1 - EVOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA The shape of Indian administration as it exists today is not just the result of administration law enacted by the British Parliament during the British rule or by the Parliament of free India since independence. Its roots go deep in the administrative history of the country from the ancient times. For it is not merely the outward form of administrative behavior of the citizen citizens of a state that matters in the enactment and enforcement of law but also the thinking and attitude of the masses of people and numerous communities which have evolved under the impact of social, economic, religious, tribal and political events in various times and climes. The real foundation of India’s administrative system was laid during the Maureen period of Indian history. Mauryan Administration Chandragupta, the foundation of the Mauryan Empire was not only a great warrior, but also an able administrator. He set up a sound and efficient system of administration in his vast empire. He was assisted by the great diplomat and politician Kautilya (also known as Chanakya) in the task of organizing his administration. His system of government was virtually based on the principles laid down in the Arthashastra written by Chanakya. The Arthashastra is our main literary source of information regarding Chandragupta’s administration. The account of the Greek ambassador Magasthenes is another important source of information. Kautilya’s Arthasashtra Kautilya also known as Chanakya, was the Chief adviser and Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya. His real name was Vishnu Gupta and he was a Brahman by caste. He had been insulted by Dhan Nanda, the last Nanda ruler and so he nursed a deep hatred against the Nandas. He joined Chandragupta and guided him in his campaign against the Nandas. His book Arthashastra is a standard work on politics and the art of government. It is a guide for the king who wants to establish a sound system of administration in his kingdom. Chanakya lays down the ideals of kingdom in the following words: in the happiness of this (king’s) subjects lies his happiness , in their welfare, his welfare. What pleases him he shall not consider a good; but whatever pleases is subjects he shall consider as good.” According to Chanakya’s ideal of kingship, Chandragupta was a benevolent ruler. He was, however, an autocrat. He was the law-maker and the supreme judge. He was the supreme commander of the army. He governed the empire with the help of the mantris or ministers and the Amatyas or secretaries. There was also a Parishad or Assembly which consisted of mantris, amatyas and other influential people of the State. It was a sort of Parliament and advised the Emperor on important matter of war and peace. But Chandragupta was not bound to accept the advice of his Parishad. Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryan empire. The whole empire was divided into four provinces. The province of Magadha was directly governed by the Emperor. The north-western Province had its capital at Taxila, the western province at Ujjain and the southern province at Suvarnagiri. The governor of each province was called ‘Kumara’ or ‘Aryaputra’ and was generally a prince of the royal family. Land-revenue was the chief source of income of the empire and was one-fourth of the gross produce. There were 1 other taxes such as tithes and tolls, taxes on forests, mines and fisheries, fines and profession taxes. The state, in return, carried out many works of public utility such as the building of hospitals, rest houses, roads and parks. The capital city of Pataliputra was connected with the distant parts of the empire by means of roads. Account of Megasthenas Megasthenes stayed at Pataliputra for about five years. He wrote a book called ‘Indika ‘ in which he gave a detailed account of his observations of Mauryan government and Indian life. Unfortunately his original books have been lost, but numerous extracts from this book are found in other Greek books from which we learn a great deal about Chandragupta’s administration. Besides giving a detailed account of the civil and military administration of Chandragupta Maurya, Megasthenes has thrown a flood of light on Patliputra and its municipal administration. He writes that it was situated on the confluence of the Ganges and the Son rivers and was a magnificent city. It was 15 Kilometers long and two and a half kilometres broad. It was surrounded with a wooden wall with 64 gates and 500 towers. All round the wall there was a deep ditch to prevent any sudden attack on the capital. There were beautiful parks and artificial lakes in the city. There was a municipal committee of 30 members to look after the affairs of this city. The committee was divided into six boards of five members each. Each board had separate duties assigned to it. The six boards looked after (I) arts and crafts, (ii)comforts of the foreigners, (iii) registration of birth and deaths, (iv) checking of weights and measures, (v) manufacture of goods and(vi) collection of municipal taxes. These boards also had to perform certain duties in their joint capacity. They looked after public buildings. Water supply, sanitation, roads, gardens, hospitals, schools, temples and other works of public utility. Background to Kautilya’s Philosophy of Administration The Arthashastra of Kautilya as a long treatise refers to and dicussion various views of Visaslaksha, Indra (Bahudanta), Brihaspati, Sukra, Manu, Bharadvaja, Gaurasiras, Parasara, Pisuna, Kaunapadanta, Vatavyadhi, Ghotamukha, Katyayana, Charayana and other scholers of the science of polity. The Arthashastra points out several schools among the students of the science of polity; some of them claimed Manu (the father of the human race) as their founder; others Brihaspati, the teacher of the gods and others still Sukra or Usanas, the rival teacher of the Asuras. Some chose to affiliate themselves to Brahma, some to Indra and some to Siva. In the beginning small handbooks only were written but later development into comprehensive works. The references to the view of these authors made in the Arthasashtra enable us to get a fair idea of their contents. The science of polity was a new one at that time and many of the writers refereed seem to have started their works with a discussion of its relative importance as compared to the Vedas, their philosophy and economics. One of them, named Usanas, went to the extent of advocating an extreme view that politics was the only science worthy of study. The polity with these writers discussed was usually monarchical, and they devoted considerable space to the art of training of the princes and qualifications of the ideal rulers. The relative importance that he should attach to the difficulties and calamities in connection with the treasury, forts and army were also exhaustively dealt with. The constitution and functions of the ministry were described at length by most of them. They widely differed from one another about the number of the ministers and their qualifications. Principles of foreign policy were also debated upon, Bharadvaja 2 advocating submission to the strong when there is no alternative and Visalaksha recommending a fight to the finish, even if it meant annihilation. Vatavyadhi did not subscribe to the theory of Shadgunya by advocated that of Dvaigunya. The question of the control over revenue and provincial officers was discussed in their books but local government seems to have been left untouched. On the other hand, these early works contained important sections dealing with civil and criminal law and laid down a scheme of fines and punishments for theft, robbery, misappropriation, etc. We would not be far wrong in concluding that treatises of most of these writers were the precursors of the Arthasashtra of Kautilya but dealing, of course, in a much less exhaustive way, only with those topics dealt with in it. The Arthasashtra is more a manual for the administrator than a theoretical work on polity discussing the philosophy and fundamental principles of administration or of political science. It is mainly concerned with practical problems of government and describes its machinery and functions, both in peace and war, with an exhaustiveness not seen in any later work, with the possible exception of the Sukraniti. There is a great controversy about the date of the Arthasashtra. Messrs Shamasastri, Ganapathi Shastri, N.N. Law Smith, Fleet and Jayaswal hold that the work proceeds from the pen of the famous miniter of Chandragupta Maurya, while Messers Winternitz, Jolly, Keith and D.R. Bhandarkar hold that the work is a much later one; written in the early centuries of the Christian era. Conclusive evidence supporting either view is lacking and the question has became complicated owing to the work being occasionally retouched in later times. The second schools points out that if the books was really written by Kautilya, the Mauryan premier, it strange that it should not contain references to the Mauryan empire and its administrative machinery, so well known to us from Greek sources. It ignores the boards of town officials, lays down no rules for the care of the foreigners, for escorting them to the border and looking after their effects, it deceased. The fact that the view of Kautilya himself are quoted in the third person would suggest that the real writer of the work was different from him. Shamasastri and Jayaswal, however, point out that the colophon of the work distinctly states that is was written by Kautilya, who had rescued the country from the Nandas. To say that the author was not acquainted with a wide empire is incorrect, for he states that the sphere of the jurisdiction of a chakra-vartin extends from the Himalayas to the ocean. The aim of the book is to describe the machinery of a normal state; the organization of a big empire which was only an occasional phenomenon in Indian history is not, therefore, discussed in detail. The Arthasashtra no doubt refers only to the superintendents of different departments; the boards of five may have omitted because they were mainly non- officials in character. It is quite a common practice among Indian authors to refer to themselves by their own name in the third person singular, rather than in the first person plural; so the references to Kautilya in the third person need not necessarily show that he was not himself the author of the book. The society depicted by Kautilya permits levirate and remarriages of widows, as also post pubery marriages and divorces. This was the state of affairs in the Mauryan age. Scant respect is shown to the Buddhists and persons are prohibited from becoming recluses without providing for their families. This would indicated that the work was written at a time when Buddism had not yet become strong enough to induce people to leave their families and join the order. The work frequently uses the word yukta in the sense of an official, as is done in the edicts of Ashoka. In later centuries this term went out of vogue. The reference to the Kambojas, the Lichchhavis and the Mallas as republics in Arthasashtra would also support the view that the book belongs to the early Mauryan times, when these republics are known to have been flourishing. In the 4th century A.D very few knew of their existence as republics. Like Yaska, who was a predecessor of Panini, the Arthasastra refers to only four parts of speech, and not to eight as has been done by the great grammarian. This would 3 suggest that Panini’s grammar had not yet become very authoritative in the days of Kautilya. He should therefore be placed in the 4th century B.C. rather than in the 4th century A.D. There are several striking points of resemblance between the Arthasashtra and the extent fragments of Megasthenes. Like Megasthenes, the Arthasashtra refers to the royal procession at the time of hunting and religious ceremonies and to the necessity of guarding the road on the occasion. Both authorities refer to female body guards of the king and to his habit of shampooing. Megastheses’ account of irrigation canals and sluices reminds us of the observations of the satubandha in the Arthasashtra. Megasthenes’ overseers moving up and down and reporting to the king are obviously the spies of the Arthasashtra. Megasthenes’ officials for the measurement of the land belong to the same services of which the gopa of the Arhtasashtra was a subordinate member. The great officers in charge of the markets and rivers, of cities and arts and crafts, mentioned by the Greek ambassador, remind us some of the adhyakshas of the Arthasashtra. There are no doubt some serious discrepancies between Kautilya and Megasthenes; but in most cases it can be shown that the Greek ambassador’s account is unreliable. The latter is, for some reasons unknown to us, drawing too rosy a picture to the Indian society when he states that theft, drinking and slavery were unknown in India. The data in the Arthasashtra are not consistent with these statements, but are supported by the evidence of the Dharmasutras written at about the 4th century B.C.; we can therefore well place him in the Mauryan period, though this picture differs from that of Megasthenes. Megasthenes’ statement that Indians did not know that art of writing and a ministered the laws from memory is no more accepted as correct. His statement that the horses and elephants were the monopoly of the king is contradicted by Strabo and Arrian, who agree with Kautilya in recognizing the private ownership of these animals. When Megasthenes states that the state was the owner of land, he probably refers to the crown lands. Patanjali agrees with Kautilya in recognising the private ownership of arable land. The non reference in the Arthasashtra to the boards of five in the city and the military administration may be due to the fact that Kautilya perhaps wanted to refer to only the heads of the offices and not to their advisory councils. All things considered, it has to be admitted that there is a substantial agreement between the administrative and social picture as given by Kautilya and Megasthenes and we may well conclude that they were not far removed from each other in time. Kautilya was not only a famous statesman but also the founder of a school of politics; hence the great respect in which his name and work have been held by the subsequently centuries. Both Bapa and Dandin refer to the study of this work especially by the princes, and the Jain tradition, as recorded in the Nandisutra. Dandin emumerates the work among the heretical books along with the Ramayana and the Bharata. Even south Indian epigraphs describe skilled administration and diplomats like king Durvinita (9th century) and Marashimha (10th century) of the Ganga dynasty as incarnations of Vishnugupta or Kautilya who is regarded well versed in his statecraft. The positions of the Arthasashtra in the realm of the literature on politics is analogous to that of Panin’s Ashtadhyayi in the field of grammar. Like Panini, Kautilya superseded all his predecessors; their works were, therefore, lost in course of time. The excellence of Panini’s work was so great that very few among the later grammarians thought it possible to supersede the great master. The seems to be one of the later scholars in the realm of political science. That seems to be one of the reasons for the relative dearth of original works in the later history of the science. The general form f the works of political was determined by the Arthasashtra and a few other manuals of similar nature. New political theories were not adumbrated in later centuries. The semireligious and semimoral outlook of the writers of the time was responsible for this. Our writers, for instance, concede the principle that the king is the servant of the people and there is 4 no sin in killing a tyrant. A good many theories and books could have come in the field, it the problem of rigicide had been viewed purely from the secular point of view. What are the duties of the king in his capacity as the servant of the people? What are the secular remedies for the people, if the king begins to behave autocratically? Under what circumstances would people be justified in with holding allegiance or the payment of taxes? How public opinion was to make itself felt, what were the different milder remedies that people could adopt when kings had recourses to rigicide? How were they to be made effective in the face of the police and military forces of the king? These and similar questions would have given rise to a number of divergent theories, resulting in a rich literature extending over several centuries. But this could not happen, because our writers looked at the question from the religious and moral point of view. The king was to be a virtuous ruler, devote heart and soul to the welfare of the people; if he was not such, the goods would punish him. The subjects had no secular remedies feasible in normal times; gods were expected to destroy a bad king. Sometimes it is stated that he should be killed like a mad god, but how, by whom, and under what circumstances is not explained. Abstruse thinking and daring speculation which is characteristic of thought of times in other departments like philosophy and poetry are strangely enough conspicuous by their absence in the works on the science of polity. Epigraphical evidence shown that there existed considerable divergence in the country in the sphere of taxation and local government. New taxes were introduced by the different states in the course of time and the local government institutions developed on different lines in the various provinces of India. New books could have been written discussing these developments. But this did not happen, probably because taxation and local government were governed by local traditions, which were not usually incorporated in the standard work on polity. The administration machinery of the Guptas considerably different from of the Mauryas’ fresh development took place in this sphere under Harsha, as also under the rule of the early medieval dynastics. Books could have been written bearing upon the changes that were taking place in the administration machinery. But this also did not happen. Probably the students of political science felt that these were minor changes of detail which were not sufficiently importance to warrant the compositions of fresh books. It has been suggested that the foreign invasion and alien rule during 250 B.C. ot A.D. may have been responsible for the dearth of political literature in the post Kautilya period. This, however, appears improbable; the dominions of the Greek, the Scythians, the Parthians and the Kushanas did not extend beyond the Punjab for any appreciable time. Madhyadesa and Bihar, which were the center of Aryan culture from 500 B.C. remained practically unaffected by foreign conquests. To conclude, the relative sterility in political literature in the first millenium of the Christian era seems to be due to the great sway which the classical work of Kautilya continued to have over the public mind and the absence of any noteworthy development in the sphere of political thought or government machinery. A few manual, with no particular claim to originality, were of course composed during this period and we shall briefly refer to them after a few remarks about the state of affairs in South India. South India in the early period did not produce any important works on polity. We get only occasional references on the Government of the day from such literary works as the Tirukkural, and the silappadikaram. But they usually refer to the king and his officers and hardly throw any light either on the political theories or on the administrative structure as a whole. The great fascination which Kautilya had over his successors is well illustrated by Kamandakiya Nitisastra, composed probably in the Gupta age (C.500 A.D.). This book is nothing but a metrical summary of the work of Kautilya. Obviously its anonymous writer felt that the best service he could render to the students of politics would be to summarise this standard work. 5 Administration of Ashoka Ashoka inherited an organised system of administration from the grand-father. But he made changes in this system. Instead of becoming a ‘Conqueror King’, he wanted to become the father or his people. In one of his edicts he says: ‘All men are my children; and just as I desire for my children that they may enjoy every kind of properity and happiness, both in this world and in the next, so also do I desire the same for all men’’. He not only preached this ideal in his edicts, but also lived upto it. He disbanded his army and the money thus saved was spent on hospitals, monasteries and other works of public utility. He gave the new name of Mahamatras or Censors of Public Morals. These officers were to see that other government officials did their duty properly and that the people lived according to the high ideals preached by Ashoka in his Dhamma. The Mauryas gave political unity to the country. This was the first time in the history of India that the country was united under one government. This political unity resulted in the economic prosperity of the people. We learn a great deal about the economic condition of the country from the account of Megasthenes and other sources of Mauryan history. Agriculture was the chief occupation of the people. Land in the villages was divided into three parts; one part was under cultivation, another served as pasture for cattle, and the third remained under forests. The Mauryan emperors paid special attention to the growth of agriculture. Both Kautilya and Megasthenes testify to the fact that there was a separate irrigation department for the development of agriculture. This department was assigned the duties to measuring the lands to be irrigated, of maintaining a system of canals, tanks and artificial lakes and of regulating the water-supply. The rock inscription at Girnar(Gujarat) shows how Pushyagupta, one of Chandragupta’s provincial governors, constructed the Sudarshan Lake for irrigation purpose in a remote province. Prosperity through Trade, Commerce and industries Trade, Commerce, and Industries were in a flourishing condition in the glorious age of the Mauryas. Trade and Industry were regulated by the state, which fixed the price of articles, maintained the standard of products, controlled weights and measures and levied octrois and duties. The importance of the manufacturing industry in the Mauryan period is emphasised by the fact that there was a separate board of five members in the municipal committee of Pataliputra to look after the development of various industries in the city. India was famous for many fine articles. Textiles of the finest quality were then manufactured in Bengal. Though hthe people were simple in their dress and habits, they loved jewellery and so ornaments of various kinds were invented. Arms and agriculture implements were manufactured in large quantities. Shipbuilding was a highly perfected industry under the government. Weavers, Smiths and other craftsmen had organised themselves into economic corporations called srenis’ or guilds. These guilds regulated the methods of production and also safeguard the interests of their members. They often served the purpose of modern banks. Coins of gold, silver and copper formed the currency. The business class, that is, the craftsman, industrialists and traders, had a large share in increasing the prosperity of the country. Traders and merchants carried goods from one part of the country to the other by means of boats and bullock-carts. Commodities were also dispatched to ports and harbours with a view to their export to foreign countries. Broach was the main seaport on the western coast of India and Tamralipti was the biggest port on the eastern coast. Overseas trade 6 was carried on with Arabia and the Roman Empire through the Persian Gulf and the sea. It was also carried on with the countries in South-East Asia across the Bay of Bengal. The overseas trade was so profitable that a separate department called the Navadhyaksha supervised sea traffic and collected harbour dues in return for the protection it provided to the traders. The balance of trade was favorable as Indians exports exceeded her imports. The exported goods included ivory, spices, fine textiles with artistic designs, perfumes and precious stones. The imported goods included copper, tin, silver vessels, glassware and grape wine. The exports to the Roman had to pay huge sum of money for the goods imported by them from India. The famous Roman historian Pliny bears testimony to the fact that vast sums of money were sent by Rome to India in payment for these commodities. Administration of Chandragupta II We learn about the administration of Chandragupta II from the account of the Chinese Piligrim Fahien who came to India during his reign. The administration under chandragupta II was highly organised and was far more liberal than in the Mauryan times. The taxes were light, the people were law-abiding and the criminal law was very mild. Ordinarily, a fine was regarded a sufficient punishment. Capital punishment was not imposed on any criminal and he most serious crimes of rebellion and reason were punished with the amputation of the right hand of the criminal. The government did not interfere in the activities of the people. Even foreigners were free to travel throughout the country without permits and passports. Fahien says, ‘the people have not to get themselves or their households registered with any magistrate. If they want to go they go; if they want to stay on, they stay’. The roads were safe and Fahien never felt unsafe during his travels throughout India for about nine years. The most interesting fact about the ideal administration of chandragupta II is that there was no spy system. For purposes of administration, the empire was divided into many provinces. The governors of the provinces were more independent than they had been in the Mauryan times. The provinces were divided into districts. The people were given due share in government. There were district councils to advise the government officers in administrative matters. Theses councils consisted of the government officials and of elected members of the people. The lowest administrative unit was the Grama or village. It was administered by a headman and the village assembly or Panchayat. Thus there was a democratic set-up in the Gupta administration. Land revenue was the main source of income of the state and was normally one-sixth of the produce of the land. Ever since the fall of the Mauryas. India had been disunited. The Gupta rulers established political unity in India. Samudragupta was the main architect of this unity. He defeated nine kings in the north and twelve kings in the south and established his sway over almost the whole country. His son and successor Chandragupta II put an end to the rule of the Saka Sataraps in western India and released the country from foreign domination. Besides giving political unity, the Gupta rulers gave the people a sound system of administration. From Fahien’s account we find that the taxes were light, criminal law was very mild, roads were safe and the people were law abiding. The most striking feature of this administration is that there was no spy-system. Sher Shah’s Administration Sher Shah was not only a successful general but also an able administration. In fact his qualities as a ruler were more remarkable than his conquests. He introduced original and wise changes in every branch of administration, during his brief reign of five years. On his father’s 7 collectors against collecting more than the fixed amount. He applied these principles now in carrying out the administration of his empire. Sher Shah divided his whole empire into forty-seven units called Sarkars, each of which was again subdivided into several smaller units called Parganas. Each Pargana had one Amin, one Shiqdar, one treasurer, one Hindi writer and one Perisan writer to keep accounts. Each Sarkar was placed under two officers called the Shiqdar-I-shidaran and the Munshif-I-Munsifan. They were entrusted with the duty of supervising the work of the were Maqaddam, a Chaudhri, and a patwari. The Panchayats also played an important part in the administration of the villages. Sher Shah devised the system of transferring government officers after every two or three years in order to prevent them from acquiring undue influence at one place. Sher Shah introduced a number of reforms in the land revenue system. He had the whole land surveyed and fixes one-fourth to one third of the produce as land revenue which could be paid to the state in cash or kind. He asked his officers to be lenient to the farmers at the time of the assessment of land revenue. He made it a point to see that no hardship was caused to the farmers. In times of drought or any other unforseen calamity, advances were liberally made to the suffers. Sher Shah’s land revenue system worked so efficiently that it was later adopted by Akbar and was continued throughout the Mughal period. It was because of this system that Sher Shah is called the ‘forerunner of Akbar’. In order to establish peace and order in the country, Sher Shah paid special attention to the administration of justice. He tried to give evenhanded justice to all whether high or low. The rich could not escape punishment because of high birth and rank. He even punished his near relatives and high officials it they tried to break the law or attempted to harass the people. The Chief Qazi was the head of the Judicial department. There was an Amin in every Pargana and a Qazi in every districts to decided judicial cases. The king heard appeals against the subordinate courts in his own court every Wednesday. Very severe punishments were given to the criminal but to set an example for others. The Muqaddam or the village headman was responsible for the crime in his village and it he failed to trace the offender, he had to make good the loss. Intelligent spies were also appointed who kept the king informed of all that happened in the empire. As a result of these measures, life and property became safe under Sher Shah. Sher shah knew the importance of a strong and efficient army and so he reorganised it. He maintained a large army consisting of 1,50,000 cavalry, 25000 infantry, 300 war elephants and an efficient artillery. In order to establish a direct connection with his soldiers, he himself recruited them and fixed their salaries according to their qualities. He introduced the practice of branding the horse and maintaining descriptive rolls of the soldiers in order to avoid malpractice in the army. He treated his soldiers very kindly, but did not let his kindness interfere with the maintenance of discipline and efficiency in the army. He built many new forts while the old ones were also repaired and strengthened. He kept a Fauj or garrison under the command of a Faujdar at each of these forts. Most of Sher Shah’s soldiers were Afghans or Pathans but Hindus were also given high positions in the army. Sher Shah introduced currency and tariff(customs duties) reforms in order to improve the general economic conditions of the empire. When he became king, coins issued by previous kings were still in circulation, which caused a great deal of confusion. The exact rates between various coins were clearly specified. Sher Shah abolished the use of the old coins, issued a large number of gold, silver and copper coins and fixed their rates relative to each other. Most of the coins, introduced by Sher Shah, especially the silver rupee continued to form the basis of Indian currency for a long time. For the promotion of trade and commerce, various customs duties which were levied at many places, were abolished. The merchants had not to pay customs duty only at two places, one at the frontiers of the kingdom and the other at the place where goods were sold. This basic principle in respect of the levy of customs duties is followed up to this day. 8 Sher Shah also brought about many reforms in the means of transport and communication. A number of roads were built, ling which trees were planted, wells were dug and Sarais (inns or rest-housed)were provided for the convenience of the travellers. The most famous road he got constructed was the Grand Trunk Road, which ran from Sonargaon in Bengal to Peshwar in the North/Western Frontier (now in Paksitan). The present Grand Trunk Road is built on the same roadway. Sher Shah also introduced a regular postage system. The Sarais built along the roads, served as Dak-Chaukis of the postal department. At every Sarai or Dak-Chauki, two horsemen were always kept ready to receive the dak or mail from the previous Chauki and carry it to the next one. In this way the news from all corners of the empire could reach the king in a short time. Mughal Administration Akbar was not only a great conqueror but also a very capable administrator. He introduced useful reforms and established an excellent system of administration in his conquered territories. As a result of his efficient administration, Akbar was able to establish a long lasting empire in India. Akbar’s system of administration continued for more than two hundred years. So by studying Akbar’s administration, we can fully understand the Mughal administration. Akbar divided his kingdom into fifteen Subas or provinces. Each province was governed by a Sipah Salar who was also known as Subedar. He was assisted by a Diwan or Finance Minister and a Qazi or judge. The Diwan looked after the finances of the province while the Qazi was the head of th judicial department. The provinces were divided into Sarkars (district) and the Sarkars were sub-divided into Parganas. The head of the Sarkar was called Faujdar. He was responsible for maintaining law and order in this area. There were many villages and towns in a Paragana. In a town the Kotwal or Inspector of Police was given overall charge of its administration. The Panchayats also played an important part in the administration of the villages. Like Sher Shah Suri, Akbar paid special attention to the land revenue administration. He improved upon Sher Shah’s system with the help of his Finance Minister, Raja Todar Mal. He ordered the survey and measurement of the land under cultivation by means of a new kind of Jarib (an instrument used for the measurement of land) which was made of pieces of bamboo joined together with iron rings. It gave a more correct measurement of land than the instrument used till then. The land under cultivation was divided into four classes according to its fertility and the share of the state was fixed accordingly. The farmers were allowed to pay the revenue in cash or kind. In case of famine, drought or some other unforeseen calamity, remission of land revenue was granted. Sometimes loans were also advanced to the farmers for the purchase of seeds and animals. In the beginning, the land revenue was assessed annually, but later on it was assessed for ten years. As a result o the reforms introduced by Akbar in the land revenue administration, the farmers were better off than before and the country became prosperous. Mansabdari System Akbar realised the importance of a strong, well-equipped and disciplined army. He reorganized his army and introduced a system known as the Mansabdari system. He placed his nobles and officers in the grades of military service ranging from the command of five thousand horsemen down to the command of ten horsemen. These officers were known as Mansabdars or holders of ‘Mansabs’ the word Mansab means rank or office and it denoted the rank, dignity and office of a Mughal officer. It specified his rank in the services, his pay and 9 his position in the court. There was, however, no distinction between a civil and military officers in the Mughal period and so every Mughal officers was Mansabdars. He had to perform both civil and military functions. There were thirty-three grades of Mansabdars who maintained soldiers ranging from 10 to 5,000. The lesser Mansabdars drew their pay direct from the Imperial Treasury and had present their horsemen and horses at periodical inspections. In order to prevent fraud, the horses were branded and the muster-rolls of the horsemen were maintained. The higher Mansabdars were granted provinces (Subas) and Jagirs, out of the revenue of which they had to maintain the required number of horsemen. This system worked well under Akbar, but deteriorated under his successors as the nobles quarrelled among themselves for higher Mansabs or ranks. High. Higher Mansabs of more than 5,000 were created in order to appease the defiant nobles and princes. Justice No written code of laws existed in the Mughal period. The Mughal emperors were, however, great lovers of justice and tried to be as just as possible. The legal procedure was much simpler and quicker than now. Akbar had appointed the Chief Qazi as the head of the Judicial department. There was also one Qazi or Judge in every province. The Chief Qazi heard appeals against decisions of the lower courts. Akbar spent some time daily to hear complaints of the people and to settle them. This practice was continued by his successors. The capital punishment was given only in extreme cases and that too by the emperor himself. The village Panchayat decided minor cases. Generally fines were imposed as punishment but some times the criminals were also imprisoned. There were no separate prisons or jails as they exist today and the prisoners were kept in dark and dingy rooms in the forts. Occupation The chief occupation of the people in the Mughal period was agriculture. The agriculture crops were almost the same as those that are raised today. The improved system of revenue administration introduced by Akbar gave an impetus to agriculture and food was extraordinary cheap during his reign. Akbar took special care to look after the interest of the farmers, so they were well off during his reign, but their condition deteriorated under his successors. The lot of the common people was on the whole much better than it was in the days of the Delhi Sultans. There was misery and suffering only whatever there was a natural calamity like floods. Earthquakes of famines. Famines frequently broke out in different out in different parts of the country and very little was done by the state to give relief to the people. Trade and commerce were in a flourishing condition and Indian goods were highly prized abroad. The Mughal emperors encouraged production in the state Karkhanas (factories) where high quality goods were manufactured. The most important industry in India at the time was the manufacture of cotton cloth, the main centres of which were Patan (Gujarat), Burhanpur (Khandesh), Jaipur, Banares and Dacca. The cotton cloth was either dyed or printed with fast colours. Silk-weaving, shawl-making and carpet-making were other important industries of the time. Silk was also produced and manufactured particularly in Bengal and its production was greatly patronised by the Mughal emperors. Besides these major industries, handicraft dealing in articles such as jewellery, metal work, ornamental discs, ivory articles and many other goods were manufactured in large quantities. 10