With reference to Mughal India, what is/are the difference/differences between Jagirdar and Zamindar? I. 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. II. Land assignments to Jagirdars were hereditary and revenue rights of Zamindars were not hereditary. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Both statements are wrong, so the answer is D. The question reverses the real picture on both counts.

Statement I is wrong. A jagirdar held a revenue assignment in return for military or administrative service to the state, not specifically judicial and police duties. Zamindars were not free of obligations either. They collected revenue for the state, maintained order in their areas, and supplied soldiers or contingents when called. Their role was intermediary and hereditary, with real duties attached.

Statement II is wrong, and reversed. Jagirs were generally not hereditary. They were granted for service, transferred periodically under the mansabdari system, and resumed on death or transfer. Zamindari rights, by contrast, were generally hereditary, which is why zamindars were so entrenched locally.

Core concept: the mansabdari-jagirdari system versus the zamindari intermediary system of agrarian relations. Mains angle: the tension between centralised jagir transfers and local zamindari power is central to understanding Mughal decline and agrarian society (GS-I, medieval India).

Trap: aspirants remember that jagirdars were service holders and assume zamindars were free of duty, then assume jagirs were inheritable like zamindari. Keep the direction clear: jagir means conditional and transferable, zamindari means hereditary with duties.