Daily Static Quiz Prelims Practice 2027
Option (b) is correct — the Dahsala, systematised by Raja Todar Mal, calculated State demand by averaging yield data and market prices over the preceding ten years, measured using the standardised jarib, fixing demand in cash at roughly one-third of average produce for predictability. Option (a) is wrong — it misstates both the period (ten years, not five) and mode of payment (cash, not kind). Option (c) is wrong — the Dahsala relied on systematic measurement and statistical averaging, not annual negotiation between local officials, which described older, more arbitrary pre-Akbar arrangements. Option (d) is wrong — annual crop inspection describes the batai/kankut methods used alongside Zabt, not the Dahsala, which fixed demand in advance precisely to avoid such disputes.
- A Jagir was an assignment of land revenue from a specified territory to a Mansabdar in lieu of cash salary from the imperial treasury.
- Jagirdars had full proprietary rights over the land assigned to them, including the right to sell, mortgage or bequeath the Jagir.
- The practice of frequent Jagir transfers (tabdili) was a deliberate Mughal policy to prevent Jagirdars from developing local roots and independent power bases.
- The watan jagir was a hereditary Jagir granted to Rajput and other zamindars in their home territories, distinct from ordinary transferable Jagirs.
Statements 1, 3 and 4 are correct. A Jagir was a revenue assignment given to a Mansabdar in lieu of salary, granting only the right to collect revenue, not ownership. Frequent rotational transfers (tabdili) were a deliberate Mughal strategy to prevent Jagirdars from entrenching local loyalties or building autonomous power. Watan Jagirs were a distinct hereditary category granted to Rajput chiefs and local zamindars in their home territories, exempt from routine transfer. Statement 2 is incorrect — Jagirdars had no proprietary rights; they could not sell, mortgage, or inherit the Jagir, which reverted to the State upon death or reassignment.
- 1. Ain — A regulation or administrative rule, also used as the title of Abul Fazl's account of Akbar's administration
- 2. Patta — A deed of agreement issued to the peasant specifying the area of land and the revenue demand
- 3. Qabuliyat — A document issued by the State to the peasant confirming his ownership of the land
- 4. Nasaq — An assessment of revenue based on the actual measurement of cultivated land using the jarib
Pairs 1 and 2 are correctly matched. Ain means a rule or regulation, also the title of Abul Fazl's Ain-i-Akbari. Patta was the deed given to the peasant specifying plot size, soil classification, and revenue demand. Pair 3 is incorrect — Qabuliyat was actually a deed of acceptance signed by the peasant acknowledging the revenue demand, not a document confirming land ownership. Pair 4 is incorrect — Nasaq referred to an assessment based on local custom and past records, not direct land measurement; measurement-based assessment was characteristic of the Zabt method instead.
Option (b) is correct — Sher Shah Suri's Rupiya, a silver coin of approximately 178 grains, became the direct template for Mughal silver coinage, retained and refined by Akbar and continuing through successive reigns. Option (a) is wrong — the Mughal system was actually tri-metallic (gold Mohur, silver Rupiya, copper Dam), with silver central to everyday commerce, not negligible. Option (c) is wrong — Akbar retained the copper Dam as the standard unit for low-value transactions rather than abolishing it. Option (d) is wrong — while the Delhi Sultanate used "Tanka," the Mughals replaced it with "Rupiya," a clear terminological break, not a continuation.
Reason (R): Aurangzeb's prolonged Deccan campaigns expanded the Mansabdar corps significantly, while the stock of productive northern Jagirs remained limited, forcing Jagirdars to over-extract from peasants to meet their obligations.
Both A and R are correct, and R explains A. Historians like Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib identify the Jagirdari crisis as a structural cause of Mughal decline, rooted in a mismatch between the supply of productive Jagirs and rising demand from an expanding Mansabdari corps. Aurangzeb's prolonged Deccan campaigns required recruiting many new Mansabdars, but the best revenue-yielding Jagirs were concentrated in the north; as demand outpaced supply, Jagirdars received inferior or frequently transferred Jagirs and compensated through peasant over-extraction, triggering agrarian unrest and weakening imperial authority — a direct causal chain from R to A.
