UGC NET History (006)

Welcome to UGC NET History (006). We will study Mughal Mansabdari, Jagirs, Akbar's Revenue System and the Jagirdari Crisis, work through an example, and practise using the course's learning material. Paper I plus History Paper II preparation across ancient, medieval, modern, world history and historiography. Sign in and use the study header to open your authorised course. Select this published lesson. Start Course Tutor with Auto audio on: it teaches continuously, answers a typed question, then resumes. The system worked while its arithmetic held, and the crisis of the later empire is usually explained through its failure. Every jagir carried an assessed valuation, while the amount actually collected from it was frequently less, so the officer's real income fell short of his entitlement and he could not maintain his stipulated contingent. An officer holds a mansab of two thousand personal rank and one thousand trooper rank, assigned a jagir valued accordingly, but reports that he cannot maintain his contingent. Diagnose. Separate the two numbers first. The personal rank fixes his status and personal pay; the trooper rank obliges him to maintain one thousand cavalry with horses and equipment, for which a distinct allowance is calculated. His complaint concerns the second obligation, so the question is whether the income supporting it has materialised. Identify the gap between paper and reality. The jagir was assigned at an official valuation representing expected revenue, but what he can actually collect depends on the harvest, on prices, on the cooperation of the zamindars and on whether the area is disturbed. If the assessment was set optimistically, or the tract is newly conquered and unsettled, the shortfall may be large and permanent. Bring in the systemic factor. If the number of officers has grown faster than the stock of productive assignments, he may have received a jagir in a poor or contested region precisely because the better ones were exhausted, and he may also be waiting for a transfer. The shortfall is then not his misfortune but the predictable output of the system. Trace the consequences. He will press the collection harder, since the demand on him is fixed, and the pressure descends through the zamindar to the cultivator, encouraging concealment, flight and resistance. Alternatively he maintains fewer troopers than his rank requires, which degrades the army while the register continues to show full strength. Either way the failure is structural, and the remedy of granting him a larger mansab would only intensify the underlying scarcity. Which mistake would change the reasoning in this example? The first mistake is equating the mansab with the jagir. The second is describing the jagir as a grant of land or as hereditary. The third is crediting Akbar with revenue innovations that developed Sher Shah's arrangements. Ask Course Tutor: please explain this step from the example. If the assessment was set optimistically, or the tract is newly conquered and unsettled, the shortfall may be large and permanent. Why does it follow? Add what you tried, so the explanation addresses your difficulty. Now try the source practice. Why were jagirs transferred so frequently? Pause before the answer. The source answer is: To prevent an assignee from building a permanent local base of loyalty, property and armed following in one district, which would have converted a revocable administrative claim into hereditary territorial power and reproduced the fragmentation that the system was designed to avoid. Explain the key idea in your own words, revisit any mistaken step, then continue to the next lesson. Use Stop to end Course Tutor when you finish.