Upari refers to which one of the following ?

1. The Maratha Administrative Framework (basic)

Welcome to our journey through the Maratha administration! To understand how the Maratha state functioned, we must look beyond their military prowess and see them as sophisticated institution-builders. Under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and later the Peshwas, the state developed a robust bureaucracy designed for efficiency and social stability. At the center of this was the Ashta Pradhan, a council of eight ministers who advised the King on matters ranging from finance to foreign policy History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.240. This wasn't just a royal court; it was a structured executive system where each minister held a specific portfolio.

As the empire expanded, the administration was divided into provinces (Subahs) and districts. The Mamlatdar and Kamavistar acted as the Peshwa's representatives in the districts, handling everything from tax collection to justice. To ensure these officials didn't abuse their power, the Marathas employed a clever system of checks and balances. Deshmukhs and Deshpandes (hereditary local officers) kept a watchful eye on the district accounts History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235. Interestingly, the state even practiced a form of financial security called Rasad, where officials had to pay a large sum to the government upon their first appointment to discourage future corruption.

However, the real engine of the Maratha state was its land revenue system. Land was classified based on tenure rights to ensure that every possible acre was cultivated. This created two distinct classes of farmers: the Mirasidars and the Uparis. While Mirasidars were the "permanent residents" with hereditary ownership of their plots, Uparis were tenant cultivators. Often migrants, Uparis did not have permanent rights to the land and were essentially "tenants-at-will," holding land on a temporary basis and paying rent to the state or superior landholders.

Feature	Mirasidars	Uparis
Rights	Permanent & Hereditary	Temporary / Tenant-at-will
Status	Resident settlers with deep roots	Migrant or sub-tenant cultivators
Security	High; ownership passed through generations	Low; assigned land to maximize state revenue

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.240; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235

2. Maratha Revenue Instruments: Chauth and Sardeshmukhi (intermediate)

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Maratha state developed a unique and powerful fiscal system to sustain its military expansion. Since the internal revenue from the Maratha heartland (known as Swarajya) was often insufficient to maintain a large standing army, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj introduced two primary revenue instruments: Chauth and Sardeshmukhi. These were primarily levied on neighboring territories, such as the Mughal provinces and the Deccan Sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda, rather than on the Maratha core lands.

Chauth (literally meaning 'one-fourth') was a levy of 25% of the total land revenue of a district. In practice, it was often viewed as "protection money." By paying Chauth, a territory secured a guarantee from the Maratha state that it would not be raided or plundered. As noted in History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.230, this tax was collected from adjoining territories of the empire to meet the state's financial requirements. It was a brilliant strategic tool because it forced the enemy's subjects to fund the Maratha war machine while simultaneously weakening the enemy's own treasury.

Sardeshmukhi was an additional 10% levy over and above the regular land revenue. Unlike Chauth, which was based on the power of the sword, Sardeshmukhi was based on a legal and hereditary claim. Shivaji claimed to be the Sardeshmukh (the supreme head of all Deshmukhs or revenue officers) of the entire Deccan. Therefore, he demanded this 10% as his rightful due by virtue of his position History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.230. This distinction is crucial: Chauth was for protection, while Sardeshmukhi was an assertion of sovereign right.

To manage these collections effectively, especially as the empire expanded into a confederacy under the Peshwas, the Marathas employed a sophisticated administrative hierarchy. Local officers like Deshmukhs and Deshpandes kept records, while Mamlatdars and Kamavistars acted as the Peshwa's representatives in the districts to ensure revenue reached the treasury History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235.

Feature	Chauth	Sardeshmukhi
Quantum	25% (1/4th) of revenue	10% (1/10th) of revenue
Primary Basis	Protection from Maratha raids	Hereditary right as supreme head
Target Territory	Neighboring/Mughal lands	Lands where Marathas claimed rights

Sources: History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.230; History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235

3. Village Community and the Balutedari System (intermediate)

Concept: Village Community and the Balutedari System

4. Comparative Land Systems: Mughal vs Maratha (intermediate)

To understand the transition from the Mughal era to the rise of regional powers, we must look at how they managed their most precious resource: land. While both systems relied on agrarian surplus to fund their massive armies, their methods of classification and collection differed significantly. In the Mughal System, the focus was on standardized assessment. Under Emperor Akbar, the Zabt System (refined by Raja Todar Mal) measured land and fixed revenue rates in cash based on ten-year averages of prices and productivity History, Class XI (TN State Board), The Mughal Empire, p.215. Crucially, the Zamindar acted as a middleman—not an owner of the land, but an intermediary with the hereditary right to collect revenue on behalf of the state Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed.), Land Reforms, p.190.

The Maratha System, particularly as it evolved from Shivaji's time into the Peshwa period, was deeply rooted in indigenous tenure categories. While the Mughals dealt primarily with the 'village' or 'pargana' through intermediaries, the Marathas recognized specific types of individual cultivators. The two most important categories were the Mirasidars and the Uparis. Mirasidars were permanent resident settlers who enjoyed hereditary ownership rights and could not be evicted as long as they paid their dues. In contrast, Uparis were tenant-at-will cultivators—often migrants or landless farmers—who were settled by the government on vacant lands to ensure no land remained uncultivated. Unlike the Mirasidars, Uparis had no permanent occupancy rights and held their land on a temporary basis.

Feature	Mughal System	Maratha System
Key Mechanism	Zabt/Dahshala (Standardized assessment)	Mirasi/Upari (Tenure-based classification)
Intermediaries	Centralized role of Zamindars as revenue collectors Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, p.190	Initially tried to reduce intermediaries; later used Kamavisdars and Saranjamdars
Land Ownership	State held sovereignty; Zamindar only held right to collect Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, p.190	Strong recognition of Mirasi (hereditary private) rights

Sources: History, Class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Mughal Empire, p.215; Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24), Land Reforms, p.190; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.108

5. Medieval Land Categories: Khud-kasht and Pahi-kasht (exam-level)

To understand the agrarian structure of the regional successor states in the 17th and 18th centuries, we must move beyond the simple term 'peasant.' The medieval countryside was organized by a hierarchy of rights and residency. At the heart of this were two primary categories: Khud-kasht and Pahi-kasht. These terms tell us not just who farmed the land, but where they lived and what kind of claim they had to the soil Themes in Indian History Part II, Peasants, Zamindars and the State, p.197.

Khud-kasht peasants were the resident cultivators of a village. The term literally means "self-sown." These individuals owned the land they tilled and lived in the same village where their fields were located. Because they were permanent members of the community, they held hereditary occupancy rights. They were often the most stable source of revenue for the state and the zamindars. In the Maratha administrative system, these permanent resident settlers with hereditary ownership were known as Mirasi or Mirasidars. They formed the backbone of the rural social structure, often enjoying higher social status due to their rootedness.

In contrast, Pahi-kasht were non-resident or migrant cultivators. These were peasants who did not belong to the village where they farmed; instead, they lived in a different village and took up land elsewhere on a contractual basis. Why would they do this? Sometimes it was out of necessity (like escaping a famine or heavy taxation), but often it was an economic choice—newly settled areas might offer lower revenue rates to attract labor. In the Deccan, particularly under the Marathas, this category was mirrored by the Upari. The Upari were essentially tenants-at-will or sub-tenants who migrated to villages to find work. They did not possess permanent rights and were often settled by the government on vacant lands to ensure the state's revenue didn't suffer Geography of India, Agriculture, p.20.

Feature	Khud-kasht (Mirasi)	Pahi-kasht (Upari)
Residency	Resident of the village.	Non-resident/Migrant.
Land Rights	Hereditary and permanent.	Contractual/Temporary.
Motivation	Traditional ancestral link.	Economic incentives or distress.

Sources: Themes in Indian History Part II, Peasants, Zamindars and the State, p.197; Geography of India, Agriculture, p.20

6. Maratha Land Tenure: Mirasidars and Uparis (exam-level)

In the Maratha administrative and agrarian landscape, land tenure was primarily divided into two distinct categories of cultivators: the Mirasidars and the Uparis. This division wasn't just about who farmed the land, but about social status, longevity of residence, and legal rights to the soil. To understand the Maratha state's stability, one must look at these indigenous land tenure institutions which ensured that even during times of political upheaval, the agricultural revenue—the lifeblood of the state—continued to flow.

Mirasidars were the permanent, resident settlers of a village. The term Mirasi is derived from the Arabic word for 'inheritance,' signifying that these individuals held hereditary ownership rights over their land. They were essentially the 'aristocracy' of the peasantry. In districts where these rights were strong, the state recognized the Mirasidar as the primary party responsible for rent collections History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.266. Their status was similar to what modern land reforms call occupancy tenants—they enjoyed permanent and heritable rights and could generally not be evicted so long as they paid the state's share Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania, Land Reforms in India, p.341.

In sharp contrast stood the Uparis. The word Upari literally translates to 'outsider' or 'stranger.' These were migrant or tenant cultivators who did not possess hereditary claims to the village lands. The Maratha government frequently assigned vacant or waste lands to Uparis to ensure maximum cultivation and revenue generation. However, unlike the Mirasidars, Uparis were effectively tenants-at-will; they lacked security of tenure and could be evicted if the landlord or the state desired Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Land Reforms, p.193. They often paid their rent in either cash or kind to superior landholders or directly to the government agents.

This dual system allowed the Maratha state to maintain a stable core of hereditary farmers (Mirasidars) while keeping a flexible, mobile workforce (Uparis) to expand cultivation into new territories. This traditional hierarchy provided the blueprint for later systems, such as the Ryotwari system, where the individual cultivator was recognized as the proprietor of the land Geography of India, Majid Husain, Agriculture, p.25.

Feature	Mirasidar	Upari
Nature of Rights	Hereditary and Permanent	Temporary / Tenant-at-will
Social Status	Resident 'Proprietor'	Migrant 'Outsider'
Tenure Security	High; difficult to evict	Low; subject to eviction

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.266; Geography of India, Majid Husain, Agriculture, p.25; Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24), Land Reforms, p.193; Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania (2nd ed. 2021-22), Land Reforms in India, p.341

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the building blocks of the Maratha agrarian landscape, this question brings those concepts into sharp focus. In your recent lessons, you learned that the Maratha state relied on a structured revenue administration that categorized cultivators based on their relationship with the land. The term Upari is the direct counterpart to the Mirasidar. While you studied the permanent, hereditary rights of the Mirasidars, the Upari represents the more fluid, migrant side of the agricultural economy. This distinction was essential for the state to ensure that even vacant or surplus land was brought under the plough to maximize revenue.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must apply the logic of land occupancy versus land ownership. Since Upari literally refers to an "outsider" or someone from the "outside," it logically points toward a tenant who does not have deep, hereditary roots in the village soil. Therefore, (B) A category of tenancy tenure held under the Maratha regime is the correct answer. These cultivators were essentially tenants-at-will, often incentivized by the state to settle and farm land under temporary agreements, unlike the permanent resident owners who held miras rights.

UPSC often sets traps by offering options that sound culturally or administratively plausible. Option (A) is a literary trap, aiming to confuse agrarian terms with Marathi folk traditions like Powadas or Abhangas. Option (C) is an administrative trap; while the Maratha court had many titles (like Amatya or Peshwa), Upari specifically describes a socio-economic status rather than a political office. Finally, Option (D) tries to lead you toward social history by suggesting a rebel group, but in the context of Maratha revenue records, the term is strictly a technical classification of land tenure. Distinguishing between a person's functional role (official) and their legal status (tenant) is key to avoiding these common pitfalls.