Implementation of the policy of 'Nashk' by Aurangzeb indicates:

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 3:

The policy of *Nashk* (or *Nasq*) was a revenue assessment method prevalent in parts of the Mughal Empire, particularly during the later years of Aurangzeb’s reign. Unlike the more complex and accurate *Zabt* system (which involved detailed measurement and assessment of actual yield, characteristic of Akbar’s era), the *Nashk* system relied on a summary assessment, often based on previous years' revenue records or a rough estimation (*Kankut*). A reliance on such summary methods, especially after a period of stable and precise land surveys, typically indicated that the central administration lacked the personnel, stability, or local control necessary to conduct detailed and accurate land measurements and crop assessments. Aurangzeb's preoccupation with military campaigns in the Deccan and the resulting strain on the administrative structure often forced local officials to revert to these simpler, less intrusive, but ultimately less accurate and more arbitrary assessment methods. Therefore, the implementation or increased reliance on *Nashk* reflects a decline in the rigorous and centralized land revenue administration that the earlier Mughals had established.

The incorrect option is 1:
The increase in agricultural produce. The *Nashk* system itself was a mode of assessment, not a policy directly aimed at increasing productivity. Furthermore, historical evidence from Aurangzeb's late reign often suggests agricultural distress and decline, which would contradict an increase in produce.

The incorrect option is 2:
The area of cultivated land reduced. While cultivated land may have reduced due to other factors (like famines or peasant revolts during Aurangzeb’s reign), the introduction of *Nashk* does not inherently indicate a reduction in land area. It indicates the inability to accurately assess the land that *was* cultivated.

The incorrect option is 4:
The advantages to the farmers. *Nashk*, being a summary assessment often based on high past yields, generally disadvantaged the farmers, as it was less flexible and less responsive to actual crop failure than the *Zabt* system. Farmers typically preferred more equitable, detailed assessments over summary estimates.