THE REIGN OF AKBAR (1556-1605) 105 
for removing defects in the local revenue administration, 
which were duly sanctioned by the Emperor. During the 
next year his responsibility was reduced to purely revenue 
matters, and, not long after, he was for a time practically 
superseded, being directed to work “in consultation with” 
Fathulla Shirazi, a foreigner whom Akbar had invited to 
his Court from Bijapur, and who was given the temporary 
appointment of ‘Imperial Commissioner” (Amin-ul mulk), 
with orders to wind up old cases which had been pending 
in the Ministry from the time of Muzaffar Khan, that is to 
say, since about the 23rd year. The Imperial Commissioner 
produced the second document, and his proposals were 
sanctioned in the 30th year. 
We may say then that from the 21st to the 25th year the 
real Revenue Minister was Shih Mansir. Now Badaiini's 
account suggests that direct administration made a good 
start, and then failed, for he says that eventually the regula- 
lions were not properly observed ; we may therefore attribute 
the breakdown to Shah Mansiir's term of office. When 
Todar Mal resumed effective charge of the Ministry, he tried 
to put things right; and, if we read his proposals, which are 
siven verbatim in the Akbarnama (iii. 381), as practical 
measures intended to remove definite defects, it is easy to 
see what the defects were. Local officials had varied the 
sanctioned assessment-rates, and had demanded too much 
from the peasants; the collector’s clerks, in collusion 
with the village headmen, had oppressed the peasants; 
oppression in connection with the annual measurements 
had resulted in progressive contraction of cultivation; 
advances to peasants had been given without adequate 
security; there had been frauds in connection with the 
records of calamities; there had been many irregularities 
in making and crediting collections; there had been no 
effective control over the local officials. Between this 
indictment, which rests on the authority of Raja 
Todar Mal, and Badiiini’s rhetorical description of mal- 
administration, there is no essential difference; it is 
only a short step from a progressive decline in cultivation, 
to “a great deal of the country being laid waste”; 
oppressive over-demand and fraud in regard to collection