Tags: Essay Have LivedUniversity Of Central Florida EssayEmerson Essay CompensationComputerized Library System Thesis IntroductionSpss Homework HelpEssays On Evolution Of Mass MediaOration On The Dignity Of Man EssayBiography Research Paper ExamplePythagoras Essay PaperEssay Christianity Judaism
The jurisdiction of this faujdari apparently coincided with the entire sarkar. Dianat Khan (1631–32) 1000/400, Shaikh Abdul Karim (during the war of succession) 2000/1000, Abdul Nabi Khan 1500/1500, Baqir Khan (1661) 1000/1000, Abdul Aziz (1664–65) 1500/700.In 1642–43 when Todar Mal was in charge of the faujdari of both Sirhind and Lakhi Jangal, his mansab stood at 1000/1000 (2–3h) and in 1646–47 was further increased by 300 sawar (2–3h). Though this larger sawar rank may have enabled him to meet to some extent his requirement of military support, he could not possibly have covered effectively the entire area on his own.The qiladar of Kangra fort is referred to due to the prominence of the fort, and the importance that had been attached to its capture during the reign of Jahangir.
That much of his conditional rank was because of the faujdari of Jammu becomes clear from the statement in this document that in Jan.
1707, ‘500/100 out of his conditional mansab for the faujdari of Jammu were made unconditional’.
The faujdari according to him could compromise a , the faujdar appointed in 1640–41 was the son of Said Khan the subadar of Lahore in 1640–43 (with a break in between as subadar of Multan).
Khanjar Khan, the faujdar in 1644–45 was a nephew of Qulij Khan, the subadar of Lahore in 1643–46.
The difference in the nature of control can be compared with instances of faujdars who had effective military control over their territories.
The military significance of Lakhi Jangal has already been pointed out, as also the importance of some of its faujdars.Mir Khan the faujdar appointed after the 1658 war of succession was the son of Khalilullah Khan, the subadar of Lahore at this time. It is possible that Najabat Khan who was the faujdar in 1642–43 held a higher mansab on account of the fact that he had, in 1638–39, already attained the rank of 4000/4000 as subadar of Multan.See Both Khanazad Khan and Said Khan, the faujdar and subadar respectively, were removed from their offices in 1642–43. We do not, however, have any definite information to suggest that he was appointed as the faujdar of Kangra with the same mansab.On the other hand the qiladars of Kangra held mansabs as follows: Alf Khan Qiyamkhani 1620–21 1500/1000 Safi Khan 1656–57 2000/1000 Raja Mandhata 1670–71 1000/1000 See , vol. We learn about the existence of the faujdaris of Bhera and Khushab, Nurmahal and Sultanpur from other contemporary sources. This appears to be a very large area and included both Sialkot and Eminabad, which are also mentioned in some cases as being separate faujdaris. The association of the diwan with a faujdari in this region may also, perhaps, be seen in the light of the fact that this faujdari area's revenue was probably allocated to the maintanance of the Kabul soldiery. thesis, ‘Socio-Economic Conditions in Panjab During the 17th Century’.There must have been numerous other faujdaris in Panjab that came into existence or were abolished during the course of the 17th century., vol. In this case, however, they seem to have been combined in order to constitute one single faujdari. This was the case at least in the early years of Bahadur Shah's reign. In brief may be mentioned here the mansab holding of some of the faujdaris of Sirhind.We see that the entire increase in his zat was derived from his holding the office of faujdar.Quite possibly, many of the forts of the other faujdaris had regularly appointed qiladars.The administrative machinery (both official and quasi-official) involved in the maintenance of this ‘Mughal system’ presents a picture of truly gigantic proportions, yet one that is portrayed as almost uniformly conforming to elaborately formulated methods of functioning. Quite rightly Alam points out that ‘these developments violated the classical Mughal concept of imperial authority, as seen in the seventeenth century, undermined the prospects of its survival and reinforced the course of provincial autonomy’. It was similarly reflected in the uniformity enforced in the post and functions thereto in all parts of the empire’, p. Siddiqi, perhaps, comes nearest to the real situation.He argues that the faujdari was a separate unit under the faujdar and quite distinct from other divisions.Some of them while holding Lakhi Jangal as a single charge had fairly large mansabs.Asad Khan (1628–29 to 1630–31) had 2500/2500, Sazawar Khan (1632–33 to 1634–35) had 2500/2000, Dindar Khan (1664–65) had 2500/2000, Prince Muhammad Mu'izz-ud-din had 10,000 zat.