With reference to Mughal India, what is/are the difference/differences between Jagirdar and Zamindar? 1. Jagirdars were holders of land assignments in lieu of judicial and police duties, whereas Zamindars were holders of revenue rights without obligation to perform any duty other than revenue collection. 2. Land assignments to Jagirdars were hereditary and revenue rights of Zamindars were not hereditary. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Says pre‑colonial states lacked a separate police; under Mughal rule faujdars, amils and kotwals handled order, and during dual rule zamindars were expected to maintain staff (thanedars) for law and order.

A student could use this to infer zamindars sometimes had local policing/maintaining‑order roles and then check regional examples or maps showing areas under 'dual rule' to judge generality.

States that zamindars helped in local administration and maintained soldiers, implying administrative and coercive functions beyond mere revenue collection.

One could combine this with basic facts about rural governance (forts, armed contingents) to argue zamindars exercised local judicial/police authority in practice.

Notes control over military resources (fortresses, armed contingents) as a source of zamindar power, suggesting capability to enforce order.

A student might map areas with powerful zamindars and infer where they could have exercised policing/judicial control locally.

Emphasises zamindars as intermediaries under Diwan supervision and that land belonged to the state, indicating a layered administrative system where responsibilities could be shared or supervised.

Use this to hypothesise that judicial/police duties may have been delegated variably and then seek evidence of supervisory offices (Diwan) overseeing such duties.

Describes how under British Permanent Settlement zamindars' troops were disbanded and their 'cutcheries' (courts) brought under Company collectors, implying zamindars had earlier organised local justice and police.

A student can treat the colonial reform as indirect evidence that prior to it zamindars exercised judicial/police functions and then compare pre‑ and post‑Settlement records.

States that jagirs were assignments of revenue given to mansabdars and that these jagirs were 'transferred periodically'—implying official practice of rotation/non-permanence.

A student could take this rule and check chronologies or administrative manuals to see if periodic transfer was standard under strong emperors (e.g., Akbar) versus later periods.

Explicitly says the rank of a mansabdar was not hereditary and that immediately after death the jagir was resumed by the state—gives a direct administrative rule about non‑heredity in mansabdari-jagir relations.

Combine this with knowledge of mansabdari structure to infer that, at least formally, jagirs linked to mansabs were not meant to pass to heirs.

Explains that under the Mughal system the land belonged to the State and zamindars only had the right to collect rent—suggesting ownership (and thus hereditary transfer) was officially with the sovereign, not jagirdars/zamindars.

Use this general rule about state ownership to evaluate whether hereditary private ownership of jagirs fits official theory; compare with later legal changes or local practices.

Notes that governors in some provinces established 'virtually independent and hereditary authority' as Mughal control weakened—showing an example where jagir-like authority became hereditary in practice.

A student could map periods/regions where central control collapsed (Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad) to test whether jagir assignments became hereditary there.

Describes nobles assigned large jagirs and mansabs and later rivalry and carving out of private principalities—suggesting that in the empire's decline jagirs could turn into de facto hereditary power bases.

Extend this by checking whether the scarcity of jagirs and weakened central authority led nobles to try to make jagirs hereditary, especially in the 18th century.

States a clear rule: under the Mughal system land belonged to the State and zamindars could only transfer their right to collect rent (i.e., they were revenue collectors, not owners).

A student could combine this with knowledge of administrative practices and regional records to test whether 'right to collect' normally implied non-hereditary tenure or could be inherited locally.

Gives an opposing pattern: calls zamindars 'hereditary owners of their lands' and says they enjoyed privileges on a hereditary basis.

A student could place this claim on a timeline or map (which regions/periods) to see if hereditary status applied in particular areas or under particular rulers.

Explains the later change under British Permanent Settlement (1793), saying zamindars 'who were originally tax collectors acquired hereditary rights' — implying a prior distinction between collectors and hereditary proprietors.

A student could use the Permanent Settlement date as a cutoff to compare pre- and post-1793 sources to infer whether hereditary rights were typical under the Mughals.

States zamindars could sell, bequeath or mortgage lands at will and describes them as apex landholders, suggesting proprietary and transferable rights (a pattern of hereditary/alienable tenure).

A student could compare this description with local revenue records or Ain-i-Akbari categories to judge if such transferability implies hereditary rights under Mughal practice.

Defines the zamindar as a revenue collector for the Company, noting they were not village landowners in that definition — highlighting a conceptual distinction between collector and proprietor used by later administrators.

A student could trace how British definitions reflect or reinterpret Mughal categories, using maps/timelines to see if colonial categorizations retrofitted non‑hereditary/ hereditary status.