70% AKBAR DARBARI AND SENAPATI WERE FOREIGNER MUSLIM ONY 15 PERCENT HINDU

 

AKBAR  WAZIR AND  SENAPATI WERE MOSTLY FOREIGNER MUSLIM  ONLY 15 PERCENT WERE  HINDU AND HISTORY CHANDRA BHAN BRAHMAN RAJPUT NEVER MOUNT GUARD IN MUGHAL FORTRESS

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 136 137

The administration of the Sultanate and Mughal Empire was bureaucratic throughout. Over long periods this administrative system was dominated by immigrants from abroad, mainly West Asia and North Africa and this gave it much of the character of foreign and Islamic rule. Commenting on the list of mansabdars in the Ain-i-Akbari, Moreland says that while about 70 percent of the nobles were foreigners belonging to families which had either come to India with Humayun or had arrived at the court after the accession of Akbar, of the remaining 30 percent of the appointments which were held by Indians, rather more than half were Moslems and rather less than half Hindus.176 This high proportion of Muslim mansabdars belonging to families from foreign lands continued under Akbars successors. Thus Bernier described the nobility under Aurangzeb as a medley of foreign elements like Uzbegs, Persians, Arabs, Turks and indigenous Rajputs. A medley, so that by playing the one against another, one group could be controlled and dealt with by the other - Irani by Turani, Shia by Sunni and so on.177 The Rajputs could be put to manage all these by turns, or those other fellow Rajput Rajas who showed reluctance in making submission. Late in the seventeenth century, with the advance of the Mughal power in the Deccan, there was an influx of the Deccanis - Bijapuris, Hyderabadis. An interesting description of this composite Mughal nobility is given by Chandrabhan Brahman, who wrote during the last years of Shahjahans reign.178 And yet the regime remained exotic in nature. There was little trust existing between the various sections of the nobility and the Mughal King. Bernier did not fail to note that the Great Mogol, though a Mahometan, and as such an enemy of the Gentiles (Hindus), always keeps in his service a large retinue of Rajas appointing them to important commands in his armies. And still about the Rajputs, Bernier makes a startling statement. It debunks the generally held belief that the Mughal emperors trusted the Rajput mansabdars wholly, or the latter were always unsuspiciouly loyal to the regime. He says that the Rajput Rajas never mount (guard) within a (Mughal) fortress, but invariably without the walls, under their own tents and always refusing to enter any fortress unless well attended, and by men determined to sacrifice their livefor their leaders. This self devotion has been sufficiently proved when attempts have been made to deal treacherously with a Raja.179 His statement reminds one of the successful flight of Shivaji from Mughal captivity to Maharashtra and of Durga Das with Ajit Singh to Marwar. According to Bernier, the Mughals maintained a large army for the purpose of keeping people in subjection No adequate idea can be conveyed of the sufferings of the people. The cudgel and the whip compel them to incessant labour their revolt or their flight is only prevented by the presence of a military force.180 There is no need to wonder why cudgel and whip were used to compel people to incessant labour and prevent flight of peasants from the villages. One function of the army of course was to conquer new regions and crush internal rebellions. Another was meant to coerce the recalcitrant land-holders (zor talab) and keep the poor peasants in subjection. For this second purpose there was a separate set of soldiery who could be called to service from regions and districts when so required. In the time of Akbar the number of such soldiers comes to a little more than forty-four lacs.181 This force was organised on the quota system, each Zamindar or autonomous ruler being expected to produce on demand a fixed number of troops. Ordinarily they received no stipends from the imperial government and were, therefore, not required to submit to military regulations which governed the regular army. 182 It was mainly this cadre which kept the common people under subjection. In Indias climatic conditions, vagaries of monsoon, and resistance of freedom-loving though poor people183 to oppressive foreign rule, made collection of revenue a perennial problem in medieval times. Right from the beginning of Muslim rule, regular military expeditions had to be sent yearly or half-yearly for realization of land-tax or revenue.184 Under Afghan rulers like Sher Shah (who adopted the Sultanate model in general and Alauddin Khalji model in particular) the Shiqdars with armed contingents helped in the collection of revenue. The Mughals followed suit and troops were pressed into service for the collection of revenue. This constabulary carried long sticks mounted with pikes and was unscrupulous and tyrannical as a rule. Its oppressions inpired terror among the poor villagers. Bernier rightly observes that the government of the Mughals was an army rule even in the time of peace.185 The rural fear of the darogha saheb and his men originated neither in ancient nor in modern times.

Mughal ruled as foreniers

LEGACY OF MUSLIM RULE IN INDIA  BY  K S Lal Page 138

Conclusion It may be summarized in conclusion that the nature of the Turco-Mughal state in India was theocratic and military. The scope of the state activity was narrow and limited. Generally speaking it discharged two main functions - the maintenance of law and order according to Islamic norms, and the collection of revenue. In the medieval period both these functions meant suppression of the people. Consequently, throughout the medieval period the administration was army-oriented. It was not a secular state, nor was it a welfare state except for some vested Muslim interests. No attempt was made to build up a national state in the name of a broad-based system working as a protective umbrella for all sections of the people. It is a hypothetical belief that foreign Muslims who came as invaders and conquerors but stayed on in India, made India their home and merged with the local people. They did not prove different from those conquerors (like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Timur or Nadir Shah) who did not stay on and went back. For, instead of integrating themselves with the mainstream of Indian national tradition, it was their endeavour to keep a separate identity. To quote from Beni Prasad: By the fifteenth century the age of systematic persecution was past but the policy of toleration was the outcome of sheer necessity; it was the sine qua non of the very existence of the government.186 Else the Semitic conception of the state is that of a theocracy. 187