of illness was overlooked for three turns of guard (*chaukī*), but after that period all pay was stopped, and a medical certificate (*bīmārī-nāmah*) from a physician was demanded (B.M. 1641, fol. 39*a*, 58*a*). The rule is somewhat differently stated in B.M. 6599, fol. 163*b*.

c4.s2.32

(3) *Rukhṣat.* — Men who went on leave for their own business received no pay while doing no duty (B.M. 1641, fol. 41*b*). In another place in the same work, fol. 64*b*, we find a different statement. We are there told that for one month a man received half-pay; if he overstayed his leave it was reduced to one-fifth or one-tenth; and after three month's absence he was classed as an absconder. Leave on account of family rejoicings or mournings was allowed for one turn of duty; if the man were absent longer his pay was cut (B.M. 1641, fol. 39*a*). Again, on fol. 57*b*, a rule is stated, which I am not able to understand the bearing. It seems to be that not more than two months of arrears were to be paid to a man who took leave; but whether that means the arrears due to him when he left, or the pay accruing during his absence, I cannot say.

c4.s2.33

(4) *Farārī*. — If, among the *Aḥshām*, an absconder who had been some time in the service, left after drawing his pay in full, the amount was shown on the margin (*hasho*) of the pay-bill (*qabẓ*) as recoverable, and one month’s pay was realized from the man’s surety. If a recruit absconded after drawing money on account, the whole advance was recovered, but a present of one month’s pay was allowed. If a matchlockman deserted the service of one leader to enter that of another, he was cut half a month’s pay (*nīm-māhah*). But, if it were found that the *mirdahah* or *ṣadīwāl*, to whom he had gone, had induced him to desert, such officer had to pay the fine himself (B.M. 1641, fol. 64*b*). Pay of absconders was reckoned up to the date of the last verification, and three month’s time was allowed (*idem*, fol. 57*b*). By the last phrase I understand that they were allowed that time to reappear, if they chose. If they were again entertained, their rations only were passed, that is, I presume, for the interval of absence (*idem*, fol. 64*b*).

c4.s2.34

(5) *Bartarafī*. — If the discharged *manṣabdār* produced a clear verification roll, he received half of the pay of his *zāt* rank, and the full pay of his horsemen (*tābinān*). Matchlockmen received their pay in full up to the date of discharge (B.M. 1641, fols. 57*b*, 62*a*).

c4.s2.35

(6) *Pension*. — So far as I have ascertained, there was no pension list, under that express name. No retiring allowances could be claimed as of right. When a man retired from active service, we hear sometimes of his being granted a daily or yearly allowance. Such was the case, for instance, when Niẓām-ul-Mulk in Bahādur Shāh’s reign threw up the whole of his offices and titles, and retired into private life. But the ordinary method of providing for an old servant was to leave him till his death in undisturbed possession of his rank and jāgīr.

c4.s2.36

(7) Fautī. — It seems that in the case of deaths a different rule prevailed, according to whether the death was a natural one or the man lost his life on active service. In the one case half-pay and in the other full-pay was disbursed to the heirs on the production of a certificate of heirship (wāris-nāmah) attested by the qāẓī.