With regard to nature of Mughal State, who among the following scholars argued that “the peculiar feature of the State in Mughal India was that it served not merely as the protective arm of the exploiting classes, but was itself the principal instrument of exploitation”?

The quote defining the Mughal State as the 'principal instrument of exploitation' rather than just a protective arm of the ruling class is a hallmark of the Marxist historiography of Irfan Habib. In his seminal work, 'The Agrarian System of Mughal India', Habib argues that the state was the primary claimant of the surplus product through the land revenue system. This centralized mechanism of extraction meant the state itself functioned as the chief exploiter of the peasantry [1]. While other scholars like Satish Chandra and Athar Ali focused on the 'Jagirdari Crisis' and the nobility, Habib emphasized the structural nature of the state as an engine of economic appropriation . The state, through its jagirdars and officials, sought to extract the maximum possible surplus from the cultivators, leaving them with a miserably inadequate reward for their labor .

Sources

1. [1] Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 5: Land Reforms > 5.1 Land Rights before Independence > p. 190