Explanations:The Mughal Empire, which ruled much of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the 19th century, was characterized by a sophisticated administrative system. This system included a hierarchical structure of officials, known as Mansabdars, who were appointed to various ranks based on their military and administrative capabilities. The Mansabdari system was a key component of the Mughal administrative framework, and it influenced the governance of the empire.
However, the decline of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century led to the rise of several successor states, including Bengal, Awadh, and Hyderabad. These states were often established by Mughal Nobles and Mansabdars who had gained significant power and influence during the Mughal period. As these states emerged, they inherited the administrative systems of the Mughal Empire but also developed their own practices and policies.
One of the common features among these states was their approach to the administrative systems they had inherited. Many of the larger states were suspicious of some of the administrative systems that they had inherited from the Mughal Empire. This suspicion stemmed from the desire to establish their own distinct identities and to adapt the systems to their local contexts. For example, they might have modified the tax collection methods, the appointment of officials, or the distribution of land grants to better suit their own needs and to maintain their autonomy.
Another common feature was their method of tax collection. Unlike the Mughal Empire, which relied heavily on state officers for tax collection, these successor states often employed different methods. They might have used local intermediaries, such as zamindars, who were powerful landowners and had significant influence in their regions. The zamindars would collect taxes from the peasants and then remit a portion to the state. This method allowed the states to maintain control over tax collection while also leveraging the local power structures.
It is important to note that religion played a significant role in the governance and society of these states. The suspicion of religion, as suggested in Option C, is not a common feature among Bengal, Awadh, and Hyderabad. Religion was often used as a unifying force and a source of legitimacy for the rulers. Therefore, the correct answer is Option D, which correctly identifies that both statements A and B are accurate descriptions of the common features among these states.