Which parts of India were under direct Mughal rule?

Jan 2019
159
Valencia
#1
We know that the Mughals administered most of their Empire through local chieftains and Kings who paid tributes to them. Are there any parts of South Asia which were under direct Mughal rule? Delhi is the obvious but what about Punjab and West UP? Lahore was briefly the Mughal centre after all and West UP was close to Delhi.
 
Oct 2012
3,311
Des Moines, Iowa
#2
We know that the Mughals administered most of their Empire through local chieftains and Kings who paid tributes to them. Are there any parts of South Asia which were under direct Mughal rule? Delhi is the obvious but what about Punjab and West UP? Lahore was briefly the Mughal centre after all and West UP was close to Delhi.
What do you consider to be "direct rule"? If you are talking about the lands that were part of the khalisa or Imperial crown lands, then they were mostly located in the central Indo-Gangetic provinces. The exact extent of these lands varied depending on how energetic the given Mughal emperor was, since the Emperor was personally responsible for managing the crown lands and their revenues, and for overseeing subordinate officers (such as the amildars) in this area. Under Akbar, who ran a very vigorous administration and demanded close personal control whenever possible, the khalisa lands made up around 25% of the lands of the Mughal Empire. In contrast, under the much more lax administration of Akbar's son Jahangir, only about 5% of the Mughal Empire was administered as part of the khalisa domain.

The remaining land, or more precisely the right to the land's revenue, was assigned as jagirs (which were temporary and revocable) to high-ranking mansabdars who were personally interviewed and selected by the Mughal emperor. The mansabdars were responsible for maintaining a body of troops using the revenues derived from their jagir assignment, and had to report to the Mughal emperor whenever he called upon them. To maintain control, the Mughal emperors frequently re-assigned jagirs to different mansabdars, to prevent the possibility of a single mansabdar building up a regional base of power and challenging Mughal imperial authority. The Mughal emperors always enjoyed a high degree of control over the areas assigned to the mansabdars, right up until the collapse of the jagir system in the early 18th century, which is why I asked for a definition of "direct rule." The mansabdars of the 16th and 17th century Mughal Empire certainly should not be viewed as autonomous local lords; they were all personal agents of the Mughal emperor who owed their position entirely to the latter, and through them, the Mughal emperor enjoyed a great deal of personal power and influence (especially if he was very energetic and played an active role in the administration, as Akbar did).

There was, however, a category of lands that were neither part of the khalisa nor assigned as jagirs to the service nobility. These were lands which formed the domains of powerful local Hindu lords, who retained a great degree of autonomy and who were often only nominally subject to the Mughal emperor. An example of such a Hindu domain would be that of the Bundela rajas in modern-day Madhya Pradesh, whose lords like Chhatrasal commanded enough resources of their own to challenge Mughal authority, at least locally.
 
Jan 2019
159
Valencia
#3
What do you consider to be "direct rule"? If you are talking about the lands that were part of the khalisa or Imperial crown lands, then they were mostly located in the central Indo-Gangetic provinces. The exact extent of these lands varied depending on how energetic the given Mughal emperor was, since the Emperor was personally responsible for managing the crown lands and their revenues, and for overseeing subordinate officers (such as the amildars) in this area. Under Akbar, who ran a very vigorous administration and demanded close personal control whenever possible, the khalisa lands made up around 25% of the lands of the Mughal Empire. In contrast, under the much more lax administration of Akbar's son Jahangir, only about 5% of the Mughal Empire was administered as part of the khalisa domain.

The remaining land, or more precisely the right to the land's revenue, was assigned as jagirs (which were temporary and revocable) to high-ranking mansabdars who were personally interviewed and selected by the Mughal emperor. The mansabdars were responsible for maintaining a body of troops using the revenues derived from their jagir assignment, and had to report to the Mughal emperor whenever he called upon them. To maintain control, the Mughal emperors frequently re-assigned jagirs to different mansabdars, to prevent the possibility of a single mansabdar building up a regional base of power and challenging Mughal imperial authority. The Mughal emperors always enjoyed a high degree of control over the areas assigned to the mansabdars, right up until the collapse of the jagir system in the early 18th century, which is why I asked for a definition of "direct rule." The mansabdars of the 16th and 17th century Mughal Empire certainly should not be viewed as autonomous local lords; they were all personal agents of the Mughal emperor who owed their position entirely to the latter, and through them, the Mughal emperor enjoyed a great deal of personal power and influence (especially if he was very energetic and played an active role in the administration, as Akbar did).

There was, however, a category of lands that were neither part of the khalisa nor assigned as jagirs to the service nobility. These were lands which formed the domains of powerful local Hindu lords, who retained a great degree of autonomy and who were often only nominally subject to the Mughal emperor. An example of such a Hindu domain would be that of the Bundela rajas in modern-day Madhya Pradesh, whose lords like Chhatrasal commanded enough resources of their own to challenge Mughal authority, at least locally.
Thank you for the detailed answer. From what you said, it seems as if highly-autonomous chieftains were not as common as I though and many were actually assigned by the Mughal authorities to control that particular piece of land.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#4
What do you consider to be "direct rule"? If you are talking about the lands that were part of the khalisa or Imperial crown lands, then they were mostly located in the central Indo-Gangetic provinces. The exact extent of these lands varied depending on how energetic the given Mughal emperor was, since the Emperor was personally responsible for managing the crown lands and their revenues, and for overseeing subordinate officers (such as the amildars) in this area. Under Akbar, who ran a very vigorous administration and demanded close personal control whenever possible, the khalisa lands made up around 25% of the lands of the Mughal Empire. In contrast, under the much more lax administration of Akbar's son Jahangir, only about 5% of the Mughal Empire was administered as part of the khalisa domain.

The remaining land, or more precisely the right to the land's revenue, was assigned as jagirs (which were temporary and revocable) to high-ranking mansabdars who were personally interviewed and selected by the Mughal emperor. The mansabdars were responsible for maintaining a body of troops using the revenues derived from their jagir assignment, and had to report to the Mughal emperor whenever he called upon them. To maintain control, the Mughal emperors frequently re-assigned jagirs to different mansabdars, to prevent the possibility of a single mansabdar building up a regional base of power and challenging Mughal imperial authority. The Mughal emperors always enjoyed a high degree of control over the areas assigned to the mansabdars, right up until the collapse of the jagir system in the early 18th century, which is why I asked for a definition of "direct rule." The mansabdars of the 16th and 17th century Mughal Empire certainly should not be viewed as autonomous local lords; they were all personal agents of the Mughal emperor who owed their position entirely to the latter, and through them, the Mughal emperor enjoyed a great deal of personal power and influence (especially if he was very energetic and played an active role in the administration, as Akbar did).

There was, however, a category of lands that were neither part of the khalisa nor assigned as jagirs to the service nobility. These were lands which formed the domains of powerful local Hindu lords, who retained a great degree of autonomy and who were often only nominally subject to the Mughal emperor. An example of such a Hindu domain would be that of the Bundela rajas in modern-day Madhya Pradesh, whose lords like Chhatrasal commanded enough resources of their own to challenge Mughal authority, at least locally.
Where would rajput kings like that of mewar and marwar belong?
 

Similar History Discussions