The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c7: Chapter V. Branding and Verification

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c7

Language: English

c7.s1 Troopers' Roll (Chihrah-i-Tābīnān) — 10 parts
c7.s2 Classification of Horses — 9 parts
c7.s3 Subordinate Establishment — 5 parts
c7.s4 Verification (Taṣḥīḥaḥ) — 5 parts

Chapter V. Branding and Verification

c7.2

False musters were an evil from which the Moghul army suffered even in its most palmy days. Nobles would lend each other the men to make up their quota, or needy idlers from the bazaars would be mounted on the first baggage pony that came to hand and counted in with the others as efficient soldiers. Great efforts were made to cope with this evil, and in the earlier times with some success. In the later reigns, notably from the middle of Muḥammad Shāh’s reign (1719—1748), all such precautions fell into abeyance, amid the general confusion and ever-deepening corruption. By 1174 H. (1761) the system had so entirely disappeared from the ṣūbah of Aḥmadābād, that clerks acquainted with the rules could not be found there (*Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, ii, 118).

c7.3

Mustapha, the translator of the *Siyar-ul-mutākharīn*, gives us an instance of the length to which this cheating was carried (*Seir*; i, 609, note). In Bengal, in the year 1163 H. (1750), when ʿAlī Wirdī Khān, Mahābat Jang, was nāzim, an officer receiving pay for 1700 men could not muster more than seventy or eighty. Mustapha, who wrote in 1787—8, adds from his own experience — “Such are, without exception, all the armies and all the troops of India; and were we to rate by this rule those armies of 50,000 and 100,000 that fought or were slaughtered at the decisive battles of Palāsī [Plassy] and Baksar [Buxar] (and by some such rule they must be rated), we would have incredible deductions to make. Such a rule, however, would not answer for Mīr Qāsim’s troops (1760—1764), where there was not one single false muster, nor would it answer for Ḥaidar ‘Alī’s armies.” The admitted difference between recorded and actual numbers is emphazised by Khūshḥāl Chand’s expression, Berlin Ms. 495, fol. 1091a, *Maujūdī, nah kāghazī*, “actually present, not merely on paper”, used in reference to the force brought to Dihlī by Burhān-ul-mulk at the time of Nādir Shāh’s invasion.

c7.4

It was to put down these evil practices that the emperor Akbar revived and enforced more strictly than before a system of descriptive rolls of men and horses, the latter being branded with a hot iron before they were passed for service. This branding, with the consequent periodical musters for the purpose of comparison and verification, formed a separate department under the *Bakhshī* with its own superintendent (*dāroghah*), and this was known as the *dāgh-o-taṣḥīḥah*, from *dāgh*, a brand, a mark, and *taṣḥīḥah*, verification. The usual phrase for enlisting was *asp ba dāgh rasānīdan*, “bringing a horse to be branded.” Branding was first introduced by ‘Alā-ud-dīn Khiljī in 712 H. = May, 1312—April, 1313, but on his death it was dropped (*Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, 233). The emperor Sher Shāh, Afghān, started it again in 948 H. = April, 1541—April, 1542. Akbar (*Āīn*, i, 233) re-established the practice in the eighteenth year of his reign (about 981 H., 1573—4), and it was continued until the time when the whole system of government finally broke down in the middle of the eighteenth century. At first many difficulties were made (*Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, 234), and evasions were attempted, but at length the system was made effective. The great nobles, holding the rank of 5000 and upwards, were exempt from the operation of these rules; but when ordered, they were expected to parade their horsemen for inspection (*Dastūr-ul-‘Aml*, B.M., Nº. 6599, fol. 144b). The technical name for these parades was محله *maḥallah* (Steingass, 1190), a word evidently connected with that used in Akbar’s time for branding, viz. *dāgh-o-maḥallī* (*Āīn*, i, 242; Budāonī, ii, 190). The germ of the *dāgh* system may perhaps be found in the practice in Transoxiana of annually branding the colts. This was done so far back as the twelfth century; see E. G. Browne on the *Chahār Maqālah* of ʿArūḍī (composed about 1161 A.D.), Journal R. Asiatic Soc. (1899), pp. 771 and 776.

c7.5

As said before, the recruit was supposed, at any rate so far as the State was concerned, to furnish his own horse. Orme states the case thus: — "Every man brings his own horse and offers himself to be enlisted. The horse is carefully examined: and according to the size and value of the beast, the master receives his pay. A good horse will bring thirty or forty rupees a month. Sometimes an officer contracts for a whole troop. A horse in Indostan is of four times greater value than in Europe. If the horse is killed the man is ruined, a regulation that makes it the interest of the soldier to fight as little as possible." — "Historical Fragments," 4to edition, 418. Along with his horse the man brought his own arms and armour, the production of certain items of which was obligatory. In actual practice, however, the leaders often provided the recruits with their horses and equipment. When this was the case the leader drew the pay and paid the man whatever he thought fit. Such a man, who rode another's horse, was called a *bārgīr* (load-taker); while a man riding his own horse was in modern times called a *silahdār* (weapon-holder). The latter word is the origin of the Anglo-Indian phrase of "Sillidar cavalry," applied to men who are paid a lump sum monthly for themselves, horse, uniform, and equipment.

c7.6

*Descriptive Rolls.* — When an officer entered the service (B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 160*a*) a *Chihrah* or descriptive roll¹ of the new *manṣabdār* was first of all drawn up, showing his name, his father's name, his tribe or caste, his place of origin, followed by details of his personal appearance. His complexion might be "wheat-colour" (*gandum-rang*), "milky," *i. e.* white (*shīr-fām*), "red" (*surkh-post*), or "auburn" (*maigun-rang*). His forehead was always "open" (*farāgh*); his eyebrows either full (*kushādah*) or in whole or in part *moshah* (?); his eyes were sheep-like (*mīsh*), deer-like (*āhū*), ginger-coloured (*adrak*), or cat's eyes (*gurbah*). His nose might be "prominent" (*buland*) or "flat" (*past*). He might be "beardless" (*amrad*) or "slightly bearded" (*rīsh o barwat āghāz*); his beard might be "black" (*rīsh o barwat siyāh*), or "slightly red" (*siyāh i maigun-numā*), "thin" (*khall*?), "shaven" (*mutarash*), "goat-shaped" (*kosah-i-khurd*), or "twisted up" (*shaqīqah*). So with any moles he might have; the shape of his ears, whether projecting or not, whether the lobes were pierced or not, and whether he was pock-marked or not — all these things were noted. Ashob, *Shahādat*, fol. 84*a*, tells us that in the imperial service the *chihrahs* were written on red paper sprinkled with gold leaf.

c7.7

¹ Literally 'face,' 'countenance.' It must not be confounded with *chīrah*, which means (1) a kind of turban, (2) a pay-roll, on which the recipients signed, (3) the pay itself. *Chīrah* is used in the second sense in *Aḥwāl-ul-khawāqīn*, fol. 230*b*; and also by Ghulām Ḥasan, Samīn, when telling us of the taunt addressed in 1170 H. (1757) by Aḥmad Khān, Bangash, to Najīb Khān, Najīb-ud-daulah, of having been once a private trooper in Farrukhābād, where his pay-rolls (*chīrah-hāe*) were still in existence.

c7.8

Roll for Troopers. — The troopers (*tābīnān*) were also described, but not quite so elaborately. A specimen is as follows (B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 163*a*): —

Troopers' Roll (Chihrah-i-Tābīnān)

c7.s1.1

Qamr ‘Alī, son of Mīr ‘Alī, son of Kabīr ‘Alī, wheat complexion, broad forehead, separated eyebrows, sheep's eyes, prominent nose, beard and moustache black, right ear lost from a sword-cut. Total height, about 40 *shānah*.

c7.s1.2

Horse. — Colour *kabūd* (iron-grey?). Mark on left of breast. Mark on thigh on mounting side. *Laskar*(?) on thigh on whip side. Brand of four-pointed stamp +

c7.s1.3

Descriptive Roll of Horses (*Chihrah-i-aspān*).

c7.s1.4

The next thing done was to make out an elaborate description of the horse or horses (B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 106b). There were twenty principal divisions according to colour, and eight of these were again subdivided, so that there were altogether fifty-eight divisions. Then there were fifty-two headings for the marks (*khāl-o-khat*) which might occur on the horse’s body.

c7.s1.5

The Imperial Brand.

c7.s1.6

The hot iron was applied on the horse’s thigh (*Seir*, i, 481, note 27). The signs used in Akbar’s reign are given in the *Āīn*, i, 139, 255, 256; but in the end he adopted a system of numerals. In *‘Ālamgīrs* reign and about that time there were twenty different brands (*tamghah*), of which the shapes of fifteen have been preserved and are reproduced below (B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 161a). I am not certain of the spelling, and in most instances I am utterly unable to suggest a meaning for the names.

c7.s1.7

| NAME. | FORM OF BRAND. |
| 1. *Chahār parhā* (four feather?) | — | |
| 2. *Chahār parhā jomar-khaj* | — | |
| 3. *Chahār parhā dūr khaj* | — | |
| 4. *Chahār parhā sihsar khaj* | — | |
| 5. *Chakūsh* | — | |
| 6. *Istād* (upright) | — | |
| 7. *Uftādah* (recumbent) | — | |
| 8. *Istādah o uftādah* | — | |

c7.s1.8

| NAME. | FORM OF BRAND. |
| 9. *Yak ba do* (one with two) | └────────── |
| 10. *Asaran* | ├──────────┤ |
| 11. *Togh* (horse-tail standard) | └────────── |
| 12. *Panjah-i-murgh* (hen's foot) | └─┐┌─ |
| 13. *Mīzān* (balance) | ┌──────────┐ |
| 14. *Do dārah taur* | ├──────────┤ |
| 15. *Chahār bārah makar khaj* | ├─────┼───── |

c7.s1.9

The Noble's Brand.

c7.s1.10

It is obvious that in addition to the imperial brand, a second mark was required by each noble for the recognition of the horses ridden by his own men. Accordingly we find direct evidence of this second marking in Bernier, 216, and again 243, when he speaks of the horses “which bear the omrah's mark on the thigh.” Towards the end of the period the great nobles often had the first or last letter of their name as their special brand (*Seir*, i, 481, note 27), as, for instance, the *sīn-dāgh* (س) of Sa‘dat ‘Alī Khān, nāzim of Audh. The brand of Sayyad ‘Abdullah Khān, was عبد (*‘abd*), according to Khushḥāl Chand, Berlin Ms. 495, fol. 1020*a*. Ghulām ‘Alī Khān (B.M., Add. 24,028, fol. 63*b*) tells us that about 1153 H. (1740—41) Muḥammad Isḥāq Khān used the last letter of his name, a *qāf* (ق), as his brand. The way of selecting the brands is further illustrated by a passage in Kām Rāj's *A‘zam-ul-ḥarb*. When A‘zam Shāh in 1119 H. (1707) was on his march from the Dakhin, some new brands were chosen. “As the brand of the *Wālā Shāhī* (personal troops) was *‘Azmā*, that of Bedār Bakht, the eldest son, was *mankab*, and of Wālā Jāh, the second son, was *khail*, it was thought fit to fix on the word *hashm* (ح) as that of ‘Alā Tabār, the youngest son.” It is to be niferred from this passage that in each instance the first letter of the word was used.

Classification of Horses

c7.s2.1

According to the *Āīn*, i, 233, there were seven classes of horses founded on their breed:—(1) *‘Arabī*, (2) *Persian*, (3) *Mujannas*, resembling Persian, and mostly *Turkī* or Persian geldings, (4) *Turkī*, (5) *Yābū*, (6) *Tāzī*, (7) *Janglah*.

c7.s2.2

In ‘Ālamgīr’s reign we find (B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 163*a*) the following classification: (1) *‘Irāqī*, (2) *Mujannas*, (3) *Turkī*, (4) *Yābū*, (5) *Tāzī*, (6) *Janglī*. This is practically the same as Akbar’s, except that Arab horses are not mentioned. This must be an oversight, since we learn from many passages in the contemporary historians that Arab horses were still in use. The *Tāzī* and *Janglī* were Indian horses, what we now call countrybreds, the former being held of superior quality to the latter. The *Yābū* was, I suppose, what we call now the *Kābulī*, stout-built, slow, and of somewhat sluggish temperament. The *Turkī* was an animal from Bukhārā or the Oxus country; the *‘Irāqī* came from Mesopotamia.

c7.s2.3

In ‘Ālamgīr’s reign the proportion in which officers of the different ranks were called on to present horses of these different breeds at the time of branding was as follows:—

c7.s2.4

| RANK OF OFFICER. | CLASS OF HORSE. | TOTAL. |
| | *‘IRĀQĪ.* | *MUJANNAS.* | *TURKĪ.* | *YĀBŪ.* | |
| 400 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 300—350 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| 100—150 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 80—90 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 50—70 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 40 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |

c7.s2.5

These figures differ from those in the *Āīn*, i, 248—9, where the number of horses is given for all *manṣabs*, up to the very highest. Some figures are also given in *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, ii, 118, which agree on the whole with those in the above table.

c7.s2.6

According as the standard was exceeded or not come up to, the branding officer made an allowance or deduction by a fixed table. This calculation was styled *tafāwat-i-aspān* (discrepancy of horses) — B.M. N°. 6599, fol. 163*a*. The extra allowances were as follows: —

c7.s2.7

c7.s2.8

When an inferior horse was produced the following deduction was made: —

c7.s2.9

Subordinate Establishment

c7.s3.1

An establishment of farriers, blacksmiths' forges, and surgeons had to be maintained by each *manṣabdār*, according to the following scale (B.M. N°. 1641, fol. 38*b*): —

c7.s3.2

| RANK OF OFFICER. | NUMBERS OF ESTABLISHMENT. | | |
| | FARRIERS (Na'lband). | BLACKSMITHS' SHOPS (Āhangar). | LEECHES OR SURGEONS (Jarāḥ). |
| 4000 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
| 3500 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| 3000 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
| 2500 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| 2000 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 1500 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| 1000 | 2 | 0 | 1 |

c7.s3.3

Or, according to a more recent scale: —

c7.s3.4

| 1500—4000 | 6 | 3 | 0 |

c7.s3.5

The Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī, ii, 118, states that thirty men on foot were required to be entertained for every 1000 of manṣab rank. These included water-carriers, farriers, pioneers, matchlockmen and bow-men.

Verification (Taṣḥīḥaḥ)

c7.s4.1

Something on this subject will be found in the Āīn, i, 250, where the reference is confined to the aḥadīs; Dr. Horn, so far as he goes into the matter at all, deals with it on p. 49 of his work. In later times, at all events, the rule of mustering and verification seems to have been of almost universal application. For example, in a work called the Guldastah-i-Bahār, a collection of letters from Chhabīlah Rām, Nāgar, compiled in 1139 H. (1726--7), of which I possess a fragment, I find on fol. 18a an instance of the verification rules being enforced against a manṣabdār in the end of Bahādur Shāh's reign (1118--24 H.). Chhabīlah Rām, who was then faujdār of Karrah Mānikpur (ṣūbah Allāhābād), complains to his patron that the clerks had caused his jāgīr, in parganah Jājmau, bringing in ten lakhs of dāms, to be taken away from him, because he had not produced vouchers of *dāgh-o-taṣḥīḥah*. He sends the papers by a special messenger, and prays his correspondent, some influential man at Court, to obtain the restoration of the *jāgīr* in question.

c7.s4.2

The intervals after which verification was imperative varied according to the nature of the man's pay. If he were paid in *jāgīr*, he had to muster his men for verification once a year, and, in addition, a period of six months' grace was allowed. If the officer were paid in *naqd* (cash), the time allowed depended upon whether he was — (1) present at Court (*ḥāẓir-i-riqāb*), or (2) on duty elsewhere (*taʿīnāt*). In the first case he had to procure his certificate at six-month intervals, or within eight months at the outside. In the second case he was allowed fifteen days after he had reported himself at Court. An *aḥadī* seems to have been allowed, in a similar case, no more than seven days. Where an officer drew his pay partly in *jāgīr* (assignment) and partly in *naqd* (cash), if the former made more than half the total pay, the rule for *jāgīrdārs* was followed; if the *jāgīr* were less than half, the *naqdī* rule was followed. (B.M. 1641, fols. 31*a*, 39*b*).

c7.s4.3

When the interval and the period of grace had elapsed, the man was reported for *tawaqquf-i-taṣḥīḥah* (delay in verification). A *manṣabdār* lost the whole of his pay for the period since the last verification; or, if he were important enough to have been presented to the emperor (*rū-shinās*, known by sight), he might succeed in obtaining his personal pay. An *aḥadī* lost half his pay, and it was only by an order on a special report that he could be excused the penalty. The proportion of horsemen (*tābinān*) that a *manṣabdār* must produce differed when he was at Court and when he was on duty in the provinces. In the first case he was bound to muster one-fourth, and in the second one-third, of his total number or as the case is stated in the *Maʾāsir-ul-umarā*, ii, 444, "In the reign of Shāhjahān it was decided that if an officer held a *jāgīr* within the *ṣūbah* to which he was attached, he should produce one third of his *tābīnān* for Branding. Thus if he were 3000 *zāt*, 3000 *suwār*, he would produce 1000 horsemen. If sent to another *ṣūbah* of Hindustān, then one fourth had to appear. During the campaign in Balkh and Badakhshān, owing to the great distance, one fifth was held to be sufficient.” There were three seasons appointed for verification, from the 26th Shawwāl to the 15th Zūl Qa‘dah (twenty days), the 19th Ṣafar to the 15th Rabī‘ I (twenty-five days), and the 16th Jamādī II to the 15th Rajab (twenty-nine days). (B.M. 1641, fols. 31*a*, 39*b*, 58*b*; B.M. 6599, fol. 148*a*).

c7.s4.4

*Officials and their duties.* — At head quarters officers entitled Amīn, dāroghah, and mushrif were appointed by the emperor to the Verification department, which was under the supervision of the chief bakhshīs. The Bakhshīs made the appointments for the provinces. In addition to his personal rank (*manṣab*), the Amīn received a *manṣab* of 10 horse while in office (*Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, ii, 118). The duties are thus described by Hidāyatullah, Bahārī, in his *Hidāyat-ul-quwāid*, fol. 13*a*. The dāroghah should compare the marks and points (*khat-o-khāl*) of the horses with the descriptive roll (*chihrah*), and inspect the horses to see whether they were fit for the service or not. If fit for branding, he should cause the brand to be imposed, signing the descriptive roll, adding the day, month and year, with the words “Two horses such-and-such branded.” If it were a two-horse man, he should certify for two horses and send the original descriptive roll to the office of the Bakhshī, retaining a copy sealed by the Bakhshī among his own records. Two months having passed, he should in the third month inspect and verify according to the copy of the roll, looking to see if the marks correspond. His inspection report was entered on the back of the roll, giving day, month, and year, thus: “So-and-so with his horses and arms was inspected.” If it was a one-horse man, the dāroghah wrote:

c7.s4.5

“Man and one horse inspected.” If it were a foot matchlock-man or an archer, he wrote on the back of the roll: “Man and arms inspected.” For carpet-layers and servants belonging to the court establishment he wrote on the back of the roll. When the paper was full, another sheet was attached. The peshkār (head clerk) of the dāroghah drew up according to rule a present state, giving details of those present and absent and the receipts. He then brought it up for orders. The dāroghah attached his seal to the report and sent it on to the Bakhshī’s office. In accordance therewith an order (barāt) on the Treasury was prepared for each man. The dāroghah ought to see that the horsemen and infantry are present on the march and on guard. He should enjoin on the guard-clerk to make an inspection at midnight of the men posted on guard, and write down the names of those present. According to the Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī, ii, 118, the officials after the mustering and verification made out certificates (daṣtak) bearing the seals of the dāroghah, amīn, and mushrif, which were delivered to the manṣabdār concerned.