CDS 2016 (II)

Socio-Economic Dynamics of Mughals

Authentic Past Paper Standard Evaluation

Statements about Zamindars: Statement I: Zamindars were an exploitative class. Statement II: They often had peasant support during agrarian uprisings.

Solution & Analysis

Answer: B

Concept Zamindars occupied a paradoxical position in Mughal society. They were 'Exploiters' (as collectors of tax) but also 'Protectors' (as local leaders against a distant central government).

Explanation Statement I is true: Zamindars were a hereditary landowning class that often extracted as much as possible from peasants to pay the imperial demand and keep a profit. Statement II is true: During the 17th-century agrarian crisis, many peasants supported their local Zamindars in rebellions against the Mughal central authority. This was because the local Zamindar was a permanent part of their social world, whereas the Mughal officer was a temporary outsider.

Logical Breakup
Logic 1: They are both true, but Statement II does not 'explain' why they were exploitative; it instead describes a behavioral pattern during conflict.
Logic 2: The support was often based on shared caste or regional identity, making the Zamindar the natural leader of any anti-state movement.

Active Recall

Question

Why did peasants support an exploitative Zamindar?

Answer

Peasants often viewed the central Mughal tax collectors as a greater threat than their local Zamindar, who at least shared their cultural and kinship ties.

Core Insight

The Zamindar was the 'intermediary' of the empire; when the intermediary felt squeezed by the state, they often mobilized their peasantry for revolt.