Why Sher Shah Suri is called forerunner of Akbar? Which policies and measures of Sher Shah Suri were adopted by Akbar?

In essence, Sher Shah Suri was the nemesis of Akbar’s father: Humayun. Yet, both rulers coined the sensational era of the Mughal era through their various policies and measures. Sher Shah, having snatched the throne from Humayun after the Battles of Chaunsa (1539) and Kanauj (1540), gave way to a composite and united empire that primarily formed the foundation of the empire that Akbar later inherited.

As Erskine remarks “Sher Shah had more of a spirit of any legislator and guardian of his people than any prince before Akbar”. This indicates that Sher Shah’s governmental and administrative policies set the stage for Akbar who also built upon the same measures during his time.

To start with, Sher Shah divided the empire in to 47 provinces which were called Sarkars, and were further sub divided into Parganas. The supervision of these Sarkars and Parganas was done by qualified personnel known as shiqdar, munsif, judge, military officer, treasurer and accountants. Simultaneously, there also existed a Panchayat for every village to allow settling of local disputes.

In the same way, Akbar adopted this policy of division of the empire and demarcated the empire in to 15 Subahs under the supervision of a Nazim, who was assisted by other subordinates such as an Amil, Faujdar, Patwari etc. As a Sarkar was sub divided into Parganas; a Subah was subdivided into a Sarkar and then a Pargana. Primarily, the division of the empire in this way allowed efficient running of the system, with allocated personnel to oversee the workings and concerns of a particular area. This demonstrates that the tactic employed by Sher Shah with reference to division of the empire was adopted by Akbar as well who realised the convenience of the measure.

Another policy that Sher Shah is known for was related to the abolishment of taxes, duties and customs which he considered as restraints to trade. While such measures had their basis in the fact that Sher Shah envisioned a smooth flow of trade in the empire, Akbar implemented the same policy of cancelling out taxes, notably jizya and pilgrimage tax, but with a reason which is perhaps attributed to some other cause. It is believed that Akbar lifted the imposition of such taxes and fines so as to consolidate the empire in a more homogeneous form. Therefore, where Sher Shah abolished the fines on the basis of trade; Akbar undertook the same measure but with a better reasoning.

Army and administrative systems under Sher Shah and Akbar also bear striking resemblances. Whereas Sher Shah established his military force under a faujdar, followed the system of branding, appointed chief Qazis and other ancillary officers; Akbar took the same position in a more different way. As Edwards & Garrett comment on Akbar being a “a wise administrator”, his skilfulness is shown by the fact that he divided the army into specific factions, arranged the administrative functions of into different departments such as Wazir, Mir Saman, Qazi-ul-Quzzat, Sadr-us-Sadr for the efficient working of the system. The similarities in the type of actions taken by both these extraordinary rulers are noteworthy as it can be seen that as Sher Shah lined up the army into factions and allocated specific functions to different officers; Akbar also carried out the same experiment. Indeed, no wonder both these rulers enjoy their eras being called the epochs of Mughal times.

Of the most important policy that Akbar seems to have adopted from Sher Shah is the involving his attitude towards religious minorities. Dr. Qanungo brilliantly puts forth “Sher Shah stands as the ideal of new India- the India of Hindus and Musalmans united in heart and spirit”. Sher Shah was careful that the non-Muslims must be approached with a conciliatory policy rather than a provocative stance. He extended toleration towards Hindus and alike by giving them grants and aids for their purposes such as institutions. Additionally, he also organized public kitchens knows as “langars” for the poor, irrespective of caste and creed. In this regard, The New Britanica 1986 recalls “For the first time during Islamic conquest, the relationship between the people and ruler was systemized, with little oppression or corruption”. Setting such a high standard for the next great ruler to be known in history, Akbar carried forward with the same soft attitude towards other religions. Although, later he ultimately gave to his new found religion called Din-i-Ilahi; that too preached universal love and brotherhood and called for the abolition of caste system. In other words, Akbar took Sher Shah’s policy one step further. While his main reasons are still contested today, in that the real cause of Din I Ilahi stands either as an abomination of Islamic principles, or more devised cleverly as a “an order at once political, philosophical and religious”.

Hence, we might conclude that where Sher Shah only exercised mediocre religious conciliation towards non-Muslims, Akbar was able to implement and execute a socio-religious order in the form of Din I Ilahi which later came to be known as “Akbar’s great idea for the union of all India under one head” according to Col. Malleson.

The policies and measures of Sher Shah and Akbar may be accounted for as being quite similar. However, there exists a difference as to reason and the extent to which they were principally employed. As one observes, Sher Shah’s rule was indeed historic in the sense that his rule can be truly regarded as the precursor to Akbar’s subsequent rule. V.A Smith remarks “If Sher Shah had been spared, the Great Mughals would not have appeared on the stage of the history”. But once Sher Shah was wiped off, Akbar came to be known as the greater ever Mughal prince and, in the words of K.T Shah “perhaps the greatest of all rulers of a thousand years”.

You attempted your answer correctly but you lack in attempting a question. You need to learn that how to attempt history subjects. You did not give headings and subheadings. Your starting point is vauge and it does not fulfill the requirement what is askked. Moreover, you lack a lot in sequence. First you had to hit the answer in introduction concisely, then you needed to discuss about Sher Shah Suri is called forerunner of Akber. In this question, you need to mention their contributions seperately in seperate headings. In last, you have to give your own analysiss plus conclusion. I don't know why you lack in answering despite of preparing well!

However, attempt your answer from head to tail, don't be too much vague other wise checker won't award you good score. If you want to re attempt this question, just go a head, I will love to check your answer as it's been one of my optional subjects in CSS exam and it is also my subject in PCS exam.

Nevertheless, get your right track, you are detracted at the moment.

Regards:

Here is my re attempt. Please guide me. I'm worried about Indo Pak very much!

Introduction:

Sher Shah Suri was in fact the nemesis of Akbar’s father: Humayun. Both rulers laid out a sensational era through their various policies and measures, and in many ways Sher Shah’s governmental and administrative policies set the stage for Akbar who also built upon the same measures during his time, even though the premises of adopting the measures were rather different in their reasons.

Division of Empire:Sher Shah divided the empire in to 47 provinces which were called Sarkars, and were further sub divided into Parganas. The supervision of these Sarkars and Parganas was done by qualified personnel known as shiqdar, munsif, judge, military officer, treasurer and accountants. Simultaneously, there also existed a Panchayat for every village to allow settling of local disputes.

In the same way, Akbar adopted this policy of division of the empire and demarcated the empire in to 15 Subahs under the supervision of a Nazim, who was assisted by other subordinates such as an Amil, Faujdar, Patwari etc. As a Sarkar was sub divided into Parganas; a Subah was subdivided into a Sarkar and then a Pargana. Primarily, the division of the empire in this way allowed efficient running of the system, with allocated personnel to oversee the workings and concerns of a particular area. This demonstrates that the tactic employed by Sher Shah with reference to division of the empire was adopted by Akbar as well who realised the convenience of the measure.

Taxation System:

Sher Shah is known for the abolishment of taxes, duties and customs which he considered as restraints to trade. While such measures had their basis in the fact that Sher Shah envisioned a smooth flow of trade in the empire, Akbar implemented the same policy of cancelling out taxes, notably jizya and pilgrimage tax, but with a reason which is perhaps attributed to some other cause. It is believed that Akbar lifted the imposition of such taxes and fines so as to consolidate the empire in a more homogeneous form.
Therefore, where Sher Shah abolished the fines on the basis of trade; Akbar undertook the same measure but with a better reasoning.

Administrative Measures:

Army and administrative systems under Sher Shah and Akbar also bear striking resemblances. Shah established his military force under a faujdar, followed the system of branding, appointed chief Qazis and other ancillary officers.
On the other hand, Akbar took the same position in a more different way. As Edwards & Garrett comment on Akbar being a “a wise administrator”, his skilfulness is shown by the fact that he divided the army into specific factions, arranged the administrative functions of into different departments such as Wazir, Mir Saman, Qazi-ul-Quzzat, Sadr-us-Sadr for the efficient working of the system. The similarities in the type of actions taken by both these extraordinary rulers are noteworthy as it can be seen that as Sher Shah lined up the army into factions and allocated specific functions to different officers; Akbar also carried out the same experiment. Indeed, no wonder both these rulers enjoy their eras being called the epochs of Mughal times.

Religious Policy:

Of the most important policy that Akbar seems to have adopted from Sher Shah is the involving his attitude towards religious minorities. Dr. Qanungo brilliantly puts forth “Sher Shah stands as the ideal of new India- the India of Hindus and Musalmans united in heart and spirit”. Sher Shah was careful that the non-Muslims must be approached with a conciliatory policy rather than a provocative stance. He extended toleration towards Hindus and alike by giving them grants and aids for their purposes such as institutions. Additionally, he also organized public kitchens knows as “langars” for the poor, irrespective of caste and creed. In this regard, The New Britanica 1986 recalls “For the first time during Islamic conquest, the relationship between the people and ruler was systemized, with little oppression or corruption”.
Similarly, Akbar carried forward with the same soft attitude towards other religions. He later ultimately gave to his new found religion called Din-i-Ilahi; that too preached universal love and brotherhood and called for the abolition of caste system. In other words, Akbar took Sher Shah’s policy one step further. While his main reasons are still contested today, in that the real cause of Din I Ilahi stands either as an abomination of Islamic principles, or more devised cleverly as a “an order at once political, philosophical and religious”.

Hence, we might conclude that where Sher Shah only exercised mediocre religious conciliation towards non-Muslims, Akbar was able to implement and execute a socio-religious order in the form of Din I Ilahi which later came to be known as “Akbar’s great idea for the union of all India under one head” according to Col. Malleson.

Analysis:

The policies and measures of Sher Shah and Akbar may be accounted for as being quite similar. Both rulers’ policies bear strikingly resemblances indeed. However, there exists a difference as to the reason and the extent to which they were principally employed. As one observes, Sher Shah’s rule was indeed historic in the sense that his rule can be truly regarded as the precursor to Akbar’s subsequent rule. V.A Smith remarks “If Sher Shah had been spared, the Great Mughals would not have appeared on the stage of the history”. This highlights that Sher Shah’s rule is the starting point where core policies relating to the administration of the Empire were essentially formulated, and that later rulers, Akbar included, deemed them fit for application.

Conclusion:

Sher Shah may be rightly regarded as the fore runner of Akbar with reference to the policies each implemented. This can be attributed to the fact that such measures allowed a smooth and efficient flow of the system, bearing advantages along the way. However, while Sher Shah provided the necessary impetuses; it was Akbar’s skill and execution skills that indeed place him a rank above Sher Shah in the line of Kings.

How did Ghyasuddin Balban consolidate his rule? What were his major achievements as a ruler?

Introduction:
Balban raised himself to the throne in 1266 and remained there to rule for a total of 21 years. In this time, he indeed demonstrated remarkable abilities as a chief and his most prominent achievement lies in the various ways through which he attempted to, and succeeded in, consolidating his empire.

Theory of Kingship and Title of Zil-e-Ilahi:
To start with, it is pertinent to note that Balban based the premise of his rule on the theory of kingship. He believed that emperors were the chosen and bestowed individuals by Almighty God and thus being the Chosen One granted the emperor special status. In this regard, Balban regarded himself as “Zil-e-Ilahi” meaning Shadow of God. He was of the opinion that as Kings, bestowed with the responsibility of ruling over an empire, he was subject to laws of God and in order to stay true to Him, he must obey and implement them. Hence, Balban’s prime administration and working of his empire during his rule was based on this belief.

Addressing the Rebellions in Doab:
Balban was wary of the rebellions by the Hindus in the Doab and neighbouring areas. In order to successfully suppress them and maintain the coherence of his empire, he ensured that the thick and dense forests that obscured a clear sight to keep an eye for external attacks were cut down. He also carried out this necessary step in order to ensure swift and easy communication within the vast empires. In order to further strengthen the security of the empire, he also set up local thanas at different posts to allow constant regulation and monitoring of the empire. This crucial step assisted Balban in suppressing nasty rebellions by different factions of the empire and allowed him to keep a strong hold over his empire throughout.

Restructuring of Army:
Balban also reorganized his army to consolidate his empire. He knew that only a strong and able army of men would be able to save Delhi from the dangers inside and outside. In this way, he closely monitored the recruitments and posting of all military personnel himself. This resultantly paved way for him to successfully suppress the sinister dacoits of Mewat and the Doab regions.

Protection from Mongols:
Of the more significant achievements attributed to Balban for consolidation of the empire, his strategy toward the arrival of Mongols is noteworthy. Balban was cautious of a sudden and dangerous attack by the Mongols, the strong and destructive army from Central Asia. He had already received confidential information as to their arrival as near as River Indus. Therefore, considering them as a great threat to the viability of the empire, Balban took certain steps in order to sustain their attacks. He repaired old military forts to strengthen the defense of the empire. Moreover, he also ordered new forts to be built which were patrolled by military personnel to be wary of any incoming attacks. This certainly proved to be a pre emptive measure taken by Balban which provided more stability and preparedness to his empire as they became more equipped to fight the thunderous army of Mongols.

Curbing the “Forty”:
While consolidation of empire via clearing of forests, setting up of thanas, reorganization of army and strengthening of forts are credited to Balban and much appreciated; the prime achievement of Balban towards consolidation of his rule lies in his liquidating and curbing of power of the “Forty Turkish Nobles”. Principally, the Nobles formed the elite and bureaucratic elements of the empire. Balban realised that their growing power and influence was the basic cause of the underlying instability and maladministration within the Delhi. Therefore, to curb their rising power, Balban firstly ordered an efficient espionage system to be set up which would keep a close eye on any suspicious activities of the Nobles. To ensure efficient services of the spies, punishments were given to lazy or unproductive spies who did not report adequately to the Emperor. In addition to this, Balban also increased the prestige and power of the Sultan i.e. himself and correspondingly of the official Royal Court, headed by a judicial head, to further suppress the corruptive Nobles. By implementing such measures, a stern check and balance was kept on the Nobles’ gatherings and conspiracies which were highly popular to dethrone the emperor and adversely affect the consolidation of a unified empire.

Analysis and Conclusion:
These measures clearly indicate that Balban was heedful of consolidating his empire. Although this attributed as a wise action taken by an observant emperor, historians differ with Balban’s approach. Dr. A. K Nizami clearly labels Balban as “performing a policeman’s duty of maintaining law and order” and that “there is no other legislation by which he may be remembered”. This suggests that Balban’s ambition to keep his empire consolidated and protected is considered minimal, especially when weighed up against the achievements and glorious rule of his ancestor Iltimush. That is why Dr. Shrivastas comment that “Balban’s place among the so called slave kings is next only to Iltimush”, and rightly so since the so called consolidation steps taken by Balban are limited in their visionary ideology.

what u need regarding history of that such issue of sher shah suri or something complete tell me what u want than i will probably help u out ...

I just need to know how to attempt answers to questions.
Are headings really required? What sequence to follow? How to conclude and take a side in the argument?

I have thoroughly read K.Ali and some other internet sources for preparation. However, I'm facing issues with attempting the question

have u read the related field question in indo pak history basically it depends on the question and situation of the paper either we need headings or not just some of the questions are need these things headings etc bur most of the questions shold not include headings.

For Example:
The 1937 Elections was the last nail in the Hindu-Muslim Unity coffin. Critically evaluate/discuss.

this question does not demand headings

The 1937 Elections was the last nail in the Hindu-Muslim Unity coffin. Critically evaluate/discuss.

in this we know that headings since the impact are necessary: social, cultural, political, religious etc

what about my attempts??
how can I improve them?

ur attempts are are somehow fine kindly tell me from where u got this data about indo pak history and u r appeared in CSS exams 2015 or 2016 ?

and also ur other subjects to followed except indo pak history ??

u need to know also that in indo pak history is very tough and also scoring is less in this subjects if u have full command on that subject than it will be fine to u ... keep in mind the dates are very necessary

therefore, the safe bet is to use a different color ink (preferably black) for all the important points [similar to what we use as 'bold' alphabets on the internet] even within the paragraphs. It grabs attention of the check & that's your primary goal

I am appearing in 2015!
My other optionals are International Law, Mercantile Law (since Im a Llb graduate) along with Psychology.