Consider the following statements: 1. In the revenue administration of Delhi Sultanate, the in-charge of revenue collection was known as ‘Amil’. 2. The Iqta system of Sultans of Delhi was an ancient indigenous institution. 3. The office of ‘Mir Bakshi’ came into existence during the reign of Khalji Sultans of Delhi. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Contents19
- A1 only
- B1 and 2 only
- C3 only
- D1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (A) 1 only
The correct answer is (A) — 1 only.
Statement 1 is correct — in the Delhi Sultanate's revenue administration, the officer in charge of revenue collection was called 'Amil'.
Statement 2 is wrong — the Iqta system was NOT an ancient Indian institution. It was an Arabic/Islamic institution borrowed from the Caliphate and introduced in India by the Turkish rulers.
Statement 3 is wrong — Mir Bakshi (head of the military department) was a post in Akbar's Mughal administration, NOT during the Khalji Sultanate.
Tip:
- Amil = revenue collector (Sultanate).
- Iqta = Arabic system, not Indian.
- Mir Bakshi = Mughal (Akbar), not Khalji.
The Delhi Sultanate borrowed key administrative systems like Iqta from Arabic-Islamic traditions rather than using indigenous Indian institutions.
Students often confuse Sultanate and Mughal administrative posts - Mir Bakshi was created under Akbar's Mughal system, not during the earlier Khalji Sultanate period.
Delhi Sultanate Revenue Administration
Ancient And Medieval History Amil revenue collection
Delhi Sultanate Revenue Administration: Officials & Structure
Amil was the revenue collection officer in Delhi Sultanate
Land revenue was the main source of income for the Sultanate
Revenue administration was largely based on the Iqta system
Context
The Delhi Sultanate needed efficient revenue collection to maintain its army and administration. Turkish rulers adapted existing systems and introduced new Islamic administrative practices.
Key Revenue Officials
Official | Function | Level | Key Role |
|---|---|---|---|
Amil | Revenue Collection | District/Local | Collected taxes from peasants |
Muqti | Iqta Holder | Provincial | Military commander + revenue collector |
Wazir | Finance Minister | Central | Overall revenue policy |
Mushrif | Accountant | Various | Maintained revenue records |
Revenue Sources
Kharaj — land tax, main source of revenue
Ushr — religious tax on Muslim landowners (1/10th of produce)
Jizya — poll tax on non-Muslims
Trade duties and customs collected at ports and markets
Question Connection
Statement 1 correctly identifies Amil as the revenue collection officer. This was a standard administrative post throughout the Sultanate period, distinguishing it from Mughal-era terminology.
Don't confuse Amil (Sultanate revenue officer) with Diwan (Mughal revenue minister)
Muqti was both military commander AND revenue collector — not separate roles
Kharaj vs Ushr: Kharaj was general land tax, Ushr was specifically on Muslim landowners
Iqta System: Arabic Origins
Ancient And Medieval History Iqta system ancient indigenous institution
Iqta System: Arabic Import, Not Indigenous Institution
Iqta system was Arabic/Islamic, not ancient Indian institution
Brought to India by Turkish rulers of Delhi Sultanate
Muqti held Iqta grants combining military and revenue duties
Context
The Iqta system was borrowed from the Abbasid Caliphate and adapted to Indian conditions. It was NOT an evolution of any ancient Indian land grant system.
Iqta vs Indigenous Systems
Aspect | Iqta System | Ancient Indian Systems |
|---|---|---|
Origin | Arabic/Islamic Caliphate | Indigenous (Brahmadeya, Agrahara) |
Purpose | Military + Revenue | Religious endowments |
Grantee | Muqti (military officer) | Brahmins, temples |
Nature | Conditional, revocable | Often permanent |
Control | State retains ownership | Often transferred ownership |
How Iqta Worked
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Sultan grants Iqta**
Land assignment given to military officer (Muqti)`"]
s2["`**Muqti collects revenue**
Grantee collects taxes from assigned territory`"]
s3["`**Maintains troops**
Revenue used to maintain cavalry for Sultan's army`"]
s4["`**Surplus to Sultan**
Excess revenue sent to central treasury`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4Question Connection
Statement 2 is wrong because it claims Iqta was ancient indigenous — this is a classic trap. Iqta was imported from Islamic world, not evolved from Indian traditions.
Major trap: Iqta looks similar to ancient Indian land grants but has different origin
Don't confuse with Brahmadeya or Agrahara (genuine ancient Indian grants)
Muqti is NOT the same as Jagirdar (Mughal equivalent)
Mir Bakshi: Mughal Administrative Post
Ancient And Medieval History Mir Bakshi Khalji Sultans
Mir Bakshi: Akbar's Military Chief, Not Sultanate Post
Mir Bakshi was head of military department under Akbar (Mughal)
Did NOT exist during Khalji Sultanate (1290-1320)
Part of Akbar's Mansabdari system reforms
Context
Mir Bakshi was created as part of Akbar's administrative reforms around 1570s. The Khalji Sultanate (1290-1320) had different military administrative posts.
Military Administration: Sultanate vs Mughal
Period | Military Head | System | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
Khalji Sultanate | Ariz-i-Mumalik | Iqta System | Provincial military commanders |
Mughal (Akbar) | Mir Bakshi | Mansabdari | Central military department head |
Later Mughals | Mir Bakshi | Mansabdari | Continued Akbar's system |
Mir Bakshi's Functions
Head of military department under Akbar
Controlled Mansabdari appointments and promotions
Maintained records of mansabdars and their troops
Coordinated with Diwan for military salaries
Reported directly to the Emperor
Question Connection
Statement 3 wrongly places Mir Bakshi in Khalji period. This is a chronological trap — the post existed 250+ years later under Akbar.
Chronological trap: Mir Bakshi = Mughal (1570s), not Sultanate (1200s-1300s)
Don't confuse Mir Bakshi with Ariz-i-Mumalik (Sultanate military chief)
Khalji period = 1290-1320, Akbar = 1556-1605 — huge time gap
Sultanate vs Mughal Administrative Systems
Ancient And Medieval History
Delhi Sultanate vs Mughal Administration: Key Differences
Sultanate was more decentralized through Iqta system
Mughals created more centralized administrative machinery
Many Mughal posts did NOT exist in Sultanate period
Context
Understanding the evolution from Sultanate to Mughal administration helps avoid chronological confusion in UPSC questions. Many administrative terms are period-specific.
Administrative Comparison
Function | Delhi Sultanate | Mughal Empire | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
Revenue Chief | Wazir | Diwan-i-Ala | Mughal system more elaborate |
Military Head | Ariz-i-Mumalik | Mir Bakshi | Mughal integrated with Mansabdari |
Provincial System | Iqta (Muqti) | Subedari (Subedar) | Mughal more centralized control |
Revenue Officer | Amil | Amil/Karori | Similar functions, different scales |
Intelligence | Barid-i-Mumalik | Mir Bakshi + others | Mughal system more systematic |
Administrative Evolution
# Medieval Administration
## Sultanate Features
- Turkish-Islamic influence
- Iqta system dominant
- Military-feudal structure
- Limited central control
## Mughal Innovations
- Mansabdari system
- Centralized revenue
- Elaborate bureaucracy
- Professional military
## Continuities
- Islamic law base
- Revenue collection focus
- Persian administrative language
- Hierarchical structureDon't mix Sultanate posts (Amil, Ariz-i-Mumalik) with Mughal posts (Mir Bakshi, Diwan)
Iqta system = Sultanate, Mansabdari system = Mughal — completely different
Many Persian administrative terms continued but functions changed significantly